From Strawberry Fest 2011

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Here are several interesting moments happened in Humboldt.

Rd1, G1. A. Moiseyev vs C. Nash

White to move.

Here 1. ... 16-12 was a draw but Clay played 1. ... 19-15? Now Kingsrow with 10 pieces ending database shows here a technical win for red after 2. 31-27 and eventually red holds two white mans on 29 and 21 and wins. Instead, after 1. ... 19-15 I played 2. 14-18? allow Clay to drew the game by 2. ... 15-11 3. 18-23 11-7 etc.

But finally Clay made a fatal mistake and after 1. ... 19-15 2. 14-18 played 2. ... 16-11?? After 3. 9-14* he find out that he can't play 3. ... 11-7 because of 4. 14-17 21x14 5. 6-10. Clay played 3. ... 11-8 and I captured a man by 4. 31-26 and eventually won the game.

Rd2. G2. F. Davis vs A. Moiseyev

White to move

I saw this position in my calculations 5-6 moves ago before we get there. Preliminary I planned to play here very powerful (as I thought!) 1. ... 22-17. However when we came here and I looked at it again, it was a great lemon for me to see that after 1. ... 22-17? 2. 19-23*** red wins.

In actual game I played 1. ... 29-25 with eventual draw. After the game was over I asked Frank if he saw this shot. He was very impressed and said "No". However I spent reasonable time before making 29-25 and finally decided that if i play 1. ...22-17 and he find 2. 19-23* - it will be a historical moment and I don't want to be a part of this history !

Rd3, G1. A. Moiseyev vs J. Webster

Red to move

I didn't play it very accurately before but draw with care of was still available there after 2-7, 27-23, 7-10, 23x16, 10x19, 31-27, 6-10, 16-12, 8-11, 27-23, 19-24, 28x19, 11-15, 19-16, 15-18, 23-19, 4-8, 26-22, 18-23, 21-17, 14x21, 22-18, 10-14, 18x9, 5x14, 25-22, 21-25 (or 23-27, 19-15 Draw), 30x21, 14-17, 21x14, 8-11, 16x7 Draw ... Pretty play

Instead 2-7*, I played losing 3-7? and game continued: 27-23, 7-10, 23x16, 10x19, 16-12, 8-11, 12-8, 6-10, 8-3, 11-15, 20-16, 14-18, 16-11, 19-24, 28x19, 15x24, 11-7, 2x11, 3-7, 18-22, 25x18, 10-15, 7x16, 15x22, 26x17, 13x22, 16-19, 24-28, 21-17, 5-9, 19-23, 28-32, 17-13, 9-14, 13-9 White Wins

Rd3, G2. J. Webster vs A. Moiseyev

Red to move

In second game I had a chance to drew the round but ... no cigars ! In this position John played losing 1. 9-14?. Instead, not looking natural 1. 2-7 leaded to draw only. After 1. 9-14 I played 1. ... 22-17? and John drewed the game by 2. 14-18* without much troubles. After the game was over, Clayton Nash demonstrated a pretty win for white. Continue from diagram: 1. 9-14 22-18* 2. 5-9 18-15 3. 2-7 30-25 4. 14-18 21-17 5. 9-14 25-21 and eventualy white develop man on 28 to 16, play 15-11 and and catch a man. Lucky John !

Rd6, G2. D. West vs A. Moiseyev

Red to move

I had a win in this game several moves before but decided to go there thinking win is still secured. In position on diagram Don played 1. 8-12? as I expected, and after 1. ... 16x7 2. 6-10, 14-9 red resigned. However ... instead losing 1. 8-12?, Don can play a pretty 1. 6-10*** with draw. WOW

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Any comments / corrections?

[Ingo_Zachos]

Any comments / corrections?

Yes,Alex.

Plz check the text to the Moiseyev-Nash encounter again.

It seems the diagram is right, as

1. ... 16-12 is indeed a draw, and


1. ... 19-15 ? allows
2. 31-27! winning for Red.

But.....

1. ... 19-15?
2. 14-18(?) 15-11
3. 18-23 leads me puzzled, as 11-17 is not a legal move.

I guess it is

3. ... 11-7
but then the next move is 16-11? , which is a white move, but it is red's turn!!!
A move was omitted. Maybe it is
4. 1-6, but then after 4. ... 16-11, 5. 9-14 11-7 makes no sense again, as there is already a man on 7!

-> Alex, plz, for reasons of accuracy, don't forget to give move numbers.
Else, you won't tell a white from a red move. And if, by chance, you forgot to mention a move, you don't realize it.
By using move numbers, you always have a blunder check for this kind of errors.

Also, it is much easier to read with move numbers and allows a quicker analyses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other analysis where hard to read, without the structure of move numbers, but seem to be accurate.
They are fine specimens for our game.

Especially the Davis-Moiseyev shot after 1. ... 22-17? with 2.19-23 reminded me of Sturges very much!
It shows how important it is to have a sense of dangers lying ahead.
You had it and saw right through it in the critical moment, even if u did not see it in the calculations u did before!

Greetinx from old Europe,

Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

By using move numbers, you always have a blunder check for this kind of errors.

Also, it is much easier to read with move numbers and allows a quicker analyses.

Ingo, many thanks for your comments and suggestions. This makes perfect sense. I made changes to original text and updated it. Please, review and let me know if this is better and meets your expectations.

I am writing a 2nd Sixth volume now (ALL MY GAMES) and I am going to use your suggestion regarding move numbers.

They are fine specimens for our game.

Thanks!

[Palomino]

Alex,

I've only had time to look at the first two positions. I found your analysis of the "Rd2. G2. F. Davis vs A. Moiseyev" position very interesting.

I appreciate your taking the time to share these positions and will return later to look at the others.

Many thanks..."Pal"

[Alex_Moiseyev]

"Rd2. G2. F. Davis vs A. Moiseyev" position very interesting.

Yeah ... In terms of impression and beauties, tactics and shots always dominated on strategy. People like combinations (I am not exception) more than serious deep strategy plans and boring (ha-ha) maneurs.

[tommyc]

I can send Alex a NUMBERED BOARD .........@NO CHARGE ,if that helps the pudding.