Video completed: "Why You Should Always Have a Plan" by Tatev Abrahamyan

 

"Why You Should Always Have a Plan" is the seventh video in the Chess.com series by Tatev Abrahamyan. I've resumed going through them after being distracted by various things. The main point of this lesson is to continue to actively plan at all stages of the game, including while playing with a winning advantage. In other words, don't just assume that once you achieve a comfortable position, even one where you should win, you can just coast for the rest of the game.

The first example game is Akobian-Caruana from the 2017 U.S. Championship. Caruana is up two connected passed pawns in the late middlegame, which should be enough to win. A apparently careless move by Black drops a pawn, then after a rook exchange they end up in a Q+N endgame with just the one extra passed pawn for Caruana - which again should be enough to win. Black passes up a chance to grab back a pawn and then White is able to get an annoying pin on his knight. Getting out of this, Black opens himself up for a knight sac tactic that would result in a perpetual check. White did not in fact play this, which turns out to be lucky for him, as later Black blunders and drops his knight, losing. It's not mentioned whether the two are in time trouble or not - which seems likely - but the game is still a good illustration of why even strong players cannot simply go on autopilot with what should be a winning advantage.

The second game is GM Alejandro Ramirez vs. GM Le Quang Liem, from round 5 of the 2019 Gibraltar Masters tournament. Abrahamyan points out how White followed an incorrect plan in the early middlegame starting on move 15, moving his knights without much purpose around the queenside instead of focusing on available kingside targets, with complex play. The outcome was poor placement of the White knights and giving some free improving moves for Black, who then was able to target White's weaknesses and collapse his position relatively quickly.

The final example is FM Carissa Yip - FM Annie Wang from the 2019 U.S. Women's Championship. Abrahamyan highlights how well White has set herself up in this Classical Sicilian, but in the middlegame she does not find a good plan to go from there. Black in contrast has a clear plan to play on the queenside, attacking White's castled king position. White decides to force the issue in the center, where she has built up her forces, but the resulting exchanges actually give Black better central pawn control and free up her pieces as well. The resulting attack is instructive, with Black bringing all her pieces into play while White's pieces all end up on the kingside, providing little help.

In each example game there are opportunities to pause and look at some key positions, which helps make the lessons more engaging beyond the overall theme, which underlines how drifting planless in the middlegame (or endgame) is a bad idea.

Annotated Game #249: Hanging in for counterplay

This next tournament game in part illustrates Bad Chess Attitude #1, as I try to immediately punish my opponent for his deviant opening play. In this case, the move (6...f6) in fact is not good, but it is not so bad that I can generate a winning attack by immediately sacrificing material with 7. Nxe5? I therefore end up in the classic situation of having given up a piece for two pawns and an insufficient attack.

Rather than give up, I continue playing on, actively looking for counterplay. As Komodo points out, objectively I was lost, but I knew that certain weaknesses in my opponent's position - primarily his exposed king - gave me the possibility of some practical opportunities, if my opponent was not careful. By hanging in, I was eventually able to take away much, if not all, of his advantage, finding a skewer tactic to roughly even the material balance.

The endgame was still a big challenge, first with the tactically tricky 2R v R+2B, then a second nail-biting phase with R v 3P, which I deliberately entered. Although we were both tired from the long game and in the secondary time control, I feel I did well overall in finding the right continuations, with the exception of missing (as did my opponent) a winning idea for him.

Game analysis highlighted several of my weaknesses, as it should, but on a more general level it also showed one of my strengths, which is identifying potential avenues for counterplay when losing, then hanging in the game until my opponent opens one up. Part of the reason for this is the added mental focus that one gets when in trouble - which I naturally would prefer to start applying earlier, before I get into trouble.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class A"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A28"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Komodo 13.2"] [PlyCount "128"] {[%mdl 8256] A28: English Opening: Four Knights Variation} 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Bb5 f6 $6 {as is usually the case in the opening, an early ...f6 can only be bad for Black. But how bad?} (6... Nxc3) 7. Nxe5 $2 {this attempt to punish Black's opening inaccuracy does not work, as White will not have enough of an attack for the sacrificed material.} (7. d4 $14 {scores 100 percent in the database. The added pressure on e5 and Black's now airy king position give White an edge.}) (7. O-O $14 {scores over 90 percent, if White wants to emphasize king safety first.}) 7... fxe5 8. Qh5+ Ke7 9. Bxc6 {this seemed necessary to continue the attack and pick up the pawn on e5, getting a bit of material back, but it also removes the good White bishop from the board.} (9. d4 $5) 9... bxc6 10. Qxe5+ {now I started getting worried, as it is more evident looking at the board that White cannot bring enough pieces to bear on Black's exposed king.} Be6 (10... Kf7 $5) 11. Ne4 {trying to bring more force into the attack, but it's just not there.} Nf6 (11... Nb4 $5 { is what I was most worried about, since now the c2 and d3 squares are targets.} ) 12. b3 {this is a logical developing move, getting the bishop activated, but now Black smartly exchanges down material. The less pieces on the board, the greater his advantage.} (12. Ng5 $5 Qd6 $17) 12... Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Qd5 $19 { powerfully centralizing the queen, with an x-ray attack on g2, as well as offering to exchange pieces to Black's benefit.} 14. Qh4+ {the only way I saw to keep the queens on the board. According to the engine this worsens White's evaluation, but having the queens off in an endgame where my opponent has the two bishops to my one would just be a tortuous loss. With Black's king still in the center, I felt I had better practical chances with the queens on.} Kd7 ( 14... g5 $5 {and Black can already relax, comments Komodo via the Fritz interface.} 15. Qg3 Kd7 16. Bb2 Bd6 $19) 15. O-O Be7 16. Qg3 Bf6 {a minor slip, but it gave me a bit of hope that my opponent would start getting overconfident.} (16... Kc8 {evacuating the king from the center would consolidate the position.}) 17. d4 c5 $6 {my opponent seems intent on winning more material, but this is not necessary. He appears to ignore the fact that opening up the central files with his king there could give me counterplay.} 18. Ba3 (18. Bb2 $5 $17 {is more active than it looks, not only protecting the d4 pawn, which however is worth doing in itself.}) 18... cxd4 19. exd4 { my opponent naturally does not fall into the obvious trap of recapturing on d4, which would allow me to pin the piece with a rook.} (19. Rac1 $5 {developing with tempo, as the c7 pawn is targeted.} Rhc8 20. exd4 Ke8 $17 {preserves Black's advantage, but is tricky for him.}) 19... Qg5 $19 20. Qd3 Bd5 { blockading the d-pawn and centralizing the bishop with a mate threat on g2.} 21. f3 Rhe8 22. Kh1 {at this point it's clear that I have no compensation for the material, other than Black's king position, which however is quite defensible. However, I played on, since my opponent still had a chance of slipping up. This in fact occurred on the next move.} Re3 $6 (22... c6 $5 $19 { would shut down White's hopes of counterplay.}) 23. Qb5+ {this creates multiple threats, including an unavoidable skewer tactic with Bc1.} Bc6 (23... c6 $2 {of course loses the rook on a8.} 24. Qb7+ $18) 24. Qxg5 Bxg5 25. Bc1 Rae8 26. Bxe3 Bxe3 $17 {material is now roughly equal, but Black still has a significant edge due to the two bishops. Unfortunately I have a problem coming up with an appropriate plan here, in part due to lack of endgame understanding and in part due to exhaustion from having been fighting to stay in the game to this point.} (26... Rxe3 27. Rfe1 Rc3 $17) 27. a4 $4 {causes further problems for White, is Komodo's verdict. The text move just creates a backward pawn on an open file, which really makes no sense. The (superficial) idea was to take away the b5 square from Black, but that ignores the downside of the move.} (27. Rfe1 $17) 27... a5 (27... Rb8 {keeps an even firmer grip} 28. d5 Bxd5 29. Rfd1 $19) 28. Ra2 $6 {not the bravest move, comments the engine.} Bd5 29. Rb2 $2 { played under the illusion that the d4 pawn is tactically protected.} Bxd4 $19 30. Rd2 c5 {I simply missed this, a sign of exhaustion.} 31. g3 {back to desperation again. I felt I needed to get the king into the game.} Bxb3 32. Kg2 Re3 33. Rc1 {threatening to take on c5. I still haven't given up searching for counterplay.} Bd5 $6 {getting greedy by targeting the f-pawn. Black is still winning, but I can at least strike a blow in revenge.} 34. Rxc5 Bxc5 35. Rxd5+ Kc6 36. Rd8 {with the idea of harrassing Black from the 7th and 8th ranks.} Ra3 {preparing to wrap up the a-pawn.} 37. Rc8+ Kd5 38. Rc7 Bd4 39. Rd7+ Kc4 40. Rc7+ Kb4 {my opponent is becoming fixated on the a-pawn.} 41. f4 {with the idea of taking away the e5 square from Black's bishop. Also hoping for my opponent to not see the tactical risk behind...} Kxa4 $2 (41... Rxa4 {and the rest is a matter of technique} 42. Rc8 Ra2+ 43. Kf3 a4 $19) 42. Rc4+ {I had spotted this potential tactic earlier, although did not expect my opponent to fall into it. We had just made the time control, though, and he obviously was impatient to win.} Kb3 43. Rxd4 $11 {the ending is now a theoretical draw. However, given that only Black really has winning chances at this point, of course I expected my opponent to continue trying to win.} a4 44. Rd3+ Kb2 45. Rd4 Kc3 46. Rd7 {in general it is good to have the rook active in the back ranks like this, but here maintaining the defense on the 4th rank might have been a safer practical choice. With the text move, I deliberately go for a R v 3P ending.} (46. Re4) 46... Rb3 {Black can be proud of that piece} 47. Rxg7 a3 48. Rxh7 a2 49. Ra7 Kb2 50. Rxa2+ Kxa2 {I knew that this should be a theoretical draw, but have no real idea of how to actually play it. At the end of a long game and in the secondary time control, neither my opponent nor I play it out accurately.} 51. h4 $2 {any other available move is better, according to the engine.} (51. g4) (51. Kh3) 51... Rb8 {this keeps things level.} (51... Kb2 $5 {and now Black can more rapidly centralize his king, moving along the long diagonal.}) 52. h5 Kb3 53. Kf3 Kc4 {correct now would be to advance the king in front of the pawns, with either Ke4 or Kg4.} 54. g4 $2 { weakening the position} Kd5 $17 55. g5 Ke6 {now it's clear that Black's king is very well placed, controlling f5, while my king cannot support the further advance of the pawns.} 56. Kg4 $2 {this could have been a losing blunder. The correct response for Black would be to bring his rook into my rear.} (56. Kg3 $17) (56. h6 $17) 56... Rb5 $2 (56... Rb1 $19 {secures victory, as the combination of Black's king and rook being in their most effective placements means that Black can block ideas of queening and eventually pick up a pawn with the rook. For example} 57. h6 Rg1+ 58. Kh3 Ke7 59. Kh4 Kf7 60. Kh5 Rf1 61. g6+ Kf6 62. g7 Rh1+ 63. Kg4 Kf7 64. Kg5 {and Black just moves the rook back and forth on the h-file until White runs out of f-pawn moves.}) 57. h6 $11 { now I am a tempo up on the lines in the previous variation. I was even hoping for a win at this point, if Black messed up. Both of us still need to calculate carefully.} Kf7 58. f5 Rb4+ 59. Kh5 Rf4 60. g6+ Kf6 61. h7 {now Black cannot capture the f-pawn without allowing the h-pawn to queen.} Kg7 62. Kg5 Rf1 63. f6+ {one final potential trick} Kh8 (63... Rxf6 $2 64. h8=Q+ Kxh8 65. Kxf6 Kg8 66. g7 Kh7 {and White wins.}) 64. f7 {forced, otherwise Black starts gobbling up the pawns.} Kg7 {now neither side can make progress.} 1/2-1/2

Bad chess attitudes #2: My opponent disrespects their clock and must be punished

I'm highlighting in a short series of posts some bad chess attitudes that can actively harm our game performance and hold us back from improving. To avoid being seen as too judgmental, I'll only share ones that I've struggled with myself. #1 was about trying to punish your opponent's opening choices; here it's about their clock use.

Old school clock, perennial issue

2. My opponent disrespects their clock and must be punished

This attitude can afflict chessplayers who consider themselves to be conscientious about time management. It is a common reaction to those opponents who show up late to a tournament game, which means their clock has significantly run down before they start playing, or to opponents who get massively behind on time and have to blitz out a number of moves to make the time control. Both of these things, of course, can occur in the same game.

The objective result of this situation is always an advantage to the player with more time on their own clock. However, even if you have more time on the clock, a misguided emotional reaction to the situation can disrupt your own game more than that of your opponent. Rather than focusing on playing as excellently as you can, which I think for an improving player should be the goal of every serious game, it is common to instead start trying to punish your opponent for their misuse of time. This attitude typically manifests itself in choosing to play more quickly than you know you should, to try to pressure your opponent into moving more quickly themselves. In essence, it is a decision to pursue a negative strategy (trying to force the opponent to make bad moves) rather than a positive one (focus on making good moves yourself).

The obvious problem with this strategy is that it puts you on roughly the same level as your opponent in terms of actual time usage. This means you end up playing your opponent's kind of game, rather than your own. Time-trouble "aficionados" - or "addicts" or whatever you choose to call them - by definition have a lot of experience in playing rapidly. This means they are used to it and maybe even enjoy it, especially if they play a lot of blitz chess. I believe it is a fundamental error to think you will successfully rattle your opponent by altering your own playing style for the worse. Occasionally it might work, but relying on luck (for your opponent to play badly) while deliberately compromising your own excellence of play is a bad idea in itself, and is not likely to be a winning strategy over time.

Instead, a practical approach to time management is to develop a general game plan for your clock usage at the selected time control - then stick to that plan, regardless of what your opponent does. This means consciously calculating your expected average time per move and using that as a cutoff point for think time, making an exception only if you are in a critical position. For example, GM John Nunn in Secrets of Practical Chess recommends forcing a cutoff of the thinking process when you cannot decide between two moves with very similar evaluations after a reasonable period of calculation/thought. Basically, you pick one on intuition and do a blunder check before going with it. This practice can help reduce unproductive mental wheel-spinning, since in many positions without forcing continuations, it is easy to simply keep calculating different possibilities with no real resolution.

A common thread for this bad attitude and #1 on openings is focusing excessively on how your opponent is choosing to play. In reality, you have little to no influence over their move choices or how they use their clock, which means your mental energy is much better spent on improving your own game. Like many things that seem simple and obvious, it is not always easy to enforce this kind of mental discipline during a game. Deliberately committing to an efficient time management plan and positively focusing on the quality of your own play, however, should provide a strong foundation for your game, regardless of what your opponent does.

Bad chess attitudes #1: My opponent spoiled my opening

Many things can hold us back in our quest for chess improvement. One of the things that we can control (and improve) is our attitude towards chess, both at the board and away from it. Attitude directly affects our behavior and decisions, which in turn affect the outcomes we get at the board. This is why "chess psychology" is not some esoteric or academic topic, but in fact a very practical one for improving players.

I'll be highlighting in a short series of posts some bad chess attitudes that can actively harm our progress. To avoid being seen as too judgmental, I'll only share ones that I've struggled with myself.

From tigerlilov.com

1. My opponent spoiled my (favorite) opening (and must be punished for it)

This is an attitude you see a lot among amateurs, but almost never among masters. It is born out of frustration at frequently not reaching your favorite opening lines, ones that you've put so much time and effort into preparing. The attitude reveals an emotional attachment to particular lines and their aesthetics, which are then mentally built up into some sort of chessic ideal - which is then "spoiled" on the board by the opponent, who refuses to cooperate in creating this artistic masterpiece. I think having aesthetic value as part of your opening selections is actually helpful, since it is part of why we derive pleasure from chess as a game and an art, but becoming mentally wedded to some sort of "pure" type of opening position is not.

One common example is on the Black side of Sicilians, where amateurs can enthusiastically undertake preparation of lines in complicated systems (Dragon, Najdorf, etc.). These often get derailed at the board as early as move 2 or 3, which then results in complaints about opponents' poor attitudes or worthiness as chess players because they choose to avoid the "best" lines. This kind of reaction ignores the fact that your opponent always gets an equal vote in chess: it's called their move. It is just common sense, however, that if your opponent plays a move that is not theoretically best, but is nonetheless good or at least not a blunder, getting upset about it or wanting to "punish" it will not be very productive for you on the chessboard.

As with many things that are bad for us, social influence and pressure are factors that help create this kind of attitude. "Best" openings are frequently argued about, with fashionable variations or whole opening complexes pushed heavily in publications and public forums. This gives us the social phenomenon of opening popularity, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with opening effectiveness for you.  Similarly, out-of-fashion openings are put down or ignored. We no longer see so much the Sveshnikov Sicilian against 1. e4, or the Grunfeld against 1. d4, or the Spanish game (Ruy Lopez) as White at top levels. Yet all were considered to be the top choices of professionals not so long ago - and may again be, in the future. No doubt you can think of your own examples.

It should be understood that at the top GM level, variations or openings tend to become unpopular because near-forcing drawing lines have been worked out in them, or it is found over time (and numerous practical examples) that one side (typically White) gets a slight plus with best theoretical play. However, this assumes that both players know how to play at that level and have worked out what to do through the middlegame or even the endgame (such as with the Berlin Wall variation of the Spanish game, which has frustrated professional-level White players). However, what is considered best for the 2600+ crowd at a particular time, while interesting to know, is not necessarily the best guide for your own play.

The most effective antidote for too often being a "taker" of others' opinions on openings is simple, but sometimes hard to do: think and evaluate for yourself. This is absolutely necessary to make progress in all phases of chess, but may be harder to do for openings, since so much material has been published on them. Your own evaluation of particular lines can of course be guided by "expert" opinion, but it should always be a conscious choice and for reasons that you understand. Otherwise your play and results will suffer, even if someone else (or an engine) has informed you that the position you reached was the "best" possible. The fact that any sound opening is playable, at any level, should be remembered. If you do at least semi-serious opening research, you will also inevitably find that "experts" disagree over time - and even at the same point in time - about their evaluations of variations, reinforcing the point that your own judgment is what counts most in the end.

Fundamentally, the purpose of the opening phase is for you to reach a playable middlegame position. This means one that is not clearly advantageous to the opponent, and contains elements and plans that you can understand and execute over the board. This seems like a simple proposition, but it is violated a lot in practice. We need to remember that opening preparation and analysis should be a tool for us to use for our own ends, not to blindly follow.

A modern-day analogy is the relationship we have with our phones: are they consciously used by us as an information and communications tool, understanding the trade-offs in time and efficiency involved? Or do we forego an active role and simply react to it, like a dog in Pavlov's experiment believing that it's always dinnertime when they hear something buzz? You decide.

From verywellmind.com

Annotated Game #248: Meeting threats with threats

This second-round tournament game features a hard fight in the early middlegame, as my opponent does a good job of seizing the initiative by passing up "obvious" moves (such as automatic recaptures). Instead, she creatively seeks out ones that increase the number of threats on the board. The main clash is from moves 15-22 and I am only able to stay equal by using the same idea, meeting a threat with a threat.

After move 23, I am a pawn up but Black has both positional (the bishop pair) and dynamic compensation, including pressure against my king position. It's instructive to see how calmer defense (for example on move 25) could have better neutralized Black's threats; later on, more dynamic defense by creating counterthreats on the a-file would also have been an improvement.

In the late game, as often occurs, I started getting tired, and blundered on move 39. What happens is that I start cutting mental corners and do not look hard enough at my opponent's possible responses to candidate moves, which is a thinking process violation. Fortunately, my opponent was not in much better shape, however, and let me back in the game; I was able to save the draw in R+B ending with opposite-colored bishops. From a technical standpoint, the endgame analysis pointed out the importance of getting the rook mobile and active; instead, I did too much moving around with the bishop. From a psychological perspective, the game showed how continuing to fight after a blunder can be rewarded, if you are able to keep looking for ways to wrong-foot your opponent.

My opponent (a junior) showed good sportsmanship, but was clearly disappointed with the outcome, for which I can't blame her. It may have been a little frustrating for her playing me again as well. This was our third tournament encounter in two years, with the previous game being a 77-move draw that I should have won in the endgame. We were both Class A at this point, but she had started out as a low Class B and had gained much more than I had over time (a common pattern with juniors). However, it seems that we were well matched, in all three games drawing after a hard struggle.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class A"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "E14"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Komodo 13.2"] [PlyCount "109"] {[%mdl 8192] E14: Queen's Indian: Classical Variation (4 e3)} 1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Be7 5. b3 O-O 6. Bb2 b6 {heading for a Tartakower QGD setup.} 7. Be2 (7. cxd5 $5 {appears a little more challenging and in the spirit of the English.}) 7... Bb7 8. O-O Nbd7 9. d4 c5 {the most effective move for Black, challenging White's center. The pawn structure is now symmetrical and piece development is nearly so. Technically this is now a Queen's Indian Defense.} 10. cxd5 (10. dxc5 $6 {this scores poorly for White, as it just helps Black's development and central control, whether the recapture on c5 takes place with knight or pawn.}) 10... Nxd5 11. Nxd5 { the Nc3 is not as well placed as White's other knight and this exchange also opens the long diagonal for the Bb2.} Bxd5 12. Rc1 {activating the rook} Bf6 { Black has a variety of choices here. According to the database, normally the pawn on d4 is exchanged before playing ...Bf6.} (12... Rc8 13. Ba6 Rc7 14. Qe2 Qa8 15. Rfe1 Bb7 16. dxc5 Rxc5 17. Rcd1 Nf6 18. Bxb7 Qxb7 19. Bd4 Rcc8 20. Ne5 Rfd8 21. Rc1 Nd7 22. Qg4 Nxe5 23. Bxe5 Bf8 24. h4 Rd5 25. Bd4 g6 26. Qf3 Bg7 27. Bxg7 {Gelashvili,T (2604)-Esen,B (2441) Athens 2007 1/2-1/2 (34)}) (12... cxd4 13. Bxd4 Bf6 14. Qd2 Rc8 15. h3 Bxd4 16. Nxd4 Nf6 17. Bf3 Bxf3 18. Nxf3 Qxd2 19. Nxd2 h6 20. Nf3 Rxc1 21. Rxc1 Rd8 22. Rc7 Rd7 23. Rxd7 Nxd7 24. Kf1 Kf8 25. Ke2 Ke7 26. Kd3 Kd6 27. b4 {Mendoza,S (2169)-Secopito,C (2127) Quezon City 2019 1/2-1/2 (31)}) 13. Ba3 {getting the bishop off of the b2 square where it was hanging and pressuring the a3-f8 diagonal.} (13. Qd2 {has been played more often, keeping the bishop on b2.} Qe7 14. dxc5 Bxb2 15. Qxb2 Nxc5 16. Rfd1 Rfd8 17. Ne1 Rac8 18. b4 Ne4 19. Bf3 h6 20. a3 Qf6 21. Qxf6 Nxf6 22. Kf1 Bxf3 23. Rxd8+ Rxd8 24. gxf3 Rd5 25. Rc8+ Kh7 26. Rc7 Rd7 27. Rc2 Kg6 { Hund,G (2059)-Staub,G (2046) Baden 2014 1-0 (45)}) 13... Rc8 {it looks obvious to reinforce the c-file, but White can now activate the light-square bishop to good effect.} (13... Be7 14. Qc2 $11) 14. Bb5 $14 {putting the bishop on a much more useful diagonal (a4-e8) and clearing e2 for the queen. It also physically blocks potential future ideas of pushing the b-pawn.} (14. Ba6 { is also possible, controlling c8, but I wanted to leave this in reserve.}) 14... Be7 {opposing the Ba3 and freeing the c-pawn to move, as well as reinforcing it.} (14... Bc6 $6 {immediately challenging the bishop leaves White with a plus after} 15. Bxc6 Rxc6 16. b4 Qc8 17. bxc5 bxc5 18. dxc5 Rd8 ( 18... Nxc5 $2 {grabbing the pawn does not work out in the end, as White can increase the pressure on the pinned Nc5 and then bring the Nf3 over to win material. For example} 19. Rc4 Be7 20. Qc2 Rc7 21. Nd4 Re8 22. Nb5) 19. Nd4 $14 ) 15. Qe2 {this consolidates control of the f1-a6 diagonal and connects the rooks. It's nice to have a clearly best square to place the queen, which often does not happen in these types of positions.} a6 {having just played a move to dominate the diagonal, I was not expecting this. After some thought, I take the safe route by exchanging the bishop, which was disappointing after the previous maneuvers.} 16. Bxd7 (16. Bxa6 $5 Ra8 {is the problem, as both the Ba3 and pawn on a2 are hanging, but White still is a little better after} 17. Bb2 Nb8 18. Bd3 Rxa2 19. Bb1 Ra7 20. Rfd1 Nd7 (20... Bxb3 $2 21. Qd3 {forking the Bb3 and the h7 mating square})) 16... Qxd7 $11 17. dxc5 {I now have the urge to simplify further, which is not bad, but allows Black to gain the initiative.} (17. e4 Bb7 18. dxc5 $11 {is an improved version, with the Black bishop not so well placed.}) 17... Qb5 {This was well played by my opponent, passing up the automatic recapture on c5, which would have resulted in an isolated pawn for her. I did not like the idea of exchanging on b5, but further simplification would not be so bad, as I underestimated the threats the queen could make. Protecting the Qe2 is the other option.} 18. Nd4 $6 { the thinking was to remove the knight from the threat of being exchanged with gxf3 forced. However, Black's queen now becomes more active and again targets my a-file hanging pieces.} (18. Rfe1 Qa5 (18... Qxe2 19. Rxe2 Bxf3 20. gxf3 $14 {is actually given a small plus by Komodo, as after} Bxc5 21. Bxc5 Rxc5 22. Rxc5 bxc5 23. Rd2 {Black's isolated queenside pawns and White's control of the d-file outweigh the flaw in the kingside pawn structure.}) 19. Bb2 $11 { now Black is not winning material.} Qxa2 $6 20. Nd4 {threatening to trap the queen} Qa5 21. Qg4 $16 {targeting g7 and creating tactical ideas involving the Bb2 and Nd4.}) (18. Qxb5 axb5 19. Nd4 Ra8 20. Bb4 Rxa2 {and Black has a small edge, but this is still better than the game continuation.}) 18... Qa5 $15 19. Bb2 bxc5 {this creates additional problems now as the Nd4 is under threat.} 20. Bc3 {the best response, meeting the threat with another threat (to the Qa5) and protecting the a-pawn along the second rank.} Qb6 21. Nf3 c4 {Black now presses further with the c-pawn, but overlooks my response, again meeting a threat with a threat.} (21... Qb5 $5 {is worth consideration} 22. Qb2 Bxf3 23. gxf3 f6 $15) 22. e4 $11 {finally getting the bishop out of the center.} Ba8 23. bxc4 {I'm now up a pawn, but Black has full compensation in the form of the two bishops and more active pieces, especially since the c-pawn is isolated.} Qc6 {pressuring both c4 and e4, as well as creating a battery on the long diagonal that threatens mate on g2.} 24. Nd2 f5 {a logical break, as exf5 is not possible. Here I thought for a while but did not find the best solution.} 25. f3 {a natural response, blunting the mate threat, but Black now fully utilizes her more active pieces.} (25. Rfe1 {is the calm response, protecting e4 again.} Bg5 {now has less bite after} 26. Rcd1 {for example} Bxd2 27. Qxd2 Qxc4 28. Be5 $14 {and Black has to be careful about the weakness on g7.}) 25... Bg5 26. f4 {weakening the pawn structure again, but I assessed that having the bishop pressuring me on the h6-c1 diagonal would be worse.} Be7 27. e5 $2 { a key error. As with the previous f2-f3 push, I was thinking safety first, but this cuts off my active play on the long diagonal, in exchange for nothing.} ( 27. exf5 {looks scary, exposing g2 again, but it is adequately defended. Good defense requires calculation and courage.} exf5 28. Kh1 $11) 27... Bc5+ $15 { not the most critical follow-up, however.} (27... Rfd8 $5 28. Kh1 Qa4 $17 { and Black once again threatens my underprotected queenside.}) 28. Kh1 Be3 { the bishop is safe here due to the mate threat on g2.} (28... Qa4 {is no longer is such a problem, since after} 29. Nb3 {the pawns are no longer hanging. Black can regain the c-pawn after some exchanges, but the threat is reduced.}) 29. Rf3 {an adequate defense.} (29. Bb4 $5 {is an interesting active defense. The point is less to target the Rf8, rather to get the bishop to a better square for blocking and countering Black's pieces.} Rfd8 30. Bd6 $11) 29... Bxd2 $11 {Black has nothing better, as this removes a key White defensive piece. However, it also results in opposite-colored bishops, which will be a key drawing factor later on.} 30. Bxd2 Qa4 {the a-pawn now falls and material equality is restored.} 31. Rfc3 Qxa2 $15 {Black has kept a bit of an edge, largely due to her better bishop on the long diagonal.} 32. R3c2 Qa4 33. Be3 {by this point I felt a lot better about my game, having emerged essentially unscathed from Black's pressure. My bishop is now more active and my queen and rooks are coordinating.} Rfd8 {activating the rook.} 34. h3 $6 { here I fail to find an adequate plan, or perhaps it is more the execution of it. The idea behind the move is to get the king out of the line of fire of the Ba8, but this allows Black to regain the initiative.} (34. Ra2 Qb3 $11) 34... Qc6 {choosing to renew the mate threat and penetrate on e4 with the queen, rather than the bishop.} (34... Be4 {would be more of a problem for me.} 35. Ra2 Qb3 36. Kh2) 35. Kh2 {this at least makes the g-pawn unpinned and mobile.} (35. Ra2 $5 {is Komodo's suggestion, with the point being that pressure is put on the a-pawn and White can also defend along the 3rd rank.} Rb8 (35... Qe4 36. Rc3 $11) 36. Ra3 {and there's a slight plus for Black but nothing major, it seems.}) 35... Qe4 36. Bb6 $6 {this would be a clever idea, except I missed my opponent's next respose.} (36. Rc3 {looks simplest, protecting the bishop and freeing up the queen to move.}) 36... Rd3 {now we see why in the earlier variation having my own rook on the 3rd rank was a good idea.} 37. Qxe4 { I did not see a better alternative.} (37. Qf2 {my queen is certainly not any better than Black's, so avoiding the trade doesn't look like it gains me anything. Having the queen and rook threatening to combine against White's king, along with the Q+B battery that is still pressuring the long diagonal, did not seem appetizing to me.}) 37... Bxe4 {the centralized bishop increases its power, but it is not decisive. Better would have been for me to get the Rc2 out of its line of fire and over to the a-file, to pressure Black's pawn.} 38. c5 {this looks like a natural move, protecting the Bb6 and advancing the passed pawn. At the same time, however, it blocks the bishop on the a7-g1 diagonal, limiting what it can do, and the pawn itself was not under real threat.} (38. Ra2 $5) 38... Rb3 39. Rc3 $2 {as often occurs, I was getting tired here and started slipping in terms of finding all of my opponent's threats in response to a move.} (39. Rd2 $142 $15 {would keep White in the game }) 39... Rb2 $1 $19 {now the g2 pawn cannot be defended with Rg3.} 40. Kg3 { nothing better.} (40. Rg3 $4 Rxb6 {and the Rc1 is hanging, preventing the recapture.}) 40... h6 {obviously intending ...g5 to follow up after capturing with the rook on g2, which would be devastating, but my king can get to h4 first.} (40... Rxg2+ 41. Kh4 $19) 41. Kh4 Rxg2 42. Rg3 $2 {defending against .. .g5, the best try I could find.} (42. c6 $5 $19) 42... Kh7 $2 {this lets me back in the game. My opponent was also rather tired after the long struggle.} ( 42... Rf2 $142 {ends the debate, states Komodo via the Fritz interface. The f-pawn now falls.}) 43. Rxg2 $17 Bxg2 {we're now in a pawn down R+B endgame with opposite colored bishops, so I felt that I had good chances to hold the draw.} 44. Kg3 Bd5 45. h4 Kg6 {correctly using her king actively and looking to penetrate.} 46. Ra1 {time to use my rook more actively as well.} Ra8 47. Ba5 (47. Rc1 $5 {would be less committal and keep the rook active and mobile.}) 47... Kh5 48. Bd2 $6 {I don't understand the importance of using the rook more and instead move the bishop to a worse square. I was too focused on trying to restrain ...g5, but this made my pieces less effective and more vulnerable.} Rc8 $19 (48... Rb8 {is even better, according to Komodo.} 49. Rxa6 Rb2 50. Be3 Re2 $19) 49. Be3 Bc4 {Black having given me a target, I finally move my rook.} (49... Rb8 $5 50. Rxa6 Rb3 51. Kf2 Kxh4 52. c6 Rb2+ 53. Ke1 $19) 50. Rc1 Bb5 { the bishop is a little less dominating here than on d5.} 51. Rd1 Rc6 $6 { it's a serious error to let my rook onto the 8th rank, where it can be much more effective.} (51... a5 $142 $5 $19) 52. Rd8 a5 {it now makes a big difference that my rook can get behind the pawn, and Black's bishop cannot cover the queening square.} 53. Ra8 a4 {too impatient. Now I spot the saving move.} (53... Ba6 $5 $17) 54. Ra5 $15 {my opponent missed this rather unusual rook fork, made possible by the pawn giving up its square.} Bc4 55. Rxa4 { we were both rather exhausted and the game should be a draw at this point, so I was happy with the result, while my opponent was rather disappointed.} 1/2-1/2