PDA

View Full Version : Ford Memorial 2008



Adamski
04-11-2008, 11:14 PM
I don't have all the latest standings but it is noteworthy that Manly junior Alex Papp (6.5/8, currently under-rated at 1527) can come first equal with Norths' experienced Barak Atzmon-Simon (7.5/9, 2114 ACF) if he beats another Manly and Norths junior, Anton Smirnov, in their postponed game. Tonight was round 9 of 9 and Alex beat Ton Luchtmeijer (2081 ACF) and Barak beat Marek Baterowicz.

I don't have the full scores or cross-table but no doubt Bill will get them all before long from arbiter (and successful player in this event with 6.5/9) Norman Greenwood. I drew with Alex and beat Anton and ended up mid-field on 5.

Adamski
10-11-2008, 03:45 PM
The Ford Memorial Tournament (sponsored by norths) has been completed and congratulations to the joint winners Barak Atzmon-Simon* (2114) and Alex Papp (1527) each with 7.5 points.

* Winner of the Ford Memorial Trophy awarded to the norths chess club member achieving the highest score.

I'll see if I can work out how to post the standings tonight - though Bill might beat me to it as he is on the same email as I received from Norm.

Well done, Alex!

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2008, 05:51 PM
No Name Rtg Loc Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Atzmon-Simon, Barak 2169 2114 7.5 26:W 55:W 35:W 4:D 14:W 7:W 8:L 3:W 9:W
2 Papp, Alexander 1527 7.5 51:W 24:W 8:L 20:D 23:W 5:W 28:W 12:W 4:W
3 Hursky, Karel P 2013 2017 6.5 6:W 59:W 27:W 7:L 50:D 19:W 13:W 1:L 8:W
4 Luchtmeijer, Ton 2184 2081 6.5 48:W 36:W 29:W 1:D 12:D 35:W 7:D 8:W 2:L
5 Garner, Stephen J 1779 6.5 25:W 38:W 9:L 26:D 48:W 2:L 55:+ 13:W 14:W
6 Greenwood, Norman 1737 1491 6.5 3:L 57:W 17:D 24:W 18:W 36:W 20:W 19:W 37:L
7 Cook, Roger S 2217 2212 6 42:W 17:W 15:W 3:W 8:W 1:L 4:D 9:L 10:D
8 Chek, Adrian 2104 2006 6 30:W 37:W 2:W 21:W 7:L 12:W 1:W 4:L 3:L
9 Baterowicz, Mark 1698 1544 6 44:W 21:D 5:W 14:L 13:D 41:W 35:W 7:W 1:L
10 Rewais, Sarwat 1952 1827 6 16:D 13:W 12:L 25:W 46:L 26:W 24:W 23:+ 7:D
11 Bleicher, Horst 1832 1472 6 62:W 15:L 55:W 37:L 24:L 38:W 27:W 35:W 19:W
12 Wechsler, Ian B 1381 5.5 61:+ 33:D 10:W 22:W 4:D 8:L 50:+ 2:L 17:D
13 Griffin, Hamish 5.5 19:W 10:L 42:W 29:W 9:D 14:W 3:L 5:L 20:W
14 Liu, Steven Hern 1778 5.5 40:W 34:W 22:D 9:W 1:L 13:L 46:W 36:W 5:L
15 Kordahi, Nicholas 1900 1772 5.5 28:W 11:W 7:L 19:L 20:D 25:L 47:W 29:W 31:W
16 Cheung, Benjamin 1472 5.5 10:D 31:W 21:D 32:W 55:D 34:L 36:L 51:W 30:W
17 Sliwinski, Zdzislaw 1617 5.5 60:W 7:L 6:D 23:L 49:W 39:D 25:W 38:W 12:D
18 Pickering, Anthony 1942 1769 5.5 53:W 27:L 25:L 43:W 6:L 0:D 56:W 26:W 28:W
19 Wang, Oscar 1537 5 13:L 46:W 23:W 15:W 36:W 3:L 21:W 6:L 11:L
20 Adams, Jonathan 1579 5 22:L 45:W 28:W 2:D 15:D 29:W 6:L 21:+ 13:L
21 Easterbrook-Smith, Simon 2080 1861 5 47:W 9:D 16:D 8:L 22:W 46:W 19:L 20:- 23:W
22 Shan, Caroline 847 5 20:W 32:W 14:D 12:L 21:L 55:+ 30:L 25:D 47:W
23 Shan, Jin 1274 4.5 31:D 25:W 19:L 17:W 2:L 50:+ 37:W 10:- 21:L
24 Nalbandian, Sarkis 1734 4.5 43:W 2:L 26:D 6:L 11:W 27:W 10:L 30:- 46:W
25 Simmonds, Rex 1520 4.5 5:L 23:L 18:W 10:L 30:W 15:W 17:L 22:D 40:W
26 Pike, Robert D 1508 4.5 1:L 41:W 24:D 5:D 32:D 10:L 44:W 18:L 49:W
27 Tan, Chee 1534 4.5 33:W 18:W 3:L 36:L 40:W 24:L 11:L 37:W 32:D
28 Smirnov, Anton 1371 4.5 15:L 44:W 20:L 58:+ 34:W 37:W 2:L 0:D 18:L
29 Wan, Dennis 1950 1537 4.5 57:W 61:+ 4:L 13:L 51:W 20:L 39:W 15:L 34:D
30 Stern, David 1489 4.5 8:L 49:W 38:D 39:L 25:L 52:W 22:W 24:+ 16:L
31 Javor, Stephen 1636 4.5 23:D 16:L 49:D 46:L 39:D 40:W 42:W 34:W 15:L
32 Vowles, Justin 1743 4.5 45:W 22:L 47:D 16:L 26:D 33:- 33:W 46:W 27:D
33 Laurie, Robert 4.5 27:L 12:D 46:D 38:L 47:W 32:+ 32:L 42:D 48:W
34 Sparks, Chris J 1532 4.5 58:W 14:L 39:W 35:L 28:L 16:W 41:W 31:L 29:D
35 Glissan, Paul 1729 4 56:W 39:W 1:L 34:W 37:W 4:L 9:L 11:L 36:
36 Miller, Gordon 1588 4 54:W 4:L 51:W 27:W 19:L 6:L 16:W 14:L 35:
37 Low, Frank 1807 1575 4 52:W 8:L 43:W 11:W 35:L 28:L 23:L 27:L 6:W
38 Jennings, Andrew (Garry) 1263 4 46:L 5:L 30:D 33:W 45:W 11:L 48:W 17:L 42:D
39 Anderson, Michael 4 50:W 35:L 34:L 30:W 31:D 17:D 29:L 40:L 44:+
40 Roach, Owen 1458 4 14:L 54:W 59:W 50:L 27:L 31:L 43:W 39:W 25:L
41 Carden, Matthew 1267 4 55:L 26:L 44:W 59:+ 42:W 9:L 34:L 48:L 52:W
42 Pepping, John M 1522 4 7:L 53:W 13:L 47:W 41:L 51:W 31:L 33:D 38:D
43 Schuetz, Fred 1340 4 24:L 48:W 37:L 18:L 57:W 47:L 40:L 60:W 51:W
44 Davis, Alexander M 4 9:L 28:L 41:L 60:+ 52:W 49:W 26:L 53:W 39:-
45 Cook, David 1355 4 32:L 20:L 54:W 55:L 38:L 60:W 53:W 49:L 57:W
46 Tracey, Michael J 1425 3.5 38:W 19:L 33:D 31:W 10:W 21:L 14:L 32:L 24:L
47 Dibley, Shane E 1477 3.5 21:L 60:W 32:D 42:L 33:L 43:W 15:L 56:W 22:L
48 Johnson, Andrew 1500 3.5 4:L 43:L 60:W 52:W 5:L 56:D 38:L 41:W 33:L
49 Moxom, Bob 1234 3.5 59:L 30:L 31:D 53:W 17:L 44:L 57:W 45:W 26:L
50 Roberts, Curt 1545 3.5 39:L 56:W 58:W 40:W 3:D 23:- 12:- 0: 0:
51 Sike, Paul 1372 3 2:L 52:W 36:L 57:W 29:L 42:L 54:W 16:L 43:L
52 Palmer, Paul 763 3 37:L 51:L 56:W 48:L 44:L 30:L 60:+ 54:W 41:L
53 Waters, Mick 1366 3 18:L 42:L 57:L 49:L 60:+ 58:W 45:L 44:L 56:+
54 Bennett, George 1045 3 36:L 40:L 45:L 56:L 0:W 57:W 51:L 52:L 60:W
55 Tomas, Tom 1872 1629 2.5 41:W 1:L 11:L 45:W 16:D 22:- 5:- 0: 0:
56 Glerum, John 1275 2.5 35:L 50:L 52:L 54:W 58:W 48:D 18:L 47:L 53:-
57 Di-Ienno, Tim 2 29:L 6:L 53:W 51:L 43:L 54:L 49:L 0:W 45:L
58 Nalbandian, Edward 1 34:L 0:W 50:L 28:- 56:L 53:L 0: 0: 0:
59 Mejzini, Jack 1616 1 49:W 3:L 40:L 41:- 0: 0: 0: 0: 0:
60 Matthews, Greg 1248 0 17:L 47:L 48:L 44:- 53:- 45:L 52:- 43:L 54:L
61 Lepojevic, Zarko 1776 0 12:- 29:- 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0:
62 Muller, Henning 1986 1845 0 11:L 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0:

Adamski
10-11-2008, 09:03 PM
Thanks, Bill.
Can you PM me the way to do this? I had all Norman's files.
Ta again.

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2008, 09:11 PM
Thanks, Bill.
Can you PM me the way to do this? I had all Norman's files.
Ta again.Hit the quote button on my post and see what I did.

Or do you mean how do I get it out of SP.

Adamski
10-11-2008, 09:27 PM
Yes, I see now. Thanks. Deleted a temporary duplicate post. I know how to get the crosstables from SP.

Adamski
10-11-2008, 11:07 PM
Here is a typical Adamski game – I forgot my analysis on move 8, played some bad moves but was lucky enough to draw with a rapidly improving junior player, and later co-winner of the tournament.
Alex Papp - Jonathan Adams – Round 4.

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. g3 0-0 6. Bg2 d6 7. 0-0 Qe8 [a pattern I like] 8. b4 [not the commonest reply and I forgot my line] 8...e5?! [Better 8…Na6] 9. e3 [Can’t be best] 9...c6 10. Bb2 Nbd7 11. Rc1 h6 12. b5 Nb6 13. c5 Nc4 14. cxd6 Nxb2 15. Qb3+ Qe6 16. Qxb2 e4 17. Ne5 Ne8 18. bxc6 Nxd6 [typically fast – I know I should slow down] 19. cxb7 Bxb7 20. Qb3? [lets me off the hook] 20...Qxb3 21. axb3 Bxe5 22. dxe5 Nf7 23. e6 Ng5 24. Na4 Nxe6 25. Nc5 Nxc5= 26. Rxc5 Rfc8 27. Rfc1 Rxc5 28. Rxc5 Rd8 29. h4 Rd1+ 30. Kh2 Rd2 31. Rc7 Bd5 32. Rxa7 Bxb3 33. Kg1 1/2-1/2

Very open to others' comments on the game.

Adamski
10-11-2008, 11:55 PM
Ta to the person who beat me to putting the Papp game in PGN notation and good night/ morning to all.

kinderchocolate
11-11-2008, 07:33 PM
Norman Greenwood who had 6.5 played someone with only 3 points in the last round. How did that work out?

Adamski
11-11-2008, 11:58 PM
Norman Greenwood who had 6.5 played someone with only 3 points in the last round. How did that work out?There were a number of postponed games still when the last round was drawn. I recall Norman had one v Gordon Miller who was rated higher than him so given the point for purposes of the draw. Norman has already beaten me though - (Sprouty would be interested to know it was in this case my first blunder that proved fatal. before then I was fine. See Sprouty wise words thread.) And for reasons I don't know Norman's last round game was played early. But I will check with Norman by email and report back as it is a bit odd.

Trent Parker
12-11-2008, 07:18 AM
Its good to see a former chesschatter who left chess for a while back playing the game.

I doubt very much he'll be back here though!

ER
12-11-2008, 07:45 AM
Very open to others' comments on the game.

