PDA

View Full Version : Tparker at the NSW Champs (U1600 division)



Trent Parker
30-08-2004, 02:05 AM
I'm going to post my games from the NSW Champs U1600 here. Comments and analysis welcome. :D

Event: NSW Champs U1600
Site: ?
Date: ????.??.??
Round: ?
White: Kresinger, F.
Black: Parker, T.
Result: 1-0
ECO: D05
Annotator: TP
PlyCount: 127

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 Bd6 5. Nbd2 Nbd7 6. O-O b6 7. Bb5 a6 8. Bc6
Rb8 9. Ne5 O-O 10. Bxd7 Bxd7 11. c4 dxc4 12. Ndxc4 Bb5 13. Qc2 Nd7 14. Nxd6
cxd6 15. Nd3 Rc8 16. Qd2 d5 17. b3 Nf6 18. f3 Re8 19. a4 Bc6 20. Ba3 b5 21. Bc5
Nd7 22. Rfc1 e5 23. dxe5 Nxe5 24. Nf4 Qg5 25. Qf2 d4 26. Qg3 Qxg3 27. hxg3 dxe3
28. Ne2 ({If} 28. Bxe3 Nxf3+ 29. gxf3 Rxe3 {I thought but fritz tells me...}
30. axb5 axb5 31. Rxc6) 28... Nd3 29. Rc3 Nxc5 30. Rxc5 bxa4 31. bxa4 Bb7 32.
Rac1 g6 33. Kf1 Rcd8 34. Rc7 Bc8 35. Ra7 Be6 {being sneaky} 36. Ke1 ({If} 36.
Rxa6 Bc4 37. Rxc4 Rd1#) 36... Rd2 37. Rxa6 Red8 38. Nf4 Bb3 39. Rc3 {
Here i thought i had a forced mate with....} 39... Rd1+ 40. Ke2 R8d2+ 41. Kxe3
Rb2 (41... Re1+ 42. Ne2 Rexe2+ 43. Kf4 Rd4+ 44. Kg5 Re5+ 45. Kh6 Rh5# {
but there are 2 flaws 1 the rook is en prise and 2 the king can go to f6}) 42.
Nd3 Rbb1 43. a5 Ba4 44. Rb6 Rxb6 45. axb6 Rb1 46. Nc5 Be8 47. Rb3 Rxb3+ 48.
Nxb3 Bc6 49. Na5 Ba8 50. b7 Bxb7 51. Nxb7 Kg7 52. Kf4 h6 53. g4 f6 54. Nd6 Kf8
55. Ke4 Ke7 56. Kd5 Kf8 57. Ke6 Kg7 58. Ne8+ Kh7 59. Nxf6+ Kg7 60. f4 g5 61.
Nh5+ Kh7 62. f5 Kg8 63. Nf6+ Kh8 64. Nd7 1-0

i ended up playing to mate just because i was peed off at making so many analytical errors. :mad: :wall:

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2004, 05:05 AM
You were very competitive for most of the game but I think where it slipped away was around the early 30s, in particular 33...Rcd8 which yielded the seventh rank to your opponent and ultimately assisted him to knock off your a-pawn, which won him the game. Your e-pawn had no real future with rooks on the board and maybe you were just trying to be a little bit too tricky at this stage. I would have played 32...Rxc5 followed by 33...Rc8. Haven't put it in the computer but I believe this should be drawn whether White exchanges the remaining rook pair or not.

Kerry Stead
30-08-2004, 05:53 AM
Trent, a few comments.
Firstly, your opening, although it wasn't bad, seemed a bit inflexible and automatic. White's setup with d4, Nf3, e3, Bd3 can hardly be called enterprising, yet you did nothing to try and disrupt this plan for equality, and allowed white to get a good to OK position from the opening. You could have looked to play c5 or e5 early, however you seemed to just sit and tread water while white did the same.
As Kevin pointed out, Rcd8 was your big mistake at the end of the game ... trading rooks looks like it draws pretty safely, although there were still chances to trade the rook that had made it to the 7th rank before it could cause too much damage.

Methinks I might do the same though Trent - puttin gmy games from the NSW Champs up ... although perhaps that's only because I had a good win in round 1! :hmm:

PHAT
30-08-2004, 07:14 AM
[the pgn stops at #27 ?!?!?]

From what is saw, niether of you had a go. You both played for safty. I remember playing FK a few times. He plays safe and hates being attacked (especially by Max Illingworth ;) ) and starts making panicy moves.

Rhubarb
30-08-2004, 05:03 PM
I have to say that I completely disagree with KB and Kezza here. Black should be doing everything possible to keep both sets of rooks on to assist his monster pawn in the attack (the bishop covers the white squares, the pawn covers the black squares). So if anything, you should have played ...Rcd8 a move earlier.

The Bb7-c8-e6-b3 manoeuvre is very fine and if instead of 39...Rd1+? (understandable since you thought it was mating) you had played 39...Rb2! threatening 40...Rd1# you'd be winning comfortably. E.g. 40.Nd3 (40.Rd3 Rb1+ 41.Ke2 Bc4) Rb1+ 41.Ke2 (41.Rc1 Rxc1+ 42.Nxc1 Rd1+) Re8! 42.Nc1 (else Bd1+) Rb2+ 43.Ke1 Rxg2! 44.Nxb3 e2.

Kerry Stead
30-08-2004, 05:51 PM
I have to say that I completely disagree with KB and Kezza here. Black should be doing everything possible to keep both sets of rooks on to assist his monster pawn in the attack (the bishop covers the white squares, the pawn covers the black squares). So if anything, you should have played ...Rcd8 a move earlier.

The Bb7-c8-e6-b3 manoeuvre is very fine and if instead of 39...Rd1+? (understandable since you thought it was mating) you had played 39...Rb2! threatening 40...Rd1# you'd be winning comfortably. E.g. 40.Nd3 (40.Rd3 Rb1+ 41.Ke2 Bc4) Rb1+ 41.Ke2 (41.Rc1 Rxc1+ 42.Nxc1 Rd1+) Re8! 42.Nc1 (else Bd1+) Rb2+ 43.Ke1 Rxg2! 44.Nxb3 e2.

I'll admit to laziness ... I saw the Rb2 idea that you mention, but couldn't find a way to make it work. Is 42.Rc1 any better than you 42.Nc1 in trying to hold the position?

I just figured that Trent was looking for things to improve on in the game ... and the obvious part where he went wrong was to go for the mate that wasn't there. Kevin's comments about letting the rook get to the 7th are pertinent, but of course if all continuations are as winning as you suggest after Rb2, then that definitely was a better option.

One thing I've noticed is a difference between different levels of player is the handling and recognition of a winning position, and how to defend a tough position. Most players can hold their own in a simple position, although obviously the better player will play better moves more often than not. Its how you handle the difficult positions that make you the chessplayer you are.

Rhubarb
30-08-2004, 06:49 PM
Is 42.Rc1 any better than you 42.Nc1 in trying to hold the position?
Kezza, if 42.Rc1 Rxc1 43.Nxc1 Bc4+.


Kevin's comments about letting the rook get to the 7th are pertinent
I thought the White rook was fairly useless on the 7th, and that by the time it's gone scabbing the a-pawn Trent has a decisive attack.

PHAT
30-08-2004, 08:20 PM
I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.



Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?



Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.



Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.

eclectic
30-08-2004, 09:08 PM
I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.



Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?



Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.



Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.

"style? what style? i have no style" - karpov <--(i think?) (a paraphrase)

my reading of silman's books is that you should choose the style which best suits the board position at any given time

the style should be what wins overall but tactical oversights caused by thinking of the finish line rather than the hurdle you are about to jump (from another thread) can suddenly make you look very unstylistic!!

of course we can play some extremely short games where we never get the time to develop style ... eh, matt? ;)

eclectic

PHAT
31-08-2004, 06:03 AM
of course we can play some extremely short games where we never get the time to develop style ... eh, matt? ;)


:lol: but was a drawn match :cool:

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2004, 06:37 AM
I have to say that I completely disagree with KB and Kezza here.

And rightly so.

Trent, any time I say I haven't computer-checked my analysis, feel free to ignore me and listen to Mr Canfell instead. :oops:

The understandable mistake 39...Rd1+ is indeed where it all goes wrong and 39...Rb2 is indeed winning, and there is indeed nothing wrong with 33...Rcd8 (it's better than swapping rooks), all as Greg says.

