Chess Cafe. Let’s Take a Look

Table of contents : 1 How to Study the Opening ......Page 1 2 Crowning the Attack ......Page 11 3 Amateur Chess Is Different! ......Page 21 4 Playing to Win! ......Page 31 5 Thinking Time ......Page 42 6 Bucking the Trend ......Page 53 7 Those Promising Juniors... ......Page 61 8 Playing When You're Hungry ......Page 69 9 Racing against Porsches ......Page 76 10 Mastering Typical Positions ......Page 83 11 Mauling the Master ......Page 89 12 Training with Blitz ......Page 95 13 Pattern Banks ......Page 101 14 All That Glitters ......Page 107 15 Stay Active! ......Page 111 16 Same Boot, Different Foot ......Page 116 17 Emotional Momentum ......Page 121 18 Winning Ugly ......Page 127 19 The Old Frying Pan ......Page 133 20 Choices, Choices ......Page 139 21 Ending in Style ......Page 145 22 Learning from your Wins ......Page 150 23 Preparation or Perspiration ......Page 156 24 Don't Blame the Authors ......Page 162 25 Openings for the Club Player ......Page 168 26 The How and the What ......Page 174 27 Dinner and Chess ......Page 180 28 Chess for Children ......Page 186 29 Learning to Suffer ......Page 192 30 Hammer and Nail ......Page 197 31 Nature or Nurture ......Page 203 32 How to Trap Heffalumps ......Page 209 33 Confirmation Bias ......Page 215 34 Cobweb Brushing ......Page 221 35 Applying What We Know ......Page 227 36 Blind Man's Bluff ......Page 233 37 Winners, History and Chess ......Page 239 38 When to Get Rid of the Women ......Page 244 39 Beating Up the Old Geezers ......Page 250 40 There's Always Sudoku ......Page 257 41 It's a Blunderful Life ......Page 263 42 Beating Your Dad ......Page 269 43 Computers, Magic and Disaster ......Page 275 44 Quitting and the Comeback ......Page 281 45 Dealing with Distractions ......Page 287 46 A Man's Limitations ......Page 293 47 Enhancing Chess Player Performance ......Page 299 48 The Longest Goodbye ......Page 305 49 Computers as Shrinks ......Page 311 50 Underdogs and Favourites ......Page 317 51 Don't Try This at Home ......Page 322 52 A Trial for Chess Teachers ......Page 328 53 Analysis or Blitz? ......Page 333 54 Red, Red Wine ......Page 338 55 Twixt Cup and Lip ......Page 343 56 The Big Stick Effect ......Page 348 57 The Universal Style ......Page 352 58 Coping with a Loss ......Page 356 59 The Perils of Success ......Page 360 60 The Perceived Problem of Draws ......Page 364 61 Wearing Different Hats ......Page 369 62 A Nice Game of Chess? ......Page 376 63 Scoundrel Chess ......Page 380

Citation preview

Let's Take A Look

ChessCafe is pleased to introduce its newest columnist, British grandmaster Nigel Davies. His career highlights have seen many outstanding results, among them firsts at Linares International 1987, Owens Corning Wrexham International 1993,

Gausdal International 1997, as well as being named the Player of the Year in the 2001 4NCL Division II.

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

He has authored or co-authored Master Chess (Pergamon Press 1985) with Chandler, Kopec, Morrison & Mullen; Bobby Fischer: The $5,000,000 Comeback (Cadogan 1992) with Pein & Levitt; The Chess Player's Battle Manual (Batsford, 1998); The Power Chess Program: Book 1 (Batsford, 1998); The Power Chess Program: Book 2 (Batsford, 1999); Kasparov v Kramnik, London 2000 (Batsford, 2000) with Andrew Martin; Alekhine's Defence (Everyman, 2002); The Grünfeld Defence (Everyman, 2002); and Taming the Sicilian (Everyman, 2002). He lives with his wife Louise and son Sam in Southport, England. In his ChessCafe column, Nigel will be annotating games of the average club player, looking at the good, the bad and yes, the ugly, with an eye to help

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

everyone benefit and improve. We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

How to Study the Opening How should someone study the opening? The impression one might gain from many opening books is that they should be learned by rote; the books concerned compile huge trees of variations without saying a single word. If these variations were not important, surely the author would not see fit to mention them? And as there is not a word of explanation as to what each side is trying to do, might one not assume that this is of minor or zero importance? Is that not a logical conclusion from the way these books are ‘written’? Well not necessarily. It could be that compiling moves is just an easier option than actually explaining them. The drawback for the reader is that it’s very easy to find yourself following the wrong path; as a 13-year-old living in the heyday of such ‘literature’, I remember trying to ‘learn’ the Sicilian Dragon by memorizing variations from a particular book. Needless to say I did not come to understand it very well and in one of my old Dragon games I see that I blocked my ‘Dragon bishop’ with a wholly inappropriate …e7-e5. With even a modicum of understanding I would never have done such a thing.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

After several similar experiences it was back to the drawing board; I came to the conclusion that relying on memory was ineffective at best. Even when I managed to learn the variations, I’d tend to forget them in a very short time. But the greatest problem was in knowing what to do when I reached the end of my variation, or if my opponents played some supposedly dubious alternative. Because I did not understand much about the actual positions, I was not well equipped to improvise if things changed slightly from my rote learned lines. Over the years, and after much trial and error, I gradually became convinced that the key to playing the opening well was to understand the middle game. I discovered that when you know where your pieces belong it becomes much easier to develop them on the right squares in the first place. You also know which pawn structures to aim for and which to avoid. When one sees things in this light it follows that one of the best ways to study the openings is to examine complete games, for then you can see each side’s strategy unfold from the very first moves. Playing over a lot of games very quickly can give you a good feel for the general game plan. I also think it’s useful to study well annotated games in particular variations, for then one gets to grips with the actual problems and issues that arise when the aims of the two players come into conflict. One of my own practices, which I heartily recommend, is to tinker around with typical positions, trying different moves and ideas until you are satisfied you understand how the thing works. When I do this I find that the position becomes ‘part of me’ and I play it much better. It’s a process by which you get to ‘own’ the ideas rather than just know about them. To show the value of this kind of knowledge, let’s take a look at the following game played by two players with very different strengths and weaknesses. It was evident from the start that White knew what he should be doing and had almost certainly spent some time on the niceties of these positions. Black, on the other hand, had to work it all out for himself, and whilst he managed to find some of the thematic ideas over the board, such as playing …f7-f5, he did not find the key idea of bringing his knight to e6. Without this his position soon started to creak.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

J Turnock (2016) – Gary Murphy (1960) Sicilian Defence England 2003

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 The so-called Rossolimo Variation, which lends the game a completely different character to the open lines with 3 d4. I know a number of Accelerated Dragon devotees who prefer to avoid it with 2...g6, not worrying about White’s alternatives to transposing into a regular Accelerated Dragon such as 3 c3 or 3 d5 cxd4 4 Qxd4.

3...g6 4 O-O The old move. Recently White has been playing 4 Bxc6 as after 4...dxc6 5 d3 he keeps the option of castling queenside. A nice example of this plan was Ivanchuk - Anand, London 1994, which went 5...Bg7 6 h3 e5 7 Be3 b6 8 Nc3 f6 9 Qd2 Be6 10 OO-O Ne7 11 Bh6 O-O 12 g4 Nc8 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 Nh4 Nd6 15 Ng2! (preparing to open up the king side with f2-f4) 15...Nb5 16 f4 Nd4 17 Rdf1 b5 18 Kb1 Qa5 19 b3 c4 20 Rf2 and White's attacking chances were more potent than anything Black could drum up on the other side of the board. 4...Bg7 5 Re1 Nf6 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 h3 O-O 8 d3 Qc7?!

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

In this kind of position you really need to know what plan you should adopt as it's not easy to figure it out over the board. Although this looks like a natural move Black really needs to keep that c7 square free so he can route his knight from f6 to e6 via e8 and c7. Over the next few moves things go badly wrong for Black as he struggles to make sense of his position. To find examples of how to play this position, the obvious thing to do is to conduct a ChessBase search for games after 6...dxc6. But one can also look at games from the English Opening where you can get the same type of position with colors reversed. A great expert in this kind of position is the German Grandmaster Wolfgang Uhlmann and his games are well worth studying. An example is the game Uhlmann – Jansa, Amsterdam 1975 which went as follows: 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 g3 Bb4 5 Bg2 OO 6 O-O e4 7 Ne1 Bxc3 8 dxc3 h6 (Preventing Bc1-g5 because Black’s knight on f6 is an important defender of the e4 pawn and d5 square. An example of Black omitting 8…h6 is the game Hardiscay – Lindgren, Budapest 2000, which went 8...d6 9 Bg5 Re8 10 Nc2 h6 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 Ne3 Bf5 13 f4 Qe6 and now 14 g4! Bh7 15 Qe1!? followed by 16 Qg3 looks nice for White - he has taken lots of space on the king side and Black's bishop on h7 is out of play) 9 Nc2 d6 10 Ne3 Re8 11 Qc2 Re5 12 Bd2 Bd7 13 f4 (White's knight is beautifully placed on e3) 13...exf3 14 exf3 Re8 15 Rae1 Ne7 16 b4 (Gaining space) 16...Qc8 17 Rf2 a5 18 Rfe2 Kf8 19 Bc1 b6 20 a3 Rb8 21 Qd3 Bc6 22 Nd5!? Nexd5 (After 22...Bxd5 23 cxd5 Nfxd5 24 c4 as White's bishops look very powerful) 23 Rxe8+ Bxe8 24 cxd5 Bd7 25 Qd4 Ng8 26 bxa5 bxa5 27 c4 Qb7 28 Bd2 a4 29 c5 Re8 (After 29...Qa7 White would play 30 Bb4 with strong pressure against d6) 30 c6 (Winning a pawn) 30...Rxe1+ 31 Bxe1 Qb1 32 cxd7 Qxe1+ 33 Bf1 Qe7 34 Qxa4 Qd8 file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

35 Bb5 Nf6 36 Bc6 Ke7 37 Qd4 Nxd7 38 Qxg7 Ne5 39 Qxh6 Nxf3+ 40 Kg2 Ne5 41 Qh4+ f6 42 Qh7+ Nf7 43 Qf5 Kf8 44 Bb7 Ne5 45 a4 (45 Qc8 loses a pawn after 45...Qxc8 46 Bxc8 Nc4 47 a4 Nb6 etc) 45...Kg7 46 Qc8 Qe7 47 Qe6 Qd8 48 a5? (48 h4 looks better meeting 48...Qb8 with 49 Qc8 etc) 48...c5! 49 dxc6 Qxa5 50 h4 (50 Qxd6 still looks winning for White) 50...Qd2+ 51 Kh3 Qc1 52 Qe7+ Kg8 53 Qe6+ Kg7 54 Qe7+ Kg8 55 Qe6+ ½-½ (After 55 c7 there follows 55...Qf1+ 56 Bg2 Qf5+ 57 Kh2 Ng4+ with at least a draw) After looking at a game like this you realize that the right way to play this was with 8...Ne8 (Intending...e7-e5 followed by...Ne8-c7e6) after which 9 e5 Nc7 10 Nbd2 Ne6 11 a4 a5 12 Nc4 12 Qc7 (Only now!) 13 c3?! (Weakening d3) 13...Rd8 14 Qe2 b6 15 Nh2 b5 16 Na3 Qd7 17 Rd1 Ba6 gave Black excellent counter play in Mikadze - Meduna, Decin 1976.

9 e5 Nd5 10 b3 f5 Black rightly feels that this is the kind of thing he should be doing, but now his knight gets driven to the awful b6 square. Objectively speaking his best move might well be 10 Qd8 freeing up c7 for the knight. Not that this is an easy thing to do after having played 8...Qc7. 11 c4 Nb6 12 Qe2 e6 This looks like the point at which Black's position goes from grizzly to downright lost. After racking my brain I found a possible defense in 12...Re8, so as to meet 13 Ba3 with 13...Nd7 and send the knight towards e6 via f8. 12...Rd8 looks less good because of 13 Ba3 Nd7 14 d4 when the e7 pawn is hanging after 14...cxd4. 13 Ba3 Nd7

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

After 13...Qe7 14 d4 Nd7 Black is horribly tied up. A sample variation is 15 Nc3 b6 16 dxc5 Nxc5 17 Na4 Rd8 18 Nxc5 bxc5 19 Qe3 Bf8 20 Red1 when White will bring his knight to d3 via e1 and win the c5 pawn. 14 d4 Qb6 Losing a pawn, but after 14...b6 15 Nc3 Black is hard pressed to find a move. After 15...Bb7 White plays 16 Na4 with unbearable pressure against c5 whilst 15...Rd8 is answered by 16 d5. 15 dxc5 Qc7 15...Nxc5 16 Qe3 wins the exchange, so Black settles for the loss of a pawn and a truly miserable position. The only thing he can do is to try to hang on and see if White slips up in his attempts to win.

16 Nc3 Re8 17 b4 b6 18 cxb6 axb6 19 Bb2 Bf8 20 a3 Bb7 21 Rad1 Ra7 22 Nd4 Ba8 23 f4 Bh6 24 g3 Personally speaking I would defend the f-pawn with 24 Bc1 rather than create weaknesses around the king. White is winning anyway, but if you take precautions like this it helps reduce the odds of an accident.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

24...Qb7 25 Kh2 Kh8 26 Qd2 g5 27 Rg1 gxf4 28 gxf4 c5!? With Black’s position looking quite desperate he spots a really amazing swindle and decides to roll the dice. Objectively speaking it might have been better to play the stubborn 28...Nf8, which Black rejected during the game because of 29 Nxf5 exf5 30 e6. But this is unconvincing after 30...Bg7 (and not 30...Nxe6 because of 31 Nb5+ Bg7 32 Nxa7 Qxa7 33 Rxg7 Nxg7 34 Rg1 Rg8 35 Rxg7 Rxg7 36 Qd8 mate) 31 Nb5 cxb5 32 Rxg7 Qxg7 with plenty of bits and pieces for the queen. 29 Ndb5 Rg8 This looks like a defensive move, but in fact it contains a huge threat! It also tempts White to play for mate. 30 Nd6?? Falling for it, hook, line and sinker. White should first play 30 Rxg8+ after which 30...Kxg8 31 Rg1+ defends everything. After 31...Kf8 (in this position 31…Kh8 could be safely met by 32 Nd6) White can start taking material with 32 Nxa7.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (8 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

30...Bxf4+!! Kapow! A bolt from the blue! 31 Qxf4 Qh1+!!

And now a queen sacrifice! 32 Rxh1 Rg2 mate

A really great ‘swindle’ by Murphy, worthy I’d say of the great Frank Marshall. It would be interesting to see how strong Murphy could become if he also had good understanding of certain middle game positions to supplement his tactical flair and imagination. Turnock played well in the opening and early middle game showing good positional understanding, but did not sense danger well enough and then overlooked Black’s combination. He should probably spend some time trying to sharpen his tactics, and I’ll discuss how to do that in a later column. Further Reading

Winning With The French by Wolfgang Uhlmann (Batsford, 2002): Uhlmann is an acknowledged expert on the openings he plays and his name has become synonymous with the French Defence. It’s well worth taking a look at this book to understand how he thinks. Opening Preparation by Mark Dvoretsky (Batsford, file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (9 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

1994): One of the most enlightening books around about opening issues. Ideas Behind The Chess Openings by Reuben Fine (Bell, 1948): More than half a century old this is still the best book around for explanations of the openings.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..." Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About The Chess Cafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (10 of 10) [02/13/2003 8:12:06 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Crowning the Attack One of the hardest things to do in chess is to put the ball in the back of the net. Books often give the impression that once you achieve a winning game, scoring the point is almost automatic. Yet in my lengthy experience of playing and coaching I’ve found that the moments close to victory are amongst the most difficult and dangerous a player must face. It’s not the position that’s the problem, it’s sheer anxiety. After mentally banking the win a little voice starts telling you NOT TO MESS IT UP! The pulse starts racing and you begin to calculate forcing lines. You just want it to be over, but the

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

forcing lines don’t quite work. Should you forget trying to finish the guy off and just play a quiet move? No, you really want it to be over! Meanwhile you’re running out of thinking time and down to your last 5 minutes. OK, let’s just play a move…. Our opponents can use this anxiety. The longer he keeps the game going, the greater the sense of frustration experienced by the player who is ‘winning’ but hasn’t actually won. Thus the advice of Paul Keres in the magnificent book he wrote with Alexander Kotov, The Art of the Middle Game: “Why concern oneself with positions that are already lost? Provided the opponent plays the continuation correctly there is nothing in fact to be done, so why worry oneself to no purpose? No, let’s just try a swindle and if that misfires then give up the game! However it is not so simple as all that and it is against just such a conception that I direct myself in the following pages of this chapter. Lasker has already said that a position can never be so bad as not to offer prospects of defense, and therein lies a great truth. However hopeless the situation appears to be there always exists the possibility of putting up a stubborn resistance. And it is the player’s task to find these opportunities and make the best of them. When the player with the upper hand is continually confronted by new problems, when, at every moment, one renders the win as difficult as possible, then it is likely that his powers will eventually weaken and he may make some mistake.” This issue is a very personal one for me as for years I was really bad at finishing games off. Time after time I’d build up winning positions only to fluff it at the last minute. What was going wrong? I think it could be summed up by one of Jon Speelman’s favorite expressions, ‘trying too hard to win’. He was referring to the moment at which a player with a large advantage tries to force his opponent’s resignation rather than just play good moves.

This stuck in my mind. Being aware of the danger I started to consciously change my behavior when I file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

felt a win was close. Rather than trying to bludgeon an opponent to death in spectacular fashion, I started looking for lines that would give me the best chance of actually notching up the full point. Sometimes this would mean playing some rather dull looking moves, but the results have improved. To some extent I still feel like a patient who might have a relapse at any time; I still mess games up (especially when I’m drinking too much coffee) but not as much as before. All winning positions are psychologically dangerous, but I think the danger can be much greater if you have a supposedly ‘winning attack’. You might be playing a game you’re rather pleased with and want to finish it off nicely. You start to think about showing the game to your chess friends. Does that sacrifice work? It would be great if it did! But now you’re under pressure not just to win the game, but to do it in a way that gives you bragging rights….

Once again a cunning opponent can try to use this against us. In another good book, Dynamic Chess Strategy, Mihai Suba passes on his own advice about how to bamboozle a player who’s trying to mate you: “When the opponent has a strong attack on the king, his blood pressure is getting much higher and you can ‘blackmail’ him with ‘lost endings’. This can cause him to deviate from the right path – it is unlikely that he will abandon the idea of mate so easily.” To illustrate this month’s theme, let’s take a look at a game sent to me by Laurence Ball from Johannesburg. The early part of the game features a nice build up followed by some great attacking chess. But with the players moving into time-trouble the game descends into tactical chaos.

Ball,L (2066) - Erlank,W (2067) French Defense file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

RSA Club Championship, Johannesburg 2002

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 Bxf6 The so-called Anderssen Attack which later proved to be a great favorite with the 'executioner of Berlin', Kurt Richter. White gives up the bishop pair in order to gain time. 5...Bxf6 6 e5 Be7 7 Qg4 Kf8? Giving up castling rights quite unnecessarily. Black should play simply 7...0-0 as he has more than adequate defensive resources on the kingside. A game Richter - Koch, Berlin 1951 continued 8 Bd3 f5 9 Qh3 c5 10 dxc5 Nd7!? 11 f4 Nxc5 12 0-0-0 b5! (Fighting fire with fire) 13 Nf3 b4 14 Ne2 Nxd3+ 15 Rxd3 Ba6 16 Rd2 Bxe2 17 Rxe2 Qa5 18 Kb1 Qa6. With a rook coming to the c-file, Black had good counter play. If Black is determined not to castle kingside it's not unreasonable to play 7...g6. The dark squares this weakens are well covered by Black’s dark squared bishop. A recent example went 8 Bd3 c5 9 dxc5 Nc6 10 Nf3 Bxc5 11 a3 Bd7 12 0-0 a6 13 Rad1 Rc8 which was a game Tornay Gomez - Olaizola Ortega, Arrasate Mondragon, 2001. 8 f4 c5 9 dxc5 Bxc5 10 Bd3 Qa5

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

I feel that this is slightly premature. Black's queen is usefully placed on d8 for the time being as it helps cover the dark squares around his king (f6, g5 etc). A more solid scheme of development is 10...Nc6 11 0-0-0 Bd7 followed by...Rc8. If necessary, Black can hold up f4-f5 by playing ...g7-g6. 11 0-0-0 Nc6 12 Nge2 Rb8 Clearly intending to advance his b-pawn, but this seems rather slow. I would prefer 12...Bd7 though after 13 Kb1 Black is unable to follow up with 13...Rc8 because of 14 Nxd5. This is one of the problems with 10...Qa5, the queen no longer guards the d7 square. 13 Kb1 b5 14 Nc1

A nice move, taking time out from his aggressive ambitions on the kingside to slow up Black's attack. The idea is to play 15 Nb3. 14...Ba6 14...b4 is well met by 15 Nb3 as 15...Qb6? 16 Na4 wins a piece. 15 Nb3 Qb6 16 Nxc5 Qxc5 17 Rhe1

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Intending f4-f5. 17...g6 After 17...b4 there would follow 18 Na4 Qa5 19 Bxa6 Qxa4 (19...Qxa6 is answered by 20 Nc5) 20 Bd3 which threatens to take a can opener to Black's defenses with f4-f5. 18 Qh4 Na5?

In a deeply unpleasant position Black makes what I assume was an oversight. But looking at this position it's difficult to give him good advice: 18...h5 is answered by 19 Bxg6, 18...b4 is answered by 19 Nxd5 and falling back into passive defense with 18...Qe7 leaves matters looking rather desperate after 19 Qh6+ Kg8 20 g4 etc. With no counter play in the offing, Black is a sitting duck. 19 Bxg6! Qe7

Taking Suba's advice and offering to go into a lost endgame. White in turn continues to play for mate. Should he really continue to play for the attack? If I were playing White, then these days I'd have the queens off! As it is White decides to continue his attack without worrying about Black's counter threats on the other side of the board (…Nc4 and …Qb4). Objectively file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

speaking this is also winning for White, but from a practical point of view it's complicated. As we shall soon see, it could all have ended in tears. Accepting the sacrifice loses quickly as after 19...fxg6 20 Qf6+ Kg8 21 Qxe6+ Kf8 White has 22 Qxa6 at the very least. Given my present brutish attitude, I would once again eschew artistry and take the bishop. Unless, that is, I saw a forced mate! Sorry, chess fans; beauty doesn't pay the mortgage! 20 Qh6+ Ke8 21 Qg7 Rf8 22 Bxh7 It looks as if White has a relatively safe line in 22 Bd3 Nc4 23 Bxc4 (23 Ka1 Nxb2 would once again set the heart racing!) but after 23...bxc4 24 Ka1 Black can try 24...Rxb2!?. White can still win with 25 Nxd5 (25 Kxb2 Qb4+ 26 Kc1 Qxc3 is inconclusive) 25...Rxa2+ 26 Kxa2 exd5 27 Rxd5, but wouldn't it have been easier just to swap the queens off on move 20?

22...Nc4 23 Ka1 Qb4 24 Rb1 Na3 25 Nxd5!! With both players down to their last five minutes, White finds a really great idea. The problem is that it needs to be followed up very, very accurately… 25...exd5 26 e6 Nxb1 27 exf7+ With the flags hanging the game descends into chaos… White can win with the magnificent 27 e7 after which 27...Kd7 28 exf8Q Rxf8 29 Rxb1 and 27...Qxe7 28 Rxe7+ Kxe7 29 Qe5+ are both easy for White. 27...Qxe1 meanwhile gets mated after 28 exf8Q+ file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Kd7 29 Qfxf7+ Kd6 30 Qc7+ Ke6 31 f5#. Does this justify White’s decision to play the attack? Yes and no, I’d say it depends on things such as the time you’ve got left for the remaining moves. If you’re short of time it can be very difficult to calculate intricate lines like these. 27...Kd7 28 Bf5+ Kc7 29 c3?! Letting Black back into the game. White seems to be winning with 29 Re8! Qd6 (or 29...Kb6 30 Qe5) 30 Kxb1 which seems to leave Black hopelessly tied up despite his extra rook. Again I have to ask if this is really better than being a pawn up in the endgame? 29...Qd6? Verifying Tartakover's maxim that the player to win is the one who makes the next to last mistake! Black should play 29...Nxc3! after which 30 bxc3 Qc5 31 Qf6 Rbd8 32 Re7+ Kb8 33 Qe5+ Ka8 leaves matters wide open. Now he gets mated by force. 30 Re6 Qxf4 31 Re7+ Kb6 32 Qf6+ Kc5 Or 32...Ka5 33 b4+ Ka4 34 Qxa6# 33 b4+ Kc4 34 Qc6 mate

An exhilarating performance by White, but things could so easily have gone the other way. Of course it’s difficult for me to claim that the dull exchange of queens (20 Qxe7+) would have been a stronger, especially when one considers that White was winning anyway. But I would suggest that it’s the percentage play if White hasn’t found an arithmetically clear way through the complications.

Further Reading

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (8 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Dynamic Chess Strategy by Mihai Suba (Pergamon, 1991): A very entertaining look at dynamic concepts in chess. Rich in insights for practical play The Art of the Middle Game by Paul Keres and Alexander Kotov (Penguin, 1975): A classic book by two great players. Keres’s chapters on ‘the art of analysis’ and ‘defending difficult positions’ offer invaluable advice to the aspiring player .

Send your game to Nigel! We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel Davies in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..." Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (9 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About The Chess Cafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (10 of 10) [03/16/2003 4:48:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Amateur Chess Is Different! At top GM level chess has become a kind of arms race in which the tentacles of theory now reach well into the middle-game. Most top professionals would not dream of going to a tournament without having their laptop computer and the latest games. They might even garner the most recent games from the internet during an event and then analyze them with Fritz or Crafty in search of flaws and improvements. If one of their opponents is caught unawares it could mean a relatively easy point… What does this mean for the average chess enthusiast? On the face of it not much; when I first started analyzing lots of club players’ games in the mid-1990s I discovered for myself that amateur chess

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

is very different. Relatively few players follow main line openings so after 1 e4 c5 it’s actually rather unlikely that you’ll reach a main line Sicilian. Usually there will be something different on the second move such as 2 c3, 2 f4, 2 Nc3 (followed by either 3 f4 or 3 g3) or 2 d4. And if you get 2 Nf3, there’s still a strong possibility that it will be followed by 3 c3, 3 Bb5 or 3 b3.

This is hardly surprising when you think about it. Most amateurs have little time for chess because of their job plus family or other commitments so they’re not going to want to spend dozens of hours studying Najdorf theory. The conclusion they usually reach is that it’s better to have a relatively low maintenance approach to the openings in which they can learn what they should be doing in a relatively short time. Of course there can be pitfalls with this approach… Let’s suppose that someone has picked up Daniel King’s “Winning With The Najdorf”. After a quick look at this book they’ll learn a few basic ideas for Black such as putting pressure on White’s e4 pawn with …b7-b5 and …Bc8-b7. It may seem useful to know this plan, but there again it might pop into your head in inappropriate situations. I began to realize this after I once taught one of my young students to play 2 c3 against the Sicilian. After he’d had a few games with it we noticed something interesting; players who had learned the moves of the Najdorf (1…c5, 2 …d6, 3…cxd4, 4…Nf6 and 5…a6) would often repeat them against his 2 c3. So his games would go 1 e4 c5 2 c3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 at which point White already has a nice position from the opening file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

because of his central pawns on e4 and d4. Very often Black would then compound his problems by continuing in ‘Najdorf style’ with …b7-b5, …Nb8d7 and …Bc8-b7 etc. The implications of this are even more interesting. By second-guessing the plans and ideas most club players are familiar with, could we try to construct an ‘amateur hostile repertoire’. For example a wellknown idea is to play Be3, Qd2, Bh6 and h2-h4-h5 against a Black king-side fianchetto. This can be a useful plan but it should not be applied indiscriminately; what if we find a position in which it is inappropriate for our opponents to play it? There are a few ways one might do this; one idea is to adopt the Pirc Defence. After seeing 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 many White players will be itching to play the plan they ‘know’ and start out with 4 Be3. Yet Black is by no means committed to castling king-side into White’s intended attack and can instead gain space on the queen-side with 4…c6 5 Qd2 b5, threatening the e4 pawn with 6…b4. After the subsequent 6 f3 Nbd7 7 0-0-0 Qa5 it is Black who has the makings of a strong attack whilst White’s own efforts are ineffective in this particular situation. Let’s also consider the Sicilian Dragon. In the ‘normal Dragon’ with 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6, everyone knows that it’s good to play 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 0-0 8 Qd2 followed by 0-0-0 and h2-h4-h5 etc. But if Black plays an Accelerated file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Dragon with 2…Nc6, a similar sequence of moves will give him a good game. My proposed line is 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 f3 0-0 8 Qd2 after which Black can play 8…d5 without first moving his pawn to d6. This is one of the reasons that I think that the Accelerated Dragon is a much better choice at club level than the ‘real’ 2…d6 Dragon. The other is that White’s best line in the Accelerated, the Maroczy Bind (2…Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 c4), is not handled well by amateurs. You often see them lurching forward on the king-side with a premature f2-f4 when White’s main idea should be to sit on his space. What other characteristics of amateur chess can we use? Well one is the tendency for people to be quite uncomfortable in positions if their opponent’s pieces are active. The roots of this bias may be in the fact that it’s usually brilliant attacking games that are published. If you see enough of these it can foster a belief that this is how chess should be played and that the defender always loses to some brilliant coup. This in turn suggests that openings which give attacking chances are likely to do well in amateur chess even if they score badly against the likes of super-GM Mikhail Gurevich. So into consideration come a whole range of offbeat but aggressive lines such as the 2 Nc3 and 3 f4 against the Sicilian and gambits like the Budapest, Albin, Latvian, Evans etc. And these things can be great fun… file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

The following game, from the 1996 US Open, is a case in point, White winning brilliantly with the ‘dubious’ Smith-Morra Gambit. It’s not easy to pull off wins like this in the main lines of the Sicilian: Whiteman,S (2015) - Schaetzle,W (1800) Sicilian Defence, Morra Gambit US Open, 1996

1 e4 c5 2 d4 Introducing the Morra Gambit, a feared opening in many circles due to the accuracy with which Black must conduct the defense. In Grandmaster chess it has scored very badly because of the higher standard of defensive technique and greater likelihood that an extra pawn might decide the game. 2…cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 I have no doubt that this is the correct move, but Black needs to know what he's doing. If Black meets the 2 c3 Sicilian with 2…Nf6 he could play 3…Nf6, which results in a direct transposition after 4 e5 Nd5 etc. Another good way to decline is with 3…d3 and after 4 Bxd3 set up a 'hedgehog' formation with …e6, …d6, …Ngf6, …Be7, …Nbd7, …a6, …b6, …Bc8-b7, …0-0. This may be psychologically very effective as the kind of player who uses the Morra may not be very suited to handling a more stable position in which great patience is required.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

4 Nxc3 Nc6 5 Nf3 g6

Setting up an 'Accelerated Dragon' formation. But is it appropriate in this particular position? In his book "Beating the Anti-Sicilians" Joe Gallagher recommends 5…d6 6 Bc4 a6 (And not 6…Nf6?! because of 7 e5 dxe5 8 Qxd8+ Nxd8 9 Nb5 etc) 7 00 Nf6 after which 8 Qe2 is well met by 8…Bg4. 8 h3 would have been better to prevent this move. Black would then go for a 'Scheveningen' type formation with 8…e6 but having extracted a slight loss of time from White. Another good line is 5…e6 6 Bc4 a6, yet here too White's active pieces will mean that Black must defend accurately, even if the position is good for him ‘objectively’. 6 Bc4 Bg7 7 e5!?

An attempt to stop Black developing his pieces ‘normally'. The other move is 7 0-0 after which 7…d6 (7…Nf6 leaves Black with long term problems over his king after 8 e5 Ng4 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Ng5+) 8 Qb3!? Na5 9 Qa4+ Bd7 10 Bb5 Nc6 11 Rd1 gives White some pressure for his pawn. 7…Nxe5 Probably Black's best. After 7…Nh6 8 Bf4 0-0 9 00 White has definite compensation for his pawn because of his beautifully developed pieces and the awkward position of Black's knight on h6.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

8 Nxe5 Bxe5 9 Bxf7+

After 9 Qd5 Black defends himself with 9…Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 e6 when White doesn't have enough for his pawns. 9…Kxf7 10 Qd5+ e6? A positional blunder which horribly weakens the dark squares. When Grandmaster Miso Cebalo obtained this position with Black he played the superior 10…Kg7! after which 11 Qxe5+ Nf6 12 0-0 d6 left White with rather nebulous compensation for his pawn. The game continued 13 Qg5 Rf8 14 h3 Bd7 15 Re1 Rf7 16 Be3 Bc6 17 Rad1 Qd7 and Black was consolidating nicely (Topalovic - Cebalo, Ptuj 1995). 11 Qxe5 Qf6 12 Qc7 Ne7 13 Ne4 Nd5?!

13…Qd4 looks better, keeping more options open for the knight. 14 Qg3 Qe7

Perhaps 14…Qd4 was better try in this position too, though I have to stress that I don’t like Black’s position. 15 Nd6+ Kg7 16 Bg5 Qf8

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Black's position is also horrible after 16…Nf6 17 00-0. Besides his weak dark squares he can’t get his queenside pieces out. 17 0-0-0 h6 18 Rxd5! Removing a key defender of the dark squares. 18…exd5 After 18…hxg5 White wins with 19 Rxg5 Qf6 20 Ne4 Qf7 21 Qe5+ etc. 19 Be7!

A neat follow up, though 19 Qe5+ Kh7 20 Be7 followed by 21 Bf6 would have been equally effective. 19…Qg8 After 19…Qxe7 there is 20 Nf5+ Kf7 21 Nxe7 Kxe7 22 Qe5+, picking up the rook on h8 as well. 20 Re1

Another way was to play 20 Qe5+ Kh7 21 Bf6 etc. 20…g5

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (8 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Or if 20..Kh7 then 21 Bf6 followed by 22 Re7+. 21 Bf6+!

The snappiest way to finish things off. 21…Kxf6 After 21…Kg6 White delivers mate via 22 Qd3+ Kh5 23 Qh3+ Kg6 24 Qf5+ Kh5 25 Re3 and 26 Rh3. 22 Qe5+ Kg6 23 Qf5+ Kh5 24 Re3 Qf8 25 Rh3 mate 1-0

The objective merits of the Smith-Morra Gambit were not in question here; the point is that the defense is very difficult at club level whereas in GM chess it would be hard to prosecute the attack. It just goes to show; amateur chess is different.

Further Reading

Winning With The Smith-Morra Gambit by Graham Burgess (Batsford, 1994): A comprehensive guide to this opening. Beating the Anti-Sicilians by Joe Gallagher (Batsford 1994): A master of the Sicilian explains how to beat the side-lines.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (9 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Send your game to Nigel! We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel Davies in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..." Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About The Chess Cafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (10 of 10) [04/13/2003 7:06:56 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Playing to Win! Visit any chess bookstall these days and you’ll see lots of books with very bullish and upbeat titles (e.g. ‘winning with this’ or ‘the ultimate that’). This is of course a sales thing with publishers having discovered that books with such titles tend to do better. There’s an implicit promise of success, if you buy that book. And it only costs a few bucks… Will the promise by fulfilled? Well probably not! Worse still I think that such titles can have a pernicious influence on how we approach a game. That word ‘winning’ keeps buzzing around in our minds when what we should be focussing on is

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

simply playing good moves. Whether or not these will be ‘winning moves’ is rather difficult to say and highly dependent on the quality of our opponent’s moves. Sports psychologists do in fact recommend process goals (performing well) over result orientated goals (e.g. winning), simply because we have control over our own performance but not the outcome. So if someone wants to improve their chess they should concentrate on successfully developing various aspects of their game, whether this is improving their understanding of a particular opening, handling the clock better or calculating variations more effectively. Even as I write this I can hear you arguing that it’s essential to ‘play to win’ against weaker players and that the likes of Bobby Fischer, Bent Larsen and Victor Korchnoi all did this very successfully! But what exactly does ‘playing to win’ mean for a Korchnoi? An insight to this question is provided in one of his books, ‘My Best Games: Games with Black’ (Olms Edition, 2001) at the start of his game against Yuri Averbakh. His ‘playing to win’ is based on process goals: “How was it that I was so successful in such tournaments? I was able to defeat all, without exception, the participants occupying the lower half of the table. Here the color of the pieces did not play any particular role. Whether with White, or with Black, I would impose complicated play on them, the games were prolonged, and draw offers file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

were, naturally, ignored. And my opponents were unable to stand the pressure – somewhere in the fifth hour of play they would collapse!” How many process goals does Korchnoi mention? I can see three, which are also evident in the games of Fischer and Larsen: 1. 2. 3.

Aim for complex positions. Be prepared to play long games. Ignore draw offers.

Can we train ourselves to foster these goals? Well actually I think we can, and here’s how to do it: ●

●

●

A. In order to play long and complex games it’s important to have stamina, strong nerves and therefore a good level of fitness. B. To create complex positions it’s important to have suitable vehicles in the opening, so particularly with Black we should look for non-classical lines that lead to positional imbalance. C. If you have a tendency to accept draw offers, design a system of reward and punishment to discourage this in future. For example you might clean the oven whenever you accept the offer of a draw or go for coffee and cake when you refuse one. Though be wary of the impact cake might have on your level of fitness...

Of course not many people do such things and will probably regard this as being a bit ‘over the top’. file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

But if you’re serious about improving your chess there are things that can be done… This month’s game is a good example of how not to defeat a less experienced opponent taken from the lower reaches of last year’s Olympiad in Bled. White is Joselito Marcos, a 45-year old unrated player from Papua, New Guinea, playing in his first Olympiad. Whilst Mr. Marcos’s teammates were going down in flames, he brings off a great win against a far more experienced and rated player. He obtained a position in which he knew exactly what to do and was helped along the way by his opponent’s attempts to ‘play for a win’: Marcos,J (Unrated) - Siban,M (2025) Queen’s Pawn Opening; Torre Attack Bled Olympiad, 2002 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 e6

After 2…Ne4 White intended to play 3 h4!? in order to ‘steer the game into lively complications'. The move I'd recommend to my friends is 3 Bf4. 3 Nf3

Transposing into a Torre Attack. 3 e4 stays in a Trompovsky, with 3…h6 4 Bxf6 Qxf6 5 Nc3 being the popular line. 3…d5 4 e3 Be7 5 Nbd2 0-0

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Black is already making his first mistake, bringing about a position which is rather dull and easy for White to play. If he wanted to give himself a chance of outplaying his opponent he should have chosen a move such as 2…Ne4 or 3…h6 (getting the two bishops). Even here he could have maintained the option of delayed or queenside castling, in the game Spassky - Petrosian, Moscow 1966, Black played 5…Nbd7 6 Bd3 c5 7 c3 b6 8 0-0 Bb7 and after the typical 9 Ne5 obtained a good game with 9…Nxe5! 10 dxe5 Nd7 11 Bf4 Qc7 12 Nf3 h6! 13 b4 g5! 14 Bg3 h5 followed by castling long. 6 Bd3 Nbd7 7 0-0 c5 8 c3 h6 9 Bh4 b6 10 Ne5 Bb7?!

Giving White a slight opportunity, though one which is not taken. Black should remove the knight immediately with 10…Nxe5 11 dxe5 Nd7. 11 Qe2

A stronger move is 11 f4 after which 11…Nxe5 12 fxe5 Ne4 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 Bxe4 dxe4 leaves the e4 pawn weak 11…Nxe5 12 dxe5 Nd7 13 Bxe7 An interesting alternative is to keep the bishop on the board with 13 Bg3. Black would probably have to play …f7-f6 or …f7-f5 soon anyway, which would bring the bishop on g3 back to life. 13…Qxe7 14 f4 f6 15 exf6 Rxf6?

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Having obtained a lifeless position from the opening, Black now looks for active play along the f-file. But the rook doesn't look well placed on this square and in many variations it will be attacked by a knight coming to e4. The correct move is 15…Nxf6 with the aim of keeping the balance. White can get an edge with 16 e4, though I'm not sure how big the edge is after 16…dxe4 (if 16…c4 17 Bc2 e5 there follows 18 exd5 Qc5+ 19 Kh1 exf4 20 Ne4 Nxe4 21 Qxe4 etc) 17 Nxe4 Bxe4! 18 Bxe4 Rad8, when Black isn’t weak on the dark-squares and it's difficult to see how White can exploit the weak pawn on e6. The direct 19 Bf5 does not seem to get very far after 19…Rd6 20 Rae1 Re8 etc. 16 e4 c4 This weakens Black's dark squares (especially d4) though it's not easy to come up with an effective plan for Black. The queen on e7 is always vulnerable to e-file pressure and it's not easy to see where else she can go. 17 Bc2 Qc5+ 18 Kh1 Raf8 19 exd5!

A well timed exchange. After 19 g3 Black could free himself with 19…e5!. file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

19…exd5?! After this second mistake Black's bishop on b7 is very bad. He should play 19…Bxd5 after which 20 Ne4 Bxe4! 21 Qxe4 g6 seems tenable; if 22 Rad1 Black has 22…Ne5. Of course he might have been influenced by the thought that he wanted to keep his ‘winning’ chances alive by avoiding exchanges… 20 Rae1

White could also route his knight towards the d4 square immediately with 20 Nf3. After 20…Rxf4 he has 21 Qe6+ R4f7 22 Bg6, winning the exchange. 20…Qc6 And not 20…Rxf4? because of 21 Qe6+ R4f7 22 Rxf7 Rxf7 23 Bg6 (or 23 Bh7+ ). 21 f5 Nc5 22 Nf3 Qc8 23 Nd4 The knight is here to stay. 23…Qd7 In his notes White gave the variation 23…Nd3 24 Bxd3 cxd3 25 Qxd3 Ba6 26 Qf3 Bxf1 27 Qxd5+, though this seems tenable for Black after 27…Kh8. White could play more strongly in this line with 25 Qd2 (intending 26 Rf3 and maybe 27 Rfe3), as any attempt by Black to hold the d3 pawn would tangle his pieces still further. 24 Rf3! Ne4 file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

The Black knight is well placed here but the problem is that it can be exchanged at any time. 25 Kg1 R8f7 26 g4 Rf8 27 Qg2 Re8 28 Rfe3 Rf7 29 Qe2

I think that the correct plan for White is to exchange on e4 at such a time that he can bring his knight round to e3 and have his rooks on the d-file. So 29 Rd1 looks like a good move, intending something like Ree1 and Bxe4 after which …dxe4 would allow Nd4-c2-e3. 29…Rfe7 30 Qg2 Ng5? Once again Black makes the mistake of playing for a 'win' in a position that doesn’t merit such ambitions. Black should repeat moves with 30…Rf7!? and just hope that White is amenable to a draw.

31 Rxe7 Rxe7 32 Rxe7 Qxe7 33 Qg3! Covering all the entry squares on the e-file after which Black is in serious trouble. The endgame looms large in which Black's stifled queenside majority and bad bishop are likely to cost him the game. 33…Kf7 After 33…a5 White gave 34 Qb8+ Kf7 35 Kg2 in his notes. Actually I think that White can improve his position in a far more leisurely way with 34 Kf2 file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (8 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

after which 34…Kf7 is met by 35 Qe3 Qc7 36 Kg2 followed by 37 h4. In other words, slow torture! 34 h4 Ne4 35 Qe1 White could also play the immediate 35 Bxe4. 35…Qe5 36 Qe3 Qe7 37 Bxe4! Qxe4? The minor piece endgame is hopeless for Black, so he should certainly have kept the queens on with 37…dxe4. 38 Qxe4 dxe4 39 Kf2 Kf6 40 Ke3 a6

After 40…h5 White's simplest line is 41 gxh5 Ke5 (else White plays 42 Kf4) 42 Ne6 Kf6 43 Kf4 etc. 41 Kf4 Kf7 42 g5 hxg5+ 43 hxg5 Bd5

In this totally lost position Black made a very hopeful (not to mention cheeky) draw offer. White politely declined and then commenced the mopping up process. 44 Nc2

I would just go after the e4 pawn with 44 Ne2 followed by Ng3. 44…b5 45 Ne3 Bb7 46 Ng4 a5 47 a3 Ke7 48 Ke5 file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (9 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Here too White can win the e-pawn with 48 Nf2. 48…Kf7 49 Kd6 Bc8 50 Ne3 g6 51 f6 Be6 52 Kc6 b4 53 Kb5 Or just 53 cxb4 axb4 54 axb4 etc. 53…bxa3 54 bxa3 Bd7+ 55 Kxa5 Ke6 56 Kb4 Be8 57 Kxc4 Ke5 58 a4 Kf4 59 Kd4 Kxg5 60 Ke5 Bf7 61 a5 Be8 62 a6 Kh6 63 Kd6

In his notes White pointed out the ingenious 63 a7 Bc6 64 f7 Kg7 65 Ke6 Kf8 66 Kf6 Ba8 67 Ng4 Bd5 68 a8R+! Bxa8 69 Ne5 followed by mate on d7 or g6, but he wisely decided against it. Over the years I've learned not to try and be too fancy as occasionally you make errors in elaborate calculations. So either the text or 63 f7+ are the most sensible, in my view. 63…Kg5 64 a7 1-0 Further Reading

The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack by Graham Burgess (Gambit, 1999): A comprehensive guide to this irritating opening. My Best Games: Games With Black by Victor Korchnoi (Edition Olms 2001): Fifty object lessons in how to win your games with Black. Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (10 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About The Chess Cafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (11 of 11) [05/17/2003 11:59:33 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Thinking Time When people ask me which time limit is the best for improving their chess, I tend to warn against playing too much blitz. It may be fun but it can lead to bad habits, the relentless ticking of the clock means that a fast move can be more effective than a good move. This in turn can lead to a superficial and overly pragmatic approach that does not work well when applied to ‘proper chess’. The problem for most players is that blitz is the form of chess that is most readily available, especially with today’s intense life-styles and the advent of the Internet. You can play in the comfort

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

of your own home with a glass of brandy by your side. There’s no need to travel to a dowdy chess club with no refreshments or heating. Most of all you can log on and off in a relatively short space of time, these days many people find it difficult to get even a few consecutive hours to play chess, let alone an entire weekend. Yet blitz is not the only option and I’d like to make a case for a much slower form. Correspondence chess, especially with the convenience of email or a correspondence server, has the same convenience but none of the disadvantages. The virtually unlimited amount of thinking time allowed means that the emphasis must be firmly on the quality of play, so correspondence chess fosters opening research and deep analysis of the positions. It’s very noticeable that over-the-board players who also play by correspondence tend to have well worked-out openings and more cultured styles. It’s high time that I let you in on a secret: last week I started my first correspondence tournament. These days I don’t have the time or inclination to go away for several weeks at a time to play in international events but find weekend tournaments a bit too lightweight on their own. I see correspondence chess as a good counterfoil to the weekenders, fostering elements that I now miss such as the areas of in-depth analysis and opening preparation. It’s terrible to feel yourself going to seed… A lot of over-the-board players would partially accept my arguments but see it as a totally different file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

game. But the former champion, Grigory Sanakoev, has put up a strong case for their similarities, arguing that the elements of chess that make it popular are still present: “There is a widespread opinion that correspondence chess is a special kind of sport - decidedly different from OTB chess. Indeed, under the conditions of practically unlimited reflection time, it would be naive to expect from your opponent nervousness although any experienced correspondence chess player knows that there is no more cruel time pressure than the one of "LIFE" itself. How often is a move sent not because everything is clear in the position, but only because it becomes clear that for a more detailed analysis there is simply no more time.

“One should not expect that one's opponent will fall into some trap contained in all opening books or that he will commit a grave blunder in the middle game or even that he will deviate from the principles demonstrated in books on end games. However, correspondence chess would not have become the game of millions of people if the same elements which make the OTB chess so attractive were completely absent. Ventures, such as an intuitive sacrifice, an opening novelty, positional maneuvering in the absence of a concrete plan, psychological pretenses (camouflaging the real intent of a move) and many others have their place in the game with the invisible partner.” This month’s game was played on the “Playchess.de” correspondence server three years ago. It was sent to me by Boris Yudovin from New York who was impressed by the energy and flair with which White pursued the attack. Nitpicker that I am I felt that 16…Nd4 forced White into it and he could have won more efficiently at various stages. But nonetheless it’s a great advert for games played at this speed and shows that the human elements and well and truly intact. file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Kaouras,S (2360) - Vorlop,R (2307) Ponziani Opening “Playchess” Correspondence Game, 2000

1 e4 Nc6 2 Nf3 e5 3 c3 The "Ponz" has enjoyed a brief spell of popularity amongst some of the more adventurous young GMs. The motivation behind playing such an opening is to confront your opponent with new and unexpected problems, even though we all know that the Spanish is White's best. 3…d5 The beauty of correspondence play is that you can afford the luxury of going into the sharpest lines. A more practical approach is to play 3…Nf6 when Black seems to have few problems after 4 d4 (an interesting practical try is 4 d3 with a kind of reversed Philidor) 4…exd4 5 e5 Ne4 (or 5…Nd5 ). 4 Qa4 f6!?

In his notes to the game, Kaouras stated that 4…Bd7 was 'best by far', though I'm far from convinced. A game Surtees - Hebden, England 1998 went 5 exd5 Nd4 6 Qd1 Nxf3+ 7 Qxf3 Nf6 8 Bc4 Bd6 9 d3 Qe7 10 Bg5 h6 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Nd2 f5 13 Bb3 0–0 14 0–0–0 b5 15 h3 a5 16 g4 f4 17 Ne4 when White had good an extra pawn and the makings of a strong attack on the kingside. He went on to cause a major upset by beating his GM opponent. file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

5 Bb5 Nge7 6 exd5 Qxd5 7 d4 e4!?

This came in for major criticism by both Kaouras and Yudovin but I'm not convinced that it's all that bad. Perhaps the main argument against it is the risk involved, especially when Black has a sound alternative in 7…Bg4. A game Koch - Piket, Monte Carlo 1999 went 8 Bc4 (8 Be3 Bxf3 9 gxf3 a6 10 Bc4 Qxf3 11 Rg1 0–0–0 was Showalter - Steinitz, Vienna 1898 in which Steinitz won a complex game) 8…Qd7 (8…Qa5 9 Qxa5 Nxa5 10 Bb5+ c6 11 Be2 Bxf3 12 Bxf3 exd4 13 Na3! was better for White in the game Eales - Belyavsky, Groningen 1969-70) 9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Bb5 Nxf3+ 11 gxf3 c6 12 Qxg4 cxb5 13 Qxd7+ Kxd7 14 a4 b4 15 0–0 Nf5 16 cxb4 Bxb4 with the better game for Black. 8 c4 The most ambitious move, sacrificing the d4 pawn. 8 Bc4 is rather innocuous after 8 Qh5 (or 8…Qa5 9 Qxa5 Nxa5 10 Nfd2 Nxc4 gaining the bishop pair) 9 Nfd2 Bd7 10 Nxe4 (10 Qc2 f5 11 Nf1 g5 gave Black promising attacking chances in Roething - Marshall, Sylvan Beach 1904) 10…Nxd4 11 Qd1 Qxd1+ 12 Kxd1 Bg4+ 13 Kd2 Ndc6 14 f3 0–0–0+ and Black had the better file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

endgame in Roething - Capablanca, New York 1910. White's other move is 8 Nfd2 but then Black can play 8…Qg5 after which 9 Kf1 a6 (9…Be6 looks logical) 10 Na3 axb5!? (10…Qf5) 11 Qxa8 Qg4 12 Nc2 Nd5 13 Ne3 Nxe3+ 14 fxe3 Bd6 15 Nxe4 Qd1+ 16 Kf2 Qc2+ 17 Nd2 0–0 brought about some wild and wooly complications in Ovetchkin - Hamatgaleev, Pskov 1998. 8…Qd7 9 Nfd2 Qxd4 10 0–0 White has also played the immediate 10 Nb3. The most likely outcome is a transposition back into the game after 10…Qe5 (10…Qd6 11 Be3 Bd7 12 c5 Qe6 13 Nc3 f5 14 0–0–0 gave White good compensation for his pawn in Von Popiel - Burn, Cologne 1898) 11 Nc3 (11 Na5 can be met by 11…Kf7) 11…Bd7 12 0–0 a6 , but with White having sidestepped the possibility of Black retreating his queen to a7. 10…Bd7 After 10…a6 White can play 11 Nb3 (11 Nc3 Bd7 12 Nb3 allows 12…Qa7) after which 11…Qa7 12 Bxc6+ Nxc6 13 Be3 forces Black to play the ugly 13…Qb8. 11 Nc3

This is White's second and last chance to force Black's queen to e5 immediately by playing 11 Nb3. After 11…Qe5 12 Nc3 a6 we would get back into the game, now Black has the opportunity to retreat file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

his queen to a7. 11…a6 12 Nb3 Trying to win back the gambit pawn with 12 Ndxe4 would be answered by 12…Rd8 13 Bxc6 Bxc6 14 Qc2 Qxc4 when White ends up a pawn down anyway but this time with very little compensation. 12…Qe5 As the queen is exposed on this square there is a strong argument in favor of 12…Qa7 forcing 13 Bxc6 (after 13 Be3? axb5 Black wins a piece). After 13…Bxc6 14 Qa5 (14 Qa3? Nd5) 14…0–0–0 15 Be3 b6 Black's king looks much safer than in the game. 13 c5 f5 Another possibility was 13…Rd8 after which 14 Be2 f5 would make it difficult to assess White's compensation. 14 g3 Ng6 According to Kaouras this is forced, but is 14…Qf6 15 Bf4 Rc8 really so bad? 15 Rd1 Be7 16 Bc4 Nd4?

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Forcing White to make a very promising queen sac. After 16…0–0–0 White can play 17 Bxa6! Nb8 (and not 17…bxa6 18 Qxa6+ Kb8 19 Rxd7 etc) 18 Rxd7 Rxd7 19 c6! with a strong attack, but 16…Be6 is a tough nut to crack One possibility is 17 Nd5 0–0–0 18 Bf4 Nxf4 19 gxf4 Qxd5 20 Bxd5 Bxd5 with good compensation for the queen. 17 Qxd7+!

After 17 Qb4 Black can play 17…Nf3+ 18 Kh1 b5 etc. 17…Kxd7 18 Be3 Nh4 Black's problem is that both his king and queen are in trouble simultaneously. His other try is 18…f4 but then 19 Bxd4 Qf5 20 Bxg7+ Kc8 21 Rd5 Qg4 22 Bxh8 Nxh8 23 Re5 gives White a commanding position. 19 gxh4 Kc8 20 Bxd4 Qf4 21 Be6+ Kb8 22 Ne2 Qf3 23 Ng3 Bxh4 After 23 Ka7 White can play 24 Bxf5 when the e4 pawn is falling as well. The text intends to meet 24 Bxf5 with 24…Bxg3. 24 Be3 g6 file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (8 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Black's queen would be trapped after 24…f4 25 Nd4 etc. 25 Rd7 Bf6 26 c6 b5

26…b6 27 h3 followed by 28 Nd2 traps Black's queen. 27 Rd5

Here and over the next few moves White makes things harder for himself by attempting to deliver checkmate. A simpler way to play it was with 27 Nd2 Qg4 28 Ndxe4 because once Black's central pawn phalanx is destroyed he would have little chance to resist. 27…Re8 28 Nc5 Bg7 After 28…f4 White could end the game with 29 Nd7+ Kc8 30 Bh3! threatening 31 Ne5+ etc. 29 Rad1 Ka7 30 Rd7

30 Ncxe4+ would force 30…Qxe3 and leave him hopelessly placed (30…Kb8 gets mated after 31 Rd8+ Rxd8 32 Rxd8). 30…Be5 31 Bxf5? Just 31 Ncxe4+ is better. file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (9 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

31…gxf5 32 Nb7+ I don't understand why the knight is better on b7 than on b3. 32 Nb3+ Qxe3 33 fxe3 Rg8 34 Kf2 looks simpler than the game. 32…Qxe3 33 fxe3 f4 34 exf4 Bxf4 35 Nd6 Bxd6 36 R1xd6 Kb6 37 Rd1 Re6 38 Re1 e3 39 Rxh7 Rae8 40 Rg7 Kxc6 41 Re2 Re5 42 Nf1 Kd5 43 Kg2 c5 44 Rg3 Kd4 45 h4 c4 46 Rexe3 Rxe3 47 Nxe3 Kd3

The pawn endgame is winning for White, but only just: 47…Rxe3 48 Rxe3 Kxe3 49 h5 b4 50 h6 c3 51 bxc3 bxc3 52 h7 c2 53 h8Q c1Q 54 Qh6+ wins Black's newborn queen. 48 Kh3 Kd2 49 Nd5 Kc1 50 Rg2 Re5 51 Nf4 b4 52 h5 Kb1 53 h6 Re8 54 Kg4 Rh8 55 Kg5 c3 56 bxc3 bxc3 57 Rh2 c2 58 Nd3 1–0

After 58…Rd8 59 Rh1+ Kxa2 60 h7 Black will lose his rook. Further Reading

World Champion at the Third Attempt by Grigory Sanakoev (Gambit, 1999): Sanakoev’s superb collection of games. Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (10 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About The Chess Cafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/Cafe/davies/davies.htm (11 of 11) [06/14/2003 11:13:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Bucking the Trend It's hard to buck the trend. When the word's out that a particular variation is good or bad it's difficult to avoid being influenced. Usually the fashion is set by the reigning World Champion when games are published in which the Champ wins brilliantly. Yet by the time this variation becomes popular he has moved on to pastures new... You can see this process quite clearly in the games of Garry Kasparov. To take just one example, he created a wave of popularity with the Petrosian Variation of the Queen's Indian Defence (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 a3) which in turn was taken up by a host of other players. Yet just when this variation was at the height of its popularity, Kasparov moved on; he played variations such as 4 Nf3 and 4 Qc2 against the Nimzo-Indian and then turned to 1 e4. There's a subtle message contained in these switches; it's not the variations you play but when you play them. By creating the fashion Kasparov reaped the reward of surprise and confronted his opponents with new problems. When everyone's playing the same way these lines don't surprise

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

anyone and the problems have been largely or fully solved. All this leads to a big question; if it's the trendsetters who succeed in many fields, why is it that so many people choose to be followers? The answer lies in the notion that people tend to conform to the behavior of others, which is one of the most accepted principles in psychology. We often go to see films just because everyone we know has seen them or buy books that everyone seems to be talking about. The influence of those around us can be very persuasive. On the whole such conformity is very useful; if people didn't accept certain standards of behavior then how would we drive a car without fear of a head-on collision? Yet problems arise when an activity requires the rejection of the popular view, creative chess being one of them. Can we learn to buck the trend? I think so, the first step being to know that we are conforming whenever we accept information uncritically. As a second step I think it's useful to read books of players such as Tony Miles and Bent Larsen who are known for their individuality and lack of routine. Miles, for example, has consistently favored offbeat openings to wrong foot his opponents, once remarking that he like to play the Nimzovitsch Defense (1 e4 Nc6!?) early in a tournament so that everyone would waste time preparing for it! As for Larsen he has been accused of only writing about variations which were no longer in his repertoire, which the maestro admitted contained an element of truth. Examples such as these can do much to nurture the spirit of independence, but there are also rich sources outside chess. The value of thinking differently is highly prized, for example, in the world of investment. The excesses of crowd behavior, such as Holland's tulip mania and the South Sea bubble, are beautifully described in Charles Mackay's classic, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Further education is also provided in The Art of Contrary Thinking (The Caxton Printers Ltd, 1954) by file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Humphrey B Neill in which the author noted that: "Obvious thinking - or thinking the same way in which everyone else is thinking - commonly leads to wrong judgements and wrong conclusions." Having outlined the joys of a contrarian approach, let's see how it might work out in practice. One opening whose stocks are hitting new lows is the King's Indian Defense with this one time darling of dynamic players having been abandoned wholesale by its former practitioners. Top players such as Kasparov and Alexei Shirov have stopped playing it and many of its past masters (including Bobby Fischer, David Bronstein, Eduard Gufeld, Efim Geller, Leonid Stein, Miguel Najdorf and Larry Evans) have either passed on or are retired. In short there are very few people around to defend the King's Indian's honor and so the followers have been leaving in droves. A young player at my chess club recently gave the King's Indian up and I asked him what the problem was. He then recited a list of the lines which he thought were good for White, from the Petrosian System to the Four Pawns Attack. But was this really the case or had he just been influenced by the current wave of negative sentiment? Being contrary by nature, my interest is piqued when I see the crowd going the other way. I've started to wonder what the problem is. Are all these lines really so bad for Black? And does its increasingly poor reputation not contain the advantage that it might set White's heart beating a little faster? I've therefore promised myself to take another look at the King's Indian which I last played regularly in the 1980s. So let’s buck the trend of King’s Indian bashing by taking a look at a Black win in one of the supposed 'problem-lines'. The Bayonet attack with 10 Re1 has been causing Black some headaches, but the danger of his king side attack should not be underestimated.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Dagan,Y (1935) - Vaisman,F (1994) King's Indian Defence Israeli Ch Qualifier, 2003

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 This shouldn't necessarily be an automatic choice. Black can also play 4...0-0 5 Nf3 c6 intending 6...d5, as played in a number of games by Grandmaster Lev Gutman. 5 Nf3 0-0 6 Be2 e5 Before announcing the death of the King's Indian, it's worth remembering that this isn't Black's only move. There are in fact as many as seven alternatives that I know of: a) 6...c5 may well be best met by 7 0-0 when 7...cxd4 8 Nxd4 Nc6 leads to a Maroczy Bind Sicilian, currently thought to be very reasonable for Black. After 7 d5 e6 8 0-0 Re8 9 Nd2 Na6 White can find himself running out of useful moves, in Ghane Gardeh - Iuldachev, Abu Dhabi 2002 he found himself in all sorts of trouble after 10 f4 exd5 11 cxd5 Rb8 12 Re1 Nc7 13 a4 a6 14 Bf3 b5 15 a5 h5 16 h3 Ng4! etc. b) 6...a6 is a speciality of my chess club (the "3Cs" in Oldham) which contains a number of interesting points. One of them is that after 7 0-0 Bg4 8 Be3 Nfd7 9 Rc1 c5 10 d5 Black can play 10...Bxf3! 11 Bxf3 b5! as in Beaumont - Bentley, 4NCL Birmingham 2001. c) Simagin's 6...Bg4 7 Be3 Nfd7 is still being played by strong players, one recent example being the game Cummings - Hebert, Richmond 2002 in which Black stood better after 8 Ng1 Bxe2 9 Ngxe2 c5 10 d5 a6 11 a4 Qa5 12 Rc1 Qb4 13 b3 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 axb5 Ra3 etc. d) 6...c6 7 0-0 a6 intending 8...b5 is a plan that has been used extensively by Bulgaria's Krum Georgiev. e) 6...Nbd7 intending 7...e5 transposes into the 6...e5 7 0-0 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Nbd7 variation. f) 6...Na6 followed by 7...e5 probably leads to the 6 e5 7 0-0 Na6 line. g) 6...Qe8 can transpose into either 6...e5 7 0-0 Qe8 should Black follow up with 7...e5 or into 6...e5 7 0-0 Na6 should Black play 7...Na6. The hydra appears to have many heads and it isn't enough to cut one of them off to claim victory. 7 0-0 Nc6 The main line, though once again Black has a number of alternatives: a) 7...Na6 is still being played by King's Indian notables such as Joe Gallagher and Branko Damljanovic, for example 8 Be3 (8 Re1 c6 9 Rb1 exd4 10 Nxd4 Nc5 11 Bf1 Ng4 12 h3 Qf6 13 Nf3 Ne5 14 Nh2 Be6 15 b3 Rad8 was Atalik - Damljanovic, Bled 2002) 8...Ng4 9 Bg5 Qe8 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 h3 h6 12 Bd2 Nf6 13 Be3 Qe7 14 Qa4 c6 15 Rfd1 Nh5 16 c5 Nc7 17 b4 Nf4 18 Bf1 g5 and Black had nothing to worry about in Pelletier - Gallagher, Leukerbad 2002. b) I played 7...Qe8 myself against Ronen Lev in Tel Aviv 1989 and obtained a good position after 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 b3 Qe7 10 Nd5 Nxd5 11 cxd5 c6 12 Bb2 Rd8 13 Re1 Na6 14 Qc1 cxd5 15 exd5 f6 16 Bc4 Kh8 17 Ba3 Qd7 18 d6 b5 19 Bd5 Bb7 20 Rd1 Rac8 when White's d-pawn proved to be weak rather than strong. c) 7...Nbd7. d) 7...c6. 8 d5 Ne7 9 b4 Nh5 10 Re1 f5 11 Nd2 White has also played 11 c5 after which 11...fxe4 12 Nxe4 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Nf4 13 Bxf4 Rxf4 led to complex play in Kramnik - Gelfand, Novgorod 1996. 11...Nf6 12 f3 Arguably a slight loss of time. Usually White plays the immediate 12 c5, with a position which seems too complicated to label with a definitive judgement. 12...f4 This turns the game into a race of attacks which is not strictly necessary at this point. In the game Shulte - Mareck, Switzerland 2001 Black first got his bishop outside the pawn chain with 12...Bh6 13 c5 Be3+ 14 Kh1 before playing 14...f4. Another possibility is 12...c6 as in Simutowe - Smirin, Moscow 2001. The idea of this move is not to open the queenside with ...cxd5, but to apply pressure to the d5 pawn in order to inhibit c4-c5 by White. 13 c5 g5 14 Nc4 Ne8 15 Ba3 Ng6 16 b5 h5 One of the most difficult things to decide in chess is when to punch and when to duck. I would have chosen to duck with 16...b6 in order to prevent d6 from being undermined. 17 Rb1 I think White should play an immediate 17 b6. The text gives Black another chance to hold up White's play on the queenside. 17...g4 Once again I'd play 17...b6. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

18 fxg4 hxg4 19 Bxg4 Qg5 20 Bf3 After 20 Bxc8 Rxc8 21 Qd2 (21 cxd6 cxd6 22 Nxd6 leaves the knight on c3 hanging) Black can block the queenside with 21...b6!. The point is that 22 cxd6 cxd6 23 Nxd6 is answered by 23...Nh4 threatening 24...Nf3+ and 24...Rxc3. 20...Nh4 Unless I'm missing something it seems better to protect the d6 pawn with 20....Rf6. Now I think White can just capture on d6 as after 21 cxd6 cxd6 (21...Nxg2 can be answered by 22 Bxg2 f3 23 Rb2) 22 Nxd6 Nxd6 23 Bxd6 Bh3 24 Rb2 Rfc8 25 Na4 Rc1 doesn't work because of 26 Qxc1 Nxf3+ 27 Kh1 etc. After the move chosen in the game Black's attack becomes very strong. 21 Kh1? Rf6 22 b6 Rh6 23 h3 The most beautiful lines often remain in the footnotes. After 23 Qe2 Black wins with 23...Qg3!! 24 hxg3 (or 24 Kg1 Nxf3+ 25 Qxf3 Qxh2+ etc) 24...Nxf3 mate. 23...Nxg2! 24 Bxg2 Bxh3 25 Re2 Bxg2+ 26 Kg1 Bf3+ 26...Rh1+ 27 Kf2 Qg3 mate was quicker. 27 Kf2 Qg3+ 0-1 Further Reading Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

by Charles Mackay The Art of Contrary Thinking by Humphrey B Neill (The Caxton Printers Ltd, 1954) Larsen’s Selected Games of Chess 1948-69 by Bent Larsen (Bell & Sons Ltd., 1970) Tony Miles: ‘It’s Only Me’ by Geoff Lawton, Mike Fox and Malcolm Hunt (Batsford 2003) World Champion at the Third Attempt by Grigory Sanakoev (Gambit, 1999): Sanakoev’s superb collection of games. Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About The Chess Cafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (8 of 8) [07/14/2003 8:48:24 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

The Chess Cafe E-mail Newsletter Each week, as a service to thousands of our readers, we send out an e-mail newsletter, This Week at The Chess Cafe. To receive this free weekly update, type in your email address and click Subscribe. That's all there is to it! And, we do not make this list available to anyone else.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Those Promising Juniors... The words 'promising junior' are something of a catch phrase in the UK but I've yet to figure out what they mean. When a player is called 'promising' is he being tipped as a potential Grandmaster, someone who will go on to enjoy international success? If this is the case then very few of those 'promising juniors' make the grade. Sometimes it's just life that gets in the way with people moving out of chess as their time is eaten up by academic, career and family responsibilities. But it can also be because they just don't enjoy playing and studying chess and are therefore unable to improve their game beyond a certain level.

Click Here to Subscribe

In junior chess you often find that a player with a quick eye, early competitive experience and tricky openings will do very well for a while. The problems start if they don't move on and learn some new stuff. As they face increasingly experienced opponents their trick lines don’t work and tactics tricks are side stepped. The once-promising juniors can suddenly find themselves without any real weapons with which to win their file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

games and often fail to understand why success suddenly eludes him. On the other hand you often see lesser lights come powering through the field in their late teens and twenties, long after they've been written off as potential stars. The fact is that most of today’s Grandmasters were not child prodigies. Most of us just loved chess and our continued involvement in the game, through thick and thin, meant that we never stop learning and improving. This is why fostering the talent of young players is such a delicate job. In my experience pushy parents (who never seem to see themselves as pushy parents) and junior organisers usually end up killing the enthusiasm of the players they're supposed to be trying to help. For a while the kid sees that being good at chess is a way to gain attention. But then one day he or she realises that they're just being used as a means to reflect glory on some adult whose own ambitions were frustrated. At this stage I can't resist quoting the poet, Kahlil Gibran; FIDE, the World Chess Federation, should make this required reading for all chess parents: "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you. And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

"You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls. For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday." This month's game is a very interesting battle between a file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

former 'promising junior' and a very late developer. Twentyfive years ago Stuart Fancy a teenage chess star in England, but he gave up chess and emigrated to Papua New Guinea. He came back to chess in the early 1980s and won a gold medal in the Olympiads. But he never fulfilled his early promise. His opponent is Joselito Marcus whose win against Siban was featured in an earlier column. Very much a late developer the game featured here enabled him to win the Championship of Papua New Guinea for the first time. I’ll let Mr. Marcus set the scene himself: "From the outset the competition gradually developed into a race between ex-champion Stuart Fancy and me - the only pair of internationally rated active Papual New Guinea players. While he routinely beat upstarts in the early rounds, I have to overcome more formidable and experienced opponents that included Olympians Allan Luga (Manila 1992, Istanbul 2000, Bled 2002) and Mark Aiio (Manila 1992). "Fancy and I had a perfect score of 5 points apiece before we faced off in the crucial sixth round. Our exciting duel of wits arising from a French Defense provided the tournament’s highlight as we appeared to be evenly

matched. But in middle-game skirmishes, I decided to jettison two pawns to unleash a ferocious king side attack that the defending champion was unable to fend off."

Fancy,S (2195) - Marcos,J (2200) French Defence Papua New Guinea Championship, Port Moresby 2003 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Nc6 5 Nf3 Bd7 6 Bd3!? An old-fashioned line with violent intent. The usual preference these days is 6 Be2.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

6...Qb6 Fancy was no doubt hoping for 6...cxd4 7 cxd4 Qb6 when I'm quite sure he'd offer the Milner-Barry Gambit with 8 Nc3 Nxd4 9 Nxd4 Qxd4 10 0-0. This was all the rage in Britain in our junior days, the leading young exponent being Michael Stone from Cheshire. Now I wonder what happened to him... 7 dxc5 Bxc5 8 0-0 a5!? This is quite a sensible move, preventing b2-b4 and leaving White tied to the defence of his b2 pawn. This position has been widely used to show that one can also control of the centre with pieces. In the classic encounter, Nimzowitsch - Salwe, Karlsbad 1911, Black played 8...f6 but after 9 b4 Be7 10 Bf4 fxe5 11 Nxe5 Nxe5 12 Bxe5 Nf6 13 Nd2 0-0 14 Nf3 Bd6 15 Qe2 Rac8 16 Bd4 Qc7 17 Ne5, White had a clear advantage because of his grip on the d4 and e5 squares. 9 Qe2 'Overprotecting' the e5 square is the correct strategy in such positions according to Nimzowitsch. White's main alternative is 9 Nbd2 after which play might continue 9...f6 (9...a4!? is also interesting as it stops White's knight on d2 going to b3 and then d4) 10 Qe2 (The adventurous 10 b4!? axb4 11 c4 was tried in Yukhtman - Vaganian, USSR 1971) 10...fxe5 11 Nxe5 Nxe5 12 Qxe5 Nf6 13 Nf3 0-0 14 Qe2 Bd6 15 Ne5 Qc7 16 Re1 Rae8 17 Bg5 Bc8 18 Bh4 Nd7 (Kaidanov - Suetin, Dubna 1979), and now 19 Bg3 still seems slightly better for White because of his continuing control of the e5 square. The best way for White to develop might well be 9.Na3!? after which 9...Nge7 (9...Bxa3 10 bxa3 shatters White's file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

queenside pawn structure but leaves Black very weak on the dark squares.) 10 Qe2 Ng6 11 h4 (11 Nc2 is also possible here) 11 f6 12 exf6 gxf6 13 Nc2 0-0-0 14 b4!? axb4?! (14...Bd6 is better) 15 cxb4 Nxb4? 16 Rb1 led to a quick victory for White in Farago,S - Mullner, Hungary 1999. 9...Nge7 Black concentrates on development for the time being, rather than trying to undermine White's pawn centre straight away. The immediate 9...f6 was played in the game Rubinetti Ivkov, Palma de Mallorca (izt) 1970, with Black getting a reasonable game after 10 Bf4 (10 c4!? has also been tried, but Black is doing well after 10...Nge7 11 Nc3 Nxe5 12 Nxe5 fxe5 13 cxd5 exd5 14 Qxe5 0-0 because of the pressure against f2) 10...Nge7 11 Nbd2 Ng6 12 Bg3 0-0 etc. 10 Bf4 At this point White stopped to think for the first time but had still only used 5 minutes on the clock. Actually I don't like this move as it results in White's bishop being committed to a passive square; it seems better to play either 10 Nbd2 or 10 Na3. 10...Ng6 11 Bg3 Nce7!? Temporarily delaying the undermining of e5, though carrying this out more directly seems like quite a good plan. The game Nun - Kupreichik, Germany 1991 went 11...0-0 12 h4 f6 13 Bxg6 hxg6 14 exf6 Rxf6 15 Nbd2 Qxb2 16 Rab1 Qxc3 17 Nb3 Ba3 18 Rfd1 Raf8 19 Rd3 Qc4 and White was struggling to justify his 'sacrifice' of two pawns. 12 Rd1 0-0 13 h4!? Apparently White played this with an air of confidence but he was probably overestimating his chances. Even at this stage I would prefer 13 Na3.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

13...f5 14 exf6 Rxf6 Suddenly White started thinking. With Black's knight about to land on f4 it turns out that his 13th move has achieved little apart from weakening his king side. 15 c4 Nf4 16 Bxf4 Rxf4 17 Nc3 Raf8 18 Rac1 e5!? An aggressive and enterprising way to play the position; Black hadn't calculated everything when he played this move, but his 'instinct' turns out to be right. He had a good alternative in 18...Rxh4 which wins a pawn (19 Nxh4? Rxf2 wins on the spot). 19 Nxd5 Nxd5 20 cxd5 Bg4 21 Bxh7+ Black had missed this tactic, and maybe White should have missed it too. It was probably worth trying 21 Qc2 as then Black has to find 21…Bxf3 22 gxf3 Be3!! 23 fxe3 Qxe3+ 24 Qf2 (24 Kg2 Qxf3+ leads to mate) 24...Rg4+! which wins White's queen. 21...Kh8? This looks like the safe option but in fact it misses a win. Black should take the bishop with 21...Kxh7 after which 22 Qc2+ e4! 23 Qxc5 (23 Ng5+ Kg8 24 Qxc5 Qxc5 25 Rxc5 Bxd1 wins a whole rook) 23...Qxc5 24 Rxc5 exf3 leaves him a piece up. 22 Qc2? White thought for some 15 minutes over this move, but chooses the wrong path. He should play 22 Bb1 after which 22...Bxf3 23 gxf3 Rxf3 can be met by 24 Qxe5 Bxf2+ 25 Kg2 Rg3+ 26 Kh1 Rh3+ 27 Kg2 Rg3+ with a draw. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

22...Bxf3 23 gxf3 Bd4?! Once again the surprising 23...Be3! looks like the best, as after 24 fxe3 Qxe3+ 25 Qf2 (25 Kg2 Qxf3+) 25...Rg4+ White loses his queen. 24 Be4 24…Qh6!! 25 Qc8!? Played after a long think, but possibly not the best. In his notes to the game Mr. Marcos pointed out that 25 Rxd4 is met by 25...Rxh4 26 Kf1 Rh1+ 27 Ke2 Rxc1 and that after 25 h5 White would find it difficult to meet 25...Rh4! (for example, 26 Bg6 is met by Qf4 27 Rxd4 Qh2+ 28 Kf1 Qh1+ 29 Ke2 Qxf3+ etc). White's best practical chance might be to head for the hills with 25 Kf1. 25...g6 And not 25...Rxc8?? 26 Rxc8+ followed by mate. But Black had a strong alternative in 25...Qxh4. 26 Qh3 Rxh4 27 Qg2 After 27 Qg3 there follows 27...Rh3 28 Qg4 (Or 28 Qg2 Rh5) 28 Rh1+ 29 Kg2 Qh2 mate. The rest of the game was played in mutual time-trouble, but Black doesn't let it slip. 27...Rh5! 28.Rc7 Rg5 Winning the queen. 29 Rxb7 Rxg2+ 30 Kxg2 Qg5+ 31 Kf1 Qh4 32 Rd2 Rc8 33 Rxd4 exd4 34 d6 Rc1+ 35 Ke2 Qh1 0-1

Further Reading file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran (Heinemann, 1970) A Treasury of Kahlil Gibran (Citadell Press, 1951) Chess in the Fast Lane by Michael Adams (Everyman, 1996) Queen of the King's Game by Zsuzsa Polgar and Jacob Shutzman (Atlantic Books, 1997) Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (8 of 8) [08/18/2003 9:41:24 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

The Chess Cafe E-mail Newsletter Each week, as a service to thousands of our readers, we send out an e-mail newsletter, This Week at The Chess Cafe. To receive this free weekly update, type in your email address and click Subscribe. That's all there is to it! And, we do not make this list available to anyone else. Click Here to Subscribe

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Playing When You're Hungry Playing too much and playing too little are two sides of the same coin. For professionals the great danger is in playing too much which in turn can result in fatigue or even burnout. Reading through Alexander Belyavsky’s Uncompromising Chess (Cadogan, 1997) I was struck by the number of times he mentioned fatigue as a factor. Mikhail Botvinnik famously advised taking a complete break from chess five days before a tournament so as not to lose one’s ‘zest for battle’. I myself have noticed that I often play better if I leave the laptop at home and not studying chess. It’s a question of staying fresh and keeping my mind clear. For amateurs, on the other hand, the issues involved are very different. There is often great difficulty in getting to play chess at all, especially for someone with a job and family responsibilities. I think it's no surprise that the majority of players who play regularly in weekend tournaments are single and why the tournaments themselves are in decline. Numbers were up when thousands of teenagers became addicted to chess during the 1972 Fischer – Spassky match, but most of this generation has since settled down and started families.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 7) [09/14/2003 2:37:43 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Although I'm married and have a 14-month old son, I've got a good excuse to swan off to tournaments. The fact is that for a professional they help pay the mortgage, and in fact much of my working life is during evenings and weekends. The amateur, on the other hand, is in a much more difficult position and it's hard to imagine how they negotiate time off unless their wives actually want to get rid of them for a couple of days. The war stories I've heard usually involve putting up shelves and washing dishes in order to secure the precious 48 hours leave. This in turn provides a major reason why married amateurs find it hard to improve; without playing lots of chess it's difficult to develop and maintain that intuitive feel for positions which serves the master so well. An active professional will just know what the best moves are in a position and be able to sense both danger and opportunity a mile off. But for an amateur who plays relatively little, events will unfold in much more of a haze with danger often appearing when it's already too late. How many games is enough? My personal rule is that I try to play when I'm hungry for chess, which I'm sure makes a big difference in terms of work rate at the board. If a player can't stand the sight of chess pieces he's much more likely to be inattentive and careless. But going into the game hungry is going to foster good concentration, and this in turn will increase the number of points scored. Is there such a thing as a normal chess appetite? On the one hand there are weekend circuit professionals such as Mark Hebden, who has played hundreds of games per year for the last quarter of a century. For most GMs this would be way too much, but Hebden's light and intuitive style allows him to do this without apparent ill effect. Bobby Fischer, on the other hand, played relatively few competitive games but maintained good form with constant analysis and blitz.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 7) [09/14/2003 2:37:43 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Fischer's playing schedule is certainly easier for the majority of amateurs to emulate, especially since the advent of online chess and the possibility of playing 24/7 blitz. What is more difficult, without serious disturbance to your life, is the fact that Fischer worked constantly on chess with almost every waking moment being spent at the chessboard. Few people could do this even if they had the time. Amateurs have to do the best they can with the time they've got available, though in my experience this is often wasted on learning tricky but dubious opening variations. In fact it's much better to study the complete games of a particular player, my own favourites being the games of Paul Keres and Bent Larsen. It's also good to analyse things for yourself, the ideal being to study your own games in order to verify the accuracy of your judgement. Not easy, but deeply rewarding if you can do it. In this month's game White failed to sense the danger until it was too late, a characteristic feature of underdeveloped chess intuition. I would have been quite nervous about White's position in the early stages, and very loathe to play moves such 6 Ng5 and 7 Nd5 before completing my development. But this comes from the fact that I've witnessed thousands of uncastled kings getting slaughtered and accordingly have developed a feel for the danger. Steck,R (Unrated) - Messmer,L (1681) Reversed Reti A56 Zürcher Oberländer Cup Wetzikon, 2003 1 c4 Nf6 2 d4 c5 3 dxc5 In itself this is quite a reasonable move, producing a kind of reverse Reti Opening. The drawback is that it doesn't put any pressure on Black's position. 3...e5!? A dynamic way to play it, gaining space and time but leaving file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 7) [09/14/2003 2:37:43 PM]

Let's Take A Look

a 'hole' on d5. There's an analogous line in the Reti Opening which runs 1 Nf3 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4!?, with interesting play in prospect. 4 Nc3 It's worth considering 4 Bg5 Bxc5 5 Bxf6 Qxf6 6 e3 in order to remove an important defender of the d5 square. Of course control of a single square is not that important, but it allows White to keep some control over the position. 4...Bxc5 5 Nf3 And not 5 Bg5? because of 5...Bxf2+ 6 Kxf2 Ng4+ winning a pawn. 5...e4 6 Ng5 Qe7 7 Nd5 After 7 Qc2 Black would maintain the e4 pawn with 7...d5 8 cxd5 Bf5 and achieve an excellent game. 7...Nxd5 8 Qxd5 After 8 cxd5? Bb4+ 9 Bd2 e3! Black would win the knight on g5. 8...Bb4+!? This works well in the game but after 9 Kd1 White wins a pawn for nebulous compensation. Accordingly there was an argument for 8...e3 9 Bxe3 Bxe3 10 fxe3 0-0 when White is a pawn up but his structure has been badly damaged. 9 Bd2? e3! 10 fxe3 Bxd2+ 11 Kxd2 Nc6 12 a3?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 7) [09/14/2003 2:37:43 PM]

Let's Take A Look

This stops things from landing on b4 but it loses time. White should bring his knight back into play with 12 Ne4 and although his position is unpleasant White is still on the board. 12...d6 An even stronger move is 12...Qf6! after which 13 Kc2 Ne7 14 Qc5 b6 15 Qb5 a6 forces White's queen to abandon the knight on g5. 13 Rd1 Ne5 Not bad, but Black could do better by preventing 14 Ne4. The way to do this was with 13...f5! 14 Nf3 Be6 15 Qd3 Ne5 when White is in desperate straits. 14 Ne4! Be6 15 Nxd6+ And not 15 Qxd6?? Nxc4+ winning the queen. 15 Qxd6 16 Qxd6 Nxc4+ 17 Kc1 Nxd6 18 Rxd6 Ke7 19 Rd2?! A more stubborn defence is 19 Rd4 after which 19...Rac8+ 20 Kb1 Rhd8 21 g4 stays on the board. 19...Bb3?! Not quite incisive enough. Black should play an immediate 19...Rac8+, for example 20 Kb1 (20 Kd1 Rhd8 21 Rd3 Bf5 would also see an invasion of White's ranks) 20...Bf5+ 21 Ka2 Rc1 22 g3 Be6+ 23 b3 Rhc8 24 Bg2 R8c2+ 25 Rxc2 Rxc2+ 26 Kb1 Rc3 and a rich harvest of pawns is in the offing. 20 Rd3??

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 7) [09/14/2003 2:37:43 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Saveilly Tartakover wisely advised that the player who loses is the one who makes the last mistake. White should play 20 g3 intending to complete his development with 21 Bg2. 20...Rac8+ 21 Rc3?! Losing on the spot, though this might have saved some needless suffering. White had to try 21 Kd2. 21...Rhd8 22 Rxc8 Rd1 mate 0-1

Recommended Reading ●

●

●

●

●

Uncompromising Chess by Alexander Belyavsky (Cadogan, 1998): Belyavsky complains a lot about fatigue towards the end of tournaments, which is probably a result of his intense style of play. I also wonder if he studies chess a lot during events. Ethical Writings of Maimonides by Moses ben Maimon: An ancient philosopher, physician and master of rabbinical literature offers some interesting thoughts on diet and general health. Selected Games of Chess, 1948-69 by Bent Larsen (Bell, 1970): One of the very best game collections; if you can find a copy then buy it. Paul Keres: the Quest for Perfection by Paul Keres and John Nunn (Batsford, 1997): I have Keres' original trilogy of books, which are now out of print. This is the closest thing to them currently in print. One Hundred Selected Games by Mikhail Botvinnik (Dover, 1960): Botvinnik’s doctrine on preparation appears in the forward.

Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 7) [09/14/2003 2:37:43 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 7) [09/14/2003 2:37:43 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

The Chess Cafe E-mail Newsletter Each week, as a service to thousands of our readers, we send out an e-mail newsletter, This Week at The Chess Cafe. To receive this free weekly update, type in your email address and click Subscribe. That's all there is to it! And, we do not make this list available to anyone else. Click Here to Subscribe

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Racing against Porsches Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand the point of playing chess against machines. Ever since John Henry died from a heart attack in his contest against the steam drill at Big Bend Tunnel, most of humanity has seen little point in such battles either. I don’t see Linford Christie choosing to race against a Porsche or people who are good at mental arithmetic pitting themselves against pocket calculators. Yet many chess players seem to feel that their self worth is threatened by computers and battle with the silicon beasts as if their lives depended on it. In case anyone harbours any illusions about the ultimate outcome of this contest, I regret to inform you that our refrigerators will soon beat us. Having said that I don’t why this will affect chess any more than the Porsche affects Olympic running. There’s a sense of achievement that people get from improving their game, just as runners at any level pride themselves on shaving a second or two off their personal best. And it’s irrelevant that there entities around that can beat us in our sphere of endeavour.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 7) [10/11/2003 8:49:23 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Computers should be our friends rather than our foes and I see them as being very useful in the process of chess improvement. These days it is very rare for me to look at a game these days without having Fritz running in the background. Fritz's notes are horrible if left to its own devices (i.e. the ‘full analysis’ function) but it spots the short range tactics far quicker than I do. And using data retrieval programs such as ChessBase and Chess Assistant I can, at the touch of the button, retrieve hundreds of games played from specific positions or by specific players. The availability of this information has a number of effects. First of all it makes it easy to study any prospective opponent who has his games listed, which represents an increasingly large percentage of the chess playing population. Secondly it means that you can quickly see what some strong Grandmaster would play against your opponent’s opening repertoire, gaining access to the top flight analysis in the bargain. The problem with all of this is that your opponent can do exactly the same to you, which leads to a kind of arms race before the game even begins. If you can find something nasty in one of your opponent’s favourite lines, you might be well on your way to a point before the game has begun. Of course your own opening repertoire might also be vulnerable to some recent innovation and this makes new demands on our skills and knowledge. I personally tend to deal with these issues by trying to have a fairly wide opening repertoire in which it’s difficult for my opponent to guess which way I’m likely to turn. Those who are worried about hostile preparation might also consider whether their openings are the type where a single move might prove fatal. Of course you might think that these issues are irrelevant below GM level, but I’d strongly advise you to think again. There are signs that this process is trickling down to the club file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 7) [10/11/2003 8:49:23 PM]

Let's Take A Look

chess, especially when players know who they’re going to play and can search for their opponents games and/or favourite openings. In last year’s Four Nation’s Chess League it was clear to me that even players on the lower boards of divisions II and III were checking to see what their opponents. Doug sees that Burt plays a particular variation of the Alekhine’s Defence, runs a search and then zaps poor Burt with some clever moves recommended by some obscure Russian player. Burt is none too happy with the experience, buys a database for himself and in their next game targets Doug’s Sicilian. With chess turning into an arms race is anyone nostalgic for the past? I personally regard the ‘good old days’ with some distaste – if you wanted to prepare 20 years ago you had to take the last ten Informators, perhaps a few ECOs plus tournament bulletins with the games of your prospective opponents. You could leave this stuff at home of course, but then you were at a distinct disadvantage to some Russian (or group of Russians) who brought these things along. I see today’s technology as a great equalizer, now I can just take an old laptop running ChessBase 6 and will be more or less on the same footing as everyone else in the tournament. As soon as I know the pairings I can run a search for my opponent and it doesn’t usually take too long to map out his opening repertoire and get a good idea about his strengths and weaknesses. This month’s game is a nice illustration of how not to use computer. I’m firmly of the view that there’s no point ‘playing’ against the these brutes; they feel neither pain nor pity and just churn out moves. Even if they lose it doesn’t seem to bother them, which really takes the fun out of winning. Mr Caron ventured to ask what his strengths and weaknesses are based on this game, but in games against a computer it can be very difficult to tell. Play enough against computers and we all come to believe that we are hopeless tacticians who make elementary oversights at every stage of the game. This can turn good positional players into nervous wrecks whilst good tacticians can be shaken to the core. Computers are wonderful for training and preparation, but play regularly against them at your peril.

Caron, H - Fritz 8 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 7) [10/11/2003 8:49:23 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Ruy Lopez C65 "Friendly" Game 1 e4 e5 Computers are often programmed to play the Scandinavian Defence with 1...d5. It leads to the kind of open, tactical play in which they excel. 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d4 I guess that the ‘computer-hostile’ moves are 4 d3 and 4 Qe2, keeping the position closed and placing the emphasis on structure and planning. 4…Nxd4 An unusual move which looks quite playable. A ChessBase search reveals that the natural 4...exd4 is by far Black's most popular move at this point, with Black having few problems after 5 0-0 Be7 (5...a6 6 Ba4 Be7 transposes into the line 3...a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 0-0 Be7, which is not thought to be very dangerous for Black), for example 6 e5 Ne4 7 Nxd4 00 8 Nf5 d5 9 Bxc6 (9 Nxe7+ Nxe7 10 Nd2 c6 11 Bd3 Bf5 was absolutely fine for Black in Al Modiahki - Psakhis, Andorra 1998) 9...bxc6 10 Nxe7+ Qxe7 11 Re1 Bf5!? 12 f3 Nc5 13 b3 Ne6 14 Ba3 c5 15 Nc3 (15 Qxd5 Rad8 16 Qc4 Rd4 followed by ...Rfd8 gives Black good compensation for the pawn) 15...Qg5! and Black had the initiative in the game Karasik - Victor Mikhalevski, Beer Sheva 1998. 5 Nxd4 c6 6 Be2 This allows Black to free it's game with ...d7-d5, without contracting any weaknesses in the process. A more testing continuation is 6 Bc4 exd4 7 Qxd4, for example 7...Qb6 (7...d5 8 exd5 cxd5 would leave Black with an isolated pawn, though this also seems quite playable) 8 Qd3 Bb4+ 9 c3 Bc5 10 0-0 d5!? 11 exd5 0-0 12 b4 cxd5 13 Bxd5 Nxd5 14 Qxd5 Be7 15 Be3 Be6 16 Qf3 Qc7 17 Bd4 a5 and Black had file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 7) [10/11/2003 8:49:23 PM]

Let's Take A Look

compensation for the pawn in Kaminski - Keitlinghaus, Lazne Bohdanec 1996. 6...exd4 7 Qxd4 d5 8 Bg5?! This pawn sacrifice may be quite playable but requires accurate play by White. 8 exd5 looks simpler, better and completely equal. 8…dxe4 9 Qxd8+ 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 Qxe4+ Be6 gives Black an excellent game by virtue of his bishop pair. 9...Kxd8 10 Nc3? This looks natural enough, but White now finds it difficult to get compensation for his pawn. A much better try is to attack f7 with 10 Bc4 before Black can defend it with 10...Bf5 and 11...Bg6. He would have to play 10...Ke8, but then White could generate play against his king with 11 Nd2 intending 0-0-0 and Rhe1. 10…Bf5 11 0-0-0+ 11 Bc4 no longer causes problems as Black can defend the f7 pawn with 11...Bg6. 11...Kc7 12 Bf4+ Kc8 13 h3?! Passive play by White is just going to give Black more time to consolidate. 13 Bc4 was a better try, though I think White doesn't have enough after 13...Bg6. 13...Bb4 14 Bd2 Bg6 15 a3 Bc5 16 Rhf1 Bd4 17 Rde1 b5 18 Nd1 Kb7 19 Be3 Be5 20 c4 bxc4

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 7) [10/11/2003 8:49:23 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Tired old grandmasters like myself would prefer to keep Black's queenside pawns in a neat bunch with 20...a6. 21 Bxc4 Nd5 22 Bc5 Rhd8 23 Ne3 Rd7 24 Rd1 Rad8 25 Rfe1 a5?! And here I'd prefer to activate Black's kingside pawn majority with 25...f5. It's not that Fritz's move is bad, but it does leave White with some chances should he now play 26 Be2 intending 27 Nc4. 26 Bb3 Nf4 27 Bc2 Bf6 28 Rxd7+ Rxd7 29 Rd1 Rxd1+ 30 Kxd1 Ne6 31 Bd6 Bxb2 32 Nc4 Bc3 33 Ne5 Bxe5 34 Bxe5 f6 35 Bc3 Kb6

White lost on time at this point (0-1), which I think is a fairly typical outcome when man meets machine. The final position should be winning for Black of course, though ‘it’ has to be careful that White doesn't get and opposite colour bishop endgame by exchanging his light-square bishop for Black's knight. Recommended Reading The Cult of Information: A Neo-luddite Treatise on High Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking by Theodore Roszak (University of California Press, 1994) Playing Computer Chess by Al Lawrence and Lev Alburt (Sterling Publishing, 1998) Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer That Defeated the World Chess Champion by Feng-hsiung Hsu (Princeton University Press, 2002) Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 7) [10/11/2003 8:49:23 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 7) [10/11/2003 8:49:23 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

The Chess Cafe E-mail Newsletter Each week, as a service to thousands of our readers, we send out an e-mail newsletter, This Week at The Chess Cafe. To receive this free weekly update, type in your email address and click Subscribe. That's all there is to it! And, we do not make this list available to anyone else. Click Here to Subscribe

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Mastering Typical Positions One of the best ways to improve your chess is learn how to play certain typical positions. Good candidates for this approach might be isolated Queen's Pawn positions, which arise from all sorts of closed openings plus the 2.c3 Sicilian and Caro Kann. Another option is to master ‘hedgehog’ formations (after playing …c7-c5 and …c5xd4, Black puts his pawns on a6, b6, d6 and e6), which can arise from a wide variety of openings from the English Opening to the Sicilian Defence to Nimzo and Queen's Indians. Once you develop a familiarity with such positions it becomes much easier to find the right sorts of plans and candidate moves in your own games. This in turn leads to increased efficiency and confidence which can have a huge impact on your practical results. I've noticed in my own games that there are certain positions in which I feel very comfortable and play with ease and assurance. When, on the other hand, I'm in unfamiliar territory, I might often struggle to find the right plan and drift into time-trouble. Lev Alburt has his own particular slant on the study of typical positions, and that's to select a single concrete position and analyse it exhaustively. In his excellent book, 'Test and Improve Your Chess', he cites a long list of benefits to players who are willing to do this kind of work: ●

●

Achieve total mastery over a new and important position. Attain absolute confidence in your ability to play that position against anyone - from either side of the board.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [11/17/2003 8:46:28 AM]

Let's Take A Look ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

● ●

Increase your comprehension and enjoyment of published games featuring that position. Learn the various opening lines and move orders which will transpose the game into your position. Broaden your opening repertoire and theoretical knowledge, while improving your study habits and research techniques. Become better acquainted with positions of similar pawn structure or theme. Absorb motifs and finesses which you can also apply to other positions. Dramatically improve pattern recognition and combinative skill. Improve both long and short range planning. Analyse more deeply, accurately, and efficiently. Train yourself to think objectively, and reduce dependence on dogmatic principles and stereotyped opinions. Heighten your awareness and respect for the myriad possibilities and hidden resources in a given position. Expand your sense of creativity and capacity for discovering original ideas. Discover that your analytical potential is not as limited as you perhaps thought. Increase your concentration and attention span. Sharpen board visualization, and develop a facility for piece coordination and spatial relationships. Develop patience and perseverance, and control impulsive tendencies. Discover the importance of adequate home preparation. Stimulated your appetite for studying and playing chess.

Improve your results in adjourned positions. Raise your rating and overall playing strength to a much higher level.

Alburt goes on to analyse an isolated queen's pawn position in great depth. Alexander Baburin went much further than this by devoting an entire book, file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [11/17/2003 8:46:28 AM]

Let's Take A Look

'Winning Pawn Structures', to the isolated queen's pawn. Yet for most club players it's difficult to carry out such extensive research on a single positional type, two of the main reasons being family and job. The idea is good, but for most people it should be carried out on a smaller scale. A good way to do this is to see if any typical positions occur repeatedly in your games; if so, mark them down for special attention. The second step is to find some games by very strong players from this kind of position, the most convenient way to do this being a search in ChessBase or some other chess database. Pick 10 or so of these games, print them out and play through them with a board and pieces, which I find this is a much better way to retain information than just playing through them on screen. This month's game was sent to me by Flavio Patricio Doro from Sao Paulo in Brazil who wondered how he could improve his play. It features a typical position from the Queen's Indian Defence, which was first shown to me by Lev Psakhis over vodka and pickled cucumber. Once I'd sobered up I looked at it more seriously and started to use it in my own games with excellent results. Following this example, a good way for both winner and loser alike to progress would be to play through some GM games after 4...Bb7 5 Bg2 Be7 6 0-0 d5 7 Ne5 0-0 8 Nc3 Na6 and 4...Ba6 5 b3 Bb7 6 Bg2 Bb4+ 7 Bd2 Be7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Nc3 d5 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Ne5 Na6, and perhaps select those in which Psakhis, Leonid Yudashin and Lembit Oll played Black. In doing so they would almost certainly improve their understanding of these positions, with a resultant increase in their chess strength. Doro,F (Unrated) - Lodi,D (2045) Queen's Indian Defence Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2003 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 g3 Bb7 Following Psakhis's example, I've often played the line 4...Ba6 5 b3 Bb7 6 Bg2 Bb4+ 7 Bd2 Be7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Nc3 d5 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Ne5 Na6. This reaches positions similar to the game, except that White has played b2-b3 and Bc1-d2. These differences probably favour Black, as White's queen can no longer come to a4 (see Neckar - Abramovic in the next note) and a rook on c1 might be hit with ...Ba3.

5 Bg2 Be7 6 0-0 d5 7 Ne5 0-0 8 Nc3 c5?! Premature. Black should play 8...Na6 , keeping the option of playing ... c7-c5 at file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [11/17/2003 8:46:28 AM]

Let's Take A Look

a more opportune moment, for example 9 cxd5 (9 b3 c5 10 Bb2 Nc7 11 dxc5 Bxc5 12 Nd3 Bd6 13 cxd5 exd5 14 Nf4 Bxf4 15 gxf4 Ne6 wasn't clear in Novikov - Oll, Uzhgorod 1987) 9...exd5 10 Qa4!? Qe8 11 Qxe8 Rfxe8 12 e3 c5 13 Rd1 Nc7 14 dxc5 bxc5 15 b3, when White was slightly better in Neckar Abramovic, Prague 1983. 9 dxc5 bxc5?! Losing a pawn. Black had to try 9...Bxc5 after which 10 Bg5! (10 cxd5 Nxd5 11 Nxd5 Bxd5 12 Bxd5 exd5 13 Nd3 is only slightly better for White) 10...Be7 (If 10...Qc7 there follows 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Ng4 f5 13 Nf6+ Kg7 14 cxd5! Kxf6 15 d6 Bxd6 16 Bxb7 Qxb7 17 Qxd6 with a clear advantage for White because of Black's poor king and after 10...h6 White can play 11 cxd5 hxg5 12 dxe6 Qxd1 13 Rfxd1 Bxg2 14 exf7+ Kh7 15 Kxg2 with more than enough compensation for the piece) 11 cxd5 exd5 with an inferior but playable position (11...Nxd5 12 Bxe7 Qxe7 13 Nxd5 exd5 14 Bxd5 Rd8 15 Bxb7 Rxd1 16 Rfxd1 wins material). 10 b3? This quiet move lets Black off the hook. White can obtain a clear advantage with 10 cxd5 Bxd5 (Both 10...exd5 11 Qb3 Qb6 12 Nxd5 and 10...Nxd5 11 Qb3 lose a pawn) 11 Nxd5 Nxd5 12 Qb3 threatening 13 Qb7. 10...a6?! It makes more sense to play either 10...Na6 or 10...Nbd7 . There are some uses for the move 10...a6; Black could, for example, meet 11 cxd5 exd5 12 Bg5 with 12...Ra7, which by protecting the bishop on b7 prepares ...d5-d4. But the problem is that it loses time, giving White the opportunity to attack the c5 pawn.

11 Bb2 Qc7 12 Na4? As outlined in the previous note, White should play 12 cxd5! as after 12...Qxe5 (12...exd5 13 Na4 followed by Ne5-d3 and Ra1-c1 generates strong pressure against c5) 13 d6 White recovers his piece with a good game. 12...Rd8?! Returning the favour. He should play the immediate 12...d4 after which 13 Bxb7 Qxb7 14 e3 Rd8 is better for Black because of his strong centre.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [11/17/2003 8:46:28 AM]

Let's Take A Look

13 Qc2? This was the last chance for 13 cxd5. Now Black gets the right idea. 13...d4! 14 Bxb7 Qxb7 15 Rad1 Nbd7 16 Nxd7 Rxd7 17 Rd3?! I don't like this move because rooks make rotten blockaders. White should probably improve the position of his queen's bishop with 17.Bc1. 17...Ne4?! Allowing White to play the useful f2-f3 with gain of tempo. Just 17...e5 looks better. 18 f3 Nf6 19 Rfd1 Rad8 20 Ba3 Qc6 21 Qd2 e5 22 e4! dxe3? With White having consolidated a previously dodgy position, Black makes a very serious mistake after which White gets a potential outpost for his knight on d5 and the c5 pawn becomes weak. Black should play just 22...Qc7, ruling out Qd2-a5 by White.

23 Qxe3 e4 24 fxe4 Rxd3 25 Rxd3 Rxd3 26 Qxd3 Nxe4 27 Qf3 Qb7?! A passive move. A better way to play it for Black is with 27...Bf8 28 Nc3 f5.

28 Nc3 Nd6?? And now a blunder. The only good way to protect the knight was with 28...f5, but even then Black is in trouble after 29 g4 g6 30 Bb2, because of the weakness of his king position.

29 Nd5! Nc8 29...Bf8 30 Bxc5 would not be pleasant.

30 Nf6+ 1-0 Recommended Reading Test & Improve Your Chess by Lev Alburt (Pergamon Press, 1989) Winning Pawn Structures by Alexander Baburin (B.T.Batsford, 1998) The Power Chess Program (Books 1 & 2) by Nigel Davies (B.T.Batsford, 1998)

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [11/17/2003 8:46:28 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [11/17/2003 8:46:28 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

The Chess Cafe E-mail Newsletter Each week, as a service to thousands of our readers, we send out an e-mail newsletter, This Week at The Chess Cafe. To receive this free weekly update, type in your email address and click Subscribe. That's all there is to it! And, we do not make this list available to anyone else. Click Here to Subscribe

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Mauling the Master It was at this stage of the display that the juniors started to fight back. Keres began to look tired: as he told controller Bob Wade during the display, he was finding the light in the hall dull and had to adjust his eyes to sets of various sizes. Harking back to this afterwards, he told the story of how Flohr, giving an exhibition in Czechoslovakia before the war, was confronted in one town by an old gentleman who produced a five inch travelling set, with little noticeable difference in size between the kings and pawns and with both Black and White pieces a uniform and well-worn shade of grey. “I can’t possibly play with that!” recoiled Flohr in horror. “Why not?” replied his aggrieved opponent. “Grandmaster Reti played with this very set, and he was blindfolded!” This is how Leonard Barden described a simultaneous display given by Paul Keres against a British U21 team in an article entitled Juniors Maul Paul, published in Chess magazine in December 1962. Keres ended up winning fourteen games, drawing six and losing no less than ten, one of the worst ever performances for a player of his strength. Admittedly there were a number of very strong players taking part, the best known being the future British Champion, Peter Lee, together with two players who would go on to become International Masters, Michael Basman and David Levy. Keres also made the mistake of playing in dashing style, sacrificing pawns and pieces as he did in his youth. He should have played solidly and relied on technique. It has to be said that Britain has a penchant for master mauling in simuls. Back

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [12/13/2003 10:33:07 PM]

Let's Take A Look

in the 70s I took part in one against Victor Korchnoi alongside another junior team which comprised assorted International Masters and Grandmasters of the future. Of course Korchnoi is a pretty determined customer, took his time over each move and eventually scored heavily. I seem to recall that he lost only to Nigel Short (maybe Julian Hodgson as well), but the display took a mammoth seven hours to complete! People missed trains, meals and appointments whilst Victor gave us our baptism of fire. Taking a leaf from Korchnoi’s book, I also find it difficult to cast myself in the role of ‘entertainer’. If I give a simultaneous display then basically I’m out for blood and set out to make the best possible result. I have a technique for doing this, aiming to polish the weaker players off quickly whilst keeping the stronger ones on ice. As the games finish I’ll get round the tables with increasing speed, putting more and more pressure on those who are left. I usually try to go for technical solutions in which my hand can play the moves with my brain switched off. And if a position’s hopeless for me I’ll resign it quickly so I can concentrate my efforts on the other games. Do I have any recommendations for the participants? Well in fact I do, but please keep this quiet or I could get into serious trouble with my colleagues. If you really want to maul the master, the following procedures should do the trick: ●

●

●

●

●

●

Prior to the display present the master with a post dated cheque, explaining that the funds for the display will take a few days to clear. This is guaranteed to throw him out of his stride from the outset, especially if he’s a foreigner who’s flying out the following day. Negotiate the right for your players to ‘pass’. I usually allow 3-5 ‘passes’ when I give simuls, but basically you want as many as possible. Instruct your players to save their ‘passes’ so that they can have a breathing space later in the game. Insist beforehand that everyone who touches a piece should move it, including the master. It has been known for the player giving the simul to try to take back moves as long as he hasn’t moved on to the next board. This helps them avoid blunders, which is not what you want at all. Try to get the master to take Black in some games; this will make it harder for him to get a nice edge early on. Agree that when two games are remaining you should introduce clocks, giving both the master and the two remaining participants 10-15 minutes on the clock. The

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [12/13/2003 10:33:07 PM]

Let's Take A Look

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

master may try to insist that the two boards are placed together, but don’t volunteer this option. Use pieces of different sizes and shapes, preferably with exotic designs. Select a room with poor lighting and ventilation. Get the heating turned up. Offer the master only alcoholic drinks; if he asks for tea bring back a beer and explain that tea was ‘off’. Offer him some food before the display, making sure it’s as heavy as possible. This will get the blood out of his brain and into his stomach where it belongs. Find the strongest possible opposition, drawing on other clubs and towns if necessary. Spread the best players around so that the master does not know where to focus his efforts. Instruct your players to hold out as long as possible should they get a bad position and never ever resign. Suggest to them that they try and avoid simple, technical positions in which the master will be able to turn on the autopilot. They should keep the position as tense as possible for as long as possible.

I hasten to add that I hope this stuff won’t be tried against me. But please feel free to use it against other GMs, especially Nigel Short and Garry Kasparov. This month’s game is a marvellous performance by Alex Tuxanidy which he played in a simultaneous display against the American IM, James Schroer. I’d normally advise against allowing the master a simple plan such as the minority attack, but in this case some accuracy was needed for the defence of his king. One mistake (23 Ne2??) was enough for Black to come crashing through. Schroer, J (IM) – Tuxanidy, A (1950) Queen’s Gambit Declined D37 Simultaneous Display, 2003 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 This is quite a good way of entering a Queen's Gambit Declined. First you scare White with the prospect of a Nimzo-Indian (3 Nc3 Bb4) and get him to put his knight on f3. This cuts out some of the more dangerous forms of the Exchange Variation, such as those where White plays Nge2.

4 Nc3 Be7 5 Bf4 0-0 6 e3 a6 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [12/13/2003 10:33:07 PM]

Let's Take A Look

An interesting alternative to the standard 6...c5, one of the ideas being to play ...dxc4 followed by ...b7-b5. White’s next move prevents this. 7 cxd5 exd5 In theory this should be a good position for simultaneous displays because White has a standard plan of attack on the queenside. But in this particular case Black makes it hard for him to breakthrough and gradually trundles forward on the other flank... 8 Bd3 Re8 9 0-0 Nbd7 10 Rc1?! This doesn't make much sense in this position as after ...c7-c6 by Black the rook will want to be on b1 in order to play b2-b4b5. The immediate 10 Qc2 is better. 10...c6 11 Qc2 Nf8 12 Ne5 Ng4 In the game Kostic - Rubinstein, Teplitz-Schoenau 1922, Black played 12...Nh5 after which 13 Bg3 Bd6 14 Nf3 Nxg3 15 hxg3 Bg4 16 Na4 Rc8 17 Bf5 Bxf5 18 Qxf5 Rc7 19.Nc5 Rce7 gave him a solid if somewhat passive position.

13 Nxg4 Bxg4 14 Rb1 Bd6 15 Bg3 Ng6 It might be more efficient to start the attack with 15...Bxg3 16 hxg3 h5 after which ...h5-h4 will weaken White's kingside without any material investment.

16 Rfe1 Kh8 With the knight already on g6 Black is more or less committed to attacking with pieces. The text avoids a later Bxh7 being check and thus prepares 17...Nh4. 17 b4 Nh4 18 a4 And not 18 Bxh7 because of 18...g6. 18...Re6 19 b5 Rh6 It may be better to exchange the a-pawn first with 19...axb5 so as only to be left with a weak c-pawn. Now the a6 pawn becomes weak as well. 20 bxc6 bxc6 21 Rb3

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [12/13/2003 10:33:07 PM]

Let's Take A Look

It would be safer to reinforce the kingside straight away with 21 Ne2. When White actually plays this move it loses. 21...Qf6 22 Reb1 Rg8 23 Ne2?? Good idea, bad timing. When I turned Fritz on, it liked 23 Bxd6 Qxd6 24 h3 at first, but then comes the stunning 24...Nxg2!!, much as in the game. At this point Fritz started changing its mind and after 25 hxg4 (25 Kxg2 Rxh3 leaves White defenceless) 25...Qh2+ 26 Kf1 Nxe3+ 27 fxe3 Qh1+ helpfully announced mate in nine in the variation 28 Kf2 Rh2+ 29 Kg3 Rh3+ 30 Kf2 Qf3+ 31 Ke1 Qxe3+ 32 Kf1 Rf3+ 33 Kg2 Rg3+ 34 Kh2 Rh3+ 35 Kg2 Qf3+ 36 Kg1 Rh1#. Perhaps White should play the greedy 23 Bxa6 when I don't see anything convincing for Black. Could it be that he's just a pawn down? 23...Nxg2!! 24 Kxg2 This allows Black to pull off a great finale, but in any case the attack is too strong. Here Fritz wanted to try 24.Bxa6, but Black gets a winning attack after 24...Bxg3 (24...Nh4 25.f4 g5 is also very strong) 25 fxg3 Ne1!! 26 Rxe1 Rxh2! 27 Rf1 (27 Kxh2 Qf2+ 28 Kh1 Bf3 mate) 27...Qh6 threatening, amongst other things, 28...Bf3. 24...Qf3+ 25 Kg1 Rxh2! 25...Bh3 is also pretty good, but the text is crushing.

26 Bxh2 Trying to head for the hills with 26 Kf1 leads to a massacre after 26...Bxg3 27 Ke1 (Or 27 Nxg3 Rh1+ 28 Nxh1 Qxh1 mate) 27...Qxe3 26...Bxh2+ 27 Kxh2 Qh3+ 27...Qxf2+ is quicker, but Black may have been enjoying himself. 28 Kg1 Bf3 29 Ng3 Qg2 mate (0-1)

Recommended Reading file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [12/13/2003 10:33:07 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Paul Keres: the Quest for Perfection by Paul Keres and John Nunn (Batsford, 1997): I have Keres' original trilogy of books, which are now out of print. This is the closest thing to them currently in print. My Best Games With White by Victor Korchnoi (Edition Olms, 2001): Fifty of the maestros best games as White. My Best Games With Black by Victor Korchnoi (Edition Olms, 2001): Fifty of the maestros best games as Black. Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [12/13/2003 10:33:07 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

The Chess Cafe E-mail Newsletter Each week, as a service to thousands of our readers, we send out an e-mail newsletter, This Week at The Chess Cafe. To receive this free weekly update, type in your email address and click Subscribe. That's all there is to it! And, we do not make this list available to anyone else. Click Here to Subscribe

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Training with Blitz “Even as a boy, when I was at the beginning of my career as a chessplayer, I found I had to acquire for myself as thorough a mastery as possible of the practice and theory of play in positions of opposite castling. When I stayed behind at school with my school friends after lessons, and managed to play up to a hundred games in a single afternoon, the strategy was simple enough: I castled on the opposite side in the middle of violent (and mutual) King attacks. Whoever got his attack in first, won. The result was that I acquired an unfailing mastery of those positions where castling takes place on opposite sides, and from that time on I knew how to find my way about them.” Alexander Kotov in The Art of the Middle Game Playing numerous quick games is a great way of getting used to certain types of position. I’m sure that Kotov was right about his claim that it helped him achieve this particular facet of mastery. But what if you’ve already left school or just don’t want to stay behind after lessons? Well there is an alternative in that you can play blitz chess on the internet, but before going any further I want to issue a serious word of caution. I don’t normally recommend internet blitz to players who want to improve their ‘real’ chess and the exception requires stringent definition. What you get with hundreds of blitz games is a huge series of repetitions of the chess playing process, and these can provide drilling and reinforcement for both

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [01/18/2004 9:48:57 AM]

Let's Take A Look

good habits and bad. Playing indiscriminately can, in my view, lead to a careless and superficial approach in which a fast move is preferred to a good move. And if someone plays too much in one sitting they’ll start to get tired and sloppy. There is a danger that this sloppiness can start to become ingrained. On the other hand, if you have a very clear idea of what you want to improve controlled training games can be a very productive exercise. But before logging on you need to decide what it is that you want to practice and how many games you want to play. It might take a bit of arranging to bring about positions with certain strategic themes ‘off the cuff’, so it might be better to agree on particular openings. For castling on opposite sides there are a multitude of Sicilian lines, if someone wants to improve their tactical ability they could do a lot worse than play some games in the King’s or Evans Gambits. If they want to play the endgame better then a few games in the Exchange Ruy Lopez (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 d4 exd4 6 Qxd4 Qxd4 7 Nxd4) should be quite suitable. More structurally minded trainees might choose to play for a minority attack in the Exchange Variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5) or Caro-Kann Defence (1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5). Alternatively you could set up positions with an isolated or hanging pawns. The choice is virtually unlimited, all you need is a good server and an agreeable opponent. Does this form of training have advantages over playing against the computer? In my view it does and on several counts. Besides the fact that the computer may beat us to a pulp in the games there’s the …er … joy of social contact with another human being (OK, admittedly it’s limited). From a training point of view the main drawback is that computers have a quite peculiar way of playing which does not prepare us for games with humans. In positions with opposite side castling, for example, computers won’t really understand the urgency of pushing ahead with the attack. They’re far more likely to be totting up the pawns they’ve gained which weigh heavily in the machine’s evaluation function. They’re probably going to win anyway because we miss a check or make some other error in pursuing the attack, but meanwhile they’ve destroyed the strategic flow of the game. When it comes to playing humans again we’ll get a different kind of chess entirely in which the race of attacks is back on. This month’s game is a wonderful example of opposite side castling from last year’s Indian U19 Championship. I don’t know if Black practiced opposite side castling in the manner suggested by Kotov, but he certain pursues his attack with great gusto. Lovers of unusual lines in the opening might also note White’s 2.b3; just because he lost this game doesn’t mean that it’s unplayable. The improvement I’ve suggested on his 11th move would have left this issue in file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [01/18/2004 9:48:57 AM]

Let's Take A Look

doubt. Tiwari,A (2237) - Vaidya,C (2090) Indian U19 Championship, 2003 French Defence C00 1 e4 e6 2 b3 Saveilly Tartakover played this in a few games and it certainly gets Black 'out of the book'. It looks like a bit of an oddball move but there is some point to his play. In this game Black reacts with sensible developing moves which is always a good strategy if you get surprised early on. 2…d5 3 Bb2 dxe4 This is one way of doing it, but now we get to see one of the 'points' behind White's set-up. An excellent alternative is 3…Nf6 after which 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 Nc3 Nc6 7 Nf3 a6 8 g3 b5 9 Bg2 c4 10 0-0 Bb7 11 bxc4 bxc4 12 Rb1 Be7 gave Black a solid game in Tartakower - Alekhine, Kemeri 1937. 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 Qe2!? The point behind White's play; he prepares to hoist the pirate flag by castling queenside and then charge his g-pawn up the board This is all very exciting but it's not very impressive if Black plays sensibly. 5…Be7 Intending to castle kingside whilst keeping his options open with regard to the development of his minor pieces He has also tried a number of alternatives, for example: a) 5…Nbd7 6 0-0-0 a5 7 a4 Be7 8 g4 0-0 9 Bg2 c6 10 Nxe4 Nxe4 11 Bxe4 Nf6 12 Nf3 Nxe4 13 Qxe4 Qd5 14 Qxd5 cxd5 was fine for Black at this juncture in Cherniaev - Kotanjian, Yerevan 1996. b) 5…Bb4 6 0-0-0 (White must avoid 6 Nxe4?? because of 6…Nxe4 7 Qxe4 Qxd2#) 6…Qe7 7 Nxe4 Ba3 8 Nxf6+ (8 Nf3 Bxb2+ 9 Kxb2 Nbd7 10 d4 0-0 11 Ne5 c5 12 Nxd7 Nxd7 13 Qe3 cxd4 14 Qxd4 and Black was in trouble because of his backward development in Spielmann - Grau, San Remo 1930 ) 8…Qxf6 9 d4 Bxb2+ 10 Kxb2 0-0 11 Nf3 Rd8 12 Qe4 c5 13 Bd3 g6 14 Qe5 Qxe5 15 dxe5 and White had an edge because of his space advantage and superior development in Tartakower - Keres, Parnu 1937. c) A modern example is the game Velimirovic - Timman, Sombor 1972 in which the young Timman played 5…Nc6 and after 6 Nxe4 Nxe4 7 Qxe4 Qd5 8 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [01/18/2004 9:48:57 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Qxd5 exd5 did not stand badly in the endgame. 6 0-0-0 White might also try the immediate 6 g4, but after 6…Nc6 7 g5 Nd5 8 Nxe4 e5 Black got a good game in Mark Tseitlin - Doroshkievich, USSR Ch , Riga 1970. 6…Nbd7 7 g4 0-0 This looks dangerous because Black is 'castling into it', but White's king isn't safe either. Another approach is to aim to castle queenside, a game Reti - Maroczy, Gothenburg 1920 continuing 7…h6 8 Bg2 c6 9 h4 Qa5 10 Nh3 Nc5 11 g5 hxg5 12 hxg5 Nd5 13 Kb1 Bd7 14 Bxe4 Nxe4 15 Nxe4 0-0-0 16 Bxg7 Rh7 17 Be5 c5 18 Qg4 c4 with compensation for the pawn. 8 h4 a5 9 a4 As Kotov states in The Art of the Middle Game: “While advancing pawns on the one wing one must keep one’s eyes open for any opportunity of creating difficulties for the opponent in his pawn storm on the other side of the board. When it becomes necessary one can with advantage make one or more defensive moves.” Although White’s queenside is subsequently prised open with 11…b5, this is not a bad idea as it prevents …a5-a4. The mistake comes later. 9…c6 10 g5 Nd5 11 Nxe4? In view of Black's reply this looks like a serious mistake. White should try 11 Qxe4 intending 12 Bd3. 11…b5! Well played. Black doesn't count the cost in pawns but aims to open lines, which is exactly how one should play such positions. As Kotov states: “Success in a pawn attack goes to whoever is the first to be able to seize the initiative, or, alternatively, to whoever is first to force the opponent to go on the defensive.”

12 Nh3? I’m not sure that White has read The Art of the Middle Game as now Black’s attack comes first. After 12 axb5 cxb5 13 Qxb5 a4 White would get his king position demolished, but the best practical try was 12 g6!. After that the file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [01/18/2004 9:48:57 AM]

Let's Take A Look

variation 12…hxg6 13 h5 Nf4 14 Qf3 Nxh5 15 Ng3 would give White a dangerous initiative. 12…fxg6 may be better, despite the fact that it captures away from the centre. 12…bxa4 13 Qh5 e5 This wasn't absolutely necessary but it's understandable that Black feels more comfortable with the a1-h8 diagonal closed.

14 Rg1 axb3 15 Nf6+ N7xf6 And not 15…gxf6?? because of 16 Bd3!, when mate would follow shortly. 16 gxf6 Nxf6 17 Qxe5 a4 18 cxb3 axb3 19 Nf4 Ra5 20 Qe3 I'm really itching to play 20 Rxg7+ but this leads nowhere after 20…Kxg7 21 Nh5+ Kh8 etc. Now White can kiss goodbye to his dreams of an attack because his bishop on b2 gets exchanged. 20…Ba3 21 Nd3 Bxb2+ 22 Kxb2 Ra2+ 23 Kb1 This allows a spectacular combination but by now there is nothing else. After 23 Kxb3 there follows 23…Qd5+ 24 Kb4 Qa5+ 25 Kc4 (or 25 Kb3 Qa4+ 26 Kc3 Rc2 mate) 25…Ba6+ 26 Kd4 Rd8 mate and 23 Kc3 loses the queen after 23…Nd5+. 23…Ra1+!! A rook for a tempo. 24 Kxa1 Qa5+ 25 Kb2 Qa2+ 26 Kc3 Nd5+ 27 Kd4 Qa4+ 28 Ke5 f6+ 29 Kd6 Rd8+ 0-1 White is mated after 30 Kc5 Qb5+ 31 Kd4 Nb6+ 32 Ke4 Qf5 mate.

Recommended Reading The Art of the Middle Game by Paul Keres and Alexander Kotov (Penguin, 1964) Think Like a Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov (Batsford, 1971) Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [01/18/2004 9:48:57 AM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [01/18/2004 9:48:57 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected] . Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Pattern Banks “One of the outstanding qualities of a modern grandmaster is his ‘pattern’ knowledge, i.e. the reconnaissance of an enormous amount of typical middle/endgame structures. He ‘understands’ the problems concerning those pawn-structures- and strives to produce such positions. A striking example is Karpov’s handling of the Black pieces: Against: 1 e4 he plays 1…c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 and then goes for the so-called Paulsen set-up. 1 d4 he plays 1…Nf6 2 c4 e6 and then the Nimzo or the Queen’s Indian according to circumstances. 1.c4 he plays 1…e6 or 1…c5, striving for the same type of pawn structure. “The same attitude is to be found with other GMs, e.g. Andersson, Ljubojevic. There is no reason to believe that these structures are ‘better’ than other structures – they produce a slightly cramped game, but a solid center, something to work with – provided you are convinced about your superior technique & patience.” Bent Larsen & Steffen Zeuthen in Zoom 001: Zero Hour for Operative Opening Models One of the most neglected aspects of chess at the club level is the use of pawns. Everyone has heard that ‘pawns are the soul of chess’, but under 2000 level you can rarely find an example of good pawn play. I suspect that part of the reason is that games are usually decided by a devastating oversight or tactic, which

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [02/17/2004 12:38:03 AM]

Let's Take A Look

rather overshadows structural issues. Oversights, however, must be put into context - I’ve also noticed that players tend to make them when they’re struggling to find a plan. There’s a good reason for this. In many ways a chess player can be thought of as a computer; if he has too much to think about there’s a greater likelihood of a ‘crash’, just as a computer may crash if too many programs are open. This is why it’s good to automate as many aspects of your chess as possible and leave as much processing time as possible for the actual ‘thinking.’ Planning and pawn play is one of those tasks that can be automated, at least partially. The best thinking on structure that I’ve seen comes in the forgotten classic, Zoom 001: Zero Hour for Operative Opening Models by Bent Larsen and Steffen Zeuthen. Larsen gets top billing simply because he’s Larsen, but in fact he just provided pithy notes to the games. It was mainly the unknown Zeuthen whose book this was, an unknown genius hitting the nail on the head by coining the phrase ‘pattern recognition.’ ‘Pattern recognition’ is THE WAY we know what to do in chess. It’s hopeless trying to work out a plan from first principles or through calculating variations. You need to have seen historical precedents for the position you’re in, and then use these to guide you towards the right plan. If you’ve studied enough chess you’ll often be able to recall a similar position in which a particular plan was the right way to proceed. The larger your knowledge of positions and plans, the more likely it is that you’ll know what to do whatever happens during the game. Grandmasters tend to be very strong in this area because of their vast experience, both in playing and studying. How can an amateur emulate this? Unfortunately there’s no substitute for plain old hard work and extensive tournament practice, it’s really the only way to build a huge bank of knowledge. Is there a short-cut whereby someone can acquire this Grandmasterly intuition without effort? Yes and no. A player with limited time might try to specialise and learn a few types of positions thoroughly, for Gruenfeld and Catalan structures then Zoom 001 is great if you can get hold of a copy. Of course this may leave you struggling in other positions in which your pattern database is not so well stocked, so what about total, all-encompassing mastery? At the risk of being repetitive, the best form of study is to examine hundreds of well-annotated games. Starting with Morphy an aspiring player would do well to go through the collected games of all the major figures in chess history; Steinitz, Lasker, Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Capablanca, Alekhine, Nimzovich, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Keres, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik. I could add a few more to this list, but that is certainly enough to get started. Then you have to play 50 serious games a year over a period of at least 10-15 years and analyse them carefully so as not to draw the wrong conclusions.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [02/17/2004 12:38:03 AM]

Let's Take A Look

For those who think this is an easy game, think again. This month's game illustrates the drawbacks of not having a well-stocked pattern bank. Early in the game Black brings his knight out to c6 in front of his c-pawn. A Grandmaster would just ‘know’ that Black had to play for …e7-e5 if he wanted a smooth-flowing plan, but for players without a large pattern database this won’t be as clear by any means. Later in the game Black had further pattern recognition issues regarding the Stonewall formation he’d set up. In the midst of these difficulties there came 24...Nc7??, and the rest was silence. 'Hawk' (Unknown rating) - Morgan,A (1370) Nimzovich Opening A06 Internet 2003 1 Nf3 d5 2 b3 Nimzovich's idea, going for a kind of Queen's Indian in reverse. But as with many of these reversed defences, the extra tempo isn't enough to turn it into an attacking line. 2...Nc6 This is not a bad move at all, though having said that I should issue a word of warning. By blocking his c-pawn Black is really committing himself to playing ...e7-e5 if he wants to get counterplay, and he should pursue this aim with some energy. 3 d4 Preventing Black from taking the center with 3...e5. After 3 Bb2 Black can play 3...Bg4 when 4 e3 is met by 4...e5. 3...Bf5 This is certainly a natural developing move, but I'd prefer fighting for the e5 square with 3...Bg4. After 4 e3 e5 we'd get a reversed French in which White's extra b2-b3 means he will probably equalise in a reversed Burn Variation with 5 dxe5 Nxe5 6 Be2 etc. 4 e3 Reaching a kind of Colle position, the problem Black now faces is in organising some sort of pawn lever. He'd like to be able to play either ...c5 or ...e5, but both of these are going to be difficult. 4...Nb4 5 Na3 e6 6 c3 Nc6 7 Bd3 Not really the best way to play it as Black can either exchange a piece or put his file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [02/17/2004 12:38:03 AM]

Let's Take A Look

bishop on a better square. Simply 7 Be2 seems stronger, intending 0-0, Bb2 and c3-c4. Black, meanwhile, will have a problem finding an active plan, simply through lack of a pawn lever. 7...Bg4 Now Black wants to play ...e5 again, but the time he's lost makes it less viable. He could also ease his position with 7...Bxd3 which might in fact have been the preferable option. 8 0-0 Qd7 Black can play 8...e5, but after 9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Be2 Bxf3 11 Bxf3 Nf6 (Or 11...Nxf3+ 12 Qxf3 Nf6 13 c4, with some pressure) 12 c4 White has a slight initiative because of his lead in development. 9 c4 Nf6 10 Bb2 Be7 11 h3 Bxf3 Giving White the two bishops. 11...Bh5 looks better. 12 Qxf3 Nb4 13 Be2 I would prefer to play 13 Bb1, keeping Black's knight out of e4. Locking the rook in on a1 would only be a temporary inconvenience. 13...0-0 14 Nb5 The immediate 14.Rfc1 may be better. 14...Ne4 15 Rfc1 c6 16 Nc3 Nd2 17 Qh5 17 Qg3 looks better, leaving the queen less exposed. 17...f5 18 Rd1 Ne4 19 g3 Another funny looking move by White, at this point Black is doing quite well. But over the next few moves he starts to drift, the lack of essential patterns being to blame once again. Anyone familiar with Stonewall structures knows to have a knight on e4 and a bishop on d6 (or maybe f6), but without this knowledge Black’s pieces go to strange squares. 19...Nf6 20 Qf3 Bd8 21 a3 Na6 22 Qg2 Ne4 23 Rac1 Ba5 24 Nb1 Nc7??

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [02/17/2004 12:38:03 AM]

Let's Take A Look

This is the big one, losing a piece, but blunders often appear in the midst of planning troubles. 24...Bd8 looks reasonable, aiming for a set up with the bishop on f6 and knight on c7. 25 b4 Trapping the bishop. In reply Black finds the best chance but objectively speaking he is quite lost. 25...b5 26 cxd5 I agree in principle with the idea of winning two pawns here as 26 bxa5 bxc4 would still need some winning. But I think it’s better to play 26 cxb5 after which 26…Bb6 27 bxc6 gives White a nice queenside pawn mass. 26...Nxd5 26...Bb6 27 dxc6 Qe7 might have been a better practical chance because White will expose his position somewhat when he advances his pawns. Now Black is just a piece down. 27 bxa5 a6 28 g4 I can't say this would have been my personal choice, but by now White is winning in many different ways. 28...Qc7 Black wants to get another pawn for his piece so he targets the a5 pawn. But taking his queen from the kingside will leave him vulnerable on this flank. 29 gxf5 exf5 30 Nd2 Qxa5 31 Nxe4 fxe4 32 Qxe4 Rae8 33 Qh4 Re7 34 Bd3 Nf6 35 Bxh7+ Winning more material. Black could really have spared himself the rest, but then nobody ever won a game by resigning. 35...Nxh7 36 Qxe7 b4 37 d5 Nf6 38 Bxf6 Rxf6 39 Rxc6 Rxc6 40 dxc6 b3 41 Rd7 Qe1+ 42 Kg2 Qa1 43 Qf7+ Kh8 44 Rd8+ 1-0 After 44…Kh7 45 Qh5 it's mate. Recommended Reading Pawn Power in Chess by Hans Kmoch (Dover, 1990) file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [02/17/2004 12:38:03 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Simple Chess by Michael Stean (Dover, 2003) Zoom 001: Zero Hour for Operative Opening Models by Bent Larsen & Steffen Zeuthen (Dansk Skakforlag, 1979) Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [02/17/2004 12:38:03 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Page 1 of 4

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

All That Glitters

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

“With such a multitude of resources at his command, many of them of a spectacular nature, the learner is at first disappointed to find that manoeuvres of this kind are not always occurring. He loves to believe that truth is beautiful and the beautiful true.” Emanuel Lasker (Lasker’s Manual of Chess, Dover 1969) Most of us like to see spectacular games in which one side sacrifices some of their pieces in order to deliver checkmate, but herein is situated a great danger. If you look at too many such games, at the expense of positional play and endgames, it’s easy to get a lopsided view. You can start believing that spectacular chess is also good chess and that the way to play the game is to throw all your pieces forward. This is not the case. Good moves take many different guises, from the little pawn push to the gritty defensive move. It is in fact quite rare to have the chance of playing a spectacular move that is also good, most of the time the best move will be quite dull and mundane, slightly improving the position of your pieces or bringing a badly placed piece into the game. When someone starts to understand this, their chess strength can improve enormously, mainly because they’ll have level material during most of their games rather than being a piece or two down. Yet it can be surprisingly difficult to convince students of this, and even when you convince them they often can’t help themselves. For a ‘sacrifice addict’ one of the great problems can be that they just don’t know how to win a game unless it’s via checkmate. This is where my lesson about ‘the importance of endgames’ comes in, and I then spend the next two years trying to convince them that endgames are fun! The reason it’s such an uphill struggle is that there’s so much out there about attacking chess, from books about attacking players to various opening repertoire suggestions. The kind of product which best meets this particular market demand is one about the ‘attacking opening for club players’ which requires no theory. That way you get your fantasy about being the club player’s version of Tal and don’t even have to work for it. The only problem is that you won’t get any better and might possibly get worse. Creating an attack needs more than a repertoire book, you need to understand what makes positions tick and where your opponent’s weaknesses are. Once again Lasker’s great work offers timeless advice on the matter:

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

3/12/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 2 of 4

“Only after the balance of the positions has been disturbed, so that one player holds and uncompensated advantage, may this player attack with intent to win. And here Steinitz elevates himself to the level of a genuine philosopher in demanding that players must attack with intent to win or else be punished by being deprived of his advantage.” The following game was submitted by the loser with a request for advice. I have to say that he looks like quite a talented player, but he needs to go cold turkey as far as spectacular moves are concerned. Looking at the moves 18 Nxg5, 39 g6 and 43 Bf6 it has to be admitted that they are all truly spectacular. Still none of them served the greater good of helping White get some kind of positive result from the game. Akanksh (1648) - Progresser (1892) Queen’s Indian Defence E21 Internet 20 Minute Game, 2004 1 d4 If someone really wants to be an ‘attacking player’, the best way to get the right kind of positions is by playing 1 e4. 1…Nf6 2 c4 And here the aspirant attacker should consider 2 Nc3 or 2 Bg5. 2…e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 a3 Forcing Black to carry out one of his main ideas, the book moves are 5 e3, 5 Qc2, 5 Qb3 and 5 Bg5 with this latter move leading to positions similar to the game after 5…h6 6 Bh4 Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 d6, but with White having saved a tempo by omitting 5 a3. 5…Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Bb7 7 Qc2 0-0 8 Bg5 h6 9 Bh4 d6 10 e3 Nbd7 11 Bd3 c5 12 e4 e5 13 d5 Closing the position like this also helps Black, White’s bishop pair will only be a problem for him if the game opens up. Accordingly White should keep the tension in the centre for as long as possible, say with 13 0-0. 13…g5 14 Bg3 Nh5 15 0-0-0 Rc8 At first sight this looks rather odd, but Black wants to play ...b6-b5. He could also have considered an immediate 15...b5!?, for example 16 cxb5 c4! 17 Bxc4 Qa5 gives him a dangerous attack. 16 a4 Qe8 Black apparently gives up on the ...b6-b5 lever, 16...a6 looks more consistent to me. 17 Qd2 Nb8 18 Nxg5?! Wow! The first in a series of spectacular moves as White reveals his true colours. The only problem with this sacrifice is its soundness, but Black needs to defend well.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

3/12/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 3 of 4

18…hxg5 19 Qxg5+ Ng7 20 h4 Qd8 It seems more accurate to play 20...f6 after which 21.Qe3 Qg6 leaves White with only nebulous chances for his piece. 21 Qg4 Rc7?! Missing another chance to beat off the attack, here it seems better to play 21...Qd7, forking White's queen and a-pawn. Now White has a real opportunity to breathe life into his attack. 22 h5 An interesting alternative was 22 f4 after which 22...f6 (22...exf4 23 Qxf4 hits the d6-pawn after which 23...Rd7 would be strongly met by 24 Qh6) 23 h5 Bc8 24 f5 would make Black's life far from easy. 22...Bc8 23 Qe2 Qg5+ 24 Kb2 Bg4 Playing to win the h5-pawn looks attractive at first sight but White gets the open hfile, 24...Qh6 is more solid. 25 f3 Bxh5? It wasn't too late to back down with 25...Bd7 after which 26 Bh4 Qh6 inhibits the flow of White's attack, at least for a while. Over the following few moves White plays excellently. 26 Bh4 Qf4 27 Rh3 f5 28 Rf1! This is a subtle move, 'shadowing' Black's queen. 28 Rdh1 was also possible. 28...Kf7? A very serious mistake after which Black's position collapses. Yet even with a better move his position is far from easy, for example after 28...fxe4 29 Bxe4 it's not easy to find a way to neutralize White's pressure. 29 g3 Qh6 30 g4! This nicely exploits the position of Black's king to gain a huge and mobile mass of pawns on the kingside. 30...Rg8 31 exf5 Ne8 32 g5! Qf8 If Black tries to give up the exchange with 32...Rxg5 then 33 Qd2 would be decisive. 33 Be4 Ke7 34 f6+ There was another, perhaps simpler route to victory in 34 g6+ Kd7 35 Bg5 Rh8 36 Rfh1 Nf6 37 Bxf6 Qxf6 38 Rxh5 etc.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

3/12/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 4 of 4

34...Kd8 35 Qc2 Rh8 36 Bf5 Nd7 37 Be6 Kc8 38 Rfh1 Bf7 39 g6? And here White can play 39 Bxf7 Qxf7 40 g6, winning a massive amount of material. The text is more spectacular and at first sight looks strong, but Black manages to cobble together a defence. 39...Bxe6 40 g7 Nxg7 41 fxg7 Qxg7 42 dxe6 Nb8 43 Bf6!? Here we go again, but is this really better than the dull 43 e7? 43…Rxh3 44 Bxg7 Rxh1 45 Bf8 Nc6 46 Qf5? 46 Qe4 is much better, stopping Black from activating his rooks and keeping up the threat against the d6-pawn. Black would then be under serious pressure whilst after the move played he takes the initiative. 46...Kb7 47 Bxd6 Rg7 48 Qf7+ Again this is a spectacular move, but one that leads to a lost endgame. I think that White now has a lost game, but other moves might at least have offered better practical chances. 48...Rxf7 49 exf7 Rh2+ 50 Ka3 Rh8 51 f8Q Rxf8 52 Bxf8 Na5 53 Bg7 Kc6 54 Bxe5?? Losing a piece, but White's position is lost in any case. The rest seems rather unnecessary but Black might have been short of time. 54…Nxc4+ 55 Kb3 Nxe5 56 a5 Nxf3 57 axb6 axb6 58 Kc4 b5+ 59 Kb3 Nd2+ 60 Kc2 Ne4 61 Kd3 Nxc3 62 Kxc3 Kd5 63 Kb3 Kd4 64 Kc2 c4 65 Kb2 Kd3 66 Ka3 c3 67 Ka2 c2 68 Kb2 Kd2 69 Kb3 c1Q 70 Kb4 Kd3 71 Kxb5 Kd4 72 Kb6 Kd5 73 Kb5 Qb1+ 74 Ka6 Kc5 75 Ka7 Kc6 0-1 Recommended Reading Lasker’s Manual of Chess by Emanuel Lasker (Dover, 1969) Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay (Wordsworth Reference, 1995) The Veresov by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2003) Winning with the Trompowsky by Peter Wells (Batsford, 2003) Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2003 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

3/12/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 1 of 5

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Stay Active!

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

“What is immobile must suffer violence. The light-winged bird will easily escape the huge dragon, but the firmly rooted big tree must remain where it is and may have to give up its leaves, fruit, perhaps even its life.” Emanuel Lasker (Lasker’s Manual of Chess, Dover 1969) This was Lasker’s colourful way of depicting the danger of immobility; positions in which one of the players is badly tied down bear the seeds of defeat. It’s often better to give up a pawn rather than have your entire army tied down to its defence and Andrew Soltis put it in a rather more straightforward way in “The Art of Defence in Chess” (George Allen & Unwin, 1980) “One of the many trade-offs in a game of chess is this: If your pieces are all well placed for the protection of your weaknesses, they are probably incapable of exploiting your opponent’s. Given time, your opponent can shift his power to the weakest link in your chain of defence. This is why counterplay is the No. 1 priority of defence – even at the expense of other values such as king safety, pawn structure, material and development.” Modern chess reflects this very well; contemporary Grandmasters tend to avoid passive positions like the plague, knowing their odds are much better if they have some kind of activity. This can be seen in all stages of the game, from going active with a rook in the endgame to playing openings that offer prospects of counterplay. This wasn’t always the case. In the early 20th century most players thought that when they played Black they had to create a strong-point in the centre (either d5 or e5) whilst avoiding any weakening of your kingside pawn structure. This led to them defending passive forms of the Spanish Opening (e.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 d6 4 d4 Bd7 5 Nc3 Nge7 followed by 6…Ng6) and the Queen’s Gambit Declined (e.g. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e3 0-0 6 Nf3 b6 and 7… Bb7), both of which fulfil these criteria, but neither of which is very much fun. These days it’s different and we see an enormous variety of openings and defences, most of which would have been thought unsound by the stalwarts of the old classical school. The fianchetto of a king’s bishop was thought to be a horrible weakening of the kingside, which would immediately rule out the King’s Indian and Gruenfeld Defences. And the failure to strongpoint e5 or d5 would leave the Nimzo and Queen’s Indian in the trash can too, not to mention the entire Sicilian Defence! Yet how wrong they were! The relative efficacy of active versus passive openings

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

4/16/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 2 of 5

can be reasonably judged using the statistics function in Chessbase – and from my database I get a despairing 35% for Black with the 5…Nge7 Spanish and a miserable 42% with the 6…b6 Queen’s Gambit. These results are rather typical for such passive defences, whilst in most of the modern openings Black does much better than this, scoring between 45% and 50%. So if active play is best by test, why do so many players play passively, especially when confronted with danger? One reason is related to a player’s personality - more timid types will instinctively want to cover up when threatened which leads their minds to considering nothing but passive moves. Others will have learned to play passively because of negative experiences – a player who is less able tactically may tend to hide himself behind a wall of pawns so as to shield his weakness. Is it possible to grow beyond these limitations and enjoy the fruits of active play? Sometimes, yes. I’ve found that younger players tend to respond reasonably well to solving tactical puzzles and weaning themselves onto more open positions. As their confidence grows the paranoia that causes ‘defence en masse’ will tend to diminish. At this point they may be better able to approach Lasker’s defensive ideal. He stated that “all the lines of resistance be equally strong, that the chain contain only joints of equal strength.” In this month’s game Black doesn’t lose because of the weak and immobile epawns he contracts on move ten, it’s his insistence on allowing them to immobilise his entire army! Even later on he had a chance to save the game by trying to get a source of counterplay in the form of a passed d-pawn, but this too fell by the wayside. Bibek (unrated) - Prashanna Muni Tamrakar (unrated) Philidor Defence C41 Sports Week Chess Tournament 2003 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 The Philidor is not a bad defence. These days people like to get it via 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 e5 or 3...Nbd7 followed by ...e5. 3 Bc4 The standard move is 3 d4, but the text is also not bad. 3...Be6 A more solid way to play it is with 3...Nc6, for example 4 d4 exd4 5 Nxd4 g6 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 0-0 Bg7 8 f4 Nf6 9 f5?! 0-0 10 fxg6 hxg6 11 Bg5 Qe7 12 Nc3 Qe5 gave Black a good game in Darnstaedt - Dreev, Berlin 1991. 4 Bb3 The critical line is 4 Bxe6 fxe6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4, for example: 6...Nf6!? (the best chance as both 6...Qd7 7 Qh5+ g6 8 Qh3 e5 9 Ne6 - Van der Wiel - Cifuentes Parada, Novi Sad 1990 - and 6...e5 7 Ne6 Qe7 8 Qh5+ g6 9 Qh3 (Chandler - Large, Hastings 1986) are both unpleasant for Black; whilst 6...Qf6 7 Qh5+ g6 8 Qb5+ Nd7 9 Qxb7 Rb8 10 Qxa7 won a couple of pawns in Grob - Tartakower, Ostende 1937) 7 c3 (7.Nxe6? Qe7 gets the pawn back with a comfortable game) 7...e5 8 Ne6 Qd7 9 Qb3 c6 10 0-0 Nxe4 11 Re1 d5 12 Rxe4 dxe4 13 Be3 and White had strong pressure for the sacrificed exchange in Blatny - Barbero, Lazne Bohdanec 1995.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

4/16/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 3 of 5

4...Nf6 5 Nc3 Nbd7 6 d4 Be7 7 dxe5 This leaves Black with a weakened pawn structure and problems that persist into the endgame. But an even better way of doing this was with 7 Bxe6 fxe6 8 Ng5 after which 8...Nf8 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Qe2 would have left Black struggling to survive the middlegame. 7...Nxe5 8 Nxe5 dxe5 9 Qxd8+ Rxd8 10 Bxe6 fxe6 11 0-0 0-0 12 a3?! a6 Too passive - Black needs to generate some activity before his structural defects operate against him. The right move was 12...Bc5, with pressure against f2. 13 b4?! Trying to prevent Black's bishop from coming to c5. But White should have secured his e4-pawn with 13 f3. 13...b6?! Here too Black is too passive. He could have played 13...c5! after which 14 bxc5 Bxc5 leaves White facing multiple threats. 14 Bb2?! White should probably get his e-pawn protected with 14 f3. Now Black has yet another chance to go active. 14...Nd7?! Missing it. He should play 14...Rd2 15 Rac1 c5 with good counterplay. 15 Rad1 Bf6 16 Na2 Kf7? Now Black gets into really serious trouble. He should have played 16...b5 17 Nc1 Nb6 intending 18...Nc4. 17 Nc1 h6 It's already too late for Black to regroup on the queenside as 17...b5 18 Nd3 hits the e5-pawn and thus ties the knight on d7 down. 18 Nd3 g5 19 c4 c5 20 Rd2 Kg6 21 Rfd1 h5? Probably missing White's reply. He had to unpin on the d-file and go for counter play against the c4-pawn. To this end he should have played either 21...Rc8 or 21...cxb4 22 axb4 Rc8. 22 Nxe5+ Nxe5 23 Rxd8 Rxd8 24 Rxd8 Bxd8 24...Nf3+ is an attempt to get a better version of the endgame by doubling White's pawns, but then 25 gxf3 Bxd8 26 bxc5 bxc5 27 Be5 Bf6 28 f4 would also be winning for White.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

4/16/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 4 of 5

25 Bxe5 Winning a pawn, and in theory the game. But we’re in for a few surprises yet… 25…g4 Or if 25...Be7 there follows 26 bxc5 Bxc5 27 a4. 26 bxc5 bxc5 27 f3 Bf6 28 Bd6?? A move that I don't understand. Why White didn't go straight into the pawn endgame with 28 Bxf6 Kxf6 29 fxg4 hxg4 30 Kf2. Now the win is actually in serious doubt! 28...Bd4+ 29 Kf1 e5 30 Ke2 Kg5 31 Be7+ Kg6 And not 31...Kf4 because of 32 g3 mate! 32 Bh4 Bb2 33 a4 Bd4 34 Bf2 Bxf2? Black should wait for White to exchange with 34...Kg5 as after 35 Bxd4 exd4 Black's protected passed pawn would stop White advancing his king (and not 35...cxd4?? as White's split pawns would be unstoppable after 36 fxg4 hxg4 37 h4+ gxh3 38 gxh3 etc.). Play might then continue 36 e5 Kf5 37 f4 Ke6 38 Kd3 Kf5 39 g3 Ke6 40 Ke4 Kf7 41 f5 Ke7 42 a5 Kf7 43 e6+ Kf6 44 Kf4 Ke7 and now White could make no further progress because 45 Ke5 d3 would get a queen. 35 Kxf2 a5 36 g3 gxf3 Not the most stubborn. Black could resist more tenaciously with 36...Kg5 after which White needs to find 37 Kg2 Kh6 38 h3 Kg5 39 hxg4 (39 Kg1 is also good) 39...hxg4 40 fxg4 Kxg4 41 Kf2 Kg5 42 Kg1 (And not 42 Kf3 Kh5 43 g4+? Kh4 etc.) 42...Kg6 43 Kg2 Kh5 (43...Kg5 44 Kh3 Kh5 45 g4+ Kg5 46 Kg3 is easier) 44 Kh3 Kg5 45 g4 Kf4 46 Kh4 Kxe4 47 g5 Kf5 48.Kh5 e4 49 g6 Kf6 50 Kh6 e3 51 g7 e2 52 g8Q e1Q 53 Qf8+ Ke5 54 Qe8+ winning Black's queen. 37 Kxf3 Kg5 38 h4+ Kf6 39 g4 hxg4+ 40 Kxg4 Kg6 41 h5+ Kh6 42 Kf5 Kxh5 43 Kxe5 Kg5 44 Kd5 Kf4 45 e5 Kf5 46 e6 Kf6 47 Kd6 Kf5 48 e7 Ke4 49 e8Q+ 1-0 Recommended Reading “The Art of Defence in Chess” by Andrew Soltis (George Allen & Unwin, 1980). Nice book on the subject by Soltis. “Lasker’s Manual of Chess” by Emanuel Lasker (Dover, 1969). Required reading for every chess player. “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu (Harper Collins, 1994). Ancient insights into strategy and warfare. Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

4/16/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 5 of 5

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

4/16/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 1 of 5

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Same Boot, Different Foot

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

In the June 2003 column (see the ChessCafe Archives) I suggested that over-theboard (OTB) players might enjoy the benefits of correspondence chess in order to foster opening research and deep analysis of positions. This time round the boot is on the other foot. I think that correspondence players should seriously consider playing some OTB chess, face to face with some guy who wants to beat them. I can already hear the complaints! You don't have enough time, you've got a demanding job, your wife won't let you wander off on the weekends, the games are poor quality, etc. Yet I maintain that OTB offers vitamins and mineral supplements that are vital to your healthy development as a chess player. Relying heavily on painstaking research can foster dependence on such methods, at the expense of intuition. I am not alone in this claim, here’s what Grigory Sanakoev had to say on the matter in World Champion at the Third Attempt (Gambit, 1999): I am convinced that a postal player who sets his sights high should take part in ordinary tournaments from time to time. This disciplines his thinking, revives his faculty for taking quick decisions, gets him out of the fatal habit of examining all possible continuations and makes him trust his intuition more. After all, nine times out of ten the first ‘candidate move’ to come into your head turns out to be the strongest, and the subsequent analysis merely proves the correctness of your intuitive decision. In a similar vein, Bent Larsen once quipped: “Long think, wrong think.” When the mind focuses too heavily on the nitty-gritty of variations there can be a tendency to move away from common sense and a more holistic, balanced view of a position. In my own games I’ve found that the longer I agonize over a decision the weirder and more wonderful my thoughts become. Fortunately I have learned from the follies of youth, at which time I burned a lot of nervous energy during games, tried to calculate far too much, played some strange moves, and then often ended up in time-trouble. In my current more enlightened era I try to calculate only what’s necessary and constantly gauge each of my decisions for how ‘sensible’ they are. Believe me, it helps! Of course unless someone has decent intuition in the first place, making decisions on this basis is going to be very difficult. Ten or more different moves might suggest themselves whilst Fritz or Shredder will often propose something aggressive but inappropriate based on their primitive strategic heuristic. Can these possibilities be whittled down to a single decision by calculation alone? If they

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

5/14/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 2 of 5

could then computers would already play perfectly. There’s no easy way around it. Good intuition is indispensable if you want to play good chess and OTB games are the best way to develop it. Did someone mention internet blitz? Well maybe, up to a point. I have had several students who’ve migrated from internet chess to terrestrial tournaments, and they have been stunned at how different the game is. It’s not just the moves that make up a chess game; it’s your opponent’s body language, the feel of the pieces and the actual sensation of reaching out and moving a piece, demonstrating your idea to the world. I know this is just my opinion but I don’t think these things cannot be separated out from the overall chess experience. Chess is not a cold mathematical puzzle or an academic exercise; it’s a living struggle in which we try to outwit the player sitting on the other side of the board. And chess intuition encompasses all these aspects. This month's game illustrates the problem that correspondence players often have. Black's decision to part with his dark-squared bishop (10…Bxc3) is not something that a street-wise and experienced OTB player would even dream of; his hand just wouldn’t let him take the knight after even the most extensive calculations. You just know there’s going to be trouble with a white bishop coming to a3, except if you confuse yourself by calculating dozens of variations. Soza,J (ICCF 2351) - Martins,F (ICCF 2281) Correspondence: Semi-Final Peru Cup Slav Defence D17 1 Nf3 d5 2 d4 Nf6 3 c4 c6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 Morozevich likes the old 6…Nbd7 in this position, for example 7 Nxc4 Qc7 8 g3 e5 9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Bf4 Nfd7 11 Bg2 g5 12 Nxe5 (12 Ne3 gxf4 13 Nxf5 0-0-0 14 Qc2 Nc5 15 0-0 Ne6 led to complex play in Bareev - Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2002) 12…gxf4 13 Nxd7 0-0-0 14 Qd4 Qxd7 15 Qxf4 Bd6 16 Qc1 Kb8 (16…a5 17 0-0 Be5 18 Nb5 Qe7 19 Na7+ Kb8 20 Nxc6+ bxc6 21 Qxc6 gave White a strong attack in Kramnik - Morozevich, Monaco 2002) 17 a5 a6 18 0-0 Qe7 19 Ra4 Bc7 was OK for Black in Kempinski - Morozevich, Bled 2002. 7 g3 A less common alternative to 7 f3 in which the main line features a piece sacrifice for three pawns via 7…Bb4 8 e4 Bxe4 9 fxe4 Nxe4 10 Bd2 Qxd4 11 Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12 Qe2 Bxd2+ 13 Kxd2 Qd5+ 14 Kc2 Na6 15 Nxc4 0-0 16 Qe5 Rab8 (This mysterious looking rook move has been played by a number of very strong players, so probably it's quite a good one) 17 a5 f6 18 Qxd5 cxd5 19 Nd2 Rfc8+ 20 Kb1 Nb4 looked about equal at this stage in Vescovi - Gelfand, Bermuda 2004, though Vescovi managed to win after a gruelling 90+ moves. 7…Bb4 8 Bg2 Ne4 In his notes to the game Mr. Soza mentioned another possibility in 8…Qa5 of which there are no examples in my database. But after 9 Bd2 (9 0-0 is unconvincing after 9 Bxc3 10 bxc3 Qxc3 11 Ba3 Nbd7 12 Nxd7 Kxd7! etc) 9…0-0 10 Nxc4 Qd8 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bxf6 Qxf6 13 e4 Bg6 14 0-0 is better for White because of his strong centre. 9 Bxe4

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

5/14/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 3 of 5

In the early days of the 7 g3 line White tried to play it like a gambit with 9 0-0!? Nxc3 10 bxc3 Bxc3 11 Ba3, but theory has since come to question the value of this idea After 11…Qxd4 12 Nxc4 Qxc4 13 Qd6 Bf6 14 Rfd1 e5 White has been unable to keep his initiative going, for example 15 Qc7 (15 Rab1 Qe6 16 Qc7 Qc8 17 Qxb7 Qxb7 18 Rxb7 e4 19 g4 Bc8 20 Rc7 Bxg4 21 Bxe4 Bd7 22 Bd6 Be7 was also inadequate in Khalifman - Wojtkiewicz, Linares 1997) 15…Nd7 16 Qxb7 Rb8 17 Qxa7 Rd8 18 Qc7 (18 Bd6 is answered by 18…e4 and 18 Rac1 by 18…Qb3) 18…e4 left White with inadequate compensation in Tyomkin - Summerscale, Tel Aviv 1997. 9…Bxe4 10 0-0 Bxc3? This is the kind of move that strong OTB players would not even consider. Black gives up his dark square bishop in order to try and hold the c4-pawn but the concept is deeply flawed. White's queen's bishop will land on a3 and the bishop on d5 is vulnerable to a later e2-e4. A much more sensible move is simply 10… Bg6 after which 11 Nxc4 0-0 12 Qb3 a5 13 Rd1 Nd7 14 Bf4 Qe7 (14…Nb6?! 15 Na2 Qd5 16 Rdc1 Nxc4 17 Nxb4 axb4 18 Rxc4 b5 19 Rxb4 Qxb3 20 Rxb3 bxa4 21 Rb4 Bc2 22 Rc4 won a pawn for White in Wiedenkeller Matulovic, Banja Luka 1987) 15 Na2 Rfd8 16 Nxb4 Qxb4 17 Qc3 c5 18 Qxb4 axb4 19 dxc5 Nxc5 was about equal in the game Kramnik - Shirov, Monte Carlo 2000. Another reasonable move is 10…Bf5 after which 11 e4 Bg6 12 Nxc4 0-0 13 f3 Na6 14 Be3 f6 15 Qe2 Re8 16 Rfd1 Bf8 left Black solidly placed in Illescas Cordoba Gulko, Dos Hermanas 1994. 11 bxc3 Bd5 Presumably this was Black's idea in playing his previous move, and by now it's rather too late to bail out with any dignity. After 11…0-0 12 Ba3 Re8 13 Nxc4 White's knight wants to hop into the d6-square. 12 Re1 Probably the best. It's also interesting to play 12 Ba3!? after which Black's best try seems to be 12…Nd7 (12…f6 13 e4 Bxe4 14 Qg4 is horrific) 13 e4 Nxe5 (13… Bxe4 14 Nxc4 is followed by 15 Nd6+) 14 exd5 Nd3 15 dxe6 Qd5 16 Rb1 b6, holding the position together with string. 12…f6 The only move. 12…Be4? 13 Ba3 keeps Black's king in the centre and threatens 15 Nxc4. 13 e4 This incisive move must be right. After the lethargic 13 Ng4 Black can play 13… h5!.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

5/14/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 4 of 5

13…fxe5 14 Qh5+ Kd7? Heading for the hills with his king, but he won't be safe there either Black really has to try 14…g6 15 Qxe5 0-0 (15…Rg8 16 Bg5 is even worse) after which 16 Bh6 Rf7 17 exd5 Qxd5 18 Qxd5 cxd5 19 Rxe6 Na6 20 Rae1 Nc7 allows him to put up a fight at least. 15 Qg4 Kc7 16 Qxg7+ Nd7 After 16…Kc8 there follows 17 exd5 exd5 18 Rb1 with massive pressure. 17 exd5 cxd5 18 Rxe5! This nice positional exchange sacrifice shows who's the boss. White gets a flood of passed pawns plus a massively strong bishop on e5. 18…Rg8 19 Qxh7 Rh8 20 Qf7 Rf8 21 Qxe6 Nxe5 22 Bf4 Qd7 After 22…Rxf4 there follows 23 Qxe5+! Qd6 24 gxf4 etc. 23 Bxe5+ Kc8 24 Qxd7+! Kxd7 25 f4 This position is quite hopeless for Black. The three passed pawns are not going to be stopped, especially when supported by that bishop on e5 25…Kc6 26 g4 b5 27 axb5+ Kxb5 28 h4 "Forward patrol", as Tartakover would have commented! 28…a5 29 h5 Ra6 Pushing the a-pawn doesn't help either - after 29…a4 30 g5 a3 31 h6 Ka4 32 g6 Rg8 33 g7 Kb3 White can even play the leisurely 34 f5 Kb2 35 Rf1 a2 36 f6 a1Q 37 Rxa1 Rxa1+ 38 Kg2. Just try stopping those pawns, even with two rooks! 30 g5 Rf5 After 30…a4 White even has little tricks like 31 h6 Rf7 32 Rb1+!? Ka5 33 f5!? with the point that 33…Rxf5 (33…a3 34 g6) is answered by 34 Bc7+ etc. 31 Rb1+! Ka4 32 Rb7 Ka3 33 h6 1-0 Recommended Reading World Champion at the Third Attempt by Grigory Sanakoev (Gambit, 1999): The former correspondence champion presents his games and insights. Selected Games of Chess, 1948-69 by Bent Larsen (Bell, 1970): Not only was Larsen was one of the best players and writers, his insights into the nature of the struggle are immensely practical and unpretentious.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

5/14/2004

Let's Take A Look

Page 5 of 5

Winning Ugly: Mental Warfare in Tennis-Lessons from a Master by Brad Gilbert and Steve Jamison (Simon & Shuster, 1994).

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm

5/14/2004

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Emotional Momentum

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

One of the biggest reasons for lost games is due to a condition I call emotional momentum. It occurs when a player has held a certain kind of advantage, but then fails to adjust his perspective when the advantage either disappears or changes. This may not sound like much but the results can be disastrous. I’ve seen hundreds of games in which the player with the attack keeps pressing forward with spectacular looking moves when the time has come to cash in. Before he knows what has happened his pieces are overstretched, offside, and quite unable to deal with the inevitable counterpunch. Another case can occur when a player has been on the defensive the whole game, but then suddenly gains an advantage. Once again ‘emotional momentum’ can come into play as the defender continues to play as if he is in deadly danger of being mated and doesn’t make the most of his chances. I haven’t seen much reference to this concept in chess literature, though I believe it was the secret weapon of the great Emanuel Lasker. One must remember that he was World Chess Champion for 27 years, and had a unique gift for getting his opponents to believe they stood better. He gave the bishoploving Janowsky his favorite piece and presented Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch with oodles of his beloved space. Great players though they were, both Janowsky and Tarrasch proved to be easy meat for Lasker once they had lost their objectivity. Lasker’s unique understanding of chess is presented in his great book, Lasker’s Manual of Chess. This is the only book I know of that states clearly and unequivocally that you can only attack if you have the advantage, that this attack must be in proportion to the size of that advantage and that the player with the advantage MUST attack whilst he has the chance. Understanding these principles acts as a rudder in the stormy seas of competitive chess and is of far

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [6/12/2004 11:40:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

greater value than knowing an opening or two. They are meals for a lifetime with a value beyond the 64 squares. The following game was sent to me by Harvey Caron, who asked where he could have played better. Whilst there are a number of definable improvements, I believe that both sides erred because of emotional momentum. White’s attack on the kingside produces an overanxious response by Black with the moves 30…h6 and 35…Qe7. White in turn misses a chance (33 g5!) but then both sides continue as if he is better (40 Rf5 and 40…Nd7 are particularly telling). Into the endgame it becomes clear that Black is better, but once again we get what looks like emotional momentum taking a hand in proceedings. The move 57…Kxe4 looks like it was played by a man who is trying to win, when really he should be thinking in terms of a draw. All in all it was a fascinating struggle in which the final result was probably fair. ‘PJ’ (1650) - Caron,H (1736) Sicilian Defense B40 Edmonton 2004 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 g3 This is Vlastimil Jansa’s move. The usual way of playing the King’s Indian Attack is with 3 d3, but White can try to keep the option of moving his d-pawn to d4 in just one step. 3...Nc6 4 Bg2 Qc7 One of the characteristics of club-level Sicilian players is that there can be a tendency to play the moves they use in the Open Sicilian (where White plays d2d4) against other variations. This and Black’s next moves fall into this category as he adopts a ‘Scheveningen’ formation against White’s King’s Indian Attack, something like the chess equivalent of putting custard on your kippers. The direct 4...d5 is a more appropriate way to play it after which 5 exd5 (5 d3 dxe4 6 dxe4 Qxd1+ would be very comfortable for Black) 5...exd5 6 d4 Bg4 gives Black a comfortable game. 5 0–0 Nf6 6 Re1 d6 7 c3 Be7 8 d3 There’s no need for such modesty. White can take the lion’s share of the center with 8 d4 after which 8...cxd4 9 cxd4 d5 10 e5 Ne4 11 Nbd2 Nxd2 (and not 11...Bb4? 12 Nxe4 Bxe1 13 Nd6+ etc) 12 Bxd2 gives White a nice space advantage. 8...0–0 9 Qe2 Nd7 10 Nbd2 10 d4 would be good here too, especially after the retreat of Black’s king’s

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [6/12/2004 11:40:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

knight from f6. 10...a6 11 Nf1 Rb8 12 N3d2 b5 13 f4 Bb7 14 Nf3 Rfe8 15 Ng5?! Bxg5 16 fxg5 Nce5 16...b4 makes a lot of sense here – if White keeps the queenside closed with 17 c4 he would lose the option of being able to drive Black’s knight from e5 with d3-d4. 17 Ne3 c4 18 d4 Nd3 19 Rf1 e5 20 d5 f6 21 Qg4 fxg5 22 Qxg5 Rf8 23 Nf5 Nf6 24 b4 24…Nxc1?! Giving up such a strong knight seems rather harmful to me. I’d prefer to play 24...cxb3 after which 25 Ba3 (25 axb3 Nc5 hits both e4 and b3) 25...b2 26 Rab1 Nc5 27 Qe3 Ng4 28 Qg5 Nf6 could lead to a draw by repetition. 25 Raxc1 Bc8 26 Rc2 Bxf5 27 Rxf5 Rf7 28 Rcf2 Rbf8 29 h4 Kh8 30 h5 h6? Once White’s queen lands on g6 Black’s knight is pinned against the rook on f7. A better way to prevent h5-h6 would have been 30...Ng8. 31 Qg6 Kg8 32 g4 Ne8 33 Qe6 This looks good but Black can defend himself. A much stronger move is 33 g5! after which 33...hxg5 34 Rxf7 Rxf7 35 h6 Nf6 (35...Rxf2 36 h7+ Kh8 37 Qxe8+ Kxh7 38 Kxf2 wins a piece) 36 Bh3 Rf8 (36...g4 37 Bxg4 Nxg4 38 h7+ Kh8 39 Rxf7 wins for White) 37 Be6+ Kh8 38 Bf5 threatening 39 Rh2 gives White a winning attack. 33...Nf6 34 g5 hxg5 35 Rxg5 Qe7? This rush to exchange queens might have had surprisingly serious consequences. The correct defense was 35...Kh8 preparing ...Nf6-g8. White cannot prevent this with 36 Rgf5?? because 36...Re7 would win his queen. 36 Qxe7 This leads to an equal endgame. White should play 36 h6! after which 36...Qxe6 37 dxe6 Re7 38 Rg6 (threatening hxg7 followed by capturing the knight on f6) 38...Nh7 39 Rd2 wins the d6-pawn. 36...Rxe7 37 h6 Kh7 38 hxg7 Rxg7 39 Rxg7+ Kxg7 40 Rf5? file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [6/12/2004 11:40:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Having been on the attack White plays another aggressive looking move, but this one has no point to it. 40 a4 is better, the main point being to take the initiative on the queenside before Black (with ...a6-a5). 40...Nd7? Offering the exchange of rooks allows the game to peter out to a draw, at least if White defends accurately. The right plan was 40...Ra8! intending 42...a5. White would then find it very difficult to defend his queenside pawns. 41 Rxf8 Kxf8 42 Kf2 Ke7 43 Bh3 Nb6 44 Ke3 Kf6 45 Bg4 Kg5 46 Bh3 Kh4 47 Be6 Kg3 48 Bf5 Kg2 49 Bg4 Kg3 50 Bf5 Kg2 51 Bg4? This allows Black’s king to make further progress when White is suddenly lost. He should play 51 Ke2 after which 51...Na4 52 Kd2 forces 52...Nb6 because of the threat of 53 Bc8. White could then repeat the position with 53 Ke2 etc. 51...Kf1 52 Kd2 Kf2 53 Be6 Kf3 54 Bf5 Kf4 55 Bg6 Nd7 Coming over with the knight is the right plan, but Black chooses the wrong route; the right way was to bring his knight to e7 and run White’s light squared bishop out of squares. In the variation 55...Nc8 56 Bf5 Ne7 57 Bh7 Kg5 58 Ke3 Kh6 59 Bf5 Nxf5+ 60 exf5 Kg5 61 Ke4 Kf6 62 a3 Kg5, Black wins the f5pawn and the game. 56 Bf5 Nf6? It’s not too late to return to the plan given in the previous note. Black can still win with 56...Nb6 57 Bh7 Nc8 followed by 58...Ne7 etc. 57 Bc8 Kxe4? It’s interesting to note how often mistakes come together. Black should hold his queenside pawns with 57...Ne8 58 Bxa6 Nc7 after which 59 Bb7 Kxe4 60 Ke2 Kf4 (And not 60...Nxd5?? 61 a3, when Black loses his knight) 61 Kf2 looks drawish. 58 Bxa6 Kxd5 And not 58...Nxd5 because 59 Bb7 wins the knight.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [6/12/2004 11:40:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

59 Bxb5 Suddenly Black is in desperate trouble because of the passed a-pawn. 59...Ne4+ 60 Kc2 Ke6 If Black doesn’t reorganize White will simply push his a-pawn. 61 Bxc4+ d5 62 Bd3 Nf6 63 a4 Kd6 64 Bb5 Kc7 65 a5 Ne4 66 Bf1 Nd6 67 Kb3 e4 68 b5 Kb7 69 Kb4 e3 70 Kc5? Allowing Black drawing chances. White should set about rounding up Black’s epawn with 70 Bd3 or 70 Kb3. 70...Ne4+ 71 Kd4 Ng3 72 Kxe3 Nxf1+ 73 Kd4 Nd2 74 Kxd5 Nb3 75 a6+ Kc7 76 Kc4 Nd2+ 77 Kb4? This still looks good for White after 77 Kd4 Kb6 78.c4 Nb3+ 79.Kd5 etc. 77...Kb6 78 c4 Ne4 Establishing an effective blockade of the passed pawns. 79 a7 Or 79 Kb3 Nc5+ 80 Kc3 Ne6 81 Kd3 Kc5 82 a7 Nc7 followed by 83...Kb6. 79...Kxa7 80 c5 Nxc5 81 Kxc5 Kb7 82 b6 Kb8 83 Kc6 Kc8 84 b7+ Kb8 85 Kb6 ½–½ Recommended Reading Lasker’s Manual of Chess by Emanuel Lasker (Dover, 1969)

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [6/12/2004 11:40:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [6/12/2004 11:40:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Winning Ugly

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

One of the problems with much of today’s chess literature is that it’s far too academic and arty. You can read the most highly acclaimed authors from cover to cover, but this does not equip you for the kind of warfare we experience on the chessboard. Being a fine shot is one thing, but being able to shoot someone is quite another; a subject that was touched upon in Clint Eastwood’s film The Unforgiven. You might have good technique, but can you pull the trigger? Well can you, punk? There are a few chess writers who’ve offered insights, most notably Tony Miles and Bent Larsen. Miles in particular was full of cunning ideas for winning his games, for example he’d routinely offer a double repetition of position in order to draw his opponent into using time on the clock. If the guy spent 30 minutes on the clock and went for the draw, Miles would just as routinely avoid repetition number three. His opponent had lost thinking time and probably his cool. By far the most useful book on these matters that I’ve come across is Brad Gilbert’s tennis book, Winning Ugly, and the lessons contained therein are highly applicable to chess. Take for example the following excerpt: The Retriever beats you because you choose the wrong game plan. As more and more balls keep coming back at you, frustration sets in. You get impatient. You try harder. You go for better and better shots, deeper, harder, more angled. You try shots McEnroe wouldn't attempt. The Pusher keeps them coming back until you screw up. The keep retrieving, knowing you’ll eventually make an unforced error. Or possibly you’ll just give up and start pushing the ball back, too. You’ll lose. They’re better at pushing than you are. That’s why it’s important to get your attitude going in. Recognize that patience is a great ally when a Retriever stands on the other side of the court.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [7/16/2004 2:42:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Having prepared yourself mentally for a long day at the office with points that go on and on, here are the other tactics that can tilt a match in your favour against the Pusher. Gilbert goes on to explain how you can use the limitations of a Retriever’s game against him, and exactly the same thing can be done in chess. For example you might be playing someone who plays very soundly but can’t attack for toffee. What do you do? Go for positions in which they MUST attack by snatching a hot pawn or mashing up their pawn structure, even if objectively speaking these are risky plans. Chess is not an academic exercise – it’s a very human struggle. The following game features a suitably ugly looking opening, but later on White tries to go for points for artistic impression. To some extent we should allow some latitude as this was a blitz game, but I cannot emphasise enough that the problem with 13 Rxb4 is that it’s not percentage chess. In this case it works. Yet this win will lead to many losses if Mr. Tilling is encouraged to make such moves a regular feature of his games. Chris Tilling (1559) – ‘Guest656544’ French Defence (by transposition) C11 Internet Blitz (3 minutes + 3 seconds per move) 2004 1 Nc3 This ugly looking move is the so-called Dunst Opening. It may be one of the chessboards last unexplored frontiers, though perhaps not the most hospitable territory on which to set up a homestead. Two of the best known players to have shown a fondness for this move are the idiosyncratic GMs Alexander Morozevich from Russia and Jonny Hector from Sweden; not to forget Napoleon, who reportedly played it in one game against Madame de Rémusat at Malmaison Castle. 1...d5 Napoleon - Mrs. Rémusat featured a transposition into a Philidor Defence after 1...e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 e4, with the great General going on to win after 3...f5 4 h3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nc6 6 Nfg5 d5 7 Qh5+ g6 8 Qf3 Nh6?? (8...Bf5 would have cost Napoleon half his cavalry) 9 Nf6+ Ke7 10 Nxd5+ Kd6 11 Ne4+ Kxd5 12 Bc4+ Kxc4 13 Qb3+ Kd4 14 Qd3 mate. 2 e4 It's better to play 2 d4 with a Veresov, and I'm not saying this just because I want to sell you one of my books. My objection to the text is that it allows

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [7/16/2004 2:42:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Black to take space. 2...e6 As I implied in my last note, 2...d4 is quite a good move here. After 3 Nce2 e5 4 Ng3 Be6 I guess that White should develop his king's bishop with 5 Bb5+ c6 6 Ba4, not that this is massively impressive. 3 f4 Nf6 This leads to a transposition into the Classical French, which isn't a bad result for White from the Dunst. It seems much better to play 3...dxe4 in order to make the pawn on f4 look silly, for example 4 Nxe4 Nf6 5 Nxf6+ Qxf6 6 d4 c5 7 Nf3 Nc6 gives Black an excellent game. 4 e5 Nfd7 5 d4 c5 6 Be3?! A dubious departure from theory; 6 Nf3 is the normal move, developing knights before bishops. 6...Qb6 It looks tempting to hit the freshly exposed b2-pawn, but taking it gives Black a fatal case of indigestion. The right way to exploit White's early 6 Be3 seems to be 6...cxd4 7 Bxd4 Nc6. White must then choose between giving up his darksquare bishop or retreating it with loss of time. 7 Nf3 Qxb2 8 Bd2? Missing a golden opportunity; a much stronger move is 8 Nb5! threatening 9 Nc7+ and simultaneously bottling in Black's queen. After 8...Na6 9 a3 c4 10 Rb1 Qa2 11 Qc1! (threatening 12 Ra1) 11...c3 12 Rb3 followed by Nxc3, the queen will be lost. 8...Qb6 9 Rb1 Qc7?! 9...Qd8 is a more circumspect move. White would still have to demonstrate that his compensation for the pawn is adequate. 10 Be3 I don't really understand this move as the bishop is already developed on a reasonable square. White should take the opportunity to open the game up with 10 Nb5 followed by 11 c4. His lead in development is much more valuable in an open position. 10...Be7 11 Bd3 Nc6 12 0-0 Nb4

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [7/16/2004 2:42:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

This loses time when Black is already behind in development. Simply 12...0-0 is a better move, when White has it all do prove. 13 Rxb4? Chris Tilling commented as follows: "The first rook sacrifice. Is it sound? I don't know! But it sure felt good!" I'll let Brad Gilbert answer the question: Remember to avoid the temptation to try and hit big. This is the point in the match where careless flubs are made. Don't put yourself in a position where the other player wins an early game just by standing there. Don't give them freebee's. Your goals should be modest: 1. Get the ball in. 2. Get it to their weaker side. Although White wins this game and evidently enjoyed it greatly, he has set himself up for some painful defeats should he try to repeat this kind of flamboyant but unsound game. 13 f5 was simpler and better, with compensation for the sacrificed pawn. 13...cxb4 14 Nb5 Qa5 In his notes to the game Tilling felt that 14...Qb6 may be Black's best, a sample variation continuing 15 f5 exf5 16 c4 dxc4 17 Bxc4 0-0 18 Qc2 with a claim of compensation. Well maybe White has something here but it's all very iffy, and 14...Qd8 looks better still, meeting 15 f5 exf5 16 c4 with 16...dxc4 17 Bxc4 Nb6. The exchange is the exchange. 15 f5 a6 Forcing White to commit himself; Black might also have considered 15...0-0 but then 16 f6 (16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Bg5 also gives some compensation) 16...gxf6 17 Ng5 (17 Qe1!?) 17...fxg5 18 Qh5 f5 19 exf6 Nxf6 20 Rxf6 Rxf6 21 Qxh7+ Kf8 22 Bxg5 gives White a dangerous attack. 16 Nd6+ 16 fxe6 was also interesting as 16...axb5 17 exf7+ seems very murky, despite Black's extra rook. 16...Bxd6 17 exd6

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [7/16/2004 2:42:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Once again 17 fxe6 is interesting when 17...Be7 18 exf7+ Kf8 leaves Black with an extra rook but in a horrible tangle. I won't even try to assess this position. 17...Qxa2?? This greedy move gets exactly what it deserves though in any case White has some compensation for the exchange. Black should probably organise his position with 17...Nf6 when White can play 18 Qe1 intending 19 Qg3. Not an easy position for Black to play. 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Ng5 There's not the slightest chance of a defence to this with Black being so far behind in development. 19...Nf6 20 Rxf6! gxf6 21 Qh5+ Kd7 Or 21...Kd8 22 Qf7 etc. 22 Qf7+ Kxd6 23 Bf4+ Kc6 After 23...e5 24 Qxf6+ things would be getting gory. 24 Qc7 mate Recommended Studies Winning Ugly: Mental Warfare in Tennis-Lessons from a Master by Brad Gilbert and Steve Jamison (Simon & Shuster, 1994). Teaches you things about winning that are not available in the more reputable text books. The Veresov by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2003). Quite simply a masterpiece, even if I say so myself. The Unforgiven starring Clint Eastwood (1992)

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [7/16/2004 2:42:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [7/16/2004 2:42:01 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

The Old Frying Pan

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

One of the aspects of chess that is most talked about and agonized over is the opening. Many amateur players spend what little time they have for chess wondering how they should play the first few moves. They end up flitting from one line to another, depending on the last impressive game they played through or openings book that they bought. The problem with this random approach is that they never get to understand anything very well and this in turn leads to many very reasonable openings being abandoned. What is needed is an understanding of the weaponry a particular chess player needs and then a plan to acquire it. You can find some guidance in conventional chess literature, for example Lajos Portisch gave us the following valuable insight in How to Open a Chess Game: The crowd mimics its heroes. This is a natural tendency, but there is no need for such mimicry. It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is indeed important in chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found as well in the middlegame or endgame. Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlgame. OK, so you don’t need to play openings favoured by Kasparov and Kramnik, but that still leaves an ocean of possibilities. What kinds of openings will suit a particular player? It’s here that chess books tend to be quite unhelpful, many of them recommending openings for ‘attacking club players’ and the like, but without offering the player any kind of advice as to their suitability. It seems that chess is not the only game with this kind of problem, those which involve a racquet or bat also faces such issues. Searching through my literature on other sports I discovered that Geoff Boycott, the former England cricketer,

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

had something to say about one’s choice of weapon. A lot of today's batsmen have had their techniques ruined by using heavy bats. The obsession with heavier bats is inextricably linked with the high backlift, as batsmen strain for extra power. I had all my bats tailor-made at 2lb 5oz, the balance being most important in guaranteeing manoeuvrability. A batsman must be able to control the swing of the bat and it is nonsense to suppose that I could have used the same weight of bat as Botham, who is around a stone and a half heavier, or that a schoolboy could use one of my bats. The bat should feel like an extension of the arm rather than a plank and it should be used as a rapier, not as a cutlass. It seems that a player needs to control the swing, but what does that mean in chess terms? My translation is that a player must choose openings he is able to understand and use effectively. The sharpest openings (the heaviest bats) need a player with the right muscles (memory, tactical ability and good nerves) to wield them, otherwise he won’t be able to exercise any sort of control over the positions he gets. This may sound obvious but I’ve come across many quite strong players who don’t think in these terms at all. You get older guys with dodgy memories, little time and bad nerves trying to play sharp Sicilians. Then there are kids who are as sharp as whips playing turgid stuff like the Exchange Ruy Lopez and 2 c3 Sicilian. What openings should they use? Let’s try to think about this from a common sense approach and try to choose a defence to 1 d4. The first thing to bear in mind is that it should also be used against 1 c4 and 1 Nf3. A lot of White 1 d4 players, including myself, will switch to one of these moves if they see their opponent plays the Grünfeld, Benko Gambit, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Nimzo-Indian or Stonewall Dutch. 1 c4 can also be used against Slav Defence players – after 1...c6 comes 2 c4 with a likely Caro-Kann Panov Attack. So let’s rule those out for a start. What about the all-court defences which can be used against both 1 d4 and flank openings? These include the King's Indian, Leningrad and Classical Variations of the Dutch plus the Queen's Gambit Declined (including the SemiSlav). Do you want something that has a good reputation for soundness? Then bid farewell to the King's Indian and Dutch. So we’re left with just the Queen's Gambit Declined, and assuming you don't want an isolated d-pawn then you can scrub the Tarrasch. Now I’m going to be rude and ask your age. If, like me, you’re over 40 then the QGD Tartakover (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Be7 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 0-0 7 e3 b6) is definitely the defence for you, and this is also the case if you’re under 40 but not a tactical genius with a good file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

memory. If and only if you check all the right boxes you might be able to wield a heavier bat. Choose the Semi-Slav Defence (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c6 4 Nf3 Nf6) as Kramnik and others have played, but use the lines recommended in Larry Kaufmann’s The Chess Advantage in Black and White. Now we know how it should be done let’s go back to the reality of amateur chess and its weird assortment of openings. This month’s game features 1 b4, the move of a man who has lost all faith and interest in chess theory and just wants to ‘get out of the book.’ But is this a move that will help foster a greater understanding of chess? Can it be considered a ‘repertoire’? The answer to both these questions is an emphatic no; it’s just a random move which doesn’t threaten Black in any way. I’d describe it as an old frying pan rather than a bat, and I wouldn’t let Geoff Boycott catch you playing an inning with it. Pena,A (1875) - Helfst,M (1359) Orang Utan Opening A00 Internet Game (60 minutes per player), 2004 1 b4 Wow! Exotic stuff! Tartakover named this move after an Orang Utan he met in New York zoo, noting the similarity it had to one of the creature's outstretched arms. 1...b6 An almost equally exotic reply - there's nothing wrong with Black taking the centre here with 1…d5 or 1…e5. For historical interest the game Tartakover - Maroczy, New York 1924 went 1...Nf6 2 Bb2 e6 3 b5 d5 4 e3 Be7 5 f4 0-0 6 Bd3 a6 7 a4 axb5 8 axb5 Rxa1 9 Bxa1 Nbd7 10 Nf3 Ne4 11 0-0 f5 12 Be2 Nd6 13 Qc1 Bf6 with a nice game for Black. 2 e3 Bb7 3 Nf3 e6 4 Bb2 Nf6 5 a3 d5 6 c4 c5 I'm not overly fond of this move as it allows White to exchange off his b-pawn for one nearer the centre; 6...Bd6 looks better, intending just to castle. 7 bxc5 Bxc5 8 d4 Bd6 9 Be2 0-0 10 0-0 Nbd7 Despite the unusual opening a fairly standard sort of position has been reached. I would suggest that White has a slight edge here, though it's not much. 11 Nc3

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

My own preference would be for 11 Nbd2, protecting the pawn on c4 so that White wouldn't be forced to exchange on d5 after 11...Rc8. But this is not such a big deal. 11...Rc8 Almost forcing White to relieve the central tension. 12 cxd5 Nxd5 13 Nb5 Bb8 14 Rc1 N7f6 15 Qd3 Qe7 15...a6 looks simpler, driving White's knight away. Now White gets the initiative. 16 a4 Rfd8 17 Ba3 Qd7 18 Ne5 Qe8 The right way to play it; 18...Bxe5 19 dxe5 would give White a nice outpost on d6. 19 Nc4 a6? But this is wrong. 19...Ba6 would prevent White's invasion by pinning the knights against his queen. 20 Nbd6 Qxa4 21 Nxc8 This should be good enough, but it's far from being the most devastating. 21 Nxb7 wins a whole piece. 21...Rxc8 22 Nd6 Rxc1 23 Rxc1 Bxd6 24 Bxd6 b5 24...a5 might be a bit better, leaving the bishop on b7 with more scope. But of course Black should be losing this in any case. 25 Bf3 Qa5 And this should be disastrous, Black allowing a pin with Bd6-c7. Mind you, it shouldn’t really matter now one way or another. 26 Bxd5 Missing 26.e4 Nb6 (or 26...Nb4 27 Bxb4 Qxb4 28 Rc7 picking up the bishop as well.) 27 Bc7 Ne8 28 Bd8 when Black can't move either his queen or the knight on b6. 26...Nxd5 27 e4 Qb6 28 Bc5 Nf4 29 Qe3 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

It would have been simpler to play 29 Bxb6 Nxd3 30 Rc7 when Black can't move his bishop without allowing mate. 29...Qc7 30 Bb4?? A blunder, turning a winning position into a lost one; 30 Ba3 is correct, with a winning game for White. 30...Ne2+ It's even better to play 30...Qxc1+ 31 Qxc1 Ne2+ winning a piece. 31 Qxe2 Qxc1+ 32 Qf1 Qxf1+ 33 Kxf1 Bxe4 34 f3 Bd5 35 Ke2 f6 0-1 This seems a bit premature as the opposite colour bishops present practical problems. For example White can put his bishop on a5, stopping Black's queenside pawns. Though I suspect Black should eventually be able to get through with his king and win. Recommended Studies Boycott on Cricket by Geoffrey Boycott (Guild Publishing, 1990): One of the great batsman speaks frankly and instructively about cricket. The Chess Advantage in Black and White by Larry Kaufman (Random House 2004): The most intelligent repertoire book I’ve come across, the suggested lines including the Semi-Slav. How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, Svetozar Gligoric, Vlastimil Hort, Tigran Petrosian, Lajos Portisch, Paul Keres and Bent Larsen (RHM Press 1974). Some of the greatest players in history offer insights; a great book which is sadly out of print.

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Choices, Choices

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

After my recommendations against 1 d4 (Semi-Slav if you’re young and talented, Queen’s Gambit Declined Tartakover Variation for the rest of us) a number of readers wrote in to ask for my suggestions against 1 e4. I guess I might be one of the best GMs to ask, against 1 e4 I’ve played and lost with just about every defence that’s walked or crawled. Having racked up miserable results with the Pirc, Modern, French, Caro-Kann, Sicilian and Alekhine’s Defences I guess I could be called an expert on trying to make good choices. Only with 1…e5 have things been more respectable, and the pity is that I only discovered the suitability of this move in the twilight of my career… Anyway, that’s enough of my problems; let’s take a look at the issues facing you. The first thing to bear in mind is that you don’t have the same problem with those pesky transpositional Flank Openings by which people get conned out of their favourite Grünfeld or Nimzo-Indians. This gives you much more choice, which can either be good or bad. Basically I think you should look at one of four major approaches: a) If you’re young and beautiful then the Sicilian Dragon is an option. A player who takes this route should play both the standard (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6) and Accelerated (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6) forms. This, in fact, is what Dragon specialists such as Sergei Tiviakov and Boris Alterman do, the reason being that the Accelerated gives them a solid stand-by if the standard Dragon is having a theoretical crisis. I do not tend to recommend other lines of the Sicilian because of either the difficulty of handling them or move order problems. If, for example, you want to play the Najdorf there’s a problem with 2 Nc3 after which 2…d6 3 f4 leads to a dangerous form of the Vinken System. A Dragon player, on the other hand, can just meet 2 Nc3 with 2 Nc6.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [9/12/2004 5:09:50 PM]

Let's Take A Look

b) If you’re old, ugly and like endgames then keep four pawns on the kingside and a half-open d-file. Defences that achieve this in many lines include Caro-Kann (1 e4 c6), the Alekhine (1 e4 Nf6), the Scandinavian (1 e4 d5) and the Rubinstein French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 and now 4…Bd7 has much to be said for it). The four kingside pawns (e6, f7, g7 or g6 and h7) tend to give positions great defensive strength whilst you can get counterplay on the d- and cfiles. These structures are examined in Stephan Zeuthen’s book, Zoom 001. c) Players who are good at planning, defence and counterattack (relatively few such beasts exist at amateur level) would do well to play the French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5), but not the Rubinstein Variation which has a quite different character. There are many players who only play the French against 1 e4, the most outstanding specialists being Smbat Lputian and Wolfgang Uhlmann. Please note that I never recommend the French for very young players as the closed positions do not lend themselves to the development of their tactical ability. So this is for the over 16’s only. d) If you want to play correct and principled chess then 1…e5 is the move to play. Defend the Closed Spanish (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7) if you like manoeuvring games or the Open (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 or 3…Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 a6 6 Ba4 b5 7 Bb3 d5) if tactics are more your thing. One further possibility is to play the Petroff Defence with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 Have I failed to mention your pet defence? There are, unfortunately, a number of openings to which I have to give the thumbs down. What should you avoid? Well do not, under any circumstances, get seduced into having the Latvian Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5) as your main weapon as Black. You’ll spend all your time trying to keep the wretched thing alive and risk being drawn into some of the weird Latvian Gambit cults that exist in cyberspace and elsewhere. Do not play the Pirc or Modern Defences as this cultivates an unhealthy disrespect for space. Do not play 1…a6 or 1…h6. And if you must wear a baseball cap then have the peak pointing forwards. What about the various Sicilian lines such as the Sveshnikov, Kalashnikov etc? Well the problem here is the same as with the Semi-Slav, do you really have the youth, good nerves, unlimited time for study and a fantastic memory. If you can tick all these boxes then by all means go ahead. If you can’t you’ll end up using loads of time trying to learn the theory and even if you get a good position you’re likely to get shot down in the complications. A man’s got to know his limitations…

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [9/12/2004 5:09:50 PM]

Let's Take A Look

This month’s game features a very sensible choice in the Petroff Defence. It’s simple and direct enough for most amateurs to understand and can become exciting if White tries hard to refute it. It’s also worth bearing in mind that it can frustrate the hell out of higher rated players, as I found out recently in one of my own games. Pena,Aquilino (1875) - Helfst,Matt (1359) Petroff Defence C42 ICC (60 minute game), 2004 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 The move that characterises this defence, which was named after the Russian Master, Alexander Petroff. Rather than defend his e-pawn with 2…Nc6 or even 2…d6, Black counterattacks White’s pawn on e4. 3 Nxe5 I was faced with the Petroff at the Liverpool Congress a few weeks ago, and learned about some of the issues on a first hand basis. The game Davies Evans, Liverpool 2004 continued 3 d4 Nxe4 4 Bd3 and now 4…Nc6!? appeared, a tricky move which I'd never seen before and caused me to think for quite some time. After due consideration I blustered on with 5 0-0 (Neither 5 d5 Nf6 6 dxc6 e4 nor 5 Bxe4 d5 6 Bd3 e4 seemed very promising to me) 5...d5 6 c4 Bg4 7 cxd5 Qxd5 8 Re1 f5 9 h3 Bh5 10 g4 Bg6 (10...Bb4 worried me during the game, but White can play 11 Re3 exd4 12 Re2 with what appears to be good play) 11 gxf5 Bxf5 12 Qe2 (12 Bxe4 Bxe4 13 Nc3 did not appeal to me after 13...Bxf3 14 Nxd5 Bxd1 15 Nxc7+ Kd8 16 Nxa8 Bh5 as the knight on a8 is trapped) 12...Nd6 13 Nc3 Bxd3 14 Qxd3 Qc4 15 Nxe5 Qxd3 16 Nxd3+ Kf7 17 Ne5+ Nxe5 18 dxe5 Nf5 19 Nd5 (In retrospect it would have been better to play 19 e6+ Ke8 20 Nb5 with more interesting play than the game) 19...Nd4 20 Rd1 Nf3+ 21 Kg2 Nxe5 22 Nxc7 Rc8 23 Nb5 a6 24 Nd6+ Bxd6 25 Rxd6 Rhd8 26 Rxd8 Rxd8. In this endgame White was equal at best, though I later managed to bamboozle a win. 3...d6 Beginners often make the mistake of playing 3…Nxe4 after which 4 Qe2 gives Black a problem. Not that this is completely clear after 4…Qe7 5 Qxe4 d6, but Black is struggling to equalize. 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 d3 If White must put his queen on e2 then it’s better to do it immediately. I’ve played 5 Qe2 several times myself; motivated partly by the thought that Paul Morphy, Emanuel Lasker and Boris Spassky all played it and partly that my opponents would probably hate the position more than me. By move 6 of my file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [9/12/2004 5:09:50 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Liverpool game I was in fact wishing I’d played it this way. 5...Nf6 6 Qe2+?! A pointless check that misplaces the queen; a much better move is 6 d4, with transposition into an Exchange French after 6...d5. 6...Be7 7 Nc3 0-0 8 Bd2 d5 9 0-0-0 Re8 Showing up the problem with White’s 6th move, where can White’s queen go? She finds refuge on d3 but that proves to be just temporary. And meanwhile White is losing oodles of time. 10 d4 Bb4 11 Qd3 Bxc3 12 Bxc3 Ne4 13 Be1 Bf5 14 Qb3 b6 Good, calm play. There’s no point sacrificing the b-pawn as Black has an excellent game without indulging in heroics. 15 Nd2 Nc6 16 Nxe4 Rxe4 17 Bc3 An awkward way to defend the d4-pawn, but 17 c3 would further expose White’s king. 17...Qd6 18 f3? Not only does this invite Black’s rook into the powerful e3-square, it loses a pawn on the spot. A better move is 18 Bd3 after which 18...Re6 19 Bxf5 Qf4+ 20 Bd2 Qxf5 21 Be3 Rae8 puts White under serious pressure, though his position may still be tenable. 18...Re3?! Not bad, but 18...Nxd4! 19 Rxd4 (19 Bxd4 Qf4+) 19...Qf4+ 20 Kb1 (20 Rd2 Re1#) 20...Rxd4 21 Bxd4 Qxd4 leaves Black a pawn up for nothing. 19 Bb5 Na5 20 Qb4 Qg6 21 Rd2?? And this is losing. White should play 21 Bd2 in order to evict Black’s rook. 21...c6 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [9/12/2004 5:09:50 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Again not bad, but this is not the most precise way to play it. It’s better to keep White’s bishop out of the a6-square with 21...a6 after which 22 Ba4 Nc4 leaves White completely hamstrung. 22 Ba4 22 Ba6! was mandatory in order to stop ...Nc4, though admittedly this is unpleasant for White after 22...Rae8. 22...Nc4! Putting White in all sorts of trouble; Black is about to launch his queenside pawns forward and there’s nothing White can do to get his pieces out of the way. Both his queen and light-squared bishop are in danger of being trapped and there is no way to escape completely unscathed. 23 Rf2 a5 24 Qb3 Rae8 25 Rd1 Qg5 Changing the direction of the attack to White’s c2-pawn; 25...Bd7 intending 26...b5 would also have been very effective. 26 Kb1 Re2 27 Rxe2 Rxe2 28 Re1 Nd2+! 29 Bxd2 Qxd2 30 Rc1 b5 Certainly this is more than enough, but 30...Re1! would have been somewhat quicker. 31 Bxb5 cxb5 32 a4 b4 White could really have saved himself the rest. 33 Qxd5 Bxc2+ 34 Ka2 b3+ 35 Qxb3 Bxb3+ 36 Kxb3 Qxc1 0-1 Recommended Reading Zoom 001: Zero Hour for Operative Opening Models by Bent Larsen & Steffen Zeuthen (Dansk Skakforlag, 1979) – a really excellent book which is out of print in English. Winning with the French by Wolfgang Uhlmann (Batsford 1995) – the maestro presents 60 of his games. The Petroff Defence: Current Chess Opening Theory for the Advanced Player by Artur Yusupov – the Petroff book by one of the best experts.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [9/12/2004 5:09:50 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [9/12/2004 5:09:50 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."

Ending in Style

Let's Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Many great players have recommended studying chess from the endgame, but very few people take this advice. Openings books continue to sell extremely well, despite the market being somewhat saturated; with everyone thinking that their problem lies in the first few moves. I doubt very much that I’ll be able to convince you otherwise, but at least I can try. Why is the endgame so important? There are several reasons. First, you might actually get one and it will then need playing. Be warned that a different kind of thinking operates in the endgame. Instead of playing for mate you are trying to queen pawns. Instead of keeping your king tucked away in the corner you must use him actively. Patience is a greater virtue than passion and judgement tends to triumph over energy. Besides the possibility of having to play and endgame there are a number of fringe benefits to studying them: ●

●

●

Players get a better appreciation of how to use a full army of pieces after learning to operate with just a few of them. Confidence in your endgame play allows you to make calmer decisions in the middlegame. Endgames give you a better appreciation of strategic aspects of the game because combinational elements are to a large extent stripped away.

The thorny question is how someone should actually study the endgame. I personally am no stranger to this problem and have found very few endgame books even remotely readable. The first one I managed to finish was How to Play Chess Endings by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky. This is really an excellent guide that explains which pieces you should keep on and which you should exchange. The second was Mikhail Shereshevsky’s Endgame Strategy which adopts a similarly explanatory style. So far there hasn’t been a third, though I’ve promised myself to work through Victor Korchnoi’s Practical Rook file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 5) [10/15/2004 4:10:13 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Endgames when I get the time. The old warrior is one of the greatest ever endgame players and here he explains some of his greatest achievements in the field. The books I’ve never been able to face are those dull compendiums of positions in which the king can be separated by one file or two and the pawn can be on either the fifth or sixth rank. Has anyone ever managed to read one of those things? I’m actually amazed that anyone’s managed to write one. The best of this genre may be Rook Endgames by Smyslov and Levenfish, but you’ve got to be a real enthusiast to get through this book to the end. Besides books dealing specifically with endgames, another good method of improving your understanding can be to look at games of players who made the endgame their speciality. Playing through the games of Capablanca, Rubinstein, Smyslov or Karpov will do wonders for your endgame play, and also provide a sense of how the opening and middlegame is linked to the endgame. In some respects the games of Capablanca and Rubinstein are more instructive because they were playing against unequal opposition and thus managed to execute more of their plans; modern GMs tend to see what’s coming and will fight tooth and nail to confuse the issue. Conversely, the games of Smyslov and Karpov featured more modern openings, so both have their advantages. Are there other methods of improving your endgame? Well it’s good to actually play them. Very often you see players, myself included, agreeing a draw once the queens are exchanged, but guys like Korchnoi, Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer see this as the start of the game rather than the finish. One of the drawbacks with many modern time controls (i.e. those involving a blitz finish) is that you often don’t get time to play them properly. The answer here is to try and avoid games with this kind of time limit, perhaps opting instead for Fischerstyle increments of x seconds or minutes with each move that you play. It’s quite an interesting exercise to set up some typical endgame position and then play it out against the clock. I once witnessed Jon Speelman indulge in this kind of practice against his second, Jon Tisdall; I think they had six pawns each and a bishop. Frankly I found myself nodding off at the spectacle, but if an endgame expert like Spess thinks this is a useful practice then this is probably the case. This month’s game was sent to me by Scott Levin. He was concerned about how a winning endgame could go so badly wrong, starting off a piece up, but only getting a draw. ‘Marquis of Somerset’ - Levin,S Internet, 2004 Nimzovitsch Defence B00 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 e5 Tony Miles’ favourite way of playing this opening; the other move is 2...d5, file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 5) [10/15/2004 4:10:13 PM]

Let's Take A Look

favoured by Nimzovitch himself. 3 d5 Nce7 4 Bg5?! An extremely odd-looking move from the Marquis, though it soon becomes apparent that he has a fondness for long bishop moves. I quite like 4 Be3 in this position, preventing Black’s bishop from coming to c5. 4...h6 5 Qh5 Well, I guess that’s one way of protecting the bishop. But hasn’t the Marquis heard the guideline about not bringing out the queen too early? 5…g6 6 Qh3 Bg7 7 Bh4? Maintaining the pin like this is already a fatal mistake. White should eat humble pie by playing 7 Bd2. 7...g5! 8 Bg3 Nf6 Another good move is 8...h5 threatening both 9...h4 and 9...d6. White would be forced to start trying to give up material with 9 d6 but then 9...Nc6! would renew the threats to both White’s bishop (10...h4) and queen (10...g4 11 Qh4 Bf6). 9 Bxe5 d6 10 Bb5+? This second long bishop move puts White in even more trouble. He should have tried giving up his queen with 10 Bxf6 Bxh3 11 Bxg7 Rg8 12 Bd4 when with two pieces and a pawn White would certainly have practical chances. Now the position is totally lost. 10...Kf8 Arguably even stronger is 10...c6, adding a bishop to the tally of White pieces that are under attack whilst maintaining the right to castle. But it doesn’t matter too much. 11 Qa3 dxe5 12 Nd2 Qd6 13 Qxd6 A surprising decision by the Marquis, given that he’s a piece down, but staying in the middlegame would not be much better and now at least he has a target (d6). 13...cxd6 14 f3 Nh5 15 Nc4 Ng6? file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 5) [10/15/2004 4:10:13 PM]

Let's Take A Look

This is still winning for Black, but it’s getting harder all the time. 15...a6 would save the d6-pawn after 16 Ba4 (16 Nb6 Rb8) 16...b5 17 Nb6 Rb8 18 Nxc8 Rxc8 etc. 16 Nxd6 Ke7 17 Nc4 Bd7?! Another inaccurate move that leaves gaping weaknesses on the kingside (notably f5); simply 17...Rd8 looks better, keeping an eye on White’s d-pawn. 18 Bxd7 Kxd7 19 Ne2 Rhc8 20 Ne3 Bf8 21 0-0-0 Ng7 This and Black’s last move make perfect sense. The knight protects the vulnerable f5-square. 22 Kb1 Bc5 23 Ng4 h5 24 Nh6 Ke7 25 Ng3 Nf4?! This looks natural enough, but it’s the wrong square for the knight. A much stronger move is 25...Nh4, covering the f5square and hitting g2. The fact that the knight is on the edge is immaterial. 26 Ngf5+ Nxf5 27 Nxf5+ Kf6 28 h4? Thus far the Marquis has been doing an admirable job of defending himself, but here he slips up. A much better move was 28 g3, putting the question to the knight on f4 and getting the g2-pawn safe. 28...Nxg2! An excellent and cold-blooded move. 29 hxg5+ Kxg5 30 Rdg1 Bxg1 31 Rxg1 Kf4! Excellent, using the king. 32 Rxg2 Kxf3 Not bad, but 32...Rg8 is even stronger. Knights are especially bad against rooks in the endgame, especially when they don’t have a rook to support their action. So the exchange of rooks would win easily for Black. 33 Rh2 Rh8 Putting the rook in the right place – behind the passed pawn. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 5) [10/15/2004 4:10:13 PM]

Let's Take A Look

34 Nd6 Rh7 35 Rh3+ Kg4 Still winning, but 35...Kg2 is stronger. 36 Rh1 h4 37 Nxb7 f5 38 Nc5 f4 39 Ne6 h3 40 Rg1+ Kh4?? A grave error, putting Black’s king in a bad position. 40...Kf3! 41 Ng5+ Kf2 42 Rh1 Kg2! is just winning for Black, though the earlier inaccuracies have made precision necessary here. 41 Ng5 h2 Black is right to avoid 41...Re7 42 Nf3+ Kh5 43 c4, when suddenly White’s pawns are very dangerous. 42 Nf3+ Kh3 43 Ng5+ Kh4 44 Nf3+ Kh3 ½-½ In the final position Black does well to make a draw. 44…Kh5 45 Nxh2 would leave White with all the chances because of his powerful passed pawns. Recommended Reading How to Play the Chess Endings by Znosko-Borovsky (Dover, 1971) Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky (Everyman, 1994) Rook Endings by Grigory Levenfish and Vassily Smyslov (Batsford, 1989) Practical Rook Endings by Victor Korchnoi (Olms, 2002)

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 5) [10/15/2004 4:10:13 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Learning from your Wins

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

It seems to me that chess players tend to obsess about their defeats when they could learn just as much from their wins. Capablanca might have started this fashion by remarking that one had to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player. But is this really true? Rather than take it at face value, let’s take a look at Capablanca’s advice. Does it really require lots of losses to become good at chess? One has to wonder about the maestro himself; in his entire career he lost just a handful of games yet there’s no doubt that he was a very good player indeed. How on earth could he get that status without losing? It seems that something is amiss. Could it be that his advice was a bit of off the cuff flippancy, something he said to console the patzers beneath him? I strongly suspect this was the case.

by Bruce Albertson

Whilst I hate to disagree with the great Cuban, I think that there’s often just as much to be learned from our wins as from our losses. We make good and bad moves in all our games, regardless of the result, and it’s these that we should be trying to learn from and improve. There’s also something to be learned from winning and losing which goes beyond the actual chess. It’s to do with confidence and the effect that our results have on us as competitors. In this respect I’m tempted to argue that we actually learn far more from our wins. The problem with studying losses is that it can erode your self-esteem. After going over every tiny mistake and berating yourself for being such a terrible player, a loss can teach you that you’re a loser. And going over lots of losses will magnify the effect, reducing you to a quivering jelly. Perhaps it’s time to pass on one of my own secret training techniques, and that

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [11/12/2004 7:13:37 PM]

Let's Take A Look

is to focus on my best games rather than my worst. The idea is to build a positive self image, something which Capablanca certainly had. Not only did he go for years without losing, he was the World Chess Champion and very popular with the ladies. To build up some confidence this is what I do. Once a game is over I quickly try to find out what went wrong. This is a painful process but I try to keep it short. With the losses I find the decisive errors and any points of note in the opening. After that I discard the scrappy wins. Finally I’m left with the crème de la crème, the very best of my wins. It’s these that are the games on which I lavish most attention, playing them over for sheer pleasure. When I go through these games I learn that I’m a winner and not a miserable loser. I relive every glorious moment, delighting in my handiwork. This makes me feel more confident when I next come to play with the result that I will play more aggressively and take more space. My opponent may sense my confidence and be less that optimistic himself. His pieces may tend to retreat as a result. The whole effect makes success much more likely. I think that players benefit enormously if they can create this kind of success cycle. Their success builds confidence which in turn creates the preconditions for further success. In short they learn to be winners rather than losers. Did I just hear you say that you don’t win many games and those that you do win are full of errors? This can be a problem as we do need those wins to feel good about ourselves. If you’re scoring less than 50%, one thing to look at is the strength of the tournaments in which you participate; it could be that you need something a bit weaker. Some players continually throw themselves in at the deep end, get crushed time after time and then argue that it’s good for their game. I disagree; from a confidence point of view it can be disastrous. This month’s game was sent to me by Arkanksh Vashisth, who judging from his email understands the benefits of my approach. I am sending this game because I find that I played pretty well, according to me!! (Yeah, I always love all my games... especially wins!!)…I especially like the position near the end, when all the rooks are on the same rank. I had thought of that position a few moves back. Positive attention lavished on a victory, just what the doctor ordered. Unfortunately there’s one very big fly in the ointment in that both sides overlooked an unpleasant tactic that existed for three consecutive moves. But we won’t let that bother us, here’s the magnificent victory: Akanksh - Roble65 ICS Rated Blitz 10, 2004 Chigorin Defence (by transposition) D07 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d5 3 Nc3 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [11/12/2004 7:13:37 PM]

Let's Take A Look

3 cxd5 Nxd5 4 Nf3! intending 5 e4 is thought to be White’s most effective continuation. After the text the game transposes into a Chigorin Defence. 3...Nc6 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 Nf3 After the immediate 5 e4, Black can play 5…Nxc3 6 bxc3 e5 7 d5 Nb8 with a solid game. In the Chigorin proper Black could avoid this line by playing 1...d5 2 c4 Nc6 3 Nc3 dxc4 (3...Nf6 would transpose into the main game) 4 Nf3 Nf6. White would usually choose between 5 e4 and 5 d5. 5…Bg4 This seems quite bad for Black but then what else? 5…Bf5 can be strongly met by 6 Qb3, with considerable unpleasantness for Black. 6 e4 Nxc3 7 bxc3 e5 8 d5 Ne7 Black has also played 8...Nb8 but then 9 Qa4+ Nd7 (9...Bd7 10 Qb3 hits both the b7- and e5- pawns) 10 Nxe5 Qf6 11 Be2! Qxe5 12 Bxg4 Qxc3+ 13 Bd2 Qxa1+ 14 Ke2 wins for White. 9 Qa4+ Qd7? This just loses a pawn for zero compensation. Black has to play 9...Bd7 when 10 Qb3 Ng6 11 Qxb7 Bc5 gave him at least some compensation for his pawn in Eperjesi - Prueske, Dortmund 1988. 10 Qxd7+ Bxd7 11 Nxe5 White is simply a pawn up and it would be nice to say that the endgame is ‘a matter of technique.’ Unfortunately these technical matters can prove surprisingly difficult. 11…Ba4 12 Bd3 f6 Getting rid of the annoying knight on e5, but weakening the e6-square. And on move 23 the eagle lands. 13 Nf3 c6 14 c4 Ng6 15 g3 Making doubly sure that Black’s knight doesn’t hop into the f4-square. But there wasn’t really any need for this and White could have continued with 15 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [11/12/2004 7:13:37 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Rb1. 15…Bb4+ 16 Bd2 Bxd2+ 17 Kxd2 0-0-0 Black is hoping for some counter play here based on his fast development. But White’s central pawn mass shields his king quite effectively. 18 Kc3 cxd5 19 exd5 Ne7 20 Kb4 Well played. People often forget to use their king in the endgame, playing them instead like middle games and tucking him away in the corner. 20…Bd7 21 Rhe1 Ng8 22 Nd4 The d4-square is a majestic post for White’s knight. It eyes the weak e6-square and helps prevent flanking blows like ...b7-b5. 22...g6 23 Ne6 Re8 24 f4 Bxe6 25 dxe6 Nh6? This, on the other hand, is a really abysmal square for Black’s knight. Although it is superficially ‘active’, the knight is much better placed on e7, blockading White’s e6-pawn. 25...Ne7 was much better when 26 Rad1 Rd8 gives Black chances of mounting quite serious resistance. 26 Be4 Ng4 27 h3 Not bad, but there was no need for heroics here. White could simply play 27 Re2 and meet 27…Rxe6? With 28 Bf5!. 27…Nf2 28 Bc2 Nxh3 29 Rad1 Nf2 30 Rd7?? A blunder; White should have played just 30 Rd2 when 30...Ng4 31 e7 threatens 32 Ba4. 30...f5?? Returning the compliment; what White had missed was 30...Rxe6! after which 31.Rxe6 Kxd7 wins a pawn (32 Rxf6?? loses the rook after 32...Ke7). 31 Re2?? Still missing it; White’s rook should get out of Dodge with, say, 31 Rg7. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [11/12/2004 7:13:37 PM]

Let's Take A Look

31...Ng4?? 32 Re1?? For the third time! Fortunately for White his opponent now forces him to put the rook on a safer square. 32...Nf6?? 33 Rf7 Nh5 34 Re3 Now White is back in control, his passed e-pawn being the decisive factor. 34...h6 35 c5 Rhg8 36 c6! Breaking open the 7th rank so as to extend the action of White’s rook. 36...bxc6 37 Rxa7 Kb8 38 Rf7 Rg7 39 Bb3 Cementing the position of the rook on f7. 39…Re7 40 Rd3 Kc7 41 a4 Kb6 42 a5+ Ka6 43 Bc4+ Kb7 44 Kc5! Once again using the king actively. 44…g5 45 a6+ Ka7 46 Rd7+ Very picturesque, unless you happen to be Black! 46...Rxd7 47 Rxd7+ Rxd7 48 exd7 Nxg3 49 d8Q Ne4+ 50 Kxc6 1-0 Recommended Reading My Chess Career by Jose Raul Capablanca (Dover, 1966) Chess Fundamentals by Jose Raul Capablanca (Everyman, 1994) Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway by Susan Jeffers (Rider, 1997)

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [11/12/2004 7:13:37 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [11/12/2004 7:13:37 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Preparation or Perspiration

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

In these days of computer databases and an ever increasing numbers of games, the issue of preparation is rearing its head, even at club level. Assuming you know who your opponent is and what he plays, how should you prepare? Certainly there’s a temptation to carry a laptop and cram as much info as possible into your head in as short a time as possible. Indeed you often see people do this if they have the tools available. But is it wise? And where does this idea come from that one had to prepare like crazy to play a game of chess? Look no further than the usual Soviet suspects; here’s an excerpt from Grandmaster Geller at the Chessboard (Geller, 1969): I am often asked how we train for events. The answer is that nearly all of us follow the methods laid down by Botvinnik, the founder, to my mind, of the Soviet Chess School. Briefly, this method may be summarised: -

by Bruce Alberston

1. Particular attention is paid to opening preparation so as to save time in the opening and try to play into positions with which one is familiar. General preparation includes studying the latest innovations and attempts to penetrate ever more deeply into the secrets of those opening systems which are most commonly employed nowadays. Specific preparation has the aim of confusing one’s opponent. For this purpose his previous games are thoroughly studied in order to become familiar with what are his strong points and what his weaknesses. 2. Practical play is used to get one into practice and good form. 3. Individual efforts are made to try to correct what are recognised as one’ s weaknesses. 4. Physical training.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [12/12/2004 2:48:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

How was this applied in this particular training session? As soon as we got to know the composition of the Argentine team we each had assigned to us a particular opponent. Thus, for example, Averbakh was given a set of game scores giving the recent games played by Panno, i.e. over the last two years. Averbakh analysed them, drew his conclusions about his play, and summarised these in writing. When this was done, he made a report at a general meeting of the team. After a general discussion, correcting some points and supplementing others, a file was drawn up on Panno which represented our joint opinion on him. Such files were compiled on all future opponents. Normally such a dossier looks like this:‘Grandmaster Oscar Panno, 24 years old, former Junior World Champion, Argentinian Champion in 1953, prize winner in a number of South American tournaments. With white he plays only 1 d2-d4. Against the King’s Indian he adopts such and such a line, against the NimzoIndian the following lines and so on. Defends against the QP by the Slav. Plays best in simple positions. Plays attacks quite well. Doesn’t defend so well. In playing Soviet opponents he will be very careful in the opening, probably somewhat passive. Therefore it is recommended to play sharp opening lines against him and go in for complications.’ The benefits of such a system can easily be seen. When we get to Argentina and we get to know who our individual opponents are to be, then instead of having to work through a large number of games it is enough merely to go through a ‘dossier’ consisting of only a couple of printed sheets. Sounds very impressive, doesn’t it? And wouldn’t you say that was probably the reason Soviet players won so many tournaments back then? But before you decide that intensive preparation is the route to success, take a look at what I found in Bobby Fischer Goes to War (Edmonds and Eidinow, 2004): Yuri Averbakh tells how his first action when he took over as acting president of the Chess Federation after Postnikov’s sudden resignation was to visit the camp for himself: ‘Spassky was sitting there with Geller and Krogius… On the table were cards and dominoes, and when lunchtime came Spassky pulled out a bottle of whisky. Well that certainly doesn’t tally with Geller’s description of a Soviet chess training camp and one wonders if he might have been exaggerating a little. Why should he do this? Here’s what Bent Larsen said about it in a candid interview that was published in A Book of Chess (Alexander, 1973): I don’t believe all these stories about Soviet study; they brag about these things. I think this is inner politics in the Soviet Union; you have to make it clear that you are a hard working man. Kotov writes about all the file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [12/12/2004 2:48:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

many games you must study with at least one hour for each game; you cannot measure chess work in tons [at one time, Larsen tells me, the Russians measured not only steel and grain output by tonnage but also furniture production – and firms ‘behind plan’ caught up by producing very heavy furniture] – so the best they can do is to explain it in so many working hours. So could this famed ‘Soviet preparation’ have been nothing more than inner politics? My own explanation for years of Soviet supremacy has nothing to do with preparation. It was simply because their players played good chess. That happens when you get a lot of good players playing against each other, learning from one another and constantly raising the bar. Something similar happened in the UK in the 1970s and 80s with the so-called British chess explosion. From nothing we were suddenly doing well in Olympiads, but it wasn’t down to training camps or thousands of hours of study. What is the reality of grandmaster preparation? Amongst my grandmaster colleagues I’ve noticed a distinct tendency for them to relax during tournaments and especially before games. A few easy-going players (for example Larry Christiansen) are able look at chess before the game and stay very relaxed. Many do no preparation whatsoever and I’ve tended to find that works well for me. The big thing is that you have a clear head to deal with the many problems an average chess game will hurl at you. If preparation is overrated what should someone work on? Basically just general improvement, things like endgames, calculating a bit better and understanding more types of positions etc. If, for example, you want to play a new opening it’s good to play through a lot of games in which it was used and then try it for yourself. Don’t worry about remembering the formal ‘theory’ (a stressful activity if ever there was one) as much as trying to understand the ideas, plans and typical themes. Little by little you’ll get to know what to do, even if it doesn’t go too well at first. The following game was sent to me by a player who has just taken up the Chigorin Defence (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6) and still needs to get the hang of some of the ideas. Don’t imagine for a minute that his mistake was in not ‘preparing’ for 3.Bf4 ‘properly.’ Sensible moves can be found at the board if you have a decent understanding of the position and a clear head. They don’t need to be remembered. McConnell, P - Krombeen, L Birmingham, 2004 Queen’s Pawn Game D02 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bf4 Not a bad idea if White wishes to avoid Chigorin ‘theory’, such as it is. 3.c4 Bg4 gets into one of the main lines.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [12/12/2004 2:48:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

3...Bg4 4 Nbd2 e6 5 e3 For me this position is a trip down memory lane. In the game Bisguier - Davies, Lone Pine 1981 White played 5.c3 after which there followed 5...Bd6 6 Bg3 Nf6 7 Qb3 Rb8 8 e3 0-0 9 Bd3 Qe7?! (Looking at this position two decades on, 9...Bh5 10 0-0 Bg6 looks like a sensible plan to me) 10 Bh4 Bh5 11 0-0 Bg6 12 Bxg6 hxg6 13 e4 dxe4 14 Nxe4 Qd8 15.Rad1 Be7 16.Neg5 when the final result (I managed to win) had very little to do with the position in front of us. 5...a6?! The first move I don’t really like, the Chigorin is very much about quick development. There’s nothing wrong with just 5...Bd6 as 6.Bb5 can be answered by 6...Nge7, preparing to castle and avoiding doubled pawns if Black’s worried about that. 6 c4 Bb4 7 Qb3? But now it is White who goes astray. Just 7.cxd5 looks better when 7...Qxd5 8.Be2 intending 9.0-0 should be enough for a slight edge. 7...Nf6 Missing a golden opportunity in 7...Bxf3 8 gxf3 dxc4 9 Bxc4 (9 Qxc4 e5 10.Bg3 Bxd2+ 11 Kxd2 exd4 will leave White’s king exposed) 9...Bxd2+ 10.Kxd2 Nxd4! 11.exd4 Qxd4+ and Black wins the bishop on f4. 8 a3 Bxd2+ After this White manages to develop quite comfortably and Black finds himself without much compensation for the surrender of the two bishops. In this position 8...Bxf3 can be answered by 9 axb4 (9 gxf3 Bxd2+ 10 Kxd2 dxc4 11 Bxc4 Nxd4! is good for Black) 9...dxc4 10.Qxc4, though this is by no means silly for Black after 10...Bd5 11 Qc3 0-0 for example. 9 Nxd2 b6? Once again, the kind of move that an experienced Chigorin player would not consider. Black’s knight is never ideal on c6 unless you get to play ...e6-e5 and moving the b-pawn leaves it unprotected. 9...Rb8 is correct with just a slight edge for White. 10 Rc1

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [12/12/2004 2:48:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Not bad, but White could already win material with 10 Qa4! Qd7 (10...b5 11 cxb5 wins a pawn for nothing) 11 cxd5 Qxd5 (11...Nxd5 12 Bb5 Nde7 13 Rc1 axb5 14 Qxa8+ wins the exchange) 12.e4! (12.Rc1 isn’t bad either) 12...Nxe4 13.Bc4 Qd7 14.Bb5 axb5 15.Qxa8+ Ke7 16.Qxh8 Qxd4 17.0-0 and White wins. 10...Na5 11 Qa4+ Qd7 12 Qxd7+ Kxd7 13 cxd5 Nxd5 14 Bg3 At first glance it looks as if Black has escaped the worst - the queens are off and his pieces seem well developed. Unfortunately it’s a case of having got out of the frying pan and into the fire - White’s bishop pair is incredibly strong in this position and Black is weak on the c-file. The immediate threat is 15 e4. 14...Rhc8 15 Bd3 h6 16 0-0 Nb7 17 e4 Nf6 18 Nc4 Ke7 19 Ne5 c5 20 Nxg4 Getting two bishops against two knights, though Black might have been quite relieved to have the bishop on g4 removed. Lines such as 20 Nc4 Nd7 21 f3 Bh5 22 dxc5 Nbxc5 23 Bc2 hardly inspire confidence in Black’s position. 20...Nxg4 21 d5 Rd8 Perhaps Black can play 21...exd5 22 exd5 Nf6 (22...Nd6 is bad because of 23 Bxd6+ Kxd6 24 Bf5 winning the exchange and 22...Rd8 can be met by 23.Bc7 Rxd5 24.Be4 Rd7 25.Rfe1! Kf6 26.Bxb7 Ra7 27.Bf3 winning a piece) 23 Rfe1+ Kf8 when White still has a fight on his hands. 22 Bc7 Another way for White to play it would have been 22 Be2 Nf6 23 d6+ Kd7 (23…Nxd6 24 e5) 24 e5 Nd5 25 Rfe1, when White’s passed pawn on d6 is very strong though he still has to find a way through. 22...Rd7? The losing move. Black had to try 22...Rdc8 when 23 Bxb6 (23 Bg3 would repeat the position) 23...Ne5 24 Rfd1 Nd7 25 d6+ Nxd6 26 Ba5 rescues the bishop but leaves Black still on the board. 23 Bxb6 With Black’s rook on d7 the bishop will escape with ease. 23...exd5 24 exd5 Nf6 25 Rfe1+ Kf8 26 Bxc5+ Nxc5 27 Rxc5 Rxd5 28 Rxd5 Nxd5 29 Be4 Rd8? file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [12/12/2004 2:48:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

29...Re8 would have held out longer, though Black is a pawn down and should lose in the end. 30 Rd1 1-0 The knight on d5 is lost.

