Sunday 19 March 2017
White: K. Nevols (134) - Black: M. Bryant (141)
My previous game against this opponent (Game 7) had resulted in a bad defeat which had led to me questioning the wisdom of my 'comeback'. Fortunately, things have moved on and my form has improved - although this was my third game for Rochester and my score to date had been 0/2.
The game took place on a calm Sunday afternoon in Sittingbourne.
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 f5
The Ruy Lopez - Schliemann variation. My opponent told me afterwards that he did not know anything about this opening - well, that makes two of us - but I did recall that 4. d3 was considered to be a safe response.
4. d3
Apparently 4. ... Nf6 is best for Black with 5. Nc3 fxe4. I thought 4. .. fxe4 5. dxe4 d6 looked harmless.
4. ... d6
Now this begins to look like an upside-down-wrong-way-round Queens Gambit. I decided to just continue developing.
5. O-O f4?
But this is just a mistake. Knowing my opponent's fondness for pushing pawns all over the place, as he did against me last time, I thought he might be intending g5-g4. But I have time for a counter in the centre.
6. d4!
Undermining the f4 pawn, and threatening to win a pawn on e5. Black's best might now be 6. .. Qe7 to move off the d-file and defend the e5 pawn. If 7. d5 then 7. ... a6 so White might instead play 7. Nc3 continuing development.
6. ... Bd7
Now I studied 7. Bxc6 Bxc6 8. dxe5 dxe5 9. Nxe5 Qxd1 10. Rxd1 Bxe4 11. Re1 and that looked quite good (11. .. Bxc2 12. Ng6+ .. or 11. .. Nf6 12. Nd2).
But then I saw something stronger - the idea of playing Qh5. Black's knight was not yet on f6 and so this was an option.
Could I sacrifice the knight? No. 7. Nxe5? Nxe5 8. Qh5+ Ng6 just loses a piece.
Then I looked at 7. Bxc6 Bxc6 8. Nxe5? dxe5 9. Qh5+ Ke7 10. Qxe5+ but could not see anything after 10. .. Kf7 11. d5 Bd7 (although 12. Qxf4+ gathers a third pawn for the piece).
But I did not need to sacrifice. I went back to the earlier line with the modification of exchanging on e5 before swapping on c6.
7. dxe5 Nxe5??
This is a mistake. With 7. ... dxe5 Black is losing but still on the board.
My first thought was just to gather the booty with 8. Bxd7 Qxd7 9. Bxf4 - a clear pawn up with advantage.
But after 8. Nxe5 the follow-up move of Qh5-e5 really is a threat. I looked at 8. Nxe5 dxe5 9. Qh5+ Ke7 10. Qxe5+ and then taking on f4 would leave me two pawns up.
After checking Black's other option (8. ... Bxb5) I went for it.
8. Nxe5 Bxb5
Black told me he allowed this move because he said I would have too many pieces en prise - and indeed there are two at the moment.
9. Qh5+ g6
I had considered 9. .. Ke7 10. Ng6+ before realising that 10. Qf7 mate would be better.
10. Nxg6
If now 10. .. Nf6 then 11. Qxb5+ c6 12. Qxb7 hxg6 13. Qc6+ and I am three pawns up.
Or 10. .... hxg6 11. Qxh8 Bxf1 12. Qxg8 Ba6 13. Qxg6+ and I am two pawns up.
or 10. ... hxg6 11. Qxb5+ and 12. Qxb7 with two pawns up.
or 10. .. hxg6 11. Qxg6+ Kd7 12. Qf5+ Kc6 13. Qd5+ Kb6 14. Qd4+ c5 15. Qxh8 Bxf1 16. Qxg8 Bb5 17. Bxf4 and it is a three pawn lead.
Just as I was debating all the options - Black makes the final blunder.
10. .... Bxf1??
I guessed he expected 11. Nxh8+. But you cannot argue with checkmate.
11. Ne5+ Resigns
It is mate after 11. .. Ke7 12. Qf7++.
Rochester v Hastings
Keith Hyde (167) 0-1 Howard Tebbs (187)
Trefor Owens (167) 1-0 Paul Kelly (171)
Chris Marshall (143) 0-1 James Wheeler (151)
Keith Nevols (134) 1-0 Marc Bryant (141)
Jerry Pol (124) 0-1 Gary Wilson (137)
Tyrone Jefferies (116) 1-0 Jeremy Hudson (125)
Rochester 3-3 Hastings
No comments:
Post a Comment