Knight over Bishop

I had this position this morning. I was White.

Black to move

41...Bd3??

It is clear that 41...Be2 would have prevented, or at least delayed my plans to remove Black's g-pawn, but 41...Ba2 also keeps the draw in hand. To wit, 42.Nf3 Kc4 43.Ne5+ Kb4 44.Nxg6 Kxa4 45.Ne5 Bg8 46.Kxf5 c4 and White will be forced to give up the knight for Black's last pawn.

42.Nf3+- c4 43.Ne5 Bc2 44.a5!

This move was necessary to the win.

44.Nxg6 Bxa4 45.Ne7+ Ke6 46.Nxf5=

Black to move

Analysis diagram

Black's only drawing move may not be so easy to find here. What would you play?

44...Kc5 45.Nxg6 Kb5 

White to move

46.Ne5

Stockfish favors 46.a6! The lines following are pure engine.

46...Bb3 47.g6 Kxa5 48.g7 c3 49.bxc3 Bg8 50.Kxf5 Kb5 51.Kf6 Kc5

White to move

52.c4

White wins more quickly with a simple technique: Ke7 or Nf7 with the idea of trapping the bishop. 52.Nf7 Kc4 53.Kg6 Kxc3 54.Nh6 Be6 55.Nf7 and the pawn promotes.

52...Kd4 53.Kf5

I appeared to be oblivious to the technique mentioned above.

53...Kc5 54.Ke4 Kd6 55.Kd4 Ke7

White to move

56.c5!

I found the only winning move.

56...Kf6 57.Nd7+ Kxg7 58.c6!

And again, only one move wins.

58...Be6 59.Ke5

59.Kc5 also wins

60.Nc5! Be2 61.c7 Bg4

White to move

62.Ne6+

Black's last few seconds of time ran out.

1-0

Bishop vs. Knight

This week is Inland Chess Academy's annual August Youth Chess Camp and I'm teaching three sessions each of the three days.

My first session on Tuesday covered a few situations where a bishop or knight was a poor piece, such as a bishop's ineptitude when it does not control the promotion square of an a- or h-pawn. We also looked at some games where a good minor piece was able to dominate its rival.

The first position was from a game I played on Lichess seven years ago. 

White to move

White knew that Black's h-pawn had no future and quickly reached a textbook draw with 53.Nf7 Ke4 54.Nxd6+ Bxd6 55.Kg1 Kxd5 and there were thirty moves of shuffling as Black tried to run White's remaining 48 seconds down to zero. It was futile. Black had less time and White knew how to hold the draw. The game was drawn by repetition after move 86.

Another somewhat more difficult position comes from a game that I annotated in "Excelling at Technical Chess" 14 years ago, a game that is memorable both because I played reasonably well and because it was my revenge after I lost to my opponent in 20 moves a few months earlier.

White to move

I had plenty of time, but perhaps was rushing things because my opponent was short of time.

56.Be2 traps the knight and I should have won quickly. Instead, 

56.g4?? Nf3 57.Kf4 Nd4 58.Kg3 Ne6 59.Bf5 Ng7 60.Bc8

Black to move

My opponent erred in this position, returning the advantage I had squandered earlier. Twenty moves later, he resigned.

What would you play if you had Black here?

Learning from Books

Frequently, I repeat stories of how chess skill first became something possessed in small measure and hoped to develop further. At the heart of the story are several books for which the authors and titles have been forgotten and one that I can identify. That one is Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Playing through some of the games in this book in 1975 transformed my play. The book came back into my possession in 2012, now usually serving as a source of lessons for young students.

Over the past year (since September 2022), I have been working through this book deliberately and systematically, going through every game. Some games hold my interest a few minutes. Others sustain it an hour or more. Most days, I go through two or three games, often posting a position from one of the games on this blog’s Facebook page. I expect to go through the last ten games this week.

Last Tuesday, I posted a position from a blitz game that I won in seven moves. The winning idea was identical to that in Gibaud — Lazard, Paris 1924, the first game in Chernev’s classic. It was the second time I had employed this idea in online play.

Black to move

Two weeks ago, Mattison — Nimzowitsch, Carlsbad 1929 (game 933 in Chernev) made such an impression on me that I pulled from my bookcase a book purchased last summer and started to read it. I bought Raymond Keene, Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal (1974) because it had been often recommended by IM John Donaldson, among others, and had not yet appeared on my shelf. In fact, I bought two copies: the original and Batsford’s algebraic edition (1999). 

Saturday morning, I played one game online before heading to a youth chess tournament for which I served as the tournament director. While the children played, I showed my game to FM Jim Maki, who runs the analysis table at our youth events. Keene’s book guided some of the decisions I made during the game.

White to move

In the endless battle between bishops and knights, this position struck me as one that favored knights. Also, I was cognizant of Keene’s words.

…superlative demonstration of good knight against bad bishop, … The bishops, locked behind the pawns, are never given a chance. (7)

And thirty pages later, these foci in Nimzowitsch’s play are made more explicit, Keene making the point that he had a clear preference for the knight over the bishop.

Ideally the rounded chess master should not harbour an idiosyncratic affection for one or other of the two minor pieces. However, Nimzowitsch did, and it is quite obvious from his games that he had a penchant for closed positions where he could exploit to the utmost the blockading potential of the knight.

Keene then presents a fantasy position that Nimzowitsch presents in Die Blockade, which “gives away his preference for the knight” (37).

Of course, there are other reasons learned from other books that might have led me to exchange bishop for knight. Many chess writers have emphasized the concept of time, for instance. I particularly recall studying this idea in Lasker’s Manual of Chess and Dan Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation. But, Keene’s work on Nimzowitsch was actively in my thoughts while playing.

Later in this same game, as I retreated a knight to maintain control of the central square it occupied, I recalled words of R. N. Cole, Dynamic Chess in reference to the play of William Steinitz. But these words were on my mind because Keene quotes them in discussion of the influences on Nimzowitsch. 

White to move

31.Nef3, which I played, is consistent with these ideas Keene credits to Steinitz and Nimzowitsch. Nonetheless, the engine on chessdotcom prefers that I would have transferred my rook to the b-file, and now sees an opportunity for Black to bring the nearly worthless light-squared bishop back into a position where it has some value.

I was concerned that allowing Bxe5 would place a potentially vulnerable pawn on a strong point best utilized and controlled by my knights.

Slipping Away

The round four battle with Nikolay Bulakh was my most interesting game in the 2023 Eastern Washington Open. He surprised me with 1.c4! and we both made unusual moves that had us out of book by move five. After Nikolay chose to keep his king in the middle, my confidence in the strength of my position soared. After a sequence of parried threats that had us repeating a couple of positions, Nikolay offered a draw.

Black to move

My response to the draw offer was to push a pawn.

27...a5

My silicon friend suggests that 27...Ne7, threatening f6-f5, offered prospects of an advantage. I doubt either of us would have found the engine's line: 28.h3 Bxh3 29.Bxh7+ Kf8 30.Rf2 with a slight advantage for Black.

28.Ng2

28.Bxd5 was possible 28...Bxd5 and several lines that White can choose keep the balance.

28...Nb4+

I continue with the idea  I was pursuing before the draw offer, now with the a-pawn on a5 instead of a7.

I recall glancing at 28...a4, which deserved deeper calculation.

29.Kd2 Rd8 30.Nf4 f5

White to move

31.Bf3 Bh6

By attacking both knights, I threaten to win the d-pawn, but White's defensive resources are sufficient.

32.Be2 Rdb8 

I keep shifting targets, but cannot generate any tactics that Nikolay does not parry.

33.Rfc1

"A strong move", Nikolay said during our postgame analysis during lunch. I concurred.

33...Nc6 34.Nd6

Black to move

34...Rxb3

I had been trying to win this pawn since I opted to defer taking it with my bishop on move 15. After the game, I decided that this move was the critical mistake, suggesting to Nikolay that I should have played 34...Rfb6. Stockfish agrees my suggestion is better, but not decisively so. "Am I in trouble here," Nikolay asked. Our lunch break was coming to an end as round five would be starting in about ten minutes. We analyzed a couple of lines quickly.

35.Rxc5 Bf8 is better for Black. However, 35.Nxe6 fxe6 36.Nc4 maintains equality. I don't recall whether we looked at this line.

35.Rxb3 Rxb3 36.Rxc5

Black to move

36.Ne7?

It would have been wise to play 36...Rb2+ 37.Kc3 Rb3+ when White has nothing better than letting Black repeat the position. Blocking the check on the second rank with the rook keeps Black's outside passed pawn and a knight vs. bishop ending that should be drawn. We would have played it out, of course.

37.Rxa5

Now, White has an advantage. Any chances that I thought I had slipped away. I played another 14 moves as my position grew worse and worse. Then, I resigned and we went to lunch with 50 minutes before round five would begin.

In the last round, Nikolay drew the tournament's top seed on board two, finishing in a tie for second place. I won my round five game quickly (see "Checkmate Exercises"), then enjoyed watching the battles on boards two and three.

Bishop vs. Knight

A couple of days ago, I started reading Bishop v Knight: the Verdict (1999) by Steve Meyer. Then, I started studying Rosenthal -- Steinitz 1873, the first game in the book. Before the first round of the Inland Empire Open yesterday, I was analyzing this game with some other participants.

The imbalance appeared in my second round game. My opponent was Steve Brendemihl, who is returning to chess after many years away. We last played in 2006 in the Washington Challenger's Cup. I won that game and then we tied for first in the u1700 section.

Yesterday, I had Black. It was a long, complicated game which we both enjoyed.

Brendemihl,Steve (1578) -- Stripes,James (1821) [C03]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (2), 20.05.2023

White's 29th move won a pawn and set up a forcing sequence that led to the endgame imbalance.

Black to move

30...Rd7!?

Perhaps not objectively best, but it disrupts White's plan. Steve identified this move as the decisive moment in the game.

Steve expected 30...Rxa4 31.Rxa4 Rxd5 32.Ne7+ Kf7 33.Nxd5 Bxa4, which struck me as difficult to win. Of course, the game is objectively equal in either case.

31.Rxd7 Bxd7 32.Ne7+ Kf7

White to move

White is ahead a pawn, but Black's pieces are more active. The rook and bishop coordinate well to create threats. Black can win back the pawn easily if that seems best.

33.Nd5 Bc6 34.Ne3 Rf4

I am hoping to win the h-pawn.

35.Nf5 h5

White to move

36.Ne3??

One player's tragedy is another's victory.

36.Nd4 forces a rook ending with an equal number of pawns. 36...hxg4 37.Nxc6 bxc6 38.hxg4 Rxg4+=

With best play, the rook ending should be drawn.

36...Rf3

Threatening the rook on a1

37.gxh5 Rxh3 38.Ng2 Rxh5 39.f3 Bxf3 40.Kf2 Bxg2 41.Kxg2 Rd5 42.b4 Rd2+ 0-1

Knight vs Bishop

Jeremy Silman devotes the first chapter of How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th ed. (2010) to the imbalance of knight vs. bishop. Somewhere in the third edition, he suggests that a player ought to play in a manner that makes his or her minor piece the superior one.

White to move

This position arose this morning in the seventh round of the World Open, being played on the Internet Chess Club. I had White. Black's knights are menacing with the threat of Nxc3, followed by Nxe2+. 

16.Bxd5 

My move seemed forced. Now Black faces a choice of how to capture the bishop. I would submit that my opponent's move was not the best choice.

16...exd5

I went on to win a knight vs bishop endgame where all my pawns were on dark squares and my king decisively penetrated to the center of the board.

Playing Well

This game began at the end of July and finished two weeks ago. I spent a considerable amount of time playing it and am happy with my performance.

Stripes,J. (2242) -- Internet Opponent (2189) [D11]
Chess.com, 28.07.2019

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 c6 4.e3

Why choose the second most popular move? In this case, my intention was to gain experience. I seem to recall also that my opponent's game history showed that he sometimes faltered against this line in the past.

4.Nc3 has been my normal move OTB, but I have played others.

4...Bg4 5.h3 Bxf3 6.Qxf3

I had the Black side of this position in two blitz games nearly twenty years ago, but this game was was my first experience from the White side.

Black to move

6...e6 7.Bd3

PowerBook shows a 62% scoring percentage for White.

7...Nbd7 8.Nc3 Bd6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.g4

Still playing the percentages. 66.7% for White.

10...Nb6

My opponent chooses an obscure move that has produced a handful of draws. The percentages no longer have any significance: too few games.

White to move

11.g5

11.Bd2 was the alternative and I examined four games where this move had been played.

11...Nfd7

Two previous games games have reached this position.

12.e4

12.h4 led to a win for White. 12.e4 led to a draw. However, 12.e4 looked more promising to me because the imbalance in the reference game seemed to offer better prospects for seeking a win.

12.h4 Qe7 13.Bd2 Nc4 14.Bxc4 dxc4 15.Ne4 Bb4 16.a3 Bxd2+ 17.Nxd2 Qe6 and White went on to win a long game. Dvirnyy,D (2543) -- Gomez,J (2492) Baku AZE 2016.

12...dxe4

12...c5 13.dxc5 Bxc5

13.Qxe4+

13.Bxe4 might be better, according to postgame engine analysis. I probably looked at it, but opted to follow my reference game. More often than not in my correspondence experience, my opponent deviates from a single reference game before I do. Sometimes the novelty is an error.;
My notes show that I considered  13.Nxe4 Bb4+ 14.Nc3.

13...Qe7

White to move

14.Qxe7+

I chose to continue following the reference game.

14.Be3 Qxe4 15.Bxe4 0-0-0;
14.0-0 0-0-0 would have led to an interesting battle, but I thought Black was better.;
14.a4 was also a move that I considered.

14...Bxe7 15.Be3 0-0-0N

Now we are on our own.

15...Rd8 16.0-0-0 Nf8 17.h4 Ne6 18.Be2 Nc7 White's isolani may become weak and it is hard to see how the bishop pair will prove advantageous. These moves were played in a game that was drawn after 69 moves, Likavsky,T (2494) -- Antoniewski,R (2510), Austria 2008.

16.0-0-0

16.0-0 strikes me as a candidate move, as does 16.a4 with the same idea: storm the opponent's castled king while withstanding the same from him.

16...g6 17.h4 Nf8

Even though we have departed from theory, this knight maneuver has been played before. It makes sense to bring pressure upon White's queen pawn.

White to move

18.Kb1

I was not sure how to proceed, so I made a waiting move.

18...Ne6 19.Be4

Is d4-d5 a threat? I'm not certain.

19...Nd5?!

I do not think that opening the c-file is in Black's interest. However, after this move my d-pawn becomes slightly less vulnerable, I may be able to use the c-file for my rooks, and Black also gets an isolated pawn.

20.Nxd5 cxd5 21.Bf3 Kb8 22.Bg4

I want to push my f-pawn

22...Bd6 23.Rd3 Nf4?

White to move

24.Bxf4

I happily give up the bishop pair for gain of a pawn.

24...Bxf4 25.Rf3 Bc7

White to move

26.Re1!

Black's f-pawn is going nowhere. I will get a pig.

26.Rxf7 Rdf8 27.Rxf8+ Rxf8 28.f3 looked drawish to me.

26...Bb6

26...Rhe8 27.Rxe8 Rxe8 28.Rxf7 Rh8 29.Be6

27.Rxf7 Bxd4

27...Rdf8 28.Ree7 Rxf7 29.Rxf7 Bxd4 30.Be6

White to move

28.Ree7 1-0

I like my position, but I don't think my opponent should have resigned so soon. I was rather looking forward to the endgame.

Whither Draw

Bobby Fischer has just played 28.Be3 and a draw was agreed. From Fischer,R. -- Ames,D., 1955.

Black to move

Would you play on?

Slight Advantage?

Sometimes the variations in published analysis sends me off in pursuit of an idea. Such was the case today while reading through annotations to Akobian,V. -- Shankland,S., St. Louis 2018, one of Shankland's victories enroute to winning the US Championship (Chess Informant 136). To Akobian's ordinary looking twelfth move, placing his bishop on the diagonal to oppose Black's, Danilo Milanovic gives the evaluation ?!, suggesting instead an intermediate attack on Black's queen. There are three options offered for Black with the longest line going another ten moves to reach this position.

Black to move

Milanovic states that White has a slight advantage? Why? Control of the c-file? The bishop's greater mobility over the knight?

Surely such an ordinary looking position has occurred in countless games. This exact position cannot be found in the database, but searching for games where both sides have two rooks, there is a bishop versus knight imbalance, and 4-6 pawns each, turns up hundreds of games.

I searched the database of my online games and found many entertaining blunders in seemingly routine positions. For example, I lost this game three days ago because I was oblivious to the creation of exploitable weaknesses.

Black to move

Play continued from this position 22...Rd1+ 23.Re1 Rad8 24.Kg1 b4 25.cxb4 Bxb2 26.Kf2 Rxe1 27.Rxe1 Bc3 28.Re4 Bd4+ 29.Kf3 Bb6

White to move

Perhaps White has a slight advantage with the queenside pawn majority and a more active king. But, an active king can be a vulnerable king, too. Inexplicably, I played 30.a4??

Black wasted no time pointing out the error and I resigned four moves later.

Imbalances and Planning

Years ago, I read Jeremy Silman, How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd ed. (1993). The book offers useful instruction concerning imbalances and planning. However, sometimes in blitz, I play as if I am in utter ignorance of how to assess a position. Instead, I play for simple cheapos that are easily refuted.

This position from a blitz game offers a case in point.

White to move

I played 21.g5, hoping for 21...hxg5 22.hxg5 and thought that somehow my rooks could penetrate. Not only is there no clear tactical breakthrough, but it's not entirely clear that I should seek exchanges on the kingside.

How should White play here?

Krasenkow -- Hammer, Stockholm 2016

A couple of days ago, I watched the video, "Fear the Bishops: Hammer vs. Krasenkow," by Jon Ludvig Hammer on Chess.com. In this recent video, Hammer shows a game that he played in the sixth round of the 45th Rilton Cup in Stockholm. After five rounds, Michel Krasenkow led the Rilton Cup with 5.0, while Hammer was half a point behind. Hammer had Black and won a beautifully instructive game. That put him in first place, but he fell to second by the end of the event. Maxim Rodshtein won the event with 8/9 and Hammer settled for second with 7.5.

Even though he was disappointed with his second place finish, Hammer achieved his 2705 rating peak as a result of the event. He was also justifiably proud of his performance in the game against Krasenkow.

Possibly the best game I've ever played. Creativity, aggression, alertness, beauty, endgame accuracy. It had it all.

— Jon Ludvig Hammer (@gmjlh) Twitter 2 January 2016

After watching the video, I played through the game on Chessgames.com, then found it among the databases on my computer. After twice through the game on screens, I pulled Chess Informant 127 from the shelf and went through the game again on the dining room table.

Magnus Carlsen's tweet to which Hammer responded in the tweets visible above highlighted the power of the bishop pair. That theme was also emphasized in Hammer's instructive video of this game. Certainly the game offers great study material for the battle to activate two bishops, turning this imbalance in one's favor. But there is much more in this game. The layers of instruction in the opening, middlegame, and endgame require time to unpack. This game merits extensive study.

Opening

Krasenkow,M (2610) -- Hammer,J (2695) [D38]
45th Rilton Cup 2015–16 Stockholm SWE (6.1), 02.01.2016

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6

Magnus Carlsen tweeted, perhaps in jest, that 6.Bxf6 was the losing move.

6...Qxf6 7.Qa4+ Nc6

White to move

In his video, Hammer described the placement of Black's knight on c6 as somewhat awkward. However, this placement is the characteristic feature of the Ragozin System. In The Ragozin Complex: A Guide for White and Black (2011), Vladimir Barsky notes how views have changed concerning the merits of the placement of this knight.

[T]his queen check, forcing the opponent to play Nc6 and in the process to obstruct his pawn on c7, was for a long time considered to be the demonstration of the incorrectness of the entire Black set-up. Later, thanks to the efforts primarily of Viacheslav Ragozin, it was established that this plan is not so terrible for Black; no sort of blitzkreig is about to happen, and the queen often proves to be unstably placed on a4.
Barsky, Ragozin Complex, 29.

8.e3

The 5.Bg5 line is treated in chapter six of Barsky, but the first reference game there lacks 7.Qa4+, instead having 7.e3. Initially, glancing through this book, I thought that Krasenkow -- Hammer had deviated from the lines discussed in the book.

Nonetheless, Barsky's book does an excellent job of presenting general ideas. Even in positions that deviate from those in the book, an astute reader of The Ragozin Complex will find guidance understanding this game. The front of the book includes a long essay from the mid-twentieth century: Isaak Lipnitsky, "How to Study a Concrete Opening", originally published as part of Questions of Modern Chess Theory (1956). Lipnitsky lists three positional themes that guide Black's play:

1) the e6-e5 pawn thrust
2) a light-square strategy
3) attack with the queenside pawn majority

Hammer's "awkward" knight supports the e5 thrust, and indeed, Hammer played this move in the middlegame, sacrificing the pawn when he did. There are also elements of the light-square strategy at work in Black's tactical brilliance later in the game.

8...0–0 9.Rc1

Hammer played 9.Be2 when he had the White pieces in 2013. That game continued 9...Bd7 10.Rc1 Qe7 11.Qc2 dxc4 12.Bxc4 e5 13.0–0 exd4 14.Nd5 Qd6  and Black won in 49 moves, Hammer,J (2629) -- Tari,A (2293), Fagernes 2013.

Instead of 10.Rc1 as Hammer played in 2013, a later game continued 10.Qb3 dxc4 11.Qxc4 Qe7 12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd2 Nb8 14.Bf3 Bc6  and was drawn in 101 moves, Eljanov,P (2723) -- Wojtaszek,R (2733), Biel 2015.

9...Qg6

White to move

The move order makes it easy to overlook Barsky's analysis of this position in chapter one, which highlights games featuring 5.Qa4+. Michal Krasenkow is mentioned as one of the strong players who has favored the 5.Qa4+ approach against the Ragozin. The position in Hammer's game after 9...Qg6 is presented in an analysis diagram in The Ragozin Complex (65).

10.Qc2 Qxc2

Barsky writes, "Black could keep queens on the board, at the cost of exchanging bishop for knight, but then White would be fine in the middlegame" (65). So, ten moves into the game, already it is Black who is playing for a win!

11.Rxc2 Rd8 12.a3 Bf8

When does a transition from opening to middlegame take place? The rules are not so clear as to be easily applied in all cases. For Barsky, this game has now reached an endgame.

White has a little more space and it is easier for him to complete his development. Black has two bishops and a sound pawn structure. In this complicated endgame, reached after just 12 moves, White has a slight initiative, but it is not so hard to neutralise.
Barsky, The Ragozin Complex, 66.

Middlegame

White to move

13.Be2 Na5N

In the analysis game presented by Barsky with 13.Be2, 13...a6 was played. His main line here continues 13.Nb5, a move suggested two moves later by Tomislav Paunovic in his annotations on this game for Chess Informant 127/148.

Another game continued 13...Ne7 14.0–0 c6 15.b4 dxc4 16.Bxc4 Nd5 17.Nxd5 exd5 18.Bd3 a5 19.Rb1 axb4 20.axb4 Ra3 Radjabov,T (2713) -- Aronian,L (2803), Beijing 2013. Black won in 76 moves.

Hammer's novelty, as he explains in the video, was intended to provoke White to make a decision concerning his c-pawn.

14.c5 Nc6 15.b4

15.Nb5!? Informant 127/148 with a line given that ends as unclear. In this line, Black's rook temporarily moves to an awkward square as in Barsky's line after 13.Nb5.

15...g5

How often does a player who has castled thrust the pawns in front of his king forward against an uncastled king?

16.g4

Of course, White does not want to leave his king in the center, so Black's pawn storm must be stopped.

16...e5

The thematic push in the Ragozin. However, here, Hammer sacrifices a pawn.

17.Nxe5

17.Nb5!? is suggested in Informant.

17...Nxe5 18.dxe5 a5!

White to move

In the middlegame, players maneuver their forces, probing for targets and aiming to produce weaknesses that might be exploited in the endgame. Part of what drove me to spend more time studying this game was my observation of unusually poor ability to predict Hammer's moves through the course of the middlegame.

19.0–0

Now that White has castled, perhaps the opening phase has ended.

19...axb4 20.axb4 c6 21.Rd1 Bg7 22.f4 Re8

A line given in Informant leads to a position quite similar to one reached in the game: 22...gxf4 23.exf4 f6 24.exf6 Bxf6 and Black has compensation for the sacrificed pawn, according to Paunovic.

23.Kf2

Black to move

23...gxf4

Hammer spends a bit of time explaining why it was necessary to prevent White playing e4. One line that he offers is 23...f6 24.e4 dxe4 25.f5 fxe5 26.Nxe4. Black's bishop pair confers no advantage here.

24.exf4 f6 25.exf6 Bxf6 26.h3 Ra3

With this move, Hammer begins his plan to exploit weaknesses on the queenside, both pushing his passed d-pawn (part of a queenside majority) and demonstrating that the light squares a2, b3, and c4 are critically important. It is a pretty fair bet that he has spent some time studying Lipnitsky's essay.

27.Rd3 Kg7 28.Kf3 Be6 29.Nd1 Ra4 30.Rb3

Black to move

30...d4

White must be aware of a checkmate threat using a crisscross pattern of the two bishops. In the video, Hammer shows this possibility as his motivation for playing 30...d4. That's an important lesson for most of the audience that consumes Chess.com videos. On the other hand, Grandmasters do not habitually play moves because there is a remote possibility of checkmate if the other player blunders. There must be a strategic or tactical point beyond hope chess.

Here, Black is pursuing the light-square strategy mentioned by Lipnitsky.

So as to turn these weakened squares into an "incurable weakness", Black tries to exchange off the enemy light-squared bishop, i.e. the very piece which is best suited to the defense of these weakened light squares.
Lipnitsky, "How to Study a Concrete Opening," in The Ragozin Complex, 24. 

Both the means of weakening the light-squares on the queenside and the particular squares in focus differ a little between this game and those in Lipnitsky's examples. That difference is evidence of the imagination that Hammer credited to himself for this victory.

31.Bc4 Ra2!

Every commentator has mentioned this move. Yesterday, I let FM Jim Maki look at my copy of Informant 127, telling him that I have been studying this game. He provides game analysis at most of Spokane's youth tournaments. While I was getting round one started, Maki had a few minutes before the youth players would arrive at his table. When I returned to his table between rounds one and two, he mentioned this move.

32.Rxa2 Bxc4 33.g5

Hammer notes that after 33.Rba3, 33...Bxa2 would be premature. His bishop pair have such strength that he would prefer to remain down the exchange.

33...Bxb3 34.gxf6+ Kxf6 35.Rd2


Ending

Black to move

When you have a bishop against a knight, it is usually your choice when to exchange minor pieces, according to Hammer.

35...Bxd1+ 36.Rxd1

Black to move

Hammer's demonstration that this rook ending is winning for Black begins with a tactical maneuver that renders White's king a passive defender.

36...Re3+ 37.Kf2 Re4 38.Rd3

38.Kg3 Kf5
38.Rg1 Rxf4+ 39.Ke2 Rh4

38...Rxf4+ 39.Ke2 Ke5 40.Rg3 Ke4 41.Rg7 d3+ 42.Kd2 Rf2+ 43.Kc3 Rc2+ 44.Kb3 Rc1

White to move

45.Re7+ 

Hammer explains why the b-pawn is safe, for example 45.Rxb7 d2 46.Re7+ Kd3 47.Rd7+ Ke2 48.Re7+ Kf1 49.Rf7+ Kg2

45...Kf3 46.Rf7+ Ke2 47.Re7+ Kd1 48.Kb2 d2 49.Re4

Black to move

49...Rc2+

When I showed this diagram to some youth students on Thursday, one of them suggested 49...Ra1. Together, we demonstrated that 50.Kxa1 leads to an easily won pawn ending for Black, whose h-pawn will promote. Of course, nothing compels White to capture the rook, but then it can move to a3 and threaten the pawn on h3. My student's plan is winning, but Hammer's play is more precise.

50.Kb1 Rc3 0–1

Minor Piece Endgame

This position appeared in a game in a youth tournament this afternoon.

White to move

Who stands better? How should each side proceed?

Stronger King

At the Eastern Washington Open last October, I lost to a former student on Sunday morning. My next loss in standard rated USCF tournament games came yesterday afternoon. In between, I played ten games. I was clearly worse at some point in nearly every game, but still managed eight wins and two draws.

This weekend is the 25th annual Dave Collyer Memorial chess tournament. It is Spokane's premier tournament--both largest and strongest. This year, four former winners--all masters--are competing. In the second round, I was paired against the fifth seed, the strongest non-master. He overlooked a nuance in a tactical sequence in the early middlegame that gave me a slight edge.

James Stripes (1845) -- Chris Kalina (2068) [D37]
25th Collyer Memorial Spokane Valley (2), 25.02.2017

White to move

After 21...Be4

22.Nd7! Bxd3 23.Nxb6 axb6

23...Bxf1 24.Nxc8 It was the vulnerable bishop on e7 that my opponent overlooked when he forced the trade of queens 24...Bf8 25.Kxf1+-

24.Rxd3±

My chess engine insists this position is equal, but most human players would favor White.

24...Rd5 25.Rfd1 Rxd3 26.Bxd3 Nd5 27.Bg3 Bf6 28.e4 Ne7 29.e5

This move was a little hasty on my part.

29.Ba6  does more to improve my pieces relative to those of my opponent. I thought that I was trapping the bishop and moved instantly. Later, this bishop won the game in poetic recall of my round five game during the Spokane Chess Club's Winter Championship. A piece that seemed to be inactive became the star in the ending. See "Perseverance".

29...Bg5 30.f4 Bh6 31.Ba6 Rb8 32.Rd4 Nd5

White to move

We have reached the critical position where the middlegame must be played with clear understanding of what may go down in the endgame. Or perhaps, this is already the endgame because I determined that is was time to activate my king. Studying this position, I reasoned that my king was stronger than my opponent's king. My plan was to post my king on f3, protecting my f-pawn, so that my dark-squared bishop was free to harass Kalina's vulnerable b-pawns.

I failed to anticipate how Black could bring his king to the queenside the capture my light-squared bishop, and hence underestimated his next move.

33.Kf2?

33.Bc4 or another move of this bishop leaves me with an edge.

33...b5 34.Kf3 Kf8 35.Be1

35.Bf2 was hard to find, but protects the other bishop.

35...Ke8 36.Bxb4?

36.Bf2 maintains equality.

36...Rb6 37.Bc8 Nxb4

37...Bxf4 38.Ke4 Rb8 39.Ba6 Bxh2 is even better for Black.

38.Rxb4 Kd8 39.Bxe6 fxe6 40.a4 g6 41.g4 Kc7

I offered a draw a move or two before this point. Chris said, "maybe later", and played on.

White to move

42.Rxb5

I was too optimistic about being able to eliminate Black's e- and g-pawns.

42.axb5 leaves me with more options for counterplay.

42...Rxb5 43.axb5–+ Bf8 44.Ke4 Bc5 45.f5 Kd7?

My opponent pursues a plan that demonstrated his king to be stronger than mine, but this move could have squandered the win if I had calculated correctly later on.

45...Kb6–+

46.Kf4 Ke7

46...Be7–+

47.h4 Kf7 48.h5 Bb6

White to move

I spent a bit of time trying to find the draw. Of course, if I can leave my opponent with only the h-pawn, the draw is elementary. Understanding that, he labored to prevent it. That was the reasoning behind his move 45. In this position, I think I found the correct idea, but then three moves in, the lines crossed in my head and I fell short.

49.fxe6+ Kxe6 50.hxg6 hxg6 51.Kg5 Kf7

White to move

52.e6+??

52.Kh6 was necessary Be3+ 53.g5 Bd4 54.e6+ Kxe6 55.Kxg6=

52...Kg7–+ 53.Kf4 Kf6 54.e7 Kxe7 55.Kg5 Kf7 56.Kh6 Kf6 57.b3 g5 58.Kh5 Be3 59.b4 Ke5 60.b6 Kf4 61.b7 Ba7 62.b5 Bb8 63.b6 Bd6 0–1

It was hard for my unbeaten streak to come to an end. It was also hard to squander first an advantage, and then miss a draw. Even so, if I play today as well as I did in this game, I should at least finish the event with a far better performance than last year's Collyer (see "Bishop versus Knight").

Bishop versus Knight

The 25th annual Dave Collyer Memorial chess tournament is this weekend. I have played in more than half of them, perhaps fifteen. My best year was 2012 when I finished in second place, winning four games and taking a third round bye. IM John Donaldson played and won all five games and finished first. My worst year was 1998 when I lost five games and finished in last place.

My first round game in 1998 was memorable and I often use it teaching students.

Rodriguez,Luis (2211) -- Stripes,James (1472) [B21]
Collyer Memorial Spokane (1), 21.02.1998

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 d6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Ne5 dxe5 8.Bxf7+ 1–0

Last year was my second worst. I played four games, losing three. My rating dropped from 1886 to 1816. That was the start of my worst year since starting tournament chess twenty years earlier. The low point came in October in the Eastern Washington Open, which dropped my USCF rating to 1750, a nine year low. I had reached a peak of 1982 in 2012 a few months after the Collyer.

Then, I started winning again. I won a quick event at the Spokane Chess Club at the end of October, finished second in the Spokane Game 10 Championship in November, won my section of the Turkey Quads in November, and then won the SCC Winter Championship in January-February 2017.

After the low in October, I renewed the discipline and focus of my training and improved my attitude. Even so, I still play blitz marathons that put me in a bad mood and cultivate shallow thinking. See yesterday's "Attitude".

My fifth round game in last year's Collyer was a long and difficult battle with a friend who has won biggest upset more than once beating me. Although his rating seems to hover in the 1400s, he always plays well against me. He also helped me win the Winter Championship by drawing the second seed in the first round. I finished the game resolved to study the endgame, which I thought must be quite instructive. Alas, I did not even look at the game again until yesterday. Here is that ending.

Baker,Ted (1400) -- Stripes,James (1886) [A56]
Collyer Memorial Spokane Valley, 28.02.2016

Black to move

After 32.Rf2

32...Rb4 33.Ne3 Rb1 34.Ne2 Rb3 35.Nf5?

35.Rf3

35...Bf8 36.Rf3

Black to move

36...Rb2

36...Rxf3 is better. 37.Kxf3 g6 38.Ne3 Bxh3. If I am alert to such opportunities this weekend, I will do well.

37.Kf2 g6 38.Ne3 Be7

38...Bh6

39.Ng4 Bh4+ 40.Kf1 Rb1+ 41.Kg2 Re1 42.Nc3

Black to move

42...Bxg4

Forced.

43.hxg4 Rc1 44.Re3 Bg5 45.Rd3 Rc2+ 46.Kf3 Bh4 47.Nb5

Black to move

47...Kd7?

47...Rf2+ 48.Ke3 Rg2 49.Ra3 Rg3+ 50.Ke2 Rg2+ is equal.

48.Nc3

48.Ra3 gives White the upper hand.

48...Rf2+ 49.Ke3 Rg2 50.Kf3 Rg3+ 51.Ke2 Rxg4

Finally, I began to feel as though I had made some progress. However, I underestimated my opponent's ability to support his d-pawn, while also mistiming my h-pawn push.

52.Rf3 Rg2+ 53.Kd1

Black to move

53...h5

53...Rf2 offers Black good prospects.

54.Rf7+ Ke8 55.Rc7

Black to move

55...Bf2

55...Bg5 56.Na4 (56.d6 Rd2+ 57.Ke1 Rxd6 favors Black) 56...h4 57.Nxc5 h3 58.Rh7 Be7 59.d6 Bxd6 60.Nb7 h2 and the computer likes Black.

56.d6 Be3 57.Nd5 Bg5 58.Rxc5 h4

Correct play should lead to a draw. Probably, I was still seeking a win.

59.Rc7

Black to move

59...h3??

59...Rd2+ 60.Ke1 Rd4 61.Kf2 Rxe4 62.Kf3 Rd4=

60.Rh7+- h2 61.Nc7+ Kd8 62.Ne6+ Kc8 63.d7+ Kb8 64.Nxg5 h1Q+ 65.Rxh1 Kc7 66.Rh7 Rxg5 67.c5 Rg4 68.c6 Rxe4 69.Rh8 Rd4+ 70.Ke2 Re4+ 71.Kd3 1–0