Patrick O'Sullivan (1750) vs Dan Raats (1822) (Active)

This game was played in the first round of the Kitchener-Waterloo Spring Active tournament.  It is particularly notable because I was offered a draw by my expert-level opponent (standard rating 2034) which I declined because there was no possibility of losing for me if the position hadn't changed character.  My plan was to slowly build my position and if I could break through, I would, and if I couldn't, I would have offered the draw back.  I ended up losing this game by playing a bold Knight sacrifice that didn't work over the board, but actually turns out to draw.  I blundered in the follow-up because I was still committed to winning the game.

Patrick O'Sullivan (1750) vs Dan Raats (1822)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4- An odd choice.  I am sure this is the most familiar system for my opponent, but he is a higher rated player than me and this system leads to a very even slow game.  However, with that said, I would not deviate from my Caro-Kann based on my opponent's rating.
8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Qd2 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bxd4 11.Qxd4 Qb6 12.O-O-O- I should point out that 12.Nb5 is the main line because the Knight seems better on d4 than the Rook, but my d4 Rook allows for a tactic later that I unfortunately failed to capitalize on.
12...Qxd4 13.Rxd4 a6 14.g3 Ke7 15.Bg2 Nb8 16.Rhd1 Nc6 17.R4d2 b5?-  There has not been much to writ about in this slow positional battle until now.  The Queenside thrust 17...b5 is a blunder because it allows me the shot 18.Bxd5!.  During the game, I looked at this possibility and concluded that I was winning the a8-Rook if 18...exd5 19.Nxd5+ and king anywhere but f8.  When I looked at 19...Kf8 I glanced at 20.Nb6 Rb8 21.Rd8+ but saw that the black Knight covers the square.  However, I did not look deeply enough, as 21...Nxd8 is met by 22.Rxd8+ Ke7 23.Rxh8 Rxb6 24.Rxc8 and white is winning as he is up two pawns with more to come.  It is interesting that at the critical moment I failed to look deeply enough into the position, just like in the game below when I considered the line "ending" with 36.g4.  In both cases had I looked one move deeper, I would have avoided a serious oversight.  I am not too upset though, as these games were played under active time control; discouraging a re-checking of calculations.

P

Position after 18.Bxd5! (Analysis Diagram)
18.Ne2- 18.Bxd5! is much better as explained above.  The game now enters a maneuvering phase.
18...Bb7 19.Nd4 Rac8 20.a3- Stopping the Queenside attack that begins with b4.
20...g6 21.g4 h5 22.g5 Rc7 23.h4- Always fix the opponent's pawns on the same colour of his bishop.
23...Rhc8 24.c3 Na5 25.Bf1 Nc4 26.Bxc4- The Knights are much better than the Bishops in this position.
26...Rxc4- bxc4 is better because the long-term pressure on b2 would be hard to handle.  The black Rooks have no play because of the white pawn on c3.
27.Kc2- Beginning a King walk that seals white's advantage
27...R8c7 28.Kd3 Bc8 29.Ke3 Bd7 30.Nb3?- I thought that this stops the Queenside pawns, but Black is now slightly better after 30...b4! 31.axb4 Ba4 and black wins the exchange.  I did not see this possibility over the board.
30...Re4+ 31.Kf3 Rcc4 32.Rd4 Rexd4 33.Rxd4 Rxd4 34.Nxd4- I survived my mistake and now hold an edge because my Knight is much better than the Bishop.
34...Kd8 35.b4- Now the King can never penetrate my position.
35...Kc7 36.Nb3 Kb6- This move came with a draw offer which I did not accept because there is no threat to my position.  However, I had a strong feeling that the game was drawn.  I did not know that my opponent was such a strong player, so I felt I could trudge on and take the draw in the later stages.
37. Ke3 Be8 38.Kd4 Bd7 39.Nc5 Bc6 40.Nxa6?!- The computer is harsh with this move, giving the position -1.10 but white turns out to be fine.  My real mistake came later on in the game.  The plan behind Nxa6 was to crash through with the King and destroy the Black Kingside pawns.  I did not see that the bishop was in time to defend.

Position after 40.Nxa6?!.  The game is still a draw here, as the black King cannot enter the white camp.
 40...Kxa6 41.Kc5 Kb7 42.Kd6 d4 43.cxd4 Be4 44.Kc5 Bd3 45.d5??- The losing move.  The black King has no way in if the white King swings back and forth between d6 and d7, because the Bishop cannot hinder the King's movements.  Now the Bishop has the key e6 square, which decides the game.
45...exd5 46.Kxd5 Kb6 47.Kd6 Bc4 48.Kd7 Bd5 49.Kd6 Be6- No more d7, so the game is lost.
50.Ke7 Kc6 51.Kf6 Kd5 52.f5 gxf5 53.g6 fxg6 54.Kxg6 f4 55.Kxh5 f3 0-1

This game demonstrates the importance of re-checking all variations and of devising endgame "schemes".  I found the Kd6 Kd7 Kd6 idea one move too late, when I really should have seen it as a fallback option on 40.Nxa6.  Even in benign positions, you must be mindful of your opponent's threats to avoid catastrophe.  Both of us missed chances to grab an edge, but that is the nature of active chess.  The goal is not always to see the deepest into things, but to find the best ideas.

Patrick O'Sullivan (1750) vs FM Michael Dougherty (2324) (Active)

This game was played in the third round of the event with a time control of 25 minutes plus ten seconds per move under the Bronstein system. I had one win and one loss coming into the game and upon reading my opponent's name I had no expectations of winning. Nevertheless, I sat down hoping to give my opponent trouble on his way to victory.

Patrick O'Sullivan (1750) vs FM Michael Dougherty (2324)
1.e4 c5- Sicilian Defense. I immediately began remembering my 13 move loss to IM Nikolay Noritsyn, vowing not to repeat that catastrophe.
2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6- I do not have any over-the-board experience with this system so I hesitated a bit before choosing the Sozin variation.
6.Bc4 Qb6 7.Nb3 e6 8.Be3- Upon reviewing the game I was surprised to see that this move is not in Rybka's opening book, as it looks like a logical time-gaining move. I suppose the point is that c7 is a better square for the Queen anyways, and my bishop is not exerting any pressure on the enemy camp here. The main choices are 8.Bf4 and 8.O-O, which both keep the game sharper.
8...Qc7 9.f3 a6 10.a4!?- Stopping all Queenside play, but allowing the shot 10...d5 with equality. I glanced at the possibility of d5 but I quickly dismissed it as unplayable as I thought it was losing a pawn. After 10...d5 11.exd5 Nb4! the pawn is regained and black has gotten the better of the opening phase.
10...Ne5- A fine move. My opponent did not spend much time making this move, probably reasoning that the move 10...d5 was not worth creating a disadvantage on the clock. Against a lesser opponent, the clock can be a great equalizer.
11.Be2 Nc4 12.Bxc4 Qxc4 13.Qd4- My opponent felt that I should have kept more complications in the position by not offering the trade, but I saw that my pieces were more readily active than his and felt that I would be able to consolidate all holes in the time he would take getting his development completed.
13...Qxd4 14.Bxd4 Bd7 15.e5!?- According to the computer castling is slightly better but I chose to simplify the center, keeping faith in my better development.
15...dxe5 16.Bxe5 Bc6- This Bishop has no prospects so improving it makes sense, but I feel that 16...Bb4 is more productive because as the position stands there is currently no pressure on me.
17.Nd4 Rc8 18.Nxc6 Rxc6- Taking the Bishop was fine for me, but the c6 Rook is perfectly placed to eventually thwart all of my play.

 position after 18...Rxc6
19.O-O-O Nd7- An interesting decision.  The plan is to put the Knight on c5 and recapture with the Bishop if I take it.  I think that 19...Bb4 is better just because I have no intention to open the g-file and it allows castling.
20.Bd4 Be7- 20...Nc5 straight away is one tempo better, but maybe my opponent intended to wait for my Rook to get to d3.
21.Rd3 e5 22.Bf2 Nc5 23.Bxc5 Bxc5 24.Ne4- Perhaps I should have taken the time to develop my other Rook with Re1 or Rd1, but to be honest I missed the simple 24...Bd4.  I expected 24...Be7 where I can continue comfortably.
24...Bd4 25.c3 f5 26.Ng3 O-O 27.Kb1 Bf2-My opponent has manufactured his first threat of the game- The idea being Bxg3 and Rg6 winning the pawn on g3.
28.Rd7 b6 28.Re7 Rc5 30.Rf1 Be3 31.Rd1 Bg5 32.Rb7- After making this move I scribbled a mark on my scorecard beside it indicating to myself that I had missed 32.Re6! after which the evaluation jumps to 0.92 according to Rybka.  This game is memorable for me because I held a slight edge against an FM for the entire game and I had an opportunity to go way ahead at this juncture.  I know I was not in the right "chess mindset" during this part of the game because my goal was to prove an edge to my opponent to pave the way for an attractive draw offer.  I should have been thinking of winning, but a 2324 rating is very scary even when you control the game.
32...Rc6 33.Rdd7- In the post-mortem some strong players including my fifth round opponent Gordon Olheiser (2142) were looking at the board exclaiming "This makes no sense, white must be winning here".  These were my feelings as well, because all of my pieces were better than their black counterparts.  Even so, I had no way to break through.

P

Position after 33.Rdd7.  How is this not winning?
33...Rg6 34.Nh5?!- Over-zealous.  Attacking here is the wrong plan.  I should instead re-route my knight to d5 by Ne2, c4, Nc3, Nd5.  I had calculated one move too few before playing Nh5, seeing 34...Bh6 35.g3 f4 36.g4.  I thought this position would be fine for me as the e-pawn is backwards and I have long-term pressure on the black King..
34...Bh6 35.g3 f4 36.g4? e4!- The only move to punish g4.  After anything else white stands considerably better with Re7.  The pawn cannot be captured because g4 falls and the game is lost.  An alternative to 36.g4 was 36.gxf4 but I did not consider it because I thought my horrid pawn structure was surely losing.  According to the computer gxf4 leads to an even game.
37.h3 exf3 38.Rd3 Re6- I stopped recording moves here because we were both on three minutes and I reasoned that I would need all of my time if I wanted the chance to find a miracle save.  The next moves I will show are from memory, but I will stop when I am unclear about the next move.
39.Rxf3? Re3?-Back to back mistakes.  We both missed that 39...g6 traps the white Knight.
40.Rxe3 fxe3 41.Re7 Rf3 42.h4 g6 43.g5 Bf8 44.Nf6+ Rxf6 45.gxf6 Bxe7 46.fxe7 Kf7 47.Kc2?-a poor oversight. 47.e8=Q+ would win me a tempo. Here is where the fact that he is an FM really becomes clear.
47...Kxe7 48.Kd3 h6 49.Kxe3 Kd6 50.Ke4 Ke6 51.Kf4 Kd5 52.b3- The computer shows -0.18 here but I know white is lost.  I cannot remember the rest of the game, but White cannot defend because g5 is coming when white steps away from the Kingside.
0-1

I am very happy about how this game was played.  I  kept the game in my slow positional style and managed to avoid getting thrashed by the Sicilian in the hands of a much stronger player than myself.  I may still play 10.a4 because I do not mind the position after 10...d5, but I will not make that decision now.  I saw the board very clearly during this entire tournament, and there was not a single point in this game where I was scared.  This is my best game ever so far and one that will remain in memory for a long time to come.

Kitchener-Waterloo Spring Active

I did not announce that I was going to Kitchener on Saturday April 24 because it was kind of an impromptu thing. The day started unexpectedly as the address of the City Hall that I got was wrong, forcing me to run a kilometer to arrive at the venue on time. There were not as many players there as I had expected there to be and as a result the tournament was condensed to just an Open Section. Of the 18 players there I was the youngest (quite a surprise after attending other events) but I was not intimidated by the crowd. I had no active rating heading into the event but I was assigned a 1750 rating by the organizer before even playing a game.

I finished the event on minus 1 but I won both games that I was expected to. My three losses were all very exciting and I could have extracted some points out of them. This was by far the best chess I have ever played; highlighted by my third round loss against FM Michael Dougherty in which I held the advantage right up until the end.

I believe the tournament was won by FM Hans Jung, but I did not stay to see the conclusion of his last round game. I will annotate at least two games from this event as I am very proud of my play. I will not be posting here in quite a long time after I finish my annotations here though because I cannot play in any events for quite a long time due to personal scheduling conflicts.

Doug Gillis (1611)-Patrick O'Sullivan (1864)

This was probably my strongest game from the Hamilton Winter Open tournament, however I did manage to blunder near the end allowing a draw, but my opponent did not capitalize. The opening line here is the same one played in my previously annotated game against Doug Gillis.

I can't seem to do bold text without much trouble, so the game moves will not be bolded. However, the title is easy enough.

Gillis-O'Sullivan
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qb3 Bxf3 9.gxf3 Nb6 10.d5- Previously he tried 10.Bb5 and after 10...e6 11.Be3 a6 my position was much better as his dark square bishop had no prospects. The move 10.d5 is an improvement as it forces me to be careful, but Rybka likes 10.Be3 with the idea of O-O-O to play d5 at the perfect moment. This idea will prevent me from playing the 9...Nb6 line in the future because I think it is good for white. Instead black gets a great game after 9...e6 10.Qxb7 Nxd4 11.Bb5+ Nxb5 12.Qc6+ Ke7 13.Qxb5 Qd7 where white is left with only a worse pawn structure to show for his efforts.

10...Nd4- I had to decide between this and 10...Ne5. Ne5 is worse because after 11.Be2, f4 will come and the pawns get moving against my king. My knight could get kicked around.

11.Bb5+ - I thought this move made no sense because the bishop can become strong later, but it is book. That being said, Qd1 is a stronger move because it keeps material on the board.

11...Nxb5 12.Qxb5- A day after this game, my opponent said to me that he found Nxb5 to be better in his analysis. This is a correct evaluation, as the attacking player should not usually even provide chances to simplify.

12...Qd7 13.Qxd7+ Kxd7- The King is correct in the center here. This is the second game against Doug Gillis that this type of Queen exchange has occurred. Better was leaving the Queen on b5 and developing a piece to keep winning chances alive.


14.Bf4 a6- I felt stopping Nb5 was critical

15.O-O-O Rc8 16.Kb1 g6 17.Rhe1 Bg7 18.Be5- White needs the Bishops to stay on the board so the threat of d6 will hang in the air. It is not immediately good because I can respond with e6, but if my e-pawn moves or is taken the Bishop will be a strong piece.

18...Bxe5 19.Rxe5 Nc4 20.Re2 Nd6- I saw nothing in 20...Na3+ 21.Ka1, and I thought my best chance was to blockade the d5 pawn and gang up on it with an eventual rook lift.

21.Ne4- Here my opponent missed a chance with 21.Na4 Rc7 22.Nb6+ Kd8 disrupting the coordination of my rooks.

21...Rc7 22.Rc1 Rhc8 23.Rec2- I calculated for just a few minutes and saw that his knight was not good enough to ensure an immediate draw, and I did not see anything else but to exchange here.

23...Rxc2 24.Rxc2 Rxc2 25.Kxc2- My plan is to limit his Knight and slowly work my King to the Kingside while my Knight holds his King at bay on the Queenside.

25...b6- taking away c5

26.Ng5- My opponent missed that my Knight guarded f7. Better was Kd3

26...h6 27.Ne4 Nb5 28.Kd3 f5 29.Nc3 Nxc3- I felt that I had enough resources to stop his central pawns. If he cannot push them I win the game.

30.bxc3 Kd6 31.Kd4 g5 32.h3 h5- My Kingside pawns are ominous and Whites resources are thinning.


33.a3??- This move loses to 33...h4 because of an eventual g4 pawn sacrifice and the h-pawn queens.

33...e5+?- I had been planning this move for some time, and it is a strong move, but I missed the winning shot 33...h4. Now there is still work to be done.

34.dxe6 Kxe6 35.f4 gxf4 36.f3- I do not understand this move, as it is always good to keep pawn moves in reserve to avoid zugzwang in King and pawn endings.

36...Kd6 37.h4 Ke6 38.Kc4 Ke5 39.a4 Kd6 40.Kd4 Kd6 41.Kc4 Kc6?- I am still better, but I missed that now Ke5 is winning because he cannot play a4 like he had previously.

42.Kd4 b5??- After 43.axb5 the game is a dead draw because 43...Kxb5 44.Kd5 a5 45.c4+ Kb6 46.Kd6 Kb7 47.Kd7 Kb6 48.Kd6 and no progress can be made

43.a5??- The losing move, but we both thought this was the best way for white. I am lucky to have gotten this win.

43...Kd6 44.c4 b4 45.c5+ Kc6 46.Kc4 b3 47.Kxb3 Kxc5 48.Ka4 Kc4 0-1

I feel like my play in this game was well-reasoned and solid, and aside from missing 33...h4 and the 41...Ke5 idea I made no mistakes and proved once again that a well-played Caro-Kann is difficult to crack.

Hamilton Winter Open Results

Sorry these are way late; I basically did absolutely nothing on the March Break except for the Tournament. In Hamilton I managed a 3.0/5.0 score, but I only had a rating performance of 1733 (if I remember). Fortunately, my rating only declined 8 points to 1856, and my rating is now established. I lost to an unrated player named Stephan Tonakian on the twelfth move by hanging a bishop (it was horrifying) and I butchered a Slav Exchange on the black side against Yuanchen Zhang (1648) and lost quickly. Overall, my play lacked direction and it was not precise, and I do not wan t to annotate any games. However I did promise to annotate one, so soon (Friday at the latest) you will see my third victory against Doug Gillis. Not surprisingly, it was another Caro-Kann and a repeat of our last opening line in the Panov. I came out with a slight edge which I almost expertly converted only to allow the draw as I was on the cusp of victory. Fortunately, he missed the correct continuation and a few moves later I hauled in the point.

Adam Cormier demolished the field letting up only in the last round drawing with Yuanchen Zhang. I do not remember the rest of the results, but that is because I am not among the top three which I desired to be. I am still a bit dejected from the event, but this only motivates me to play my best chess in the future. Hamilton was a good tournament for me because I realized that even though your opponents may be rated lower than you, they can still be dangerous.

Hamilton Winter Open

Sorry that I have not updated this blog in a while. I just registered for the Hamilton Winter Open for next weekend, and I expect to play well in it. I will annotate a game from it after it concludes and as I said before, maybe more than one if I am happy with my play. That's all I have to talk about chess right now, but I will be back soon with news of the tournament.

Guelh Results

In the Open Section Nikolay Noritsyn and Artiom Samsonkin shared first on 4.5/5.0 points, and in my section, Israel Crooks, Yelizaveta Orlova, and Ian Finlay finished in a three way tie for first on 4.0/5.0. I am not sure how the tiebreaks work, so I do not know the outright winners. I think I finished with a performance rating of 1833 (the chess.ca site is slow at the moment so I am just trying to recall what I read about three hours ago) but my rating did climb five points (what a jump!) to 1864. I am pleased with this because I worried that my rating would go down. I would like to give special mention to Israel Crooks, whose rating is not provisional, but who climbed an amazing 100 points to now sit at 1872. I hope that I will play against him again with the black pieces to show him my full defensive ability.

Concerning the future, I am looking at the Hamilton tournament on the March 14th weekend. I really want to win that one!