This post was mostly typed when I originally shared this game. One of the problems with the posts I have published is that I rely too much for the opinion of the engine. This was typed in a way that is more concerned about what I think about the game, which quite often may be something different than what an engine would do in a given position. Also the diagrams I added are not from positions where a clear mistake was made by one of the players.
The game below was played on the third round of the Sarah's Mini Cooper Tournament (No 52). This win enabled me to finish on 2nd place in group 4 and that secured my place on round 4. Had this game ended in any other way, I would have been eliminated from the tournament. The group was won by erimus, who won all of his 8 games on this round. I was on second place with 4.5 points and a player called quequeg was third also with 4.5 points. Normally only two of the best players will advance from each group, but because we tied on points, both me and quequeg joined erimus on the next round, though not in the same group. My opponent in the game below Lordkeynes finished fourth in the group with 3 points. On round 4 I was 2nd in the final standings, but because the player who finished first had cheated, I was the first one from the group to advance to the final round. I ended up being 2nd in the final standings and got the custom trophy, which looked like a Mini Cooper! Erimus won the tournament with 7.5 points out of the possible 8, I gathered 6 points, the only two games I lost were against erimus.
The first critical moment in the game in my opinion came when my opponent played 8...Ng4. I needed to make a choice here, should I move the bishop or just ignore the threat to the bishop. I ignored it because if I move the bishop, then Qh4 stops me from castling. Even though the dark-squared bishop is my better bishop and the one that I would like to keep, I thought that moving it would be worse. I could have gone for 9.Qd2 and if my opponent takes the bishop with the knight, I could have kept my pawn structure intact by taking back with the queen. I did not go for that either, but instead castled and was okay with the possibility that my opponent could double my pawns. At least I would have had an open file to work with after that. For some reason Lordkeynes played 9...Bxc3 without me even needing to provoke that move with a3. I think trading the bishop to the knight is a mistake because I think it only helped me a bit. After I took back with my knight, Lordkeynes played d6 and protected his knight on g4 with the bishop. I am not sure if he considered to take on e3 at all, but I think he should have at least considered it. The reason for that is that I was able to move my bishop to d2 on the next move. I thought that my dark-squared bishop is too important to be traded off the board by the knight. With the move 12.g3 I intended to prevent the move Qh4, which might have been a bit annoying. Then on my 13th move I played Be2 because I wanted to improve the position of my bishop. At d3 it felt like a big pawn.
I think the game continued quite evenly, perhaps in my small advantage up to the move 19.Qd3. My opponent's next move I am not so sure about and it might be a mistake. Lordkeynes played 19...cxd5, which makes the d6-pawn very weak. If Lordkeynes had left the pawn to c6, then I might have continued with Rad1 and had ideas to take on c6 myself and try to add pressure to the d6-pawn until it crumbles. Maybe the best idea is to play 19...c5 and close the center because it would make it more difficult for me to make progress in the position. I might then play f4 at some point and try to open lines there. In the game continuation I should be on the better side of the board because the d6-pawn seems quite weak while I do not have similar weaknesses in my position. It was far from a clear path to victory at that point and Lordkeynes did have some play in the position even still. After 23...f5, I basically had to take on f5 or have a weak pawn on e4 after 23.f3 fxe4 24.fxe4. I also did not like the looks of 23.Qd3 f4, so I decided to take on f5. I would have liked to maintain a pawn on e4 in order to control d5 better, but unfortunately it was not possible.
After Lordkeynes played 24...Nxf5, I should have maybe played 25.Qd5+ and after the king moves play Bd2, because in the game continuation after 25.Rad1, Lordkeynes could have played Nxe3+ and the game would have been more even after that in my opinion. However, Lordkeynes played 25...Rcd8 that gave me time to play 26.Qd5+ Kh8 27.Bd2 and now I have better chances to pressure the pawn on d6, which I am able to take for free by playing 40.cxd6. I think one of the key mistakes of the game up to that point were 19...cxd5 and the fact that my opponent did not take the dark-squared bishop when he had the chance. I did not play the ramaining moves perfectly, I did mess up on move 47, for instance, I should have played 47.Rd5 instead of 47.Rdd3. It was not a huge mistake and I was able to make that move on my next move because my opponent was a bit tied up to defense and could not really do anything dangerous to me. After I won the second pawn, the game should be easy enough to win. However, the best way to win in my opinion was to play 52.Re3, even though it loses the d6-pawn. After the trade of rooks, I am able to get the h-pawn and be up two pawns once again. Admittedly there were some technical difficulties still to be had after that and only with carefully preventing any counterplay from my opponent was I able to get the full point.
No comments:
Post a Comment