NCA Best Game Prize 2013-14
Steve Burke
Having volunteered to coordinate the Best Game Prize again, I found (on checking my own games) that I had actually got a couple this year that might just be good enough.
I was a little sad that only two other entries arrived. Maybe chess players are all too modest? Although I do realise that many wins are “spoiled” by the opponent being too cooperative! But still there must be more good games around – maybe next year…
Anyway, I was obviously unable to judge the competition myself this time, so I looked for a strong player who wouldn’t have seen any of the games “live” and Andrew Walker was the obvious candidate.
His preference is to judge the games completely blind, so he got only the moves with no other details, and without computer analysis. His comments were as follows:-
"OK, a select group, and higher average quality than we've seen in some other years.
Games 2 (Dunworth – Williams) and 3 (Burke – Allott) can be eliminated.
Game 2 is interesting, but Black gave too much help; he/she missed ... Nd5 [for which they can't really be blamed], but ... Rd1+ was unnecessary and over-optimistic. It was no doubt a bit tense and Black was hoping to get lots of pieces and pawns into the attack, but ... a4 turned out to be too slow. A two-move attack doesn't really make a Best Game! If Black had won, it might have been a stronger candidate?
Game 3 is an efficient thrash, but Black contrived to lose material on a regular basis; that too doesn't make a Best Game.
That leaves Games 1 (Swain – Myers) and 4 (Thompson – Burke).
Game 1 features a well-constructed attack. Black's defence wasn't quite the best, but he/she was going to lose anyway by the time it mattered.
Game 4 was no doubt going Black's way when White tried d4; it would have been interesting to see what Black intended -- perhaps ... Nh6 followed by f5? If Black hadn't had ... Bd5, White's attack would have been very dangerous. As it was, it was a bit of a ding-dong, and Black had to find some good moves. White's attack was more dangerous than it looks at first sight, especially if you just see the crunch at the end. [Eg, 32 ... bxa5? 33 b4! completely turns the tables.]
I'm going to award the prize to game 4, primarily because White made a game of it, whereas in game 1 Black was somewhat rolled over. But game 1 is also to be commended. Annotations should be interesting!"
I’d like to thank Andrew for his efforts in judging this, and for picking my game on the 20th anniversary of the only other time I’ve won this prize!
I’d also like to thank my opponent, Brian, for playing the enterprising 24.d4!? without which this prize would probably have gone elsewhere.
I have analysed all the games deeply, with the aid of my ChessBase database and Houdini 4, and they will be on the website soon. I think all the games are interesting and are worth taking a look at.