Category Archives: Praxis

Lessons from the lost No.1s

Posted on by

The FIDE Elo rating system began in 1971. Elo did a bit of study trying to work the ratings backwards, but the chief scholar in this regard is Jeff Sonas http://chessmetrics.com/cm/. Jeff devised his own rating system, however — using an ‘absentee’ penalty for periods of non-playing. This leads to odd-looking results like Lasker’s repeated plummets and recoveries here:

ChronoGraph-1840-2005.gif

Anyhow, whatever the merits of his system, it has yielded some intriguing results, including a month-by-month tracking of who is the world No.1-rated player. Apart from the world champions, you can see above that Zukertort and Korchnoi both broke the surface at some point, and there are other non-champions in the lists.

  • Kieseritzky
  • von der Lasa
  • Harrwitz
  • duBois
  • Morphy [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-morphy]
  • Paulsen
  • Suhle
  • Kolisch
  • Neumann
  • Gunsberg
  • Zukertort
  • Pillsbury
  • Maròczy
  • Rubinstein [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-rubinstein]
  • Fine
  • Bronstein
  • Reshevsky
  • Korchnoi [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-korchnoi]

Anyhow, with nothing much better to do, I thought I would pull together some instructive games from each player who hadn’t yet had the ‘Lessons from…’ treatment.

    Kieseritzky

    The name of Kieseritzky is known as to most as the loser of one of Anderssen’s brilliancies, and to players of gambits — he gave his name to the main variation of the King’s Gambit and the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit. He defeated everyone at some point, did well in matches and enjoyed more than one period at the top of the ChessMetrics league table. He also makes an early bid for the largest collection of names.

    von der Lasa

    One of the Berlin ‘Pleiades’ (including
    Paul von Bilguer,
    Ludwig Bledow,
    Wilhelm Hanstein,
    Bernhard Horwitz,
    Carl Mayet and
    Carl Schorn). No slouch in the name department, von der Lasa was a player of the first rank but never played a formal match or tournament. Yet in series of casual games he outscored Staunton twice and apparently Anderssen too. Not sure ChessMetrics should be including casual games.

    Harrwitz

    Remembered often as Morphy’s first match victim in Europe, Harrwitz was certainly a worthy candidate for a match, even if Morphy made short work of him. The opening he used to defeat Morphy in their first game still bears his name.

    duBois

    An Italian player who rarely left his country, I think he crept to the top in the late 1850s by a big score in matches, but it’s not clear.

    Paulsen

    Stereotyped as the first great master of defence, he was also a fine attacking player. And of course, to win the game, eventually the defender must become the attacker.

    Suhle

    Suhle’s brief appearance among the No.1s seems to arise from his demolition of his fellow Berliner, Paul Hirschfield, in a match, at a time when other top players were relatively inactive.

    von Kolisch

    von Kolisch abandoned chess for the pursuit of money, at which he turned out to be equally adept.

    Neumann

    Another Berliner, his great achievement was a storming performance at Dundee.

    Zukertort

    Zukertort contested the World Championship more than once, at great cost to his health. His own ‘Immortal’ is a real gem:

    Gunsberg

    Gunsberg’s reign at the top of the lists was just one month! But no fluke — he contested a close match with Steinitz in 1890, losing 4-6. Steinitz’ famous stubbornness in accepting the gambit pawn and hanging on for dear life may have made the score a little generous.

    Pillsbury

    Pillsbury’s name is more familiar than many on this list, and he has given his name to opening variations. His dazzling triumph at Hastings in 1895 make him the next great American conqueror; his short life the next tragedy.

    Maròczy

    Maròczy played chess at the top level at the turn of the century, took some time off, then returned as strong as ever. He edged out Pillsbury at Monte Carlo in 1902.

    Bogoljubow

    The burly Bogo is often regarded as being a punchbag and figleaf while Alekhin was ducking Capablanca’s challenge. We’ll never know what would have happened if Capa had ever come up with the same amount of prize money he demanded from Alekhin (following the stock market crash, this was a big ask), but while Bogoljubow wasn’t a match for Alekhin, he was no pushover, and had a couple of months at the top of the Chessmetrics lists. His legacy is strongly defended in a couple of recent books by Bogdanovich.

    Fine

    Fine gave up chess for psychoanalysis — ‘a loss for chess and at best a draw for psychoanalysis’, someone quipped. The war years interfered with his career but he could beat anybody on the day and had a plus score against Botvinnik:

    Bronstein

    The ‘co-World Champion’ and possibly the world’s grumpiest loser was the author of some fine and charming books, in which it is straightforward and a pleasure to find instructive moments. This is a bravura attacking game:

    Reshevsky

    Reshevsky is notable for his early promise and his longevity in the top ranks of chess, despite his amateur status in the modern era (he was an accountant). However, some of his best years coincided with war, and he never was able to break through to be a challenger in the 1950s — possibly because of collusion between Soviet players at Zurich 1953, at about which time he tops the Chessmetrics rating list. He qualified for the Candidates’ for the last and sixth time in 1967.

Lessons from Tartakower

Posted on by

Savielly Tartakower was the wittiest of masters, and, it was said, “too in love with chess to ever become world champion”. According to his translator, Golombek, he would reject a simple advantageous line in the hope of creating something more worthwhile with a more complex line. This is undoubtedly an expression of Tartakower’s taste: less for him could mean only less, and Capablanca’s trademark efficiency and elegance had no personal appeal for SGT.

He was regarded as world champion journalist, and his best games collections from Bell (published as a single volume by Dover, superb value as long as you speak descriptive) are peppered with anecdotes, bon mots , and provocative observations. For example, he throws away in a footnote one of the best definitions I have seen of a game that would qualify for a beauty prize. His epigrams, or Tartakowerisms, as they were called, are a splendid source of entertainment for the armchair player.

The chessplayer’s proof of existence: “ Erro ergo sum ” (I err, therefore I am).

“Some part of a mistake is always correct.”

“The blunders are all there on the board, waiting to be made.”

“An isolated Pawn spreads gloom over the whole chessboard”

“A chess game is divided into three stages: the first, when you hope you have the advantage, the second when you believe you have an advantage, and the third… when you know you’re going to lose!”

“A draw can be obtained normally by repeating three moves, but also by one bad move.”

“The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.”

The Dover book also records some of his favourite quips: he was once scolded by Capablanca: ”

‘You have no solidity’
 ‘That is my saving grace’ ,” he replied.

In these volumes, and his famous annotated collection of games edited with duMont, he emphasises the didactic qualities of each game, pointing out which chess concepts the games exemplify.

But the chess is superb too. He was a tireless experimenter in the openings, a true hypermodern, a fearless attacker and a man regarded by Nimzovitch as one of the top endgame players in the world at the time (in the rather teasing statement “the third best endgame artist of all the living masters”). His style matured, from early heroics and later love of complexity (‘a system consisting in the lack of system”), into a player who could really play any sort of position well – a hallmark of all the great masters.

Opening

Tartakower Saviely – Mieses Jacques [A82], Baden-Baden, 1925

SGT titles this game, “The miniature blockade”. Before this game had drawn five games in a row, and his opponent teased him:

“Have you had sufficient preparation for obtaining your 6th draw?”.

1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4 A hypermodern touch, considered by modern theory as over-doing things a bit. 4…d5 5.g5 Ng8 6.f3 exf3 7.Qxf3 e6 8.Bd3 g6

After just eight moves, Black is riddled with dark-square holes. 9.Nge2 Qe7 10.Bf4 c6 11.Be5 Bg7 12.Qg3 Na6 13.0-0 Bd7 A gesture towards development. 14.Bd6 Qd8 15.Qf4

A fine example of a weak colour-complex. 1-0

Tartakower Saviely – Przepiorka Dawid [B12] Budapest (Hungary), 1929

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 “New and good”, claimed SGT; this offshoot is enjoying a current fashion among English GMs. 3…dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 “Stimulates the game to fresh activity” SGT 5…exd4 6.Bc4 Be6

Offering an exchange, of which GM Tartakower is not too shy. 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nxd4 Qd7 10.Qh5+ Kd8 11.Be3 c5 12.Rd1! A sacrifice! 12…cxd4 13.Rxd4 Bd6 14.e5 Nf6 15.exf6 gxf6 16.Nc3 This game, says SGT, with its varied motifs, gives him the most pleasure of all his creations. 1-0

Middlegame

Maroczy,G – Tartakower,S Teplitz-Schonau, 1922

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5

This is an important bit of move-order: the option of …Bb4(+) gives Black several nice ways of avoiding the main lines of the Dutch. 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.a3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 d5 7.Nf3 c6 8.0-0 Ne4 9.Qc2 Bd6 10.b3 Nd7 11.Bb2 Rf6 12.Rfe1 Rh6 13.g3 Qf6 14.Bf1 g5 15.Rad1 g4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 17.Nd2

17…Rxh2

Spielmann remarked that when you see a player make a sacrifice of a Rook, you can also see the immediate concrete threats that motivated it. The only exception to this he knew was this extraordinary sacrifice of Tartakower, where tactical threats manifest themselves only later.

18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3 21.Nb1 Nh5 22.Qd2 Bd7 23.Rf2 Qh4+ 24.Kg1 Bg3 25.Bc3 Bxf2+ 26.Qxf2 g3 27.Qg2 Rf8 28.Be1 Rxf1+ 29.Kxf1 e5 30.Kg1 Bg4 31.Bxg3 Nxg3 32.Re1 Nh5 33.Qf2 Qg5 34.dxe5 Bf3+ 35.Kf1 Ng3+

If this sacrifice looks more routine now – like one of Tal’s – it is a tribute to the influence this game has had on sacrificial technique. Once SGT had shown that this sort of thing can work, other players felt brave enough to have a go. But you can search the games of earlier masters of attack like Morphy and Andersson and find nothing like it. Fabulous. 0-1

Tartakower Saviely – Tarrasch Siegbert [A52] It, Semmering , 1926

“My Best Game”.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4

A curiosity: the austere Tarrasch ventures this gambit of the hypermoderns Breyer and Abonyi, while Tartakower replies in the style of… Dr.Tarrasch. Critics of Tartakower often dismissed his style as trappy, and suggested he won only games that his opponents contrived to lose; but Tartakower says of his opponent’s play in this game that it is remarkably free from errors.

4.e4 Nxe5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qe7 8.Be2 0-0 9.Nd4 d6 10.0-0 Na6 11.f4 Nc6 12.Re1 Nxd4 13.cxd4

White offers a Pawn, which there is no point in declining.

13…Qxe4 [13…Bd7 14.Bd3 Nb4 15.Bb1 Rad8 16.a3± SGT] 14.Bf3 Qg6 15.Ba3 Qf6 16.Qd2 c6 17.d5 c5 18.Bb2 Qd8 19.Qc3 f6 20.Re3 Bd7 21.Rae1 Rf7 22.g4 Nc7 23.g5

Tartakower’s strategy is all straight lines and moral rectitude, lofty ideals that triumph over the material Pawn deficit.

23…Ne8 24.f5 fxg5 25.Bh5 Nf6 26.Bxf7+ Kxf7 27.Qd2 Ng8 28.Qe2 Bxf5 29.Rf3 Nh6 30.Rxf5+ Nxf5 31.Qe6+ Kf8 32.Qxf5+ Kg8 33.Qe6+ Kh8 34.Rf1 1-0

“You really have confidence in your pieces”, commented Tarrasch. “Rather, my pieces have confidence in me”, replied SGT.

Tartakower,S – Colle,E [A00] Bartfeld, 1926

1.b4

“The ultimate truth in chess?” SGT

1…e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 Bxb4 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.f4

A hearteningly fresh angle on this opening, although again, by modern standards, again over-doing things a bit. Why Capablanca was whingeing that chess openings had been played out is a mystery, though…

5…d5 6.exd5 exf4 7.Qf3 Bd6 8.Ne2 Ng6 9.d4 Qe7 10.Bc1 Bf5 11.Bd3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 0-0 13.0-0 Re8 14.Nxf4 Nxf4 15.Bxf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4

Tartakower reflects here that his opening has not been much of a success.

16…Na6 17.Nd2 Qe3+ 18.Qxe3 Rxe3

19.Rb1 Rc3 20.Rb2 b6 21.Rf3 Rxf3 22.gxf3

Now White is better placed to make use of his advantages. He will create a passed d-Pawn.

22…Rd8 23.c4 Nb8 24.Kf2 Kf7 25.a4 c6

A sign of distress: Black helps White with his main plan, for fear of making more concessions trying to do something to stop it.

26.dxc6 Nxc6 27.d5 Na5 28.Ke3 Nb7 29.Kd4 Rc8 30.Ne4 h6

31.a5!

The Black knight is tied to d6.

31…f5 32.axb6 fxe4 33.bxa7 1-0

Lowcki,N – Tartakower,S [C41] Jurata, 1937

“A bizarre ending”.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Be6 4.Bxe6 fxe6 5.c3 Nc6 6.Qb3 Qc8 7.Ng5 Nd8

A curiously cramped system to adopt. 8.0-0 [8.d4] 8…Be7 9.d4 Bxg5 10.Bxg5 Nf7 11.Bh4 c6 12.Nd2 Qd7 13.Rad1 exd4 14.cxd4 Ne7 15.f4 0-0 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.f5

White is determined to make something stick.

17…Nd8 18.Rde1 Kh8 19.d5 cxd5 20.exd5 e5 21.Ne4 Nf7 22.Qe3

22…Qh4 Finally, counterplay is sought. 23.Rf3 Rac8 24.Rh3 Qf4 25.Qxa7 Rc1 26.Qe3 Rxe1+ 27.Qxe1 Ng5 28.Rh4 Qxf5

Among SGT’s craftier traps: “devilish”, he claims.

29.Nxd6 Qg6 30.Rg4 Qxd6 31.Rxg5

White has a Pawn, Black the initiative.

31…Qb6+ 32.Kh1 Qb5 33.Kg1 Qc5+ 34.Kh1 Qc4 35.Kg1 Qd4+ 36.Kh1 Qe4 37.Qc1 Qd3 38.Kg1 Qd4+ 39.Kh1 Qd2

A piquant finish to exploit the back rank, reminiscent both of the composed game Adams-Torre, and the genuine brilliancy Bernstein-Capablanca. 0-1

Endgame

Capablanca,J – Tartakower,S [B42] Vienna (2), 1914

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.0-0 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.c3 Bc5 9.Nf3 Nd7 10.Nbd2 N7f6 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Nf6 13.Qxd8+ Kxd8 14.Bc2 Ke7 15.Ng5 h6 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4

“What a really great virtuoso of the game of chess Senor Capablanca must have been, to have been able to inflict on his adversary – by means so simple and with such reduced material – these development troubles! A miniature type of art, but _art_ all the same.”

SGT grabs some space on the King’s-side, refusing the White Bishops space, and when White tries the same on the Queen’s-side, he takes the chance to swap off Pawns and pieces.

17…f5 18.Bc2 g5 19.Re1 Kf6 20.b4 Bb6 21.Bb2 Rd8 22.Re2 a5 23.Rae1 axb4 24.Bb3 bxc3 25.Bxc3+ Bd4 26.Bxd4+ Rxd4 27.Bxe6

The White Rooks cannot be denied an entry to e7, but after that?

27…Rd6 28.Bb3 Bd7 29.Re7 Kg6 30.h3 Rf8 31.R1e2 h5 32.Bc2 g4 33.Kh2 Rc8 34.Bb3 Rf8 35.Bc2 Rc8 36.Bb3 Rf8 37.Bc2 1/2-1/2

Sergeant,E – Tartakower,S [B02] Hastings (6), 1945

“Once demobilised and returned to civilian life, what could a chessmaster of more than fifty-eight years of age do except… continue. ”

“I tried to create for myself a new style which I may term ‘neo-pragmatic’, trying to obtain maximum effects from the reasoned co-ordination of all the four factors in chess: time, space, material and force.” SGT

Tartakower was proud to win this tournament, the first to be held after the war.

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5 Nd5 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 d5 8.cxd6 cxd6 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.d4 0-0 11.Nf3 Qc7 12.Qd3 Nd7 13.0-0 b6 14.Bb3 Bb7 15.h3 e5 16.Ng5 Nf6 17.dxe5 Bxe5 18.Ba3 Rad8 19.Qc4 Bh2+ 20.Kh1 Qxc4 21.Bxc4 Bd6 22.Bxd6 Rxd6 23.Rad1

“…the endings procured for me many an additional half-point”.

White has weaknesses on the Queen’s-side.

23…Rc6 24.Bb3 Rxc3 25.Rfe1 Rc7 26.Nxf7 Rcxf7 27.Re7 Bd5 28.Bxd5 Nxd5 29.Rxf7 Rxf7 30.Rxd5 Rxf2 31.Rd8+ Rf8 32.Rd7 a5 33.Rb7 Rf6 34.Kh2 h5 35.Kg3 Kh7 36.Kh4 Kh6 37.g4 g5+ 38.Kg3 h4+ 39.Kg2 Kg6 40.a4 Re6 41.Kf2 Kf6 42.Kf3 Kg6 43.Kf2 Rc6 44.Ke3 Rc3+ 45.Kd4 Rxh3 46.Rxb6+ Kf7 47.Rb5 Rf3 48.Rxa5 Rf4+ 49.Ke5 h3 50.Ra7+ Kg6 51.Ra6+ Kg7 52.Rb6 Rxg4 53.Rb1 Rxa4 0-1

Thomas,G – Tartakower,S [C11] Hastings (2), 1945

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Nxf6+ Bxf6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.c3 0-0 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.Nf3 e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5+ 13.Qe2 Qxe2+ 14.Bxe2

Another “… additional half-point” is in the offing. I can imagine this game being given up as a draw here at our club, and in loftier arenas too.

14…Be6

Here is the first clue: White is not yet free to develop as he wishes.

15.0-0 Rfd8 16.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 17.Bxd1 Rd8 18.Bf3! Kf8 19.b3 b6 20.Rd1 Rxd1+ 21.Bxd1 Ke7 22.Bc2 a5 23.a4?

Weakening. Leave your Pawns alone! [23.Kf1; 23.Bxh7?? g6]

23…Kd6 24.f3 Kc5 25.Kf2

White still looks solid enough, but Black can break through on the Queen’s-side.

25…c6 26.Ke3 b5 27.axb5 cxb5 28.g4 Now the Ph7 is vulnerable.

28…h6 29.h4 Bd7 30.g5 hxg5 31.hxg5 a4 32.Kf4 a3 33.Bb1 b4

“Such victories, achieved by imperceptible means, show no surface brilliance, but are all the same rich in instruction”. SGT 0-1

Gruenfeld,E – Tartakower,S [D21] Semmering, 1926

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Ne5 Bh5 5.Nxc4 e6 6.Qb3 Nc6 7.e3 Rb8 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Be2 Bxe2 10.Nxe2 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 0-0 12.0-0 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Qc2 e5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Qxe5 17.Bd2 Bxd2 18.Qxd2 Rfd8 19.Qc2 Rd5 20.Rad1 Rbd8 21.Rxd5 Rxd5 22.Rd1 g6 23.Rxd5 Qxd5

A delicate Queen ending has arisen. Black can count three advantages: the distant majority, the open file, and more active (centralised) Queen.

24.a3 c5 25.h3 b5 26.Qc3 c4 27.f4?! [27.f3! f5!] 27…Qe4! 28.Kf2

Black’s manoeuvres are succeeding; White attempts a blockade.

28…a5!

The delicacy goes out of the position, and a more forceful phase supersedes.

29.g4 [29.Qxa5 Qc2+ 30.Kf3 Qxb2-+] 29…h6 30.h4 Qh1 31.Kg3 Qg1+ 32.Kf3 Qh2 33.g5 h5 34.Ke4 Qxh4 35.Qxa5 Qh1+ 36.Ke5 Qc6 37.Qa7 h4 38.f5 gxf5 39.Kxf5 Qf3+ 40.Ke5 h3 41.Kd4 Qg4+ 0-1

Play-through versions of the games

Lessons from Karpov

Posted on by

Karpov had a marked preference for positional play, although, in his own
words, “if my opponent offers sharp play, I do not object.” Karpov had
no soft spots that anyone could discern — an alleged weakness against
‘romantic’ openings was less of a handicap than the openings some chose
against him.

Opening

Karpov has always embraced the need for deep preparation. Here he digs
deep into a position that was all the rage at the time.

Something more typical of Karpov: an undogmatic treatment of a sharp attacking line.
Karpov often played to retain a small initiative with control, even when
playing attacking lines.

Middlegame

Karpov’s best games often have that air of inevitability about them that
we associate with Capablanca. Spassky handles IQP positions as well as
anybody, but Karpov takes his position apart here without allowing a
whisper of counterplay.

I’ve always liked Karpov’s willingness to sacrifice the exchange; he had
a keen feel for when the Rooks were more clumsy than capable.

Kasparov rather unwisely announced that the winner of Linares 1994 would be
considered ‘World Tournament Champion’. Challenge accepted… Karpov’s
victory there, twenty years after becoming world champion, was one of
the greatest of all time. On the way, he played the dry English Opening as though
he was Adolf Anderssen.

Endgame

A whole book has been written about Karpov’s endgame technique. Here is
one immaculate example from among many.

His greatest achievement in the endgame was likely this victory against
Kasparov. He deftly avoided a blockade of the position and showed the
agility of his Knight.

The field at Linares 1994 was one of the strongest ever, and Kasparov prior to the event commented that the winner could call himself “world champion of tournament chess”. Karpov’s reply was not recorded, unless it was his performance at the board, winning by a street, setting a tournament performance record and winning this game against the teenaged Topalov:

Lessons from Boris Spassky

Posted on by

Boris Spassky became World Champion on the second attempt, defeating Petrosian in 1969 and losing his title to Fischer in 1972. He had something of a reputation of having a ‘universal’ style, able to play all positions well, but that is true of anyone who holds the crown of chess, and he has a marked facility with dynamic and attacking play.

Opening lessons

I got a lot out of thinking about Spassky’s opening repertoire. He practised all the major systems of his day, of course, but there were some examples of “positions that are surprisingly hard to play for Black” — the Closed Sicilian being an early example, and the dxc5 variation of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted for another — not regarded highly by theory, but in practise would score well. (I am reminded, as so often, by Tartakower: “Any opening is good if its reputation is bad enough”.)

Click […] to see game list

He also specialised in some systems, like the King’s Gambit, that hardly anyone else would touch, and not as a surprise weapon, but a thoroughly studied system which he knows well and can show many subtleties.

Click […] to see game list

Middlegame lessons

Click […] to see game list

I’m always interested in moves that are hard to spot, and how to spot them. Spassky shows a couple of examples, although how he spotted them, is still unknown to me.

Click […] to see game list

Endgame lessons

Spassky’s dynamic style means little attention has been given to his endgame technique, and few examples have become well-known.

Click […] to see game list

Lessons from Ding

Posted on by

A new World Champion after the abdication of Magnus Carlsen, and by the narrowest of squeaks against Ian Nepomniachtchi, Ding has many rich and instructive games. He has something of a reputation as solid and positional, but he has a remarkable attacking talent and a keen instinct for dynamic material imbalance, both of which can be seen in the games below.

Opening

Ding has perhaps the narrowest opening repertoire of any top player at the moment, being glued to 1.d4 and associated systems, but this has hardly affected his progress.

Here is a notable piece of opening preparation, followed by a vicious attack.

Another monster theory line:

Middlegame

Here are two sides of Ding: the careful positional player, and … something special.

The game below has been well-annotated all over the web, and I won’t presume to add anything. Just enjoy! The computer may point out faster wins, but who cares… A dashing demonstration of the power of multiple minor pieces over a Queen, and the vulnerability of an uncastled King.

Endgame

Ding’s defensive obstinacy is well shown in this next game.

And here is a patient conversion of a material advantage — which involved giving back material.

Playing for a draw

Posted on by

Click […] for list of games

P.S. Krogius also comments on final 1951 BB game

Capture_0.PNG

Instructive examples of correct psychological preconditioning are furnished by Botvinnik’s games. During his matches against Bronstein (1951) and Smyslov (1954) the score before the last round was 11 ½:11½ . A draw would secure the World Championship title for Botvinnik.

The decisive game [1951-DR] began. Bronstein with a smile of cunning on his face advanced his QP: 1 P-Q4. The hall was silent. People made guesses as to what opening Botvinnik would play? Somebody’s voice predicted “It will be the Orthodox Defence. True. Black has to defend for a long time, but the position is stable. Botvinnik needs a stable position today.”

