*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Ceremonies of the Horsemen
The Journal of the IECC Rank and File
Volume 1, Issue 1
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Table of Contents
Welcome to Ceremonies of the Horsemen Tim Nagley
Features
Reader Survey
Performance Ratings Mark Brooks
Book Corner James Smith
Instruction
ÒNot-So-QuickÓ Glance Mark Brooks
Chess Basics James Smith
Analysis, Q & A Mihnea Voloaca
Klubeck on War Martin Klubeck
Game Analysis
Malm - Wenaas Gerald Fielding
Vujnovic - Harman David Glew
Brookshire - Howard Jeremy Delorey
Bass - Kimbarovsky Jeremy Delorey
FischerRandom Games Mark Brooks & Tim Nagley
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Welcome to
Ceremonies of the Horsemen
The Journal of the IECC Rank and File
This first issue (the rare collectors' edition of the
future) comes to you from IECC Publications, and is the new
sister publication to the IECC's Newsletter, which continues
to be published exactly as always. This magazine is
complementary and additional to the Newsletter.
We intend to publish this magazine on the first Monday of
each month (unless that happens to be the 1st, in which
case it will be published on the 2nd instead, as the 1st is
the Newsletter's traditional publication date). In addition
to an e-mail edition, there is also a website edition, which
can be found at .
The website edition, produced and designed by Jeremy
Delorey and James Smith, contains everything in the e-mail
one, plus some graphics (diagrams, pictures etc.) which
can't be sent in an e-mail format. We hope that publicising
the website edition will also lead to the IECC attracting
some new members. Please have a look at our website
edition.
It was decided a while ago, after discussions with the
IECC's staff and some of the members, that the IECC's
increase in membership warranted another publication, to be
able to provide articles, features, detailed instructive
analysis and tuition of interest to readers.
The proposed contents will include:
- several detailed and instructive analyses of interesting
IECC games - we've designed all the annotations to be
compatible with PGN-readers, so that readers using these
programs can play through both the games and the variations
(hence the various different forms of brackets in the
annotations);
- some instructional articles illustrated with annotated
games, including: - the "Chess Basics" series by James
Smith; - "Klubeck On War" by Marty Klubeck; - "Analysis,
Questions & Answers" by Mihnea Voloaca;
- a series of articles by various members on the general
theme of "chess and culture", discussing the lives of some
relatively well-known people (not necessarily chess
players) such as Elijah Williams (about whom an article by
Carl Dunn will appear in the second issue) Marcel Duchamp
and Samuel Bak;
- the analysis of FischerRandom Chess games played by IECC
members (this has moved across from the Newsletter into
this magazine).
Please note that the above is not a complete list of the
contents, that not all of these items will necessarily
appear in every issue and that the editors welcome feedback
from readers, either now by completing the reader survey in
this issue, or just by e-mail at any time.
We hope you enjoy reading Ceremonies of the Horsemen.
Tim Nagley, Assistant Editor
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Reader Survey A few minutes of your time ...
We hope you've enjoyed this first issue of "Ceremonies of
the Horsemen" - a future collectors' issue!
In order to help us to produce what readers would like to
see each month, we'd be grateful if you could spare a few
minutes of your time to send us some feedback. Following
is a brief Reader Survey. Don't feel obliged to answer all
the questions: incomplete responses are very much more
valuable to us than silence! Please answer some or all of
it, add any other comments you like and return it to us
either by pasting it into an e-mail, or by using this as a
return-e-mail to:
We can't promise to reply individually to everyone, but we
really would like to know your views. Thank you.
Reader Survey:
1. Are you likely to read some or all of this Magazine
each month?
2. Do you feel this is a useful publication which
complements the IECC's Newsletter?
3. Which part of this issue was of most interest to you,
and why?
4. Which part(s) of this issue are you less likely to
read, and why?
5. Do you read (or will you probably read) the analyzed
games in this Magazine?
6. Do you (will you) play through the games move by move,
or just read them in e-mail form?
7. Do you use a PGN-reader to play through games?
8. Have you looked at the web edition of this Magazine as
well as the e-mail one?
9. Are you likely to look at the web edition of future
issues?
10. Did you know that the first issue of this Magazine was
about to be published?
11. What sort of contents would you like to see in future
issues?
12. Would you like to contribute anything to future issues?
13. Are there any subjects on which you might be able to
write an article?
14. Are there any other comments you'd like to make?
Thank you for your help in giving us some feedback.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Performance Ratings Mark Brooks
I first thought about writing this article in December of
1997 for the IECC Newsletter. One thing lead to another
and now I'm writing it here. Arpad Elo (as in Elo ratings)
wrote a book in 1978 called The Rating of Chess Players
(Past and Present). The book closely examines the ratings
fomula he developed for FIDE.
Elo talks at length about "performance ratings." These
ratings are used to approximate a player's performance at
a specific event and they are intrinsically related to the
actual ratings formula used by FIDE, USCF, and the IECC.
The linear approximation of the performance rating (Section
1.8.1 of Elo's The Rating of Chess Players) is:
Performance = Avg Rating of Opponent + 400(W-L)/N
where W is wins, L is losses, N is number of games, and a
draw is worth 0.5 points for each player (an assumption in
the formula).
Elo suggest that this be used to rate a player's
performance for a specific event (so-and-so is having a
good day, or tournament, and this formula can tell you how
good it is). The applications of performance ratings are
not limited to events, though.
For example, I used to keep a performance rating for each
event, each opponent, each opening, and each color. If an
opening performance rating dropped, I'd study the opening
more and investigate adding new ones. If one person was
giving me trouble, I'd investigate his performance
against other people and work on understanding his style
in particular.
One important note - when calulcating your performance
ratings, make sure to use the rating of your opponent from
*before* your game was rated. For example, given this
report:
Mark Brooks - Hans Hummeling 1/2-1/2 CL3-1998.03
1928 Mark Brooks 26-15-12 USA +1
1958 Hans Hummeling 5-5-0 POR -1
My opponent's rating was 1959 before our game was rated (add
one back to the 1958 he came out with after our game). My
rating before the game was 1927. Our performances for the
game, however, are slightly different:
Performance-MB = 1959 + 400(0-0)/1 or 1959
Performance-HH = 1927 + 400(0-0)/1 or 1927
Anyway, I decided to calculate my perfomance in the IECC.
I have here the brief glance taken on December 30th and a
more in-depth look taken just a month later on January 30th.
///
IECC Performance as of 12/30
event score % avg opp performance
stf-1 (+1=0-0) 100 1259 1659
Swiss 201 (+0=1-0) 50 1787 1787
Thematics (+2=0-0) 100 1557.50 1957.50
2 game (+7=5-2) 68 1822.29 1965.15
FR (+6=3-5) 54 1865.14 1893.71
type rating score avg opp % performance
IECC 1881 (+10=6-2) 1759.61 72% 1937.39
FR 1846 (+6=3-5) 1865.14 54% 1893.71
totals n/a (+16=9-7) 1805.78 64% 1918.28
///
For this first time, I just calculated the basics and did
not break it down by opening, color, or opponent. This is
just event type and the overall picture. Also, I don't think
I have enough samples yet to make them truly statistically
significant, just statistically interesting. It does,
however, point out that my scoring percentage was way down
in FischerRandom...which makes sense because I do a fair
amount of opening preparation and that is inapplicable to FR
events. Another factor is that I've played many games
against a certain Asst TD I know and I think his
performance is much higher than his rating.
You can also see why this simply approximates the rating
formula...your performance will very rarely match your
actual rating exactly. For example, in the staff
tournament, I had only played an opponent rated 1259.
Since my rating was over 400 points greater than his, my
performance ended up being less than my actual rating even
though I won the game.
Still, even this brief look at the data informed me that I
needed to spend more time on middlegame planning and
tactics and less on opening preparation if I was to improve
in FischerRandom and, one must assume, overall.
///
IECC Performance as of 1/30
event score % avg opp performance
CLass (+2=2-1) 60 1866.60 1946.60
stf-1 (+1=1-0) 75 1661 1861
Swiss 201 (+0=1-0) 50 1787 1787
Thematics (+2=0-0) 100 1557.50 1957.50
2 game (+10=6-4) 65 1901.05 2021.05
FR (+11=5-7) 59 1874.00 1943.57
type rating score avg opp % performance
IECC 1928 (+15=10-5) 1830.10 67% 1963.43
FR 1903 (+11=5-7) 1874.00 59% 1943.57
totals n/a (+26=15-12) 1849.13 63.21% 1954.79
///
Between these two snapshots, my performance went up 26
points in regular games, 50 points in FischerRandom games,
and 36 points overall. My rating, which is related to this
approximation, went up 47 points in regular games and 57
points in FischerRandom games. We can conclude that by
refocusing my study on the middlegame, my results improved.
In addition, I decided to look at my performance with
various openings. The procedure here is pretty simple.
Add up your results (wins, losses, draws) for each opening.
Find the average rating of your opponents for those games,
and calculate your performance.
///
IECC Performance as of 1/30 (cont)
color score avg opp % performance
White (+6=7-2) 1851.07 63.3 1957.74
Black (+9=3-3) 1808.47 70.0 1968.47
///
OK, right away we can see a slight problem. As a general
rule, your performance as Black should be 50-100 points
less than your performance as White. Obviously, my choice
of openings as White needs some refinement. By comparing
draws to losses, we see that while I am holding my own as
White, I am allowing my opponents to equalize too easily.
ThatÕs not all, though. LetÕs look into some specific
openings types as Black.
///
IECC Performance as of 1/30 (cont)
versus e4 (+2=2-2) 1693.83 50 1696.83
versus d4 (+3=1-1) 1920.60 70.0 2080.60
versus Nf3, c4 (+2=0-0) 1691 100 2091
versus weird (+2=0-0) 1989.5 100 2389.50
///
Ahhh...now this tells us something even more alarming than
my results as White. It seems that my play against
everything but e4 is strong. I need to work, though, on a
better response to e4 as my results there are pulling my
performance and therefore my rating down. I immediately
switched my response to e4 and added a second new one as
well. Since then, my performance has again gone up.
So, I hope that you will see that performance ratings can
be used as a tool to single out problem areas in your game
so that you can concentrate your limited study time on
those areas.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Book Corner James Smith
A Review of 'How to Reassess Your Chess' by Jeremy Silman.
This feature of 'Ceremonies of the Horsemen' will be for
reviewing various pieces of chess literature. Not only are
your comments welcomed, but encouraged. We would like to
hear from those who own the books we review, those who buy
the books we review, and those who would like to see a book
reviewed. We hope to include some readers' comments in
future reviews, and periodically do a mailbag of comments
of past reviews.
The first book we have chosen to review is one that
belongs, in my opinion, on the shelf of every player.
