Thank you for sharing your process for revisiting the annotations to this game. Perhaps I have some old annotations in a computer file somewhere that might shed some light on what I was thinking during the game. As I mentioned before, I didn't recall how this game ended--my only memory was that we played the game at the Berkeley City Club and that 13 Rh4-b4 was a worthy idea.
Part One left off after Black's 23rd move. Remarkably, the only white pieces that have moved off their starting squares are the knight and king!? The rook, queen, and bishop haven't budged. White is also down an exchange. But when you consider the relative safety of the kings it is clear that black is in danger. If white can crack the shelter around black's king, the game will likely be decided in white's favor.
When you resumed the game and revealed 24 Ra6, I was stunned: why does white lead with a rook that already exerts pressure on the a-file; what about the white queen or the c pawn? I was also saddened that I didn't remember such a move. Still, I thought it was a terrible move. I couldn't understand why white would threaten a bishop that can easily move or be defended.
But then I realized: if the bishop is moved, white may capture black's h pawn. If given the chance, white can play Qd1-a1 and a7 is indefensible. Since 24...Rf4 indirectly defends the bishop, 25 Kb3 (which you point out) is a pretty way to continue the game. The king guards b4, fears not the bishop on e6, and steps off the a1-h8 diagonal, readying white to play Qa1.
After all these years, this game returns to haunt me, even though I escaped on that Friday night in 1996.
If you have any old annotations of our games, I'd love to see them! Looking at how each player thinks through a game is really cool - I think I've got one example in a game I played against Walter Browne towards the end of his life. He wrote up some notes that got published in the MI newsletter, and I wrote some up as well privately. I'll post them all at some point if I can find them.
24 Ra6 is a funny move. It was totally shocking during the game, but sometimes shocking moves aren't the knockout blow that they seem to be at first glance. Definitely Qb1 first was better.
After recent tournaments I've been going over my games and trying to identify the main reason(s) for the outcome, with the goal of identifying what I most need to focus on as I try to get better. But I've been using an engine from the start, rather than trying to figure things out on my own first. That's probably something I should consider...
I do the same thing, with the rationale that I want to know if I'm in good form or not during a tournament. I'm not sure if that's actually all that helpful, so I'm going to try to force myself back to pre-computer times and do more of the work myself first and only check with a computer afterwards. It looks like you're playing a bit more than I am these days; hopefully I'll get in my one annual tournament this summer.
Andy,
Thank you for sharing your process for revisiting the annotations to this game. Perhaps I have some old annotations in a computer file somewhere that might shed some light on what I was thinking during the game. As I mentioned before, I didn't recall how this game ended--my only memory was that we played the game at the Berkeley City Club and that 13 Rh4-b4 was a worthy idea.
Part One left off after Black's 23rd move. Remarkably, the only white pieces that have moved off their starting squares are the knight and king!? The rook, queen, and bishop haven't budged. White is also down an exchange. But when you consider the relative safety of the kings it is clear that black is in danger. If white can crack the shelter around black's king, the game will likely be decided in white's favor.
When you resumed the game and revealed 24 Ra6, I was stunned: why does white lead with a rook that already exerts pressure on the a-file; what about the white queen or the c pawn? I was also saddened that I didn't remember such a move. Still, I thought it was a terrible move. I couldn't understand why white would threaten a bishop that can easily move or be defended.
But then I realized: if the bishop is moved, white may capture black's h pawn. If given the chance, white can play Qd1-a1 and a7 is indefensible. Since 24...Rf4 indirectly defends the bishop, 25 Kb3 (which you point out) is a pretty way to continue the game. The king guards b4, fears not the bishop on e6, and steps off the a1-h8 diagonal, readying white to play Qa1.
After all these years, this game returns to haunt me, even though I escaped on that Friday night in 1996.
If you have any old annotations of our games, I'd love to see them! Looking at how each player thinks through a game is really cool - I think I've got one example in a game I played against Walter Browne towards the end of his life. He wrote up some notes that got published in the MI newsletter, and I wrote some up as well privately. I'll post them all at some point if I can find them.
24 Ra6 is a funny move. It was totally shocking during the game, but sometimes shocking moves aren't the knockout blow that they seem to be at first glance. Definitely Qb1 first was better.
Really interesting game, wow.
After recent tournaments I've been going over my games and trying to identify the main reason(s) for the outcome, with the goal of identifying what I most need to focus on as I try to get better. But I've been using an engine from the start, rather than trying to figure things out on my own first. That's probably something I should consider...
I do the same thing, with the rationale that I want to know if I'm in good form or not during a tournament. I'm not sure if that's actually all that helpful, so I'm going to try to force myself back to pre-computer times and do more of the work myself first and only check with a computer afterwards. It looks like you're playing a bit more than I am these days; hopefully I'll get in my one annual tournament this summer.