Misevaluation

After fortune shined on me in the earlier rounds, I was paired against Michael Cambareri on board one in the final round of the Inland Empire Open. We led the field with 3.5 each, followed by several players with 3.0.

I reached a comfortable position out of the opening and early middle game, but then failed to understand the demands of the position.

Stripes,James (1821) -- Cambareri,Michael (2005) [A80]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (5), 21.05.2023

White to move

18.Qf7?!

18.Qh6 now, would have been wise.
18.Qxg6 did not feel safe. Anticipating 18...Rg8, I missed 19.Rxf6 Rxg6 20.Rxg6 when White is better.

18...Qd6 19.Qg7

19.Bxg6 Rh8 20.h3 Kc7 21.Bf5 would have kept the advantage, but I was reluctant to snatch a pawn on the file where my king stood.

19...Kc7 20.Qh6 Rh8

White to move

21.Qf4

Planned and forced. Most of White's advantage has slipped away.

21...g5! 22.Qxd6+ Kxd6 23.Rae1

I believed that I was still better, but Michael's rooks were coming to life with threats that I feared more than necessary.

Black to move

23...Rh4!

Michael's defense against my intended e4 break picks up a tempo for doubling on the h-file.

24.g3 Rh6 25.e4

Long-planned and finally played. It is the best move, although I no longer believed so as the game developed over the next few moves. I had the sense that I had thrown away an advantage against Michael, as I have done in so many games.

Black to move

25...dxe4 26.Bxe4 Rah8

26...Nxe4 simplifies the ending in White's favor. 27.Rxe4

White to move

27.Bf5?

Thinking, wrongly, that I was clearly worse, I desperately sought counterplay in a series of harassing checks.

I rejected 27.Rf2! because I did not know how to meet 27...Ng4. Analysis with an engine shows that 28.Rf5! would have satisfied the demands of the position and left White with the better game.

Here also 28.Rfe2 would have been adequate against 28...Rxh2? (but Black has the better choice of 28...e6) 29.Bg2+-) 28...Rxh2 29.Rxg5 Nf6 30.Bg2+-.

27...Rxh2 28.Re6+

Although I was desperately trying to complicate a lost game, the engine says the position is equal.

28...Kd5

White to move

29.c4+??

A game losing blunder. Michael can take either pawn with a winning position. Michael expected 29.Rxe7 and his assessment that it was a better choice for me is correct. 29...Kxd4 30.Rxb7 Nd5 31.c3+ with equality.

29...Kxc4 30.Rxe7 Nd5?

A lucky break from my point of view.

30...Rh1+ 31.Kf2 R8h2+ 32.Ke1 Rxf1+ 33.Kxf1 Rxb2-+

30...Rxb2-/+

White to move

31.Rc1+ Kb3

31...Kxd4 walks into a little combination with a discovery and interference that picks up a rook. 32.Re4+ Kd3 33.Rh4+ Ke2 34.Rxh2++- 

32.Rxb7+ Ka2?

The rest is easy, except that my focus on winning the rook blinded me to checkmate.

32...Nb4 was the only defense that keeps the game very much alive for Black with difficult play for both sides.

White to move

Analysis after 32...Nb4

33.Rxc6 a5 34.Rc5 Rd2 35.Re7! would have been hard for me to find (35.Rd7 Rhh2=) 35...Rxd4 (35...Ka2! These engine lines are not clear to me at all.) 36.Rxa5.

Back to the position that did occur.

White to move

33.Bb1+ Ka1 34.Bh7+ 

I missed 34.Bd3+! Ka2 35.Bc4#, but the interference with the bishop was sufficient to provoke Michael's resignation.

1-0

Michael understood the game much better than I, but his errors came later and determined the final result. This game gave me first place in the event.

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

Short Side

After playing a rook and pawn ending for 43 moves and keeping things level, my opponent erred.

Black to move

The king must go to the short side; that is Kg8. The rook can shift to the long side at the right moment to enable checking White's king from a distance. With such play, Black holds a draw.

63... Ke8?? 64. f5 Ra1 65. Rb8+ Kd7 66. Kf7 Rf1 67. f6 Rf2

White to move

68. Rb7+

68. Kg7 is a faster win Rg2+ 69. Kf8 Rf2 70. f7 Rg2 71. Rb4

68... Kd8 69. Rb4 Rd2

Black understands that White would like to drive the Black king another file from the pawn. But White has other means available. Means that I failed to employ.

70. Kg7

70. Kf8 is faster.

70... Rg2+ 71. Kf8 Rd2 72. f7 Rd1

White to move

73. Re4

Better would have been 73. Rf4 or 73. Rg4.

73... Rd2 74. Re8+

74. Kg7 Rg2+ 75. Kf6 Rf2+ 76. Ke6 Rf3 77. Re5

74... Kd7 75. Re7+

75. Kg7 Rg2+ 76. Kh6

75... Kd8 76. Re6 Rg2 77. Rd6+ Kc7

White to move

78. Rd4

My other small inaccuracies added a move or two each to eventual checkmate. Here when I played the second best move, eight moves were added to to road towards checkmate.

78. Ke7! Rf2 79. Re6 Rf1 80. f8=Q Rxf8 81. Kxf8

78... Re2 79. Kg7 Rg2+ 80. Kf6 Rf2+ 81. Ke6 Re2+ 82. Kf5 Rf2+ 83. Rf4 {Black resigned} 1-0

Remember always: king on the short side, rook on the long side.

Fails

It seems that I pick up The Manual of Chess Combinations, vol. 2 by Sergey Ivashchenko once every other week to work a page of exercises. A few days ago, half a page occupied part of my morning. I solved three successfully. This morning, the fourth one on the page did not present difficulty, but the last two did. I also managed to err in the sixth exercise on each of the the next two pages.

Exercise 144 struck me as a study in corresponding squares on first glance, but I gave too little attention to the simplicity of Black's ability to gain and maintain the opposition. Had I considered the possibility of a sacrificial breakthrough, I might have more quickly perceived the floating square idea. I spent some time teaching the floating square to a couple of students last week and should have seen it.

White to move

1.Kf2 (or any other king move) fails. 1...gxh4 2.gxh4 Kg6 3.Ke3 Kf5 4.Kf3 Ke5 and Black can shuffle the king back and forth.

Instead, 1.g4! wins 1...hxg4 2.h5 (also 2.d6). 

Before that one, I thought I had correctly solved number 143, but had also overlooked something simple.

White to move

I tried 1.Kg5, overlooking that I had nothing after 1...e6 2.Kf6 Ke8 3.Kg7 Ke7 and somehow I had hallucinated there being possible an outflanking maneuver. After 1.Kg7 Ke8 2.e6! fxe6 3.Kg8 Kd8 4.Kf8 Kd7 5.Kf7 Kd6 6.Ke8, White has successfully outflanked the Black king.

Number 150 was familiar and I instantly knew the correct answer, but could not perceive the reason the rook had to move to d2 instead of d1, so I tried Rd1 against Stockfush. Again, simple opposition gives Black a draw.

White to move

1.Rd2! wins 1...d4 2.Rd1! Kd5 3.Kd7 Ke4 4.Kc6 d3 5.Kc5 Ke3 6.Kc4 d2 7.Kc3 and the rook captures the pawn on the next move. After 1.Rd1 d4 2.Kd7 Kd5, White can try 3.Rd2 Kc4 4.Ke6 Kc3 5.Rd1 d3 6.Ke5 Kc2 and the rook must be given up for the pawn.

My error in number 156 stemmed from failing to recognize the possibility of Black achieving a Philidor position.

White to move

Black got a Philidor-type position after 1.Kc4 Rg8 2.Kc5 Rg1 3.dxe6 Rc1+.

White wins easily either with 1.dxe6 fxe6 2.Ra7 Rf8 3.Ra8+ Kd7 4.Rxf8 or with 1.Ra7 straight away.

Thomas Engqvist's Study Plan

"Less is more", writes Thomas Engqvist in 300 Most Important Chess Positions: Study Five a Week to be a Better Chess Player (2018). His 300 positions are more positionally oriented than the 300 in Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas, 2nd. ed. (2000) and also include a larger number of endgame positions. I wrote about the first position in this book the week after I acquired it in 2019 (see "A New Book and a Morphy Game"), but have not been following his recommendation to study five per week. Nor have I followed any other disciplined training regimen. Even so, Engqvist's book has been a frequent reference and valued.

Study by J. Hasek

Although Engqvist asserts, "the less you know the less you'll forget. ... it will be easier to remember 300 positional ideas rather than, let's say, 1000" (7), his 300 series now constitutes a trilogy and contains 900 positions. The motivation to select five per week for serious study has been growing for me.

The fourth endgame position in 300 Most Important Chess Exercises (2022) caught my interest last Friday and again this morning because I set it up incorrectly Saturday morning while trying to show the critical idea to some youth players at a chess tournament.

At first glance, White's task appears hopeless (see photo). Going straight for the a-pawn leads to stalemate. Going after the f-pawn leads to a trebuchet (a position lost for White). The draw is better than a loss, but I had the sense that White should win this with a technique I was missing. After some trial and error playing against Stockfish on the iPad, I found the win, posted on social media the position that arose after two moves, and mentally questioned a response that identified the solution as one of taking the opposition.

The exercise is a study composed by Josef Hasek and published in Deutsche Schachzeitung (1928). Engqvist identifies the themes as "triangulation and corresponding squares" (222). I think it also bears similarity to the famous Reti study in which White draws by attempting simultaneously to accomplish two impossible tasks (see "Endgame Calculation"). Such is the power of the double attack.

Stripes, J -- Stockfish
14.04.2023

1.Kc6 Ke5 2.Kc7 Kd5

White to move

3.Kd7!

Yes, this move seizes the opposition and prepares an outflanking maneuver. But triangulation is a more precise term for White's idea.

3...Ke5

If Black tries 3...Kc5, the diagonal opposition is best because it threatens the f-pawn. 4.Ke7! From the initial position, White cannot imagine going after the f-pawn, but now this threat is what makes it possible to gain the a-pawn without getting trapped on the a-file.

4.Kc6

Because of triangulation, the position that has been reached is the same as after the first move, except that it is Black's move.

4...Kxf5

White to move

5.Kb7

Other moves draw. Black's king is now too far away to trap White's king on the a-file and White's pawn promotes long before Black's can make any progress.

1-0

300 Most Important Chess Exercises is divided into four sections of 75 exercises each. The first two sections are opening and middlegames with tactics emphasized in the second set. The last two sections are endgames, again with tactics emphasized in the final set.

I could see myself developing some consistency with Engqvist's study plan of five positions per week if these five come from all three books, instead of always following only one of them. Coming up soon in Exercises is the following position, the sixth endgame exercise. 

White to move

I have seen this position in other books and have trained with this it on chess.com. I know the idea--corresponding squares. Nonetheless, this is an exercise that I find difficult. The cases of correspondence which must be worked out encompass more than half of the board.

Surprising Puzzle

I solved this puzzle on Chess.com in 38 seconds. There were several surprises: first I gained 16 for solving it. That made me curious. It is rated 3080, only 38% of those who have attempted it get it right, and the average time is 1:44. There have been 1042 attempts. It is Puzzle 1412696, if you would like to try it on the site.

I also posted it on Facebook, where more people are getting it wrong than are getting it correct. Many claim it is easy, but do not post their solution. Follow-up questions with some of them reveals that they also failed.

Black to move

Black is on bottom

Six from Stamma

It is spring break for area schools and so Inland Chess Academy is conducting a chess camp in which I am offering some sessions. We also have puzzle contests. Yesterday, I gave John Dill a worksheet that I had created in the morning. He made it today's puzzle contest.

This is the worksheet.

Philipp Stamma (c. 1705 – c. 1755) is best known as the originator of the earliest version of algebraic notation. He also published 100 composed studies in Essai sur le jeu des Echecs (1737), expanded and modified as The Noble Game of Chess (1745). Find the correct sequence of moves for White in each diagram. 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Working the Puzzles

The Puzzles feature on Chess.com has always been there, but I’ve used it only sporadically. That changed recently.

As of mid-December 2022 I had solved less than 5000 puzzles during 15 years on the site. Something motivated me to get to 5000 by the end of the year when I noticed that less than 300 more would get me there. Then, briefly on Christmas Day I peaked at a rating of 3002! Alas, my friend Anthony was at 3012. In the effort to catch him I fell back down to 2700 over the next hour. That session, one of my longest, logged a low of 2706, a high of 3002, and ended at 2802. I attempted 133 puzzles, getting 68 correct. The site shows a solving time of 2 hours and 15 minutes. 

In the past few months, I have completed over 3000 puzzles and finally got back over 3000 a couple of days ago. I hit a new peak of 3042 the morning of April 1, then 3043 in the afternoon. The next day, yesterday, I made it to 3044. Then, late at night when I was too tired to function, I pushed for more and fell to 2995. This morning the first three puzzles were fails, dropping me to 2944. However, by the time my coffee cup was empty, I had passed 14 and failed 8, ending with a rating of 3034.

Several friends remain higher. Anthony is currently at 3086. My top student is laboring to catch me. He certainly will. It is only a matter of when. It is my job to keep moving his goalposts as he nears them.

Books remain my preference for training. Currently, I’m working through Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know, 4th ed. (2015) along with occasional work with the two companion volumes, The 100 Endgames You Must Know Workbook (2019) and 100 Endgame Patterns You Must Know (2021). Also on my table of active books is Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations, vol. 2 (2002). I’ll likely repeat the sixth stage after I complete it because I fail half of the problems about every fifth page. Most often I correctly solve 5/6. Thomas Engqvist's 300 series also gets worked into the mix now and then.

Solving puzzles on Chess.com has become a principal part of how I enjoy that site. When I check my stats, I look at the quantity over the past 7, 30, and 90 days, expecting to see that the number of puzzles attempted exceeds the number of games played.  One goal over the next few months is to see more puzzles than games played over the past year. That will require a lot of puzzles.

Obviously, I have a long ways to go on puzzles to match and exceed my play.