The Soul of Chess

After dropping a couple of pieces in a ten-minute game, my position was near hopeless. My only chance was the difficulty my opponent faced in finding the correct defense.

White to move

34.Rg1!

The only move to preserve the win.

34.Re1, which looks reasonable on the surface, fails. 34...d2! 35.Rfxe2 Rc1 36.Kg1 Rxe1+ 37.Kf2 d1Q 38.Rxe1 Qd4+ picks up the knight and leaves queen vs. rook with pawns on both sides.

34...Rc1

A desperate gamble.

35.Rxc1 d2 36.Rff1

Black to move

Black can take either rook, but not both. White wins.

In the game, White, with 4 1/2 minutes remaining, spent half a minute and did not find the critical Rg1. He took my rook and then resigned after 34...e1Q+.

One of my students who also did not find 34.Rg1, did find 36.Rff1 after my 34...Rc1?? 34...d2! would have won for Black.

My pawns rolling down the center of the board were inspired by many historic games. My students are seeing the well-known game McDonnell,A. De Labourdonnais, L. 1834

White to move

After 31...Bd8

32.Qc4 Qe1 33.Rc1 d2 34.Qc5 Rg8 35.Rd1 e3 36.Qc3

Black to move

36...Qxd1 37.Rxd1 e2 0-1

I am also showing students the end of  Petrosian,T. -- Fischer,R. 1958

Black to move

63...Kd2 64.Rxc2+ Kxc2 65.Kg5 c4 66.f6 c3 67.f7

Here Fischer offered a draw and Petrosian agreed, but with my students, we carry the game further to assure than they understand why the resulting queen vs. c-pawn endgame is a draw.

Of course, François-André Danican Philidor's analysis in Analyse du jeu des Échecs (1849) also inspired my play. It was in this book that Philidor offered his famous line, "pawns are the soul of chess."

White to move

38.f7 Rf8 39.Nf4+ Kg7 40.Bh5 and White's pawns cannot be stopped.

Recognizing Known Positions

Earlier this month at a youth tournament that I ran, I watched one of my students miss an elementary checkmate in two moves. It was a ladder mate (or rolling barrier, as it is called in Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini's Endgame Course [1988]). But, a few moved later, this same player executed the checkmate. When he was successful, he controlled the first and second rank. He missed it when the mate could have occurred on the h-file with the g-file also under control.

I suspect that known patterns may be harder for young students to recognize when they are rotated 90°.

Last night, I reached a position where I had to execute a checkmate with knight and bishop. It was the first time that I had such a position that was not due to seeking it, such as when I underpromote a pawn. After I captured my opponent's last piece, I had very nearly the position that I have used in training. The checkmate took me 32 moves, but there were a couple of times when my move extended the distance to mate by six. My opponent answered these with moves that helped me get back on course.

Black to move

I played 107...Nd6, one of two optimal moves.

After 108.Ka5, Kc6 would have kept me on a known path, but I played 108...Bc5, which is equally good in terms of distance to mate. The move I played shows that I was not recognizing the pattern.

Several moves later, White's king has ventured into territory that I might have controlled.

Black to move

116...Nc3+ extends the distance to mate by one move.

Had I played 116...Be3, forcing White's king to the edge, I would have been following advice I've given students dozens of times, usually while teaching two bishops against a lone king. Here, that is the best move. Then again:

Black to move

I was feeling confused when I missed the mate in eleven that forces in three moves a position that I know.

118...Bc3 119.Kb3 Kd3 120.Ka4 Kc4 121.Ka3

Black to move

121...Bb4+ forcing White to the second rank when 122.Kb2 Ne3 sets up the barrier that I studied in Pandolfini's Endgame Course the first time that I learned this elementary checkmate.

White to move

Alas, I made a knight move and it was still mate in 18, as it had been since my move 116.

Nonetheless, I finally reached a position where I was able to draw on memory and calculation only two to three moves deep to finish the job.

Black to move, mate in nine

My work studying Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) resumes today with this position from Timman,J. -- Lutz,C., Wijk aan Zee 1995.

Black to move

Here, Black must defend successfully, avoiding the position analyzed by François-André Danican Philidor in 1849, which I spent some time working on Friday, and between rounds in a Swiss tournament this past weekend. It was the previous position in Engqvist's excellent book.

The 90° rotation might vex me the same way it did my young student.

Kling and Horwitz Defense

Questions arose while going over Ending 56 in Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player, 4th ed. (2015), 129-132. Although de la Villa indicated that moving the king to the long side is an error while defending against a center pawn, his analysis showed that Black could hold. In one case, Black's king was on the long side while Black's rook harassed White's king from the short side. De la Villa was quick to point out that this plan fails against a c- or f-pawn, although it works against a center pawn. The technique, according to de la Villa is called the Kling and Horwitz defensive technique.

Curious, I dug into the newest endgame book on my shelf: Bernhard Horwitz and Josef Kling, Chess Studies and Endgames, updated and ed. by Carsten Hansen (2024). Quite a few endgame books were pulled from my shelf over the next few days as I studied the positions, analysis, and terminology.

First, I sought the original position in Kling and Horwitz. It was not a simple matter to find a position with any of the technique that de la Villa showed in 100 Endgames. I looked elsewhere for some clues to why the technique is dubbed "Kling and Horwitz".

Grigory Levenfish and Vasily Smyslov, Rook Endings, trans. Philip J. Booth (1971) credit Josef Kling and Bernhard Horwitz with the following position that is a win with White to move, but a draw if Black has the move.

Aleksandar Matanovic, Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, vol. 2 offers the same position flipped with Black's king on f7 and the other pieces on the d-file. It also is credited to Kling and Horwitz. Searching for the position in Kling and Horwitz, Chess Studies, or Endings of Games (1851) is a futile quest. The position appears no where in that book. Nor does Horwitz and Kling, Chess Studies and End-games (1889) offer it.

Sam Shankland, Theoretical Rook Endgames (2023) favors the term "long and short side defense", but does indicate it is also known as the Kling and Horwitz defense (27). Shankland also deploys the term, “botched Philidor defense” (27).

The position in Levenfish and Smyslov differs from one reached in analysis by Francois-Andre Philidor only in the significant placement of the defending king on the long-side of White's pieces. Philidor's analysis intended to show the pitfalls of the weaker side failing to maintain the rook on the sixth rank.

White to move

Philidor, Analyse de jeu des Echecs (1777)

1.e5 Rb6

Philidor asserts that if Black deserts the sixth rank with the rook before White pushes the pawn to the sixth rank, then White wins. In a variation, he attempts to show the necessity of the sixth-rank defense beginning with 1...Ra1. Philidor's variation bears some attention because, as has been shown by several writers, 1...Ra1 is not the error that Philidor thought. While the sixth-rank defense in his main line in simple and unbeatable, the positions in the variation have practical significance. It frequently occurs in play that a textbook Philidor position cannot be reached, and yet there are still ways to draw.

2.Kf6

Black to move

A position similar to this one is often presented in discussions of the Philidor position when it is the stronger side's turn to move. Black can no longer achieve a third- or sixth-rank defense because the pawn will block the check with an unstoppable mate threat.

However, Black can check from the rear. Philidor asserts that this defense fails if the stronger side plays it correctly.

2...Rf1+ 3.Ke6 Kf8

3...Kd8 does indeed lose.

4.Rh8 Kg7 5.Re8

According to Philidor, this is the only move that assures the win. In fact, as engines now confirm, the position has remained drawn the whole time.

5...Re1 6.Kd7

Black to move

6...Kf7??

No less than seven alternatives would have held the draw: Kg6, Re2, Re3, Re4, Rd1+, Rb1, Ra1.

7.e6+ Kg7

Philidor also offers 7...Kf6 8.Rf8+

8.Ke7??

After this error, Black can again hold the position. White’s rook needed to move from in front of the pawn to d8, c8, b8, or a8. The last seems most principled as it denies Black access to the a-file.

8...Re2??

From this point on, Philidor's analysis correctly shows how White wins.

8....Ra1 was necessary. With the king on the short side and the rook on the long side, Black is able to hold the draw either checking the king from the side or repositioning the rook behind the pawn to prevent its advance.

Jesus de la Villa explains the technique well using a position that he apparently composed.

Black to move

There may be worse places for Black's rook, but perhaps no worse ones where a draw is still possible. De la Villa writes, "I have deliberately chosen an unfortunate position for the black rook in order to illustrate all the problems that may arise" (129-130). He emphasizes that with a center pawn, placing the rook behind the pawn can hold a draw, "even if the defending king is forced to the long side" (129). In his analysis, Black's king is not forced to the long side, but rather moves there deliberately so that de la Villa can best illustrate the drawing technique even when there are difficulties.

Nine moves into his analysis, the position in Levenfish and Smyslov is reached.

1...Rf1 (Rf2, f3, and f4 all work, too) 2.Kd6 Re1

"This is the K&H 'trademark'. The rook stands behind the pawn to prevent its advance", according to de la Villa (130).

3.Ke6 Kd8 (Kf8 is the correct way to proceed, but this "error" is not critical).

4.Rh8+ Kc7 5.Kf6 Kd7

This important move was missed by an online opponent of mine a few months ago, allowing me to show my handling of the Lucena position.

6.Rh7+ Ke8

Returning to the promotion square should always be part of the weaker side's defensive strategy.

7.Ke6 Kd8 8.Rh8+ Kc7 9.Re8

"The only serious attempt to make progress" (De la Villa, 131). The position is similar to the one where Philidor wrote, "This is the only move which can assure you the game" (Analysis of the Game of Chess, 1777, 279).

Black to move

9...Rh1

Black prepares side checks from the short side.

10.Rf8 Re1

The rook returns to behind the pawn.

De la Villa's analysis ends here. Levenfish and Smyslov carry it one move further.

11.Rf2 Kd8

The position in Levenfish and Smyslov and after the ninth move in de la Villa appears in a variation in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003). Missing from Dvoretsky is credit to Kling and Horwitz. In fact, Dvoretsky gives the ideas without crediting any endgame theorists or composers from the past. With the 5th edition (2020), however, credit is given to Max Karstedt. I have not confirmed that the 3rd and 4th editions do not credit Karstedt because I do not have them at hand, but my hunch is that this bit of information represents Karsten Mūller's editorial contribution.

