When things seem to be going wrong in a game of Othello, how do you create practical chances? In the following game, Handel-Feinstein from the 1993 Nottingham regional, Mike looked to be in terrible trouble coming out of the opening, with too many pieces and a bad edge. But he managed to ``solidify'' on the East and South edges, and in the end I ran out of moves disastrously.
The opening was relatively normal for a Handel-Feinstein game. Move 6 is the Heath chimney. Play followed a fairly standard line up to move 16, in as much as any lines of the Heath chimney are standard. I believe that c4 is an alternative at move 17. Mike's initiation of the South edge at move 19 was surprising. Perhaps 20.f8 would have been better than f7. I was expecting 21.f8. Perhaps Mike was worried about the possibility of a sacrifice at g7. Again, at move 23, I was expecting d8, when I probably would have been tempted into the sacrifice at g7. I asked Mike afterwards, and he was worried about this (for some reason). So that explains his choice of 23.c6. But now, after 24.c5, d8 could be met by f8, and things were looking a bit grim for Black.
Mike took his ``free move'' at h7, leaving him with a ``bad five'' on the East edge (a sacrifice at g2 is likely to be good for White at some point in the future). After 26.d8 my position was almost ideal: my opponent had a bad edge, and was running short of moves. So, what went wrong? Mike's move 27 set a subtle trap. When I played my ``natural'' move 28.c4, Mike's reply 29.f8 created problems for me. At this point, I had lost access to b4, I was unlikely ever to be able to sacrifice safely at g7, and I really needed to be very careful. But I wasn't. My move 30.a5 (intending 32.b6 next, or to reply to 31.b6 with 32.a6) was a disaster! See Figure 1. After Mike's excellent 31.b3, I had lost access to a few more places, including g2. It did not look as if my access was ever coming back.
My move 30 may well be a game loser (there's a challenge for Othello software! I know that my program MODOT does not understand this sort of position very well).
1. After 30a5
2. After 37c3
3. After 44b6
After 31.b3, both players were very short of moves, and it was not at all clear what would happen. I tried not to panic, but Mike continued to play strong moves. Note that Mike's sequence 35.d1 e2 c3 (see Figure 2) was much stronger than 35.c3 e2! when I believe things would have been looking good for me again.
At this point, Mike was amused to see me working my way around the board with a piece in my hand desperately looking for a non-fatal move. There was quite a lot of this! At 38, there was only e1. I still thought I was going to win, but Mike's brave move 39.b2 was decisive. There was nothing except 40.c1. At this point 41.a4 would have lost to 42.a6, but Mike correctly chose 41.a3. Moves 42 and 43 are optimal, but at move 44 I missed a really good try, namely 44.b1! If I had tried that, Mike would have had to avoid both a2 and a1 (losing) and play f1. (The optimal line is then g8 h8 g7 a1 a2 pass f2 g1 h2 h1 g2 pass b8 b6 b7 a8 a7, and Black wins 35-29). But I thought I was winning and played 44.b6 instead -- see Figure 3.
Perhaps you have already spotted 45.b7! I wish I had. I might have tried b1 instead. After 45.b7 I was certain to be swindled horribly in at least one corner region. I managed to scramble to a few discs in the end. Play was not perfect by either side, but was fairly sensible, and Mike won 41-23.