Showing posts with label Dutch Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dutch Defense. Show all posts

18 May 2025

Seek the Truth

Many years ago I was going through a game played by two others at the Spokane Chess Club with the one who lost the game. We were looking for improvements in his play when his opponent stopped by, stating, "but, this is what happened in the game." That player who won that game never got his rating substantially above where it was then. The other player continued to improve. Both of them have far better records against me than anyone else rated 500 points lower, but that's another story.

Yesterday, at the Inland Empire Open, my second round opponent resigned at move 22. In the post game analysis, our task was to find his errors and improve upon them rather than celebrate my performance. Analyzing with Steve and other opponents is also one of the central pleasures of weekend chess tournaments.

In 2006, Steve and I tied for first in the Reserve (u1700) section of the Washington Challenger's Cup. It was my first significant success in a weekend Swiss (see "My Chess Journey"). Our game in that event had one of the longest chess moves ever played in one of my games--his 37 minutes and my 23 minutes. The last time we played, two years ago, the game was even until he made an endgame error (see "Bishop vs. Knight").

Stripes,James (1831) -- Brendemihl,Steve (1557) [A80]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (2), 17.05.2025

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.e4 h6?!

4...fxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 is the normal continuation.

White to move

5.Bxf6 Qxf6 6.Nf3

6.exf5 appears in several games.
6.e5 Qf7 7.h4 d6 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Qe2 0-0-0 11.0-0-0 and White won after a long struggle 1-0 Melkumyan,H (2640) -- Kamsky,G (2623) Titled Tuesday intern op 27th Feb Late Chess.com INT blitz 2024.

6...Bb4 7.exf5 Bxc3+

7...0-0 was worth considering 8.fxe6 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 d6 White is slightly better.

8.bxc3

Black to move

8...exf5N

I expected 8...Qxf5, which my database shows me was played in a short draw in 2015.

8...0-0 is probably best 9.fxe6 Qxe6+ 10.Qe2 Qf7 11.Ne5 Qf6 12.Qf3 (White should have played 12.Qc4+ d5 13.Qxd5+ Be6 14.Qxe6+ Qxe6 15.Bc4) 12...d6 13.Bc4+ Be6 14.Qxf6 Rxf6 15.d5 Bf5 16.Nd3 Nd7 and Black won in 76 moves 0-1 Naegeli,O -- Diemer,E SUI-ch 57th Thun 1956.

9.Bc4 d6 10.0-0

White has a comfortable game

10...Nc6

10...Kf8 is a computer recommendation. 11.Re1 g5 12.Re3 f4 13.Re2

11.Re1+ Ne7

11...Kf8

12.Qe2

12.Qd3 might be better 12...g5 13.Re2 Rh7 (13...g4 14.Rae1 gxf3 15.Rxe7+ Qxe7 16.Rxe7+ Kxe7 17.Qe3+ Kd8 18.Qxf3+-) 14.h3 g4 15.hxg4 Rg7 16.Rae1 and White is slightly better.

12...Kd8

12...g5 and I might have played 13.d5 to open d4 for my knight.

White to move

13.Rad1!+/=

A move that the computer likes better after seeing it played.

13...Re8 14.Ne5

Hope chess: take my knight, please. 14.Bb3 is probably better.

14...d5

14...c6 15.Bf7 (15.Nf7+? Kc7) 15...Rf8 16.Bh5 Kc7 and Stockfish wants to sacrifice the knight
14...-- I had this fantasy 15.Nf7+ Kd7 16.Be6+ Kc6 17.Qc4+ Kb6 18.Rb1+ Ka5 19.Qb5#

15.Bb3

Before placing my knight on e5, I thought I could play 15.Bxd5 Nxd5 16.Nc6+ but after my opponent's move. I saw that 16...Qxc6 protects the rook.

Black to move

15...c6

It was difficult to find an improvement for Black at this point in the game. White's advantage is clear and the moves come easy.

15...a5 16.a3

16.c4+- Be6

16...dxc4 17.Bxc4 Kc7 18.d5+-

17.cxd5 Nxd5 18.Qd2

I almost played 18.c4?? Nc3 19.Qd2 Nxd1 20.Bxd1 and White may have compensation for the material wantonly thrown away.

18.Bxd5 Bxd5 19.c4 Bf7 20.d5+-

18...Kc7 19.c4

Black to move

19...Ne7

We looked at 19...Nb6 20.Qa5 Kc8 21.c5 Bxb3 22.axb3 Nd5 and White does not seem to have much of an attack, even though Black's positional difficulties remain.

20.d5 Red8

20...Rad8 21.Qa5+ Kb8 22.dxe6+-
20...cxd5 21.cxd5 Bxd5 22.Bxd5 Rad8 23.Qc1+ Kb8 24.Bf7+-

21.d6+ Kb8

We looked at 21...Kc8 22.dxe7 Qxe7 23.Qxd8+ (23.Ng6 is better) 23...Qxd8 24.Rxd8+ Kxd8 25.Nxc6+ White is a piece to the good.

White to move

22.dxe7!

It's nice to be able to play such a move. Black resigned.

22.dxe7 Rxd2 (22...Re8 23.Qd6+ Kc8 24.Nxc6; 22...Qxe7 23.Qxd8+ Qxd8 24.Rxd8+ Bc8 25.c5) 23.e8Q+ Kc7 (23...Rd8 24.Rxd8+ Kc7 25.Rxa8) 24.Qxa8
1-0

22 May 2023

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.

07 April 2017

Bogoljubov -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922

Alexander Alekhine gave up three queens to beat Efim Bogoljubow in their last round game at Hastings Six Masters in 1922. The game featured some spectacular tactics and a textbook finish with a near zugzwang position giving way to an elementary pawn ending. Many chess enthusiasts consider it one of  the greatest games ever played. I included it among my ten candidates in the list created for my Spring Break Chess Camp class on the subject of the best game ever played.

Alekhine needed a win to finish first in the tournament as he was tied with Akiva Rubinstein going into the last round. This need drove his choice of the Dutch Defense, which he characterized as risky. Many recent accounts of this game confuse this event, held September 1922, with the Hastings International Chess Congress, held December 1922 -- January 1923. Rubinstein won the latter. Alekhine did not participate. The Six Masters event was a double round robin featuring two British masters--George A. Thomas and Frederick Yates--and four of the leading masters from outside Britain--Alekhine, Rubinstein, Seigbert Tarrasch, and Efim Bogoljubow.

The round-by-round results with links to the games are posted on Chessgames.com. I looked at crosstables for this event and for the Hastings Chess Congress in John Donaldson, and Nikolay Minev, The Life and Games of Akiva Rubinstein, vol. 2: the Later Years, 2nd. ed. (2011).

A. Alekhine from Wikimedia Commons*
Alekhine considers this game against Bogoljubow, alongside his win against Richard Reti (Baden-Baden 1925), as "the most brilliant wins of [his] chess career" (Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess, 1924-1937 [1965], 13). Irving Chernev also calls this game, "the most brilliant game ever played" (The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played [1965], 67). Chernev annotates this game in The Chess Companion (1968) and in Twelve Great Players and Their Best Games (1976). The former is quoted on the website Master Chess Open:
Alekhine's subtle strategy involves manoeuvres which encompass the entire chessboard as a battlefield. There are exciting plots and counterplots. There are fascinating combinations and brilliant sacrifices of Queens and Rooks. There are two remarkable promotions of Pawns and a third in the offing, before White decides to capitulate.
Chernev, The Chess Companion (as quoted at Master Chess Open).
Andrew Soltis lists this game as number four in The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked (2006).

Despite such praise, Bogoljubow -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922 is absent from Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms, The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998). Burgess does include it in Chess Highlights of the 20th Century (2000), but that book contains 270 games. The editors of The World's Greatest Chess Games carefully culled their list to one hundred. Their criteria were:
Quality and brilliance of play by both contestants.
Historical value.
Historical significance.
Burgess, Nunn, and Emms (1998), 7.
Bogoljubow's play falls short of this standard. He makes several positional errors in the opening and middle game, which Alekhine then exploits brilliantly. Even then, however, Alekhine may have eschewed the clearest path to victory in favor of artistic chess.

Annotations to this game are found in many books, websites, and YouTube videos. Most annotators start with Alekhine's own comments in My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1923 (1927) or in W.H. Watts, The Book of the Hastings International Masters' Chess Tournament 1922 (1924). A. J. Goldsby offers detailed annotations on his website and also a YouTube video. While going through this game, I studied annotations in S. Tartakower, and J. DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1975); Max Euwe, From Steinitz to Fischer (1976); and Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 (2003). The game without annotations is included in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), which I mention frequently on Chess Skills. There are three middlegame positions in GM-RAM from this game.

In my annotations, I aim to highlight the critical moments of this game, rather than creating a compendium of all that has been said by others.


Bogoljubow,Efim -- Alekhine,Alexander [A90]
Hastings Six Masters, Hastings, 21 September 1922

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2

6.Qxd2 offers White much better prospects. This game well-illustrates how this capture leads to a misplaced knight and reduces White's influence in the center. As long as this knight stands on d2 it prevents White's rooks from controlling the d-file and it stands as a potential target should Bogoljubow seek exchanges in the center. Tartakower suggests 6.Qxd2 and Nc3. Kasparov concurs.

6...Nc6 7.Ngf3 0–0 8.0–0 d6 9.Qb3 Kh8

White to move

While running a youth chess tournament at the end of our Spring Break Camp, I spent my idle moments going through this game. The position in the diagram above was on my board for much of the day. I asked many of the youth players and coaches whether they agreed with Alekhine's assessment that Black already has the upper hand. The first youth to face this question suggested 10.d5 and thought White was better. Tartakower also prefers 10.d5 to the move Bogoljubow played in the game.

Black's queen knight on c6 is more active than its counterpart on d2. White's queen is temporarily more mobile than Black's, but knowing how the game continued makes it hard to evaluate the position objectively. Black's queen proved to have more influence in the game. Perhaps the White queen is somewhat misplaced on the queenside. White's rooks are connected. Many youth players suggested that White has a lead in development and cannot be worse.

Alekhine annotated this game from the perspective of having won a brilliant victory. He might not have been particularly objective in his assessment of the game up to this point. We know that Black's queen made a foray to the kingside, where it provoked weaknesses, then returned to e8 to support action in the center and on the queenside. From the standpoint of the game's whole, Black's queen proved much more flexible and effective.

After 9.Qb3, Alekhine wrote, "This manoeuvre does not prevent Black from realising his plan, but it is already difficult to suggest a satisfactory line of play for White (Alexander Alekhine's Best Games [2012], eBook, loc 2665). Presumably, it is this comment that Euwe translated into the Informant symbol for Black has the upper hand in From Steinitz to Fischer. But, it seems to me that Alekhine might be annotating by result.

Tartakower and DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess offer several improvements to White's play over the next several moves. Most of these suggestions are repeated by Kasparov in My Great Predecessors. I think the game is still balanced at this point, but that Black has a clear edge after move 18. Kasparov quotes Alekhine's "already difficult ... for White," adding "Why?"

10.Qc3

After 10.d5, Kasparov offers two lines that the young players and I examined at the youth tournament.

10...Na5 11.Qc3 c5
10...exd5 11.cxd5 Ne7

In both cases, it does not seem that Black has an advantage. Kasparov states, "Black would have faced a thankless defence" (365).

10...e5 11.e3

Alekhine points out the vulnerability of White's knight on d2. If 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5 and the knight on d2 is en prise. Tartakower, Euwe, and Kasparov all repeat this line.

11...a5

Upon seeing this move, I might agree that Black has a slight edge after White's failure to play 10.d5.

White to move

12.b3 Qe8 13.a3 Qh5

At this point, Kasparov quotes Alexander Kotov, "The start of a deep strategic plan. First of all Black creates threats on the kingside and provokes a weakening of the opponents pawns" (Kasparov, 365).

A defect of My Great Predecessors is the absence of documentation. The whole series is full of quotes from other chess writers. Parts IV and V offer bibliographies, but not the sort of documentation that is desirable for a work that is so much a digest of the work of others. The first three parts offer less.

Kotov wrote several books about Alekhine in Russian (I saw the number six somewhere). One book exists in English, put out by R.H.M. Press: Alexander Kotov, Alexander Alekhine, tran. K. P. Neat (1975). I am tempted to buy this book. There are used copies floating about, and also an Ishi Press reprint.

14.h4

Alekhine writes, "A good defensive move, which secures new squares for his f3-knight and revived the threat of 15.dxe5" (loc 2682). I do not see why 14.dxe5 was not possible. Tartakower rejects it because after 14...dxe5 15.Nxe5 drops a piece. It seems to me that White could open the center and does not need to follow-up by blundering away a knight. The h2-h4 push can be played later.

I considered 14.Rab1 to support b3-b4. The immediate 14.b3-b4 drops a pawn because after 14...e4 15.Ne1, the rook is skewered through White's a-pawn.

14...Ng4 15.Ng5 Bd7

White to move

16.f3

Alekhine sought to provoke a weakening of White's kingside, and did so. But, Bogoljubow might have been a little too cooperative. I am tempted to regard 16.f3 as a mistake. Alekhine suggested in comments to 15.Ng5 that 15.b4 was preferable. Kasparov repeats Alekhine's suggestion.

Here Alekhine offers a tactical line that is even worse for White: 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.f3 exd4 18.fxg4 dxc3 19.gxh5 cxd2 with a better endgame for Black.

16...Nf6 17.f4

Black threatened 17...f4, which would have pried open White's pawn shield.

e4 18.Rfd1

18.d5 was White's last chance to be slightly worse.

18...h6 19.Nh3 d5

White to move

Black clearly has the upper hand now, in my view. Where did White fail? On moves 10-18, Bogoljubow had several opportunities to open the center and possibly create a balanced struggle. He opted instead to close the kingside and close the center. As a consequence, his pieces lost their mobility and became passive. His long-term plan seemed oriented towards action on the queenside, but the game's subsequent course revealed surprising resources for Black there.

Kasparov offers another juicy quote from Kotov, which highlights the success of Alekhine's long-term strategic plan. Kasparov's note preceding the game highlights the centrality of Kotov's commentary.
The last of the wins is one of the most grandiose Alekhine canvases. It once again shows that his amazing combinations did not arise out of thin air, but were the fruit of very deep strategic preparation.
Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 364.
20.Nf1

This position is the first of the three in GM-RAM from this game.

Ne7 21.a4

This position is the second in GM-RAM from this game.

Now, Boguljubow weakens his queenside, offering Black a nice outpost for his knight. Could he have tried to close matters there, too, and then hunkered down inside a fortress? To wit, 21.c5 Qg6 22.Qe1 Neg8 23.Kh2 Nh5 24.Ng1 Ngf6. White has no play, but how will Black break through?

21...Nc6 22.Rd2 Nb4 23.Bh1

This bishop could be useful preventing Black's knight for employing d3 as an outpost. Alas, there is no way to maneuver the bishop to such a useful square so long as the knight on f1 must guard the weak g-pawn. Perhaps White could redeploy his knights to h1 and h2 to guard g3 and g4? Surely, that would offer Black some opportunities elsewhere on the board.

Maybe 23.c5 is no worse than White's other choices. the tension between c4 and d5 only benefits Black. 23.cxd5 looks suicidal.

23...Qe8!

White to move

Now, c4-c5 is not possible due to b6. The problems with 24.cxd5 are worse than before.

24.Rg2 dxc4 25.bxc4 Bxa4

Alekhine has won a pawn. More significant than the pawn, however, is the preponderance of force for Black on the queenside as things open up. Half of White's army is sitting in the bleachers with their monarch, watching the game.

26.Nf2 Bd7 27.Nd2 b5 28.Nd1 Nd3

Alekine rejected 28...bxc4 because it would bring a White knight to e5.

29.Rxa5

White has won back the pawn, but his position is now much worse than it was a few moves ago. Now the game enters the phase where Alekhine's flashy tactical brilliance shines. Black has several ways to win, but the manner he chose elevates this game in the opinions of many chess students.

29.cxb5 and Alekhine offers 29...Bxb5 30.Rxa5 Nd5 31.Qa3 Rxa5 32.Qxa5 Qc6 with a winning attack for Black.

Black to move

29...b4! 30.Rxa8

Ziyatdinov's third position in GM-RAM from this game has now been reached.

30...bxc3!! 

This brilliant move was not necessary to win. 30...Qxa8 31.Qb3 (Alekhine's suggestion) 31...Qa1 (Kasparov's improvement over Alekhine's 31...Ba4) 32.Qb1 Ra8 and Black has a technical win.

31.Rxe8 c2 

The point of Black's last few moves.

32.Rxf8+ Kh7 33.Nf2 c1Q+ 34.Nf1 Ne1

Threatening smother checkmate.

35.Rh2 Qxc4 36.Rb8 Bb5 37.Rxb5 Qxb5

White's moves 30-37 are the computer's top choice. Alternatives lose much quicker.

White to move

38.g4 Nf3+ 39.Bxf3 exf3 40.gxf5 Qe2

White to move

What can White do? He is in zugzwang. Pawn moves delay the end.

41.d5

41.Nh1 Ng4 42.Rxe2 fxe2 and after sacrificing two queens. Black will gain one more to sacrifice.

41...Kg8 42.h5 Kh7 43.e4

Now White's remain pawn moves lose pawns.

43...Nxe4 44.Nxe4 Qxe4

White to move

45.d6 cxd6 46.f6 gxf6 47.Rd2 Qe2

Alekhine threatens checkmate in one.

48.Rxe2 fxe2 49.Kf2 exf1Q+

Alekhine's third queen sacrifice in this game.

50.Kxf1 Kg7 51.Kf2 Kf7 52.Ke3 Ke6 53.Ke4 d5+ 0–1

There is not much to criticize in Bogoljubow's moves after about move 20. But, his inaccurate play in the early game deprives this game of some of its merit. Alekhine's strategic preparation and tactical execution deserve study.


*George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress) derivative work: Jesus Angel Rey, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16985493.

03 January 2017

The Restricted Center

Dutch versus the English

My interest in the English Opening has been revived lately. As a consequence, I've been looking at some games in Anatoly Karpov, How to Play the English Opening (2007); Vladimir Kramnik, and Iakov Damsky, Kramnik: My Life and Games (2000); and S. Tartakower, and J. DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1952). There are a handful of Kramnik's instructive games in both his book and Karpov's. These merit study. Tartakower and Dumont offer a mere seven games with the English Opening.

The first of these seven in Tartakower and DuMont is Staunton -- Horwitz, London 1851. As Staunton's endorsement of 1.c4 is the reason the opening bears the name English, it is a fitting beginning. The authors describe this game as "a methodical blockade" (626). Staunton's systematic exploitation of weaknesses in Black's position and Horwitz's reduction to spectator status because of the passivity of his position probably merits more study than I have given it so far. I ran through the game and annotations yesterday. On the second pass through this morning, I found myself caught up in the opening.

There was clearly something wrong with Horwitz's effort to transpose into a Dutch Defense against Staunton's English, but it is less clear that his opening moves were fatal.

Staunton,H -- Horwitz,B
London 1851

1.c4 e6

There have been times, especially in 2016, when I have advocated that Black can play 1...e6 against any first move by White. One of my own former students beat me badly in a tournament game a few months ago that began 1.d4 e6. I was White. He played a Dutch Defense. My effort to deploy the Raphael variation blew up in my face.

2.Nc3 f5

Tartakower and DuMont comment:
Trying to revert to the Dutch Defence. But White, instead of playing 3.P-Q4, decides on a restricted centre (5.P-Q3), with action on the wings. (626)
This restricted center is more commonly known today as a small center. According to Hooper and Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd ed. (1996), "[a]s a strategic weapon for White the small centre was pioneered by Staunton" (375).

3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6

It is this offbeat move that removes most reference games while looking through this game with a database open.* It certainly appears that Black is making too many pawn moves. However, I found an interesting reference game that reveals another way that Black might have proceeded (see below).

5.d3

Black to move

5...Na6

5...d5 would transpose to my recommended reference game, Gashimov -- Moskalenko, Internet 2006. That game began 1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 (playing this move before c7-c6 could have served Horwitz a little better) 5.d3 c6 6.Nf3 dxc4! 7.dxc4 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 and was drawn after 58 moves. Moskalenko's idea to eliminate the queens early worked well for him in this blitz game and might be worth considering should a player find him- or herself in a similar position.

6.a3 Be7 7.e3

"The restricted centre" (Tartakower and Dumont).

7...O-O 8.Nge2

In most games that resemble this one even slightly, this knight goes to f3. Perhaps, however, Staunton anticipates a need to support e3-e4 with the bishop.

8...Nc7 9.O-O d5

Black has been preparing this move.

10.b3

It is clear that Staunton had seen Moskalenko's game and had no wish to exchange queens.**

Black to move

10...Qe8

Tartakower and DuMont condemn this move as "aimless". They recommend e6-e5 "after due preparation." Annotations by Raymond Keene at Chessgames.com urge 10...e5 immediately.

While studying this opening and the rest of the game, I wonder whether the Dutch Defense is a viable way of meeting the English Opening. According to Tartakower and DuMont, the idea is flawed because White is not obligated to play d4. On the other hand, Black's f7-f5 was not the flaw in his opening. After ten moves, it is clear that Black's pieces are less mobile than White's even though White has made more pawn moves.


*I played through this game on the dining room table with Tartakower and DuMont open, but then went to my computer for further work on the opening. Thanks to a now defunct website, I have all of this book's games in a separate database.

**This nonsensical statement should be understood as irony.

17 May 2016

Materialism

Two Miniatures

Max Euwe describes the games of Gioachino Greco as "chess fairy-tales on the age-old theme of the conflict between riches and honour" (The Development of Chess Style [1966], 1). One side grabs material while the other plays for checkmate.

In early April, I played a game that might have been lifted from the pages of Greco. I knew when my opponent grabbed my rook on a1 that I would either gain the queen in exchange or win by checkmate.

Stripes, J (1876) -- Internet Opponent (1870) [C54]
Live Chess Chess.com, 05.04.2016

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 

This opening is known as the Greco Gambit.

7.Bd2 is considered a better way to block the check. In blitz, however, I prefer the reckless gambit approach.

7.Nbd2 Nxe4 8.d5 Nxd2 9.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Ne7 11.d6 cxd6 12.0–0 d5 13.Bxd5 0–0 14.Rad1 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 d6 16.Qxd6 Qxd6 17.Rxd6 Be6 18.a3 Rfd8 19.Rd4 Rxd4 20.Nxd4 Rd8 21.Rd1 f6 22.f3 Kf7 23.Kf2 Rd5 24.Ke3 Re5+ 25.Kd3 Rc5 26.Re1 Bd7 27.Kd2 Rd5 28.Kc3 Rc5+ 29.Kd2 Rd5 30.Kc3 Rc5+ 31.Kd2 ½–½ Nakamura,H (2799) -- Giri,A (2776) Khanty-Mansiysk 2015

7...Nxe4 8.0–0 Nxc3

8...Bxc3 is better.

9.bxc3

Black to move

9...Bxc3 

9...d5 may be best.

10.Qb3 Bxa1?? 

Now, Black is lost.

10...d5 11.Bxd5 0–0 and White is only slightly better.

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

13.Re1 d6 14.Bxe7+ Qxe7 15.Rxe7 Kxe7 16.Bg8

Black to move

13...d5

13...Bxd4 14.Bg6 d5 15.Qf3+ Bf5 16.Bxf5 Bxe5 17.Be6+ Bf6 18.Bxf6 Ke8 19.Bxg7 1–0 Greco,G-Analysis 1625.

14.Qf3 Bxd4N 

Two other games in ChessBase's database continued 14...Bf5 15.Be6 Bxd4 16.Bxf5 Ng8 (16...Bxe5 17.Be6+ Nf5 18.Bxd8) 17.Bxd8.

15.Be6+ Ke8 

15...Nf5 is more stubborn.

16.Qxf5+ Qf6 17.Bxf6 g6 18.Nxg6+ hxg6 19.Qxg6.

16.Qf7# 1–0


Then, yesterday morning, I won another quick game when my opponent grabbed a rook instead of protecting his king. This game, although completely different in opening plans and structure, is linked to Greco's via the mating attack that follows a materialistic rook grab.


Stripes,J (2083) -- Internet Opponent (2107) [A80]
Another Chess Site, 16.05.2016

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.e4

I have played this line in correspondence chess and over-the-board. See "Staunton Gambit".

4...fxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Qh5+

7.Nf3 is popular among strong players.

7...g6 8.Qh6 Qe7 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 

White to move

10.h4?N 

10.Nf3 seems necessary.

10...Qxd4 11.Nf3 Qxb2 12.Rd1 Qxc2

12...Qb4+ 13.Rd2 Qf8 14.Qg5 White has minimal compensation for the pawns.

13.Bd3 Qc3+ 14.Rd2

Black to move

14...Qc1+?

Black wins material, but disregards the safety of his king.

14...Nc6 and Black is better.

15.Ke2

Only move, but leads to a clear advantage.

15.Rd1 Qxh6 and White can resign.

15...Qxh1??

15...Qc3 was the last chance. 16.h5±.

White to move

16.Bxg6+ 

White has a decisive advantage.

16...hxg6 

16...Kd8 17.Qg5#.

16...Ke7 17.Qg7+ Kd8 18.Qf6#.

17.Qxh8+ Kf7

17...Ke7 is best, although White has a forced checkmate in thirteen: 18.Qg7+ Ke8 19.Ne5 c5 20.Qf7+ Kd8 21.Qf8+ Kc7 22.Qxc5+ Nc6 23.Qd6+ Kd8 24.Nxd7 Qh2 25.g3 Nb8 26.Nf6+ Bd7 27.Rc2 Qxf2+ 28.Kxf2 e5 29.Qf8+ Be8 30.Qxe8#.

18.Ng5+ Ke7 19.Qg7+ Kd8 

19...Ke8 20.Qf7+ Kd8 21.Qf8#.

20.Qf8# 1–0

Sometimes it is best to play for a material advantage, but not when the king is vulnerable.

02 March 2016

Unheeded Warning

Good chess players analyze their losses. Better chess players critique their wins. My first round game at the 24th Collyer Memorial Chess Tournament was a win in twenty moves. Winning a miniature inspires confidence, but sober analysis of this particular win should have provoked concern.

My decision making process and calculation errors cultivated unnecessary vulnerabilities. In round two, an error even more serious than one in my first round game cost me the game (see "Don't Be Clever"). After my round three bye, I continued making errors of judgement and of calculation in round four. Round five was a better game, but even then, poor decision making gave my opponent too many chances. In the end, I practically forced him to beat me.

My round one opponent played a King's Indian Attack, which I opted to meet with a Dutch Defense set-up. Both of us were on unfamiliar ground with equal chances for both sides. A few small inaccuracies gave me a slight edge with Black.

Black to move
After 11.Nce5
My opponent thought for three minutes before playing his knight from c4 to e5. My initial reaction was that I should instantly snap off the knight. The vulnerability of my rook on a8 gave me pause. After two minutes, I decided to support my knight.

11...Bb7?

White now has a clear edge.

12.Nxc6! Bxc6 13.e5

13.Ng5 is even stronger, but 13.e5 was the move that I showed my opponent after the game. He discovered that 13...Nd7 would be horrid for me due to 14.Bh3.

