Ish at work
Category Archives: Topic
DVDs: is it just me?
I treated myself to a ChessBase Fritz Trainer DVD recently, 943Mb of files crammed into one corner of a 4.7Gb disc. Nearly all the space is taken up with movies of a balding middle-aged guy stumbling through commentary like:
” Erm… Now, I’ll show you… er… one of my own games… um… er… playing Black against… um… er… er… um… Z Grophulous in the New York open in 1985… er… yeah…” [names changed to protect the guilty, but that’s a transcript]
Now, I’m quite happy to have audio commentary, even when it’s as under-rehearsed as this, so at least I can follow the moves on the board without having to look somewhere else on the screen for the commentary: that seems to be a good use of the technology. But I can do without actually watching the guy sweating under the lights… Does it really add to the experience? Why would I want to look at the author and not the chessboard? I have a strong feeling that, with the latest ChessBase products, we have a case of “we can do this, so we should do this”. Maybe if it was someone as important as Fischer or charismatic as Kasparov I’d change my mind, but currently I think it’s a waste of effort.
And surely that disc space could have been better used? There are only 114 games on this disc, and most of them don’t have commentary. The previous generation of products, CDs, used audio to make just a few important points (rather than waffle over every move) and included a good-sized database with many annotated games, which to my mind is better value.
[We seem to be repeating the problems with chess videos: all format and little content. Once I transcribed the moves from one video, and it came to less than 2 sides of A5. How many A5 pages do you get in a book costing as much?]
Bird lives!
Bird lives!
Ah, not Charlie “(Yard)Bird” Parker, whose untimely departure in
1955 prompted jazz fans to write this graffito all over New York, but
Henry Bird, who left us two sprightly variations: the Bird Defence to the Ruy Lopez, and his very own opening, 1.f2-f4. 2008 is the 150th year since Bird died, and at
this year’s Paignton Chess Congress, there was a special prize for the
best game played with his opening. This resulted in a bigger crop
of Birds than usual, as you might expect, and the prize winner was the
following game (courtesy of Bill Frost at ChessDevon:
Because of the increased risk of the Bird, I reviewed what I knew about it in case someone played it against me… No-one did, so I thought I’d record the results of my review here.
” Having forgotten familar openings, I commenced adopting KBP for first move, and finding it let to highly interesting games out of the usual groove, I became partial to it.” — Henry BIRD
I first found out about Bird’s opening (1.f4) in some random beginners’ book, where the author dismissed it (as have many authors since) with the recommendation that Black play From’s Gambit (1…e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 [idea 4…Qh4+ mating] 4.Nf3 g5!?), and noted that if the From turned out one day to be better for Black then White could dodge into the King’s Gambit.
That satisfied me for a while, but I became interested again when the opening kept cropping up in B.H.Wood’s CHESS magazine in the 1970s. That may have had something to do with the editor’s own liking for the opening, but surely it was more than that: lots of players were happy to try the Bird (directly or by transposition) and you never saw a From. Could it really be dismissed? I rather suspected not, and that the From wasn’t all it was cracked up to be: critical, surely, but if White knew what they were doing, perhaps they could keep the pawn and survive.
I was reassured when Neville Gill wallopped the Bird when winning the PCC Championship for 1976, then woken from my dogmatic slumbers when Jerry Anstead used the Bird to beat Gill (and others) winning the title in 1980. Yet, Rumens and Bellin, both players of the Dutch defence, weren’t above the occasional Bird while contesting the Grand Prix in weekend congresses. Then I discovered Bent Larsen had been interested in it; not mere dabbling either, he took out Spassky with it in a crucial game:
- Larsen – Spassky B V [A03]
NB for all example games, see above […]
“In this last game with the white pieces I played Bird’s Opening, of which most masters have no high opinion, but I chose it for the very reason that they do not play it and do not know it. I know it quite well, have many original ideas. Now I challenge Spassky with it; let us see what ideas he has to show.”
Since Larsen’s heyday, IM Tim Taylor and GM Henrik Danielsen have both played and promoted the Bird extensively; it’s also a familiar feature of club and county games in the Westcountry. So, there’s more to this opening than is obvious in the books; in fact, it’s an ideal club opening in many ways — unbalanced, untheoretical and underestimated! [And like all such openings, it will become better known, people will write books about it, and eventually it will become an opening like any other…]
Defending against the Bird
This is really what I spent my time looking at. There is no consensus in the books and comics about Black’s best line: Gufeld recommends the From; Keene & Levy suggest 1…d5, 2…Nf6 and 3…Bg4 (but consider only 3.e3); Aagaard & Lund prefer 2…Bg4; and so on. Perhaps all are adequate, but it seemed to me that the From would be no surprise, and that systems with …Bg4 allowed White to play the sort of unclear attack with 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 and 6.g4 that they were surely hoping for.
On the other hand, going for 2…g6 and allowing White to play the Dutch with a move in hand wasn’t attractive either; all the various treatments that Black can adopt (Stonewall, Ilyin-Zhenevsky, Leningrad, Antoshin) have their counterpart in the Bird and all looked thoroughly playable for White, and, as I don’t play the White side of the Dutch, I thought I wouldn’t thrive a move behind. As long as White avoids the various pitfalls known to theory (e.g. 1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3? d4!) I imagine White would be pleased to play this way.
Actually, what am I familiar with? I have a reputation for knowing a lot of opening theory, but, while I do find it fascinating, my actual over-the-board choices are usually driven by the desires to (a) avoid any theory, and (b) avoid whatever my opponent wants to play. This rather negative philosophy led me to consider 1…c5 and 1…g6, both systems that I have played on and off against 1.e4 for years. Checking with Tim Taylor’s excellent monograph, I see he concluded that White cannot expect any advantage with standard Bird moves against 1…c5, and should instead transpose into some sort of Sicilian with 1.e4 — perhaps either the Closed or Grand Prix variations of the Sicilian Defence, although Taylor prefers Be2. As I am usually very happy to see White choose anything like these when I play 1.e4 c5, I resolved on 1.f4 c5. I have an idea that if Black were more recently rehearsed in the Modern and King’s Indian than I am currently, then 1…g6 with …d6 and eventually …e5 would be an equally uncooperative yet satisfactory way to defend.
Openings workshop 2008
Interesting… much more general questions than previous years. There may be a theme of these questions, about the tension between seeking opportunity and accepting risk. So here goes…
How should you play against 1…Nf6 when you want a Stonewall Attack?
The Stonewall Attack is 1.d4 d5 with 2.e3/3.Bd3/4.f4, intending to clamp down on the centre then attack on the King’s-side with moves like Nf3/O-O/Ne5/Qf3/Qh5/Bxh7+…
This can be very dangerous if Black castles into it, although if you can see it coming in time it’s easy enough to dodge (Bf5/g6/O-O-O). If Black replaces 1…d5 with 1…Nf6, White’s system may come to nothing, pointing in the wrong direction.
The common solution is for White to play 2.Nd2, threatening to take over the centre with e2-e4, which may provoke Black into playing 2…d5, when we can return to our standard system with relief. If Black doesn’t play …d5 then you can either stick to your guns with e3 and f4, or carry out your threat to play e4. It’s not a bad idea to have a second string system, like the Colle, that you can switch to in case of move order problems.
Delaying castling or castling queenside in the London System?
It’s unusual. Johanssen remarks in his book with Kovacevic that:
“Although queen’s-side castling is relatively rare in the London system, it may sometimes pay to keep the option open.”
…which is about as much use as a rubber crutch. There are some games in that same book where Queen’s-side castling appears:
- Blatny P. – Chernishov K. [D05]
- Winants – Mohandesi [A45]
- Popov N. – Makarichev S. [A90]
These suggest that the times you might consider queen’s-side castling are:
- If there is an open h-file
- When you wish to throw up your King’s-side pawns
- When your opponent is aiming at the King’s-side in a similar manner
I always liked Pillsbury’s guidance:
“Castle because you will or because you must; but not because you can.” — Harry Pillsbury.
See http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/castling for general advice on delayed castling.
Click on […] to see games list.
Playing Black against 1.d4?
See separate pages and separate blogs
What about 1.e4 c5 2.c4?
I was surprised to find 800 games played in recent years where this move was played, with a normal spread of results (55% to White). I wouldn’t play it as White because I would find it difficult to make any play against the locked centre after 2…Nc6 and 3…e5. However, out of the 800 games, this scheme was rarely chosen by the defenders, presumably because Black also wants to leave enough play to win, hoping also to leave open the option of transposing into a favourite version of the Sicilian. If that’s so, White might be able to sneak across into a version of the Maròczy Bind; for example, lots of Black players went 2…g6, which probably leads to the best-known version of the Bind. I’d prefer 2…e6, even though 2…g6 is in my repertoire.
Why is the Bind so uncomfortable for Black? Because lots of the appeal of the Sicilian depends on having a half-open c-file, a minority attack with …b5 and the chance of blowing up the centre using your extra central pawn with ….d5; once White plays c4, all that goes out of the window.
I keep getting caught out in common gambit openings…
Here’s a player getting caught out:
[C21] Danish gambit – fork, 2000
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 c6?? 9.Nf6+ gxf6 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Bxf6+ …
Full marks to Black for having the courage to take on White’s opening and accepting the gambit, but this involves definite risks if you forget (or never knew) the traps in each variation. Most gambits have traps like this. Let’s have a list of gambits:
Vienna Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 (3…exf4? 4.e5)
King’s Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4
Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3
Göring Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3
Scotch Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 and 5.c3
Evans’ Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
The best way to avoid problems depends on your taste: “…d5 is the antidote to the venom in most gambits” as they say, but you will struggle to play that against the Evans. I recommend to start with:
Vienna Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5!
King’s Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf5 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Nf6! 5.e5! Ng4 and 6…d5
Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5!
Göring Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 d5!
Scotch Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4!
Two Knights’ 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5!?
All of these lines need some study, but I hope this is a shove in the right direction.
P.S. The game I found where Black got Danished… was won by Black (Berry)!
Is the Benoni any good?
Sometimes! The type of Benoni usually played is the Modern Benoni with …e6xd5. This is a high-stakes opening where you really can’t busk it in the sharper lines, you have to study and learn… and all the lines are pretty sharp… That said, it’s a fine way to unbalance the game and so play for a win as Black.
I’ve recently recommended to Charlie that he play the Benoni, but delay the exchange. (I believe our very own Andy Pickering was a fan of this approach.)
Two reasons for choosing to delay:
After …e6xd5 and cxd5, White has a standard way of arranging their pieces which usually includes Nf3-d2-c4, where the Knight frees the f-pawn to move, and from c4 it supports e4-e5 and puts pressure on d6. If Black delays …e6xd5, then clearly White is going to have to find something else to do for a while, and there is a view that Black can more easily find useful things to do [trying to arrange …b5 with Na6-c7,Rb8,Bd7] than White.
The main line Modern Benoni has a problem, which is the Taimanov Attack (Flick-Knife Attack) with 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4! Bg7 8. Bb5+!. e.g.
Kasparov G. – Nunn J. [A67]
Black faces a serious attack and has found no clean way to equalise; White is taking risks too, so if White falters at all the counter-attack will be swift and terrible… but many players of the Benoni prefer these days to play it only after White has played Nf3 (e.g. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5). Delaying the exchange avoids this difficult line (and maybe some others).
The lines without …e6 are slower and stodgier; Black often plays …e5 when the lines divide according to whether you plonk the Bf8 on g7 or e7 (when it usually goes next to g5). These lines are more solid but harder to play for a win.
What are the Dos and Don’ts of the Scandinavian with 2…Qxd5? What plans should each side follow?
“This fine defence…” — Jonathan Speelman
“…Sucks all the life out of the position.” — Anon.
Many of us associate the Scandinavian with some devastating Fischer miniatures from the 1960s. But since Larsen re-established this defence as an option for GMs at Montreal 1979…
Karpov A. – Larsen B. [B01]
Spassky B. – Larsen B. [B01]
…it has had a dedicated following, resulting in its ultimate achievement, successful use in a World Championship match by Anand, when Kasparov couldn’t show anything against it, even though he won in the end. (However, Anand did not repeat his experiment!)
Kasparov G – Anand V [B01]
The Scandinavian 2…Qxd5 is particularly difficult to get a handle on because the unforcing nature of most of the variations. After the exchange of pawns we have a ‘structure’ rather like the French Rubinstein or main line Caro-Kann, in which lines Black has given up their stake in the centre and can be said to have made another concession, either blocking in the Bc8 with …e6 or playing the unnecessary …c6. After …Qxd5 and …Qa5 (say) Black has supposedly lost time but has made no commitments with their pawns, which means they can adopt a very natural development scheme.
It’s often said that exposing the Queen on d5 ‘wastes time’, but after Nc3, Qa5 each side has developed one piece, so I don’t see it: however, White is still ahead in development because they start first. White can maybe get another free hit against the Queen by Nf3-e5-c4 or Bd2/Ne4, and that’s when White gains time to improve their position (not to develop).
Hmm, plans… It’s not possible to ‘read’ the structure to generate moves in such a straightforward way as, say, the French Advance. [For these reasons, I dislike playing against it and I don’t think I’d ever take it up!] It’s hard to talk in general terms, it’s more about specific piece arrangements and move orders and whether they make any progress, but let’s have a go. [In his magisterial two-volume review of the strategies behind chess openings, John Watson pointedly avoided talking about any variations with wPd4 and bPe6/bPc6, rather devoting 7 pages to common themes from the French/Caro/Scandinavian.] Deep breath:
White normally gets in d4 and operates on four ranks. Black holds back on the first three ranks, not wanting to open up lines while they are behind in development, and must avoid weaknesses – which I guess is a plan of sorts.
White has advantages in space and development but these are each hard to make use of because of the lack of tension in the position and because these advantages can evaporate with time and exchanges. So, White needs to avoid exchanges, to keep active, to make problems…
Next level down: the Scandinavian is what I call a light-square defence, leaving White with a pawn on d4 and control of e5 but disputing the centre at d5 and e4. Perhaps the ultimate for Black is to play …Bb4, …Bxc3, …Nb6, …Qb5 with a grip on all the light squares.
If White gets enough oomph, it may be they can blow up the position with d4-d5. Black usually restrains the white d-Pawn with …c6, when it starts to look a bit like a Caro-Kann, with White’s Queen’s Knight on c3 instead of e4.
Black wants to play …e6 and play the Bf8 somewhere, but before playing …e6 the Bc8 should be developed. Black can’t hang around, as Bc4 in combination with Ne5 will force …e6. The Bishop when on g4 or f5 then can become the target of attacks, either by h3/g4/Ne5 or Ne5/g4. This can lead to some very sharp play with both sides making committal moves, as in the famous game Anand-Lautier.
Anand V. – Lautier J. [B01]
Black has some choice over the timing of …Nf6, …c6 and …Bf5, depending on which ideas they wish to avoid or allow. [Ian Rogers tried hard with …Bg4 but these days …Bf5 holds sway.] So, delaying …Bf5 gives you the option of …Be6 against 6.Ne5; while delaying …Nf6 avoids White’s Bd2/Ne4/Nxf6, making a mess of Black’s pawns.
Let’s have a look at the quiet main line variation:
Lutzenberger R. – Turcan M. [B01]
Black has been experimenting with 3…Qd6; this keeps the Queen in play but obviously restricts the Bf8 and may offer White another free hit with Ne4 or Bf4. There are other sidelines like 5…Nc6, 5…Ne4 and 4…e5 which are tricky to meet if you haven’t seen them. White can also mix it up by delaying Nf3 in favour of Bc4, or playing an early Bd2/Ne4.
Advice for White? There’s no consensus in books for our level: Keene/Levy ignored 5…Bf5 in 1994; Gufeld (1996) gives the quiet main line; Collins recommends the sharp main line as played by Anand; Dzindzhi (2007) suggests Kasparov’s 6.Ne5, a move order also favoured by Baker (1998); and Emms (who must have some sort of grasp of this opening, having written about it several times) recommended 6.Bd2/7.Ne4 in 2001 without considering it a cosmic mind-blower in 2004. Emms’ 2004 book includes the direct try 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Bc4 Bf5 6.Bd2 e6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.d5 cxd5 9.Nxd5 Qd8 10.Nxf6+ Qxf6 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Bc3! which he thinks is better for White.
Nigel Short went through a creative phase when playing against the Scandinavian, and we can perhaps borrow his idea of delaying d4:
- Short-Rogers
- Short-Oll
Or 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.d3 followed by Nge2, 0-0, Ng3 and perhaps f2-f4-f5 (Sodjerg). And if you really can’t bear it, you can try 2.Nc3 or 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3.
Click on […] to see games list.
What about the Four Knights’ Game with 4.g3 (Glek Variation)?
Some White players are prepared to give up the fight for the advantage in the Ruy Lopez and just get into a reasonable position which suits their style and look forward to outplaying their opponent around moves 25-40. One opening that is used for this purpose is the Four Knights’ Game, where Gunsberg’s 4.a3 and Glek’s 4.g3 have been played. John Nunn’s “New Ideas” reviews some of the early experiments with both moves. There is no ‘answer’ for Black, because there is no ‘question’ being put, other than, can you survive the middlegame against me?
I think the earliest g3 was Nimzo, but here’s the main man these days, Igor Glek.
Glek I. – Wells P. [C47]
One response that you might save for a rainy day in Exmouth is 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Nxe4?! 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nc3 e4 7.Ng1 Bc5, with some attacking chances. I’ve managed to lose to this idea in Blitz… Here’s a game from a chap who sounds like an Indian computer facing the reincarnation of the spirit of defence…
Sengupta Deep – Petrosian T. [C47]
Click on […] to see games list.
Classical or Hypermodern?
Gligoric S. – Miles A. [D25]
Lilienthal A. – Kortschnoj V. [D86]
The eternal debate… I recommend avoiding hypermodern approaches until your chess is good all round; because of their amorphous nature, you have to be prepared to play a variety of positions. So, after 1.e4 g6, White has a number of systems available, most of which are very flexible, and Black has a hard time deciding whether to challenge the centre by …c5, …d5, …e5 or all three, while making sure that White doesn’t break through with d5, e5, f5, h5 or all five.
Having said that, I know Jonathan W has been playing the Alekhin and Grünfeld: “I have to adopt unusual openings, as otherwise I tend to get into trouble with more experienced players who know the familiar ones that little bit better than me.”.
Perhaps these defences are not so variable in their themes as the Modern. I dunno, for a while I was playing nothing but hypermodern openings… On your own head be it!
I have a piece on this issue elsewhere: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/hypermodern-approach
Click on […] to see games list.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Emms Attacking with 1.e4
Keene/Levy An opening repertoire for the Attacking Player
Alburt, Dzindzhikhashvili&Perelshteyn Chess Openings for White, Explained
Gufeld An opening repertoire for the Attacking Player
Plaskett The Scandinavian Defence
Emms The Scandinavian
Collins Attacking repertoire for White
Johanssen/Kovakevic The London System
Soltis The London System
Baker A startling chess opening repertoire
Keene/Jacobs An opening repertoire for White
Nunn New Ideas in the Four Knights
Psakhis The Complete Benoni
Evans Stonewalling
Fine The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings
Znosko-Borovsky How to play the chess openings
The Seven Deadly Chess Books
Jonathan Rowson is a young Scottish GM who has written two of the best and most important books of recent years: The Seven Deadly Chess Sins and Chess for Zebras. They are important because they are some of the best discussions about how chess is actually played that I have ever read; often Rowson seems to be writing for the first time about things that have rarely been mentioned, let alone explored in any detail. The books are also confusing, pretentious and irritating by turns.
‘I’m enjoying it – but I don’t like it.’ Geoff Chandler, October 2005
Let’s take them one at a time.
The Seven Deadly Chess Sins is an exploration of chess psychology. There is a psychology of chess, the academic study of what chessplayers do. In fact, chess players have been called the ‘fruit flies of psychology’ because they are such a favourite research subject. Rowson isn’t very interested in all that stuff. He quotes with approval:
“It seems to us that the theories associated with board reconstruction experiments represent an idealised picture of master chess which may be misleading. … So often, as any player will agree, it is hopes and fears which seem to influence the choice of a move.” – Hartston and Wason
It’s the emotional swamp which is Rowson’s territory, seeing it not just as the source of mistakes but a promising route for seeking improvement.
His sins are: Thinking, Blinking, Wanting, Materialism, Egoism, Perfectionism and Looseness. (I’m very amused that Thinking is a sin.) Perhaps some detail would help:
- 1. Thinking: Confusion, pattern limitations, lack of faith in intuition.
- 2. Blinking: Missing key moments, lack of “trend sensitivity” and “moment sensitivity.”
- 3. Wanting: Attachment to results, carelessness, expectation.
- 4. Materialism: Misevaluating, lack of dynamism, oversights.
- 5. Egoism: “Forgetting” the opponent, fear, impracticality.
- 6. Perfectionism: Time trouble, inappropriate copying.
- 7. Looseness: “Losing the plot,” drifting.
Warming up? The first example in the first chapter (Thinking) shows an example from a GM which obviously provides Rowson with some real inspiration but which might make the rest of us despair…
Wow. Is chess really that hard? Do I really have to be able to come up with ideas like that? Well, no, but if you want to get better, you do need to stop playing the way you do right now. Shaking up your ideas is part of Rowson’s plan.
- 1. Thinking:
-
- 2. Blinking:
-
- 3. Wanting:
-
Black has just offered a draw.
- 4. Materialism:
-
5. Egoism:
-
6. Perfectionism:
-
7. Looseness:
These are quite sophisticated mistakes, but I think the same things can be seen at club level as well. (I just made a mental note to myself to find club-level examples of all of these things).
The irritating bit of Rowson’s book is that it is hard going. The examples are hard. He gets distracted when discussing them. Not all the examples are clear. And then he includes a huge variety of anecdotes, quotations and ideas from outside chess, some of which are hard to see the value of, and some of which seem included just to let us know how widely-read is the author.
“When considering whether to use these ideas in the book, I was concerned that it might seem too abstract or contrived for most readers and hard to apply to their real games… So even if I’m not making any sense, or if you only partly understand what I’m saying, the main thing is to have the courage to look at chess with new eyes.”
I like the aim. However, he’s not really achieving it with passages like this:
“There are some striking parallels with quantum theory in the way of viewing chess outlined above, particularly Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle … and Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity.” (p.84).
Oh, yeah? One exasperated reviewer concluded:
“It is at best a flawed if earnest effort. At worst it is a pretentious, barely mitigated disaster … The Seven Deadly Chess Sins is strong evidence that to the seven we should add two more: writing this book, and buying it.” http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review274.pdf
Harsh… I understand this love of quotation and pursuit of analogy from Rowson’s point of view; writing something like this, or a PhD, is rather like being in love, everything you read or think about reminds you of what you are doing, and you want to include everything. I did end up wishing that he had a more brutal editor, but it’s a record of his journey and his thinking, and after a while you enjoy the ride with him.
He has a final rather defensive note, entitled The Author’s Redemption, where he says:
“I’ve tried to write about chess as I’ve come to understand it: a complex a rewarding game that lies, tantalisingly, beyond the full grasp of the human intellect. … There is no virtue in giving easy answers to the questions posed by a difficult game. “
And while I think it is not usually given to the author to decide whether he is redeemed or not, I will concede the point. 10% of the book may get up your nose, but the other 90% is witty, informative, thought-provoking, and more likely to focus you on your bad habits of chess than anything else I know.
Chess for Zebras is much more focussed. The examples are just as demanding (you remember that I used one of his examples when we looked at planning in the endgame) and Rowson’s temptation to throw in a quote by ‘my favourite Buddhist writer’ is still there, but where in Sins the author seemed happy to show us a deal of thought-provoking material and let us get on with it, in Zebras Rowson is more helpful in guiding us through the thoughts he hoped to provoke. He is also to be commended for listing our website in the bibliography!
That endgame example is accompanied by a long transcript of exchanges between Rowson and one of his students. I guess that Sins is the result of Rowson thinking about how he got good at chess and how he is going to get better, and Zebras is the result of Rowson trying to teach others to get better. It’s lower-key in many respects but more punchy. I threw a couple of quotes at you last time:
“If you want to get better at chess you need to place much less emphasis on ‘study’ whereby you increase your knowledge of positions, and place more emphasis on ‘training,’ whereby you try to solve problems, play practice games, or perhaps try to beat a strong computer program from an advantageous position.” (25).
“Chess skill emerges from chess playing combined with chess training, where ‘training’ means working things out by yourself. The main skill a chess-player needs is skill in making decisions, so that’s what you need to do and do repeatedly. If you want to become a better player, you need better habits, and you cultivate better habits through training. The best training is the kind that pushes you up against the edges of your comfort zone, where you force yourself to take responsibility for difficult decisions. It is so much easier to read books that give strategic guidelines, hints and tips, etc., but what you need is ‘know how’ and that means learning by doing.”
The contents list is an amusing read in itself:
- Part 1: Improving Our Capacity to Improve
- 1. What to Do When You Think There is a Hole in Your Bucket
- 2. Psycho-logics
- 3. Storytelling
- 4. Which Myth are You Playing By?
- 5. Concentrate! Concentrate? Concentrate.
- Part 2: Mental Toolkit for the Exponential Jungle
- 6. Why is Chess so Difficult?
- 7. Something that Works for Me
- 8. Doing and Being
- 9. Why Shouldn’t I be Defensive?
- 10. Glorious Grinding
- Part 3: Thinking Colourfully about Black and White
- 11. Three Types of Theory and What They Mean in Practice
- 12. White’s Advantage
- 13. Black’s Advantage
- 14. Finally….
Oh, and why Chess for Zebras?
‘Thinking like a zebra’ therefore means being more open to experience and less constrained by convention. It means allowing yourself to think differently.”
It’s going to be hard to do more than scratch the surface of what you can find in Zebras, but let’s give another couple of examples, ones that rang a bell with me. The first section of the book is about productive training; we already looked at one from the this section in an earlier session (the Estrin endgame). The second section is about expanding your conceptual toolbox, and the third is about openings from the points of view of White and Black.
Doing and being
Zugzwang Lite
Click […] for list of games
Planning in the endgame
Lessons that can be applied elsewhere, I hope; if you have examples
of games where you have struggled, send them in.
How to plan, anyway (from Jeremy Silman).
Botvinnik-Kann
Here is a breakdown of the different imbalances:
1) Material (owning pieces of greater value than the opponent’s).
2) Space (the annexation of territory on a chess board).
3) Superior Minor Piece (the interplay between Bishops and
Knights).
4) Pawn Structure (a broad subject that encompasses doubled pawns,
isolated pawns, etc.).
5) Control of a key file or square (files and diagonals act as
pathways for your pieces, while squares act as homes
6) Lead in development (more force in a specific area of the
board).
7) Initiative (dictating the tempo of a game).
Recognising these imbalances (you will find definitions to all
these terms in the Glossary at the end of this book) and understanding
their relationship to planning will be the main focus of this book. If
we are to use these things properly we must be able to break down our
thinking in a way that allows us to dissect any particular position.
Here are the stages of my thinking technique that enables us to
accomplish this:
1. Figure out the positive and negative imbalances for both sides.
2. Figure out the side of the board you wish to play on. You can
only play where a favourable imbalance or the possibility of creating a
favourable imbalance exists.
3. Don’t calculate! Instead, dream up various fantasy positions,
i.e., the positions you would most like to achieve.
4. Once you find a fantasy position that makes you happy, you must
figure out if you can reach it. If you find that your choice was not
possible to implement, you must create another dream position that is
easier to achieve.
5. Only now do you look at the moves you wish to calculate (called
candidate moves). The candidate moves are all the moves that lead to our
dream position. This will be discussed fully in Part Three of this book.
Let’s now take a look at this thinking technique in action. If
it seems difficult, don’t panic! It just takes practice. Nobody ever
said that getting your thoughts to work in a structured way would be
easy!
Complete game
Elements of endgame planning:
1. Passed pawn
2. Pawn majority
3. Rook on the seventh
4. Infiltration (Weak colour complex), blockade, breakthrough
5. Accumulation theory
6. Two weaknesses
7. Manoeuvring
8. Minority attack
9. Endgame technique
A bit of Capablanca magic
“Once in a lobby of the Hall of Columns of the Trade Union Centre
in Moscow a group of masters were analysing an ending. They could not
find the right way to go about things and there was a lot of arguing
about it. Suddenly Capablanca came into the room. He was always find of
walking about when it was his opponent’s turn to move. Learning the
reason for the dispute the Cuban bent down to the position, said ‘Si,
si,’ and suddenly redistributed the pieces all over the board to show
what the correct formation was for the side trying to win. I haven’t
exaggerated. Don Jose literally pushed the pieces around the board
without making moves. He just put them in fresh positions where he
thought they were needed.”
“Suddenly everything became clear. The
correct scheme of things had been set up and now the win was easy. We
were delighted by Capablanca’s mastery…”
— KOTOV, Think like a
Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty, pub. 1971 Batsford.
Alekhin plays for a win
The best books for further study of endgame planning are undoubtedly
Shereshevsy’s.
Click […] for list of games
Chess Psychology
Special lecture by Ish Ramdewar
Chess Psychology- It’s all in the mind!
Or
How Not To Play Chess
by Ish
I did an analysis on all my games this season, and I found that when I
lost, it was mostly because of something wrong in my thought processes.
Usually, I just got lazy! This is the number one reason I dropped
points or half points! I trusted to instinct what I could have worked
out. In no game did I drop below 5 minutes on the clock at any point,
and only once below 10 minutes.
I concluded that work on my thought processes and approach to the
game
would improve my chess as much as technical work.
I hope what I’ve learned will be of value to you. If not, perhaps
you’ll be entertained by some of my most humiliating defeats!
All games here:
Know Thyself!
- Are you good in open/semi-open/closed positions?
- Do you like tactics, or positional play more?
- Do you have certain positions to avoid? (e.g. Closed positions
with a lot of manoeuvring) - Do you have certain positions to aim for? (e.g. Isolated
Queen’s Pawn) - Consider doing a self-analysis. Look through as many of your
games as possible, and root out the weak points and make note of what
you do well.
Know Thy Opponent!
- Ask the same questions of your opponent! Try to make life as
uncomfortable as possible!
Of course, there are times when you don’t know anything about your
opponent. In this case:
- Ask someone else who has played them for advice.
- Consider their age! Usually young opponents are tactically on
the ball, and are weaker in closed positions the endgame. Older
opponents can be a bit slow tactically and tire more easily, so try all
else being equal, go for a more unclear position! This tip will work
for most opponents, not all: be careful! - Look at their choice of opening. If they are playing Caro-Kahn
or the French, they’re probably solid. Choose a variation that they
probably won’t like as much (e.g. Panov-Botvinnik in Caro-Kahn)
Ramdewar-Gillard 1-0
In this game, I was playing the in-form Lee
Gillard who was ungraded
but won the first 6 games of the season (this was his seventh), from
the Met office. I played sensibly and got my opponent out of book very
early (3. c4 was the extent of his knowledge). I improved my position
and eventually my opponent cracked and blundered a piece. The endgame
is a good example of taking the easy path to a win (see later).
- If they play something really aggressive like the Grob (1.g4)
or the King’s Gambit, consider playing solidly, and giving back any
gambited material in order to obtain an equal(ish) quiet position that
they probably won’t want.
Ramdewar-Daley 0-1
In this game, I was playing an England junior with a bogus grade of 81.
I knew him to play the Sicilian Dragon, and saw him play excellently in
similar positions to what we had in the game. So what did I do? You
guessed it! I gave him his ideal kind of position! He uncorked a
novelty on move 10 and I was out of book (this must be the longest line
I know!) and he out played me whilst still in book. I sacrificed the
exchange and gave myself some chances (though he was objectively
winning). I then relaxed and proceeded to blunder the game away in fine
style!
Taking on ‘Weaker’ Opponents (Rabbits)
Meaton-Ramdewar 1-0
In this game, I was playing Arthur Meaton, a senior who I’ve seen play
often, and had beaten in rapidplay. I outplayed him from the outset,
then relaxed and didn’t look for his threats (in fact, I had seen the
threat much earlier and forgot, and played an instant move in a game
which was Fischer timed and I was getting 30 sec/move added to my
clock! The resulting postion was drawn by perpetual check, but I pig
headedly tried to escape, and was duly punished!
- Know thyself and thy opponent and play according to
strengths/weaknesses as shown above. A weaker player by grade will
often still have some pronounced strengths! Don’t dismiss them (seeing
them as a ‘rabbit’ can be dangerous!) - Everything else being equal, most stronger players will outplay
a weaker player positionally, especially in the endgame. - Consider playing a more quiet opening than you may be
used to (1. c4, 1.g3, 1.d4, 1.b3 come to mind.) Often something like 1.
b3 will knock a weaker player, at least psychologically. They may think
you are very strong in this line, and unfamiliarity can make them that
little bit more uncomfortable. - Don’t set a trap and assume a weaker opponent will fall into it
because they are ‘weak’. Only set a trap if it improves your position
by doing so. Assume your opponent will see your trap, and ask yourself
whether it’s still a good move! The one exception is completely lost
positions. - Remember that all of our opponents have ideas. Always ask
yourself what the threats are, what pitfalls you can fall into and take
your time.
Foley-Ramdewar 0-1
In this game, I kept it simple against Phil Foley, a slightly weaker
player than myself who I didn’t know much about. Even though I didn’t
play my best, the simpler nature of the position suited me more than it
did him, and the win was eventually assured.
Taking on ‘Stronger’ Opponents (Heffalumps)
Regis-Ramdewar 1-0
In this game, I was taking on Dave Regis, the current club champion,
and a man graded more than 50 points above me, so I knew I had nothing
to lose! I went in to try and produce an upset. I was marginally
outplayed for the opening, but in another IQP position managed to
outplay my mighty opponent for a short period and obtain a better
middlegame with black. I was then offered an endgame and saw it as
better for black (wrongly) and went for it, but didn’t even consider
keeping the middlegame! I blundered in an even endgame and that was
that.
- Believe you can win, and play for it!
- Don’t go for the draw from the off- make them beg you for it!
- Know thyself and thy opponent (as usual)!
- All else being equal, make the position strange and tactical.
Most of the time, by definition, you will lose to a better opponent.
However, a very tactical position greatly increases the chance they
have to mess up! - Stronger players are likely to beat you in positional play, and
often are stronger endgame players. Try and keep a complicated
middlegame position. - Don’t give up! Strong players make mistakes!
Ramdewar-Pope 1/2-1/2
Sean Pope is known as a very solid (if occasionally boring) player. His
style really is not suited to me, and I tend to struggle against Sean
more than the stronger (at least by grade) Simon Waters or even Dave!
In any case, I managed to keep setting my opponent problems in a very
difficult endgame, and was simply enjoying watching him squirm! I was
just trying to make his win as tough as possible. He avoided one draw
pitfall, but missed the triangulation (probably due to tiredness)
he needed for the full point, and I walked away with a juicy
half-point!
How to Play ‘Winning’ Positions
- If the time comes when you are winning, or significantly
better, don’t take a draw unless that’s all you need to win a
tournament or match. This applies especially against strong opponents
where we feel a draw is a ‘good’ result. Again: make them grovel for
it- make them prove they can equalise and draw. - A ‘winning’ position is only winning if you play the best
moves! Stay alert! - Remember that all of our opponents have ideas. Always ask
yourself what the threats are, what pitfalls you can fall into and take
your time. - Don’t force things. The win will come to you if you keep
playing the best moves! - Go for the simple win. If you need to give up material to
extinguish counterplay, do it! - When ahead, trade down, simplify. 3vs1 is much better than
12vs10! - Be careful of traps! Even bad positions often contain hidden
resources. Play hard and focus, even when it seems easy!
How to Play ‘Drawn’ Positions
- Don’t assume it’s drawn! Often ‘drawn’ positions have alot of
play in them! Look closely before deciding the position is drawn.
Ramdewar-Bartlett 1/2-1/2
Having rejected a draw-offer against an opponent graded 30 grades above
me on move 33 in a position with bishops of opposite colours, I felt
obliged to offer a draw 7 moves later as I saw no way of making
progress. In fact, the final position which looks drawish due to
bishops of opposite colours has a lot of life in it, and I could have
gone for it!
- Basically the most important thing to do in a drawn position is
to look for ways for your opponent and/or yourself to go wrong, if you
can avoid losing plans, the draw will be assured. - If your opponent makes a mistake, it’s your job to prove their
mistake costly. - Play slowly, and let small advantages accumulate. The only way
to win a drawn position is for your opponent to make mistakes: several
small ones or a couple of big ones! - Keep your eyes open, and perhaps you’ll get that extra
half-point. People get tired and lazy (remember Ramdewar-Pope?), the
endgame is the place that strong players can really show what they’re
made of!
How to Play ‘Lost’ Positions
- When you’re losing, knuckle down! Don’t lose an opportunity for
a swindle! - Simon W is an excellent case of a good swindler. He plays very
hard in lost positions, and his strength in the endgame skill wins him
many points and half-points. But how? - At some point, the position gets so bad that it’s no good to
play the ‘objective best move’. What you need is to set up ways for
your opponent to go wrong. - Constantly solving problems is tiring. The more problems you
can set, and the more difficult they are, the harder you make your
opponent’s job. - It may be that even though you’re ‘lost’, your position
contains a plus point, which if your opponent ignores could lead to a
result other than he is expecting! Sometimes it’s better to play
aggressively with this than to passively defend and get ground down. An
example of this could be a queenside pawn majority. Play for a break to
stretch your opponent. Try to give them ways to go wrong. - Remember, the worst that can happen is that you lose. But even
if you improve your score by ½ a point in a season, that’s still
a tangible improvement!
What to do When You Blunder
- We all know that we should be avoiding blunders, but sometimes
they happen. A nasty tactical fork can easily devastate your
positionally principled move. If so, what to do? - When you make one mistake, it’s very easy to be shaken.
Usually, you missed your opponent’s reply. Step one: stay clam! - Get up and have a 2-minute break. Get a drink.
- It’s usually worth spending some time completely re-evaluating
the position. Be as objective as you can. - Sometimes you’ll be losing after your blunder. If so, take the
advice above on playing lost positions. - If you were winning, your ‘winning’ plan probably doesn’t work
anymore, so you’ll need to make a new one. Be flexible. Don’t continue
as before, like me!
Whitfield-Ramdewar 1-0
In this game, I played a dubious move (8…Qa5) and decided to make
it
stick no matter what, when objectively, it’s probably best to bring the
queen back to d8 to defend. I played pig-headedly throughout and was
obliterated, and rightly so! Sometimes we have to accept we’ve done
something silly, play the position properly, according to a good plan,
not our old poor one and fight like a devil!
When Your Opponent Blunders
- Check whether it’s a real blunder. It may be a trap!
- If you can’t see a reason not to take advantage of the blunder,
do it! Even strong players make mistakes, and if we don’t pounce on
them, we will get crushed! - Don’t trust your opponent’s analysis! Their sacrifice may well
be unsound! Analyse for yourself. Even grandmasters make terrible moves
from time to time!
Tying it all Together
- Work out your strengths and weaknesses (i.e. know thyself).
Play to your strengths, and try to root out your weaknesses away from
the tournament board! - Make life difficult for your opponent. Fischer said “Chess is
like war on the chessboard. The object is to crush your opponent’s
mind!” - Aim for positions which exploit your opponent’s weaknesses.
- When winning or playing a weaker opponent, keep focused.
Simplify into an easy win instead of going for a brilliancy. - When losing, or playing a stronger opponent, complicate
things! - Most ‘drawn’ positions still have ways to lose! Keep your eye
on the ball! - If you make a mistake, re-focus and take extra time. Get up
from the board for a minute, get a drink. Look at the position as if
for the first time. In short start again. - If your opponent blunders, make sure it’s a blunder then punish
him!
Good luck!
A planning challenge
With my usual arrogance, I was offering Charlie some notes on
a game, and he remarked afterwards:
“The move I sweated over for so
long, you passed over without comment, as though it was the most
natural move in the game!”
What would you have played? Make your mind up (that is,
write it down) before reading on!
White to move
C. Keen
G. Ward
Exeter vs. Met. Office
2008
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d3 g6 5. Be2
Bg7 6.
Nc6 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. h3 Rac8 12. Rad1 a5 13. Be3 Nd7 14. Ng5 Nf8 15.
Nxe6 Nxe6 16. Nc4 Qc7 17. a4 b6 18. Bg4 Ncd8 19. Na3 h6 20. Nb5 Qd7 21.
Be2 Rf8
b – – 0 21
OK, so, how do you go about making a
decision like this? We haven’t followed Charlie’s thought
processes move by move, so we need to warm up a little, get ourselves
into the game… A quick once-over the available tactical ideas tells
us that the position cannot be ‘solved’ by a combination, so we have to
see what is our proper strategy here.
Jeremy Silman talks about a pawn-pointing rule, saying you
should look
to expand or attack on the side where your pawns are pointing. I
don’t
think pawns always point quite so obviously as this suggests, nor is it
a rule that cannot be broken, but if you are stuck it will give you a
shove in the right direction.
Charlie’s game, for example, seems a very good example of the
pawn-pointing rule. White’s pawn chain c3-d3-e4 points forward
towards the
King’s-side, and Black’s e7-d6-d5 chain points to the
Queen’s-side.
This is quite clear and also rather cheering, for it seems that Black’s
earlier manoeuvring on the Queen’s-side has resulted only in a weak
square on b5, which is occupied by the piece which benefits most from
such outposts, the Knight. So,
So, to play on the King’s-side… White can try to attack
mainly
with pieces with moves like Qd2 or moving both Bishops (er, somewhere)
and playing Re1-e3-g3 and maybe (groan) Na3-b1-d2-f1-h2-g4… I can’t
see that going anywhere at all, certainly not at that speed.
Imagine
putting those pieces there now, what threats would White have, even if
Black did nothing for 10 moves? However, there is a familiar plan here
of playing f2-f4-f5 and opening a King’s-side file, where Black has
less space. So, f4 seems a very natural, even an obvious choice.
The trouble with the march of the f-pawn is that White’s
pieces don’t fit in with that right now. I would rather prefer
the Re1 to be on f1, and the Be2 to be on d3, and the Nb5 to be on g3,
to lend their weight to a discussion of the f-file. So, pointing
pawns notwithstanding, I wouldn’t be pushing the f-pawn to f5.
Let’s see if we can go through this from scratch. First,
make a quick comparison of the two positions: compare pairs
of pieces, see which one is better. Then have a go at the pawn
structures, what are they telling us?
Both Kings are castled and secure. The positions of the
Queens seem
equivalent, centralised and poised but not yet active. White’s
Rooks
are on good squares but on closed files; so that’s our first hint,
White’s Rooks will need an open or half-open file to work on before
long. Black’s Rooks on the ‘bishop’ files are not badly placed
but I don’t know what Black is planning to do in order to open a file
(the c-pawn cannot be moved and perhaps the f-pawn should not
be). And the minor pieces: White’s good Knight and Black’s good
Bishop are very much more active than the rest, which look rather tame
at the moment. If the position opens up, White’s Bishop pair will
enjoy life much better.
If we want to (half-)open a file, where can White look?
Black’s
advanced a- and c-pawns allow White to lever open either the b-file or
the d-file by advancing and exchanging the pawn on those files; Black,
faced with b2-b4 or d3-d4 may choose to (half-)open the a-file or the
c-file by exchanging his pawns on those files instead. All
Queen’s-side files, I note. Now, at the moment, most of Black’s
pieces
look well-placed to take advantage of open lines on the Queen’s-side:
they’re either on that side or pointing that way. Nonetheless, I
can imagine someone pointing to the weakness of b5 and that handsome
knight, and declare, White should be attacking on the
Queen’s-side. There are prospects there, I expect, but I can’t
see it happening very quickly. I’d want to get the Be2 into the
weak light squares, maybe the Queen… I have a feeling that by the
time I’d arranged all my pieces for attack (Rb1 Bf3 Qc2-c4 maybe) Black
would have re-arranged their pieces for defence (…Nc7 threatening to
exchange on d4 is one immediate idea). Hmm, Na3-c4 and b2-b4
might make the backward b6-pawn feel sorry for itself… OK, let’s not
forget all those ideas, but nothing there is compelling.
Well, if neither side is quite appealing, White can turn to
the centre. The ‘crouching’ white central pawns do suggest a
central expansion with d3-d4. That immediately gives a sniff of
the wild to three of the currently tame White pieces, namely, the Rooks
and the Be2, all of whom suddenly have new prospects. An argument
against d4, of course, is that Black has sensibly parked a Rook on the
same file as the White Queen, so that after d3-d4, …c5xd4, the white
c-pawn is pinned against the Queen… Currently, White still has three
other units covering d4, so d3-d4 doesn’t lose anything, but it would
be nice to threaten to take over the centre by d3-d4 and be able to
recapture c3xd4 with two pawns abreast. Having had this idea, I
can see that I can get the white Queen off the c-file with gain of
tempo:Qd2 forces some sort of response from Black, like Kh7, when most
of our earlier options are still available. After which, I think
taking space in the centre with d4 seems very logical. I also
think that is White’s best short-term goal; long-term, it is hard to
tell what a general space advantage can lead to, but this push seems to
put pressure on Black’s game and gives a definite (modest) advantage to
White. Medium-term… well, I can imagine playing d4-d5 (again
with tempo) squashing Black even more; I can imagine playing e4-e5,
opening lines in the centre… Just at the moment, White doesn’t have
enough covering e5 to make that much of a threat, but Bf4 or f2-f4
would definitely make it a contender.
Charlie’s actual move was f4. So far, I’ve listed two
separate if not overwhelming reasons for this move: to open a file with
f4-f5, and to support a pawn advance after d3-d4 and e4-e5.
Having thought of playing it, I can see another virtue in the move:
parking that fidgety light-squared Bishop on f3, waiting for the
liberating e4-e5. This is the Bishop without an opposite number
on the Black side, it’s the Bishop which make use of the weakened light
squares on Black’s Queen’s-side… so it should be doing more in life
than getting in the way of the Rooks!
Overall, then, 22.f2-f4
was probably worth more comment than I gave it, but it was plausible,
unobjectionable and had more than one point… And there were more
important things to mention! If you fancy a go yourselves, what
would you comment on this whole game? I’ll show you what I sent
Charlie in a week or two.
22.f4 Nc7 23.d4 cxd4 24.Nxd4 Nde6 25.e5 Nd5 26.Qe4 Nxe3 27.Qxe3 Qxa4
28.Bb5 Qa2 29.exd6 exd6 30.Nxe6 fxe6 31.Bd7 Qxb2 32.Qxe6+ Kh8 33.Bxc8
Qxc3 34.Bb7 Qc5+ 35.Kh1 Rxf4 36.Rc1 Qb5 37.Qxg6 Rf6 38.Re8+ Rf8
39.Rxf8+ Bxf8 40.Be4 Qd7 41.Rc8 Qxc8 42.Qh7# 1-0
[C] Charlie’s notes. My notes
on Charlie’s game
Just to complete the story; were they anything like yours?
Complete game without notes for you to annotate:
Complete game with notes for you to compare:
Your Actual Mistakes
(or, Towards Bona Chess)
Richard Fredlund wrote:
Hi Dave, Would it be possible to look at the kind of mistakes we all tend to make in practice in our actual games?
Of course. I'll have a think... D
So, here’s some thoughts: first, some cherry-picking…
- Before we got to tonight, I had a look at the Elements of a profile and thought that the only thing I hadn’t done justice to was the opening. It’s interesting to look at people’s comments there: most people just said they wanted to improve ‘openings’ without being at all specific (viz. ‘I need an answer to the Sicilian Defence’ or ‘What’s the best line for a solid Black player against the Trompovsky?’). Nigel Davies has identified a tendency for people unfairly to blame their lack of opening knowledge for losses and says, ‘Don’t blame the opening‘ (rather, blame your chess sense, or your misunderstanding of the resulting structures).
