My pairing this time however, was not the easiest. Although I have played the junior Akshaya Kalaiyalahan (167/1920) twice before, drawing the first game with difficulty and the second with comfort, she continues to improve at a remarkable rate that I can't match. In such cases, even 6-monthly grading can't keep up, and I would suggest that her results are more like those of a 180. In any case, for an 11-year-old to be so strong is very impressive and I'd be amazed if she isn't titled soon (WCM requires a FIDE rating of 2000.)
The game below may have the look of a one-sided demolition, and perhaps it was. Given the tone of the above paragraph, you can probably guess which end of it I was on. But actually, I think that with the exception of one or two moves, I played quite well! Nonetheless, I was made to look like a beginner in my favourite structure by some straightforward yet powerful play:
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how chess should be played - simple, assertive, ruthlessly to-the-point, and with tactical points reduced to a supporting role. You might have noticed that concrete variations (as opposed to plans, which are everywhere in the notes) are less common than usual in my annotations, and this is not down to laziness - they are simply not necessary. Ideas are everything in this game, and my opponent demonstrated an understanding of the position that many of her predecessors have lacked. That's why I have a very good score in this structure - knowledge is power.
This game coincided with the first day of Wimbledon, and whilst it was a day most likely to be remembered for Nadal's first-round exit, I was just as impressed by a typically graceful Federer crush that moved Tim Henman to quip "I just hope Hanescu doesn't have to pay for this lesson when it's over." The chess was quite close to the tennis; this really was a lesson, and a game to be looked at carefully - and like the hapless Romanian, despite playing at a high level in relative terms I was still blown away. But, to put it bluntly, why did I lose? I believe it was down to a lack of concentration - whilst thinking over my 13th move, I simply didn't notice that ...Nb6 is stopped permanently by a5 and so didn't play it before ...Rc8 as I should have done. Then, when I discovered this oversight, I panicked and lashed out with the suicidally impatient 14... f5??, which is so positionally bad it deserved to run head-first into tactical retribution. Suffice it to say that impatience, being too lazy to calculate 4 ply ahead and lacking focus have been mentioned plenty of times in the past as problems with my play. Even following my recent epiphanies, I am still happy to play sharp positions like this one - as white demonstrated, they are still quite simple - in order to generate serious winning chances with black, but the price is that black is walking a tightrope from early on. Hence, even the small number of weak moves I made resulted in the contest ending long before I resigned.
But ultimately, it was only a game as a filler (I may be asked to play again in any of the next 3 weeks depending on others) and from my point of view doesn't count for much more than knocking my FIDE rating down lower than it's ever been before. I will get over it soon enough, and the lessons to be drawn are worth the pain of losing to an 11-year-old without a fight. At the rapidplay at the same venue on Saturday, we shall see if I made use of them.
PS, 17/8: A few weeks after this game, my opponent became the (joint) British Ladies' Champion, with 4.5/11 in the main British Championship. A remarkable achievement for someone of that age!
No comments:
Post a Comment