What can I possibly do for an encore after showing you my game with David Pruess from the 2006 Western States Open? That was a once-in-a-lifetime game, probably the only chess game I will be remembered for after I’m gone (if I’m remembered for anything). A game where everything went right, where I was in control from start to finish, where I defeated an International Master with a queen sacrifice, a theoretical novelty that had been played in correspondence chess but never before in an OTB tournament … It was just everything I could ever hope for.
I feel lucky that I lived in a fairy tale for one game in my life. But let’s face it: That’s not real chess. Real Chess is confusing. In Real Chess, things go wrong. You do stupid things, but you have to keep going and scrounge for counterplay. I feel as if I still owe you a game of Real Chess from 2006, and that’s what I’ll give you today.
But there’s a twist. I’m going to give you the game with no annotations. I think that’s the best way to recreate the “fog of war” conditions during the game, when neither my opponent nor I really understood what was going on. In this game especially, I think that computer analysis makes it too clear what was going on. To appreciate the battle, you need to be in the trenches with us.
The event was the 3rd Santa Cruz Cup. This was a series of invitational events that were organized by Eric Fingal from 2003 to 2008. I enjoyed these tournaments so much. As an amateur, you rarely get a chance to play in a tournament where you know everybody and everybody knows you. For me, Eric’s tournaments were an all-out struggle. I was the highest-rated player in the first two, and second-highest in the final three, after Juande Perea joined us. But really there were four or five experts who were all at the same level: Juande, me, Ilan Benjamin, Jeff Mallett, and (in the last year) Dan Burkhard. Then there was a rotating cast of Class-A and Class-B players who weren’t really a threat to win the tournament but could definitely hand the experts a stinging defeat on any given day.
The winners of the Santa Cruz Cup were as follows: 2003, Ilan Benjamin; 2004, Dana Mackenzie; 2005-6, Dana Mackenzie; 2006-2007, Juande Perea and Dana Mackenzie in a tie that we mutually agreed not to break; and 2007-8, Juande Perea. Except for the first year, the format was an interesting one that I liked a lot. We had eight players, whom we split into two groups of four. Just as in professional sports, we had a “regular season” (a double round robin within each group of four) followed by “playoffs” (two-game matches among the top four).
In 2005-6, the players who qualified for the playoffs were no surprise, the highest-rated four. In the first round of playoffs, Ilan Benjamin defeated Jeff Mallett, 1.5-0.5, while Juande and I split our two games, 1-1. We then went to a round of two 25-minute games, which I managed to win 1.5-0.5. (This turned out to be a warmup for our epic battle in 2007.)
So Ilan and I went to the championship match, which was a sort of “rubber match,” given that he had won the tournament in the first year and I had won it in the second. And I have to say, I got insanely lucky in this match. In both games, Ilan completely out-prepared me in the openings, and I should have lost both games. But of course, the game usually doesn’t end after the opening: then comes the middlegame, and the fog of war. The first game was a see-saw affair where we both had our chances and ended up taking a draw, in a position where we had mutual checkmate threats. The second was just a debacle, a tragedy for Ilan. He basically busted one of my favorite opening variations. I followed some mis-remembered analysis and played with even less caution than normal, and we got to a position where Ilan (according the computer) had a six-pawn advantage. But then he played a series of horrific blunders. First he played a rook sac that was sound and should have won, but was objectively unnecessary. Then he followed the sacrifice up incorrectly … and that’s the problem with sacrificing material. You mess up, and suddenly you are just a rook down. Or in this case, he ended up with a queen for two rooks and two pieces, and he had to resign.
I’m not going to show you the second game, even though it was the one that decided the tournament. It’s just too embarrassing for Ilan and for me. But the first game was a hell of a game, and gives you an idea of how fun and how challenging the Santa Cruz Cups were for me.
Remember: I’m not showing you any analysis of this game. Annotate it yourself! I will, however, insert diagrams of positions where some interesting things happened, or could have happened, or were about to happen.
Ilan Benjamin — Dana Mackenzie, 2/5/2006
3rd Santa Cruz Cup, Championship Round, Game 1
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nxd4 ed 5. O-O g6 6. d3 Bg7 7. Re1 Ne7 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 …
FEN: r1bqk2r/ppppnpb1/6pp/1B6/3pP2B/3P4/PPP2PPP/RN1QR1K1 b kq – 0 9
9. … O-O 10. f4 d5 11. ed g5 12. fg Nxd5 13. Qh5 Nf4 14. gh Bf6
FEN: r1bq1rk1/ppp2p2/5b1P/1B5Q/3p1n1B/3P4/PPP3PP/RN2R1K1 w – – 0 15
15. Bxf6 Qxf6 16. Qe5 Qxh6
FEN: r1b2rk1/ppp2p2/7q/1B2Q3/3p1n2/3P4/PPP3PP/RN2R1K1 w – – 0 17
17. Rf1 Nxg2 18. Qxd4 Ne3 19. Rf3 …
FEN: r1b2rk1/ppp2p2/7q/1B6/3Q4/3PnR2/PPP4P/RN4K1 b – – 0 19
19. … Ng4 20. h3 Qc1+ 21. Rf1 Qe3+ 22. Qxe3 Nxe3 23. Rf2 c6 24. Ba4 a5
FEN: r1b2rk1/1p3p2/2p5/p7/B7/3Pn2P/PPP2R2/RN4K1 w – – 0 25
25. c3 b5 26. Rf3 ba 27. Rxe3 Rb8 28. Na3 Rxb2 29. Nc4 Rc2 30. d4 Kh7 31. Rg3 Be6 32. Ne5 …
FEN: 5r2/5p1k/2p1b3/p3N3/p2P4/2P3RP/P1r5/R5K1 b – – 0 32
32. … Bxa2 33. Nd7 Rd8 34. Nf6+ Kh6 35. Re1 Rb8 36. Ng4+ Kh7 37. Nf6+ Kh6 38. Ng4+ Kh7 39. Nf6+ 1/2-1/2
So, what did you think about the game… and the experiment? Was it more interesting to have to work out by yourself what was happening? Or do you think I’ve shortchanged you by not giving any annotations?
If you feel as if I’ve shortchanged you, then here’s a short comment on each of the diagrams.
Diagram 1 (after 9. Bh4): The biggest question is whether to play 9. … g5 or not. I didn’t play it because I thought it might loosen my position too much, but then after 10. f4 I felt uncomfortable because of White’s strong and mobile center. This motivated me to play the not really sound pawn sacrifice, 10. … d5?!
Diagram 2 (after 14. … Bf5): White had a couple of opportunities to trade queens while remaining a pawn up. First is the really cool move 15. Qe5, which kind of forces 15. … Bxe5 16. Bxd8. Less fancy but also effective is 16. h7+, which chases my king to a dark square so that after 16. … Kh8 17. Qe5, Black has to trade queens. With queens traded, my counterplay would have been much less dangerous.
Diagram 3 (after 16. … Qxh6): Probably the biggest turning point of the game. White has to worry about threats like 17. … Bh3 or (if 17. Qxd4) 17. … Qg5. Ilan’s move 17. Rf1 was intended to oust my knight before these threats became a problem, but he overlooked a tactical shot. Fritz 9 (in 2006) recommended 17. Re4; Fritz 17 (in 2021) recommends 17. Nd2.
Diagram 4 (after 19. Rf3): The tide turns again. I chose not to go for the rook with 19. … Nxc2, which looked like too reckless an adventure with White’s queen, rook, and possibly knight set to devour my kingside. But the computer thinks that I can weather the storm (with some very deep analysis to prove it) and evaluates the position as +4 pawns in my favor. I have to say that this may be a weak point in my game. I really hate grabbing material and then having to suffer through a difficult defense. But sometimes that is the right way to play.
Diagram 5 (after 24. … a5): Yet another turning point. Ilan’s move 25. c3? looks like a knee-jerk response, to give the bishop some air, but it is completely unnecessary. More forceful is 25. Rf3, to kick the knight out right away. Ilan came up with this idea on his next move, but by then it was too late.
Diagram 6 (after 32. Ne5): The last turning point in a game full of them. After either 32. … Rxa2 or 32. … a3 Black is probably winning. 32. … Bxa2? was a time-pressure blunder. I completely missed White’s answer, 33. Nd7!, which is extremely strong because the knight gets to f6 and sets up checkmate threats. The position after 35. Re1 is pretty amusing because the only way for Black to avoid being checkmated is to threaten a checkmate of his own! That is, after 35. … Rb8 White can’t play 36. Re4 (threatening mate in one) because Black strikes first with 36. … Rb1+ and mate next move! It’s like a scene from a thriller movie where everyone is pointing a gun at everyone else. But in chess, we can just agree to a draw — probably a disappointment to the spectators but a huge relief to the players.
Recent Comments