|
|
 |
Round 4
Report
by John Saunders |
All four games played in Round 4 of the London Chess Classic
on 12 December 2009 ended in draws. They were all fighting
draws which were only concluded after full-blooded battles.
|
 |
|
|
The 400-seat auditorium was packed at the
start of play (14:00 GMT). |
|
In many ways the star of today’s round were the chess fans
themselves. They came in their droves. Tournament director
Malcolm Pein warned us to brace ourselves for a bumper crowd
on the Saturday and he wasn’t wrong. The first three days of
the congress were very well attended but the chess audience
today was awesome. The auditorium was packed with fans, as
was the commentary room, and it was just as well that the
organisers had thoughtfully planned further commentary in
the foyer of the Olympia Conference Centre as it was
definitely needed. Even more people were busy playing the
game. Blitz and rapidplays events were being played in the
foyer and a weekend tournament got underway besides the
festival events that started on Tuesday. As an old-timer who
has attended chess tournaments in England’s capital for more
than forty years, I’ve not seen anything quite like this
since the Fischer boom of the mid-1970s. In addition, we
were visited by some more continental chess organisers and
journalists and they were heard to comment in very
favourable terms about the variety of chess entertainments
available at Olympia.
|
 |
|
|
Kramnik and Adams busy while
photographers scurry around |
|
To the chess... Michael Adams has a pretty good record
against Vladimir Kramnik. They have met nearly 40 times over
the board (including blitz and less serious encounters) and
Adams is +1 overall. One of their most important meetings
was in the 1999 FIDE World Knock-Out Championship in Las
Vegas when Adams eliminated Kramnik in the quarter-final via
a rapidplay play-off. The following year Adams beat Kramnik
at the Russian’s favourite tournament, Dortmund, thereby
ending Kramnik’s 82-game unbeaten run which had lasted well
over a year. Adams beat him again in 2004 and 2005 and in
fact has not lost a significant game to him for more than
nine years. So Vladimir Kramnik would have been keen to take
his revenge. But Adams was in very good form today. Playing
Black, he gave up the two bishops and then a pawn to
neutralise the ex-world champion’s pressure and steered the
game towards a sterile opposite-coloured bishops endgame.
Admittedly, a draw was probably not what the big crowd
wanted to see but it was subtly played and a valuable lesson
in how to keep a formidable player at bay.
|
 |
|
|
Its nice to see a smile before
such a big game |
|
Appearances can be deceptive in chess. All the pieces other
than pawns disappeared from the board in McShane-Howell in
double quick time and I suppose some spectators might have
thought this was a cunning ruse to get the game over with
and agree a draw. But I think this is most unlikely. Most
experienced chessplayers know that a king and pawn endgame,
even with symmetrical pawn structures, can be a very
dangerous animal. One slip, or a faint positional weakness,
and it can be curtains. You don’t swap off your last minor
or major piece without doing a lot of checking and
double-checking in case there is some little nuance which
you may have overlooked. It was something of a gamble on
David Howell’s part as he had the disadvantage of a pair of
doubled pawns – just the sort of problem that can be fatal
in a king and pawn endgame – but it paid off. McShane probed
and prodded in expert fashion but Howell’s defence stood
firm.
Once again a lot of attention focused on Magnus Carlsen’s
game. The last time he met Hikaru Nakamura was in a
four-game rapidplay match in Oslo only two weeks ago, when
the American won 3-1 so that must have been in the back of
his mind. Carlsen played White and managed to isolate Hikaru
Nakamura’s e6 pawn but it transpired his position was not as
good as it appeared. Carlsen even found himself obliged to
surrender a pawn. The game came down a queen ending and
Carlsen secured a perpetual check.
Magnus Carlsen -
Hikaru Nakamura
Slav D17
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6
The Slav defence to the Queen's Gambit, which is currently
all the rage at super-GM level. One small positional detail
is that Black's light-squared bishop on c8 often has a bit
more scope than is the case in the Queen's Gambit Declined
after 2...e6.
