JACOB AAGAARD: SPECIAL GUEST
Esta nueva publicación en el Blog, es para mí muy especial, pues presento una partida que analizó el Gran Maestro Jacob Aagaard, especialmente para éste blog, en respuesta a una solicitud personal. Como comprenderá el lector, esto es un gran honor para mí, un simple jugador amateur del ajedrez. El GM Jacob Aagaard, es el "Creative Director at Quality Chess", y probablemente en éste momento, uno de los escritores mas prolíficos, si no el más prolífico autor, de literatura ajedrecística. Aagaard ganó el Campeonato Británico en 2007, y analiza para nosotros una de esas partidas. Quiero expresar mí agradecimiento muy especial al GM Aagaard por haber respondido mi solicitud. Presento la partida y sus comentarios, como fue enviada por Jacob Aagaard. Añado solo un diagrama, que a mí criterio es un momento crítico de la partida
This new publication in the blog, is very special for me because I present a game, which analyzed the Grand Master Jacob Aagaard, especially for this blog, in response to a personal request. As the reader will understand, this is a great honor for me, a simple amateur chess player. GM Jacob Aagaard, is the Creative Director at Quality Chess, and probably at this moment, one of the most prolific writers, if not the most prolific author of chess literature. Aagaard won the British Championship in 2007, and analyzes for us, one of those games. I want to thank very special to GM Aagaard, for having answered my request. Present the game and comments, as was sent by Jacob Aagaard. I add only a diagram, which in my opinion, is a critical moment in the game.
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0–0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 0–0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 ¤a5 10.¥c2 c5 11.d4 £c7 12.¤bd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 ¦d8 [I did not know anything about this line, of course. My knowledge of the opening is limited, as is the case with all chess writers.]
This new publication in the blog, is very special for me because I present a game, which analyzed the Grand Master Jacob Aagaard, especially for this blog, in response to a personal request. As the reader will understand, this is a great honor for me, a simple amateur chess player. GM Jacob Aagaard, is the Creative Director at Quality Chess, and probably at this moment, one of the most prolific writers, if not the most prolific author of chess literature. Aagaard won the British Championship in 2007, and analyzes for us, one of those games. I want to thank very special to GM Aagaard, for having answered my request. Present the game and comments, as was sent by Jacob Aagaard. I add only a diagram, which in my opinion, is a critical moment in the game.
Aagaard,Jacob (2467) - Hebden,Mark (2540) [C99]
British Championships (2). 31.07.2007
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0–0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 0–0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 ¤a5 10.¥c2 c5 11.d4 £c7 12.¤bd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 ¦d8 [I did not know anything about this line, of course. My knowledge of the opening is limited, as is the case with all chess writers.]
14.d5
[14.b3 is supposed to be the best move, though there is nothing wrong with what I played.]
[14.b3 is supposed to be the best move, though there is nothing wrong with what I played.]
14...¤b7!?
[This is what I kind of expected, but it might not be the best way to play the position. The problem is that it loses some flexibility, that Black does not want to give up that easily.]
[This is what I kind of expected, but it might not be the best way to play the position. The problem is that it loses some flexibility, that Black does not want to give up that easily.]
[Correct here should be 14...¥d7 15.¤f1 ¦dc8 16.¥d3 ¤b7 Only now, when it comes to c5 with tempo. 17.¤g3 ¤c5 18.¥f1 a5 and Black was no worse, for example in Zhigalko-Efimenko, Dresden 2007.]
15.¤f1 a5 16.¥e3 ¤c5 17.¤g3 ¥d7 18.¦c1 ¦dc8 19.¤h4!? [I thought, if White is better, it should be on the kingside, and if it is on the kingside, I will have to play f4. I did not have any kind of control over the various sacrifices, but I thought my pieces were well-placed and knew that there would be no other way to get an advantage.]
19...g6 20.f4 [If I would do this without any kind of debate about tactics, I would simply be better. f3 and f1 would quickly give me an innitiative down the f-file. For this reason it is interesting to check out the various tactics on his next move.]
20...¤g4?! [An interesting pawn sacrifice that I did not really understand in the game and thus did not rate highly. I do not think it is entirely correct, but it is still better than I thought.The other options here deserves a summary:]
[20...¤h5? does not work out well. White has too strong a pressence on the kingside: 21.¤xh5 ¥xh4 22.¦f1 £d8 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.£f3! gxh5 25.£xf7+ ¢h8 26.¥h6 £g8 27.£xh5 ¥g3 28.¥b1!? ¥e8 29.£f5 ¤d7 30.¦c6 and it does not matter so much that Black has an extra piece, as his forces are completely uncoordinated. White has the advantage, and might already be winning.; 20...¤fxe4? loses by force: 21.¤xe4 ¥xh4 22.g3 ¥d8 (22...exf4 23.gxh4! fxe3 24.¤f6+ ¢f8 25.£d4 and White should win something.) 23.fxe5 ¤xe4 24.¥xe4 £b7 and now, after either 25.£f3 (or 25.e6 Black's position is miserable.) ; 20...exf4!? 21.¥xf4 ¤xd5! was probably the soundest (by the way, Black can probably play these moves in whatever order he likes). I did coincidently save a lot of time on the clock by missing all tricks with ...xd5 completely. This does not make my play risky, as I had seen that I had xg6 in all lines, if needed, even against the unexpected. 22.¤xg6 hxg6 23.£xd5!? The position is very unclear. Maybe White does not have as good a position as I hoped, but there is definitely lots of play. e.g. (23.exd5 allows Black to equalise with 23...¥f6 24.¤e4 ¤xe4 25.¥xe4 £b6+ 26.¥e3 ¦xc1 27.£xc1 ¥d4!) 23...¥f6 24.¥xd6 £a7 25.¢h2 ¥xb2 26.¦b1 ¥c3 27.¦f1 ¥e6 28.£g5 with chances for both players.]
