Skype coaching session, 21 July 2019.
The game discussed (32 moves) is given below with annotations and without
annotations.
Re-structuring of the sessions now offers the option for guests to bring their
own games for group discussion.
Recordings of some previous coaching sessions can be found at:
http://www.open-aurec.com/Skype/PaulBenson/PaulBenson.htm
Paul Benson.
* * *
Annotated Game.
White: W. Armstrong, 142 (ECF).
Black: P. Benson, 158 (ECF).
Event: UK BCA Championship (Torquay) 2019.
Result: 0-1 in 32 moves.
Opening: London System versus Dutch Defence, A80.
| Editorial.
There are a variety of reasons for selecting a game for study.
Maybe an important theoretical novelty is introduced in the opening, sometimes
there is a mutual middlegame tactical torrent, other times a patient positional
squeeze, or possibly a flawless demonstration of endgame technique.
This game has black under, "Tournament Ambition Pressure", making the game a
tricky psychological, "Must Win Fight".
It is Round 5, white has won all 4 games while black is half a point behind the
tournament leader.
The tie-breaks favour white as well, this means if black has wishes to win the
Championship, then nothing but a win from this game will do.
Curiously, this also places some psychological pressure on white.
A draw will leave him that half point ahead with greater choices of how to
approach the remaining games.
In essence, black needs to win this game, white will be very happy with a draw,
both outcomes cannot occur...
||
1. d4
| Our only post-millennium encounter at the BCA AGM Derby 2018 went: 1. Nf3 f5
2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d6 4. d4, which settled down into a mainline Leningrad Dutch,
this game was annotated in the May 2018 BCA Gazette.
Is there a reason for the change in the white move order?
Perhaps white is planning to swing for the Dutch Defence with a carefully
prepared offbeat line?
Only one way to find out...
||
1. ... f5
| Played without fear of any surprise rabbits being drawn out of the hat.
Black must be prepared for all those trappy sneak-lines which exist on move 2,
so any serious change in systems by white here should not be side-stepped, but
instead fought with all the experience of going Dutch on the tournament circuit
since about 1976.
||
2. Bf4
| Aha, no repetition of the mainline from 2018.
This is the London Opening, a nice little stand-alone system where white avoids
immediate interaction with black, instead preferring to get on with easy
development before settling down to middlegame fisticuffs.
||
2. ... Nf6
3. Nf3 g6
| Commiting to the Leningrad system.
The other systems are:
(A). The Classical involving, pawn e6, Be7, O-O, pawn d6, Nbd7, Qe8, and play
for some kingside initiative.
(B). The Stonewall involving, pawn e6, pawn d5, pawn c6, then either, Be7, or,
Bd6, with O-O, expecting to play across the width of the board, the serious
interactions usually postponed until both sides have completed development.
Both of these systems have been in the black repertoire over the decades, but
sadly memories of which offers good opportunities against a London set-up have
been lost with the passage of time.
So the Leningrad which offers the black dark square bishop the chance to
influence the game from g7 is chosen more or less by default.
||
4. h3
| A doubler.
Firstly, for defensive purposes, a flight square for the white f4 bishop is
created should black seek to exchange it off with, Nh5.
Secondly, for aggressive purposes, white now has the option of, pawn g4, to
start to break open the black kingside when appropriate.
||
4. ... Bg7
5. e3 O-O
6. c3
| Indicating this will be a pure London system, no transposition back into a
mainline which could have occurred had white chosen, 6. c4.
||
6. ... d6
| The, "Control-Count", over the e5 square must be equal in order for black to
successfully achieve the necessary central, pawn e5, break, the score now being
3 - 1 in favour of white.
Ideally, black will further fight for the e5 square with the b8 knight moving
to either c6 or d7, plus the queen transferring to the e-file, and if thought
necessary, perhaps, Nh5, to give the g7 bishop support for an eventual, pawn
e5.
This is the ideal situation, white is not going to let this happen without a
fight.
||
7. Qb3+
| Part of an aggressive development plan.
Instead the much calmer plan of, Nbd2, Bd3, O-O, either, Qe2, or, Qc2, all
designed to eventually force, pawn e4, is the more usual London system
strategy.
White only needs a draw from this game to maintain a healthy lead on the
tournament table.
So why is white aiming for an aggressive set-up when the standard plan gives
adequate play?
The best way to steer a game towards a draw is to play for an initiative,
permit tension to arise, and only at the right moment seek liquidation to
defuse the complications.
This strategy of course comes with some risks, but a little speculation leading
to small accumulations before cashing in should avoid the worst.
Instead simply going wood-chopping is a recipe for disaster.
Tempi are usually lost as pieces moved several times are replaced by a
developing opposing piece, leaving the opponent with a superior and significant
lead in development.
So the way to achieve a draw is to play for a slight edge and no more, and if
it takes 60 moves of being slightly better then so be it.
||
7. ... e6
| The annoying white queen check slows down the planned black, pawn e5, break.
An amusing disaster to be avoided was, 7. ... Kh8 8. Ng5 Qd7 9. Nf7+ Kg8 10.
Nh6+ Kh8 11. Qg8+ Rxg8 12. Nf7+ smothered mate.
The black e6 pawn cannot be ganged upon and the vacated e7 square is now
available to the black queen, so while white seems to be gaining, so is black.
||
8. Nbd2 Qe7
9. O-O-O
| There is nothing wrong with castling queenside as such, but perhaps preparing
with, 9. Be2, would have given white greater flexibility.
Black now has to choose between a couple of distinctly different plans.
||
9. ... Ne4
| Black chooses restraint over randomisation.
Instead heading for an all-out opposite wing attack by, hurling the queenside
pawns forward would be totally unpredictable, there are so many permutations on
each side of the board to take into account.
Yes, black is under pressure to win, but entering into mutual flailing when the
black kingside is already compromised while the white queenside seems secure is
far too committal at such an early stage in the game.
The black advance of, Ne4, attacks the white f2 pawn and seems to force a reply
which significantly changes the white kingside attacking options.
||
10. Nxe4
| Had white preceded queenside castling with, Be2, then white need not exchange
on e4 but instead have, Rdf1, to protect the f2 pawn.
The black reply is clearly forced and an important change in the pawn structure
will occur, there will no longer be a black pawn on f5, white will not be able
to attempt to lever the kingside open with, pawn g4.
Instead, 10. Bg3 Nxg3 11. fxg3, and the white kingside pawn formation will at
best only create a single fully-open file on the kingside, not enough to
trouble black seriously.
Moreover, black has chances to liquidate the doubled e6 pawn before any endgame
arises, can the same be said for the white g-pawns?
||
10. ... fxe4
| Doubled pawns should be weak, right?
Not necessarily.
Doubled pawns are only weak if they can be attacked, and the white minor pieces
will not be able to combine against either of them.
||
11. Nd2
| Venturing forward with, 11. Ng5 d5, seems to demand, 12. h4, to avoid losing
a piece to black, pawn h6, fine, but should black push, pawn h6, the white
knight retreats, Nh3, and has far less influence on the position.
||
11. ... d5
| White to play finds a, "Jekyll And Hyde", of a move.
||
12. Qb4
| White, happy to draw, offers an exchange of queens.
Black, under personal pressure to win, is obviously not going anywhere near
such a trade, right?
||
12. ... Qxb4
| As Cilla used to say: "Surprise, Surprise!"
How can black think of setting about winning an opposite wing attack middlegame
without queens on?
The answer is that black is no longer thinking in terms of launching an
opposite wing attack, so forget all those fancy ideas of flinging queenside
pawns up the board, this game is going to be sorted out one way or the other
with pieces and pawns in the centre.
And to kick off the process of accumulating small advantages from which greater
advantages might be gleaned, white has doubled b-pawns, nowhere near a decisive
disadvantage, but something for black to work on once the endgame looms on the
horizon.
So, white's Dr. Jekyll is the removal of queens, but Mr. Hyde points to a
queenside pawn mass likely to suffer on the mobility front.
||
13. cxb4 c6
14. Nb3
| A doubler.
Firstly, on b3 the knight can prod and probe at the black queenside pawns.
Secondly, when a unit moves it vacates the square for someone else, fine, but
who would wish to use d2 and why?
||
14. ... Nd7
| The black queenside unravelling begins.
The general plan is to push, pawn e5, if white retreats the f4 bishop then a
trade on d4 is needed, white is very unlikely to capture with, exd4, so e5 is
available for the d7 knight, which releases the c8 bishop, which in turn
releases the a8 rook.
The important question is can white disrupt this simple development plan?
||
15. Rd2
| The white rook gives a sideways defence to the f2 pawn, the f4 bishop is free
to move wherever it wishes, though at the moment it seems to have no obvious
plans.
The black development plan is revealed, but what is available to white?
The centre is locked, so white must be thinking of play on either flank, but
which?
Kingside play: Start with, Be2, and then find some way of opening lines with
the kingside pawns, perhaps pushing the h-pawn to h5, or challenging the centre
with, pawn f3, or pushing past with, pawn f4, leaving black wondering whether
to open it up or leave it closed.
Queenside play: Again begin with, Be2, shuffle, Kb1, vacating the c-file for,
Rc1, maybe also, Rdc2, aiming to push, pawn b5, and in all this ideas of
either, Nc5, or, Na5, need considering.
These are the general ideas, so where is the white theatre of action to be,
kingside or queenside?
Instead of defending with, 15. Rd2, there was the annoying, 15. Na5, to be
examined.
The idea is to cut across the black development plan, how is black to develop
the c8 bishop without losing the b7 pawn?
Also with a knight on a5, there are ideas of opening the queenside with, pawn
b5, doubling on the black c6 pawn, such positions seem favourable to white who
can take the c-file first.
||
15. ... e5
16. Bg3
| White retreats to over-protect the f2 pawn, now both the d2 rook and g3
bishop are free to move if required.
||
16. ... exd4
| Not only eliminating the doubled e-pawn but vacating the e5 square for the d7
knight, the black development plan is beginning to roll.
||
17. Nxd4 Ne5
| Both knights sit on central squares fighting over light squares in the enemy
camp.
The white knight on d4 will have the distinct advantage of the, "Knight Versus
Bishop Stand-Off", when black plays, Bd7.
||
18. Be2 Bd7
| The easy developing moves are all played, before either player commits their
inactive rook a decision must be made as to on which side of the board each
will seek an initiative.
White to play, now makes the decision for both players, though as it happens,
black has been hoping the game will be fought centre/kingside ever since queens
were traded.
||
19. Bxe5
| White commits to centre/kingside activity.
Trading bishop for knight in a position where the opponent can still open the
position for the bishop pair comes with some risk.
However, in favour of this trade, white eliminates a passive unit for the
well-placed black e5 knight.
The alternate plan was to shuffle, Kb1, then, Rc1, and push, pawn b5, however
black responds will leave a weak pawn to be targeted somewhere on the light
squares, either c6 or d5.
||
19. ... Bxe5
20. f4
| Continuing with the centre/kingside plan.
Instead advancing purely on the kingside with, 20. h4, and then, pawn h5, might
have proved a useful preliminary to both, pawn f4, and the previous, Bxe5,
minor piece exchange.
||
20. ... exf3
| Black is not letting white have the luxury of a mobile pawn majority on the
kingside.
||
21. gxf3
| White goes for pawn structure imbalance, the only way to break open the
kingside.
Instead, 21. Bxf3, stabilises the kingside but gives up all ideas of trying to
break through.
||
21. ... Bg7
| A doubler.
Firstly, the e-file and f-file are now open for black to mount pressure with
the rooks, whether the rooks are side-by-side or doubled on a file can be
sorted out once white shows some further commitment.
Secondly, on g7 the dark square bishop can flick to h6 to snipe at whatever
white has sitting on the h6 - c1 diagonal.
||
22. f4
| A move of mixed strategies.
Defensive rationale: White lessens the effect of black, Bh6, but now there are
4 targets on the h6 - c1 diagonal.
Attacking rationale: Given a few free moves, pawn h4 - h5, combined with
setting the pieces to organise, pawn f5, white will be ready to open up the
black king, fine, but will black really allow all this?
||
22. ... Rae8
| With the intention of simply doubling rooks on the e-file, white is going to
find pieces becoming effectively immobilised in order to defend the backward e3
pawn.
||
23. Nc2
| A sign that the earlier white decision to play centre/kingside with, 19.
Bxe5, was too optimistic, it is white who has ended up with targets to defend.
The white knight is now virtually sentenced to remain static on c2 if the e3
pawn is to receive sufficient defence.
When queens traded back on move 12, the game was transformed into a strategic
battle.