- Andrew Soltis once wrote a whole book about chess mistakes: his classification is to be found elsewhere on the website.
- Jonathan Rowson produced a list of The Seven Deadly Chess Sins:
thinking (unnecessary or erroneous);
blinking (missing opportunities; lack of resolution);
wanting (too much concern with the result of the game);
materialism (lack of attention to non-material factors);
egoism (insufficient awareness of the opponent and his ideas);
perfectionism (running short of time, trying too hard);
looseness (“losing the plot”, drifting, poor concentration). - Chris Baker’s Learn from your chess mistakes lists:
Openings:
poor opening preparation,
being over-prepared and getting ‘stale’,
being caught by your opponent’s preparation,
choice of openings/learning new lines and styles,
understanding standard and re-occurring themes,
being caught by move orders and transpositions
Middlegame:
Losing the ‘thread’ of the position,
miscalculation,
confidence and playing against stronger/weaker opponents,
middlegame judgement,
losing the initiative,
missing your shot
Endgame:
Endgame technique,
forming a plan,
having too many choices and missing tricks,
understanding ‘good and bad pieces’,
control - Dan Heisman thinks that he has identified the 13 Most Common OTB mistakes, among which is not playing appropriately for the chess state that you’re in:
1) playing too fast because of overconfidence
2) not recognizing the critical moment
3) playing too fast because of carelessness
4) being overcautious
5) guarding instead of moving
6) miscounting
7) allowing a removal of the guard tactic
8) not adjusting from one phase of the game to another, or not playing differently when way ahead or behind
9) counterattacking a guarded rook when an unguarded minor piece is attacked
10) not developing all your pieces
11) making threats that are easily parried
12) overlooking that your move can be easily refuted by a check, capture, or threat
13) not asking yourself, “what are all the reasons my opponent made that move?
Of these offerings, Heisman claims his list has been based on his experience as a full-time tutor, but beyond that they all seem pretty impressionistic. That is, I think they’re all important mistakes, but I don’t know how common they all are in practice. Heisman certainly has found miscounting and removing the guard to be of greater importance for his students than he originally thought, but having trolled through a bunch of amateur games myself (with my distinctly amateur eye) I would have said forks were overlooked way more often than anything Heisman picks out. I’d be interested in doing some serious statistics on a bunch of amateur games; I don’t think we know a lot about the natural history of amateur chess. Anyhow, blinking slightly at the almost complete lack of overlap between these various lists, we can also try something a bit more local:
- The nearest I got to doing some serious statistics was showing 111 local games from the East Devon Premier and Major sections to Fritz for a typology of blunders (examples of each). The single biggest category in terms of tactical theme was an attack on the king, by way of a thinking error was an unmet or overlooked threat, but by way of psychological theme it was simple blindness: not seeing, probably because of not looking. Dan Heisman calls this ‘Hope Chess’; if you are not certain that every one of your opponent’s threats can be met on every move, you are merely hoping that you can meet them, and so every move you have to be lucky. I promise, it won’t last.
- What I haven’t done is a typology of errors other than tactical ones. I haven’t got time to do that before Tuesday, but I’ll have a go one day.
- Don’t forget where we came in: you’re the person best placed to know what mistakes you make in practice. Take a bona vada at your own games, share your conclusions. I’m pretty good on my own mistakes, Brian’s mistakes and some of Jon’s; I tried looking for common themes but I think we’ve all got distinctly individual ways of playing badly… So, Brian has a tendency to let his opponent have the centre and makes odd decisions about who is winning, Jon is inclined to change horses in mid-stream, and I often get muddled with my move order.
- I’ve just whizzed through a few dozen games from the three of us, and, if there is a theme, it’s something I’ve written about before: it is necessary and desirable to set problems and put your opponent under pressure.
- And its corollary: when you’re under pressure, you need to play twice as well.
- Without putting your opponent under pressure, you cannot expect them to make mistakes.
- If you are the one under pressure, you are more likely to make mistakes.
- And so there is nothing more dangerous than ‘playing safe’, allowing your opponent to build up as they wish.
Endgame ahoy!
A couple of members were struck by Simon’s discussion of
the [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ruy-lopez-exchange-variation-white-wins]Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation[/url]
during his talk about [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/exchanging-king-endings]King and Pawn
endgames[/url]. That’s the best example of endgame thinking arising
in the opening, but it’s not the only one.
There are [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/middlegame-endings-and-endgame-openings]endgame
openings[/url],
where the
queens come off early and the players forget about mating
attacks, as recommended by Edmar Mednis. There is one more opening
where we see an early queen swap:
Lasker’s Petroff exchange variation of the Petroff. Far from
choosing a
drawing variation, Lasker played it to win against selected opponents,
like Frank Marshall who might be expected to over-egg it. One
simple win from him was:
Example Game: Emanuel Lasker – Richard
Teichmann 1-0 [C42]
Much more commonly, we see endgame thinking arise in
games where there is a [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/pawn-formations]pawn
structure[/url] which will definitely get
better and better for one side as we approach the endgame — a familiar
example is the [url=http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/queens-gambit-acceptedisolated-queens-pawn]Isolated Queen’s Pawn[/url].
[blockquote]”[em]Before the endgame,
the
gods have placed the middlegame.[/em]” — Tarrasch.
[/blockquote]
Couldn’t
agree more, but accepting a pawn weakness for attacking chances
immediately gives your opponent a winning plan, namely, survive, swap
and win the endgame …
Example Game: Emanuel Lasker – Siegbert
Tarrasch 1-0 [D34]
I’ve found a comparable example from the French Defence
…
Example Game: Hartman – Yanofsky 1-0
[C09]
, and was immediately reminded of the same sort of
issue
with the
Backward Pawn you get in the same opening …
Example Game: Hunt Harriet – Song Yi 1-0 [C03]
The [url=”http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/whos-afraid-big-bad-minority-attack”]minority attack[/url]
in
the Queen’s Gambit Declined Exchange
Varation is all about saddling Black with a weakness that will persist
into the endgame:
Example Game: Evans – Opsahl 1-0 [D36]
In the games of Rubinstein and Capablanca we often see
opponents lured into losing endgames, lost because of weaknesses
acquired, if not in the opening, then certainly long ago; I gave a
couple of examples…
Example Game: Jose Capablanca – Abraham Kupchik 1-0 [C49]
Example Game: Jose Capablanca – Milan Vidmar sr [New York] 1-0 [C98]
…a couple of sessions ago, and offer today
another from Rubinstein …
Example Game: E. Cohn – A. Rubinstein
0-1 [D29]
Click on […] to see games list.
P.S. The famous Flohr-Capablanca game is here:
Example Game: flohr – moscow
capablanca 1/2 [D62]
Flohr did everything right – but couldn’t win!