But no! The first moves already refute the prognosis. We see the sharp and tense variation known to theory as the “Botvinnik Variation”. The champion bravely challenges his opponent. as if saying: “Although I would like a draw I am not going to beg for it myself!”

I would like to make clear to the reader that I do not wish to deprecate the Orthodox Defence, which was used by Lasker and Capablanca. The point is that Botvinnik hardly ever used to play this system of development. The champion chose the safest, most thoroughly analyzed and, perhaps, the most aggressive continuation in his repertoire. One can only guess what the feelings of his opponent were, but the movements of the white pieces suggest that he was assailed by doubt. One can see a sort of resignation in the action of the White army. Perhaps he was recalling the successful course of the battle in the preceding twenty-third game of the match, or perhaps his balance was upset by Black’s coolly executed, precise and relentless attack. The denouement was not long in coming: after gaining a won position The Champion offered a draw “just in case”. It was accepted.

The game against Smyslov developed on similar lines. This time the Champion had White so it was easier for him to make his opponent go in for a defensive game.

P.S. There are alternative accounts of who offered the draw which do not detract from the main point.

Lucky escapes

Posted on by

Simon Webb in his book Chess for Tigers identified the “secrets of swindling”:
(1) Be objective. The first prerequisite to a swindle is to be objective enough to realize early on when you have a lost position and start playing for a swindle while your position still has resources. If you wait until your position worsens and becomes hopeless, it will be too late.

(2) Do not be afraid of losing. “Once you’ve accepted that your position is lost, you should be in a position of psychological strength.” The worst that can happen is that you’ll lose the game. The pressure is on your opponent to win a “won game”, and it is your opponent who will be embarrassed if unable to do so.
(3) Play actively. In a losing position, you cannot passively wait for your opponent to squeeze you to death. To stand a chance of pulling off a successful swindle, it is important to get the initiative, and this may involve sacrificing a pawn or two, or even the exchange, to activate your pieces.
(4) Use the process of elimination. If you have a choice of several possible moves, and you see simple forced wins against all but one of those moves, you should play the one remaining move, and do so quickly. Again, the onus is on your opponent to find a way to win.

Swindling themes:
1 Stalemate
2 Weak back rank
3 Perpetual check
4 Surprise mating attack
5 Bishops of opposite colours
6 Material insufficiency
7 Building a fortress
8 Zugzwang
9 Timing

Wikipedia has an excellent article on swindling, in which some of those examples appear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindle_%28chess%29

Test paper, test positions, and suggested solutions, all attached.

Dr.Dave’s Adventures at East Devon 2016

Posted on by

Friday night:

My entry to our local congress is sometimes deranged by family visits,
but an expectedly free weekend allowed another excursion in Exeter’s
St.George’s Hall, now renamed the Corn Exchange.

[It’s about as big a hall as a corn exchange would be, but Exeter is a
wool town, not a grain one, and this unhistoric renaming of a post-war
building rather makes me wince. Not as much as the chess, though…]

I have played less this season, quite deliberately; I’ve been finding
evening chess very hard, and in October even lost to a club member graded
50 points below me, when our grades suggest I should win every single
game. But in the daylight, I was hoping for better things.

Click on […] to see games list.

1. Black vs de Piro (141) – win.

Well, the first one is of course an evening game, after a week at work
and an abbreviated encounter with the Junior Club.

Tristram joined the Exeter club for a year or so recently, and in many
friendly games I couldn’t rememeber him playing much theory, so I
chanced my arm with the main line, but found, to my horror, that he knew
it all backwards. I scrambled together some reasonable moves from bits
of half-remembered theory and analogy with the …Qb6 lines that I have
always played before, but got to a position which used to be the main
line, yet has since fallen from favour. Characteristically, Tristram
went for the attack, but soon had to give away a piece to save his
Queen. I wonder how easy the endgame would be; I liked the passed pawn,
but in the post mortem I couldn’t make progress.

2. White vs. Kazanov (210?) – loss.

What an unforgiving game chess is. After being handed a space advantage,
I didn’t find a plan to make use of it and was brought back to focus by
my opponent breaking on the King’s side. It was not clear whose King
was the most exposed, but after some swaps we arrived at an endgame.
Under pressure to reach move 40 in time, I chose an active, forcing move
which made life more difficult for me, even impossible, when a calmer,
stabilising move would probably draw. But my real irritation is not
making more of the good position from the opening. (Maybe h2-h4? But
that’s not my style.)

3. Black vs. Jepps (150) – win.

On the four previous occasions we have met, Gerry has walked off with
the whole point each time. He is my Kryptonite: he loves gambit play, I
hate it; he attacks very well, I defend very badly … I thought I’d
play a straight bat against 1.e4 and my opponent, rather than playing
some evil underground gambit, went down a main line of theory, hoping to
play the Alekhin-Chatard Attack. Finding himself in the unfamiliar
MacCutcheon, he found most of the right moves in the opening, but
mistakenly judged his Bishop worse than mine (fearing …c4), and
swapped it off, losing time, when I think Black must have at least
equality. The standard attack down the c-file seemed to work smoothly
enough, and Gerry’s attacking verve and tactical opportunism didn’t
surface.

4. White vs. Wilson (155) – win.

I got a nice game the last time I played Matt with White, and hoped
to repeat the same line, or something like it. But my opponent bashed
out a completely different line that I rarely see, and a search of the
memory banks returned a familiar result: 404 Page Not Found. Black
seemed to equalise very easily, and while I had the Bishop pair it
seemed both of them were bad! I couldn’t see what else to do but
instigate a minority attack and hope Matt faltered on the other wing. My
attack flowed well enough, yielding a pawn, then poor Matt missed a
sequence of cheap forks around the time control.

[I have something of a reputation as a theory hound, but this is clearly
quite unfounded: I read fairly widely, but my knowledge is as shallow as
a gnat’s bidet.]

5. White vs. Helbig (194) – draw.

I have drawn and even won against Paul Helbig, a strong South West
player, but the most common (and expected) result has been a loss. My
single win came about from this line of the Pirc, with which I’ve had
some good results. However, once again my opponent bashed out what seems
to be a simple equalising line with little hesitation … which I should
have expected, as that’s exactly what he did last time! I was beginning
to find my position sinking into rigidity, even the rigor of death, but
a good-looking Queen manoeuvre by Black was met by an even stronger one
by White. Black had to concede a pawn, but, as always with classy
players, found the most awkward way of doing so, and I could only retain
the pawn by swapping off into an opposite-coloured Bishop endgame with
slender hopes of a win.

Overall: This unremarkable performance won me the upper grading prize,
remarkably enough (AKA the ‘not bad for an old duffer’ prize). I came
away happier with the result than the games; I got caught out in the
opening too often, and was in moderate time trouble in nearly every
game. But I can’t complain, that’s my best tournament result for a
while.

Dr.Dave’s Adventures at East Devon, 2000

Posted on by

This tournament somehow escaped record until 2016… I was going through a 1.e4 phase in a vain attempt to sharpen my game.

Click on […] to see games list.

R1: It’s always nice to start a tournament with a win. White plays the
theoretically-pointless Exchange French and gets a standard IQP attacking
position out of it. Surprisingly, everything worked out well for me, Black
never getting any counterplay going despite a cheeky Rook manoeuvre.

R2: I remember feeling optimistic then remember losing…

R3: I hadn’t met Graham before… He was visibly disappointed with my opening and with his 13th move.

R4: No comment.

R5: Ian had walked off with our club championship the previous year, so I tried to treat him with respect.

Dr.Dave’s Adventures at East Devon, 2014

Posted on by

I still don’t understand why anyone plays the Exchange, except that I
keep getting worse positions against it! Giles has been working on his
chess and is now a serious danger to anyone… I was lucky to find the
cheapo on move 32.

Another much-improved player, Oliver had embarrassed me by winning with
the French Exchange in a previous event, so I was out for revenge. On
the day, he stranded a piece and it was easy enough.

I’m sure I could have defended better but I was set problems throughout
that were beyond my powers of anticipation or solution.

An interesting encounter! I won a piece but Theo made it as awkward as
he could for me… I guess it was fitting that our only OTB encounter
ends in a draw. Next time, I don’t think I will be so lucky!

I have the same experience as I do playing against the French Exchange;
I have no respect for my opponent’s opening system, but he takes his
task seriously, creates problems, takes his chances, and shows how
simple it is to beat me with the right approach.