White to move
 |
| After 20...Rf6 |
9 Winning Tips From Kasparov
1 day ago
Showing posts with label Ragozin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ragozin. Show all posts
30 September 2018
Understand the Threats
This position arose in my fourth round game in this weekend's Eastern Washington Open. I had Black and won, then won my fifth round game as well, finishing with 4.5/5 and a tie for first in the event. This was the second time I won a weekend Swiss (see "Winning an Open").
White played 21.Bb2? and resigned on move 25 when checkmate was inevitable.
05 March 2017
Krasenkow -- Hammer, Stockholm 2016
A couple of days ago, I watched the video, "Fear the Bishops: Hammer vs. Krasenkow," by Jon Ludvig Hammer on Chess.com. In this recent video, Hammer shows a game that he played in the sixth round of the 45th Rilton Cup in Stockholm. After five rounds, Michel Krasenkow led the Rilton Cup with 5.0, while Hammer was half a point behind. Hammer had Black and won a beautifully instructive game. That put him in first place, but he fell to second by the end of the event. Maxim Rodshtein won the event with 8/9 and Hammer settled for second with 7.5.
Even though he was disappointed with his second place finish, Hammer achieved his 2705 rating peak as a result of the event. He was also justifiably proud of his performance in the game against Krasenkow.
After watching the video, I played through the game on Chessgames.com, then found it among the databases on my computer. After twice through the game on screens, I pulled Chess Informant 127 from the shelf and went through the game again on the dining room table.
Magnus Carlsen's tweet to which Hammer responded in the tweets visible above highlighted the power of the bishop pair. That theme was also emphasized in Hammer's instructive video of this game. Certainly the game offers great study material for the battle to activate two bishops, turning this imbalance in one's favor. But there is much more in this game. The layers of instruction in the opening, middlegame, and endgame require time to unpack. This game merits extensive study.
Opening
Krasenkow,M (2610) -- Hammer,J (2695) [D38]
45th Rilton Cup 2015–16 Stockholm SWE (6.1), 02.01.2016
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6
Magnus Carlsen tweeted, perhaps in jest, that 6.Bxf6 was the losing move.
6...Qxf6 7.Qa4+ Nc6
In his video, Hammer described the placement of Black's knight on c6 as somewhat awkward. However, this placement is the characteristic feature of the Ragozin System. In The Ragozin Complex: A Guide for White and Black (2011), Vladimir Barsky notes how views have changed concerning the merits of the placement of this knight.
The 5.Bg5 line is treated in chapter six of Barsky, but the first reference game there lacks 7.Qa4+, instead having 7.e3. Initially, glancing through this book, I thought that Krasenkow -- Hammer had deviated from the lines discussed in the book.
Nonetheless, Barsky's book does an excellent job of presenting general ideas. Even in positions that deviate from those in the book, an astute reader of The Ragozin Complex will find guidance understanding this game. The front of the book includes a long essay from the mid-twentieth century: Isaak Lipnitsky, "How to Study a Concrete Opening", originally published as part of Questions of Modern Chess Theory (1956). Lipnitsky lists three positional themes that guide Black's play:
1) the e6-e5 pawn thrust
2) a light-square strategy
3) attack with the queenside pawn majority
Hammer's "awkward" knight supports the e5 thrust, and indeed, Hammer played this move in the middlegame, sacrificing the pawn when he did. There are also elements of the light-square strategy at work in Black's tactical brilliance later in the game.
8...0–0 9.Rc1
Hammer played 9.Be2 when he had the White pieces in 2013. That game continued 9...Bd7 10.Rc1 Qe7 11.Qc2 dxc4 12.Bxc4 e5 13.0–0 exd4 14.Nd5 Qd6 and Black won in 49 moves, Hammer,J (2629) -- Tari,A (2293), Fagernes 2013.
Instead of 10.Rc1 as Hammer played in 2013, a later game continued 10.Qb3 dxc4 11.Qxc4 Qe7 12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd2 Nb8 14.Bf3 Bc6 and was drawn in 101 moves, Eljanov,P (2723) -- Wojtaszek,R (2733), Biel 2015.
9...Qg6
The move order makes it easy to overlook Barsky's analysis of this position in chapter one, which highlights games featuring 5.Qa4+. Michal Krasenkow is mentioned as one of the strong players who has favored the 5.Qa4+ approach against the Ragozin. The position in Hammer's game after 9...Qg6 is presented in an analysis diagram in The Ragozin Complex (65).