3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4
At this highly sophisticated level, Black doesn't really
expect to retain his extra pawn, but White has to take
precautions with 5 a4 otherwise Black might well do so.
5...Bf5 6 Nh4
White doesn't want the bishop to have time to settle on the
b1–h7 diagonal with h7-h6 (allowing Bf5-h7), so he drives it
back at the first opportunity.
6...Bc8
Is Hikaru mimicking Magnus? You may remember Carlsen
retreating his bishops to their original squares against
Kramnik with powerful effect. But the answer to the question
posed is probably "no" – this is a standard retreat here.
Black figures that, since White has wasted a move putting
his knight on the edge of the board, he may as well put the
bishop back on c8 and relocate it somewhere more useful
after he has had the chance to kick the knight away from h4.
7 e3 e5 8 Bxc4
8 dxe5 is a bad idea: 8...Qxd1+ 9 Nxd1 (9 Kxd1 Ng4 10 Ke1
Nxe5 leaves Black a genuine pawn ahead) 9...Bb4+ 10 Bd2
Bxd2+ 11 Kxd2 Ne4+ and Black can follow up with Be6 and
claim a slight advantage.
8...exd4 9 exd4 Be7 10 0–0 0–0 11 Re1 Nd5 12 Nf3 Be6!?
Quite a standard looking developing move, but you can bet
your bottom dollar (or Norwegian krone) that both these
young fellows would have been delving deep into the
variations that follow White's next move.
13 Qb3
Now White is piling pressure along the a2-g8 diagonal as
well as threatening to take the b7 pawn.
13...Na6
Black has little option other than to play this. If 13...b6
14 a5! is strong. If Black continues unwarily, e.g. 14...b5?
15 Bxd5 Bxd5? 16 Nxd5, Black cannot capture on d5 with the
queen because then the e7 bishop would be lost.
14 Bd2
Most experienced players would think hard before daring to
play 14 Qxb7 as b-pawns are often laced with poison, but
leading diagnostician Dr Fritz seems to think that eating
this one would at worst only bring about a slight case of
indigestion and, at best, might even be quite nutritious:
14...Nab4 - it's never nice seeing the door slam shut behind
your queen, but let's look further - 15 Bxd5 cxd5 16 Bg5!?
and White's queen is not in any danger. Black may have some
compensation for the pawn in the shape of the two bishops. I
imagine Carlsen rejected this line because he wanted
something more tangible from the opening.
14...Nab4
14...Nac7 15 a5 Rb8, draw agreed, was Arkell-Gormally, 4NCL
1999, but such an eventuality was not an option for the
players of the current game.
15 Ne4 Bf5 16 Ne5 a5 17 Nc5!?
17 Rac1 is perhaps the more solid option but the text is
very challenging and might have led to a very good position
for White.
17...Bxc5
I suppose a second retreat to the original square with
17...Bc8 was not entirely out of the question here, but then
White would continue to build up pressure with 18 Re2, etc.
17...Nc2 gets horribly complex but after 18 Nxb7 Qc7 (there
may be slightly better alternatives) 19 Bxa5! Rxa5 20 Nxa5
Nxe1 21 Naxc6 White emerges with a winning advantage.
18 dxc5 Qc7
19 Bxb4?!
This looks as if it could be a misjudgement of the position
a little further along in the game. 19 Bxd5 Nxd5 20 Nc4
gives White a pleasant advantage.
19...Nxb4 20 Qf3 Be6! 21 Bxe6 fxe6 22 Qb3 Qe7
White has engineered an isolated pawn for Black on e6 but
now discovers that he cannot realistically exploit it.
23 Nf3 Nd5
The rock-solid knight on d5 seems to negate any positional
advantage that White might have thought he possessed.
24 Rac1 Rf4
Quite a nice square for the rook, thinking about Rb4, etc.
25 Ne5 Raf8 26 Nd3 Rd4 27 Rc4 Rxc4 28 Qxc4 Qf6 29 g3 Rd8 30
Kg2 Qf5 31 Nc1 Rf8
32.Qe2. Here White has to be careful. If 32.Re2??
to protect the f2 pawn, then 32...Ne3+!! would have won the
game for Black, since 33.fxe3 (33.Rxe3 Qxf2+ loses
rook and pawn for a knight) 33...Qf1 is mate.
32...Nc7 33.Nd3 Rd8 34.Ne5 Rd5. Black had
gradually turned the position round and now he is putting
intolerable pressure on White's very weak c-pawn.
35.Kg1 White decides to be bold and let the c-pawn
go for some activity
35...Rxc5 36 Nc4 Qf8 37 Rd1 Rd5 38 Rxd5 exd5
Black's main problem here was his time trouble but if he had
found 38...cxd5 he might have had some winning chances.
39 Qe5 dxc4 40 Qxc7 Qb4
The 40th move is reached with Black a pawn up, but White can
give perpetual check.
41 Qc8+ Kf7 42 Qf5+ Ke7 43 Qe5+ Kf7
43...Kd8 would allow 44 Qxg7 when White should be quite
safe.
44 Qf5+ Ke7 45 Qe5+ Kf7 ˝–˝
The players shared the daily best game prize of 1,000 euros.
The last game to finish was Nigel Short versus Ni Hua. Short
won a pawn in the early middlegame but lost his way and
couldn’t make anything of it, though the game went right
down to the last pawn.
Nigel Short -
Ni Hua
French Defence, Burn Variation C11
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 dxe4
The Burn Variation, so-called not because it is hot to the
touch, but because it was played in the 1890s by Amos Burn
(1848–1925), a very strong player from Yorkshire. Ceding the
centre in this way makes it slightly less challenging than
other moves such as 4...Bb4 or 4...Be7.
5 Nxe4 Nbd7 6 Nxf6+ Nxf6 7 c3 h6 8 Bh4 c5
8...Be7 and 9...0–0 seems normal. The text is a little
risky.
9 Bxf6
|
 |
|
|
Ni Hua during his game against
Nigel Short |
|
Back in 2001, in the first round of the Najdorf Memorial
tournament in Buenos Aires, Nigel Short continued 9 Qf3
against Viktor Korchnoi and the game continued 9...Be7 10
Bb5+ Nd7 11 Bxe7 Qxe7 12 Ne2 0–0 13 0–0 Nf6 14 Rfe1 Rd8 15
Rad1 Bd7, agreed drawn.
9...gxf6 10 Qf3
White plans 11 0–0–0 whilst keeping an eye on the pawns at
f6 and b7 and thinking about Bb5+.
10...cxd4
It has to be admitted that Ni Hua has the courage of his
convictions. This is really very bold.
11 Bb5+ Ke7
Black opts to put his king on a very uncomfortable square.
One major consolation for Black is that White has no
dark-squared bishop to exploit sensitive squares along the
a3-f8 diagonal of f6 but it is still problematic for him.
11...Bd7 12 Qxb7 Bxb5 13 Qxb5+ Qd7 14 Qxd7+ Kxd7 15 0–0–0
wins a pawn for White, though it may not be absolutely
conclusive.
12 Ne2 Qd5
Few competition players would contemplate 12...dxc3? since
13 Rd1 is the obvious retort, chasing the queen away and
threatening to use the open d-file to get at the boxed-in
black king. The text is more or less obligatory.
13 Qxd5 exd5 14 Nxd4 f5
Played in order to use f6 as a haven for the king, though it
doesn't do any favours for the c8 bishop which loses scope.
But king safety has to be the priority here.
15 0–0–0 Kf6
The opening phase is over and has not been a success for
Black. His pawn structure is poor and his two bishops as yet
undeveloped and with restricted options. White would be
quite confident of exploiting his chances here.
16 Ne2 Be6 17 Nf4 Rd8 18 Bc4 d4
This doesn't save the pawn, of course, but gives it up in a
way which improves Black's position somewhat.
19 Bxe6
One snag with 19 Nxe6 is that it would leave
opposite-coloured bishops on the board and improve Black's
chances of reaching a drawn endgame.
19...fxe6 20 Rxd4 Bc5 21 Rxd8 Rxd8 22 Nh3
White has gained a pawn but lost his momentum. Still, he
could hope to exploit his material advantage from here.
22...h5 23 Re1 e5 24 Re2 e4 25 Kc2 h4 26 f3 Re8 27 fxe4 fxe4
Around here, White started losing the thread of the game. In
the commentary room afterwards, Nigel Short was rather
disconsolate, but in an entertaining, self-deprecatory way.
He had some difficulty recalling what his thinking had been.
"Why did I play this?" (after one move he particularly
regretted) "Perhaps because I am stupid...".
28 b4?! Bd6
28...Bb6 would allow 29 c4 but after the text move White's
queenside pawn advance is stymied and he has to deal with
problems on the kingside as well.
29 Rf2+ Ke5 30 Ng1
Putting pieces on their original squares seems to be the
theme of the tournament. It reminds me in a strange way that
big-time tournament chess was "coming home" to the country
where such events started back in 1851. However, this
particular 'homecoming' move may not be the best. Short was
asked why he hadn't played 30 Ng5 here. He repeated the
question to himself: "Yes, why not Ng5...". The question
remained hanging in the air unanswered.
30...Rg8 31 g3
White surrenders his extra pawn. 31 Ne2 is a possibility,
since 31...e3 32 Rf7 Rxg2? can be answered very well by 33
Kd3 and White is better.
31...hxg3 32 hxg3 Rxg3 33 Ne2 Rf3 34 Rg2 Kd5 35 Nd4 Rh3 36
Nb5 Be5 37 Rd2+ Ke6 38 Nd4+ Bxd4 39 Rxd4 Rh2+ 40 Kb3 Re2
The position is now equal and could justifiably be agreed a
draw. However, there are a few pitfalls for the unwary.
41 a4 e3
This may be a slight inaccuracy since the pawn gets cut off
from its second defender and is soon lost. However, it is
not a critical error: even with two pawns against three,
they are all on the same side of the board and the position
drawn with best play.
42 Kc4 Ra2 43 a5 e2 44 Re4+ Kd6 45 Kd3 b6 46 axb6 axb6 47
Rxe2 Rxe2 48 Kxe2 b5 49 Kd2!
As I wrote elsewhere, the king and pawn endgame is a
dangerous animal. White's last move sets a deadly trap.
49...Ke6!
This is the only move to draw. If 49...Ke5?? 50 Ke3! and
White gains the 'opposition'. 49...Kc6?? 50 Ke3! also wins
for White. But you would expect most players with a rating
of, say, 2200 or above to figure out the correct defence. A
blunder in such a position by a 2600+ player would be a
major sensation.
50 Kd1 Kd5 51 Kc2 Kd6
Again, White hopes for 51...Kc4?? when 52 Kd2 Kd5 53 Kd3 Kc6
54 Ke4! would eventually win the b-pawn and the game.
52 Kd2 Ke6 53 Ke3 Ke5 54 Kd3 Kd5 55 c4+
By playing this, White concludes his winning attempts,
entertains the crowd a little and enables a draw to occur
naturally without recourse to the arbiter.
55...bxc4+ 56 Kc3 Kc6 57 Kxc4 Kb6 58 b5 Kb7 59 Kc5 Kc7 60
b6+ Kb7 61 Kb5 Kb8 62 Kc6 Kc8 63 b7+ Kb8 64 Kb6 Stalemate.
|
