Saturday, April 18, 2015

Harakiri

Some of the strong reactions on my previous article are definitely deserved. Showing only examples of opponents having little or not prepared, created the wrong impression that people don't have to fear preparations (except from myself).

A small minority is willing to spend time at building a dangerous preparation. Steven made earlier rightfully the remark that in norm-tournaments (exclusively consisting of the 1% highest rated players) that this minority very likely transforms to a majority. If you don't take this into account then this can quickly cost points which I experienced myself this season even on a modest second board in second division.

In the 6th round of the Belgian interclubs I was trounced by the French FM Manuel Ippolito. After only 3 hours of play we were already analyzing at the bar. Besides I used twice as much time as my opponent.
[Event "Interclub Deurne - Artevelde"] [Date "2015"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Ippolito, M."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B33"] [WhiteElo "2330"] [BlackElo "2250"] [PlyCount "80"] 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 {(In the Big database 2015 there are no games of my opponent with this position.)} Qa5 10. Bd2 Qd8 11. Bg5 Qa5 12. Bd2 Qd8 13. c4 Nxe4 {(Mark chose the more positional continuation Nxd5. Nxe4 is much more tactical so exact knowledge of theory is very important.)} 14. cxb5 Be6 15. Bc4 Ne7 16. Be3 Rc8 17. Nb6 d5 {(Quickly played by my opponent so I realized black had checked this line before.)} 18. Nxc8 Nxc8 19. O-O dxc4 $146 {(An improvement on Kasparovs Bxa3 because after 20.bxa6 Bxb2? there is 21.Rb1! . To be frank Kasparov played this move in a clock-simul against the national Swiss-team in 1987 so he was not playing at full strength.)} 20. Qa4 Nc5 21. Bxc5 Bxc5 22. Nxc4 O-O 23. Nxe5 Qd5 24. Nf3 axb5 25. Qf4 Ne7 26. a4 Ng6 27. Qg5 bxa4 28. Rxa4 Qb3 29. Raa1 Be7 30. Qd2 Bd5 31. Nd4 Qb7 32. f3 Rd8 33. Kh1 Bf6 34. Nf5 Bc4 35. Qf2 Bxf1 36. Qxf1 Qxb2 37. Rb1 Qc2 38. Ng3 Nf4 39. Ne4 Be5 40. Rc1 Qb3 0-1
In the database I couldn't find any games of my opponent with this opening but in the postmortem it became clear that he was very well aware about a huge amount of lines. He even admitted that he used my game played in Open Leuven 2013 against Mark Davey as guideline in his preparation. I don't know if his improvement on Kasparovs 19...Bxa3 still was part of his preparation but there exists no doubt that the preparation was a deciding factor in this game.

So do I admit my mistake in my article about passwords? No as I only told one side of the story. To explain the other side we must return to the analysis made on my game of 2013 with this opening.
[Event "Open Leuven 7de ronde"] [Date "2013"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Davey, M."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B33"] [WhiteElo "2343"] [BlackElo "1980"] [PlyCount "113"] 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 Qa5 10. Bd2 Qd8 11. Bg5 Qa5 12. Bd2 Qd8 13. c4 $5 {(Of course no draw in the last round with quite some money at stake against a lower rated player. I was not sure about my chances when I played this move as my knowledge was very limited about this opening. Besides c4, Bd3 looks also fine for some small advantage. Sometimes transpositions happen between both choices.)} Nxd5 $5 {(I was glad that black chose for a quiet continuation as after Nxe4 it can quickly become very tactical.)} (13... Nxe4 $5 14. cxb5 Be6 $5 15. Bc4 Ne7 $5 (15... axb5 $5 16. Nxb5 Rc8 17. O-O $1 Be7 18. Be3 O-O 19. Nxe7 $1 Nxe7 20. Bxe6 $1 fxe6 21. Na7 $14) 16. Be3 $1 Qa5 (16... Rc8 17. Bb6 Qd7 18. bxa6 Rxc4 19. a7 Bxd5 20. Nxc4 Ba8 21. f3 d5 22. Nxe5 Qe6 23. Qd4 $1 Nc5 24. Bxc5 Nc6 25. Qe3 $14) 17. Kf1 Rb8 $5 18. Rc1 Nxd5 19. Bxd5 Nf6 20. Bc6 Nd7 21. Ba7 Rd8 $14) (13... b4 $5 14. Nc2 $1 Nxe4 $5 15. Ncxb4 Bd7 (15... Bb7 16. Qa4 $1 Nxd2 17. Nxc6 Qd7 18. Qa5 Rc8 19. Qxd2 Rxc6 20. Be2 Be7 21. O-O $1 $14) 16. g3 $1 $146 Rc8 17. b3 $14) 14. exd5 Nd4 15. cxb5 Be7 16. bxa6 $5 {(Maybe slightly more accurate is Bd3 although also with the continuation of the game white still keeps the better prospects.)} O-O 17. Bd3 $5 { (Here again Bc3 is maybe somewhat more accurate to win a tempo after Bxa6.)} Bg5 $5 {(Bxa6 looks stronger but still black does not have much compensation for the sacrificed pawn.)} (17... Bxa6 $5 18. Bc3 Qb6 19. O-O Rfc8 $5 20. Bxa6 $1 Qxa6 21. Re1 $1 $14) 18. Bc3 Nf5 $6 { (Transferring the knight from the center to the side of the board is not good. Again Bxa6 was more appropriate.)} (18... Bxa6 $1 19. O-O Qb6 20. Nc2 Bxd3 21. Qxd3 Qb5 $1 22. Qxb5 Nxb5 23. Bb4 Rfc8 24. a4 $14 ) 19. O-O Nh4 20. Nc2 f5 $6 {(It was crucial here to pick up the a-pawn with Bxa6.)} 21. g3 e4 22. Be2 Bxa6 23. Nd4 Bc8 24. Kh1 Ng6 25. f4 exf3 26. Bxf3 f4 27. Ne6 Bxe6 28. dxe6 fxg3 29. Bd5 Ne7 30. Rxf8 Qxf8 31. hxg3 Rc8 32. Qf3 $6 {(To keep the pair of bishops with Bg2 is more convincing.)} Nxd5 33. Qxd5 Be7 $6 {(Unnecessary as Rc5 immediately was possible and a bit stronger.)} 34. Kg2 Rc5 35. Qe4 Rf5 36. Bd4 d5 37. Qe2 $6 {(The engines rightfully recommend Qd3 because the rook must be on the e-file.)} Qb8 $6 {(More stubborn is Rg5 according to the engines.)} (37... Rg5 $1 38. a4 $1 Bd6 $1 39. Bf2 Re5 40. Qd3 Bc5 41. Rf1 Bxf2 42. Rxf2 Qa8 $16 {(This endgame looks pretty desperate too for black.)}) 38. Rf1 Rg5 39. Qf3 Bd6 40. Bf2 Qe8 41. Re1 g6 42. e7 Rf5 43. Qd3 Bxe7 44. Bc5 Rf7 45. Qxd5 Kf8 46. Qe4 Qd7 47. Bxe7 Rxe7 48. Qxe7 Qxe7 49. Rxe7 Kxe7 50. Kf3 h5 51. a4 g5 52. Ke4 Kd6 53. Kf5 h4 54. gxh4 gxh4 55. Kg4 Kc5 56. Kxh4 Kb4 57. b3 {(With this move I not only concluded the game but also the tournament. A nice prize was later given to me in the closure of the tournament.)} 1-0
White achieves with correct play a clear advantage but during my game against Manuel I could not reconstruct the analysis despite long reflections. At move 17 I mix Bb6 with Nb6 and after that it quickly goes downhill in the minefield. After the game I even discovered that my analysis of 2013 were optimistic about blacks problems in this opening.
