Congress 2022 - an NZ Championship disaster

Classical - 18th seed - FIDE rating: 1637, NZCF rating: 1986
Results - 19th=, 3.5/9, +3 =1 -5, FIDE performance rating = 1803, rating gain 28 (k=40)

ROUND 1: CM Felix Xie (2166) vs Josh Langford (1637) 1-0

Going into this round, I had spent quite a lot of time preparing against Felix’s Trompowsky, something that he had consistently been playing online. However, he surprised me by playing the Catalan, an opening that I hadn’t prepared for in ages. I played the open catalan with 4...dxc4 and 5...c5, but as it turns out my lack of knowledge and positional understanding in the opening killed me extremely quickly. 6.Qa4+ is a sideline that I have never looked at before, and so I almost instantly made a blunder with 8...Qa5+??, a move which traps my knight on the side of the board. I tried to complicate the game a little bit, but Felix quickly stabilised and seized a completely winning position and I was forced to resign after just 16 moves. Not a terrific start to the tournament, but certainly a lesson in preparation and exposed a hole in my black repertoire.

“Little joshy was so ez to clappy” - Felix Xie after the game

ROUND 2: Josh Langford (1637) vs Vaclav Fisher (0) 1-0

After seeing Vaclav’s disastrous round 1 game, I went into this game feeling quite confident despite having done no preparation. I played my usual and trustworthy Scotch Gambit, an opening which works great against lower rated opponents due to the vast number of traps. Vaclav surprised me with 4...h6?!, a move that prevents Ng5, but is unnecessary as I would’ve met 4...Nf6 with 5.e5!, seizing the initiative and bringing the game into very familiar territory for me. Vaclav blunders with 6...Ng4??, which wins me a piece after the simple 7.h3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Re1. Vaclav soon makes his situation worse with 10...f6?, allowing 11.Qh5+ and an absolute disaster for Vaclav, who soon gets mated on the 20th move after getting his king chased around the board.

ROUND 3: Edward Lee (1974) vs Josh Langford (1637) 0-1

I could barely find any information about Edward going into this game, just that he had beaten Karpov in a simul at 14 (https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068271), and a game of his in the Fantasy caro-kann, buried deep in the NZ database. I was told by Tim Ha before the game that he was a notorious attacker, something which he definitely proved in this game. Since I had spent the previous night watching movies rather than preparing, I had gone into this game with nothing but a model fantasy caro-kann game in mind, which actually turned out to be a massive help.
The game starts off with a normal, mainline Fantasy caro-kann which I had expected. I played the most natural moves up until 14...Rfd8, which I immediately corrected with 15...Re8. I had originally intended on keeping my a8 rook on the a-file, but after 15.Rae1, my a8 rook was practically useless, as Edward was never going to open up the a-file with axb5. Edward soon surprised me with the unusual pawn break 17.c4?!, which weakens the d4 pawn and allows me to get a much superior position with 17...bxa4! 18.Qxa4 exd4. However, I had completely missed Edward’s follow up: 19.c5!, sacrificing a pawn to open up the position, and to start an attack. I misjudged the position and played 19...Bxc5?, which still keeps an advantage, but 19...Bf4! kills basically all of Edward’s counterplay, and stops any future attacking prospects. After 19...Bxc5 I expected 20.Rc1, which I thought regained his two pawn deficit, but my position is still simply much better after 20.Rc1 Bf8 21.Rxc6 Qf4!, and e4 is falling. So instead Edward plays 20.e5!, opening up his LSB and preparing for a Greek gift, which was extremely scary to face otb.
Soon enough, 21.Bxh7+?! is played. While it is a dubious move, it was a great practical choice as black only has one defence, and is very hard to spot under time pressure. Luckily, after 21...Kxh7 22.Ng5+ Kg8 23. Qc2 I spotted the only defence: 23...d3!! followed by 24. Qxd3 Nf8!, sacrificing a pawn to attack the queen with tempo, which halts white’s attack entirely. Eventually the position settles down where I’m a full piece up, and a satisfying criss-cross mate finishes the game in a good fashion.

ROUND 4: Josh Langford (1637) vs FM Stephen Lukey (2141) 0-1

This is probably the most painful game of the whole tournament, as I got swindled from a piece up in a completely winning (+7) position. Going into this game, Lukey had pretty consistently played the Elephant gambit online, while also playing every Sicilian variation and quite a few French variations. Michael had predicted that Lukey would play the Sicilian against me since I was a much lower rated player, and he wanted a quick win. However, it was impossible to predict which Sicillian variation Lukey would choose.
To no surprise, Lukey played the Sicilian, Sveshnikov variation. This was an opening I was quite experienced in, and had prepared for a few times in the past, so I was happy to see it. I played a setup I have used on many occasions, with 11.c4, 13.g3 and 14.h4, the point of which is to completely restrict Lukey’s DSB. Lukey seemed to be inexperienced with this position, as he moved his a8 rook three times giving me time to exploit his dark-square weaknesses with 21.Qe3!, intending 22. Qh6 and h5-h6 with an attack to follow. Very quickly my attack was gaining initiative, but overlooked an opportunity for Lukey to gain a counterattack and terminate quite a lot of my activity. Lukey’s opportunity was after 25.Rh1?? Rxg6 26.Qh5 f4!, locking in my LSB and putting pressure on g3, an idea which he pointed out to me in the post-game analysis. Better was 25.exf5!, opening up my LSB, preventing f4 and giving me a very comfortable position. Instead Lukey allowed me to do the exf5 idea, just a few moves later, and my LSB just came to life. After 29...Rh6??, the power of my LSB becomes clear, as Lukey can’t avoid losing a piece after 31.Bxh1, with the threat of 32.Nb6 and 32.Nxf5.
At this point we were both very low on time, and despite me being a piece up, I handled the counterattack quite poorly and my position became a shambles. 32...Qd8! was a great attempt from Lukey, as after 33.Qxc6 Bxe3! 34.fxe3 Qg5!, despite my position being completely winning, I have two glaring weaknesses on g3 and e3 which I couldn’t work out how to solve in time. 36.Qf3 Rf7 37.Nd5? was a step in the wrong direction, since now I only have one possible try for an advantage after 37...Be6!, which is 38.Nf4!!, giving back the piece but obtaining a winning position. Instead of 37.Nd5?, I missed the much simpler 37.Rf1!, with the idea of meeting 37...Be6 with 38.Qa8+!, and white is completely winning with no issues at all. After 37...Be6, I slipped up again with 38.Qe2??, dropping the exchange after 38...Bg4 and giving Lukey a completely winning position, which he converted with ease. Certainly a tough and tilting game, and the aftermath of my anger is shown in my next few disastrous games.

ROUND 5: CM David Cilia-Vincenti (2074) vs Josh Langford (1637) 1-0

Going into this game I saw that David had been consistently playing the Botvinnik English, an annoying opening which I used to play as white a while ago. The reason I stopped playing it was when I was paired against a computer cheater in the lichess pool, where he played an unusual line against my Botvinnik English, and I was lost after just 10 moves. With this game in mind, I played the same line against David, hoping for a similar game, however he avoided my prep and I had simply no idea what I was doing after 5.a4.
I also forgot that during the game, David’s main plan in the opening was to push d4 at some point, which I let him do too easily, as I completely overlooked it by playing 11...h6!?. My intention with this move was to meet 12.Qd2 with 12...Kh7, but simply overlooked 12.d4!, and David achieves quite a favourable maroczy bind, which I had no idea how to handle. I played 16...Qe7, with the idea of meeting 17.Rfd1 with 17...Rd8, but for some reason after 17.Rfd1 was played, I thought David could meet 17...Rd8 with 18.c5?, as I thought my d-pawn was pinned to my d8-rook, but now I realise that my rook was guarded by my c6-knight, so there was no reason to panic with 17...b6?? (with the idea of preventing c5, but giving away my d6 pawn).
The game then simplified into a pretty sad endgame for me, a pawn down and a huge lack of space. It didn’t take too much effort for David to convert the position, and wins a game where I put up absolutely no resistance at all. An appalling effort from me, but one to learn from and to not make the same mistakes again.

