Category Archives: Tactics

A course in chess tactics

Posted on by

Short, violent games of chess, organised by theme

 

Tactical surprises

Posted on by

28th_July_09 Tactical surprises

Tactical surprises: a preliminary sketch

the problem:

Let’s have a look at an example:

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+b1.g.0p|
|p+n+.0.+|
|+p0.H.)n|
|.+.0.).+|
|+.+P+.+P|
|P)PGN!B+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Stretten-Keen 2009 (W)

The crushing continuation was

1. Bd5+ Kf8

and at the time, Fritz confidently announced:

2. g6!+-

Rather later, Stockfish sees:

2.Nf7+ Kg8 3.Ne6+ +-, winning the Exchange.

Showing this to the group, Bd5+ was the first move suggested, but Charlie reports that he didn’t even consider it! Why the disparity?

Let’s see that position in a bit of context: the previous moves were:

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+b1.gp0p|
|p+n+.+.+|
|+p0.+.)n|
|.+.0.).+|
|+.+P+N+P|
|P)PGN!B+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Stretten-Keen 2009 (W)

  • Keen C. – Streeter H. [B23]

1. Ne5 f6

2. Bd5+ Kf8

3. g6!

Now we see that, a couple of moves ago, Bd5 was not a legal move, and would not have been check if it was! So, one tip for not being surprised would be:

  • After each move, try to list any new possibilities for each side, particularly newly legal moves.

To anticipate a little the later discussion, you generally have a little list of ‘Moves I would like to make soon’ and ‘Moves I expect my opponent will make soon’, which we might call candidate moves , and you need to be as sure as you can that you aren’t leaving anything important off these lists.

Also, that move counts as an intermezzo , an in-between move: White ignores the apparently forcing threat on the Knight. In fact, only checks are genuinely forcing. This suggests another tip:

  • Before you decide on your move, ask: can I, or can my opponent, ignore the threat?

work in progress: identifying and working on a problem

I (DR) found myself regularly falling for destructive combinations against my French Defence, sacrifices of a piece against my central pawns. Here are a few:

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p+b+.0p|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.gp1.H.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HQ+.).|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Headlong-Regis 2003 (W)

  • Headlong F. – Regis D. [C02]

+-----------------+
|.+r1.4k+|
|+.+b+.gp|
|p+n+p+p+|
|+p+p)n+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|).HQ+N+P|
|.).+B)PG|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+
Benson-Regis 2004 (W)

  • Benson P. – Regis D. [C02]

+-----------------+
|.4r+.+k+|
|0.+.+p+p|
|.+n$p+pg|
|+q+p).+.|
|Q+.).+B+|
|+.+.+.+P|
|.+.+N)P+|
|+.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Thompson-Regis 2005 (W)

  • Thompson D. – Regis D. [B27]

Diagnosis may be most of the cure here: I should not assume that my long-standing pawn structure is indestructible.

the variety of tactical motifs

  • Take for nothing
  • Checkmate
  • Knight forks
  • Pins
  • Skewers
  • Other forks
  • Discoveries
  • Nets
  • Sacrifice
  • More attackers than defenders
  • Undermining
  • Overloading
  • Double check
  • Queening
  • Clearance
  • Decoys
  • Stalemate
  • Interference

The technician, whose vocabulary has been doubled by Dr. Euwe, will find that White could have saved his soul by a desperado combination. Had this failure anything to do with the fact that Dr. Euwe’s terminology was not yet existent at that time!?

— Reinfeld, to Thomas-Euwe, Carlsbad 1929.

I suggested that you need to be fluent in these motifs. Charlie remarked that this was a ‘big ask’, but I don’t think it’s hugely different to learning a new language — or a new alphabet — which is definitely a challenge but which loads of people do all t he time.

Fluency comes mostly through practice. A while ago I suggested that fluency comes in stages:

  1. I’ve heard of it!
  2. I know it when I see it
  3. I can spot it in simple examples
  4. I can spot it in complex examples and I can use it in my own games

exercising imagination by solving problems

“Let us repeat once more the methods by which we can increase our combinative skill:

“(1) by careful examination of the different types and by a clear understanding of their motives and their premises

“(2) By memorising a number of outstanding as well as of common examples and solutions

“(3) Frequent repetition (in thought, if possible) of important combinations, so as to develop the imagination.”

— Euwe, Strategy and Tactics in Chess

I was rather provoked by the notion that flights of imagination are best developed by leaden rehearsal, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.

motifs in combination

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|0p+q+.gn|
|.+.0.+p+|
|+.0P+p+.|
|PhP+.+.G|
|+.HB+Q+P|
|.).+.+P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
(W) I found this one quite surprising.

Some lessons from this example might be:

  • If there is a move you really want to make, try and make it!
  • Look at your intended moves in different orders: one order might unlock the box

other surprising moves

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|+b0R+p+.|
|.0q+p!p+|
|0.+.).+p|
|P+P$.+.)|
|+.+.+N+.|
|.+P+.)P+|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+
Short-Timman 1991 (W)

I enjoyed all your suggestions here, but once you are shown the first move of the continuation, the idea is apparent and amusing.

The surprise lies in breaking a rule: hide your King in the middlegame, use your king actively only in the endgame.

  • All chess rules are really guidelines!

amazing moves

+-----------------+
|.+r+.+.i|
|0b+.1.+P|
|.0.+.+.+|
|+.+P0.+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+P+.$.+.|
|PGr!.+P)|
|+.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Zukertort-Blackburne 1883 (W)

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+.+.ip+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|p+.+r)R)|
|+.+K+.).|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+
Flohr-Geller 1949 (B)

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+k0p+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|p+.+.+.)|
|+.G.+.+.|
|.+.+.+P+|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+
Topalov-Shirov 1998 (B)

All from Emms’ The Most Amazing Chess Moves Of All Time

A fun way to extend your assumptions about what is possible. It makes Euwe’s advice a pleasure to follow!

candidate moves (KOTOV) and candidate replies

  • “All candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one’s head.” — Kotov,A Think like a Grandmaster , tr. Cafferty. [1978] (Batsford)

    • Kotov has come in for a lot of stick recently, but I think this is not bad advice. What are you doing that is any better?!

    checks and captures first (PURDY)

    • Examine moves that smite!

    That is, checks and captures.

    every check and every capture? (CHERNEV/REINFELD)

    • Examine every possible check and capture at every move

    Oh, how many games would I have saved by obeying this one!

    I don’t know how many people actually do this either, but again, what do you do that is any better?

    The other side of the coin

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+P+.0p|
    |.+.+.+.i|
    |+p+.+.1.|
    |p+.+.+.+|
    |)b)N+.+.|
    |.).H.+.+|
    |+.I.$.+.|
    +-----------------+
    Short-Kasparov 1993 (W)

    I don’t know what made Short miss this line ( 1.Rh1+ Kg6 2.Ne5+ Kf5 3.Nc6)

    You have to notice that the undefended Knight on e5 cannot be taken and then you have to follow two checks with a quiet move… but once you focus on getting a Knight to cover d8, then you didn’t take long to spot it.

    The point of this example is: the other half of the coin of being surprised is missing chances
     

    Work in progress

    Nxe6!, Nxd5! and Qxb5 Qxb5 Rxe6!

    Combination

      …Re3!

    Short surprise

      Kh2!

    Amazing moves

      Qb4, …Kg7, …Nh3

    Tactics: combinations and blunders

    Posted on by

    1. Chess is 99% tactics , said Richard Teichmann.nbsp; However, 90% of the time, there is no tactic for either side.nbsp; So, as well as any difficulty presented by a complicated position, we also have to counter our natural laziness in not looking out for a rare event, as if each move we are crossing the a quiet country road, and not bothering to check for oncoming traffic. When they think it’s a quiet position, even the best players miss things .

    2. Tactical ability can be improved, says Dvoretsky. He described two elements: vision and analysis. Both can be developed by completing exercises. [An uncomfortable corollary: If you don’t exercise, don’t expect to get better!]

    3. You need to have a good understanding of the varieties of tactics. There are different ways of classifying and naming this variety; Purdy gives six simple headings of:- Jumps, Mates, Forks, Nets, Pins and Ties. These building blocks can be fitted together to make a combination, a set of more or less forcing moves, often with a sacrifice, resulting in your advantage.

    4. The more combinations you see, the more you will be able to see. Real examples are very helpful in developing your imagination, throwing up ideas that you can analyse. Euwe doesn’t call it imagination, he calls it combinational vision, but he and Dvoretsky both agree that looking at different problems helps. The most obvious thing that it helps, which you would expect, is that you can develop depth and accuracy the same way; keep pushing yourself on speed and depth.

    5. Purdy also advises us, when searching for combinations: examine moves that smite! These are checks and captures; both are forcing moves which limit the range of reasonable responses. The move that is right when a tactic is available is usually the opposite of a ‘normal’ sensible move.

    6. You should always examine every position for ‘accidental’ tactics, but look especially hard if you think you have an advantage (if your position is better, your better pieces are more likely to work up a combination between you) or if you notice the clues for a combination: an unsafe king or loose pieces.

    7. You should also be aware that there is another, less well-known, list: the list of difficult moves to spot: Long moves, Backwards moves, Declining to capture, an intermezzo or Zwischenzug, False endings, Coming back from the dead, Quiet (‘creeping’)moves in noisy positions, Switchbacks, Hesitations, and in John Nunn’s uneuphonious coinage, Collinear moves (throwing yourself on the sword).

    8. So much for the theory. You can be good at a lot of that stuff and still lose games because of tactics. You have two other pitfalls to avoid: [1] Going to sleep and ignoring an approaching fin until the shark bites your leg off, and [2] forcing the issue, trying to make combinations happen in positions which are not ripe. If you have the first problem, you need to become more paranoid: they really are out to get you!

    9. I have been bellyaching for a while that books of puzzles don’t test you properly, because every position has a solution, and you can often guess what the answer is just because you know it has a solution. One author in particular has tried to get around this problem, namely Chris Ward; an example is Chess Choice Challenge 3, but even here, the vast majority of the 80 positions have a ! or !! solution.

    10. The last thing you need to do is make checking for tactics and combinations part of whatever routine you have for choosing a move. I have written simply about a four-step THINKing process: [1] checking for threats (and dealing with them if you have to using ABCD), [2] checking for your own opportunities (and using them if you can), [3] think about how you can improve your position, and [4], if you can, play with a plan. Playing with a plan is hard, and your opponent will get in your way, but it is something to strive for.

    11. I’ve been saying and writing things like the above for years. What’s new? Well, ten years ago, there we didn’t all own computers, and there wasn’t the online help available. There are online tactics servers, tactics databases, websites where you can download tactics tests, free database software which can administer tactical tests, and free analysis engines which can show you what mistakes happened in your games.

    12. There are still many good exercises for the computer-free. In many magazines, you will find a feature like Spot the winning move; there are books full of these things. Another good thing to do is try analysing real games: Byron Jacobs and Graeme Buckley have both published books of tough analytical exercises which are quite different to the ‘spot the move’ variety. Another good idea is setting yourself 20 minutes to find all you can of some analysis in a known GM game which has been analysed; these rich positions are to be found in books by Kotov, Nunn and Dvoretsky.

    13. Lastly, the best clues are always in your own games. For example, having just started playing the French, I notice that I’m very likely to overlook destructive combinations against my apparently solid pawn chain.

    Studies and problems

    Posted on by

    [This simple introduction is probably redundant because there are
    now some good problems and studies sites.

      Characters that clearly like problems include the folks
    at Chess
    Cafe    , Cornel Pacurar
    (who has a links page),
    Ian
    Gent    , Vincent
    van der Bilt     and Manolis Stratakis.
    Nandakumar Sankaran has an Endgame
    Studies     as does IM Igor
    Khmelnitsky    . Shaihin very kindly sent me not one but two studies laid out in beautiful LaTeX
    PostScript.

      As ever, I wrote this piece for our juniors.]

     

    Chess problems

    “It is quite a three-pipe problem”. – SHERLOCK HOLMES

    “A chess problem is an exercise in pure mathematics” –
    G.H. HARDY

    You may have often seen chess puzzles with the challenge of
    ‘White to play and mate in two’. Well, the area of chess problems
    of this sort is really a whole extra chess continent, with strange
    customs and unusual wildlife. A well-formed problem is a composed
    position with a single, often surprising, solution. Many different
    sorts of problems exist, and most of them look as though they
    really have been composed – that is, nothing like that would happen
    in a real game.

      Problem thinking is a bit different to chess thinking,
    but the same principles apply – once you’ve seen a pattern (theme)
    you can find it more easily in other settings.

     

    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -X-+-+-B
    +x+-X-+-
    -+-+j+p+
    +p+-+s+-
    p+-+-Pb+
    K-+r+-+-

    The Indian Problem: White to play and mate in 4
    (Rev. HA Loveday, 1845)

     

    SOLUTION

    1. Kb1 b4

    2. Bc1 b5

    3.Rd2 Kf4

    4. Rd4 mate

    The problem is ‘cooked‘ by 1. Bh1
    or 1. Rd8, but the solution is essentially the same.

      This I believe was very difficult to solve at the time,
    becuase it was a new type of problem; now, the “Indian theme” is
    well-known to solvers.

      Want to try some? Here is a three-mover, a retrograde
    problem and a ‘fairy chess’ helpmate problem (helpmate = Black to
    play and help White mate!). They are all pretty tough for
    beginners, so you might just prefer to play over and enjoy the
    solutions rather than try to solve them.

      In the Fairy Chess problem below, there is a new type of
    piece on the board at c7 – the CamelHopper. This attacks the
    squares just one more square distant than a N does – that is, on
    b4,d4,f6 and f8. But it moves only by moving over an attacked piece
    and moving the same distance the other side – so, if the bQ moved
    to d4 white could play 1 CHe1, leaving the Qd4. If the bQ was on
    f8, CH couldn’t moveto “i9”, and in fact can’t move in the
    diagrammed position. Clue: how to control b1?

    -+-+-N-J
    +-+-+pXx
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+q+-+x+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+-+-+-+
    L-+-+-+k

      (a) S.Loyd 1869

    The Lovechase: Black invalidation:
    White non-permission.    : Mate in 3

    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+-+-+-+
    +t+l+-+-
    b+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+j+-+-

      (b) R Smullyan ’57

    Where is the wK?

     

    -+-+-+k+
    +-C-+-+-
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+n+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    xD-+-+-+
    J-+-+-+-

    (c) Lewis 1929. Camelhopper on c7: helpmate in 5.

     

    ANSWERS

      (a) 1 Qe4 fails to 1…g6. Sadly, 1 Ng6+ hxg6; 2 Qc8+
    isn’t fast enough, and 1 Qc8 (threat 2 Ng6++) fails to 1…h6. The
    retreat 1. Qf1! is the key – Now, if 1…Bb2; 2 Qb1, or if 1…Bc3
    or 1…Bd4; 2 Qd3, or if 1…Be5 or 1…Bf6; 2 Qf5, or if 1…g6; 2
    Qxa1#.

      (b) K is on c3: the previous moves must have been: 1
    Pc2-c4, Pb4xc3e.p.+; 2 Kb3xc3+. Clever stuff! Smullyan has
    published two or three books of these logical teasers.

      (c) The CH can only hit black squares, so the N must hit
    b1, and so the CH must deliver the mate. So, 1…Qd4; 2 CHe1, Qf4;
    3 CHg7, Qd6; 4 CHa5, Qd4; 5 CHg3, Qb2; 6 Nd2#. The N moving to d2
    also allows the CH to mate the Ka1. Neat, eh?

      There are magazine and societies devoted to these sorts
    of things, and a World Solving Championship is hotly contested each
    year. Two GMs who excel at solving are John Nunn and Jon
    Mestel.

     

    Problem contacts:

    The Problemist

    British Chess Problem Society

      Secretary CAH Russ

      76 Albany Drive

      Herne Bay

      KENT CT6 8JS

    Problem Observer

    Chess studies

    “If a garden is nature perfected, then a study might be
    described as a game of chess perfected” – .

     

      We have already met a study: Saavedra’s position given
    under 4.4.3.2 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saavedra_position#History ] is a study, that is, a composed position with a
    realistic feel to it and with reduced material, and there are other
    studies in this section. Studies are oten referred to a ‘endgame
    studies’, and the British study magazine is in fact called
    EG. As well as the problem magazines above, the
    BCM publishes a study column each month, and many
    other fine examples are to be found in Chernev’s Practical
    Chess Endings    . Some of the best-known studies are to be
    found in The Complete Chess Addict, including the
    most famous of all – this one of Reti’s (1922):

     

    -+-+-+-K
    +-+-+-+-
    j+p+-+-+
    +-+-+-+x
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-

    White to play and draw. A seeming impossibility: the Pc6
    will be caught by the bKa6 as soon as it moves, and the Ph5 can’t
    be caught by the king. Watch…

    1 Kg7 h4; 2 Kf6 (now 2…h4 allows 3
    Ke7, h3; 4 c7, Kb7; 5 Kd7, so..) 2…Kb6; 3 Ke5, Kxc6; 4
    Kf4     and draws!

      With minimum material, this is a perfect example of a
    study – it could have arisen in a game, there is no demand to ‘win
    in two moves’, and the play has a charming and surprising ‘point’
    to it. One more (Joseph, 1922):

     

    -J-K-+-+
    +x+-+-+p
    -P-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    x+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-

    Stalemates and perpetual checks loom: 1 h8=Q
    threatens mate by e.g. Kd7 but 1…a1=Q and if 2
    Qxa1 stalemate, so 2 Qg8, Qa2!; 3 Qe8, Qa4; 4 Qe5+, Ka8; 5
    Qh8     and wins – triangulation by the Q(!) to get the bK
    onto a8.

     

    Curios

    A related field is not exactly study composition but the challenge
    of composing to a particular task: for example, from the Usenet
    newsgroups:

    From: Fred Galvin
    <galvin@math.ukans.edu>Newsgroups:
    sci.math,rec.games.chess.misc
    Subject: Re: Strange Question?
    Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:12:07 -0600
    From: Fred Galvin
    <galvin@math.ukans.edu>
    Organization: University of Kansas Computing
    Services

    On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Bob Silverman wrote:

     
    > Consider the set of all legally reachable positions in
    chess.
    > Which position(s) give the largest number of different 1
    move
    > checkmates? What is that number?

    The following positions were the record holders as of January 1,
    1969, according to Anthony Dickins, A Guide to Fairy
    Chess    , Second Edition (The Q Press, Richmond,
    Surrey, 1969); as far as I know, none of them has been *proved* to
    be best possible; I don’t know of any published upper bounds.

      Legal position, no promoted men, 47 mates (J. C.
    West, 1880    ):

     
    4N1r1/P2PK2P/8/1P1kBQ2/2R5/3N4/B3P3/3R4

     

    -+-+n+t+
    P-+pK-+p
    -+-+-+-+
    +p+jBq+-
    -+r+-+-+
    +-+n+-+-
    b+-+p+-+
    +-+r+-+-

    Legal position with promoted men, 105 mates (N. Petrovic,
    1947    ):

     
    1B1Q1Q2/2R5/pQ4QN/RB2k3/1Q5Q/N4Q2/K2Q4/6Q1

     

    -B-Q-Q-+
    +-R-+-+-
    xQ-+-+qN
    Rb+-J-+-
    -Q-+-+-Q
    N-+-+q+-
    k+-Q-+-+
    +-+-+-Q-

    Illegal position, 143 mates (N. Petrovic, 1947):

     
    QnQQ1QQ1/PQ1Q3Q/QQ4QQ/4k3/QQ4QQ/Q6Q/Q2Q1Q2/1QQQ1QQQ

     

    qSqQ-Qq+
    Pq+q+-+q
    qQ-+-+qQ
    +-+-J-+-
    qQ-+-+qQ
    Q-+-+-+q
    q+-Q-Q-+
    +qQq+qQq

    Erro ergo sum: analysis and error

    Posted on by

    A tactic appears for you: you get it right.

    Here’s a simple one to get us started:

    Regis,D – Jones,R (1995)

    1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. e4 Nc6 4. Nf3 b6 5. e5 Ng4 6. d4 g6 7. h3 Nh6 8. Bg5 Ne7 9. Qd2 Nhf5 10. g4 Ng7 11. Ne4 f5 12. exf6 Bb7

     

    t+-DjL-T
    XlXxS-Sx
    -X-+xPx+
    +-+-+-B-
    -+pPn+p+
    +-+-+n+p
    pP-Q-P-+
    R-+-Kb+r

    13. f7+ Kxf7 14. Ne5+ 1-0

     

      And a more complicated one: the idea is easy, but can you analyse it to a finish?

    Regis,D – Lane,P (1994)

    t+-Dj+t+
    XxXlSx+q
    -+-+x+-+
    S-+-P-B-
    -+b+-+-+
    +-P-+n+-
    pP-+-PpP
    +-Kr+-+r

    13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qh5+ Kf8 15. Bh6+ Rg7 16. Ng5 Qe8 17. Nh7+ 1-0

     

      Ah, if only it was all like that…

     

    A tactic appears for you: you miss it.

    Regis,D. – Aston,P (1994)

    -+j+-L-T
    X-+t+rXx
    -+-+-+-+
    +-PxQ-+-
    -+-+-+-D
    +n+-P-+-
    pPp+-+pP
    R-+-+-K-

    21. Qe8+??

    [21. Qe6 Qd8 22. c6 or even 21. Rxd7 Kxd7 22.Rd1]

      …1-0

      Patzer sees a check… It didn’t affect the outcome in the end but White had to start all over again to build up another combination.

     

    Jackson,Dave – Regis, D (1993)

    -+-+j+-T
    X-+-SxLx
    -T-Xl+x+
    DxX-+-+-
    -+-+pP-+
    +p+p+n+-
    p+pBq+bP
    +k+r+r+-

    17… b4 ??

    [17… Qxa2+ 18. Kxa2 Ra6+ 19. Ba5 Rxa5+ 20. Kb1 Ra1#]

    18. a4 Bd7 19. e5 Bxa4 20. Bc1 O-O 21. Nd2 Bb5 22. Bb2 Nf5 23. Nc4 Bxc4 24. dxc4 ( Draw agreed)

      I suppose I wasn’t looking for a win just then!

    A tactic appears for your opponent: you miss it.

    Oh, how many times… asleep, overconfident or confused, we ignore our opponent’s best reply.

    Regis,D. – Beake,B. (1994)

    t+-+dTj+
    +xX-+lXx
    -+s+-X-+
    X-L-+n+-
    p+n+pX-+
    +-P-+-+-
    -Pq+bPpP
    +-+r+rK-

    18. g3? f3 19. Bd3 Ne5 20. Nxe5 fxe5 …0-1

      You don’t get away with that sort of thing against 200-grade players.

    Regis,D – Stirling,A (1984)

    1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3 Nf4

     

    tSlDjL-T
    XxXx+xXx
    -+-+x+-+
    +-P-P-+-
    -+b+-S-+
    +-N-+-+-
    pP-P-PpP
    R-BqK-Nr

    7. Qg4 Qh4 …0-1

      There are lots of opening traps like that: White bites off more than he can chew.

     

    Fayle,A – Regis,D (1984)

    -+-+-T-J
    +-+-+-X-
    -S-+-+-X
    X-T-+x+-
    pX-Rx+-+
    +b+-+-P-
    -Pp+k+-P
    +-+r+-+-

    29… Rfc8?? 30. Rd8+ Rxd8 31. Rxd8+ Kh7 32. Bg8+ Kg6 33. Rd6+ winning a piece (but …0-1!)

      It was almost the only thing Black had to analyse, and I didn’t!

     

    A tactic appears for you: you see it but analyse it wrongly.

    Regis,D. -Stooks, Charles (1993)

    -TlL-+tJ
    S-+d+x+x
    -+-X-PxQ
    +xXnX-+-
    -+p+p+-+
    +-+p+-P-
    -P-+n+bP
    R-+-+rK-

    19. Nef4? ( yes, very good but unfortunately 19…exf4; 20 Rxf4, g5! gets at least a draw! 20 Nxf4 also fails to 20…g5 )

    19… Nc6??

    [19… Qb7]

    20. Nh3 Qg4 21. Ng5 1-0

      Simple over-optimism: I didn’t consider 20…g5.

     

    Regis,D – Prideaux,E (1994)

    t+l+j+-+
    +x+-LxX-
    -B-+-+-+
    +p+-Xd+-
    -+n+-X-T
    +-+-+-+p
    -+p+q+b+
    +-+r+-K-

    White lashes out without much justification:

      30. Rd8+ Bxd8 31. Nd6+ Kf8 32. Nxf5 Bxb6+ 33. Kh2 Bxf5 winning…

      (but here and black’s flag fell… 1-0 There ain’t no justice…)

      Not hard to analyse, just I felt I had to do something and couldn’t see anything else!

     

    A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but wrongly assess the outcome.

    Ward,D – Regis,D (1994)

    -+-+tTj+
    +xX-+-+-
    x+-X-+-X
    +-+pLsXd
    p+p+nX-+
    +-+-+p+p
    -P-+qBp+
    +r+-R-+k

    26… Bd4 27. Bxd4 Rxe4 28. Qxe4 Ng3+ 29. Kg1 Nxe4 30. Rxe4 Re8 31. Rbe1 Rxe4 32. Rxe4 Qf7 33. Re6 Kh7 34. Rf6

    [34. Kh2! …when it’s all a bit tricky!]

    34… Qe8 35. Re6 Qxa4 36. Re7+ Kg6 37. Rxc7 Qd1+ 0-1

      The tactic was obvious enough, what I failed to assess was how good White’s pieces would be in the ending.

     

    Webb,S – Regis,D (1994)

    17…a5

     

    t+-Dt+j+
    +-+s+xLx
    -+x+l+x+
    Xx+x+s+-
    -+-P-B-+
    +bN-+n+-
    pPpQrPpP
    +-+-R-K-

    18. Bxd5 cxd5 19. Nxd5 Bxd5 20. Rxe8+ Qxe8 21. Rxe8+ Rxe8

      As last time, Black has secured (or provoked White into giving up) a material advantage that is difficult to make use of, this time with the opponent having the Queen.

    22. Ne5 Nxe5 23. dxe5 Bc6 24. Qc3 Re6 25. f3 a4 26. a3 g5 27. Bxg5 Bxe5 28. Qd3 Bd4+ 29. Kf1 Ne3+ 30. Bxe3 Bxe3 31. b3 Bf4 32. c4! Bxh2 33. bxa4 bxc4 34. Qxc4 Bg3 35. Qg4+ Rg6 36. Qc8+ Kg7 draw agreed .

      As we start to comment more deeply on these examples, we see two sources of error: mistakes in analysis, surely, but also misjudgements – errors in the general assessment of the board or the opponent.

      Let’s clarify this with an example:

    Kasparov – Karpov, Linares, 1994

    t+l+jL-T
    +xD-+xX-
    -S-+xS-X
    X-+-N-+-
    -+-P-+-+
    Pb+-+-+-
    -P-+qPpP
    R-B-K-Nr

    1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Bc4 Ngf6 6. Ng5 e6 7. Qe2 Nb6 8. Bb3 h6 9. N5f3 a5 10. c3 c5 11. a3 Qc7 12. Ne5 cxd4 13. cxd4 DIAGRAM

    13… a4

    [13… Bxa3]

    14. Bc2 Bd7 15. Nxd7 Nbxd7 16. Qd1 Bd6 17. Ne2 Nd5 …drawn

      I wouldn’t like to say there’s anything wrong with the analytical abilities of either player – what we have here is and error of judgement. My guess is, it’s a quiet position in a solid opening, and neither player bothered to look.

      Chess is a tense game. This tension may make you want to believe things that aren’t really true, and comfort yourself with things that mean you don’t have to think too hard any more. Not a bit of it….

    Petrosian-Korchnoi 1963

    -+-+-T-+
    X-+-+j+-
    -X-P-+rX
    +-X-X-+p
    -+p+pXk+
    +p+-+-+-
    p+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-

    Black has a hopeless, passive position, just as he has had for the last umpteen moves. Petrosian just went

    1. Rxh6

      which was met by

    1…f3!

      Hoping for 2. Kxf3 Kg7 discovered check, winning the rook.

    2. Kg5 Ke8 White resigns, unable to catch the f-pawn.

      Afterwards, Petrosian explained that a move like …f3 just didn’t fit with “Black’s hopeless position“. But where there’s life, there’s hope!

    “For a long time I had regarded my position as a winning one. Thus the whole opening phase of the struggle, when Korchnoi was unable to get out of trouble, had psychologically attuned me to the idea that the ending would be favourable to me … and here comes the oversight 35 Rxh6?? I did not even see the threat …f4-f3, possibly because it was in contrast to Black’s hopeless position. Personally, I am of the view that if a strong master does not see such a threat at once he will not notice it, even if he analyses the position for twenty or thirty minutes.” – PETROSIAN.

      I have a whole book full of these types of disaster, when one player just turned the alarm off. You should be on guard all the time, with the alarm dial turned up to 11!

      Please note that Petrosian was also thinking less than objectively about the game, and thinking only about his plans. Your opponent also has a right to exist…

    B. Analysis

    It used to be thought that there wasn’t much difference in the abilities of strong and weak players at analysis – rather, it was all about judgement and experience. There might not be a lot of difference between GMs and IMs, but there is increasing evidence that among we club players, there are large and important differences.

      Here White gets carried away with his attacking possibilities, when unflappable Exeter player Brian Hewson calmly sidesteps the main line of a sacrifice (11…fxe6) threatening a pin on the e-file.

      and won. It is often the case that players will analyse one line very deeply but fail to spot an early alternative – as mentioned above, Grandmaster Kotov advised many years ago to identify each candidate move at the outset before analysing any one move deeply. Had White done this he could not fail to notice the possibility of Black castling, and should then spot the classic pattern of Q and K lined up on the e-file which suggests a pin from a Black R on e8.

     

    surprising/paradoxical moves

    Retreats

    Christiansen – Karpov (1993)

    1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Be3 Bd6 (wait for it…)

     

    t+-Dj+-T
    X-+x+xXx
    -XlLx+-+
    +-+-+-+s
    -+p+p+-+
    P-N-B-+-
    -Pq+-PpP
    R-+-Kb+r

    12.Qd1 1-0

      The error made by Karpov above is actually a common one – missing an undeveloping retreat.

      Other errors of this sort – hard types of move to spot – include long moves, sideways moves by Queens, captures by Pawns away from the centre, and so on. Another example:

     

    Putting pieces en prise

    Fischer – Sherwin, USA Ch’p , 1957

    -+-+-Tj+
    +-+-+xXx
    -+-X-+-+
    +-+b+-D-
    r+-+p+s+
    +-T-+-+-
    p+-+q+pP
    +-+-+r+k

    30. Rxf7 Rc1+ 31. Qf1!! h5 32. Qxc1 Qh4 33. Rxf8+ Kh7 34. h3 Qg3 35. hxg4 h4 36. Be6 1-0

      How about that one: a Queen moving backwards into a position where it can be captured!

    ‘Creeping moves’

    Purdy advises:

    “examine moves that smite!”

      …which is clearly good advice. But have a look at this:

    Spassky – Korchnoi, Kiev, 1968

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 Nc6 7. Nge2 a6 8. Nc1 e5 9. d5 Nd4 10. Nb3 Nxb3 11. Qxb3 c5 12. dxc6 bxc6 13. O-O-O Be6 14. Qa3 Ne8 15. h4 f6 16. c5 Rf7 17. Qa4 Qc7 18. Bc4 Bxc4 19. Qxc4 Bf8 20. h5 dxc5 21. hxg6 hxg6 22. Qe6 Rd8 23. Rxd8 Qxd8 24. Rd1 Qe7 25. Qxc6 Nc7 DIAGRAM

     

    -+-+-Lj+
    +-S-Dt+-
    x+q+-Xx+
    +-X-X-+-
    -+-+p+-+
    +-N-Bp+-
    pP-+-+p+
    +-Kr+-+-

    The situation in this Candidates’ Match game is tense Although White undoubtedly holds the advantage, Moscow players analysing while the game was going on could find no clear continuation, e.g. 26. Nd5 Qe6! and Black holds.

    26. Qb6

      Surprising and elegant, this ‘creeping move’ impressed many, including Kotov who has cited it more than once. The move prepares to answer …Qe6 with Bxc5 and leads to a swift win. To Kotov, this was a far more brilliant move than the Queen sacrifice that ended the game.

    26… Kg7 27. Nd5 Qe6 28. Bxc5 Bxc5 29. Qxc5 Nb5 30. Qe3 Qc6+ 31. Kb1 Nd4 32. Rc1 Qb5 33. Nc7 Qe2 34. Ne6+ Kh7 35. Qh6+ 1-0

      It’s hardest of all to spot a ‘creeping’ move in the middle of a combinational exchange.

    Wahltuch – Palmer, Manchester, 1912

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 (Berlin Defence, Rio De Janiero Variation) 6. dxe5 [6. Bxc6] 6… Nxb5 7. a4

     

    t+lDjL-T
    XxXx+xXx
    -+s+-+-+
    +s+-P-+-
    p+-+-+-+
    +-+-+n+-
    -Pp+-PpP
    RnBq+rK-

    This is a gorgeously messy line

    7… Nd6 [better 7… d6]

    8. Bg5 f6 9. Re1 fxg5 10. exd6+ Ne7 11. Ne5 cxd6 12. Qh5+ g6 13. Nxg6 Qa5 14. Nxh8+ Kd8

      Have a look at the next diagram and see what you think.

    t+lJ-L-N
    Xx+xS-+x
    -+-X-+-+
    D-+-+-Xq
    p+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -Pp+-PpP
    Rn+-R-K-

    15. Nc3

      [Obviously not 15. Qf7 Qxe1#]

      It is tempting to try a forcing move, but none work.

    “A quiet move in the midst of an attack is the sign of the master” – Du Mont

    15… Qf5 (else Qf7) 16. Nb5 Ng6 17. Qxg5+ 1-0

     

    The ‘tree of analysis’

    The starting point for any consideration of analysis must be Kotov, again.

    Candidate moves must be established straight away and they must be clearly enumerated.

     

    Once we have established all the candidate moves, we then proceed to work out the variations arising from them one by one.

     

    In analysing complicated variations, one must examine each branch of the tree once and once only.

     

    This task cannot be split into parts, by examining one move fully and then looking for the next one.

      Kotov gives some example of positions where the analysis get progressively more detailed.

    [trees]

          bare trunk          bare trunk  with     coppice                bush                                                side-branch

    ‘Just plunge in’:

    Corden – Nunn, Birmingham 1975

    Nunn and Griffiths advise: “Just plunge in”

      The first move to look at must be 15. Ba4 Nd2+ 16. Kc3 Qe3+ 17. Kb4 a5#

    …”and straightaway you have learned a lot about the position”.

      That is, you can regain at least one piece whenever you wish, still keeping the K exposed. Other lines include:

     

    ‘Play a good positional move’

    Nimzovitch

    How to improve your analytical skills

    So much for theory. How do you put this into practice? Well, you practice!

     

    Solving problems in books and magazines

    You have probably seen either the British Chess Magazine column Find the Winning Continuation, or the same idea in Chess magazine, called there Winning Combinative Play. There are also books of tactical positions for solving, one I quite liked for the basics was Chernev and Reinfeld, Winning Chess.

      After that, you get serious. More testing (literally) is the Chess magazine feature, How Good is your Chess? which takes you through a real game and gives you points (There is a book of these under the same name by Danny King; BCM have a similar feature called Test Your Chess.) Here’s an easy example of such a test:

    How good is your chess?

    If you are determined to get better, try the Russian chess training programme contained in three books by Livshits: Test your chess IQ, Vol.1 (for players up to 160), Test your chess IQ, Vol.2 (for 160-200) and Test your chess IQ, Vol.3 – Grandmaster Challenge (for 200+ grades).

      This is all ‘practice makes perfect’ style with little explanation. The theory of candidate moves and trees of analysis I found in Kotov, Think like a Grandmaster (a summary is also to be found in Kotov, Plan like a Grandmaster). This book also describes how Kotov used to analyse complicated master games, writing down his conclusions for comparison. Both books give test positions with a full tree of analysis.

      Another important book for theory is Nunn and Griffiths, Secrets of Grandmaster Play. It is a deliberately educative book, showing, firstly, what a complete analysis of a game looks like, but also giving lots of practical tips and observations, and trying to show how much players really see at the board.

      And lastly, there are some good ideas in Dvoretsky, Secrets of chess tactics. In particular, he describes the technique of playing-out of positions for which an analysis has been published. For example, he played on from the following positions from the Nunn/Griffiths book with his pupils (Yusupov and Dolmatov) as if the position had arisen in a game against the clock. This is a realistic test and you can check your conclusions against what Nunn has analysed.

     

    “I can see the combinations as well as Alekhin, I just cannot get into the same positions” — SPIELMANN

     

    E. Bibliography

    Alexander, The Penguin Book of Chess Positions

      Avni, Danger in Chess

    British Chess Magazine, Find the Winning Continuation

      Chernev and Reinfeld, Winning Chess

    Chess magazine, Winning Combinative Play

    Chess magazine, How Good is your Chess? (Book of same name by Danny King)

      Dvoretsky, Secrets of chess tactics

      Kotov, Think like a Grandmaster )_candidate moves, tree of analysis, analysis of master games

      Kotov, Plan like a Grandmaster )

      Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.1

      Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.2

      Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.3 – Grandmaster Challenge

      Nunn and Griffiths, Secrets of Grandmaster Play

    Blunders at East Devon

    Posted on by

    Introduction

    This long collection is the result of computer-searching a database of games from the East Devon Congress this year (1999). I had 222 games to analyse, courtesy of Ian George who had the thankless task of bashing them all in: 111 from the Major section (U155), and 111 from the Premier (U205). Of these, exactly half were identified by Fritz 5 as having tactical blunders (see Appendix for notes on how this was done). The 111 blunders comprised 65 from the Major and 44 from the Premier.

    If you would like to repeat the exercise for yourself, you can download the games from the Premier (CBH or PGN) and Major (CBH or PGN) and compare your computer’s efforts to the results of my analysis (CBH or PGN).

    Having had the games marked by Fritz, I then went through the games to decide which were real blunders and which were Fritz getting its wires crossed (see appendix). The resulting list of blunders I then inspected and tried to identify (a) what tactical device was at work, and (b) if there were typical errors of thinking going on. Here’s an example:

    (43) Boomsma B. H. – Knight S. [C07]

    Major (Round 4) 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Ngf3 cxd4 6.Bc4 Qd6 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nb3 a6 10.Nbxd4 Nxd4 11.Nxd4 Qc7 12.Qe2 Bd6 13.h3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 13…0-0 14.Bd3 h6 15.c3 b5 16.Bd2 Bb7 17.a4 e5 18.Nf5 Qc6 19.Qf1 bxa4

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+.4k+|
    |+b+.+p0.|
    |p+qg.h.0|
    |+.+.0N+.|
    |p+.+.+.+|
    |+.)B+.+P|
    |.).G.)P+|
    |$.+.$QI.|
    +-----------------+

    20.Nxd6

    Misses a trick.

    [-0.28 Fritz 5.00: 20.Rxe5 Rad8 [not 20…Bxe5, 21. Ne7+] 21.Re7 Kh8 22.Nxd6 Qxd6 23.Re3]

    Fritz assesses White’s position at the end of the analysis variation as +?.?. When you dump the database out for printing, it unhelpfully strips all these assessments off, but they can be seen in the CBH database.

    Psychologically, this is a missed opportunity. It is also a threat missed by Black, so both players made a mistake. Tactically, it’s a decoy/overload combination, and two moves deep. I’m sure that Black overlooked the possibility of Rxe5, and missed it because it was a second effect of moving the White Queen from e2 to f1, defending against the mate on g2. My guess is that Brian also overlooked the possibility, rather than saw it and thought it a bad idea. Of course, I actually don’t know enough about any of these games to be able to tell things like this for sure. Either player may have seen all this and more, although this begs the question why they didn’t react to what they saw.

    Three features dogged my research: these difficulties in post hoc interpretation, compounded by lack of context, and possible transcription errors. On context: some of the games I witnessed and was able to tell that one or other player was in time trouble, when some of the decisions taken might make a bit more sense. Or a player may have grabbed a draw against a higher-graded opponent. Also, I assume that the scores are accurate. Ian did mighty battle with idiosyncratic handwriting and moves scribbled in time pressure, but there are a couple of games where I can only assume some other move was played than the one recorded. (I once found a score sheet which started: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc6 Nc6 3. Nf6 Nf6 – a player new to algebraic, I concluded.)

    What I have done below is a preliminary description of the blunders – a natural history, if you like, trying to classify and count my way through the range of horrors on view. The richness of chess – even this sort of chess – really requires deeper consideration than I have been able to give it so far, so please forgive this as work in progress.

    Tactical themes

    Some tactics can be readily ascribed to more than one type, e.g. as above, overloading a piece defending against a fork. In these cases, I filed them under the earlier theme in the sequence.

    The tactical themes found were as follows:

    Left hanging:

    Forks, double attacks:

    Pins:

    Overloading (decoys, ties):

    Undermining (ties):

    Unmasking (discovered attacks, jumps):

    Nets (no retreat):

    Mating patterns:

    Queening combinations:

    I suspect that these relative frequencies do not reflect their occurrence in normal play, that is, I think you are more likely to miss a fork or pin than to miss a piece hanging.

    Let’s see some examples, simple and more complex.

    Left hanging:

    (56) Dobber P. – Duckham J. [B00]

    East Devon Major 1999 (5)

    14.Nf3-g1

    +-----------------+
    |r+b+.4k+|
    |+p0q+p0p|
    |pg.0.+n+|
    |+.+P0.+n|
    |.+.+P+.+|
    |H.)B+.)P|
    |P).G.).I|
    |$.+Q+RH.|
    +-----------------+

    With two points: one to secure the h-Pawn…

    14…Qe7 15.Qxh5

    …the other of which Black missed. 1-0

    Forks, double attacks:

    (6) Jukes S. – Belinfante N. [A20]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    1. c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 Bc5 4.a3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 4…a5 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d3 0-0

    +-----------------+
    |r+b1.4k+|
    |+p0p+p0p|
    |.+n+.h.+|
    |0.g.0.+.|
    |.+P+.+.+|
    |).HP+.).|
    |.).+P)B)|
    |$.GQI.HR|
    +-----------------+

    7.Bg5 White sets himself up for a basic tactic (Knight fork 7…h6 Black didn’t notice!

    Pins:

    (2) Durrant P. E. O. – Halmkin P. E. [B07]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    21.Bh3

    +-----------------+
    |.4q+.+k+|
    |+b+.0.gn|
    |ph.0N+p+|
    |+p0.+.)p|
    |.+.)P+.+|
    |)PH.G.+B|
    |.+P!.+.)|
    |+.+.+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    Black is in difficulty here but his next move makes things worse, adding a pin to the threatened discovery. In fact, White’s Knight is currently pinned to the Bh3!

    21…Nd7

    [2.50 21…b4]

    22.Nxg7

    [1.66 22.Qf2]

    22…Kxg7 23.Qf2 Qe8 24.Be6 Ndf8 25.Qf7+ Kh8

    Suicide, as Black realises.

    1-0

    Skewer

    (45) Halmkin P. E. – Wood J. Z. [C00]

    East Devon Major 1999 (4)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.+P+.+.+|
    |+.+.$.+.|
    |.+.+.+.0|
    |+.I.+.i.|
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+.+.+r|
    +-----------------+

    Impeccable so far, says Fritz. Both sides overlook a standard skewer tactic. 48.Rg5+

    [-0.56 : 48.Kd2 Rf1 49.c7 Rf8 50.Ke3 Rf3+ 51.Ke4]

    48…Kf3 49.c7

    [-1.28 : 49.Kd2 Ra1 50.c7 Ra8 51.Rc5 Rc8]

    49…Re1

    [0.81 : 49…Rc1+ 50.Kd3 Rxc7 51.Rf5+ Kg4 52.Re5 Rf7 53.Ke4]

    Overloading (decoys, ties):

    See above, and also:

    (54) Allen R. N. – Woodruff A. [C11]

    East Devon Major 1999 (5)

    1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Bxd4 Be7 “Out of Book,” says F5.. 10.Bd3 Nc5 11.Be2 Qa5 12.0-0 0-0 13.f5

    +-----------------+
    |r+b+.4k+|
    |0p+.gp0p|
    |.+.+p+.+|
    |1.hp)P+.|
    |.+.G.+.+|
    |+.H.+.+.|
    |P)P+B+P)|
    |$.+Q+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    13…exf5

    [2.31 : 13…Bg5 14.a3]

    14.b4! Qxb4

    Black goes down the main line

    [3.47 : 14…Qd8 15.bxc5 Be6 16.Rb1 Qc7 17.Nb5]

    15.Nxd5 Qa5 16.Nxe7+

    Undermining (ties):

    (31) Grist P. – Sparkes D. A. [B01]

    East Devon Major 1999 (3)

    1. e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxd5 4.Bc4 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 4…c6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.d4 e6

    +-----------------+
    |rh.1kg.4|
    |0p+.+p0p|
    |.+p+p+.+|
    |+.+n+.+.|
    |.+B).+b+|
    |+.+.+N+.|
    |P)P+.)P)|
    |$NGQ+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    White makes an unguarded move – or rather, an apparently guarded one.

    7.Bg5

    [-2.78 : 7.Nbd2]

    7…Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qxg5

    Unmasking (discovered attacks, jumps):

    (47) Jones R. H. – Grist P. [A01]

    East Devon Major 1999 (4)

    +-----------------+
    |.1.4r+k+|
    |+b+pgp0p|
    |p+n+ph.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.+P).+.+|
    |).+.+N).|
    |.G.+N)B)|
    |+.$Q+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    18.Nc3 Overlooking a series of masked attacks.

    [-0.88 : 18.Qd3 ]

    18…Nxd4 19.Na4

    [19.Nxd4 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 Qxb2]

    Nets (no retreat):

    (93) Baer B. L. – Spink B. M. [A04]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (4)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.4.i|
    |+.0n+r0p|
    |.0.0.+.+|
    |+.+.0.+.|
    |.)Q+P+.+|
    |+q).$.)P|
    |R+.+.).+|
    |+.+.+BI.|
    +-----------------+

    32…Qb1 This is the real blunder: can Black guarantee to get the Queen out? 33.Kg2 Nf6 34.Bd3 Qc1 35.Rc2 Qd1 36.Ree2 Nh5 37.Rcd2 Qa1 38.Ra2 Qc1

    [6.63 : 38…d5 39.Qxd5 Nf4+ 40.gxf4 Qxc3 41.Rec2]

    39.Qxf7 1-0

    Mating patterns:

    (71) Aston P. A. – Saqui D. A. J. [D00]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.i|
    |+r+.gp4p|
    |p1.+p+.!|
    |+.+p+p+.|
    |.+.).H.+|
    |+.+.+.+R|
    |P).+.+P)|
    |+.+R+.I.|
    +-----------------+

    White has at last worked up an attack. 30.Nh5 Allows Black an opportunity to chase away the Queen.

    [-2.16 : 30.Rc3 Qd8 31.Nd3 Bg5]

    30…Bf8 allows mate in three!

    [#3 : 30…Rg6 31.Qe3 Qxb2 32.Nf4 Rg7 33.a3]

    31.Nf6 Not only missing the mate, but walks into a defensive tactic.

    [-5.13 : 31.Nxg7 surely the most natural move on the board! 31…Qxd4+ 32.Rxd4 Bxg7 33.Qxh7#]

    31…Rxg2+ 32.Kxg2 Bxh6 33.Rxh6 Kg7 34.Rxh7+ Kxf6 35.h4 Qxb2+ 36.Kf3 Rb4 0-1

    King safety more generally was a very common theme, sometimes in more complex situations than that. Here’s one I may get into trouble for:

    (101) Abbott M. – Page M. C. [D35]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (5)

    30.Rh1

    +-----------------+
    |.+r+.+.+|
    |+p+n+.i.|
    |p+.+q+r+|
    |+.+p)p0.|
    |P+p).+.+|
    |+.+.+P+.|
    |.)Q+NIP+|
    |+.$.+.+R|
    +-----------------+

    Good move! Fritz scents mate coming up. 30…Rh6

    [1.91 : 30…b5 31.axb5 axb5 32.Rh3 b4 33.Ng3 f4 34.Nf5+ Kf8 35.Rh8+]

    31.Ng3

    [1.22 : 31.Rxh6 Kxh6 32.g4 is the way to pursue it: 32…Rf8 (32…Rh8 gives in meekly 33.gxf5 Qe8 34.Rh1+ Kg7 35.f6+) 33.Ng3 Qb6 34.Kg2 Qxd4 35.e6 fxg4 36.Rh1+ Kg7 37.Rh7+ Kg8 38.Qg6+ Qg7 39.Qxg7#]

    The beginners’ favourite of back rank mates made a single appearance in the register of blunders:

    (76) Page M. C. – Jepps G. N. [A31]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+q+k+|
    |0.+.+.0p|
    |.+p+.+.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.!.+.0.+|
    |GP+.+P+b|
    |P+.+.+r)|
    |+.+.$.+K|
    +-----------------+

    27…Re2

    [4.59 : 27…Qd8 28.Qc4+ Kh8 29.Qe4 Qg8 30.Qxf4 Rxa2]

    28.Qc4+

    [-0.34 : 28.Rxe2 We’re assuming the score is accurate, I suppose, but this looks a little better! 28…Qd8 29.Qc4+ Kh8 30.Re1 Qb8 31.Qxc6]

     

    Queening combinations:

    (102) Evans I. D. – Dunn A. M. [C41]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (5)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.i.+.+.+|
    |+P+.+.0.|
    |P+.+.hK0|
    |+.+p+.+.|
    |.+.+.H.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    +-----------------+

    And a final double blunder (time pressure notwithstanding):

    60.Kxg5

    [-4.56 : 60.Nd1 Ng6 61.Nf2 d2 62.Kf3 Nf4 63.Ke3]

    60…Ne6+

    [0.00 : 60…Nh3+ and White’s poor Knight does the splits. 61.Nxh3 d2 62.Nf2 h3 63.Kf5 h2 64.Ke5 h1Q 65.Nxh1]

    1/2-1/2

    Intermezzo

    (80) Dilleigh S. P. – Frost N. A. [E15]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

    1. d4 e6 2.Nf3 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.c4 c5 6.d5 b5 “Out of Book,” says F5.. 7.dxe6 fxe6 8.cxb5 Qa5+ 9.Nc3 d5 10.0-0

    +-----------------+
    |rh.+kg.4|
    |0b+.+.0p|
    |.+.+ph.+|
    |1P0p+.+.|
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.H.+N).|
    |P).+P)B)|
    |$.GQ+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    10…d4 Not picked up by Fritz as an error. 11.Nxd4 Bxg2 12.Nb3

    The intermezzo

    12…Qc7 13.Kxg2

    With another Pawn.

    Attack and defence

    Here, a failure to count:

    (18) Herbert S. – Smith E. J. [C01]

    East Devon Major 1999 (2)

    1. e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bf4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bd6 “Out of Book,” says F5.. 6.Bxd6 Qxd6 7.c3 0-0 8.Be2 Re8 9.0-0 Bg4 10.Nbd2 Nbd7 11.h3 Bh5 12.Re1 Re7 13.Bd3

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+.+k+|
    |0p0n4p0p|
    |.+.1.h.+|
    |+.+p+.+b|
    |.+.).+.+|
    |+.)B+N+P|
    |P).H.)P+|
    |$.+Q$.I.|
    +-----------------+

    Black spurns an opportunity to get the advantage and instead gives up a Pawn. 13…Ne4

    [0.88 : 13…Rxe1+ 14.Qxe1 Re8 15.Qf1 Qb6 16.Rb1 Qc6]

    14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Rxe4

     

    Thinking errors

    Missed threats

    One-movers

    Two-movers

    Three-movers

    Missed opportunities (i.e. missed threat, opportunity not taken)

    One-movers:

    Two-movers:

    Three-movers:

    Oversight/natural moves in normal positions

    Failure of nerve/Bluffed

    Failure of analysis

    Bad moves in bad positions (the frying pan problem)

    Slack moves in good positions (incisiveness)

    Errors of judgement not analysis (Positional errors)

    Time trouble

     

    Missed threats

    When our mind is on higher things, we can be laid low. Here’s a few missed mates:

    One-movers

    Candidates for blunder of the tournament must include any one-move oversights. We had more than piece left hanging and more than one mate in one.

    (53) Whelan G. – Rogers D. R. [D01]

    East Devon Major 1999 (4)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |0R+.+.+.|
    |.+.+pi.+|
    |+.+p+p+p|
    |.+p+.).+|
    |).h.H.+.|
    |.+.+.+.4|
    |+.+.I.+.|
    +-----------------+

    50.Nf1 Suicide.

    [-#1 : 50.Kf1 a5 51.Rb8 h4 52.Rf8+ Ke7 53.Rg8]

    50…Re2# 0-1

    (52) Steer G. – Neilsen J. H. [A45]

    East Devon Major 1999 (4)

    +-----------------+
    |.4.+rg.+|
    |+.+.+k+.|
    |b+p+.+.0|
    |0.+.+.+.|
    |.+.).H.+|
    |).+.+.)q|
    |.)QH.).)|
    |$.+.$.I.|
    +-----------------+

    25… Qd7

    [#1 : 25…Rxe1+ 26.Rxe1 Qg4 27.h3 Qg5 28.Nf3 Qf6]

    26.Qg6# 1-0 Oops.

    Two-movers

    In my youth such things were referred to as cheapos – a point gained through minimum effort. It’s hard to describe these as two moves deep, more like two moves shallow!

    (66) Dunn A. M. – Aston P. A. [A00]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (1)

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+k+.4|
    |0p+.0p+p|
    |.+.+b+p!|
    |1.+.+.+.|
    |.h.+.+.+|
    |+.+R+.H.|
    |P)P+P+P)|
    |+.I.+B+R|
    +-----------------+

    16.a3 Not best.

    [-#3 : 16.e4 Nxd3+ 17.Bxd3 Bxa2 18.Rd1 Qe5 19.h4 Rd8 20.Qg5 Qxg5+]

    16…Nxd3+ 17.exd3

    [17.Kd1 Qe1#]

    17…Qe1# 0-1

    Three-movers

    (98) Regis D. – Piper S. J. [B47]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (4)

    32.Rf3

    +-----------------+
    |r+r+.+.+|
    |+.+.+pGk|
    |p+q0.)nH|
    |+.+.g.+Q|
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.).+R+.|
    |P+.+.+.)|
    |+.+R+.+K|
    +-----------------+

    Black is under the cosh, but loses instantly:

    32…Qe4

    [#3 : 32…Nf4 33.Qf5+ Ng6 34.Nxf7 Bf4 35.Qh5+ Kg8 36.Rg1 Rab8 37.Nh6+]

    33.Nf5+ (threat Ne7+) 1-0

    What produces these errors?

    One obvious theme is a move of the opponent with two points, one of which you miss.

    Another is mood: a player ahead on material or with a strong attack may overlook opportunities for the defending side. Or a player who is being attacked may panic and find it difficult to focus on simple threats of the opponent, or become gloomy and stop looking.

    Missed opportunities (i.e. missed threat, opportunity not taken)

    White overlooks a tactic made possible by Black overlooking the threat – so every missed opportunity may also represent an error of the opponent, allowing you to carry out a threat that could have been prevented.

    We can find examples of every depth, as above:

    One-movers:

    (11) Webley M. A. – Spiller P. [C21]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    +-----------------+
    |.4.+.+k+|
    |0p+.+.0p|
    |.+pH.+.+|
    |+.+.)N+b|
    |n4.+.).+|
    |$.+.+.)P|
    |P+.+.+.+|
    |+.$.+.I.|
    +-----------------+

    A curious double oversight follows. 29…Bf3 That Bishop is en prise!

    30.Kf2

    White misses it!

    Most people’s idea of a one-mover is more like this:

    (29) Foulds A. – McFarlane P. [A69] East Devon Major 1999 (3)

    +-----------------+
    |rh.+.+k+|
    |0p+.+p+p|
    |.+.)r+p+|
    |+.0.g.G.|
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.H.+Q+.|
    |P1.+.+P)|
    |$.+.+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    18…f6 ? 19.Rab1 ?

    [-3.31 : 19.Qd5 forward! ]

    Two-movers:

    (5) Ingham W. – Pinder R. [A07]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    +-----------------+
    |rh.+kg.4|
    |0p1n+p0b|
    |.+.+p+.0|
    |+.0.).+.|
    |.+P0.+.+|
    |+.+P+N).|
    |P).+.)B)|
    |$.GQ$NI.|
    +-----------------+

    12.b4 Fritz reckons this a blunder

    [-0.91 : 12.Qe2 ]

    12…Nc6 with double attack on b4 and e5 13.a3 cxb4

    Three-movers:

    (35) Rogers D. R. – Price C. R. [A15]

    East Devon Major 1999 (3)

    17.Bc3

    +-----------------+
    |.+.4k+.4|
    |0.+.0pgp|
    |.+.+.+p+|
    |1.0.+.+.|
    |.+P).+.+|
    |+PG.+P)b|
    |P+.+N+.)|
    |$.+Q+.IR|
    +-----------------+

    Both sides get in a muddle here: Black need not shed a piece, and has a clever alternative. 17…Bxd4+

    [2.88 : 17…Qxc3 neat, eh? 18.Nxc3 Bxd4+ 19.Qxd4 cxd4 20.Nd5]

    18.Qxd4 of course

    This is sort of a three-mover:

    (14) Belinfante N. – Wood J. Z. [C11] East Devon Major 1999 (2)

    +-----------------+
    |r+b+.4k+|
    |+.1ngp0p|
    |p+.+p+.+|
    |+p+p).+.|
    |.+.!.+.+|
    |+.H.+N+.|
    |P)P+.)P)|
    |+.+R$BI.|
    +-----------------+

    Black now plays a series of moves which make a poor position fatal. 14…f6

    [1.94 : 14…b4 15.Nb1 Qxc2 16.Bd3 Qc7 17.Nbd2]

    15.exf6

    +-----------------+
    |r+b+.4k+|
    |+.1ng.0p|
    |p+.+p).+|
    |+p+p+.+.|
    |.+.!.+.+|
    |+.H.+N+.|
    |P)P+.)P)|
    |+.+R$BI.|
    +-----------------+

    Natural, but risking letting an opportunity slip.

    [0.06 : 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qxd5+ Kh8 17.exf6 Bxf6 18.Qxa8 Bxb2]

    15…Bxf6 ? Overlooking White’s idea

    [1.03 : 15…Nxf6 16.Bd3 Bd6 17.Ne5 Nd7 18.Nxd5 Bxe5 19.Nxc7 Bxd4 20.Nxa8]

    16.Nxd5 back on track 16…exd5 ? Unnecessary! White must have some idea in mind, and there’s no need here to fall for it.

    [2.81 : 16…Qxc2 17.Nxf6+ Nxf6 18.Bd3 Qc7 19.Qe5 Nd5 20.Qxc7 Nxc7]

    17.Qxd5+ Kh8 18.Qxa8

    That opportunity was only taken because it was re-presented.

    After this, I suspect we are at the limit of what many players can analyse accurately without mistakes. Given a favourable wind, we might follow a given sequence some ten moves deep, but not reliably identifying or analysing all the alternative branches. Still, see if you can do better than the tournament winner here:

    (89) Saqui D. A. J. – Baer B. L. [E61] East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

    +-----------------+
    |.+r+.+.4|
    |$.0.+pi.|
    |.0P+b+pg|
    |+P+p+.+.|
    |.G.)p+p1|
    |+QH.)n+.|
    |.+.+.)P)|
    |$.+.+N+K|
    +-----------------+

    27.g3 This weakening move sets Black up for a stock mate.

    [-#5 : 27.R7a2 Bg5 28.h3 Qxh3+ 29.gxh3 Rxh3+ 30.Kg2 Nh4+ 31.Kg1 Nf3+]

    27…Qh3 Sufficient but the game could have been decided simply:

    [-7.66 : 27…Qxh2+ 28.Nxh2 Bxe3 29.Bf8+ Rcxf8 30.Kg2 Rxh2+ 31.Kf1 Rxf2#]

    28.Ne2

    [-#4 : 28.Qxd5 Bxd5 29.Rxc7 Bc4 30.Rxf7+ Kxf7 31.Nxe4 Bxf1]

    28…Bxe3 29.Ng1 Qxh2+ 0-1

    Oversight/natural moves in normal positions

    We can see the fatal attraction of ‘normal’ moves in the games Dobber-Nielsen and particularly Belinfante-Wood. Here’s another:

    (21) Laurain F. – Whelan G. [B07]

    East Devon Major 1999 (2)

    +-----------------+
    |rh.1.4k+|
    |0p+b+p+p|
    |.+.!.+p+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.g.+N+P|
    |P+P+B)P+|
    |$.G.+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    13.Ba3

    [-1.00 : 13.Rb1 Re8 14.Be3 Bc6 15.Rfd1 Qxd6 16.Rxd6]

    13…Re8 Now White has chased the Rook to e8, he has pieces en prise on both e2 and a1!

    Failure of nerve/Bluffed

    (32) Jukes S. – Scott R. [A24]

    East Devon Major 1999 (3)

    1. c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.b4 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 5…c6 6.Rb1 0-0 7.d3 d5 8.Bg5 Be6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Qd2 Re8 11.Nf3 Qd6 12.0-0 a6 13.Rfc1 Nbd7 14.Rc2 Nb6 15.h3 Rec8

    +-----------------+
    |r+r+.+k+|
    |+p+.+pgp|
    |ph.1bhp+|
    |+.+p0.G.|
    |.).+.+.+|
    |+.HP+N)P|
    |P+R!P)B+|
    |+R+.+.I.|
    +-----------------+

    16.Nxe5 enterprising but flawed?

    [-1.81 : 16.Rbc1 d4 17.Bxf6 dxc3 18.Qg5 Bxf6 19.Qxf6]

    16…d4 Black is bluffed!

    [0.25 : 16…Qxe5 A) 17.Bf4 must have been White’s idea: 17…Qh5 18.Bf3 (18.g4 Nxg4 19.hxg4 Bxg4 20.e3 Bf3 21.Bxf3 Qxf3) 18…Qxh3 19.Bg2 Qh5 20.Bf3 Bg4;

    Hard to see to the end, but there’s no concrete line to follow up.

    [ B) 17.Qe3 17…Nfd7 18.Qxe5 Nxe5 19.Rbc1 d4]

    Failure of analysis

    These are among the most interesting blunders, requiring a certain level of chess competence to achieve. Sometimes the failures are simple – like failing to count – and others are more involved.

    (46) Herbert S. – Dobber P. [B07]

    East Devon Major 1999 (4)

    +-----------------+
    |rhb+k+.4|
    |0pg.+p0p|
    |.+p+.+.+|
    |+.+.0.G.|
    |.+.+P+.+|
    |+.+.+N+.|
    |P)P+.)P)|
    |+.IR+B+R|
    +-----------------+

    12.Nxe5 An attractive but flawed idea.

    [-0.72 : 12.Bc4 b5 13.Be2 Nd7 14.Bh4 Nc5 15.Nxe5 Bb7 16.Bg3 Nxe4]

    12…f6

    Oops.

    (3) Foulds A. – England M. C. [E76] East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    +-----------------+
    |r+b1n4k+|
    |+.+.0.+p|
    |ph.0.+p+|
    |+P0p+.H.|
    |.+.g.).+|
    |+.H.+.+.|
    |P).+B+P)|
    |$.GQ+R+K|
    +-----------------+

    White’s next is a bright idea laid low by a miscalculation. 15.Nxd5

    [-3.09 : 15.Nf3 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Nc7 17.bxa6 Bxa6 18.Bxa6 Rxa6 19.a4]

    15…Nxd5 16.Bc4 Nef6 17.Qf3 e6 18.Re1 Re8

    (72) Bolt G. – Talbot A. R. [B86] East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

    1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 a6 7.a4 Be7 8.Bb3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 8…0-0 9.0-0 Nc6 10.f4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Bd7 12.f5 Nxd4 13.Qxd4 e5 14.Qd3 Bc6 15.Bg5 Rad8 16.Rae1

    +-----------------+
    |.+.4.4k+|
    |+p1.gp0p|
    |p+b0.h.+|
    |+.+.0PG.|
    |P+.+P+.+|
    |+BHQ+.+.|
    |.)P+.+P)|
    |+.+.$R+K|
    +-----------------+

    A thematic break, but is it sound? 16…d5 17.Qg3 Bluffed!

    [-0.47 : 17.Bxd5 h6 18.Be3 Ng4 19.Bd2 Bc5;

    17.exd5 Nxd5 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Qe2 also wins a Pawn;

    17.Nxd5 is the most obvious line to analyse, and it is not bad for Black: 17…Nxd5 18.exd5 Bxg5 19.Qg3 Bxd5 20.Qxg5]

    I put this one under ‘analysis’ rather than the similar example above which was ‘bluffed’; this one is a short line which I guess White failed to analyse, the one above was a long line which I’m sure Black looked at but feared ending badly.

    Bad moves in bad positions (the frying pan problem)

    The phrase ‘bad moves in bad positions’ is from Hugh Alexander. Partly this is statistical: when you stand worse, fewer of your moves will not lead to trouble. One can have sympathy. But it is also psychological: panic, depression or a general lowering of expectations can all cause decision-making and chosen moves to become poorer. I saw loads of these…

    (9) Speigel J. A. – Laurain F. [B26]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    20.Rae1

    +-----------------+
    |r+.gk+.4|
    |+p+q+p+.|
    |p+.+.+p+|
    |+.+P0.+p|
    |.!.0.+.+|
    |+.+P+.)P|
    |P)P+.+BI|
    |+.+.$R+.|
    +-----------------+

    20…Be7 Making a bad situation worse.

    [2.09 : 20…Bc7 21.Rf6 h4 22.d6 hxg3+ 23.Kxg3 Bd8 24.Rxe5+ Kf8 25.Rf4]

    21.Rxe5

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+k+.4|
    |+p+qgp+.|
    |p+.+.+p+|
    |+.+P$.+p|
    |.!.0.+.+|
    |+.+P+.)P|
    |P)P+.+BI|
    |+.+.+R+.|
    +-----------------+

    21…f6 Not cutting his losses.

    (5) Ingham W. – Pinder R. [A07] East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    13…cxb4

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+kg.4|
    |0p1n+p0b|
    |.+n+p+.0|
    |+.+.).+.|
    |.0P0.+.+|
    |).+P+N).|
    |.+.+.)B)|
    |$.GQ$NI.|
    +-----------------+

    14.Qb3 makes the worst of a bad job

    [-2.56 : 14.Bb2 ]  

    Slack moves in good positions (incisiveness)

    This was almost as common as the ‘bad to worse’ pattern: not really being in top gear when looking at a favourable position. There are many factors at play here: nerves, complacency, laziness and more.

    (29) Foulds A. – McFarlane P. [A69]

    East Devon Major 1999 (3)

    +-----------------+
    |rh.+.+k+|
    |0Q+.+.+p|
    |.+.1r0p+|
    |+.0.g.G.|
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |P+.+.+P)|
    |+R+.+R+K|
    +-----------------+

    When you see a good move, stop and think again… 22.Qxa8

    [-2.00 : 22.Bh6 …There might be a better one! This move gets the Bishop off the hook with tempo 22…Re7 23.Qxa8 Bxh2 24.Rbd1 Qe5]

    (5) Ingham W. – Pinder R. [A07] East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    14.Qb3 makes the worst of a bad job

    [-2.56 : 14.Bb2 ]

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+kg.4|
    |0p1n+p0b|
    |.+n+p+.0|
    |+.+.).+.|
    |.0P0.+.+|
    |)Q+P+N).|
    |.+.+.)B)|
    |$.G.$NI.|
    +-----------------+

    14…bxa3 Black does not exploit his advantage in the best way.

    [-1.19 : 14…Nc5 15.Qa2 Nxd3 16.Rd1 Nxc1 17.Raxc1 bxa3 18.Nxd4 Nxe5]

    (One game with three characteristic blunders!)

    (64) Stanners M. J. – Price M. C. [D00]

    East Devon Major 1999 (5)

    16.a4

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+kg.4|
    |0.+.+p+p|
    |.+n1p+.+|
    |+p+.+.+.|
    |P+p)B0.+|
    |+.).+P+.|
    |.).H.+P)|
    |$.+Q+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    16…0-0-0 Into the fire.

    [2.44 : 16…f5 17.axb5 fxe4 18.Nxe4 Qc7 19.bxc6]

    17.axb5 Nxd4 18.Rxa7

    [0.59 : 18.Nxc4 is rather better 18…Nxf3+ 19.Qxf3 Qc5+ 20.Kh1 Qxc4 21.Qxf4 Qc5 22.Qxf7]

    Errors of judgement not analysis (Positional errors)

    Fritz can occasionally identify a move as a blunder, as far as I can tell on positional grounds. Sometimes I agree with it!

    Here’s an example of what I mean:

    (38) Speigel J. A. – Kennedy P. J. [B26]

    East Devon Major 1999 (3)

    +-----------------+
    |.4.+k+.4|
    |0.+.hpgp|
    |.+.+p+p+|
    |+.0.+.+.|
    |.+.+P+.+|
    |+.).).).|
    |P+.+N+B)|
    |+.+RI.+R|
    +-----------------+

    20.0-0 allows Black to seize the seventh

    [-1.09 : 20.Rd2 Nc6 21.0-0 Ke7 22.Rfd1 Rhd8]

    20…Rb2 21.Rfe1 Rxa2

    More typical are positional errors Fritz ignores:

    (1) Dobber P. – Nielsen J. H. [B01]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    1. e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Re1 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 8…Nbd7 9.h3 Be7 10.Bf1 0-0 11.Nh4

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+.4k+|
    |0p+ngp0p|
    |.+p+ph.+|
    |1.+.+b+.|
    |.+.).+.H|
    |+.H.+.+P|
    |P)P+.)P+|
    |$.GQ$BI.|
    +-----------------+

    Black mistakenly allows White to secure the two Bishops and a Queen’s-side majority. 11…Rfe8 12.Nxf5 exf5

    Time trouble

    Time control here was at move 40, so any game which degenerates around move 35 or even earlier could be due to clock pressure. Time trouble doesn’t provide a complete explanation for out-and-out blunders, but it does produce them. We saw one I guess in Evans-Dunn.

     

    Conclusions and recommendations

    Well, what do you think?

     

    Appendix: on working with a computer

    I haven’t done this sort of thing before and wondered if those attempting a similar exercise might find the following notes helpful.

    Method

    I analysed all the games using the ‘blundercheck’ feature of Fritz 5. I used the default settings of time 10, (seconds I think) and a criterion of 60 (a difference of more than half a Pawn [100]). Left to run overnight, Fritz identifies better lines and flags each game containing a blunder with a black spot, which it describes as a “medal”. These settings seem to result in a depth of about depth of 10-ply (5 whole moves by White and Black).

    I assume these defaults are generally OK, but I don’t know if anyone has found a better combination of settings.

    Horizon effect

    Fritz takes the instruction to look for only ten seconds very seriously. That is, Fritz is capable of assessing a position after Black’s fifth move as favourable to Black, even if White’s sixth move delivers checkmate!

    Proof: in this position…

    (72) Bolt G. – Talbot A. R. [B86]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.4.+ri|
    |+p+.+p0.|
    |p+.).+.0|
    |+.+.+q+.|
    |P+.!.+.+|
    |+B+.0.+R|
    |.)Ph.+P)|
    |+.+.$.+K|
    +-----------------+

    …Black came up with a creative way to lose a piece, which Fritz assessed at +3.22 for White:

    32…Qxh3 33.gxh3 Nf3 34.Qxe3 Nxe1 35.Qxe1

    Fritz preferred the move:

    32…Rge8 when it analysed: 33.Rhxe3 Rxe3 34.Qxe3 Nxb3 35.Qxb3 Rxd6 36.Re8+ Kh7 37.Qxb7, after which 10 ply it assessed the position as only 0.81 to White – how would you assess it?

    +-----------------+
    |(.+.+R+.+|e
    |+Q+.+p0k|
    |p+.4.+.0|
    |+.+.+q+.|
    |P+.+.+.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.)P+.+P)|
    |+.+.+.+K|
    +-----------------+

    When victory is in sight

    Perhaps because of this, often the majority of Fritz’ comments occur only towards the end of the game, when the result has been all but decided.

    (25) Scott R. – Bloom P. [B46]

    East Devon Major 1999 (2)

    White has just played 47. b4 to reach this position:

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+r+.i|
    |+.+.+.0.|
    |P+.+P+.0|
    |+.g.+.+.|
    |.).+Q+.+|
    |+.+.+B+.|
    |.+P+N1P)|
    |+.+R+.+K|
    +-----------------+

    The previous 46 moves by White and Black escaped calumny, but now Fritz got all interested:

    47…Bb6

    [17.81 Fritz 5.00: 47…Qe3 48.bxc5 Qxc5 49.Qg6 Qf8 50.a7 Qg8 51.Qf7 Rf8 52.Qxf8 +13.63]

    48.c4

    [10.78 Fritz 5.00: 48.Qg6 threat Be4 is better 48…Rxe6 49.Qxe6 Qe3 50.Qc8+ Kh7 51.Qf5+ Kg8 52.a7 Qe8 +19.41]

    48…Bd8

    [24.91 Fritz 5.00: 48…Qe3 49.c5 Qxe4 50.Bxe4 Bc7 51.a7 Be5 52.a8Q Rxa8 53.Bxa8 +12.22]

    49.Qd4

    [11.34 Fritz 5.00: 49.Qg6 idea Be4 is better 49…Qxf3 50.Qxe8+ Kh7 51.gxf3 Bb6 52.Qc6 Bd4 53.e7 Bf6 +27.88]

    49…Qh4 50.Qxh4 Bxh4 51.a7 1-0

    So, a “blunder” in Fritz’ terms (a better move was available with an outcome a Pawn’s worth different), but in practical terms, who cares? Incisiveness in critical positions is important, but this finale was hardly critical. Some of the 111 games with blunders were like this one. Meanwhile the phase of the game where Black failed to castle, got in a horrid pin and shed all his Queen’s-side Pawns and a piece, is passed over in silence.

    Materialism

    Fritz, like many computers, likes the bird in the hand more than many players. Undoubtedly, if it did not have an opening book it would not accept for a moment any gambit, especially long-range ones like the Benko.

    (82) Hodge D. – Hammond T. J. [A35]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

    1. e4 c5 2.c3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5 5.exd5 Nf6 6.Nf3

    +-----------------+
    |rhb1kg.4|
    |0p+.0p+p|
    |.+.+.hp+|
    |+.+P+.+.|
    |.+.).+.+|
    |+.+.+N+.|
    |P).+.)P)|
    |$NGQIB+R|
    +-----------------+

    6…Bg7

    Typically Fritz does not like to be without material, and prefers 6…Nxd5.

    (3) Foulds A. – England M. C. [E76]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    1. d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 Nbd7 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 8.Be2 a6 9.0-0 b5

    +-----------------+
    |r+b1.4k+|
    |+.+n0pgp|
    |p+.0.hp+|
    |+p0P+.+.|
    |.+P+P).+|
    |+.H.+N+.|
    |P).+B+P)|
    |$.GQ+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    Fritz doesn’t like giving up Pawns, but this Benko-style idea looks perfectly legitimate.

    [0.94 : 9…b6 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.Be3 Qc7 12.f5 gxf5 13.exf5]

    Also, very practical attempts to open or muddle the position are nearly always criticised. [We need to understand the ‘nearly’; it may be in these positions the compensation is obvious even to a stupid computer.]

    (71) Aston P. A. – Saqui D. A. J. [D00] East Devon Premier 1999 (2)

    1. d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 Bf5 5.fxe4 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 5…Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nd6 7.Bf4 Qc8 8.Bxd6 cxd6 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Nh3 a6 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.Nd5 Qc6 13.0-0 Nf6

    +-----------------+
    |r+.+kg.4|
    |+p+.0p0p|
    |p+q0.h.+|
    |+.+N+.+.|
    |.+.).+.+|
    |+.+.+Q+N|
    |P)P+.+P)|
    |$.+.+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    14.c4 This perfectly reasonable attempt to pursue an initiative is queried by Fritz.

    [-1.44 : 14.Nhf4 Rc8 15.c3 e6 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.d5]

    A positive side of Fritz’ materialism is a healthy scepticism about sacrifices; if it can’t see a mate, it fancies the material.

    (10) Stanners M. J. – Sellwood C. [D00]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    1. d4 Nf6 2.e3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 2…e6 3.Bd3 c5 4.f4 Nc6 5.c3 d5 6.Nd2 Qc7 7.Qf3 cxd4 8.exd4 Bd6 9.Nh3 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.Ng5 h6

    +-----------------+
    |r+b+.4k+|
    |0.1.+p0.|
    |.0ngph.0|
    |+.+p+.H.|
    |.+.).).+|
    |+.)B+Q+.|
    |P).H.+P)|
    |$.G.+RI.|
    +-----------------+

    12.h4

    Computers can take the fun out of playing sacrifices. Fritz is unimpressed by White’s intentions to deliver mate and fancies grabbing the material.

    [-1.78 Fritz 5.00: 12.Nh3 -0.31]

    12…Bb7

    Bluffed!

    [-0.41 Fritz 5.00: 12…hxg5 13.fxg5 (13.hxg5 Nh7 14.Qh5 g6 15.Qh6) 13…Nd7 14.Qh5 g6 15.Qf3 -1.53]

    Positional sacrifices

    Fritz, like many computers, cannot appreciate positional sacrifices. These are not easy for club players to contrive except in certain familiar situations but when they were offered Fritz poured scorn on nearly all of them.

    (86) Pinkerton A. – Aston P. A. [A44]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

    1. d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.g3 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 3…d6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4 h5 7.e4 h4 8.g4

    +-----------------+
    |rhb1k+n4|
    |+p+.gp0.|
    |p+.0.+.+|
    |+.0P0.+.|
    |P+.+P+P0|
    |+.H.+.+.|
    |.)P+.)B)|
    |$.GQI.HR|
    +-----------------+

    8…h3

    [0.75 Fritz 5.00: 8…Bg5 -0.13]

    As usual, positional Pawn sacrifices are not to Fritz’ taste.

    Again, the ‘nearly all’ is interesting: sometimes it must have recognised some of the compensation and did not jump on the move as an error.

    (81) Hewson B. W. R. – Jaszkiwskyj P. [D53]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

    1. c4 e6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.d4 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bxf6 “Out of Book,” says Fritz. 6…Bxf6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bd3 c6 9.h4 Re8 10.Nge2 Bg4 11.Qc2 g6

    +-----------------+
    |rh.1r+k+|
    |0p+.+p+p|
    |.+p+.gp+|
    |+.+p+.+.|
    |.+.).+b)|
    |+.HB).+.|
    |P)Q+N)P+|
    |$.+.I.+R|
    +-----------------+

    12.h5 One Pawn sacrifice that even Fritz doesn’t query!

    Simplifying sacrifices

    There is a particular class of move that Fritz always labels a blunder and with which calumny I cannot agree: the simplifying move or combination. This may reduce your attacking force, or even give up some of your material advantage, but still be an excellent idea.

    (7) Price M. C. – Sparkes D. A. [C14]

    East Devon Major 1999 (1)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+Q+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.+k+p$.+|
    |+.+.)p+.|
    |.+.+.h.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    |.+.I.+.+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    +-----------------+

    62.Rxe6+ Just the sort of clarifying sacrifice a human likes and computers hate. In fact, both the Knight and King are perilously short of squares and can each be profitably harassed.

    [#7 Fritz 5.00: 62.Qg3 Ng2 (62…Nd5 63.Rxe6+ Kc5 64.Qg1+) 63.Qxg2+ Kc5 64.Kc3 f4 65.Rxe6 f3 66.Qxf3]

    Positional blunders by computers

    We are used to positional mistakes being overlooked by computers, but we can also see positional errors being positively suggested by Fritz. Here’s one:

    (89) Saqui D. A. J. – Baer B. L. [E61]

    East Devon Premier 1999 (3)

    +-----------------+
    |r+.1r+k+|
    |0.0.+p+.|
    |.0P+b+pg|
    |)P+p+.h.|
    |.+.)p+p+|
    |GQH.).+.|
    |.+.+.)P)|
    |+R+.$NI.|
    +-----------------+

    A standard reversed KIA position (Pe3 not Pe4) where Black will want to deliver mate soon.

    21.Kh1

    [-0.16 Fritz prefers 21.a6 which removes any shred of White counterplay!]

    Crossed wires

    There are occasions when I cannot fathom what is going on in Fritz’ twisted little silicon mind.

    (27) Woodruff A. – Jukes S. [E12]

    East Devon Major 1999 (2)

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+r+k0.|
    |.+.Gp+.0|
    |0.+.)p+.|
    |.+P+p+.)|
    |)r+.+.).|
    |.+R+.)K+|
    |+.+.+.+.|
    +-----------------+

    29…Rdb7

    I don’t understand Fritz’ querying this move, even though I see no very compelling reason for it.

    [-0.88 Fritz 5.00: 29…Rd8 30.h5 Ke8 31.Kf1 Rd7 32.Ke2 a4 33.Rd2 Rdb7 34.Rd4]

    Upon the pin

    Posted on by

    Pins are one of the first attacking ideas you learn about.
    Here’s some colourful examples you might not have seen before. Try
    and find good examples of forks, skewers, discoveries and so on, so they stick in your mind and they’re there when you need them!

    The pin

    from Lombardy, 19??

    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f4
    Qc7 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Nf3 g6 9. O-O Bg7 10. Qe1 e6 11. Kh1 O-O 12. Qh4
    b5 13. f5 Qe7 14. Bg5

     

    t+l+-Tj+
    +-+-DxLx
    x+sXxSx+
    +x+-+pB-
    -+-+p+-Q
    +-Nb+n+-
    pPp+-+pP
    R-+-+r+k

    14… b4

    [14… Ne5]

    15. e5 1-0

      if 15… Nxe5 16. Nxe5 DIAGRAM

     

     

    t+l+-Tj+
    +-+-DxLx
    x+-XxSx+
    +-+-NpB-
    -X-+-+-Q
    +-Nb+-+-
    pPp+-+pP
    R-+-+r+k

    16… dxe5

    [16… bxc3 17. Ng4]

      17. Ne4 wins

     

    Pin – and design for mateFrom
    Lombardy, 19??

    1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Nge2 Nc6 5. g3 Bg4 6.
    Bg2 Nd4

     

    t+-DjL-T
    XxX-XxXx
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+s+-+-
    -+-S-+l+
    +-N-+-P-
    pPpPnPbP
    R-BqK-+r

    7. Bxd5

    [7. f3]

    7… Qxd5

     

     

    t+-+jL-T
    XxX-XxXx
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+d+-+-
    -+-S-+l+
    +-N-+-P-
    pPpPnP-P
    R-BqK-+r

    8. f3 Qxf3 9. Rf1 Qg2 0-1

    [8. Nxd5 Nf3+ 9. Kf1 Bh3#]

    [8. O-O Nf3+ 9. Kh1 Ng5+ DIAGRAM 10. Nxd5 Bf3+ 11.
    Kg1 Nh3#]

     

    t+-+jL-T
    XxX-XxXx
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+d+-S-
    -+-+-+l+
    +-N-+-P-
    pPpPnP-P
    R-Bq+r+k

    Pins and counter-pins

    Robatsch-Jansa, Sochi,
    1974

    1. c4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. b3 Bg7 5. Bb2 O-O 6. Bg2 d6
    7. d4 c6 8. O-O Kh8

    [8… Qc7]

      9. d5 Qa5 10. Nc3 Nxd5??

     

    tSl+-T-J
    Xx+-X-Lx
    -+xX-+x+
    D-+s+x+-
    -+p+-+-+
    +pN-+nP-
    pB-+pPbP
    R-+q+rK-

    11. cxd5 Bxc3 12. Qd2 Qxd5 13. Qxc3+ e5 14. Nxe5
    1-0

     

    The double pin

    Alekhin – Nimzovitch, San Remo,
    1930

    1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. Nb5
    Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 O-O 8. c3 b6 9. f4 Ba6 10. Nf3 Qd7 11. a4 Nbc6 12.
    b4

     

    t+-+-Tj+
    X-+dSxXx
    lXs+x+-+
    +nXxP-+-
    pP-P-P-+
    +-P-+n+-
    -+-Q-+pP
    R-+-Kb+r

    12… cxb4

    [12… c4 13. Na3 Nd8 14. Nc2 when White is free to
    belt down the King’s side]

    13. cxb4 Bb7 14. Nd6 f5 15. a5 Nc8 16. Nxb7 Qxb7
    17. a6 Qf7

    [17… Qe7 18. Bb5 Nd8 [18… Nxb4 19. Rb1]]

    18. Bb5 N8e7 19. O-O h6 20. Rfc1 Rfc8 21.
    Rc2

     

    t+t+-+j+
    X-+-SdX-
    pXs+x+-X
    +b+xPx+-
    -P-P-P-+
    +-+-+n+-
    -+rQ-+pP
    R-+-+-K-

    21… Qe8

      hoping to make a stand on c6, but enters the worst pin in
    the world

    [21… Nd8 22. Rac1 Rxc2 23. Rxc2 Rc8 24. Bd7 Rxc2
    25. Qxc2 concedes the c-file, when the Q can’t be kept put for
    long]

     

     

    t+t+d+j+
    X-+-S-X-
    pXs+x+-X
    +b+xPx+-
    -P-P-P-+
    +-+-+n+-
    -+rQ-+pP
    R-+-+-K-

    22. Rac1 Rab8 23. Qe3 Rc7

      else White wins by Qe3-a3-a4

    24. Rc3 Qd7 25. R1c2 Kf8 26. Qc1
    Rbc8

     

     

    -+t+-J-+
    X-TdS-X-
    pXs+x+-X
    +b+xPx+-
    -P-P-P-+
    +-R-+n+-
    -+r+-+pP
    +-Q-+-K-

    Pin number two, down the c-file – worth another diagram. How can
    White increase the pressure?

    27. Ba4 b5 28. Bxb5 Ke8 29. Ba4 Kd8 30.
    h4

     

     

    -+tJ-+-+
    X-TdS-X-
    p+s+x+-X
    +-+xPx+-
    bP-P-P-P
    +-R-+n+-
    -+r+-+p+
    +-Q-+-K-

    zugzwang

    30… Qe8 31. b5 1-0

     

    And the ultimate pin
    game…

    Von Freymann – Forgacz,
    St.Petersburg, 1909

    1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 c6 5. f3 Qa5 6. Qd2
    e3 7. Bxe3 e5 8. dxe5 Qxe5 9. O-O-O d5 10. Bf4 Qf5 11. Re1+ Kf7 12.
    Bd3 Qd7 13. Nh3 Qd8 14. Ng5+ Kg8 15. Ne6 Bxe6 16. Rxe6 g6 17. Bg5
    Nbd7 18. Qf4 Kf7 19. Rhe1 h6 20. Bh4 Bg7

    [if 20… g5 21. Qf5 Rg8 22. Bf2 Black’s position
    remains precarious]

     

    t+-D-+-T
    Xx+s+jL-
    -+x+rSxX
    +-+x+-+-
    -+-+-Q-B
    +-Nb+p+-
    pPp+-+pP
    +-K-R-+-

    Black is in a TRIPLE pin; how is White to increase the pressure?

    21. Ne4 dxe4

    [21… Rf8 22. Nxf6 Nxf6 23. Bxf6 Bxf6 24. Rd6 g5 25.
    Qf5 Qxd6 26. Qg6#]

    22. Bc4 the power of discovered
    check

    22… Kg8 23. Rxf6+ Kh7 24. Rxg6 Nf6

    [24… Kxg6 25. Qxe4+ Kh5 26. Qg4#]

    25. Qf5 1-0

    Preparation for combinations

    Posted on by

    Peter Lane, 26th May 1998

    “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.

    About two years ago I decided to become a more “combinational”
    player. Specifically, I wanted to understand how to play for a
    direct attack, not shy away from complications, and, perhaps, play
    the occasional breath-taking sacrificial combination. Since then, I
    have studied many games, particularly those of Tal, which offered
    attacking motifs; begun to include sharper opening lines in my
    repertoire; and took an enormous stride forward by buying (and
    reading) V.Vukovic’s The Art of Attack in Chess
    (1965). 

      How far I’ve progressed you can judge from the games at
    the end of this piece. I do know that I feel a great difference in
    my willingness to go in for complications, and greater confidence
    in attempting to whip up an attack.

      My aim here is to lay out what I see as the principal
    elements of my last two years’ study which have led to these
    changes. In short, I offer a pattern (not a complete course!) of
    home study which, in my case, has resulted in a significantly
    sharper (more interesting? stronger?) style.

      It is not my aim to consider how to calculate variations.
    Not that I don’t agree this is an essential ability, but I do
    believe it is over-estimated in its own right. Practice is actually
    very easy: set up complicated positions, either from
    Winning Combinative Play or from games collections
    such as those of Tal, and analyse — against the clock! The one
    rule you must adhere to is not to waste time. Go over lines 10
    times if you want, but only if you are asking new questions at each
    repetition. Depth, accuracy and thoroughness will come with
    practice, as you compare what you worked out in your head with what
    is there on paper.

      The point to understand is that no-one can calculate
    perfectly (not even the computers — chess is too big for that) and
    so it is irrelevant whether you can calculate 10 moves deep or only
    2: at some point you have to stop and make an assessment of the
    position.

      Instead of asking: “does that really work? What am I
    overlooking?”, you have to develop the intuition that lies behind a
    sacrifice.

      So, after this lengthy introduction, I’m concerned with a
    related pair of questions:

     

    • How can we raise the courage to play sacrificial moves?
    • And, how can we improve the likelihood of getting the
      chance?

    I address the courage aspect by offering the study of simple
    positions in an effort to understand piece co-ordination as a key
    way to improve our assessment of positions reached in analysis. The
    increased opportunity arises when we understand how to steer a
    given position into one in which a combination might be lurking.

    I: STUDY OF PIECE CO-ORDINATION

    There is one piece of advice all the great players give, “study
    endgames”. Why? Because only in this manner can you understand how
    the pieces CO-OPERATE. Only with piece co-operation is it possible
    to force checkmate.

      Botvinnik claimed to have learnt about Queen+Knight
    co-operation from Capablanca. To see what he learnt, consider the
    following finish of Silwa-Botvinnik, Moscow 1956
    (for full analysis see Botvinnik on the Endgame
    (1985)):

    8/8/8/6pk/3Pq2p/2P1n2P/P1P3PQ/7K

    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-Xj
    -+-Pd+-X
    +-P-S-+p
    p+p+-+pQ
    +-+-+-+k

    White has more than enough material compensation for the knight,
    and the black king is insecure. Therefore, attempts to win the
    Q-side pawns, which lift the mate threat, would allow white to
    escape with perpetual. The winning plan is extra-ordinary. By
    sacrificing his last two pawns, black opens up the white king and
    forces ‘mate, due to the co-operation of his queen and knight.

    41… Qc6 42.Qg1 Qxc3 43.a4 g4!

    (43… Qxd4 44.a5 Nxc2 45.a6 would be
    harder.)

    44.hxg4+ Kg5! 45.a5 h3!

      There goes the last pawn, opening up the long diagonal.
    Because both 46.gxh3 Qc6+ 47.Kh2 Qf3! and 46.g3 Qc6+
    47.Kh2 Qxc2+ 48.Kh1 Nxg4     quickly lead to ‘mate —
    White resigned.

      And now see the finish of V.Anand-V.Topalov (Wijk
    Aan Zee, 1998)    :

    2q3kQp1nbpp/1r1pN3/3P4/6P1/7P/5P2/R1BQ2K1

    -+d+-+j+
    +-X-SlXx
    -T-Xn+-+
    +-+p+-+-
    -+-+-+p+
    +-+-+-+p
    -+-+-P-+
    R-Bq+-K-

    - 26.Nxg7!!
    Kxg7

      (Acceptance is forced. Although all white’s pieces are on
    the back rank, the weak dark-squares are decisive. If 26…Nxd5
    27.Nf5 Qf8 28.Nh6+ Kg7 29.Qd4+ Kg6 30.h4     etc.)

    27.Qd4+ Kf8 (27…Kg8 28.Bh6 or
    27…Kg6 28.h4    ) 28.Bh6+ Ke8 29.Re1 1-0

      (For we mortals: 29…Kd7 30.Rxe7+! When it’s
    B+Q vs K+others. e.g. 30…Kxe7 31.Qe4+ Be6 32.Qxh7+ Bf7
    33.Bg5+ Kf8 34.Qh8+ Bg8 35.Qh6+ Ke8 36.Qg6+ Bf7 37.Qe4+ Kf8 38.Bh6+
    Kg8 39.Qd4     forces the win of the queen, with the advance of
    the g and h-pawns winning the game.)

      Amazing stuff, but note that after the demolition
    sacrifice Anand finished playing Q+B vs K+scattered defence; as the
    black K could never escape to d7 (because of Qf5+ and Bg5 forcing
    the win of the queen) Anand could judge that a ‘mating position was
    forceable (of course, he may have calculated it too!). The
    choice is simple. Either you can calculate perfectly (me neither),
    or you must understand piece co-operation enough to make an
    accurate assessment of such positions.

      Studying simple positions will help us gain the courage
    to make the initial sacrifice — trusting our assessment will
    remove the worry of “overlooking something”; if your assessment is
    right, you can find the good moves when you get there.

    II: WEAPONS IN THE ARSENAL

    There are a number of basic attacking motifs which must be studied,
    with a view to reaching a position in which a combination can be
    used. My favourite source for these is The Art of Attack in
    Chess     by V.Vukovic (1965). Some of the more helpful
    concepts I have found are focal-points and networks of weak
    squares. In terms of specific weapons, Vukovic analyses attacking
    the fianchettoed bishop and the value of different open files,
    amongst others. The Classic Bishop Sacrifice (or Greek Gift) is one
    such standard weapon:

    r1bq1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2n1p3/3pP3/3P4/P1PB1N2/5PPP/R1BQ1RK10

    t+lD-Tj+
    Xx+s+xXx
    -+s+x+-+
    +-+xP-+-
    -+-P-+-+
    P-Pb+n+-
    -+-+-PpP
    R-Bq+rK-

    The thematic move here is 1.Bxh7+, but before
    playing it, there are FOUR variations that need to be considered:

      1) 1… Kh8 Worth remembering that sacrifices do
    not have to be accepted. In this position 2.Bd3 is possible,
    winning a pawn.

      and after 1… Kxh7 2.Ng5+

      2) 2… Kg8 3.Qh5 Re8 4.Qxf7+ Kh8 5.Qh5+ Kg8 6.Qh7+
    Kf8 7.Qh8+ Ke7 8.Qxg7     ‘mate. A typical procedure, driving the
    king to its fate.

      3) 2… Kh6 3.Nxf7+ xd8 wins the queen.

      4) 2… Kg6 3.h4 (sometimes 3.Qg4 is strongest)
    Rh8 4.h5+! Rxh5 5.Qd3+ f5 6.exf6+ Kxf6 7.Qf3+ Ke7 8.Qf7+ Kd6
    9.Qxh5     and wins (10.Nf7+ is threatened too).

      [5) 2… Kh8 is never really an option
    3.Qh5+ Kg8 4.Qh7 ‘mate.]

      Once mastered, this is a powerful weapon, ready to be
    used whenever possible. A light-hearted example:

    Gaudersen-Paul (Melbourne, 1928)

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 Nc6
    7.Nf3 Nge7 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Bxh7+

    “Almost any decent player would make this sacrifice
    instinctively, without bothering to calculate the consequences.”
    CHERNEV

    9… Kxh7 10.Ng5+ Kg6 11.h4 Nxd4 12.Qg4 f5 13.h5+
    Kh6 14.Nxe6+ g5 15.hxg6 en passant, ‘mate!

      This is, of course, an example of “castling into it”.
    What is to be done when your opponent tries his/her level best to
    avoid falling for such basic attacking motifs? Just how can we
    force an opponent into accepting the pre-conditions for a
    combination?

      Consider an example of Capablanca’s, where a combination
    is used to set up the pre-conditions for a Classic Bishop
    Sacrifice.

    J.R.Capablanca vs Angel Ribera (Barcelona,
    1935)

    1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.d4 Ngf6 6.Ng3 e6
    7.Bd3 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Qe2 c5 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.Bg5 b6?

    r1b2rk1/p1qnbppp/1p2pn2/2p3B1/3P4/3B1NN1/PPP1QPPP/R2R2K1

    t+l+-Tj+
    X-DsLxXx
    -X-+xS-+
    +-X-+-B-
    -+-P-+-+
    +-+b+nN-
    pPp+qPpP
    R-+r+-K-

    Black’s last move prepares to develop his last piece, but allows
    JRC an attractive combination. 11…h6 would have avoided
    immediate danger. Note that white’s pieces are right for the
    Classic Bishop Sacrifice, but black’s knights are irritatingly
    covering f6. Capablanca uses one decoy sacrifice and one exchange
    sacrifice to clear his way.

    12.d5! Nxd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7

      step 1: white moves the N from f6, making the sacrifice
    possible:

    14.Bxh7+! Kxh7 15.Ng5+ Kg8 16.Rxd7!

      step 2: white removes the other N before it goes to f6,
    e.g. 16.Qh5? Nf6 and black defends.

    16…Qxd7 17.Qh5 Rd8 18.Qxf7+ Kh8
    19.h4

    (not 19.Nh5 Qd1+ 20.Rxd1 Rxd1 ‘mate!)

    19…Nf5 20.Nh5 Qe8 21.Nf6! 1-0

      (because 21…Nd6 22.Nxe8 Nxf7 23.Nxf7+ Kg8 24.Nxd8
    Bd7 25.Nxe6 Rxe8 26.Ng5     leaves white with a won endgame.)

      Studying games such as these (more from Capablanca in a
    later piece), and other masters like Tal, helps us understand the
    pre- conditions behind a finishing combination, and how to set them
    up.

    III: PREPARING THE GROUND

    Finally, not every position is amenable to a combinative treatment.
    If you want to play combinations on a regular basis, you have to
    play the right openings — ones where some of the pre-conditions
    for combinations are present from the outset. Books have been
    written about the sacrifices available in the King’s Indian Defence
    or Sicilian. The main strategy is to pick an opening which is
    unbalanced, play through some sharp games in it, and keep
    playing     the opening. If you want to develop a feel for when a
    sacrifice might be correct, you must know a lot about the positions
    you reach.

      I want to illustrate all this with some examples of my
    own play. One from last year:

    D.Hill vs P.C.Lane (Club Championships,
    Rd:6, 29/4/97)

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2
    Qb6 8.Nf3 cxd4 9.cxd4 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.O-O Bd6

    r1b1k2r/pp4pp/1qnbpn2/3p4/3P4/3B1N2/PP2NPPP/R1BQ1RK1

    t+l+j+-T
    Xx+-+-Xx
    -DsLxS-+
    +-+x+-+-
    -+-P-+-+
    +-+b+n+-
    pP-+nPpP
    R-Bq+rK-

    This is a standard position from the French Defence, Tarrasch
    Variation. Some books may tell you that the French stresses the
    “defensive” aspect of Defence, whereas I have always thought of the
    opening as a counter-attacking one, and particularly attractive to
    those aspiring to be “combinative players”.

      In particular, this position is wonderfully unbalanced.
    Note Black’s attack on d4, the half-open f-file, and the free piece
    play. The battle is usually about control of e5, because if black
    manages to play …e5 his game generally becomes very free —
    taking over the central squares, freeing his Bc8, and also creating
    a passed d-pawn (not always a trivial factor!). The danger for
    black is in allowing white to establish a bind on e5 and the
    Q-side, which can make white’s wins look effortless.

    12.Nc3 O-O 13.a3 Bd7 14.b4 Kh8

      White is making progress towards a Q-side bind, but
    leaving the centre undefended — so black strikes there.

    15.Na4 Qc7 16.Bb2 e5! 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Bxe5
    19.Bxe5 Qxe5 20.Nc5

    r4r1k/pp1b2pp/5n2/2Npq3/1P6/P2B4/5PPP/R2Q1RK1

    t+-+-T-J
    Xx+l+-Xx
    -+-+-S-+
    +-NxD-+-
    -P-+-+-+
    P-+b+-+-
    -+-+-PpP
    R-+q+rK-

    This is where the fact that I play the French all the time played
    its role — I knew that White had handed the advantage
    over to Black. In fact, I am convinced that after …e5 Black
    manages to take control of these kinds of positions. Therefore, I
    spent a long time looking for a decisive continuation. In short, I
    wanted a combinative attack.

      45 minutes is a long time to spend on one move,
    especially when it’s as obvious as the next:

    20…Ng4 21.g3 Nxf2!

      That wasn’t so obvious, but if I hadn’t played it then
    20…Ng4 would have been a bit pointless.

    22.Rxf2 Rxf2 23.Kxf2 Bh3!!

      I found this quiet move by a combination of remembered
    lessons and frustration at not finding anything by direct
    calculation. A quiet move like this is hard to find, especially
    with …Qd4+ …Qb2+ or …Rf8+ as viable alternatives. However, I
    couldn’t find a decent follow-up to any of these moves, and instead
    remembered: firstly, “the threat is stronger than the execution”,
    and secondly, Vukovic has an extended discussion on weak square
    complexes, and using them to force checkmate. White’s king already
    looks draughty on the dark squares, but how about the light ones?
    Therefore 23…Bh3, and I found this during my long think on move
    20!

    24.Be2

      Stronger is 24.Ra2, though after 24…Rf8+
    25.Kg1 Qe3+ 26.Kh1 b6     Black forces a winning ending after,
    e.g., 27.Nb3 Rf2 28.Rxf2 Qxf2 29.Be4! Bg4! 30.Qg1 Bf3+ 31.Bxf3
    Qxf3+ 32.Qg2 Qxb3.

    24…Rf8+ 25.Kg1 Qe3+ 26.Kh1 Qf2 27.Qxd5 Qxe2
    28.Rg1 Bg4 29.0-1

      This kind of combination is standard for the French
    player. Another example of the same theme:

    J.M.Shepley vs. P.C.Lane (Surrey vs. Devon,
    Board 1, 16/5/98)

    1.Nc3 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6
    7.Bf4 Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.O-O O-O 11.Ne5 Qe8

      By transposition we’ve reached a theoretical position of
    the French Two Knights, where white gives up his central pawns for
    piece control of e5. In earlier games I struggled for a plan in
    these positions, but these days I’m armed with 11…Qe8, Watson’s
    recommendation.

    12.Qd2? Nxe5?

      Best for white is 12.Nb5 when Qe7 gives
    black a decent game. Black’s move is also a mistake: the
    theoretical 12…Nh5! forces the win of material, e.g.
    13.Nxc6 Nxf4 14.Ne5 Qh5 15.Nf3 Nxg2 16.Kxg2 Qxf3+     etc. Other
    choices for white cost even more.

    13.Bxe5 Qh5 14.Rae1 Ng4 15.Bg3

    r1b2rk1/pp4pp/4p3/2bp3q/6nQNB2B1/PPPQ1PPP/4RRK

    t+l+-Tj+
    Xx+-+-Xx
    -+-+x+-+
    +-Lx+-+d
    -+-+-+s+
    +-Nb+-B-
    pPpQ-PpP
    +-+-RrK-

    15…Rxf2!

      Again, that f2 square — Black has to strike now or h3
    follows.

    16.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 17.Bxf2 Qxh2+ 18.Kf1 Bd7 19.Qg5
    Qh1+ 20.Ke2 Qxg2 21.Qh4

      I had overlooked this move. The threat to h7 allows Rg1,
    forcing an endgame with black’s 3Ps vs the N. I had assumed such
    positions would offer both sides winning chances when offering the
    sacrifice on move 15 — the kind of assessment I would not have
    trusted myself to make a couple of years ago — and my opponent
    proceeds to misplay the endgame badly.

    21…h6 (Playing the pawn to a dark
    square — observe the Bd3) 22.Rg1 Qxf2+ 23.Qxf2 Nxf2
    24.Kxf2 Rf8+ 25.Ke2? g5 26.Rf1? Rxf1 27.Kxf1 Kg7 28.Kg2 Kf6 29.Kg3
    h5     (White’s passive play [25.Ke3-d4!] and exchange of the
    rooks, have made the pawns a winning team.) 30.a4 h4+
    31.Kf3 Bc6 32.Kf2 g4 33.a5 g3+ 34.Kg2 d4+ 35.Ne4+ Ke5 36.Kf3 g2
    37.Kxg2 Bxe4+ 38.Kh3 Bxd3 39.cxd3 Kf4 40.Kxh4 Ke3
    41.0-1

    P.C.Lane vs M.Brierley (West of England,
    Rd:7, 1K/98)

    1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5
    7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5

      An interesting system against the King’s Indian: White
    simply captures the e5-pawn and sets Black some problems. I had
    assumed this was quite rare, but looking down the table I.George
    vs. D.Grossett had the same position — 9…Nc6?
    10.Nd5!     won the exchange quickly. 9…Nbd7? is no
    good, 9…Na6!? is better, and 9…Re8! is
    probably best.

    9…c6!? 10.Nxe5 Re8 11.O-O-O! Na6

      If 11…Rxe5 12.Rd8+ Re8 13.Bxf6; 12…Ne8
    13.Rxc8     etc. The whole point of the system is that White
    (almost) gets away with a blatant pawn grab!

    12.f4 h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.fxg5 hxg5 15.Bg3
    Nc5

    r1b1r1k1/pp3pbQp2n2/2n1N1pQP1P3/2N3B1/PP2B1PP/2KR3R

    t+l+t+j+
    Xx+-+xL-
    -+x+-S-+
    +-S-N-X-
    -+p+p+-+
    +-N-+-B-
    pP-+b+pP
    +-Kr+-+r

    Black tries to recover the e4 pawn. Although 15…Be6 doesn’t
    regain the material, it would have avoided the following
    combination.

    16.Nxf7! (the KB2 square bears the brunt
    of many sacrifices) Kxf7 17.e5 Ng4 18.Rd4 Nxe5 19.Bh5+
    Kg8

      A wise decision — 19…Ng6 20.Rf1+ Bf6 21.Rd6 Re6
    22.Rxe6 Bxe6 23.Be5 Nd7 24.Bxf6 Nxf6 25.Ne4     and, 19…Kf8
    20.Bxe8 Kxe8 21.Re1 Nd7 22.Rxd7 Bxd7 23.Bxe5     leave White with
    his extra material and a simplified ending.

    20.Bxe8 Ned3+ 21.Rxd3 Nxd3+ 22.Kd2 Bf5 23.Rf1 Bh7
    24.Bf7+ Kh8

    r6k/pp3Bbb/2p5/6pQP5/2Nn2B1/PP1K2PP/5R2

    t+-+-+-J
    Xx+-+bLl
    -+x+-+-+
    +-+-+-X-
    -+p+-+-+
    +-Ns+-B-
    pP-K-+pP
    +-+-+r+-

    The net result of the last 9 moves is that White has kept his extra
    pawn! At first I was a little worried about black’s two bishops,
    and the possibility of Rd8, but I decided my pieces were still
    better placed than Black’s, and thought I would just “push them
    forward”.

    25.Ke3 Nxb2 26.Ne4 Rd8 27.Nd6 Rd7 28.Be6
    Bd3

      Or 28…Re7 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.Nxg5+ Kh8 31.Rf7 Re8
    32.Be5 Rg8 33.Bxb2    ; or 31…Nxc4+ 32.Ke2 Re8 33.Rxb7
    are winning.

    29.Nf7+ Kh7 30.Nxg5+ Kg6?

      Not the best, but neither 30…Kh6 31.Rf7 Rxf7
    32.Nxf7+     nor 30…Kh8 31.Rf7 give black time to
    regain his pawn.

    31.Bxd7 Bxf1 32.Ne6! Bxg2?

      Time trouble : but 32…Nxc4+ 33.Kf2 Nb6 (…Bd3
    34.Nf4+) 34.Kxf1 Nxd7 35.Nd8 is still winning for
    white.

    33.Nxg7 Nxc4+ 34.Kd4 Nb6 35.Ne6 Kf6 36.Bh4+ Kf7
    37.Nf4 Bf1 38.Be6+ Kg7 39.Bb3 Nd7 40.Ne6+ Kg6     [TIME]
    1-0

    An ABC of chess

    Posted on by

    Here’s a mental
    toolkit for the improving chess player.

    I think that for each of these elements there are
    different levels of understanding e.g. bad Bishop

    1) I’ve heard of it!

    2) I know what it is and could explain it to a
    junior.

    3) I understand enough to make use of the idea
    in a game.

    4) I never fail to notice the feature in a game, and
    rarely (if ever) make a bad choice of plan based on
    it.

    I suspect we’re all OK at (1) but aren’t all at (4) yet.
    (3) is a fair goal.

    KLM of chess
    tactics

    K – knight
    forks

    “He jumps so terribly” – Dick van Geet’s
    tiny son

    -------------------
    |r+b+k+-r|
    |ppp-ppb-|
    |-n-+-+pp|
    |+-+-P-+n|
    |-+-+-P-B|
    |+-N-+-+N|
    |PPP+-+PP|
    |+-KR+B+R|
    -------------------

    (Fuller – Sakurai,Haifa [B07], 1976) 1.e4 d6
    2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.f4 h6 6.Bh4 Bg7 7.e5 Nh5 8.Nh3
    dxe5 9.dxe5 Nb6 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.0-0-0+ Ke8     DIAGRAM
    12.Nb5 1-0 The last rank is also vulnerable,
    making the fork unstoppable.

    L – last
    rank

    “Feet of clay…”

    -------------------
    |-+r+r+k+|
    |+p+q+ppp|
    |-+-p-b-+|
    |p-+P+-+-|
    |-+-Q-+-+|
    |+-+-+N+-|
    |PP-+RPPP|
    |+-+-R-K-|
    -------------------

    (Adams-Torre): 18.Qg4 Qb5 19.Qc4 Qd7 20.Qc7 Qb5
    21.a4 Qxa4 22.Re4 Qb5 23.Qxb7 1-0     A striking display
    which has the appearance of a study.

    M – mating
    pattern

    “The game is won by the player who has
    checkmated his opponent’s king.    ” – FIDE rules

    -------------------
    |r+b+-rk+|
    |p-qn+p+p|
    |-+pbp+p+|
    |+-ppN-+-|
    |-+-+-P-+|
    |+P+-P-+R|
    |PBPP-+PP|
    |RN+Q+-K-|
    -------------------

    (Plachetka – Zinn, Decin [A04] 1974) 1.Nf3 c5
    2.b3 Nf6 3.Bb2 Nc6 4.e3 d5 5.Bb5 e6 6.Ne5 Qc7 7.0-0 Bd6 8.Bxc6+
    bxc6 9.f4 0-0 10.Rf3 Nd7 11.Rh3 g6     DIAGRAM
    12.Qh5 1-0

    N – network nobbled
    (Nterference)

    “Parting is such sweet sorrow” –
    Shakespeare

    -------------------
    |rnbqk+-r|
    |pp+-ppbp|
    |-+-+-+p+|
    |+-+-P-+-|
    |-+-N-+n+|
    |+-N-+-+-|
    |PPP+-+PP|
    |R-BQKB+R|
    -------------------

    (Crotto – Hindle,Haifa [B71] 1976) 1.e4 c5
    2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f4 Bg7 7.e5 dxe5
    8.fxe5 Ng4     DIAGRAM 9.Bb5+ Bd7? 10.Qxg4 …
    1-0

    O –
    overloading

    “The straw that broke the camel’s
    back    ” – Proverbial

    -------------------
    |r+-+-rk+|
    |+-+n+ppp|
    |pp-+-+-+|
    |+-+-p-q-|
    |P+B+Q+-+|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    |-PP+-+PP|
    |R-+-+RK-|
    -------------------

    17.Rxf7 Kh8 18.Rxd7 1-0

    P – pins

    “The
    pin is mightier than the sword    ” – Reinfeld

    -------------------
    |-+rk-+-+|
    |p-rqn-p-|
    |P+n+p+-p|
    |+-+pPp+-|
    |BP-P-P-P|
    |+-R-+N+-|
    |-+R+-+P+|
    |+-Q-+-K-|
    -------------------

    (Alekhin – Nimzovitch,San Remo [C17] 1930)
    30…Qe8 31.b5 1-0

    Q –
    queening

    “Every Pawn is a potential Queen” –
    Mason

    -------------------
    |r+bqkbnr|
    |pp+-+ppp|
    |-+p+p+n+|
    |+B+P+-+-|
    |-+-QN+-+|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    |PPP+-PPP|
    |R-B-K-NR|
    -------------------

    1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Qd4 Ng6
    6.Nxe4 e6? 7.Bb5+ c6     DIAGRAM 8.dxc6 Qxd4
    9.cxb7+ Kd8 10.bxa8Q 1-0

    R –
    retreat

    “What is immobile must suffer
    violence    ” – Lasker

    -------------------
    |r+-qkbnr|
    |+-+b+ppp|
    |p+-p-+-+|
    |+p+Q+-+-|
    |-+p+P+-+|
    |+B+-+-+-|
    |PPP+-PPP|
    |RNB-K-+R|
    -------------------

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.d4 b5
    6.Bb3 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4? c5 9.Qd5 Be6 10.Qc6+ Bd7 11.Qd5
    c4 0-1    The Noah’s Ark trap.

    S – sacrifice at castle
    gates

    “Examine moves that smite!” – Purdy

    -------------------
    |r+-q-rk+|
    |p-p-npp-|
    |-pn+b+-p|
    |+-+pP-+-|
    |-+-P-B-+|
    |+-PB+N+-|
    |P+PQ-+PP|
    |+R+-+RK-|
    -------------------

    (Blackburne – Blanchard (London) [C30],
    1891)

    1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 exf4 ? 5.d4 Bb4
    6.Bxf4 d5 7.e5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3

    Be6 9.Bd3 h6 10.0-0
    Nge7 11.Rb1 b6 12.Qd2 0-0 DIAGRAM13.Bxh6! gxh6 14.Qxh6
    Ng6 15.Ng5 Re8 16.Rxf7 Bxf7 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Qxf7# 1-0

    T – two for the price of
    one

    “All combinations are based on a double
    attack    ” – Fine

    -------------------
    |r+-qk+-r|
    |p-+p+ppp|
    |-pbbp+-+|
    |+-+-+-+n|
    |-+P+P+-+|
    |P-N-B-+-|
    |-PQ+-PPP|
    |R-+-KB+R|
    -------------------

    (Christiansen – Karpov,1993 [E12]) 1.d4 Nf6
    2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4
    Nc6 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Be3 Bd6     DIAGRAM
    12.Qd1 1-0

    U – undermining (removing
    the guard)

    “For the want of a horse a rider was
    lost…    ” – Franklin.

    -------------------
    |r+bqr+k+|
    |pp+-+ppp|
    |-+-+-b-+|
    |+-+p+-+-|
    |-+-+-+-+|
    |+-NQPN+-|
    |PP-+-PPP|
    |R-+-K-+R|
    -------------------

    (Legueltel – Studev,Kuortane [D60] 1976) 1.d4
    d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.cxd5 exd5
    8.Bd3 Re8 9.Qc2 c5 10.dxc5 Nxc5 11.Bxf6 Nxd3+ 12.Qxd3
    Bxf6     DIAGRAM 13.Qxd5?? 13…Bxc3+ 0-1

    U2 – unmasking
    (discovery)

    “Behind you!”

    -------------------
    |rn-q-rk+|
    |pbpp+ppp|
    |-p-+p+-+|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    |-+PPn+-+|
    |+-N-+NP-|
    |PPQ+PPBP|
    |R-+-K-+R|
    -------------------

    1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Bb4+
    6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 0-0 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qc2!    DIAGRAM
    9…Nxc3 10.Ng5! Ne4 11.Bxe4 Bxe4 12.Qxe4 Qxg5 13.Qxa8
    1-0

    V – vulnerable
    f7

    “The Achilles’ Heel of a chess position…”

    -------------------
    |rnbqk+nr|
    |ppppbppp|
    |-+-+-+-+|
    |+-+-p-+-|
    |-+B+P+-+|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    |PPPP-PPP|
    |RNBQK-NR|
    -------------------

    (Paul Roberts – NN [C23] East Devon, 1996) 1.e4
    e5 2.Bc4 Be7 3.Qh5 … 1-0

    W – weakening
    King’s-side

    “Castles built of sand…”

    -------------------
    |-+r+r+k+|
    |p-pbqppp|
    |-p-+pn-+|
    |+-+-+-B-|
    |-+-P-+-+|
    |+-+B+Q+-|
    |PPP+-PPP|
    |R-+-R-K-|
    -------------------

    (Tarrasch – Mieses (3) [C10] (Berlin m.), 1916)
    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Bd3 Be7
    7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nf6 9.Bd3 b6 10.Ne5 0-0 11.Nc6 Qd6 12.Qf3 Bd7
    13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Bg5 Rac8 15.Rfe1 Rfe8     DIAGRAM
    16.Qh3 Qd6 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qh6 f5? 19.Re3 Qxd4 20.c3
    1-0

    X – X-ray
    (skewer)

    “Stap me vitals…”

    -+-+-+d+
    +-+-+-X-
    -+j+-+-X
    R-+-+-+b
    x+-+-+-+
    +-+-+-+-
    -+p+-+p+
    +-K-+-+-

    Skewer frenzy in a Rinck study: 1.Ra8! Qa2! 2.
    Rxa4! Qg8! 3. Ra8 Qh7 4. Bg6! 1-0

    Y – your move! (defensive
    play)

    “A man does not die of threats” –
    Proverb

    -------------------
    |rnb+-r-k|
    |pp+-p-bp|
    |-+pp-np+|
    |q-+P+p+-|
    |-+P+-+-+|
    |+PN-+NP-|
    |PB-+PPBP|
    |R-+Q+RK-|
    -------------------

    (Robatsch – Jansa,Sochi [A10] 1974) 1.c4 f5
    2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 0-0 6.Bg2 d6 7.d4 c6 8.0-0 Kh8
    [8…Qc7] 9.d5 Qa5 10.Nc3     DIAGRAM 10…Nxd5?
    11.cxd5 Bxc3 12.Qd2 Qxd5 13.Qxc3+ e5 14.Nxe5 1-0

    Z –
    Zwischenzug

    “When you see a good move, stop – there
    may be a better one    ” – Lasker

    -------------------
    |r+bq-rk+|
    |pp+-ppbp|
    |-+np-np+|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    |-+PNP+-+|
    |+-N-B-+-|
    |PP-+BPPP|
    |R-+Q+RK-|
    -------------------

    (Spassov – Kritiansen, Kringsja [E91], 1976)
    1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.0-0
    cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Be3     DIAGRAM9…Ng4 10.Bxg4
    Bxg4    (10.Qxg4 Nxd4) 11.Nxc6 Qd7
    12.Nxe7+ Kh8 13.f3 1-0

    ABC of chess
    strategy

    A –
    activity

    “The most important feature of the
    position    ” – Stean

    -------------------
    |r+-r-+k+|
    |+-Rb+ppp|
    |p+-+pn-+|
    |+p+-N-+-|
    |-+-PP+-+|
    |+-+BK-+-|
    |P+-+-PPP|
    |+R+-+-+-|
    -------------------

    (Rubinstein-Schlechter, San Sebastian
    1912)    : White’s active pieces give him the advantage.

    B – better pieces – bad
    bishop bishop vs knight, offside piece,
    coordination

    “Quality, not quantity”

    -------------------
    |-r-+-k-+|
    |+-rb+pp-|
    |p+-N-+-p|
    |+p+pPP+-|
    |-PpP-+PP|
    |P-+-K-+-|
    |-+-+-R-+|
    |+-R-+-+-|
    -------------------

    Tarrasch – Noa [c11] Hamburg, 1885

    White’s great Knight and Black’s dismal Bishop are the key
    to this position. 38.g5 h5 39.Rcf1 Kg8 40.g6 f6 41.Re2
    Bc6 42.Rfe1 Rd8 43.Kf4 fxe5+ 44.Rxe5 Kf8 45.Nf7 Re8 46.Ng5 Rce7
    47.Nh7+ 1-0

    C – centre and
    space

    “I’m the King of the castle…”

    -------------------
    |r+-q-+k+|
    |+p+-+r+n|
    |n+-+-+pb|
    |+-PNNp+-|
    |p+BBP+-p|
    |P-+-+-p-|
    |-R-+-+-P|
    |+-+Q+-K-|
    -------------------

    (Georgadze-Kupreichik, 1979)An
    extraordinary piece of centralisation: despite the exchange
    less, and the King’s-side attack, White soon won.

    D –
    development

    “The early bird catches the King!”

    -------------------
    |rn-+kb-r|
    |pp+-+ppp|
    |-+p+-+-+|
    |+-npq-+-|
    |-+-+-+-+|
    |+-N-BQP-|
    |PPP+-+-P|
    |+-KR+B+R|
    -------------------

    (Spielmann – Flamberg, Mannheim [C29], 1914)
    1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Qe2 6…Nc5
    ?     [6…Nxc3] 7.d4 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qh4+
    9.g3 Qxd4 10.Be3 Qxe5 11.0-0-0 c6     DIAGRAM Black is
    fighting with only half the army. Sortez les
    pieces!    12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qe6 14.Bc4 Qe4
    15.Bxc5 1-0

    E –
    exchanges

    “Fair exchange is no robbery”

    -------------------
    |r+-+-rk+|
    |+-+-bppp|
    |p+-+bn-+|
    |+-+p+-+-|
    |N+-+-+-+|
    |+-+BB-+-|
    |PP-+-PPP|
    |R-+-R-K-|
    -------------------

    (Fischer-Petrosian, seventh match game 1971)
    16. Bc5!    Not an easy one to spot, but once seen, easy
    to appreciate: White removes the defender of the dark squares,
    leaving Black with a crummy light-squared Bishop.

    F – files, ranks,
    diagonals (lines)

    “Let a Lord once own the happy
    lines, How the wit brightens!    ” – Pope

    -------------------
    |-+-r-+k+|
    |p-+-+rpp|
    |-b-+-P-+|
    |n-pqpP+-|
    |-p-+-+-+|
    |+-+B+NR-|
    |P+-Q-P-P|
    |+-+-+-RK|
    -------------------

    (Anderssen-Zukertort, Barmen 1869):
    the file

    -------------------
    |r+-+k+-+|
    |+R+-+R+-|
    |p+-r-+p+|
    |+-+-+p+-|
    |-PBp-n-p|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    |P+-K-+PP|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    -------------------

    (Fischer-Petrosian, seventh match game,
    1971)    : the rank

    -------------------
    |-+-rrn-+|
    |+pp-nqkp|
    |-+-+bpp+|
    |p-N-p-P-|
    |-+-+-+-+|
    |PP+PP-R-|
    |-BQ+BP-P|
    |+-+-+-RK|
    -------------------

    (Fischer-Anderssen, Siegen 1970): the
    diagonal

    G – good and bad
    pawns

    “Pawns are the soul of chess” – Philidor

    -------------------
    |-+r+-+k+|
    |+p+-+p+p|
    |-pn+-q-+|
    |+N+p+p+-|
    |-+-+-+-+|
    |P-+-Q-+P|
    |-P-+-PP+|
    |+-R-+-K-|
    -------------------

    (Deep Blue-Kasparov, m1 1996): just
    hideous: every Black Pawn is isolated and most doubled! Black
    tried a King’s-side hack but it was desparation and he knew it.

    H – holes and weak
    complexes

    “Perils of both wind and limb” –
    Butler

    -------------------
    |r+-+b+r+|
    |+-k-+-+-|
    |-+p+p+p+|
    |p-BpK-Rp|
    |P+-+-P-+|
    |+P+-+-+-|
    |-+P+-+PP|
    |+-+-R-+-|
    -------------------

    (Bernstein-Mieses, 1921) – That is, perils of
    both the dark-square holes and the backward Pawns on White
    squares.

    I – initiative,
    tempo

    “”Thou shalt not shilly-shally!” – Nimzo

    -------------------
    |r+bqk+-r|
    |pppp+ppp|
    |-+nb-+-+|
    |+-+-+-+-|
    |P+-+-+-+|
    |+-+-+N+-|
    |-PP+-PPP|
    |RNBQ+RK-|
    -------------------

    (Alekhin-Poindle (simul.), 1936)
    9.Ng5!    White plays the one move that stops Black
    getting on with normal development.

    J – jumping-off points
    (outposts)

    “Give me a place to stand, and I will
    move the Earth    ” – Archimedes

    -------------------
    |r+-q-rk+|
    |+-p-+ppp|
    |p+-p-+-+|
    |+-+-p-+-|
    |PPQnPn-+|
    |+-+P+P+-|
    |-P-+-P-P|
    |RN+B+R+K|
    -------------------

    (Pegaroro-Scheipel)The Knights are
    worth a Rook each, I reckon!

    This is a list long enough to get you started comfortably.
    There are a few other ideas, like “coordination”, which you may
    come to later, and through Nimzovitch we learn about themes
    like “overprotection” and “prophylaxis”.

    The Chess Scene

    Posted on by

    Chess Scene – The Chess E-Zine for the Amateur<br /> Player

    [painstakingly recreated by Dave Regis]

    News, Views and Gossip

    This section of Chess Scene is intended to provide a forum for news
    about Chess Clubs around the world, amateur events and the progress
    of us merely mortal chess players towards immortal heights!

      […]

    Gene Thompson’s Search For Great Chess, Part V

    […]

    “In Part V of his series Gene Thompson explores an
    interesting hypothesis on why amateurs ‘Force The Issue’. It’s one
    of his best articles which certainly rings true with me. Is there a
    moral? Well, perhaps it is: play for a positional advantage and the
    tactics will look after themselves.     “
    Alex
    Bellinger    .

     Hello from sunny Seattle!

     Things are going well here; the Sonics are cleaning up in
    the NBA playoffs, the Mariners have slipped a little, but are still
    doing great, and my chess is coming along slowly but surely! Yeah,
    it’s a little cocky placing my talent along side their’s, but what
    the heck, it’s my article! 🙂

     Today’s topic is … “Forcing The Issue.”

     I am involved with an e-mail chess match with a gentleman
    who wrote me in response to these articles. Among the many things
    we have discussed (long chained monomers, Polymer chemistry, and
    chess sets), the most disheartening issue was our failure to play
    as well as we feel we should.

     In his case, one of his regular opponents can beat him
    despite having not studied chess at all. This opponent is an
    intelligent individual, but so is my friend (he’s the Polymer
    Chemist, not me!). My friend is studying the correct chess
    literature: Nimzovitch, Evan’s and the like. But, he still finds it
    difficult to hold his own! What could be his problem?!?

     My case is similar. I’ve been studying good(?) books:
    Yasser Seirawan’s series, and Mike Basman’s openings book. But, I
    find it difficult, actually impossible, to beat programs I once
    did. What is going on here?

     Well, a couple of nights ago, it came to me. I had just
    been beaten by CM3000 again, and was I in a nasty mood. My wife
    asked if it was doing any good whining about the loss. No, but I
    wanted to anyway. When I calmed down, I thought about how I played
    the game. I didn’t. Once I got past the opening, I just started
    moving pieces more or less randomly! I was looking for a position
    that contained a tactical solution, but not really doing anything
    to create one. The computer wasn’t forcing the issue, just beating
    me with my own moves. Hmmm.

     Here is my hypothesis: My friend and I are both afflicted
    with the same problem, FTI – 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.

     When I was in college, I loved to rockclimb. The school
    was perfect for it. All the buildings were of rough-cut stone, so I
    could practice anytime I wanted (well, almost). I got so used to
    blowing through a few technical moves and finishing a “route,” that
    when I got on real rock I was totally lost. The basics just weren’t
    a part of my climbing. I could always (according to MY memory)
    cruise through the crux (the hardest, most technical part of the
    climb) but would usually blow it navigating the main route. I think
    I’m seeing a connection here.

      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.

     So, after all of this babble, what is the solution? Play
    more chess, learn to read a position for tactical possibilities,
    and let them happen (hopefully to your opponent). Easier said than
    done, n’est-ce pas?

     Have a good one & GO SONICS!!!!

     Gene
    gthompson@pin-corp.com