|
“I wrote these annotations originally for my own use with the idea of identifying faults then setting about eliminating them. I had no intention of publishing my notes but then thought “what the hell”, it may help weaker players to see how I think during a game and it may attract some feedback from stronger players who might offer some advice or comment. I would be interested to know if better players than me ever have similar experiences during a game.” “A surprise, and an opening that I had not prepared in any depth.” “If 4. dxe5 Nxe4 5. Qd5 Nc5 6. Bg5 Qd7 7. exd6 Bxd6 8. Nc3 O-O 9. O-O-O is possible but I didn't know this line.” “It was probably better to maintain the tension.” 5... dxe5 6. Bc4 Bc5 7. O-O O-O 8. Qe2 “8. Bg5 seems to be more popular here but White's results aren't very good with it.” “I like this move. As I discovered v Clery in Prague White can't allow Black easy Q-side expansion.” “This probably isn't necessary especially since a black knight cannot easily get to d4 in the event of Bg4.” 10... h6 “Also unnecessary and creates a hook for a white pawn attack.” 11. Nh4 “A good idea but a little impatient better to just keep developing with Be3 or Rd1.” “12... Nb6 is better, then chopping on f5. ” 13. Be3 “By now I've realised my knight sortie isn't such a good idea so try to justify it tactically.” “Now an exchange on f5 isn't so disadvantageous.” 14... Be6?! “Taking on either f5 or c3 is better.” “Or 16. Na2.” 16... Ba5 17. Rad1 Bb6 18. Bc1! “The Bishop is an important attacking piece.” “This I felt was the critical point of the game so I should not have moved until I was completely happy with my choice. h4 is not a bad move in itself but I have to question my reasons for making it. Firstly I felt that I had an advantage and should be attacking, this is probably true up to a point but my advantage is only about half a pawn and my dominance on the K-side not so great that I can expect a hurried attack to be successful. The second important factor is that I have a bad record against Brady in recent years so I was determined to show that I didn't fear him, this coupled with a belief that I shouldn't let him off the hook yet again. I considered moves like g4, Rxd8 and Neg3 (probably best) but couldn't find anything convincing then opted for h4 which is in no way convincing either. The difference between h4 and say Neg3 is that h4 causes weaknesses and cannot be taken back.” “Fairly obvious yet I hadn't really considered it. In fact, looking back, I don't think I analysed any concrete variations after h4.” “Fritz likes 22. Nh6+ too but only a machine could play a move like that.” 22... Rd6 23. Rxd6 Qxd6 24. Nc4 Qe6 25. Nxb6 axb6 26. b3 N8d7 27. Qe2 Qd6 28. Bb2?! “The Bishop would be better employed on e3.” “This is lunacy when the obvious 29. f3 would have maintained equality. I no longer had any advantage but was reluctant to switch to “drawing mode”. This time too there were spectators at the board and I got a fit of bravado. Finally, and most alarmingly, I just saw the cheap tactic exf4 e5 (which doesn't even work) and blazed ahead with no analysis of variations. My "justification" for the whole silly idea was some vague notion of increasing the range of my Bishop.” 29... Ng4 “Better was simply 29... exf4 30. e5 Qe7 when my Knight being en prise shows how rubbish my plan was.” “My whole position just collapses now, the rest needs no explanation.” 31. fxg6 fxg6 32. Qf3 Qxh4 33. b4 Ne6 34. Nf1 Qe1 35. Bc3 Qc1 36. Bxe5 Qxc2 37. Ba1 Qc4 38. Qc3 Qxc3 39. Bxc3 Nf4 40. Bd2 Ne2+ 41. Kh1 Nf2+ 42. Kh2 Nxe4 43. Be3 N2c3 44. Nd2 Nxd2 45. Bxd2 Nxa4 46. Kg3 Kf7 “So to summarize: 1. Insufficient knowledge of the opening. 2. Impetuously attacking. 3. NOT analysing variations at critical times. 4. Silly bravado. 5. Not taking enough time to re-adjust my thinking at crucial turning points. 6. Possible tiredness.” 0-1 Annotator(s): Peter Cafolla, Irish Chess Journal, October 2010, pp. 9-10. Event information: Tournament report. |
