IM Andrew N Greet (SCO, 2416) vs GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535) · ½-½
Board 2, Switzerland vs Scotland · English Opening, Four Knights Variation (A28)
By Professor Zugzwang AI Coach . This analysis was written by a Bogner Chess AI coach.
Round five, board two, Switzerland against Scotland, both teams arriving on six match points. Nico Georgiadis had Black against an International Master rated 2416, the kind of opponent you want to beat on board two, and was served the quietest opening of the tournament: the English, Four Knights, with and .
It became a game with a plan anyway. Black traded off the bishop that guards the white king, forced a pawn in front of that king with a check, and stood close to a pawn better on move twenty-two. Then came a king move into the corner that does nothing wrong and costs everything, twice the same missed square for the bishop, and at the end an ending in which neither side had anything left to attack.
The bishop hardly anyone trades: 13...Bd5
Three players out of four take on c4 here: . The move is understandable, it clears the annoying knight off the board, and it costs about half a pawn, because White keeps a healthy pawn structure and gains the bishop pair, while Black plays on with bishop and knight. Georgiadis chose instead, offering the trade of the light-squared bishops, the bishop protected by the queen on d8.
Objectively the difference between and the quiet is small, a quarter of a pawn, and whoever picks either one has not made a mistake. The difference in plan is large. The bishop on g2 is the only piece guarding the light squares around the white king, and after it is gone and a pawn stands in front of the king.
The check on d5 is the part I would keep. White has to close the diagonal, and every pawn that does so stops guarding what it guarded before: the pawn on f2 covered e3, the pawn on f3 does not. Nine moves later the black bishop stood exactly there with . When you strip a king position, trade its guard first and then check at once, so that the block has to be a pawn and not a piece.
IM Andrew N Greet (SCO, 2416)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
The answer to 22.g4 is 22...h5
Material is equal, and Black still stands close to a pawn better here. The bishop on e3 sits in the hole that left behind, the rook on d8 faces the d3 pawn down the half-open d-file, and the white king has only three pawns left around it, one of which, g4, has just advanced. wants space on the kingside, but a pawn that advances in front of its own king takes squares away from that king.
So the answer is . The pawn calls the advanced pawn to account, and both replies are unpleasant. After Black is a pawn down, and in return a white pawn sits on h5 with no piece defending it and the king on g2 has only f3 and h2 left in front of it. If White keeps the tension, follows: Black gives up the e5 pawn, puts the knight on the best square on the board, and stands more than a pawn better for it. was good too and kept almost as much.
The move played was , and with it the advantage was gone. It does nothing wrong, it takes the king off the a2 to g8 diagonal, and that is exactly the problem: it does not answer the question asked. When your opponent pushes a pawn in front of his own king, your first candidate is the pawn that touches it. A king step into the corner can nearly always still be made two moves later, a pawn push usually cannot.
IM Andrew N Greet (SCO, 2416)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
The same square twice: 26...Bf4 and 27...Bf4
One move earlier, after , the strongest move was : the bishop leaves e3 and from f4 attacks the knight on g3 and the pawn on h2, and only then does the rook go to c6. Black played the moves in the other order, first, and that costs not quite half a pawn. No drama, but the chance came straight back.
In the diagram is the best move again, now for a different reason. After the position repeats, and that is honestly what it is worth: the game is level here, and Black would have had the half point in hand without giving anything up.
The move played was , to take the h5 square away from the knight. The pawn does take it away, and it hands over the dark squares around its own king in exchange, and after White would have had a noticeable advantage, worth about three quarters of a pawn. White played instead and gave it all back. The rule behind it holds in every position: before you control a square with a pawn, check whether a piece does the same job. The pawn never comes back, the piece does.
IM Andrew N Greet (SCO, 2416)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
An ending without targets
With Black offered the queen trade, and after the rook from d8 was the only recapture; anything else costs a queen. There followed , and now Black offered the rook trade in turn. would have held on to not quite half a pawn, but it is a move practically nobody sees in this position, and the trade was a deliberate choice for a structure you know.
The rest is technique in both directions: . White collects the a5 pawn, Black collects the b2 pawn right back, and it is five against five. After that the bishop shuttles between e3 and f4, the knight stays on g3 with the h2 pawn behind it, and neither side breaks through anywhere.
The reason sits in the pawn structure, and it is the most instructive thing about this phase. The black pawn on d4 and the white pawn on d3 block each other. The c7 pawn looks like a passed pawn and is not one as long as d3 covers c4. On the kingside it is three against three with no majority for either side. With nothing to attack, even the better minor piece wins nothing, and that is how it ran out: , repetition, draw. Before a queen trade, count not only the material but the targets that will still be there in the ending.
IM Andrew N Greet (SCO, 2416)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
Verdict
Half a point with Black against an International Master 119 rating points below him, and on board two that is not the return you want. The game was well played all the same, and it is instructive exactly where it tips. The opening plan worked: the bishop trade on g2, the check on d5, and a white king that relieved of the e3 square. On move twenty-two the advantage was real, and it disappeared not through a blunder but through a useful looking move that did not answer the question on the board. After that the chance came back twice in the shape of the same bishop move, and both times it went by. In the match the half point counted: Peng won on board three, Bänziger split the point on board four, Switzerland led 2 to 1, and board one was still running.
Moves
½-½
Was this analysis useful?