Double My Egg Nog - halfway done

Although it now has a New Year's holiday theme rather than Christmas, the Double My Egg Nog tourney is now half over, with the first set of games against Rocky Rook and Robert Pearson completed.  By the end of the month, the second set (with colors reversed) should be finished.  I intend to post back-to-back game analysis for each player (double the fun!) once the games are complete.  (Unfortunately, our third player Tim dropped out incommunicado.)

In the meantime, Rocky Rook has our first game posted, which was a see-saw battle where I missed a tactical win and went on to lose.  I look forward to the rematch, let's just say.

Annotated Game #78: Chess is 99% Calculation

This fourth-round tournament game continued my woes and ended rather quickly due to a calculation mistake.  Eerily I made a very similar mistake in yesterday's game against Rocky Rook during our first game of the Double My Egg Nog tourney, involving a miscalculation that dropped a pawn after ...Ne4 (see move 17 in this game).  Had I fully analyzed this game beforehand, I probably could have avoided that mistake.  Losing twice in that manner should be incentive enough to avoid doing so again, however.

The opening is similar to the Colle that made an appearance in Annotated Game #75 (and in the Rocky Rook game).  White, rather than going for the b-pawn on move 6, instead transposes into a Stonewall Attack formation.  White's early unusual move order choices (2. c3 and 3. e3) indicated that was a strong possibility from the start.  Black has no troubles in the opening, despite helping White's cause by prematurely exchanging pawns on d4 and then trading off White's bad dark-square bishop.  It's pretty obvious from these moves that I had no idea at the time how to play a Stonewall formation.  Nevertheless, Black was equal coming out of the opening.

It's the early middlegame where Black's lack of understanding becomes even more obvious and hurtful.  Pieces are moved incoherently and there is no real plan.  Had White been more quick to exploit this, he could have had an excellent game, for example with 17. Rc7.  However, it wasn't good play by White, but rather a miscalculation by Black that ends the game, in the sequence starting with 17...Ne4.

This game is an excellent example of where it's not enough to see a tactical theme, one must calculate and visualize its consequences.  The saying that Chess is 99% tactics isn't quite true; it's 99% calculation.  Black in this case wasn't forced into the sequence; rather, it was chosen based on faulty calculation and judgment (why do it at all?)  A good lesson for the future, both for this particular middlegame structure and in general.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class B"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D00"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Fritz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "2006.??.??"] {D00:1 d4 d5: Unusual lines} 1. d4 d5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e3 {one way to get to a Stonewall Attack type formation.} Bf5 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5. Qxd3 e6 $146 {as pointed out in Annotated Game 75 in a similar position, this involves a pawn sacrifice if White follows with Qb5+. Black scores well with the other two main moves, for example:} (5... Nbd7 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nbd2 c5 8. O-O cxd4 9. exd4 Bd6 10. Re1 O-O 11. Ne5 Qb8 12. f4 b5 13. Re3 Rc8 14. Rh3 Nf8 15. g4 Bxe5 16. fxe5 Nxg4 17. Nf3 f6 18. Bf4 Ng6 19. Bg3 Qb6 20. exf6 {Prymula,R-Jirovsky,M/CSR 1990/EXT 2002/0-1 (40)}) (5... c6 6. Nd2 Nbd7 7. f4 e6 8. Ngf3 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Kh1 Rc8 11. g3 c5 12. h3 c4 13. Qc2 b5 14. a3 a5 15. g4 b4 16. Rg1 b3 17. Qb1 g6 18. Rg2 Qc7 19. g5 Nh5 20. Nf1 {Nykanen,O-Hodokainen,J/Mikkeli 1998/EXT 2000/ 0-1 (59)}) 6. f4 (6. Qb5+ $5 {is noteworthy, says Fritz.} Nbd7 7. Qxb7 $11 { Nonetheless Black's better development and piece activity will compensate for the pawn.}) 6... c5 7. Nf3 {Now the Stonewall Attack formation has appeared.} cxd4 {typical amateur move, Black is in a rush to release the tension. Further development with Bd6 or Nc6 would be better.} 8. cxd4 Bb4+ {Black helps White here by exchanging off White's bad bishop.} 9. Bd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nbxd2 O-O 11. O-O Re8 {poor developing move, as what exactly is the rook going to do on the e-file?} 12. Rac1 Nbd7 {this isn't bad, but putting the knight on c6 would have been a little more active placement.} 13. Rc2 (13. Ne5 {if White is going to play the Stonewall Attack, he really should go for this move, which thematically uses the e5 outpost.}) 13... Rc8 14. Rfc1 Rxc2 15. Rxc2 Qa5 { this starts an unsupported, unproductive demonstration against White's position by the queen. The better plan would be to clear the c-file immediately, for example with Qb8 followed by Rc8.} 16. a3 Qa4 17. h3 (17. Rc7 {would punish Black for his inattention to the c-file.}) 17... Ne4 $2 {this simply loses a pawn, due to miscalculation of the following sequence.} (17... Nb6 $142 $5 $14 {is a viable option, notes Fritz.}) 18. Nxe4 $16 dxe4 19. Qxe4 Nf6 20. Qd3 Nd5 {I had seen things to this point and thought that Black would be able to recover the pawn by force.} 21. Ng5 h6 22. Ne4 Nxe3 $2 {the key miscalculation. The deflection theme was there, of course, but I simply overlooked the blocking move with threat to the queen.} 23. b3 $18 1-0

Annotated Game #77: Playing for a draw means losing in the end

If I had to pick one game to best illustrate what my core weaknesses were, this is it.  Playing a significantly higher-rated opponent in the third round of the tournament, I deliberately chose a strategy of trying to exchange down to a drawn position.  In the process, I passed up multiple active choices that could have given White a positional edge and the initiative.  My opponent, no fool, took advantage of my passivity and the positional crush that he executes against me is well played and an object lesson on how to use a space advantage.

In addition to the early decision to play for a draw, this game provides an excellent example of other major errors in my thinking.  In the opening phase, I was limited in my conception of how to play a flank opening, mentally not even considering the move e4 because it would have meant advancing a central pawn (horrors!), although this would have been advantageous at several points.  In the middlegame, I relied on the idea of piece exchanges (starting on move 10) to reach a draw. Exchanges can have far-reaching implications for the rest of the game, among other things determining which side's remaining pieces become more effective, so simply exchanging is hardly a recipe for a draw.  Finally, White's repeated pawn advances created major weaknesses that Black could exploit, showing how I failed to understand their long-term implications.

It's because of games like these that I saw a serious need to improve my mental toughness and stop worrying about ratings.  My attitude was completely wrong from the start here.  It's one thing to aim for a draw later in the game in an even (or worse) position, quite another to ignore any ideas of winning at the start of the middlegame.  Playing for a draw can often lead to losing in the end.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A16"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Fritz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "78"] [EventDate "2006.??.??"] {A16: English Opening: 1...Nf6 with ...d5} 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c6 {indicating that Black will go into a Slav-type setup. This also invites a transposition from White into a standard d4 opening.} 3. Nf3 {an independent line.} d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 {the recapture with the pawn is much more popular and also scores much better for Black.} 5. g3 {a rather cautious and unchallenging move. Developing the bishop to g2 may also be problematic, depending on how strongly Black guards d5, as it may have relatively little scope for action.} (5. e4 { would be the way to exploit the knight's position, which in the following game example allows White to set up a pawn duo in the center.} Nf6 6. d4 Bg4 7. Be2 e6 8. O-O Be7 9. Qb3 Qb6 10. Be3 Qxb3 11. axb3 a6 12. h3 Bh5 13. g4 Bg6 14. Nd2 Bb4 15. Bf3 Nbd7 16. Bg2 Ng8 17. f4 f6 18. Nc4 Ne7 19. Ra4 Bxc3 20. Nd6+ Kd8 21. bxc3 Kc7 22. e5 Nb6 23. Ra2 Nec8 24. f5 exf5 25. gxf5 Bh5 26. c4 {1-0 (26) Gonzalez Menendez,I (2293)-Chans Farina,J (2033) Trevias 2004}) 5... Nd7 6. Bg2 N7f6 {Black reinforces d5.} 7. O-O Bf5 $146 {now out of the database, with the standard Slav-type development for the bishop.} 8. d3 {releases the Bc1 and threatens e4. However, at the time I avoided e4 due to the idea that it would block the Bg2. This is an example of rigid thinking.} e6 {Controls d5} 9. Qb3 { developing the queen to good effect.} (9. e4 {is even better.} Nxc3 {is forced} 10. bxc3 Bg4 11. Rb1 {and White will have excellent play on the queenside, while Black is behind in development and has no counterplay.