“Failing to plan, is like planning to fail.” ― Stephen McCranie
Test positions in PDF with comments about planning in general
Remember, this is more a guide of how to play positions where you have no idea what to do to start with; if you understand the opening systems you play better and better, that shouldn’t happen so often!
…or thwim, as my old man used to say.
FRIDAY:
I’ve lost my last 5 games of chess and familiar doubts about my
chosen hobby are pressing. I could park my grade and retire to publishing and
coaching, but that’s not an admirable way to behave. Besides, having lost my
last 5 games, my grade wouldn’t be quite as wonderful at the end of the season,
so, time to shape up!
Click on […] to see games list.
1 {Black was unlucky to play a line I had
recently reviewed, and conceded a pawn. Despite some oversights by White in
analysis, it was actually Black who came up with a blunder.}
2 {I’m not sure whether to be pleased at how long I lasted against the top-rated player or disappointed that
I never felt as though I had anything positive to contribute during the game.
I was unhappy with my opening play during the game, but that may have been OK.
Odessky titled his chapter on this line as Tears fall, and maybe that’s all
there is to it: Black cannot create difficulties for White in this variation.}
3 {A bit of a grind. I have been playing this line for so long, you would have
thought I could find the right way through when I get a chance, but just as
against Alan Brusey in January, I make another pig’s ear out of Botvinnik’s
silk purse. Black doesn’t seize his moment, though, preferring to play simple,
uncommittal moves, which leads to his downfall. I didn’t find the clearest
win, and in pushing for a Bishop endgame could have thrown it away.}
4 {Some rather vague opening ideas were crowned by an absolute lemon on move 12,
after which Black’s position could be resigned without shame. I played on,
more out of inertia than anything else, when I caught a glimpse of an
opposite-coloured Bishop ending in the distance… and White was good enough
to steer for it.}
5 {I got a position of a type I have often played with colours reversed, and
with an extra tempo arrived at a winning position quite quickly. There seemed
to be very many a slip between plus and win, though.}
In the end, this was my best-ever performance in grading terms
(197), even better than Paignton last year (195). (Just in case you get too
impressed, my worst-ever was the East Devon in 2005, when I managed 00001 for
a 114 performance.
I played at the East Devon Chess Congress earlier this year alongside my
longstanding friend and team-mate Charlie Keen. During a break between
games, we went over one of his encounters, looking for tips for next
time. The critical position was this one:
You might get more out of the discussion below, if you try and decide
for yourself what you would play here.
Decided? Now read on…
This was the game to that point:
Later I got this email:
“Please see attached, You had wondered if 23. fg was wrong, but in fact
it turns out that 20. g4 was wrong, and the annotated variation starting
20. Be2 is the way to play this position. 20. g4 cost 150cp and nearly
the game, but for the clock. You did not think twice about g4, nor did I.
How to spot this sort of error in advance?”
Never one to let a rhetorical question lie, let’s have a look, shall
we?
This was the game continuation:
This was Fritz’ recommendation, a pawn-and-a-half better in outcome,
according to Charlie:
[I will say my feeble old version of Fritz gives Charlie’s move as +1.0
and the alternative as +1.5.]
1. Just to remark before getting stuck in, no chess player can be
expected to get very far if they don’t “think twice” about their moves,
unless it is “QxQ checkmate”. There are pros and cons about many moves,
and often you have to take risks to beat opponents of a similar calibre
to your own, so thinking more than once is recommended on occasion.
(Chess is the art of creating positions that are too hard for your
opponents, but if your opponent is as good as you are, there’s probably
an element of risk involved…) On the other hand, the clock is ticking,
and there is pressure to play promptly, so let’s make the natural moves
quickly and think only when we have to…
2. Hindsight is a great teacher. Let’s look at the pros and cons of
that move 20.g4:
PRO:
Grabs space on the King’s-side
Prepares to grab more space on the King’s-side
Prepares to open lines on the King’s-side
Gains time by attacking the Knight
Forcing (so easy to analyse)
CON:
Abandons pawn control of f4
Prepares to open lines on the King’s-side (they are two-way streets!)
We can see with hindsight that the cons of the game continuation did
become manifest on the board. Thinking this way, hindsight today might
become foresight tomorrow. We might, indeed, spot the error in advance.
3. Is there anything general, and generalisable, that we can say about
the incorrect text move? And is there anything general, and
generalisable, about the correct Fritz suggestion?
If you had to describe the theme of the game, we might file it under
Attacking the King castled on the same side, which presents
problems when we are trying to open lines.
We can see in the Fritz line that Black got some counterplay when the
Black Queen was able to occupy the h-file before White.
Moreover, if you contrast the White and Black campaigns, you might say
Attacker and Defender. But let’s refine this to:
Attacking with Bishops and Defending with Knights.
In the game, Black’s Knight, solidly placed on f4, was a real nuisance
to White. We can also see in the Fritz line something of the generally
recommended strategy for fighting with Bishop(s) against Knight(s),
namely, the Knights must be denied stable squares. Here’s the technique
in a fairly pure form, although Steinitz later chose to swap the
advantage of Bishop over Knight for other chances:
With that discussion in mind, the strength of the Fritz line, and the
principles that underlie it, becomes clear. White builds up more slowly,
denying the Knight a place to squat, and not opening the position to the
risk of our own King. And, I hope, this sort of reflection is what might
help us spot such errors in advance.
4. What, in the end, is the lesson of this game? Perhaps it’s more than
something about Bishops and Knights, viz.:
just as rehearsing tactical examples widens the variety of tactical
opportunities (and mistakes) that we are likely to notice at the board,
familiarity with a wide variety of strategical examples is likely to do
the same thing for our positional decisions.
Comments invited!
Just a little practical example of something I often talk about: move order in analysis.
If you have a good idea, try it with a different order of moves: it might be even better!
For example:
Here White piled on the pressure with 14.c5+, soon followed by b5-b6.
Try it the other way around:
Some time after writing the piece about checkmate patterns, I bought V. Vukovic’s
famous book The Art of Attack in Chess. In it he
gives a chapter full of mates, shown below; the numbering and
terminology are his.
UPDATE: PGN file attached ]
All of these mates are worth knowing, although you may
only pull off Reti’s mate once in your life. But the threat to
carry out Reti’s mate may come up every year.
White is to move unless indicated otherwise.
Black to move Solution/Notes
Black to move Solution/Notes
Can Black, to move, save the game? Solution/Notes
Black to move Solution/Notes
A common pattern Solution/Notes
Black to move Solution/Notes
Black to move Solution/Notes
Black to move Solution/Notes
Black to move Solution/Notes
Black to move Solution/Notes
1 Bg6+ Kg8, 2 Qh7+ Kf8, 3 Qf7 mate
1 Bf5+ Kg8, 2 Be6 mate
1 Nf6+ Kh8, 2 Rh7 mate
cannot be forced in this situation
but worth looking out for in a castled King’s-side
position, because the Knights cover so many squares
Oh, how many times have we overlooked this…
1…Kh7, 2 Qh4+ Kg8, 3 Qh6 and 4 Qg7 mate
1 Rh8+ Kxh8, 2 Rh1+ Kg8, 3 Rh8+ Kxh8, 4 Qh1+ Kg8, 5 Qh7
mate
1 Qh5 Be7, 2 Qh7+ Kf8, 3 Qh8 mate
1…f5 2 Qh7 mate
1…Re8 2 Qh8 mate
1…g6! 2 Qh6!
1 Nf7+ Kg8 2 Nh6+ Kh8 3 Qg8+ Rxg8 4 Nf7 mate
1…Rb8, 2 Qxf7+ Kh8, 3 Ne6 Rg8, 4 Qh5 mate
1 Nf6+ Kh8, 2 Nh5+ f6 escapes
1 … Kg2, 2 Ne8++ Kh6, 3 Qf4+ g5, 4 Qf6+ Kh5, 5 Ng7+ and
White needs only a Pawn on g2/h2 to force mate
1…h6 2 Bxf7+ Kh8 3 Qg6! hxg5 4 Qh5 mate
1…Rf8, 2 Rg5+ Kf8, 3 Rg7!
1 Qxf6 gxf6, 2 Rg1+ Kh8 3 Bxf6 mate
1 Rxg7+ Kh8, 2 Rxf7+! Kg8, 3 Rg7+ Kh8, 4 Rg1+ Rf6, 5 Bxf6
mate
1 Rd8+ Kf7, 2 Rf8 mate
1 Ne7+ Kh8, 2 Rxh7+
1 Qg5 Kh8, 2 Qh6 Rg8, 3 Qxh7+
1…Rfd8, and White has only perpetual
the Rooks ‘grunt out check’ but cannot get sight of mate
(Janowski)
1 g6 Bg8, 2 g7 mate
1 Nxf7+ or 1 Ng6+ mates
1 Be6 d4, 2 Bh2 and 3 Be5 mate
Macdonnell-Boden 1869
1…Qxc3+ 2 bxc3 Ba3 mate
1 Rxg7+ Kh8, 2 Rg8+ Kxg8, 3 Rg1 mate
(compare Morphy’s mate)
1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 d6, 3 Bc4 Bg4, 4 Nc3 g6
5 Nxe5! Bxd1? 6 Bxf7+ Ke7, 7 Nd5 mate
10…Bc5+ 11 Kh1 Ng3+ 12 hxg3 Qg5, 13 Rf5 h5! since 14
Rxd8 hxg4 mate
9 Qd8+ Kxd8, 10 Bg5++ Kc7, 11 Bd8 mate
1 Qh1 h5, 2 Qxh5! gxh5, 3 Bh7 mate
I played an extremely boring last-round game at Torquay, choosing the English Defence, which is usually good for a scrap at my level.
Archer-Lock,C – Regis,D Torbay Open Riviera (5), 20.11.2011
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6
The Queen check is supposed to weaken the black King’s-side, but it also has some benefits for Black; f5 is strengthened and the g7 square can be a bolt-hole for the black Queen.
7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Bxe4 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Qxe4 Nc6 12.Nf3 0-0 ½-½
Keene and others in the 1970s tried to show Black has some play against the white pawn structure, but really, White doesn’t have enough weaknesses and the position is too simplified. Even after Black swaps Queens and gets a Rook to (say) a4, White can simplify further with d4-d5 and hold the position.
After the game, my opponent and I discussed the possibility of playing a Queen sacrifice.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4!?
Quite a scrap, indeed! I couldn’t remember the theory and went for the structure.
This idea has been known for a long while, in various forms. I think I first came across it in the Leningrad Nimzo-Indian.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5 c5 5.d5 exd5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Bxd8 Nxc3…
I think the verdict in that line is that White is winning, but I wouldn’t fancy working out how to show it over the board, it’s a line you have to know.
The English Defence setting has two varieties, with and without the Queen check.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Bg5 fxe4 8.Bxe4 Nxe4!?
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4!?
Odessky in his hugely entertaining and thorough book analyses both varieties, reckoning the 9th move version with the check is OK for Black (so Chris was wrong to play the check if he hoped for this line) and the 8th move version without is winning for White, because of ideas like:
9.Bxd8 Nxc3 10.Qg4
9.Bxd8 Nxc3 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qh4
In the version with the ‘finesse’ 6.Qh5+, White doesn’t have either of these moves available, so must rely on something like 10.Bxd8 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Kf1 Bxa1 13.Bxc7 Bxd4 14.Bd6!?
Without the finesse, what is Black to do? Odessky suggests in reply to 7.Bg5, the move 7…h6, since after 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.e5!? (a move that is awkward with a bPg6) 9…Qg6! is available.
Basman has tried a similar sac in his games, including this outing against Pritchett in the St.George Defence, where White eschewed the Queen check.
Pritchett-Basman, Bristol 1980
1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 3.c4 e6 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7 6.Bd3 f5 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.Bg5 fxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxd8 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bxc3+ 13.Kd1 Bxa1 14.Bxc7 [with Q vs RB] 14…Bxd4 15.Bd6
Black has given up a pawn on top of the usual R+B, but Basman reasons that helps Black because the Ra8 can enter the game quickly. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether this is true, as Basman gives not a single line of analysis in his notes. (The whole book is like that: games set one move to a line with merely descriptive commentary.) Black won after the players baled out into an endgame with level material where Black’s activity persisted, and in fact all the other games I’ve been able to find are wins for Black. So even if your silicon friend likes the material, Black’s practical chances are excellent.
Recently we saw the whole thing launched once more when my team-mate Chris Southall caught out the new Devon Champion, teenager Alex Billings, with it:
1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 3.c4 e6 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7 6.Bd3 f5 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.Bg5 fxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxd8 Nxc3
Alex counted the pieces at move 12 and decided not to give up the exchange,
12.Qg4 Ne4+ [with Q vs BN]
…but the black Knight was a dangerous attacking piece and the white Rook just a paperweight; the discovered check gives Black a continuing initiative. Black’s active pieces ran amok and chased the White King across the board, delivering mate.
13.Ke2
[13.Kf1!?]
13…0-0 14.Bh4 Ba6+ 15.Kd1 Nxf2+ 16.Bxf2 Rxf2 17.Nf3 Be2+ 18.Kc1 Bd2+ 19.Kc2
[19.Kxd2 Bxf3+ 20.Ke3 Bxg4 21.Kxf2-+]
19…Nc6 20.a3
[20.Qg3!?]
20…Be3 21.Kb1
[21.Qg3!?]
21…Bd3+ 22.Ka2 Rb8 23.Rab1 Bc4+
[23…Nb4+! 24.Kb3 Bc2+ 25.Kc3 Nd5+ 26.Kc4 Rb3]
24.Ka1 Na5 25.b4
[25.Ne5 Nb3+ 26.Ka2 Bd5!]
25…Ra2# 1-0
“When I am White I win because I am White, when I am Black I win
because I am Bogoljubow.” – Efim Bogoljubow.
I’m still thinking about this, so bear with me, and comments
invited…
I pounced on Nunn’s Chess Openings when it came out, and
found some things that I found puzzling. Openings like the
Dutch Stonewall, which I had always thought of as being
fundamentally flawed, were being shown as equal, while
the Classical Dutch – which I thought was a superior approach – was coming out as +=.
Firstly, why did I think that the Dutch Stonewall was so
flawed? Earlier in my life, I had devoured the Euwe/Kramer
books on The Middle Game. Not unlike 1066 and
all that, I learned lots of Important Ideas like Isolated
Queen’s Pawns and Bad Bishops which were worth writing down in
Capital Letters. If you played the Dutch Stonewall as Black,
you had a Bad Bishop and White could start in with a Queen’s Side
Attack, perhaps even a Minority Attack. I also learned that
if you had only one Bishop, you placed your pawns on the Opposite
Colour to your Bishop, leaving its lines of action free.
So, for example, in the Bogo-Indian, after …Bb4 and an exchange
of dark-squared Bishops, a very logical plan for Black was …d6
and …e5, challenging in the centre on the dark squares, and
releasing the light-squared Bishop on c8.
Imagine my confusion, when reading Nunn et al., to see that the
lines of the Bogo-Indian with …d6 and …e5 were generally given
as +=, while Black seemed to have better chances of equality with
Ulf Andersson’s favourite …d7-d5, leaving the central
pawns on light squares, and obstructing our remaining Bishop.
I’m still thinking about this, but needing some sort of
explanation, I reached for these ideas:
a. After …e6-e5 and d4-d5, how strong is Black’s claim to have
a Good Bishop? After all, where can it go? In the game
Pedersen-Shkapenko (GM 2007), we reached this position:
We can see that the Bishop on each side can only go
backwards! The fact that Black’s Bishop has a choice of
retreats does not seem very relevant to me! This position
can be better understood by thinking about the rest of the pieces,
and it seems as though White’s space and centralised Knights offer
a plus. The Knight on d3 looks especially well-placed,
supporting pawn breaks on both sides of the board. White can
look forward to arranging c5 at leisure.
b. When you play …d7-d5. White has a pawn on c4.
After an exchange of pawns, new career prospects appear for the
Bc8. White can stop this only by c4-c5, but then Black has
ideas of …b6 and/or …e5, both of which attack White’s pawns
and release the Bc8.
c. In Queen’s Pawn Openings, after …e6-e5 and d4-d5, White has
a natural plan of pushing forward on the Queen’s-side, with moves
like b4 and c5. …d7-d5 concedes less space on the
Queen’s-side, and importantly, doesn’t hand White a simple plan of
campaign. That feels quite a good explanation to me.
d. One last consideration: Black often has a small lead in
development, which is used better by playing …d5 quickly than
…d6 and …e5 slowly. In the Nimzo-Indian, White is often
embarrassed by Black’s quick …d7-d5 break, even though in the
long run White will want to open up the position for the two
Bishops. Black can castle and get in …d5 before White has
touched any of the King’s-side pieces. In the Bogo-Indian,
White might not have the Bishop pair, but the time factor could
still be relevant. I’m not sure how important this idea is
in every line; we’d probably need to look at some variations.
Overlapping explanations might help us to understand the Dutch
Stonewall. There Black has some claim to be the side with
more space, and White’s allegedly Good Bishop on g2 seems to have
just as poor career prospects as Black’s on c8. So again,
simply interpreting the position through the most obvious
difference – the effect of the pawn structure on one pair of
pieces – was Too Simple. That is very definitely a Bad
Thing.
“The Euwe books are very good for beginners. But after a
while I began to think that everything Euwe wrote was a lie!” —
Bent Larsen.
To be honest, if the Bogo-Indian ever turns up on my board, I’ll
still be strongly drawn to …d6 and …e5. As much as it
hands White a plan, it also gives a position where I think I also
know what I’m supposed to be doing. After …d5, even if the
position is more equal, I’d feel more at a loss as to what to do!