The Karstedt Maneuver 

Ilya Rabinovich, The Russian Endgame Handbook, published in the Soviet Union in 1938 credits Karstedt and does not mention Kling and Horwitz. Yuri Averbakh, Comprehensive Chess Endings, vol. 5 Rook Endings was first published in 1984 in Russian, then in 1987 in English translation. Averbakh writes about this position:

Black to move

"Philidor thought that ... Black could draw only by 1...Rb6, and that any attempt to attack from the rear--1...Rb1 would lose. But Karstedt showed that this is not so, and later analysis by Berger, Cheron and Rabinovich basically confirmed his conclusions" (123). Having spent some time studying Rabinovich's analysis before I found this statement by Averbakh, I created with some help from Stockfish the analysis of Philidor's discussion that I present above.

Inasmuch as Kling and Horwitz's work is readily available both the originals digitized and accessible through Google Books and through Carsten Hansen's new republication of the later text, which wholly absorbs the 1851 text, I am satisfied that the term, "Kling and Horwitz technique", is an error.

If I could locate Max Karstedt's original analysis, I could be certain that the "Karstedt maneuver" is the correct term. However, Kartsedt left us no books. He did compose about 150 studies. None of those available in Harold van der Heijden's Endgame Study Database show this technique. Karstedt is not well-known. There is a Wikipedia article about him that offers a references to a secondary publication: Siegbert Tarrasch's book on the 1906 Nuremburg tournament. A few copies are available, but not at a price I'm willing to pay. This secondary reference is Wikipedia’s source for an article by Karstedt that is said to have his appeared in "German Weekly Chess" (presumably Deutsches Wochenschach).*

A date of 1897 is given for Karstedt’s correction of Philidor in several texts, but reference to an original source appear in none of the chess books I checked. My best clue as to where to look comes from Siegfried Hornecker, "The Unknown Soldiers I", ChessBase News (30 May 2020). Hornecker cites Die Schwalbe (February 2018), where Günter Büsing states that Karstedt wrote for Deutsches Wochenschach and Deutsche Schachblätter. This makes the Wikipedia reference possibly accurate. Although some issues of both of these periodicals can be found online, the 1897 edition of Deutsches Wochenschach is not available, and the other periodical began in 1906. With access to the 1897 issue of Deutsches Wochenschach, I would expect to be able to locate an article by Karstedt. It would be an interesting read.

Lacking appropriate primary sources, I might choose to trust Rabinovich, Averbakh, and Müller. Alternately, I might consider the term Karstedt maneuver speculative.

Whatever name is employed, it is worth learning. For that, Jesus de la Villa and Sam Shankland both offer exceptional in-depth analysis.

*Wikipedia shuns any work that appears to be “original research”, and hence has a built-in preference for a secondary work that mentions Karstedt, such as Tarrasch, over anything Karstedt may have written. I’m not certain whether there is a preference for translated names of publications, or whether this is simply sloppy editing.

Howard Staunton

On the Origin of Good Moves Reading Log*

In The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847), Howard Staunton asserts, "in chess, as in modern warfare, one of the most important strategems is the art of gaining time upon the enemy" (48-49). This assertion could well be considered central to the foundation of the articulation of positional chess, but Staunton does not get such credit.

Time served as a "factor" in Siegbert Tarrasch's articulation of what many have taken to be a continuation of William Steinitz's modern theory. He stated, "Force, Space and Time work together at every move" (The Game of Chess [1935], 231). Later, pawn structure was added to Tarrasch's formulation, and these became the essence of "development" (see "Principle of Development: Early History"). These were the factors that I learned in my youth, and then found anew as I was returning to chess after about a decade of minimal play, and read some of Yasser Seirawan's exceptional "Winning" series published by Microsoft Press in the 1990s. I recall Wesley So telling Seirawan during one of the Wijk aan Zee broadcasts that these texts gave him his foundation.

Time remains vital to Dan Heisman's nearly iconoclastic Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999), where he lists mobility, flexibility, vulnerability, center control, piece coordination, time, and speed. Heisman considers notions of space, pawn structure, and development as "pseudo-elements". In Heisman's brief synopsis of the history of positional theory, he claims that after Andre Danican Philidor, the next contribution to theory was the play of Paul Morphy, skipping over Staunton.

Who mentions time prior to Staunton? Research might reveal that it was Giaochino Greco, although I cannot point to a passage in his manuscripts where this is the case. I do vaguely recall the concept articulated in some annotations by William Lewis, and Staunton was certainly familiar with the works of Lewis. Following this assertion concerning time, Staunton suggests the relevance of the art of warfare for chess with reference to Traité de Grand Tactique (1805) by Antoine-Henri Jomini, who served under Napoleon as well as other leadership capacities elsewhere in Europe. Staunton's lessons from Jomini, the art of war:

...consisted in the proper application of three combinations--first, the art of disposing the lines of operation in the most advantageous manner; secondly, in a skillful concentration of the forces with the greatest possible rapidity upon the most important point of the enemy's line of operations; and thirdly, that of combining the simultaneous employment of this accumulated force upon the position in which it is directed. (49)

Staunton implies that the application of these principles of war to the game of chess ought to be self-explanatory. Perhaps this failure of elaboration is what excludes him from narratives of the development of chess theory. But, if so, why does Steinitz get so much credit? The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) is even more paltry in its elaboration of principles of positional play.

Willy Hendriks, On the Origin of Good Moves (2020) does not elevate Staunton's reputation as a theorist in his short chapter, which concentrates on the second match between Staunton and Pierre de Saint-Amant (76-88). He does, however, claim that Staunton's contribution to the development of chess skill among those who followed him were manifested in three ways. The first is the role of newspaper columns.

In the quiz that begins the chapter, Hendriks presents this position and an intriguing question.

White to move

His question is derived from a challenge that Staunton offered to his opponent in a battle of analysis in chess periodicals, Le Palamède edited by Saint-Amant and Chess Player’s Chronicle by Staunton. Would you be willing to take the Black side in a series of six games? How much would you be willing to bet on the outcome?

Saint-Amant asserted that Black has an attack and a clearly superior position. Staunton disagreed. Staunton did lose the game, but Hendriks suggests that his loss was due to a subsequent tactical adventure that led no where.

Edward Winter wrote about the controversy in "Staunton v. Saint-Amant", Chess Notes 5709 (10 August 2008). This article forms the source for annotations to this game in ChessBase Mega2020. Hendriks develops his narrative of the word wars through the work of Nick Pope at Chess Archaeology. The emergence of chess columns in newspapers, and then specialized chess magazines, in the first half of the nineteenth century, Hendriks asserts, began to improve the level of chess skill. Staunton's Chess Player's Chronicle is prominent among them, as was Le Palamède. Staunton's second contribution is found in his books. Then, in 1851, Staunton organized the first international chess tournament.

Hendriks core argument in the chapter disputes an assertion of Harry Golombek that the quality of play in the Staunton -- Saint-Amant matches was "much superior" to the McDonnell -- De Labourdonnais matches (77). Hendriks shows that there was an abundance of errors in the latter, as there had been the previous decade when the top French player met the top British player.

Hendriks' exercises at the start of the chapter and his analysis of the games from which they were derived sent me into the databases to play through with some rapidity all 27 games from the two matches. To be honest, I found that exercise to be a chore. Aside from a few interesting endgames, the play of neither gentleman inspired me. On the Origin of Good Moves extracts the most interesting moments. My criticism of the chapter is that Hendriks only vaguely references the fact that the match he focused on was the second between the two men. His assertions that Staunton was clearly the superior player should not overlook Saint-Amant's victory in the much shorter first match.

*See "On the Origin: Reading Journal".

The Soul of Philidor

On the Origin of Good Moves Reading Log*

"[Pawns} are the very Life of this Game: They alone form the Attack and the Defense...". Many a contemporary chess enthusiast must have been amazed to read this solemn statement by Philidor, bestowing such honours on the modest pawns, of which Philidors's famous predecessors, Greco and the Italian chess school, thought so little.
Dražen Marović, Understanding Pawn Play in Chess (2000)

The first paragraph of Understanding Pawn Play in Chess is typical of the credit offered to Philidor for his innovative ideas presented through a handful of composed games that he published in Analyse du jeu des échecs (1849). Willy Hendriks challenges conventional understanding in On the Origin of Good Moves (2020). Consider these two positions from quizzes in Hendriks's book (25, 57).

Black to move

Black to move

Both exercises offer the same choice: dxc4 or bxc4. There are three questions. How would you play each position? How would Greco play? How would Philidor? The answers may surprise you.

In a USCF online rated blitz tournament yesterday, I had this position.

White to move

I played the move that Greco would have selected. Ironically, this choice helped me play somewhat in the manner advocated by Philidor, but only after I spurned his general principle for pawn captures. I even sacrificed a knight to get my pawns rolling.

The short version of what On the Origin of Good Moves has argued through the first four chapters is this: Greco is somewhat underrated by chess writers and may be worth more attention. Philidor, on the other hand, gets a free pass concerning egregious errors in his analysis. His reputation for making an original contribution to chess theory might be somewhat greater than deserved.

The first two quiz questions at the beginning of the first chapter on Philidor offer positions from his games. ChessBase Meg 2020 and many books endorse Philidor's evaluation of the position. Willy Hendriks and Komodo 15 disagree.

*See "On the Origin: Reading Journal".

On the Origin: Reading Journal

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon, "Of Studies" (1625)

Willy Hendriks, On the Origin of Good Moves (2020) arrived yesterday. I spent an hour last night and a bit more than an hour this morning leafing through the whole book, reading a few pages here and there. Then I reread the chapter on Greco. I had read the Kindle sample in June after Brian Karen asked me about this book in reference to my post on the Chess Book Collectors's Facebook page concerning Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014). Do look at "Monumental Scholarship: Notes Toward a Book Review" for my initial assessment of Monté's text. Hendriks' book looked interesting, so I preordered the paperback. It shipped Tuesday on the date listed by Amazon as the publication date.

Although I use almost every one of my nearly 400 chess books principally as reference works and rarely read one all the way through, On the Origin of Good Moves may join the small rank of exceptions. In order to encourage myself to keep at it, this post begins a reading journal on my progress.

Hendriks has an ambitious agenda to challenge the common notion that William Steinitz initiated the modern notions of positional play. This myth, he argues, is the work of Emanuel Lasker. He states that he wanted to write a whodunnit, but self-deprecates his writing abilities and so identifies the culprit immediately (10). Even so, Hendriks's take concerning the development of chess history is about the details more than the plot.

He also begins by noting the recapitulation theory of chess development offered by Max Euwe, Garry Kasparov, and others. I summarized this view in my 2013 workbook for students in my summer chess camp, "Dragon Chess Camp 2013: Learning from the First Chess Masters":

No one is born a chess master. Euwe suggests that an individual player's growth from beginner to master follows the pattern of chess history. First players learn to play like Greco. Then, as Philidor, they discover the importance of pawns and begin to think positionally. Individual growth moves through attacking play in the style of Adolph Anderssen and Paul Morphy to learning to accumulate small advantages in the manner of Wilhelm Steinitz. (26)

I went on from there, but this excerpt serves to illustrate that I have found Euwe's concept compelling at least pedagogically. Hendriks correctly links the recapitulation theory to Ernst Haeckel: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (9, 411). The structure of On the Origin of Good Moves--a title clearly derived from Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859)--follows the pattern evident in Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1968), but in a manner that interrogates with skepticism the central claims that have been advanced by many chess writers along the way.

Journal: "Footnotes to Greco"

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
Alfred North Whitehead (1979)

Hendriks notes that Greco has not received the same honor given to Plato that all of chess theory is a series of footnotes to his original work, although a few months ago I wrote, partly in jest, in a chess forum, "Greco is the originator; all others are imitators." I have taken the work of Greco seriously for some time, found Euwe's annotations of two Greco games useful and inspiring, have played at least three games online that almost wholly follow one of Greco's masterpieces (see "Near Perfect"), and have been convinced since at least 2013 that the best parts of Greco remain unknown to most chess players.

As I had read Hendriks' chapters on Greco several weeks ago, it should not be surprising that I scored 100% on the two quizzes from Greco's games this morning. I missed the second one, however, in June because I chose Greco's move and Hendriks was looking for the improvement. When I took that quiz in June, the game from which exercise 2 was extracted had been part of my lesson with my chess students the previous week. However, I was using a version of the game that was not in any databases, but can be found in Francis Beale's 1656 text. Chessgames.com has it now because I submitted it after researching the game score in Monté. In June, I finished a project of entering all 94 of Beale's selections from Greco into a database.

Black to move

This position appears in five games in ChessBase Mega 2020. Four are Greco's games. 10...Kd7 appears in two Greco games in the database, 10...Kd8 appears in one, and as Hendriks notes, 10...Kf8 appears in one of Greco's games in the database (19-20). The position after 10...Kf8 is Hendriks second exercise. In this one, and one in the second set, Greco's move is not the best move.

The version of the game given by Hendriks ended with checkmate in 14 moves. The version of the game in Beale, however, continues with much more stubborn defense. Monté's research reveals that the better game appears in several of the London manuscripts created in 1623 by Greco. The better version also appears in William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819).

All this is to say that Hendriks' historical questions differ from mine. While I can spend many hours tracking down minutiae through original sources, or secondary works that are grounded is such sources, Hendriks builds his assessment of Greco on readily available databases. What do Greco's games offer the aspiring chess player? More than he usually gets credit for, Hendriks argues.

Despite approaching work on Greco from a somewhat different perspective regarding the nature of historical research, I am encouraged by the assessment in On the Origin of Good Moves: "Greco's legacy is really impressive" (23). I agree.

There are two chapters and two quizzes on Greco in Hendriks's book. This position is number 8--the second exercise for chapter 2: "The Nimzowitsch of the 17th Century" (27-38).

Black to move

This position is from Greco's longest game, and one of the few that Hendriks thinks might represent actual play. His annotations on this game are brief but highlight the critical point: Philidor's reputation for discovering the importance of the pawns is but a footnote to Greco.

Play as Philidor

As may be well-known, François-André Danican Philidor asserted, "pawns are the soul of chess." In Analysis of the Game of Chess (London, 1790), he developed this idea with a number of games showing pieces standing in the rear so as to support a group of pawns that decide the game. Yesterday, as I was beginning to come out of a blitz slump that lasted three days, I played a game of which Philidor would approve.

White to move

Stripes,J (1897) -- Internet Opponent (1842) [A43]
Live Chess Chess.com, 13.05.2017

26.Qg4

26.Qh6 decides matters more quickly.

26...g6 27.h4 Qe6 28.Qg3

The computer likes 28.Qxe6, but the resulting rook ending is a crap shoot in blitz. Both players have chances as blunders are inevitable.

28...Kg7 29.h5 Rh8

White to move

30.hxg6

30.d5 Qe4 31.Re5 Qd3 32.f4

30...fxg6?

30...f6 gives Black good chances to hold. Too often, I overlook these sorts of moves in blitz.

31.d5

A good move, but not best. Even so, White's pawns are starting to roll per the prescriptions of Philidor.

31.f4!

31...Qf6 32.e4

32.f4 would have demonstrated understanding of Philidor, who preferred that three pawns march together whenever possible. 32...Rh6 33.f5 Rf8 34.d6.

32...Rh6 33.e5 Qf7 34.e6 Qe7

34...Qf6 35.f4 (35.Re5).

35.Qe5+ Qf6

White to move

36.e7?

36.f4 Rch8 37.Kf2 Rh4 38.Kg3

36...Re8?

36...Kf7 forces White to struggle.

37.d6+-

The pawns will decide.

37...Qxe5 38.Rxe5 Kf6

38...Reh8 makes a threat that I was cognizant of, although in blitz I overlook such things often enough. 39.f4 (39.e8Q Rh1#).

39.Re2 Rhh8

White to move

40.Rb1

40.Rfe1 is stronger 40...Kf7 41.d7

40...Rb8

40...a4 41.Rxb6 Kf7 42.Rb4 Rc8 43.Re1 Rce8 44.d7

41.d7 1–0

Black's two rooks must go away to eliminate White's two queens.

Pawns are the Soul

Pawns are the soul of chess.
François-André Danican Philidor

In my post, "Dominquez--Aronian, Tata Steel 2014", I mentioned that Levon Aronian's play in that game offered a modern lesson in the meaning of Philidor's famous dictum. This morning I looked at Aronian -- Ponomariov, Tsaghkadzar 2015, Chess Informant 124/9, and found another illustration. The game as a whole is a good illustration of piece play in the service of creating powerful passed pawns.

Here is one of the final critical positions.

White to move

What would you play?

Aronian sacrificed the exchange to get the a-pawn rolling. Ponomariov resigned ninen moves later.

The Spirit of Greco

Should aspiring chess players study the games of players who have been dead for more than a century? In an interview conducted while he was World Champion, Vladimir Kramnik answered in the affirmative.

I think that if a player wants to achieve much, he should live through the entire history of chess in his thoughts. I can't explain it from a purely logical standpoint, but in my opinion, you have to experience the entire history.
Vladimir Kramnik, 2004*

The interviewer probed further, asking whether it was useful to go back as far as Gioachino Greco. Kramnik did not think Greco was necessary because Greco's games are only the basics of chess, but he thought aspiring players should know the games of Philidor, Anderssen, and Morphy.

Max Euwe expressed a similar view of the importance of chess history. He asserted in The Development of Chess Style (1966) that an individual player's development and chess history follow parallel courses. The longest and most difficult is the first stage, which Euwe characterizes as "excursions with the pieces" (1). Players succeed when they take advantage of the opportunities presented by opponents, "such as winning a piece" (1). Greco embodies this first stage, he suggests.

Euwe annotates two of Greco's games. In another 300+ volumes in my library, I look in vain for annotations of Greco's games. Several books make passing reference to his collections, usually by noting that some tactical idea or opening move "has been known since Greco." Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part I (2003) is a notable exception. On the first page of chapter 1, he presents a synopsis of Euwe's argument (without attribution) and four Greco games. In two of the games, he offers a small number of suggested improvements. But Kasparov offers no verbal annotations, no detailed analysis.

Euwe also offers one game by Andre Philidor. Philidor's games, too, are mostly absent from other books. In Philidor's case, however, many more writers mention his contribution towards understanding the centrality of pawns to chess strategy. Kasparov offers one game fragment from Philidor with annotations. His views align well with Kramnik's concerning the merits of Philidor.

Last week, however, DHL brought an exciting new book hot off the presses that offers fresh annotations of the second of the two Greco games featured in Euwe's classic. This new book is Chess Informant 124. In this volume is the tenth installment of Mihail Marin's column, "Old Wine in New Bottles."**

Marin sets out to contextualize the explosion of information that we observe in this era of computers. He challenges a common belief that this explosion is without precedent. He recalls similar claims in opening monographs of the 1970s and 1980s. Even the first systematic opening reference, Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843) describes an explosion of information in its day.

Marin does not stop at simply challenging perceptions that our age is unique due to a massive increase in the information available to us. He also traces the development of new ideas with the point of showing that they are not so new after all. Tracing the continuities between old and new offers an affirmation of the value of studying classic games.

In every game, there comes a moment when a novelty inevitably pops up, but one cannot be sure that the idea behind it has not been played before.
Mihail Marin, Informant 124, 82.

Marin's focus in Informant 124 is the Italian Opening, particularly the Giuoco Fortissimo. He begins with Nakamura -- Giri, Khanty-Mansiysk 2015.

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

White must either Block the check or move his king. Greco blocked with 7.Nc3 and these days 7.Bd2 is preferred. Nakamura, however, played a relatively rare move: 7.Nbd2, which sacrifices a pawn. I can find approximately one hundred instances of this move in my database.

Black to move

After 7...Nxe4, Nakamura shows that he is playing in the spirit of Greco with 8.d5, "fighting for space and an advance in development" (83).

After Nakamura -- Giri, Marin offers analysis of one of Greco's best games. Then, there is another game from Khanty-Mansiysk. Jobava -- Grischuk featured 6.e5 d5, which the author notes is reminiscent of several games played by Morphy and Anderssen. Jobava repeated his opening experiment in a later round of the same event, and Marin refers readers to the column by Sarunas Sulskis, where that game in analyzed in depth.

"Old Wine in New Bottles" continues with an instructive game when Marin lost on the Black side of the not so quiet Italian Game, and then a World Championship game where Karpov employed the quieter line with 5.d3 for the purpose of torturing Korchnoi. But this quieter line still permitted fortissimo in Bologan -- Marin, Bucharest 1990 (a friendly blitz game). Marin finishes the article with a third game of his own and then Dubois -- Steinitz, London 1862, which had been one of my study games a few months ago (see "Some Miniatures").

Marin's column offers a good mix of old and new, of famous games and those less well-known. His ongoing column builds the logical argument that Kramnik deferred in his 2004 interview.



*The interview in Russian in available at e3e5.com. There are several English translations online. Because the English is smoother, I have employed the one posted by Spektrowski on Chess.com.

**Marin's column first appeared in Informant 114 and has appeared in every issue except 121 since.

La Bourdonnais's Infantry

McDonnell -- La Bourdonnais 1834

In game 21 of their first match, Alexander McDonnell's knights prevailed (see "McDonnell's Cavalry"). In the next game,Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais gave a demonstration of principles set down eighty-five years earlier in L’analyze des échecs (1849) by François-André Danican Philidor. His pawns decided the battle.

Occasionally, chess writers assert that Philidor's ideas concerning pawns were poorly understood until revived by Wilhelm Steinitz. For example, Dražen Marović offers this historical note in Understanding Pawn Play in Chess (2000).

Not many players followed in Philidor's footsteps. One must advance well into the next century to see another great player, Howard Staunton, exploring such niceties as the restrained engagement of pawns, play against doubled pawns or blockade. (5)

Similarly, in My Great Predecessors (2003) Garry Kasparov suggests that Philidor "was too far ahead of his time: no one was able to play successfully in the manner proposed by him" (13). He observes that La Bourdonnais had studied Philidor's text, but did not adopt his principles.

Although he had studied Philidor's L'Analyse, he nevertheless played in a different, intuitive attacking style, in keeping with his own temperament. (14)

Although we do not see the defensive technique against pawns that Marović asserts would emerge a decade later with Staunton, La Bourdonnais does offer several games that demonstrate the offensive power of pawns. Did he use his intuition, as Kasparov seems to suggest, to see through to the end in the present game? Or, did he calculate?

La Bourdonnais had already won the first match decisively before this game was played. Nonetheless, the players continued until twenty-one decisive games had been played.

Excluding draws, La Bourdonnais leads 13-4. The French player's win in game 22 makes it the eighteenth decisive game.

Beginning with the post, "Three Fighting Draws," I have been going through all of the games in this match. I offer my analysis without reference to engine evaluations.

McDonnell,Alexander -- De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe [C33]
London m1 London (22), 1834

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.d4 d6 

White to move

7.Nd5

7.Nf3 White could drive the queen back with 7...Qh5 8.h4 h6 9.Kg1 Qg6.

7...Kd8 8.Be2 Nc6 9.e5

Both kings are in the center

9...Nge7 10.Nc3

This retreat gives up valuable time

10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Nf3 Qh5 12.h4.

10...Nf5

I think that Black has a clear advantage. White lacks compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

11.Nf3 Qh6 12.Ne4 f6

White to move

13.exf6

13.e6 is interesting 13...Nce7 14.d5 c6.

13...Bxf6 14.g4

Is this move a simple error that loses two more pawns, or is it a clever sacrifice that releases White's pieces from their immobility?

14.Nxf6 Ng3+ (14...Qxf6 is simpler 15.c3) 15.Kg1 Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 Qxf6 and White has little to show for the sacrificed pawn.

14...Nfxd4 15.Kg2

15.Nxd4? Qh3+ 16.Kf2 Bxd4+ with a strong attack for Black.

15...Bxg4 16.h4

16.Nxd4? Qh3+ 17.Kf2 Bxd4+ and Black's attack must be decisive.

16...Bxf3+ 17.Bxf3 Nxf3 18.Qxf3 Ne5 19.Qb3

Black to move

Threatening the b7 pawn and also Qe6.

19...Qg6

19...b6 20.Qe6 Rf8 21.hxg5 and White gets a good game.

20.Qxb7 Rc8 21.Bd2

White is prepared to bring his queenside rook into play, but the vulnerability of his king is significant.

21.h5 was worth considering 21...Qf5 22.Nxf6 Qxf6 23.Bd2.

21...gxh4+! 22.Kf1 Rg8

White to move

23.Nxd6!

Defending the crucial g2 square and also opening the Black king to attack. McDonnell is able to generate counterplay. However, as Black's king eventually finds security, White's decisive weaknesses on the kingside prove fatal.

23...cxd6 24.Ba5+ Ke8 25.Qxc8+

White has recovered all of the sacrificed material.

25...Kf7 26.Qb7+ Be7 27.Qd5+ Kf8

White to move

28.Rd1

28.Qa8+ does not solve White's problems. 28...Kg7 29.Qd5 f3 30.Rh2 Kh8.

28...f3 29.Rd2

29.Ke1 Qg2

29...h3 30.Qa8+ Kg7 31.Qxa7

Black to move

31...Qg2+!!

La Bourdonnais had to be certain that his king would find security from the checks. The queen sacrifice is temporary, and in fact nets a rook. But the bishop is sacrificed by this move, leaving Black's king exposed.

32.Rxg2+ fxg2+ 33.Kg1 Nf3+! 

33...Kf7 34.Qf2+ Bf6 35.Rh2 Ng4 36.Qf4 and White appears to hold.

34.Kf2 gxh1Q 35.Qxe7+ Kh6

White to move

36.Qxd6+

36.Bd2+ fails 36...Ng5

     36...Nxd2? seems to offer White a draw. 37.Qh4+ Kg7 38.Qg5+ Kf8 39.Qf6+ Ke8 40.Qe6+

37.Qf6+ Kh5 and White has run out of checks.

36...Kh5 37.Qd5+ Rg5 38.Qf7+ Kg4 39.Qc4+

Black to move

39...Nd4! 40.Qxd4+ Kh5 41.Bb6 Qh2+ 42.Ke1 Re5+ 43.Kd1 Qe2+ 44.Kc1

Black to move

44...Qe1+ 45.Qd1+ Qxd1+ 46.Kxd1 h2 0–1

Although La Bourdonnais reached a clear advantage from the opening, McDonnell found play for his pieces and gave us an exciting game. La Bourdonnais's belief in the power of his pawns guided his intuition. Or, perhaps, he demonstrated tremendous powers of calculation when the White queen started her assault.

McDonnell will reveal weaknesses in La Bourdonnais's pawns in the next game (see "Pawn Structure Chess").

Weakened King

McDonnell -- De La Bourdonnais 1834

I have been working through all of the games of Alexander McDonnell (1798-1835). Most of his available games are from his series of matches with Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais (1795-1840). Bourdonnais won twice as many as McDonnell. In the first match, McDonnell led after game six. He then lost eleven of the next twelve games.

Chess Skills is following this match through a series of posts that began with "Three Fighting Draws" (30 June 2014).* We are now at game twelve. See "Losing Takes a Toll" for game eleven.

In game after game, it seems that McDonnell makes a small inaccuracy and then finds himself in a much worse position. Such is the case in game twelve.

De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe -- McDonnell,Alexander [D20]
London m1 London (12), 1834

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.0–0 0–0 8.Bg5 h6

Testing the resolve of the bishop.

8...Bg4 was possible here as well.

9.Bh4

Black to move

9...g5?!

Weakening the king's position.

9...Bg4 appears in many games today 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 g5 12.Bg3 Bxg3 13.Qxg3 Qxd4 14.Qb3 Nc6 15.Rd1 Qc5 16.Qc2 Kg7 and Black won in 63 moves Sergeev,V (2436)--Navara,D (2715) Pardubice 2013

10.Bg3 Bg4

10...Bxg3 is worse 11.fxg3 and White will have pressure along the f-file.

11.Nc3 Nc6

11...Nbd7 might have been sensible.

12.Qd3 Kg7

White's queen threatened to come in to g6, taking advantage of the pin on f7.

13.Ne5 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Nh5

14...Qxd3 is worse 15.exf6+ Kxf6 16.Bxd3+-

15.Nd5

Black to move

White's forces are well-coordinated for attack on the somewhat vulnerable Black king.

15...Nxg3 16.Qxg3 Bh5 17.f4

Black to move

17...Na5 

17...Nd4 may have been the last chance to fight on the kingside, although it leads to elimination of the king's pawn shield.

18.Nf6 Bg6 19.fxg5 Nf5 20.gxh6+ Nxh6 21.Nh5+ Kh8

(21...Kg8 loses quickly 22.Qxg6+ Kh8 23.Qg7#).

18.b3 Nxc4 19.bxc4 c6 20.Nf6 Qd4+ 21.Kh1 Bg6 22.Rad1 Qxc4

White to move

Instead of being down a pawn, McDonnell has a one pawn advantage. However, now all White's pieces are coming after his king. La Bourdonnais demonstrates skill in bringing home the point.

23.f5 Bh7 24.Nd7 Rfd8 25.e6!

Beginners, and even sixteenth century masters, would have played 25.f6+. La Bourdonnais, however, perceives that the battle will conclude when he gains full control of the seventh rank.

In the previous century, François-André Danican Philidor extolled the power of pawns. He advocated arranging the pieces behind them so they are well-supported and then thrusting them forward with decisive results. For Philidor, the pawns were of such importance that he frequently sacrificed the exchange in order to create a pair of pawns with a chance to advance.

Philidor's ideas were not widely accepted by the chess masters of his day. Indeed, it is commonplace among chess historians to assert that Philidor's ideas were largely neglected until the development of modern theory by Wilhelm Steinitz and his contemporaries. If so, it may be fair to say that La Bourdonnais was decades ahead of his time.

La Bourdonnais demonstrates effective pawn play in many of the games in this series of matches. In this game, he shows that a strong pawn on the sixth rank may advance with decisive results when it is supported from the side, rather than the rear as Philidor advocated.

25...f6 26.Qc7

The queen penetrates to the seventh rank

26...Rdc8 27.Qxb7

....and grabs a pawn.

Black to move

27...Qb5

McDonnell will eliminate the pesky queen.

28.Rb1

A rook will replace the queen.

28...Qxb7 29.Rxb7 Kh8

McDonnell's king flees the dangerous seventh rank.

30.Nxf6

Another pawn falls, and Bourdonnas threatens checkmate in one.

30...Bg8

The only move.

31.Rd1

The other rook prepares to occupy the seventh rank

31...Rd8

McDonnell would like to trade rooks.

32.Rdd7 Rxd7 33.Rxd7 g4

33...Rb8 34.Kg1

34.Kg1 a5

White to move

35.e7 1–0

McDonnell's expertise using the bishop pair to overcome a one pawn deficit will put an end to the losing streak in the next game (see "Morning Coffee").

*I am using databases and occasional reference to articles on these games, such as Paul Morphy's series in the New York Ledger (1859). However, I am leaving my chess engines off during my analysis. Consequently, I almost certainly will miss some tactics.