The Kibitzer by Tim Harding A Difficult Postal Game This month's Kibitzer is devoted to just one game that was crucial for my achieving the International Master title, awarded to me at this month's congress of the International Correspondence Chess Federation, ICCF. There are several points about the course of this game, which took three whole years to complete, that particularly well illustrate the difference between over-the-board and correspondence play. The Olympiad 12 preliminaries which began five years ago. My Romanian opponent had no published rating but I could be sure that any player who made that country's national team would be master strength. Last year he appeared on the rating list for the first time at 2415 but he has now slipped back. The latter stages of this game perhaps show why. Tim Harding (Ireland)- Adrian Parau (Romania) 12th CC Olympiad preliminaries, board 4, 1992-95 1 e4 c5 Of my six games with White in this event, two had already begun 1 c5 2 f4 so I decided to have some variety. 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5+ Nc6 4 0 0 Bd7 5 Re1 a6 6 Bxc6 Bxc6 7 c3 Nf6 8 d4 Bxe4 9 Bg5 White gambits his e-pawn to open a central file and build up pressure while Black is underdeveloped. I had studied this quite a bit and thought it a difficult line about which to form firm conclusions. Does White really have enough? In an OTB game, the deciding factors would firstly be memory of known examples, then judgment and the willingness to take risks against the clock. In CC, the important thing is to research the opening variation thoroughly, base critical analysis on that research, and maintain an objectively sound position at all times. Then the more complicated it gets, the more likely the better analyst is to win. With access to a good library and databases, I thought I was probably in a better position to do research on the line than a player in Romania so it seemed a good choice for postal play. My opponent chooses the main reply. Here are a couple of examples of how Black can go wrong: a) 9 d5 10 dxc5! e6 11 Bxf6! gxf6 (11...Qxf6? 12 Qa4+) 12 Nbd2 Bxf3?! 13 Qxf3 Bxc5 14 c4! dxc4 15 Rad1! Qe7 16 Ne4 f5 (16...0-0? 17. Rd7+-) 17 Qc3! fxe4 18 Qxh8+ Qf8 19 Qxh7 e3 20. fxe3 Qe7 21 b3 Bb4 22 Rf1 c3 23 a3 Bxa3 24 Qh8+ Qf8 25 Qxc3 1-0 S.Arkhipov- M. Muhutdinov, Nabereznye Chelny 1993. Going for a closed centre can be just as bad: b) 9 Bxb1 10 Rxb1 e6 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 d5 e5 13 Qd3 Qd7 14 Nh4 Qg4 15 g3 h5 16 Re4 Qd7 17 Qf3 Be7 18 Nf5 (J.Barle-Quinteros, Lone Pine 1979); the good knight versus bad bishop gives tremendous compensation for Black's extra doubled pawn. 9...Bd5 10 Nbd2 b5 Here 10 e6 was more normal, while White had done well in games where 10 cxd4 was played. In the few games where 10 b5 had previously been played, White had opted for 11 c4 e.g. 11...bxc4 12 dxc5 e6 13 Rc1 (or 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14 cxd6 Bxd6 15 Ne4 unclear in Veroeci-Ghinda, Brno 1989) 13...dxc5 14 Ne5 Be7 15 Qa4+ Kf8 16 Nexc4 Ra7 17 Be3 Qe8 unclear (Ostrovsky-Chechelian, USSR 1979). 11 b3 New; now after 7 days thought he opted to transpose to the 10...c4 11 b3 b5 line. If 11...cxd4 I thought that 12 c4!? looked interesting, while if 11...e6 my analysis went 12 c4 Bc6 13 Ne4!? Be7 14 d5 Bd7 (14...Nxe4 15 Bxe7 unclear) 15 Bxf6 gxf6 16 dxe6 Bxe6 17 Qe2 bxc4 18 bxc4 d5? 19 cxd5 Qxd5 20 Qb2 Qf5 21 Qb7 with an attack. 11...c4 12 bxc4 bxc4 13 Nh4 An alternative is 13 Nf1 as in Fette-Ruban, Miskolc/Tapolca 1990, which was featured in a 1991 database survey in 'New In Chess Yearbook 21'. I spent four days on this choice. 13...Qd7 If 13...e6 14 Nf5 (Cifuentes) is unclear and gives good scope for the CC analyst. 14 Rb1 Ng8! This paradoxical retreat was probably first played in this game and it casts serious doubt on the variation for White. Leaving his Bishop dominant, Black threatens to drive back my minor pieces. The example I knew was Ricardi-Cifuentes Parada, Buenos Aires 1991, which went 14 h6 15 Bxf6 gxf6 16 Qh5 Qc6 (16...Be6 17 Qf3 Rc8 18 d5 Bg4 19 Qxf6ñ) 17 Rb6! Qxb6 18 Qxd5 Rd8 (18...Rc8 19 Nxc4 Qc6 20 Nxd6+ Kd7 21 Qxf7! Qxd6 22 Ng6+-) 19 Nf5 Qb5 20 Nxd6+ Rxd6 21 Qxd6 e6 22 Qc7 Qd7 23 Qb8+ Qd8 24 Qxd8+ Kxd8 25 Nxc4 and White won. After 14 Ng8 I had my longest think of the game: 11 days. As I recall, I recognised that it was no longer possible to make anything happen on the kingside and that therefore I must use my only asset, the b-file, and try to recover the gambit pawn. (See Diagram) 15 Rb4! A game that began later but finished earlier was published in "Correspondence Chess Yearbook 11". J.Elburg-R. Hendriks, 22nd Dutch CC Ch 1993-4, went instead 15 Qe2 h6 16 Be3 g5 17 Nhf3 Rc8 18 Rb6 f5 19 Nf1 f4 20 Bd2 Qf5? 21 Rxd6 Bg7 22 Rxa6 h5 23 Ra7 and White eventually won, but according to John Elburg, 20...Bg7 would have given Black some advantage. 15...h6 If 15...a5 I planned an exchange sacrifice by 16 Rxc4 Bxc4 17 Nxc4 Qc6 18 Qd3 with compensation since he is very far behind on development, e.g. 18 h6 19 Bf4 e6 20 Nf5. 16 Be3 Rc8 I also spent a lot of time on 16...g5 17 Nhf3. 17 Qa4 The threats to c4 and a6 regain the pawn. The alternative was 17 Qe2 when the exchange sacrifice is still in the air but there is nothing clear: more suited to OTB time-scrambles than postal. 17...Qxa4 If 17...e6 I intended 18 Reb1!? 18 Rxa4 g5 If 18 Rc6 then 19 Rb1 seems to regain the material. 19 Nf5 e6 20 Ng3 f5 21 f4 Be7 22 Rxa6 Material is level again but the position is unclear at best for White. He has the bishop pair, my bishop is very bad and my passed a-pawn almost worthless. I offered a draw but he ignored it. 22...Nf6!? (See Diagram) This gives a very doubled-edged position requiring deep analysis before reply but I still managed to answer in three days so I must have been prepared for this. Essentially the boot is now on the other foot: Black is the one sacrificing a pawn for the initiative and White must be very careful. The questions now are not about pawns but who will achieve coordination of his pieces and, later, whose king is in the more danger? He was now moving much slower than me, and the fairly slow post to and from Romania meant I could do a lot of work on the game without spending "clock" time. White would be more likely to go wrong in an email game. 23 fxg5 I decided there was nothing better. 23...Ng4 24 Bf4 hxg5 25 Bxd6 Bxd6 If 25...Rxh2 26 Nf3 Bxf3 27 gxf3 Bxd6 28 Rxd6 Rh3 29 Nxf5 Black has nothing clear. Instead he will keep pieces on, castle, and seek to invade my position down the queenside files that seemed to be in my possession earlier on. Against that, the frontal assault on my kingside is over and I have chances to infiltrate there. 26 Rxd6 0-0 27 Nf3 Ra8 28 Nxg5 This was a hard decision but I had my holidays at this time. It was now August 1994 and the game had been going for 21 months. I thought this more active than 28 Re2 f4! Which gives Black winning chances. I had to avoid 28 h3? Rxa2! 29 Re2 (29 hxg4? fxg4 30 Nxg5 Rff2 +) 29...Ra1+ 30 Re1 Rxe1+ 31 Nxe1 Ne3 32 Rd7 f4 33 Ne2 Rb8 34 Kf2 Nd1+ 35 Kf1 Rb2 36 Rc7 Be4 37 g3 Ne3+ 38 Kf2 Bd3 +. 28...Rxa2 29 Ne2 This move cost me 10 days, mostly spent convincing myself that 29 Re2?! Rxe2 30 Nxe2 Ra8!? Gave him too much counterplay. 29...Rb8!? I was very lucky here. My notes show that when deciding on my 28th, I seem to have overlooked this move, threatening 30 Rxe2. Although 29 Rb8 is his most dangerous try, it also involves risk for him. I had concentrated on 29 Ne3 30 Nxe6 Nxg2 31 Rxd5 Nxe1 32 Nxf8 Rxe2 33 Rxf5, leading to a draw, and 29 Rfa8 when there is a choice between 30 Nf4!? and 30 Nf3. (See Diagram) 30 Nf4 Neither 30 h3 nor 30 Nxe6 Rxe2 31 Rd8+ Kf7 is playable, so my reply is forced and in general my choices became easier from now on, exactly where they would probably have been too hard in an over-the-board game! OTB, the clock and nerves would probably have been major factors and experience shows that the player with the initiative normally comes out on top in such situations. Playing by post, however, I was able to find a line of defence that held and make detailed notes to which I could refer when my opponent's subsequent moves arrived, at roughly monthly intervals. 30...Ne3 If 30...Rbb2 31 Rd8+ Kg7 32 Ngxe6+ White has at least a draw. 31 g3! Ng2!? If 31...Rbb2 32 Rd8+ Kg7 33 Ngxe6+ Bxe6 34 Nxe6+ Kf7 35 Nf4 Rc2 36 Rd7+ Kf8 37 Rb1 and he has to allow a pair of rooks to be exchanged. 32 Re2 Probably the only move: if 32 Nxg2?! Rxg2+ 33 Kf1 Rxh2! with strong mating threats. However, I was no longer worried by this game and was virtually playing it on autopilot. Since he was committed to a definite line of attack and I had been unable to find a winning line for him, there were fewer alternatives to consider. I don't give all the possible variations below but they were in my notebook in case I needed them. The main line seemed to peter out into a an ending that he could probably draw, but no more than that. Black took eight days on move 31, six days on move 32, six days on move 34: all encouraging signs that he could not force a breakthrough. 32...Rxe2 33 Nxe2 Ne3 Threatening 34...Rb1+ 35 Kf2 Ng4 mate so I need a flight square on e2. 34 Nf4 Rb1+ 35 Kf2 Nd1+? (See Diagram) This position, which I had foreseen when playing my 30th move, is the point where he should have realised his attack had failed. It is the ultimate turning point in a game where the advantage seemed to ebb and flow dramatically. The safest line for him is probably 35...Ng4+ 36 Ke2 Rb2+ when I have not found a win for White. A possible continuation is 37 Ke1 Nxh2 38 Nxd5!? exd5 39 Rxd5 Rc2 40 Rxf5 Rxc3 41 Rc5 Rxg3 followed by him, if necessary, sacrificing his knight for my last pawn to force a book draw. 36 Ke2 Nxc3+ 37 Kd2 Ne4+ Simplifying to an endgame where he stands worse, as I shall explain later. 37...Na2!? was the move I half-expected, trying to shepherd his Pawn forward to create counterplay. However, after 38 Nh5!! c3+ 39 Kd3 it seems to fall into a mating net on the kingside. I was analysing this but had not worked it all out when his 37th move arrived. For example, 39...Kf8 40 Rd7 Rd1+ 41 Ke2 Rd2+ 42 Ke3 Nb4 fails to 43 Nh7+ Kg8 44 Rg7+ (or 44 N5f6+ Kh8 45 Nf8!!) 44 Kh8 45 N7f6. A similar finish follows 39...Rd1+!? 40 Ke2 Rd2+ (40...c2?? 41 Rd8 mate) 41 Ke3 Kf8 42 Rd7 Nb4 43 Nh7+ etc. This explains why he had to exchange a pair of knights. In those variations his bishop was an idle bystander. This piece, which seemed so strong in the middle-game, was technically a "bad" bishop because of the e6- and c4-pawns fixed on its own colour. Now at last, and in the endgame that follows, this becomes the deciding factor! Even so, had Black fully realised the danger he was in, he could maybe have held on and could certainly have prolonged the struggle and put more technical difficulties in my way. 38 Nxe4 Bxe4 39 Rxe6 Kf7?! The best move, I thought at first, making it hard for my Rook to go to the c-file. He actually offered a draw here, and also overstepped the time limit for the first time. (In ICCF games, you have to overstep the 10-moves-in-30-days limit twice to lose a game on time.) Maybe, he could still have held the game by 39 Rb3, however. 40 Re5! Rb3 Also if 40...Rb2+ 41 Kc3 Rc2+ (41...Rxh2 42 Kxc4 Rc2+ 43 Kb5 Rc3 44 g4 Bc6+ 45 Kb4) 42 Kb4 he has some losing chances. 41 Rc5 Obviously White cannot allow ...c3+; now with an extra pawn and all my pieces better than their opposite numbers, the chances of a win are becoming apparent. 41...Bd3 This was half-expected. He hopes to bail out into a rook ending with good drawing chances. Objectively he should have tried 41...Rb2+ 42 Kc3 Rxh2 43 d5 Ra2 although this is unpleasant for him after what has gone before. It was now July 1995. Several of my opponents faltered in the third and fourth year of play in this long tournament. Patience and consistency of effort over a long period are part of the qualities required to achieve mastery in CC. The will to fight on for a draw after going wrong in a game you expected to win is a difficult requirement in both forms of chess. 42 d5! Ke7 43 Ke3 Rb2 44 Kd4 1-0 I sent the conditional 44...Rxh2 45 Ke5 but he resigned. His rook and bishop are ineffectual in the face of my threats to advance the d-pawn and to mate his king.