Round 3: a hyper-theoretical slog

I've been dominating. I won a best blog prize in round 1, then two prizes in round 2, and I'm surely gonna win a prize for the blog you're reading right now! I'm unstoppable!!!!

Or at least I was... Would my hot streak continue, or would I come back down to earth?

Hyper-Theoretical Lines

The most noticeable difference between this round and the last two was the LONG theoretical lines. In most of my games there were 20+ moves of theory before the game actually started. I guess this is predictable, given that stronger, more serious players advance each round. But it was still shocking to follow GM games verbatim for about two weeks until someone finally deviated.

Did this theoretical play help my chances? Not really. I got easy wins against lower rated players, who were apparently using smaller game databases or something. But then I got creamed by the players at the top of the group, who had traps prepared in lines I'd never seen before.

The first game is a quick example of a free win. vaclavbelask opted for an obscure, sharp line against my trusted Caro-Kann. Black is basically forced to sac a pawn for quick development, but in the games where he did so, he scored really well. So by the time we were in a new position (on move 14) I was already winning. Then three moves later he dropped a rook.

The next example is me getting crushed in an opening trap. lucaflute steered the game towards a sharp theoretical line in the London System. To be honest, I had no idea the London System had such bizarre, dangerous lines. lucaflute deviated from previous play (presumably to get me out of book) which paid off, as I soon blundered in a position I didn't really understand.

Lower Rated Players

Ok, even though the turn towards super theoretical games didn't clearly work in my favor, surely I could still consistently beat lower rated players? For the most part, yes I could!

rynos0411 steered the game towards an interesting Reversed Blumenfeld gambit out of a Reti opening. The position was a bit better for me once we got out of book, but accurate play over the next few moves gave me a quick win.

The game against wville was one of the few non-theoretical games of round. In another Reti we pretty quickly got out of book, but I felt quite comfortable because of my space advantage and the obvious plan to push pawns on the kingside. This ended up being a pretty textbook win, but I still got to make a textbook sacrifice and demonstrate good technique in the attack.

Tragedy

Alright, I won't keep you in suspense. I should admit that I didn't make it to the next round. I only came in 4th, due to poor play in several games. To be honest, even if I played my best there was no way I was gonna keep pace with the 1st place finisher. Still, if I hadn't made a couple of silly blunders, I might've finished 3rd.

I really debated not showing this next game because it's too embarrassing, but it's better just to own it. This was an inexplicable, slapstick loss against PhilipSim where I dropped a whole knight for no compensation at all.

My game with white against lucaflute started very promisingly. I was following a Grischuk game in the Richter-Rauzer and won a pawn out of the opening. But at the critical juncture I insisted on heading for a passive setup when I could've simply opened up the position with a big advantage. There's nothing to say except that I clearly overestimated the defensive line I chose. After that one strategic blunder there was no realistic chance for me to come back.

Finally my game with white against ThePurpleSage also hinged on a single move. In another Richter-Rauzer he went for a dubious exchange sac. Then for some reason I avoided exchanges, which turned his bluff into a winning attack. I was somehow fixated on a counter attack instead of the winning endgame! In retrospect my 25. Ke2?? looks ridiculous. I'm actually certain I would've found the right move if I weren't playing a dozen games simultaneously. Of course it's no excuse: everyone else had the same conditions. Oh well...

ThePurpleSage got the better of me, but perhaps I will have the last laugh? Since I played no pretty games this round, I decided to cheekily submit his win above as my best game of the round. In the submission form I simply didn't clarify that I was the player who lost to the sacrificial attack. There are no rules against it! Really it's semantics: was it his brilliancy or mine? I feel like I'm entitled to half ownership.

Solid Play

My one decent game of the round was a win with white in the Taimanov against Zinsch. I sac'd a bishop for three pawns on the queenside, which is pretty basic theory. The resulting complex endgame was tricky to evaluate, but I eventually came out on top, admittedly with a little help from my opponent.

Ok, that was a pretty good game afterall. I had to come up with fancy moves like 37. c5+! to put the game away. I think I put too much stock in chess.com's game review, which was critical but probably mostly due to horizon effects in a double-edged endgame. In retrospect I can at least be proud of one win this round.

End of the Road

Well this was an anti-climactic round for me. I was never in contention to win the group, and I only played one good game...

Wait, why am I whining so much? I didn't play THAT much below my normal level. And clearly GatoEnZugzwang and lucaflute were playing the best chess in the group: one of them deserved to move on. Yeah, this was a cool tournament. I might even participate again next year, despite the huge time investment required.

I also wanna wish good luck to GatoEnZugzwang in the next round. Hopefully he can take some games off titled players. Yep, good luck to everyone still competing! It's been fun.