[Event "Interclub Deurne - Artevelde"] [Date "2015"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Ippolito, M."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B33"] [WhiteElo "2330"] [BlackElo "2250"] [PlyCount "80"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 {(In the Big database 2015 there are no games of my opponent with this position.)} b5 9. Nd5 Qa5 10. Bd2 Qd8 11. Bg5 {(I invite black to play another line as I felt uncertain about my knowledge of this variation.)} Qa5 12. Bd2 Qd8 13. c4 {(With Bg5 I can claim a draw by 3-fold repetition but I rather prefer to lose than executing such draw. 2 years ago I won with c4 against Mark Davey in Leuven and my analyses afterwards showed that black can not find equality. Anyhow I thought longtime here about deviating with Bd3 which still keeps good chances for some sort of advantage as I expected Manuel would not play a complicated line without preparation. However as I could not remember the critical lines after Bd3 either, I chose in the end nevertheless c4.)} Nxe4 {(Mark chose the more positional continuation Nxd5. Nxe4 is much more tactical so exact knowledge of theory is very important.)} 14. cxb5 Be6 15. Bc4 Ne7 $6 {(The mainline and quickly played by black but I think it is more or less refuted by theory. Axb5 looks best but still no full equality can be found.)} ( 15... axb5 $1 16. Nxb5 Rc8 17. O-O Nxd2 $5 18. Qxd2 Nd4 19. Nxd4 $1 Rxc4 20. Nb5 Be7 $14) 16. Be3 Rc8 $5 (16... Qa5 $5 17. Ke2 $1 {(Last year I stopped my analysis in this opening when no equality was found for black. This time I also try to find how big whites advantage is. Ke2 is even better than Kf1 analyzed last year.)} Rb8 $5 (17... Rc8 $5 18. Nb6 d5 $5 19. Nxc8 Nxc8 (19... Bxc8 20. Bxd5 Nxd5 21. Qxd5 Bxa3 22. Qxe5 Be7 23. a4 $1 $16) 20. Bxd5 Bxa3 21. Bxe4 Qxb5 22. Bd3 Qxb2 23. Qd2 Qxd2 $1 24. Bxd2 O-O 25. Rhb1 $1 $16) 18. Rc1 Nxd5 19. Bxd5 Nf6 20. Bc6 Nd7 $16) 17. Nb6 $2 {(Despite considerable reflection I was not able to remember my analysis. The bluff works as I wonder how black would justify his choice of opening after Bb6.)} (17. Bb6 $1 Qd7 18. bxa6 Rxc4 19. a7 Bxd5 20. Nxc4 Qb5 (20... Ba8 $6 21. f3 d5 22. fxe4 $1 { (An amelioration on my earlier analysis again discovered in the world of correspodence-chess.)} dxc4 23. Qxd7 Kxd7 24. O-O-O Kc6 25. Rd8 Kxb6 26. Rxa8 Nc6 27. Rf1 $1 f6 28. Rd1 {(The correspondence-game E.Shane Dibley - Simon Jenkinson played in 2008 continued with Kb1 and white won but maybe Rd1 wins a tad faster.)} Nd4 29. Kb1 Kb7 30. Rc8 $1 Kxa7 31. Rc1 Kb7 32. R1xc4 $18) 21. Qb3 Qxb3 {(The Spanish grandmaster Miguel Munoz Pantoja played in 2011 Qa6 but this is easily refuted by Rd1.)} 22. axb3 Ba8 23. f3 d5 $16) 17... d5 {(Quickly played by my opponent so I realized black had checked this line before.)} 18. Nxc8 $5 {(Qa4 is an interesting alternative but there exists no clear path anymore to an advantage.)} Nxc8 19. O-O $6 {(You can still find some games in the database with this move but better is Bd3 with a complicated and balanced position.)} dxc4 $146 {(An improvement on Kasparovs Bxa3 because after 20.bxa6 Bxb2? there is 21.Rb1! . To be frank Kasparov played this move in a clock-simul against the national Swiss-team in 1987 so he was not playing at full strength.)} 20. Qa4 $6 {(The position further disorientates after this move. Stronger was bxa6.)} (20. bxa6 $1 Qa5 21. Qc2 Ned6 22. Qc3 Qxc3 23. bxc3 Nf5 24. Nc2 Nxe3 25. fxe3 Bc5 $15 ) 20... Nc5 21. Bxc5 Bxc5 22. Nxc4 O-O 23. Nxe5 Qd5 24. Nf3 axb5 25. Qf4 Ne7 26. a4 Ng6 27. Qg5 bxa4 28. Rxa4 $6 {(Exchanging queens is more stubborn as after the game continuation white loses any coordination.)} Qb3 29. Raa1 Be7 30. Qd2 Bd5 31. Nd4 Qb7 32. f3 Rd8 33. Kh1 Bf6 34. Nf5 Bc4 35. Qf2 Bxf1 36. Qxf1 Qxb2 37. Rb1 Qc2 38. Ng3 Nf4 39. Ne4 Be5 40. Rc1 Qb3 {(I do not resign quickly but having a piece less and no counterplay, was more than convincing. My opponent only used one hour for the full game which without doubt was a very nice performance.)} 0-1
The repetition of moves with Bg5 already shows my unsureness. I know at that moment already that the game can become very tactical if I avoid the repetition. 13.Bd3 was the last chance to deviate with an interesting continuation and likely would throw the opponent out of book. However again I follow the scientific approach and more or less commit harakiri by deliberately ignoring the signals (opponent plays something very sharp for the first time, I can't remember the analysis).

After the game I had a lively discussion with some of my teammembers about my harakiri. Some were of the opinion that you are morally obliged to play the line if you studied it at home and concluded this was giving an advantage. Why would you make the analysis if you don't dare to play it? Besides often you start to remember things when you are a few moves further in the opening. Not everybody agreed with this. Losing is inherent of the game but losing in such way is nonsense. You don't learn anything and you just make a fool of yourself.

It is not the first time that I forget analysis and it won't be the last time either. In my last 100 games I can find 7 games in which I forgot or mixed up the analysis with an important impact on the further course of the game. Some of this silliness already was covered on this blog: chess-intuitionchess-intuition part 2. If I look at a decade ago then I notice that I forget today more often something. Am I growing old? Next year I will be 40 so I am not young anymore.

Although I believe age has nothing to do with it. I just have much more analysis to remember than a decade ago. Last couple of years the amount of theory exploded. A very recent article on hln confirms my supposition that failing memory isn't the culprit. My short-term memory surely has passed the peak but the long-term memory can still improve till pensionable-age. It is the long-term memory which counts here so I may still have some hope.

I complain about the amount of theory but what about 2700 players. Last Karjakin lost a game against Nakamura about which he tweeted that the worst way to lose a game is, when you know the line until a draw,but, can not remember how it goes and get a losing position immediately.
[Event "Zurich Chess Challenge"] [Site "Zurich SUI"] [Date "2015.02.16"] [Round "3"] [White "Hikaru Nakamura"] [Black "Sergey Karjakin"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A33"] [WhiteElo "2776"] [BlackElo "2760"] [PlyCount "53"] 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 e6 6. g3 Qb6 7. Ndb5 Ne5 8. Bf4 Nfg4 9. Qa4 g5 10. Bxe5 Qxf2 11. Kd1 Nxe5 12. Nc7 Kd8 13. Nxa8 Qd4 14. Kc2 Nxc4 15. e4 Ne3 $2 {(Both Nakamura and Karjakin knew that this line leads to draw but only Karjakin could not remember the exact moves as it was not part of his preparation contrary to Nakamura.)} (15... Qd2 16. Kb3 Qxb2 17. Kxc4 Bg7 18. Qa5 b6 19. Qxg5 f6 20. Qb5 Ba6 21. Qxa6 f5 {(After these characteristic computer-moves a draw is unavoidable as white can not escape from the perpetual check.)}) 16. Kb3 Qd2 17. a3 Qc2 18. Ka2 Qxa4 19. Nxa4 Nxf1 20. Rhxf1 b5 21. N4b6 axb6 22. Nxb6 Bb7 23. Rxf7 Bc6 24. Rd1 Be7 25. Rf3 Kc7 26. Nxd7 Rd8 27. Rc3 1-0
I found it disappointing to see how with bluffing today you can reach a 2800 rating. I call it bluffing as choosing a line with white of which you know it is a forced draw isn't very flattering.

If a young player like Sergey Karjakin already experiences problems to remember the variations then his colleagues won't do much better. Last year on the site of Tim Krabbe there was a funny article called Fischer Random, anyone? with a long list of opening-errors caused by forgetting the analysis made by topplayers. It is remarkable that not once Carlsen is mentioned. I don't want to claim he doesn't forget anything but he rather chooses openings which require less knowledge of theory.

This should close the topic. Passwords, harakiri... are about exact opening-knowledge. There exist good alternatives to neutralize sufficiently such opening-knowledge without using drastic measurements like Fisher Random. Most important is not to be stuck in routines which makes you too predictable.

Brabo

No comments:

Post a Comment