Lloyds Bank a kibitzer`s report.
M.D.Crowther
Lloyds Bank
Just got back from kibitzing the Lloyds Bank Tournament in London.
Jonathan Speelman, who has played in all 17 of the events that have run,
finally won the event outright. He also becomes the first player to win
the tournament twice. (he shared first place with Timochenko last year,
this year Timo got hacked horribly in a couple of games and finished
no-where.)
The two major class acts of this tournament were Speelman and Miles and
it was a shame that they didn`t get the opportunity to meet. Speelman
appeared in trouble only once against David Norwood when he played a
very dubius opening against Norwood's Larsen opening. 1. Nf3 c5 2. b3 d6
3. Bb2 e5 4. c4 g5?! he got a terrible opening but he was clearly seeing
more than Norwood later and held the draw.
Things could also have been different against Plaskett, a player that
Speelman, quite obviously from the post-mortem doesn't fear, here he
played a sharp exchange sacrifice, which against correct play leads to a
comfortable advantage for white. Plaskett saw nothing and made a large
error straight away and lost a humiliating game. In the post mortem it
was clear that Jimbo saw really nothing throughout the whole game, but
he pulled a lot of faces of disbelief at Speelman's main lines. In
answer to Plaskett's comments about how much better he stood Speelman
kept saying "It's not the end of the Universe you know."
Plaskett (GM, 2470) - Speelman (GM, 2605)
London Lloyds Bank (7)
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 g3 O-O 5 Bg2 Nc6 6 Nf3 b6 7 Ne5 Bb7 8 Bg5
Nxe5 9 Bxf6? (much better is 9..Bb7 10 Nc4 and then either 10..Bxa8
which was Speelman's main line or 10..Bxf6 which seemed to us favourable
to white.)..Qc8 (totally missed by Plaskett)
10 Bxe5 Bxg2 11 Rg1 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 Bb7 13 c5 d6 14 cxd6
cxd6 15 Bxd6 Rd8 16 Bf4 Qxc3+ 17 Kf1 Rxd4 18 Qc1 Qa5 19 Be3 Rd7 20 f3
Rc8 21 Qb2 Rc3 22 Bf2 Qe5 23 Rb1 Qc7 24 Kg2 Rc2 25 Rgc1 Bxf3+ 0-1
A complete rout.
In the early rounds the clear leader was van der Sterren who was giving
the clear impression of continuing where he left off at Biel and other
tournaments this year. The only memories of him in previous Lloyds Bank
Tournaments have been his loss to Andrew Hon last year. The stuffing was
knocked out of him however by "Gentleman" Jim Plaskett. Paul played a
wonderful game up to a point, Plaskett declared to onlookers that he had
been completely positionally outplayed and at one point he "should have
resigned". Around first time control Plaskett played in time trouble
with his usual panash and this was the start of van der Sterren losing
the thread of the position. In Plaskett's loudly declared opinion Paul,
in looking for a clean win completely messed up his chances, where as a
direct kingside assault would have forced quick resignation. Jim's
streetfighting style came to the fore and he ended up grinding out a win
in a materially favourable ending after Paul had to return material
Plaskett had given up earlier plus a little more to stem Jim`s
initiative. I asked van der Sterren whether he was playing at the PCA
event later this year and he said that he was so weak he hadn't been
invited! Paul created a good impression in the Championsip and his forth
place must be his best finish in the Lloyds Bank. However the event cost
him the first two losses of the year.
This however was the high point for Jim, who said he was working in
the mornings before coming in to play in the afternoons. He lost
against Speelman and then again in the following round and dissappeared
from the leader board.
Two rounds after Plaskett van der Sterren had the following accident.
White: van der Sterren
Black: Tkachiev
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. d4 0-0 6. Be2 Na6 7. 0-0 e5
8. Be3 c6 9. d5 Ng4 10. Bg5 f6 11. Bh4 h5 12. Nd2 Nh6 13. f3 c5 14. a3
Bd7 15. Rb1 Nf7 16. b4 b6 17. bxc5 Nxc5 18. Nb3 Na4 19. Nxa4 Bxa4 20.
Qe1 Qc7 21. Nc1 Bd7 22. Qb4 f5 23. exf5 Bxf5 24. Nd3 Ra8e8 25. g4 e4 26.
gxf5 exd3 27. Bxd3 Ne5 28. Be2 Rxf5 29. f4 Ng4 30. Bxg4 hxg4 31. Rf1e1
Rxe1+ 32. Rxe1 Rxf4 33. Bg3 Rxc4 34. Bxd6 Bd4+ 35. Kg2 Qf7 36. Re8+ Qxe8
37. Qxc4 Qe4+ 38. Kf1 Qf3+ 0-1
Here is a better moment for van der Sterren from round 4.
White: van der Sterren
Black: Hebden
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 0-0 6. Nf3 e5 7. 0-0
Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Nd2 Ne8 10. b4 f5 11. c5 Kh8 12. a4 Ng8 13. a5 Nh6
14. Nc4 f4 15. Ba3 g5 16. b5 g4 17. g3 dxc5 18. Bxc5 Rg8 19. b6 cxb6
20. axb6 a6 21. Qb3 Nf7 22. Qb4 Qg5 23. Rf1d1 Qh6 24. Be7 Nf6 25. Nd6
Ng5 26. Kh1 Bf8 27. Bxf8 Rxf8 28. Rg1 Nh3 29. Rg1f1 Rb8 30. Nc4 f3
31. Bd3 Bd7 32. Nxe5 Rb8e8 33. Qd4 Qg7 34. Nc4 Re7 35. e5 Nh5 36.
Rf1e1 Bb5 37. Nxb5 axb5 38. Nd6 Qg5 39. e6+ Qf6 40. Qe3 Qb2 41. Rf1
Nf6 42. Qh6 Nxf2+ 43. Rxf2 Qxa1+ 44. Rf1 Qa2 45. Qxf8+ Ng8 46. Rxf3
Qxd5 47. Nf7+ Rxf7 48. Qxf7 Qxf3+ 49. Qxf3 gxf3 50. Be4 1-0
van der Sterren also pressurised Miles for a long time in their
game together. Miles held the position R+P against R+B for
a long time. He secured the draw by sacrificing the Rook for
the bishop to secure a drawn rook v pawn ending.
Adams never featured all the time we were there. He looked incredebly
tired and worn out. Some might say from his exersions at Biel but others
offered a different explanation. I think we`ve been to Lloyds Bank three
years in succession and on no occasion has he performed well. It seems
to me that the attractions of the night life are too much during this
tournament for him to perform well. Short also turned up almost every
night in the pub round the corner from the venue. On the last evening it
was with Robert Hubner. Norwood was asking Short what place he had in
his preparations for the match. Short replied that he'd get in touch if
he needed any help with the Trompovsky!! The players mentioned that
Short's odds are improving with the bookmakers making Kasparov a winner
by 5 rather than the pessimistic 8 the favoured result. Short's comments
in the Sunday Times (and a programme on Wednesday) saying that Kasparov
was a KGB enthusiast and anti-democratic were regarded by most as hype
for the event. However it seems to me it might form part of a wider
Short/Kavalek plan of campaign which may involve trying to gode Kasparov
as much as possible. I suppose complaints about Garry's over the board
behaviour might also feature in such a campaign. The theory could run
that Kasparov may try to play too aggressively if upset by such a
campaign. The risk is that he can carry off such play and the result may
be humiliation for Short.The Ogonyok article was recieving wide currency
amongst the journalists. One GM saying that critisism of Karpov was
misplaced, and that Karpov offered a wide range of opportunities to
Soviet players, after all just look at Dorfman and Vladimirov!!
Tony Miles was a popular player at this years championship. Never off
the leaderboard he showed incredible energy and fighting spirit to see
him through a lot of long sessions. His challenge foundered when he
failed to beat Krasenkov in the penultimate round. He may have had some
fleeting chances just prior to the first time control. He stood a little
worse after that and a draw was agreed in an extremely unclear position.
(although perhaps there remains the suspician that Krasenkov was
better.)
The position (I'm about 95% sure) where the draw was agreed was:
White: Pawns a5,b6,d5,e5,f3, Qb3, Rg1, Rg4, Bd4, Nd2, Kd1
Black: Pawns a6,b7,f7,g6,h6, Qd7, Rc8, Re8, Bg5, Nh5, Kg8.
After the game they discussed Rxg5 for a while.
His last round against Naumkin started 1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d5 Nf6 4.
de d5 5. Ng5 which Naumkin (as black) has played before.It continued
5..Qe7 6. c4 Be6 7. cd Nd5 8. e4 fe 9. Bc4 Qb4+ 10. Nd2 e3 (Ne3 may
also be interesting.) 11. fe (0-0 saccing at least one piece may be
winning for white but it is very complex) 11..Qb6 12. Qe2 Ne3 13. Ne6
Nc2+ 14. Kf1 Ne3+ 15.Kg1 Nc4+ Naumkin handled the complications well.
Miles took incredible risks, which left Naumkin close to winning.
White: pawns a3, b2, g2, h2, Rooks d1, e1, King f2
Black: pawns a6, b7, c7, g7, h7, Rook a5, Bishop d6 ,King c8
Later they got a position (approximate I can't remember the exact
position)
White. pawns b3, g3, Rooks e6, f5, King g4
Black: pawns a5, b6, c6, Rook d2 Bishop c5 King b5
However his endgame play was poor and Miles eventually managed to win.
Nunn played altogether less convincingly and relied heavily on his
opponents mistakes in the middle rounds. Nevertheless you don't come
2nd= by accident. His worst moment was a loss to Miles.
London Lloyds Bank (6)
Miles (GM, 2565) - Nunn (GM, 2595)
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 c3 Bg7 4 Bg5 O-O 5 Nbd2 d5 6 e3 Nbd7 7 Be2 Re8
8 O-O e5 9 Nb3 c6 10 Rc1 a5 11 c4 a4 12 Nbd2 exd4 13 Nxd4 Qa5
14 cxd5 Qxd5 15 Bf4 Ne5 16 Qc2 Bg4 17 Bc4 Qa5 18 h3 Bd7 19 Be2 Rac8
20 Rfd1 b5 21 N2f3 Nxf3+ 22 Bxf3 Nd5 23 Bd6 Qb6 24 Qc5 Qxc5 25 Bxc5
Nf6 26 Ba3 Rb8 27 Bd6 Rb6 28 Nxc6 Bxc6 29 Bxc6 Rc8 30 Bb4 Bf8 31 Bxf8
Kxf8 32 Bf3 Rc4 33 Kf1 Ke7 34 Ke1 Nd7 35 Bd5 Rxc1 36 Rxc1 b4 37 Rc7
Kd6 38 Ra7 Ne5 39 Bxf7 Nd3+ 40 Kd2 Nxf2 41 Rxa4 Ne4+ 42 Ke2 Rb7
43 Ra6+ Kc5 44 Bb4 Rd7 45 Ra5+ 1-0
Nunn was a little more fortunate against Emms.
White: pawns b2,c3,b4,g2,h3, Rooks a1,f1, Queen g6, knight g3, king h2
Black: pawns c6,b5,e3,g7,h6, Rooks f8,f7, Queen d7, knight f6, king h8
The position had been favourable for Emms (black) in time pressure
he lost the thread and the game then:
1...Qd2 2. Rae1 Qb2 3.Rxe3 (he probably missed that Nunn can take the
pawn due to back rank mate (after Ng4+)) 3..Qd2 4. Nf5 Nd5 5. Re8!
Nf4 6.Rf8+ 1-0 ouch.
It appeared also that Nunn was losing to James Howell. He was an
exchange down. The best he could hope for was a draw. But Howell
lost the exchange back and then blundered a number of pawns almost
in succesive moves to lose.
Nunn's best game was against Sadler.
Nunn (GM, 2590) - Sadler (IM, 2535)
London Lloyds Bank (9)
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be3 e5 7 Nb3 Be6
8 f3 Nbd7 9 g4 Be7 10 Qd2 b5 11 a4 b4 12 Nd5 Bxd5 13 exd5 Qc7 14 g5
Nh5 15 O-O-O Nf4 16 h4 h6 17 Rg1 hxg5 18 hxg5 Rh4 19 Kb1 Qd8 20 Nd4
exd4 21 Bxf4 Nb6 22 Bg3 Na4 23 Bc4 Nc3+ 24 bxc3 dxc3 25 Qe2 Qa5
26 Rde1 Ra7 27 Bf4 b3 28 Bxb3 Rb7 29 Rg4 Rxg4 30 fxg4 Qb4 31 Qxa6 1-0
Sadler made a good impression in congratulating Nunn on a fine game
here when he resigned. 27 Bf4 was a fine coup which Nunn must have
spotted quite far back.
Hebden (GM, 2560) - Conquest (GM, 2485)
london Lloyds Bank (9)
1 d4 f5 2 g3 Nf6 3 Bg2 g6 4 Nd2 Bg7 5 c3 Nc6 6 Nh3 O-O 7 O-O Kh8
8 Nf3 Qe8 9 d5 Nd8 10 Nd4 c6 11 c4 e5 12 Nc2 cxd5 13 cxd5 d6
14 f4 Nf7 15 Nf2 b6 16 Bd2 Bb7 17 Bc3 Rc8 18 e4 fxe4 19 Ne3 exf4
20 gxf4 Nh6 21 Bh3 Nf5 22 Bxf5 gxf5 23 Kh1 Rxc3 24 bxc3 Nxd5
25 Nxd5 e3 26 Qd3 Qe6 27 c4 b5 28 Qb3 exf2 29 Kg2 Rg8 0-1
This is only Conquest's second ever victory against Hebden, he
commented after the game. Hebden scoring a lot of wins.
I might try to post some of the interesting games I saw if I get
chance. the dissappointing thing about Lloyds bank is that there
is no daily bulletin such as there is at the British. Indeed there
is the possibility that it might take up to a month to produce.
Mark Crowther 1/9/93
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
M.D.Cr...@bradford.ac (11167)
> Plaskett (GM, 2470) - Speelman (GM, 2605)
> London Lloyds Bank (7)
> 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 g3 O-O 5 Bg2 Nc6 6 Nf3 b6 7 Ne5 Bb7 8 Bg5
> Nxe5 9 Bxf6? (much better is 9..Bb7 10 Nc4 and then either 10..Bxa8
> which was Speelman's main line or 10..Bxf6 which seemed to us favourable
> to white.)..Qc8 (totally missed by Plaskett)
> 10 Bxe5 Bxg2 11 Rg1 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 Bb7 13 c5 d6 14 cxd6
> cxd6 15 Bxd6 Rd8 16 Bf4 Qxc3+ 17 Kf1 Rxd4 18 Qc1 Qa5 19 Be3 Rd7 20 f3
> Rc8 21 Qb2 Rc3 22 Bf2 Qe5 23 Rb1 Qc7 24 Kg2 Rc2 25 Rgc1 Bxf3+ 0-1
> A complete rout.
No comprende!
I must be really dumb or I am missing soemthing here :-)
What does Black have after 26. ef3 which made White resign?
___
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
Office: UCC 181 Phone: x6406 [(412)268-6406]
From the moment I picked your book up until I put it down I was
convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.
-- Groucho Marx, from "The Book of Insults"
Renato Ghica
In article <4gVVHu_00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai" <soh...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> Excerpts from mail: 1-Sep-93 Lloyds Bank a kibitzer`s re..
|> M.D.Cr...@bradford.ac (11167)
|>
|>
|> > Plaskett (GM, 2470) - Speelman (GM, 2605)
|> > London Lloyds Bank (7)
|> > 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 g3 O-O 5 Bg2 Nc6 6 Nf3 b6 7 Ne5 Bb7 8 Bg5
|> > Nxe5 9 Bxf6? (much better is 9..Bb7 10 Nc4 and then either 10..Bxa8
|> > which was Speelman's main line or 10..Bxf6 which seemed to us favourable
|> > to white.)..Qc8 (totally missed by Plaskett)
|> > 10 Bxe5 Bxg2 11 Rg1 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 Bb7 13 c5 d6 14 cxd6
|> > cxd6 15 Bxd6 Rd8 16 Bf4 Qxc3+ 17 Kf1 Rxd4 18 Qc1 Qa5 19 Be3 Rd7 20 f3
|> > Rc8 21 Qb2 Rc3 22 Bf2 Qe5 23 Rb1 Qc7 24 Kg2 Rc2 25 Rgc1 Bxf3+ 0-1
|> > A complete rout.
|>
|> No comprende!
|> I must be really dumb or I am missing soemthing here :-)
|> What does Black have after 26. ef3 which made White resign?
|> ___
|
26 ef3 rxb2
27 rxc7 rxf2+
28 kxf2 rxc7
white is 2 pawns down.
Don't feel too bad - it's just one of those positions...
-rg
--
[the opinions above are my own!]
"die,die, damned thread!"
"delete *this"
M.D.Crowther
As Speelman said to someone after the same question was asked
of him. "The ending is no big deal."
Mark