2013 OH Round 3 with Moiseyev 9-13 24-19 11-16

Discussion and analysis about a full game.

2013 OH Round 3 with Moiseyev 9-13 24-19 11-16

Postby Michael Holmes on Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:16 pm

9-15-2013
[Event "2013 OH 9-13 24-19 11-16"] [Black "Michael Holmes"][White "Alex Moiseyev"][Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. 9-13 24-19 2. 11-16 22-18 3. 8-11 25-22 {A} 4. 4-8 {B} 29-25 {C} 5. 16-20 {D} 18-15 {E} 6. 11x18 23x14 7. 10x17 21x14 8. 6-10 {F} 25-21 9. 10x17 21x14 10. 1-6 30-25 11. 6-10 25-21 12. 10x17 21x14 13. 2-6 19-15 {G} 14. 7-10 14x7 15. 3x19 22-17 16. 13x22 26x17 17. 5-9 27-24 18. 20x27 31x15 19. 9-13 17-14 20. 13-17 1/2-1/2


A) After the game Moiseyev said that as soon as I played 4-8 he remembered that I had sent him some good play on it years ago and that he should not have played 25-22 against me.
B) 5-9 or 16-20 are usual here.
C) If white plays 30-25 here then red gets in my 6-9 cook from 9-13 22-18 12-16. This 29-25 stops the 6-9.
D) But the computer shows that red has the 10-15 option here. I haven’t check the play though.
E) Used perhaps to avoid standard published play. See variation 1 for 18-14.
F) Seems to me that 8-11 22-18 11-15 is very weak for red.
G) I would have played 27-23 here but it is hard to ever argue that the former world champion should have played better.

Variation 1
18-14 {A} 6. 10x17 21x14 7. 6-10 25-21 8. 10x17 21x14 9. 11-16 {B}22-18 10. 13-17 14-9 11. 5x14 18x9 12. 8-11 {C} 9-5 13. 2-6 {D} 26-22 14. 17x26 31x22 15. 7-10 30-25 16. 11-15 28-24 17. 6-9 22-17 18. 9-14 17-13 19. 14-17 13-9 20. 17-21 25-22 21. 21-25 9-6 22. 25-30 6-2 23. 10-14 19x10 24. 30-26 23-18 25. 14x23 27x18 26. 20x27 32x23 27. 26x19 {Drawn.}

A) This is probably the more natural attack.
B) This is a star move. Red does not have many options after this.
C) 7-10 will not survive the 23-18 attack.
D) 7-10 still loses.

More play will be shown later on the 6-9 move mentioned.

This is play that Richard Beckwith and I put in the famous 2005 Ohio book.

Annotated by Michael Holmes with exceptions noted (rcb = note by R. Beckwith, diagrams also by rcb)

2005 OH rd6 gm1 9-13 24-19 11-16 Neil Wenberg vs. Richard Beckwith White Win Annotated by Michael Holmes

1. 9-13 24-19 2. 11-16 22-18 {Var. 4} 3. 8-11 26-22 {A} 4. 4-8 30-26 5. 16-20 {B } 22-17 6. 13x22 26x17 7. 10-14 {C} 17x10 8. 6x22 {D} 25x18 9. 2-6 {E} 29-25 10. 6-10 {F} 18-14 {G} 11. 10x17 21x14 12. 1-6 {H} 23-18 {I} 13. 6-10 25-21 14. 10x17 21x14 15. 11-16 19-15 16. 16-19 15-10 17. 5-9 14x5 18. 7x23 27x18 19. 19-23 White Wins

A) See variation 1 for 18-14

B) or my 6-9 cook move which has won games on occasion. See variation 5

C) 11-16 is better but this still draws

D) 7-14 is more common, but still critical. See mini-compilation in ACFB #274 p 7, 8. rcb

E) 7-10 is better.

F) 6-9 may draw but doubtful. This is an absolute loss

G) allows a draw. 31-26 wins after 11-16 then 28-24 and if 5-9 then 26-22

H) loses. 11-16 draws

I) an important build up that black cannot defend against!

Variation 1
18-14 4. 10x17 21x14 5. 6-10 {A} 25-21 6. 10x17 21x14 7. 1-6 {B} 29-25 8. 6-10 {C} 25-21 9. 10x17 21x14 10. 2-6 27-24 {D} 11. 16-20 23-18 12. 20x27 32x23 13. 13-17 28-24 14. 6-9 24-20 15. 4-8 19-15 16. 12-16 15-10 17. 17-21 10-6 18. 16-19 23x16 19. 8-12 6-2 20. 12x19 2-6 21. 9-13 26-23 22. 19x26 31x22 . 2004 Barbados National Barker vs. Michael Holmes White Wins

A) named a loss in BC and until now, April 2005, I thought it was a loss but KingsRow rates it weak but it still may lose! as the computer generated book play does not go far. It certainly is too weak to play against a master. See Variation 2 for the correct 6-9 with important play!

B) This or 2-6 draws according to KingsRow 1.14s April 2005

C) better than 4-8 but both given to draw in KingsRow 1.14s, but 4-8 almost loses.

D) and now there is no more computer generated book play in KingsRow 1.14s and the database at less than 2 minutes is rating this a loss.

Variation 2
6-9 26-22 6. 9x18 22x8 7. 4x11 25-22 8. 7-10 29-25 9. 3-7 31-26 {A}10. 11-15 27-24 11. 5-9 {B} 24-20 12. 15x24 28x19 13. 9-14 20x11 14. 7x16 22-18 15. 1-5 18x9 16. 5x14 25-22 17. 14-17 32-28 18. 2-6 {C} 28-24 19. 16-20 23-18 20. 20x27 18-14 21. 27-31 14x7 22. 6-10 26-23 23. 17x26 Drawn. Holmes Manuscript.
White to play (note A)

A) See diagram prior to 31-26. I thought this was one of my cooks but checking the Checker Archives it can be found as early as 1907 in our U.S. National. See variation 3 for the natural and standard 22-18 move.

B) 7-11 {loses. 5-9 or 1-6 draw} 24-20 12. 15x24 28x19 13. 5-9 23-18 14. 16x23 26x19 15. 9-14 18x9 16. 1-5 9-6 17. 2x9 22-18 18. 12-16 19x12 19. 10-14 12-8 20. 14x23 8-3 21. 11-15 3-7 22. 15-19 25-22 23. 19-24 7-10 24. 24-27 10-15 25. 27-31 22-18 26. 9-14 18x9 27. 5x14 20-16 28. 14-17 16-11 White Wins W.G. Hill vs. L.S. Head 1907 U.S. National

C) 2-7 23-18 19. 16x23 26x19 20. 17x26 30x23 21. 7-11 28-24 22. 13-17 18-14 23. 11-16 14x7 24. 16-20 Drawn Asa Long vs. H. Freyer 1937 U.S. National, Martins Ferry, OH

Variation 3 (off Var. 2)
22-18 10. 10-14 18x9 11. 5x14 31-26 {A}12. 1-6{B} 26-22 {C}13. 6-10 {D}22-18 14. 14-17 25-21 15. 17-22 28-24 16. 16-20 18-14 17. 10x17 21x14 18. 11-16 19-15 19. 16-19 23x16 20. 12x28 15-10 21. 7-11 Drawn Computer play.

A) Moiseyev showed this to me and Dr. Beckwith years ago. Standard play is 25-22 12. 7-10 28-24 13. 16-20 22-18 14. 1-5 18x9 15. 5x14 to draw

B) Playing against Chuck Freeman later that same year he played this move instead of the 2-6 line that Moiseyev showed us. Although the computer rates both of them as even, I consider this line the better one. (mhh) Fortman gave play on 1-6, 2-6 and 7-10 in his mini-compilation in ACFB #280 p. 7, 8. rcb

C) If 25-22 then black plays 7-10 {Correct against 25-22} 22-18 {27-24 or 28-24 are good options too.} 14. 13-17 18x9 15. 6x13 23-18 16. 16x23 26x19 17. 17-22 28-24 18. 13-17 24-20 19. 17-21 27-24 20. 2-6 32-28 21. 22-26 {and an ending from the Lassie} 30x23 22. 6-9 18-14 23. 9x27 19-16 Drawn 1999 ID ty. Les Balderson vs Jim Loy

D) Not 14-17 as white has 19-15 to a very powerful position

Variation 4
28-24 3. 16-20 32-28{A} 4. 8-11 19-16 5. 12x19 24x8 6. 4x11 23-19 7. 10-14 {B} 26-23 {C } 8. 6-10 30-26 9. 5-9 19-15 10. 10x19 23x16 11. 2-6 {D } 16-12 {E} 12. 6-10 22-17 13. 13x22 26x17 14. 10-15 17x10 15. 7x14 25-22 16. 9-13 To a winning black position. 2004 Barbados National Michael Holmes vs. Barker

A) A transposition from 9-13 23-19 11-16

B) A favorite of mine...And now I become the attacker although KingsRow 1.14s gives 6-9 and 5-9 as better and I find no previous play on 10-14. Solid Checkers gives 6-9 and the games I find in the Checkers Archive only have 6-9 & 5-9

C) Although this is an even move KingsRow 1.14s has 19-15 as favoring white.

D) The key move and the power of Black's formation

E) loses. Everything appears weak on the surface but 27-23 is still even and 22-17 13-22 and 26-10 is even but it takes too many pieces off the board, and my opponent needs a win to draw the round or lose all his points

Variation 5
6-9 {A} 28-24 6. 16-20 18-15 7. 11-18 22-6 8. 1-10 32-28 9. 10-14 25-22 10. 14-17 21-14 11. 9-25 29-22 12. 5-9 23-18 13. 7-11 26-23 14. 11-16 19-15 15. 16-19 23-16 16. 12-19 {B} drawn. Rich Beckwith vs. C. W. Nuss in a friendly mail match 2004-2005

A) My defense is right out of the Michael Holmes cookbook (through the end of the game). See upcoming Supplementary Play section for more on this 6-9. rcb

B) If 15-11 trade, black had 9-14 & 14-18 to draw. rcb


2005 OH rd6 gm2 9-13 24-19 11-16 Richard Beckwith vs Neil Wenberg black win Annotated by Michael Holmes

1. 9-13 24-19 2. 11-16 22-18 3. 8-11 26-22 4. 4-8 30-26 5. 16-20 {A.} 22-17 6. 13x22 26x17 7. 11-16 17-14 8. 10x17 21x14 9. 6-10 25-21 10. 10x17 21x14 11. 2-6 {B } 29-25 12. 6-9 25-21 13. 1-6 28-24 {C.} 14. 8-11 {D } 19-15 15. 16-19 15x8 16. 19x26 31x22 17. 12-16 8-4 {E.} 18. 7-11 22-17 19. 9-13 18-15 {F } 20. 11x18 14-9 21.13x22 9x2 22. 22-26 2-6 23. 26-31 {G.}

A) Dr. Beckwith was well aware of my 6-9 move as he sent me more analysis and although he won this game he went into several loses first. See the Supplementary Play annotated by Dr. Beckwith.

B) loses. 7-10 is the pp draw {see game 4 of the Cowie-Zuber match in this book – rcb}

C) allows a draw. 21-17 wins and while black steals the piece with 9-13 white sets up the 2 for 1 with 19-15 with a winning ending

D) back into a loss. 6-10 draws

E) this allows a draw. 22-17 wins after x 17-13 7-11 21-17 11-15 xx and white sets black up for a shot

F) or 24-19

G) white resigned here but this is not a difficult draw -- just advance the piece on 21 and take the shot if black trades white out of his double corner


The following supplementary play was annotated by Dr. Beckwith and sent to me years ago after I had shared the 6-9 move with him. Dr. Beckwith produced more play on the 6-9 variation and then sent me this compilation.

Supplementary Play – “Holmes Defense”

9-13, 22-18, 12-16, 24-19, 8-12, 26-22, 4-8 (N), 30-26, 6-9!(O), 18-15 (Var. 1,2),11-18, 22-6, 1-10, 21-17 (white better; P, Q), 13-22, 25-18, 16-20 (R), 18-15 (S), 10-14, 26-22, 14-18, 23-14, 9-25, 29-22, 2-6, 27-24, 20-27, 31-24, 5-9, 32-27, 9-14, 27-23, 7-10, 24-20, 3-7, 22-18, 14-17, 20-16, 17-22, 28-24, 22-26, 24-20, 26-31, 16-11, 7-16, 20-4, 12-16 draw. rcb

(N) The upcoming defense works best with 16-20 held back. If 16-20 is played instead, then 30-26, 6-9 and now white has more attacking options with 18-14 or 18-15. Of course, black can still play 4-8 (instead of 6-9) and into the Jack Cox lines after 22-17.

(O) Shown to me by Michael Holmes (although K. Albrecht mentioned to me that someone has explored this before, but I don’t know of any pp) and is alternative to bypass the Jack Cox variations after 16-20 (as in above Wenberg-Beckwith games, and Cowie-Zuber Game #4). Opening up a hole on square 6 seems bad at first, but position is quite sound. See diagram.
White to play

This position also arises from 9-13 24-19 11-16 22-18 8-11 26-22 4-8 30-26 then the 6-9.
Another run-up (permitting white some scope) is 9-13 22-18 12-16 25-22 8-12 (16-20 also playable) 30-25 (or 24-20 10-15, SC trunk; or 29-25 16-20, SC, V. 24) 4-8 24-19 6-9 same as diagrammed. But white has option of 24-20 (instead of 24-19) 16-19 23x16 12x19 27-23 then there are 3 ways to continue:

• 8-12 23x16 12x19 18-15 11x18 22x15 13-17* 21x14 10x17 25-21 6-9 21x14
9x18 32-27 1-6* draw, Beattie-Smith, 1882, although Beattie later won.

• 5-9 23x16 10-14 18-15 11x18 22x15 7-11 16x7 2x18 Kingsrow book

• 10-15 (perhaps more difficult) 23x16 8-12 32-27 12x19 27-23 5-9 23x16 6-10 16-12 10-14 26-23 13. 15-19 23x16 14x23 22-18 7-10 transposed pp man-down draw, rcb

(P) 26-22, 8-11, 22-17, 13-22, 25-18, 9-13, 18-14, 10-17, 21-14, 7-10, 14-7, 3-10, 29-25, 13-17, 25-22. rcb

(Q) 25-22 (black now a hair better), 8-11, 29-25, 9-14, 22-18, 16-20, 18-9, 5-14, 25-22, 11-15, 22-17. rcb

(R) 8-11 is very weak after 27-24, 10-15 (9-14 loses), 19-10, 7-14, 26-22, 3-7, 24-19

(S) 29-25 allows an even game after 8-11, 26-22, 9-14.

Var. 1

28-24(a), 16-20, 18-15, 11-18, 22-6, 1-10, 32-28 (b), 10-14, 25-22 (c,d), 14-17, XX, 5-9, 23-18, 7-11, 26-23, 11-16, 19-15, 16-19, 23-16, 12-19, 15-11, 8-15, 18-11, 9-14, 24-15, 14-18 draw (e) (Holmes)

(a) Seems natural enough, but appears to provide simpler draw lines for black.
(b) 21-17, X, 9-14, 26-22, 8-11, 23-18 to draw (Holmes)
(c) 19-16, 12-19, 24-15, 2-6, 26-22, 14-18, X, 22-17, 13-22, 15-10 shot to draw. rcb
(d) 19-15, 12-16, 15-10, 14-18, X, 25-22 draw rcb
(e) I used Michael’s line here against C. W. Nuss, as mentioned in V. 5 of the first game presented in this section. rcb.

Var. 2
22-17 (a), 13-22, 26-17, 10-14, 17-10, 7-14, 28-24, 16-20, 19-15 (b), 1-6, 31-26, 9-13, 18-9, 5-14, 26-22, 11-18, 22-15, 13-17, 15-11, 18-15, 23-18, 15-22 draw rcb

(a) This “Jack Cox” trade idea is ineffective here and gives black some advantage.
(b) 25-22, 11-16, 31-26, 2-6, 29-25, 3-7, 32-28, 7-10, 22-17, 10-15 to a draw rcb
***
User avatar
Michael Holmes
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Fort Knox, KY

Return to Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

class=