Losing Objectivity

GRANDMASTER David Bronstein warned that "losing your objectivity almost always means losing the game."
I was reminded of his words during my round-three game from the 50+ seniors at the British Chess Championships.

White to make his 22nd move in Stephen Dilleigh (2000/182) - Spanton (1900/168)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
I felt my bishop-pair gave serious winning chances. But White's space advantage and Black's weak queenside pawns outweigh the bishops - so much so that the analysis engine Stockfish10 reckons White has the upper hand. Komodo9 also favours White, but only by about a half-pawn.
22.Ke2 Bc7 23.Kd3 Ke7 24.h3 Kd6 25.b4 g6?!
If I had assessed the position correctly, I would have grabbed my fair share of space in the centre with 25...e5.
26.e5+!?
This looks like White's best chance for an advantage. I had considered it, but did not realise what a precarious state it left me in.
26...Ke7
Black is close to losing after 26...fxe5?!, when both 27.Ke4 and 27.Ng5 seem promising.
27.Ke4
SD explained in the postmortem that he played this to provoke my reply.
27...f5+!?
Once this has been played on the board, Komodo9 comes to like it, but Stockfish10 prefers 27...h6 or 27...Bb8.
28.Kd4 h6 29.Nd2 g5 30.g4 Bd7
Giving up the bishop-pair, but by now even I realised the bishops give Black no advantage as they are so restricted.
31.Bxd7 Kxd7 32.b5 Ke7?
It looks like this should lose. Better was 32...fxg4 33.hxg4 Ke7, when it is not clear that White can make progress.
33.Nc4?
Missing his chance. White is almost certainly winning after 33.gxf5 exf5 34.Kd5. I believe SD was worried about 34...h5, but the engines give 35.Nf1!, eg 35...g4 36.hxg4 fxg4 37.Ng3 h4 38.Nf5+ etc.
33...f4 34.a4 Kd7 35.f3 Ke7 36.Nd2
SD spent quite some time looking at 36.a5? bxa5 37.b6? (37.Kc5 may hold) Bd8 38.Kc5, but 38...a4 wins for Black, eg 39.Kb4 Kd7 40.Kxa4 Kc6 etc, or 39.Kb5 Kd7 40.Na3 Be7.
36...Kd7
The engines reckon White is still much better, but the position is drawn.
The remaining moves were:
37.Ne4 Ke7 38.Nf6 Ke7 39.Ke4 Bd8 40.Nh5 Be7 41.Kd3 Bd8 42. Ke4 ½–½

How The Openings Got Their Names - Mar Del Plata

FELLOW Battersea Chess Club member Joe Skielnik returned earlier this month from a tournament in Spain where a mutual friend "had a couple of games on the white side of the King's Indian, Mar del Plata Variation."
Joe asks: "It appears it was first played in Najdorf v Gligoric, 1953, in Mar del Plata. However, I thought it might have had something to do with the carnage arising from the Battle of the River Plate in 1939, which sometimes appears similar to what happens on the chessboard in this line.
"Unfortunately I can find no connection, so only a mysterious coincidence?"
The Mar del Plata Variation is an important line of the King's Indian that arises after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8. d5 Ne7.

Starting tabiya of the Mar del Plata

There are more than 3,000 games with this position in ChessBase's 2019 Mega database, and the Mar del Plata is important enough to get its own chapter - the first - in Robert Bellin & Pietro Ponzetto's classic Mastering The King's Indian With The Read And Play Method (Batsford, 1990).
The variation is named after a tournament held in 1953 in the Argentine coastal resort of  Mar del Plata, where Gligoric used the black side of the variation to beat Najdorf and Eliskases, and Najdorf was later held to a draw in the same variation by Trifunovic.
But the moves had been known since the 1920s at least, becoming suddenly fashionable in 1952 when it was played at the olympiad in Helsinki and in the Soviet and Hungarian championships.
At first the variation did not do well for Black - Taimanov with the white pieces beat both Aronin and Bronstein in the 1952 Soviet championship.
It was Black's success with the variation in Argentina that gained it the name Mar del Plata (the name of the city literally translates from Spanish as Sea of Silver, but in this case Plata refers to the country's Plata region rather than directly to silver or the River Plate - Rio de la Plata in Spanish).
Here is one of the variation's less-successful outings.
Ivan Nemet (GM2412) - Spanton (2250*)
Simul, Villars-sur-Ollon, 2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1
This was White's response from the earliest days of the variation, although its popularity has been challenged by 9.b4. The idea of both moves is to press on with c5 (after Nd3 or Be3 in the case of 9.Ne1) and to attack on the queenside before Black can organise a mating attack on the kingside.
9...Nd7 10.Be3
This has become more popular than the immediate Nd3.
10...f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Rc1 h5 14.c5 Nf6?
Correct was 14...Nxc5, and if 15.b4, the move I was worried about, then 15...Na6. Black need not fear 16.Bxa6?! bxa6 as Black's kingside attack is enhanced by the absence of White's light-square bishop.
15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Nb5 Ne8 17.Nxa7 Kh8
17...Bd7 was played in Stefan Docx (2384) - Slavisa Brenjo (2495), European Championship 2009, but 18.Qb3 Ng6 19.Qxb7 Rb8 20.Nc6 stopped Black getting a strong-enough attack to compensate for his disappeared queenside (1-0, 37 moves).
18.Nxc8 Rxc8 19.Rxc8 Qxc8 20.Nd3 Rg8 21.Kh1 Bf8 22.Qc1 Qd7 23.Qc3 g4??
A blunder, but Black's kingside attack is getting nowhere anyway.
The remaining moves were:
24.Nxf4 Nf6 25.Ne6 gxf3? 26.Qxf3 Ng4? 27.Nxf8 1-0
*My Swiss rating at the time.

Play The Board, Not The Man

TURNING down a draw offer when your position is slightly inferior can sometimes be justified.
But playing on when you think you are much worse requires exceptional optimism or massive arrogance, or an unhealthy combination of both.
But then I have always been a glass-half-empty person when it comes to draws, regarding them as closer to losses than to wins.
This is true in most football leagues and a few chess tournaments, where it is 3pts for a win and 1pt for a draw, but it is certainly not the case at the Jersey Open.

White has just played 16.Qc2-b3 and offered a draw in Victor Rumsey (1858) - Spanton (1914), round five

The game continued:
16...g5?
I am pretty sure it was Bronstein who said that to lose one's objectivity at the board was to almost invariably lose the game.
17.Bb1 g4 18.Ne5 Qd6 19.Nd3 Qd7 20.Ne2 a5?
If I had seriously asked myself, 'Whose king is in greater danger?', I would have surely played 20...Qd5, which would have forced queens off thanks to Black's threats along the long light-square diagonal.
21.Ne5 Qd6 22.bxa5 Nax5 23.Qxb5 Ba6?
Again it was better to get queens off, even though a pawn down.
24.Qxa5 Bxe2 25.Rd2 Ba6??
A blunder in an already-lost position.
26.Rc6 (1-0, 42 moves)