Category Archives: Level

Chess from Morphy to Botwinnik by Imre Konig

Posted on by

This is one of my favourite books and though rather dated (the last game cited is from 1948) it’s also extremely instructive.

In 100 annotated games, Konig discusses the opening theory of four openings: the Ruy Lopez, Queen’s Gambit, English Opening and King’s Gambit.

It takes an evolutionary approach to chess theory, and instead of jumping straight in to contemporary theory, tells the story of how that theory came about. So we trace the English Opening from Staunton’s new(!) approach in 1843 to Golombek’s ideas in 1939.

The book can still be found in the original Bell hardback edition from 1951 and later Dover reprints. It is in descriptive notation and is sparing with its diagrams, so for my own convenience I put together a collection of the 100 games. I fear they won’t mean a lot without Konig’s notes, but if you have the book, here they are.

P.S. My interest in this book was rekindled by watching a lecture by Sokolov on the Lopez, where he went back to some games chosen by Konig to explain the state of theory.

CFM2B_IK.pgn

Basic Rook Endgames

Posted on by

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

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

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

{White to move: win.} 1-0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[White Cheron, Andre]

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

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

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

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

Tales of the Unexpected: dealing with Unorthodox Openings

Posted on by

“All openings offer good winning chances in amateur play”
— LOMBARDY.

  I used to know a Henry who was known as H4 Stewart
because of his inclination to 1.h4 as an opening move, and I’m sure
it saved him a lot of time sweating over the latest line in the
Sicilian Dragon. How should you reply to openings like this? If
faced with 1.h4, or anything else unusual, just keep playing good
chess – keep calm, keep developing, keep your eye on the centre,
and keep your wits about you.

  Let’s put a bit of detail alongside that.

  First thing is, there’s usually two games going on: the
chess and the kiddology. An unusual opening is a challenge. It may
be a trick. Depending on the move, your opponent may be thumbing
their nose at you, saying: I can beat you even with this
rubbish. You aren’t worth taking seriously.

  Unless and until you are losing, play the board, play
good chess, and play to your strengths. I’ll review this and some
of the other responses I have seen with examples.

 

Playing the first move that comes into your
head.

This is of course asking to fall into a trap. Here are two which
continue to provide good business for their perpetrators:

Blackburne’s Shilling Gambit: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Nxe5? [4.c3 Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3]
4…Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#

The Englund-Charlick Gambit: 1.d4 e5
2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4? (4.Nc3; 4.Qd5)
4…Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3 Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3
Qc1#

  Also there are numerous dodgy lines based on long
diagonal cheapos:

Grob’s Gambit: 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2
Bxg4?! (2…c6) 3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5.
Qb3 and Black may have to return two Pawns.

  N.B. The parallel Sokolsky line 1. b4 e5 2. Bb2
Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6 is nothing like so awkward for Black, and
is a good equalising try.

Morals:

Every move may have (or be given) a point.

Look before you lunch.

Expect your opponent to play the best move next move,
even if they have just played one real lemon.

  The parallel mistake in attitude is:

 

Playing any old move assuming that your
position will win itself.

This risks missing the point of your opponent’s opening – in
effect, falling into a positional trap – or perhaps overlooking
some important tactical point later. A common example of this is to
dismiss 1. h4 with a snort and then play 1…e5,
2…Nf6 and maybe something like …Bc5, …Nc6, …d6, …O-O,
only to look up and find your opponent has played b3, Bb2, e3, Ne2,
Ng3, Bd3 and you have castled into a clockwork attack. It’s
happened to better players than you! Always play with a
plan.

Lasker,Em – Bauer,I (Amsterdam) [A03],
1889. 1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3 e6 4.Bb2 Be7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Nf3 Bb7
7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne2 c5 10.Ng3 Qc7 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Qc6
13.Qe2 a6 Black has done nothing to interrupt White’s
clockwork attack 14.Nh5 Nxh5 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qxh5+ Kg8
17.Bxg7 this was the first time such a sacrifice was
played; now, we would call this part of technique 17…Kxg7
18.Qg4+ Kh7 19.Rf3 e5 White will recover his investment
with interest 20.Rh3+ Qh6 21.Rxh6+ Kxh6 22.Qd7 Bf6 23.Qxb7
Kg7 24.Rf1 Rab8 25.Qd7 Rfd8 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.fxe5 Bg7 28.e6 Rb7
29.Qg6 f6 30.Rxf6+ Bxf6 31.Qxf6+ Ke8 32.Qh8+ Ke7 33.Qg7+
1-0

Trying to punish your opponent’s play
immediately.

I do like a problem-setting style, so this is perhaps our best idea
so far, but we may walk into your opponent’s preparation. However,
you may be reassured that (a) you are probably playing moves which
are at least critical and probably best, and (b) your opponent may
rarely if ever meet this line in practice, if everyone else avoids
the main lines out of fear! This approach essentially requires that
you prepare the opening like you would the Sicilian: have some
homework done, and be prepared to think at the board.
Your problem is keeping the lines fresh in your mind if you meet a
given line rarely – which you will do unless your club has a
fanatic. So keep it simple.

  So, against the Sokolsky Opening, I once
prepared the Outflank Defence.
Brodie-Regis (Thetford Major, 1979) went
1.b4 Now 1…c6 with three ideas:
…a5, …Qb6 or simply …e5. 2.Bb2 a5!
[2…Qb6?! 3.a3 a5 4.c4 axb4 5.c5!] 3.a3 axb4
4.axb4 Rxa1 5.Bxa1 Qb6 6.Bc3? Na6 and I was already
winning a Pawn: 7. e3 Nxb4-+. If 7.Qc1 Nxb4!
8.Qb2 Nd5 9.Bxg7? Bxg7 10.Qxg7 Qxb1# Some analysis goes
6.c3 d5 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.d3= [Not 8.g3?
Qa7 9.Nh4 Be4 10.f3 Bxf3 11.Nxf3 Qxa1]. However, in the
following round Osland-Regis (Thetford Major,
1979) went 2. e3! (the theoretically recommended
reply) and I was already frowning.

  [I do like structural advantages, so I also prepared
1. g4 e5 2. Bg2 h5! Similarly, a better try for
White is 2.d3!]

  Let’s have a look at how you can go about busting
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 Damiano’s Defence. We
can say safely that this is unsound, but can you prove it?

  OK, start 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 (not
4…g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8) 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
7.Bxd5+ Kg6 winning easily. Next move? Lots of folk have
played 8.d4?? Bd6. Try instead 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7
Bd6 (9…Bxb7 10.Qf5#) 10.Qa5 Nc6 11.Bxc6
Rb8 which becomes the Five Pawn Gambit(!) if you fancy
12.Qxa7.

  So, well done, you’ve won that game, but next round your
opponent goes 3…Qe7. Now think for goodness’
sake, and don’t snap out 4.Qh5+?? g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2
Qxg6! Be satisfied with a small advantage after 4.
Nf3. So, I think you can play 3. Nxe5 with confidence:
there are two traps but they are both pretty straightforward. If
you are confident of working out the tactics at the board, them all
you need do is remember (1) 3. Nxe5 is playable, (2) there are two
traps.

  So, this is OK if you can do your homework, but keep your
powder dry – brush up on it occasionally. Also, you must accept
that, unless you are also learning some cute tactical ideas, most
of your time is going to be pretty well wasted, so keep the
time spent and the memorising done down to a minimum. Since
adopting this approach I have lost one game to an unorthodox
opening, and been in trouble against another, but have won
every other game.

  There are some very hairy gambits which you don’t need to
refute, but instead you can play conservatively and expect to
outplay your opponent thereafter. So Regis-Bax,
1982 went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5. Now Black
was all ready to snap out his analysis after the critical tactical
line 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 but he visibly slumped after
I played a positional line of Nimzovitch’s: 3. Nxe5
Qf6 (Nimzo played 4. Nc4 and eventually d2-d3) 4.
d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4. [Although this line isn’t very
sharp it is crucial for the success of the Gambit. So it is still
“theory”, but I knew the ideas and he didn’t.]

