Monthly Archives: September 2006

Tales of the Unexpected: dealing with Unorthodox Openings

Posted on by

“All openings offer good winning chances in amateur play”
— LOMBARDY.

  I used to know a Henry who was known as H4 Stewart
because of his inclination to 1.h4 as an opening move, and I’m sure
it saved him a lot of time sweating over the latest line in the
Sicilian Dragon. How should you reply to openings like this? If
faced with 1.h4, or anything else unusual, just keep playing good
chess – keep calm, keep developing, keep your eye on the centre,
and keep your wits about you.

  Let’s put a bit of detail alongside that.

  First thing is, there’s usually two games going on: the
chess and the kiddology. An unusual opening is a challenge. It may
be a trick. Depending on the move, your opponent may be thumbing
their nose at you, saying: I can beat you even with this
rubbish. You aren’t worth taking seriously.

  Unless and until you are losing, play the board, play
good chess, and play to your strengths. I’ll review this and some
of the other responses I have seen with examples.

 

Playing the first move that comes into your
head.

This is of course asking to fall into a trap. Here are two which
continue to provide good business for their perpetrators:

Blackburne’s Shilling Gambit: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Nxe5? [4.c3 Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3]
4…Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#

The Englund-Charlick Gambit: 1.d4 e5
2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4? (4.Nc3; 4.Qd5)
4…Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3 Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3
Qc1#

  Also there are numerous dodgy lines based on long
diagonal cheapos:

Grob’s Gambit: 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2
Bxg4?! (2…c6) 3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5.
Qb3 and Black may have to return two Pawns.

  N.B. The parallel Sokolsky line 1. b4 e5 2. Bb2
Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6 is nothing like so awkward for Black, and
is a good equalising try.

Morals:

Every move may have (or be given) a point.

Look before you lunch.

Expect your opponent to play the best move next move,
even if they have just played one real lemon.

  The parallel mistake in attitude is:

 

Playing any old move assuming that your
position will win itself.

This risks missing the point of your opponent’s opening – in
effect, falling into a positional trap – or perhaps overlooking
some important tactical point later. A common example of this is to
dismiss 1. h4 with a snort and then play 1…e5,
2…Nf6 and maybe something like …Bc5, …Nc6, …d6, …O-O,
only to look up and find your opponent has played b3, Bb2, e3, Ne2,
Ng3, Bd3 and you have castled into a clockwork attack. It’s
happened to better players than you! Always play with a
plan.

Lasker,Em – Bauer,I (Amsterdam) [A03],
1889. 1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3 e6 4.Bb2 Be7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Nf3 Bb7
7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne2 c5 10.Ng3 Qc7 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Qc6
13.Qe2 a6 Black has done nothing to interrupt White’s
clockwork attack 14.Nh5 Nxh5 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qxh5+ Kg8
17.Bxg7 this was the first time such a sacrifice was
played; now, we would call this part of technique 17…Kxg7
18.Qg4+ Kh7 19.Rf3 e5 White will recover his investment
with interest 20.Rh3+ Qh6 21.Rxh6+ Kxh6 22.Qd7 Bf6 23.Qxb7
Kg7 24.Rf1 Rab8 25.Qd7 Rfd8 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.fxe5 Bg7 28.e6 Rb7
29.Qg6 f6 30.Rxf6+ Bxf6 31.Qxf6+ Ke8 32.Qh8+ Ke7 33.Qg7+
1-0

Trying to punish your opponent’s play
immediately.

I do like a problem-setting style, so this is perhaps our best idea
so far, but we may walk into your opponent’s preparation. However,
you may be reassured that (a) you are probably playing moves which
are at least critical and probably best, and (b) your opponent may
rarely if ever meet this line in practice, if everyone else avoids
the main lines out of fear! This approach essentially requires that
you prepare the opening like you would the Sicilian: have some
homework done, and be prepared to think at the board.
Your problem is keeping the lines fresh in your mind if you meet a
given line rarely – which you will do unless your club has a
fanatic. So keep it simple.

  So, against the Sokolsky Opening, I once
prepared the Outflank Defence.
Brodie-Regis (Thetford Major, 1979) went
1.b4 Now 1…c6 with three ideas:
…a5, …Qb6 or simply …e5. 2.Bb2 a5!
[2…Qb6?! 3.a3 a5 4.c4 axb4 5.c5!] 3.a3 axb4
4.axb4 Rxa1 5.Bxa1 Qb6 6.Bc3? Na6 and I was already
winning a Pawn: 7. e3 Nxb4-+. If 7.Qc1 Nxb4!
8.Qb2 Nd5 9.Bxg7? Bxg7 10.Qxg7 Qxb1# Some analysis goes
6.c3 d5 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.d3= [Not 8.g3?
Qa7 9.Nh4 Be4 10.f3 Bxf3 11.Nxf3 Qxa1]. However, in the
following round Osland-Regis (Thetford Major,
1979) went 2. e3! (the theoretically recommended
reply) and I was already frowning.

  [I do like structural advantages, so I also prepared
1. g4 e5 2. Bg2 h5! Similarly, a better try for
White is 2.d3!]

  Let’s have a look at how you can go about busting
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 Damiano’s Defence. We
can say safely that this is unsound, but can you prove it?

  OK, start 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 (not
4…g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8) 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
7.Bxd5+ Kg6 winning easily. Next move? Lots of folk have
played 8.d4?? Bd6. Try instead 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7
Bd6 (9…Bxb7 10.Qf5#) 10.Qa5 Nc6 11.Bxc6
Rb8 which becomes the Five Pawn Gambit(!) if you fancy
12.Qxa7.

  So, well done, you’ve won that game, but next round your
opponent goes 3…Qe7. Now think for goodness’
sake, and don’t snap out 4.Qh5+?? g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2
Qxg6! Be satisfied with a small advantage after 4.
Nf3. So, I think you can play 3. Nxe5 with confidence:
there are two traps but they are both pretty straightforward. If
you are confident of working out the tactics at the board, them all
you need do is remember (1) 3. Nxe5 is playable, (2) there are two
traps.

  So, this is OK if you can do your homework, but keep your
powder dry – brush up on it occasionally. Also, you must accept
that, unless you are also learning some cute tactical ideas, most
of your time is going to be pretty well wasted, so keep the
time spent and the memorising done down to a minimum. Since
adopting this approach I have lost one game to an unorthodox
opening, and been in trouble against another, but have won
every other game.

  There are some very hairy gambits which you don’t need to
refute, but instead you can play conservatively and expect to
outplay your opponent thereafter. So Regis-Bax,
1982 went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5. Now Black
was all ready to snap out his analysis after the critical tactical
line 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 but he visibly slumped after
I played a positional line of Nimzovitch’s: 3. Nxe5
Qf6 (Nimzo played 4. Nc4 and eventually d2-d3) 4.
d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4. [Although this line isn’t very
sharp it is crucial for the success of the Gambit. So it is still
“theory”, but I knew the ideas and he didn’t.]

Play a known solid system

If you are faced with an unusual line in a strategical opening (and
most tactical ones) you can normally play something sensible and
survive. I remember a club game of Pete’s going 1. d4 Nf6
2. Nf3 b5!? which he met with a straight bat: 3.
Bg5 and won in about 12 moves! If we are content to try
for a minimal plus there are certain standard formations which are
playable against almost any unorthodox opening by White or Black.
They won’t refute the system you are facing but should leave you
with a playable and familiar set-up. It’s my belief that this is
the approach adopted by the majority of stronger players.

 

-+-Pp+-+
+-Pb+n+-
pP-NqPpP
R-+-+rK-
Classical approach

-+-+p+-+

+-+p+nP-
pPpNqPbP
R-+-+rK-
King’s Indian approach (or Benoni: Pc4)

-+-P-+-+
+-+-Pn+-

pPpNbPpP
R-+q+rK-
Orthodox approach (or Slav: with Pc3, Pe3)

  The exceptions are pretty obvious: you can’t nonchalantly
play …c7-c5 after b2-b4, and …Nf6 may walk into g2-g4-g5. But
you can rehearse your favourite system against most dodgy stuff
from your

opponent, and find an alternative for the exceptions.

  Oddly, if your opponent is trying to stop you
trotting out 10 moves of a standard opening by playing something
odd like 1.a4, it may be that your best response
is to do exactly that!

Playing by analogy.

One route to picking the best move is to think about transposing
into a type of position where your opponent’s odd move is
irrelevant or actually bad. Do not play routinely: pay
attention to differences. [I once caught Ben Beake in a
5-minute game with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nge2 e6 4. Bg2
Nge7 5. O-O, now Ben played the routine
5…g6? when 6. d4!, exposed the
d6 point.]

  For example, how do you respond to 1.
a4? It depends on what you play ordinarily, but try
1…e5. Now, in most lines of standard defences to
1.e4, Back never plays 1…a5 and often wants to play 1…a6 –
think about the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian Defence.
The only line of the Reversed Ruy I can think of where you
can make a virtue of 1. a4 is the cheapo 1.a4 e5 2.e4 Nf6
3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Na2?! hoping for4…Ba5
(4…Be7) 5.b4 Bb6 6.a5 Bd4 7.c3,
although I wouldn’t be ready to resign just yet after 7…Bxf2+
8.Kxf2 Nxe4+! The only defence I can think of where Black
actually want to play 1…a5 is a line of the French Advance
(1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 a5, and even
then it’s not the best move!), so as long as you don’t insist
on a reversed version of that you should be OK.

  But see what we are doing here: we are taking the exact
position in front of us seriously, we are weighing up the
advantages and disadvantages of our opponent’s moves, and we are
playing chess and not kiddology. (My Dad has this lovely term
persaudo-intellectual, which is how he pronounces
pseudo.)

Lessons from Anand

Posted on by

Anand’s easy manner sits on top of a breathtaking attacking verve and capacity for creative counterplay.

Opening

The imaginative attacking finish seems to belong to an earlier era, while the opening play is all modern. The Scandinavian leads to an early release of central tension, and, if Black can develop smoothly, will have no problems. This line is an attempt to prevent Black from developing smoothly, and no end of rule-breaking goes on to that end.

Not sure if this is exactly encouraging, but the TN on move 23 below shows just how deep opening preparation has become. Anand has a reputation for being a little lazy, but I suggest his is the sort of talent that doesn’t need a lot of work to maintain, and his output of Theoretical Novelties was prodigious. That one was computer-generated, but what if your opponent owns a computer too? Then, among the GMs, the knack was to
try and find a move that your opponent’s computer was likely to misjudge! That is, one where the surface features said one thing, but the longer-term play said another. (Nowadays, says Karjakin, “the idea is to get a playable position and maintain the tension”.)

I doubt that is the record for the latest TN!

Middlegame

Kramnik points out Anand’s skill with Knights attacking on the King’s-side. The long-range power of Queens Rooks and Bishops can take a while to develop, while the dancing Knights can quickly overload a King’s defences.

Anand’s talent for the game has scarcely dulled with age. Caruana fancied his chances on the King’s-side in the next game, but suddenly the position exploded in his face. Kramnik also notes Anand’s endless capacity for finding counterplay; this may be a good example!

Endgame

To win the endgame, you must create a passed pawn.

Opposite coloured bishops draw? By themselves, yes, but when they have pieces to cooperate with, they are hard to resist!

Is there luck in chess?

Posted on by

From The Master Game, Book 2, Jeremy James and William Hartston (1981). London: BBC.

‘Chess,‘ said the Dutch grandmaster, Jan Hein Donner, ‘is as much a game of chance as blackjack; or tossing cards into a top hat.‘

There was a pained silence, then a polite babel of disagreement: it was a game of the utmost skill; a conflict between disciplined minds in which victory would inexorably go to the more perceptive, the more analytical player; a duel of the intellect in which luck played no part. Donner shrugged, lit another cigarette and said: ‘Believe that if you like.‘

Bent Larsen smiled the smile of a man who had heard his friend air such iconoclastic arguments in the past but was quite happy to contest them again, when the score of the fifth game of the World Championship match between Karpov and Korchnoi was brought in. Both men pulled out of their inside pockets the wallet sets all grandmasters seem to carry at all times and began to skim through the moves.

It happened that the teleprinter tape had been torn off after Karpov’s 54th move as Black […]. They studied the position for a few moments, mated Karpov in four moves and were surprised when another whole sheet of moves was brought from the teleprinter.

When they saw Korchnoi’s 55th move – Be4+ – Larsen’s eyebrows went up.

‘There you are,‘ Donner said, quietly and without triumph as though some self-evident truth had been revealed, ‘pure luck‘.

Assess your chess

Posted on by

I am occasionally asked, “What’s the best way to improve my chess?”. Other than practice, I warmed to Kenneth Sloan’s reply to a similar query on the newsgroups:

[cool tip]Article 9288 in rec.games.chess.misc:
Subject: Re: Best Quick Study??
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Date: 22 Jun 1996 15:00:58 -0500
Organization: Dept of CIS, Univ. of Al at Birmingham

Annotate your last 20 tournament games.
—
Kenneth Sloan

In a book by Dan Heisman called The Improving Annotator he attributes his success to self-study of this sort. If Kenneth’s advice seems not enough to go on, here are some things to look for.