}) 9... Qb6 10. Nxd5 {White is following the simple strategy of exchanging down at every opportunity in order to achieve a level position. My opponent was around 150 rating points higher, which was the main factor behind this. White now achieves his goal of equality, in the process giving away some positional advantages.} (10. e4 $5 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Qxb3 12. axb3 $14) 10... exd5 $11 (10... Nxd5 $2 {and now the pawn fork would work, since there is nothing for the Nd5 to capture.} 11. e4 Qxb3 12. axb3 $18) (10... cxd5 {would be inferior after} 11. Qa4+ Qc6 (11... Nd7 $6 12. Ne5) 12. Qxc6+ bxc6 {and the weak c-pawn will be an excellent target for White on the half-open file.}) 11. Qxb6 axb6 12. Be3 b5 13. a3 {Consolidates b4, notes Fritz.} Bd6 14. Nd4 Bg4 15. Bf3 (15. h3 $5) 15... O-O (15... Be5 $5 {was an interesting possibility.} 16. Rab1 Bxd4 17. Bxd4 (17. Bxg4 $2 {loses a piece}) 17... Bxf3 18. exf3 {and White's pawn structure is ugly, but it doesn't look like Black has good prospects for breaking through.}) 16. Bxg4 $11 Nxg4 17. Bd2 {White has an equal game, but it is passive and Black has any initiative in the position.} Rfe8 18. h3 (18. Bc3 {would significantly improve the bishop's position.}) 18... Nf6 19. e3 Nd7 20. Nf5 Bf8 21. d4 Nf6 22. f3 {White's pawn advances have created weaknesses and blocked the Nf5's retreat, which my opponent now captializes on.} g6 23. Nh4 Nd7 24. Ng2 Nb6 {Black continues to maneuver to probe White's weaknesses, as the knight is heading for the excellent c4 outpost.} 25. Kf2 Nc4 {the knight cannot be ejected by b3, due to the hanging a-pawn.} 26. Bc3 Bh6 27. f4 $6 { this negates the positive aspect of the previous f3 advance, which could have supported a future e4 push. The e-pawn is now completely backward.} (27. Rae1 { would have been fine, as the queenside is now locked up and the rook should be redeployed to reinforce e3.}) 27... Bf8 $15 28. Kf3 {looking to support a future e4 push, if White has the time to execute it.} b6 (28... Re4 {followed by ...Rae8 would be the most direct way of taking advantage of White's weakness on the e-file.}) 29. Rab1 {there doesn't seem to be much point to this.} (29. Rae1) 29... c5 {Black follows a plan of mobilizing his queenside pawns, but White is relatively strong there, in contrast with the e-file.} 30. Rf2 {White anticipates the need to reinforce b2, as Black could now penetrate with Ra2 following a pawn exchange on b4.} Nd6 (30... b4 31. axb4 cxb4 32. Be1 {and White awkwardly holds on.}) 31. Re2 {continuing the passive defense.} (31. dxc5 $5 {would instead give White some breathing room.} bxc5 32. Rd2 Ne4 33. Rd3 (33. Rxd5 $6 Rxa3) 33... c4 34. Rxd5 Nxc3 35. bxc3 Rxa3 36. Rdxb5 Rxc3 { and White should be able to stop the c-pawn after} 37. Rb8) 31... Ne4 $15 32. Rc1 Ra4 33. dxc5 bxc5 {Black's pawn trio looks very menacing and White's pieces lack space to maneuver.} (33... Nxc3 $6 34. Rxc3 bxc5 35. Rd2 $11) 34. Be5 {this simply wastes time, but White has no good options.} f6 35. Bc3 Rc4 { Black pulls the noose tighter, now pinning the Bc3.} 36. Rec2 {this hurries the process of Black's victory, but White is getting slowly crushed anyway.} ( 36. Rcc2 Nxc3 37. Rxc3 Rxc3 38. bxc3 Ra8 {and Black will be able to pick up White's weak queenside pawns.} 39. Rb2 Rxa3 40. Rxb5 Rxc3) 36... d4 37. exd4 cxd4 38. b3 $4 {terrible, but what else could White do to save the game? comments Fritz.} (38. Ba5 {would prolong things, although not by much.} Ra4 39. Rc8 Rxc8 40. Rxc8 Nd6 41. Ra8 Nc4) 38... Rxc3+ $19 39. Rxc3 dxc3 {a piece down with no compensation, White resigns.} 0-1

Analyzing your own games is more than just analyzing your own games

Game analysis is one of those areas which seems to be an obvious necessity for an improving player.  Yet, there is a fair amount of conflicting advice in the chess community on the topic.  Here I want to cut through this and present a practical guide to the benefits of analyzing your own games.  In fact, one can make a strong argument for making this the guiding principle behind your chess study process.

I credit IM Jesper Hall's Chess Training for Budding Champions (Gambit, 2001) for bringing this idea to my attention in a focused, meaningful way.  After a short introductory chapter, the book's second chapter - "I Am Lucky to Have Made So Many Mistakes" - makes the point (based on a short anecdote about a visit to IM Johan Hellsten) that "in your own games, you have all that you need to train with."  The author's reformulation of this is in the first section, entitled "In Your Own Games, There is Everything You Need to Improve."  Why is that?

When you think about analysing your own games, it becomes clear how logical it is that this is the most important and natural way of training.  You are personally involved, you have a deep understanding of the position as you have played the game yourself...This gives depth, but also an insight in to the process of thinking during the playing situation.  That insight is impossible to obtain when you study games by other players.  I therefore recommend that you try to describe, with words, how you thought during the game, mixed with more objective analysis.  Then it will be easier to see what you misjudged during the game.  This is a perfect ground for your training as all aspects of chess are included, even your weaknesses.  With the games as a starting point, you can plan your training and add the knowledge that you lack.

In the same vein, here's a relevant quote from GM Alex Yermolinsky's The Road To Chess Improvement (Gambit 1999), an excellent book which I think I should read again, now that my own chess philosophy and practice has changed considerably.

The problem I had to acknowledge was the stagnation of my development.  I was simply going nowhere.  It's not that I lacked experience - I was 28 years old then, and I had been playing chess for some 20 years up to that point - it was a rather sad realization that my game was not improving.  In search for inspiration I decided to follow the most common advice one can find in the works of Alekhine (my favorite player) and Botvinnik (one of my least favorite ones) which can be put into simple words - study your games.  Ever since, every game I played has been extensively annotated.

Did I follow this excellent advice after first reading these books?  I did not.  Like many chessplayers, I preferred to look for easier ways to improve my chess knowledge than working through my games, many of which were painful losses.  Also, it seemed to me that analyzing my own games would be highly inferior to looking at master-level games, or following master-level advice.

This idea - that your games are of low quality and not worth studying - is one of the main objections or criticisms of the self-analysis process.  However, it ignores the one thing in common for all improving players: you have to do the work and you will be the one sitting down at the chessboard your next game - not someone else.  There are a number of implications to this.

• In the opening, your understanding of its key positional features - including tactical possibilities - is what will get you to a good middlegame position, regardless of whether your opponent follows your "book" lines.
• In the middlegame, your thinking process and ability to evaluate different candidate moves, along with spotting opportunities and threats, is what will determine your quality of play.
• In different types of endgames, recognition of the relevant strategic concepts and positional evaluations will allow you to win (or avoid losing).

In Game Analysis for Improvement in Play I described the practical methods I use for analyzing and annotating a game in approximately two hours.  From a conceptual standpoint, I think the main points to get out of analyzing a game are:

• How did the opening work for me?  Did I understand its basic strategy and the needs of the specific position I obtained?  (Example: Annotated Game #76 Strategic blunders in the English)
• What were the critical moments in the game?  Was my initial middlegame plan appropriate and effective?  At what point should I have changed my plans?  What key tactics were in play and what was overlooked? (Example: Annotated Game #65 Mercy Killing in the English Four Knights)
• Why did I make critical errors?  Have I made the same types of mistakes before?  If so, what is the key idea to avoid this in the future?  (Example: Annotated Game #63 Third Time's the Charm)

The key point in all of this is that you are the one who has to make all the decisions at the chessboard from move 1.  You have to put it all together and understand what is in front of you.  The best guide to how you will play in the future is therefore how you have played in the past.  For improving players, it comes down to the simple fact that if you can't fix your own mistakes or recognize important gaps in your knowledge, you will not get any better.  No one can be perfect, but recognizing the truth about our own play, however painful it may be, is the first step on the road to improvement (as Yermolinsky noted).  Perhaps the most important realization I have had as part of the game analysis process is that I had failed to use a coherent thinking process in my tournament games.  This realization then resulted in the Simplified Thought Process (That Works).

Analyzing your own games also offers a near-infinite number of ways to improve your chess.  With a database program (free or otherwise), you can explore and analyze how other games in your chosen openings have turned out, focusing on key variations and decision points, and identify model master-level games for further study.  With a chessplaying program, you can take key middlegame and endgame positions that you've identified in your analysis and play them out.  If you've determined that you lack some specific knowledge that is holding you back from better results, you can find books, videos or other tools to address that.  Naturally, this is where chess trainers can come into the picture as well; good ones will look to use your own games as a guide for your training.  In any event, let your own games be the practical guide to what you need to accomplish most.

Below are some resources (some of which have been cited above) for those looking for methods or examples of how analyzing your games can be beneficial.  If anyone has had particularly good (or bad) experiences with other resources, comments are welcome.

Books:

• IM Jesper Hall Chess Training for Budding Champions (Gambit, 2001)
• GM Alex Yermolinsky The Road To Chess Improvement (Gambit, 1999)

This blog:

• Game Analysis for Improvement in Play
• What makes an annotated game useful?
• A word on chess analysis and annotations
• Chess Computing Resources for 2021 (EDIT)
• Pitfalls of Computer Analysis

Other sites:

• Study Your Games by GM Nigel Davies at chessville.com
• 10 Tips for Analysing Your Chess Games at roman-chess
• Professional players may offer services that involve analyzing and reviewing your games.  Ones I have run across references to include GM Nigel Davies and IM Yelena Dembo, although there are many others out there.
• Over at chess.com there's a new series of videos being made by IM David Pruess on "How to Analyze Your Own Games" - so far it's up to an intermediate-level introduction.  It's behind the paywall, though, so you will need to be a subscriber to watch more than the first two minutes.

Annotated Game #76: Strategic blunders in the English

The most notable feature of this second-round tournament game is the two strategic blunders made by White out of the opening, an English vs. King's Indian Defense (KID) setup.  Move 10, where White pushes b4 without the a3 pawn to support it, is an excellent lesson in how not to execute the standard queenside expansion plan.  White's rook, after retaking on b4, is pushed around and Black easily takes over the initiative after White's second strategic error on move 13.  With 13. Qc1, White was attempting to play on the kingside and exchange off the Bg7, but this is far too slow and never actually happens.

