Bristol Game

[schoolboyy]

[Event "pratice"]
[Date ""]
[Black ""]
[White ""]
[Result "*"]
1. 11-15 24-20 2. 8-11 22-17 3. 4-8 17-13 4. 15-19 23x16 5. 12x19 27-23 6. 8-12 23x16 7.
12x19 32-27 8. 11-15 20-16 9. 9-14 25-22 10. 5-9 22-17 11. 1-5 29-25 12. 14-18 16-12 13.
9-14 26-23 14. 19x26 30x23 15. 7-11 23-19 16. 15x24 28x19 17. 11-15 *good for a draw What do you guys think?

[matthewkooshad]

At move 17, I like 6-9

[Ingo_Zachos]

Well, first to 17. 11-15:

It has been played before by Birkenshaw against Wyllie in their match at Oldham 1881, game 4, ending thus:
17. ... 19-19
18. 5-9 31-36(a)
19. 15-19(b) 26-22
20. 18-23 27x18

White (Wyllie) won.

a: here 18.-27-24 is better and keeps a good advantage, for instance: 19. 18-23 24-20 with much better prospects for White, for the king promoting at 4 will march to 11 and then either threat 11-15 with a two-for-one or attacking the piece on 15!

b: The best move is 19. 3-7! keeping a slightly better game for REDas the following possible conituation shows: 19.- 12-8, 20. 15-19 26-22, 21. 7-11! 16x7, 22. 2x11 22x15,23. 11x18 8-3 and red is clearly slightly better

Then To Matthew's proposal 17.6-9: After 17.- 13x6, 18. 2x9 19-15! keeps the balance , for 19. 10x19 17x10 looks like almost drawn.

BTW pp also knows 15. 5-9 in the trunk game, when Henderson and Burns drew in the 1905 Scottish Ty: 15.- 27-24, 16. 18x27 24-19, 17. 15x24 28x19, 18. 7-11 31x24, 19. 11-16, declared draw... nice ,typical, pitch in these positions...

So all in all, 17.11-15 is doubvious, while 17. 6-9 is better, and keeps the draw in hands.

Other opinions?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

What do you guys think?

Why you don't use diagrams, folks ? This is simple, like - one, two, three ! And fun for all readers and writers

#1. Red to move ...................... #2. Red to move
...

If someone tell me, that this game was played on Internet - I would suspect one or both partners used a program ! The reason is simple - the text of game which schoolboyy posted here - is perfect and strongest run for both sides. White position is more weaker in this line.

I think Clayton Nash (red) played this with Jack Francis (white) in the last USA 2005 National, and Francis drewed it.

Having red, I played with Jack 11-15 22-17 9-14 25-22 8-11 17-13 4-8 ?! 24-20 !? and here I played 15-18 (see diagram #1) As soon as I made this move, Jack said something like "Not good", but I still don't know what he had in mind - not good for me, because I didn't play the strongest 15-19 going to schoolboyy line, or not good for him, because he expected 15-19 and had something prepared

[matthewkooshad]

Alex that is funny about what you said Jack said in that game to you
Do you mind posting your game with Jack? I don't have the 2005 games. I am wondering how you guys played the 15-18.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Do you mind posting your game with Jack?

Hi, Matthew !

Yes, I can post my game with Jack here, but it is not very attractive 15-18 certainly is not the strongest way to play, and red position after this move becomes weaker. I find this unfortunate fact almost immediately after this trade, and decided to clean the board on first available occasion, and take a draw w/o any experiments.

Would you blame me for this ?

A. Moiseyev vs J. Francis
USA National GAYP 2005
Rd. 3, Game 2

11-15 22-17 9-14 25-22 8-11 17-13 4-8 24-20 15-18 22-15 10-19 23-16 12-19 27-23 8-12 23-16 12-19 32-27 3-8 27-23 8-12 23-16 12-19 31-27 11-16 20-11 7-16 29-25 14-18 21-17 16-20 17-14 6-9 13-6 1-17 25-22 18-25 30-14 2-6 27-23 Dr

[matthewkooshad]

I agree with you on the play of that game -- very bland. Thank you for posting it. I didn't understand why you did that 11-16 to trade 20 out; it seemed like you restricted yourself some by doing that. Did you consider the 5-9, 1-5 formation rather than the 11-16 trade? You would still have 11-16 available if 27-23, and it would give you a slight strength IMO.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I agree with you on the play of that game -- very bland. Thank you for posting it. I didn't understand why you did that 11-16 to trade 20 out; it seemed like you restricted yourself some by doing that. Did you consider the 5-9, 1-5 formation rather than the 11-16 trade? You would still have 11-16 available if 27-23, and it would give you a slight strength IMO.

You find a right, important moment in the game, man, congratulations ! Look at diagram. When I played 11-16 here, I saw a safe draw to the end. The plan you propose, 5-9 and 1-5 is interesting, however I didn't like too much everything happened after 27-24 11-15 20-16 7-11 16-7 2-11 26-23 19-26 30-23 etc Looks little bit unsafe for red.

Red bind in double corner may give red some difficulties ... I can't explain you this very well and provide any specific play, just my feelings and intuition. Red pieces are in center, and white can get King behind.

The way I played it still gives red some winnning chances, if white overplay position (not a case in our game - Jack always agree for draw with me at any time during the game or before !).

Red to move

[matthewkooshad]

I like 7-10 as white will has 1 man less on the right side; now, I would continue with 11-15 rather than 1-5 to continue as a hole is presented at 7. I like comparing these ideas Thanks Alex
White to play

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I like 7-10

I like diagram in your post ! Thanks Matthew