Units have now completed development and a middlegame plan initiated, before
the white knight retreated some simple tactics were in the air, as shown by:
(A). If, 23. Rd3 Bxd4 24. Rxd4 Rxe3, black wins a pawn and the white pawn
structure indicates a very difficult endgame ahead for white.
(B). Or if, 23. Rd3 Bxd4 24. exd4 Rxe2, white drops a piece for nothing.
||
23. ... Re7
| A doubler.
Firstly, options of doubling on either semi-open file become available to
black.
Secondly, the black d7 bishop is given a defence, not that it was particularly
endangered, but ignore the phrase, "Loose Pieces Cost Points!", at your peril.
Instead black must reject the greedy, 23. ... Bf5 24. Bg4Bxc2 25. Kxc2 Rxe3,
which wins a pawn but sets up a potential opposite bishop endgame.
If there are to be any piece exchanges, then swapping light bishops is
acceptable for black, or trading dark square bishop for the white knight is
similarly acceptable, but for the latter to be considered there must be some
strong positional gain achieved somewhere.
||
24. Bg4
| This is designed to allow white to lift, Rd3, giving a sideways defence to
the weak e3 pawn.
||
24. ... Bf5
| Clearly black is not going to make exchanges, 24. ... Bxg4 25. hxg4, which
would give white a far more comfortable pawn structure than occurs in game.
||
25. Bxf5
| Necessary if white is to play, Rd3, defending e3 without entering into a pin
up the e-file.
||
25. ... Rxf5
26. Rd3 Kf7
| Black chooses to keep options open and prepares to have a possible advantage
of the more active king.
Instead the dynamic but very committal, 26. ... d4, needed careful
consideration, the ideas run:
(A). If, 26. ... d4 27. Nxd4 Bxd4 28. Rxd4 Rxe3, when the white f4 and h3 pawns
are difficult to defend against the black threat of either, Rh5, or, Rf3, but
the black king might be exposed to a white rook invasion.
(B). Or if, 26. ... d4 27. Nxd4 Bxd4 28. exd4 Rxf4, black can use the kingside
pawn majority to create a passed pawn.
(C). Or if, 26. ... d4 27. exd4 Rxf4, and again white has the worse pawn
structure plus black has the kingside pawn majority to create a passed pawn.
(D). Or if, 26. ... d4 27. Re1 dxe3 28. Rdxe3 Rxe3 29. Rxe3 Rxf4, black has won
a pawn and has that kingside pawn majority with which to play.
These endings seem to offer black something with which to play, but pushing,
pawn d4, might lead to white selecting the line which gains some sort of rook
play up the d-file.
Black is of a mind that white should not be given any activity whatsoever, so a
different plan of ganging up on the white target pawns is decided upon.
||
27. a4
| White must make a move and getting the queenside pawns ready for action does
no real harm, however if trying to hang on in the hope black cannot find
anything then, 27. a3, will do.
||
27. ... Re4
| Another squeeze move.
If it turns out that, pawn d4, is the only means of making progress for black,
then both the e-file rook and king should first improve their positions.
||
28. Rb3
| The white b3 rook and c2 knight perform over-protections on the weak e3 and
b4 pawns, each can now move, but it is the c2 knight who is most in need of
activity.
White can accept the b3 rook being immobile on b3 for as long as it must do so,
but if the knight can get into the black position and leap around creating
distracting threats leading to disharmony, then white might hold the game.
Black to play has a unit not working as well as it might, more dark square
tension needs to be injected into the position, but how?
||
28. ... Bf6
| Black is still uncertain about pushing, pawn d4, and so instead tries a
little shuffling, just to see what response white makes.
||
29. Kd2
| White now has 3 protections on the backward e3 pawn, the b4 pawn is
doubly-protected, but the last weakness on h3 is still feeling uncomfortable.
Instead trying to prevent the forthcoming black plan with, 29. h4, allows black
to gangs up on it with, Kg7 - Kh6 - Kh5, and capturing with, Bxh4, followed by,
pawn h6, then, pawn g5, and black gets a passed pawn along with a lot of rook
activity.
||
29. ... g5
| It is probably too late now to break with, 29. ... d4, as white can flick in,
30. Kd3, tempoing the unprotected black e4 rook.
As black is now threatening to win a pawn by captures on f4, it seems the white
reply is forced, and all of a sudden the previously-static black pieces will
come to life.
||
30. fxg5
| Instead, 30. Rf1 gxf4 31. exf4 RRexf4, costs white a pawn with no decent
activity for the rooks in return.
||
30. ... Bxg5
| All black pieces are active while all white pieces are defending, even so,
matters are far from clear.
The removal of the white f4 pawn offers black ideas of invading with, Rf2+,
which does not actually win anything but does give white the continual headache
of having to cope with an opposing rook on the 2nd rank.
||
31. Re1
| This protects against a potential black, Rf2+, which will be blocked with,
Re2, but permits black a different gain.
Instead, 31. Ke2, seems to limit the black options, the king can advance to e5,
but then what?
Perhaps instead, 31. Ke2 Rff4, intending, Rh4, might give black something to
aim at.
But after, 31. Ke2 Rff4 32. Rf1 Rxf1 33. Kxf1, black cannot increase the
pressure on the various white weak points, black can shuffle around with the
pieces but might not be able to break into the white position.
||
31. ... Rf3
| Black can now win the white h3 pawn, white can only choose how to lose it.
||
32. Nd4
| Perhaps white realises the fight is essentially over, there will only be
suffering in trying to prolong proceedings, and so lobs in what the Grand
Masters call, "A 50% Move".
Aha, you ask: "What is this mysterious 50% move concept?"
Well, when faced with a miserable position, and masochism is not your favoured
vice, one can throw a bad move at your opponent, in the hope it will not be hit
with the refutation.
Here the white d4 knight backwardly hits the black f3 rook, and backward knight
captures are alleged to be the type of threat most likely to be overlooked.
How often do such 50% moves work?
Rarely, but the failure rate is not 100%, so why not make just one last roll of
the dice?
Instead, 32. Rh1 Reh4, picks off the stranded white h3 pawn leaving black with
connected kingside passed pawns.
||
32. ... Rxd4+
White resigns, 0-1
| The 50% Move has been refuted.
White is not interested in forcing a won ending for black with, 33. Ke2 Rxe3+
34. Rxe3 Bxe3 35. Kxe3 Re4+, leading to a simple winning king and pawn ending,
though, 35. ... Rxb4, would lead to black being 3 pawns up and similarly
winning.
Games where personal tournament pressure lead to differing aspirations are
difficult for both players.
White in, "Happy To Draw", mode, approached the opening correctly, seek an
initiative with options of active play.
However with the annotator's gift of 20 - 20 hindsight, perhaps playing on the
queenside with, pawn b5, and c-file activity would have led to black having to
defend somewhere on the light squares.
Black in, "Must Win", mode, selected an opening designed to create an active
middlegame, was surprised by white choosing to castle queenside, and rejected
the random nature of opposite wing attacks in favour of a strategic central
struggle.
Black had no obvious plan until white chose to play central / kingside, which
eventually led to white having to defend weaknesses.
So, just because kings go to opposite wings there is not an automatic need to
hurl pawns at the opposing monarch.
||
* * *
## Unannotated Game.
White: W. Armstrong, 142 (ECF).
Black: P. Benson, 158 (ECF).
Event: UK BCA Championship (Torquay) 2019.
Result: 0-1 in 32 moves.
Opening: London System versus Dutch Defence, A80.
1. d4 f5
2. Bf4 Nf6
3. Nf3 g6
4. h3 Bg7
5. e3 O-O
6. c3 d6
7. Qb3+ e6
8. Nbd2 Qe7
9. O-O-O Ne4
10. Nxe4 fxe4
11. Nd2 d5
12. Qb4 Qxb4
13. cxb4 c6
14. Nb3 Nd7
15. Rd2 e5
16. Bg3 exd4
17. Nxd4 Ne5
18. Be2 Bd7
19. Bxe5 Bxe5
20. f4 exf3
21. gxf3 Bg7
22. f4 Rae8
23. Nc2 Re7
24. Bg4 Bf5
25. Bxf5 Rxf5
26. Rd3 Kf7
27. a4 Re4
28. Rb3 Bf6
29. Kd2 g5
30. fxg5 Bxg5
31. Re1 Rf3
32. Nd4 Rxd4+
White resigns, 0-1
* * *
