General endgame advice

Posted on September 30, 1999 by DrDave

1 key idea, 3 principles, 15 general laws, 12 practical guides and 6 tips for the ending

One key idea: the passed pawn.

Endgames, and some middlegames, are all about creating and advancing a passed pawn. Either the pawn queens, or your opponent gets so tied up in knots trying to stop it that they lose something else.

3 principles (Fine)

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

15 general laws (Fine again)

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

12 practical tips (Mednis)

The king is a fighting piece and should be centralised and used actively.
Material advantage wins endgames: hold on to your material.
Be wary of sacrificing pawns for development: only in Rook+Pawn endings is an active piece worth material.
Try and gain tempi whenever possible, but without giving up material.
The fewer the pieces, the more important the pawns
Keep a flexible, sound pawn formation: avoid doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns.
Passed pawns must be pushed.
The outside passed pawn is an advantage: in King&Pawns endings it is decisive.
Rooks belong behind passed pawns.
In open positions the two bishops are murder: in most other positions they are a real advantage.
In open or semi-open positions a bishop is usually superior to a knight.
The knight is superior to the bishop in blocked positions or when the bishop is hemmed in by pawns on the same colour squares as the bishop.

[cool blue cat says:]

COOL TIP: MEDNIS says ‘good technique’ means:

not allowing counterplay
holding on to material advantage
establishing a clear plan and following it
being careful
never being in a hurry
avoiding complications
- (and … winning the game!)

Weak pawns

Posted on September 28, 1999 by DrDave

“Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: avoid
them!”

— Fine, Basic Chess Endings

Introduction

“That’s what this match is all about – Pawns,
isolated or hanging. They might just as well play without
pieces.” — Eddie GUFELD, considering yet another IQP position
in the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match (Game 16, position after White’s
24th move)

The English GM David Norwood once said that he made an offer to
analyse and comment on some club players’ games. They expected him
to offer some brilliant analysis, showing them where they had
missed golden opportunities, but his advice was more simple:
“remember Pawns can’t move backwards“. Now, that is one of
the first things any chess player learns, so they were very
disappointed – why was he telling them what they already knew?
Well, they may have known, but they were playing as if they didn’t
know. They were advancing pawns too far, too fast, too often. They
were moving pawns forward which got surrounded and caught, they
moved pawns forward which created holes near their king, they moved
pawns forward which became the focus of a sacrifice. And once they
had moved them forward, they couldn’t move them back. So be careful
with your Pawns!

The two principal problems with poor Pawn formations
are:

(1) opportunities provided to the opponents pieces (e.g.
occupation of ‘holes’)

(2) weaknesses of the Pawns themselves.

Let us start with a notable example:

Weak pawns: the ultimate collection: Deep Blue –
Kasparov, 1996

Just horrible: every one of the six Black Pawns is isolated, or
isolated and doubled! The b-Pawns are also blockaded. Kasparov
staked everything on a King’s-side hack but after 25.
b3! Deep Blue just grabbed the material and steered clear
of the tactics.

There is a lot of meat in this game, which I append if
you want to go over it, but it should tell you one thing if nothing
else: weak Pawns can lose you the game.

Could Kasparov have defended everything instead of trying
to hack? Well, no. It’s a bit like Franklin’s “For the want of
a nail…”: for the want of a friendly neighbour, a d-Pawn is
weak; to look after the d-Pawn, the Knight is assigned guard duty;
for the want of the Knight, the initiative is lost; for the want of
active play, ground is lost on both sides of the board; for the
want of pieces free from defence, more weakness are conceded…
Once you have more than one weakness, the problem snowballs, and
your Pawns fall like ripe fruit into the arms of your opponent.

Playing against Pawn weaknesses needs some persistence
but also some flexibility: this transformation of
advantages is seen in several games below.

Spielmann,R – Nimzowitsch Aaron (San ) (9) [B29]
1911

Black develops pressure against the hanging Pawns.

16… Ba6 17. Rac1 Rac8 18. Qb3 f6

Tension is now high: White initiates a tactical sequence to avoid
losing the c-Pawn, which Black is happy to see to a conclusion.

19. Qa4 fxe5 20. dxe5 Ba3 21. Qxa3 Bxc4 22. Re4
Qd7 23. h3

23… Bd5

The hanging Pawns have vanished. Has White equalised? By
no means. Black has a superior Bishop, a Queen’s-side Pawn
majority, and one of those odd minority Pawn formations on the
King’s-side which make it difficult for White to make use of his
majority. There is still a lot of play in the position, and Black
won.

…0-1 (42)

As well as transformation of positional advantages, you
can see changes in the Pawn structure – which may be sought by both
sides. One well-known sequence may transform an isolated Pawn
structure to one with hanging Pawns:

Rubinstein-Nimzovich

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Bf4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bb4 (isolated pawn)

8.e3 Nf6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 (pawn island)

10.Bd3 O-O 11.O-O Bd6 12.Bg3 Bxg3 13.hxg3
c5 (hanging pawns)

The game continued:

14.Rc1 Be6 15.Qa4 Qb6 16.Qa3 c4 17.Be2 a5 18.Rfd1
Qb4 19.Rd4 Rfd8 20.Rcd1 Rd7 21.Bf3 Rad8 22.Nb1 {?!}
22…Rb8 23.R1d2 Qxa3 24.Nxa3 Kf8 25.e4 dxe4 26.Rxd7 Nxd7
27.Bxe4 Nc5 28.Rd4 Nxe4 29.Rxe4 Rxb2 30.Nxc4 Rb4 31.Nd6 Rxe4
32.Nxe4 Bxa2 {… 0-1}

A bit of theory

There is one general problem with Pawn moves: the
creation of holes, which your opponent’s pieces can occupy.
Tarrasch used to say, “Every Pawn move loosens the
position“. So the first and simplest form of weakness in a
Pawn formation is the hole.

There are four principal varieties of weak Pawn:

backward Pawn

doubled Pawns

isolated Pawn

hanging Pawns

And there is one further idea which you should know
about:

Pawn islands.

Fine’s comment on the title page is in his endgame book,
which may give you a clue that the weakness of weak Pawns is most
important in the endgame: this is true. It may also give you a clue
that in the middlegame there may be some compensations for having
weak Pawns: this is also true, and is the basis for Tarrasch’s
famous dismissal of the supposed weakness of the isolated Queen’s
Pawn:

“Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the
middle-game.“

The most miserable Pawn is the backward Pawn. There are very few
compensations for having a backward Pawn. On the other hand, I have
enjoyed demonstrating the positive side of hanging Pawns more than
once; these are probably the least miserable of the lot. Almost any
variety of weak Pawn is more miserable if it is blockaded or
otherwise cannot move out of the way of an attack: this is the
meaning of Fine’s last warning about blockaded
Pawns. I’ll consider each type of Pawn weakness and
discuss their advantages and if appropriate their compensations.

Backward Pawn.

Black has a backward Pawn at d6.

White has a potentially backward Pawn at c3.

Disadvantages of Backward
Pawns:

The Pawn on d6 is exposed to attack along the d-file but can
neither be supported by a friendly Pawn nor easily be moved out of
the way. The square in front of it (d5) is a potential outpost for
a White Knight.

Possible compensations with
Backward Pawns:

They may support neighbouring Pawns which are strong: above, Black
has a strong central point at e5.

Doubled Pawns

White has doubled Pawns at c3/c4 and g2/g3.

Disadvantages of Doubled
Pawns:

The hindmost Pawn at c3 is effectively backward, but it is the Pawn
on c4 which is most difficult to defend, as no Rook at c1 can
support it.

Possible compensations with
Doubled Pawns:

Doubling of Pawns should yield an open file: here the b-file might
not offer much but the h-file might be worth something. Capturing
towards the centre may give an extra ounce of influence over some
central squares: here the d-Pawn is both supported by a Pawn at c3
while the d5 square is covered by the Pawn at c4.

Isolated Pawn

White has an isolated Pawn at d4.

Black has an isolated Pawn on h7

Disadvantages of Isolated
Pawns:

The isolated Pawn, like a backward Pawn, cannot be defended and
often cannot advance easily. It is therefore weak, and the square
in front of it is a potential outpost for opposing Knights.

Possible compensations with
Isolated Pawns:

The Pawn may support other pieces e.g. Knight on e5, and in the
example the Pawn on d4 gives extra space and mobility to White.
This is not true of Black’s Pawn on h7, which is only weak.

Hanging Pawns

White has hanging Pawns at c4 and d4.

Disadvantages of Hanging
Pawns:

The Pawns are not quite isolated but have the same sorts of
problems, for, if one advances to be supported by the other, the
hindmost

Possible compensations with
Hanging Pawns:

Hanging Pawns on d4 and c4 confer a space advantage, which can be
nurtured for attack. An advance of one or other Pawn may open lines
for the attack, or result in a Passed Pawn.

Pawn islands

White has two Pawn islands to Black’s three.

Disadvantages of extra Pawn
islands:

The Pawns on the edges of Pawn islands are not isolated, but they
are slightly exposed. We might call them “semi-detached”; there is
only one Pawn which can protect them, and only one Pawn which can
protect the square in front of them. This looseness can be
exploited to create more obvious weaknesses.

Possible compensations with
extra Pawn islands:

Gaps between Pawn islands may be useful half-open files. I also
alluded, in the Spielmann-Nimzovitch game above, to a split
minority possibly being better at restraining an opponent’s
majority than an intact majority.

Winning against holes in the
Pawn formation

Steinitz,W – Blackburne,J
London, 1876

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 Be7
7. h3 O-O 8. Qe2 Ne8 9. g4 b5 10. Bc2 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nf1 Nd8
13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Nf5 g6 15. Nxe7+ Qxe7

Morphy and his contemporaries would probably have been
very much surprised if anybody had told him that only ten moves
later White pieces would be settled permanently on f6 and h6.

16. Be3 N8g7 17. O-O-O c5 18. d4 exd4 19. cxd4 c4 20. d5
Nc7 21. Qd2 a5 22. Bd4 f6 23. Qh6 b4 24. g5 f5 25. Bf6

Here we are…!

25… Qf7 26. exf5 gxf5 27. g6 Qxg6 28. Bxg7
Qxh6+ 29. Bxh6 Rf6 30. Rhg1+ Rg6 31. Bxf5 Kf7

[31… Rxg1 32. Rxg1+ Kh8 33. Bg7+ Kg8 34. Be5+ Kf7
35. Rg7+ Ke8 36. Rxc7]

32. Bxg6+ hxg6 33. Ng5+ Kg8 34. Rge1
1-0

Winning against a Backward
Pawn

Bogoljubow,Efim –
Capablanca,Jose (New York ) (09) [D05] 1924

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6
7. Bb2 O-O 8. Nbd2 Qe7 9. Ne5 cxd4 10. exd4 Ba3 11. Bxa3 Qxa3 12.
Ndf3 Bd7 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. Qd2 Rac8

There is some anxiety developing about White’s c-Pawn. His next
move is probably a mistake.

15. c3 a6 16. Ne5 Bb5 17. f3 Bxd3 18. Nxd3 Rc7
19. Rac1 Rfc8 20. Rc2 Ne8 21. Rfc1 Nd6 22. Ne5 Qa5 23.
a4

With straightforward moves Black has put a lot of pressure on the
c-Pawn. His next is a little tactical finesse, which creates a
double attack on two neighbouring Pawns.

23… Qb6 24. Nd3 Qxb3 25. Nc5 Qb6 26. Rb2 Qa7
27. Qe1 b6 28. Nd3 Rc4 29. a5 bxa5 30. Nc5 Nb5 31. Re2

White has been wobbling dreadfully, and finally topples.

31… Nxd4 32. cxd4 R8xc5 0-1

Winning with a Backward
Pawn

Zinn – Sveshnikov, Decin [B33]
1974

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6.
Ndb5 d6

One of the most puzzling of modern variations: didn’t the games on
Knight outposts suggest that Black is virtually lost? Well, he is
if White proceeds smoothly, exchanges all the right pieces, and
Black has no counterplay.

7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10.
Nd5

All according to plan A, but there are some differences: Black has
an interesting collection of K-side pawns which may allow …f6-f5
and …Rg8, and White’s Knight on a3 is taking no part in the
struggle.

10… f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 Bg7 13. O-O f4 14.
c3 O-O 15. Nc2 f5

Black is making maximum use of the f-pawns and White looks at least
as loose as Black.

16. Ncb4 Nxb4 17. Nxb4 d5 18. exd5 Bd7 19. Bc2
Be8 20. Qe2 Kh8 21. Rad1 Qh4 22. f3 Rf6 23. Qe1 Qg5 24. Qxe5 Bd7
25. Qe7 Rg8

Black follows his pawn sacrifice with a Bishop!

26. Qxd7 Rf7

The f-pawns keep White’s pieces from defending the King, and White
has no answer to the vacating sacrifice …Bd4.

0-1

Winning against Doubled
Pawns

Mattison – Nimzovich
(carlsbad) CHERNEV [E21] 1929

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6.
Qc2 Qe7 7. Ba3 c5 8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4 Bxg2 12.
Kxg2 Qb7+ 13. Kg1 Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 Na5

White has a problem with the front c-Pawn, which can be patched up
only at the cost of creating holes. Black’s Knights leap about all
over the White Pawns.

16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Nc4 18. Bc1 a6 19. bxa6
Rxa6 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2 Nd5 22. Rd3 Rfa8 23. e4 Ne5

“The centre cannot hold…”

0-1

Winning with Doubled
Pawns

Bhend, E – Hort, V (Kecsemet)
[B00] 1964

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+
gxf6

All a bit early to call – we observe the Pawn differences, but not
much else. Black has a doubled Pawn, and and extra open file.

6. c3 Bf5 7. Nf3 e6 8. Bf4 Bd6 9. Bg3 Qc7 10. Qb3
Nd7 11. Be2 O-O-O 12. Nd2 Nb6 13. a4 a5 14. O-O Rhg8

Black’s Rooks have done their duty in occupying the files: Black
now executes a simple King’s-side attack.

15. Rfe1 Bxg3 16. hxg3 h5 17. Bf3 Bg4 18. Be2 h4
19. gxh4

Some brisk tactics finish the job.

19… Bh3 20. Bf1 Rxg2+ 21. Bxg2 Rg8 22. Kf1 Rxg2
23. Nf3 Qf4 24. Re3 Nd5 25. c4 Nxe3+ 26. Qxe3 Rg1+ 0-1

Winning against an Isolated
Pawn

Lasker-Reshevsky, Nottingham
1936

Here’s another isolated/hanging pawn game, showing the weakness of
the pawn being turned to attack.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4
c5 6. Nc3 a6 7. O-O b5 8. Bd3 cxd4 9. exd4 Bb7 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Qe2
O-O 12. Rad1 Nbd7 13. Ne5 Nd5

Always this blockade: here it also offers desirable exchanges.

14. Bc1 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Nf6 16. a4 Qd5 17. Nf3 Rfc8
18. Bb2 Ne4 19. Rc1 Ng5

Black has developed strong pressure along the long diagonal.

20. axb5 axb5 21. Bxb5 Nxf3+ 22. gxf3 Qg5+
0-1

One might ask:

why does the side attacking the IQP blockade the square
in front of it?

and why should the side with the IQP avoid exchanges?

Simple answers: you blockade the IQP because it may
advance to d5 and blow up your position, and you avoid exchanges if
you have an IQP because the endings are bad for you and you might
make use of the extra space to create an attack.

Winning with an Isolated
Pawn

Stoltz – Thomas, Zaandamk
[D40]1946

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 cxd4
7. exd4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 a6 11. Ba2 b5

White’s advantage seems trifling – a good Rook on e1, and the move
– but is rapidly converted through the characteristic d4-d5 break.
White can see no tactical opportunity in particular, but a general
optimism based on open lines 12. d5 exd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 14.
Qxd5 Qd6

[14… Bb7 15. Bg5 with a strong initiative based on
his more active pieces 15… Bxg5

[or 15… Na5 16. Qf5 Bxg5 17. Nxg5 g6 18.
Nxf7]

16. Nxg5 Qxd5 17. Bxd5 h6 18. Ne4]

15. Rxe7 Qxe7 16. Qxc6 Bg4 17. Be3 Rac8 18. Qd5
Rfd8 19. Qg5 Qxg5 20. Nxg5

White has secured two pieces for a rook, and his initiative
endures.

20… Rd7 21. f3 Bf5 22. g4 Bd3 23. Rd1 Rcd8 24.
Bb6 Bc4 25. Rxd7 Rxd7 26. Bxc4 bxc4 27. Ne4 f5 28. gxf5 Kf7 29. Ba5
Rd5 30. Bc3 h5 31. Kf2 Kg8 32. f6 1-0

Winning against Hanging
Pawns

Fischer – Spassky WCh (6)
[D59] 1972

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Rc1 Be6 12.
Qa4 c5 13. Qa3 Rc8 14. Bb5 a6 15. dxc5 bxc5 16. O-O Ra7 17. Be2
Nd7

Black seems to have supported his Pawns nicely, but Fischer’s next
three moves exploit the remaining looseness to create a new
formation in which White has the better minor piece, prospects of
attack, and an enduring initiative.

18. Nd4! Qf8 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. e4! d4 21. f4 Qe7
22. e5 Rb8 23. Bc4 Kh8 24. Qh3 Nf8 25. b3 a5 26. f5 exf5 27. Rxf5
Nh7 28. Rcf1 Qd8 29. Qg3 Re7 30. h4 Rbb7 31. e6 Rbc7 32. Qe5 Qe8
33. a4 Qd8 34. R1f2 Qe8 35. R2f3 Qd8 36. Bd3 Qe8 37. Qe4 Nf6 38.
Rxf6 gxf6 39. Rxf6 Kg8 40. Bc4 Kh8 41. Qf4 1-0

Winning with Hanging
Pawns

Bertok – Fischer [D59]
1962

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12.
O-O c5 13. dxc5?! 13… bxc5 14. Qa4 Qb7!

White is not well-placed to harass the pawns, while Fischer is
making use of his own trumps – like the half-open b-file.

15. Qa3 Nd7 16. Ne1 a5 17. Nd3 c4

This is a very committal move. The b-Pawn is pinned down,
the d-Pawn becomes backward, and the fourth rank becomes
blocked.

18. Nf4 Rfb8 19. Rab1 ? (Nxe6)
19… Bf5 20. Rbd1 Nf6 21. Rd2 g5

White is terribly short of ideas. It’s “make your mind up” time!

22. Nxd5

[22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4]

22… Nxd5 23. Bxc4 Be6 24. Rfd1? 24…
Nxe3 (oops) 25. Qxe3 Bxc4 26. h4 Re8 27. Qg3 Qe7
28. b3 Be6 29. f4 g4 30. h5 Qc5+ 31. Rf2 Bf5 0-1

Winning against extra Pawn
islands

Capablanca,Jose –
Kupchik,Abraham (Havana ) (07) [C49] 1913

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6.
Bxc6 bxc6 7. Nxe5 Qe8

8. Nd3 Bxc3 9. dxc3 Qxe4

[9… Nxe4 10. Re1]

10. Re1 Qh4 11. Qf3 Ba6 12. Bf4 Rac8 13.
Be5 (idea /\ Nc5)13… Bxd3 14. cxd3 Qg4 15. Bxf6
Qxf3 16. gxf3 gxf6

Assessment, +/-: better Pawns, fewer Pawn islands,
more active pieces. The weakest spot in the Black position is the
isolated a-Pawn, and it is here that an attack should be directed.

17. Re4

First, Capablanca mobilises and centralises his pieces.
There is never any sense of rush when Capa plays an ending. This
ease of mobilisation is a dynamic advantage to add to the static
ones just listed.

17… Rfe8 18. Rae1 Re6 19. R1e3 Rce8 20. Kf1 Kf8
21. Ke2 Ke7

Now, White can attack the a-pawn.

22. Ra4 Ra8 23. Ra5

restrains the Pawns

23… d5!?

I can sympathise with the bid for space but this is not
forced and has the disadvantage of leaving the c-Pawns without
support – backward, although not exposed on a file. White quickly
blockades the Pawns.

24. c4! Kd6

[24… dxc4 leaves all Black’s Pawns isolated and
most of them doubled!]

[24… d4 25. Re4 Kd6 26. b4 Re5 27. Ra6 ‘hopeless’,
said Capa]

25. c5+ Kd7 26. d4

Black’s pawns have become fixed, cutting off the
Queen’s-side.

26… f5

Hoping to nip out to h6 with some play.

27. Rxe6! fxe6 28. f4

Clearing the third rank for a Rook

28… Kc8 29. Kd2 Kb7?!

Black has achieved a solid defence of the a-Pawn and Whiite can
achieve little else there. But White has access to both sides of
the board via the third rank. [29… Rb8!? 30. Kc3

[30. b3 blocks the third rank]

[30. Kc2 Rb4 31. Kc3 Rc4+ 32. Kd3 Rb4]

30… Rb7 may have been better]

30. Ra3 Rg8 31. Rh3 Rg7

This defence from the side keeps the Black Rook more
active than moving it to defend from h8, but I’m sure Black also
considered …Rg1!?, giving up a Pawn to get the Rook active. It
looks a bit speculative here but is the right sort of idea to have
in mind.

32. Ke2 Ka6 33. Rh6 Re7 34. Kd3 Kb7 35. h4 Kc8
36. Rh5 Kd7 37. Rg5 Rf7

Again, Black has achieved a solid, if passive, defence. White now
returns his attention to the Queen’s-side.

38. Kc3 Kc8 39. Kb4 Rf6 40. Ka5 Kb7 41. a4 a6 42.
h5 Rh6

White is poised on both fronts but can improve the position of his
pieces no further. It is time to try and force the issue.

43. b4 Rf6 44. b5!?

[44. Rg7! Rh6 first would have been better, according
to Capa: 45. b5 axb5 46. axb5 cxb5

[46… Rxh5 47. b6]

47. Kxb5 e.g. 47… Rxh5 48. c6+ Kb8 49.
Ka6]

44… axb5 45. axb5 Rf8

Off to sieze the a-file!

[45… Rf7 46. h6 Re7 47. Rg7 is hopeless: so Black
must counterattack.]

46. Rg7 Ra8+ 47. Kb4 cxb5 48. Kxb5
Ra2

Black has gained some activity. Of course, White does not retreat
and defend with Rg2.

49. c6+ Kb8 50. Rxh7

White has an h-pawn. Can the lone Black Rook do enough to
compensate?

50… Rb2+ 51. Ka5 Ra2+ 52. Kb4 Rxf2 53. Re7
Rxf4?!

Natural, but not exact.

[53… Rb2+! 54. Kc3 Rh2 55. Rxe6 Ka7 56. h6 Kb6
which isn’t great but Black is also fighting with the King
now]

[53… Rh2? 54. Rxe6 Rxh5 55. Re5 Ka7 56.
Kc5]

54. h6 Rxd4+ 55. Kb5 Rd1 56. h7

A Pawn on the seventh seems worth three in the bush!
Black can only hope to harass the King with checks, but these are
soon exhausted.

56… Rb1+ 57. Kc5 Rc1+ 58. Kd4 Rd1+ 59. Ke5 Re1+
60. Kf6 Rh1 61. Re8+ Ka7 62. h8=Q Rxh8 63. Rxh8 Kb6 64. Kxe6 Kxc6
65. Kxf5 Kc5 66. Ke5 c6 67. Rh6 Kb5 68. Kd4 1-0

Winning with extra Pawn
islands

This ought to work rather like the extra files in doubled Pawn
positions, but damned if I could find any convincing complete
games. I did dig a couple of examples out of my opening files,
though:

Geller’s Quiet System – Bronstein [B06] 1993

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c3 d6 4. Nf3
Nf6

5. Nbd2

[5. Bd3 (best)]

5… O-O 6. Be2

[6. h3 b6 7. Bc4 e6 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qe2 c5 10. dxc5
bxc5 11. e5 dxe5 12. Nxe5 Nd5 13. Ndf3 Nd7 14. Bg5 Qc7 15. Nxd7
Qxd7 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. Rfe1 Nb6 18. Bd3 c4 19. Bc2 Nd5

Simagin-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,44]]

6… b6 7. O-O e6

(To stop e4-e5-e6 and discourage d5 in reply to the
coming …c5. Benko has in fact played 7…Bb7 without immediate
harm, but this is safer)

8. Re1 Bb7 9. Bd3 c5 10. dxc5 bxc5 11. e5 dxe5
12. Nxe5 Nc6 13. Ndc4 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qc7

=+ K/B

(Better bishops, possibilities of play on b-file, and
some central influence from Pe6; moreover, the Queen’s-side
majority cannot really get going, as there is no real ‘candidate’
for promotion)

15. Qe2 Rab8 16. Bd2 Ba8 17. Nc4 Nh5 18. Be4 Bd5
19. b3 Rfd8 20. Rad1 Nf6 21. Bc2 Qb7 22. Na5 Qb6 23. Nc4 Qa6 24.
Ne3 Qxe2 25. Rxe2 Bc6 26. f3 a5

Filip-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,85]

=/+

The Art of Analysis, Part 2

Posted on September 21, 1999 by DrDave

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

   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.01"] [Round "1"] [White "Hodge, D."] [Black "Lane, P."] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C07"] [PlyCount "114"] {How do you analyse a chess game?  If it's someone else's: (1) Play through the whole game fairly quickly, seeing what ebb and flow the game had.  (2) Divide the game up into episodes, even if they are only opening middlegame and endgame, and try to describe what happened and who if anyone had the advantage. (3) Try and find the critical steps, where one or other side made an important choice (if it was only to overlook something!).  (4) Put your account aside for a few days and have a fresh look later.  What other ideas now occur to you?  Did you make a too-smooth moral fable out of a more fluctuating scrap?   OPENING: in a standard line Black has a slight cramp and an extra central Pawn. Soon, however, exchanges break out.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 a6 { [#] So far, so standard.} 11. Be3 {"Less dangerous" - John Watson.    Nonetheless both David and Pete are about as safe to relax around as an alligator in your swimming pool, so I imagine the next few moves were played with some care on both sides.} (11. Bb3) (11. c3) (11. b3) (11. Re1 Qc7 12. Bb3 Bd6 13. Nf5 Bxh2+ 14. Kh1 O-O (14... Kf8 $5) 15. Nxg7 Rd8 (15... Kxg7 16. Qd2 Ng8) 16. Qf3 Kxg7 17. Bh6+ Kg6 18. c3 Nd5 19. Rad1 f5 20. Bc1 Bd6 21. Bxd5 exd5 22. Rxd5 Bd7 23. Qh3 Bf8 24. Re3 Kg7 25. Rg3+ Kh8 26. Qh4 Be6 27. Bf4 Be7 28. Bxc7 {1-0 Adams, M-Dreev,A/Hoogovens, Wijk aan Zee NED 1996}) 11... Qc7 12. Bb3 Bd6 13. h3 O-O ( 13... b5 {is one more Pawn move to get the Bd7 developed more aggressively.}) 14. a4 Bd7 15. Qe2 {Black has an extra central Pawn and has an opportunity to make use of it.} Bh2+ (15... e5 {This looks bold but is entirely consistent with the position, and is played at a time when White can't react with usual annoying ideas like Nf5 or Nc2-e3.  That's what I would have played, but Pete likes to play it the way he is used to.}) 16. Kh1 Bf4 {Exchanges are a reasonable objective in a cramped position, although that is one of Black's better pieces it is being exchanged for a potentially dangerous White one.} 17. Rfe1 Bxe3 18. Qxe3 Bc6 19. Qe5 (19. Nxc6 Qxc6 20. Rad1 {looks a better try for an edge.}) (19. Rad1 $1 $11 {Fritz5}) 19... Qxe5 20. Rxe5 Bd5 21. c3 $15 (21. Bxd5 Nxd5 22. c4 $11 {Fritz5}) 21... Bxb3 22. Nxb3 Rfd8 { [#] ENDGAME: There now follows a tense sequence where each side tries to make their Rooks active and attack Pawns. White targets b7 but allows Black activity in return.  White then carelessly drops the a-Pawn.    Can Black convert the win?  Black decides to make his two breaks earlier rather than later - possibly incorrectly.} 23. a5 Rac8 24. Ra4 Rd1+ 25. Kh2 Rb1 26. Re2 Nd5 27. Nd4 g6 28. Kg3 Kg7 29. c4 Nf6 30. Rb4 Rd1 31. Nf3 Rc7 { [#] Last chance to save the a-Pawn.} 32. Ne5 Ra1 33. Ng4 Nxg4 (33... Nh5+ {retains the Knights}) (33... Rxa5 {allows White to exchange if he wants}) 34. hxg4 Rxa5 35. Rd2 Rac5 36. b3 b5 (36... Kf6 {make the King one square better before breaking; the Rook on b4 is going nowhere fast.}) 37. Ra2 bxc4 38. bxc4 Ra7 39. Kf3 Kf6 40. Ke3 a5 41. Rb5 Rxc4 $15 ( 41... Rxb5 $1 42. cxb5 Ke5 $17 {Fritz5}) 42. Raxa5 Rxa5 43. g5+ Kg7 44. Rxa5 h6 45. gxh6+ Kxh6 46. f3 Rb4 47. Re5 Rb3+ 48. Kf4 Rb2 49. g4 g5+ 50. Ke3 Kg6 51. Ra5 Rb3+ 52. Ke2 f5 { [#] Black could try to get the Rook to d5 before  this.} 53. gxf5+ exf5 54. Kf2 f4 55. Ra2 Kh5 56. Kg2 Kh4 57. Rc2 Ra3 {If it's your own: (1) write down as much as you can remember about what you thought about at the time, and (2) any thought your opponent shared during a Post Mortem.   (3) Leave it for a few days and come back fresh, then analyse it as you would somebody else's.  Be particularly wary of self-serving interpretations, especially of the "I was winning all the way through" variety.  What did you miss?} 1/2-1/2 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.01"] [Round "2"] [White "Pickering, A."] [Black "Brusey, A."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C05"] [Annotator "DR, RS, Fritz5"] [PlyCount "84"] {OPENING: Black chooses a cheeky line and equalises without difficulty.  White commits a serious error and bales out by sacrificing the exchange.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Ne4 5. Bd3 {when faced with a sharp and unorthodox move, returning the ball with a good solid all-purpose move like Bd3 is the right strategy, deferring the critical moment to later in the game.} (5. Nxe4 dxe4 $14 {is the critical line, supposed to give White the advantage (perhaps no more than in other lines of the French), although Black naturally would know his way around this better than White.} 6. Bc4 (6. Be3)) 5... Nxd2 6. Bxd2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 $6 {BCO2 gives the immediate ...Qb6 as better.} 8. Be3 (8. Nf3 Qb6 9. dxc5 $14) 8... Qb6 { [#] Black has an OK game - a standard Advanced French but with less cramp - but has sacrificed a tempo to do so.  However, White faces unpleasant pressure against d4 and b2.} 9. b3 $2 {Can't be right.} (9. dxc5) ( 9. Nf3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Bb4+ (10... Qxb2)) (9. Qb3 {"should not be overlooked" - Fritz 5}) 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 {Normally Black just displaces the King out of spite, but here he can nibble a Pawn.} Bc3 { [#] MIDDLE GAME: White manfully gives up the exchange, but the test of the game is a slow exercise in the inevitable.  Black can always gain squares by threatening exchanges.} 12. Nf3 (12. Rc1 Bxd4 13. Bxd4 Nxd4 14. Qg4 {-/+  Fritz 5}) 12... Bxa1 13. Qxa1 Bd7 14. g3 Nb4 15. Bb1 Rc8 16. Kg2 Nc2 17. Qb2 Nxe3+ 18. fxe3 Qb4 19. Ng5 h6 20. Nf3 Bb5 21. Rc1 Rxc1 22. Qxc1 Kd7 23. a4 Be2 24. Nd2 Rc8 25. Qe1 Bh5 26. e4 Qxd4 27. exd5 Qxd5+ 28. Be4 Qd4 (28... Qxe5 $4 29. Bc6+ Rxc6 30. Qxe5 {- Fritz 5}) 29. Nc4 b6 30. Kh3 Qd1 31. Qe3 (31. Qxd1+ Bxd1 32. a5 bxa5 33. Nxa5 {- Fritz 5}) 31... Bg4+ (31... Qf1+ $1 32. Kh4 g5+ 33. Kxh5 (33. Qxg5 hxg5+ 34. Kxg5 Rg8+ 35. Kh6 Qc1+ 36. Ne3 Qxe3+ 37. Kh7 Qg5 38. Bc6+ Kxc6 39. h4 Qg6#) 33... Qh3# {- Fritz 5}) 32. Kg2 Qe2+ 33. Kg1 Qxe3+ 34. Nxe3 Rc1+ 35. Kf2 Bd1 36. Nxd1 Rxd1 37. Ke3 f6 38. Kf4 (38. exf6 gxf6 39. Ke2 $19 {Fritz 5}) 38... f5 39. Bf3 Rb1 40. g4 g5+ 41. Kg3 f4+ 42. Kf2 Rxb3 {Thanks to Ray Shepherd's Fritz5} 0-1 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.01"] [Round "3"] [White "Halmkin, PE."] [Black "Bellers, CJ."] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "B24"] [WhiteElo "2500"] [PlyCount "64"] {OPENING: a less common line is adopted where some controversial decisions are made.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. Nge2 d6 6. d3 e5 { [#] The Botvinnik treatment.  [#] The Botvinnik treatment.} 7. O-O (7. Nd5 Nge7 8. c3 Nxd5 9. exd5 {sealing the hole on d5 sealing the hole on d5} Ne7 10. O-O O-O 11. f4 Bd7 12. h3 Qc7 13. Be3 Rae8 14. Qd2 Nf5 15. Bf2 h5 16. Rae1 Qd8 17. Kh2 Bh6 18. h4 Qf6 19. Be4 exf4 20. Nxf4 Nxh4 21. Be3 Nf5 22. Bxf5 Qxf5 23. Qg2 Qg4 24. Qe2 Qxe2+ 25. Rxe2 Re5 26. Ree1 Rfe8 27. Bf2 h4 28. Rxe5 Rxe5 29. d4 hxg3+ 30. Kxg3 Rg5+ 31. Kh2 Rf5 32. Be3 cxd4 33. cxd4 Kh7 34. Rf2 g5 35. Ne2 Rxf2+ 36. Bxf2 f5 {0-1 Smyslov,V-Botvinnik,M/Moscow Wch-m 1954}) 7... Nge7 8. Kh1 (8. Be3 h5 $5 9. h3 Be6 10. Nd5 Qd7 11. h4 Bxd5 12. exd5 Nd4 13. c3 Ndf5 14. Bg5 O-O 15. a4 Qc7 16. a5 b5 17. axb6 axb6 18. Qb3 b5 19. Rxa8 Rxa8 20. Qxb5 Rb8 21. Qa4 Rxb2 22. Qe8+ Bf8 23. Ra1 Qc8 24. Qxc8 Nxc8 25. Kf1 Nb6 26. c4 Be7 27. Be4 Bxg5 {1/2-1/2 Kharitonov Andrei Y-Psakhis Lev/Cup World (open), Moscow  (Russ 1989}) 8... h5 $5 {A move with some point (see the Psakhis game) but better saved up, I think.} (8... O-O) (8... f5 $5) 9. f4 {Botvinnik would say that this Pawn is in White's way.} exf4 (9... h4 $5) 10. Bxf4 Bg4 (10... h4 $5 {looks like the right follow-up, taking advantage of the absence of the Knight from f3 and making use of the Pawn on h5.}) 11. Nb5 Be5 { [#] MIDDLE-GAME: White rolls out the standard attack on the f-file but Black holds the line - just.} (11... Ne5 12. Bg5 a6) 12. c3 (12. h3 Be6 13. Bxe5 dxe5 (13... Nxe5 14. d4 Bc4 15. dxe5 Bxb5 16. exd6 Bxe2 17. Qxe2 Qxd6 18. Rad1 $16) 14. Rf6 Ng8 15. Rf2) 12... a6 13. Na3 Rb8 {A natural follow-up to ...a6, but there's a lot of action on the other side.} 14. h3 Bxf4 15. Rxf4 Bxe2 (15... Be6 {idea ...d5 later}) 16. Qxe2 O-O 17. Raf1 b5 18. g4 (18. Qf2 {with one idea d3-d4}) 18... hxg4 19. Qxg4 Ne5 20. Qg3 b4 21. Nc4 bxc3 22. bxc3 Nxc4 23. dxc4 Nc6 24. e5 $17 (24. Qd3 $5 $15 {was preferred by Ray's friend Fritz}) 24... Nxe5 25. Bd5 Kg7 26. h4 f5 (26... Rb2 $5) 27. h5 (27. Rxf5 Rxf5 28. Rxf5 Rb1+ 29. Kg2 Rd1 30. h5 Rd3) 27... Qf6 28. Rxf5 Qxf5 29. Rxf5 Rxf5 30. hxg6 Rb1+ 31. Kg2 Rb2+ 32. Kg1 Rb1+ $4 {The clock may have had something to do with this if I know Chris.} ( 32... Rf6 33. Qe1 Rxg6+ 34. Kf1 Rxa2 $19 {Fritz5} 35. Qb1 Rd2 36. Qb7+ Kh6 37. Qxa6 $4 Nd3) (32... Rd2 {idea Rd3}) 1/2-1/2 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.??"] [Round "4"] [White "Rudall, D."] [Black "Hill, D."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B06"] [PlyCount "104"] {OPENING: White plays solid, and Black plays solid-but-passive allowing a cheeky attack on f7: Black concedes a Pawn.} 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 c6 {Solid but perhaps not to the point.  I like to play these positions with .. .c5 to break up the solid centre.} 5. Bd3 Nd7 6. Nbd2 Qc7 7. Qb3 Ngf6 (7... b5 8. c4 a6) 8. Bc4 O-O 9. Ng5 d5 (9... e6 {is usually an OK try but here} 10. e5 Ne8 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. Nxe6 Qb6 13. Ng5+ Kh8 14. Nf7+ Rxf7 15. Qxf7) 10. exd5 cxd5 11. Bxd5 Nxd5 12. Qxd5 Nf6 { [#] MIDDLE-GAME: Black has some compensation in the two Bishops: he must avoid exchanges and play as actively as possible.  White concedes the Pawn and exchanges off into an endgame.} 13. Qc4 Qb6 14. O-O Bd7 15. Qb3 Qa5 16. Nge4 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bc6 18. Ng3 e5 19. Be3 $6 {Defending d4 just creates a target.} (19. dxe5 Bxe5 20. Re1) 19... exd4 20. cxd4 (20. Bxd4 Bxd4 21. cxd4 Bd5 {is not easy for White either.}) 20... Rfd8 {Recovering the Pawn with a slight advantage.} 21. Qc3 (21. Rfd1 Ba4 22. Qa3 Bf8 23. Bd2 Qb5 $19) 21... Qd5 22. f3 Bxd4 23. Bxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Qxd4 Rxd4 { [#] ENDGAME: Black shows a textbook approach with an active pieces and an active King.  White goes passive and creates numerous weaknesses.} 25. a3 h5 26. Rfd1 Rad8 27. Rxd4 Rxd4 28. b4 $6 Kg7 {KUFTE! In fact, all Black's pieces are better than their White counterparts, a fact which the symmetrical Pawns seem to emphasise!} 29. Ne2 Rd2 30. Nc3 Rc2 31. Nd1 Kf6 32. Ne3 Rc3 33. Kf2 a6 34. Ra2 Ke5 35. g3 Kd4 36. Rd2+ Rd3 37. Re2 Kc3 38. f4 Kb3 39. Nc2 Kc3 40. Ne3 Rd2 41. Rxd2 Kxd2 {A classic Bishop vs. Knight ending has arisen.} 42. f5 Kc3 43. fxg6 fxg6 44. g4 Kb3 45. Kg3 Kxa3 46. gxh5 gxh5 47. Kh4 Be8 48. Nd5 Bf7 49. Nf4 Kxb4 50. Nd3+ Kb5 51. Kg3 a5 52. Kf3 a4 0-1 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.??"] [Round "5"] [White "Lee, RJ."] [Black "Gorodi, J."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E24"] [PlyCount "119"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {OPENING: White plays the most aggressive system against the Nimzo, siezing space in the centre and glaring at the Black King.} 4. f3 (4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3) (4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 c5 6. a3) 4... d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. e3 {Gligoric gives this "?!", although it is merely a switch to another, slower, plan, from the Closed Samisch Variation normally intriduced by 4. e3 or 4. a3.} (7. cxd5 {is more aggressive, aiming to play e2-e4 in one move.  Karpov got the edge using this system against Timman in their Candidates' Match.} Nxd5 (7... exd5 {transposes}) 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. e4 Ne7 10. Be3 O-O 11. Qb3 Qc7 12. Bb5 Nec6 13. Rd1 Na5 14. Qb4 e5 15. Ne2 Be6 16. c4 a6 17. Ba4 Nxc4 18. Bf2 Nc6 19. Qc3 Qa5 20. Bxc6 bxc6 21. Qxa5 Nxa5 22. O-O Rab8 23. Nc3 Rb3 24. Na4 Rxa3 25. Nb6 Nc4 26. h3 h5 27. Rc1 Nb2 28. Rb1 Nd3 29. Rfd1 f5 30. exf5 Rxf5 31. Rd2 Nxf2 32. Kxf2 {Timman J-Karpov A/3, Kuala Lumpur cm f 1990/1/2-1/2 (61)}) 7... O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. cxd5 exd5 {Dissolving the doubled Pawns.  Black must play very carefully now, for White has a natural plan of campaign.  The GMs play this difficult position from both sides, but White seems to be playing the positive side of the position (aiming for e4).} (9... Nxd5 {is a spoiling alternative, aiming for piece play: I might prefer this having played ...b6 already.} 10. Qc2 cxd4 11. cxd4 {idea ...Ba6, with a Queen's-side Pawn majority as long as we survive the middlegame.}) 10. Ne2 Re8 (10... Ba6 11. O-O Re8 12. Ng3 Qc8 13. Bxa6 Nxa6 14. Qd3 Qb7 15. Ra2 Re6 16. Re2 Rae8 17. Rfe1 h5 18. Qf5 g6 19. Qf4 Qd7 20. Bb2 cxd4 21. cxd4 Rc6 22. e4 Nc7 23. Nf1 a5 24. h3 Kg7 25. g4 hxg4 26. hxg4 Ne6 27. Qe3 Rh8 28. Ng3 Kf8 29. e5 Ng8 30. f4 Ng7 31. Qf3 Nh6 32. Rh2 Kg8 33. f5 gxf5 34. g5 Ng4 35. Rxh8+ Kxh8 36. Ne2 Rc2 37. Qb3 Qc6 38. Bc3 Ne3 39. Kf2 f4 40. Rh1+ Kg8 41. Rh6 Qc8 {0-1 Beliavsky Alexander G-Short Nigel D/Linares (Spain) 1990}) 11. O-O Nc6 (11... Ba6 12. Ng3 Bxd3 13. Qxd3 Nc6 14. Bb2 c4 $6 15. Qd2 Qd7 16. Rae1 h5 17. e4 g6 18. Bc1 Nh7 19. Qh6 Re6 20. f4 Ne7 21. f5 gxf5 22. Qxh5 dxe4 23. Nxf5 Nxf5 24. Rxf5 Rae8 25. Re3 Rg6 26. Rh3 {1-0 Kasparov,G-Ivanovic,B/Niksic 06 1983}) 12. Ng3 Be6 13. Bb2 Rc8 14. Qd2 Qd7 15. Rae1 Red8 16. Qf2 Ne7 $6 { [#] Takes pressure off d4} 17. e4 {Ready or not, here we come... Black has neither counterplay on the Queen's-side nor restraint on the e-file, and so must be counted as standing worse.} Ng6 18. e5 Nf4 19. Bc2 Ne8 20. Qd2 g5 21. Ne2 { [#] } Bf5 {Not a bad idea: the Black light-squared Bishop is poor, and if your opponent has two Bishops (however crummy they might appear at the moment) it is good to exchange one of them.  However, the tactical execution is wrong.  Every strategical idea must be negotiated with the tactics in the position.} 22. Nxf4 Bxc2 (22... gxf4 {is messy but not so obviously losing:} 23. Bxf5 (23. Qxf4 Bxc2) 23... Qxf5 24. Bc1 cxd4 25. cxd4 Rc2 26. Qxf4 Ng7) 23. Nh3 h6 24. Qxc2 { [#] That'll do nicely.} cxd4 25. Qd2 dxc3 26. Bxc3 Ng7 27. Nf2 h5 28. Rc1 Ne6 29. Bb2 Rc4 30. Rxc4 dxc4 31. Qxd7 Rxd7 32. Rd1 Rc7 33. Ne4 Kg7 34. Bc3 Kg6 35. Kf2 { [#] Black is again obliged to play with maximum energy...} Kg7 {... not like this.} 36. g3 Kg6 37. Ke3 a5 (37... b5 {is better, keeping the Pawns intact, when White might still have some problems.}) 38. Rd6 Rb7 39. a4 { fixing the b-Pawn} b5 40. axb5 Rxb5 41. Rc6 a4 42. Rxc4 a3 43. Ra4 Nc7 44. Rxa3 Nd5+ 45. Kd4 Nxc3 46. Rxc3 g4 47. Rc6+ Kg7 48. fxg4 hxg4 49. Nf6 Kg6 50. Nxg4+ { [#] Black could resign with a clear conscience.} Kg5 51. h3 Rb4+ 52. Ke3 Rb3+ 53. Kf2 Rb2+ 54. Kf3 Rb3+ 55. Ne3 Rb5 56. h4+ Kh5 57. Rf6 Rb7 58. Kf4 Rb4+ 59. Kf5 Rb7 60. Nd5 1-0 [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"] [Site "?"] [Date "1997.11.??"] [Round "6"] [White "Blackmore, M."] [Black "Ingham, Bill"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B12"] [PlyCount "129"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 {OPENING:  A modest system leads to a position where White has a bit more space.} 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bd3 (5. Be2 {is the fashion - a good reason for not playing it!}) 5... Bxd3 6. Qxd3 c5 (6... Qa5+ 7. c3 Qa6 { is a way to reduce tension if Black wants to play it that way.}) 7. O-O Nc6 8. c3 Qb6 9. Nbd2 Rc8 (9... cxd4 {would prevent the next manoeuvre} 10. cxd4 h5 11. Nb3 Nh6) 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Nb3 Bf8 {rather a sign of distress, but Black is still OK I think} 12. Bf4 (12. Be3 {looked more natural.  With Black's underdevelopment I was trying to find a way to open up the game with f2-f4, but hadn't considered c3-c4.} Qc7 (12... Qa6 13. Qxa6 bxa6 14. Nc5) 13. c4 (13. Bd4 {is the stodgy method}) (13. Nbd4 $5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15. Qb5+ Kd8 16. Qxb7) 13... dxc4 14. Qxc4 Nxe5 15. Qb5+ Nd7 16. Rac1 Qb8 17. Bxa7) 12... Nge7 { [#] MIDDLEGAME: White now looks for a chance to upset the course of the game by direct attack, rather than going for a positional squeeze.} 13. h4 Ng6 14. Qd2 Nxf4 15. Qxf4 Be7 16. h5 h6 17. Qg3 O-O 18. Nh2 f6 19. Ng4 Nxe5 20. Nxh6+ Kh8 21. Ng4 Nxg4 22. Qxg4 f5 (22... Rc4 {was calmer}) 23. Qd4 Qxd4 24. Nxd4 e5 { [#] EARLY ENDGAME: At first glance this looks very good for Black but White makes a right nuisance of himself.} 25. Rfe1 e4 (25... Bd6 26. Nf3 {is much easier for Black.}) (25... exd4 {was worth a look, calling White's bluff: I think it doesn't win but Black has good chances} 26. Rxe7 dxc3 27. bxc3 (27. Rxb7 c2 28. Rc1 Rfd8 29. Kf1 d4 30. Ke1 d3 31. Kd2 Rc5 32. Re7) 27... Rxc3 28. Rxb7 (28. Rd7) 28... Rd8 (28... d4 29. Rd7 d3 30. Rd1) 29. Rxa7 d4) 26. Rad1 Rf6 27. Ne2 Rb6 28. Nf4 Bg5 29. Ng6+ Kh7 30. Rxd5 Rxb2 31. Rxf5 Bf6 32. Rxe4 Rxc3 { [#] When the Rook left the back rank, the mate alert sensor should have flashed red.} 33. Nf8+ (33. Re8 $18) 33... Kg8 34. Nd7 Rc1+ 35. Kh2 Rc6 36. Rg4 (36. h6 $5 $16) 36... Kh7 37. a4 Rd6 38. Nf8+ Kg8 39. h6 Be5+ 40. Rxe5 Rxh6+ 41. Kg3 Rb3+ 42. f3 Kxf8 { [#] Double Rook endings are both more, and less, drawish than single Rook endings!  Here White has an immediate initiative and wangles a Pawn.} 43. Reg5 Rh7 44. Rc5 a6 45. Rc7 (45. Rc8+ Kf7 46. Rc7+ Kf6 { was suggested: this does get the Rook to the seventh "with gain of time" except that ...Kg8-f7-f6 is very useful for Black, escaping from the dangerous back rank and getting KUFTE}) 45... b5 46. Rd4 Ke8 47. Ra7 bxa4 48. Rxa4 Rh6 49. Rxg7 Rbb6 50. Ra2 { [#] } Rhg6+ {The White King's-side Pawns scamper off home in the game, but keeping Rooks on doesn't look right because of the trapped Black King.} 51. Rxg6 Rxg6+ 52. Kf4 Rb6 53. g4 Kf7 54. Ra5 Kf6 55. g5+ Kg6 56. Kg4 Rb4+ 57. f4 Rb6 58. f5+ Kf7 59. Rc5 Rb4+ 60. Kh5 Rb1 61. Rc7+ Kg8 62. Kg6 Rb6+ 63. f6 Rb8 64. Re7 Kh8 65. Rh7+ 1-0

Chess and Psychology

Posted on September 20, 1999 by DrDave

Introduction

Many people use the word “psychology” to refer to ‘gamesmanship’, or perhaps to the familiar failings of attention or attitude during play. For example, I have written and collected material elsewhere about getting your mental attitude right: there are examples (good and bad) in the Psychology section of the Canon, there is some good advice on a Poster for Juniors, and in a compilation of Advice for the middlegame. But here I would like to discuss some of the research that has gone on into chess by psychologists – if you like, the science of chess thinking.

The reason for doing this, apart from my own general interest, is because:

chess research has had a big influence on psychology (particularly in skill research: see, for example, Nicolas, Charness, Vicente and Brewer)
chess research may have important implications for players
many players have misconceptions about what chess research shows: until recently (at least!), this included myself

Chess research seeks to answer: “How do chessplayers think?“. This was actually the title of a commendable series of articles by Simon Webb in CHESS magazine in the late ‘seventies, and if you would like to work through a few examples before reading on, I have collected some material in a separate Web page. I’ll make reference to this page where appropriate below.

Analysis vs. judgement

Many chessplayers have read Alexander Kotov’s book Think like a Grandmaster. It describes how Kotov lifted himself from the also-rans of strong players to become a grandmaster, and what is more, he tells us how he did it: through rigorous training in the analysis of complex positions. His method led him to describe the approach of selecting candidate moves:

“All candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one’s head. This job cannot be done piecemeal, by first examining one move and then look at another.” — Kotov,A Think like a Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty. [1978] (Batsford)

Kotov also insists that each branch of what may be a complex tree should be examined once and once only: anything else shows lack of confidence and leads to a waste of precious minutes on the clock.

I know club players who feel guilty because they rarely or never use this technique. There are a number of important points that can be made in reassurance:

Kotov was already a strong player before he adopted this approach, and while this may be what one needs to get from FM to IM, it may not be the most important thing for you;
not all strong players adopt Kotov’s candidate move approach (would they be still stronger using it? – see position 6/78 – W to move candidate moves?);
and, most importantly,
not all positions are suitable for this approach: it is a way of working through positions of a pronounced tactical nature.

Now, it is possible to conclude that this analytical approach is almost irrelevant to club play. For example, Reti famously once said:

“Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, ‘as a rule not a single one’ “

Moreover, if you read many primers on play: Chernev’s Logical Chess, for example, or his The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played or even Nimzovitch’s My System, they all seem to emphasise positional play and judgement as being the most important aspect of chess.

There is something quite appealing about concluding that strategical judgement is more important than tactical analysis. It may confirm the supremacy of the world of ideas over the brute and grubby realm of tactics; in a sense, strategy is a more inclusive, higher-level way of talking about positions than tactics, just as the gas laws are a higher-level way of talking about the behaviour of gas molecules.

But as well as being appealing, it may be correct. Many people have argued that chess research shows that, whatever makes the difference between masters and the rest of us, it’s not the ability to calculate. For example, the British GM David Norwood has published a booklet summarising his views on chess, which includes this statement:

” It is often supposed that, apart from their ‘extraordinary powers of memory’, expert players have phenomenal powers of calculation. The beginner believes that experts can calculate dozens of moves ahead and he will lose to them only because he cannot calculate ahead so far. Yet this is utter nonsense. From my own experience I can say that grandmasters do not do an inordinate amount of calculating. Tests (notably de Groot’s experiments) supports me in this claim. If anything, grandmasters often consider fewer alternatives; they tend not to look at as many possible moves as weaker players do. And so, perversely, chess skill often seems to reflect the ability to avoid calculations. It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation. Of course there are times when intense calculation is called for, and often the master is better at dealing with these situations than the amateur. No wonder, he has had more practise than the amateur, but all the same his innate calculating ability need not be any greater. Most of the time it is something quite different that is required in chess, something more akin to ‘understanding’ or ‘insight’.” — David NORWOOD, Chess and Education [1995, Gresham College, London].

Paul Powell’s Chess Page includes a polemic to much the same effect, and there are a number of off-line sources (what are they called again? Oh, yes, “books”) which concur. I’d like to look at de Groot’s research, but first, review the history of chess research that de Groot had to go on before his own studies.

Memory: the touchstone of talent?

I don’t know any other sport or game in which you can arrange a simultaneous display, but it is one of the most impressive demonstrations of chess skill. Masters take on dozens of opponents with little apparent mental effort, and achieve huge winning percentages. There seems no time to calculate, as the moves are made almost at a glance. More amazing is blindfold chess, and yet masters can even give blindfold simultaneous displays.

What enables masters to do this?

The most obvious explanation is that they are cleverer than the rest of us. But while there are some links between Chess and IQ, masters are not do not score much more highly than other players – certainly not enough to explain the dramatic differences in performance you can see at a simul. And although chess masters’ memory for chess, as Binet showed, is striking, it seems no better for other spheres.

In fact, for a long while there seemed not much more to add than that masters are better than other players at chess – full stop. What was needed was some task that was not the game of chess itself, but which showed important differences between masters and the rest of us. One was found in the recall of chess positions.

The paradigm was established in an experiment by Djakow, Rudik and Petrovsky [1927]. They presented a chess problem to masters and non-players, and found that after a minute’s exposure the masters could recall the position very much better than the non-players, although this is perhaps a difference that one would expect.

In his book Thought and Choice in Chess, Dutch master and psychologist Adrian de Groot describes how he extended and refined this experiment. He also showed a series of chess positions to a panel composed of four chess players for a few seconds only. Grandmaster Euwe and Master de Groot were very good at this – almost perfect (93%) – whereas other players (an expert and a club player) were much worse (68% and 51%), getting no position entirely right. de Groot talks about a “gulf that separates the master from the non-master“.

This is a difference that perhaps is more of a surprise. de Groot had another surprise for us too: he showed the following position “A” (from one of his own games) to five Grandmasters and five experts, and recorded and analysed their thoughts:

   [Event "How good is your Chess?: Chapter 15"] [Date "2026.09.20"] [Result "*"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "?"] [Opening "?"] [StudyName "How good is your Chess?"] [ChapterName "Chapter 15"] [ChapterURL "https://lichess.org/study/szREx57P/NbAvwt49"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/DrDaveExeter"] [FEN "2r2rk1/pp2bp1p/1qb1pnp1/3nN1B1/3P4/P1NQ4/BP3PPP/2R2RK1 w - - 6 17"] [SetUp "1"] [UTCDate "2026.09.20"] [UTCTime "18:42:22"]   *

He then drew up a table of the number of depth of lines analysed. [ If you would like to compare your thoughts, there is some light commentary here: Comment on (de Groot).] He concluded:

“It is unequivocal that depth of calculation cannot be the prime distinguishing characteristic between the grandmaster and the expert player.“

This hits one with rather a thump. But of course:

“Substantial differences in thinking do exist. The gap between levels of performance of the G- and E-group is enormous: four of the five subjects would almost certainly have won the game; even the fifth would have had a better chance than the E-players who without exception let their opportunity go down the drain.“

de Groot’s research thus led to two things:

a widespread belief that GMs do not calculate much better than other strong players
a very fruitful series of studies on the recall of chess positions.

The subsequent research on recall (e.g. Chase and Simon’s famous study) is of less immediate interest to me here than research on chessplayer’s thinking as such. There is a lot of recall research, which I summarise briefly:

recall tends to be in bite-sized chunks, e.g. fianchetto/castled king [Kg1,Rf1,Bg2,Pf2,Pg3,Ph2], or an inter-related set of pieces in attack and defence
errors tend to be of the same “chunked” nature: for example, including typical elements that are normally missing [say, a Bg2], or excluding elements that are not normally present [say, a Pf4]
recall by strong players is no better than other players for random positions (Chase and Simon, 1973)

[This seems also to relate to performance: performance in finding mate-in-one by strong players is no better than other players for random positions (CHESS, April 1984, pp. 289-290), although in a best-move test Holding found clear strength differences.]

There’s a nice real-life example of chunked memory, and playing by analogy, in John Nunn’s game against Korchnoi in the Blindfold round of the 1994 Melody Amber tournament.

So we seem to have a paradigm for research which is not itself chess, but seems able to tell us something about the way chessplayers perform during games – even suggesting how they think. There was developed the ‘recognition-association‘ model, which suggested that strong players play essentially by analogy: recalling positions and elements of positions, and making judgements about the current position based on this recall. This surely makes a great deal of sense. How often have we seen players flash out the ‘stock’ Bxh7 sacrifice? Is this skill or merely recognition? Gerald Abrahams, in The Chess Mind, argues strongly for the primacy of vision, and says:

“Seeing the idea precedes the logical argument.“

Similarly, Hartston and Wason give an imaginary post mortem conversation which I seem to have heard before:

[Stronger player rejects a move suggested by the weaker player]

Weaker player: What’s wrong with it?

Stronger player: It’s not good.

Weaker player: Why not?

Stronger player: It’s not the sort of move you play in this sort of position

[end of conversation]

So, this “vision thing” seems more important than memory or calculation. I have two immediate caveats to the direction that chess research took, following de Groot:

It should be noted immediately that even if GMs do not calculate much better than other strong players, if you want to be a strong player, then I think you do need to be able to calculate. de Groot presents no data for club-class players compared to “experts”, but I suspect they would be pretty telling. It may not be the thing that is most important for you to improve, and it may be the thing that is most difficult for you to improve, but I have a feeling that tactical alertness and reliability in analysis are important to develop for we club players.
Even if we accept that Grandmasters’ judgements and technique are much better, and that many positions do not require analysis, it still may be that GMs do calculate rather better than other strong players when the need arises.

But there are further cautions one needs to make. Anecdotally, I have read:

“… one other thing is the GMs superiority in tactics. For example Christiansen can find tactics in any position. If you’re a GM you should be able to overpower the IM tactically. The GM will often blow out the IM in this area. ” — Nick de FIRMIAN, in How to get Better at Chess Chess Masters On Their Art by GM Larry Evans, IM Jeremy B Silman and Betty Roberts

And in fact, if you look at the the de Groot material again, the GM/Expert measures were completed once for each player, for only one position. It may be that de Groot chose a position with a number of features that made it particularly hard for the experts to grasp. The key move 1. Bxd5 is a little anti-positional and the Black position does not look vulnerable at first blush. It is interesting to speculate what results he might have got with this one: Colle – O’Hanlon, Nice Ol, 1930: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4

   [Event "Nice"] [Site "Nice FRA"] [Date "1930.02.21"] [Round "9"] [White "Edgar Colle"] [Black "John James O'Hanlon"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/DrDaveExeter"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "D05"] [Opening "Queen's Pawn Game: Colle System, Traditional Colle"] [StudyName "Colle system inspiration"] [ChapterName "Edgar Colle - John James O'Hanlon"] [ChapterURL "https://lichess.org/study/zUCCupv9/gmOvgsr0"]     d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+ Kg6 14. h4 Rh8 15. Rxe6+ Nf6 16. h5+ Kh6 17. Rxd6 Qa5 18. Nxf7+ Kh7 19. Ng5+ Kg8 20. Qb3+ { 1-0 White wins. } 1-0

I guess nearly all players would consider the critical continuation 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+, but I suspect experienced masters would run through the tree of variations more thoroughly and deeply than experts and club players.

Now, Dennis Holding in his 1985 book The Psychology of Chess Skill, collates a number of strands of evidence which suggest that in fact, as we might have all suspected at the outset, strong players do analyse deeper and faster than weaker ones, even in random positions. [But they also are more efficient, homing in on good lines and abandoning duff ones. So it’s not just quantity but also the quality of their analysis which is better.] Norwood’s claims above look more shaky.

The points made above are not meant to be unkind to de Groot: his work has been so widely cited because it was exciting and important. [I do feel a bit cheated by Norwood, who after all could have found Holding’s work as easily as I could.] But it is in the nature of science to improve on past work. There are lots of other good things in de Groot’s book: for example, when do players abandon a line of thought and look for something better? (Answer seems to be: when the assessment of a position at the end of the variation being considered is out of keeping with the initial evaluation of the position.)

Towards a general model

Teichmann once said that “chess is 99% tactics“, and CJS Purdy added “Chess is the art of analysis“; on the other hand David Norwood and Reti suggest that analysis is relatively unimportant.

Surely both positions are partly true. (This “one the one hand…, on the other” style makes one yearn for genetic engineers to develop the one-armed academic.) I might offer that memory, judgement and analysis are all important, that we have different abilities and experiences for each aspect, and that different positions make different demands on each skill. Without some pains being taken to discover the balance of skills amongst players of different strengths (style notwithstanding), and the balance of demands of different positions, we are not yet in a position to say what (if anything) is the key to chess mastery.

In support of this general position, I quote from the abstract of a paper by Dennis Holding:

“The paper reviews the evidence for and against the recognition-association theory and a forward-search (SEEK) theory of chess skill. The recognition-association theory appears to be founded on indirect evidence concerning visual short-term memory, together with supplementary assumptions that may be questioned, and provides no role for verbal processes. There is no direct support for the theory, which omits forward search for reasons that are reexamined. In contrast, the SEEK theory maintains that move choice is based on search and evaluation processes supplemented (or else supplanted) by a knowledge base. These processes are directly evidenced by experimental findings. The objection that search theories cannot account for speed chess is met by a review of the available evidence. It is concluded that chess skill relies on thinking ahead rather than on pattern recognition.” — Holding, PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1992

Now, we needn’t agree with everything Holding says, but it is clear that we may have been hasty in dismissing the importance of analysis (thinking ahead).

The whole of this issue of Psychological Research is devoted to chess, and Holding has written a whole book on The Psychology of Chess Skill (1985). There is clearly much research of interest going on, much of which suggests that chess is more complicated than the ‘recognition-association’ model. And however resounding the pronouncements made about the importance of chess skills, chess remains more complex, and more interesting, than any pat statement.

One last point. It may be that de Groot had something right all along, namely, his method. I think part of the attraction of the later recall paradigm is that there is no messiness: subjects are given a definite task and the languageless patterns of results are scored according to a definite scheme. But de Groot saw no virtue in this style of work: in fact his book is in part a long plea in favour of “introspective” methods in psychology, where subjects are encouraged to talk about their thinking, and the whole messy, unreliable collection of their words is analysed. I have a suspicion that rather than seek the key(s) to chess through some neat experimental technique, the closer we come to studying chess itself, the more likely we are to find an answer.

Further reading:
In addition to books and papers cited above, I have found interesting and useful Krogius’ Psychology of chess and Pfleger and Treppner’s Chess: the mechanics of mind. Hartston and Wason have published a readable book on the Psychology of Chess: it has had favourable reviews and covers the psychoanalytic approach rarely referred to elsewhere.

If the psychology side interests you, you may also be interested to read San Francisco Exploratory’s Exhibit on Memory

Pawn formations

Posted on September 9, 1999 by DrDave

Based on: The Middle Game I by Euwe and
Kramer.
[Currently out of print; Batsford’s have the publishing rights for this
title
and I am grateful for their permission to use this material]

“The most important feature of the chess position
is the activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in
all phases of the game (opening, middlegame and especially endgame). The primary constraint on a
piece’s activity is the Pawn structure.“

— Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

“In general, a Pawn centre is a good thing not in
itself but in its usefulness for concrete ends.“

— Mark Dvoretsky & Artur Yusupov, Opening
Preparation

A. Symmetrical Centre
Formations

A.1. Vanished centre

e.g. Scotch 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 then …d5 and
exd5

The placing of the pieces and/or a development advantage
will decide if the game has any real meat.

A.2. The QP centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5

The open e-file and outpost at e5 (e4) may become crucial
if pieces are allowed to settle there. The natural break c2-c4 does
little to add tension, unless castling is performed on opposite
sides; the Q-side is then risky with outpost at c5.

A.3. The KP centre

e.g. Philidor or Closed Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4.
dxe5 dxe5

Assuming King’s-side castling, the break f2-f4 is much
sharper

A.4. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (i) KPs forward

e.g. Closed Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3
d6

White can prepare the advance d2-d4 with c2-c3, or go for
f2-f4. Black may try to prevent this e.g. h7-h6 and g7-g5, or go
for broke on the Queen’s-side.

A.5. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (ii) QPs forward

e.g. Queen’s Pawn Game 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3

The advance e2-e4 is more difficult to achieve than d4 in
A.4; the more common plan is c2-c4 and a shift of
the struggle to the Queen’s-side. If for some reason c2-c4 is
impossible or undesirable, then e2-e4 must be sought.

B. Positional advantage in the
centre

B.1. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(i) KP forward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 d6 5.
Nf3 dxe5 6. dxe5

White’s chances lie in a direct attack on the King, with
a B on d3

B.2. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(ii) QP forward

e.g. Benoni/KID lines with late …e6 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6 or
Franco-Benoni 1.e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5

White has a space advantage which must be nurtured
carefully.

B.3. Partially Fixed Centre
(i) tension form

e.g. Philidor and Closed Lopez 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.
Nc3 Nd7

White will try to maintain d4 with c2-c3 and use extra
space and mobility, sometimes for K-side attack with outpost on
f5

B.4. Partially Fixed Centre
(ii) Benoni without …e6

e.g. 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6

White has a large space advantage and can play for direct
attack on the King with f4-f5 or just roll down the middle with
e4-e5

B.5. Partially fixed centre
(iii) French with White d-pawn backward

e.g. Advance French with exchange on d3 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5
b6 4. Bd3 c5 5. f4 Ba6 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bxd3 8. cxd3

White has a post on d4 for a Knight. The major pieces may
come off on the c-file, when White has a post on d4 for a King;
without exchanges White can play for attack and break with
f4-f5

B.6. Partially fixed centre
(iv) French with Black d-pawn backward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5.
cxd4 e6 6. Nf3 b6

Black has a post on d5, White can play for attack on the
K with B on d3

B.7. Mobile Centre (i) King
Pawn

e.g. Nimzo after exchanges of the d- and c-pawns, or other slow
opening after d3, e4 and …d5xe4

There will be a struggle for e5 e.g. White will sieze it
with a N and play for attack. This can be resolved by the advance
of either e-pawn, when we have structures considered above.

B.8. Mobile Centre (ii) Queen
Pawn

e.g. Indian Defence with …e5xd4, e3xd4, or Alekhin Exchange
variation 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 exd6

White has a space advantage and is very likely to play c4
(else …d5 will come quickly), when Black will be short of space.
Black must put pressure on the White centre.

There will be a struggle for d5, which can be resolved by
the advance of either d-pawn, when we have structures similar to
those above, although White can go for a bind with c4-c5.

C. Extra Central Pawns

C.1. Absolute Centre

e.g. King’s Gambit Declined 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3
or Nimzo after cxd5,…exd5 and e4, …dxe4 and fxe4

A substantial asset, but not decisive – the reason being
the pressure that can be put on the pawns by the opponent’s rooks
(they are in fact a type of hanging pawns). If the centre can be
kept intact, and perhaps advance, then the advantage will manifest
itself.

C.2. Hanging Centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. Bd3 c5
and later dxc5, and …f6,exf6, …Nxf6

Another hanging formation, with a key square at e5. If
White can occupy e5 or at least prevent …e6-e5 then Black will be
worse. Usually Black can keep White pestered with enough nuisances
to keep in the fight, but often a single tempo will make the
difference between a successful blockade and a successful
advance.

C.3. Classic Centre

e.g. Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5.
d4 exd4 6. cxd4

One of the strongest formations – if White can keep it
intact. In the Giuoco Piano line above Black can disrupt it with
…d5. But if Black retreats with 6…Bb6 the centre will either
form the basis of a crushing attack, or simply roll forward.

C.4. Neo-Classic Centre
*

e.g. Slav, Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Grunfeld Defence, Queen’s
Indian 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc5 5. a4 Na6 6. e4 or
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4

Again strong: Black’s best hopes are to hit at it with
…e5 (risking d5) or …c5. Sometimes in the Grunfeld …f5 may
play a part.

C.5. Neo-Classic Centre: with
open file

e.g. Grunfeld 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4
Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Bc4 Bg7 8. Ne2 cxd4 9. cxd4

Tactically this may still be dodgy for Black, but
strategically is prefereable to C4, as the cramp
is less, the opportunities to hit at the centre (and directly at
pieces) are better, and the Queen’s-side majority is an endgame
plus.

C.6. Unbalanced tension
form

e.g. Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6.
Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

A tense formation: White can exchange on e5 (rival
majorities), Black can exchange on d4 (ditto), or White can push d5
(not strategically worrying for Black, but may be troublesome
tactically).

C.7. Latent Central Majority
(i) QP in reserve

e.g. Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. d3

Often in the RL Exchange White plays d4, and after
…exd4 has a free majority on the King’s-side. Here Black would
play …c5 if White hinted at this, so White must either play more
slowly for d4, or try f4, or leave things in the centre as they are
and creep over to the King’s-side for an attack on the Black
King.

C.8. Latent Central Majority
(ii) KP in reserve

e.g. Queen’s Gambit and Caro-Kann Exchange. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6
3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5.

White has a choice of plans: to prepare the advance e2-e4
(usually by f3), or to play the minority attack.

The e4 advance is favoured by (a) the d4-pawn not being
vulnerable, and (b) two bishops to fight in the resulting open
position. So in the line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3
5. bxc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 all the signals are there for the e4 plan
to be favoured; in the QGD the minority attack is most common.

D. Closed Formations

D.1. Blocked oblique (i) QP
forward *

e.g. King’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5.
Nf3 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. d5, or from Ruy Lopez with d4-d5 (cf.
B3)

White has only two ways to open a file: the breaks f4 and
c5. The former may leave a weak backward pawn on e4 after …e5xf4
(even if White can reply g3xf4), so the latter is preferred. Black
will naturally counter with …f5. White can also easily achieve
b4, with a strong Queen’s-side initiative, but Black’s attack on
the castled White King is dangerous.

D.2. Blocked oblique (ii) KP
forward *

e.g. French advance 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 (also
Caro-Kann)

In practice …c5 and …cxd4, cxd4 is common,
tranferring the position to F3. Without …c5
Black is crushed by the advance f2-f4-f5. So the only important
position is if Black pushes past with …c5-c4, as in the line 1.
e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 c4. White will
still aim for the attack, but Black can play for infiltration of b3
and to open lines with …b5-b4. Black can castle Queen’s-side, but
this may make …b5 more difficult.

D.3. Stonewall

e.g. most common is the Dutch 1.d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.
Nc3 d5, but also Semi- Slav and other QP openings.

Black plays for a King’s-side attack, with an outpost on
e4 and a pawn-break …g5 and …f4; White’s easiest strategical
plan involves assault of c6 with c4-c5 (usually) and b4-b5
(always). White can also try to get at e6 with f3 and e4.

More generally White must aim at restraint of …e5,
exchange of dark-squared bishops, and controlling key squares with
Ns on f3 and d3.
Usually c4xd5 is met by …c6xd5, but if White is organised for b4
then …e6xd5 may wrong-foot White’s pieces.

D.4. Anti-Stonewall

e.g. Semi-Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e3 f5 5. f4!

If White has this option Black is advised to avoid the
Stonewall; the King’s-side attack is unlikely to get far and the
assualt on c6 is just as dangerous.

D.5. Pseudo-Stonewall
(Botvinnik)

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5.
e4

If Black can organise …d5 White’s formation will
shatter; White must adopt a move-order whereby …d5 is impossible
or undesirable. Then the central bind can enable a King’s-side
initiative with f2-f4 and f4-f5. If both players adopt this
formation, the advantage will go to the player who achieves f4
first.

D.6. Wyvill Formation

e.g. Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. a3
Bxc3 6. bxc3 d6 7. e4 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. O-O e5 10. d5

Marmaduke Wyvill, the nineteenth century MP, specialised
in this formation; the details are important here.

Ideal for Black is an outpost on c5, and Queen’s-side
castling. Then the assault on the weak c-pawns can be carried out
in safety, and Black can even think about opening a file with
…f5. But White should not volunteer for d4-d5, and usually Black
can only induce this by playing …c5; if in addition Black has
castled King’s-side White has good chances.

Sometimes pressure with …Re8 and …Qe7 threatens a
discovery with …e5xd4, and this may be enough to provoke d4-d5;
Euwe once played …Na5, …Ba6 and …Qe6!

D.8 Winawer Formation

e.g. (and almost exclusively) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3 6. bxc3.

White has prospects of a King’s-side attack with f4-f5,
but Black’s attack on the c-pawns can be certain of opportunities.
The big structural disadvantage for Black is the lack of the Bf8,
creating possibilities of a dark-square campaign. Black should
castle Queen’s-side, if at all.

E. Open Formations

E.1. Ruy Lopez
Formation

e.g. Philidor or Ruy Lopez Steinitz Variation with
…e5xd4.

White’s superior mobility gives a lasting advantage. It
can be milked for a direct attack on the King; White can post the
Bc1 on b2. These days most players don’t fancy this defensive task
as Black and try to maintain the e5 pawn.

E.2. French/Caro formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4, or 1. e4 c6 2. d4
d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4

With the Bc8 stuck behind the Pe6, Black has a lasting
problem. White can post a Knight on e5 and play sharply to restrict
Black’s pieces and attack the Black King.

It is natural to seek …c5, but even after an exhange
White has the Queen’s-side majority. In the Caro version the Bc8
usually escapes, so Black’s chances are better here, even if it
takes two moves to play …c5. Very often Queen’s-side castling is
an option for either side.

E.3. Sicilian Formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3

A very delicate situation strategically; White has a deal
more space, and prospects of a King’s-side attack. But Black has an
extra central pawn, a minority attack and pressure down the c-file,
and myriad tactical opportunities.

The development of the Bf8 is important; after …e6 and
…Be7 Black has good central control but a slightly weak point on
d6; the centrally sounder …g6/…Bg7 adds so much to Black’s
Queen’s- side play that Black would play it all the time, if it
didn’t also create new opportunities for White’s King’s-side attack
after h4-h5.

White can achieve a powerful bind, and stop Black’s
counterplay, by playing c2-c4. Black may be able to equalise by
good defensive play and achieve a freeing break with …b5 or
…d5, but it is essentially a defensive task that misses out on
the counter-attacking possibilities of the Sicilian.

E.4. Rival Majorities (i) with
open file between

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5
5. Bg2 Nb6 and later d4 and …e5xd4; see also
E3.

Simply, each side must advance their majority.
With Queens on, advancing pawns on the King’s-side cannot be done
casually, but neither can their advance be ignored.

E.5. Rival Majorities (ii)
with no open file between

This formation can be achieved by the centre pawns pushing past
each other once their partners have been exchanged, but more often
it will arise from A2/A3 after an exchange on an
outpost square.

The plans are clear for each side; the bishop’s pawns
must advance, with equal chances.

F. Half-open
formations

F.1. Half-Open with an open
file (i) symmetrical

e.g. Echange Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5

This is plainly similar to other symmetrical formations,
with tactical or dynamic features (lead in development, two
bishops, concentration of force) being more important than the pawn
formation. The structurally important thing here is on which side
the dark-squared bishops are placed.

F.2. Half-Open with an open
file (ii) focus formation

e.g. Ruy Lopez, Tchigorin Defence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf2 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Na5 10.
Bc2 c5 11. dxe5 dxe5

This is strategically very much richer. Usually there are
too many pieces around for invasion via the d-file to be possible,
but it should not be overlooked. White has an outpost on d5, and
after an exchange on d5, e4xd5 gives a passed pawn and the Bc2 and
Nd2 can look forward to a bright future. White also has a plan of
Nf5 and a King’s-side attack, and may seek to control c4 after
a2-a4.

Black has counterplay on the Queen’s-side, and if c5-c4
proves possible, Black suddenly has avoided any nasties on c4 and
has a goal on d3. So White’s pursuit of King’s-side goals cannot be
careless.

F.3. Half-Open with an open
file (iii) Blocked Oblique

e.g. King’s Indian, Ruy Lopez or French; cf.
D1/D2

The discussion in D1/D2 was all about how to open a file,
but here such a file already exists. Four possibilities present
themselves, combining each central pawn being forward with either
bishop file being open. Care and exploitation of the open file
affects markedly the plans described above; both players may switch
to the side with the open file in order to keep an eye on it.

Exchanges of rooks down the open file reduce the chances
of a successful mating attack, but do not much reduce the
positional pawn advances.

F.4. Half-open with half-open
files (i) French

e.g. French with dxc5/…c5xd4 e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3
Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Be3

Black has chances against the Queen’s-side; c4 is an
outpost that cannot easily be disturbed by b2-b3. White’s chances
come on the King’s-side, and the attack must be swift and sure – f5
and h4 may figure in the attack. White should maintain a Knight at
d4, although Black can exchange or otherwise badger it. If Black
can force White to abandon d4, then the advance …d5-d4 may decide
the game in Black’s favour.

F.5. Half-open with half-open
files (ii) Caro-Kann / QGD Exchange

e.g. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.
exd5 cxd5

We see this formation from White’s point of view in the
diagram, where we might expect White to be better developed than
Black. The half-open e-file and outpost on e5 gives prospects of a
King’s-side attack, even if Black had the majority there, as the
advance …e5 will be difficult or impossible. Black must counter
with a minority attack, and can think about spending a moment to
exchange the bad Bc8.

F.6. Passed pawn, protected
but blockaded

e.g. This may arise from D1 after an exchange
on c5.or from C4 after the advance of both the c-
and e-pawns is combined with the advance of the d-pawn

White has a difficult game: no way of opening a file
recommends itself, and Black can roll down the Queen’s-side. With
the e-pawn replaced by a pawn on c4, Black’s chances would
naturally come with …f5. The best blockader is always a Knight,
who loses no squares to the pawns on c5,d5 or e5, and is handily
placed to support pawn advances on either side.

F.7. Isolated Queen’s Pawn
*

e.g. Queen’s Gambit Accepted 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6
4.e3 c5 5. Bxc4 cxd5 6. exd4 or Caro-Kann Panov Attack, 1. e4 c6 2.
d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4.

Isolated pawns are weak, but central pawns are strong.
The critical and common case is the isolated Queen’s pawn (IQP)
where the strength and space is greatest. White can avoid exchanges
and has hopes of a King’s side attack based on a N on e5 and a B on
the b1-h7 diagonal; Black can consolidate and pile up on the d4
pawn, seeking exchanges and an advatageous endgame.

F.8. Hanging Pawns *

Often derived from IQP after …Nd5xc3 and bxc3, then c3-c4.
Directly from e.g. Semi-Tarrasch 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3
c5 or Queen’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. e3

The pawns are strong and can be turned to attack because
they control so many key squares, but if either pawn moves the
weakness of the other will be sharply etched. Again, the defending
side can seek exchanges and the endgame, but this is nothing like
as straightforward a game as the IQP. There is a defensive idea
based on the advance of the isolated a-pawn, hoping to disrupt the
Black Queen’s-side pawns.

You know when you’ve been Benko’d

Posted on September 9, 1999 by DrDave

Steve Homer

In the Benoni Black often struggles to arrange …b5 with moves
like …Na6-c7, …b6, …a6 and …Rb8. Here in the Benko Black
plays it at once, as a gambit.

Key ideas for Black:

For example, in the main line after

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6
6.Nc3 Bxa6 7.e4 Bxf1 8.Kxf1 d6 9.Nf3 Bg7 10.g3 0-0 11.Kg2
Nbd7

Control of long dark diagonal, especially the central dark
squares e.g. …Nfd7-e5
Pressure against the d5 Pawn
Queen’s-side attack with e.g. …Qb6, …Rfb8, …Nbd7-b6-c4.
White’s extra passed(!) Pawn usually remains frozen with terror on
a3 or a4.
Central attack with …e6, …d5

We can see all of these ideas below. White must counter on the
King’s-side or in the centre. Oddly for a gambit line, Black
usually won’t mind the exchange of Queens in the Benko, because the
Queen’s-side initiative persists, while White can no longer hope
for mate on the other side.

However, in none of the games below did White play the
main line, and in only one was the gambit Pawn accepted! This is
not just to avoid theory, as, according to BCO, Black often emerges
with enough pressure to draw in the main lines.

Outline of main lines and variations in the
Benko Gambit

Bibliography: Winning with the Benko Gambit, Byron JACOBS,
Batsford, 1995.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5

[4.Nf3 b4 (4…Bb7; 4…g6) 5.Nbd2; 4.Bg5]

4…a6 5.bxa6

[5.e3

A) 5…axb5 6.Bxb5 Qa5+ 7.Nc3 Bb7

A1) 8.Nge2

A1a) 8…Bxd5 9.0-0 Bc6 10.a4
(10.Qd3) 10…Bxb5 (10…e6; 10…g6) ;

A1b) 8…Nxd5 9.0-0 Nf6 (9…Nc7;
9…Nxc3) ;

A2) 8.Bd2 8…Qb6 9.Qb3 (9.Nge2;
9.Bc4; 9.Nf3) 9…e6 10.e4 (10.Bc4) 10…Nxe4 11.Nxe4
Bxd5 12.Qd3 Qb7 (12…f5) ;

B) 5…Bb7;

C) 5…e6;

D) 5…g6 6.Nc3 Bg7

D1) 7.Bc4;

D2) 7.a4 0-0 8.Ra3 (8.e4;
8.Bc4) 8…Bb7 9.Nh3;

D3) 7.Nf3 7…0-0 (7…d6) 8.a4
Bb7 9.Ra3 (9.Rb1; 9.Bc4; 9.bxa6) ;

5.f3 e6 (5…g6; 5…axb5 6.e4 Qa5+ 7.Bd2) 6.e4
exd5 (6…c4; 6…Qc7) 7.e5 (7.exd5) 7…Qe7
8.Qe2 Ng8 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh3 c4 (10…Qd8) ;

5.b6

A) 5…a5;

B) 5…Qxb6 6.Nc3 g6 (6…e6)
7.e4 d6 8.a4 (8.Nf3) ;

C) 5…d6 6.Nc3 Qxb6 7.a4 g6 8.a5;

D) 5…e6 6.Nc3 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 exd5 8.Qxd5
Nc6 9.Nf3 Qxb6 (9…Rb8; 9…Bb7; 9…Be7) 10.Ne5;

5.Nc3 axb5 (5…Qa5) 6.e4 b4 (6…Qa5)
7.Nb5 d6 8.Bc4 (8.Bf4) 8…Nbd7 (8…g6; 8…Ra5)
9.Nf3]

5…g6 6.Nc3

[6.g3 d6 7.Bg2 (7.b3) 7…Bg7 8.Nf3 (8.Nc3
0-0 9.Nf3 Nxa6; 8.Nh3) 8…Bxa6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Nc3 Nb6
(10…0-0) ;

6.b3]

6…Bxa6 7.e4

[7.f4; 7.Nf3 d6 8.Nd2]

7…Bxf1 8.Kxf1 d6 9.Nf3

[9.g4; 9.Nge2]

9…Bg7 10.g3

[10.h3]

10…0-0 11.Kg2 Nbd7

[11…Na6]

12.h3

[12.Re1; 12.Qe2]

Black’s Queen’s-side attack: White, RG –
Homer, SJ: Surrey Individual #4, 1988

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. b6 Qxb6

This line restricts Black to only one half-open file on the
Queen’s-side, but 6. Nc3 d6 7. e4 g6 8. Be2 Bg7 9. Rb1 O-O
10. Nf3 Bg4

11. O-O Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Nbd7 13. Be3 Qc7 14. Qd2 Rfe8 15. Bg4
Nb6

16. Be2 Nfd7 17. Rfc1 Ne5 18. Nd1 a5 19. b4 axb4 20. Rxb4
Qa7

21. Rbb1 Reb8 22. f4 Ned7 23. Rc2 Na4 24. Rb3 Rxb3 25. axb3
Nab6

26. Bc4 Qa3 27. Qe2 Qa1 28. Rc1 Qa2 29. Kf2 Nxc4 30. bxc4
Qb3

31. Rc2 Nf6 (sealed) 32. Kf3 Nd7 33. Kf2 Nb6 34. e5 Na4 35.
exd6 exd6

36. Qd2 Re8 37. Kf1 Qb1 38. Qc1 Qb3 39. Qd2 Nb6 40. Qc1
Re4

41. Bf2 Nxc4 42. g3 Qd3+ 43. Kg2 Qxd5 44. Kg1 Bd4
0-1

White locks up the Queen’s-side, Black has a
central roller: Parker, C – Homer, S

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. e3 d6 5. cxb5 a6

6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. a4 g6

Theory currently advises Black not to play normal Benko
moves in this variation, but they seem to turn out all right in
this game! Steve wonders if White’s next is inaccurate.

8. Bc4 Bg7 9. Nge2 O-O 10. f3 Nb6

11. Qd3 Nxc4 12. Qxc4 axb5 13. Nxb5 Ba6 14. Nec3 Qd7 15.
Ra3 e6

16. dxe6 fxe6 17. O-O Rfc8 18. Qf4 Rc6 19. Rd1 d5 20. Ne4
Qe7

21. Nxf6+ Bxf6 22. e4 e5 23. Qg4 Bc8

Who can object to winning a Queen? As things go, however,
Black loses the thread, so with hindsight Black perhaps should have
spent a move consolidating the centre – the threat would still
obtain.

24. exd5 Bxg4 25. dxc6 Bf5

26. g4 Bxg4 27. fxg4 Qe6 28. h3 Qxc6 29. Rd6 Qe4 30. Rxf6
Rxa4

31. Bh6 1-0

White plays actively in the centre: Jepps,G –
Homer,S: Exeter Premier #?, 1996

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Nc3 axb5

6. e4 b4 7. Nb5 d6 8. Bc4

This is the sharpest line at White’s disposal, the
so-called Nescafe Frappe Attack, which should obviously be
boycotted because of the Nestle baby milk campaign.

8…g6 9. Nf3 Bg7 10. e5 dxe5

11. Nxe5 O-O 12. O-O Ne8 13. Bf4 Bb7 14. Nxf7 Rxf7 15. d6
exd6

16. Bxf7+ Kxf7 17. Re1 Kg8 18. Rxe8+ Qxe8 19. Nxd6 Qc6 20.
Qg4 Qxg2+

21. Qxg2 Bxg2 22. Kxg2 Bxb2 23. Re1 Nc6 24. Nc4 Bg7 25. Bd6
Bd4

26. Re2 Na7 27. a4 Nc6 28. Nb6 Ra6 29. Re8+ Kf7 30. Rf8+
Ke6

31. Nc4 Kd5 0-1

White plays actively in the centre, part 2:
Jepps, G – Homer, S: Somerset vs. Devon, 1996

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Nc3 axb5

6. e4 b4 7. Nb5 d6 8. Bf4

The older line. Most players know the recommended
reply:

8…g5 9. e5 gxf4 10. exf6

10… e5

[10… Nd7]

11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. Qf3 Ra5 13. Qb7 Bh6 14. Nc7+
Kf8 15. Qb6 Qxf6

16. Qxa5

[16. Qxb8+ Kg7

[16… Ke7 17. Nd5+ Bxd5 18. Qc7+ Kf8 19.
Qxa5

Qxb2 20. Rd1 Qc3+ 21. Rd2 f3 22. Nxf3 Bxf3 23. Qd8+
Kg7-+ ]

17. Ne8+

Rxe8 18. Qxe8 Qxb2]

16… Qxb2 17. Nxe6+ fxe6 18. Rd1 Qc3+ 19. Rd2
Qa1+

20. Rd1

[20. Ke2 Qe5+ 21. Kf3 Qh5+ 22. Ke4 Qf5+ 23.
Kf3]

20… Qc3+ 21. Rd2 Q

Rook endgames in practice

Posted on July 30, 1999 by DrDave

I dug out all the rook endings of mine I could find to show both
typical positions and typical errors. Please note that these are
not, therefore, models of technique, more like comedies of error!

  [Event "Andover club ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1983.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Knox, Stuart"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 1 horrible l"]  [ECO "D32"]  [WhiteElo "1800"]  [BlackElo "1950"]  [PlyCount "161"]  [EventDate "1983.??.??"]   1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7 Ngxe7 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. e3 Qxc5 10. Rc1 Bg4 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O Rad8 13. Qa4 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Ne5 15. Rfd1 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 Qb6 17. Qb5 Qxb5 18. Nxb5 Nc6 19. Rc5 a6 20. Nd4 Ne5 21. f4 b6 22. Rc7 Nc4 23. b3 Na3 24. Nc6 Nb5 25. Rb7 Nc3 26. Rd3 Ne4 27. Ne7+ Kh8 28. Rxd5 b5 29. Ra7 Rxd5 30. Nxd5 Nc5 31. Nc7 h5 32. Nxa6 Nxa6 33. Rxa6 g6 34. a4 bxa4 35. bxa4 Rb8 36. a5 Rb1+ 37. Kg2 Ra1 38. Ra7 Kg8 39. a6 Ra5 40. Kf3 Ra4 {[#]} 41. e4 {Already denying the King cover.} (41. Ra8+ Kg7 42. a7 Kf6 {Now White should activate the King because Black cannot respond in kind:} 43. Ke2 Ke6 (43... Ke7 44. Kd3 Kd7 45. Rf8) 44. Re8+) 41... Kf8 42. e5 Kg8 43. Kg3 Kf8 44. Ra8+ Kg7 45. Kf3 Kh7 46. Ke3 Kg7 47. f3 h4 48. Kf2 Ra2+ 49. Kg1 h3 {[#] White has achieved nothing, because he had no plan and no suspicion what Black was up to.} 50. a7 Kh7 51. Rd8 Rxa7 52. Kf2 Ra3 53. Kg3 Kg7 54. Kg4 Re3 55. Rd1 Kh7 56. Rg1 Kg7 57. Rg3 f6 58. exf6+ Kxf6 59. Rxh3 Re2 60. Kg3 Ke6 61. Kg4 Kf6 {[#]} 62. f5 {pointlessly giving up more material} gxf5+ 63. Kf4 Kg6 64. Rg3+ Kf6 65. Rg5 Rxh2 66. Rxf5+ Kg6 67. Rf8 Ra2 68. Re8 Ra1 69. Re6+ Kf7 70. Kf5 Ra5+ 71. Re5 Ra3 72. f4 Ra4 73. Kg5 Ra1 74. Rb5 Ra6 75. Rb7+ Kf8 76. f5 Ra1 77. f6 Rg1+ {[#] the Philidor draw, which I didn't know then, but I do now. ..} 78. Kf5 Rf1+ 79. Ke6 Re1+ 80. Kd7 Kf7 81. Rb6 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter club ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1992.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Pope, Sean"]  [Result "1-0"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 2 lack of at"]  [ECO "A36"]  [WhiteElo "1800"]  [PlyCount "113"]  [EventDate "1992.??.??"]   1. c4 c5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. Nc3 (4. e3 {soltis}) 4... Bg7 5. e3 Nf6 {?! soltis: cf. regis-ayres 92} 6. Nge2 O-O 7. d4 cxd4 8. exd4 {!?} d6 9. O-O a6 10. d5 {!} Ne5 11. b3 Rb8 12. Nd4 Ned7 13. Re1 Re8 14. Rb1 {?!} Qc7 15. a4 Nf8 16. Ne4 {!?} Ng4 {?!} 17. Ba3 Bf5 {?!} 18. Nxf5 gxf5 19. Bb2 {(Sealed: R 19. Qf3)} Ne5 20. Ng5 b5 21. cxb5 axb5 22. axb5 Rxb5 23. Qh5 Neg6 24. Bxg7 Kxg7 25. Qf3 {!?} (25. Nf3) 25... h6 26. Nh3 Reb8 27. Qxf5 Rxb3 28. Rxb3 Rxb3 29. Nf4 Nxf4 30. Qxf4 Ng6 31. Qd4+ Kg8 32. Be4 {[#] White has pressure but Black shouldn't encourage him.} (32. Ra1) 32... Qc3 {?!} (32... Ne5 33. Ra1 Ra3 34. Rxa3 Qc1+ 35. Kg2 Qxa3 36. f4 Qa2+ 37. Kh3 Qc4) 33. Qxc3 Rxc3 34. Bxg6 fxg6 35. Rxe7 {[#] The Rook ending is clearly better for White.} Rd3 36. Re6 Rxd5 37. Rxg6+ Kh7 38. Re6 h5 {?! Just pushes the Pawn in range - see later.} 39. Kg2 Kg7 40. Kf3 Kf7 41. Re4 Kg6 42. Ke3 {[#] Black's Rook is active.} Kg5 {?!} (42... Kf6 43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Ke6 {when it's still a fight}) 43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Re6 45. Rd5+ Kg6 {Black's Rook is passive.} 46. Kf4 Rf6+ 47. Ke3 Re6+ 48. Kf3 Rf6+ 49. Kg2 Re6 50. Kh3 {!} Rf6 51. f4 Kh6 52. Kh4 {[#] This is what I meant about it being in range.} Kg6 53. Rg5+ Kh7 54. Rxh5+ Rh6 {Awful - all you have to do is count.} 55. Rxh6+ Kxh6 56. Kg4 Kg6 57. Kf3 1-0   [Event "Exeter vs Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1994.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Walker, John"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 3 lack of th"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "101"]  [EventDate "1994.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 (5... Bb4 {book}) 6. Nxd5 Qh4+ 7. Kf1 Bg4 8. Nf3 Bd6 9. d4 O-O 10. Bxf4 (10. e5 c6 11. Nxf4 Be7 12. Be3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3 Re8) 10... Bxf4 11. Nxf4 Qe7 12. Qd3 Nc6 13. c3 Rad8 14. Re1 Rfe8 (14... f5 15. e5 (15. h3)) 15. h3 Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Na5 17. g4 (17. Kf2 Nc4 18. Nd3 {?} (18. Re2 {!} c5 19. Nd5 Qg5 20. Qf4) 18... Nd2) 17... Nc4 18. Rh2 c5 19. d5 Qf6 20. Qf2 {[#] Black wins a pawn and initiates a few exchanges.} Nxb2 21. Qxb2 Qxf4+ 22. Qf2 Rxe4 23. Qxf4 Rxf4+ 24. Rf2 Rxf2+ 25. Kxf2 Kf8 {[#] If you are losing, exchange pawns, particularly if you can clear those on one side of the board, and hope to get into a drawn ending.} 26. c4 b5 27. cxb5 Rxd5 28. a4 Rd4 29. Re5 Rxa4 30. Rxc5 Ke7 31. Rc7+ Ke6 32. Rb7 Ra3 33. Kg2 Kf6 {[#]} 34. b6 {! The last Queen's-side pawn goes. White still has problems because of the advanced King's-side pawns.} axb6 35. Rxb6+ Kg5 36. Rb5+ Kg6 37. Rc5 h6 38. Rb5 f6 39. Rc5 Re3 40. Rc7 Re5 41. Kg3 h5 42. Rc3 {[#]} hxg4 {?} (42... Kg5 {gives more winning chances}) 43. hxg4 Kg5 44. Ra3 g6 45. Rb3 Re4 46. Rb5+ {[#]} f5 {? really anything else would have been more worrying} 47. gxf5 gxf5 48. Rb8 Re3+ 49. Kf2 Ra3 50. Rb4 f4 51. Rb8 {[#] the basic draw: Philidor's position. Clearly White has been steering for this since move 33!} 1/2-1/2   [Event "Frome"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Woodruff, DG."]  [Black "Regis, D."]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 4 lack of co"]  [ECO "A26"]  [WhiteElo "1725"]  [BlackElo "1855"]  [PlyCount "112"]  [EventDate "1995.??.??"]   1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nf3 f5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bd2 O-O 10. Nd5 Be6 11. Ne1 Rb8 12. Nc2 Ne7 13. Nxf6+ Rxf6 14. Bc3 g5 15. Kh1 Ng6 16. d4 Bxc4 {couldn't see why not!} 17. dxe5 Nxe5 (17... dxe5) 18. Bd5+ (18. f4) 18... Bxd5+ 19. Qxd5+ Rf7 20. Rad1 Qd7 21. f4 Ng6 22. Bxg7 Kxg7 23. fxg5 hxg5 24. Nd4 Ne7 25. Qf3 c5 26. Nc2 Rf6 27. Ne3 Rbf8 (27... Qe6) (27... Qc6 28. Nd5 Nxd5 29. Rxd5 Re8 30. Rfd1 Re5 31. R5d2 Qxf3+ 32. exf3 Rfe6 33. Rxd6 Rxd6 34. Rxd6 Re1+ 35. Kg2 Re2+ 36. Kh3 Rxb2 37. Rd5 Kf6) 28. Nd5 Nxd5 29. Qxd5 Qc6 30. Rf3 Qxd5 31. Rxd5 {[#] we embarked on a long endgame from this point which I never felt happy with; I have thrown in some speculative lines in the notes} b5 $2 (31... Kg6 32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rxd6 (33. e3) 33... Rxe2 34. Rd2 Rxd6 35. Rxe2 b5 {-+}) (31... Re8) (31... g4) 32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rd2 Ree6 $2 (33... Re5 34. Rxd6 Rxd6 35. Rxd6 Rxe2 36. Rd5 Rxb2 37. Rxc5 Kg6 {-+}) (33... a5) 34. b4 cxb4 $2 (34... c4 35. Rxb5 c3 36. Rc2 Re3 37. Rb7+ Rf7) 35. Rxb5 $11 Re4 36. Rb2 Kg6 (36... Rfe6) 37. R5xb4 Rxb4 38. Rxb4 Re6 39. Rb2 Kf6 40. Kg2 Re4 41. Rd2 Ke5 42. h3 a5 43. Kf2 d5 44. Rd3 Ra4 45. Re3+ Kd6 46. a3 f4 47. gxf4 Rxf4+ 48. Kg3 d4 49. Rd3 Re4 50. Kf3 Kd5 51. Rb3 $2 (51. e3 $2 Rxe3+ 52. Rxe3 dxe3 53. Kxe3 Kc4 54. Ke4 Kb3 55. Kf5 Kxa3 56. Kxg5 Kb3 57. h4 a4 58. h5 a3 59. h6 a2 60. h7 a1=Q 61. Kg6 {-+ not all forced, I admit} Qh8) 51... Rf4+ 52. Kg3 Kc4 53. Rb8 Re4 54. Kf3 Rf4+ (54... Re3+ {looks good} 55. Kg4 Rxe2 56. Kxg5 d3 57. Rd8 d2 58. h4 Kc3 59. h5 Re5+ 60. Kg4 Rxh5 61. Kxh5 Kc2 62. Rc8+ Kb3 63. Rd8 {drawn}) 55. Kg3 Kc3 (55... Re4) 56. Rb5 Re4 $17 {[#] draw agreed - White: 20min, Black: 2min left} (56... Re4 57. Rxg5 (57. Kf3 Re3+ 58. Kg4 Rxe2 59. Rxa5 d3 60. Kf3 Re1 {-+}) 57... Rxe2 58. Rxa5 (58. Rd5 a4 59. Kf3 d3 60. h4 Re1 61. Rc5+ Kd4 62. Rc8 d2) 58... d3 59. Rd5 d2 60. Kg4 (60. h4 Re3+ {?} (60... Re1) 61. Kf4 Rd3 {-+}) (60. Kf4 {!} Re1 61. h4 d1=Q 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5 Kd4 64. h6 Kd5 65. Kf5 Rf1+ 66. Kg6 Ke6 67. h7 Rg1+ 68. Kh6 Kf7 69. h8=N+ Kf6 70. Kh7 Rg4 71. a4 Rh4+ 72. Kg8 Rxa4 73. Kh7 (73. Nf7 Ra8+ 74. Kh7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Ra5 76. Kh7 Rh5#) 73... Rg4 74. Nf7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Kf6 76. Kh5 Re4 77. Kh6 Rh4#) 60... Re1 61. h4 d1=Q+ 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5 Kd4 64. h6 Ke5 65. Kg5 Rg1+ 66. Kh5 Kf5 {winning!}) 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter Club Ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Peter CR"]  [Black "Regis, D."]  [Result "0-1"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 5 lack of ac"]  [ECO "A42"]  [PlyCount "160"]  [EventDate "1995.??.??"]   1. d4 g6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 Nc6 5. Nge2 e5 6. d5 Nce7 7. Ng3 h5 8. Bd3 h4 9. Nf1 f5 10. exf5 (10. f3) 10... gxf5 11. f3 Nf6 12. Qc2 c6 13. Ne3 f4 14. Nf5 Nxf5 15. Bxf5 cxd5 16. Bg6+ Kf8 17. cxd5 Qa5 18. Bd2 Nxd5 19. Qb3 (19. Nxd5 Qxd5 20. Rd1 {suggested by PL immediately after: 20...Qc5? 21 Qb3! +-} Qxa2 21. Bb4 Be6 22. Qe4 Qb3 23. Rxd6 Kg8 24. O-O) 19... Be6 20. Qxb7 Rd8 21. Nb5 Qb6 22. Qxb6 axb6 23. Ke2 h3 24. g4 fxg3 25. hxg3 Bh6 26. Rad1 Ke7 27. Be4 {we later suggested 27 Kf2 as better} Bxd2 28. Rxd2 Nf6 29. Bb1 Bc4+ 30. Bd3 Bxa2 31. Ke1 Bd5 32. Bf1 Bxf3 33. Rxh3 Rxh3 34. Bxh3 Bc6 35. Nc3 Rg8 36. Kf2 Ng4+ 37. Ke2 Nf6 38. Kf2 Ng4+ (38... d5 {!} 39. Bg2 Ke6 40. Bh3+ Kd6 41. Rd3 d4 {is simpler and safer; analysing on the night I missed the strong ...d4}) 39. Ke2 Nh2 40. Rd3 e4 41. Nd5+ Bxd5 42. Rxd5 Rxg3 43. Bf5 Rg2+ 44. Ke3 Ng4+ 45. Bxg4 Rxg4 46. Rb5 Ke6 {[#]} 47. Rxb6 (47. Kd4 {! may be better}) 47... Ke5 48. Rb8 Rg3+ 49. Kf2 Rf3+ (49... Rd3 {!?} 50. b4 Kd4) 50. Ke2 d5 51. b4 Kd4 52. b5 Rb3 53. b6 e3 (53... Rb2+ {is more likely to tempt an error?} 54. Kd1 Kd3 55. Ke1 e3) 54. b7 Rb2+ 55. Kf1 Kd3 (55... Rb5 56. Ke2 Rb1 57. Re8 Rxb7 58. Rxe3 {[#]} Rb2+ 59. Kf3 Rh2 60. Re8 Kd3 61. Rd8 d4 62. Rd7 Rh8 63. Rc7 Rf8+ 64. Kg2 Kd2 65. Rd7 d3 66. Rd6 Ke2 67. Re6+ Kd1 68. Rd6 d2 69. Rd7 Rf4 {all like the game but with the d-pawn not the e-pawn - the 'bridge' is easier and the wK is on the long side}) 56. Rd8 Rb1+ {PL missed this one} 57. Kg2 Rxb7 58. Rxd5+ {[#]} Ke2 {! I did wonder about ...Ke4 but PL was not impressed... This is of course better, giving Lucena's win, but Black didn't half make heavy weather of it. The wK is well-placed on the 'short side'} 59. Rd8 Rg7+ {an important finesse} 60. Kh3 Rf7 (60... Ke1) 61. Kg2 Rf4 {you can tell Black can remember about 'building a bridge' but this is too early!} 62. Kg3 Rf7 63. Re8 Rf3+ 64. Kg2 Rf5 65. Rd8 Ke1 66. Re8 e2 67. Re7 (67. Re7 Rf2+ 68. Kg1 Rf1+ 69. Kg2 Kd2 {is trivial...} 70. Rxe2+) 67... Kd2 (67... Rd5 {looks much simpler} 68. Kf3 (68. Ra7 Rg5+ 69. Kh2 Re5 70. Kg2 Kd2 71. Ra2+ Ke3 72. Ra3+ Kf4) 68... Rd3+ 69. Kg2 Kd1) 68. Rd7+ Ke3 69. Re7+ Kd3 70. Rd7+ Ke4 71. Re7+ {we've got all this way but something's still not quite right...} Kd3 (71... Re5 72. Rxe5+ Kxe5 73. Kf2 {... penny dropped!}) 72. Rd7+ Ke3 73. Re7+ Kd2 74. Rd7+ Ke1 75. Re7 Rf4 76. Kg3 (76. Ra7 Rf2+ 77. Kg1 Rf1+ 78. Kg2 Kd2 {+-}) 76... Rd4 77. Kg2 Kd2 78. Kf2 Rf4+ 79. Kg3 Rf1 {a tough game!} 80. Rd7+ Kc3 0-1

The club player at his worst…

regis,d (1800) – knox,stuart (ian miles cup)
(1950) [D32] rook ending: club, horrible lack of everything,
1983

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5
Be7 7. Bxe7

[7. Bxe7 Ngxe7 8. e3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Qb6 10. Qd2 ! (
10…Nxd4; 11 exd4, 0-0; 12 Be2 and; 13 Bf3+= or 12 Bb5!? ) 10…
Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Bb5 O-O 13. O-O Nxd4 14. exd4 Nc6 15. Bxc6 !
15… Qxc6 16. Qg5 !]

7… Ngxe7

[7… Ngxe7 8. e3 c4 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O b5 11. Ne5
Nxe5 12. dxe5 Rb8 13. a4 b4 14. Nb5 Nc6 15. f4]

8. dxc5 Qa5

[8… d4 9. Ne4 O-O 10. e3]

9. e3 Qxc5 10. Rc1 Bg4 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O Rad8
13. Qa4 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Ne5 15. Rfd1 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 Qb6 17. Qb5 Qxb5
18. Nxb5 Nc6 19. Rc5 a6 20. Nd4 Ne5 21. f4 b6 22. Rc7 Nc4 23. b3
Na3 24. Nc6 Nb5 25. Rb7 Nc3 26. Rd3 Ne4 27. Ne7+ Kh8 28. Rxd5 b5
29. Ra7 Rxd5 30. Nxd5 Nc5 31. Nc7 h5 32. Nxa6 Nxa6 33. Rxa6 g6 34.
a4 bxa4 35. bxa4 Rb8 36. a5 Rb1+ 37. Kg2 Ra1 38. Ra7 Kg8 39. a6 Ra5
40. Kf3 Ra4

41. e4

I assumed this was a straightforward win, but…
41… Kf8 42. e5 Kg8 43. Kg3 Kf8 44. Ra8+ Kg7 45. Kf3 Kh7
46. Ke3 Kg7 47. f3 h4 48. Kf2 Ra2+ 49. Kg1 h3 50. a7 Kh7 51.
Rd8

[51. Kf1 Kg7

[51… Rxh2 52. Rd8]

52. Ke1 Kh7 53. Kd1 Kg7 54. Kc1 Kh7 55. Kb1 Ra4 56.
Kb2 Kg7 57. Kb3 Ra5 58. Kb4 Ra2 59. Kc5 Ra6]

51… Rxa7 52. Kf2 Ra3 53. Kg3 Kg7 54. Kg4 Re3
55. Rd1 Kh7 56. Rg1 Kg7 57. Rg3 f6 58. exf6+ Kxf6 59. Rxh3 Re2 60.
Kg3 Ke6 61. Kg4 Kf6 62. f5 gxf5+ 63. Kf4 Kg6 64. Rg3+ Kf6 65. Rg5
Rxh2 66. Rxf5+ Kg6 67. Rf8 Ra2 68. Re8 Ra1 69. Re6+ Kf7 70. Kf5
Ra5+ 71. Re5 Ra3 72. f4 Ra4 73. Kg5 Ra1 74. Rb5 Ra6 75. Rb7+ Kf8
76. f5 Ra1 77. f6 Rg1+ 78. Kf5 Rf1+ 79. Ke6 Re1+ 80. Kd7 Kf7 81.
Rb6 1/2-1/2

regis,d (1800) – pope,s (club ch’p) [A36]
rook ending: club, lack of attention, 1992

1. c4 c5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. Nc3

[4. e3 soltis]

4… Bg7 5. e3 Nf6 ?! 6. Nge2 O-O 7. d4 cxd4 8.
exd4 !? 8… d6 9. O-O a6 10. d5 ! 10… Ne5 11. b3 Rb8 12. Nd4
Ned7 13. Re1 Re8 14. Rb1 ?! 14… Qc7 15. a4 Nf8 16. Ne4 !? 16…
Ng4 ?! 17. Ba3 Bf5 ?! 18. Nxf5 gxf5 19. Bb2 (Sealed: R 19.Qf3)
19… Ne5 20. Ng5 b5 21. cxb5 axb5 22. axb5 Rxb5 23. Qh5 Neg6 24.
Bxg7 Kxg7 25. Qf3 !?

[25. Nf3]

25… h6 26. Nh3 Reb8 27. Qxf5 Rxb3 28. Rxb3 Rxb3
29. Nf4 Nxf4 30. Qxf4 Ng6 31. Qd4+ Kg8 32. Be4

[32. Ra1]

32… Qc3 ?!

[32… Ne5 33. Ra1 Ra3 34. Rxa3 Qc1+ 35. Kg2 Qxa3 36.
f4 Qa2+ 37. Kh3 Qc4]

33. Qxc3 Rxc3 34. Bxg6 fxg6 35. Rxe7

35… Rd3 36. Re6 Rxd5 37. Rxg6+ Kh7 38. Re6 h5 ?! 39. Kg2
Kg7 40. Kf3 Kf7 41. Re4 Kg6 42. Ke3

42… Kg5 ?!

[42… Kf6 43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Ke6 when it’s still a
fight]

43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Re6 45. Rd5+ Kg6 46. Kf4
Rf6+ 47. Ke3 Re6+ 48. Kf3 Rf6+ 49. Kg2 Re6 50. Kh3 ! 50… Rf6 51.
f4 Kh6 52. Kh4 Kg6 53. Rg5+ Kh7 54. Rxh5+ Rh6 55. Rxh6+ Kxh6 56.
Kg4 Kg6 57. Kf3 1-0

woodruff,dg (1725) – regis,d (somerset vs.
devon) (1855) [A26] rook ending: club level, black lost courage,
1995

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nf3 f5
7. O-O Nf6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bd2 O-O 10. Nd5 Be6 11. Ne1 Rb8 12. Nc2 Ne7
13. Nxf6+ Rxf6 14. Bc3 g5 15. Kh1 Ng6 16. d4 Bxc4 couldn’t see why
not! 17. dxe5 Nxe5

[17… dxe5]

18. Bd5+

[18. f4]

18… Bxd5+ 19. Qxd5+ Rf7 20. Rad1 Qd7 21. f4 Ng6
22. Bxg7 Kxg7 23. fxg5 hxg5 24. Nd4 Ne7 25. Qf3 c5 26. Nc2 Rf6 27.
Ne3 Rbf8 28. Nd5 Nxd5 29. Qxd5 Qc6 30. Rf3 Qxd5 31.
Rxd5

we embarked on a long endgame from this point which I never felt
happy

with; I have thrown in some speculative lines in the
notes

31… b5

[31… Kg6 32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rxd6

[33. e3]

33… Rxe2 34. Rd2 Rxd6 35. Rxe2 b5 -+]

32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rd2 Ree6

[33… Re5 34. Rxd6 Rxd6 35. Rxd6 Rxe2 36. Rd5 Rxb2
37. Rxc5 Kg6 -+]

34. b4 cxb4

[34… c4 35. Rxb5 c3 36. Rc2 Re3 37. Rb7+
Rf7]

35. Rxb5 Re4 36. Rb2 Kg6 37. R5xb4 Rxb4 38. Rxb4
Re6 39. Rb2 Kf6 40. Kg2 Re4 41. Rd2 Ke5 42. h3 a5 43. Kf2 d5 44.
Rd3 Ra4 45. Re3+ Kd6 46. a3 f4 47. gxf4 Rxf4+ 48. Kg3 d4 49. Rd3
Re4 50. Kf3 Kd5 51. Rb3

[51. e3 Rxe3+ 52. Rxe3 dxe3 53. Kxe3 Kc4 54. Ke4 Kb3
55. Kf5 Kxa3 56. Kxg5 Kb3 57. h4 a4 58. h5 a3 59. h6 a2 60. h7 a1=Q
61. Kg6 -+ not all forced, I admit 61… Qh8]

51… Rf4+ 52. Kg3 Kc4 53. Rb8 Re4 54. Kf3
Rf4+

[54… Re3+ looks good 55. Kg4 Rxe2 56. Kxg5 d3 57.
Rd8 d2 58. h4 Kc3 59. h5 Re5+ 60. Kg4 Rxh5 61. Kxh5 Kc2 62. Rc8+
Kb3 63. Rd8 drawn]

55. Kg3 Kc3 56. Rb5 Re4

draw agreed – White: 20min, Black: 2min left

[56… Re4 57. Rxg5

[57. Kf3 Re3+ 58. Kg4 Rxe2 59. Rxa5 d3 60. Kf3 Re1
-+]

57… Rxe2 58. Rxa5

[58.Rd5 a4 59. Kf3 d3 60. h4 Re1 61. Rc5+ Kd4 62. Rc8
d2]

58… d3 59. Rd5 d2 60. Kg4

[60. h4 Re3+ ?

[60… Re1]

61. Kf4 Rd3 -+]

[60. Kf4 ! 60… Re1 61. h4 d1=Q 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5
Kd4 64. h6 Kd5 65. Kf5 Rf1+ 66. Kg6 Ke6 67. h7 Rg1+ 68. Kh6 Kf7 69.
h8=N+ Kf6 70. Kh7 Rg4 71. a4 Rh4+ 72. Kg8 Rxa4 73. Kh7

[73. Nf7 Ra8+ 74. Kh7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Ra5 76. Kh7
Rh5#]

73… Rg4 74. Nf7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Kf6 76. Kh5 Re4 77.
Kh6 Rh4#]

60… Re1 61. h4 d1=Q+ 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5 Kd4 64.
h6 Ke5 65. Kg5 Rg1+ 66. Kh5 Kf5 winning!]

1/2-1/2

lane,pc – regis,d rook ending: club play,
managed a win, 1995

1. d4 g6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 Nc6 5. Nge2 e5 6. d5
Nce7 7. Ng3 h5 8. Bd3 h4 9. Nf1 f5 10. exf5

[10. f3]

10… gxf5 11. f3 Nf6 12. Qc2 c6 13. Ne3 f4 14.
Nf5 Nxf5 15. Bxf5 cxd5 16. Bg6+ Kf8 17. cxd5 Qa5 18. Bd2 Nxd5 19.
Qb3

[19. Nxd5 Qxd5 20. Rd1 suggested by PL immediately
after: 20…Qc5? 21 Qb3! +- 20… Qxa2 21. Bb4 Be6 22. Qe4 Qb3 23.
Rxd6 Kg8 24. O-O]

19… Be6 20. Qxb7 Rd8 21. Nb5 Qb6 22. Qxb6 axb6
23. Ke2 h3 24. g4 fxg3 25. hxg3 Bh6 26. Rad1 Ke7 27.
Be4

we later suggested 27 Kf2 as better

27… Bxd2 28. Rxd2 Nf6 29. Bb1 Bc4+ 30. Bd3 Bxa2
31. Ke1 Bd5 32. Bf1 Bxf3 33. Rxh3 Rxh3 34. Bxh3 Bc6 35. Nc3 Rg8 36.
Kf2 Ng4+ 37. Ke2 Nf6 38. Kf2 Ng4+

[38… d5 ! 39. Bg2 Ke6 40. Bh3+ Kd6 41. Rd3 d4 is
simpler and safer; analysing on the night I missed the strong
…d4]

39. Ke2 Nh2 40. Rd3 e4 41. Nd5+ Bxd5 42. Rxd5
Rxg3 43. Bf5 Rg2+ 44. Ke3 Ng4+ 45. Bxg4 Rxg4 46. Rb5
Ke6

47. Rxb6

[47. Kd4 ! may be better]

47… Ke5 48. Rb8 Rg3+ 49. Kf2 Rf3+

[49… Rd3 !? 50. b4 Kd4]

50. Ke2 d5 51. b4 Kd4 52. b5 Rb3 53. b6
e3

[53… Rb2+ is more likely to tempt an error? 54. Kd1
Kd3 55. Ke1 e3]

54. b7 Rb2+ 55. Kf1 Kd3

[55… Rb5 56. Ke2 Rb1 57. Re8 Rxb7 58. Rxe3

58… Rb2+ 59. Kf3 Rh2 60. Re8 Kd3 61. Rd8 d4 62. Rd7 Rh8 63.
Rc7 Rf8+ 64. Kg2 Kd2 65. Rd7 d3 66. Rd6 Ke2 67. Re6+ Kd1 68. Rd6 d2
69. Rd7 Rf4

all like the game but with the d-pawn not the e-pawn
– the ‘bridge’ is easier and the wK is on the long side]

56. Rd8 Rb1+

PL missed this one

57. Kg2 Rxb7 58. Rxd5+

58… Ke2 !

I did wonder about …Ke4 but PL was not impressed…
This is of course better, giving Lucena’s win, but Black didn’t
half make heavy weather of it. The wK is well-placed on the ‘short
side’

59. Rd8 Rg7+

an important finesse

60. Kh3 Rf7

[60… Ke1]

61. Kg2 Rf4

you can tell Black can remember about ‘building a bridge’
but this is too early!

62. Kg3 Rf7 63. Re8 Rf3+ 64. Kg2 Rf5 65. Rd8 Ke1
66. Re8 e2 67. Re7

[67. Re7 Rf2+ 68. Kg1 Rf1+ 69. Kg2 Kd2 is trivial…
70. Rxe2+]

67… Kd2

[67… Rd5 looks much simpler 68. Kf3

[68. Ra7 Rg5+ 69. Kh2 Re5 70. Kg2 Kd2 71. Ra2+ Ke3
72. Ra3+ Kf4]

68… Rd3+ 69. Kg2 Kd1]

68. Rd7+ Ke3 69.

Re7+ Kd3 70. Rd7+ Ke4 71. Re7+

we’ve got all this way but something’s still not quite
right…

71… Kd3

[71… Re5 72. Rxe5+ Kxe5 73. Kf2 …penny
dropped!]

72. Rd7+ Ke3 73. Re7+ Kd2 74. Rd7+ Ke1 75. Re7
Rf4 76. Kg3

[76. Ra7 Rf2+ 77. Kg1 Rf1+ 78. Kg2 Kd2 +-]

76… Rd4 77. Kg2 Kd2 78. Kf2 Rf4+ 79. Kg3
Rf1

a tough game!

80. Rd7+ Kc3 0-1

regis,d – walker,jn (exeter vs. teignmouth)
[C33] rook ending: club, lack of theory, 1995

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3
Nxd5

[5… Bb4 book]

6. Nxd5 Qh4+ 7. Kf1 Bg4 8. Nf3 Bd6 9. d4 O-O 10.
Bxf4

[10. e5 c6 11. Nxf4 Be7 12. Be3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3
Re8]

10… Bxf4 11. Nxf4 Qe7 12. Qd3 Nc6 13. c3 Rad8
14. Re1 Rfe8

[14… f5 15. e5

[15. h3]]

15. h3 Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Na5 17. g4

[17. Kf2 Nc4 18. Nd3 ?

[18. Re2 ! 18… c5 19. Nd5 Qg5 20. Qf4]

18… Nd2]

17… Nc4 18. Rh2 c5 19. d5 Qf6 20. Qf2 Nxb2 21.
Qxb2 Qxf4+ 22. Qf2 Rxe4 23. Qxf4 Rxf4+ 24. Rf2 Rxf2+ 25. Kxf2 Kf8
26. c4 b5 27. cxb5 Rxd5 28. a4 Rd4 29. Re5 Rxa4 30. Rxc5 Ke7 31.
Rc7+ Ke6 32. Rb7 Ra3 33. Kg2 Kf6

34. b6 ! 34… axb6 35. Rxb6+ Kg5 36. Rb5+ Kg6 37. Rc5 h6
38. Rb5 f6 39. Rc5 Re3 40. Rc7 Re5 41. Kg3 h5 42. Rc3

42… hxg4 ?

[42… Kg5 gives more winning chances]

43. hxg4 Kg5 44. Ra3 g6 45. Rb3 Re4 46.
Rb5+

46… f5 ?

really anything else would have been more worrying

47. gxf5 gxf5 48. Rb8 Re3+ 49. Kf2 Ra3 50. Rb4 f4
51. Rb8

the basic draw: heading towards Philidor’s position.
Clearly White has been steering for this since move 33!

1/2-1/2

white,ir – regis,d (East Devon #1)

[B06] rook ending: club, all rook endings are
drawn, 1994 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be3 c6 5.
a4 Nf6 6. h3 Nbd7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Qd2

[8. Be2]

8… e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. O-O-O
Qa5

[11… Qxd2+ 12. Rxd2 Be6 13. Bd3 Rfd8 14.
Rhd1]

12. Qd6 Be6 13. b4 Qd8 14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15. Rxd8+
Rxd8 16. Bxa7 Bf8 17. Bc5 Bxc5 18. bxc5 Rd4 19. Bd3 Nd7 20. Kd2
Nxc5 21. Rb1 Bc4 22. Ne2 Rd7 23. Kc3 Bxd3 24. cxd3 Nxa4+ 25. Kb4
Nb6 26. Kc5 Nc8 27. Rb3 Kf8 28. f4 f6 29. Ra3 Ke7 30. g4 g5 31.
fxe5 fxe5 32. Ng3 Ke6 33. Nf5 Rc7 34. Ra8 b6+ 35. Kc4

35… Nd6+ 36. Nxd6 Kxd6 37. Rg8 b5+ 38. Kb4 Ra7 39. Rxg5
Ra4+ 40. Kb3 Rd4 41. Kc2 b4 42. Rg8 b3+

43. Kc3 Rb4 ! 44. Kb2 Kc5 45. Re8 Kd4 46. Rd8+ Ke3 47. g5
Kf4 48. Rf8+ Kxg5 49. Rf5+ Kg6 50. Rxe5 Rd4 51. Re6+ Kf7 52. Rxc6
Rxd3

1/2-1/2

Custer’s Last Stand

Posted on June 28, 1999 by DrDave

Attacking Indian systems without
c2-c4

When the Indian Defences were first mooted they were considered
suspect – fancy giving away the centre like that, when White can
fill it up with pawn moves like c2-c4, and e2-e4. While there are
defenders of this classical viewpoint, all White players of 1.d2-d4
have learned to respect the counterpunching power of the Indian
defences and many Black players use them.

So now there is another school of thought, saying White
players can get better practical chances by avoiding the main lines
after 2. c2-c4, and instead play with a more solid centre for
activity on the wings, or perhaps playing a simple developmental
move and only playing in the centre when Black’s activity has been
limited.

One other common theme is to play the Bc1 out early, to
exchange off the Black Knight on f6 (the best defender of the
castled King) and perhaps create weaknesses. We can see all these
themes at work in the following game, where the wily Korchnoi leads
the young Karpov up an unfamiliar alley and duffs him up:

Korchnoi-Karpov, Hastings
1974-5.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 b6 4. e4 h6 5. Bxf6
Qxf6 Black has the two bishops and an apparently easy
game.

6. Bd3 Bb7 7. Nbd2 d6 8. Qe2 Now
…O-O-O will be met strongly by Ba6 and a2-a4. 8…a6 9.
O-O-O Nd7 10. Kb1 e5 11. c3 Be7 12. Nc4 O-O 13. Bc2 Rfe8?! 14. d5
c5

(Apparently sealing the fate of the White Bc2, but better was 14…
c6: now the centre is closed on the Black bishops too and a
King’s-side attack appears out of nowhere)

15. Ne3 Bf8 16. g4 Qd8 17. g5! h5! 18. g6 fxg6
19. Rhg1 Qf6 20. Ng5 Be7 21. Ne6 Nf8! 22. Nc7 Qf7 23. Rdf1 b5 24.
Nxa8 Bxa8?!

More counterplay was to be had through transferring the
rook across. Karpov is now doomed to await his fate.

25. c4 Rb8 26. Bd3 Qe8 27. Rc1 Bf6 28. Rg2 Rb6?!
29. Rcg1! Rb8 30. Qf1 b4 31. Be2 h4 32. Rxg6! Qxg6 33. Rxg6 Nxg6
34. Bg4 Nf4 35. Qd1 b3 36. axb3 Bb7 37. Ng2(!) Bc8 38. Bxc8 Rxc8
39. Qg4 Re8 40. Nxf4 exf4 41. Qxf4 Be5 42. Qxh4 Rf8 43. b4 Bd4 44.
bxc5 1-0

A. Colle System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and; 3.
e3

White will play slowly for the e2-e4 break, opening up the game.

There is a booklet on the Colle
somewhere in circulation.

Landau – Book, Kemeri,
1937

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2
Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Qc7 9. e4 cxd4 10. cxd4 dxe4 11. Nxe4 Nxe4
12. Rxe4 Re8 13. Rh4 Nf8 14. Ng5 h6 15. Qh5 e5 16. Bd2 exd4 17. Rc1
Qe7 18. Ne4

18… Ng6 (else Bxh6) 19. Bg5 Qe5

[19… hxg5 20. Qh7+ Kf8 21. Qh8+ Nxh8 22.
Rxh8#]

20. f4 Qd5 [20… Qa5 21.
b4]

White now lands two good punches

21. Nf6+ gxf6 22. Bxg6

Black’s pawn cover has suddenly disappeared.

22… Bf8 The alternatives didn’t
convince:

[22… fxg6 23. Qxg6+ Kf8 24. Qxf6+ Qf7 25. Bxh6+ Kg8
26. Qg5+ Kh8 27. Bg7+ Kg8 28. Rh8#]

[22… fxg5 23. Qxh6 gxh4 24. Bh7+ Kh8 25. Be4+ Kg8
26. Bxd5]

23. Rc7 Be6 24. Bxf6 Qxh5 Ordinarily,
exchanging queens is an important achievement for the defence.

25. Bxh5 Rec8 26. Bxf7+ and still they
come! 26… Kh7 [ 26… Bxf7 27. Rg4+ Kh7 28.
Rxf7+ Bg7 29. Rgxg7+ Kh8 30. Rg6#] 27. Rxc8 Bxc8 28.
Bxd4 Cashing in 28… Bf5 29. Rh5 1-0

B. London System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and; 3.
Bf4

White holds the centre and develops quickly, attacking on either
side as the opportunity arises.

Pribyl – Penrose (Nice)
1974

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. c3 e6 5. e3 Be7 6. Nbd2
O-O 7. Bd3 b6 8. Ne5 A common theme in the London:
White can also try here [8. O-O Bb7 9. a4 or 9. Ne5]

8… Bb7 9. Qf3 Nc6 10. Qh3 g6 11. Bh6 Re8 12. f4
Nd7 [12… Nxe5 13. fxe5 Ne4 14. Bxe4 dxe4 15. O-O
with a strong attack: White can contemplate Rxf7!]

13. O-O f5 14. Ndf3 Ncxe5 15. fxe5 Bf8 16. Ng5
Bxh6 17. Qxh6 Nf8

[17… Qe7 18. g4 Qg7 19. Qxg7+ Kxg7 20. Bb5 Rad8 21.
gxf5 gxf5 22. Nh3 with an endgame plus]

18. Rf3 Re7 19. g4 Rg7 20. Raf1 Qd7 21. Kh1 Qe7
22. h4 Bc8 23. Rg3 a5 24. Rfg1 Ra7…1-0 DIAGRAM Black
fiddles while the King’s side burns… White won an endgame in
about 40 moves.

C. Torre Attack/Torre System
vs. King Fianchetto

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and; 3.
Bg5

We saw this in action in the introductory game. The founder of this
system scored a famous victory over Lasker with a ‘windmill’
combination. It has similar ideas to the London System, and chooses
perhaps a better square for the Bishop. It also tempts Black to
chase the bishop, as we can see in this line against a King
Fianchetto system.

Smyslov,V – Nunn,J [A48]
(Tilburg), 1982

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. Nbd2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. c3
h6 7. Bh4 Does driving the bishop back have any effect in
this formation? Yes – it does further weaken the kingside fortress.

7… Nc6 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. O-O a6 10. Bc4 e5 11. dxe5
dxe5 12. Re1! Overprotection of e4 frees up the minor
pieces for more useful tasks.

12… Qe8

[12… b5 13. Bf1 followed by an eventual a2-a4 would
put strong pressure on the queenside.]

13. a4 Nh5 14. Nb3 g5 15. Bg3 Rd8 16.
Nfd2

DIAGRAM White’s pieces have been quckly transferred to
the queenside. Black’s pieces, especially the offside knight,
cannot get there so quickly.

16… Nxg3 17. hxg3 Kh8 18. Qe2 Qe7 19.
Nf1!

The exchange of the Black knight for the Bg3 has created
new opportunities on the kingside. Smyslov is the master of
harmonic play – his pieces are often ready to switch to new targets
quickly.

19… Qf6 20. Nc5 Bc8 21. Ne3 Ne7 22. a5 Qg6 Black
has chosen to sue the Bc8 to defend the queenside, but the heavy
guns are all on the kingside, and White controls a bit more of the
center. But before foraging on the queenside, Smyslov squashes the
counterplay.

23. g4! b6?! Black is paralyzed on the
kingside, unable to transfer the knight to f4 due to the placement
of the queen at g6. But this sacrifice of a queenside pawn leads to
disaster. There is nothing more rueful than a lost pawn formation.
Black could resign without remorse

24. Nf5! Nxf5 [24… bxc5 25. Nxe7
Qd6 26. Nxc8 Rxc8 27. Bxa6+/- ] 25. gxf5 Qc6 26. Nxa6
Bxa6 27. Bxa6 bxa5 28. Rxa5

Now White has an extra pawn and better bishop. The rest
is easy for a player of Smyslov’s caliber.

28… Ra8 29. Rea1 Rfd8 30. Bc4 Rxa5 31. Rxa5 Kg8
32. Ra6 Qd7 33. Bd5 Qe7 34. Qh5 Rd6 35. Rxd6 cxd6 36. b4
1-0 Resigns; a tale of two bishops…

D. Trompovsky

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5

An even earlier Bishop move, and now only …e6 and …Ne4 can stop
White from kicking a hole in the Black pawn formation. In the
‘seventies Hort and Jansa often adopted it with a positional
approach, but the brawling style seen below has been more
characteristic of Hodgson’s revival of the line in the ‘nineties.

Vaganian-Botterill, Hastings
1974

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 g6 Consciously provocative.

3. Bxf6 exf6 4. e3 Bg7 5. Ne2 b6 6. Nf4 d5 7. h4
h5 8. c4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Bb7 10. Nc3 Bh6 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. Qb3+ Ke8
13. Nxg6 Qd7 14. Nxh8 Qg7 15. Qe6+ Kf8 16. Nd5 Nd7 17. Ne7 1-0

Hodgson,J – Gokhale,J [D00]
British Ch, Dundee, 1993

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 d5 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. e3 Be7 5. c4 dxc4 6.
Bxc4 O-O 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2 Nd7 9. Qc2 Bd6 10. Bd3 g6 11. h3 Qe7 12.
O-O-O a5 13. Kb1 Nb6 14. h4 Be6 DIAGRAM

15. h5 f5 16. g4 Nd5 17. gxf5 Nb4 18. Qd2 Nxd3 19. Qxd3
gxf5 20. d5 cxd5 21. Nxd5 Qd8 22. Rdg1+ Kh8 23. Qc3+ f6 24. Ndf4
Qd7 25. Ng6+ hxg6 26. hxg6+ Kg8 27. g7 Rfc8 28. Qxf6 Bxa2+ 29. Ka1
1-0

E. Systems with g3

1. d4 Nf6 2. g3

Transpositional except against the King’s Indian where the double
fianchetto system is known (with b2-b3).

Against the …e6 systems it usually transposes into the
Catalan, where Black may have problems whether the centre is closed
(Botvinnik) or open (Keene).

Botvinnik,M – Padevsky,N [E07]
Monte, 1968

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4
Nbd7 7. b3 b6 8. Bb2 Bb7 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Nc3 Re8 11. Ne5 Bd6 12.
f4 Ne4 13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. e3 Nf6 15. a3 c5 16. Qe2 cxd4 17. Bxd4 Qe7
DIAGRAM 1

White has a central grip

18. b4 a5 19. b5 Bxe5 20. Bxe5 Nd7 21. Bd4 Nc5
22. f5 Nd7 DIAGRAM 2

White turns his advantage into attack.

23. f6 Qe6 24. Qh5 Ne5 25. Rf5 Ng6 26. fxg7 Rad8
27. Qxh7+ 1-0

Keene,R – Robatsch,K [E08]
Madrid, 1971

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4
Nbd7 7. Qc2 b6 8. Nc3 Bb7 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Bxd5 11. e4 Bb7 12.
Bf4

Black now tries to break up the centre, but White offeres a pawn
sacrifice based on his more active pieces.

12… c5 13. d5 exd5 14. exd5 Bf6

[14… Bxd5 15. Rad1 Nf6 16. Ng5] [14… Nf6 15. Rad1
Nxd5]

15. h4 Re8 16. Ng5 Nf8 17. Rad1 Bd4 18. Be3 h6
19. Ne4 Bxe3 20. fxe3 Ng6 21. Rxf7 Kxf7 22. Rf1+ Ke7 23. d6+ Kd7
24. Rf7+ Ne7 25. Qa4+ Kc8 26. d7+ Qxd7 27. Bh3 1-0

F. Systems with a delayed
c4

Even if White has c2-c4 lines in their repertoire, it may reduce
Black’s options to delay

this, e.g. in the Catalan

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O
O-O 6. c4

avoids the active Black system with

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4

Fyllingen Roy – Tisdall
Jonathan D (8) [E05] Ch Norway, Namsos (Norway), 1995

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
dxc4 7. Qc2 a6 8. a4 Bd7 9. Rd1 Bc6 10. Nc3 Bb4

DIAGRAM: Black’s pieces are actively contesting central squares.
White now finds an ingenious way of shedding a piece.

11. e4 Bxc3 12. d5 exd5 13. exd5 Bxd5 14. Ng5 c6
15. bxc3 h6 16. Ne4 Nxe4 17. Bxe4 Bxe4 0-1

We can see both the g3 and delayed c4 ideas in the
following game:

Speelman,J – Mestel,J [D02]
Hastings, 1979

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 e6 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. O-O cxd4 6.
Nxd4

6… Bc5 7. Nb3 Bb6 8. c4 Nf6 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11.
Qxd8+ Nxd8 12. bxc3 Bd7 13. c4 Bc6 14. Ba3 Bxg2 15. Kxg2 Nc6 16.
Rfd1 Rd8 17. e3 f6 18. Bd6 Rd7 19. Rab1 Kd8 20. c5 Bc7 21. Nd4 Nxd4
22. Rxb7 Bxd6 23. Rxd7+ Kxd7 24. Rxd4 Kc6 25. Rxd6+ Kxc5 26. Rxe6
a5 27. Re7 g6 28. Rb7 Kc6 29. Rf7 f5 30. a4 Re8 31. Rxh7 Re4 32.
Rh4 Rxh4 33. gxh4 Kc5 34. f4 Kb4 35. e4 fxe4 36. Kf2 1-0

G. Stonewall Opening

1. d4 2. e3 3. Bd3 4.
f4

White locks up the centre and rolls down the King’s-side

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3

[3. f4 is sometimes played to avoid the 3…Nc6 line,
but then Black can always play …Bf5]

3… c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. f4 e6

blocks the Bc8; probably not best. The dangers in this
line can be seen in this line, given by Fine:

6. Nf3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Ne5 Qc7

Ne5 needs some response; Black could also try to occupy
e4

9. Nd2 Re8 10. g4 DIAGRAM with a crushing
attack

Black can usually see this coming but it (and the Stonewall Dutch)
is still played:

Aldrete,Jorge – Ramirez,P (2)
[D45] Tel Aviv ol prel, 1964

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 d5 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nd2 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. f4 Bd6
7. Ne2 O-O 8. O-O Qc7 9. Nf3

DIAGRAM

9… c4 10. Bc2 b5 11. Ng3 Rd8 12. Ne5 Bf8 13.
Bd2 a5 14. Be1 g6 15. h4 Ba6 16. h5 Ne7 17. hxg6 hxg6 18. Qf3 Bg7
19. Nh1 Bb7 20. Qh3 Kf8 21. Bh4 Nf5 22. Bxf6 Bxf6 23. g4 Nd6 24. g5
Bg7

25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. Qxe6 Bxe5 27. fxe5+ Kg7 28. Qf6+ Kh7 29.
exd6 Qc8 30. Qf7+ Kh8 31. Rf2 Qg4+ 32. Rg2 Rd7 33. Qf6+
1-0

Lots of these Bf4/Bg5 systems can be played with the
Stonewall-style attack in mind but having the dark-squared bishop
the other side of the f-pawn (Burgess below), and of course Harry
Pillsbury imported it into the Queen’s Gambit.

Burgess Graham – Johannesson
Larus (8) [A46] It, 1995

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Be7 4. Nbd2 d5 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3
b6 7. Ne5 c5 8. c3 Qc7 9. f4 Bb7 10. Qf3 h6 11. h4 Nc6 12.
Rh3

seems familiar!

12… Nxe5 13. fxe5 Ne4 14. Nxe4 dxe4 15. Bxe4
Bxe4 16. Qxe4 Qd8 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. O-O-O c4 19. Rf1 b5 20. Rf6 Kh8
21. Rg3 b4 22. Qf4 bxc3 23. Qxh6+ 1-0

Pillsbury,Harry N – Marco
(Paris, 1900)

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 b6
7. Bd3 Bb7 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Ne5 Nbd7 10. f4 c5

This is the basic formation which Pillsbury often steered for
against the …b6 lines.

11. O-O c4 12. Bc2 a6 13. Qf3 b5 14. Qh3 g6 15.
f5 b4 16. fxg6 hxg6

Black’s king’s side has been weakened.

17. Qh4 bxc3 18. Nxd7 Qxd7 19. Rxf6 a5 20. Raf1
Ra6 21. Bxg6

DIAGRAM Black didn’t need to be shown any more: 1-0

H. The Richter-Veresov
system

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 (Other moves transpose into
e.g. the Pirc or French)

This is another system emphasising piece play – again with the
threat of doubling the f-pawns, or reserving King’s-side chances.
In the following game we see both:

Bellin-Penrose, British Ch’p
1974

1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 h6 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 c6 6. Bd3
Bd6 7. Qf3 O-O 8. Nge2 Re8 9. O-O-O b5 10. g4 Nd7 11. h4 b4 12. Na4
g6 13. Rdg1 Be7 14. g5 fxg5 15. h5 g4 16. Rxg4 g5 17. Rgg1! Qa5 18.
b3

Black has a decision, to counterattack or defend passively, but
Bellin says both lose. In the game Black defended:

18…Nf6

(or 18… Nb6 19. Nc5 Qxa2 20. Kd2 explains the idea
behind move 17. If instead 19… Bxc5 20. dxc5 Qxc5 21. Qf6 Re6 22.
Rxg5+ hxg5 23. Qxg5+ Kh8 24. Qd8+ Kg7 25. h6+ Rxh6 26. Rxh6 Kxh6
27. Qf6+ Kh5 28. Nf4+ Kg4 29. Be2# )

19. Ng3 Bg4 20. Qg2 Kh8 21. Bf5 Bxf5 22. Nxf5 Bf8
23. f4 Ne4 24. fxg5 Nxg5 25. Rh4 Re4 26. Rf4 Rae8 27. Nxh6 Bxh6 28.
Rf6 Qd8 29. Rxh6+ Kg7 30. Rxc6 f6 31. Qf1 Rxe3 32. Rxg5+ fxg5 33.
Rg6+

(221) Torre,C – Lasker,Em
[A46] Moscow, 1925

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 Be7 6.Nbd2 d6
7.c3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 b6 9.Nc4 Bb7 10.Qe2 Qc7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfe1 Rfe8
13.Rad1 Nf8 14.Bc1 Nd5 15.Ng5 b5 16.Na3 b4 17.cxb4 Nxb4 18.Qh5 Bxg5
19.Bxg5 Nxd3 20.Rxd3 Qa5 21.b4 Qf5 22.Rg3 h6 23.Nc4 Qd5 24.Ne3
Qb5

And the famous finale:

25.Bf6 Qxh5 26.Rxg7+ Kh8 27.Rxf7+ Kg8 28.Rg7+ Kh8
29.Rxb7+ Kg8 30.Rg7+ Kh8 31.Rg5+ Kh7 32.Rxh5 Kg6 33.Rh3 Kxf6
34.Rxh6+ Kg5 35.Rh3 Reb8 36.Rg3+ Kf6 37.Rf3+ Kg6 38.a3 a5 39.bxa5
Rxa5 40.Nc4 Rd5 41.Rf4 Nd7 42.Rxe6+ Kg5 43.g3 1-0

All these systems can be met in practical play, and apply
to both the East and West Indian systems (with …d6/…g6 or
…e6/….b6). One can combine these ideas in defence, but we’ll
leave that to another session.

Minor opening mistakes

Posted on June 27, 1999 by DrDave

Here’s another trawl of typical mistakes, this time from the first 20 moves of each game of the WECU Minor Championship at Exmouth in Easter 1999.

The games are appended with notes mostly from DR: “out of book” is Fritz’ comment, and Fritz has also blunderchecked the games. Let’s first have a look at which openings were played:

The most common openings were: (1) Hypermodern, (2) Indian, (3) Sicilian, (4) French, (5) Open games, and (6) Stonewall/Colle. I think, for Minor players, these are (1) dubious, (2) difficult, (3) tricky, (4) good, (5) good and (6) dubious. Which is to say, over half the openings played probably aren’t very suitable. I have more to say about this!

Summary of types of mistake

Not following basic opening advice:

King in the middle 10 86 97 103 — Incomplete development 55 70 71 — Time-wasting 24 43 58 103 — Pawn moves 8 46 49 53 60 67 72 84 85 86 96 — Neglect centre 60

It is notable that the single most common fault is in making too many duff Pawn moves. Develop your pieces! (These problems are not unique to Minor players: Tony remarked that the young Nigel Short used to blow away 170-strength opposition by an approach heavily reliant on fast development.)

2. Planning poor, muddled or absent:

Inconsistent or muddled 16 19 22 23 31 37 59 62 64 84 — Routine moves 4 11 12 18 47 68 69 — Planless 17 33 35 45 55 101 102 — Passive 39 65 79 89 90 93 97

This is also a serious problem for Minor players – either planless or routine moves. This may be because the openings are not the best choices.

3. Blocked in:

Bishops 21 34 41 93 — Rooks 9 25 28 32 49 51 82

Some of this is in the opening choices, again,

4. No counterplay:

in closed position 50 85 96 — shifting attack with Pawn chains 27 102 96

I think this is both important and easy to cure. See below for specific comments on the Colle and Stonewall. I think these two openings are not greatly to be recommended for White, but when they result in easy victories because Black doesnâ€™t have a clue, they will continue to be played!

5. Others:

Looseness 15 91 — Subtleties 16 78 — Out of book 5 42 47 48 56 — Notice what your opponent has just done 6 49 54 — Creating Holes 32 38 44 79 104 — Unjustified exchange 20 — Exposed Queen 52 73 — Exposed Bishop 71 99

See below for specific comments.

There are many types of mistake listed. I have given examples of all of them, and highlighted the most important.

The whole 20 moves of each game are given: worth playing over are games 12, 32, 42, 55, 64, 90, 96 and 104.

Apologies to all players to whom I have been ungenerous, but the point was to find mistakes!

1. Not following basic opening advice:

King in the middle 10 86 97 103

  [Event "Diagram 1"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r2qk2r/ppbn1ppp/2p1pnb1/8/2BPP3/2N2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White plays 11.d5!

Incomplete development 55 70 71

  [Event "Diagram 2"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "2kr1b1r/pppq1ppp/4p3/3pn3/8/3PP3/PPP1B1PP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black has got one hope here, being a piece down – that White will distract himself and not do what he should do – complete development, seize key squares, and swap off Black’s remaining pieces.

Time-wasting 24 43 58 103

  [Event "Diagram 3"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "rn2kbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/5b2/1qBP4/1Q2PN2/PP3PPP/RNB2RK1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White played 8.Qxb4, making an exchange Black was clearly seeking. Just develop, 8.Nc3

Pawn moves 8 46 49 53 60 67 72 84 85 86 96

  [Event "Diagram 4"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bqk2r/1pp2pp1/p1np1n1p/2b1pP2/2B1P3/P2P1N2/1PP3PP/RNBQK2R w - - 0 8"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

8.h3 here would complete the set! The most common sort of unprovoked Pawn move was:

  [Event "Diagram 5"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/4pn2/3p4/3P4/3BP3/PPP2PPP/RNBQK1NR w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Whiteâ€™s next move, 4.c3, is unnecessary. Compare with this approach:

Pillsbury – Amateur, Toronto, 1899 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 Nbd7 5. O-O b6 6. Nbd2 Bd6 7.e4

Colle played 4.c3 only in reply to …c5, or to stop …Nb4.

Neglect centre 60

  [Event "Diagram 6"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bq1rk1/pppnppbp/3p1np1/8/2PP4/1P1BPN2/PB3PPP/RN1QK2R b - - 0 7"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

7…a6 is a bit off the main arena.

2. Planning poor, muddled or absent:

Inconsistent or muddled 16 19 22 23 31 37 59 62 64 84

  [Event "Diagram 7"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1b1kbnr/ppq2ppp/2npp3/8/2BpPP2/2P2N2/PP4PP/RNBQK2R w - - 0 7"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

7.Nxd4 was played instead of 7.cxd4. What was c3 played for if not to recapture on d4?

Routine moves 4 11 12 18 47 68 69

  [Event "Diagram 8"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "rnbqk2r/ppp1bppp/3p4/4p3/4P3/2PPQ3/PP1N1PPP/R3KBNR w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White has risked nothing but gained nothing.

Planless 17 33 35 45 55 101 102

  [Event "Diagram 9"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pnpbp/4p1p1/2p5/3nP3/3PB1P1/PPPQ1PBP/R2NK1NR w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black plays 8…b6, when …b5 is where I would expect to find counterplay

Passive 39 65 79 89 90 93 97

  [Event "Diagram 10"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "rn1qkb1r/pp3ppp/2p1pn2/3p4/2PP3N/2N1P3/PP2QPPP/R1B1K2R w - - 0 3"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Neither side is doing much active. We did see a lot of e2-e3 in the QP openings.

3. Blocked in:

Bishops 21 34 41 93

  [Event "Diagram 11"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "rn2kb1r/p1pq1ppp/1p6/3p4/3P4/2Q1PN2/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White would have quite a nice position if only he could get his c1 Bishop into play.

Rooks 9 25 28 32 49 51 82

  [Event "Diagram 12"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/2n1p3/3p4/3P4/4PN2/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w - - 0 4"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Woah. Black has not asked himself the question, how am I going to develop my Rooks? Black must play …c5 or …e5 at some point, and having played …Nc6, …Bg4 is now desirable.

4. No counterplay:

in closed position 12 50 85 96

  [Event "Diagram 13"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bq1rk1/p2nbppp/1p2pn2/2pp4/3P1P2/2PBP2N/PP1N2PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black is also playing routinely, but with no sense of a plan. White is following a plan, and Black allows him to execute it.

Fine gives the contrasting lines after 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. f4

Now play might go:

5… e6 (which doesn’t look quite right, as it blocks the Bc8) 6. Nf3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Ne5 Qc7 White’s threatening Ne5 needed some response; Black could also try to occupy e4 9. Nd2 Re8 10. g4 with a crushing attack.

This is the ideal Stonewall position.

Instead, we might try for Black 5… Bg4,

and play then might go 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nbd2 Bd6 8. h3 Bh5 9. b3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Rc8 when Black is comfortable

Because Black can see what White is up to, Black can arrange the development to counter it. White’s opening plan is not camouflaged enough to stop Black from seeing what is going on and opposing it, and the opening moves are not flexible enough to try any other plan. This is why you don’t see the Stonewall very often among stronger players.

shifting attack with Pawn chains 27 102 96

  [Event "Diagram 14"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp1n1ppp/4pn2/2pp4/3P1P2/2PBP3/PP1N2PP/R1BQK1NR b - - 0 6"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

6…c4 is a typical mistake, relieving the pressure.

5. Others:

Looseness 15 91

  [Event "Diagram 15"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r3k2r/pp2ppbp/2np2p1/q4b2/2PPn3/4BN2/PP1NBPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black is playing actively but is getting overstretched.11.g4! should have been played

Subtleties 16 78

  [Event "Diagram 16"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r2qkbnr/pppb1ppp/2np4/1B6/3NP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

In this RL Steinitz, 6. Bxc6 bxc6 is theory. But after 6. Nxc6, Bxc6 exchanges off another pair of pieces, useful if you have no centre and therefore no space.

Out of book 5 42 47 48 56

  [Event "Diagram 17"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r3kbnr/pp1b1ppp/1qn1p3/2ppP3/3P4/2PB1N2/PP3PPP/RNBQK2R w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

In this standard French position, neither 7.Bc2 nor its reply, 7…g6, are really to the point.

Notice what your opponent has just done 6 49 54

  [Event "Diagram 18"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/4p3/2B1P3/2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQK2R b - - 0 4"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

4…Nxe4 must not be allowed by White, and must be played by Black if possible.

Creating Holes 32 38 44 79 104

  [Event "Diagram 19"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r2qkbnr/pppb1p1p/2n1p1p1/3p4/3P4/2PBPN2/PP3PPP/RNBQK2R w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black has already lost the plot, and now creates some dark-square weaknesses with 4…g6(?). This is why you should stay away from closed games, folks.

Unjustified exchange 20

  [Event "Diagram 20"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "2r4r/1bq1kppp/pn1ppn2/1p6/4PP2/P1N1BB2/1PPQ2PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 15"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

15.Bxb6 is pretty random.

Exposed Queen 52 73

  [Event "Diagram 21"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1n1ppp/4pn2/3p4/2PP4/3B1N2/PP1N1PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

After 9…Qc7 10.Rc1! Black admitted his mistake with 10…Qd8.

Exposed Bishop 71 99

  [Event "Diagram 22"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp2pbp/3p1np1/4p3/2P5/2NPBNP1/PP2PPBP/R2QK2R w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

out of book: this Bishop proves more of a problem than anything – it should support the b4-b5 advance, but this never happens (planless, then, also)

(1) Burt D. F. – Stephens J. K. F. [A06]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 Nc6 3.Bb2 Bf5 4.d3 f6 5.Nbd2 e5 6.e4 dxe4 7.dxe4 Bg6 8.a3 Bd6 9.Bc4 Nge7 10.Qe2 Qd7 11.Nh4 0-0-0 12.Nxg6 Nxg6 13.g3 a6 14.0-0-0 Rhf8 15.Bd5 Nge7 16.Nc4 Nxd5 17.Rxd5 Qe6 18.Nxd6+ Rxd6 19.Rhd1 Rfd8 20.Rxd6 Rxd6 …1/2-1/2

(2) Chamberlain D. – Clarke J. W. [B14]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nf3 h6 out of book 8.Bh4 Nc6 9.Bd3 a6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Re1 Nb4 12.Bb1 [-0.53 Fritz 5.00: 12.cxd5 g5 13.Bg3 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Nxd5 15.Rac1] 12…dxc4 13.Ne5 b5 14.a3 Nbd5 15.Qc2 Nxc3 16.bxc3 g5 17.Ng4 Ne4 [5.19 Fritz 5.00: 17…Re8 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20.Qxh6+ Bg7 21.Qxg5] 18.Qxe4 f5 19.Qxa8 fxg4 20.Qe4 Rf7…1-0

(3) Waters R. G. – Turner R. D. [D04]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Be2 e6 5.0-0 h6 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.f4 Nxe5 8.fxe5 Ne4 9.Nd2 Be7 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Bd2 0-0 12.Bf3 Bxf3 13.Rxf3 c5 14.Qe2 c4 15.e4 dxe4 16.Qxe4 Qd7 17.Qg4 f5 18.exf6 Rxf6 19.Rxf6 Bxf6 20.c3 g5 …0-1

(4) Ariss J. – Gardiner C. J. [B30]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 e6 out of book, but a perfectly reasonable treatment 4.Nf3 Be7 I might have been more inclined to play for …b5 or …d5 rather than merely developing 5.0-0 d6 6.a3 Nf6 7.d3 a6 8.h3 Often a sign that a player has lost the plot; this makes sense if White wants to play Bc1-e3. 8…b5 9.Ba2 Bb7 10.Re1 0-0 11.Bf4 b4 12.axb4 cxb4 13.Ne2 Nd7 Where’s he off to? 14.Qd2 a5 15.Bb3 e5 16.Bg5 Bxg5 17.Nxg5 h6 18.Nf3 Ne7 19.Ng3 Nc5 20.Bc4 Ba6 …1-0

(5) Foster P. – Wingrove S. [C58]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 Nxc6 out of book; not rubbish, but loses the initiative [7…bxc6 8.Be2 (8.Qf3) 8…h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6] 8.Qf3 Bd7 [2.03 Fritz 5.00: 8…Qc7 9.Nc3 Bc5 10.Nge4 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Bd4] 9.Qb3 [1.16 Fritz 5.00: 9.Bc4 Bb4 10.Bxf7+ Ke7 11.Qb3 Rc8 12.Ne6] 9…Qe7 10.Bc4 Nd5 [2.44 Fritz 5.00: 10…Nd8 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Nc3] 11.Bxd5 Qxg5 12.Bxf7+ Ke7 [12…Kd8 is unattractive but may get counterplay] 13.Bd5 [1.28 Fritz 5.00: 13.0-0 Rc8 14.Na3 Nd4 15.Qxb7 Kd8 16.Qxa7 Bxa3 17.Qxa3 Rxc2] 13…Nd4 14.Qxb7 [-0.38 Fritz 5.00: 14.Qa3+ Kf6 15.Qd3 Bf5 16.Be4 Qxg2 17.Bxg2 Bxd3 18.Na3 Bxa3] 14…Rc8 [2.28 Fritz 5.00: 14…Nxc2+ 15.Kd1 Rc8 16.Qxc8 Bxc8 17.Kxc2 Qf5+ 18.d3 Ba6 19.Nc3] 15.Na3 Ke8 [3.28 Fritz 5.00: 15…Rxc2 16.Qxa7 Ke8 17.Rb1 Bxa3 18.Qxa3 Rf8 19.Qe3 Qxe3+ 20.dxe3] 16.c3 Bxa3 17.cxd4 Be7 18.0-0 Rf8 [3.13 Fritz 5.00: 18…exd4 19.Re1 Kd8 20.d3 Qf5 21.Bd2 Bd6 22.Rac1 Bc7 23.Be4] 19.d3 Qf5 20.Be4 Qf6 …1/2-1/2

(6) Freke R. B. – Holmes P. [D02]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bf5 3.e3 c6 4.b3 [4.c4 is the only way I can see to create trouble] 4…e6 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 Nf6 7.Nbd2 Be7 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Nf6 12.Qe2

I think this sort of position is the reason Minor players ought to steer clear of 1.d4 unless they have a definite plan of campaign. 12…0-0 13.Bg5 h6 14.Bh4 Nd7 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Rad1 Rfe8 17.Rd3 c5 18.c3 cxd4 19.cxd4 Rad8 [19…Rac8] 20.Re3 …0-1

(7) Willis A. R. – Webber S. J. [A00]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
unintelligible …1-0

(8) Aldwin B. – Coates A. E. [A03]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Be2 c6 5.0-0 Nf6 6.d3 0-0 7.c3 Too many Pawn moves [7.Qe1; 7.Nc3] 7…Nbd7 8.Nbd2 Qb6 9.d4 Ne8 Giving White unnecessary leeway. [9…c5; 9…Re8] 10.e4 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Nef6 12.Bd3 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Nf6 14.Bc2 Bg4 15.Qd3 Bxf3 Not the best exchange. [15…Bf5] 16.Rxf3 e6 17.h3 Rad8 18.Be3 Nd5 19.b4 If White did not mind the exchange, then h3 may have been unnecessary. 19…Nxe3 20.Rxe3 Qc7…0-1

(9) Collier M. J. – Cuggy M. J. [D07]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nc6 Questionable. How is Black planning to make use of his Rooks? 5.e3 Bd6 out of book 6.Be2 dxc4 7.Bxc4 a6 8.Bd2 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.Rc1 0-0 11.0-0 Ne7 That Knight was indeed misplaced for Black’s opening scheme. 12.Ne1 Nf5 13.Bf3 c6 14.Ne4? [-1.00 Fritz 5.00: 14.Nd3 Qc7 15.h3 Rad8 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4] 14…Nh4? [0.59 Fritz 5.00: 14…Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Nxe4 16.Qc2] 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 Odd-looking. Had Black seen the follow-up? [1.44 Fritz 5.00: 15…Qxf6 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.Rxc6 Rfd8 18.Qh5 Nf5] 16.Bxc6 Bxh2+ Clever! 17.Kh1 [0.50 Fritz 5.00: 17.Kxh2 Qd6+ 18.Kh3 Bxc6 19.Qc2 Bb7 20.Kxh4 Qh2+ 21.Kg4 Bxg2] 17…Bxc6 18.Rxc6 Qd5 Not so clever, but I enjoyed this game – good spirit after the stodgy beginning. [1.59 Fritz 5.00: 18…Qd7 19.Rc2 Bc7 20.e4 Rfc8 21.Qh5] 19.Qg4+ [0.59 Fritz 5.00: 19.Rc5 Qxa2 20.Kxh2 Qxb2 21.Nd3 Qa3 22.Qg4+ Ng6] 19…Qg5 [2.88 Fritz 5.00: 19…Ng6 20.Qf3 Qxf3 21.Nxf3 Ne7 22.Rcc1 Bd6] 20.Qxg5+ fxg5…1-0

(10) Young A. – Atkins K. [B02]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxd5 4.Nxd5 Looks wrong to me. 4…Qxd5 5.d4 Nc6 6.c3 out of book 6…e5 7.Qe2 Asking for trouble! 7…Bf5 8.dxe5 0-0-0 9.Bg5 [-0.88 Fritz 5.00: 9.f4 Be7 10.Nf3 Bg4 11.Bd2 Bh4+ 12.Kd1 Rhe8 13.c4 Bxf3] 9…Nb4 10.f3 [-4.16 Fritz 5.00: 10.Rd1 Nc2+ 11.Qxc2 Bxc2 12.Rxd5 Rxd5 13.Nf3 Rd1+ 14.Ke2 Bc5] 10…Nd3+ 11.Kd2 Nf4+ 0-1 (11 moves!)

(11) Manton P. – Whitfield J. H. [D04]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.e3 e6 4.Be2 Nf6 5.h3 Bh5 6.0-0 Bd6 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 c5 10.c4 White’s position is merely solid. 10…cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 dxc4 13.Nxc4 White now looks better! 13…Bc7 14.Rfd1 e5 Not obvious but losing a Pawn. 15.Nf3 Qc8 The trouble is that after Qe7/Qe8 White can pick up the Rook with Ba3. 16.Ncxe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Qe6 18.Nf3 Rfd8 19.Rac1 Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 …1-0

(12) Soper E. – Eastwick-Field S. R. [D00]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.d4 e6 2.e3 out of book 2…Nf6 3.Bd3 d5 4.c3 Routine. Nb1-d2 and f2-f4 were more direct. 4…Be7 5.Nd2 Nbd7 6.f4 0-0 7.Nh3 c5 8.0-0 b6 Black is also playing routinely, but with no sense of a plan. White is following a plan, and Black allows him to execute it. 9.Qf3 Bb7 10.g4 Rc8 11.Nf2 cxd4 12.exd4 a6 13.g5 Ne8 14.Qh3 g6 15.Ng4 f5 16.gxf6 Nexf6 [0.84 Fritz 5.00: 16…Bxf6 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.Qh6 Nd6 19.Re1 Nf5] 17.Nh6+ [-0.16 Fritz 5.00: 17.Ne5 Qe8 18.Qxe6+ Kg7 19.Re1 Nc5 20.Qxb6 Nxd3 21.Nxd3] 17…Kg7 18.Nf3 Ng8 [0.59 Fritz 5.00: 18…Ne4 19.Bxe4 dxe4 20.Ng5 Bxg5 21.fxg5 Rxf1+ 22.Qxf1 Qe7] 19.Nxg8 Rxg8 20.Qxe6 Winning. 20…b5 …1-0

(13) Chapman T. J. – Spink D. K. [B22]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6 3.d4 Nc6 4.Be3 Bd7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.h3 Be7 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 Nd5 10.Bd2 If this is the best reply then e4-e5 was a mistake. 10…Qc7 11.Qe2 a6 12.0-0 b5 13.Re1 c4 14.Bc2 0-0 15.Qe4 g6 16.Bh6 Rfe8 17.Ng5 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 Nde7 19.Bf6 Nf5 20.g4 Ng7 …1-0

(14) Patching G. R. – Buckley S. B. [A56]
WECU Minor (1), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.e3 d5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bg4 out of book, but reasonable. 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 Qc7 9.Be3 Bd6 Black may lose both Bishops now. [0.31 Fritz 5.00: 9…Bxf3 10.Bxf3 dxc4 11.Qa4 Bd6 12.g3 Rc8 13.Bxc6+ Qxc6 14.Qxa7] 10.Nb5 Qb8 11.Nxd6+ Qxd6 12.Rc1 0-0 13.c5 Qc7 14.Qd2 Ne4 15.Qc2 Bf5 16.Bd3 [-0.91 Fritz 5.00: 16.Qb3 Rac8 17.Rce1 Na5 18.Qb4 Nc6] 16…Nb4 The biter bit. 17.Qb1 Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Ng3 cute 19.Qd2 Nxf1 20.Rxf1 Rfc8 …0-1

(15) Chapman T. J. – Chamberlain D. [B04]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 dxe5 5.Nxe5 Bf5 out of book; looks too straightforward. 6.c4 Nb4 Black will become over-stretched – there is no centre to hold his pieces aloft. 7.Qa4+ N8c6 8.Na3 Missing an opportunity. [-0.47 Fritz 5.00: 8.Nxc6 Nxc6 9.d5 Bd7 10.dxc6 Bxc6 11.Qa5 Qd6 12.Nc3 e5] 8…e6 9.Be3 Be7 10.Rd1 0-0 11.Nxc6 Nxc6 12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.Rxd3 Ne5 14.Rb3 Ng4 15.Rxb7 Nxe3 16.fxe3 Bg5 [1.06 Fritz 5.00: 16…Bxa3 17.bxa3 Qh4+ 18.Kf1 Qe4 19.Qb3 c5 20.dxc5 Rac8 21.Kf2] 17.Nc2 Qf6 18.Qc6 Qf5 19.Qa4 [-2.31 Fritz 5.00: 19.Kd2 Qf2+ 20.Kd3 e5 21.Re1 exd4 22.Re2 Qg1 23.Nxd4 Qb1+] 19…Qe4 20.Rb5 Qxg2 …0-1

(16) Turner R. D. – Collier M. J. [B38]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3 Bd7 Inconsequent. 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Be2 a6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.Qd2 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Ne8 14.Bxg7 [14.Be3 is a subtlety of this type of position] 14…Kxg7 15.Kh1 Nf6 16.Rfd1 Qb6 17.b3 Rc7 18.Qe1 Rfc8 19.f4 Qe3 20.Qd2 Qxd2 …1-0

(17) Coates A. E. – Manton P. [B24]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 e6 6.Be3 Nge7 7.Qd2 Chicken. [7.Bxc5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qa5 9.Be3 Qxc3+ 10.Bd2 Qc5] 7…Nd4 8.Nd1 b6 [8…b5 is where the counterplay will come from.] 9.c3 Ndc6 10.Ne2 Bb7 11.0-0 Ne5 12.h3 d5 13.f4 Nd7 14.e5 Qc7 15.d4 c4 16.Nf2 White has a reasonable attacking position but Black has cleverly avoided providing a target. 16…h5 17.Kh2 Nf5 18.Bf3 0-0-0 19.Kg2 Rh7 20.Rh1 Rdh8 …0-1

(18) Atkins K. – Ariss J. [C01]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd3 Bg4 out of book 9.h3 Bh5 10.0-0 Nc6 Black is being routine. 11.Bxh7+ Kh8 [11…Kxh7 12.Ng5+ Kg6 (12…Kg8 13.Qxh5) 13.Qd3+ f5 14.Ne6] 12.Bc2 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Nf6 14.Be3 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Qxd4 16.Rad1 Qc5 17.Rd5 Qc6 18.Qd3 g6 19.Qd4 Kg8 20.Re5 Rfd8 21.h4 …1-0

(19) Holmes P. – Soper E. [B21]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d6 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.c3 [4.Nc3] 4…e6 5.Nf3 Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Inconsistent. [7.cxd4 at least gets the big centre.] 7…Bd7 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Qc2 a6 10.h3 Rc8 11.Bd3 Nb4 cute 12.Qe2 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Be7 14.Be3 d5 15.e5 Ne4 16.Nbd2 Bc6 17.Qc2 b5 18.Nxe4 dxe4 19.Nd4 Bd5 20.Qd2 0-0…1-0

(20) Buckley S. B. – Willis A. R. [B84]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Be2 Nbd7 out of book but reasonable 9.Qd2 b5 careless, but no great harm comes of it [1.00 Fritz 5.00: 9…Nc5 10.Bf3 e5 11.Nde2 exf4 12.Nxf4 0-0] 10.Nc6 Qc7 11.Nxe7 Kxe7 12.Bf3 Bb7 13.a3 Rac8 14.0-0 Nb6 15.Bxb6 unjustified 15…Qxb6+ 16.Kh1 Rhd8 17.Rae1 Nd7 18.f5 h6 19.Bh5 Ne5 20.Qf4 Rf8 …0-1

(21) Wingrove S. – Burt D. F. [A52]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.Bf4 Nbc6 6.a3 Be7 7.Bxe5 can’t be right 7…Nxe5 8.Nf3 Bf6 9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.Nc3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qf6 12.Qd4 Qxd4 13.cxd4 d6 14.Be2 0-0 15.0-0 f5 16.f3 Bd7 17.Rab1 b6 18.Bd3 Rae8 19.h3 c5 20.d5 White’s Bishop, while not bad, is going off. 20…fxe4 …1/2-1/2

(22) Stephens J. K. F. – Primett A. D. [C01]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bg5 Be6 6.g3 Random. 6…c6 7.a3 Bd6 8.Nf3 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Causes more problems for White than Black. 9…0-0 10.Bg2 h6 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.0-0 Re8 13.Qd2 Bf5 14.Nh4 Bh7 15.Rae1 Qd7 16.b4 b5 17.Bf3 a5 18.Rxe8+ Rxe8 19.Na2 axb4 20.axb4 Ra8 …0-1

(23) Mansfield A. C. – Foster P. [D05]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.e3 Bb7 4.Nbd2 e6 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 d5 Inconsistent? 7.0-0 out of book 7…Nbd7 8.Qe2 Qc7 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.e4 0-0-0 Very risky. 11.Ba6 Bd6 12.Bxb7+ Qxb7 Overlooks a cheapo. [1.84 Fritz 5.00: 12…Kxb7 13.b4 c4 14.Rd1 Ne5 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Nxe5 Bxe5] 13.e5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Ne4 15.Nxf7 Returns the favour. [1.03 Fritz 5.00: 15.Nxe4 Bxe5 16.f4 dxe4 17.fxe5 h6] 15…Qxf7 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Qxe4 Kb8 18.a4 Qh5 19.Bf4 g5 [3.78 Fritz 5.00: 19…e5 20.Bg3 h6 21.b4 cxb4] 20.Bxd6+ Rxd6 21.Qe5 Ka8…1/2-1/2

(24) Whitfield J. H. – Spooner K. C. [D11]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.d4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Bf5 4.c4 dxc4 out of book 5.Bxc4 e6 6.Qb3 Qe7 Last square I would have chosen! But I hadn’t seen Black’s idea. 7.0-0 Qb4 8.Qxb4 Time-wasting. 8…Bxb4 9.Bd2 Bxd2 10.Nbxd2 Nd7 11.e4 Bg6 12.Rfe1 Ngf6 13.d5 Good – despite the endgame character of the position, Black is drifting into an attack. 13…cxd5 [1.13 Fritz 5.00: 13…e5 14.Rac1 0-0 15.Nh4 Rac8 16.Nxg6 hxg6 17.Rcd1 cxd5] 14.exd5 b5 15.Bxb5 Nxd5 16.Bc6 0-0-0 17.Bxd7+ [0.19 Fritz 5.00: 17.Rac1 Kb8 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Nd4 Rc8 20.Nc6+ Kb7 21.Nb3 Rhe8] 17…Rxd7 18.Ne5 Rc7 19.Nxg6 hxg6 20.Rac1 …1/2-1/2

(25) Gardiner C. J. – Freke R. B. [D02]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Nc6 out of book – Black may develop a Rook problem. 4.c3 e6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.Nbd2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 e5 Black has solved his Rook problem. 10.Nxf6+ [10.Nxd6] 10…Qxf6 [2.25 Fritz 5.00: 10…gxf6 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 fxe5 13.Qh5 e4 14.Bc4 Qf6 15.Re1] 11.Bg5 Qe6 12.dxe5 [-0.06 Fritz 5.00: 12.d5 Qd7 13.dxc6 Qxc6 14.Qe2 a6 15.Be4 Qb6 16.Rad1 Bg4] 12…Nxe5 13.Nd4 Qd5 14.Bf5 [14.c4 Nxc4] 14…Bxf5 15.Nxf5 Qe6 16.Nxd6 cxd6 17.b3 f6 18.Be3 b6 19.c4 Qd7 20.Qd5+ Kh8 …1-0

(26) Cuggy M. J. – Waters R. G. [A45]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 d6 3.Bd3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.e4 Be7 6.Nf3 Bg4 Egging White to gain the two Bishops [6…Nc6] 7.Nc3 0-0 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Nc6 10.Be3 Bb4 Waste of time? No harm done and it does give Black something to play with. 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Qd6 13.a4 Nd7 14.Qg3 Nc5 15.Rfd1 Nxd3 16.Rxd3 [16.cxd3 is much better] 16…Qe6 17.Rd5 f5 18.Bc5 Rf7 19.Qd3 fxe4 20.Qxe4 b6 …1-0

(27) Eastwick-Field S. R. – Aldwin B. [D02]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 c5 5.c3 Be7 6.Bd3 out of book, but entirely reasonable 6…c4 Wrong: releases tension in the centre. White can build for e3-e4 in comfort, or go for a King’s-side attack without facing counterplay. 7.Bc2 Nc6 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.h3 Re8 10.0-0 Bf8 11.Ne5 g6 12.Qf3 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 Bg7 14.Rfe1 a5 15.e4 Rb8?? [4.84 Fritz 5.00: 15…b5 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 Bxf6 18.exd5 e5 19.d6] 16.Bxb8 Nd7 17.Bg3 e5 18.dxe5 Nxe5 19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.exd5 Rxd5 21.Nf1 b5…1-0

(28) Spink D. K. – Young A. [D00]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 out of book 2…d5 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.c3 Bg4 [4…e5 equalises easily, and Black has to play something like this at some time] 5.f3 Bd7 6.Ne2 e5 Better! 7.0-0 Bd6 8.e4 0-0 9.Bg5 dxe4 10.fxe4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Bxh2+ [1.31 Fritz 5.00: 11…Bc5 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bd5 Bxd5 15.Qg4+ Kh8 16.exd5] 12.Kh1 [-1.44 Fritz 5.00: 12.Kxh2 Ng4+ 13.Qxg4 Bxg4 14.Bxd8 Raxd8 15.Nxc6 Rxd3 16.Nxa7 Rfd8] 12…Be5 13.Nf5 Bxf5 14.exf5 Qd5 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Qf3 Qxf3 17.Rxf3 Ne5 18.Rh3 Nxd3 19.Rxd3 Rad8 20.Rh3 [-4.88 Fritz 5.00: 20.Rxd8 Rxd8 21.Na3 h5 22.Re1 Kf8 23.Nc4 b5 24.Na3 Rd2] 20…Rd1+…0-1

(29) Clarke J. W. – Patching G. R. [C25]
WECU Minor (2), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Ne7 out of book 4.d3 0-0 5.Nf3 [5.f4] 5…d6 6.Bg5 Nd7 All looks too passive. [1.34 Fritz 5.00: 6…h6 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.Nd5] 7.Nd5 f6?? Hideous. [2.41 Fritz 5.00: 7…Re8 8.0-0 c6 9.Nxe7+ Rxe7 10.Bxe7 Qxe7] 8.Nxe7+ [3.31 Fritz 5.00: 8.Nxc7+ Kh8 9.Nxa8 fxg5 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Ne5] 8…Kh8 9.Nf5 [-0.13 Fritz 5.00: 9.Nxc8 fxg5 10.Nxd6 Bxd6 11.0-0 c6] 9…fxg5 10.h4 g4 [0.41 Fritz 5.00: 10…Nb6 11.hxg5 d5 12.Bb3 Bxf5 13.exf5 Rxf5] 11.Ng5 Nb6 12.Nf7+ Rxf7 13.Bxf7 Qf8 14.d4 exd4 15.Bh5 Bxf5 [0.47 Fritz 5.00: 15…g6 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Nxd4 Nc4 18.c3 Nxb2 19.Qe2] 16.Bxg4 [-2.81 Fritz 5.00: 16.exf5 g3 17.fxg3 Qxf5 18.Qe2 Bb4+ 19.Kd1 Nc4 20.Qxc4 Qxh5+] 16…Bxg4 17.Qxg4 d3 18.0-0-0 [-3.03 Fritz 5.00: 18.0-0 Qf6 19.cxd3 Qxb2 20.Qf4 Kg8 21.Qc1 Qd4 22.Qc2 Re8] 18…dxc2 19.Rd2 Nc4 20.Rxc2 …1-0

(30) Chamberlain D. – Atkins K. [A57]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.e3 out of book 4…g6 5.b3 Bg7 6.Bb2 0-0 7.Nf3 d6 8.Bd3 bxc4 9.bxc4 Nbd7 10.0-0 Rb8 11.Qc2 [-1.47 Fritz 5.00: 11.Bc3 e6 12.e4 Re8 13.Qc2 exd5 14.exd5 Nb6 15.Nbd2 Bg4] 11…Qb6 [0.03 Fritz 5.00: 11…Rxb2 12.Qxb2 Nxd5 13.Qa3 Nxe3 14.fxe3 Bxa1 15.Qxa7 Ne5 16.Nxe5] 12.Bc3 Nh5 13.Bxg7 Nxg7 14.Nbd2 Qb2 15.Qxb2 Rxb2 16.Rfb1 Rb6 17.a4 Ba6 18.Rxb6 Nxb6 19.a5 [-0.69 Fritz 5.00: 19.Ra3 Rb8 20.Rb3 h6 21.a5 Nd7 22.Rxb8+ Nxb8 23.Ne4 Nd7] 19…Nd7 [0.16 Fritz 5.00: 19…Nxd5 20.Bxg6 Nxe3 21.Bxf7+ Kxf7 22.fxe3 Rb8 23.Kf2 Rb2 24.Ng5+] 20.Rb1 Ne8…1-0

(31) Willis A. R. – Turner R. D. [D66]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 Be7 Inconsistent with the tricky move order, but not a bad move. 6.e3 0-0 7.Rc1 Nbd7 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bd3 a6 11.0-0 h6 12.Bh4 [-0.19 Fritz 5.00: 12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.Ne4 Qd5 14.Qc2 Qxa2 15.Qxc6 Qd5 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6] 12…c5 13.b3 out of book 13…cxd4 14.Nxd4 Bb7 15.f3 Rc8 16.e4 Ne5 17.Bb1 Ng6 18.Bf2 Bb4 19.Nce2 Rxc1 20.Qxc1 Qc8…1/2-1/2

(32) Manton P. – Holmes P. [D02]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e3 e6 Woah. Black has not asked himself the question, how am I going to develop my Rooks? Black must play …c5 or …e5 at some point, and having played …Nc6, …Bg4 is now desirable. 4.c3 Bd7 More lost plot. …Bd6 would at least support …e5 5.Bd3 g6 And now some dark-square weaknesses. This is why you should stay away from closed games, folks. 6.Nbd2 Bg7 7.e4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nge7 9.Bg5 0-0 10.Bf6 Bxf6 11.Nxf6+ Kg7 12.Ng4 h5 13.Ne3 Nd5 14.Qd2 Nxe3 15.Qxe3 Qf6 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Qe7 18.0-0-0 Bc6 19.Be4 Bxe4 20.Qxe4 b6 21.Kd2…1/2-1/2

(33) Primett A. D. – Coates A. E. [A11]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.c4 c6 2.g3 d5 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.d3 out of book 6…Nbd7 7.Qa4 Not suspicious in itself, but forms part of no plan. 7…e6 8.Nc3 Be7 9.Bf4 a6 10.0-0 b5 11.Qd1 0-0 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Bd2 h6 14.Nd4 Bg4 15.h3 Bh5 16.Qe1 Bc5 17.Nb3 Ba7 18.e4 [-1.25 Fritz 5.00: 18.Be3 Bb8 19.a3 Bd6 20.Bd4 e5] 18…d4 [-0.28 Fritz 5.00: 18…Ne5 ] 19.Ne2 Rxc1 20.Nbxc1 e5…1-0

(34) Burt D. F. – Buckley S. B. [A06]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.Nf3 c5 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Nc6 4.e3 Bg4 5.Be2 Bxf3 6.Bxf3 e5 7.d3 g6 8.0-0 Bg7 9.e4 d4 Making all the Bishops bad! 10.Nd2 Nge7 11.g3 0-0 12.Bg2 Qd7 13.f4 Qc7 14.f5 f6 15.g4 Bh6 16.Nf3 Be3+ 17.Kh1 b5 18.Bc1 Bf4 19.Bxf4 exf4 20.fxg6 hxg6 …1-0

(35) Webber S. J. – Gardiner C. J. [B22]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.f3 out of book 3…Nc6 4.Bb5 a6 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.d4 e6 7.Ne2 All looks a bit random – nothing bad, just incoherent. 7…dxe4 8.fxe4 But after this exchange Black’s Pawns look quite loose. 8…Qh4+ 9.Ng3 Nf6 10.0-0 Ng4 11.h3 Qxg3 12.Qxg4 [-0.72 Fritz 5.00: 12.Bf4 Qh4 13.Qxg4 Qxg4 14.hxg4 cxd4 15.cxd4 c5] 12…Qxg4 13.hxg4 cxd4 14.cxd4 Be7 15.d5 Just a blunder, I guess. [-1.44 Fritz 5.00: 15.g5 ] 15…exd5 16.exd5 Bc5+ 17.Kh1 cxd5 18.Nc3 Be6 19.Re1 0-0-0 20.a3 h6 …0-1

(36) Foster P. – Clarke J. W. [C55]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 Transposing from the Hungarian to the Two Knights’. 5…d6 6.Ng5 out of book, and has to be premature in this position. 6…0-0 7.f4 h6 8.Nf3 Bg4 9.0-0 d5 Loses a temp but probably a good idea to expose d3. 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.h3 Bh5 But this is a poor move, even if it didn’t make an unsound Pawn sacrifice. 12.g4 Bg6 13.f5 [0.03 Fritz 5.00: 13.fxe5 Na5 14.Bb5 a6 15.Ba4 f5 16.b4 fxg4 17.hxg4 Nc6] 13…Bh7 14.Qe2 Qd6 15.Re1 Bf6 16.Qf1 Rae8 17.Nbd2 Na5 18.Ne4 Qb6+ 19.Kh2 Nxc4 20.dxc4 Nf4 Black is spuddling well against a clockwork White attack. …1-0

(37) Soper E. – Chapman T. J. [D00]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.e3 out of book 2…Nf6 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.f4 Nb4 Widely recommended. 5.Nf3 Nxd3+ 6.cxd3 [I prefer 6.Qxd3 ] 6…e6 7.Bd2 Bd7 8.Qb3 b6 9.Nc3 c5 10.0-0 Be7 11.Ne5 cxd4 12.exd4 White’s d4 Pawn may become a target, but Black prefers to pursue other aims. 12…0-0 13.Qd1 Rc8 14.Qf3 It’s not clear what White has achieved over on the Queen’s-side. 14…Rc7 15.a3 Bc8 16.Rac1 a6 17.Na4 Rxc1 18.Rxc1 b5 [2.00 Fritz 5.00: 18…Bb7 19.Qd1 Ba8 20.Qb3 b5 21.Nc5 Qb6 22.Qc2 Rc8 23.b3] 19.Nc6 Qe8 20.Nxe7+ Qxe7 Both Bishops are bad: White’s would improve after f4-f5 …1-0

(38) Collier M. J. – Wingrove S. [A56]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.dxc5 e5 out of book, and rightly so, for Black has a shocking hole on d5. 4.Nc3 Bxc5 5.e3 d6 6.g3 Be6 7.Bg2 Qd7 8.b3 Nc6 9.Nf3 h6 [I’m not sure Black can get away with 9…d5 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxd5 Rd8] 10.0-0 Rd8 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Na4 Qc7 13.Qc1 Nd7 14.Rd1 a6 15.a3 Ba7 16.Nc3 Ne7 17.Qc2 Bf5 18.e4 Be6 19.Rd2 Nf6 20.Rc1 Nh7 21.c5 Unthematic! [-0.25 Fritz 5.00: 21.Nd5 Qd7 22.Nxe7+ Qxe7 23.Nh4 g6 24.Rcd1 Ng5 25.Qd3 Nh3+] 21…dxc5…1-0

(39) Spooner K. C. – Mansfield A. C. [A18]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d6 Passive if solid; Black gets the worst of it, but White finds nothing concrete later. 4.d4 Be7 5.Nf3 b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.Qc2 c5 8.d5 exd5 9.exd5 0-0 10.Bd3 Re8 11.0-0 Nbd7 12.Bf4 Nf8 13.Ng5 g6 14.Nf3 Bc8 15.h3 Bd7 16.Rae1 a6 17.b3 b5 18.Re2 b4 19.Ne4 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 Bc8 …1/2-1/2

(40) Young A. – Cuggy M. J. [A04]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.Nf3 Nc6 2.d3 e5 3.g3 f5 out of book; Black plays the White side of a Pirc with vigour and is rewarded with some attacking chances. White does not seem to understand what to do about the Black activity. 4.Nbd2 d5 5.e4 Nf6 6.exd5 Qxd5 7.Bg2 Bc5 8.0-0 Be6 9.Ng5 Qd7 10.Nxe6 Qxe6 11.Nf3 0-0-0 12.Qe2 h6 13.Be3 Nd4 [0.91 Fritz 5.00: 13…Bxe3 14.fxe3 g6 15.Nd2 Nd5 16.Nc4 Rhe8] 14.Bxd4 Bxd4 15.Nxd4 Rxd4 16.Rfe1 Nd7 17.Qe3 Qb6 18.c3 Rd6 19.Qxb6 Rxb6 20.Re2 g5 …0-1

(41) Waters R. G. – Aldwin B. [E11]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Nbxd2 0-0 6.e3 b6 The other plan is to go for …e5; after …b6 White can try to blot it out with d4-d5 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.0-0 d6 9.e4 Nbd7 out of book 10.Qc2 e5 11.d5 Just so. But neither Bishop looks wonderful now. 11…a5 12.Nh4 Nc5 [Fritz ignored 12…Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Qxh4] 13.f4 [-1.06 Fritz 5.00: 13.Nf5 Nh5 14.Nb3 Nxb3 15.Qxb3 Nf4 16.Bc2 Qf6 17.Rfe1 Bc8] 13…Ng4 14.Nf5 g6 15.h3 gxf5 16.hxg4 fxe4 [0.47 Fritz 5.00: 16…fxg4 17.Be2 Qh4 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.Rf5 f6 20.Qc3 Bc8 21.g3] 17.Bxe4 Qh4 18.Bf5 Bc8 19.Bxc8 Raxc8 20.Qf5 f6 …0-1

(42) Ariss J. – Eastwick-Field S. R. [C02]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 Bd7 7.Qb3 out of book: White should know this key French position. 7…h5 Black does not play thematically either. [0.47 Fritz 5.00: 7…Qxb3 8.axb3 cxd4 9.cxd4 (9.0-0 dxc3 10.bxc3 Bc5 11.Rd1) 9…Nb4 10.Ke2 Nxd3 11.Kxd3 Bb5+ 12.Ke3 Nh6] 8.0-0 Nh6 9.Re1 g6 10.Be3 c4 11.Qxb6 axb6 12.Bc2 Nf5 13.Bg5 Be7 14.Bf6 Bxf6 15.exf6 Nh6 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 b5 18.Nd2 Bc6 19.Nf3 Nf5 20.Bxf5 gxf5 …1/2-1/2

(43) Whitfield J. H. – Stephens J. K. F. [D02]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e3 a6 out of book: total waste of time. 4.Bd3 Bg4 5.Nbd2 f6 (wince) 6.c4 e6 7.Qb3 Nge7 [0.84 Fritz 5.00: 7…Nb4 8.Be2 c5 9.cxd5 Qxd5 10.Bc4 Qd7] 8.a3 [0.19 Fritz 5.00: 8.Qxb7 If you aren’t playing this, why play Qb3? 8…Qb8 9.Qxb8+ Rxb8 10.a3 Bxf3 11.gxf3 a5 12.Rg1 g6] 8…Nf5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Nxf3 Nh6 12.Qc2 g6 13.0-0 f5 14.Bd2 Qf6 15.Qa4 Nf7 16.Bc3 Bd6 17.Bb5 Nfd8 18.Bxc6+ Nxc6 19.Qb3 Ne7 20.Qxb7 0-0 21.Qb3 Rab8 …1/2-1/2

(44) Freke R. B. – Patching G. R. [A46]
WECU Minor (3), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Be7 4.Bd3 b6 5.Nbd2 out of book 5…d5 6.c3 a5 7.0-0 Ba6 8.Bxa6 Nxa6 9.Re1 0-0 10.Ne5 Nb8 11.e4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Rxe4 Bf6 14.Bf4 Bxe5 15.Bxe5 f6 wince 16.Bg3 f5 Circumstances have changed. 17.Rxe6 f4 18.Qe2 [-0.50 Fritz 5.00: 18.Qf3 Na6 19.Bxf4 g5 20.Bxg5 Qxg5 21.Qe2 Rf7 22.Re5 Qh4] 18…fxg3 19.hxg3 Nd7 20.Re1 Rf7 …1-0

(45) Turner R. D. – Chamberlain D. [B02]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nb6 [3…Nxc3] 4.f4 d6 5.d4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Bf5 7.Nf3 e6 8.Bd3 Bg6 9.Bxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3 No point. 10…Nc6 11.a3 Qd7 12.Bg5 Be7 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 15.Rhf1 Ned5 16.h3 Qe7 17.Nxd5 [17.Ne4] 17…Nxd5 18.Rd2 Nf4 19.Qe3 Nd5 20.Qd3 …1/2-1/2

(46) Holmes P. – Primett A. D. [C01]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bf4 [4.Bd3 may give Black a problem with the QB.] 4…Nf6 5.Nd2 Bf5 6.Ngf3 Nbd7 7.c3 White’s only slack move in this opening – the rest are fine. 7…Nh5 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Qe2 f6 10.Nh4 fxg5 11.Nxf5 g6 12.Qxe7+ Qxe7+ 13.Nxe7 Kxe7 It’s a shame White has no better reward for his vigour. 14.g3 Rhf8 15.Bg2 Nhf6 16.0-0 Rae8 17.Rae1+ Kd8 18.c4 Rxe1 19.Rxe1 Nb6 20.b3 g4 …1/2-1/2

(47) Willis A. R. – Manton P. [D58]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nc3 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 8.Rc1 Not theory, I think. White plays automatically, with level play. [8.cxd5] 8…Bb7 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.0-0 c5 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qe2 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Nc5 15.Bb1 Rfd8 16.Qc2 Nf6 17.f3 a6 18.b4 Ncd7 19.a3 Rac8 20.Qe2 Ne5 …1-0

(48) Atkins K. – Burt D. F. [D00]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.Bc4 out of book [5.fxe4; 5.g4] 5…Nbd7 6.fxe4 Bxe4 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Qh5 Nd6 9.Bb3 Nf6 10.Qe2 c6 11.Nf3 e6 12.0-0 Qd7 13.Ne5 Qe7 Yeuch. [13…Qc7] 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.Rae1 0-0-0 16.c4 Nf6 17.c5 [-1.19 Fritz 5.00: 17.Qf3 Nde8 18.Bc2 h6] 17…Nde4 18.Ba4 [-1.84 Fritz 5.00: 18.Qe3 h6 19.Bc2 Ng5 20.Qf2 Rd5] 18…Rxd4 19.Bxc6 Nxc5 20.Qb5 [-2.59 Fritz 5.00: 20.Be3 Rb4 21.Rc1 bxc6 22.Rxc5 Qxc5] 20…a6 …1-0

(49) Gardiner C. J. – Soper E. [D02]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Nc6 Eric plays the line he just faced with the Stonewall against the Colle, but here White is not committed to Bd3. 4.c3 [4.c4 looks much better, but White ploughs on ignoring his opponent.] 4…Bf5 5.Qb3 Rb8 6.a4 White has no hopes for an advantage, having ignored all the guidelines. 6…h6 7.Qd1 e6 8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 Bd6 10.Nbd2 Ne7 11.e4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Nd5 14.0-0 Qf6 15.Re1 0-0 16.Ne5 Bxe5 17.dxe5 Qf5 18.Qxf5 exf5 19.Be3 Nxe3 20.Rxe3…1-0

(50) Cuggy M. J. – Foster P. [D05]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 b6 3.Bd3 Bb7 4.Nf3 e6 5.Nbd2 d5 Almost inconsistent, and allows White to proceed with his clockwork attack unhindered. [5…c5] 6.Ne5 out of book 6…Nbd7 7.f4 Ne4 8.Qh5 g6 9.Qf3 Nd6 10.g4 Qh4+ 11.Qg3 Qxg3+ 12.hxg3 Nxe5 13.fxe5 Nc4 14.Nf3 c5 15.Ng5 h6 16.Nf3 g5 [0.53 Fritz 5.00: 16…Rc8 ] 17.b3 Na5 18.Nd2 Rc8 19.c4 [-3.50 Fritz 5.00: 19.Bb5+ Nc6 20.c4 Bg7 21.Ba3 a6 22.Ba4] 19…dxc4 20.Be4 c3…0-1

(51) Mansfield A. C. – Ariss J. [D02]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Nc6 out of book: not such a hot idea against the Colle. 4.c3 Bg4 5.Nbd2 e6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 Nd7 Allowing White too much leeway. [8…dxe4] 9.e5 Be7 10.Qc2 f5 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Re1 Qc8 13.Ng5 Bf5 14.Bxf5 exf5 15.Ne6 Rf7 16.Nf3 Ne4 17.Nf4 Qd7 18.Nd3 Raf8 [1.84 Fritz 5.00: 18…Bf6 19.Nfe5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Bh4 21.g3 Be7 22.f3 Nc5 23.Nxc5] 19.Nde5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5 Qe8…1/2-1/2

(52) Clarke J. W. – Spooner K. C. [B13]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 e6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 out of book 6…Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 Nbd7 9.0-0 Qc7 Too early: the reproof follows! 10.Rc1 Qd8 11.c5 g6 12.Re1 White’s position looks good, although Black is solid he is very undeveloped. 12…0-0 13.Nf1 Nh5 14.Ng3 Nxg3 15.fxg3 White has lost the plot a little. 15…Qf6 16.g4 Qg7 17.h4 f6 18.Rxe6 Nxc5 19.Rd6 Nxd3 20.Qxd3 Bxg4 21.Qf1 The remaining moves were not recorded[-1.16 Fritz 5.00: 21.Rxd5 Qf7 22.Ra5 b6 23.Ra4 Bxf3 24.Qxf3 Rac8 25.Re1 Rc2] …1/2-1/2

(53) Wingrove S. – Chapman T. J. [D37]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 I feel an IQP coming on. 8.Be2 Nc6 9.0-0 Be6 10.Ne5 Rc8 11.Bf3 cxd4 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.exd4 c5 Black immediately exchanges the backward Pawn. 14.Be5 c4 15.Qa4 Qb6 16.Qc2 Rfd8 17.Ne2 g6 I thought I would have nothing to object to in this game, but this doesn’t seem to have much point. 18.Rfd1 Bf5 19.Qd2 Ne4 20.Bxe4 Bxe4 …1-0

(54) Coates A. E. – Freke R. B. [C55]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.e4 Nc6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bc4 d6 [4…Nxe4 Must be played if allowed, I believe.] 5.h3 [0.00 Fritz 5.00: 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Na5 7.Bb5+ c6 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Qf3 Bb7] 5…Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d3 [7.d4] 7…Na5 8.Qe2 out of book (I’m curious! By what moves are the sides expected to arrive at this position?) [8.Bb3 looks more in tune] 8…Nxc4 9.dxc4 b6 10.Nd5 Bb7 An unpromising diagonal? 11.Re1 c6 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.b3 Re8 14.Bb2 Re6 15.Qd3 a5 a bit random – Black should build up behind the d-Pawn 16.Rad1 Qe7 17.Ba3 Rd8 18.Qe3 Qc7 19.Rd3 d5 20.Nd2 d4 …0-1

(55) Aldwin B. – Young A. [A03]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.f4 Nf6 2.e3 d5 3.Nf3 Nc6 out of book 4.Be2 Bf5 5.0-0 Qd7 6.d3 0-0-0 A logical system of development by Black. 7.Ne5 This has an evil tactical point which Black misses. 7…Nxe5 8.fxe5 Ng4 9.Rxf5 e6 10.Rf1 Nxe5 Black has got one hope here, being a piece down – that White will distract himself and not do what he should do – complete development, seize key squares, and swap off Black’s remaining pieces. 11.d4 Ng6 12.c4 Bd6 13.c5 Be7 14.Rxf7 This move, while not a mistake in terms of variations, betrays a faulty attitude. 14…Rdf8 15.Rxf8+ Rxf8 16.Nc3 Nh4 17.e4 Qe8 [3.03 Fritz 5.00: 17…dxe4 18.Nxe4 Nf5 19.Bc4 Rd8 20.Bg5 Nxd4 21.Bxe7 Qxe7 22.Qh5] 18.exd5 Qf7 19.Qf1 [-0.91 Fritz 5.00: 19.Be3 this move is much more to the point 19…exd5 20.Bd3 Qe6 21.Qe2 Nf5 22.Re1 Bh4 23.Bf2 Bxf2+] 19…Qg6 20.Qxf8+ Bxf8 …0-1

(56) Buckley, S.J. – Webber S. J. [C02]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 Bd7 7.Bc2 out of book – not a good move, but Black must play accurately to show why it is not good. 7…g6 [7…Nh6] 8.0-0 0-0-0 Black is developing rather than playing the French. 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b4 Be7 11.Be3 Qc7 12.a4 White however, now has a plan, and sets a trap. 12…Nxe5 [2.66 Fritz 5.00: 12…f6 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.b5 Na5 15.Bd4 Nc4 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Qd4] 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.Bd4 Qg5 15.Bxh8 f6 16.Bg7 e5 17.Nd2 [2.81 Fritz 5.00: 17.Qxd5 Bxa4 18.Qa2 Bc6 19.g3 a6 20.Rd1 Kb8 21.Rxd8+ Bxd8] 17…Bh3 18.Qf3 Qxd2 [4.47 Fritz 5.00: 18…Bxg2 19.Qxg2 Qxd2 20.Bb3 Kb8 21.Rfd1 Qxc3 22.Bxd5 Qxb4 23.Rab1] 19.Qxh3+ f5 20.Bxf5+ gxf5 …1-0

(57) Eastwick-Field S. R. – Collier M. J. [A00]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
unintelligible …1-0

(58) Spink D. K. – Whitfield J. H. [D00]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 out of book 4…Bd6 5.Bg3 Bxg3 6.hxg3 g6 7.c3 Nc6 8.f4 Ne7 9.Nd2 Nf5 10.Bxf5 Undeveloping. [-0.31 Fritz 5.00: 10.Qf3 Nd6 11.g4 Nd7 12.g5 c5 13.0-0-0 Qa5 14.Kb1 f6] 10…exf5 11.Ngf3 Ng4 12.Nf1 Qe7 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 c6 15.Qd4 Be6 16.Nh2 b5 17.b4 Rc8 18.Qc5 Qxc5 19.bxc5 Ke7 20.Nf3 h6…1/2-1/2

(59) Patching G. R. – Waters R. G. [A51]
WECU Minor (4), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.Nf3 out of book 3…exd4 4.Nxd4 d5 5.Nd2 [5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nb5 a6? 7.Qxd5] 5…Bc5 6.e3 White looks to be in a right muddle, and has nothing to show for his first move. 6…Qe7 7.N4b3 Bd7 8.Nxc5 Qxc5 9.Bd3 dxc4 10.Bc2 [10.Nxc4 is OK] 10…0-0 11.0-0 Nc6 12.Nf3 Rad8 with obvious intent – not obvious to White, sadly. 13.e4 [-1.94 Fritz 5.00: 13.Qe2 Rfe8 14.Rd1 Nb4 15.Bb1 c3 16.bxc3 Bb5 17.Qe1 Rxd1] 13…Bg4 14.Qe2 Nd4 15.Be3 [-10.91 Fritz 5.00: 15.Qe3 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Rd7 17.Bd1 Rfd8 18.f4 b6 19.Re1 a6] 15…Nxe2+ 16.Kh1 Qh5 [-14.41 Fritz 5.00: 16…Qb5 17.e5 Nd5 18.Be4 Bxf3 19.Bxf3 Nxe3 20.fxe3 Rd2 21.Rad1] 17.h3 [-#3 Fritz 5.00: 17.Ng1 Rfe8 18.Rfe1 Nxe4 19.Nxe2 Bxe2 20.Bxa7 Bd3 21.Ba4 b5] 17…Bxf3 …0-1

(60) Chamberlain D. – Willis A. R. [E60]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.b3 Bg7 4.Bb2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.e3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 a6 Time-consuming, and largely ignores the centre. I would prefer going for …e5. 8.Qc2 c6 9.0-0 b5 10.Nbd2 Bb7 11.Rfe1 Rc8 12.Rac1 Qc7 Missing one. 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Nd5 15.Bc4 Nb4 16.Qb1 d5 17.Be2 f5 18.a3 Na6 19.Ng5 Qd6 20.Rc2 f4 …1-0

