Fix this first

Posted on September 27, 2026 by DrDave

From Dalton Perrine: https://chesschatter.substack.com/p/common-chess-mistakes-by-rating

Training Priority	Under 1500	1500 to 1800	1800 to 2000	2000+
Fix first	Blunder checking	Blunder checking; time management	Prophylaxis; calculation depth	Consistency; the mental game
High payoff	Shallow calculation; king safety	Wrong-moment trades; passive defending	Endgame technique; emotional control	Endgame precision; calculation depth
Matters, slower	Passive defending	Pawn breaks; prophylaxis; calculation	Misjudging positions; pawn breaks	Fine-tuning prophylaxis
Mostly fixes itself	Weak pawns; piece placement	Piece placement; targeting weaknesses	Wrong-moment trades; time management	Positional polish
Low payoff to train now	Endgame theory; positional study	Deep opening theory	Blunder checking; king safety	Basic safety, already solved

Towards conscious competence

Posted on September 27, 2026 by DrDave

UNCONSCIOUS INCOMPETENCE
- You don’t do a blunder check (or some other part of the process)
CONSCIOUS INCOMPETENCE
- You do a blunder check but it’s slow and you still miss stuff
CONSCIOUS COMPETENCE
- You do a blunder check and do it well
UNCONSCIOUS COMPETENCE
- You do a blunder check out of habit and it (usually) works

The Art of Analysis – part 2

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at
analysing the games yourself!

Click […] for list of games

   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1997.11.01"]  [Round "1"]  [White "Hodge, D."]  [Black "Lane, P."]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "C07"]  [PlyCount "114"]   {How do you analyse a chess game? If it's someone else's: (1) Play through  the whole game fairly quickly, seeing what ebb and flow the game had. (2)  Divide the game up into episodes, even if they are only opening middlegame and  endgame, and try to describe what happened and who if anyone had the advantage.  (3) Try and find the critical steps, where one or other side made an important  choice (if it was only to overlook something!). (4) Put your account aside  for a few days and have a fresh look later. What other ideas now occur to  you? Did you make a too-smooth moral fable out of a more fluctuating scrap?  OPENING: in a standard line Black has a slight cramp and an extra central Pawn.  Soon, however, exchanges break out.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5  5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 a6 {[#]  So far, so standard.} 11. Be3 {"Less dangerous" - John Watson. Nonetheless  both David and Pete are about as safe to relax around as an alligator in your  swimming pool, so I imagine the next few moves were played with some care on  both sides.} (11. Bb3) (11. c3) (11. b3) (11. Re1 Qc7 12. Bb3 Bd6 13. Nf5 Bxh2+  14. Kh1 O-O (14... Kf8 $5) 15. Nxg7 Rd8 (15... Kxg7 16. Qd2 Ng8) 16. Qf3 Kxg7  17. Bh6+ Kg6 18. c3 Nd5 19. Rad1 f5 20. Bc1 Bd6 21. Bxd5 exd5 22. Rxd5 Bd7 23.  Qh3 Bf8 24. Re3 Kg7 25. Rg3+ Kh8 26. Qh4 Be6 27. Bf4 Be7 28. Bxc7 {1-0 Adams,  M-Dreev,A/Hoogovens, Wijk aan Zee NED 1996}) 11... Qc7 12. Bb3 Bd6 13. h3 O-O (  13... b5 {is one more Pawn move to get the Bd7 developed more aggressively.})  14. a4 Bd7 15. Qe2 {Black has an extra central Pawn and has an opportunity to  make use of it.} Bh2+ (15... e5 {This looks bold but is entirely consistent  with the position, and is played at a time when White can't react with usual  annoying ideas like Nf5 or Nc2-e3. That's what I would have played, but Pete  likes to play it the way he is used to.}) 16. Kh1 Bf4 {Exchanges are a  reasonable objective in a cramped position, although that is one of Black's  better pieces it is being exchanged for a potentially dangerous White one.} 17.  Rfe1 Bxe3 18. Qxe3 Bc6 19. Qe5 (19. Nxc6 Qxc6 20. Rad1 {looks a better try for  an edge.}) (19. Rad1 $1 $11 {Fritz5}) 19... Qxe5 20. Rxe5 Bd5 21. c3 $15 (21.  Bxd5 Nxd5 22. c4 $11 {Fritz5}) 21... Bxb3 22. Nxb3 Rfd8 {[#] ENDGAME: There  now follows a tense sequence where each side tries to make their Rooks active  and attack Pawns. White targets b7 but allows Black activity in return. White  then carelessly drops the a-Pawn. Can Black convert the win? Black decides  to make his two breaks earlier rather than later - possibly incorrectly.} 23.  a5 Rac8 24. Ra4 Rd1+ 25. Kh2 Rb1 26. Re2 Nd5 27. Nd4 g6 28. Kg3 Kg7 29. c4 Nf6  30. Rb4 Rd1 31. Nf3 Rc7 {[#] Last chance to save the a-Pawn.} 32. Ne5 Ra1 33.  Ng4 Nxg4 (33... Nh5+ {retains the Knights}) (33... Rxa5 {allows White to  exchange if he wants}) 34. hxg4 Rxa5 35. Rd2 Rac5 36. b3 b5 (36... Kf6 {make  the King one square better before breaking; the Rook on b4 is going nowhere  fast.}) 37. Ra2 bxc4 38. bxc4 Ra7 39. Kf3 Kf6 40. Ke3 a5 41. Rb5 Rxc4 $15 (  41... Rxb5 $1 42. cxb5 Ke5 $17 {Fritz5}) 42. Raxa5 Rxa5 43. g5+ Kg7 44. Rxa5 h6  45. gxh6+ Kxh6 46. f3 Rb4 47. Re5 Rb3+ 48. Kf4 Rb2 49. g4 g5+ 50. Ke3 Kg6 51.  Ra5 Rb3+ 52. Ke2 f5 {[#] Black could try to get the Rook to d5 before this.}  53. gxf5+ exf5 54. Kf2 f4 55. Ra2 Kh5 56. Kg2 Kh4 57. Rc2 Ra3 {If it's your  own: (1) write down as much as you can remember about what you thought about  at the time, and (2) any thought your opponent shared during a Post Mortem.  (3) Leave it for a few days and come back fresh, then analyse it as you would  somebody else's. Be particularly wary of self-serving interpretations,  especially of the "I was winning all the way through" variety. What did you  miss?} 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1997.11.01"]  [Round "2"]  [White "Pickering, A."]  [Black "Brusey, A."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C05"]  [Annotator "DR, RS, Fritz5"]  [PlyCount "84"]   {OPENING: Black chooses a cheeky line and equalises without difficulty. White  commits a serious error and bales out by sacrificing the exchange.} 1. e4 e6 2.  d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Ne4 5. Bd3 {when faced with a sharp and unorthodox move,  returning the ball with a good solid all-purpose move like Bd3 is the right  strategy, deferring the critical moment to later in the game.} (5. Nxe4 dxe4  $14 {is the critical line, supposed to give White the advantage (perhaps no  more than in other lines of the French), although Black naturally would know  his way around this better than White.} 6. Bc4 (6. Be3)) 5... Nxd2 6. Bxd2 c5  7. c3 Nc6 $6 {BCO2 gives the immediate ...Qb6 as better.} 8. Be3 (8. Nf3 Qb6 9.  dxc5 $14) 8... Qb6 {[#] Black has an OK game - a standard Advanced French but  with less cramp - but has sacrificed a tempo to do so. However, White faces  unpleasant pressure against d4 and b2.} 9. b3 $2 {Can't be right.} (9. dxc5) (  9. Nf3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Bb4+ (10... Qxb2)) (9. Qb3 {"should not be overlooked" -  Fritz 5}) 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 {Normally Black just displaces the  King out of spite, but here he can nibble a Pawn.} Bc3 {[#] MIDDLE GAME: White  manfully gives up the exchange, but the test of the game is a slow exercise in  the inevitable. Black can always gain squares by threatening exchanges.} 12.  Nf3 (12. Rc1 Bxd4 13. Bxd4 Nxd4 14. Qg4 {-/+ Fritz 5}) 12... Bxa1 13. Qxa1 Bd7  14. g3 Nb4 15. Bb1 Rc8 16. Kg2 Nc2 17. Qb2 Nxe3+ 18. fxe3 Qb4 19. Ng5 h6 20.  Nf3 Bb5 21. Rc1 Rxc1 22. Qxc1 Kd7 23. a4 Be2 24. Nd2 Rc8 25. Qe1 Bh5 26. e4  Qxd4 27. exd5 Qxd5+ 28. Be4 Qd4 (28... Qxe5 $4 29. Bc6+ Rxc6 30. Qxe5 {- Fritz  5}) 29. Nc4 b6 30. Kh3 Qd1 31. Qe3 (31. Qxd1+ Bxd1 32. a5 bxa5 33. Nxa5 {-  Fritz 5}) 31... Bg4+ (31... Qf1+ $1 32. Kh4 g5+ 33. Kxh5 (33. Qxg5 hxg5+ 34.  Kxg5 Rg8+ 35. Kh6 Qc1+ 36. Ne3 Qxe3+ 37. Kh7 Qg5 38. Bc6+ Kxc6 39. h4 Qg6#)  33... Qh3# {- Fritz 5}) 32. Kg2 Qe2+ 33. Kg1 Qxe3+ 34. Nxe3 Rc1+ 35. Kf2 Bd1  36. Nxd1 Rxd1 37. Ke3 f6 38. Kf4 (38. exf6 gxf6 39. Ke2 $19 {Fritz 5}) 38... f5  39. Bf3 Rb1 40. g4 g5+ 41. Kg3 f4+ 42. Kf2 Rxb3 {Thanks to Ray Shepherd's  Fritz5} 0-1   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1997.11.01"]  [Round "3"]  [White "Halmkin, PE."]  [Black "Bellers, CJ."]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "B24"]  [WhiteElo "2500"]  [PlyCount "64"]   {OPENING: a less common line is adopted where some controversial decisions are  made.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. Nge2 d6 6. d3 e5 {[#] The  Botvinnik treatment. [#] The Botvinnik treatment.} 7. O-O (7. Nd5 Nge7 8. c3  Nxd5 9. exd5 {sealing the hole on d5 sealing the hole on d5} Ne7 10. O-O O-O  11. f4 Bd7 12. h3 Qc7 13. Be3 Rae8 14. Qd2 Nf5 15. Bf2 h5 16. Rae1 Qd8 17. Kh2  Bh6 18. h4 Qf6 19. Be4 exf4 20. Nxf4 Nxh4 21. Be3 Nf5 22. Bxf5 Qxf5 23. Qg2 Qg4  24. Qe2 Qxe2+ 25. Rxe2 Re5 26. Ree1 Rfe8 27. Bf2 h4 28. Rxe5 Rxe5 29. d4 hxg3+  30. Kxg3 Rg5+ 31. Kh2 Rf5 32. Be3 cxd4 33. cxd4 Kh7 34. Rf2 g5 35. Ne2 Rxf2+  36. Bxf2 f5 {0-1 Smyslov,V-Botvinnik,M/Moscow Wch-m 1954}) 7... Nge7 8. Kh1 (8.  Be3 h5 $5 9. h3 Be6 10. Nd5 Qd7 11. h4 Bxd5 12. exd5 Nd4 13. c3 Ndf5 14. Bg5  O-O 15. a4 Qc7 16. a5 b5 17. axb6 axb6 18. Qb3 b5 19. Rxa8 Rxa8 20. Qxb5 Rb8  21. Qa4 Rxb2 22. Qe8+ Bf8 23. Ra1 Qc8 24. Qxc8 Nxc8 25. Kf1 Nb6 26. c4 Be7 27.  Be4 Bxg5 {1/2-1/2 Kharitonov Andrei Y-Psakhis Lev/Cup World (open), Moscow  (Russ 1989}) 8... h5 $5 {A move with some point (see the Psakhis game) but  better saved up, I think.} (8... O-O) (8... f5 $5) 9. f4 {Botvinnik would say  that this Pawn is in White's way.} exf4 (9... h4 $5) 10. Bxf4 Bg4 (10... h4 $5  {looks like the right follow-up, taking advantage of the absence of the Knight  from f3 and making use of the Pawn on h5.}) 11. Nb5 Be5 {[#] MIDDLE-GAME:  White rolls out the standard attack on the f-file but Black holds the line -  just.} (11... Ne5 12. Bg5 a6) 12. c3 (12. h3 Be6 13. Bxe5 dxe5 (13... Nxe5 14.  d4 Bc4 15. dxe5 Bxb5 16. exd6 Bxe2 17. Qxe2 Qxd6 18. Rad1 $16) 14. Rf6 Ng8 15.  Rf2) 12... a6 13. Na3 Rb8 {A natural follow-up to ...a6, but there's a lot of  action on the other side.} 14. h3 Bxf4 15. Rxf4 Bxe2 (15... Be6 {idea ...d5  later}) 16. Qxe2 O-O 17. Raf1 b5 18. g4 (18. Qf2 {with one idea d3-d4}) 18...  hxg4 19. Qxg4 Ne5 20. Qg3 b4 21. Nc4 bxc3 22. bxc3 Nxc4 23. dxc4 Nc6 24. e5 $17  (24. Qd3 $5 $15 {was preferred by Ray's friend Fritz}) 24... Nxe5 25. Bd5 Kg7  26. h4 f5 (26... Rb2 $5) 27. h5 (27. Rxf5 Rxf5 28. Rxf5 Rb1+ 29. Kg2 Rd1 30. h5  Rd3) 27... Qf6 28. Rxf5 Qxf5 29. Rxf5 Rxf5 30. hxg6 Rb1+ 31. Kg2 Rb2+ 32. Kg1  Rb1+ $4 {The clock may have had something to do with this if I know Chris.} (  32... Rf6 33. Qe1 Rxg6+ 34. Kf1 Rxa2 $19 {Fritz5} 35. Qb1 Rd2 36. Qb7+ Kh6 37.  Qxa6 $4 Nd3) (32... Rd2 {idea Rd3}) 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1997.11.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Rudall, D."]  [Black "Hill, D."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "B06"]  [PlyCount "104"]   {OPENING: White plays solid, and Black plays solid-but-passive allowing a  cheeky attack on f7: Black concedes a Pawn.} 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3  c6 {Solid but perhaps not to the point. I like to play these positions with ..  .c5 to break up the solid centre.} 5. Bd3 Nd7 6. Nbd2 Qc7 7. Qb3 Ngf6 (7... b5  8. c4 a6) 8. Bc4 O-O 9. Ng5 d5 (9... e6 {is usually an OK try but here} 10. e5  Ne8 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. Nxe6 Qb6 13. Ng5+ Kh8 14. Nf7+ Rxf7 15. Qxf7) 10. exd5  cxd5 11. Bxd5 Nxd5 12. Qxd5 Nf6 {[#] MIDDLE-GAME: Black has some compensation  in the two Bishops: he must avoid exchanges and play as actively as possible.  White concedes the Pawn and exchanges off into an endgame.} 13. Qc4 Qb6 14. O-O  Bd7 15. Qb3 Qa5 16. Nge4 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bc6 18. Ng3 e5 19. Be3 $6 {Defending d4  just creates a target.} (19. dxe5 Bxe5 20. Re1) 19... exd4 20. cxd4 (20. Bxd4  Bxd4 21. cxd4 Bd5 {is not easy for White either.}) 20... Rfd8 {Recovering the  Pawn with a slight advantage.} 21. Qc3 (21. Rfd1 Ba4 22. Qa3 Bf8 23. Bd2 Qb5  $19) 21... Qd5 22. f3 Bxd4 23. Bxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Qxd4 Rxd4 {[#] ENDGAME: Black  shows a textbook approach with an active pieces and an active King. White  goes passive and creates numerous weaknesses.} 25. a3 h5 26. Rfd1 Rad8 27. Rxd4  Rxd4 28. b4 $6 Kg7 {KUFTE! In fact, all Black's pieces are better than their  White counterparts, a fact which the symmetrical Pawns seem to emphasise!} 29.  Ne2 Rd2 30. Nc3 Rc2 31. Nd1 Kf6 32. Ne3 Rc3 33. Kf2 a6 34. Ra2 Ke5 35. g3 Kd4  36. Rd2+ Rd3 37. Re2 Kc3 38. f4 Kb3 39. Nc2 Kc3 40. Ne3 Rd2 41. Rxd2 Kxd2 {A  classic Bishop vs. Knight ending has arisen.} 42. f5 Kc3 43. fxg6 fxg6 44. g4  Kb3 45. Kg3 Kxa3 46. gxh5 gxh5 47. Kh4 Be8 48. Nd5 Bf7 49. Nf4 Kxb4 50. Nd3+  Kb5 51. Kg3 a5 52. Kf3 a4 0-1   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1997.11.??"]  [Round "5"]  [White "Lee, RJ."]  [Black "Gorodi, J."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "E24"]  [PlyCount "119"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {OPENING: White plays the most aggressive system  against the Nimzo, siezing space in the centre and glaring at the Black King.}  4. f3 (4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3) (4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 c5 6. a3) 4... d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6.  bxc3 c5 7. e3 {Gligoric gives this "?!", although it is merely a switch to  another, slower, plan, from the Closed Samisch Variation normally intriduced  by 4. e3 or 4. a3.} (7. cxd5 {is more aggressive, aiming to play e2-e4 in one  move. Karpov got the edge using this system against Timman in their  Candidates' Match.} Nxd5 (7... exd5 {transposes}) 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. e4 Ne7 10. Be3  O-O 11. Qb3 Qc7 12. Bb5 Nec6 13. Rd1 Na5 14. Qb4 e5 15. Ne2 Be6 16. c4 a6 17.  Ba4 Nxc4 18. Bf2 Nc6 19. Qc3 Qa5 20. Bxc6 bxc6 21. Qxa5 Nxa5 22. O-O Rab8 23.  Nc3 Rb3 24. Na4 Rxa3 25. Nb6 Nc4 26. h3 h5 27. Rc1 Nb2 28. Rb1 Nd3 29. Rfd1 f5  30. exf5 Rxf5 31. Rd2 Nxf2 32. Kxf2 {Timman J-Karpov A/3, Kuala Lumpur cm f  1990/1/2-1/2 (61)}) 7... O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. cxd5 exd5 {Dissolving the doubled  Pawns. Black must play very carefully now, for White has a natural plan of  campaign. The GMs play this difficult position from both sides, but White  seems to be playing the positive side of the position (aiming for e4).} (9...  Nxd5 {is a spoiling alternative, aiming for piece play: I might prefer this  having played ...b6 already.} 10. Qc2 cxd4 11. cxd4 {idea ...Ba6, with a  Queen's-side Pawn majority as long as we survive the middlegame.}) 10. Ne2 Re8  (10... Ba6 11. O-O Re8 12. Ng3 Qc8 13. Bxa6 Nxa6 14. Qd3 Qb7 15. Ra2 Re6 16.  Re2 Rae8 17. Rfe1 h5 18. Qf5 g6 19. Qf4 Qd7 20. Bb2 cxd4 21. cxd4 Rc6 22. e4  Nc7 23. Nf1 a5 24. h3 Kg7 25. g4 hxg4 26. hxg4 Ne6 27. Qe3 Rh8 28. Ng3 Kf8 29.  e5 Ng8 30. f4 Ng7 31. Qf3 Nh6 32. Rh2 Kg8 33. f5 gxf5 34. g5 Ng4 35. Rxh8+ Kxh8  36. Ne2 Rc2 37. Qb3 Qc6 38. Bc3 Ne3 39. Kf2 f4 40. Rh1+ Kg8 41. Rh6 Qc8 {0-1  Beliavsky Alexander G-Short Nigel D/Linares (Spain) 1990}) 11. O-O Nc6 (11...  Ba6 12. Ng3 Bxd3 13. Qxd3 Nc6 14. Bb2 c4 $6 15. Qd2 Qd7 16. Rae1 h5 17. e4 g6  18. Bc1 Nh7 19. Qh6 Re6 20. f4 Ne7 21. f5 gxf5 22. Qxh5 dxe4 23. Nxf5 Nxf5 24.  Rxf5 Rae8 25. Re3 Rg6 26. Rh3 {1-0 Kasparov,G-Ivanovic,B/Niksic 06 1983}) 12.  Ng3 Be6 13. Bb2 Rc8 14. Qd2 Qd7 15. Rae1 Red8 16. Qf2 Ne7 $6 {[#] Takes  pressure off d4} 17. e4 {Ready or not, here we come... Black has neither  counterplay on the Queen's-side nor restraint on the e-file, and so must be  counted as standing worse.} Ng6 18. e5 Nf4 19. Bc2 Ne8 20. Qd2 g5 21. Ne2 {[#]}  Bf5 {Not a bad idea: the Black light-squared Bishop is poor, and if your  opponent has two Bishops (however crummy they might appear at the moment) it  is good to exchange one of them. However, the tactical execution is wrong.  Every strategical idea must be negotiated with the tactics in the position.}  22. Nxf4 Bxc2 (22... gxf4 {is messy but not so obviously losing:} 23. Bxf5 (23.  Qxf4 Bxc2) 23... Qxf5 24. Bc1 cxd4 25. cxd4 Rc2 26. Qxf4 Ng7) 23. Nh3 h6 24.  Qxc2 {[#] That'll do nicely.} cxd4 25. Qd2 dxc3 26. Bxc3 Ng7 27. Nf2 h5 28. Rc1  Ne6 29. Bb2 Rc4 30. Rxc4 dxc4 31. Qxd7 Rxd7 32. Rd1 Rc7 33. Ne4 Kg7 34. Bc3 Kg6  35. Kf2 {[#] Black is again obliged to play with maximum energy...} Kg7 {...  not like this.} 36. g3 Kg6 37. Ke3 a5 (37... b5 {is better, keeping the Pawns  intact, when White might still have some problems.}) 38. Rd6 Rb7 39. a4 {  fixing the b-Pawn} b5 40. axb5 Rxb5 41. Rc6 a4 42. Rxc4 a3 43. Ra4 Nc7 44. Rxa3  Nd5+ 45. Kd4 Nxc3 46. Rxc3 g4 47. Rc6+ Kg7 48. fxg4 hxg4 49. Nf6 Kg6 50. Nxg4+  {[#] Black could resign with a clear conscience.} Kg5 51. h3 Rb4+ 52. Ke3 Rb3+  53. Kf2 Rb2+ 54. Kf3 Rb3+ 55. Ne3 Rb5 56. h4+ Kh5 57. Rf6 Rb7 58. Kf4 Rb4+ 59.  Kf5 Rb7 60. Nd5 1-0   [Event "Exeter vs. Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1997.11.??"]  [Round "6"]  [White "Blackmore, M."]  [Black "Ingham, Bill"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B12"]  [PlyCount "129"]   1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 {OPENING: A modest system leads to a position where White  has a bit more space.} 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bd3 (5. Be2 {is the fashion - a  good reason for not playing it!}) 5... Bxd3 6. Qxd3 c5 (6... Qa5+ 7. c3 Qa6 {  is a way to reduce tension if Black wants to play it that way.}) 7. O-O Nc6 8.  c3 Qb6 9. Nbd2 Rc8 (9... cxd4 {would prevent the next manoeuvre} 10. cxd4 h5  11. Nb3 Nh6) 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Nb3 Bf8 {rather a sign of distress, but Black  is still OK I think} 12. Bf4 (12. Be3 {looked more natural. With Black's  underdevelopment I was trying to find a way to open up the game with f2-f4,  but hadn't considered c3-c4.} Qc7 (12... Qa6 13. Qxa6 bxa6 14. Nc5) 13. c4 (13.  Bd4 {is the stodgy method}) (13. Nbd4 $5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15. Qb5+ Kd8 16.  Qxb7) 13... dxc4 14. Qxc4 Nxe5 15. Qb5+ Nd7 16. Rac1 Qb8 17. Bxa7) 12... Nge7 {  [#] MIDDLEGAME: White now looks for a chance to upset the course of the game  by direct attack, rather than going for a positional squeeze.} 13. h4 Ng6 14.  Qd2 Nxf4 15. Qxf4 Be7 16. h5 h6 17. Qg3 O-O 18. Nh2 f6 19. Ng4 Nxe5 20. Nxh6+  Kh8 21. Ng4 Nxg4 22. Qxg4 f5 (22... Rc4 {was calmer}) 23. Qd4 Qxd4 24. Nxd4 e5  {[#] EARLY ENDGAME: At first glance this looks very good for Black but White  makes a right nuisance of himself.} 25. Rfe1 e4 (25... Bd6 26. Nf3 {is much  easier for Black.}) (25... exd4 {was worth a look, calling White's bluff: I  think it doesn't win but Black has good chances} 26. Rxe7 dxc3 27. bxc3 (27.  Rxb7 c2 28. Rc1 Rfd8 29. Kf1 d4 30. Ke1 d3 31. Kd2 Rc5 32. Re7) 27... Rxc3 28.  Rxb7 (28. Rd7) 28... Rd8 (28... d4 29. Rd7 d3 30. Rd1) 29. Rxa7 d4) 26. Rad1  Rf6 27. Ne2 Rb6 28. Nf4 Bg5 29. Ng6+ Kh7 30. Rxd5 Rxb2 31. Rxf5 Bf6 32. Rxe4  Rxc3 {[#] When the Rook left the back rank, the mate alert sensor should have  flashed red.} 33. Nf8+ (33. Re8 $18) 33... Kg8 34. Nd7 Rc1+ 35. Kh2 Rc6 36. Rg4  (36. h6 $5 $16) 36... Kh7 37. a4 Rd6 38. Nf8+ Kg8 39. h6 Be5+ 40. Rxe5 Rxh6+  41. Kg3 Rb3+ 42. f3 Kxf8 {[#] Double Rook endings are both more, and less,  drawish than single Rook endings! Here White has an immediate initiative and  wangles a Pawn.} 43. Reg5 Rh7 44. Rc5 a6 45. Rc7 (45. Rc8+ Kf7 46. Rc7+ Kf6 {  was suggested: this does get the Rook to the seventh "with gain of time"  except that ...Kg8-f7-f6 is very useful for Black, escaping from the dangerous  back rank and getting KUFTE}) 45... b5 46. Rd4 Ke8 47. Ra7 bxa4 48. Rxa4 Rh6  49. Rxg7 Rbb6 50. Ra2 {[#]} Rhg6+ {The White King's-side Pawns scamper off  home in the game, but keeping Rooks on doesn't look right because of the  trapped Black King.} 51. Rxg6 Rxg6+ 52. Kf4 Rb6 53. g4 Kf7 54. Ra5 Kf6 55. g5+  Kg6 56. Kg4 Rb4+ 57. f4 Rb6 58. f5+ Kf7 59. Rc5 Rb4+ 60. Kh5 Rb1 61. Rc7+ Kg8  62. Kg6 Rb6+ 63. f6 Rb8 64. Re7 Kh8 65. Rh7+ 1-0

Openings Workshop 2013

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

  [Event ""]  [Date "2026.??.??"]  [White ""]  [Black ""]  [Result "*"]  [Variant "Standard"]  [ECO "?"]  [Opening "?"]  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

‘A difficult position’ (Breyer).

In contrast to previous instances in this unintentional series…
content/openings-workshop-2008
content/openings-workshop-2010
content/openings-workshop-2011
content/opening-workshop-2012

…questions were expressed this time as a series of dilemmas.

1.e4 or 1.d4?

Short answer: 1.e4, but it’s a matter of taste.

Long answer:

1.e4 is likely to lead to open and semi-open games, while 1.d4 is more likely to lead to closed and other more murky structures.

By ‘open game’ I mean a position after the opening which features open files and diagonals, a fairly clear centre and no locked pawn chains. Closed games are the opposite.

Hmm, why is that?

After 1.e4 e5, White can follow up with d2-d4, immediately or after some preparation. White gets open diagonals for the Bishops, and (at least) the chance to get (at least) a half-open file in the centre.

After 1.d4 d5, e2-e4 looks like it loses a pawn right now, and may be hard to organise later. If White has to settle for e2-e3, then White may be obliged to develop the Bc1 before touching the Bf1 and castling. So, the game unfolds more slowly, and open files and diagonals emerge only later.

After 1.d4 Nf6, White may even be invited to play e2-e4, but where any open lines will emerge is not clear.

Why should you care?

Well, open games tend to be easier to follow, easier to play, and are easier settings in which to practice the sorts of things you should be practising when starting out (fast development, king’s-side attacks, tactics, endgames). Closed and Indian systems are not as easy to play or understand. You have to put up with Black’s other responses to 1.e4, but against at least some of them you can steer for an IQP position. If you learn how to play IQP positions, you may not always be able to claim an opening advantage, but you will always be able to know what you are doing.

So, if you start with 1.e4, you’re making a good choice, and one that you needn’t ever change. The Italian Game is a good place to start, while the Ruy Lopez and Scotch Game are both still played by Grandmasters.

1.e3 or 1.d3 or neither?

Short answer: neither.

Long answer: Either or both!

An opening is only as good as the ideas you bring to it. (I think that’s a quote, but I Googled it, and got this website… Could someone let me know where I stole it from?)

If you make moves at random, you might hit on 1.e3 d5 2.a4, or 1.d3 d5 2.Qd2, but those are not opening systems. You have to have a set of ideas you can bring to oppose different Black approaches. You can play either first move with a ready-made set of ideas, maybe e3/b3/Bb2/Bb4 (Nimzo-Larsen Attack), or d3/g3/Bg2 (King’s Indian Attack), and do well. You may note that two of our strongest players, Graham Bolt and Tim Paulden, have been using the Hippopotamus with both White and Black, which uses both e3 and d3, and doing pretty well.

King’s Indian Defence or Grunfeld?

Short answer: King’s Indian.

Long answer:

In the King’s Indian Defence, White is invited to set up a big pawn centre with c4, d4 and e4. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 Black generally hits back in the centre with ….e7-e5, when one likely result is that White pushes on with d4-d5, resulting in blocked central pawn chains, rather like the French Defence. 6.Be2 e5 By the way, Black doesn’t lose the pawn on e5: 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Bxd1 Nxe4! 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7

I’ve already talked about the virtues of rehearsing a particular pawn structure, the IQP, above. Similarly, a KID player gets to play this blocked centre position repeatedly, and will be able to adopt and adapt from known plans and piece placements. Black’s pawns point to more space on the King’s-side and a break with …f5; White has more Queen’s-side space and a break with c4-c5.

Viktor Korchnoi was always known as a King’s Indian Killer, being able to show the virtues of the White structure against the strongest players in the world. But this is how he got on against Bobby Fischer in a rapidplay game:

Good advert, yes?

Meanwhile, over in the Grunfeld, White can get you into a variety of very different central structures.

You get one in the Exchange:

A different one in the Russian:

And another from the Taimanov, which is actually characteristic of the Queen’s Gambit, Exchange Variation:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bg5 Ne4 6. cxd5 Nxg5 7. Nxg5 e6 8.Nf3 exd5 …

Black is doing OK in all of these structures and all these variations, but my guess is that you are going to have to understand more different structures than in the KID, and you are going to have to rely more on exact knowledge than general plans and analogies from similar positions.

Benoni: immediate or delayed?

Short answer: delayed, but try the Benko instead.

Long answer:

The classic Modern Benoni structure is one where the positions are lively and unbalanced, and where the overall plans for each side are clear enough but the complications may be intense.

Black has a Queen’s-side majority, White a central majority. Black may advance on the Queen’s-side, supported by the strong Bg7 on the long diagonal. White is going to try and push through e4-e5. White can try and do this with pieces alone, but it’s natural to seek support by f2- f4. So, White might move the Knight from f3 to… hmm, where, exactly? Well, how about d2, thence to c4? On c4, it supports e4-e5, and if Black is restrained from …b5 by a2-a4, it will stand very well.

So, Black players devised a cunning plan: delaying …e6xd5. Black reasons that White is going to run out of constructive moves. Black can prepare …b5 for a long while without taking on d5, while White simply cannot play Nf3-d2-c4, because there is a pawn on c4.

This is one argument for avoiding the Schmidt Benoni which uses 1.d4 c5 2.d5. White gets a very early signal about the structure, and can delay or avoid c2-c4, keeping c4 free for a piece.

Overall, I might prefer the Benko for Black: you get a small range of structures and the initiative. I have got into the habit recently of describing the art of chess as creating a position which is too hard for your opponent but not you. I think the Benko is easier to play for Black than for White.

Bonus: How to out-think Houdini

Tom B reports that when faced with this line: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 [I trust you are all savvy enough to avoid 7…Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? 9.Bb5+] 8.Bc2 Qa6 9.Nc3 Rc8

Houdini and other strong chess programmes can currently be relied on to repeat the position: 10.Bd3 Qb6 11.Bc2 Qa6

Open like a champion

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

Yes, but which one…

I caught a couple of the Devon U18s playing the English Opening in Wales recently, and I was reminded of these two stern admonitions:

“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game” – RICHARD RETI

and

“Again, a word of warning must be given to the inexperienced: do not attempt (these openings) until you have fully tried out, first, the open game, and then the Queen’s. These are far and away the most difficult types of opening to master. The writer has spent a considerable portion of his chess-playing life studying them intensively and is still liable to be met with shocks…” Harry GOLOMBEK in Griffiths & Golombek: Pocket Guide to the Chess Openings

And I linked these to Reti’s other well-known opinion:

“We perceive after a careful consideration of the evolution of the chess mind that such evolution has gone on, in general, in a way quite similar to that in which it goes on with the individual chess player, only with the latter more rapidly.” — Richard RETI

This made me wonder if you could capture the sweep of chess history (fashion?) in the opening by looking at the ECO codes of openings featuring in World Championship matches. I grabbed all the games labelled “World Championship” in a big database and extracted the year and ECO code. Here is the resulting table:

I haven’t nitpicked the data because I’m more interested in the sweep.

So, rather broadly:

We start firmly in the arena of the Italian Game, then move with Steinitz to the Ruy Lopez
At the start of the twentieth century, the Queen’s Gambit dominates: first with the Orthodox Defence (22 games in 1927!), then the Slav. We also see Black avoiding 1…d5 with the Dutch Defence.
Post-war, We see Botvinnik avoiding 1…e5 with first the French Defence then the Caro-Kann; we see Smyslov introducing the King’s Indian Defence which was also a favourite of Tal.
The 1960s had no clear shape; games roamed freely across the range.
The 1970s and 1980s saw much use of the English Opening, a return to the Orthodox Queen’s Gambit, and use of the Queen’s and Nimzo- Indian Defences.
The 1980s and 1990s featured the Sicilian Defence in quantity for the first time, a reappearance of the Grunfeld (after Smyslov’s use in the 1950s), and then the King’s Indian
The 2000s were notable for the dour solidity of the Petroff and Catalan.
The 2010s and 2020s also don’t have a lot of shape; there is a clustering around various systems of teh Ruy Lopez again, and Carlsen’s use of the Sicilian Defence

List of ECO codes (a complete list is somewhere else):

A0	Unorthodox	1. R' 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4
A1	English	1. c4
A2	King's English	1. c4 e5
A3	Symmetrical English	1. c4 c5
A4	QP	1. d4
A5	Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4
A6	Benoni	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6
A7	Benoni Classical	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 ed5 5. cd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Nf3
A8	Dutch	1. d4 f5
A9	Dutch mainline	1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2
B0	Semi-Open	1. e4  
B1	Caro-Kann	1. e4 c6
B2	Sicilian	1. e4 c5
B3	Sicilian Nc6	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6
B4	Sicilian e6	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6
B5	Sicilian d6	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6
B6	Sicilian Classical	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5
B7	Sicilian Dragon	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6
B8	Sicilian Scheveningen	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6
B9	Sicilian Najdorf	1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6
C0	French	1. e4 e6
C1	French 3.Nc3	1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3
C2	KP	1. e4 e5 
C3	King's Gambit	1. e4 e5 2. f4
C4	KP 2.Nf3	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
C5	Italian	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 
C6	Ruy Lopez	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 
C7	Ruy Lopez Morphy	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4
C8	Ruy Lopez Open Morphy	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 5. O-O: + 5...Ne4, 5... Be7
C9	Ruy Lopez Closed Morphy	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6
D0	QP	1. d4 d5 
D1	QG Slav	1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6
D2	QG Accepted	1. d4 d5 2. c4 dc4
D3	QG Orthodox	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6
D4	QG Orthodox 4.Nf3	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3
D5	QG Orthodox 4.Bg5	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5
D6	QG Orthodox main line	1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7
D7	?King's Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 R' d7-d5
D8	Grunfeld	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5
D9	Grunfeld 4.Nf3	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3
E0	Catalan	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3
E1	Queen's Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3
E2	Nimzo-Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4
E3	Nimzo-Indian Classical	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4: + 4. Bg5, 4. Qc2
E4	Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3
E5	Nimzo-Indian Rubinstein 5.Nf3	 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Nf3
E6	King's Indian	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 R' d7-d5
E7	King's Indian 4.e4	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4
E8	King's Indian Samisch	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3
E9	King's Indian Classical	1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3

List of matches/tournaments:

Steinitz - Zukertort (1886)
Steinitz - Chigorin (1889)
Steinitz - Gunsberg (1890)
Steinitz - Chigorin Rematch (1892)
Lasker - Steinitz (1894)
Lasker - Steinitz Rematch (1896)
Lasker - Marshall (1907)
Lasker - Tarrasch (1908)
Lasker - Schlechter (1910)
Lasker - Janowski (1910)
Lasker - Capablanca (1921)
Capablanca - Alekhine (1927)
Alekhine - Bogoljubov (1929)
Alekhine - Bogoljubov Rematch (1934)
Alekhine - Euwe (1935)
Euwe - Alekhine Rematch (1937)
FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948)
Botvinnik - Bronstein (1951)
Botvinnik - Smyslov (1954)
Botvinnik - Smyslov Return Match (1957)
Botvinnik - Smyslov Rematch (1958)
Tal - Botvinnik (1960)
Tal - Botvinnik Return Match (1961)
Petrosian - Botvinnik (1963)
Petrosian - Spassky (1966)
Petrosian - Spassky Rematch (1969)
Spassky - Fischer (1972)
Fischer - Karpov (1975)
Karpov - Korchnoi (1978)
Karpov - Korchnoi Rematch (1981)
Karpov - Kasparov (1984/85)
Karpov - Kasparov (1985)
Karpov - Kasparov Rematch (1986)
Kasparov - Karpov (1987)
Kasparov - Karpov (1990)
Kasparov - Short (1993) 
Kasparov - Anand (1995)
Karpov - Anand (1998) 
Kasparov - Kramnik (2000) 
Kramnik - Leko (2004) 
Kramnik - Topalov (2006) 
FIDE World Championship Tournament (2007)
Anand - Kramnik World Championship Match (2008)
Anand - Topalov World Championship Match (2010)
Anand - Gelfand World Championship Match (2012)
Anand - Carlsen World Championship Match (2013)
Carlsen - Anand World Championship Match (2014)
Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship Match (2016)
Carlsen - Caruana World Championship Match (2018)
Carlsen - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2021)
Ding - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2023)

Again, not nitpicked.

Visualisation and analysis

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

From: rook@IslandNet.com (Dan Scoones)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Visualization/Analysis in Chess
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:43:26 GMT
Organization: Island Net in Victoria, B.C. Canada
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <32e321e0.46454218@News.IslandNet.com>
References: <5bhfs6$9k0@world2.bellatlantic.net>

On Wed, 15 Jan 97 02:36:49 GMT, enyoung@bellatlantic.net (Eugene N.
Young) wrote:

>... how does a good chess player calculate mentally, ie, 
>what is the mental process by which he/she "sees" many moves ahead?? Is it 
>pure visualization of the board and pieces? Is it memory of the move sequence 
>while all the pieces stay put in the mental image of the board? Or is it 
>something else? Has anyone studied or analyzed the process or does it just 
>come naturally with the right talent? How does one who has a very difficult 
>time with this process practice mental analysis?...

Great questions.  You don't say what your playing strength is, but
I'll assume you're not a complete beginner.  Here goes...

Start simple.  Get a book like "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate" by
Fred Reinfeld, and set up the first position on your board.  (It's
best to start with checkmate because the goal is clear-cut.)  If you
can't spot the solution, look it up in the back.  Leave the position
set up on your board, and mentally visualize each move being played in
sequence.  If you can't get all the way to the end, make the moves on
your board, and then go back and recapitulate mentally.

Make sure you keep getting material that is on your level or slightly
above it.  After Reinfeld, go with the Informant combination books,
and then with the combination sections in the back of Informant.
After that, go with actual game situations (e.g., taken out of
Informant) featuring lots of analysis of many different variations.
Another good system is to work your way through the best game
collections of strong players, or through well-annotated tournament
and match books.  As you make progress, you'll be able to apply the
same methods to positions calling for more strategic solutions.  A
good book for this purpose is New Ideas in Chess, by Larry Evans.

When a strong player visualizes, say, a knight having moved from from
f3 to e5, it does not mean "seeing" a full mental image of a chess
piece, complete with carved eyes, mane, etc., resting on e5.  Rather,
there is a fairly abstract image of something having the *powers* of a
knight being on e5 (and, just as important, no longer being on f3).
Supporting this image is an episodic memory trace of having played
Ne5, which is strengthened by the prior idea that Ne5 would be a good
move to play for either positional or tactical reasons.  So to answer
your specific questions, visual memory is the key, but both episodic
memory and positional understanding play supporting roles.

Kotov's book Think Like a Grandmaster is very inspiring, but I think
he puts some emphasis in the wrong places.  For example, I've never
heard other grandmasters talk about the so-called "tree of analysis,"
and I've never heard other grandmasters talk about disciplining
himself to go down each branch of the tree only once.  When you're
working with visual images, especially ones that arise after several
half-moves, your mental chessboard is naturally somewhat less clear.
If the position is sharp, you don't want to risk losing unnecessarily,
so if there's time, by all means check your analysis.

In my opinion, Kotov's follow-up book Play Like a Grandmaster is much
more helpful.  In that book he boils a master's strength down to three
elements: positional understanding, an eye for combinations, and the
ability to calculate variations, and gives exercises for strengthening
each element.

One thing I've noticed about less-experienced players is that they may
be able to calculate a tricky variation, but when they get to the end
of it, they either can't evaluate the position correctly, or they
can't visualize it clearly enough to allow an evaluation.  Learning
the elements of positional evaluation is good for your analytical
ability.  It is very important to combine this with knowledge of
specific types of positions, because such positions tend to recur.
That is also why many authorities recommend that you specialize in
certain openings rather than try to play all openings.

Constant practice will strengthen your mental chessboard and allow you
to penetrate even complicated positions quickly and accurately.  Your
intuition, or "feeling for position," will also develop.

Play, analyze, and study.  Use the right material and the right
methods.  After you've played in a tournament, analyze your own games
and find your mistakes.  Get help from stronger players.  The list
goes on...

For the record, I think De Groot's book is overrated as a teaching
aid.  It's more a cognitive psychology tract than a chess book.  If
you must read something on those lines, I recommend a book called The
Psychology of Chess Skill... can't remember the author's name, though!

Good luck,
NM Dan Scoones

Lessons from Nunn

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

John Nunn was a top ten player in his prime, but was and is a champion as a chess author. His first substantial book, Secrets of Grandmaster Play with Peter Griffiths, was an instant classic, and he has written many volumes aimed at the improving player. He has been particularly concerned to reflect the richness and complexity of modern chess in his books, and has striven to do so in uncluttered prose, leavened with a bit of dry wit. I think he has succeeded rather wonderfully, and I have borrowed from his writing wholemeal, as opposed to piecemeal, for coaching sessions over the years.

Opening

Some of that dry wit:

“If you want to lose a miniature, then here are three helpful tips. First of all, it is a big help if you are Black. losing in under 20 moves requires a special talent which few possess. Secondly, choose a provocative opening, for example an opening in which you try to realise strategic ambitions, but at the cost of backward development and delayed castling. Thirdly, if something goes slightly wrong, don’t reconcile yourself to defending a bad position – seek a tactical solution instead! Don’t worry about the fact that tactics are bound to favour the better developed side; just go ahead anyway. Follow this advice and at least you will get home early.”

  [Event "London"]  [Site "London"]  [Date "1986.??.??"]  [Round "8"]  [White "Nunn, John DM"]  [Black "Dlugy, Maxim"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B12"]  [WhiteElo "2585"]  [BlackElo "2545"]  [PlyCount "39"]   1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 h5 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 e6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O  Nf5 9. Ne2 Nd7 10. Ng3 Nh4 11. Nxh4 Qxh4 12. Be3 Qd8 13. Rfd1 Rc8 14. b3 c5 15.  c4 cxd4 16. cxd5 Nxe5 17. Qxd4 Qxd5 18. Qa4+ b5 19. Rxd5 bxa4 20. Rxe5 1-0

And more serious fare, about the position at move 11 below:

“But already this opening has certain puzzling aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative, both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why should Black’s position be so awklard? The question really boils down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has problems.

“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position Black can easily get cought in a situation where his game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error (6…Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his position.”

— NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

  [Event "EU-chT 08th Group3"]  [Site "Middlesbrough"]  [Date "1982.07.11"]  [Round "2"]  [White "Nunn, John DM"]  [Black "Olafsson, Fridrik"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C54"]  [WhiteElo "2590"]  [PlyCount "73"]   1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3 Qe7 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3  O-O 9. Re1 Be6 10. Nf1 Ba7 11. Bc2 Kh8 12. Ng3 Qd7 13. d4 Bg4 14. d5 Ne7 15. h3  Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Nfg8 17. Bd2 g6 18. c4 f5 19. exf5 Nxf5 20. Nxf5 gxf5 21. Bc3  Rae8 22. b4 Ne7 23. h4 Rg8 24. h5 Rg7 25. c5 Reg8 26. g3 h6 27. Rad1 Qe8 28.  Rxe5 dxe5 29. Bxe5 b6 30. d6 Nc6 31. Bf6 Qe6 32. Bxg7+ Rxg7 33. Qxc6 bxc5 34.  Qa8+ Rg8 35. Qxa7 Rxg3+ 36. Kh2 Qe5 37. Qxc5 1-0

Middlegame

It’s hard to pick just a couple of annotations to represent the rich seam to be mined in Nunn’s books, but I went with these two:

“If White wishes to play for a direct attack he can try 15. g4 [variation]. In olden times White would often attack by g4 and Ng3 in the Closed Spanish; once in a while White would break through with a Nf5 sacrifice, but now it is recognised that so long as all Black’s pieces can reach the King’s-side, a direct attack should not work. Thus, the emphasis has switched to diversionary Queen’s-side play, with a King’s-side attack being reserved for a favourable moment when Black’s pieces have been lured away. Moreover, the King’s-side attack is usually based on f4 rather than g4, since only f4 offers the chance of activating the light-squared Bishop on c2.
White’s preliminary a4 gives him control of the a-file; this may not appear relevant to the conduct of a King’s-side attack, but watch what happens later!”

  [Event "Brussels"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1986.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Nunn, John DM"]  [Black "Short, N.."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C98"]  [Annotator "Lessons from John Nunn"]  [PlyCount "59"]  [EventDate "1986.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3  O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 Nc6 13. d5 Nd8 14. Nf1 Ne8 15. a4  (15. g4 g6 16. Ng3 Ng7 17. Kh2 f6 18. Be3 Bd7 19. Qd2 Nf7 20. Rg1 Kh8 21. Raf1  Rg8 22. Ne1 Raf8 {[#] = Robatsch-Padevsky, Amsterdam 1972}) 15... Rb8 16. axb5  axb5 17. b4 c4 18. Ng3 g6 19. Nh2 Ng7 20. Rf1 Bd7 21. f4 Bh4 22. Qf3 f5 23.  fxe5 dxe5 24. exf5 Bxg3 25. Qxg3 Nxf5 26. Qf2 (26. Qe1 {î�+/-}) 26... Nb7 27.  Ng4 h5 28. Ra6 hxg4 29. Rxg6+ Ng7 30. Rxg7+ (30. Rxg7+ Kxg7 31. Bh6+ Kxh6 (  31... Kg8 32. Qxf8+ Rxf8 33. Rxf8#) (31... Kh8 32. Qxf8+ Rxf8 33. Rxf8#) 32.  Qh4+ Kg7 33. Qh7#) 1-0

And a little bit deeper: after move 10 by White

“The traditional way of assessing such positions is to say that Black has an inferior pawn structure, but in compensation he has the two Bishops (*). Looked at this way, Portisch’s plan appears strange. However, a static evaluation takes no account of the potential activity of Black’s pieces. His main problem is the future of the c8 Bishop; he doesn’t want to play …Bd7, because that would prevent the manoeuvre …Nd7 and …Bf6, which is his best chance of activating the other minor pieces. After …Be6, the Bishop would be a target for a later Nf3-d4 or f2-f4-f5, and it would block the e-file, making it ipossible to develop pressure against the e4-pawn by …Re8. The only real solution is to get rid of the Bishop by …Bg4 followed by …Bxf3. This plan has to be executed immediately or else White plays Qd3, preparing to meet …Bg4 by Nd4. Perhaps there is even an argument for 10. Qd3!?, although this might tempt Black to develop his Bishop another way – by 10…a5 followed by …Ba6.
The exchange on f3 not only relieves Black’s slightly cramped position, it also gives him a grip on e5.”

  [Event "Rejkyavic"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1988.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Nunn, John DM"]  [Black "Portisch, Lajos"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C73"]  [WhiteElo "2620"]  [BlackElo "2630"]  [PlyCount "65"]  [EventDate "1988.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. Bxc6+ bxc6 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nf6 8.  O-O Be7 9. Nc3 O-O 10. Re1 Bg4 11. Qd3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Nd7 13. b3 Bf6 14. Bb2 Re8  15. Rad1 Re6 16. Qh3 Qe8 17. f4 Rd8 18. Qe3 Nb6 19. e5 dxe5 20. f5 Rxd1 21.  Rxd1 Re7 22. Ne4 Rd7 23. Nxf6+ gxf6 24. Re1 Qd8 25. Qe4 Nd5 26. Qg4+ Kh8 27.  Bc1 Qf8 28. c4 Nb4 29. Qh4 Qd6 30. Qh6 Rd8 31. h3 c5 32. Re4 Rg8 33. Qxh7+ 1-0

Endgame

Nunn’s sharp style surely kept the number of endgames he had to play to a minimum, but I’ve picked out a couple from the books spanning his own career. As an author he was something of a connoisseur of this phase of play, and was a notable interpreter of exhaustive and exhausting computer-solved databases.

This first game is an endgame for most of its duration, but it ‘feels’ like a middlegame to me! Nunn’s notes are rich.

  [Event "Munich"]  [Site "Lessons from John Nunn: strat"]  [Date "1991.??.??"]  [Round "3"]  [White "Nunn, John DM"]  [Black "Gelfand, B.."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B07"]  [WhiteElo "2600"]  [BlackElo "2700"]  [Annotator "Lessons from John Nunn"]  [PlyCount "69"]  [EventDate "1991.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. Qd2 b5 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. Nf3 e5 (7... Bg7 8. Bh6 $14) 8. dxe5 {N} (8. a4 {- 46/157}) 8... dxe5 (8... Nxe5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 10. h3 a6 (10... Bb7 $2 11. Nxb5 cxb5 12. Bxb5+ Nd7 13. O-O-O Bc8 14. Qd5 $18) (10... Bg7 11. a4 $16) 11. Bh6 $5 (11. a4 $14)) 9. h3 $1 $14 Bg7 (9... a6 10. Bh6 Bxh6 11. Qxh6 Nh5 12. O-O Qf6 { Qf4} (12... Nf4 13. Nxe5 $16) 13. a4 b4 (13... Bb7 14. axb5 axb5 15. Rxa8+ Bxa8 16. Ra1 $16 Ke7 $6 17. Bxb5 $1 cxb5 18. Rxa8 $18) 14. Ne2 Qg7 (14... Nf4 15. Nxf4 Qxf4 16. Qg7 $16) 15. Qd2 $14) 10. a4 b4 11. Ne2 a5 12. c3 c5 (12... bxc3 13. Qxc3 { Nd2-c4}) (12... Rb8 13. Rc1 {X c6}) 13. cxb4 cxb4 14. O-O O-O 15. Rfd1 $16 Bb7 (15... Qe7 16. Rac1 {} Bb7 17. Rc7) 16. Bb5 Qb8 (16... Qe7 17. Qxd7 $1 (17. Qd6 Qxd6 18. Rxd6 Nb8 $1 $13) 17... Nxd7 18. Rxd7 Qe6 (18... Qxd7 19. Bxd7 Bxe4 20. Nd2 { Nc4+-}) 19. Rxb7 Qb3 20. Nd2 Qxb2 21. Rb1 Qa2 (21... Qc2 22. Rc1 Qb2 23. Rbc7 { R7c2+-}) 22. Nc1 Qe6 23. Ncb3 { Nc4, Nc5+-}) 17. Ng3 { "As a young player I was puzzled by games in which White played the manoeuvre Nc2-e2-g3 against the Pirc. It seemed to me that the Knight was not very well placed on g3, because Black's g6 pawn prevented the Knight advancing. Indeed its one and only duty seemed to be to defend the pawn on e4. Then, in 1984, I lost a game with Black against Murray Chandler, in which he used precisely this manoeuvre. The crucial distinction is whether White is attacking or defending. If White doesn't hold the initiative then the Knight on g3 is truly inactive, but if White holds the initiative and has pressure in the centre then the Knight can be very useful. The Rooks and Queen operating on the open files are so dangerous for Black that he cannot counter them directly; instead, Black must somehow aim for counterplay. The only weakness in White's position is the vulnerable Pawn on e4. If this is secure, then White has plenty of time to improve his position. The function of the g3 Knight is precisely to support the e4 Pawn and give White the freedom of action he needs to step up the pressure.     "In the current position, Black is attacking e4 twice, but at the moment he cannot consider taking the Pawn because of the exposed Knight on d7."}  17...Rc8 (17... Rd8 18. Rac1 $1 Bxe4 (18... Nxe4 19. Nxe4 Bxe4 20. Ng5 Bf5 21. g4 $18) 19. Nxe4 Nxe4 20. Qd5 Nef6 (20... Ndf6 21. Qxd8+ Qxd8 22. Rxd8+ Rxd8 23. Bb6 $18) 21. Qb3 {X f7} h6 (21... Nf8 22. Ng5 { Bc4+-}) 22. Rc6 Nf8 23. Rdc1 { 24.Rb6, 24.Rc7}) 18. Rac1 Rxc1 19. Rxc1 Nf8 (19... Qd8 20. Rd1) 20. Bc4 $1 {X f7} Ne6 $7 21. Bxe6 fxe6 22. Ng5 Ra6 (22... Qe8 23. Rc7 Rd8 24. Rxg7+ $18) 23. Rd1 { Qd8} h6 (23... Qf8 24. Qd8 h6 25. Qc7 Ba8 26. Rd8 Ne8 27. Qc8 $18) 24. Qd8+ Qxd8 25. Rxd8+ Bf8 26. Rb8 $1 $18 hxg5 (26... Ba8 27. Nxe6) (26... Bc6 27. Nxe6 Nd7 28. Rd8) 27. Rxb7 Rd6 (27... g4 28. Bg5 Nh7 29. Bd8) 28. Rb5 Rd1+ 29. Kh2 Rb1 30. Rxe5 Bd6 (30... Rxb2 31. Rxe6 Nd7 (31... Kf7 32. Rxf6+) 32. Rxg6+ Kf7 33. Rxg5 b3 34. Rxa5) 31. Rxe6 Bxg3+ 32. Kxg3 Kf7 33. Ra6 Nxe4+ 34. Kf3 Nf6 35. Bd4 {1-0 (35) Nunn,J (2600) -Gelfand,B (2700) Munich 1991 CBM 023 [King,D]} 1-0

A typical observation from his oeuvre:

“The
following game is typical of tournament chess. Published games are
often ‘clean kills’, in which the defender puts up little resistance, but in
reality most games aren’t like this. Annotations, particularly those by
third parties, often promote the concept of the game in which the winner does everything right, while the
loser does everything wrong. This is rare in practice, except when one
player is much stronger than the other. This game is more representative; stretches of accurate play
are interspersed with mistakes and the defender doesn’t go down without a fight, but puts up a fierce and
determined resistance right into the endgame.”

I’m sure Nunn kept the notes to a minimum, but they are hard going! And yet, if you want to improve, you must immerse yourself in such detail.

  [Event "Szirak Interzonal"]  [Site "Szirak"]  [Date "1987.??.??"]  [Round "3"]  [White "Nunn, John DM"]  [Black "De la Villa Garcia, Jesus Maria"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C63"]  [WhiteElo "2585"]  [BlackElo "2485"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. Nc3 Nd4 5. exf5 c6 6. Nxe5 Nf6 7. Bd3 d6 8.  Ng4 Nxf5 9. O-O Be7 10. Nxf6+ Bxf6 11. Re1+ Kf7 12. Ne4 Rf8 13. c3 Kg8 14. Bc2  d5 15. Ng3 Nxg3 16. hxg3 d4 17. Be4 Qb6 18. Qc2 d3 19. Qxd3 Bxc3 20. bxc3 Qxf2+  21. Kh2 Qxe1 22. Ba3 Qxa1 23. Bxh7+ Kh8 24. Bxf8 Be6 25. Bxg7+ Kxg7 26. Qg6+  Kh8 27. Qh6 Bd5 28. Be4+ Kg8 29. Qh7+ Kf8 30. Bxd5 cxd5 31. Qh8+ Ke7 32. Qxa8  Qxa2 33. Qxb7+ Kd6 34. Qb8+ Kc6 35. Qf4 Qc4 36. Qf5 a5 37. g4 a4 38. d3 Qc5 39.  Qc8+ Kb5 40. Qb7+ Ka5 41. g5 Qd6+ 42. g3 a3 43. g6 Ka4 44. g7 Qh6+ 45. Kg2 Qd2+  46. Kh3 Qh6+ 47. Kg4 Qg6+ 48. Kf4 Qf6+ 49. Ke3 d4+ 50. Ke4 Qe6+ 51. Kxd4 Qg4+  52. Kc5 1-0

And to appreciate this earlier game, too, you must turn to the notes to get the most out of it — or, as the authors recommend, play through it as though you had the black pieces, and try to work out the best moves.

  [Event "Phillips&Drew"]  [Site "London"]  [Date "1982.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Portisch, Lajos"]  [Black "Nunn, John DM"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "A79"]  [WhiteElo "2630"]  [BlackElo "2590"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. Nf3 Bg7 8. Be2  O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Nd2 Na6 11. Kh1 Nc7 12. a4 Rb8 13. f3 b6 14. Nc4 Ba6 15. Bg5  Qd7 16. b3 Nh5 17. Rc1 f6 18. Be3 f5 19. g4 Bxc4 20. bxc4 fxg4 21. fxg4 Nf6 22.  Bf3 Qe7 23. Bg5 h6 24. Bh4 g5 25. Be1 Rf8 26. Bg2 Nd7 27. Rxf8+ Rxf8 28. Ne2  Be5 29. Qd3 Ne8 30. Bd2 Qg7 31. Rf1 Rxf1+ 32. Bxf1 Qf7 33. Kg2 Nef6 34. h3 Qg6  35. Nc3 Bxc3 36. Bxc3 Qxe4+ 37. Qxe4 Nxe4 38. Be1 Ne5 39. Be2 Kf7 40. Bf3 Nf6  41. Be2 Ng6 42. Bf1 h5 43. gxh5 Nxh5 44. Kf3 Ne5+ 45. Ke4 Kg6 46. Be2 Nf6+ 47.  Ke3 Kf5 48. Bc3 a6 49. Be1 g4 50. hxg4+ Nfxg4+ 51. Kd2 Ke4 52. Kc3 Ke3 53. Bd1  Nf3 54. Bg3 Nf2 55. Bc2 Ng5 56. Kb2 Nge4 57. Bh4 Kd4 58. Bb3 Nd3+ 59. Ka3 Ne5  0-1

Lessons from Timman

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

I have just read, with enormous pleasure, Jan Timman’s volume of his best games, Timman’s Triumphs. The range of openings is very broad, the tactics pleasing and sometimes brilliant, the strategy revealing, the endgame play subtle; the annotations do justice to a Grandmaster’s play but remain accessible; the stories between the games are engaging and warm.

Opening

Timman’s repertoire is very broad and includes every style.

[Event "Bugojno"]  [Site "Bugojno"]  [Date "1984.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Timman, Jan H"]  [Black "Smyslov, Vassily"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C45"]  [WhiteElo "2610"]  [BlackElo "2600"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]  1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nf5 {Timman gives a wonderful note here,  ranging across Steinitz, Hubner, Karpov, and a Cambridge City postal game from 1875(!). Deep learning worn  very lightly.} 5...g6 6. Ne3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Bd3 Re8 9. O-O Ne5 10. Kh1 d6 11.  Be2 Nc6 12. f3 Nd4 13. Bc4 a5 14. Ng4 Be6 15. Bg5 Nxg4 16. Bxd8 Ne3 17. Qc1  Bxc4 18. Qxe3 Nxc2 19. Qd2 Nxa1 20. Bf6 Re6 21. Rxa1 Rxf6 22. b3 Be6 23. Na4  Ba3 24. Qc3 Rf4 25. g3 Bb4 26. Qd3 Rf6 27. a3 b5 28. axb4 axb4 29. Kg2 bxa4 30.  Qd4 Bxb3 31. Qxf6 a3 32. Qd4 c5 33. Qxd6 Rc8 34. Qd2 Be6 35. f4 h6 36. g4 Bxg4  37. f5 Re8 38. Qxh6 gxf5 39. h3 1-0

  [Event "Linares"]  [Site "Linares"]  [Date "1983.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Timman, Jan H"]  [Black "Geller, Efim P"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D03"]  [WhiteElo "2605"]  [BlackElo "2575"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 d5  3. Bg5 {The introduction to the Torre System. I liked to play it in my younger  years, and later I would dig it up again every now and then to avoid a  theoretical duel with an opening expert. For example, I beat Beliavsky with it  in a game that was crucial for my tournament victory in Wijk aan Zee, 1985.} e6  4. Nbd2 Be7 5. e3 O-O (5... c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Bd3 Nd7 8. Bxe7 Qxe7 9. O-O O-O 10.  Re1 Qf6 11. Bb5 Qd8 12. Rc1 Qb6 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Qc2 a5 15. Ng5 g6 16. dxc5  Qxc5 17. e4 Ba6 18. e5 Qe7 19. Ngf3 f6 20. c4 Rac8 21. Qc3 Qb4 22. exf6 Rxf6  23. Ne5 Qxc3 24. Rxc3 Nxe5 25. Rxe5 Rb8 26. b3 a4 27. f3 axb3 28. axb3 Kf7 29.  Re1 Bc8 30. cxd5 exd5 31. f4 Rb6 32. g3 Re6 33. Rec1 Ke7 34. Nf3 Bd7 35. Ne5 g5  36. Nxd7 Kxd7 37. fxg5 Re2 38. Rf3 Ra6 39. Rf7+ Ke6 40. Rcf1 d4 41. Rxh7 Raa2  42. g6 Rg2+ {1-0 (42) Timman,J (2650)-Beliavsky,A (2635) Wijk aan Zee 1985}) 6.  Bd3 b6 7. Ne5 Bb7 8. Bxf6 Bxf6 9. f4 Bxe5 10. fxe5 Qh4+ 11. g3 Qh6 12. Qe2 Nc6  13. O-O Nb4 14. Rf4 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 a5 16. Nf3 Ba6 17. Qc3 Be2 18. Qc6 Qh5 19.  Kg2 Rae8 20. Re1 Ba6 21. g4 Qg6 22. Kh1 Re7 23. g5 Qh5 24. Kg2 Rb8 25. Kf2 Qg6  26. Rf6 Qe4 27. Rf4 Qg6 28. Rc1 Rc8 29. Rf6 Qe4 30. g6 Rf8 31. Rf4 fxg6 32.  Rxe4 dxe4 33. Qxe4 c5 34. c4 1-0

  [Event "74th Tata Steel GMB"]  [Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]  [Date "2012.01.19"]  [Round "5"]  [White "Timman, J.."]  [Black "Ernst, S.."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A11"]  [WhiteElo "2571"]  [BlackElo "2606"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   { "There was a bright spot: my win against Sipke Ernst  was a model game, the dream of every true Réti player. The long diagonal of  the white king’s bishop was the basis for the victory."} 1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5  3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 dxc4 5. O-O Nbd7 6. Qc2 Nb6 7. Na3 Qd5 8. b3 $5 {Tukmakov}  cxb3 9. axb3 Be6 10. b4 $146 Qb3 11. Qxb3 Bxb3 12. b5 c5 13. d3 Nfd7 14. Nd2  Bd5 15. e4 Be6 16. f4 f6 17. e5 Bd5 18. e6 $1 Bxe6 19. Bxb7 Rb8 20. Bc6 g6 21.  Nac4 Nc8 22. Ne4 Kf7 23. Ne5+ $1 Nxe5 24. fxe5 Bf5 25. Nxc5 Bg7 26. d4 Rd8 27.  Rxf5 $1 gxf5 28. e6+ Kg6 29. Nd7 Nd6 30. Nxb8 Rxb8 31. Rxa7 Nxb5 32. Rxe7 Bh6  33. Be8+ 1-0

Middlegame

Too much to choose from of course, but some contrasting games: a brilliancy prize, a Petrosian-esque manoeuvring game,

  [Event "Tallinn"]  [Site "Tallinn"]  [Date "1973.02.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Rytov, Boris"]  [Black "Timman, Jan H"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "E45"]  [WhiteElo "2200"]  [BlackElo "2480"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   {A brilliancy prize} 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Nge2 Ba6 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. Nxc3 d5 8. b3  O-O 9. Be2 Nc6 10. b4 Bxc4 11. Bxc4 dxc4 12. Qe2 b5 $1 {"While I was  contemplating this move, Tal came standing by my board, looking at me with a  piercing glance. It felt like a kind of encouragement to walk the combinatory  path. After I had played the move, he came by again, and smiled at me. I had  found the combination he had envisaged."} 13. Nxb5 Qd5 14. Nxc7 Qxg2 15. Qf1  Qf3! 16. Nxa8 Nxd4 17. exd4 Qc3+ 18. Ke2 Qxa1 19. Qg2 Qa2+ 20. Ke1 Qb1 21. Kd2  Ne4+ 22. Ke3 Qd3+ 23. Kf4 g5+ 24. Ke5 Rd8 0-1

A contrast, but with a deeply calculated break at move 28:

  [Event "Banja Luka"]  [Site "Banja Luka"]  [Date "1974.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Mihaljcisin, Mihajlo"]  [Black "Timman, Jan H"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "B06"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. f4 c6 5. a4 d5 6. e5 h5 7. Nf3 Bg4 8.  Be2 e6 9. O-O Nh6 10. Be3 Bf8 11. h3 Nf5 12. Bf2 Bxf3 13. Bxf3 h4 14. Ne2 Nd7  15. Qd3 Be7 16. c4 dxc4 17. Qxc4 Nb6 18. Qc1 Rc8 19. Rd1 Kf8 20. Nc3 Kg7 21.  Ne4 Nd5 22. Nc5 b6 23. Nd3 a5 24. Qd2 Qd7 25. Rac1 Rc7 26. Rc4 Rhc8 27. Rdc1  Qd8 28. Kh2 c5 $1 29. dxc5 Nb4 30. Be4 Bxc5 31. Bxc5 bxc5 32. Qe2 Ng3 33. Qe3  Nxe4 34. Nxb4 cxb4 $2 35. Qxe4 $2 Rxc4 36. Rxc4 Rxc4 37. Qxc4 Qd2 38. b3 Qc3  39. Qb5 Qxb3 40. Qxa5 Qc4 0-1

And a sprightly attack with some very unobvious moves@

  [Event "OHRA"]  [Site "Amsterdam"]  [Date "1987.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Timman, Jan H"]  [Black "Zapata, Alonso"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B54"]  [WhiteElo "2630"]  [BlackElo "2510"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3  d6 6. Be3 b5 7. g4 Bb7 8. Bg2 Nd7 9. Qe2 Rc8 10. O-O Qc7 11. a4 $1 b4 12. Na2  Ngf6 13. Nxb4 Qc4 14. Nd3 Bxe4 15. Ra3 $5 Bxg2 16. Rc3 Qxc3 17. bxc3 Bxf1 18.  Kxf1 d5 19. Nf4 Rc4 20. f3 $1 h6 21. Bf2 $1 Nc5 22. Nxd5 $1 Rxa4 23. Nxf6+ gxf6  24. Qd1 $1 Nb7 25. Qb1 Nd8 26. Qb3 Ra1+ 27. Kg2 Be7 28. c4 h5 29. c5 $1 hxg4  30. fxg4 Bxc5 31. Qc3 Bxd4 32. Bxd4 Ra4 33. h3 e5 $1 34. Bxe5 O-O $2 35. Bxf6  Ne6 36. Kg3 a5 37. Qe3 Kh7 38. Qb3 Rf4 39. Be5 Rb4 40. Qd3+ Kg8 41. Qe3 Kh7 42.  Qf3 f5 43. gxf5 Ng7 44. f6 Kg6 45. Kh2 Nf5 46. Qg2+ Kh7 1-0

Endgame

I’ve just been looking at some Nunn endgames which are full of tension and precision; Timman’s choices show deftness more than forcefulness, and that magical ability to create something out of nothing. First, he out-Anderssons Andersson.

[Event "Hoogovens"]  [Site "Wijk aan Zee"]  [Date "1981.02.01"]  [Round "13"]  [White "Timman, Jan H"]  [Black "Andersson, Ulf"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "E12"]  [WhiteElo "2620"]  [BlackElo "2610"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3  Bb7 5. Nc3 Ne4 6. Nxe4 Bxe4 7. e3 Be7 8. Bd3 Bxd3 9. Qxd3 d5 10. O-O O-O 11. e4  dxe4 12. Qxe4 Nd7 13. Qc6 Nf6 14. Bf4 Qd7 15. Qxd7 Nxd7 16. Rad1 c6 17. Rfe1  Rfe8 18. d5 cxd5 19. cxd5 exd5 20. Rxd5 Nf8 21. Kf1 Bf6 22. Rxe8 Rxe8 23. Nd4  Ng6 24. Bd2 Ne5 25. b3 h6 26. h3 Rc8 27. Ke2 Nc6 28. Nxc6 Rxc6 29. Rd7 a6 30.  Kd3 Kf8 31. a4 $1 Ke8 32. Rb7 Rd6+ 33. Ke2 Bd4 34. Be3 Re6 35. b4 $1 Bxe3 36.  fxe3 h5 37. Kd3 h4 38. Ra7 b5 39. a5 Rc6 40. Kd4 Kf8 41. Kd5 Rg6 42. e4 Ke8 43.  Kc5 Re6 44. Rb7 $1 Rxe4 45. Kb6 Rxb4 46. Kxa6 Rb2 47. Kb6 Rxg2 48. a6 Ra2 49.  a7 g5 50. Kc5 f5 51. Rb8+ Kf7 52. a8=Q Rxa8 53. Rxa8 g4 54. Kd4 gxh3 55. Rh8  1-0

A little tactic #23 and a principled repositioning #36 to win an ending against Tal:

[Event "Hoogovens"]  [Site "Wijk aan Zee"]  [Date "1982.01.??"]  [Round "13"]  [White "Timman, Jan H"]  [Black "Tal, Mihail"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C81"]  [WhiteElo "2655"]  [BlackElo "2605"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5  Be6 9. Qe2 Be7 10. Rd1 O-O 11. c4 bxc4 12. Bxc4 Bc5 13. Be3 Bxe3 14. Qxe3 Qb8  15. Bb3 Na5 16. Nbd2 Qa7 17. Nxe4!? Qxe3 18. fxe3 Nxb3 19. axb3 dxe4 20. Nd4 Rab8  21. Rdc1 Bxb3 22. Rxc7 Rb6 23. Ra7 Bd5 24. b3!  {"I think Tal had missed this little move. White keeps his b-pawn."}  24...Rbb8  (24...Bxb3?? 25.Rb1+-)  25. Ra3 Rfe8 26. R7xa6 Rxe5  27. Rd6 $1 f6 28. Ra7 Rb7 29. Rxb7 Bxb7 30. b4 Rd5 31. Rxd5 Bxd5 32. b5 Kf7 33.  Kf2 g6 34. Kg3 Ke7 35. Kf4 Kd6 36. Ne2 $1 Kc5 37. Nc3 Ba8 38. Nxe4+ Kxb5 39.  Nxf6 Bxg2 40. Nxh7 Bf1 41. Nf8 Kc6 42. Nxg6 Kd6 43. Kf5 Bh3+ 44. Kf6 Bg4 45.  Nf4 1-0

  [Event "Amsterdam Euwe Memorial"]  [Site "Amsterdam"]  [Date "1994.05.19"]  [Round "6"]  [White "Timman, Jan H"]  [Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B52"]  [WhiteElo "2620"]  [BlackElo "2710"]  [Annotator "Exeter,DrDave"]   1. e4 c5 2.  Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Bxd7+ Qxd7 6. e5 {"The English grandmaster  Julian Hodgson later told me he had to laugh terribly when he saw this move  – especially because I even won the game with it, too. I have to confess  that the text move is entirely unpretentious. Still, it can’t hurt to play  like this now and then, when you’re not in top form."} dxe5 7. Nxe5 Qe6 8.  Na3 Nfd7 9. Nac4 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 f6 11. Nc4 Qxe2+ 12. Kxe2 Nc6 13. c3 e5 14. a4  Be7 15. d3 O-O-O 16. Be3 b6 17. f3 Rd7 18. g4 Rhd8 19. Rhd1 Bf8 20. h4 Ne7 21.  a5 Kb7 22. axb6 axb6 23. Ra3 Nd5 24. Rda1 Be7 25. h5 g6 26. Ra7+ Kc6 27. Rxd7  Rxd7 28. hxg6 hxg6 29. g5 b5 30. gxf6 Bxf6 31. Na5+ Kb6 32. Nb3 Nxe3 33. Kxe3  c4 34. Ra6+ Kxa6 35. Nc5+ Ka5 36. Nxd7 Bg5+ 37. Ke4 Bc1 38. dxc4 Bxb2 39. c5  Bxc3 40. c6 Ka6 41. Kd5 Ba5 42. Nc5+ Ka7 43. Kd6 Kb8 44. Kd7 g5 45. Nd3 b4 46.  Nxb4 e4 47. fxe4 g4 48. Na6+ Ka7 49. c7 Bxc7 50. Nxc7 g3 51. Nb5+ Kb6 52. Nd4 {  "I won ‘from nothing’, as they say. The concluding part fits together like  clockwork."} 1-0

Lessons from Euwe

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

Euwe was always an amateur player, not a professional; he taught mathematics in a girls’ school in the Netherland for much of his active playing career, then was employed by a computer firm. He devoted much of his life to teaching chess, through books and articles. My favourite among his writings is a collection of articles about the middlegame with Hans Kramer, later published in two volumes. He collected and organised opening theory, he wrote books for beginners and masters, and he took the Presidency of FIDE. His own games are not often quoted in instructional books these days, but he was a very fine player, able to compete at the top level even in 1952, as we will see.

Smyslov on Euwe:

‘From my youth I was familiar
with the facets of Euwe’s versatile chess activity: his books showed that he was a splendid
teacher; the novelties employed in his games
and his analyses in chess magazines showed
that he was an outstanding theoretician. His
aggressive handling of the opening on a realistic positional base, and his unexpected manoeuvres, his amazing skill in finding a veiled
way out of a difficult position demonstrated
the Dutch grandmaster’s wonderful tactical
gift. Later I was also able to appreciate fully
the other fine qualities of the fifth world
champion — industriousness, stamina, self-
control, and his gentleman-like attitude to his
opponents.’

Opening

The ‘Strategy’ part of Euwe’s book Strategy and Tactics in Chess is mostly a long annotation of this game, where Black struggles to advance his backward c-pawn in the face of White’s central pressure:

  [Event "Leningrad"]  [Site "Leningrad"]  [Date "1934.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]  [Black "Euwe, Max"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "C83"]    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4  Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Qe2  Nc5 12. Nd4 Nxb3 13. N2xb3 Qd7 14. Nxc6 Qxc6 15. Be3 Bf5 16. Rfd1 Rfd8 17. f3  Bf8 18. Qf2 a5 19. Rd2 b4 20. Rc1 Qa4 21. Nd4 Bg6 22. b3 Qe8 23. cxb4 Bxb4 24.  Rdd1 c5 25. Nc2 Bxc2 26. Rxc2 d4 27. Bg5 Rd5 28. f4 a4 29. Qf3 axb3 30. axb3  Rd7 31. f5 Rda7 32. Qg3 Ra1 33. Rcc1 Rxc1 34. Rxc1 Kh8 35. Rf1 Ra6 36. h3 Qa8  37. Kh2 Qe8 38. Rf3 Ba5 39. Bf4 Bc7 40. Rf1 Ra8 41. Re1 Qc6 42. e6 Bxf4 43.  Qxf4 fxe6 44. fxe6 Re8 45. e7 h6 46. Qf5 Qd6+ 47. Kh1 Kg8 48. Re6 Qd7 49. Qe5  1/2-1/2

Euwe was a great student of the opening, and described that “the opening weapon was knocked out of (Alekhin’s) hand” in their first match. But he brought psychological guile as well as theory.
Euwe also remarked:

“On discovering any difficulties, Alekhine
preferred to stake everything.
This is why, on encountering solid positions
in the even-numbered games, he began playing in reckless style, which brought him a win
in the fourth game and almost brought a win
in the sixth. My objective with White was
clear: after achieving a slight advantage, I had
to resist in the tactical complications. Of
course, this was not easy against a player of
such class, but, on the other hand, it did not
seem impracticable: after all, the tactical complications were created in positions that were
favourable for me. That is, I was playing as
though with a favourable wind… My new tactics were crowned with complete success. In
the 12th and 14th games Alekhine again
played extremely riskily
and to win it was
sufficient for me to make only two or three
genuinely good moves.”

  [Event "World Championship 16th"]  [Site "Netherlands"]  [Date "1935.11.02"]  [Round "14"]  [White "Euwe, Max"]  [Black "Alekhine, Alexander"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D82"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4.  Bf4 Nh5 5. Be5 f6 6. Bg3 Nxg3 7. hxg3 c6 8. e3 Bg7 9. Bd3 O-O?? 10. Rxh7! f5 11.  Rh1 e5 12. dxe5 Bxe5 13. Nf3 Bxc3+ 14. bxc3 Qf6 15. cxd5 Qxc3+ 16. Kf1 Qf6 17.  Rc1 cxd5 18. Rc7 Nd7 19. Bb5 Qd6 20. Rc4 Nf6 21. Rch4 Qc5 22. Ba4 Qc3 23. Ng5  Kg7 24. Nh7 Rd8 25. Nxf6 Kxf6 26. Rh7 Be6 27. R1h6 Bf7 28. Kg1 Rg8 29. g4 Rg7  30. gxf5 Rxh7 31. Rxh7 gxf5 32. Bb3 Qe5 33. Qf3 Rc8 34. g4 Bg6 35. Rxb7 Qa1+  36. Kg2 Rh8 37. g5+ Kxg5 38. Qf4+ Kf6 39. Qd6+ Kg5 40. f4+ Kh6 41. Qe7 1-0

Middlegame

First, Euwe’s famous demonstration of the power of mobile pawns:

  [Event "NLD WC"]  [Site "style: Euwe the dynamo (NLD W"]  [Date "1935.??.??"]  [Round "26"]  [White "Euwe, Max"]  [Black "Alekhin, Alexander"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A84"]  [Annotator "style: Euwe the dynamo ("]  [PlyCount "93"]  [EventDate "1935.??.??"]   {[%evp 0,93,26,18,52,4,43,28,46,46,56,56,50,61,61,55,54,45,143,45,45,30,36,47,  39,40,58,39,29,29,29,2,11,15,25,17,30,18,49,27,15,11,11,28,15,3,36,43,24,35,35,  21,42,44,48,33,68,77,61,6,0,16,8,8,80,2,0,0,80,23,57,23,143,0,0,62,29,51,61,75,  175,182,235,251,259,131,213,40,194,309,370,374,210,384,390,390] [%mdl 32768]}  1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Be7 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Nf3 Ne4 8. O-O  b6 9. Qc2 Bb7 10. Ne5 Nxc3 11. Bxc3 Bxg2 12. Kxg2 Qc8 13. d5 d6 14. Nd3 e5 15.  Kh1 c6 16. Qb3 Kh8 17. f4 e4 18. Nb4 c5 19. Nc2 Nd7 20. Ne3 Bf6 {[#] Alekhine  plays the Dutch against the best Dutch player - in the Netherlands! Euwe  sacrifices a piece for a pawn roller.} 21. Nxf5 Bxc3 22. Nxd6 Qb8 23. Nxe4 Bf6  24. Nd2 g5 25. e4 gxf4 26. gxf4 Bd4 27. e5 Qe8 28. e6 Rg8 29. Nf3 Qg6 30. Rg1  Bxg1 31. Rxg1 Qf6 32. Ng5 Rg7 33. exd7 Rxd7 34. Qe3 Re7 35. Ne6 Rf8 36. Qe5  Qxe5 37. fxe5 Rf5 38. Re1 h6 39. Nd8 Rf2 40. e6 Rd2 41. Nc6 Re8 42. e7 b5 43.  Nd8 Kg7 44. Nb7 Kf6 45. Re6+ Kg5 46. Nd6 Rxe7 47. Ne4+ {This game became known  as the pearl of Zaandvort} 1-0

People often emphasise the rational and logical in Euwe’s chess, but he had as much imagination and verve as anyone. Anderssen was also a professor of mathematics!

Euwe surprised many by entering the Zurich Candidates’ Tournament in 1953; his play in the second half of this double-round tournament showed the poor stamina of middle age, but in the first half, he was equal to any. Kotov won the first brilliancy prize for a game that is rightly famous, but the second and third brilliancy prizes went to Euwe.

Click […] to choose a game:

  [Event "Candidates Tournament"]  [Site "Zuerich"]  [Date "1953.08.31"]  [Round "2"]  [White "Geller, Efim P"]  [Black "Euwe, Max"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "E28"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3  b6 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. f3 Nc6 9. Ne2 O-O 10. O-O Na5 11. e4 Ne8 12. Ng3 cxd4 13. cxd4  Rc8 14. f4 Nxc4 15. f5 f6 16. Rf4 b5 17. Rh4 Qb6 18. e5 Nxe5 19. fxe6 Nxd3 20.  Qxd3 Qxe6 21. Qxh7+ Kf7 22. Bh6 Rh8 23. Qxh8 Rc2 24. Rc1 Rxg2+ 25. Kf1 Qb3 26.  Ke1 Qf3 0-1   [Event "Candidates Tournament"]  [Site "Zuerich"]  [Date "1953.09.13"]  [Round "9"]  [White "Euwe, Max"]  [Black "Najdorf, Miguel"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "E61"]  [PlyCount "73"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3.  g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 c5 6. d5 e5 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 9. d6 Nc6 10. e3 b6  11. Bd5 Kh8 12. Ne4 Qd8 13. h4 f5 14. Ng5 Bb7 15. g4 e4 16. Ne2 Bxb2 17. Nf4  Qf6 18. gxf5 Bxa1 19. Nxg6+ Kg7 20. Nxe4 Bc3+ 21. Kf1 Qxf5 22. Nf4 Kh8 23. Nxc3  Rae8 24. Nce2 Rg8 25. h5 Rg5 26. Ng3 Rxg3 27. fxg3 Rxe3 28. Kf2 Re8 29. Re1  Rxe1 30. Qxe1 Kg7 31. Qe8 Qc2+ 32. Kg1 Qd1+ 33. Kh2 Qc2+ 34. Ng2 Qf5 35. Qg8+  Kf6 36. Qh8+ Kg5 37. Qg7+ 1-0

Endgame

Euwe is not much known for his endgame play, but it is as clear and witty as the rest of his game: his idea at move 24 is piquant, but the whole endgame is peppered with ideas.

  [Event "VAS-ASC"]  [Site "Amsterdam NED"]  [Date "1941.01.05"]  [EventDate "?"]  [Round "?"]  [Result "0-1"]  [White "Landau, S"]  [Black "Euwe, M"]  [ECO "D28"]  [WhiteElo "?"]  [BlackElo "?"]  [PlyCount "112"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 a6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 e6 6. O-O c5  7. Qe2 Nc6 8. Rd1 b5 9. Bb3 c4 10. Bc2 Nb4 11. e4 Nxc2  12. Qxc2 Be7 13. d5 exd5 14. Nc3 Bg4 15. Nxd5 Nxd5 16. Rxd5  Qc7 17. Be3 O-O 18. Nd4 Be6 19. Rh5 g6 20. Rh6 Bf6 21. Nf3  Rad8 22. Bg5 Bxg5 23. Nxg5 Qf4 24. Qc1 Rd1+ 25. Qxd1 Qxg5  26. Qc1 Qxc1+ 27. Rxc1 Kg7 28. Rh4 g5 29. Rh3 Bxh3 30. gxh3  Rd8 31. Rc2 Rd4 32. f3 Kf6 33. Kf2 Ke5 34. Kg3 b4 35. Kg4 c3  36. bxc3 Rc4 37. Kxg5 bxc3 38. h4 Rc6 39. h5 h6+ 40. Kg4 Kd4  41. Kf5 Kd3 42. Rc1 c2 43. f4 Kd2 44. Rg1 c1=Q 45. Rxc1 Kxc1  46. Ke5 a5 47. Kd5 Ra6 48. e5 a4 49. f5 a3 50. e6 fxe6+  51. fxe6 Kb2 52. e7 Ra8 53. Ke6 Kxa2 54. Kf7 Kb3 55. e8=Q Rxe8  56. Kxe8 a2 0-1

A tricky Rook endgame follows an exciting opening and middlegame. There is much to savour here:

  [Event "Wiesbaden"]  [Site "Wiesbaden"]  [Date "1925.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Spielmann, Rudolf"]  [Black "Euwe, Max"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C28"]   1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Nge2 d5 6.  exd5 Nxd5 7. O-O Be6 8. Ne4 Be7 9. c3 f5 10. Qb3 Na5 11. Qa4+ c6 12. Bxd5 Bxd5  13. N4g3 b5 14. Qc2 O-O 15. f4 exf4 16. Nxf4 g6 17. b4 Nb7 18. Bb2 Bf6 19. Rae1  Qd7 20. c4 Bxb2 21. cxd5 Bd4+ 22. Kh1 cxd5 23. Qb3 Rfe8 24. Nxd5 Kh8 25. Ne2  Bg7 26. Nef4 Rxe1 27. Rxe1 Re8 28. Rc1 Nd8 29. h3 Ne6 30. Nxe6 Qxe6 31. Nc7  Qxb3 32. axb3 Rc8 33. Re1 Bc3 34. Re7 Bxb4 35. Rd7 Bd6 36. Rxd6 Rxc7 37. b4 Kg7  38. Kh2 Rc3 39. g4 fxg4 40. hxg4 Rb3 41. g5 Kf7 42. Rd7+ Ke6 43. Rxh7 Rxd3 44.  Rxa7 Rd4 45. Ra3 Kf5 46. Rb3 Kxg5 47. Kg3 Kf5 48. Kf3 Ke5 49. Ke3 Kd5 50. Rb1  g5 51. Rf1 Rxb4 52. Rf5+ Kc4 53. Rxg5 Rb2 54. Rg8 b4 55. Rc8+ Kb3 56. Kd3 Rh2  0-1

Lessons from Smyslov

Posted on September 25, 2026 by DrDave

Botvinnik’s disciplined research and iron logic was a strange parallel of the era of Stalin, the man of steel; Smyslov’s chess was something altogether lighter and more intuitive.

Smyslov could often distil something clear and attractive from a game in ferment, and bring a fresh eye to familiar settings.

In the
1980s, he had a remarkable second wind, playing his elegant, modern
chess all the way to the Candidate’s Matches, where he was stopped
by Kasparov.

Opening

Smyslov’s best-known contribution to opening theory is his eponymous variation of the Grunfeld, but in fact he innovated across the whole spectrum of opening systems, and could improvise happily at the board. Here’s Smyslow equalising happily with his Grunfeld:

  [Event "Clarin"]  [Site "Buenos Aires"]  [Date "1978.??.??"]  [Round "12"]  [White "Keene, Raymond"]  [Black "Smyslov, Vassily"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D99"]  [WhiteElo "2480"]  [BlackElo "2575"]  [Annotator "Regis,David"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 O-O 7. e4 Bg4 8.  Be3 Nfd7 9. Qb3 Nb6 10. Rd1 c6 11. Be2 Na6 12. O-O Qd6 13. a3 Nc7 14. h3 Be6  15. Qc2 Rad8 16. Ng5 Bc4 17. e5 Qd7 18. Bg4 e6 19. Rfe1 Ncd5 20. Nge4 Nxe3 21.  fxe3 Qe7 22. b3 Bd5 23. Nf6+ Bxf6 24. exf6 Qxa3 25. Rb1 e5 26. dxe5 Rfe8 27.  Nxd5 Nxd5 28. Rbd1 $2 (28. e6 $6 Qd6 29. e7 $4 Ra8) (28. e4 Nc7 29. Qc3) 28...  Rxe5 29. e4 Qb4 30. Qf2 Rxe4 31. Rxe4 Qxe4 32. Qxa7 Re8 33. Qxb7 Nxf6 34. Bf3  Qe3+ 35. Kh1 c5 36. Bd5 Re7 37. Qb8+ Kg7 38. Bf3 h5 39. Rf1 Qd3 40. Rd1 Qc3 41.  Rd8 0-1

I was struck by this little-known game, which showed an unprejudiced eye:

  [Event "Hastings 8182"]  [Site "Hastings"]  [Date "1981.??.??"]  [Round "12"]  [White "Smyslov, Vassily"]  [Black "Szabo, Laszlo"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B70"]  [WhiteElo "2580"]  [BlackElo "2510"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Bg5 Bg7 7. Qd2 Nc6 8.  Nb3 a5 9. a4 Be6 10. Bb5 O-O 11. O-O Rc8 12. Rfe1 Nb4 13. Nd4 Bc4 14. b3 Bxb5  15. Ncxb5 Ng4 16. c3 Na6 17. h3 Ne5 18. Bh6 Nc5 19. Bxg7 Kxg7 20. Re3 Nc6 21.  Rd1 Kg8 22. c4 Nxd4 23. Qxd4 f6 24. f4 Qb6 25. Kh2 Rcd8 26. Rg3 Qc6 27. Re1 e5  28. Qe3 f5 29. exf5 Rxf5 30. fxe5 dxe5 31. Qe2 e4 32. Rd1 Rd3 33. Nd4 Qd7 34.  Nxf5 Rxd1 35. Ne7+ Kh8 36. Nd5 Rd3 37. Rxd3 exd3 38. Qe5+ Qg7 39. Qb8+ Qg8 40.  Qd6 Na6 41. Nf4 Nb4 1-0

And a bit of opening preparation that came off:

  [Event "USSR - USA Radio Match"]  [Site "Moscow RUS and New York USA"]  [Date "1945.09.01"]  [Round "1.2"]  [White "Smyslov, V.."]  [Black "Reshevsky, Samuel"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C82"]  [Annotator "Top 10: annotations"]  [PlyCount "81"]  [EventDate "1945.09.01"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5  Be6 9. c3 Bc5 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Bc2 f5 12. Nb3 Bb6 13. Nfd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 Bxd4  15. cxd4 f4 16. f3 Ng3 {rkovach: I thought I had posted this comment a few  days ago - so, if this a repeat, sorry. I was a witness to the playing of this  game. My part was to carry radiograms from the Henry Hudson's Grand Ballroom  mezzanine, where the MacKay Radio operators were to the catering room, half a  floor up, where the American players were. Reshevsky sat for 45 minutes (!) on  his 16th move. Shortly after receiving Smyslov's immediate reply, Reshevsky  asked for time on Smyslov's clock - the response was "2 1/2 minutes" After  several confirmations conviced him that it was indeed 2 1/2 minutes Al  Horowitz came up, turned the score so he could read it and asked R "Sammy,  have you kept up with the Russian journals? - Smyslov published 22 pages on  this line and beats it in every variation" (comment on chessgames.com)} 17.  hxg3 fxg3 18. Qd3 Bf5 19. Qxf5 Rxf5 20. Bxf5 Qh4 21. Bh3 Qxd4+ 22. Kh1 Qxe5 23.  Bd2 Qxb2 24. Bf4 c5 25. Be6+ Kh8 26. Bxd5 Rd8 27. Rad1 c4 28. Bxg3 c3 29. Be5  b4 30. Bb3 Rd2 31. f4 h5 32. Rb1 Rf2 33. Rfe1 Qd2 34. Rbd1 Qb2 35. Rd8+ Kh7 36.  Bg8+ Kg6 37. Rd6+ Kf5 38. Be6+ Kg6 39. Bd5+ Kh7 40. Be4+ Kg8 41. Bg6 1-0

Middlegame

A couple of standard themes that I always use with groups, the IQP and the Knight outpost, but to impose these ideas on other Grandmasters is impressive.

  [Event "URS-ch39"]  [Site "Leningrad"]  [Date "1971.??.??"]  [Round "9"]  [White "Smyslov, Vassily"]  [Black "Karpov, Anatoly"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D42"]   1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e3 e6 6. d4 cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8.  Bd3 O-O 9. O-O Nc6 10. Re1 Nf6 (10... Bf6 $5) (10... Nxc3) 11. a3 b6 12. Bc2  Bb7 13. Qd3 Rc8 (13... g6) 14. Bg5 (14. d5 $1 exd5 (14... Na5 15. Bg5 g6 16. d6  $1 $18) 15. Bg5 g6 16. Rxe7 $1 Qxe7 17. Nxd5 Nxd5 18. Bxe7 $16) 14... g6 15.  Rad1 Nd5 16. Bh6 Re8 17. Ba4 a6 18. Nxd5 Qxd5 (18... exd5) 19. Qe3 Bf6 (19...  Qh5 $2 20. d5 $1 {Soltis}) (19... Red8 $1 {Soltis}) 20. Bb3 (20. b3 Qh5 21. d5  Nd8 22. d6 Rc5 23. d7 Re7 24. Qf4 Bg7 25. Qb8 Qxh6 26. Qxd8+ Bf8 27. Re3 Bc6  28. Qxf8+ Qxf8 29. d8=Q) 20... Qh5 21. d5 Nd8 (21... exd5 $2 22. Qxe8+ Rxe8 23.  Rxe8#) 22. d6 Rc5 23. d7 Re7 (23... Rf8) 24. Qf4 Bg7 25. Qb8 Qxh6 26. Qxd8+ Bf8  27. Re3 (27. Qxf8+ $18) 27... Bc6 28. Qxf8+ Qxf8 29. d8=Q 1-0

[Event "Moscow"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1945.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Smyslov, V.."]  [Black "Rudakovsky, Iosif"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B83"]  [Annotator "strategy: knight outpost"]  [PlyCount "55"]  [EventDate "1945.??.??"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8.  Be3 Nc6 9. f4 Qc7 10. Qe1 (10. Ndb5 Qb8 11. Qd2 a6 12. Nd4) 10... Nxd4 11. Bxd4  e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. f5 {[#]} Bc4 $2 {? Black needs that Bishop. White now has a  simple plan: exchange off the other defender of the d5 square, improve the  position of his pieces, and look for the win!} (13... Bd7 14. Rd1 Bc6) 14. Bxc4  Qxc4 15. Bg5 {!} Rfe8 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 {[#]} 17. Nd5 {!} Bd8 (17... Qxc2 18. Rf2  Qc6 (18... Qa4 19. b3) 19. Rc1 Qd7 20. Nc7) 18. c3 b5 19. b3 Qc5+ 20. Kh1 Rc8 {  [#] White now transfers his attention to the King} 21. Rf3 Kh8 22. f6 gxf6 23.  Qh4 Rg8 24. Nxf6 Rg7 (24... Bxf6 25. Qxf6+ Rg7 26. Rg3 Rcg8) 25. Rg3 Bxf6 26.  Qxf6 Rcg8 27. Rd1 {Black's position cracks.} d5 28. Rxg7 {! 1-0 (28) Smyslov,  V-Rudakovsky,I Moscow 1945} (28. Rxg7 Rxg7 29. Rxd5 Qf8 30. Rd8) 1-0

A celebrated game where Smyslov ensnared his opponent with position play, then faced with a sacrifice for counterplay by his opponent… sacrificed his Queen! Kasparov and his computer piddled over this game, but as Tal says, years of analysis and minutes of play are not quite the same thing.

  [Event "URS-chT Cup 06th"]  [Site "Riga"]  [Date "1968.12.23"]  [Round "11.3"]  [White "Smyslov, V.."]  [Black "Liberzon, Vladimir Mikhailovi"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A25"]  [Annotator "style: Smyslov the adaptable"]   1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Rb1 d6 6. b4 a6 7. e3 f5 8. Nge2 Nf6  9. d3 O-O 10. O-O Bd7 11. a4 Rb8 12. b5 axb5 13. axb5 Ne7 14. Ba3 Be6 {[#]  Black has developed but doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do. The  next phase shows White's coordinated pieces collecting a handful of positional  trumps.} 15. Qb3 b6 16. d4 e4 17. d5 Bf7 18. Nd4 {Knight outpost.} Qd7 19. Bb2  g5 20. Nce2 Kh8 21. Ra1 {Open file.} Ng6 22. f4 exf3 23. Rxf3 {Half-open file.}  Ne7 {  ...Ne5 looks more natural, but Black has thoughts of blowing up d5.}  24. Nc6 {Diagonal pressure.} Rbe8 25. Ned4 {[#] Smyslov could play anything -  slow or quick, and all with elegant technique. Here a slow overture is  followed by a sudden burst of tactics.} Nfxd5 26. cxd5 Bxd5 27. Nxf5 Rxf5 (  27... Bxb3 28. Bxg7+ Kg8 29. Ncxe7+ Rxe7 30. Bxf8 {is much the same}) 28. Bxg7+  Kg8 29. Rxf5 Bxb3 30. Rxg5 Ng6 31. Bh6 Qe6 {The Rook and pieces together have  more oomph than the Queen.} 32. h4 Qxe3+ 33. Kh2 Qc3 34. Rf1 Bc4 35. Rf2 Qe1  36. Rgf5 Bxb5 37. Bd2 Qb1 38. Bd5+ Kh8 39. Bc3+ Ne5 40. Nxe5 dxe5 41. Rxe5 {  [#] Who needs Queens?} 1-0

Endgame

Smyslov was famed for his endgame play. A notable win, sustained by intuition as much as calculation, was this one:

  [Event "URS-ch37"]  [Site "Moscow"]  [Date "1969.09.14"]  [Round "6"]  [White "Smyslov, Vassily"]  [Black "Tal, Mihail"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A38"]   1. c4 Nf6 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. Nc3 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. b3 d5 8. cxd5  Nxd5 9. Bb2 Nxc3 10. Bxc3 Bxc3 11. dxc3 Qxd1 12. Rfxd1 Bf5 13. Nh4 Be6 14. Bxc6  bxc6 15. Nf3 f6 16. Nd2 Rfd8 17. Ne4 c4 18. Nc5 Bf5 19. f3 Bc2 20. Rxd8+ Rxd8  21. Kf2 Kf7 22. b4 Bf5 23. Ke1 e5 24. Nb7 Rd7 25. Na5 c5 26. bxc5 Rd5 27. Nb7  Rd7 28. Nd6+ Ke7 29. g4 Be6 30. Rb1 Rc7 31. Rb7 Rxb7 32. Nxb7 Kd7 33. Nd6 h6  34. Kf2 Kc6 35. Ke3 a5 36. Ne8 f5 37. Ng7 Bd7 38. gxf5 gxf5 39. f4 Kd5 40. c6  Bc8 41. c7 Kd6 42. h4 1-0

Another wonderful Smyslov display, showing great insight into the difficulties of playing with a Knight in a closed(!) position.

  [Event "World Championship 21th"]  [Site "Moscow"]  [Date "1957.04.13"]  [Round "17"]  [White "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]  [Black "Smyslov, Vassily"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D73"]  [PlyCount "138"]   1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. c4 c6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d4 O-O 6. Nc3 d5 7. cxd5 cxd5 8. Ne5  b6 9. Bg5 Bb7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. O-O e6 12. f4 Bg7 13. Rc1 f6 14. Nf3 Nc6 15. e3  Qd7 16. Qe2 Na5 17. h4 Nc4 18. Bh3 Nd6 19. Kh2 a5 20. Rfe1 b5 21. Nd1 b4 22.  Nf2 Ba6 23. Qd1 Rfc8 24. Rxc8+ Rxc8 25. Bf1 Bxf1 26. Rxf1 Qc6 27. Nd3 Qc2+ 28.  Qxc2 Rxc2+ 29. Rf2 Rxf2+ 30. Nxf2 Nc4 31. Nd1 Kf7 32. b3 Nd6 33. Kg2 h5 34. Kh3  Ne4 35. g4 hxg4+ 36. Kxg4 f5+ 37. Kh3 Bf6 38. Ne1 Kg7 39. Nd3 Nc3 40. Nxc3 bxc3  41. Ne1 Kh6 42. Nc2 Be7 43. Kg3 Kh5 44. Kf3 Kxh4 45. Ne1 g5 46. fxg5 Kxg5 47.  Nc2 Bd6 48. Ne1 Kh4 49. Nc2 Kh3 50. Na1 Kh2 51. Kf2 Bg3+ 52. Kf3 Bh4 53. Nc2  Kg1 54. Ke2 Kg2 55. Na1 Be7 56. Nc2 Kg3 57. Ne1 Bd8 58. Nc2 Bf6 59. a3 Be7 60.  b4 a4 61. Ne1 Bg5 62. Nc2 Bf6 63. Kd3 Kf2 64. Na1 Bd8 65. Nc2 Bg5 66. b5 Bd8  67. Nb4 Bb6 68. Nc2 Ba5 69. Nb4 Ke1 0-1

Dr.Dave, Exeter Chess

Writing, Coaching and Publishing

Fix this first

Towards conscious competence

The Art of Analysis – part 2

You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at
analysing the games yourself!

Openings Workshop 2013

1.e4 or 1.d4?

1.e3 or 1.d3 or neither?

King’s Indian Defence or Grunfeld?

Benoni: immediate or delayed?

Bonus: How to out-think Houdini

Open like a champion

Visualisation and analysis

Lessons from Nunn

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

Lessons from Timman

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

Lessons from Euwe

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

Lessons from Smyslov

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at analysing the games yourself!

1.e4 or 1.d4?

1.e3 or 1.d3 or neither?

King’s Indian Defence or Grunfeld?

Benoni: immediate or delayed?

Bonus: How to out-think Houdini

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

Opening

Middlegame

Endgame

You aren’t allowed to read on until you have had a go at
analysing the games yourself!