However we had a secret weapon this time: a postgraduate with an inactive FIDE rating of 2287 let his existence be known a few days before, and asked to play. We were still light lower down the batting order (212f-213, 195-200, 171f-189, 164-181, 155f-183, 129f-168) but it was a real morale booster to surprise them like that - and it shunted me down to board 4. There I was paired with the 181-graded Nigel Hosken. For many years a 190+ and Downend's top board, he is recently perhaps a little too solid: like me has one win and no losses in the league thus far. Though it ended in a short draw, this game turned out to be anything but solid!
I must say at this point that I am very grateful to the readers who offered their thoughts on my philosophical meanderings in the last post. They surely influence the tone of this post, which lingers on much the same ground. But then this game is a natural sequel to the last, for once again I took an early draw with a strong opponent that is hard to explain:
A comparatively short game, but there's lots to say. First and foremost, we won! (3.5-2.5; WDWDDL) A potentially serious blow for Downend, and from a team that has been doing nothing all season. Suddenly our old top board was steamrollered by his successor in a way that even the local IMs can't manage, and it was as if the rest of us had suddenly remembered how to play chess! It's trademark University, though by all accounts quite typical for Downend too.
Perhaps the result again justifies my draw offer. But then again, perhaps not. It's almost inconceivable that black can lose the end position, and white has to work to hold. Nevertheless, I strove to secure the worst feasible outcome as quickly as possible - and that's the heart of the matter. For in the heat of the moment, I do believe that I could easily lose the position; that sooner or later I will blunder*; that it was somehow unnatural for me to get an advantage in the first place. Much of this is strength consciousness - I certainly don't regard it as unnatural to get an advantage against sub-150s, nor do I make irrational draw offers to them. But I reject the philosophy of aiming for a playable position in the opening and simply try to kill people there and then - against everyone. Equally, endgames are endgames, regardless of the opponent.
On the openings point though, I rather let myself down! 7... b5!? was certainly below my usual standards of objectivity, but also a useful reminder that there are many ways to skin a cat. Relaxing a bit turned out to be more profitable than stressing over the search for a hole in his repertoire; if only I'd followed through the outcome could have been even better. Nevertheless I must reiterate that the gambit can't be recommended. In purely chess terms, the 'highlight' is the mutual blindness between moves 12 and 14, which I find truly cringeworthy. It's amazing that one can stop calculating so abruptly that a hanging piece can be missed - yet another warning to keep concentrating.
Still, a welcome fillip as we head into a week off. Next up are the reigning champions South Bristol, who are stuck near the bottom of the table for reasons largely of their own making. That's a story for elsewhere; for now we can be guardedly optimistic after this fine result.
* To quote Aagaard, in Excelling at Chess Calculation: "if we blunder and then lose our belief in ourselves, it becomes easier to repeat the blunders. We expect ourselves to blunder at some point, which puts pressure on us so, though we do not want to blunder, we somehow program our brain to blunder. No wonder that it complies."
No comments:
Post a Comment