| Since Don Vandivier took over editing the magazine
last summer, I have been annotating some of the games in each issue. Often,
I can catch mistakes simply because a move just doesn’t look right to my
experienced eye. Other times, a position demands a lot of concrete analysis
to discover the truth. I do occasionally get really interested in a position
and spend an hour or so studying it. More often, it becomes a question
of trying to do a decent job within a workable time frame, and mistakes
are quite possible. I console myself with the fact that most people
do not go over an annotated game in the magazine with a fine-tooth comb,
so a mistake goes unnoticed by the person who played the game, the annotator
(myself), and the readers. But every once in a while, a sharp-eyed reader
spots an error, so the truth gets revealed. I am happy when this happens,
as at least I know that our magazine is in some quarters being given more
than just a cursory reading. |
| We received a letter this winter about one of my
annotations, the game Ciaffone-Turner, played in the 2000 Michigan Open.
I have less excuse for an error in annotating one of my own games. But
I made a beaut in annotating this one. (In fairness to myself, I showed
this game to two different IM’s, neither of who caught the error in a casual
examination.) Well, someone did catch the error, Jim Kulbacki, and he wrote
a letter to us about it. |
| The key position arises in the Kings Indian Defense,
Classical Variation. The opening moves leading to this position are
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5
Ne7 9.b4 (this move characterizes the Bayonet Attack) 9...a5 10.Ba3 Nh5
11.Re1?! (played by grandmasters, but not the best) 11...Nf4 12.Bf1 g5!? |
| Here is a diagram of this interesting innovation
by Turner: |
|
| This is Kulbacki’s dissertation about the position
(very lightly edited by me for clarity), which is correct in its statements.
“This is a comment on Bob Ciaffone's article on the Bayonet Attack in the
KID, and the later game Ciaffone-Turner. It seems to me that the
move 12...g5!? should be examined in more detail. Ciaffone wrote,
‘This leads to a pawn sac probably giving Black less than full compensation,
but not so easy to meet.’ Ciaffone replied 13.Nxg5? There
is an old cliche stating that the best way to refute an unsound sacrifice
is to accept it. But12...g5 is neither a sacrifice, nor is it unsound.
Keita Turner replied to 13.Nxg5? with 13...Neg6?, which Ciaffone states
is probably superior to 13...Nxd5. This is a moot point, since both
players overlooked a much better continuation: 13...axb4! 14.Bxb4 c5! (The
bishop has no retreat square) 15.dxc6 Nxc6. Oops! White has two pieces
hanging in midair. Now if 16.Bxd6 Qxg5 (Threatening to win
the queen with 17...Nh3+ 18.Kh1 Nxf2+) 17.h4 Nh3+ 18.Kh2 Qf4+ 19.g3 Qxf2+
20.Bg2 Rd8. Here, attempts by White to annex the knight at h3 fail:
21.Re2 Qg1+! or 21.Rf1 Qb2. White could try to cut his losses by
16.Nxf7 Rxf7 17.Bxd6, but then comes 17...Nd4 18.Bc5 Qg5 19.Kh1 Nfe6 20.Bxd4
exd4! 21.Nd5 Rxf2 with an extra piece and the attack. Even worse
is 16.Nxh7 Kxh7 17.Bxd6 Rh8! When White has three pawns for his knight,
but Black's army will descend upon the white king faster than Dennis Rodman
on his way to a fire sale at Victoria's Secret. For example: 18.Rb1
Nd4 19.Bc5 Qg5 20.Kh1 Kg8! 21.Qd2 Rxh2+! 22.Kxh2 Qh4+ 23.Kg1 Nh3+! and
wins. Clearly, 13.Nxg5? is not the best reply to 12…g5. White
could try 13.g3 and prepare for complications following 13...g4.
Or, probably better yet, try the thematic and straightforward move 13.c5.” |
| I believe this analysis of Kulbacki is right on
the mark, as far as it pertains to White being unable to simply take the
pawn after 12…g5. However, there is a good chance that my comment
saying that the move 12…g5 may not be quite correct is still valid.
Kulbacki’s suggestion 13.c5 was echoed by Ben Finegold, who thinks that
White is better here. (It would not be the first time
that my evaluation of a position was right, but the reason I gave for it
was not.) |
| We at Michigan Chess magazine are delighted to get feedback
from a sharp-eyed reader like Mr. Kulbacki, whether it is about my
annotations or someone else’s. All of you are invited to write if you find
an analytical mistake in our magazine. You can be sure of two things.
First, it is inevitable that an error will appear on occasion. Even magazines
published by grandmasters have errors in them. Second, we are happy
to print a letter like Kulbacki’s, and reward diligence, rather than trying
to keep our dirty linen out of your sight. |
|
