Today the two matches started with rockets and thunder strokes. Anna-Maja Kazarian tried too hard after the opening and went down tactically. The struggle between Jorden van Foreest and Jan Timman went heavily up and down. First Van Foreest seemed to be cruising to a win, but later it was Timman who missed the win. ‘I didn’t calculate deep enough’, the veteran thought. The 16-year-old GM (he still has to be appointed the title by FIDE, but we will already call him a GM) shook his head when he saw so many missed tricks. But hey, that was when we had turned on the computer.
The first Van Foreest-Timman game was one where the computer’s assessment swings, it differs per engine, and the players didn’t think it could be trusted blindly here.
Photo: Frans Peeters
Van Foreest - Timman
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2
The Short Variation: White wants to build up quietly and exploit his space advantage. In this game that’s not really going to work out...
5...Ne7 6.0–0 h6 7.Nbd2 Nd7 8.c3 Ng6
The black pieces don’t look very comfortable on g6 and f5. He would have preferred to withdraw his bishop and put his knight on f5.
9.g3 f6!? 10.Ne1!
Suddenly Black has an acute problem: 11.g4. Timman finds a creative solution.
10...h5 11.f4
11.Bxh5?! fxe5 12.g4 gives Black too much play after 12...Rxh5 13.gxh5 Nf4, as commentator Gert Ligterink explained in Het Korfje, the canteen of the Hoogeveen town hall.
11...fxe5!?
11...c5.
12.fxe5 Qb6 13.Bxh5
13...Ndxe5!?
Timman opts for the most interesting move. Objectively strongest, according to the computer, was 13...c5, with some counterplay for the pawn.
14.Kh1?!
White could have won here with 14.Qe2 0–0–0 15.g4, and Black has to lose material.
14.Rf2 0–0–0 15.Nb3 is also problematic for Black.
14...0–0–0! 15.dxe5 Nxe5
Due to White’s less clever 14th move Black now suddenly has a lot of compensation for the piece.
16.Nb3?!
This one doesn’t look too clever either. Better was 16.Nef3 Be4 (16...Rxh5 17.Nxe5 Be4+ 18.Nxe4 Rxe5 19.Ng5) 17.Qe2 Rxh5 18.Nxe4 Nxf3 (18...dxe4 19.Nxe5 Rxe5 20.Bf4 more or less amounts to the same) 19.Qxf3 Rf5 20.Bf4 dxe4 21.Qxe4.
16...Be4+ 17.Ng2 Nd3 18.Qe2
18...Bd6?!
The best possibility here seems to be 18...Rxh5 (the move Van Foreest feared) 19.Be3 (19.Qxh5 Nf2+ 20.Rxf2 Qxf2 is game over) 19...Bxg2+! 20.Kxg2 Re5 21.Bxb6 (21.Rf3 Qb5) 21...Rxe2+ 22.Kf3 axb6 (22...Rxh2 23.Bxd8 Bd6 24.Bg5 (24.Bh4 g5 25.Bxg5 Ne5+ amounts to the same) 24...Ne5+ 25.Ke3 Nc4+ is a draw) 23.Kxe2 Nxb2 was calculated in the commentary room; Black certainly has enough compensation for the exchange.
19.Be3 Qc7 20.Qg4?
White could beat off the attack here with 20.Rf7! Td7 21.Rxd7 Qxd7 22.Nd2. Now it’s Black’s turn again.
20...Ne5! 21.Qxe6+ Kb8 22.Nc5?!
The engine gives the crazy 22.Bf7!? Rd7 23.Bg8! here. In his new book Bologan’s Ruy Lopez (out soon!), Viktor Bologan calls this ‘Aronian’s move’ (when in the Marshall Black plays ...Bb1 to lock in the Ta1). But here the bishop will be collected with 23...b6 24.Bg5 Qc8.
A little more human is 22.Nd2 Rxh5 23.Nxe4 dxe4 and Black has his piece back, with good play.
The problem is that the bishop cannot move back in view of loss of the queen: 22.Be2? Rde8!.
22...Bxg2+
Now, after some complications, we are steering for a draw, as it often goes. Strong was the immediate 22...Bxc5! 23.Bxc5 Rxh5. Both players didn’t quite trust Black’s position after 24.Rf8, but here 24...Nf3! turns out to be lethal. Van Foreest thought that White had 25.h4 here,
(analysis diagram)
... but he hadn’t seen 25...Rxh4+!. After 26.Nxh4 Nxh4+ 27.Kh2 Rxf8 and 28.Bd6 Nf3+ 29.Kg2 Ng5+ Black wins on points.
So White has to play 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 26.Qd6+ (26.Bd6+ Ka8 loses a piece after 27...Rh6) 26...Qxd6 27.Bxd6+ Kc8 28.g4 Rh3 and in this endgame White is not to be envied.
23.Kxg2 Rxh5 24.Rae1 Bxc5 25.Bxc5 Nd3 26.Be7
26.Bxa7+ was perhaps better. White wins a pawn, but after 26...Kxa7 27.Qe3+ c5 28.Qxd3 Tdh8 Black has counterchances.
26...Nxe1+ 27.Rxe1 Rhh8 28.Bxd8 Rxd8 29.Rf1 a5 30.b3
30.Rf7 Qb6 31.b3 d4 couldn’t worry Timman too much.
30...d4 31.cxd4 Rxd4 32.Rf7 Rd2+ 33.Rf2 Rd4 34.Rf7
With a draw, after a few repetitions.
Both ladies were also in the mood today.
Photo: Frans Peeters
Guramishvili - Kazarian
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4
‘I wanted to play sharply’, said Guramishvili. ‘That’s women’s chess today. I thought maybe she had prepared this, because I had one earlier game with it. But she started thinking here. And Kazarian didn’t accept::
7...h6 8.h3 dxc4 9.e4 e5 10.Bxc4
10...b5!?
Kazarian also said that she felt she had to play actively. A known sequence is 10...exd4 11.Nxd4 Ne5 12.Be2 Ng6, but as Ligterink said, Black often has a hard time here if White plays Le3 and castles queenside.
11.Be2 Bb7 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Be3 Nxf3+ 14.Bxf3 Qe7
This looks logical, but Black will have to castle sometime – and where?
15.0–0–0 b4
Here perhaps 15...0–0 should have been played, but the prospect of 16.h4 and g4-g5 wasn’t to Kazarian’s liking. Again she opts for the active move, but this leaves a great many holes in her position.
16.Na4 c5!?
Creative, but this is really too much for the black position.
17.Rhe1
With this calm move, Guramishvili rejects 17.Rxd6 Qxd6 18.e5 Qc7 because after 19.exf6 Bxf3 the rook on h1 is hanging. However, White still wins here with 20.fxg7! Rg8 21.Re1 because after 21...0–0–0 22.Qf5+ she wins back the bishop.
17...0–0
A better defence seems 17...Nd7, but White has 18.e5 anyway. Now it seems as if Black saves herself with 18...Bxf3 19.exd6 Bxd1, but White wins with 20.Qxd1! and the black queen is lost.
18.Rxd6!
Now, yes. ‘I had seen this’, said Kazarian, ‘but I thought I could get counterplay.’
18...Qxd6 19.e5 Qxe5 20.Bxb7 Tad8 21.Kb1 Nd5 22.Qxc5 Rfe8 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Qxb4 Rb5 25.Qc3 Qe4+ 26.Qc2
But it doesn’t materialize. After a few more moves Kazarian had to cease her attempts.
The game in this round weren’t exactly free from mistakes, but they were certainly entertaining. Let’s hope it will stay this way in the coming days.