Recommended Reading Grandmaster Geller at the Chessboard by Efim Geller (The Chess Player, 1969). Bobby Fischer Goes to War by David Edmonds and John Eidinow (Faber and Faber, 2004). A Book of Chess by Hugh Alexander, Hutchinson & Co 1973).

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [12/12/2004 2:48:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Don't Blame the Authors

Let’s Take A Look...

In order to gain an insight into the mind of the chess readership, I sometimes take a look at online reviews of my books. It’s a chastening and educational experience in which I find the most unexpected things have upset people. Here, for example, is what one reader said about the number of pages in the Dynamic Reti:

Nigel Davies Perhaps I was not completely fair to this book, but everything about it struck me as half-baked. First, there is the standard 144 pages from Everyman. When they produce a very special work, such as that on the Nimzo-Larsen Attack by Jacobs and Tait, this page limit does not apply. That wonderful work was 192 pages. So, you have the pot-boiler 144 pages, but what is worse, is that Davies’ introduction in this Reti book is a "Schiller-esque" copy of his intro in Taming the Sicilian. This is just lame. The exact same advice is given, which adds to that feeling that this book was ‘cranked out’ rather than being a labor of love.

by Bruce Alberston

Well I must confess that none of my books are a labour of love; I write them for the money. I’m just a poor GM with the same issues in life as everyone else; a wife and little boy to look after and a mortgage to pay. The only thing I can offer in my defence is that I didn’t force anyone to buy my books; they were free to say no. I’d also like to ask permission to not enjoy my job, just as most dentists don’t have to enjoy their jobs unless they’re pulling teeth (I bet that can be kind of fun). My admittedly lame excuse about the introductions was that I just gave my usual advice of brushing twice a day, once at night and once in the morning. It doesn’t matter which toothbrush you use, you brush your teeth just the same. What I’m not quite clear on is the number of pages required to keep readers happy. Researching the matter at Amazon.com I found a high page tally for the much maligned Eric Schiller’s books, including a whopping 768 for Standard

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [1/14/2005 6:07:52 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Chess Openings and Gambit Chess Openings. The problem I and other authors face is that we sign contracts with the publisher to write a certain number of pages (144 or 160 is the target for the opening guides I’ve written). It costs them money if they have to produce a book with more than that as the asking price for the book is decided in advance (many are pre-sold) as are the covers. A book which comes in too long means extra printing costs without being able to recoup these with a higher cover price. Let’s see what this same reviewer says about the chess content: But what finally did me in was his recommendation against the Reti Accepted (2…dxc4). He says that the normal ways of playing to regain the pawn, Na3 or Qc2, lead to equality for Black; so he recommends the very rare 3 e4!?. This gives you a backward d-pawn in exchange for "dynamic" play. Well, I quickly realized that I don’t want to play e4, and since you see dxc4 all the time (indeed, it seems like the best move), this left me with a very bad feeling about this book, as in, I shouldn’t have bought this book. All I can say is that sometimes you’ve got to give something to get something back, and dynamic play usually comes at a cost, such as a pawn weakness or even, heaven forbid, material. I hasten to point out that the cover does say The Dynamic Reti. When I finally convince the publisher of the need to produce the companion volume for less adventurous souls, The Dull Reti, I’ll be careful not to saddle White with any backward, doubled or isolated pawns or sacrifice any pawns, pieces or rooks, etc. Of course, this guy was probably being kind. Here’s what another reader had to say about my Grünfeld book: Nigel Davies: Please! Stop writing opening books! .... Let’s summarize the technique: ● ●

● ●

get all the Grünfeld books review the main lines and what Kasparov and Kramnik are playing make few conclusive or thoughtful statements when you do make a statement, give very vague variations so people are left wondering, did he really think this was okay or did he miss this move?

Specific variations: 7 Bc4 in the exchange variation after 7...c5 8 Ne2 Nc6 9 Be3 0-0 Davies forgets 10 Rc1 and only lists 10 0-0 for White, not even mentioning the h4 idea. I could list probably five more without thinking, but it’s not worth the time. Well unfortunately I can’t stop cranking them out while I’ve still got those mortgage obligations, so the only way to stop me writing them is for people to file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [1/14/2005 6:07:52 PM]

Let's Take A Look

stop buying them; chess book production obeys the laws of supply and demand. With regard to the specific variations, the desired 10 Rc1 line is in the right hand column of page 37. Admittedly it’s in a note rather than neon lights, but it is there. But it’s funny; I’ve come to wonder what readers expect from an openings book by reading comments like these. Do they have the crazy idea that it will help them improve their game? If so, they should think again. Besides being an author I’m also a regular buyer of openings books; for me it’s worth a few quid to get the material laid out and have a few ideas presented. I don’t expect perfection or a formula for winning games, just some material to analyse and build on. Usually I start by sitting down with a board and pieces and going through some games. After a while I’ll get a feel for it and start to get a view on the moves I like or don’t like. To me it doesn’t matter too much whether the book is ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ I just need something to get the creative juices flowing. What many players might find frustrating is that they may not be strong enough to do this. They get the book in the expectation that this is what it takes to help them win games and when it doesn’t happen they start looking round for someone to blame. Rather than admit that they’re not quite as strong as they’d like to be (heaven forbid) or don’t know how to study, so they blame the authors. This month’s game features a nice win with the Veresov by someone who didn’t read my book (it hadn’t been published). Jimmy Liew uses a homemade treatment of the opening, going his own way on move five. Later, he shuffles his pieces round to the kingside and unleashes a fierce attack. All this supports my view that a good cook does just as well with an old frying pan. So don’t blame the authors. IM Jimmy Liew - GM Eugenio Torre Veresov Opening D01 6th Asian Chess Team Championship, Dubai 1986 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Bg5 The characteristic move of the Veresov; I like to think of it as a kind of mirrored Ruy Lopez. 3...Bf5 Not a bad move, but I prefer 3...c5 or 3...Nbd7. 4 e3 e6 5 Nge2!?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [1/14/2005 6:07:52 PM]

Let's Take A Look

A very unusual development considering the fact that f3 is available and might well be a better square than g3. The knight should stay in contact with the e5-square. 5…c5! Grandmasters know to play in the centre against odd moves by their opponents. 6 Ng3 Bg6 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 0-0 cxd4 Bringing about a pawn structure reminiscent of the Exchange Caro-Kann (1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5) or Queen’s Gambit Declined (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5). Understanding how these structures work is one of the keys to mastery. 9 exd4 Be7 10 Nce2 Starting to shuffle round to the kingside; Black meanwhile will try to carry out a minority attack on the queenside by playing ...b7-b5-b4. 10...0-0 11 c3 Na5 Another minority attack theme, bringing the knight round to c4. 12 Nf4 Rc8 13 Qe2 Nc4 14 Rae1 b5 15 Nxg6! hxg6 16 h4! The usual way to open a line on the kingside against these doubled g-pawns. As Steinitz taught us, kingside pawns are best in a neat row; if Black’s g-pawns weren’t doubled White would find it much harder to prise things open. 16...Re8 17 Bc1?! Not quite incisive enough. White should probably be more direct with 17 f4 intending 18 h5 (the immediate 17 h5 doesn’t work because of 17...Nxh5 18 Bxe7 Nxg3 etc). 17...Bd6?! Black, too, is not direct enough. He should play the immediate 17...b4 when his counterplay is much quicker. 18 f4 Bf8 18...b4 is better on this move as well. Torre is spending too much time ducking and not enough punching.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [1/14/2005 6:07:52 PM]

Let's Take A Look

19 h5 gxh5 20 Nxh5 Ne4!? Torre had no doubt realised that he was in hot water and tries to throw White off his stride. After 20...Nxh5 21 Qxh5 g6 there would follow 22 Bxg6! fxg6 23 Qxg6+ Bg7 24 Rxe6 with three pawns and an attack for the piece. 21 Bxe4 dxe4 22 Qxe4 Sensible enough, but this lets Black off the hook. White should continue the attack with 22 f5 when 22...exf5 23 Rxf5 Nd6 24 Rg5 intending 25 Qg4 sets up dangerous threats against Black’s king. 22...g6? Missing White’s stunning reply; Black had to play 22...Qh4! when 23 Qf3 g6 leaves White a pawn up but with a lot of work to do. 23 f5!! gxh5 The point is that 23...exf5? is answered by 24 Qxe8 Qxe8 25 Nf6+ etc. 24 f6! Bg7 At first the computer likes 24...Qd5 but then 25 Qh4 sets in motion what looks like a winning attack. After 25...Kh7 26 b3 Black cannot play 26...Nd6 because of 27 Re5. 25 Qh4 Threatening 26 Qg5. 25...Qd6 26 Rf3 Bxf6 27 Qxf6 1-0 Black is getting mated. Recommended Reading Standard Chess Openings by Eric Schiller (Cardoza, 2002) Gambit Chess Openings by Eric Schiller (Cardoza, 2002) The Veresov by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2004)

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [1/14/2005 6:07:52 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [1/14/2005 6:07:52 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Openings for the Club Player

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

It’s interesting to compare black and white results in different rating categories. What becomes apparent is that the further you move down the rating scale the less significant the first move. There is also a dramatic fall-off in the number of draws. In my largest database games between 2600+ players favour white by 56% to 44% with 28% of the games won by white, 16% by black and with 56% drawn. Between players 2000 to 2199 it is only 54% to 46% with 33% drawn. Go down as far as 1200 – 1399 and you have White scoring just 52% with only 27% of the games drawn. I suggest this adds considerable weight to the argument that the obsession with openings amongst lower rated players is misguided. Both the “advantage of the first move” and the “draw danger” is considerably reduced, simply because the play is less accurate. Any advantage a player might get by being white or playing a particular opening just gets lost in the wash.

by Bruce Alberston

Of course, I’m not the first person to say this, although it is nice to be able to cite some numbers by way of evidence. What does this mean for players at lower levels? Basically, that you can play whatever takes your fancy without being particularly handicapped. Lines that are dismissed as too drawish at GM level should liven up in the early middlegame. You should also be able to get away with some really dodgy early moves; that won’t be Shirov sitting opposite you in the next game! To get the ball rolling away from the heavy theory that many super-GMs are involved with, here’s a few opening ideas that don’t need too much study. I should add that they’re all quite sound, so there’s no need to worry your opponent will come up with a refutation.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [2/11/2005 4:56:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Sicilian Defence, O’Kelly Variation (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6) This is quite a smart idea. First of all there’s a kind of positional trap in 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5!, which is known to give white nothing. The two main problems are supposed to be 3 c3 and 3 c4, but the former can be met by 3…e6 4 d4 d5 when 5 e5 Bd7 transposes into a French in which black will exchange his light-squared bishop with …Bd7-b5. Against 3 c4 he can play 3…Nc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 e5 when 6 Nf5 d6 is OK for black in my view. French Defence, Romanishin Variation (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Be7 or 3 Nd2 Be7) The Ukrainian GM Oleg Romanishin played this regularly when he first arrived on the scene. Against 3 Nd2 the move 3…Be7 has been enjoying some popularity of late, but it still doesn’t need much study. At the top level it may not be active enough to get many winning chances for black, but at lower levels this doesn’t matter. Spanish Opening, Berlin Defence with 5…Be7 (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Be7) The fashionable 5…Nd6 is not the only way to play the Berlin. After 6 Qe2 Nd6 7 Bxc6 bxc6 8 dxe5 the old move 8…Nb7 is still quite playable whilst Boris Spassky has experimented with 8…Nf5. Spassky has experimented quite a bit with sound but uncommon lines, so his games can be inspiring material for the club player. Queen’s Gambit Declined (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Be7 or 3…Nf6) There aren’t many amateurs who play this way, despite its soundness and the fact that you can play it against the English (1 c4 e6 2 Nc3 d5). A lot of people think it’s dull, but they should take a look at the games of Saveilly Tartakover and Alexander Belyavsky before jumping to this conclusion. The QGD can be exciting even at top GM level, so you’re sure to get chances against amateur opposition. French Defence Exchange Variation (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5) Another opening that a lot of club players consider boring but which Kasparov used to beat Victor Korchnoi and Evgeny Bareev. Not much theory needed for this one and certainly not a drawing line if one of the players wants to fight. After 3…exd5 it’s worth considering 4 Qf3 or 4 Nc3 if you want something different. Caro–Kann Exchange Variation (1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5) A nice simple line used by Bobby Fischer, Bent Larsen and Eduard Rozentalis; you don’t need to know many variations, just play through a few nice games. The pawn structure is the same as in a Queen’s Gambit Declined Exchange Variation so it’s quite good to play this with White if you play the QGD with black; just one kind of position to understand. Closed Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3) As played by Boris Spassky and Vassily Smyslov, but now completely out of fashion. This is definitely an opening whereby a good understanding of the file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [2/11/2005 4:56:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

middle game is more important than “knowing theory,” so it’s surprising it isn’t more popular. I guess they’d have nothing to complain about! Vienna with 3 g3 (1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 g3) A similar set up to the Closed Sicilian with white developing his kingside an perhaps later pushing his f-pawn; once again, understanding is more important than knowledge of variations with the game developing at a slower pace. The following game was sent to me by Richard Kennedy who also avoids theory but in a rather more exotic way. I don’t think that 2 a3 is such a strong move, but why not give it a try? Kennedy, R (1496) - Erikj (1539) Bezgodov Sicilian B20 FICS Rated Blitz Game, 2005 1 e4 c5 2 a3!? I’m not sure I’d recommend this move to my friends but it can’t be too bad. 1 c4 e5 is quite playable, and having a pawn on a6 is almost always useful for Black. Apparently White had reviewed a recent book on this opening by Alexei Bezgodov and decided to give it a whirl. 2...Nc6 As I don’t own the book, I don’t know what the answer to 2...g6 is supposed to be. Maybe 3 b4!? Bg7 4 Ra2!? intending to exchange dark-square bishops with 5 Bb2? Chess from planet Mars! Now White gets an interesting form of Wing Gambit (1 e4 c5 2 b4!?), a line I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for. I’ve never been able to understand why this has been so much less popular than the Morra (1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3) which gives up a center pawn. 3 b4 cxb4 4 axb4 Nxb4 5 c3 Nc6 6 d4 This has become very nice for White who is several tempi up on a Wing Gambit. 6...d5 7 exd5 Qxd5 8 Nf3

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [2/11/2005 4:56:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Apparently Lawrence Day has recommended 8 Na3 here. But there’s nothing wrong with the text. 8...Bg4 Black should play 8...e6 to get his kingside developed and restrain the advance of White’s c- and d-pawns. And I should point out that I don’t “know” this because I’ve studied the theory of this line, it’s just experience at work. 9 Be2 Nf6 By now 9...e6 is looking mandatory. When White’s center pawns start rolling Black will be in all sorts of trouble. 10 c4 Qh5 11 d5 Rd8 12 Nbd2 Not bad, but 12 Qa4! wins a piece! Black would have to try 12...Nxd5 13 cxd5 Rxd5 but with his development so bad the pawns aren’t going to compensate him. 12...Nxd5 It’s better to play 12...Bxf3 13 Nxf3 e6 when I suggest the line 14 Nd4 Qe5 15 dxc6 Bb4+ 16 Kf1 bxc6 (16...Rxd4 17 Qa4 Bc5 18 cxb7+ looks like it might be good for White) 17 Be3 Bc5 18 Nxc6 Rxd1+ 19 Rxd1 Qc7 20 Rd8+ Qxd8 21 Nxd8 Bxe3 (21...Kxd8 22 Bxc5) 22 Nxf7 Kxf7 23 fxe3, reaching a drawish endgame. I hasten to add that I worked this out with the help of Hiarcs 9. 13 cxd5 Qxd5 14 Bb2 The immediate 14 0-0 seems simpler and better. 14...e5 15 0-0 Bd6 16 Bc4 Bxf3 17 Qxf3

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [2/11/2005 4:56:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Transposing into an endgame that is far from easy to win; trusty Hiarcs 9 points out that 17 gxf3! is strong, for example: 17...Qc5 18.Ne4 Qb4 (18...Qxc4 19 Nxd6+ Rxd6 20 Qxd6 leaves Black a rook down with his king stranded in the middle) 19 Qd5 0-0 20 Bc3 Be7 21 Bxb4 Rxd5 22 Bxe7 Nxe7 23 Bxd5 leaves White with an extra rook. Not that this is easy with only a few minutes on the clock. 17...Qxf3 18 Nxf3 0-0 19 Rfe1 Rfe8 20 Bd5 Nb4 21 Bb3 After this Black gets very real drawing chances; White does better with 21 Be4, for example 21...a6 22 Bc3 b6 23 Rad1 a5 24 Nxe5! Bxe5 (24...f6 25 Nc4) 25 Rxd8 Bxh2+ 26 Kxh2 Rxd8 27 Rb1 is winning because the bishops dominate the board – though this isn’t easy when the clock is ticking. 21...Nd3 22 Re2 Nxb2 Voluntarily giving up the monster knight makes it easier for White to unravel. 22...a6 is a better chance. 23 Rxb2 a6 24 Bd5 White had a stronger move in 24 Ng5, for example 24...Rf8 25 Rd1 Ba3 26 Rxd8 Rxd8 27 Bxf7+ Kh8 (Or 27...Kf8 28 Ne6+ Ke7 29 Rxb7+ Rd7 30 Rxd7+ Kxd7 31 Nxg7 etc) 28 Bb3 Bxb2 29 Nf7+ Kg8 30 Nxd8+ Kf8 31 Nxb7 reaches a minor piece endgame with an extra piece. 24...Re7? Black should have played 24...Ba3! when 25 Rd2 Bb4 26 Rdd1 Rd7 makes it difficult for White to win. 25 Rxb7 From here on White is always winning. 25 e4 26 Rxe7 Bxe7 27 Bxe4 a5 28 Kf1 Bb4 29 Bc2 g6 30 Rd1 Rc8 31 Ba4 Rc4 32 Ne5 Re4 33 Nc6 Bc3 34 Bc2 Rc4 35 Ne7+ Kf8 36 Nd5 Be5 37 Bb3 Rc5 38 f4 Bb8 39 Ke2 Rb5 40 Rb1 Ba7 41 Ba2 Rc5 42 Kd2 Rc8 43 Rb5 Rd8 44 Rxa5 Bb8 45 g3 1-0

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [2/11/2005 4:56:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Recommended Reading Spassky by Bernard Cafferty and Leonard Barden (Hardinge Simpole, 2002)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [2/11/2005 4:56:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

The How and the What

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

I recently saw a newsgroup discussion about tournament preparation. Everything under the sun was mentioned from openings to endings and strategy to tactics with everyone having their own idea about how it should be done. I just commented that “the how is more important than the what,” leaving anyone who read this guessing as to what I meant. In fact the comment was deliberately enigmatic… It really doesn’t matter what you study, the important thing is to use this as a training ground for thinking rather than trying to assimilate a mind-numbing amount of information. In these days of a zillion different chess products this message seems to be quite lost, and indeed most people seem to want books that tell them what to do. The reality is that you’ve got to move the pieces around the board and play with the position. Who does that? Amateurs don’t, GMs do.

by Bruce Alberston

Chess is not a game that can be learned from a book any more than tennis or golf. It may look rather academic and there are some scientific elements to it. But the truth is that wiles and playfulness count for far more than “knowing the book.” Interestingly my grandmaster colleagues tend to be quick witted, jovial and street wise rather than serious and lofty intellectuals. And most of us will recommend keeping a clear head both before and during a tournament rather than hitting the books. So why do amateurs believe it is otherwise? One reason may be that people have linked hard work to success and are convinced that the former is a prerequisite of the latter. In many fields this may be true, but the evidence indicates otherwise in chess. Most GMs have just played lots of chess and analysed their games because it was fun! I have read a few books from cover to cover, but many of my colleagues have not. Before anyone writes in to ask about a book that explains “how it really works,”

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [3/12/2005 3:13:16 PM]

Let's Take A Look

I should point out that today’s chess industry does have a vested interest in persuading you that you need to be serious. They like to present it as something intellectual to keep selling books, it wouldn’t do at all if you were to go to a tournament and spend your time in the bar or analysis room. But this is where you’ll often find the titled players, moving the pieces around the board or just relaxing. There are some books that tell it like it is, but they tend to be quite old. Emanuel Lasker made it very clear that having a clear head and using it was the most important thing. He was downright dismissive of “knowledge” as such. And his namesake Edward Lasker gave a beautiful portrayal of the realities of competitive play in Chess for Fun and Chess for Blood. The following extract is wonderfully illuminating: The professional Chess player makes preparations for his games of a type undreamed of by the amateur. He carefully studies the style of each opponent whom he has to face, by playing over as many of his games as he can find in the records of previous tournaments; to nullify similar efforts on the part of his adversary he chooses an opening quite different from those he has played in earlier rounds; he does not even necessarily play the line he considers best, but keeps that line in store for another, more dangerous opponent he may have to meet in a later round. If your adversary is known to like a slow positional development, you try to lead the game into an opening which offers early possibilities of handto-hand encounters. If he likes to attack himself, you set up a granite wall of defense, in the hope of inducing him to make a premature onslaught. If you succeed in drawing your man into a variation you have prepared for him, you do not show it by playing rapidly. On the contrary. Although you are quite certain what your next move will be, you may assume a pose of troubled thought and permit several minutes to elapse before making your move, to lull your adversary into a false feeling of security. These are some of the pleasant little byplays of serious, grim tournament chess; but they become very unpleasant when you are the victim of such psychological tactics yourself! Well, let us assume that both players have avoided pitfalls in openings not yet fully analyzed, and a more or less even middle game has been reached. Then a silent, deadly struggle ensues for the most minute positional advantage. What wearing effort to remain constantly on your guard and to work out in your mind the positions this or that variation will lead to, though they are never reached in the actual game because your opponent chooses a different road! The emaciating concentration required to keep this network of combinations before you for fully four or even five hours at a stretch, until the game is adjourned for a dinner file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [3/12/2005 3:13:16 PM]

Let's Take A Look

interval! How often fatigue dulls your wits and causes you to throw away a good game by a blunder no beginner would make! That harassing time clock! The nerve-racking excitement when you have only seconds left in which to make up your mind, where ten or fifteen minutes would not be too much! The fear that grips your throat when your opponent makes an unexpected move just as you have used up almost all the time allotted to you! The hope which quickens your pulse when he is pressed for time himself in a difficult position! Not to let him benefit by the time you are taking for your own moves, you are often tempted to play too rapidly and then one little error may throw away the fruits of hours of hard labor! I do not think there is any other mental strain comparable to the exertion to which a tournament game subjects the chess master. Working at what seemed to me the most difficult mathematical problems has never exhausted me nearly as much as playing in a chess tournament; and of all intellectual applications mathematical work is surely the hardest. That is why physical fitness is a most important factor in tournament chess and why young players, whose brains can stand the poisons of fatigue much longer than those of older players have a great advantage. So the qualities required include cunning, psychological insight, good nerves, fitness, patience, concentration and clock handling. Do chess books teach you these things? No. And there’s only one forum where it’s worth discussing them too, and that’s in the tournament hall. Here’s a bit of practical psychology of the sort that wins chess games but doesn’t appear in the books. One of the points of choosing the Accelerated Dragon rather than the 2…d6 move order is that a lot of amateurs have seen White’s attacking plan based on playing Be3, Qd2 and castling long. But if you try it against the Accelerated, Black gets a very good game because he can play …d7-d5 in one move: Guo,C (1768) - Fortman,Z (1908) Missouri Class Championship, 2003 Sicilian B34 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 At these levels some sort of “anti-Siclian” is more the exception rather than the rules. So normally one can expect a Morra, 2 c3, 2 f4 or 2 Nc3 and 3 g3. One thing I’ve found interesting is that after 2 c3 many Sicilian players at amateur level play the same moves they would against an Open Sicilian. Accordingly I once prepared one of my students in the variation 2 c3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 and now the Dragon players would go 5…g6 whilst the Najdorf players would play 5…a6. This is a classic illustration of how people can “follow the book” without putting their brains into gear first.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [3/12/2005 3:13:16 PM]

Let's Take A Look

2…Nc6 3 d4 And here one might almost be surprised not to see 3 Bb5. This has been all the rage at every level. 3…cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 I’ve long held the view that the Accelerated Dragon is a great choice for players under 2200. White often plays the usual Dragon moves automatically, letting Black get ...d7-d5 in without first losing time by putting the pawn on d6. And few White players below FIDE Master/IM strength handle the Maroczy Bind (5 c4) very well. 5 Be3 Nf6 6 Nc3 Bg7 7 f3?! Already a mistake; White should play 7 Bc4 here, but after 7…Qa5 he has to castle short. 7…0-0 8 Qd2 8 Bc4 may be relatively best. After the text move I already prefer Black. 8…d5! 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Nxd5 10 Nxc6 bxc6 gives Black a half open b-file; the fact that the c-pawn is isolated is of little importance. 10…Qxd5 11 Nxc6 Qxc6 12 0-0-0? Castling into it; White should close the h8a1 diagonal with 12 c3 and try to tough it out. 12…Be6 13 a3?! 13 Kb1 looks slightly better, but it’s still very good for Black. 13…Rac8 14 Bd3 Rfd8 15 Qe2 White may well be lost in this position. 15 Kb1 is a better try, when I’m not totally convinced Black is winning. For example, there’s the line 15…Qd5 (15…b5! may well be better, playing for the attack) 16 c4 Qxd3+ 17 Qxd3 Rxd3 18 Rxd3 Bf5 after which 19 Rhd1 Rd8 (or 19…Rxc4 20 Bxa7) 20 Kc2 Rxd3 21 Rxd3 Bxd3+ 22 Kxd3 Bxb2 23 Bxa7 Bxa3 White can exchange your last queenside pawn with 24 Bd4 Bd6 25 h3 f6 26 c5 Bg3 27 Kc4 followed by Kb5 and c5-c6.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [3/12/2005 3:13:16 PM]

Let's Take A Look

15…a6? Black can win on the spot with 15…Bxb2+ 16 Kxb2 Qc3+ 17 Kb1 Qxa3 etc. 16 Be4 Qc7 Here, too, Black can play 16…Bxb2+ 17 Kxb2 Qc3+ 18 Kb1 Qxa3 winning. 17 Rxd8+ Rxd8 18 g3? The losing move; White should try to exchange pieces with 18 Rd1. 18 Bc4 19 Qf2 Rd7 Black can also play 19…f5 when 20 Bb6 Qe5 21 c3 Bh6+ 22 f4 Qxe4 23 Re1 Qd3 24 Bxd8 Qxd8 is clearly better for him. 20 c3 f5 21 Bc2 e5 Tartakover, who fought in both world wars, would probably have annotated this move with the words “forward patrol.” 22 Rd1 Rxd1+ 23 Kxd1 Bd5 24 Qd2?? A blunder in an inferior position. 24…Bxf3+ 0-1 Recommended Reading Chess for Fun and Chess for Blood by Edward Lasker (Dover, 1962)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [3/12/2005 3:13:16 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [3/12/2005 3:13:16 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Dinner and Chess

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

After my traditional grandmaster draw with Bogdan Lalic at the last UK 4 Nations Chess League, we retired to the analysis room. Bogdan then showed me what he had in mind for the Veresov Opening and it turned out that he had swelled Everyman’s coffers by buying my books on both the Veresov and Trompovsky before the game. I have to say that it was lucky I chose the English, my decision to play this way being dictated by the thought that at least it avoided sharp theory. But when you don’t play boldly you don’t get many chances… It was a far cry from the chess I played in my youth when I was free from the worry of my professional chess duties. My excuse is nothing but a serious bout of cowardice. But if I’m kind to myself I might cite the nature of today’s game as a contributory factor. Unfortunately the atmosphere in today’s tournaments is one of extreme seriousness, with instant forfeit being the penalty for ringing mobile phones and arbiters likely to tell you to be quiet if, heaven forbid, you happen to speak to a friend. It’s even illegal these days to write down your move before playing it as this constitutes the “taking of notes.” Why should someone want to commit such a heinous crime; the huge riches at stake as prize money?

by Bruce Alberston

Things used to be very different even 20 years ago. Go back further and the game is hardly recognizable from what it was. One of my favorite books is Harold Bird’s Chess History and Reminiscences in which one gets a feel of what professional chess was like 100 years ago. Here’s an excerpt from the section on Dinner and Chess: At Pursell’s, people used to eat chops, smoke cigars or pipes, play Chess and talk Cricket all at the same time, which seems to contradict the assumption that it is impossible to do two things at once. Some say they file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [4/16/2005 3:31:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

cannot play Chess before dinner, others not after dinner. Too much dinner is considered a fair excuse for losing at Chess, but no dinner at all is not a valid plea. According to the Rev. A. B. Skipworth, who should be an authority on the subject, professional Chess players are not supposed to dine at all, but our great friend, the genial Mars, dissents from this view. Staunton, Boden, Steinitz, Mars and Skipworth himself are essentially diners, and Bird has been accused of a tendency that way. When was the last time that someone mentioned dinner and chess in the same sentence? Not in the last couple of decades to the best of my knowledge. Like it or not we have become “sportsmen” with every aspect of our little game being geared towards competition and ratings. If your rating slips it can seriously damage your credibility, and credibility dictates your level of income. What was it like in Bird’s day? Things were much simpler. Here another excerpt from the section on stakes: Returning to stakes, I have met here and therewith an amateur who has had scruples and preferred not even, playing for the shilling. Buckle, Lord Lyttleton, and many eminent in Chess, were strongly in favour of the customary small stake, and I have seen dignitaries of the Church, and spotless amateurs, pocket their shillings with as much gusto as the poor and much abused professional. It is a kind of voucher to mark the score. Professor Ruskin and others who have referred to this question, saw no objection to the time-honoured stake, and it has been the rule at the greatest clubs, for, by fixing a custom, it was hoped to keep the stakes within prescribed limit. It must be admitted that the difference between one shilling and £25, £50 or £100 on a game is far too large. Since the growth of the foreign demands for stakes, not thought of in the days of Philidor, Labourdonnais, McDonnell, Staunton and Morphy, squaring between players, has been asserted, viz.— in 1878, 1885, and 1887, besides which it has always seemed to me that as the stakes go up the play goes down, and it certainly would be difficult to name a match in which so few interesting games took place as that between Steinitz and Zukertort for £400 a side, played in the United States at New York, St. Louis and New Orleans in 1886. A sedate and rather severe looking stranger challenged Bird to a game of Chess once, just when Bird had finished a long sitting with a strong player, and was in rather a lively mood. "A stake, I suppose," said Bird. "No, I don’t like stakes," said the stranger." Then suppose we say a chop, or even a basin of soup, fried sole, or box of cigars." The stranger looked awful for a moment but dismayed by the good temper of his vis a vis, suddenly relaxed and conformed to the usual rule, and as the love file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [4/16/2005 3:31:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

tales conclude was happy ever afterwards. It is best to understand that the stake on each game is a shilling, not to say simply we play for a shilling. Once, after an eight hours sitting, a countryman after losing twenty games blandly handed Mr. F. one shilling for the sitting, and could not be induced to part with more. Besides the seriousness of chess there’s a second problem in that “theory” has grown to such an extent that it’s difficult for anyone to find the time to play at a high level whilst having the normal things in life like a job and family. Strong players live in fear that they might not have studied the latest wrinkle. And it’s difficult to find a sound opening which hasn’t been mapped out by theory. Is there any way we might roll back the clock? Certainly there should be less regulation and that would reduce the tension in tournaments. But what about changing the game itself? Bronstein has said that we need to play fast whilst Fischer has suggested shuffling the start position. With the 960 possible start positions of “Fischer Random” there’s little immediate danger of it being analyzed to death. Is there anything we can do meanwhile? Perhaps Alexander Morozevich has demonstrated an interesting way forward by scouring ancient texts for forgotten variations and then unleashing them against super-GM opposition. It’s not at all easy for his opponents to deal with these lines over the board and the results can be highly entertaining. Yet here, too, there’s a serious cost in that it takes time to repair ancient variations. At least it’s creative and interesting work... Is this a worthwhile approach for club players? Sure! If Morozevich can use the Albin Counter Gambit against players like Ivan Sokolov, then it’s certainly playable at club level. And at faster time limits all sorts of things are possible. In response to my recommendation of the Wing Gambit I was sent some games with this opening by a player calling himself “Bigtrucksam.” One of these was won in just five moves against quite respectable opposition. It just shows that it’s not to be sneezed at… Bigtrucksam (1902) - Ipe (1852) Sicilian Wing Gambit B20 Internet Blitz 2005 1 e4 c5 2 b4!? e5

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [4/16/2005 3:31:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Trying to focus on development rather than material; in Bigtrucksam - IBA, Internet Blitz 2005, Black declined the pawn with 2...b6 instead, the game reeling on with 3 bxc5 bxc5 4 Nf3 Bb7 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 Rb1 Rb8 7 Bc4 e6 8 d3 Nf6 9 Bf4 d6 10 0–0 Be7 11 e5 dxe5 12 Nxe5 Nxe5 13 Bxe5 0–0? (Panic. He had to play 13...Bd6 when 14 Bb5+ forces Black to give up castling rights but leaves him on the board at least) 14 Bxb8 Qxb8 15 Ba6 Bxa6 16 Rxb8 Rxb8 17 Qf3 and White won. Of course the critical reply is 2...cxb4 when “theory,” such as it is, says 3 a3 (though note that 3 Bb2 and 3 Bc4 lead to “sporting chess” according to Gerald Abrahams) 3...d5 4 exd5 Qxd5 5 Nf3 e5. Frank Marshall analyzed this line in the Special Analysis of Openings chapter in his book of collected games. After 6 axb4 Bxb4 Marshall proposed 7 Na3 (7 c3 Bc5 8 Na3 Nf6 9 Nb5 0–0 is good for Black as 10 Nc7 is answered by 10...Bxf2+ 11 Kxf2 Qc5+ winning back the knight on c7. Marshall also mentioned 7 Ba3 but after 7…Bxa3 8 Rxa3 Nc6 9 Nc3 Qd6 10 Nb5 Qe7 11 Qa1 Nf6 12 Bc4 0–0 13 0–0 Bg4 it was hardly inspiring for White in Podgorny - Pachman, 1953) 7...e4 (7...Nf6 8 Nb5 0–0 9 Nc7 Qc5 10 Nxa8 e4 11 Ng1 Re8 has ‘the terrible threat’ of 12...e3 according to Gligoric and Sokolov, but Shredder is unimpressed after 12 c3) 8 Nb5 Kd8 (8...Qd8 must surely be better) 9 Nfd4 Nc6 10 c4 Qd7 11 Bb2 Nf6 12 Qa4 Bc5 13 Nb3 b6 14 Nxc5 bxc5 15 Be2, with the comment that White threatens to castle with good prospects. Perhaps I should add that as a teenager I showed this book to a strong local amateur who advised me that castling often comes much more easily... 3 Nf3 Bigtrucksam played this restrained move in two of the games he sent me. But the King’s Gambitesque 3 f4!? is more in the spirit of general mayhem, for example 3...d6 (3...exf4 4 Nf3 d5 5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Nc3 Qh5 7 bxc5 Bxc5 8 d4 Bb4 9 Bd2 Bxc3 10 Bxc3 Ne7 11 Be2 0–0 12 0–0 Nbc6 13 Rb1 was about equal at this stage in Capablanca (of all people) - Viana, Rio de Janeiro 1928. 4 Nf3 Bg4 5 Bc4 Nc6 6 0–0 Nd4 7 Nxd4!? Bxd1 8 Bb5+ Ke7 9 Nf5+ Ke6 10 Nc3 cxb4?! (This can’t be good, but even after the sensible 10...Bg4 White can, for example, play 11 Ne3 Nh6 12 f5+ Kf6 13 Ncd5+ Kg5 14 Nxg4 Nxg4 15 Rf3 with a strong bind and various threats for the queen.) 11 Nd5 Nf6?? 12 Nxg7+ Bxg7 13 f5 mate, which was Bird (no surprise here) - NN, London 1895. 3...f6

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [4/16/2005 3:31:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

In the game Bigtrucksam - Milorad, Black decided to take the pawn after all with 3...cxb4 and after 4 Nxe5 (4 Bc4!?) 4...Nc6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 Bb2 Nf6 7 e5 Nd5 8 Bc4 Nb6 9 Bb3 Be7 10 0–0 0–0 had a reasonable position. Of course there are plenty of ways for Black to get a playable game, but nothing gives him the safety offered by well trodden paths. 4 Nxe5 fxe5? This loses on the spot. Black had to try 4...Qe7 5 Nf3 Qxe4+, though admittedly this is very nice for White after 6 Be2 cxb4 7 0–0 because of the huge lead in development. 5 Qh5+ 1–0 Had Black seen everything or was it that he just didn’t relish continuing a game with his king wandering around? He is in fact quite lost here, for example 5 Qh5+ Ke7 (5...g6 6 Qxe5+ Qe7 7 Qxh8 leaves White the exchange up for nothing) 6 Qxe5+ Kf7 7 Bc4+ d5 8 Bxd5+ Kg6 9 Qg3+ Qg5 (9...Kh6 10 d3+ g5 11 h4 is about as devastating an attack as one could hope for whilst 9...Kh5 10 Bf7+ g6 11 Qe5+ wins the rook on h8) 10 Bf7+ Kf6 11 Bb2+ winning Black’s queen. It seems fitting that the final move of this variation is from a square vacated by White’s b-pawn. Recommended Reading Chess History and Reminiscences by Harold Bird The Veresov by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2004) The Trompovsky by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2005)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [4/16/2005 3:31:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [4/16/2005 3:31:39 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Chess for Children

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

I have a 9 year old daughter, approximately 1000 rating, who recently became interested in the French Defence. She wanted to buy a book on this subject. Given that she is only 9, what book(s) would you recommend? I received this email quite recently, and being a father myself it gave me pause for thought. My two year old son has often seen me move the pieces around on the set I have on the kitchen table, so naturally enough he wanted to do this too. Many a morning we’ve moved the pieces around and he thinks it’s great fun. Then one day he took a fancy to one of the “horsey” looking ones and wandered off with it. And when I suggested he put it back on the board he found the vacant square and in doing so set up the start position. “Do you know what Sam just did?” I asked my wife. “He replaced the knight on g1! The boy’s a genius!”

by Bruce Alberston

We spent the next hour or so congratulating ourselves on our son’s brilliance and sneering at his nursery’s concerns that he was a bit slow with his talking. After some research we bought a book entitled The Einstein Syndrome by Thomas Sowell, which is about bright children who talk late (one of whom was Albert Einstein). When the book arrived we were able to congratulate ourselves further on having a son who was directing his brain’s resources towards abstract matters rather than being one of the mindless Williams Syndrome talkers. We figured that there’s no point in children having magnificent conversation and social graces if they’ve got nothing to say. Well, back to the question on the French Defence books for children. Now if it was for my boy I’d be tempted to get Lev Psakhis’s volumes, but although

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [5/13/2005 6:35:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

he’d get the chess content easily enough he might have a problem with Lev Borisovich’s English. On balance I figure we should probably stick to Teletubbies and Bob the Builder for the time being whilst giving him the opportunity to master open games and the art of combination. The French leads to closed positions so he can wait until he’s a bit older. It’s not easy being a parent, especially when your children show some talent for something. How do you encourage them without pushing them too hard? This was not something I experienced as a player, but as a coach I’ve had several talented students with rather over-enthusiastic parents. The players concerned achieved quite a lot but then gave the game up, which makes me wonder if they actually enjoyed it in the first place or were just keeping Mom and Pop happy. Thinking about the qualities that make a truly great chess player (i.e. 25 years at the top as opposed to an under-11 champion) the number one must surely be a love of the game. It’s only this passion and curiosity about chess that motivates them to study deeply, taking positions apart until they understand exactly what’s happening. What doesn’t work is to sit your yawning charges down and demonstrate the moves of different openings to them. They may be able to repeat a few moves to keep you happy, but there won’t be any intelligence behind them. From a practical point of view the problems (apart from things like alcohol abuse or drug addiction) will start if they forget the moves, their opponents vary from what they know or when they inevitably reach the end of their memorised variation in a game. Chess doesn’t respond to this kind of training. You can’t train a chess player in the way that you train a dog because the royal game requires more thought than fetching a ball. Anyway, this rather explains why I prefer coaching players over the age of 21 (better still is 41) for whom all hope of international success has disappeared. This is not particularly good for business as wannabe coaching gurus should choose their students wisely. If you get a potential Kasparov under your wing, it still looks pretty good if he comes 3rd in the British U11 Championship and ends up as FIDE master. Nobody notices if you get a guy in his 50s to gain 100 points on his rating, though I’ve found that teaching people whose parents don’t take an interest is easier on the nerves. This month’s game was sent to me by Marcelo Espinosa who was hoping to be immortalised by having one of his games published in this column. His opponent was a Brit who goes by the name of King Arthur, rating unknown. King Arthur - Espinosa, M (1843) Internet Game Semi-Slav Defence [D46] 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 In the Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov era everyone used to play the file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [5/13/2005 6:35:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

King’s Indian. Now the Slav and Semi-Slav have become very popular, thanks largely to the influence of Vladimir Kramnik. 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Nc3 Nbd7 6 Bd3 Bd6 7 c5?! A typical amateur move, releasing the tension in the center. Black already stands well after this. 7...Be7 A more logical way to play it is with 7...Bc7, supporting the advance of his epawn. Burn - Teichmann, Hastings 1895 continued 8 b4 e5 9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Nxe5 Bxe5 11 Bb2 Qe7 12 Be2 0-0 13 Qc2 Bd7 14 0-0 Rae8 15 Rad1 Bb8 16 Nb1 Ne4 17 Nd2 f5 18 Bd4 Ng5 19 Bd3 f4 20 Kh1 Qf7 21 Nf3 Nxf3 22 gxf3 Qh5 23 Rg1 Rf7 24 Qe2 Be5 25 Bc2 Rf6 26 Bxe5 and now came the magnificent 26…Qxh2+!! 27 Kxh2 Rh6+ 28 Kg2 Bh3+ 29 Kh1 Bf1 mate, none of which is a great advert for 7 c5. 8 0-0 b6 9 Qa4 Bb7 Black might also have considered 9...bxc5 10 Qxc6 Rb8, with what looks like a pretty good game. White is the one who is fighting for equality, though his next move indicates that he hadn’t realised that at this point. 10 Ne5? The best may be 10 b4 when 10...a5 11 b5 cxb5 12 Bxb5 bxc5 13 Ne5 Ba6 leaves White struggling but still on the board. Now he’s close to lost. 10...Nxe5 11 dxe5 Nd7 12 Qg4? Kf8 A bit too respectful. The cold blooded 12...Nxe5 would win a couple of pawns – White cannot play 13 Qxg7 because of 13...Bf6 winning a piece. 13 Qh5 h6 Once again giving White’s vague attacking gestures far too much credit. After just 13...Nxc5 Black is a good pawn up, for example 14 Bc2 (14 Bxh7 Ba6 15 Re1 Bd3 16 e4 d4 would leave White in desperate straights) 14...Qe8!? 15 Qg4 (15 f4 is well met by 15...f5!, which is the point of 14...Qe8) 15...g6 16 f4 h5 blockading the kingside. 13...bxc5 is less good as after 14 f4 g6 (14...h6 15 f5 is dangerous) 15 Qh6+ Kg8 16 b3 Black is a pawn up but has to unravel. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [5/13/2005 6:35:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

14 cxb6 axb6 15 f4 g6 16 Qd1 Kg7 This position is still quite nice for Black, but he could have had something similar with the bonus of an extra pawn. 17 a4 c5 18 Bd2 18 b3 looks better, in order to prevent Black’s next move. 18...c4 19 Bc2 Nc5 20 b4 Nd3 Quite interesting, but I prefer the simple 20...cxb3 21 Bxb3 Ba6 22 Rf2 Nxb3 23 Qxb3 Bc4 with a nice game and no headaches. 21 Bxd3 cxd3 22 Nb5 d4 23 exd4 Giving Black the d5-square for very little. I prefer 23 Nxd4 Qd5 24 Qf3, which looks slightly better for White. 23...Bc6 24 Bc3 Bxb5 Missing a much stronger move in 24...Qd5! after which 25 Rf3 is answered by 25...Bxb4! 26 Bxb4 (26 Nc7 Qd7 27 Rxd3 Bxc3 28 Rxc3 Rxa4 is also good for Black) 26...Bxb5 and if 27 axb5 then 27...Qxd4+ winning. 25 axb5 Rxa1 26 Bxa1 Qd5 27 Qxd3 Bxb4 Despite the fact that Black’s a pawn down, the position certainly isn’t any worse for him. His bishop is much better than Whites and his queen is mightily placed on d5. 28 Rc1 White can try and complicate matters with 28 Bb2 Ra8 29 f5!?, but then 29...gxf5 (29...exf5 30 Qf3 is tricky) 30 Rc1 Qe4 keeps things under control. 28...Ra8 29 Rb1 Bc5 Black can play more strongly with 29...Ra2 after which 30 Qf1 Bd2 leaves White very badly placed.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [5/13/2005 6:35:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

30 Bb2 Ra2 31 Kh1 Or if 31 Qf1 there might follow 31...Bxd4+ 32 Bxd4 Qxd4+ 33 Kh1 Rf2 etc. 31...Ba3 32 Qc2 Bxb2 33 Rxb2 Ra1+? Missing an immediate win with 33...Qc4! when 34.Qxc4 Ra1+ leads to mate. 34 Rb1 Qxd4 35 h4 35 h3 is better but then 35...g5 is good, for example 36 g3 Rxb1+ 37 Qxb1 Qd5+ 38 Kg1 Qf3 39 Qe1 gxf4 40 gxf4 Qxf4 with a winning queen endgame. 35...Rxb1+ 36 Qxb1 Qxf4 37 Qe1 Qc4 38 Qf2 White can try to confuse the issue with 38 h5, but after 38...g5 39 Qf2 Qxb5 40 Qf6+ Kg8 41 Qxh6 Qxe5 he can’t move his queen. 38...Qc7 39 Qe3 Qd8 40 Qe4 Qd5 41 Qxd5 41 Qe2 was mandatory, though Black would be winning in the long-run. 41...exd5 42 Kh2 f5 43 h5 g5 44 e6 Kf6 0-1 Recommended Reading It’s Tubby Bedtime by Andrew Davenport (Scholastic, 1999) Bob’s Big Story Collection (Simon Spotlight, 2002)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [5/13/2005 6:35:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [5/13/2005 6:35:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Learning to Suffer

Let’s Take A Look...

For a lot of people chess is a fun diversion, something that helps them forget about the stresses and strains of everyday life. There’s nothing wrong with this attitude – chess can be a great hobby. But did I hear someone say that they want to have fun and improve?

Nigel Davies

Here we have a problem because chess for fun and chess for blood are quite incompatible things. You don’t believe me? Prepare for your awakening… If you want to improve your chess then forget about having fun. You might get satisfaction and enjoyment from winning more games, but such superior results require an element of suffering. The problems we are confronted with during a chess game are there to be solved rather than avoided and the discovery of solutions is what enables us to grow as players. Here’s what psychiatrist and author Morgan Scott Peck says about the matter:

by Bruce Alberston

Problems are the cutting edge that distinguishes between success and failure. Problems call forth our courage and our wisdom; indeed, they create our courage and our wisdom. It is only because of our problems that we grow mentally and spiritually. When we desire to encourage the growth of the human spirit, we challenge and encourage the human capacity to solve problems, just as in school we deliberately set problems for our children to solve. It is through the pain of confronting problems that we learn. So think again before you dive in with that knight sacrifice without spending enough time working it out. Don’t have a beer or two just because the other players are partaking and find the real reason for your losses rather than making a quick excuse. Are we having pain yet? If not then try this: There’s one area in which the ability to suffer is particularly useful, and that’s

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 5) [6/11/2005 12:11:55 AM]

Let's Take A Look

when you’ve got a bad position and have to defend. I wonder if it’s the amateur’s insistence that he should be having fun that makes him so poor in defence. I know you want it to be over, but this is where pain tolerance really comes in. In The Art of the Middle Game by Paul Keres and Alexander Kotov, the chapter by Keres, on defending difficult positions, provides some magnificent insights: The aim in this chapter is not to teach the difficult art of defence. I have set myself a much lighter task, and in the ensuing pages I consider some cases where one side has to defend a difficult, or even possibly a lost, position. Unfortunately, it often happens, as is well known, that one meets with such situations and perhaps therefore some counsel drawn from my own experiences would not be without profit for the reader. The latter might now ask: Why concern oneself with positions that are already lost? Provided the opponent plays the continuation correctly there is nothing in fact to be done, so why worry oneself to no purpose? No, let’s just try a swindle and if that misfires then give up the game! However, it is not so simple as all that and it is against just such a conception that I direct myself in the following pages of this chapter. Lasker has already said that a position can never be so bad as not to offer prospects of defence, and therein lies a great truth. However hopeless the situation appears to be there yet always exists the possibility of putting up a stubborn resistance. And it is the player’s task to find these opportunities and make the best of them. When the player with the upper hand is continually confronted by new problems, when, at every moment, one renders the win as difficult as possible, then it is likely that his powers will eventually weaken and he may make some mistake. Lasker won many games from bad positions because of his willingness to search for resources in positions that many other players would just want to get rid of. Modern grandmasters know this only too well and will fight tooth and nail in bad positions. It’s amazing how many can be saved. The following game was sent to me by a player in his 60s, who in this game plays with the verve of a teenager. He clearly understood White’s plan (f2-f4f5) and when the screw tightened his opponent lashed out 16...Nxe5?. Not that it was looking too pleasant for Black at that stage, but you can just sense that Black wanted to get away from it all. Krombeen - Motram England 2004 Caro-Kann [B12] 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 Ne2 e6 5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h4

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 5) [6/11/2005 12:11:55 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Apparently White had picked this line up from an article by my partner in crime (UK seminars), IM Andrew Martin. It’s quite interesting, though not at all bad for Black if he knows what he’s doing. 6...h6 Not the best. Although it exposes the h-pawn, Black should stop White in his tracks with 6...h5. In the game Spassky - Adams, Cannes 1989 the former world champion then played 7 Bd3 (Spassky was evidently discouraged from playing 7 Be2 because of 7…c5! 8 c3 Nc6 9 Be3 Qb6 10 dxc5 Qxb2 11 0-0 0-0-0 12 Qb3 Qxb3 13 axb3 a6 ½-½ as in Spassky - Dzindzichashvili, Tilburg 1978) after which 7...Bxd3 8 cxd3 Qb6 9 Ne2 Ne7 10 Nd2 Nf5 11 Nf3 c5 12 dxc5 Bxc5 13 d4 Be7 14 Bg5 Bb4+ 15 Kf1 was about equal. It makes a big difference for Black to have his pawn on h5 rather than h6, not least because a knight can be posted on f5 without Black having to worry about g2-g4. And from a long term perspective, stopping g2-g4 means that White will have trouble organising the key pawn lever, f4-f5. For more on these issues I suggest reading about the “super quart grip” in Hans Kmoch’s Pawn Power in Chess. 7 h5 Bh7 8 Bd3 Bxd3 9 cxd3 Qb6 10 Be3 Happily sacrificing the b2-pawn. The big question is about where Black will put his king; the queenside is not a comfortable place with the b- and c-files open. 10...Qxb2 11 Nd2 Qb6 There have been quite a few games in this line. In Kuzmin - Bordonada, Nice 1974 Black played 11...Bb4, but after 12 0-0 Bxd2 13 Rb1! Qxa2 14 Bxd2 he faced massive pressure in return for the two snatched pawns. The Russian GM went on to win in fine style after 14...b6 15 Bb4 Ne7 16 Qg4 Rg8 17 Bxe7 Kxe7 18 f4 Nd7 19 f5 Qd2 20 Rf4 Qxd3 21 Qh4+ Ke8 22 Rbf1 c5 23 fxe6 fxe6 24 Qg4 Kd8 25 Qxe6 Re8 26 Qxd5 Rc8 27 Kh2 Qe3 28 Rf7 Rc7 29 Qa8+ Rc8 30 Rxd7+! 1-0. 12 0-0 Nd7 13 Rb1 White has also played 13 Nb3 in this position, in order to inhibit ...c6-c5. Pirog - Pakula, Krynica 1998 continued 13...Qc7 14 Qg4 0-0-0 15 f4 Ne7 16 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 5) [6/11/2005 12:11:55 AM]

Let's Take A Look

f5 Nxf5 17 Nxf5 exf5 18 Qxf5 Bb4 19 Qxf7 with the e-pawn giving White a clear advantage. 13...Qc7 14 Qg4 Simple and direct. White wants to play f2f4-f5, prising open the f-file. And as Black can’t play ...g7-g6, there’s not that much he can do about it. 14...Ne7 15 f4 0-0-0 16 f5 Nxe5?? Desparation! When club players are under pressure they reason that they might as well try and shoot their way out of trouble, even though the odds are stacked against them. Black has to try and hang on with 16...exf5 17 Nxf5 Nxf5 18 Qxf5 Be7 19 Qxf7 Nb6. It’s lost, but at least he’s not a piece down. 17 dxe5 Qxe5 18 Bd4 Qd6 Another pawn is falling – after 18...Qb8 the e-pawn goes with 19 fxe6 etc. 19 Bxa7 g6 20 fxg6 fxg6 21 hxg6 h5 22 Nxh5 White could also rub it in with 22 g7, winning another piece. But by now there are many roads to Rome. 22...Nf5 23 Rxf5 exf5 24 Qxf5+ Rd7 25 Nf3 Bg7? White can just take this, of course. So... 10 Recommended Reading The Art of the Middle Game by Paul Keres and Alexander Kotov (Dover 1989) Pawn Power in Chess by Hans Kmoch (Dover 1990) Lasker’s Manual of Chess by Emanuel Lasker (Dover 1969)

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 5) [6/11/2005 12:11:55 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 5) [6/11/2005 12:11:55 AM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Hammer and Nail

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail. – Abraham Maslow One of the main difficulties facing many players is that their repertoire of ideas and strategies is too narrow. Many players have been impressed at one time or another with some games that illustrate a particular plan. But the danger is that they then try to bring this off in every game without being too discriminating about the position they try to use it in. If it doesn’t work they’ll try to improve the way they set the plan up. What occurs to relatively few players is to broaden their repertoire of plans. The most common type of plan to try and emulate is some form of mating attack. Such strategies are readily comprehensible because the goal is clear (checkmate) and certain types of mating attacks can be broken down into smaller stages. If Black, for example, adopts a kingside fianchetto, White can often try to exchange this bishop off (Bc1-e3, Qd1-d2, Be3-h6), castle queenside and the prise open the h-file (h2-h4-h5) in order to get the king’s rook into play against Black’s king.

by Bruce Alberston

Chess strategy really doesn’t come much simpler than that so it’s little surprise that this sequence of moves is very popular even at lower levels of the game. I believe this tendency creates both perils and opportunities. The danger is in allowing your opponent’s favoured plan when it’s good and getting mown down. The opportunity lies in the possibility you have to create a position in which it’s bad, or find a neat way of rendering it ineffective. To give you some examples, let’s assume we’re playing someone who “knows” he should attack a fianchettoed bishop with Bc1-e3, Qd1-d2, Bh6, etc. It’s easy to get destroyed if we react in a stereotypical way – we castle into the attack and then fiddle while Rome burns.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [7/18/2005 8:41:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

How are we going to make it innocuous or even poor? From a strategic point of view several possibilities suggest themselves, and these might be used either on their own or together: a) Delayed kingside castling: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 Nc6 8 Qd2 Bd7 9 0-0-0 Rc8. b) Delayed development of the bishop to g7: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 c6 5 Qd2 b5. c) Leave the knight on g8 to stop Be3-h6: 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 Be3 a6 5 Qd2 Nd7 6 0-0-0 b5. d) Stop the h-pawn n its tracks with ...h7-h5: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 Nc6 8 Qd2 0-0 9 Bc4 Bd7 10 0-0-0 Rc8 11 Bb3 Ne5 12 h4 h5. e) Prepare a counterattack with ...d7-d5: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 f3 0-0 8 Qd2 d5. Of course it needs a wide knowledge of different types of position and chess strategies to be able to reel off these various counter-strategies and visualise them in a game. How can a player develop this ability? The best way is to broaden your chess tastes so that you study games with all sorts of openings, including those you don’t play. So rather than play through the games in a specialist openings monograph you might examine the games of a particular player or even work through an entire tournament book. The multiplicity of strategies and ideas can broaden a players understanding of chess is ways he never dreams of until he becomes a broad reader. Chess ideas tend not to respect the boundaries of move order, so what you learn about Nimzo-Indian positions can end up being highly applicable to positions which arise from quite different openings. The way not to develop is to focus exclusively on limited, single plan openings such as the Colle, Stonewall Attack or similar systems. Whilst these may be tempting because a player thinks he “understands what to do,” the one plan nature of these positions does nothing to foster an ability to deal with the reality of ever-changing structures and the constant need to improvise. Worse yet, they render him vulnerable to wrong-footing manoeuvres by a wily opponent. In the following game Black allows the attacking plan outlined above, and in a form that is very dangerous for Black, the standard Sicilian Dragon. Black’s good fortune consisted in the fact that his opponent had a different kind of hammer hardwired into his thinking, the Velimirovic Attack with Bf1-c4, Bc1e3 and Qd1-e2. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [7/18/2005 8:41:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

This hammer is suited to a different kind of nail. And White gets beaten by a player almost 400 points lower rated. Smith,P (1650) - Rouse,R (1272) Louisville, Kentucky 1989 Sicilian Dragon [B70] 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 I’ve always maintained that a smarter way to play the Dragon at this level is with 2...Nc6 so that after the standard “kingside attack plan” with 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 f3?! 0-0 8 Qd2 Black gets to play 8...d5 in one move instead of two. It’s amazing how often I’ve seen White allow this against the Accelerated Dragon (2...Nc6) which all goes to show that a little knowledge (the Be3 and Qd2 strategy against Dragon formations) can be a dangerous thing. 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Bc4 Here and over the few next moves White chooses a “Velimirovic Attack” type of plan, but one which is more appropriate for Sicilians in which Black plays ...e6, ...d6 and puts his queen’s knight on c6. He would have been much better off had he known only the Bc1-e3, Qd1-d2 and Be3-h6 strategy outline above, the way to get into this being 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 followed by 8.Qd2, etc. 6...Bg7 7 Be3 0-0 8 Qe2 The queen just isn’t “right” on this square. 8…Nc6 9 0-0-0 Ng4! This must have come as an unpleasant surprise to White as it throws a spanner in the works. Such moves are not possible in the Velimirovic Attack because a black pawn would be on e6 by now. 10 f3 Giving up the dark-square bishop is a major concession because it will be very difficult to attack Black’s king without it. But 10 Nxc6 bxc6 11 Bd4 hardly inspires confidence after 11…e5 12 Bc5 Qg5+ forcing 13 Be3. 10…Nxe3 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12 Qxe3 Qb6

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [7/18/2005 8:41:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

This is actually a pretty good move. With the bishop on g7 and an open b-file you’d expect Black to be playing for the attack, though the endgame is also very good if Black can homogenise his pawn chain. If White exchanges queens then the a7-pawn comes to b6 and gives Black one huge island of pawns. This kind of thing always warms the heart of your older grandmaster. I have a previous game on record from this position which shows a more violent treatment from Black. Schork - Zikeli, Buchen 2001 went 12...Bd7 13 Bb3 Qa5 14 g4 Rfb8 15 h4 Qc7!? 16 h5 a5 17 hxg6 hxg6 18 Qg5 e6 19 Qd2 d5 20 exd5 cxd5 21 a4 d4 22 Ne2 Rxb3 0-1. I hasten to add that this wasn’t all forced. 13 Qd3 Bb7 One would rather have expected 13...Bd7 intending 14…Rfb8 so as to power down the b-file. I can’t say I like the position of this bishop on b7, though Black is always going to be better if he keeps his unopposed dark-square bishop. 14 f4 c5 And here’s another move that I certainly wouldn’t play myself. It turns out that Black can play 14…d5 after which 15 exd5 cxd5 16 Bxd5 Bxd5 17 Qxd5 Rab8 would win on the spot (18 Qb3 Qe3+ wins the queen). 15 Bb3 If White had guessed Black’s plan of ...Bxc3 followed by capturing the e4pawn he might have been tempted to try 15 h4. Had Black then continued with 15...Bxc3 16 Qxc3 Bxe4, White could have caused all sorts of trouble with 17 h5. In any case the plan of giving up the dark-squared bishop is one which entails deep risk. 15...Bxc3 16 Qxc3 Bxe4 17 Rhe1 Qb7 18 Re2 Bxg2?! Black appears to be unaware of the danger he faces in this position. Rather than capture a second pawn it makes sense to play 18...Rac8. This serves the purpose of preparing ...d6-d5 by supporting c5, getting the rook off the h1-a8 diagonal (if Black’s bishop were distracted, Bb3-d5 would win the exchange) and preparing ...c5-c4. 19 Rde1

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [7/18/2005 8:41:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

19 f5!? is interesting here, immediately getting to grips with Black’s kingside. After 19...Be4 (19...gxf5 20 Rg1 wins the bishop) 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 Re3, White is threatening Rh3 with a strong initiative for his pawns. 19...e6 20 Bxe6? And this is nothing more than a wild, desperate lunge. 20 h4!? is a much better try, for example if Black stops the further advance of White’s h-pawn with 20...h5 there is 21 f5! exf5 (21...gxf5 22 Rg1 wins the bishop) 22 Rg1 Bd5 23 Qf6! Bxb3 24 Re7 forcing Black to give up his queen. If instead he plays 24...Qb4? then 25 Rxg6+ would lead to mate. 20...fxe6 21 Rxe6 Qd5 Many other moves would win for Black because White is a piece down for nothing. 22 Re7 Rf7 23 Qa5 23 Re8+ Rxe8 24 Rxe8+ Rf8 25 Rxf8+ Kxf8 26 Qh8+ Ke7 27 Qxh7+ Qf7 would see an end to White’s “attack.” 23...Rxe7 24 Rxe7 Bf3 25 b3 Qd1+ 26 Kb2 Qd4+ Black’s queen is really magnificently placed on this square, not only does she participate in the attack on White’s king, she defends the dark squares around the black king. 27 Kb1 c4 28 Qc7 c3 29 a4 Qd1+ 30 Ka2 Qxc2+ 31 Ka3 Qb2+ 32 Kb4 c2 32…a5+ would have won White’s queen, which would make it a slightly safer move in my view. Not that Black is in much danger here; I just like to reduce the odds of any accidents occurring. 33 Qc4+ Kh8 0-1 White has no effective checks and he’s about to face a second black queen. Recommended Reading

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [7/18/2005 8:41:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Toward a Psychology of Being by Abraham Maslow (Wiley, 1998) 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower & du Mont (Dover, 1975)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [7/18/2005 8:41:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Nature or Nurture

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

What makes a great chess player, is it nature or nurture? Judging from some of the enquiries I receive about coaching this is not a question people consider very seriously. There often seems to be an assumption that someone can raise the level of their game by several hundred points (or become an international master/ international grandmaster/ world champion) just by wanting it and taking a few lessons. It’s very difficult to know where to begin in explaining that the achievement of mastery requires talent and very serious dedication. Whilst I tend towards brutal honesty this is not a great marketing ploy. Usually people receive more positive messages from the salesmen they approach, which is probably why they get the wrong idea about what can be realistically achieved. There are a whole range of chess products that are advertised in a way which implies it’s easy for someone to achieve their chessboard dreams.

by Bruce Alberston

What are the qualities needed for success in chess. Undoubtedly some talent is required, and the more the better. Grandmaster Jon Levitt proposed the formula that a player’s potential rating might be described as 1000 + 10 x IQ, though knowing Levitt he probably had his tongue in his cheek when formulating this. There are certain aspects of intelligence that appear to be critical, such as abstract reasoning. But perhaps what is most important is personality. I haven’t seen much written about this, but it seems fairly clear that certain personality types are attracted to chess. Anyone who hopes to get to a very high level will have to start early and devote themselves to the game over a number of years. Far from being academic types, most of the grandmasters I’ve known tend towards being rather rebellious, having a dislike of authority and insistence on checking everything for themselves. This last factor is critical for someone who wishes to develop an understanding that will be

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

robust under competitive pressures. It also casts serious doubt on the idea that chess can be learned from books in an academic fashion. Dr. Piotr Wozniak’s website contains one of the most interesting essays I’ve seen on the matter. Of numerous interlinking factors, the personality of a chess player may be one of the most important factors for his or her ultimate success. The baseline IQ may determine the realistic ceiling of achievement. However, it is hard work and training that makes a great chess player. For this, you need a truly neurotic personality with an extreme obsession for the game. Scrupulous analysis of the game and highly competitive spirit are crucial ingredients. It is the personality that turns a budding player into a computer-like achieving machine where chess permeates all aspects of an individual’s life. Training, tournaments, game analysis and the highest accomplishment are central points of a chess champion’s mind throughout his day. With training, further qualities develop: the art of concentration, and chess expertise. On-demand concentration plays a greater role in chess than in other areas of creative activity. A chess player must reach top concentration at the right moment and sustain a high-level of game processing power until the next move is chosen. On the other hand, success in sciences, engineering, business, etc. will rely on the quality of the creative output independent of the speed at which it is reached. More like in correspondence chess. If you can produce a better result in 3 hours of thinking than another genius in 3 minutes of thinking, you can still arrive to a better business plan, better scientific theory, better algorithm, better design, better marketing idea, etc. Your creation over many years will accumulate those incremental points. In creativity, quality counts more than speed. So what’s the conclusion? The implication is that mastery of chess and indeed many other fields depends very largely on a love of the game, and that this love of chess will drive someone towards serious dedication. This contains an important message for those who would attempt to create a future champion by forced feeding; whilst there may be isolated examples of strong players having been driven to their success, I’ve seen many more that’ve fallen by the wayside and been seriously embittered towards those who pushed them. This month’s game was sent to me by Harvey Caron who enquires where he should have improved. The critical factor seems to have been his reluctance to play f2-f4 and then not knowing how to reinforce his pressure (25 Ng3), which suggests he should study some typical games with this Botvinnik structure. I also gained the impression of an exaggerated respect for a higher rated opponent, which is a much harder issue to deal with. H. Caron (1741) – MA (1870) Canadian Open, 2005

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

English Opening [A16] 1 c4 Nf6 2 g3 g6 3 Bg2 Bg7 4 Nc3 0-0 5 e4 e5 This looks natural enough but it commits Black to a somewhat inflexible central pawn structure. I prefer the more flexible 5...d6. 6 d3 d6 7 Nge2 c6 8 0-0 Na6 Black has an alternative in 8...Nbd7 intending ...a6 and ...b5 and he can also consider the immediate 8...a6. 9.h3 Bd7?! Many beginners books might approve of this move as it develops a piece and connects the rooks, etc. Unfortunately it does little to help with Black’s middle game plans, and to some extent even hinders the attempt to play ...d6-d5 by blocking’s the queen’s support for this move. A better move is 9...Nc7 when 10 f4 b5 11 cxb5 cxb5 12 a3 Bb7 13 Be3 Qe7 14 Rc1 Rab8 15 Qe1 Nd7 16 b4 a6 was playable for Black in Paneque - Zapata, Bayamo 1990. 10 Bg5?! And this in turn is not a move that I like. White’s plan in such positions is to advance his f-pawn and 10 f4 would even have a serious positional threat of f4-f5 followed by g2-g4 and Ne2-g3, with a severe bind on the kingside. 10...Qb6 11 Qd2 Rfe8 12 a3?! Another dodgy move, allowing Black to get his a6-knight into play with gain of tempo. 12 Be3 makes much more sense with the idea of reverting to the f2f4 plan. 12...Nc5 Threatening to win the exchange with 13...Nb3, which White promptly covers. 13 Nc1 a5 14 Be3 Qc7 15 Rb1 Na6?!

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Inexplicably putting his knight back on a bad square and allowing White to expand on the queenside. 15...a4 looks much better after which 16 f4 Nh5 17 N1e2 exf4 18 gxf4 f5 gives Black quite a good game. 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 Rac8 Passive, but White is clearly better in any case. After 17...Nh5 18.N1e2 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.d4 Black’s position would start to look quite miserable. 18 N1e2 b5 19 cxb5 White could also ignore Black’s queenside demonstration and play 19 f4. 19...cxb5 20 Rfc1 And here, too, 20 f4 looks more to the point, keeping his rook behind the advancing f-pawn. 20...Qb7 21 f4 Bc6 22 g4 Red8 23 g5 Black is so well organised here that 23.f5 is strongly met by 23...d5. This really shouldn’t happen in this line and only does so here because White has lost so much time. 23...Ne8 24.f5? Finally playing this thematic move, but here it just loses a pawn. 24 d4 looks better. 24...f6? Why not 24...gxf5, the point being that 25 exf5?? loses a piece after 25...Bxg2. 25 fxg6 One mistake follows another. White should keep his bind on the kingside with 25 Ng3 rather than release the tension and activate Black’s pieces. Now the position becomes more or less equal. 25…hxg6 26 gxf6 Nxf6 27 Bg5 Nc7 28 Rf1 Rf8 29 h4 d5?! 30 exd5 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Missing an opportunity to throw a spanner in the works with 30 Bxf6 after which 30...Rxf6 (Or 30...Bxf6 31 Qh6) 31 Rxf6 Bxf6 32 Qh6 Be8 33 exd5 winning a pawn. Now Black gets the better game, not least because of the exposed position of White’s king. 30…Ncxd5 31 Ne4 Nxe4 32 Bxe4 Qb6+ 33 Kg2 Nf6 34 Bxf6 Having played 29 h4 this represents a major concession. Without a dark squared bishop the pawn on h4 is a serious weakness. 34...Bxf6 35 Kg3 Well that’s one way to defend, but White’s king is even more exposed here and it takes away a good square from White’s knight. 35.Rbc1 looks like a better try; hoping for something like 35...Kg7 36 h5 gxh5 37 Ng3 with a nice f5-square for the knight. 35...Bxe4+ 36 dxe4 Kh7 The check on d7 is ineffective and meanwhile Black prepares to bring a rook to h8. 37 Qd7+ Kh8 38 Qd2 Rc7 39 Qh6+ He should have taken the opportunity to bring his knight to a good square with 39 Nc3 Rh7 40 Nd5 as 40...Bxh4+ 41 Kg2 will be far from easy for Black to win. 39...Kg8 40 Kh2 Or if 40 h5 there is 40…Rh7 ( 41 Qxg6+?? Rg7 ) etc. 40...Bg7 41 Qd2 Rxf1? Giving White a chance to wriggle off the hook. Black could decide matters immediately with 41...Rf2+ 42 Kh1 Rcf7 with a winning attack. 42 Rxf1 Rc4 43 Qd7 43 h5 looks like a better try, meeting 43...gxh5 with 44 Rf5. 43...Rc2 44 Qd3 Qc6 45 Kg2 Qc4 Dull, but quite strong. Black wins a pawn in the endgame. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

46.Qxc4+ Rxc4 47.Rb1 Rxe4 48.Nc3 Rxh4 49.Nxb5 Bf8 0-1? White’s resignation looks a tad early here to say the least. In fact I don’t see why this should be winning for Black after 50 Re1 intending 50...Rh5 51 Re4. Recommended Reading Life & Games of Mikhail Tal by Mikhail Tal (Everyman 1997) The Magic of Mikhail Tal by Joe Gallagher (Everyman 2001)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

How to Trap Heffalumps

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

by Bruce Alberston

One of the chapters in the late Simon Webb’s excellent Chess for Tigers book is entitled How to Trap Heffalumps. Webb proposes that the correct strategy for the lower rated player is to play a sharp game rather than sit tight in the hope of hanging on, the logic being that the more moves the game lasts the more likely the difference in understanding is to show in the end. This is very difficult to put to the test and I’m sure there are many caveats (for example a player’s style of play). But I think that as a general rule of thumb it makes a lot of sense. I know from experience that it’s much harder to play against lower rated players who play sharply. But I should add that sharp play means being direct and purposeful rather than flailing wildly in the hope that a sucker punch will land. It won’t. Extending this idea to specifics, the kind of openings that fit in with Webb’s idea are those in which the pieces come into direct conflict early on. Lines like the Petroff or Sicilian Dragon represent suitable vehicles against 1 e4 whilst against 1 d4 I suggest the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Benko Gambit or Grünfeld Defences would be good. Once again I should draw a distinction between these lines and things like the “romantic” Latvian Gambit. Of course if your idea of romance is to get splattered all over the board in 20 moves then by all means go ahead… Moving to the other side of the board let’s look at this from the perspective of the heffalump. Now if it’s a smart heffalump rather than just a very strong one (not all strong heffalumps are smart) it will probably figure that it should grind you down rather than get involved in an early slugfest. In this case you’re going to have a difficult time of it, not least because it can use his experience to steer the game into channels which increase its odds of success. The problem is exacerbated if you’re unfortunate enough to have some of

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [9/16/2005 2:10:14 PM]

Let's Take A Look

your games in a computer database. It can then get a sense of where you are coming from and see how to wrong-foot you from the very first moves. If you like direct play he’ll block it up and make it difficult for either player’s pieces to move freely. If you play the opening timidly it’ll take some space early on without having to worry too much about the dangers of overextension. So it’s not at all easy to play a wily heffalump, but what about the ones who are just strong? Here there is considerably more hope, especially if it invariably plays a sharp and direct game in which accidents can happen. The trick is not to be intimidated by its sharp moves and answer them blow for blow. The odds are that the heffalump will see more than you and win anyway, but all you need for an upset is for it to miscalculate a single variation. In the following correspondence game Jon Sveinsson who comes close to trapping a seriously strong heffalump, over-the-board GM Vitaly Golod. The heffalump is under serious pressure right from the opening but manages to save himself with excellent defence. Yet it could easily have been a painful defeat against a player 500 points lower rated. Sveinsson,J (1913) - Golod,V (2538) Internet Correspondence Game, 2002 Grünfeld Defence [D87] 1 d4 Nf6 For any heffalumps out there who want my advice as to how to play a correspondence game against a lower rated player, I suggest taking a look at the games of correspondence pro Mikhail Umansky. He regularly plays 1…g6 in order to throw his opponents on their own resources. And if that’s not your cup of tea, 1…e6 is worth considering. 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 I’m not sure whether Golod was being a very smart heffalump here, but I’d qualify this by saying that it depends what his intention was. I don’t think the Grünfeld is a good way for GMs to beat lower rated opposition in correspondence chess, not just because it’s highly theoretical but also because the sharp game it leads to is one in which it is difficult for him to show his subtle positional understanding. But perhaps his intention was to use correspondence chess to deepen his opening knowledge. 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [9/16/2005 2:10:14 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Although this was once considered mandatory, recent years have seen it play third fiddle to 7.Nf3 and 7.Be3. 7...c5 8 Be3 Nc6 9 Ne2 0-0 10 0-0 Bd7 Bachar Kouatly specialised in this quiet development, though he liked to play 10...Bg4 11 f3 and then 11...Bd7. I understand that he liked the fact that White’s bishop on e3 would then be undefended, which could well be significant in some variations. 11 Rb1 a6 Preparing a queenside pawn expansion with ...b7-b5. Meanwhile the pawn on b7 is immune because of ....Nc6-a5. 12 dxc5 I’m not a big fan of this concept, though it does look quite reasonable in this particular position. Black will now set about recovering the pawn on c5 in a rather long-winded way whilst White hopes to take advantage of the time this consumes. 12...Na5 I’m not sure about this move, it may be committing the knight too early. In my book on the Grünfeld I give the game Kramnik - Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 1999 which went 12...Qc7 13 Nd4 (If White tries to play along the lines of the main game with 13 Qc2, Black can answer with 13...Ne5 14 Bd5 Rab8 followed by ...e6 and/or ...Bb5) 13...Na5 14 Be2 Rfc8 15 f4 e5 16 fxe5 Qxe5 17 Bd3 Qe7 18 Nb3 with a draw agreed. 13 Bd3 Qc7 14 Qc2 Rfc8

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [9/16/2005 2:10:14 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Vacating the f8-square so that Black’s bishop can go there. Getting this c5-pawn back isn’t easy, but there is the promise of a better pawn structure once this is achieved. But now White heads towards the kingside... 15 f4! This appears to be a new move, though it makes perfect sense. White plays dynamically in order to offset the weaknesses in his pawn structure. Khalifman - Avrukh, Panormo 2001 varied at this point with 15 Nc1 and after 15...e6 16 Nb3 Rab8 17 Rfd1 a draw was agreed. 15...e6 16 f5 Bf8 In the game Black finds himself under a lot of pressure, so it’s tempting to look for other ways to play it. One possibility is 16...Be5!?, using the newly created “hole” on e5 and intending to meet 17 Nf4 with 17...Rf8. 17 Nd4 Qxc5 18 Qf2 Qe7 Black shouldn’t even consider the greedy 18...Qxc3 at this point – after 19 fxg6 fxg6 20 Qf7+ Kh8 21 Rfd1 the pressure on his position would be unbearable. 19 fxg6 fxg6 Capturing “away from” the center, but having the f-file open gives Black the possibility of challenging rooks on the f-file. 20 c4 Nxc4 After 20...e5 21 Nf3 Nxc4 White would place his opponent under terrible pressure with 22 Bxc4+ Rxc4 23 Rxb7. By avoiding putting a pawn on e5 Black keeps open the option of placing a knight there. 21 Bxc4 After 21 Rxb7 Ne5, Black’s knight comes to an ideal defensive square. 21...Rxc4 22 Rxb7

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [9/16/2005 2:10:14 PM]

Let's Take A Look

The arrival of White’s rook on the seventh rank signals great danger for Black, over the next few moves he comes close to being mated. 22…Bg7 23 Nf3 Having done its job on d4, the knight heads towards the kingside. From g5 it will threaten the heffalump’s king. 23…Rac8 24 Qe2 Qe8 25 Ng5 Bb5 26 Qg4 Not just hitting the e6-pawn but threatening to come to the h-file in many lines. 26…R4c6 27 Rd1 Here and on subsequent moves Black defends against 27 Qh3 with 27...h5. 27...Ba4 28 Rdb1 Bb5 29 Rf7 Rd8 30 h4 After the game Mr. Sveinsson regretted not playing 30 a4, with the idea that if Black takes he can follow up with 31 Rbb7. But this doesn’t look that clear to me after 30...h5 (Or 30...Bxa4 31 Rbb7 Be5) 31 Qg3 Bxa4 32 Rxg7+ Kxg7 33 Qe5+ Kg8 34 Bd4 Rxd4 35 Qxd4 Qc8 intending 36...Rc1+. 30...Rd3! The first in a series of really precise defensive moves which save the day. 31 a4 Rxe3 32 axb5 axb5 33 Rb7 Bd4 34 Kh1 Qc8 35 R7xb5 And not 35 Rxh7 because of 35...Rc1+ 36 Rxc1 Qxc1+ 37 Kh2 Be5+ 38 g3 Bxg3+ 39 Qxg3 Re2+ 40 Kh3 Qf1+ 41 Kg4 Rxe4+ 42 Nxe4 Qf5 mate. 35...Rc1+ 36 Rxc1 Qxc1+ 37 Kh2 Qg1+! This neat resource leads to a drawn endgame. 38 Kxg1 Rxe4+ 39 Kh2 Rxg4 40 Kh3 h5 41 Rb4

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [9/16/2005 2:10:14 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Or 41 Rb8+ Kg7 42 Nxe6+ Kf6 43 Nxd4 Rxd4 with a drawn rook endgame. 41...e5 42 Rb8+ Kg7 43 Rb7+ Kg8 ½-½ And not 43...Kf6?? because of 44 Rf7 mate. Recommended Reading The Grünfeld Defence by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2002) Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb (Batsford, 2005)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [9/16/2005 2:10:14 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Confirmation Bias

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

by Bruce Alberston

People are capable of falsifying their hypotheses. Our experimental results show that chess masters falsified their hypotheses: they thought about how their opponent might refute their plan in their move sequences. Chess masters tended to evaluate their moves as good or bad for them more realistically than experienced novices: their judgments matched the objective evaluations of one of the most highly advanced chess computer programs, Fritz 5. Experienced novices exhibited something of a confirmation bias: they tended to think about how their opponent would play moves that fit in with their plan, somewhat more than chess masters did. Novices, somewhat more than masters, tended to evaluate their moves as better for them than they were objectively. The evidence that chess masters can falsify suggests that it may be premature to conclude that the normative prescription of falsification is flawed. In this case falsification can be considered a useful and rational strategy. Hypothesis testing may be influenced by domain expertise. How does domain knowledge affect the ability to falsify by chess experts? We plan to explore this question by examining how masters test their hypotheses for random board positions compared to novices. If falsification relies on domain knowledge, then masters should tend not to falsify their hypotheses about move sequences in the random board positions as often as they do in the normal board positions. Nonetheless, they may attempt to falsify more than experienced novices, if their expertise has helped them to develop a strategy of falsification in this domain. This is the conclusion of an academic paper by Ruth Byrne and Michelle Cowley published in 2004 which indicates the value of chess both as a medium for experimentation and for developing good thinking habits. Stronger players have always known that the analysis of their weaker brethren is full of hope and assumptions, and that this is the reason they don’t improve.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]

Let's Take A Look

The hard truth is that it has very little to do with the usual litany of reasons such as a “too busy”, “bad openings”, etc. Grandmasters inwardly smile whenever they hear this kind of thing. How does someone develop the ability to think critically? The best way is through play itself, having your moves and ideas “tested” by a strong opponent. When someone is trying to find flaws in your ideas it’s a whole different ball game to the hoped for cooperation people dream about from the comfort of their arm chairs. This is one of the reasons why home analysis tends to get exposed in live combat; ideas worked out without an opponent can allow elements of confirmation bias to slip through more easily. For this reason it’s good to play in strong tournaments. Events in which your opponent cannot find the flaw in your ideas will allow bad thinking habits to persist. The usual rule I give to students is that they should move up to the next level of competition once they consistently score more than 50%. I have some reservations about moving up too fast, the main one being the loss of confidence that can follow repeated batterings. Another good way to improve analytical skills is to sit down and analyse positions with a strong player who will act as critic. He may be less motivated to destroy your ideas than during a game, but it’s still much better than working things out for yourself. This is why it’s good to analyse with a stronger player after you lose to him; be gracious, offer to get him a beer and with luck he’ll agree. One can learn much more from this experience than the specifics of why you lost, do it enough and you might start to imbibe the ability to think critically yourself. I am deeply grateful to the stronger players who have taken the trouble to analyse with me over the years; on every occasion I have learned something. This month’s game was sent to me by a player who beat a higher rated player with a neat tactic at the end, but White’s notes betrayed evidence of “confirmation bias”, overestimating the attack and underestimating Black’s defensive resources. Of course this is nothing unusual, but the road to mastery involves refuting your own hypotheses. Edwards,S - O’Gorman,B Rhyl Major, 2005 Sicilian Defence [B42] 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Bd3 An unusual alternative to 5 Nc3. It shouldn’t trouble Black too seriously, but there are a few pitfalls for the unwary. 5…a6 Transposing into the Kan Variation. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Black must be careful to avoid 5...d5?! 6 e5 Nfd7? because of 7 Nxe6! fxe6 8 Qh5+ Ke7 (8...g6 9 Bxg6+ is even worse) 9 Bg5+ Nf6 10 Nc3 when Black’s king is caught in the centre. The simplest antidote to this line is 5...Nc6 which is better than after 5 Nc3 because 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 e5? just loses a pawn after 7...Qa5+. 6 0-0 Qc7 7 Qe2 d6 8 a4 Nc6 Black has also delayed the development of this knight, for example Andrei Sokolov Rotstein, Geneve 1996 went 8...g6 9 Be3 Bg7 10 Nd2 0-0 11 h3 d5 12 c4 dxe4 13 Bxe4 Nxe4 14 Nxe4 e5 15 Nb3 Nc6 with a satisfactory game for Black and 8...Be7 9 a5 0-0 10 Nd2 e5 11 N4b3 Be6 was fine in Ciolac - Chuchelov, Schwaebisch Gmund 1996. 9 Be3 Bd7 10 Nxc6 It isn’t usually a good sign in the Sicilian when White makes this exchange. 10…Bxc6 Black could also consider recapturing with the pawn. 11 Nc3 Be7 12 a5 Nd7 13 Qg4 Bf6 14 f4 0-0 Black has obtained a very comfortable position and the following “attack” is more hopeful than effective. 15 Rf3 Rac8 Natural enough, but I think there was something better. Black could have played 15...Bxc3! 16 bxc3 f5, exploiting the fact that White’s e4-pawn is pinned against the rook on f3. Black would win material on the spot. 16 Rh3 g6 17 Rg3?! Bg7 18 Rh3?!

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]

Let's Take A Look

These rook moves make a strange impression. The fact of the matter is that Black’s kingside is very solid and White will struggle to make any kind of breach. 18...Qd8 Another way to defend the kingside was with 18...Rfe8 19 Qh4 Nf8. 19 Bf2 Once again this gives the impression of being quite a cumbersome manoeuvre. I sense that White had overestimated his kingside chances. 19...Nc5 20 Bh4 Qc7 21 Bg5 Bd4+ The immediate 21...Bxc3 is better as after 22.bxc3 Nxe4 23.Bxe4 Bxe4 24.Bf6 Black has 24...Qc5+ with check. I suspect that Black’s reasoning in driving White’s king to h1 was that after capturing on e4 with the knight he would threaten a fork on f2. But White should capture it in any case. 22 Kh1 Bxc3 White annotated this move as ‘?!’, commenting that “Black wins a pawn, but he must now endure a raging kingside attack minus his dark squared bishop.” My view is that it really is a pawn and that Black should be able to defend his king without too much difficulty. 23 bxc3 Nxe4 And not 23...Bxe4?! because of 24 Rxh7! when 24...Nd7! (24...Kxh7?? 25 Qh4+ Kg8 26 Bf6 leads to mate) 25 Rh3 (After 25 Qh4 Qxc3 26 Rd1 d5 27 Be7 Rfe8 28 Bb4 Qf6 it seems that Black defends everything) 25...Qxc3 26 Rg1 Bxd3 27 Qh4 Qg7 28 Bh6 Qh8 29 Bxf8 Qxh4 30 Rxh4 Rxc2 31 Bxd6 Bf5 gives him compensation for the exchange, but nothing very clear. 24 Bxe4 Bxe4 25 Bf6 Qc5 26 Rh6 Qd5 27 Rg1?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Too passive, but White left the move unannotated. White should play 27 Qh3 Qf5 28 Qh4 when 28...g5 (Sacrificing a rook for numerous pawns with 28...Bxg2+ 29 Kxg2 Rxc3 30 Bxc3 Qxc2+ 31 Qf2 Qxc3 looks like a risky way to keep the game going, but is reminiscent of a famous game between Lutikov and Taimanov) 29 Bxg5 (29 fxg5 Rc4 is good for Black) 29...Rxc3 30 Bf6 Bxg2+ 31 Kxg2 Rxc2+ 32 Kg1 Qc5+ 33 Kf1 Qc4+ 34 Kg1 Qc5+ is perpetual check, but no more. 27...Rc4 28 Qh4? White described this as “an oversight as Black can now get perpetual.” I agree that the move is wrong, but Black has a win and not just perpetual. And even after the superior 28 Qh3 Black has all the chances with 28...Qf5 29 Be7 (29 Rxh7 Qxf6) 29...Qxh3 30 Rxh3 Re8 (Or 30...Bxc2 31 Bxf8 Kxf8, with more than enough for the exchange) 31 Bxd6 Rd8 32 Be7 Rd5 33 Bb4 Rd2, etc. 28...g5? Missing not just perpetual check but an immediate win. After 28...Bxg2+ 29 Rxg2 Qd1+ 30 Rg1 Qf3+ 31 Rg2 Black can win on the spot with 31...Rxf4. 29 Qh5? Another mistake, giving Black a fresh opportunity for victory. White had to play 29 Rxh7! when 29...Bxg2+ (And not 29...Bxh7?? 30 Qh6 etc) 30 Rxg2 Qd1+ 31 Rg1 Qd5+ 32 Rg2 Qd1+ 33 Rg1 Qd5+ is a perpetual. 29...Bg6? As Tartakover was wont to say, it’s the last mistake that loses the game. Black can and should continue with 29...Qf5! when 30 fxg5 (And not 30 Bxg5? f6) 30...Rfc8 31 Bd4 Qxa5 leaves White with nowhere to go on the kingside and his overall position in ruins. 30 Rxh7! Bxh7 Or 30...Bxh5 31.Rh8# 31 Qh6 1-0 There’s no way to stop the mate on g7.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Recommended Reading Thought and choice in chess by Adriann De Groot (Mouton De Gruyter, 1978) The Sicilian Kan by John Emms (Everyman, 2002)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [10/14/2005 1:59:55 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Cobweb Brushing

Let’s Take A Look...

One of the biggest issues facing amateur players is in finding enough time to play. After negotiating time off for good behaviour with wifey, many players find themselves unable to play more than 10-20 games per annum. And this is far too little to maintain good form, let alone make a serious improvement.

Nigel Davies

Jon Speelman once commented to me that he started to forget how the pieces moved if he didn’t play for a few months and this is a curious effect I’ve noticed myself. Nothing comes easily, variations have to be rechecked and then time trouble rears its ugly head. The fact is that a player’s intuition dies without regular practice and this in turn will hit every aspect of his game, not just strategic and planning considerations. What makes the calculation of variations at all efficient is the speed and accuracy with which someone assesses the resulting positions. When your intuition goes it takes your calculating ability down with it. And that doesn’t leave too much to fight with.

by Bruce Alberston

Can we learn anything from the world champions? The great Mikhail Botvinnik never played too much after he got the title. But when he had to play a match he took the process of brushing away the cobwebs very seriously indeed. Here’s a quote from his One Hundred Selected Games: I begin my actual preparations with a review of chess literature, especially in order to acquaint myself with new and interesting games; as I read I make notes on questions which are of particular interest to me. I also study all the games played by my rivals in the forthcoming competition. I study their peculiarities of play, and their favourite opening variations; this should be especially useful when preparing for each game during the tournament.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [11/11/2005 10:07:56 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Then I study all those opening lines which I intend to apply during the contest. Here I must remark that in my view a player should not, and indeed cannot attempt to play all the openings known to theory. For one competition three or four opening systems for White and the same for Black are quite sufficient. But these systems must be prepared thoroughly. If you do not have such systems at your command you can hardly count on finishing very high in the table. But it is also very unsatisfactory for a master to play only one opening; his opponents will be well prepared for play against him, and above all his chess horizon will be too narrow, in many positions he will simply play by rote. So now your schemes are worked out; but even that is not enough. Certain of them – those of which you are not absolutely sure – should be tried out in training games. Of course, these games must be played with a partner who will keep them secret, otherwise all your opponents will be as well acquainted with them as you are, and all your opening preparation will be wasted. These preparatory games must be resorted to not only in order to try out your opening schemes, but also to give you training in other respects. In particular, for a long time now I have told certain of our masters who regularly get involved in serious time trouble how to overcome this weakness. Unfortunately, only a few masters have taken my advice, apparently, yet it is very simple. Training games must be played in which the first consideration is the clock, and not the quality of the play, or its result, and this play by the clock must be continued until making the best possible use of the time, including consideration of all the main variations, becomes a habit. I think this method would completely cure 90 per cent of those who suffer from ‘time-trouble sickness’, and the exceptions would of course be incurable! Is this of any value to the club player? Well the actual form isn’t too useful unless you have a dacha outside Moscow and your wife lets you go there with your drinking buddies for a few months at the expense of the state. Yet most of us can now follow a version of Botvinnik’s advice by playing training games on the Internet. The important thing is to focus on specific areas rather than get drawn into “Internet blitz addiction.” The following game was sent to me by the winner who explained: “I don’t get to play much chess these days, as I volunteer my time more as an organizer, but still love the game.” It’s a pretty good effort for someone who’s not playing much Stephen Van Adel – Frank Dixon Canadian Open 2005 King’s Indian Attack [A05]

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [11/11/2005 10:07:56 PM]

Let's Take A Look

1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 Not a bad way to open if you want to “avoid theory.” But White probably does better with a later d2-d4 and c2-c4 (in either order) than the King’s Indian Attackesque e2-e4. 2...g6 3 Bg2 Bg7 4 0-0 d6 5 d3 As implied in the previous note, this is not the most challenging approach from White. The best try for an advantage is to take on the King’s Indian Defence with 5 d4, though many players are loathe to do this because of their opponents’ “preparation.” Needless to say the “preparation” is normally nonexistent. 5...0-0 6 e4 Nbd7 7 c3 Obviously 7 Nbd2 is also quite playable at this stage, but it doesn’t make a huge amount of difference. Almost everything is possible when the armies are not in contact. 7...c6 8 Qc2 A slightly strange looking move. I don’t see why the queen needs to be developed at this stage or on this square and 8 Nbd2 looks more natural. 8...e5 9 Nh4 In a sense this is quite logical as White is playing for the f2-f4 lever. But I don’t particular like it in this position for reasons I’ll make clear in the next note. Once again I prefer 9 Nbd2. 9...a5 I don’t really see the point of this move. Black could and should have cut across White’s plans with 9...d5! after which 10 f4 is bad because of 10...exf4 11 gxf4 (11 Bxf4 dxe4 12 dxe4 leaves White with insufficient compensation for his isolated e-pawn) 11...dxe4 12 dxe4 Nxe4! 13 Nxg6 Qb6+ 14 Kh1 fxg6 15 Qxe4 Nf6 when Black has the better pawn structure and excellent play for his pieces. 10 f4 Qb6+ 11 Kh1 a4 12 Nd2 12 f5 is the logical follow up to White’s 10th move, cramping Black’s file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [11/11/2005 10:07:56 PM]

Let's Take A Look

kingside with a view to a later h2-h3 and g3-g4. White is usually better in such positions, Black’s main problem being in how to find counterplay. 12...Qc7 13 Nc4 b5 14 fxe5?! 14 Ne3 looks better to me, still going for the thematic f4-f5. The text is more tricky than good. 14...dxe5 Black replies solidly, which isn’t a bad idea for someone who doesn’t play much. But I don’t see why he can’t play 14...bxc4 15 exf6 cxd3 16 Qxd3 Ba6 17 c4 Bxf6 with two very active bishops and the threat to bring his knight to either c5 or e5. In my view this would leave Black clearly better already. 15 Ne3 Ba6 16 Rd1 With White I would be tempted to try and make some kind of Ne3-f5 sac work. One fantasy variation is 16 g4 h6?! 17 Nef5 gxf5 18 Nxf5 with a dangerous looking attack, though Black helped the process along by moving his h-pawn. 16...c5 17 Nd5?! Another move I don’t like as Black gets a mobile kingside pawn majority. A better plan is 17 c4 intending Ne3-d5 and then to recapture with the c4-pawn. The “hole” on d4 doesn’t matter too much because Black’s knights are far away from its occupation. 17...Nxd5 18 exd5 Qd6 19 c4 Nb6 20 cxb5? And this is really bad, leaving the d5-pawn to its fate. White had to support his c4-pawn with 20 b3, when although I prefer Black’s position it’s still a fight. 20...Bxb5 21 Be3 Rfc8 22 Qf2 Nxd5 23 Rdc1 Nxe3 Black gets lots of compensation for the exchange, but this looks unnecessary. He had a stronger move in 23...a3! which has the idea that 24 Bxc5 (24 bxa3 is strongly met by 24...e4!) 24...axb2 overloads White’s queen.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [11/11/2005 10:07:56 PM]

Let's Take A Look

24 Bxa8 Qxd3 25 Rc3? This should have lost immediately. The best way to make a fight of it was with 25 Bb7, though in any case Black has more than enough for the exchange. 25...Ng4 Not bad, but 25...Nd1! would have won on the spot. 26 Qf3 Qxf3+ 27 Bxf3 And not 27 Nxf3?? because of 27...e4!. 27...Nf2+ 28 Kg2 Nd3 28...e4 seems better to me, with Black reaching what looks like a won endgame after 29 Kxf2 Bd4+ 30 Re3 exf3 31 Nxf3 Bxe3+ 32 Kxe3 Re8+ etc. 29 Be4 Nb4 30 a3 Na6 31 Rac1 The immediate 31 b3 seems better, keeping the rook behind the potentially passed a-pawn for as long as possible. 31...f5 32 Bd5+ Kf8 33 Bb7 Bc6+? This could have had quite serious consequences. The right way to play it was with 33...Rb8 after which 34 Bxa6 Bxa6 35 Rxc5 e4 looks winning for Black because of the mighty bishops and White’s horribly placed knight on h4. 34 Bxc6 Rxc6 35 b4? Allowing Black to regain control. 35 Rc4 seems to get White right back into the game, the idea being that 35...e4 can be met by 36 R1c2 Rb6 37 Rxa4 Bxb2 38 Rxa6 Rxa6 39 Rxb2 Rxa3 40 Rb7 Kg8 41 Rc7 with a draw as the most likely outcome. 35...axb3 36 Rxb3 e4 37 Rb7 Or if 37 Rc4 then 37...Bd4 cements Black’s position together quite nicely.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [11/11/2005 10:07:56 PM]

Let's Take A Look

37...Nc7 38 Rc4 Ke7 39 g4 Trying to get his knight back into the game. 39...Ke6 40 gxf5+ gxf5 41 a4 Bf6 42 Kh3 Kd5 43 Rc2 Bxh4 44 Kxh4 c4 Three passed pawns are going to be too much for the rooks. White is quite lost here. 45 a5 Kd4 46 Kg5 Rc5 47 Rd2+ Or 47 a6 Nxa6 48 Rd7+ Ke5 49 Re7+ Kd6 50 Rxh7 Nc7 etc. 47...Ke3 48 Rd7 f4+ 0-1 Recommended Reading & Viewing One Hundred Selected Games by Mikhail Botvinnik (Dover, 1981) Rumble in the Jungle: Ali vs. Foreman 1974 (HBO Studios, 2001)

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [11/11/2005 10:07:56 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Applying What We Know

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

In these days of computer databases we have literally millions of games available at the touch of a button. But is this a good or bad thing? Certainly it’s been a great leveller as far as information access is concerned; at one time we had to photocopy bulletins of the Soviet Championship or subscribe to Russian chess magazines. But handling this information brings its own problems, and this month I give my recommendations about how one should do it. What really matters is not the amount that we know but the ability to apply any knowledge that we have. And this comes not from having zillions of games float in front of our eyes but on moving the pieces around on a the board and putting our brains in gear. Chessbase should have a feature which enables the right hand arrow button and “autoplay” to be disabled, plus admonitions if the user is availing himself of these too much. The temptation to use these functions to play through 100 games per hour is too great for many of us and absolutely fatal as far as brain usage is concerned.

by Bruce Alberston

Whenever I’ve tried to study something I find some games I want to look at, print them out and then go through them with a chess set. Wooden pieces with felts and weights are better because they make the experience more vivid and therefore memorable. As I play through the games I write down the variations that come up. When I’m done I put them into a computer program for checking. The machine then shows me all the mates in two I’ve missed and I go down to the pub to anaesthetise my wounded ego. But by the time I’m over the hangover I realise I might actually have learned something. The next step is to start using the new toy in practice, and Internet games are great for this. Gradually you start to get a “feel” for how the position works plus various do’s and don’ts. When the time comes to use the line in rated games you’re ready to hit the ground running.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [12/15/2005 12:28:17 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Is there any particular method of selecting games to study? Well first of all it’s good to be aware that there’s loads of trash in these databases, and the bigger the database the higher the trash content. At the risk of sounding politically incorrect it’s good to ignore games by women and children unless they’re over 2400. Men have to be a lot stronger to get their games into databases, but here too a 2400 cut-off isn’t a bad idea. There are some great games by players rated lower than that but finding them is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Correspondence games can be great, especially if one of the players is called Mikhail Umansky and it’s a Catalan. They can also shed considerable light on sharp forcing lines in which tactics predominate. But I’d warn against relying on correspondence chess in quieter openings; few correspondence players have the positional understanding of an over-the-board 2400, and their moves often betray the fact. And that reminds me: One should never, ever, study games played by computers. The relentless machine will zap us with tactics until the cows come home, but many of their moves are decided by primitive heuristics (like put your rooks on d1 and e1) which hardly get to the heart of a position. Is there a particular number of games one should study? Probably a maximum of 6 per variation is a good way to start, and one good way to select them is to take the games of a particular player (human, male, above 2400 and over 18) who plays the line and look. Looking at them in chronological order can be a good way of tracing the player’s thought processes and you should make an especially careful note of when he diverges from one of his earlier games. It means he’s probably changed his mind about something or reached a higher level of understanding. Well having upset women, children, correspondence players and Fritz, let’s take a look at this month’s game. Actually it’s a perfect illustration of the importance of correctly applying knowledge; Black’s “non-theoretical” third move requires a knowledge of a similar type of position (from a different opening), plus the ability to make use of the differences. This is rather more complex and difficult than memorising a series of moves, but then that’s what chess is all about. Nikiforos,G (1665) - Lyrakis,D (1700) Greek Team Championship, Iraklio 2005 French Defence [C02] 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 No doubt expecting an Open Sicilian. Black’s reply must have come as quite a surprise.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [12/15/2005 12:28:17 AM]

Let's Take A Look

3…d5?! In the style of Frank Marshall who played a similar line early last century. But this must be worse than the very similar Tarrasch Variation of the French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 Ngf3) because White hasn’t committed his knight to d2. This means that he might put it on c3 to pressurise Black’s d5-pawn and his queen’s bishop is free to come out, say to g5. This sort of reasoning isn’t a matter of knowing “theory” as such, indeed I doubt that anyone has studied Black’s last move and learned the correct reply “by rote.” It’s more a knowledge of typical patterns and scenarios and then drawing comparisons with the situation under review. And all the comparisons are favourable. As an exercise it might be interesting for the reader to work out what he’d do against other “non-theoretical” moves like 3…a6, 3…Nf6 and 3…Qc7. White can gain an advantage against all these moves, but he needs a knowledge of positions that goes beyond Open Sicilians. 4 e5 And this in turn is an odd response, transposing into an usual line of the Advance French (normally reached via 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 Nf3). White should play 4 exd5 exd5 5 Bb5+ Nc6 6 0-0, when in addition to having an isolated d-pawn Black still has to get his king safe. 4...cxd4 A lot of French players like to delay this move with 4…Nc6, preventing White from recapturing on d4 with his queen. But I suspect that Black was making it up as he was going along, and not doing a bad job in fact. 5 Nxd4

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [12/15/2005 12:28:17 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Thrown on his own resources White is struggling to find the right moves. Instead of this White has two playable lines: a) 5 Bd3 is an old gambit line which still sees the light of day at GM level from time to time. In his excellent book Advance and Other Anti-French Variations, Lev Psakhis recommends 5...Nc6 6 0-0 Nge7 7 Bf4 Ng6 8 Bg3 Qb6 as his main line, giving 9 Nbd2 Nb4 (Safer than 9...Qxb2 10 Nb3 Be7 11 h4 0-0 12 h5 Nh8 13 Bf4 Qa3 14 h6 which gave White compensation for his pawns in Bator - Bareev, Rilton Cup 1987, though it’s far from clear that it is adequate) 10 Nb3 Nxd3 11 Qxd3 Bd7 12 Nfxd4 Be7 13 f4 0-0 14 Kh1 Kh8 which was about equal in Seul - Mikhail Gurevich, Bad Godesberg 1996. b) 5 Qxd4 is an old line of Nimzovitch which sees the light of day now and again. Against this Psakhis gives 5...Nc6 6 Qf4 (6 Bb5 Bd7 7 Bxc6 bxc6 8 0-0 Ne7 9 Nbd2 Nf5 10 Qf4 Be7 was very comfortable for Black in Motwani Luther, Copenhagen 1991) 6...Nge7 when 7 Bd3 Ng6 virtually forces White to give up his dangerous light-square bishop with 8 Bxg6 (8 Qg3 Qc7 9 0-0 Ngxe5 wins a pawn for inadequate compensation). 5...Nc6 6 f4?! This looks natural, but White’s position is becoming very exposed. It might have been as well to play 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bd3, but Black is very comfortable there because of his mobile d- and c-pawns. 6...Qb6 Starting to apply pressure against the knight on d4. It turns out that White is unable to keep it there. 7 c3 Bc5 Continuing to hammer away at d4. 8 Nb3 Allowing his king to be mauled with the check on f2. White should maintain his knight on d4 with 8 Bb5, though this is far from promising after 8...Nge7 9 Na3 0-0, renewing the threat against d4 and virtually forcing 10 Bxc6, giving up his vital light-squared bishop. 8...Bf2+ 9 Ke2 f6!

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [12/15/2005 12:28:17 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Excellent. With White’s king in the center Black rightly tries to smash the position wide open. 10 exf6 Nxf6 11 Qd3 e5! The right move at the right time. Black makes room for his queen’s bishop to come out. 12 Be3 White desperately tries to get some pieces exchanged, but Black’s pieces are flooding into the attack. 12 Kd1 doesn’t help much after 12...Bg4+ 13 Be2 e4 14 Qc2 Bf5, when White’s king faces a central tsunami. 12...Bxe3 13 Qxe3 Bg4+ 14 Kd3 Bf5+ 15 Ke2 Bg4+ Rather than repeat the position Black could have played 15...d4 16 cxd4 Ng4 when 17 Qc3 Nxd4+ 18 Nxd4 exd4 followed by 19...0-0 is going to win very quickly for Black. Not that he spoils anything with his choice in the game. 16 Kd3 e4+ 17 Kd2 d4! Smashing open the d-file after which White’s king will have nowhere to hide. 18 cxd4 Nxd4 The spectacular choice, but 18...0-0-0 was also good. 19 Nc3?? Under mammoth pressure White drops his queen. The best chance was 19 Na3, but after 19...Nxb3+ 20 Qxb3 Qf2+ 21 Kc1 Qxf4+ it would be pretty bad in any case. 19...Nxb3+ 20 axb3 Rd8+ 0-1 When White moves his king he’ll drop his queen. Recommended Reading Advance and Other Anti-French Variations by Lev Psakhis (Batsford 2004)

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [12/15/2005 12:28:17 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [12/15/2005 12:28:17 AM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Blind Man's Bluff

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

One of the aspects of chess that club players find most difficult to fathom is how to draw up a plan. This is none too surprising because I’m not sure that many GMs understand it either. They choose good plans, but how? The books often give the impression that one of the players had a plan from the start of the game and then saw it through to its glorious conclusion. I would argue that this is usually a case of reverse engineering, it’s easy to see how one of the players won in retrospect. So the annotator who wants to look smart can say look at the finish and then say that the winner was playing for this all along. Some grandmasters have used this tactic, and some very strong ones, too. In my opinion the main culprit was the former World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik. My guess is that the annotations in which he described complex multi-stage plans were politically designed. In post-revolutionary Russia there were lots of 5 year plans to boost industrial output, catch up and surpass the West, etc. Is it too far fetched to think that Botvinnik annotated his games in accordance with the spirit of the time so as to appear to be a solid citizen?

by Bruce Alberston

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [1/15/2006 12:35:59 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Let me give you an example from his game against Benko in Monte Carlo 1968 (Botvinnik’s Best Games: 1947-1970). The position in question arose after the moves 1 c4 g6 2 g3 Bg7 3 Bg2 e5 4 Nc3 Ne7 5 e4 d6 6 Nge2 Nbc6 7 d3 f5 8 Nd5 0-0 9 Be3 Be6 10 Qd2 Qd7 11 0-0 Rf7 12 Rae1 Raf8 13 f4 and here’s what Botvinnik had to say: The plan that Black has in mind is not without its positional novelty or psychological elements (see note to White’s 19th move). This plan consists of the following: 1) Black exchanges in the centre straight away by 13…fxe4 so as to force the pawn to recapture (14 Bxe4 Nf5) after which the White e-pawn might become an object of attack; 2) exchanging white square bishops (Bh3) so as to weaken the e-pawn and also the white king position; 3) by exchanging the pawn on f4 Black opens the way for pressure on e4 along the e-file, White will be forced to recapture with the pawn so as not to lose control of his e5; 4) Black’s rook will attack the e-pawn from e8 and White will defend it by Ng3 which also helps defend his king position; 5) finally, there comes …h7-h5-h5!, the weakness of the e-pawn and the exposed White king position must then tell. Did he really see all this? Basically I think he described the game in this note rather than what he saw at the time. I think he probably did see the basic outline, but there were too many ways for White to wriggle to have it pinned down in such detail. It wasn’t easy to survive in Stalin’s Russia so who can blame him? But blame him or not, we don’t have to believe him. I think that many of his annotations were for the consumption of the authorities. I’m not alone in my cynicism, even if others didn’t intend to criticize. Here’s what Kotov had to say in Think Like a Grandmaster, which wasn’t exactly dissident literature: From his very earliest steps in the game, the player knows that he is supposed to play to a set plan. The plan which is written about and talked about so much is the plan for the middle game, yet I must honestly confess that for a long time I could not understand these appeals to have a plan for every eventuality. I simply could not conceive how a complicated fight with unexpected moves and traps, with the advantage continually changing hands could be fitted into a single general plan. ‘Have a plan throughout the course of the game,’ advised the textbooks and yet I tried in vain to follow this advice; in my own games the planning side of things was very much a weak spot.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [1/15/2006 12:35:59 PM]

Let's Take A Look

So if Botvinnik and company have been fibbing, how do grandmasters form a plan? Basically I don’t think they do, certainly not from start to finish of the game. Instead it’s a question of knowing the right kind of move to play in a particular position, a broad knowledge of positional types meaning that they are always fairly well orientated. They take into account the countermeasures of their opponents and make allowances for them. If one idea can be stopped they make sure it comes at a price. The grandmaster that knits these things together well will produce games which appear to have a unity of purpose and a wholeness about them. But his plans will have changed on every move to accommodate the ever-changing nature of the struggle. Can an amateur hope to emulate this? In a word, no. It’s the grandmaster’s huge knowledge of positions which tells him what he should be doing at any one time. Are there ways round it? Well many players (especially pumped and primed juniors) try to play openings that tend to be connected with a single idea such as the Benko Gambit (attack along the a- and b-files) or the Vinken Variation of the Sicilian (sometimes referred to as the Grand Prix Attack). To some extent this can work, but if the opponent crosses these one-sided ideas then you’re back to square one with having to play a chess game. And this kind of “paint by numbers” chess is hardly going to develop your game in the future. This month’s game reflects many of the themes described above. For the most part it’s like a game of blind man’s buff, with both players shuffling about fairly aimlessly. Suddenly Black finds a nice queen sacrifice and White defends poorly. But this has nothing to do with him playing for the h-file from the outset. Edward Xing (1192) – Milan Ninchich (1713) Belconnen Club 2005 Sicilian Defence [B23] 1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 d6 White’s last move is something of a problem for Najdorf players as now White gets a good form of f4 Sicilian. There’s actually a strong argument for 2...Nc6 in order to meet 3 Nf3 with 3...g6 and if 4 d4 then 4...cxd4 5 Nxd4 Bg7. Black gets an Accelerated Dragon without allowing a Maroczy Bind. 3 f4 Nc6 4 Nf3 e6 5 Bc4 The so-called Vinken System is popular with club players because of the simplicity of White’s idea. He intends to use the pawn on f4 to prise open the f-file and the a2-g8 diagonal. The problem here is that he isn’t really going to be able to do this against Black’s chosen pawn structure. In my opinion 5 Bb5 represents a better approach, “threatening” to give Black doubled pawns. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [1/15/2006 12:35:59 PM]

Let's Take A Look

5...Be7 6 0-0 Nf6 7 d3 a6 8 a4 0-0 9 Qe1 One of the standard moves for White, but after Black’s reply he feels obliged to go back. Simple development with 9 Bd2 seems better to me. 9...Nd4 Black can also play 9...d5 10 Ba2 Nd4, which in Grill - Stoklasa, Czech Republic 1999 saw White produce the surreal 11 Bb1 in reply. The game continued 11...Bd7 12 e5 Ng4 13 h3 Nh6 14 Nxd4 cxd4 15 Ne2 Nf5 16 Rf3 Rc8 with an excellent game for Black. 10 Qd1 After 10 Nxd4 cxd4 11 Ne2 Black can hit back in the center with 11...d5 12 exd5 exd5, when in return for his doubled d-pawns he gets free play for his pieces. 10...Nd7 10...d5 seems more to the point, especially when one considers the loss of time inherent in 9 Qe1 followed by 10 Qd1. The text move is OK, but just rather passive. 11 Ne2 Nxe2+ And here I prefer 11...Nxf3+ 12 Rxf3 Nf6 intending 13...d5. The knight on f3 is a much better piece than the one on e2. 12 Qxe2 Nb6 Another move I don’t like – the knight is badly placed here. 12...b6 looks better intending 13...Bb7 and 14...d5. 13 Bb3 Nd7 14 Qf2 Most grandmasters would play 14 a5 without thinking; after that Black could only activate his queenside pawns (...b7-b5) at the cost of being saddled with an isolated a-pawn. Is this a “plan”? Not at all. Just a move which improves White’s position whilst making it more difficult for Black to do something. 14...Nf6 15 Qg3 Nh5 16 Qg4 g6 17 Ng5 d5 18 e5 Qb6 19 Kh1

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [1/15/2006 12:35:59 PM]

Let's Take A Look

And this position is really crying out for 19 a5 to be played as this time it comes with a gain of tempo. In any case this is starting to look very good for White as his pieces are congregating menacingly around Black’s king. 19...Qb4 20 Qe2 h6?! 21 g4 Although complicated this looks pretty strong. Another good line was 21 Bd2 Qb6 22 a5 Qc7 23 Nf3 intending 24 g4. Given the weaknesses around his king, Black is going to be very hard pressed to defend himself. 21...Ng3+ 21...Ng7 is very similar to the previous note after 22 Bd2 Qb6 23 a5 Qc6 24 Nf3 etc. 22 hxg3 hxg5 23 Bd2 Qb6 24 Qh2?! After Black’s reply the queen feels obliged to retrace her steps. The immediate 24 fxg5 is better, unless White is prepared to sacrifice his queen that is... 24...Kg7 25 Qf2 The critical line is 25 fxg5!?, intending to meet 25...Rh8 with 26 Rxf7+ Kg8 27 Qxh8+ Kxh8 28 Rxe7. White would have more than enough for the queen as after 28...Qd8 29 Rf7 White’s rook can anchor itself on the massive f6square. 25...Bd7 26 fxg5 d4? I don’t think this is correct, but without it there’d have been no queen sacrifice. So let’s not criticise too harshly. 27 Kg1 Qc6 28 Qe2?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [1/15/2006 12:35:59 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Taking his eye off the f7-pawn allows Black to move his rook from f8; 28 a5 is better when must still prefer White. The game is now raised from mediocrity by a nice queen sacrifice from Black. It shouldn’t have been winning, but White caves in. 28...Rh8 29 Rf3 Qxf3! 30 Qxf3 Bc6 31 Qe2?? The losing move. 31 Qf1 is a much better defence after which 31...Rh1+ 32 Kf2 Rah8 33 Qxh1 Bxh1 34 Rf1 is slightly better for Black, but no more than that. 31...Rh1+ 32 Kf2 Rxa1 White is quite lost. It’s not the material balance that’s killing him, but the fact that Black’s rooks are storming into the attack. 33 Be1 Rh8 0-1 Recommended Reading Botvinnik’s Best Games, 1947-1970 by M. M Botvinnik (Batsford 1972) Think Like A Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov (Batsford 2003)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [1/15/2006 12:35:59 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Winners, History and Chess

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

One of the funny things about history is that it is usually written from the perspective of the winners. Now it could be that they thoroughly deserved to win by what is often reported as a moral or cultural superiority. Though I suspect that in at least some cases this superiority was exaggerated, and many glorious winners may have been nothing more then the less inept of two blundering armies. We have a similar situation in our little chess; the winners are usually the ones to write the notes and may be loathe to criticise their own handiwork. So you see their own moves adorned with exclamation marks whilst their hapless opponents could barely do a thing right. Problems such as the questionable soundness of a sacrifice are often glossed over, a sure sign being some general comments when one was rather hoping for a few variations. Are outsiders more objective? Actually no! This sort of bias tends to be even more pronounced in the case of annotations by journalists; some of these guys seem to start by looking at the result and then peel backwards to the point at which a new move was played. Depending on whether the winner or loser played it, the “new move” is praised as being “brilliant” or condemned as being “bad.”

by Bruce Alberston

Stronger players tend to be more objective, valuing both their own ideas and those of their opponents without particular bias. You can usually see such qualities when someone is analysing their game, if a winner is agonising over whether he made the right choice at a particular stage then he’s probably really good. If, on the other hand, he’s trying to defend poor earlier decisions (e.g. by continuing to “analyse” variations when he’s a piece down) then he’s probably quite weak. How can someone cultivate the habit of objectivity? Frankly it’s not easy, and file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

the game of chess itself may be one of the best vehicles for this form of selfimprovement. The “trick” is to wean oneself off the kind of self-delusion to which most of us are prone, the kind that refuses to accept a single blemish on ones ever so shiny personage. The best book I’ve seen to address this is Scott Peck’s People of the Lie, in which the author examines the way that selfdeception is used to maintain a flattering view of themselves. I believe that most people are unwilling to critically examine themselves either in chess or in life. And thus they never improve. The following game was sent to me by Luke McMullen and was played by correspondence. Overall I have to say that it’s a well-played game by Black, but I was concerned that some of the notes seemed inappropriately critical of some of White’s decisions whilst glossing over the dubious nature of some of his own. Santa Drummer - McMullen,L Correspondence, 2005 Nimzo-Indian Defence [E21] 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 It’s refreshing to see the Nimzo rather than the Slav or Semi-Slav. These latter openings have been spreading through club chess like an epidemic. 4 Bd2 This is criticised by the winner as being quite passive, this was in fact used quite effectively by Saveilly Tartakower in his day. Tartakower often managed to castle queenside, which is in fact what happens in this game. 4...0-0 5 Nf3 b6 A very normal looking move, but I quite like White’s chances in this line. Either 5…c5 or 5…d5 seem more solid to me, though the positions these moves lead to might be rather too sterile for the taste of many Nimzo-Indian players. 6 e3 Bb7 7 Bd3 d6 One of Tartakower’s lines went 7...Bxc3 8 Bxc3 Ne4 9 Bxe4 Bxe4 10 Nd2 Bb7 (Or 10...Bxg2 11 Rg1 Bb7 12 d5 with a strong attack) 11 Qg4, when White is taking aim at g7 and getting ready to castle long. 8 Qc2 c5 9 dxc5

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Opening the d-file like this isn’t a bad idea, but maybe White can do better. I quite like the move 9 d5 after which 9...exd5 10 cxd5 Bxc3 (10...Nbd7 11 e4 produces an odd-looking Benoni position in which one might argue that Black’s bishop on b7 is misplaced) 11 Bxc3 Bxd5 12 Ng5!? gives White interesting play for the pawn. 9...Bxf3 Black explained this move in terms of “playing for an endgame advantage,” though I don’t quite see it myself. I personally like the bishop pair in endgames and the doubling of White’s pawns seems to be little drawback in this position. For this reason I prefer the simple 9...bxc5, with approximate equality. 10 gxf3 bxc5 11 0-0-0?! This is certainly in the spirit of the 4 Bd2 line, but there’s a case for not declaring where White’s king will live for the time being. 11 Rg1 looks like a more flexible move, occupying the open g-file but keeping open the option of putting White’s king on e2 or f1. 11...Nc6 12 Rdg1? Right idea, wrong rook; White should keep this one on the d-file to inhibit Black’s counterplay with ...d6-d5. A sample line is 12 Rhg1 d5 13 cxd5 exd5 14 a3 c4 15 Bf5 Be7 16 Ne2 intending 17 Bc3, with promising attacking chances on the kingside. 12...d5 Exactly. The old rule of thumb is that a flank attack is best answered by a counter-blow in the centre, and this is certainly the case in this position. 13 cxd5 exd5 The correct recapture, maintaining the pawn duo which control key central squares and threaten to act as a battering ram. In my opinion White is already in very serious trouble, and he may in fact be lost. 14 Rg2 To me this cumbersome rook doubling is a sure sign that things are going wrong for White. The attack along the g-file is effectively stymied by Black’s file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

16…g6, whilst his own attack steams ahead on the queenside. 14…c4 15 Bf5 It’s tempting to try and save time on the game with 15 Rhg1 but I cannot see a good way to continue the attack after 15...cxd3 16 Rxg7+ Kh8 17 Qxd3 Ne5 18 Qd4 Ng6 etc. 15...Rb8 16 Rhg1 g6 17 Bxg6 In his notes Black queries the soundness of this sacrifice and suggests that 17 Kb1 might have been better. But frankly I think that White is committed to the attack with his own king being in such jeopardy, and to be more specific it seems that 17...d4 would be a powerful reply to the passive king move. 17...fxg6 18 Rxg6+ Kh8 And not 18...hxg6 because of 19 Qxg6+ followed by mate. 19 R6g5 d4! Very good. Black doesn’t sit back and try to “win on material,” but instead takes the initiative. The nails are being hammered into White’s coffin. 20 Nb5 20 Na4 isn’t much of an improvement after 20...c3! 21 bxc3 Ba3+ 22 Kd1 d3 winning White’s queen. 20...Qa5 Splat! That White’s best is a piece down endgame says plenty about his chances here. And Black might have done even better than that! 21 Nxd4 Bxd2+ 22 Qxd2 Qxd2+ This passes without comment but there’s a case here for 22...Qxa2, keeping the queens on with a winning attack. Exchanging queens is winning of course, but it does take rather more time. 23 Kxd2 Nxd4 24 exd4 Rxb2+ 25 Kc3 Rxf2

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Black could also have taken the a-pawn, not that it matters much any more. 26 Kxc4 Rxa2 The harvest continues. 27 d5 Nimzovitch advised us that passed pawns must be pushed, but the attempt to queen the d-pawn is a rather forlorn hope. 27...Rd2 Correctly placing his rook behind the passed pawn. 28 Kc5 Rd8 29 d6 R2xd6 0-1 Recommended Reading My Best Games of Chess 1905-1954 by Saveilly Tartakower (Dover, 1985) People of the Lie by M Scott-Peck (Touchstone, 1985)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

When to Get Rid of the Women

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

A major issue facing many players at club level is which pieces to exchange and which to keep on the board. Most GMs tend to be fairly objective about such matters, doing what the position requires. But club players tend towards personal preferences, based either on a strategic misconception (e.g. knights hop around nicely in open games) or the scars of past defeats. If, for example, someone has a weakness in tactics, they might aim to exchange their bishops off for those pesky knights. Perhaps the biggest problem is knowing when to get rid of the women. A player who likes to attack might try to keep queens on no matter what, whilst those who prefer endgames (admittedly a rare condition amongst club players) may compromise their positions in order to get rid of them. How does someone learn to make these decisions purely on merit? The first key issue for any player is to conquer the fears he might have about his competence in certain types of position. Unfortunately, this may already be a very difficult hurdle.

by Bruce Alberston

Players tend to have a natural gift for tactics for which no amount of study can compensate. They can certainly make an effort with regular practice at solving problems plus things like blindfold chess, but the overall progress may have a strict upper limit. The gifted tacticians, on the other hand, have no such excuse. Good endgame technique can be acquired through study and laying off adrenalin boosters like coffee and coke. The second issue is in knowing which pieces to exchange, once one has lost any prejudice on the matter. To a large extent this is connected to overall mastery, though there’s at least one good book on the subject, ZnoskoBorovsky’s How to Play the Chess Endings. I should warn you that it’s in English Descriptive notation, but that’s well worth learning just to read this

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [3/11/2006 11:04:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

highly educational work. I can also pass on a few brief guidelines, though the reader should note that he needs to look at plenty of examples before these really sink in. ●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ●

●

Queen and knight, they’re alright (i.e., a queen and knight cooperate very well together because they compliment each others’ movement and will often beat a queen and bishop). Knights are bad against rooks in endings (i.e., if you’re the exchange down and have a knight for rook, probably you should keep the queens on). If you have minor pieces fighting against a queen, try to make sure they have outposts within the given pawn structure. If your opponent’s king is vulnerable, keep the queens on. Wide open positions favour bishops. Knights fight more effectively against bishops if they have an outpost or two. If you’re ahead in development in an open position, it’s preferable to have the queens on. Passed rook pawns tend to be good against knights in endgames, but not against other pieces. If you are a pawn or two down, try to get bishops of opposite colours. If you are material up, exchange pieces rather than pawns but not indiscriminately. If you are material down, try to exchange pawns rather than pieces.

I could go on, but these guidelines are not worth too much until someone has seen them operate in a practical struggle. On the subject of queen exchanges I recently received an email from Martin Pedersen (rated 1246) from Denmark together with two games that ended in fairly short draws. He wondered if he might have won by playing more aggressively. The issue wasn’t so much one of “aggression” as in knowing to keep the queens on. In both games he allowed their exchange in situations in which it would have been better to keep them. Martin M. Pedersen - Joergen Pedersen Denmark 2005 Scotch [C45] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Bb4+ This check isn’t bad because White can only win time on the bishop by playing a move which impedes his development. In my new book, Play 1 e4 e5, I give 4...Bc5 as Black’s most economical choice. 5 c3 Nxd4?! file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [3/11/2006 11:04:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

But I certainly wouldn’t do this! After Black’s reply the bishop on b4 is forced to go home and 6 cxb4 would be good as well. White’s pair of bishops would more than compensate for his slightly damaged pawn structure. 6 Qxd4 Bf8 7 Bc4 d6 8 0-0 Be6 It’s wise to neutralise that bishop on c4. After 8...Nf6 White can play 9 e5 dxe5 10 Bxf7+ etc. 9 Bd3 Losing time. Almost any move that developed another piece would be better, but personally I like 9 Re1. The idea is that after 9...Nf6 White can play 10 Bxe6 fxe6 11 e5 causing permanent structural damage. 9...Qf6 9...Nf6 looks more natural to me, but the text is not bad. 10 b4? A move I don’t understand at all. Black promptly takes the opportunity to simplify and damage White’s pawn structure. 10...Qxd4 11 cxd4 d5! Hitting b4, so White can’t avoid acquiring an isolated d-pawn. 12 a3 dxe4 13 Bxe4 0-0-0 14 Rd1 Nf6 15 Bf3 Bg4 16 Bxg4+ Nxg4 17 h3 Ne5 Rather than the flashy text, I would prefer just 17...Nf6 followed by 18...Nd5. 18 Bb2 White should probably prefer 18 Nc3 Nc4 19 Ra2 intending 20 Rc2. Black’s knight on c4 would then feel quite uncomfortable. 18...Nc4 19 Bc3 g6 20 Nd2 Nxd2 21 Rxd2 Bg7 22 Rad1 ½-½ The big question in this position is why Black didn’t continue. After 22…Rd5 followed by 23...Rhd8 he has White tied down to the defence of his d-pawn.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [3/11/2006 11:04:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Bendt Laursen - Martin Pedersen Denmark, 2006 Budapest Gambit [A51] 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 A rare guest in games between grandmasters, the Budapest enjoys a following amongst club players. One reason for its lack of popularity in the GM fraternity is that White has some good ways to decline the pawn and keep an edge. And if White’s really scared there’s always the move 2 Nf3. 3 Bg5 An even more unusual reply, which doesn’t seem to have much to recommend it apart from novelty. In the game Black gets the better position very quickly. 3...h6 Putting the question to the bishop is a critical test of White’s play. 3...exd4 4 Qxd4 Be7 intending 5...Nc6 would have been another good way. 4 dxe5?! After this Black is better, he gets the bishop pair and an open h-file. If I was forced at gunpoint to play this 3 Bg5 with White I’d choose 4 Bxf6 here. After 4...Qxf6 5 e3 exd4 6 exd4 it looks about equal. 4...hxg5 5 exf6 Qxf6 6 Qb3?! 6.Nc3 must surely be the right move, getting a piece out. 6...Bc5 7 e3 Nc6 8 a3?! d6 9 Nc3 Bb6 Perhaps this is a loss of time, though I understand why Black wants to defend c7 in advance of 10 Nd5. Without the bishop on b6, the only way to protect the pawn would be with the retrograde 10...Qd8, though I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that it could be gambited. 10 Bd3 Bf5?!

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [3/11/2006 11:04:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

10...Ne5! is better, going for White’s other bishop. The text gives away Black’s bishop pair advantage. 11 Qc2 After 11 Nd5 Black can disrupt his opponent’s development with 11...Ba5+, though the variation isn’t that easy. One line ends in mate after 12 Kd1 Qe6 13 Qxb7 0-0 14 Bxf5 (14 Qxc6 Bxd3 gives more than enough for the pawn because of White’s king position) 14...Qxf5 15 Qxc6 Qd3+ 16 Kc1 Bd2+ 17 Kd1 Bc3+ 18 Kc1 Qd2+ 19 Kb1 Qxb2 mate. 11...Bxd3 12 Qxd3 Ne5 13 Qe2 13 Qe4 would have been better even though the queen is exposed. The point is that the attack on b7 reduces the problems White has defending his c4pawn, for example 13...Qe6 14 Qxb7 0-0 15 Qd5 holds things together. 13...Qe6 14 Nd5 14 b3 is strongly met by 14...Ba5!; for example, 15 Rc1 Qf5 threatening 16...Nd3+. 14...c6 Another good line is 14...Ba5+ 15 b4 c6!; for instance, 16 bxa5 cxd5 17 cxd5 Qxd5 hits g2 and threatens ...Nd3+. 15 Nxb6 axb6 16 b3 d5 And here 16...b5! is very strong; for example, 17 cxb5 Qxb3 threatening 18...Qc3+ amongst other things. 17 f4 Ng4 18 cxd5 Qxe3?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [3/11/2006 11:04:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Giving away most of Black’s advantage with the exchange of queens. Just 18...cxd5 keeps White under terrible pressure. 19 dxc6 Qxe2+?! After this it’s more or less equal. The only way to play for an advantage was with 19...0-0-0 when 20.cxb7+ Kxb7 21.Qxe3 Nxe3 sees Black’s development tell, despite the exchange of queens. 20 Kxe2 gxf4?! After this White can even claim to be better, though having been in such trouble he is happy to draw. 20...bxc6 was a better move with a likely draw after 21 fxg5 Rxh2 22 Rxh2 Nxh2 23 Nf3, etc. 21 cxb7 Rb8 22 Nf3 ½-½ Accompanied with the offer of a draw; 22 Kf3 would have been much stronger, when White is playing to win. Recommended Reading How to Play the Chess Endings by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky (Frank Hollings, 1943) Play 1 e4 e5 by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2006)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [3/11/2006 11:04:00 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Beating Up the Old Geezers

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

We’ve all played against them – the old guy with the pipe whose chess games are less fun than watching paint dry. Everything is protected and they never miss a chance to exchange off a piece. As I move steadily towards my 50s, I wonder if that will be my fate as well. The irony is that I may still believe I’m playing interesting chess, though this interest may not extend beyond the London system, rook and pawn endgames, plus the collected games of Amos Burn. Fun? Who needs it? The name of the game is longevity, with gambits, curry, alcohol and women being strictly off the agenda. Christmas dinner should be two sausages and a walk round the park. It can be different of course. I remember a great old guy at Southport Chess Club named Dan Southcott. He played in a forthright attacking style (right into his late 70s), could build up a fair pace with his two walking sticks, and drank eight pints at lunchtime. He had the constitution of an ox and thoroughly enjoyed life. But what if one has to play against the other type?

by Bruce Alberston

Once again, it’s Frank Marshall to the rescue. In his notes to his game against Burn in Paris 1900, he explained that one must strike before the pipe is lit. Here are his pipe related notes: Britisher Amos Burn was a very conservative player and liked to settle down for a long session of close, defensive chess. He loved to smoke his pipe while he studied the board. As I made my second move, Burn began hunting through his pockets for his pipe and tobacco.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 7) [4/14/2006 10:41:35 PM]

Let's Take A Look

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 Not much thought needed on these moves, but Burn had his pipe out and was looking for a pipe cleaner. 5.e3 O-O 6.Nf3 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.cxd5 exd5 He began filling up his pipe. I speeded up my moves. 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.h4 Made him think on that one – and he still didn’t have the pipe going. 10…g6 11.h5 Re8 12.hxg6 hxg6 Now he was looking for matches. 13.Qc2 Bg7 14.Bxg6 fxg6 He struck a match, appeared nervous. The match burned his fingers and went out. 15.Qxg6 Nd7 Another match was on its way. 16.Ng5 Qf6 He was puffing away and lighting up at last. No time left. 17.Rh8+ 1-0 Poor Burn. I think I swindled him out of that one. If he could only have got that pipe going, it might have been a different story. He took it good-naturedly and we shook hands. Then his pipe went out. This month’s game was sent to me by Mikkel Andreassen, who sent me the following letter and asks a number of questions in his notes to the game: Greetings from Denmark! The following game was played in a local tournament in Copenhagen. The time control was 2 hours for 40 moves and ½ hour (incl. extra time) for the rest of the game. The opening was not too interesting, as my opponent (a veteran whom I assume uses the moves 3 h3 and 5 a3 simply to get out of the books) played somewhat passively. The queens’ came off by move 14 and this is where (in particular) I want your opinion. I believe I had a tiny edge, but I simply could not find a decent plan (strategy), and little by file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 7) [4/14/2006 10:41:35 PM]

Let's Take A Look

little whatever advantage I had began to disappear into thin air. Finally, my older opponent (nearly twice my age - I am 32) seemed happy enough to exchange all minor pieces, and what was left was a not too interesting rook endgame. So, if you could have a look at the position after the opening, and perhaps comment or highlight key features of the position (pawn structure, placement of minor pieces, plans for both White and Black and so on), I would appreciate it very much. It’s true that there were technical mistakes by Black, but the main issue was in not sizing up the opponent and figuring out the kind of game to play. Old geezers don’t like tension, and there wasn’t much of it to be seen in this game. I understand if the reader doesn’t want to play through the entire thrilling 104 moves, though to do so might drive home the point that this could happen to you. Old geezers may not run too fast, but they might well know what to do if they catch you: Altgeezer,AN (1811) - Andreassen,M (1715) Denmark 2006 Queen’s Pawn Game [D01] 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 h3 A somewhat passive approach, preparing a retreat for the dark-square bishop before it even arrives on f4. In the game, it doesn’t even make it that far. 3...c5 4 c3 d5 This is not a mistake, but I would be tempted to stop White from putting his bishop on f4 with 4...Qc7. 5 a3 5 Bf4 would at least justify playing 3 h3, though Black could simply exchange the bishop off with 5...Bd6. 5...Nc6 6 Nbd2 Be7 7 e3 0-0 8 Bd3 Qc7 9 0-0 e5

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 7) [4/14/2006 10:41:35 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Technically speaking this is an excellent move, taking space in the middle. But from a psychological standpoint, there was a case for keeping the tension and avoiding the exchange of pieces. 10 dxe5 Nxe5 11 Nxe5 Qxe5 12 Nf3 Qh5 13 Nh2 One can almost sense the knight’s disappointment that he doesn’t have a different owner. It must have been a great relief to him to get exchanged on move 24, though the rooks don’t get off so lightly. 13...Qxd1 14.Rxd1 Be6 This felt like a natural developing move. At this point, I felt I had an edge or at least equalized White’s somewhat passive opening play. But I had difficulties in formulating a plan. I was quite obsessed with “proving” the inferior position of White’s dark-squared bishop, and this was the reason for 15…c4. However it later comes to pass that White’s knight makes excellent use of the d4-square. So what should the plan be at this stage? Answer: You are playing just fine, apart from the psychological mistake of exchanging queens against an old geezer. You should have bullied him by threatening excitement. From a technical point of view, you are right in thinking that you need to avoid 15...c4, and instead you should organise a gradual advance of your queenside pawns, while restricting your opponent’s freeing moves (c3-c4 or e3-e4). 15.Bd2 c4? Giving him the d4-square for his knight, after which, White is certainly no worse and might even be better. 15...Rfd8 makes more sense to me, and 15...Ne4 looks pretty good too. 16 Bc2 b5 17 Nf3 Rfb8 18 Nd4 Rb6 Maybe it was better to protect c6 by 18...Bd7? Answer: Yes, that’s probably a bit better, but you’ve already done plenty of damage with 15...c4, plus your total lack of cunning. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 7) [4/14/2006 10:41:35 PM]

Let's Take A Look

19 Be1 a5 20 f3 Making room for his bishop to get out, while protecting e4. White is better now. 20...Bd6 21 Bf2 Rb7 22 Re1 22 Bh4 looks like a more effective preparation for e3-e4; White would threaten 23 e4 dxe4 24 Bxf6 gxf6 25 Bxe4. 22...Bc5 23 e4 dxe4 24 Nxe6 Bxf2+ 25 Kxf2 fxe6 26 Bxe4 Nxe4+ 27 Rxe4 Rd8? Giving White a pawn for nothing. Why not protect it with 27...Ra6 28 Rae1 Kf7? 28 Rxe6 Rd2+ 29 Re2 Rbd7 30 Rae1 Kf7 31 Rxd2 Rxd2+ 32 Re2 Rd3 33 Ke1 Kf6 34 Rd2 Re3+ 35 Kf2 Re5 36 Rd4 g5 37 h4 gxh4 38 Rxh4 h5 39 Rd4 Kg6 40 Rd6+ Kg7 41 Ra6 White is playing it pretty well, in an oldgeezerish kind of way, fixing Black’s queenside pawns before proceeding on the kingside. 41...a4 42 Rd6 Kf7 43 f4 Rf5 44 Kf3 Ke7 45 Rb6 White misses a chance to drive Black’s rook back with 45 Ke4!, the point being that 45...Rxf4+ 46 Kxf4 Kxd6 47 Kg5 is a winning pawn endgame. Solidity isn’t everything. 45...Rd5 46 Ke4 Rd2 47 Rxb5 Rxg2 48 Kf3 Rd2 49 Kg3 Kf6 50 Rb4 Kf5 51 Rxa4 Rxb2 52 Rxc4 Ra2

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 7) [4/14/2006 10:41:35 PM]

Let's Take A Look

With two extra pawns, it looks as if White must be winning, but he has considerable technical problems in this position. The problem is that if the kingside pawns are exchanged and Black’s king is far enough over to the queenside, the extra a- and cpawns will not be enough for White to win. 53 a4 Kg6 54 Kf3 Ra1 55 Rc6+ Kg7 56 Rc4 Kf6 57 Kg3 Kg6 58 Kh3 Kf5 59 Kh4 Rh1+ 60 Kg3 Rg1+ 61 Kf2 Ra1 62 Rc5+ Kxf4 63 Rxh5 Ke4 64 Ke2 Ra2+ 65 Kd1 Kd3 66 Rh3+ Kc4 67 Kc1 Kb3 68 Kd1 Kxa4 69 Rh8 Kb5 70 Rc8 Kb6 71 Kc1 Kb7 72 Rd8 Kc6 73 Rd2 Ra4 74 Kb2 Kc5 75 Kb3 Ra1 76 Rh2 Rb1+ 77 Kc2 Ra1 78 Kb2 Ra4 79 Kb3 Ra1 80 Rh5+ Kc6 81 Kc4 Ra4+ 82 Kd3 Ra1 83 Kd4 Rd1+ 84 Kc4 Rc1 This position should be drawn, but Black must know the correct way to do it. He should keep his rook on a square like g1, which keeps the option of both horizontal and vertical checks. 85 Rh6+ Kd7 86 Kb4 Rb1+ 87 Kc5 Rc1 88 Rh7+ Ke6 89 c4 Rc2 90 Rh4 Kd7 91 Rh6 Rc1 92 Rd6+ Kc7 93 Rh6 Kd7 94 Ra6 Kc7 95 Ra7+ Kb8 96 Rh7 Kc8 97 Kb5 Rb1+ 98 Kc6 Kd8 99 c5 Rc1 100 Ra7 Rc2 101 Ra8+ Ke7 102 Rh8 Rc1 103 Rh2 Rc3 104 Rd2 1-0 And play continued for another 10 moves or so before I realised I had lost a theoretical drawn position. Well, let that be a lesson to you. As a general rule of thumb, a young opponent means good tactics and bad endgames, an old geezer will have good endgames but be weak in tactics. So you’ve got to liven things up a bit early on. Recommended Reading Marshall’s Best Games of Chess by Frank James Marshall (Dover, 1942)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 7) [4/14/2006 10:41:35 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (7 of 7) [4/14/2006 10:41:35 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

There's Always Sudoku

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

I’ve long maintained that the major problem for club players is simply a lack of vision. It doesn’t matter how much a player knows, if he’s going to blunder a piece away. Is there anything to be done? Frankly, I think it’s very difficult unless a player is endowed with at least a modicum of ability in this area. I’ve often met players who would love to add a couple of hundred points to their rating and read every book under the sun. Do they improve? All too often they just don’t get any better, even if they try the time honoured technique of trying to solve tactical positions. Is there anything else they can try? Well GMs hate to admit it, but Michael de la Maza’s Rapid Chess Improvement is probably the best chance. The author, though untitled, improved 700 points in two years of tournament play. He makes the ambitious claim that his course can actually improve a player’s ability, and focuses entirely on tactical training. Here’s an excerpt that explains how his idea was born:

by Bruce Alberston

When I was researching chess coaches, one comment I often heard from students was: ‘I have been studying openings/endgames/middlegames/weak squares/knight outposts and feel that my understanding of the game has improved greatly.’ I would always follow these statements with the question: ‘So, how much has your rating improved?’ Time and time again, students told me that their ratings had not improved in the three months, six months, or year since they had started their coaching. Why did these students’ ratings fail to improve? Class players who spend their time on openings, middlegame strategy and endgames are doing an excellent job of increasing their chess knowledge, but not increasing their chess ability.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [5/15/2006 2:12:32 PM]

Let's Take A Look

For a class player to study openings, middlegame strategy and endgames as a way of increasing chess ability (as opposed to chess knowledge) is the equivalent of fixing a car that doesn’t have an engine by polishing the steering wheel: the car looks better, but it still doesn’t go. A class player’s chess ability is limited first and foremost by a lack of tactical ability. As GM (Grandmaster) Jonathan Levitt wrote in a KasparovChess.com article: ‘At lower levels of play...tactical awareness (or a lack of it) usually decides the outcome of the game.,.’ Or as GM Nigel Davies writes on his web site (www.tigerchess.com): ‘In the Minor section of weekend congresses one can witness players trying to ape the openings of players like Kasparov. Other players will desperately try to get their ‘surprise’ in first through fear of their opponent’s ‘preparation’. I really find all this quite amazing not least because the games concerned are almost invariably decided much later on and often by rather unsophisticated means.’ Kasparov himself has said: ‘Openings really don’t matter at the beginning level.’ Consider the following thought experiment: Take two Class C players and give one the positional knowledge of a Grandmaster and the other the tactical ability of a Grandmaster and then imagine that they play a game. Who will win ? Clearly, the Class C player with the GM’s tactical ability will win. After the Class C player with the GM’s positional knowledge gets an edge in the opening, he will drop a piece to a five-move combination. In fact, give the Class C player an Expert’s tactical ability, rather than a GM’s, and he will still win. You can perform a similar experiment with any chess-playing program: create two personalities, one without any positional knowledge (no opening book, no understanding of pawn structure, etc.) and with the maximum tactical knowledge and the other with the maximum positional knowledge but no tactical knowledge. When these two personalities play against each other, the tactical personality will win every game. I suspect that it works better on people with ability to begin with, but this looks like the best shot for players struggling in the 1000-1400 range. If you don’t get better with de la Maza regime, then it’s probably not going to happen. This month’s game is another effort by Ronnie Rouse, who featured in my Hammer and Nail column last year. Here’s Mr. Rouse’s depiction of what happened: Last year you wrote: 'In the following game Black allows the attacking plan outlined above, and in a form that is very dangerous for Black, file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [5/15/2006 2:12:32 PM]

Let's Take A Look

the standard Sicilian Dragon. Black’s good fortune consisted in the fact that his opponent had a different kind of hammer hardwired into his thinking, the Velimirovic Attack with Bf1-c4, Bc1-e3 and Qd1-e2.' Last Saturday (29 April 2006), I played in my first tournament (in the unrated Open section) in over twenty years, and I got to play an open Sicilian for the first time since 1989 (in the game analysed in Hammer and Nail), and I allowed the same attacking plan. I learned how to play the Dragon Variation from Horowitz and Reinfeld’s, How to Think Ahead in Chess, and in one of the games in that book, Black played ...Rf8-e8 in response to White’s plan. This is what I had intended to play in response to Be3 and Qd2 in 1989, and is what I played last weekend. I would like to know what you think of this move. Here are the moves to the game (each player had 45 minutes to play the entire game). English,T - Rouse,R Manhattan, Kansas 2006 Sicilian Dragon [B76] 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 At club level, I tend to believe that the Accelerated Dragon is a better bet than the standard Dragon, one of the points being that, after 2...Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6, it’s inappropriate for White to pursue his normal attacking policy with 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 f3 0-0 8 Qd2, because Black can play 8...d5 in one move rather than two. 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 The Dragon has always been a sexy opening. But, after seeing the game, I’m unconvinced that such sophisticated weaponry was at all necessary. 1...e5 anyone? 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 0-0 There’s a case for delaying castling for Black, say, with 7...Nc6 8 Qd2 Bd7 9 0-0-0 h5. Without Black’s king being committed to the kingside, there’s no automatic attack for White. 8 Qd2 Re8!?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [5/15/2006 2:12:32 PM]

Let's Take A Look

I’m no expert on the Dragon, and that’s putting it mildly. But there is more than a little point behind this move, which aims to maintain Black’s dark-square bishop by meeting Be3-h6 with Bg7-h8. At club level, it makes especial sense to play this way, as it stops White’s automatic attacking plan based on exchanging darksquared bishops and then charging the hpawn up the board. He can still launch the h-pawn of course, but it’s going to be difficult to mate Black if h8 is covered. 9 g4 9 0-0-0 Nc6 10 h4 looks more to the point, as White can sacrifice a pawn with h4-h5, rather than ponderously preparing it with g2-g4. Not that the text is bad of course. 9...Nfd7 This, on the other hand, is a move I don’t like. The concept of transferring the knight to b6 is not unknown, but in conjunction with 8...Re8, it is far too passive. A healthier alternative is 9...Nc6 10 h4 h5, making it difficult for White to come storming down the h-file. This doesn’t look too bad for Black to me. 10.h4 Ne5 11 Bg2?? A truly horrible move, giving Black the option of playing ...Nc4, removing White’s dark-square bishop from the board. White should have played 11 0-00 and, after 11...Nbc6, met the threat to his f3-pawn with 12 Be2. 11...Nbc6?? Boris Spassky once said something to the effect that one should not try to punish your opponent’s first mistake too badly, as very often he’s about to make some more. This is a case in point, as White misses the threat of ...Ne5-c4 for a second consecutive move. But Spassky wasn’t talking about wasting forced wins. Black “should” have played 11...Nc4 12 Qc1 Nxe3 13 Qxe3 Qb6; for example, 14 0-0-0 Nc6 15 Nce2 e5, winning material. 12 0-0-0?? file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [5/15/2006 2:12:32 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Giving Black a second chance. He should cover c4 with the admittedly ugly 12 b3. I prefer Black in this position, but it’s still a game. 12...Nc4 13 Qe2 Nxe3 14 Qxe3 Qb6 15 Nxc6?? Overlooking the fact that his queen is en prise, the kind of thing that makes “theoretical knowledge” rather irrelevant. 15 e5 Bxe5 16 Nce2 was the best try, which is a mere pawn down with a horrible position. The immediate 15 Nce2 loses to 15...e5. 15...Qxe3+ 16 Kb1 bxc6 17 h5 Hope springs eternal. Not that there’s any chance of giving mate without a dark-squared bishop or queen. 17...Rb8 18 Ka1 Bxc3 I must admit to having a preference for 18...Qxc3, really rubbing it in. Not that it matters too much. 19 Rb1 Qd4 0-1 There’s not a tremendous amount that White can do. My impression of this game is that it certainly wasn’t a case of White not “knowing” what to do; he simply lacked the vision to implement it with any kind of accuracy. He must have missed the idea of a black knight coming to c4, something which has quite horrible consequences. I can only suggest he tries de la Maza’s Rapid Chess Improvement, and come to think of it, this might offer hope to some ageing GMs, as their tactical vision seems to deteriorate with the years. Failing that, there’s always Sudoko… Recommended Reading Rapid Chess Improvement by Michael de la Maza (Everyman, 2002) Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games by Laszlo Polgar Black file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [5/15/2006 2:12:32 PM]

Let's Take A Look

(Dog & Leventhal, 1995)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [5/15/2006 2:12:32 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

It's a Blunderful Life

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Well, things have certainly livened up in the chess world recently. Danny Gormally’s attack on Levon Aronian in a Turin nightclub got the kind of publicity we haven’t seen since Bobby Fischer’s day. What do you mean it wasn’t good publicity? All publicity is good! And the nature of this particular incident makes chess players seem a little bit desperate and dangerous, rather than boring and nerdy. We’ve got a pulse! I’m not sure it’s dawned on Gormally that there could be a career in this for him. The first step is to get a manager (probably the guy who takes care of “Nasty Nick” Hornby) and get on Big Brother. If all goes well he could have his own chat show within a year or two. I understand that Nick Leeson is also doing very nicely for himself. I must admit to being slightly envious. It’s been a long time since I considered committing a violent act because of sexual jealousy, another sign of age creeping up on me. And the brain doesn’t seem to be quite what it was either; I’m just not that sharp any more. I find I’m missing things in my games – right, left and center.

by Bruce Alberston

As growing old gracefully isn’t for me, I decided to do some research into the matter and I discovered that there are some really neat designer drugs that can probably stem the decay. Unfortunately, the government of my fair land doesn’t want us taking anything that might raise our self esteem (it’s on the banned list together with Viagra), just in case a self-confident population decide they could do with a little less government. But if anyone knows how I can get hold of some of this stuff, then please let me know, c/o ChessCafe, Behind the Water Pipes, Connecticut, USA. In the meantime, I’m stuck with rather lame methods of trying to claw it back, like giving up beer and coffee, drinking green tea, listening to Mozart and

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [6/20/2006 1:03:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

eating eggs, oily fish, soy, lentils, various herbs (Gingko Biloba, Rosemary, Sage), fruit and vegetables and vitamin-B. But it is, let’s say, rather dull. Like many other people, I much prefer the things that are “bad” for me. So meanwhile it’s a blunderful life, and I console myself with the thought that I’m not the only one. Many GMs start falling apart at the seams once they hit their mid-forties, and it doesn’t seem to get any better. Victor Korchnoi is the exception, and he seems to put his chess longevity down to driving into a police car in the Soviet Union and deciding to walk everywhere thereafter. And come to think of it maybe that’s also an option. Sorry officer, but I had to do something to improve my chess. On the subject of blunders, this month’s game is wild and woolly effort played in Beirut in 1985. Here are the winner’s comments: I would like to submit the following game, in the hope it will be considered for one of your articles. It was a friendly match, but I considered it as my best effort. I would like to understand the basic theoretical lines, showing both sides’ major mistakes. Thank you so much for your consideration. Best regards, Walid Chaar Tabib,D (2000) - Chaar,W (1800) Beirut, 1985 Caro-Kann [B12] 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 g4 Sharpening the struggle considerably. Usually White plays this plan after 4 Nc3 e6 and only then 5 g4. More recently the positional 4 Nf3 has come into the limelight, thanks mainly to the efforts of Nigel Short. Still, it’s hard to believe this can be the refutation of the Caro. 4...Bg6 The safest move is 4...Bd7, ducking out the way of White’s pawn advances. Bronstein - Petrosian, USSR Ch., Tbilisi 1959 continued 5 c4 e6 6 Nc3 Ne7 7 c5 b6 8 b4 a5 9 Na4 Nc8 10 Rb1 axb4 11 Rxb4 bxc5 12 dxc5 Qc7 13 Nf3 and now Petrosian sacrificed the exchange with 13...Rxa4 14 Qxa4 Bxc5 and achieved excellent compensation. Black has also played 4...Be4 5 f3 Bg6, reaching the same position as the game, but with White having played f2-f3. Here, too, White can play 6 h4 h5 (6...h6) 7 e6; for example, 7...Qd6 8 exf7+ Bxf7 9 g5 Qg3+ 10 Ke2 Nd7 11 Be3 Qc7 12 f4 Be6 13 Bh3 Bxh3 14 Rxh3, which was probably about equal in Hahn - Alekhine, Poland 1941.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [6/20/2006 1:03:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

5 h4 h5 6 g5?! I find moves like this physically painful to watch. What about your f5-square, Mr. Tabib? The most dangerous move is 6 e6!?; for example, 6...fxe6 7 Bd3 Bxd3 8 Qxd3 hxg4 9 Qg6+ Kd7 10 Qxg4 Nf6 11 Qh3 produced a wild position in Mieses Speijer, Scheveningen 1923. 6...e6 7 Bd3 This seems way too compliant to be a threat to Black as well. A more troublesome line of play is 7 Nh3, when 7...Ne7 8 Nf4 gives Black something to think about with the weakness of his h5-pawn. 7...Ne7 8 Bxg6 Nxg6 I must admit that I’d find 8...fxg6 very tempting, Black secures f5 with a huge concentration of force and can park his king on f7. But both lines are going to be good for Black. 9 f4 Aren’t databases wonderful things? Even in this rather chaotic looking opening one can find similar games, with Jacob Neumann, Bad Woerishofen 2000 having gone 9 Ne2 Qb6 10 Ng3 c5 11 c3 Nc6 with an excellent game for Black. The problem is in knowing what to do with all this information and separating the wheat from the chaff. 9...c5 10 c3 cxd4 There’s usually a case for delaying such captures, so as not to give White the c3-square for his knight. Accordingly, I suggest 10...Nc6. 11 cxd4 Bb4+ And I wouldn’t be in a hurry to play this check either. 11...Ne7 looks like a good move, bringing the knight to f5 from where it pressures d4 and h4 and might hop into g3 at some point. 12 Nc3 Bxc3+ Here, too, it was worth considering 12...Ne7.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [6/20/2006 1:03:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

13 bxc3 Qc7 14 Bd2 The immediate 14 Ne2 looks like a better idea, keeping the option of developing his bishop on a3. 14...Ne7 15 Ne2 Nf5 16 Rh3 Nd7 17 a3? I really don’t see the point of this. In fact, it weakens yet another light square. 17...Nf8 18 Kf2? 18 Ng3 might have been better, eliminating a Black knight before the mutual slaughter of h-pawns leaves Black with an open h-file. 18...Ng6 19 Ng3 Ngxh4 20 Nxh5 Qc4 21 Rb1 One of the main reasons for games being lost is because the player with the worse position tries to shoot his way out of trouble. Rather than try and attack on the bfile (and give Black a2 for his queen), White should repel borders on the kingside. Thus, 21 Qg4 looks better, after which 21...0-0-0 22 Rah1 Ng6 23 Ke1 Qb3 24 Bc1 Rh7 followed by ...Rdh8 is clearly better for Black, though the game still has to be won. 21...0-0-0 22 Rb4 Qa2 23 c4? A blunder, missing 23...Rxh5. White is in a sticky situation; for example, 23 Ng3 can be answered by 23...Ne3 (23...Nxg3 is not bad either) 24 Qe2 (24 Kxe3 Nf5+ 25 Nxf5 Rxh3+ wins the exchange) 24...Ng4+ 25 Qxg4 Qxd2+ 26 Ne2 Ng6, when Black will take over the h-file. I think the only move was 23 Rb1, when 23...Rxh5? allows White to deliver perpetual attack on Black’s queen via 24 Ra1. 23...g6? Letting White off the hook, at least this time. 24 Nf6? Allowing Black a second forced win, although this one’s more difficult to see. White should have played 24 Qc1, so as to be able to break the pin along the second rank with Rb2. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [6/20/2006 1:03:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

24...Nxd4 The right move was the spectacular 24...Nf3!; for example, 25 Rxf3 (25 Qxf3 Qxd2+ 26 Kf1 Nxd4 leaves White’s king too exposed) 25...Rh2+ 26 Ke1 Nxd4 27 Rf2 Rdh8, when Black has a winning attack. 25 cxd5 Suddenly it is White who is better. But this is far from being the end of the story. 25...Nhf3 25...Nhf5 26 Qc1+ is also better for White, though this might have been a better try. 26 Qc1+ Kb8 27 Rxh8?! Not the best. White should play 27 d6, when 27...Qxd2+ 28 Qxd2 Nxd2 29 Rxh8 Rxh8 30 Rxd4 is just a great endgame for White because of his passed d-pawn. 27...Rxh8 28.Nd7+ Ka8 29.Rb2?? And this is Tartakover’s proverbial “last mistake.” White should play 29 Rc4, after which 29...Qxd2+ 30 Qxd2 Nxd2 31 Rxd4 Rh2+ is good for White, though not crushing as the 27 d6 variation, which reaches the same position but with White’s passed pawn on d6 already. 29...Qxd5 30 Qc7 Rh2+ 0-1 White is mated after 31 Kg3 (Or 31 Kf1 Nxd2+ 32 Ke1 Qh1#) 31...Nf5+ 32 Kg4 Rh4#. Recommended Reading Fever Pitch by Nick Hornby (Riverhead Trade, 1998) Solo Training: The Martial Artist’s Guide to Training Alone by Loren Christensen (Turtle Press 2001) Brain Food: The Essential Guide to Boosting Brain by Lorraine Perretta, Oona Van Den Berg, Oona Van Den Berg (Sterling Publishing 2002)

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [6/20/2006 1:03:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [6/20/2006 1:03:26 AM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Beating Your Dad

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Most of us who learn chess in our childhood will start out by playing against immediate family members, and in particular against our fathers. My dad was one of my first opponents along with my sister; then came family acquaintances such as our dentist. The dentist was actually a pretty good player, but a really sore loser. After mating him on the back rank one day when I was several pieces down, my parents decided it was time for me to get my teeth fixed elsewhere. These childhood games can have a profound effect on who we are and how we play. The late Eugene Martinovsky explained to me once how his solid style of play was a direct result of his father being a ferocious attacker. Former British and Commonwealth Champion Paul Littlewood also grew up to be rather more solid than his father John and wild uncle Norman. Though in his case there is still something of a family resemblance, especially if the game is played when the moon is full. This has got me thinking. What if my own son takes to chess, how should I go about teaching him. And should I let him win now and then or avoid playing him whilst training him to beat other kids? Especially the ones with crisps, baseball caps and hovering parents.

by Bruce Alberston

Surfing the net for help on this matter turned out to be rather interesting, especially when one of my favourite expressions is “I crush, therefore I am.” Here’s one snippet I found that reflected the general tenor of advice to parents: “When children are too focused on winning, they may start to evaluate themselves based on how many victories they achieve,” ShepherdLook says. Even if they win 90 percent of the time, they’ll never be satisfied. “This is devastating to a person,” she says. “They’re always file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [7/14/2006 9:04:40 PM]

Let's Take A Look

on a treadmill looking for the next win.” All the more reason to nip an overly competitive nature in the bud. Well, I hasten to point out that this is nothing like me, and the fraternity of grandmasters as a whole is a bunch of well-balanced individuals to whom this obviously doesn’t apply. And neither are captains of industry, successful businessmen and entrepreneurs overly competitive in their behaviour. What a nasty world it would be if we were, not nice at all in fact. Here, meanwhile, is this month’s game that shows an alternative philosophy in action. The old lions make way for the young despite their best efforts to stay on top. It was sent to me by Enervon Sanchez who was clearly very pleased with his win against the old man. Just a “friendly” he says. Yeah, right: “Good day! This game was just a friendly match between me and my father (the white player). I had this game analysed and annotated already by Fritz 8 using 30 minutes of calculating time. I hope you can add your own annotations. Thank you very much!” Sanchez,A - Sanchez,E Rapid Play, 2005 Slav Defence [D10] 1 d4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 c5 Fritz’s comment is that “White gains space,” which illustrates much of what’s wrong with having computers analyse your chess games. Stick to tactics Fritzy! 3...g6 Not bad, but Black can do better than this with 3...e5!, after which 4 e3 would give Black a pleasant choice between gaining space with ...e5-e4 or leaving White’s e4-pawn weak with a timely ...e5xd4. 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 Nf3 Nf6 6 Bg5 0-0

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [7/14/2006 9:04:40 PM]

Let's Take A Look

As usual one can find a game reference in just about every series of opening moves under the sun. It turns out that the game Nowakowska - Gradalska, Sopot 1997 went 6...Nbd7 7 e3 b6 8 cxb6 axb6 9 Be2 0-0 10 0-0 Bb7 11 h3 Re8 12 Nh2 h6 13 Bh4 e5 with a good game for Black. Needless to say, I haven’t heard of either of the players or the place. Sounds Eastern European. 7 h3 Consulting Fritz once again one learns that this move “secures g4.” My own view is that e4 is far more important here. 7...h6 I like 7...Ne4 in this position; for example, 8 Bf4 b6 with excellent play. 8 Bf4 Re8 9 Be5 Not sure I’d want to play this for White. The “normal” move is 9 e3. 9...Nbd7 10 e4? White should probably beat a retreat with 10 Bf4, but how do you play such an undignified move against your son? 10...Nxe5 11 dxe5? This further error leaves White in a desperate situation. 11 Nxe5 was the best chance, though admittedly it’s not great after 11...Nxe4 12 Nxe4 dxe4 13 Bc4 Bxe5 14 dxe5 Qa5+ 15 Qd2 Qxc5, etc. 11...Nxe4 12 Nxe4 dxe4 13 Nh2 Qa5+ 14 Qd2 Qxc5 15 Rc1 Qxe5 16 Rc2 Bf5 17 Qe3 Nothing more than a defence against the threat of 17...e3. After 17 Ng4, Black could play 17...Bxg4 18 hxg4 Rad8 with three extra pawns and a positional advantage to boot. 17...Red8 18 Bc4 Qa5+ 19 Ke2 Rd4

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [7/14/2006 9:04:40 PM]

Let's Take A Look

19...Rd3 is possible here too – White can’t take because he’d lose the rook on c2. 20 Nf1 Rad8 21 Nd2 21 Qc3 might have been a slightly better try, though 21...Qxc3 22 Rxc3 Rd1 would leave White hopelessly placed. 21...Rd3! 22 Qf4 There’s not much choice. 22 Bxd3 exd3+ wins the rook on c2. 22...g5 23 Nb3 Rxb3! Fritz gleefully announces that this is “the death sentence.” Er ... that’s Dad you’re talking about. 24 Qh2 Rxb2 25 Rhc1 After 25 Rxb2, Black can even get fancy with 25...Qc3. 25...e3! 26 Rxb2 The only chance here was the “It’s-wellpast-your-bed-time” gambit. 26...Bxb2 27 Rc2 Rd2+ 28 Rxd2 Qxd2+ 29 Kf3 It doesn’t happen very often, but I feel a song coming on, Harlan Howard’s No Charge: My little boy came into the kitchen this evenin’ While I was fixin’ supper And he handed me a piece of paper he’d been writin’ on And after wipin’ my hands on my apron I read it - and this is what it said: For mowin’ the yard – five dollars And for makin’ my own bed this week – one dollar And for goin’ to the store – fifty cents An’ playin’ with little brother, while you went shoppin’ – twenty-five cents Takin’ out the trash – one dollar Gettin’ a good report card – five dollars And for rakin’ the yard – two dollars file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [7/14/2006 9:04:40 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Total owed – fourteen seventy-five. Well, I looked at ‘im standin’ there expectantly And a thousand mem’ries flashed through my mind So I picked up the pen, turnin’ the paper over, This is what I wrote: For nine months I carried you Growin’ inside me – NO CHARGE For the nights I’ve sat up with you, Doctored you, prayed for you – NO CHARGE For the time and the tears. And the cost through the years, there’s NO CHARGE When you add it all up. The full cost of my love is NO CHARGE. For the nights filled with dread And the worries ahead – NO CHARGE For advice and the knowledge And the cost of your college – NO CHARGE For the toys, food and clothes and for wipin’ your nose There’s NO CHARGE, son When you add it all up, The full cost of my love, is – NO CHARGE. Well, when he finished readin’ He had great big old tears in his eyes And he looked up at me and he said, “Mama, I sure do love you.” Then he took the pen, And in great big letters He wrote: “PAID IN FULL.” When you add it all up The cost of real love is – NO CHARGE 29…Qxf2# 0-1 Recommended Reading How to Beat Your Dad at Chess by Murray Chandler (Gambit 1998) Raising Boys: Why Boys Are Different–And How to Help Them Become Happy and Well-Balanced Men by Steve Biddulph (Celestial Arts 1998)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved. file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [7/14/2006 9:04:40 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [7/14/2006 9:04:40 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Computers, Magic and Disaster

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

There is general agreement that accurate calculation is known to be one of the most important facets of chess. Where there is less agreement is in how one should calculate and how to develop this ability. As a teenager, I followed Kotov’s advice in Think Like A Grandmaster by setting up critical positions on a board, writing down the variations I saw and then comparing them with those of the annotator. I’m sure this helped me develop my game, even if the efficacy of Kotov’s tree-like technique of calculation has been brought into question, for example by Jon Tisdall in Improve Your Chess Now. I believe that many players have gone through a similar regime by analysing sharp openings and Lev Polugayevsky describes this process in his magnificent book, Grandmaster Preparation. One slight issue I have with this is that in analysing sharp openings, players are likely to move the pieces around the board, which doesn’t help develop a player’s vision in the way that staring at a single position can help them. But this is much better than the kind of computer aided analysis that is all too common in the present day and age.

by Bruce Alberston

A chess player cannot use Fritz during a game, so why do so many people use it for training purposes. And there may also be a more subtle erosion of our thinking abilities because of an increasing reliance on machines to do “the easy stuff.” Here’s an excerpt from the January 1987 edition of the magazine Analog: Science Fiction and Fact about the use of pocket calculators in schools: The existence of pocket calculators has already posed serious problems for education. Is it sensible, for example, to teach Long Division in schools - when each child owns a little plastic box that can do arithmetic more quickly, and more accurately, then an expert? It won’t be long before the plastic box can do algebra and calculus too and the problems arising may well be worse at school level, because a

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]

Let's Take A Look

very high proportion of the mathematical work done at school consists precisely of routine calculation methods. Whatever the pros and cons, education is going to have to adapt to the new technology. The article further points out: It may seem pointless teaching children to perform tasks that can be done quickly, accurately and cheaply by machine; but it’s also dangerous to build a society that’s totally dependant upon machines, that it no longer understands. Once Technology becomes Magic, Disaster will soon follow. The following game was sent to me by Luis Da Costa Junior, complete with extensive analysis. My impression was that the variations were worked out in conjunction with Fritz, rather than being computer generated alone. There were some lines where I felt a human touch seemed to be present, but the whole thing was too accurate and extensive to be human alone. It was an impressive piece of work, but even so I think there are distinct advantages to getting the board and pieces out and doing away with the computer altogether. Of course in this day and age that would take monumental self-discipline. Certainly this is better than the kind of slightly edited Chessbase/Fritz dumps that are becoming increasingly prevalent, but in which you sense the author’s lack of understanding with every word that he writes. And then there are the correspondence “players” who go for razor sharp openings (zero understanding required when every move is in the book) and switch the machine on to calculate out the tactics. I understand why Mikhail Umansky uses 1…g6 in his correspondence games, inviting his opponents to play chess. Mascarenhas,A - Brooks,I ICCF Correspondence Tournament 2002 Modern Benoni [A67] 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+ Taimanov’s variation, which has discouraged all but the most ardent Modern Benoni fans from playing it via a 2...c5 move order. Specialists like Lev Psakhis now play 2...e6 and wait for 3 Nf3 before venturing 3...c5. In my reckless youth, and inspired by a game of John Littlewood, I once played 8 e5 against John Nunn. Once was enough. The big problem with all out attack is that if the attack doesn’t work, you end up with a wreck of a position. Pawn storms are especially dangerous – the little guys don’t move backwards. 8...Nbd7!?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]

Let's Take A Look

The most natural move on the board, the drawback being that it involves a piece sacrifice. David Norwood had some success with this line in his prebusinessman days, but got discouraged and switched exclusively to the Modern. I can’t speak with much authority on this line, but I’m under the impression that Suba’s 8...Nfd7 9 a4 Qh4+ 10 g3 Qd8!? is a tough nut to crack. Of course, tacking to and fro with your queen to induce 10 g3 is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Nh5 11 e6 The critical line. 11 Nf3 is met by 11...0-0 12 g4 Nxe5 13 gxh5 Bg4 14 0-0 Nxf3+ 15 Rxf3 Bxh5 as in Mierse - Goeke, Wiesbaden 1998. Black’s even up on material in that one. 11...Qh4+ 12 Kd2 12 g3 has also been played, when 12…Nxg3 13 hxg3 Qxh1 14 Be3 Bxc3+ 15 bxc3 a6 16 exd7+ Bxd7 17 Bxd7+ Kxd7 18 Qa4+ b5 19 Qf4 Rhe8 20 0-0-0 Qe4 21 Qxe4 Rxe4 led to a draw (of course!), in Arencibia -Vera, Havana 2003. Is heading for the hills any better? Let’s just call it “unclear” for the time being, I have a natural mistrust of long analysis. 12...fxe6 After 12...Qg5+ (or 12...Qf4+ for that matter), Da Costa gives 13 Kc2 Qf5+ 14 Bd3 Qf2+ 15 Kb1 fxe6 16 dxe6 intending Ne4, but this seems far from clear to me. What about 16...Ne5 17 Ne4 Qd4 18 Bb5+ Ke7 19 Bg5+ Kxe6? 13 dxe6 Bxc3+ Seems that this is a “new move.” The only previous game I could find with this line was Aleksandrov - Wojtkiewicz, Wisla 1992, which went 13…0-0 14 exd7 Bxd7 15 Bxd7 Rad8 16 Kc2 Rf2+ 17 Kb1 Bxc3 18 Qg4 and Black’s attack was running out of steam. Another possibility is 13...Qg5+, but then 14 Ke1 Bxc3+ 15 bxc3 Qe5+ 16 Qe2 Qxc3+ 17 Qd2! Qxa1 18 exd7+ Ke7 19 Qg5+ Ke6 20 Ne2 gives White what looks like a winning attack. 14 bxc3 0-0 15 Nf3!

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Da Costa analyses 15 exd7 in some depth, concluding that the move in the game is better. Here’s a reduced version of his analysis: 15...Bxd7 16 Nf3 (16 Bxd7? Rf2+! 17 Ne2 Rd8! 18 Qb3+ Rf7 19 Ba3 c4! 20 Qc2 Qg5+ 21 Kd1 Rfxd7+ 22 Ke1 Re8 wins for Black, whilst 16 Qb3+?! Kh8 17 Bxd7 Qg5+! 18 Kc2 Qxg2+ 19 Bd2 Qxh1 also looks favourable) 16...Bxb5! 17 Nxh4 Rad8+ 18 Ke1 (18 Kc2 Ba4+ 19 Kb2 Bxd1 20 Be3 Bg4 21 Bxc5 Rfe8 gives Black the better endgame) 18…Rde8+ 19 Be3 (19 Kd2?? Rf2+) 19…Rxe3+ 20 Kd2 Rd3+ 21 Kc1 Rxd1+ 22 Rxd1 Nf4 with compensation for the sacrificed exchange. 15...Qg4 After 15...Qf2+, there follows 16 Qe2 Qxe2+ 17 Kxe2 Re8 18 Kf2 Rxe6 19 Bc4 etc. 16 Re1! Da Costa analyses 16 exd7?! out to a draw after 16…Bxd7 17 Bxd7 Qxg2+ 18 Kd3 (18 Ke3 Rad8! leaves White’s king too exposed) 18…Rxf3+ 19 Kc4 b5+! 20 Kxc5 (20 Kxb5 Rf7 is dangerous) 20…Rxc3+! 21 Kb4 Rc4+ 22 Kb3 Qe4 23 Re1 Rb4+ 24 Ka3 Ra4+ 25 Kb2 Rb4+ 26 Ka3. 16...Nf4 17 e7! Here, too, Da Costa claims that taking on d7 is less good, an abridged version of his line running 17 exd7?! Bxd7 18 Qb3+ (One beautiful variation runs 18 Bc4+?! Kh8 19 g3 Ng2! 20 Ne5 Rad8!! 21 Nxg4 Bf5+! 22 Bd5 Rxd5+ 23 Ke2 Bxg4#) 18…Kh8 19 Bb2 c4! 20 Bxc4 Qxg2+ 21 Be2 (Or 21 Kc1 Qxf3 22 Bf1 Bc6 23 c4+ Kg8 24 c5+ Nd5! with ongoing problems for White) 21…Nxe2 22 Rxe2 Qxf3 23 c4+ Kg8 24 c5+ Qxb3 25 axb3 Bc6 and Black is in the driving seat in the endgame. 17...Re8 18 Qb3+ Kg7 19 c4!

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Opening up the long diagonal for White’s dark-square bishop. 19...Qxg2+ With Black’s king coming under fire, he has to keep going forward. 19...Ne6 20 Bb2+ Kg8 21 Rxe6 Qxe6 22 Qc3 is an example of what happens if he plays passively. 20 Kd1 Nf6 Or if 20...Qg4, there follows 21 Qc3+! Kh6 (21 Kf7 22 Re4!) 22 Rg1! etc. 21 Bxe8 Bg4 22 Bc6! bxc6 23 Bxf4 Bxf3+ 24 Kc1 Re8 25 Rb1 Be4 26 Rb2 Qg4 27 Qe3?! Whilst the position is still good for White after this, I don’t think this is the best. Both 27 Bd6 and 27 Qg3 look stronger. 27...Bf5 27...Rxe7 would have been strongly met by 28 Bg5. 28 Be5 Qxc4+ 29 Qc3 29 Bc3 might have been even stronger, but given the wild nature of the early stages one can understand White’s enthusiasm for entering an exchange up endgame. 29...Qxc3+ 30 Bxc3 Kf7 31 Bxf6 Kxf6 32 Rb7 a5 33 Ra7 Be6 34 Rxa5 Rxe7 35 a4 Black would be doing just fine, if it wasn’t for the a-pawn. 35…Rb7 36 Rxc5 Bd5 37 Re3 g5 38 a5 g4 39 a6 Ra7 40 Ra5 h5 41 Ra4 Kf5 42 Kd2 h4 43 Rd3 Kg5 44 Rdd4 Bf3 45 Ke3 Re7+ 46 Kd3 Ra7 47 Ra5+ Kg6 48 Rf4 c5 49 Ke3 c4 50 Kf2 c3 51 Rc4 Kf6 52 Rxc3 h3 53 Rxf3+ gxf3 54 Kxf3 1-0 Some rooks endgames in which one side has two extra rook’s pawns are drawn, but not this one. Black’s rook is far too passively placed. Recommended Reading file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Grandmaster Preparation by Lev Polugayevsky (Pergamon 1981) Analyse To Win: Visualising Victory by Byron Jacobs (Batsford 1998) Think Like A Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov (Batsford, 2003) Test & Improve Your Chess by Lev Alburt (MacMillan, 1994) Improve Your Chess Now by Jonathan Tisdall (Everyman, 1997)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Quitting and the Comeback

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Making a comeback is one of the most difficult things to do with dignity. – Greg Lake The Stones don’t really need to do it for money, so they must get some kind of pleasure out of it. They’re not like a group that’s disbanded and gone away and made a comeback. They’ve always been there. – Mick Taylor In some circles Stalin has in fact been making a comeback. His portrait hangs above the dashboard of trucks, a symbol of blue-collar nostalgia for a tough leader. – Serge Schmemann At the last couple of chess events I attended (the British Championships and the first of the 2006-7 Four Nations Chess League weekends), several grandmasters showed up, not to play but to watch. At the British it was Jonathan Speelman and Julian Hodgson, who were beaming ear to ear as they watched their former colleagues get ready to do battle. And at the 4NCL it was John Nunn who wasn’t playing, and appeared to be very happy and relaxed.

by Bruce Alberston

I got to speak with Speelman and Hodgson, somewhat bemused that they weren’t listed to play in the main event. As an opening gambit I enquired if they were competing in the veterans section. They then explained how they both had houses in Swansea and decided to take a holiday and watch a bit of chess. I can understand them in a way. Chess, if you “play” it properly (and I mean for blood rather than “fun”) is a difficult, demanding and even painful activity. You undergo hours of stress and can see the fruits of a well-played game disappear in a single move. A few crazy people (myself included it seems) actually seem to be at home with this and would never contemplate

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [9/19/2006 12:10:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

giving up. Others start to wonder if it’s really worth it, and in addition to Messrs. Speelman, Nunn and Hodgson one might note that Keene, Stean and Hartston stopped playing, too. So are these former stars just wimps or is there more to it? Amateurs seem to have the opposite problem in that they’d love to play more, but just can’t find the time. In defence of the retired GMs, the psychological dynamics are very different for amateurs and professionals, the latter having “reputations” that tend to fare better if they just stop rather than growing old disgracefully. It’s an ego thing with the pain of going downhill in public being too much to bear. There are also plenty of less exalted players whose egos can’t seem to take the pain; they stop playing and start talking about how good they used to be. It’s interesting to consider if there might not be an algorithm to determine ego size based on a decline in rating and the decline in the number of games played. But I should probably leave that to the more mathematically inclined. What distinguishes the quitters from those who intend to continue to the bitter end, regardless of any embarrassment? I can only speak for myself in saying that I believe chess can be very useful for one’s health and character. You need to be in decent shape to play chess and free from stress, so continuing to play can foster a better lifestyle, at least in some cases. Longevity and good health doesn’t really have the same motivational quality as the idea of beating one’s neighbour in a chess game. Before anyone else does, I should point out that there is an alternative approach in that one may dull the pain of one’s setbacks by imbibing ever increasing amounts of alcohol. This in turn will have a feedback effect and send the player concerned on an ever descending spiral. But I’d claim that such cases were a distinct minority. Do the quitters ever regret their decision and try to make a comeback? Yes frequently, and they usually end up quitting for good after their first, disastrous attempt. Former British Champion Jonathan Penrose once tried it, got beaten up badly by the juniors and disappeared thereafter. I witnessed Raymond Keene’s comeback tournament in Portugal (sensible idea at least not to play on your own doorstep) in which he drew game after game with Portuguese orange growers. And we better not mention John Nunn’s recent comeback attempt. What’s the problem in making a comeback? Besides the obvious rust, the more insidious issue is that players are becoming tougher all the time. Before the computer era it was much easier for the stronger player to confuse his opponent in the opening, now it is extremely difficult. Computers enable people to study much more efficiently, see the latest wrinkles and (perhaps most importantly) see their opponent’s games. Players who were active before computers (or other new developments) came onto the scene, may be able to adjust if they stay in the game, but if they disappear for a few years, there’s

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [9/19/2006 12:10:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

going to be plenty of catching up to do. One tournament certainly isn’t enough, but most of the comeback kids don’t stick around any longer than that. The following game impressed me because of the way White managed to control Black’s wild attempts at getting the initiative. This isn’t easy at the best of times, and for people who don’t get to play that much it can be especially difficult. Jussi Jakenberg (1800) – Roald Berthelsen (1685) Norrortsmästerskapen 2005 St. George Defence [C00] 1 e4 e6 2 d4 a6 3 c4 Stopping Black’s idea of …b7-b5 whilst gaining space, all very logical. 3…b5 At least it should have been stopped! Black makes it clear that he has little concern for anyone’s safety, either his opponent’s or his own. I tend to see games like this as being a passenger in a car with a reckless driver – there’s a good chance of a crash and nobody knows who’ll survive. 4 cxb5 Bb7 5 f3 Fastening the e4-pawn’s safety belt – this guy needs to stay alive and intact in order to block the a8-h1 diagonal. 5...axb5 6 Bxb5 Qh4+ 7 g3 Black’s last move was quite clever – he gets White to weaken the support for f3 by advancing the g-pawn and this in turn makes e4 weaker. It’s all rather reminiscent of the “English Defence” (1 c4 b6 is its most respectable form), which Tony Miles used to great effect in the early part of his career. 7...Qh5 8 Nc3 Bb4 9 Bf1! Looks like an excellent and nonstereotypical decision. This position had actually occurred before, but I’m sure White came up with this on his own rather than “knowing the theory” (one gleans from the usage of the word that this is the several million games file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [9/19/2006 12:10:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

in the latest database, but then nobody “knows theory”). 9...Nf6 Wow, a theoretical novelty (excuse the irony)! But actually this doesn’t make sense because Black needs the ...f7-f5 pawn lever. In the well-known game Gastmeyer – Schuett, Neumuenster 1997, Black played the more logical 9...Ne7, and this helped him get plenty of compensation after 10 Bg2 f5 11 Nge2 c5 12 Be3 0-0 13 0-0 cxd4 14 Bxd4 Nbc6. Not wishing to be derelict in my duty to make some off-the-cuff suggestions, Black might also consider 9...f5 and 9...Nh6. 10 Bg2 Nc6 11 Nge2 Ba6 The fact that this bishop feels obliged to change diagonals might be viewed as a major strategic achievement on White’s part. 12 0-0 Qa5 13 Be3 Also not bad is 13 Rf2 – without any pawn levers Black’s not going to make much of an impression on White’s solid structure. 13...Rb8 Black can get his pawn back with 13...Bxc3 14 bxc3 Bxe2 15 Qxe2 Qxc3, but then 16 Rac1 leaves him in dire straights, because 16...Nxd4? is answered by 17 Qf2. 14 Rf2 g5? I wouldn’t want to start the game as one of this guy’s knight’s pawns! 14...Bc4 is “better” but leaves Black with inadequate compensation. 15 a3 Bxc3 16 Nxc3 Bc4 17 e5 Giving Black a square for his knight, but the g6-pawn is a goner. 17 d5 exd5 18 Bxg5 is pretty good too, but it’s getting past the stage when it matters too much. 17...Nd5 18 Nxd5 Bxd5 19 Bxg5 Rb3 20 Bd2 Qb6 21 Bc3 Once again everything is protected.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [9/19/2006 12:10:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

21…Ke7? Black’s king isn’t going to be safe here. Anyone for 21...h5? 22 Qd2 Rg8 23 Rd1 Rg6 24 f4 Earlier in the game White would have been loathe to allow his light-squared bishop to be exchanged. Here it is the prelude to a deadly attack. 24…Bxg2 25 Kxg2 Qb5 26 f5! Ripping Black’s king position asunder. 26 Qd5+ 27 Kg1 exf5 28 Rxf5 Rb8 29 Rdf1 Rg7 30 Qf4 Qe6 31 Rf6 OK, things like 31 d5 work here too, but why complicate? One should always remember the KISS principle: keep it simple sonny. There are no points for artistic impression. 31…Qc4 32 Qh4 Kf8 33 Qe4 Re8 34 R6f4 Kg8 35 d5 An instructive move. It’s always good to offer desperate people hopeless endgames as their “best” chance. Very often your generosity is rejected and they make things even worse for themselves. 35…Qc5+ 36 Kg2 Nxe5 Last gasp. 37 Bxe5 d6 38 Qf3 dxe5 39 Rxf7 Qc2+ 40 Kh1 Qg6 41 Rf8+ 1-0 A nice example of how to deal with the kind of flailing play that is all too common at club level. Recommended Reading Comeback by Dick Francis (Fawcett 1993)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [9/19/2006 12:10:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [9/19/2006 12:10:36 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Dealing with Distractions

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

America should tell them they have 48 hours to get out of Kuwait and if not, they’ll nuke Baghdad! This is how one grandmaster proposed that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait be dealt with, excitedly explaining it to myself and Lev Psakhis as we sat in the restaurant during one Groningen tournament. He was Bulgarian. Now I don’t have anything against Bulgarians even though my first wife was one of them. I’m not bitter, really I’m not. But for some reason this incident just floated into my mind as the rest room shenanigans unfolded in Elista. Thinking about the origins of this notion, I finally concluded that it’s not a Bulgarian issue. It’s a question of fallout. This was evidently on the Bulgarian Prime Minister’s mind when he wrote to Kirsan stating: I sincerely hope to see all games of the match played. I figure he was talking about game 5, indicating that he valued the reputation of his country (not to mention the Bulgarian tourist industry) higher than his boy’s free point. Victor Korchnoi also weighed in, asking where we would find sponsors with this kind of publicity hitting the headlines:

by Bruce Alberston

All this talk of how someone or other is cheating leaves its mark on chess, on its integrity and honesty, and is very bad. But I hope that means will be found to prevent information being passed, and so to preserve chess as it is. I find it hard to believe that all this talk about toilets is going to lead to an increase in sponsors – after all, it is pretty dirty publicity. I personally had had enough when Topalov’s delegation started comparing

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Kramnik’s choices with those of Fritz, rather obviously hinting that this was suspiciously high. Knowing a little about how this can be done scientifically I sent the following letter to Chessbase, doing my level-best not to foam at the mouth. That’s probably why they didn’t publish it: Dear Chessbase, It was with interest that I read Mr Danailov’s so-called “statistical analysis” of the number of Kramnik’s moves coinciding with the recommendations of Fritz 9. I am not an expert in statistics by any means, but in this case I might be able to offer some advice. In order to show that the number of moves coinciding with Fritz 9’s recommendations in this match is of a certain “significance,” Mr Danailov should test Kramnik’s moves outside the match and then assess whether the “match subset” differs by several standard deviations. In this way he might establish “confidence” limits. There has been some interesting work in this area by Steve Levitt, author of Freakonics, who the Bulgarian team might like to consult (no doubt at huge expense) if they are sincere in their claim. And to demonstrate their integrity and even-handedness they might also commission a similar study of Topalov’s moves, both during the match and after his ascendancy to the number one spot. I would expect that both studies would be entirely consistent with randomness, but who knows? Sincerely, Nigel Davies (International Grandmaster of FIDE) From the point of view of the average enthusiast, I’m sure this has all been a bit of a joke, but a serious issue is raised by this match that should be of interest to every competitive player. How does one deal with an opponent who is out to distract you? You probably won’t get too many people accusing you of using Fritz in the loo, but they could be trying to distract you some other way. I’ve had one guy blow cigar smoke in my face, there are “draw naggers” (people who offer a draw move after move), finger tappers, loud coffee stirrers, people who stand over you, those who chat with their friends within earshot and those who never put their pieces in the middle of the squares. Do you want to try complaining to the arbiter? Well to do this you have to leave the board and explain the situation, all of which can be distracting and make you lose time on the clock. Do you think something will be done? In my experience, arbiters are very reluctant to take any kind of action unless they file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]

Let's Take A Look

personally witness a clear breach of the rules. How could it be any other way? But meanwhile it seems that the cheat is getting an unfair advantage. This may be true in the short term, but it depends largely on how their opponent reacts. Concocting and executing ways of distracting one’s opponent is a distraction in itself, it’s always better to think about the board. So if their opponent doesn’t react, or even motivates himself to try harder their cheating will have backfired. From a longer term perspective the most obvious fallout is that those who do this kind of thing get bad reputations and the only people who will want to deal with them are the equally dodgy. There’s also a more pernicious effect in that cheating is at odds with the noble and fair spirit of chess, fostering the wrong mentality when the cheats come to play. The only dodgy thing about this month’s game is White’s opening and his 25th move. In the endgame Black wins with a spectacular bishop sac to set up two connected passed pawns. Lorens,B – Jefferies,L Chester & District League Division 2, 2005 Sicilian Defence [B20] 1 e4 c5 2 c4 Broadbent used to play this way. It isn’t such a bad idea, but needs to be played accurately. 2...Nc6 3 f4 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Nc3 d6 6 d3 e6 I think that 6...Bg4 is strong here, aiming to remove a piece (the knight on f3) that covers the “hole” on d4. A sample line is 7 Be2 e6 8 Be3 Nge7 9 0-0 0-0 10 Rb1 a6 11 a4 Bxf3 12 Bxf3 Nd4 13 Kh1 Nec6 as in Doman – Bolvary, Balatonlelle 2001. 7 Be2 Nge7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Qe1

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]

Let's Take A Look

After 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Qd2 Nec6 11.Rae1 f5, Black also got a good position in Schaffarth – Scholz, Germany 1992. 9...Nd4 10 Bd1 Nec6 11 Nxd4 Nxd4 12 Kh1 Bd7 13 Rb1 a5 I don’t particularly like this move as White can now close the queenside and achieve approximate equality. The immediate 13...b5 looks like the thematic move. 14 b3 White might have done better to play 14 a4, after which 14...f5 15 Nb5 doesn’t leave Black with much. 14...b5 15 Bb2 Black should probably meet 15 cxb5 with 15...Bxb5! when (15...Nxb5 16 Bb2 looks fairly even) 16 Nxb5 Nxb5 keeps control of the dark squares and in particular d4. 15...b4 I don’t think Black should have closed the position here – it starts to look fairly equal after this. 15...bxc4 seems better, after which 16 bxc4 (16 dxc4 Bc6) 16...Rb8 puts White under pressure. 16 Ne2 Nxe2 17 Qxe2 Qc7 18 Qf2 Bxb2 19 Rxb2 e5 20 Qh4 f5 A standard reaction in such positions. Black could also capture on f4 or play 20…Qd8 before committing himself to either pawn move. 21 Rbf2 Qd8 22 Qh6 Qe7 23 Bf3 Rae8 24 exf5 Bxf5??

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]

Let's Take A Look

This could and should have had very serious consequences. Black’s only good move is 24...Rxf5, after which 25 fxe5 Qxe5 looks about equal. 24...gxf5?! is less good after 25 fxe5 dxe5 (25...Qxe5 26 Bd5+ Kh8 27 Rf3 is awkward) 26 Qb6 etc. 25 Bd5+?? Missing it, and White now has to fight for equality because of his offside queen and worse bishop. 25 fxe5 wins a pawn, because 25...dxe5 (Or 25...Qxe5 26 Bd5+ Kh8 27 g4) 26 Bd5+ Kh8 27 g4 would cost Black a piece. 25...Be6 26 Be4 Qg7 27 Qg5 exf4 28 Rxf4 Rxf4 29 Qxf4 Rf8! The bishop endgame maximizes Black’s winning chances because of White’s very bad bishop. But it’s not easy. 30 Qxf8+ Qxf8 31 Rxf8+ Kxf8 32 h3 Kf7 33 g4? The losing move. White had to march his king to e3, when it won’t be easy for Black to make progress. So 33 Kg1 was correct. 33...Kf6 34 Kg2 Ke5 35 Kf3 Kd4 There’s no way for White to defend that a2-pawn now, but he’s hoping to get counterplay on the kingside. 36 Kf4 Kc3 37 Kg5 Kb2 38 Bc6 Kxa2 39 Ba4 After 39 Kf6, Black can win with 39...Bxg4! (39...Kxb3 40 Kxe6 a4 is also good) 40 hxg4 Kxb3 etc. 39...Bd7!! Very nice indeed. Deflecting the bishop is the quickest way to win. 40 Bxd7 Kxb3 41 Kh6 a4 There’s no stopping Black’s passed pawns. 42 Bxa4+ Kxa4 43 Kxh7 b3 44 Kxg6 b2 0-1

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Recommended Reading Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt (Roughcut, 2005)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

A Man's Limitations

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

A man’s got to know his limitations. – Harry Callahan (played by Clint Eastwood) in Magnum Force There are many paradoxes and apparent contradictions on the path towards better chess. One of them can prove to be a particularly tricky balancing act, knowing one’s limitations whilst continually trying to raise the bar. There is no doubt in my mind that middle-aged men, for example, should not be taking on youngsters in razor sharp openings where tactics and memory are important. On the other hand, they should not retreat into a shell and stagnate. There needs to be a continual test of ones abilities, if only to stave off the inevitable rot that occurs when things are left untouched. A good analogy may be offered by weight training, in which incremental improvement can be made by taking it very easy at first and then gradually increasing the weights. Those who start out with the idea that they are Tarzan can get injured and suffer serious set backs on the road to fitness. Conversely, those who make a concerted and sensible effort over a period of time can be rewarded with remarkable results. Even pensioners have been known to increase their general fitness and bone density by pacing themselves whilst continually raising the bar. How should one go about this at the chessboard? The first step is a realistic assessment of one’s strengths and weaknesses. This is probably best performed either by a stronger player or by analysing where ones good and bad results come from. If, for example, you have far more losses than wins via tactical oversights and the King’s Gambit is bringing you just 25% in practical play, it might be time to reconsider the image of yourself as a swashbuckling gambiteer. Perhaps your tactical skills can be improved, but in my experience many

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [11/13/2006 12:00:19 PM]

Let's Take A Look

players find this difficult. So they’d be better off focusing on areas that can be learned to some extent, while moving over to more solid openings in which tactics have a smaller influence on the outcome. They might get to improve their tactics later, but the first thing should be to discover an area of genuine confidence from which one can start to build. I’m not a great believer in the kill or cure methodology adopted by many coaches, where they get players who struggle with tactical play to adopt the Sicilian Dragon and Grünfeld. Usually they just lose confidence, dutifully trying to simulate a frothing-at-the-mouth wildman, while never really discovering their own voice. Players can waste years doing this, and the longer they do it the harder it is to change. This is especially the case given the amount of time and dedicated effort required to master chess, there really isn’t time to make too many false starts. What are the areas in chess that can be learned? Tactical play is going to be very difficult for many people, as it is highly dependent on innate talent. On the other hand, most people can acquire a modicum of endgame technique and learn what sorts of moves are appropriate in typical structures. It’s always going to be more difficult for them and accidents will continue to happen. But a start can be made and the bar gradually raised. And the big difference between this and the kill or cure technique is that the player concerned is more likely to taste a bit of success. The following game is a well-controlled effort by Black, especially considering the semi-rapid time limit. Certainly he stayed well within his limitations though some of the moves were a bit too restrictive. My impression is that the time is ripe to raise the bar and pursue this solid positional style in a slightly more sprightly fashion. ERaulli (1963) - Galaxian (2051) ICC 30/30 2006 Reti Opening [A13] 1 Nf3 d5 2 c4 e6 Offering a classic Queen’s Gambit Declined, which at club level offers just as many winning chances as more sexy defences, such as the Semi-Slav and King’s Indian, but without the same concerns about having to “know theory.” Not that many people listen... 3 b3 Nf6 4 Bb2 Be7 5 g3 0-0 6 Bg2 b6 7 0-0 Bb7 8 d3 c5 9 e3 Nc6 10 d4?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [11/13/2006 12:00:19 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Looks like I’ve got another customer for my book, The Dynamic Reti! This second advance of White’s d-pawn is clearly wrong, if White wants to play like this, then he should have tried 8 e3 c5 9 d4, saving a tempo. The problem is that the c4pawn is going to be weak, something that Black immediately recognises. A couple of other moves have been tried here for White: a) 10 Nbd2 Rc8 11 Qe2 Rc7 12 Rad1 Rd7 13 cxd5 Nxd5 14 Nc4 Qa8 15 e4 Nf6 16 Nfe5 Nd4 17 Bxd4 Rxd4 18 f4 Rdd8 19 g4 Nd7 20 Nxd7 Rxd7 21 g5 gave White attacking chances on the kingside to compensate for the bishops and the weak d4-square in Khasin – M. Yudovich jr, USSR 1968. b) 10 Qe2 dxc4 11 bxc4 Qc7 12 Nc3 a6 13 Rfd1 Rfd8 14 Rac1 Rab8 15 Ba1 Na7 16 Nd2 Bxg2 17 Kxg2 b5 18 cxb5 axb5 19 Kg1 Qb6 20 Nce4 Nd7 21 Nb3 Rbc8 and the position was fairly balanced in Petursson – Helmers, Reykjavik 1981. 10...dxc4 11 bxc4 Qc7 There might have been a case for 11…Rc8, as the queen gets attacked with Nc3-b5 in some lines, after which the knight can defend the c4-pawn with Nb5-a3. 12 Nc3 Rac8?! Giving White a brief opportunity to justify his play. Black should have played the immediate 12...cxd4, when 13 Nb5 (13 exd4 Na5 leaves White with no good way of defending the c-pawn.) 13...Qc8 14 exd4 a6 15 Na3 (15 Nc3 Na5) 15...Rd8 is rather good for Black, as White’s pieces are inappropriately posted to support the “hanging pawns” on d4 and c4. 13 Qe2?! Missing it. White had to try 13 d5!, when 13...Rcd8 14 Qb1! exd5 15 Ng5! creates unexpected problems for Black’s king, the threat being 16 Nxd5, exposing the weakness of h7. 13...Rfd8 14 Rfd1 cxd4 15 exd4? Leaving himself with a c-pawn problem. He had to try 15 Nb5 Qb8 16 exd4 a6 17 Na3, which is unattractive, but it at least maintains material parity. 15...Na5 16 Ne5 file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [11/13/2006 12:00:19 PM]

Let's Take A Look

16 d5 was a better shot at “mixing it,” but still looks good for Black after 16...Qxc4 17 dxe6 Qxe6 18 Qxe6 fxe6 19 Rxd8+ Rxd8 20 Re1 Nc4 21 Rxe6 Bc5 22 Ba1 Ng4 23 Re2 Nxf2 24 Rxf2 Rf8, recovering the piece and remaining a pawn ahead. 16...Bxg2 17 Kxg2 Nxc4 18 Nb5 Qb7+ 19 Kg1 Nxb2 20 Qxb2 Nd5 Black has emerged a good pawn up with a solid position, and many annotators like to declare that “the rest is a matter of technique” in such situations. I’d like to add that this never seems so easy when you’re sitting at the board, but one is assured that the guy making the notes would make light work of it if he were in your shoes. 21 Rac1 a6 22 Na3 Rxc1 If I have a (slight) criticism of Black’s play in this game, it’s that he simplifies with a little too much haste and lets some of his advantage slip. Here, for example, 22...b5 looks very good, playing against the knight on a3. But it’s better to err on this side of things rather than try to finish with a flourish. Many a win has been thrown away because the player with the advantage became too cocky. 23 Rxc1 Bxa3 24 Qxa3 Rc8 25 Rb1 Rc3 Logically preparing to double on the c-file. But 25...Nc3 would have been stronger, hitting both the rook on b1 and threatening 26...Ne2+. White’s only good move is 26 Re1 (26 Rb2 Qe4!), when 26...b5 would start the victorious advance of Black’s queenside pawns. 26 Qd6 Qc7 27 Qd7 Qxd7 28 Nxd7 Rc7 29 Nb8? This “should” have led to the incarceration of White’s knight. 29 Nc5 was “better,” but this should be winning for Black after 29...a5, followed by centralising his king. 29...a5 30 Na6 Rc2?

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [11/13/2006 12:00:19 PM]

Let's Take A Look

30...Rc8 followed by 31...Kf8 and 32...Ra8 appears to trap the knight. The text is also winning, but it’s not as easy, and that in turn means that the odds of White somehow slipping off the hook are higher. 31 Nc5 Kf8?! Here 31...Rxa2 is stronger, as after 32 Nd7 f6 33 Nxb6 Nc3, Black will be winning the d4-pawn with 34...Ne2+. 32 Nd7+ Ke7 33 Nxb6 Nxb6 While it’s not true that “all rook endgames are drawn,” one certainly should be wary of their drawish tendencies. I feel that Black went into this rather too compliantly. 34 Rxb6 Rxa2 35 Rb7+ Kf6 36 Kg2 a4 37 g4? This unilateral weakening of the kingside should be avoided, and not least because it allows Black to get his rook out from being in front of the passed pawn. 37 Ra7 is better, when it’s far from easy for Black to win. 37...Rd2! 38 g5+ Kg6 39 Rb4 a3 Passed pawns must be pushed, the main point being that it will tie White’s rook down and enable Black to activate his king. 40 h4 a2 41 Ra4 Kf5 Finally Black is cooking with gas – the a-pawn ties White’s rook down and meanwhile he gets to work on the kingside pawn weaknesses. 37 g4? was a really bad move. 42 Kg3 Ke4 43 f4 f6 There were other ways to win this endgame, but this is efficient enough. 44 Kg4 fxg5 45 fxg5 g6 46 Ra6 Kd5 46...Kxd4 is also good.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [11/13/2006 12:00:19 PM]

Let's Take A Look

47 h5 Rxd4+ 0-1 Recommended Reading Magnum Force starring Clint Eastwood (1973) The Dynamic Reti by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2004)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [11/13/2006 12:00:19 PM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Enhancing Chess Player Performance

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Much conventional chess literature seems to focus on learning from one’s mistakes or learning particular strategies through unpleasant hard work. Are these methods effective? I don’t believe so. And what’s more I think they permeate our culture in areas outside of chess. Areas such as the education of our kids for example. I think I know where this thinking comes from. Judeo-Christian tradition is founded upon the idea of sin and punishment thereof. So Western culture is imbued with the idea that we must suffer for our sins, and only through this suffering can we obtain absolution. So if we move our bishop to an inappropriate square, the sin we suffer for it is a loss, and to be absolved we must suffer some more by studying some boring treatise on the matter. Crime and punishment, getting our just deserts. But let’s pretend for a moment that it doesn’t have to be that way. What if the way to improve one’s chess wasn’t through suffering and correcting our sinful ways, but rather through seeking pleasure? Curiously enough it seems that really strong players haven’t suffered too much in acquiring their expertise, and in fact they seem to be having plenty of fun when they do chess, whether it’s playing or analysing. Do any chess books talk about this? None that I know of. You might find some references to Mikhail Tal drinking vodka as he played blitz with his trainers, but the way this is written, it’s described as his undoing. Mikhail Botvinnik reinforced this idea by stating: “If Tal would learn to program himself properly, then it would become impossible to play him.” Yet what if Botvinnik’s remark was just more of the backhanded politicking for which he was so famous? What if Tal’s blitz games were his main form of training, and a form that worked well with his strengths of rapid calculation

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [12/16/2006 11:16:43 AM]

Let's Take A Look

and psychological awareness? Why should blitz be a worse form of training than stuff like analysing our games and berating ourselves for our bad moves? Especially if playing and experimenting is what turns our chess brains on. Tal replied to Botvinnik’s remark many years later, but one has to read between the lines and understand his sense of irony to see that he didn’t really agree. Laughingly he stated: “Botvinnik’s right! When he says such things, then he’s right. Usually, I prefer not to study chess but to play it. For me chess is more an art than a science. It’s been said that Alekhine and I played similar chess, except that he studied more. Yes, perhaps, but I have to say that he played, too.” Botvinnik didn’t play too much, but this wasn’t seen as a major failing. Historical perspective often depends on who did the writing. Whilst there may not be any chess books that disagree with the conventional view, I recently came across one in my other field of trading. Brett Steenbarger’s new book, Enhancing Trader Performance presents cutting edge research into the acquisition of competence and expertise. Steenbarger presents a strong case for aspiring experts to follow a path that they naturally enjoy and do well. This fosters confidence, a willingness to engage themselves and leads them to develop unique strengths. Steenbarger also mentions another interesting book focussing heavily on strength building; Now, Discover Your Strengths by Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton makes the case that people develop their potential by building on their strengths rather than overcoming weaknesses. What does this mean in practice? That people who are good and patient researchers may be very comfortable with studying the old fashioned way, but this just isn’t for everyone. When I was running The Power Chess Program as a course and sending out monthly units, I noticed that accountants seemed to do particularly well and were usually on time with returning the coursework. But people from other backgrounds struggled with this and often gave up after a few months. The conventional view of the quitters would be that they just didn’t have the dedication. A more enlightened conclusion might be that perhaps this form of training just wasn’t for them and that they needed another way. How do you find the right way? Steenbarger suggests: “Whatever your distinctive abilities may be, you’re probably already engaging in them.” Seen in this light it’s probably only worth trying to hit the books if this has been a lifetime characteristic. Those who learn from experience, on the other hand, should probably aim to improve by playing. My own experience with books has always been a troubled one and I’ve never cared too much for blitz chess either. But what I’ve always enjoyed has been to ask questions, try to look at things from a different perspective and then hopefully come up with something of my own. So I’d start out by looking at a book or magazine as a starting point for a lot

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [12/16/2006 11:16:43 AM]

Let's Take A Look

of questions. If something attracted my interest I’d look at it more carefully, and the fact that my mind would then be engaged stimulated study and growth. It may seem hugely inefficient rather than simply studying and imbibing “known” answers, but I’d argue that this has been my own particular route to improvement and as such I should stick to it. Actually I should do more of it before my rating slips any lower! And I’d advise the reader to find a similar key to his or her own performance. This month’s game is a solid performance by White, winning material in the early middlegame and then converting it with consistency and accuracy. It was a friendly game organised when the opposing team didn’t turn up. Jones,D (1008) - Spicer,F (1304) Friendly Game, 2004 Philidor Defence [C41] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 c5?! Creating a substantial “hole” on d5. Recently there’s been a surge in popularity for 4...Nf6 5 Nc3 Be7, which is an old line used by Antoshin. Black’s other possibility is 4...g6, which was originally popularised by Bent Larsen and then used extensively by British Master John Littlewood. 5 Nf3 5 Bb5+ was also worth a thought, not least since the exchange of light-squared bishops will accentuate the weakness of d5. Black’s best is probably 5...Nd7 6 Nf5 a6, but then 7 Bxd7+ Qxd7 8 Nc3 looks very good. 5...Nf6 6 Nc3 Bg4 6...Be6 looks better, covering the d5-square and stopping White from putting a bishop on c4. 7 Be2 Be7 8 Bf4 0-0 9 Nd2 Qc8 10 Nc4 10 Bxg4 Nxg4 11 Nd5 would have been another good way to do things. 10...Rd8 Black should probably have played 10...Bxe2 11 Qxe2 Nc6, though in any

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [12/16/2006 11:16:43 AM]

Let's Take A Look

case this is very good for White after 12 0-0-0. Black won’t easily rid himself of the weaknesses on the d-file. 11 Qd2 Be6 12 0-0-0 Black’s next move frees his position and comes close to equality. White could and should have prevented it with 12 Ne3. 12...d5 13 exd5 Nxd5 14 Nxd5 Bxd5 15 Qe3 Bf6 Just as he was getting out of trouble, Black puts himself right back in it again. The right way to defend the bishop on e7 was with 15...Nc6. 16 Nd6 Qc6? Losing. Black has to play 16...Qe6, even though he’s facing threats after 17 Qxe6 fxe6 18 Rxd5! exd5 19 Nxb7, when Black’s position falls apart after 19...Rc8 20 Bf3. 17 Bb5! Bd4 18 Qe7?! This might have let Black up for air. White can develop a winning attack with 18 Rxd4!; for example, 18...cxd4 19 Qg3 Qb6 20 Bh6 g6 21 Qe5, etc. 18...Bf6?? Missing his last chance. 18...Qb6 keeps Black on the board, now he is totally lost. 19 Bxc6 Bxe7 20 Bxd5 Bxd6 21 Bxd6 Nc6 After 21...Rxd6 22 Bxb7, Black loses a rook. 22 Rhe1 Rxd6 23 Bxf7+! Kxf7 24 Rxd6

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [12/16/2006 11:16:43 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Having won the exchange and a pawn, the endgame is a clear win for White. But what’s good here is that he doesn’t give Black any chances, not something that’s always seen in club games. 24…a5 25 Rd7+ Kf6 26 Rxb7 That makes it a rook and two pawns. 26…Rc8 27 Rb3 c4 28 Rf3+ Kg5 29 Re4 Nb4 30 h4+ Kh6 31 g4 g6 32 Rff4 32.Rf7 would have been a bit quicker, White’s first threat being mate via 33 g5+. But the text doesn’t spoil anything. 32...Nxa2+ 33 Kb1 Nb4 34 Rxc4 Rd8 35 Rfd4 Nc6 The exchange of rooks makes things easier for White, so this should really have been avoided. But in such a hopeless position there’s not really much he can do if White plays accurately. 36 Rxd8 Nxd8 37 Rc5 Nb7 38 Rb5 A good and noteworthy move would have been 38 Rd5!, leaving the knight without a way out. Bishops can also do this to the short-stepping knight. 38…Nd6 39 Rxa5 Nc4 40 Ra4 Nb6 41 Ra6 Nc4 42 b4 Ne5 43 b5 Nxg4 44 f3 44 b6 would have promoted the pawn, but it doesn’t matter much. 44…Ne5 45 b6 Nxf3 46 b7 Nxh4 47 b8Q Nf3 Black could have called it a day at this point, but he continues the game as long as he has pieces left. 48 Ra5 g5 49 Rf5 Nd4 50 Rf6+ Kh5 51 Qg3 g4 52 Qe5+ Kh4 53 Qxd4 1-0 There was mate in one with 53 Rh6, but the text was quite enough to get Black to resign. Recommended Reading file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [12/16/2006 11:16:43 AM]

Let's Take A Look

Enhancing Trader Performance by Brett Steenbarger (Wiley, 2006) Now, Discover Your Strengths by Marcus Buckingham and Donald Clifton (Pocket Books, 2005)

Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [12/16/2006 11:16:43 AM]

Let's Take A Look

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

The Longest Goodbye

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Amongst my New Year resolutions I have decided to give up correspondence chess. It requires a lot of time and organisation to indulge in such a hobby, and even at the speed with which I play these games (kind of like blitz, but with Fritz running in the background) it’s a time consuming activity – especially when you start playing many of them. I’ve still got a handful of games going on, and they might take a while to finish. But these will be the last. I had an excuse of course, that I was using them as training for my OTB (overthe-board) chess. But given that the prizes I seem capable of winning in OTB chess are only good for beer money these days (and not very many beers at that), any justification on “professional” grounds is stretching it a bit. Of course many of us want to improve our game for other reasons, such as a sense of personal achievement. In this case, I think that correspondence chess can be a great idea and help players to improve a number of different aspects of their game. First and foremost, in correspondence tournaments which allow computer usage players can use sensible openings without having to worry that you don’t know them. And the process of looking up and using such lines helps build the confidence to then employ them in “over-the-board” tournaments. Secondly, there’s the sheer quality of your opponent’s moves. On their own they may not be that strong, but armed with ChessBase and a powerful chess engine, the quality of moves coming at you is the kind of thing you’d expect from going to a tournament in Russia. And this, at least in the old days, was thought to be a good thing. The “Knez,” Milorad Knezevic, once told me that he tried to play one

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [1/15/2007 2:31:31 PM]

Let's Take A Look

tournament in Russia every year to purify his game, which was actually a good investment even when the prizes were in unconvertible roubles. The hurly-burly of Swiss tournaments certainly has its downside – needing to win most of your games to get a decent prize can lead to an unduly risky approach in which the boundaries of “correct chess” are stretched a tad too far. And when this becomes a habit you’re on the slippery slope downhill, good at beating weaker players quickly, but without the class to play the really strong guys on even terms. Of course not many OTB players see my point of view, at least not at first. “What’s the point,” they ask. “Isn’t it just a question of having the better chess engine, and some of these guys are going to beat you just because of that!” And yes they’re right in what they say, at least to some extent. But where we differ is in the idea that the benefits might outweigh the humiliation of losing to a 1600 player plus Fritz on a super-computer. Now sure it hurts, at least at first. But, now there have been “I beat Nigel Davies” parties held worldwide and I stopped worrying about it. Correspondence play has helped certain aspects of my OTB game (slowing the rot mainly) so I got what I wanted out of it. The only other OTB grandmasters I’ve known to take to correspondence chess is Ulf Andersson. I saw him at one Four Nations Chess League (the British National League) event and asked him why it stopped. It turned out to be the same reason as me – the whole exercise took way too much time. So, OK, let’s say you want to improve your game, are willing to risk humiliation (actually it’s more a certainty than a risk) and have a serious amount of time you’re willing to invest. How do you get started? Well, first of all you need to decide if you’re going to mess around with emailing moves or play on one of the servers where you enter your moves online. I’ve given the emailing lark a try and found it horribly messy, so I’d recommend only using a server. I was playing mainly on FICGS, but there are a number of others. I suspect that in time all correspondence chess will be played this way and can’t understand why anyone would want to do it otherwise (unless of course they didn’t have Internet access). Make sure that the rules state that you can use a computer freely during the games, which is important in order to reap the two main benefits of building your own openings and having your opponents play like gods. Check the rules, and especially the time limits carefully (there can be some rules that are somewhat alien to OTB players, such as time controls every 10 moves) and then make sure you can manage the number of games you take on. There’s a temptation to plunge in with 30 games to get as much of this new training method as possible, but this will require a serious amount of effort and organisation. Start with one tournament and finish all the games before assessing how many you might want to take on in the future. There’s a case for quality being better than quantity, especially with regards to your opening research during the games.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [1/15/2007 2:31:31 PM]

Let's Take A Look

The following game sees a mainly OTB player, Richard Perrin, getting some useful practice with correspondence chess and winning a good game. It’s taken from the 2005-2006 British Correspondence Chess Championship. Perrin,R - Tibbert,P BCCC 2005-2006 Candidates B, 2005-6 Nimzo – Indian Defence [E32] 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 It’s almost refreshing to see this played rather than the “Tromp” (2 Bg5) or London System (2 Nf3 followed by 3 Bf4). Such is the desire do avoid “theory” at club level, though now the “Tromp” is a main line too. 2…e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Qc2 Capablanca’s preference, which to this day is seen as one of the main challenges to the Nimzo. White is going for the bishop-pair, but without contracting doubled c-pawns. Can Black get enough compensation with the time White’s using on this plan? 4...0-0 One of several moves. 4…c5 is also quite popular, as is 4…d5 (the one I played in my Nimzo days). Less usual, but still very interesting is the Zurich Variation with 4…Nc6. 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 Qxc3 b6 Once again the most popular move, but there are alternatives. Of the more active options, I’ve played 6…Ne4 in one of my own correspondence games, whilst Adorjan has popularised the Vitolins Gambit line, 6…b5 7 cxb5 c6. All very theoretical. 7 Bg5 Bb7 8 Nf3 h6 9 Bh4 d5 I can’t say I’m crazy about this Queen’s Gambit style move, when the only darksquared bishop on the board belongs to White. The usual approach in such positions is to put your pawns on the opposite colour to your remaining bishop, which would rather indicate that 9...d6 is the way to go. 10 cxd5 exd5 11 e3 Nbd7

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [1/15/2007 2:31:31 PM]

Let's Take A Look

Searching my database I found only one game in this line: Ehlvest – Kiriakov, Stratton Mountain USA 2003. It featured 11...c5 and was drawn after a couple more moves. Games like this can’t be taken too seriously, as you never know whether or not the players were halving out for practical reasons (i.e. prizes) and just making a few perfunctory moves to keep the tournament director happy. Been there and done it myself. 12 Bd3 Rc8?! And this is a downright weird-looking move – if Black’s plan is to play ...c7c5, then why on earth does it need preparing? Black’s rook is now vulnerable to Bd3-f5 type ideas, when both his knights are pinned. 13 0-0 c5 14 Qd2 14 Bf5 was certainly worth considering here, threatening to give Black doubled pawns on the kingside by taking either knight (plus things like 15 Ne5, but let’s see Black’s 14th move first). Not pleasant for Black. 14...Qe7 15 Rac1 Now Black can kind of handle 15 Bf5 with 15...Rfd8, though this still isn’t that great for him. In any case, he’s going to be worse because of White’s bishop-pair. 15...Qe6 16 dxc5 bxc5 17 b4 Ne4 18 Qe2 18 Qb2 was worth considering here, getting on the b-file and continuing to keep the queen in contact with the d4-square. 18...Rc7 19 bxc5 White can also exploit the pin on Black’s c5-pawn with the immediate 19 Nd4. In any case, he’s in excellent shape here. 19...Rxc5 20 Nd4 Qd6?! 20...Qe5 was a better shot. When White’s knight lands on f5, the storm clouds gather quickly around Black’s king. 21 Nf5 Qe6 22 Qg4 This is a particularly nasty mate threat, because Black can’t interpose his file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [1/15/2007 2:31:31 PM]

Let's Take A Look

queen (22…Qg6 23 Ne7+). So Black has to move the g-pawn, one square or two. 22…g5?! After this White gets in a nice combination. 22...g6 was more tenacious, though admittedly the endgame is rather grizzly after 23 Bxe4 dxe4 24 Nxh6+ Kg7 25 Qxe6 fxe6 26 Ng4 etc. 23 Bxg5! Nxg5?! Black should try to hang on with 23...hxg5, though White would be winning after 24 Bxe4 Qf6 25 Bb1. Now he loses on the spot. 24 Rxc5 Nxc5 25 Qd4 Nf3+ A desperate try for some counter play. 25...f6 26 Qxc5 would be miserable indeed. 26 gxf3 Qg6+ It always makes people feel better to check before losing, but I’m not sure why. 27 Kh1 Kh7 28 Rg1 Ne6 Or 28…Nxd3 29 Rxg6 Nxf2+ 30 Kg2 etc. 29 Qh4 Ng5 30 Nxh6 1-0 A nice game on White’s part. Recommended Reading Classical Nimzo-Indian by Bogdan Lalic (Everyman, 2001) The Trompowsky by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2005)

Copyright 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [1/15/2007 2:31:31 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [1/15/2007 2:31:31 PM]

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Computers as Shrinks

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

In an attempt to overcome limitations inherent in conventional computer-aided diagnosis, investigators have created programs that simulate expert human reasoning. Hopes that such a strategy would lead to clinically useful programs have not been fulfilled, but many of the problems impeding creation of effective artificial intelligence programs have been solved. Strategies have been developed to limit the number of hypotheses that a program must consider and to incorporate pathophysiologic reasoning. The latter innovation permits a program to analyze cases in which one disorder influences the presentation of another. Prototypes embodying such reasoning can explain their conclusions in medical terms that can be reviewed by the user. Despite these advances, further major research and developmental efforts will be necessary before expert performance by the computer becomes a reality. – Abstract from a paper by Peter Szolovits, Ph.D.; Ramesh S. Patil, Ph.D.; and William B. Schwartz, M.D.; Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts Medical science has been investigating the concept of computer diagnostics for a while, there’s quite a way to go. The problem for computers is that their reasoning may be insufficiently subtle to unravel more complex human ailments, and the problems will be much greater when dealing with the complex and often contradictory features of the human mind. Little wonder then that computer aided chess annotations are often disappointing. The computer will spot tactical opportunities, but computer generated verbal comments are usually quite inappropriate. The computer doesn’t understand what’s happening in a game, it merely computes variations and finds those that are most favourable according to its algorithm. As artificial intelligence stands at the moment, the best the programmers can do is find things that are fairly bland and hopefully amusing.

One particular area in which computers cannot help is in understanding patterns of mistakes and their origin within the human psyche. In my own work as a coach I’ve found that discovering the cause of such patterns is exceptionally useful to a player as they can then go about improving. When errors seem to occur randomly and for no particular reason it’s very difficult to know how to address them. Perhaps worse still is when the computer detects no error at all, but then suddenly pronounces your position as lost! This month’s game, sent to me by Valence Jordan, was a good example of this: I recently lost an important game in my pet Caro-Kann. Chessmaster 10th Edition found no fault with the play on either side until I was already lost! I made a commitment not to lose a game without learning from my mistakes. What are they please? Well, on the basis of this game there is a common thread to the errors, that of excessive passivity. But where exactly does such a tendency come from? Whilst I’d need to see more games for confirmation, I’ve tended to find that players “learn” to keep their heads down when they’ve been beaten too many times in tactical battles, so they try to avoid this happening by “playing solidly.” But the weakness is still there just waiting to be found, and meanwhile many of the strategic battles will also be lost because the player concerned will retreat rather than have the pieces come into conflict. Curing this isn’t easy because the weakness may well be there because of a plain lack of tactical talent. Without that it’s very difficult to help people improve, you can try to work around it, but progress will be slow. A N Other – Jordan,V Internet Game Caro-Kann [B19] 1 e4 c6 The Caro’s not a bad idea for the club player, especially those who are less tactically inclined. One line that Black will tend to get in practice is 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Nc6 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 Be2 e6, with White often losing the d4-pawn within a few moves. Club chess is not the same as world championship chess, a factoid that is often lost on both club players and those who claim to write books for them. 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Bf5 With 4...Nd7 having been all the rage in recent years, the text is almost an oddity. Which probably means it’s a good time to start playing it again.

5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nf3 Nd7 8 Bd3 8 h5 Bh7 9 Bd3 is more usual, with similar positions to the game, just with White’s h-pawn on h5. 8...Bxd3 9 Qxd3 e6 At one time 9…Qc7 was considered more accurate because of White’s reply, but then they discovered that it probably transposed back anyway. 10 Bf4 Qa5+ 11 Bd2 Qc7 12 0-0-0 Ngf6 13 c4 Bd6 This natural move is arguably a bit passive. 13...b5 is a more incisive continuation, fighting for the d5-square. A correspondence game Meyer – Shakarov, USSR 1979 continued 14 cxb5 (14 c5 is probably better) 14...cxb5+ 15 Kb1 Bd6 16 Ne4 Nxe4 17 Qxe4 0-0 18 Ng5 and now 18...Nf6 19 Qf3 Rac8 would have been the simplest line, with rather the better game for Black. 14 Ne4 Nxe4 The immediate 14...Bf4 may well be better, leading to simplifications though not necessarily equality. 15 Qxe4 Nf6 16 Qe2 Bf4?! This exchanges another pair of pieces, but it leaves Black quite passively placed. The game Dembo – Werner, Budapest 2003 witnessed a somewhat more active treatment for Black in 16...0-0 17 Bc3 b5, when 18 c5 Bf4+ 19 Kb1 Qd8 20 g3 Bc7 21 g4 Qd5 22 g5 Qe4+ 23 Qc2 Qxc2+ 24 Kxc2 Nd5 gave him quite a good position. 17 Ne5 Bxd2+ 18 Rxd2 Nd7 19 Rh3 Rd8? This should have led to even worse trouble than it did in the game. Black should try to simplify here with 19...Nxe5 20 dxe5 0-0, though admittedly this is far from pleasant after 21 Rd6. 20 f4 Not bad, but not the best either. White had a much stronger move in 20 Qg4!, the

point being that 20...0-0? loses to 21 Rg3 g6 22 Nxg6, etc. 20...Nxe5?! Black will find it difficult to get counterplay after this exchange, one of the main problems being that a later ...c6-c5 will be met by d4-d5. He should play the cold-blooded 20...0-0, after which 21 Rg3 Nf6 doesn’t seem to be fatal. Black is ready to play 22...c5. 21 fxe5 g6? And this is very bad, not just weakening Black’s kingside but ruling out counterplay based on ...f7-f6. For better or worse Black had to play 21...Qe7, intending to castle and then play ...f7-f6. He’s worse, but not decisively so. 22 Qf1 Qe7 23 g4? Letting Black off the hook for a second time. 23 Qf4 is much stronger, stopping Black from castling by hitting h6 and after 23...h5 waiting for Black to commit his king to the kingside before playing g2-g4. It all looks very unpleasant for Black. 23...h5! 24 g5 Rf8?? As there was no indication in Black’s notes that this was a mouse-slip, I will work on the assumption that it was deliberate. In this case one has to ask why Black should have preferred it to 24...0-0, still protecting the f7-pawn, but with the added bonus of getting the king to safety and connecting the rooks? Whatever the answer it turns a reasonable position into a very bad one, which is why I have awarded it two question marks. 25 a3 Another good move would have been 25 Kb1. 25...Rd7 26 Rhd3 Rg8? The proverbial fiddling whilst Rome burns. Black has to try getting his king to the queenside with 26...Kd8, when 27 d5 doesn’t quite seem to put the ball in the net after 27...exd5 28.cxd5 cxd5 29.Rxd5 Rxd5 30.Rxd5+ Kc7, etc. 27 Kb1?! White should probably have shown a little

more urgency with 27 d5; for example, 27...exd5 28 cxd5 cxd5 29 Rxd5 Rxd5 30 Rxd5 Kf8 31 Qf6, etc. Now Black’s king gets a second chance to head for the hills on the queenside. 27...Kf8 27...Kd8 was still the best attempt to get his rooks connected. Now his position is deeply horrid. 28 Qf6 Ke8 29 d5 cxd5? 29...Qxf6 was probably the best try, but in any case it’s bad for Black after 30 exf6 exd5 31 cxd5 c5 32 Rc3 b6 33.b4. 30 cxd5 Qxf6 31 exf6 And not 31 gxf6? because of 31...Rxd5 32 Rxd5 exd5 33 Rxd5 g5!, finally getting his rook on g8 back into the game. 31...e5 The e5-pawn drops after this, but it’s probably the best try in relative terms. 31... exd5 32.Rxd5 Rxd5 33.Rxd5 leaves Black helpless against an invasion by White’s king, moving the king to f8 allows Rd8 mate. 32 Re2 32 d6 is also very good, threatening 33 Rc3. 32...Kd8 33 Rxe5 Kc7 Or if 33...Re8, there might have followed 34 Rxe8+ Kxe8 35 d6, etc. 34 d6+ Kc6 35 Re7 Rgd8 36 Kc2 b5 37 Kc3 Kc5 38 b4+ Kc6 39 Kb3 a6 40 a4 bxa4+ 41 Kxa4 Rxd6 42 Rc3+ 42 Rxd6+ Kxd6 43 Rxf7 is also good. 42...Kb6 43 Rxf7 Rd4 44 Rfc7 R8d6 45 R7c4 Rxc4 46 Rxc4 Rd8 47 Rf4 Rf8 48 f7 Kc7 49 Ka5 Kb7 50 Rf6 1-0 Recommended Reading

Rapid Chess Improvement by Michael de la Maza (Everyman Chess, 2002)

Copyright 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Underdogs and Favourites If there’s one cultural quality we have, it’s that we always see ourselves as an underdog. – Bill Gates

Let’s Take A Look...

When I was first here, we had the advantages of the underdog. Now we have the disadvantages of the overdog. – Abba Eban

Nigel Davies

I never expect to lose. Even when I’m the underdog, I still prepare a victory speech. – H. Jackson Brown, Jr. The general consensus is that underdogs have a psychological advantage in competitive fields. There may be a large slice of truth to this, people will tend to root for them and the favourite may feel under pressure to win. Certainly I’ve seen plenty of favourites make an awful mess of the job of winning, the usual problem being that in their pursuit of victory they forget about the need to play good moves. So they try a blustering demonstration in the direction of their opponent’s king, avoid exchanges and play quickly if they miss something. All of which leads itself to a severe decrease in playing strength, thus increasing the chance of an upset. The underdog, on the other hand, may feel he has little to lose and can play in a relatively carefree fashion. They might feel that people are cheering them on and can “blackmail” their opponents with drawish positions so as to force them to take risks. Underdogs may not use all of their available tactics, but they certainly have many advantages. So what’s a poor favourite to do? It’s been a long time since I was an underdog, and even when I’m playing some scary wunderkind I don’t feel very much public support. Yet favourites too have a number of tactics they can employ that may help even the odds, and most of them are legal. Here are a few of them: ●

●

●

You can use your status as favourite to indulge in a certain amount of calculated bluffing. Would grandmaster XYZ really offer this pawn without it being a deadly trap? Or if he’s playing such a rotten opening, surely he has a devastating innovation in mind? Try to play openings that were popular before your opponent was active in tournament play. He’s far less likely to know them and may underestimate them as well. Assuming the underdog has been studying your games – try to play something that’s off your usual script.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

If the underdog’s supporters are supplying him or her with crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks, bear in mind that the adrenaline high will wear off after a while and produce a low. So take your time and steer the game towards quieter positions in which adrenaline backed calculation is inappropriate. If you see him start to flake out, sharpen it up again. If the supporters are getting too close to the board or having too much contact with their player, report them to the arbiter and throw in an accusation that you think they might be using Fritz. Claim that the device is in his mother’s handbag or under garments, even chess prodigies don’t like their mothers to be strip searched. If the underdog has a lucky mascot on the table, look for an opportunity to nudge it onto the floor. By accident, of course. If your opponent offers you a draw, pretend not to hear it rather than giving an answer (unless your position is really bad of course). If you have plenty of time on the clock, “forget” to press your clock after one of your moves. If you are gently reminded then you may choose to spare the upstart too much further cruelty. In any case it helps create the illusion that you’re a bumbling old fool whose time has passed. If your opponent has more space, move your pieces slightly towards the back edge of the squares so as to create the illusion that his space advantage is even greater. If your opponent has the better game you might want to offer a draw in order to raise his expectations. Try to look scared when you do so. Use the post mortem to create more illusions and supply more misinformation. For example, you might give the impression of having seen nothing during the game, which can be reinforced if you actually say that you were lucky and he deserved to win. Another idea is to announce that next time you’ll play a King’s Gambit and with any luck he’ll spend three hours preparing for it. Be very friendly. There’s more chance that you’ll be believed. Only give the game away if you’re hired to be the underdog’s coach. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

In this month’s game we have an apparent mismatch between experienced Irish International Suzanne Connolly and 13-year-old Steven Hanly, the latter being 260 points lower rated. But when the game starts Connolly’s apparent reluctance to exchange pieces soon lands her in hot water and then a knight gets trapped in the middle of the board. Hanly,S (1754) - Connolly,S (2014) Queen’s Pawn Game [D02] Bunratty Masters 2007 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c6 There are times when I think that FIDE should just ban the Slav and Semi-Slav. The threat to capture White’s pawn on c4 encourages a very concrete approach to the opening for which nobody has any time. Of course this could be nothing more than sour grapes on my part, as it has been a major reason why I no longer enjoy playing 1 d4. In the 1980s and ‘90s you got far more King’s Indians and Benonis. Yum yum. 3 e3 What a pleasure it is to see a young player adopting a solid opening, rather than going all out in some sharp Sicilian. Most juniors will try to bamboozle their opponents with sharp openings and tactics rather than play a chess game.

3…Nf6 4 b3 4 c4 is a sharper move, transposing into a trendy line of the Slav Defence. Yet there’s nothing wrong with simple development. 4...Bg4 5 Be2 e6 6 Bb2 Bd6 I think there’s a case for the more modest 6...Be7, one of the points being that if a white knight lands on e5, it will be easier for Black to exchange it with one of his own knights. 7 Nbd2 0-0 8 0-0 Nbd7 9 Ne5 Bf5 And here the exchange of bishops on e2 would have been simpler. Now White gets the chance to cause some problems by advancing his kingside pawns. 10 f4 It was also worth considering the immediate 10 g4, when 10...Bg6 11 Nxg6 hxg6 12 f4 looks better for White than the game. 10...Be4?! 10...Ne4 is better, trying to establish the bishop on e4 by first exchanging knights. I sense that Black might have wanted to avoid exchanges because she was the higher rated player, but this should not stop someone from doing the right thing. The way the game goes, Black must have regretted not exchanging that knight, as it later suffers a terrible fate. 11 g4! A really awkward move for Black to meet, and the main problem with 10...Be4. But kudos to young Hanly for having the courage to play this way. 11...Ne8 12 Nxe4 dxe4 Black’s pawn structure has been permanently discombobulated. It doesn’t look like the pawns are particularly weak, but often one finds that the damage caused impedes flexibility and the possibility of forming effective plans. Such is the case here. 13 Qe1 Qe7 14 Nc4 f5 Supporting the e4-pawn, but giving White even more latitude on the kingside. Of course, Black’s position may not be defensible unless there’s also pressure to actually win the game. 15 g5 Nb6 16 Nxd6 Adding the bishop-pair to White’s spatial and structural advantages. 16…Qxd6 17 c4 Qd7 18 Qc3

The queen stares menacingly down the a1-h8 diagonal, though there’s not really much doing here at the moment. Probably White would do better with an immediate h-pawn advance, though this idea does occur to him in a few moves time. 18...Rc8 19 Bh5 19 h4 is probably best here, too. 19...Na8 20 Rad1 Nac7 21 a4 Nd6 22 Be2 Rfd8 23 h4 Getting the right idea. With White’s kingside pawns well forward he is ready to set light to Black’s kingside with a timely h5-h6 or g5-g6. Black meanwhile can do very little, which is what happens when your pawns are discombobulated and your opponent has bishops. 23...a6 24 h5 Qf7 25 Kf2 A nice move, preparing to bring rooks over whilst defending e3. 25…Kf8 26 Rh1 Nce8? In the attempt to defend her kingside, Black overlooks the fact that the knight on d6 (the one that should have hopped onto e4 on move 10) has no retreat. Or perhaps it was deliberate suicide, given the state of Black’s game? 27 c5! 1-0 The knight on d6 has nowhere to go. A remarkably mature game by young Hanly. Recommended Reading School for Scoundrels (1960 version with Terri Thomas)

Copyright 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]

[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Don't Try This at Home

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

There comes a time in many chess masters lives when they no longer view the game as their career. What usually happens is that they then give up, as quite a few titled players in the UK have done. When did Raymond Keene, Bill Hartston, John Nunn Matthew Sadler, James Howell, Darshan Kumaran or even the legendary Julian Hodgson last pick up a pawn in anger? And there are other GMs who haven’t been playing much either. Having abandoned all illusions about being even a semi-professional player, I’ve had thoughts about giving up myself. It’s painful not to play as well as one once did and difficult to find the time to maintain one’s strength. So pride intervenes and says that “enough is enough.” But is it really? One book I really enjoyed was Sidney Bernstein’s Combat: My 50 Years at the Chessboard in which the author describes two very different phases to his career. After being a serious player in his youth he stopped playing for ten years and then came back with the idea of playing for fun. This, after all, is why we took the game up in the first place. Isn’t it? Inspired by Bernstein’s approach I thought a lot about this and made a decision. I’m going to keep playing till I drop, but the time has come to put the fun side first. And with this in mind here’s one of my recent games: Davies – Hague Bolton Open, 2007 1 d4 g6 2 Nc3 Bg7 3 Bg5 d6 4 Qd2 Nd7 5 e4 a6 6 h4 h5 7 0–0–0 b5 8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5 Bxe5 10 Nf3 Bd6 11 Bd3 Ngf6 12 Rhe1 Bb7 13 Nd4 c5 14 Ne6 Qa5 15 Kb1 c4 16 Bf5 b4 17 Ne4 Bxe4 18 Bxe4 Nxe4 19 Rxe4 fxe6 20 Bxe7 Qf5 21 Qxd6 Qxe4 22 Qxd7+ Kf7 23 f3 Qe2 24 Bxb4+ Kg8 25 Re1 Qxg2 26 Qxe6+ Kh7 27 Qf7+ Kh6 28 Qf4+ 1–0 Well, that was exciting though anyone with Deep Fritz at hand will argue that 14…Qb6 was probably good for Black. Not to mention the

quicker win via 23 Bd8+. But does it really matter that my play was “iffy”? I enjoyed the game. Needless to say, I haven’t fully managed the transition to the romantic school. In the last round there was money at stake so I returned to a closed, careful, grandmasterly chess, got totally outplayed by a player rated 400 points lower than myself and finally swindled a draw from a hopeless position. I figure that Caissa was sending me a message. Generally speaking though, it’s better to play a tight, careful game if you want your results to improve, but many people don’t understand this. If I play adventurous chess, I’m fully aware that my results are likely to get worse and that gangly, spotty teenagers will laugh at me. But I’m willing to make the trade off. Most chess teachers don’t seem to manage to communicate the message to hopeful improvers that they aren’t going to get better by trying to be a kind of latter day Mikhail Tal. Perhaps some of them don’t even try. Many teachers are themselves confused by the fun versus blood issue and may believe they’re a mini Tal or Shirov whose time is yet to come. Now this is not to say that mini Tals don’t exist and that they shouldn’t play “attacking chess.” It’s just that in my experience they are few and far between, the ones with Tal delusions being far more numerous. The problem then is that they’ll be playing the wrong kind of chess. The key for players to improve their results is to find what they can be good at rather than be geared up to throw their pieces around as standard. The fun versus blood confusion isn’t helped by much of the literature on the game, which tends to present spectacular chess as a good model for the young beginner. Newspaper columns in particular inspire the flinging of oneself against brick walls. With unsurprising consequences. Getting more specific let’s consider, for example, the role of major pieces in a chess game. Now really they should tend to operate from rather modest positions until the board clears a little and they have a clear way to enter. Yet the bold use of rooks is often praised to the hilt, thus inspiring imitators. Take for example the following game: Tarrasch – Lasker 4th Match Game, 1908 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 d6 5 d4 Bd7 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Re1 exd4 8 Nxd4 Nxd4 9 Qxd4 Bxb5 10 Nxb5 0-0 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bh4 Re8 13 Rad1 Nd7 14 Bxe7 Rxe7 15 Qc3 Re5 16 Nd4 Rc5 17 Qb3 Nb6 18 f4 Qf6 19 Qf3 Re8 20 c3 a5 21 b3 a4 22 b4 Rc4 23 g3 Rd8 24 Re3 c5 25 Nb5 cxb4 26 Rxd6 Rxd6 27 e5 Rxf4 28 gxf4 Qg6+ 29 Kh1 Qb1+ 30 Kg2 Rd2+ 31 Re2 Qxa2 32 Rxd2 Qxd2+ 33 Kg3 a3 34 e6 Qe1+ 35 Kg4 Qxe6+ 36 f5 Qc4+ 37 Nd4 a2 38 Qd1 Nd5 39 Qa4 Nxc3 40 Qe8+ Kh7 41 Kh5 a1Q 0-1 This was really a spectacular use of Black’s rook, going from e7 to e5 and c5. But objectively speaking this was a very dodgy plan, the main aim of which was probably to provoke and unsettle the pompous Tarrasch. I can think of a couple of other examples too, such as a game

between Stein and Tarve plus one Kasparov’s games versus Karpov. But where does this leave those less talented than Lasker, Stein and Kasparov if they then try this at home? Quite possibly a rook down. In this month’s game we see some inappropriate rook play by White. But he gets away with it, because of being a better practical player; the exotic positions of his rooks drawing Black into time trouble. OK, it worked in practice, but this shouldn’t be encouraged. So 5/10 for White and 3/10 for Black. Nigel Hepworth – Peter Shaw Calderdale Chess League, 2007 Sicilian [B50] 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 c3 I’ve found that open Sicilians (with 3 d4) are the exception rather than the rule at club level, which makes the study of such lines something of a time-waster. Expect the Morra, 2 c3, 2 f4, 3 Bb5 lines or the Closed (2 Nc3 and 3 g3). 3…Nf6 4 e5 This was actually introduced by the great Alexander Alekhine. 4 Be2 has proved to be the most popular move here, when 4…Nxe4?? loses a piece because of 5 Qa4+. 4 dxe5 5 Nxe5 Nbd7 The stem game for this line, Alekhine - Tsvetkov, Buenos Aires 1939, featured a poor response by Black in 5…Nc6?! after which 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bc4 Bf5 8 d3 e6 9 Qf3 Qd7 10 h3 Be7 11 Nd2 Rd8 12 0-0 Bxd3 13 Bxd3 Qxd3 14 Qxc6+ Qd7 15 Qa6 0-0 16 Nc4, gave White much the better game because of Black’s pawn weaknesses and the nice c4-square for White’s knight. 6 Nf3 Alternatively, White might consider 6 Nc4, though after 6…e6 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 b6 9 Be2 Bb7 10 0-0 Be7 11 Nc3 0-0 12 Bf4 Ne4 13 Rc1 Ndf6, there wasn’t much play to compensate for the isolated pawn’s weakness in Kozlov Karjakin, Alushta 2002. 6…e6 7 d4 Be7 The immediate 7…cxd4 is also possible, when White should probably reply with 8 cxd4 if he wants something (rather than the insipid 8 Nxd4). 8 Be3 Getting ready to recapture on d4 with a piece, but I think this is the wrong thing to do. Despite White’s loss of time, positions with an isolated d-pawn are not at all bad, mainly

because of the passive position of Black’s knight on d7. Thus 8 Bd3 seems correct, meeting 8…cxd4 with 9 cxd4. 8…0-0 9 Nbd2 cxd4 10 Bxd4 Qc7 I actually prefer Black now, because of his extra centre pawn and the fact that it can advance. The bishop on d4 will soon be driven away. 11 Bd3 e5 12 Be3 Nc5 13 Bxc5 The immediate surrender of the two bishops is probably the least of White’s evils, moving the bishop on d3 also leads to trouble. For example, 13 Bc2 b6 14 0-0 Ba6 15 Re1 Rad8 and 13 Be2 Bf5 would see a Black rook coming to d8 next, with tremendous central control and pressure. 13…Bxc5 14 Qc2 h6?! This looks like a natural way to reduce the pressure against h7, but strategically it has serious negative implications. Besides the loss of tempo the problem is that Black will now find it much harder to safely play …f7-f5, because of the weakening of g6. And this in turn means that White gets some control over the centre. I quite like the move 14…Re8, intending 15 Ne4 Nxe4 16 Bxe4 g6. Black would then be well poised to play …f7-f5, possibly preceded by bringing his bishop to g7. 15 0-0 Re8 16 Ne4 Nxe4 17 Bxe4 Be6 18 Rfe1 I’m not sure what the rook is doing on this square, White should really be aiming for control of d5. With this in mind, 18 Rfd1 looks better, “threatening” to exchange light square bishops with 19 Bd5. If White gets rooks off as well, his queen and knight combo versus queen and bishop might give him some hope of playing for the full point. 18…Bd6 It’s really way too late for plans based on …g6; for example, 18…g6 19 Rad1 Rad8? is refuted by 20 Rxd8 Rxd8 21 Bxg6 etc.. 19 Re3?! The start of some over-zealous rook play by White. This “works” only because he sees more than his opponent. 19 Rad1 was the correct move here, getting ready for 20 Bd5. 19…g6 Black could exploit the negative side of White’s last move with 19…Bc5, when 20 Rd3 (20 Ree1 is probably best) 20…f5 21 Bd5 e4 22 Bxe6+ Rxe6 23 Qb3 Qb6 24 Nd4 Qxb3 25 axb3 Rd6 26 Rdd1 Rad8 puts White under serious pressure.

20 Rd1 Rad8 21 Bd5 Bxd5 22 Rxd5 Qc4 23 Ra5?! Once again being too adventurous with the rooks. 23 Qd1 is much better; for example, 23…Bc7 24 Rexe5 Qxa2 25 Rxe8+ Rxe8 26 Rd2 leaves very little in it. 23…Bc7?! Not the best; Black should just play 23…Bc5, when 24 Ra4 Qd5 25 Re1 f5 leaves him in control. It’s difficult to see how that rook on a4 is going to get back into the game. 24 Rxa7 Bb6 25 Re4? This should lose, but Black doesn’t spot it. The correct move is 25 Ra4, when 25…Qd5 26 Re2 f5 is still “game on.” But Black is a pawn down compared with the 23…Bc5 line. 25…Qd5? Missing his chance. 25…Bxf2+ 26 Kxf2 (26 Qxf2 Qxe4) 26…Qc5+ 27 Kf1 Qxa7 is winning. 26 Raa4 f5 27 Re2 e4 28 Ne1 Ambitious but risky. White should play 28 Nd4, when 28…Bxd4 29 Rxd4 (29 cxd4 b5 30 Ra6 Re6 31 Rxe6 Qxe6 will also win the pawn back) 29…Qxa2 gets back the pawn with an equal position. After the text, I think Black is better again. 28…e3 29 fxe3 Rxe3 30 Rxe3 Bxe3+ 31 Kf1 Qb5+ 32 c4 Qc6 32…Qb6 may be better, when after 33 Nf3 Bc5, the rook on a4 is still out of play. 33 Nf3 b5 With time trouble rearing its ugly head, Black solves the problem of White’s rook for him. Instead of this, Black has a number of good moves; for example, the relaxed 33…Kh7 would intend 34…Qe4. I think there’s more than enough for the pawn here. 34 Ra3 34 Rb4! looks even stronger, but the text is rewarded with a blunder. 34…bxc4?? Forgetting about the bishop on e3. Almost anything is better. 35 Rxe3 f4 36 Rc3 g5

Without a hanging flag we all resign these positions. 37 Rxc4 Qa6 38 b3 g4 39 Nh4 Rd6 40 Qe2 Re6 41 Qxg4+ Kh7 42 Nf5 Qa7 43 Qxf4 Qxa2 44 Rc7+ Kg8 45 Qg4+ 1-0 Recommended Reading Combat: My 50 Years at the Chessboard by Sidney Bernstein (Atlantis Press Ltd., 1977) Chess for Fun and Chess for Blood by Edward Lasker (Dover, 1962)

Copyright 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] Copyright 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

A Trial for Chess Teachers

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

And this is the trial: They shall play with such weapons as they profess to teach withal, three bouts apiece with three of the best English masters of defence & three bouts apiece with three unskilful valiant men, and three bouts apiece with three resolute men half drunk. Then if they can defend themselves against these masters of defence, and hurt, and go free from the rest, then are they be honoured, cherished, and allowed for perfect good teachers, and what countrymen so ever they be. But if any of these they take fail, then they are imperfect in their profession, their fight is false, & they are false teachers, deceivers and murderers, and to be punished accordingly, yet no worse punishment unto them I wish, than such as in their trial they shall find. Paradoxes of Defence by George Silver, Gentleman Some have argued that the swordsman George Silver was a tad nationalistic when he took exception to the Italianated style of fencing that was introduced into Great Britain in the sixteenth century. But there are also wonderful insights in his writings on swordsmanship that can be applied to many other fields. I think that the idea of having chess teachers prove themselves by playing against a variety of opposition is a very good one, they should demonstrate that they have good technique before passing on their knowledge to their students. It’s amazing how often you see players with talent essentially ruined through their assimilation of their teacher’s flawed tendencies. Only the exceptionally talented manage to overcome this obstacle, at which point the teacher will usually claim the credit anyway! How exactly should we arrange bouts for prospective teachers? Well the exact equivalents are hard to find, but perhaps something like Silver’s criterium might be achieved via a closed tournament in Moscow (instead of the “best English masters of defence”) where they’d have to score fifty percent or higher and then two tournaments against the resolute and drunks where they would have to go without a loss. An Open Swiss in, say, Scotland might be good for the resolute but unskilled and then a tournament full of teenagers for the drunks. OK, the kids won’t be drunk on alcohol but I think that hormones, loud music, Coca-Cola and Mars bars are a good enough substitute. The result of flawed technique in teachers is that there are lots of students who acquire really bad habits. I’ve had quite a few of them come to me, wondering why they seem to have hit a ceiling with their results, despite only being fifteen or so. Usually, they’ve been

pumped full of opening systems, their untested teacher believing that this is somehow the most important thing. Sometimes it’s superficial trick lines, sometimes it’s Garry Kasparov’s opening repertoire and sometimes the lines suggested in some repertoire book that have been honed to the nth degree (though not in Moscow). Can the students hope to recover? Well yes, maybe. But for the unfortunate student it’s probably more traumatic than giving up smoking as without the “systems” they will often have little to fall back on. I believe that the cure is for people to immerse themselves in the games of the great masters, reading the autobiographical games collections of Larsen, Korchnoi, Alekhine and Keres (these are the best of the genre in my view) is like taking lessons with some of the greatest players in history. It never ceases to amaze me how few people take this opportunity, and you can find evidence of this via the sales rankings at Amazon and seeing how often such collections get discounted. With regard to the opening, the main problem is the belief that the opening is the basis of victory. When you’ve got round this one then it isn’t hard to find alternatives amongst the zillion solid openings that reach a playable middlegame. This is what Lajos Portisch wrote on the matter in How to Open a Chess Game: It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is indeed important in chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found as well in the middle game and endgame. Your only tast in the opening is to reach a playable middle game. (Taking advantage of a good middle game position requires instruction that is beyond the intentions of this book.) What is our task, then? How should we lay the foundations of our opening repertoire? It is hard to come up with a single answer to satisfy every player. Individuals will have different objectives in the opening, as well as different playing strengths. Nevertheless, to all players I can recommend the following: simplicity and economy. These are the characteristics of the opening systems of many great masters. They do not strain unduly for advantages in the opening; they would just as soon move on the the next stage of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the opponent in the middle game or endgame. I think this is really wonderful advice, but as usual very few people will take it and might even resent the fact that it has been offered! But one can see from Portisch’s games that he practiced what he preached. And in his day he was known as one of the most outstanding opening specialists, often playing quite simple variations. This month’s game is from a junior tournament played in 2004, the two players going at each other hammer and tongs. The teacher of the player playing Black had indeed undergone the trial of a closed tournament in Moscow and an Open Swiss in Scotland, but I fear that I let my student down by not recently facing enough hormone, Mars bar and Coca-Cola laden juniors (perish the thought). As a result he did not fully cope with White’s play. White, M - Hart, D Millfeild Junior Masters, 2004 Max Lange Attack [C55] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4

A sign of “maturity,” in junior circles the so-called Fried Liver attack with 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5?! 6 Nxf7 has been all the rage for years, so much so that many British twelveyear-olds are being pumped with variations arising from 4...Bc5. 4...exd4 5 0-0 Bc5 Still on the subject of junior wars, I noticed that Russian juniors get primed with the variation 5...Nxe4 6 Re1 d5 7 Bxd5 Qxd5 8 Nc3 Qh5 9 Nxe4 Be6 10 Bg5 Bd6 11 Bf6 Bxh2+ 12 Nxh2 Qxd1 13 Raxd1 gxf6, giving Black an extra pawn in the endgame. I remember a nine or ten-year-old David Howell getting caught up in this in a European Junior Championship after which I recommended that it was time he played a man’s opening with 3 Bb5. Seems to be working. 6 e5 d5 7 exf6 dxc4 8 Re1+ Be6 9 Ng5 After banging on about juniors I do have a small confession to make. As a teenager I once played this line against Dominic Lawson, the son of Britain’s former chancellor Nigel Lawson, but I think I varied at this point with the lesser known 9 fxg7. 9…Qd5 10 Nc3 Qf5 11 Nce4 0-0-0 Well, we’re still in really heavy (if somewhat old) theory here and I’d be lying if I claimed to know the first thing about it. In fact very few GMs would have much a clue about this line, the wild complications making this a no-no as far as a repertoire choice is concerned. There’s little chance to use one’s positional understanding and a serious danger of accidents. Conversely, I should think that this line will tend to be popular with those whose correspondence rating that is double their OTB rating and have access to a super-computer at their place of work. It’s amazing what Fritz can come up with on a powerful enough machine. 12 g4 Qe5 Apparently 12...Qd5? is bad because of 13 fxg7 Rhg8 14 Nf6 Qd6 15 Nge4! etc, which makes sense even to my addled brain. 13 fxg7 13 Nxe6 fxe6 14 Bg5 is an alternative here that some commentators seem to think is good. Once again I must plead total ignorance. 13...Rhg8 14 Nxe6 fxe6 15 Bh6 Bb4 16 f4 Qb5 17 Nf6 d3 18 Nxg8 Qd5 According to my woefully inadequate databases, this is a “new move,” though I suspect that more accident was involved than design. In previous games Black has played 18...Qc5+ when 19 Kg2

Bxe1 20 Qxe1 Qd5+ certainly doesn’t look worse for Black. 19 f5 exf5 20 Nf6 Qd4+ 21 Be3 Qxf6 22 c3 Bd6 23 Qf3 Qxg7 A preliminary 23...f4 was worth considering, but Black is fine in any case. 24 Qxf5+ Kb8 25 Qg5 Qd7 26 Qf5 Ne5 27 Qxd7 Rxd7 Black is certainly no worse here with his mighty passed pawn on d3. But accuracy is needed because of the strength of rooks versus knights in endgames. 28 Kg2 Nxg4 29 Bf4 b5 30 Re8+ Kb7 31 Bxd6 Rxd6 32 h3 Nf6 33 Re5 Kb6 34 Kf3 c5 I don’t really see the need for this. 34...Nd5 looks like the natural move, when the mighty knight can be supported by a later ...c6.

a3 a5

35 Ke3 b4 36 Kd2 Nd5 37 Rf1 h6 38 h4 Kc6 39

And here Black should get his rook active with 39...Rg6. 40 h5 Nb6 41 axb4 axb4 42 Ref5 Re6? After this, White is actually better, Black’s lone knight being no match for White’s rook. Black should avoid the exchange of rooks with 42... Nd7, when it’s still “game on.” 43 Rf6 Kd6 44 Rxe6+ Kxe6 45 Rg1 Nd5? This should immediately lose, though White in turn slips up. 45...Kf5 was the best try, when Black still has drawing chances. 46 Rg6+ 46.Rg4 was stronger. 46...Ke5? Another losing move, and this time White takes advantage. 46...Nf6 47.Rxh6 Kf5 would have given Black some chances. 47 Rc6! Nf4 48 Rxc5+ Kf6 49 cxb4 1-0

Recommended Reading Paradoxes of Defence by George Silver, Gentleman (Edward Blount, 1599) How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, Svetozar Gligoric, Vlastimil Hort, Paul Keres, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian and Lajos Portisch (RHM Press, 1974)

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Analysis or Blitz?

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Quite often Misha’s permanent trainer Alexander Koblenz, ‘Maestro’ to his friends, would arrive. This is also what Misha invariably called him. Behind their distinctive jokingly-ironic manner of conversing lay a sincere attachment that went back many years. ‘That’s enough for today’ Misha would say, Blitz, blitz.’ Sacrificing pieces against each of us in turn, for the most part, incorrectly, he would repeat: ‘Never mind, now I’ll make his flag fall.’ Or in very sharp situations, when he himself had only a few seconds left, his favourite ‘Calmness is my sweetheart.’ I do not recall an occasion when he played blitz without any evident pleasure. Whether it was a game from the championships of Moscow or Leningrad, most of which were won by him, the world championship in Saint John in 1988, or simply a five-minute game with an amateur who had cornered him in a hotel foyer. Genna Sosonko (writing about Mikhail Tal) in Russian Silhouettes At this stage you have to learn how to analyse and comment on games, for this enables you to criticize your own failures and successes. Mikhail Botvinnik in One Hundred Selected Games One piece of classic advice, coming from both Alexander Alekhine and Mikhail Botvinnik, is that one should annotate one’s games in order to improve. Is this the secret of success? Certainly there are cases of players making remarkable strides after doing so, for example Alex Yermolinsky started seriously studying his games before leaping to stardom. In fact many GMs have tried this at one time or another, but in most cases it had a limited duration. I have a number of notebooks from around 1989 to 1995, but very few of my games got annotated. There just never seemed to be time. In my experience it is far more common for players to acquire knowledge in a less formal setting, such as the bar. For example, if you play an open game and then encounter Mark Hebden there, you invariably receive excellent advice on how you should have played. Several English GMs acquired their open game knowledge from Mark, including Glenn Flear, John Emms and to a certain extent myself. And Joe Gallagher acquired his King’s Gambit from him, I understand in exchange for some poker lessons Joe delivered in Spain. Blitz is another way for players to hone their skill, once again served with suitable refreshments. Games between aspiring players, with occasional bits of advice thrown in, help hone an understanding for positions that is impossible to acquire from books alone.

Many professionals will consult books now and then, but I really don’t think this is their primary source of knowledge. In my own youth I read Lasker’s Manual of Chess several times, plus plenty of biographical games collections. But there wasn’t much formal study, except in occasional patches. I have learned a lot through post mortems with experienced colleagues, especially when I learned from Danny Kopec to write notes on my score sheet. And I learned a lot from visiting Lev Psakhis when I lived in Israel, his influence being largely responsible for my subsequent acquisition of the GM title. So what is the answer for amateur players? I’ve always believed that the primary thing is to play as much as possible and the Internet has made this much easier. What’s not so easy is getting useful information from peers, Internet groups have plenty of chat but not much in the way of useful advice. Books by great players can be worth their weight in gold, but do many people actually read them? Perhaps videos and DVDs offer a more accessible answer, and I personally have been learning a great deal through watching Viktor Korchnoi’s DVDs (My Life for Chess, Vol. 1 & Vol. 2) whilst on the exercise bike in the mornings. Modern lifestyles often require such multitasking. So what about annotating games? There’s certainly a place for it if you have time, but for most amateurs there’s rarely much opportunity to do anything apart from have Fritz look at it and check for blunders. Perhaps the most important things are to see if there are any general causes of defeat, such as particular openings or poor play in the last hour because of time trouble. I also think it’s useful to look up the openings of games you have played, to see what strong players have done in similar situation. This can help build one’s opening knowledge. This month’s game is from candidate grandmaster Steven Gordon, whose march through the ranks has been quite remarkable. When the following game was played he really wasn’t very strong, though he was keen enough to annotate the game and send it to me whilst I was the trainer at his club. But before drawing the conclusion that this is what helped him improve, I don’t think he made a regular practice of this. Talent is very helpful. Gordon,S – Arnott,J Stockport Quickplay, 2004 English Defence [A40] 1 d4 e6 A willingness to play the French (into which White can transpose with 2 e4) gives Black this interesting universal move. After White’s reply, he has the solid 2...Bb4+, as well as transposition into a Dutch with 2...f5, but having sidestepped some of White’s dangerous second move alternatives, such as the Staunton Gambit. 2 c4 b6!? But this move has the mark of bare faced cheek. Having been used extensively by Englishmen in the 1970s and 80s (Tony Miles and Jim Plaskett come to mind as leading exponents) it lost most

of its charms when placed under the microscope. Even so it remains an interesting way to play, and those who would like to explore it further should get Christian Bauer’s recent book on it. 3 e4 Bb7 4 Bd3 f5!? What can one say? Not only is this move “theory,” but it has been played by notables such as Tony Miles and Lev Psakhis. On the other hand is it really wise to go into such sharp and messy lines against the young? 5 exf5 Bxg2 Steven passes over this move without comment, assuming that the line up to 8…Kf8 was forced for both sides. But Black has an important alternative in 5…Bb4+, which is to my mind a better practical try. Black must give up material in some lines but gets compensation. Yet the real problem is that after 6 Kf1 (with f8 cleared for Black’s king White must defend g2) 6…Nf6 7 Nf3 (Chasing material with 7 c5 bxc5 8 a3 c4!, or 7 Be2 0-0 8 c5 bxc5 9 a3 Ba5 10 bxc5 Ne4 produce rather murky complications in either case) 7…0-0 8 a3 Bd6 9 Nc3, he’s left with a rather lousy position. 6 Qh5+ g6 7 fxg6 Bg7 8 gxh7+ Kf8 9 Ne2?! Here is what Steven has to say about this move: “This is actually seen to be the main line but I now believe it to be dubious because it allows Black an extra option in a few moves. 9 Bg5! Nf6 10 Qh4 Bxh1 11 Nd2! I feel is the best move order to play as it cancels out Black Bf3-g4 ideas.” Interestingly 11 Nd2 isn’t mentioned at all by Bauer and he thinks that 11...Bf3 isn’t really worth preventing either. On the other hand, 11 Nd2 might be answered by 11...Qe7, which Bauer thinks is also the best after 11 Ne2. 9...Bxh1 10 Bg5 Nf6 11 Qh4 Bf3 After 11...Nc6 12 Nd2 e5, Bauer gives 13 0-0-0! as best and after 13...e4 14 Bxe4 Bxe4 15 Nxe4 Rxh7 16 Qf4 Kf7, White won quickly with 17 N2c3 in Magerramov - Psakhis, Riga 1980 and with 17 Rg1 in Dan Cramling - Gausel, Gausdal 1982. On the other hand, he believes that 11...Qe7 holds after 12 Nf4 Qf7 13 Ng6+ Ke8 14 Ne5 Qf8, intending ...d6, followed by ...Nbd7. White obviously has compensation, but a rook is a rook. What do I think is happening? I have no idea whatsoever! Suffice it to say that if you’re Black and play moves like 4...f5 you can expect trouble. 12 Nf4 Nc6 13 Nd2 “To my surprise this has actually been played before, and White has scored well from this position.” – Steven Gordon

13...Nxd4?

boot.

A new and losing move, which just goes to show that if you’re going to let your king get opened up, then you really need to know what you’re doing. Theory gives 13...Bg4, but then 14 Bxf6 (Steven only analysed 14 Ng6+ Kf7 15 Ne5+ Nxe5 16 dxe5 Bf5 17 Bxf5 exf5 18 exf6 Bxf6 19 Qh5+ Kg7 20 Qh6+ Kf7 21 Qh5+ with a draw by perpetual check, opining that after allowing Bf3 this is the best that White has got) 14...Qxf6 15 Qxg4 Qxd4 16 Rd1 (Bauer only gave the line 16 Nf3 Qxb2 17 Rd1 as in Lower - Marshall, Correspondence 1999, but then 17...Ne7 doesn’t seem too clear) 16...Ne7 17 Qf3! hits the rook on a8 and threatens a horrid discovered check to

14 Ng6+ Kf7 15 Ne5+ Simply winning the errant knight on d4 after which he is only the exchange down. An attack of this strength is worth far more than that. 15...Ke7 16 Qxd4 Bh5 After 16...Bb7, there might follow 17 Ne4 Bxe4 18 Bxe4, with a multitude of threats. 17 Qh4 Qe8 Protecting the g6-square, but now the knight on f6 comes under pressure. 18 Ne4 Rf8 19 Ng3 Bf7 20 0-0-0 This is not exactly an attractive position for Black. Can anybody see a move for him? 20...d6 21 f4 Rd8 22 Ng4 Bg6 23 f5! Absolutely crushing. After 23…exf5 24 Nxf5+ Bxf5 25 Bxf5, the deadly threat is 26 Re1+. 23…Bxh7 I am amazed that Black continued here. The torture scene in Braveheart comes to mind. 24 Qxh7 Qf7 25 fxe6 Kxe6 26 Qf5+ 1-0 One of the most horrific games I’ve ever seen, and a good advert against playing provocative defences for Black.

Recommended Reading One Hundred Selected Games by Mikhail Botvinnik (Dover, 1960) Russian Silhouettes by Genna Sosonko (New in Chess, 2001) Play 1...b6 by Christian Bauer (Everyman, 2005)

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Red, Red Wine

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Back in the 1990s the woman who used to cut my hair invited me for a meal and to play chess against her husband and a family friend. She was slightly taken aback when I asked to be compensated for my time, but I explained that chess is what I did for a living and that this was essentially a chess engagement. It turned out that I was very well treated. As the evening progressed it became clear that I would never have an empty glass, and I have to say that it was rather a good vintage. After a while the chess set was produced and my two opponents took turns trying to beat me. But this proved to be a frustrating task, as even with my brain “disengaged” my hand didn’t play too badly. After about fifteen unsuccessful attempts, the family friend started gesticulating wildly at random squares, asking if these were the key points. “They’re not really relevant,” I slurred. “The problem is that you keep leaving your pieces en prise.” I took another rook and the glass was refilled. The last thing I remember was being bundled into a car and driven home. But the recollection of the “key squares” thing stayed with me. One of the problems with many chess concepts is that they’re often posited in a way that cannot be understood without someone first having an extensive chess background. So the value of passed pawns cannot be understood without someone first being able to use an extra queen. And open files lack relevance unless someone understands the danger of having a rook on the seventh rank. As for key squares, they’re really abstract. And that’s to say nothing of the subtle strategy involved in playing the opening well. Is it any wonder that people try to memorise moves? Which concepts are most readily understandable? Well mating formations and attacks can be understood because checkmate ends the game. And when someone discovers that it’s good to have an extra queen, knight forks and bishop skewers start to acquire real relevance. Not to mention the promotion of pawns. This line of reasoning provides a nice template for a player’s studies in chess, to start out with mating attacks and formations and then move on to ways of winning material and promoting pawns. Openings might be studied with a view to building an attacking

formation in which certain mating combinations are possible, but strategic subtleties will be wasted on players who haven’t first mastered the basics. This may seem obvious but it is very common to see lower rated players attempt openings that are just way beyond their understanding. It’s like someone who can’t count trying to read a book on algebra. I think this is where more than ninety-five percent of chess books get it wrong, they dive into very sophisticated chess without considering whether the reader has the necessary background to understand it. Why does nobody say there’s a problem? Well a few people do, but they’re a distinct minority. Most chess readers pretend they can understand everything because they don’t want to appear stupid. And thus one can often find players around 1300 discuss the ins and outs of the Sicilian Najdorf before blundering away a piece or two in their next game. What if someone just can’t see tactics well, no matter how hard they try? They should study the endgame, which offers an alternative way of winning games based on learnable technique rather than god given talent. But I haven’t met many people who have actually followed this advice. The following game graphically illustrates the importance of good endgame play, with the advantage changing hands several times in the later stages. I can’t stress enough how common this is in club games, so a little endgame knowledge can make all the difference. Martin,B (1450) – MacGregor,S (1509) Lothians Congress Sicilian Najdorf [B84] 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 The big problem with the Najdorf is that so many White players go 2 Nc3 and 3 f4, which is pretty good against 2…d6. This is such a serious issue that Najdorf aficionado Joe Gallagher meets 2 Nc3 with 2…Nc6 and is prepared to go into an Accelerated Dragon after 3 Nf3 g6 4 d4. Of course a second main line Sicilian for special use against 2 Nc3 is not an option for most club players. 6 Be2 e6 7 Bg5 This doesn’t fit too well with 6 Be2. Keres used to play things like this in conjunction with pressure along the d-file, but he only did it when Black had already put his knight on c6. 7...Be7 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4!? 9 Qd3 makes more sense to me, but I don’t think Black has anything to fear after 9...Nbd7. 9...Qb6!? 10 Na4 White could also consider 10 Kh1, when 10... Qxb2 11 Qd3 threatens 12 Rab1, followed by 13 Nd5. Black’s best may be the hard to find 11... Bd8, when 12 Nb3 (threatening 13 a3) 12...Qa3 13 Qg3 (threatening 14 e5) still looks very dangerous. 10...Qc7 11 f5?! e5?!

11...b5! 12 Nc3 b4 looks very strong here. Now White gets to stabilise his position and can aim at the d5-square. 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 Nf3 b5 14 Nc3 Bb7 15 Nd5 15 Kh1 is better. 15...Qc5+ 16 Kh1 Bxd5 17 Qxd5 Qxd5 18 exd5 Nd7 Another strong line is 18...e4 19 Nd2 e3 20 Ne4 Bxb2, which is also very good for Black. 19 Nd2 Nb6 20 Bf3 20 c4 bxc4 21 Nxc4 is best and looks somewhat drawish. It won’t be easy for Black to get his rooks in. 20...Rac8 21 Rac1? 21 c3 is necessary. 21...Bg5 22 Rf2 Rfd8 Black could also cash in with 22...Bxd2 23 Rxd2 Nc4, which leaves the rest of White’s queenside pawns weak once the b2-pawn has gone. 23 b3 Rc3 24 Be4 Rdc8 25 Rd1 Bxd2 26 Rdxd2 Nd7 With Black’s knight coming to f6, White is in deep trouble here. 27 Rf3 Nf6 28 Rxc3 Rxc3 29 Bf3 e4 There’s a case for bringing the king to the middle with 29...Kf8 before trying to cash in. But there should be several ways to do this. 30 Bd1 e3 30...Rc5 also looks good. 31 Rd4 Rxc2 32 Bxc2 e2 33 Rd1 exd1Q+ 34 Bxd1 Nxd5 This endgame looks winning, but it might not quite be as easy as it seems, because Black has a knight against a bishop and White can centralise his king. 35 Bc2 b4!?

It was worth considering an immediate 35...Kf8, as with Black’s knight on d5 there are no f6 tricks. 36 Kg1 Nc3 37 Kf2 Kf8 38 f6! Some technical problems are starting to materialise. 38...g6 39 Ke3 h5? Losing valuable time. 39...Nxa2 should be played, when 40 Kd4 Nc3 must be winning in the long run, as White can’t approach Black’s queenside pawns. 40 Kd4 Ke8 41 Bd3 a5 42 h3 42 a3 also looks like it should at least draw – I don’t see how Black defend the b-pawn, so White will get an outside passed pawn. 42...Nxa2 43 Kd5 Kd7 Black can also play 43...Nc1 44 Bc4 Kf8 45 Kxd6 a4 46 bxa4 b3 47 Bd5 b2 48 Be4 Nb3 49 h4 Nd2 50 Bd3 Ke8 51 Kc6 Nc4! 52 Kb5 Nd2 53 Kc6 Nc4, which seems to draw by the skin of his teeth. 44 Bb5+ Kc7 45 Kd4 I don’t understand why White didn’t play 45 Be8, which looks like a draw after 45…Nc3+ 46 Kd4 h4 47 Bxf7 Kd7 48 Bxg6 Ke6. 45...Kd8 46 Kd5?? And this should lose. 46 Bc4 is necessary. 46...Nc3+ 47 Kc6 Nxb5?? 47...a4 wins. 48 Kxb5 Kc7 Here Black can draw by going after the f6-pawn with 48...Kd7 49 Kxa5 Kc6 50 Kxb4 d5?? 50...Kd5 still seems to draw, because Black get f6; for example, 51 Kb5 (51 Kc3 Ke5 52 Kc4 d5 + 53 Kd3 Kxf6 54 Kd4 Ke6 55 b4 Kd6 56 b5 h4 57 b6 Kc6 58 b7 Kxb7 59 Kxd5 Kc8 60 Ke5 Kd7 61 Kf6 Ke8 62 Kg5 wins back the pawn on h4 with a draw) 51...Ke4 52 Kc6 d5 53 Kd7 d4 54 Ke7 d3 55 Kxf7 d2 56 Ke7 d1Q 57 f7 also queens and makes a draw. Now it’s lost

because of the outside passed pawn. 51 Kc3 Kc5 52 b4+1-0 I got the impression that time trouble may have been a factor later on. Recommended Reading Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky (Everyman, 1994) How to Play the Chess Endings by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky (Dover, 1974) Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual by Mark Dvoretsky (Russell Enterprises, 2006)

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Twixt Cup and Lip There’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip. - Greek proverb

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Apparently this comes from a Greek legend when one of the Argonauts returned from his voyage, went to his winery and summoned a local soothsayer who had predicted before his voyage that he would die before he tasted another drop of his wine. As he raised a cup filled with wine to his lips the soothsayer remarked that: “There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip.” Suddenly the Argonaut was called away to hunt a wild boar that was approaching and then died in his attempt to kill it. This is a most useful proverb for chess players, as many games are lost at the point of victory. When the game seems to be in the bag, players tend either to relax or get nervous and start pulling their punches. Their opponents, on the other hand, will often be fighting like tigers to save the game. At club level, I see an incredible number of turnarounds because of this and I’ve been painfully aware of it in my own games as well. There was a time, in the mid-1980s, when I would constantly mess up good or winning positions. For me it was mainly because of nervousness, and my results improved considerably when I learned to control this with breathing exercises and to stop hunching over the board. For others it can be that they relax, thinking that the game is in the bag. Whilst these two states may seem to be opposites, the result is often the same. A few small errors lead to increased difficulty and this in turn produces severe psychological stress. Players who turn a winning position into one with a much smaller advantage often go on to make further mistakes and lose. How should someone deal with these stresses? What someone should not do is to beat themselves (or their students) up over disappointing outcomes, as this will tend to increase the stress and make matters worse. Instead, I suggest that a much softer approach will be more effective. Sports psychologists suggest that the most important thing for a competitor to do is to focus consistently on process goals (good moves) rather than outcome based goals (good results). This switch of focus towards mastery rather than achievement, sidesteps many of the stresses connected with particular results and is more likely to lead to superior performance in the long run. This concept may be quite difficult for westerners to grasp, because of our focus on

achievement and material things. But in the east, especially in the martial arts, mastery is seen as an end in itself and a means of personal and spiritual development (plus, at times, survival). This in turn makes eastern culture a rich source of inspiration to stressed western chess players. The following Samurai maxims make an interesting contrast to the desire of western chess players to get their ratings up. Time to break out the Hagakure and Book of Five Rings: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

The angry man will defeat himself in battle as well as in life. A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action. The Way is in training. It’s a difficult thing to truly know your own limits and points of weakness. Truth exists for the wise, beauty for the feeling heart. Victory goes to the one who has no thought of himself. When the World is at Peace, a gentleman keeps his Sword by his side.

In this month’s game, we see White build up a winning position only to let it slip from his hands on the very next move. Then Black also gets a shot at winning the game, only to mess it up right at the end. Perrin,R - Page,M East Devon Congess, Major Section 2007 Tarrasch Defence [D34] 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 I’ve always felt that this is a good defence for many club players to adopt, because it offers free piece play. It’s true that it might be a risky proposition against, say, Vladimir Kramnik, but then he doesn’t normally turn out in the Birmingham and District League. 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Nf3 Nc6 6 g3 As pioneered by Rubinstein almost a century ago. The bishop on g2 puts pressure on the isolated pawn on d5. 6…Nf6 7 Bg2 Be7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Bg5 Be6 After this, White can force an endgame in which he often manages to torture his opponent quite horribly. The most popular approach these days is 9...cxd4 10 Nxd4 h6, whilst 9...c4 also deserves consideration. 10 dxc5 Bxc5 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 Nxd5 Qxb2 13 Nc7 Rad8 14 Qc1 Qxc1 15 Raxc1 Ba3 The last few moves have been more or less forced, but here it’s probably better to play 15... Be7. But this too is better for White; for example, 16 Nxe6 fxe6 17 Rc4 Bf6 18 e3 Rd6 19 h4 h6 20 Re4 Rfd8 21 Bh3 Kf7 22 Kg2 was Yusupov Spraggett, Candidates Match, St. John 1989. 16 Nxe6 fxe6 17 Rc4 h6 With his bishop on a3, rather than e7, Black will

probably want to play this either here or on the next move. 17...Rd6 18.Bh3 h6 was tried in Gachon - Szitas, France 1991, but this was also quite unpleasant for Black after 19 Re4 Re8 20 e3 b5 21 Rb1 a6 22 Rb3, etc. The big problem for Black in all these endgames is that White has the nice e4-square from which his pieces can operate very effectively. In particular a rook on e4 puts pressure on the isolated e6-pawn. 18 h4 e5 19 Rb1 Rf7 20 Bh3 Re7 21 Re4 All very thematic. Of course, White’s main problem is in how to actually win the game and he might not do this with piece play alone. 21...Bc5 22 e3 b6 23 Bf1 a5? Making it easier for White with a kind donation of his e5-pawn. A much tougher defence would have been 23...Kh7, meeting 24 Bb5 with 24... Rf8. 24 Bb5 Rd6 25 Kf1 There’s also the immediate 25 Kg2, followed by 26 Bxc6 and capturing on e5. Looks good to me. 25...Bb4 26 Ke2 g6 27 Rc1 Na7 28 Bc4+ Kg7 29 Rxe5 Rxe5 30 Nxe5 Winning a pawn, which makes this precise moment a very dangerous one indeed. 30…Rd2+ 31 Kf3? Now who would have thought that this natural move could be the cause of great difficulties for White? Amazingly, it is with Black’s apparently misplaced pieces suddenly finding ways to cooperate. White should have played 31 Kf1, but this is not the “natural” move by any means. 31...Bd6 32 Ng4 And here, White should play 32 Nd7, though this means the return of the pawn after 32...Bxg3 33 fxg3 Rxd7. White has some pressure after 34 Rb1, but Black probably holds with 34...Rc7. 32...h5 33 Nh2 Nc6 The knight hops back into the game, getting ready to land on e5. And little by little one starts to see that this is actually a very serious problem, first of all because ...Ne5+, followed by ...Nxc4, will win the a2-pawn. What about 34 Bb3? Well, here there’s another problem.

34 Bb3?! After this, White is even struggling to get a draw. He should play 34 Kg2, setting his own diabolical trap via 34...Ne5 35 Be6 Rxf2+ (Black should play 35...Kf6 36 Bg8 Kg7 37 Be6 Kf6 with a draw) 36 Kxf2 Nd3+ 37 Ke2 Nxc1+ 38 Kd2 Bxg3 39 Nf3 Kf6 40 Bd5, trapping Black’s knight and giving White winning chances. 34...Ne5+ 35 Kg2 Rxf2+! White would have had to see all this when playing 31 Kf3 in order to choose a different move. Probably not easy, even for GMs. 36 Kxf2 Nd3+ 37 Kf3 Nxc1 38 Bc4?! 38 Bd5 b5 would also leave White struggling, but this might have been the better course. Now Black gets a passed pawn straightaway. 38...b5! 39 Bxb5 Nxa2 The big question now is whether Black’s passed a-pawn can be blockaded. My first instinct was that with bishops of opposite colours it should be possible, but the more I look at this position the harder it seems. 40 Nf1 Nc3 41 Bc4 a4 42 Nd2 a3 43 Nb3 After 43 Ne4, there follows 43...Nxe4 44 Kxe4 Bxg3, etc. 43...a2 44 Na1 Ba3 45 g4 hxg4+ He could also play 45...Bb2, when 46 Nc2 a1Q 47 Nxa1 Bxa1 48 gxh5 gxh5 keeps his last pawn on the board. 46 Kxg4 Bb2 47 Nc2 a1Q?? Another slip twixt cup and lip, after which, White gets off the hook by exchanging the kingside pawns. The right move is 47...Kh6, ruling out h4-h5. 48 Nxa1 Bxa1 49 h5! gxh5+ ½-½ Without a pawn to his name, Black cannot win. Recommended Reading Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai by Yamamoto Tsunetomo The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

The Big Stick Effect Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far. – West African proverb

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

The threat is stronger than the execution. – Aaron Nimzovitch The use of intimidation does not tend to be approved of in the world at large but there’s no doubt in my mind that on the chess board it works. I believe that this was one of Garry Kasparov’s secret weapons; having won dozens of games with the most amazing pyrotechnics many of his opponents would make concessions rather than be drawn into sharp positions. Then he got to capitalise on these small gains and win a positional game. Mikhail Tal’s opponents were similarly afflicted, Tal once remarking that his opponents would reinforce all the squares on which he was likely to sacrifice. Once again there’s a problem with this in that it takes pieces away from other areas of the board in which they might be needed. Wars have been lost for similar reasons. Can the big stick effect be used at club level? Absolutely. If the World’s best can be intimidated then club players are going to be even more susceptible. In my view this is one of the major weapons available to club players and it’s surprising they don’t take advantage of it more than they do. The simplest way to use the big stick effect is to play aggressive and unusual openings. International masters and grandmasters have, through deep study, gained a kind of inner faith that nothing too bad will happen to them if they play sensible moves, so they tend to meet unusual openings sharply and well. But this faith is far less well defined amongst their less exalted brethren, who tend to imagine all sorts of dangers that don’t really exist. Accordingly club players have a tendency to react with passivity, and this is particularly apparent in the opening. Moving onto specifics, if one plays the Schliemann (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5) the most likely response at club level is 4 d3, which is not a bad move but certainly not critical. It’s also amazing how often the Albin Counter Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4) is met by the mistaken 4 e3, simply because White players don’t like the look of that pawn on d4. A lot of club games then proceed with 4…Bb4+ 5 Bd2 dxe3 6 Bxb4 exf2+, which is known to be horrific for White. With White it’s even easier to sow fear and confusion, and the large number of gambits White has in Open Games explains why 1…e5 is so unusual in club games. Under 1600 level even as simple an opening as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 can cause havoc. Black may be aware of the dangers to his f7-pawn and be worried that he doesn’t know “theory” after 3…Nf6 4 Ng5. So often you’ll get a passive reaction like 3…d6 or even 3…h6. Also at this level the King’s Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 f4) is very effective, and I suspect that Black’s most common reply is the passive 2…d6. After 3 Nf3, he’ll probably go 3…Nc6 (3…exf4!), when White is already well on top if he plays 4 Bb5. I’ve had this in a lot of simultaneous displays, so I speak from some experience. In the following game, Black first takes on f4, perhaps with some line in mind after 3 Nf3. But, after 3 Bc4, the big stick effect takes hold anyway, as it usually does with sharp and unusual openings.

Spalding, G – Harskin, R Frank Wood Shield, Wantage 2003 King’s Gambit [C34] 1 e4 e5 2 f4 I believe that if research were done into the results of openings at club level, the King’s Gambit would be found to score very highly. Black usually seems to be intimidated into playing passively. 2...exf4 As noted above, I think that 2…d6 is more common at club level. 3 Bc4 Even if Black had a line ready against 3 Nf3, the Bishop’s Gambit could well have come as a further surprise. Bobby Fischer played it after announcing that 3...d6 was the refutation of 3 Nf3. Recently it has been well covered in Thomas Johansson’s cult work, The Fascinating King’s Gambit. 3...d6 All sorts of concerns can enter someone’s head when they’re faced with a sharp opening they don’t happen to know. Here, for example, Black might have been worried that 3...Nf6 would allow 4 e5 (4 Nc3 is the right move in fact), not realising that he has 4...d5 at his disposal. This would explain why he would rule out e4-e5 with the passive text. Another possibility is that he was ready to play the Fischer Defence (3...d6) against 3 Nf3, and decided to “stick with what he knows” here too. In any event, he soon finds himself in an unenviable position. 4 Nf3 Be7 This looks like the wrong moment for 4...g5, as White can answer with 5 h4 g4 6 Ng5 Nh6 7 d4, when the pawn on f4 is falling. Of course, the text gives White an excellent game without any worries. 5 0-0 Nc6 6 d4 Nf6 7 Nc3 0-0 8 Bxf4 Fred Reinfeld would have loved this; White’s position is picture perfect. Of course it’s often not so easy to win “beautiful” positions and in his Dynamic Chess Strategy, Mihai Suba pointed out that the problem with perfect positions was that they couldn’t be improved. Even so, one has to prefer White. 8...Na5 9 Bd3 Bg4 10 Qd2 Bxf3 It’s never easy to play difficult positions, but this seems rather too cooperative. 10...Nc6 is better, at least giving White the d4-pawn to worry about. 11 Rxf3 Nc6 12 Ne2 Re8 In a couple of moves time, this rook moves back again to defend f7. With the storm clouds gathering along the f-file, Black really had to do something to free his game a little. The best chance was 12...d5, when 13.e5 Ne4 14.Qe3 f5 looks quite reasonable for Black. 13 Raf1 Qd7 14 Bg5 Rf8 15 c3 Solid enough but there was a much stronger line. White could have played 15 Bxf6 Bxf6 16 Rxf6! gxf6 17 Qh6, intending Rf3, etc. I very much doubt that there’s a defence.

15...Ne8 16 Ng3 Bxg5 17 Qxg5 Qe7 18 Qxe7 There was a good case for keeping the queens on with 18 Qg4, but White’s pressure persists even in the endgame.

22 Ne2

18...Nxe7 19 Bc4 Nf6 20 e5 dxe5 21 dxe5 Nfd5

Once again White might have had something stronger, such as 22 Ne4, with the idea of hopping into g5. After 22...h6, White can even play 23 Nf6+ gxf6 24 exf6, when he wins the piece back with a clear advantage. 22...c6 23 Nf4 Nxf4?! This loses a pawn. Shredder likes 23...Rae8, offering the cold-blooded variation 24 e6 fxe6 25 Nxe6 Rxf3 26 Rxf3 Nc8 27 Nc7 Re5. I can’t argue; this looks OK for Black. 24 Rxf4 Nd5 25 Bxd5 cxd5 26 Rd4 Winning a pawn, and White demonstrates some solid endgame technique to bring home the full point. What I find interesting about this is that this solid technique seems to be at odds with the sharp choice of opening. Deliberate psychology perhaps? 26...Rfe8 27 Rxd5 Re7 28 Rfd1 g6 29 Rd8+ Rxd8 30 Rxd8+ Kg7 31 Rd5 g5 32 Kf2 Kg6 33 g4 Keeping Black’s king out of f5. 33...h6 34 Kf3 Rc7 After 34...f5, there would follow 35 exf6 Kxf6 36 Rd6+ Kg7, and now 37 c4 is probably best. In Chess Fundamentals, Capablanca taught that we should first advance the pawn which has no opponent, in this case White’s c-pawn. 35 Rd6+ Kg7 36 Ke4 Rc4+ 37 Rd4 Rc6 38 Kf5 Rc7 39 c4 a6 40 b4 Rc6 41 c5 White is tightening the screw very effectively. It’s not every day that you see an endgame being well played at club level. 41...Rc7 42 Rd6 a5 43 a3 axb4 44 axb4 Re7 45 b5 Rc7 46 c6 The majority yields a passed pawn, which in turn ties Black’s rook down. All text book stuff. 46…bxc6 47 bxc6 Ra7 48 Rd4 Ruling out any ideas such as ...Ra4, followed by ...Rf4 mate, and bringing the rook behind the passed pawn. 48...Rc7 49 Rc4 Kg8 50 Ke4 Kf8 51 Kf5 Ke7 52 Rc5 Ke8 Or 52...Rc8 53 c7 Kf8 54 Kf6 etc. 53 Kf6 Kf8 54 h3 Zugzwang. 54...Ke8 55 Kg7 h5 56 Kf6 hxg4 57 hxg4 Kf8

58 Kxg5 Ke7 59 Kf5 Kf8 60 g5 Ke7 61 Rc1 Another zugzwang. White is making it slow and painful. 61...Kf8 62 Kf6 Ke8 63 g6 Getting two passed pawns after which the end is in sight. 63…fxg6 64 Kxg6 Ke7 65 Kf5 Kf7 66 e6+ Ke7 67 Ke5 Ke8 68 Kd6 Rc8 69 c7 Kf8 70 Kd7 1-0 White played the latter stages very nicely. Recommended Reading The Fascinating King’s Gambit by Thomas Johansson (Trafford Publishing, 2005) Chess Fundamentals by Jose Raul Capablanca (McKay Chess Library, 2001) Dynamic Chess Strategy by Mihai Suba (Pergamon, 1991) Gambiteer I: Hard-hitting Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Nigel Davies (Everyman Chess, 2007)

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

The Universal Style

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

One of the criticisms most often levelled at players such as Bent Larsen and Oleg Romanishin is that they never learned how to bite the bullet and just defend. Forever striving for the initiative, they would even come out shooting when their positions were starting to wobble. Probably they’d even go on to win some of them but with most of these results coming against weaker opponents. Against the strong ones this strategy is likely to rebound. This is probably why such players do better in tournaments than in matches, especially events of mixed strength. Whilst their rivals might be winning some and drawing some, those who play every game to the limit would notch up a ferocious rate of scoring in which even an occasional loss was nothing more than a temporary set-back. In many of the tournaments he won in the late 1960s, Larsen would often be well clear of the rest of the field. Unfortunately, there seems to be a limit to how far attacking players can go unless they temper their aggressive inclinations with iron discipline. Alexander Alekhine is probably the most outstanding example of someone who did this, going on to beat Capablanca in quiet positions in their match in 1927. Gary Kasparov too underwent a transformation after his marathon first match with Anatoly Karpov, though in Kasparov’s case one has to say that his early education in chess wasn’t too bad to begin with. As for Mikhail Tal, I’d say that he had just so much talent that it didn’t too much matter that he was illdisciplined. But there has only ever been one Tal. Can club players also undergo such transformations? Indeed they can. I’ve seen a number of talented aggressors develop new aspects to their game after being stuck for years in a kind of shoot ‘em up mode for years. How did they do it?

Play through and download the games from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game Viewer. The Complete DGT Product Line

I don’t think this can ever be an overnight thing; the maturing of someone’s style takes years. Painful defeats can drive home the importance of playing according to position, particularly if a guide is on hand to show them why they lost. Other factors can include a liking of endgames, which was certainly Jon Speelman’s stylistic salvation and played an important part in the development of the great Paul Keres too. When players aren’t restricted to winning by delivering checkmate in the middle game, they tend to start toning any wildness down. The other thing that can help is a schooling in positional chess by learning what to do in different types of pawn structures. One of the things that characterises the attacking club player seems to be a willingness to do just about anything to create a threat or two. When they learn that particular pawn structures require certain kinds of typical moves, they can start to do what the position wants rather than just wave the meat cleaver around. There are a number of good books for developing this facet of someone’s game, such as the two volumes on The Middlegame by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer or Ludek Pachman’s Complete Chess Strategy, which deal systematically with different types of positions. My own Power-Chess Program was similarly motivated and provided test positions to make sure the reader wasn’t slacking. Yet another way to sober up wild attackers is for them to analyse their own games in depth, with the emphasis being on how their opponents could have defended better. Very often superior defensive lines are overlooked, especially when someone got a buzz from their handiwork. And the times when the attack “works” rather than falls flat on its face are usually put down to good or bad “form.”

Needless to say there’s an unhealthy dose of self-delusion in such conclusions which doesn’t help the problem at all. Iron discipline and brutal self-honesty are what is required. This month’s game is a classic example of an aggressive and creative player being caught in a passive position and trying to shoot his way out of trouble. To make matters worse this was actually a correspondence game in which plenty of time was available to White to keep things under control. Velilla Velasco,F - Rhodes,J Correspondence 2007 Dutch Defence [A96] 1 d4 f5 A perennial choice of aggressive players, particularly if they don’t like openings in which there’s a lot of theory, such as the King’s Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7) Grünfeld (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5) and Semi-Slav (1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 e6). Other possibilities include Alexander Morozevich’s former darling the Chigorin Defence (1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nc6) and the Tarrasch (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5). Along with the Dutch, the Tarrasch and the King’s Indian have the advantage that they can be used against the English (1 c4) and Réti (1 Nf3) openings. This is no small consideration, especially for those with limited time to study. 2 g3 Nf6 3 Bg2 e6 And here another possibility is the Leningrad Dutch with 3…g6. Victor Korchnoi used to play this way, but then realised that neither he nor his opponents knew what was happening. 4 Nf3 Be7 When White puts his knight on f3 really early, there’s a good case for 4...d5, followed by putting the bishop on d6 rather than e7. The main problem with Stonewall formations comes when White can put his knight on h3. 5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 This has become quite popular since having been suitably propagandised in Simon Williams’ book Play the Classical Dutch. But I have my doubts as to whether Black’s position is as good as it’s portrayed. Black can still play a Stonewall with 6…d5 or even delay committing himself with 6…c6. There’s also Alekhine’s interesting move, 6…Ne4. 7 Nc3 Ne4 This so-called Ilyin-Zhenevsky System is awarded an exclamation mark by Williams. 8 Qc2 Nxc3 9 Qxc3 a5 Restraining White on the queenside. Another approach is to play the immediate 9…Bf6, aiming for …e6-e5. 10 Re1

leave White better.

A simple plan, aiming for e2-e4. Certainly Black has to react precisely, as inaccurate play will

10...Nc6 Williams himself has also played 10...c6; for example, 11 b3 (11 e4 d5 12 a3? dxe4 13 Ne5 Bb4! won material in Balogh - Williams, Budapest 1994) 11...e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 Bb2 Nd7 14 a3 Bf6 15 e4 Nc5 16 Nxe5 Qc7 17 f4 Rd8 18 Qe3 was probably good for White, though he chickened out with a draw (½-½) in Bisby - Williams, London 1993. 11 e4 fxe4?!

Deviating from theory and leaving White clearly better because of the weakness on e6. The critical move is 11...e5; for example, 12 exf5 (12 dxe5 dxe5 13 c5 Bf6 14 exf5 Bxf5 15 Qb3+ Kh8 16 Qxb7 Nb4 transposes back into the main line) 12...Bxf5 and now Williams analyses 13 dxe5 (13 Be3 Be4 was very comfortable for Black in Gallagher Williams, Port Erin 2001) 13...dxe5 14 c5 Bf6 15 Qb3+ Kh8 16 Qxb7 Nb4 17 Nxe5 Nc2 18 Bf4 and now just 18...Nxe1 (Rather than Williams’ wild suggestion of 18...g5!? 19 Rad1 Nxe1 20 Rxd8 Raxd8 21 Qxc7 Rd1 22 Bf1 Be4, with unfathomable (at least for me) complications) 19 Rxe1 Rb8 20 Qd5 Qxd5 21 Bxd5 g5 22 Bc1 Rb5 looks very comfortable for Black. 12 Rxe4 Bf6 13 Bf4 Ra6?! The first sign of Rhodes’ creativity working against him. Black really should be defending here and keeping his position as well-balanced as possible. With this in mind the right move is 13... Bd7, when White is better, but with the main fight lying ahead. 14 Rd1 h6?! Here too 14...Bd7 looks best. 15 h4 Ne7 16 Bg5 Qd7?! And this is another somewhat strange move that often appears when aggressive players get cornered. The simple 16...Nf5 was the proper move. 17 Ree1 Qa4 18 b3 Qa3 19 Bc1 Qb4 19...Qxa2 20 Rd2 Qb1 21 Rc2, intending Nd2, would win the queen. 20 Qd3 Nf5 21 Bh3 The pressure against e6 is mounting, and it’s going to get much worse than this. 21…Bd8 22 Bd2 Qb6 23 Re4 c6 24 Rf4 d5 This leaves Black with horrific weaknesses, but what else he can play? White was threatening 25 d5 himself. 25 c5 Qc7 26 Ne5 The arrival of this knight on e5 signals the beginning of the end for Black. 26...Ra7 27 g4!

pawn.

A crusher. Black can’t play 27…Ne7, because of 28 Rxf8+ Kxf8 29 Qh7, so he at least grabs a

27…Nxh4 28 Rxf8+ Kxf8 29 Qh7 With Black’s pieces so passively placed he is powerless against this invasion of his position. 29...Bf6 30 f4 Nf3+ A desperate move if ever there was one! 31 Nxf3 Qf7 32 g5 Qg8 33 Qxg8+ 1-0 Black never really got going in this one and the short term answer would be to play the opening

more precisely with 11…e5. But in the long run there’s still the issue of approaching the ideal of developing a “universal style” and learning to hang tough when things start to go wrong. Recommended Reading Play the Classical Dutch by Simon Williams (Gambit, 2003) The Chiggorin Defence According to Morozevich by Alexander Morozevich and Vladimir Barsky (New in Chess, 2007) The Middlegame: Static Features Book 1 by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer (Hays Publishing, 2001) The Middlegame: Dynamic and Subjective Features Book 2 by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer (Hays Publishing, 2001)

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Coping with a Loss

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Reader Larry Peterson recently asked me for some advice on how to overcome a painful defeat, especially in a weekend Swiss. This is actually a very interesting question and one which can have a profound effect on a player’s overall results. How do we cope with losses? First of all, I’m not sure that grandmasters have all the answers, in fact some of them react very badly to defeat. The example which comes most quickly to mind is that of Vlastimil Jansa, who often plays superbly in a tournament until he loses a game. I’ve heard that some Russian trainers recommend just making a draw after a couple of defeats, just to settle the stomach. The implication is that after a single loss one should continue as if nothing particularly untoward has happened. Perhaps there is something to be said for this strategy, but I have several issues with it. In the first place it fails to take into account a player’s expected results after losing one or two games. It could be that some players perform very well after two defeats, in which case they will hobble their results by heading for draws. So perhaps the first step is to analyse one’s own results, looking at one’s overall percentages or rating performance and then compiling separate performance tables after one or two losses. Is there a significant difference? If not, then you probably don’t need to worry too much. Of course most people will not be this scientific, instead relying on experience and drawing up a personal rulebook. Experienced chess players often develop a sensitivity towards their mood and psychological well being and have strategies for improving things when they don’t feel quite right. Now I don’t know what other players do about losses, but I have few ideas of my own which I’ll try to enumerate. I can’t guarantee that these will work for everyone, but you might get some ideas that will help your own game.

Play through and download the games from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game Viewer. The Complete DGT Product Line

First of all, you need to forget about a loss as quickly as possible, so don’t dwell on it. I personally tend to avoid post mortems during Swiss events as there’s precious little time before the next round begins. Ideally I’ll get out of the building for a while and get some fresh air. If there’s just one game a day or it’s the last game of the day, you have the opportunity to be especially kind to yourself. Go out to eat or see a movie. Don’t beat yourself up over a defeat as this tends to make matters worse. A good habit I’ve learned is to congratulate the opponent who has just beaten you, perhaps saying ‘well played’ even if he didn’t play that well. I’ve noticed that graceful losers seem to keep their composure much better during tournaments, which brings to mind Bjorn Borg’s approach of not querying line calls. Getting worked up about things just doesn’t help. A loss can indicate a flaw in your openings or game as a whole that has perhaps crept in because of a lapse in one’s studies. If this is the case make a written note (and not a mental one) to schedule in some much needed maintenance. Don’t try to fix the problem during a hectic tournament schedule as you’ll just tire yourself out. I personally don’t prepare much for my games these days and find that this keeps my head clearer when the actual shooting begins. I believe that this approach makes it easier to cope with losses as tournaments are then played in a more relaxed frame of mind. On the other hand, a state of ongoing tension is likely to become much worse with a loss. I’m a great believer in having a routine during tournaments and think that this can also

help. If, from the outset, you see a chess game as another day in the office, then one is better prepared for having a bad day. When chess games become a matter of life or death, then defeat can be very hard to cope with. And I speak from experience on this matter. What are the ‘don’ts’? Well I’ve seen all kinds of self-destructive behaviour after losses, from storming out of the tournament hall to turning to drinking between games. There are those who try to ‘take revenge’ during their next game, ignoring what the position requires. Others will completely lose their self-confidence, as if the loss confirmed their worthlessness as a chess player. To some extent these actions will be an extension of someone’s personality, and as such it may be difficult for them to cure themselves altogether. Having said that I believe that discipline can go a long way. The following game features a line that would have appeared in Gambiteer I had I known about it! 5 g4!? is a dangerous move, not at all the kind of thing you hope to meet when playing a solid opening like the Philidor. I don’t know how Black managed after the drubbing he received here, at least with league games you don’t have to play again the very next day. Josse,M - Davies,J London Commercial League, 2007 Philidor Defence [C41] 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nd7 This isn’t a bad move order if you’re also willing to play either an Old Indian or King’s Indian with your knight committed to d7 already. White can reach such lines with 3 c4. 3 Nc3 e5 4 Nf3 Ngf6 5 g4!? Wow! This really is a bolt from the blue, and patronage by Alexei Shirov gives it respectability into the bargain. 5...Nxg4 Had I personally been faced with White’s last thunderbolt, I would probably have been tempted to duck with 5...g6. A high level game Lastin Azmaiparashvili, Tripoli 2004 continued 6 g5 Nh5 7 Be3 Bg7 8 Qd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 f5!? (9...c6 doesn’t look too bad to me) 10 exf5 Rxf5 11 dxe5 Nxe5 12 Nxe5 Bxe5 13 Bc4+ Kh8 14 Kb1 Bd7 15 Rhe1 Bc6 16 Be6 Rf3 17 Bg4 Rxe3 18 Qxe3 Nf4 19 Bf3 Qxg5 20 Nd5 Bxd5 21 Bxd5 c6 and Black probably had enough for the exchange. 6 Rg1 exd4 Black has a major alternative here in 6...Ngf6; for example, 7 Bc4 h6 8 Be3 c6 9 Qd3 Qc7 10 0-0-0 b5 11 Bxb5 cxb5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 Nxb5 Qa5 14 Qc4 Rb8 15 a4 Qb4 16 Nxe5 Qxc4 17 Nxc4 a6 18 Nbd6+ Bxd6 19 Nxd6+ Kf8 20 f4 Bb7 21 e5 Ne8 22 Nxe8 Kxe8 was wild and eventually drawn in Shirov - Azmaiparashvili, Plovdiv 2003. It’s noteworthy that Azmai chose to take the pawn in this later game (as opposed to his 5... g6 against Lastin), though whether this was because he thought this was a better way to play it is not as clear as some might believe. He could simply have varied to avoid any home preparation and then there’s the possibility that he forgot about the earlier game. I do that all the time myself. 7 Bg5 Pouring gasoline onto the fire, though this is probably asking a bit too much of the position. In previous games White has just played 7 Nxd4; for example, 7...Nde5 (7...Ngf6 8 Be3 g6 9 Qd2 Ne5 10 Be2 Bg7 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 Bg5 Kh8 13 Qf4 gave White good attacking chances for the pawn in Vujic - Appel, Germany 2004) 8 h3 Nf6 9 f4 Ng6 10 Be3 c6 11 Qd2 Qc7 12 0-0-0 Bd7 13 Qf2 0-0-0 14 Bg2 Be7 15 Nf5 Bxf5 16 exf5 Nf8 17 Bxa7 N8d7 18 Bd4 Rhe8 ½-½ was Kanovsky - Neuman, Havlickuv Brod 2006. The final position looks fine for Black, not that I think this is the last word on this line.

7...f6 8 Nxd4 Nde5 Fritz 10 is quick to point out 8...Nxf2; for example, 9 Qh5+ g6 10 Qe2 Ne5 11 Qxf2 fxg5 12 Nd5 c6 13 Nf6+ Ke7 14 Rxg5 and now 14...Bh6 looks strong. This looks like a strong argument in favour of 7 Nxd4 rather than 7 Bg5. 9 Bf4 g5 10 Be3 White has another interesting possibility in 10. Bb5+, when Black’s best might be the immediate 10...Kf7 (10...c6 11 Bxe5 Nxe5 12 f4 gxf4 13 Qh5 + Ke7 14 0-0-0 looks very dangerous to me). Even so this looks good for White after 11 Bc1!, intending 12 Be2, when Black’s king remains in an unenviable position. 10...c6 11 h3

problems such as the weak f5-square.

White might have been trying too hard to force things here. Just 11 Qe2 looks good; for example, 11...Nxe3 12 Qxe3 leaves Black with long-term

11...Nh6?? But this is a really bad move. Just 11...Nxe3 12 Qh5+ Kd7 13 fxe3 Kc7 gets Black’s king safe, and without f2-f4 to prise open the f-file it won’t be easy to breach Black’s position. 12 Qh5+ Nhf7 13 0-0-0 Qc7 14 f4 14 h4 looks even stronger as after 14...h6 15.f4 you’ve got a bonus g6-square to come in on. 14...gxf4 15 Bxf4 Ng6 This should come in for some rough treatment, but it’s getting difficult to find good moves for Black. After 15...Bd7, White can simply play 16. Bxe5 fxe5 17.Bc4 0-0-0 18.Ne6 winning material. 16 Bh2 In any case this looks nice for White, but here it looks like he missed a chance for stardom via 16 Ndb5! Qd7 (Or 16...cxb5 17 Nd5 Qd8 18 Bxb5+ Bd7 19 Bxd7+ Kxd7 20 Qf5+ Kc6 21 Rg3, etc) 17 Rxg6 hxg6 18 Qxg6 Kd8 19 Nxd6 Bxd6 20 Bxd6 Nxd6 21 Qxf6+, etc. 16...Bd7 This loses, but it’s not easy to give Black good advice. After 16...Bh6+ 17 Kb1 Be3 (trying to eliminate the knight on d4), White has 18 Ndb5 cxb5 19 Nd5 Qc5 20 b4 Qc6 21 Bxb5 winning Black’s queen. And 16...Nfe5 17 Bxe5 dxe5 18 Nf5 Qf7 19 Nb5! is none too pleasant either. 17 Bc4 Nfe5 18 Bxe5 dxe5 18...fxe5 19 Rxg6 0-0-0 20 Ne6 is similar and similarly hopeless. 19 Rxg6 0-0-0 20 Ne6 After all the fireworks, White is coming out a piece ahead. And he makes no mistake during the mopping up operations. 20...Bxe6 21 Bxe6+ Kb8 22 Rxf6 Bc5 23 Rf7 Rxd1+ 24 Qxd1 Qb6 25 Kb1 Bd4 26 Qf3

26 Na4 Qd8 27 c3 is also good. 26...Qb4 27 a3 Qd6 28 Bb3 a5 29 Qf6 1-0 Recommended Reading Gambiteer I by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2007) Learn from your Defeats by Anatoly Karpov (Batsford, 1985)

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

The Perils of Success

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

Whilst writing last month’s column on coping with losses, I was aware that success may be a far more serious issue in compromising a player’s objectivity. Of course success isn’t usually seen as being a problem as people tend to be only too happy to achieve it. But as the Indian proverb goes: “Before dashing a man to the ground the elephant first lifts him up into the air.” I’ve encountered this phenomenon numerous times in my own career with successes having been followed by a sharp deterioration in my play as all objectivity went out the window. The turning point probably came when Swedish GM Lars Karlsson once advised me that after winning a tournament or scoring a norm to be very careful in the next few games. This was an important catalyst in my journey of self-discovery within chess. I gradually learned to be wary when I sensed an emotional high. There’s actually a saying in Chan Buddhism: “Flatten Your Heart.” This doesn’t mean that we should act like robots, but rather that we should not overreact to the events life throws at us. When we do so we give up any mastery we have over ourselves to external forces, in the process becoming vulnerable to countless distractions. And this includes those offered by unscrupulous opponents. How should someone learn to “flatten their heart”? A good place to start might well be the nearby stomach as our body chemistry is affected by health and lifestyle choices. Anyone who doesn’t believe me on this should try drinking a litre of whisky a day for three days, have loud music playing to prevent sleep and then have a teenage double glazing salesman call on day four. I guarantee more extreme emotions than had one avoided the whisky and slept.

Play through and download the games from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game Viewer. The Complete DGT Product Line

Cultivating self-awareness is also helpful. This can be done by things like keeping a tournament diary plus some form of meditation, even if that involves nothing more than relaxing in the bath. Honest introspection is one of the most valuable tools at a chess player’s disposal, but this is usually sidelined in favour of bluster and various ego defences (i.e. lying to oneself). Are there any specific ways of coping with success? Well one thing I’ve noticed about great champions from fields other than chess is that they are often very modest. Frankly I think that Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Pete Sampras may be much better role models for young chess players than many of our own champions. If they’ve got huge egos, they’ve managed to hide it well. Another thing is to try to avoid hanging out with sycophants. Success inevitably attracts admirers and attention, and it can feel pleasant to bask in the glory. But these newfound fans can feed our delusions and accelerate the fall from Olympus. Chess players need clear headed objectivity rather than worshipers. If they want to continue their success, that is. How can we recognise delusional symptoms? One thing to watch out for is excessive kibitzing in the analysis room, especially at boards where the players are higher rated than ourselves. Even more serious are delusions of expertise in fields outside chess, such as politics, religion, neuroscience, women etc. Going back to the fan issue, this is the point that we desperately need people around us who’ll indicate, in the nicest possible way, that we’re talking rubbish. But of course they’ll seem much less pleasant to be around than those who hang on our every word. Success can be a problem before a game has actually been won; on achieving a good or “winning” position we can start off down the road of delusion mid-game. This is

something that can be fed by any friends, family or “fans” that look at the game and linger too long. Especially if they clearly delight in our opponent’s misery. What’s the answer to this one? Well first of all we should tell ourselves that a game is never won until the opponent has stopped the clock and signed the score sheet. Experience helps in that those who’ve lost dozens of “winning” positions should start to realise that won games need winning. And by developing the habit of sitting down at the board during a game one is likely to have associates who do the same, i.e. they won’t be wandering round looking at everyone else’s game. Birds of a feather flock together and all that. This month’s game is a solid performance by White, though there was a slight rush of blood when Black got into time-trouble (32…Rd6 would have been awkward). Burtonshaw,D - Sharp,G Metropolitan Kent League Match, Sidcup 2006 Catalan [E04] 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 g3 I’ve used this move order extensively myself, as White avoids many of the sharp alternatives for Black in the main line Catalan (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dxc4 5 Bg2 and now 5…a6, 5…Nc6 and 5…Bb4+ for example). Amongst the drawbacks are that Black can head for a Queen’s Indian with 3…b6, push the b-pawn even further with 3…b5 or play Black’s choice in the game. 3...c5 4 Bg2 d5 After this we go back into standard Catalan lines. Black has a major alternative in 4… cxd4, when after 5 Nxd4, the move 5…d5 is the most ambitious try for Black, trying to use his extra centre pawn to effect. 5 c4 dxc4 6 Qa4+ I’ve sometimes played 6 0-0 Nc6 7 dxc5 in this position, with an endgame that gives White chances for an edge. 6...Nc6 This probably gives White more chances of an edge than 6...Bd7. 7 dxc5 Qa5+ Alternatively there is 7...Bxc5, when 8 0-0 0-0 9 Qxc4 Qd5 10 Nfd2 Qxc4 11 Nxc4 Nd4 12 Nc3 Bb4 13 e3 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Ne2+ 15 Kh1 Nxc1 didn’t leave White with much to work with in Beliavsky - Balashov, USSR Ch., Vilnius 1980. 8 Qxa5 Nxa5 9 Nc3 This natural looking move seems new, but it doesn’t look easy to recover the pawn now. In the game Borge - Groenn, Aarhus 1990, White played more strongly with 9 Bd2 Nc6 10 Na3 though Black eventually equalised with careful play: 10...Bxc5 11 Nxc4 Nd5 12 Rc1 Be7 13 0-0 0-0 14 a3 Rd8 15 Rfd1 Bd7 16 Ne3 Be8 17 Nxd5 Rxd5 18 Be3 Rxd1+ 19 Rxd1 Rd8 brought about mass simplification. 9...Bd7?! 9...Bxc5 looks more natural, leaving White with the problem of how to get the pawn back. He might well have enough compensation, but probably not much more than that. 10 Ne5 Rc8 11 Nxd7 Nxd7 12 Bd2 Nc6 After 12…Nxc5, White can get his pawn back with 13 Nb5 Nc6 14 Na3. Not that this is great for White, but at least it’s something. 13 Rc1 Bxc5

After this White finally gets to cook with some gas. 13...Nxc5 is better, making Nc3-e4 less effective. 14 Ne4 Nce5?! Playing actively when he should bite the bullet and defend. Black should settle for the modest 14...Be7 15 Rxc4 0-0, with only slightly the worst of it because of White’s bishoppair. 15 Nxc5 Nxc5 16 Bc3 Ned3+? Two bishops are much better than a rook in this position. Black should settle for the somewhat miserable 16...f6 17 Bxe5 fxe5 18 Rxc4 Ke7; he’s worse because of White’s strong bishop and the doubled e-pawns, but the position should still be defensible. 17 exd3 Nxd3+ 18 Ke2 Nxc1+ 19 Rxc1 b5 Black had to give up either b7 or g7 and in either case his position is lost. His sixteenth move was a huge error in judgement. 20 Bxg7 Rg8 21 Bf6 From a material point of view White doesn’t have much of an advantage. Unless of course one properly assesses the value of the bishop-pair in such an open position. 21…Rg6 22 Bc3 h5 23 Rd1 Rg5 23...h4 would have been a better try, aiming to exchange some pawns. 24 f4 Rgc5 Apparently Black was also in time trouble at this point with just six minutes left to reach move thirty-five. But paradoxically this can often help a bad position if the opponent tries to force matters. 25 Bd4 I would have preferred to keep his queenside pawns blockaded with 25 Bf3. Letting him advance them makes the issue slightly less clear than it should be. 25...R5c7 26 Bf3 b4 27 Bxh5 c3 OK, it’s passed, but it ain’t going very far if White is careful. 28 bxc3 bxc3 29 Rc1 c2 30 Ke3?! Playing quickly to take advantage of Black’s clock situation? 30 Be5 Rc5 31 Bf3 was more solid, the pawn on c2 is blockaded and meanwhile Harry the h-pawn is ready to roll. 30...Rb7 31 Kd3?! 31 Bf6 looks better. Now the bishop on d4 gets awkwardly pinned. 31...Rd7 32 Bf3 Ke7 32...Rd6 33 Ke3 Ra6 would have been better, and doesn’t look like a trivial win for White. 33 Ke3 Rc4 34 Bb2 Ra4 35 Rxc2 1-0 (time)

Sometimes a falling flag is a blessing. Black can’t even take the pawn on a2 because of 36 Bf6 +. Recommended Reading Practical Chess Psychology: A Chess Player’s Behavioral Guide by Amatzia Avni (Batsford, 2001) The Catalan by Alex Raetsky (Everyman, 2004)

© 2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

The Perceived Problem of Draws

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

There has been a recent flurry of interest in draw reducing legislature. A double round tournament in Bilbao tried a scoring system with 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. I’ve also seen suggestions that a draw offer should stand for the rest of the game, or at least another five or ten moves. Personally I’ve always felt that a reduction in legislature is more likely to improve matters, the more rules that are created the greater the number of problems. For example, the 3 point win rule encourages the players to play like (semi) lunatics, even if the logical result of the game is a draw. And allowing draw offers to stand would allow all sorts of crazy ideas to be played before someone accepted the draw, queen and two rooks down and about to be mated. Nobody would want to offer a draw and give their opponents such a licence. My own suggestion is to avoid major surgery altogether and perhaps tweak prize funds to reward wins (for example have separate prizes for the number of wins). Another thought is that FIDE could also publish statistics about the number of short draws players make along with their rating. Whilst it might not act against short draws directly, players would certainly be aware of the potential damage to their marketability. There’s also a case for making tournament schedules somewhat less intense; the main ‘culprits’ vis-à-vis grandmaster draws may well be older players who need to take it easy during gruelling events. Introducing a seven hour playing session certainly wasn’t helpful for older players. Shouldn’t tournaments be about finding the best player, rather than those with the most stamina? There’s a case for encouraging older players to compete in that they may be able to converse more interestingly with sponsors. Are draw offers a bigger problem than having too many spotty teenagers around?

Play through and download the games from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game Viewer. The Complete DGT Product Line

One can also argue that draw offers provide a fertile field for psychological nuance that actually enriches the contest. On the one hand they can show fear and on the other be used as a means of provocation. In refusing a draw, players can either put pressure on themselves to win or establish a sense of superiority. A classic example was when Bobby Fischer refused Efim Geller’s draw offer by laughing in his face. In a long game Geller was unrecognisable, finally cracking in what should have been a ‘drawn’ endgame. I don’t recommend Fischer’s tactic at club level, after all these games should be conducted in a relatively friendly spirit, rather than being an extension of the cold war. But there are a number of things club players should be aware of.

First and foremost I’ve noticed that at club level draws tend to be offered out of the fear of playing against a higher rated player, rather than the merits of the position on the board. And they also tend to be refused for the same reason. Perhaps there’s some short-term sense in this because of the tendency for club games to be decided by large mistakes rather than positional advantages, with higher rated players making fewer large mistakes. But from an improvement point of view it isn’t good at all, first of all players don’t learn to prosecute an advantage against decent resistance. It also erodes self-confidence, is the best a lower rated player can hope for to have a good enough position that is good enough to beg for a draw from? This self imposed psychological boundary is a huge obstacle to ever getting better. This month’s game is an excellent illustration of these issues. Black offers a draw as early as move ten, after which the psychological tone is set for the rest of the game. White makes ever more desperate attempts to ‘win’ as his position becomes ever weaker. And Black finally converts his large advantage into the sought for half point. Stephan Van Kesteren (1955) – Ken Castle (1701) Bunratty Challengers, 2004 Sicilian Defence [B22] 1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 At club level I’ve noticed a tendency for players to meet the astonishing 2 c3 by proceeding with their favourite Najdorf or Dragon moves anyway. Thus the games often continue 2...d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 (or indeed 5...a6 if it’s a Najdorf player). 3 exd5 Qxd5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 d4 e6 6 Be2 Nc6 7 O-O cxd4 8 cxd4 An isolated d-pawn appears on the board, which is really the key to both sides’ strategy. As a general guideline, Black should be trying to simplify the position and gradually mark this pawn as a weakness. White, on the other hand, should have a good reason for exchanging pieces and try to use his space advantage. Chances are about even. 8…Be7 9 Nc3 Qd6 10 h3 It’s difficult to believe this can be the best, though it has been played by some strong players. More usually White proceeds with 10 Nb5 Qd8 11 Bf4 Nd5 12 Bg3, though I don’t think there’s anything special for White here either. 10...O-O

he fails to get anywhere. 11 Be3 Nb4

Black offered a draw at this point, which is probably a bit cheeky given the fact that he’s black against a higher rated opponent. Could White have been insulted? Possibly. And some of his later moves do betray signs of frustration as

Rather than move this knight again (and indeed invite White’s knight into e5), I would prefer 11...b6. A game Haas - Gheorghiu, Graz 1987 continued 12 Qd2 Bb7 13 Rfd1 Nb4 (only now) 14 Bf4 Qd8 15 Rac1 Nbd5 16 Nxd5 Nxd5 17 Be5 Qd7 and White didn’t have much play to compensate for his isolated queen’s pawn. 12 Ne5 Nbd5 13 Bd2 This looks a bit passive. If White wishes to maintain his dark-squared bishop, then 13 Bg5 looks more natural. On the other hand, he might well consider 13 Bf3, offering Black the bishop-pair in return for a central pawn majority. 13...b6 14 Nb5 This, followed by the invasion on c6, nets White the bishop-pair. But there’s a cost involved in this transaction, because White loses time with his knights and another piece is exchanged. Generally speaking, it’s better to avoid exchanges when you are the possessor of an isolated queen’s pawn. 14…Qb8 15 Nc6 This may look scary for Black, but the bark is worse than the bite. 15…Qb7 16 Rc1 a6 17 Nxe7+ Qxe7 18 Nc3 h6 Preventing White’s bishop from landing on g5. 19 Bf3 Bb7 20 Qe1? Here’s the frustration. White ‘threatens’ to capture on d5 and then win the exchange with Bd2-b4, but Black deals with this idea with the greatest of ease. Meanwhile it can’t be said that the queen on e1 does much for White’s position, though he later tries to give it some purpose by advancing to e5. 20…Rfd8 21 Nxd5?! White is really losing the plot now, the exchanges on d5 give him a typically poor isolated queen’s pawn position in which he has a bad dark-square bishop against a good knight. It’s not easy to find a good line for White, but perhaps he could have made life harder for his opponent with 21 Na4!?. The main point of this is to sidestep the threat of 21...Nxc3 22 Bxb7 Ne2+, getting a similar position to the one reached in the game. 21...Bxd5 22 Bxd5 Nxd5 23 a3?! Making doubly sure that Black’s knight can’t land on b4, but further weakening the light squares. In some knight versus bishop minor piece endgames you might want the

queenside pawns on a2 and b3. 23…Rac8 24 Qe5 Qd7 25 Qg3 Another primitive threat (26 Bxh6), which has nothing to do with improving White’s position. The best threats are more like afterthoughts of good positional moves. 25…Ne7 26 Rxc8 Rxc8 27 Bc3 Nd5 28 Bd2 Ne7 Another tacit offer of a draw? Probably, because a real one soon follows. Black explained that he wasn’t keen on lines with 28...Kf8, because he was concerned that h7 might become an entry point for White’s queen. But this doesn’t look like a problem after 29 Qd3 Qa4, because 30 Qh7?! Qc2 31 Qh8+?? Ke7 wins a piece for Black. 29 Qb3?! If I were White, I would have tried very hard to look exasperated and allowed repetition with 29 Bc3, hoping that Black wouldn’t realise how good his position was. 29...Nd5 30 Be3 And here exasperation plus 30 Qg3 was in order. White is clearly worse and should be delighted to make a draw. 30...b5 Black accompanied this move with another draw offer. And once again White refuses... 31 Bd2 Rc4 32 Qg3 Ne7 33 Be3 Nf5 33...Rc2 is very unpleasant for White here. 34 Qb8+ Qc8?! 34...Kh7 is probably the best, but Black is still playing for a draw. White should now exchange queens and drive Black’s knight back with g2-g4, but he in turn is playing ‘for a win’. The next few moves repeat this scenario. In Black’s defence, I should point out that he was in some time-trouble, but this too was probably caused by treating his opponent with too much reverence. 35 Qf4?! Qc7?! 36 Qe4?! Qc6?! 37 Qd3?! Rc2

Missing a tactic that saves White’s bacon. One way to keep the advantage would have been 37...Nxe3, when 38 fxe3 (Or 38 Qxe3 Rc2) 38...Rc2 39 Rf2 Rxb2! 40 Rxb2 Qc1+ wins a pawn. And Black has some good alternatives such as 37...a5. 38 d5 Qc4 39 Qxc4 Rxc4 40 dxe6 fxe6 41 Bd2 ½-½ And having achieved his best position for some time, White now offered a draw. Recommended Reading Devious Chess: How to Bend the Rules and Win by Amatzia Avni (Batsford 2006) Practical Chess Psychology: A Chess Player’s Behavioral Guide by Amatzia Avni (Batsford, 2001)

© 2008 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

Check out these bestselling titles from USCFSales.com:

Wearing Different Hats

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

I recently received the following email from Benoist Busson from France, which reflects the concerns of many of us: “Your last two Gambiteer books are quite nice for us players rated about 1900-2000. But the Scotch is difficult to cope with, as I can’t see how to 'fight the stodge' in case of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. d4!? exd4 4.Nxd4...

Deluxe Tournament Scorebook

“What is your opinion about the right response to try to get some activity against it: “a) 4...Qh4?! too risky, isn’t it, and letting White have all the fun! b) 4...Bc5 with 5...Qf6 or 5...Bb6. But what is best for Black? c) 4...Nf6 5 Nc3 is boring, isn’t it? d) 4...Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 is very theoretical, isn’t it? e) 4...g6?! in order to try for a Larsen variation of the Philidor? f) 4...Others” Unfortunately I don’t have a particularly good answer; the Scotch is a problem for players who like to play actively as Black. This is why Gambiteer II was not presented as a complete repertoire, sometimes there’s little choice but to play positions that one doesn’t particularly like. And this is why an ‘all court’ style is a distinct advantage; a good player should be adept at wearing different hats.

Diary of a Mad Poker Player by Richard Sparks

Play through and download the games from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game Viewer. The Complete DGT Product Line

In this day and age, when there are so many games in databases, you can rest assured that your opponents will do their utmost to make life unpleasant for you. This may or may not involve cooking up specific moves, and indeed it’s far more dangerous to face an opponent who has noticed certain preferences in your playing style and set about exploiting them. This has happened to me a number of times, most notably against the ex-Russian Israeli IM Mark Berkovics. The first time I played him it all went wonderfully and I emerged victorious in a flowing game. After that a very different pattern emerged with him playing a very tight, methodical game and giving me no chances. He’d obviously thought about how to play against me and came up with a good solution. Many players have these weak spots, even the very best. I remember watching in amazement when Gary Kasparov failed to get anywhere against Vladimir Kramnik’s Berlin Defence. But looking at their previous games it became clear that at one moment Kramnik had found a relatively weak spot in Kasparov’s game in that he wasn’t at his best when it came to winning advantageous endgames. One of the ironies of the situation is that Kasparov might well have signed his own death warrant when he hired Kramnik as a second. Kramnik got to observe his future opponent up close. At amateur level these idiosyncrasies tend to be much more pronounced and can therefore be far more easily exploited. The most common scenario is for players who are afraid of tactics to get ‘bullied’ by those who are not. All sorts of weird and wonderful ideas can be ventured against someone who has little confidence in their tactical ability. And cowering just gives the attacker further encouragement. So back to Monsieur Busson’s question, and I can only answer that one has no choice but to play chess, trying not to be too one sided in one’s approach. Even if one gears a major part of one’s repertoire to gambit play, there are inevitably going to be times when one’s opponent makes it really dull. In the following game we see Black make ever more desperate attempts to win against his opponent’s Scotch, coming close to losing in the process. Ironically he could have done it as early as move nine, had he seen the tactical opportunity White presented to him. This perhaps is a greater truth, the opening is not as important as overall playing strength.

McGregor, S (1618) – ‘Beats20Cents’ (1869)

Gambiteer II by Nigel Davies

Internet 2003 Scotch Game [C45] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Bc5 5 Nxc6 Qf6 6 Qd2 6 Qf3 has been causing Black some problems of late; for example, Ivanchuk - Leko, Mukachevo 2007 went 6…bxc6 7 Be2 Qxf3 8 Bxf3 Ne7 9 Nc3 O-O 10 O-O d6 11 Rd1 a5 12 Na4 Ba7 13 c4 Ng6 14 c5 dxc5 15 Be3 with an edge for White because of his kingside pawn majority and Black’s weak pawns on the qeenside. 6...dxc6 7 Bd3 Be6 8 Nc3 Ne7 9 b3 This could have lost on the spot. White’s main choice in this position is between 9 Qf4 and 9 Na4, the latter move having scored quite heavily for White. 9...Bd4? Missing 9...Bxf2!,when 10 Qxf2 Qxc3+ wins. 10 Bb2 b5 Threatening to win a piece with ...b5-b4, but weakening the qeenside. 11 Rb1 Rd8 12 Nd1 Be5 13 O-O Ng6 As this doesn’t prevent White’s f2-f4, Black should probably have just castled. 14 f4 Bxb2 After 14...Bxf4 15 Bxf6 Bxd2 16 Bxd8, White wins the exchange; whilst 14...Nxf4 15 Bxe5 Qxe5 16 Qxf4 bags a whole piece. 15 Nxb2 Bc8 16 e5 Qe7 17 Qf2 Besides the obvious threat against the a7-pawn, White’s queen now probes the weakness on c5. 17…Qa3 18 Bxg6?!

A somewhat simplistic approach that leaves Black with a strong bishop. A better way would have been 18 Be4 O-O 19 Nd3, neatly regrouping White’s pieces and preparing to occupy c5. 18...fxg6 19 Nd3 O-O And not 19...Qxa2, because 20 Ra1 wins the queen. 20 Qc5 The start of a curious sequence of moves that has more to do with the ratings of the players than the position on the board: White invites the exchange of queens, which gives him equality at best. And Black in turn declines, leaving himself with what should have been a rather desperate position. 20…Qa6?! There’s nothing whatsoever wrong with 20...Qxc5+ 21 Nxc5 Rd4, hitting the pawn on f4 whilst activating his rooks. Black is soon forced into the exchange of queens to avoid a draw by repetition, but he should probably have taken either opportunity with alacrity. 21 Nb4 Qa3 22 Nd3 Qa6 23 Nb4 Qa3 24 Nd3 White’s comment at this point sums it up: “Not the most positive of play, but I would have settled for a draw given that I was playing for teams points and against a higher rated opponent.” 24 Qc3 was probably the objectively strongest move, and one which leaves Black in a difficult position. 24...Qxc5+ 25 Nxc5 Rd2 25...Rd4 26 g3 Rfd8 was another good way to play it. 26 Rbc1 Bf5?! Probably wrong as it allows White to free his position with 27 Rf2.

27 Nd3 Be4 27...g5 looks like a good move here, the idea being that after 28 fxg5 Be4 29 Rf2 Rfxf2 30 Nxf2 Rxc2, Black is actually better. 28 Rf2 Rxf2 29 Nxf2 Bf5 And not 29...Rxf4, because of 30 g3, winning the exchange. 30 g3 30 c4 would have been a strong move here. 30...Rd8 31 Rd1 White was still going for a draw at this point and felt that the repositioning of his knight would guarantee a draw. Actually he’s clearly better after either 31 g4 or 31 Nd3 Bxd3 32 cxd3 Rxd3 33 Rxc6 etc, and certainly in no danger of losing. 31...Rxd1+ 32 Nxd1 Bxc2 33 Ne3 Be4 34 Kf2 Kf7 35 Ke1 Ke6 36 Kd2 a5 37 Kc3 h6?! 37...c5 looks like the right move, stopping White’s king from coming into d4. Strangely White decides against taking this opportunity. 38 h4?! g5 38...c5 is still correct. 39 hxg5 hxg5 40 b4?! 40 Kd4 is obvious and good. Black in turn should now take on b4, but for some reason doesn’t do it. 40...a4 41 a3 Bg6 42 Kd4 gxf4 43 gxf4 Be8? 44 f5+ Suddenly White is clearly better. It was a very odd decision by Black to

release his hold on the f5-square. 44…Ke7 45 Kc5 g5 46 fxg6 Bxg6 47 Kxc6 Be8+ 48 Kxc7 Ke6 49 Kb6 Kxe5 50 Kc5 Ke4 51 Nc2? It seems that after 51 Nd5 and 52 Nc7, White is just winning. 51...Kd3 52 Nd4 Kc3 53 Nxb5+ Kb3 54 Kb6 Bxb5 55 Kxb5 Kxa3 56 Kc4 Kb2 57 b5 a3 58 b6 a2 59 b7 a1=Q 60 b8=Q+ Kc1 61 Qf4+ Kb1 62 Qf1+ Kb2?? Blundering into what should have been a mating net. Just 62...Ka2 is a draw. 63 Qe2+ Kc1 64 Qe3+??

64 Qe1+ Kb2 65 Qd2+ Kb1 66 Kb3 wins on the spot. 64...Kb1 65 Qb3+ Qb2 66 Qxb2+ Kxb2 ½-½

Recommended Reading

Gambiteer II by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2007) Play 1.e4 e5! by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2005) Beating the Open Games by Mihail Marin (Quality Chess, 2005) © 2008 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

A Nice Game of Chess? Sometimes I wonder where our game is heading. There’s no doubt that attitudes have changed during the thirty-five years in which I’ve been playing competitively and I wonder why people would want to take it up rather than some nice activity like bridge. There seems to be an ever greater focus on rules and cheating rather than the beauty and deep culture of the game. Or sportsmanship for that matter. Even the oft-maligned Mikhail Botvinnik was known to fetch his opponent from distant parts of the tournament hall when it was their turn to move. Botvinnik didn’t consider it fair that his opponent would lose thinking time on his clock.

Let’s Take A Look... Nigel Davies

This makes quite a contrast with some of the behaviour I witnessed last weekend. It started about an hour into the round when I heard one of the players on the next board deliver a lecture to his opponent about his ‘bad habit’ of adjusting the pieces (this appeared to be a nervous habit that he had). I hasten to add that it was the adjuster’s turn to move, so as I understand it he could adjust as much as he wanted. Meanwhile he was getting a patronising speech when his clock was ticking.

Check out these bestselling titles from USCFSales.com:

Deluxe Tournament Scorebook

This seemed to blow over until another incident occurred; the lecturer now decided that his opponent was using periods when he was not at the board to seek outside assistance from Deep Blue’s cousin or something. In fact he was going for a smoke. At some point during all of this the arbiter was consulted and he sensibly dismissed these claims and sent them back to play the game. There was another exchange of words in which the lecturer announced that he was being disturbed (sic) whilst his opponent tried to say that he’d done nothing wrong.

Play through and download the games from ChessCafe. com in the DGT Game Viewer. The Complete DGT Product Line

I must admit to having felt a certain temptation to save the lecturer from further ‘disturbance’ by wringing his scrawny neck. But I thought better of it after mulling over the possible extenuating circumstances. Accusations of cheating seem to be all the rage these days after having recently been made by ‘elite’ players and role models. So it’s only a question of time before this trickles down to weekend tournaments and club games.

Diary of a Mad Poker Player by Richard Sparks

What does one do when confronted with such accusations, or indeed other attempts to disturb one’s concentration? Unfortunately there’s no easy answer, a lot depends one someone’s character and temperament. Nervous players are probably quite vulnerable, especially if they happen to smoke. Leaving the tournament hall for an occasional smoking break leaves them open to accusations of consulting outside sources. So there’s the first piece of advice I can offer; give up smoking so you can stay in the playing hall! Of course there are other things the guy can accuse you of, such as discussing the game if you talk to anyone. It doesn’t matter that you see chess tournaments as being a social event and want to chat to your friends between moves. Neither does it matter that you’re in the Minor and have one point out of four (and that was the bye). You might still be viewed as playing for grading points and be willing to use unscrupulous means to get them. Therefore it’s better not to talk to anyone during the game, and maybe better still not to go near anyone. I’ve found that my own board is one of the safest places, especially if you can make it look like you’re thinking. Needless to say one shouldn’t wear a hat lest it be dismantled for electronic devices. And it’s better to leave your mobile phone somewhere too as that takes away the supposed means of communication. Having done all the above you will have rendered yourself relatively invulnerable, at least on the accusations front. What about other ruses to disturb you? They’ll probably take the form of noise more than anything, so ear plugs are useful in this case. Don’t be tempted to

Gambiteer II by Nigel Davies

get a pair of acoustic earphones because these will attract a mocking crowd (yes, I’ve seen it happen) and might be dismantled in a search for transmitters. Of course Tigran Petrosian had the huge advantage (at least from a chess point of view) of being deaf. As one of my friends recently put it: “Deafness is the reward that Nature gives us for living a long time.” Would I advise counter terrorism, attempting to retaliate? The big problem with this is that those who play fair will have far less experience than their opponents in this kind of battle, which probably means that any escalation will work against you. There’s also ones reputation to consider, people never look good when they get into this kind of fight, even if they’re ‘in the right’. So it’s probably a case of stoic forbearance in the hope that one’s opponent’s focus will be more on his frustration at having little to protest about rather than actually making good moves. Meanwhile I have a dream that one day people will come to the not too difficult realisation that the kind of atmosphere currently being generated is hardly going to encourage people to take chess up as a hobby. This in turn leads to the impoverishment of us all, from our lack of numbers to hire decent club venues to companies being put off chess sponsorship. Which self-respecting company will risk the tarnishing of its image by being associated with any kind of unfair play? Continuing my somewhat nostalgic theme, let’s take a look at a game from the recent English Seniors Championship. Van Gemeren, Jan (1600) – Andrew Walker (1864) English Seniors Championship, Dovedale 2008 London System [D02] 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Bf4 A most suitable opening for the more mature chess player, though White needs to know what he’s doing even here. I’d liken the use of sharper openings by the over 50s to having one’s shirt unbuttoned, wearing a large medallion and driving a red sports car. Or learning the nunchucks. 3…e6 4 Nbd2 Bd6 5 Bg3 White can also play 5 e3 as after 5…Bxf4 6 exf4 the doubling of his f-pawns means enhanced control of e5 and a half open e-file. 5…O-O 6 e3 b6 7 Ne5 Bb7 8 Ndf3?! As I say, even the London System requires some know-how and this move demonstrates a lack of it. A good way to play this position is to pin the knight on f6 with 8 Bh4; for example, 8…Be7 9 Bd3 c5 10 c3 Nc6 11 Qb1 g6 leaves Black’s king position somewhat weakened. 8...Ne4 Effectively ending any dreams White might have of a kingside attack. In fact it will be Black who takes the initiative on this part of the board. 9 c3 f6 10 Nd3 Nd7 11 Be2 Qe7 12 Nd2 e5 13 f3? Not only does this lose a pawn, White’s position is also wrecked.13 Nxe4 dxe4 14 Nb4 was best, meeting 14…Bxb4 with 15 Qb3+. 13...Nxg3 14 hxg3 exd4 The point. Now White’s g3-pawn is also hanging.

15 exd4 Bxg3+ 16 Nf2 Ba6 Not bad, but with computer assistance Black might have found 16...Qe3 17 OO Rae8 18 Bb5 c6 19 Ba4 Ba6 20 c4 Nb8!, threatening both to capture on c4 and 21...Qxd4. 17 Nf1 White should probably have chosen 17 Kf1, when after 17…Bxe2+ 18 Qxe2 Qxe2+ 19 Kxe2 Rfe8+ 20 Kf1 Re7, he can claim to be a mere pawn down with a bad position. 17...Bf4 A more telling line would have been 17...Bxe2 18 Qxe2 Qxe2+ 19 Kxe2 Rae8 + 20 Ne3 f5, intending 21...f4. 18 Nh3 Bxe2 19 Qxe2 Rfe8 20 Qxe7 20 Nxf4 Qd6 21 Ne3 Qxf4 would also leave Black a good pawn up. 20...Rxe7+ 21 Kf2 Bd6 22 Nd2 22 Re1 would have been better, seeking relief through simplification. In playing the text move White has missed a tactic. 22...Rae8 23 Rae1? Obvious and dubious. 23…Rxe1 24 Rxe1 Bg3+! Winning the exchange to add to the existing booty. White could probably have thrown in the towel at this point, but fights gamely on. 25 Kxg3 Rxe1 26 Kf2 Ra1 The rest is, or rather should be, a matter of simple technique. Though these things become progressively more difficult the further you move down the rating ladder. 27 Ke3 Rxa2 28 b3 Kf7 29 Nf4 c6 30 Nd3 a5 So far so good. Black is preparing to create a passed a-pawn. 31 Ke2 Ke6 Sensible enough, but Black can really stick the boot in with 31...Rc2 32 c4 dxc4 33 bxc4 b5. A few precise moves can save a lot of effort when it comes to ‘winning a won game’. 32 Kd1 a4 33 b4 Ra1+ 34 Nc1 Hatching a cunning plan to trap the rook. Maybe Black could have avoided this, but it turns out that he’s winning even after falling for it. 34…b5 35 Kc2 Nb6 36 Kb2 Nc4+ 37 Kxa1 37 Nxc4 Rxc1 would be absolutely hopeless. With knights on the board there’s always going to be more of a chance. 37...Nxd2 38 Nd3 Nc4 39 Kb1 Ne3 40 g4

Keeping Black’s king out of f5, but the effect is only temporary. 40…f5 41 g5 h6 42 Ne5 hxg5 43 Nxc6 g4 The emergence of two passed pawns is the end of the road for White. 44 fxg4 fxg4 45 Ne5 g3 46 Nf3 Kf5 47 Kc1 White’s king has the dilemma of which pawn to stop. Going for the g-pawn allows the a-pawn to roll, and vice versa. 47…Kf4 48. Ng1 g2 49 Kd2 a3 50 Kc1 Kg3 51 Kb1 Kf2 0-1 Dinner is served, starting with White’s knight.

Recommended Reading Win with the London System by Sverre Johnsen and Vlatko Kovacevic (Gambit, 2005)

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

© 2008 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

Scoundrel Chess Following up last month’s column about how to deal with distractions, and the recent release of my new DVD, Chess for Scoundrels, I think it’s appropriate to look at some of the fair and legal means of conducting psychological warfare. Please don’t write in to say that it’s all about pieces, this view is just very naïve and will hobble your performance to the same extent as having to move the pieces with your teeth. Do I really have to explain? Very well then.

Let’s Take a Look... Nigel Davies

Every move that is played on the chessboard is not just a question of knowledge and technique, certainly not when it’s played by humans. Chess moves are imbued with hopes, dreams and fears at what one might describe as a subatomic level. A decision to play one way or another will be influenced by many such factors, such as the opponent’s demeanour, the amount of thinking time he has left and any revelations gleaned from a study of his games. That’s not to say that good moves will be ignored. It’s more a question of the choice being given a certain bias whereby one good move will be chosen over another.

Check out these bestselling titles from USCFSales.com:

Deluxe Tournament Scorebook

Many players may even go so far as to choose a move they know to be inferior. Emanuel Lasker was particularly adept at this; for example, giving the bishop loving Janowsky the two bishops at almost every opportunity. Victor Korchnoi might have even surpassed his idol in the psychology department. And indeed every world champion has been expert in this field.

Play through and download the games from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game Viewer. The Complete DGT Product Line

Yes, you’re right. Bobby Fischer did claim that the objectively best move was also the subjectively best move. Of course he said this before wrongfooting Boris Spassky with the English Opening, Pirc and Alekhine during their 1972 encounter, not to mention the various ego crushing methods he used over the years. Maybe Fischer didn’t set out to crush his opponents’ egos, but he certainly did a nice job of it. Neither Mark Taimanov nor Bent Larsen were ever quite the same after their 6-0 drubbings.

Diary of a Mad Poker Player by Richard Sparks

Is this any different at club level? Not really. Players do not suddenly start thinking about psychology once they’re awarded the grandmaster or international master title, it’s there from the very first steps. Once you realise that old George with the pipe doesn’t like tactics, it’s only sensible to throw the pieces around against him. As for the juniors you can stop them in their tracks with a nice queen exchange and continue the game until after their bedtime. There’s nothing wrong in doing this, it’s just sensible. And oh yes; generally speaking it works to have the initiative at club level, whether or not your moves are perfect. I’ve mentioned this a few times in this column, and this is why I wrote the two Gambiteer books. What about the DVD? Well there I get a little bit more sophisticated, examining a number of different situations and discussing what one should do in them. And very often the correct approach may appear antiintuitive. For example, many players, when they want a draw, can’t help but to blurt out a draw offer early on in the game. This, however, is entirely the

Gambiteer II by Nigel Davies

wrong approach as it shows weakness. Once your opponent knows you’re desperate to draw he can take liberties, confronting you with doubleedged lines in which it’s very difficult to head for safety. If you do want a draw it’s much better to play a normal game in which your opponent faces some risk. This is far more likely to bring him to the negotiating table because he’s got something to lose. And if he still believes that you’re intentions are only peaceful he can easily be wrong footed. I look at other things too such as the reasoning behind Tony Miles’ use of 1…a6 against Karpov. Time trouble issues are also examined plus various forms of deception. Once again I make no apology if any of this sounds underhanded; this is chess we’re playing, not pass the parcel. There’s a clear dividing line between fair tactics and foul. And the goal of every serious player should be to tread the ground between naïve idealism and keeping to the rules. In this month’s game, White trounces an opponent nearly 400 points higher rated than himself. Many players tend to cower in such situations and lose without a fight, but pursuing the initiative is a much better idea. The point is that this reduces the opponent’s margin for error – there are fewer good moves and more bad ones. And even strong players can pick a losing ticket in such a lottery. Vozza, N (1735) – Sorcinelli, F (2122) Turin 2003 Modern Benoni [A65] 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 These days most players tend to play the Modern Benoni using a 2...e6 3 Nf3 c5 move order. This is to avoid lines such as Taimanov’s Variation with 7 f4 and 8 Bb5+. 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 g6 5 e4 exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 Bd3 Introducing a line developed by the German grandmaster Rainer Knaak. The dreaded Taimanov Variation is introduced with the moves 7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+, though it’s not that clear that this position is unplayable for Black. One very high level example is the game Bareev – Topalov, Dortmund 2002, which went 8…Nfd7 9 a4 O-O (9...Qh4 + 10 g3 Qd8 is also played, arguing that White’s g2-g3 does him less than two tempi’s worth of good and more than one tempo’s worth of harm) 10 Nf3 Na6 11. O-O Nb4 (11... Nc7 has also been played) 12 h3 a6 13 Bc4 f5! 14 Ng5 Nb6 15 Bb3 a5! 16 Be3 fxe4 17 Kh1 Nd3 and Black was doing rather well. People have been trying to make 8...Nbd7 work for years and it still isn’t 100% clear. A fairly recent example went 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Nh5 11 e6 Qh4+ 12 g3 Nxg3 13 hxg3 Qxh1 14 Be3 Bxc3+ 15 bxc3 a6 16 exd7+ Bxd7 17 Bxd7+ Kxd7 18 Qb3 b5 19 O-O-O Rhe8, as in Mankeyev,RKononenko,D, Alushta 2006. 7...Bg7 8 Nge2 O-O 9 O-O Re8 Keeping open several different options for development, either by playing ...a7-a6 or ...Nb8-a6. 10 h3

Getting ready for the attacking plan (f4 etc), but it’s not the only way to play this position. White also has plans based on the consolidating f2-f3; for example, 10 f3 b6 11 Rb1 Ba6 12 b4 Bxd3 13 Qxd3 Nbd7 14 Bf4 Ne5 15 Bxe5 Rxe5 16 bxc5 bxc5 17 Qa6 Re7 18 Rb3 Ne8 19 Rfb1 was slightly better for White in Spraggett – Suetin, Vienna 1990. 10...Na6 11 f4 Nc7 12 Ng3 Rb8 13 a4 a6 14 Qf3 White often has a choice in the Benoni to either allow ...b7-b5 or play a4-a5 and split Black’s pawns. 14 a5 is certainly playable here, after which 14…b5 15 axb6 Rxb6 Black would seek counterplay along the b-file. 14...b5 15 axb5 There’s also a case for the immediate 15 e5; for example, Gruenberg,H – Postler, Goerlitz 1972 continued 15…dxe5 16 fxe5 Nfxd5 (16...Rxe5 17 Bf4 Rxd5 18 Bxc7 Qxc7 19 Nxd5 Nxd5 20 Qxd5 wins a whole rook, though even this isn’t completely clear after, say, 20…Bxh3!?) 17 Qxf7+ (17 Nh5!? is interesting) 17...Kh8 18 Nxd5 Qxd5 19 Qxc7 Bxe5 20 Qf7 Qxf7 21 Rxf7 Bxg3 and White had enough for the pawn, but no more than that. 15...axb5 This seems like a new move, though I’m sure that neither player knew this at the time of the game. In the game Kopjonkin – Ionescu,D, Decin 1996, Black played 15...Nxb5 and after 16 Nxb5 (16 e5! looks stronger, for example 16…Nd7 17 Nxb5 axb5 18 Ne4 dxe5 19 f5 is a typical Pawn sacrifice which gives White powerful compensation) 16...axb5 17 Bd2 (17 e5?! can now be met by 17…dxe5 18 fxe5 Rxe5 19 Bf4 Rxd5 as Black is then hitting the bishop on d3) 17...Nd7 he achieved a satisfactory game. 16 e5 dxe5 17 f5 This is a known type of pawn sacrifice by which White secures the e4-square and cramps Black’s kingside. Whether it’s quite enough is another question. I think it was better to play 17 fxe5, when 17…Rxe5 18 Bf4 Nd7! 19 Rad1 looks very messy. 17...e4? Definitely not the best. Black can seriously test the soundness of White’s sacrifice with 17...c4! 18 Bc2 b4 19 Nce4 Ncxd5. Frankly I don’t think White has enough. 18 Ncxe4 Qxd5?? And this is a very serious mistake. After 18...Nfxd5, Black is very much in the game. Now he is completely lost. 19 fxg6 Qd4+ 20 Be3 Qxd3 21 Nxf6+ Kh8 22 Nxe8 Bb7 23 Qf4 Rxe8 24 gxf7 White is winning this position, but it still requires care and attention. 24…Rf8 25 Rad1 Qc2 Hitting g2, though White handles this

easily enough. 26 Rd2 Qb3 27 Nh5? Allowing Black to fight on. White could win comfortably with 27 Bxc5 as after 27…Ne6 28 Bxf8 Nxf4 29 Bxg7+ Kxg7 30 Rxf4, there’s nothing Black can do about the f7-pawn. 27...Nd5 28 Rxd5 Qxd5 29 Qg4 Bxb2? Putting his head back on the chopping block. But even after the superior 29...Rxf7, White is still doing well with 30 Rd1, when 30…Qe5 is answered by 31 Bf4 Rxf4 32 Nxf4 (threatening 33 Rd8+) 32…Bf6 33 Qg3, renewing the threat of Rd1-d8+ because if Black takes with the bishop, Nf4-g6+ will win his queen. 30 Rf5 Qd3 After 30...Qd7, White would play 31 Qf4, threatening 32 Qh6 and 32 Bxc5, amongst other things. 31 Bxc5 Not only threatening the rook on f8, but mate via 32 Qg8+, etc. 31…Qb1+ 32 Rf1 Qxf1+ 33 Kxf1 1-0

Recommended Viewing Chess for Scoundrels by Nigel Davies (Chessbase, 2008)

We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: [email protected]. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...”

© 2008 Nigel Davies. All Rights Reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives] [Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us] © 2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "ChessCafe.com®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.