Category Archives: Class G (all levels)

Opening Workshop 2015

Posted on by

[A Q&A at a coaching session]

A bit of perspective

Your opening choices are determined by:

  1. Your style: are you a Steady Eddie or a Bonkers Billie?
  2. Your memory: can you commit the key traps and variations to memory?
  3. Your study time: can you find and absorb what you need to play this system well?
  4. Your aims: are you trying to get a playable position? are you trying to
    set your opponent problems, so they make a mistake? are you inviting
    your opponent to waltz with you blindfold on the edge of a cliff? are
    you trying to lure them into unfamiliar territory, or a trap?

Trouble with b6

“I’m having trouble getting …b6 to work against 1.e4”

1.e4 b6

“I’m not surprised!”

Any opening is only as good as the ideas you bring to it. I don’t think
I heard much from you about what your ideas were in playing …b6: what
sort of position do you hope to get to play?

The ideas behind some systems can be pretty straightforward – for
example, I think the Evans Gambit and the French Defence and the Colle
System can be picked up pretty quickly by club players, and the extra
ideas you need as your opponents get better at meeting your new opening
can be added fairly easily. The French Defence in particular often
leads to the same sort of pawn structure (white Pd4 Pe5 vs black Pd5
Pe6), so, even if you don’t recognise the exact variation, you can still
have a good idea about the best plans for both sides.

1…b6 is a rarity – you will struggle to find many books to read, or
games to follow. If you look it up in the books, you will find most of
the lines end in +=. The ideas behind the opening are hard to find or
understand: I think it can be best interpreted as a hypermodern defence,
letting White occupy the centre then hoping to get play later, either by
deciding on your own central setup once you have seen what White has
done, or using the centre as a target. I think it ends up as += because
that is hard to do! Also, you aren’t going to get the same structures
and ideas in each game, and you are going to lose games that you don’t
understand.

My advice: pick something else!

Philidor for Beginners

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6

In some ways, the Philidor is a risky opening to try: there are dozens
of traps that Black can fall into in the first few moves.

*[ http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-philidors-defence ]

But if you learn the right order for your first few moves (especially
3…Nf6), you can usually get to a solid position from which you can
play the middlegame. Yes, White gets a space advantage, but it’s not a
huge one, and space advantages are not so easy to make use of. An extra
piece, or a doubled pawn, or a bare King’s-side, all tell you what to do
next. A space advantage just tells you that, whatever you want to do,
you will probably be able to do it more easily than your opponent.

Philidor inspiration:

The (Hyper)-Accelerated Dragon

Anyone who plays the main line Sicilian Dragon will have met the deadly Yugolav Attack.

White is going to castle long then push the h-pawn.

Maybe it’s not as deadly these days, as Black players have learned how
to fight back, but it’s the most important line in the Dragon and there
are whole books written about it.

If you like the Dragon setup, but are unwilling to take on the task of
learning how to defend against the Yugoslav, then you can try a cunning
move order to head White off.

The Accelerated Dragon goes

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6

One of Black’s ideas is that …d7-d5 can be played in one move.

For example,

5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.Qd2? d5!

or

8.0-0 d5!

Now, if White tries to set up the Yugoslav Attack, it all goes wrong

5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Qd2?! Ng4!

5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3?! 0-0! 8.Qd2 d5!

5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4! Qa5! 8.f3? Qb4! 9.Bb3 Nxe4!

an amazing move, but it works!

if 10.Nxc6, Qxc3!

and Black comes out ahead

After 7…Qa5, 8.0-0

must be tried, and then Black has successfully
avoided the Yugoslav. These positions are not ever so promising for
Black – perfectly solid, but perhaps the Qa5 is misplaced, vulnerable
to Nb3 Qc7 and a later Nd5

Black can try one other line to make use of the omission of …d6:

7…0-0

Uogele’s Variation.[

Now Black has the usual bunch of tricks waiting for Qd2 and f3

8.Qd2 Ng4!
or 8…Nxe4 9.Nxe4 d5!

8.f3 Qb6!?
(or 8…e6!?, maybe even 8…d5!?)

So White should play

8.Bb3!

Now Black has one last chance to keep White from setting up a
Yugoslav-style attack:

8…a5!? 9. f3!? d5!?

Black gambits the d-pawn to get active play.

White’s not worse here and may have chances of advantage, but there is
no chance of the standard Yugslav Attack. (I expect White’s best try on
move 9 is 9.0-0, when 9…d6 is OK for Black and 9…a4 is
“interesting”.)

So, Black’s extra pressure against d4 means that White cannot get into the
Yugoslav. You don’t get anything for free in chess, so Black’s missing
pressure against e4 means that White can omit Nc3 and play c4, the
dreaded Maroczy Bind, also a bit less dreaded these days.

The Hyper-accelerated Dragon is the move order with 2…g6.

This avoids problems with 3.Bb5 and also gives you some extra options
against the Maroczy Bind, for example,

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.c4 Qb6!?

Anti-Sicilians for the Dragon player

Charlie was suspicious about his White opponents who want to play around
with their own move order tricks, avoiding the main lines of the
Accelerated Dragon to play, e.g.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3

or

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3

or even

1.e4 c5 2.c3

I think
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3
is not much of a problem: after 3…Bg7
or 3…Nc6, White doesn’t have any clever ways of delaying d4.

If you like to meet

1.e4 c5 2.c3

with

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6

or

1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 e6

then White’s move order with

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3

means that you can’t play your preferred line.

The good news is that you can get a perfectly playable game after

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5

or perhaps even better

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5!

Now

6.e5 Bg4!
(intending e6, Nge7, and either Qb6 or f6,exf6,Qxf6) gives you an excellent game.

6.exd5

is OK:

6…Nf6 7.Nc3 Nxd5?! 8.Bc4 Nxc3 9.Qb3!

is awkward, but

8…Nb6

is fine, while

6.exd5 Nf6 7.Bb5+ Nbd7

should recover the d-pawn without too much pain, but it’s worth looking up the theory.

Trouble with b3

Ah, since El Presidente’s pursuit of 1.b3, we have all wondered what we should do against it.

I think after 1.b3,1…e5 is generally accepted as the most challenging move. (When Nimzowitsch himself used to play this system now known as the Nimzo-Larsen Attack, he used to start with 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 to avoid …e5.)

After

1.b3 e5,

play can continue

2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6,

when White has two ways of nibbling the centre, 5.f4 and 5.c4 (with one
idea 5…Nf6 6.c5!?). I expect Black is doing OK in most of these
lines, but I think we can see the Hypermodern approach working well:
Black has set up a big centre, and White is having fun making threats
against it.

A more solid approach is

1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d6,

occupying a smaller portion of the centre for a lower cost.

One game from here that created a lot of interest was Minasian-Adams:

4.Bb5 Bd7

When I tried angling for this against Tim, he was happy to play into the
line

4.d4 exd4 5.exd4 d5.

Black can claim that White’s position doesn’t make a lot of sense, with
the Bb2 having a very poor view, but it’s very early days in the game
and Tim has more experience in this line than I do.
I expect the best line in this position for White is

4.Nf3.

after which Black can happily challenge on the long diagonal with

4…g6,

as 5.d4 Bg7 6.dxe5 Nge7! allows Black to get a bit more sorted
before recapturing on e5.

Approaching the Sicilian

Jeremy has discarded the Caro-Kann (quite right too…) in favour of the
Sicilian. He has decided that 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 makes sense, but
is still making up his mind about what to do after 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
Nf6 5.Nc3.

Options include:

5…g6 Dragon Variation

5…a6 Najdorf Variation

5…Nc6 Classical Variation

These are some of the most interesting and theoretical variations in
chess. They are also a bit of a challenge to take on: White has some
razor-sharp options like the Sozin, Richter-Rauser and Velimirovic
variations.

6.Bc4

6.Bg5 7.Qd2

6.Be3 7.Bc4 8.Qe2

5…e6 Scheveningen Variation

This is a good deal less hair-raising than the three alternatives above,
and a steady option for Black. I wrote a booklet on this for the
juniors, so let me know if you would like a copy.