I survived my error because my opponent played 12.c3. Eight moves later my opponent resigned because he faced a forced checkmate in two. Despite a quick win, my error should have alerted me to mental weaknesses that required attention before the next round. Rather than spending two hours in the skittles room, I should have taken a long walk to refresh my mind and body.

27 July 2014

Faltering Against the Dutch

My game against Jeremy Krasin did not go as planned. I did not win. In the Spokane Contenders Tournament, I had White against Jeremy. I also had White in 2012, winning that game and the event. At the end of the 2012 Spokane Contenders, I reached my highest ever USCF rating of 1982.

Stripes,James (1917) -- Krasin,Jeremy (1882) [A90]
Spokane Contenders Spokane, 24.07.2014

1.d4 e6!

Krasin offers me the White side of the French. As everyone in Spokane knows, the French is my main Black weapon against 1.e4. It might be expected that I prefer to avoid playing the White side. In fact, I play the White side with some frequency as I play 1.e4 as often as I play 1.d4.

If Krasin intends to play the Dutch Defense, this move has the virtue of preventing me from Playing the Raphael Dutch and the Staunton Gambit. My experience with the Raphael is well known by those who have observed the Spokane scene the past few years, and Krasin has played against it in several blitz games. He also lost to the Staunton Gambit in the 2012 Spokane Contenders.

2.g3 f5

Indeed, the Dutch was his plan.

3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3

4.Bg2 is more accurate.

4...c6

White to move

Can White play 5.d5? I thought about it, and we looked at it after the game. I thought that 5...Bb4 would be Black's best response.

5.Bg2

5.d5  was played by a master against an expert. That game continued 5...Bb4 6.Bg2 0–0 7.Bd2 e5 8.Nf3 Qe7 9.0–0 b6 10.a3 Bd6 11.e4 cxd5 12.exd5 e4 13.Nd4 Ne8 14.Qe2 Na6 15.b4 Be5 16.Be3 Qf6 17.Rad1 Bb7 18.Ncb5 Nd6 19.f4 exf3 20.Nxf3 1–0 Neubauer,M (2433)--Maia,J (2128) Rio de Janeiro 2011

5...d5 6.cxd5?!

My move scores poorly in the database. I played it to avoid the loss of the c-pawn--a beginner's error. If I'm unwilling to suffer the temporary loss of that pawn, I should not be playing the Queen's Gambit.

6.Nh3 appears to be most popular among strong players.
6.Nf3 is the most popular move in the database overall It has been played by Etienne Bacrot and Mihai Suba.
6.Bf4 has been played by Ivan Sokolov on more than one occasion.

6...exd5 7.Bg5

I would like to trade my dark-squared bishop for Black's knight or dark-squared bishop. But, I have some ambivalence concerning the trade for the knight.

7...Be7

I was feeling here that Black already had a slight advantage.

8.Nf3 0–0 9.Qc2

Black to move

9...Na6 10.a3

Preventing Nb4 is an exercise in chasing phantoms. But if a3 is a necessary part of my planned minority attack, then perhaps it is not a wasted move.

10...Nc7 11.0–0 Ne6 12.Bd2 Ne4

It is clear that Black has the iniative.

13.b4 Bf6 14.e3 g5

White to move

I spent a lot of time on this position and was not happy with any of my plans. I decided that I needed to secure f4 as a possible knight outpost, while also protecting my d-pawn.

I did consider 15.Nxe4 fxe4 16.Ne5 but thought that I would end up with a pawn on e5 that was hard to protect. As it turned out, I had such a pawn in any case, and I underestimated its dynamic potential.

15.Ne2 Bd7 16.a4 b6 17.Ne5 Bxe5 18.dxe5 Rc8 19.Bc1!

In retrospect, from the end of the game, this bishop proved to be valuable.

19...g4 20.a5

20.Rd1 should have been considered.

20...Qe8 21.Nf4 N6g5

White to move

22.f3?

22.Bb2!
22.axb6! axb6 23.Bb2 and White may gain the iniative. The pawn on e5 sticks in the middle of Black's forces, preventing many arrangements of his pieces that might be useful for exploiting the apparent weaknesses around the White king. My fears about Nf3+ and a Black pawn taking up residence on f3 in preparation for Black's queen penetrating along the h-file appear unfounded.

22...gxf3 23.Bxf3 Nxf3+ 24.Rxf3 Ng5 25.Rf2 Qxe5 26.Qb2

Black to move

26...Qxb2

During the game, I thought 26...Qe4 might continue to cause me grief. Krasin and I looked at a few lines following this move during the post-mortem.

27.Bxb2 b5 28.Kg2 Rce8 29.Bd4 a6 30.Rc1 Ne6 31.Nxe6

31.Nd3 is a move preferred by Stockfish.

31...Rxe6 32.Rf4 Re4 33.Rcf1 Kf7 

White to move

34.Rxe4 dxe4 35.Rd1 Ke8 36.Bc5 Rf6 37.Kf2 Rg6 38.Rd6 Rxd6 ½–½

It is clear that I need more weapons against the classical Dutch. The Raphael is insufficient.

After this game, my only chance to play in the City Championship was to win my last two games and also get help from David Dussome, who would need at least a draw against Michael Cambareri. Alas, I lost to Cambareri the next day, giving him clear first in the Contenders Tournament. Had he then beaten Dussome, his chances of going over 2000 with his rating was quite good. He lost to Dussome. Dussome thus beat the top two rated players in this event.

I have one game remaining in the event.

26 January 2014

Aronian -- Van Wely, Tata Steel 2014

Bitten by the Dutch

When I awoke a little later than usual this morning, Levon Aronian had lost with White to Dutch player Loek Van Wely. Van Wely played the Dutch Defense and the game quickly reached an interesting position where both players seemed to have chances. In time pressure, Aronian missed something and lost.

Levon Aronian won the Tata Steel Grandmaster tournament in Wijk aan Zee with a convincing performance that included wins against Fabiano Caruana, Hikaru Nakamura, and Sergey Karjakin. Today's game did not matter for the final standings. Two games remain to finish as I am writing this post. Both of those games affect second place. Karjakin can finish in second alone with a win, or tie for second with a draw. Harikrishna can tie for second with a win.


Aronian,Levon (2812) -- Van Wely,Loek (2672) [A80]
Tata Steel Chess Wijk aan Zee (11), 26.01.2014

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 

Aronian spent three minutes on this offbeat move. It is three times as popular as the Raphael Dutch that I played in my only draw against a FIDE Master. 3.g3 and 3.c4 account for the vast majority of games against the Dutch.

3...d6 4.e3 h6 5.h3 

Black to move

Already the players have nearly left previously trodden paths. Three games in the database have reached this position. Aronian has used more than ten minutes; Van Wely has used six.

5...g5 6.Bh2 Bg7 7.Nbd2

ChessBase Online finds two games in this position--both Black wins. The games were played in the 1990s among players of a far lower caliber than these two.

7...0–0 8.c3 Nc6 9.Bd3 Rb8 10.0–0 Qe8 11.Re1 Qh5

White to move

There are two questions that immediately crop up when I see this aggressive queen: Will she slay the White monarch? Can she be trapped?

Both players have used a lot of time. Aronian used 23m33s on his last move. Van Wely used 13m21s on this queen foray. Although I know the final result, and that both players were short on time near the end, I am going through this game unaided looking for critical points.

Analysis by Grandmasters and engine aided analysis almost certainly will differ in identification of the critical points of the game. This blog is a personal and public online journal of my development as a chess player and chess teacher. I am a USCF A Class Player hoping to break into Expert Class. If I continue to improve through my fifties, I may yet be a chess master before the inevitable decline of old age takes its toll. When I started this blog in November 2007, I was a weak B Class player.

Following Aronian's games is personal chess training.

12.Qc2 g4 13.hxg4 Nxg4 

Oh my!

White to move

Two attackers are not usually enough to crash through a defense, but Black's knight and queen will keep some of White's pieces tied down. Meanwhile, the Black king threw his pawn shield forward and stands naked. Unfortunately, there is no clear way for the White pieces to exploit this apparent vulnerability.

14.Bb5 Kh8

Van Wely spent twelve minutes on this move.

15.Qb3

The rook on b8 is a target, as is the knight. Had the king remained on g8, the check would have won the knight. The open diagonal is exploitable, it seems. But, Black's king is likely quite safe on h8.

15...Nd8 16.Bg3 e5 17.dxe5 dxe5

White to move

18.Qb4

The rook on f8 is vulnerable due to pressure on e5. White's knight and bishop that seemed consigned to defense against Black's aggressive queen and knight nonetheless have a role in attack, too. This game is sharp and instructive. There is a bit of chaos on the board, and both players are burning time negotiating the minefield.

18...Ne6

Protecting the rook.

19.Rad1

Seizing the open file. It is tempting to say that White has an edge in development, but piece coordination and vulnerability would seem more important than such abstractions.

19...c5

Black's pawns seem to be doing more than White's. Yesterday, I remarked that Aronian was giving lessons in Philidor's concept of the centrality of pawns. Today, Van Wely seems to be our teacher.

20.Qb3 Nc7 21.Be2 Be6 22.Bc4 Bd7 23.Be2

Black to move

Aronian would probably be happy to repeat the position, winning the tournament without a loss. The Dutch master, however has a nice position and seems in an aggressive mood.

23...f4!

Putting more pressure on White's defenses.

24.exf4 exf4 25.Bh4 Bc6 26.Be7 Rf7 27.Bc4 Nd5 28.Bh4

Black to move

White seemed to be attacking for a few moves.

28...Rf5

If White had a development advantage, it must be gone now. The Black rook on b8 is ready to swing into action. Most of Black's pieces seem to be bearing down on the kingside and there seems no way for the White pieces to get at the Black king.

Knowing the result of this game hinders objectivity, but I do like Black's position.

29.Bd3 Rff8 30.Bb1 Rbe8 31.Rxe8 Rxe8

Both players have a rook on an open file.

White to move

32.Ne4 Nde3

Van Wely finds a simple discovery that exchanges knights, but that also weakens the position of the White king. Black threw his king's pawn shield forward in attack. Now his pieces work to wreck the White king's shield.

33.fxe3 Bxe4 34.Bxe4 Rxe4 35.Qxb7

So often in Aronian wins a pawn when his opponent is under time pressure, then converts the win in the second time control. Here, however, both players are low on time.

35...Qg6

White to move

36.Rd8+

This weakening of the back rank may have been the decisive error.

36...Kh7 37.Qd5 Re6 38.exf4 Bd4+ 0–1

The bishop's interference is reminiscent of Aronian's loss to Anand in last year's Tata Steel Tournament.



25 February 2013

Cramping the Stonewall Dutch

My first effort to play an anti-Stonewall system against Jeremy Krasin was successful. Last July I played a variant of the Staunton Gambit, winning the game and the event. Yesterday, I did not have time to prepare beforehand and decided not to try the Staunton Gambit a second time. It was a useful surprise weapon last July, but Jeremy would be better prepared this time.

I started the game with a simple plan to employ a slightly uncommon move order in hopes of denying him the comfortable position that he sought. Then, over the board, I concocted a plan to cramp his game. IM John Donaldson told me after the game that he thought I had a nice position.

Stripes,James (1949) -- Krasin,Jeremy (1904) [A85]
Collyer Memorial Spokane (4), 24.02.2013

1.Nf3 f5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.c4 Be7 5.Nc3 c6

White to move

The strongest players who have reached this position had a long draw:

5...0–0 6.e3 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.0–0 Nc6 9.Rc1 h6 10.Bh4 Ne4 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Bxe4 fxe4 13.Nd2 d5 14.Qg4 Rf6 15.Ne2 Qd6 16.Qg3 Qxg3 17.hxg3 c6 18.b4 Nf5 19.a4 Nd6 20.c5 Nf7 21.b5 e5 22.Nb3 Rb8 23.Rc2 Bc8 24.Nc3 Bd7 25.Rd1 Re6 26.Rdc1 Ree8 27.cxb6 axb6 28.bxc6 Bxc6 29.dxe5 Nxe5 30.Nd4 Bb7 31.Ncb5 Nc4 32.Rc3 Rbc8 33.Rb1 Ba6 34.Na3 Nd2 35.Rxc8 Rxc8 36.Rxb6 Rc1+ 37.Kh2 Bd3 38.Rb2 Nc4 39.Rb8+ Kh7 40.Nab5 Ne5 41.g4 Nxg4+ 42.Kg3 Nf6 43.Nd6 Rh1 44.Ne6 Kg6 45.Nf4+ Kh7 46.Rf8 Bf1 47.a5 h5 48.Nf5 Bb5 49.Rf7 h4+ 50.Nxh4 Kg8 51.Rb7 g5 52.Nf5 gxf4+ 53.Kxf4 Bc4 54.Rb6 Kf7 55.a6 Nd7 56.Rc6 Ra1 57.Nd6+ Ke7 58.Nxc4 dxc4 59.Rxc4 Rxa6 60.Rxe4+ Kf7 61.g4 Nc5 62.Rc4 Ra4 63.Rxa4 Nxa4 64.Kf5 Nb2 65.f4 Nc4 66.e4 Ne3+ 67.Kg5 Ke6 68.f5+ Ke5 69.f6 Nxg4 ½–½ Nogueiras Santiago,J (2575) -- Jussupow,A (2610) Rotterdam 1989

6.c5 Nd5N

The two other games that reaced the position after my 6.c5 were between players with ratings close to those of Jeremy and I (mere patzers).

7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.Qc2 b6 9.Nxd5 exd5

White to move

10.b4

I thought about 10.Qxf5, which might have led to 10...bxc5 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qe5 Qxe5 13.dxe5, but something in Black's mass of center pawns looked menacing to me. Besides, I thought that I could keep Black severely cramped.

10...0–0 11.g3

This move was part of a long-term plan to render Black's light-squared bishop an impotent piece. This plan failed in the end. Maybe 11.e3 was sensible.

11...Ba6 12.Rb1

Perhaps 12.Ne5 was better here.

12...Bc4

Black's position is cramped, but his bishop has a strong forward outpost. My idea that I could play around the light-squares controlled by this bishop was a risky decision.

White to move

13.Rb2

13.Ne5 b5 14.Bg2 d6 15.Nxc4 bxc4 16.b5 may be equal. It is hard to find the correct equalizing moves while laboring under the belief that one has an advantage.

13...b5 14.Ne5?! Now, this natural looking move wastes time

14.Bh3 was better

14...a5

Black has the advantage

15.bxa5 Rxa5

White to move

16.Qd2

16.Bh3 was still better

16...Ra7 17.h4 d6 18.cxd6 Qxd6 19.Bg2

19.Nxc4 bxc4 20.Bh3 and Black has a clear advantage

19...Nd7 20.Nxd7 Qxd7–+ 21.0–0

Black to move

21...Rfa8

21...f4 was the correct move. My opponent mentioned it after the game as something that he had considered. Such a move is natural for one who plays the Dutch Defense.

22.Ra1 Qe7 23.Bf3 Ra3 24.Kg2 R8a4 25.Qf4 g6

Somehow Black has escaped the chains and used them to wrap up his would be captor.

White to move

26.h5!

26.Qb8+! Kg7 27.h5 Ra8!

27...Rxa2?? would be lead to 28.Rbxa2 Rxa2 29.Rxa2 Bxa2 30.Qa8 Bc4 31.Qxc6=

28.Qf4 and Black retains a clear advantage

26...Rxa2 27.Rbxa2 Rxa2

White to move

I was conscious when I played 25.Qf4 that my real target was the pawn on c6. When the critical position was reached, however, I lost sight of this goal and played the wrong sequence for my planned moves. I correctly assessed that my king was in the square of the b-pawn, but with a bishop guarding the promotion square, it was necessary to catch the pawn on b2.

28.Qb8+??

28.Rxa2! Bxa2 29.Qb8+ Kg7 (29...Qf8? 30.Qb7 and White may have a slight advantage) 30.Qa8= winning the c-pawn with a fork.

28...Qf8 29.Qxf8+ Kxf8 30.Rxa2 Bxa2 31.hxg6 hxg6 32.Kf1 b4 33.Ke1 b3 0–1

This was my first loss in the Collyer Memorial since 2008, when I lost to an expert. I drew that expert in 2009, did not play in 2010 due to taking a high school team to state the same weekend, and in 2011 had to work Saturday and played only one game on Sunday. In 2012, I won all my games and placed second in the event.

In the final round, Krasin had Black against Donaldson. The International Master prevailed against his Dutch.