1. d2-d4 d7-d5 2. Ng1-f3 (WA)b8-d6 3. e2-e3 (FAD)c8-c6 4. Nb1-c3 a7-a6 5. Nf3-e5 (FAD)c6-e6 6. Bf1-e2 f7-f6 7. Ne5-d3 g7-g6 8. 0-0 (NB)d8-f7 9. f2-f4 f6-f5 10. Nd3-e5 (NB)f7-h6 11. Nc3-a4 (WA)d6-c6 12. Ne5:c6 (FAD)e6:c6 13. Na4-c5 (WA)g8-e6 14. b2-b3 O-O-O 15. a2-a4 (FAD)f8-g7 16. Bc1-a3 g7-g5 17. Ra1-c1 (WA)e6-g4 18. Be2:g4 (NB)h6:g4 19. Qd1-d2 (BD)h8-h6 20. Ba3-b2 b7-b6 21. Nc5-d3 (BD)h6-h4 22. g2-g3 (BD)c8-e6! 23. Resigns!
W: White's comments look like this
B: and Black's look like this; you see we have a W: or a B: at the start of an indented paragraph.
Also, in the notes, the Clobberer piece abbbreviations are parenthesized because it looks ugly to write "WAg1-e3" and I hope the parentheses make it easier to read, if not less ugly.
Note to 11...(WA)d6-c6
B: j'adoube (FAD)e6-e4 12. Nc5 (WA)g8-e6 13. N:e4
The other line was inconsistent with what I was trying to do; and since I let myself get pushed around so much for the sake of it, I need to stick with it.
Note to 14...O-O-O Remember, this puts the K on b8 and BD on c8.
Note to 15...(FAD)f8-g7 (FAD)f8-f6 was slightly better.
Note to 18. Be2:g4
W: All of a sudden, I don't like this position!
I think I've been too slow on the Queenside, and underestimated your play on the Kingside.
B: Unfortunately for me, I can't avoid offering the trade of Queenish pieces. Fortunately for me, there's a chance you'll decline, and try to keep your Q. (I think I get to your King in that case.)
Yes, I think 15. a4 and 16. Ba3 improved my chances, but I also think that things weren't so bad for me after O-O-O (Nc5:e6 before O-O-O was worth looking at); so maybe 11. Na4 was too time-consuming and the usual 11. g2-g4 would have been the right thing.
Note to 23. Resigns In response to "21...(BD)h6-h4 if 22. g3 (BD)c8-e6(!)", White resigns and says:
22. g3 (BD)c8-e6 23. gh (NB)g4-h3+ 24. Kh1 (BD)e6-e4+ 25. Qg2 (BD)e4:g2 mate 22. g3 (BD)c8-e6 23. Ne1 (BD)e6-e4 24. Kg2 (NB)g4:h2+ 25. Kh1 (NB)h2:g3+ 26. Kg1 (BD)h4-h2 mate 22. g3 (BD)c8-e6 23. Nf2 (NB)g4-f3 mate 22. h3 (NB)g4-h2+ 23. Kh1 (NB)h2-g3+ 24. Kg1 (BD)h4-h2 mate 22. Rf3 (NB)g4:h2+ 23. Kh1 g4 24. Rf2 (NB)h2-g3+ 25. Kg1 (BD)h4-h2 mate
W: Wow! Now we know what a winning Clobberers position looks like - lots of weak squares along the diagonals, and the Rooks too awkwardly positioned to defend.
I thought I stood better after each opening, though. Looking at this one in retrospect, 9. f4 might have been weak; I underestimated the ability of the Clobberers to take advantage of weak squares, thinking you wouldn't have a piece to put on e4 that you'd be willing to trade against one of my weaker pieces. Also, I should have paid more attention to your Kingside attack, so I wouldn't have to surrender my white squared Bishop (eg play g3 earlier). Also, I should have developed my Queenside attack quicker (eg b4, a4, etc). I still think I had the right idea for opening strategy - close things up earlier until FIDEs (esp Rooks) finish development, then open up carefully for the Rooks (but not diagonals for your BDs).
B: Perhaps 3...(FAD)c8-e6 was better, and perhaps 4. Nc3 was not correct after all because it blocked your C pawn.
As a long-time Nimzovich fan, I'm not ashamed to play ...f6 and follow it with ...f5; if I play f5 first, I allow f2-f3 and e3-e4.
9. f4 can't really be bad when it leads to 10. Ne5; but trading that N off with 12. Ne5:c6 is bad, and therefore 11. Na4 must have been wrong.
Vladimir Roytman is a USCF National Master.