Author Archives: DrDave

About DrDave

Retired player, current chess coach, organises chess events in Devon with a group of like-minded elves.

A Queen sacrifice

Posted on by

I played an extremely boring last-round game at Torquay, choosing the English Defence, which is usually good for a scrap at my level.

Archer-Lock,C – Regis,D Torbay Open Riviera (5), 20.11.2011

1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6

The Queen check is supposed to weaken the black King’s-side, but it also has some benefits for Black; f5 is strengthened and the g7 square can be a bolt-hole for the black Queen.

7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Bxe4 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Qxe4 Nc6 12.Nf3 0-0 ½-½

Keene and others in the 1970s tried to show Black has some play against the white pawn structure, but really, White doesn’t have enough weaknesses and the position is too simplified. Even after Black swaps Queens and gets a Rook to (say) a4, White can simplify further with d4-d5 and hold the position.

After the game, my opponent and I discussed the possibility of playing a Queen sacrifice.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4!?

Quite a scrap, indeed! I couldn’t remember the theory and went for the structure.

This idea has been known for a long while, in various forms. I think I first came across it in the Leningrad Nimzo-Indian.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5 c5 5.d5 exd5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Bxd8 Nxc3…

I think the verdict in that line is that White is winning, but I wouldn’t fancy working out how to show it over the board, it’s a line you have to know.

The English Defence setting has two varieties, with and without the Queen check.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Bg5 fxe4 8.Bxe4 Nxe4!?
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4!?

Odessky in his hugely entertaining and thorough book analyses both varieties, reckoning the 9th move version with the check is OK for Black (so Chris was wrong to play the check if he hoped for this line) and the 8th move version without is winning for White, because of ideas like:

9.Bxd8 Nxc3 10.Qg4
9.Bxd8 Nxc3 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qh4

In the version with the ‘finesse’ 6.Qh5+, White doesn’t have either of these moves available, so must rely on something like 10.Bxd8 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Kf1 Bxa1 13.Bxc7 Bxd4 14.Bd6!?

Without the finesse, what is Black to do? Odessky suggests in reply to 7.Bg5, the move 7…h6, since after 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.e5!? (a move that is awkward with a bPg6) 9…Qg6! is available.

Basman has tried a similar sac in his games, including this outing against Pritchett in the St.George Defence, where White eschewed the Queen check.

Pritchett-Basman, Bristol 1980

1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 3.c4 e6 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7 6.Bd3 f5 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.Bg5 fxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxd8 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bxc3+ 13.Kd1 Bxa1 14.Bxc7 [with Q vs RB] 14…Bxd4 15.Bd6

Black has given up a pawn on top of the usual R+B, but Basman reasons that helps Black because the Ra8 can enter the game quickly. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether this is true, as Basman gives not a single line of analysis in his notes. (The whole book is like that: games set one move to a line with merely descriptive commentary.) Black won after the players baled out into an endgame with level material where Black’s activity persisted, and in fact all the other games I’ve been able to find are wins for Black. So even if your silicon friend likes the material, Black’s practical chances are excellent.

Recently we saw the whole thing launched once more when my team-mate Chris Southall caught out the new Devon Champion, teenager Alex Billings, with it:

1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 3.c4 e6 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7 6.Bd3 f5 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.Bg5 fxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxd8 Nxc3

Alex counted the pieces at move 12 and decided not to give up the exchange,

12.Qg4 Ne4+ [with Q vs BN]

…but the black Knight was a dangerous attacking piece and the white Rook just a paperweight; the discovered check gives Black a continuing initiative. Black’s active pieces ran amok and chased the White King across the board, delivering mate.

13.Ke2
[13.Kf1!?]
13…0-0 14.Bh4 Ba6+ 15.Kd1 Nxf2+ 16.Bxf2 Rxf2 17.Nf3 Be2+ 18.Kc1 Bd2+ 19.Kc2
[19.Kxd2 Bxf3+ 20.Ke3 Bxg4 21.Kxf2-+]
19…Nc6 20.a3
[20.Qg3!?]
20…Be3 21.Kb1
[21.Qg3!?]
21…Bd3+ 22.Ka2 Rb8 23.Rab1 Bc4+
[23…Nb4+! 24.Kb3 Bc2+ 25.Kc3 Nd5+ 26.Kc4 Rb3]
24.Ka1 Na5 25.b4
[25.Ne5 Nb3+ 26.Ka2 Bd5!]
25…Ra2# 1-0

The Bogoljubow paradox

Posted on by

“When I am White I win because I am White, when I am Black I win
because I am Bogoljubow.” – Efim Bogoljubow.

I’m still thinking about this, so bear with me, and comments
invited…

I pounced on Nunn’s Chess Openings when it came out, and
found some things that I found puzzling.  Openings like the
Dutch Stonewall, which I had always thought of as being
fundamentally flawed, were being shown as equal, while
the Classical Dutch – which I thought was a superior approach – was coming out as +=.

Firstly, why did I think that the Dutch Stonewall was so
flawed?  Earlier in my life, I had devoured the Euwe/Kramer
books on The Middle Game.  Not unlike 1066 and
all that, I learned lots of Important Ideas like Isolated
Queen’s Pawns and Bad Bishops which were worth writing down in
Capital Letters.  If you played the Dutch Stonewall as Black,
you had a Bad Bishop and White could start in with a Queen’s Side
Attack, perhaps even a Minority Attack.  I also learned that
if you had only one Bishop, you placed your pawns on the Opposite
Colour to your Bishop, leaving its lines of action free. 

So, for example, in the Bogo-Indian, after …Bb4 and an exchange
of dark-squared Bishops, a very logical plan for Black was …d6
and …e5, challenging in the centre on the dark squares, and
releasing the light-squared Bishop on c8.

Imagine my confusion, when reading Nunn et al., to see that the
lines of the Bogo-Indian with …d6 and …e5 were generally given
as +=, while Black seemed to have better chances of equality with
Ulf Andersson’s  favourite …d7-d5, leaving the central
pawns on light squares, and obstructing our remaining Bishop.

I’m still thinking about this, but needing some sort of
explanation, I reached for these ideas:

a. After …e6-e5 and d4-d5, how strong is Black’s claim to have
a Good Bishop?  After all, where can it go?  In the game
Pedersen-Shkapenko (GM 2007), we reached this position:

We can see that the Bishop on each side can only go
backwards!  The fact that Black’s Bishop has a choice of
retreats does not seem very relevant to me!  This position
can be better understood by thinking about the rest of the pieces,
and it seems as though White’s space and centralised Knights offer
a plus.  The Knight on d3 looks especially well-placed,
supporting pawn breaks on both sides of the board.  White can
look forward to arranging c5 at leisure.

b. When you play …d7-d5.  White has a pawn on c4. 
After an exchange of pawns, new career prospects appear for the
Bc8.  White can stop this only by c4-c5, but then Black has
ideas of …b6 and/or …e5, both of which attack White’s pawns
and release the Bc8. 

c. In Queen’s Pawn Openings, after …e6-e5 and d4-d5, White has
a natural plan of pushing forward on the Queen’s-side, with moves
like b4 and c5.  …d7-d5 concedes less space on the
Queen’s-side, and importantly, doesn’t hand White a simple plan of
campaign.  That feels quite a good explanation to me.

d. One last consideration: Black often has a small lead in
development, which is used better by playing …d5 quickly than
…d6 and …e5 slowly.  In the Nimzo-Indian, White is often
embarrassed by Black’s quick …d7-d5 break, even though in the
long run White will want to open up the position for the two
Bishops.  Black can castle and get in …d5 before White has
touched any of the King’s-side pieces.  In the Bogo-Indian,
White might not have the Bishop pair, but the time factor could
still be relevant.  I’m not sure how important this idea is
in every line; we’d probably need to look at some variations.

Overlapping explanations might help us to understand the Dutch
Stonewall.  There Black has some claim to be the side with
more space, and White’s allegedly Good Bishop on g2 seems to have
just as poor career prospects as Black’s on c8.  So again,
simply interpreting the position through the most obvious
difference – the effect of the pawn structure on one pair of
pieces – was Too Simple.  That is very definitely a Bad
Thing.

“The Euwe books are very good for beginners.  But after a
while I began to think that everything Euwe wrote was a lie!” —
Bent Larsen.

To be honest, if the Bogo-Indian ever turns up on my board, I’ll
still be strongly drawn to …d6 and …e5.  As much as it
hands White a plan, it also gives a position where I think I also
know what I’m supposed to be doing.  After …d5, even if the
position is more equal, I’d feel more at a loss as to what to do!

Towards a self-explanatory chess set

Posted on by

I had a cheerful exchange recently with a correspondent, who wanted to teach her daughter how to play chess, and was attracted to the Children’s Chess Set (from Devon’s very own House of Marbles).  I like that set a lot, and in a similar vein you can still get hold of Babushkachess sets on places like eBay.  However, while cute, they don’t do anything to reduce the learning curve of playing chess.

I remember that on my teacher training course, people interested in learning how to teach English as a Foreign Language were given a lesson in Finnish, just to remind them what it’s like to be a complete beginner again.  Similarly, while I have been writing books for youngsters, I have been forcing myself to remember in a similar way, by finding a new game and learning how to play.  So, I’ve learned the chess games of China and Japan and Thailand and Persia; I’ve learned Go and Tablut and Hahnentafl and Latrunculi; I’ve even started playing Bridge. While exploring, I have found simplified versions of Shogi like the new and also very cute Dobutsu-Shogi.  I also came across the idea of marking pieces so that you can see how they move – as in this children’s Shogi set and the Dobutsu game.  Can this be done for chess?

The Bauhaus chess set by Josef Hartwig goes a long way towards the goal, but I found making my own version quite fiddly to do. So, here’s something I was doodling with this afternoon: two designs for a teaching chess set.  Print onto card or stick onto wooden squares, or print and fold to use in game-players card holders.  Comments invited, as well as feedback from any trials!

Dr.Dave’s Brain Sharpening Kit

Posted on by

Sorry if that sounds a bit alarming!  What I mean is, after the summer break, you might find that your usual tactical sharpness has gone a bit rusty.

To get back to your normal diamond-honed sharpness, you just need you get your eye back in with some practice.

Some things to practice are:

  1. The Eight Queens Problem – a great exercise for whole-board awareness – a bit hard to check your solutions yourself, but now there is an Android phone app!
  2. Dr.Dave’s exercises to practise spotting attacks and defences – again a bit hard to check for yourself, but as long as you’re trying it’s doing you good.
  3. If you can spend a bit of money, I hear Fritz these days will also help you practise spotting attacks and defences.
  4. There is the splendid free Chess Tactics Server which will rate your ability to solve tactical positions quickly.  I think that’s the original one but there are a few others about now.
  5. There are tactics puzzle sets for all sorts of chess software systems.  Some of these are free or offer a free ‘taster’ version, so no need to hand over lots of cash before you try it.
  6. If you’re up to it: try blindfold chess.  After all, when you analyse, it’s not the position in front of you that you are trying to decide about, but one yet to appear!
  7. There are old-fashioned things called books which older readers will remember; get hold of any old books on tactics and do them over and over again until you can almost do them at a glance.

I remember a story from Dan Heisman:

“One of the most important ideas involving safety is that basic tactic skills should be used to prevent an opponent’s tactics, not to find winning tactics for oneself!” [or at least – not just that – DR]

“Unfortunately, I have found that this idea is either misunderstood or continues to fly under the radar.

[…]

…a typical ‘Class B’ student that I had a few years ago. I suggested he start by studying the basic tactics in John Bain’s Chess Tactics for Students, which he subsequently purchased. At the next lesson, he began by politely shoving his copy of the book across the table at me, saying “You’ve got to be kidding. These problems are way too easy for me!”

I proceeded to examine two recent games he had lost, and it turned out that both losses were primarily due to overlooking, and thus allowing, his opponent to play a basic tactic. After the second game, I said “I don’t understand. You said that Chess Tactics for Students was too easy for you, but are you saying that the two tactics that caused your losses in these games were more difficult than the tactics in this book?”

The student stared at me for a few seconds. Then he reached across the table, grabbed the book back, and quietly admitted “I see what you mean.” To be fair, this student’s attitude is typical of most players near his level.

After hearing this story, one could argue that it was not my student’s lack of familiarity with the patterns, but his lack of a Real Chess* thought process that was his main problem. And that could be true – thought process and pattern recognition go hand in hand. But it is also undeniable that the more familiar you are with a pattern, the more you will avoid allowing it for your opponent, no matter how poor your thought process.”

* That is – “If I play this move, can I meet all the threats that my opponent can make with their reply?” – DR

Endgame study

Posted on by

Two things to think about today: a study by Dierdle and a game by Capa. We did each as an exercise, trying to work out the best moves for each side.



Openings workshop 2012

Posted on by

Two open gambits

Richard was interested in the Urusoff Gambit and Eddie in the Scotch Gambit.
Gambits offer a pawn for fast development and/or control of the centre. I approve very much of this way of playing, and it’s the first thing I offer juniors as an alternative to playing Old Stodge with both White and Black in every game.

Here’s a starter for each:


Very appealing!
I have some notes on the Scotch Gambit in my ‘First Opening Repertoire’, linked here:
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/free-e-books-coaches-and-players

So, why don’t we all play these openings all the time? Well, your opponent needs to be both naive and greedy, which isn’t a completely unknown combination, but doesn’t happen all the time. It’s probably more likely that your opponent is experienced and/or cautious, and will deviate at some point, probably into some version of the Two Knights’ Defence. My little booklet, linked above, also gives some ideas about what to do if that happens.

And by the magic of the Internet, here’s a lot more information about each opening:

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/modern-classics-scotch-gambit
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/
[I’ll make here a small plug for Michael Goeller of Kenilworth Chess Club and for Johnny, the chap behind Bishop’s Bounty, who catalogues chess teaching material.]

Grob’s Attack

This has to be terrible, right? It breaks every opening rule we’ve ever been taught (only move your e- and d-pawns, quickly castle king’s-side behind an unmoved wall of pawns, etc etc). So, faced with this for the first time, you might be forgiven for thinking, as Black, like this:

This is obviously terrible.
Therefore, the best way to play against it will also be obvious.
The obvious way to play against it is 1…d5, discovering an attack on g4.

This results in games going like this:

Oops… Perhaps also obvious, in hindsight. What Black has done is immediately break a bunch of rules in turn, including don’t waste time grabbing pawns in the opening and never accept pawns from strange men.

Black needs to bring a bit more care to their play, for example:

1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 c6!

Now White either has to ‘waste’ a move with 3.h3 or 3.g5. Black can then play 3…e5 with a nice centre.

White isn’t busted of course; 3.g5 is a bit of a thorn in Black’s side and there’s some mileage for White in arranging d3 and e4. Mike Basman, many years ago, liked to play 3.h3 e5 4.d4!?, with ideas of an improved reversed Scandinavian after 4…exd4 and an improved reversed French after 4…e4. He tried it a couple of times in the British Championships and got pushed off the board, but he was getting pushed off the board by Miles and Keene, and that’s happened to all of us I expect.

Another approach for Black is 1…e5 with the idea of 2…h5, forcing some sort of King’s-side weakness. 2.d3! d5 3.Bg2 c6 leads to play similar to what we have seen already.

1.g3

Brian was interested in this move, which I have often played myself, and so has Graham. By playing it, White offers Black a big choice of set-ups, but by inviting Black to make a commitment, White is hoping either to prepare an awkward counter-blow, or to lure Black into playing something they don’t know, or something they do know, but an important move behind. To play like this you need to be pretty confident, either that you know enough about all the different systems that Black can try against you, or that you can work it out faster than Black.
If you have my arrogance or Graham’s experience, be my guest, but I don’t advise it for club players, and even I reserve it as a bit of a surprise weapon. There is a famous gambit/trap invented by Bent Larsen in 1959, which I introduced Charlie to:

I have a strong feeling that 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 e5 is simply equal, as long as Black is not over-ambitious, and that’s the verdict of NCO.

The Grunfeld

Jeremy asked for an introduction. This is quite a quick introduction, not enough for a lasting relationship, but maybe enough to be asked out on a date.

1. The most important line of the Grunfeld is the Exchange Variation. If that is better for White, it’s forced and forcing, so the Grunfeld would be dead. Let’s see:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3

Interesting! White has set up a big castle wall, but where are the guards? Black hopes that it will be not so much a big asset as a big target, and that is the essential Grunfeld debate. When I was a boy the main line went 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5
8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Qc7 11.Rc1 Rd8 12.h3 b6 13.f4 e6 14.Qe1 Na5
15.Bd3 f5 16.g4 …
[Spassky,B – Fischer,R [D87] Siegen (6), 1970]
and it was still a fight. There are alternatives for both sides at each move, of course, and some of these are very playable. These days Whites seem to prefer the more natural 7.Nf3, ignoring the ‘threat’ of …Bg4, and this is the line that Kramnik was so successful with. But Black players haven’t given up on it yet!

2. If White finds it too bothersome to maintain such a big centre, they can go for something smaller, but then that is less of a threat to Black. Another main line is the Russian System, which reckons on making Black give up the centre by …dxc4, and if White can re-route the awkwardly placed Queen, then White will surely be better. This was the topic in the famous Botvinnik-Fischer encounter at Varna 1962, when Fischer nearly beat the World Champion in a variation that Mikhail Moseyevitch had studied for hours. 1.c4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 0-0 7.e4 Bg4 8.Be3
Nfd7 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Rd1 Nb6 11.Qc5 Qd6 12.h3 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Rfd8 14.d5 Ne5
15.Nb5 Qf6 16.f4 Ned7 17.e5 Qxf4!
[Botvinnik,M – Fischer,R [D98] Varna (10), 1962]

3. A third approach for White is the unpretentious Classical Variation. … It’s safe enough I expect for White, but pugnacious Blacks will try to take the fight to White with lines like
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Rc1 Ne4 8.cxd5 Nxc3 9.Qd2 Qxa2 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Bc4 Nd7 12.Ne2 Ne5 13.Ba2 Bf5 [Petrosian,T – Fischer,R [D82] Buenos Aires (2), 1971]

4. A special mention should be made for the offbeat Taimanov Variation, 4.Bg5. I’m always amused by the trick in the line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6
8.Nf3 exd5 9.e3 0-0 10.b4 c6
[Ward,C (2480) – Sasikiran,K (2470) [D91] BCF-ch 85th Torquay (8), 04.08.1998]
which ends up in a formation looking like the Queen’s Gambit, Exchange Variation.

5. Another important line, at least at GM level, is the Fianchetto or Neo-Grunfeld Variation. I mention it, but as I know bother all about it, I will move on swiftly.

6. Why don’t people play the Grunfeld so much any more? I think it’s mostly fashion. The fluctuating reputations of various moves deep into the theory of the main lines are beyond me, but I don’t get the impression that there are insoluble problems for Black in any of the variations. After Topalov-Svidler, Linares 2006, people were writing the obituary of the Grunfeld, but then later that year Svidler was back with an improvement and beat Topalov at Sofia. Yes, Kramnik used to make the Exchange look like a forced win, but that’s just Kramnik being Kramnik, and it hasn’t stopped Carlsen taking up the Black side. Karpov and Kasparov played both sides of it at World Championship level, thus inventing the Seville Variation, and for a while Devon’s top 2 county players (Michael Cox and Graham Bolt) both played it as Black.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1398761
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411287
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesslike.pl?gid=1067254

I think the biggest problem with the theory of the Grunfeld is that it is so blimmin’ big! Black’s position is active and without weaknesses, there aren’t easy ways for White to steer for a safe boring plus with no Black counterplay. So, if you think you’re ahead of your opponent’s book knowledge, by all means have a go!

