Monday, January 13, 2014

The fake truth

The first years that I played chess, I was convinced that my analysis were faultless as I used at that time HW and SW which was considered modern and very strong. Besides as mentioned in my previous article, I analysed in this earliest period already much more compared with the average amateur. Repeating the analysis I would only do to memorize the lines. Later this vision slowly crumbled away when I learned new skills but especially due to the big developments of HW and SW which refuted many old analysis. Even in my correspondence-analysis I found afterwards improvements which you can read about in my article correspondencechess.

Eventually I realized that an expiry-date exists for my analysis and I better regularly recheck my work and repair if necessary. It is also the reason why I never talked in my previous article about the absolute evaluation but only about an objective evaluation. Chess is a very complex game so finding the truth is often impossible. However it is a fact that the more time you spend analyzing, the closer you approach the truth. A well-known joke between correspondence-players is that the one going latest to bed, wins the game.

Because we as amateurs only have a fraction of the time which prof-players can spend to chess, preparation is often a tool to work on the repertoire. In the past I already showed some samples of this (see e.g the game against Inkiov which I discussed in the article how to win from a stronger player). Nevertheless I anyway want to present a beautiful attacking-game because the well-known player from Bruges FM Tom Piceu won with it a special prize for most beautiful game and wrote in his analysis on the site of the Dutch chessfederation that he found the opening-idea 3 years already ago which he afterwards further tuned and sharpened.
[Event "KNSB 2013-2014"] [Date "2013.11.02"] [White "van Hengel, H."] [Black "Piceu, T."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B86"] [PlyCount "44"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 Be7 8. g4 O-O 9. g5 Nfd7 10. Bxe6 Nc6 {(A novelty which Tom discovered 3 years ago but regularly was tuned and sharpened in game-preparations. Technically one can argue if this is a novelty as I found 2 games of unrated players in the database. Anyway this is just a small side-note.)} 11. Bb3 Nxd4 12. Qxd4 Ne5 13. Qe3 Bxg5 14. f4 Bh4 15. Kf1 Kh8 16. fxe5 f5 17. Kg2 f4 18. Qf3 Qg5 19. Kf1 Bg4 20. Qg2 Qh5 21. h3 Bf3 22. Qg1 Be2 0-1'/>
Besides it is not the first time that Tom wins such prize as I already mentioned earlier in my article a Dutch gambit. At that time I was the victim of his craft work.

It is evident that game preparations are a strong motivator for quite some players to analyse but if we really want to study seriously openings then also work needs to be done on other moments. In my article which games to analyze I indicated that approximately 80% of my analysis are done on my own games. These analyses I synthesize and if possible I use them in new games. On this blog I already showed several examples (see e.g. Dutch steps in the English opening). However this time I want to present 2 games in which a new synthesis refutes (partly) an older one. In other words the truth of a position sometimes changes. The first game dates from 2012 against the young player from Bruges Wouter Gryson (a fragment of this game was already used in my article endgames with an exchange extra) in which I use an idea which I discovered after my game played in 2006 against the Dutch player Henk Temminck.
[Event "Interclub Deurne - KBSK"] [Date "2012"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Gryson, W."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B06"] [WhiteElo "2334"] [BlackElo "2260"] [PlyCount "173"] 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 a6 5. Be2 b5 6. O-O Bb7 7. a4 b4 8. Na2 $6 {(In 2 earlier official games I also played this move but new analysis favor more Nd5 as critical continuation.)} (8. Nd5 $1 Nf6 $5 9. Nxf6 $1 exf6 10. Re1 $1 O-O 11. Bc4 Re8 12. Qd3 a5 $5 13. c3 $1 bxc3 14. Qxc3 Qd7 $5 15. Qb3 $1 Nc6 $14) 8... Bxe4 9. Nxb4 $5 {(I also studied Ng5 and Nd2 afterwards with a computer but I could not find anywhere a small advantage for white.)} Nf6 $6 {(Black plays in classical style by first bringing the king into safety but probably more exact is here first a5 or Bb7 preventing whites maneuver with Nd2 as played in the game. )} 10. Nd2 $1 $146 {(An amelioration on my game against Temminck played in 2006 which I already tested a few times in online blitz. )} Bb7 11. Bf3 Qc8 12. Re1 a5 13. Nd3 O-O 14. Nb3 Nc6 15. Bd2 e6 16. c4 Qb8 $6 {(Stronger is Rd8 which permits black to create counter play in the center. )} 17. Bxc6 Bxc6 18. Nxa5 Be4 19. Bc3 Qb6 20. b4 Bf5 21. Qf3 Rxa5 $6 { (A speculative exchange-sacrifice which is mainly justified by whites huge time-consumption. Objectively c6 is more correct but obviously not so pleasant and likely practical even less interesting. )} 22. bxa5 Qb3 23. Rac1 Qxc4 24. Nb2 $6 { (More exact is Nb4 and very likely the extra material will be sufficient to win the game.)} Qb3 25. Qd1 $6 {(Relinquishing the diagonal a8-h1 is not the best choice. Nd1, recommended by the engines is clearly better.)} Qb7 26. Nc4 Nd5 27. Ne3 Nf4 28. d5 Bxc3 29. Rxc3 Be4 30. a6 Qxa6 31. Rxc7 Bxd5 32. Nxd5 Nxd5 33. Rc1 Ra8 $6 {(More aggressive and likely better is Nf4.)} 34. Ra1 Qc6 35. Qc1 Nc3 36. Qc2 $2 {(This is weak. Qf4 was much more active with still a clear advantage. )} d5 $6 {(Black underestimates my a-pawn otherwise Ra5 would be chosen with good chances to equalize. )} 37. a5 d4 38. Qd3 Qd5 39. a6 e5 40. a7 e4 41. Qg3 {(Luckily I only had to play this move after the time-control as probably I would have missed this strong move. )} h5 $2 {(In the follow-up I have the impression Wouter is a bit devastated by the earlier events and as a consequence makes a few second rated moves. )} (41... Qb7 $1 42. Qe5 Rxa7 $1 43. Qxd4 Rxa1 44. Qd8 Kg7 45. Rxa1 Ne2 46. Kh1 Qb2 47. Rd1 $14 }) 42. Qc7 Nb5 43. Qb8 Kh7 44. Ra5 $6 {(Now I transpose to an endgame with an extra exchange. This endgame gives excellent practical winning chances but if is really won, is not clear to me. The computer recommends a nice alternative, Reb1 which wins much more clear.)} Nxa7 45. Rxd5 Rxb8 46. Rxd4 Nc6 47. Rdxe4 Rb7 48. h3 Kg7 49. Rd1 Ne7 50. g3 Nf5 51. Rd2 Ra7 52. Kg2 Rb7 53. Ra4 Rb6 54. Ra7 Kf6 55. Rd3 Nd6 56. Rda3 Rb5 57. R7a6 Rd5 58. Kf3 Ke7 59. Re3 Kd7 $6 {(The king stays best with the f-pawn. Now white gets the opportunity to exchange a pair of rooks after which the win is more or less guaranteed but technically still not so easy. )} 60. Ke2 Rf5 61. Ra7 Kd8 62. Rd3 Rf6 63. f4 $5 {(The rook-endgame with 2 pawns more after Rxf7 is easier winning but I missed this as I was fixated on my plan with eliminating the rooks. )} Ke8 64. Kf3 Kf8 65. Ra6 Ke7 66. g4 hxg4 67. hxg4 Re6 68. Re3 Rxe3 69. Kxe3 {(White achieved his goal but with little time left it is still not easy to win. Fortunately black neither has much time left so the defense is not perfect.)} Ne8 70. Ke4 Nf6 71. Kf3 Ne8 72. Kg3 Nf6 73. Ra8 Nd5 74. Ra5 Nf6 75. Kh4 Ke6 76. Re5 {(The rest of the game had to be rebuilt afterwards which makes that I am not fully sure of the correctness of the remaining moves. )} Kd6 77. Kg5 Nd5 78. Re4 Kd7 79. Rd4 Ke6 80. Re4 Kd7 81. f5 gxf5 82. gxf5 Kd6 83. Kh6 Nf6 84. Re1 Nd7 85. Kg7 f6 86. Re6 Kd5 87. Kg6 {(White takes with his next move the f-pawn which gives white an easy win even with only a minute left on the clock.)} 1-0'/>
Despite that I came well through the opening and I eventually won the game, I concluded that blacks opening was ok and I better try next time 8.Nd5 instead of Na2 for an opening-advantage. Last in the first round of  Open Leuven I got the change to implement this new truth.
[Event "Open Leuven 1ste ronde"] [Date "2013"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "Maes, P."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B06"] [WhiteElo "2347"] [BlackElo "1970"] [PlyCount "45"] 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 a6 5. Be2 b5 6. O-O Bb7 7. a4 $6 {(In 3 earlier official games I played this continuation. Now I believe Re1 which I checked earlier is necessary to maintain a small opening edge. )} b4 8. Nd5 {(Last year I recommended this move after my analysis of my game against Wouter Gryson but my opponent answers with a good antidote. )} Nf6 {(The only correspondence game also continued with this move while it is not popping up in the megadatabase. )} 9. Nxf6 exf6 10. Re1 {(During the game I had to think long to remember what exactly I had recommended but eventually I anyway followed my own analysis. The correspondence-game continued with Bd3 after which black with some troubles was able to equalize.)} O-O 11. Bc4 Bxe4 {(Weird but last year I did not check this move although it certainly looks natural and even stronger than what the engines recommend. )} 12. Bxf7 Rxf7 13. Rxe4 Re7 $2 { (A severe strategical mistake which gives white a large edge. After the correct d5 white seems initially better but after some moves it transpires that it is very tough to keep some advantage.)} 14. Qe2 Nc6 15. Rxe7 Nxe7 16. Qc4 Kf8 17. Qxb4 Nc6 $6 { (More stubborn is d5 which restricts whites activity. )} 18. Qc4 Qd7 19. Bd2 $6 {(Conquering space with d5 is even stronger and black does not succeed to coordinate the pieces.)} f5 $6 {(Again d5 is here better. After the game-continuation white forces the decision thanks to the free g5-square. )} 20. Re1 Re8 21. Rxe8 Qxe8 22. Ng5 Nxd4 23. c3 1-0'/>
Again despite the quick win, I have to admit after my synthesis that black is ok after 13..,d5 instead of 13...Re7? So again the truth changes for me and in a next encounter with this opening I will again play something different.

This jumping from one truth to another is also something strong prof-players experience. In a fascinating lecture (of which I already mentioned earlier the youtube-movie, see chessintuition part 2) Anand also admitted that he now and then had totally different judgements about some specific positions in just a time-frame of a few years. However he also shared the encouraging message that it doesn't have to be a problem for the practical player as  we just need sufficient confidence to play a position.

In my article about tablebases I informed about the milestone of the 7 piece-endgames which is still only a fraction of the possible positions. Analyzing is a method of approximation which unavoidably creates mistakes. Even the strongest players make mistakes in their analysis which I already showed in my article the influence on openings by worldchampions. Therefore it surely is no shame to believe or even announce a fake truth as long the person keeps the eyes open for new elements.


No comments:

Post a Comment