At about 9:15pm last Thursday, I felt like this.
About half an hour earlier, I'd been faced with this position and was feeling decidedly more daft than Daft Punk.
I don't play tournaments, as a general rule. As I've previously mentioned, I prefer shorter sessions, and playing two or three games a day really doesn't appeal. I don't have the time or money to play in long events either. So, the Pimlico Open, played over five consecutive Thursdays, felt like the perfect antidote. I could approach it like a 'serious' series of league matches, just turning up and playing, still reasonably fresh. A very quick time control of G80 + 10s too! Sounds good, right?
Well, yes, it is good. But you still have to turn up and play reasonably well. And try not to be completely outplayed, which is exactly what happened.
As for how I drew, I don't feel that's enormously important. In the initial ending position, my opponent had less than five minutes remaining. Even with a small increment, that's not much, especially considering I had half an hour. Still, I can feel fortunate that my opponent didn't find 58. Kd5 in this position, possibly the most clear-cut of his opportunities.
What is important is how I still felt the pressure of the situation, despite the positive approach I outlined above. I suppose I've come too far to give up who I am. If I'd lost in Round 1 of a 5-round tournament, I could tenderly kiss my chances of winning it and whisper in their ear that I'd be back next year. As it is, 4½/5 will still be good enough. I got lucky.
16 comments:
Amazing. Noting that Phil's opponent had only an estimated grade, does this mean he was somewhat less experienced in endings than a player of that grade ought to be. Or was it that the initial position with a two pawn advantage was a position he had only ever played previously with external help as with adjudication or adjournment, both still prevalent in the London area.
RdC
Nello is Italian arrived in London less than a year ago. He told me a while back he's never adjourned a position in his life. Actually I had to explain the procedure to him just in case it was needed
e169 and an (inactive) FIDE rating of 2003 are consistent.
Perhaps the series on rook endings should look at how 170 players mess them up.
RdC
I suspect chessers of a certain age would have called this post 'strike it lucky', opening with a photograph oh Michael Barrymore captioned 'awright at the back?'
Especially if - like me - they don't really know what Daft Punk is
It strikes me that 58 b5 would also have been fairly effective, to say nothing of some other moves. In fact, it would be harder to come up with a reasonable move after which Black couldn't fairly readily resign, I'd have thought.
Still, it's a difficult game. Any chance of posting the moves of this epic for our amusement.
Sure. I'll post the game this evening.
Oh, that's a bit disappointing. I was hoping for some further foozling, rather than your opponent simply agreeing a draw. But perhaps it's harder than I think after 58 f6+?? I shall think on't this afternoon when I should be working.
Yes, of course it was easily still winning, wasn't it? 60 Kc5 Rb5+ 61 Kc4, and if 61...Rb6 62 Ra5 and so forth. Or perhaps it wasn't *that* easy even then - 61...Rxe5 62 Rxa6+ Kf7 63 Ra7+ Kf8. Can you annoy him with ...h6? I don't think so - even 64 Rxh7 Rxg5 65 b5 must be winning, surely - there isn't time to collect the f6 pawn.
Think you were even luckier than you allow - one thing if he can't win the position, but another thing to be so feeble as not even to try. I know you said he'd never adjourned before, but he had played the game before, right?!
It struck me that the initial position was one that you would resign as black if you reached it at an adjournment or adjudication, although if travel wasn't an issue and you had no respect for your opponent's endgame skills, you might continue if adjourning.
Phil's junior background is that he would have played in a league that abolished adjournments and adjudications probably before he started playing seriously. You would have thought his opponent's Italian background was similar. Perhaps as suggested, it's the extra tension of having only ten seconds a move that induces panic.
RdC
I think my attempt at clarification earlier has perhaps confused matters still further.
The game was played - and the post written - by Phil Makepeace. I happen to know Nello because he's a member of our club. I was talking to him about adjournments on the way to a Surrey League match not long after he started playing for us.
As for the rook ending, I'll be having a looksee myself this afternoon.
PS:-
I'm not sure I'd call this luck, you know, but more on that on Wednesday.
62. b5 looks like the most elegant way of winning in the final position.
Richard
I 'got lucky' in the very idiomatic sense of the expression.
Yes we definitely need the phrase - if for no other reason that to stop us sounding like ego maniacs when we describe our wins (or saves).
Ed Smith has some interesting thoughts on the need for the concept of luck in his book.
PS: 1 d4 c5?
Were you going to Clarendon Court him?
Post a Comment