Good game Adamski! Actually, I liked Black's style in this game! Why people do not play this defence (1.d4 f5!) more frequently? Often, White is not prepared for its theoretical subtleties and Black can equalise and get the initiative with entertaining play! Adamski, is the Staunton Gambit a real antidote to 1...f5 according to the latest theory?
CAGLES

Kerry Stead
12-11-2008, 09:00 AM
Good game Adamski! Actually, I liked Black's style in this game! Why people do not play this defence (1.d4 f5!) more frequently? Often, White is not prepared for its theoretical subtleties and Black can equalise and get the initiative with entertaining play! Adamski, is the Staunton Gambit a real antidote to 1...f5 according to the latest theory?
CAGLES
You say latest like the Staunton Gambit is new ...
Of course if 2.e4 is the answer to 1...f5, then surely 2.e4 in response to 1...d5 must be even better!

Adamski
12-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Good game Adamski! Actually, I liked Black's style in this game! Why people do not play this defence (1.d4 f5!) more frequently? Often, White is not prepared for its theoretical subtleties and Black can equalise and get the initiative with entertaining play! Adamski, is the Staunton Gambit a real antidote to 1...f5 according to the latest theory?
CAGLESIf I get 2 e4 after my Dutch I take the pawn and hope for the best.:) But my book says it's not too big a worry for Black (though not refuted).

Adamski
12-11-2008, 09:37 AM
Its good to see a former chesschatter who left chess for a while back playing the game.

I doubt very much he'll be back here though!Who are you referring to, Trent?

Trent Parker
12-11-2008, 09:56 AM
I refer to Paul Sike.

Adamski
12-11-2008, 10:01 AM
My game with Nick Kordahi was also interesting but as I am submitting it (likely as a combined entry with Nick) for the best game + annotation prize, I will post it here but without any comments (when I get around to it of course- on both tacks).

Adamski
12-11-2008, 02:37 PM
After the prize-giving ceremony for the main event, the Ford Lightning was contested by 16 players. The winner was usual suspect Vladimir Smirnov with a picket fence over 9 rounds. Second was Karel Hursky, 3rd Barak Atzmon-Simon (prize moneyn ended at third) 4th Anton Smirnov, and 5th Jonathan Adams. I lost to the first, third and 4th place-getters. I don't recall the scores for 2nd and third but Anton had 6.5 and I had 5. Alex Papp did not play. He "took the money and ran" as he had a school exam today (and told me he had not studied enough for it!).

Adamski
12-11-2008, 11:33 PM
Norman Greenwood who had 6.5 played someone with only 3 points in the last round. How did that work out?The Round 9 game by Norman Greenwood and his opponent was played two weeks in advance (prior to Rounds 8) to assist his opponent who was leaving for overseas. At the time the game was played the scores achieved by the two players were similar as Norman Greenwood had a postponed Round 6 game to play which he subsequently won.

Rincewind
13-11-2008, 10:35 AM
The Round 9 game by Norman Greenwood and his opponent was played two weeks in advance (prior to Rounds 8) to assist his opponent who was leaving for overseas. At the time the game was played the scores achieved by the two players were similar as Norman Greenwood had a postponed Round 6 game to play which he subsequently won.

I've never heard of Swiss's being played out of order like this before. Is it something which happens a lot?

Adamski
13-11-2008, 10:41 AM
I've never heard of Swiss's being played out of order like this before. Is it something which happens a lot?Probably not - here there were special circumstances as a player had to go overseas at short notice. The arbiter felt it was right to accomodate him so he could still play his full complement of games.

Adamski
19-11-2008, 10:23 PM
My game with Nick Kordahi was also interesting but as I am submitting it (likely as a combined entry with Nick) for the best game + annotation prize, I will post it here but without any comments.
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.f4 e6 6.d3 Nge7 7.e5 d6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.Ne4 Qc7 10.c3 b6 11.Nf3 Bb7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qc2 Rad8 14.Be3 Rd7 15.Rfd1 Rfd8 16.Rac1 Nf5 17.Bf2 Ba6 18.Ne1 e5 19.Bh3 exf4 20.Bxf5 gxf5 21.Ng5 fxg3 22.Bxg3 f4 23.Bh4 Qd6 24.Rd2 Ne5 25.Ne4 Qe6 26.Bxd8 Rxd8 27.Ng5 Qf5 28.Rg2 f3 29.Rg3 Bxd3 30.Nxd3 Rxd3 31.Rf1 h6 32.Nxf3 Ng4 33.Ne1 Rxg3+ 34.hxg3 Qxf1+ 35.Kxf1 Ne3+ 36.Ke2 Nxc2 37.Nxc2 Be5 38.Kf3 Kg7 39.Ne3 h5 40.Ke4 Bb8 41.a4 Kf6 42.Nf5 Bc7 43.b4 cxb4 44.cxb4 Bb8 45.b5 Bc7 46.Nd4 Bxg3 47.Nc6 h4 48.Nxa7 h3 49.Kf3 h2 50.Kg2 Ke6 51.Nc6 Bc7 52.Nb4 Kd7 53.Nd5 Kd6 54.Nxb6 Bxb6 55.Kxh2 Kc5 56.Kg3 Kb4 57.Kf4 Kxa4 58.Kf5 Bd4 59.b6 Bxb6 60.Kf6 Draw agreed!

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2008, 12:28 PM
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.f4 e6 6.d3 Nge7 7.e5 d6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.Ne4 Qc7 10.c3 b6 11.Nf3 Bb7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qc2 Rad8 14.Be3 Rd7 15.Rfd1 Rfd8 16.Rac1 Nf5 17.Bf2 Ba6 18.Ne1 e5 19.Bh3 exf4 20.Bxf5 gxf5 21.Ng5 fxg3 22.Bxg3 f4 23.Bh4 Qd6 24.Rd2 Ne5 25.Ne4 Qe6 26.Bxd8 Rxd8 27.Ng5 Qf5 28.Rg2 f3 29.Rg3 Bxd3 30.Nxd3 Rxd3 31.Rf1 h6 32.Nxf3 Ng4 33.Ne1 Rxg3+ 34.hxg3 Qxf1+ 35.Kxf1 Ne3+ 36.Ke2 Nxc2 37.Nxc2 Be5 38.Kf3 Kg7 39.Ne3 h5 40.Ke4 Bb8 41.a4 Kf6 42.Nf5 Bc7 43.b4 cxb4 44.cxb4 Bb8 45.b5 Bc7 46.Nd4 Bxg3 47.Nc6 h4 48.Nxa7 h3 49.Kf3 h2 50.Kg2 Ke6 51.Nc6 Bc7 52.Nb4 Kd7 53.Nd5 Kd6 54.Nxb6 Bxb6 55.Kxh2 Kc5 56.Kg3 Kb4 57.Kf4 Kxa4 58.Kf5 Bd4 59.b6 Bxb6 60.Kf6 Draw agreed!
Interesting game, but Black spoiled a straightforward win in the endgame by 55... Ke5 and supporting a quick push of the f-pawn, since the B has an endless supply of tempo moves.

Adamski
25-11-2008, 11:59 AM
Interesting game, but Black spoiled a straightforward win in the endgame by 55... Ke5 and supporting a quick push of the f-pawn, since the B has an endless supply of tempo moves.Very true. I have a lot of comments on this game which I will in time post. In particular, note 32 Nxf3! should have won a pawn and (as I was already the exchange up) the game. Black’s reply is a blunder because I can play Qg2 and take advantage of the weak g file. Quite sure Black will lose a piece. But I thought 33 Ne1 looked good - not looking enough moves ahead to see Black's strong tactical response. I thought this won material due to the pin on Black’s Queen. I missed the nasty point with the N fork, shown in the game.

Adamski
04-12-2008, 06:08 AM
[Event "Ford Memorial"]
[Date "2008.09.30"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Jonathan Adams"]
[Black "Nick Kordahi"]
[ECO "B24"]
[WhiteElo "1572"]
[BlackElo "1772"]


1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. f4 e6 6. d3 Nge7 7. e5 [This was premature] 7...d6 [Black should have castled and reinforced the c5 pawn before he played this. He was just lucky he had some tactics to save the c5 pawn but after deeper analysis maybe not.] 8. exd6 Qxd6 9. Ne4 Qc7 10. c3 b6 11. Nf3 Bb7 12. O-O O-O 13. Qc2 Rad8 [Black now has the better of the opening due to White’s weak d pawn.] 14. Be3 Rd7 15. Rfd1 Rfd8 16. Rac1 Nf5 17. Bf2 Ba6 18. Ne1 e5 [I think this wasn’t the best. Black does have pressure on d3 but nothing really overly clear. It caught White by surprise though.] 19. Bh3 [This seemed the only reply and White thought the evaluation then was unclear as he could see Black’s advanced f pawn causing headaches but also White getting a nice K-side attack if he could get in d4 with a threat greater than just capturing the h pawn.] 19...exf4 20. Bxf5 gxf5 21. Ng5 fxg3 22. Bxg3 f4 [Encourages White’s Bishop to a good square]. 23. Bh4 Qd6 [23... ..Qe5 24 d4 Qe3+ 25 Bf2 meant problems for Black.] 24. Rd2 Ne5 [Was this best? Forces Black to sacrifice the exchange when perhaps he doesn't need to.] 25. Ne4 Qe6 26. Bxd8 Rxd8 27. Ng5? Qf5! [White had analysed this earlier but forgot the move was on when he moved! Now Black is winning.] 28. Rg2 f3 [28...Bb7! was stronger. Though I had missed the following nice tactic from 29...Bxd3! which netted Black a good pawn.] 29. Rg3 Bxd3 30. Nxd3 Rxd3 31. Rf1 h6 32. Nxf3! [This wins a pawn and because White is the exchange up should win the game.] 32...Ng4?! [This is a blunder because White can play Qg2 and take advantage of the weak g file. I am quite sure Black will lose a piece. But it gives White the chance to go wrong!] 33. Ne1? [White thought this won material due to the pin on Black’s Queen. He missed the nasty point, shown in the game.] 33...Rxg3+ 34. hxg3 Qxf1+ 35. Kxf1 Ne3+ 36. Ke2 Nxc2 37. Nxc2 Be5 [Black was now clearly winning but also very short of time.] 38. Kf3 Kg7 39. Ne3 h5 40. Ke4 Bb8 41. a4 Kf6 42. Nf5 Bc7 43. b4 cxb4 44. cxb4 Bb8 [The final endgame was a bit unusual. Initial reaction is to defend Black’s f pawn with Bishop and win White’s queenside pawns with the King but it is difficult because when Black takes the a pawn his Bishop is overworked as happened in the game. Correct thinking should be to hold the pawns with the Bishop and use the King to assist Black’s f pawn to promote. Play it like a king and pawn ending.] 45. b5 Bc7 46. Nd4 Bxg3 47. Nc6 h4 48. Nxa7 h3 49. Kf3 h2 50. Kg2 Ke6 51. Nc6 Bc7 52. Nb4 Kd7 53. Nd5 Kd6 54. Nxb6 [Did White have to play this? I thought if I didn't, in time I would run out of moves and one of Black’s pawns would eventually queen. I also thought, incorrectly, that with f pawn only and Black’s Bishop not the colour of queening square, I could draw. But as we noted later, Black could have played ...f6 and got his pawn immune from capture and won - if he had the time to see it of course.] 54...Bxb6 55. Kxh2 Kc5 [As Jono noted Black missed a straightforward win in the endgame by 55... Ke5 and supporting a quick push of the f-pawn, since the B has an endless supply of tempo moves.] 56. Kg3 Kb4? [This could be improved on as it’s only a draw for Black.] 57. Kf4 Kxa4 58. Kf5 Bd4 59. b6 Bxb6 60. Kf6

Draw agreed!
Thanks to Jono for telling me all Black moves following bracketed comments needed to be numbered.
For some reason this still won't work in the PGN interactive interface. Can someone tell me why?

