[Event "4NCL 2009-10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2009.10.25"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Lee, Richard"]
[Black "Ruthen, Stephen"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2058"]
[BlackElo "2093"]
[Annotator "Lee,Richard"]
[PlyCount "86"]
[EventDate "2010.07.01"]
[SourceDate "2010.07.01"]

{25th October, 2009 4NCL 2009-2010, Round 2 Richard Lee (Cambridge University
II) (2058) - Stephen Ruthen (Iceni) (2093) This game, which I lost, was played
at the first weekend in Round 2. By winning this game, my opponent helped his
team to an impressive 4.5-1.5 match win that propelled them to the top of the
Division 3 table; a fantastic start for Iceni.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7
4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 {
The main line of the King's Indian Defence.} 9. Ne1 (9. b4 {In the 1990s,
Kramnik used 9.b4, the Bayonet Attack, to inflict damage on the King's Indian.
A huge amount of theory was developed around the early queenside thrust, with
results from practical games in White's favour. Even Kasparov was driven to
abandon his favourite defence, and it has been in a tailspin since. Nowadays,
at the elite level, Teimour Radjabov is almost single-handedly keeping the
King's Indian alive, brandishing it against any opponent brave enough to take
on his expertise.}) (9. Nd2 {At this point White has a couple of alternatives
to the move I played, including 9.Nd2. This move blocks the development of the
c1-Bishop, but intends to install the Knight on c4, where it will pressure the
d6-pawn. This plan is so strong that Black must spend a tempo on the queenside
(9...a5 or 9...c5) to hinder 10.b4 and 11.c5.}) 9... Nd7 {Black prepares the
pawn avalanche typical of the Classical King's Indian, and simultaneously
holds up White's c4-c5 breakthrough.} 10. f3 f5 11. Be3 (11. g4 {After the game
my opponent revealed that he had expected 11.g4, having looked at one of my
games from the previous season. The idea of 11.g4 (a 1950s invention by Pal
Benko) is to seize space on the kingside before being smothered by Black's
wave of pawns. While I was prepared to play it again, I thought I would try
something else, to keep my opponent on his toes.}) 11... f4 {The battle-lines
are drawn. The pawn-chain across the centre of the board dictates that Black
must advance on the kingside and smash his way through White's position there,
while White will return the favour on the other flank. Black's attack may be
considered more dangerous, as the white King stands on that flank, but White's
attack is usually quicker, and Black must be wary of allowing White to
eliminate the pieces that are needed for kingside attack, especially the
light-squared Bishop on c8. Black's attack often breaks through if this Bishop
manages to invade on h3.} 12. Bf2 g5 13. b4 {Diagram #} (13. a4) (13. Rc1)
13... h5 {This direct move is of course part of the right plan, but in 1989
Kasparov introduced a new subtlety to this variation. Against Jeroen Piket, he
continued 13...Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Rc1 Rf7 17.a4 Bf8 18.a5 Bd7,
without including the h-pawn in the attack. The intention is to wait until
White plays Nc3-b5 (a move integral to his queenside play) and only then play .
..g4, exploiting the vulnerability of the e4-pawn. In that game, Piket did
indeed rush with 19.Nb5, and even managed to capture the Rook on a8 with this
piece, but succumbed to an efficient and violent attack on the other side of
the board. After this theoretically important game, the popularity of this
variation plummeted. (Source: The World's Greatest Chess Games, p467- Burgess
et al.) In the 1990s Korchnoi did some repair-work on this line, resurrecting
it with 13.a4 or 13.Rc1, and these are the main moves today.} (13... Nf6 14. c5
Ng6 15. cxd6 cxd6 16. Rc1 Rf7 17. a4 Bf8 18. a5 Bd7 19. Nb5) 14. c5 Nf6 15.
cxd6 cxd6 16. Rc1 {Now the consequences of omitting ...Rf7 are evident: 17.Nb5
is threatened, attacking the a-pawn and threatening an invasion on c7. Here 16.
..a6 is not possible, as it would expose the dark squares: 17.Na4 would hop
the Knight into b6, chopping off the c8-Bishop.} Ng6 (16... a6 17. Na4) 17. Nb5
Rf7 {Black elects to prevent the invasion to c7 rather than save his a-pawn.}
18. Nxa7 Bd7 19. a4 g4 20. a5 (20. Nb5 {In their 4NCL report for Round 2, the
young KJCA Kings players Matt Lunn and William Jones suggest instead 20.Nb5,
with the possible follow-up 20...gxf3 21.Bxf3 Bxb5 22.axb5 h4 23.Nd3 Rc7 24.
Qd2 Qd7 25.Rxc7 Qxc7 26.Rc1 Qd7 27.b6 Rc8 28.h3, retaining the advantage. The
immediate reactivation of the Knight is certainly good, but I think my idea is
not bad either. The intention is to gain the square b6 for my Bishop, in the
event of ...g4-g3. I should admit there was also an element of laziness in my
thinking: I wanted to avoid having to calculate the consequences of accepting
the possible sacrifice after 20.Nb5 g3 21.hxg3 fxg3 22.Bxg3, opening lines for
Black's attack at the cost of a second pawn.} gxf3 (20... g3 21. hxg3 fxg3 22.
Bxg3) 21. Bxf3 Bxb5 22. axb5 h4 23. Nd3 Rc7 24. Qd2 Qd7 25. Rxc7 Qxc7 26. Rc1
Qd7 27. b6 Rc8 28. h3) 20... g3 21. Bb6 gxh2+ 22. Kh1 Qe8 {
A stubborn move, delaying the reactivation of my Knight.} 23. Qd3 h4 24. Nb5
Qe7 {I think this is the important moment in the game, psychologically: I saw
that I was better here, but wrongly thought that the extra queenside pawn
would win the game without difficulty. Because of my presumptuous attitude, I
underestimated my opponent's kingside possibilities, and my next two careless
moves give him an interesting opportunity.} 25. Nc7 {The intention is to
control all the squares on the way to promotion. In a later game, I tried
swinging my f1-Rook to the c-file via f2, keeping the c7-square open for a
Rook, and achieved success. Perhaps this would have been a better plan in this
game, for example 25.Rf2 Nh5 26.Bf1 Ng3+ 27.Kxh2 Bf8, when I am ready to
double Rooks on the c-file, although Rybka still wants to jump into c7 with
the Knight: 28.Nc7 (a later Nc7-e6 will cut off the d7-Bishop from the
kingside).} (25. Rf2 Nh5 26. Bf1 Ng3+ 27. Kxh2 Bf8 28. Nc7) 25... Rc8 26. Ra1
$6 {Diagram # In my haste to escape the pin along the c-file, I have left
myself vulnerable to the following Exchange sacrifice, a possibility I had not
even entertained. Unfortunately for me, Black was alert and snapped off the
intruding Knight on c7 without hesitation. The result is that my coordination
is disrupted, and suddenly the focus of the position shifts to my kingside- a
change that eluded me until it was already too late.} Rxc7 $1 27. Bxc7 Nh5 28.
Rf2 Ng3+ 29. Kxh2 h3 30. Bf1 hxg2 (30... Qh4 {After the game, we agreed that
30...Qh4 would have been stronger: after 31.gxh3 Nxf1+ 32.Qxf1 Bxh3 the point
is that the f2-Rook is vulnerable.} 31. gxh3 Nxf1+ 32. Qxf1 Bxh3) 31. Bxg2 Bf8
{My opponent was proud of this move, introducing both major pieces onto the
h-file. Computer evaluations show that I am not yet losing, but at the time I
did not appreciate how much pressure I was under. A single slip in this
position could be fatal.} 32. Kg1 Rh7 33. Bb6 Qh4 34. Rf1 $2 {Diagram # And
here is the blunder. By now I had realised how real the danger was to my King
(too late!), and time-trouble forced me to make a decision quickly with my
Rook. Unfortunately, this is the wrong square. The 4NCL report rightly
criticised this losing move, claiming that after 34.Rc2 Black has little more
than a draw: 34...Qh2+ 35.Kf2 Qh4 36.Kg1 Qh2+ etc. I suspect that my opponent
would have pressed for more, a decision approved by Rybka, for example: 35...
Nh4 36.Bd8 Nxg2 37.Nxg2 Nh1+ 38.Rxh1 Qxh1 39.Qf1 Qh2 40.Ke1 Qg3+ 41.Rf2 Rh2,
building pressure on the g2-point. In that case, I would have had to rely on
my queenside pawns to provide counterplay.} (34. Rc2 Qh2+ 35. Kf2 Qh4 (35...
Nh4 36. Bd8 Nxg2 37. Nxg2 Nh1+ 38. Rxh1 Qxh1 39. Qf1 Qh2 40. Ke1 Qg3+ 41. Rf2
Rh2) 36. Kg1) 34... Be7 {As the report pointed out, 34...Nh1! would have been
a impressive coup de grâce, threatening 35...Qh2 mate, against which there is
no reasonable defence. I suspect that the reason that both players missed this
move was that the monstrous Knight on g3 was so strong- why give it up for the
clumsy Rook on f1?!- that any other moves by the same piece were also
dismissed. Incidentally, this spectacular finish would have mirrored the final
move from the Kasparov game mentioned in the note to Black's 13th move. (I
hope Mr Ruthen will feel flattered by a comparison to the great man himself!)
The move played is also good, aiming the Bishop at h4. By the time a
previously bad Bishop joins the fray, it is usually very bad news indeed for
the defender.} (34... Nh1 $1) 35. Kf2 {Diagram # I tried to play this move
with a straight face, as if I knew what I was doing (well, of course, I'm
running to the safety of the queenside, aren't I!?), but by now it is over. I
steeled myself for the killing 35...Nxe4+ 36.Ke2 Bb5 37.fxe4 Bxd3+, picking up
the Queen, before realising that the combination would be even stronger if the
moves were inverted. Sure enough, my opponent crowned his attack with the
sparkling...} Bb5 $1 {A combination that utilises tactical motifs stretching
across the whole board. The Queen is pinned to the e2-flight-square (...Nxe4+
threatens to push the King back into the corner, and into a mate).} (35...
Nxe4+ 36. Ke2 Bb5 37. fxe4 Bxd3+) 36. Qxb5 Nxe4+ 37. Ke2 Nc3+ 38. Kd3 Nxb5 39.
Kc4 {Allowing the King to lead the troops into battle is heroic, but a little
bit desperate.} Nd4 40. Rh1 Qf2 {The time-control was reached, and I had time
to survey the wreckage. I am a Queen for Rook down, my lack of coordination
will likely cost me further material, and my King is stranded mid-board. Not
my finest hour.} 41. Rxh7 Kxh7 42. Bh3 Qb2 {
Threatening both mate and the a1-Rook. There is no defence.} 43. Rd1 Qb3# {
To (mis)quote one famous chess player (consoling a colleague who had just
succumbed to some skilful attacking play): "You were lucky to be mated,
otherwise you would have lost too much material!" I would like to thank Mr
Ruthen and congratulate him on a well-played and instructive King's Indian
game: an opening inaccuracy gave White an advantage on the queenside, but when
I allowed him an opportunity to speed up his kingside attack, he spotted it
instantly (26...Rxc7). Sustained pressure against careless defence induced an
error in a tense but level position, and he crowned his play with a crisp
tactical blow (35...Bb5!).} 0-1

