Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
En/na Mark Hathaway ha escrit:

... I decided to add some meat to chew on. If anyone has
questions or wants to help me solve the mysteries of
these games then I'll discuss them.

I will try with game 3, ...

Thanks Antonio. Your notes seem pretty close to
my own impressions. This theme of playing soundly,
but not always getting the tactical opportunities
seems to be my recent pattern.

[Event "Land of the Sky Open"]
[Site "Asheville NC USA"]
[Date "2003.02.02"]
[Round "5"]
[White "unknown 2000"]
[Black "Hathaway"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B21"]
[PlyCount "72"]
[EventDate "2003.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 a6 4. Nc3 d5 5. exd5

{to play for an isolani in d5 after having played f4
seems dubious for me. } (5.d3 $5)

Me too. This is a terrific example of the limits
to studying opening theory and the importance of
knowing how to just play chess.

5... exd5 6. d4 Nf6 7. Be2 Nc6 8. Be3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bb4 10. O-O O-O

{White position is too much weakened (specially e4, e3). I prefer black
who in my opinion has a little advantage here.}

It's not concrete yet, but the seeds of future opportunities...

11. Na4 Re8

Another person has mentioned 11...Qe8 which is a pretty
little tactical possibility.

12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Bd2 $6
{Here the bishop has no future.} ({I prefer:} 13. Bd4) 13... Rb8 (13...
Bxd2 14. Qxd2 Ne4 15. Qd4 c5 $1 {is good for black too, (development).})

My idea was that he couldn't afford to trade bishops
because of the tactic you mention in your next note
and that this allows me to develop the othe piece (rook)
without having to move Nf6 again, yet.

14. c3
({White would have preferred to exchange his BAD bishop, but there is:}
14. Bxb4 Rxb4 15. b3 Qe7 $1 16. Bd3 Qe3+ 17. Kh1 Rxf4 {and black has won
a pawn, ... maybe white can fight for draw here with:} 18.Re1 $1
{because game continuation seems worse for white.})

That's a tough judgment for a player to make with the
clock running, perhaps even at home.

14... Bd6 15. Bd3 Ne4 16. Qc2 Qh4 17. Rae1 f5 $6

{I don't like to block the way of my Bc8.} (17... Bf5 {with the idea of
playing Re6 followed by Rbe8 and Rg6 or Rh6 with great attacking chances
for black.})

I didn't like it either, but I didn't want to just line up
my pieces with his and then face a massive trade-off at
some later time.

18. g3 Qh3 19. Rf2 Re6 20. Bf1 Qh5 21. Be2 Qf7 22. Rff1 Qa7+ 23. Kg2 Bd7
24. b3 c5 25. Nb2 Rbe8 26. Bf3 Bc6 27. Nd1 Qb7 28. Ne3 g6 29. Nd1 d4 $1

{Black has a clear advantage (probably decisive), ... it's only question
to calculate accurately.}

30. Kg1 $6 Bb5

({A typical theme is:} 30... d3 $5 31. Qxd3 c4 $1 32. bxc4 (32. Qxc4 $2
Nxd2 $19) 32... Nxd2 33. Bxc6 Qb6+ 34. Nf2 Rxe1 35. Bd5+ Kf8 36. Qxd2
R1e2 37. Qd4 Bc5 ({Black can have a solid advantage with:} 37... Qxd4
38. cxd4 Rd2 $17) 38. Qh8+ Ke7 39. Qxh7+ Kd8 $19 {and black is winning a
rook and possibly the game.})

Wow, that's a rather large chunk of analysis. Do you think it's safe
to depend upon one's ability to get that much done correctly?

31.c4 Bc6 32. Qd3 $6 Qe7

(32... Nxd2 $1 33. Bxc6 Rxe1 $1 34. Bxb7 Rxf1+ 35. Kg2 Rxd1 36. Bf3 Re3
$19 {with too much material for the queen.})

This I might have managed if it weren't that time control
was at move 35. I think my analysis variations were only
going about 4 or 5 play deep at that moment. Maybe that's
something I need to work on a bit. I've often had difficulty
switching from those long-think quiet moments to the often
hairy tactical crunches that come at time control. I've
lost what were probably drawn positions to a GM and WGM
in recent years because of just that. It is the sort of
weakness in a person's skill-set which doesn't come up in
every game and is easily overlooked, but it does reappear
at the worst of times.

33. Bc1 a5 34. a4 Qb7 35. Kg2 $2 Rb8 36. Nb2 Qxb3

{as a fast look, it seems to me that white played weakening moves in the
opening, obtained a BAD bishop and finished with a sad distribution of
forces. Black did not use all his tactical opportunities but allways had
a better position. A fatal mistake in 35th move finished the game}

Yep. Thanks Antonio, very perceptive analyses.

0-1