You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at
analysing the games yourself!
Click […] for list of games
Category Archives: Class G (all levels)
Openings Workshop 2013
‘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
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
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
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:
Lessons from Euwe
Euwe was always an amateur player, not a professional; he taught mathematics in a girls’ school in the Netherland for much of his active playing career, then was employed by a computer firm. He devoted much of his life to teaching chess, through books and articles. My favourite among his writings is a collection of articles about the middlegame with Hans Kramer, later published in two volumes. He collected and organised opening theory, he wrote books for beginners and masters, and he took the Presidency of FIDE. His own games are not often quoted in instructional books these days, but he was a very fine player, able to compete at the top level even in 1952, as we will see.
Smyslov on Euwe:
‘From my youth I was familiar
with the facets of Euwe’s versatile chess activity: his books showed that he was a splendid
teacher; the novelties employed in his games
and his analyses in chess magazines showed
that he was an outstanding theoretician. His
aggressive handling of the opening on a realistic positional base, and his unexpected manoeuvres, his amazing skill in finding a veiled
way out of a difficult position demonstrated
the Dutch grandmaster’s wonderful tactical
gift. Later I was also able to appreciate fully
the other fine qualities of the fifth world
champion — industriousness, stamina, self-
control, and his gentleman-like attitude to his
opponents.’
Opening
The ‘Strategy’ part of Euwe’s book Strategy and Tactics in Chess is mostly a long annotation of this game, where Black struggles to advance his backward c-pawn in the face of White’s central pressure:
Euwe was a great student of the opening, and described that “the opening weapon was knocked out of (Alekhin’s) hand” in their first match. But he brought psychological guile as well as theory.
Euwe also remarked:
“On discovering any difficulties, Alekhine
preferred to stake everything.
This is why, on encountering solid positions
in the even-numbered games, he began playing in reckless style, which brought him a win
in the fourth game and almost brought a win
in the sixth. My objective with White was
clear: after achieving a slight advantage, I had
to resist in the tactical complications. Of
course, this was not easy against a player of
such class, but, on the other hand, it did not
seem impracticable: after all, the tactical complications were created in positions that were
favourable for me. That is, I was playing as
though with a favourable wind… My new tactics were crowned with complete success. In
the 12th and 14th games Alekhine again
played extremely riskily
and to win it was
sufficient for me to make only two or three
genuinely good moves.”
Middlegame
First, Euwe’s famous demonstration of the power of mobile pawns:
People often emphasise the rational and logical in Euwe’s chess, but he had as much imagination and verve as anyone. Anderssen was also a professor of mathematics!
Euwe surprised many by entering the Zurich Candidates’ Tournament in 1953; his play in the second half of this double-round tournament showed the poor stamina of middle age, but in the first half, he was equal to any. Kotov won the first brilliancy prize for a game that is rightly famous, but the second and third brilliancy prizes went to Euwe.
Click […] to choose a game:
Endgame
Euwe is not much known for his endgame play, but it is as clear and witty as the rest of his game: his idea at move 24 is piquant, but the whole endgame is peppered with ideas.
A tricky Rook endgame follows an exciting opening and middlegame. There is much to savour here:
Lessons from Smyslov
Botvinnik’s disciplined research and iron logic was a strange parallel of the era of Stalin, the man of steel; Smyslov’s chess was something altogether lighter and more intuitive.
Smyslov could often distil something clear and attractive from a game in ferment, and bring a fresh eye to familiar settings.
In the
1980s, he had a remarkable second wind, playing his elegant, modern
chess all the way to the Candidate’s Matches, where he was stopped
by Kasparov.
Opening
Smyslov’s best-known contribution to opening theory is his eponymous variation of the Grunfeld, but in fact he innovated across the whole spectrum of opening systems, and could improvise happily at the board. Here’s Smyslow equalising happily with his Grunfeld:
I was struck by this little-known game, which showed an unprejudiced eye:
And a bit of opening preparation that came off:
Middlegame
A couple of standard themes that I always use with groups, the IQP and the Knight outpost, but to impose these ideas on other Grandmasters is impressive.
A celebrated game where Smyslov ensnared his opponent with position play, then faced with a sacrifice for counterplay by his opponent… sacrificed his Queen! Kasparov and his computer piddled over this game, but as Tal says, years of analysis and minutes of play are not quite the same thing.
Endgame
Smyslov was famed for his endgame play. A notable win, sustained by intuition as much as calculation, was this one:
Another wonderful Smyslov display, showing great insight into the difficulties of playing with a Knight in a closed(!) position.
Lessons from Alekhin
Almost any game by Lasker or Capablanca could be studied with profit, in the hope of playing a little more like our heroes. Their games are full of common sense. But the modernists and hypermodernists like Alekhin are not so easy to learn from; they thrive on a different style of chess, being less interested in the elegant harmony of principles and more interested in complexity, conflict and contradiction.
When John Nunn first came across the games of Alekhin, he said “How can anyone play like this?”(!). Alekhin’s chess can be admired, but it is not easily imitated!
And here’s Bobby FIscher on Alekhin:
“His style worked for him, but it could scarcely work for anybody else. His conceptions were gigantic, full of outrageous and unprecedented ideas. … His play was fantastically complicated, more so than any player before or since. … At the chessboard, he radiated a furious tension that often intimidated his opponents.”
But he played many games, and wrote throughout his life, and in fact there is much that is instructive about his play. But the lessons are not always easy.
Opening
Alekhin played every opening with relish and invention, including the hypermodern Grunfeld Defence and the defence to which he gave his name. Never for Alekhin automatic development or routine captures; he strove to find the most accurate and challenging moves at every turn.
And a vigorous win from the opening against a notable opening theorist (indeed, a lot of the theory of the Slav can be traced back to games between these players).
Middlegame
I’ve chosen contrasting Alekhin games: one illustrating a solid grip on the game, showing many simple positional themes in a clear form, and two sprawling messes, apparently pushed forward mostly by Alekhin’s formidable will to win.
Two of Alekhin’s most celebrated brilliancies.
Click […] to choose a game
Endgame
So, Alekhin’s chess is not easy, but in the endgame, some welcome clarity can appear. Here’s a celebrated annotation, explaining how to squeeze a win by coming up with a plan:
And an endgame against a more formidable opponent, which has been much discussed in the books as a model of how to win with an outside passed pawn in a Rook endgame — it all depends on having your Rook behind the passed pawn. Well worth playing out against a peer or a computer.
Morphy vs Steinitz
I keep seeing “Morphy would have beaten Steinitz”, which we will never know, but here is some food for thought, from Steinitz’ International Chess Magazine of 1886:
(Nov 1886 pp 333-335)
“To what I have said on the subject before, I may only add quite in conformity with the substance of my previous remarks that I have never quarrelled with anyone who bonafidely believes that Morphy could have beaten me even, if he had made progress with the time. But if anyone says that the Morphy as he was, and not the one who might have been, could give Pawn and move only to a second rate nowadays I can only pity his understanding, or I must call it an impudent assertion. There will be an outcry over this,
no doubt, and nothing but blind conceit, selfishness, or worse will be imputed to me. I can not help that, nor perhaps would I help it if I could. For if our readers will allow me to give them a little perfectly true anecdote, which I consider amusing and instructive, I think I can
produce in support of my contention truthful, reliable, impartial, honorable, independent, honest etc., evidence. Would you believe it? The first witness whom I shall call to the stand, and to whose testimony I ascribe all the above-named virtues, is actually one of the above-named
trio, and in reality Samuel Loyd in life size and in flesh, and not his shadow. I think he will perhaps pardon my giving him such a character, and if not, I sincerely apologize to all the other witnesses whom I shall call. For in justice to his
“smartness” of which he bears such repute, and of which he chiefly prides himself, I ought to state that to the best of his knowledge he had at the time no personal interest
whatever in telling an untruth, and moreover his sayings were not intended to be published in one of James Gordon Bennett’s journals. But the miracle of his giving an honest opinion happened this way: It actually occurred before the A. C. E. A. had been composed and solved alone by its author (or dissolved as far as I am concerned, for I have
resigned from that body), by the simple process of his putting four-fifths of the funds of the Association into his own pocket. At that time, only about four months back, I was as friendly with Loyd as the public prosecutor might be with anyone whom he suspects (for I have known Loyd before), but whom he has not caught yet in flagranto delicti.
