The Fighting Dragon

A Book Review

The Fighting Dragon: How to Defeat the Yugoslav Attack (Boston: Mongoose Press, 2016) by Paul Powell is not a repertoire book. It does offer suggestions to meet White's normal lines of play against the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defense. Unlike repertoire books, however, it does not offer a large number of heavily analyzed lines of seemingly endless variations. The book consists of ten main chapters--the first nine each cover one particular variation, and number ten covers "odds and ends". The shorter second part offers quizzes, a series of positions to solve. Something more than half of these positions occur in games found in the ten chapters.

The Fighting Dragon offers 52 games, all of which end with victory for the player of the Black pieces. Despite this record, these games do not reveal that White's ideas against the Sicilian Dragon are refuted. Rather, both sides have chances until a fatal error by White. Black's play, too, could be improved upon in some of the games.

With one exception, all of the games are shorter than average. More than half are miniatures (25 moves or less). Thirty games conclude by move 25. Ten games are decided in 20 moves or fewer. Only one game lasts longer than 35 moves. Powell, who is a USCF Life Master, explains that he intends his focus on short games to cultivate "inspiration and pattern recognition instead of memorization as a critical element of [the reader's] opening study" (9). Short games reveal catastrophic errors. Learning to identify these errors develops the reader's understanding of tactical themes.

Although I am more likely to find myself on the White side of the Yugoslav Attack, this book has inspired me. Powell's prescriptions to avoid "the rut" have helped me maintain a somewhat healthier focus both in play and in study.

Let us consider the Dragon player who is stuck in a rut. He revels in showing you his favorite game from 2002 where he crushed a master in the main-line Dragon. Great result, but sadly for him he's been playing the exact same line for over a decade in the hopes that another strong player will fall down the same rabbit hole. (16)

Start thinking sooner, even after the first move, even while playing your pet lines, Powell urges. "Comfort turns into complacency," he notes (15). He lays out a plan for reading this book and profiting from it. Take several ideas from each chapter. Play them fearlessly--intending to learn whether winning or losing. Play them in blitz and in slow games. As the reader tries new ideas, some will fit better than others. Refine those.

In The Fighting Dragon, Powell offers light annotations, emphasizing verbal explanations of the core ideas more than alternate variations. After the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.O-O-O Rb8, he notes, "The historical main-line Dragon finds the rook on c8 with pressure on the semi-open file. With ...Ra8-b8 instead, Black intends to use his b-pawn as a battering ram to open up White's castle" (120).

White to move

In his notes to the longest game in the book, Domínguez Pérez,L -- Carlsen,M, Linares 2009, he suggests, "If 10...Rb8 is worthy of being part of a world champion's repertoire, it should be one of the tools at your disposal too" (130). The skeptical reader might note that Magnus Carlsen was not yet world champion in 2009, but the point has merit.

The book uses figurine algebraic notation and prints the diagrams upside down--Black on bottom. This unorthodox printing of diagrams might bother some readers, but may comfort others. For some readers, it might have been helpful to have the coordinates included with the diagrams. These coordinates are missing in The Fighting Dragon.

The writing is mostly lively and interesting. Powell offers fresh metaphors ("One of the most difficult things in chess is deciding whether to paint your house or to go on vacation" [27]), but also weak and tired similes ("they avoid these lines like a zombie virus" [9]). The book reveals Powell as a person who would be entertaining during the social times at a chess tournament and who might say useful and memorable things during post-game analysis.

Chess players looking to start playing the Dragon will be well served reading this book. It facilitates quick grasp of the main ideas. A Dragon player who has studied a shelf full of repertoire books for years could still benefit from reading through this short book (183 pages) as much from the discussion of chess psychology as from the selection of entertaining games. Even players of other opening systems should consider Powell's approach to studying openings via tactical themes revealed through miniatures. The Fighting Dragon deserves some credit for cultivating habits of study that led to a nice win against our City Champion and his Queen's Indian Defense (see "Home Preparation"). After reading this book in December and early January, I began to apply some of its methodologies in my study of other openings.

I heartily endorse this book.

Tata Steel Chess 2016, Round Two

When was the last time that two Americans shared the lead with a Chinese player in Wijk aan Zee? After the first round, they do.

Disappointing Chess Fans

Loek Van Wely and Sergey Karjakin had four draws at Wijk aan Zee before Karjakin's win in 2012. Karjakin then won again in 2013 and 2014. Their overall record together stands at two wins for Van Wely, the latest in 2005, seven wins for Karjakin, and six draws. After Van Wely missed a clear win against Shakhryar Mamedyarov yesterday, he will be hard-pressed to end Karjakin's streak of wins since 2012.

Van Wely played a Dragon and reached an interesting position analyzed in some depth by Yasser Seirawan and Lawrence Trent.

Karjakin,Sergey -- Van Wely,Loek [B76]
Tata Steel Chess Wijk aan Zee, 17.01.2016

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0–0 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.h4 h5 11.Qd2 Qa5 12.0–0–0 Rfc8 13.Kb1 Ne5 14.Bg5 Kf8 15.f4 Neg4 16.Rhe1 Rc5 17.f5 gxf5 18.Nxf5 Bxf5 19.exf5

Black to move

19...Re8 

In their analysis, Trant and Seirawan concluded that 19...Re8 was Black's only non-losing move, and then learned from their researchers that it had been played before.

20.Nd5N

20.Bf4 was played in the reference game that I was able to locate. 20...Rxf5 21.Rxe7 Rxe7 22.Bxd6 Rfe5 23.Qf4 Kg8 24.Bxe7 Rxe7 0–1 Guempges,P (2076) -- Wisskirchen,A (2266) Germany 2004.

Apparently Karjakin offered a draw with the move's novelty. ½–½

Fighting Draws

Mamedyarov leads Evgeny Tomashevsky 3-5-1 (W-D-L) in their encounters. However, Tomashevsky's win in February 2015 was their most recent battle at classical time control. That win came in the fourth round of the FIDE Grand Prix in Tbilisi, an event that Tomashevsky won. In August 2015, Tomashevsky won the Russian Championship, which pushed him to his peak rating of 2758.

Among amateurs, there would still be some play in the position where Tomashevsky and Mamedyarov agreed to a draw, but I sense that the position is completely equal for Grandmasters. Black has a bishop pair and rook against White's bishop, knight and rook. Black also has an extra pawn, although two pawns are threatened.

In August 2014, Wei Yi lost to Pavel Eljanov in their only game prior to today. After a battle, the players reached a queen and minor piece ending with fourteen pawns still on the board. Maybe White's knight is a little better than Black's bishop according to the theory that knights work well with bishops. On the other hand, White's queen must guard the first rank or Black's queen and bishop will create checkmate threats. After a repetition of moves, the game was drawn.

White to move

Assuming that my database is complete, Magnus Carlsen leads Fabiano Caruana 16-10-7. In 2014, Caruana's astounding success, especially at the Sinquefield Cup where he beat Carlsen, created expectations that he was on the verge of challenging Carlsen's reign at the top of the rating charts. His results since then have not been as strong, although he defeated Carlsen again in 2015. It was Carlsen's second loss in the first two rounds of Norway Chess in Stavanger (see video). The two played seven games in 2015 with Carlsen winning three, Caruana winning one, and three draws.

Their game today was an intense battle.

Carlsen,Magnus -- Caruana,Fabiano [A00]
Tata Steel Chess Wijk aan Zee, 17.01.2016

1.g3 g6 2.Bg2 Bg7 3.e4 e5 4.Ne2 c5 5.d3 Nc6 6.Be3 d6 7.Qd2 Nd4 

7...Nge7 has been reached in at least four games with three White wins.

8.c3 Nxe2 9.Qxe2 Ne7 10.h4 h6 11.h5 g5 12.f4 exf4 13.gxf4 gxf4 14.Bxf4 Nc6 15.Na3 Be5 16.Be3 Be6 17.Nc4 Bg3+ 18.Kd2 Qd7 19.d4 cxd4 20.cxd4

Black to move

20...Ne5

Seirawan and Trent thought this move was forced. Caruana, in his postgame interview with Seirawan thought so as well.

21.Nxe5 dxe5 22.d5 Bg4 23.Bf3 Bxf3 24.Qxf3 Qb5 25.Rac1 Qxb2+ 26.Kd1 Bf4 27.Bxf4 exf4 28.Qxf4 Rg8 29.Rf1 Qd4+ 30.Ke1 Qb4+ 31.Kd1 Qd4+ 32.Ke1 Qb4+ ½–½

Navara's Activity Level

David Navara has two draws and four losses against Michael Adams. He played well yesterday against Carlsen. It seems that Navara's level of activity has increased in the past year or two. He also is currently at his peak rating. Perhaps he will score his first victory against Adams.

He did not win. The game was a battle that ended when the players reached a knight and pawn ending after 31 moves.

Ding Liren and Anish Giri tied for second in last year's Tata Steel Chess tournament, along with Maxime Vachier-Lagrave. Giri won their individual encounter with an instructive endgame of knight and bishop against rook with three pawns each. Ding had won their first encounter in 2012 and the two have had three draws, two of them at the Bilbao tournament in 2015.

Ding is the highest rated Chinese player ever and the second to break into the FIDE top ten.

After Black's 33rd move, the knights are coming off the board and the resulting queen ending with five pawns each should be objectively drawn. The players agreed to a draw vefore exchanging knights.

Hou Yifan surpassed Judit Polgar as the top rated woman in 2015. Polgar had been the top rated woman for 26 years. Her five prior encounters with Wesley So have all ended in draws, typically fifty moves or more. Their shortest draw was in Dortmund last year and lasted forty moves.

At the time that I needed to turn my attention to the Seattle Seahawks and their effort to return to a third Super Bowl appearance in three years, this game was at its 49th move. So seemed to have the upper hand earlier, but now Hou seems better.

At the end of the first quarter, the Seahawks were already in a hole and I saw that after five more moves, Hou -- So ended with a draw.

The Final Blow

These positions are from old Chess Informants. In each, the player on move made the strongest move and won the game. Black's opening choice was the Sicilian Dragon in all cases.

White to move

Matanovic -- Soos, Titovo Uzice 1966 CI 2/346

White to move

Vasiukov -- Ciocaltea, Bucuresti 1967 CI 3/402

White to move

Osnos -- Sakharov, Kharkov 1967 CI 4/418

White to move

Estrin -- Litvinov, Kharkov 1967 CI 4/421

White to move

Shapovalov -- Kitaev, Correspondence 1967 CI 4/428

Preparing to Slay the Dragon

I have an opponent who plays the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defense. Rather than playing 1.d4, which is my top choice in USCF rated chess, I plan to court his Dragon. I need to meet players at their strength in order to improve my skill. I do not know how well my opponent understands the Dragon, nor how he has studied the opening. His games on Chess.com are too few, and his opponents too quickly deviate from sensible book lines.

This post documents my two days of preparation for a single chess game. I am beginning this article on Tuesday morning, the game is scheduled for Wednesday evening, and I plan to post on Thursday.

This game is my second in the 2014 Spokane Contenders Tournament. Participants in this six-player round robin earned their spots. I am in the event because I played in and lost last year's City Championship Match. The others either won club events or finished near the top in the Grand Prix. The winner of the Contender's Tournament earns a position as challenger in this year's City Championship.

I am the second highest rated player in the 2014 Contender's with a USCF rating of 1917. My opponent is the fifth highest and rated 1694. His rating was provisional this spring. He is a relative newcomer to competitive chess and is improving fast. His first rated event was last August.

Tuesday Morning

After walking my dogs and eating breakfast, I started this blog post.

The Sicilian Dragon is ECO B70-79.* My first step is to open my personal database of previously played games matching those codes and review them. My search turns up 406 games. Reviewing them all would be daunting.

To get some control over this mass of data, I sorted by Black's rating in order to review games against my highest rated opponents. My own name appears near the top in the Black list, indicating that I, too, play the Dragon. I will review those too.

One recurring pattern crops up:

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7, I have often played 7.Be2. This move does not score as well as the more popular 7.f3. Even so, it may be worth considering.

Black to move

My post, "Losing Pawn Wars," came from a Dragon in which I played 7.Be2.

There are also games where I play 6.Be2, which has been played by Kramnik, Kamsky, Nepomniachtchi, and other top Grandmasters. 6.Be2 is the Classical Variation.

Looking through about two dozen games sorted thus, it is clear that my losses are characterized by gross tactical blunders. My wins also profit from blunders by my opponents. The key to my preparation, it seems, should be to seek lines that apply such pressure as to provoke opportunities for miscalculation.

In some losses, I simply drop pawns.

Having spent some time on the model game, Karpov -- Korchnoi, 1974, it comes as no surprise that I have attempted in online blitz to imitate Karpov's winning strategy. This game is an example of one failure in these efforts.

Stripes (1657) -- Internet Opponent (1819) [B78]
FICS 2013

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0–0 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.Bh6 Ne5 11.Bb3 Rc8 12.0–0–0 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Nde2 Qa5 16.h4 h5 17.Qg5 Rc5 18.Qe3 Be6 19.Nd4 Bxa2 20.Nxa2 Qxa2 21.Qb3 Qa1+ 22.Kd2 Qa5+ 23.Ke2 Rfc8 24.Qd3 Rc4 25.g4 hxg4 26.fxg4 Nxg4 27.h5 Ne5 28.Qg3 Rxd4 29.Rxd4 Rxc2+ 30.Kf1 Qa1+ 31.Qe1 Rc1 32.h6+ Kh7 33.Ke2 Rxe1+ 34.Rxe1 Qxb2+ 35.Rd2 Qb5+ White resigns 0–1

One factor that looms clear in my review of these games is a lack of precision in the opening. This weakness is not surprising. I have long been of the opinion, expressed frequently in internet forums, that class players should not spend a lot of time studying openings. Rather, tactics and endgames should be the primary focus. Openings can be played on general principles.

Against the Dragon as well as other variations of the Sicilian Defense, I have not developed precise, booked-up responses. Rather, I seek to deploy my pieces to good squares. Most often my bishops go to e2 and e3 with little regard for Black's set-up, but on occasion I will try Bb5 or Bg5. As all of the 400+ games in my database are from blitz, many of these games represent liberal use of premove (making a move on the screen that will be executed after my opponent moves so long as it is legal).

At my current level, however, further progress calls for serious opening study. I need stronger opening preparation to beat the Experts whom I must beat to become an Expert myself. It may be less important to prepare an opening in order to face a B Class player, but is it not a waste of time.

After a bit over an hour reviewing my own games, it seemed time for a quick review of basic ideas and plans as explained by Nick DeFirmian (Modern Chess Openings, 13th edition [1990]).**

DeFirmian's simple summation is useful for organization.

Yugoslav Attack

"The Yugoslav Attack ... is White's most successful antidote to the Dragon" (246).

My database contains 108 games with the position reached after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3. I was White in 105 of these, scoring 48-6-51 WDL. Improvement is needed.

Black to move

I find that I am playing h2-h4 too early.

DeFirmian gives as the main line from the diagram 6...Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O, although Big Database 2012 with The Week in Chess updates reveals that 7...O-O is slightly more frequent than 7...Nc6. The order of popularity at the highest levels, however, is as DeFirmian describes, although 7...O-O remains popular at the top.

In my games, 9.h4 accounts for many of my losses. After 9.Bc4, I score 56.5%. I fare poorly after 9.O-O-O, although that move scores well in Big Database 2012.

Hence, I studied one loss in more detail, with an eye to understanding both the most precise move order and the central ideas.

Stripes,J (1770) -- Internet Opponent (1855) [B79]
Chess.com, 2013

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0–0 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.0–0–0

10.h4 is worth considering here.

10...Qa5 11.Nb3?!

Possibly the beginning of my problems. 11.Kb1 and 11.Bb3 are preferred by the top players.

11...Qc7 12.g4?

Another inaccuracy. 12.Bh6 was better.

12...Rfc8 13.Bd5? Ne5 14.Qf2? Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.h4=

That my further errors led to an even game is a symptom of blitz. The value of this game for opening study ends here.

16...a5 17.h5 a4 18.Rd4 Qc6 19.Nd2 a3 20.Rc4 axb2+ 21.Kxb2 Qa6 22.Rxc8+ Bxc8 23.Nb3 Be6 24.Bd4 Qa3+ 25.Kb1 Bc4 26.hxg6 fxg6 27.g5 Nh5 28.Bxg7 Nxg7 29.Qd4 b5 30.f4 Ne6 31.Qd2 b4 32.Nd5 Qxa2+ 33.Kc1 Bxb3 34.Nxe7+ Kf8 35.Nxg6+ hxg6 0–1

I continued this process for a few more games.

Classical Variation

I fare better after 6.Be2 (53.4%). Here, though, my move order rarely follows that DeFirmian gives as the main line, 6...Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Be3 Nc6. I tend to play 7.Be3 first. I also castle on the queenside often enough to reveal that I confuse the classical system with the Yugoslav attack.

Levenfish Variation

I find only six games where I played 6.f4 and I lost four of those.

Other Ideas

I find that I have frequently played 6.Bg5, scoring over 53%. This move has been an occasional weapon of top players, but generally scores less well than the Yugoslav and classical variations. I shall concentrate on honing my understanding of the correct move order on those two.

Tuesday Afternoon

It is not possible to spend the whole day studying chess, nor is it productive. The morning session, which was interspersed with other activities, was not highly efficient. But, it did serve to identify weaknesses in my play against the Sicilian Dragon.

My afternoon session was shorter and better focused. I spent an hour going through the B70 lines in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings that feature 6.Be2 (the classical variation). These are lines 3-12. they contain an abundance of variations and links to important reference games. The electronic version is a nice resource.

At this moment, I am aiming for 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Nb3 Nc6 9.Re1. This plan may change.

Black to move

Ideas here include overprotection of the e4 pawn for when the knight on c3 is kicked, retreat of the light-squared bishop to f1, deployment of the dark-squared bishop on g5 to put pressure on e7 or to provoke h7-h6. Black has many choices. By looking through several of the reference games in ECO, however, I should be familiar with common patterns.

Of course, my opponent has plenty of opportunities to deviate from main lines of the Dragon, to try the Accelerated Dragon, or to avoid the Dragon altogether. He could even try the French.

Tuesday Evening

While sipping wine on the deck with my wife, I spent a little time going through games via the ChessBase iPad app. I set the position in the diagram above as my search parameter. There were several hard-fought draws between 2700+ players.

Wednesday Morning

During coffee, I looked through some games in Chess Informant, including CI 113/69, from which a position appeared on this blog last October ("Expose the King").

After walking the dogs and then spending some time at work (I work at home most of the time), I reviewed some recent games via The Week in Chess. One that went badly for White merits study.

Malloni,M (2350) -- Mogranzini,R (2499) [B70]
46th TCh-ITA 2014 Condino ITA (6.1), 03.05.2014

1.e4 d6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Nb3 Be6 10.Re1 a5 11.a4 Rc8 12.Bf1 Nb4 13.Nd4 Bc4 14.Ndb5 Bxf1 15.Rxf1 Qd7 16.Re1 Qe6 17.Rc1 Rc5 18.Be3 Rc4 19.b3 Nxe4 20.bxc4 Nxc3 21.Nxc3 Bxc3 22.Bd2 Qxc4 23.Bxc3 Qxc3 24.Rxe7 d5 25.Re3 Qc4 26.c3 Rc8 27.Rb1 Na2 28.Rxb7 Nxc3 29.Qe1 Ne4 30.Qa1 Qxa4 31.Re1 Qc6 32.Rb2 a4 33.Ra2 Nc3 34.Rd2 Qc5 35.Re3 d4 36.Red3 Rb8 37.Rb2 Rxb2 38.Qxb2 a3 39.Qb8+ Kg7 40.h3 a2 41.Qa8 Qb5 0–1

White's eighth move offers choices. What is the optimal move order? Should White play Nb3 before Black commits to Nc6? Is 8.Bg5 accurate, or should it follow Re1?

Yesterday's move order (above) derives from the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. Is it optimal? It also appears in DeFirmian's MCO-13.

8.Nb3 first appeared in Chess Informant in Timman -- Miles, Luzern 1982 (CI 34/260). It is one of the reference games that I examined during my morning coffee. I marked it as deserving further study. Tony Miles won that game brilliantly, but the next issue of Informant had a second game with 8.Nb3, which was won by White. Although my search does not turn up earlier instances of 8.Nb3, Miles' annotations identify his 8...Nbd7 as the game's novelty.

Scrolling through the 78 games in CI 1-113 that contain the position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O, I find many instances of 8.Kh1, 8.Bg5, 8.Be3, and 8.Nb3. The earliest instance of 8.Re1 appears in Ermenkov -- West, Novi Sad 1990 (CI 50/[233]) and Ermenkov -- Chandler at the same event and with the same CI number. Again, 8.Re1 is not presented as a novelty. Perhaps, transpositions in move order are the reason the move is not considered new.

ChessBase has 8.Re1 in Basman -- Cooper 1972. Cooper's rating of 1830 suffices to keep the game out of Chess Informant.

The position after 8.Re1 appears in thirteen games in Informants 1-113. I am going through all of these games and the annotations. Although I remain uncertain that 8.Re1 is the optimal move order, I am leaning towards that move this afternoon. I will hold Nd4-b3 in reserve to meet Nc6 should my opponent play that move before castling.


The Game

Stripes,James (1917) -- Dussome,David (1694) [B70]
Spokane Contenders Spokane, 09.07.2014

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Re1 Nc6 9.Nb3

We reached the position that I prepared via the move order I settled upon this morning.

9...Be6 10.Bf1 Rc8 11.Nd5 Ne5!

White to move

Despite my preparation, I had not examined this move.

12.c3

My move has been played by strong Grandmasters, as has the immediate 12.Bg5.

12...Bg4

I expected 12...Nc4, and was not certain that I would play 13.Bxc4.

13.f3 Bd7 14.Bg5

Black to move

14...a5

14...Nxd5 was played in the only remaining reference game.

15.a4

I considered 15.Nxf6, but my hopes of winning the d-pawn were easily refuted. I spent twelve minutes on this move--my longest think of the game. My move is the third choice of Stockfish. 15.Bxf6 was probably best, although I considered this move for only a moment.

15...Nxd5 16.Qxd5?!

Originally, I planned 16.exd5, which was better.

16...Be6 17.Qb5 b6 18.Nd2!?

The computer likes 18.Nd4, which I considered. Despite my 12.c3, I found myself concerned for the safety of my b-pawn as the vulnerability of my queen and knight facilitate Black's efforts to mount an attack.

18...Rc5 19.Qa6 Nc4

White to move

20.Nxc4

20.Bxe7! would have given me an advantage. I did not spend enough time on this move. My opponent had spent ten minutes on 19...Nc4. I needed to make certain that I understood all that he was looking at.

20...Bxc4 21.Bxe7?

21.Bxc4 Rxg5 was much better, preserving a balanced game.

21...Bxf1!

I missed this move in my calculations. My preparation gave me a position that I liked, although my opponent, too, liked his position. He won because he calculated better than me.

22.Qa7 Rc7 23.Bxd8 Rxa7 24.Bxb6 Ra6 25.Be3 Bc4

White to move

I resigned a few moves later. It was a tough loss, and yet I feel that I gained something from the experience of preparing and playing the Classical Variation against the Dragon. My opponent demonstrated that he understand the Dragon well. His tactical skill is strong. He will become one of our city's top players.

*ECO Code is a trademark of Chess Informant.
**I use an old, out of date edition of MCO because I invested in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, which I use more extensively. I have ECO both in print and electronic formats.

Informant Annotations

I am working my way through the games in Chess Informant 113, which was published one year ago. Game 113/49 started as a Maróczy Bind against the Accelerated Dragon. White then played an aggressive kingside pawn storm. The game beacame complicated, and I found it intimidating to understand some of the variations. Consequently, I chose to spend more time on the game, working thorough each of the variations.

This position in the diagram below appears to be critical. White had chances for a winning advantage after a minor piece sacrifice but seems to have missed the strongest continuation. White, IM Bryan G. Smith, lost the game and annotated it for Informant. His comments make liberal use of the Informant signs, offering instructive and entertaining examination of what might have happened.

White to move

Smith played 23.Bf3, which he marked as dubious. He suggested Qh4 as a strong move that gave him excellent chances for advantage. Smith's presentation of the lines that might have been played is the sort of feature that makes Chess Informant worthy of its cost.

After the game's continuation: 23...Bxc4 24.Qh4 Nd7 25.b3 Qc5+ 26.Rf2 Be6, we reach a position where Smith marked his move as a blunder.

White to move

Smith played 27.Bg4.

In the annotations, he suggested two alternatives: 27.Bg7, where one line gives him a draw; and 27.f5 leading to clear advantage for White.

After 27...Bxg4 28.Qxg4 e6, Black had a decisive advantage according to Smith.

The game went on to move 44. The heart of the game, however, is found in Smith's annotations of the fifteen moves that follow from his novelty on move 13.

Instant Gratification

Benefits of Study

Studying master games brings long-term benefits to chess players who are ambitious to improve their play. Occasionally, study also brings instant gratification. Yesterday, I had a moment of the latter. After spending the better part of my study time the past week studying Karpov -- Korchnoi, m2 (1974), I was able to apply a lesson from this game in my own online blitz play. In the end, however, I blundered, giving away the game. My opponent failed to seize the win, answering my blunder with one of his own.

Game losing blunders are in the nature of blitz. Study, however, facilitates reaching a decisive advantage after eighteen moves played in under one minute.


Stripes (1748) - Internet Opponent (1694)
Live Chess Chess.com, 25.11.2012

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0–0 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.0–0–0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4

Via a different move order, we have reached the same position as in my reference game.

Black to move

12...h5 Black prevents White's thematic pawn sacrifice and action along the h-file.

13.Bg5 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.Nde2 a5N

15...Qa5 16.Kb1 Rfc8 17.Bxf6 exf6 18.Nd5 Qd8 19.c3 b5 20.Ne3 Bh6 21.Qxd6 Bxe3 22.Qxd7 Qa5 23.Rd5 a6 24.Rhd1 R4c7 25.Qd6 Rc6 26.Qe7 Bc5 27.Rd8+ Kg7 28.Qe8 Rxd8 29.Rxd8 Qxd8 30.Qxd8 Bf2 31.g3 b4 32.Qd5 Rc5 33.Qd3 a5 34.c4 g5 35.Nd4 Re5 36.Nf5+ Kg6 37.Qd8 Rxf5 38.exf5+ 1–0 Suder,R (2222)-Dukaczewski,P (2336)/Poznan 2007/EXT 2011

White to move

Here I spotted a tactic that I remembered from Mikhail Botvinnik's annotations in Chess Informant 18/433. The position differs from Karpov -- Korchnoi, but the vulnerability of the bishop on e7 is the same.

16.e5! dxe5?

16...Nh7 17.exd6 Nxg5 18.dxe7 Qxe7 19.Qxd7 Qe3+ 20.Qd2 Qxd2+ 21.Rxd2 Ne6±

17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Qxd7+- Qb6 19.Nd5

19.Ne4 would be better

Black to move

19...Qc5

19...Qf2 20.Nec3

20.Nxf6+ exf6 21.c3

I should have played 21.Nc3

21...b5 

21...Qf2 22.Qd3 does not lead to advantage for Black, but is better than in the game.

22.Qd5 Qe3+ 23.Qd2 Qc5 24.Ng3 b4 25.Ne4 bxc3

White to move

26.bxc3 Qa3+ 27.Kb1

27.Qb2 is better

27...Rb8+ 28.Ka1 f5 29.Nf6+ Kg7 30.Nd5 Rd8 31.Rb1

31.Qe2

31...Rc5

White to move

32.Rb3??

32.c4+- was the only move

32...Qa4 33.Nb6 Qxa2+??

33...Qxb3–+

34.Qxa2 1–0

A Fingerprint

While studying Mikhail Botvinnik's annotations to the second match game of the 1974 Karpov -- Korchnoi Candidates Final, I took an interest in annotations regarding a position that did not occur in the game. After Karpov's 16.Nde2, the position in the diagram below was reached.

Black to move

This position might serve as a fingerprint for the game, although the position after 19.Rd3 is more specific to this particular struggle, as it was Karpov's novelty (according to Informant 18--the move appears in two other games in 1974).

In the diagram position, Black faces a difficult choice. 16.Nde2 was first played in 1973, but had been analyzed following the fourth match game of Geller -- Korchnoi Candidates Quarter Final, 1971 where 16.Bh6 had been played. Korchnoi himself was the first to mention the move in Informant, suggesting it in annotations to Trofimov -- Nesis 1972 (15/407). It was relatively new when Korchnoi faced it over the board. Informant 17/461 presents the move as a novelty (the volume covering the first half of 1974) even though it had been played in a correspondence game the previous year.

Korchnoi played 16...Qa5, which is now given in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings as dubious with Karpov -- Korchnoi 1974 as the first of several reference games in the notes. The mainline (ECO B 78, line 13) is 16...Re8, which had been played twice by James Edward Tarjan in a tournament in Torremolinos, Spain. Perhaps Korchnoi was familiar with these games, both of which Tarjan lost, when he opted for 16...Qa5.


Debate in the Annotations

After 16...Re8, the annotations in Chess Informant become interesting.

In Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan 1974, Black played the critical line after 17.e5. Botvinnik omits this line from his annotations to Karpov -- Korchnoi (Informant 18/433). Botvinnik gives 17.e5 dxe5 18.g5+/- as a note to the game. Enver Bukic annotated Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan for Informant. There 17.e5 was met by 17...Ng4, which later became the critical line. In a note, Bukic gives 17...dxe5 18.g5+-. Thus, Botvinnik's annotation downgrades White's advantage in the position from decisive to substantial.

Neither Bukic nor Botvinnik comment on the merits of 17.e5. However, another game played by Tarjan appears in the next issue of Informant, this time a Black win. Dragoljub Minić annotated Informant 19/403, and gave the move 17.e5 an interesting (Tarjan's opponent, Planinic, played 17.Bh6) with the line 17.e5!? Nxg4 18.fxg4 Bxg4 19.exd6 evaluated as unclear.

Two years later, Milan Matulović followed Planinic's idea of playing e5 one move later against Tarjan, who seems to have a knack for getting into theoretical battles in this line of the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian Dragon. That game with Matulović's comments proceeded from the diagram position: 16...Re8!? 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5! Nxg4 (only move--18...dxe5 19.g5+-) 19.fxg4 Bxg4 20.exd6 (Informant 21/389). Matulović played an improvement suggested by Minic at move 24.

Tibor Florian carries the debate further in annotations to Bernei -- Schneider 1976 (Informant 22/482). Bernei played 17.e5, which Florian assesses as an error. In the notes, he presents Matulović's line, 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5! Also in Informant 22, Henrique Mecking presents a line following from 17.e5, but with no evaluation. Mecking's annotations appear in Tan -- Mecking 1976 (Informant 22/486), where 17.Bd4 was played.

Mecking presents without comment both Matulović's line (17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5 Nxg4 19.fxg4 Bxg4 20.exd6 Qxd6 21.Qxd6 exd6 22.Rxd6 Bg7 23.Bxg7 Kxg7) and 17.e5 Nxg4 18.fxg4 Bxg4 19.exd6 Qxd6 20.Qe1 Qa6. Neither line is referenced, but the latter is from Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan 1974. Is Mecking's lack of evaluation marks itself a comment concerning a lack of clarity concerning the merits of both lines?

Commenting on Beliavsky -- Filguth 1976 (Informant 23/439), Minic repeats his evaluation 17.e5!? That game continued as Matulović -- Tarjan until move 26. The debate in Informant concerning 17.e5 seems to have ended there, but ECO presents 17.Bh6 as the main line and gives several reference games following 17.e5?! in notes.

Other later moves also exhibit similar changes in evaluation from one issue to another. These games, and the debate concerning the merits of variations following 16...Re8 contribute to an understanding of what did not take place in Karpov -- Korchnoi 1974, second match game. This game, won by Karpov, was one of five decisive games in the twenty-four game match that chose the World Championship challenger to Bobby Fischer, and thus chose the new World Champion the year following the match.

City Championship, Game Two

All opening innovations by Category I players should be looked upon as errors until the Candidate Master cannot prove otherwise.
Alex Dunne, How to Become a Candidate Master (1986)

After a draw in the first game, despite some errors, I stood to do well in the 2012 Spokane City Championship match against John Julian. Prior to the match, I had intended to review some games in the symmetrical English as preparation, but did not make this work a high enough priority. My choice of a suboptimal move six led me precisely into the sort of position that I sought to avoid with my first move. Even so, the position was not unplayable, despite giving Black easy equality. Subsequent errors gave Black an advantage.

Stripes,James (1982) - Julian,John (2053) [A30]
Spokane City Championship Spokane (2), 14.07.2012

1.Nf3

This move has the merits of flexibility, but also leaves Black's choices wide open. For the player of the English Opening, however, it prevents 1...e5, the reversed Sicilian.

1...c5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3

I have played 1.g3 on several occasions, but was frustrated with myself for making this move in haste. Firing off moves in mere seconds caused me to play positions in this match somewhat different than planned. This move is White's second most common choice, although played less than half as frequently as 3.Nc3.

3...Nc6 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5

White to move

6.d3?

Objectively, this move may not be an error. It may be dubious. It is certainly passive. Both 6.d4 and 6.Nc3 keep alive White's hope for an advantage. For me, however, without adequate preparation to play a reversed Sicilian Dragon, Maroczy Bind, it was an error to go into this line. It is a rare move. The resulting position occurs a handful of times, mostly via transposition, and among players the strongest of whom was barely over 2100. As Alex Dunne suggests, my opponent considered the move an error.

6...e5 7.Nbd2

Again, 7.Nc3 might have been preferred.

7...Be7

White to move

8.Nc4?

This move is a tactical and positional blunder. The pawn on e5 is not vulnerable. Fantasies of provoking an exploitable weakness along the a2-g8 diagonal are illusions. A better plan, albeit slow, might have been to transfer the knight to a better square, Ne4 with the idea of Nc3. Also worth considering was 8.b3.

I also might have castled, reaching the position from Karlsson -- Tal, Skara 1980, which Tal lost (see Chess Informant 29/74). Lars Karlsson adopted a hedgehog formation with the white pieces. My approach was inferior.

Black has a clear advantage. But, how does he convert an advantage into a win? Are there clear weaknesses in White's position?

In How to Become a Candidate Master, Alex Dunne puts the reader in the Expert's seat, playing against an A Class opponent. He encourages the reader to begin thinking as the player he or she wishes to become. How do Experts win these sorts of positions against A Class players? Sometimes, the A Class players lack understanding of the demands of the position. Sometimes they self-destruct.

8...f6 9.a3 Rb8 10.0–0 Nc7

According to Hiarcs 12, this move lets White back into the game. 10...Be6 or 10...O-O maintain the edge. However, engines should not be relied upon too strongly. The maneuver Nd5-c7-e6-d4 is a reasonable idea. It is hard to see how White can do much to deter Black's plans.

White to move

11.Be3

11.Nh4! is Hiarcs' idea. Indeed, I considered this move during the game. However, I did not see where the knight might be headed, and the idea of trading my light-squared bishop for the c6 knight was not particularly alluring. I failed to see 11...Bd7 12.f4! O-O 13.fxe5 b5 14.e6! In this line, White gets some play too.

11...Bd7 12.Rc1 Ne6 13.Ncd2

13.Nh4 is still possible, although less effective than two moves ago. Black has been methodically preparing his pieces for battle. Soon, he will occupy the d4 outpost with one of his knights.

13...0–0 14.Nb3 Ncd4 

White to move

15.Bxd4

I thought for six minutes, and rejected 15.Nfxd4 cxd4 16.Bd2 Ba4, because I did not see the merits of 17.Qc2. Here, 17...Qb6 can be met with 18.Bd5 Kh8 19.Bxe6 Qxe6 20.Nc5.

15...cxd4 16.Nbd2 b5

Black begins his expansion on the queenside. Was it possible for White to hold this passive position? White has very few squares for his pieces.

17.b4

Perhaps 17.Bh3 made sense. If White could swap pieces, he might find the lack of space less suffocating. On the other hand, is it wise to swap the light-squared bishop for a knight? If Black's light-squared bishop could be taken in the trade, would the light squares around the Black king remain secure?

Hiarcs 12 finds three candidate moves: b4, Bh3, Qb3. The other two are favored slightly over the one played. The engine sees Black's advantage as roughly 3/4 of a pawn. It felt much worse during the game.

17...a5 18.Qb3 Kh8

White to move

19.Ne4 Qb6 20.Rc2 Rbc8 21.Rfc1 Rxc2 22.Rxc2 axb4 23.axb4

Black to move

White swapped off a pair of rooks, and one of pawns. Is his position less cramped than before? How does Black continue the pressure?

23...Ra8

Simple and effective. The rook threatens Ra4 where Black can muster more attackers on the b4 pawn than White can find defenders. The rook also threatens White's back rank.

24.Qd5

24.h4 was better, providing a square for the king.

24...Ra1+ 25.Bf1 Qa7

White to move

26.Nc5??

26.Nd6 leaves Black in the driver's seat, but at least does not chart the course for him.

26...Nxc5 27.bxc5 Bh3 28.Nd2 Qa5 29.Qf7

Black to move

Black has one move that maintains the clear advantage. It is easy to find, and then the rest is easy. Even so, White plays on a few moves in this hopeless position looking for a chance at perpetual. Black does not let down his guard, permitting White's nefarious schemes to snatch a draw from hopelessness. With several ways to finish off the pretender, the City Champion considered his move 33 for five minutes.

29...h6 30.Qh5 Qxd2 31.Qxh3 Qxc2 32.Qc8+ Kh7 33.c6 Rc1 34.Qf5+ Kg8 0–1

Slaying the Dragon

In honor of the Dragonslayer youth chess tournament tomorrow at Saint George's School, the tactical problems below all come from recent tournament games in the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian Dragon.* Sometimes the name St. George Attack is used for certain lines of the Yugoslav attack. I have failed to find historical information concerning this name in the usual places, but it seems appropriate for a line with a reputation for making a dragon's life short and unpleasant. On the other hand, the legend gets a little mixed up when the dragon becomes a mascot. Sometimes the beast prevails against our gallant knight in the positions below.

There may be more than one move that maintains an advantage for the side to move in some positions. We are looking for the best move in each case.

Black to move

Haria -- Wang, High Wycombe Open

3r2k1/p4p1p/3rb1p1/q1p1Q3/2B2P2/1P4P1/P1P4P/2KRR3 b - - 0 26

White to move

Ibrahimova -- Leolko, Moscow Open

2rq1rk1/1p1bppb1/3p2pB/p3n2n/3NP1p1/1BN2P2/PPPQ4/2KR3R w - - 0 16

White to move

Moreno Carretaro -- Perez Manas, Catalan Team Championship

5rkb/pp3p2/3p2pP/4pb1P/4q3/4B3/PPPQ4/2KR3R w - - 0 23

Black to move

Vuckovic -- Fedorovsky, European Individual Championship

r5k1/3R1pn1/1q2pQp1/1N4P1/5P2/2P5/1P6/2K5 b - - 0 40

White to move

Pokhlebin -- Kalinin, Moscow Championship

1r1qr3/4ppk1/2bp2p1/1p6/5Q2/1pN2P2/PPP3P1/2KR3R w - - 0 23

*[T]he name Yugoslav Attack, or Velimirovic variation, would not acquire that name until Dragoljub Velimirovic began playing it in the 1960s. See "12th Soviet Championship: Smyslov."