I'd like to remind my readers:  please contribute your games!  Your game doesn't
have to be a masterpiece, and you don't have to be a strong player.  But you
do have to send it to me.  I can't use it if I don't have it!

   Correction

This month I take a vacation from annotating contributors' games and annotate
some of my own.  I'll start by trying to fix up some lazy analysis in my
November 1993 column.

Diagram 1:
  4b3
  n4kp1
  1n1p4
  2pPp1K1
  p1P1P3
  P2B2P1
  1N1B4
  8
Leverett-Rea
Ohio Chess Congress, September 1993
Position after 40 Kg5

I wrote, "From this square White's king controls the game.  White is easily
winning now."  But let's see just how "easy" it was.  From the diagram the game
went:

40 ...     Bd7
41 Ba5     Nac8

   41 ... Nbc8 is worse:  42 Bc7 ties up two knights for the price of one
   bishop.

42 Bf1     Na8
43 Nd1     Ne7
44 Ne3     Nc8
45 Be2     Nab6

Diagram 2:
  2n5
  3b1kp
  1n1p4
  B1pPp1K1
  p1P1P3
  P3N1P1
  4B3
Position after 45 ... Nab6

   So far, not much action--just regrouping.  But now I played a tactically
   critical move:

46 Nf5     g6!
47 Nh4

   There's no turning back.  47 Ne3 Kg7 gives Black a solid defense.

47 ...     Bh3!
48 Bd3     Nd7
49 Nxg6    Nf6?

Black misses a shot!  White now was able to play 50 Nh4, keeping the bishop out
of g2, and thereby keeping the counterplay to a manageable level.  But as
William Wright pointed out in the Ohio Chess Bulletin, 49 ... Bg2! embarrasses
White.  The threat of ... Nf6 winning the e-pawn is strong.  Wright suggests the
following variation:  50 Nh4 Bh1 51 Bd8 Ke8 52 Bc7 Kf7 53 Nf5 Nf6 54 Nxd6+ Nxd6
55 Bxd6 Nxe4+ 56 Bxe4 Bxe4 57 Bxc5 Bd3, with a draw.  White could also try
snatching the a-pawn, for instance by 50 Nh4 Bh1 51 Bc7 Nf6 52 Bc2.  There may
still be winning chances in this line: 52 ... Nxe4+ 53 Kg4 Nd2? 54 Bf5!  But
the variations are uncountable.

What happened to White's "easy" win?  It's possible that there is an improvement
on the 48th move (instead of 48 Bd3).  In the November article I mentioned that
48 g4? is refuted by 48 ... Nd7 49 Nf3 Bg2!, and the bishop is out of reach.
But 48 Nf3 might be better:  48 ... Bg2 49 Nd2, and now 49 ... Nd7 50 Bg4 and
49 ... Bh3 50 g4 both allow White to trap Black's bishop.  Or 48 ... Nd7
49 Kh4 Bg2 50 Ng5+! (better than 50 Nd2 Nf6 51 Bd3 Ne7! with counterplay) and
again Black will soon run out of cheap threats.  Black would have to play
48 ... Bd7, but then 49 Kh6 may give White the opening he is looking for.

Still clearer is (from Diagram 2):  46 g4!  This keeps Black securely bottled
up, while holding 47 Nf5 in reserve.  If 46 ... g6 47 Kh6 is really
overwhelming.  Black has no defense to the plan of g4-g5, Kh7, and Nf5 and/or
Bh5.

It is likely that White was, indeed, winning with best play from Diagram 1.  But
it couldn't have been an easy win, at least not for me, or I wouldn't have
bungled it at moves 46 and 48.  When a commentator tells you about an "easy"
endgame, don't take his word for it!

   

Here is a game that I considered a real feather in my cap.  My opponent, IM Ed
Formanek, is a habitual prizewinner at tournaments in Pennsylvania and the
nearby states.  Oddly, we have only played five tournament games, the first of
which was in 1979.

White: Ed Formanek
Black: Bruce Leverett
Pittsburgh Open, Round 4
June 1993

 1 d4      d5
 2 c4      dxc4
 3 e3

   A little finesse.  White delays Nf3 until Black can no longer play ... Bg4.
   Black can respond with 3 ... e5, which is not bad,  but it is not the instant
   equalizer it was once thought to be.

 3 ...     Nf6
 4 Bxc4    e6
 5 Nf3     c5
 6 O-O     a6
 7 Qe2     b5
 8 Bb3     Bb7
 9 a4

   It's logical to attack Black's far-extended pawns.  The principal alternative
   at this point is attack in the center by 9 Rd1 and 10 Nc3.

 9 ...     Nbd7
10 axb5    axb5
11 Rxa8    Qxa8
12 Na3

   12 Qxb5 Bxf3 13 gxf3 Qxf3 gives White no advantage.

12 ...     b4
13 Nc4?

   Black has a nice blockade on e4.  By failing to challenge it, White loses
   the initiative of the first move and gets into a cramped, awkward position.
   Instead, 13 Nb5! creates tactical threats and offers some hope of breaking
   the bind.

   After the game I looked up the opening variation.  The first thing I found,
   in both MCO-13 and BCO-2, was the game Miles-Seirawan, Dubai Olympiad 1986,
   which went 13 Nb5 Bxf3 14 gxf3 Qb8 15 Bd2, draw.  *** Kids, don't try this at
   home! ***  Seirawan's 13th is a well-known error.  Miles could have
   established a comfortable advantage with 15 e4.  Playing a sluggish move and
   promptly agreeing to a draw at move 15 are not characteristic of a healthy
   Grandmaster playing for a win.  It is remarkable that this little game should
   have been considered theoretically significant.

   An older monograph quoted the following highly tactical continuation:
   13 Nb5 Qa5 14 e4! Be7 (both 14 ... Bxe4 and 14 ... Nxe4 are met by 15 Ng5,
   with strong threats) 15 d5 (15 e5 is also important) 15 ... exd5
   16 Bxd5 Nxd5 17 exd5 O-O! 18 Qxe7 Qxb5 19 Rd1 Nf6 with approximate equality,
   Florian-Pilnik, Helsinki Olympiad 1952.  This is only a sample of the sort of
   tactics that White should look for with 13 Nb5.

13 ...     Be7
14 Rd1

   If White had realized the seriousness of his predicament, he might have
   played 14 Bc2 and 15 Re1, threatening 16 e4.  Black can meet the threat by
   ... Ne4 or ... Be4 or ... cxd4, but in every case White gets some relief
   from the vicious pin on the long diagonal.  He would then have had good
   chances to equalize.

14 ...     O-O
15 Ne1

   Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

15 ...     Qa6
16 f3      Rc8
17 Kf2     Nb6

   In the post-mortem, Formanek suggested 17 ... Bc6! with the threat of
   18 ... Bb5.  This is the logical way of increasing the pressure.  It would
   probably have brought about the collapse of White's defense, which must be
   considered suspect after the last three highly artificial moves.  I didn't
   see 17 ... Bc6, and I had run out of non-committal developing moves, so I
   decided to exchange White's best-placed piece.

18 dxc5    Rxc5
19 Nxb6    Qxb6
20 Nd3?

   Either 20 Bc4 or 20 Qd3 was answered by 20 ... Qc7.  But 20 Qd2 or 20 Kg1
   would have avoided getting deeper into trouble.

20 ...     Ba6
21 Qe1?

   Even at this point, 21 Kg1 is possible, and I don't see anything decisive
   for Black.

Diagram:
  6k1
  4bppp
  bq2pn2
  2r5
  1p6
  1B1NPP2
  1P3KPP
  2BRQ3

21 ...     Bxd3
22 Rxd3    Qc7
23 Bd2     Qxh2
24 Rd4     Rg5
25 Qg1     Qb8

   Black will try to get more concessions, by taking advantage of White's
   exposed king, before entering the endgame.  After 25 ... Qxg1+ 26 Kxg1 there
   would be many technical obstacles, because Black's pieces would be tied down
   to the defense of the b-pawn.

26 Kf1     Ra5
27 Ke2     Nd5

   The threat is 28 ... Bf6, and 28 e4 loses to 28 ... Bc5 29 exd5 e5.  White
   elects to trade the bishop, but without that piece the starch goes out of
   his defense.

   I used most of my remaining time finding this move.  The time control was
   at move 40.

28 Bxd5    exd5
29 Kf2     Bc5
30 Rh4

   Of course not 30 Rxd5? Bxe3+.

30 ...     Ra6
31 Qb1     Rg6
32 Rh3     d4
33 Qd3     dxe3+
34 Bxe3    Bxe3+
35 Qxe3    h6
36 Qc5     Qf4
37 Qe3??

   Both players were in severe time pressure by now.  That's the explanation
   for this incredible pair of blunders.  Black could now win the queen with
   37 ... Rxg2+, but instead ...

37 ...     Qxe3+??
38 Kxe3    Rxg2

White's flag fell.