I’m going to put in a word for 5…e5, heading for the Sveshnikov (or
Lasker-Pelikan) Variation. It also has a fair amount of theory, but
as some of the structural decisions have been made, you can plan your
approach for development with more certainty. Its reputation as a sharp
and theory-laden line has been balanced by a respect for how solid it
is. Black’s pawn structure maybe looks weak and hard to handle, but
White’s Na3 is out of play and Black has a very solid stake in the
centre, so any of those ‘mad axeman’ attacks with f4/g4/h4 are just
going to bounce. Moreover, most of Black’s strategy for coping with the
messy pawns is ‘lots of activity’ and ‘dump the bad bishop’, which
shouldn’t be too hard for anyone!

Sveshnikov inspiration:

English, Reti, Dutch

Sean ponders moving from the Reti to the English The key challenge to the English Opening is 1.c4 e5; the big plus to approaching the English with 1.Nf3 is that White avoids this line. There are also advantages in leaving the Ng1 at home: the long diagonal is kept open and in particular White can adopt the popular Botvinnik set-up, recomended repeatedly in repertoire books (Soltis 1980, Kosten 1998, Marin 2004). These three books also recommend leaving the Nb1 at home at first, thus:

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2

as this doesn’t allow Black the well-known equalising lines with

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 c6

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bb4

(White is perhaps best advised to throw in 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 before 4.g3).
Black may take advantage of White’s slow approach by setting up a big
centre. …d5 is restrained, but what about …f5?

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 f5 3.d4!

is promising for White, but

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 f5

is playable

Kosten points out

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.e3 d5!? 6.cxd5 Nb4!

but is content with

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.a3 Bc5 6.e3

(I wonder if Black can then escape the Botvinnik with d6/g6.)

Marin has a new approach:

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 f5 4.Nf3!

with the idea

4…e4 5.Nh4!

hitting the f-pawn and preparing to go to f4 via g2. It has some links with the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon approach we saw above.

4…Nf6 5.d4 e4 6.Nh4 has the same ideas.

Preparation in club play

Do you prepare to play into your opponent’s main opening system or try
to dodge? Does it even matter at club level?

a. Done badly

“I think Dave knows his openings pretty well, and I don’t really like
playing against the French… I know, I’ll play 1.d4, that will surprise
him! Against 1.d4, he plays some rubbish with …b6, and I can beat that
easily!”

1.d4 f5

“Oh. I forgot he sometimes plays the Dutch. Now what do I do?”

b. Done well

“I think Dave knows his openings pretty well, and he nearly always plays
the French these days. In particular, he plays the Euwe Variation
against the Advance French, and I have a recent book on how to play
that line for White.”

What are the odds?

Posted on by

We discussed odds-giving last Friday – that is, starting without one or more of your pieces.

I mentioned one of my favourite Lasker stories, where he teased a player who didn’t know hime, which I quote from Chernev (1948):

Lasker `I think the odds of a Knight is an advantage to the odds-giver. You can get your Queen Rook into play quickly, and work up a strong attack. Let me try to give you a Knight odds.’ Lasker’s adversary assured him that at Knight odds, he (Lasker) would not have a chance. They tried a game though, and Lasker won. `You see,’ said
Lasker, `that proves my statement. Now give me a Knight.’ They played again, and Lasker lost. Now Lasker gave the odds-and won. After a few more games where they alternated in giving up a Knight, with the result that the side without a knight always won, Lasker’s opponent, bewildered by the `proof,’ got up and said, `I guess you’re right after all. It does seem to be an advantage to give a Knight!'”

And here is a startling odds game: Potter starts without a Queen, plays six moves, then announces mate in eight! That is, his combination was longer than the game.

Openings workshop 2014

Posted on by

Work in progress…

How to decide if the Dutch Defence is good for you
————————————————–
Just taking the Dutch Defence as an example…

Do you think it suits you? (Do your friends think it suits you?)
Do the ideas you read about go into your memory?
Do the ideas you remember actually turn up in your games?
Do you get good results with it?
Do the results in your games have anything to do with the opening?
Can your opponents avoid the lines you like to play?

Philidor’s Defence — see recent post
————————————-
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-philidors-defence-live-act…

London System
————-
Some opening systems are ‘good’: they are played by Grandmasters and
have enough point to give other Grandmasters some problems in getting
equality as Black.

Some opening systems are not so good: they are rarely played by GMs and
don’t have enough about them to give other GMs problems.

What does all this have to do with club players?

