Mind Games (The Long Story Behind A Short Draw)

Sometimes chess games are so devoid of content that it is a waste of time to analyze them. My game against Mladen Palac in the first round of the Croatian Team Competition was a case in point. However, the decisions and dilemmas on the psychological level deserve mention. What is more, they may even be understandable to a non-chess player, or a player with very basic knowledge of the game.

In my first game of the Croatian League 2015, I was facing Mladen Palac, the manifold Croatian champion. Although surpassed by Ivan Saric and others, he is still one of the countries' best players and I expected that he would try to win against me, in spite of having the black pieces and the not too high rating difference of 80 points. In addition, his opening repertoire was centered around one of the world's sharpest and at the same time most reliable openings---the Sicilian Najdorf, Garry Kasparov's favorite choice. Nothing else would be better suited for playing for a win with Black.

Struck by a pretty bad cold, my morning preparation was centered around getting enough sleep and energy for the game. When I had recovered a bit, I noted that my White repertoire against the Najdorf was not too convincing. Like against most openings, by the way. I used to play the modest fianchetto move 6. g3 with quite some success, but it does not inspire awe and respect in your opponent and there are many ways Black can equalize. I felt that it was time for something else, a real move, a move with balls: 6. Be3.

Short of time, I took up a suggestion of my teammate Arthur Pijpers in this line. It was a principled, little-explored continuation that would allow me to fight for the advantage in a complex position. Finally, I would play like a real man and not any more avoid the battlefields of opening theory!

This was the plan. And now see the game.

White: Sprenger, Jan Michael (2510) 
Black: Palac, Mladen (2591)

1. e4 c5 The Sicilian defense, Palac' primary choice. 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4: 4. Nd4: Nf6 5. Nc3 a6
 

So far, so good. This is the famous Najdorf variation. Faithful to my preparation, I now played the topical  

6. Be3

Palac was probably a bit surprised because he did not respond immediately. After all, the last time I played this move was in 2003. Then he played

6. ...Ng4.

Palac normally moves the e-pawn in this position and almost never the knight. After this sortie White has two options. He can play the principled and complex 7. Bg5, a line where one has to know what one is doing. I didn't. Or he can choose the lazy option and retract to c1. Guess what I did.

7. Bc1

and now, also Palac retreated his knight with

 7. ...Nf6

There are other moves available to Black, e.g., 7. ...Nc6, but this one enjoys the most solid reputation. Basically, it asks White what he is up to.

The same position has now occurred for the second time. Both sides have withdrawn their pieces to their former squares. If this sequence of moves were repeated once more, any player could claim a draw. That would certainly not be a very manly finish, and I felt reluctant to accept such a course of events.

But what were the alternatives?

I could play 8. f3 which might transpose into my preparation. But Black has the extra option 8. ...Qb6 which I did not prepare and do not know much about. Like in the case of 7. Bg5, playing a complex position based on nothing more than intuition did not seem attractive to me. Would Palac go for this? Who knows. Perhaps not, but then, what is the point of 6. ...Ng4? So I dropped that option. Not a great display of balls, but the decision is too rational to be called coward.

Then I could play my normal 8. g3. However, preparing a line and then playing something else would mean that I had wasted my preparation. I did not like the taste of psychological defeat either. Once you decide to play a certain line, you have to stick to it.

Would Palac aim for a draw if I played 8. Be3? That was an interesting question. He was a player in his forties, strong, experienced, and with good openings. He had no reason to assume that I had found a refutation of what he would normally play. First, such a refutation would most probably not exist, second, his understanding of the resulting positions was arguably greater than mine; and there was a chance that he was already familiar with whatever I had prepared. On the other hand, experienced ex-Yugoslav players are in general not known for their fighting spirit. Palac, however, was not as bad in this respect as several others. Moreover, I was not the player that he should be afraid of.

I judged that he just wanted to lure me into playing my normal 6./8. g3, for which he had certainly prepared a continuation which ensured comfortable equality. He was just trying to make me nervous by the repetition of moves, since it is usually White who has the moral duty to avoid an early draw. So I decided to call the bluff and played 8. Be3.

The disadvantage of this decision was that I could not avoid draw any more if he was really up for that. But wouldn't it a bit silly to call the arbiter to claim a draw by repetition, just minutes after the Croatian anthem was sounding through the hall, conjuring the beauty of the country and the glory of the Elders? I expected his normal 8. ...e5 and a hard-fought game. However, when Palac replied à tempo

8. ...Ng4

I already had a sense that my working day could be very short.

9. Bc1

What else? Palac plays the Najdorf with both colors and his knowledge in the 7./9. Bg5 line would be clearly superior to mine.

At this point, Palac's eyes started to wander through the tournament hall, evidently in search of an arbiter. This was even worse than I expected. I thought that if he was not willing to enter his normal lines, he would play 9. ...Nf6, putting me into the same dilemma that I was in two moves before. In particular, it would have been ME who would have the humiliating task to claim a draw... or to deviate from my preparation, with all the dangers that this decision could possibly have. But at least I could contemplate my options and see whether I had the guts to play on.

The arbiter approached the table. Palac explained that he was going to set up a threefold repetition of moves with 9. ...Nf6. We shook hands and signed the score sheet. Draw. I realized that it was me whose bluff had been called. A game without winners, without satisfaction. But at least half a point.