Mark Hathaway wrote in message ...
gec wrote:

... "You were very lucky, you had a lost endgame."

...
Skip down to move 24 for the beginning of the disputed endgame.

I'm gonna look over the whole game.
BTW, I haven't put this PGN code in ChessBase, so I'm
not absolutely certain it will read perfectly. It should.

Mark,

Thank you for your comments on my game. I have a few replies
(including a relatively lenghty reply on the question of my opponent's
behavior at the end of the game):

[Event "Midwest Class ch"]
[Site "Chicago, USA"]
[Date "2003.10.12"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Stevanovic, Miomir"]
[Black "Caveney, Geoffrey"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 Nf6

{ GC: As the Alekhine's Defense is in my repertoire, I have this
convenient answer to the Van Geet Opening. 3. e5 is the critical
reply, for which I am well-prepared, but I wasn't surprised that
my opponent chose the harmless 3. exd5 -- it appears to be more
in the spirit of the usual 1. Nc3 lines. }

( { MH: } 2...d4 { is probably the most contentious move, but YMMV. } )

Yes, 2...d4 is objectively better than 2...Nf6, but I was deliberately
trying to steer the game to positions I would be more familiar with
than my opponent, instead of the other way around.

( { MH: } 2...dxe4 3. Nxe4 Bf5 { should also be playable. } )

3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4

{ MH: I seem to recall some discussion of this line on
rec.games.chess.analysis (rgca) in the last few years. }

4...Nb6

{ MH: This has to be the most annoying move to White. Though
the knight is retreating it's attacking Bc4 and White has to
spend a precious tempo to save the bishop. }

5. Bb3

{ MH: Curiously, I was just looking at this variation a day
or two ago, though I began with a Scandinavian move-order:
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 (or 3. Bc4) Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nb6
5. Bb3 }

5...Nc6

( { MH: } 5...c5 {threatening ...c4 to win Bb3 } 6. d3 Nc6
{ gives Black better control of d4 and makes it possible to
defend pawn b7 along Black's second rank, so that ...Bf5 or
...e5 becomes a positional threat. } )

Burgess rejects 5...c5 as "?!", due to 6.Qh5! e6 (6...c4 7.Bxc4 "wins
a pawn in return for some activity") 7.d3 Nc6 (7...Be7 8.Ne4) 8.Bg5!
Be7 9.Bxe7! Qxe7 10.Ne4 with a kingside attack.

6. a4!?

{ GC: A novelty? Burgess' exhaustively thorough _Complete Alekhine_
gives six moves for White here (Nf3, f4, Qh5, Nge2, d3, Qf3), but
not this one! He does mention a4 on the next move (6. Nf3 Bf5 7. a4),
when no less than a grandmaster game, Epishin-Cs. Horvath,
Leningrad 1989, continued 7...Na5 8. Ba2 e6 9. O-O Be7 10. Re1 O-O
11. Ne4 c5 12. Ng3 Bg6 13. d3 Nc6 14. Bb3 c4 15. dxc4 Qxd1 16. Rxd1 Na5
17. Bf4 Nbxc4 18. Bxc4 Nxc4 19. Ne5 Nxe5 20. Bxe5 Rfd8 21. c4 Rac8,
"and Black's fine play gave him a distinct plus" - Burgess. But I'm
not sure if the same plan is right for Black if White has not
committed to Nf3 yet -- in fact, looking at it again now, I see
that 6. a4 Na5 runs into 7. Bxf7+! Kxf7 8. Qh5+ and 9. Qxa5! I played
the "obvious" reply 6...a5, taking the square away from my knight.

As such, I suppose one must consider my opponent's move order as
a theoretical improvement over Epishin's play above! Nevertheless,
it still doesn't seem like White gets much out of the position.
In this variation there are a number of traps if Black plays ...e5?
instead of ...e6, for example the beautiful line, cited by Burgess,
5...e5? (instead of 5...Nc6 above) 6. d3 Nc6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. h3 Bh5
9. Nxe5!! Bxd1 10. Bxf7+ Ke7 11. Bg5+ Kd6 12. Ne4+ Kxe5 13. f4+ Kd4
14. Rxd1 with a winning mating attack for White. As the Van Geet
Opening is chock full of winning tactical traps, I'm sure lines
like these are exactly what White is playing for with 3. exd5 Nxd5
4. Bc4, and it would be easy for a player who didn't know the theory
as Black to fall into one of them. I guess the moral of the story
is: don't play 1. Nc3 against an opponent who knows how to play
Alekhine's Defense! -- unless you want to study the theory of 3. e5. }

6...a5

{ MH: Wise choice. Now your game will have to be in the revised
editon of Burgess' book. }

7. Nf3 Bf5

{ GC: Another trap: 7...Bg4? 8. Bxf7+! Kxf7 9. Ng5+ and 10. Qxg4 +/-. I
actually fell into this one in a tournament game once (minus the a4,
a5), which is one reason I'm so careful to know how to play this
variation as Black now. }

8. d3 e6 9. Ne2

{ GC: A very "Van Geet"-like move, but in such an open position I don't
think White can hope to get much out of such a maneuver. }

( { MH: } 9. Bg5 Qd7 10. Ne4 { aims at preventing Bf8 from developing
comfortably while bringing Nc3 to the king-side to fight Bf5. } )

I think the correct move for Black after 9.Bg5 is 9...Be7.

9...Bd6 10. h3 Bg6

{ GC: Not wanting to risk "castling into it" with 10...0-0 11. g4 Bg6 12. h4. }

{ MH: This position offers Black several interesting directions to go.
None is clearly winning. Letting White force a minor piece trade was
probably a mistake. Black's position is superior. }

( { MH: } 10...h6 )
( { MH: Or } 10...Qf6 { looks good. } )

Interesting point and good ideas.

11. Nf4 Qf6!

{ GC: When I found this move I felt very comfortable about my
game -- now White is the one who has to play to equalize. }

12. Nxg6 Qxg6 13. 0-0 0-0 14. d4 Nd5!

{ GC: The blunt but effective plan of Nd5-f4 prompts my opponent's
defensive reply, which is better than 15. c4 or 15. Bxd5. Not a
bad use for the "Alekhine's knight" on b6. }

15. c3 Nf4 16. Bxf4 Bxf4 17. Bc2

( { MH: Bb3 is already developed. It's time for } 17. Qe2 { threatening
Bb3-c2 followed by Qe2-e4 or Bc2-e4 and Qe2-b5. Black's Bf4 and Nc6
and in some cases even Qg6 are targets without any real offensive
utility. Black needs to play carefully to avoid becoming worse. } )

Another good idea that neither of us apparently considered during the
game.

17...Qh6

{ GC: After much thought I preferred this square for the queen over
17...Qf6 18. Qd3 g6 19. Qb5 or 17...Qh5 when White can prepare the
exchanging maneuver Ne5. }

{ MH: Good square for the queen -- defending pawn h7 and Bf4. }

18. g3

{ MH: Bad. Chasing Bf4 is counter-productive. Better is to
activate the rest of White's pieces by moves such as Rf1-e1,
Qd1-d3 and then possibly to double rooks on the e-file. }

18...Bd6 19. Kg2 Ne7

{ GC: After some more thought I reluctantly rejected the natural plan
of ...e5, whether immediately or prepared with ...Rad8, fearing it
would lead to a dead drawn endgame (opposite-colored bishops with
no queens or knights on the board), which would do neither of us any
good given the tournament situation. (We were both 3-1, another 3-1
was playing the 3.5-0.5 on the section's top board, and a swarm of
players with 2.5-1.5 were playing below us.) Despite that, the
position demands that White exchange queens, and Black cannot avoid
it. But at least the knights stay on the board! }

20. Qd2

{ MH: White's queen is better, so why trade? 20. Qd3 or 20. Qe2
are better. At this point it might be wise to leave Rf1 until
it's more clearly safe to move off the f-file. But, Qe2 and Rae1
is good. }

During the game, both my opponent and I thought that Black had the
better chances of drumming up a kingside attack in the
opposite-colored bishops position, hence White's forcing a queen
exchange. Maybe we were wrong.

20...Qxd2 21. Nxd2 Nd5 22. Rfe1

( { MH: } 22. Nc4 Be7 23. Be4 { encouraging } c6 24. f4
{ and Ra1-e1 should follow, making pawn e6 and even Be7
behind it a target. } )

For what it's worth, my plan during the game was not to meet Nc4 with
Be7, but to allow the exchange Nxd6. Maybe that's a technically
inferior move, but with the tournament situation demanding a win,
anything playable that gets us out of the opposite-colored bishops
endgame is a positive development. And I certainly think the endgame
after Nxd6 is playable for Black, with both sides having chances to
win if the opponent plays the ending inaccurately. For one thing,
White cannot dislodge my knight from d5 without allowing it to hop
into the hole at b4. But now that I think about it, I should have at
least met Nc4 with Rfd8 so as to recapture on d6 with the rook, since
cxd6 would allow White to threaten to double my pawns with Bb3 and
Bxd5. I hadn't planned Rfd8 in advance during the game -- I might have
been vaguely thinking I could play cxd6 and meet Bb3 with Nb6, d5,
Rc8, Nc4 -- and White never played Nc4 to force me to find it or do
something else.

22...Rae8

( { MH: It's hard to be certain of Black's plan. There are no
targets in White's position and line opening isn't easy either.
It may be best to play } 22...c6 and await White's play. } )

23. f4?!

{ GC: My opinion is that this move was foolishly aggressive; obviously
my opponent disagreed, and judging from his post-game reaction the
further course of the game hadn't changed his mind. I suppose it's a
natural result of the "draw is no good" mindset, but such an attitude
is more dangerous for White than for Black in this position, I
believe. }

( { MH: } 23. Nc4 { threatens pawn a5 and Bd6 while holding onto e5. } )

Yes, here 23.Nc4 would have been strong. 23...b6 24.Nxd6 cxd6 25.Bb3
is ugly -- now even my previous vague idea is no longer operative with
the pawn taking away the b6 square from the knight -- although that
probably would have been the continuation.

23...Kh8

{ GC: Part waiting move, part preparation for a possible ...Rg8 and
...g5. I considered ...f6 and even ...f5?! to provoke the reply
that my opponent played anyway, but I feared that I would pay for
weakening e6 after Bb3! with the dangerous threat of c3-c4 and
c4-c5! }

24. Re2

{ GC: [W: Kg2, Ra1, Re2, Bc2, Nd2, Pa4,b2,c3,d4,f4,g3,h3
B: Kh8, Re8, Rf8, Bd6, Nd5, Pa5,b7,c7,e6,f7,g7,h7]

The punctuation for this move is I suppose the object in dispute.
I'm convinced it was a blunder, but when my opponent said I had a
"lost endgame", he must have meant the position after the following
combination. }

( { MH: Very bad. Black had nothing to do, but now he might
do something. Better was } 24. Nc4 { or 24. Nf3 } )

24...Bxf4 25. gxf4 Nxf4+ 26. Kf3 Nxe2 27. Kxe2

{ MH: Before the petite combination Black's rooks weren't very
good, but now Black can advance pawns and make the rooks good.
This makes the game very unbalanced and since Black got two
pawns in the deal he is better. White will have to spend his
time restraining pawns and that makes his pieces not very
dangerous. Can Black win? It possible, but it's too early to
say for certain. }

27...e5 28. d5 f5

{ GC: I admit to being somewhat partial to the rook in rook vs. two
minor pieces positions, especially in endgames, but here with all
objectivity I really thought Black's advantage was indisputable.
Not just a rook and two pawns for the two pieces, but two connected
passed pawns. }

29. Rf1

( { MH: } 29. h4 { to prevent Black from having 3 connected
passed pawns. } )

29...e4 30. h4?!

{ GC: Funny, for someone who was so convinced he was winning, he
didn't try the one plan I was truly concerned about -- Nc4,
attacking a5 and intending to follow with d5-d6! I spent 6-7 of
my remaining 16-17 minutes till move 40 (!) on 29...e4, deciding
between it and 29...g6. Ideally, Black wants to activate a rook
on the g-file via a rook lift, but it's hard to pull off tactically.
The conclusion I reached in my big think was that I would meet
30. Nc4 with 30...f4 31. Nxa5 f3+ 32. Ke3 Rf5, activating a rook with
threats of Rxd5, Rh5 or Rg5, and with the tactical point that
33. Bxe4 Rfe5 wins the bishop. But I didn't properly consider 31. d6
in this line, which might well be White's best.

I would be very interested to know rgca readers' thoughts about
this position, especially after 30. Nc4 -- or 29. Nc4, which is
also critical.

After 30. h4, I saw what White was planning and intentionally
let him carry it out.... }

{ MH: I think h2-h4 is necessary to prevent Black's offense from
gaining momentum. }

30...h6 31. h5 g5 32. hxg6 Kg7

{ GC: ...having seen that Black now wins the pawn back (33. Rg1 Rf6). }

33. Ke3

{ GC: I knew I could safely play 33...Kxg6 here, with every expectation
of winning. But I couldn't resist a sharp combinational alternative,
which has the benefit of drastically cutting down on White's
possibilities of confusing the issue by stirring up messy counterplay.
I couldn't see an adequate defense for White, and on top of everything
else it had the virtue of getting me very close to the time control
with a series of forcing moves! }

( { MH: I think it's here that White had to put up better resistance
and try to fight more forcefully. } 33. Rg1 Rf6 34. Ke3
{ and the fight reaches a peak of tension very quickly, but
certainly before Black has pushed his pawns very far. } )

33...f4+

{ MH: Either gutsy, well calculated or just a semi-random move. }

34. Rxf4 Rxf4 35. Kxf4 e3 36. Nf3 e2 37. Ne1

{ GC: All forced. Here 37...Rf8+ 38. Ke3 Rf1 39. Kxe2 doesn't work,
but now Black's other passed pawn comes into play to deflect the
king. }

37...h5 38. Bd3

( { MH: } 38. Be4 { to guard h1, seems more relevant. And, with
a bit of luck there'll be some time for c3-c4-c5, d5-d6 } )

Aha, yes this is a better move. But, after 38.Be4 h4, White will have
to retreat his bishop along the h1-e4 diagonal on move 39 or 40, or
else ...h3 and ...Rxe4 wins for Black. 39.Bg2 looks logical. But now
Black can simply play Kxg6 and send his king and rook after White's
queenside pawns, while White will have to spend some time rounding up
the two passed pawns before his pieces and/or king will be free for
queenside action. Given these factors, I don't think the c3-c4-c5,
d5-d6 plan is a realistic hope for White. My evaluation is that Black
is the only one with winning chances, and those chances are fairly
decent.

I should make clear that I did *not* look at 38.Be4 or the above plan
for Black when playing 33...f4+.

38...h4

{ GC: Here my opponent finally took a long think. To his credit,
he found an answer which puts up a good deal of resistance in
the resulting exchange-down ending. }

{ MH: It's awfully close to winning for Black. }

39. Kg4 Rf8 40. Kxh4

{ GC: I was hoping for 40. Bxe2 Re8 41. Kf3 h3, when I had foreseen
two pretty wins: 42. Kf2 Rxe2+! (not 42...h2?? 43. Bf3!) 43. Kxe2 h2
and 42. Nd3 h2 43. Nf2 Rf8+ 44. Kg2 Rxf2+. }

{ MH: Well calculated. }

40...Rf1 41. Kg3 Rxe1 42. Kf2

{ GC: Well calculated by White: there's nothing more than one pawn
for me to threaten with any rook move, so he can afford to wait
one more move to capture the pawn on e2. }

{ MH: Indeed, very clever play. }

42...Rh1

( { MH: } 42...Ra1 43. Kxe2
( 43. Bxe2 Kxg6 44. Bb5 Ra2 { -/+ } )
43...Ra2 44. Kd2 { to prepare for Bd3-c2 to
try to trap Black's rook } 44...Rxb2+ 45. Bc2 Rb6 { -/+ }
( 45...Ra2 { ?? } 46. Kc1 b6 47. Kb1 Rxc2 48. Kxc2 Kxg6 { and
the pawn ending is equal. } ) )

43. Kxe2

{ GC: My plan was to capture the b-pawn rather than the a-pawn,
so as to leave as many of the remaining White pawns as possible
frozen on the same color as his bishop, which allows Black to use
the king and rook to penetrate on the dark squares. Still, the
advanced passed pawn on g6 is a thorn in Black's side, complicating
the task of using the king and rook on the queenside where the game
will have to be won. On 43. Bxe2 I would have had to decide between
getting rid of the "thorn" with 43...Kxg6, or winning the b-pawn
instead with 43...Rb1. My intention was the latter. }

43...Rh2+

{ GC: Note that I also could have won the b-pawn with 42...Ra1
43. Kxe2 Ra2, but then White would have had the defense 44. Kd2 Rxb2+
45. Bc2, which is a slightly tougher fortress to crack than anything
White can set up after the game continuation. }

44. Kd1 Rxb2 45. Kc1 Rh2

{ GC: Eventually my rook will have to go to the g-file to cover
the passed pawn and free my king, but in a position like this
one there's no need to rush, so there was no need to mess with
45...Rg2 46. Be4 with the idea of d5-d6 and Bxb7. Even though I
see now that that probably loses, why give White more options? }

{ MH: Yes, Black can wait to play ...b6 and ...Kf6 before
committing to ..Rg2. }

46. c4?

{ GC: White had to leave this pawn on c3 to make it as tough
as possible for me to break in via the dark squares. He is
striving for something, anything, "active" to do -- the
dream is that I will somehow not play ...b6, allowing
c4-c5 -- but in this kind of position the only possible
defense is to patiently play waiting moves and hope the
opponent can't find a way to break through. Some people
just can't stand to play like this, especially if the
likelihood is that the result will ultimately be a loss.
The way I see it, it is honorable to put up tough
resistance for as long as possible until the result is
clear, but I suppose there is a mentality which doesn't
see things this way -- the same kind of mentality that
could lead one to say "You were very lucky" as the first
words to one's opponent after resigning. }

{ MH: Some people don't play the ending as well as others
and some people don't put up such stiff resistance when
they feel their position is horrible.

I don't understand your statement. You say it's honorable
to put up stiff resistance, but somehow his way of doing
that is distasteful to you.

What was distasteful was his unsportsmanlike comment after the game.
His weak endgame move was far from distasteful to me, I was delighted
to see it, but I do think there is a connection between the two in
terms of the player's psychological make-up, so I made that
connection. The psychological make-up is the classic "bully"
personality: putting on a front of extreme confidence when things
appear to be going well, and having no respect for the opponent's
ability nor believing that he could possibly be playing well -- and
then running away when it becomes clear that the intended victim is
willing and able to fight back against the bully, and is actually
doing so. His move 46.c4?!, his slamming the clock on moves 49 and 50,
his comment to me that I was lucky and had a lost endgame, his failure
to extend his hand for a handshake -- those are all classic
manifestations of the no longer invincible bully running away. Sadly
there are many chess players who act like this, so I am familiar with
the pattern.

Your attitude reminds me of an anecdote a friend of mine
told. He'd been beating the tar out of his opponent and
then slipped. I don't know what happened, what was said
during the game, but at the end the opponent, now having
won, told my friend to "Shut up and take your beating
like a man." Naturally this was a surprising thing to
hear from the guy who had been nearly beaten.

I believe both players are in the wrong, assuming the "Shut up" was in
response to some comment of your friend's about how his position had
been winning. You can argue -- objectively -- about the evaluation of
positions in the game, during serious postmortem analysis, but as an
immediate reaction at the end of the game, the only appropriate
behavior is this: From the loser, or from a player who was winning but
yielded a tough draw, congratulations to the opponent. From the winner
or the one who achieved a tough draw, magnanimous respect for the
opponent and his dignity, i.e., not rubbing it in. Any other behavior
at the end of a game, in my opinion, is a detriment to the game of
chess. And yes, in response to the examples you gave below, such
detriments can include grandmasters or even world champions.

I could easily have said something back to my opponent when he told me
I was lucky and had been lost -- I could have chosen from "Yes, I was
lucky, I got to play you" or "Your sportmanship is almost as poor as
your endgame play" -- but I believe that would be sinking to his
level, even if my comments would have had the virtue of wit which is
always absent from the comments of bullies. So I said absolutely
nothing. I did permit myself the subtle "display" of carefully
removing the pieces from the board one by one so that the last one
remaining was my opponent's king lying horizontally on the board.

People say and do weird things, and I include myself in
that number. Remember it was Alekhine, and/or Walter Browne,
who resigned by throwing his king across the room and some
people will not only play the game down to king v. king,
but will contiue to play that out - just to be sure.

Back to the game. }

46...b6 47. Bc2 Kf6 48. Kb2 Rh3

{ GC: Decisive: not only cutting off the king, but taking the d3
square away from the bishop as well. With White unable to set up
a fortress of the bishop on d3 and the king on c3, Black's next
three moves will be Rg3, Ke5, Kd4, and White must lose a pawn and
the game. }

{ MH: Excellent plan. }

49. Bb1

{ GC: This move and White's next were played with angry slams of
the clock. }

49...Rg3 50. Bc2 Ke5

{ GC: White Resigns. }

{ MH: Tough tough game. I'd love to see the results of a match
between you two. :-) }

0-1