 I think you must look at your games as a whole bunch. It’s no use playing over your best games and looking to see what else needs to be improved, you have to look more at your losses. I know some players who will screw up a score sheet when they lose to a weaker player, when what they should do is go over it move by move, however painful. Soltis’ classification of errors is given below.

  You actually can get a lot of informal, qualitative evidence about your play from your opponent in a “post mortem” after a game. Don’t ever use these to brag, or show how much more you saw – the idea is to learn, not play another game!

 Even better is if you can persuade your local ‘expert’ to have a look at a couple of games that you really didn’t understand – perhaps games where you were sure you were better at some stage but lost.

  Many folk these days have a computer:
Chess-playing programmes can help particularly with looking for tactical shots that you (or your opponent) missed, and checking your ideas and suggesting alternatives. They can miss some good ideas which are just outside their “horizon”, so do push them a move or two along a line if you still think it looks good.
For strategical ideas, database programmes with opening/position searches can help you find games with similar positions, to see what plans are commonly followed in positions like yours.
The free ChessBase demo is able to do both, and I use it for these purposes after every game.

 In Exeter we often use our own games as the basis for discussion in our coaching sessions – we aren’t experts but a second or third opinion can be very illuminating.

Taking stock

Simon Webb, in his excellent Chess for Tigers, has some helpful suggestions for looking at collections of games, by compiling some data to look for patterns. I have extended his account slightly below. The point is, by facing the facts in this way you don’t get a chance to make excuses, and you may spot something that you hadn’t realised before – e.g. that you don’t do very well in an opening that you always thought was right up your street.

Taking stock of your openings

Draw up a table of your games, showing firstly, the outcome of the opening (e.g. +/- or =), and secondly, the outcome of the game (1-0, 1/2 etc.).

_OpeningGame ResultAll
_+-=-+1-01/20-1
Ruy Lopez3422428
Petroff0100101
Open Sicilian25353210
Closed Sicilian0200112
French0110022
Pirc/Modern2103003
Alekhin0100101
TOTAL8145911727

Conclusions:

  1. Ruy Lopez not too successful – maybe try something sharper?
  2. Play well in open Sicilians but must learn more theory
  3. Don’t understand French – must find decent line

During middle-game

typemy position:improved a lotimproved a bitremained about the samegot a bit worsegot much worsetotal
PositionalOpen1252212
_Semi-Open47174133
_Closed0493318
TacticalAttack on King5976633
_Defence of King1354215
_Wild tactics3423113
Middle-game without Queens_0271010
Late middle-game_1497324

N.B. one game may feature as more than one type as it progresses

Conclusions:

  1. Semi-Open positions and tactical positions in general seem to suit me: when there’s an attack on the King or a melee I can often outplay my opponent.
  2. However, in simpler positions and positions without Queens I seem more likely to lose the plot; this is also true of closed positions.
  3. I must study the strategy of the closed positions I get into more thoroughly, and during play must not get complacent in apparently simple positions.

Endgames

_Estimated theoretical resultActual game result
_1-01/20-11-01/20-1All
King and Pawn1101102
Rook3113205
Rook and minor piece2221236
Knights only1001001
Bishops only0100011
Bishops and Knights1231146
Queen0100011

N=22

Conclusions:

The basic King and Rook endings seem handled well, but endings with minor pieces (with or without Rooks) look suspect. Moreover, half the Bishop/Knight endings were probably lost before I had a chance to play – I must see these situations coming earlier.

time-trouble table:

whowhat happened
_my position got worsenormal resultopponent’s position got worse
me362
opponent422
both254

N where i was in TT = 22

Conclusions:

I play OK in time-trouble and the % of games where I get in TT is not too bad. But I am not getting any benefit from my opponent’s time trouble – am I trying to rush them into making mistakes, instead of paying attention to the position?

I hope you get the idea.

 N.B.
statistics like these can be enhanced by consideration of grades, if you have enough games. In BCF terms, you should turn in an extra 10% of avalable points for every 10 points your grade exceeds the average of your opposition. So, scoring 4/5 against 120-grade opposition is no more than a par performance for a player of grade 150. Equally, if you are outgraded by an average of 30 points a game, but make a 40% score, this is a very good performance, as you could have fairly expected only 20%.

 For ELO, I think a superiority of 400 points should yield a harvest of an extra 25% of points viz. 75%.

Error analysis

Without mistakes, there can be no brilliancies, said Lasker. Actually, without mistakes there wouldn’t be any decisive games at all. What mistakes do you make? Vladimir Zak described “typical mistakes by young players”:

  • Hasty moves, and, inconsequence, blunders
  • Learning openings without understanding the ideas
  • Reliance on general principles, without a concrete plan
  • Underestimating the opponent’s combinative chances
  • Disparity between aggressive and defensive ability
  • Miscalculating variations and combinations
  • Inadequate knowledge of basic endgames
  • Implementing the wrong strategic plan
  • The problem of the clock in practical play

Andrew Soltis has classified mistakes in a more detailed way, as follows below: do you make some of these more than others? [I have collected a whole bunch of errors in the Canon.]

  • Tactical errors
    • allowing mate
    • removal of defender
    • double attack in defence
    • faulty tactics
    • weakening castled King’s position
    • overlooking checks
    • overestimating checks
    • overlooking back rank threats
    • ditto, long diagonals
  • Mishandling Pieces
    • development
    • offside piece
    • unccordinated pieces
    • faulty exchanges
    • queen exchange
    • temporary invasion
    • castling into it
    • wrong Rook
  • Analysis
    • faulty assumptions
    • oversights
    • missing bottom line
    • faulty sequence
    • overlooking quiet moves
    • missing desperado
    • stopping analysis one move short
  • Positional errors
    • bad Bishops
    • creating holes
    • backward Pawns
    • opening lines
    • King’s-side advance
    • permitting Pawn advances
  • Strategic errors
    • neglect of centre
    • wrong side
    • onesided
    • unjustified attack
    • failed restraint
    • reduce tension
    • counterplay
    • poor timing
    • passivity
    • giving winning plan
  • Attitude
    • trying for too much
    • changing fortunes
    • letting down
    • believing opponent
    • peer pressure
    • vacillation
    • monomania
    • dogmatism
    • draw-mindedness
    • frustration
  • Practical mistakes
    • hallucination
    • long moves on a big board
    • pretty moves
    • getting fancy
    • overfinessing
    • Lasker’s law
    • missed opportunities
    • bad moves in bad positions
    • desperation and surrender
    • greed
    • negative sacrifice

Point Count Chess

In assessing your games a checklist of points from Horowitz’ Point Count Chess might be useful

  1. Plus Points
    1. Control of the centre
    2. Pawn on fourth rank vs. Pawn on third
    3. Mobile pawn wing
    4. Strong outpost station
    5. Superior development
    6. Greater space
    7. Bishop-pair
    8. Half-open file
    9. Control of useful open file
    10. Rook(s) on the seventh rank
    11. Passed Pawn
    12. Outside Passed Pawn
    13. Protected Passed Pawn
    14. Advanced Pawn
    15. Qualitative Pawn majority
    16. Advanced chain
    17. Advanced salient
    18. Better King position
    19. Offside Pawn majority
  2. Minus Points
    • Weak Pawns
      1. Backward Pawn
      2. Doubled pawn
      3. Isolated Pawn
      4. Hanging Pawns
      5. Hanging phalanx
      6. Crippled majority wing
    • Weak Squares
      1. “Weak square complex”
      2. Holes
      3. Compromised King’s-side
      4. King held in the centre
      5. Cramped position
      6. Bad Bishop

By adding and subtracting points they say you can assess who has the advantage. They also say that five points is a win!

  This whole scheme is impossible to remember and obviously formulaic. The value of the book is really to introduce you to the ideas and how to exploit each sort of advantage.

  A more practical way of doing the same thing is to compare pairs of pieces: compare my King and my opponent’s King, then my Queen and my opponent’s Queen, etc., thereby assessing who stands better.

  Another nice suggestion (which I associate with Chernev) is to add up the legal moves available to the pieces on each side. You can also add up the territory you control: the squares behind your Pawns.

  Another sequence to go through:
to know what plan to follow, look carefully

 To           Tactics: before anything else, see if the game can be decided
                right now!
 Know         King position: mostly in terms of safety, but also near centre
                for endgame
 What         Weaknesses: weak pawns and weak squares (variety as above)
 Plan to      Piece position: centralised or offside, bad Bishop etc.
 Follow,      Forcing moves: tempo, initiative, possibility of breakthrough
 Look         Lines: files, diagonals, ranks; control, or can you open one?
 Carefully    Centre and space

Now, I can remember that a whole lot better than all the point count stuff!