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2008, 10:03 PM
[Event "Ford Memorial"]
[Date "2008.09.30"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Jonathan Adams"]

[ECO "B24"]
[WhiteElo "1572"]
[BlackElo "1772"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. f4 e6 6. d3 Nge7 7. e5 {This was premature} 7... d6 {Black should have castled and reinforced the c5 pawn before he played this. He was just lucky he had some tactics to save the c5 pawn but after deeper analysis maybe not.} 8. exd6 Qxd6 9. Ne4 Qc7 10. c3 b6 11. Nf3 Bb7 12. O-O O-O 13. Qc2 Rad8 {Black now has the better of the opening due to White’s weak d pawn.} 14. Be3 Rd7 15. Rfd1 Rfd8 16. Rac1 Nf5 17. Bf2 Ba6 18. Ne1 e5 {I think this wasn’t the best. Black does have pressure on d3 but nothing really overly clear. It caught White by surprise though. [B]It seems logical, bringing another piece to bear on the Pd3.} 19. Bh3 {This seemed the only reply and White thought the evaluation then was "unclear" as he could see Black’s advanced f pawn causing headaches but also White getting a nice K-side attack if he could get in d4 with a threat greater than just capturing the h pawn} 19...exf4 20. Bxf5 gxf5 21. Ng5 fxg3 22. Bxg3 f4? {Encourages White’s Bishop to a good square}. 23. Bh4 Qd6 {23... ..Qe5 24 d4 Qe3+ 25 Bf2 meant problems for Black.} 24. Rd2 Ne5 {Was this best? Forces Black to sacrifice the exchange when perhaps he doesn't need to. Maybe 24... Qg6 pinning the N and attacking the Pd3 which will be overwhelmed} 25. Ne4 Qe6 26. Bxd8 Rxd8 27. Ng5? Qf5! {White had analysed this earlier but forgot the move was on when he moved! Now Black is winning.} 28. Rg2 f3 {28...Bb7! was stronger. Though I had missed the following nice tactic from 29...Bxd3! which netted Black a good pawn.} 29. Rg3 Bxd3 30. Nxd3 Rxd3 31. Rf1 h6 32. Nxf3! {This wins a pawn and because White is the exchange up should win the game.} 32... Ng4?! {This is a blunder because White can play Qg2 and take advantage of the weak g file. I am quite sure Black will lose a piece.} 33. Ne1? {White thought this won material due to the pin on Black’s Queen. He missed the nasty point, shown in the game.} 33... Rxg3+ 34. hxg3 Qxf1+ 35. Kxf1 Ne3+ 36. Ke2 Nxc2 37. Nxc2 Be5 {Black was now clearly winning but also very short of time.} 38. Kf3 Kg7 39. Ne3 h5 40. Ke4 Bb8 41. a4 Kf6 42. Nf5 Bc7 43. b4 cxb4 44. cxb4 Bb8 {The final endgame was a bit unusual. Initial reaction is to defend Black’s f pawn with Bishop and win White’s queenside pawns with the King but it is difficult because when Black takes the a pawn his Bishop is overworked as happened in the game. Correct thinking should be to hold the pawns with the Bishop and use the King to assist Black’s f pawn to promote. Play it like a king and pawn ending.} 45. b5 Bc7 46. Nd4 Bxg3 47. Nc6 h4 48. Nxa7 h3 49. Kf3 h2 50. Kg2 Ke6 51. Nc6 Bc7 52. Nb4 Kd7 53. Nd5 Kd6 54. Nxb6 {Did White have to play this? I thought if I didn't, in time I would run out of moves and one of Black’s pawns would eventually queen. I also thought (incorrectly) that with f pawn only and Black’s Bishop not the colour of queening square, I could draw. But as we noted later, Black could have played ...f6 and got his pawn immune from capture and won (if he had the time to see it of course). White looks in a bad way anyway, but this seems to make Black's task easier.} 54 ...Bxb6 55. Kxh2 Kc5 {Black missed a straightforward win in the endgame by 55... Ke5 and supporting a quick push of the f-pawn, since the B has an endless supply of tempo moves.} 56. Kg3 Kb4? {This could be improved on as it’s only a draw for Black.} 57. Kf4 Kxa4 58. Kf5 Bd4 59. b6 Bxb6 60. Kf6 1/2-1/2

Adamski
05-12-2008, 04:38 AM
Thanks, again, Jono. So it seems I used the wrong sort of brackets? Noted for the future!

Good extra comments too. In summary, I was losing, then I was winning, then I was losing, and I finally drew!