This was the game where I finally got to wheel out a respectable reply to 1. d4, having spent most of the last 18 months meddling with the Benko Gambit and Classical Dutch (and the odd Budapest Gambit thrown in for good measure.) I played the 162-grade Phil Nendick, and after walking into a line I don't know very well, I ended up in just the sort of position I hate, and whilst it was tenable in the computer's hands, it certainly wasn't in mine:
For the benefit of the large proportion of the readership that doesn't know any Latin, the title of the post is a work by the 12th-century philosopher Peter Abelard, who in temperament and thought dominated his time and so is prominent in the Medieval History unit I've just finished in my degree course. I am told it translates roughly to 'know yourself,' and that's something I need to keep in mind at times in chess!
I am sure that the Nimzo-Indian is perfectly playable for black, and certainly I don't intend to abandon it after one game in which I needlessly walked into a line that I don't know. But at the same time, I have never been a patient or subtle player, and so I tend to do best in sharper lines where it's acceptable, indeed often necessary, to play in a forcing manner. Having to be a punching bag behind a closed pawn formation with no prospect for counterplay is not my cup of tea at all, and perhaps it was inevitable that I should lash out in a way that brought the end of the game forward considerably.
But, of course, there is a paradox here: I chose to start playing the Nimzo-Indian precisely because I feel that I need to diversify my play beyond this route-one style. In other words, to improve, I need to get into uncomfortable positions. In online blitz I have done quite well with it - primarily it's just a case of filling in the NID repertoire holes, as it's possible to play strategically and yet still in a sharp way. One of my favourite players, Botvinnik, was a master at this, and eventually I will get round to acquiring one of his books.
The match was a bit of a disappointment; WDWLLD spelt our 7th draw in 11, but at least we preserved our unbeaten record. It was a shame, as we seemed to be well on the way to a victory after two early (and very boring) draws, and a win on board 1 in more laboured fashion; boards 3 and 4 were both very much in our favour. Both got unnecessarily unclear in time trouble, and whilst we held on for a win on 3, board 4 saw a hung Rook. I could probably have drawn, even after my opening inexactitudes, with accurate play - a convincing win was entirely possible! We seem to have done this in a lot of matches, and could be right up with Clifton A if we'd converted them. As it is, they are inching ever further into the distance...
My next games, I am excited to say, will be this weekend (including Friday), since I have entered the e2e4 Torquay Open. And this time it's not a case of playing up - I have to play the top section! A small moment of pride for me, as it's the first time that's been so. There are two GMs and two FMs entered, and whilst I'm highly unlikely to meet any of them there are certainly plenty of strong opponents to look forward to.
Finally, I mentioned loads of interesting/inspiring games in the ream of variations at the start of my notes. For convenience, the games can be found here: Torre-Spassky, Spassky-Tal, Botvinnik-Capablanca, and one I didn't mention, the best-known game in the Hübner Variation I aimed for, Spassky-Fischer.
No comments:
Post a Comment