WC-match: day 3

By MI Wouter Sipma

This time nót a series of games between both Alexanders; the decision already came in the first game! For a long time, GMI Alexander Schwarzman had a better position, but GMI Alexander Georgiev neutralized the game inventively. But right at the moment it looked like the game was heading towards a draw, Georgiev was looking for chances and dug his own grave: with the strongest move, positionally, he walked into a simple but surprising trap! A rare blunder from the world champion, who is renowned as a brilliant tactician! Now let’s switch to the game.

Classical game

Georgiev,A. (Alexander) – Schwarzman,A. (Alexander), Wch match 2013 0-2

1.34-29 19-23 2.40-34 14-19 3.45-40 10-14 4.50-45 17-22 5.32-28 23×32 6.37×17 12×21 7.34-30 20-24 8.29×20 14×34 9.39×30 5-10 10.44-39 7-12 11.40-34 10-14 12.30-24 19×30 13.35×24 11-17 14.45-40 1-7 15.41-37 7-11 Diagram (I).

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (I)

So far so good. But now Georgiev plays a move that might not be bad, but he burdens himself with an inactive formation for the rest of the game.

16.40-35(?) 14-20! 17.34-30 20×29 18.33×24 9-14 19.38-33 4-9 20. 47-41(?) Diagram (II).

Maybe this continuation is a bit incorrect. An other option was 20. 31-26 21-27 21. 46-41 14-20 (after 17-21×21 white can build using 42-38, 21-26, 37-32 despite the king shot using 13-19; afterwards the position has subsided) 22. 24-19 13×24 23. 30×19 9-13 24. 37-31 13×24 25. 31×13 8×19 with an irregular position. Perhaps Georgiev intended to play actively in this game with a centre or attacking position and therefore didn’t want to play 20. 31-26.

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (II)

20. … 21-27?!

Schwarzman created the ideal arrangement against the formation 35-30-24; as long as 3-9-14 stays intact, white can never really play 30-25 successfully and he has to take 14-20 into account. The battle now takes place on the other wing. 20. … 21-27 is a remarkable move. 20. … 17-22 should also be taken into consideration. Then 43-38 is prevented by means of 13-19!, 18-23! and 21×25. After 21. 42-38?! 21-26 22. 48-42 for example 22. … 22-27?! 23. 31×22 18×27 is possible and black might be able to prohibit 37-32 consequently using the 13-19 tactics. But after 20. … 17-22 perhaps Schwarzman disliked the 31-27 exchange followed by the development 41-37, 37-32, 46-41, 41-37. With the game exchange Schwarzman thins out the white centre and also hampers the development of white’s left wing.

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (III)

21.31×22 17×28 22.33×22 18×27 23.42-38?!

A typical Georgiev move. While others would play 43-38 to maintain the 48-42-37 formation and try to develop via 37-31, 41-37, 37-31 etc., Georgiev gives up this formation to use the 49-43-38 formation to be able to exchange 27 frontwards.

23. … 12-18 24.37-31 16-21 25.31×22 18×27 26.41-37 Diagram (III).

26. … 11-16?!

 

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (IV)

A remarkable moment. Schwarzman now also creates the 16-21-27 formation. The difference with Georgiev’s position however is that he can always play 21-26 and thereby actually fights for control on that flank, while black already controls the other wing. Moreover the piece on 16 isn’t really inactive; it might be useful when blacks gets a piece to 26. The white piece on 35 is less useful, because white can’t bring a piece to 25.

27.39-33(!) 8-12 28.46-41(!) 21-26 29.37-32(!) Diagram (IV).

Intelligently played by Georgiev; in this way he develops piece 46 without being bothered by te 13-19 tactics.

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (V)

White firstly goes to king and then immediately using his king to 31, whereafter black should take the majority to 39. With this attack black does develop its piece on 16, but that’s how it is.

29. … 12-18 30.32×21 16×27 31.41-37 18-22 Diagram (V). 32.33-29?!

Again typical for Georgiev; instead of trying to defend ‘passively’ with 37-32 (26-31, 32×21, 31-37 isn’t harmful; for example 21-17 and 33-28 is possible), he chooses an active approach. Perhaps this is stronger as well than the position after 32. 37-32 6-11 33. 32×21 26×17, where the white pieces might have some difficulties to make the necessary movement to the left.

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (VI)

32. … 6-11 33.38-32 27×38 34.43×32 14-20 Diagram (VI).

Georgiev must have foreseen this position. Black’s plan after 35. 30-25 is simple but effective: 35. … 22-27! 36. 32×21 26×17 37. 25×14 9×20 followed by 20-25, 25-30 winning a piece. That’s why white has to come up with something special.

35.48-43?!

Also possible was 48-42 to counter 20-25 using the stick move 32-27. The punch line of the played move is a sacrifice trough a combination: 35. … 20-25 36. 29-23! 25×34 37. 24-20 15×24 38. 32-28 22×33 39. 43-39 33×44 40. 49×20 and a white breaktrough is unevitable.

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (VII)

35. … 11-16 36.30-25 16-21 37.25×14 9×20 38.43-38 Diagram (VII).

Now white is in time to form the 33-29-24 formation to neutralize the 20-25, 25-30 action. Unfortunately I had to stop watching the live games at this moment and I was convinced the game would end in a draw. Black has the easier position because of the inactive piece on 35, but white has enough counterplay in the centre.

38. … 21-27 39.32×21 26×17 40.49-43 17-21 41.43-39 21-26(!) Diagram (VIII).

Georgiev-Schwarzman, classical game (VIII)

With this move Schwarzman observes his last chance to win and in the diagram position happens what probably is the most important moment of the entire match…

42.35-30??

How is it possible Georgiev makes such a mistake?? Georgiev must have thought, as the heaviest part of the games is over (there is no disadvantage anymore), that he would get chances himself. But in a way it’s quite naive to think like this, while Schwarzman had an easier position a few moves ago and didn’t have to allow this. Georgiev must have planned to develop piece 35 after 20-25, 39-34, whereafter white breaks loose via 29-23 and 34-29 (13-18 is followed by 24-19). The last time something like this happened to Georgiev in a classical game was in 2012 against Kalmakov in the Ereklasse (Dutch team competition).

42. … 13-19! 43.24×13 3-9! 44.13×4 20-25! and Georgiev resigned without finishing the combination. The suprising element in this shot is the possibility for the king to go to two fields, but giving pieces using 13-19 and 3-9 was the only possibility to make a shot.

With this first victory in a classical game against Georgiev since the WC 1996(!) Schwarzman took a major step in winning the match. However for Georgiev the mission is virtually impossible now: winning against Schwarzman in a classical game, while for him four draws are enough; furthermore Georgiev has to make up for his blitz game loss on the first day, so he must also win a blitz or rapid game. It will be interesting how tomorrow’s game will go. In this format there is no time for a recovery draw, with only four days to go. Tomorrow Georgiev will have to go all out to win the classical game. But if the takes too much risk and blows himself up, he will have to win the three remaining games…

We shall see! See http://www.wcmm2013.fmjd.org/ and watch the games tomorrow by clicking the Live Games button. The classical game will start at 9 o’clock Dutch time.

<<< WC-match: day 2

>>> WC-match: day 4

Geef een reactie

Jouw e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Verplichte velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.