ROUND 6: Josh Langford (1637) vs WFM Vyanla Punsalan (1945) 0-1

Funnily enough, the day before this game I had played Vyanla with the same colours in the NZ Junior Championship. Since that game was a complete disaster for me, and I wanted revenge in this game, I went for my trusty mainline against the caro-kann, but including an invention with 7.Nh3!? which Scott Wastney had introduced to me. The point of this move is to transfer the knight to f4, where it can exert pressure on e6 and potentially reroute to h5, pressurising g7. Scott has had bounds of success with this line, so I think it's only fair that I play it myself too.
Vyanla surprised me with 10...g5?!, an uncommon move with a clear intention of opening up the h-file. The drawback is that it delays her development, rids her king from castling kingside and keeps her king stuck in the middle for a bit too long, but that was something I wasn’t able to punish. After 17...Nf6 I gave up on trying to punish Vyanla’s poor opening decisions and went into an endgame that I thought favoured me with 18.Qf4, since I had pressure along the e-file and harmonious piece placement. To my surprise, the engine only evaluates it as +0.3 for me, which is understandable since she was able to regroup her pieces and apply pressure to my position. I really like her 19...Bh7!, which prevents my knight from landing on f5, and puts pressure on c2. Eventually we liquefy the position into an endgame with double rooks and five pawns each side, where Vyanla has a glaring weakness on e6, but my rooks are misplaced. She handles the pressure on e6 perfectly, switching out her rooks and moving one to a more active position where it exerts pressure on f3. With a well-timed f4 push, I realise that I can’t keep putting pressure on e6, and I am forced into defending a tough position where her rooks infiltrate my camp. I played 51.c5?? with just one second on my clock, and I instantly regretted it. Instead 51.cxd5 would’ve kept some drawing chances, as after 51.c5?? I can’t defend both my loose c5-pawn and my loose f3-pawn, and eventually she cleans up my pawns and her central pawns roll down the board. I was extremely impressed by Vyanla’s endgame technique; this was a game that I learned a lot from and exposed a hole in my endgames.

ROUND 7: Josh Langford (1637) vs Timothy Ha (1637) 0-1

Alas I had lost three games in a row, so now I had to face my old rival Tim Ha. I was expecting 1...e5 since he did well against Ed Rains’ scotch gambit, which I was planning to implement against Tim. Instead Tim plays the Rubenstein French, which was a great choice since I have absolutely no idea how to play against it.
10.a3?! was an idea I improvised at the board, but I had seen it being implemented against Botvinnik-Carls caro-kann. The idea was to misplace Tim’s DSB, take space on the queenside, put my DSB on the long diagonal and eventually further push my queenside majority to create a passed pawn. It turns out that this idea has been used against this opening in the master’s database 79 times, so it was a decent improvisation on my part. Soon we liquefy the position and we get to a Q + B vs Q + K endgame.
Avoiding the B vs K endgame with 24...Qc8? was a poor decision from Tim, as the control of the d-file + my eventual passed pawn should be enough to get a decisive advantage. I saw an opportunity with 27.Qa4, but discarded it as I thought 27...Qxc5? 28.Qxe8+ Kh7 29.Bf4 Qd4 won back the piece. However, I completely missed 30.g3!, which protects my bishop and avoids back-rank mate. Therefore Tim would’ve been forced to play 27...a6 after 27.Qa4, to which I could’ve played 28.c6!, and my passed pawn should be decisive. Instead I play 27.h3, which prepares 28.Qa4, and after 27...a6 I could’ve played 28.Qa4, but decided against it as the a-pawn is no longer hanging as it resides on a6. Instead 28.Kf1? is played, not a great move as Tim can now blockade my c-pawn with 28...Qc6. This is another benefit of 28.Qa4, as it would’ve guarded the c6-square. My position is now a lot harder to win, and Tim does a great job of killing my play.
Tim then manages to trade into a B vs K endgame, where I have an opportunity to push my c-pawn, but instead I waste time with 33.Bb8, and let my c-pawn be blockaded. Instead 33.c6! would’ve fought for an advantage, as although black can blockade the pawn, he has no way to win it. Instead I let my c-pawn get blockaded on c6, and it is soon won. My position is now lost and Tim uses some nice endgame technique to convert his pawn advantage. Appalling endgame technique from me again, but I learnt from this game how to use a passed pawn to my advantage, and that I should try to avoid getting it blockaded if possible.

