Svidler's magical combination, along with luck, beats Kamsky

Go down

Svidler's magical combination, along with luck, beats Kamsky

Post by ciccio on Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:15 pm

"You could say I got lucky in both games but I always tend to think I got lucky if I win. " was Peter Svidler's considered opinion of his day's work which allowed him to beat Gata Kamsky 2-0. After missing 18.Bb1 in his calculations he was slightly lucky not to be lost straight away. Kamsky's main winning chances went with 20.exd6 instead of 20.Qe4, not that either player knew that at the time. Svidler found his way through the complications to get to play a wonderful rook sacrifice that will make the game collections. An extremely happy Svidler talked of his respect for Kamsky, his delight in the combination, his view on Navara's gesture against Moiseenko and finally went through the game itself in a wonderful press conference and broadcast on the Official Video starting at 15:40 on the HD version at least. He goes on to face the winner of the Polgar-Dominguez playoff.

Svidler talked over the game afterwards. These notes won't be a perfect recreation of that but they are entertaining. Also Svidler had only just finished the game so there are some lines that aren't quite correct. It seems that 20.Qe4 dxe5 21.dxe5 Nf6 22.Qh4 which was discussed a little but not in depth is indeed what Kamsky should have gone for.

Kamsky,Gata (2741) - Svidler,Peter (2739) [C78]
FIDE World Cup 2011 Khanty-Mansiysk RUS (4.2), 07.09.2011
[Notes based on Comments by Peter Svidler to Konstantin Landa]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5

I only play this variation occasionally. Gata has been doing some, I thought, none critical stuff against this variation. It looks innocuous but it's not very pleasant.

7.a4 Rb8 8.axb5 axb5 9.c3 d6 10.d4 Bb6 11.Be3 0-0

[11...Bg4 12.Nbd2 exd4 (12...0-0 13.h3 Bh5 14.Qc2 a longish game ensues.) 13.cxd4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Bxd4 15.Bxf7+ Kxf7 it isn't something you want.]

12.Nbd2 h6 13.h3 Re8 14.Qc2
Poisonous little move.

[14.Qe2 Bd7 15.Bc2 Nh7 16.Bd3 exd4 17.cxd4 Nb4 18.Bb1 Nf8 19.Rc1 Ra8 20.Ra3 c6 21.Rb3 Na6 22.Bd3 Nc7 23.Nf1 Nfe6 24.Ng3 c5 25.d5 Nf8 26.Rbc3 Ba5 27.Ra3 Bb4 28.Rxa8 Qxa8 29.Nh5 f5 30.exf5 Nxd5 31.f6 c4 32.fxg7 cxd3 33.gxf8Q+ Rxf8 34.Qxd3 Bf5 35.Qd4 Rf7 36.Bxh6 Bc5 37.Qh4 Bg6 38.Qg4 Ne7 39.Nf4 Kh7 40.Nxg6 1-0 Van den Doel,E (2440)-Lane,G (2420)/Wrexham WLS 1997]


Unsure what to do. "It doesn't seem that white is threatening much". Svidler came up with a "slightly ridiculous" idea.

[14...Bb7 is stopped compared to Re1. 15.d5 Bxe3 16.dxc6 Bxd2 17.cxb7 Rook not en-prise on e1.]

15.cxd4 Na5

[15...Bb7 maybe better.]

16.Ba2 Bb7 17.e5

[17.d5 Bxe3 18.fxe3 c6 black holds quite comfortably. 19.b4 Nc4 20.dxc6 Bxc6 21.Nxc4 Bxe4]

17...Nd5 Normally this set up is very much in black's favour. I just assumed Nb4 and take the bishop. He played Bb1 and I'm very lucky I'm not just losing immediately.


Just missed by Svidler in his calculations.

18...g6 19.Bxh6 Nc6
I'm not saying I'm fine but it's trickier than it looks.


It seems that this is the move that loses white the advantage not that it was possible to tell that over the board. [Mark Crowther]

[20.Qe4 dxe5 21.dxe5 Nf6 22.Qe1 (22.Qh4 is the critical continuation. 22...Nxe5 23.Bg5 when Svidler's immediate suggestion of 23...Nxf3+ loses out of hand. 24.Nxf3 Kg7) 22...Nd4]

20...Qxd6 21.Ne4 Qb4 22.Ba2

My initial reaction is I must be lost now. Actually by this point I already saw it.

[22.Bd2 may have been Kamsky's original idea. 22...Nxd4 23.Bxb4 Nxc2 24.Bxc2 Nxb4 (24...f5 is even stronger.) 25.Nf6+ Kh8 26.Nxe8 Nxc2 27.Rac1 Bxf3 28.Rxc2 (28.gxf3 Nd4) 28...Be4 29.Rxc7 Rxe8 30.Rxf7 objectively black should be fine here. With his two bishops.]

My thought process. First of all there are no other moves.


[23.Nxd4 is a mistake as the moment I occupy the long diagonal I'm just perfectly fine here. 23...Qxd4 24.Nc3 Kh7 25.Rad1 Nb4 and I think I might even be better.]

23...Kh8 24.Nxd4 Nxf6 25.Nc6

my first reaction is that I have to take.

Here I'm probably already better but it isn't obvious immediately.

[25...Bxc6 26.Qxc6 Qh4 but the problem is this that white has this horribly strong move Be3 otherwise I think I'm fine. 27.Be3 I realised black is in a huge amount of trouble because my pieces are discoordinated and as soon as this bishop is exchanged away. All my potential initiative is gone. f7 is hanging, c7 will be hanging, I think I'm close to lost here. So I started looking at some romantic variations starting with Qh4.]

There really isn't much white can do here. [Given that Svidler only needs a draw]

[26.Be3 Rxe3 27.fxe3 Re8 For a single exchange I'm getting this horrible attack on the kingside and there really isn't much he can do. I definitely have a draw everywhere here and probably I'm already winning even.]

Its something you see in Andersson games. Put on the cover of a book. Suddenly white is just completely lost.

[26...Be4 27.Qd2 Qg3 (27...Ng4 28.Bf4 and the whole thing collapses because I'm running out of pieces.) 28.Qg5 was Svidler's initial idea.; 26...Qg3 27.Nc6 Re2 was Svidler's next idea which I think is actually quite decent. But before I started analysing this further I thought, why am I starting this owith Qg3? This is where it dawned on me what was happening. I was pacing outside where the food is. ]


He just didn't want to resign with Re2 on the board here.

27...Rxf2 28.Nc6 Rxf1+

and I'm just collecting the entire chess set. It's a very nice feeling to make a move like Re2 on the board. It really doesn't happen every day. It's a great feeling. It's something you don't really see in the modern game because you never have an opportunity to do anything like that.


all games in pgn:

Posts : 515
thanks : 1
Join date : 2011-09-02

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum