Showing posts with label Ruy Lopez. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ruy Lopez. Show all posts

30 April 2024

Inspired by Ruy Lopez

This morning I had a familiar position although the opening moves were not anything I recall playing before. The position was familiar because it had the same critical elements (pattern) found in a game Ruy Lopez played in 1560 and that appears in my book, Checkmates and Tactics (2019). The exercises in this book are those I've been using with scholastic chess players since 2006 as part of my award curriculum.

I had White in the 10 minute game.

1.e4 e6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4 dxc4?! 6.Bxc4 Bg4?

Bad pins often backfire.

White to move
7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Ne5+ creates a discovery against the bishop as well as forking king and bishop.

8...Ke8 9.Qxg4 Nf6 10.Qe6+

The game is continuing along the path shown by Lopez.

10...Qe7

White to move
11.Qc8+ Qd8 12.Qxd8

I considered 12.Qxb7, which Stockfish prefers, but reasoned that Lopez's combination was good enough to give me a clear advantage.

12...Kxd8 13.Nf7+

What we have of Lopez's game ends with this fork.

13...Ke8 14.Nxh8

My opponent made me play all the way to checkmate. Along the way, I won the other rook through another combination.

White to move
24.Rxe6

24.Rxb7+ is simpler and better.

24...Kxe6 25.Nc7+ Kf5 26.Nxa8

It's not often that I get to fork both rooks with my knights in the same game.

Lopez's game started with a King's Gambit Declined. His opponent is given in ChessBase Mega as Giovanni Leonardo da Cutri (spelling and name sequence differs from source to source).

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d6 3.Bc4 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4

The bad pin.

White to move
This position is number 21 in Checkmates and Tactics, available through Amazon both in print and Kindle versions. It is the third exercise in my Bishop Award set.

6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke8 8.Qxg4 Nf6 9.Qe6 Qe7 10.Qc8+ Qd8 11.Qxd8

Lopez's move is best, which differs from my game.

11...Kxd8 12.Nf7+





02 October 2022

The Art of Analysis

How do you analyze a chess game?

I was thinking about this question this morning when I would have preferred to sleep another hour. Hence, I thought to open Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955) to the next game and analyze it. Then, I would compare my annotations to those Chernev offers. I am working my way through this book.

While analyzing a game, I look at many possibilities that will vary depending on the game and why it has come to my attention. For miniatures, such as one finds in this classic Chernev text, I expect to find a game-losing blunder and sometimes a series of weak moves. I make an effort to identify these before seeking any assistance from the annotations of others or from engines.

Wills -- Sparks [C42]
USA, 1942
Stripes,James

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?

This move is the critical error and a common beginner's mistake. There are few chess coaches who have not shown this error and the subsequent refutation to their students. It also appears in some of the oldest chess books and manuscripts (see the section on history below).

4.Qe2 Qe7

4...Nf6?? worsens matters and should be shown to beginners 5.Nc6+ wins the queen.

5.Qxe4

Black to move

5...d6 6.d4 f6

6...dxe5 and Black is a pawn down. Surely, this should be preferred to a futile effort for equality that cannot succeed against attentive play.

7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5

White to move

9.Nd5!+-

The refutation of Black's idea is a good example of an intermezzo. Instead of continuing a sequence of exchanges, White attack's Black's queen.

9...Qd6 10.fxe5 fxe5 11.dxe5 Qc6

11...Nxe5 12.Bf4 Yes, Black ends up a piece down, but that piece is a knight. Alternatives leave Black down a rook or a knight.
11...Qxe5 12.Qxe5+ Nxe5 13.Nxc7+ Kd8 14.Nxa8 Black may be able to trap the knight, being down only an exchange.

12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 1-0

Chernev does not highlight the critical error, but offers some analysis after the game is already lost. His headnote, however, offers a clue to Black's fatal decision: "Mimicry can be very amusing, but in chess it usually turns out to be expensive fun" (91).

Wills -- Sparks [C42]
USA, 1942
Chernev,Irving

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7

The knight must not move, as the discovered check will cost Black his queen.

5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.Nd5 Qd6 10.fxe5 fxe5 11.dxe5 Qc6

11...Qxe5 12.Qxe5+ Nxe5 13.Nxc7+; or 11...Nxe5 12.Bf4 wins a piece

12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 1-0

I must credit Chernev's sometimes cryptic annotations for driving me to think and analyze for myself when I first encountered this book 47 years ago.

History

Neither the players Wills and Sparks, nor this particular execution of these moves are well-known apart from Chernev's book, but the moves and ideas can be found in the texts of Pedro Damiano, Ruy Lopez. Giulio Cesare Polerio, Gioachino Greco, and others. In ChessBase Mega 2020, Greco's game is the oldest, but Chessgames.com has one attributed to Damiano.

The following game appeared in ChessBase News in Spanish and German versions on 21 May 2009. The only English versions I have found are Google Translate versions of these. The article is an interview with Mário Silva Araújo, an amateur historian who produced a biographical study of Damiano. Araújo suggests that Damiano fled Portugal to Rome because he was Jewish. In December 1496, King Manuel I of Portugal ordered the expulsion of Jews from the nation. According to Araújo, "It is the oldest known game played--and won--by a Portuguese."

Damiano [C42]
Rome 1497

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.Nd5 Qd6 10.dxe5 fxe5 11.fxe5 Qc6 12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 Qxe3+

The game presented on chessgames.com lists Araújo's study as its source and concludes 13...Qxb5 14.Nxc7

14.Nxe3 1-0

Early Petrov lines similar to those in these games span pages 449-452 in Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess". There the move order presented from Damiano's published text and its many reprints have 7...dxe5, but still reach a position after White's move 11 that is shared by all the games presented in this post.

Black to move
There are several continuations from this point in manuscripts from the late fifteenth century to Greco's seventeenth century work: 11...Qc6, 11...Qc5, and 11...Qg6. Monté also presents a fair number of alternatives to the main line that were explored in these manuscripts. Whoever Sparks may have been, he fell prey to one of the oldest known opening fiascos.

04 October 2013

Lesson of the Week

Through the end of October, we are looking at ideas for Black in a common opening position. We started with ideas that Black should reject.

The common moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 reach a position where Black makes an important choice. Will Black defend the e-pawn or attack White's e-pawn. If Black chooses to defend the e-pawn, what defense will he or she adopt.

2...Qf6 is inadvisable. Our model game is Morphy -- McConnell 1849.
2...Bd6 is inadvisable. The model game comes from a correspondence game that I played in 2005.

This week we look at 2...f6, which may be the worst possible move. It is certainly the worst way to defend the pawn.

White to move

This manner of defense is shockingly common in scholastic tournaments. Consequently, a player who understands its pitfalls may find an opportunity to demonstrate this knowledge when it means an easy win in a tournament game.

This move is also a named opening: Damiano's Defense. Pedro Damiano (1480-1544) pointed out White's refutation of this error, and so it is a bit ironic to name the opening for him. During his life new chess rules were changing the nature of the game. Folks used the terms "new chess" and "old chess" to refer to the differences. The queen and bishop had become the pieces they are today. In the old chess, they were much weaker. 2...f6 was a strong move in the old chess. With bishops and a queen that could move all the way across the board, this move became terrible.

Our model game is the opening phase of a battle that took place in Rome in 1560. Ruy Lopez was a Spanish priest who had to be in Rome on church business. He also was one of the leading chess players in Spain. He spent his free time in Rome playing chess with the leading players of that city. His opponent in this game was Leonardo di Bona, who was nicknamed the kid.

3.Nxe5! fxe5??

2...f6 is an error, but not a game losing one. 3...fxe5 is a blunder. 3...Qe7 offers Black prospects for continuing the game.

4.Qh5+

While looking at the game Morphy -- McConnell, it was stressed that bringing out the queen early was usually an error. However, all strategy generalizations have exceptions. Clear analysis of the position on the board is more important than general strategy principles.

Black to move

Black has two legal moves. The better of the two loses a rook. White's third move looked like a knight sacrifice, but in fact it wins material. If Black tries to hang on to the extra piece, White can force checkmate or win a piece more valuable than the rook.

4...g6

The kid made the best move. He was prepared for this position, including the loss of his rook. He had a plan that he thought was better than the priest's plan.

5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8 Nf6

White to move

We see that Leonardo di Bona's idea was to trap the White queen. In this position, it has no safe move. However, Black still has some work to do before the queen can be captured. If Lopez succeeds in rescuing his queen, he will have a significant material advantage. If not, he should lose.

7.d4 Kf7 8.Bc4+ d5 9.Bxd5+ Nxd5

White to move

H.J.R. Murray, A History of Chess (1913) tells us that Lopez won this game, but the moves to this position appear to be all that have survived.

In Rome in 1560, Ruy Lopez proved that he was a better chess player than Leonardo di Bona. Fifteen years later, they played another series of games. The Kid had improved significantly. He traveled to Spain to prove his skills. He defeated Lopez and the other leading players of Spain.

01 August 2013

Gambit: Origin and Definition

In modern chess terminology, the term gambit refers to the offer of material for positional compensation. In the King's Gambit, for example, White offers the f-pawn for control of the center and rapid mobilization. Black may reply with the Falkbeer Countergambit, practically compelling White to gain a pawn at the cost of disharmonious development.

The term gambit originates as an Italian wrestling term, and appears to have been in use by chess players in Rome in the mid-sixteenth century. Ruy Lopez learned the term while visiting Rome in 1560, and he introduced it into print in his text the following year (see "Damiano's Gambit"). According to Lopez, gamba means leg, and gambitare means to set traps.

The original English spelling (gambett) was introduced by Gioachino Greco, and is derived from Italian; the modern English spelling derives from Lopez's Spanish. Francis Beale's publication of one of Greco's manuscript texts offers a provocative definition of the term.
[A] Gambett signifies here a game, so contrived, that he which loseth shall have a palpable reason for every remove he maketh, whereas the reasons of the removes of the winner are so hard to be found out, that they seem rather preposterous, and unfitting, which sheweth the excellent contrivance and invention of the Authors of them.
The Royall Game of Chesse-Play (London, 1656), frontmatter.


25 June 2013

Damiano's Gambit

The naming of things proves that Clio, the muse of history, has a wry sense of humor. A case in point is Damiano's Defense. Pedro Damiano (1480-1544) analyzed the opening that bears his name. But, his analysis demonstrated its flaws, not its virtues. In the old chess prior to the late fifteenth century, defending a central e-pawn with f6 was solid. But, when the queen and bishop became the powerful pieces of modern chess, the posibilities of rapid attack changed the game. These new rules may have been in place for a generation in Damiano's day, or they may have been adopted just as he was learning the game. Nonetheless, he was not the first one to examine the opening and conclude that it favored White.

The Göttingen Manuscript, so called because it is in the Göttingen University Library, dates from the late fifteenth century. It examines four moves after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3: 2...f6, 2...d6, 2...Nf6, and 2...Nc6. According to H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess (1913), the author seems to have considered 2...Nc6 as best (784).

Also dating from the late-fifteenth century is the work of Luis Ramírez de Lucena (c.1465-c.1530), Arte de axedres (c.1497), published in Salamanca. Murray points out that Lucena seems to have struggled a bit with the new rules.
He overlooks a mate on the move, because he has forgotten the Bishop's new move, and ends with a mate which the new Queen can spoil by capturing the mating piece. It looks as though Lucena had written his book in a great hurry. (786)
Murray presents Lucena's analysis of the opening that would come to bear Damiano's name.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5

3...Qe7 is also mentioned. Mikhail Chigorin played this move in 1897 (see "Opening Disaster: Damino's Defense").

White to move

4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.Qg3+ Kf6

8...Qg5 is also examined.

9.Qf4+ Kg6 10.Qf7+

Overlooking 10.Bf7#

10...Kg5 11.d3+ Kg4 12.Qf3+ Kh4 13.g3+ Kh3 14.Qh5+ Kg2 15.e5+

The final position is presented as checkmate despite the possibility of 15...Qxd5.

Neither the Göttingen MS nor Lucena's work appear to have influenced later writers to any significant degree. They are the oldest extant works on modern chess, and that is the limit of their interest. In contrast, Pedro Damiano, Questo libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de li partiti (Rome, 1512) went through numerous editions and influenced all subsequent writers. There is some evidence that the 1512 edition, the oldest extant, was not the first edition (see Murray, 787).

Damiano's analysis includes the following, according to J. H. Sarratt, The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez, and Salvio on the Game of Chess (London: T. Boosey, 1813).

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+

Black to move

4...Ke7

4...g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 7.Kd1 is presented as the main game by Sarratt.

5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+

Black to move

6...Kg6

6...d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7 Bd6 10.Qa5 is presented by Sarratt as the second variation.

7.Qf5+ Kh6 8.d3+ g5 9.h4 d5 10.hxg5+ Kg7

White to move

11.Qe5+ Nf6 12.gxf6+ Qxf6 13.Qxf6+ Kxf6 14.Bxd5 1–0

The game, as I have it here, is presented by Sarratt as a variation of the main game (see variation at move 6 above).

From 1512 to 1560, Damiano's book went through seven editions. By 1560, according to Murray, it would have been of value only to beginning players. It was in 1560 that a priest from Spain, Rodrigo (Ruy) López de Segura (c. 1530 – c. 1580), made his acquaintance with the book in Rome. He traveled to Italy on church business following the ascension of Pius IV as Pope. While there, he spent his leisure time playing chess. His book, Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez (1561), was published shortly after his return to Spain.

Ruy Lopez demonstrated that his skill was superior to that of the leading players in Rome. But he learned from them a new term that has become a standard part of chess vocabulary: Lopez wrote, "It is derived from the Italian gamba, a leg, and gambitare means to set traps..." (Murray, 813). He named the opening in some games that he played in Rome, "el gambito de Damian" (Damiano's Gambit).

Murray presents an opening fragment from a game Lopez played with Il Puttino (the youth), who was probably Giovanni Leonardo de Bona.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5

Murray notes that 3...Qe7 had been known by Spanish players since the time of Lucena.

4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8 Nf6

According to Murray, "a move known since Damiano as a means of keeping the White queen out of play."

7.d4 Kf7 8.Bc4+ d5 9.Bxd5+ Nxd5 and Lopez eventually won.

White to move

Several years later, Leonardo played Lopez in Madrid, where he exacted his revenge for the lessons in Rome in 1560.

Lopez did not think highly of Damiano's book, but he immortalized him by naming a well-known opening after him. It is an opening still played by beginners, but it was much more popular among strong players in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. As late as the end of the nineteenth century, it appeared in a master level tournament.


24 March 2012

Memorizing Chess Games

My training method is eclectic and varied. While I maintain some semblance of consistency in certain activities, I frequently try new regimens or return to old ones. This past week I have resumed efforts to play through entire games from memory. There are a handful of games that I maintain in my long-term memory though frequent use instructing beginning players, such as Legall de Kermeur's only recorded game (see "My First Chess Book") and a variant of the same idea from Greco. Time spent revisiting Irving Chernev, 1000 Best Short Games of Chess thirty-seven years after my first encounter with this text has quickly planted several full games deep enough in memory that I can play through them without reference to the game score.

In "Fingerprints," I noted, "Rashid Ziyatdinov advocates learning entire games thoroughly." For a few weeks after that post, I worked on the first ten games in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Chess Knowledge (2000). I was able to play through as many of five of those games successfully, but I cannot reproduce any today. There is enough of each in my memory, however, that I am confident that ten minutes review would be sufficient to put any one of these games into my memory cache.

This week I have learned several short games. My method is to read the game score in Chernev, where it is presented in descriptive notation, then close the book and either enter the moves into a database or play them on a physical chessboard. In addition to games in Chernev, the earliest recorded instances of the Petroff Defense have become accessible, however briefly. See "Petroff Defense: Early History." I can confidently reproduce the two Petroff's from Damiano, and the first from Ruy Lopez. From Chernev, I was able to enter the following games directly into a database from memory. I did need to consult the book for the players and location of the third game.

Blake - Hooke [C41]
London, 1891

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 f5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Qxd4 Bd7 7.Ng5 Nc6 8.Bf7+ Ke7

White to move

9.Qxf6+ Kxf6 10.Nd5+ Ke5 11.Nf3+ Kxe4 12.Nc3# 1–0

Taylor,I.O. Howard - N,N [C42]
London, 1862

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nc5 5.Nxe5 f6 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Ke7 8.Nd5+ Kd6 9.Nc4+ Kc6 10.Nb4+ Kb5 11.a4+ Kxb4 12.c3+ Kb3 13.Qd1# 1–0

N,N - Bruening [D32]
Berlin, 1907

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.Bf4 cxd4 5.Bxb8 dxc3 6.Be5 cxb2 0–1



After 10.a4+

The quality of the third game hardly merits retaining it in long-term memory. The first game after 8...Ke7 presents a nice checkmate in four position worth knowing well enough to be able to place on the board during a chess lesson. Taylor's alleged announcement of a forced checkmate in eight moves (Chernev, 2) is likely a fabrication (see Edward Winter, Chess Notes 7564). Even so, the game is worth remembering not only for the king hunt that took place, but for the possibilities had Black played 6...Ke7. There are several different possible mating patterns that conclude on moves 11-13. Most remarkable about this game is the foresight needed to find the initial 6.Qh5+ because 6.Bf7+ looks as good until 10...Nxa4, a move that is not possible with the queen on h4 (see diagram).

Perhaps after the ease of memorizing and studying a bunch of these miniatures, I will return to memorizing full games that offer more potential for developing my battle skills against experts and above.

23 March 2012

Petroff Defense: Early History

The Petroff Defense (or Russian Defense) has an ancient lineage. It is found in several of the oldest books on modern chess, including the works of Luis Ramírez de Lucena, Pedro Damiano, Rodrigo (Ruy) López de Segura, and Giaochino Greco. These early works present model games that are more a record of analysis than a record of play. In these model games, the Petroff often appears as an opening that cannot be recommended. However, there may have been some veneration of this opening much earlier than commonly thought.

Lucena's Repetición de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez con ci Iuegos de Partido (1497) does not seem to have influenced subsequent writers. According to H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess (1913), "W. Lewis was the first writer to give an account of the work from the point of view of chess, in his Letters on Chess from C.F. Vogt, translated by U. Ewell, 1848" (787). This work was no translation, but a work that the author refused to acknowledge as his own (see Edward Winter, "A chess Watergate" C.N. 4337).

In contrast to Lucena's lack of influence, Damiano's Questo libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de li partiti (1512) was printed in several countries in the sixteenth century, and had a clear influence upon the work of Ruy Lopez. Several of the games in Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez (1561) follow those in Damiano's, but diverge in the last few moves. Games from these texts then appear in Greco's work, although carried forward a move or two further.

Such is the case for the oldest Petroff Defense game found in the ChessBase database. In Big Database 2011, game 57 is attributed to Greco, but matches one copied from Damiano by Joseph Henry Sarratt. One needs access to the archives of the world's best libraries just to see copies of the texts of Lucena, Damiano, and Lopez. However, Sarratt, The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez, and Salvio, on the Game of Chess (1813) is widely available even as a free ebook because Google Books scanned a copy from the New York Public Library. Sarratt asserts that he "has frequently and attentively played and examined" the games in the texts of these authors, and he, "is strongly impressed with the belief that they are calculated to assist in a material degree unpracticed players" (xv). Sarratt's reputation has suffered due to his reputation for errors in his texts. Murray notes:
[Sarratt] introduced his generation to the work of the older masters, Damiano, Lopez, and Salvio, in a series of translations. That, as we now know to be the case, these translations were careless, inaccurate, and incomplete, did not rob them of their value at the time they were made, though this discovery has had a very damaging effect on his reputation as a writer. It is unfortunate that the badness of this portion of Sarratt's literary work should have prevented his successors from recognizing the importance and real merit of his other services to chess.
Murray, A History of Chess, 874.
Among Sarratt's contributions cited by Murray was his advocacy that stalemate should be a draw. Through this advocacy, the London Chess Club adopted a rule that was already standard in other countries.


The Games

Sarratt's notation reflects the state of chess notation in English in the early nineteenth century. It is awkward, but readable to the modern reader. The first game in Sarratt's The Works is presented as two variations (1-5). It is Damiano's record of the Petroff as it may have been played in his day. Damiano's two games show hazards that may befall a careless player of the Black pieces. Greco's sole Petroff carries the first of these games two moves further. Lopez's games 35-37 present three variations that are equal or better for Black (Sarratt, 136-141). Lopez's game scores would seem to suggest that the common belief that Black's 2...Nf6 was held in low regard until the mid-nineteenth century may not be fully accurate.

Below are the game scores from these five early studies of tactics in the Petroff (a name the opening would take on in the nineteenth century when it was revived as a viable alternative for Black). The comments are attributed by Sarratt to Lopez.

(1) Damiano,Pedro [C42]
1512

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 dxe5 8.dxe5 Nd7 9.Nc3 fxe5 10.Nd5 Qd6 11.fxe5 Qc6 12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 +-

(2) Damiano,Pedro [C42]
1512

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 dxe5 8.dxe5 Nd7 9.Nc3 fxe5 10.Nd5 Qd6 11.fxe5 Qc5 12.Be3 Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qc5 14.b4 Qc6 15.Bb5 Qg6 16.Qxg6+ hxg6 17.Nxc7+ +-

(3) López de Segura,Rodrigo (Ruy)  [C42]
1561

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 dxe5 8.dxe5 Nd7 9.Nc3 fxe5

White to move

10.Nb5 Nf6 Black has the best of the Game

(4) López de Segura,Rodrigo (Ruy)  [C42]
1561

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 dxe5 8.dxe5 fxe5 9.fxe5 Nd7 10.Bf4 g5 11.Bg3 Bg7 Black will regain his Pawn

(5) López de Segura,Rodrigo (Ruy)  [C42]
1561

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 d6 5.Nf3 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Bf5 7.c3 Nbd7 8.Nbd2 Qc2 Black has the best of the Game.

It is curious that in Lopez's first game, he reaches the same position as in Damiano's games. But, in Lopez White plays differently. Inasmuch as the move given by Damiano appears stronger, it raises a question that can be answered through examination of the original Lopez text. Did Lopez include also the variation that is favorable to White, and Sarratt exclude it to avoid duplication?

22 January 2012

Opening Disaster: Damiano's Defense

The 2012 Winterfest Scholastic, a youth tournament that has run for more than ten years, featured a miniature that highlights a not infrequent opening error. The error has a name: Damiano's Defense. Pedro Damiano, although not regarded as a particularly strong player, recognized the weakness of Black's defense of the e-pawn and Ruy Lopez gave the opening his name.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?


After White's second move, Black must either protect the e-pawn, or attack White's, as in the Russian defense (2...Nf6). 2...f6 is a terrible way to protect the pawn. Here there are many ways to proceed. I recommend immediately demonstrating the error with a knight sacrifice. Actually, the word sacrifice seems odd here, because White gains a lot for the temporary investment of the horse.

3.Nxe5! fxe5??

If 2...f6 is an error, then 3...fxe5 is the blunder that practically assures White's victory. Possibly the strongest player to ever experiment with the lunacy of 2...f6 was Mikhail Chigorin. Chigorin played 3...Qe7 and that game ended drawn. Chigorin's skill, as well as his phenomenal contribution to chess in Russia, and thus the modern world, is such that my assignment of the question mark to 2...f6 could be viewed as hubris. After 3...Qe7, I cannot find a way for White to maintain the one pawn advantage. While the 2...f6 move creates a weakness, exploiting the weakness is not always as easy as it seems that it should be.

Schiffers,Emanuel Stepanovich - Chigorin,Mikhail [C40]
St. Petersburg 1897

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3 d5 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nc6 8.0–0 Bd7 9.Nc3 Qg6 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.Bh5 0–0–0 12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.Qe2 Bd6 14.Ne4 Nf3+ 15.gxf3 Bxh2+ 16.Kg2 Bh3+ 17.Kh1 Be5 18.Kg1 Bh2+ 19.Kh1 Be5 20.Qe1 Bg4+ 21.Kg1 Bxf3 22.Ng3 Ne7 23.Qe3 Bc6 24.Qxa7 b6 25.Be3 Nf5 26.f4 Nxg3 27.fxe5 Rh1+ 28.Kf2 Rh2+ 29.Kxg3 Rdh8 30.Qa6+ Kb8 31.Bxb6 Rg2+ 32.Kf4 Rh4+ 33.Ke3 Rh3+ 34.Kf4 Rh4+ ½–½

The game on Saturday, however, was played by elementary students. The White player is among the strongest of the area youth, plays in adult tournaments, and has a disciplined study regimen. It was the Black player's first event of the year, and he was rather mismatched in the first round (an ordinary feature of Swiss System tournaments). The rating difference between the players was nearly 500 Elo.

4.Qh5+

Black to move


4...g6

4...Ke7 is the only legal alternative, and should result in 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 (the only move that keeps Black playing).

5.Qxe5+ Be7?

5...Qe7 seems to me the only reasonable move. White maintains a decisive advantage, but Black gets a bit of counterplay if White fails to bring additional pieces into the attack, or responds inappropriately to Black's threats. I offer as an illustration, this quick White win against a master who adopted Black's self-defeating strategy. 5...Ne7 is better than 5...Be7.

Benavides Jojoa,Cristian - Torres,Javier (2259) [C40]
Bogota 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 7.Kd1 Qe6 8.Qxh7 d6 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Re1 Nf6 11.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 12.Rxe6+ Kd8 13.Qf7 c6 14.Rxf6 Kc7 15.d4 d5 16.Bf4+ 1–0


6.Qxh8 Kf7?

It is hard to suggest a reasonable alternative for Black here. Possibly, admitting the loss of the knight in addition to the rook, and preparing Qe7 with the bishop's retreat 6...Bf7 is the main alternative to simply resigning.

White to move


7.Bc4+ Ke8

7...d5 is the only move that averts a forced checkmate.

8.Qxg8+ Bf7 9.Qf7#

Black's play offers a lesson to avoid. White deserves credit for understanding the error of Black's second and third moves, and punishing the errors. Scholastic players are well-advised to learn from this miniature. Black's 2...f6 is shockingly common in scholastic play.