Minor openings

Summary:

How should we open a game of chess? Here’s an opening repertoire from Chess Openings for Juniors, suitable for juniors and presumably Minor/Intermediate players:

Main opening: Main line Giuoco Piano with 4. c3
Two Knights’ Defence: Max Lange
French Defence: Classical, & Alekhin Gambit against Winawer
Sicilian Defence: Morra Gambit
Caro-Kann Defence: Main lines with 3.Nc3
Pirc Defence: Pseudo-Samisch 4. f3
Black against King’s Gambit: Accepted, Modern defence 3…d5
Black against Ruy Lopez: Open Morphy Defence with 9…Bc5
Black against GP: Main Line Two Knights’ Defence with 6…Na5
Black against 1.d4: Cambridge Springs Defence
Black against hypermodern: London system

I played pretty much strictly from this repertoire for a while and would recommend it to anybody. It aims at open games emphasising piece play, perhaps with a view to tactics and attacking play, but as we all know “tactics flow from a superior position” (Fischer). [If you don’t have this book I have expanded on some similar opening suggestions for White systems and Black Defences, including playing against 1.d4.]

Another opening repertoire aimed at club players is offered by Nigel Davies in his Dirty Tricks video:

Main opening: pick a 19th century gambit like the King’s or Danish
French Defence: Wing Gambit
Sicilian Defence: Deferred Wing Gambit
Caro-Kann Defence: Two Knights’ Variation
Pirc Defence: System with Bc4
Black against Ruy Lopez: Modern Steinitz Variation with …Bg4, Exchange Variation with …Bg4, Bird’s Defence, or maybe even the Nimzovitch Defence with 1…Nc6
Black against 1.d4: Tchigorin Defence
Black against hypermodern: London system

Lastly, there are two editions of ‘An opening repertoire for the attacking club player’ by Keene and Levy, and a book of the same name by Gufeld.

 

Keene/Levy I Keene/Levy II Gufeld
Main opening Scotch Gambit Scotch Game Vienna Game
French Defence Winawer 4. a3
Steinitz 4. e5
Advance, 5. Be3 Advance, 6. Be2
Sicilian Defence Alapin Variation Alapin Variation Grand Prix Attack
Caro-Kann Defence Panov/Gunderam Advance Advance
Pirc Defence Byrne system Byrne system Austrian Attack
Black against 1. e4 Pirc Defence Scandinavian Sicilian Dragon
Black against 1.d4 Benko Gambit Tchigorin Defence Leningrad Dutch
Black against hypermodern Dutch systems English: Dutch; Reti: …d6/…Bg4 Dutch systems

To summarise: all offer a mix of systems with a common theme – open, aggressive play. Why are we recommended to play like this?

“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game.” — RICHARD RETI

– and, I might add, it’s a lot more fun! The trouble with playing stodgy stuff is you can get stuck and bored and lose through losing patience, or perhaps you will never understand why you lose.

Tom: “I always play gambits!”Dave: “Good for you! We might run through a few afterwards. You don’t have to play a gambit to get an open game, and there can be other problems. When we look at the Sicilian later, I’ll say some more about this.”

So much for the books. How do people actually play, and how do they fare? (This survey has two points: firstly to see what’s there, but also to model an approach to looking at your own games.) I looked at 253 games from East Devon 1995 (Minor & Intermediate sections), and found:


The results are weighted in favour of White

                                                        Valid     Cum
 
Value Label                 Value  Frequency  Percent  Percent  Percent
                              .00        87     34.4     34.4     34.4
                              .50        54     21.3     21.3     55.7
                             1.00       112     44.3     44.3    100.0
                                     -------  -------  -------
                            Total       253    100.0    100.0

…but more strongly than GM games in the minor section

Summaries of     RESULT   By levels of     TOURN
Variable      Value  Label                      Mean    Std Dev    Cases
For Entire Population                          .5494      .4416      253
TOURN      i         intermediate {c}          .4874      .4291      119
TOURN      m         minor {d}                 .6061      .4499      132

Hint: get your Black act together in the Minor.


Try and get White in Round 2!

Summaries of RESULT By levels of ROUND Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases ROUND 1 .5213 .4539 47

ROUND 2 .6058 .4240 52 ROUND 3 .5288 .4688 52 ROUND 4 .5300 .4450 50 ROUND 5 .5600 .4361 50

…Or Round 5…

Summaries of RESULT By levels of SECTION Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases SECTION i1 .4792 .4293 24

SECTION i2 .5217 .4123 23 SECTION i3 .5000 .4564 25 SECTION i4 .4783 .4390 23 SECTION i5 .4583 .4403 24 SECTION m1 .5652 .4839 23 SECTION m2 .6724 .4284 29 SECTION m3 .5556 .4870 27 SECTION m4 .5741 .4537 27 SECTION m5 .6538 .4188 26

The gore in Round two I think is as a result of the Swiss system, and the last round is clearly the crunch one. Still…

…Again, it’s mostly in the Minor section that the advantage of White is seen.


Openings lean on ECO B and D

…rather than C, which is perhaps how we are supposed to play

                                                        Valid     Cum
Value Label                 Value  Frequency  Percent  Percent  Percent
Hypermodern and irregular       a        45     17.8     17.8     18.6
Semi-open games                 b        78     30.8     30.8     49.4
Open games (and French)         c        52     20.6     20.6     70.0
Close games                     d        67     26.5     26.5     96.4
Indian defences                 e         9      3.6      3.6    100.0
                                     -------  -------  -------
                            Total       251    100.0    100.0

I also looked at 400 e-mail correspondence games from the IECG from categories D and E and found the following distribution:

[chart]

  There are obvious peaks and clusters at:

A00-A05 Irregular openings
A45 Unusual replies after 1. d4 Nf6
B00-B30 Semi-open defences (Irregular, Nimzovitch, Caro-Kann)
C00-odd French defence and irregular defences with 1…e6, e.g. Owen’s
C40-C70 Open games
D00-odd Irregular closed games (Stonewall, Colle)
D30 Queen’s Gambit
E90-odd King’s Indian

These e-mail games also feature B and D prominently, although I got more Cs here than in the East Devon sample. So, we have very much the same pattern of openings, which despite the 25% of open games, we are flying pretty much against what Reti recommends for beginners.

So, just when are you good enough to stop playing open games? Minor? Intermediate? I think the answer is, when you are getting bored with them.

Ray:”Too right! I got bored playing the same old positions in the Moller and Max Lange against the same players each season, and so these days I like to play slow systems like Bird’s Opening.”Dave: “Fine! Ray, we know you can attack when you want to or when you need to, as I remember you winning in about 20 moves with a double piece sacrifice in the Jamboree in September. To coin a phrase, you’ve served your apprenticeship in the open games, and can move on. But there is a lot of scope for exploration in the old Italian Game; Evans Gambit is far from played out. There are at least three good systems for Black in reply to 4. Ng5 in the Two Knights (Traxler/Wilkes Barre, Ulvestad/Fritz and the main line gambit), and two good replies in the Max Lange. And if anyone is bored like Ray, remember, you can move on to other open games which means you can hang on to a lot of your repertoire. Play the Scotch, or the Scotch Gambit, or the Ruy Lopez. “

Alan: “I’ve been doing very well with the Goring Gambit this season”

Dave: “I have a problem with the Goring, because I think 4…d5 equalises easily. But until your opponents start playing that, enjoy it! What do they do, decline and push past with 4…d3 I suppose?”

Alan: “No, they do decline, but they let me play 4. cxd4, when I get a pawn roller!”

Dave: “Go for it, then!”

Fred: “Isn’t there an appalling lot to remember in all these openings?”

Dave: “Well, you’ve got to learn how to play open stuff and tactics if you are going to improve. You can play one of the closed ‘System’ openings to keep your book learning down (and maybe study tactics at home), but there’s nothing like getting stuck in to improve. There isn’t really that much to learn, and I don’t think your opponents will know it any better than you – look at how Alan’s opponent’s are reacting, they not only don’t know the Goring Gambit, they don’t seem to be playing according to any sort of logic in the opening at all. I’m not insisting you play open games – if you are happy playing what you do now at the level you do now, you have no problems!”

But I also suspect that the main reasons that players don’t play open games is, not boredom with the same old positions, but fear of losing, or too many painful tactical oversights. Instead of getting good enough at tactics to live and thrive among open games, some players prefer to play closed games without an immediate clash of forces so that fewer Loose Pieces Drop Off. It can happen, even to the best of us…

Karlsson,AS – Gustavsson,C, 1994: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nxe5 dxe4 5.c3?! Nf6 6.d4 exd3 7.Bxd3 0-0 8.Qf3 Re8 9.Be3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Rxe5 11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 0-1

I might be wrong, but I think this is half of what all these A00 and D00 openings are about: playing a stereotyped closed setup so that we get through the first 10 moves (a) without dropping any pieces, and (b) without having to think!

1. d4 2. e3 3. Bd3 4. f4 5. Nf3 6. O-O 7. Ne5 8. Qf3 9. g4… (or 8. Rf3 9. Bxh7+…)

1. g3 2. Bg2 3. d3 4. Nf3 5. O-O 6. Nbd2 7. Qe1 8. c3 9. e4…

I can see the attractions, but one-idea openings like the Stonewall are so easy to see coming and avoid with only a moment or two of preparation.

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 Bg4!? 4. f3 Bh4 and …Bg6
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Bf5! or …Bg4!
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nc6!? 3. Bd3 e5
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nc6!? 3. Bd3 Nf6 4. f4 Bg4 5. Nf3 e6 6. O-O Bf5!

And, if your ‘system’ opening doesn’t go according to plan, you may be in one of those stodgy positions where the plaintive cry goes up “I don’t know what to do here”.

Alan: “I like the King’s Indian Attack as a system”.Dave: “So do I! The thing is about the KIA is that you can play it with more than one idea in mind, and it’s not easy for Black to cut across your plans because you aren’t committed to one plan. I’ll come back to this later.”


A count of all openings and results:

mean=0.5000 means White scored 50% in that opening

My statistics software clipped the names off most of the openings, but you find the full names elswhere.

