Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Many Springs Quad 3

I broke my losing streak with the Tarrant County Chess Club tournaments of 0-8. (You can see my blog post on the Many Springs Open 35 and 36 for the horrific details.) For this tournament, I was a respectable 4-1, winning second place in my section. My USCF rating went from 1211 to 1325. The bottom two sections were combined into a swiss, because one person didn't show up. Remember people: If you pre-registered, let the TD know if you aren't going to be there! Since we had a larger group, our G/75 with a 5 second delay was turned into a G/30 with a 5 second delay.

I'm especially pleased with my first round victory against a player rated 1574. My 2nd and 4th round games were against lower rated players, and there are some incredibly sloppy/careless moves on my part. I wish I could've mated my 2nd round opponent sooner. You can tell by his moves that he gave up once I sacked his queen. My loss in round 3 was due to a reckless bishop sacrifice that amounted to nothing. This same move served me well in the Austin tournament, but clearly these habit-forming kamikaze moves don't always equate to a sound strategy.

Here are my games. Let me know what you think. Any further analysis would be greatly appreciated.

 

Comments

  • 2 years ago

    davidhopkins

    Good catch. Actually, my opponent didn't make an illegal move. I just recorded it wrong. It should have been 36...Kf6.

    Normally, you just point out that your opponent made an illegal move and they'll take it back. It happens sometimes. Particularly in a game that is already won, there's no need to bring the TD into it.

    However, here's an excerpt from the FIDE laws of chess regarding the issue:

    Article 7: Irregularities

    ...

    7.4

    a.

    If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13. The Articles 4.3 and 4.6 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.
     

    b.

    After the action taken under Article 7.4.a, for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
  • 2 years ago

    CelloMaster

    I have a question:

    In game 5, your opponent made the illegal move 36. ... Kf4. In a tournament situation, what happens if you notice that your opponent did that?

  • 2 years ago

    davidhopkins

    Actually, my bishop isn't "good" at around move 19. The pawns at b4 and d4 occupy dark squares. The plan wasn't really to exchange his bishop for my knight. (Although, I would be fine with the trade.) It was more to give my knight an advanced outpost at e5. Granted, it could be pushed away by black's f-pawn -- but that creates weaknesses on the g6 square (as you mentioned later). His move 19...Ne4 doesn't gain a tempo, because I don't have to move the bishop. If he takes, I can retake with my queen -- and I've traded my bad bishop for his more powerful knight. However, in an endgame, my pawn structure is inferior, and my chances would be slim.

    I would've kept my move 19.Ne5 and on move 20 gone with Rf-c1. I agree the open file is mine for the taking.

    The bishop takes h-pawn kamikaze move did nothing. My opponent later said he was afraid of perpetual check if he took the bishop. I don't quite see that I would've enough time to make that happen. If it was available to me, I would have taken it.

    Regarding a move like 21.Ng6, I absolutely agree. It was a blunder on my part.

    Possibly 22. Be3. I'd be more likely to play 22. Qh5.

    I don't know. That's how I saw it while playing the game. Thanks for the analysis.

  • 2 years ago

    dhrealestate

    Cool.another thing i wanted to ask or start a discussion is your 19.ne5 move. its a novel idea to trade his good bishop but most good players know that as well, thats probably why he countered with 19...Ne4 attacking your good bishop and gaining 1 tempo.Perhaps a simple move instead like 19. Rf1-c1 might have been better jumping on the only open file thus far;besides, you absolutely owned the always powerful e5 square with three pieces via; queen,pawn and knight. what are your thoughts on your move 19?

    Secondly, 21.Ng6 might save your bishop after he moves his rook, maybe 22.Be3 giving up the b pawn but threating maybe 22.Qh5, but with light fantasy threats...endgame is tricky though with both queens still on the board, but with correct play might still be drawish. what do you think about Ng6?

  • 2 years ago

    davidhopkins

    Good call. My opponent (after the game) also pointed out 13. Bf4.

  • 2 years ago

    dhrealestate

    dav, great games dude,i got a chance to look through them but got really intrigued with some options you might have had in ur game 3 lost.for example, what happens after 13.Ng5?? instead maybe playing 13.Bf4 looking at c7 threats.Even with correct defense you might gain. but you never know, it might be drawish.

Back to Top

Post your reply:

Log In
Join
^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads! ^
^ Ads keep Chess.com free. Upgrade to remove ads! ^