A.J. Goldsby I - Cecil R. Rosal; [D36]
Gulf Coast Classic / Mobile, AL (R#2) / 22,10,2011.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.Nc3 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2 Be7 7.e3 h6 8.Bh4 0-0 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.Nge2 Re8 11.0-0 Nf8 12.Rad1 Bg4 13.f3 Bh5 14.Nf4 g5 15.Nxh5 Nxh5 16.Bf2 Ng7 17.Kh1 Rc8 18.Bg1 Qd7 19.Qf2 b5 20.e4 b4 21.Na4 Nh5 22.g3 Qh3 23.Qg2 Qd7 24.b3 Ng7 25.e5 f5 26.Rc1 Nfe6 27.f4 Rf8 28.Qc2 Qe8 29.Be3 Qh5 30.Qf2 gxf4 31.gxf4 Bh4 32.Qg2 Kh8 33.Be2 Qf7 34.Qh3 Qe7 35.Rg1 Kh7 36.Bd3 Rf7 37.Rg4 Bf6 38.exf6 Qxf6 39.Rcg1 Nf8 40.Rxg7+ Rxg7 41.Qxf5+ Qxf5 42.Bxf5+ Kh8 43.Bxc8 Re7 44.Rg3 Nh7 45.f5 Nf6 46.Be6 Kh7 47.Rg6 Ne4 48.Rxh6+ Kg7 49.Rg6+ Kh7 50.Bf4 Nf2+ 51.Kg2 Nd3 52.Be5 Nc1 53.Bg8# 1-0

<Dom> As I was glancing at the European Team Ch'ship page, currently being contested (well not the *page*), I found to my amazement, pleasantly but *really* surprised, that Good Old Viktor is still sluggin it out with the young rascals in such a massive event, even winning as Black against renowned <Tim Kett>.

While analysing the game I noticed that Kett "missed" a maneuvre that would secure him winning chances at the least, I thought.... From the game, after move <29. ... Be5 x b2>

click for larger view

Kett played his Rook to <g5>, and went on to lose the game as Viktor powered his way to a win with some vital, energetic play...

But I saw a maneuvre with Rook to <f5> that looked promising, and went on to play it out against my engine, and reached this position after <34. Kxb2 Qd5>

click for larger view

Here I was more or less convinced that there was a forced technical win.

If you will, have a look at this and what would you play, and why?

Are our great human minds thinking alike?

I'll get back to you after you've had the chance to look at this.

One probably needs expert level technique to convert, but I do think it is winning. Forced.

click for larger view

Black's in check, and the Queen has to move in between for a brief tete-a-tete with her caucasian counterpart, and the remaining Rook ending is even more powerful in this position.

However - I made a similar choice in my last tournament, and my opponent hung on and drew, despite being on increment time. He said he was more afraid that I'd keep Queens on, setting him problems he couldn't solve in 30 seconds.

Some of his defensive moves were strange - all that messing about with Knights, only to end up with them on bad squares. But I get the impression that he could have been a dangerous attacker, if given a chance. You were probably right to play cautiously, eg 22.g3 to keep his Knight out of f4. Fritz likes 22.Bb1!? at that point, with Nc5 to follow.

Your only mistake, I think, was playing 25.e5. It looks OK at the time, but you wind up with a lousy DSB on g1. Were you thinking of playing Nc5, and if ...Bxc5 dxc5, and d4 becomes available for the Bishop?

I think I'd have kept the pawn tension in the middle - you have the bishop pair, after all, so any opening-up must be to your advantage. And I'd have got that Knight from a4 to c5, at some point.

I still sometimes maneuver too much, even though I'm trying to play more aggressively. There's a time to attack - which is as true in 1.d4 games as in 1.e4 ones.

Maybe people make too much of that e4/d4 open/closed distinction? Some d-pawn games get really chaotic. And the most closed positions of all are probably those in the Advance French, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5.

Speaking of the opening, I see you avoided the temptation - after 2...d5 - to play 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4!? Instead you transposed back to a normal Queen's Gambit. I suspect you were right: it looks like a prepared line, where black is OK after something like 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5. A sort of Alekhine's/Gruenfeld idea, letting White form a pawn centre in order to attack it. A bit like a Budapest if you include ...e5.

I vaguely recall being told, decades ago, that it was a mistake for black to play 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 without first playing ...e6 or ...c6. But I think the line has been rehabilitated in recent years.

I know that many people say one should strive simply to play the best move -- but you'll notice I believe in taking the opponent's strengths and weaknesses into consideration. (They do it at super-GM level, after all.)

So it's good to avoid playing into pet lines, and it's good, as you did on move 23, to offer a Queen swap against a player who seems to like using his Queen.

(1) Some players rely on Queens too much, and are weaker without them. I quite like queenless middlegames, Kramnik style, where you can surprise people by whipping up a vicious attack with some minor pieces.

(2) I'm sick of reaching late-middlegame positions, sometimes in relative time trouble, where I'm clearly winning but my opponent still has a Queen, and therefore some chance of counterplay if I'm careless. Being two pawns up and having to worry about perpetual or worse is a bore.

Ivanchuk said the same recently, as each rook ending can bring on its own peculiarities, mysteries that need to be uncovered OTB. But I think if you'd practise them, quality time, with "some" regularity, you can be 2-3 cuts above any opponent you meet locally, and possibly even able to at least compete with the occasional GM in that department. I think I could defend that hypothesis convincingly. And then <that's> where "confidence" comes into the picture. It simply <will be there>.

Practise routines in almost any sport, are for the most part aimed at maintaining and replenishing (following losses) CONFIDENCE.

Just a brief (well...) personal story, and let me assure you that I am not boasting, this is a true-to-life account:

These days every now and then I play some billiards for relaxation. I hadn't played it in many years, decades, since my childhood, when my dad bought us a billiards table so I could after yet another surgery, hop on one leg around the table and play. And I spent many hours a week on it in my teens, and on that table I also honed my table-tennis skills, a bit later.

As a result my averages in Libre and 3-cushion were quite at "expert-level" when I was approaching my later teens.

But, I went to live on my own soon, and turned madly to snooker for a while. For literally well over a decade I didn't come even near a classic billiards table.

Now, when my dad was forced to an elderly home following two cardiovascular accidents, some 7-odd years ago, he at some point during his slow recovery mentioned that he was having fun playing some billirds again, in the home, on fridays. Actually that was about the only thing he *could* do - and I was super happy, and surprised!, to hear that and suggested we'd play some good old Billiards, just for fun, that is, if we would be allowed in that room on sundays, when I usually visited.

So we did.

The second or third time we played, - we didn't keep score, my dad was remarkably able, he couldn't remotely do other motory skills that well -- I went to the home early, and asked the key secretly to practise, for an hour or so, prior to picking my dad up.

As with the few previous dates, in which I felt I played soon at the level of my peak of two decades ago, or somewhat better even, I played with ease, but this time was so relaxed and focused, so bright, relaxed, non-competitive or self-demanding, with a rare breed of ease, that I basically "solved" billiards in that one hour; it all fell in place very neatly. I played averages I could only have dreamt of in my teens. I simply knew with mathematical precision what spin to apply, what speed, what mass, so the only thing I needed was a straight cue with a good tip.

Delivering of the cue, the action, had probably improved as I played a lot of snooker in my twenties.

Nowadays I can walk into any billards center and play very sharply, hardly needing 5-10 minutes to "shake of rustiness" or any of the kind. There's no rustiness there.

A small miracle, as senior players who play weekly and practise, just shake their head when I've demolished (I did this just a couple of times, for fun) them and explain I never practise, hardly play at all, and insist that I wasn't a "former top amateur," or pro.

What had happened?

In that fateful hour I was in such a rare pressureless state, somewhat philosophical, that had me looking at the balls and the Billiard in a different way. I looked at the position of the balls with more clarity, awareness, curiosity and eagerness to "solve the problem", and look forward to- and expect to- solve it. Bypassing any fear, fear-thoughts/emotions. There were no real problems in my mind, the balls would do as I ordered them if I programmed my arm correctly and delivered the cue straight.

Not forcing anything, just taking my position at the table, visualize the contact with the cue-ball, and release, letting the cue do the work.

Like I leap-frogged the "confidence-thing" or the "daily practise for years experience-thing in *that* particular metier. Like I said earlier, I just know I can do this, if I speak clearly, the balls will listen, and the carambole will be a natural consequence. Just make sure the calculation, programming, is correct.

And a correction to what I said above, one sentence should read like this: <Like I leap-frogged the "confidence-thing" or the "daily practise for years for smooth/quick pattern recognition-thing," in *that* particular metier.>

But to me it's a singular rare event that I managed to improve my averages by well over 50%, by <not playing> for some 15 years, and as you said as if I hopped on a bike, finding that it has several superior extra gears in just about a single one-afternoon leap, at age over thirty.