(61) Foster P. – Turner R. D. [C54]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.b4 Be7 out of book 6.d3 d6 [6…d5 when White looks loose.] 7.0-0 0-0 8.a4 Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 Not sure about this – g4 may bury it. 10.Be3 a6 11.Nbd2 d5 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Qb3 Nxe3 14.fxe3 Bg6 15.Ne4 Bxe4 16.dxe4 Bd6 17.Rad1 Qe7 18.Rd2 g6 19.Rdf2 White has been building nicely throughout this game. 19…Kg7 20.Nh2 Nd8 21.Rf5…1-0

(62) Primett A. D. – Atkins K. [A24]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 d6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d3 e5 8.Rb1 Nh5 9.e4 Nb6 Where’s he off to? 10.Be3 f5 The action is on the other side! 11.c5 The Knight is a target, not an asset. 11…f4 12.cxb6 fxe3 13.bxc7 exf2+ 14.Rxf2 Qxc7 15.Qb3+ [15.Nd5] 15…Qf7 16.Qxf7+ Rxf7 17.Nd5 Bh6 18.Re1 Be6 19.Nc3 a6 20.Kh1 Raf8 …0-1

(63) Holmes P. – Gardiner C. J. [B21]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 Nf6 4.Bc4 Bg4 5.Ne2 Nxd5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Bxd7+ Nxd7 8.0-0 g6 9.d4 Qb6 10.c4 N5f6 11.b3 cxd4 12.Qxd4 Qxd4+ 13.Nxd4 Bg7 Black has no problems. 14.Nb5 0-0 15.Bb2 a6 16.N5a3 Nc5 17.Nd2 Rad8 18.Nf3 Nd3 19.Be5 [19.Bc3] 19…Nxe5 20.fxe5 Ne4 …1/2-1/2

(64) Burt D. F. – Mansfield A. C. [A05]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b4 d5 3.Bb2 e6 4.a3 Nbd7 5.d4 Not terrible, but inconsistent. 5…b6 6.e3 Bb7 Black imitates White’s misjudgement. 7.Nbd2 Be7 8.c4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 0-0 10.Bd3 c5 11.bxc5 bxc5 12.0-0 Rc8 13.Qe2 cxd4 14.exd4 Burying the Bishop again. 14…Nd5 15.Ne4 Nf4 16.Qd2 Nxd3 17.Qxd3 Bd5 18.Nfd2 Rc7 19.Rfc1 Rxc1+ 20.Rxc1 Qb8 …1-0

(65) Collier M. J. – Freke R. B. [D37]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 Passive. 5…Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Be2 c6 8.0-0 0-0 9.a3 Re8 10.b4 Ne4 11.Bb2 Ndf6 12.b5 a6 [12…cxb5] 13.bxa6 bxa6 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.Ne5 Qd6 [15…c5] 16.Rc1 Bb7 17.Qc2 White has been allowed a lot of play from a pretty unpromising position. 17…Rac8 18.Bg4 Rc7 19.Qe2 f6 20.Nd3 Bc8 …1-0

(66) Spooner K. C. – Cuggy M. J. [C00]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.c4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.cxd5 Qxd5 out of book 5.Nc3 Pick a square. 5…Qc6 [5.28 Fritz 5.00: 5…Qe6+ 6.Be2 Nf6 7.d4 Bd6 8.Nf3 c6] 6.Bb5 Qxb5 7.Nxb5 Na6 8.Nf3 Bc5 9.0-0 Ne7 10.d4 Bd7 11.Nxc7+ Nxc7 12.dxc5 Rd8 13.Qc2 0-0 14.Be3 Bg4 15.Nh4 h6 16.h3 Bh5 17.g4 Bg6 18.Nxg6 fxg6 19.Rad1 Ncd5 20.Qb3 …1-0

(67) Young A. – Wingrove S. [C30]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.Nf3 d6 After a little fiddle we have arrived in a fairly normal KGB position. In the KGD White would have preferred to meet an early Nc6 by Bb5, but no harm done. 6.f5 Too early. 6…h6 7.a3 Too slow. 7…a6 Pointless here: after Nc3 White may play Na4, but is that White’s plan after f4-f5? 8.Nc3 Nd4 9.Nxd4 Bxd4 10.Ne2 Ba7 11.Ng3 d5 Play on the wing met by play in the centre. 12.exd5 Qd6 Curious. 13.Qf3 b5 14.Bb3 Bb7 15.c4 c6 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Rd8 Black is ignoring material in favour of development – excellent. 18.cxb5 axb5 19.Qg4 Qf6 20.dxc6 Bxc6 …0-1

(68) Soper E. – Buckley S. B. [A45]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 g6 3.c3 Harmless. 3…d5 4.Bd3 Bg7 5.Nd2 0-0 6.f4 c5 7.Ngf3 Nc6 8.0-0 Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 10.Qe1 [10.g4 surely!] 10…c4 11.Bc2 Bxf3 12.Rxf3 [12.Nxf3] 12…b5 13.Qe2 b4 14.e4 Good. 14…e6 15.Rf2 [15.e5] 15…Qa5 16.cxb4 Creating an opening. 16…Nxb4 17.Bb1 Nd7 18.Nf3 Rfe8 19.Bd2 Qb5 20.Bc3 Nb6 …0-1

(69) Stephens J. K. F. – Clarke J. W. [C20]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.c3 out of book 2…Nf6 3.d3 Be7 4.Be3 d6 5.Nd2 Ng4 6.Qe2 Nxe3 7.Qxe3 White has risked nothing but gained nothing. 7…f5 [7…Bg5] 8.Ngf3 f4 9.Qe2 0-0 10.Qd1 Nc6 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 a6 13.h3 b5 14.a3 Bf6 15.Nb3 Ne7 Sadly, this cuts off the Bishop’s retreat. [1.88 Fritz 5.00: 15…Re8 Absolutely! White’s uncastled King must be addressed.] 16.Bd3 [0.28 Fritz 5.00: 16.e5 Nd5 17.exf6 Re8+ 18.Be2 Qxf6 19.0-0] 16…Ng6 17.0-0 Bb7 18.Qc2 Nh4 19.Nbd2 Rc8 20.Nxh4 Bxh4 …1/2-1/2

(70) Chapman T. J. – Aldwin B. [C64]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 I like this defence, although White probably has a route to the advantage. 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 out of book 6…Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 [-1.47 Fritz 5.00: 9.Qe1+ Ne4 10.Qxe4+ Qe7 11.Qc2 0-0 12.d5 Ne5 13.Qxc7 Nxf3+] 9…Bxc3 10.Ba3 Having grabbed material, Black must keep lines closed and complete development. 10…Bb4 11.Bxb4 Nxb4 12.Re1+ Kf8 13.Qb3 Nd5 oops [3.34 Fritz 5.00: 13…Nc6 14.Re2 d6 15.d5 Na5 16.Qc3 c6 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.Bxc6] 14.Qxd5 c6 15.Qd6+ Kg8 16.Bc4 g6 17.Ne5 Qf8 18.Nxf7 Qxd6 19.Nxd6+ Kg7 20.Re7+ Kf6 …1-0

(71) Coates A. E. – Whitfield J. H. [D12]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.c4 Good – showing flexibility. 4…c6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.Qxb6 axb6 7.Nc3 e6 8.cxd5 out of book (I’m interested to know we were still in one! But White should develop) 8…exd5 9.Nd2 Bb4 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Re8 12.Nf3 Nbd7 13.Bd2 Bd6 14.g3 Bg4 15.Rfe1 Bf5 [0.00 Fritz 5.00: 15…b5 16.Bc1 b4 17.Nb1 Ra7 18.a3 Rea8 19.Kg2 bxa3 20.bxa3] 16.Nh4 Be4 17.f3 Bg6 18.Nxg6 hxg6 19.Kf2 Re7 20.Bd3 Rae8 …1/2-1/2

(72) Manton P. – Eastwick-Field S. R. [D05]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bd3 Be7 5.Nbd2 out of book 5…Nbd7 6.c3 You really shouldn’t play this unless there is a positive reason to. 6…0-0 7.e4 Too early, I reckon. 7…dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Bxe4 f5 [9…Nf6] 10.Bc2 b6 11.Qe2 Nf6 12.Bb3 Gotcha. 12…Kh8 [12…Nd5] 13.Ng5 h6 14.Nxe6 Bxe6 15.Qxe6 Qd7 16.Qxd7 Nxd7 17.Be6 Rad8 18.Bf4 Bd6 19.Bxd6 cxd6 20.0-0-0 Rf6…1-0

(73) Ariss J. – Spink D. K. [B30]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 e6 out of book 5.a3 Be7 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d3 a6 [7…d5] 8.h3 Qc7 Just castle, or play one of the Pawn moves b5/d5 9.Re1 b5 10.Ba2 Bb7 11.Bf4 e5 12.Bg5 Nd7 13.Nd5 Qd8 14.Qd2 Nf6 15.Bh4 [-0.94 Fritz 5.00: 15.Be3 Nd4 16.Bxd4 cxd4 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Bd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 0-0] 15…h6 [0.31 Fritz 5.00: 15…Nxd5 16.exd5 Bxh4 17.dxc6 Bxc6 18.Qf4 Bf6 19.d4 cxd4 20.Nxd4] 16.c3 [-0.50 Fritz 5.00: 16.Bg3 Nd4 17.Nxd4 cxd4 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Bd5 Bg5 20.Qb4 Bxd5] 16…g5 17.Bg3 Nxd5 18.Bxd5 [0.19 Fritz 5.00: 18.exd5 Na7 19.d4 exd4 20.cxd4 c4 21.Qb4 Bxd5 22.Bxd6] 18…Rb8 [1.06 Fritz 5.00: 18…h5 19.d4 g4 20.dxe5 gxf3 21.Qf4 Rh7 22.exd6 Bf8] 19.Kh1 Bf6 20.Bh2 Ne7…1/2-1/2

(74) Webber S. J. – Waters R. G. [B22]
WECU Minor (5), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Bb5+ out of book 4…Bd7 5.Bxd7+ Nxd7 White has lost a clear tempo. 6.Nf3 Ngf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 [8…e5] 9.Nxd4 a6 10.Be3 e5 11.Nf3 Bd6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Nbd2 Ng4 Time-wasting. 14.Nc4 Nxe3 15.Nxe3 Bc5 16.Nc4 e4 17.Nfd2 Rfe8 18.Rfe1 Rad8 19.Nxe4 Ba7 [1.44 Fritz 5.00: 19…b5 20.Na5 f5 21.Ng3 f4 22.Nh5 f3 23.Nb7 Rc8 24.Nxc5] 20.Rad1 …1/2-1/2

(75) Foster P. – Chamberlain D. [C41]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 Nbd7 4.Bc4 e5 5.Nf3 Be7 6.0-0 [6.dxe5 is an interesting line.] 6…0-0 7.Bg5 c6 8.Bb3 [8.a4] 8…exd4 [8…b5 grabs useful space.] 9.Qxd4 Nc5 10.Rad1 White logically builds up pressure on d6. 10…Nxb3 11.axb3 Bg4 12.Rd3 Ne8 13.Bf4 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Yeuch. [14.Rxf3] 14…Bf6 15.Qb4 Qe7 16.Bxd6 Nxd6 17.Qxd6 Qxd6 18.Rxd6 Rfd8 19.Rfd1 Rxd6 20.Rxd6 Rd8 …0-1

(76) Atkins K. – Manton P. [B21]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Bf4 d6 9.Qe2 Qc7 10.Rfd1 [0.53 Fritz 5.00: 10.Rac1 b5 11.Bd3 b4 12.Nd1 Nf6] 10…Ne5 11.Bxe5 dxe5 12.Rac1 Qb8 13.Bb5+ Kf8 out of book (again, I had no idea it went this far! Is Black supposed to take the Bishop?) 14.Bd7 [-0.34 Fritz 5.00: 14.Na4 b6 15.Bc6 Ra7 16.Qe3 b5 17.Nb6 Rc7 18.Nxe5 Nf6] 14…f6 [0.88 Fritz 5.00: 14…Bxd7 15.Rxd7 Nf6 16.Rdd1 b5 17.Nb1 Bd8 18.Nc3 Bb6 19.Qd3] 15.Bxc8 Qxc8 16.Na4 [16.Nd5] 16…Qe8 17.Nb6 Rd8 18.Rxd8 [0.03 Fritz 5.00: 18.Rc7 Qb5 19.Rxd8+ Bxd8 20.Qxb5 axb5 21.Rxb7 g5 22.Nd7+ Ke8] 18…Bxd8 19.Rc8 Ke7 [1.00 Fritz 5.00: 19…Qe7 20.Qd3 Ke8 21.b4 Nh6 22.b5 a5 23.Qc3 Kf7 24.a3] 20.Qd3 [0.31 Fritz 5.00: 20.Qd2 Nh6 21.Nc4 Qd7 22.Qb4+ Ke8 23.Nd6+ Kf8 24.Nxb7+ Kf7] 20…Nh6 …1-0

(77) Gardiner C. J. – Willis A. R. [A48]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Bd3 0-0 5.Nbd2 d6 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.e4 e5 8.c3 a6 9.Re1 b5 10.a4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Inconsistent. [11.cxd4] 11…bxa4 12.Qxa4 The rest of the score is unintelligible …0-1

(78) Turner R. D. – Holmes P. [C62]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bd7 6.Nxc6 [6.Bxc6] 6…bxc6 [6…Bxc6 exchanges another pair of pieces, useful if you have no central space] 7.Ba4 Nf6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nd2 0-0 10.Re1 c5 11.Bxd7 Qxd7 12.Nf3 Rad8 [12…Rab8] 13.c4 h6 14.b3 Rfe8 15.Bb2 Qc6 16.Qc2 Nh7 17.Rad1 Ng5 [17…Bf6] 18.Nxg5 Bxg5 19.f3 Rd7 20.Rd5 Rde7 …0-1

(79) Spooner K. C. – Burt D. F. [A34]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.e4 Nc6 4.f3 Bleah. 4…g6 5.d3 Bg7 6.Nge2 d6 7.Bd2 e6 8.a3 0-0 9.Ng3 b6 Slow – White has been so passive that Black might play more ambitiously than this. 10.Be2 d5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Bg5 dxe4 13.fxe4 Qd4 14.Qd2 Na5 15.Be3 …1/2-1/2

(80) Buckley S. B. – Primett A. D. [C02]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd7 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nb4 8.Nc3 Nxd3+ 9.Qxd3 Ne7 10.Bg5 Qb6 11.0-0 Ng6 12.a4 a6 No need for this. 13.Nd2 h6 14.Be3 Bb4 15.f4 Bxc3 16.bxc3 0-0 17.Rfb1 Qc7 18.Nb3 Ne7 19.Nc5 Bc6 20.g4 Qc8 …1/2-1/2

(81) Clarke J. W. – Collier M. J. [B77]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Be3 Bg7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.f3 Bd7 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Rc8 10.Bb3 0-0 11.h4 Nxd4 out of book: no complaints about the opening, then! 12.Bxd4 a6 13.0-0-0 Qa5 14.h5 Rfe8 [0.78 Fritz 5.00: 14…Nxh5 15.Bxg7 (15.g4) 15…Kxg7 16.g4 Nf6 17.g5 Ne8] 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.g4 Be6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.g5 Nh5 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Kb1 Qe5…1-0

(82) Wingrove S. – Ariss J. [D35]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.Nc3 e6 4.Bf4 Nc6 out of book: that tempting Nc6 move is not to recommended 5.e3 Bb4 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 0-0 8.Nge2 [8.Rc1; 8.Nf3] 8…Qe7 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Bxd6 Qxd6 11.e4 Good. 11…Qe7 12.Qc2 a6 13.a3 b5 14.Ba2 Bb7 15.f3 Not convinced about this. 15…Rad8 16.Rad1 h6 17.Bb1 Nh7 18.e5 g6 19.Qd2 [-0.16 Fritz 5.00: 19.Ne4 Ba8 20.Nc5 Nb8 21.f4 (21.Nf4) 21…Qh4 22.b3 Bd5 23.Nc3 Rfe8] 19…Kg7 20.Ne4 [-0.69 Fritz 5.00: 20.Qe3 Na5 21.Ba2 Nc4 22.Bxc4 bxc4 23.Ne4 f6 24.Nc5 Rb8] 20…Nxe5 …1-0

(83) Mansfield A. C. – Chapman T. J. [D02]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nbd2 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.e3 Qc7 6.Bd3 e5 A logical system against the Colle, although Fine says it is over-ambitious. 7.e4 Be7 out of book 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qc2 Be6 11.exd5 Bxd5 12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Bxe4 14.Qxe4 h6 Perhaps unnecessary. [14…Rad8 15.Ng5 g6 16.Qh4 f5] 15.Re1 Qb6 16.Re2 f5 17.Qd5+ Kh7 18.b4 Qa6 [1.09 Fritz 5.00: 18…e4 19.Ng5+ hxg5 20.bxc5 Qa6 21.Re1 Rad8 22.Qb3 g4 23.Qe6] 19.Qd1 [-0.13 Fritz 5.00: 19.Re1 Bb6 20.b5 Qa5 21.Qb3 e4 22.bxc6 exf3 23.cxb7 Rab8] 19…Rad8 20.Qc2 Bd6…0-1

(84) Freke R. B. – Young A. [D04]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bf5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bd3 Bxd3 5.cxd3 Not great. [5.Qxd3] 5…e6 6.a3 c5 Gives White a chance to undo a possible mistake. 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.d4 Bd6 9.Nbd2 Nc6 10.b4 0-0 11.Bb2 Rc8 12.0-0 Rc7 13.Rc1 Qe7 14.Ne5 Rfc8 15.f4 Nb8 16.Qe2 Rxc1 17.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 18.Bxc1 Qc7 19.Qd1 Black has a small plus: forward! 19…Be7 [19…Nbd7] 20.Bb2 Nbd7 …0-1

(85) Waters R. G. – Coates A. E. [D04]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Bd3 out of book 4…Bxd3 5.Qxd3 e6 6.Ne5 [-0.09 Fritz 5.00: 6.Qb5+ The greedy computer of course grabs a Pawn. 6…Nbd7 7.Qxb7 c5 8.0-0 Bd6 9.dxc5 Bxc5] 6…Bd6 7.f4 0-0 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Nd2 c5 10.c3 g6 No need here: Black need to get some counterplay organised. 11.Qe2 Rc8 12.g4 cxd4 13.exd4 Qc7 14.g5 Ne8 15.Ndf3 Ng7 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Ne5 Qc7 18.Bd2 Nf5 19.Qg4 Kg7 20.h4 h5 …1/2-1/2

(86) Cuggy M. J. – Whitfield J. H. [D00]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.e3 out of book 2…Nf6 3.Bd3 e6 4.f4 g6 5.Nd2 Bg7 6.Ngf3 Nc6 7.c3 a6 8.Ne5 Nxe5 9.fxe5 Nh5 10.Nf3 Bh6 [1.75 Fritz 5.00: 10…f5 11.0-0 Bd7 12.b3 0-0 13.Ba3 Re8 14.c4 dxc4 15.bxc4] 11.g4 Ng7 12.h4 g5 Too many Pawn moves! Both of you! Get castled! [3.31 Fritz 5.00: 12…Nf5 13.gxf5 exf5 14.h5 Qe7 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.e4 dxe4 17.Bxh6] 13.e4 By now, White has been allowed a little coup. 13…f6 14.exf6 Qxf6 15.hxg5 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 h6 17.Qf3 Rf8 18.Qxf6 Rxf6 19.Nh7 Rf3 20.Ke2 Rg3 …1-0

(87) Eastwick-Field S. R. – Stephens J. K. F. [D00]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nc6 out of book 3.e3 a6 Not convinced. 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c3 Bg4 Better than a previous occurrence of this line. 6.Nbd2 [6.h3 solves two problems: the pin and the retreat of the Bf4] 6…Nh5 7.Bg3 Nxg3 8.hxg3 f6 9.Qc2 g6 10.Bd3 f5 11.Ng5 Bh5 [1.72 Fritz 5.00: 11…e5 12.Ne6 Qd7 13.Nxf8 Rxf8 14.f3 Bh5 15.0-0-0 0-0-0 16.dxe5] 12.Bxf5 gxf5 13.Rxh5 Qd7 14.0-0-0 h6 15.Rdh1 e6 16.Qd1 0-0-0 17.Qf3 Qe7 18.Nh3 Bg7 19.Nf4 Qf7 20.R5h2 Ne7…1-0

(88) Spink D. K. – Soper E. [D00]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 out of book 4.c3 e6 5.Nf3 h6 6.h3 Be7 [6…Bd6] 7.g4 Bh7 8.Nbd2 Both sides understand the basics of this opening. 8…Ne4 9.Nxe4 Bxe4 10.Bg2 Nd7 11.Qb3 Rb8 12.Rg1 [12.0-0] 12…0-0 13.Nd2 Bxg2 14.Rxg2 b6 15.c4 dxc4 16.Nxc4 Rc8 17.h4 [-0.59 Fritz 5.00: 17.Rd1 Bg5 18.Bg3 Bf6 19.e4 a6] 17…Bxh4 18.e4 Bg5 19.Qe3 Re8 20.e5 Nf8…0-1

(89) Patching G. R. – Webber S. J. [D10]
WECU Minor (6), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 5.Nf3 Bf5 out of book 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 Bg7 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Ne5 Oops. 9…Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ng4 11.Qd4 [-1.47 Fritz 5.00: 11.f4 ] 11…Nxe5 12.Qf4 [12.cxd5] 12…Nxc4 13.e4 Be5 14.Qh6 e6 15.f4 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Ne3 [-1.50 Fritz 5.00: 16…Qf6 17.exd5 cxd5 18.Nb5 Bb6 19.Qg5 Qg7 20.Rd1 h6 21.Qg3] 17.Rf3 [-3.59 Fritz 5.00: 17.Bxe3 Bxe3 18.Rad1 Qc7 19.Rd3 Bc5 20.exd5 cxd5 21.Qg7 0-0-0] 17…dxe4 18.Nxe4 [-7.06 Fritz 5.00: 18.Bxe3 exf3 19.Rd1 fxg2+ 20.Kxg2 Bxe3 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Ne4 Bd4] 18…Qd5 Natural aggression but missing a trick: White’s weak back rank. [0.53 Fritz 5.00: 18…Bg7 19.Nf6+ Kf8 20.Qxg7+ Kxg7 21.Nh5+ gxh5 22.Bxe3 h4 23.f5] 19.Ng5 [-7.59 Fritz 5.00: 19.Rxe3 ] 19…Ng4 [-3.50 Fritz 5.00: 19…Bg7 20.Bxe3 Bxh6 21.Rf2 Qf5 22.Rd1 f6 23.Bd4 Rd8] 20.Nh3 [-11.53 Fritz 5.00: 20.Qh3 f5 21.Rf1 h6 22.Nf3 Nf2+ 23.Rxf2 Bxf2 24.Bd2 Rd8] 20…Nxh6 …0-1

(90) Chamberlain D. – Holmes P. [D12]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Unambitious. 3…Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.Nf3 e6 6.Nh4 Bg4 7.Be2 Bxe2 8.Qxe2 I’ve seen so many of these do-nothing solid d4 set-ups for White. Get some muscle in it for Ford’s sake. 8…Be7 9.Nf3 Nbd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.b3 Bb4 12.Bd2 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Ne4 14.Bb4 Re8 15.Nd2 Nxd2 16.Bxd2 Nf6 17.f3 e5 18.dxe5 Rxe5 19.Bc3 d4 20.Bd2 dxe3 …1/2-1/2

(91) Willis A. R. – Atkins K. [A31]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 g6 4.Bg5 out of book 4…Bg7 5.e3 cxd4 6.exd4 Ne4 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Be2 Qa5+ 9.Nbd2 d6 10.0-0 Bf5 Black is playing actively but is getting over-stretched. [1.59 Fritz 5.00: 10…Nxd2 11.Bxd2 Qf5 12.d5 Nd4 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Qb3] 11.Nb3 [0.38 Fritz 5.00: 11.g4 Nxd2 12.Bxd2 Qb6 13.gxf5 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 15.Qa4+ Kf8] 11…Qd8 12.Nh4 Bd7 13.f4 e6 14.Nf3 d5 15.Ne5 f6 16.Nf3 a5 17.cxd5 exd5 18.Rc1 0-0 19.Nc5 Re8 20.Nxb7 Qb6 …1-0

(92) Primett A. D. – Foster P. [A23]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.g3 c6 4.Bg2 g6 Inconsistent. 5.d3 Bg7 6.Nf3 d6 7.0-0 Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 0-0 10.e4 Having acquired the two Bishops, don’t bury one! 10…Nbd7 11.Be3 a6 12.b4 b5 13.Bg2 Nb6 14.c5 dxc5 15.Bxc5 Re8 16.Qc2 Bf8 17.a4 Nbd7 18.Bxf8 Kxf8 19.a5 Kg7 20.Ne2 …1/2-1/2

(93) Manton P. – Wingrove S. [D06]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.c4 Right. 4…e6 5.Nc3 Ne4 6.Qb3 b6 7.cxd5 Nxc3 8.Qxc3 exd5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 White would have quite a nice position if only he could get his c1 Bishop into play. 11.0-0 Nc6 12.a3 Bd6 13.Bd2 0-0 14.Rfc1 Ne7 15.Rc2 Rac8 16.b4 c5 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.bxc5 Rxc5 19.Qd3 Rxc2 20.Qxc2 Rc8 …1/2-1/2

(94) Buckley S. B. – Gardiner C. J. [B50]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.b3 d6 4.Bb2 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bb5 out of book 6…Bd7 7.0-0 Be7 8.Qe2 0-0 9.Rad1 a6 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.d4 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Qc7 OK so far for White but what next? Black has absorbed what little pressure White has created. 13.f4 e5 14.Nf5 Bb5 15.Nxb5 axb5 16.a3 Rfd8 17.Qxb5 Nxe4 18.Qd3 Nc5 19.Qg3 Bf6 20.fxe5…1-0

(95) Collier M. J. – Spooner K. C. [D94]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd2 c6 7.cxd5 out of book [7.b4 is the consistent plan, but I don’t know the book.] 7…Nxd5 8.a3 Bg4 9.Be2 e6 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rf1 Odd – perhaps a failed attempt at castling, Rook first? 11…Nd7 12.Bb4 Re8 13.Bd6 Re6 14.Bg3 Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Nf6 [0.06 Fritz 5.00: 15…Qb6 16.Bg4 f5 17.Be2 Rae8 18.Qc2 Bxd4 19.0-0-0 Bg7] 16.b4 Qe8 17.Qb3 Ne4 18.Bxe4 Rxe4 19.Rb1 [-1.38 Fritz 5.00: 19.Kd2 Qd7 20.Rac1 a6 21.Qc3 Rae8 22.h3 Qe6] 19…a6 [-0.59 Fritz 5.00: 19…Rxd4 20.Rc1 Qe4 21.Ke2 Re8 22.b5 Qg4+ 23.f3 Qe6 24.Rc5] 20.a4 [-1.50 Fritz 5.00: 20.Kd2 Qe7 21.Kc1 h5 22.Qd3 Re8] …1/2-1/2

(96) Soper E. – Turner R. D. [D00]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 e6 4.c3 [4.f4 may save a move one day] 4…c5 5.Nd2 Nbd7 6.f4 c4 A typical mistake, relieving the pressure. 7.Bc2 Be7 8.Nh3 0-0 9.0-0 b6 10.Qf3 b5 11.g4 Eric’s in gear, Black’s in trouble. 11…h6 12.e4 I’d leave the centre closed. [12.g5] 12…Bb7 13.Nf2 dxe4 14.Ndxe4 Rb8 15.Qe2 Nh7 16.Ng3 Bd5 17.Bd2 g6 18.Be4 Nhf6 19.Bxd5 exd5 20.Qf3 Nb6 …1-0

(97) Chapman T. J. – Cuggy M. J. [B22]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 out of book [3…Nf6] 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.h3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Nf3 The GMs have been playing like this recently, but it looks passive for Black to me. 8…b6 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.Rc1 [10.0-0] 10…Nb4 11.Bb1 Ba6 Bingo. 12.a3 Nc6 13.Bd3 Qc8 [2.38 Fritz 5.00: 13…Bxd3 14.Qxd3 Rc8 15.d5 Na5 16.0-0 Nc4] 14.0-0 [0.69 Fritz 5.00: 14.Nd5 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Re8 16.Nxf6+ exf6] 14…Qb7 15.Re1 Rac8 16.Qd2 Na5 17.Qd1 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 Nc4 19.Rc2 Rc7 [1.84 Fritz 5.00: 19…Nxe3 20.Rxe3 Rc7 21.Re1 Rfc8 22.Rec1 d5] 20.Nb5 …1-0

(98) Young A. – Clarke J. W. [C30]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nf6 3.Bc4 out of book [3.Nf3; 3.fxe5] 3…d5 Right. 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.Qf3 [-0.84 Fritz 5.00: 5.Qh5 Nc6 6.fxe5 Nd4 7.Bd3 Nf4] 5…Nxf4 6.Ne2 Qh4+ 7.g3 Ng2+ 8.Qxg2 Qxc4 lucky 9.Nbc3 Bd7 [-0.59 Fritz 5.00: 9…Qc6 10.Qxc6+ Nxc6 11.d3 Bc5 12.Bg5 Be6 13.Rf1 h6 14.Bh4] 10.Qxb7 Qc6 11.Qxc6 Bxc6 12.Rf1 Be7 13.d3 h5 14.Be3 a5 15.Kd2 Na6 16.Ne4 Rd8 17.Ng5 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 f6 19.Be3 Nb4 20.a3 Nd5 …1/2-1/2

(99) Webber S. J. – Ariss J. [A21]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 g6 3.d3 d6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bg2 0-0 7.Be3 out of book: this Bishop proves more of a problem than anything – it should support the b4-b5 advance, but this never happens. 7…Nc6 8.Qd2 Ng4 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bh4 Nh6 [10…g5] 11.Ng5 Nd4 12.Nh3 [-1.22 Fritz 5.00: 12.0-0 c6 13.Nge4 Nhf5 14.e3] 12…Nf7 [-0.06 Fritz 5.00: 12…Bxh3 13.Bxh3 g5] 13.0-0-0 g5 14.f4 gxh4 15.fxe5 fxe5 16.gxh4 Qxh4 17.Nd5 [-5.56 Fritz 5.00: 17.Ng1 Ng5 18.Qe1 Qxe1 19.Rxe1 c6 20.h4 Nge6 21.Nf3 Nf4] 17…Bxh3 18.Bxh3 Qxh3 19.Rdg1 Kh8 20.e3 c5 [-4.28 Fritz 5.00: 20…Nf3 21.Qg2 Nxg1 22.Rxg1 Qxg2 23.Rxg2 Bh6 24.Rg3 c6 25.Nc7] 21.exd4 [-9.06 Fritz 5.00: 21.Rg3 Qd7 22.Rxg7 Kxg7 23.exd4 cxd4 24.Rg1+ Kh8 25.Qf2 Ng5] 21…Bh6 …0-1

(100) Stephens J. K. F. – Freke R. B. [C44]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.e4 Nc6 2.c3 e5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d3 d5 5.Nbd2 Bd6 out of book 6.b3 A bit random. 6…Bg4 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 d4 9.cxd4 exd4 10.Bb2 Bc5 11.h3 Be6 12.Rc1 Bb6 13.a3 Qd6 14.b4 Ne5 [0.88 Fritz 5.00: 14…a6 15.Nc4 Bxc4 16.dxc4 Qf4 17.c5 Ba7 18.e5 Nd7 19.Nxd4] 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.Nf3 Qf4 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.Nxd4 Rad8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Qc2 Rd7 21.Qa4 c6 …1-0

(101) Whitfield F. H. – Waters R. G. [A46]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Bd3 cxd4 5.exd4 Nc6 6.0-0 b6 7.c3 Bb7 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Nbd2 Rc8 10.Re1 0-0 11.Qe2 d5 Black has played this opening soundly but without a plan in mind, as we can tell because the Bb7 has just been smothered. 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Ne8 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nf3 f6 16.Nd4 f5 Always the problem with …f6! 17.Ba6 Rc7 18.Bxb7 Rxb7 19.f4 g6 20.Rf1 Ng7 …1/2-1/2

(102) Burt D. F. – Eastwick-Field S. R. [A05]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b4 d5 3.Bb2 e6 4.a3 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.c4 c6 7.c5 Often wrong. 7…b6 8.d4 bxc5 9.dxc5 a5 Picking a fight where White is strong: Black should finish developing, then perhaps go for …e5. 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bd3 Ba6 12.Qe2 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 axb4 14.axb4 Rxa1+ 15.Bxa1 Qa8 16.0-0 Qb7 17.Rb1 Ra8 18.e4 Black should have the centre, not White. 18…dxe4 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Qxe4 Rb8 …1/2-1/2

(103) Mansfield A. C. – Spink D. K. [D04]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bf5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bd3 out of book 4…Bg6 5.c4 dxc4 6.Bxc4 Black seems to have wasted a lot of time: White has two moves visible which Black lacks. 6…e6 7.Nc3 c6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Re1 Bd6 10.e4 Right plan. 10…Bc7 11.d5 Right idea again with Black uncastled, but may lead to no advantage with best play by Black. 11…0-0 [0.81 Fritz 5.00: 11…Ne5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bxe6 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qxd1 16.Rxd1] 12.dxe6 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Qb3 Qe7 15.exf7+ Bxf7 16.Bxf7+ Rxf7 17.Be3 Kh8 18.Rad1 b6 19.h3 Raf8 20.Re2 [0.28 Fritz 5.00: 20.Bg5 h6 21.Be3 Re8 22.Bd4 Bxd4] 20…Qc7 [1.09 Fritz 5.00: 20…Bxc3 21.Qxc3 Nxe4 22.Qc2 Re8 23.Rde1 Qf6] …1-0

(104) Aldwin B. – Patching G .R. [A02]
WECU Minor (7), 1999
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.Nf3 Nd7 out of book: not in the maximising spirit of the From. 4.d4 c5 5.c3 b6 6.g3 (Wince.) 6…Bb7 7.Bg2 Bxf3 [1.28 Fritz 5.00: 7…dxe5 This is what White should have seen coming – and Black! 8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.0-0 Nd7 10.Bg5 Ngf6 11.Nbd2] 8.exf3 [0.34 Fritz 5.00: 8.Bxf3 Rc8 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.0-0 cxd4 11.Qxd4 Ndf6] 8…dxe5 9.Qe2 Qc7 [0.84 Fritz 5.00: 9…cxd4 10.cxd4 Qe7 11.d5 Rc8 12.Nc3 Qd6] 10.f4 f6 Unlikely to be right, even if it didn’t hang the Rook! [3.81 Fritz 5.00: 10…Rd8 11.dxe5 Be7 12.Na3 Nf8 13.Bd2 Qd7 14.0-0-0 Ne6 15.Nc4] 11.Bxa8 Bd6 12.Bg2 Ne7 13.0-0 0-0 14.dxe5 fxe5 15.fxe5 Bxe5 16.Rxf8+ Nxf8 17.Bf4 Bxf4 18.gxf4 Nd5 [8.00 Fritz 5.00: 18…Nfg6 19.Qc4+ Kh8 20.Na3 Nxf4 21.Nb5 Qb8 22.Re1 Ng8 23.Qf7] 19.Bxd5+ Kh8 20.Qe4 h6 …1-0

Blunders at East Devon

Posted on May 30, 1999 by DrDave

Introduction

This long collection is the result of computer-searching a database of games from the East Devon Congress this year (1999). I had 222 games to analyse, courtesy of Ian George who had the thankless task of bashing them all in: 111 from the Major section (U155), and 111 from the Premier (U205). Of these, exactly half were identified by Fritz 5 as having tactical blunders (see Appendix for notes on how this was done). The 111 blunders comprised 65 from the Major and 44 from the Premier.

