This next commentary game contains some themes for improving players at several different levels of analysis - meta, strategic, and tactical. "Meta" in this case refers to the overall context - the fact that GM James Tarjan, one of the best US players in the 1970s, was at the time of this game in the third year of his chess career comeback and at age 65 defeated both GM Alexandra Kosteniuk (below) and super-GM Vladimir Kramnik during the 2017 Isle of Man International. This was no fluke, as he had also played for the US in the 2016 chess Olympiad. Seeing these kinds of examples helps combat the "inevitable decline" narrative associated with the aging process, or at least provides fewer excuses for not undertaking effortful study.
While we (or at least I) may not have Tarjan's level of inherent talent, his approach and the example of play here are understandable and instructive. My top observations from the game:
- Tarjan's opening choice is designed to allow White to "play chess" rather than debate opening theory. This strategy used to be frowned upon in general, with purists insisting White always play for a forced if slight advantage. However, Carlsen's repeated use of it over the years has lent it more legitimacy; one game of his is in a similar variation is included in the game notes.
- Master-level choice of candidate moves. I highlight multiple instances where White's move choice probably would not occur to an amateur. I find these to be one of the most important aspects of studying and analyzing master-level games, as they demonstrate how new ideas can be introduced into your own play.
- The interplay of tactical and strategic considerations is evident throughout, especially when Black - probably under time pressure - starts missing key tactics in the latter part of the game. Using tactics to achieve more of a strategic/positional advantage was also possible at several points in the game for both sides.
