Happy Holidays, from Check.
Be merry, and have a wonderful New Year. (Also: Matlakov - Fedoseev from the Russian Superfinal)
With the holidays upon us, and sales of chess sets making new records, daily, I figured it would be a good time to share with you all some annotations of another beautiful game played during the Russian Championship. Perhaps over the break there will be time to play through the moves, or a bit of renewed inspiration as you prepare to make your new year’s resolutions, whether they be chess-related or not. I’ll be sure to share a few of mine on twitter (@JensenUVA), once I’ve finished with this year’s chess. On December 26th through the 29th, I’ll be playing in the North American Open under 1900 section, and I hope to use my performance at that event as something of a “jumping off point,” as I assess the improvements I’ve made in my game this year, and measure my competitive ambitions against some of my peers. If there’s any interest, I might even analyze a few of my own games over the following weeks, in this column. While the level of play is lower than the Russian Championship, sometimes I do feel that the mistakes made by club players are equally (or more) instructive to the aspiring chess improver.
But enough of all that, I hope this email finds you and your families and loved ones doing well this holiday season!
Last week, we covered the game Dubov - Karjakin from the final round of the Russian championship, much to the consternation of the champion himself, Ian Nepomniachtchi, who mentioned to chess24’s reporters that the game Matlakov - Fedoseev was more interesting, “for his taste”:
At least the roads around Moscow won’t stay icy while Nepo is spreading all that salt around.
Professional Chess player and DOTA2 superstar, Ian Nepomniachtchi, spotted outside the McCallister’s home in Winnetka, IL.
I kid. But the man has a point. He was ruthless during the Russian Championship, scoring 5 wins, 5 draws, and a single loss (to a piece of excellent opening prep authored by Dubov), and despite that, the only game anyone seems to care about is Dubov - Karjakin. With that in mind, I’ve decided to take a look at something more to Nepo’s taste, the game between Matlakov and Fedoseev. lol, Nepo, you asked for it:
Game of the Week #16:
Matlakov - Fedoseev (0-1) Russian Superfinal, 2020, Rd. 2
e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nb3 Bb4+ (diagram)
The “Romanishin Variation” of the Scotch game is an infrequent guest in top level play. The move 5. … Bb6 is far more natural, and common. With the text move, the black player provokes 6. c3, which deprives the queen’s knight of its most desirable square, before retreating the bishop to e7. In flagrant violation of the beginner’s “rule,” that you shouldn’t move the same piece twice in the opening, the e7 bishop actually intends to move again, from e7 to g5, where it will offer to exchange itself for its counterpart. The point of this maneuver, if there is one, is to create some minor inconveniences in white’s queenside development, effect an exchange of pieces, and generally reduce the overall complexity of the game. Oleg Romanishin, for whom the variation is named, is no stranger to dry, solid chess. In contrast, after the “normal” 5. … Bb6, play continues in more open fashion, and the players frequently castle on opposite sides of the board.
c3 Be7 7. Bf4 d6 8. N1d2 Bg5 9. Bg3 Nge7 10. f4 Bh6 (diagram)
But 9. … Nge7 does appear to be a slight inaccuracy. Fedoseev thought for over 15 minutes before making this move, which is a little provocative. Romanishin himself has played 9. … Qf6 in this position, discouraging the move 10. f4 before developing the king’s knight to e7. I rather think that Fedoseev was aware of that, but chose to accept a bit of a cramped position with the intent of provoking his opponent.
Indeed, in the diagram position, Matlakov finds himself at a bit of a crossroads. He would obviously like to develop his king’s bishop and castle. But which direction? For his part, Black will be castling short, and looking to play the move … f5. It is probably best for white to simply play for quick development while looking to make the … f5 break difficult, awkward, or impossible. 11. Bc4 0-0 12. 0-0 Kh8 13. Nf3, for example, intending to meet 13. … f5 with 14. e5, and white should have a comfortable advantage. But every truly beautiful game requires, at some point, the willing participation of the opponent. To his credit, Matlakov was spoiling for a fight. He played instead, 11. Qf3!? with the idea of castling on the queenside and attempting a pawn storm on the kingside, where black’s minor pieces could become awkwardly placed:
Qf3!? 0-0 12. Bf2 f5 13. exf5 Nxf5 14. 0-0-0 Kh8 (diagram)
And here, both players have got what they wanted, almost. Matlakov would surely love to play 15. g4 and 16. g5 with tempo on the black minor pieces, but with the Queen on f3 aligned with black’s rook on f8 and the f4 pawn loose, this is impossible for the moment. Black has a choice of continuations, including some similar to those that occur in the actual game. The black player can even sacrifice a knight for two pawns and a strong initiative with 15. g4 Nh4!? 16. Qg3 Rxf4! 17. Qxh4 Bg5 18. Qg3 Rxg4, which feels very uncomfortable for white, as he tries to find a safe square for his queen. White can spend a tempo preparing g2-g4, by way of 15. Rg1, (indeed, this may be “best”), but here black can, if he so chooses, offer to drastically simplify the position: 15. … Nh4 16. Bxh4 Qxh4 17. g3 Qg4, for example, and the queens are coming off the board.
Matlakov tries a greedy, principled move, 15. h4 - taking this square away from the black knight, but I believe he was underestimating the resources at his opponent’s disposal:
h4?! Nfe7 16. g3 Ne5! (diagram)
Active defense, taking advantage of the pin on the f4 pawn:
Qg2 Bd7!
Not even thinking about removing the e5 knight. Fedoseev’s moves are landing heavily on the board. Bc6 is threatened, skewering the queen on g2 and the h1 rook. (Of course, 18. fxe5 is impossible, after Bc6 19. Qg1 Bxh1 20. Qxh1 the bishop on f2 hangs)
Rg1 Bc6 19. Qh3 Qe8 (a repetition of moves, with Bd7-c6 was possible here, but neither player was interested in a half point) 20. Be2 Nd5 21. Rge1 Qg6 22. Bd4 (diagram)
Finally, by moving the f2 bishop, Matlakov has succeeded in un-pinning the f4 pawn, and now the e5 knight is truly threatened. One suspects that Matlakov was counting on 22. … Nd3+ 23. Bxd3 Qxd3 24. Qe6! after which white is making some inroads into the black position. For example, 24. … Rae8 25. Qxh6! Qxd4 26. Rxe8 Rxe8 27. Qxh7+ Kxh7 28. Nxd4, when black might have compensation for the pawn, but not more. But Fedoseev had seen deeper into this position, after 22. Bd4. Black to play.
… Bxf4! 23. gxf4 Nxf4 24. h5 Qg5 25. Qe3?
An inaccuracy. The white queen proves to be vulnerable on the half open e-file. 25. Qh2 should have been preferred, when white would have two pieces for the rook and two pawns after 25. … Nfd3+ 26. Bxd3 Nxd3+ 27. Kb1 Nxe1 28. Rxe1. With 25. Qe3, Matlakov is trying to hold onto his extra piece, and I would simply love to know what was going through his head at this moment. Doubt about the evaluation of the continuation after 25. Qh2? Misevaluation of the position after 25. Qe3? Was Matlakov simply thinking that he didn’t believe his opponent’s sacrifice had merit, and he was playing to prove the material is safe for white to hold onto?
… Rae8 26. Bf1 (diagram)
Here, Fedoseev can win the queen for a rook and knight with 26. … Ned3+ 27. Bxd3 Rxe3 28. Rxe3, but he’s already sacrificed a bishop, and the situation is not so clear after 28. … Qxh5 29. Bc2 Re8 30. Rde1 Kg8 31. Rxe8 Bxe8 32. Bd1, for example. Rg1 is coming, and with knight, bishop, and rook for the queen, it’s not immediately clear who stands better. It’s not clear how black can push his kingside pawns and still ensure his king’s safety, with all of white’s extra pieces. Of course, the computer spies immediately that black can play 28. … Be8! which threatens 29. … c5, trapping the d4 bishop. If white tries Rf3, giving the bishop a retreat square, Bxh5 skewers the white rooks. And on 29. c4 Bxh5 30. Rh1 c5 31. Bc3, all of the white pieces are tied down. Black has ideas of … Ne2+ and Qxe3, and he can calmly prepare to play, in the right moment, … Nxd3, followed by … Bg6 and … Be4. The depth of this continuation is simply unfathomable. And without the beautiful bishop retreat 28. … Be8, together with the understanding that 29. … c5 is a serious threat because white’s d4 bishop lacks squares, it’s unlikely that Fedoseev would ever go in for 26. … Ned3+. Instead he tried:
… Ng4 27. Qg1 Bf3 28. h6 Qxh6 29. Rxe8 Rxe8 30. Bb5 Bxd1 31. Qxd1? (diagram)
This is a serious mistake, however. Matlakov should’ve preferred 31. Kxd1, with the idea of 31. … c6 32. Qxg4 cxb5 33. Bxg7+ Qxg7 34. Qxf4, when the white king defends the e1 square on its own. After 31. Qxd1, 31. … c6 32. Qxg4 cxb5 33. Bxg7+?? Qxg7 34. Qxf4 fails to 34. … Re1+ and 35. … Qg6+, winning material.
… c6 32. Bf1?? (diagram)
But here, white is quite lost (32. Qxg4 cxb5 and either 33. Bxa7 or 33. Nf3 was necessary, although Fedoseev is clearly better). I suspect that Matlakov actually realized in this moment that 32. Qxg4 cxb5 33. Bxg7+ Qxg7 34. Qxf4 was losing, and simply played the next thing. Fedoseev finishes off his opponent with a beautiful combination, well worthy of the spectators’ admiration:
… Nh2 33. Bc4 b5 34. Bf7 Re1!!
And we see the “other reason” why 31. Qxd1 proved to be a mistake. 34. … Re1 lands with the threat of 35. Qxe1 Nd3+. White would have three pieces for the queen, true, but his king is open, and his coordination lacking. It would be only a few more moves before Fedoseev began forcing the loss of white’s minor pieces. Matlakov resigned here, rather than continuing.
Of course, black could have won simply, with the prosaic 34. … Rf8. Even 32. … Qg6 was winning for black, after the retreat 32. Bf1?? white simply lacks safe squares for his pieces.
This really was a beautiful, high tension contest. The knight sitting “en pris” on e5 for so many moves during the middle game was surely a great test of nerves for both players. The lengthy, complicated tactical variations required precision at every step, and the unusual material imbalances at the end of many of the variations are not so easy for human players to evaluate. But Fedoseev was always seeing a little deeper than his opponent, or understanding a little more. In the end, Matlakov missed the idea of 34. … Re1! and 35. … Nd3+, and he simply collapsed under the immense tension of the position. The move 31. Qxd1? set in motion a continuation that Matlakov suddently realized, was not to his taste, which in turn, led to a losing blunder. A great win for Fedoseev, who had a very strong tournament outside of this game, as well. Fedoseev finished on 6.5/11, tied for 3rd place with Dubov.
Puzzle of the Week #18:
But first, a solution to last week’s puzzle:
… Bxd3 2. Rxd3 Ba3!!
Taking control of the promotion square for the c3 pawn, black forces a win of material. 3. Bxc3 Nxc3 4. Rxc3 Bb2! and Nepo would win the exchange, and go on to win the game.
In this week’s puzzle, Jose Raul Capablanca was playing Marc Fonaroff in a casual game in New York City, 1918, and he’s played a little combination that (temporarily) won a pawn for white.
Capablanca would have an advantage after 1. f4 Bxb2 2. e5 g6, but black would get his pawn back, and Capa is late for lunch. He’d like to finish the game, now. Can you help him out?
I’ll post the solution next week, but if you find it in the mean time, feel free to email me: JensenUVA@gmail.com, or DM on twitter: @JensenUVA
Until next time, ARGH! SHAKHMATY!