Caro-Kann, Classical Variation
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
I have been playing the Panov-Botvinnik (3.cxd5 cxd5 4.c4) more often lately, but I lost to GV in the same tournament last year, albeit with colours reversed, and decided something more solid was in order.
3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3
An old favourite of mine is 5.Bd3!? Critical is 5...Qxd4 6.Nf3, after which Black's best is probably 6...Qd8, when 7.Qe2 gives White reasonable compensation.
5...Bg6 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qd3 e6 11.Bd2
This modest-looking development has become White's most-popular move, the idea being to prevent ...Qa5.
11...Ngf6 12.0-0-0 Qc7 13.Kb1 0-0-0 14.Ne4 Nxe4 15.Qxe4 Nf6 16.Qe5
Part of a plan to get the queens off. This may be an OK idea in itself, but does not fit well with spending a tempo on Kb1.
16...Bd6 17.Qa5 Qxa5
17...b6 18.Qa6+ Kb8 looks risky for Black.
18.Bxa5 b6 19.Bd2 Rd7 20.Be3!?
After the game, GF said this was very bad, but I do not think White has anything to fear from an exchange of Black knight for White bishop.
20...Ng4 21.c3 Rhd8 22.Kc2 c5 23.dxc5?!
This could have led to a difficult position for White. More solid was 23.Rh4 or Stockfish9's suggestion 23.Rde1.
 |
| Black to play his 23rd move and gain an advantage |
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
23...Nxe3+
The obvious reply, but better was 23...Bxc5!, when f2 is exposed as a weakness for White. Stockfish9 and Komodo9 give the main line as 24.Rxd7 Rxd7 25.Rh4 Nxe3+ 26.fxe3 Bxe3 27.Rg4 f5 28.Rg6, when Stockfish9 reckons White has almost full compensation for the pawn, but Komodo9 has Black as slightly better. I find it hard not to agree with Komodo9.
24.fxe3 Bxc5
At first glance, the coming ending might seem better for Black as he has bishop v knight in a position with unbalanced pawn majorities. But the key point is that Black will find it hard to generate a passed pawn from his restricted kingside majority.
25.e4 f6 26.Rxd7 Rxd7 27.Rd1
Rook and bishop usually work together better than rook and knight, so it seemed sensible to get all the majors off the board.
27...Rxd1 28.Kxd1 Kd7 29.Ke2 b5?!
Surely playing on the wrong side of the board.
30.Kd3 b4?
Very much the wrong idea, but I fail to exploit the mistake.
31.c4?
Generally it makes sense in this type of ending to leave the pawns of the player with the bishop on the same coloured squares as the bishop, but after the text it is difficult for White to make progress.
Instead there was a sure advantage in 31.cxb4 Bxb4 32.Kc4, when White can activate his majority while Black's is stymied, and Black cannot get at White's kingside pawns.
31...Kd6 32.b3 Bb6 33.Ke2 Bc5 34.Kd3 Bb6 35.Ke2
Interesting was 35.e5+!? fxe5?! 36.Ke4, when GV took some convincing that Black was totally lost after 36...Bd4?? 37.Nxd4.
I rejected it because of 35...Ke7, when I could not see how White would make progress and I was worried about putting a white pawn on a dark square. I was also worried that Black would somehow be able to make use of his kingside majority.
Looking at the position now, I feel I was fearing shadows, and so should have played on. Certainly, the engines reckon White is slightly better.
35...Bc5 ½-½
The result means I finished 30th on tiebreak with a score of +5=2-2, plus a one-point default bye, for a rating loss of 5.2 elo. It seems that later today at the prize-giving I should receive 85 euros - exactly the same as the entry fee.
No comments:
Post a Comment