I have entered the 65+, which starts on Monday with a compulsory double-round (no halfpoint byes allowed), followed by five 15:30 rounds over five days. All moves in 90 minutes, with a 30-second increment.
Saturday, 24 October 2026
Fenland Chess
AM making final preparations for traveling to Peterborough tomorrow for the English championships, which have 234 entries across eight events.
Friday, 23 October 2026
Adult Chess Improvement
I WAS asked earlier this week how I accounted for my Fide rating rising 300 points in five years, despite being in my 60s.
The facts are clear, as can be seen from these annual checkpoints.
October 2021: 1731
October 2022: 1764
October 2023: 1858
October 2024: 2013
October 2025: 1941
October 2026: 2035
To a certain extent, those numbers hide numerous fluctuations, but the general trend is clear - over five years I have gained an average of marginally over five points a month.
While looking for the causes, it is perhaps best to start with some likely suspects that, in my case, do not apply.
Retirement, for example, can result in players' ratings rising, at least temporarily, as they have more time to devote to chess, and no longer face games after a hard day's work.
However, I left my job in February 2016, and was no longer receiving freelance commissions after about a year, so work, or rather its absence, cannot take any of the credit.
Similarly, my homelife and most of my personal circumstances have hardly altered, so what has changed?
FIDE'S BOOST
In February 2024 my elo was 1766; a month later it was 1876, a rise of 110 points.
Part of this increase was due to my gaining a combined 27.4 points from two events: the Cambridge International Open and weekend three of the 4NCL.
The rest of the 'improvement' was due to Fide giving a one-off boost to ratings for everyone under 2000, to combat what was perceived as long-term deflation in the system.
TEETOTAL
I gave up alcohol in September 2024, one of the results being I have lost weight, which has almost certainly improved my stamina.
This does not explain rating rises before September 2024, but I was probably already, to some extent, cutting down on my drinking, before I took the final plunge to quit.
BEAU CHESS
Mikhail Botvinnik is credited with encouraging generations of players, including Garry Kasparov, to publish their games, complete with notes.
I know many club players (the elite do not have this option) try to keep their games secret.
A friend - I will call him 'Vic' - goes so far as to avoid those events where there is a reasonable chance his games will reach the databases.
This is arguably a futile exercise in that, despite his best endeavours, Vic has 103 games in ChessBase's 2026 Mega database.
On the other hand, there are very few players - maybe just me? - who go to the other extreme of publishing all their over-the-board encounters.
This obviously gives opponents ample opportunity to see what I play, and prepare accordingly, although I partly counteract this by employing a fairly wide variety of openings.
However, I believe the discipline of going through all my games with a thoroughness I would probably otherwise not undertake, has helped, and continues to help, my chess.
SENIORS
Most of my tournaments - certainly the more serious ones, ie those of at least seven rounds - are in age-restricted events, where the minimum age is at least 50 (actually, due to how Fide's regulations work, such tournaments often include 49-year-olds).
There is no doubt most seniors, especially those who play infrequently, are overrated, just as it is widely accepted many juniors are underrated.
However, it would be wrong to over-attribute my rating rise to this factor as I am also performing relatively well against a field of chessplayers not restricted by age.
Last season, for example, I played 30 times for my club, Battersea, achieving a performance rating of 2012, well above my actual rating in those games, which varied from 1889 to 1954 (these are ECF ratings, rather than Fide ones, but the point remains the same).
CORRESPONDENCE CHESS
I play at the Fide-recognised International Correspondence Chess Federation, mostly for various England teams.
Engines are allowed, and are widely employed, which means most games, but by no means all, are drawn.
However, I find it a useful (and enjoyable) exercise, even if perhaps the only major benefit for my over-the-board chess has been to eliminate, or at least decrease the frequency of, some of my wilder opening choices - the Albin Countergambit is not a paying proposition at correspondence.
PUZZLES
I used to virtually never look at chess studies, tactical-exercise positions, etc, although I did play over master games, trying to guess the next moves.
Numerous strong players recommend solving puzzles as a tried and tested road to improvement, and I have belatedly joined them, albeit in a somewhat modest and inconsistent way - but nevertheless better than my previous non-practice.
TEAM EVENTS
Playing for a team seems to bring out the best in my chess (as an example, see above in SENIORS).
I am unsure why this is, but it may be I play more responsibly when it is not just my tournament standing that is on the line.
My first seniors' team event was at the European championships in Dresden in 2022, where I played for England 3 in the 65+ tournament. My Fide was 1764, but I scored +5=4-0 for a tournament performance of 2082.
The following year I played at the European senior team championships in Poland (rated 1800, but performed 1914) and the world senior team championships in North Macedonia (rated 1850, but performed 1927).
Two years later, in Prague at the world 65+ team championships, I was rated 1896, but performed 1978.
The trend has continued this year, in Albania (rated 1908, performed 2147) and Crete (rated 2003, performed 2095).
Clearly, these five team events have contributed more than their fair share to raising my rating.
CHESSBASE
A software system, such as ChessBase, makes it much easier to prepare for opponents, especially when time is short.
ChessBase, with its associated Mega database, is not cheap, but it is good, and, although it is theoretically available to everyone, I get the impression that many players who are not native English or German speakers do not use it.
This is probably because, even if Czechs or Poles, for instance, are quite fluent speaking English as a second language, they are perhaps not comfortable with it as a written language.
What this means, in my opinion, is that such players with a rating of, for example, 1800, will be closer to 1700, or even lower, when it comes to playing the opening.
Correspondingly, they will be quite a bit higher than 1800 later in the game, so it is incumbent on players with a ChessBase-aided rating to gain as much of an advantage as possible in the opening - an advantage that will hopefully hold up in the middlegame.
I feel that, by playing reasonably sharply, and taking my opponents' tendencies into account, I am able to boost my rating when up against the non-ChessBase world.
CONCLUSION
There are many reasons why I have been able to raise my Fide 300 points in five years, probably including factors of which I am not aware.
Only time will tell whether I can continue this trend, or at least slow its reversal.
OR AM I FOOLING MYSELF?
Below is the checkpoint list from the top of this post, but with my English Chess Federation ratings added.
DATE FIDE ECF
October 2021: 1731 1979
October 2022: 1764 1952
October 2023: 1858 1820
October 2024: 2013 1968
October 2025: 1941 1889
October 2026: 2035 1944
As can be seen, far from rising over the past five years, my ECF has gone down, albeit perhaps not as sharply as might be expected for a pensioner.
It is also noticeable that my national rating has fluctuated much less than my international rating.
What all this means, is anyone's guess, but it is possible that most of what I have written above is nonsense ...
Thursday, 22 October 2026
Taking Stock
THANKS to a tip from Joe Skielnik, I have downloaded Stockfish19, which is apparently more than 40 elo stronger than its predecessor, and heads the rankings at computerchess.org.uk.
League Chess
PLAYED a junior (born 2013) on board one (of eight) for Battersea 2 against Charlton in London League Division Three last night.
*****
*****
Spanton (1944) - Oleg Verbytski (2291)
Sicilian Bb5(+)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e5 4.Nc3
More popular are 4.c3, 4.Bxc6 and especially 4.0-0.
4...Bd6!?
This has been played by grandmasters, but the main move in ChessBase's 2026 Mega database is 4...d6.
5.0-0 a6 6.Be2 Nf6 7.d3 0-0
 |
| Now both sides have castled, how would you assess the position? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
Black's dark-square bishop looks odd (not that the white king's bishop is particularly active), and there is a hole at d5, albeit covered by the black king's knight. However, Black has a grip on d4, and more space on the queenside. The game is equal, according to Stockfish18 and Dragon1.