I'll add that 39...Rb2 would only have won because White made a bad mistake with 39.Rc3. 39.Ra5 (intending to meet ...Rb2 with Re5) and Black is much better but lacking an obvious way to crash through (maybe Greg can find one). As Greg says, "Your Bb7-c8-e6-b3 manoeuvre is very fine" - it's not quite clear if it's objectively the "best" but at U1600 level a sound and imaginative attack often reaps a full point even if it isn't winning by force.

I think you played a lot of good stuff in the game and were just unlucky that at the point where you could have knocked him over, you missed it because you thought something else won.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2004, 06:49 AM
Matt, these are all good questions.


I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.

Oddly enough my errors made above while analysing sans computer were caused by far too much reliance on something I have learnt from computers - at club level most attacks are unsound. In this case the attack gained by keeping the rooks on the board is at least good for a strong position before White can cash in on the a-pawn.


Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?

I think so.


Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.

Often yes and often no respectively. It is easy to get hoist on your stylistic predelictions, but it won't happen against a much weaker player too often. I think the stronger players have a much better idea of the need to apply different styles to different positions - of when it's time to simplify and when it's time to keep pieces on and keep attacking. Below 1500 level there are lots of players who either attack when it is suicidal or else fail to counter-attack when it is the only way to protect the position, in both cases because anything else isn't in their style - they are too one-speed aggressive or cautious.

I like endgames and I like eliminating risks of losing but swapping one pair of rooks would actually have only given Black a small edge insufficient for serious winning chances, and swapping both could even have lead to a loss if Black wasn't careful enough.


Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.

Many club level games are strewn with decisive (with best play) tactical errors. But to say that tactical mistakes lose simplifies it a bit, because often opponents do not see them. I think that's still more a tactical skill question than a style issue.

Rhubarb
01-09-2004, 05:18 PM
I'll add that 39...Rb2 would only have won because White made a bad mistake with 39.Rc3. 39.Ra5 (intending to meet ...Rb2 with Re5) and Black is much better but lacking an obvious way to crash through.

Yes, 39.Ra5 is a tougher defence. In fact it virtually forces 39...Re8 because if e3 goes, so does any advantage. My feeling is that Black's still winning, though, as there's lots of promotion-type tricks. E.g. 40.Rc3?? e2!; or 40.Rb1? Rf2! 41.Rxb3 (41.Ne2 Bc4; 41.Nd3 Bc2!) e2 42.Nd3 Rf1+ 43.Kd2 Rd1+; or 40.Ne2 Bc2 followed by Bd3. Black's default winning plan will be to play...Rf2, and some combination of ...Bc4 and/or ...e2 or Bc2/d3, and I don't really see how White can stop it, even if he gives up the a-pawn straight away.

Rhubarb
02-09-2004, 01:09 PM
I am interested in the fact that everyone so far has looked at variations that refute or validate the principles that they value most.
That's true, I made an assessment first and then went looking for variations to justify it. The thing about analysis is it lends an aura of objectivity to proceedings. In pre-engine days the young Kasparov used to publish reams of variations to justify his brilliancies against best defence in a search for chess perfection, and it was only analysts of the calibre of Timman, Hubner, Dvoretsky who would occasionally point out holes.


Question: Is it the value that a player puts on various principles, that gives him his particular style?
But the stronger the player, the more likely "value" in the above sentence will become "preference".


Question: Does style control the direction of the game, and the ultimate destination of W/L/D.


Often yes and often no respectively. It is easy to get hoist on your stylistic predelictions, but it won't happen against a much weaker player too often. I think the stronger players have a much better idea of the need to apply different styles to different positions - of when it's time to simplify and when it's time to keep pieces on and keep attacking. Below 1500 level there are lots of players who either attack when it is suicidal or else fail to counter-attack when it is the only way to protect the position, in both cases because anything else isn't in their style - they are too one-speed aggressive or cautious.

Yes, I'd agree with all of this. On a philosophical note, I think that a "perfectly" played game should be a draw, but that there would be many paths to this draw encompassing different stylistic choices.


Question: Is it the style that wins in the long run, or tactical mistakes that loses in the immeadiate play.
The thing about tactical mistakes is they always take precedence over stylistic or positional considerations. If you look at Karpov's finest positional wins, it's easy to miss just how fine a tactician he has to be to keep everything under control. I got this feeling recently in the Australian Masters when Johansen put me under the squeeze.

Trent Parker
06-09-2004, 01:48 AM
Thanks for the comments peoples! even those not directly related to the game :D

Today i had a win with the white pieces against T.Accola
I played a knight sac which perhaps looking at it afterwards might have been dubious but he didnt take my offer which enabled me to force mate.



Tparker - Accola,T [B07]
NSW U1600
[Tparker]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.f3 Bg7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Qd2 c5 8.Nge2 a6 9.g4 b5 10.dxc5 dxc5 11.Ng3 c4 12.Be2 Bb7 13.h4 Qc7 risky move no.1: 14.Kf2 Rad8 15.Bh6 Qc5+ 16.Kg2 Kh8 17.Bxg7+ Kxg7 18.h5 Ng8 risky move no. 2: 19.Nf5+ my analysis: 19...Kh8 [my analysis: 19...gxf5 20.Qg5+ Kh8 21.h6 Nxh6 (perhaps best for black: 21...Qe5 22.f4 Bxe4+ 23.Kf1 Qf6) 22.Rxh6 Nf6 23.Rah1] 20.hxg6 fxg6 21.Rxh7+ Kxh7 22.Rh1+ Nh6 23.Qxh6+ Kg8 24.Qh7# 1-0

Kerry Stead
06-09-2004, 06:47 AM
Nice finish with Rxh7 Trent!
As you say, the win doesn't seem forced after gxf5, although the position looks promising. Personally when I play those type of systems (with e4/f3 pawns and Be3/Qd2) I try to castle queenside as quickly as possible and push the g and h pawns forward to try and get an attack going right away. You seemed to stumble a bit with Bd3-e2, when the bishop is just as good on f1, so you could have castled queenside, with a view to getting the queenside rook into the attack as well. Another manouvre I like is the Nf1-e2-g3 one that you used, with the plan of pushing the h pawn forward, with h5 being supported by the knight.
Anyway, good game ... well spotted rook sacrifice!

Trent Parker
12-09-2004, 11:39 PM
Dimock,P - Parker,T [B01]
NSW U1600
[Tparker]

1.e4 d5 2.e5 Bf5 3.d4 e6 4.Bd3 Bxd3 5.Qxd3 c5 6.Qb5+ Qd7 7.Qxd7+ Nxd7 8.c3 Ne7 9.Nf3 Nf5 10.0-0 Be7 11.a3 0-0 12.Re1 Rac8 13.b4 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.cxd4 f6 16.Bf4 fxe5 17.Bxe5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Rc2 19.f3 Bg5 20.a4 Rc1 21.Na3 Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Be3+ 23.Kf1 Rf5 24.Nc2 Rxe5 25.Re1 Bf4 26.g3 Rxe1+ 27.Kxe1 Be5 28.Ke2 Kf7 29.Ke3 Kf6 30.b5 b6 31.Nb4 Ke7 32.Nc6+ Kd6 33.Nxa7 Kc5 34.Nc6 Bf6 Before this next move was played my opponent offered me a draw which i declined on the basis that I thought that my bishop was slightly better than his N and my passed pawn. 35.h4 Kc4 36.f4 d4+ 37.Kd2 d3 38.Ne5+ [If this move had not been played i was planning ssomething like: 38.g4 Bc3+ 39.Kd1 d2 With the plan of using the king to do some mopping up of pawns. However this also allows whites N onto the d8 square enabling some mopping up of the black pawns.] 38...Bxe5 39.fxe5 h5 [Better is: 39...Kb4 40.Kxd3 Kxa4 41.Kd4 Kxb5] 40.Kd1 [After i played h5 i thought i had stuffed up. I thought if 40.a5 Kxb5 41.axb6 Kxb6 42.Kxd3 Led to a draw however this leads to zugzwang 42...Kc5 43.Ke4 Kc4] 40...Kb4 41.Kd2 Kxa4 42.Kxd3 Kxb5 43.Kd4 Ka4 44.Kc4 b5+ 45.Kc5 b4 46.Kd6 b3 47.Kxe6 b2 48.Kd7 b1=Q 49.e6 Qd3+ 50.Ke8 Kb5 51.e7 Kc6 52.Kf8 Qf5+ 53.Ke8 Kd6 54.Kd8 Qf6 Missing the mate on d7. Lol. 55.Kc8 Qxe7 56.Kb8 Kc6 0-1

