Irish Chess Journal Diciembre 2010 | Page 11

FM John Delaney annotates! Delaney, J (2227) - Short, P (2309) Irish Ch (5), 2009 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6 A surprise with the effect that I had little opening knowledge and certainly nothing later than something I read in 1987.... Philip is a terribly dangerous soul with those Knights of his and I often think I ought to sit down and find an opening where I get to do Bishop takes Knight twice and then simply grin across at him! In the French he likes to attack with ...g5 and ... h5 too which is not a pleasant prospect to face. So, yes, I could see what was coming already but stood helpless.... 5.Qg4 Bf8 6.Bg5 My memory was that Tal played this once and that it was a problem if Black tried ....Ne7 as I could take that Knight with the Bishop and there would be a trick (Nxd5) which would force black to retake with the King. But really it has little meaning as a trick as Black plays the Queen to d7 in this line in any case. 6...Qd7 7.Nf3 Ba6 8.Bxa6 Of course Philip was right in saying after the game that I ought to make this positional achievement somewhat more difficult. I simply decided to go for quick activity, assuming this was a less theoretical line just in case Philip had bought a laptop recently.... 8...Nxa6 9.O-O h6 10.Bd2!? Ne7 11.h4 c6 During the game I felt that this was sufficiently slow as a plan to justify the White play. I was of course playing like Tal [I had the cheek to say this after the game...] and Philip was now playing like Petrosian [his response to me when I cited Tal!] 12.Nd1 Nc7 13.a4 O-O-O You play a4 to dissuade Queen-side castles, and he just goes ahead and castles. These Cork lads have no shame.... 14.a5 b5 15.Qf4 I had decided on a Queen sacrifice at this point but was holding an emergency exit of some kind if 11 | P a g e necessary. 15...Nf5 16.Ne3 g5 17.Qg4!? Apparently the Fritz's of the world explain that 17.Qh2 was better. One thing I like about this game is the shockingly bad assessment that come from Fritz, which is unaware of what was significant about the resulting closed positions. 17...h5 18.Qxg5 Bh6 retrospect that his assessment that the position is better for Black was correct and the Queen sacrifice was wrong. But the key for him in this position was to now ignore the possibility of B x Rook, and play directly for activity on the g-file. 21...Rdf8 22.Bf6 Rhg8 23.Ng5 Rg6 24.Nh7 Black is now getting himself  tied up in knots. 24...Rc8 25.Bg5 and very nice reorganisation of the  apieces is appearing. An urgent  attempt (with ... Ne8) to avoid letting  White continue to improve his pieces  is understandable, despite it being a  blunder.          This was the key position. I had seen  that I could now play Qf6 and Black  could draw with Bg7. I had dismissed  this as a likely outcome for this game and Philip would go for Bxe3. The  choice of then retaking with the   Bishop (bad) or pawn was analysed and I had decided that White could wiggle his way out of trouble with a Rook sacrifice on f5. However I had in mind the following queen sacrifice, for initiative and control. 19.Nxf5!? Bxg5 20.Nd6+ Kb8 21.Bxg5 Would any sane player give up a Bishop of such beauty for one of those unhappy Rooks? I think this was a difference between us in the game at this stage. It is not a sacrifice for two pieces at all, but rather a sacrifice for a Rook and a piece and the question was how the Rook was surrendered. If Black surrendered it by taking a bishop on say f6, then he would have a winning position and this was what White needed to avoid. In attempting to avoid giving me material Philip ran into an amusing blunder (time trouble was looming). But I think, in 25...Ne8?? 26.Nf8 and the amusing outcome of the Black's greedy attempt to save one exchange has led to his losing two exchanges! 26...Qc7 27.Nxg6 fxg6 28.Nxc8 Kxc8 White ought to be winning trivially here and my time trouble was little help. The correct action is to close the Queen side with b4. White should be immediately watchful of Black double pawn sacrifices for activity (Black will still play ... c5 if at all possible.) But having controlled for that, White will win. White could have proceeded as follows: step 1) c3, Rc1 (preventing ... c5); step 2) Re1-e3-f3-f4; followed by f3, g4; step 3) a king side file will then open and the two Rooks should invade causing significant damage. Not a difficult winning process and Black would be Irish Chess Journal