 |
Quote
of the month: |
||
|
Issue 29 (20 Nov. 08) |
|
||
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Round 6
I found it interesting that
our first and even the second board are meeting many GMs in this and
also the last two Olympiads. There are very good
chances of making a GM norm. This is hardly possible when I was
playing first board previously. At most I could only meet two
grandmasters. There must be many more GMs now then in 1996 when I last
played an Olympiad. How times have changed. Mas held his own against Beliavsky and at one stage looked slightly better in the double rook and knight ending. Beliavsky played 35 Re7 which should be answered with ...Rf7. Black to
move (Mas)
Instead Mas choose 35.. Nd5 36
Nxd5 cxd5 37 Rbb7 Rg5 thinking the connected passed pawns could
compensate for white's rooks on the seventh rank. Now Beliavsky showed
how much further he had seen 38 h4! Rg6 39 h5! Rh6 (Rg5 looks
better to me). 40. g4! g6 41 Re6. Black's pieces are all tied
up and the white king stops the passed pawns and then the white a-pawn
will decide the game with a march down to a7. There was a slight commotion
in Yee Weng's game. Both players repeated moves and Yee Weng told his
opponent that he was claiming a draw by repetition. However he made
the move on the board. When his
opponent refused to acknowledge the repetition, Yee Weng had to call
the arbiter. This arbiter did not speak English and we had to wait a
few minutes until one could be found. Eventually the claim was
disallowed as the rules states that the move which results in the
repetition should not be made on the board. The correct procedure is
to stop the clock, call the arbiter over and inform him about the
claim. I think you may make the move in front of the arbiter to
demonstrate the repetition. Yee Weng's mistake was to make the move to
his opponent instead. By doing so you no longer had the move and only
the player having the move may claim such a draw. I observed the arbiter also made a mistake. When a claim for draw is invalidated the player who makes the claim should have his time deducted, if I remember correctly, by two minutes. The arbiter did not do so and neither did Yee Weng's opponent protest. In reality Lenic could not avoid the repetition, any other move could be disastrous for him. Lenic played another move Qc5 , looked at Yee Weng and both acknowledged the draw. Lenic Strangely, in
the final position Yee Weng was actually winning! After 31...Qc5 32.
Nf4 followed by Nd4 and black cannot avoid the fork on e6. I saw
such lapses in my own games and the entire team. If
only we did not make such mistakes, who knows what our standing would
be? Even though I was sitting
next to Mok, I did not entirely comprehend what was happening in his
game. He got his favourite Modern Defence opening but somehow could
not get enough counter-play
going. I know I said previously I would not be doing any more speculative sacrifices, but this one is so instinctive you just know it's correct. I calculated the variation up to black's 24 ....... Rd7 move and felt pretty satisfied. On actually reaching this position, I considered Rh3 and Ne4. Skoberne After 24. Rh3 Rxd4 25. Rxd4
Qxd4 26. Bxe7 Bxe7 27 Qxe7 Qxg4+ 28 Rg3 and now 28...Qf4 29. Qb7 Rd8
30. Qxa7 Rd2 31. Qxb6 defending
f2. So 28.. Qd4 29. Rf3 and now black has to force a repetition with
29..Qg4 30 Rg3 Qd4. Instead I choose 24. Ne4
to bring an additional piece into the attack. This turned to be a
blunder as 24 .... Qc2! immobilizes both my rooks. I could
actually resign at this stage as my attack has vanished. Round Seven The pairing puts us against
Egypt. The lineup will be Mas, Yee Weng, Mok and Edward. Our Games from Round 6
Last updated 20 November 2008 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
