I prepared a sort of road map on the Sicilian and ended up talking around some positional themes…
Anyhow, here’s the road map and I’ll see about making it web-friendly and incorporating some of the chat.
“Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!”
from The Princess Bride (via Christine Malcom)
I did talk about how to win with the Maroczy Bind: here are a couple of games:
|
|
Article 9288 in rec.games.chess.misc: Subject: Re: Best Quick Study?? From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) Date: 22 Jun 1996 15:00:58 -0500 Organization: Dept of CIS, Univ. of Al at BirminghamAnnotate your last 20 tournament games. — Kenneth Sloan sloan@cis.uab.edu |
In a book by Dan Heisman called The Improving Annotator he attributes his success to self-study of this sort. If Kenneth’s advice seems not enough to go on, here are some things to look for to Assess Your Chess {all}.
“Most commentaries in chess magazines and books are superficial and sometimes just awful. Once a certain experienced master explained to me how he worked. You put two fingers to the page with text on it and see that there are only moves under them – in other words, it is time to make a comment. You write something like “The Ruy Lopez always leads to a tense, complicated struggle” – and your fee goes up by a rouble.
“The ability to distinguish between real feelings and thoughts and this kind of verbal facade will be of use to you, and not just in chess.” — DVORETSKY
Inspired by the popular format of How Good is Your Chess?, where readers are invited to come up with moves which are given points in order to assess their standard of play, I have wondered if the business of annotating could be placed on a similar scientific footing. You can use this system to review books, or to assess how well you make notes to your own games.
I have long had in mind Phil Crocker’s criticism of chess publishing in Kingpin No.22, to which Batsford’s, for some reason, felt the need to respond in No.23. As I remember, Phil’s main gripes were:
(a) shallowness: books are full of glib, vague or uncommittal commentary (e.g. “with compensation“, no need to mention if it is adequate!) – only general and strategic comments, none cashed out in terms of variations
(b) padding: complete games are included for no good reason at the expense of extra commentary or additional detail. I do get annoyed by large sections of games being quoted in ‘double-column’ format without notes viz.
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
This uses three lines when only one is required. If you look at older opening books (Nunn’s 1982 Benoni, for example) there are many part games and games in block text, squeezing the most chess and instruction on the page. No longer.
(c) question-begging: books allow important questions about particular variations to be ignored, and only light notes are added to games
(d) lack of originality/ no value added: analysis and comments by others are quoted freely, games are cited without their significance being explained.
These were humorously put in the article, but clearly felt keenly – my guess being that Phil has more than once spent the best part of 15 quid on various selections from the Batsogan list.
Now, with the scheme below, annotators can be classified and titles awarded according to their real merits. Find an annotated game, and award points for the annotator according to the following scheme:
Dismal padding: -3 points
Glib observation: -2 points
Unexplained symbols: -1 point
Glib explanation: 0 points
Genuine explanation: 1 point
Crisp, deep commentary: 2 points
Arguing for choice with evidence: 3 points
Secrets of chess revealed: 4 points
Whimsy or humour: extra 1/2 point
This might be clearer if we look at a few examples:
Gary Lane commits one of these in his book on the Blackmar-Diemer gambit. Chapter 1 is devoted to the Euwe Defence:
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6
Now after 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 he criticises 8. Qe2 as probably time-wasting (as Qe2-f2 may follow), but still gives three White wins as examples: firstly,
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qe2 b6 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.0-0-0 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Qa3+ 14.Kb1 Qxc3 15.Qe4 Rb8 16.Bb5+ Ke7 17.Rhf1 g5 18.Rd3 Qc5 19.Qf3 1-0 (Diemer Emil – Buis W, Haarlem, 1952)
and after 8…0-0 9.0-0:
9…0-0 10.Kh1 a5 11.Rae1 a4 12.Ne5 Ra5?! 13.Rf4 g6 14.Bh6 Nh5 15.Rf3 Ng7 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Rxf7+! Rxf7 18.Nxf7 Kxf7 19.Qxe6+ Kg7 20.Qxe7+ Qxe7 21.Rxe7+ Kh6 22.Ne4 Rd5 23.c3 b5 24.g4 g5 25.Nd6 1-0 (Falkeid – Vallestad, Nordic Team Ch.1965)
9…Re8 10.Qf2 Nf8 11.Qh4 Ng6 12.Bxg6 fxg6 13.Ne5 Nd5 14.Ne4 Nf6 15.c3 Nxe4 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Qxe4 c6 18.Rf7 Qd8 19.Raf1 Qd5 20.Nxg6! 1-0 (Diemer-Locher, Corr 1950)
In the main line (where White gains a tempo) he gives a critical game which eventually turned out well for Black.
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.0-0 Be7 8.Bg5 0-0 9.Qe1 Re8 10.Qh4 Nf8 11.Ne5 Ng6 12.Bxg6 fxg6 13.Rf3 Nd5 14.Ne4 Bxg5 15.Nxg5 h6 16.Nef7 Qe7 17.Raf1 e5 18.dxe5 Be6 19.Qg3 Rf8 20.Nxe6 Qxe6 21.c4 Ne7 22.Qf2 Nf5 23.g4 Rxf7 24.gxf5 gxf5 25.Rxf5 Raf8 26.Rxf7 Rxf7 27.Qe2 Qg6+ 28.Kh1 Rxf1+ 29.Qxf1 Qe4+ -/+ (Diebert-Fishbein, World Open, 1986: ).
And that’s it! Is this eighth move position some bizarre Zugzwang, so that by triangulating White wins, even if Black adopts the critical plan? Of course not, but the work needed here is all left to you. If 8. Qe2 is time-wasting it should have been noted as such and the three games should have been left out. If these games have important or original attacking ideas then perhaps we should be given them, but also be told what to look for.
ObSheesh: sheesh.
[The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, LANE]
The Pride and Sorrow of British Chess, Ray Keene, published one of his own games (against Vella) which opened:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. a3 Bxc3 7. bxc3 d6 8. Ne2 e5 9. Ng3.
“A theoretical novelty” says Keene, but the main line is not suggested. He adds that the move offers “a pawn for open lines“, which is a shallow comment in the ‘with compensation’ class.
Whatever thought may have gone behind this move, we are offered none of it. [Winning with the Nimzo-Indian, KEENE]
Keene in his notes to the same game cites a Plaskett encounter with Psakhis which continued instead 7…e5 8. Ne2 e4!?. In fact Keene quotes the whole of Psakhis-Plaskett 1985, without a single real comment. The “!?” mark is actually Keene’s, and two further moves during the game are annotated “?!” and “!”, but no support is offered for these judgements.
We can see the same thing at work in the three games with 8. Qe2 in the Blackmar-Diemer above. “12…Ra5?!“ doesn’t really cut the mustard: what was the standing of this game before …Ra5? How does Black stand after – is he really busted? What would have been a better move? How would Black stand then? How should Black play in this sort of position – what would be the best defensive plan?
“…In some places words have been replaced by symbols which, like amulets from a witch’s bag, have the power to consume the living spirit of chess…
“…Oh, those exclamation points! How they erode the innocent soul of the amateur, removing all hope of allowing him to examine another player’s ideas critically!”
— Tigran PETROSIAN
[Winning with the Nimzo-Indian, KEENE;
The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, LANE;
How to play the Opening in Chess; ed. EVANS]
(see diagram above)
9…g6 (“to prevent Nf5…”)
Well, we guessed that. But was it compulsory? Desirable? Unnecessary? Weakening? Solid? Double-edged?
If you find yourself lapsing into this sort of thing, it’s no better than football commentary: “White moves the pieces to the King’s-side, Black sets an offside trap, White shoots… and scores! – no, Black’s cleared it off the back rank!”
[Winning with the Nimzo-Indian, KEENE]
The reason RDK is both the pride and the sorrow is that he can do it when he wants to. His note in the same book to move 8 of Portisch-Fischer (p.113) is as good as anything I’ve read elsewhere on this line, and claims to improve significantly on Fischer’s analysis.
[KEENE, Winning with the Nimzo-Indian]
It should be no secret to readers that John Nunn is one of the world’s finest chess authors. He is noted for a sharp style and deep analysis of complications, but he can also be illuminating about strategy:
17. Ng3
“As a young player I was puzzled by games in which White played the manoeuvre Nc2-e2-g3 against the Pirc. It seemed to me that the Knight was not very well placed on g3, because Black’s g6 pawn prevented the Knight advancing. Indeed its one and only duty seemed to be to defend the pawn on e4. Then, in 1984, I lost a game with Black against Murray Chandler, in which he used precisely this manoeuvre. The crucial distinction is whether White is attacking or defending. If White doesn’t hold the initiative then the Knight on g3 is truly inactive, but if White holds the initiative and has pressure in the centre then the Knight can be very useful. The Rooks and Queen operating on the open files are so dangerous for Black that he cannot counter them directly; instead, Black must somehow aim for counterplay. The only weakness in White’s position is the vulnerable Pawn on e4. If this is secure, then White has plenty of time to improve his position. The function of the g3 Knight is precisely to support the e4 Pawn and give White the freedom of action he needs to step up the pressure.
“In the current position, Black is attacking e4 twice, but at the moment he cannot consider taking the Pawn because of the exposed Knight on d7.”
[John Nunn’s Best Games, NUNN]
For club players, reading what a GM says can often be persuasive without it really standing up to proper standards for argument. Some annotators like Larsen and Timman like to tease readers with their opinions: “I still don’t regard [the King’s Indian] as a fully-fledged opening” says Timman, annotating a game where he played the system as Black!. This is entertaining and may prompt the reader to think more deeply about the opening, but a properly based conclusion should be based on reasons. What alternatives are there, and do they stand scrutiny? Perhaps only when GMs disagree are we in with a chance of seeing this proper level of commentary. I remember being engaged by a comment in a Hodgson/Day book on the Grand Prix attack, where they said “Hodgson says White is better, because of X, Day thinks Black is better because of Y”. It gave me the idea that here is a situation where these factors X and Y might be in rough balance, and might help me judge them better next time.
For these reasons I have long been fascinated by a book in which two annotators wrote separate notes to the games of the 1972 Spassky-Fischer match. Here’s an example:
15…P-QN4 “?”
“Dr.Euwe thought that this was a deliberate sacrifice, since Black does get some compensation for the Exchange. Gligoric disagreed, contending that only White has any winning chances now.
“The main question is how well Black stands after 15…R-B2, recommendation by Euwe and Najdorf. 16 B-R7 R-R1, 17 Q-K3! N-Q2, 18 N-Q4 improves the White game, delaying …P-QN4 and aiming to get rid of the fianchettoed bishop. 17…N-N5, 18 Q-N6 QxQ, 19 RxB QxR, 20 QxR gives White such an enormous advantage that it has to be classed as a forced win (20…RxB, 21 Q-N8ch wins).
“So, in response to the immortal chess question of the late Oscar Tenner — “Did he fall, or was he pushed?” — I tend to favour the latter alternative. The Maroczy Bind is not without teeth.”
Everything one might want: a proper consideration of the alternatives, a focus on the critical issue, and a reasoned conclusion. Perhaps not every position is as amenable to such a definitive analysis, but it is a goal to be aimed for.
[Timman’s Selected Games, TIMMAN;
Both Sides of the Chessboard, BYRNE and NEI]
Every so often someone will write a comment that enables me to think about not just that position, but actually improves the way I can think about all positions.
Now Black tried 12…c5; Bronstein comments:
“A serious positional mistake, whose significance the reader can realise from the following considerations: Black has an open file on the Queen’s side and can provoke b2-b3, whereupon his plan must be to attack White’s b3 by advancing his a-pawn. This attack had prospects of succeeding if Black can support his pawn when it gets to a4. What is he to support it with? He has no white-squared bishop, and the square c5 has beeen taken away from his knight by his last move. Moreover, it is clear that Black will not be able to maintain his knight on d4 forever. Hence he is now left without any plan that has prospects of being successful.”
Looking back, I can now recognise how sometimes a plausible move leaves my position without a way forward, and I don’t think I’d be as alert to the problem as if I hadn’t read that comment. Perhaps it’s an insight that can be obtained elsewhere, but many people say they have had that “aha!” experience reading Bronstein.
[The Chess Struggle in Practice, BRONSTEIN]
My introduction to chess, as so many, was through Irving Chernev: as much as the magic of the game I was attracted to Chernev’s delightful whimsy. Another author I like is Stephan Gerzadowicz: who could prefer the pedestrian “White takes yet another Pawn” to Stephan’s
“They’re like peanuts, you know“?
[Logical Chess, CHERNEV;
Thinker’s Chess, GERZADOWICZ]
Having got the points system we can start to see a few patterns emerge. For a game of average length in a book or magazine, we can classify annotators as follows:
Your lower-graded club colleagues may be entertained or even assisted by your efforts, but there are enough chess books in the world without you adding to the pile. Improve or give up.
It is clear from your score that you can understand chess and can communicate your understanding, and this is the heart of annotating.
There is probably another level to be reached: have you considered all important alternatives? have you tried to explain how the general strategical tensions are reflected in the key variations? have you explained how the perceptions of this type of game have changed over time?
You may be justly proud of your efforts in annotation. It is likely that there is little more to be said about a game when you have written about it. You have noted all the important choices and explained the players’ motivations at each point in the game.
Here we have a standard of annotation which even masters will find illuminating. Of course, not all moves of all games will be able to support the weight of commentary you are able to offer, but among the notes you offer will be gems which will stay with the reader for the rest of their life. Tsar Nicholas nominated the first five “Grandmasters of chess”; may I indulge myself by nominating my first five “Grandmasters of annotation”. Take a bow, Mikhail Botvinnik, David Bronstein, Mark Dvoretsky, Bent Larsen, and John Nunn. Honourable mention: Peter Clarke.
My points scheme fell apart here. This is the gold standard of annotation: the games are analysed in all their tactical and strategical complexity (some positions being given more than two pages of notes), there is due regard given to the realities of tournament play (for example, how much did Nunn really see in the game?), the background to the game is given consideration, and there is a genuine attempt to educate. New revised edition published 1997. A must-read, but take a deep breath!
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5
“This is White’s only chance of gaining any advantage against the Grunfeld. Much weaker, for example, is 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.Be2? (a genuine beginner’s move). So far, Petrosian-Botvinnik, Game 5, 1963. Now Botvinnik played, 6…cxd4? 7.Bxc4 c5? (Better is 7…Nc6 and then 8…e5) 8.d5! e6? (Better is 8…Ne8) 9.dxe6 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Bxe6 11.Bxe6 fxe6 and, despite all of Black’s lemons, the game is still only slightly better for White, which proves again the weakness of White’s first move, 1.d4. (…)” Bobby Fischer, 1963.
Purdy commented:
“We like especially the opening paragraph of Fischer’s annotation to 4.cxd5. It is matchless in the literature of chess.”
Our esteemed colleague Dan Frean asked me recently about teaching chess in Maths lessons. In the spirit of BBC’s Any Answers, I don’t think ignorance should be any barrier to trumpeting my ideas… I’ll just dump the e-mail here, and add the links and the examples in later when I’ve got a bit more time.
I’m anxious not to use chess in a way that emphasises existing differences
in chess ability…
My all-purpose lesson plan for everything below is “1. Examine what you
have been given 2. Tackle the task 3. Review progress 4. Plenary” with
objective “Practise and reflect on problem-solving skills”.
In my mind, there is a general problem-solving process of (a) throwing
up ideas and (b) seeing if any of them work, and if not, can we learn
anything from the attempt. There’s also a distinction between problems
that can be solved by analysis (tactics), or brute force (traditional
problems) and those that require more general, abstract considerations.
And there are easy, one- step problems, deep problems that require
several elements to be brought into play (perhaps in a particular order)
and other problems where logic needs to be combined with some essential
insight. All of these problems can be offered raw, with hints or as
multiple choice; some require you to question your assumptions. Not sure
I could call to mind right now an example of a problem or situation
which could cater for each of those different combinations, but I bet I
could find one.
I’m sure your existing repertoire of group puzzle-solving or mini-games
is more than adequate — mini-games are things like hexapawn, or similar
variants? And you’ve seen the repertoire of piece-specific puzzles,
like the Knight’s Tour? [LINK] But here is a scatter of other
ideas:
I have some favourite chess puzzles, which I enclose, not all of which
need a lot of chess insight. I always find puzzles with a joke in them
appealing (to me and to youngsters): I have one where I tell them, it’s
mate in six, and if you can’t solve this, I’m going to have you thrown
out of the club! — which is of course a sequence of forced moves for
both players. I think the payoff for having fun with these is if the
pupils can reflect afterwards about their puzzle-solving skills, and if
any of them are more general problem-solving skills that they can use
elsewhere. So, you can follow the jokey #6 with a similar mate-in-six
where they have to lose a move (so, timing is important, and the direct
route does not always bring success). [ENCLOSED]
I have one or two exercises intended to flex particular chess muscles
which you might try [LINK: GetEyeIn]
Irving Chernev’s Practical Chess Endings is actually a series of
contrived endgame studies, and the simple ones at the start show some
graded difficulty which does not rely on chess ability. I’m sure
everyone could tick off the first few, your best in the class might
tackle the Saavedra or Lasker positions. [ENCLOSED]
As for proper chess, I’ve enjoyed using the Icelandic Endgame Medal
Series; when you know how to solve a problem, you have to play it out
against resistance by me (or someone who is on the next level).
You may know, and are welcome to borrow, Coakley’s books: the blue one
has an excellent series of questions to ask a class that aren’t about
pawn-takes-bishop, such as How many minor pieces does it take to
attack every square on a file?
You may know the Professor Chess materials, of which there is a free
sample enclosed. Spotting attacks is half the art…
There are some construction tasks: create a position which has as many
examples of X as you can, the most gets a prize (most forks for one
side, most pins for both sides, most mates, most checks)… Create a
game which is the fastest mate, the fastest to reach 2 bare Kings, the
fastest stalemate… [some examples ENCLOSED]
Stephen Addison once wrote a book, “100 games to play on a chessboard”.
The general, abstract and strategic thinking can of course be applied at
the chess board but it always seems to me to be a nice approach to teach
a chess variant — first check chess, Kriegspiel, losing chess, Monster
chess, the Maharahah and the Sikhs, and so on. [The idea of using
unfamiliar games is to get reduce the salience of their existing chess
ability.] Having heard the rules, the class might suggest some
strategies for play, can try those strategies, and report back about
what worked well or not so well, and think about if they could have
worked any of the conclusions out from that out at the start. Some of
the games can be solved (first check chess is a forced win for the first
player, the Maharajah can be captured by the Sikhs) some can be solved
for certain conditions (1.e4 is a forced loss in losing chess) some you
can change your normal chess strategy and hope to survive and even
thrive (Kriegspiel) and some are intractable. Shatranj is a game which
has its own collection of pre-worked starting positions and a huge
variety of puzzles; do you know Dilaram’s Problem? [LINK] The class
might also enjoy working out the basic strategy of Go (I think a class
could come up with the “two-eyed immortal group” idea.)
Do you know Detective Chess? [Identify positions of KQRNB which may be
on squares d8 e1 f3 h4 or h8 by knowing the number of attacks made on
selected squares: c1 is attacked once, d7=1, d6=0, f2=2, h7=2]. That’s a
nice exercise in logic, not requiring chess ability, and lends itself to
strategic thinking. [ENCLOSED]
And my youngsters like Alex Bartashnikov’s sequence training game called
Alter Way [using Qd8, capture enemy pieces on a4 a8 c8 f3 f8 in no more
than 5 moves]. [ENCLOSED]
And I hope you have met Raymond Smullyan’s fantastic retro puzzles: a
couple of easy ones enclosed, one in the PGN file and the other as a
PDF. Exercises not in chess but in logic, good for questioning
assumptions, making deductions, looking for evidence…
I don’t entirely like the parade of endless men in the ‘Lessons from…’ series, so here’s one from the other half of humanity, and a fine Appendix to the list of guys that ever joined the ‘Vera Menchik Club’.
Judit Polgar was strongest woman chess player ever. She never became World Champion, and was never interested in becoming Women’s World Chess Champion ( a title held by her two sisters, Susan and Sofia). She was in the world top ten and improving when she retired.
In 2003, Polgár scored one of her best results: an undefeated clear second place in the Category 19 Corus chess tournament in Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands, just a half-point behind future World Champion Viswanathan Anand, and a full point ahead of then-world champion Vladimir Kramnik. She devised this TN over the board.
For Polgar, chess is the attack, so I’ve shown some of her best and best-known, but her imposition of a classic good-N-bad-B on Anand is very classy, with a glorious finish.
The trapper trapped! <p> Someone commented on this next one, it’s like exchange chess: no time to count the pieces, the initiative is everything!
Like all top GMs, the endgame is a strength of Polgar, but may not be noticed among the maulings… <p>This is just about space, but in a position with just one pair of pieces, and you could argue that White has the worse Bishop!
PS “She has fantastic chess talent, but she is, after all, a woman. It all comes down to the imperfections of the feminine psyche. No woman can sustain a prolonged battle.” Garry KASPAROV <p> PPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r#Kasparov_touch-move_controversy <p>PPPS
That was the first time a woman had beaten the best player in the world, although in 2006 she took Topalov outside a couple of times and filled him in, when he was the top-rated player and FIDE champion.
John Nunn tells us that the Benoni is often called:
“One big swindle”
C.H.O’D. (Hugh) Alexander once remarked:
“If God played God in the Ben-oni, White would win. But at any other level, Black’s practical chances are excellent.”
Guest review by Russell Gooding
David Bronstein. His classic book Zurich
International Chess Tournament 1953,and the average club
player.
In 1953 David Bronstein was already a proven world class
chess player. Only two years previously – following a candidate’s
playoff against his lifelong friend Isaac Boleslavski – he had
drawn a most dramatic match for the world title.
Bronstein’s result against Mikhail Botvinnik (having been
a point ahead with two games to play) proved beyond doubt that the
new dynamism of the younger generation of Soviet players was at
least the equal of the scientific and precision methods typified by
the play of the then world champion.
Throughout his career Bronstein has graced the game with
many magnificent ideas and innumerable wonderful games. If you have
yet to see the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal game against the eternal
Candidates runner up (Paul Keres) you have truly missed an
opportunity to expand your chess horizons. That game was played
near to the peak of David’s creative talent. Some 20 years later
aged over 50 he was still capable of producing a beautiful finale
against the then world junior champion Kaplan at Hastings 1975/6
(seek this game out also *).
* Incidentally both marvellous games are given in
Bronstein’s hugely entertaining biography ‘The Sorcerer’s
Apprentice’.
Notwithstanding the above though. The greatest debt owed
by the chess community to this most remarkable and imaginative of
competitors will probably be reserved for his incredible
annotations following the 1953 double round robin Candidates
tournament. Bronstein himself played and shared second play in the
event tied with Keres and Reshevski behind Vassily Smyslov – who
went on to challenge Botvinnik for the world title.
Though the event produced many brilliant games. It is most
memorable for the revolutionary style Bronstein chose to adopt in
his tournament book of the event.
David made a conscious decision to ‘explain’ chess to the
average player. Certainly his annotations contain variations,
alternatives and even much tactical depth. Most important of all
though it was clear that he set out to ensure that a raft of high
quality Grandmaster games became at least partly comprehensible to
all standards of players. His efforts have been rightly
acknowledged as equally applicable for club players right up to the
GM level. Boris Spassky once commented ‘The author is present in
its pages’. This is clearly apparent in the warmth, generosity and
wonder at the creative achievements of his peers.
This period (1950’s) was a rich one in terms of chess
development. The new wave of players post war had begun a
revolution in the way the game was played. Indeed this style was to
evolve onward and be further refined some years later by messrs M
Tal, R Fischer and G Kasparov. It was however to Bronstein and his
ilk that initial credit must justly be attributed.
Bronstein (along with others such as Taimanov, Boleslavski
and Najdorf) was largely responsibly for a re-evaluation of various
set-ups (most notable the Kings Indian, Nimzo-Indian and Sicilian)
during this time. The transformation in these systems from opening
to middle game had previously been underestimated.
It was during and just after this tournament that these
ideas were to be shaped into the formidable systems they have
become. Do not however assume that Bronstein was simply a super
openings analyst. It is for his clarity of thought and creative
handling of the intricacies of the next phase of the game (the
middle game) that this book has become justly famed for.
Favourite Games/Annotations Taimanov-Najdorf,
Keres-Reshevski and Averbakh-Kotov – sensational stand outs amongst
tens of great games.
In conclusion.
The average player who reads and digests the comments in
this book and in doing so learns naught would do well to give up
chess and try another game say Mah Jong – with sincere
apologies to C.S Howell and his comments on the classic game
Reti-Alekhin Baden Baden 1924.
Available in English translation from Dover books at
#10.95.
Russell Gooding.
‘…a system, imperfect though it may be, is preferable to move
to move improvisation‘ — KONIG
Studying opening theory is one of the best and worst
tasks for the ambitious chess player: the best, because catching
your opponent with a prepared tactical or strategical plan gives
you a headstart to victory; the worst, because no- one likes
mugging up variations.
I long ago gave up the idea of memorising openings —
sets of moves simply do not remain in my head long enough; once
I’ve looked up the correct reply to 4.Bd3 in the
French Winawer, it may be 6 months before the position appears
again on the board! And so I avoid this unpleasant aspect of
openings, though I’m sure it pays dividends to those with a good
memory.
Instead I prefer to combine work on opening theory with
attempts to master basic strategical concepts. My favourite
strategical concepts are pawn centres and the theories of
Nimzowitsch. One topic that is key in almost any of the literature
is that of the Isolated Queen’s Pawn (IQP). And this topic often
occurs in games between top ranking masters.
This session will examine some games in the Queen’s
Gambit Accepted (QGA), and so illustrate the key themes of play for
and against an IQP.
I : THEORY
First, we must get an idea of the characteristic
motifs. The basic structure is shown in the diagram:
The IQP is the White pawn on d4. The basic features of the position
which stand out are:
1. White has more space
2. Black has two pawn islands to White’s three
3. White has a strong square on e5 — f6 would weaken the
e-pawn
4. Black has an outpost on d5
5. the c-file is open.
The combination of (1) and (3) basically mean White has
the better middle game chances, and especially to whip up an attack
on the Black king. The combination of (2) and (4), coupled with the
isolation of the White d-pawn, mean Black has the better endgame
chances. (5) can be useful to both players.
OVERALL CONCLUSION: a dynamic imbalance — either player
may win!
(The IQP is also frequently found with a Black pawn on c6
instead of e6; the evaluation is unchanged, although White may have
better attacking chances.)
The IQP can arise from numerous openings, which is why it
is a stategem worth studying; no matter your opening repertoire,
there is bound to be some variation in which it could (or does)
arise.
The basic move-order is a Queen’s Gambit Accepted:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O Be7 7.cxd4
exd4. Also possible is the line: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5
4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nf3 etc.
The Slav complex, (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6) also gives
rise to similar positions, and Matthew Sadler frequently plays the
QGA and Slav, perhaps for this reason.
Popular lines of the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6
3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 O-O 7.O-O Nc6) and the
Tarrasch (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5) lead to a
characteristic clash of c and d-pawns, which can lead to an IQP on
either side.
The e-pawn openings are not immune either: from the
French Defense there is: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4
or 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5, and from the
Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4, and from the
Petroff, after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4
d5 6. Bd3 and a later c2-c4
II : PLAYING AGAINST THE IQP
‘For Black the following are desirable.
(i) All cases (ceteris paribus) of a pronounced end
game character.
(ii) Those where Black has played Nd5xNc3;bxc3, with
the idea of pinning down White’s Pc3 from the start and of laying
siege to it.‘ — NIMZOWITSCH
First up, a game to illustrate how the endgame can go in
Black’s favour, played by that maestro of clear-cut strategy,
Dr.Lasker.
Akiba Rubinstein vs Dr.E.Lasker, Moscow 1925.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7
6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Be2 a6 9.O-O Bb7 10.b3 Be7 11.Bb2 O-O 12.Ne5
c5 13.Bf3 Qc7 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Ne4 Rad8 16.Rc1 Qb8 17.Qe2 cxd4
18.exd4
I have skipped over the opening stage, which illustrates one
transposition into a basic IQP position. Black has begun to gain
some space on the queen-side, and now, through exchanges, removes
any attacking ideas White may have in order to work on the IQP
itself.
18…Rc8 19.g3 Qa8 20.Kg2 Rfd8 21.Rxc8 Rxc8
22.Rc1 Rxc1 23.Bxc1 h6 24.Bb2 Nb6 25.h3 (White is trying
to avoid further exchanges ) Qc8 26.Qd3 Nd5!
Thematically sitting on the outpost square, with a threat,
27.a3 Nb6!
which White prevents (…Nb4), but at the cost of
weakening b3, which Black now seizes upon. One of the problems when
playing with one weakness, the IQP, is that you are liable to
create further weaknesses elsewhere; Nimzowitsch calls these
‘reflex weaknesses‘.
28.Kh2 Bd5 29.Kg2 (White’s oscillation
of the king does not appear as worthwhile as Black’s oscillation of
his knight!) Qc6 30.Nd2 a5! 31.Qc3
Finally submitting to the exchange of queens, but the
‘reflex weaknesses‘ will tell.
31…Bxf3+ 32.Nxf3 (not 32.Qxf3 Qc2)
Qxc3 33.Bxc3 a4! 34.bxa4 bxa4 35.Bb4 (the threat
was …Nc4) Bxb4 36.axb4 a3 37.Nd2 Nd5
and Black will win the endgame,
e.g. 38.b5 Kf8 39.Kf1 Ke7 40.b6 Nxb6 41.Ke2 Nd5
42.Kd3 a2 43.Nb3 Kf6 44.Kc2 Kf5 45.Kb2 Ke4 46.Kxa2 Nc3+- e2
etc.
As a further illustration of this theme, we follow:
M.M. Botwinnik vs M. Euwe, Hastings, 1934-5.
1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6
6.Bg5 e6 7.Nf3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Be7 9.O-O O-O
A standard position for this system. White would like to play Qe2,
but cannot because of the d-pawn weakness. Ideally the B now sat
proudly on g5 would be on e3, but to retreat is to lose face, and
time.
10.Rc1 a6 11.Bd3 h6!
An important move, aiming for control of f4. A mistake
would be 11…b5 12.Ne4! Bb7 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Nc5
12.Be3
Instead, a better move is 12.Bh4 Nb4 13.Bb1 b5 14.a3 Nbd5
15.Qc2 would force g6 or g5.
12…Nb4 13.Bb1 b5 14.Ne5 Bb7 15.Qd2
Re8
Preventing sacrifices on h6 by enabling …Bf8 to
cover.
16.f4 Nbd5 17.Nxd5 Qxd5 18.f5 Bd6 19.fxe6
Rxe6
Black’s play can be recommended as a model for the defense. White’s
Ne5 is now unable to retreat, due to the weakness of g2.
20.Bf5 Re7 21.Bh3 Bxe5 22.dxe5 Qxe5 23.Bf4 Qd5
24.Qxd5 Nxd5
and Black went on to win with his extra pawn (in 56
moves).
Finally, a game to illustrate how easy it is to defend a
structurally sound position against an opponent aiming to attack
‘no matter what‘.
D.Janowski vs. Dr.E.Lasker, Match Game, 1910
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c4 e6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.O-O
dxc4 7.Bxc4
Transposing to the QGA, but with loss of time for
White.
7…a6 8.a4
Creates a hole on b4 — and watch Lasker make a point of
it!
8…Be7 9.Nc3 O-O 10.b3 dxc4 11.exd4 Nb4! 12.Bb2
b6 13.Qe2 Bb7 14.Rad1 Nfd5 15.Ne5
Black’s pieces are perfectly positioned, and the Bb7 compares
favourably with its counterpart, the Bb2. Because of b3 and d4, any
endgame would be lost for White, and so he must attack, ‘no matter
what’. Nevertheless, Lasker provokes.
15…Nf4 16.Qg4 Nbd5!
And not 16…Nxg2? 17.d5! Nh4 18.dxe6 f5 19.Qg3 with
advantage to White. The d-pawn must be kept securely blockaded.
17.Nxd5 Nxd5 18.Rfe1 Bb4!
This move keeps White on his toes. The rook moved to
allow f4, without Black forking his rooks. This bishop move drives
the R to e2, where Nc3 forks become a combinative motif. Further,
it allows Black to defend his k-side along the second rank.
19.Re2 Rc8 20.f4 Rc7!!
I think Black’s last move is a beauty. By defending the Bb7, it
also threatens …h5:Qf3 Nc3! winning the exchange.
21.f5
‘Leading to the loss of a pawn or the exchange; but
Janowski prefers to lose the game his own way: a somewhat dubious
satisfaction.‘ – – REINFELD.
21…h5 22.Qxh5 Nf4 23.Qg4 Nxe2+ 24.Qxe2 exf5
25.Qh5
Threatening?
25…Bd5!
Cold-blooded — occupy the outpost square, stop Ng6 with
‘mate!
26.Rd3 f6 27.Rh3
‘Janowski’s first logical move in the whole game, as
the situation obviously calls for hara-kiri!‘ — REINFELD
27…fxe5 28.Qh7+
‘In return for the piece, Janowski obtains two P’s
and four checks.‘ — REINFELD
28…Kf7 29.Qxf5+ Ke8 30.Qh5+ Bf7 31.Qxe5+ Qe7
1-0
If 32.Qxg7 Qe1+ 33.Bf1 Qxf1+ 34.Kxf1 Bxc4+ 35.Kg1 Rf1
‘mate.
‘One of those remarkable games in which Lasker makes
his opponent look childish.‘ — REINFELD
After all that, why does White take on an IQP?
III : PLAYING FOR THE IQP
‘In general it may be said that the two following
cases are worth striving for by White.
(i) When White has effected d5, exd5; a piece xd5,
and thereby gets the better, because a centralised position. (ii)
When White has built up a position in the c-file.‘ —
NIMZOWITSCH
How should the White pieces place themselves with regard
to the isolani? I quote Nimzowitsch as, although his piece
placements in themselves are not always followed, the spirit
certainly should be!
‘Many players with an isolani proceed much too
violently, but it seems to me that there is no objective motive for
“plunging” on a desparate attack. At first the utmost solidity is
called for. The attack will come of itself in good time, for
instance when Black has withdrawn his Nf6, which he will at some
time naturally do, since the N wants to get to d5. In the
development stage, we would therefore recommend the solid
construction, Be3 (not Bg5), Qe2, R’s c1 and d1 (not d1 and e1),
further Bd3 or b1 (not b3). … A solid position aimed at
maintaining the security of the Pd4 is the one and only right
course, and it must ever be remembered that the Be3 belongs to the
Pd4 as does a nurse to a suckling child!
‘It is only when Black has withdrawn his pieces from
the K-side that White may sound the attack, and this, if he will,
he may carry out in sacrificial style.‘
As an illustration we will follow:
Timman-Panno, Mar del Plata 1982:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nc3 e5 4.e3 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6
6.Bxc4 Be7 7.Nf3 O-O 8.h3 Nbd7 9.O-O Nb6 10.Bb3 c6 11.Re1
Nfd5
A good standard position. Black’s last move occupies his outpost
and offers an exchange of knights, but moves one piece away from
the king-side. White, with the isolani, avoids the exchange and
moves his knight closer to the king-side.
12.Ne4!
Can attacking chess be so simple? If you follow basic
precepts, yes!
12…Re8 13.Bd2 Bf5 14.Ng3 Be6 15.Bc2 Nd7 16.a3
Nf8 17.Bd3 g6?!
According to Timman, 17…f6 was better, but White would
still have the initiative. Note how White studiously avoids
exchanges, and Black makes concessions in order to exchange.
18.Bh6 Nf6 19.Qd2 Bd5 20.Ne5 (avoid
Bxf3) Ne6 21.Bc2 (avoid Nxd4) Nd7
22.Ng4 (avoid Nxe5) Bg5 23.Bxg5 (OK, one
got away, but look at those dark squares) Qxg5 24.Qb4 Nf6
25.Re5 Qh4 26.Nxf6+ Qxf6 27.Ne4 Qd8
Missing a chance to simplify with 27…Bxe4 28.Bxe4 Re7.
Note though that White is always calling the tune, and Black is
still hoping to sit through to the endgame. This sort of
manoeuvring by White (moves 13-22) can look difficult, until you
realise he’s merely avoiding piece exchanges, and controlling the
dark squares! White now makes a more concerted attacking
attempt.
28.Bb3! a5 29.Qc3 Bxb3 30.Qxb3 Qxd4 31.Nf6+ Kh8
32.Rae1 Reb8?!
Here’s the signal for White to attack. Any takers for a
continuation?
33.R1e4 Qd8 34.Rxe6! fxe6 35.Qc3 Qe7
(35…Qf8 36.Nxh7+ Kxh7 37.Rh4+ Qh6 38.Qf6! is given by Timman)
36.Nh5+ Kg8 37.Rxe6 Qf7 38.Nf6+ Kf8 (38…Kh8
39.Re7) 39.Qc5+ Kg7 40.Re7 Kxf6 41.Qe5 ‘mate
A game to remember!
If you are in an ultra-aggressive mood, and find all that
waiting around for Black’s pieces to move away from the king-side
etc etc a bit of a drag, then you might prefer the more direct
approach of the following game:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5
(Note that Black cannot keep his pawn: 3…b5 4.a4 c6
5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3!)
4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Nf3 O-O 8.h3
c6 9.Be3 Bf5
White’s development is a model of restraint, Be3 just as
Nimzowitsch prescribes. 8.h3 is useful, preventing the pin of the
Nf3. But how does that Black Bf5 fit in?
10.g4!?
Scrub that last comment! ‘White’s restrained
development‘? Can White really attack like this? Perhaps this
is why 9…Nbd7 is a more popular choice for Black.
10…Bg6 11.Ne5! Nbd7 12.Nxg6 hxg6
13.h4!
White cannot waste any time, as the open nature of the
position would give Black ample opportunity to counterattack — if
he can get organised.
13…Nb6 14.Bb3 Nfd5 15.h5 Nxe3 16.fxe3 Bh4+
17.Kd2 gxh5 18.Qf3 Bg5
If you can find White’s next move, you have my full permission to
play like this.
19.Raf1!!
‘Never forget your queen’s rook‘ — easy?!
19…Qxd4+ 20.Kc2 Qf6 (20…Qxg4
21.Bxf7+ Kh7 22.Qxg4) 21.Rxh5! Qg6+
(If 21…Qxf3 22.Rxf3 Be7 23.Rhf5 {note, shift the attack
to the f7 pawn} Bf6 24.g5 Bxc3 25.bxc3 Nd5 26.e4! Also, 21…g6
22.Qh3 gxh5 (22…Qe5 23.Rf5) 23.Rxf6 Bxf6 24.Qxh5 with g5-g6 to
follow.)
22.e4 Nd5 23.Rfh1 Bh6 24.g5! f5 25.Nxd5 cxd5
26.Bxd5+ Kh7 27.Rxh6+ Qxh6 28.gxh6 1-0
No prizes for guessing this is in ‘ye olde style’ — it
is in fact the 15th game of the first match between La Bourdonnais
and McDonnell, played in 1834. In the 85(!) games these two
amassed, the Queen’s Gambit Accepted featured prominently in La
Bourdonnais’ arsenal, and thereby were some wonderful victories
gained!
FURTHER READING
Imre Konig, ‘Chess from Morphy to
Botwinnik‘.
Yakov Neishtadt, ‘Uncrowned Champions‘.
Aron Nimzowitsch, ‘My System‘ and ‘Chess
Praxis‘.
Yuri Razuvaev, ‘You are right, Monsieur La
Bourdonnais!‘ (in Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusopov
‘Opening Preparation‘).
M I Shereshevsky, ‘Endgame Strategy‘ (the
chapter on ‘Positions with an isolated d-pawn‘).
From Sverre.Johnsen@dnv.com Fri Nov 21 12:27:48 1997 Anyway these activities are very popular in Norway. When organizing summer camps or larger team competitions we always try to find some time for social/ physical activities like "relay-chess", "basket chess" or "chat-team" competitions. A brief explanation: RELAY-CHESS This is a competition between two teams. It is basically an ordinary game of chess where the teams have to run a bit to do their moves. They can each have from 2 to app.12 players. It is not necessary for the teams to have the same number of players. Both teams are lined up some distance from the board. (10-50 m depending on how long time they are given) They each get e.g. 10 minutes on the chess clock. The first player on team A (white) runs to the board, makes his first move and presses the clock button. When he has started team B's clock, the first player on team B runs to the board, makes his move starts the clock. When he has pressed the button the second player on team A may start running, but only if the first player on the team has found his place at the end of the queue. As in an ordinary game of chess you can either win on time or by mating. The longer running distance and the shorter time limits the more important it is to run quickly. And the fewer players on each team, the more exhausting it will be. The blunder rate often increases considerably because of the time pressure and because the teams will rarely have a consistent idea behind their moves. Be sure that the rules are made clear before the game starts: Is it allowed to shout advices to the player to move? What happens if there is an illegal move? Do you have to stop your own clock to claim a win on time? BASKET CHESS This too is a typical outdoor activity but between single players. The idea is that if you captures a piece you have to throw it into a basket before you can press your clock. If you misses you will have to run some penalty rounds. If you misses with a pawn it will be just one round, if you misses with a knight or a bishop it will be three, a rook will be five and a queen will be ten (or nine if you prefer). You can vary the running and throwing distances depending on how "physical" you want the game to be. Usually this kind of chess is also very entertaining for the spectators. In some time pressure situations you may see players sacrificing their queen on g7 in the hope that their opponent will miss the throwing and have to run the ten penalty rounds. CHAT TEAMS This really is multiple consultation games. Contrary to the outdoor activities this may be very instructive in addition to being noisy and entertaining. The basic model is four players on each team but the match being played over five board. The teams are free to communicate and to allocate their players as they want to. Most usual is to give the strongest player two boards to start with and the others one each. When a game is finished the players move over to other to give advise or take over games from weaker teammates. But I have also seen teams letting their strongest player play simultaneously on all boards just leaving to his teammates to do obvious recaptures and press the clocks. If you want to give the match a twist you may set different time limits on the different boards or you may let one of the games (perhaps played on an outdoor set) be played for two points (one point for a draw). I often set one additional rule: After three warnings from the arbiter for shouting or non-constructive criticism a point may be deducted from the team's score. Sverre Johnsen
[This review has been submitted for publication in
KingPin Magazine.]
Tal-Botvinnik 1960: Match For The World Chess
Championship
by Mikhail Tal, trans. Hanon Russell. pub. Russell
Enterprises 1996
iv+214 pp.
What do you mean, you haven’t read Tal’s book of the
first match with Botvinnik? I admit I hadn’t before, although I
knew it is a common choice for the top ten chess books ever
written. The book itself starts with a confession:
“I must confess to the readers that my spirits, right
up until the beginning of the match, were not too high” (Game
1)
Just 21 games, and many draws, but this book was every
bit as good as I had heard.The joy of this book is the feeling that
Tal is genuinely revealing to you his preparation for and thinking
during a game, warts and all.
I have a view that if a picture is worth a thousand
words, then a paragraph of explanation of a position is worth a
thousand moves in analysis. Some of the merits of this book are
apparent on opening a page at random: the ratio of chess moves to
words is weighted strongly in favour of the latter. While Tal does
not ignore analytical complexities it is not these that he has been
concerned to record – it is a much more human record of hopes,
fears and frustrations. Each game begins with his reflections on
the match situation and choice of opening, which decades later
still retains a sense of excitement. He is rather sparing with his
“!” “?” and “+/-“, reflecting this same stylistic bias, but the
search for crucial moments and oversights seems no less
self-critical and rigorous for all that.
“…I was terrified to notice that the intended
defense (…) does “not quite” work in view of … mate in one!”
(Game 16)
In this era of PR and soundbites, where Kasparov’s
relationship to historical truth seems less than intimate, Tal’s
openness and self-criticism are both engaging and illuminating.
Tal’s writing style is also hugely enjoyable, being
breezy and conversational – there are many uses of quotation marks
(as above) where he is speaking metaphorically or colloquially, and
which I assume are true to the original.
The moves are recorded in long algebraic, together with
the times of moves which is often revealing. This edition has a
distinctive and attractive layout, and is enhanced by the inclusion
of several contemporary photos.
Nitpicks: there are a few minor spelling errors which can
mostly be ignored, but I was amused to see Botvinnik’s choice as
Black in Game 7: the Cann-Kann Defence (Offenbach-Orpheus, Paris
1900). Emanuel Sztein contributes a colourful but rather disjointed
introduction which says as much about politics as Tal. One might
look forward to the day when biographies of Western players include
summaries of their various stances on the excesses of
capitalism.
Dave Regis
P.S. If the editor fancies more reviews which lay into new books,
he’d better find fewer publications like this one. Where is Ray
Keene when you need him?
From info!dregis Wed Jan 29 13:41:21 GMT 1997 Article: 16115 of rec.games.chess.misc Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Path: info!dregis From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis) Subject: HELP PLEASE: Unusual castlings Message-ID: Organization: University of Exeter, UK. Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:31:18 GMT I'm compiling a piece about castling and found a couple of nice examples in a book by Pfleger and Treppner. They gave only positions and I wondered if anyone has a genuine whole game scores for a game where we see an example of the trap e.g. 1 ... Rb8xb2? 2. Qd1xd8+! Ke8xd8 3. O-O-O+! winning the Rook. (I've seen it done, but don't have a complete score.) I would be very grateful if someone could post or forward a score for this. -- May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and your sacrifices be sound in all variations D _ / "()/~ Dave Regis &8^D* Exeter Chess Coaching Page etc.: || \_/| = DrDave on BICS http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html ~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?" _|||__SHEU ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV "Contribute!" -- Doug Attig
Article 16494 of rec.games.chess.misc: From: mattg@indirect.com (Matt Guthrie) Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Subject: Adams wins a rook by playing 0-0-0+ Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:36:14 UNDEFINED Organization: his hobbithole Lines: 56 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: phx-ts8-28.goodnet.com X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1] Most Americans are probably unaware that Exeter, the home of frequent r.g.c.m contributor Dave Regis, is in Devon, the next county over from Cornwall, whence sprang GM Michael Adams. Clearly a conversation such as the following must have taken place at some West Country pub in the last few weeks: Dave: Mikey, I'm putting together a collection of games where one player castles long and attacks a rook on b2. Do you know of any? Michael: I can't think of any, but I'm off to Linares next week, so I'll see what I can do for you. Dave: Much obliged, old chap. I've asked on the internet, but haven't got too much response. Have another pint? Michael: Don't mind if I do. As luck would have it, GM Adams did not have to wait long to fulfill his promise. In the very first round he was paired against GM Alexey Dreev, a man with a reputation of never having met a b-pawn he didn't like... [Event "Linares 1997"] [Site "Linares, Spain"] [Date "1997.02.04"] [Round "1"] [White "Adams"] [Black "Dreev"] [Result "1-0"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. g3 g6 7. Bg2 Bg7 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. e5 dxe5 10. Qxd8+ Kxd8 11. Bxc6 Rb8 12. Be3 Rxb2 13. O-O-O+ Kc7 14. Bb5 Rb4 15. a3 Rxb5 16. Nxb5+ Kb7 17. Nxa7 Bf5 18. Kb2 Ng4 19. Nb5 Rc8 20. Rd2 Ka6 21. a4 e4+ 22. Bd4 Bh6 23. Re2 e5 24. Ba7 Rc4 25. h3 Nf6 26. Nd6 Rxa4 27. Be3 Bf8 28. Nxf5 Rb4+ 29. Kc1 gxf5 30. c3 Ra4 31. Kb2 Kb5 32. Rd2 Be7 33. Bg5 e3 34. Bxe3 Kc4 35. Ra1 Rxa1 36. Kxa1 Nd5 37. Kb2 Bd8 38. Kc2 Ba5 39. Rd1 h5 40. Bd2 Bb6 41. Be1 f4 42. Ra1 f3 43. Ra4+ Kc5 44. c4 Nf6 45. Ba5 Nd7 46. Kd3 f5 47. Bxb6+ Kxb6 48. Ke3 e4 49. Rb4+ Kc6 50. Rb5 Nc5 51. Rb8 Nd7 52. Rh8 Ne5 53. Kd4 Nd3 54. Rxh5 {Black resigned} 1-0 So: Did Dreev simply overlook White's 13th? Or did he decide that pitching the exchange to shatter Adams' Q-side pawns was his best drawing chance? Clearly for many months Dave Regis has been hiding from us all his major influence on the chess world. He has but to ask, and world-class GMs leap to do his bidding! Dave, can you please ask Kasparov to take up the King's Gambit? Miles to use the Birmingham again? Fischer to... nah, never mind, not even you have that much influence. Matt Guthrie Hark, now hear the sailors cry Smell the sea and feel the sky Let your soul and spirit fly into the mystic. (Thanks, Van)
![[cool tip]](https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/chessx/cool_cat.gif)