Jeremy Silman has to be regarded as one of the best chess
writers of all time, if not the best. Although "only" an
International Master, he is a Grandmaster of instruction
and coach of the US team to the World Junior Championship.
Author of over two dozen chess books, he is also a regular
contributor to the official USCF magazine 'Chess Life'. His
article 'Understanding Chess' is particularly instructive.
'How to Reassess Your Chess' (expanded, third edition),
published by Summit Publishing of Los Angeles, is a 400+
page book which retails for just under $20.00. The cover
refers to it as a 'Complete course to chess mastery' and
although it alone won't make you a chess master, it will
provide the foundation of understanding to get you on the
road there. My guess is that if you are rated under 1800, a
careful and complete study of this book, and then applying
what is written, could add a few hundred points to your
rating. For those over 1800 it is going to shore up the
foundation of knowledge you now have, and remind you of
things you may have forgotten about.
The first and foremost thing you'll notice is the huge
amount of text. Many books carry a huge amount of notation,
variations, and lines with very little text. Silman uses
text generously to explain what is going on and why. You
feel as if he is your friend, sitting across the board
analyzing with you. To take a literally randomly selected
example:
(diagram)
3RQ1K1
4RPPP
2N3B1
PP2p3
2Pp1qb1
p1p1r3
1b4pp
4r1k1
Reshevsky-T.Petrosian, Zurich 1953 RYC, page228- Black to
play.
"So far we have seen that material sacrifices leading to
positional gains can fight for the initiative and force the
opponent to go through a difficult mental readjustment that
can easily lead to errors. The play in diagram #144 (above)
highlights these points."
"In this position White has the game under control. His
center restricts Black's pieces and threats like h4-h5 or
e5-e6 are always in the air. Seeing that his pieces are not
effectively posted, Black makes a startling decision.
1...Re6!! A tremendous defensive move. The idea is to
create a blockade on the light squares by stopping e5-e5
and following up with ...Nc6-e7-d5. White would probably
have done better to ignore the Rook and continue his attack
on the kingside with Rg3 and h4. 2.a4 Ne7! Logically
following his plan and avoiding 2...b4? 3.d5 Rxd5 4.Bxe6
fxe6 5.Qxc4 with advantage to White. 3.Bxe6 White, feeling
that his position was so good that he deserved some sort of
reward, takes the material (a some what emotional decision)
but soon finds that the position has turned against him.
3...fxe6 4.Qf1 Nd5 It's time to take stock. White's
kingside attack no longer exists. He does have an extra
Exchange but that's the best we can give White. On the
other hand the White Rooks are no longer active and the b2
Bishop is bad. Add to this Black's dominating central
Knight, his active Bishop, and queenside majority, and you
will begin to see White's material advantage is of
secondary importance. 5.Rf3 Bd3 6.Rxd3 White, to his
credit, realizes that he's been outplayed and brings his
mind (and expectations) back to reality. Here he is using
one of the finer points of material gain: The ability to
sacrifice it back for defensive purposes. He must return
his ill-gotten gains if he is to avoid being overrun by
Black's minor pieces. 6...cxd3 7.Qxd3 b4 8.cxb4 8.c4 Nb6
9.Rc1 Nxa4 is also fine for Black. The play now is about
even and peters out to a draw. 8...axb4 9.a5 Ra8 10.Ra1 Qc6
11.bc1 Qc7 12.a6 Qb6 13.Bd2 b3 14.Qc4 h6 15.h3 b2 16.Rb1 Kh8
17.Be1 1/2- 1/2"
So there is an example of his excellent writing technique.
Now what about content? He starts off discussing planning
and a thinking technique. After two chapters on
Calculations and Combinations, and Minor Pieces in the
Middlegame, he then devotes a chapter to each of the
following: Space; Center; Pawns; Squares; Material;
Development and Initiative; and Files. He sums up his work
with Three Keys to Success and Using Imbalances in Every
Phase of the Game. He also provides a complete glossary to
the chess terms and a recommended reading list for further
study.
I chose "How to Reassess Your Chess, Expanded Third
Edition" for our first review for several reasons. First,
it was the book that brought me back 'up to speed' after a
20-year sabbatical from competitive chess. Secondly, it is
extremely well written and is beneficial for a wide range
of players. And thirdly because everyone to whom I have
recommended this book has thanked me and praised the book.
This book is five stars, two thumbs up, and whatever else
describes a classic.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
A Not-So-Quick Glance... Mark Brooks
at Opening Strategy - Open Positions
"Welcome to the Mini Bar"
While I was glancing through the incoming rated games, I
thought it might be a good idea to include a few miniatures
in the magazine with the aim of examining common opening
pitfalls. I could not think of a better place than my own
"Not-So-Quick" column, so here we are.
This time I'm going to look at two miniatures which have
very open positions within the first few moves. An open
position leads to an emphasis on tactics, especially when
it occurs early in the game with the majority of the pieces
still on the board. To be honest, one of these games is an
"open game" and the other is a "semi-open" game, but most
of the same basic aims hold true.
In an open position there are some strategic aims for both
White and Black. In his masterful book, 200 Open Games,
David Bronstein lists a lucky thirteen goals for each side.
They can be consolidated into these four themes:
1) the attack and defense of f7 (the control of the c4-f7
diagonal and the knight march from f3 to e5 to f7 are
examples to be found in both games)
2) control of the center (the pawn move d4 and the control
of the d5 square for White are also evident in both games)
3) the quick movement of the queenside pieces to the front
(f7 and e5 are target squares for White)
4) Black should refrain from materialism and be prepared to
return any sacrificed material to get the initiative
Keeping those points in mind, let's glance at two recent
IECC games.
[Event "KO-218.1.6"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.11.22"]
[White "Theofel, Heiner"]
[Black "Bolduc, Michel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1656"]
[BlackElo "1781"]
[ECO "C44"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Mark Brooks, 1939 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "Scotch, Goring G"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3
{The Goring Gambit. The gambit, according to Scotch Opening
3: Goring Gambit by Swift and Pickett (1976), was supposedly
introduced in the game Dr. Goring - W.Paulsen (Leipzig 1877,
0-1, 62). There are earlier examples including several
games from New York, 1857.}
{Bronstein notes that this variation is the most dangerous
for Black of those arising from the Scotch and that Black
should only "take the pawn on c3 when he is in a fighting
mood."}
4...dxc3 5.Nxc3
(5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Ng5 Ne5 9.Bb3 0-0
10.0-0 d6 11.f4 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 Neg4 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 c6
15.Qd3 h6 16.Nh3 Be6 17.Qc3 Nf6 18.Bc2 b5 {-+ continued
Goring - Paulsen (Swift and Pickett).})
5...Bb4 6.Bc4
{How has White's play fit in with Bronstein's guidelines?
Well, White's bishop controls the c4-f7 diagonal, White has
got in the pawn move d4, and White is about to contest e5.
Black is doing his part, too. He has developed soundly and,
with 6...d6, he is going to have some say over e5 himself.}
6...d6 7.O-O Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nf6 9.e5 dxe5
{A quick look in my database shows that Black has the
better scoring percentage. The majority of the games in
this line are correspondence games, by the way.}
{Many theoretical battles are fought by mail, probably
because most tactical surprises can be sniffed out before
they reach critical mass. Also, it seems to me that most
of this opening's value lies in the surprise one has in
playing it over-the-board. When Black has days to play
through the complications at his leisure on any old set, he
seems to fare better.}
(9...Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qb3 Qe7 12.Ba3 c5 13.Bb5+ Kf8 {=+
is the main line according to ECO Volume C (1981). Swift and
Pickett note that this position is controversial, but
probably equal...way back in 1976.})
10.Ng5 Be6 11.Bxe6 Qxd1?
{This is where we leave theory...a dangerous proposition
for the defender in any open gambit. The text move allows
White to regain some material. Black wrongly assumed that
White would recapture the queen immediately and that he
could then recapture the bishop. White is instead able to
insert a check with capture (on that all-important f7
square, no less) while protecting the bishop temporarily.
This easily wins back at least one of his pawns without
further dissipating his attack.}
(11...fxe6 12.Qb3 Qd5 13.Nxe6 Qxb3 14.axb3 Kf7 15.Nxc7 Rad8
= {(Aronin) is recommended by Swift and Pickett, not to
mention ECO.})
12.Bxf7+ Kf8 13.Rxd1 h6 14.Ba3+ Ne7 15.Nf3 Kxf7 16.Nxe5+ 1-0
{This was really the best Black had after 11...Qxd1? From
here, White goes up the exchange.}
16...Ke6
(16...Ke8 17.Bxe7 Kxe7 18.Ng6+ Ke6 19.Nxh8 Rxh8; 16...Kf8
17.Bxe7+ Kxe7 18.Ng6+ Ke6 19.Nxh8 Rxh8; 16...Kg8 17.Bxe7)
17.Re1 Ned5 18.c4
(18.Ng6+ Kf5 19.Nxh8 Rxh8 20.Bb2)
18... Nb6 19.c5 Nbd5 20.Ng6+ Kd7 21.Nxh8 Rxh8
{+- In such an open position, a bishop and rook versus two
knights is "simply a matter of technique" as they like to
say.}
[Event "Trio 357.2"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.10.13"]
[White "Todd, Neil"]
[Black "Holmer, Bryan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1461"]
[BlackElo "1500"]
[ECO "A10"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Mark Brooks, 1939 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "English O"]
1.c4 d5
{I wrote to both players about this game and Neil Todd
replied:}
{NT: I have never come across 1...d5 and felt as though,
whilst unusual and therefore not something that I could
prepare for, it gave me an easy game.}
{MB: This opening is not covered at all in ECO, MCO 13, or
BCO2. Since it is not well documented, it may be considered
a "surprise" weapon by some. Personally, I think it is more
important to have a solid variation rather than simply an
unorthodox variation.}
{In Unorthodox Openings (1987), Joel Benjamin and Eric
Shiller divide the more esoteric variations into three
categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly. This book is a
very good survey of the weird things people play. As far as
I can see, 1.c4 d5 has not been played at the highest
levels since the early 1900s, but it has appeared in a few
correspondence games, including three in the IECG and one
other one in the IECC.}
{The authors name this variation the "Anglo-Scandinavian"
and place it in their bad category. They claim that it is
not closely related to the Scandinavian (aka Center Counter
Defense) other than that in both Black loses time with his
queen. The main difference between the two, though, is that
instead of trading the d-pawn for a central pawn, it has
been traded for the c-pawn. This means that Black has fewer
opportunities for counterplay.}
2.cxd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8
(3...Qa5 {is probably better.})
4.Nf3 Nc6 5.d4 Nf6 6.Bg5
(6.d5! Nb8 7.Bf4 {Continued the game Norris - Atkinson
(1989, 1-0, 23) and White had a substantial lead in
development.})
6...Bf5 7.e3
{Neil and I also discussed this position briefly:}
{NT: 7.e3 was a little cautious and e4 was probably better
but I do prefer to stick with systems with which I am
familiar. After the exchange of c-pawn for d-pawn, I feel a
little uncomfortable with such a big center for my opponent
to aim at.}
{MB: This is understandable coming from someone who plays
the English or any other hypermodern opening where the
emphasis is on control of the center rather than occupation
of the center. I know because those are often the kinds of
openings that I play.}
{In this case, I think that the lead in development warrants
both the attack on and the occupation of the center. 7.d5
would still be effective.}
7...Qd7 8.Bc4
{At this point, White's bishop controls the c4-f7 diagonal,
White has got in the pawn move d4, White's queenside pieces
are actively placed, and White has control of e5.}
{Black is contesting e4, but he is not defending adequately
at this point: his dark square bishop is locked in and he
cannot castle kingside. Any attack on his part is probably
premature unless there is tactical justification.}
8...Ne4 9.Nxe4 Bxe4 10.O-O Nb4?
{This loses a pawn and brings down a firestorm of an
attack. 10...f6 was necessary to gain some semblance of
control in the center. As mentioned earlier, e5 is a
critical square often attacked by White in these positions
and it must be defended (even at the cost of material or a
cramped position). Also, even with 10...f6, the dark square
bishop is still trapped in the backfield.}
11.Bxf7+
(11.Ne5 Qf5 12.Bxf7+ Kd8 {might be slightly better.})
11...Kd8
(11...Kxf7? 12.Ne5+ {The text does allow for this simple
tactical trap. After the king moves, White plays 13.Nxd7.})
12.Ne5 Qb5?
{A tactical error. The bishop is able to move out of f7
while gaining a tempo from the queen. This allows the win
of at least the exchange when the knight moves in to the
vacated square with check. 12...Qd6 was probably best.}
13.Bc4 Qe8 14.Nf7+ Kc8
{14...Kd7 saves a pawn over the text.}
15.Qg4+ Qd7??
{It's all over now...the queen is pinned. 15...e6 was the
least of the available evils.}
16.Be6 Rb8?? 17.Bxd7# 1-0
Blasts From The Past (Supplemental Games):
[Event "Monte Carlo"]
[Date "1901"]
[White "Blackburne Joseph"]
[Black "Mieses J"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A10"]
[Opening "English O"]
1.c4 d5 2.cxd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.g3 e5 5.Bg2 c6 6.Nf3 Bd6
7.d4 exd4 8.Qxd4 Be7 9.Qa4 Nf6 10.O-O O-O 11.Rd1 Qb6 12.Qc2
Na6 13.a3 Qa5 14.Bg5 Bf5 15.e4 Bg4 16.b4 Qc7 17.e5 Ne8
18.Nb5 cxb5 19.Qxc7 Nexc7 20.Bxe7 Rfe8 21.Bd6 Rad8 22.h3
Bd7 23.Nd4 Bc8 24.Rac1 Rd7 25.Bf1 Red8 26.Nxb5 b6 27.Be2
Ne6 28.Nd4 Nxd4 29.Rxd4 Nb8 30.Bg4 f5 31.Bxf5 Rxd6 1-0
[Event "Watersnood"]
[Date "1926"]
[White "Euwe, Max"]
[Black "Moldauer"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A10"]
[Opening "English O"]
1.c4 d5 2.cxd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.d4 Nf6 5.e4 e5 6.Nf3 exd4
7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 c6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.O-O-O a5 11.f3 Na6
12.Bc4 b5 13.Nxc6 bxc4 14.Nxe7 Kxe7 15.e5 Nb4 16.Ne4 Ra6
17.Rd4 Nd3+ 18.Rxd3 cxd3 19.Re1 Rc6+ 20.Kd2 Kd7 21.exf6 g6
22.Kxd3 Rd8 23.Nc3 Kc7+ 24.Kc2 Be6 25.h4 h5 26.Re5 Rd5
27.Rxe6 fxe6 28.g4 Rd7 29.Kb3 Kb6 30.Bh6 e5 31.Bg7 Ka6
32.a3 Rcc7 33.gxh5 gxh5 34.Ne4 Rd3+ 35.Ka4 Rxf3 36.b4 axb4
37.axb4 Kb6 0-1
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Chess Basics James Smith
This column is targeted mainly at those rated under 1500
looking for tips to improve their game.
Each month I'll choose a particular theme, whether
positional or tactical, define it and show ways to apply it
to your games. I'll annotate one or two games which
demonstrate the theme and then provide some supplemental
games.
In the web version of the magazine we'll also offer some
exercises for you to practice on your own. Questions from
readers are welcome and every so often I plan to answer
some of them in an article.
For my first article, I'll start with something exciting:
the 'Classic Bishop Sacrifice'. For this sacrifice to work
the following situation must be in place (assuming White is
the attacker): a bishop aimed at h7, the knight able to hit
g5, and the queen able to access the h-file, which is
generally done from d1-h5. Black must be castled on the
kingside and a Black knight must not be able to reach f6.
A rook on f8, although not an absolute, is often present .
Black's kingside pawns are intact, or the g7 pawn might
have been replaced by a Bishop.
We'll demonstrate the sacrifice with my own very first
completed correspondence game. Even though it was played
via snail mail, it went as swiftly as an email game.
[Event "96CA232"]
[Site "USCF"]
[Date "1996.08.30"]
[White "Smith,James"]
[Black "Neral,James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "unr."]
[BlackElo "1975"]
[ECO "C03"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "James Smith, 1908 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "French, Tarrasch"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nc6 Ngf3 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.c3 Nf6
7.Bd3 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 O-O 9.h4
{This is the setup move. The sacrifice wouldn't work
without it as the knight on g5 would not be protected.}
9...a5?
{This not only ignores the threat, but also achieves
nothing. My opponent never did explain why he made this
move.}
10.Bxh7+!
{And here it is, the Classic Bishop Sacrifice.}
10...Kxh7
(10...Kh8 {Declining the sacrifice in this situation
doesn't help either} 11.Ng5 g6 12.Nxf7+! {forking king and
queen} 12...Rxf7 13.Bxg6 Rg7 {White already has
compensation for the piece with three pawns and the exposed
King} 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Bh6 {and now the rook will fall to one
of the bishops, leaving Black with a lost position.})
11.Ng5+ Bxg5
(11...Kg6 {A common way to escape the attack is by coming
into the open. It fails here to} 12.h5+! Kh6 (12...Kf5
13.Qf3#) 13.Nxf7+ {and Black's queen comes off the board.})
12.hxg5+ Kg8
(12...Kg6 13.Qh5+ Kf5 14.Qh3+! {and if the king goes to e4,
then Qf3#, while if it goes back to g6 then Qh7#.})
13.Qh5 1-0
{Black resigned in the light of a possible escape-route
created by 13...f6 being sealed up by 14.g6! with mate to
follow.}
[Event "Buenos Aires"]
[Site "Argentina Chess Club"]
[Date "1911.05.26"]
[White "Capablanca,Jose"]
[Black "Molina,L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D51"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "James Smith, 1908 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "Queen's G-D"]
{This interesting game was used by Capablanca in his book
"My Chess Career". Harry Golombek also used it in
"Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess". For nearly 40 years
it was considered a brilliant feat, until 1965 when Vukovic
published the correct defense for Black in his excellent
book "The Art of Attack in Chess".}
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Be7
7.cxd5 Nxd5
{Black's opening play has left a lot to be desired. He
should have recaptured with the e-pawn keeping claim to the
center and opening the diagonal for his bishop.}
8.Bxe7 Nxe7 9.Bd3 c5 10.O-O O-O 11.dxc5 Nxc5
{And now Capablanca has the position he wanted. The Knight
on d7 cannot get to f6.}
12.Bxh7+?!
{For years this move was given an exclamation point, and
then Vukovic gave it a question mark. The sacrifice may not
be completely sound, but since his opponent missed the
correct defense, it worked!}
12...Kxh7 13.Ng5+ Kg6
{Usually Black's best way to try to resist the attack.}
(13...Kh6 14.Nxf7+ {winning the queen.})
(13...Kg8, 14.Qh5 Re8 15.Qxf7+ Kh8 16.Rad1 {with Rd4 and h4
following.})
14.Qg4 f5
(14...e5 15.Ne6+! Kf6 16.f4 e4 17.Qg5+ Ke6 18.Qe5+ Kd7
19.Rfd1+ Nd3 20.Nxe4 Kc6 21.Rxd3 Qxd3 22.Rb1+ Kb6 23.Qc7+
Ka6 (23...Kb5 24.Rc5+ Kb4 25.Qa4#) 24.Nc5+ Kb4 25.a4+ Kb4
26.Nxd3+ Kb3 27.Qc4#)
15.Qg3 Kh6?
{Here, Vukovic showed that Black could have turned the
tables on the sacrifice with 15...Kf6!.}
(15...Kf6! 16.Nh7+ Kf8 17.Nxh8 Kxh8 {and now White's attack
has run out of attackers.})
16.Qh4+ Kg6 17.Qh7+! Kf6
(17...Kxg5 18.Qxg7+ Kh5 (18...Ng6 19.f4+ Kh4 20.Qh7+
{winning the knight with mate.}) 19.h4 {mate is now
unavoidable:} 19...Rg8 {to stop the mate threat of Qg5}
20.Qh7+ Kg4 21.f3+ Kg3 22.Ne2# {19...Nc6 leads to the same
sequence.})
18.e4! Nxg6
(18...Rh8 19.e5+ Kxg5 20.f4+ Kg4 21.h3+ Kg3 22.Ne2#)
(18...e5 19.Rad1 Qe8 20.Rd6+ Bd6 21.Nd5+! Nxd5 22.Qxf5+ Ke7
23.Qxe5 {White picks back up one of the minor pieces with
three pawns and a strong attack.})
19.exf5?
{Even Capablanca admitted this was not the best move. His
improvement of 19.f4 was also shown inadequate by Vukovic,
who shows that 20.Rad1! was the correct winning move.}
19...exf5 20.Rad1 Nd3!
{This move stops 21.Nd5+ and now ...Rh8, trapping the
queen, cannot be ignored.}
21.Qh3 Ndf4?
( 21...Ngf4 {and it is not clear how White can continue the
attack.})
22.Qg3 Qc7 23.Rfe1 Ne2+?
{Losing quickly, but the game is lost anyway.}
24.Rxe2 Qxg3
{Removing the defender of g5 and planning to collect the
knight that was given away on move 23.}
25.Nh7+!
