Showing posts with label Falkbeer Counter Gambit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Falkbeer Counter Gambit. Show all posts

27 December 2024

60 Days, 300 Positions: Day Two

Thomas Engqvist urges review as an integral aspect of the process of learning 300 chess positions. Today, I reviewed the first five positions in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018). Three of these appear among those in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), a book I labored part-way through more than a decade ago.

All five positions are derived from four games played by Paul Morphy. One, from a game against his father, is a position I had not studied prior to working through the first part of the book in February 2019, although I have a position from the game in my collection of exercises for students, Checkmates and Tactics (2019).

As noted yesterday, I wrote about the first position in the book shortly after it arrived in the mail. I noted there that two moves—both played by Morphy at different times—differ only slightly in their merits, but Morphy’s move in the reference game has been the dominant choice of masters. As both moves are playable, judgement is necessary. Engqvist’s observation that “one should avoid unproductive one-move threats” (14) is worth reviewing.

Positions 4 and 5 both derive from Schulten — Morphy, New York 1857, game 7 in GM-RAM. I have memories of attempting to imitate Morphy’s play in this game against a student in a blitz or rapid event a week or two after we had studied the game together. I remember his laugh as we found ourselves in the same opening. He won the tournament, but I won that game. Morphy’s play inspired my plans, but my young student avoided Schulten’s errors. That student achieved an expert rating as a high school student when he won the Spokane Falls Open in August 2019.

Both Engqvist and Ziyatdinov urged memorizing this game. Engqvist writes, “learn this model game by heart” (16). I had it lodged in my short-term memory when I was working through it with Ziyatdinov’s book about the time that I studied it with my young student, but I cannot completely reconstruct it from memory this morning.

Schulten, J. — Morphy, P.
New York 1857

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4!

I recall studying the opening stats and learning that 3…exf4 appears to score better. Nonetheless, I nearly always play 3…e4 here. I have had the position after 3.exd5 at least 426 times in online play. Black has won five games more than White. I've been White more often as the King's Gambit is an opening I play with some regularity. The first time that I played 3...e4 was in 2007 in a 15 minute game with a three second increment. I won in 45 moves.

My recollection of the game begins to falter here. I remember the next move, but with some uncertainty.

4.Nc3 Nf6

At first, I wrote Bb4 without sight of the board. I corrected the notation after checking the game score in 300 Most Important Chess Positions.

5.d3 Bb4

Of course, the timing of the bishop move is important, as here it pins the knight.

6.Bd2

Black to move
This is position 4 in Engqvist’s book. It does not appear in Ziyatdinov as a key position.

6…e3!

I played 6...exd3 in that 2007 game, which preceded my study of Morphy's game. I played 6...e3 for the first time in 2016. winning that game in 48 moves.

7.Bxe3 O-O 8.Bxd2 Bxc3

I still struggle with Morphy’s choice here, as it is not clear to me how the exchange of bishop for knight implements the principle of development.

9.bxc3

Why not Bxc3? This was the move played against me in 2016. According to the engines, bxc3 appears slightly better that capturing with the bishop.

9…Re8+ 10.Be2

This game is one of several Morphy games that merit study because of his effective use of pins. When my memory of this game gets me to point, I always remember Morphy’s moves when I’m able to recall Schulten’s.

10…Bg4 11.c4

Would Schulten have been better off here with 11.Nf3? Stockfish 16 favors 11.Kf2.

Black to move
Position number 5 in Engqvist is position number 150 in Ziyatdinov.

11…c6! 12.dxc6??

I identified this move as Schulten’s critical error when I first studied this game in detail, and capturing this pawn was one of my own errors in one of the worst tournament games I have played (see "Knowing Better"). In that game, my opponent played 3...c6!? and things went downhill quickly for me.

12…Nxc6-+ 13.Kf1

This position is number 151 in Ziyatdinov and I had it once doing tactics training on Chess.com.

13…Rxe2!

Morphy’s exchange sacrifice that maintains one of the pins on e2 is reminiscent of the Opera Game.

14.Nxe2 Nd4 15.Qb1

It is difficult to find a move for Schulten here that makes sense. The position is resignable. 

15…Bxe2+ 16.Kf2 Ng4+ 17.Kg1

Black to move
Morphy has a forced mate in seven.

17...Nf3+ 18.gxf3 Qd4+ 19.Kg2 Qf2+ 20.Kh3 Qxf3 21.Kh4

Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess (1957 [1916]), 229 ends the game score here, giving the moves to mate as a comment. Other books and some databases carry the game all the way to mate.

Both 21...Nh6 and 21...Ne3 finish the job. My students rarely find 21...Nh6 and then 22.h3 Nf5+ 23.Kg5 Qh5#.

21 March 2017

A Greco Miniature

Lesson of the Week

Most of the games of Gioachino Greco (1600-1634) are miniatures (games lasting few moves, 20-25 moves being the longest that might be so labeled). What can a young chess player learn from such games? Are they of any value to players who are no longer beginners?

Greco has been called the first chess master. In his day, players did not record their games while playing. However, Greco undoubtedly could remember his games after they finished. The games that he recorded in his notebooks, and periodically listed in small books that he game as gifts to his patrons may resemble games that he played. They certainly offered instruction in basic tactics to those players who sought instruction from him.

Greco,Gioachino -- Greco's Pupil [C36]
Model Game, 1620

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5

This game is the oldest one in the ChessBase database with this move. Of course, there are very few games before Greco's, so that is no surprise. Nonetheless, there are two games in said database with White's second move, showing that the King's Gambit is indeed a very old opening. The next two with 2...d5 were played in 1837 by Baron Heydebrand Tassilo von der Lasa, once as White and once as Black. Those two games deviate from this one on White's fifth move.

3.exd5 Qxd5

The first important lesson that a novice chess player might gain from study of this Greco game is the danger of bringing the queen out too early. White gains time kicking the queen around. In ChessBase's PowerBook, which cuts out old games and games between weak players, there is only one instance of 3...Qxd5. White won in 17 moves. See comments at move 5.

3...e4 is better.

Angelo Lewis (Professor Hoffman) classes this Greco game as King's Gambit declined, offering 3...e4 as an improvement, which he calls the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit.* The Oxford Companion to Chess gives 2...d5 as the Falkbeer, and 3...e4 4. Bb5+ as the Nimzowitsch variation. There are other named variations proceeding after 3...e4. Falkbeer's loss to Anderssen in 1851 is the oldest in the database with this move. Howard Staunton also played the move in 1851, winning with Black.

3...exf4 is more popular among masters today.

White to move

4.Nc3 Qe6

Black threatens a discovered check that wins a pawn.

5.Nf3

Greco is willing to sacrifice the pawn for rapid mobilization. Who said that Paul Morphy was the first chess player to understand this idea? See "Principle of Development: Early History".

5.fxe5 was played both by and against the Baron 5...Qxe5+ 6.Be2 Bd6 and the Baron won with Black in 52 moves.

6...Bg4 and the Baron won with White in eighteen moves. The only game in PowerBook with 3...Qxd5 continued from this point 7.d4 Qe6 8.Qd3 c6 9.Bf4 Nf6 10.0–0–0 Bxe2 11.Ngxe2 Bd6 12.d5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Qg3 Bxf4+ 15.Nxf4 Qh6 16.Rhe1+ Kf8 17.Qa3+ 1–0 Tolush,A (2496) -- Alatortsev,V (2482), Moscow 1948. The game was played in the Soviet Championship.

5...exf4+ 6.Kf2

6.Be2 would allow White to castle, but Greco has another idea in mind.

Black to move

Whose king is more vulnerable?

6...Bc5+

The temptation to check the opponent whenever possible is the cause of a great many positional errors that are routine in the games of beginning players. Perhaps this tendency could serve as the definition of a beginner: no matter how long you have played chess, if you play a move that checks the opponent without also having a second purpose, then you are a beginner.

6...Nf6 threatens Ng4+
6...Be7 might be best.

7.d4

White blocks the check, attacks Black's pawn on f4, and drives the bishop back.

7...Bd6

Black moves the bishop to safety and defends the attacked pawn.

8.Bb5+

This check has a second purpose: now the rook can move to e1, pinning the queen.

8...Kd8

Moving the king to get out of check is not required. Often, as in this instance, it is possible to block the check. Sometimes the checking piece can be captured.

8...Kf8 is presented as the move in this game in the ChessBase database. Francis Beale's collection of Greco games offers both Kd8 and Kf8 with the same concluding moves. Angelo Lewis (Hoffman's real name) also offers both.

8...c6 is better, but already Black's position is horrid.  9.Re1 Qxe1+ (9...Be5 10.Rxe5) 10.Qxe1+ Ne7 11.Bd3.

White to move

9.Re1 Qf5

9...Qxe1+ fights on longer. 10.Qxe1 c6 11.Bd3 and White has an overwhelming material advantage.

10.Re8# 1–0

This is the same checkmate pattern that we saw in Morphy's Opera Game.


*The standard print edition of Greco's games remains Professor Hoffman [Angelo Lewis], The Games of Greco (London 1900). This book is the source for the games in David Levy, and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (Oxford 1981). Hoffman's main lines, but not his variations, are the games of Greco that can be found in databases and online. An older text offers many games and variations not found in Hoffman: Francis Beale, The Royall Game of Chesse-Play (London 1656).

27 February 2017

Falkbeer Counter-gambit

Ernst Karl Falkbeer (1819-1885) founded Austria's first chess magazine, Wiener Schachzeitung, but is remembered today mostly for the response to the King's Gambit that bears his name. He published an article analyzing Black's third move and also played several games employing the gambit.

The main line appears to be 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 (the signature move of the Falkbeer Counter-gambit) 3.exd5 e4 (the topic of Falkbeer's 1850 article) 4.d3 Nf6 and then White has four main options.

a) Nc3
b) Qe2
c) Nd2
d) dxe4

According to John Shaw, The King's Gambit (2013), "White has excellent chances of an edge in the traditional main lines" (560). The Falkbeer "has become something of a museum piece at the highest levels," according to Neal McDonald, The King's Gambit: A Modern View of a Swashbuckling Opening (1998). Even so, Dmitrij Jakovenko has played it as recently as the 2014 Russian Championship.

My Round Four Opponent
When I was facing the King's gambit yesterday, I had recollections of one of the Polgar sisters playing the Falkbeer, and also remembered two games that I have studied in some depth, Schulten -- Morphy 1857 and Rosanes -- Anderssen 1862. Both historic games were won quickly by Black. A check of my database this morning shows that Susan Polgar lost to Boris Spassky in 1988 when she played the Falkbeer. She opted for the 3...c6 line that was popular for awhile.

The oldest game in the ChessBase database with Black's 3...e4

Anderssen,Adolf -- Falkbeer,Ernst Karl [C32]
Berlin m3 Berlin, 1851

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Bb5+ Bd7 5.Qe2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bc5 7.Nxe4 0–0 8.Bxd7 Nbxd7 9.d3 Nxd5 10.Nf3 Re8 11.f5 Bb4+ 12.Kf2 N7f6 13.g3 Qd7 14.c4 Nxe4+ 15.dxe4 Nf6 16.e5 Qxf5 17.Kg2 Rad8 18.a3 Bd6 19.Rd1 Qh5 20.c5 Rxe5 21.Qxe5 Qg4 22.cxd6 Re8 23.Qxe8+ Nxe8 24.d7 Qe4 25.d8Q Qc2+ 26.Bd2 1–0

Two memorable historic games.

Schulten,John William -- Morphy,Paul [C32]
New York blindfold m New York, 1857

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 Bb4 6.Bd2 e3 7.Bxe3 0–0 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Re8+ 10.Be2 Bg4 11.c4 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Kf1 Rxe2 14.Nxe2 Nd4 15.Qb1 Bxe2+ 16.Kf2 Ng4+ 17.Kg1 Nf3+ 18.gxf3 Qd4+ 19.Kg2 Qf2+ 20.Kh3 Qxf3+ 0–1

Rosanes,Jacob -- Anderssen,Adolf [C32]
Breslau m Breslau, 1862

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Bb5+ c6 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Qe2 Bc5 8.Nxe4 0–0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.d3 Re8 11.Bd2 Nxe4 12.dxe4 Bf5 13.e5 Qb6 14.0–0–0 Bd4 15.c3 Rab8 16.b3 Red8 17.Nf3 Qxb3 18.axb3 Rxb3 19.Be1 Be3+ 0–1

My fourth round opponent started with the Bird, which I met with the From, then we transposed into the King's Gambit and the Falkbeer. That is exactly how one of my worst tournament games ever began two years ago, except that I had White (see "Knowing Better").

Tito Tinajero (1614) -- James Stripes (1845) [C32]
25th Collyer Memorial Spokane Valley (4), 26.02.2017

1.f4 e5 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Nc3

4.d3 is considered best. 4...Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2 "theory and practice have demonstrated with a high degree of certainty that White will obtain an advantage" (Shaw, 585).

4...Nf6 5.Bb5+

I expected 5.d3, which is the main line. Shaw mentions 5.Bb5 as a means of avoiding established theory. It's certainly a worthy move at the club level.

5...c6

5...Nbd7 or 5...Bd7 were options. Because I needed to win, I was happier accepting weaknesses in pawn structure than offering minor piece exchanges. Later, however, concrete analysis forced me to consider some exchanges.

6.dxc6 bxc6 7.Bc4

Black to move

7...Bg4?!

7...Bc5 seems better and was played in the only game in PowerBook 2016 with 5.Bb5+. That game continued 8.d4 Qxd4 9.Qxd4 Bxd4 10.Nge2 Bb6 11.Na4 Ba6 12.Nxb6 axb6 13.Bb3 0–0 14.h3 c5 15.a3 e3 16.Bxe3 Re8 17.Kf2 Ne4+ 18.Kf3 Bb7 19.Rhe1 Nd7 20.Ng3 Ndf6 21.Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Ke2 Ba6+ 23.Kf3 Bb7 24.Ke2 Ba6+ 25.Kf3 Bb7 26.Ke2 ½–½ Metz,H (2275) -- Baburin,A (2530) Liechtenstein 1993

8.Be2

8.Nge2 was worth considering.

8...Be6 

8...Bf5 9.d3 Qb6 10.dxe4 Bxe4 was played in Richter,E -- McAloon,J, Ca'n Picafort 1992, which White won in 36 moves.

9.d3 Bb4 10.Bd2

Black to move

10...exd3

I first thought of 10...e3, as Morphy played against Schulten, but my c-pawn makes a critical element of Morphy's attack impossible.

I missed an opportunity: 10...Qd4! 11.Qc1 (11.dxe4? Bc5 12.Qc1 Qf2+-+) 11...Nbd7 and Black's pieces are more active.

11.Bxd3 Qb6?

I should have castled, but failed to anticipate White's next move.

12.f5 Bd5

I spent twenty minutes on this move.

13.Nxd5 Nxd5

During that twenty minutes, I thought that I would play 13...Bxd2+, but now spent another five minutes considering whether that was best. Although several of my moves in this game were not best, the time that I invested and the care taken are indicators that I was taking the game seriously. I was playing the board, not my opponent. I was not making the sort of hasty moves that cost me a draw on Saturday (see "Stronger King").

14.Qe2+

Black to move

14...Kf8

I spent another thirteen minutes on this move. I considered 14...Kd8, as well as several other options that seemed to fail tactically. I wanted to castle, but blocking the check and the castling seemed to drop a piece after White drove the knight away. Of course, White would need to castle first or face a skewer along the e-file. Blocking the check with the knight seemed to be going backwards.

My chess engine prefers 14...Kd8, which I rejected because it seemed too easy for White to move the bishops, producing a discovered attack against my king. If I could calculate as well as a computer, I might have been able to assess these dangers. 15.0–0–0 Re8 16.Qf1 Nd7 and Black is equal, according to Stockfish.

14...Kf8 is the computer's second choice.

15.0–0–0 Nd7

Stockfish prefers 15...Be7, which would have been consistent with my earlier plan to avoid exchanges. But, now, I sensed the need to catch up in development. Despite my sacrifice of a pawn for activity, my opponent's pieces seem more active.

16.Bxb4+ Qxb4 17.Bc4?

17.Qd2 and White retains the edge.

17...Re8

The game is equal.

White to move

18.Qd3??

18.c3 Nxc3 19.bxc3 Qxc3+ 20.Qc2 Qa1+= and Black forces a draw. I likely would have played something else and been worse.

After 17 moves, my opponent had 1:15 remaining to my 45 minutes. Being behind thirty minutes on the clock might have motivated me to cut my losses and bail. Happily, he spent four minutes finding a horrendous move that I quickly exploited.

18...Ne5 19.Qf1 0-1

After making this move, my opponent tipped his king before I could play 19...Nxc4.

It may be worth my time to find another line against the King's Gambit, or to meet the Bird with something other than the From. Against 1.e4, I usually play the French.


20 May 2015

Knowing Better

I failed my training regimen in the last round of the Inland Empire Open. In January, I studied Schulten -- Morphy, New York 1857 and had this game in my active memory when I played my last round on Sunday. Nonetheless, I ignored a lesson that I had extracted from that game when offered the opportunity to apply it to a new position. As a consequence, I lost more quickly than Schulten.

Stripes,James (1877) -- McCourt,Dan (1798) [C31]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (5), 17.05.2015

1.f4 e5 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 c6

White to move

While considering this position, I remembered that I had written that capturing the c-pawn had been Schulten's critical error. I knew that it would be a mistake even earlier in the game as well, but allowed myself to give in to the lure of material game.

4.dxc6?!

4.Nc3 was best with two main possibilities:

4...exf4 5.Nf3
4...cxd5 5.fxe5

4...Nxc6

This position is equal, according to Nigel Short's annotations in Chess Informant 41/359.

White to move

 5.fxe5?? 

5.Bb5 was played by Hans Ree against Nigel Short, Wijk aan Zee 1986. Both sides had chances for several moves.

5...Qh4+ 6.g3 Qe4+ 7.Qe2 Qxh1 8.Nf3

8.Qg2 Qxg2 9.Bxg2-+.

Black to move

White's only hope is to trap the queen. Alas, there is no real possibility of that.

8...Bg4 9.e6 Bxf3 10.exf7+ Kxf7 11.Qc4+ Bd5 12.Qf4+ Nf6 13.c4 Re8+ 14.Kf2

14.Kd1 holds out longer. 14...Bf3+ 15.Kc2 Nb4+ 16.Kc3 Qxf1-+.

14...Qxh2+ 0–1

It is checkmate in one. Dan bought me a beer after the game, and we played more chess in the bar. I did better in those games.

24 January 2015

Schulten -- Morphy 1857

Game of the Week

My training regimen varies. I use several tactics training resources, both print and electronic. I go through many games most weeks. I study classic games and sometimes follow Grandmaster games as they develop in real time (see "So -- Vachier-Lagrave"). Endgames are a regular element of study, too. During the early weeks of a correspondence game, I often go through many games in the opening that is developing. For one particular game currently in progress, I went through every game published in Chess Informant in that particular variation (over 100 games). I use Chess.com's Chess Mentor.

As chess study bounces about from one topic to another, I usually have an ongoing project that represents a constant: something I return to every few days over many months. For the present, I am working through the 59 games in GM_RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov. One game per week.* I started in December 2014. If I persist to the end, this project will conclude in early 2016.

Ziyatdinov's seventh game is a Paul Morphy miniature. His opponent, Johann Schulten, opted for the King's Gambit, which Morphy met with the Falkbeer Counter Gambit. The Falkbeer is one of Black's most promising lines against the King's Gambit. My own performance on the White side of the Falkbeer suggest plenty of room for improvement. As Schulten in this game, I often find myself in a bit of trouble rather quickly.

Although Ziyatdinov's 59 games are presented as the source for 120 middle game positions, errors in the opening quickly demand my attention. Each morning for the past several days, I have spend a little time going through this game. But until today, I did not attend to Morphy's concluding combination. Rather, Schulten's errors large and small in the first twelve moves have captured my attention.

Schulten,J -- Morphy,Paul  [C32]
New York, 1857

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Nc3

4.d3 seems more precise. It is both more popular than 4.Nc3 and scores better for White. In my own games with White, 4.Nc3 has been my choice more often.

4...Nf6 5.d3

5.Qe2 is an interesting possibility.

5...Bb4 6.Bd2 e3 7.Bxe3

Black to move

Black has a lot of compensation for the two pawns. Black has seized the initiative.

7...0–0

7...Nxd5 does not seem as strong. 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 (9.bxc3) 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 Qf6 11.Qd2.

8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3

9.Bxc3 seems playable 9...Re8+ 10.Be2 Nxd5 11.Qd2.

9...Re8+ 10.Be2 Bg4 11.c4

11.Kf2

11.h3 Qxd5 12.Kf2 Qc5+ 13.Kg3 Nh5+ 14.Kh2 Bxe2 15.Nxe2 Nc6 16.Nd4 Nf6 17.Nxc6 Qxc6 18.c4 Rad8 19.Re1 Rxe1 20.Bxe1 Re8 21.Bh4 Re6 22.Qd2 Rd6 23.Re1 Qxc4 24.Bxf6 gxf6 25.Re8+ Kg7 26.Qe3 1–0 Pridorozhni,A (2524) -- Karpov,A (2330) Khanty-Mansiysk 2008

11...c6

White to move

12.dxc6??

This move is the most critical error of the game.

12.h3 might be the only move. Black retains an advantage, but White's position is playable.

12...Nxc6 13.Kf1 Rxe2!–+ 14.Nxe2 Nd4 15.Qb1 Bxe2+ 16.Kf2 

16.Kg1 is worse 16...Nxc2 17.h3 (17.Qxc2 Qd4+ 18.Be3 Qxe3#) 17...Qxd3 18.Qc1 Ne4 (18...Nxa1).

16...Ng4+ 17.Kg1 Nf3+ 18.gxf3 Qd4+ 19.Kg2 Qf2+ 20.Kh3 Qxf3+ 21.Kh4 

The game score ends here. Maybe Morphy pointed out the checkmate in three.

21.Kh4 Ne3 22.Rg1 Nf5+ 23.Kg5 Qh5#

0–1


*My week begins on Wednesday due to teaching a college history course that meets 6:00-10:00pm on Tuesdays. This course end in mid-February, but has set the training schedule for the year.