[Event "Hamilton Russell Cup"] [Site "Lords"] [Date "2018.11.13"] [White "Lee, Peter"] [Black "Eckersley-Waites, Tom"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A05"] [Opening "Reti: KIA"] {Annotations by Peter Lee (PL) and Tom Eckersley-Waites (TEW)} 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 c5 4.O-O Nc6 5.d3 e5 6.Nbd2 {TEW: Perhaps the immediate 6 e4 is better? 6 Nbd2 is slightly commital when the N might belong on c3 or a3 instead.} Be7 7.e4 O-O 8.exd5 {TEW: 8.c3 may be a better move-order. If I play the natural 8…Be6, then 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Re1 follows and 10…f6 is less attractive because of 11.d4. I would probably have to choose between 8…Re8 or 8…d4, neither of which I necessarily want to play.} Nxd5 9.Re1 f6 {TEW: Peter had hoped this would be loosening but (compared to the 8.c3 line above) this looks ok for black.} 10.c3 Nc7 11.Nc4 Bf5 12.Bf1 {TEW: 12.Bf1 is the sort of move one hopes to be able to avoid but there is no sensible alternative here. PL: There may be! My ancient Fritz says 12 Qb3 then 13 Qxb7 is better for White, and that in fact 11..Bf5 may be an error.} Qd7 13.Ne3 Be6 {TEW: I think Black is a little better here - it's just the right side of a good version of a reversed King's Indian.} 14.a3 {PL: 14 a4 might be slightly better} b5!? 15.b4 a5 {TEW: Peter was rather sceptical of this …b5 and …a5 idea after the game, but I quite liked it. I trade a central pawn for some good squares for my pieces. The computer, of course, tells us that we're both wrong - I played the right moves for the wrong reasons.} 16.bxc5 Bxc5 17.Bb2 Rad8 {TEW: I was wrestling with the "which rook" problem, but the computer suggests the bizarre (to my eyes, anyway) 17…Bxe3! which does indeed look like an improvement. The idea appears to be that after 18.Rxe3 a4 white is unable to make any pawn breaks and so his bishops are just spectators. PL: I would prefer 18 fxe3 in Tom’s variation. My computer suggests 17..b4, after which 18 d4 exd4 19 cxd4 Nxd4 20 Nxd4 Bxd4 21 Bxd4 Qxd4 22 Qd4x Rxd4 (what a lot of captures!) 23 Rac1 Rd7 24 Rc5 is equal.} 18.Qc2 {PL: I8 d4 was also possible.} Nd5? {TEW: Completely overlooking Peter's (obvious with hindsight!) next move. I was lured by the somewhat unnecessary 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Nd2 Bxf2+!? when after 21.Kxf2 Qa7+ 22.Ke2 f5 I suspected I would have at least sufficient compensation and a position that would be easy to play.} 19.d4! Nxe3 {PL: It is now a bit better for White having been a bit worse for some time.} 20.fxe3 {TEW: The somewhat counterintuitive 20.Rxe3 is an interesting possibility here for white. In turn, after the game continuation black has 20…Bg4!? which looks odd (as it forces white to play moves that he wants to play anyway) until you see 21.Qg2 Bb6 22.Bxb5 Bxf3! 23.Qxf3 Nxd4! 24.Bc4+ with some kind of rough equality.} Ba7 21.Bxb5 Qb7 22.Bf1 {TEW: 22.Bd3 looks better. 22.Be2 is another possibility to stop any tricks on the long diagonal. I suspect I have just enough compensation for the pawn here. PL: 22 a4 may be better still.} Rb8 23.Rab1 Ba2 {TEW: This invites the slightly speculative 24.Bd3, which I didn't think was sound but didn't necessarily want to face!} 24.Ra1 Bf7 {TEW: Perhaps the bishop is better on e6; it allows me to play 25…Qf7 keeping the tension. PL: If Black plays 24..Qxb2? 25 Qxb2 Rxb2 26 Rxa2! Rxa2 27 Bd5+ regains the material with a solid pawn plus . 24..Bd5 may be better than 24..Be6 or 24..Bf7.} 25.Bc1 Nxd4 {TEW: This is a bit impulsive, but the temptation to simplify matters by getting rid of the white N proved hard to resist when short of time. PL: The position is now about equal.} 26.Nxd4 exd4 27.exd4 {TEW: 27 cxd4 looks more accurate - the e-pawn is much easier to defend than the c-pawn.} Rfc8 28.Be3 Qb3 {TEW: This looks like it's just a draw now. There are a lot of tactics around the c- and d-pawns which will struggle to advance.} 29.Rec1 {PL: 29 Qxb3 Rxb3 30 Bd2 may be better.} Qxc2 30.Rxc2 Rb3 31.Bf2 Rcxc3 32.Rxc3 Rxc3 33.Rb1 Bc4 34.Bxc4+ Rxc4 {PL: An interesting game. Neither side was ever clearly winning.} {#d} 1/2-1/2