Summaries of RESULT By levels of ECO Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population .5494 .4416 253 ECO .5000 .0000 2 ECO a00 irregular openings, .8750 .2500 4 ECO a01 nimzo-larsen attack .5000 .0000 1 ECO a02 bird’s opening .5000 .7071 2 ECO a03 bird’s opening 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a04 reti opening .2500 .3536 2 ECO a05 reti opening with 1. .0000 .0000 1 ECO a07 reti opening, barcza .7857 .3934 7 ECO a09 reti opening 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a10 english opening .2500 .3536 2 ECO a13 english opening, sys .5000 .0000 1 ECO a16 english opening, sys .7500 .3536 2 ECO a17 english opening, ang .5000 .0000 1 ECO a22 english opening, rev .5000 .0000 2 ECO a25 english opening, rev 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a40 queen pawn games .5000 .0000 1 ECO a42 modern defence, aver 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a45 indian systems .7500 .3536 2 ECO a46 indian systems with 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO a48 indian systems with .5000 .3162 6 ECO a52 budapest gambit, mai .0000 .0000 1 ECO a60 modern benoni .0000 .0000 1 ECO a80 dutch defence .5000 .7071 2 ECO a85 dutch defence .5000 .0000 1 ECO b00 king pawn games, inc .5000 .4629 8 ECO b01 centre counter defen .4286 .4499 7 ECO b02 Alekhin’s defence 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b05 Alekhin’s defence, 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO b06 modern defence .7000 .4472 5 ECO b07 pirc (robatsch) defe .0000 .0000 4 ECO b09 pirc defence, austri 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b10 caro-kann defence .0000 .0000 2 ECO b12 caro-kann defence .5000 .5000 3 ECO b13 caro-kann defence, e .0000 .0000 2 ECO b18 caro-kann defence, c .3333 .2887 3 ECO b21 sicilian defence, gr .5714 .4746 14

ECO b22 sicilian defence, al .7500 .2887 4 ECO b23 sicilian defence, cl 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b24 sicilian defence, cl 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b25 sicilian defence, cl .0000 .0000 1 ECO b26 sicilian defence, cl 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b29 sicilian defence, ni .0000 .0000 1 ECO b30 sicilian defence wit .6667 .5164 6 ECO b33 sicilian defence .0000 .0000 1 ECO b34 sicilian defence, ac .0000 .0000 1 ECO b40 sicilian defence wit .0000 .0000 1 ECO b50 sicilian defence wit 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO b52 sicilian defence, si 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b53 sicilian defence, ch 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b80 sicilian defence, sc 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b95 sicilian defence, na .3333 .5774 3 ECO c00 french defence .5000 .5000 5 ECO c01 french defence, exch .8333 .2887 3 ECO c02 french defence, adva .7000 .4472 5 ECO c05 french defence, tarr .0000 .0000 1 ECO c10 french defence 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO c13 french defence, clas .0000 .0000 1 ECO c15 french defence, wina 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c17 french defence, wina .0000 .0000 1 ECO c23 bishop’s opening .5000 .0000 1 ECO c41 philidor defence .2500 .5000 4 ECO c42 petroff defence .0000 .0000 1 ECO c44 double king pawn gam .0000 .0000 1 ECO c45 scotch game .6250 .2500 4 ECO c46 three knights’ game .5000 .5000 3 ECO c50 italian game .0833 .2041 6 ECO c55 two knights’ defence .6000 .4183 5 ECO c60 ruy lopez opening (s .5000 .0000 1 ECO c62 ruy lopez, steinitz 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c63 ruy lopez, schlieman 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c65 ruy lopez, berlin de 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c80 ruy lopez, open morp 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c89 ruy lopez, marshall .3333 .2887 3 ECO d00 double queen pawn ga .6471 .4598 17 ECO d02 double queen pawn ga 1.0000 .0000 3 ECO d03 double queen pawn ga .2857 .4880 7 ECO d04 colle system .8750 .2500 4 ECO d05 colle system .0000 .0000 1 ECO d06 queen’s gambit .5000 .0000 1 ECO d07 queen’s gambit, tchi 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d08 queen’s gambit, albi .0000 .0000 1 ECO d11 queen’s gambit decli 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d20 queen’s gambit accep .7500 .3536 2 ECO d21 queen’s gambit accep 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d26 queen’s gambit accep .0000 .0000 1 ECO d30 queen’s gambit decli .5000 .5774 4 ECO d31 queen’s gambit decli .0000 .0000 1 ECO d35 queen’s gambit decli .6250 .4787 4 ECO d37 queen’s gambit decli .0000 .0000 1 ECO d41 queen’s gambit decli .5000 .4472 11 ECO d51 queen’s gambit decli .0000 .0000 2 ECO d53 queen’s gambit decli 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO d80 grunfeld defence, ta 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d92 grunfeld defence, sy 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO e12 queen’s indian defen .0000 .0000 2 ECO e15 queen’s indian defen 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO e20 nimzo-indian defence .0000 .0000 1 ECO e61 king’s indian defenc .5000 .7071 2 ECO e87 king’s indian defenc 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO e90 king’s indian defenc 1.0000 .0000 2


Intermediate and minor players choose different openings:

…Intermediate avoid D and E in favour of more A and B

            Count  |
           Row Pct |intermed    minor
                   +--------+--------+
                a  |    25  |    20  |    45
  hypermodern      |  55.6  |  44.4  |  17.8
                   +--------+--------+
                b  |    49  |    29  |    78
  semi-open        |  62.8  |  37.2  |  30.8
                   +--------+--------+
                c  |    26  |    26  |    52
  open/french      |  50.0  |  50.0  |  20.6
                   +--------+--------+
                d  |    16  |    51  |    67
  closed           |  23.9  |  76.1  |  26.5
                   +--------+--------+
                e  |     3  |     6  |     9
  indian (semi-clo |  33.3  |  66.7  |   3.6
                   +--------+--------+
            Column     119      132      253
             Total    47.0     52.2    100.0

Whatever minor players should be playing, I guess it’s not closed openings.

Also, I’m not right impressed with anyone in the club, let alone players in the intermediate, playing hypermodern systems unless it’s one you can interpret in a fairly direct King’s-side attack sort of way, like the Botvinnik system or King’s Indian Attack.

I can see a role for the semi-open systems at club level, they are unbalanced and often exciting.

Also, intermediate players follow the main lines more

You find them in ECO B90 or B09 rather than ECO B00.


White scores best in ECO A and D openings

Summaries of RESULT By levels of ECO1 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population .5494 .4416 253 ECO1 a hypermodern .6111 .3827 45 ECO1 b semi-open .5256 .4622 78 ECO1 c open/french .5000 .4316 52 ECO1 d closed .5746 .4626 67

ECO1 e indian (semi-closed) .5556 .5270 9 Total Cases = 253

…which might explain why we play all this funny A00/D00 stuff

There’s no arguing with results… as long as you are happy with your results. There’s clearly a reinforcement here for getting your act together as Black against these unusual openings. We’ll lay on a repeat of “Beating the Anti-Indians” towards this end.

Alan: “Surely it’s better to play something you half-know than something you don’t know at all – particularly if your opponent doesn’t know it!”

Dave: “Yes, indeed – a player with a plan will always beat a player without one, particularly if you know some of the variations. But I fear in D00 openings the plan will go astray because the plan is too simple, and in A00 it will go astray because the positions are too complex.”


The Stonewall & similar systems are played quite often

…but may even perform below average at minor level

Variable        Value  Label                      Mean    Std Dev    Cases

NON-STONEWALL     .00                            .5521      .4392      238
  TOURN      i                                   .4870      .4264      115
  TOURN      m                                   .6138      .4473      123

STONEWALL etc    1.00                            .5000      .5000       13
  TOURN      i                                   .5000      .5774        4
  TOURN      m                                   .5000      .5000        9

I wouldn’t stake much on a sample of 13 games, but it’s clear it’s nothing special.

Ray: “I used to play the Stonewall but used to get a lot of draws.”Dave: “I can well believe that. The Stonewall is a one-idea opening (playing for a clockwork King’s-side attack with pressure on h7 from a Bishop on d3) and if your opponents see it coming they can avoid this by 3…Bf5 or 3…g6.”

Ray: “Yes, that’s what happened. You then get a blocked position which neither side is going to enjoy much, and things often get bogged down and drawish. If you are prepared to think a bit in the opening, I still think the Colle (D04) is playable, because you still get an attack of sorts against 3…g6, and after 3…Bf5 you can switch plans with 4.c4 and 5.Qb3. White has pressure on b7 and can open the c-file.”

  Dave: “That’s the type of flexibility I’d expect to see in the Major; unfortunately in the Minor you are more likely to get a clockwork reaction like 3…Bf5 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5. Qxd3, which is usually a big yawn (because neither player realises they can open a file).”


Whites mostly avoid open Sicilians

Open Sicilians 5

Other Sicilians 22

…Maybe with good reason!

Open Sicilians White scores 40%

Other Sicilians White scores 73%

So in the interests of playing Black we could usefully lay on a session on Beating The Anti-Sicilians. If only there was a suitable book available…


The single most common way of avoiding the Sicilian is the Morra Gambit

6 in Intermediate, 2 in Minor

However, while the accepted form is the more successful, most people decline it

Accepted: 2/2

Declined: 21/2/6

…so I’d say think about another system!

The Open Sicilian is obviously critical and a bit scary, but surely the best way to play for a win as White. Tal used to say that he preferred meeting 1.e4 c5 than 1.e4 e5 because it was easier to get an open game; Karpov has also commented that there is no need to gambit a Pawn against the Sicilian because white gets an attack anyway! So, there’s no need to play a gambit.

Also, the GMs usually reckon the Morra is a nice free Pawn, and the best way to play for a win as Black. So why decline anyway? I guess this has a lot to do with club players:

a. being frightened of their opponent’s book knowledge (justifiably or not), and/or

b. being frightened of being attacked

 

a. being frightened of their opponent’s book knowledge (justifiably or not)

I do see a lot of gambits declined at club level – remember what Alan was saying about the Goring. Sometimes I hear people say they declined “on principle”. There is no principle that says “decline free Pawns”. In fact, there is a principle that says always take a central Pawn if it is offered. The thing is, don’t try and hang on to it, let your opponent waste time trying to get it back – or give it back yourself with an early …d5 to get on with your own development.

Play the strongest moves you can, regardless of what you think your opponent knows. (After all, they might know how to refute your second-rate choice as well…)

Despite all this, Blacks are being rewarded for declining! However, this might have something to do with the small numbers we are looking at here, or maybe which players are doing the declining. It does suggest, however, that you are getting a less open game by playing a gambit instead of the Open Sicilian, because Blacks are being panicked into declining! This may be true for other gambits as well.

 

b. being frightened of being attacked

I think we need to brush up a bit on attack and defence.

You mustn’t ignore genuine threats, but don’t be panicked or distracted by them – especially when faced with a King’s-side attack [when you must pursue your own attack with extra vigour.].

Don’t worry needlessly, resulting in panic and retreat – you need to keep active and keep counterplay.

Take nothing for granted. Don’t fret needlessly – analyse and find out if there is a win for your opponent. I often say, “Oh, Black’s only going to threaten mate”, by which I mean, the best they can achieve is a one move threat that can be easily contained. When they make that threat, you do need to react, but don’t worry needlessly; carry on with your own plans. There are some “clockwork” attacks (like the h-file assault against the fianchettoed King, or the King’s Indian Attack) that will eventually produce checkmate if left alone, but usually the best recipe is to counterattack, even if you do have to stop from time to time to counter a mating threat.

In particular, don’t panic and refuse sacrificed material that you could have for free. Don’t decline “on principle”. This is declining from fear, not knowledge. Play the strongest move, which may well be to take the material and make your opponent prove their judgement was correct.

Neither be over-impressed by your own threats. An attack by one piece on another is meaningless in itself – it may distract an important defender. Equally, don’t assume that a stock combination or sacrifice works for you in the position you have today – small differences can make it fail. Don’t hope vainly – analyse and find out.

 

Alan: “But the other reason people like to play cautiously is if they are playing for a team. If you do lose in 15 moves you feel you’ve let your team down.”.Dave: “You might be right, but remember these statistics are from tournaments where people are playing on their own behalf, not for a team. Maybe there is an argument for trying to hold the margin of the draw when playing for a team – after all, Reti cautions us that we ” may not win as many games at first”. But I think there is also an argument for having fun – and some of the closed ‘system’ openings look awfully stodgy. “Above all, to yourself be true”!”

Note: This piece prompted an immediate response from Eric Petrusic, which was interesting. [See also Strategy and Tactics – DR]

Book review: Timman’s selected games

[This review first appeared in Westward
Ho!
]


Timman’s selected games – chess the
adventurous way

by Jan Timman

248pp.+index Cadogan Press, 1995

“It is not always the games with the best chess that leave
behind the strongest memories (…) This selection of 80 games
gives a picture of the fighting chess I have always
championed.”

  This is simply a collection of annotated games, some of
which are very well-known and many of which have been annotated
elsewhere. If you have not met Timman’s annotations before (as I
hadn’t), you may be tempted to regard this volume as warmed-up
leftovers, but this is to do the author an injustice. The games are
mostly from top tournaments and the World Championship cycle, and
Timman is a top Grandmaster writing for a professional audience.
His annotations are quite modestly put, but are deep and precise.
If you have ever sat through games annotated glibly by GMs[*], you will appreciate Timman as a commentator who
comments only when necessary, and at an appropriate level.

  His play features crisp openings, enterprising middlegame
play and endings rich in detail. The search for the crucial
inaccuracy in a master game is often a challenging piece of
detective work, and while I am in no position to judge how well he
has done this, I enjoyed accompanying Timman on his journeys. I was
particularly struck by a number of critical endgames, in particular
a fascinating KBB vs. KandN ending against Speelman, and a really
thorough study of the fourth game of the 1990 Karpov-Timman
Candidates’ Match. Timman has a point to prove here and takes the
stand with great assurance – it reminded me of Fischer’s tour
de force
of analysis in his annotations of the
Botvinnik-Fischer endgame. The other striking feature for me was
the number of games where there was a difficult material imbalance
that required technical resolution – Queen against Rook and Bishop,
for example.

  But what Timman relishes above all these is the human
struggle: there are great set-pieces, superb escapes, desparate
time scrambles, enterprising pawn sacrifices and some glorious
messes… like the fifth match-game Ivanchuk-Timman, 1990 – which
Timman dryly introduces with “The game annotated below does not
really come within the confines of what is commonly understood to
be top chess
.” As you can tell from this, Timman is also a
fluent and entertaining writer of English: I also enjoyed a remark
from a Candidates’ Match game where after 1. d4 f5
he offers: “A very surprising opening for Speelman, but I must
say I had expected him to do something unexpected
.”

  The range of openings on show is impressive: he opens
with 1. e4, 1. d4 and 1. c4, and plays as Black the French, the
Sicilian, the Pirc/Modern and defends the Ruy Lopez and Petroff,
while against the QP he plays as Black the Modern, King’s Indian,
Grunfeld, Queen’s and Nimzo-Indian. He is a true modern – there is
hardly a classical, merely ‘equalising’ defence in the book – and a
real fighter. For example, the fifth game of his 1989 match against
Portisch he went for victory by playing very riskily as Black – but
won. His play attracted a lot of criticism at the time, and this
itself roused Timman’s fighting spirit – so in his annotations he
takes on a ‘simultaneous display’ against his critics. I was also
struck by the number of games where time trouble played a part. I
wonder if Timman also makes note of clock times against his moves
(a practice which I believe was first recommended by Bronstein), as
even here he is precise, often citing (e.g.) 15 minutes for 17
moves.

  Compared to Nunn’s recent book, it lacks the anecdotes
and personal glimpses – this reflects the origin of the
annotations. He does permit himself the occasional splendid piece
of prejudice or spleen – for example “I still don’t regard [the
King’s Indian] as a fully-fledged opening
“, or “It is hard
to believe what Russian commentators sometimes try to foist on the
public
“. [You will recall from the paragraph above that Timman
plays the King’s Indian as Black!] But, like Nunn, the depth and
quality of the analysis is consistently high. If you are looking
for study material this is a good source.

  I didn’t much welcome the use of the NICbase opening
classification – RL, SI, and
FR for Ruy Lopez, Sicilian and French. This is
very natural for English speakers at first look but soon lapses
into an impenetrable RL 26.2.1 and FR
4.4.4
and lacks the universality of the ECO [A00-E99]
system. It also has some obvious anomalies – for example, the
opening to the game Kasparov-Timman is given as QI
1.6
and confidently labelled Queen’s
Indian
– but it began 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3
Bb4+
(the Bogo-Indian), and as can be seen from the
diagram, on move 16 the Black b-pawn is still at home on b7. By all
means Cadogan should go along with the author’s framework, but
could have supplemented the classification with ECO.

