IM Kim Yew Chan (MAS, 2383) vs GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535) · ½-½
Board 2, Switzerland vs Malaysia · Catalan Opening, Open Defence (E04)
By Professor Zugzwang AI Coach . This analysis was written by a Bogner Chess AI coach.
Round seven, board two, Black against an International Master rated 2383, a good 150 points below him on paper. White set up the Catalan, Nico Georgiadis took the pawn with and propped it up with and . That pawn then sat on c4 for twenty moves and captured a rook on move twenty-four.
From move twelve to move twenty-five every single black move was a calculation: a knight for three pawns, a bishop that sacrifices itself with check, and on move 21 exactly one move that holds the position. A draw in 41 moves.
The knight stays where it is: 12...d4
The Open Defence of the Catalan is a trade: Black takes a pawn and lets White have the centre and the long diagonal in return. White called it in with , and the knight on f6 is hanging. Four players out of five move it, to g4, e8 or e4.
leaves it there and pushes the pawn into the knight on c3. After Black is a piece down with three pawns for it, one of them a passed pawn on d4, and that is the balanced side of the trade. The sensible looking alternative costs a good half pawn instead.
When a piece is attacked, moving it away is only one of several answers and usually the most expensive one. Work out first what the capture actually costs. The question is never whether the piece is safe right now, it is what the position looks like three captures later.
IM Kim Yew Chan (MAS, 2383)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
The pawn that sends the queen away: 16...h5
White has collected the passed pawn, and the knight on d4 sits in the crossfire: the bishop on f6 and the queen on d8 attack it, the rook on d1 and the queen on g4 defend it. Two against two, so it is not available. shows why at once: the rook on d4 is covered by the queen on g4, Black has given a bishop for a knight and stands about three pawns worse.
attacks the queen and takes exactly one defender away from d4. After the knight is defended once, and wins the piece back. Taking the pawn does not work: wins the exchange and a pawn for Black. Almost half of all players would take on g2 first, and that costs about a pawn: after the queen covers d4 all over again.
Before any capture, count the defenders of the square you will be recaptured on, not the defenders of the piece you want to take. If one of those defenders is the queen, look for the move that chases her off before you grab. A pawn arriving with tempo is the cheapest tool on the board for that job.
IM Kim Yew Chan (MAS, 2383)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
Double attack on b7 and d4: 19...Bxf2+
Black has won the piece back and now stands with equal pieces and two extra pawns. At exactly that moment the white queen goes to e4 and attacks the rook on b7 and the bishop on d4 at once. Defending both is not possible.
hands the bishop back with check and buys the move that is missing. After the rook is covered, Black has three pawns for the bishop, and the position is level. The quiet alternatives and each cost about half a pawn.
On move twenty comes the move almost half of all players reach for: is a check that forks king and bishop, and it still does not work, because the rook on b7 stays undefended. takes the rook, and the passed pawn on d3 does not make up for it: Black is a bit under a pawn worse afterwards. A double attack is almost never refuted by defending: look for the move that gives one of the two pieces away with tempo, ideally with check. A check is a free move, and one free move is enough to save the other piece.
IM Kim Yew Chan (MAS, 2383)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
Only one move holds: 21...c5
The knight on d5 attacks the knight on b4 and the pawn on c7, and threatens Ne7+, a fork of king and queen. Six players in ten simply take it, and costs a good pawn and a half. is just as expensive. Only one move holds the position.
does both jobs at once: the pawn leaves the attacked square and from c5 it defends the knight on b4. That the fork then really comes was part of the calculation: , and the exchange Black gave up on e7 comes back as a passed pawn on d3 in the middle of the white position. The knight on d3 forks king and bishop on the way.
A fork you have seen and calculated to the end is no longer a fork, it is a variation. The mistake happens one step earlier: you dodge the fork and do not notice that dodging costs two pawns. Judge the position at the end of the forcing sequence, not at its start.
IM Kim Yew Chan (MAS, 2383)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
Bishop against three pawns
A bishop against three pawns is a fair trade on the arithmetic, and with queens on the board it is worth slightly less than that for the pawn side: pawns only advance when the queen covers them, and the moment she leaves the square the checks begin. and are equally good here, the difference is a matter of taste.
The rooks came off with and , and in the queen ending the passed pawn on d3 simply stayed there: neither the queen nor the bishop ever got round to collecting it. Between move 34 and move 36 the position drifted by not quite a third of a pawn towards White, which was as close as it came, and with White let go of even that and started the checks that ended the game.
In a queen ending what counts is not how many extra pawns you have, it is whether one of them can take a step without the enemy queen cutting in. A player who fails to win with extra pawns usually does not have too little material, they have too little cover for the one pawn that matters.
IM Kim Yew Chan (MAS, 2383)
GM Nico Georgiadis (SUI, 2535)
Verdict
Half a point with Black against an International Master, and it was fought for harder than the result suggests. From to , over fourteen moves, Nico Georgiadis faced positions where the natural move cost between one and two pawns every single time, and he found all of them: the pawn push that sends the queen away from a defence, the bishop sacrifice with check against the double attack, and on move 21 the only move that holds the position together. Switzerland met Malaysia on table 22, both teams on eight match points, and on board two this was half a point against an opponent who played it exactly right.
Moves
½-½
Was this analysis useful?