21.¤xg6 fxg6 22.hxg4 exf4 23.¥xf4 ¥h4? [23...¥f6 was better, but White still steals the advantage with 24.e5! ¥xe5 25.¥xe5 dxe5 26.d6 £b6 27.¢h2 £d8 28.¤e4! where the d-pawn is quite strong. For example: 28...¥e6 29.¤xc5 ¦xc5 30.¥f5! ¥c4 31.¥e6+ ¢g7 32.¦f1 with a horrifying attack.]
24.¢h2 ¦f8 25.¥h6! [This was the moment in the game where I stepped into "the zone" and started to play really well. It is not hard for a strong player to see that the main theme of the position is who controls the dark squares, specifically e5. However, if you go one step deeper, you will find that White does want to take on f8 at one point, but only when he has complete control. For this reason the bishop belongs on h6.]
[25.£d2 would allow such stuff as 25...¦xf4 (25...¥f6!? also makes sense.) 26.£xf4 ¦f8 27.£h6 £d8 28.¦f1 ¦xf1 29.¦xf1 ¥g5 30.£h3 ¥f6 with great compensation on the dark squares.]
25...£d8 26.£d2 £e7 27.e5
[White's position is winning. There are of course some details, but in essence he won the battle for the e5–square.]
 |
| Posición después de la jugada 27. e5 |
[White's position is winning. There are of course some details, but in essence he won the battle for the e5–square.]
27...¥xg4 [Against 27...dxe5 I had prepared 28.d6 £e6 29.¥d1! ¦fc8 30.¥f3 e4 31.¤xe4 ¥xe1 32.¦xe1 ¤xe4 33.¦xe4 and White wins in whichever way he likes.]
28.£d4! [Centralizing with complete control.]
28...¥xg3+ [Tricks like 28...¥f3 does not work here: 29.exd6 ¥xg3+ 30.¢xg3 £xd6+ 31.£e5 and White wins.]
29.¢xg3 ¥h5 30.¥xf8!? [30.e6 is of course completely winning, but I could not decline winning the exchange and a pawn when the occasion arose. Who knows where it might pop up again?]
30...¦xf8 31.exd6 £g5+ [31...£xd6+ 32.£e5 and Black has no compensation whatsoever.]
32.¢h2 ¤d7 [I was prepared for 32...¥f3!? , and wanted to play 33.gxf3 £h5+ 34.¢g1 £xf3 35.¦e3 £f2+ 36.¢h1 ¤d7 37.¥d3 , winning, but Mark played more resourcefully.]
33.¦f1? [Here I was not sure about 33.¦e7 ¤f6 , but after 34.¦f1! White just wins: 34...¤g4+ 35.¢g1 ¦xf1+ 36.¢xf1 £c1+ 37.¥d1 and Black has nothing. I would have seen this, had I seen 34.f1, I am sure.]
33...¤f6? [I did not really look at 33...¥f3! in this position. But, this time it works. White should however still win. 34.¦xf3! (34.gxf3 ¦f4! is unfortunate now, as I am missing my e8+ and e7+ dance routine, that would win easily.) 34...¦xf3 35.gxf3 £xc1 36.¥d3 £h6+ 37.¢g2 £g5+ 38.¢f1 with an extra pawn and well-placed pieces.]
34.¦xf6! [Simplest. I do not like to be in check. Now everything is back to schedule.]
34...¦xf6 [34...£xf6 35.£xf6 ¦xf6 36.d7 ¦d6 gives White three winning moves, 37.¥xg6 (37.¥f5 and; 37.¥d1!? ¦xd7 38.g4) ]
35.d7 ¦d6 [35...¦f8 36.d6 is winning: e.g. 36...a4 37.¥e4 .]
36.¥b3! [A nice little finish.]
36...a4 [36...£xc1 loses to 37.d8£+ ¦xd8 38.d6+ ¢f8 39.£h8#; On 36...¥g4 I had planned 37.d8, netting a piece, but the Fritzy 37.¦c8+ ¢f7 38.d8¤+ with mate on the horizon is also quite stylish.]
37.¦c8+ ¢f7 38.d8£ ¦xd8 39.¦c7+ 1–0
Jacob Aagaard
Creative Director at Quality Chess UK Ltd (and Ink Troll Ltd)
11 Bothwell Street
Suite 247
G2 6LY
Registered in Scotland
Post a Comment