Annotated chess game

The line is a good deal older than Chekhover, too. Incidentally, the line 2...d6 is known as the 'Kopec Defence'.

Exchanging a centre-flank pawn for a centre one can't (in general) be bad. GM Bent Larsen allowed that he felt that 3.d4 was - for all that it was the most popular line - a bit dubious for White precisely owing to this exchange by Black.

The Chekhover Variation is 4. Qxd4. Don't rely on GK's database as a source of opening names   After 3. d4 it doesn't know what to call it yet, because it can still branch off into many named variations.

Well I'm sure it worked for Jock (or is it Jack, or are they 2 different people?) but I'm talking about mid ratings or below. Which we are both. I'd suggest you look at the 3...Nf6 alternative to exchanging away and giving White lead in tempo and position. If you have time perhaps you'd like to play another Sicilian with colours reversed? I'll play Black and the Sicilian the way I prefer. If I win you agree to try my line out every now and then? Hmmm?  

This flank advance ...a6 should probably wait a move in this line. Had Black played at move two ...e6, then this is playable, leading to the Kan System. Instead 4.Nf6 would have induced White's 5.Nc3. But White could have taken advantage of the lapse to push 5.c4, setting up a 'Maroczy Bind'. That thing doesn't hold terrors for everyone, but in OTB days I had a lot of success with it (usually arrived at via an English Opening, oddly enough). As played, Black can now transpose into main lines by 5...Nf6.

Yes I know. I was somewhat expecting you to double those pawns, like I say in the preamble to this annotation, I was using my knowledge of your play against you. Dirty tricks perhaps? But then Ruben always does the same to me. It's the only way to learn your own flaws I suppose!  

The thing with doubled pawns is that they can occur whenever a pawn captures something. Here BLack should keep this bishop, which is performing good service at e6.

interesting finesse. I think I would simply have played 10.exd5 with the same continuation as the game, but leaving the pawn at b3 and the Black bishop at f8. The effect of that would have been to keep the Black king stuck in the centre whilst White built up his attack. A possible line runs 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Qxd6 12.Qh5 g6!? 13.Qh4 Bg7!? 14.Qa4ch Nc6 (NOT 14...Qc6?? hoping to exchange Queens, on account of 15.Bb5!) 15.Be4 Qd7 16.Be3, bring the Black Q-side under a lot of pressure.

The Lcb isn't pinned. If it were to move away the rook recaptures on d1 should you press on with the Q. 12...O-O was the preferred option, I believe, since the centre is dissolving and, well, you discovered how vulnerable an uncastled king is if the centre is gone.

This seems to me OK for Black.

pawn movement was fine response to the threat. At this point, early as it is in the game, once you neglected to castle and came out with the Q instead, you were always going to be pushed onto the backfoot.

Again, you were on the backfoot. No choice, that B had to retreat. Did it have to retreat quite that far? Hard to tell, Bc5 would have brought by b pawn out to attack though it would have denied my Q an open rank. Bd6 gives you piece coordination in that the Q,B and pawn all are linked up nicely....but does cut off an avenue of retreat for the Q. I wouldn't sweat the move too much, you had not compensated for loss of tempo (what have you gained?) but you were getting your forces back from their over-extension.

Yes, again, I knew you would now feel the pressure of not having castled and want to preserve it and thus attempt to get off the backfoot by going onto the front. Unfortunately, if one's backfoot is not planted well enough, all you end up doing is tripping! Far better, like I told you afterwards, to Kf8 and settle for Kg7 later. Expensive in time but, once on the backfoot, sometimes all you can do is go backwards until you've steadied!

[?] Nor would 15...Qc6 have been any good. Black could have intervened with the knight, say, to c6, though after 15...Nc6 16.Bb4 0-0 17.Bxc6 bxc6 the split pawns on the Q-side might have been something of a problem for Black. Also playable was 15...Qd7 16.Bb5 Nc6.

This little bit I think you can be a little happy with. That was, like I said, your best response to a bad situation and this Black's best outcome by 19.

When for fear of Bh6ch Black has to run the gauntlet of the open d-file, you know Black's game is looking pretty dire.

I was thinking that White could simplify to an endgame two passed pawns to the good after this: 20...Re8 21.Qxb8ch!? Kxb8 22.Bf4ch Kb7 23.Rxa1, with a more or less straightforward win. Of course 21.Bg5 would have been objectively better...

That line did actually occur but I decided that a longer road to the summit than the 21. Bg5 line but it didn't matter in the end anyway!

Opposition is absolutely fundamental in pawn endings -- understanding it is the difference between a win and a draw. Perhaps your patronising tone is uncalled-for.

Go through Joe's past games, then, Michael and tell me how often he gets down to pawn endings. Then tell me how often it's all over for Joe by the endgame due to mistakes and tactical weakness in the middle. Then you can decide for yourself whether it is more important for Joe to grasp fundamentals before rushing to high-level endgame theory. EDIT: **** it overwrote my original comment. For those playing at home I basically gave the definition of a fork then suggested that it was inappropriate to study high level endgame theory and learn terms such as "Opposition" if one didn't even know fundamentals such as the definition of a fork. But in more words. And, apparently, a patronising tone.  

I would agree that bishops and the bishop pair are greatly overrated. But in the right circumstances, they can be lethal, and far better than knights. But the knight have their moments too when they take the ascendancy over bishops. The 'good' and 'bad' labels come from their relationship with pawns. A bishop with lots of its own pawns on its own colour complex is called 'bad', with its own pawns on the opposite colour is called 'good'. But I have myself noticed that a 'bad' bishop can be a useful defensive piece in the end game; though the 'good' bishop may be the more mobile. So 'bad' might be kinda - you know - BAD. Badass, like Bishop Odo.

Joe, this was a most justifiable resignation which is what I said in the annotation. Although I did notice, reading the line "he said no and JUSTLY resigns" can, to the eye, sometimes read "he sad no and just resigns" which is why I'm emphasising it here again, I think you were JUSTIFIED in resigning!   Now as for changing your style, completely overhauling your style after one, or a thousand defeats, is simply impractical. But what you should be doing, what all of us should be doing, is REFINING your style. Keep what works, try to iron out over 4, 10, 100 games one or two of the things that don't! And, most importantly of all, KEEP ENJOYING YOUR CHESS!   If you're getting that done, everything else is just gravy!   Thanks for the comments!   (Edit: And Ha-ha Duke. Loved your comments. Wondered why I didn't reply then found out when I realise you can only comment once on an annotation, thereafter becomes an edit of the original.   ))