Category Archives: Level

Lessons from Nunn

Posted on by

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

Opening

Some of that dry wit:

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

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

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

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

— NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

Middlegame

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

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

And a little bit deeper: after move 10 by White

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

Endgame

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

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

A typical observation from his oeuvre:

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

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

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

Lessons from Timman

Posted on by

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

Opening

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

Middlegame

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

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

And a sprightly attack with some very unobvious moves@

Endgame

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

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

Lessons from Euwe

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.  Alekhin’s chess can be admired, but it is not easily imitated!

Nunn comments on Alekhin:

“I first came across Alekhine’s collection of games when I was about 11 years old.  Up to that point, I had been quite successful in junior events and I had the feeling that chess wasn’t really a very difficult game. After playing over all 220 games in the first two volumes (covering the periods 1905-23 and 1924-37), I thought “How can anyone play like this? It’s just impossible to see so much during a game!”. I was particularly struck by his game against Rubinstein from Semmer­ing, 1926 (game 42 in this book), and the move 15…Nxf2! in particular. It seemed incredible that there might be a stronger move than the obvious recapture on c3, but after having checked the analysis several times, I had to admit that taking on f2 was a forced win. But how did this move even enter Alekhine’s head? Today, finding this combination doesn’t seem so totally impossible as it did then, but it remains an enormously impressive game. In my opinion Alekhine’s special gen­ius lay in his ability to discover unexpected twists in positions where a lesser  player would have made an automatic, conventional move. Other examples of such twists, in addition to the 15…Nxf2 mentioned above, are the move 19 Qc7! in game 31 and the idea of 18 dxe5 and 19 Qf4! in game 47.” John Nunn

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

Posted on by

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 Carlsen

Posted on by

Carlsen often seems to win without doing anything in particular, but doing it very well. Commentators have tried to explain his peculiar gift by appealing to ‘nettlesome’ moves, moves that have no obvious dangers, but perhaps are surprisingly awkward to meet.

Opening

Carlsen, particularly when younger, has been noted more for his avoidance of sharp and theoretical lines, than having signature opening systems. He often seems content to aim for a ‘normal’ White plus in the opening, hoping to build on it later on, particularly in blitz. Nonetheless, he has often embraced some deep theory, and his defence of his title against Caruana owed much to the Sveshnikov Sicilian.

‘Only’ a blitz game?  Commercial pressures mean that the top players have to  engage each other more often at speed, and Carlsen has been, if anything, more dominant at blitz play than classical.

Middlegame

Carlsen plays with a subtlety few can match or understand, but sometimes he plays a game where the themes are clearer.  Here he is demonstrating the d5 outpost in a modern setting, the Maroczy Bind, and the virtues of the French Defence.

 

 

 

Endgame

Carlsen has taken endgame grinding to a new level; everyone is scared of his ability to find tiny improvements and niggles that add up to a win, at least in practical play. Perhaps some of these endgames are drawn on paper, but chess, it should be noted, is played on a board.  Offered without notes, as a study in pure will to win:

 

Here’s one showing the two Bishops in a position where the Knights didn’t look too badly off — in fact, some commentators dismissed it as drawn.

 

Here is a brisk and more straightforward effort. White’s pawn advances on the King’s-side made them vulnerable, and Black abandoned the Queen’s-side to attack them. Black then invested two Rooks for the Queen: often the Rooks are better, but with White’s King exposed and with more than one pawn to tease White with, the Queen was boss.

 

Ratings, levels and titles

Posted on by
USCF Category USCF Rating Approx. FIDE Approx. ECF Elo
Senior Master 2400+ 2350–2450 2350–2450
National Master 2200+ 2100–2250 2100–2250
Expert 2000–2199 1900–2100 1900–2100
Candidate Master (CM) 2000+ (title) 1900–2100 1900–2100
Class A 1800–1999 1700–1900 1700–1900
Class B 1600–1799 1500–1700 1500–1700
Class C 1400–1599 1300–1500 1300–1500
Class D 1200–1399 1100–1300 1100–1300
Under 1200 0–1199 0–1100

0–1100

What makes a difference?

Posted on by

“There is really only one mistake in chess – underestimating your opponent”  — TARTAKOWER

I found this session hard to prepare, and might try again! I have tried to find mistakes that are typical of a certain level of player – that is, mistakes of a characteristic kind, that better players no longer (or only rarely) make.

The hope is that these are the sorts of error most easily avoided. This document is subject to two caveats:

  1. All chessplayers make mistakes all the time. Moreover, you cannot extract a win from a position by effort alone, or the application of only your genius, your opponent must make a mistake.
  2. There are some mistakes that everybody makes. These probably include misjudging (or simply failing to spot) combinations and other opportunities, attacking without justification, inadequate technique, and thinking only for yourself.

So, mistakes are inevitable, but to be worked on – for example, try to eliminate one-move mistakes, then two-movers, and so on. I’m sure becoming more efficient or more consistent would for most of us result in a rise in grade without any great new insights being gained.

I originally started out trying to find examples of good ideas unique to each level (e.g. to find a good move by a Major player that a Minor player couldn’t have found) but this was much harder. Instead, I have given in the County player section, examples that we might all aspire to, and also offer a ‘good’ game for each lower level (“the player at their best”) which shows decent play using ideas which we may be able to see at all levels.

Books with annotated amateur games

Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur, Euwe and Meiden

The Amateur’s Mind, Jeremy Silman

The Improving Annotator, Dan Heisman

Thinkers’ Chess, Stephan Gerzadowicz (Correspondence games)

Magazines: Rabbits Review, Chess Circuit, Popular Chess

Minor BCF 80-100 (1240-1400 ELO)

The games of Minor players are often marred by tactical oversights, and the games are often decided that way. Is there any point in commenting further? Yes, because of two very important reasons:

  1. firstly, Alexander’s observation that blunders only occur in losing positions (not always, but more than a grain of truth), and
  2. secondly, that there are other things about their games which could be improved by greater understanding, even while blunders may appear.

In the opening, development is often started well and general rules are followed (e.g. move each piece once) but is at times too straightforward and is not always complete. After this the game may appear episodic, with not all the pieces being used to effect. In the endgame there may be some caution about using the King and theory is often not properly understood, but can win and advance pawns properly.

{D} Minor BCF 80-100 (1240-1400 ELO)

The games of Minor players are often marred by tactical oversights, and the games are often decided that way. Is there any point in commenting further? Yes, because of two very important reasons:

  •   firstly, Alexander’s observation that blunders only occur in losing positions (not always, but more than a grain of truth), and
  •   secondly, that there are other things about their games which could be improved by greater understanding, even while blunders may appear.

In the opening, development is often started well and general rules are followed (e.g. move each piece once) but is at times too straightforward and is not always complete. After this the game may appear episodic, with not all the pieces being used to effect. In the endgame there may be some caution about using the King and theory is often not properly understood, but can win and advance pawns properly.

The Minor player at their best:

The Minor Player at work in the Opening

The Minor Player at work in the Middle Game

The Minor Player at work in the Endgame

 

Good reading for Minor players:

An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Player – Keene/Levy

Chess Openings for Juniors and Attacking the King – John Walker

Logical Chess – Irving Chernev

Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge – Averbach

Winning Endgames – Tony Kosten

Winning Chess – Chernev/Reinfeld

{C} Intermediate BCF 100-120 (1400-1560 ELO)

Intermediate players are usually pretty efficient – solid, get their pieces out properly, play sensibly against odd moves and have mastered the King’s-side hack. There is a tendency to adopt fortress-like defensive blockades in the middle-game, and may overlook unobvious moves, or tactics in quiet positions. They know basic book wins in the endgame but may only defend rather than seeking counterplay.

The Intermediate player at their best:

The Intermediate Player at work in the Opening

The Intermediate Player at work in the Middle Game

The Intermediate Player at work in the Endgame

Good reading for Intermediate players:

Repertoire books e.g. Winning with…

Think/Play like a Grandmaster – Kotov

Rate Your Endgame – Mednis/Crouch

Test Your Chess IQ (Book 1) – Livshitz

The Middle Game (I/II) – Euwe and Kramer

Simple Chess – Michael Stean

{B} Major BCF 120-150 (1560-1800 ELO)

Major players usually have a well-worked-out opening repertoire and can set their opponents problems in each phase of the game. Even 200-grade players cannot dismiss the better Major contenders as easy prey.

There are standard plans and “clockwork” attacks which the Major player understands and plays well. Where a solid formation is adopted there is usually also a view to some flexibility and keeping the pieces at least potentially active. They will seek counterplay and know how to limit the play of their opponents. They usually notice all the relevant features of the position even if they choose the wrong move/plan.

The Major player at their best:

The Major Player at work in the Opening

The Major Player at work in the Middle Game

The Major Player at work in the Endgame

Good reading for Major players:

Specialist monographs e.g. The Complete…

Practical Chess Endings – Keres

Batsford Chess Endings – Speelman et al.

Secrets of Grandmaster Play – Nunn/Griffiths

Reading as for intermediate players too.

{A} County BCF 150-180 (1800-2040 ELO)

The County player is an alert player of openings – they will often know some of the theory outside their own repertoire, and play their own lines with some depth – in fact, they play any sort of position pretty well.

They are beginning to master the art of analysis, being able to sustain assessment of a main line with variations throughout a tactical game, and in complex positions can isolate a theme and crystallise it. They defend much better than weaker players and swindle well.

In the endgame they do know a bit of theory, and can calculate well enough to improvise a strategy for unknown positions. How often I have embarked optimistically on a slightly worse endgame against county-strength players, only to be ground down without mercy. I often feel there are three games to be played at this level before you can secure the whole or half- point: once in the opening, middle and endgame.

Obviously there are still things that separate the lower from the higher (approaching 200) boards of county teams: things like judging positions on their merits rather than by analogy, and the coordination of their pieces. And of course, all the common threads (depth of analysis, thinking for the opponent, knowledge of theory) can all be expected to be stronger in the better player.

The County player at their best:

The County Player at work in the Opening

The County Player at work in the Middle Game

The County Player at work in the Endgame

Glossary

Posted on by

“The meaning is the use” – WITTGENSTEIN

More than most of these pages, this represents work in progress, and particularly your corrections, additions, and examples in PGN are invited!

I don’t think it needs a search facility: it’s not very long and you can use the one in your browser.

I’m gradually adding examples: Example means I’ve got one, example? means I’d like one. Games in handouts are usually also in the Canon.

I started this a long time ago when browsing through Tartakower and du Mont’s 500 Master games of chess, mostly because they kept throwing in different terms for various sorts of sacrifices. If you know other good sources, please let me know!

An international glossary is to be found in Hooper and Whyld’s Companion.

Caveats: There is little or nothing from the problem world, nor from Euwe and Kramer (e.g. their classification of pawn structures), nor from Kmoch.

Credits: the rec.games.chess.* FAQ, books above.

Glossary and Acronyms:

:
– Example:

accept:
to take e.g. an offered pawn – Example: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 is the King’s Gambit Accepted. Antonym: declined.

accumulation of advantages (accumulation theory):
an approach to positional play, seen in Steinitz, where one advantage is used to secure another, or at least is held while another is sought. Examples in the Strategy/Themes section of the Canon by Steinitz.

active defence:
defence involving some form of counterattacking method – either by attacking elsewhere, or by attacks against the opponents’ attacking pieces. Example in the Defence section of the Canon.

advantage:
to have more of a chessboard asset – material or positional (time, space, mobility, Pawn skeleton) Examples all over the Canon.

AI =

Artificial Intelligence

amaurosis scachistica:
chess blindness (oversight), described ironically as a disease by Dr. Tarrasch. There is a superb example from Krogius in the Errors section of the Canon.

analysis:
usually an examination of variations Examples in the Analysis section of the Canon.

anti-positional:
against good strategical principles, as opposed to being a tactical oversight; Fischer famously described the Winawer Variation as “anti-positional“, as it gives up the good Bishop and weakens the King’s-side.

artificial castling, or castling by hand:
to exchange positions of king and rook by other means than normal castling e.g. by playing Ke1-f2, Rh1-e1,Kf2-g1 as in the main line of the Benko Gambit.

artificial manoeuvre:
trying a bit too hard, or making an odd use of pieces. Simple examples might include blockading a pawn with a Q or developing the Rook by h2-h4 and Rh1-h3. Capablanca’s style was the opposite of artificial – his games have a natural, graceful feel which is easy to recognise (but hard to do).

attack:
to move with a threat e.g. so that an opponent’s piece may be taken; more generally, to move pieces towards e.g. the king’s side in the hope of mate. Also used to describe some opening systems initiated by White, e.g. King’s Indian Attack.

back rank:
the rank behind your Pawns. After castling the King’s movement forward is often blocked by Pawns on the f,g and h files, and if the Rooks are played forwards you may fall into a back rank mate. In order to avoid this, players may create Luft (airhole) by a move like h2-h3. There are examples of back rank mates in the Tactics section of the Canon.

bad bishop:
a bishop hemmed in by its own pawns, on the same colour squares. Examples in the Bishops handout (and in the Canon).

BCE =

Basic Chess Endings

BCF =

British Chess Federation

BCO =

Batsford Chess Openings

bind:
a grip on the position, usually held by Pawns, e.g. the Maroczy bind.

black (white) square weaknesses:
having holes on the black squares. Examples include Bernstein-Mieses and Znosko-Borovsky vs. Mackenzie in the Strategy/Themes section of the Canon.

black square complex:
a network of black squares. Examples include Bernstein-Mieses and Znosko-Borovsky vs. Mackenzie in the Strategy/Themes section of the Canon.

blockade:
usually of pawns – a pawn may be blockaded by an enemy piece or pawn standing in front of it. The same effect may be achieved by good control of the square in front of it so that it would be taken without compensation if it advanced. example?

blockaded pawn:
a pawn where the square in front is occupied (or strongly controlled) by opposing pieces. An isolated pawn on c6 can be blockaded by Nc5; there are lots of examples in the Pawn mobility handout.

blunder:
an oversight; the Tactics section of the Canon is full of them.

break (pawn break):
a Pawn move with the hope or intention of opening lines, particularly files. In blocked positions like the French Defence it’s important to organise your own pawn break.

break-up sacrifice:
a sacrifice to disrupt the defences e.g. Bxh6, gxh6, an example of which can be found in the Attacking section of the Canon.

breakthrough:
the breaching of an apparently secure formation, often with sacrifice of material, as in the Pillsbury-Lasker game in the French Defence.

building a bridge:
Nimzovitch’s description of how to win the Lucena position (q.v.) in a Rook ending.

candidate move:
a move considered as a starting point in the analysis of variations. The term was made popular by Kotov’s classic Think Like a GM, the first chapter of which has been very influential; there are some examples in theAnalysis section of the Canon.

candidate:
a Pawn that may be promoted; also, a player in competition to become the challenger for the world championship(s). See tha game Marshall-Capablanca in the handout on Pawn mobility.

CC =

correspondence chess (also known as postal chess, although e-mail chess is catching up!)

centralisation:
to move pieces towards the centre – a good idea if there is no obvious alternative plan. Example in the Strategical Themes section of the Canon.

centre:
the central four squares e4/d4/e5/d5 or the sixteen squares including these and those next to them.

clearance sacrifice:
see vacating sacrifice

close game or closed opening:
often slow, partly blocked positions, often arising from e.g. 1. d4 d5, with locked chains of pawns. There are several examples discussed in the Pawn formations handout.

combination:
a forcing sequence involving threats (of capture, check and/or mate), probably involving a sacrifice. There are examples in the Tactics and Attacking sections of the Canon.

complementary sacrifice:
a sacrifice which follows up a previous sacrifice – e.g. the double bishop sacrifice Bxh7/Bxg7, or two others like Rxf6/Nxh7 (See Lasker-Bauer)

concentric:
towards the centre

conjugate squares (coordinate squares):
squares on which Kings have the relation of distant opposition, possibly complicated by intervening Pawns of either colour example?

connected pawn:
a Pawn with a Pawn on an adjacent file; a group of connected pawns form a pawn island. There is a nice example from Capa in the handout On manoeuvres, and another from Karpov in the style section of the Canon.

consolidating manoeuvre:
to shore up a point e.g. Re8, Qe7, Nf6-d7 to protect e5.

control of centre:
the controlling influence of one side over the central squares. See the rules for openings, and the opening section and under centralisation sections in the Canon. The hypermoderns pointed out that need not mean its occupation.

cooperation/coordination:
a general term used to describe the way pieces work togther – for example, in an endgame, Q+N coordinate better than Q+B, a circumstance in which it is no disadvantage to have a Knight while the opponent has a Bishop (see minor exchange). There are some nice examples of coordination in the Strategy/Themes section of the Canon.

cramp:
lack of mobility. See the examples on Space in Strategy/Themes section of the Canon.

cross-check:
a check in reply to a check, typical of Queen endings (See the second Nimzo game in the handout On Manoeuvres.)

decentralise:
to move away from the centre, often an anti-positional move. There are examples in the handouts on Bishops Italian Game.

decisive:
a move which alters or makes certain the result of a game: a decisive move may make an advantageous position a winning one, a decisive error may lose the advantage, or the game. Examples are to be found in the handout on Planning, and Kotov’s Think Like a GM.

decline:
to leave an offered pawn or piece, e.g. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 is the King’s Gambit Declined. Antonym: accept

decoy:
a diversion, as in the model game Morphy-Meek.

decoy sacrifice:
a sacrifice to remove a piece, e.g. to play Ba5 when …Qc7xa5 means that the K will lack an important defender (see decoy)

defence:
to move to defend against an threat, e.g. to protect a piece that is attacked; more generally, a period of the game where the player is meeting and anticipating threats during an attack. Also used for opening systems chosen by Black, e.g. King’s Indian Defence. There is a section in the Canon on Defence.

deflection:
to distract a piece or pawn away from a task [example?]

deflecting sacrifice:
a sacrifice to deflect a defending piece e.g. to play Re1-e4 to deflect a Black Qb4 away from attacking b2. example?

denuding sacrifice:
a sacrifice to strip away defending pawn shield e.g. Bxh6 from the Attack section of the Canon.

development:
the bringing-out of pieces at the start of the game – one of the aims of the opening . Examples in the Openings Canon.

diagonal:
the chain of squares of the same colour running diagonally across the board: a1-h8 and a7-g1 are diagonals example?

diagonal mate:
mate where the decisive check is delivered along a diagonal, as in Fool’s mate 1. g4 e5 2. f4 Qh4#

discovered attack:
to attack by moving a piece or pawn out of the way of a line-piece such as rook, bishop or queen. 1.e4 discovers an attack on b5 and h5. There are examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

discovered check:
to deliver check by moving a piece or pawn out of the way of a line-piece such as rook, bishop or queen. There are examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

disjunction:
separation of pieces or pawns example?

dislodging manoeuvre:
a move to upset a defensive formation example?

disorganisation:
where pieces fail to protect key squares or each other, the opposite of coordination. See the booklet on Italian Game.

distant opposition:
Kings separated by more than one rank (or file) but which still have the relation of opposition e.g. Kings on g1 and g5. See also the booklet on King and pawn endings.

distant/outside passed Pawn:
a passed Pawn on the other side of the board from the defending King or other pieces – usually winning in a King and Pawn ending [example?]

diversionary sacrifice:
sacrifice in order to decoy [example?]

double (of Pawns):
to force enemy Pawns to become doubled, as in the booklet on Pawn mobility.

doubled Pawns:
Pawns on the same file, often one obstructing the other, as in the booklet on Pawn mobility.

double (of Rooks):
Rooks on the same file; if the Queen is also on that file the major pieces are tripled. We can see doubling in the handout on Rooks, tripling in the one on Pins.

double attack:
to attack two pieces at the same time with one move; 1.e4 attacks d5 and f5. Chernev and Reinfeld say that this is one of the two central themes of tactical play (the other being concentration of force). Lots of examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

double Bishop sacrifice:
two complementary Bishop sacrifices, e.g. on g7 and h7, as in the famous game Lasker-Bauer.

double check:
check from two pieces at once, always obliging a King move. Examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

double fianchetto:
both Bishops developed in fianchetto, as the Hypermodern Reti was fond of doing.

double Rook sacrifice:
typically to allow a Queen to play …Qxa1+, K moves, Qxh1, hoping to decoy the Queen away from defence. The Immortal Game features such a sacrifice, included in the attacking section of the Canon.

DT =

Deep Thought

DT II =

Deep Thought; next version

eccentric development:
moving a piece to an unusual square e.g. Ng1-h3.

ECO =

Encylopedia of Chess Openings

elimination sacrifice:
a sacrifice to remove an important defender e.g. …Rc8xNc3. Compare with examples of ‘removing the guard’ from the Tactics section of the Canon, which are without sacrifices.

ELO =

rating using Prof. Arpad Elo’s rating system

en prise:

in a position to be taken

endgame:
a game where several pairs of pieces have been exchanged, probably including the Queens, and where play is concerned not with checkmate or tactics as much as with gaining, and promoting, Pawns. See Endgame Handouts.

equilibrium/balance of position:
an equal but not lifeless position is in balance or equilibrium; if this is not disturbed the correct result should be a draw. However, unduly slow or unduly rash moves may disturb the balance and give the opponent the advantage. See latitude of the draw.

error:
a mistake in analysis or assessment; a gross oversight is called a blunder. There is a section on errors in the Canon.

exchange:
exchange is used in two senses – to swap off for equal material, or unequal material. To lose the exchange usually means to lose rook for bishop. The minor exchange refers to the loss of bishop for knight, but this is not always a disadvantage. [example?]

extended fianchetto:
to fianchetto with e.g. b3 and Ba3. Also used for fianchetto with b4 and Bb2. [example?]

F-S II =

Fischer-Spassky match held Sept-Nov ’92 (Fischer won 10-5)

fairy chess:
chess with newly invented pieces, usually seen in studies but can be played as a new game. [example?]

family check:
a check with other pieces attacked at the same time e.g. to play Nc7+ with Black Ke8, Ra8, Qd5. There is an example in Capablanca-Treybal in the handout On manoeuvres and in the Canon.

fianchetto:
to develop a bishop to the long diagonal by e.g. b3 and Bb2.

FIDE =

Federation Internationale des Echecs

file:
the columns of squares, e.g. a1-a8 is the a-file (Queen’s Rook file)

fixed:
obstructed or restrained: see the Pawn formations handout.

flank opening:
slower openings aiming at control of the centre rather than its occupation – for White, this includes the English (1.c4), Reti (1.Nf3), and Catalan (1.d4,2.c4,3.g3) openings. See the handout on the hypermoderns.

flight square:
a square available for a King to move to. If a King has no flight squares, a check may give mate. See my game against Terry GRAY in the Defence section of the Canon.

FM =

FIDE Master

force (noun):
loosely, material. Chernev anbd Reinfeld see this as the other great defining theme of tactical play. See the model game by Kasparov in the Canon.

fork:
to attack two pieces, usually with a knight e.g. Nf7 attacking Qd8 and Rh8. Examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

fortress:
a defensive blockade, keeping out the enemy forces, especially the King. One of the earliest known examples is the fortress White Kc1, Pd3, Re3 which can hold the draw against Black Kc8, Qd8. Try it!

gambit:
usually to sacrifice a pawn in the opening to gain development. Examples in the Openings section of the Canon.

GM =

Grandmaster

half-open file:
a file with pawns of only one colour. Look at the handouts on Rooks and, if you are brave, the Minority Attack section of the handout on Pawn mobility.

half-passed pawn:
30 minutes after Pawn o’clock. [example?]

hedgehog:
a solid defensive arrangement with Pawns on the third rank e.g. Pb6,c5,d6,e6,g6, Bb7, Nbd7, Ngf6 and Be7 or Bg7. There is a comment on the potential of this formation under Nunn-Olafsson in the Planning section of the Canon, and an example game Webb-Hartston elsewhere in the Canon.

holes:
openings in the defensive front are called holes – usually holes cannot be defended by pawns. To play …g6 creates a hole at h6. See Steinitz-Blackburne in the Strategical Themes section of the Canon.

hypermodern:
the treatment of the opening by the Hypermodern school, a description given them by Tartakower; I wrote a little booklet on their treatment of the opening.

ICS =

Internet Chess Server

IGM =

see GM

IM =

International Master

intermediary manoeuvre:
an in-between move or apparent diversion from the main line of events. I read the term in the Tartakower-duMont book, in an annotation to the Tartakower-Capablanca game I encluded in the Tactics section of the Canon.

intermezzo:
see Zwischenzug

IQP =

Isolated Queen’s Pawn

irruptive sacrifice:
to break into the defences with a sacrifice e.g. Bxh7+, of which there are examples in the Attacking section of the Canon.

isolani:
Nimzovitch’s term for an isolated pawn.

isolated pawn or isolani:
a pawn with no friendly pawns on the next-door files. There are always negative features, but may be compensating advantages – and these benefits are seen in the most positive light with an isolated Queen’s Pawn. See the many examples in the Planning section of the Canon.

isolated Queen’s Pawn:
an isolated pawn on d4 or d5 – here the compensating extra space and influence over the centre are at their maximum and can compensate for its weakness in the middle game. IQP positions often arise in the early middle-game from the QGD and Caro-Kann. See the many examples in the Planning section of the Canon.

Italian diagonal:
the diagonal a2-g8 dominated by Bc4 (or …Bc5), the favoured development of the Italians of the Modenese school. See the booklet on Italian Game.

IWM =

International Woman Master

KIA =

King’s Indian Attack. There is some commentary on this opening in relation to the Sicilian Defence here..

kibitz:
to offer advice as a spectator – a dangerous pastime.

