Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Liu-Shanky: Sharp Battle in a Fluid Pawn Structure

  • GM Shankland
  • | Jul 28, 2009
  • | 4455 views
  • | 17 comments

ed note: GM Bhat is in Brazil playing in the Contintental Championship. In his absence, who better to replace him than... a former student of his. IM Sam Shankland has two GM norms and is quite a strong player in his own right. In July he played 3 tournaments, including the U.S. under 20 championship, from which he brings us a game.

While I personally had a dissappointing result at the recent US Junior Closed, the tournament can definitely be considered a success. The young IM Ray Robson took first place with an impressive 6/7, drawing only with IM Bercys and FM Banawa. I was particularly awed by his game with me, as he told me right after the game that on move 22(!) I erred, giving him a big advantage. I asked him how he was so sure, and he said, "I have this position on my computer, and Rybka only gives one move to equalize, Bc6, so I figured after Rd8 I must be better." It was very impressive that he knew that much theory! Needless to say, once he was playing on his own with a decent advantage, he did not err and won the game without much trouble. However, that game is one that would not be too interesting to write an entire article about, so I chose another game, with FM Elliot Liu. It was a very interesting battle, and one of the things that made it so sharp and interesting was the fluid pawn structure- it changed many times throughout the game, creating different phases. Without further ado, I give you the game!

 








Hope you enjoyed the game and be sure to wish Vinay the best of luck in Brazil!

Comments


  • 4 years ago

    NinjaBear

    I really like the "A peaceful end to a violent game."

    This really fit in (for some reason) with the piece positions on the board... calm, stalemate-like, and minimal interaction with the opposing forces. Thanks for the game analysis!

  • 4 years ago

    Warspeace

    nice article!!!:)

  • 4 years ago

    JG27Pyth

    @GMGreenlaser in re Apiana and abstraction: ... oh come on! I'll bet you understood Apiana's point... Yes, Greenlaser you are using abstract correctly, and no in that sense Mr. Shankland's notes are not too 'abstract' but are as you say, concrete. But Apiana used abstract to mean "hard" or "difficult to grasp" ...it's an imprecise but not uncommon colloquial usage of abstract. It's a recognized second definition of the word. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstract -- see definition "b") And in that sense, he's right. 

    Shankland's b5 explanation condensed: 7. ...b5?! 8. Bf3! e5 9.Nf5 and white has a clear advantage.

    ...and white has a clear advantage? Clear? To a strong IM, sure... but I'd love a few words as to what makes that obvious. I wish I could read a position with that kind of clarity. What makes that evaluation clear!? I really want to know. I don't think Mr. Shankland is being unkind or lazy at all, I just don't think he realizes that class players have a very hard time seeing into a position like that.

    (Poor Shankland, the patzers like me are demanding fuller explanations on one side while he's got Robson going 22 moves deep with a Rybka eval (scary) on the other! He can't win!)

  • 4 years ago

    NM GreenLaser

    I do not agree with Apiana's comment: "the problem is that no one of average understanding of chess can follow the comments in this game, they are far to abstract. not really well explained, the game was poor of initiative too. anyways good luck."

    I found the comments not too abstract and actually concrete. A person "of average understanding of chess" is an abstraction. Such a person should be able to learn from this article. "To learn" means to improve, not play at the same level as the writer. The phrase "the game was poor of initiative" is unclear or if you prefer, abstract.

  • 4 years ago

    saldy

    yes, the game is a little bit deep - requires master understanding to really appreciate it...

  • 4 years ago

    Myko41782

    @dgwalo88: It doesn't win a piece. 20. Bxe4 can be played

    @ Philip_Menace: Check the move list button. 7. ...b5?! 8. Bf3! e5 9.Nf5 and white has advantage.

  • 4 years ago

    dgwalo88

    May I know why 19...Bxe4 earning a piece was not made.

  • 4 years ago

    Philip_Menace

    Shoot, I don't even understand why the game is over!!

  • 4 years ago

    Philip_Menace

    Add me as another person who doesn't understand why 7...b5 is impossible.

  • 4 years ago

    ChessNinjaMaster

    jmcclure, after ...Nc5 black would have three pieces attacking e4 to whites two defenders.  The only ways to defend the pawn are Nb3-d2 and Bf2 with Qd2, each requiring two moves.  Pushing the pawn also loses it to ...dxe5 fxe5 Qxe5.

  • 4 years ago

    IM dpruess

    well, it attacks the e-pawn a third time. i don't see how white defends it. e5 de bxb7 nxb7 fxe qxe5 also seems to gain a pawn.

  • 4 years ago

    lastwarrior2010

    Thanks, good article - Good luck Vinay!

  • 4 years ago

    jmcclure

    Move 11 - comment after Whites move says Black was threatening Nc5 - winning a pawn.  I don't see how this is true.   Take for example 11.O-O Nc5 - how does it win a pawn?

  • 4 years ago

    IM dpruess

    jrobert, sam did explain why 7...b5 is impossible! click on Move List (right under the h1 Rook) and you can see his annotations.

  • 4 years ago

    jrobertwood

    Can someone explain why 7...b5 is impossible?

  • 4 years ago

    garri616

    nice analysis!!!

Back to Top

Post your reply: