07/03/2012 - C.Sreeves vs A.Burnett

[Clement Sreeves]

1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4



Spoiler here>> On with the plan <<Spoiler here

[andyburnett]

[pgn]1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.e4 h5[/pgn]

Spoiler here>> <<Spoiler here

[Clement Sreeves]

Andy, just writing down some thoughts. My move will come later.

Spoiler here>> I think Andy should be disqualified. Clearly James Doyle is providing him with external assistance. (for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, Sreeves-Doyle, Scottish Championships 2011 is a good place to start, but any game where the opponent dares to fianchetto on the kingside should also do the trick.) <<Spoiler here

[andyburnett]

Just lost 10 minutes of writing to a computer crash : ( But here goes again!
Spoiler here>> I thought I should explain my choice of 6...h5 instead of more conventional moves...

I have never been a fan of learning and memorising huge reams of theory. Even my theoretical knowledge of the Sicilian Dragon variation is limited in its scope to the few lines I really like and trust.

What I do like, however, is finding and researching slightly off-beat, sharp lines (6...h5!?)within the main openings which I can use over-the-board to confuse my opponent. Practical ideas have always been more attractive to me than theory - the time and effort I would have to invest to make learning theory practical just isn't worth it for me!

Anyway, the main-lines of the Botvinnik System have always confused me a little - I'm never sure (after black plays ...f5 and white f4) how I should be handling the tension in the centre, when it's right to exchange pawns, when not and why, etc. Perhaps one day I'll find some good annotated games in these lines to explain it to me, so if anyone knows of any feel free to pass on the knowledge! <<Spoiler here

[Clement Sreeves]

1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4



Spoiler here>> h5 was certainly unexpected. I am out of 'theory', but I still have a point of reference: As Black against the closed sicilian, I play: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.Be3 e5
And 7.h4 is certainly not a critical move in that position, even though it is a full tempo up on our game with reversed colours.

If I continue with the Botvinnik plan 7.Nge2, then 7...h4 feels a bit unpleasant. Black can open the h-file whenever he wants. 7.h3 is often a normal move in this sort of situation, with the idea of meeting 7...h4 with 8.g4, but here it seems this would only block in my light-squared bishop. And Black can exchange his bad bishop straight away with 8...Bh6.

So 7.h4, basically by a process of elimination. The g4 square is weakened, but Black has also weakened g5. This is very relevant in case either side tries to push their f-pawn 2 squares forward, which would leave a big hole open for a knight. I'm not totally sure what I'm going to do next, I'll wait for his reply and then try to work it out. <<Spoiler here

[andyburnett]

[pgn]1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.e4 h5 7.h4 Nd4[/pgn]

Spoiler here>> Ok, well this is a position I am very familiar with, so 7...Nd4. I have played the black side of this recently against Donald Heron at my club and previously against Jonathan Grant, Alan Grant, Joe Redpath, Chris MacDonald, Daniel Rocks and a few others I'm sure!

As mentioned in my previous post, 7...Nd4 'prevents' the natural 8.Nge2 because of 8...Bg4. 8.Nce2 is a better move, when I intend to retreat the knight to e6 from where it eyes the centre, the q-side and the k-side.

White has to be careful about his development after that. It is easy for him to get the move order wrong and allow a quick ...c6, ...d5.

I'd love to see Clement's comments so far! Does he know this position? Does he know that I've played it so many times? OTB it is usually possible to get a 'read' on a player's thoughts - this is more like online poker! What cards is Clement holding? <<Spoiler here

[Clement Sreeves]

1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4 Nd4
8.Nce2



Spoiler here>> I reckon I need to get rid of that knight on d4. Since 8.Nge2 Bg4 would be a bit embarrassing, it has to this way.

Actually analysing this position has reminded me of the game J.Grant-Green from the Scottish in 2011. I actually watched the post-mortem (!) but spent 30 minutes realising that I didn't understand these deep strategical positions at all. If I were you I would take a look at this game because it might be interesting, but since I am me I'm not allowed :-( <<Spoiler here

[andyburnett]

[pgn]1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.e4 h5 7.h4 Nd4 8.Nce2 Ne6[/pgn]

Spoiler here>> OK, sticking to the plan. The next few moves will tell me if Clement knows, or can work out, the details of the move order for his development here.

I think my game against Alan Grant went 9.Be3 Nf6 10. f3 (to avoid ...Ng4) c6 11.d4 c5! and the position seems to be dead equal. My recent game against Donald Heron went 9. Nh3 c6 10. Be3 Nf6 and showed up the move-order problem for white as now 11.f3 is met by 11...d5! <<Spoiler here

[Clement Sreeves]

1.c4 e5
2.g3 Nc6
3.Nc3 g6
4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6
6.e4 h5
7.h4 Nd4
8.Nce2 Ne6
9.Nf3



Spoiler here>> Pretty obvious developing move. I'm going to make a prediction that the game will continue: 9...Nh6 (Black's only real plan is to play for ...f5, so it makes more sense to put the knight here than f6) 10.0-0 0-0 and I have a tough decision. At the moment I'm thinking 11.Ng5, but I'm not sure yet <<Spoiler here

[Clement Sreeves]

Off to Glenrothes this weekend, so feel free to take your time.