Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:02:59 11/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2005 at 17:28:55, JNoomen wrote: So Jeroen, Regarding the game fruit-diep : It was not we who fell in your trep, but an already tested line by Arturo in the past trapped you. He had already tested with the f7-f5? move against Fruit and realized after some games that this Kasparov line is 1-0 always. We love to play that line against Kasparov with white too. However when removing the move f5 from book. It was all 0-1 against Fruit. It doesn't know about opposite wings. If it would have played Kb1 from book, some move later it would have lost the game, as it gets a massive amount of points for winning pawns and not for king safety, unlike Diep, which happily sacraficed a pawn against Fruit and won the game eyes-closed. So it was you who was outprepared there by Arturo as he had tested Kasparov's losing f5 move already, not an 'unlucky' Kb1 move you missed. Vincent >Hi all, > >After a very busy week at work I finally found some time to comment on a few >games from the Dutch Open, that ended last Sunday. Especially the game Fruit >against Diep needs some clarification. Each game has its own story, so has the >game Fruit-Diep and I want to tell you the whole story about it. But let's start >at the beginning. > >When I started the tournament with the new Fruit version (with EGTB), I had of >course high hopes for a tournament victory. My nature is optimism and when I >play, I play to win. This has some disadvantage, of course, since any result >worse than 1st place would be some disappointment for me. On the other hand, >such optimism also gives me a certain drive, that is needed for computer >tournaments. > >In the first round Fruit beated IsiChess in quite a brilliant way. My 6. Be3 >Najdorf turned out to be a strong weapon and when Isi mixed some ideas, Fruit >punched with the strong moves g6!, Bc4! and the hammer blow Nf5!! to clinch the >game in great style. OK, that is a nice start! > >Next game was the game against Pro Deo. Avoiding a Sicilian discussion (Pro Deo >is a monster in playing the White side of the Sicilian) I opted for a quieter >Ruy Lopez, in which Pro Deo avoided the dull Berlin Wall. To my surprise Fruit >quickly sacrificed an exchange, never thought it was worse and punished some >weakening moves by Pro Deo in nice style. So that meant 2 out of 2, with 2 >excellent games being played. > >Looking at the pairing, in round 3 Fruit had White against Diep. This >immediately posed a question for me, a dilemma most bookexperts know: what to >play? It was very tempting to play solid and never give Diep a chance to show >its real potential. So the big question was: go for a sharp Najdorf, or play a >solid line? After a tussle, I finally decided to go for the 1st option. I had >several reasons to do so: > >1. The crushing win against IsiChess showed that Fruit is well capable of >handling these kind of lines. >2. The 6. Be3 line in the Najdorf is very well covered in my book. >3. I wanted to keep other lines in reserve. >4. I wanted to 'trick' Vincent into another line of the Sicilian. > >Call reason number 1 'over-optimism' and reason 4 'a big gamble', but chess >would be dull without taking risks and I think taking risks are necessary to win >games against strong opponents. Looking back, I think I made the wrong decision. >But that is alway easy to say afterwards. As my analysis show, the game could be >easily the other way around. Now let's go to the game: > >Fruit - Diep Dutch open 2005, round 3 >------------------------------------------------------------- >1.e4 c5 2.Nc3!? > >This is the trick I mentioned in point 4. If now Black plays the 'normal move' >2... Nc6, Fruit would play 3.Nge2! followed by 4.d4 and Diep is unable to reach >its favoured Najdorf lines. Furthermore, I think Diep would find itself in lines >that were never tested before, a big advantage for the opponent. We never know, >though, how that game would have ended. > >2... d6! > >Alas, Diep is knowing the trick and avoids the line given above. A pity, but I >still felt confident. > >3.Nge2 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.Be3 > >So we are again having a 6.Be3 Najdorf. This decision can be questioned, because >Diep likes the resulting positions. On the other hand, testgames with Fruit >showed me that it scored very heavily with this line, so there was no reason for >me to have doubts. > >6... e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Nbd7 9.g4 b5!? > >Diep repeats the line it played against Fritz in the WCCC some years ago. That >could turn out to be a risky business. > >10.g5 b4 11.Nd5 > >An interesting moment. Databases show a higher score for 11.Ne2, but nowadays >GM's agree this move is worse than 11.Nd5. The mentioned game Fritz-Diep went >11.Ne2 and Fritz was clearly better, but I was sure that Diep would not repeat >the risky move Nc5 from that game, but play the solid g6! instead. After that >move it is hard to get an advantage for White, but at least there is no Black >attack. So all in all the move is a good alternative, on the other hand, the >risk the game might peter out into a draw is quite big. It is not my nature to >go for a solid, drawish alternative. So I chose the more agressive text move >instead. > >11... Nxd5 12.exd5 Bf5 13.Bd3 Bxd3 14.Qxd3 Be7 15.Rg1 O-O 16.O-O-O a5 17.Nd2 > >Of course the white knight is doing nothing on b3 and merely 'asks for' a >a6-a5-a4 attack, so it hastens to approach the wonderful e4 square. > >17... a4?! > >Interesting: Diep avoids the known 17...f5. But this turns out to be a highly >risky decision. Because it didn't put me out of book, on the contrary! > >18.Ne4! > >A very clever move and of course a very natural one. The square e4 is a >wonderful centralised post for the white knight, that can assist in defence and >attack at the same time. Fruit played it from my book and I had still some >variations in it. Now Diep was out of book and immediately Vincent started to >look worried. I explained him that black needs f7-f5 in this line, but Diep >wanted to play otherwise and showed a clear advantage for White here (I believe >something like +0,5 for White, Vincent will correct me if I'm wrong). > >18... Qc7? > >A clearly second rate move. 18... f5! is the right move. But this was the clever >side of 18.Ne4! When thrown out of book, no program wants to play 18... f5! as >after 19.gxf6 the g-file is opened, with the rook on g1 'viciously' looking at >g8. So progs refrain from the best move and now they all go for one plan: attack >on the queen's side with queen, 2 rooks and the stormram a4-b4. In many test >games I have seen this plan to be inadequate. And there is a simple reason for >that: Black has only 3 heavy pieces to attack, but all white's pieces can assist >in the defence. Furthermore, there is no way for Black to open the files, as >b4-b3 can always be answered by cxb3!,axb3 a3! shutting the door and leaving >black with no targets. > >Take a look at black's minor pieces: the bishop is passive at e7, while white's >counterpart on e3 is very active. The knight on d7 would like to assist, but Nc5 >or Nb6 will be answered by Bxc5 and Bxb6 respectively. In the remaining position >the wonderful knight on e4 would be superior to the helpless bishop on e7. > >So the verdict is clear: without the move f7-f5 the attack initiated by black is >doomed to fail. White has a clear advantage. Black will go for b4-b3 (they all >play like that), white closes the position with cxb3!,axb3 a3! and calmly picks >up the pawn at b3. After that Black is dead. I recall Pro Deo won many games in >this line, against various progs like Fritz and Shredder. > >There is one 'but'. Fruit now HAS to play the move 19.Kb1! It is the only good >move and the move that will preserve White's clear lead. Diep expected that move >and showed a clear white plus. > >19.h4? > >O, horror! A very natural move, but a bad one! The king had to leave c1, to make >cxb3 possible after b4-b3. > >19... b3! > >At the last moment, after calculating for several minutes, Diep comes up with >this hammer blow. Believe it or not, but I think that now White is lost.... I >remember Vicent saying that b4-b3 was played with only seconds to spare and with >a small margin over the 2nd best move (Vincent will correct me if I am wrong >here). > >After this move it was my turn to become very nervous. This was going the wrong >way! My optimism quickly vanished and I was at this moment not only feeling >quite down, but also I started asking myself 'why did you not go for the solid >approach'? Alas, it was too late. > >20.axb3 axb3 21.Qxb3 Rfb8 > >This is of course a big difference: with the a-file being opened, as well as the >half-open b-file, black has a murderous attack. The rest of the game is >therefore only for the statistics. Diep played excellent and pushed home the >attack in great style. I want to express my admiration for Diep's play, as >especially the move 33 ... h5!! is a high class move. It prevents White's only >counter possibility h4-h5-h6 and as gxh6 fails to Bf6!, white has no play at >all. Furthermore, the move 33 ... h5! pins the white pawn down at h4, where it >was eventually lost. > >So Fruit lost and I was quite angry at myself for not going the solid way. Now, >one week later, I know that such thoughts are irrelevant. You take a decision, >after that you can only watch how it all ends. The 'ifs' and 'thens' do not >count. Just to be curious, I started a game between Fruit and Fritz 9, with the >move 19.Kb1! being played instead of the weak 19.h4? Here is the game: > >Fruit - Fritz 9 >------------------ >Move 1 to 18: see above. 19.Kb1! Rfc8 20.h4 b3? As expected, but it is going >to lose a pawn for nothing. 21.cxb3 axb3 22.Qxb3 Qa5 23.Bd2 Qa6 24.Bb4 f5 >25.gxf6 e.p. Nxf6 26.a3 Qb6 27.Rc1 The game is already over. Black is a pawn >down for nothing, has no attack and white's pieces dominate. 27... Kh8 28.Qd3! >Nh5 29.Ng5! No need to go further. Fritz 9 sees it is lost. > >So, one little move: 19.Kb1! and we might have a different outcome.... As a book >expert, the loss is being counted, though. And rightly so. It is like climbing >the Everest: if you succeed, people will praise you. If you fail, everybody will >tell you it was a bad idea anyway.... > >Hope you liked the story, I will give some more details on other games if I find >the time to do so. > >Best wishes, Jeroen
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.