10.Qc2 Qxc2
Barsky writes, "Black could keep queens on the board, at the cost of exchanging bishop for knight, but then White would be fine in the middlegame" (65). So, ten moves into the game, already it is Black who is playing for a win!
11.Rxc2 Rd8 12.a3 Bf8
When does a transition from opening to middlegame take place? The rules are not so clear as to be easily applied in all cases. For Barsky, this game has now reached an endgame.
Middlegame
13.Be2 Na5N
In the analysis game presented by Barsky with 13.Be2, 13...a6 was played. His main line here continues 13.Nb5, a move suggested two moves later by Tomislav Paunovic in his annotations on this game for Chess Informant 127/148.
Another game continued 13...Ne7 14.0–0 c6 15.b4 dxc4 16.Bxc4 Nd5 17.Nxd5 exd5 18.Bd3 a5 19.Rb1 axb4 20.axb4 Ra3 Radjabov,T (2713) -- Aronian,L (2803), Beijing 2013. Black won in 76 moves.
Hammer's novelty, as he explains in the video, was intended to provoke White to make a decision concerning his c-pawn.
14.c5 Nc6 15.b4
15.Nb5!? Informant 127/148 with a line given that ends as unclear. In this line, Black's rook temporarily moves to an awkward square as in Barsky's line after 13.Nb5.
15...g5
How often does a player who has castled thrust the pawns in front of his king forward against an uncastled king?
16.g4
Of course, White does not want to leave his king in the center, so Black's pawn storm must be stopped.
16...e5
The thematic push in the Ragozin. However, here, Hammer sacrifices a pawn.
17.Nxe5
17.Nb5!? is suggested in Informant.
17...Nxe5 18.dxe5 a5!
In the middlegame, players maneuver their forces, probing for targets and aiming to produce weaknesses that might be exploited in the endgame. Part of what drove me to spend more time studying this game was my observation of unusually poor ability to predict Hammer's moves through the course of the middlegame.
19.0–0
Now that White has castled, perhaps the opening phase has ended.
19...axb4 20.axb4 c6 21.Rd1 Bg7 22.f4 Re8
A line given in Informant leads to a position quite similar to one reached in the game: 22...gxf4 23.exf4 f6 24.exf6 Bxf6 and Black has compensation for the sacrificed pawn, according to Paunovic.
23.Kf2
23...gxf4
Hammer spends a bit of time explaining why it was necessary to prevent White playing e4. One line that he offers is 23...f6 24.e4 dxe4 25.f5 fxe5 26.Nxe4. Black's bishop pair confers no advantage here.
24.exf4 f6 25.exf6 Bxf6 26.h3 Ra3
With this move, Hammer begins his plan to exploit weaknesses on the queenside, both pushing his passed d-pawn (part of a queenside majority) and demonstrating that the light squares a2, b3, and c4 are critically important. It is a pretty fair bet that he has spent some time studying Lipnitsky's essay.
27.Rd3 Kg7 28.Kf3 Be6 29.Nd1 Ra4 30.Rb3
30...d4
White must be aware of a checkmate threat using a crisscross pattern of the two bishops. In the video, Hammer shows this possibility as his motivation for playing 30...d4. That's an important lesson for most of the audience that consumes Chess.com videos. On the other hand, Grandmasters do not habitually play moves because there is a remote possibility of checkmate if the other player blunders. There must be a strategic or tactical point beyond hope chess.
Here, Black is pursuing the light-square strategy mentioned by Lipnitsky.
31.Bc4 Ra2!
Every commentator has mentioned this move. Yesterday, I let FM Jim Maki look at my copy of Informant 127, telling him that I have been studying this game. He provides game analysis at most of Spokane's youth tournaments. While I was getting round one started, Maki had a few minutes before the youth players would arrive at his table. When I returned to his table between rounds one and two, he mentioned this move.
32.Rxa2 Bxc4 33.g5
Hammer notes that after 33.Rba3, 33...Bxa2 would be premature. His bishop pair have such strength that he would prefer to remain down the exchange.
33...Bxb3 34.gxf6+ Kxf6 35.Rd2
Ending
When you have a bishop against a knight, it is usually your choice when to exchange minor pieces, according to Hammer.
35...Bxd1+ 36.Rxd1
Hammer's demonstration that this rook ending is winning for Black begins with a tactical maneuver that renders White's king a passive defender.
36...Re3+ 37.Kf2 Re4 38.Rd3
38.Kg3 Kf5
38.Rg1 Rxf4+ 39.Ke2 Rh4
38...Rxf4+ 39.Ke2 Ke5 40.Rg3 Ke4 41.Rg7 d3+ 42.Kd2 Rf2+ 43.Kc3 Rc2+ 44.Kb3 Rc1
45.Re7+
Hammer explains why the b-pawn is safe, for example 45.Rxb7 d2 46.Re7+ Kd3 47.Rd7+ Ke2 48.Re7+ Kf1 49.Rf7+ Kg2
45...Kf3 46.Rf7+ Ke2 47.Re7+ Kd1 48.Kb2 d2 49.Re4
49...Rc2+
When I showed this diagram to some youth students on Thursday, one of them suggested 49...Ra1. Together, we demonstrated that 50.Kxa1 leads to an easily won pawn ending for Black, whose h-pawn will promote. Of course, nothing compels White to capture the rook, but then it can move to a3 and threaten the pawn on h3. My student's plan is winning, but Hammer's play is more precise.
50.Kb1 Rc3 0–1
Even though he was disappointed with his second place finish, Hammer achieved his 2705 rating peak as a result of the event. He was also justifiably proud of his performance in the game against Krasenkow.
Possibly the best game I've ever played. Creativity, aggression, alertness, beauty, endgame accuracy. It had it all.— Jon Ludvig Hammer (@gmjlh) Twitter 2 January 2016
After watching the video, I played through the game on Chessgames.com, then found it among the databases on my computer. After twice through the game on screens, I pulled Chess Informant 127 from the shelf and went through the game again on the dining room table.
Magnus Carlsen's tweet to which Hammer responded in the tweets visible above highlighted the power of the bishop pair. That theme was also emphasized in Hammer's instructive video of this game. Certainly the game offers great study material for the battle to activate two bishops, turning this imbalance in one's favor. But there is much more in this game. The layers of instruction in the opening, middlegame, and endgame require time to unpack. This game merits extensive study.
Opening
Krasenkow,M (2610) -- Hammer,J (2695) [D38]
45th Rilton Cup 2015–16 Stockholm SWE (6.1), 02.01.2016
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6
Magnus Carlsen tweeted, perhaps in jest, that 6.Bxf6 was the losing move.
6...Qxf6 7.Qa4+ Nc6
White to move
In his video, Hammer described the placement of Black's knight on c6 as somewhat awkward. However, this placement is the characteristic feature of the Ragozin System. In The Ragozin Complex: A Guide for White and Black (2011), Vladimir Barsky notes how views have changed concerning the merits of the placement of this knight.
[T]his queen check, forcing the opponent to play Nc6 and in the process to obstruct his pawn on c7, was for a long time considered to be the demonstration of the incorrectness of the entire Black set-up. Later, thanks to the efforts primarily of Viacheslav Ragozin, it was established that this plan is not so terrible for Black; no sort of blitzkreig is about to happen, and the queen often proves to be unstably placed on a4.8.e3
Barsky, Ragozin Complex, 29.
The 5.Bg5 line is treated in chapter six of Barsky, but the first reference game there lacks 7.Qa4+, instead having 7.e3. Initially, glancing through this book, I thought that Krasenkow -- Hammer had deviated from the lines discussed in the book.
Nonetheless, Barsky's book does an excellent job of presenting general ideas. Even in positions that deviate from those in the book, an astute reader of The Ragozin Complex will find guidance understanding this game. The front of the book includes a long essay from the mid-twentieth century: Isaak Lipnitsky, "How to Study a Concrete Opening", originally published as part of Questions of Modern Chess Theory (1956). Lipnitsky lists three positional themes that guide Black's play:
1) the e6-e5 pawn thrust
2) a light-square strategy
3) attack with the queenside pawn majority
Hammer's "awkward" knight supports the e5 thrust, and indeed, Hammer played this move in the middlegame, sacrificing the pawn when he did. There are also elements of the light-square strategy at work in Black's tactical brilliance later in the game.
8...0–0 9.Rc1
Hammer played 9.Be2 when he had the White pieces in 2013. That game continued 9...Bd7 10.Rc1 Qe7 11.Qc2 dxc4 12.Bxc4 e5 13.0–0 exd4 14.Nd5 Qd6 and Black won in 49 moves, Hammer,J (2629) -- Tari,A (2293), Fagernes 2013.
Instead of 10.Rc1 as Hammer played in 2013, a later game continued 10.Qb3 dxc4 11.Qxc4 Qe7 12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd2 Nb8 14.Bf3 Bc6 and was drawn in 101 moves, Eljanov,P (2723) -- Wojtaszek,R (2733), Biel 2015.
9...Qg6
White to move
The move order makes it easy to overlook Barsky's analysis of this position in chapter one, which highlights games featuring 5.Qa4+. Michal Krasenkow is mentioned as one of the strong players who has favored the 5.Qa4+ approach against the Ragozin. The position in Hammer's game after 9...Qg6 is presented in an analysis diagram in The Ragozin Complex (65).
10.Qc2 Qxc2
Barsky writes, "Black could keep queens on the board, at the cost of exchanging bishop for knight, but then White would be fine in the middlegame" (65). So, ten moves into the game, already it is Black who is playing for a win!
11.Rxc2 Rd8 12.a3 Bf8
When does a transition from opening to middlegame take place? The rules are not so clear as to be easily applied in all cases. For Barsky, this game has now reached an endgame.
White has a little more space and it is easier for him to complete his development. Black has two bishops and a sound pawn structure. In this complicated endgame, reached after just 12 moves, White has a slight initiative, but it is not so hard to neutralise.
Barsky, The Ragozin Complex, 66.
Middlegame
White to move
13.Be2 Na5N
In the analysis game presented by Barsky with 13.Be2, 13...a6 was played. His main line here continues 13.Nb5, a move suggested two moves later by Tomislav Paunovic in his annotations on this game for Chess Informant 127/148.
Another game continued 13...Ne7 14.0–0 c6 15.b4 dxc4 16.Bxc4 Nd5 17.Nxd5 exd5 18.Bd3 a5 19.Rb1 axb4 20.axb4 Ra3 Radjabov,T (2713) -- Aronian,L (2803), Beijing 2013. Black won in 76 moves.
Hammer's novelty, as he explains in the video, was intended to provoke White to make a decision concerning his c-pawn.
14.c5 Nc6 15.b4
15.Nb5!? Informant 127/148 with a line given that ends as unclear. In this line, Black's rook temporarily moves to an awkward square as in Barsky's line after 13.Nb5.
15...g5
How often does a player who has castled thrust the pawns in front of his king forward against an uncastled king?
16.g4
Of course, White does not want to leave his king in the center, so Black's pawn storm must be stopped.
16...e5
The thematic push in the Ragozin. However, here, Hammer sacrifices a pawn.
17.Nxe5
17.Nb5!? is suggested in Informant.
17...Nxe5 18.dxe5 a5!
White to move
In the middlegame, players maneuver their forces, probing for targets and aiming to produce weaknesses that might be exploited in the endgame. Part of what drove me to spend more time studying this game was my observation of unusually poor ability to predict Hammer's moves through the course of the middlegame.
19.0–0
Now that White has castled, perhaps the opening phase has ended.
19...axb4 20.axb4 c6 21.Rd1 Bg7 22.f4 Re8
A line given in Informant leads to a position quite similar to one reached in the game: 22...gxf4 23.exf4 f6 24.exf6 Bxf6 and Black has compensation for the sacrificed pawn, according to Paunovic.
23.Kf2
Black to move
23...gxf4
Hammer spends a bit of time explaining why it was necessary to prevent White playing e4. One line that he offers is 23...f6 24.e4 dxe4 25.f5 fxe5 26.Nxe4. Black's bishop pair confers no advantage here.
24.exf4 f6 25.exf6 Bxf6 26.h3 Ra3
With this move, Hammer begins his plan to exploit weaknesses on the queenside, both pushing his passed d-pawn (part of a queenside majority) and demonstrating that the light squares a2, b3, and c4 are critically important. It is a pretty fair bet that he has spent some time studying Lipnitsky's essay.
27.Rd3 Kg7 28.Kf3 Be6 29.Nd1 Ra4 30.Rb3
Black to move
30...d4
White must be aware of a checkmate threat using a crisscross pattern of the two bishops. In the video, Hammer shows this possibility as his motivation for playing 30...d4. That's an important lesson for most of the audience that consumes Chess.com videos. On the other hand, Grandmasters do not habitually play moves because there is a remote possibility of checkmate if the other player blunders. There must be a strategic or tactical point beyond hope chess.
Here, Black is pursuing the light-square strategy mentioned by Lipnitsky.
So as to turn these weakened squares into an "incurable weakness", Black tries to exchange off the enemy light-squared bishop, i.e. the very piece which is best suited to the defense of these weakened light squares.Both the means of weakening the light-squares on the queenside and the particular squares in focus differ a little between this game and those in Lipnitsky's examples. That difference is evidence of the imagination that Hammer credited to himself for this victory.
Lipnitsky, "How to Study a Concrete Opening," in The Ragozin Complex, 24.
31.Bc4 Ra2!
Every commentator has mentioned this move. Yesterday, I let FM Jim Maki look at my copy of Informant 127, telling him that I have been studying this game. He provides game analysis at most of Spokane's youth tournaments. While I was getting round one started, Maki had a few minutes before the youth players would arrive at his table. When I returned to his table between rounds one and two, he mentioned this move.
32.Rxa2 Bxc4 33.g5
Hammer notes that after 33.Rba3, 33...Bxa2 would be premature. His bishop pair have such strength that he would prefer to remain down the exchange.
33...Bxb3 34.gxf6+ Kxf6 35.Rd2
Ending
Black to move
When you have a bishop against a knight, it is usually your choice when to exchange minor pieces, according to Hammer.
35...Bxd1+ 36.Rxd1
Black to move
Hammer's demonstration that this rook ending is winning for Black begins with a tactical maneuver that renders White's king a passive defender.
36...Re3+ 37.Kf2 Re4 38.Rd3
38.Kg3 Kf5
38.Rg1 Rxf4+ 39.Ke2 Rh4
38...Rxf4+ 39.Ke2 Ke5 40.Rg3 Ke4 41.Rg7 d3+ 42.Kd2 Rf2+ 43.Kc3 Rc2+ 44.Kb3 Rc1
White to move
45.Re7+
Hammer explains why the b-pawn is safe, for example 45.Rxb7 d2 46.Re7+ Kd3 47.Rd7+ Ke2 48.Re7+ Kf1 49.Rf7+ Kg2
45...Kf3 46.Rf7+ Ke2 47.Re7+ Kd1 48.Kb2 d2 49.Re4
Black to move
49...Rc2+
When I showed this diagram to some youth students on Thursday, one of them suggested 49...Ra1. Together, we demonstrated that 50.Kxa1 leads to an easily won pawn ending for Black, whose h-pawn will promote. Of course, nothing compels White to capture the rook, but then it can move to a3 and threaten the pawn on h3. My student's plan is winning, but Hammer's play is more precise.
50.Kb1 Rc3 0–1
10 June 2016
Ne2?
Last weekend I played in the Spokane Contenders, a round robin tournament that determined the challenger to our city champion. I had won this tournament in 2008 and 2012. I also tied for first in 2010, finishing second on tie-breaks. I played again in 2014, but my play was mixed and I finished in the middle.
My play was mixed again this weekend. I won my first round game on the Black side of a Ragozin--the first time I had played this opening in over-the-board play. I had been reading The Ragozin Complex (2011) by Vladimir Barsky and practicing the opening in some online blitz (see "Opening Inaccuracy" [2014]).
On Sunday, I played a long and interesting game against a former student, a three-time elementary state champion finishing his sixth grade year. He is growing accustomed to beating the A Class players who occupy the top tier of players in my city. In round three, he beat the player I had defeated in round one. We played a long game that ended in a draw. After he offered a draw on move 46, I tortured him as long as I could, struggling in vain to provoke an error. I had trained him well in the endgame and he refused to crack. After twenty moves of probing, I exchanged my rook for his bishop and advanced pawn and we played out the dead drawn pawn ending rapidly until stalemate on move 79.
Then, in round five, I misplayed a Sicilian Kan in the same manner that I have done in the past and was essentially lost by move eleven. I played another fourteen moves attempting tricks, all of which failed.
In the second round, Saturday afternoon, I played the lowest rated player. I had beaten him in all of our prior encounters and sat at the board with confidence. We quickly reached a familiar tableau.
Stripes,James (1811) -- Frostad,John (1608) [D18]
Spokane Contenders Spokane (2), 04.06.2016
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0–0 0–0
9.Ne2?
In 2007, I played 9.Qe2 against my phone, a RAZR running Chessmaster. I won that game easily. I also played 9.Ne2 once before in a correspondence game that I lost after a long struggle.
Perhaps the question mark is not fully warranted. Several strong Grandmasters have played this move, although the highest rated Black player who has lost is Rok Hrzica 2296.
The central problem with this move is that it wastes tempi, conceding the initiative to Black. In the game, I not only expended several tempi to gain the bishop pair, but also failed to attend to the needs of my bishop on c4 and hence did not continue with a pair of bishops into the middle game.
9...Nbd7 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Nh4
Both 11.Bd2 and 11.b3 seem a little better.
11...c5 12.Nxg6
12.f4 was played in Bogoljubow,E -- Alekhine,A, London 1922, which was drawn in 70 moves.
12...hxg6 13.Qf3
13.dxc5 is probably best 13...Nxc5 (13...Ne5 and drawn in 58 moves,.Piket,J (2670) -- Shirov,A (2710), Aruba 1995) 14.Qe2 Nfe4 and Black went on to win a long struggle Rubinstein,A -- Alekhine,A, London 1922.
13...cxd4 14.exd4 Nb6
15.Qb3?
15.Bb3 keeps the prospect of maintaining a bishop pair alive. White is already suffering for his errors. Black's pieces are mobile and coordinated. Black's plan to eventually win the isolated d-pawn is simply and straightforward. Meanwhile, my only effort to generate counterplay hinged on a mating attack employing either quuen and knight against f7 (easily stopped) or creating a battery of heavy pieces on the h-file (nearly impossible).
15...a5
15...Qxd4 and Black is clearly better.
16.Rd1
16.Be3
16...Nxc4 17.Qxc4 Nd5 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Bxb4 Nxb4 20.Ne4
20.Rac1
20...Nd5 21.Qe2 Rac8 22.Nc5 Rfd8 23.Qf3 Qc6 24.Nd3 Qb6 25.Ne5 Nf6 26.g4?
26...Rc7
26...Rxd4! 27.g5 Rxd1+ 28.Rxd1 and White can consider resigning.
27.Rac1
27.g5 would at least be consistent with my desperate plan to go all in for checkmate. Of course, Black maintains an advantage and a comfortable game.
27...Rxc1 28.Rxc1–+ Qxd4 29.Qg3 Nd5 30.Nf3 Qxb2 31.Rd1 Qc2 32.Rd2 Qxa4 33.Qh4 Qa1+ 34.Kg2
34...f6
34...Nf4+! wins more quickly, as I showed my opponent after the game. 35.Kg3 Rxd2 36.Nxd2 f6 37.g5 (37.Kxf4 g5+) 37...e5-+.
35.g5 b5 36.Nd4 Kf7 37.Qh3 Nf4+ 0–1
Frostad's play was solid enough to let me self-destruct. He went on to win the event and gets to play the city champion is a four game match in August. He is the second lowest rated player to play in our city championship (see "Fifteen Minutes"). I wish him well.
The loss of time with the Ne2 maneuver is a feature that I note with some frequency in my lessons with young students. Once these young players reach the point where they can understand three move tactics and are ready for complete games, we go through the eighteen games that Paul Morphy played in the First American Chess Congress. In his first game, James Thompson wasted time playing Ne2. His plan was grounded in a tactical shot aimed at the f5 square. Morphy calculated the tactics one move deeper and gained a clear edge via a zwischenzug.
Thompson,James -- Morphy,Paul [C50]
USA–01.Kongress New York (1.1), 1857
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 h6
6.Ne2 d6 7.c3 0–0 8.h3 Kh8 9.Ng3 Nh7 10.Qc2
White's play is grounded in the belief that Black's intent to push f7-f5 fails tactically.
10...f5!
Morphy understood both Thompson's plan and the tactical refutation.
11.exf5
11...d5
The zwischenzug.
12.Bb3 e4 13.dxe4 dxe4 14.Ng1 Ne5 15.Be3 Nd3+ 16.Ke2 Bxe3 17.fxe3 Qh4 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Qxd3 Qxg2+ 20.Kd1 Bxf5 21.Qe2 Qxh1 0–1
There is a moral to this story. If I insist on making the sort of moves that I teach my young students to avoid, I will lose. Regular readers may recall another tragicomic loss when I failed to heed a lesson from a familiar Morphy game (see "Knowing Better").
My play was mixed again this weekend. I won my first round game on the Black side of a Ragozin--the first time I had played this opening in over-the-board play. I had been reading The Ragozin Complex (2011) by Vladimir Barsky and practicing the opening in some online blitz (see "Opening Inaccuracy" [2014]).
On Sunday, I played a long and interesting game against a former student, a three-time elementary state champion finishing his sixth grade year. He is growing accustomed to beating the A Class players who occupy the top tier of players in my city. In round three, he beat the player I had defeated in round one. We played a long game that ended in a draw. After he offered a draw on move 46, I tortured him as long as I could, struggling in vain to provoke an error. I had trained him well in the endgame and he refused to crack. After twenty moves of probing, I exchanged my rook for his bishop and advanced pawn and we played out the dead drawn pawn ending rapidly until stalemate on move 79.
Then, in round five, I misplayed a Sicilian Kan in the same manner that I have done in the past and was essentially lost by move eleven. I played another fourteen moves attempting tricks, all of which failed.
In the second round, Saturday afternoon, I played the lowest rated player. I had beaten him in all of our prior encounters and sat at the board with confidence. We quickly reached a familiar tableau.
Stripes,James (1811) -- Frostad,John (1608) [D18]
Spokane Contenders Spokane (2), 04.06.2016
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0–0 0–0
White to move
9.Ne2?
In 2007, I played 9.Qe2 against my phone, a RAZR running Chessmaster. I won that game easily. I also played 9.Ne2 once before in a correspondence game that I lost after a long struggle.
Perhaps the question mark is not fully warranted. Several strong Grandmasters have played this move, although the highest rated Black player who has lost is Rok Hrzica 2296.
The central problem with this move is that it wastes tempi, conceding the initiative to Black. In the game, I not only expended several tempi to gain the bishop pair, but also failed to attend to the needs of my bishop on c4 and hence did not continue with a pair of bishops into the middle game.
9...Nbd7 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Nh4
Both 11.Bd2 and 11.b3 seem a little better.
11...c5 12.Nxg6
12.f4 was played in Bogoljubow,E -- Alekhine,A, London 1922, which was drawn in 70 moves.
12...hxg6 13.Qf3
13.dxc5 is probably best 13...Nxc5 (13...Ne5 and drawn in 58 moves,.Piket,J (2670) -- Shirov,A (2710), Aruba 1995) 14.Qe2 Nfe4 and Black went on to win a long struggle Rubinstein,A -- Alekhine,A, London 1922.
13...cxd4 14.exd4 Nb6
White to move
15.Qb3?
15.Bb3 keeps the prospect of maintaining a bishop pair alive. White is already suffering for his errors. Black's pieces are mobile and coordinated. Black's plan to eventually win the isolated d-pawn is simply and straightforward. Meanwhile, my only effort to generate counterplay hinged on a mating attack employing either quuen and knight against f7 (easily stopped) or creating a battery of heavy pieces on the h-file (nearly impossible).
15...a5
15...Qxd4 and Black is clearly better.
16.Rd1
16.Be3
16...Nxc4 17.Qxc4 Nd5 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Bxb4 Nxb4 20.Ne4
20.Rac1
20...Nd5 21.Qe2 Rac8 22.Nc5 Rfd8 23.Qf3 Qc6 24.Nd3 Qb6 25.Ne5 Nf6 26.g4?
Black to move
26...Rc7
26...Rxd4! 27.g5 Rxd1+ 28.Rxd1 and White can consider resigning.
27.Rac1
27.g5 would at least be consistent with my desperate plan to go all in for checkmate. Of course, Black maintains an advantage and a comfortable game.
27...Rxc1 28.Rxc1–+ Qxd4 29.Qg3 Nd5 30.Nf3 Qxb2 31.Rd1 Qc2 32.Rd2 Qxa4 33.Qh4 Qa1+ 34.Kg2
Black to move
34...f6
34...Nf4+! wins more quickly, as I showed my opponent after the game. 35.Kg3 Rxd2 36.Nxd2 f6 37.g5 (37.Kxf4 g5+) 37...e5-+.
35.g5 b5 36.Nd4 Kf7 37.Qh3 Nf4+ 0–1
Frostad's play was solid enough to let me self-destruct. He went on to win the event and gets to play the city champion is a four game match in August. He is the second lowest rated player to play in our city championship (see "Fifteen Minutes"). I wish him well.
The loss of time with the Ne2 maneuver is a feature that I note with some frequency in my lessons with young students. Once these young players reach the point where they can understand three move tactics and are ready for complete games, we go through the eighteen games that Paul Morphy played in the First American Chess Congress. In his first game, James Thompson wasted time playing Ne2. His plan was grounded in a tactical shot aimed at the f5 square. Morphy calculated the tactics one move deeper and gained a clear edge via a zwischenzug.
Thompson,James -- Morphy,Paul [C50]
USA–01.Kongress New York (1.1), 1857
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 h6
White to move
6.Ne2 d6 7.c3 0–0 8.h3 Kh8 9.Ng3 Nh7 10.Qc2
White's play is grounded in the belief that Black's intent to push f7-f5 fails tactically.
10...f5!
Morphy understood both Thompson's plan and the tactical refutation.
11.exf5
Black to play
11...d5
The zwischenzug.
12.Bb3 e4 13.dxe4 dxe4 14.Ng1 Ne5 15.Be3 Nd3+ 16.Ke2 Bxe3 17.fxe3 Qh4 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Qxd3 Qxg2+ 20.Kd1 Bxf5 21.Qe2 Qxh1 0–1
There is a moral to this story. If I insist on making the sort of moves that I teach my young students to avoid, I will lose. Regular readers may recall another tragicomic loss when I failed to heed a lesson from a familiar Morphy game (see "Knowing Better").
08 April 2014
Bailing Out
During a little more exploration of an obscure variation (the Ragozin), I found a game where Karel Opočenský (1892-1975) disliked the line he had chosen in this opening against Jindrich Engel, Bad Sliac 1932.
Did Black have anything better than 15...Rxg2+ and the following forced repetition?
Black to move
Did Black have anything better than 15...Rxg2+ and the following forced repetition?
01 April 2014
Opening Inaccuracy
Chess is so deep and varied that even on the sixth move in a familiar line, one can reach new positions. Yesterday, I had the Black side of a Nimzo-Indian Defense that transposed into a somewhat obscure line of the Queen's Gambit Declined.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 d5
4...c5 is the normal move in the spirit of the Nimzo-Indian Defense.
5.Qa4 Nc6 6.e3
6.Bg5 is almost as popular and is given in the first four lines of the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. It may be of interest that in Chess Informant 10/600 Vladimir Sokolov judged 6.Bg5 as dubious, suggesting 6.e3. Perhaps 6.e3 is slightly more accurate than 6.Bg5. Even so, both moves have been played often.
6...O-O appears to be the normal move here. My 6...Bd7 is the second most popular choice. Zoltan Gyimesi is the highest rated player who has played 6...Bd7 and he lost that game in a queen ending with most of the pawns remaining on the board and a nearly locked position.
It is hard to blame the opening for that loss. Nonetheless, the scoring percentage differences between 6...O-O and 6...Bd7 seem significant. White scores 55.6% over 411 games after Black castles. In the 55 available games with 6...Bd7, White's score jumps to 68.2%.
In my game, my position quickly grew poor with terrible piece coordination. My position was lost until my opponent blundered an exchange that led to an ending where I had a rook against a knight. All the pawns eventually came off and the game was drawn.
Is 6...Bd7 an inaccuracy, perhaps even an error? I think so.
6...Bd7 forces White's queen to move a second time due to the threatened discovery. 6...O-O steps out of the pin. Perhaps the queen then has less purpose on a4 and will be compelled to move again when Black's bishop is no longer a target.
Why is it an error? Does the bishop have a better square? It may. In games where Black castles, the bishop often goes to d7, but sometimes it goes to e6 or f5. In a few games, it takes up a position on b7. The major problem with 6...Bd7 is that it wastes time. Pieces should be placed on their best squares when they move for the first time. It is not clear in the diagram position where this bishop will be best placed. It is clear, however, that Black will castle kingside.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 d5
4...c5 is the normal move in the spirit of the Nimzo-Indian Defense.
5.Qa4 Nc6 6.e3
6.Bg5 is almost as popular and is given in the first four lines of the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. It may be of interest that in Chess Informant 10/600 Vladimir Sokolov judged 6.Bg5 as dubious, suggesting 6.e3. Perhaps 6.e3 is slightly more accurate than 6.Bg5. Even so, both moves have been played often.
Black to move
6...O-O appears to be the normal move here. My 6...Bd7 is the second most popular choice. Zoltan Gyimesi is the highest rated player who has played 6...Bd7 and he lost that game in a queen ending with most of the pawns remaining on the board and a nearly locked position.
It is hard to blame the opening for that loss. Nonetheless, the scoring percentage differences between 6...O-O and 6...Bd7 seem significant. White scores 55.6% over 411 games after Black castles. In the 55 available games with 6...Bd7, White's score jumps to 68.2%.
In my game, my position quickly grew poor with terrible piece coordination. My position was lost until my opponent blundered an exchange that led to an ending where I had a rook against a knight. All the pawns eventually came off and the game was drawn.
Is 6...Bd7 an inaccuracy, perhaps even an error? I think so.
6...Bd7 forces White's queen to move a second time due to the threatened discovery. 6...O-O steps out of the pin. Perhaps the queen then has less purpose on a4 and will be compelled to move again when Black's bishop is no longer a target.
Why is it an error? Does the bishop have a better square? It may. In games where Black castles, the bishop often goes to d7, but sometimes it goes to e6 or f5. In a few games, it takes up a position on b7. The major problem with 6...Bd7 is that it wastes time. Pieces should be placed on their best squares when they move for the first time. It is not clear in the diagram position where this bishop will be best placed. It is clear, however, that Black will castle kingside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
