Author Archives: DrDave

About DrDave

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

Basic Rook Endgames

Posted on by

We lost on board count to old rivals Teignmouth in the Peter Rooke Cup
at the end of January. One of the last games to finish involved a
simple-looking Rook endgame. Just as it was getting crucial, White,
short of time, found a time-saving blunder:

So what should the result have been? I discussed it briefly with my
friend Bill Ingham. As is often the way, he fancied his side’s chances
to win, and I hoped for a draw, but the discussion showed how vague we
all are about some basic theory. To be fair, some apparently small
differences can change the best obtainable result:

{White to move: draw.} 1/2-1/2

{White to move: win.} 1-0

So, what was the right result for the Teignmouth game?

Before I answer that, I want to decide: regardless of the right result,
what is the right approach?

You probably know the Philidor and Lucena positions. Philidor showed a
draw, with the defending King having control of the Queening square. The
defender keeps out the attacking King. White can make progress only by
pushing the pawn, the Black shows a draw by sending the Rook a long way
away and playing a flurry of checks.

The ‘Lucena’ position, shown by Salvio and attributed to Sciapino, is a
win for the attacking side. With the defending King cut off by at least
two files, the defending Rook has to play the flurry of checks from
across the board. The attacker either makes an escape hatch for the
King, or ‘builds a bridge’ so that the Rook can step in at the right
moment.

Please note: sending the Rook a long way away. If the defending Rook is
too close to the attacking King, the King will be able to chase the Rook
away all by itself.

This is the idea of checking distance, and will help us understand less
clear-cut positions.

We all know that the Rook belongs behind the pawn, but that’s not true
for every position. For example, in this one, the defending Rook has
checking distance only in front of the pawn.

[White Cheron, Andre]

How does this help us understand the Teignmouth position? Well, the
defending King doesn’t have access to the Queening square, but there may
be checking distance from the side.

Now, when Bill and I were playing around with this position, I managed
to persuade him that it might be a draw, because he couldn’t escape the
flurry of checks, because he didn’t approach the Rook with his King. I
didn’t know the theoretical result, but I did know the best thing to
try.

It’s very well worth your while to play out these positions against a
friend or a computer, so that if and when it turns up in one of your
games, you won’t hesitate to adopt the right approach.

A very useful online resource is this implementation of the Nalimov
tablebases:
http://www.k4it.de/index.php
which give the theoretical best obtainable result from any given simple position.

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!

Studies and problems

Posted on by

[This simple introduction is probably redundant because there are
now some good problems and studies sites.

  Characters that clearly like problems include the folks
at Chess
Cafe, Cornel Pacurar
(who has a links page),
Ian
Gent, Vincent
van der Bilt and Manolis Stratakis.
Nandakumar Sankaran has an Endgame
Studies as does IM Igor
Khmelnitsky. Shaihin very kindly sent me not one but two studies laid out in beautiful LaTeX
PostScript.

  As ever, I wrote this piece for our juniors.]

 

Chess problems

“It is quite a three-pipe problem”. – SHERLOCK HOLMES

“A chess problem is an exercise in pure mathematics” –
G.H. HARDY

You may have often seen chess puzzles with the challenge of
‘White to play and mate in two’. Well, the area of chess problems
of this sort is really a whole extra chess continent, with strange
customs and unusual wildlife. A well-formed problem is a composed
position with a single, often surprising, solution. Many different
sorts of problems exist, and most of them look as though they
really have been composed – that is, nothing like that would happen
in a real game.

  Problem thinking is a bit different to chess thinking,
but the same principles apply – once you’ve seen a pattern (theme)
you can find it more easily in other settings.

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-X-+-+-B
+x+-X-+-
-+-+j+p+
+p+-+s+-
p+-+-Pb+
K-+r+-+-

The Indian Problem: White to play and mate in 4
(Rev. HA Loveday, 1845)

 

SOLUTION

1. Kb1 b4

2. Bc1 b5

3.Rd2 Kf4

4. Rd4 mate

The problem is ‘cooked‘ by 1. Bh1
or 1. Rd8, but the solution is essentially the same.

  This I believe was very difficult to solve at the time,
becuase it was a new type of problem; now, the “Indian theme” is
well-known to solvers.

  Want to try some? Here is a three-mover, a retrograde
problem and a ‘fairy chess’ helpmate problem (helpmate = Black to
play and help White mate!). They are all pretty tough for
beginners, so you might just prefer to play over and enjoy the
solutions rather than try to solve them.

  In the Fairy Chess problem below, there is a new type of
piece on the board at c7 – the CamelHopper. This attacks the
squares just one more square distant than a N does – that is, on
b4,d4,f6 and f8. But it moves only by moving over an attacked piece
and moving the same distance the other side – so, if the bQ moved
to d4 white could play 1 CHe1, leaving the Qd4. If the bQ was on
f8, CH couldn’t moveto “i9”, and in fact can’t move in the
diagrammed position. Clue: how to control b1?

-+-+-N-J
+-+-+pXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+q+-+x+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
L-+-+-+k

  (a) S.Loyd 1869

The Lovechase: Black invalidation:
White non-permission.: Mate in 3

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+t+l+-+-
b+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+j+-+-

  (b) R Smullyan ’57

Where is the wK?

 

-+-+-+k+
+-C-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+n+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
xD-+-+-+
J-+-+-+-

(c) Lewis 1929. Camelhopper on c7: helpmate in 5.

 

ANSWERS

  (a) 1 Qe4 fails to 1…g6. Sadly, 1 Ng6+ hxg6; 2 Qc8+
isn’t fast enough, and 1 Qc8 (threat 2 Ng6++) fails to 1…h6. The
retreat 1. Qf1! is the key – Now, if 1…Bb2; 2 Qb1, or if 1…Bc3
or 1…Bd4; 2 Qd3, or if 1…Be5 or 1…Bf6; 2 Qf5, or if 1…g6; 2
Qxa1#.

  (b) K is on c3: the previous moves must have been: 1
Pc2-c4, Pb4xc3e.p.+; 2 Kb3xc3+. Clever stuff! Smullyan has
published two or three books of these logical teasers.

  (c) The CH can only hit black squares, so the N must hit
b1, and so the CH must deliver the mate. So, 1…Qd4; 2 CHe1, Qf4;
3 CHg7, Qd6; 4 CHa5, Qd4; 5 CHg3, Qb2; 6 Nd2#. The N moving to d2
also allows the CH to mate the Ka1. Neat, eh?

  There are magazine and societies devoted to these sorts
of things, and a World Solving Championship is hotly contested each
year. Two GMs who excel at solving are John Nunn and Jon
Mestel.

 

Problem contacts:

The Problemist

British Chess Problem Society

  Secretary CAH Russ

  76 Albany Drive

  Herne Bay

  KENT CT6 8JS

Problem Observer

Chess studies

“If a garden is nature perfected, then a study might be
described as a game of chess perfected” – .

 

  We have already met a study: Saavedra’s position given
under 4.4.3.2 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position#History ] is a study, that is, a composed position with a
realistic feel to it and with reduced material, and there are other
studies in this section. Studies are oten referred to a ‘endgame
studies’, and the British study magazine is in fact called
EG. As well as the problem magazines above, the
BCM publishes a study column each month, and many
other fine examples are to be found in Chernev’s Practical
Chess Endings. Some of the best-known studies are to be
found in The Complete Chess Addict, including the
most famous of all – this one of Reti’s (1922):

 

-+-+-+-K
+-+-+-+-
j+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+x
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

White to play and draw. A seeming impossibility: the Pc6
will be caught by the bKa6 as soon as it moves, and the Ph5 can’t
be caught by the king. Watch…

1 Kg7 h4; 2 Kf6 (now 2…h4 allows 3
Ke7, h3; 4 c7, Kb7; 5 Kd7, so..) 2…Kb6; 3 Ke5, Kxc6; 4
Kf4 and draws!

  With minimum material, this is a perfect example of a
study – it could have arisen in a game, there is no demand to ‘win
in two moves’, and the play has a charming and surprising ‘point’
to it. One more (Joseph, 1922):

 

-J-K-+-+
+x+-+-+p
-P-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
x+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

Stalemates and perpetual checks loom: 1 h8=Q
threatens mate by e.g. Kd7 but 1…a1=Q and if 2
Qxa1 stalemate, so 2 Qg8, Qa2!; 3 Qe8, Qa4; 4 Qe5+, Ka8; 5
Qh8 and wins – triangulation by the Q(!) to get the bK
onto a8.

 

Curios

A related field is not exactly study composition but the challenge
of composing to a particular task: for example, from the Usenet
newsgroups:

From: Fred Galvin
<galvin@math.ukans.edu>Newsgroups:
sci.math,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Strange Question?
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:12:07 -0600
From: Fred Galvin
<galvin@math.ukans.edu>
Organization: University of Kansas Computing
Services

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Bob Silverman wrote:

 
> Consider the set of all legally reachable positions in
chess.
> Which position(s) give the largest number of different 1
move
> checkmates? What is that number?

The following positions were the record holders as of January 1,
1969, according to Anthony Dickins, A Guide to Fairy
Chess, Second Edition (The Q Press, Richmond,
Surrey, 1969); as far as I know, none of them has been *proved* to
be best possible; I don’t know of any published upper bounds.

  Legal position, no promoted men, 47 mates (J. C.
West, 1880):

 
4N1r1/P2PK2P/8/1P1kBQ2/2R5/3N4/B3P3/3R4

 

-+-+n+t+
P-+pK-+p
-+-+-+-+
+p+jBq+-
-+r+-+-+
+-+n+-+-
b+-+p+-+
+-+r+-+-

Legal position with promoted men, 105 mates (N. Petrovic,
1947):

 
1B1Q1Q2/2R5/pQ4QN/RB2k3/1Q5Q/N4Q2/K2Q4/6Q1

 

-B-Q-Q-+
+-R-+-+-
xQ-+-+qN
Rb+-J-+-
-Q-+-+-Q
N-+-+q+-
k+-Q-+-+
+-+-+-Q-

Illegal position, 143 mates (N. Petrovic, 1947):

 
QnQQ1QQ1/PQ1Q3Q/QQ4QQ/4k3/QQ4QQ/Q6Q/Q2Q1Q2/1QQQ1QQQ

 

qSqQ-Qq+
Pq+q+-+q
qQ-+-+qQ
+-+-J-+-
qQ-+-+qQ
Q-+-+-+q
q+-Q-Q-+
+qQq+qQq

Authors of openings books

Posted on by

Ah, so easily done: the unobserved transposition.

Angus Dunnington’s Winning with Unorthodox Openings [Everyman] gives on page 11 the line 1.b4 e5 2. Bb2 f6 3. b5 d5 4.e3 with the comment:

“Black must decide what his ambitions are in the centre”

…and gives 4…c5 and 4…Be6 as Black’s main choices.

Then on page 23 the line 1.b4 d5 2. Bb2 f6 3. e3 e5 is given, where our guide remarks:

“4. b5 a6 … leads to helpful simplifications for Black … with equal chances”

So presumably that’s Black’s best idea in the other move order, and maybe White should hold back from 3. b5.

It’s a bugger spotting transpositions I know; less forgivable is omitting a whole main line:

Angus Dunnington’s Winning with Unorthodox Openings [Everyman] gives on page 91 the line 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.g3 h5 with a fine game by Tartakower.

If you ever get this line as Black against Dunnington, I would be interested to see how he replies to 5…Nc6, 5…Ng4 or indeed any of the common replies to 5.g3 other than 5…h5 that are on my database, and completely unmentioned in the book.

[Sorry to pick on Angus again, I guess it shows I’m sufficiently interested in his books to by and study them. (Although Chess Psychology was an absolute dog, winning a prize only for the most uses of the word “ostensibly” in a chess book.)]

What’s the problem here? I think it’s repertoire books being written by people who don’t actually specialise in (and may never have touched) the openings in question. It also suggests a test: how many games cited in the book are by the author? If you skim a chapter and turn up none at all, add a pinch of salt, or a bit of additional study, to your reading.

Correspondence openings

Posted on by

James Drake, an occasional correspondent and freelance websoot prifreader, writes:

“I note your recommendation to play open openings when starting out to get more experience with tactics. I wonder if this applies to correspondence games. I’ve been playing them over the Internet the last few years and am at the stage where I get creamed by opponents who know long lines of the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez. Given that I’ve been somewhat influence by Purdy’s recommended openings in Action Chess , which run counter to yours, e.g., The Colle system as White. “

I replied:

That’s depressing. Although if you are following long lines of theory, does that mean you know the theory too? What books are you using to support the play of the opening in these correspondence games? I’ve not played a lot of postal chess but I do know having some pretty meaty opening books at your elbow is a requirement.

The Colle still aims at an open game, and I’m happy to recommend it. http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/colle-system

I regard the Sicilian and Lopez as openings for life in a way I don’t think the Colle is; there are some short lines against the Colle which equalise but there is very little theory to learn for either side, which is appealing.

The Sicilian and Lopez have so much territory between them, it’s likely that a player of any style can find lines to play as White that suit them. Yes, there’s a bunch of theory to learn, but as long as you get a playable position where you understand the ideas, I think it’s possible to play the White side of 1.e4 without spending all your time studying long variations.

James added:

“Do you think I’d improve more quickly playing more OTB, live chess over the Internet, or against a chess engine set down to my level? “

I replied:

I think if you don’t know,  I don’t know! Personally, I don’t like playing against chess engines but they don’t half make sure you have your buttons done up. I also think correspondence play is an excellent proving ground, and that any mix of that and other approaches you find appealing is fine.

The most important thing I think is what you do about games you lose. It’s a familiar reaction among amateurs to blame your openings (which I’ve been doing all my life). Is it that you need to dig a bit deeper into the theory, or into the handling of the middle game? What was your most depressing loss, and what was your interpretation of why you lost?

Opening Books to help a solid Black player

Posted on by

Pete Henderson writes:

” My question to you is this; I have pretty much settled on the Colle system for my opening but cannot find a defense that I like playing. I am not trying to be a Grand Master or anything I just want to be a good solid player. I’ve been thinking about the Tarrasch and the Modern. The Modern from what I’ve read can be used for just about any White opening which I guess is what I would prefer (I’m not sure that is aggressive enough for me). The Tarrasch is just an answer to Queen Pawn openings; then I would have to learn a defense for the King Pawn Openings.”

The Tarrasch is a good choice I think: active and solid, perhaps a bit more open than you might like. A good partner for the Tarrasch might be the Petroff; again a very open game as Black. The Queen’s Gambit Accepted also has the same flavour; open and lots of IQP positions.

You can sort of play the Colle reversed against 1.d4; it’s called the Semi-Slav. I’ve got a web-page somewhere (http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/playing-black-against-queens-pawn-openings) which gives a repertoire with it and the Stonewall Dutch (which starts off with the same “Colle Triangle”). The pure Colle Reversed isn’t that great for Black (White normally gets in e3-e4 before you get in …e6-e5) but the Semi-Slav and Stonewall enjoy a good solid reputation at all levels.

I used to play the Modern but gave it up; it’s too hard for me and I used to get very different structures every game, and was losing games I didn’t understand (always a bad sign). A set formation with …g6 …Bg7 …c6 and …d5 leads to the Gurgenidze against 1.e4 and (usually) a variation of the Grunfeld against 1.d4; but I don’t much like either system for Black.

The defence which perhaps gives the most reliable and limited set of structures to play is the French; it comes closest I think to a system which is easier to play for Black than White (Kramnik claims the same about the Stonewall). I think the French fits alongside the Colle and Tarrasch/Semi-Slav quite well; it goes at about the same speed and you can play 1…e6 and 2…d5 no matter what White does as the first two moves: always a comfort!

Pete enquired further:

“Can you recommend good books on either the Dutch-Stonewall or the Semi- Slav?”

I replied:

If there’s not enough in the Playing Black against 1.d4 webpage for you…

There’s a really nice little book, terribly out of date, but still useful, by Tim Harding. Queen’s Gambit Declined: Semi-Slav. A library, a second-hand shop, or a friend might be able to supply it, if you don’t have much left in the piggy bank after buying those books on the Modern. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713424486/ A copy of QGD:SS with a look at Nunn’s Chess Openings to bring you up to date should be all you need at our level.

If you are thinking about buying new books, the Starting Out series from Everyman I think are usually quite good. There are volumes on the Slav/Semi-Slav (which I haven’t read, but Flear writes fine books and knows a lot about the Slav complex: NB not all of the book will be about the Semi-Slav with …e6) and on the Dutch by MacDonald (which I own, and it’s very good, but not all of it is about the Stonewall). http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443934/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443772/

A bigger theoretical book is Peter Wells on the Semi-Slav; but that is a book for real theory nuts. I haven’t read it but it’s reckoned a good book, although it’s ten years old now. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805032886/

The Bellin books for Batsford on the Dutch have good chapters on the Stonewall, http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/071343211X/ and http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713457600/, but if you’re in for a book of that level you can’t do better than Jacob Aagaard’s monograph on the Stonewall. Aagaard always writes well and he’s done everything you need to do for this line. However, it’s pretty chewy material and he doesn’t cover all the sidelines you need to know if your opponent doesn’t want to play the Stonewall (like 2.Bg5). I think also that Aagaard has not played the line himself, just been asked to write a book about it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857442520/

So, with Aagaard, you’ll need the MacDonald or the Pinski books http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443071/ as well to fill out a Dutch repertoire, or a bit of time with an openings encyclopedia like Nunn’s. Many players (like MacDonald) use the move order 1…e6 to dodge lines like 2.Bg5, but that means you have to play the French or some lesser defence.

A book I don’t know at all: The Chess Advantage in Black and White by IM Larry Kaufman http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812935713/ recommends that Black play the Semi-Slav against 1.d4. It should be OK but a lot of the book will be wasted if you don’t play the other lines. (Spanish Exchange, Berlin).

Playing Black against Queen’s-Pawn Openings (2): Semi-Slav and Exchange

Posted on by

A1.2 The
Semi-Slav

Why not a whole one? The ordinary line Slav goes

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5.
a4

and Black has tried the quiet 5…Na6, the active 5…Bg4 and
the main line 5…Bf5. This last is a well known and popular line
and is worth a look.

I have gone for the Semi-Slav because it seems easier to play
into from other openings: if 1. c4 c6 2. e4 you have to play either
a Caro-Kann with 2…d5 or a funny Indian system with 2…e5. But
after 1. c4 e6 2. e4 d5 White has transposed into a lousy version
of the French.

The Semi-Slav has two very popular main lines, (a) the Meran
System and (b) the Anti-Meran Gambit. I’ll show you an example of
each but they are very fashionable systems with an awful lot of
sharp theory to learn.

 

A1.2(a) The Meran System

6… dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5

r+bqkb-r
p-+n+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+p+-+-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

The Meran system is characterised by this move.

8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5

r+bqkb-r
+-+n+ppp
p+-+pn-+
+pp-+-+-
-+-PP+-+
+-NB+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

10. e5

[The alternative is Reynolds’ Variation 10. d5 c4 11. dxe6
fxe6 12. Bc2 Qc7 13. O-O Bc5 14. e5 Nxe5 15. Bf4 Bd6 16. Ng5 Bb7
17. Nxe6 Qc6 18. f3 Bc5+ 19. Nxc5 Qxc5+ 20. Kh1 O-O

r+-+-rk+
+b+-+-pp
p+-+-n-+
+pq-n-+-
-+p+-B-+
+-N-+P+-
PPB+-+PP
R-+Q+R+K

a sharp position with good chances for Black]

10… cxd4 11. Nxb5 axb5 12. exf6 Qb6 13. fxg7 Bxg7 14.
O-O Bb7 15. Bf4 O-O 16. Re1 Bd5 17. Ne5 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 Bxe5 19.
Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Qh5+ Kg7

r+-+-r-+
+-+-+pk-
-q-+p+-+
+p+bb-+Q
-+-p-+-+
+-+-+-+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+-R-K-

and White recovers the piece with advantage.

A1.2(b) The Anti-Meran Gambit

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5
h6

This avoids the Gambit.

[The main line goes 5… dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9.
Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7

White has a choice:

(a) 11. g3 Qa5 12. exf6 b4 13. Ne4 Ba6

and in this chaotic position White has favoured 14.
Be3

or (b) 11. exf6 Bb7 12. g3

r+-qkb-r
pb+n+p+-
-+p+pP-+
+p+-+-B-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+-P-
PP-+-P-P
R-+QKB+R

6. Bh4

[6. Bxf6 is the right move: the game might go 6…Qxf6 7. e4
dxe4 8. Nxe4 Bb4+ 9. Ned2 c5 10. a3 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 O-O 12. dxc5 Rd8
13. Qc2 Na6 14. Be2 Nxc5 15. O-O Bd7

r+-r-+k+
pp+b+pp-
-+-+pq-p
+-n-+-+-
-+P+-+-+
P-+-+N+-
-PQ+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

which looks about equal but White’s game is better for the
moment: the Bd7 is not well-placed yet and the Queen’s-side
majority might roll ]

6… dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. e5

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+p+-
-+p+pn-p
+-+-P-p-
-+pP-+-B
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

[8. Bg3 b5]

We have now transposed into the main line of the Gambit.

8… Nd5

But this is new. This is Alatortsev’s Variation, an even messier
alternative to the main line of the Gambit.

9. Bg3 Bb4 10. Rc1 Qa5 11. Bxc4 Nxc3 12. bxc3
Bxc3+

rnb+k+-r
pp+-+p+-
-+p+p+-p
q-+-P-p-
-+BP-+-+
+-b-+NB-
P+-+-PPP
+-RQK-+R

13. Kf1 Bb4 14. h4 g4 15. Nh2 h5 16. f3 Nd7 17. fxg4 Nb6
18. gxh5 Nxc4 19. Rxc4 b6 20. Kf2 Ba6 21. Rxc6 Rd8 22. Ng4 Bc3 23.
Rxc3 Qxc3 24. Qa4+ Kf8 25. Qxa6 Rg8 26. Bf4 Rxg4 27. Be3 Qc2+ 28.
Qe2 Rxg2+ 0-1

These are great fun, and are superb counter-attacking systems
for people with time to study, but the amount of theory really is
too much to try as your first defence to 1.d4. I recommend some
slower lines of the Semi-Slav, which are not so dynamic, but quite
safe and should give you a good game.

 

Semi-slav
theory

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6

3…c6 keeps open the option of the Stonewall Dutch e.g. 3…c6
4. e3 f5, but in this section I’ll also show you Abraham’s
Variation 3…c6 4. Nf3 dxc4

4. Nf3 c6

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

Most of your games will end up in this position. White can play
the opening moves in a different order, e.g. 1. c4 2. Nf3 3. Nc3 4.
d4

 

A1.2a Main-line Semi-Slav with 5.
Bg5

5. Bg5

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-B-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-+QKB+R

5… Nbd7

is an attempt to steer into the Cambridge Springs. After

6. e3 Qa5

we have got there.

 

A1.2b Main-line Semi-Slav with 5.
e3

5. e3

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQKB+R

As Black you should play

5… Nbd7

Now White usually continues:

6. Bd3

This is of course not forced and you may meet 6. Qc2 or 6. Be2.
See Example games for 6. Qc2.

After 6. Bd3 Black has a choice between:

6…dxc4, The Meran System that we saw in action above, or

b-1 6… Bd6, the Tchigorin Variation, or

b-2 6…Bb4, the Romih Variation.

I’ll show you these last two.

 

 

A1.2b-1 Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

White now has a choice:

(1) 7. e4, which is sharp

(2) 7. c5, which is not dangerous

(3) 7. O-O, probably best

 

b-1(1) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. e4

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PPP+-+
+-NB+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

Still a critical line

7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 O-O !

(Harding’s “!”)

10. O-O c5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+-bp+-+
+-p-+-+-
-+PPB+-+
+-+-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

[Black players have often tried10… h6 e.g. 11. Bc2 e5 12.
Re1 exd4 13. Qxd4 Bc5 14. Qc3

[or 14. Qf4]

14… Re8

[or 14… a5]

11. Bc2 Qc7 12. Qd3

White also has a choice:

[12. Re1]

[or 12. h3 cxd4 13. Qxd4 e5

[or 13… Ne5]]

[or 12. b3]

12… f5 ! 13. b4

[or 13. Rd1 cxd4 14. Qxd4 Bc5 15. Qh4 Nf6

r+b+-rk+
ppq-+-pp
-+-+pn-+
+-b-+p+-
-+P+-+-Q
+-+-+N+-
PPB+-PPP
R-BR+-K-

Grunfeld-Bogolyubow 1926: with a fair game for
black]

13… b6 14. dxc5 bxc5 15. Rd1 Be7 16. b5 Bf6 17. Rb1
Ne5 18. Qe2 = Portisch

 

 

b-1(2) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. c5

7. c5

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-Pp+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

An opportunity? But it takes all the pressure off d5 and Black
can soon get in ….e5

7…Bc7 8. b4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. Bb2 Qe7
12. Be2 O-O 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. O-O Rae8

-+-+rrk+
pp+bqppp
-+p+-n-+
+-Ppb-+-
-P-+-+-+
+-N-P-+-
PBQ+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

Burn-Teichmann Hastings 1895

For the conclusion, see Example Games.

 

 

b-1(3) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. O-O

7. O-O

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

Probably the best preparation for e4.

7… O-O 8. e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5 10. Bg5 Qe7

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-B-
-+BPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+Q+RK-

11. Re1

[11. d5 Rd8 ! (Euwe) and …h6, …Nd7-f8-g6]

11… Nb6

[11… Rd8]

12. Bb3 Bg4 13. h3 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Nbd7 15. d5 h6 16. Be3
cxd5 17. Bxd5 += ECO

17… Bc5 18. Bxb7 Rab8 19. Bc6 Rxb2

-+-+-rk+
p-+nqpp-
-+B+-n-p
+-b-p-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-N-BQ+P
Pr-+-PP+
R-+-R-K-

White is more comfortable but Black is still in the game

Gligoric-Pachman, Sarajevo 1961

 


A1.2b-2 Semi-Slav with 6…Bb4

7. O-O

This natural move may lose the inititiative.

[7. a3 ! is best, according to Harding

7… Ba5

[7… Bxc3+ += concedes the two Bishops for no
compensation]

8. O-O O-O 9. Qc2!

[9. Bd2 Bc7 10. Qc2 dxc4=]

9… dxc4

[9… Bc7 10. Bd2 dxc4 is an alternative, with a view to an
early …e5: it may transpose below]

10. Bxc4 Bc7 11. Bd2 e5

[or 11… Qe7 +=]

12. dxe5 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14. h3

r+bq-rk+
pp+-+ppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+-b-+-
-+B+-+-+
P-N-P-+P
-PQB-PP+
R-+-+RK-

White is more comfortably placed: Forintos-Kolarov Havana
1966]

7… O-O 8. Qc2 Re8

r+bqr+k+
pp+n+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-bPP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

[or 8… Bd6]

[8… dxc4 ! Harding 9. Bxc4 Bd6 10. Bd3

[10. e4 e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. h3 Nh5 14. Ne2
Qh4 15. f4 Bc7

r+b+-rk+
ppb-+ppp
-+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+n
-+B+PP-q
+-+-+-+P
PPQ+N+P+
R-B-+RK-

“unclear”, Doroshkevic-Antoshin 1969]

10… Qe7 11. Ne2

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+BPN+-
PPQ+NPPP
R-B-+RK-

= Tolush-Alatortsev 1947]

 

A1.2c White avoids
Nc3

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3

[If White plays 3. Nc3 straight away just go 3…e6

[but White must be prepared to face 3… e5 !?]]

3… e6

 

A1.2c-1 White deviates with 4.
Qc2

4…Nf6 5. Bg5

The outline of the Cambridge Springs can already be seen

[5. g3 Ne4 6. Bg2 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 Nd7 9. Ba3 Bxa3 10.
Nxa3 Qe7

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PPn+-+
NP+-+NP-
P+Q+PPBP
R-+-+RK-

Ilvitsky-Botvinnik 1952]

5… Nbd7 6. Nc3

See above

 

A1.2c-2 White deviates with 4/5.
Nbd2

4. e3

[My computer always plays 4…Bd6 here, thinking perhaps
that White can’t organise e2-e4 as well as if Nc3 had been played.
If White is so determined to play slowly I wonder if 4… f5 is
worth a punt: White should certainly not chase the Bishop with 5.
c5 Bc7 when …e5 is bound to come quickly]

4… Nf6 5. Nbd2

The best strategy against these Nbd2 systems is to take
advantage of the lack of pressure on d5 by playing …c5(!). This
of course loses a tempo, but it hopes to show that White has
misplaced the Knight on d2 and will not be able to defend the d4
point so easily.

[White often continues 5. Bd3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2

[White can also play 6. O-O when one possible strategy is
6…Ne4 7. Nc3 f5 – see the Stonewall below]

6… c5! Our key move

7. b3

[or 7. O-O Be7 8. cxd5 exd5 9. b3 cxd4 10. exd4 O-O 11. Bb2
Re8 12. Ne5 Bb4 13. a3 Bxd2 14. Qxd2 Ne4 15. Qc2 Qb6 16. a4 Nxe5
17. dxe5

r+b+r+k+
pp+-+ppp
-q-+-+-+
+-+pP-+-
P+-+n+-+
+P+B+-+-
-BQ+-PPP
R-+-+RK-

Alekhin-Soultanbieff 1933

Now 17… Bd7! 18. Bxe4

[Not 18. a5 Qb4 (no Ra4)]

18… dxe4 = Alekhin:

the opposite-coloured Bishops reduce the excitement of the
extra pawn which at the moment blocks the line of the Bishop on
b2]

7… cxd4 8. exd4 b6 9. O-O Bb7 10. Qe2 Be7 11. Bb2
O-O

r+-q-rk+
pb+nbppp
-p-+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+P+B+N+-
PB-NQPPP
R-+-+RK-

= Harding]

5… c5!

Here we go again

6. Be2

[6. Bd3 Nc6!?]

6… Nc6 7. O-O cxd4 8. exd4 Be7 9. a3 O-O 10. c5 Ne4
11. Qc2 Bf6

r+bq-rk+
pp+-+ppp
-+n+pb-+
+-Pp+-+-
-+-Pn+-+
P-+-+N+-
-PQNBPPP
R-B-+RK-

“unclear” Keres-Nei Tallinn 1973]

 

 

A1.2d Main line Abrahams variation [D31]

One more Semi-Slav option you should know about:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

This odd move order looks a bit like a Meran, but Black means to
create more trouble with those Queen’s-side pawns. It’s less
well-known, not perhaps as sound, but easy to learn.

Let’s look at a quick game from Erik Teichmann:

Arkell-Teichmann 1985

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bb4 6.
e4

Natural but as we shall see, possibly over-optimistic.

6… b5 7. Bd2 a5 8. axb5 Bxc3 9. Bxc3?! cxb5 10. b3 Bb7
11. d5

In another game White tried

[11. bxc4 b4 12. Qb1 f5

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+-pp
-+-+p+-+
p-+-+p+-
-pPPP+-+
+-B-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
RQ+-KB+R

Lupano-Korylov 1954 which continued:


|3. Bd3 Nf6
14. Ng5
Qe7 15. Rxa5
Rxa5 16.
Bxb4 Ra1|

with a complicated game in which Black has the better
chances]

11… Nf6

rn-qk+-r
+b+-+ppp
-+-+pn-+
pp+P+-+-
-+p+P+-+
+PB-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bb2 Nxe4 14. Bxg7 Rg8 15. Bd4 exd5 16.
cxd5 Qxd5

rn-+k+r+
+b+-+p+p
-+-+-+-+
p-+q+-+-
-p-Bn+-+
+-+-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

Black is winning all over the board!

17. Rc1 Nc6 18. Bc4 Qf5 19. Be3 Nc3 20. Qd2 Rd8 21. Qb2
Rxg2 22. Rxc3 Qxf3 23. Be2 Qf6 24. Rc2 Qxb2 25. Rxb2 Nd4 26. Rd2
Rg6 27. Rf1 Nxe2 28. Rxe2 Ba6

Looks easy, doesn’t it? Grab a Queen’s-side pawn, hit the
centre, swarm all over White’s position. Well, you won’t get that
every game, but it’s worth a punt.

Now for a spot of theory:

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

We will examine

d-1 5. e4

d-2 5. e3

d-3 5. a4

Other moves are possible, for example:

5. g3 (see Catalan),

5. Ne5!? (see Djuurhuus-Volzhin in d-3 below) or

5. Bg5 upon which Black can try

[5. Bg5 Qc7 6. a4 Bb4 7. e4 b5 8. Be2 Bb7 9. axb5 Bxc3+ 10.
bxc3 cxb5

rn-+k+nr
pbq-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
+p+-+-B-
-+pPP+-+
+-P-+N+-
-+-+BPPP
R-+QK-+R

Black is not worse]

 

 

A1.2d-1 Abrahams’ Variation with 5.
e4

This is a critical line.

5. e4 b5

[6. e5!?]

6. a4 Bb4 7. Bd2 a5 8. axb5 Bxc3 9. bxc3!

Better than Arkell’s Bishop move.

9…cxb5

rnbqk+nr
+-+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pPP+-+
+-P-+N+-
-+-B-PPP
R-+QKB+R

White must make something of the central mass or the
Queen’s-side pawn will win for Black.

10. Rb1 Bd7 11. Qc2 Nf6 12. e5 Nd5 13. Ng5

This old analysis shows Black to be at least equal here

 

 

A1.2d-2 Abrahams’ Variation with 5.
e3

5. e3 b5 6. a4

This move-order may avoid the …Bb4 manoeuvre but invites other
trouble

6…b4 7. Ne4 Ba6 8. Qc2 Qd5 9. Ned2 c3

rn-+kbnr
p-+-+ppp
b+p+p+-+
+-+q+-+-
Pp-P-+-+
+-p-PN+-
-PQN-PPP
R-B-KB+R

10. bxc3 bxc3 11. Qxc3 Bxf1 12. Nxf1 a5 13. Ba3 Bxa3 14.
Qxa3 Na6 15. Ng3 Nb4 16. Rc1

with good chances for Black in an unclear position.

 

 

A1.2d-3 Main line Abrahams’ Variation
with 5. a4

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
P+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
-P-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

This is the main line.

5. a4 Bb4

White usually plays here 6. e3 but can also try:

[6. g3 a5 7. Ne5 Nf6 8. Bg2 Nd5 9. Bd2 Nb6 10. e3
N8d7

r+bqk+-r
+p+n+ppp
-np+p+-+
p-+-N-+-
PbpP-+-+
+-N-P-P-
-P-B-PBP
R-+QK-+R

Seirawan -Korchnoi 1981 with better
chances to Black]

or

[6. Bd2 a5 7. Qb1 Nd7! 8. e4 Nb6! 9. Be2 f5!

r+bqk+nr
+p+-+-pp
-np+p+-+
p-+-+p+-
PbpPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
-P-BBPPP
RQ+-K-+R

Piket, again with better chances to Black]

After 5. a4 Bb4:

 

6. e3 b5 7. Bd2

[7. Ne5 Qb6 8. Qg4 Kf8 9. g3 Nf6 10. Qf3 Bb7 -+
Speelman-Flear 1986]

7… Bxc3 8. Bxc3

8… a5!

The key move. You can also play

7…a5

when

8. axb5 Bxc3! 9. Bxc3

leads to the same position.

Novel play arises in this line on

[9. bxc3!? cxb5 10. Qb1 Ba6 11. Be2 Nc6 12. O-O Nf6 13. e4
Boleslavsky-Randvjir 1955

Now 13… O-O ,…Qc7,…Rfb8 intending …b5-b4 is about
equal]

 

or earlier after 7…a5:

[8. Qc2 Nf6 9. Ne5 O-O 10. Be2 Bb7 11. O-O Qb6 12. f4
Nbd7

r+-+-rk+
+b+n+ppp
-qp+pn-+
pp+-N-+-
PbpP-P-+
+-N-P-+-
-PQBB+PP
R-+-+RK-

Djurhuus-Volzhin 1992: Black returned the pawn with …b4,
and played …c5]

 

9. axb5 cxb5

rnbqk+nr
+-+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-B-+N+-
-P-+PPPP
R-+QKB+R

10. b3

[10. d5 should be met by 10…Nf6 11. dxe6 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1
Ne4 -+ as in Donner-Pliester]

10… Bb7

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+PB-PN+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

Now 11. d5!? Nf6 12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bxf6 Qxf6

(As in Gavrikov-Keraser 1982)

14. Qa4+ Nd7 15. Nd4 Unclear! See example games

 

Instead after the better

11. bxc4 b4

White now has two tries:

(a) 12. Bd2

(b) 12. Bb2

 

(a)12. Bd2 Nf6 13. Bd3 Nbd7 14. O-O O-O 15. Qc2 Qc7 16. e4
e5

in this important position experience has shown Black to
have fully equal practical chances after:

(a-i) 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Ng4

(a-ii) 17. Rfe1 Rfe8 18. c5

r+-+r+k+
+bqn+ppp
-+-+-n-+
p-P-p-+-
-p-PP+-+
+-+B+N+-
-+QB-PPP
R-+-R-K-

and here Black has done all right with

[18… exd4 Neverov-Kramnik 1991]

or [18… Ba6 Flear]

or [18… h6 Soltis]

(a-iii) 17. d5 Nc5

 

(b) 12. Bb2 Nf6 13. Bd3 Be4

[13… Nbd7 14. Qc2 O-O 15. O-O += Saeed-Pliester
1982]

14. Qc2 ? 14… Bxd3 15. Qxd3 a4 Polugaevsky]

Example games in the
Semi-Slav:

Burn – Teichmann (Hastings) [D46] 1895

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6 5. e3 Bd6 6. Bd3
Nbd7 7. c5 Bc7 8. b4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. Bb2 Qe7 12.
Be2 O-O 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. O-O Rae8 15. Rad1 Bb8 16. Nb1 Ne4 17. Nd2
f5 18. Bd4 Ng5 19. Bd3 f4 20. Kh1 Qf7 21. Nf3

-b-+rrk+
pp+b+qpp
-+p+-+-+
+-Pp+-n-
-P-B-p-+
+-+BPN+-
P+Q+-PPP
+-+R+R+K

21… Nxf3 22. gxf3 Qh5 23. Rg1 Rf7 24. Qe2 Be5 25. Bc2
Rf6 26. Bxe5 Qxh2+ 27. Kxh2 Rh6+ 28. Kg2 Bh3+ 29. Kh1 Bf1#
0-1

 

 

Deviations by White:

Miralles,G – Granda Zuniga,J [D45] 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2
Bd6 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

10. h3 Qe7 11. a3 g6 12. Ba2 b6 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5
Bxe5 15. e4 Nh5 16. Ne2 Ba6 17. Rd1 Rfd8 18. Be3 Qf6 19.
Rab1

r+-r-+k+
p-+-+p+p
bpp+-qp+
+-+-b-+n
-+-+P+-+
P-+-B-+P
BPQ+NPP+
+R+R+-K-

19… g5 20. g3 Qf3 21. Nd4 Bxd4 22. Bxd4 Be2 23. Qc1
Nf4 24. gxf4 Qxh3 25. f5 Qg4+ 26. Kh2 Bf3 27. Bxf7+ Kf8 28. Bc5+
Kxf7 29. Qc4+ Rd5 0-1

 

Rohde,M – Shabalov,A
(8)


[D45] Philadelphia, 1990

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. d4 Nbd7 6. Qc2
Bd6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

10. Bb3 Qc7 11. h3 b5

r+b+-rk+
p-qn+ppp

-+pb-n-+
+p+-p-+-
-+-P-+-+
+BN-PN+P
PPQ+-PP+
R-B-+RK-

12. Ng5 Bb7 13. Rd1 Rad8 14. a4 a6 15. Nce4 Nxe4 16.
Nxe4 Be7 17. axb5 axb5 18. d5 Nb6 19. Ra7 Nc8 20. Ra1 c5 21. Ng3 c4
22. e4 Bc5 23. Ba2 Nd6 24. Qe2 Ra8 25. Be3 b4

r+-+-rk+
+bq-+ppp
-+-n-+-+
+-bPp-+-
-pp+P+-+
+-+-B-NP
BP-+QPP+
R-+R+-K-

26. b3 c3 27. Rac1 Ra3 28. Bxc5 Qxc5 29. Nh5 Bc8 30. Rd3
Qb5 31. Rc2 f6 32. f4 Rf7 33. fxe5 fxe5 34. Qe3 Qa6 35. Kh2 Rxa2
36. Rxa2 Qxa2 37. Qb6 Qe2

-+b+-+k+
+-+-+rpp
-Q-n-+-+
+-+Pp-+N
-p-+P+-+
+PpR+-+P
-+-+q+PK
+-+-+-+-

38. Qd8+ Rf8 39. Nf6+ gxf6 40. Rg3+ Bg4 41. Qxd6 h5 42.
Qxb4 c2 43. Qc5 Qd1 44. hxg4 c1=Q

-+-+-rk+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-p-+
+-QPp-+p
-+-+P+P+
+P+-+-R-
-+-+-+PK
+-qq+-+-

45. gxh5+ Qg5 46. Rxg5+ fxg5 47. d6 Qxh5+ 48. Kg1 Qd1+
49. Kh2 Rd8 50. Qc4+ Kf8 51. Qe6 Qxd6 52. Qf5+ Ke7 53. Qh7+ Ke8 54.
Qg8+ Kd7 55. Qf7+ Kc6 56. Qc4+ Kb6 57. b4 Qh6+ 0-1

 

 


Example of Romih Variation:

Hegeler,F – Wockenfuss,K [D46] 2BLN, 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. a3 Ba5 8. O-O O-O 9. Qc2 Re8 10. Rd1 e5

r+bqr+k+
pp+n+ppp
-+p+-n-+
b-+pp-+-
-+PP-+-+
P-NBPN+-
-PQ+-PPP
R-BR+-K-

11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Rxe5 13. cxd5 cxd5 14. b4 Bb6 15.
Bb2

r+bq-+k+
pp+-+ppp
-b-+-n-+
+-+pr-+-
-P-+-+-+
P-NBP-+-
-BQ+-PPP
R-+R+-K-

15… Bg4 16. Be2 Rc8 17. Qd2 Qd7 18. Rac1 Rd8 19. Nb5
Ne4 20. Qc2 Rg5

-+-r-+k+
pp+q+ppp
-b-+-+-+
+N+p+-r-
-P-+n+b+
P-+-P-+-
-BQ+BPPP
+-RR+-K-

 

21. Bd4 Bh3 22. g3 Rg6 23. Bxb6 Rxb6 24. Qc7 Qe8 25.
Nxa7 Rf6 26. Bf1

-+-rq+k+
NpQ-+ppp
-+-+-r-+
+-+p+-+-
-P-+n+-+
P-+-P-Pb
-+-+-P-P
+-RR+BK-

26… Nxf2 27. Re1 Ra8 28. Qxb7 h5 29. Rc7 Rxa7 30. Qxa7
Qe4 0-1

 

Kraai,J – Donaldson,J (2) [D46] American, 1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. O-O O-O 8. Qb3 Bd6 9. e4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 e5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BPP+-+
+QN-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

11. h3 b5 12. Be2 a6 13. a4 Bb7 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Re1
Re8 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bh4 Ng6 18. Bxf6 Qxf6

r+-+r+k+
+b+-+pp-
p+pb-qnp
+p+-+-+-
P+-+P+-+
+QN-+N+P
-P-+BPP+
R-+-R-K-

19. Rad1 Ne5 20. Nb1 Nxf3+ 21. Bxf3 Be5 22. Re2 Bc8 23.
Red2 Be6 24. Qa3 Rac8 25. b4

-+r+r+k+
+-+-+pp-
p+p+bq-p
+p+-b-+-
PP-+P+-+
Q-+-+B+P
-+-R-PP+
+N+R+-K-

25… bxa4 26. Qxa4 Bxh3 27. Qxa6 Be6 28. b5 cxb5 29.
Qxb5 Rb8 30. Qe2 Rec8 0-1

-rr+-+k+
+-+-+pp-
-+-+bq-p
+-+-b-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+B+-
-+-RQPP+
+N+R+-K-

[30… Rec8 31. Na3 Rb3]

 

Karpov – Tal [D46] Moscow, 1973

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. O-O O-O 8. a3 Bd6 9. Qc2 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qe7 11. h3
e5

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
P-N-PN+P
-PQ+-PP+
R-B-+RK-

12. Ba2 a5 13. a4 Bb4 14. Rd1 b6 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Nd4
Bd7 17. Bd2 Rad8 18. Be1 Ng6 19. Nf3 Ne5 20. Nd4 Ng6 21. Nf3
Ne5

-+-r-rk+
+-+bqppp
-pp+-n-+
p-+-n-+-
Pb-+-+-+
+-N-PN+P
BPQ+-PP+
R-+RB-K-

1/2-1/2

 

Example of Tchigorin Variation:

Plachetka,T – Drtina,M (5) [D46] Trnava, 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bd6 7. O-O dxc4 8. Bxc4 Qe7 9. e4 e5

r+b+k+-r
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

10. Bg5 Nb6 11. dxe5 Bxe5 12. Bb3 O-O 13. Qc2 h6 14. Bh4
Re8 15. Nxe5 Qxe5 16. f4

r+b+r+k+
pp+-+pp-
-np+-n-p
+-+-q-+-
-+-+PP-B
+BN-+-+-
PPQ+-+PP
R-+-+RK-

16… Qc5+ 17. Bf2 Qh5 18. Rae1 Be6 19. Bd4 Bxb3 20.
Qxb3 Nfd7 21. Rf3 Kf8 22. Rh3 Qa5 23. Rg3 f6 24. e5 c5 25. Bf2 fxe5
26. fxe5

r+-+rk-+
pp+n+-p-
-n-+-+-p
q-p-P-+-
-+-+-+-+
+QN-+-R-
PP-+-BPP
+-+-R-K-

26… c4 27. Qc2 Rxe5 28. Rf1 Kg8 29. Bd4 Rg5 30. Rff3
Ne5 31. Re3 Nc6

r+-+-+k+
pp+-+-p-
-nn+-+-p
q-+-+-r-
-+pB-+-+
+-N-R-R-
PPQ+-+PP
+-+-+-K-

32. Bxg7 Kxg7 33. h4 Rxg3 34. Rxg3+ Kh8 35. Qg6 Qc5+ 36.
Kh2 Qf8 37. Ne4 Ne5 38. Qh5 Qf4 39. Ng5 Qf6 40. Ne4 Qf4 41. Ng5 Qf8
42. Ne4 Nbd7 43. Rg5 Nf7 44. Rf5 Nde5 45. Ng5 Kg8

r+-+-qk+
pp+-+n+-
-+-+-+-p
+-+-nRNQ
-+p+-+-P
+-+-+-+-
PP-+-+PK
+-+-+-+-

46. Nxf7 Nxf7 47. Qg6+ Qg7 48. Qe6 Rf8 49. Rf6 Kh8 50.
Kh1 b5 51. Qe7 Rg8 52. Rf2 Ne5 53. Qe6 Nd3 0-1

Abrahams’ Variation

Curtis-Teichmann 1985

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 b5 6.
Bg5

[6. a4]

6…f6 7. Be3 Bb4 8. Be2 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. Qc2 Nd7 11.
a4 Nb6 12. axb5 Bxc3 13. Qxc3 cxb5 14. b3 Bb7

r+-q-rk+
pb+-n-pp
-n-+pp-+
+p+-+-+-
-+pPP+-+
+PQ-BN+-
-+-+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

15. Nd2 f5 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. bxc4 fxe4 19.
cxb5 Nd5 20. Qa3 Qf6 21. Nxe4 Qg6 22. Ng3 Nf4

r+-+-rk+
pb+-+-p-
-+-+p+qp
+P+-+-+-
-+-P-n-+
Q-+-+-N-
-+-+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

23. f3 h5 24. Qe7 Rf7 25. Qh4 Qh6 0-1

[26. Rfe1 g5]

 

 

Serebrjanik-Maximenko
1991

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bb4 6. e3
b5 7. Bd2 [7…a5] 7… Bxc3 8. Bxc3 a5!
9. axb5 cxb5 10. b3 Bb7

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+PB-PN+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

11. d5!? Nf6 12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 14. Qa4+ Nd7 15.
Nd4

This is the point we left off above

15… e5 16. Nb3 Ke7

r+-+-+-r
+b+nkppp
-+-+-q-+
p-+Pp-+-
QpP+-+-+
+N+-P-+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+-KB+R

17. Qb5

[17. Rd1] or [17. Be2]

17… Ba6 18. Qxa5 Rhb8 19. d6+ Ke8 ! 20. Qd5 Bb7 21.
Qd2 Rxa1+ 22. Nxa1 Nc5 ! 23. d7+ Kd8 ! 24. Qxb4 Qd6 25. Qd2 Qa6 26.
Qb2 [26. Nc2 Be4 -+] 26…
Qa5+

The White pawn on d7 shelters the Black King,While the useless
White pieces can only sit around and watch their own King get
mated.
-r-k-+-+
+b+P+ppp
-+-+-+-+
q-n-p-+-
-+P+-+-+
+-+-P-+-
-Q-+-PPP
N-+-KB+R

0-1

A1.3 The Exchange
Variation

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5

White’s approach in this line has many advantages: the position
is simplified, White has a permanent structural advantage and a
clear plan to follow, and Black’s counterplay is limited. White can
now adopt two plans:

 

A1.3a The minority attack with b4 and
b5

White plans to play b4-b5xc6 when your c-pawn will be backward
on an open file. If nothing else happens, this can be enough to
lose the game.

­ King’s-side action using the semi-open e-file and
particularly the outpost at e4. (see several games below)

­ Temporary delay and permanent simplification with …a5,
forcing White to adopt a3 and b4 or make other concessions (Smagin
and Ekstroem games)

­ The creation of a passed a-pawn with …a6, when b5 is
met by …c6xb5 (white axb5) and …a5 (I have no example of this
plan).

­ Meet b5 with …c5

­ Prevent b5 by playing …b5 and using the strong c4 point
(see the Van der Sterren game below)

5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 c6 7. Bd3 Nbd7

r+bqk+-r
pp+nbppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+p+-B-
-+-P-+-+
+-NBP-+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+QK-NR

8. Qc2

[8. Nf3 loses the initiative straightaway: 8…Ne4 9. Bxe7
Qxe7=]

8… O-O 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. Rab1
Ne4

r+bqrnk+
pp+-bppp
-+p+-+-+
+-+p+-B-
-+-Pn+-+
+-NBPN+-
PPQ+-PPP
+R+-+RK-

12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Ne5 Bf5 14. Nxe4 Bxe4 15. Bxe4 dxe4
16. b4

[16. Qxe4 f6]

 

A1.3b Central break with f3 and
e4

White’s other plan is less popular but more dynamic. The King’s
Knight come to e2, and then f2-f3 will prepare e2-e4. Black’s best
plan is to hit back. We may see a bit more of this plan since the
following advertisement for it:

Kasparov – Short (10) [D35] WCh, 1994

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
e3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Nge2 Re8 9. O-O Nf8

Normal is 9…c6

10. b4!

r+bqrnk+
ppp-bppp
-+-+-n-+
+-+p+-B-
-P-P-+-+
+-NBP-+-
P+-+NPPP
R-+Q+RK-

10… a6

[10… Bxb4? leads to trouble after 11. Bxf6]

11. a3 c6 12. Qc2 g6 13. f3 Ne6 14. Bh4 Nh5 15. Bxe7
Rxe7

[15… Qxe7!?]

16. Qd2 b6? 17. Rad1 Bb7 18. Bb1 Nhg7 19.
e4

r+-q-+k+
+b+-rpnp
ppp+n+p+
+-+p+-+-
-P-PP+-+
P-N-+P+-
-+-QN+PP
+B+R+RK-

White has his cake and is eating it too: he has succeeded in
playing both b2-b4 and e2-e4, and Black has no counterplay. Black
soon collapsed.

Below you can see some ways of fighting against this idea,
particularly if White risks castling Queen’s-side.

 

 

Example Games in the Exchange
Variation

Black plays solidly

Steinbacher,M – van der Sterren,P (5) [D36] Ostend,
1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bg5 Be7 7. Qc2 g6 8. e3 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O
12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Rab1 Bd6 14. b4 b5

Black defends his Queen’s-side solidly. White tries a Knight
advance.

15. Ne5 Bxe5 16. dxe5 Nd7 17. f4 a5 18. a3 Nb6 19. Ne2
axb4

r+-q-rk+
+-+-+p+p
-np+-+p+
+p+pP-+-
-p-+-P-+
P-+QP-+-
-+-+N+PP
+R+-+RK-

20. axb4 Nc4 21. Nd4 Qb6 22. Ra1 Ra4 23. Rxa4 bxa4 24.
Ra1 Ra8 25. Nc2 a3 26. Ra2 Ra7 27. Qd4 Qxd4 28. exd4 f6 29. exf6
Kf7 30. Kf2 Kxf6

Black now wins methodically.

31. Ne3 Nxe3 32. Kxe3 Kf5 33. Kf3 h5 34. h3 h4 35. Ke3
Ra4 36. Kd3 Kxf4 37. Kc3 Ke3 38. Kb3 Ra8 39. Kc3 Ra7
0-1

 

Black wins with a King’s-side
attack:

??-?? [D34]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
Qc2 O-O 7. e3 Re8 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. Nf3 Nf8 10. O-O c6 11. Rab1 Ng6
12. b4 a6 13. a4 Bd6 14. b5 axb5 15. axb5 h6 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. bxc6
bxc6 18. Rb6 Bg4 19. Nd2 Re6

r+-+-+k+
+-+-+pp-
-Rpbrqnp
+-+p+-+-
-+-P-+b+
+-NBP-+-
-+QN-PPP
+-+-+RK-

This neat move is useful for attack and defence: if Rxc6, then
Bxh2+ wins the exchange. GM Nigel Davies in an article praises this
type of rook manoeuvre for Black: the Rook can move to (say) the
g-file and cause problems for the White King. As it happens White
soon digs a pit into which he or she falls!

20. Na4 Nh4 21. g3 Nf3+ 22. Nxf3 Qxf3 23. Re1 Bh3 24.
Bf1 Bf5 25. e4 Rxe4 26. Qxc6 Rxe1 27. Qxa8+ Kh7 28. Nc3 Bh3
0-1

 


Davidovic,A – Smagin,S (4) [D36] It-open, Dortmund,
1989

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 c6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Qc2 Be7 7. Bg5 g6

This plan is unusual.

8. e3 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rab1
a5 13. a3 Re8 14. Rfc1 a4 15. Qc2 Qa5 16. Re1 Bd6 17. Bh4
Ne4

This plan is very familiar!

18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Nd2 Qh5

r+-+r+k+
+p+n+p+p
-+pb-+p+
+-+-+-+q
p+-Pp+-B
P-+-P-+-
-PQN-PPP
+R+-R-K-

Black is well-placed for a quick King’s-side attack; White’s
intended Queen’s-side initiative is nowhere to be seen.

20. Bg3 Bxg3 21. hxg3 Nf6 22. b3 Ra5 23. bxa4 Ng4 24.
Nf1 Rf5 25. Rxb7 c5 26. Re2 Qh6 27. Qb3 Re6 28. f3 Rh5 29. fxg4
Rh1+ 30. Kf2 Rxf1+ 0-1

 

Von Gleich,A – Ekstroem,R (1) [D36] Lugano, 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bg5 c6 7. Qc2 h6 8. Bxf6 Bxf6 9. e3 O-O 10. Bd3 Re8 11. h3 Nd7 12.
O-O Be7 13. a3 Bd6 14. b4 Nf6 15. Rfc1 Qe7 16. Ra2 a5 17. bxa5 Rxa5
18. a4 Ne4 19. Bxe4 dxe4

-+b+r+k+
+p+-qpp-
-+pb-+-p
r-+-+-+-
P+-Pp+-+
+-N-PN+P
R+Q+-PP+
+-R-+-K-

The familiar …Ne4 move leads to a quick King’s-side kill.

20. Nd2 Be6 21. Raa1 Bxh3 22. Qxe4 Qd7 23. Qh4 Rg5 24.
g3 Bg4 25. Qh1 Bxg3 26. Nce4 Rh5 27. Qg2 Bh2+ 28. Kf1 Kh8 29. Ke1
Bc7 0-1

 

Yermolinsky – Shipman,W (3) [D36] MCC, 1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6.
cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Bd3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. h3 Nh5
12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. a3 g6 14. b4 Ne6 15. b5 Ng5 16. Nxg5 Qxg5 17. Kh2
f5 18. bxc6 bxc6 19. Na4 Re6

r+b+-+k+
p-+-+-+p
-+p+r+p+
+-+p+pqn
N+-P-+-+
P-+BP-+P
-+Q+-PPK
R-+-+R+-

White has created a weak pawn on c6 but Black doesn’t care too
much!

20. Nc5 Rf6 21. Be2 f4 22. Bxh5 Qxh5 23. f3 fxe3 24. Qd3
Bxh3 25. gxh3 Re8 26. Nd7 Rf4 27. Rae1 Re7 28. Qa6 Qf5 29. Ne5 Rxe5
30. dxe5 Rh4 0-1

 


White wants to play in the centre:

Deze,A – Tadic,K (1) [D35] Novi, 1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
e3 O-O 7. Bd3 c6 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 Re8 10. Nge2 Nbd7 11. f3
c5

A change of emphasis: White wants to advance in the centre with
e2-e4, so Black immediately hits at the d-pawn with …c7-c5.

12. O-O b6 13. Rad1 Bb7 14. Bf2 cxd4 15. exd4 a6 16. Qb3
b5 17. a4 b4 18. Na2 Qb6 19. Rc1 Bd6

r+-+r+k+
+b+n+pp-
pq-b-n-p
+-+p+-+-
Pp-P-+-+
+Q+B+P+-
NP-+NBPP
+-R-+RK-

White’s plan has come to nothing.

20. Qd1 Nf8 21. Bg3 Ne6 22. Bxd6 Qxd6 23. Qd2 a5 24. Bb5
Re7 25. Ng3 Qb6 26. Nf5 Rc7 27. Rfe1 Kf8 28. Rxc7 Qxc7 29. Nc1 Bc6
30. Bxc6 Qxc6 31. Nd3 Re8 32. b3 Qc3 33. Qxc3 bxc3 34. Rc1 Rc8 35.
Nd6 Rc6 36. Nb5 c2 37. Ne5 Nf4 0-1

 

White castles Queen’s-side:

Paduch,A – Ghafour,Y (8) [D35] A.Kotov memorial, Singapore,
1990

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bf4 Be7 7. e3 c6 8. h3 O-O 9. Bd3 Re8 10. Qc2 a5 11. g4 Nf8 12.
O-O-O a4

Black was all ready to meet White’s King on the
Queen’s-side.

13. a3 Qa5 14. Ne5 Be6 15. Bf5 c5 16. Kb1 Rec8 17. Qe2
c4 18. e4 dxe4 19. Bxe4 Bd5

r+r+-nk+
+p+-bppp
-+-+-n-+
q-+bN-+-
p+pPBBP+
P-N-+-+P
-P-+QP-+
+K+R+-+R

20. Bxd5 Nxd5 21. Bd2 Bxa3 22. Nxc4 Nxc3+ 23. Bxc3 Qb5
24. d5 Qxc4 25. Qe5 f6 26. Qf5 Bd6 27. f4 Qxf4 28. Qd3 a3 29. Rhg1
axb2 30. Bxb2 Qa4 0-1

 

 

Tisdall,J – Inkiov,V (5) [D36] Gausdal, 1990

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
Qc2 c6 7. e3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. Nge2 Re8 10. h3 Nf8 11. g4 b5 12.
O-O-O a5 13. Ng3 a4 14. Kb1 Qa5 15. Nce2 Bd7 16. Nf5 Bxf5 17. gxf5
Rac8 18. Rhg1 Kh8 19. Bxf6 Bxf6

-+r+rn-k
+-+-+ppp
-+p+-b-+
qp+p+P+-
p+-P-+-+
+-+BP-+P
PPQ+NP-+
+K+R+-R-

An exciting opposite-side castling position has arisen.

20. Nf4 Nd7 21. Rc1 a3 22. b3 c5 23. Nxd5 c4 24. Nxf6
Nxf6 25. bxc4 bxc4 26. Bxc4 Ne4 27. Ka1 Nd2 28. f6 Rxc4 0-1