  If I have another reproach, it is that what Timman
regards as an ‘appropriate level’ to comment often left me
struggling to follow him. This is, I suppose, the cream of chess,
and in quantity may be too rich for many club players. In
particular, the whole opening phase of the game is often left up to
the reader as common knowledge. Common knowledge amongst GMs, may
be, but I would have been glad of a few landmarks being pointed out
before we headed off into the middlegame. I still was glad to read
this book – when I travelled with Timman, he showed me many sights
on the journey that I would never have noticed on my own.

 


[*] I will always remember “prevents Nf5”
as the complete annotation to …g6, followed by “prevents
Bg5
” after …h6 – any guesses as to the author?

Dr.Dave’s Early Games

hammond,g – regis,d [C50]

 FIRST: fenland guards jnr chp, 1974

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bb5
Bd7 7. b3 a6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Bd5 Nxd5 10. exd5 Bb4 11. Bd2 Nd4 12. a3
Bxc3 13. Bxc3 c5 14. a4 b4 15. Bd2 Bg4

t+-Dj+-T
+-+-+xXx
x+-X-+-+
+-XpX-+-
pX-S-+l+
+p+p+n+-
-+pB-PpP
R-+qK-+r

 16. h3 Bxf3 17. gxf3 Qf6 18. c3 Nxf3+ 19. Ke2 O-O 20. cxb4
Rae8 21. bxc5 dxc5 22. h4 e4 23. Rc1 exd3+ 24. Kxd3 Qd4+ 25. Kc2
Nxh4 26. Re1 [26. Qh5] 26… Qxf2 27. Qg4 Nf3 28. Rf1
Qxd2+ 29. Kb1 Nh2 30. Qf4 Nxf1 31. Qxf1 Qxd5 32. Qc4 Qxc4 33. bxc4
f5 34. Rd1 Re4 35. Rc1 f4 36. Kb2 f3 37. Kb3 f2 38. Rf1 Re1 39.
Rxe1 fxe1=Q 40. a5 Rf3+ 41. Kc2 Rc3+ 42. Kb2 Qc1+ 43. Ka2 Ra3# Not
much of a game, but the first (and only) title I ever won. 0-1


 FIRST: march v ely,
1975

regis,d – hooper,ht [D30]

 1. d4 My first move for March! 1… d5 2. c4 e6 3. e3 2.
c4 was as much as I knew! 3… Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3
Nbd7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. O-O c6 9. Re1 Re8 10. Qc2 h6 11. e4 Clearly
still influenced by patterns seen in Chernev’s LOGICAL CHESS …
11… dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Bxe4 Nf6 14. Bf4 14… Nxe4 15. Rxe4
??

t+lDt+j+
Xx+-LxX-
-+x+-S-X
+-+-+-+-
-+-PbB-+
+-+-+n+-
pPq+-PpP
R-+-R-K-

 15… Bf5 16. Rae1 Bxe4 17. Rxe4 Bf6 18. Be5 Bxe5 19. dxe5
Qc7 20. Qe2 Rad8 21. Qe3 b6 22. g4 Rd5 23. h4 Red8 24. g5 Rd3 25.
Qe2 h5 26. e6 fxe6 27. Rxe6 Kf8 28. Ne5

-+-T-J-+
X-D-+-X-
-Xx+r+-+
+-+-+-Px
-+-+-+-P
+-+t+n+-
pP-+qP-+
+-+-+-K-

 I’m still (1992) taken with the determined attitude of
White here! 28… R3d6 29. Ng6+ Kg8 30. Ne7+ Kf7 [30… Kf8 31.
Qf3+ Ke8 32. Nd5+ Kd7 33. Re7+ still
] 31. g6+ Ke8 32. Nd5+ Kd7
33. Re7+ Kc8 34. Rxc7+ Kb8 35. Qa6 Rxg6+ 36. Kf1

 It is an omen that my first ever competitive game featured
both a cheapo AND a swindle. 1-0


regis,d – richard dixon (CORR_92/93) [B36]

 FIRST: devon vs glos. (ward-higgs I), 1993

 My first and only correspondence game, during
which I made comments to myself throughout. I can only add here
NEVER AGAIN: I found the experience appalling – months of paranoia,
hesitancy and self-recrimination. At least OTB you can let it go at
the end of the day (usually…), although I know there are folk who
feel OTB slow chess is too heavy.

 1. c4 g6 ( I knew a game of Portisch‘s which I had in mind
throughout) 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4
( new for me this season: I played the e3/Nge2/d4 plan for years
but recently fancied this, which looked more enterprising )
5… d6 6. Nge2 c5 ( black had a lot of choice at
this point: …e5/…c6/etc. ) 7. O-O Nc6 8. d3 Ne8 9. Be3
Nc7
( ?! in the books ) [9…
Nd4
] 10. d4 ! ( in the books )
10… cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ne6 12. Nde2 Ne5 ! TN – threatens c4
and e3 via g4 [
12… Nc5 13. Rc1 Be6 14. b3
Qa5 15. Qd2 Rac8 16. Nf4 +- and black is in trouble:
barcza-szilagyi 1967
] 13. b3 b6 (
transposing to a hedgehog formation looks better than szilagyi’s
setup ) 14. h3 ( stopping the …Ng4 lines seemed
sensible, especially since last move they were possible. The
knights now need to get out of the way of the pawn roller )
14… Bb7 15. Rc1 ( looks slow and a bit aimless
with hindsight ) 15… Nc5

t+-D-Tj+
Xl+-XxLx
-X-X-+x+
+-S-S-+-
-+p+p+-+
+pN-B-Pp
p+-+nPb+
+-Rq+rK-

 16. f4 ( now I thought I was on the right
lines: turn that space into attack, as in the portisch game )
16… Ned7 17. g4 a5 ( I would have preferred
…a6 ) 18. Ng3 ( I don’t know where this is going
yet, unless black can be obliged or tempted to take on f5
eventually – if not the Ng3 and Bg2 are very passive )
18… Bc6 ( ! I now wanted the wN back on e2 )
19. a4 ( this isn’t really necessary [19…a4;
20 b4 looked good
] but I thought was justified
psychologically – what is black’s plan now ? the real challenge of
course is to find white’s plan! The wQ is badly tied to b3 and d3 )
[19. Bd4 ( this
was better I thought afterwards )
19… e5 20. Be3 exf4
21. Bxf4 Ne5 22. Rc2 Ned3] 19… Rb8 20. Rf2 ( Nicely ambiguous [
ideas of Qd2 or Rd2 ] but d3 is now more tender )
20… Qc8 21. Nd5 ( I’m obviously entertaining
pushing f4-f5-f6 ) 21… Re8 22. g5 ( not f5 yet )
22… Qb7 ( adds to pressure but locks in Bc6 )
23. f5 ( It’s starting to get hard for me to find
a plan which doesn’t involve f5 but Black can play …e6 and build
up nicely now. I had some fun with 23 f5 and 24 Nh5 in analysis
which was all bluff but looked worth starting ) 23…
Bf8
( I looked at …Bxd5 and …Be5 in analysis but this
looked most solid. If …e6 white can afford …exd5 because exd5
wins the Bc6 ) 24. Bd4 ( 24 f6 simply takes a good
square away from the knight. Now I have more realistic-looking
threats but I must say by this stage I thought it was all starting
to slip away ) 24… Ne5 25. Rc3 Bg7 ( I now
entered a short sequence of moves which I thought were most solid
and maintained a space advantage despite exchanges ) 26. f6
Bf8 27. fxe7 Bxe7 28. h4 Bxd5
( the two bishops are no
real advantage here as the Bg2 is inactive ) 29. exd5 Bf8
30. Rf4
( else Qf1,Bg7 will threaten …Nf3+ and …Bxd4 )
30… Bg7 31. Qf1 ( both sides have consolidated
after some white initiative and I thought we’re now in for a phase
of manoeuvring ) 31… Re7 32. Bxc5
[
32. Rf6] 32…
bxc5
( obviously not 32…dxc5; 33 d6 ) 33.
Ne4
( This move cheered me up a little; I felt I had some
chances for the initiative ) 33… Rd8 34. Nf6+
[
34. Nxc5 ( idea d6 again ) 34…
Qb6
] 34… Bxf6 35. gxf6 Ree8 36. Re4
h5
( I admit I analysed this only after sending off my
last move – I concluded I had some chances of a combinative
breakthrough on the K-side but this couldn’t be forced, and I
became slightly less alarmed about possible endgames ) 37.
Rce3 Kh7 38. Qf4
( I couldn’t see a way of winning after
what I thought was the best line, …Qb4, but I didn’t have to lose
either. White can try to contrive a lever with Bh3, Qg5 and now
Bf5, but …Qb4 & …Rg8 (forces Kh1) slows or stops it)
38… Qc8 ( I thought at the time, not as strong
as …Qb4, but realised it’s trickier ) 39. Bh3
Qb8
( if the knight moves don’t work this is probably best
) 40. Kh1 Qc7 41. Bf5

-+-Tt+-+
+-D-+x+j
-+-X-Px+
X-XpSb+x
p+p+rQ-P
+p+-R-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+k

 41…Qb8( I immediately thought this was
too resigned ) 42. Qg5 ( mates in six ) 1-0


Briggs, Tom – regis,d
[C02]

 FIRST: march cc friendly, 1975

 Tom founded March Chess Club and worked hard for the club
until his death. I played many games with Tom as a young player and
was always impressed by his consistent good humour and generosity.
Like Andersson, he met defeat only with laughter and praise for his
opponent. Chess is full of people like Tom, although we tend to
notice only the Kasparovs.

 1. e4 This game is probably fairly
typical for the time, and features my first and long-time favourite
French Defence to 1.e4.

 1… e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Nc6 4. Nf3 f6 5. Bf4 g5 6.
Bg3 fxe5 7. dxe5 Bg7 8. Bb5 Nge7 9. O-O a6 10. Ba4 Bd7 11. c3 Ng6
12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Re1 Bb5 14. Nd4 Qd7 15. a4 Bc6 16. b4 b5 17. a5
O-O-O 18. Qg4 h6 19. Qxe6 Qxe6 20. Nxe6 Rd7 21. Nc5 Re7 22. Nd3
Rhe8

-+j+t+-+
+-X-T-L-
x+l+-+sX
Px+xP-X-
-P-+-+-+
+-Pn+-B-
-+-+-PpP
Rn+-R-K-

 23. f4 Nxf4 24. Nxf4 gxf4 25. Bxf4 Bxe5 26. Bxe5
Rxe5 27. Nd2 Re2 ??? 28. Nf3 d4 29. Rxe2 Rxe2 30. Nxd4 Rxg2+ 31.
Kf1 Bb7 32. Re1 Rxh2 33. Re2 Rh3 34. Rc2 Be4 35. Re2 Bd3 36. Kg2
Rh5 37. Re8+ Kb7 38. Re3 Bc4 39. Kg3 Rg5+ 40. Kh4 Rg8 41. Nf5 Rh8
42. Kh5 Bf7+ 43. Kh4 h5 44. Re7 Rf8 45. Nh6 Bg6 46.
Kg5

-+-+-T-+
+jX-R-+-
x+-+-+lN
Px+-+-Kx
-P-+-+-+
+-P-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

 46…Be8 47. Re3 Kc8 48. Nf5 Rg8+ 49. Kf6 Rg4 50.
Rxe8+ Kb7 51. Re3 Kc8 52. Rh3 Rc4 53. Kg5 c5 54.
Nd6+
1-0


regis,d – rivett,dv [D16]

 FIRST: lowestoft friendly, 1977

 1. d4 Another ‘dues’ game – my uncle Don
was a very important benchmark for me, and was endlessly patient
with my early efforts. This was a game I remember being proud of at
the time, having finally taken half a point from him. I also
remember not really understanding how, though! 1… d5 2.
Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bd7 6. e4 b5 7. axb5 cxb5 8. Be2
e6 9. O-O Be7 10. d5 a6 11. Ne5 Qc7 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13.
Bf4

tS-+j+-T
+-+dLxXx
x+-+xS-+
+x+p+-+-
-+x+pB-+
+-N-+-+-
-P-+bPpP
R-+q+rK-

 13… exd5 14. exd5 O-O 15. d6 Bd8 16. Bf3 Nc6 17.
Nxb5 Rb8 18. Nd4 Nb4 19. Rc1 Rc8 20. Bg5 Rc5 21. Nb3 Rc8 22. Bxf6
Bxf6 23. Bg4 Qc6 24. Bxc8 Rxc8 25. Re1 Qd7 26. Qe2 Nd3 27. Rxc4
Nxe1 28. Rxc8+ Qxc8 29. Nc5 Kf8 30. d7 Qd8 31. Qxe1 Be7 32. Qe3 Qa5
33. h3 g6 34. Nb7 Qd5
1/2-1/2

 35. Qc3! should have been promising.

Posted in Ego

Book review: Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953 (Bronstein)

Guest review by Russell Gooding

 David Bronstein. His classic book Zurich
International Chess Tournament 1953
,and the average club
player.

In 1953 David Bronstein was already a proven world class
chess player. Only two years previously – following a candidate’s
playoff against his lifelong friend Isaac Boleslavski – he had
drawn a most dramatic match for the world title.

Bronstein’s result against Mikhail Botvinnik (having been
a point ahead with two games to play) proved beyond doubt that the
new dynamism of the younger generation of Soviet players was at
least the equal of the scientific and precision methods typified by
the play of the then world champion.

Throughout his career Bronstein has graced the game with
many magnificent ideas and innumerable wonderful games. If you have
yet to see the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal game against the eternal
Candidates runner up (Paul Keres) you have truly missed an
opportunity to expand your chess horizons. That game was played
near to the peak of David’s creative talent. Some 20 years later
aged over 50 he was still capable of producing a beautiful finale
against the then world junior champion Kaplan at Hastings 1975/6
(seek this game out also *).

 

* Incidentally both marvellous games are given in
Bronstein’s hugely entertaining biography ‘The Sorcerer’s
Apprentice’.

 

Notwithstanding the above though. The greatest debt owed
by the chess community to this most remarkable and imaginative of
competitors will probably be reserved for his incredible
annotations following the 1953 double round robin Candidates
tournament. Bronstein himself played and shared second play in the
event tied with Keres and Reshevski behind Vassily Smyslov – who
went on to challenge Botvinnik for the world title.

Though the event produced many brilliant games. It is most
memorable for the revolutionary style Bronstein chose to adopt in
his tournament book of the event.

David made a conscious decision to ‘explain’ chess to the
average player. Certainly his annotations contain variations,
alternatives and even much tactical depth. Most important of all
though it was clear that he set out to ensure that a raft of high
quality Grandmaster games became at least partly comprehensible to
all standards of players. His efforts have been rightly
acknowledged as equally applicable for club players right up to the
GM level. Boris Spassky once commented ‘The author is present in
its pages’. This is clearly apparent in the warmth, generosity and
wonder at the creative achievements of his peers.

This period (1950’s) was a rich one in terms of chess
development. The new wave of players post war had begun a
revolution in the way the game was played. Indeed this style was to
evolve onward and be further refined some years later by messrs M
Tal, R Fischer and G Kasparov. It was however to Bronstein and his
ilk that initial credit must justly be attributed.

 

Bronstein (along with others such as Taimanov, Boleslavski
and Najdorf) was largely responsibly for a re-evaluation of various
set-ups (most notable the Kings Indian, Nimzo-Indian and Sicilian)
during this time. The transformation in these systems from opening
to middle game had previously been underestimated.

It was during and just after this tournament that these
ideas were to be shaped into the formidable systems they have
become. Do not however assume that Bronstein was simply a super
openings analyst. It is for his clarity of thought and creative
handling of the intricacies of the next phase of the game (the
middle game) that this book has become justly famed for.

Favourite Games/Annotations Taimanov-Najdorf,
Keres-Reshevski and Averbakh-Kotov – sensational stand outs amongst
tens of great games.

In conclusion.

The average player who reads and digests the comments in
this book and in doing so learns naught would do well to give up
chess and try another game say Mah Jong – with sincere
apologies to C.S Howell and his comments on the classic game
Reti-Alekhin Baden Baden 1924.

Available in English translation from Dover books at
#10.95.

 Russell Gooding.