Outpost: Threat and Execution

In the 1990s, I read Peter Romanovsky's subchapter, "The Eternal Knight", in Chess Middlegame Planning (1990) and found it a useful beginning towards the understanding of outposts. Michael Stean's discussion in Simple Chess (1978) takes my understanding a step further. At the end of his first illustrative game, Stean notes:

Particularly noteworthy was the terrible restraining influence exerted on Black by the continual threat of Nd5. Having completed his development very harmoniously. Black found it difficult to undertake any active plan without allowing the inevitable Nd5. Indeed, he only had to decentralise one piece (20...Na5) and the White knight jumped down his throat.
Stean, Simple Chess, 18.

This game, Tal -- Bronstein, USSR Championship 1959, was my lesson of the week for my advanced students. We started with this postion.

White to move

With a definition of outposts written on the white board, I asked students to identify the outposts in this position.

An outpost is a square that might be occupied by one's own piece, ideally supported by one's pawn, and that cannot be attacked by an enemy pawn. With some guidance, the students were able to see that d5 was an outpost for White's pieces, and that d3 was a potential outpost for Black.

We then went through the bulk of the game and Stean's comments.

The diagram above is prior to 14.Nf1. The knight finally occupies the critical outpost of d5 on move 22.

White to move

Stean comments:

The moment we've all been waiting for, not to mention the white queen, rook, and bishop who have been patiently queuing up behind the e-pawn for some time. White's decision to play his trump card now is prompted by the fact that Black's knight has been drawn out of play to a5. This may not seem to be very significant, but with the rapid opening up of the position which must surely follow, the abscence of even a single piece from the central field of battle will cause great difficulties for Black. Stean, Simple Chess, 16.

The game as whole is interesting and serves as a good example of employing the threat of an outpost as a strategic and tactical weapon. Restraining the opponent's choices via the threat to occupy an outpost is a notion less evident in Romanovsky's treatment of this topic.


Beginning Students

My beginning students this week solved the problems in Beginning Tactics 9 (see "Lesson of the Week" [13 December 2012]). When they stumbled on the seventh problem, I showed them the game Mayet -- Anderssen 1851 (see "Sacrificial Attack").

A Nice Win

Simple Chess

I have been playing correspondence chess on ChessWorld.net for eleven years, longer than any other site where I play at present. It was the third website that I joined for this sort of chess. First was Net-Chess.com in early 2003. Then GameKnot. Ironically, someone in the forums at GameKnot alerted me to the existence of ChessWorld.net. Someone alleged that ChessWorld.net was created by a disaffected former GameKnot member and that CW was inferior to GK. I decided to take a look for myself.

ChessWorld.net is vastly superior to GameKnot in my opinion. The site design is more robust and users have far more options for tweaking the interface. A nice feature of CW that I have not found on other sites is pie charts showing a player's performance.

My Performance

Although I have an overall positive record, my score is 50% in my usual rating group (2000-2200). I have recently risen above 2200, and had done so in the past as well. Staying there may prove difficult. My peak rating on the site is 2262 (280 above my peak USCF). Against opponents above 2280, I have only seven wins in 56 games. Four of these have been on time. Three times I have outplayed my opponent in the top several rating groups.

Pie charts for various rating groups shows how I have performed against those rated higher than me.

Performance Against 1800+

My third earned victory over a player above 2280 ended last night. The game began at the end of July 2014. My opponent played the Budapest Gambit, an opening that has given me trouble over the years.

I only checked two positions in my annotations with Stockfish.

Stripes,J (2202) -- Internet Opponent (2355) [A51]
www.ChessWorld.net, 31.07.2014

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 

3...Ng4 has given me trouble in a few games.

4.Nf3 d6 5.Nbd2 Bf5 6.Nxe4 Bxe4

White to move

7.Qb3N

7.Ng5 has been played in a couple of games, and is the engine's choice. I had the notion to play this move next. 7...Bg6 8.e6 fxe6 9.Nxe6 Qd7 10.Nf4 led to a win by White in 42 moves in Veingold,A (2465) -- Carpintero,J (2265), Linares 1994.

7...Bxf3 8.exf3

8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.exd6 Bxd6 struck me as offering Black good compensation for the pawn. Instead, I wanted to get my pieces into play. I was spending a lot of time on Paul Morphy's games during this phase of the game. That probably influenced my decision.

