Ah, I see!
That dirty back-rank!
Sneaky. 26. Rc5 doesn’t win the knight then. Hmm.
Nice...
If it doesn’t work, then the fall of the f4-pawn and the misplaced rook on c5
just gives white a bad, if not losing position.
Having now realised the back-rank issue (without my Ne7/Nf5/Ng3 concept), I’m
seeing more difficulties for white. Instructive!
Chris
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew ;(Redacted
sender "tyson.mordue" for DMARC)
Sent: 01 June 2018 09:41
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: One idea further - Simms-Mordue
Chris et al,
This game was originally published as part of a twosome called simply
"Scheveningens". The other game was Wragg-Mordue, Derby 2002 and also featured
the ...Na5 manoeuvre. Not quite certain when I posted or published it
originally but obviously after 2002 and before I came on the USBCA group.
Chris has made an excellent assessment of the position. White's best is
probably 25 Re1 and Deep Rybka analyses 25...Rd8, 25...Rc8 and 25...Rb8 with
respective evaluations of +0.15, 0.00 and +0.28 - in other words it says that
25...Rc8 is best and that the position is absolutely level. Currently Black has
a 'clamp' on the b4 square which hinders White is advancing his Pawns. However,
the open position is clearly in a state of flux so the evaluations can easily
change.
The important bit of Chris's post is "My instinct cries out for 25. Rd5, with
the idea of trying to double rooks, and maybe switching the rook via b5 to b7.
The tactical point is that 25. Rd5 Bxf4 seems to run into 26. Rc5 when the
Knight is pinned against the Queen. 25. Rd5 seems a bit slow though." Chris
uses the word 'instinct' once and 'seems' twice. This is the inner voice of
experience saying "Something is happening here but I haven't spotted it yet."
His imagination is on the verge of spotting an idea, having already spotted
White's tactic of 25...Bxf4 26 Rc5 with said pin on the Knight. All worth
looking at further.
Happy analysing!
Tyson
On 01 June 2018 at 08:53 Chris Ross <c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Tyson,
No doubt, I’ve seen this game in the past, although I don’t recall it.
I’m not convinced for black though. Despite the two pawns for the exchange, the
queen-side pawns are a concern. Black needs to whip up an attack fairly rapidly
to justify his play.
My instinct cries out for 25. Rd5, with the idea of trying to double rooks, and
maybe switching the rook via b5 to b7.
The tactical point is that 25. Rd5 Bxf4 seems to run into 26. Rc5 when the
knight is pinned against the queen.
25. Rd5 seems a bit slow though.
25. Re1 challenging the open file seems to be the logical continuation. I’m
guessing that black does not want the exchange of rooks, so, 25... Rf8/Rc8
appears to be necessary. White could defend the f4-pawn with 26. Re4 then, and
I’m not convinced black is making any progress.
Stealing on f4 will allow Rf1 and there is pressure on f7.
26. Re4 also has Rc4 as a distinct possibility.
So, am interested to hear what your “one idea” theme is here. I’m guessing it
is a thematic attack on the white king, somehow with the reverse battery of the
black queen and bishop, but I’m not sure how you are going to achieve it.
Having that idea though, is a certain plan.
An idea is to get a knight to g3 somehow (Ne7/Nf5/Ng3) and then have a check on
h6 with the queen and the bishop controlling the g1 square. Again, nice, but
not convinced how you can achieve it, but an idea if nothing else.
I certainly do not like 25. G3. I would rather give up the pawn than defend it
like that and leave all of those light squares weak like that.
Hope this is some fuel for thought.
Cheers,
Chris
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew ;(Redacted
sender "tyson.mordue" for DMARC)
Sent: 30 May 2018 22:12
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Subject: [usbca_chess] One idea further - Simms-Mordue
Hello folks
This is the promised article on seeing one idea further as opposed to one move
further. The point will become apparent in due course.
As far as I'm aware I have not posted this game on the USBCA group before. It
is possible that readers from other mutual groups may have seen it previously.
The fun begins after Black's 24th move so I will give the game score up to that
point with a few relevant observations along the way. However, I don't want to
go too deeply into the opening which is well-established theory. However, this
was a correspondence game, as opposed to an OTB game, so the players had
considerable time for reflection before playing a move. You are encouraged to
do the same.
Game 1: Simms-Mordue, Correspondence 1983-4,
1 e4 c5
2 Nf3 d6
3 d4 cxd4
4 Nxd4 Nf6
5 Nc3 a6
6 Be2 e6
{I consider the line 6...e5 to be too committal.The text is one of many ways of
transposing into the Scheveningen variation.}
7 0-0 Be7
8 a4 0-0
9 Be3 Qc7
10 f4 Nc6
11 Nb3 b6
12 Bf3 Rb8
{This is a fairly typical set-up for both sides in a Scheveningen. Variations
include White playing Kh1, or Bd3, and/or Qe1-g3, and omitting a4 and/or Nb3.}
13 Qe2 Na5!?
{This is a manoeuvre which is specifically aimed against the a4 and Nb3
formation.}
14 Nxa5 bxa5
{For the wrecking of his Queenside Pawn structure Black has the open b-file,
pressure on White's Queenside and, as becomes apparent, a useful outpost on b4
and pressure on e4. It’s difficult for White to prove that the doubled Pawns
are weak, indeed they secure the b4 outpost and deny White the corresponding
one at b5.}
15 Rab1 Rb4
16 Rfd1 Bb7
17 Bd2 d5
{When Black can safely play this move in the Scheveningen, or any line of the
Sicilian Defence for that matter, then he's doing well.}
18 exd5
{18 e5 is playable but White feels he can get better play in an open position.}
18... exd5
19 Kh1 Re8
{Black threatens 20... Bd6 winning the Pawn on f4. It’s possible that 19...Bc5
or 19...d4 are better moves. White now tries to break out by tactical means.}
20 Nxd5!? Bxd5
21 Bxd5 Nxd5?!
{Deep Rybka suggests that Black may keep a small advantage by playing 21...Bf8
first. It certainly picks up a tempo on the White Queen before it gets to take
on a6 as in the game.}
22 Bxb4 Nxb4
23 c3 Nc6
24 Qxa6 Bd6
The position is currently:
White: King h1, Queen a6, Rooks b1 and d1, Pawns on a4, b2, c3, f4, g2 and h2.
Black: King g8, Queen c7, Rook e8, Bishop d6, Knight c6, Pawns a5, f7, g7 and
h7.
This is a good moment to take stock. White has obtained Rook and two Pawns for
Knight and Bishop but Black is possibly more active. Deep Rybka assesses this
position as roughly equal.I should emphasise that equal is not the same as
drawn. Here both sides are striving to maximise the activity of their pieces.
Black has one more piece than White but, in turn, White would like to play
b2-b4 and get his Queenside Pawns rolling.This is where his plus is.Indeed 25
b4 is a candidate move.
White could defend the Pawn on f4 directly by playing 25 g3. All the
experienced players that I've shown this position to agree that while this is
an apparently solid move, they are all concerned by the weakening effect on the
h1-a8 diagonal.. For example, switch the Black Queen to e4 and White is in
trouble.
However, White chose not to directly defend the f4 Pawn. He played a move which
seems to deter Black from taking there. This was based on an idea. Your first
task, if you wish to study this position, is to find the move and hence the
idea that follows from it. I will post again in a few days with a further
insight into this position.
Regards,
Tyson
