Elisabeth O’Shaughnessy vs. James Burke, REPLAY GAME HERE
Round 1 of the team tournament, Tuesday 9th June 2009.
Annotated by James Burke
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Alapin’s move – perhaps inspired by Sam Collins’ recommendation…!?
2…d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Nf6 6.d4
Given the circumstances, as shown in the next note, better might have been 6.Na3 with 6…Bg4 the most likely move.
6…cxd4 7.cxd4?? Completely missing the fact that the bishop is en prise. Either 7.Bxc6+ or 7.c4 followed by the capture of the d-pawn were best.
7…Bg4?? I was so intent on playing this move that I also missed it! At least I can claim that my illustrious opponent missed it first. The game would have been considerably shorter than it was – and with far less worry on my part! Ironic, as it sets the scene for the rest of the game, which is one of missed opportunities for both sides…
8.Nc3 Qe6+ Rybka prefers 8…Bxf3 9.Nxd5 Bxd1 10.Nxf6+ – or 10.Nc7+ – 10…ef 11.Bxc6+ bc 12.Kxd1 0-0-0 13.Ke2 Rxd4 14.Be3 Rb4 15.b3, which it scores as 0.00. There was also the possibility of 8…Qh5 but I didn’t consider this for the following reason. Most of this game, from my perspective, centres around the pawn formations – I wanted to ensure that White’s isolated d-pawn remained as such, so that I could tie-up her pieces defending it or enter a advantageous endgame. For this reason, my queen needed to stay in touch with the knight on c6 for any recapture, rather than do so with the b-pawn, as this would then have provided White with a similar target for counter-play on the half-open c-file.
9.Be3 Nd5 10.Ng5
Rybka prefers 10.Qe2 Nxc3 11.bc Qf6 12.Rb1 0-0-0 13.0-0 Bxf3 14.gf Rd5 15.Bd3 e6, which doesn’t appeal particularly appeal to me. 10…Qd7 Still keeping the pawn formations in mind. I gave serious thought to both 10…Nxe3 11.Nxe6 Nxd1 12.Nc7+, etc, and even 10…Qxe3+ 11.fe Bxd1 12.Nxd5(!) – not 12.Nxd1 – but didn’t like the outcome of either of them, in terms of giving a clear advantage.
11.Qb3 Rd8? Clearly 11…Nxc3? allows 12.Qxf7+. The problem was that whilst 11…e6 protects the knight, it results in the pawn formation becoming identical after 12.Nxd5 ed (with or without the queen exchange on d5) – if followed by the minor piece exchange on c6, it would be Black with the backward pawn on c6 and the isolated one on a7. However, that might have been better – Rybka gives 11…e6 12.0-0 Be7 13.Nxd5 ed 14.h3 Bf5 15.Rac1 0-0 16.Nf3 Rac8 17.Rfe1. I still wanted White’s d-pawn to remain a isolated target on a half-open file and 11…Rd8 solves that problem – but creates another, which neither of us spotted over the board…
12.O-O …Missing 12.Nxd5(!) Qxd5 13.Bc4 when Black is in trouble – 13…Qa5+ 14.Kf1 Be6 15.Nxe6 fe 16.Bxe6 Rd6 17.Rc1 Nd8 18.Rc8 Rc6, which is scored as +1.99. 12…e6 13.Rae1 Rybka prefers 13.h3 Bf5 14.Nf3 Nxe3 15.f3 Bd6 16.e4 Bg6 17.d5 ed 18.ed 0-0 19.dxc6.
13…a6? 13…Bb4 14.a3 Bxc3 15.bc 0-0 16.Ne4 Bf5 17.Bd2 h6 18.Bd3 Bxe4 19.Rxe4 e5 was better…
14.Bd3
Again missing the above possibility – 14.Nxd5 Qxd5 15.Bc4 Qd7 16.d5 Na5 17.Qc3 Nxc4 18.Qxc4 and Black is struggling. Equally 14…ed doesn’t offer much better – 15.Bd2+ Be7 16.Bxc6 bc 17.Qg3 0-0 (else 18.Bb4) 18.Rxe7 Qxe7 19.Qxg4 and the two minor pieces should prove worth more than the rook.
14…h6 15.Nge4 Ndb4 16.Be2 Bf5 Rybka prefers 16…Bxe2 17.Rxe2 f5 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.dc 0-0. I felt that the tide was turning in my favour…
17.a3 Na5 Or 17…Nd5 straight away. 18.Qd1 Nd5 19.b4 Again, Rybka prefers 19.Nxd5 Qxd5 20.Qa4+ Nc6 21.Ng3 Bg6 22.Rc1.
19…Nc6 Also possible was 19…Nxc3 20.Nxc3 Rc8 21.ba Rxc3 22.d5 Rxa3 23.de Qxd1 24.Rxd1 fe, etc.
20.b5?!
This was White’s last chance to keep Black on the back foot – 20.Nxd5 Bxe4 21.Nc3 Bd5 22.Nxd5 Qxd5 23.Bf3 Qb5 24.Be4 Be7 25.d5 0-0 26.Qc2 Ne5, which, according to Rybka, is +0.52. After 20.b5, Rybka scores the play in Black’s favour.
20…Nxc3 21.bxc6 Or 21.Nxc3 Nxd4 22.Bxd4 Qxd4 23.Qxd4 Rxd4 24.ba ba 25.Bxa6 Bxa3 26.Nb5 Ra4, which is scored as -0.73.
21…Qxc6 Also possible was 21…Nxd1 22.cd+ Rxd7 23.Ng3 Nxe3 24.fe Bg6 25.a4 (-0.85). 22.Nxc3 Qxc3 23.Qa4+ Qc6 24.Qxc6+ bxc6 25.Bxa6
Or 25.Ra1 Bd6 (-0.41). 25…Bxa3 26.Ra1 Bb2 27.Ra4 Be4?! According to Rybka, this squanders Black’s advantage to some extent. I intended playing …Bd5 to cut down on the squares for White’s rook on the fourth rank, whilst protecting the c-pawn. Stronger was 27…Ke7 28.g4 Bc2 29.Ra2 Rb8 30.Re1 Bh7 31.Bf1 Rhd8 32.Ra4 Ra8 33.Rc4 Be4 34.Bg2 Bd5 (-0.82).
28.Rb4 According to Rybka, White could level here (+.0.00) with 28.f3 Bg6?! 29.Rb4 but I’d play 28…Bd5 here, and if 29.Rb4 Bc3 30.Ra4 0-0, which is scored -0.81. 28…Ba3 29.Rc4? Surely 29.Ra4 was to be preferred (although Rybka still scores it -1.44) !? White has decided to get the c-pawn – at any cost…perhaps feeling that the two bishops are enough to compensate for the exchange!? She did comment, after the game, that she likes to complicate things….
29…Bd3 30.Rxc6 Bxf1 31.Bxf1 31.Kxf1 was also possible, with 31…0-0 32.Rc4 Rb8 33.Ke2 Rb6 34.Bc8 to follow (-1.70)
31…Ke7 32.Bb5 Rb8 Or 32…Rc8 33.Ra6 Ra8 34.Rc6 Rhc8 35.h4 (-2.67)
33.Rc7+ Kf6 I could have played 33…Kd8, embarrassing White, to some extent, (-4.18) but, over the board, didn’t like the possibility of dropping pawns – “better safe than sorry”, as they say…
34.Bd3 Rhc8 35.Ra7 With the exchange of rooks, White’s d-pawn would be lost.
35…Bc1 The long way of winning the pawn – simplest was 35…Rc3 36.Be4 Bc1 37.h3 Bxe3 38.fe Rxe3 39.Bc6 Rd8 40.Kf2 Rc3 41.Bb5 Rxd4 42.Be8.
36.Ba6 Rb1 37.Rb7 Rxb7 37…Ra1 38.Bf1 Bxe3 39.fe Rcc1 was stronger. As mentioned earlier, the rook exchange would leave the d-pawn more vulnerable, so I didn’t mind – the game was a “won game” from move 29..
38.Bxb7 Rc7 Again 38…Rc3 was stronger. Apart from the odd move which would have shortened the win, the rest of the game is straightforward.
39.Ba6 Bb2 40.Bf4 Ra7 41.Be5+ Kg6 42.Bd3+ f5 43.h4 Ra1+ 44.Kh2 Rd1 45.Be2 Rd2 46.h5+ Kf7 47.Bf3 Bxd4 48.Bxd4 Rxd4 49.Kg3 e5 50.Be2 Kf6 0-1 (Time)
Overall, a interesting game – though full of too many errors on my part. I definitely wish I’d spotted the en prise bishop!
Rathmines Chess Club 