Which games to analyze?

In my blogarticle Analyzing with an engine I mentioned that a lot of players consider analyzing as a necessary evil to score points or make progression. It is obvious that an activity which isn't pleasant, is restricted to the minimum. Therefore it is important to make a good selection which gives maximum return. Despite that I in contrary with the standard amateur-player like to analyse, I also have to make choices. It is simply impossible to check everything. 

A.f.a.i.k. there exists no consensus of what exactly is the best material to use for analyzing. Because analyzing is a bit like studying, I neither believe there is a best method for everybody. Therefore I don't want to write this article about what the best games are to analyze but I prefer to give a more personal insight of what I do daily as homework. Besides just being busy with certain positions will very likely already have a positive influence on your game.

I guess that today 80% of my analyses are made upon my own played games. The remaining 20% goes to gamepreparations, specific openings, input for blogarticles or just randomly found interesting positions. I doubt strongly if this is a good split but I don't care very much as optimal return isn't what I am chasing after as I am only an amateur. The motivation of this analyzing work can mainly be found in my vision of playing which is based on the scientific approach and the pleasure which I experience in investigating of what happened or could have happened on the board and more particularly in my own games.

As not every own played game is as interesting, it is clear that I don't put in every game as much analyzing work. Blitz or bulletgames I review seldom or never. An exception I make when a player manages to beat me several times with a certain system but even then I don't go deeper than just quickly checking with an engine and database the opening. On the other hand for serious games (in which time was available to record the moves manually) I use a much more thoroughly analyzing approach. I mean a system of analyzing which I explained in my blogarticle Analyzing with an engine.

I assume for most people such intensive analyses of own played games will sound incredible but today I can easily show my personal database of 650 own played games which are fully commented with a broad variety of different lines. Besides if you look to this blog with more than 100 articles which often contain very extensive analyses of own played games then one already can deduct that I reuse a lot of what I built long time ago. The oldest example on this blog dates from 1996, see chesscompositions which corresponds to the start of the digitization of my analysis.

So I am aware that my urge to analyse is rather an exception than the rule. A strong Belgian FM even admitted on this blog that he doesn't make his analyses that extensive, see his comment under my blogarticle an extensive repertoire for black. Also a known player from Zottegem once asked me the question if the chance isn't small that such games like a Dutch gambit repeat. Well as mentioned earlier in this article, I don't analyze purely for a maximum return which doesn't mean that I don't learn anything at all from the analyses. On this blog I've written already several articles which proof that one can harvest from earlier made analyses, see : an obscure line in the Vienna, the boomerang, a Dutch gambit and a Dutch gambit part 2. There is more to find on this blog but these are the most striking articles.

If you clicked on the links (or you simply still remember the articles) then likely you noticed that in a first meeting with the sidelines that I achieved a bad result (loss or draw against a much lower rated player). In this blogarticle I want to demonstrate that one can not only learn from bad results. So I go a step further with stating that one can learn from each seriously played game even if you won from an opponent much less experienced and played in a obscure sideline. To support this claim, I will show 3 games chronologically which i all won in a side-variation of the bishopgame which Linton considers inferior but at my opinion is somewhat undervalued.

The fist time that I met the line, was in 2003 in the Open of Le Touquet. I treated the opening in the same fashion as the standard mainline of the bishopgame but quickly experienced that white was a bit bitter. Only in the endgame I was able to beat my opponent thanks to some crafty moves.

[Event "Open Le Touquet 1ste ronde"] [Date "2003"] [White "Patel, L."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C24"] [WhiteElo "2090"] [BlackElo "2298"] [PlyCount "126"] 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. exd5 cxd5 6. Bb3 Bd6 $5 {(Bd6 is the standardcontinuation after Bb3 but as white swapped the move-order, black now has some interesting alternatives: Bb4, Nc6 and Bg4.)} 7. Bg5 d4 $5 {(A year ago I already studied this position and considered d4 as best but today I am not so sure anymore. Now with better software and hardware I believe black has some serious alternatives: Nc6, Be6, Qa5, Nbd7 and Bg4.)} 8. Nbd2 O-O $5 {(H6 to force the bishop to make a decision, must also be considered.)} 9. Ne4 $5 {(Immediately castling short is at least as interesting because white can use the open e-file and put quickly pressure on e5. Also white has the option to increase the pressure afterwards with Nc4.)} Be7 $146 {(I still found 1 grandmastergame with this positon in which the inferior continuation Bb4 was chosen by black.)} 10. Qe2 $5 {(White chooses for a quiet setup but it is impossible that white can achieve any openingadvantage in this way. A more critical path is taking on f6 after which black can complicate by retaking with the g-pawn.)} Nc6 $5 { (Exchanging on e4 is also possible and can lead to a transposition unless white takes on f6.)} 11. O-O Bg4 $5 {(Nxe4 is still possible.)} 12. h3 $5 {(Bd2 to prevent the exchanges, is recommended by the engines but I can not find any advantage anyway.)} Bxf3 $1 {(This leads to a favorable general exchange of pieces so black can grap the initiative.)} 13. Qxf3 Nxe4 14. Bxe7 Nd2 15. Qe2 Nxe7 16. Qxd2 Ng6 17. Rae1 Qd6 18. g3 Rae8 19. h4 Kh8 20. h5 Ne7 21. f4 Nd5 22. Bxd5 Qxd5 23. fxe5 Rxe5 24. Rxe5 Qxe5 25. Qf4 Qxh5 26. Qxd4 b6 27. Qd6 Kg8 28. Qf4 h6 29. g4 Qd5 30. a3 Re8 31. Qf3 Qe6 32. c3 Qg6 33. Qf5 Re3 34. Qxg6 fxg6 35. d4 Re4 36. d5 $5 {(Kf2 would have made the defense must easier. Now a complicated endgame ensues in which white must play carefully to draw.)} (36. Kf2 $1 Rxg4 37. Ke3 g5 38. d5 Rf4 {(Black must give a pawn to transfer the king to the center. )} 39. Rxf4 gxf4 40. Kxf4 Kf7 41. c4 $11 {(Whites king holds blacks free pawns while black does not the same with the white pawns.)}) 36... Rxg4 37. Kh2 Rg5 38. c4 Rf5 39. Re1 Rf4 40. b3 Kf7 41. Kg3 $2 {(White centralizes the king which is a normal reaction in the endgame but here i find it superfluous as on this square the black pawns can only march quicker forward. Stronger seems e.g. d6 after which white can infiltrate and create its own counterplay by creating free pawns on the queen-side. After the textmove white gets into problems. )} (41. d6 $1 Rd4 42. Re7 Kf6 43. Rxa7 Rxd6 $44 {(White has excellent counterplay on the queen-side and therefore good drawing chances.)}) 41... g5 42. a4 Rd4 43. Kf2 Rf4 44. Kg3 h5 45. a5 Rd4 46. axb6 axb6 47. Kg2 Rd3 48. Re5 Rxb3 49. Rxg5 g6 50. Re5 Rc3 $2 {( A loss of time as white was anyway planning to play the rook to e4 to which he can easily support the d-pawn via Rd4. Therefore better is Kf6 and likely black has a won position.)} ( 50... Kf6 $1 51. Re4 g5 52. Rd4 Rb2 $1 53. Kg1 Ke7 $1 54. Re4 Kf7 $1 {(Black can respond on d6 with Ke8.)} 55. Re5 Kf6 56. Re8 Rb4 57. Rf8 Ke7 58. Rh8 {(On Rg8, black takes on c4 after which taking on g5 is punished immediately by Rg4.)} h4 59. Rg8 Kf6 60. Rf8 Kg7 $19 {(White can not create sufficient counterplay with solely the rook. )}) 51. Re4 g5 {(Kf6 is just too slow because of Kf2 with the idea of Ke2 after which the d-pawn runs too fast.)} 52. Kf2 $2 {(White will place the king on e2 to prevent Rd3 after which the d-pawn can march forward without any problems. However as black already played g5, black can quicker push his h-pawn which makes that white is a fraction too late. Therefore, more precise are drastic measurements with Re6 and it is unclear if black can win this position.)} (52. Re6 Rxc4 $5 {(Rb3 is also possible but it is impossible to analyze everything in detail.)} (52... Rb3 $5 53. Rh6 $1 h4 54. Kh2 $1 Rc3 55. Rxb6 $1 g4 56. Rh6 $1 Rc2 57. Kg1 h3 58. d6 Rxc4 59. d7 Rd4 60. Kf2 Rd3 61. Rh8 Ke7 62. d8=Q Rxd8 63. Rh7 Kf6 64. Kg3) 53. Rxb6 Rd4 54. Rh6 h4 55. Kh3 Rxd5 56. Kg4 {(Black has 2 pawns more but white has a fortress.)}) 52... h4 $1 53. Re6 $5 {(Only now white notices that Ke2 fails due to h3. Black threatens with Kf6-Kf5 to infiltrate so this explains whites choice. However here it is less trong as white does not possess anymore about the fortress with Kg4.)} Rxc4 54. Rxb6 Rf4 55. Kg1 $5 {(Kg2 is more exact but is also annihilated by the manoeuvre Rg4-Rg3 after which whites king can not reach the critical square g4 and black can win the d-pawn.)} Rf6 $2 {(Very short of time, I miss that white can push the d-pawn here to d7. Correct is Rd4 which stops the d-pawn and the remaining endgame must be won.)} 56. d6 Rf5 57. Rb4 $2 {(White misses his chance to complicate the situation as he was playing on my timetrouble. I do not see after d7 how black can make progress.)} (57. d7 $1 Rd5 58. Rb5 $1 Rd1 59. Kg2 Kf6 60. Rb6 Kf5 (60... Ke7 61. Rb5 g4 62. Rh5 h3 63. Kg3 Rg1 64. Kh2 Rg2 65. Kh1 {(The pawn on d7 can not be taken as otherwise white has a rook which can check forever but I can not find any other decent winning try.}) 61. Rb5 Kg4 62. Rb4 Kh5 63. Rb7 {(Friz as Shredder do not manage to win this with the black pieces. Probably the d-pawn is too far advanced.}) 57... Rd5 58. Rb6 Ke6 59. d7 Kxd7 60. Rg6 Ke7 61. Kg2 Kf7 62. Ra6 Re5 63. Ra4 Kg6 {(With less than a minute left on my clock, I blitzed the remaining of the game and managed to give mate with a few seconds on the clock left.)} 0-1" />

In the previous clubchampionship of Deurne I noticed in my preparation (yes even against a 1700 rated player) that Bb4 instead of Bd6 is very interesting as a normal concept of Nc3-Bg5 becomes impossible. This time I came on top out of the opening but after some inaccuracies and likely too optimistic play I let the position slip. Again only after move 40 I was able to get a decisive advantage despite the big ratingdifference.

[Event "Klubkampioenschap Deurne r8"] [Date "2013"] [White "Viaene, J."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C24"] [WhiteElo "1780"] [BlackElo "2336"] [PlyCount "96"] 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. exd5 cxd5 6. Bb3 Bb4 {(10 years ago I chose against Patel in Open Le Touquet for Bd6 and was able to win that game after a tough struggle. In my preparation I noticed that Bb4 is an interesting alternative which I wanted to try out. )} 7. c3 Bd6 8. Bg5 Be6 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 Nbd7 11. Nbd2 h6 12. Bh4 Qc7 {(Till about here went my preparation. A complex position is on the board with chances for both sides.)} 13. Qe2 Rfe8 14. Ba4 {(I thought very long, probably too long to carefully rate the complications after Bxf6 but white almost responded instantaneous with an interesting alternative.)} (14. Bxf6 $5 Nxf6 15. Nxe5 {(Probably c4 is better here.)} Bg4 {(A5 is also interesting here with the intention to play a4-a3 but during the game I only looked at Bg4.)} 16. Nxg4 Rxe2 17. Nxf6 gxf6 18. Rxe2 {(After taking on h2 it is not clear who is better. D4 is a typical computermove with the intention or to destroy the pawnstructure or after c4 to limit the mobility of the white bishop.)}) 14... Nh7 $5 {(I prepare f5, followed up with g5 but I do not succeed. More critical seems Nh5 and white must be very careful not to land in a bad position.)} 15. Bg3 Bg4 16. Qf1 f6 17. Bb3 Be6 18. Qe2 a6 19. Nf1 Rad8 20. Ne3 Qc6 21. Nh4 Nc5 22. Bc2 Bf8 23. c4 $6 {(White plans an interesting gambit for which objectively he gets probably not enough compensation. More precise is therefore d4, a move which was even stronger a bit earlier in the game. )} d4 24. Nd5 a5 25. Qd2 Ra8 $6 {(I prefer to play on safety but the engines recommend the sharp b5 after which black can create better chances.)} 26. f4 exf4 $2 {(To accept the pawnoffer with Bxd5 is the lesser evil but it is clear that white gets good compensation for it.)} 27. Nxf4 Bf7 28. Nhg6 $2 {(I was mainly afraid of Nf3 during the game and indeed engines confirm that black has serious problems with his weak d-pawn.)} Bd6 29. Qf2 Bxg6 30. Nxg6 Bxg3 31. Qxg3 Qd7 32. Nf4 Rxe1 33. Rxe1 Re8 34. Rxe8 $5 {(This was afterwards criticized by my opponent but I can already not find an advantage anymore for white.)} (34. Nd5 $5 Rxe1 35. Qxe1 Qe6 36. Qxe6 Nxe6 37. a3 Nhf8 38. b4 axb4 39. axb4 Ng6 $11) 34... Qxe8 35. Qf2 Qe5 36. Ne2 Ne6 37. a3 Nhf8 38. b4 axb4 39. axb4 b6 40. Ba4 Ng6 41. g3 Qd6 42. Qf5 Ne7 43. Qb5 Kh7 {(Nc7 is the normal move but I want to win so I take some calculated risks.)} 44. Qd7 Qe5 45. Kf1 Nf5 46. Bb3 $6 {(The position is still within the boundaries of a draw with Ke1 or Bc6 but white is probably tired and does not succeed anymore to find a good defense. )} Ne3 47. Kg1 $2 {(With Kf2 white could defend still much tougher but after this blunder the game finishes immediately. )} (47. Kf2 $1 Ng4 48. Ke1 Nxh2 49. Qd5 Nc7 50. Qg2 Ng4 $15) 47... Ng4 48. Bd1 Qe3 0-1" />

Finally I got in round 4 of the previous Open Gent again this line on the board and this time my opponent had bad luck as I still remembered the analysis very well. We got the same middlegame but this time I knew that I better first control the queen-side before to engage any other actions. This knowledge-advantage together with the big time-advantage made it obviously an unfair battle.

[Event "Open Gent 4de ronde"] [Date "2013"] [White "Passchyn, M."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C24"] [WhiteElo "2012"] [BlackElo "2344"] [PlyCount "48"] 1. e4 {(In 2 earlier confrontations I had white so nice to have once the colors reversed.)} e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Bb3 d5 5. exd5 cxd5 6. Nf3 Bb4 7. c3 Bd6 8. Bg5 Be6 9. O-O O-O 10. Nbd2 {(Not even a month ago, I had looked in detail to this opening cause of my clubchampionshipgame against Jan Viaen. Then Jan played Re1 in this position. )} h6 11. Bh4 Nbd7 12. Re1 {(We have transposed back to my game against Jan which permitted me to win a lot of time on the clock contrary to my opponent.)} Qc7 13. Nf1 {(Jan played Qe2 but this Nf1 looks more natural.)} Rfe8 14. Bg3 a6 15. Ne3 b5 16. Nh4 g6 17. Qd2 Qc6 18. h3 Kg7 19. Rf1 $6 {(To play f4 at some moment and create counterplay but in this position this is too optimistic. The dry Nf3 was a better way to organize the defense. )} Nc5 $6 {(I prepare d4 but probably a little bit more precise is anyway a5 to concur maximally space on the queen-side, limiting whites options. )} 20. Bc2 $2 {(After the game I immediately recommended Bd1 to leave c2 open for the knight which was confirmed by the engines. )} d4 21. Nd1 $6 {(The engines pull the emergence break with Ng4 which means a gambit.)} Rad8 22. f4 {(Desperation which easily is refuted.)} Nh5 23. cxd4 Nxg3 24. Re1 Be7 0-1" />

In the 3 games I achieved the same result but the way how was totally different thanks to the continuous improvement of my knowledge based on analyzing the own played games. It is widely known that analyzing your own games is important but few know that also from won games something can be learned. Also if you don't learn anything from your won game, you can be sure your opponent will do. Analyzing won games is also a method to stay a step ahead of your opponent Of course if one lacks time then one should give priority to the lost games but I see often that time isn't the real reason as chessplayers often prefer to do something different than going over their own played games which lets us return to the introduction.

Brabo 

Chessintuition part 2

In the 3rd round of Open Gent I suffered a strange and unexpected defeat against a 200 points lower rated player, Gilles Regniers. Now I immediately have to add that Gilles is likely underrated as he won very recently the Open Flemish championship despite the fact that several higher rated players were participating, see final positions. So strange and unexpected has to be linked with the course of the game rather than the ratingdifference.

Already in the opening I made a remarkable mistake. During the game I wasn't able to remember the openingstheory. I have that more often when it concerns a variation which I did study but didn't pop up earlier in my practice. During the prizegivings Thibaut Maenhout told me that I am not the only one suffering with this kind of problem. The key to solve this problem is of course a lot of rehearsals till it is branded in the memory but my motivation and priorities ignore this solution. Now forgetting the theory doesn't mean an insurmountable problem if you play the white pieces as long you choose to play pragmatically a solid continuation (14.g3) instead of the most critical one. However I am not a pragmatic player as shown in my blogarticle the scientific approach . So I chose for the risky idea with the exchangesacrifice which I noticed in a similar position, see game below.

[Event "Corus"] [Site "Wijk aan Zee"] [Date "2006.01.24"] [Round "9"] [White "Anand, Viswanathan"] [Black "Van Wely, Loek"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B33"] [WhiteElo "2792"] [BlackElo "2647"] [PlyCount "83"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Nd5 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. c3 Bg5 12. Nc2 Rb8 13. a4 bxa4 14. Ncb4 Bd7 15. Bxa6 Nxb4 16. cxb4 O-O 17. O-O Bc6 18. Rxa4 Bxa4 19. Qxa4 Qe8 20. Qxe8 Rfxe8 21. b5 f5 22. b6 fxe4 23. h4 Bd2 24. b7 Kf7 25. Rd1 Bh6 26. Nb4 Ke7 27. Nd5 Kf7 28. g4 Bf4 29. Re1 g5 30. Re2 Red8 31. Nb4 d5 32. Nc6 Rg8 33. Nxb8 Rxb8 34. h5 Ke7 35. Kf1 d4 36. Rc2 e3 37. fxe3 dxe3 38. Rc7 Kf6 39. Rxh7 e4 40. Bc4 Rd8 41. Rf7 Ke5 42. Rd7 1-0" />

Also in my game against Gilles you will notice that I first play a4 to continue afterwards with Ncb4 and cxb4. I was aware of the differences with the Anand-Van Wely game but didn't see a direct refutation of the idea when I executed it. Only a few moves later I already regretted my decision when I discovered that the apparently innocent differences do have a crucial impact on the evaluation of the position.

[Event "Open Gent 3de ronde"] [Date "2013"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Regniers, G."] [Result "*"] [ECO "B33"] [WhiteElo "2344"] [BlackElo "2106"] [PlyCount "62"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Nd5 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. c3 O-O 12. Nc2 Rb8 {(Bg5, I already once met on the board in my game of 2005 against Arben Dharda. I obviously also studied once Rb8 but during the game it was impossible to remember what exactly is the critical continuation.)} 13. h4 Be7 14. a4 $146 {(I knew g3 was playable but at the same time I also remembered that present theory tells us that white can not hope for an advantage with that move. I also knew that a4 at some moment had to be played but when exactly I could not remember. Eventually I chose to play it already now which is a novelty in this position which weirdly is not that bad. Afterwards I found back in my notes that Nce3 is here critical and in some recent correspondencegames white created chances for some advantage.)} bxa4 15. Ncb4 $2 {(I play the same idea as in the topgame Anand - Van Wely played in Wijk aan Zee 2006 but this is here nonsense as black already castled. Playable are Nce3 or even the cool Ra2.)} (15. Nce3 $5 Rxb2 16. Qxa4 Nb8 17. g3 Be6 $13) 15... Nxb4 16. cxb4 f5 { (Here I already realized that something was incorrect in my opening as in the variation which I remembered, black plays Bd7 to prevent white taking easily on a4. )} 17. Rxa4 fxe4 18. Bxa6 {(Neither g3 solves the problems so I prefer to play on with full stomach. )} (18. g3 Kh8 $1 19. Bg2 e3 $1 20. Nxe3 Bd7 $1 21. Rxa6 Bb5 22. Ra3 d5 23. Nxd5 Bc4 $17) 18... e3 $2 {(Black wants to remove the pawns on the queen-side but here the cool Bxh4 was a lot stronger. )} 19. Nxe3 Bxa6 20. Rxa6 {(Of course I wanted to play Qb3 in the game but I indicated afterwards correctly that it is not good. )} (20. Qb3 $6 d5 21. Qxd5 Qxd5 22. Nxd5 Bb5 23. Nxe7 Kf7 24. Ra7 Ra8 {(The computer shows a funny alternative here, Ke6 as the knight can not escape and will be eaten by Rf7. White however keeps some survivingchances. It reminds me on my blogarticle: de paardenlokker.)} 25. Nc8 Rxa7 26. Nxa7 Ra8 {(This trick I saw in my calculations. My opponent told me afterwards that he missed it but I am pretty sure that he would have seen it if the line popped up in the game. )} 27. Nxb5 Ra1 $15) 20... Rxb4 21. g3 Rxb2 22. Qd5 Kh8 23. O-O Qd7 24. Ra8 Rb5 25. Rxf8 Bxf8 26. Qa8 Kg8 27. Rc1 Qb7 28. Qe8 Rb1 29. Qe6 Kh8 30. Rxb1 Qxb1 31. Kh2 Qg6 *" /

Black has lost the big advantage and in the final position I can now make an easy draw with exchanging the queens. Engines have still problems today to notice that white has a fortress in this type of positions. However I wasn't satisfied with the draw and I assumed playing risk-less for a win, was still possible. Afterwards my opponent was surprised to hear that from me but I had some good arguments. First I possessed the advantage of Capablanca. He claimed in 1932 that the tandem queen+knight was stronger than queen+bishop, see the historical article from Edward Winter. Hereby I immediately have to add that the correctness of this claim is being disputed today, see e.g. this article. More important is that white controls the key-square d5 to place a dominant knight which can't be exchanged. The strength of such trump can be seen well in the correspondence game below which I won.

[Event "EU/M/1280"] [Date "2000"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Kevicky, M."] [Result "1-0"] [PlyCount "89"] 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 e5 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Be6 10. d4 Bxb3 11. axb3 Re8 12. d5 Nb8 13. c4 c6 14. dxc6 Nxc6 15. Nc3 Qb6 16. Bg5 Nb4 17. cxb5 axb5 18. Qe2 Rxa1 19. Rxa1 Rb8 20. Bxf6 Bxf6 21. Qxb5 Qxb5 22. Nxb5 Be7 23. Nc3 Nd3 24. Nd2 Nxb2 25. b4 g6 26. Nd5 Bf8 27. Ra3 Bh6 28. Rb3 Bxd2 29. Rxb2 {(White has a dreamposition which he has no problems to convert in a full point.)} Bg5 30. Kf1 f5 31. f3 Bd8 32. Ke2 Kf7 33. Ra2 Rb7 34. Kd3 Ke6 35. Ra8 Kd7 36. Kc4 fxe4 37. fxe4 h5 38. b5 g5 39. g4 hxg4 40. hxg4 Bc7 41. Rg8 Bd8 42. Rg7 Kc8 43. Rxb7 Kxb7 44. Ne3 Bb6 45. Nf5 1-0" />

Finally I knew from a previously on this blog discussed Svechnikovvariant that white in similar pawnstructures can keep on playing for a win with (temporarily) a pawn down. A recent example from correspondence in which white had success, can be replayed below.

[Event "EU/WS/M/026"] [Site "ICCF"] [Date "2011.01.25"] [White "Haas, Bernhard"] [Black "Hansen, Lars-Henrik Bech"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2190"] [BlackElo "2133"] [PlyCount "147"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Nd5 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. c3 Bg5 12. Nc2 Ne7 13. h4 Bh6 14. a4 bxa4 15. Ncb4 O-O 16. Qxa4 Nxd5 17. Nxd5 a5 18. Bc4 Bd7 19. Bb5 Be6 20. Bc6 Rb8 21. b4 axb4 22. cxb4 Kh8 23. b5 Bxd5 24. Bxd5 Qb6 25. O-O Qxb5 26. Qxb5 Rxb5 27. Ra6 f6 (27... f5 28. Rxd6 fxe4 29. Bxe4 Rb4 30. Re1 Rb2 31. f3 Bf4 $11) 28. Rxd6 Rc5 29. Rd7 g6 30. Kh2 Rc1 31. Rxc1 Bxc1 32. Kh3 f5 33. f3 Be3 34. Re7 fxe4 35. Bxe4 Bd4 36. h5 Rf6 37. g4 Rd6 38. g5 Kg8 39. Kg4 Bc3 40. Re8 Kf7 41. Rh8 Kg7 42. Rc8 gxh5 43. Kxh5 Ba5 44. Ra8 Bb6 45. Rb8 Bc7 46. Rb7 Rd7 47. Ra7 Rf7 48. Ra8 Rf8 49. Ra6 Rf7 50. Rh6 Kf8 51. Rc6 Bd8 52. Re6 Re7 53. Rd6 Bc7 54. Ra6 Kg7 55. Ra8 Rd7 56. Re8 Bd6 57. Bc6 Rf7 58. Bd5 Rf8 59. Re6 Rd8 60. Be4 Bf8 61. Rh6 Kf7 62. Rxh7 Bg7 63. Kg4 Rh8 64. Rxh8 Bxh8 65. Kh5 Kg7 66. Bc2 Kf7 67. Bd3 Kg7 68. Bc4 Kh7 69. Be6 Kg7 70. Bf5 Kf7 71. Kh6 Bg7 72. Kh7 Kf8 73. Be6 e4 74. f4 1-0" />

Adding up everything, made me very optimistic about my chances which explains why I avoided several easy drawingvariations later during the course of the game. Initially it looked all very nice till I pushed too far and lost my way in the complications. Even then a draw was still possible but switching to defense with little time remaining didn't work anymore.

[Event "Open Gent 3de ronde"] [Date "2013"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Regniers, G."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B33"] [WhiteElo "2344"] [BlackElo "2106"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "5b1k/6pp/3pQ1q1/4p3/7P/4N1P1/5P1K/8 w - - 0 32"] [PlyCount "63"] 32. Qc4 $5 {(Qxg6 is an easy draw but I wanted more what a risky strategy is with little time on the clock and a pawn less.)} (32. Qxg6 $5 hxg6 33. Kg2 Kg8 34. Kf3 Kf7 35. Ke4 Ke6 36. g4 Be7 37. f3 Bxh4 38. Nd5 {(I showed this position to my opponent after the game. Engines still give a clear advantage to black because of 2 pawns extra but it is clear that white has a fortress on the white squares. )}) 32... Qf6 33. Kg2 g6 34. Qc6 Kg7 35. Nd5 Qf5 36. Qc4 e4 {(Black neither is playing for a draw. Despite the textmove is giving a pawn away, nothing changes to the evaluation of the position.)} 37. Qd4 $5 {(I noticed that Nc3 wins a pawn but also queens are exchanged after it so removing any winning chances. Again I chose for the risky continuation.)} (37. Nc3 $5 Qf3 38. Kg1 e3 39. Qd4 Kf7 40. Qxe3 Qxe3 41. fxe3 $11) 37... Kf7 38. Nf4 Be7 39. Qc4 Kg7 40. Ne6 Kh6 41. Qc1 g5 42. Nd4 $6 {(Now I am pushing too far. Here I had to exchange with hxg5 to an easy defendable queen-endgame. )} Qd5 43. Qe3 Bf6 44. Ne2 Qf5 $6 {(The engines recommend Qd3 to keep some advantage but for practical play I prefer Qf5.)} (44... Qd3 $1 45. hxg5 Bxg5 46. Qxd3 exd3 47. Nc3 $15 {(White should have little problems to draw. The fact that black has the wrong bishop for the h-pawn, significantly increases the drawing chances. )}) 45. hxg5 Bxg5 46. Nf4 $2 {(The precise Qb3 is recommendeded by the engines and leads to full equality but such moves are very hard to find in timetrouble. )} Qg4 $6 {(Not a bad choice from practical point of view but technically Bxf4 is more critical. )} (46... Bxf4 $1 47. gxf4 Qg4 48. Kh2 d5 49. Qc1 Qh5 50. Kg1 d4 51. Qc8 Qd5 52. Qf8 Kh5 53. Qg7 d3 54. Qxh7 Kg4 55. Qg7 Kxf4 { (A nice position for Finalgen which tells me that black should win in maximum 85 moves !! The program Finalgen does not permit today to tell us if this is in order with the 50 moves rule. In any case if I follow the first choice of Finalgen each time then I can find a path in which white can claim a draw with the 50 moves rule. However it is an insurmountable task to check all the alternatives manually. Because of the limited practical value of this endgame, I am satisfied with the verdict that black has good winning chances. )}) 47. Qxe4 Bxf4 48. Qd4 $2 {(White misses a fantastic draw in this strange position. )} (48. Qe7 $1 Be5 49. f4 Bb2 {(After Bxf4 follows Qf6 and black can not retract himself in a proper way from the checks.)} 50. Qxd6 Qg6 51. Qxg6 hxg6 $11 {(White can still barely draw with g4. )} (51... Kxg6 $11)) 48... Kh5 $2 {(During the game I noticed Qg5 as black can save the bishop without giving up a pawn. )} 49. Qh8 $2 {(White misses a final opportunity to stay in the game. The remaining part of the game, I had to play in 1 minute while my opponent still had a half hour so obviously a desperate task.) } (49. Qe4 $5 Kh6 50. Qe7 $1 {(I discussed the correct method to draw in the analysis of the previous white move. )}) (49. Qd5 $5 Qg5 (49... Kh6 50. Qe4 $1 { (Of course no repetition as otherwise black can correct his mistake. )} Qg5 51. Qe6 Kg7 52. Qd7 Kh8 53. Qf7 {(The rest we can see in the mainvariation from move 63 onwards. )}) 50. Qf7 Kh6 51. Qf8 Kg6 52. Qg8 Kf6 53. Qf8 Ke5 54. Qe8 $1 Kd4 55. Qa4 Kc5 56. Qa7 Kc6 57. Qa6 Kd7 58. Qb7 Ke8 59. Qc8 Kf7 60. Qd7 Kf8 61. Qc8 Kg7 62. Qd7 Kh8 63. Qf7 Be5 64. f4 Qg8 65. Qe7 {(Black can not save the bishop and prevent perpetual check and keep all the pawns on the board which means white can make a draw. )}) 49... Qg6 50. Qd8 Bg5 51. Qd7 Qe4 52. f3 Qe7 53. Qg4 Kg6 54. f4 h5 55. Qf3 Bf6 56. Qd3 Kg7 57. Qf5 Qf7 58. Kh3 Kf8 59. Qc8 Qe8 60. Qf5 Ke7 61. Qh7 Qf7 62. Qd3 Qg8 63. Qe4 {(With a few seconds remaining on the clock, I did not wait for Qe6 and resigned. )} 0-1" />

This game clearly shows that trusting different patterns, themes,... is no guarantee for success. In an earlier blogarticle about chessintuition somebody made the remark that intuition is just applying learned knowledge. Often it isn't that simple. Except in particular openings, no position is exactly the same as another one. So each position has its own characteristics which means you can't blindly apply some knowledge. Applying the right knowledge at the right moment is also intuition. This you can't just learn from a book. Obviously experience helps to better evaluate. A similar sound can be heard by the present worldchampion in this youtubemovie.

Brabo

A Dutch gambit part 2

Do you know what a topplayer like Kramnik does on a restday just before he will play the first game of the worldcupfinal? Fishing see e.g.chessvibes ! Despite it is a very popular sport in Russia (my Russian father in law is also an ardent practicer), a lot of people were surprised that a professional like Kramnik wasn't busy the whole day with preparing the game. This however doesn't mean that Kramnik didn't care much about the result but rather that he believed resting was more important than plugging for hours on the computer. This is possible on the condition that the preparationwork was made earlier so maximal some refreshing of the memory had to be done. So preparing a game for Kramnik doesn't mean memorizing intensively green moves as I described in my previous blogarticle but rather a relax reviewing of some notes and mainly resting.

Easier said than done but how could Kramnik know in advance that Dmitry Andreikin would be his opponent in the final? Well for sure he didn't know in advance which automatically means that he studied all possible openings in his repertoire prior. Strong players make sure that they have a profound knowledge of all possible systems against their repertoire. A similar sound can be heard on chessmasterschool where grandmaster Andrei Istratescu (same person from my artcile  met een kanon op een mug schieten) states that a lot of players reach a limit because they don't do sufficient efforts to complete their repertoire. Important hereby is to note that the word ' complete' is stated in capital letters. A limited study of the theory causes weaknesses and a chain is only that strong of its weakest link. Besides reinventing the wheel is senseless and very timeconsuming.

From the intro we can deduct that preparing a game based on green moves is certainly not a professional approach. The usage of green moves could be compared with reading a bookreview instead of the book itself. We all know that reading the book is much better but sometimes we don't have or don't want to free the time. A similar remark was made by Kara in the comments of my blogarticle van patzer naar gm intro en calculation. Stefan Docx's remark was also witty when he heard in the bookstand that I was searching for green moves. The remark must have been something like "In the Dutch there are many green moves." 

There is of course a double meaning in this remark. My preparationmethod (based on green moves) as my stubbornness to stick to my rather dubious Dutch defense (with a lot of green moves for white) is considered amateurish. He has right of course but today I can not or do not want to spent time in a more professional approach. I have a full time job and a young family which I give priority. So I just do what I please with my stopgaps like green moves or playing somewhat dubious openings like the Dutch. 

If you play 20 years a somewhat dubious opening like the Dutch then there is the big advantage that you've encountered somewhat every possible system already. Moreover contrary to e.g. Najdorf or Gruenfeld, the Dutch is much less subject to theoretical novelties. Geert Van der Stricht told me after Open Gent that in 2000 he was completely up to date with the Najdorf but in recent years theory has changed so fast that it also became for him an impossible task to know all possible variations. In other words each disadvantage has an advantage. In the continuation of this article, I will extricate a recent example in which like in my former blogarticle een hollands gambietje I will use my years experience of the Dutch to get a quick advantage in the opening. I chose as title "A Dutch gambit part 2" as we will discuss a gambit with a strong relationship with the gambit of part 1.

The oldest game in my personal database against the h3 system of the Dutch dates from 1998. My very brief knowledge of this system was at that time based on the book Dutch Defense from Larry Christiansen and Jeremy Silman published in 1989. In the book was mentioned that accepting the sacrifice was dangerous for black and safer was d5.