ROUND 8: Alexandre De Maupeou D'ableiges (0) vs Josh Langford (1637) 0.5-0.5

On a four-game loss streak, I was fed up with this tournament. I played a hard fought game which ended in a draw against a friend who I had helped prepare for this tournament. Nothing too interesting.

ROUND 9: Aaron (Senpai~) Wang (1788) vs Josh Langford (1637) 0-1

This is the final game of the tournament, and since I didn’t have to play a game in the morning, I was feeling revitalised and had the motivation to prepare. Aaron has a reputation of being my “Senpai~”, so understandably I was terrified to play him. Since I had winged 1...c5 against David’s English in round 5, I assumed that Aaron would be expecting me to play it, so I decided to prepare my trusty 1...e5, and go for an aggressive plan.
To no surprise, Aaron plays the English, but then errs with a slightly unexpected 5.Nxe5, which is a common idea in the English since 5...Nxe5 6.d4! wins back the piece. However, since Aaron has already committed to playing 4.g3, this plan is less effective due to 5...Bxf2+!, which I had prepared and was glad to play over the board. Aaron quickly makes a mistake with 7.e3?, which allows me to break in the centre with 7...d5! (apparently 7...b5! is even stronger, but this move has never been played before in any database), and my position is much preferable. Instead, 7.e4! would’ve held his position, preventing d5 in a maroczy bind fashion, and preparing to follow up with 8.d4. Aaron then makes another mistake with 7...d5 8.d4?, allowing me to trade off his strong LSB which protects his kingside light-square weaknesses, and gives me a completely dominating position.
Soon I traded into an endgame which I judged correctly to be completely winning for me. Basically all of Aaron’s pawns were on the same colour as his dark-square bishop and the opposite colour of mine, so my bishop completely dominated his position while his bishop could barely even move. As long as I kept my bishop on d5 preventing any c4 or e4 breaks, I should be able to convert this, as Aaron can do basically nothing to improve his position; all he can do is sit around and wait for me to make a mistake. I found a nice plan of going 22...Rc8 followed by 23...c5!, which weakens Aaron’s d4-pawn and a few moves later I win it, exploiting the pin on the e-file. Now a pawn up, this is simply a matter of conversion technique. I knew that I had to avoid trading off rooks, since although I am a pawn up, the resulting position would be an opposite-colour bishop endgame, an endgame which is near impossible to convert the full-point in. Instead, I opted for the slow grind, where I can push my queenside majority, keep the rooks on the board and slowly but surely squeeze the full-point out of Aaron. Aaron made an instructive mistake with 34.Kg2!?, although his position was still very hard to play, it makes my conversion easier as I can seize more territory with 34...Re3!, controlling the 3rd rank, and followed by 35...Ke4 where my pieces begin to surround Aaron’s camp. Aaron makes his position even worse with 41.Bd6?, which simply allows me to trap his rook with 41...f3+ 42.Kg3 Be2!, leaving Aaron completely paralysed. The only problem now was that I was situated on board 11, where at around 5pm the sun would beam through the back window and onto my board, creating shadows and making it tougher to visualise and calculate lines from the position. Luckily for me, the game was basically over, and since I’d reached move 40 at this point, a few careful moves were enough to force a resignation.

Overall, this certainly wasn’t my best tournament. I had quite a few missed opportunities (especially against Lukey), but this tournament was certainly a huge learning experience for me, as it exploited gaping holes in my opening repertoire and endgame technique. Still though, this was one of the best weeks of my life, filled with so much fun and excitement. I won’t ever forget this experience, and I’m looking forward to next year where congress will be held in my home town of Wellington.

Thanks to everyone again for making this such an awesome congress, and see you guys again next year.