Category Archives: Class G (all levels)

How to analyse your own games

Posted on by

The point of analysing your game is to see where you need to improve for next time, not to see if the computer disagrees with you, or to produce a set of notes suitable for a magazine.

  1. As soon as possible after the game, write down your thoughts as you remember them during the game, concentrating on critical moves and mistakes. There may have been only one critical moment; so be it.  Also, make a note of where you ran out of ‘book’ moves that you can remember.
  2. On Lichess or your home database (DO NOT TURN ON THE ANALYSIS ENGINE), enter the moves of the game and your thoughts about the critical moment(s).
  3. Do not turn on the analysis engine.
  4. Go through the moves again, this time trying to decide if your thoughts during the game at those moments were correct, and if not, what is correct.
  5. Still don’t turn on the analysis engine.
  6. Make a note of any improvements in moving or thinking.
  7. Now you can check your analysis against the computer’s.  You may now have three comments to compare about a critical moment: “Me then”, “Me now”, and “Stockfish”.
  8. Again, make notes of any more improvements in moving or thinking.  A mistake in calculation (I missed a check at the end) may also have a mistake in judgement (there was no way this was going to work because I was not as well developed as my opponent).
  9. Also, when you ran out of ‘book’ moves, use the book/database to see if you missed any good ideas.
  10. If you made a mistake (as if…), or if you disagree with the computer, think about how you are going to avoid that mistake next time, and make a list of tips for yourself at the end of the game (e.g. don’t rush through the opening, don’t assume recaptures are forced).
  11. You can also make a longer list of tips from all your games.  If you keep giving yourself the same advice, stop giving the same advice, and start taking it!

N.B. You are allowed to disagree with the computer.  Computers will tell you what the best move and likely result is, computer vs. computer.  You are trying to decide what is the best move for you.

Club player example: HICUP

GM Example: https://youtu.be/_SGjLJ13oYk?t=568

More advice on game analysis from the Chess Dojo:
5m version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3MiuKuynm0
25m version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKfaWbD84S8

A gift to blitz players

Posted on by

I had a nice email last week from Jonathan of the Norwald chess set makers from Denmark, who has offered us a guide to get better at blitz chess.  It’s long and thorough — thank you Jonathan!
The original is here https://norwald.dk/en-intl/blogs/artikler/how-to-get-better-at-blitz-chess, a copy is given below, and their other articles are here https://norwald.dk/en-intl/blogs/artikler

Continue reading →

Tartakower on the English

Posted on by

A fine addition to my collection of wonderful annotations (H/T Edward Winter)

Click […] for list of games

Tartakower annotated White’s first move as follows (H/T Edward Winter):

“An opening which the master from Bremen has been playing, almost without exception, for about 30 years.

Just recently, however, I learned that in annotating the game Eliskases v L. Steiner, which Black won prettily …, the German master and journalist Leonhardt expressed his joy that this tortuous opening, which comes from the Eastern Jews (Ost-Juden) Nimzowitsch and Tartakower, will lose some of its worth.

With such remarks, Leonhardt is certainly doing his homeland a disservice. His hope of flattering official circles may well backfire and he may well be “corrected” for publishing assertions which are:

1. untrue, since the opening was introduced by the Englishman Staunton;

2. maladroit, since the system was developed by the German Carls;

3. ridiculous, since in the game in question, Eliskases v L. Steiner, the move 1.c4 was played by a good Tyrolean, whereas it was refuted by a Semitic player;

4. preposterous, since in chess we take pleasure in seeking truth, without players’ personalities playing any role;

5. unhealthy, since in chess we prefer to be rid of political, ethnological, etc. discussions; and finally;

6. harmful, since the German authorities recommend their citizens not to make attacks on foreigners.”

Going back in time

Posted on by

This page happened
because I wanted a place to store these positions,
but my
well-behaved chess databases refuse to do things like
accept a
position without a King (see below).

For example, I have had trouble entering this one on a database:

---N--R-
pp---p--
---K--p-
--------
--p-----
---pp--p
---P-pB-
-Q----BR

Mate in ONE (Fischer [not that one]).

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

Proof games

rnbqkb-r
ppp-pppp
--------
---p----
--------
--------
PPPPPPPP
RNBQKB-R

What is the shortest series of legal moves leading to this position?

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

Retrograde puzzles

http://www.janko.at/Retros/

B-KRN---
PP------
--QK-R--
--------
--------
--------
--------
--------

Colour the pieces. What was the last move?
(Husserl, 66/71)

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

Logic puzzles

--------
--------
--------
-r-b----
B-------
--------
--------
---k----

Where is the White King?
Raymond Smullyan 1957

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

That’s an old puzzle of his, but it’s reproduced in The Chess
Mysteries of the Arabian Knights (sic) as well as many
anthologies. To pack so much into such a small space is art.

r-b-k--r
p-p-p-p-
-p---p-p
--------
--------
P-------
-PPPPPPP
--BQKB--

Black to move. Can Black castle short here? (1…O-O)
Raymond Smullyan 1957

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

k-K-----
----Q---
--------
--B-P---
---P----
-------P
--------
-------B

Checkmate! But which square is a1 and which h8?
Raymond Smullyan 1957

[HINT] [SOLUTION]

The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes

The solutions to Smullyan’s most fiendish problems run to many pages.

If you like these, you might also like his book of logic puzzles,

What is the name of this book? But this is hard to ask for in
a shop…

__________________________________________________________

[HINT]

If you find it difficult to solve looking at the diagram,
try setting up the position on a board.

[HINT]

It’s natural to assume that a piece that appears to be on its
original square is indeed on its original square.

[HINT]

Only one King can be in check, and whichever is the Black King is at the
moment in double check. And double checks have to be discoveries…

[HINT]

White’s last move must have been with the King, and White’s King must
have been the victim and the deliverer of a discovered check

[HINT]

What was White’s last move?
And before that?
So what were Black’s possible last moves?

[HINT]

White’s last move seems obvious, but what was Black’s last move?

__________________________________________________________

[SOLUTION]

Seriously, set it up on a board.

[SOLUTION]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ne5 d5 3.Nc6 Nd7 4.Nxb8 Nxb8

[SOLUTION]

Double checks have to be discoveries, and you can’t discover a contact
check from a Queen, so it seems that:
the Q on c6 is White,
and the wK is on d6,
so the N on e8 is White,
and the R on d8 is White,
the bK is on c8, and
so the discovery is 1.c7xd8/R check
and the Pb7 is Black,
so the Ba8 is White (by promotion a7-a8/B)
and the Pa7 is also White.

[SOLUTION]

With wPc2 and bPb4, the last moves must have been
1…Bd5+
2. c2-c4 b4xc3 en passant
3.Kxc3+

[SOLUTION]

Suppose Black can castle.
That means, Black’s last move was with a Bishop or a Pawn.
White’s last move was a2-a3, but what about the one before that?
Whatever piece White moved then, it was captured by Black on Black’s last move.
Black could not have made their last move by capturing with a Pawn
because there is no square that this Pawn could have come from.
Black could not have made their last move by capturing with the Bishop,
because the only piece that could be on c8 is a Knight, and where could
it have come from? Only d6, and that must have meant that Black’s King
stood still while the Knight checked it from d6. That’s not possible.
So Black didn’t make their last move with a Pawn or Bishop.
So Black did make their last move with a King or a Rook.
Not the Ra8, as the Knight could not have reached a8 from b6 or c7.
So Black made their last move with a King or Rh8. (e.g. 1.Nd6-e8 Kd8xe8 or 1.Ng6-h8 Rg8xh8)
So Black cannot castle king’s-side now (yet maybe it’s legal to castle long later).

[SOLUTION]

Assuming the lower left hand corner is a1, e4-e5 discovered check and mate seems like a solution.
But Black has no legal last move with the King.
So Black must have last moved a different piece.
Which White must have captured last move.
But the “e5” pawn would have come from “f4”, so…
The “h1” Bishop must be (a) newly promoted, and (b) the capturing piece.
So Black’s last move was e.g. …R”h1″ (actually …Ra8)
And White’s last move was Pb7xa8/B#
So the lower left hand corner is h8.

Fix this first

Posted on by

From Dalton Perrine: https://chesschatter.substack.com/p/common-chess-mistakes-by-rating

Training PriorityUnder 15001500 to 18001800 to 20002000+
Fix firstBlunder checkingBlunder checking;
time management		Prophylaxis;
calculation depth		Consistency;
the mental game
High payoffShallow calculation;
king safety		Wrong-moment trades;
passive defending		Endgame technique;
emotional control		Endgame precision;
calculation depth
Matters, slowerPassive defendingPawn breaks;
prophylaxis;
calculation		Misjudging positions;
pawn breaks		Fine-tuning prophylaxis
Mostly fixes itselfWeak pawns;
piece placement		Piece placement;
targeting weaknesses		Wrong-moment trades;
time management		Positional polish
Low payoff to train nowEndgame theory;
positional study		Deep opening theoryBlunder checking;
king safety		Basic safety,
already solved

The Art of Analysis – part 2

Posted on by

You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at
analysing the games yourself!

Click […] for list of games

Openings Workshop 2013

Posted on by

‘A difficult position’ (Breyer).

In contrast to previous instances in this unintentional series…
content/openings-workshop-2008
content/openings-workshop-2010
content/openings-workshop-2011
content/opening-workshop-2012

…questions were expressed this time as a series of dilemmas.

1.e4 or 1.d4?

Short answer: 1.e4, but it’s a matter of taste.

Long answer:

1.e4 is likely to lead to open and semi-open games, while 1.d4 is more likely to lead to closed and other more murky structures.

By ‘open game’ I mean a position after the opening which features open files and diagonals, a fairly clear centre and no locked pawn chains. Closed games are the opposite.

Hmm, why is that?

After 1.e4 e5, White can follow up with d2-d4, immediately or after some preparation. White gets open diagonals for the Bishops, and (at least) the chance to get (at least) a half-open file in the centre.

After 1.d4 d5, e2-e4 looks like it loses a pawn right now, and may be hard to organise later. If White has to settle for e2-e3, then White may be obliged to develop the Bc1 before touching the Bf1 and castling. So, the game unfolds more slowly, and open files and diagonals emerge only later.

After 1.d4 Nf6, White may even be invited to play e2-e4, but where any open lines will emerge is not clear.

Why should you care?

Well, open games tend to be easier to follow, easier to play, and are easier settings in which to practice the sorts of things you should be practising when starting out (fast development, king’s-side attacks, tactics, endgames). Closed and Indian systems are not as easy to play or understand. You have to put up with Black’s other responses to 1.e4, but against at least some of them you can steer for an IQP position. If you learn how to play IQP positions, you may not always be able to claim an opening advantage, but you will always be able to know what you are doing.

So, if you start with 1.e4, you’re making a good choice, and one that you needn’t ever change. The Italian Game is a good place to start, while the Ruy Lopez and Scotch Game are both still played by Grandmasters.

1.e3 or 1.d3 or neither?

Short answer: neither.

Long answer: Either or both!

An opening is only as good as the ideas you bring to it. (I think that’s a quote, but I Googled it, and got this website… Could someone let me know where I stole it from?)

If you make moves at random, you might hit on 1.e3 d5 2.a4, or 1.d3 d5 2.Qd2, but those are not opening systems. You have to have a set of ideas you can bring to oppose different Black approaches. You can play either first move with a ready-made set of ideas, maybe e3/b3/Bb2/Bb4 (Nimzo-Larsen Attack), or d3/g3/Bg2 (King’s Indian Attack), and do well. You may note that two of our strongest players, Graham Bolt and Tim Paulden, have been using the Hippopotamus with both White and Black, which uses both e3 and d3, and doing pretty well.

King’s Indian Defence or Grunfeld?

Short answer: King’s Indian.

Long answer:

In the King’s Indian Defence, White is invited to set up a big pawn centre with c4, d4 and e4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 Black generally hits back in the centre with ….e7-e5, when one likely result is that White pushes on with d4-d5, resulting in blocked central pawn chains, rather like the French Defence. 6.Be2 e5 By the way, Black doesn’t lose the pawn on e5: 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Bxd1 Nxe4! 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7

I’ve already talked about the virtues of rehearsing a particular pawn structure, the IQP, above. Similarly, a KID player gets to play this blocked centre position repeatedly, and will be able to adopt and adapt from known plans and piece placements. Black’s pawns point to more space on the King’s-side and a break with …f5; White has more Queen’s-side space and a break with c4-c5.

Viktor Korchnoi was always known as a King’s Indian Killer, being able to show the virtues of the White structure against the strongest players in the world. But this is how he got on against Bobby Fischer in a rapidplay game:

Good advert, yes?

Meanwhile, over in the Grunfeld, White can get you into a variety of very different central structures.

You get one in the Exchange:

A different one in the Russian:

And another from the Taimanov, which is actually characteristic of the Queen’s Gambit, Exchange Variation:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bg5 Ne4 6. cxd5 Nxg5 7. Nxg5 e6 8.Nf3 exd5 …

Black is doing OK in all of these structures and all these variations, but my guess is that you are going to have to understand more different structures than in the KID, and you are going to have to rely more on exact knowledge than general plans and analogies from similar positions.

Benoni: immediate or delayed?

Short answer: delayed, but try the Benko instead.

Long answer:

The classic Modern Benoni structure is one where the positions are lively and unbalanced, and where the overall plans for each side are clear enough but the complications may be intense.

Black has a Queen’s-side majority, White a central majority. Black may advance on the Queen’s-side, supported by the strong Bg7 on the long diagonal. White is going to try and push through e4-e5. White can try and do this with pieces alone, but it’s natural to seek support by f2- f4. So, White might move the Knight from f3 to… hmm, where, exactly? Well, how about d2, thence to c4? On c4, it supports e4-e5, and if Black is restrained from …b5 by a2-a4, it will stand very well.

So, Black players devised a cunning plan: delaying …e6xd5. Black reasons that White is going to run out of constructive moves. Black can prepare …b5 for a long while without taking on d5, while White simply cannot play Nf3-d2-c4, because there is a pawn on c4.

This is one argument for avoiding the Schmidt Benoni which uses 1.d4 c5 2.d5. White gets a very early signal about the structure, and can delay or avoid c2-c4, keeping c4 free for a piece.

Overall, I might prefer the Benko for Black: you get a small range of structures and the initiative. I have got into the habit recently of describing the art of chess as creating a position which is too hard for your opponent but not you. I think the Benko is easier to play for Black than for White.

Bonus: How to out-think Houdini

Tom B reports that when faced with this line: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 [I trust you are all savvy enough to avoid 7…Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9.Bb5+] 8.Bc2 Qa6 9.Nc3 Rc8

Houdini and other strong chess programmes can currently be relied on to repeat the position: 10.Bd3 Qb6 11.Bc2 Qa6

Open like a champion

Posted on by

Yes, but which one…

I caught a couple of the Devon U18s playing the English Opening in Wales recently, and I was reminded of these two stern admonitions:

“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game” – RICHARD RETI

and

“Again, a word of warning must be given to the inexperienced: do not attempt (these openings) until you have fully tried out, first, the open game, and then the Queen’s. These are far and away the most difficult types of opening to master. The writer has spent a considerable portion of his chess-playing life studying them intensively and is still liable to be met with shocks…” Harry GOLOMBEK in Griffiths & Golombek: Pocket Guide to the Chess Openings

And I linked these to Reti’s other well-known opinion:

“We perceive after a careful consideration of the evolution of the chess mind that such evolution has gone on, in general, in a way quite similar to that in which it goes on with the individual chess player, only with the latter more rapidly.” — Richard RETI

This made me wonder if you could capture the sweep of chess history (fashion?) in the opening by looking at the ECO codes of openings featuring in World Championship matches. I grabbed all the games labelled “World Championship” in a big database and extracted the year and ECO code. Here is the resulting table: 

I haven’t nitpicked the data because I’m more interested in the sweep.

So, rather broadly:

  • We start firmly in the arena of the Italian Game, then move with Steinitz to the Ruy Lopez
  • At the start of the twentieth century, the Queen’s Gambit dominates: first with the Orthodox Defence (22 games in 1927!), then the Slav. We also see Black avoiding 1…d5 with the Dutch Defence.
  • Post-war, We see Botvinnik avoiding 1…e5 with first the French Defence then the Caro-Kann; we see Smyslov introducing the King’s Indian Defence which was also a favourite of Tal.
  • The 1960s had no clear shape; games roamed freely across the range.
  • The 1970s and 1980s saw much use of the English Opening, a return to the Orthodox Queen’s Gambit, and use of the Queen’s and Nimzo- Indian Defences.
  • The 1980s and 1990s featured the Sicilian Defence in quantity for the first time, a reappearance of the Grunfeld (after Smyslov’s use in the 1950s), and then the King’s Indian
  • The 2000s were notable for the dour solidity of the Petroff and Catalan.
  • The 2010s and 2020s also don’t have a lot of shape; there is a clustering around various systems of teh Ruy Lopez again, and Carlsen’s use of the Sicilian Defence

List of ECO codes (a complete list is somewhere else):

A0	Unorthodox	1. R' 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4
A1	English	1. c4
A2	King's English	1. c4 e5
A3	Symmetrical English	1. c4 c5
A4	QP	1. d4
A5	Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4
A6	Benoni	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6
A7	Benoni Classical	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 ed5 5. cd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Nf3
A8	Dutch	1. d4 f5
A9	Dutch mainline	1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2
B0	Semi-Open	1. e4  
B1	Caro-Kann	1. e4 c6
B2	Sicilian	1. e4 c5
B3	Sicilian Nc6	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6
B4	Sicilian e6	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6
B5	Sicilian d6	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6
B6	Sicilian Classical	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5
B7	Sicilian Dragon	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6
B8	Sicilian Scheveningen	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6
B9	Sicilian Najdorf	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6
C0	French	1. e4 e6
C1	French 3.Nc3	1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3
C2	KP	1. e4 e5 
C3	King's Gambit	1. e4 e5 2. f4
C4	KP 2.Nf3	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
C5	Italian	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 
C6	Ruy Lopez	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 
C7	Ruy Lopez Morphy	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4
C8	Ruy Lopez Open Morphy	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 5. O-O: + 5...Ne4, 5... Be7
C9	Ruy Lopez Closed Morphy	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6
D0	QP	1. d4 d5 
D1	QG Slav	1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6
D2	QG Accepted	1. d4 d5 2. c4 dc4
D3	QG Orthodox	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6
D4	QG Orthodox 4.Nf3	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3
D5	QG Orthodox 4.Bg5	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5
D6	QG Orthodox main line	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7
D7	?King's Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 R' d7-d5
D8	Grunfeld	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5
D9	Grunfeld 4.Nf3	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3
E0	Catalan	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3
E1	Queen's Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3
E2	Nimzo-Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4
E3	Nimzo-Indian Classical	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4: + 4. Bg5, 4. Qc2
E4	Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3
E5	Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein 5.Nf3	 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Nf3
E6	King's Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 R' d7-d5
E7	King's Indian 4.e4	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4
E8	King's Indian Samisch	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3
E9	King's Indian Classical	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3

List of matches/tournaments:

Steinitz - Zukertort (1886)
Steinitz - Chigorin (1889)
Steinitz - Gunsberg (1890)
Steinitz - Chigorin Rematch (1892)
Lasker - Steinitz (1894)
Lasker - Steinitz Rematch (1896)
Lasker - Marshall (1907)
Lasker - Tarrasch (1908)
Lasker - Schlechter (1910)
Lasker - Janowski (1910)
Lasker - Capablanca (1921)
Capablanca - Alekhine (1927)
Alekhine - Bogoljubov (1929)
Alekhine - Bogoljubov Rematch (1934)
Alekhine - Euwe (1935)
Euwe - Alekhine Rematch (1937)
FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948)
Botvinnik - Bronstein (1951)
Botvinnik - Smyslov (1954)
Botvinnik - Smyslov Return Match (1957)
Botvinnik - Smyslov Rematch (1958)
Tal - Botvinnik (1960)
Tal - Botvinnik Return Match (1961)
Petrosian - Botvinnik (1963)
Petrosian - Spassky (1966)
Petrosian - Spassky Rematch (1969)
Spassky - Fischer (1972)
Fischer - Karpov (1975)
Karpov - Korchnoi (1978)
Karpov - Korchnoi Rematch (1981)
Karpov - Kasparov (1984/85)
Karpov - Kasparov (1985)
Karpov - Kasparov Rematch (1986)
Kasparov - Karpov (1987)
Kasparov - Karpov (1990)
Kasparov - Short (1993) 
Kasparov - Anand (1995)
Karpov - Anand (1998) 
Kasparov - Kramnik (2000) 
Kramnik - Leko (2004) 
Kramnik - Topalov (2006) 
FIDE World Championship Tournament (2007)
Anand - Kramnik World Championship Match (2008)
Anand - Topalov World Championship Match (2010)
Anand - Gelfand World Championship Match (2012)
Anand - Carlsen World Championship Match (2013)
Carlsen - Anand World Championship Match (2014)
Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship Match (2016)
Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018)
Carlsen - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2021)
Ding - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2023)

Again, not nitpicked.

Lessons from Nunn

Posted on by

John Nunn was a top ten player in his prime, but was and is a champion as a chess author. His first substantial book, Secrets of Grandmaster Play with Peter Griffiths, was an instant classic, and he has written many volumes aimed at the improving player. He has been particularly concerned to reflect the richness and complexity of modern chess in his books, and has striven to do so in uncluttered prose, leavened with a bit of dry wit. I think he has succeeded rather wonderfully, and I have borrowed from his writing wholemeal, as opposed to piecemeal, for coaching sessions over the years.

Opening

Some of that dry wit:

“If you want to lose a miniature, then here are three helpful tips. First of all, it is a big help if you are Black. losing in under 20 moves requires a special talent which few possess. Secondly, choose a provocative opening, for example an opening in which you try to realise strategic ambitions, but at the cost of backward development and delayed castling. Thirdly, if something goes slightly wrong, don’t reconcile yourself to defending a bad position – seek a tactical solution instead! Don’t worry about the fact that tactics are bound to favour the better developed side; just go ahead anyway. Follow this advice and at least you will get home early.”

And more serious fare, about the position at move 11 below:

“But already this opening has certain puzzling aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative, both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why should Black’s position be so awklard? The question really boils down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has problems.

“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position Black can easily get cought in a situation where his game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error (6…Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his position.”

— NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

Middlegame

It’s hard to pick just a couple of annotations to represent the rich seam to be mined in Nunn’s books, but I went with these two:

“If White wishes to play for a direct attack he can try 15. g4 [variation]. In olden times White would often attack by g4 and Ng3 in the Closed Spanish; once in a while White would break through with a Nf5 sacrifice, but now it is recognised that so long as all Black’s pieces can reach the King’s-side, a direct attack should not work. Thus, the emphasis has switched to diversionary Queen’s-side play, with a King’s-side attack being reserved for a favourable moment when Black’s pieces have been lured away. Moreover, the King’s-side attack is usually based on f4 rather than g4, since only f4 offers the chance of activating the light-squared Bishop on c2.
White’s preliminary a4 gives him control of the a-file; this may not appear relevant to the conduct of a King’s-side attack, but watch what happens later!”

And a little bit deeper: after move 10 by White

“The traditional way of assessing such positions is to say that Black has an inferior pawn structure, but in compensation he has the two Bishops (*). Looked at this way, Portisch’s plan appears strange. However, a static evaluation takes no account of the potential activity of Black’s pieces. His main problem is the future of the c8 Bishop; he doesn’t want to play …Bd7, because that would prevent the manoeuvre …Nd7 and …Bf6, which is his best chance of activating the other minor pieces. After …Be6, the Bishop would be a target for a later Nf3-d4 or f2-f4-f5, and it would block the e-file, making it ipossible to develop pressure against the e4-pawn by …Re8. The only real solution is to get rid of the Bishop by …Bg4 followed by …Bxf3. This plan has to be executed immediately or else White plays Qd3, preparing to meet …Bg4 by Nd4. Perhaps there is even an argument for 10. Qd3!?, although this might tempt Black to develop his Bishop another way – by 10…a5 followed by …Ba6.
The exchange on f3 not only relieves Black’s slightly cramped position, it also gives him a grip on e5.”

Endgame

Nunn’s sharp style surely kept the number of endgames he had to play to a minimum, but I’ve picked out a couple from the books spanning his own career. As an author he was something of a connoisseur of this phase of play, and was a notable interpreter of exhaustive and exhausting computer-solved databases.

This first game is an endgame for most of its duration, but it ‘feels’ like a middlegame to me! Nunn’s notes are rich.

A typical observation from his oeuvre:

“The
following game is typical of tournament chess. Published games are
often ‘clean kills’, in which the defender puts up little resistance, but in
reality most games aren’t like this. Annotations, particularly those by
third parties, often promote the concept of the game in which the winner does everything right, while the
loser does everything wrong. This is rare in practice, except when one
player is much stronger than the other. This game is more representative; stretches of accurate play
are interspersed with mistakes and the defender doesn’t go down without a fight, but puts up a fierce and
determined resistance right into the endgame.”

I’m sure Nunn kept the notes to a minimum, but they are hard going! And yet, if you want to improve, you must immerse yourself in such detail.

And to appreciate this earlier game, too, you must turn to the notes to get the most out of it — or, as the authors recommend, play through it as though you had the black pieces, and try to work out the best moves.

Lessons from Timman

Posted on by

I have just read, with enormous pleasure, Jan Timman’s volume of his best games, Timman’s Triumphs. The range of openings is very broad, the tactics pleasing and sometimes brilliant, the strategy revealing, the endgame play subtle; the annotations do justice to a Grandmaster’s play but remain accessible; the stories between the games are engaging and warm.

Opening

Timman’s repertoire is very broad and includes every style.

Middlegame

Too much to choose from of course, but some contrasting games: a brilliancy prize, a Petrosian-esque manoeuvring game,

A contrast, but with a deeply calculated break at move 28:

And a sprightly attack with some very unobvious moves@

Endgame

I’ve just been looking at some Nunn endgames which are full of tension and precision; Timman’s choices show deftness more than forcefulness, and that magical ability to create something out of nothing. First, he out-Anderssons Andersson.

A little tactic #23 and a principled repositioning #36 to win an ending against Tal: