(33) Jacobs, David G (2113) - Larkins, Larry R (2091)
2007 US Armed Forces Open, Arlington, VA (5)

15 October 2007

This game was played in round five. This was a critical matchup because the winner would likely become the 2007 champion. For Jacobs, it would establish an unprecedented record of winning the US Armed Forces Open four consecutive times bested only by Rudy Tia's All-Army Chess Championship record. Rudy Tia's record is unassailable. I believe he won the Army's event seven consecutive times, of the total 10. I will set the record straight in the next installment of the Game of the Week series. I will, of course, pick a Tia game.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Qd2 0-0 8.f4 c5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.0-0-0 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nb6 12.g4 Bd7 13.g5 Rfc8 14.Ncb5 Nxd4 15.Nxd4 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Rxc4 17.Kb1 a5 18.h4 b5 19.h5 b4 20.g6 h6 21.gxf7+ Qxf7 22.Rdg1 Rf8 23.f5

A very strong move. Jacobs showed me a cute line if black takes on f5. I believe white is on the verge of winning here. So, Larkins wisely opted for complications to create some practical chances by sacrificing the exchange on d4.

23...Rxd4

[23...exf5 24.Rg6!+- White is threatening the devastating e6 or Qxh6. Double threats almost always win games in chess.]

24.Qxd4 Qxf5 25.b3

Black's back rank threat slows white a bit and a "luft" must be created before proceeding with the attack. While necessary, this seems to have given the initiative to black.

25...Rc8

I like this move because it retains the initiative and it buys black time to reposition the light-squared bishop along the e8-h5 diagonal protecting the critical g6-square and attacks the "undefended" pawn on h6 (not by another pawn). Larkins is known to be a hard player to beat. This move gives him practical chances by making it hard for white to prosecute his own agenda. Never give up and keep giving your opponent obstacles to solve over the board. This strategy induces an error on your opponent especially when multiple winning plans exist. Somehow, it is easier for the brain to choose and execute a winning plan when choices are limited to one or two. The abundance of good alternatives can be a bane to the player who possesses them because it can lead to tactical oversights.

26.Rh2 Be8 27.Qe3

Now, it is white's turn to make a threat, which effectively steals the initiative from black.

27...Kh7

Now, both Rf2 and the simpler Qd3 should win for white, but black's previous move provided for an opportunity for white to err with the unsound sac on g7, which white unfortunately fell into.

28.Rxg7+?

White throws away the win and the title. He thought the check on a7 would sufficiently create a mating net for black but overlooked the ...Bf7 reply. Tactical oversights are common mishaps over the board even for strong players like Jacobs. [28.Rf2 Qe4 29.Qxe4+ dxe4 30.Rf8 e3 31.Re1 g5 32.hxg6+ Kg7 33.Rf6 Rc3 34.Rxe6 Bc6 35.Rg1 Be4 36.Re7+ Kg8 37.g7 Rc8 38.Re6 Bxc2+ 39.Ka1 e2 40.Rxh6 Bh7 41.e6 Re8 42.Kb2 e1Q 43.Rxe1 Kxg7 44.Rh5 Bg6 45.Rxa5 ; 28.Qa7 ]

28...Kxg7

Black's trickery turned a losing game into a win and the likelihood of ending Jacobs' streak. Jacobs overlooked that the Qa5 check (The white player was banking on this move for the win - a tactical oversight.) would not amount to anything as black would simply defend by ...Bf7.

29.Rg2+

Jacobs saw the error immediately after he took on g7. I am finishing an article which will be posted on this site about a sure system, which purports to minimize if not eliminate oversights in our games. The fact that Jacobs saw it as he made the capture on g7 proves my theory that these oversights can be seen if we only take the time to find them. Amateurs like us should spend more time on studying tactics than opening theory as most of our games are either lost or won due to tactical oversights. The prevention of oversights should be our primary concern in our chess development until we breach the coveted 2200 ceiling. I argue that one can get to over 2100 simply by reaching playable positions and outplaying opponents in the ensuing middlegame tactics. I did it before and would do it again to serve as proof of my theory. The problem is I lack the discipline to apply the system in a consistent manner in my own games. More discussions on this point will follow shortly.

29...Kh7 30.Rf2 Qg5 31.Qd3+ Kg7 32.Qa6 Rc7 33.Rf1 Rf7 34.Re1 Qg3 35.Qe2 Rf2 36.Qd1 Rg2 37.Rf1 Qg4 38.Qc1 Bxh5 39.Qe3 d4 40.Qc1 Bg6 41.Rf4 Qg5

0-1