KID =

King’s Indian Defense. I based a session on this system once, and the example games I used are filed under the Planning section of the Canon.

king hunt sacrifice:
a sacrifice whch exposes the K in a way that it cannot retreat e.g. Qxh6+, Kxh6; Rh3+, Kg5 and the hunt is on!

King hunt:
a chase of the King across the board – which often arises after a sacrifice. [example?] Examples in the Attacking section of the Canon.

King’s field combination:
a combination involving the squares directly attacked by the King directly e.g. involving Nxf7. Examples in the Attacking section of the Canon.

Knight defender:
the stalwart N on f3/f6 in front of the castled King.

knight wheel:
a five-move circling motion of the N to attack the square next to it, e.g. Nb1-a3-c4-e3-d1 to attack b2. A game Capablanca-Yates is an [example?].

latitude of the draw:
to retain enough access and control over all disputed areas of the board to avoid the risk of losing, assuming with fair play on both sides. It may be that commitment to an attack in one area risks losing the game because of loss of control elsewhere. This is an underlying theme of the Averbach-Keres game in the Errors section of the Canon.

line piece:
Rook or Bishop

line-clearance sacrifice:
a sacrifice to open up a line e.g. Nf4 when …exf5 opens up a line for a B on b2 The move 11.d6 model game Morphy-Meek is both a decoy and a line-clearance sacrifice of a Pawn.

liquidating sacrifice:
a sacrifice, perhaps only temporary, to secure exchanges. The 45th game of the first Karpov-Kasparov match in the Defence section of the Canon is a superb example of this.

liquidation:
exchange of several pieces in succession, perhaps involving a forcing or temporary sacrifice. The examples given in the Bishops handout feature the Stahlberg/Capablanca manoeuvre, the aim of which is a defensive liquidation.

little centre:
the squares e4/d4/e5/d5. Also known as the basic centre.

long diagonal:
either of the diagonals a1-h8 or h1-a8. A Bishop developed in fianchetto (q.v.) sits on the long diagonal, and influences the little centre (q.v.).

long side:
for a passed pawn on d6, the long side is the files e-h, important in Rook endings.

lose a tempo:
to use one more move than necessary in development or manoeuvre, thereby disadvantageously falling behind in development or in a Pawn race. See the rules and examples from the Canon. Contrast with losing the move.

lose the exchange:
to lose a rook for a bishop or a knight

lose the move:
to use more moves than necessary in development or manoeuvre, thereby advantageously gaining the opposition or creating Zugzwang. Contrast with losing a tempo.

Lucena position:
– an important winning position in a Rook ending.

main line:
in analysis, particularly of the opening, the principal variation used or analysed. See the Analyis section of the Canon.

major pieces:
the Queen and Rooks

majority:
more pawn on one side than the opponent, e.g. four pawns on efgh files against 3 pawns on fgh, with an open d-file

majority attack:
the attack with a majority of pawns, to create a passed pawn or break through to attack. See Marshall-Capablanca and Alekhin-Marshall in the Pawn mobility handout.

MCO =

Modern Chess Openings

middlegame:
the game after the players have wholly or mostly finished development.

mine:
a square which when occupied triggers a combination [example?]

minor exchange:
to lose bishop for knight (not always a disadvantage). See the bishops handout.

minor pieces:
Knights and Bishops

minority:
fewer pawns on one side than your opponent, e.g. 2 pawns on a+b-files against three pawns on abc.

minority attack:
to attack on a side where you have fewer pawns, to create a weakness in the majority. A difficult but important theme in the Pawn mobility handout.

mobility:
freedom to manoeuvre, often because of control of Space, an important Strategical Theme.

mysterious Rook move:
a purposeful move of a Rook to a file which is not at present open (but may become so); one of Nimzovotch’s colourful usages. [example?]

N =

Novelty (see TN)

NM =

National Master

obstruct:
when a piece moves in front of an enemy Pawn it obstructs its advance (see blockade) [example?]

occupation of centre:
to move pieces and pawns toward the centre e.g. to play Pc3,d4,e4, Nf3,d2, Bc4,e3. Several examples under “centralisation” in the Strategical Themes section of the Canon.

offside piece:
a piece on the side of the board, possibly distant from the main theatre of combat. A couple of examples in the Strategical Themes section of the Canon.

open game:
a position without locked pawn chains in the centre, often arising from 1. e4 e5; see the Pawn formations handout, and material on example openings.

opening trap:
a trap in the opening. The Traps section of the Canon is full of them.

opening:
the first moves of a game where the players are completing their development.

opposite coloured bishops:
having one bishop each which travel on different coloured squares; makes defence harder in the middle game, easier in the endgame. Examples, as always, in the Canon, but there is also a handout on Bishop endings.

opposition:
opposing Ks on e4 and e6 cannot pass without one giving way – but the one that gives way is the first to move, e.g. 1.Ke4-d4, Kf5; 2.Kd5, Kf4 and Black passes with gain of tempo. This is described briefly in King and Pawn endings. See also conjugate squares.

OTB =

Over-the-board (as opposed to correspondence/postal chess)

outpost:
a square which cannot easily be attacked by pawns, suitable for occupation by a knight or other piece. 1. e4 e5 creates potential outposts on d5/f5 for White and d4/f4 for Black. Nc3-d5 may be met with …c6, but if White plays Nd2-f1-e3-f5 Black may hesitate before playing …g6 which may create holes in front of the king. See the Knights handout.

outside the square:
when chasing a passed pawn, the K needs to be close enough to catch it – it will be close enough if it is inside a square drawn with the pawn at the corner and the ‘home run’ to the last rank as the side. So for a Pc5 the square is c5-g5-g8-c8, and if the Black K is outside (and cannot move in on the next move), the Pawn will queen.

overload:
a piece or Pawn with too many defensive tasks is overloaded. There are examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

overloading sacrifice:
a sacrifice to overload a defender e.g.Nxh7 may overload a Nf6 which defends h7 and e8. There are examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

overprotection:
to over-defend a point e.g. e4 is overprotected with Bc2, Nd2, Re1, Qe2, Ng3. The idea is that after e.g. Nf5 and an exchange …Bd7xf5, the recapture e4xf5 will suddenly open up lines for the patient White pieces. Nimzovitch seemed to say that overprotection is an end in itself, but more plausible is that over-protection may make a strong move like Nf5 more decisive. There are examples in the strategy/themes section of the Canon.

passed pawn:
a pawn with no opposing pawns in front or to the sides, which can therefore advance without being exchanged by a pawn; often the only way to win once Queens are exchanged. See the Endgame advice.

pawn chain:
connected pawns which protect each other e.g. c3-d4-e5. See the Pawn formations handout.

pawn islands:
Capablanca’s term for groups of connected pawns, separated by (half-) open files. White with Pawns on a2, b2, d3, e4, f4 and h3 has three Pawn islands. There is an example in the handout On manoeuvres.

pawn lever:
Kmoch’s term for a pawn move that tries to open lines, especially a file. See Pawn Break

pawn majority:
a greater number of Pawns, usually on a wing e.g. White: Pa2, Pb2, Pc2 Black: Pa6, Pb5. See majority attack.

pawn race:
in an endgame where Pawns on each side race to promote – usually in a King and Pawn endgame where the Pawns cannot be captured or obstructed.

pawn sacrifice:
a sacrifice of a pawn, often called a gambit in the opening

penetrating sacrifice:
a sacrifice to get into the heart of the defences e.g. Ng5xf7 against a king castled behind a fianchetto. There are examples in the Attacking section of the Canon.

phalanx:
a triangle of pawns e.g. b3-c4-d5-e4-f3 in the KID and Colle System.

Philidor position:
– usually, the important drawing position in a Rook ending. Also, a winning position in the ending of Rook and Bishop against Rook.

pin:
a piece standing between an opponent’s line-piece (N/R/Q) and a piece of your own of a higher value is pinned. After 1. e4 d6 2. Nf3 Bg4 the Nf3 is pinned. There’s a handout on Pins

positional sacrifice:
a sacrifice played for long-term positional gain e.g. in the Sicilian defence …Rc8xNc3 to double the White pawns and weaken d5/e4; a nice defensive positional sacrifice was made by Petrosian against Reshevsky, collected in the Defence section of the Canon.

preventive retreat:
a retreat made in anticipation of an attack (rather than reacting to it) [example?]

prophylaxis:
prevention. Nimzovitch talked about this rather as an end in itself, which is misleading. [example?]

propitiating sacrifice:
a defensive sacrifice, hoping to slow up the attack long enough to organise a defence [example?]

QGA =

Queen’s Gambit Accepted

QGD =

Queen’s Gambit Declined

Queen hunt:
to chase and close down the space available to a Q, with the aim of winning it – see the handout on Kings and Queens, and the Tactics section.

rank:
the rows of squares, e.g. a2-h2 is White’s second rank, Black’s seventh.

resign:
to give up a losing game before mate. It is polite to do so, and perhaps less painful for yourself, but some players play on in the hope of their opponent blundering.

restricted centre:
adopting a modest central formation with pawns on e.g. e6/d6. See the Pawn formations handout.

retrograde manoeuvre:
to move backwards – e.g. Nc3-d1 so as to play c3. There is an example of this by Botvinnik in the style section of the Canon.

sacrifice for draw:
a sacrifice which has a draw rather than a win as the aim, e.g. to sacrifice Nxg5 for one of two pawns in the ending, leaving a Bd3 unable to support a Ph4 against a K on g7/h8, or to achieve a perpetual check. See the Defence section of the Canon.

sacrifice for space:
to play e.g. the Cochrane Gambit in the Petroff 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 which gains time to secure the advance of the central pawns.

sacrifice:
to give up material – if you can see how you can win back the material quickly, it is called a combination or sacrificial combination, if you are just hoping to get a lasting initiative and cash in later, it is sometimes called a speculative sacrifice or, following Spielmann, a real sacrifice. Spielmann referred to sacrificial combinations as ‘sham’ sacrifices. Tartakower and DuMont describe a dozen types of sacrifice, found elsewhere in this Glossary.

seventh:
short for the seventh rank (a2-h2 or a7-h7) – a good place for a rook.

seventh rank:
the rank a7-h7 (or a2-h2 from Black’s side), which may be powerfully occupied by a R in the ending. A famous example Capablanca-Tartakower is given in the appropriate handout.

