In the previous exercise, we examined how 1) understanding whether the position was a dynamic or a positional game can help you to find reasonable candidate moves, and why 2) evaluating the positional elements at the end of a variation is essential to determine if you should play a move or not.
The next position we are going to discuss comes from a game I played in 2019 during the Israeli Chess League. In this particular example, I think it is important to mention that the tournament was unrated and that my opponent was a lower-rated player than myself. Sometimes you are going to play a certain variation for purely psychological reasons rather than for technical ones.
In the position above, my students had real troubles to find out what Black should play. In all honesty, this was a nasty exercise because Black is slightly worse whatever he does. The reason is that his king is more exposed than White’s king, and the white squares are weakened because of f6. At the right moment, White is going to play c4 challenging the centre, and obtaining an excellent play. In another context (if a draw was a satisfactory result), I would have probably played 1…Nd6, and after 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nxc4 Nxc4 4.Bxc4 Qxd1+ Rxd1, I am slightly worse but I should be able to hold the game if I don’t blunder.
Unfortunately, the pawn structure is symmetric and my pieces are less active than my opponent’s ones and - spoiler from my book - I believe the chances that my opponent will make a mistake are low. Therefore, I went for an insane but interesting sacrifice of two minor pieces that amused all the rest of my team.
I played 1…Nxf2?! 2.Kxf2 Bxe3 3.Kxe3 Qb6+
Until now it was pretty forcing and easy to calculate. I gave 2 pieces for 2 pawns, but I am going to get at least one piece back - now White should decide if playing 4.Nd4 or 4.Kd3 allowing all sorts of attack. If you analyse the position carefully, it turns out that after 4.Nd4 exd4 5.Kf4 h5!? the position looks very scary, but White is in time to play 6.Kg3, after which Black does not have much. Yet, the position looked complex and fearful enough to imagine that my opponent would hesitate before going for it - which is exactly what happened.
Instead, he played 4.Kd3 Bf5+ 5.Kc3 Na5
The gambling was a success! If you analyse this position with an engine, you will see that the evaluation goes up and down like a spinning top. This is what I was trying to achieve - a position that is difficult enough for a human being to prompt mistakes [defending correctly is often more difficult than attacking correctly]. Black should have probably continued with 5…a5 instead. I cannot really tell who is better, but I can imagine that if this position is played 100 times between two equally strong players, Black will come out with the upper hand most of the time, as making mistakes with White in this position is easier.
I played 5…Na5?! with the idea of stopping his king from escaping to the b3 square and to open the c-column for my rook. The knight cannot be captured because of checkmate, 6.bxa5? d4+ 7.Nxd4 exd4+ 8.Kc4 Rc8+ 9.Kd5 Qc5#
The game ended abruptly because my opponent panicked and played 6.Nb3? Qe3+ 7.Bd3 Rc8+ 8.Nc5 d4+ 9.Nxd4 exd4# and we have a beautiful checkmate with the pawn on the board.
It is interesting to see how White could have saved the position, and compare this option with the dull symmetric position arising from 1…Nd6 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nxc4 Nxc4 4.Bxc4 Qxd1+ Rxd1. Instead of 6.Nb3?, White could have played 6.Bc1 Rc8+ 7.Kb2 Rxc2 8.Qxc2 Bxc2 9.Kxc2.
White is technically better because he has 4 minor pieces, 2 rooks, and 4 pawns [12 + 10 + 4 = 26], while Black has the queen, one rook, and seven pawns [9 + 5 + 7 = 21]. However, because of the large material imbalance, the presence of many pawns and the queen, it is easier for me to imagine that I will be able to turn the table in this situation than in a symmetric position where I am slightly worse, we have the same pieces, and the same pawn structure.
I hope the message is clear - sometimes the reason why you decide to play a line instead of another can be purely psychological and have nothing to do with the “best assessment” of the position. You have to play moves that increase your chances to win, not the ones that make the engine happier. [This is a pivotal topic throughout my book]
Finally, do not believe that I analysed everything I am showing here when I played Nxf2 - there was no need. But this will be the topic of another of these exercises.
Comments