At any rate his pronounced public opinion on Morphy did not influence me any more than it does with several warm friends who can not dissociate themselves from old ideas, and he was a welcome visitor at my house. On one of those occasions, however, and in the course of a discussion it
occurred to me to play a little trick on my visitor, which comprised no deception à la Loyd, though I must plead guilty to a concealment for a little while. I can not give a verbatim report of the conversation in which the matter was introduced, but I am sure I shall faithfully state
the substance of it.“Could you judge approximately the strength of two
players if I showed you part of one of their games, and if in order to save time I gave you some critical comments which, of course, you may judge for yourself?” I asked.“Yes, I think so,” replied Loyd modestly.
“Well,” I said, please look at the following position :
“Y,” and “Z” played that game, and they have as you see only arrived at an early stage of the opening. In fact I may tell you it is only White’s 9th move in the present position.
Continuing my little lecture I said:
“You notice that Black has thus early three holes in his battleorder of Pawns or what I call weak strategical spots, which means any squares on his third or fourth rows on which a hostile piece might be planted sooner or later without being liable to he driven away by a Pawn. The weak points are at QR4, QB3 and QB4. Black’s K P is loose
and can only be defended by a piece or P–KB3, and the latter is generally inconvenient before the adverse QP is got rid of or further advanced than here. He has also two minor pieces standing undefended, and his QKtP is a mark for a dangerous attack by P–QR4, at the proper time. White’s position is compact with the exception of the QP which,
however, is well defended. Black’s chief weakness has arisen, I may tell you, from his having prematurely advanced P-Q4 instead of P-Q3. It is White’s move, and I feel satisfied from analogies of positions that
Kt x P, followed by P–Q4, would give him much the best of it, even against the subsequent answer of …B–Kt5, with the view of sacrificing a piece if White play P–KB3 (or else, I may now add, against the immediate answer Q–K2, pointed out subsequently by Mr. Teed, for White would also reply Q–K2). However castling is obviously a very good
and safe move, but White instead plays here 9 P–KR3. What do you think of that?”“Certainly unnecessary and weak,” said Loyd.
“It is now Black’s turn,” I proceeded, “and if I were in his place I certainly would not give my opponent an opportunity of getting rid of his QP, and opening the diagonal for his Bishop, commencing with Kt x P. I would
withdraw B–Kt3 or B–Q3 first, for 9… Castling, what he does, will keep.”Loyd nodded assent.
“Now White could do what I have just pointed out, and I feel sure he could get the better game, and much the best of
it, should Black answer BXP ch., which would have also been bad at the previous stage, where I suggested Kt XP. There are too many cases in point on record. But he plays 10. Castles.”“But now,” I proceeded,
“it is evidently the highest time for Black to remove his Bishop, but he actually plays 10…P–KR3; do you think that good play ?
“No, decidedly not,” said Loyd.
“Of course White ought to take advantage of that without the least hesitation by 11 Kt x P,” I remarked, “but he
actually plays 11 P–Q4 instead, and naturally his QP is isolated. Now, what do you think of the strength of the two players. Are they first, second or third class?” I am sure I put the question fairly enough, for I believe if I had given him the choice of five classes he would have chosen the last. As it was, he answered at once:“Third class at the utmost.”
“Would you be surprised to learn,” I said, “that this play
occurred not merely once, but actually in two games of the match between Morphy and Anderssen, in the second and in the fourth Tableau!”And so it is indeed. The two great masters actually repeated the whole opening without the least amendment on either side, which proves that they had not the slightest suspicion that their development contained defects that about twenty-eight years later could only be described as grave strategical errors. By the way, as Loyd may have forgotten the whole affair, owing to his complicated business transactions as Vice-President of the A. C. E. A. and self-elected Treasurer of four fifths of its funds, I may remind him that on the same occasion I showed him that in the celebrated game with Paulsen, in which Morphy sacrifices
his Queen, the latter had a lost game early in the opening, and albeit Paulsen committed an error such as any Pawn and Two player would most probably avoid nowadays, his game was absolutely won just one move before the celebrated sacrifice, without any possibility of retrieving
it on Morphy’s part–of course assuming best play on both sides–if the former had played 16 Q–R6 only one move earlier, instead of the silly move 16 R–R2.”
Lessons from Korchnoi
There are many candidates for the title of ‘the best chessplayer never to win the world championship’. I think I first heard Keres given that title, and he was the second-highest-rated player at some point (according to Jeff Sonas’ ChessMetrics website http://www.chessmetrics.com ). Other second-highest-rated players include Chigorin, Zukertort, Blackburne, Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch, Schlechter, Najdorf and Ivanchuk. In fact, there are a number of players who were the highest-rated in Jeff’s lists at some point but who never became World Champion: Pillsbury, Maroczy, Kolisch, Gunsberg, Janowsky, Rubinstein, Reshevsky, Bogoljubow… and Viktor Korchnoi. Korchnoi was primus inter pares for the last quarter of 1965, following a dominating tournament win
http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSSWS067916000000111000000000016610100
He competed strongly in Candidates’ Matches in the 1967 cycle, but didn’t qualify for a Championship match until 1978, when his actual rating was rather higher.
“I have heard so many times that Korchnoi had the great misfortune of meeting me when his best playing was already behind him. Nothing of the sort! Korchnoi’s best years arrived exactly at the time he battled me”
— Anatoly Karpov
In the end, Korchnoi was a Candidate in 10 of the 11 cycles held between 1962 and 1991, and a Challenger in 1978 and 1981. His Candidates’ Final match with Karpov in 1974 turned out to be a Championship match in effect, when Fischer could not agree terms to defend his title, and forfeited it.
Korchnoi’s style is … complex! He seems to make life as difficult for himself as his opponent, relishing the role of defender — or rather, counter-attacker.
“I like to coax my opponents into attacking, to let them taste the joy of the initiative, so that they may get carried away, become careless, and sacrifice material”
For this reason, Korchnoi’s style is also exciting, not to say nerve-wracking, to watch… Perhaps for these or other reasons, he was often in time trouble.
“It is a gross overstatement, but in chess, it can be said I play against my opponent over the board and against myself on the clock”
The drama and political intrigue of his life are every bit as rich and compelling as his chess, but here I will take a few moments from his battles over the board.
Opening
I’ve always liked this example of Korchnoi’s play. His counter-attacking style seems ready-made for the Grunfeld, where White is invited to set up an ‘ideal’ centre, while Black has fluent development without weaknesses, and can strive to undermine it.
Here’s a quote about Korchnoi, rather than from him directly:
“Viktor Korchnoi was always saying: if you want to make progress, you have to learn new openings all the time. If such a person gives you such an advice, you should listen to it” Boris Gelfand
Korchnoi’s annotations to this game made a strong impression on me: surely Grandmasters know everything, or at least, know everything that they play? The unknowable nature of chess that was revealed was somehow more alluring than the prospect of a knowable nature.
Middlegame
Korchnoi is the great sceptic of chess. He is never overly impressed with an opponent’s attacking ideas, not even when they are conjured up by the magician from Riga. Korchnoi had a large plus score against Tal; here he wins as Black when Tal was at the height of his powers.
Korchnoi also has an awesome record with White against the King’s Indian. Here is one example from hundreds: in his seventh decade, he plays blindfold in the very double-edged Mar del Plata variation. Black cannot do much about White’s Queen’s-side attack, but can instead start a dangerous attack against the white King.
And a fine example of Korchnoi’s brave counter-attacking style, the first game in Simon Webb’s [em]Chess for Tigers[/em]
“A good illustration of how to play on your opponent’s weaknesses is provided by the way Korchnoi tackled Geller in their semi-final match in the 1971 World Championship Candidates’ series. He knew that he couldn’t outplay Geller positionally (as he frankly admitted after the
match); so he deliberately aimed for complicated and unclear positions, in which he believed Geller would be uncomfortable. This approach paid off handsomely. Geller continually became short of time trying to fathom
the complications which Korchnoi produced, failed to find the right answers, and lost 5.5-2.5. Indeed he lost 3 of the 8 games on time. ” — Webb
Endgame
Nunn’s awesome attacking talent and theoretical knowledge are tamed by accepting a small disadvantage in what looks like a technical endgame. Korchnoi does not intend to swap everything and draw, however, but increases the tension over the whole board, and White can’t quite hold it together. A game quite in the style of Lasker — whom both players admire.
Lastly, a terrific win against Karpov. Neil McDonald has written about how he was perplexed by Korchnoi’s choice of plan — surely you are supposed to play the minority attack in such positions? But Korchnoi has other ideas.