Play a known solid system

If you are faced with an unusual line in a strategical opening (and
most tactical ones) you can normally play something sensible and
survive. I remember a club game of Pete’s going 1. d4 Nf6
2. Nf3 b5!? which he met with a straight bat: 3.
Bg5 and won in about 12 moves! If we are content to try
for a minimal plus there are certain standard formations which are
playable against almost any unorthodox opening by White or Black.
They won’t refute the system you are facing but should leave you
with a playable and familiar set-up. It’s my belief that this is
the approach adopted by the majority of stronger players.

 

-+-Pp+-+
+-Pb+n+-
pP-NqPpP
R-+-+rK-
Classical approach

-+-+p+-+

+-+p+nP-
pPpNqPbP
R-+-+rK-
King’s Indian approach (or Benoni: Pc4)

-+-P-+-+
+-+-Pn+-

pPpNbPpP
R-+q+rK-
Orthodox approach (or Slav: with Pc3, Pe3)

  The exceptions are pretty obvious: you can’t nonchalantly
play …c7-c5 after b2-b4, and …Nf6 may walk into g2-g4-g5. But
you can rehearse your favourite system against most dodgy stuff
from your

opponent, and find an alternative for the exceptions.

  Oddly, if your opponent is trying to stop you
trotting out 10 moves of a standard opening by playing something
odd like 1.a4, it may be that your best response
is to do exactly that!

Playing by analogy.

One route to picking the best move is to think about transposing
into a type of position where your opponent’s odd move is
irrelevant or actually bad. Do not play routinely: pay
attention to differences. [I once caught Ben Beake in a
5-minute game with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nge2 e6 4. Bg2
Nge7 5. O-O, now Ben played the routine
5…g6? when 6. d4!, exposed the
d6 point.]

  For example, how do you respond to 1.
a4? It depends on what you play ordinarily, but try
1…e5. Now, in most lines of standard defences to
1.e4, Back never plays 1…a5 and often wants to play 1…a6 –
think about the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian Defence.
The only line of the Reversed Ruy I can think of where you
can make a virtue of 1. a4 is the cheapo 1.a4 e5 2.e4 Nf6
3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Na2?! hoping for4…Ba5
(4…Be7) 5.b4 Bb6 6.a5 Bd4 7.c3,
although I wouldn’t be ready to resign just yet after 7…Bxf2+
8.Kxf2 Nxe4+! The only defence I can think of where Black
actually want to play 1…a5 is a line of the French Advance
(1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 a5, and even
then it’s not the best move!), so as long as you don’t insist
on a reversed version of that you should be OK.

  But see what we are doing here: we are taking the exact
position in front of us seriously, we are weighing up the
advantages and disadvantages of our opponent’s moves, and we are
playing chess and not kiddology. (My Dad has this lovely term
persaudo-intellectual, which is how he pronounces
pseudo.)

Lessons from Anand

Posted on by

Anand’s easy manner sits on top of a breathtaking attacking verve and capacity for creative counterplay.

Opening

The imaginative attacking finish seems to belong to an earlier era, while the opening play is all modern. The Scandinavian leads to an early release of central tension, and, if Black can develop smoothly, will have no problems. This line is an attempt to prevent Black from developing smoothly, and no end of rule-breaking goes on to that end.

Not sure if this is exactly encouraging, but the TN on move 23 below shows just how deep opening preparation has become. Anand has a reputation for being a little lazy, but I suggest his is the sort of talent that doesn’t need a lot of work to maintain, and his output of Theoretical Novelties was prodigious. That one was computer-generated, but what if your opponent owns a computer too? Then, among the GMs, the knack was to
try and find a move that your opponent’s computer was likely to misjudge! That is, one where the surface features said one thing, but the longer-term play said another. (Nowadays, says Karjakin, “the idea is to get a playable position and maintain the tension”.)

I doubt that is the record for the latest TN!

Middlegame

Kramnik points out Anand’s skill with Knights attacking on the King’s-side. The long-range power of Queens Rooks and Bishops can take a while to develop, while the dancing Knights can quickly overload a King’s defences.

Anand’s talent for the game has scarcely dulled with age. Caruana fancied his chances on the King’s-side in the next game, but suddenly the position exploded in his face. Kramnik also notes Anand’s endless capacity for finding counterplay; this may be a good example!

Endgame

To win the endgame, you must create a passed pawn.

Opposite coloured bishops draw? By themselves, yes, but when they have pieces to cooperate with, they are hard to resist!

Is there luck in chess?

Posted on by

From The Master Game, Book 2, Jeremy James and William Hartston (1981). London: BBC.

‘Chess,‘ said the Dutch grandmaster, Jan Hein Donner, ‘is as much a game of chance as blackjack; or tossing cards into a top hat.‘

There was a pained silence, then a polite babel of disagreement: it was a game of the utmost skill; a conflict between disciplined minds in which victory would inexorably go to the more perceptive, the more analytical player; a duel of the intellect in which luck played no part. Donner shrugged, lit another cigarette and said: ‘Believe that if you like.‘

Bent Larsen smiled the smile of a man who had heard his friend air such iconoclastic arguments in the past but was quite happy to contest them again, when the score of the fifth game of the World Championship match between Karpov and Korchnoi was brought in. Both men pulled out of their inside pockets the wallet sets all grandmasters seem to carry at all times and began to skim through the moves.

It happened that the teleprinter tape had been torn off after Karpov’s 54th move as Black […]. They studied the position for a few moments, mated Karpov in four moves and were surprised when another whole sheet of moves was brought from the teleprinter.

When they saw Korchnoi’s 55th move – Be4+ – Larsen’s eyebrows went up.

‘There you are,‘ Donner said, quietly and without triumph as though some self-evident truth had been revealed, ‘pure luck‘.

Assess your chess

Posted on by

I am occasionally asked, “What’s the best way to improve my chess?”. Other than practice, I warmed to Kenneth Sloan’s reply to a similar query on the newsgroups:

[cool tip]Article 9288 in rec.games.chess.misc:
Subject: Re: Best Quick Study??
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Date: 22 Jun 1996 15:00:58 -0500
Organization: Dept of CIS, Univ. of Al at Birmingham

Annotate your last 20 tournament games.
—
Kenneth Sloan

In a book by Dan Heisman called The Improving Annotator he attributes his success to self-study of this sort. If Kenneth’s advice seems not enough to go on, here are some things to look for.

 I think you must look at your games as a whole bunch. It’s no use playing over your best games and looking to see what else needs to be improved, you have to look more at your losses. I know some players who will screw up a score sheet when they lose to a weaker player, when what they should do is go over it move by move, however painful. Soltis’ classification of errors is given below.

  You actually can get a lot of informal, qualitative evidence about your play from your opponent in a “post mortem” after a game. Don’t ever use these to brag, or show how much more you saw – the idea is to learn, not play another game!

 Even better is if you can persuade your local ‘expert’ to have a look at a couple of games that you really didn’t understand – perhaps games where you were sure you were better at some stage but lost.

  Many folk these days have a computer:
Chess-playing programmes can help particularly with looking for tactical shots that you (or your opponent) missed, and checking your ideas and suggesting alternatives. They can miss some good ideas which are just outside their “horizon”, so do push them a move or two along a line if you still think it looks good.
For strategical ideas, database programmes with opening/position searches can help you find games with similar positions, to see what plans are commonly followed in positions like yours.
The free ChessBase demo is able to do both, and I use it for these purposes after every game.

 In Exeter we often use our own games as the basis for discussion in our coaching sessions – we aren’t experts but a second or third opinion can be very illuminating.

Taking stock

Simon Webb, in his excellent Chess for Tigers, has some helpful suggestions for looking at collections of games, by compiling some data to look for patterns. I have extended his account slightly below. The point is, by facing the facts in this way you don’t get a chance to make excuses, and you may spot something that you hadn’t realised before – e.g. that you don’t do very well in an opening that you always thought was right up your street.

Taking stock of your openings

Draw up a table of your games, showing firstly, the outcome of the opening (e.g. +/- or =), and secondly, the outcome of the game (1-0, 1/2 etc.).

_OpeningGame ResultAll
_+-=-+1-01/20-1
Ruy Lopez3422428
Petroff0100101
Open Sicilian25353210
Closed Sicilian0200112
French0110022
Pirc/Modern2103003
Alekhin0100101
TOTAL8145911727

Conclusions:

  1. Ruy Lopez not too successful – maybe try something sharper?
  2. Play well in open Sicilians but must learn more theory
  3. Don’t understand French – must find decent line

During middle-game

typemy position:improved a lotimproved a bitremained about the samegot a bit worsegot much worsetotal
PositionalOpen1252212
_Semi-Open47174133
_Closed0493318
TacticalAttack on King5976633
_Defence of King1354215
_Wild tactics3423113
Middle-game without Queens_0271010
Late middle-game_1497324

N.B. one game may feature as more than one type as it progresses

Conclusions:

  1. Semi-Open positions and tactical positions in general seem to suit me: when there’s an attack on the King or a melee I can often outplay my opponent.
  2. However, in simpler positions and positions without Queens I seem more likely to lose the plot; this is also true of closed positions.
  3. I must study the strategy of the closed positions I get into more thoroughly, and during play must not get complacent in apparently simple positions.

Endgames

_Estimated theoretical resultActual game result
_1-01/20-11-01/20-1All
King and Pawn1101102
Rook3113205
Rook and minor piece2221236
Knights only1001001
Bishops only0100011
Bishops and Knights1231146
Queen0100011

N=22

Conclusions:

The basic King and Rook endings seem handled well, but endings with minor pieces (with or without Rooks) look suspect. Moreover, half the Bishop/Knight endings were probably lost before I had a chance to play – I must see these situations coming earlier.

time-trouble table:

whowhat happened
_my position got worsenormal resultopponent’s position got worse
me362
opponent422
both254

N where i was in TT = 22

Conclusions:

I play OK in time-trouble and the % of games where I get in TT is not too bad. But I am not getting any benefit from my opponent’s time trouble – am I trying to rush them into making mistakes, instead of paying attention to the position?

I hope you get the idea.

 N.B.
statistics like these can be enhanced by consideration of grades, if you have enough games. In BCF terms, you should turn in an extra 10% of avalable points for every 10 points your grade exceeds the average of your opposition. So, scoring 4/5 against 120-grade opposition is no more than a par performance for a player of grade 150. Equally, if you are outgraded by an average of 30 points a game, but make a 40% score, this is a very good performance, as you could have fairly expected only 20%.

 For ELO, I think a superiority of 400 points should yield a harvest of an extra 25% of points viz. 75%.

Error analysis

Without mistakes, there can be no brilliancies, said Lasker. Actually, without mistakes there wouldn’t be any decisive games at all. What mistakes do you make? Vladimir Zak described “typical mistakes by young players”:

  • Hasty moves, and, inconsequence, blunders
  • Learning openings without understanding the ideas
  • Reliance on general principles, without a concrete plan
  • Underestimating the opponent’s combinative chances
  • Disparity between aggressive and defensive ability
  • Miscalculating variations and combinations
  • Inadequate knowledge of basic endgames
  • Implementing the wrong strategic plan
  • The problem of the clock in practical play

Andrew Soltis has classified mistakes in a more detailed way, as follows below: do you make some of these more than others? [I have collected a whole bunch of errors in the Canon.]

  • Tactical errors
    • allowing mate
    • removal of defender
    • double attack in defence
    • faulty tactics
    • weakening castled King’s position
    • overlooking checks
    • overestimating checks
    • overlooking back rank threats
    • ditto, long diagonals
  • Mishandling Pieces
    • development
    • offside piece
    • unccordinated pieces
    • faulty exchanges
    • queen exchange
    • temporary invasion
    • castling into it
    • wrong Rook
  • Analysis
    • faulty assumptions
    • oversights
    • missing bottom line
    • faulty sequence
    • overlooking quiet moves
    • missing desperado
    • stopping analysis one move short
  • Positional errors
    • bad Bishops
    • creating holes
    • backward Pawns
    • opening lines
    • King’s-side advance
    • permitting Pawn advances
  • Strategic errors
    • neglect of centre
    • wrong side
    • onesided
    • unjustified attack
    • failed restraint
    • reduce tension
    • counterplay
    • poor timing
    • passivity
    • giving winning plan
  • Attitude
    • trying for too much
    • changing fortunes
    • letting down
    • believing opponent
    • peer pressure
    • vacillation
    • monomania
    • dogmatism
    • draw-mindedness
    • frustration
  • Practical mistakes
    • hallucination
    • long moves on a big board
    • pretty moves
    • getting fancy
    • overfinessing
    • Lasker’s law
    • missed opportunities
    • bad moves in bad positions
    • desperation and surrender
    • greed
    • negative sacrifice

Point Count Chess

In assessing your games a checklist of points from Horowitz’ Point Count Chess might be useful

  1. Plus Points
    1. Control of the centre
    2. Pawn on fourth rank vs. Pawn on third
    3. Mobile pawn wing
    4. Strong outpost station
    5. Superior development
    6. Greater space
    7. Bishop-pair
    8. Half-open file
    9. Control of useful open file
    10. Rook(s) on the seventh rank
    11. Passed Pawn
    12. Outside Passed Pawn
    13. Protected Passed Pawn
    14. Advanced Pawn
    15. Qualitative Pawn majority
    16. Advanced chain
    17. Advanced salient
    18. Better King position
    19. Offside Pawn majority
  2. Minus Points
    • Weak Pawns
      1. Backward Pawn
      2. Doubled pawn
      3. Isolated Pawn
      4. Hanging Pawns
      5. Hanging phalanx
      6. Crippled majority wing
    • Weak Squares
      1. “Weak square complex”
      2. Holes
      3. Compromised King’s-side
      4. King held in the centre
      5. Cramped position
      6. Bad Bishop

By adding and subtracting points they say you can assess who has the advantage. They also say that five points is a win!

  This whole scheme is impossible to remember and obviously formulaic. The value of the book is really to introduce you to the ideas and how to exploit each sort of advantage.

  A more practical way of doing the same thing is to compare pairs of pieces: compare my King and my opponent’s King, then my Queen and my opponent’s Queen, etc., thereby assessing who stands better.

  Another nice suggestion (which I associate with Chernev) is to add up the legal moves available to the pieces on each side. You can also add up the territory you control: the squares behind your Pawns.

  Another sequence to go through:
to know what plan to follow, look carefully

 To           Tactics: before anything else, see if the game can be decided
                right now!
 Know         King position: mostly in terms of safety, but also near centre
                for endgame
 What         Weaknesses: weak pawns and weak squares (variety as above)
 Plan to      Piece position: centralised or offside, bad Bishop etc.
 Follow,      Forcing moves: tempo, initiative, possibility of breakthrough
 Look         Lines: files, diagonals, ranks; control, or can you open one?
 Carefully    Centre and space

Now, I can remember that a whole lot better than all the point count stuff!

Studies and problems

Posted on by

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

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

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

 

Chess problems

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

SOLUTION

1. Kb1 b4

2. Bc1 b5

3.Rd2 Kf4

4. Rd4 mate

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

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

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

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

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

  (a) S.Loyd 1869

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

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

  (b) R Smullyan ’57

Where is the wK?

 

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

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

 

ANSWERS

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

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

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

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

 

Problem contacts:

The Problemist

British Chess Problem Society

  Secretary CAH Russ

  76 Albany Drive

  Herne Bay

  KENT CT6 8JS

Problem Observer

Chess studies

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Curios

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

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

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Bob Silverman wrote:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

Authors of openings books

Posted on by

Ah, so easily done: the unobserved transposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correspondence openings

Posted on by

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

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

I replied:

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

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

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

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

James added:

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

I replied:

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

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

Opening Books to help a solid Black player

Posted on by

Pete Henderson writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Pete enquired further:

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

I replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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