Kelantan were crushed 1-3 in the final game against the eventual champions Kuala Lumpur, but the game between my former coach, Rizal Ahmad Kamal and my teammate, Md Anis Rahimi deserved some attention. Both played to the time trouble, and in the scramble, Rizal managed to somehow checkmate his opponent using a pawn. However, the result should be quite different had my Kelantan teammate found the correct reply on move 40. Here is the original position:
White's Queen sits passively at the edge of the board guarding the unfortunate g4 pawn, and Black replies meekly with 40...e4 attacking the Bishop.
The game will take a different course should Black found a more active 40...Qd4!, attacking the pawn once again, and after the exchange of Queens, Black should come out on top.
Any objection?
2 comments:
There was absolutely nothing to be analysed. Black was winning all the way. By move 25 I was already down t last 5 minutes and the gap was about 10 minutes different. Than, I lost a pawn. However, somehow, Anis failed to simplify and consolidate his position, for example 36...Ne6 was better than 36...Be6 as played. Than I would have nothing with (I think 3 minutes or less) So I just played and wondering.Definitely 40..Qd4 was among the winning moves. I felt that, Anis tried to win by time or by glorious fashion, (checkmate) but somehow, he lost his grip.53.c4 is the turning table move in 1 minute and a few seconds. Even my team mate Zambri commented, if Anis just ran his King towards the kingside, I may not even have time to checkmate him even if I could Queen. I admit freely, it was a bad victory. I was offering the draw (which was declined), but after the trade of Queens on move 50, the position had eased me a little.
An honest assessment from my former coach. unluckily I wasn't there to witness it. Congrats KL.
Post a Comment