In this post, I am continuing my analysis of varied games from the Open Tournament. As there are a lot of games to look at and each one may take a fair bit of time to analyze, I will continue to update as I can, but it may be a while before I get into any particular game. I may also collaborate with others to help with this task.
One final note: In the course of (all) my analysis, I am using a tool I designed to help delve into particular lines and variations: https://github.com/nqeron/TakAnalysis. For the moment, the functionality to attempt to annotate moves is a bit weird, so I'm primarily using it to ask TakticianBot for its move recommendations. For more details on how either of these work, feel free to send me an e-mail.
With that note, I'd like to delve into the next game:
The players - ts52 (white) and Simmon (black) - begin with a fairly common Opposite corner opening, with ts52 opting for the Side Center line (2. d3), and Simmon responding with an edgecrawl (2. ... a2):
 |
| [1. a1 f6 2.d3 a2] |
 |
| [3. b4 a4] |
 |
| [4. b3? a3] |
Now white decides to play 5. a5, cutting off black's potential road, and regaining tempo. Black responds by extending his stones with 5. ... b2. In response, white plays 6. b5? , which connects his a5 and b4 stones. While this may seem ok, white already has effective control of b5. and connecting here is a bit too passive. playing 6.c3 may have been preferable, connecting the b and d stones and building a bit of an east-west potential.
 |
| [5. a5 b2 6.b5?] |
In return, black continues to extend his stones with 6. ... c2, to which white responds 7. d2.
Again, there is some reasonable motivation for this - it connects to the d3 stone, blocks a bit of black's developing east-west road, and even infiltrates into the south of the board. However, it leaves a weak spot on c3. 6.c3 might have been a better move, filling in the gap, connecting white's west and east groups, and even developing white's east-west road. Since white has tempo, white would wind up being able to force black on the back hand, defending the road threats.
With this weakness, black is able to waltz in with an effective 7. ... c3:
 |
| [6. … c2 7. d2? c3] |
At this point, white and black play out a fairly straightforward territory exchange. White plays 8. c4, 'containing' black's piece, to which black cuts at 8. ... d4. White responds at 9. d5? and black playing an effective capstone at 9. ... Cc5. White's 9.d5 move looks good from the outset, since it threatens d4 and creates a pseudo bridge between the pieces. On the other hand, the c5 square becomes a liability and good spot for black's capstone. a move at 9.e4 may have been better, accomplishing similar goals and also not being in a similar position to be immediately threatened. (And also creating a bit of an outlet for the east-west road)
 |
| [8. c4 d4 9. d5? Cc5] |
White here plays 10. e4, which looks like it's supposed to threaten 4 and extend out the road potential a bit, but it just lets black play 10. ... d4<, which gains black the tempo and puts white on the defensive (by creating a tak threat). A better move for white would have been 10.d6, which anticipates black's north-south threat, and extends white's own north-south road. (And providing back-up for the east-west road)
 |
| [10. e4 d4<] |
Here, white chooses to block the tak threat by playing a wall with 11. Sc6. In response, black continues to build influence in the upper left with a play of 11. ... a6. White ignores black's play, choosing instead to connect his pieces with 12. d4, which allows black to respond with a new tak threat at 12. ... a6-:
 |
| [11, Sc6 a6 12. d4 a6-] |
At this point, white plays 13. Sa6?? to block the tak. This seems ok, until you realize that from here 13. ... c5+! is tinuë! In order to block the tinuë, white should have played 13. b5< - which while still a very responsive and relatively poor move, would not be quite as bad.
Fortunately for white, black misses this tinuë and plays 13. ... a6?? This mistake - on both accounts also extends into the next two moves as well (14. b5+ b5):
 |
| [13. Sa6?? a6?? 14. b5+ b5] |
Finally blocking off the tinue, white plays 15. a6-. Whether or not white realizes that this blocks the tinuë, it helps white's position by regaining a captive and providing the future potential to run over some of black's territory.
In response to this, black responds with 15. ... d1, which looks like it intends to extend black's influence and cut into white's north-south road:
 |
| [15. a6- d1] |
White here turns to 16. d2-. This looks like white is trying to extend the road and create threats, but may not be the most advisable way to do so. Given black's flat lead and presence, it might have been advisable to play 3a5-12, which would gain good presence on the west side of the board and interfere with black's pieces. Black replies by fortifying at 17. ... c1, motivating white to fill his gap at 17. d2:
 |
| [16. d2- c1 17. d2] |
With white's structure and tempo, black initiates a capture sequence with 17. ... c1>. White captures back with 18. d2-, and black cuts the freed square with 18. ... d2., allowing white to recapture d2 with 19. 2d1+. While this sequence seems to be in white's favor, since white now controls a decent size stack, black was anticipating the sequence and preparing to capture it.
 |
| [17. .. c1> 18. d2- d2 19.2d1+ ] |
Black moves in, with 19. ... c2> , goading white to respond by recapturing with 20.d3-. Having anticipated this, black responds by placing down a threatening (and blocking) wall with 20. ... Sd3. Given white's followup - as we'll see, this seems reasonable, but perhaps this could have let white gain advantage.
 |
| [19. … c2> 20. d3- Sd3] |
In response to the wall, white plays 21. e5? Based on the position, it seems like white here is trying to connect pieces, but is ignoring black's flat advantage and threat to the stack on d2. It might have been more advisable for white to run the stack west, with something like 21. 5d2<32, which would have also covered up some of black's foundational pieces, and expanding white's control. Then white could continue further with 3a5-12 - using white's wall stack at a5 to cover more of black's pieces and gain more control.
With white neglecting these options, so black comfortably captures the d2 stack with 21. ... d3-:
 |
| [21. e5? d3-] |
With the d2 stack under black's control, black has a strong threat to run north over white's pieces and securing strong control over the board. In response to this, white plays 22.Cd3, blocking the stack from running north, threatening the stack, and strengthening his other pieces slightly. Black replies with 22. 5d2<14, running the stack to b2 and preparing to throw it north.
 |
| [22. Cd3 5d2<14] |
White plays 23. e1? which looks like an attempt to develop tak, but is drastically missing the required tempo to create a reasonable threat. This leaves black to launch the b2 stack north with 23. 5b2+1222, grabbing control of the west side of the board and dominance of the game.
 |
| [23. e1? 5b2+122] |
White here plays 24. e2??, which may look nice, but entirely neglects black's ability to get tinuë with 24.... c5<!.
 |
| [24. e2?? c5<!] |
Overall in this game, white languished without any real substantial control over the board and failed to keep par with tempo. In contrast, black consistently managed to obtain control and maintain tempo, responding fairly well. The one real loss on both players was the missed tinuë around turn 13, which really demonstrates the strength that black was able to achieve by cutting up the c-file.
----
Think with mind of air
Listen close to heart of stone
A beautiful game