A good opening for a club player is one that gives your opponents problems.

And the London System? It’s not generally considered to set enough
problems to be played against GMs, although some GMs will use it as a
‘rabbit-bashing’ system, keeping out of theory and known equalising and
simplifying lines.

In amateur play, it may be possible to learn a a defence against the
London System which is enough to put White off playing it. If your
opponents don’t know any such defence, your greater familiarity with the
system may give you great practical chances.

A good example of White’s practical chances:


A good example of Black’s strongest defence:


But can White avoid this defence by a clever move order?!

Does it matter if Black can equalise with …Bd6?

Scheveningen Sicilian for Black: move order issues
——————————-

Scheveningen
Paulsen/Taimanov
Nadforf

The original Scheveningen was

Approaching via Najdorf move order
avoid g4, allow Bb5+

Approaching via Taimanov move order
take sting out of g4, allow c4

Rook and Pawn endgames strike back 2014

Posted on by

I’ve done more than one session on this topic in the past, so the
examples are all already on the website, but some pointers for newcomers
might be helpful:

A. Many Rook and Pawns endgames can be judged as win or drawn at a
glance, some are more critical. Some basic cases with one side a pawn
up have been worked out and must be learned:

1. Philidor’s position shows how to draw when your King has control of
the Queening square.

2. Lucena’s positions shows how to win when the defending King does not
have control of the Queening square.

3. With the defending King distant, you can draw against an advanced a-pawn.

4. If you know the basic positions, you can use them to guide your play,
combined with a bit of general endgame science:

a. Regis-Walker shows White a pawn down but drawing without trouble when
focussed on swapping pawns and reducing to Philidor’s position.

b. Smyslov-Botvinnik is tough, but we know from (3) that an a-pawn may
not be enough, and indeed an extra a- and g-pawn may not be enough.
What you need to go with an a-pawn is an f-pawn. Euwe’s analysis shows
that Black can wangle a position with locked f-pawns, win the f-pawn,
and call House.

B. There are some recurring tactics in Rook endgames:

1. Skewering the defending Rook (examples: (a) Lasker’s study, and (b)
the case with a- and f-pawns)

2. Stalemate (Bernstein-Smyslov)

C. General endgame principles can be seen in classic endgames by
Capablanca and Tartakower:

1. Attacking weaknesses
2. Rook on the seventh
3. Probing and stretching defences across the whole board
4. Limiting counterplay

See, in particular, Capa’s games against Kreymbourg, Janowski and Kupchik
[LINK]

Could you take on one of those endgames against another member of the
club, or against your computer, and get the right result?

Dr.Dave’s Adventures at East Devon, 2013

Posted on by

FRIDAY:
I’ve lost my last 5 games of chess and familiar doubts about my
chosen hobby are pressing. I could park my grade and retire to publishing and
coaching, but that’s not an admirable way to behave. Besides, having lost my
last 5 games, my grade wouldn’t be quite as wonderful at the end of the season,
so, time to shape up!

Click on […] to see games list.

1 {Black was unlucky to play a line I had
recently reviewed, and conceded a pawn. Despite some oversights by White in
analysis, it was actually Black who came up with a blunder.}

2 {I’m not sure whether to be pleased at how long I lasted against the top-rated player or disappointed that
I never felt as though I had anything positive to contribute during the game.
I was unhappy with my opening play during the game, but that may have been OK.
Odessky titled his chapter on this line as Tears fall, and maybe that’s all
there is to it: Black cannot create difficulties for White in this variation.}

3 {A bit of a grind. I have been playing this line for so long, you would have
thought I could find the right way through when I get a chance, but just as
against Alan Brusey in January, I make another pig’s ear out of Botvinnik’s
silk purse. Black doesn’t seize his moment, though, preferring to play simple,
uncommittal moves, which leads to his downfall. I didn’t find the clearest
win, and in pushing for a Bishop endgame could have thrown it away.}

4 {Some rather vague opening ideas were crowned by an absolute lemon on move 12,
after which Black’s position could be resigned without shame. I played on,
more out of inertia than anything else, when I caught a glimpse of an
opposite-coloured Bishop ending in the distance… and White was good enough
to steer for it.}

5 {I got a position of a type I have often played with colours reversed, and
with an extra tempo arrived at a winning position quite quickly. There seemed
to be very many a slip between plus and win, though.}

In the end, this was my best-ever performance in grading terms
(197), even better than Paignton last year (195). (Just in case you get too
impressed, my worst-ever was the East Devon in 2005, when I managed 00001 for
a 114 performance.

Towards a self-explanatory chess set

Posted on by

I had a cheerful exchange recently with a correspondent, who wanted to teach her daughter how to play chess, and was attracted to the Children’s Chess Set (from Devon’s very own House of Marbles).  I like that set a lot, and in a similar vein you can still get hold of Babushkachess sets on places like eBay.  However, while cute, they don’t do anything to reduce the learning curve of playing chess.

I remember that on my teacher training course, people interested in learning how to teach English as a Foreign Language were given a lesson in Finnish, just to remind them what it’s like to be a complete beginner again.  Similarly, while I have been writing books for youngsters, I have been forcing myself to remember in a similar way, by finding a new game and learning how to play.  So, I’ve learned the chess games of China and Japan and Thailand and Persia; I’ve learned Go and Tablut and Hahnentafl and Latrunculi; I’ve even started playing Bridge. While exploring, I have found simplified versions of Shogi like the new and also very cute Dobutsu-Shogi.  I also came across the idea of marking pieces so that you can see how they move – as in this children’s Shogi set and the Dobutsu game.  Can this be done for chess?

The Bauhaus chess set by Josef Hartwig goes a long way towards the goal, but I found making my own version quite fiddly to do. So, here’s something I was doodling with this afternoon: two designs for a teaching chess set.  Print onto card or stick onto wooden squares, or print and fold to use in game-players card holders.  Comments invited, as well as feedback from any trials!

Openings workshop 2012

Posted on by

Two open gambits

Richard was interested in the Urusoff Gambit and Eddie in the Scotch Gambit.
Gambits offer a pawn for fast development and/or control of the centre. I approve very much of this way of playing, and it’s the first thing I offer juniors as an alternative to playing Old Stodge with both White and Black in every game.

Here’s a starter for each:


Very appealing!
I have some notes on the Scotch Gambit in my ‘First Opening Repertoire’, linked here:
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/free-e-books-coaches-and-players

So, why don’t we all play these openings all the time? Well, your opponent needs to be both naive and greedy, which isn’t a completely unknown combination, but doesn’t happen all the time. It’s probably more likely that your opponent is experienced and/or cautious, and will deviate at some point, probably into some version of the Two Knights’ Defence. My little booklet, linked above, also gives some ideas about what to do if that happens.

And by the magic of the Internet, here’s a lot more information about each opening:

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/modern-classics-scotch-gambit
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/
[I’ll make here a small plug for Michael Goeller of Kenilworth Chess Club and for Johnny, the chap behind Bishop’s Bounty, who catalogues chess teaching material.]

Grob’s Attack

This has to be terrible, right? It breaks every opening rule we’ve ever been taught (only move your e- and d-pawns, quickly castle king’s-side behind an unmoved wall of pawns, etc etc). So, faced with this for the first time, you might be forgiven for thinking, as Black, like this:

This is obviously terrible.
Therefore, the best way to play against it will also be obvious.
The obvious way to play against it is 1…d5, discovering an attack on g4.

This results in games going like this:

Oops… Perhaps also obvious, in hindsight. What Black has done is immediately break a bunch of rules in turn, including don’t waste time grabbing pawns in the opening and never accept pawns from strange men.

Black needs to bring a bit more care to their play, for example:

1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 c6!

Now White either has to ‘waste’ a move with 3.h3 or 3.g5. Black can then play 3…e5 with a nice centre.

White isn’t busted of course; 3.g5 is a bit of a thorn in Black’s side and there’s some mileage for White in arranging d3 and e4. Mike Basman, many years ago, liked to play 3.h3 e5 4.d4!?, with ideas of an improved reversed Scandinavian after 4…exd4 and an improved reversed French after 4…e4. He tried it a couple of times in the British Championships and got pushed off the board, but he was getting pushed off the board by Miles and Keene, and that’s happened to all of us I expect.

Another approach for Black is 1…e5 with the idea of 2…h5, forcing some sort of King’s-side weakness. 2.d3! d5 3.Bg2 c6 leads to play similar to what we have seen already.

1.g3

Brian was interested in this move, which I have often played myself, and so has Graham. By playing it, White offers Black a big choice of set-ups, but by inviting Black to make a commitment, White is hoping either to prepare an awkward counter-blow, or to lure Black into playing something they don’t know, or something they do know, but an important move behind. To play like this you need to be pretty confident, either that you know enough about all the different systems that Black can try against you, or that you can work it out faster than Black.
If you have my arrogance or Graham’s experience, be my guest, but I don’t advise it for club players, and even I reserve it as a bit of a surprise weapon. There is a famous gambit/trap invented by Bent Larsen in 1959, which I introduced Charlie to:

I have a strong feeling that 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 e5 is simply equal, as long as Black is not over-ambitious, and that’s the verdict of NCO.

The Grunfeld

Jeremy asked for an introduction. This is quite a quick introduction, not enough for a lasting relationship, but maybe enough to be asked out on a date.

1. The most important line of the Grunfeld is the Exchange Variation. If that is better for White, it’s forced and forcing, so the Grunfeld would be dead. Let’s see:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3

Interesting! White has set up a big castle wall, but where are the guards? Black hopes that it will be not so much a big asset as a big target, and that is the essential Grunfeld debate. When I was a boy the main line went 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5
8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Qc7 11.Rc1 Rd8 12.h3 b6 13.f4 e6 14.Qe1 Na5
15.Bd3 f5 16.g4 …
[Spassky,B – Fischer,R [D87] Siegen (6), 1970]
and it was still a fight. There are alternatives for both sides at each move, of course, and some of these are very playable. These days Whites seem to prefer the more natural 7.Nf3, ignoring the ‘threat’ of …Bg4, and this is the line that Kramnik was so successful with. But Black players haven’t given up on it yet!

2. If White finds it too bothersome to maintain such a big centre, they can go for something smaller, but then that is less of a threat to Black. Another main line is the Russian System, which reckons on making Black give up the centre by …dxc4, and if White can re-route the awkwardly placed Queen, then White will surely be better. This was the topic in the famous Botvinnik-Fischer encounter at Varna 1962, when Fischer nearly beat the World Champion in a variation that Mikhail Moseyevitch had studied for hours. 1.c4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 0-0 7.e4 Bg4 8.Be3
Nfd7 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Rd1 Nb6 11.Qc5 Qd6 12.h3 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Rfd8 14.d5 Ne5
15.Nb5 Qf6 16.f4 Ned7 17.e5 Qxf4!
[Botvinnik,M – Fischer,R [D98] Varna (10), 1962]

3. A third approach for White is the unpretentious Classical Variation. … It’s safe enough I expect for White, but pugnacious Blacks will try to take the fight to White with lines like
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Rc1 Ne4 8.cxd5 Nxc3 9.Qd2 Qxa2 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Bc4 Nd7 12.Ne2 Ne5 13.Ba2 Bf5 [Petrosian,T – Fischer,R [D82] Buenos Aires (2), 1971]

4. A special mention should be made for the offbeat Taimanov Variation, 4.Bg5. I’m always amused by the trick in the line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6
8.Nf3 exd5 9.e3 0-0 10.b4 c6
[Ward,C (2480) – Sasikiran,K (2470) [D91] BCF-ch 85th Torquay (8), 04.08.1998]
which ends up in a formation looking like the Queen’s Gambit, Exchange Variation.

5. Another important line, at least at GM level, is the Fianchetto or Neo-Grunfeld Variation. I mention it, but as I know bother all about it, I will move on swiftly.

6. Why don’t people play the Grunfeld so much any more? I think it’s mostly fashion. The fluctuating reputations of various moves deep into the theory of the main lines are beyond me, but I don’t get the impression that there are insoluble problems for Black in any of the variations. After Topalov-Svidler, Linares 2006, people were writing the obituary of the Grunfeld, but then later that year Svidler was back with an improvement and beat Topalov at Sofia. Yes, Kramnik used to make the Exchange look like a forced win, but that’s just Kramnik being Kramnik, and it hasn’t stopped Carlsen taking up the Black side. Karpov and Kasparov played both sides of it at World Championship level, thus inventing the Seville Variation, and for a while Devon’s top 2 county players (Michael Cox and Graham Bolt) both played it as Black.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1398761
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411287
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesslike.pl?gid=1067254

I think the biggest problem with the theory of the Grunfeld is that it is so blimmin’ big! Black’s position is active and without weaknesses, there aren’t easy ways for White to steer for a safe boring plus with no Black counterplay. So, if you think you’re ahead of your opponent’s book knowledge, by all means have a go!

Livening it up against the Caro-Kann

How, asks John.

I’ve looked at enough CK over the last 10 years to be absolutely sick of it. – Peter Svidler.

We hear you, Peter!

My recommendation for a long while has been the Panov-Botvinnik Attack. It is more open and sharp than most CK players will prefer, it often leads to IQP positions which we should by now be expert in, and White’s moves are pretty easy to understand.

Q. You don’t want to mention the Gunderam Variation, do you Dave?
A. No, I really don’t.

If you’re looking for something spicier, I have seen people play various versions of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit against it:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3…

A good choice, long practised by local boy Alan Brusey, is the Fantasy Variation. NCO gives a long main line as about equal but an awful lot of ± and += along the way, and our two resident CK experts confessed to knowing nothing about it, which ought to be some sort of hint! I wrote a quick piece on this for juniors, which may be some sort of starting point:

Every mistake has two sides

Posted on by

In making notes on games, I’ve probably explained lots of chess mistakes, and why they were mistakes. I might say, this Black move is a mistake, because White now plays A, and this works because if B then C and if D then E. (Or, White should have played A, etc.)

But there is another side to each mistake, which I can’t tell anything about, but which perhaps you can, and you should try. A mistake in a chess move is also a mistake in thinking.

So, on reflection, was your mistake any of these?
1. You didn’t look for the threat – it didn’t seem that sort of position.
2. You looked for threats but you didn’t notice it
3. You saw the threat but you hoped it didn’t win
4. You saw the threat but you hoped your opponent didn’t play it
5. You misunderstood the position – you thought something was important that was not (or dismissed something that was really important)
6. You saw the threat and missed something in the analysis (really, this is going to be some variety of the first five)

So, as well as reflecting on the mechanics of a chess game and where it might have been improved, also have a think about the workings of your mind.

If you can catch yourself making a mistake in thinking, that is helpful. If you catch yourself making the same mistake fairly often, then that’s a habit you need to get out of!

Endgame workout

Posted on by

Endgames are worth taking seriously – you can get extra points and
half-points by improving your endgame play.
Some endgames turn up rather often, certainly more often than some
of the odd bits of opening theory we end up looking at sometimes.

There are bits of theory to know, but as always the thing is to test
your understanding and practise.

The things you need to know are widely available, not least from our
website, so I won’t trot through it all, just give some examples.

Endgame Theory: PRQNB

Here’s a basic K+P endgame, where you should know enough to win it
for White.

And here’s a basic R+P endgame – same again.

There are a couple of essential positions for each type of ending: PRNBQ…

As you gain more experience, you can add to your range of ‘solved’ positions.

See also:
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/queen-against-pawn
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/rook-endings-theory
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/bishop-endgames
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/double-bishop-endgames

Endgame Tactics: PRQNB

Rooks and Queens lend themselves to tactical shots.  Here are a
few:

It’s not easy to be as definitive about essential tactical knowledge; each peculiar position may harbour a new trick, or a new spin on an old one.

Endgame studies

These are pure tactics, always good for sharpening your awareness of tactical possibilities.

One of the most famous, and most instructive, is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position#History

And another, showing the wonderful co-operation between Queen and Knight:

Endgame Strategy: PRQNB

There are some general endgame principles which you should know:

3 principles (Fine)

  1. Without pawns, you must be at least a Rook ahead in order to force mate (exceptions: R+R wins against two minor pieces; four minor pieces win against a Queen)
    If you are two or more Pawns ahead the win should be routine by advancing the Pawns
    With only one Pawn advantage, you will win if you can use it to gain more material – it is not usually enough just to advance the Pawn. Often one Pawn advantage is thought to be a theoretical draw, although the practical difficulties may be very great. Winning by the advance of the Pawn may be won because it allows entry with the King, or causes distraction from one vulnerable side, or allows simplification into a known won ending.

15 general laws (Fine again)

  1. Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: avoid them!
    Passed pawns should be advanced as rapidly as possible.
    If you are one or two pawns ahead, exchange pieces but not pawns.
    If you are one or two pawns behind, exchange pawns but not pieces.
    If you have an advantage, leave pawns on both sides of the board.
    If you are just one pawn ahead, in 99 cases out of 100 the game is drawn if there are pawns on only one side of the board.
    The easiest endings to win are pure King+Pawn endings.
    The easiest endings to draw are those with opposite coloured bishops.
    The King is a strong piece: use it!
    Do not place pawns on the colour of your bishop.
    Bishops are better than knights in all except blocked pawn positions
    Two bishops vs. B&N or N&N are usually a real advantage.
    Passed pawns should not be blockaded by the king: the only piece which is not much harmed by watching over an opponent’s pawn is the knight.
    A rook on the seventh rank is worth a pawn.
    Rooks belong behind passed pawns, of your own or the opponent.

See also:
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/outside-passed-pawns

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/two-weaknesses

With this under your belt, you should then work your way through
these examples:

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/planning-endgame

Endgame Training: PRQNB

If you’ve got a computer or a chess-playing friend, then make use of
the opportunity.  I’ve just been working with an A-level
student who spent a lot of her time ‘revising’, ie. reading and
making notes, without seeing if she could get any of that
information out in the right format ie. doing past exam.
questions.  You must combine the two.

Your best single resource is the Iceland Endgame Challenge, which I
can offer you in PGN/CBV formats as well as a worksheet.  Don’t
agonise over the mate with B+N!

Everything in one book:
Yuri Averbakh, Chess Endgames: Essential Knowledge
Glenn Flear, Improve your Endgame Play *
Glenn Flear, Mastering the Endgame  *
Steve Giddins, 101 Endgame Tips
Ian Snape, Chess Endings Made Simple *
Paul Keres, Practical Chess Endings

Endgame theory: [br style=”font-weight: bold;”]
Iceland Endgame Challenge *
Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course *
Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course *
Jonathan Speelman et al. Batsford Chess Endgames
Mark Dvoretzky, Dvoretzky’s Endgame Manual (also a ChessBase CD)
Karsten Mueller Chess Endgames 1: Basic Knowledge for Beginners (DVD)

Endgame tactics:
Irving Chernev, Practical Chess Endgames *
AA Troitzky, 360 Brilliant and instructive endgames *
John Nunn, Tactical Chess Endings*
GC van Perlo, Endgame Tactics
Endgame strategy:
MI Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy
Endgame training:
Iceland Endgame Challenge: Bronze, Silver, Gold *
Bernd Rosen, Chess Endgame Training *

  • Additional positions for playing out:

Irving Chernev, Capablanca’s 60 Best Chess Endgames
Vasily Smyslov, Endgame Virtuoso
Karolyi & Alpin, Endgame Virtuoso: Anatoly Karpov
Giddins, Greatest Ever Chess Endgames

* including test exercises

How to play out exercises against a computer

1. Set ‘play against Fritz’ (ALT_A).
2. Set up a position (S)
3. Go!

Or:

1. Load a position from a database.
2. Click ‘Move Now’ (SPACEBAR)

I think this works in Fritz 5.32 and Fritz 11, although my copy of 5.32 is NBG at the moment.

Bobby Fischer against the world

Posted on by

Just been to see Bobby Fischer Against the World at the Exeter PictureHouse.

Lots to say about it (I’m a Fischer nut, but there were loads of stills I hadn’t seen, and live footage) but I mentioned one error I thought I noticed:

The breakthrough Game 3 of Spassky-Fischer was indeed notable for its unusual opening play by Fischer, but it was a defence he had played before, contrary to what I think people were saying in the film.

Not until Liz Garbus makes a film about trains or stamps will she find a more
nitpicking audience, I expect.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sWuhpsG2aU
Interview with Director Liz Garbus: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2011/06/catching-up-with-liz-garbu…
Review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jul/14/bobby-fischer-against-the-wor…
Long profile of Fischer: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/bobby-fischer-rsquo-…