8.Bg5
The engines suggest an apparent-novelty in 8.Nh4!?, one point being Black cannot reply 8...Nxe4?? as the dark-square bishop is hanging after 9.Nxe4.
8...Be7 9.Qd2
8...Be7 9.Qd2
The engines prefer 9.a4 or 9.Nd2!?
9...d6 10.h3 Be6 11.a3 h6 12.Bxf6!?
The engines prefer this over the known moves 12.Bh4 and 12.Be3.
12...Bxf6 13.Nd5 Bxd5!?
The engines agree with this decision to give up Black's better bishop.
14.exd5 Ne7 15.c4 Ng6 16.Kh2 b5 17.Rb1 bxc4!?
Another interesting decision, approved by the engines - Black straightens out White's pawn-structure, but frees the e pawn to advance.
18.dxc4
The engines prefer 18.g3!? or 18.Qc2!?, but agree Black has the upper hand.
18...e4 19.Ne1 Be5+ 20.g3 f5 21.f4 exf3 22.Nxf3 f4 23.g4 Nh4
The engines like 23...Bd4!?, one point being 24.Nxd4 cxd4 25.Qxd4?! Qg5 seems very good for Black, thanks to White's weakness on the kingside dark squares, eg 26.Bf3 Rae8 27.Rbe1 Qh4 28.Qg1 Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Ne5 30.Rf1 Nxc4. White should probably prefer 25.Bd3, but 25...Ne5 gives Black the upper hand, according to the engines.
24.b4?!
Probably better is 24.Nxe5 dxe5 25.Bd3, when White is equal (Stockfish18) or has just a slight disadvantage (Dragon1).
24...Nxf3+ 25.Bxf3?!
The engines prefer 25.Rxf3!?
25...Bd4 26.bxc5 Bxc5 27.Rb7?!
Attempting to gain counterplay, but it never appears, so probably better is 27.Be4 or 27.Qd3.
27...Qf6
 |
| How should White proceed? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
28.Re1?
The engines suggest 28.Rb3 or 28.Be4, but agree Black is positionally winning.
28...Qh4 29.Bg2
There is no defence.
29...Qg3+ 30.Kh1 f3 31.Rxg7+!? Kxg7 32.Re7+ Kg8 33.Qc3 0-1
Charlton won the match 5-3.
My Battersea Season 2026-7
DATE......EVENT...........................COL..RATING..OPP'S RATING..SCORE..SEASON PERF
29/9/26 Club Championship W 1953 1411 1 *
1/10/26 Central London League W 1942 2094 = 2094
5/10/26 London League B 1942 2042 = 2068
6/10/26 Club Championship B 1942 1541 1 +
8/10/26 Central London League B 1942 2240 = 2125
20/10/26 Club Championship B 1942 1765 1 2135
21/10/26 London League W 1944 2291 0 2086
*I am ignoring my win against a 1411 as it counts as an 1811 performance, which, unless I have a very bad season, would lower my season's rating performance, despite me winning.
+I am also ignoring my win against a 1541 as it counts as a 1941 performance, which, at least for now, would lower my season's rating performance, despite me winning.
Wednesday, 21 October 2026
Coming Soon ...
ADULT chess improvement is the holy grail many chessplayers strive for, but mostly in hope rather than expectation.
Consequently, a question posed in the comments section to Tuesday's post set me thinking, 'Paul H' asking how I accounted for raising my Fide rating "by I think 300 points 'at your age'."
He is quite right, in that my Fide in October 2021, when I was 64, was 1731, while five years later it is 2035, albeit set to fall after a disastrous outing in Mallorca.
It would be easy to give a glib off-the cuff reply, but I want to treat the question seriously, and I hope the answer will be of interest to a wider audience than myself and Paul H.
I hoped to post today, but I am rather busy today and tomorrow, so I plan to work out a considered reply and deliver it at Beau Chess on Friday.
Meanwhile, I received the following emailed comment from Joe Skielnik, who, unlike me, had a decent tournament in Mallorca, gaining 5.8 elo, finishing with a flourish by beating a player rated more than 100 points higher.
"Personally I would ignore ratings (if that is really possible for a chessplayer). I think it would be best to just consider the number of errors that one makes and their size relative to the computer's suggestion. One has to consider what might be causing the error, tiredness being one of the culprits."Joe likes the way chess.com categorises every move of a game, from 'brilliant' to 'blunder', taking in along the way 'inaccuracy', 'miss' and 'mistake', and several other fine gradings.
I do not use chess.com, so I am not sure exactly what each of these means, but I have reservations about accepting engine verdicts, certainly not without many caveats.
After, for example, 1.e4 e5, Stockfish18 and Dragon1 flash red at 2.f4, the starting point of the King's Gambit. In other words, they are declaring 2.f4 to be a mistake.
Yet, in ChessBase's 2026 Mega database, White scores 57% after 1.e4 e5 2.f4, which is considerably better than in most openings.
There are other problems, one being that the engines' current word on any given move is often far from being the final word.
It is not uncommon, for instance, when I go through old games of mine, that I find a move condemned at the time by Fritz, Junior or whichever engine I was then using, now gets a nod of approval from my modern engines.
Anyway, this post has somewhat veered from its starting point, and I will write no more now, but hope to have a lot more to say on Friday.
Championship Chess
PLAYED in the third qualifying round of Battersea's club championship last night.
*****
*****
*****
Paul Stokes (1765) - Spanton (1942)
Sicilian Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Be3!?
The most common move in ChessBase's 2026 Mega database is 5.Nf3, transposing into one of the mainlines of the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon. The text has been played by Carlsen and Grischuk, and is the top choice of Stockfish18 and Dragon1.
5...Nc6 6.Qd2 Bg7 7.f3 a6!?
Most popular in Mega26 are 7...d6 and especially 7...0-0!?
8.0-0-0 b5 9.Bh6
The engines suggest an apparent-novelty in 9.Nd5!?
9...Bxh6 10.Qxh6 d6
 |
| How would you assess the coming middlegame? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
Black's king is yet to find a castled home, and is unlikely to find one in the short or medium term, which means the black king's rook will probably be out of play for quite some time. On the other hand, it can be argued that Black's attack against the white king is further advanced than any pressure White has against the black king. The engines give White a slight edge.
11.Nge2
This is the engines' top choice, one point being 11.Nh3 can be met by 11...Bxh3.
11...Qa5 12.Kb1 Be6 13.Nf4 Rc8!?
Pierre Louis Pieri (2190) - Maxime Lagarde (2608), Quenza (Corsica) Rapid 2024, went 13...Ne5 14.Ncd5 Bxd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5, after which the engines reckon 16.exd5 would have given White the upper hand. The game saw 16.Rxd5 Qe1+ 17.Qc1 Qxc1+ 18.Kxc1 Kd7, with equal chances (0-1, 47 moves).
14.Nfd5
Martin Neugebauer (2462) - Tomáš Krak (2284), Slovak Team Championship 2019, continued 14.Bd3 Nb4 15.a3 Nxd3, with at least a slight edge for White, according to the engines (1-0, 36 moves), but they reckon Black would have been better after 15...Rxc3!? 16.axb4 (16.bxc3? Na2! 17.Nxe6 Qxa3) Qa2+ 17.Kc1 Qa1+ 18.Kd2 Qxb2.
The engines agree 14.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Bd3 gives White a slight edge.
14...Bxd5 15.exd5
The engines prefer 15.Nxd5.
15...Ne5
White can meet 15...Nb4?! with the simple 16.a3, when 16...Nxc2 17.Kxc2 Qa4+ does not seem to give Black enough after 18.Kc1.
16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.fxe4 Qa4 18.Bd3
 |
| How should Black proceed? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
18...Nxd3
It is a shame to give up a well-posted knight for such a miserable bishop, and it may be 18...b4!? is an improvement, eg 19.Rd2 f6!? 20.Be2 (20.Qg7 Kd7) Kf7, with at least a slight edge for Black, according to the engines.
19.cxd3 Qc2+ 20.Ka1 Qxg2 21.Qg7 Rf8 22.Qxh7 Rc2 23.Qg7
Not 23.Rc1? Rxb2!
23...Qh3 24.Kb1?!
The engines give 24.Rc1!? Qxd3, when best may be Stockfish18's 25.e5!? Qxd5!? 26.exd6 (26.Rxc2?? Qxh1+) Rxc1+ 27.Rxc1 Qd6!?, after which they reckon the vulnerability of Black's king gives White enough compensation for being two pawns down.
 |
| After 24.Kb1?!, what should Black play? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
24...Rxh2?!
Winning a pawn, but allowing White to swop his inactive rook for Black's active one, leaving White with queen and active rook against queen and passive rook. The engines give Black at least the upper hand after 24...Re2!
25.Rxh2 Qxh2 26.Rc1 Qh3 27.Qc3?
This lets Black activate the f8 rook by moving the king to (relative) safety. The engines give several moves as resulting in complete equality, including 27.Rc3 and 27.a3!?, eg 27.a3!? Qxd3+ 28.Ka2 Qh3 29.Rc7 Qg4! 30.e5!? Qf5! (30...Qh3? 31.e6) 31.exd6 exd6 32.Qd4 f6! 33.Qe3+ Qe5 34.Qh6!? Qxd5+ 35.Ka1 Kd8! 36.Rc1 Re8! 37.Qxg6, which is a complicated line, to say the least, but most of White's moves seem easier to find than Black's.
27...f6
The engines reckon Black is winning,
28.Qc6+ Kf7 29.Rc7 b4 0-1
30.Rb3 loses to Rc8, while 30.Rc1 Qxd3+ 31.Ka1 Qxe4 sees White drop too many pawns.
My Battersea Season 2026-7
DATE......EVENT...........................COL..RATING..OPP'S RATING..SCORE..SEASON PERF
29/9/26 Club Championship W 1953 1411 1 *
1/10/26 Central London League W 1942 2094 = 2094
5/10/26 London League B 1942 2042 = 2068
6/10/26 Club Championship B 1942 1541 1 +
8/10/26 Central London League B 1942 2240 = 2125
20/10/26 Club Championship B 1942 1765 1 2135
*I am ignoring my win against a 1411 as it counts as an 1811 performance, which, unless I have a very bad season, would lower my season's rating performance, despite me winning.
+I am also ignoring my win against a 1541 as it counts as a 1941 performance, which, at least for now, would lower my season's rating performance, despite me winning.
Tuesday, 20 October 2026
My Worst Ever Tournament?
 |
| Partly reconstructed charcoal-burners' hut from the days before electricity became widespread |
There are many ways to measure a player's performance in a tournament.
The simplest is to count the number of points scored, using the traditional chess scoring system of a point for a win, a halfpoint for a draw, and nothing for a loss.
By that method, my score at Calvià of four points out of nine (+2=4-3) may not sound so bad.
But, as we all know, it isn't the number of points that determines success or failure, but against whom those points are scored.
The best objective measure is not games won or lost, but rating points won or lost, and my loss of 63.6 Fide elo means I had a very bad tournament indeed.
To put a loss of 63.6 in perspective, it means my expected score at Calvià, based on the opposition I faced, was 7.18 points out of nine, ie 3.18 points more than I scored.
Two other objective ways of working out how well players did is to calculate their tournament performance rating (TPR), and to note where in the final table they finished, compared with where they were seeded.
My TPR at Calvià was 1730, according to ChessBase, or 1729, according to chess-results.com - either way, more than 300 points below my Fide rating of 2035.
I was seeded 29th, but finished tied for 78th-94th (89th on tiebreak).
There is a fourth objective method of measuring performance, and that is something I devised to keep track of how I perform in various openings.
This could be done by simply totalling wins, draws and losses, but as my basic points score at Calvià shows, this can be seriously misleading.
One could also work out a performance rating for each opening, but again this can be misleading, eg a season's performance at an average rating of 1900 is good if one's rating that season was in the 1800s, but bad if one's rating was nearer 2000.
My method, which consists of awarding merit and demerit points, keeps track of relative performance, and can be used for as many years as you want, without compromising the system.
I award myself, or, rather, the opening I use, a merit point if I beat someone higher rated, or draw with someone at least 160 elo higher.
Similarly, I charge the opening a demerit if I lose to someone lower rated, or draw with someone at least 160 elo lower.
[If you are wondering why 160, it is because, when I devised the system, most of my games were British Chess Federation graded, and the BCF issued three-figure grades, rather than four-figure ratings. I settled on 20 BCF as being the cut-off point for draws; at the time, that translated to 160 Fide elo.]
The system could be refined to give different values for white and black openings, and decisions have to be made about what to do with games where both players have the same rating, or, conversely, where one player has a higher international rating, and the opponent has a higher national rating.
I count games where players have identical ratings as double-jeopardy games, ie ones where both a merit and a demerit are possible.
But where players have conflicting ratings, ie one is higher internationally, the other nationally, my current practice is to say no merit/demerit is at stake.
At Calvià I faced nine lower-rated opponents. I lost to three of them, and my four draws were all against players rated more than 160 elo lower, so I suffered seven demerits, something I can never remember doing before.
For comparison, here are my results at other 'major' tournaments played this year, ie tournaments which consisted of at least seven rounds (I am ignoring weekenders, and also club and county games that are played over many weeks, rather than over consecutive days).
EVENT MONTH SCORE ELO MERIT/DEMERIT
Mariánské Lázně 50+ Jan +3=4-2 +8.8 Fide 1-1
Weimar 50+ Feb +2=3-2 -11.6 Fide 0-2
Bad Wörishofen 60+* Mar +4=1-4 -10.8 Fide 0-1World 65+ Teams (Durrës) Apr +6=1-2 +58.4 Fide 6-0
Bregenz 60+* May +3=1-3 -23.6 Fide 0-2
Bad Neuenahr 65+ May/Jun +6=1-2 +53.4 Fide 3-0
Bischofsgrün 55+ Jun +4=4-1 +34.4 Fide 2-0Magdeburg 65+ Jul +2=3-2 -36.4 Fide 0-2
British 65+ (Warwick U) Aug +3=2-2 -13.2 Fide^ 0-1
Czech 65+ (Olomouc) Aug +4=3-2 +7.2 Fide 0-2
European 65+ Teams (Crete) Aug/Sep +4=2-3 +19.4 Fide 3-0
Bad Bertrich 50+ Sep +5=3-1 +35.4 Fide 3-2
Calvià U2350 Oct +2=4-3 -63.6 Fide 0-7
*And women aged 55+.
^But gained 7.8 ECF.
Calvià is an outlier in every respect - it is my only major tournament this year in which I lost more games than I won; my loss of 63.6 Fide elo is 27.2 elo worse than any other tournament; my merit-demerit score of 0-7 is five demerits worse than any other tournament.
Calvià is also an outlier in another respect - it was my only major tournament this year (so far) which was not restricted to 'seniors', by which term Fide includes 50-year-olds (and 49-year-olds, if their 50th birthday is in the calendar year).
However, only one of my nine opponents at Calvià was a junior, so I can hardly blame a succession of underrated opponents as being behind my shockingly bad result.
Indeed, my one junior was almost certainly not underrated - at least, he had a bad event, losing 21.6 Fide elo, finishing 84th on tiebreak, against a seeding of 69th.
But there is another way in which Calvià is an outlier - the first seven rounds started at 20:00.
True, I was usually getting back to my hotel room before midnight, but I was going through my game, including writing it up for Beau Chess, before going to bed, which once did not happen until 02:40.
Almost every day I did not get up for breakfast until the alarm went off at 08:00, which is very unusual for me as, on those rare occasions when I do set an alarm, for example when I have a plane to catch, or am meeting someone early in the day, I nearly always wake up before it rings.
It is probably significant that the one night I got to bed before 10:30 (this was after round eight, which started at 15:30), I still nevertheless was woken by the alarm at 08:00.
In other words, although I did not fully realise it during the tournament, I was seriously tired, which may be why I was also eating more than usual - tiredness induces hunger.
I am not making excuses for my dismal performance at Calvià, but I am seeking an explanation, and I hope I have found it, as the cure for tiredness is pretty obvious.
Monday, 19 October 2026
'Famous Five'
SOME time this evening Beau Chess past the five-million hits mark, reaching - at the time of writing - 5,000,699.
As usual I make the caveat that I do not know how many of those views were by humans, and how many the result of bots.
But, by contrast, my other main blog, 10mm and all that!, has 430,623 hits, while Chess Tip Of The Day, which, admittedly has been running for a much shorter period, and is meant merely as a feeder for Beau Chess, however erratically the feed works, has a mere 29,522 hits.
Summing Up Mallorca
 |
| Private-hunting sign (white and black square, split diagonally), slowly being consumed by a tree |
Sunday, 18 October 2026
Calvià Round Nine
 |
| On the beach |
Spanton (2035) - Agata Trybuła (1769)
King's Gambit
1.e4 d6 2.f4!? e5!? 3.Nf3 Nd7!? 4.Bc4 Be7 5.0-0 Ngf6
 |
| How should White proceed? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
6.Nc3
Stockfish18 and Dragon1 reckons this is a position in which the fairly well-known combination 6.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 7.Ng5+ Kg8 (forced) 8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7 and 10.Nxa8 is good for White.
6...0-0 7.d4 exd4 8.Qxd4?
White should play 8.Nxd4.
 |
| How can Black refute White's last move? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
8...c6
White has no good answer to 8...d5!, threatening 9...Bc5.
9.Kh1 d5!?
Apparently a novelty, but a move too late to be winning.
10.exd5 Bc5 11.Qd3 Ng4?
The engines suggest capturing on d5 immediately (either way), or playing 11...b5, followed by 12...cxd5, but in each reckon White is slightly better.
12.Ne4?!
Even stronger is 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Ng5!?, when 13...Ndf6 runs into 14.Bxf7+! (14...Rxf7? 15.Qxd8+), so Black is obliged to play 13...Ngf6, when White is a sound pawn up and with the better position.
12...cxd5 13.Qxd5 Be3?
The engines suggest 13...Qc7 or 13...Qe7, but with at least the upper hand for White.
14.Qd3
Either knight to g5 may be stronger, but the engines agree the text is also winning.
14...Qb6 15.Qb3?!
Again a knight to g5 is strong.
15...Nc5 16.Nf6+??
The simple 16.Nxc5 leaves White with at least the upper hand.
16...gxf6
Also winning is 16...Qxf6.
17.Bxe3 Qxb3 18.axb3 Nxe3 19.Rf2
Not 19.Rfe1? Nxc2.
19...Nxc4 20.bxc4 Be6 21.b3 Rfd8 22.Re2 b6 23.Kg1 Bg4 24.Kf2 Ne6 25.h3!?
It is a sign of how dire White's position is, that the engines barely flash yellow at this move, never mind red.
25...Bxf3 26.gxf3
26.Kxf3 Nd4+.
26...Nxf4 27.Re7 a6 28.Rb7 Rd6 29.Rg1+ Kf8 30.h4?? 0-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)