How pawns make life easy (and hard) for pieces.
The best B Q K N R P ever!
Also, the best pieces and the worst pawns…
Category Archives: Strategy
“To take is a mistake”
I’ve heard this a lot recently — is it true?
(SPOILER: often but not always)
Clarity and anxiety in junior chess
I see this played quite a lot in the Scotch Game at the junior club:
White’s Queen occupies a fine central square and cannot be bothered by
Black’s minor pieces.
Why do juniors swap so readily? I think the tension gets to them. They
have learned that an unresolved tension (Nd4-Nc6) might be overlooked
later on (Qf3?? Nxd4 or Nc3 d6; Bc4 b6??; Nxc6+ or Bc5 Be3 Nge7?? Nxc6).
But swapping can also be a mistake. I think 4…Nxd4? just gives White
better chances, but I also think 3…exd4 is more or less forced. So,
how do you judge when to keep, and when to release, the tension? When
do you seek to swap, and when to hold steady?
The ability to create and to control the tension of battle is perhaps
the principal attainment of the great player. — Savielly Tartakower
To take is a mistake – definitely!
Opposed Rooks
Swapping a developed piece
Remember the start of the Opera Box Game?
Assessing exchanges
Some related examples from recent junior matches:
Don’t simplify against Capablanca!,
… I keep telling them at the office. (CHERNEV)
If Black hopes to swap their way to a draw in the Ruy Lopez exchange variation, they are mistaken! Every swap brings White closer to a won Pawn endgame.
Capa was master of the advantageous exchange, allowing the opponent to
weaken their position with every tempting swap.
To take is a mistake – well, sometimes!
Exchanging to victory:
Another tense formation (NID):
Many top-level opening choices have some sort of unresolved tension like
this. In fact, following Carlsen, the aim of the opening may not be a
fruitless search for an advantage as White or equality as Black, but
a position which gives you chances to outplay your opponent.
The whole concept has changed! Now the main concept is “to get a
layable position and maintain the tension”. – Sergey Karjakin
‘Release and strike’
Compare, exhibit A, getting into trouble in the Slav:
And Exhibit B, a modern main line:
Similarly:
And lastly:
Compare this
equalising line in the Queen’s Gambit Declined, Orthodox Variation:
You see exchanges used brilliantly in so many of Capablanca’s games,
either to consolidate a plus or to step aside neatly out of pressure.
It’s easy to appreciate, hard to do!
Never make a good move too soon – James Mason
The threat is stronger than its execution. Nimzowitsch
Sometimes the hardest thing to do in a pressure situation is to allow
the tension to persist. The temptation is to make a decision, any
decision, even if it is an inferior choice. — Garry Kasparov
A swap is rarely neutral – it will favour one side or the other.
So make sure it’s you! — Me
Coaching Zone at East Devon Congress 2026
Thanks to all those who attended, shared games, contributed comments and heckled; I hope you got something out of taking part.
LINK to Lichess study for Saturday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/6WyVNXpv/
LINK to Lichess study for Sunday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/QIirDybT
Short talks
- Saturday
- Sunday
- 11:00 Endgame study
- 12:00 Openings Q&A
- 1:00 Using computers
- 2:00 [Vote for a topic]
- 4:30 Candidate moves
- 5:30 Analysing your own games
- Extra links
Not all the talks actually happened but here are the intended slides; the slides were designed to support a talk and not to stand alone.
“To take is a mistake”
My young friend and former student Theo Slade quoted this to me a while ago.
“To take is a mistake”
In some circumstances, it’s easy to see why:
A capture by either side gives up the d-file and invites Rd7/Rd2, so both sides need to find something else to do.
There is a YouTube lecture by Smirnov on this subject, which has been made into a Lichess study, which makes the point thoroughly: https://lichess.org/study/MJ9ZFfKI
Another quote, from a current student:
“I’m a bit nervous about tension.”
OK, I get that. If you respond to a threat by defending the attacked piece, the threat remains in the air, and if you overlook it later, it can bite you. This is Smirnov’s first example:
So 1.Nxg4 Bxg4=, but 1.Nf3+/-
But of course, if control of h2 remains disputed, the N cannot move away from f3. But 1.Nf3! is still the best move and should be played!
A slight digression: The Ruy Lopez
“why is the Ruy Lopez … so difficult for Black to combat? (Nunn and Griffiths)
Good question. Let’s have a look:
Michael Stean comments here:
“The first and most primitive idea behind 3. Bb5 is to lay siege to Black’s e-Pawn, which will subsequently be liquidated by d4, thereby opening the floodgates for the White Pawn centre to scatter the enemy forces with the allied pieces following up to rout the broken army — no prisoners taken. Black cannot however be forced to surrender the centre. By keeping his own e-Pawn firmly defended Black can thwart all White’s aspirations of conquest in the centre, but this will lead to a rather cramped position. So the offspring of White’s plan is an advantage in space due to the necessity for his opponent to maintain a firm central barricade. This spatial plus however is not very big and the only way to maintain it is by avoiding any exchange of pieces. Black’s position (Diagram 73) has sufficient ‘capacity’ for three minor pieces, but not clearly enough for all four of them. This explains why White is willing to invest so much time early in the game (Bb5, Ba4, Bb3, Bc2, h3) purely to avoid exchanges. If his spatial strategy is to succeed he must leave Black with four minor pieces. These closed Ruy Lopez positions are some of the most subtle and complex in the whole opening repertoire. It is probably no coincidence that nearly all the great players of recent times have been deadly exponents of the Ruy Lopez. In the hands of Fischer or Karpov 3. Bb5 sometimes appears to win by force. For example, Karpov-Westerinen, Nice 1974. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 …
The clarity and popularity of Stean’s book has led to this being a leading interpretation of White’s chances in the Closed Morphy Defence. But there is more to it than that. Let us continue with the whole of that quote from Nunn and Griffiths:
“But already this opening has certain puzzling aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative, both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why should Black’s position be so awkward? The question really boils down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has problems.
“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position Black can easily get caught in a situation where his game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error (6…Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his position.”
— NUNN AND GRIFFITHS
Trying to go beyond the Good Doctor’s commentary is surely lese-majeste, but let me have a go anyway. Euwe and Kramer call this type of structure the Tension Form, and there we have another secret of the position. There is unresolved tension. The central pawns, White and Black, can take each other, be captured, recapture in different ways, or White can shut down the tension by d4-d5. Now, exactly where you want your pieces may be a different, depending on the central structure. If White takes on e5, the outpost on d5 may become tempting for a Knight (Stean is very good on this too), and so Black might want to keep a wary eye on that possibility, and be able to respond in the best way. If White plays d4-d5, that possibility vanishes, but other ideas appear. Operating under this tension and flexibility and uncertainty is difficult for Black, who has that constraint on their manoeuvres presented by the d6 pawn.
So the next question arises: why on earth would Black want to subject themselves to this sort of unpleasantness? Perhaps it is for lack of alternatives, but there is something else… Operating under this tension and flexibility and uncertainty is difficult for White too! Perhaps a little less so than for Black, but the positions are actually tricky for both sides, and not easy to simplify.
So Black might willingly take on a slightly squashed position — in the Lopez, in the Hedgehog, or in the Hippopotamus — in the hope that the opponent with more space will still face difficulties in finding the right piece placements and the right plans in a tense, changeable position. As Suba pointed out, once you have your pieces arranged prettily after the opening, you still have to play chess… So, learn to love tension!
Material imbalance: Queen for Two Rooks
I have to say, if this is the aspect of your game most in need of fixing, then count yourself lucky, but there are some general lessons to be learned.
Example games:
Ish follows some theory:
Ramdewar I. – Edney R. [B76]
Kramnik wins with the Rooks:
Leko P. – Kramnik V. [C42]
Fischer wins with the Queen:
Portisch L. – Fischer R. [E45]
The Queen on the attack:
Janowsky – Lasker
The Rooks make a team:
Euwe – Rubinstein [D05]
So, what features favour the Rooks, which the Queen?
Yusupov loses to the Queen:
Jussupow A. – Shaked T. [E81]
Yusupov has another go with the Rooks:
Jussupow A. – Marjanovic S. [D34]
Chernin finds an improvement:
Chernin A. – Marjanovic S. [D34]
Ish’s game in hindsight:
Ramdewar I. – Edney R. [B76]
Click on […] to see games list.
Strategy and/or tactics
Two or three things prompted this session:
- There was a long-running argument on the UseNet rec.games.chess
newsgroups earlier this year,
basically around the idea that “chess is tactics, and club
players should study nothing but tactics” (or 90%
tactics). - More recently I got a video by Nigel Davies called Dirty
Tricks which offered a complete repertoire
for a club player. In every line, there was at least one huge
smelly pit for the opponent to fall into, or some other hope of
some other dramatic way of finishing the game early. - Pete Lane has kindly offered to run a session soon on ‘Preparing
For Combinations’. Without knowing
what’s in it. I thought I might be able to do the overture for his
three-act drama.
I am probably the best example you could hope to find of a club
player trying to run strategically before they can walk tactically.
I used to play like beginners should, all open games and
swashbuckling attacks, but then I saw a striking positional game
(Bernstein-Mieses) which has been my ideal ever
since. I switched to playing the Queen’s Gambit (and, soon after,
the English Opening), but, like many club players, rather too many
of my games feature elementary tactical oversights. Here is a
particularly dismal example: me to play as Black, in a dominating
position, and to come up with three tactical blunders in a row…
Bellers,C – Regis,D [B27] Exeter Club Ch’p Exeter
Club Ch’p (5), 1997
33…Bxg3+?? [33…Re3! -+]
34.Kxg3 Qe5+ 35.Kxg4 h5+?? [35…Re4+!]
36.Kh3 Re3+?? [36…Qe6+] 37.Nf3 (sealed
move) (and resigned) 1-0
(37…Qf4?! might have been worth a punt OTB, but not
after a week’s analysis)In response to this obvious failing I have
tried to play more open games and treat all positions a little more
sharply.
However, I am far from persuaded that club players should
study nothing but tactics, or even devote (say) 75% of their study
time to it. But first let us hear the case for the prosecution:
“Chess is 99% tactics” — Richard TEICHMANN
“Until you are at least a high Class A player: Your
first name is ‘Tactics’, your middle name is ‘Tactics’, and your
last name is ‘Tactics’.” — Ken SMITH
“Thirty years ago (this was written in 1942),
Teichmann said that chess is 99% tactics. And despite the enormous
strides of chess theory since then, his percentage can only be
reduced a few points.
“Many amateurs think that master games are usually
decided by some deeply-laid plan covering all possibilities for at
least ten moves. It is still true that most games, even between the
greatest of the great, are decided by tactics or combinations which
have little or nothing to do with the fundamental structure of the
game.
“To take one striking example, look at the games of
the Euwe-Alekhin matches. Euwe is a player who analyses
openings ad infinitum, i.e., one who wants to
settle everything strategically. Alekhin is likewise adept at the
art of building up an overwhelming position. And yet in almost all
cases the outcome depended not on the inherent structure of the
play, but on some chance combination which one side saw and the
other side did not. Tactics is still more than 90% of
chess.” – – GM Reuben FINE, “Chess Marches
On“, Strategy and Tactics. (from
Richard S. Cantwell)
“It’s not that chess is 99% tactics, it’s just that
tactics takes up 99% of your time”- – NM Dan
HEISMANN.
“Chess IS tactics” — NM Ignacio MARIN
“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of
positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess
history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the
young chess player. ” — RICHARD RETI
…and so on. Moreover:
“It is a mistake to think that combination is solely
a matter of talent, and that it cannot be acquired” —
RETI
So, it seems fair to say that you do need to get your eye
in for tactics, and keep up your practice, and try to extend the
depth and range of what you can analyse routinely.
However, I would disagree with the conclusion that
tactics are the be all and end all at club level. It’s not just the
point that if chess was only a matter of calculation, it would be
unplayable – obviously the number of choices at each turn means you
must use your judgement to select which moves to analyse. Also, I’d
guess that for at least 9 moves out of every 10 there is not going
to be any combinational blow available for either side, so you are
going to have to think about something else, if only how to set up
such a blow. But the real reason I object is: where do these
tactics come from? Why do combinations arise at all? It used to be
thought that chess mastery depended on ingenuity, daring and
intuition, but according to Lasker there is…
“…No combination without a considerable plus, no
considerable plus without a combination” — Em. Lasker,
Manual of Chess, Book IV
So, before you get your tactical opportunity, you need to
build up a positional plus. Studying tactics alone is putting the
cart before the horse – or more fairly, the chicken before the
egg.
ASIDE: Part of this essay explains that I don’t
entirely agree with this view either; in fact, this is so dogmatic
that Lasker risks being dumped with Steinitz among the impractical
theorists rather than the practical players (of which he is usually
taken as a supreme example). So, why did Lasker make such a
statement? Well, there is more than a grain of truth in it, and I
think the absolute way in which Lasker expressed it was
born out of Lasker’s esteem for Steinitz, and particularly what he
saw as the heart of Steinitz’ theory. Anyhow, let’s listen to
Lasker’s ideas first, before criticising them.
Steinitz had many ideas which have become associated with the
treatment of closed positions, but Steinitz the player and
Steinitz the theorist both started in the arena of open,
tactical games. Lasker gives a game of Steinitz against
Hamppe as an example, with both players out to
score a win from the very start of the game. (In fact, Steinitz won
more brilliancy prizes than most of his ‘brilliant’ contemporaries,
and won them throughout his career.) Although he could play like
this, Steinitz also thought about, where do tactical combinations
come from?
“…If Steinitz continually took pains to discover
combinations, the success or failure of his diligent search could
not be explained by him as due to chance. Hence, he concluded that
some characteristic, a quality of the given position, must exist
… that would indicate the success or the failure of the search
before it was actually undertaken. (…)
“The master should not look for winning combinations,
unless he believed, unless he could prove to himself that he held
the advantage.
“An advantage could consist … not only in a single
important advantage but also in a multitude of insignificant
advantages.
“Therefore… in the beginning of the game ignore the
search for violent combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim
for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having
attained these ends search for the combination – and then with all
the power of will and intellect, because then the combination must
exist, however deeply hidden.” — Em. Lasker, Manual of
Chess, Book IV
I think here is the heart of the matter: combinations in
fact do not come out of nowhere, so if you want to strike
tactically, you must first play positionally. Morphy’s dominance
was often attributed to brilliance, and while Morphy undoubtedly
was brilliant his games were based on good positional principles,
and his combinations came out of positional advantages. If you fail
to understand this, you may end up in this, perhaps familiar,
predicament of amateur players:
“… the most disheartening issue was our failure to
play as well as we feel we should (…)
“Here is my hypothesis: My friend and I are both
afflicted with the same problem, Forcing The Issue. We have spent
so much effort learning tactics from setup positions, that once we
are in a real game, we try to apply our lessons to positions that
don’t warrant it. Subconsciously, we believe that every position
has some stunning combination in it that will allow us to win. When
we look for it, if it’s not there (most often the case), we try to
force one, causing a lost game.
“Studying tactics in setup positions is a VERY
necessary part of learning chess, but, knowing when to apply
tactical knowledge is, at this point in my education, to me even
more important. My friend’s opponent instinctively makes “better”
moves because my friend is making weaker moves, and so am I. Given
a setup position, he would most likely find the solution much
faster than his opponent. In a general position, we would both
likely find a combination that wasn’t there.” — Gene
THOMPSON, The Search for Great ChessPart V,
Chess Scene
(By the way, Gene is in my view also suffering from using
false positives‘, that is,
tests
which
include tempting tries but no actual winning tactic.)
Spielmann said something that alludes to the same
problem:
“I can see the combinations as well as Alekhin, but
I cannot get into the same positions.” — SPIELMANN
So, combinations do not come out of nowhere, but out of
previous good play, or out of the characteristics of the position,
and if you don’t play with that in mind, you can end up in
trouble.
Positional factors also explain how and where come
combinational blows actually fall. We nowadays speak of a
cutting-point combination (a sacrifice at
the crossroads of two lines which we control – for example, if
attacking the Black castled King’s position with your Nf5, Bb2 and
Rg1 all focussing on g7, the sacrifice Nxg7 should immediately be
considered. One might also cite Rubinstein’s
Immortal (Black against Rotlevi):
22. … Rxc3! 23.gxh4
if 23.Bxc3 Bxe4+ 24.Qxe4 Qxh2 ‘mate, or 23.Bxb7 Rxg3
24.Rf3 Rxf3 25.Bxf3 Nf7+ 26.Kg1 Ne4+ 27.Kf1 Nd2+ 28.Kg2 Nxf3
29.Qxf3 Rd2+ etc.
23. … Rd2!! 24.Qxd2
if 24.Qxg4 Bxe4+ 25.Rf3 Rxf3 etc, 24.Bxc3 Rxd2 with Rxh2
‘mate or Bxe4+ ‘mate to follow, or 24.Bxb7 Rxe2 25.Bg2 Rh3!
etc.
24. … Bxe4+ 25.Qg2 Rh3! 0-1
‘mate in three follows, 26.Rf3 Bxf3 27.Bd4 Bxd4 and Rxh2
‘mate.
Here we can see that Rubinstein’s well-posted pieces are
as much the heart of this combination as his insight; without
accumulating control of the open files and diagonals, none of it
would work. And the combination, once launched, works like
clockwork – based mostly on the power of the Bishop on the long
diagonal but also the Rook on the seventh rank. One attraction of
the combination for me is the way the two groups of Black pieces
are brought into a working geometric mechanism.
So, positional advantages not only let us know when, but
also where, to strike with a combination. Moreover, Steinitz’ theory
has
some important corollaries:
1. The right to attack belongs only to that side
which has a positional advantage, and this is not only a right, but
also a duty, otherwise there is the risk of losing the advantage.
The attack is to be directed against the weakest spot in the
opposing position.
2. The defending side must be prepared to defend and
make concessions, e.g making a weakening pawn move. However, the
defender should avoid making concessions until forced, and then
should make only the minimum concession necessary to meet the
threats.
3. In level positions the two sides will manoeuvre,
trying to tilt the balance of the position, each in their own
favour. With correct play on both sides, level positions keep on
leading to further level positions. Any attempt to undertake an
attack without an adequate positional basis should lead to a
disadvantage, if parried properly.
(after Kotov and Chernev)
So, we can now say more clearly what is wrong with a diet
of studying only tactics. We can also understand how Steinitz could
contain someone like Zukertort or Blackburn (see
games below, in particular the accumulation of advantages
against Blackburn). And we can look back at the
old nineteenth-century games and see how a Steinitz might have
handled them too:
“Playing through this beautiful game, we can see why
lovers of the romantic era speak so highly of such games and the
era in which they were played. …(But) these combinations should
never have been allowed to come into being. In an opening in which
both players relentlessly pursue their respective aims – without
acknowledging the requirements of the position – rapidly changing
situations are produced, culminating in (a sacrifice.)” —
KONIG
So, there is a lot to be said for this argument of Lasker
(and Steinitz), but he did overstep the mark when talking about
combinations, and Purdy was one who pointed this out most
forcefully. He had a lot of fun at Lasker’s expense about this
“utterly mad advice”, and indeed wrote an article entitled
‘The Steinitz-Lasker “Law” exploded‘.
He shows by looking at two famous games
(Reti-Alekhin 1925, and rather ironically the
game from the Lasker-Capablanca match in
1921 that put Lasker two points behind) that
combinations are sometimes available without there being any
considerable plus, perhaps no plus at all. You might say that you
know of, or can devise, a scheme for assessing positions which
gives the advantage to Lasker or to Alekhin in the two games, but
I know of none such. In any event, surely positional evaluations
cannot be made irrespective of any immediate and concrete tactical
possibilities; moreover, it is difficult to say whether the
familiar geometrical motifs that lie behind combinations – like a
weak back rank – should be called positional or tactical
considerations. For the club player this is all academic:
“The question that matters to you in actual play is
simply, ‘What is my best move?’, and if you can decide without
being sure who has the theoretical advantage, so much the better”
— PURDY
Now, Purdy’s criticism of this Steinitz-Lasker law is
pertinent, but not absolute. There is no doubt that the majority of
favourable combinations do appear in positions where one side has
the advantage.
My objection to the “Tactics, tactics, tactics” school of
thought is not to say that tactics are not important or that most
games are not decided by tactical blows. Indeed, what is often at
fault in the game of the club player is a failure to check for
their opponent’s opportunities in reply. Moreover, given the rather
static manner of play and poor level of defensive skill amongst
club players, they are probably as well advised to imitate
Zukertort or Blackburn than Lasker or Steinitz. Seizing the
initiative, going for an attack, and having an eye for random
chances are probably at least as important as positional judgement
in club play. But I would still not wish to call for one type of
study as being important – in particular, not for tactics being
more important than strategy.
Lasker once gave a scheme for studying chess, which is
much more convincing and pragmatic than his theorising about
combinations:
“Chess rules and exercises – 5 hours
Elementary endings – 5 hours
Some openings – 10 hours
Combination – 20 hours
Positional play – 40 hours
Practical play with analysis – 120 hours
“Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young
player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely
to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a
par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million
chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess
without making any progress. Without going into any further
calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that
nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of
achieving.” — Em. Lasker, Manual of Chess, Book
IV
Notice that “Practical play with analysis”
comprises over half of the hours of study. What I would take from
this is not that ‘positional play at 40 hours is more important
than combinational play at 20 hours‘, but rather that each are
to be integrated into a study of real games, both your own and
those of the masters. There is surely a case for balance in your
study: a balance between opening, middle- and end-game study, a
balance between reading, doing exercises and analysing your own
games.
I sometimes think studying is actually the easy bit.
Knowing what to study, based on an honest analysis of your own
strengths and weaknesses, is the hard bit. However, the goal may be
more clear:
“However obviously the majority of Chess-players may
be divided into two big classes of combination- and
position-players, in the Chess-master this antagonism is
transformed into a harmony. In him combination play is completed by
position play.” — Em. Lasker, Manual of Chess, Book
IV
Appendix: Games cited
Hamppe – Steinitz W [C29], Vienna,
1859
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.fxe5 Nxc3 6.bxc3
Qh4+ 7.Ke2 Bg4+ 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.d4 0-0-0 10.Bd2 Bxf3+ 11.gxf3 Nxe5
12.dxe5 Bc5 13.Qe1 Qc4+ 14.Kd1 Qxc3 15.Rb1 Qxf3+ 16.Qe2 Rxd2+
17.Kxd2 Rd8+ 18.Kc1 Ba3+ 19.Rb2 Qc3 20.Bh3+ Kb8 21.Qb5 Qd2+ 22.Kb1
Qd1+ 23.Rxd1 Rxd1# 0-1
Steinitz – Blackburne [C29], 1882
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.d3 dxe4 5.fxe5 Ng4 6.Nxe4 Nc6
7.c3 Qd5 8.Qb3 Qxb3 9.axb3 Ngxe5 10.d4 Ng6 11.Bc4 Be7 12.Nf3 h6
13.b4 0-0 14.0-0 Bf5 15.Nfg5 Bxe4 16.Nxe4 Nd8 17.b5 Re8 18.Ng3 Bf8
19.Nf5 Ne7 20.Ne3 Ne6 21.Ng4 Ng6 22.Bd5 Nd8 23.Bxh6 c6 24.bxc6 bxc6
25.Bc4 Re7 26.Bg5 Rd7 27.h4 Be7 28.h5 Nf8 29.Be3 Bd6 30.b4 Nde6
31.Ra6 Rc8 32.h6 Nh7 33.hxg7 Kxg7 34.Bh6+ Kg8 35.Bd3 Rcc7 36.Bd2
Nef8 37.Nh6+ Kh8 38.Be4 Re7 39.Bxc6 Re2 40.Nf5 Rxd2 41.Nxd6 Ng5
42.Re1 Nge6 43.Rf1 Nd8 44.b5 Rd3 45.Rf5 Nfe6 46.Ne4 Ng7 47.Rf6 Kg8
48.Rh6 Nge6 49.d5 Nf4 50.Rh4 Nxc6 51.Nf6+ Kf8 52.Rxc6 Rxc6 53.bxc6
Ng6 54.c7 Rxc3 55.d6 Ne5 56.Re4 1-0
Zukertort – Steinitz USA MATCH #9 [D26]
1886
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e3 c5 6.Bxc4 cxd4
7.exd4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qe2 Nbd7 10.Bb3 Nb6 11.Bf4 Nbd5
Steinitz pioneered the defence of the Queen’s Gambit
Accepted, and used this blockade which is still recognised as the
standard and best plan for Black.
12.Bg3 Qa5 13.Rac1 Bd7 14.Ne5 Rfd8 15.Qf3 Be8
16.Rfe1 Rac8 17.Bh4 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Qc7 19.Qd3 Nd5 20.Bxe7 Qxe7
21.Bxd5 Rxd5 22.c4 This metamorphosis to hanging pawns is
also now well-known. 22…Rdd8 23.Re3 Determined
to attack! 23…Qd6 24.Rd1 f6 25.Rh3 h6 26.Ng4 Qf4 27.Ne3
Ba4 28.Rf3 Qd6 29.Rd2 Bc6 30.Rg3 f5 31.Rg6 [31.Nd1 Lasker]
31…Be4 32.Qb3 Kh7 The tension mounts.
33.c5 Rxc5 34.Rxe6 Rc1+ 35.Nd1 Qf4 36.Qb2 Rb1 37.Qc3 Rc8
38.Rxe4 Qxe4 0-1
A dramatic finish, but it was all decided beforehand.
“If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for
Steinitz, possibly even his peer. … Every move of Zukertort’s
pointed towards a vigorous cooperation the pieces united to attack
the King. This is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready
made, and in the tactics of execution he was a great master.
Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans
over the board. […]”
“Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field
he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, he was unable
to make use of his faculty [in the majority of games in the match],
the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for
combinations. (…) Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in
vain, while Steinitz … was able to foresee them. Zukertort could
not understand how Steinitz was able to to prevent combinations…
he tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never
approached its solution by even one step.” — Em. Lasker,
Manual of Chess, Book IV
Lasker,E – Capablanca,J [D61] Havana,
1921
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7
7.Qc2 c5 8.Rd1 Qa5 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bh4 cxd4 11.exd4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nb6
13.Bb3 Bd7 14.0-0 Rac8 15.Ne5 Bb5 16.Rfe1 Nbd5 17.Bxd5
[17.Bxf6! Breyer
A) 17…Nxf6 18.Ng6 fxg6 (18…Rfe8 19.Rxe6!! fxe6?
20.Bxe6+ Kh7 21.Nf8+ Kh8 22.Qh7+ Nxh7 23.Ng6#) 19.Rxe6;
B) 17…Nxc3 18.Bxe7 Ne2+ 19.Rxe2 Rxc2 20.Rxc2;
C) 17…gxf6 18.Ng6;
D) 17…Bxf6 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Ng4! (19.Qf5 was
given by Lasker, ignoring Breyer’s move) 19…Bg5 (19…Bd8
20.Qf5) 20.f4! Bxf4 21.Qf5 Bc7! (21…Bb8 22.Qxd5 a6 23.a4
Rfd8 24.Qf5 g6 25.Nxh6+; 21…Bg5 CJSP 22.Qxd5 a6 23.Qxb7 Qb4
24.Nxb5 axb5 25.Re2) 22.Nxd5 Kh8 23.Nxh6 gxh6 24.Nf6 Kg7
25.Nh5+ Kh8 (25…Kg8 26.Qg4+ Kh7 27.Qg7#) 26.Qf6+ Kg8
27.Qg7#]
17…Nxd5 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Qb3 Bc6 20.Nxc6 bxc6
21.Re5 Qb6 22.Qc2 Rfd8 23.Ne2 Rd5 24.Rxd5 cxd5 25.Qd2 Nf5 26.b3 h5
27.h3 h4 28.Qd3 Rc6 29.Kf1 g6 30.Qb1 Qb4 31.Kg1 a5 32.Qb2 a4 33.Qd2
Qxd2 34.Rxd2 axb3 35.axb3 Rb6 36.Rd3 Ra6 37.g4 hxg3 38.fxg3 Ra2
39.Nc3 Rc2 40.Nd1 Ne7 41.Nc3 Rc1+ 42.Kf2 Nc6 43.Nd1 Rb1 44.Ke2 Rxb3
45.Ke3 Rb4 46.Nc3 Ne7 47.Ne2 Nf5+ 48.Kf2 g5 49.g4 Nd6 50.Ng1 Ne4+
51.Kf1 Rb1+ 52.Kg2 Rb2+ 53.Kf1 Rf2+ 54.Ke1 Ra2 55.Kf1 Kg7 56.Re3
Kg6 57.Rd3 f6 58.Re3 Kf7 59.Rd3 Ke7 60.Re3 Kd6 61.Rd3 Rf2+ 62.Ke1
Rg2 63.Kf1 Ra2 64.Re3 e5 65.Rd3 exd4 66.Rxd4 Kc5 67.Rd1 d4 68.Rc1+
Kd5 0-1
Reti ,R – Alekhin ,A [A00] Baden Baden (8),
1925
1.g3 e5 2.Nf3 e4 3.Nd4 d5 4.d3 exd3 5.Qxd3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Bb4+
7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2 0-0 9.c4 Na6 10.cxd5 Nb4 11.Qc4 Nbxd5 12.N2b3 c6
13.0-0 Re8 14.Rfd1 Bg4 15.Rd2 Qc8 16.Nc5 Bh3 17.Bf3 Bg4 18.Bg2 Bh3
19.Bf3 Bg4 20.Bh1 h5 21.b4 a6 22.Rc1 h4 23.a4 hxg3 24.hxg3 Qc7
25.b5 axb5 26.axb5
26…Re3!! 27.Nf3?! cxb5 28.Qxb5 Nc3 29.Qxb7 Qxb7
30.Nxb7 Nxe2+ 31.Kh2 Ne4 32.Rc4 Nxf2 33.Bg2 Be6 34.Rcc2 Ng4+ 35.Kh3
Ne5+ 36.Kh2 Rxf3 37.Rxe2 Ng4+ 38.Kh3 Ne3+ 39.Kh2 Nxc2 40.Bxf3 Nd4
0-1
Rotlewi – Rubinstein, Lodz 1907/8,
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.dxc5 Bxc5
7.a3 a6 8.b4 Bd6 9.Bb2 O-O 10.Qd2? Only 10.cxd5 exd5
11.Be2/d3 could save the opening. 10. … Qe7! 11.Bd3 dxc4
12.Bxc4 b5 13.Bd3 Rd8 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.O-O Ne5 16.Nxe5 Bxe5 17.f4 Bc7
18.e4 Rac8 19.e5 White is asking for trouble. The open c-
and d-files have been left uncontested, and the pawn advances have
additionally opened diagonals for the Black bishops. A.R. moves
over to a direct attack. 19. … Bb6+ 20.Kh1 Ng4!
21.Be4 Of course 21.Qxg4 Rxd3 is strong. 21.Ne4 Rxd3
22.Qxd3 Bxe4 23.Qxe4 Qh4 24.h3 Qg3 25.hxg4 Qh4 ‘mate begins to
reveal the danger White is in. 21. … Qh4 22.g3 DIAGRAM
22. … Rxc3! 23.gxh4 if 23.Bxc3 Bxe4+ 24.Qxe4 Qxh2
‘mate, or 23.Bxb7 Rxg3 24.Rf3 Rxf3 25.Bxf3 Nf7+
26.Kg1 Ne4+ 27.Kf1 Nd2+ 28.Kg2 Nxf3 29.Qxf3 Rd2+ etc. 23.
… Rd2!! 24.Qxd2 if 24.Qxg4 Bxe4+ 25.Rf3 Rxf3 etc,
24.Bxc3 Rxd2 with Rxh2 ‘mate or Bxe4+ ‘mate to follow, or 24.Bxb7
Rxe2 25.Bg2 Rh3! etc. 24. … Bxe4+ 25.Qg2 Rh3!
0-1 ‘mate in three follows, 26.Rf3 Bxf3 27.Bd4 Bxd4 and
Rxh2 ‘mate. [Notes by Peter Lane]
Bernstein – Mieses [B45] 1921
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nxc6 bxc6
7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 f5 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Ne4 12.Qd4 Nf6
13.Qd6 Ne4 14.Qb4 d5 15.Bd3 Qd6 16.Qxd6 Nxd6 17.f4! A key
move, preventing the advance e6-e5 when Black’s position is fine.
The rest of the game features an iron determination to prevent any
freeing move by Black, and a gradual invasion on the dark squares.
17…a5 18.Be3 Ba6 19.Kd2 Nc4+ 20.Bxc4 Bxc4 It is
sometimes assumed that the presence of opposite-coloured bishops is
a powerful drawing factor. This is true of some simple or blocked
positions, but here all Black’s pieces stand badly because of the
weak dark squares. 21.a4 Kd7 22.b3 Ba6 23.Bb6 Bc8 24.Ke3
Ra6 25.Bc5 Kc7 26.Kd4 Bd7 27.Rhe1 h5 28.Re5 g6 29.Rg5 Rg8 30.Ke5
Be8 31.Re1 Ra8 32.Kf6 Bd7 33.g3 Rae8 34.Ree5 Rh8 35.Rxg6 Rh7 36.Rg7
Reh8 37.Rxh7 Rxh7 38.Kg6 Rh8 While there’s life…
39.Kg7 ! [39.Rxh5 Be8+] 39…Rd8 40.Rxh5
Be8 White needs to be sure of his ground here, as he has
an alternative plan of advancing the h-pawn. 41.Rh7 Rd7+
42.Kh6 Rxh7+ 43.Kxh7 How many moves will it take White to
Queen a Pawn? How many for Black? 43…Bh5 44.h4 Bd1 45.c3
Bxb3 46.g4 Kd7 47.g5 e5 48.f5 Bxa4 49.f6 1-0
Bellers,C – Regis,D [B27] Exeter Club Ch’p
Exeter Club Ch’p (5), 1997
1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nf3 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5 6.exd5 Nf6
7.Bb5+ Nbd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d6 exd6 10.Nc3 a6 11.Bd3 Nb6 12.Bg5 h6
13.Bh4 Be6 14.Re1 Qd7 15.Qd2 Nbd5 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Rac8 18.a3
Rfe8 19.Bg3 Nf6 20.Bd3 Nh5 21.Nh4 Nxg3 22.hxg3 g5 23.Nf3 Bf5
24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Bxf5 Qxf5 26.Rc1 Qe4 27.Qb4 Qd5 28.Rc7 g4 29.Nh4
Bxd4 30.Rxb7 Re2 31.Rb8+ Kh7 32.Qb7 Bxf2+ 33.Kh2 [DIAGRAM]
33…Bxg3+?? [33…Re3! -+] 34.Kxg3 Qe5+
35.Kxg4 h5+?? [35…Re4+!] 36.Kh3 Re3+??
[36…Qe6+] 37.Nf3 (sealed) 1-0
Next:
“Combinative vision manifests itself at an early age,
and children are quick to notice and execute combinations which
chance to turn up. Preparing combinations,
however, is more difficult for them.” — ZAK, Improve your
chess results.
Bibliography
LASKER, Manual of Chess
PURDY, The Search for Chess Perfection
CHERNEV, Logical Chess
KOTOV, Play like a Grandmaster
KONIG, Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik
Safe and solid?
From a recent email
“The most important single feature of a chess position is the activity of the pieces… (opening, middle, and especially endgame)… The primary constraint on pieces’ activity is the pawn structure.”
— Michael STEAN
Bumptious Bishops
The artillery of the chessboard, landing blows from afar.
Space and potential (mud, mud, glorious mud)
How do you play against the Hippo? It’s all about Space and
Potential. At risk of sounding like an estate agent, I propose to
describe my limited understanding of these issues…
Space
All else being equal, it’s an advantage to have more space. More
space means you can get about the board more easily, organise an attack
more easily, and sometimes all your opponent can do is sit tight while
you work out how to win:
Giving up the centre — Nimzowitsch again
What’s going on here?
We have two very different cases: more space with a fixed pawn
centre, and more space with a fluid centre. When things are not fixed,
the side with more space may have to watch out for counterplay right
across the board. There are half-open files, sort-of outposts, and the
possibility of a break on the side you take your eye off! These days,
the half-open centre is often contested in the Scotch, Caro-Kann and
sometimes the French Defences.
Half-open centres
- …e5xd4, Nxd4 in the Scotch Game
- …d5xe4, Nxe4 in the French and Caro-Kann
- …c5xd4, Nxd4 in the Sicilian
White has more space, and, while Black has counterplay, sometimes
that’s what decides the game. White can organise an attack, and if
things break open, can occupy key squares and lines more easily. White can add importantly to the space advantage with f2-f4 or c2-c4.
On the other hand, as Tarrasch said, “Chess is a terrible game. If you have no center, your opponent has a freer position. If you do have a center, then you really have something to worry about!”
We’ll have one more advertisement for the centre before considering its burdens.
The Maroczy Bind: c4 and …c5xd4
Black’s counterplay in the Sicilian often comes from a Queen’s-side
push with …b5 (minority attack) or a well-timed counterblow in the
centre with …d5. Why doesn’t White stop both of these ideas with
c2-c4? (The Maroczy Bind). It can be crushing…
Ah, if only life was always so simple. In most lines of the
Sicilian, White is not allowed time to get in this c2-c4 move at all. In
others, White has time for c2-c4, but Black has time for development and
counterplay. In only one or two lines of the Sicilian has the Maroczy
proved to be a lasting test of Black’s resources, and even there Black
can play with hopes of equality or even turning around the game.
The Accelerated Dragon is the most common place where we see Binds, and
Black can hope to restrain the White structure, swap off all White’s
best pieces, and go for a QN vs QB endgame. That happens perhaps more often in Black’s head than on the board, but this might do as an exanmple:
Maroczy Bind with g3 and …g6
We often see this line arising from English Opening lines, mainly
the Symmetrical Variation. White has long been thought to have good
chances of an advantage, and I have enjoyed playing it as White:
It’s mate in 6…
I’ve often had Black knights crawling all over the dark squares on the Queen’s-side, but still won the game, because Black lacked the capacity to follow through with anything meaningful.
The Hedgehog: Maroczy Bind with g3 and …e6
“Playing against the Hedgehog requires forthright planning —
grabbing space and then doing something with it.” says Mark Ginsburg
Hedgehog with Bb7 and Nc6
I had the privilege of watching the following game. I have a feeling
that …Nc6 is a bit in the way. but there’s more going on here than I
can follow…
Hedgehog with Bb7 and Nbd7
Mihai Suba wrote an amusing book about the Hedgehog, Dynamic
Chess Strategy. He suggests that White can easily and quickly adopt
‘perfect’ but unimprovable position, and, while Black may be cramped,
can always find ways to improve things. It’s a psychological problem as
much as a chess one, but it is a problem, and no more clearly seen than
in this game from Chess for Tigers:
Much the same point is made by Sielecki in
recommending the Hedgehog [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YARzPWgDSQ ]
(or ‘headshock’) against the London: Black can find ways to improve and
expand more easily than White.
Double fianchetto hedgehog
It exists, but you don’t meet it very often, as it’s something of an
extravagance. d5 is very inviting for a Knight, and if chased off with …e6, the Black dark-squared Bishop cannot cover d6, f6 and h6 all at
once.
I had some ideas of probing the dark squares with Ng4 which may have made my illustrious opponent nervous, but Stockfish is unimpressed.
The Hippopotamus: double fianchetto with a full board
The Hippopotamus is often used in this formation:
[chessboard]
r2qk2r/1bpnnpb1/pp1pp1pp/8
[/chessboard]
Black has the entire second rank covered, has no obvious weaknesses and can probe with any pawn at any point.
Double fianchetto systems are as old as chess, but the Hippo looks
and feels a bit fishy to many when adopted by Black and with the
half-smothered Knights.
Yet, there are many great players who have tried
it as Black and even more great players who have made no progress
against it as White. Keene and Botterill give as evidence a game of
Keres who drew against Navarovsky’s Hippo (1/2-1/2, 27 moves) and
Petrosian’s two draws against Spassky’s beasts.
Spassky had a game with the Hippo against that great hypermodern innovator Ujtekly, which, although he won, may have given him some respect for its resilience — enough to try it in the greatest arena of chess.
Potential
“Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get filthy and the pig enjoys it!
The Hippopotamus is one of chess’s dirty little secrets. In a
repertoire book by White, you will rarely (never?) see a recommendation
of how to play against the Hippo — for example, it failed to make even the chapter
titled ‘Garbage’ in Sam Collins’ 2004 book — but players at all levels wheel
it out and survive and even thrive with it. Black’s position is ‘cramped
but not compromised’, in the words of Keene and Botterill, and White can
easily over-stretch, just as against the the Hedgehog. Every advance by White loosens the position, and Black may be well-placed to take advantage of new opportunities.
Jonathan Rowson
wondered aloud if the Hippo has now just about made it onto the
‘respectable’ list, where Black’s potential is compensation for White’s
space or initiative (Chess for Zebras, page 237) — the argument here is
similar to Suba’s point about the Hedgehog. As Tartakower once remarked, White has their initiative to defend!
So far, so general. It’s probably better to look at some specific formations.
The two-pawn centre hippopotamus
[chessboard]
r2qk2r/1bpnnpb1/pp1pp1pp/8/3PP3/2N2N2
[/chessboard]
With Black having full pawn control of the fourth rank, it’s almost
certain that White will have to break through with a pawn move. However,
e4-e5 can be readily met by …d6-d5, getting into a sort of French
Defence centre with White’s pieces in front of the c- and f-pawns, which
they might want to move. Black can quickly follow up with ….c7-c5 and perhaps …f7-f6, and
White may regret pushing the e-pawn!
Similarly, after d4-d5, Black can reply …e6-e5, getting a King’s
Indian sort of centre where …f5 is easy for Black to achieve, while
c2-c4-c5 may be a long way off for White.
White can hope that Black’s weaknesses on the wing where White gets
more space (King’s-side in the French, Queen’s-side in the King’s
Indian) are enough to override any inconvenience from advancing a pawn.
Whizzing through a number of 2500-level White wins in the Hippo, this
seems the most common way of winning.
Transfer to King’s Indian formation
Transfer to French formation
Black keeps the tension after a White advance
This maintenance of tension gives White the chance to swap an advanced pawn for a Bishop’s pawn — not usually a good idea, but might allow access to lines or squares.
White gets in with a break
White can try and arrange some other sort of breakthrough, perhaps
using some other pawn. Sometimes the breaks work, sometimes they don’t;
sometimes one or other side gets in on the wing, even while the central
situation is unresolved:
Black successfully anticipates a break:
White holds the tension
There is a long and interesting lecture about this game by the winner, available on Youtube
White hesitates and is lost:
If White just sits on their pretty development and does nothing with it,
Black can undermine the White centre with flank blows like …c5, and
even advance and take over the centre in Hypermodern style.
Black succeeds with wing play:
Black may be tempted or obliged to advance a pawn to the fourth rank
on the wing. …b5 is a common idea in the Modern, and more typical of
the Hippo is …g5 with the idea of …Ne7-g6-f4.
White succeeds with wing play:
Obliged or tempted Black may be, but once such an
advance has happened, White has something to aim at. …g5 invites the f2-f4 break, …b5 invites a2-a4, and …h5 invites g2-g4.
The main line?
Tiger’s Modern gives best play against White’s best set-up as notes to this game:
The three-pawn centres against the Hippo
With the adjustment of a Knight and the advance of the c- or f-pawn,
we have a three-pawn centre hippopotamus, and now Black needs to take
notice, as the White centre is much more solid. Black can hope that
while White is arranging all this, Black can sort out some way of
meeting it, or provokes White into advancing before they are quite ready
by some wing advance of their own.
Some of the most critical lines against Hippo structures start by
White aiming at a three-pawn centre from the very start.
def centre against the Hippo
I would have guessed this was risky for Black. Nigel Davies has made
a good case for it but Tiger Hillarp Persson doesn’t recommend it in his
book on the Modern, preferring to expand while possible with …b5, and
only permitting the luxury of the Hippo once White has committed to
blocking both Bishop’s pawns.
cde centre against the Hippo
This can arise from the English Defence
Miles and Short have both dabbled in it, pointing at White’s slow
3.a3 as justification.
In Danny King’s book on the English Defence, he suggests an early h2-h4 can critically restrict Black’s chances to expand, as shown in a couple of Milov-Miles games.
Nakamura rather provocatively tried it against Kramnik when White
had wasted no time at all… In a King’s Indian formation, the typical advance c4-c5 arrived
with lightning speed.
Move orders
People that know me won’t be surprised that I wonder if the Hippo can be move-ordered. I haven’t hit on anything yet, but there are some specific move orders that Black is well-advised to avoid:
Click [. . .] to list games
Creating and exchanging strong pieces
The pieces at their best
[Click on … to see list of games]
Successful exchanges
[Click on … to see list of games]
Pros and cons of exchanges
[Click on … to see list of games]
Making the position better for your pieces and worse for your opponent: basics
Opening lines for pieces
Making the position better for your pieces and worse for your opponent: the struggle of BB vs BN/NN
[Click on … to see list of games]