BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//British Chess News - ECPv6.18.3//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:http://britishchessnews.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for British Chess News
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20190101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20200417
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20200418
DTSTAMP:20210306T141148Z
CREATED:20200401T120920Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210306T141148Z
UID:3925-1587081600-1587167999@britishchessnews.com
SUMMARY:Birthday of GM Peter Wells (17-iv-1965)
DESCRIPTION:Birthday of GM Peter Kenneth Wells (17-iv-1965) \nHere is his very brief Wikipedia entry \nPeter Wells (seated\, far LHS)\nand from chessgames.com : \n“Peter Kenneth Wells was born in Portsmouth\, England and became a FIDE Master in 1982\, an IM in 1987\, and a GM in 1994. He is also a FIDE Senior Trainer (2015).” \nPeter Wells (between Harry Golombek and Ray Keene) takes part in the obligatory “Staring at the board” posed picture during the 1985 Varsity Match\n[pgn]\n[Event “BCF-ch 86th”]\n[Site “Scarborough”]\n[Date “1999.08.11”]\n[Round “10”]\n[White “Wells\, Peter K”]\n[Black “Ward\, Christopher”]\n[Result “1-0”]\n[ECO “B36”]\n[WhiteElo “2475”]\n[BlackElo “2470”]\n[Annotator “Wells\,P”]\n[PlyCount “81”]\n[EventDate “1999.08.05”]\n[EventType “swiss”]\n[EventRounds “11”]\n[EventCountry “ENG”]\n[SourceTitle “CBM 071 Extra”]\n[Source “ChessBase”]\n[SourceDate “1999.09.14”]\n[SourceVersion “1”]\n[SourceVersionDate “1999.09.14”]\n[SourceQuality “1”] \n{[%evp 0\,81\,19\,29\,55\,19\,46\,14\,24\,16\,13\,18\,24\,30\,17\,19\,2\,20\,27\,18\,-4\,30\,29\,17\,\n17\,38\,43\,46\,55\,26\,32\,16\,25\,21\,7\,14\,14\,42\,30\,-37\,33\,0\,82\,66\,66\,82\,107\,52\,52\,58\,\n39\,72\,87\,40\,82\,-53\,-19\,-68\,-31\,-81\,172\,216\,216\,213\,274\,279\,275\,297\,312\,327\,328\,\n336\,553\,561\,559\,559\,641\,862\,945\,960\,1000\,1334\,1344\,1572]} 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 g6 $5\n{Well\, he certainly got his surprise in first. I half expected 2…Nc6 3 Nc3\ne5 as we had already had in one quick-play game\, or perhaps 2…Nc6 3 Nc3\nNd4!? which seems . I had never seen Chris playing the black side of a Maroczy\nBind before\, although of course in the ‘pure’ Dragon he is a well known\nspecialist.} 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. e4 Nf6 6. Nc3 d6 7. Be2 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bg7\n9. Bg5 O-O 10. Qd2 Be6 11. Rc1 {It is also possible to castle here\, but I\nthink the text and white’s next two prophylactic moves form the most logical\nset-up. White prevents tactical breaks ( notably those involving a quick …b5\n) by solidly bolstering his c4 and e4 pawns. Most importantly since there is a\nhigh probability of a queen exchange on d2 following black’s …Qa5\,there is a\nstrong case for keeping the king in the centre for the ensuing ending ( or\nmore properly perhaps ‘queenless middlegame’ ).} Qa5 12. f3 Rfc8 13. b3 {\n[%csl Yc4\,Ye4][%cal Ga7a6\,Gb7b5]} Kf8 $5 {At the time I was very struck by the\nlogic of this move – black also centralises his king\, and prepares to answer\nalmost any Nd5 which white may care to throw at him by capturing with the\nknight\, without relying on a tactical defence to e7 ( compare the note on 13…\na6. ) Also white has to find a good move\, since in the absence of a weakness\non b6\, there is little mileage in attempting to head for the ending\nimmediately. There are two possible objections to black’s move: 1) White can\ntry to punish it in ‘middle-game’ terms – trying to prove that the king is\nsubstantially more vulnerable on f8 and that this justifies a switch to direct\nattack. This seems in principle a bit doubtful\, although it is the course the\ngame eventually takes. 2) White can find a strong preparatory move for the\nendgame. Since to create play black will have to play …a6 anyway\, he may\nhave committed himself to a move ( 13…Kf8!? ) which while generally useful\,\nis not critical in the particular case. This should be a more serious question!\n} (13… a6 {is the main line. White has two routes to provoke an endgame:} 14.\nNa4 $5 (14. Nd5 {is now generally acknowledged to be less dangerous in view of}\nQxd2+ 15. Kxd2 Nxd5 $5 (15… Bxd5 16. cxd5 $14 Kf8 17. g4 Nd7 18. h4 Bb2 19.\nBh6+ Kg8 20. Rxc8+ Rxc8 21. Be3 Bc3+ 22. Kd1 Nc5 23. h5 Bf6 24. g5 Bg7 25. Bf1\n$5 {[%cal Yh2c2\,Gf1h3\,Yh1h2]} Rc7 26. Rh2 Nd7 27. h6 Bh8 28. Bh3 $16 {1-0\nCifuentes Parada\,R-Monell\,C/Andorra op 1995/EXT 95op (41)}) 16. cxd5 Bd7 17.\nRxc8+ Rxc8 $11 {although the argument does rest upon black’s compensation after\n} 18. Bxe7 $140 Bh6+ (18… Bc3+) 19. Ke1 $8 {Few white players have wanted to\ntest this\, although it is not totally clear what is black’s best course.\nPerhaps} f5 $5 (19… Rc2 20. Bxd6 Bb5 $6 21. Bxb5 axb5 22. Rf1 $14) (19…\nRc1+ 20. Bd1) 20. Bxd6 (20. exf5 Bxf5 21. Bxd6 Bb1 $1 $13 {[%cal Rb1a2\,Ra2d5]})\n20… fxe4 21. Kf2 (21. fxe4 $2 Rc1+ 22. Bd1 Bg4 $17) 21… e3+ 22. Kg3 Rc2\n$132) 14… Qxd2+ (14… Qd8 15. c5 $1 $14) 15. Kxd2 Nd7 (15… Rc6 16. Nc3\nRac8 17. Nd5 Kf8 18. Be3 Nd7 19. h4 $1 {As we shall see\, this generation of\nplay on the king-side is white’s main strategy here.} Bxd5 20. exd5 R6c7 21. h5\nKg8 22. f4 $1 {[%cal Ge2g4]} Nc5 23. Bg4 Ne4+ 24. Kd3 f5 25. Bf3 b5 26. g4\nbxc4+ 27. Rxc4 Rxc4 28. bxc4 Nc5+ 29. Bxc5 $1 Rxc5 30. h6 Bf8 31. Kc3 $16 {\n[%csl Rf8] 1-0 Karpov\,A-Kavalek\,L/Nica (ol) 1974/Inf 17 (45)}) 16. h4 (16. g4\n$5) 16… Kf8 $6 (16… f6 $1 {is the modern approach. One example:} 17. Be3 f5\n18. exf5 gxf5 19. Bd3 Rab8 20. Nc3 Nc5 21. Nd5 Kf7 22. g4 Nxd3 23. Kxd3 b5 $132\n{0-1 Vaisser\,A-Antunes\,A/Tilburg 1994/CBM 44 (39)}) 17. h5 h6 18. Be3 g5 19. g3\n$1 $40 {[%cal Gf3f4]} Rcb8 20. Nc3 b5 21. Nd5 Bxd5 22. cxd5 b4 23. Rc7 Nc5 24.\nBxc5 dxc5 25. f4 Bc3+ 26. Ke3 Rc8 27. Rxc8+ Rxc8 28. e5 {1-0 Psakhis\,L-Pigusov\,\nE/USSR 1980/Inf 31 (41)}) 14. h4 $1 {The appeal of this stage of the game is\nthat it is as yet unclear whether I have opted for strategy 1) or 2). In fact\,\nI have a suspicion it was none too clear to me either. Others fail to convince:\n} (14. Rc2 a6 15. Na4 Qxd2+ 16. Kxd2 Nd7 17. g4 (17. h4 f5 $5) 17… Bd4 18.\nRhc1 Ke8 19. Be3 Bxe3+ 20. Kxe3 {1/2-1/2 Agrest\,E-Andersson\,U/Skelleftea 1999\n(20)}) (14. O-O {Another way to switch to the direct attack approach\, but\nblack’s counterplay on the queenside could come quite quickly.} a6 15. Be3 Rab8\n$6 (15… b5 $1 $132) 16. f4 b5 17. f5 b4 18. fxe6 bxc3 19. Qxc3 Qxa2 20. Bd1\nQa3 21. Bd4 fxe6 22. e5 $40 {1-0 Eising\,J-Westerveld\,W/Amsterdam 1976/MCL.})\n14… a6 {[%csl Rb6] So there we are – this move is critical to black’s\ncounterplay\, despite the potential weakness of b6.} 15. h5 $5 {This probably\nshould be ‘?!’ but it is redeemed because it did provide a high level of\nentertainment. Objectively better\, and in my view fully vindicating 14 h4! is}\n(15. Na4 $1 Qxd2+ (15… Qd8 $14) 16. Kxd2 Nd7 17. h5 {I had now expected} h6\n18. Be3 g5 {considered 19 g3! clearly the way forward\, but in ignorance of\nPsakhis – Pigusov above\, failed to comprehend quite how promising this was.})\n15… Rc5 $1 {The point – suddenly there is no going back. White’s next move\nis just about forced} 16. f4 {[%csl Re1\,Re4] Reluctantly – this weakening of\ne4 seriously adds to black’s counterplay\, and emphasises the discomfort of\nwhite’s king in the middle.} (16. Bxf6 $6 {hardly comes into consideration\, and\n}) (16. hxg6 $2 Rxg5 17. gxh7 (17. b4 Qxb4 18. Qxg5 hxg6 $17 {[%csl Rc4\,Re1]\n[%cal Gg7c3]}) 17… Rh5 $19) 16… b5 $6 {Maybe black in turn underestimates\nhis opponent’s resources.} (16… Rac8 $1 {was much safer\, since after} 17.\nhxg6 {black can capture with the h-pawn\, preparing to answer} hxg6 $1 18. f5 $6\ngxf5 19. Bh6 {with} Bxh6 20. Qxh6+ Ke8 {and with his rook protected the black\nking can run to the queenside.}) 17. hxg6 fxg6 (17… hxg6 18. f5 gxf5 19. Bh6\n$40 {[%csl Ra8] is now strong.}) 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Rxh7 Bg8 {Andrew Martin\, in\nhis entertaining comments on the Championship web site\, here commented: ”\nWhite is attempting a hybrid of the Maroczy Bind\, Yugoslav Attack and the\nLevenfish Variation\, a marriage made in hell”. In fact after 15…Rc5 my\ncourse of action was strictly limited\, and the Levenfish element was\ndefinitely involuntary. Still\, the following sacrifice I was very proud of.\nRetreat would clearly pass the initiative to black\, but after…} 20. e5 $1 {\n[%mdl 640] there is no way for black to avoid ceding good compensation for the\nexchange.} dxe5 (20… Bxe5 $5 21. fxe5 (21. Rxe7 $5 Qd8 $1 $132) 21… Bxh7\n22. exd6 $44) 21. fxe5 Bg5 $1 (21… Bxh7 22. exf6 Kg8 (22… exf6 $2 {[%csl\nRc5]} 23. Qd6+) 23. Qe3 $16 {[%csl Rc5\,Rg8\,Rh7]}) 22. Qxg5 Bxh7 23. Qh4 $1 {\n[%csl Rc5\,Re7\,Rh7][%cal Yh4f2] An important resource which black had\noverlooked.} Kg8 24. Qxe7 Rc7 $8 {[%cal Gc7g7] Here\, sadly in appalling\ntime-trouble my play went to pieces. I had underestimated the extent to which\nblack’s basic defences would be held together by 24…Rc7\, and although the\nposition still favours white it is not easy to prove.} 25. Qd6 Re8 26. Kf2 $5 {\nEven now\, when a little concern for the king would be quite understandable\, my\nmain concern was to bring in the knight. White has two pawns for the exchange\,\nblack’s bishop is out of the play ( although the possibility of …g5 is not\nto be underestimated ) and the dark squares around black’s king are weak.\nStill\, the e-pawn’s status as asset or weakness is still up for grabs\, and the\nwhole thing is not as good as it looks!} (26. b4 $6 Qa3 27. Kd1 Rcc8 28. Nd5\nRcd8 {Simply gives white a new king problem.}) (26. Bf3 $5 bxc4 27. Bd5+ Kh8\n28. b4 Qa3 29. Ne2 Rg7 30. Bxc4 $14) (26. Rc2 $6 g5 $132) 26… Rf7+ 27. Bf3 $2\n$138 {[%mdl 8192] This self-pin is disastrous.} (27. Kg3 $1 {Seems the way to\nconfirm e-pawn as asset. Black’s counter play is greatly curtailed with …bxc4\nno longer a problem.} b4 (27… Qc7 28. Qxc7 Rxc7 29. Nd5 Rf7 30. cxb5 Rxe5 31.\nBc4 $16) 28. Nd5 Qxa2 (28… Rd8 29. Qc6 $1 {[%cal Ye5e8]} (29. Qe6 Qxa2 30.\nRf1 Rdf8 $13) 29… Qxa2 30. e6 $16) 29. e6 Rff8 30. e7 Qxb3+ 31. Kh2 $16)\n27… bxc4 28. e6 Rfe7 (28… Rf6 $5) 29. b4 Qc7 $4 $138 {He who blunders last\nloses.} (29… Qa3 $1 30. Rc2 g5 $1 {[%csl Rc2\,Rc3][%cal Gh7c2] would have\ncompletely swung matters in black’s favour.}) 30. Qxc7 Rxc7 31. Nd5 $18 {\nThe rest presents no technical problems even in high time-trouble.} Rce7 32.\nNxe7+ Rxe7 33. Rxc4 Kg7 34. Rc6 Ra7 35. Be2 a5 36. b5 Ra8 37. Rc7+ Kh6 38. b6\ng5 39. e7 Be4 40. Bf3 Bxf3 41. gxf3 {A great scrap\, albeit marred by the\nconsequence of some mutually shocking clock handling.} 1-0\n[/pgn] \nPeter Wells (second from right) at a Lloyds Bank event.\nGM Peter Wells\nThe Complete Semi-Slav\nPiece Power\nThe Complete Richter-Rauzer\nThe Scotch Game\nWinning with the Trompowsky\nChess Explained : The Queen’s Indian\nGrandmaster Secrets : The Caro-Kann\nDangerous Weapons : Anti-Sicilians\nGM Peter Wells
URL:http://britishchessnews.com/event/birthday-of-gm-peter-kenneth-wells-17-iv-1965/
CATEGORIES:Birthday,Player,Writer
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:http://britishchessnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/JUA3806-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR