C55 Two Knights: 4.d3, 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 and Max Lange Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 O-O 6.Bg5 d6 7.h3 Be6 8.Bb3)

This is just one of the many team match games I have played at Chess.com. The match was played between La Belle France and FIGHTING GLADIATORS on 19 boards. I played on board 2 for La Belle France and I managed to win both of my games against sadnadeem. The game below I actually won on time, but the other one I won when my opponent resigned. More importantly, our team won the match with a score of 25 - 13. Unlike usual, this game only has one clear moment where the the game goes down the drain for one of the players. For the first 18 moves, both players made reasonable moves, but then sadnadeem played 19.Ne3 and the downhill started for my opponent, from which he or she did not recover from.

Had sadnadeem played 19.N5h4, it would have basically prevented the move f5 in reply due to the continuation 20.Nxg6 fxe4 21.Nxf8 Rxf8 22.Rxe4 and I would have been down a pawn. In the game I continued with the move 19...f5 and took the initiative. Due to the fact that the knight blocked some squares from the rook, it only had two safe squares to go to, c4 and a4. Sadnadeem chose to move the rook to c4, which was the riskier square to land on, because the rook had a higher chance to run out of squares there than it would be at a4. I tried to trap the rook as best as I could and continued the game with 20...Qd6, in order to take the square c5 away from the rook and continue with b5, forcing the rook to go to c3, which would be the only safe square for it at that moment. In order to give the rook more options, sadnedeem should have replied by moving the rook to a4 on move 21, but instead my opponent played 21.Qe2 and the position was lost for White.

[Event "La Belle France vs FIGHTING GLADIATORS -"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2016.05.01"] [Round "?"] [White "sadnadeem"] [Black "Vierjoki, Timo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C55"] [WhiteElo "1758"] [BlackElo "1842"] [Annotator "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT (30s)"] [PlyCount "44"] [EventDate "2016.??.??"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. Bg5 d6 7. h3 Be6 (7... Kh8 8. c3 Ng8 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Re1 f5 11. Nbd2 f4 12. d4 Bd7 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 dxe5 15. Nf3 Nf6 16. Qb3 b5 17. Bf1 c5 18. Rad1 c4 19. Qc2 Bc6 20. b3 cxb3 21. axb3 Rad8 22. Rxd8 {Herczeg,T (2215)-Szlabey,G (2220) Balatonbereny 1993 1-0 (39)}) (7... Na5 8. Bb3 Nxb3 9. axb3 h6 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Nc3 c6 12. Re1 Be7 13. d4 Qc7 14. Qe2 Re8 15. dxe5 dxe5 16. Red1 a6 17. Qe3 Be6 18. Na4 Rad8 19. Nc5 Bc8 20. Qc3 Rxd1+ 21. Rxd1 b6 22. Nd3 {Herczeg,T (2097)-Ligart,T (2205) Hungary 2015 1-0 (94)}) 8. Bb3 $146 {C55 Two Knights: 4.d3, 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 and Max Lange Attack} (8. Nc3 Nd7 9. Qd2 Bxc4 10. dxc4 Nb6 11. b3 Nd4 12. Qe3 Nxf3+ 13. Qxf3 Bxg5 14. Nb1 Qf6 15. Nd2 Qxf3 16. Nxf3 Bh6 17. Nh4 Nd7 18. Nf5 Bg5 19. Rae1 g6 20. Ng3 Nc5 21. Re3 Bxe3 22. fxe3 f6 {Szabo,E-Michalovova,M Slovakia 2003 0-1}) (8. Nbd2 Qd7 9. Nh4 h6 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Qh5 Nd4 12. c3 Ne2+ 13. Qxe2 Bxh4 14. f4 exf4 15. Rxf4 Bg5 16. Rf2 Bxd2 17. Qxd2 Bxc4 18. dxc4 Qe6 19. Qd5 Qxd5 20. cxd5 Rae8 21. Re1 Re5 22. Rf5 {1/2-1/2 (22) Glodowski,M (1793) -Haack,S (1775) Hamburg 2010}) (8. Bxe6 fxe6 9. c3 h6 10. Be3 d5 11. Qe2 d4 12. cxd4 exd4 13. Bd2 e5 14. Na3 Bxa3 15. bxa3 Qd6 16. Rfb1 Rab8 17. Rb3 a5 18. Rb5 b6 19. a4 Nd7 20. Nh4 Qf6 21. Nf5 Ne7 22. Nxe7+ Qxe7 {Gousseinov,A (2080) -Infantino,T (1880) Metz 2005 1-0 (48)}) 8... d5 9. Nc3 dxe4 (9... d4 10. Ne2 $11) 10. Nxe4 (10. dxe4 $5 {should be examined more closely} Rb8 11. Re1 $14) 10... Bxb3 $11 11. axb3 Nd5 12. Re1 Bxg5 13. Nfxg5 h6 14. Nf3 Nf4 15. Ng3 Qd5 16. Ra4 Ng6 (16... f5 17. h4 $15) 17. Rae4 (17. Nf5 Qd7 18. N5h4 Nxh4 19. Rxh4 f6 $11) 17... Rad8 (17... f5 18. R4e2 $15) 18. Nf5 $11 Qd7 {Black threatens to win material: Qd7xf5} 19. Ne3 (19. N5h4 $142 $5 {must definitely be considered} Nxh4 20. Rxh4 $11) 19... f5 $17 20. Rc4 Qd6 21. Qe2 $2 (21. Ra4 $142 $5 $17) 21... b5 $19 22. Rc3 Nd4 (22... Nd4 23. Qd1 c5 $19) 0-1

Hmm, it is interesting to me that the game below did not appear as one of the reference games when I analysed my game. In the notation there is a N after 8.Bb3 to mark it as a novelty, which does not seem to be the case at all. This should have been in my database back when I did a full analysis to my game, so I am not sure how the reference games are determined that analysis. I actually found other games that had reached the position after 8.Bb3 in that same database, but I am not adding them here since the ratings of the players are not shown or they were quite low.

[Event "Techirghiol op"] [Site "Techirghiol"] [Date "1999.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Leaua, Cristinel"] [Black "Moscaliuc, Alexandru"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C55"] [BlackElo "2231"] [PlyCount "103"] [EventDate "1999.??.??"] [EventType "swiss"] [EventRounds "9"] [EventCountry "ROU"] [SourceTitle "EXT 2004"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2003.11.25"] 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 Nc6 7. h3 Be6 8. Bg5 Qe8 9. c3 Rd8 10. Bxe6 fxe6 11. Qb3 Qd7 12. Nbd2 Rb8 13. Rad1 Nh5 14. g3 Bxg5 15. Nxg5 Rf6 16. Rde1 Rg6 17. h4 h6 18. Qd1 Nxg3 19. fxg3 hxg5 20. Qh5 Rh6 21. Qxg5 Ne7 22. Qe3 a5 23. Nf3 Rf8 24. Ng5 Rhf6 25. Qe2 Qe8 26. d4 exd4 27. cxd4 Nc6 28. Rxf6 gxf6 29. Nf3 Qg6 30. Kh2 f5 31. e5 d5 32. a3 Qg4 33. Qe3 f4 34. gxf4 Qxf4+ 35. Qxf4 Rxf4 36. Kg3 Re4 37. Rxe4 dxe4 38. Ng5 Nxd4 39. Nxe4 Nf5+ 40. Kg4 Ne3+ 41. Kg5 Kf7 42. h5 Nc4 43. Kf4 Nxb2 44. Ng5+ Kg7 45. Nxe6+ Kh6 46. Nxc7 Kxh5 47. Kf5 Nc4 48. e6 Nd6+ 49. Ke5 Nc8 50. Kf6 Kg4 51. e7 Nd6 52. Nb5 1-0