There are some other interesting points to the game, which I managed to draw in the end.  However, the strategic lessons of 1) not pushing b4 when opposed by a5, until the b-pawn can be supported by the a-pawn, and 2) not haphazardly switching from a queenside to kingside strategy, are the most valuable for anyone playing a similar setup as White.  For those inclined to play the KID as Black, the game and analysis variations included offer a good guide to exploiting these types of errors.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A16"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Fritz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "71"] [EventDate "2006.??.??"] {A16: English Opening: 1...Nf6 with ...d5} 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d6 5. d3 c6 {an alternative to the usual immediate O-O and e5 development scheme. This leads to a less aggressive setup for Black in the game.} 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. O-O O-O 8. Rb1 {preparing the b4 advance and getting the rook off the a1-h8 diagonal, which is dangerous due to the presence of the Bg7.} a5 9. Bd2 { in the database a3 is played almost exclusively. A high-level example:} (9. a3 Nb6 10. Bd2 d5 11. cxd5 cxd5 12. a4 Ne8 13. Nb5 Bd7 14. Qb3 Nxa4 15. Qxa4 Nc7 16. Nfd4 e5 17. Qb3 a4 18. Qa2 exd4 19. Nxc7 Qxc7 20. Bxd5 Bg4 21. Rfe1 Rfe8 22. Rbc1 Qd7 23. Bf4 Rac8 {Andersson,U-Polugaevsky,L/Hilversum 1973/MCD/1/2-1/ 2 (36)}) 9... Rb8 $146 (9... Nc5 10. b3 {1/2-1/2 Ziger,S-Begovac,F/Bern 1996/ CBM 51 ext (10)}) 10. b4 {this is an excellent example of how not to execute the standard b4 pawn advance plan.} (10. a3) 10... axb4 11. Rxb4 {now instead of having the open a-file to exploit, White has inflicted an isolated a-pawn on himself and has nothing of real use on the b-file.} Qa5 {too aggressive and obviously refuted.} (11... Nc5 {and Black looks well placed for the ensuing middlegame, while White will struggle to find a useful plan.}) 12. Ra4 Qc7 13. Qc1 {a strategic error. White tries to shift to kingside play with the idea of exchanging the Bg7, but this is too slow and does not take advantage of the new opportunity presented on the queenside.} (13. Ra7 Qb6 14. Ra3 {and now White has control of the a-file after all.}) 13... Nc5 14. Rb4 {see how much time has been wasted by moving around the rook, while Black has been able to develop and now can seize the initiative.} e5 15. Ng5 {White intends to blockade e4.} Bf5 {Black directly challenges the idea.} (15... Ra8 {would instead activate the rook and pressure the a-pawn.}) 16. Nge4 Ncxe4 17. Nxe4 Bxe4 18. Bxe4 Nxe4 19. dxe4 {the dust has now settled. Interestingly, Fritz originally gave a =/+ for Black here, While Houdini considers the game level. White's pawn structure is weaker, but the Bg7 is shut in.} Ra8 20. Qb2 Qa5 { the idea evidently is to begin a dynamic series of exchanges, although White could prevent this.} (20... Rfb8 $5 $11) 21. Rxb7 (21. Ra1 {is Houdini's preference. Black now has no way to make real progress.}) 21... Qxa2 22. Rb1 $2 {there is no logic to this move, as Black can simply scoop up the c4 pawn.} ( 22. Qxa2 {would be level.} Rxa2 23. Be3 Rxe2 24. Rd1 {and White will regain the pawn.}) 22... Qxc4 $15 {Fritz again gave more of a decisive advantage to Black here.} 23. Rd7 $17 (23. Bg5 {is preferred by the engines and would be a more sophisticated version of the counterattacking idea.} Ra2 (23... f6 { with the idea of simply grabbing the e4 pawn interestingly does not work.} 24. Be3 Qxe4 25. Rd1 d5 26. Rxg7+ {the key idea in this and similar variations.} Kxg7 27. Qb7+ Kh8 28. Bh6 Rg8 29. Bg7+ Rxg7 30. Qxa8+ Rg8 31. Qxc6) 24. Qb3 Qxe2 $15) 23... Qxe4 (23... Ra2 {would cause more problems for White.} 24. Qb4 Qxb4 (24... Qxe2 25. Qxd6 Qxe4 26. Rc1) 25. Bxb4 Rb8) 24. Rxd6 $15 Qxe2 25. Rxc6 e4 26. Qc2 (26. Bc3 $5) 26... Bd4 27. Be3 Qxc2 28. Rxc2 Bxe3 29. fxe3 f5 30. Rb7 {Despite Black's extra pawn, I felt reasonably sure of my ability to hold the position, given my active rooks and the need for Black to spend time setting up any pawn breakthroughs on the kingside.} Rfe8 $6 {a rook move that truly does nothing except hand the initiative to White.} (30... Rf7 31. Rxf7 Kxf7 32. Rc7+ Kg8 {would simplify things to Black's benefit.}) 31. Rd2 $2 { White fails to act aggressively enough and also makes a useless rook move.} ( 31. Rcc7 {would immediately ensure a draw, as Black cannot escape from the ensuing checks on the 7th rank.}) 31... Red8 32. Rc2 Ra1+ {this leads to the draw, as White does not pass up the second opportunity.} (32... Rab8 $5) 33. Kg2 $11 Rad1 34. Rcc7 R1d2+ 35. Kh3 g5 (35... h6 {would instead remove the h-pawn from the line of fire.}) 36. Rg7+ {here I didn't see a win for White, so took the draw.} 1/2-1/2