 Nimzovitch used the term seventh rank absolute for control of the seventh rank by a Rook, with the enemy King trapped on the back rank, as in that game.

short side:
for a passed P on d6, the files a-c are the short side – crucial in Rook endings.

skewer (X-ray attack):
attack by a line piece on an enemy piece behind which is another enemy piece e.g. White Rd1, Black Bd5, Bd7. There are examples in the Tactics section of the Canon.

SM =

Senior Master

smothered mate:
a K mated usually by a N when all the escape squares are occupied by friendly men e.g. Nf7+ with Kh8,Rg8,Pg7/h7. See the handout on Basic Mates.

stalemate:
no mate, but no possible (legal) moves for one side is stalemate – often occurs with a lone K when the attacking side overlooks the idea e.g. Kf6,Qd6 with K on e8 to move is stalemate. See the handout on Basic Mates.

strong points:
squares where you dominate e.g. the square e5 is often a strong point for Black after playing Pe5, Re8, Nbd7 and Pd6 or Bd6. A hole for your opponent may be a strong point for you; this is mostly clearly see with respect to Knight outposts .

tabiya:
(Arabic) Originally one of the conventional starting formations for play, now used to describe key positions arising from the opening. The examples given under transposition in the Canon are good examples.

TD =

Tournament Director

tempo:
a move lost or gained, often used in discussing the opening. [example?]

tempo – fight for tempo:
for example, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4, if Black plays …dxc4 White will play e3 and Bf1xc4. If Black waits until White has already played e3 and Bd3, and then plays …dxc4, White will of course play Bxc4 but will have lost a move (Bf1-d3xc4). So White will try to wait, and Black will also wait – hence the Tempo Struggle Variation 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 Re8 8. Qc2 c6 9. a3 a6 10. h3… where White won’t yet play Bd3 and Black won’t yet exchange.

temporary sacrifice:
a sacrificial combination where the regain of material can be foreseen [example?]

TN =

Theoretical Novelty: A new idea in an opening line (usually used when a GM first tries it).

trap:
a plausible move that loses to a hidden or unexpected combination – e.g. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 is a simple trap, since the obvious 3. fxe5 fails to 3…Qh4+. 2…Bc5 is also a well-motivated move in its own right, and is to be preferred to playing poor moves for the sake of setting a trap that the opponent may spot. The Traps section of the Canon is full of both sorts!

trebuchet:
a common Zugzwang position, e.g. White Ke5, Pd4; Black Kc4, Pd5.

triple:
to move all three major pieces onto a file, as in the Alekhin-Nimzo game in the handout on Pins.

two bishops:
having both bishops where your opponent has only two knights or a bishop and a knight; normally an advantage. See the handout on Bishops.

undermining sacrifice:
a sacrifice to remove a guard e.g. Nxd6 removing the defender of e5, or Ph5-h6 to undermine a Knight on f6 [example?].

unmasking:
to uncover an attack (or defence), e.g. Nf3-e5 may unmask the fianchettoed Bg2. In the Tactics section of the Canon there is an example of each, one under overloading, the other under unmasking defence.

USCF =

United States Chess Federation

vacating sacrifice:
to sacrifice a piece thus releasing a square for a more powerful piece e.g. Nh5xg7 allowing Qe2-h5. Pawns are the commonest sacrifice made for this reason. [example?]

vacation:
to leave a square so that another piece may occupy it, e.g. Rf1-e1 and Bb5-f1 is sometimes played. [example?]

variation:
an alternative line of play: see analysis

visualisation (sight of the board):
the ability to picture and assess a position, as might arise in analysis of a possible variation; a common source of error

weak pawn:
a Pawn that cannot easily be defended, e.g. a backward pawn. There are examples in the Strategy/themes section of the Canon.

weak pawns:
generally, a collection of pawns which have some of the features listed above: doubled, isolated, backward… There are examples in the Strategy/themes section of the Canon.

weak square:
a square that cannot easily be defended, and may become a hole or outpost for the opponent. There are examples in the Strategy/themes section of the Canon.

weakness:
a weak Pawn or weak square There are examples in the Strategy/themes section of the Canon.

WGM =

International Woman Grandmaster

windmill:
an alternation of checks and captures e.g. White Rg7, Bf6, Black Kh8 – the famous Torre-Lasker game is in the Tactics section of the Canon.

wrong bishop:
a Bishop which does not control the Queening square of a Pawn, e.g. White: Kg3, Bf3, Pg4, Ph4, Black Kg8, Nf6 – the move …Nxg4 draws for Black despite the loss of the piece. See the Bishop endings handout.

Zeitnot:
(German) time trouble [example?]

Zugzwang:
(German) where a side is satisfactorily defended, but any move will upset the defence – and they must move! This is not unusual in Rook endings and other simplified positions – indeed, the opposition and trebuchet are examples of Zugzwang – but it is most unusual with more pieces on the board, although Nimzovitch fanously managed it against Samisch, a game found in the Pawn Mobility handout.

Zwischenzug:
(German) literally, in-between move. When, for example, a re-capture is delayed for a move to make a capture, check or threat elsewhere. [example?]

Dr. Dave the player who put the gloss in glossary.

“Wipe your glosses with what you know.” — Joyce