Livening it up against the Caro-Kann

How, asks John.

I’ve looked at enough CK over the last 10 years to be absolutely sick of it. – Peter Svidler.

We hear you, Peter!

My recommendation for a long while has been the Panov-Botvinnik Attack. It is more open and sharp than most CK players will prefer, it often leads to IQP positions which we should by now be expert in, and White’s moves are pretty easy to understand.

Q. You don’t want to mention the Gunderam Variation, do you Dave?
A. No, I really don’t.

If you’re looking for something spicier, I have seen people play various versions of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit against it:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3…

A good choice, long practised by local boy Alan Brusey, is the Fantasy Variation. NCO gives a long main line as about equal but an awful lot of ± and += along the way, and our two resident CK experts confessed to knowing nothing about it, which ought to be some sort of hint! I wrote a quick piece on this for juniors, which may be some sort of starting point:

What are we going to do now?

Posted on by


The whole games follow:



Every mistake has two sides

Posted on by

In making notes on games, I’ve probably explained lots of chess mistakes, and why they were mistakes. I might say, this Black move is a mistake, because White now plays A, and this works because if B then C and if D then E. (Or, White should have played A, etc.)

But there is another side to each mistake, which I can’t tell anything about, but which perhaps you can, and you should try. A mistake in a chess move is also a mistake in thinking.

So, on reflection, was your mistake any of these?
1. You didn’t look for the threat – it didn’t seem that sort of position.
2. You looked for threats but you didn’t notice it
3. You saw the threat but you hoped it didn’t win
4. You saw the threat but you hoped your opponent didn’t play it
5. You misunderstood the position – you thought something was important that was not (or dismissed something that was really important)
6. You saw the threat and missed something in the analysis (really, this is going to be some variety of the first five)

So, as well as reflecting on the mechanics of a chess game and where it might have been improved, also have a think about the workings of your mind.

If you can catch yourself making a mistake in thinking, that is helpful. If you catch yourself making the same mistake fairly often, then that’s a habit you need to get out of!

Endgame workout

Posted on by

Endgames are worth taking seriously – you can get extra points and
half-points by improving your endgame play.
Some endgames turn up rather often, certainly more often than some
of the odd bits of opening theory we end up looking at sometimes.

There are bits of theory to know, but as always the thing is to test
your understanding and practise.

The things you need to know are widely available, not least from our
website, so I won’t trot through it all, just give some examples.

Endgame Theory: PRQNB

Here’s a basic K+P endgame, where you should know enough to win it
for White.

And here’s a basic R+P endgame – same again.

There are a couple of essential positions for each type of ending: PRNBQ…

As you gain more experience, you can add to your range of ‘solved’ positions.

See also:
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/queen-against-pawn
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/rook-endings-theory
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/bishop-endgames
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/double-bishop-endgames

Endgame Tactics: PRQNB

Rooks and Queens lend themselves to tactical shots.  Here are a
few:

It’s not easy to be as definitive about essential tactical knowledge; each peculiar position may harbour a new trick, or a new spin on an old one.

Endgame studies

These are pure tactics, always good for sharpening your awareness of tactical possibilities.

One of the most famous, and most instructive, is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position#History

And another, showing the wonderful co-operation between Queen and Knight:

Endgame Strategy: PRQNB

There are some general endgame principles which you should know:

3 principles (Fine)

  1. 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)

  1. 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.

See also:
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/outside-passed-pawns

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/two-weaknesses

With this under your belt, you should then work your way through
these examples:

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/planning-endgame

Endgame Training: PRQNB

If you’ve got a computer or a chess-playing friend, then make use of
the opportunity.  I’ve just been working with an A-level
student who spent a lot of her time ‘revising’, ie. reading and
making notes, without seeing if she could get any of that
information out in the right format ie. doing past exam.
questions.  You must combine the two.

Your best single resource is the Iceland Endgame Challenge, which I
can offer you in PGN/CBV formats as well as a worksheet.  Don’t
agonise over the mate with B+N!

Everything in one book:
Yuri Averbakh, Chess Endgames: Essential Knowledge
Glenn Flear, Improve your Endgame Play *
Glenn Flear, Mastering the Endgame  *
Steve Giddins, 101 Endgame Tips
Ian Snape, Chess Endings Made Simple *
Paul Keres, Practical Chess Endings

Endgame theory: [br style=”font-weight: bold;”]
Iceland Endgame Challenge *
Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course *
Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course *
Jonathan Speelman et al. Batsford Chess Endgames
Mark Dvoretzky, Dvoretzky’s Endgame Manual (also a ChessBase CD)
Karsten Mueller Chess Endgames 1: Basic Knowledge for Beginners (DVD)

Endgame tactics:
Irving Chernev, Practical Chess Endgames *
AA Troitzky, 360 Brilliant and instructive endgames *
John Nunn, Tactical Chess Endings*
GC van Perlo, Endgame Tactics
Endgame strategy:
MI Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy
Endgame training:
Iceland Endgame Challenge: Bronze, Silver, Gold *
Bernd Rosen, Chess Endgame Training *

  • Additional positions for playing out:

Irving Chernev, Capablanca’s 60 Best Chess Endgames
Vasily Smyslov, Endgame Virtuoso
Karolyi & Alpin, Endgame Virtuoso: Anatoly Karpov
Giddins, Greatest Ever Chess Endgames

* including test exercises

How to play out exercises against a computer

1. Set ‘play against Fritz’ (ALT_A).
2. Set up a position (S)
3. Go!

Or:

1. Load a position from a database.
2. Click ‘Move Now’ (SPACEBAR)

I think this works in Fritz 5.32 and Fritz 11, although my copy of 5.32 is NBG at the moment.

Making it up as you go along

Posted on by

“I thought I would try something different.”

This doesn’t usually go well! Here are two examples:


After 1.e4, I expect Tomas has a fair idea about what to do and what
sort of position he is aiming for. After 1.d4, is that really still
true? It is definitely still true for Tomas’ opponent, who I expect
plays those first few moves in every game. Black didn’t really have to
think until move 7, when White was already losing at least a pawn.

The moves White played weren’t daft, but he didn’t seem to know what he
was doing or what the usual tricks are in those sorts of positions. The game
was a fairly easy win for Black and White didn’t really have any chances
at all to draw, let alone win.

Same thing in James’ game last time. I know I have given James a book
which says, play 1…e6 and 2…d5. James chose something else, not
anything daft, because he’s not daft, but he didn’t know what to do. He
ended up failing in all three of the very basic opening goals: get your
pieces out, get at least a stake in the centre, and get castled.

The Benoni is actually a reasonable defence to 1.d4, but Black didn’t
know that, and didn’t know what the right plans are in those sorts of
positions. And by the look of it, White had seen it all before, and knew
exactly what to do about it: put all the pieces in the middle and blast
through with e4-e5.

So, no more of this, please! Pick an opening, learn it, and stick to
it!

When you sit down to play, you really must have four systems in your head:
1. what to play as White as your main opening system
2. what to do if Black dodges
3. what to play as Black against 1.e4
4. what to play as Black against 1.d4

I think I’ve given you all a booklet with enough to get started on all
four systems (different systems for each of you). Please read! I’d
hate for it to feel like homework, but I also hate watching you suffer
in the opening against experienced players.

Now, you may always find an opponent who knows more about the opening
than you do. That doesn’t mean the best thing to do about it is to play
something different than usual, which you don’t know anything about!
This is especially true if you are playing an experienced player. They
may have been playing chess long enough to have played, or played
against, almost every opening there is, and will know much more about
what to do.

What you have to do is be an expert in your opening, so that even if you
do get a surprise, you have an idea about what sorts of things there are
to do for your side.

If you want to try something different:
1. Pick something different from a list of known systems
2. Read a bit about it
3. Try it out in friendly games first to get the hang of it
4. Then you can spring it on an opponent in a match!