On the 27th of September 2005 two intrepid armies gathered for a clashing of minds. The White Army was represented by such notables as Imraan Banderker, John van Ryneveld and Terence Daniels while the Black army had players of the ilk of Otto-Carl Marte, James Gaylard and Travers Waker in their ranks. A fierce consultation match followed. There was blood on the chess board....
Our silicon friend Fritz provided analysis of the battle.
(26) Banderker,van Ryneveld,Daniels - Marte, Gaylard, Waker [A10]
, Consultation analysis,
[Deep Fritz (300s)]A10: English Opening: Unusual Replies for Black
1.c4 d5 last book move 2.Nc3 d4 3.Ne4 Nf6 [3...f5 4.Ng3-/+] 4.Nxf6+ exf6 5.g3 [5.Nf3 Nc6=] 5...Bd7 [5...d3 6.Bg2=/+] 6.Bg2= Bc6 7.Nf3 d3 [7...Qd6 8.0-0=] 8.0-0 Be4?
Although Fritz didn't like this move, the Black Team felt that this was a
wonderful move.The bishop dominates the board! The development of blacks other
forces was a bit of a worry for the Black Team. Would white be able to take
advantage....
[>=8...Bc5= would keep Black in the game]
9.Re1 Be7 10.exd3 Bxd3 [10...Bf5 11.Nd4 Bc8 12.Qe2+-]
11.Nh4 [11.Qb3!? a5 12.Re3+-]
11...Nc6+/- 12.Bxc6+ [12.Qb3!? Ne5 13.Qxb7+/-]
12...bxc6+/= 13.Qf3 [13.Qg4 0-0 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.Qxf5 Rb8+/=]
13...Qd7 14.b3 Controls c4
14...0-0 [>=14...0-0-0!?= must be considered]
15.Rxe7!+/- White is still ahead
15...Qd4 
A tactical trick by black that white openly admitted to missing.
White expected black to castle queen side.
[15...Qxe7 Theme: Deflection from d3 16.Qxd3 Eliminates the defender d3]
16.Re1 [16.Bb2 Qxb2 17.Rae1 Rad8 18.Qxc6 Qxd2 19.Qxc7 g5+-]
16...Qxa1+/= 17.Qxd3 Rfe8 18.Rf1 Qxa2 19.Qc3 [19.Nf5 Rad8 20.Qf3 c5+/=]
19...a5 [19...Rab8 20.b4 Qa4 21.d3 Qxb4 22.Qxb4 Rxb4 23.Be3+/=]
20.Bb2 [20.Nf5!? Rab8 21.Qf3 Qxb3 22.Qxc6=]
20...Reb8=/+ The backward pawn on b3 becomes a target
21.Ba1 Rxb3 22.Qd4 Rab8 [22...Rb1 23.Bc3=]
23.Bc3 [23.Nf5 Rb1 24.Ne7+ Kh8+/=]
23...Rb1= 24.Qg4
The White Team launches an all-out assault on the Black King!!
Kf8 [24...h5 25.Qf4= (25.Qxh5?? Qxc4 26.d3 Qxc3-+) ] 25.Qd4 [>=25.Nf5!? Rxf1+ 26.Kxf1+/-] 25...a4= 26.Qc5+ [26.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 27.Kg2 Kg8=] 26...Kg8=/+ 27.Nf5 Qc2 
Many tactical chances/tricks were available to White.
Qd3(for black) was as a common theme suggested by Fritz.
The Black Team never seriously even considered this alternative.
Qxf5 33.Nxf5-+] 32.Nf5 g6 33.Nxh6?? solves nothing [>=33.Ne3 Qd3 34.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 35.Kg2-/+] 33...Qxc3! and the rest is history [33...Kxh6?? is impossible because of the following mate in 3 34.Qh4+ Kg7 35.Bxf6+ Kg8 36.Qh8#] 34.dxc3 a2 [34...a2 35.Qh4 a1Q 36.Ng4+ Kg8-+] 0-1
Twice the time on the clocks was increased by mutual consent. Nobody wanted to rush the conclusion of the game. The end of a wonderful game that was thoroughly enjoyed by all :-)
3 comments:
Thank you for putting the game up Otto. It was indeed an enjoyable game.
After the game I was wondering whether white could have achieved more out of the opening but having seen Fritz's analysis I think that the opening was as good as white could have hoped for (especially after playing 2. Nc3! This move ensures that if nothing else, we would have to start thinking from move 3, which can only be good in this format as it means no one on the team needs to know too much opening theory. Hence everyone will be participating equally throughout. Perhaps in future team games, the two teams can agree to such an opening that would be interesting to both teams).
So it was in the middle game where the players of the black pieces outwitted us. My thoughts on the middlegame in this format are that the more players on a team, the smaller the chance of making a blunder that could have spoilt a nicely built up position. However, it is easier to make blunders in the long term! What I mean by this is when one player has in mind a certain sequence of moves in his long term plan and then decides to include some other moves which are deemed to be good tactically/strategically in the short term. What I am trying to explain, is why we missed the threat of Qd4. In my analysis of the Rxe7, white had gained two pieces for a rook. However it seemed at the time that b3 was a very good move to throw in as it protected the c pawn and could surely do no harm? This is where I made a mistake as I had not foreseen this move in my planning and did not think about how it would affect my plan after it was made. The result being that the rook on a1 was then en prise after Qd4. Also, we did consider the move suggested by Fritz (Bb2) but at that point black might have already achieved a psychological advantage having surprised white on the previous move. I know that I was not as confident about the game after "blundering" and allowing Qd4.
White still had chances after this though, so I have to give credit to the players of the black team for their play in the middlegame and endgame following this early skirmish. I admit that we were outplayed but there is always the next game to look forward to for our revenge!
Also 30 Nxc6 was first suggested by Terence and supported by John, however I managed to convince them that we should continue to pursue of policy of a kingside attack and not be tempted by temporary gains on the queenside. It appears my analysis at the time was wrong (not necessarily the exact move that was played but the idea of continuing the attack instead of grabbing the queenside pawns while that was still possible).
Thanks for your comments. Nice to get the Black teams view of events :-) I must say that I thought that the White team had a very strong attack on the king side. So, I think you were justtified in pursuing this. And during the game I had my doubts whether we would be able to defend against it. However the cold-hearted silicon beast did not agree, but I think the King side attack probably gave you good "practical" chances. Thanks for an interesting game.
Post a Comment