General endgame advice

Posted on September 30, 1999 by DrDave

1 key idea, 3 principles, 15 general laws, 12 practical guides and 6 tips for the ending

One key idea: the passed pawn.

Endgames, and some middlegames, are all about creating and advancing a passed pawn. Either the pawn queens, or your opponent gets so tied up in knots trying to stop it that they lose something else.

3 principles (Fine)

Without pawns, you must be at least a Rook ahead in order to force mate (exceptions: R+R wins against two minor pieces; four minor pieces win against a Queen)
If you are two or more Pawns ahead the win should be routine by advancing the Pawns
With only one Pawn advantage, you will win if you can use it to gain more material – it is not usually enough just to advance the Pawn. Often one Pawn advantage is thought to be a theoretical draw, although the practical difficulties may be very great. Winning by the advance of the Pawn may be won because it allows entry with the King, or causes distraction from one vulnerable side, or allows simplification into a known won ending.

15 general laws (Fine again)

Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: avoid them!
Passed pawns should be advanced as rapidly as possible.
If you are one or two pawns ahead, exchange pieces but not pawns.
If you are one or two pawns behind, exchange pawns but not pieces.
If you have an advantage, leave pawns on both sides of the board.
If you are just one pawn ahead, in 99 cases out of 100 the game is drawn if there are pawns on only one side of the board.
The easiest endings to win are pure King+Pawn endings.
The easiest endings to draw are those with opposite coloured bishops.
The King is a strong piece: use it!
Do not place pawns on the colour of your bishop.
Bishops are better than knights in all except blocked pawn positions
Two bishops vs. B&N or N&N are usually a real advantage.
Passed pawns should not be blockaded by the king: the only piece which is not much harmed by watching over an opponent’s pawn is the knight.
A rook on the seventh rank is worth a pawn.
Rooks belong behind passed pawns, of your own or the opponent.

12 practical tips (Mednis)

The king is a fighting piece and should be centralised and used actively.
Material advantage wins endgames: hold on to your material.
Be wary of sacrificing pawns for development: only in Rook+Pawn endings is an active piece worth material.
Try and gain tempi whenever possible, but without giving up material.
The fewer the pieces, the more important the pawns
Keep a flexible, sound pawn formation: avoid doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns.
Passed pawns must be pushed.
The outside passed pawn is an advantage: in King&Pawns endings it is decisive.
Rooks belong behind passed pawns.
In open positions the two bishops are murder: in most other positions they are a real advantage.
In open or semi-open positions a bishop is usually superior to a knight.
The knight is superior to the bishop in blocked positions or when the bishop is hemmed in by pawns on the same colour squares as the bishop.

[cool blue cat says:]

COOL TIP: MEDNIS says ‘good technique’ means:

not allowing counterplay
holding on to material advantage
establishing a clear plan and following it
being careful
never being in a hurry
avoiding complications
- (and … winning the game!)

Weak pawns

Posted on September 28, 1999 by DrDave

“Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: avoid
them!”

— Fine, Basic Chess Endings

Introduction

“That’s what this match is all about – Pawns,
isolated or hanging. They might just as well play without
pieces.” — Eddie GUFELD, considering yet another IQP position
in the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match (Game 16, position after White’s
24th move)

The English GM David Norwood once said that he made an offer to
analyse and comment on some club players’ games. They expected him
to offer some brilliant analysis, showing them where they had
missed golden opportunities, but his advice was more simple:
“remember Pawns can’t move backwards“. Now, that is one of
the first things any chess player learns, so they were very
disappointed – why was he telling them what they already knew?
Well, they may have known, but they were playing as if they didn’t
know. They were advancing pawns too far, too fast, too often. They
were moving pawns forward which got surrounded and caught, they
moved pawns forward which created holes near their king, they moved
pawns forward which became the focus of a sacrifice. And once they
had moved them forward, they couldn’t move them back. So be careful
with your Pawns!

The two principal problems with poor Pawn formations
are:

(1) opportunities provided to the opponents pieces (e.g.
occupation of ‘holes’)

(2) weaknesses of the Pawns themselves.

Let us start with a notable example:

Weak pawns: the ultimate collection: Deep Blue –
Kasparov, 1996

Just horrible: every one of the six Black Pawns is isolated, or
isolated and doubled! The b-Pawns are also blockaded. Kasparov
staked everything on a King’s-side hack but after 25.
b3! Deep Blue just grabbed the material and steered clear
of the tactics.

There is a lot of meat in this game, which I append if
you want to go over it, but it should tell you one thing if nothing
else: weak Pawns can lose you the game.

Could Kasparov have defended everything instead of trying
to hack? Well, no. It’s a bit like Franklin’s “For the want of
a nail…”: for the want of a friendly neighbour, a d-Pawn is
weak; to look after the d-Pawn, the Knight is assigned guard duty;
for the want of the Knight, the initiative is lost; for the want of
active play, ground is lost on both sides of the board; for the
want of pieces free from defence, more weakness are conceded…
Once you have more than one weakness, the problem snowballs, and
your Pawns fall like ripe fruit into the arms of your opponent.

Playing against Pawn weaknesses needs some persistence
but also some flexibility: this transformation of
advantages is seen in several games below.

Spielmann,R – Nimzowitsch Aaron (San ) (9) [B29]
1911

Black develops pressure against the hanging Pawns.

16… Ba6 17. Rac1 Rac8 18. Qb3 f6

Tension is now high: White initiates a tactical sequence to avoid
losing the c-Pawn, which Black is happy to see to a conclusion.

19. Qa4 fxe5 20. dxe5 Ba3 21. Qxa3 Bxc4 22. Re4
Qd7 23. h3

23… Bd5

The hanging Pawns have vanished. Has White equalised? By
no means. Black has a superior Bishop, a Queen’s-side Pawn
majority, and one of those odd minority Pawn formations on the
King’s-side which make it difficult for White to make use of his
majority. There is still a lot of play in the position, and Black
won.

…0-1 (42)

As well as transformation of positional advantages, you
can see changes in the Pawn structure – which may be sought by both
sides. One well-known sequence may transform an isolated Pawn
structure to one with hanging Pawns:

Rubinstein-Nimzovich

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Bf4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bb4 (isolated pawn)

8.e3 Nf6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 (pawn island)

10.Bd3 O-O 11.O-O Bd6 12.Bg3 Bxg3 13.hxg3
c5 (hanging pawns)

The game continued:

14.Rc1 Be6 15.Qa4 Qb6 16.Qa3 c4 17.Be2 a5 18.Rfd1
Qb4 19.Rd4 Rfd8 20.Rcd1 Rd7 21.Bf3 Rad8 22.Nb1 {?!}
22…Rb8 23.R1d2 Qxa3 24.Nxa3 Kf8 25.e4 dxe4 26.Rxd7 Nxd7
27.Bxe4 Nc5 28.Rd4 Nxe4 29.Rxe4 Rxb2 30.Nxc4 Rb4 31.Nd6 Rxe4
32.Nxe4 Bxa2 {… 0-1}

A bit of theory

There is one general problem with Pawn moves: the
creation of holes, which your opponent’s pieces can occupy.
Tarrasch used to say, “Every Pawn move loosens the
position“. So the first and simplest form of weakness in a
Pawn formation is the hole.

There are four principal varieties of weak Pawn:

backward Pawn

doubled Pawns

isolated Pawn

hanging Pawns

And there is one further idea which you should know
about:

Pawn islands.

Fine’s comment on the title page is in his endgame book,
which may give you a clue that the weakness of weak Pawns is most
important in the endgame: this is true. It may also give you a clue
that in the middlegame there may be some compensations for having
weak Pawns: this is also true, and is the basis for Tarrasch’s
famous dismissal of the supposed weakness of the isolated Queen’s
Pawn:

“Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the
middle-game.“

The most miserable Pawn is the backward Pawn. There are very few
compensations for having a backward Pawn. On the other hand, I have
enjoyed demonstrating the positive side of hanging Pawns more than
once; these are probably the least miserable of the lot. Almost any
variety of weak Pawn is more miserable if it is blockaded or
otherwise cannot move out of the way of an attack: this is the
meaning of Fine’s last warning about blockaded
Pawns. I’ll consider each type of Pawn weakness and
discuss their advantages and if appropriate their compensations.

Backward Pawn.

Black has a backward Pawn at d6.

White has a potentially backward Pawn at c3.

Disadvantages of Backward
Pawns:

The Pawn on d6 is exposed to attack along the d-file but can
neither be supported by a friendly Pawn nor easily be moved out of
the way. The square in front of it (d5) is a potential outpost for
a White Knight.

Possible compensations with
Backward Pawns:

They may support neighbouring Pawns which are strong: above, Black
has a strong central point at e5.

Doubled Pawns

White has doubled Pawns at c3/c4 and g2/g3.

Disadvantages of Doubled
Pawns:

The hindmost Pawn at c3 is effectively backward, but it is the Pawn
on c4 which is most difficult to defend, as no Rook at c1 can
support it.

Possible compensations with
Doubled Pawns:

Doubling of Pawns should yield an open file: here the b-file might
not offer much but the h-file might be worth something. Capturing
towards the centre may give an extra ounce of influence over some
central squares: here the d-Pawn is both supported by a Pawn at c3
while the d5 square is covered by the Pawn at c4.

Isolated Pawn

White has an isolated Pawn at d4.

Black has an isolated Pawn on h7

Disadvantages of Isolated
Pawns:

The isolated Pawn, like a backward Pawn, cannot be defended and
often cannot advance easily. It is therefore weak, and the square
in front of it is a potential outpost for opposing Knights.

Possible compensations with
Isolated Pawns:

The Pawn may support other pieces e.g. Knight on e5, and in the
example the Pawn on d4 gives extra space and mobility to White.
This is not true of Black’s Pawn on h7, which is only weak.

Hanging Pawns

White has hanging Pawns at c4 and d4.

Disadvantages of Hanging
Pawns:

The Pawns are not quite isolated but have the same sorts of
problems, for, if one advances to be supported by the other, the
hindmost

Possible compensations with
Hanging Pawns:

Hanging Pawns on d4 and c4 confer a space advantage, which can be
nurtured for attack. An advance of one or other Pawn may open lines
for the attack, or result in a Passed Pawn.

Pawn islands

White has two Pawn islands to Black’s three.

Disadvantages of extra Pawn
islands:

The Pawns on the edges of Pawn islands are not isolated, but they
are slightly exposed. We might call them “semi-detached”; there is
only one Pawn which can protect them, and only one Pawn which can
protect the square in front of them. This looseness can be
exploited to create more obvious weaknesses.

Possible compensations with
extra Pawn islands:

Gaps between Pawn islands may be useful half-open files. I also
alluded, in the Spielmann-Nimzovitch game above, to a split
minority possibly being better at restraining an opponent’s
majority than an intact majority.

Winning against holes in the
Pawn formation

Steinitz,W – Blackburne,J
London, 1876

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 Be7
7. h3 O-O 8. Qe2 Ne8 9. g4 b5 10. Bc2 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nf1 Nd8
13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Nf5 g6 15. Nxe7+ Qxe7

Morphy and his contemporaries would probably have been
very much surprised if anybody had told him that only ten moves
later White pieces would be settled permanently on f6 and h6.

16. Be3 N8g7 17. O-O-O c5 18. d4 exd4 19. cxd4 c4 20. d5
Nc7 21. Qd2 a5 22. Bd4 f6 23. Qh6 b4 24. g5 f5 25. Bf6

Here we are…!

25… Qf7 26. exf5 gxf5 27. g6 Qxg6 28. Bxg7
Qxh6+ 29. Bxh6 Rf6 30. Rhg1+ Rg6 31. Bxf5 Kf7

[31… Rxg1 32. Rxg1+ Kh8 33. Bg7+ Kg8 34. Be5+ Kf7
35. Rg7+ Ke8 36. Rxc7]

32. Bxg6+ hxg6 33. Ng5+ Kg8 34. Rge1
1-0

Winning against a Backward
Pawn

Bogoljubow,Efim –
Capablanca,Jose (New York ) (09) [D05] 1924

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6
7. Bb2 O-O 8. Nbd2 Qe7 9. Ne5 cxd4 10. exd4 Ba3 11. Bxa3 Qxa3 12.
Ndf3 Bd7 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. Qd2 Rac8

There is some anxiety developing about White’s c-Pawn. His next
move is probably a mistake.

15. c3 a6 16. Ne5 Bb5 17. f3 Bxd3 18. Nxd3 Rc7
19. Rac1 Rfc8 20. Rc2 Ne8 21. Rfc1 Nd6 22. Ne5 Qa5 23.
a4

With straightforward moves Black has put a lot of pressure on the
c-Pawn. His next is a little tactical finesse, which creates a
double attack on two neighbouring Pawns.

23… Qb6 24. Nd3 Qxb3 25. Nc5 Qb6 26. Rb2 Qa7
27. Qe1 b6 28. Nd3 Rc4 29. a5 bxa5 30. Nc5 Nb5 31. Re2

White has been wobbling dreadfully, and finally topples.

31… Nxd4 32. cxd4 R8xc5 0-1

Winning with a Backward
Pawn

Zinn – Sveshnikov, Decin [B33]
1974

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6.
Ndb5 d6

One of the most puzzling of modern variations: didn’t the games on
Knight outposts suggest that Black is virtually lost? Well, he is
if White proceeds smoothly, exchanges all the right pieces, and
Black has no counterplay.

7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10.
Nd5

All according to plan A, but there are some differences: Black has
an interesting collection of K-side pawns which may allow …f6-f5
and …Rg8, and White’s Knight on a3 is taking no part in the
struggle.

10… f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 Bg7 13. O-O f4 14.
c3 O-O 15. Nc2 f5

Black is making maximum use of the f-pawns and White looks at least
as loose as Black.

16. Ncb4 Nxb4 17. Nxb4 d5 18. exd5 Bd7 19. Bc2
Be8 20. Qe2 Kh8 21. Rad1 Qh4 22. f3 Rf6 23. Qe1 Qg5 24. Qxe5 Bd7
25. Qe7 Rg8

Black follows his pawn sacrifice with a Bishop!

26. Qxd7 Rf7

The f-pawns keep White’s pieces from defending the King, and White
has no answer to the vacating sacrifice …Bd4.

0-1

Winning against Doubled
Pawns

Mattison – Nimzovich
(carlsbad) CHERNEV [E21] 1929

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6.
Qc2 Qe7 7. Ba3 c5 8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4 Bxg2 12.
Kxg2 Qb7+ 13. Kg1 Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 Na5

White has a problem with the front c-Pawn, which can be patched up
only at the cost of creating holes. Black’s Knights leap about all
over the White Pawns.

16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Nc4 18. Bc1 a6 19. bxa6
Rxa6 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2 Nd5 22. Rd3 Rfa8 23. e4 Ne5

“The centre cannot hold…”

0-1

Winning with Doubled
Pawns

Bhend, E – Hort, V (Kecsemet)
[B00] 1964

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+
gxf6

All a bit early to call – we observe the Pawn differences, but not
much else. Black has a doubled Pawn, and and extra open file.

6. c3 Bf5 7. Nf3 e6 8. Bf4 Bd6 9. Bg3 Qc7 10. Qb3
Nd7 11. Be2 O-O-O 12. Nd2 Nb6 13. a4 a5 14. O-O Rhg8

Black’s Rooks have done their duty in occupying the files: Black
now executes a simple King’s-side attack.

15. Rfe1 Bxg3 16. hxg3 h5 17. Bf3 Bg4 18. Be2 h4
19. gxh4

Some brisk tactics finish the job.

19… Bh3 20. Bf1 Rxg2+ 21. Bxg2 Rg8 22. Kf1 Rxg2
23. Nf3 Qf4 24. Re3 Nd5 25. c4 Nxe3+ 26. Qxe3 Rg1+ 0-1

Winning against an Isolated
Pawn

Lasker-Reshevsky, Nottingham
1936

Here’s another isolated/hanging pawn game, showing the weakness of
the pawn being turned to attack.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4
c5 6. Nc3 a6 7. O-O b5 8. Bd3 cxd4 9. exd4 Bb7 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Qe2
O-O 12. Rad1 Nbd7 13. Ne5 Nd5

Always this blockade: here it also offers desirable exchanges.

14. Bc1 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Nf6 16. a4 Qd5 17. Nf3 Rfc8
18. Bb2 Ne4 19. Rc1 Ng5

Black has developed strong pressure along the long diagonal.

20. axb5 axb5 21. Bxb5 Nxf3+ 22. gxf3 Qg5+
0-1

One might ask:

why does the side attacking the IQP blockade the square
in front of it?

and why should the side with the IQP avoid exchanges?

Simple answers: you blockade the IQP because it may
advance to d5 and blow up your position, and you avoid exchanges if
you have an IQP because the endings are bad for you and you might
make use of the extra space to create an attack.

Winning with an Isolated
Pawn

Stoltz – Thomas, Zaandamk
[D40]1946

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 cxd4
7. exd4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 a6 11. Ba2 b5

White’s advantage seems trifling – a good Rook on e1, and the move
– but is rapidly converted through the characteristic d4-d5 break.
White can see no tactical opportunity in particular, but a general
optimism based on open lines 12. d5 exd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 14.
Qxd5 Qd6

[14… Bb7 15. Bg5 with a strong initiative based on
his more active pieces 15… Bxg5

[or 15… Na5 16. Qf5 Bxg5 17. Nxg5 g6 18.
Nxf7]

16. Nxg5 Qxd5 17. Bxd5 h6 18. Ne4]

15. Rxe7 Qxe7 16. Qxc6 Bg4 17. Be3 Rac8 18. Qd5
Rfd8 19. Qg5 Qxg5 20. Nxg5

White has secured two pieces for a rook, and his initiative
endures.

20… Rd7 21. f3 Bf5 22. g4 Bd3 23. Rd1 Rcd8 24.
Bb6 Bc4 25. Rxd7 Rxd7 26. Bxc4 bxc4 27. Ne4 f5 28. gxf5 Kf7 29. Ba5
Rd5 30. Bc3 h5 31. Kf2 Kg8 32. f6 1-0

Winning against Hanging
Pawns

Fischer – Spassky WCh (6)
[D59] 1972

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Rc1 Be6 12.
Qa4 c5 13. Qa3 Rc8 14. Bb5 a6 15. dxc5 bxc5 16. O-O Ra7 17. Be2
Nd7

Black seems to have supported his Pawns nicely, but Fischer’s next
three moves exploit the remaining looseness to create a new
formation in which White has the better minor piece, prospects of
attack, and an enduring initiative.

18. Nd4! Qf8 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. e4! d4 21. f4 Qe7
22. e5 Rb8 23. Bc4 Kh8 24. Qh3 Nf8 25. b3 a5 26. f5 exf5 27. Rxf5
Nh7 28. Rcf1 Qd8 29. Qg3 Re7 30. h4 Rbb7 31. e6 Rbc7 32. Qe5 Qe8
33. a4 Qd8 34. R1f2 Qe8 35. R2f3 Qd8 36. Bd3 Qe8 37. Qe4 Nf6 38.
Rxf6 gxf6 39. Rxf6 Kg8 40. Bc4 Kh8 41. Qf4 1-0

Winning with Hanging
Pawns

Bertok – Fischer [D59]
1962

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12.
O-O c5 13. dxc5?! 13… bxc5 14. Qa4 Qb7!

White is not well-placed to harass the pawns, while Fischer is
making use of his own trumps – like the half-open b-file.

15. Qa3 Nd7 16. Ne1 a5 17. Nd3 c4

This is a very committal move. The b-Pawn is pinned down,
the d-Pawn becomes backward, and the fourth rank becomes
blocked.

18. Nf4 Rfb8 19. Rab1 ? (Nxe6)
19… Bf5 20. Rbd1 Nf6 21. Rd2 g5

White is terribly short of ideas. It’s “make your mind up” time!

22. Nxd5

[22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4]

22… Nxd5 23. Bxc4 Be6 24. Rfd1? 24…
Nxe3 (oops) 25. Qxe3 Bxc4 26. h4 Re8 27. Qg3 Qe7
28. b3 Be6 29. f4 g4 30. h5 Qc5+ 31. Rf2 Bf5 0-1

Winning against extra Pawn
islands

Capablanca,Jose –
Kupchik,Abraham (Havana ) (07) [C49] 1913

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6.
Bxc6 bxc6 7. Nxe5 Qe8

8. Nd3 Bxc3 9. dxc3 Qxe4

[9… Nxe4 10. Re1]

10. Re1 Qh4 11. Qf3 Ba6 12. Bf4 Rac8 13.
Be5 (idea /\ Nc5)13… Bxd3 14. cxd3 Qg4 15. Bxf6
Qxf3 16. gxf3 gxf6

Assessment, +/-: better Pawns, fewer Pawn islands,
more active pieces. The weakest spot in the Black position is the
isolated a-Pawn, and it is here that an attack should be directed.

17. Re4

First, Capablanca mobilises and centralises his pieces.
There is never any sense of rush when Capa plays an ending. This
ease of mobilisation is a dynamic advantage to add to the static
ones just listed.

17… Rfe8 18. Rae1 Re6 19. R1e3 Rce8 20. Kf1 Kf8
21. Ke2 Ke7

Now, White can attack the a-pawn.

22. Ra4 Ra8 23. Ra5

restrains the Pawns

23… d5!?

I can sympathise with the bid for space but this is not
forced and has the disadvantage of leaving the c-Pawns without
support – backward, although not exposed on a file. White quickly
blockades the Pawns.

24. c4! Kd6

[24… dxc4 leaves all Black’s Pawns isolated and
most of them doubled!]

[24… d4 25. Re4 Kd6 26. b4 Re5 27. Ra6 ‘hopeless’,
said Capa]

25. c5+ Kd7 26. d4

Black’s pawns have become fixed, cutting off the
Queen’s-side.

26… f5

Hoping to nip out to h6 with some play.

27. Rxe6! fxe6 28. f4

Clearing the third rank for a Rook

28… Kc8 29. Kd2 Kb7?!

Black has achieved a solid defence of the a-Pawn and Whiite can
achieve little else there. But White has access to both sides of
the board via the third rank. [29… Rb8!? 30. Kc3

[30. b3 blocks the third rank]

[30. Kc2 Rb4 31. Kc3 Rc4+ 32. Kd3 Rb4]

30… Rb7 may have been better]

30. Ra3 Rg8 31. Rh3 Rg7

This defence from the side keeps the Black Rook more
active than moving it to defend from h8, but I’m sure Black also
considered …Rg1!?, giving up a Pawn to get the Rook active. It
looks a bit speculative here but is the right sort of idea to have
in mind.

32. Ke2 Ka6 33. Rh6 Re7 34. Kd3 Kb7 35. h4 Kc8
36. Rh5 Kd7 37. Rg5 Rf7

Again, Black has achieved a solid, if passive, defence. White now
returns his attention to the Queen’s-side.

38. Kc3 Kc8 39. Kb4 Rf6 40. Ka5 Kb7 41. a4 a6 42.
h5 Rh6

White is poised on both fronts but can improve the position of his
pieces no further. It is time to try and force the issue.

43. b4 Rf6 44. b5!?

[44. Rg7! Rh6 first would have been better, according
to Capa: 45. b5 axb5 46. axb5 cxb5

[46… Rxh5 47. b6]

47. Kxb5 e.g. 47… Rxh5 48. c6+ Kb8 49.
Ka6]

44… axb5 45. axb5 Rf8

Off to sieze the a-file!

[45… Rf7 46. h6 Re7 47. Rg7 is hopeless: so Black
must counterattack.]

46. Rg7 Ra8+ 47. Kb4 cxb5 48. Kxb5
Ra2

Black has gained some activity. Of course, White does not retreat
and defend with Rg2.

49. c6+ Kb8 50. Rxh7

White has an h-pawn. Can the lone Black Rook do enough to
compensate?

50… Rb2+ 51. Ka5 Ra2+ 52. Kb4 Rxf2 53. Re7
Rxf4?!

Natural, but not exact.

[53… Rb2+! 54. Kc3 Rh2 55. Rxe6 Ka7 56. h6 Kb6
which isn’t great but Black is also fighting with the King
now]

[53… Rh2? 54. Rxe6 Rxh5 55. Re5 Ka7 56.
Kc5]

54. h6 Rxd4+ 55. Kb5 Rd1 56. h7

A Pawn on the seventh seems worth three in the bush!
Black can only hope to harass the King with checks, but these are
soon exhausted.

56… Rb1+ 57. Kc5 Rc1+ 58. Kd4 Rd1+ 59. Ke5 Re1+
60. Kf6 Rh1 61. Re8+ Ka7 62. h8=Q Rxh8 63. Rxh8 Kb6 64. Kxe6 Kxc6
65. Kxf5 Kc5 66. Ke5 c6 67. Rh6 Kb5 68. Kd4 1-0

Winning with extra Pawn
islands

This ought to work rather like the extra files in doubled Pawn
positions, but damned if I could find any convincing complete
games. I did dig a couple of examples out of my opening files,
though:

Geller’s Quiet System – Bronstein [B06] 1993

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c3 d6 4. Nf3
Nf6

5. Nbd2

[5. Bd3 (best)]

5… O-O 6. Be2

[6. h3 b6 7. Bc4 e6 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qe2 c5 10. dxc5
bxc5 11. e5 dxe5 12. Nxe5 Nd5 13. Ndf3 Nd7 14. Bg5 Qc7 15. Nxd7
Qxd7 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. Rfe1 Nb6 18. Bd3 c4 19. Bc2 Nd5

Simagin-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,44]]

6… b6 7. O-O e6

(To stop e4-e5-e6 and discourage d5 in reply to the
coming …c5. Benko has in fact played 7…Bb7 without immediate
harm, but this is safer)

8. Re1 Bb7 9. Bd3 c5 10. dxc5 bxc5 11. e5 dxe5
12. Nxe5 Nc6 13. Ndc4 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qc7

=+ K/B

(Better bishops, possibilities of play on b-file, and
some central influence from Pe6; moreover, the Queen’s-side
majority cannot really get going, as there is no real ‘candidate’
for promotion)

15. Qe2 Rab8 16. Bd2 Ba8 17. Nc4 Nh5 18. Be4 Bd5
19. b3 Rfd8 20. Rad1 Nf6 21. Bc2 Qb7 22. Na5 Qb6 23. Nc4 Qa6 24.
Ne3 Qxe2 25. Rxe2 Bc6 26. f3 a5

Filip-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,85]

=/+

The Benoni in quotes

Posted on September 28, 1999 by DrDave

John Nunn tells us that the Benoni is often called:

“One big swindle”

C.H.O’D. (Hugh) Alexander once remarked:

“If God played God in the Ben-oni, White would win. But at any other level, Black’s practical chances are excellent.”

The Art of Analysis, Part 2

Posted on September 21, 1999 by DrDave

You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at analysing the games yourself!

   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.01"] [Round "1"] [White "Hodge, D."] [Black "Lane, P."] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C07"] [PlyCount "114"] {How do you analyse a chess game?  If it's someone else's: (1) Play through the whole game fairly quickly, seeing what ebb and flow the game had.  (2) Divide the game up into episodes, even if they are only opening middlegame and endgame, and try to describe what happened and who if anyone had the advantage. (3) Try and find the critical steps, where one or other side made an important choice (if it was only to overlook something!).  (4) Put your account aside for a few days and have a fresh look later.  What other ideas now occur to you?  Did you make a too-smooth moral fable out of a more fluctuating scrap?   OPENING: in a standard line Black has a slight cramp and an extra central Pawn. Soon, however, exchanges break out.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 a6 { [#] So far, so standard.} 11. Be3 {"Less dangerous" - John Watson.    Nonetheless both David and Pete are about as safe to relax around as an alligator in your swimming pool, so I imagine the next few moves were played with some care on both sides.} (11. Bb3) (11. c3) (11. b3) (11. Re1 Qc7 12. Bb3 Bd6 13. Nf5 Bxh2+ 14. Kh1 O-O (14... Kf8 $5) 15. Nxg7 Rd8 (15... Kxg7 16. Qd2 Ng8) 16. Qf3 Kxg7 17. Bh6+ Kg6 18. c3 Nd5 19. Rad1 f5 20. Bc1 Bd6 21. Bxd5 exd5 22. Rxd5 Bd7 23. Qh3 Bf8 24. Re3 Kg7 25. Rg3+ Kh8 26. Qh4 Be6 27. Bf4 Be7 28. Bxc7 {1-0 Adams, M-Dreev,A/Hoogovens, Wijk aan Zee NED 1996}) 11... Qc7 12. Bb3 Bd6 13. h3 O-O ( 13... b5 {is one more Pawn move to get the Bd7 developed more aggressively.}) 14. a4 Bd7 15. Qe2 {Black has an extra central Pawn and has an opportunity to make use of it.} Bh2+ (15... e5 {This looks bold but is entirely consistent with the position, and is played at a time when White can't react with usual annoying ideas like Nf5 or Nc2-e3.  That's what I would have played, but Pete likes to play it the way he is used to.}) 16. Kh1 Bf4 {Exchanges are a reasonable objective in a cramped position, although that is one of Black's better pieces it is being exchanged for a potentially dangerous White one.} 17. Rfe1 Bxe3 18. Qxe3 Bc6 19. Qe5 (19. Nxc6 Qxc6 20. Rad1 {looks a better try for an edge.}) (19. Rad1 $1 $11 {Fritz5}) 19... Qxe5 20. Rxe5 Bd5 21. c3 $15 (21. Bxd5 Nxd5 22. c4 $11 {Fritz5}) 21... Bxb3 22. Nxb3 Rfd8 { [#] ENDGAME: There now follows a tense sequence where each side tries to make their Rooks active and attack Pawns. White targets b7 but allows Black activity in return.  White then carelessly drops the a-Pawn.    Can Black convert the win?  Black decides to make his two breaks earlier rather than later - possibly incorrectly.} 23. a5 Rac8 24. Ra4 Rd1+ 25. Kh2 Rb1 26. Re2 Nd5 27. Nd4 g6 28. Kg3 Kg7 29. c4 Nf6 30. Rb4 Rd1 31. Nf3 Rc7 { [#] Last chance to save the a-Pawn.} 32. Ne5 Ra1 33. Ng4 Nxg4 (33... Nh5+ {retains the Knights}) (33... Rxa5 {allows White to exchange if he wants}) 34. hxg4 Rxa5 35. Rd2 Rac5 36. b3 b5 (36... Kf6 {make the King one square better before breaking; the Rook on b4 is going nowhere fast.}) 37. Ra2 bxc4 38. bxc4 Ra7 39. Kf3 Kf6 40. Ke3 a5 41. Rb5 Rxc4 $15 ( 41... Rxb5 $1 42. cxb5 Ke5 $17 {Fritz5}) 42. Raxa5 Rxa5 43. g5+ Kg7 44. Rxa5 h6 45. gxh6+ Kxh6 46. f3 Rb4 47. Re5 Rb3+ 48. Kf4 Rb2 49. g4 g5+ 50. Ke3 Kg6 51. Ra5 Rb3+ 52. Ke2 f5 { [#] Black could try to get the Rook to d5 before  this.} 53. gxf5+ exf5 54. Kf2 f4 55. Ra2 Kh5 56. Kg2 Kh4 57. Rc2 Ra3 {If it's your own: (1) write down as much as you can remember about what you thought about at the time, and (2) any thought your opponent shared during a Post Mortem.   (3) Leave it for a few days and come back fresh, then analyse it as you would somebody else's.  Be particularly wary of self-serving interpretations, especially of the "I was winning all the way through" variety.  What did you miss?} 1/2-1/2 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.01"] [Round "2"] [White "Pickering, A."] [Black "Brusey, A."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C05"] [Annotator "DR, RS, Fritz5"] [PlyCount "84"] {OPENING: Black chooses a cheeky line and equalises without difficulty.  White commits a serious error and bales out by sacrificing the exchange.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Ne4 5. Bd3 {when faced with a sharp and unorthodox move, returning the ball with a good solid all-purpose move like Bd3 is the right strategy, deferring the critical moment to later in the game.} (5. Nxe4 dxe4 $14 {is the critical line, supposed to give White the advantage (perhaps no more than in other lines of the French), although Black naturally would know his way around this better than White.} 6. Bc4 (6. Be3)) 5... Nxd2 6. Bxd2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 $6 {BCO2 gives the immediate ...Qb6 as better.} 8. Be3 (8. Nf3 Qb6 9. dxc5 $14) 8... Qb6 { [#] Black has an OK game - a standard Advanced French but with less cramp - but has sacrificed a tempo to do so.  However, White faces unpleasant pressure against d4 and b2.} 9. b3 $2 {Can't be right.} (9. dxc5) ( 9. Nf3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Bb4+ (10... Qxb2)) (9. Qb3 {"should not be overlooked" - Fritz 5}) 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 {Normally Black just displaces the King out of spite, but here he can nibble a Pawn.} Bc3 { [#] MIDDLE GAME: White manfully gives up the exchange, but the test of the game is a slow exercise in the inevitable.  Black can always gain squares by threatening exchanges.} 12. Nf3 (12. Rc1 Bxd4 13. Bxd4 Nxd4 14. Qg4 {-/+  Fritz 5}) 12... Bxa1 13. Qxa1 Bd7 14. g3 Nb4 15. Bb1 Rc8 16. Kg2 Nc2 17. Qb2 Nxe3+ 18. fxe3 Qb4 19. Ng5 h6 20. Nf3 Bb5 21. Rc1 Rxc1 22. Qxc1 Kd7 23. a4 Be2 24. Nd2 Rc8 25. Qe1 Bh5 26. e4 Qxd4 27. exd5 Qxd5+ 28. Be4 Qd4 (28... Qxe5 $4 29. Bc6+ Rxc6 30. Qxe5 {- Fritz 5}) 29. Nc4 b6 30. Kh3 Qd1 31. Qe3 (31. Qxd1+ Bxd1 32. a5 bxa5 33. Nxa5 {- Fritz 5}) 31... Bg4+ (31... Qf1+ $1 32. Kh4 g5+ 33. Kxh5 (33. Qxg5 hxg5+ 34. Kxg5 Rg8+ 35. Kh6 Qc1+ 36. Ne3 Qxe3+ 37. Kh7 Qg5 38. Bc6+ Kxc6 39. h4 Qg6#) 33... Qh3# {- Fritz 5}) 32. Kg2 Qe2+ 33. Kg1 Qxe3+ 34. Nxe3 Rc1+ 35. Kf2 Bd1 36. Nxd1 Rxd1 37. Ke3 f6 38. Kf4 (38. exf6 gxf6 39. Ke2 $19 {Fritz 5}) 38... f5 39. Bf3 Rb1 40. g4 g5+ 41. Kg3 f4+ 42. Kf2 Rxb3 {Thanks to Ray Shepherd's Fritz5} 0-1 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.01"] [Round "3"] [White "Halmkin, PE."] [Black "Bellers, CJ."] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "B24"] [WhiteElo "2500"] [PlyCount "64"] {OPENING: a less common line is adopted where some controversial decisions are made.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. Nge2 d6 6. d3 e5 { [#] The Botvinnik treatment.  [#] The Botvinnik treatment.} 7. O-O (7. Nd5 Nge7 8. c3 Nxd5 9. exd5 {sealing the hole on d5 sealing the hole on d5} Ne7 10. O-O O-O 11. f4 Bd7 12. h3 Qc7 13. Be3 Rae8 14. Qd2 Nf5 15. Bf2 h5 16. Rae1 Qd8 17. Kh2 Bh6 18. h4 Qf6 19. Be4 exf4 20. Nxf4 Nxh4 21. Be3 Nf5 22. Bxf5 Qxf5 23. Qg2 Qg4 24. Qe2 Qxe2+ 25. Rxe2 Re5 26. Ree1 Rfe8 27. Bf2 h4 28. Rxe5 Rxe5 29. d4 hxg3+ 30. Kxg3 Rg5+ 31. Kh2 Rf5 32. Be3 cxd4 33. cxd4 Kh7 34. Rf2 g5 35. Ne2 Rxf2+ 36. Bxf2 f5 {0-1 Smyslov,V-Botvinnik,M/Moscow Wch-m 1954}) 7... Nge7 8. Kh1 (8. Be3 h5 $5 9. h3 Be6 10. Nd5 Qd7 11. h4 Bxd5 12. exd5 Nd4 13. c3 Ndf5 14. Bg5 O-O 15. a4 Qc7 16. a5 b5 17. axb6 axb6 18. Qb3 b5 19. Rxa8 Rxa8 20. Qxb5 Rb8 21. Qa4 Rxb2 22. Qe8+ Bf8 23. Ra1 Qc8 24. Qxc8 Nxc8 25. Kf1 Nb6 26. c4 Be7 27. Be4 Bxg5 {1/2-1/2 Kharitonov Andrei Y-Psakhis Lev/Cup World (open), Moscow  (Russ 1989}) 8... h5 $5 {A move with some point (see the Psakhis game) but better saved up, I think.} (8... O-O) (8... f5 $5) 9. f4 {Botvinnik would say that this Pawn is in White's way.} exf4 (9... h4 $5) 10. Bxf4 Bg4 (10... h4 $5 {looks like the right follow-up, taking advantage of the absence of the Knight from f3 and making use of the Pawn on h5.}) 11. Nb5 Be5 { [#] MIDDLE-GAME: White rolls out the standard attack on the f-file but Black holds the line - just.} (11... Ne5 12. Bg5 a6) 12. c3 (12. h3 Be6 13. Bxe5 dxe5 (13... Nxe5 14. d4 Bc4 15. dxe5 Bxb5 16. exd6 Bxe2 17. Qxe2 Qxd6 18. Rad1 $16) 14. Rf6 Ng8 15. Rf2) 12... a6 13. Na3 Rb8 {A natural follow-up to ...a6, but there's a lot of action on the other side.} 14. h3 Bxf4 15. Rxf4 Bxe2 (15... Be6 {idea ...d5 later}) 16. Qxe2 O-O 17. Raf1 b5 18. g4 (18. Qf2 {with one idea d3-d4}) 18... hxg4 19. Qxg4 Ne5 20. Qg3 b4 21. Nc4 bxc3 22. bxc3 Nxc4 23. dxc4 Nc6 24. e5 $17 (24. Qd3 $5 $15 {was preferred by Ray's friend Fritz}) 24... Nxe5 25. Bd5 Kg7 26. h4 f5 (26... Rb2 $5) 27. h5 (27. Rxf5 Rxf5 28. Rxf5 Rb1+ 29. Kg2 Rd1 30. h5 Rd3) 27... Qf6 28. Rxf5 Qxf5 29. Rxf5 Rxf5 30. hxg6 Rb1+ 31. Kg2 Rb2+ 32. Kg1 Rb1+ $4 {The clock may have had something to do with this if I know Chris.} ( 32... Rf6 33. Qe1 Rxg6+ 34. Kf1 Rxa2 $19 {Fritz5} 35. Qb1 Rd2 36. Qb7+ Kh6 37. Qxa6 $4 Nd3) (32... Rd2 {idea Rd3}) 1/2-1/2 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.??"] [Round "4"] [White "Rudall, D."] [Black "Hill, D."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B06"] [PlyCount "104"] {OPENING: White plays solid, and Black plays solid-but-passive allowing a cheeky attack on f7: Black concedes a Pawn.} 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 c6 {Solid but perhaps not to the point.  I like to play these positions with .. .c5 to break up the solid centre.} 5. Bd3 Nd7 6. Nbd2 Qc7 7. Qb3 Ngf6 (7... b5 8. c4 a6) 8. Bc4 O-O 9. Ng5 d5 (9... e6 {is usually an OK try but here} 10. e5 Ne8 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. Nxe6 Qb6 13. Ng5+ Kh8 14. Nf7+ Rxf7 15. Qxf7) 10. exd5 cxd5 11. Bxd5 Nxd5 12. Qxd5 Nf6 { [#] MIDDLE-GAME: Black has some compensation in the two Bishops: he must avoid exchanges and play as actively as possible.  White concedes the Pawn and exchanges off into an endgame.} 13. Qc4 Qb6 14. O-O Bd7 15. Qb3 Qa5 16. Nge4 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bc6 18. Ng3 e5 19. Be3 $6 {Defending d4 just creates a target.} (19. dxe5 Bxe5 20. Re1) 19... exd4 20. cxd4 (20. Bxd4 Bxd4 21. cxd4 Bd5 {is not easy for White either.}) 20... Rfd8 {Recovering the Pawn with a slight advantage.} 21. Qc3 (21. Rfd1 Ba4 22. Qa3 Bf8 23. Bd2 Qb5 $19) 21... Qd5 22. f3 Bxd4 23. Bxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Qxd4 Rxd4 { [#] ENDGAME: Black shows a textbook approach with an active pieces and an active King.  White goes passive and creates numerous weaknesses.} 25. a3 h5 26. Rfd1 Rad8 27. Rxd4 Rxd4 28. b4 $6 Kg7 {KUFTE! In fact, all Black's pieces are better than their White counterparts, a fact which the symmetrical Pawns seem to emphasise!} 29. Ne2 Rd2 30. Nc3 Rc2 31. Nd1 Kf6 32. Ne3 Rc3 33. Kf2 a6 34. Ra2 Ke5 35. g3 Kd4 36. Rd2+ Rd3 37. Re2 Kc3 38. f4 Kb3 39. Nc2 Kc3 40. Ne3 Rd2 41. Rxd2 Kxd2 {A classic Bishop vs. Knight ending has arisen.} 42. f5 Kc3 43. fxg6 fxg6 44. g4 Kb3 45. Kg3 Kxa3 46. gxh5 gxh5 47. Kh4 Be8 48. Nd5 Bf7 49. Nf4 Kxb4 50. Nd3+ Kb5 51. Kg3 a5 52. Kf3 a4 0-1 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.??"] [Round "5"] [White "Lee, RJ."] [Black "Gorodi, J."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E24"] [PlyCount "119"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {OPENING: White plays the most aggressive system against the Nimzo, siezing space in the centre and glaring at the Black King.} 4. f3 (4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3) (4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 c5 6. a3) 4... d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. e3 {Gligoric gives this "?!", although it is merely a switch to another, slower, plan, from the Closed Samisch Variation normally intriduced by 4. e3 or 4. a3.} (7. cxd5 {is more aggressive, aiming to play e2-e4 in one move.  Karpov got the edge using this system against Timman in their Candidates' Match.} Nxd5 (7... exd5 {transposes}) 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. e4 Ne7 10. Be3 O-O 11. Qb3 Qc7 12. Bb5 Nec6 13. Rd1 Na5 14. Qb4 e5 15. Ne2 Be6 16. c4 a6 17. Ba4 Nxc4 18. Bf2 Nc6 19. Qc3 Qa5 20. Bxc6 bxc6 21. Qxa5 Nxa5 22. O-O Rab8 23. Nc3 Rb3 24. Na4 Rxa3 25. Nb6 Nc4 26. h3 h5 27. Rc1 Nb2 28. Rb1 Nd3 29. Rfd1 f5 30. exf5 Rxf5 31. Rd2 Nxf2 32. Kxf2 {Timman J-Karpov A/3, Kuala Lumpur cm f 1990/1/2-1/2 (61)}) 7... O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. cxd5 exd5 {Dissolving the doubled Pawns.  Black must play very carefully now, for White has a natural plan of campaign.  The GMs play this difficult position from both sides, but White seems to be playing the positive side of the position (aiming for e4).} (9... Nxd5 {is a spoiling alternative, aiming for piece play: I might prefer this having played ...b6 already.} 10. Qc2 cxd4 11. cxd4 {idea ...Ba6, with a Queen's-side Pawn majority as long as we survive the middlegame.}) 10. Ne2 Re8 (10... Ba6 11. O-O Re8 12. Ng3 Qc8 13. Bxa6 Nxa6 14. Qd3 Qb7 15. Ra2 Re6 16. Re2 Rae8 17. Rfe1 h5 18. Qf5 g6 19. Qf4 Qd7 20. Bb2 cxd4 21. cxd4 Rc6 22. e4 Nc7 23. Nf1 a5 24. h3 Kg7 25. g4 hxg4 26. hxg4 Ne6 27. Qe3 Rh8 28. Ng3 Kf8 29. e5 Ng8 30. f4 Ng7 31. Qf3 Nh6 32. Rh2 Kg8 33. f5 gxf5 34. g5 Ng4 35. Rxh8+ Kxh8 36. Ne2 Rc2 37. Qb3 Qc6 38. Bc3 Ne3 39. Kf2 f4 40. Rh1+ Kg8 41. Rh6 Qc8 {0-1 Beliavsky Alexander G-Short Nigel D/Linares (Spain) 1990}) 11. O-O Nc6 (11... Ba6 12. Ng3 Bxd3 13. Qxd3 Nc6 14. Bb2 c4 $6 15. Qd2 Qd7 16. Rae1 h5 17. e4 g6 18. Bc1 Nh7 19. Qh6 Re6 20. f4 Ne7 21. f5 gxf5 22. Qxh5 dxe4 23. Nxf5 Nxf5 24. Rxf5 Rae8 25. Re3 Rg6 26. Rh3 {1-0 Kasparov,G-Ivanovic,B/Niksic 06 1983}) 12. Ng3 Be6 13. Bb2 Rc8 14. Qd2 Qd7 15. Rae1 Red8 16. Qf2 Ne7 $6 { [#] Takes pressure off d4} 17. e4 {Ready or not, here we come... Black has neither counterplay on the Queen's-side nor restraint on the e-file, and so must be counted as standing worse.} Ng6 18. e5 Nf4 19. Bc2 Ne8 20. Qd2 g5 21. Ne2 { [#] } Bf5 {Not a bad idea: the Black light-squared Bishop is poor, and if your opponent has two Bishops (however crummy they might appear at the moment) it is good to exchange one of them.  However, the tactical execution is wrong.  Every strategical idea must be negotiated with the tactics in the position.} 22. Nxf4 Bxc2 (22... gxf4 {is messy but not so obviously losing:} 23. Bxf5 (23. Qxf4 Bxc2) 23... Qxf5 24. Bc1 cxd4 25. cxd4 Rc2 26. Qxf4 Ng7) 23. Nh3 h6 24. Qxc2 { [#] That'll do nicely.} cxd4 25. Qd2 dxc3 26. Bxc3 Ng7 27. Nf2 h5 28. Rc1 Ne6 29. Bb2 Rc4 30. Rxc4 dxc4 31. Qxd7 Rxd7 32. Rd1 Rc7 33. Ne4 Kg7 34. Bc3 Kg6 35. Kf2 { [#] Black is again obliged to play with maximum energy...} Kg7 {... not like this.} 36. g3 Kg6 37. Ke3 a5 (37... b5 {is better, keeping the Pawns intact, when White might still have some problems.}) 38. Rd6 Rb7 39. a4 { fixing the b-Pawn} b5 40. axb5 Rxb5 41. Rc6 a4 42. Rxc4 a3 43. Ra4 Nc7 44. Rxa3 Nd5+ 45. Kd4 Nxc3 46. Rxc3 g4 47. Rc6+ Kg7 48. fxg4 hxg4 49. Nf6 Kg6 50. Nxg4+ { [#] Black could resign with a clear conscience.} Kg5 51. h3 Rb4+ 52. Ke3 Rb3+ 53. Kf2 Rb2+ 54. Kf3 Rb3+ 55. Ne3 Rb5 56. h4+ Kh5 57. Rf6 Rb7 58. Kf4 Rb4+ 59. Kf5 Rb7 60. Nd5 1-0 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.??"] [Round "6"] [White "Blackmore, M."] [Black "Ingham, Bill"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B12"] [PlyCount "129"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 {OPENING:  A modest system leads to a position where White has a bit more space.} 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bd3 (5. Be2 {is the fashion - a good reason for not playing it!}) 5... Bxd3 6. Qxd3 c5 (6... Qa5+ 7. c3 Qa6 { is a way to reduce tension if Black wants to play it that way.}) 7. O-O Nc6 8. c3 Qb6 9. Nbd2 Rc8 (9... cxd4 {would prevent the next manoeuvre} 10. cxd4 h5 11. Nb3 Nh6) 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Nb3 Bf8 {rather a sign of distress, but Black is still OK I think} 12. Bf4 (12. Be3 {looked more natural.  With Black's underdevelopment I was trying to find a way to open up the game with f2-f4, but hadn't considered c3-c4.} Qc7 (12... Qa6 13. Qxa6 bxa6 14. Nc5) 13. c4 (13. Bd4 {is the stodgy method}) (13. Nbd4 $5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15. Qb5+ Kd8 16. Qxb7) 13... dxc4 14. Qxc4 Nxe5 15. Qb5+ Nd7 16. Rac1 Qb8 17. Bxa7) 12... Nge7 { [#] MIDDLEGAME: White now looks for a chance to upset the course of the game by direct attack, rather than going for a positional squeeze.} 13. h4 Ng6 14. Qd2 Nxf4 15. Qxf4 Be7 16. h5 h6 17. Qg3 O-O 18. Nh2 f6 19. Ng4 Nxe5 20. Nxh6+ Kh8 21. Ng4 Nxg4 22. Qxg4 f5 (22... Rc4 {was calmer}) 23. Qd4 Qxd4 24. Nxd4 e5 { [#] EARLY ENDGAME: At first glance this looks very good for Black but White makes a right nuisance of himself.} 25. Rfe1 e4 (25... Bd6 26. Nf3 {is much easier for Black.}) (25... exd4 {was worth a look, calling White's bluff: I think it doesn't win but Black has good chances} 26. Rxe7 dxc3 27. bxc3 (27. Rxb7 c2 28. Rc1 Rfd8 29. Kf1 d4 30. Ke1 d3 31. Kd2 Rc5 32. Re7) 27... Rxc3 28. Rxb7 (28. Rd7) 28... Rd8 (28... d4 29. Rd7 d3 30. Rd1) 29. Rxa7 d4) 26. Rad1 Rf6 27. Ne2 Rb6 28. Nf4 Bg5 29. Ng6+ Kh7 30. Rxd5 Rxb2 31. Rxf5 Bf6 32. Rxe4 Rxc3 { [#] When the Rook left the back rank, the mate alert sensor should have flashed red.} 33. Nf8+ (33. Re8 $18) 33... Kg8 34. Nd7 Rc1+ 35. Kh2 Rc6 36. Rg4 (36. h6 $5 $16) 36... Kh7 37. a4 Rd6 38. Nf8+ Kg8 39. h6 Be5+ 40. Rxe5 Rxh6+ 41. Kg3 Rb3+ 42. f3 Kxf8 { [#] Double Rook endings are both more, and less, drawish than single Rook endings!  Here White has an immediate initiative and wangles a Pawn.} 43. Reg5 Rh7 44. Rc5 a6 45. Rc7 (45. Rc8+ Kf7 46. Rc7+ Kf6 { was suggested: this does get the Rook to the seventh "with gain of time" except that ...Kg8-f7-f6 is very useful for Black, escaping from the dangerous back rank and getting KUFTE}) 45... b5 46. Rd4 Ke8 47. Ra7 bxa4 48. Rxa4 Rh6 49. Rxg7 Rbb6 50. Ra2 { [#] } Rhg6+ {The White King's-side Pawns scamper off home in the game, but keeping Rooks on doesn't look right because of the trapped Black King.} 51. Rxg6 Rxg6+ 52. Kf4 Rb6 53. g4 Kf7 54. Ra5 Kf6 55. g5+ Kg6 56. Kg4 Rb4+ 57. f4 Rb6 58. f5+ Kf7 59. Rc5 Rb4+ 60. Kh5 Rb1 61. Rc7+ Kg8 62. Kg6 Rb6+ 63. f6 Rb8 64. Re7 Kh8 65. Rh7+ 1-0

Chess and Psychology

Posted on September 20, 1999 by DrDave

Introduction

Many people use the word “psychology” to refer to ‘gamesmanship’, or perhaps to the familiar failings of attention or attitude during play. For example, I have written and collected material elsewhere about getting your mental attitude right: there are examples (good and bad) in the Psychology section of the Canon, there is some good advice on a Poster for Juniors, and in a compilation of Advice for the middlegame. But here I would like to discuss some of the research that has gone on into chess by psychologists – if you like, the science of chess thinking.

The reason for doing this, apart from my own general interest, is because:

chess research has had a big influence on psychology (particularly in skill research: see, for example, Nicolas, Charness, Vicente and Brewer)
chess research may have important implications for players
many players have misconceptions about what chess research shows: until recently (at least!), this included myself

Chess research seeks to answer: “How do chessplayers think?“. This was actually the title of a commendable series of articles by Simon Webb in CHESS magazine in the late ‘seventies, and if you would like to work through a few examples before reading on, I have collected some material in a separate Web page. I’ll make reference to this page where appropriate below.

Analysis vs. judgement

Many chessplayers have read Alexander Kotov’s book Think like a Grandmaster. It describes how Kotov lifted himself from the also-rans of strong players to become a grandmaster, and what is more, he tells us how he did it: through rigorous training in the analysis of complex positions. His method led him to describe the approach of selecting candidate moves:

“All candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one’s head. This job cannot be done piecemeal, by first examining one move and then look at another.” — Kotov,A Think like a Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty. [1978] (Batsford)

Kotov also insists that each branch of what may be a complex tree should be examined once and once only: anything else shows lack of confidence and leads to a waste of precious minutes on the clock.

I know club players who feel guilty because they rarely or never use this technique. There are a number of important points that can be made in reassurance:

Kotov was already a strong player before he adopted this approach, and while this may be what one needs to get from FM to IM, it may not be the most important thing for you;
not all strong players adopt Kotov’s candidate move approach (would they be still stronger using it? – see position 6/78 – W to move candidate moves?);
and, most importantly,
not all positions are suitable for this approach: it is a way of working through positions of a pronounced tactical nature.

Now, it is possible to conclude that this analytical approach is almost irrelevant to club play. For example, Reti famously once said:

“Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, ‘as a rule not a single one’ “

Moreover, if you read many primers on play: Chernev’s Logical Chess, for example, or his The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played or even Nimzovitch’s My System, they all seem to emphasise positional play and judgement as being the most important aspect of chess.

There is something quite appealing about concluding that strategical judgement is more important than tactical analysis. It may confirm the supremacy of the world of ideas over the brute and grubby realm of tactics; in a sense, strategy is a more inclusive, higher-level way of talking about positions than tactics, just as the gas laws are a higher-level way of talking about the behaviour of gas molecules.

But as well as being appealing, it may be correct. Many people have argued that chess research shows that, whatever makes the difference between masters and the rest of us, it’s not the ability to calculate. For example, the British GM David Norwood has published a booklet summarising his views on chess, which includes this statement:

” It is often supposed that, apart from their ‘extraordinary powers of memory’, expert players have phenomenal powers of calculation. The beginner believes that experts can calculate dozens of moves ahead and he will lose to them only because he cannot calculate ahead so far. Yet this is utter nonsense. From my own experience I can say that grandmasters do not do an inordinate amount of calculating. Tests (notably de Groot’s experiments) supports me in this claim. If anything, grandmasters often consider fewer alternatives; they tend not to look at as many possible moves as weaker players do. And so, perversely, chess skill often seems to reflect the ability to avoid calculations. It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation. Of course there are times when intense calculation is called for, and often the master is better at dealing with these situations than the amateur. No wonder, he has had more practise than the amateur, but all the same his innate calculating ability need not be any greater. Most of the time it is something quite different that is required in chess, something more akin to ‘understanding’ or ‘insight’.” — David NORWOOD, Chess and Education [1995, Gresham College, London].

Paul Powell’s Chess Page includes a polemic to much the same effect, and there are a number of off-line sources (what are they called again? Oh, yes, “books”) which concur. I’d like to look at de Groot’s research, but first, review the history of chess research that de Groot had to go on before his own studies.

Memory: the touchstone of talent?

I don’t know any other sport or game in which you can arrange a simultaneous display, but it is one of the most impressive demonstrations of chess skill. Masters take on dozens of opponents with little apparent mental effort, and achieve huge winning percentages. There seems no time to calculate, as the moves are made almost at a glance. More amazing is blindfold chess, and yet masters can even give blindfold simultaneous displays.

What enables masters to do this?

The most obvious explanation is that they are cleverer than the rest of us. But while there are some links between Chess and IQ, masters are not do not score much more highly than other players – certainly not enough to explain the dramatic differences in performance you can see at a simul. And although chess masters’ memory for chess, as Binet showed, is striking, it seems no better for other spheres.

In fact, for a long while there seemed not much more to add than that masters are better than other players at chess – full stop. What was needed was some task that was not the game of chess itself, but which showed important differences between masters and the rest of us. One was found in the recall of chess positions.

The paradigm was established in an experiment by Djakow, Rudik and Petrovsky [1927]. They presented a chess problem to masters and non-players, and found that after a minute’s exposure the masters could recall the position very much better than the non-players, although this is perhaps a difference that one would expect.

In his book Thought and Choice in Chess, Dutch master and psychologist Adrian de Groot describes how he extended and refined this experiment. He also showed a series of chess positions to a panel composed of four chess players for a few seconds only. Grandmaster Euwe and Master de Groot were very good at this – almost perfect (93%) – whereas other players (an expert and a club player) were much worse (68% and 51%), getting no position entirely right. de Groot talks about a “gulf that separates the master from the non-master“.

This is a difference that perhaps is more of a surprise. de Groot had another surprise for us too: he showed the following position “A” (from one of his own games) to five Grandmasters and five experts, and recorded and analysed their thoughts:

   [Event "How good is your Chess?: Chapter 15"] [Date "2026.09.20"] [Result "*"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "?"] [Opening "?"] [StudyName "How good is your Chess?"] [ChapterName "Chapter 15"] [ChapterURL "https://lichess.org/study/szREx57P/NbAvwt49"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/DrDaveExeter"] [FEN "2r2rk1/pp2bp1p/1qb1pnp1/3nN1B1/3P4/P1NQ4/BP3PPP/2R2RK1 w - - 6 17"] [SetUp "1"] [UTCDate "2026.09.20"] [UTCTime "18:42:22"]   *

He then drew up a table of the number of depth of lines analysed. [ If you would like to compare your thoughts, there is some light commentary here: Comment on (de Groot).] He concluded:

“It is unequivocal that depth of calculation cannot be the prime distinguishing characteristic between the grandmaster and the expert player.“

This hits one with rather a thump. But of course:

“Substantial differences in thinking do exist. The gap between levels of performance of the G- and E-group is enormous: four of the five subjects would almost certainly have won the game; even the fifth would have had a better chance than the E-players who without exception let their opportunity go down the drain.“

de Groot’s research thus led to two things:

a widespread belief that GMs do not calculate much better than other strong players
a very fruitful series of studies on the recall of chess positions.

The subsequent research on recall (e.g. Chase and Simon’s famous study) is of less immediate interest to me here than research on chessplayer’s thinking as such. There is a lot of recall research, which I summarise briefly:

recall tends to be in bite-sized chunks, e.g. fianchetto/castled king [Kg1,Rf1,Bg2,Pf2,Pg3,Ph2], or an inter-related set of pieces in attack and defence
errors tend to be of the same “chunked” nature: for example, including typical elements that are normally missing [say, a Bg2], or excluding elements that are not normally present [say, a Pf4]
recall by strong players is no better than other players for random positions (Chase and Simon, 1973)

[This seems also to relate to performance: performance in finding mate-in-one by strong players is no better than other players for random positions (CHESS, April 1984, pp. 289-290), although in a best-move test Holding found clear strength differences.]

There’s a nice real-life example of chunked memory, and playing by analogy, in John Nunn’s game against Korchnoi in the Blindfold round of the 1994 Melody Amber tournament.

So we seem to have a paradigm for research which is not itself chess, but seems able to tell us something about the way chessplayers perform during games – even suggesting how they think. There was developed the ‘recognition-association‘ model, which suggested that strong players play essentially by analogy: recalling positions and elements of positions, and making judgements about the current position based on this recall. This surely makes a great deal of sense. How often have we seen players flash out the ‘stock’ Bxh7 sacrifice? Is this skill or merely recognition? Gerald Abrahams, in The Chess Mind, argues strongly for the primacy of vision, and says:

“Seeing the idea precedes the logical argument.“

Similarly, Hartston and Wason give an imaginary post mortem conversation which I seem to have heard before:

[Stronger player rejects a move suggested by the weaker player]

Weaker player: What’s wrong with it?

Stronger player: It’s not good.

Weaker player: Why not?

Stronger player: It’s not the sort of move you play in this sort of position

[end of conversation]

So, this “vision thing” seems more important than memory or calculation. I have two immediate caveats to the direction that chess research took, following de Groot:

It should be noted immediately that even if GMs do not calculate much better than other strong players, if you want to be a strong player, then I think you do need to be able to calculate. de Groot presents no data for club-class players compared to “experts”, but I suspect they would be pretty telling. It may not be the thing that is most important for you to improve, and it may be the thing that is most difficult for you to improve, but I have a feeling that tactical alertness and reliability in analysis are important to develop for we club players.
Even if we accept that Grandmasters’ judgements and technique are much better, and that many positions do not require analysis, it still may be that GMs do calculate rather better than other strong players when the need arises.

But there are further cautions one needs to make. Anecdotally, I have read:

“… one other thing is the GMs superiority in tactics. For example Christiansen can find tactics in any position. If you’re a GM you should be able to overpower the IM tactically. The GM will often blow out the IM in this area. ” — Nick de FIRMIAN, in How to get Better at Chess Chess Masters On Their Art by GM Larry Evans, IM Jeremy B Silman and Betty Roberts

And in fact, if you look at the the de Groot material again, the GM/Expert measures were completed once for each player, for only one position. It may be that de Groot chose a position with a number of features that made it particularly hard for the experts to grasp. The key move 1. Bxd5 is a little anti-positional and the Black position does not look vulnerable at first blush. It is interesting to speculate what results he might have got with this one: Colle – O’Hanlon, Nice Ol, 1930: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4

   [Event "Nice"] [Site "Nice FRA"] [Date "1930.02.21"] [Round "9"] [White "Edgar Colle"] [Black "John James O'Hanlon"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/DrDaveExeter"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "D05"] [Opening "Queen's Pawn Game: Colle System, Traditional Colle"] [StudyName "Colle system inspiration"] [ChapterName "Edgar Colle - John James O'Hanlon"] [ChapterURL "https://lichess.org/study/zUCCupv9/gmOvgsr0"]     d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+ Kg6 14. h4 Rh8 15. Rxe6+ Nf6 16. h5+ Kh6 17. Rxd6 Qa5 18. Nxf7+ Kh7 19. Ng5+ Kg8 20. Qb3+ { 1-0 White wins. } 1-0

I guess nearly all players would consider the critical continuation 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+, but I suspect experienced masters would run through the tree of variations more thoroughly and deeply than experts and club players.

Now, Dennis Holding in his 1985 book The Psychology of Chess Skill, collates a number of strands of evidence which suggest that in fact, as we might have all suspected at the outset, strong players do analyse deeper and faster than weaker ones, even in random positions. [But they also are more efficient, homing in on good lines and abandoning duff ones. So it’s not just quantity but also the quality of their analysis which is better.] Norwood’s claims above look more shaky.

The points made above are not meant to be unkind to de Groot: his work has been so widely cited because it was exciting and important. [I do feel a bit cheated by Norwood, who after all could have found Holding’s work as easily as I could.] But it is in the nature of science to improve on past work. There are lots of other good things in de Groot’s book: for example, when do players abandon a line of thought and look for something better? (Answer seems to be: when the assessment of a position at the end of the variation being considered is out of keeping with the initial evaluation of the position.)

Towards a general model

Teichmann once said that “chess is 99% tactics“, and CJS Purdy added “Chess is the art of analysis“; on the other hand David Norwood and Reti suggest that analysis is relatively unimportant.

Surely both positions are partly true. (This “one the one hand…, on the other” style makes one yearn for genetic engineers to develop the one-armed academic.) I might offer that memory, judgement and analysis are all important, that we have different abilities and experiences for each aspect, and that different positions make different demands on each skill. Without some pains being taken to discover the balance of skills amongst players of different strengths (style notwithstanding), and the balance of demands of different positions, we are not yet in a position to say what (if anything) is the key to chess mastery.

In support of this general position, I quote from the abstract of a paper by Dennis Holding:

“The paper reviews the evidence for and against the recognition-association theory and a forward-search (SEEK) theory of chess skill. The recognition-association theory appears to be founded on indirect evidence concerning visual short-term memory, together with supplementary assumptions that may be questioned, and provides no role for verbal processes. There is no direct support for the theory, which omits forward search for reasons that are reexamined. In contrast, the SEEK theory maintains that move choice is based on search and evaluation processes supplemented (or else supplanted) by a knowledge base. These processes are directly evidenced by experimental findings. The objection that search theories cannot account for speed chess is met by a review of the available evidence. It is concluded that chess skill relies on thinking ahead rather than on pattern recognition.” — Holding, PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1992

Now, we needn’t agree with everything Holding says, but it is clear that we may have been hasty in dismissing the importance of analysis (thinking ahead).

The whole of this issue of Psychological Research is devoted to chess, and Holding has written a whole book on The Psychology of Chess Skill (1985). There is clearly much research of interest going on, much of which suggests that chess is more complicated than the ‘recognition-association’ model. And however resounding the pronouncements made about the importance of chess skills, chess remains more complex, and more interesting, than any pat statement.

One last point. It may be that de Groot had something right all along, namely, his method. I think part of the attraction of the later recall paradigm is that there is no messiness: subjects are given a definite task and the languageless patterns of results are scored according to a definite scheme. But de Groot saw no virtue in this style of work: in fact his book is in part a long plea in favour of “introspective” methods in psychology, where subjects are encouraged to talk about their thinking, and the whole messy, unreliable collection of their words is analysed. I have a suspicion that rather than seek the key(s) to chess through some neat experimental technique, the closer we come to studying chess itself, the more likely we are to find an answer.

Further reading:
In addition to books and papers cited above, I have found interesting and useful Krogius’ Psychology of chess and Pfleger and Treppner’s Chess: the mechanics of mind. Hartston and Wason have published a readable book on the Psychology of Chess: it has had favourable reviews and covers the psychoanalytic approach rarely referred to elsewhere.

If the psychology side interests you, you may also be interested to read San Francisco Exploratory’s Exhibit on Memory

Pawn formations

Posted on September 9, 1999 by DrDave

Based on: The Middle Game I by Euwe and
Kramer.
[Currently out of print; Batsford’s have the publishing rights for this
title
and I am grateful for their permission to use this material]

“The most important feature of the chess position
is the activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in
all phases of the game (opening, middlegame and especially endgame). The primary constraint on a
piece’s activity is the Pawn structure.“

— Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

“In general, a Pawn centre is a good thing not in
itself but in its usefulness for concrete ends.“

— Mark Dvoretsky & Artur Yusupov, Opening
Preparation

A. Symmetrical Centre
Formations

A.1. Vanished centre

e.g. Scotch 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 then …d5 and
exd5

The placing of the pieces and/or a development advantage
will decide if the game has any real meat.

A.2. The QP centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5

The open e-file and outpost at e5 (e4) may become crucial
if pieces are allowed to settle there. The natural break c2-c4 does
little to add tension, unless castling is performed on opposite
sides; the Q-side is then risky with outpost at c5.

A.3. The KP centre

e.g. Philidor or Closed Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4.
dxe5 dxe5

Assuming King’s-side castling, the break f2-f4 is much
sharper

A.4. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (i) KPs forward

e.g. Closed Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3
d6

White can prepare the advance d2-d4 with c2-c3, or go for
f2-f4. Black may try to prevent this e.g. h7-h6 and g7-g5, or go
for broke on the Queen’s-side.

A.5. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (ii) QPs forward

e.g. Queen’s Pawn Game 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3

The advance e2-e4 is more difficult to achieve than d4 in
A.4; the more common plan is c2-c4 and a shift of
the struggle to the Queen’s-side. If for some reason c2-c4 is
impossible or undesirable, then e2-e4 must be sought.

B. Positional advantage in the
centre

B.1. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(i) KP forward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 d6 5.
Nf3 dxe5 6. dxe5

White’s chances lie in a direct attack on the King, with
a B on d3

B.2. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(ii) QP forward

e.g. Benoni/KID lines with late …e6 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6 or
Franco-Benoni 1.e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5

White has a space advantage which must be nurtured
carefully.

B.3. Partially Fixed Centre
(i) tension form

e.g. Philidor and Closed Lopez 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.
Nc3 Nd7

White will try to maintain d4 with c2-c3 and use extra
space and mobility, sometimes for K-side attack with outpost on
f5

B.4. Partially Fixed Centre
(ii) Benoni without …e6

e.g. 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6

White has a large space advantage and can play for direct
attack on the King with f4-f5 or just roll down the middle with
e4-e5

B.5. Partially fixed centre
(iii) French with White d-pawn backward

e.g. Advance French with exchange on d3 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5
b6 4. Bd3 c5 5. f4 Ba6 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bxd3 8. cxd3

White has a post on d4 for a Knight. The major pieces may
come off on the c-file, when White has a post on d4 for a King;
without exchanges White can play for attack and break with
f4-f5

B.6. Partially fixed centre
(iv) French with Black d-pawn backward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5.
cxd4 e6 6. Nf3 b6

Black has a post on d5, White can play for attack on the
K with B on d3

B.7. Mobile Centre (i) King
Pawn

e.g. Nimzo after exchanges of the d- and c-pawns, or other slow
opening after d3, e4 and …d5xe4

There will be a struggle for e5 e.g. White will sieze it
with a N and play for attack. This can be resolved by the advance
of either e-pawn, when we have structures considered above.

B.8. Mobile Centre (ii) Queen
Pawn

e.g. Indian Defence with …e5xd4, e3xd4, or Alekhin Exchange
variation 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 exd6

White has a space advantage and is very likely to play c4
(else …d5 will come quickly), when Black will be short of space.
Black must put pressure on the White centre.

There will be a struggle for d5, which can be resolved by
the advance of either d-pawn, when we have structures similar to
those above, although White can go for a bind with c4-c5.

C. Extra Central Pawns

C.1. Absolute Centre

e.g. King’s Gambit Declined 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3
or Nimzo after cxd5,…exd5 and e4, …dxe4 and fxe4

A substantial asset, but not decisive – the reason being
the pressure that can be put on the pawns by the opponent’s rooks
(they are in fact a type of hanging pawns). If the centre can be
kept intact, and perhaps advance, then the advantage will manifest
itself.

C.2. Hanging Centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. Bd3 c5
and later dxc5, and …f6,exf6, …Nxf6

Another hanging formation, with a key square at e5. If
White can occupy e5 or at least prevent …e6-e5 then Black will be
worse. Usually Black can keep White pestered with enough nuisances
to keep in the fight, but often a single tempo will make the
difference between a successful blockade and a successful
advance.

C.3. Classic Centre

e.g. Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5.
d4 exd4 6. cxd4

One of the strongest formations – if White can keep it
intact. In the Giuoco Piano line above Black can disrupt it with
…d5. But if Black retreats with 6…Bb6 the centre will either
form the basis of a crushing attack, or simply roll forward.

C.4. Neo-Classic Centre
*

e.g. Slav, Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Grunfeld Defence, Queen’s
Indian 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc5 5. a4 Na6 6. e4 or
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4

Again strong: Black’s best hopes are to hit at it with
…e5 (risking d5) or …c5. Sometimes in the Grunfeld …f5 may
play a part.

C.5. Neo-Classic Centre: with
open file

e.g. Grunfeld 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4
Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Bc4 Bg7 8. Ne2 cxd4 9. cxd4

Tactically this may still be dodgy for Black, but
strategically is prefereable to C4, as the cramp
is less, the opportunities to hit at the centre (and directly at
pieces) are better, and the Queen’s-side majority is an endgame
plus.

C.6. Unbalanced tension
form

e.g. Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6.
Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

A tense formation: White can exchange on e5 (rival
majorities), Black can exchange on d4 (ditto), or White can push d5
(not strategically worrying for Black, but may be troublesome
tactically).

C.7. Latent Central Majority
(i) QP in reserve

e.g. Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. d3

Often in the RL Exchange White plays d4, and after
…exd4 has a free majority on the King’s-side. Here Black would
play …c5 if White hinted at this, so White must either play more
slowly for d4, or try f4, or leave things in the centre as they are
and creep over to the King’s-side for an attack on the Black
King.

C.8. Latent Central Majority
(ii) KP in reserve

e.g. Queen’s Gambit and Caro-Kann Exchange. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6
3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5.

White has a choice of plans: to prepare the advance e2-e4
(usually by f3), or to play the minority attack.

The e4 advance is favoured by (a) the d4-pawn not being
vulnerable, and (b) two bishops to fight in the resulting open
position. So in the line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3
5. bxc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 all the signals are there for the e4 plan
to be favoured; in the QGD the minority attack is most common.

D. Closed Formations

D.1. Blocked oblique (i) QP
forward *

e.g. King’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5.
Nf3 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. d5, or from Ruy Lopez with d4-d5 (cf.
B3)

White has only two ways to open a file: the breaks f4 and
c5. The former may leave a weak backward pawn on e4 after …e5xf4
(even if White can reply g3xf4), so the latter is preferred. Black
will naturally counter with …f5. White can also easily achieve
b4, with a strong Queen’s-side initiative, but Black’s attack on
the castled White King is dangerous.

D.2. Blocked oblique (ii) KP
forward *

e.g. French advance 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 (also
Caro-Kann)

In practice …c5 and …cxd4, cxd4 is common,
tranferring the position to F3. Without …c5
Black is crushed by the advance f2-f4-f5. So the only important
position is if Black pushes past with …c5-c4, as in the line 1.
e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 c4. White will
still aim for the attack, but Black can play for infiltration of b3
and to open lines with …b5-b4. Black can castle Queen’s-side, but
this may make …b5 more difficult.

D.3. Stonewall

e.g. most common is the Dutch 1.d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.
Nc3 d5, but also Semi- Slav and other QP openings.

Black plays for a King’s-side attack, with an outpost on
e4 and a pawn-break …g5 and …f4; White’s easiest strategical
plan involves assault of c6 with c4-c5 (usually) and b4-b5
(always). White can also try to get at e6 with f3 and e4.

More generally White must aim at restraint of …e5,
exchange of dark-squared bishops, and controlling key squares with
Ns on f3 and d3.
Usually c4xd5 is met by …c6xd5, but if White is organised for b4
then …e6xd5 may wrong-foot White’s pieces.

D.4. Anti-Stonewall

e.g. Semi-Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e3 f5 5. f4!

If White has this option Black is advised to avoid the
Stonewall; the King’s-side attack is unlikely to get far and the
assualt on c6 is just as dangerous.

D.5. Pseudo-Stonewall
(Botvinnik)

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5.
e4

If Black can organise …d5 White’s formation will
shatter; White must adopt a move-order whereby …d5 is impossible
or undesirable. Then the central bind can enable a King’s-side
initiative with f2-f4 and f4-f5. If both players adopt this
formation, the advantage will go to the player who achieves f4
first.

D.6. Wyvill Formation

e.g. Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. a3
Bxc3 6. bxc3 d6 7. e4 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. O-O e5 10. d5

Marmaduke Wyvill, the nineteenth century MP, specialised
in this formation; the details are important here.

Ideal for Black is an outpost on c5, and Queen’s-side
castling. Then the assault on the weak c-pawns can be carried out
in safety, and Black can even think about opening a file with
…f5. But White should not volunteer for d4-d5, and usually Black
can only induce this by playing …c5; if in addition Black has
castled King’s-side White has good chances.

Sometimes pressure with …Re8 and …Qe7 threatens a
discovery with …e5xd4, and this may be enough to provoke d4-d5;
Euwe once played …Na5, …Ba6 and …Qe6!

D.8 Winawer Formation

e.g. (and almost exclusively) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3 6. bxc3.

White has prospects of a King’s-side attack with f4-f5,
but Black’s attack on the c-pawns can be certain of opportunities.
The big structural disadvantage for Black is the lack of the Bf8,
creating possibilities of a dark-square campaign. Black should
castle Queen’s-side, if at all.

E. Open Formations

E.1. Ruy Lopez
Formation

e.g. Philidor or Ruy Lopez Steinitz Variation with
…e5xd4.

White’s superior mobility gives a lasting advantage. It
can be milked for a direct attack on the King; White can post the
Bc1 on b2. These days most players don’t fancy this defensive task
as Black and try to maintain the e5 pawn.

E.2. French/Caro formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4, or 1. e4 c6 2. d4
d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4

With the Bc8 stuck behind the Pe6, Black has a lasting
problem. White can post a Knight on e5 and play sharply to restrict
Black’s pieces and attack the Black King.

It is natural to seek …c5, but even after an exhange
White has the Queen’s-side majority. In the Caro version the Bc8
usually escapes, so Black’s chances are better here, even if it
takes two moves to play …c5. Very often Queen’s-side castling is
an option for either side.

E.3. Sicilian Formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3

A very delicate situation strategically; White has a deal
more space, and prospects of a King’s-side attack. But Black has an
extra central pawn, a minority attack and pressure down the c-file,
and myriad tactical opportunities.

The development of the Bf8 is important; after …e6 and
…Be7 Black has good central control but a slightly weak point on
d6; the centrally sounder …g6/…Bg7 adds so much to Black’s
Queen’s- side play that Black would play it all the time, if it
didn’t also create new opportunities for White’s King’s-side attack
after h4-h5.

White can achieve a powerful bind, and stop Black’s
counterplay, by playing c2-c4. Black may be able to equalise by
good defensive play and achieve a freeing break with …b5 or
…d5, but it is essentially a defensive task that misses out on
the counter-attacking possibilities of the Sicilian.

E.4. Rival Majorities (i) with
open file between

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5
5. Bg2 Nb6 and later d4 and …e5xd4; see also
E3.

Simply, each side must advance their majority.
With Queens on, advancing pawns on the King’s-side cannot be done
casually, but neither can their advance be ignored.

E.5. Rival Majorities (ii)
with no open file between

This formation can be achieved by the centre pawns pushing past
each other once their partners have been exchanged, but more often
it will arise from A2/A3 after an exchange on an
outpost square.

The plans are clear for each side; the bishop’s pawns
must advance, with equal chances.

F. Half-open
formations

F.1. Half-Open with an open
file (i) symmetrical

e.g. Echange Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5

This is plainly similar to other symmetrical formations,
with tactical or dynamic features (lead in development, two
bishops, concentration of force) being more important than the pawn
formation. The structurally important thing here is on which side
the dark-squared bishops are placed.

F.2. Half-Open with an open
file (ii) focus formation

e.g. Ruy Lopez, Tchigorin Defence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf2 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Na5 10.
Bc2 c5 11. dxe5 dxe5

This is strategically very much richer. Usually there are
too many pieces around for invasion via the d-file to be possible,
but it should not be overlooked. White has an outpost on d5, and
after an exchange on d5, e4xd5 gives a passed pawn and the Bc2 and
Nd2 can look forward to a bright future. White also has a plan of
Nf5 and a King’s-side attack, and may seek to control c4 after
a2-a4.

Black has counterplay on the Queen’s-side, and if c5-c4
proves possible, Black suddenly has avoided any nasties on c4 and
has a goal on d3. So White’s pursuit of King’s-side goals cannot be
careless.

F.3. Half-Open with an open
file (iii) Blocked Oblique

e.g. King’s Indian, Ruy Lopez or French; cf.
D1/D2

The discussion in D1/D2 was all about how to open a file,
but here such a file already exists. Four possibilities present
themselves, combining each central pawn being forward with either
bishop file being open. Care and exploitation of the open file
affects markedly the plans described above; both players may switch
to the side with the open file in order to keep an eye on it.

Exchanges of rooks down the open file reduce the chances
of a successful mating attack, but do not much reduce the
positional pawn advances.

F.4. Half-open with half-open
files (i) French

e.g. French with dxc5/…c5xd4 e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3
Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Be3

Black has chances against the Queen’s-side; c4 is an
outpost that cannot easily be disturbed by b2-b3. White’s chances
come on the King’s-side, and the attack must be swift and sure – f5
and h4 may figure in the attack. White should maintain a Knight at
d4, although Black can exchange or otherwise badger it. If Black
can force White to abandon d4, then the advance …d5-d4 may decide
the game in Black’s favour.

F.5. Half-open with half-open
files (ii) Caro-Kann / QGD Exchange

e.g. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.
exd5 cxd5

We see this formation from White’s point of view in the
diagram, where we might expect White to be better developed than
Black. The half-open e-file and outpost on e5 gives prospects of a
King’s-side attack, even if Black had the majority there, as the
advance …e5 will be difficult or impossible. Black must counter
with a minority attack, and can think about spending a moment to
exchange the bad Bc8.

F.6. Passed pawn, protected
but blockaded

e.g. This may arise from D1 after an exchange
on c5.or from C4 after the advance of both the c-
and e-pawns is combined with the advance of the d-pawn

White has a difficult game: no way of opening a file
recommends itself, and Black can roll down the Queen’s-side. With
the e-pawn replaced by a pawn on c4, Black’s chances would
naturally come with …f5. The best blockader is always a Knight,
who loses no squares to the pawns on c5,d5 or e5, and is handily
placed to support pawn advances on either side.

F.7. Isolated Queen’s Pawn
*

e.g. Queen’s Gambit Accepted 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6
4.e3 c5 5. Bxc4 cxd5 6. exd4 or Caro-Kann Panov Attack, 1. e4 c6 2.
d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4.

Isolated pawns are weak, but central pawns are strong.
The critical and common case is the isolated Queen’s pawn (IQP)
where the strength and space is greatest. White can avoid exchanges
and has hopes of a King’s side attack based on a N on e5 and a B on
the b1-h7 diagonal; Black can consolidate and pile up on the d4
pawn, seeking exchanges and an advatageous endgame.

F.8. Hanging Pawns *

Often derived from IQP after …Nd5xc3 and bxc3, then c3-c4.
Directly from e.g. Semi-Tarrasch 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3
c5 or Queen’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. e3

The pawns are strong and can be turned to attack because
they control so many key squares, but if either pawn moves the
weakness of the other will be sharply etched. Again, the defending
side can seek exchanges and the endgame, but this is nothing like
as straightforward a game as the IQP. There is a defensive idea
based on the advance of the isolated a-pawn, hoping to disrupt the
Black Queen’s-side pawns.

You know when you’ve been Benko’d

Posted on September 9, 1999 by DrDave

Steve Homer

In the Benoni Black often struggles to arrange …b5 with moves
like …Na6-c7, …b6, …a6 and …Rb8. Here in the Benko Black
plays it at once, as a gambit.

Key ideas for Black:

For example, in the main line after

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6
6.Nc3 Bxa6 7.e4 Bxf1 8.Kxf1 d6 9.Nf3 Bg7 10.g3 0-0 11.Kg2
Nbd7

Control of long dark diagonal, especially the central dark
squares e.g. …Nfd7-e5
Pressure against the d5 Pawn
Queen’s-side attack with e.g. …Qb6, …Rfb8, …Nbd7-b6-c4.
White’s extra passed(!) Pawn usually remains frozen with terror on
a3 or a4.
Central attack with …e6, …d5

We can see all of these ideas below. White must counter on the
King’s-side or in the centre. Oddly for a gambit line, Black
usually won’t mind the exchange of Queens in the Benko, because the
Queen’s-side initiative persists, while White can no longer hope
for mate on the other side.

However, in none of the games below did White play the
main line, and in only one was the gambit Pawn accepted! This is
not just to avoid theory, as, according to BCO, Black often emerges
with enough pressure to draw in the main lines.

Outline of main lines and variations in the
Benko Gambit

Bibliography: Winning with the Benko Gambit, Byron JACOBS,
Batsford, 1995.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5

[4.Nf3 b4 (4…Bb7; 4…g6) 5.Nbd2; 4.Bg5]

4…a6 5.bxa6

[5.e3

A) 5…axb5 6.Bxb5 Qa5+ 7.Nc3 Bb7

A1) 8.Nge2

A1a) 8…Bxd5 9.0-0 Bc6 10.a4
(10.Qd3) 10…Bxb5 (10…e6; 10…g6) ;

A1b) 8…Nxd5 9.0-0 Nf6 (9…Nc7;
9…Nxc3) ;

A2) 8.Bd2 8…Qb6 9.Qb3 (9.Nge2;
9.Bc4; 9.Nf3) 9…e6 10.e4 (10.Bc4) 10…Nxe4 11.Nxe4
Bxd5 12.Qd3 Qb7 (12…f5) ;

B) 5…Bb7;

C) 5…e6;

D) 5…g6 6.Nc3 Bg7

D1) 7.Bc4;

D2) 7.a4 0-0 8.Ra3 (8.e4;
8.Bc4) 8…Bb7 9.Nh3;

D3) 7.Nf3 7…0-0 (7…d6) 8.a4
Bb7 9.Ra3 (9.Rb1; 9.Bc4; 9.bxa6) ;

5.f3 e6 (5…g6; 5…axb5 6.e4 Qa5+ 7.Bd2) 6.e4
exd5 (6…c4; 6…Qc7) 7.e5 (7.exd5) 7…Qe7
8.Qe2 Ng8 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh3 c4 (10…Qd8) ;

5.b6

A) 5…a5;

B) 5…Qxb6 6.Nc3 g6 (6…e6)
7.e4 d6 8.a4 (8.Nf3) ;

C) 5…d6 6.Nc3 Qxb6 7.a4 g6 8.a5;

D) 5…e6 6.Nc3 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 exd5 8.Qxd5
Nc6 9.Nf3 Qxb6 (9…Rb8; 9…Bb7; 9…Be7) 10.Ne5;

5.Nc3 axb5 (5…Qa5) 6.e4 b4 (6…Qa5)
7.Nb5 d6 8.Bc4 (8.Bf4) 8…Nbd7 (8…g6; 8…Ra5)
9.Nf3]

5…g6 6.Nc3

[6.g3 d6 7.Bg2 (7.b3) 7…Bg7 8.Nf3 (8.Nc3
0-0 9.Nf3 Nxa6; 8.Nh3) 8…Bxa6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Nc3 Nb6
(10…0-0) ;

6.b3]

6…Bxa6 7.e4

[7.f4; 7.Nf3 d6 8.Nd2]

7…Bxf1 8.Kxf1 d6 9.Nf3

[9.g4; 9.Nge2]

9…Bg7 10.g3

[10.h3]

10…0-0 11.Kg2 Nbd7

[11…Na6]

12.h3

[12.Re1; 12.Qe2]

Black’s Queen’s-side attack: White, RG –
Homer, SJ: Surrey Individual #4, 1988

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. b6 Qxb6

This line restricts Black to only one half-open file on the
Queen’s-side, but 6. Nc3 d6 7. e4 g6 8. Be2 Bg7 9. Rb1 O-O
10. Nf3 Bg4

11. O-O Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Nbd7 13. Be3 Qc7 14. Qd2 Rfe8 15. Bg4
Nb6

16. Be2 Nfd7 17. Rfc1 Ne5 18. Nd1 a5 19. b4 axb4 20. Rxb4
Qa7

21. Rbb1 Reb8 22. f4 Ned7 23. Rc2 Na4 24. Rb3 Rxb3 25. axb3
Nab6

26. Bc4 Qa3 27. Qe2 Qa1 28. Rc1 Qa2 29. Kf2 Nxc4 30. bxc4
Qb3

31. Rc2 Nf6 (sealed) 32. Kf3 Nd7 33. Kf2 Nb6 34. e5 Na4 35.
exd6 exd6

36. Qd2 Re8 37. Kf1 Qb1 38. Qc1 Qb3 39. Qd2 Nb6 40. Qc1
Re4

41. Bf2 Nxc4 42. g3 Qd3+ 43. Kg2 Qxd5 44. Kg1 Bd4
0-1

White locks up the Queen’s-side, Black has a
central roller: Parker, C – Homer, S

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. e3 d6 5. cxb5 a6

6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. a4 g6

Theory currently advises Black not to play normal Benko
moves in this variation, but they seem to turn out all right in
this game! Steve wonders if White’s next is inaccurate.

8. Bc4 Bg7 9. Nge2 O-O 10. f3 Nb6

11. Qd3 Nxc4 12. Qxc4 axb5 13. Nxb5 Ba6 14. Nec3 Qd7 15.
Ra3 e6

16. dxe6 fxe6 17. O-O Rfc8 18. Qf4 Rc6 19. Rd1 d5 20. Ne4
Qe7

21. Nxf6+ Bxf6 22. e4 e5 23. Qg4 Bc8

Who can object to winning a Queen? As things go, however,
Black loses the thread, so with hindsight Black perhaps should have
spent a move consolidating the centre – the threat would still
obtain.

24. exd5 Bxg4 25. dxc6 Bf5

26. g4 Bxg4 27. fxg4 Qe6 28. h3 Qxc6 29. Rd6 Qe4 30. Rxf6
Rxa4

31. Bh6 1-0

White plays actively in the centre: Jepps,G –
Homer,S: Exeter Premier #?, 1996

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Nc3 axb5

6. e4 b4 7. Nb5 d6 8. Bc4

This is the sharpest line at White’s disposal, the
so-called Nescafe Frappe Attack, which should obviously be
boycotted because of the Nestle baby milk campaign.

8…g6 9. Nf3 Bg7 10. e5 dxe5

11. Nxe5 O-O 12. O-O Ne8 13. Bf4 Bb7 14. Nxf7 Rxf7 15. d6
exd6

16. Bxf7+ Kxf7 17. Re1 Kg8 18. Rxe8+ Qxe8 19. Nxd6 Qc6 20.
Qg4 Qxg2+

21. Qxg2 Bxg2 22. Kxg2 Bxb2 23. Re1 Nc6 24. Nc4 Bg7 25. Bd6
Bd4

26. Re2 Na7 27. a4 Nc6 28. Nb6 Ra6 29. Re8+ Kf7 30. Rf8+
Ke6

31. Nc4 Kd5 0-1

White plays actively in the centre, part 2:
Jepps, G – Homer, S: Somerset vs. Devon, 1996

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Nc3 axb5

6. e4 b4 7. Nb5 d6 8. Bf4

The older line. Most players know the recommended
reply:

8…g5 9. e5 gxf4 10. exf6

10… e5

[10… Nd7]

11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. Qf3 Ra5 13. Qb7 Bh6 14. Nc7+
Kf8 15. Qb6 Qxf6

16. Qxa5

[16. Qxb8+ Kg7

[16… Ke7 17. Nd5+ Bxd5 18. Qc7+ Kf8 19.
Qxa5

Qxb2 20. Rd1 Qc3+ 21. Rd2 f3 22. Nxf3 Bxf3 23. Qd8+
Kg7-+ ]

17. Ne8+

Rxe8 18. Qxe8 Qxb2]

16… Qxb2 17. Nxe6+ fxe6 18. Rd1 Qc3+ 19. Rd2
Qa1+

20. Rd1

[20. Ke2 Qe5+ 21. Kf3 Qh5+ 22. Ke4 Qf5+ 23.
Kf3]

20… Qc3+ 21. Rd2 Q