{This is called an "intermediate move": recapturing the
queen immediately would have resulted in the loss of this
knight..}
25...Kf7 26.hxg3 Rh8 27.Ng5+ Kf6 28.f4 1-0
So why did I choose to start a series designed mostly for
players rated under 1500 with an article on a sacrifice?
Well for one thing, a sacrifice is exciting, and what
better way to start our magazine than with something
exciting? Also, tactics play a large role in chess: there
is even a view that chess is 95% tactics and 5% strategy.
While this is exaggerated, a player needs to be keen on
tactics. Becoming familiar with the Classic Bishop
Sacrifice will add rating points if your opponent does not
know about it and lets you set up the right conditions to
use it. It is rare to see it in higher level games, as both
players are familiar with it. So study it and add it to
your arsenal.
SUPPLEMENTARY GAMES:
[Event "Simultaneous Exibition"]
[Site "Reykjavik"]
[Date "1931"]
[White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
[Black "Asgeirsson"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.Nf3 O-O
7.Bd3 Re8 8.e5 Be7 9.h4 c5 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+ Kg8
12.Qh5 Bxg5 13.hxg5 Kf8 14.g6 Ke7 15.gxf7 Rf8 16.O-O-O a6
17.dxc5 Nd7 18.Rxd5 Qa5 19.Qg5+ Kxf7 20.Rh7 Rg8 21.Rd4
Qxc5 22.Rxd7+ Bxd7 23.Ne4 Qb5 24.Nd6+ Kf8 25.Qf6+ gxf6
26.Rf7+ 1-0
[Event "Prague-Moscow Match"]
[Date "1946"]
[White "Kottnauer"]
[Black "Kotov"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4
7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5 axb5 12.exf6
Qb6 13.fxg7 Bxg7 14.O-O O-O 15.Qe2 Nc5 16.Bxh7+ Kxh7
17.Ng5+ Kg6 18.Qg4 f5 19.Qg3 Kf6 20.Bf4 Ke7 21.Rac1 Ra7
22.Rfe1 Bd7 23.b4 Na6 24.Nxe6 Bxe6 25.Qxg7+ Rf7 26.Bg5+
Kd7 27.Qh8 Qb8 28.Qxd4+ 1-0
[Event "Odessa"]
[Date "1988"]
[White "Zigurds, Lanka"]
[Black "Malaniuk, Vladimir"]
[Result "*"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Bc5 5.c3 Nxe4 6.d4 exd4
7.cxd4 Be7 8.d5 Nd6 9.Ba4 Na5 10.Bf4 O-O 11.Nbd2 b6 12.Rc1
Nab7 13.Re1 Nc5 14.Bc2 a5 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Rxe7 Qxe7
17.Ng5+ Kg6 18.Ndf3 Rh8 19.Ne5+ Kf6 20.Qf3 g6 21.Nc6 *
[Event "Eupen op rapid"]
[Site "Eupen"]
[Date "1995"]
[White "Stoeber,M"]
[Black "Glowka,P"]
[Result "1-0"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e4 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6
7.Bd3 Bb4 8.O-O O-O 9.e5 Nd5 10.Bxh7+ Kh8 11.Ng5 g6 12.Qf3
Nxd4 13.Qh3 Kg7 14.Nxe6+ fxe6 15.Qh6+ Kf7 16.Bxg6+ Ke7
17.Qg7+ 1-0
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Analysis, Questions And Answers Mihnea Voloaca
In Mihnea Voloaca's analyses for Ceremonies of the
Horsemen, the annotations will be interspersed with a
series of numbered questions, designed for the reader to
ponder before reading on. Mihnea's own suggested answers
to his questions are listed at the end of the game. These
are set out in the form Q1, Q2 ... A1, A2 etc.
[Event "M-969.1"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.06.23"]
[White "Koolsbergen, Nico"]
[Black "Brooks, Mark"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1803"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[ECO "A22"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Mihnea Voloaca, 1988 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "English, Bellon G"]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 e4 4.Ng5 b5!?
{The Bellon Gambit. Black gives up a pawn for superiority
in the center and open lines. Although not very popular at
the top levels, GM Mihai Suba of Romania plays it
occasionally. White has a wide choice from this
position. However, White has managed to score only 33%
wins, with Black closely behind at 32%. It makes you
wonder why this gambit hasn't received more attention: such
a close percentage of wins should make any gambit proud.}
{Accepting the gambit with 4.Nxb5 is reasonable, although
after 4...c6 (a theme also used in the Evans Gambit
Accepted, in which after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
Bxb4 White plays the temporizing move 5.c3, preparing to
support a d4 advance), 5.Nc3 d5 6.cxd5 cxd5, Black has the
initiative with a stronger pawn center, open lines on the
queenside, quick development, and the misplaced knight on
g5.}
5.d3
{The main line, but perhaps a rather shy response to
Black's gambit. White keeps things under control, and
guards the c4 pawn. The consideration that 5.d3 is
generally thought to be the best White can do is an
impressive indication of the strength of the Bellon
gambit. Other lines, such as 5.cxb5?!, 5.Ngxe4?! and
5.Qc2?! are thought to be slightly inferior to 5.Nxb5 and
the text line.}
5. ...bxc4 6.dxc4
{The first departure from established theory, and a rather
dubious one. Black keeps the cramping pawn on e4 (a thorn
in White's position), stopping the knight on g5 from
returning to its nice home on f3.}
{Q1: what is White's best move, instead of 6.dxc4?}
6...Bb7 7.Qc3 Bc6 8.Bf4?
{Q2: what's the problem with this move?}
{Q3: what is White's task in this position and how should
he go about accomplishing it?}
8...Be7 9.O-O-O
{Q4: what is the other problem in White's camp?}
9...Nh5
{Black should not hurry with this move. 9...Na6 is better.}
{Q5: why?}
10.Nh3 Nxf4 11.Nxf4 Na6
{White has gained the use of the d5 square for one of his
knights and the e4 pawn has lost an important defender. The
position is now equal.}
12.Ncd5?
{Q6: the knight on c3 is well placed. Is there another
piece that can use the d5-square?}
12...O-O?!
{Q7: can Black do better than castle?}
13.g4?
{Q8: why is this the wrong move? (More than one reason)}
13...Bc5
{"Run bishop, run ..."}
{Q9: is c5 the best square for the bishop?}
{An interesting point here is the 'superflous' piece in
White's camp. Both of White's knights compete for the same
good square, d5. They are wasting some of their energy,
running into one another. Two bishops don't do this -
another reason for them usually being preferable in open
positions.}
14.Qg3
{Protects the pawn on f2.}
{Q10: what should Black do now?}
14...Ba4!?
{An interesting idea: Black uses a tempo to force a
weakening move from his opponent.}
15.b3 Bc6
{Now the White king has been weakened even more. If you
have no weaknesses to attack, then create some!}
16.Bg2 Re8
{Look at the Bishop on c5: doesn't it look more like a
monster? It is useful both in attack (all those delicious
dark squares on the queenside) and in defence (it can be
played to f8, should the need arise.}
17.g5!
{Before playing a move, ask youself: what does this move do
for my position? If the answer is "nothing", then look for
an alternative. Here, the text move indeed has a purpose:
White needs counterplay ... fast! This move carries the
threat of 18.Nf6+, winning the exchange (18...gxf6?
19.gxf6+ with mate in one move!), and it helps White to
attack.}
17...Ba3+?
{This has less purpose: Black should have guarded against
the threat of 18.Nf6+.}
18.Kb1 Bxd5?
{Eliminating the superflous piece and giving a new purpose
to the bishop on g2. Now the chances are even.}
19.Nxd5 Re6 20.Nc3
{The pawn on e4 finally succumbs.}
20...c6
{Q11: who has the advantage now?}
21.Nxe4 Nc5 22.Nxc5 Bxc5
{Let's take stock now: White has won a pawn, but the
opposite colored bishops help Black, since his attack is
faster. In middlegames with opposite colored bishops, the
attacking side usually has an advantage. Therefore White
should consolidate his position first, and only then try to
make use of his extra pawn.}
23.e3 a5
{The attack has begun!}
24.e4?
{A blunder. The pawn blocks White's own bishop, gives more
scope to the Black bishop, and doesn't help with its own
defence. Besides, e4 can be played in one move rather than
two.}
{Q12: how could White instead have kept the position
balanced at this point?}
24...a5 25.Rd3 axb3 26.Rxb3 Rd6!
{Taking the open file and closing in White's king.}
27.a3?! Qa5
{27...Rd2 is more precise.}
28.Qe5
{28.Qc3 is more accurate, although Black retains the
advantage.}
28...Qa4 29.Qc3 Rd4 30.Kb2?
{White panics. 30.Bf1 was required.}
30...Rxc4 31.Qd3 Bxa3+! 0-1
{Question 13: What happens after 32.Rxa3?}
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:
A1: 6.dxe5 is currently considered best, when after 6...h6
7.Nf3 (7.Nxf7!? Kxf7 8.e5 c6! 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.e4 d5 with
equal chances for both sides) 7...Bb4 with a complicated
equality.
A2: It doesn't have enough purpose. All chess players are
guilty of this sin: we develop our pieces, hoping that a
plan will hit us later. Besides, this move also blocks the
f4 square, which might be needed by the g5 knight after it
moves to h3.
A3: White's problems all steam from the pawn on e4, which
gives Black a formidable center. Therefore, the pawn must
be eliminated! Since pieces cannot touch it, there is only
one alternative: 8.f3! After this move, Black still has
the better position, but White is surviving.
A4: Another defect in White's postion is the poor placement
of his king. On the queenside it will be exposed, and to
castle kingside takes several moves, a commodity which
White cannot afford.
A5: With 9 ...Nh5, Black moves an already developed piece
and helps White recycle his king's knight. 9...Na6 is more
flexible: it guards c7; it threatens to jump to c5 or b4; it
opens the b-file for the rook to join in the battle.
A6: Yes, the knight on f4. By playing 12.Nfg5, White
threatens the e-pawn (Black's eternal problem) and
eliminates any annoying pins based on Bg5. In fact,
12.Nfd5 equalises immediately: 12...Nc5 13.Qc2 Bxd5 14.Nxd5
with equality.
A7: Yes: castling isn't really consistent with the
position. 12...Bd6, preserving the bishop, is better. The
game might now proceed 13.g3 O-O 14.Bg2 Nc5 15.Qe3 Re8.
A8: For several reasons: White is impatient to get
counterplay, but an attack against the Black king is
extremely difficult to achieve; 13.g4 weakens the dark
squares on the kingside, g5 and h4; it puts another pawn on
a light square, reducing the potential of the bishop; worst
of all, White has available a much better move: 13.Nxe7+,
after which the bishop escapes alive and rules the dark
squares, gaining in strength as its counterpart is gone.
A9: No, but d6 is. On c5 it blocks the knight. c5, on the
other hand, is an ideal square for the knight, since White
cannot challenge it there with b4 unless he wants to commit
suicide.
A10: Attack White's king.
A11: Neither side, really. Black has good counterplay for
the pawn.
A12: 24.Bh3 Re7 (a lovely place for the rook) 25.a5 (this
move may look ugly, but it effectively prevents the
crushing ...a4. The pawn on b3 can be guarded by the king
on c2, a rook on d3, and a rook on b1 if necessary.
A13: Black can win after 32...Rc2+ 33.Kb1 (33.Qxc2 Qxa3
with mate next move) 33...Rb8+ 34.Ka1 Qb4 35.Rb3 Qxb3.
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Klubeck on War Martin Klubeck
As a US Air Force Officer, I'm a student of warfare. Chess
is the greatest possible training for warfare strategy, and
at the cheapest cost. With this in mind, in these articles
I plan to use my own training in warfare strategy to help
you understand the Why's of a series of instructive games.
I'm going to introduce you to a method of analysis which
you can use during the game (even in over-the-board games),
one which I use when I teach or coach chess. It should be
especially useful for e-mail games. But simply knowing the
right thing to do is not enough: you have to do it, too. I
didn't follow the advice I'm going to give you in this
first game (but in a future article I hope to show you a
game in which I did!).
When I was asked to analyze this game, my first thought was
to punch out a jumble of alternative move lists with some
wit thrown in from time to time - this is how I usually see
analysis in magazines, especially if the loser has written
it: a brief primer on the opening, and usually a lot of
excuses for the writer losing the game (e.g. distractions,
earlier losses, not enough sleep, poor tournament
directors, etc.). I decided a completely different, and
honest approach would be more helpful.
What are the major principles for analysis? How do you
know if you're winning and what plans you should make? The
basic measures of success during a game are material,
development, king safety, control of the center, space and
pawn structure.
Material
Material is first because it is the simplest to measure.
How many pieces do you have vs. how many does your enemy
have? If you are up 3 points or more (for example up a
full knight or bishop) look for a possible quick finish,
but not at the expense of the game. Try to use your
advantage to gain more material or a mate.
Development
This concept is mostly useful in the opening and
middlegame. It must be judged a little subjectively: how
many pieces do you have developed on the board vs. the
number your opponent has? The subjectivity comes in
determining if the pieces are well developed. A simple
example is the king's knight: if you don't move it at all,
it's undeveloped; if you move it to h3, it's not as well
developed as at e2, nor as well as at f3. So, the best
place to develop the king's knight (in general) is to f3.
If you find yourself ahead in development by two or more
pieces (and remember: pawns aren't developed, they're just
pushed), look for chances of combination and sacrifices.
If you're ahead at all in development, in effect you have a
lead in material until the opponent catches up, so take
advantage of it while you have it!
King Safety
This is another easy one to judge. Is your king behind
three unmoved pawns? In other words have you castled? Is
your castled position strong or weak? Is there a defending
piece nearby to keep the king safe? Of course, if your king
is floating around the center of the board when nearly all
the pieces are still on the board, you won't survive for
long. If your opponent has two or more weaknesses around
his king, then concentrate on looking for an attack.
Control of the Center
The question I usually get from students is "Why?" If you
control the center, you will have the initiative. You'll
be able to travel more quickly from one side of the board
to the other. You'll be able to dictate where the battles
occur. The four squares, e4, e5, d4 and d5 comprise the
center. If you are ahead by two or more points in the
center, try to gain space and to develop pieces for
combinations on occupied squares. This is not always easy
to count, so let's do one quick example. (I advise you to
set up a board.)
In the French, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, we have a simple
situation to count. Consider the square e4: while White
occupies the square, he has no pieces or pawns controlling
or attacking it; Black's d5 pawn is attacking it, though.
Therefore Black is up 1 to 0. On e5, White's d4 pawn is
attacking, and Black has no pieces or pawns defending, so
the square is 1 to 0 in favor of White. The total so far
is therefore 1 to 1. On d4, White occupies, but does White
attack the square? Yes, with the queen. Does Black? No.
Therefore White is now ahead 2 to 1. The last central
square, d5, is attacked once by White's pawn on e4 and
twice by Black (queen and e-pawn), therefore Black owns
that square, and the total point count is 2 to 2: control
of the center is equal. (This is, in fact, why the French
is a playable defense even though Black is behind in terms
of space.)
Space
Space is judged as the number of squares controlled on the
fourth rank or deeper into the opponent's territory. In
our French example we see that White controls b5 (king's
bishop) f4 (queen's bishop), g4 and h5 (queen), d4 and e5
(as we saw above). Therefore White controls 6 squares on
or beyond the 4th rank. Black controls h4 (queen), b4
(bishop), and e4. This gives White a space advantage of 6
to 3: not bad at the start of the game, and why the French
plays out the way it does: White instinctively fights to
control more of the space (see the advanced variation)
while Black tries to change this, albeit patiently. If
you're up 3 points or more in space, try to control the
advantage (rather than overreach and grab more territory
than you can hope to control), and build an attack. Look
for opportunities to cramp your opponent or develop a
combination to win material.
Pawn Structure
The last criterion is probably also the hardest to
assess. It's usually a fluid situation: you have to keep
an eye on it, because it can change easily and quickly.
You have to analyze the potential situation after you've
pushed or traded that pawn before you put your hand on
it! Some simple counting ways to measure this complex
issue: -1 for an isolani (isolated pawn); -2 for doubled
pawns; -3 for a double isolani; -2 for backward pawns on
or beyond the 4th rank; +2 for a deep pawn chain or
cramping pawns; +3 for a passed pawn on or beyond the
fourth rank. These are only general principles for
measuring. Doubled pawns can sometimes be strong, and an
isolani can become a passed pawn quickly, so be careful
with this one. If you find yourself up 5 or more points in
pawn structure, look for a way to kill your opponent.
Simplify to the point where you can take advantage of his
pawn weaknesses, but don't indiscriminately simplify to a
point where your advantages can't be brought home.
Now to this month's War Game ... which features a
rather unusual opening, the Colorado Counter.
[Event "M-1266.2"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.10.05"]
[White "Smith, James"]
[Black "Klubeck, Martin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1942"]
[BlackElo "1960"]
[ECO "B00"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Martin Klubeck, 1934 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "King's Pawn, Colorado Counter"]
1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 d5 4.d4 Bxf5 5.Bb5 e6
{Note that Black does not react to White's pin in the hasty
manner of 5...Bd7 or 5...Qd7?, but chooses to free the king
bishop instead.}
6.Bf4
{White could saddle Black with doubled pawns, and an
isolani on the a-file, by taking the knight, but again,
development is more important.}
6...Bd6 7.Bg3 Nge7
{This is one of the interesting points in the opening:
should Black play the knight to f6, usually the best
square, or to e7, where it protects both the knight on c6
and the bishop on f5?}
8.Nh4
{Not developing: I prefer O-O immediately.}
8...O-O
{Let's start our proper analysis here. The combatants are
equal in material - told you it was easy to measure. Let's
check development: Black is actually ahead. The queen
knight is undeveloped, and the knight on h4, while
attacking f5, is out on the rim - "a knight on the rim is
mighty grim." White has yet to castle, so it will take two
moves to get the queen off the back row and connect the
rooks. So, Black is ahead by 1.5 points. It goes up to 2.0
points if you count the White knight as poorly placed.}
{So, based on this, what should White do? What should
Black do? White should try to catch up in development.
Black should see if he can make the knight on h4 look bad
and thereby become further ahead. If Black's king knight
were on f6 now, he could play Bg4, either maintaining the
bishop or enticing White to play f3, hurting his king's
safety.}
{Speaking of king safety, what's the count? Well Black's
f-pawn is gone, but White hasn't yet castled. After White
castles, he will have all three pawns in place, and a
bishop and a knight in the area to protect the king, so
Black is ahead only if White doesn't castle. On the center
control, Black is ahead 2-0 in control points, but this, as
usual, is a tenuous situation. On space, White has 3 vs.
Blacks 2 and is therefore ahead, but by only one point.
And in pawn structure, Black has a backward pawn on e6, so
White is ahead by two points. Bottom line? Neither side
has a decisive advantage, yet. But they both can see the
pluses they should try to increase and the weaknesses they
should try to decrease.}
9.O-O
{That was a quick swing: now Black is down in king safety
0-1.}
9...Ng6
{Did Black help his situation here? Let's check the
analysis changes: material is the same; Black is up only 1
point in development due to the yet-to-be-developed queen
knight. What should Black have done? To maintain or
increase the advantage in development, he needed to move
the queen off the back row and/or improve the placement of
the knight on e7. The move 9...a6 was feasible so that if
10.Bxc6, 10...Nxc6 and the queen can move out on the d8/h4
diagonal. Other possibilities were 9...Qd7 or 9...Qe8 with
the plan to move off the back row. The last, and perhaps
the worst, choice was to play the text move, so that the
queen is freed and the knight moved to a better square.
The problem is that 9...Ng6 doesn't attend to the weakness
in pawn structure. It reduces the advantage White has in
space, but we'll see what actually happened ...}
10.Nxf5 exf5
{So far, 9...Ng6 doesn't look so bad: he's removed the
backward pawn on e6; he's equalized in center control; he's
also doing much better in space. So, what went wrong?}
11.Bxd6
{Using our analysis, why was this necessary? Well, the
simple threat of f4 to win material enticed the trade. The
other choice, 11.f3, weakens the king's safety.}
11...Qxd6 12.c3 f4?
{Until here, it wasn't bad for Black. He was ahead in the
center 3 to 1. Now Black strives for more space and
possible tactical threats. The problem is that the
tactical threats are obvious, especially in e-mail play.
Black also lessened the scope of the queen on d6 and
improved the potential for White's bishop. The move played
here fails to take advantage of White's lack of
development. The proper approach may have been 12...a6,
with a view to expanding the play on the queenside.}
13.Nd2 Nce7 14.Re1 c6 15.Bd3 c5?
{Black was looking quite good with 14...c6, although
13...Nce7 was probably a wasted move in that it undeveloped
the knight. The irrational fear was the wish to put a rook
on e8 without creating the pin for White. Again, 13...a6
or simply 13...Re8 was called for. The primary thing to
look at is the pawn structure for Black. His king safety
is a minus 1, he is down a half point in material - a
bishop is worth 3.5 in an open game which is what Black is
allowing it to become - and White's development is
better. It should be obvious why f4 was a bad move by
Black. That bishop is looking very good.}
16.dxc5 Qxc5
{So, 15...c5 allowed White to weaken Black's pawn structure
and to create an isolani on the d-file. I remember thinking
at the time of some tactical shots, and playing a little bit
with rose-colored glasses on. I neglected to see the
possibilities for White. Even though I was blinded with my
own plans, I should have played by the principles discussed
earlier. If I had used the method of measurement above, I
would have realized that the game was, at best, an equal
proposition, with White in fact having most of the
chances. With this realization I would have played for a
draw back at move 12. The problem was that I thought I had
fighting chances when I should have been prepared for
positional play.}
{The remainder of the game is an example of how to take
advantage of the weaknesses that Black inflicted on
himself.}
17.Nb3
{I thought 17.Nf3 would do the same, but since the text
move immediately chases the queen, it may be more direct.}
17...Qd6
{I felt that the imagined tactical possibilities had
already vanished.}
18.Nd4 Rf6 19.Qh5 Nf8 20.Re2 Rh6 21.Qg5 Rf6
{It's hard to resign when the material is still even. And
this is proper: you should make your opponent prove the
win. It is less likely that they'll let you get back into
an e-mail game, but it's still worth playing on, to learn
proper techniques.}
22.Rae1 Neg6 23.h4 h6 24.Qg4 f3 25.Nxf3 Nf4 26.Re3 Nxd3
27.Rxd3 Nd7 28.Rde3 Raf8 29.Re7 R8f7 30.Rxf7 Rxf7 31.Re6
Qf4 32.Re8+ Nf8 33.Qe6 Qc1+ 34.Kh2 Qf4+ 35.Kh3 Qf5+ 36.Qxf5
Rxf5 37.Kg3 Rf6 38.Nd4 Rd6 39.Re7 1-0
{The point I was demonstrating with the above game was that
you should analyze the game based on measures of success
that are objective and clear. I have tried to set out a
formula to use. In the next game I analyze, I'll show you
how to build a chart and use it at the proper times during
the game.}
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Game Analysis Gerald Fielding
[Event "CL2-1997.06"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.08.18"]
[White "Malm, Art"]
[Black "Wenaas, Eric"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2085"]
[BlackElo "2077"]
[ECO "D05"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Gerald Fielding, 2214 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "Colle System"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6
{The Colle System has never been in vogue.}
6.Nbd2
(6.Ne5 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Nd7 8.f4 {has been played at this point
by the #4 IECC player, Conrad Goodman [2571], winning IECC
games against M. Tuchman [2580] and W. Braakhuis [2379].})
6...Bd6 7.O-O O-O 8.Re1
{This is "insipid," according to Mednis in Chess Life and
Review (June 1993). Usual is 8.dxc5 to prepare e4 without
getting an isolated pawn, and Qe2 to avoid the exchange of
queens after e4, but in another Conrad Goodman IECC game
(vs. A. Pane), White accepted the isolated pawn, playing
8.e4 cxd4 9.cxd4 dxe4, and won, although ECO says Black has
the advantage.}
8...e5! 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.Nf3
{This seems inconsistent with 8.Re1.}
(11.e4 Bg4 12.Qc2 {was the continuation in Fabrizio-Stepp,
Compuserve 1994, which White won, but after 11...dxe4, his
8.Re1 appears to be a wasted move. I have also seen 11.c4
played here, but not with success.})
11...Bc7
{After 11...Bd6 I would prefer Black.}
12.b4!? cxb4
{Dissolving the backward pawn on c3 looks too
accommodating. After 12...Qe7 Black is still in good shape
but with 11...Bc7 he was probably saving d6 for the queen.}
13.cxb4
{White, having solved the problem of developing his queen
bishop and being given good play against an isolated pawn,
has the better position.}
13...Ne4
{The isolani supports a knight on e4, but I probably would
have played Qe7, Rd8 and Bb6 first, to threaten, at least,
to push the queen pawn. With the text move, Wenaas, a
young over-the-board master from Quebec, goes all out for
the attack.}
14.Bb2 Bg4 15.Rc1 Rc8 16.h3 Bh5 17.Be2 f6
{Black assumes a further weakening to answer the threat of
Qd4 and to continue the all-out attack by preparing for
...Ng5.}
18.Qd3 Qd6 19.Red1 Rfd8
(19...Qxb4 20.Ba3)
20.a3 a6 21.Ba1
{A retrograde measure. The bishop was useful on b2,
strengthening a3 and c1, but on a1 it is liable to later
capture by a back rank check. I suggest 21.Bd4 or
21.Kf1. Perhaps White was planning Qb3 and if ...Bf7 then
Qb2.}
21...Ng5 22.Qf5 Bg6 23.Qg4 h5
{Black accepts the disadvantage of losing this pawn and of
forcing the White queen to protect f2 because if 23...Nxf3+
White ends up with the advantage.}
(23...Nxf3+ 24.Bxf3 Qh2+ 25.Kf1 Bd3+ 26.Rxd3! Qh1+ 27.Ke2 Qxc1
28.Bxf6 {with advantage})
24.Qh4 Nxf3+ 25.Bxf3
{Forced.}
25...Qh2+ 26.Kf1 Bd3+ 27.Ke1 Bc4 28.Kd2
{Black is threatening 28...g5 to prepare ...Qg1+.}
28...Bb6 29.Qxh5
{Aside from winning the pawn, White's queen is well placed
here, where it attacks d5 and the holes in Black's
kingside. If now 29...d4 then 30.Rxc4 is possible.}
29...Qd6 30.Ke1 d4
{Black gets nothing for the pawn but it will not live long
anyway.}
(30...Bb3 31.Rxc8 Rxc8 32.Bxd5+)
(30...Qe6 31.Bg4)
(30...Qh2 {so why not return the queen to h2 and hope for
31.Kd2 again? This is met by...} 31.Rxc4! dxc4! 32.Bd5+
Rxd5 33.Qxd5+ Kf8 34.Qxb7 {and the position is hopeless for
Black.})
31.Bxd4 Bf7 32.Rxc8 Bxh5
{Not a mistake, since the alternative is an ending with
White having two extra pawns and the better king position.}
33.Bxb6! 1-0
{A very neat ending!}
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Game Analysis David Glew
[Event "M-805.1"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.03.09"]
[White "Vujnovic, Ratko"]
[Black "Harman, Ray"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1610"]
[BlackElo "1608"]
[ECO "E91"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "David Glew, 1792 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "King's Indian, 6.Be2"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6
{More usual and stronger is e6.}
3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4
{Classical opening theory in its purest form: take command
of the center. In addition, White now also controls
virtually all of the fifth rank.}
4...d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 Nc6
{6...e5 is usually played here, but in fact I can't see
that it is much better than the text move. Admittedly,
Black is giving up space in the center, but this tends to
happen in the King's Indian, and he develops his knight
without using up another pawn move. However, I do think a
strong case can be made for 6....c5 if Black doesn't want
to leave the center entirely to White. In the end it all
comes down to what feels right for you.}
{In next year's World Cup, England won't play like the
Brazilians and Germany won't play like the Italians - and
nobody would suggest that they should. Play the openings
the way you feel comfortable and in a manner that fits in
with your own style.}
7.d5 Nb8
{One of the drawbacks of this variation, and a consequence
of giving up the center entirely to White, is that Black
suffers a definite loss of tempo here and gets nothing in
exchange. Another reason for giving strong consideration
to 6...c5.}
8.O-O e6!?
{An interesting move for several reasons. In such well
known openings as the King's Indian, it can sometimes be
tactically advantageous to depart from established theory
early and make your opponent work out his own tactics.
This move certainly does that, in that after a fair amount
of digging, I can only find two master games with 8...e6,
both resulting in wins for Black: Schneider-Tielemann,
Berlin 1985 and Meng-Yue , Beijing 1991.}
{Admittedly two games is far too small a sample to infer
that this is necessarily a strong continuation for Black.
But the move does take the game into a little-analysed
variation, and the fact that it produced two wins for Black
suggests that for those of you who like this type of
exercise, more analysis could prove instructive.}
{These games can be found in the Supplemental Games section
below.}
(8...Nbd7 9.Bg5
(9.Qc2 a5 10.Rb1 Nc5 11.b3 Ncxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Bf5
14.Qh4 Bxb1 15.Bg5 Bxa2 16.Bxe7 Qc8 17.Ng5 h6 18.Ne4 f5
{A. Watanabe - H.Battikhi (Moscow 1994, 0-1, 36)})
9...h6 10.Bf4 Nc5 11.Nd2 e5 12.Be3 a5 13.a3 Nh7 14.b4 Na6
15.c5 f5 16.f3 f4 17.Bf2 g5 18.Nc4
{U.Pina - R. Alonso, (Havana 1992, 1-0, 56)})
9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 exd5 11.cxd5
(11.Nxd5 g5 12.Nxg5 Nxd5 13.Qxd5 hxg5 14.Bxg5 Qe8 {gives
Black a definite material advantage.})
11...Re8
(11...g5 12.Bg3 Nh5 13.Rc1 Nxg3 14.fxg3 {would have been
better for Black. He doubles White's g-pawns in front of
the king and gets rid of White's attacking dark square
bishop while freeing his own. This gains control of the
long a1-h8 diagonal and it would also leave him two bishops
against White's one, usually an advantage as the game
progresses and the bishops come into their own with emptier
diagonals.})
12.Nd2 c6
{preventing 14.Nb5.}
13.Rc1 a6
(13...Nbd7 14.Re1 Nb6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Nc4 d5 {seems to
develop Black's position better than continuing to move
pawns. Whilst White has almost completed his development,
Black still has a knight and a bishop yet to get out of
bed.})
14.Bg3?
{A weak move and a loss of tempo. Black's knight on f6 is
suddenly unpinned, and there was no need to move the bishop
again at this point.}
(14.Re1 c5 {would have been far better, retaining the
advantage for White.})
14...cxd5 15.exd5 Nbd7
(15...b5 16.Bf3 {would have given Black more room for
maneuver by freeing the bishop on c8, and would also have
prevented 16.Nc4 which is building up White's attack
nicely.})
16.Nc4 Ne5 17.Ne3
(17.Nxe5 dxe5 {would have kept up the pressure for White.
With the text, he gives Black the opportunity to re-group.})
17...Qb6 18.Qd2 Bd7 19.Rfd1 Rac8
{Black has played quite correctly over the last few moves
and is now holding his own. He has finally developed his
light squared bishop, and his two rooks now occupy
positions of authority at the head of the c- and e-files.}
20.Bxe5 dxe5
(20...Rxe5 21.Nc4 Rxc4 22.Bxc4 {is less advisable: Black
loses the exchange.})
21.Nc4 Qc5 22.Nxe5?
{We've all done it! Oops ... didn't see the rook. Oh,
well: didn't really want that knight anyway ...}
(22.b4 Qxb4 23.Rb1 Qc5 24.Rxb7 Red8 {should have been
played.})
22...Rxe5 23.d6 Ree8 24.a3 Qb6 25.Bf3 Bf8!
{Putting additional pressure on the pawn on d6. The game
is already won for Black, at least in theory. But getting
rid of the passed pawn would make Black's task even easier.}
26.b4 Re6 27.Nd5 Rxd6?
{Black intends to win a pawn, but as you will see, loses
the exchange and turns a winning position into a winning
advantage for White.}
(27...Nxd5 28.Qxd5 Bc6 {maintains Black's winning
position.})
28.Nxb6 Rxd2 29.Nxc8
{Correct.}
(29.Rxc8? Rxd1+ 30.Bxd1 Bxc8 31.Nxc8 a5 32.bxa5 Bxa3 {Black
has won back the exchange and chances are even.})
29...Rxd1+ 30.Bxd1
(30.Rxd1? Bxc8 {loses a knight.})
30...Ne4
{30...Bc6 might be better, as the text move fails to
improve Black's position.}
31.Bf3 Bf5 32.g4 Bxc8 33.Rxc8 Nd6 34.Rb8 b5 35.Rb6 a5
(35...Kg7 36.Rxa6 f5 37.gxf5 Nxf5 {is only another
variation on the inevitable.})
36.bxa5
{Black cannot now stop both of White's a-pawns and the game
is effectively over.}
36...Nc4 37.Rxb5 Nxa3
(37...Nxa5 {does not solve anything} 38.Rxa5 Kg7 39.a4)
(37...Bxa3 38.a6 {is certainly no better.})
38.Rd5 Nc4 39.a6 Nb6 40.a7 h5 41.gxh5 gxh5 42.Rb5 1-0
Supplemental Games
[Event "BL8485"]
[Date "1985"]
[White "Tielemann, K."]
[Black "Schneider, Bhd"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E91"]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 O-O 6 Be2 Nc6 7 d5
Nb8 8 O-O e6 9 Bg5 h6 10 Bh4 Nbd7 11 Ne1 g5 12 Bg3 Ne5 13 c5
exd5 14 exd5 Bf5 15. cxd6 cxd6 16 Nd3 Nfd7 17 Nxe5 Nxe5 18
Qb3 Qe7 19 Rae1 Rac8 20 f4 gxf4 21. Bxf4 Bg6 22 Qd1 Qd8 23
Qd2 Kh7 24 Rc1 Nc4 25 Bxc4 Rxc4 26 Kh1 a6 27 Be3 Re8 28 b3
Rh4 29 Bf2 Rh5 30 Bg3 Be5 31 Ne2 Bxg3 32 Nxg3 Rhe5 33 Rc4
Qg5 34 Qxg5 hxg5 35 Rc7 Rxd5 36 Rxb7 Rc8 37 Re7 Rc2 38 Re2
Rxe2 39 Nxe2 Rd2 40 Ng1 Be4 41 Nf3 Bxf3 42 gxf3 Kg6 43 Kg1
Kf5 44 Rf2 Rd3 45 Kg2 Kf4 46. Rc2 d5 47 Rc6 Rd2+ 48 Kf1 f5
49 Rxa6 Kxf3 50 Ke1 Rxh2 0-1
[Event "Beijing op"]
[Date "1991"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Lee Wang Sheng"]
[Black "Meng Yue"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E91"]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Be2 O-O 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 d5
Nb8 8 O-O e6 9 Nd2 exd5 10 cxd5 Re8 11 f3 Na6 12 Nb3 Nd7 13
Be3 Be5 14 g3 Nac5 15. Bd4 Nxb3 16 axb3 a6 17 Kg2 Nf6 18 f4
Bxd4 19 Qxd4 c5 20 Qd3 Bd7 21 Bf3 Qb6 22 Qc4 Bb5 23 Nxb5
axb5 24 Qc3 Rxa1 25 Rxa1 Nd7 26 Re1 b4 27 Qd2 Qd8 28 g4 Qh4
29 Qf2 Qxf2+ 30 Kxf2 Kg7 31 Re2 f6 32 h4 h6 33 Kg3 g5 34 Re3
Nb6 35 hxg5 hxg5 36 e5 gxf4+ 37 Kxf4 fxe5+ 38 Kf5 Nd7 39 g5
Nf8 40 Re1 Ng6 41 Bh5 Rf8+ 42 Ke6 Nf4+ 43 Kxd6 Nxh5 0-1
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Game Analysis Jeremy Delorey
[Event "Quad392.4"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.12.01"]
[White "Brookshire, Tommy"]
[Black "Howard, Lawrence"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "990"]
[BlackElo "944"]
[ECO "B00"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Jeremy Delorey, 1665 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann, Hillbilly A"]
1.e4 c6 2.Bc4
{By playing the Caro Kann, Black delays his challenge in
the center to set up pawn support for d5. White is served
best by using this tempo to his advantage - the more
popular 2.d4 can be played, setting up the classic center.}
2...d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bb5+
{You can really see why 2.Bc4 was not the best: White
could not prevent Black's control of d5, so he had to make
his second move with the same piece. The sequence 2.d4 d5
3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bb5+ would have achieved the same result for
White, with the bonus of the extra pawn on d4.}
4...Nd7
{4...Bd7 is probably better. Black's light square bishop
is generally the bad bishop in the Caro Kann, and he should
like nothing more than to trade it off for White's good
bishop. If White trades the bishop off, Black can
recapture with ...Nxd7 and continue with his plan. Either
way, White is forced to spend another move with the bishop.}
5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.d3
{This wastes time: 6.d4 blockades Black's d-pawn and
challenges the center move effectively. The text move
creates another problem as well: the vulnerable,
unprotected bishop on b5 has its escape route cut off and
becomes a potential target.}
6...e6 7.Bg5 Bd6 8.Nbd2 O-O
{After eight moves, the position is fairly equal. White is
attacking but has weakness described above, and on b2 and
g2. Black has castled safely and has no major weaknesses,
but has a minor piece pinned and a bad bishop on c8.
White's goal should be to challenge Black's central
control, while Black must get his light square bishop into
play.}
9.Qe2 h6 10.Bh4 Qa5
{Black's queen looks misplaced: his major advantage lies in
the center, so he should make his play there. It is
doubtful that White will overlook the attack on the
bishop. Black could have tried 10...a6 now, followed by an
eventual ...Qc7, to grab a long file as well as increase his
attack on h2.}
11.d4 a6 12.Bxd7 Bxd7 13.Bxf6 gxf6
{White has two passive knights, compared with Black's
bishop pair. Black also has a strong center. The
differences now are Black's weaknesses: b2, f6, h6, an
open king and a queen out of play. I'd give a small edge
to White, with good winning chances if he can break the
center.}
14.O-O
{While it was a good idea to castle, White is fortunate not
to lose an exchange here.}
14...Rfc8
{Much better would be 14...Bb5, activating the
light-squared bishop and threatening to win a rook for a
bishop. White can try c4 to interpose, but things do not
look comfortable for him after 15.dxc4 Nxc4, when Black can
try to win the knight pinned to the queen.}
15.c3
{This move all but eliminates Black's queenside chances.
He should abandon queenside plans and focus on his strong
center or his weak kingside.}
15...Rc7
{Black continues with queenside planning. Doubled rooks on
the open g-file, combined with Qc7, seem like a good plan.
White's queenside pawn structure is too solid to offer
either side attacking chances on the a-, b-, or c-files.}
16.Nh4 e5 17.dxe5 fxe5
{Also interesting is 17...Bxe5. The idea of fixing the
doubled pawns, however, seems practical.}
18.Qh5 Kg7
{Note that even though Black has no pieces on the kingside,
his lone king and pawns seem adequate to deflect the attacks
of White's short-range knights. Any serious attack could be
quickly eliminated by Black's bishops.}
19.Ndf3 f6?
{A mistake. "Every pawn move has its pluses and
minuses." The obvious benefit of this move is that it
protects e5, but 19...d4, 19...e4 or 19...Re1 could have
done that. Look at the weaknesses opened up - most notably
the doubly-attacked g6 square. Once the king moves, h6, f6,
the bishop on d6, and e5 all look very fragile.}
20.Qg6+ Kh8 21.Qxf6+ Kg8 22.Qxd6
{At this stage, with White's queen free in the heart of
Black's forces, the game is essentially won. Notice how
Black's queen has only 4 available squares to which to
move!}
22...d4 23.Nxe5 Bc6 24.Qxd4 Re8 25.Rfe1 Ba4 26.Re3 Kh7
27.Qe4+ Kg8 28.Qg6+ Rg7 29.Qd6 Qd8 30.Qxh6 Bc6 31.Nxc6 bxc6
32.Rxe8+ Qxe8 33.Nf5 Rh7 34.Qg5+ 1-0
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Game Analysis Jeremy Delorey
[Event "Trio 393.4"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1998.02.15"]
[White "Bass, Stanley"]
[Black "Kimbarovsky, Ross"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1441"]
[BlackElo "1486"]
[ECO "D35"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Jeremy Delorey, 1665 (2/27/98)"]
[Opening "Queen's G-D, Harrwitz A"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.a3
{White uses up a tempo and forces Black to make a decision
- trade his good bishop for the knight on c3, or make a
second move with his Bishop. Sometimes Black plays 5...Be7
here, giving back the tempo, being satisfied that White has
created a weakness at b3.}
5...Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 h6 7.Nf3 c6?!
{This move looks dubious to me. The benefits seem to be
the Black queen's a5-d8 diagonal and extra defense of the
d5 pawn. However, the b8 knight has had its most natural
square taken away, and the sequence ...b6, ...Bb7, and
...dxc4 no longer looks feasible. The bishop on c8 is a
very bad bishop.}
8.e3 Ne4
{Attacking the weak c3 pawn. As a general rule, Black
shouldn't be pawn-hunting this early in his development:
the knight has no support and White can develop pieces
while defending, to increase his edge, e.g. with 9.Qc2.}
(8...g5 9.Bg3 Ne4 {is interesting for Black, forking c3 and
g3.})
9.Nd2
{A good play: White offers Black the sequence 9...Nxd2
10.Qxd2, which would eliminate Black's only developed piece
- a poor option.}
9...Nxc3 10.Qc2
{White has met the challenge - Black's knight is trapped
and he will need to offer up his d-pawn to escape.}
10...Ne4
(10...Qa5? 11.Nb3! {A good lesson here: once you have
created a weakness, try to create another weakness by
exploiting the first - a single weakness can usually be
defended adequately.})
11.c5
{An interesting choice: now Black can flee with 11...Nf6,
and a battle can ensue between White's spatial advantage
and developmental edge against Black's material.}
(11.Nxe4 {might give White an edge.})
11...O-O
{Black misses the opportunity to save his only developed
piece.}
12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Bd6
{Playable, but White should not fall into the same trap as
Black. Black's only opening plus is his queen's a5-d8
diagonal, with checking potential.}
(13.Be2 {might be better} 13...Qa5+ {if Black doesn't play
this, White can castle on the next move} 14.Kf1 {enables
White to flee.})
13...Re8 14.Qxe4 Qa5+ 15.Ke2
(15.Kd1 {is probably better: with the text move, White
obstructs his bishop on f8.})
15...e5
{Trying to use the rook on e8 to pin the queen, and to free
space for the bishop.}
(15...Qc3! 16.Rb1 (16.Ra2? Qc4+!) Qxa3 {can win the
a-pawn.})
16.dxe5 Nd7 17.Qd4
{Protects the two weak pawns, relieves the pin and prevents
17...Qc3.}
17...b6 18.cxb6
(18.Qb4 {is also interesting.})
18...axb6
{Evaluation time: White has weaknesses on a3 and e5, his
king is rather exposed and his bishop on f1 is undeveloped;
Black's weaknesses lie with cramped play, material
disadvantage of one pawn, a weakness at c6 and an
undeveloped bishop on c8. The idea of trading off bishops
with ...Ba6+ is poor as it would allow White's rooks to
work together. The game is about even.}
19.f4 f6?
{A poor pawn move which opens up an attack on the king.}
(19...Nc5 {might be better, activating the bishop by
freeing its path} 20.Bxc5 Bg4+ 21.Kf2 bxc5 {is White's
probable continuation, but Black has made doubled pawns
turn the tables and gained the developmental edge, as well
as eliminated the bishop on d6.})
20.Qc4+ Kh8 21.Qxc6 fxe5 22.Bb4 Qa7
{Although Black has become passive once more, he has done a
good job defending. White should get his king to safety,
activate his bishop and then his rooks, and try to use his
spatial and material edge to force a win.}
23.Qg6?
(23.Kf2 {might play better, opening up a line for the
bishop stranded on f1, rather than allowing Black to
counterattack with 23...Ba6+, to defend the Rooks, and to
gain an advantage.})
23...Ba6+ 24.Kf2 exf4
{Black has completely turned the tables! White has a giant
weakness on e3, the material has become even, and Black
threatens the White king from many open lines. With Black
about to go ahead by a pawn, I think Black has a winning
advantage here.}
25.Bxa6 Qxa6?
(25...fxe3+! 26.Kg1 b5! {threatening 27...e2#, is much
better, eliminating the barriers to the kingside.})
26.Bc3 fxe3+ 27.Kg1 Ne5
{Black moves his knight in to avoid checkmate. Whenever a
piece is pinned like this, i.e. to the defence of g7 in
this case, it is good to relieve the pin, or at least
remember on each move why that pin exists.}
28.Qg3 Qb5 29.Qxe3 Rad8
(29...Nf3+ 30.Qxf3 Qc5+ 31.Qf2 Qxc3 {is an interesting
tactical sequence which may have been better for Black,
with White's a-pawn falling soon after.})
30.Bd4 Nc6??
{An unfortunate mistake.}
(30...Nf3+ 31.Qxf3 Rxd4 {is the same trick as in the note
above.})
31.Qxh6+ 1-0
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
FischerRandom Analysis Mark Brooks and Tim Nagley
"Ceremonies of the Horsemen" will regularly feature
analysis of FischerRandom games selected from those played
in one of the IECC's newest and fastest-growing sections.
Full details of this section are available at:
There's also a FischerRandom Web page with further
information, located at:
And the rules and playing details are fully discussed at:
This first article (re-)introduces the subject, and
features two games recently played by IECC members Jeffrey
Harris and David Gilliam in a two-game match.
For those of you unfamiliar with FischerRandom Chess, this
much-talked-about variation is played the same as regular
chess, except that subject to a couple of limitations, the
pieces are arranged randomly behind the pawns before the
start of the game, Black's setup mirroring White's and the
same setup being used for each game of the match. (This is
done by the TD at the start of each match). This makes
players think strategically from the very beginning, since
they are not able to rely on "book" openings. It's
wonderful practice: acclimatisation to this added emphasis
on tactics and strategy usually leads to improvements in
players' conventional games.
In order to play, the only "strange" thing you need to
understand is how to castle. Subject to the usual
conditions (i.e. the king must not be checked; the king and
rook must not have moved; the king must not move over a
square that is checked; there mustn't be a piece on any
square over which the king or rook pass), when castling
with the "a-side" rook, the king moves to c1 for White, c8
for Black, and the rook moves to d1 for White, d8 for
Black. When castling with the "h-side" rook, the king moves
to g1 (g8), and the rook moves to f1 (f8).
There are 960 legal starting positions in FischerRandom
Chess ... one of which you are probably familiar with. The
setup is written in the "Forsythe" notation. As an example,
we'll look at the setup from the two games discussed below:
[FEN "rbqkbnrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RBQKBNRN"]
This notation goes line by line, from the 8th rank down to
the first and from a to h. Lower case letters denote the
Black pieces and upper case denote the White. Spaces are
shown with a number, from 1 to 8 depending upon the number
of spaces. The position above is not, in a sense, all that
different from the conventional setup. If you imagine the
board, seen from White's perspective, his queen's knight
has been removed from its conventional position on b1 and
put on h1 instead, with all the other pieces being moved
one square to the left to fill the space: that's all. (In
FischerRandom circles, for obvious reasons, we say "a-side"
and "h-side" instead of queenside and kingside).
Let's move on and look at a two-game match which
illustrates well some of the unorthodox and interesting
features of FR chess. Note that some of the themes
mentioned can be seen in each game.
[Event "FR-20.2"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.10.13"]
[White "Harris, Jeffrey"]
[Black "Gilliam, David"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rbqkbnrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RBQKBNRN"]
[WhiteElo "1024"]
[BlackElo "1176"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Mark Brooks, Tim Nagley"]
{Initial observations about this setup are that h2 (and h7)
are both undefended and easily attackable, especially by a
bishop; that b2 (b7), e2 (e7), f2 (f7) and g2 (g7) are
potentially vulnerable; and that although castling is
feasible on either side, h-side castling (recorded as O-O),
might afford better protection. This can be achieved by
advancing the d-pawn (to activate the h-side bishop) and
the knight on f1 (f8).}
{As with almost all FR-games, two considerations apply:
opening book knowledge and habits are of little use,
although understanding the ideas behind the openings
remains immensely valuable; and the nature of the position
gradually becomes less unorthodox as the game progresses.}
1.d4 d5
{1.d4 looks like a useful opening move: it occupies a
central square, and it helps to activate a bishop and the
queen, as in conventional chess. But note, in contrast,
that this pawn is not readily defendable by a knight.}
2.Ne3 c6
{The attack on h2 enabled by this move proves highly
relevant in each of these games. From this setup, the
h-pawn is by no means a "poisoned pawn" protected by the
inherent threat of g3 (g7), because after ...Bxh2, White
needs to play Rf1. Nor does opening the h-file, obviously
enough, confer the customary mobility on a rook.}
3.c4
(3.Ng3 {to protect and develop} 3...Nhg6 4.Ba5+ {might play
well for White.})
3...Nhg6 4.cxd5 Bxh2 5.Rf1 Bf4 6.dxc6
{In a sense, there's no hurry to play dxc6: the re-capture
assists Black, attacking the g-pawn. Note this is not
defended by the knight, effectively pinned on e3, although
White might release it by 7.Qc4.}
6...Bxc6 7.g3
{This obstructs the knight on h1, which might have been
advanced earlier.}
7...Bg5 8.f4 Bf6 9.d5
(9.f5! {would force 9...Nh8, to counterbalance the knight
sitting on h1.})
{At this point, we see a dynamically fairly balanced
position, in which White has difficulty castling: on the
h-side the king would be too exposed, while a-side castling
might lose valuable tempi because of the need to play Kb1
and maybe Ka1 to ensure safety - an important consideration
with Black's Queen and bishops so actively placed.}
9...Bd7 10.Qxc8+
{This seems to favour Black, conceding the c-file. 10.Bc2
is better.}
10...Rxc8 11.Bxg6 Nxg6
12.Rb1 e5 13.Bb4 exf4 14.gxf4 Bxb2
{A miscalculation.}
15.Rxb2 1-0
{It's hard to find any constructive continuation for Black,
e.g. after 15 ...Re8 16.Kd2 b6 17.Ng3 Bh3 White need not
move the attacked rook, but can press on with 18.f5 Bxf1
19.fxg6. After 19...fxg6, either 20.Ngxf1 or 20.Nexf1 look
an easy win for White.}
We'll now take a (much briefer) look at the counterpart
game:
[Event "FR-20.1"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "1997.10.13"]
[White "Gilliam, David"]
[Black "Harris, Jeffrey"]
[Result "0-1"]
[FEN "rbqkbnrn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RBQKBNRN"]
[WhiteElo "1200"]
[BlackElo "1000"]
[Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"]
[Annotator "Mark Brooks, Tim Nagley"]
1.d4 d5 2.Ne3 c6 3.c3 Bxh2
{Black obtains an immediate advantage of tempo, as the
subsequent moves show.}
4.Bxh7
(4.Rf1 {preferable})
4...Nxh7
5.Qc2
(5.Rf1 Bf4 6.Ng3 {At this stage, the move played is perhaps
preferable})
5...g6
(5...Bxg1 (5...Ng6) 6.Qxh7 Rf8 {not quite as convincing.})
6.Rf1 Bf4 7.Rc1 Qe6 8.Qb3 b6 9.Bd2 f5 10.g3 Bxe3 11.Bxe3
Bd7 12.Bf4 O-O 13.Be5 Nf7
{Certainly best.}
14.Qc2 Nxe5 0-1
(15.dxe5 Qxe5)
We hope you've enjoyed these games, and that you'll soon
join the ever-increasing band of IECC players (with ratings
varying from below 1000 to over 2300) signing up for a
two-game match of FischerRandom chess. New players are
allocated their current IECC rating as their initial
FR-rating, and all FR-ratings are maintained separately
from standard ratings.
Coming up soon: as part of next month's Ceremonies, Mark
and Tim will afford themselves the dubious privilege of
analysing two of their own games.
Mark Brooks, FischerRandom TD
Tim Nagley, FischerRandom Asst TD
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Ceremonies of the Horsemen
The Journal of the IECC Rank and File
Volume 1, Issue 1
Editor Mark Brooks
Assistant Editor Tim Nagley
Web Designer Jeremy Delorey
Web Assistant James Smith
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*