Category Archives: Class C

Ish’s Opening Stats

Posted on by

Introduction

This season, I have decided to take Webb’s advice from Chess for Tigers and do a
statistical analysis of my openings. I have arranged them by opening,
written the opening outcome (advantage to white, black or equal), and
outcome of the game. I have included some tips for preparing to play
me. Unfortunately, I’ll be in china next year, so you won’t have the
chance to use this stuff to thrash me just yet!

White Pieces

Opening

+-

+/-

+/=

=

=+

-/+

-+

1

1/2

0

Total

French 2.b3

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

2

French Exchange with c4

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

2

Closed Sicilian 3. g4?!

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

1

1

 

2

Alapin Sicilian

 

 

2

2

 

 

 

1

1

2

4

Ruy Lopez

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

Panov-Botvinnik Attack

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

1

1

1

3

Petroff 3. d4

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

Vienna Gambit

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

1

 

1

2

Nimzowitsch Defence

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

Scandinavian 2…Qxd5

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

Scandinavian 2…Nf6

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

St. George Defence

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

Pirc Defence

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

Alekhin’s Defence

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

Total

2

3

8

8

1

0

0

10

6

7

23

White Summary

Games: 23 (+3)

Average Opponent= ECF 123.1 (New 136.0)

Performance= ECF 130 (New 143)

Overall, openings with white are going well. Need to look at the
c3-Sicilian from a middlegame perspective because something is wrong
with my play in the main line.

 

Black Pieces

Opening

+-

+/-

+/=

=

=+

-/+

-+

1

1/2

0

Total

Queen’s Indian Defence

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

Löwenthal Sicilian

 

2

 

 

1

 

 

1

1

1

3

Grand Prix Sicilian

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

Other Sicilian

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

2

2

King’s Indian Attack

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

1. c4 c6

 

 

 

1

2

 

 

1

 

2

3

Colle

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

Polish Opening

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

1

Total

 

3

1

4

5

 

 

5

1

7

13

Black Summary

Games: 13 (-2)

Average Opponent= ECF 116.6 (New 138.0)

Performance= ECF 109 (New 130)

Openings with black have been extremely successful, apart from the
Sicilian Defence. Probably need a completely new defence to 1.e4, or a
complete overhaul of my Sicilian knowledge.

Overall Summary

Games: 36 (+1)

Average Opponent= ECF 121 (New 136.7)

Performance= ECF 122 (New 138)

My new grade will drop by 5 points. My old grade
would have dropped by 1 point.

I would recommend that everyone do this, it’s quite a
useful exercise. Took me about an hour. Then again, I like stats…

Tips for Ish’s Opponents

  1. If you want to beat Ish, play 1.e4 as white.
    You’ll probably get a Sicilian.
  2. Ish plays 1.e4
  3. If you like the Sicilian, play it. You’ll score
    well. Be prepared to face the Alapin.
  4. Don’t play the French! He has two annoying systems
    which he scores well with (not included here is a blitz win against
    Andy Boyne).
  5. If you like the English, prepare for a Caro-Kann
    or Slav. He plays 1…c6.

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

Planning in the endgame

Posted on by

Lessons that can be applied elsewhere, I hope; if you have examples
of games where you have struggled, send them in.

How to plan, anyway (from Jeremy Silman).

Botvinnik-Kann

Here is a breakdown of the different imbalances:

1) Material (owning pieces of greater value than the opponent’s).

2) Space (the annexation of territory on a chess board).

3) Superior Minor Piece (the interplay between Bishops and
Knights).

4) Pawn Structure (a broad subject that encompasses doubled pawns,
isolated pawns, etc.).

5) Control of a key file or square (files and diagonals act as
pathways for your pieces, while squares act as homes

6) Lead in development (more force in a specific area of the
board).

7) Initiative (dictating the tempo of a game).

Recognising these imbalances (you will find definitions to all
these terms in the Glossary at the end of this book) and understanding
their relationship to planning will be the main focus of this book. If
we are to use these things properly we must be able to break down our
thinking in a way that allows us to dissect any particular position.

Here are the stages of my thinking technique that enables us to
accomplish this:

1. Figure out the positive and negative imbalances for both sides.

2. Figure out the side of the board you wish to play on. You can
only play where a favourable imbalance or the possibility of creating a
favourable imbalance exists.

3. Don’t calculate! Instead, dream up various fantasy positions,
i.e., the positions you would most like to achieve.

4. Once you find a fantasy position that makes you happy, you must
figure out if you can reach it. If you find that your choice was not
possible to implement, you must create another dream position that is
easier to achieve.

5. Only now do you look at the moves you wish to calculate (called
candidate moves). The candidate moves are all the moves that lead to our
dream position. This will be discussed fully in Part Three of this book.

Let’s now take a look at this thinking technique in action. If
it seems difficult, don’t panic! It just takes practice. Nobody ever
said that getting your thoughts to work in a structured way would be
easy!

Complete game

  • Botvinnik M. – Kan I. [E21]

Elements of endgame planning:

1. Passed pawn

  • Fischer R. – Berliner [B03]

2. Pawn majority

  • Marshall F. – Capablanca J. [D33]

3. Rook on the seventh

  • Fischer – Petrosian [B42]

  • Capablanca J. – Tartakower S. [A90]

4. Infiltration (Weak colour complex), blockade, breakthrough

  • Bernstein – Mieses [B45]

  • Petrosian A. – Hazai L. [E80]

  • Pillsbury H. – Gunsberg I. [D94]

5. Accumulation theory

  • Steinitz – Blackburne [C29]

6. Two weaknesses

  • Hug – Barle [C50]

  • Lasker E. – Capablanca J. [D62]

7. Manoeuvring

  • Nimzovitch A. – Capablanca J. [B12]

8. Minority attack

  • Vogt – Andersson [B84]

9. Endgame technique

  • Calvo – Anderssen [B15]

A bit of Capablanca magic

“Once in a lobby of the Hall of Columns of the Trade Union Centre
in Moscow a group of masters were analysing an ending. They could not
find the right way to go about things and there was a lot of arguing
about it. Suddenly Capablanca came into the room. He was always find of
walking about when it was his opponent’s turn to move. Learning the
reason for the dispute the Cuban bent down to the position, said ‘Si,
si,’ and suddenly redistributed the pieces all over the board to show
what the correct formation was for the side trying to win. I haven’t
exaggerated. Don Jose literally pushed the pieces around the board
without making moves. He just put them in fresh positions where he
thought they were needed.”

“Suddenly everything became clear. The
correct scheme of things had been set up and now the win was easy. We
were delighted by Capablanca’s mastery…”

— KOTOV, Think like a
Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty, pub. 1971 Batsford.

  • Capablanca – Ragozin [E22]

Alekhin plays for a win

  • Znosko Borovsky Euge – Alekhin Alexander [C79]

The best books for further study of endgame planning are undoubtedly
Shereshevsy’s.

Click […] for list of games

Chess Psychology

Posted on by

Special lecture by Ish Ramdewar

Chess Psychology- It’s all in the mind! 

Or

How Not To Play Chess

by Ish

I did an analysis on all my games this season, and I found that when I
lost, it was mostly because of something wrong in my thought processes.
Usually, I just got lazy! This is the number one reason I dropped
points or half points! I trusted to instinct what I could have worked
out. In no game did I drop below 5 minutes on the clock at any point,
and only once below 10 minutes.

I concluded that work on my thought processes and approach to the
game
would improve my chess as much as technical work.

I hope what I’ve learned will be of value to you. If not, perhaps
you’ll be entertained by some of my most humiliating defeats!

All games here:

Know Thyself!

  • Are you good in open/semi-open/closed positions?
  • Do you like tactics, or positional play more?
  • Do you have certain positions to avoid? (e.g. Closed positions
    with a lot of manoeuvring)
  • Do you have certain positions to aim for? (e.g. Isolated
    Queen’s Pawn)
  • Consider doing a self-analysis. Look through as many of your
    games as possible, and root out the weak points and make note of what
    you do well.

Know Thy Opponent!

  • Ask the same questions of your opponent! Try to make life as
    uncomfortable as possible!

Of course, there are times when you don’t know anything about your
opponent. In this case:

  • Ask someone else who has played them for advice.
  • Consider their age! Usually young opponents are tactically on
    the ball, and are weaker in closed positions the endgame. Older
    opponents can be a bit slow tactically and tire more easily, so try all
    else being equal, go for a more unclear position! This tip will work
    for most opponents, not all: be careful!
  • Look at their choice of opening. If they are playing Caro-Kahn
    or the French, they’re probably solid. Choose a variation that they
    probably won’t like as much (e.g. Panov-Botvinnik in Caro-Kahn)

Ramdewar-Gillard 1-0

  • Ramdewar I. – Gillard L. [D42]

In this game, I was playing the in-form Lee
Gillard who was ungraded
but won the first 6 games of the season (this was his seventh), from
the Met office. I played sensibly and got my opponent out of book very
early (3. c4 was the extent of his knowledge). I improved my position
and eventually my opponent cracked and blundered a piece. The endgame
is a good example of taking the easy path to a win (see later).

  • If they play something really aggressive like the Grob (1.g4)
    or the King’s Gambit, consider playing solidly, and giving back any
    gambited material in order to obtain an equal(ish) quiet position that
    they probably won’t want.

Ramdewar-Daley 0-1

  • Ramdewar I. – Daley E. [B78]

In this game, I was playing an England junior with a bogus grade of 81.
I knew him to play the Sicilian Dragon, and saw him play excellently in
similar positions to what we had in the game. So what did I do? You
guessed it! I gave him his ideal kind of position! He uncorked a
novelty on move 10 and I was out of book (this must be the longest line
I know!) and he out played me whilst still in book. I sacrificed the
exchange and gave myself some chances (though he was objectively
winning). I then relaxed and proceeded to blunder the game away in fine
style!

Taking on ‘Weaker’ Opponents (Rabbits)

Meaton-Ramdewar 1-0

  • Meaton A. – Ramdewar I. [D02]

In this game, I was playing Arthur Meaton, a senior who I’ve seen play
often, and had beaten in rapidplay. I outplayed him from the outset,
then relaxed and didn’t look for his threats (in fact, I had seen the
threat much earlier and forgot, and played an instant move in a game
which was Fischer timed and I was getting 30 sec/move added to my
clock! The resulting postion was drawn by perpetual check, but I pig
headedly tried to escape, and was duly punished!

  • Know thyself and thy opponent and play according to
    strengths/weaknesses as shown above. A weaker player by grade will
    often still have some pronounced strengths! Don’t dismiss them (seeing
    them as a ‘rabbit’ can be dangerous!)
  • Everything else being equal, most stronger players will outplay
    a weaker player positionally, especially in the endgame.
  •   Consider playing a more quiet opening than you may be
    used to (1. c4, 1.g3, 1.d4, 1.b3 come to mind.) Often something like 1.
    b3 will knock a weaker player, at least psychologically. They may think
    you are very strong in this line, and unfamiliarity can make them that
    little bit more uncomfortable.
  • Don’t set a trap and assume a weaker opponent will fall into it
    because they are ‘weak’. Only set a trap if it improves your position
    by doing so. Assume your opponent will see your trap, and ask yourself
    whether it’s still a good move! The one exception is completely lost
    positions.
  • Remember that all of our opponents have ideas. Always ask
    yourself what the threats are, what pitfalls you can fall into and take
    your time.

Foley-Ramdewar 0-1

  • Foley P. – Ramdewar I. [B32]

In this game, I kept it simple against Phil Foley, a slightly weaker
player than myself who I didn’t know much about. Even though I didn’t
play my best, the simpler nature of the position suited me more than it
did him, and the win was eventually assured.

Taking on ‘Stronger’ Opponents (Heffalumps)

Regis-Ramdewar 1-0

  • Regis D. – Ramdewar I. [B10]

In this game, I was taking on Dave Regis, the current club champion,
and a man graded more than 50 points above me, so I knew I had nothing
to lose! I went in to try and produce an upset. I was marginally
outplayed for the opening, but in another IQP position managed to
outplay my mighty opponent for a short period and obtain a better
middlegame with black. I was then offered an endgame and saw it as
better for black (wrongly) and went for it, but didn’t even consider
keeping the middlegame! I blundered in an even endgame and that was
that.

  • Believe you can win, and play for it!
  • Don’t go for the draw from the off- make them beg you for it!
  • Know thyself and thy opponent (as usual)!
  • All else being equal, make the position strange and tactical.
    Most of the time, by definition, you will lose to a better opponent.
    However, a very tactical position greatly increases the chance they
    have to mess up!
  • Stronger players are likely to beat you in positional play, and
    often are stronger endgame players. Try and keep a complicated
    middlegame position.
  • Don’t give up! Strong players make mistakes!

Ramdewar-Pope 1/2-1/2

  • Ramdewar I. – Pope S. [C78]

Sean Pope is known as a very solid (if occasionally boring) player. His
style really is not suited to me, and I tend to struggle against Sean
more than the stronger (at least by grade) Simon Waters or even Dave!
In any case, I managed to keep setting my opponent problems in a very
difficult endgame, and was simply enjoying watching him squirm! I was
just trying to make his win as tough as possible. He avoided one draw
pitfall, but missed the triangulation  (probably due to tiredness)
he needed for the full point, and I walked away with a juicy
half-point!

How to Play ‘Winning’ Positions

  • If the time comes when you are winning, or significantly
    better, don’t take a draw unless that’s all you need to win a
    tournament or match. This applies especially against strong opponents
    where we feel a draw is a ‘good’ result. Again: make them grovel for
    it- make them prove they can equalise and draw.
  • A ‘winning’ position is only winning if you play the best
    moves! Stay alert!
  • Remember that all of our opponents have ideas. Always ask
    yourself what the threats are, what pitfalls you can fall into and take
    your time.
  • Don’t force things. The win will come to you if you keep
    playing the best moves!
  • Go for the simple win. If you need to give up material to
    extinguish counterplay, do it!
  • When ahead, trade down, simplify. 3vs1 is much better than
    12vs10!
  • Be careful of traps! Even bad positions often contain hidden
    resources. Play hard and focus, even when it seems easy!

How to Play ‘Drawn’ Positions

  • Don’t assume it’s drawn! Often ‘drawn’ positions have alot of
    play in them! Look closely before deciding the position is drawn.

Ramdewar-Bartlett 1/2-1/2

  • Ramdewar I. – Bartlett S. [B33]

Having rejected a draw-offer against an opponent graded 30 grades above
me on move 33 in a position with bishops of opposite colours, I felt
obliged to offer a draw 7 moves later as I saw no way of making
progress. In fact, the final position which looks drawish  due to
bishops of opposite colours has a lot of life in it, and I could have
gone for it!

  • Basically the most important thing to do in a drawn position is
    to look for ways for your opponent and/or yourself to go wrong, if you
    can avoid losing plans, the draw will be assured.
  • If your opponent makes a mistake, it’s your job to prove their
    mistake costly.
  • Play slowly, and let small advantages accumulate. The only way
    to win a drawn position is for your opponent to make mistakes: several
    small ones or a couple of big ones!
  • Keep your eyes open, and perhaps you’ll get that extra
    half-point. People get tired and lazy (remember Ramdewar-Pope?), the
    endgame is the place that strong players can really show what they’re
    made of!

How to Play ‘Lost’ Positions

  • When you’re losing, knuckle down! Don’t lose an opportunity for
    a swindle!
  • Simon W is an excellent case of a good swindler. He plays very
    hard in lost positions, and his strength in the endgame skill wins him
    many points and half-points. But how?
  • At some point, the position gets so bad that it’s no good to
    play the ‘objective best move’. What you need is to set up ways for
    your opponent to go wrong.
  • Constantly solving problems is tiring. The more problems you
    can set, and the more difficult they are, the harder you make your
    opponent’s job.
  • It may be that even though you’re ‘lost’, your position
    contains a plus point, which if your opponent ignores could lead to a
    result other than he is expecting! Sometimes it’s better to play
    aggressively with this than to passively defend and get ground down. An
    example of this could be a queenside pawn majority. Play for a break to
    stretch your opponent. Try to give them ways to go wrong.
  • Remember, the worst that can happen is that you lose. But even
    if you improve your score by ½ a point in a season, that’s still
    a tangible improvement!

What to do When You Blunder

  • We all know that we should be avoiding blunders, but sometimes
    they happen. A nasty tactical fork can easily devastate your
    positionally principled move. If so, what to do?
  • When you make one mistake, it’s very easy to be shaken.
    Usually, you missed your opponent’s reply. Step one: stay clam!
  • Get up and have a 2-minute break. Get a drink.
  • It’s usually worth spending some time completely re-evaluating
    the position. Be as objective as you can.
  • Sometimes you’ll be losing after your blunder. If so, take the
    advice above on playing lost positions.
  • If you were winning, your ‘winning’ plan probably doesn’t work
    anymore, so you’ll need to make a new one. Be flexible. Don’t continue
    as before, like me!

Whitfield-Ramdewar 1-0

  • Whitfield C. – Ramdewar I. [B32]

In this game, I played a dubious move (8…Qa5) and decided to make
it
stick no matter what, when objectively, it’s probably best to bring the
queen back to d8 to defend. I played pig-headedly throughout and was
obliterated, and rightly so! Sometimes we have to accept we’ve done
something silly, play the position properly, according to a good plan,
not our old poor one and fight like a devil!

When Your Opponent Blunders

  • Check whether it’s a real blunder. It may be a trap!
  • If you can’t see a reason not to take advantage of the blunder,
    do it! Even strong players make mistakes, and if we don’t pounce on
    them, we will get crushed!
  • Don’t trust your opponent’s analysis! Their sacrifice may well
    be unsound! Analyse for yourself. Even grandmasters make terrible moves
    from time to time!

Tying it all Together

  • Work out your strengths and weaknesses (i.e. know thyself).
    Play to your strengths, and try to root out your weaknesses away from
    the tournament board!
  • Make life difficult for your opponent. Fischer said “Chess is
    like war on the chessboard. The object is to crush your opponent’s
    mind!”
  • Aim for positions which exploit your opponent’s weaknesses.
  • When winning or playing a weaker opponent, keep focused.
    Simplify into an easy win instead of going for a brilliancy.
  • When losing, or playing a stronger opponent, complicate
    things!
  • Most ‘drawn’ positions still have ways to lose! Keep your eye
    on the ball!
  • If you make a mistake, re-focus and take extra time. Get up
    from the board for a minute, get a drink. Look at the position as if
    for the first time. In short start again.
  • If your opponent blunders, make sure it’s a blunder then punish
    him!

Good luck!

Your Actual Mistakes

Posted on by

(or, Towards Bona Chess)

Richard Fredlund wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Would it be possible to look at the kind of mistakes we all tend to make in 
> practice in our actual games?
> 
Of course. I'll have a think...


D

So, here’s some thoughts: first, some cherry-picking…

  1. Before we got to tonight, I had a look at the Elements of a profile and thought that the only thing I hadn’t done justice to was the opening.  It’s interesting to look at people’s comments there: most people just said they wanted to improve ‘openings’ without being at all specific (viz. ‘I need an answer to the Sicilian Defence’ or ‘What’s the best line for a solid Black player against the Trompovsky?’).  Nigel Davies has identified a tendency for people unfairly to blame their lack of opening knowledge for losses and says, ‘Don’t blame the opening‘ (rather, blame your chess sense, or your misunderstanding of the resulting structures).
  2. Andrew Soltis once wrote a whole book about chess mistakes: his classification is to be found elsewhere on the website.
  3. Jonathan Rowson produced a list of The Seven Deadly Chess Sins:
    thinking (unnecessary or erroneous);
    blinking (missing opportunities; lack of resolution);
    wanting (too much concern with the result of the game);
    materialism (lack of attention to non-material factors);
    egoism (insufficient awareness of the opponent and his ideas);
    perfectionism (running short of time, trying too hard);
    looseness (“losing the plot”, drifting, poor concentration).
  4. Chris Baker’s Learn from your chess mistakes lists:
    Openings:
    poor opening preparation,
    being over-prepared and getting ‘stale’,
    being caught by your opponent’s preparation,
    choice of openings/learning new lines and styles,
    understanding standard and re-occurring themes,
    being caught by move orders and transpositions
    Middlegame:
    Losing the ‘thread’ of the position,
    miscalculation,
    confidence and playing against stronger/weaker opponents,
    middlegame judgement,
    losing the initiative,
    missing your shot
    Endgame:
    Endgame technique,
    forming a plan,
    having too many choices and missing tricks,
    understanding ‘good and bad pieces’,
    control
  5. Dan Heisman thinks that he has identified the 13 Most Common OTB mistakes, among which is not playing appropriately for the chess state that you’re in:

    1) playing too fast because of overconfidence
    2) not recognizing the critical moment
    3) playing too fast because of carelessness
    4) being overcautious
    5) guarding instead of moving
    6) miscounting
    7) allowing a removal of the guard tactic
    8) not adjusting from one phase of the game to another, or not playing differently when way ahead or behind
    9) counterattacking a guarded rook when an unguarded minor piece is attacked
    10) not developing all your pieces
    11) making threats that are easily parried
    12) overlooking that your move can be easily refuted by a check, capture, or threat
    13) not asking yourself, “what are all the reasons my opponent made that move?

Of these offerings, Heisman claims his list has been based on his experience as a full-time tutor, but beyond that they all seem pretty impressionistic.  That is, I think they’re all important mistakes, but I don’t know how common they all are in practice.  Heisman certainly has found miscounting and removing the guard to be of greater importance for his students than he originally thought, but having trolled through a bunch of amateur games myself (with my distinctly amateur eye) I would have said forks were overlooked way more often than anything Heisman picks out.  I’d be interested in doing some serious statistics on a bunch of amateur games; I don’t think we know a lot about the natural history of amateur chess.  Anyhow, blinking slightly at the almost complete lack of overlap between these various lists, we can also try something a bit more local:

  1. The nearest I got to doing some serious statistics was showing 111 local games from the East Devon Premier and Major sections to Fritz for a typology of blunders (examples of each).  The single biggest category in terms of tactical theme was an attack on the king, by way of a thinking error was an unmet or overlooked threat, but by way of psychological theme it was simple blindness: not seeing, probably because of not looking.  Dan Heisman calls this ‘Hope Chess’; if you are not certain that every one of your opponent’s threats can be met on every move, you are merely hoping that you can meet them, and so every move you have to be lucky.  I promise, it won’t last.
  2. What I haven’t done is a typology of errors other than tactical ones.  I haven’t got time to do that before Tuesday, but I’ll have a go one day.
  3. Don’t forget where we came in: you’re the person best placed to know what mistakes you make in practice.  Take a bona vada at your own games, share your conclusions. I’m pretty good on my own mistakes, Brian’s mistakes and some of Jon’s; I tried looking for common themes but I think we’ve all got distinctly individual ways of playing badly… So, Brian has a tendency to let his opponent have the centre and makes odd decisions about who is winning, Jon is inclined to change horses in mid-stream, and I often get muddled with my move order.
  4. I’ve just whizzed through a few dozen games from the three of us, and, if there is a theme, it’s something I’ve written about before: it is necessary and desirable to set problems and put your opponent under pressure.
    • And its corollary: when you’re under pressure, you need to play twice as well.
    • Without putting your opponent under pressure, you cannot expect them to make mistakes.
    • If you are the one under pressure, you are more likely to make mistakes.
    • And so there is nothing more dangerous than ‘playing safe’, allowing your opponent to build up as they wish.

Endgame ahoy!

Posted on by

A couple of members were struck by Simon’s discussion of
the [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ruy-lopez-exchange-variation-white-wins]Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation[/url]
during his talk about [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/exchanging-king-endings]King and Pawn
endgames[/url].  That’s the best example of endgame thinking arising
in the opening, but it’s not the only one. 

There are [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/middlegame-endings-and-endgame-openings]endgame
openings[/url],
where the
queens come off early and the players forget about mating
attacks, as recommended by Edmar Mednis. There is one more opening
where we see an early queen swap:
Lasker’s Petroff exchange variation of the Petroff.  Far from
choosing a
drawing variation, Lasker played it to win against selected opponents,
like Frank Marshall who might be expected to over-egg it.  One
simple win from him was:

Example Game: Emanuel Lasker – Richard
Teichmann 1-0 [C42]

Much more commonly, we see endgame thinking arise in
games where there is a [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/pawn-formations]pawn
structure[/url] which will definitely get
better and better for one side as we approach the endgame — a familiar
example is the [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/queens-gambit-acceptedisolated-queens-pawn]Isolated Queen’s Pawn[/url]. 

[blockquote]”[em]Before the endgame,
the
gods have placed the middlegame.[/em]” — Tarrasch. 
[/blockquote]
Couldn’t
agree more, but accepting a pawn weakness for attacking chances
immediately gives your opponent a winning plan, namely, survive, swap
and win the endgame …

Example Game: Emanuel Lasker – Siegbert
Tarrasch 1-0 [D34]

I’ve found a comparable example from the French Defence
…

Example Game: Hartman – Yanofsky 1-0
[C09]

,  and was immediately reminded of the same sort of
issue
with the
Backward Pawn you get in the same opening …

Example Game: Hunt Harriet – Song Yi 1-0 [C03]

The [url=”http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/whos-afraid-big-bad-minority-attack”]minority attack[/url]

in
the Queen’s Gambit Declined Exchange
Varation is all about saddling Black with a weakness that will persist
into the endgame:

Example Game: Evans – Opsahl 1-0 [D36]

In the games of Rubinstein and Capablanca we often see
opponents lured into losing endgames, lost because of weaknesses
acquired, if not in the opening, then certainly long ago; I gave a
couple of examples…

Example Game: Jose Capablanca – Abraham Kupchik 1-0 [C49]

Example Game: Jose Capablanca – Milan Vidmar sr [New York] 1-0 [C98]

…a couple of sessions ago, and offer today
another from Rubinstein …

Example Game: E. Cohn – A. Rubinstein
0-1 [D29]

Click on […] to see games list.

P.S. The famous Flohr-Capablanca game is here:

Example Game: flohr – moscow
capablanca 1/2 [D62]

Flohr did everything right – but couldn’t win!

Tactics: combinations and blunders

Posted on by

1. Chess is 99% tactics , said Richard Teichmann.nbsp; However, 90% of the time, there is no tactic for either side.nbsp; So, as well as any difficulty presented by a complicated position, we also have to counter our natural laziness in not looking out for a rare event, as if each move we are crossing the a quiet country road, and not bothering to check for oncoming traffic. When they think it’s a quiet position, even the best players miss things .

2. Tactical ability can be improved, says Dvoretsky. He described two elements: vision and analysis. Both can be developed by completing exercises. [An uncomfortable corollary: If you don’t exercise, don’t expect to get better!]

3. You need to have a good understanding of the varieties of tactics. There are different ways of classifying and naming this variety; Purdy gives six simple headings of:- Jumps, Mates, Forks, Nets, Pins and Ties. These building blocks can be fitted together to make a combination, a set of more or less forcing moves, often with a sacrifice, resulting in your advantage.

4. The more combinations you see, the more you will be able to see. Real examples are very helpful in developing your imagination, throwing up ideas that you can analyse. Euwe doesn’t call it imagination, he calls it combinational vision, but he and Dvoretsky both agree that looking at different problems helps. The most obvious thing that it helps, which you would expect, is that you can develop depth and accuracy the same way; keep pushing yourself on speed and depth.

5. Purdy also advises us, when searching for combinations: examine moves that smite! These are checks and captures; both are forcing moves which limit the range of reasonable responses. The move that is right when a tactic is available is usually the opposite of a ‘normal’ sensible move.

6. You should always examine every position for ‘accidental’ tactics, but look especially hard if you think you have an advantage (if your position is better, your better pieces are more likely to work up a combination between you) or if you notice the clues for a combination: an unsafe king or loose pieces.

7. You should also be aware that there is another, less well-known, list: the list of difficult moves to spot: Long moves, Backwards moves, Declining to capture, an intermezzo or Zwischenzug, False endings, Coming back from the dead, Quiet (‘creeping’)moves in noisy positions, Switchbacks, Hesitations, and in John Nunn’s uneuphonious coinage, Collinear moves (throwing yourself on the sword).

8. So much for the theory. You can be good at a lot of that stuff and still lose games because of tactics. You have two other pitfalls to avoid: [1] Going to sleep and ignoring an approaching fin until the shark bites your leg off, and [2] forcing the issue, trying to make combinations happen in positions which are not ripe. If you have the first problem, you need to become more paranoid: they really are out to get you!

9. I have been bellyaching for a while that books of puzzles don’t test you properly, because every position has a solution, and you can often guess what the answer is just because you know it has a solution. One author in particular has tried to get around this problem, namely Chris Ward; an example is Chess Choice Challenge 3, but even here, the vast majority of the 80 positions have a ! or !! solution.

10. The last thing you need to do is make checking for tactics and combinations part of whatever routine you have for choosing a move. I have written simply about a four-step THINKing process: [1] checking for threats (and dealing with them if you have to using ABCD), [2] checking for your own opportunities (and using them if you can), [3] think about how you can improve your position, and [4], if you can, play with a plan. Playing with a plan is hard, and your opponent will get in your way, but it is something to strive for.

11. I’ve been saying and writing things like the above for years. What’s new? Well, ten years ago, there we didn’t all own computers, and there wasn’t the online help available. There are online tactics servers, tactics databases, websites where you can download tactics tests, free database software which can administer tactical tests, and free analysis engines which can show you what mistakes happened in your games.

12. There are still many good exercises for the computer-free. In many magazines, you will find a feature like Spot the winning move; there are books full of these things. Another good thing to do is try analysing real games: Byron Jacobs and Graeme Buckley have both published books of tough analytical exercises which are quite different to the ‘spot the move’ variety. Another good idea is setting yourself 20 minutes to find all you can of some analysis in a known GM game which has been analysed; these rich positions are to be found in books by Kotov, Nunn and Dvoretsky.

13. Lastly, the best clues are always in your own games. For example, having just started playing the French, I notice that I’m very likely to overlook destructive combinations against my apparently solid pawn chain.

The beginning of the end?

Posted on by

My esteemed colleague Simon Waters is leading on King and Pawn endgames next week, so I will attempt a warm-up for him this week.

There are, in my mind, two types of chess theory: general and specific. In the opening, for example, we say that in general it’s a good idea to develop all your pieces once before moving any of them twice. Equally, we might offer that the sternest test of the Two Knights’ Defence is the move 4.Ng5, a view reinforced when Kasparov used it to duff up Timman.

Simon, I believe, intends to do some specific theory, and so my intention is to impart a few general principles. The point of this, as above, is that specific analytic discoveries can contradict general principles, and indeed some conclusions of K+P endgame theory are distinctly against what you might expect. Although I don’t know what you expect…

I propose to go through an old introductory handout about endgames, starting with the idea of a passed pawn…

  • RJ. Fischer – Berliner 1-0 [B03]

… and to recommend everyone play over as many games from ‘Capablanca’s 60 Best Endgames’ as they have time for (I’ll show you a couple in the session, too).

  • Jose Capablanca – Abraham Kupchik 1-0 [C49]
    Jose Capablanca – Milan Vidmar sr [New York 1-0 [C98]

But suggestions are welcome.

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.)