Author Archives: DrDave

About DrDave

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

How not to beat Jack Rudd

Posted on by

Local International Master Jack Rudd, known as the fastest pawn in the West, visited us recently to give a simul.nbsp; In characteristically quick time he defeated all challengers with a score
of 13-0, leaving most wondering what had hit them and a few mournfully looking for crumbs of
comfort in a post mortem dissection.

Jack gave us a demonstration of how many different ways to win a chess game:
being alert to tactics (Simon, Sean),
positional grinds (Tim),
lordly attacks (Sean)
or simply taking advantage of elementary mistakes (Brian, Richard) with a bit of
endgame technique (Richard, Tim).

Both Simon and Tim probably had a draw in hand with more accurate play   Looking a little deeper at the games you can see how he often took his chances (Simon, Sean) while we let some go (Jonathan). Jack was also content to pick up small advantages as he went along (Tim) without searching always for the very sharpest move.   Interestingly, he used a greater range of opening moves than I’ve seen used in a simul.; Fischer and Spassky would open 1.e4 on every board!

Here are some of the games with notes by DrDave and Fritz.nbsp; Fritz is typically cryptic in some of its suggestions and assessments, so I haven’t tried to interpret them all.   They’re all worth a look, if only to decide for yourself why they’re wrong!

Click on […] to see games list.

At a more general level, I think I’d say that we made Jack’s life
easier by often playing too passively
in the opening (Simon, Brian, Sean,
Jonathan, John…).Where we stood our ground and played
for some concrete goals (Richard, Tim and very nearly Dan) I was more
optimistic.

Level 290

Posted on by

We’re used to doing puzzles which might be mate-in-one (Level I),
mate-in-two (Level II) and so on. Someone asked on Friday, what’s
the highest level you can get? Well, I have heard of a 1220-move
monster by Babson, but that has some peculiar conditions.

The most moves in a forced-mate problem with no conditions is this
one, from Otto Blathy, who published a whole book of such
monsters.

Mate in 290 — best of luck!

SOLUTION:

Youtube video
of the solution

P.S. I thought that was the record, but when searching on the web
this weekend I found this Level 292 problem (which is also an illegal
position):

[blockquote][em]The longest in a legal position I thought was a
226-mover, sent to me by David Beckwith, but
apparently some computer has found a
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxIaMcO2amE]Level-524
[/url]
puzzle… I expect only a computer could invent or solve that one![/em][/blockquote]

The Improving Annotator

Posted on by

[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 BirminghamAnnotate your last 20 tournament games.
—
Kenneth Sloan sloan@cis.uab.edu

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 to Assess Your Chess {all}.

How good is your annotating?

“Most commentaries in chess magazines and books are superficial and sometimes just awful. Once a certain experienced master explained to me how he worked. You put two fingers to the page with text on it and see that there are only moves under them – in other words, it is time to make a comment. You write something like “The Ruy Lopez always leads to a tense, complicated struggle” – and your fee goes up by a rouble.

“The ability to distinguish between real feelings and thoughts and this kind of verbal facade will be of use to you, and not just in chess.” — DVORETSKY

 

Inspired by the popular format of How Good is Your Chess?, where readers are invited to come up with moves which are given points in order to assess their standard of play, I have wondered if the business of annotating could be placed on a similar scientific footing. You can use this system to review books, or to assess how well you make notes to your own games.

I have long had in mind Phil Crocker’s criticism of chess publishing in Kingpin No.22, to which Batsford’s, for some reason, felt the need to respond in No.23. As I remember, Phil’s main gripes were:

(a) shallowness: books are full of glib, vague or uncommittal commentary (e.g. “with compensation“, no need to mention if it is adequate!) – only general and strategic comments, none cashed out in terms of variations

(b) padding: complete games are included for no good reason at the expense of extra commentary or additional detail. I do get annoyed by large sections of games being quoted in ‘double-column’ format without notes viz.

1. d4 Nf6

2. c4 e6

3. Nc3 Bb4

This uses three lines when only one is required. If you look at older opening books (Nunn’s 1982 Benoni, for example) there are many part games and games in block text, squeezing the most chess and instruction on the page. No longer.

(c) question-begging: books allow important questions about particular variations to be ignored, and only light notes are added to games

(d) lack of originality/ no value added: analysis and comments by others are quoted freely, games are cited without their significance being explained.

These were humorously put in the article, but clearly felt keenly – my guess being that Phil has more than once spent the best part of 15 quid on various selections from the Batsogan list.

Now, with the scheme below, annotators can be classified and titles awarded according to their real merits. Find an annotated game, and award points for the annotator according to the following scheme:

Dismal padding: -3 points

Glib observation: -2 points

Unexplained symbols: -1 point

Glib explanation: 0 points

Genuine explanation: 1 point

Crisp, deep commentary: 2 points

Arguing for choice with evidence: 3 points

Secrets of chess revealed: 4 points

Whimsy or humour: extra 1/2 point

This might be clearer if we look at a few examples:

Dismal padding: -3 points

Gary Lane commits one of these in his book on the Blackmar-Diemer gambit. Chapter 1 is devoted to the Euwe Defence:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6

Now after 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 he criticises 8. Qe2 as probably time-wasting (as Qe2-f2 may follow), but still gives three White wins as examples: firstly,

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qe2 b6 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.0-0-0 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Qa3+ 14.Kb1 Qxc3 15.Qe4 Rb8 16.Bb5+ Ke7 17.Rhf1 g5 18.Rd3 Qc5 19.Qf3 1-0 (Diemer Emil – Buis W, Haarlem, 1952)

and after 8…0-0 9.0-0:

9…0-0 10.Kh1 a5 11.Rae1 a4 12.Ne5 Ra5?! 13.Rf4 g6 14.Bh6 Nh5 15.Rf3 Ng7 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Rxf7+! Rxf7 18.Nxf7 Kxf7 19.Qxe6+ Kg7 20.Qxe7+ Qxe7 21.Rxe7+ Kh6 22.Ne4 Rd5 23.c3 b5 24.g4 g5 25.Nd6 1-0 (Falkeid – Vallestad, Nordic Team Ch.1965)

9…Re8 10.Qf2 Nf8 11.Qh4 Ng6 12.Bxg6 fxg6 13.Ne5 Nd5 14.Ne4 Nf6 15.c3 Nxe4 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Qxe4 c6 18.Rf7 Qd8 19.Raf1 Qd5 20.Nxg6! 1-0 (Diemer-Locher, Corr 1950)

In the main line (where White gains a tempo) he gives a critical game which eventually turned out well for Black.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.0-0 Be7 8.Bg5 0-0 9.Qe1 Re8 10.Qh4 Nf8 11.Ne5 Ng6 12.Bxg6 fxg6 13.Rf3 Nd5 14.Ne4 Bxg5 15.Nxg5 h6 16.Nef7 Qe7 17.Raf1 e5 18.dxe5 Be6 19.Qg3 Rf8 20.Nxe6 Qxe6 21.c4 Ne7 22.Qf2 Nf5 23.g4 Rxf7 24.gxf5 gxf5 25.Rxf5 Raf8 26.Rxf7 Rxf7 27.Qe2 Qg6+ 28.Kh1 Rxf1+ 29.Qxf1 Qe4+ -/+ (Diebert-Fishbein, World Open, 1986: ).

And that’s it! Is this eighth move position some bizarre Zugzwang, so that by triangulating White wins, even if Black adopts the critical plan? Of course not, but the work needed here is all left to you. If 8. Qe2 is time-wasting it should have been noted as such and the three games should have been left out. If these games have important or original attacking ideas then perhaps we should be given them, but also be told what to look for.

ObSheesh: sheesh.

[The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, LANE]

Glib observation: -2 points

The Pride and Sorrow of British Chess, Ray Keene, published one of his own games (against Vella) which opened:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. a3 Bxc3 7. bxc3 d6 8. Ne2 e5 9. Ng3.

“A theoretical novelty” says Keene, but the main line is not suggested. He adds that the move offers “a pawn for open lines“, which is a shallow comment in the ‘with compensation’ class.

Whatever thought may have gone behind this move, we are offered none of it. [Winning with the Nimzo-Indian, KEENE]

Unexplained symbols: -1 point

Keene in his notes to the same game cites a Plaskett encounter with Psakhis which continued instead 7…e5 8. Ne2 e4!?. In fact Keene quotes the whole of Psakhis-Plaskett 1985, without a single real comment. The “!?” mark is actually Keene’s, and two further moves during the game are annotated “?!” and “!”, but no support is offered for these judgements.

We can see the same thing at work in the three games with 8. Qe2 in the Blackmar-Diemer above. “12…Ra5?!“ doesn’t really cut the mustard: what was the standing of this game before …Ra5? How does Black stand after – is he really busted? What would have been a better move? How would Black stand then? How should Black play in this sort of position – what would be the best defensive plan?

“…In some places words have been replaced by symbols which, like amulets from a witch’s bag, have the power to consume the living spirit of chess…

“…Oh, those exclamation points! How they erode the innocent soul of the amateur, removing all hope of allowing him to examine another player’s ideas critically!”

— Tigran PETROSIAN

[Winning with the Nimzo-Indian, KEENE;

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, LANE;

How to play the Opening in Chess; ed. EVANS]

Glib explanation: 0 points

(see diagram above)

9…g6 (“to prevent Nf5…”)

Well, we guessed that. But was it compulsory? Desirable? Unnecessary? Weakening? Solid? Double-edged?

If you find yourself lapsing into this sort of thing, it’s no better than football commentary: “White moves the pieces to the King’s-side, Black sets an offside trap, White shoots… and scores! – no, Black’s cleared it off the back rank!”

[Winning with the Nimzo-Indian, KEENE]

Genuine explanation: 1 point

The reason RDK is both the pride and the sorrow is that he can do it when he wants to. His note in the same book to move 8 of Portisch-Fischer (p.113) is as good as anything I’ve read elsewhere on this line, and claims to improve significantly on Fischer’s analysis.

[KEENE, Winning with the Nimzo-Indian]

Crisp, deep commentary: 2 points

It should be no secret to readers that John Nunn is one of the world’s finest chess authors. He is noted for a sharp style and deep analysis of complications, but he can also be illuminating about strategy:

Nunn – Gelfand, Munich, 1991

17. Ng3

“As a young player I was puzzled by games in which White played the manoeuvre Nc2-e2-g3 against the Pirc. It seemed to me that the Knight was not very well placed on g3, because Black’s g6 pawn prevented the Knight advancing. Indeed its one and only duty seemed to be to defend the pawn on e4. Then, in 1984, I lost a game with Black against Murray Chandler, in which he used precisely this manoeuvre. The crucial distinction is whether White is attacking or defending. If White doesn’t hold the initiative then the Knight on g3 is truly inactive, but if White holds the initiative and has pressure in the centre then the Knight can be very useful. The Rooks and Queen operating on the open files are so dangerous for Black that he cannot counter them directly; instead, Black must somehow aim for counterplay. The only weakness in White’s position is the vulnerable Pawn on e4. If this is secure, then White has plenty of time to improve his position. The function of the g3 Knight is precisely to support the e4 Pawn and give White the freedom of action he needs to step up the pressure.

