The famous story goes that Nimzowitsch, playing in a speed tournament against Sämisch, blundered away a perfectly good game.  Nimzo then stood on his chair and screamed, "Why must I lose to this idiot?"  

Unlike Nimzowitsch, I know that I'm not a chess genius, and I usually feel like screaming, "Why must I be the idiot who loses to other people?"  And loses deservedly, I might add.  

But, like most patzers, I hope to improve my play someday.  My peak USCF rating was 2172, 28 points short of the NM title, and that was more than twenty years ago.  It's been well over a decade since I last touched 2100, and these kids today know so much more than I knew at their age. But hope springs eternal....

I suggested to Maret Thorpe that I annotate every one of my USCF games until I get sick of the exercise.  This necessarily means that I'll be annotating some bad games (which are often good games spoiled by one really bad move).  I ask you indulgence: these are a patzer's notes, not a master's.  If I don't understand something in my own game, please let me know!

In the first round of the Tim Just Winter Open, I played Charles Swan of Whitney Young High School.  I was vaguely aware of Swan's play (and I had had the pleasure of meeting his father at the All Grade Championships in November).  I sized him up: looks like a Rastafarian, but has a mature, solid style.  OK, two can play this game, I thought: I'll bore him to death.  In other words, grind out a technical ending.  This is one low-risk way that experts deal with Class A players, especially with the Black pieces.  Even if the ending is objectively drawn, I shouldn't lose.

As it turns out, I was the grindee, not the grinder.  Because of my gross blunder, Swan only had to find one really good move.  But he found it, and he found many more in the tournament.  He upset three other players, had a fascinating loss to Timur Aliyev (a game I really want to see), and tied for second place in the tournament!

Charles Swan (1820) – Bill Brock (2024)
C50
Tim Just's Winter Open XXV, January 8, 2011 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4!

Black has many good variations to play against 3.Bb5. The Scotch is a good practical choice, but requires a lot of exact knowledge. So why not the Giuoco Pianissimo?

3...Bc5 4.0–0

4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 is the more flexible main move order. (If your intention is to play a closed positional game, there's no need to prematurely reveal your king's permanent home, even if you're 99% sure you'll be castling short.) After the main line, I've struggled to make the game interesting. It's hard to play for a win, and I probably should have lost two games to the young Wisconsin player Thomas Schneider. 5...a6 6.Bb3 Ba7 (In my first game with Schneider, I played 6...d6 7.Nbd2 0–0 8.Nf1 Be6 9.Bg5 Ne7?! I thought this would be simiilar to the Pillsbury line in the Four Knights, but White can target the f5 square with both knights (9...Bxb3 10.axb3 h6 would have been more sensible) 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Ng3 and I was not enamoured with my position, to say the least. Schneider,T-Brock,B/Tim Just's Winter Open 2010) 7.Nbd2 0–0 8.0–0 d6 9.Re1 Be6 10.Nf1 Bxb3 11.axb3 Qd7 12.Be3 Bxe3 13.Nxe3 Rfe8 14.Qc2 Rad8 15.Rad1 Ng4 (15...d5) 16.h3 Nxe3 17.Rxe3 d5 18.exd5 Qxd5 19.Rde1 Re6 20.b4 h6 21.Qe2 Rde8 22.Qd2 Kf8 23.R1e2 f6 24.Re1 Kf7 25.Qc2 Ne7?! (25...f5) 26.d4 Ng6 27.dxe5 Nxe5? 28.Nxe5+ (28.Nd4! R6e7 29.Nf5 would have been a decisive attack) 28...Rxe5 29.Rxe5 Rxe5 30.Rxe5 Qxe5 31.Qd2 Ke7 32.g3 c6 33.Qd3 Qe6 34.Qg6 Qf7 35.Qe4+ Qe6 36.Qg6 Qf7 1/2–1/2 Schneider,T-Brock,B/ US Game/60 2010 Pretty darn boring, no?

4...Nf6 5.d3

The aggressive 5.d4!? fits better with 4.O-O: for example 5...exd4 (5...Bxd4 has become a trendy way to avoid Max Lange theory: 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Bg5 Be6 10.Na3 Qe7 11.c3 Bxc4 12.Bxf6 (12.Nxc4 Ne6 13.Bxf6 Qc5+ 14.Kh1 Qxc4 15.Bxe5 0–0 was Budimir-Blagojevic (not Rod!), Cetinje 2009) 12...gxf6 13.Nxc4 Ne6 14.Ne3 Qc5 15.Qe1 0–0–0 Movsesian-Leko, Moscow 2008) 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 is the Max Lange.

5...d6 6.h3

I'm not crazy about the combination of 5.O-O and 6.h3: this gives Black the opportunity to play ...g5 and ...g4, as in the game. But it's been played before, and it can't be bad.

6...Na5 7.Nbd2 Nxc4

I wanted to play 7...0–0 (hoping that White has no useful waiting moves) However, 8.Nb3 Nxc4 9.Nxc5 dxc5 (After the desperado 9...Nxb2 , the simple 10.Bxb2 gives White the edge.) 10.dxc4 is dead equal.

8.Nxc4 Be6 9.Ne3 =

Right now, the two bishops aren't very meaningful. Maybe later?

9...Qd7

10.a3
Swan criticized this move, suggesting 10.c3 as more useful. He's probably right.

10...a6

I am in love with this bishop and want to keep it on the board as long as possible.

11.Re1
I'm willing to give up my light-squared bishop after 11.Ng5 0–0 12.Nxe6 fxe6 when the pawn on e6 usefully denies squares to the Ne3, Black pressures f2, and dreams of posting the N to f4.

11...h6 12.c3 Ba7 13.Nf1 g5 14.d4

Threatens to trap the Be6. 14.Be3!? is worth attention, just to neutralize the pesky bishop. 14...Bxe3 15.Nxe3 (attacking d5 and f5) 15...0–0–0 After 16.d4!? Bllack looks good with 16...Nxe4! 17.d5 Bxh3 18.gxh3 Qxh3 19.Nd2 Nxd2 20.Qxd2 f5 and the solid pawn phalanx is worth at least a knight. But White could have played more quietly, and should not be getting mated....

14...g4!?
A crude line like 14...0–0–0 15.d5 Bxh3 16.gxh3 g4 doesn't look like enough after 17.N3h2 Rdg8 18.Be3 gxh3+ 19.Kh1.

14...exd4!? frankly did not occur to me: 15.Nxd4 g4 16.Nxe6 Qxe6 17.hxg4 Nxg4 18.Be3 Nxe3 19.Nxe3 0–0–0 with reasonable chances for both sides.

15.d5
15.hxg4 0–0–0!? Black wants to postpone deciding which piece takes on g4. 16.dxe5 Nxg4 17.Be3 (17.Ne3 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 dxe5 19.Qxd7+ (19.Qh5 f6) 19...Rxd7 20.Nf5 Bxf5 21.exf5 f6 22.Be3 Bxe3 23.Rxe3 Rd2³) 17...Nxe3 18.Nxe3 dxe5 19.Qxd7+ Rxd7 20.Nxe5 Rd2 Black's activity fully compensates for the lost pawn.

15...gxf3 16.Qxf3 Bxh3

I wish I had played 16...Qe7 instead: 17.dxe6 fxe6 and Black has two semi-open files on the kingside. The doubled e-pawns are actually strong, as they control many central squares. It's true that White can pawn storm the queenside, but in opposite-side castling races, piece attacks usually are stronger than pawn storms.

17.gxh3

There is a beautiful home on f5 waiting for White's knight.

17...Rg8+ 18.Kh2

And now (thinking that I had misplayed the attack) I hallucinated.

18...0–0–0?? 19.Qxf6

Here's my embarrassing hallucination: 19.Qxf6 Bxf2?? 20.Re2?? (Not that it matters, but 20.Be3 Bxe1 21.Rxe1 Rg6 22.Qf5 Rdg8 23.Qxd7+ Kxd7 24.Re2 c6 looks OK for White; 20.Qxf2 simply wins, of course.) 20...Bg1+! 21.Kh1 Qxh3+ 22.Nh2 Ba7 23.Bd2 Kb8! (to prevent the queen exchange) and Black is not worse.

19...Rg6 20.Qf3 Rdg8 21.Ng3!

One simple winning plan is to prepare Nf5 at the appropriate time. 21...Qb5 Possibly Swan could have played the next few moves more precisely, but hey, he's a piece up!

Should I have tried 21...Bxf2 22.Qxf2 Rxg3 23.Qxg3 Rxg3 24.Kxg3 f5 , perhaps? 25.exf5 Qxf5 and now simply 26.Rg1 prepares a cubbyhole for the king on h2 (the rook will come to g2, and the Bc1 controls the otherwise bothersome f4 square).

22.Be3 Bxe3 23.Qxe3 Qxb2 24.Rab1 Qc2 25.Rec1 Qa2

And now for the star move:

26.Kh1!

Game over! Here I’d been hoping for the cheap trap 26.Qa7 Rxg3! 27.Qxb7+ Kd8.

Another cheap trap is 26.Rg1 Rxg3! (this is why I didn't take the pawn on a3; I had to keep contact with the Rb1). 27.Rxg3 Rxg3 28.Qxg3 Qxb1 29.Qg8+ Kd7 30.Qxf7+ Kd8 looks rather drawish.

26...Qxa3 27.Qa7 b6 28.Ra1 Qb2 29.Qxa6+ Kd8 30.Qa8+

In the post-mortem, one of the kibitzers noted that 30.Nf5 is faster.

30...Ke7 31.Nf5+

With such a knight, White could be a piece down instead of a piece up....

31...Kf6 32.Qa2! Every other move loses, but this move was painfully obvious.

32...Qb5 33.c4 Qd7 34.Qe2 Rg5 35.Rg1 Rxf5

And I finally resigned, several moves too late.

1–0

Sometimes it is enough not to beat yourself with unforced errors to win the game: Charles only had to find 26.Kh1! (semi-difficult) and 32.Qa2! (the only move, but easy) to assure the win. 

So why did I force play in a position that did not call for forcing play?  This lack of patience may be one of my biggest weaknesses.  And why, with plenty of time, didn't I double-check my piece sacrifice.  All I had to do was remember that queens are pieces that can move backwards. 

Did I underestimate my opponent?  Yes and no: I was definitely worried (after my two games with Thomas Schneider) that I'd be giving up another draw to an A player.  But as Albert Chow reminded to me after the game, this is not the worst thing in the world.  And I really did have reasonable chances to make the game interesting with 16....Qe7!?

From my weakie's perspective, the most important thing after a silly loss like this one is to realize that everyone makes similarly horrible oversights (I'm sure I will make many worse ones in future tournament games), and to start the next game fresh without being too self-critical.  We can't eliminate blunders, but we can minimize them.