8...b6 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Be2 0–0 11.0–0 Re8 12.Be3 c5 13.Rad1 Qc7 14.g3 Nc6 15.Rd5 Rad8 16.Rfd1

Both players have completed their development, as the classicists say.

Black to move

16...Ne7 17.R5d2 Nf5 18.Bf1

Removing the bishop as a potential target so my rooks would be free to roam on the d-file.

18.f4 was an alternative.

18...Nxe3 19.fxe3 Be7 20.Rd5 Bf6 21.Kg2 Qe7 22.Qd3

Black to move 

Offering the b-pawn. I was willing to trade rooks if I also could swap queens and keep an extra pawn.

22...Rxd5

22...Bxb2?? 23.Rxd8 Qxe3 (23...Rxd8 24.Qxd8+ Qxd8 25.Rxd8#) 24.Qxe3+-.

23.cxd5

I like having a passed pawn backed by heavy pieces.

23...Bxb2?

I am not certain that this move was Black's most significant error, but my road to victory seemed relatively uncomplicated afterwards. I had to attend to simple tactics and a lot of queen maneuvers.

23...Rd8 24.d6 Qe6 25.b3 Be5 26.d7 and White's advantage seems less significant.

24.d6 Qd7

24...Qf6 25.d7 Rd8 26.Qe4 Kf8 27.Bb5 Qe7 28.Qxh7 g6 29.Qh6+ Bg7 30.Qf4±.

25.Qb3

Black to move

A fork of piece and square.

25...Re6

25...Bf6 26.Bb5+-.

26.Qxb2+- Rxd6 27.Rxd6 Qxd6

I would like to trade queens, but my opponent understands this goal and refuses to cooperate. As long as his queen remains, he has the chance, however remote, to force a draw by repetition or even to sneak in a checkmate.

28.Qc2 Qe7 29.Qd2 g6 30.Kf2 Kg7 31.e4 h5 32.h4 Qe6 33.Qd5 Qe7 34.f4 f6 35.Bc4 Qe8 36.Ke3 a6

White to move

37.Qb7+! 

Another fork. This move eliminates Black's chances for counterplay with his queenside pawns.

37...Kh6 38.Qxb6 f5

Decision time.

White to move

39.Qxc5

I was willing to suffer some checks, secure in the knowledge that my queen and bishop were well positioned to weave a mating net once Black had driven my king to h3. Of course, I had to verify that my opponent would not have a free move to play Qh1#!

39...Qxe4+ 40.Kf2 Qc2+ 41.Kg1 Qc1+

I expected 41...Qb1+ 42.Kh2 Qb2+ 43.Kh3 Qb8.

42.Kg2 Qc2+

Still expecting 42...Qb2+ 43.Kh3 Qb8.

43.Kh3 Qc3

43...Qe4 44.Qf8+ Kh7 45.Bg8+ Kh8 46.Bf7+ Kh7 47.Qg8+ Kh6 48.Qh8#.

44.Qf8+

Black to move

44...Kh7

44...Qg7 45.Qxg7+ Kxg7 46.Bxa6+-.

45.Bg8+ Black resigned 1–0

I had played relatively slowly through the first 25-30 moves and had lost the other game with this opponent on time because I failed to log in one weekend. The game was seven days per move. My opponent had slowed down and played each move this summer when he was under twenty hours remaining.

After playing 45.Bg8+, I left him a note with the moves to checkmate. With one day remaining on the clock, he resigned.

An Exchange versus the Bishop Pair

In a recent game on ChessByPost, my opponent committed an all-too frequent error* in the King's Indian Defense that left me ahead an exchange. However, I failed to convert my advantage and had to settle for a draw.

White to move

I could not find a clear way to make progress here. My plan was to improve my king's position, sacrifice the rook for Black's light-squared bishop, and pick up the resulting weak c-pawn. I overlooked a simple tactic that dropped the b-pawn, still sacrificed the exchange, and had a king no more active than my opponent's.

Perhaps it is time to invest effort studying Michael Stean, Simple Chess, or some other book concerned with patiently nursing a clear advantage.


*My highest rated win on Chess.com was against an opponent who made this error. I was able to convert the advantage to an easily won pawn ending. In the 2009 Washington Open, my first round opponent committed the same opening error, and there also I had to settle for a draw.

Training Log: June 2013

Two distractions stifled my efforts to meet my training goals this past month. One is a blessing; the other is a curse. The time that I invested creating 94 tactics problems from the games of Gioachino Greco and Andre Philidor for my chess camp workbook reduced the time available for my own training. I value the privilege that I have to work with local youth on their chess skills. Over the long run, this work has helped improve my own play as well.

For several days after camp, which had been the peneultimate week of June, I fell prey to my chronic blitz addiction. I will neither admit the number of games played, nor the names of the several sites that held my interest. Suffice it to say that many hours were burned away, and there is little to show other than more object lessons in tactical errors than I will ever find occasion to use in teaching or training.

1. In 2013, I will solve correctly 300 tactics problems each month.

I correctly solved exactly 300 problems in June. More than 200 of these were solved in the past week, and more than 100 in the past two days. The calendar feature offered by Chess Tempo reveals both the frantic pace to finish the months goal as June waned, and the gross number of errors provoked by this push.

I have completed the first 254 problems in the Anthology of Chess Combinations, including all of the first sets of "instructive combinations with a mating attack". A significant number of the problems solved this month (90) were exercises in the Chess-Wise Pro iPad app. These problems, unfortunately, do not test calculation of move sequences. The first move of the combination is all that is required, or even possible to enter. I am thinking that on the third time through these 300 exercises, I might enter them  in a database so as to locate sources and verify solutions with an engine.

2. In 2013, I will study whole games and whole books.

I continued working my way through Max Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1968). I also resumed work with Logical Chess: Move by Move. I also started my process of going through Michael Stean, Simple Chess (1968). With Logical Chess and Simple Chess, I study an unannotated version of each game before reading the notes in the book.

I went through a considerable number of games oriented toward my preparation for a match against Michael Cambareri for the city championship. Yesterday, Nikolay Bulakh defeated Michael in their Contenders Tournament game. As a consequence, I will be playing Nikolay for the title in two weeks.

3. In 2013, I will finish my Pawn Endgame Flash Card project.

Progress studying Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual did not go forward in June.

4. In 2013, I will lose fifteen pounds.

I may have gained weight in June.

Space

The concept of space in chess is difficult. It "is not an easily definable or recognisable concept," according to Michael Stean. In Simple Chess (1978), Stean offers the capacity of a position as a guide. "Any given pawn structure has a certain capacity for accomodating pieces efficiently. Exceed this capacity and the pieces get in each other's way, and so reduce their mutual activity" (97).

Stean illustrates capacity with two positions that have an identical pawn structure. They are differentiated by the number of pieces on the board. In the first position, all of the pieces remain and White has a clear advantage with more space to manuever. In the second position, both players have traded off a knight and a bishop. White is overextended and Black has the advantage. With less space, Black's position lacks the capacity for the full complement of chess pieces. With two fewer pieces, "the size of Black's forces is here well within his position's 'capacity'" (98).

This diagram illustrates Stean's second position. In the first, White has an additional knight on c3 and bishop on e2. Black has a knight on f6 and bishop on c8. Black's position is congested.

In the old Modern School, space is one of the three elements, or "basic factors". Siegbert Tarrasch wrote, "the more space a player commands the freer his game and the easier his development" (The Game of Chess [1935], 225). Space triumphs the other factors.

The systematic utilisation of Space, or, to put it another way, the systematic disposition of the pieces, is the most important factor in a game of chess and, within certain limits, even more important than Force, that is to say than a superiority in material. Often a win is obtained because one player forces a decisively better position by a sacrifice of material--a triumph of mind over matter.
Tarrasch, The Game of Chess, 227.

Space is calculated by counting the number of squares that are controlled in the other player's side of the board. But matters are not so simple. In The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld present the game Tarrasch -- Marco, Vienna 1898. After 25...Bf6, the game reached this position.

White to move

Counting squares reveals, they note, "the players each control about the same number of squares" (380). However, Black is unable to make use of his greater space on the queenside. White's advantage on the kingside is of more account. White's pieces have greater mobility, and as a consequence, a combination is possible.

They observe at the beginning of their article on space that the terms space and mobility are sometimes indistinguishable.

To gain an advantage in space is to achieve the possibility of moving one's men to more squares than are available to the opponent's men. Not all the squares "gained" need to be controlled--they may simply be inaccessible to the opponent's men. Normally, to gain space is to gain mobility, and the terms are frequently synonymous.
Hooper & Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 379.