Trent Parker
19-09-2004, 11:27 PM
Played Paul S today: I Was White
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.O-O Nc6 8.Be3 a6 9.d5 Na5 10.Bd3 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Qxd5 12.Bd4 Nf6 13.Re1 O-O 14.Rxe7 c5 15.Bxf6 Rxf6 16.Qd2 c4 17.Qh6 Qf7 18.Rxf7 Rxf7 19.Re1 Bd7 20.Ne5 Re8 21.Bf1 Rfe7 22.Qf4 b5 23.Qd4 Bc8 24.Qd5+ Re6 25.Nf3 Rd8 26.Qxd8+ 1-0

Paul S
20-09-2004, 02:12 AM
This was a battle between the former (myself) and current (Trent) NSWCA Member Without Portfolio Councillors.

Trent played the better game than me and so deserved to win. Even if I did not make my 25th move blunder (I spent about 10 minutes analysing before making my 25th move, but got so absorbed in various complications that I overlooked the obvious!), I think Trent would have eventually won anyway, as he was an exchange up (Queen versus Rook) and had a much better position.

This was Trent's first win against me. We have played each other 3 or 4 times previously (in normal and lightning games) with myself winning all of them.

Watch out next time though, Trent - your win today has made me more determined to beat you in the next "battle of the NSWCA Member Without Portfolio Councillors"! ;) :lol:

Anyway, Trent, well done on your win yesterday! :clap:

Trent Parker
20-09-2004, 07:35 AM
Watch out next time though, Trent - your win today has made me more determined to beat you in the next "battle of the NSWCA Member Without Portfolio Councillors"! ;) :lol:

Bring it on!
:D :evil: :lol:


Anyway, Trent, well done on your win yesterday! :clap:
Thanks.

I've had a pretty good draw since the first round when i played Frank Kresinger (who is the sole person on 4/4). Hopefully i can pull of another few wins to stay in the running for the top prizes :D

Trent Parker
10-10-2004, 11:00 PM
Before the long weekend i played Norm greenwood and lost..... will post that one tomorrow.

Today I played white against Deborah Ng. I probably should have lost but i pulled off the win.........

1.d4 Nc6 2.e4 e6 3.Be3 d5 4.c3 dxe4 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.Nbd2 e5 10.Ne4 exd4 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6 12.Nxd4 Qe7 13.Qf3 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Bc5 15.Rae1 Bxd4+ 16.cxd4 Qd6 17.Kh1 Be6 18.Qh5 g6 19.Qh4 f5 20.Rf3 Rae8 21.Rh3 Rf7 22.Bc4 c6 23.Rhe3 Rfe7 24.Rxe6 Rxe6 25.Qf6 Qf8 26.Bxe6+ Rxe6 27.Rxe6 Qxf6 28.Rxf6 1-0

Recherché
11-10-2004, 04:05 PM
A bishop sac on h7 on move 12 looks like fun, but objectively it's losing in the long term. You can win the black queen and some pawns, but it costs a rook and two pieces. It looks quite hard for black to convert it into a win, though.

You can win a pawn on move 15 with Bxh7. With such a denuded black kingside you should always be on the lookout for stuff like that.

You might consider playing d5 on move two also, I think you could have fought harder for a good position out of the opening. 4. c3 seems to play into black's hands more than anything else.

Trent Parker
12-10-2004, 12:27 PM
A bishop sac on h7 on move 12 looks like fun, but objectively it's losing in the long term. You can win the black queen and some pawns, but it costs a rook and two pieces. It looks quite hard for black to convert it into a win, though.

You can win a pawn on move 15 with Bxh7. With such a denuded black kingside you should always be on the lookout for stuff like that.

You might consider playing d5 on move two also, I think you could have fought harder for a good position out of the opening. 4. c3 seems to play into black's hands more than anything else.

Thanks Recherche
I considered 2.d5 but apparently she plays Nc6 all the time against d4 and i thought that she might know the lines better than what i would.
In regards to 4.c3 I was trying to get an Alapinish Frenchish type of game which i am generally comfortable with. (i play Blackmar Diemar gambit or Alapin French if e6 is played first)

Will consider these moves next time though :D