That was the plan anyway. He opted to avoid it, but only by allowing me to play something with which I am a lot more comfortable on my own resources. The result was a crisp squeeze:
I don't achieve it very often, but this is what I have in mind when I write about winning games in the style of a tank offensive. Creeping inevitably, no drama, and not much fun to be on the receiving end of. I can't pull off grand combinations, but I can see the small lines that make strategy work - 11. Bb3! is the most obvious example.
For once, analysing a game has improved my view of it - apparently I played very accurately, with only 16. Qe1 and 27. Rfd1 warranting serious criticism. I genuinely think that I figured out the opening quite well; I don't think that Black did anything really wrong for a while after 5... d6, but one weak move in the Ruy Lopez is often all that White needs to gain a serious plus. The regular Zaitsev is a rare guest at high levels nowadays (it was a staple of many Kasparov-Karpov games in the 1980s, but since the positions are very dynamic, Karpov did not fare well at all) and it's obviously going to be harder for Black if he has lost time. After 18. b3 induced Black to give up a pawn, it was smooth enough; I could probably have found a faster route to the goal (as mentioned, move 27 is a good place to look) but for once I was happy that I would get there in the end - and I did. The mystery for me is how my playing level could fluctuate so much in the space of 24 hours...
This ticked my main box for the tournament - I had won a game. The more outlandish target of 50% didn't seem out of the question, for I just needed 1½/2 over the closing weekend. The Saturday game pitted me against a similarly-graded opponent, albeit with the black pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment