Maczuski -- Kolisch 1863

On Tuesday, I showed a short game to my young students that is the source for exercise 19 in Checkmates and Tactics (2019), a book that presents 150 exercises that I developed in 2006 for scholastic chess players. While doing so, my ignorance grated. I knew nothing about the players, although the name of the losing player was familiar enough that I thought I should know more.

While printing the game score before club, it surprised me that only two games played by Ladislav Maczuski appeared in ChessBase Mega (online was no different). This paltry selection was surprising particularly because the game data indicated it was part of a four game match between the players. ChessBase has 151 games played by Ignatz Kolisch, plus two consultation games. Maczuski's performance in the game against a strong master suggests that he should be better known. Kolisch was "one of the world's leading players from 1859 to 1867", according to David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (205).

It is not surprising that chessgames.com has more information than almost any where else that I searched. Edward Winter's Chess Notes is also useful. Note 2335 has an 1876 game played by Maczuski as part of a blindfold simul that does not appear in databases. Note 11728 recommends Fabrizio Zavatarelli, Ignaz Kolisch The Life and Chess Career (2015) for "a detailed discussion". Chessgames.com led me to the first publication of the game and a second the next month. ChessBase referenced David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981), which also references Schachzeitung (1864). Levy and O'Connell get the date wrong, an error carried forward in ChessBase.

I know more than I did on Tuesday and know how to learn a bit more should I manage to acquire a copy of Zavatarelli's book.

Here is the game.

Maczuski,Ladislav -- Kolisch,Ignaz [C45]
Match Kolisch--Maczuski +2-2=0 Paris (1), 03.1863

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4

The fifth most popular reply wins a pawn, but often a great cost

5.Nc3

5.Nb5 is an alternative 5...Bb4+ 6.N1c3 Ba5 7.Be2 a6 (7...Qxe4? 8.Nxc7+ Kd8 9.Nxa8 Qxg2 10.Bf3+-) 

5...Bb4 6.Qd3!?

6.Be2 and 6.Ndb5 are more frequently played

Black to move

6...Nf6 7.Nxc6

Also possible: 7.Nf5 Qxe4+ 8.Qxe4+ Nxe4 9.Nxg7+ Kf8 (9...Kd8) 10.Nh5 (10.Bh6 Nxc3 11.Nf5+ Ke8 12.a3 Ba5 13.b4 Bb6) 10...Nxc3 11.Bh6+ Ke7 12.Bg7 Ne4+ 13.c3 with equal chances.

7...dxc6 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Nxe4

9...0-0 seems prudent, but White does not yet have full compensation for the pawn with the line played.

10.Qd4

Black to move

10...Qe7

10...Bf5 has also been played here 11.Qe5+ Qe7 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.Bxg7 Rhg8 14.Bd4 (14.Bh6 may be better) 14...Rad8 15.c3 c5 16.Be3 b6  and Black won in 60 moves Trabert,B (2285)--Tomescu,V (2436) Montecatini Terme 1999.

11.0-0-0 Qg5+??

A terrible blunder.

11...Nxc3 12.Qxg7 Nxa2+ 13.Kb1 Rf8 with a slight edge for Black, who went on to win in 65 moves Rizovic,S--Minic,M Vrnjacka Banja 2006.

White to move

This position could make a good exercise.

12.f4! Qxf4+

Black could also play 12...Qe7, but the game is lost in any case.

13.Bd2 Qg4

13...Qh4 14.Re1 0-0 15.Rxe4+-
13...Qf6 also prevents checkmate.

White to move

This position appears in my Checkmates and Tactics book. My students have been solving it, or failing to solve it nearly twenty years.

14.Qd8+ Kxd8 15.Bg5+

The game as it appears in La Nouvelle Régence (image above) would seem to indicate that the last move was not played.

15...Ke8 16.Rd8# 1-0

TWIC 1500!

Yesterday, Mark Crowther released the 1500th issue of The Week in Chess. His database now contains 3,581,971 games. Kudos to Crowther for dedication and consistency for 29 years! A couple of years ago, I filled in gaps in my own collection through a donation to TWIC. Crowther sent a link to download his personal copy. Now is a good time to do this if you have not already.

My copy exceeds Crowther's number by almost 3000 because I do a poor job of clearing duplicates. If my settings are wrong in the "find duplicates" feature of ChessBase, I could lose some of the sixteen games mentioned in "A Glass of Scotch". The moves may be the same, but the players, dates, and a events differ. Duplication is part of the historical record. I've also corrupted enough databases to be wary of changing large databases beyond simply adding more games.

I've been using The Week in Chess since I first discovered it twenty years ago. Crowther gathers all the games from the most important tournaments. These are then made available free. Someone who purchases ChessBase and pays an annual fee for updates should be able to get the same games. ChessBase is getting them from Crowther, I suspect.

I prefer keeping ChessBase Mega as it came from ChessBase without modification, and then use TWIC for games played in the past few years.

A Glass of Scotch

Isn't this a forced draw?
Ryan Ackerman

Computer moves.
Cam Leslie

Black to move

After 10.Ba3

After a game at the Spokane Chess Club where this position arose, there was some discussion among the top players, experts Ryan Ackerman and Cam Leslie. I looked up the position in ChessBase's iPhone app, finding quite a few games that followed Ackerman's recommendation.

10...Nb4! 11.Bb2

11.g3 has been played. The computer says Black is better, but White has managed to draw at the top levels.

11...Bg7 12.a3

12.f4 is another try the engine finds dubious where White managed to draw among players rated over 2400.

12...Nd5 13.Nd2 O-O 14.O-O-O Rfe8

White to move

15.Qf3 Nb6 16.Ne4 Bxe5

16...d5 would be a novelty, but also leads to a draw if players can find the engine's moves.

17.Bxe5 Qxe5 18.Nf6 Kf8 19.Nxe8 Qa1+

White to move

Checking The Week in Chess finds fifteen games that have followed this line, all drawn. This line may be a forced draw at the top levels, but a few inaccurate options for White could serve to complicate matters at the club level.

In my game from the diagram at the top of the post, my opponent played 10...Qe6. He resigned after 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Qxa6

After returning home, I drank a glass of Scotch.

Reti's Checkmate

The checkmate pattern know as Reti's Mate originates in a miniature played against none other than Saviely Tartakower. The game was played sometime in 1910 in Vienna. Both men were in their early 20s. Tartakower studied law in Geneva and Vienna; Reti came to Vienna to study mathematics. They had met in at least two tournament games prior to this game, which was a casual game played for a stake.

The mating combination itself has processors, including Morphy's Opera Game. Edward Winter's article, "Reti vs. Tartakower, Vienna 1910" is worth a look for some of these, as well as what little historical background exists. If Tartakower would have moved his king back to its starting square, the checkmate with rook and bishop would have been the same as Morphy's.

Reti,Richard -- Tartakower,Saviely [B15]
Vienna, 1910

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qd3

This unusual move has been played a mere eight times in more than 3000 games reaching this position. This game is the earliest in MegaDatabase 2020 to feature this move. The same database contains fifteen games up to and including this one with 4...Nf6. In fact, the Caro-Kann Defense was relatively new at the time. Horatio Caro and Marcus Kann had published their analysis in 1886. Tartakower was born the following year; Reti two years after Tartakower.

Databases are incomplete. For example, we do not have all the games from the Second Trebitsch Memorial, played in Vienna in 1909-1910, which Reti won ahead of Tartakower. I have spent enough time reading old chess magazines from the last few decades of the nineteenth century to be confident that even published games played between those recognized as masters are more likely absent from databases than found there. 

Using the database as our point of reference, 5.Qd3 would be a novelty. But, there is a very good chance that Reti had seen it before.

5.Nxf6+ is played almost every time. 5.Ng3 is a distant second.

Black to move

5...e5?

Tartakower finds a clever idea that fails.

5...Nxe4 6.Qxd4 Qd5 appears equal.

5...Nbd7 6.Bd2 Nxe4 7.Qxe4 Nf6 8.Qd3 Bg4 9.f3 Be6 10.0-0-0 Qd6 11.Kb1 0-0-0 is given in an article on Chess.com by AksanAkhmad.

6.dxe5 Qa5+

6...Qxd3 seems reasonable, but is not the reason Tartakower played 5...e5. Perhaps he should have reassessed his plan. 7.Bxd3 Nxe4 (7...Ng4) 8.Bxe4 and White seems slightly better.

7.Bd2 Qxe5

It would seem that this was Tartakower's idea.

White to move

Reti's pinned knight is attacked twice.

8.0-0-0 Nxe4??

Tartakower has won a whole piece, but Reti saw further.

8...Be7 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 (9...Bxf6 10.Re1) 10.Nf3 and White seems slightly better.

White to move

9.Qd8+! Kxd8 10.Bg5+

Tartakower resigned here, according to some accounts. Later, in his A Breviary of Chess (1937), he stated, "nothing could better illustrate the power of a double check" (as quoted by Winter, referenced above).

10...Kc7 11.Bd8# 1-0

If 10...Ke7, 11.Rd8#

The game is worthy of memorization, especially by chess teachers. It pairs nicely with the Opera Game.

Endgame Study Database

Harold van der Heiden has released the sixth edition of his definitive Endgame Study Database. The first version was released in 1991 and contained 23,358 studies. Subsequent expanded editions were released in 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Keeping with this schedule, he plans a seventh edition in 2025. The sixth contains 93,839 studies. Each edition adds to the size, while also correcting errors found in previous editions.

More information is available on his website.

When I initiated the purchase process this morning, he sent me a PayPal invoice. Shortly after I paid the invoice, I received an email with download instructions. I installed it in ChessBase.

Poking around among the pawn endings brought this position to my notice.

White to move

M. Zinar 2020

The solution runs 77 moves, but in fact everything is quite simple.

Perhaps after I have used this resource extensively, I can write a full review. For now, I can say that I've read about it for many years, and have been on the cusp of purchasing it more than once. This morning when I saw the new edition had been released, I acted within minutes. I'm happy that I did.

Monumental Scholarship

Notes Towards a Book Review

Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (McFarland 2014) is a work of monumental scholarship. It does not replace H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess (Oxford 1913) because it is of more limited chronological scope. Rather, it summarizes in a few pages (1-24) a good portion of Murray's text and what scholarship has contributed in the century since Murray. Monté then expands Murray's 26 page chapter XII "From Lopez to Greco" to a full length work of over 400 pages. The second and third parts of The Classical Era of Modern Chess add more than one hundred pages of detailed documentation of the sources of games and problems from this era.

My first impression of the book was that it is impressive scholarship which will serve as a frequently consulted reference work sitting beside Murray; Hooper and Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd ed.; and a few other texts on a shelf next to the desk in my office. Also, I might read it. Although documented at least as well as Murray (probably better), and often concerned with the minutia of manuscript details, it remains quite readable.

When the book arrived two days ago, I immediately opened it to the chapter on Greco and skimmed that 36 page chapter. It begins with a discussion of his life, including how much we think is known relies upon a short passage by Alessandro Salvio of dubious credibility. Monté presents the whole of Salvio's passage in Italian, followed by a clear English translation. A couple of weeks ago, I had been trying to make sense of this same passage using Google Translate.

Following three and one-half double-column pages on Greco's life, Monté turns to his manuscripts. These include not only those listed by Antonius van der Linde (1874), J. A. Leon (1900), Murray (1913), and J. G. White (1919); but the list is expanded through more recent work by Monté, assisted in great measure by Alessandro Sanvito, who published a list in Italian (2005). Monté includes a manuscript that is no longer known to exist, but that may have been a source for Francis Beale. Beyer's MS, as he names it, was described briefly by August Beyer in Memoriae historico-criticae librorum rariorum (1734); Beyer gave it a date of 1632. Scholars have long assumed that Beyer transposed two numbers and that the missing MS should be dated 1623. A critical point emphasized in The Classical Era of Modern Chess, however, is that Beyer mentions that the MS was presented to King Charles I, who ascended to the throne in 1625. Monté finds it quite plausible that Greco was back in London in 1632. If so, William Lewis's assertion (1819) that Greco died at an advanced age, and which has long been dismissed on the authority of Salvio's brief passage, might be correct. Monté does not overstate his case, rather suggesting ways that future scholarship might confirm (or deny) Salvio's assertion.

Following detailed discussion of Greco's MSS, which remain the best sources for information about his life, the book turns to a discussion of Greco's sources, greatly expanding Murray's claim that Greco learned chess from the works of Lopez and Salvio (the 1604 text, which is much more credible), and also extending Tassilo von der Lasa's remark that Greco also learned from Polerio.

Monté then turns to publications of Greco's work, which begins with Beale's The Royall Game of Chesse-Play (1656). The chapter concludes with discussion of Greco's lists of rules, his openings, and his problems and endings. I posted one of Greco's endgame compositions a week ago (see "A Greco Composition").

Other chapters follow a similar pattern, There are chapters on Lucena, Damiano, Ruy Lopez, Annibale Romei (see below), Polerio, Gianutio, Salvio, and Carrera, as well as chapters devoted to particular manuscripts. The end of Part I includes three chapters: "The Pawn's Leap", and "From the King's Leap to Castling", and "Epilogue". The Epilogue offers a nice summary of how Monté views the contributions of his this book.

Useful

After less than an hour with The Classical Era of Modern Chess in my possession, I put it to work. About a week ago, I discovered an apparent error in the Wikipedia article on Greco. The information was from a web source of dubious credibility. I removed the "error" and challenged the source. Discussion ensued. A better source was found (Murray), but I pointed out that Murray's phrasing was less than clear. The "error" was put back into the article, but in a better framework (paraphrasing Murray). It all hinged on whether Cusentino, which appears in the title of the Corsini MS, possibly Greco's first, is a surname in the modern sense of the word, as some read Murray.

Title page of Greco's first MS
 from Monté (2014), 324

Monté references work published in Italian by Alessandro Sanvito, noting, "[t]he adjective 'Cusentino' in the title refers to the Calabrian province Cosenza, and Celico (mentioned in the Libretto) belongs to it" (324). Hence it is a surname in the same sense that we might call Adelard of Bath, Mr. Bath (something I've never seen done). Bath was his hometown.

Further Wikipedia edits followed with information from the monumental text.

This morning I started another project--something I've poked at without substantially helpful resources for seven years--that is now made easy, albeit time consuming, with Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess (439-530). This section documents the earliest known, as well as subsequent occurrences, of every move that can be found in manuscripts from this era. For instance, 1.e4 e5 was recorded by Damiano, who lauded the moves as "best" (439).

From this section, I now know that a well-known opening trap credited to Greco (and the notorious loser Nomen Nescio) in ChessBase Mega 2020 and nearly every other database on chess players' computers, as well as websites like Chessgames.com, was something that Greco copied into his manuscripts from the work of others.

Greco,Gioacchino -- NN [C54]
Greco Europe, 1620

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 Bb6 6.dxe5 Nxe4 7.Qd5

This game appears Levy and O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981) as G-5. Greco likely copied it from Polerio. It’s earliest known appearance is in a manuscript by Annibale Romei (c. 1565-1568). This MS was discovered in 1939 by the scholar Adriano Chicco. Romei offers the line 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qd5+ with the suggestion that 7.Qd5 is an improvement (460).

Likewise, the assertion found in many places that in London, Greco began extending what had been collections of openings or opening traps to the conclusions or near conclusions of games, can be understood in greater specificity.

Greco,Gioacchino - NN [C41]
Greco Europe, 1620

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 Nf6 6.Qb3

The opening to this point is recorded in several manuscripts by Polerio. The rest is Greco's contribution.

Black to move

6...Nxe4 7.Bxf7+ Kd7 8.Qxb7 Ng5 9.Bd5 Na6 10.Qc6+ Ke7 11.Qxa8 1-0

This game appears Levy and O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981) as G-17. The earliest known record of the moves from 6...Nxe4 is in the Mountstephen MS, which Monté dates to 1623 (447).

Greco's Database

For many years I have found the games credited to Gioachino Greco useful in both study and teaching. His games have been praised by strong players throughout history, most notably by Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Max Euwe. Botvinnik is often quoted as saying the Greco was the first chess master. A selection of his games, almost certainly composed, are available in ChessBase Mega 2020 (82 games), as well as online collections that are mostly derived from earlier versions of the ChessBase database. Chessgames.com has 79 games; 365Chess.com has 75--that one game lists "Analysis Analyze" as the Black player is a dead giveaway that ChessBase is their source.

However, there are more games, or variations of these games that can be credited to Greco. I started looking outside the databases eight years ago when I encountered a line credited by Garry Kasparov (or his ghostwriter) to Greco, but failed to find it in ChessBase (see "Tracking Down Greco's Games"). A few months later, I began the slow process of entering into a database the games and variations in William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1819). Lewis has 168 variations arranged into 47 games. His source was a French edition of Greco's games, which was probably based on the last manuscripts Greco created (1625 in Paris). The games presented by Lewis were rearranged by another Lewis--Angelo Lewis, writing under the pseudonym Louis Hoffmann (1900). Hoffmann's collection increased the number of games to 77, reducing the number of variations on each game (see "Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess"). My chess camp workbook that summer was derived almost entirely from games in Lewis 1819. Unfortunately, my hard drive crashed later that summer, and the last backup had been in February. 

When I started using the ChessBase database (2004), it had been in the works for more than two decades. According to the article "ChessBase is 25" (19 May 2011), Matthias Wüllenweber created the first database on an Atari ST and sent a disk to Kasparov in 1984. ChessBase came out with their first commercial version of the database in January 1987. The article does not identify Wüllenweber's sources for games, which must have been many. However, one print book that would have been an exceptional beginning sits on my shelves.

David Levy, and Kevin O’Connell, eds. Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981) lists sources for every game included, a practice that should be more common among publishers of chess books (and software). In the past week, I have created a spreadsheet that lists the 77 Greco games in Levy and O'Connell (Hoffmann is their sole source) and whether each one is in Mega 2020, chessgames.com, and 365chess.com. Levy and O'Connell annotate 34 of the games, crediting Greco with the annotations. Presumably these annotations correspond to Hoffmann's variations (confirming this hunch may be the next step in my research work).

Two weeks ago I finished a project that had taken a couple of years because I would work on it for an hour once or twice a year. I now have a database with all of the games from Francis Beale, The Royall Art of Chesse-Play (London 1656). Nine of these are in ChessBase Mega 2020. Beale carries three of these beyond the endpoint in the database. I suspect that many or most of them appear as annotations in Levy and O'Connell.

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.

Underpromotion

This position is from Kalnicky -- Charousek, Budapest 1896 and is another game found at Chessgames.com that is absent from the ChessBase Online database. As one of the knight forks yesterday, it requires promoting a pawn to something other than a queen. White has just promoted a pawn on h8, winning the pawn race but not the game.

Black to move

Database Problem

This position occurs in a game found in the collection at Chessgames.com.

White to move

The position is from the game Charousek -- Engländer, Košice 1894. This game is not in the ChessBase Online database, which I suspect contains the same 104 games of Rudolf Charousek (1873-1900) as in Big Database (plus seven consultation games). 365Chess.com contains even fewer games by the short-lived Hungarian master--100. ChessTempo has a much larger collection with 138, but lacks the one containing the brilliant attack that follows from this position. Chessgames.com contains 184 games played by Charousek.

Two of the Charousek games in ChessBase's Big Database have dates that precede his birth--1853, 1856. There are other egregious errors that have been known for a long time (see Edward Winter's "FatBase 2000" 2003).

Massive databases raise questions concerning the authenticity and accuracy of the games contained therein. They are suspect sources for historical research, and yet this blog employs them with regularity.

Who was Engländer? Chessgames.com contain four games by this player--all against Charousek, all losses. No first name is given.

What print sources exist for this game?

Possibly it appears in Victor A. Charuchin, Chess Comet Charousek, trans. Andreas Dengler, Manuel Fruth, and Gregori Maksheev (Schachfirma Fruth, 1996)* or Philip W. Sergeant, Charousek's Games of Chess: With Annotations and Biographical Introduction (Dover, 1989). At present I lack access to both of these books.
Edward Winter offers an older source for the diagram position above: G. Négyesy and J. Hegyi, Combination in Chess (Budapest, 1970), 32 (see "Long Calculation" 11 July 2010).
Likely there are Hungarian sources yet to be tapped by those producing databases. Chessgames.com, which has far fewer games in my experience than ChessBase at least seems to be ahead of others with respect to Charousek. But the authenticity of the game score and its source remain uncertain. Moreover, some important information is lacking.

*Charuchin is reviewed at www.chesscafe.com/text/charousek.txt.

Busting the Benoni

The second strongest opponent that I have defeated on Chess.com is rated more than 200 Elo above me.* We met for two games in an ambitiously titled tournament created by a member who is no longer on the site. It's called the chess.com championships, but has no official status as such. In our first game, he outmaneuvered me in the middlegame of a French Tarrasch when I was playing for a draw. In order to remain in the tournament and advance to the next round, I needed a win with White.

Stripes,J (2121) -- Internet Opponent (2325) [A67]
chess.com championships - Round 3 Chess.com, 28.04.2013

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+

Black to move

When I was playing the Benoni as often as possible several years ago, the Flick-Knife Attack gave me the most trouble.

8...Nfd7

Some of the trouble that I faced was due to playing 8...Nbd7 here. In consequence of playing the wrong knight, White's thematic e4-e5 comes immediately.

9.Nf3!?

I opted for the third most popular move here, in part to test the level of my opponent's preparation. In The Modern Benoni (1994), David Norwood alleges that this move is purposeless as it permits Black to go through with the usual queenside expansion. Norwood asserts that 9.a4 is the correct move.

9...a6 10.Bd3 b5 11.0–0 0–0 12.Kh1 Re8

White to move

This position appears a mere 72 times in ChessBase Online, and yet it should seem to be the most likely position after White's uncommon 9.Nf3. Indeed, this position is found in line 4 of A67 in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. The principal move given there is 13.Qe1. Reference games are presented also for 13.Be3, which is not recommended, and 13.Bc2.

13.f5

Before I played my ninth move, I had looked forward in the databases and had gone through several games that reached this position. These games were in the spirit of an all out attack on the kingside before Black could finish untangling his pieces on the queenside--the drawback to Black's necessary eighth move.

13.f5 appears in Chess Informant 107 for the first time in three games played by Argentine GM Fernando Peralta. I looked at these games while playing. This research aspect is one of the pleasures of correspondence chess.

13...Nf6

I remember preparing for 13...c4, but I lost the notes to this preparation when my hard drive crashed. Perhaps my plans included 14.Bc2 Nc5 15.Ng5! Ra7 16.Qf3 1–0 L'Ami,A (2362) -- Valenti,G (2204) Reykjavik 2013

14.fxg6

At this point in the game, I was spending a lot of time going through a handful of games in the database. I concluded from this study that this move was more dangerous than the more common 14.Bg5, which had been Peralta's choice. 14.Bg5 leaves Black choices for how to meet White's attack.

Reference game: 14.Bg5 Nbd7 15.Qd2 b4 16.Ne2 c4 17.Bc2 Nc5 18.Ng3 Qc7 19.Rae1 Nfd7 20.e5 dxe5 21.d6 Qc6 22.Be7 b3 23.axb3 cxb3 24.Bb1 Bb7 25.Ne4 Rac8 26.f6 Bh8 27.Qh6 Ne6 28.Rc1 Qd5 29.Rcd1 Qc6 30.Rc1 Qd5 31.Rcd1 Qc6 32.Rf2 Qb6 33.Nfg5 Nef8 34.Nxf7 Bxe4 35.Qxf8+ 1–0 Peralta,F (2557) -- Almeida Quintana,O (2542) Barcelona 2009.

14...hxg6 15.e5!

Black to move

At this point we are following a single reference game from 1999. This move gives up a pawn to maintain the attack.

15...dxe5 16.Ng5 c4

16...Ra7 was played in my reference game 17.Qf3 c4 18.Bc2 b4 19.Qf2 Rc7 20.Nce4 Nxe4 21.Nxe4 f5 22.d6 Rf7 23.Bg5 Qd7 24.Be7 and here Black opted to exchange rook for bishop and knight, but still went on to lose (Narciso Dublan,M [2459] -- Kovacevic,S [2442], La Pobla de Lillet 1999).

17.Bc2 Ra7

White to move

18.Be3

In addition to harassing the rook as the reference game above at 19.Qf2, this move creates the possibility of locating the bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal.

18...Rd7

18...Rc7 is no good due to 19.Bb6.

19.Qf3 Bb7 20.Qh3

Black to move

At this point in the game, my opponent took a long vacation. When he finally moved again, he had exhausted his vacation time and was under twelve hours on the clock. Not having looked at the game in over a month, I had forgotten that I had a nice position with good compensation for the pawn. I was beginning to hope for a time-out victory.

20...b4??

White maintains an advantage after 20...Bxd5, but must continue to find strong moves, or the attack will dissipate. Then, White's loss of two pawns may become decisive.

I saw that my opponent had moved while I was preparing some BBQ chicken for Saturday dinner. I quickly saw that my knight was safe for at least another two moves. The exchange sacrifice appeared to promise a strong attack. After five minutes of looking at Black's choices, I played my move.

21.Rxf6! 1-0

Black resigned a few hours later.

The game might have continued 21...Qxf6, which struck me as Black's only reply. Then, 22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.Nce4 (I planned 23.Bc5+, which Stockfish 3 considers an inaccurate move order. 23...Rde7 24.Nce4 Qf5 reaching the same position as the main computer line) 23...Qf5 24.Bc5+ Rde7.


*The strongest committed an elementary error in the King's Indian Defense and was later banned for engine use. I suspect that he turned his engine on too late in our game.

Where's the Lesson?

Yesterday, I played five online blitz games, the most since my last binge last week. Today, so far, I have exercised self-discipline. After some work on the Spanish Opening in preparation for my lecture at the Spokane Chess Club this evening, and making my moves in some correspondence games, I played a single game of blitz.

My errors gave me an uncomfortable position where I tried a desperate ploy.

Black to move

I am down a pawn and my opponent's pieces are better coordinated. In hopes of gaining back the pawn, I offered my bishop.

21...Bh3!?

White can easily refute my play with a fork, 22.Qh4, or by defending the knight, 22.Rd3. Instead, he made the worst possible move.

22.Ne5??

Perhaps there is a lesson for beginners in the resulting position. The resulting checkmate pattern is one that all chess players should know. My opponent might also examine the cause of his chess blindness.

Of more value as a lesson from this game, however, are the series of inaccuracies that gave White a strong advantage, and White's subsequent inaccuracies that kept Black in the game.

I blundered early with 13...Nd5??

White to move

After 13...Nd5??

For a couple of moves, my opponent exploited this error in the correct manner.

14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nxd5 exd5

Then, however, he missed the simple discovery that leaves me helpless, and that would have provoked my resignation, 16.Ng6!

16.Qxd5 Be6

White to move

Here, again, a simple discovery ends Black's illusions of being in the game. Instead of the correct 17.Nc6 bxc6 18.Qxe6+, White continued with more inaccuracies.

17.Qe4 Qf6 18.Nf3 Bf5 19.Qc4+ Kh8 20.Rad1 b6 21.c3

Here we reach the position in the first diagram. Every one of White's past five moves has been less than precise. The lesson in this game stems from White's failure to finish the job after Black's errors handed him a technical win. There is also a lesson in Black's errors leading up to the blunder on move 13. These are stored in my database.

Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess

In 1819, William Lewis published an English translation of a French edition of the games of Gioachino Greco (c.1600-c.1634). William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1819) offers Greco's games and commentary from one of England's strongest players in the early nineteenth century. Lewis briefly operated the Maelzel's automaton, The Turk, during its London exhibitions. Lewis had been a chess pupil of Jacob Henry Sarratt, whose book The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez, and Salvio on the Game of Chess (London 1813) remains useful today.

The first published edition of Le Jeu des Eschets dates to 1669, but Lewis may have worked from a more widely available version published later. Greco kept notebooks of games, as was the habit of chess players in his day, and made copies of portions of his notes for patrons. What we know of Greco's chess comes from these manuscripts and published compilations, such as Le Jeu des Eschets.

Lewis did not simply translate the French text. Rather, he rearranged the games by opening. Greco's games in Lewis amount to 168 variations of 47 games with 15 the maximum number of variations in a single game. His arrangement was modified by Angelo Lewis who wrote under the pen name of Professor Louis Hoffmann (The Games of Greco [London: George Routledge & Sons, 1900]), which is likely the source for a frequent claim (found in Wikipedia, for instance) that Greco's collection consists of 77 games. Lewis's first game appears as games I and II in Hoffmann.

In Lewis's and Hoffmann's books are games credited to Gioachino Greco that are not accessible through today's modern databases.

The first game in Lewis begins 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0–0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Qb3

Black to move

A search for this position in ChessBase Online turns up 203 games, including three by Greco (two of which are identical, albeit with different dates). The continuation 10...Bxa1 is given as first game and the first two variations in Lewis. 10...Bxd4 is in variations three and four.

Lewis's first game concludes:

10...Bxa1 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Ne7 13.Ne5 Bxd4 14.Bg6 d5 15.Qf3+ Bf5 16.Bxf5 Bxe5 17.Be6+ Bf6 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qxf6+ Ke8 20.Qf7# 1–0

The ChessBase database deviates at Black's move 18 ending with 18...Ke8 19.Bxg7. The final position of this game also appears in what must have been an arranged draw: Shumiakina -- Litinskaya, Svetlogorsk 1997.

Game one, first variation offers a line that includes what appears as a 1990 novelty in the ChessBase database: 13...d5.

10...Bxa1 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Ne7 13.Ne5

Black to move

13...d5 14.Qf3 Bf5 15.Be6 g6 16.Bh6+ Ke8 17.Bf7# 1–0

ChessBase credits Paul Oostheim with Greco's 12...Nxd4 in Lewis's variation two.

10...Bxa1 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Nxd4 13.Qa3+ Kxf7 14.Bxd8 Rxd8 15.Rxa1 Nc2 16.Qb3+ Kf8 17.Qxc2 1–0

Oostheim's move has been played often enough that White has stumbled several times with 13.Qb4+ giving Black the opportunity to recover the otherwise lost game.

Variation three introduces 10...Bxd4 after which Black seems to hold on a few moves longer than when grabbing the rook on a1.

10...Bxd4 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Bf6 13.Rae1 Ne7 14.Bh5

Black to move

14...Ng6 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.Rxe5 g6 17.Bh6+ Bg7 18.Rf5+ gxf5 19.Qf7# 1–0

Lewis offers the diagram after White's 14.Bh5, which serves to guide readers through several possibilities outlined in variation four. Variation three is found in the database, but variation four appears only as a curious game from 1962.

14...d5 15.Rxe7

Black to move

15...Kxe7 is presented in three lines and 15...Qxe7 is presented in two.

15...Kxe7 16.Re1+ Kf8 17.Qb4+ Kg8 18.Re8+ 1–0 is first offered by Lewis, then four A offers 15...Qxe7 16.Re1 Qd7 17.Qb4+ Kg8 18.Re8+ 1–0

The most interesting line is Lewis's variation four D, and it deserves a place in the database as part of Greco's oeuvre.

15...Qxe7 16.Re1 Be6 17.Nd4 Bxg5 18.Nxe6+ Kg8 19.Qxd5 c6 20.Qb3 Qf6

White to move

21.Nxg5+

Lewis notes that 21.Nd8+ would have been superior to Greco's analysis. It may have been played in Amsterdam in 1962.

21...Kf8 22.Qb4+ Kg8 23.Bf7+ Qxf7 24.Nxf7 1–0

A Curiosity

In a game found in the ChessBase database, an improvement to Greco's game that was suggested by William Lewis appears to have been played over the board. However, while the loser has a few other games in the database from 1989-1990, this game is the sole example of the winner's play. The game omits Greco's 19...c6 20.Qb3 and offers Qd6 in place of Qf6.

[Event "IBM Reserve F"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "1962.08.21"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Schippers, H."]
[Black "Lagendijk, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C54"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[EventDate "1962.08.14"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2012.11.22"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8.O-O Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bxc3 10. Qb3 Bxd4 11. Bxf7+ Kf8 12. Bg5 Bf6 13. Rae1 Ne7 14.Bh5 d5 15. Rxe7 Qxe7 16. Re1 Be6 17. Nd4 Bxg5 18. Nxe6+ Kg8 19. Qxd5 Qd6 20.Nd8+ Qxd5 21. Re8# 1-0

A recent work in economic history juxtaposes the names Schipper and Lagendijk as co-authors: Frank Schipper, Vincent Lagendijk, and Irene Anastasiadou, “New Connections for an Old Continent: Rail, Road and Electricity in the League of Nations’ Organisation for Communications and Transit,” in Materialising Europe: Transnational Infrastructures and the Project of Europe, ed. Alexander Badenoch and Andreas Fickers (London: Palgrave, 2010), 113-143.

Training Log

This past week, my non-chess work has been requiring attention. My steady pace of working a few tactics problems every day continued, but other training was limited. I had planned to annotate game three from the Spokane City Championship, but instead elected to work on a game that I had played on ChessWorld. A few recent games on ChessWorld and RedHotPawn have been decided in the endgame, and hence I have worked hard on a few positions. My post "Staunton Gambit vs. the Dutch Defense" features a game that almost made it to a pawn ending in which I would have had a clear and decisive advantage. My opponent opted to resign instead.

Early in that game, I spent a bit of time researching lines in databases, and examined the handful of relevant lines in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. I liked the play and results for White that seemed the norm, and thus played the same opening in an over-the-board game in the Spokane Contenders tournament. My approach to opening study begins from a completed or in-progress game. I look at data for several moves in ChessBase 11, and usually examine the lines in ECO. Then, I play through several, often dozens, of grandmaster games looking for general patterns. If I like what I see, I will study a few games in more detail. Sometimes I will use an engine to examine key opening positions, but never use such a tool if the study proceeds from an in-progress game.

During the past two weeks, through 15 0 games on FICS, I have been testing a particular idea, a deviation from my established practice in an opening that I have played many years. Naturally, the position does not crop up every game, but it does crop up occasionally.

My tactics training this past week employed Chess Tempo, accessed via the web on my notebook computer and occasionally via the iPad. I also solved problems through two iPad apps: Tactic Trainer and Chess-wise Pro. I have completed 201 of the 300 exercises in Chess-wise. Number 192 was familiar: it is one that I use with my students as part of the Bishop Award Checkmates and Tactics problem set.

Black to move

r3k3/ppp2Npp/4Bn2/2b5/1n1pp3/N4P2/PPP3qP/R2QKR2 b Qq - 0 16

The position is from Barnes -- Morphy, London 1858

Morphy's position required less than five seconds for me to solve.

On Chess Tempo, I attempted more than fifty problems (enough to satisfy my weekly minimum), and had a positive percentage through all four sessions.

Chess Tempo totals

Problems Done: 2368 (Correct: 1261 Failed: 1107)
Percentage correct: 53.25%
Average recent per problem time spent 79 seconds

Hopefully, I will soon find my CT rating less embarrassing and will be able to share it here. It would help if I could get my FIDE estimated rating from CT somewhere near my actual USCF rating. It is currently ~200 lower.

I attempted a higher, but unknown number of problems on Tactic Trainer. My rating continued a steady climb begun last week up to 1955, and then began crashing Friday afternoon. It dropped to about 1860. It seems that I would solve two or three problems, gaining two points for each, and then miss one or two, losing six points for each. That problems do not all offer the same gain or loss reveals that Tactic Trainer employs a system similar to Chess Tempo, Chess Tactics Server, and other resources in which both problems and solvers have ratings. However, Tactic Trainer discloses less information, and do not know whether my failure causes easy problems to gain ELO.

It is almost embarrassing to present this problem that I missed.

White to move

1r4k1/4pp1p/2p3p1/2P3P1/rP6/pRQ1PP2/q6P/5RK1 w - - 0 1

Useful Blitz

I tried an approach to blitz this morning that differs from my frequent addictive obsession. Instead of playing game after game, I played one. After the game, I analyzed it without an engine. I did use the "novelty annotation" feature of ChessBase 11 for feedback on my opening choice. I played the novelty, which was neither worse nor better than prior games. However, several moves later, I blocked my own defense of a critical pawn, losing a pawn and rook for a knight.

Black to move

1k1r3r/ppq2ppp/2nbpnb1/3pN3/3P1P2/1NPBB3/PP2Q1PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 14

I played 14...Ne7?? 14...Ne5 would have been better.

My opponent picked up two more pawns, and then blundered in a manner that gave me a decisive attack.

White to move

1k1q3r/pp4p1/3b2n1/3p2P1/3Pn1Q1/1NP5/PP1B2PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 22

22.Be3?? gave the game to Black. I spent some time looking for improvements for White, and also examined my attack to see if I conducted it with maximum vigor. 22.h3 and 22.g3 both maintain a won game for White by neutralizing Black's threats. Later, I plan to verify my analysis with an engine.

After analyzing this game, I went back online and played two more. I gained an overwhelming positional advantage in the first, and then threw it away. In the second, I made an unsound piece sacrifice in the opening, managed to get pressure against the king. When my opponent failed to defend accurately, I gained back the material and then won on time after further errors on the part of my adversary.

White to move

8/2k2r2/p1pR4/1pP1P2p/1P6/P7/6PP/6K1 w - - 0 39

The simple 39.Rf6 maintains the two pawn advantage and offers a rook exchange that leads to an easily won pawn endgame. Instead, I played 39.g3?? Even then, there were possible improvements in my play that might have maintained at least a slight advantage. My opponent succeeded in swapping his a-pawn for my a- and b-pawns, and promoting his b-pawn.

Going back a few moves, I found a position that would be worth playing against the computer as a training exercise.

White to move

4k3/r4r2/p1pRp1p1/1pP1p2p/1P3P2/P7/6PP/3R2K1 w - - 0 29

I played 29.Rd8+, but 29.Rxe6+ or 29.fxe5 both deserve consideration. Training against the computer, all three moves will be played.

The third game emphasizes the point that online blitz games often create positions that are complex enough to deserve far deeper analysis that they get under time pressure.

White to move

k6r/pbp4p/3r1p1n/PBpP4/4P3/1R6/1PP3PP/2K4R w - - 0 25

After 25.a6!, my opponent was forced to return some material.

Rather than playing blitz to get my fix, playing and analyzing renders online blitz a useful training exercise. Of course, often online blitz is simply junk that is best quickly forgotten. But, even then, it might be worthwhile to quickly go over the game and identify what renders it junk.