Stean does not use the terms interchangeably. Rather, mobility "is the essence of simple chess," and space is "the single most important factor in determining mobility" (97). Space, thus, appears to be a means to an end, and that end is mobility. The terms are not so much interchangeable as primary and secondary. Mobility is a principal factor in chess positions; space is important when it affects mobility.

Mobility, according to Dan Heisman, is an "element of positional evaluation," while space is a pseudo-element. In Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power, 4th edition (2010), Heisman asserts that, "space is not an end in itself, nor even a means to an end other than mobility/activity" (Loc 1528, emphasis in original). Heisman's examples are somewhat extreme, as he acknowledges, but his conclusion appears in harmony with Stean's discussion.

Mobility can be measured and quantified, just as can space according to some definitions. Activity is subjective, Heisman asserts. Activity is "how much the piece can do in an actual position" (Loc 744). Mobile pieces are more likely to be active.

Heisman offers an interesting position from the Deep Blue -- Kasparov rematch.

Black to move

Black has more pieces on White's half of the board, and contests more squares there. Black has more space. Heisman does not mention space in relation to this position, however. He employs it to assert the relation between mobility (quantifiable) and activity (subjective). White's pieces contest every entry point along the d-file, which at first glance appears to be controlled by a Black rook on d8. The other Black rook supports a passed pawn, but that pawn is blockaded by a White knight. Despite a quatifiable advantage in both material and mobility, Black lost this game. Heisman observes, "the rooks have good mobility but not all that much activity" (Loc 751). Heisman sees mobilty as the "basic tool," but activity is "the better 'real position' indicator" (Loc 759).

Might we conclude that space, the old "basic factor," can be understood better insofar as it contributes to mobility, and mobility is an element insofar as it correlates with activity? How do we distinguish activity from Stean's notion of capacity? Capacity is a static concept. Activity might be a consequence of adequate capacity. But for pieces to experience activity, they need targets. Hence the opponent's position must exhibit some vulnerability that can be attacked.

Training Log: Chess Skill Study Plan

Perhaps I will be able to maintain habitual logging of my training progress on a weekly basis. If so, this post shall be the inaugural effort. More than two months ago, I set out part of my study plan in "New Year's Resolutions." Seven weeks later, I noted my failure in "Accountability". Despite this failure, my initial rating goal for the year was achieved (with interest!) in my first event of 2012. My desire to do well in the 20th Dave Collyer Memorial motivated certain efforts. My astounding success taking second place drives me to redouble efforts to aim higher through more consistent, better focused training.

The past week has been difficult for chess training as I was suffering from a late-winter cold. I missed no work and was productive blogging. But, the discipline to sit at a table with a chess book or chess board proved beyond the level of motivation that I was able to muster. I focused reasonable efforts in some games against several computer adversaries. See my "Ohm Chess for iPad: Review," "Chess Pro V for iPad: Review," and "King Safety." The last of these may have been the most useful: battling unsuccessfully, and then after take-backs with success, against Rybka 4 from a position that Judit Polgar evaluated as having a decisive advantage. It is vital to develop the skill of gaining the full point from a technical win due to positional domination while a piece down.

This past week, I spent no time with Imagination in Chess nor Chess Training Pocket Book II. The Resolution for 2012 had been:

Spend thirty minutes once per week solving problems in Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book II and Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess.

I spent no time with my pawn endgame flash card project, but did spend time reviewing some positions therein while teaching from my unexpected win in the last round of the Collyer. I explained the difference between these two zugzwang positions to some elementary students.

The player to move must lose a pawn, but still draws the game.

The player to move loses the game

Teaching the benefits of my training regimen is no substitute for following it.

I fell short of my goal of 50 tactics exercises this week, but did not closely track the total. Weekly reports on my progress may improve this tracking. Hence, my current tally in the Shredder iPad app's puzzles:

1331 puzzles: 10445/13310 points 78%
last 10 puzzles: 76/100 76%

This week some recent purchases arrived in the mail. I plan to incorporate Michael Stean, Simple Chess (1978) into my training. Chess Informants 107-112 also arrived. Among my initial use of these CDs, I easily found the breakthrough from this position, but faltered a bit in the resulting queen ending.

White to move

The past week was neither an abysmal failure nor a clear success.