“In the current position, Black is attacking e4 twice, but at the moment he cannot consider taking the Pawn because of the exposed Knight on d7.”

[John Nunn’s Best Games, NUNN]

Arguing for a given choice with evidence: 3 points

For club players, reading what a GM says can often be persuasive without it really standing up to proper standards for argument. Some annotators like Larsen and Timman like to tease readers with their opinions: “I still don’t regard [the King’s Indian] as a fully-fledged opening” says Timman, annotating a game where he played the system as Black!. This is entertaining and may prompt the reader to think more deeply about the opening, but a properly based conclusion should be based on reasons. What alternatives are there, and do they stand scrutiny? Perhaps only when GMs disagree are we in with a chance of seeing this proper level of commentary. I remember being engaged by a comment in a Hodgson/Day book on the Grand Prix attack, where they said “Hodgson says White is better, because of X, Day thinks Black is better because of Y”. It gave me the idea that here is a situation where these factors X and Y might be in rough balance, and might help me judge them better next time.

For these reasons I have long been fascinated by a book in which two annotators wrote separate notes to the games of the 1972 Spassky-Fischer match. Here’s an example:

15…P-QN4 “?”

“Dr.Euwe thought that this was a deliberate sacrifice, since Black does get some compensation for the Exchange. Gligoric disagreed, contending that only White has any winning chances now.

“The main question is how well Black stands after 15…R-B2, recommendation by Euwe and Najdorf. 16 B-R7 R-R1, 17 Q-K3! N-Q2, 18 N-Q4 improves the White game, delaying …P-QN4 and aiming to get rid of the fianchettoed bishop. 17…N-N5, 18 Q-N6 QxQ, 19 RxB QxR, 20 QxR gives White such an enormous advantage that it has to be classed as a forced win (20…RxB, 21 Q-N8ch wins).

“So, in response to the immortal chess question of the late Oscar Tenner — “Did he fall, or was he pushed?” — I tend to favour the latter alternative. The Maroczy Bind is not without teeth.”

Everything one might want: a proper consideration of the alternatives, a focus on the critical issue, and a reasoned conclusion. Perhaps not every position is as amenable to such a definitive analysis, but it is a goal to be aimed for.

[Timman’s Selected Games, TIMMAN;

Both Sides of the Chessboard, BYRNE and NEI]

Secrets of chess revealed: 4 points

Every so often someone will write a comment that enables me to think about not just that position, but actually improves the way I can think about all positions.

Najdorf-Petrosian, Zurich 1953

Now Black tried 12…c5; Bronstein comments:

“A serious positional mistake, whose significance the reader can realise from the following considerations: Black has an open file on the Queen’s side and can provoke b2-b3, whereupon his plan must be to attack White’s b3 by advancing his a-pawn. This attack had prospects of succeeding if Black can support his pawn when it gets to a4. What is he to support it with? He has no white-squared bishop, and the square c5 has beeen taken away from his knight by his last move. Moreover, it is clear that Black will not be able to maintain his knight on d4 forever. Hence he is now left without any plan that has prospects of being successful.”

Looking back, I can now recognise how sometimes a plausible move leaves my position without a way forward, and I don’t think I’d be as alert to the problem as if I hadn’t read that comment. Perhaps it’s an insight that can be obtained elsewhere, but many people say they have had that “aha!” experience reading Bronstein.

[The Chess Struggle in Practice, BRONSTEIN]

Whimsy or humour: extra 1/2 point

My introduction to chess, as so many, was through Irving Chernev: as much as the magic of the game I was attracted to Chernev’s delightful whimsy. Another author I like is Stephan Gerzadowicz: who could prefer the pedestrian “White takes yet another Pawn” to Stephan’s

“They’re like peanuts, you know“?

[Logical Chess, CHERNEV;

Thinker’s Chess, GERZADOWICZ]

Having got the points system we can start to see a few patterns emerge. For a game of average length in a book or magazine, we can classify annotators as follows:

0-10 points: hack work – club standard annotator

Your lower-graded club colleagues may be entertained or even assisted by your efforts, but there are enough chess books in the world without you adding to the pile. Improve or give up.

10-20 points: good effort – candidate master annotator

It is clear from your score that you can understand chess and can communicate your understanding, and this is the heart of annotating.

There is probably another level to be reached: have you considered all important alternatives? have you tried to explain how the general strategical tensions are reflected in the key variations? have you explained how the perceptions of this type of game have changed over time?

20-30 points: excellent – master annotator

You may be justly proud of your efforts in annotation. It is likely that there is little more to be said about a game when you have written about it. You have noted all the important choices and explained the players’ motivations at each point in the game.

30-40 points: grandmaster annotator

Here we have a standard of annotation which even masters will find illuminating. Of course, not all moves of all games will be able to support the weight of commentary you are able to offer, but among the notes you offer will be gems which will stay with the reader for the rest of their life. Tsar Nicholas nominated the first five “Grandmasters of chess”; may I indulge myself by nominating my first five “Grandmasters of annotation”. Take a bow, Mikhail Botvinnik, David Bronstein, Mark Dvoretsky, Bent Larsen, and John Nunn. Honourable mention: Peter Clarke.

In a class of its own: Secrets of Grandmaster Play by Nunn and Griffiths.

My points scheme fell apart here. This is the gold standard of annotation: the games are analysed in all their tactical and strategical complexity (some positions being given more than two pages of notes), there is due regard given to the realities of tournament play (for example, how much did Nunn really see in the game?), the background to the game is given consideration, and there is a genuine attempt to educate. New revised edition published 1997. A must-read, but take a deep breath!

 

P.S.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5

“This is White’s only chance of gaining any advantage against the Grunfeld. Much weaker, for example, is 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.Be2? (a genuine beginner’s move).  So far, Petrosian-Botvinnik, Game 5, 1963. Now Botvinnik played, 6…cxd4? 7.Bxc4 c5? (Better is 7…Nc6 and then 8…e5) 8.d5! e6? (Better is 8…Ne8) 9.dxe6 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Bxe6 11.Bxe6 fxe6 and, despite all of Black’s lemons, the game is still only slightly better for White, which proves again the weakness of White’s first move, 1.d4. (…)” Bobby Fischer, 1963.

Purdy commented:

“We like especially the opening paragraph of Fischer’s annotation to 4.cxd5.  It is matchless in the literature of chess.”

Annotating games

Posted on by

A recent email:

I’ve never annotated a game. Could be interesting. Perhaps you could
send me a game and I’ll try to annotate it without computer. Might show
you my thinking.

The games that are most valuable to annotate are your own games, (but maybe in future it might be a good exercise to look at somebody else’s). I think it’s a good discipline to look at all of your serious games at least briefly after the game with your opponent, then again at home with some software, and record your thoughts.

I’m happy for people to use a computer to reveal any tactical points. The aim is to get you to show yourself what you were thinking about during the game, what you think with hindsight, and, from any mismatch, see if there’s anything you can learn from or smarten up in future.

Never annotated before? You do it how you like, but the way I do it is: Fritz looks over my shoulder as I trot through the moves of a game, giving me a running assessment of the balance of the position (+0.31,+0.2, +0.2, +0.3, 0.0, -0.87). If you plotted this assessment on a chart, it would wander up and down around 0.0, taking an occasional lurch as one side or the other missed something, maybe settling at a new level after a particularly classy or duff move. A good annotation would comment on  the assessments while they are stable (The features of the position are… which is balanced or one side is better because…) and the lurches (This makes Black’s position worse because… Here White overlooks…) and the mismatches (At the time I thought X and my opponent thought Y but really Z) and give some sort of overview of the game (White did this well, Black did that well but this not so well… I’ve made this mistake before, so… Lessons for next time might be…).

The point of doing an annotation for training purposes is to compare what happened with what should have happened (the computer can do) but also to compare what you were thinking with what you should have been thinking. [I’ve got a bunch of my own games with my own comments here if you want to see what sort of mess I make of this task.]

I usually feel free to ignore my computer when it disagrees with me about exactly which side of 0.0 we are, except when the difference starts to get to be the size of half a pawn, when I worry that I’ve mis-assessed the position. [Either it is or I am bad at positional sacrifices; I played a pawn sac against Ivor on Saturday which I thought was just killing, but my computer reckoned I was losing all the way through.]

And always remember, you’re trying to find the turning points, and not just noting mistakes but trying to find improvements.  While you’re digging deeper, finding better moves for yourself or your opponent I have hopes that you’re learning. When you’re just describing what’s happening and not pointing out better moves  I worry that you’re not getting the most out of the exercise.

Jacob Aagaard throws in a how-to guide for annotating your own games in his Excelling at Positional Chess.  He describes a number of different levels of work, depending on your capacity for work:

“

  1. Write down three things you have learned from the game.

  2. Always write down the time you spent during the game

    3. < li style=”font-weight: bold;”> Check the opening theory

  3. Write down the critical moments of the game, the things you saw during the game and what you think went wrong.  Do this the same evening.

  4. Analyse the game yourself.  Only when finished should you refer to [computers].

  5. Check for structural assistance [from your computer] to gain additional insight. “[This is a database search based on pawn structure and maybe ECO codes, to find similar games and find out how other people handled the position from either side.]

  6. “Tournament reports and diagnosis of weakness.  …Make a list of all my mistakes from my games, and describe them.” [The idea is to find your typical mistakes, things that you often get wrong.]

  7. Training based on tournament reports.  … For every weakness there is a remedy.”

Returning to chess

Posted on by

I just had a nudge from an old sparring partner who is looking to get back into chess again. What advice might you give?

Practise, study, review your games…  So much, so obvious.

But I also recommended a book as a good MOT :
Ray Cheng, Practical Chess Exercises

It offers you 600 positions (in sets of 8) for ‘solving’, so one of them will be a snap mate in 2… but among the others we might find something that looks like a mate in 2 but will fail because of some horrible smelly trap, or a delicate endgame finesse, or a promising attacking position where the best move is actually to win a pawn, or a position where the ‘solution’ is to avoid a haymaker coming your way, or a deeper tactic that takes a deal of head-scratching, or a positional coup… The exercises are graded in difficulty from one to four, and most sets include one at each level. I guess this as close to practical play as a book can get: you are faced with a variety of challenges, some straightforward, but some rather less so; sometimes you enjoy the chance to attack, at other times you have to defend, and you’ll never know what’s coming.

P.S. Apparently John Nunn’s Chess Puzzle Book also gives 250 mixed positions (which I can guess are tougher) but it seems to be out of print at the moment.

Classical Rocks

Posted on by

I was wondering about 1. e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 openings – would you recommend exploring some of these? I’m not enjoying being squashed as black any more and thought I’d make a longer term plan to learn a (very) few classical openings instead. I wondered about French (winawer?) but thought I try a complete new tack (why swap an early d6 for an early e6 ?!!)

My first thought was, I don’t know how long you’ve been getting back into the game, but I’d leave the job of taking on two or three whole new opening systems for a bit. You’re probably better off getting your eye in again on more familiar territory, before taking on a bunch of new theory (and indeed a new style of playing). But if you fancy it, go for it!

I certainly think going classical makes a lot of sense: I’ve told people to do it, and a couple of people have told me to do it… and I’ve tried it, but I don’t think it suits me. I don’t know if would suit you: ‘suiting’ isn’t just style and temperament, but also time for study.

I always like to find a player who has the same repertoire as I want to play. Modern GMs tend to be a fidgety lot, but I remember digging out some of Nigel Short’s games to study how he handled the Black side of the QGD Tartakower. I don’t know who I’d pick as an archetypal defender of 1.e4 e5: Lasker? Unzicker? Korchnoi?

I don’t know a good book to support playing 1…d5 if you fancy playing it; there are several repertoire books around, but I don’t know them. Aagaard and Lund’s book on Defending 1.d4 is based on the Tarrasch, and gives suggestions against all the non-2.c4 non-1.d4 systems as well. Sadler’s book on the QGD I thought was excellent.

There’s a fine book by John Emms on playing 1…e5 as Black against 1.e4; although the weight of variations is daunting it is thorough, practical and gives a couple of alternative lines for the reader to choose at many points. I never know how to use books like this: I feel it needs a ‘Coles’ Notes’ version to accompany it, something to boil it down to a core of stuff I can learn.

You might like to have a browse of Nigel Davies’ stuff (I can’t now find a lot of the pages I used to point people to since he moved websites); he spent some time in Israel working with ex-Soviet GMs and felt rather keenly the lack of a ‘classical education’; he began to play with the centre and moved away from the Modern towards playing 1…e5. He’s also produced a repertoire book for Black about 1…e5.

Lastly, I don’t know if you’d get anything out of browsing below: #20th_Dec_08
#12thAugust2008

cheers

D

Get me a FIDE rating

Posted on by

Ish at work

DVDs: is it just me?

Posted on by

I treated myself to a ChessBase Fritz Trainer DVD recently, 943Mb of files crammed into one corner of a 4.7Gb disc.  Nearly all the space is taken up with movies of a balding middle-aged guy stumbling through commentary like:

” Erm… Now, I’ll show you… er… one of my own games… um… er… playing Black against… um… er… er… um… Z Grophulous in the New York open in 1985… er… yeah…” [names changed to protect the guilty, but that’s a transcript]

Now, I’m quite happy to have audio commentary, even when it’s as under-rehearsed as this, so at least I can follow the moves on the board without having to look somewhere else on the screen for the commentary: that seems to be a good use of the technology.  But I can do without actually watching the guy sweating under the lights… Does it really add to the experience?  Why would I want to look at the author and not the chessboard?  I have a strong feeling that, with the latest ChessBase products, we have a case of “we can do this, so we should do this”.  Maybe if it was someone as important as Fischer or charismatic as Kasparov I’d change my mind, but currently I think it’s a waste of effort.

And surely that disc space could have been better used?  There are only 114 games on this disc, and most of them don’t have commentary. The previous generation of products, CDs, used audio to make just a few important points (rather than waffle over every move) and included a good-sized database with many annotated games, which to my mind is better value.

[We seem to be repeating the problems with chess videos: all format and little content. Once I transcribed the moves from one video, and it came to less than 2 sides of A5.  How many A5 pages do you get in a book costing as much?]

Bird lives!

Posted on by

Bird lives!

Ah, not Charlie “(Yard)Bird” Parker, whose untimely departure in
1955 prompted jazz fans to write this graffito all over New York, but
Henry Bird, who left us two sprightly variations: the Bird Defence to the Ruy Lopez, and his very own opening, 1.f2-f4.  2008 is the 150th year since Bird died, and at
this year’s Paignton Chess Congress, there was a special prize for the
best game played with his opening.  This resulted in a bigger crop
of Birds than usual, as you might expect, and the prize winner was the
following game (courtesy of Bill Frost at ChessDevon:

Because of the increased risk of the Bird, I reviewed what I knew about it in case someone played it against me… No-one did, so I thought I’d record the results of my review here.

” Having forgotten familar openings, I commenced adopting KBP for first move, and finding it let to highly interesting games out of the usual groove, I became partial to it.” — Henry BIRD

I first found out about Bird’s opening (1.f4) in some random beginners’ book, where the author dismissed it (as have many authors since) with the recommendation that Black play From’s Gambit (1…e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 [idea 4…Qh4+ mating] 4.Nf3 g5!?), and noted that if the From turned out one day to be better for Black then White could dodge into the King’s Gambit.

That satisfied me for a while, but I became interested again when the opening kept cropping up in B.H.Wood’s CHESS magazine in the 1970s.  That may have had something to do with the editor’s own liking for the opening, but surely it was more than that: lots of players were happy to try the Bird (directly or by transposition) and you never saw a From.  Could it really be dismissed?  I rather suspected not, and that the From wasn’t all it was cracked up to be: critical, surely, but if White knew what they were doing, perhaps they could keep the pawn and survive.

I was reassured when Neville Gill wallopped the Bird when winning the PCC Championship for 1976, then woken from my dogmatic slumbers when Jerry Anstead used the Bird to beat Gill (and others) winning the title in 1980.  Yet, Rumens and Bellin, both players of the Dutch defence, weren’t above the occasional Bird while contesting the Grand Prix in weekend congresses.  Then I discovered Bent Larsen had been interested in it; not mere dabbling either, he took out Spassky with it in a crucial game:

  • Larsen – Spassky B V [A03]

NB for all example games, see above […]

“In this last game with the white pieces I played Bird’s Opening, of which most masters have no high opinion, but I chose it for the very reason that they do not play it and do not know it. I know it quite well, have many original ideas. Now I challenge Spassky with it; let us see what ideas he has to show.”

Since Larsen’s heyday, IM Tim Taylor and GM Henrik Danielsen have both played and promoted the Bird extensively; it’s also a familiar feature of club and county games in the Westcountry. So, there’s more to this opening than is obvious in the books; in fact, it’s an ideal club opening in many ways — unbalanced, untheoretical and underestimated!  [And like all such openings, it will become better known, people will write books about it, and eventually it will become an opening like any other…]

Defending against the Bird

This is really what I spent my time looking at.  There is no consensus in the books and comics about Black’s best line: Gufeld recommends the From; Keene & Levy suggest 1…d5, 2…Nf6 and 3…Bg4 (but consider only 3.e3); Aagaard & Lund prefer 2…Bg4; and so on.  Perhaps all are adequate, but it seemed to me that the From would be no surprise, and that systems with …Bg4 allowed White to play the sort of unclear attack with 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 and 6.g4 that they were surely hoping for.

On the other hand, going for 2…g6 and allowing White to play the Dutch with a move in hand wasn’t attractive either; all the various treatments that Black can adopt (Stonewall, Ilyin-Zhenevsky, Leningrad, Antoshin) have their counterpart in the Bird and all looked thoroughly playable for White, and, as I don’t play the White side of the Dutch, I thought I wouldn’t thrive a move behind.  As long as White avoids the various pitfalls known to theory (e.g. 1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3? d4!) I imagine White would be pleased to play this way.

Actually, what am I familiar with?  I have a reputation for knowing a lot of opening theory, but, while I do find it fascinating, my actual over-the-board choices are usually driven by the desires to (a) avoid any theory, and (b) avoid whatever my opponent wants to play.  This rather negative philosophy led me to consider 1…c5 and 1…g6, both systems that I have played on and off against 1.e4 for years.  Checking with Tim Taylor’s excellent monograph, I see he concluded that White cannot expect any advantage with standard Bird moves against 1…c5, and should instead transpose into some sort of Sicilian with 1.e4 — perhaps either the Closed or Grand Prix variations of the Sicilian Defence, although Taylor prefers Be2. As I am usually very happy to see White choose anything like these when I play 1.e4 c5, I resolved on 1.f4 c5.  I have an idea that if Black were more recently rehearsed in the Modern and King’s Indian than I am currently, then 1…g6 with …d6 and eventually …e5 would be an equally uncooperative yet satisfactory way to defend.

Openings workshop 2008

Posted on by

Interesting… much more general questions than previous years. There may be a theme of these questions, about the tension between seeking opportunity and accepting risk. So here goes…

How should you play against 1…Nf6 when you want a Stonewall Attack?

The Stonewall Attack is 1.d4 d5 with 2.e3/3.Bd3/4.f4, intending to clamp down on the centre then attack on the King’s-side with moves like Nf3/O-O/Ne5/Qf3/Qh5/Bxh7+…

This can be very dangerous if Black castles into it, although if you can see it coming in time it’s easy enough to dodge (Bf5/g6/O-O-O). If Black replaces 1…d5 with 1…Nf6, White’s system may come to nothing, pointing in the wrong direction.

The common solution is for White to play 2.Nd2, threatening to take over the centre with e2-e4, which may provoke Black into playing 2…d5, when we can return to our standard system with relief. If Black doesn’t play …d5 then you can either stick to your guns with e3 and f4, or carry out your threat to play e4. It’s not a bad idea to have a second string system, like the Colle, that you can switch to in case of move order problems.

Delaying castling or castling queenside in the London System?

It’s unusual. Johanssen remarks in his book with Kovacevic that:

“Although queen’s-side castling is relatively rare in the London system, it may sometimes pay to keep the option open.”

…which is about as much use as a rubber crutch. There are some games in that same book where Queen’s-side castling appears:

  • Blatny P. – Chernishov K. [D05]
  • Winants – Mohandesi [A45]
  • Popov N. – Makarichev S. [A90]

These suggest that the times you might consider queen’s-side castling are:

  • If there is an open h-file
  • When you wish to throw up your King’s-side pawns
  • When your opponent is aiming at the King’s-side in a similar manner

I always liked Pillsbury’s guidance:

“Castle because you will or because you must; but not because you can.” — Harry Pillsbury.

See http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/castling for general advice on delayed castling.

Click on […] to see games list.

Playing Black against 1.d4?

See separate pages and separate blogs

What about 1.e4 c5 2.c4?

I was surprised to find 800 games played in recent years where this move was played, with a normal spread of results (55% to White). I wouldn’t play it as White because I would find it difficult to make any play against the locked centre after 2…Nc6 and 3…e5. However, out of the 800 games, this scheme was rarely chosen by the defenders, presumably because Black also wants to leave enough play to win, hoping also to leave open the option of transposing into a favourite version of the Sicilian. If that’s so, White might be able to sneak across into a version of the Maròczy Bind; for example, lots of Black players went 2…g6, which probably leads to the best-known version of the Bind. I’d prefer 2…e6, even though 2…g6 is in my repertoire.

Why is the Bind so uncomfortable for Black? Because lots of the appeal of the Sicilian depends on having a half-open c-file, a minority attack with …b5 and the chance of blowing up the centre using your extra central pawn with ….d5; once White plays c4, all that goes out of the window.

I keep getting caught out in common gambit openings…

Here’s a player getting caught out:

[C21] Danish gambit – fork, 2000

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 c6?? 9.Nf6+ gxf6 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Bxf6+ …

Full marks to Black for having the courage to take on White’s opening and accepting the gambit, but this involves definite risks if you forget (or never knew) the traps in each variation. Most gambits have traps like this. Let’s have a list of gambits:

Vienna Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 (3…exf4? 4.e5)

King’s Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4

Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3

Göring Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3

Scotch Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 and 5.c3

Evans’ Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

The best way to avoid problems depends on your taste: “…d5 is the antidote to the venom in most gambits” as they say, but you will struggle to play that against the Evans. I recommend to start with:

Vienna Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5!

King’s Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf5 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Nf6! 5.e5! Ng4 and 6…d5

Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5!

Göring Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 d5!

Scotch Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4!

Two Knights’ 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5!?

All of these lines need some study, but I hope this is a shove in the right direction.

P.S. The game I found where Black got Danished… was won by Black (Berry)!

Is the Benoni any good?

Sometimes! The type of Benoni usually played is the Modern Benoni with …e6xd5. This is a high-stakes opening where you really can’t busk it in the sharper lines, you have to study and learn… and all the lines are pretty sharp… That said, it’s a fine way to unbalance the game and so play for a win as Black.

I’ve recently recommended to Charlie that he play the Benoni, but delay the exchange. (I believe our very own Andy Pickering was a fan of this approach.)

Two reasons for choosing to delay:

After …e6xd5 and cxd5, White has a standard way of arranging their pieces which usually includes Nf3-d2-c4, where the Knight frees the f-pawn to move, and from c4 it supports e4-e5 and puts pressure on d6. If Black delays …e6xd5, then clearly White is going to have to find something else to do for a while, and there is a view that Black can more easily find useful things to do [trying to arrange …b5 with Na6-c7,Rb8,Bd7] than White.

The main line Modern Benoni has a problem, which is the Taimanov Attack (Flick-Knife Attack) with 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4! Bg7 8. Bb5+!. e.g.

Kasparov G. – Nunn J. [A67]

Black faces a serious attack and has found no clean way to equalise; White is taking risks too, so if White falters at all the counter-attack will be swift and terrible… but many players of the Benoni prefer these days to play it only after White has played Nf3 (e.g. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5). Delaying the exchange avoids this difficult line (and maybe some others).

The lines without …e6 are slower and stodgier; Black often plays …e5 when the lines divide according to whether you plonk the Bf8 on g7 or e7 (when it usually goes next to g5). These lines are more solid but harder to play for a win.

What are the Dos and Don’ts of the Scandinavian with 2…Qxd5? What plans should each side follow?

“This fine defence…” — Jonathan Speelman

“…Sucks all the life out of the position.” — Anon.

Many of us associate the Scandinavian with some devastating Fischer miniatures from the 1960s. But since Larsen re-established this defence as an option for GMs at Montreal 1979…

Karpov A. – Larsen B. [B01]

Spassky B. – Larsen B. [B01]

…it has had a dedicated following, resulting in its ultimate achievement, successful use in a World Championship match by Anand, when Kasparov couldn’t show anything against it, even though he won in the end. (However, Anand did not repeat his experiment!)

Kasparov G – Anand V [B01]

The Scandinavian 2…Qxd5 is particularly difficult to get a handle on because the unforcing nature of most of the variations. After the exchange of pawns we have a ‘structure’ rather like the French Rubinstein or main line Caro-Kann, in which lines Black has given up their stake in the centre and can be said to have made another concession, either blocking in the Bc8 with …e6 or playing the unnecessary …c6. After …Qxd5 and …Qa5 (say) Black has supposedly lost time but has made no commitments with their pawns, which means they can adopt a very natural development scheme.

It’s often said that exposing the Queen on d5 ‘wastes time’, but after Nc3, Qa5 each side has developed one piece, so I don’t see it: however, White is still ahead in development because they start first. White can maybe get another free hit against the Queen by Nf3-e5-c4 or Bd2/Ne4, and that’s when White gains time to improve their position (not to develop).

Hmm, plans… It’s not possible to ‘read’ the structure to generate moves in such a straightforward way as, say, the French Advance. [For these reasons, I dislike playing against it and I don’t think I’d ever take it up!] It’s hard to talk in general terms, it’s more about specific piece arrangements and move orders and whether they make any progress, but let’s have a go. [In his magisterial two-volume review of the strategies behind chess openings, John Watson pointedly avoided talking about any variations with wPd4 and bPe6/bPc6, rather devoting 7 pages to common themes from the French/Caro/Scandinavian.] Deep breath:

White normally gets in d4 and operates on four ranks. Black holds back on the first three ranks, not wanting to open up lines while they are behind in development, and must avoid weaknesses – which I guess is a plan of sorts.

White has advantages in space and development but these are each hard to make use of because of the lack of tension in the position and because these advantages can evaporate with time and exchanges. So, White needs to avoid exchanges, to keep active, to make problems…

Next level down: the Scandinavian is what I call a light-square defence, leaving White with a pawn on d4 and control of e5 but disputing the centre at d5 and e4. Perhaps the ultimate for Black is to play …Bb4, …Bxc3, …Nb6, …Qb5 with a grip on all the light squares.

If White gets enough oomph, it may be they can blow up the position with d4-d5. Black usually restrains the white d-Pawn with …c6, when it starts to look a bit like a Caro-Kann, with White’s Queen’s Knight on c3 instead of e4.

Black wants to play …e6 and play the Bf8 somewhere, but before playing …e6 the Bc8 should be developed. Black can’t hang around, as Bc4 in combination with Ne5 will force …e6. The Bishop when on g4 or f5 then can become the target of attacks, either by h3/g4/Ne5 or Ne5/g4. This can lead to some very sharp play with both sides making committal moves, as in the famous game Anand-Lautier.

Anand V. – Lautier J. [B01]

Black has some choice over the timing of …Nf6, …c6 and …Bf5, depending on which ideas they wish to avoid or allow. [Ian Rogers tried hard with …Bg4 but these days …Bf5 holds sway.] So, delaying …Bf5 gives you the option of …Be6 against 6.Ne5; while delaying …Nf6 avoids White’s Bd2/Ne4/Nxf6, making a mess of Black’s pawns.

Let’s have a look at the quiet main line variation:

Lutzenberger R. – Turcan M. [B01]

Black has been experimenting with 3…Qd6; this keeps the Queen in play but obviously restricts the Bf8 and may offer White another free hit with Ne4 or Bf4. There are other sidelines like 5…Nc6, 5…Ne4 and 4…e5 which are tricky to meet if you haven’t seen them. White can also mix it up by delaying Nf3 in favour of Bc4, or playing an early Bd2/Ne4.

Advice for White? There’s no consensus in books for our level: Keene/Levy ignored 5…Bf5 in 1994; Gufeld (1996) gives the quiet main line; Collins recommends the sharp main line as played by Anand; Dzindzhi (2007) suggests Kasparov’s 6.Ne5, a move order also favoured by Baker (1998); and Emms (who must have some sort of grasp of this opening, having written about it several times) recommended 6.Bd2/7.Ne4 in 2001 without considering it a cosmic mind-blower in 2004. Emms’ 2004 book includes the direct try 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Bc4 Bf5 6.Bd2 e6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.d5 cxd5 9.Nxd5 Qd8 10.Nxf6+ Qxf6 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Bc3! which he thinks is better for White.

Nigel Short went through a creative phase when playing against the Scandinavian, and we can perhaps borrow his idea of delaying d4:

  • Short-Rogers
  • Short-Oll

Or 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.d3 followed by Nge2, 0-0, Ng3 and perhaps f2-f4-f5 (Sodjerg). And if you really can’t bear it, you can try 2.Nc3 or 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3.

Click on […] to see games list.

What about the Four Knights’ Game with 4.g3 (Glek Variation)?

Some White players are prepared to give up the fight for the advantage in the Ruy Lopez and just get into a reasonable position which suits their style and look forward to outplaying their opponent around moves 25-40. One opening that is used for this purpose is the Four Knights’ Game, where Gunsberg’s 4.a3 and Glek’s 4.g3 have been played. John Nunn’s “New Ideas” reviews some of the early experiments with both moves. There is no ‘answer’ for Black, because there is no ‘question’ being put, other than, can you survive the middlegame against me?

I think the earliest g3 was Nimzo, but here’s the main man these days, Igor Glek.

Glek I. – Wells P. [C47]

One response that you might save for a rainy day in Exmouth is 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Nxe4?! 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nc3 e4 7.Ng1 Bc5, with some attacking chances. I’ve managed to lose to this idea in Blitz… Here’s a game from a chap who sounds like an Indian computer facing the reincarnation of the spirit of defence…

Sengupta Deep – Petrosian T. [C47]

Click on […] to see games list.

Classical or Hypermodern?

Gligoric S. – Miles A. [D25]

Lilienthal A. – Kortschnoj V. [D86]

The eternal debate… I recommend avoiding hypermodern approaches until your chess is good all round; because of their amorphous nature, you have to be prepared to play a variety of positions. So, after 1.e4 g6, White has a number of systems available, most of which are very flexible, and Black has a hard time deciding whether to challenge the centre by …c5, …d5, …e5 or all three, while making sure that White doesn’t break through with d5, e5, f5, h5 or all five.

Having said that, I know Jonathan W has been playing the Alekhin and Grünfeld: “I have to adopt unusual openings, as otherwise I tend to get into trouble with more experienced players who know the familiar ones that little bit better than me.”.

Perhaps these defences are not so variable in their themes as the Modern. I dunno, for a while I was playing nothing but hypermodern openings… On your own head be it!

I have a piece on this issue elsewhere: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/hypermodern-approach

Click on […] to see games list.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Emms Attacking with 1.e4

Keene/Levy An opening repertoire for the Attacking Player

Alburt, Dzindzhikhashvili&Perelshteyn Chess Openings for White, Explained

Gufeld An opening repertoire for the Attacking Player

Plaskett The Scandinavian Defence

Emms The Scandinavian

Collins Attacking repertoire for White

Johanssen/Kovakevic The London System

Soltis The London System

Baker A startling chess opening repertoire

Keene/Jacobs An opening repertoire for White

Nunn New Ideas in the Four Knights

Psakhis The Complete Benoni

Evans Stonewalling

Fine The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings

Znosko-Borovsky How to play the chess openings