Annotated chess game

GA analysis here: gameknot.com/analyze-board.pl?bd=28716294&fb=1&rnd=0.201288536994227

After 7...Ne5, the more popular - and more successful - retreat has been 8.Be2, according to the Gameknot Database. It is not easy to discover why...

It seems to me that the disruption White has permitted in his own game indicates why 9.Nd2 seldom sees the light of day!

In the only example of this line in the Gameknot World database, White exchanged on f4, the idea being, presumably, to castle 'longhand'. But White never did get castled properly, though his did bring his rooks into close communication on f1 and e1 before bringing the King back to d1.

Suddenly I'm wondering if White isn't on to something here! Apart from the king on f1, White's game doesn't look all that bad. Not bad at all! The knight on f4 is 'sort of' pinned, if Black doesn't want queens to be exchanged on f6, with the consequent scrambling of her K-side structure. This might get interesting!

Two comments, here. [A] Probably White could have done rather better than to exchange on f4. White would quite like to exploit the 'semi-pin' at f4, but the immediate 13.g3 is met by the annoying 13...Bh3ch. So, how about 13.h3, then? Let us suppose that Black begins Q-side operations: 13.h3 a5!? 14.g3 a4 15.Bc2 Bxh3ch 16.Rxh3 Nxh3 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.f4! ... (and the h3-knight will be trapped by the coming Kg2). ++++++ [B] I prefer 13...Qxf4, on account of the aforementioned 'semi-pin' at f5. Not by a huge amount, though. Against some opponents I might fancy the 2 bishops despite the wounded pawn structure and the queens off. ++++++ [C] Instead of 14.Ne2?! White might again have tried to make something of the Black knight's awkward placing at f4. Try 14.h4! threatening 15.g3 Bh3ch 16.Rxh3 Nxh3 17.Qxf6ch gxf6 18.Kg2. (The reason why 13.h4? doesn't work is that the reply 13...h5 gives the square g4 to the Black bishop to trap the White queen). ++++++ [D] 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Kxe2 ... with an equal game; though possibly White's is more equal than Black's! ++++++ Sorry: make that four comments.

Low cunning. Black must have the better game, now: the bishop pair, more active (minor) pieces, badly placed White King.

A piece sacrifice 19...f5! was 'on' at the beginning of this sequence. Actually, it would not have been a sacrifice: 19...f5 20.fxg4?? fxe4ch 21.Nf3 exf3 22.Qd2 fxg2ch 23.Kxg2 Qxg4#. Even if White declined the bishop (Qe1, say), Black's attack must have been good for a decisive breakthrough. ++++++ Having said that, Black's attack must still come, sooner or later. Instead of 21...a5, given this position, I probably would have played 21...f5 with the idea 22.a5 fxe4! 23.axb6? exf6, with a decisive attack.

Had to come!

White might have been better advised to try and blunt the attack by 23.Qf2, to exchange queens. Mind you, a blunt instrument is no less lethal than a sharp one, in the right (i.e. wrong) hands...

These kinds of double checks, when both checking pieces might otherwise be liable to capture, or are pinned, can be terrible things to face.

A move 'too' late, Jo: instead of the bishop check, 26...Qg4 would have been checkmate! Also 26...Qh3ch 27.Kg1 Qf1# was also quicker. But, of course, you can win a game only once! (It happens to us all. In the middle of last year, I found a 5-move mate, hallucinated that I'd got it wrong, and turned it into a 7-move mate. 36.Rg3ch? It was not until playing through the thing later that I realised what I'd done. The odd thing was that the obvious 36.Bh7ch was the first move I thought of! Just where the hallucination came from I can't explain). ++++++ Fine game!