If you would like to repeat the exercise for yourself, you can download the games from the Premier (CBH or PGN) and Major (CBH or PGN) and compare your computer’s efforts to the results of my analysis (CBH or PGN).

Having had the games marked by Fritz, I then went through the games to decide which were real blunders and which were Fritz getting its wires crossed (see appendix). The resulting list of blunders I then inspected and tried to identify (a) what tactical device was at work, and (b) if there were typical errors of thinking going on. Here’s an example:

(43) Boomsma B. H. – Knight S. [C07]

Major (Round 4) 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Ngf3 cxd4 6.Bc4 Qd6 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nb3 a6 10.Nbxd4 Nxd4 11.Nxd4 Qc7 12.Qe2 Bd6 13.h3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 13…0-0 14.Bd3 h6 15.c3 b5 16.Bd2 Bb7 17.a4 e5 18.Nf5 Qc6 19.Qf1 bxa4

+-----------------+

20.Nxd6

Misses a trick.

[-0.28 Fritz 5.00: 20.Rxe5 Rad8 [not 20…Bxe5, 21. Ne7+] 21.Re7 Kh8 22.Nxd6 Qxd6 23.Re3]

Fritz assesses White’s position at the end of the analysis variation as +?.?. When you dump the database out for printing, it unhelpfully strips all these assessments off, but they can be seen in the CBH database.

Psychologically, this is a missed opportunity. It is also a threat missed by Black, so both players made a mistake. Tactically, it’s a decoy/overload combination, and two moves deep. I’m sure that Black overlooked the possibility of Rxe5, and missed it because it was a second effect of moving the White Queen from e2 to f1, defending against the mate on g2. My guess is that Brian also overlooked the possibility, rather than saw it and thought it a bad idea. Of course, I actually don’t know enough about any of these games to be able to tell things like this for sure. Either player may have seen all this and more, although this begs the question why they didn’t react to what they saw.

Three features dogged my research: these difficulties in post hoc interpretation, compounded by lack of context, and possible transcription errors. On context: some of the games I witnessed and was able to tell that one or other player was in time trouble, when some of the decisions taken might make a bit more sense. Or a player may have grabbed a draw against a higher-graded opponent. Also, I assume that the scores are accurate. Ian did mighty battle with idiosyncratic handwriting and moves scribbled in time pressure, but there are a couple of games where I can only assume some other move was played than the one recorded. (I once found a score sheet which started: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc6 Nc6 3. Nf6 Nf6 – a player new to algebraic, I concluded.)

What I have done below is a preliminary description of the blunders – a natural history, if you like, trying to classify and count my way through the range of horrors on view. The richness of chess – even this sort of chess – really requires deeper consideration than I have been able to give it so far, so please forgive this as work in progress.

Tactical themes

Some tactics can be readily ascribed to more than one type, e.g. as above, overloading a piece defending against a fork. In these cases, I filed them under the earlier theme in the sequence.

The tactical themes found were as follows:

Left hanging:

Forks, double attacks:

Pins:

Overloading (decoys, ties):

Undermining (ties):

Unmasking (discovered attacks, jumps):

Nets (no retreat):

Mating patterns:

Queening combinations:

I suspect that these relative frequencies do not reflect their occurrence in normal play, that is, I think you are more likely to miss a fork or pin than to miss a piece hanging.

Let’s see some examples, simple and more complex.

Left hanging:

(56) Dobber P. – Duckham J. [B00]

East Devon Major 1999 (5)

14.Nf3-g1

+-----------------+

With two points: one to secure the h-Pawn…

14…Qe7 15.Qxh5

…the other of which Black missed. 1-0

Forks, double attacks:

(6) Jukes S. – Belinfante N. [A20]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

1. c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 Bc5 4.a3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 4…a5 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d3 0-0

+-----------------+

7.Bg5 White sets himself up for a basic tactic (Knight fork 7…h6 Black didn’t notice!

Pins:

(2) Durrant P. E. O. – Halmkin P. E. [B07]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

21.Bh3

+-----------------+

Black is in difficulty here but his next move makes things worse, adding a pin to the threatened discovery. In fact, White’s Knight is currently pinned to the Bh3!

21…Nd7

[2.50 21…b4]

22.Nxg7

[1.66 22.Qf2]

22…Kxg7 23.Qf2 Qe8 24.Be6 Ndf8 25.Qf7+ Kh8

Suicide, as Black realises.

1-0

Skewer

(45) Halmkin P. E. – Wood J. Z. [C00]

East Devon Major 1999 (4)

+-----------------+

Impeccable so far, says Fritz. Both sides overlook a standard skewer tactic. 48.Rg5+

[-0.56 : 48.Kd2 Rf1 49.c7 Rf8 50.Ke3 Rf3+ 51.Ke4]

48…Kf3 49.c7

[-1.28 : 49.Kd2 Ra1 50.c7 Ra8 51.Rc5 Rc8]

49…Re1

[0.81 : 49…Rc1+ 50.Kd3 Rxc7 51.Rf5+ Kg4 52.Re5 Rf7 53.Ke4]

Overloading (decoys, ties):

See above, and also:

(54) Allen R. N. – Woodruff A. [C11]

East Devon Major 1999 (5)

1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Bxd4 Be7 “Out of Book,” says F5.. 10.Bd3 Nc5 11.Be2 Qa5 12.0-0 0-0 13.f5

+-----------------+

13…exf5

[2.31 : 13…Bg5 14.a3]

14.b4! Qxb4

Black goes down the main line

[3.47 : 14…Qd8 15.bxc5 Be6 16.Rb1 Qc7 17.Nb5]

15.Nxd5 Qa5 16.Nxe7+

Undermining (ties):

(31) Grist P. – Sparkes D. A. [B01]

East Devon Major 1999 (3)

1. e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxd5 4.Bc4 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 4…c6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.d4 e6

+-----------------+

White makes an unguarded move – or rather, an apparently guarded one.

7.Bg5

[-2.78 : 7.Nbd2]

7…Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qxg5

Unmasking (discovered attacks, jumps):

(47) Jones R. H. – Grist P. [A01]

East Devon Major 1999 (4)

+-----------------+

18.Nc3 Overlooking a series of masked attacks.

[-0.88 : 18.Qd3 ]

18…Nxd4 19.Na4

[19.Nxd4 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 Qxb2]

Nets (no retreat):

(93) Baer B. L. – Spink B. M. [A04]

East Devon Premier 1999 (4)

+-----------------+

32…Qb1 This is the real blunder: can Black guarantee to get the Queen out? 33.Kg2 Nf6 34.Bd3 Qc1 35.Rc2 Qd1 36.Ree2 Nh5 37.Rcd2 Qa1 38.Ra2 Qc1

[6.63 : 38…d5 39.Qxd5 Nf4+ 40.gxf4 Qxc3 41.Rec2]

39.Qxf7 1-0

Mating patterns:

(71) Aston P. A. – Saqui D. A. J. [D00]

East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

+-----------------+

White has at last worked up an attack. 30.Nh5 Allows Black an opportunity to chase away the Queen.

[-2.16 : 30.Rc3 Qd8 31.Nd3 Bg5]

30…Bf8 allows mate in three!

[#3 : 30…Rg6 31.Qe3 Qxb2 32.Nf4 Rg7 33.a3]

31.Nf6 Not only missing the mate, but walks into a defensive tactic.

[-5.13 : 31.Nxg7 surely the most natural move on the board! 31…Qxd4+ 32.Rxd4 Bxg7 33.Qxh7#]

31…Rxg2+ 32.Kxg2 Bxh6 33.Rxh6 Kg7 34.Rxh7+ Kxf6 35.h4 Qxb2+ 36.Kf3 Rb4 0-1

King safety more generally was a very common theme, sometimes in more complex situations than that. Here’s one I may get into trouble for:

(101) Abbott M. – Page M. C. [D35]

East Devon Premier 1999 (5)

30.Rh1

+-----------------+

Good move! Fritz scents mate coming up. 30…Rh6

[1.91 : 30…b5 31.axb5 axb5 32.Rh3 b4 33.Ng3 f4 34.Nf5+ Kf8 35.Rh8+]

31.Ng3

[1.22 : 31.Rxh6 Kxh6 32.g4 is the way to pursue it: 32…Rf8 (32…Rh8 gives in meekly 33.gxf5 Qe8 34.Rh1+ Kg7 35.f6+) 33.Ng3 Qb6 34.Kg2 Qxd4 35.e6 fxg4 36.Rh1+ Kg7 37.Rh7+ Kg8 38.Qg6+ Qg7 39.Qxg7#]

The beginners’ favourite of back rank mates made a single appearance in the register of blunders:

(76) Page M. C. – Jepps G. N. [A31]

East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

+-----------------+

27…Re2

[4.59 : 27…Qd8 28.Qc4+ Kh8 29.Qe4 Qg8 30.Qxf4 Rxa2]

28.Qc4+

[-0.34 : 28.Rxe2 We’re assuming the score is accurate, I suppose, but this looks a little better! 28…Qd8 29.Qc4+ Kh8 30.Re1 Qb8 31.Qxc6]

Queening combinations:

(102) Evans I. D. – Dunn A. M. [C41]

East Devon Premier 1999 (5)

+-----------------+

And a final double blunder (time pressure notwithstanding):

60.Kxg5

[-4.56 : 60.Nd1 Ng6 61.Nf2 d2 62.Kf3 Nf4 63.Ke3]

60…Ne6+

[0.00 : 60…Nh3+ and White’s poor Knight does the splits. 61.Nxh3 d2 62.Nf2 h3 63.Kf5 h2 64.Ke5 h1Q 65.Nxh1]

1/2-1/2

Intermezzo

(80) Dilleigh S. P. – Frost N. A. [E15]

East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

1. d4 e6 2.Nf3 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.c4 c5 6.d5 b5 “Out of Book,” says F5.. 7.dxe6 fxe6 8.cxb5 Qa5+ 9.Nc3 d5 10.0-0

+-----------------+

10…d4 Not picked up by Fritz as an error. 11.Nxd4 Bxg2 12.Nb3

The intermezzo

12…Qc7 13.Kxg2

With another Pawn.

Attack and defence

Here, a failure to count:

(18) Herbert S. – Smith E. J. [C01]

East Devon Major 1999 (2)

1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bf4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bd6 “Out of Book,” says F5.. 6.Bxd6 Qxd6 7.c3 0-0 8.Be2 Re8 9.0-0 Bg4 10.Nbd2 Nbd7 11.h3 Bh5 12.Re1 Re7 13.Bd3

+-----------------+

Black spurns an opportunity to get the advantage and instead gives up a Pawn. 13…Ne4

[0.88 : 13…Rxe1+ 14.Qxe1 Re8 15.Qf1 Qb6 16.Rb1 Qc6]

14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Rxe4

Thinking errors

Missed threats

One-movers

Two-movers

Three-movers

Missed opportunities (i.e. missed threat, opportunity not taken)

One-movers:

Two-movers:

Three-movers:

Oversight/natural moves in normal positions

Failure of nerve/Bluffed

Failure of analysis

Bad moves in bad positions (the frying pan problem)

Slack moves in good positions (incisiveness)

Errors of judgement not analysis (Positional errors)

Time trouble

Missed threats

When our mind is on higher things, we can be laid low. Here’s a few missed mates:

One-movers

Candidates for blunder of the tournament must include any one-move oversights. We had more than piece left hanging and more than one mate in one.

(53) Whelan G. – Rogers D. R. [D01]

East Devon Major 1999 (4)

+-----------------+

50.Nf1 Suicide.

[-#1 : 50.Kf1 a5 51.Rb8 h4 52.Rf8+ Ke7 53.Rg8]

50…Re2# 0-1

(52) Steer G. – Neilsen J. H. [A45]

East Devon Major 1999 (4)

+-----------------+

25… Qd7

[#1 : 25…Rxe1+ 26.Rxe1 Qg4 27.h3 Qg5 28.Nf3 Qf6]

26.Qg6# 1-0 Oops.

Two-movers

In my youth such things were referred to as cheapos – a point gained through minimum effort. It’s hard to describe these as two moves deep, more like two moves shallow!

(66) Dunn A. M. – Aston P. A. [A00]

East Devon Premier 1999 (1)

+-----------------+

16.a3 Not best.

[-#3 : 16.e4 Nxd3+ 17.Bxd3 Bxa2 18.Rd1 Qe5 19.h4 Rd8 20.Qg5 Qxg5+]

16…Nxd3+ 17.exd3

[17.Kd1 Qe1#]

17…Qe1# 0-1

Three-movers

(98) Regis D. – Piper S. J. [B47]

East Devon Premier 1999 (4)

32.Rf3

+-----------------+

Black is under the cosh, but loses instantly:

32…Qe4

[#3 : 32…Nf4 33.Qf5+ Ng6 34.Nxf7 Bf4 35.Qh5+ Kg8 36.Rg1 Rab8 37.Nh6+]

33.Nf5+ (threat Ne7+) 1-0

What produces these errors?

One obvious theme is a move of the opponent with two points, one of which you miss.

Another is mood: a player ahead on material or with a strong attack may overlook opportunities for the defending side. Or a player who is being attacked may panic and find it difficult to focus on simple threats of the opponent, or become gloomy and stop looking.

Missed opportunities (i.e. missed threat, opportunity not taken)

White overlooks a tactic made possible by Black overlooking the threat – so every missed opportunity may also represent an error of the opponent, allowing you to carry out a threat that could have been prevented.

We can find examples of every depth, as above:

One-movers:

(11) Webley M. A. – Spiller P. [C21]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

+-----------------+

A curious double oversight follows. 29…Bf3 That Bishop is en prise!

30.Kf2

White misses it!

Most people’s idea of a one-mover is more like this:

(29) Foulds A. – McFarlane P. [A69] East Devon Major 1999 (3)

+-----------------+

18…f6 ? 19.Rab1 ?

[-3.31 : 19.Qd5 forward! ]

Two-movers:

(5) Ingham W. – Pinder R. [A07]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

+-----------------+

12.b4 Fritz reckons this a blunder

[-0.91 : 12.Qe2 ]

12…Nc6 with double attack on b4 and e5 13.a3 cxb4

Three-movers:

(35) Rogers D. R. – Price C. R. [A15]

East Devon Major 1999 (3)

17.Bc3

+-----------------+

Both sides get in a muddle here: Black need not shed a piece, and has a clever alternative. 17…Bxd4+

[2.88 : 17…Qxc3 neat, eh? 18.Nxc3 Bxd4+ 19.Qxd4 cxd4 20.Nd5]

18.Qxd4 of course

This is sort of a three-mover:

(14) Belinfante N. – Wood J. Z. [C11] East Devon Major 1999 (2)

+-----------------+

Black now plays a series of moves which make a poor position fatal. 14…f6

[1.94 : 14…b4 15.Nb1 Qxc2 16.Bd3 Qc7 17.Nbd2]

15.exf6

+-----------------+

Natural, but risking letting an opportunity slip.

[0.06 : 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qxd5+ Kh8 17.exf6 Bxf6 18.Qxa8 Bxb2]

15…Bxf6 ? Overlooking White’s idea

[1.03 : 15…Nxf6 16.Bd3 Bd6 17.Ne5 Nd7 18.Nxd5 Bxe5 19.Nxc7 Bxd4 20.Nxa8]

16.Nxd5 back on track 16…exd5 ? Unnecessary! White must have some idea in mind, and there’s no need here to fall for it.

[2.81 : 16…Qxc2 17.Nxf6+ Nxf6 18.Bd3 Qc7 19.Qe5 Nd5 20.Qxc7 Nxc7]

17.Qxd5+ Kh8 18.Qxa8

That opportunity was only taken because it was re-presented.

After this, I suspect we are at the limit of what many players can analyse accurately without mistakes. Given a favourable wind, we might follow a given sequence some ten moves deep, but not reliably identifying or analysing all the alternative branches. Still, see if you can do better than the tournament winner here:

(89) Saqui D. A. J. – Baer B. L. [E61] East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

+-----------------+

27.g3 This weakening move sets Black up for a stock mate.

[-#5 : 27.R7a2 Bg5 28.h3 Qxh3+ 29.gxh3 Rxh3+ 30.Kg2 Nh4+ 31.Kg1 Nf3+]

27…Qh3 Sufficient but the game could have been decided simply:

[-7.66 : 27…Qxh2+ 28.Nxh2 Bxe3 29.Bf8+ Rcxf8 30.Kg2 Rxh2+ 31.Kf1 Rxf2#]

28.Ne2

[-#4 : 28.Qxd5 Bxd5 29.Rxc7 Bc4 30.Rxf7+ Kxf7 31.Nxe4 Bxf1]

28…Bxe3 29.Ng1 Qxh2+ 0-1

Oversight/natural moves in normal positions

We can see the fatal attraction of ‘normal’ moves in the games Dobber-Nielsen and particularly Belinfante-Wood. Here’s another:

(21) Laurain F. – Whelan G. [B07]

East Devon Major 1999 (2)

+-----------------+

13.Ba3

[-1.00 : 13.Rb1 Re8 14.Be3 Bc6 15.Rfd1 Qxd6 16.Rxd6]

13…Re8 Now White has chased the Rook to e8, he has pieces en prise on both e2 and a1!

Failure of nerve/Bluffed

(32) Jukes S. – Scott R. [A24]

East Devon Major 1999 (3)

1. c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.b4 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 5…c6 6.Rb1 0-0 7.d3 d5 8.Bg5 Be6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Qd2 Re8 11.Nf3 Qd6 12.0-0 a6 13.Rfc1 Nbd7 14.Rc2 Nb6 15.h3 Rec8

+-----------------+

16.Nxe5 enterprising but flawed?

[-1.81 : 16.Rbc1 d4 17.Bxf6 dxc3 18.Qg5 Bxf6 19.Qxf6]

16…d4 Black is bluffed!

[0.25 : 16…Qxe5 A) 17.Bf4 must have been White’s idea: 17…Qh5 18.Bf3 (18.g4 Nxg4 19.hxg4 Bxg4 20.e3 Bf3 21.Bxf3 Qxf3) 18…Qxh3 19.Bg2 Qh5 20.Bf3 Bg4;

Hard to see to the end, but there’s no concrete line to follow up.

[ B) 17.Qe3 17…Nfd7 18.Qxe5 Nxe5 19.Rbc1 d4]

Failure of analysis

These are among the most interesting blunders, requiring a certain level of chess competence to achieve. Sometimes the failures are simple – like failing to count – and others are more involved.

(46) Herbert S. – Dobber P. [B07]

East Devon Major 1999 (4)

+-----------------+

12.Nxe5 An attractive but flawed idea.

[-0.72 : 12.Bc4 b5 13.Be2 Nd7 14.Bh4 Nc5 15.Nxe5 Bb7 16.Bg3 Nxe4]

12…f6

Oops.

(3) Foulds A. – England M. C. [E76] East Devon Major 1999 (1)

+-----------------+

White’s next is a bright idea laid low by a miscalculation. 15.Nxd5

[-3.09 : 15.Nf3 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Nc7 17.bxa6 Bxa6 18.Bxa6 Rxa6 19.a4]

15…Nxd5 16.Bc4 Nef6 17.Qf3 e6 18.Re1 Re8

(72) Bolt G. – Talbot A. R. [B86] East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 a6 7.a4 Be7 8.Bb3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 8…0-0 9.0-0 Nc6 10.f4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Bd7 12.f5 Nxd4 13.Qxd4 e5 14.Qd3 Bc6 15.Bg5 Rad8 16.Rae1

+-----------------+

A thematic break, but is it sound? 16…d5 17.Qg3 Bluffed!

[-0.47 : 17.Bxd5 h6 18.Be3 Ng4 19.Bd2 Bc5;

17.exd5 Nxd5 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Qe2 also wins a Pawn;

17.Nxd5 is the most obvious line to analyse, and it is not bad for Black: 17…Nxd5 18.exd5 Bxg5 19.Qg3 Bxd5 20.Qxg5]

I put this one under ‘analysis’ rather than the similar example above which was ‘bluffed’; this one is a short line which I guess White failed to analyse, the one above was a long line which I’m sure Black looked at but feared ending badly.

Bad moves in bad positions (the frying pan problem)

The phrase ‘bad moves in bad positions’ is from Hugh Alexander. Partly this is statistical: when you stand worse, fewer of your moves will not lead to trouble. One can have sympathy. But it is also psychological: panic, depression or a general lowering of expectations can all cause decision-making and chosen moves to become poorer. I saw loads of these…

(9) Speigel J. A. – Laurain F. [B26]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

20.Rae1

+-----------------+

20…Be7 Making a bad situation worse.

[2.09 : 20…Bc7 21.Rf6 h4 22.d6 hxg3+ 23.Kxg3 Bd8 24.Rxe5+ Kf8 25.Rf4]

21.Rxe5

+-----------------+

21…f6 Not cutting his losses.

(5) Ingham W. – Pinder R. [A07] East Devon Major 1999 (1)

13…cxb4

+-----------------+

14.Qb3 makes the worst of a bad job

[-2.56 : 14.Bb2 ]

Slack moves in good positions (incisiveness)

This was almost as common as the ‘bad to worse’ pattern: not really being in top gear when looking at a favourable position. There are many factors at play here: nerves, complacency, laziness and more.

(29) Foulds A. – McFarlane P. [A69]

East Devon Major 1999 (3)

+-----------------+

When you see a good move, stop and think again… 22.Qxa8

[-2.00 : 22.Bh6 …There might be a better one! This move gets the Bishop off the hook with tempo 22…Re7 23.Qxa8 Bxh2 24.Rbd1 Qe5]

(5) Ingham W. – Pinder R. [A07] East Devon Major 1999 (1)

14.Qb3 makes the worst of a bad job

[-2.56 : 14.Bb2 ]

+-----------------+

14…bxa3 Black does not exploit his advantage in the best way.

[-1.19 : 14…Nc5 15.Qa2 Nxd3 16.Rd1 Nxc1 17.Raxc1 bxa3 18.Nxd4 Nxe5]

(One game with three characteristic blunders!)

(64) Stanners M. J. – Price M. C. [D00]

East Devon Major 1999 (5)

16.a4

+-----------------+

16…0-0-0 Into the fire.

[2.44 : 16…f5 17.axb5 fxe4 18.Nxe4 Qc7 19.bxc6]

17.axb5 Nxd4 18.Rxa7

[0.59 : 18.Nxc4 is rather better 18…Nxf3+ 19.Qxf3 Qc5+ 20.Kh1 Qxc4 21.Qxf4 Qc5 22.Qxf7]

Errors of judgement not analysis (Positional errors)

Fritz can occasionally identify a move as a blunder, as far as I can tell on positional grounds. Sometimes I agree with it!

Here’s an example of what I mean:

(38) Speigel J. A. – Kennedy P. J. [B26]

East Devon Major 1999 (3)

+-----------------+

20.0-0 allows Black to seize the seventh

[-1.09 : 20.Rd2 Nc6 21.0-0 Ke7 22.Rfd1 Rhd8]

20…Rb2 21.Rfe1 Rxa2

More typical are positional errors Fritz ignores:

(1) Dobber P. – Nielsen J. H. [B01]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

1. e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Re1 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 8…Nbd7 9.h3 Be7 10.Bf1 0-0 11.Nh4

+-----------------+

Black mistakenly allows White to secure the two Bishops and a Queen’s-side majority. 11…Rfe8 12.Nxf5 exf5

Time trouble

Time control here was at move 40, so any game which degenerates around move 35 or even earlier could be due to clock pressure. Time trouble doesn’t provide a complete explanation for out-and-out blunders, but it does produce them. We saw one I guess in Evans-Dunn.

Conclusions and recommendations

Well, what do you think?

Appendix: on working with a computer

I haven’t done this sort of thing before and wondered if those attempting a similar exercise might find the following notes helpful.

Method

I analysed all the games using the ‘blundercheck’ feature of Fritz 5. I used the default settings of time 10, (seconds I think) and a criterion of 60 (a difference of more than half a Pawn [100]). Left to run overnight, Fritz identifies better lines and flags each game containing a blunder with a black spot, which it describes as a “medal”. These settings seem to result in a depth of about depth of 10-ply (5 whole moves by White and Black).

I assume these defaults are generally OK, but I don’t know if anyone has found a better combination of settings.

Horizon effect

Fritz takes the instruction to look for only ten seconds very seriously. That is, Fritz is capable of assessing a position after Black’s fifth move as favourable to Black, even if White’s sixth move delivers checkmate!

Proof: in this position…

(72) Bolt G. – Talbot A. R. [B86]

East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

+-----------------+

…Black came up with a creative way to lose a piece, which Fritz assessed at +3.22 for White:

32…Qxh3 33.gxh3 Nf3 34.Qxe3 Nxe1 35.Qxe1

Fritz preferred the move:

32…Rge8 when it analysed: 33.Rhxe3 Rxe3 34.Qxe3 Nxb3 35.Qxb3 Rxd6 36.Re8+ Kh7 37.Qxb7, after which 10 ply it assessed the position as only 0.81 to White – how would you assess it?

+-----------------+
(e

When victory is in sight

Perhaps because of this, often the majority of Fritz’ comments occur only towards the end of the game, when the result has been all but decided.

(25) Scott R. – Bloom P. [B46]

East Devon Major 1999 (2)

White has just played 47. b4 to reach this position:

+-----------------+

The previous 46 moves by White and Black escaped calumny, but now Fritz got all interested:

47…Bb6

[17.81 Fritz 5.00: 47…Qe3 48.bxc5 Qxc5 49.Qg6 Qf8 50.a7 Qg8 51.Qf7 Rf8 52.Qxf8 +13.63]

48.c4

[10.78 Fritz 5.00: 48.Qg6 threat Be4 is better 48…Rxe6 49.Qxe6 Qe3 50.Qc8+ Kh7 51.Qf5+ Kg8 52.a7 Qe8 +19.41]

48…Bd8

[24.91 Fritz 5.00: 48…Qe3 49.c5 Qxe4 50.Bxe4 Bc7 51.a7 Be5 52.a8Q Rxa8 53.Bxa8 +12.22]

49.Qd4

[11.34 Fritz 5.00: 49.Qg6 idea Be4 is better 49…Qxf3 50.Qxe8+ Kh7 51.gxf3 Bb6 52.Qc6 Bd4 53.e7 Bf6 +27.88]

49…Qh4 50.Qxh4 Bxh4 51.a7 1-0

So, a “blunder” in Fritz’ terms (a better move was available with an outcome a Pawn’s worth different), but in practical terms, who cares? Incisiveness in critical positions is important, but this finale was hardly critical. Some of the 111 games with blunders were like this one. Meanwhile the phase of the game where Black failed to castle, got in a horrid pin and shed all his Queen’s-side Pawns and a piece, is passed over in silence.

Materialism

Fritz, like many computers, likes the bird in the hand more than many players. Undoubtedly, if it did not have an opening book it would not accept for a moment any gambit, especially long-range ones like the Benko.

(82) Hodge D. – Hammond T. J. [A35]

East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

1. e4 c5 2.c3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5 5.exd5 Nf6 6.Nf3

+-----------------+

6…Bg7

Typically Fritz does not like to be without material, and prefers 6…Nxd5.

(3) Foulds A. – England M. C. [E76]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 Nbd7 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 8.Be2 a6 9.0-0 b5

+-----------------+

Fritz doesn’t like giving up Pawns, but this Benko-style idea looks perfectly legitimate.

[0.94 : 9…b6 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.Be3 Qc7 12.f5 gxf5 13.exf5]

Also, very practical attempts to open or muddle the position are nearly always criticised. [We need to understand the ‘nearly’; it may be in these positions the compensation is obvious even to a stupid computer.]

(71) Aston P. A. – Saqui D. A. J. [D00] East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

1. d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 Bf5 5.fxe4 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 5…Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nd6 7.Bf4 Qc8 8.Bxd6 cxd6 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Nh3 a6 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.Nd5 Qc6 13.0-0 Nf6

+-----------------+

14.c4 This perfectly reasonable attempt to pursue an initiative is queried by Fritz.

[-1.44 : 14.Nhf4 Rc8 15.c3 e6 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.d5]

A positive side of Fritz’ materialism is a healthy scepticism about sacrifices; if it can’t see a mate, it fancies the material.

(10) Stanners M. J. – Sellwood C. [D00]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

1. d4 Nf6 2.e3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 2…e6 3.Bd3 c5 4.f4 Nc6 5.c3 d5 6.Nd2 Qc7 7.Qf3 cxd4 8.exd4 Bd6 9.Nh3 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.Ng5 h6

+-----------------+

12.h4

Computers can take the fun out of playing sacrifices. Fritz is unimpressed by White’s intentions to deliver mate and fancies grabbing the material.

[-1.78 Fritz 5.00: 12.Nh3 -0.31]

12…Bb7

Bluffed!

[-0.41 Fritz 5.00: 12…hxg5 13.fxg5 (13.hxg5 Nh7 14.Qh5 g6 15.Qh6) 13…Nd7 14.Qh5 g6 15.Qf3 -1.53]

Positional sacrifices

Fritz, like many computers, cannot appreciate positional sacrifices. These are not easy for club players to contrive except in certain familiar situations but when they were offered Fritz poured scorn on nearly all of them.

(86) Pinkerton A. – Aston P. A. [A44]

East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

1. d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.g3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 3…d6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4 h5 7.e4 h4 8.g4

+-----------------+

8…h3

[0.75 Fritz 5.00: 8…Bg5 -0.13]

As usual, positional Pawn sacrifices are not to Fritz’ taste.

Again, the ‘nearly all’ is interesting: sometimes it must have recognised some of the compensation and did not jump on the move as an error.

(81) Hewson B. W. R. – Jaszkiwskyj P. [D53]

East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

1. c4 e6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.d4 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bxf6 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 6…Bxf6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bd3 c6 9.h4 Re8 10.Nge2 Bg4 11.Qc2 g6

+-----------------+

12.h5 One Pawn sacrifice that even Fritz doesn’t query!

Simplifying sacrifices

There is a particular class of move that Fritz always labels a blunder and with which calumny I cannot agree: the simplifying move or combination. This may reduce your attacking force, or even give up some of your material advantage, but still be an excellent idea.

(7) Price M. C. – Sparkes D. A. [C14]

East Devon Major 1999 (1)

+-----------------+

62.Rxe6+ Just the sort of clarifying sacrifice a human likes and computers hate. In fact, both the Knight and King are perilously short of squares and can each be profitably harassed.

[#7 Fritz 5.00: 62.Qg3 Ng2 (62…Nd5 63.Rxe6+ Kc5 64.Qg1+) 63.Qxg2+ Kc5 64.Kc3 f4 65.Rxe6 f3 66.Qxf3]

Positional blunders by computers

We are used to positional mistakes being overlooked by computers, but we can also see positional errors being positively suggested by Fritz. Here’s one:

(89) Saqui D. A. J. – Baer B. L. [E61]

East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

+-----------------+

A standard reversed KIA position (Pe3 not Pe4) where Black will want to deliver mate soon.

21.Kh1

[-0.16 Fritz prefers 21.a6 which removes any shred of White counterplay!]

Crossed wires

There are occasions when I cannot fathom what is going on in Fritz’ twisted little silicon mind.

(27) Woodruff A. – Jukes S. [E12]

East Devon Major 1999 (2)

+-----------------+

29…Rdb7

I don’t understand Fritz’ querying this move, even though I see no very compelling reason for it.

[-0.88 Fritz 5.00: 29…Rd8 30.h5 Ke8 31.Kf1 Rd7 32.Ke2 a4 33.Rd2 Rdb7 34.Rd4]