Poor Development

Konstantin Sakaev and Konstantin Landa, The Complete Manual of Positional Chess: Opening and Middlegame (2016) begins with development. They state, "everyone is aware of the rule [rapid development], but when it comes to practical play, one often sees players struck by 'amnesia'" (18). The first three examples show Mikhail Tal exploiting this amnesia when it afflicts normally strong players.

Wolfgang Uhlmann, the victim in the first example, annotated the game for Chess Informant 12. Tal's annotations appear in Life and Games of Mikhail Tal (1997). Prior to the game, Tal prepared a surprise for Uhlmann: his fifth move, which had appeared in some previous games and had been recommended by Alekhine.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.Ngf3 Nc6 5.Bb5

The surprise! Uhlmann gives the move !? and the same annotation to his reply, which Tal reports that took more than twenty minutes off Uhlmann's clock (437).

Black to move

5...dxe5

Sakaev and Landa assert that this move is dubious.

6.Nxe4 Bd7 7.Bg5!

Tal, Uhlmann, and the authors of The Complete Manual of Positional Chess all agree on the excellence of this move, developing with tempo.

Other examples of amnesia recently came up in my reading and play. Leonid Stein fell to a beautiful attack by the relatively unknown Leonid Remeyuk in the 1959 Ukranian Championship. The game is annotated in P.H. Clarke, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963).

White to move

White played 10.Bxb5+ and Stein resigned nine moves later.

Clarke writes, "White is so indignant at the sight of the text move, which disdains the principle he himself has been so careful to keep, that he there and then determines to punish the offender" (78).

Another example was selected yesterday by my advanced students in an after school chess club. They started by looking for Adolf Anderssen's final assault in his first game against Howard Staunton at the 1851 London tournament.

White to move

Staunton's problems began early.

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nxd4 Bc5

4...a6 or a knight move is normal today.

5.Nc3 a6

5...Qb6 would at least apply some pressure on the knight.

6.Be3 Ba7 7.Bd3

White's lead in development should be abundantly clear. I tried to tell the students that Staunton had taken a journey through time on the T.A.R.D.I.S., met Ilya Kan, and learned some of Kan's ideas in the Sicilian Defense, but did not absorb the lessons well. They did not believe my story, finding time travel unlikely.

Black to move

In a rapid game this morning, I was presented with the opportunity to apply the lessons from these games.

White to move

15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bg3?

And I blew it immediately. 16.Nxe6 rips open the center and defends the attacked bishop. Black's best response would have been 16...Nxf4, when White has several winning lines.

16...g5?? 17.Bh5

Again, Nxe6 is best, but this time my move is good enough to secure a decisive advantage.

17...Bg7 18.Nxe6! Qf6

White to move

I did not always find the best move with such a smorgasbord of winning choices, but I punished Black for poor development nonetheless. 

Staunton Annotates

The game below was the eleventh game in the 1843 match between Howard Staunton and Pierre Charles Fourier de Saint Amant. The match was held in Paris over the course of six weeks in November and December. An earlier match in London had been won by Saint Amant 3 1/2 - 2 1/2.

This game came to my attention as I was studying Rubinstein,A. -- Heilmann,E., Barman 1905.

I transcribed the notes from Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player's Companion (London 1849). Nick Pope also has transcribed these notes, as well as notes on the game from another publication by Staunton, and Saint Amant's notes from Le Palamède (see Chess Archaeology)

De Saint Amant,Pierre Charles Fourier -- Staunton,Howard [D40]
Match Staunton-Saint Amant, 02.12.1843

1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.e3

"It is not advisable for the opening player, in games of this description, to carry his Q. B. over to the K's side, on account of the attack the adversary obtains by playing his Q. to her Kt.'s 3rd." (Staunton)

3...c5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6

White to move

This symmetrical position has occurred in more than 9000 games since the historic 1843 match. I've had it myself fifty times or more, playing both sides. Symmetry generally slightly favors the player with the move.

6.a3 b6

"The importance and utility of this move, when made at the proper moment, have been indisputably proved, we think, by the earlier games; it is evidently premature, however, and made without reflection here." (Staunton)

6...cxd4 7.exd4 would be my suggestion. But, even 6...a6, maintaining the symmetry, is better than Staunton's move. Heilmann repeated this folly in 1905 and lost a miniature to Rubinstein.

7.cxd5 (5)

The number in parentheses indicates the amount of time Saint Amant spent thinking on this move. Captain Harry Wilson accompanied Staunton on the trip to Paris and kept a log of the time used by each player in games 2 through 15. Staunton published lists of move times of every move where five minutes or more were spent. These times appear in the annotated game here.

7...exd5 8.Bb5

Black to move

8...Bb7

"We agree with M. St. Amant in believing that Black would have avoided the loss of a Pawn by playing the B. to Q's 2nd, instead of the Kt.'s 2nd." (Staunton)

Staunton is referencing Saint Amant's annotations in Le Palamède,

8...Bd7 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Bxb5 11.Nxb5 Ng8 and White won in 38 moves, Correa,A (2345) -- Van Riemsdijk,H (2435) Brasilia 1994.

9.Ne5 [5] Rc8 [5] 10.Qa4 Qc7 [5] 11.Qxa7 [8] Be7

White to move

Staunton spent 8 minutes on Be7, and commented, "He does not appear to have any better move."

12.Bxc6+

Saint Amant initiates a series of exchanges that seem to me to relieve the pressure on Black's position, but also leaves White a pawn ahead. In a comment on the next game, Staunton references a remark in another of his publications, the Chess Player's Chronicle:

“As M. St. Amant, during the latter games of the match, played mainly to draw, and Mr. Staunton solely to win, the former estimating a remise as a victory, and his opponent looking on it as a defeat, it frequently happened that, while M. St . A. sought eagerly for every opportunity of exchanging Pieces, Mr. S. sacrificed position and occasionally the game itself to prevent him.” (C.P.C., vol. v., p. 44) 

I considered several alternatives for White:

a) 12.Qa4 0–0 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 (13...Ra8?? loses a piece 14.Nxe7+ Qxe7 15.Qd1) 14.Bxc6 Qxc6 15.Qxc6 Rxc6;
b) 12.0–0 0–0 13.Bxc6 (13.Nxc6 Bd6 (13...Bxc6 14.Qxc7 Rxc7 15.a4!) 14.Na4 Bxh2+ 15.Kh1 Bd6 16.Qxb6+–) 13...Bxc6 14.Qxc7 Rxc7;
c) 12.Bd2 0–0 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Qxc7 Rxc7 15.Nxc6 Rxc6 16.f3

12...Bxc6 13.Qxc7 Rxc7 14.Nxc6 Rxc6 15.0–0

Black to move

15...Kd7 (5)

"This is far better than castling, because it brings the King more immediately within the sphere of his Pieces' operation." (Staunton)

16.Rd1 c4 17.f3

"Well played, and a difficult move for White to answer."

Staunton's comment does not make sense. Perhaps he means that it is difficult for Black to answer, or perhaps a printing error appended the comment to the wrong move. Perhaps it should appear in reference to Black's 16...c4. Nick Pope gives only "well played" after White's move.

17...Rd8

White to move

18.Bd2 (6)

"Better, we should have thought, to advance the K. P. at once." (Staunton)

18...h6 19.Na2 g5

Here Staunton praises his own play: "By the vigour and boldness of the attack on this side Black nullities the inequality of force."

20.Bb4 Re6

"With the intent to double his Rooks, when circumstances require him to do so." (Staunton)

21.Bxe7 Rxe7 22.Kf2

Black to move

22...g4 23.Nc3 h5 24.Re1 Rde8 (5) 25.Re2 h4 26.Rae1 Rg8

White to move

27.e4 (8) 27...g3+

"Compelling the King to retreat again." (Staunton)

28.Kg1 dxe4 29.Nxe4 Nxe4 30.fxe4

"Taking the Kt. with the R. would possibly have been better." (Staunton)

30...Rg4 (6) 31.hxg3 hxg3

White to move

32.Re3

"This was an important precaution lest Black should double his Rooks on the K. R's file. It also enables White, at the fitting moment, to place his R. on the K. B's 3rd." (Staunton)

32...b5 33.R1e2 (7)

"To afford his K. an opportunity of passing over to the Q's side." (Staunton)

33.Kf1 f6 (33...Rf4+ 34.Rf3) 34.Ke2?? obviously fails.

33...Re8 15 minutes--Staunton's longest think of the game.

White to move

34.Kf1 15 minutes--Saint Amant's longest think of the game

34...Kd6 35.Ke1 (7) 35...Rf4 (10) 36.Kd2

"By taking the Kt. P. he must have sacrificed his Pawns in the centre." (Staunton)

For instance, 36.Rxg3 Rexe4 37.Rxe4 Rxe4+ 38.Kf2 Rxd4 39.Ke2 and the position seems equal to me.

36...f5

White to move

37.Rxg3 (10)

Better might have been 37.exf5 Rxe3 38.Rxe3 Rf2+ 39.Kc3 Rxg2 when White has a slight advantage.

37...Rfxe4 38.Rxe4 Rxe4 39.Kc3 Kd5 40.Rf3 f4

White to move

41.g3 (5)

"From this point Black has a 'forced won' game." Staunton is correct. Saint Amant just blundered away the game.

41...Re3+ 42.Rxe3 fxe3 43.Kc2

"He has nothing better to play." (Staunton)  

Black to move

43...Ke4

And Staunton has just blundered the game back. 

 "We have here a second instance where a momentary relaxation loses Mr. S. the honours of a well-won victory when just within his reach. To any one who has never undergone the punishment of playing an arduous game of many hours' duration in a densely crowded room, such a lapse as Black's in the present, or in Game IX, may well appear inexplicable, but those players who have, will know the difficulty of keeping up the preternatural tension of the mind required so long, without a disposition to relieve it by one hasty move. The want of reflection in the present cases must be admitted to have been mortifying enough. Of the twelve first games these two, (and these actually given him,) were the only two games scored by the French player, consequently, but for them, he would actually have lost the match without winning a single game!" (Staunton)

Staunton presents the following variations in The Chess-Player's Companion

43...Kxd4 44.Kd1 (44.g4 Ke4 45.Kd1 (45.g5 Kf5) 45...Kf3 46.Ke1 Kxg4) 44...Kd3 45.g4 e2+ 46.Ke1 Kc2 47.g5 Kxb2 48.g6 c3 49.g7 c2 50.g8Q c1Q+ 51.Kxe2 Qc4+

44.Kd1

And now White has a winning ending.

Black to move

44...Kd3 45.d5 e2+ 46.Ke1 Kc2 47.d6 Kxb2 48.d7 c3 49.d8Q c2 50.Qd2 1-0

"And after a few moves Black resigned." (Staunton)

After this game, Staunton led the match 8-2. Game three had been drawn. Over the next ten games, Saint Amant won four, Staunton won three, and four games were drawn.

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 Restricted Center

Dutch versus the English

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

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

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

Staunton,H -- Horwitz,B
London 1851

1.c4 e6

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

2.Nc3 f5

Tartakower and DuMont comment:

Trying to revert to the Dutch Defence. But White, instead of playing 3.P-Q4, decides on a restricted centre (5.P-Q3), with action on the wings. (626)

This restricted center is more commonly known today as a small center. According to Hooper and Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd ed. (1996), "[a]s a strategic weapon for White the small centre was pioneered by Staunton" (375).

3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6

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

5.d3

Black to move

5...Na6

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

6.a3 Be7 7.e3

"The restricted centre" (Tartakower and Dumont).

7...O-O 8.Nge2

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

8...Nc7 9.O-O d5

Black has been preparing this move.

10.b3

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

Black to move

10...Qe8

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

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


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

**This nonsensical statement should be understood as irony.

Lesson of the Week

Remove the Guard

The students in my beginner's group solved nine problems on a worksheet and one on the demo board. Among the printed problems were two designed to help the young players perceive the solution to this position.

White to move

After the unplayed 10...Qh4??

This position originates in "what if" analysis of Anderssen -- Staunton, London 1851. While playing through historic games with young chess enthusiasts, we look at many moves that were not played. In some cases, we consider a move that a master such as Howard Staunton would have rejected instantly. Staunton would have found the tactical refutation as fast as he would have seen the plan to swap off Adolf Anderssen's strongest attacking piece.

In the game, Staunton played 10...Qc7. Even here, his position has several problems (see "Guioco Siciliano").

Beginning students, however, do not see such tactics instantly. Often, they do not see them at all. Training develops their vision. The solution to these two problems requires the same tactical idea that refutes a move that Staunton rejected.

White to move

White to move

My advanced students wanted a chess ladder to structure competition within the team, so they played the first round of our annual ladder tournament. Time for instruction was limited, but we went through part of the first game from the Anderssen -- Staunton match at the First International Chess Tournament, London 1851. We discussed White's advantage in mobility and piece coordination after Black's tenth move.

Despite the unenviable nature of Black's position, Staunton missed a chance to equalize six move later when Anderssen muffed the move order of his attack. A different tactical idea from the one above leads to equalization. Staunton should have seen it.

Black to move

After 16.g4?

Guioco Siciliano

In The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847), Howard Staunton extols the Sicilian Defense as Black's best reply to 1.e4.

In the opinion of Jaenisch and the authors of the German "Handbuch,"* with which I coincide, this is the best possible reply to the move of 1.P. to K's 4th, "as it renders the formation of a centre impracticable for White and prevents every attack." This defense is found in the earlier Italian works, and has been analysed by Philidor in the second edition (1777) of his treatise. In the appendix to Sarratt's translation of Damiano, Lopez, and Salvio, mention is made of some games at this opening, which the author had received as an extract from an old Italian MS. Sarratt has given us neither the name of the writer nor the date of the MS., but merely says: "These games are extracted from a scarce and valuable MS., which has been obligingly communicated to the editor by E. Morris, Esq., M.P., indisputably one of the ablest chess-players of the present day. This opening is called the 'GUIOCO SICILIANO'." (371)

It should come as no surprise, then, that Staunton employed the Sicilian Defense in his match against Adolf Anderssen at the First International Chess Tournament, which Stanton organized. I am reviewing the five games of this match this week. Two of them are the source for five middlegame positions in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge.

Late in 2014, I began systematically working through the games in GM-RAM at the rate of one game per week. As with every year long plan, I shifted study emphasis to other things mid-way through 2015. I have resolved to restore balance in 2016 between time spent on current Grandmaster games (mostly reading Chess Informant) and investing time with classic games (see "Year in Review 2015").

Monday morning I reviewed the first several positions from the middlegame section of GM-RAM. I created flash cards of the first 48 for this purpose (see image). The first card is from Mayet -- Anderssen, Berlin? 1859? (see "Training with Anderssen"). In a matter of seconds after glancing at the card, I saw both the end of the game and an unplayed variation. Checking the unplayed variation with Stockfish revealed that my line was the top computer choice for both sides several moves deep.

Through the next five cards, I knew how the games had proceeded at a glance and understood why Anderssen's position was best, but my analysis of variations was less sure. Reviewing these games seemed apropos. But, why review only the two games selected by Rashid Ziyatdinov? Why not review all five games of the match?

After running through all five games a couple of times rather quickly, I watched Kingscrusher's video on the first game "Evolution of Chess Style, #16." He makes the point that Staunton's fourth move is unusual, but probably playable.

The game began:

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nxd4 Bc5

The first four moves of Anderssen -- Staunton, game 1 are identical to the first game of the Paul Morphy -- Louis Paulsen match at the First American Chess Congress (1857). Moreover, three later games in this short match reached the same position after Black's fourth move. 4...Bc5 may be unusual today, but was it so in the 1850s?

I checked Staunton's Handbook to see whether he recommended 4...Bc5. He does not, but the variations that he offers seem even more strange to modern eyes. Nonetheless, it is interesting to observe that both the Grand Prix Attack (2.f4) and the Alapin (2.c3) are among the choices he lists for White on the second move. He also states that Jaenisch had favored 2.Nf3 as best, but had recently altered his view to embrace 2.d4.

As a consequence of studying this game and the first Morphy -- Paulsen game, I have been employing 2.d4 in many of my blitz games. Sometimes I continue with the Smith-Morra Gambit, but most often the game reaches a normal Sicilian via an offbeat move order.

In my study of Anderssen -- Staunton, I was able to correctly play through the whole of the first game of the match from memory this morning.

Staunton's comments harshly on his own play in The Chess Tournament (1852). Concerning the position after the tenth move (see image), he notes:

The opening of this wretched affair is a sufficient indication of how utterly unfitted Black was by suffering, to maintain his reputation in these encounters. Already he has permitted his antagonist to bring nearly every Piece into action, while his own are almost all locked up at home. (110)

This position is Ziyatdinov's second diagram. The author of GM-RAM suggest that the student should know at a glance the plans for both sides. Glancing at that card, thus, should include the memory that Staunton missed a chance to equalize six moves later. Kingscrusher wonders whether the game score is correct, however. It was Anderssen's play of 16.g4 before 17.Kh1 that presented this opportunity. With 16.Kh1 and 17.g4, the game would still proceed much as it did.



*C[arl] F. de Jaenisch, Jaenisch's Chess Preceptor: A New Analysis of the Openings of Games, trans. George Walker ([1843] 1847); Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa, ed., Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843).

Anderssen -- Staunton 1851

The fifth match game between Adolf Anderssen and Howard Staunton at the 1851 London International Chess Tournament is the source for three essential middlegame positions in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). I have been going through this game for the past few days and now sense that I am ready to post my initial annotations. This game and the one preceding it in Ziyatdinov's text have often slowed my efforts to work through the other games in the text. Staunton's play seems a little amateurish.

Anderssen,Adolf -- Staunton,Howard [C01]
London knockout London (3.5), 1851

1.e4 e6 2.d4 g6?!

This second move is not how the French Defense is played today.

3.Bd3 Bg7

Black assaults d4, attempting to weaken White's center. In this case, at least, Staunton's positional sense is consistent with twenty-first century practice.

4.Be3 c5 5.c3 cxd4 6.cxd4

Black to move

6...Qb6

The fork at the heart of Black's assault on d4. After the same initial five moves, Anderssen, playing Black, opted to continue his development, rather than win a pawn. 6...Nc6 7.Ne2 Nge7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Nbc3 d5 10.e5 f6 1–0 Morphy,P -- Anderssen,A Paris 1858 Morphy won in 35 moves.

7.Ne2 Qxb2 

Black has won a pawn at the cost of moblization of his forces.

8.Nbc3 Qb6 9.Rc1

This move is "well conceived", according to Staunton. Better than the more obvious Rb1, he states. Stockfish disagrees.

9.Rb1 Qa5 10.Bd2 (10.Rb5?! Qd8) 10...Nc6 11.Nb5 Qd8 and a clear advantage for White.

9...Na6

9...Ne7 10.d5 Qb4

10.Nb5 Bf8

10...Ne7 seems better to me. Even so, White already has a nice game.

11.d5 The threat that Staunton identified as rendering Bf8 necessary. 11...Qd8 12.Nd6+ (12.d6 Nc6) 12...Kf8 13.Nd4 -- with the idea of 14.Qf3, attacking the weakness of f7.

11.0–0 d6 12.d5 Qa5 13.Bd4 e5 14.Bc3 Qd8

White to move

GM-RAM Diagram 140

Only one of Black's pieces is off its starting square. All of White's pieces have moved, except the queen. Although down a pawn, White's pieces are in action.

See "To Know a Position."

15.f4‚ f6 16.fxe5 fxe5

Black's king cannot escape the center, but how will White break through to exploit its vulnerability?

17.Qa4

Beginning the assault on d6 with a threatened discovery.

17...Bd7

Pinning the knight prevents a discovered check, but reduces the defenders of d6.

18.Bb4 Nh6 19.Kh1

White avoids forks that defend d6.

19...Nf7

This position before White's move 20 is GM-RAM diagram 141.

20.Qa3

Black to move

20...Nc5

"Child's play. Throwing away his most important Pawn for nothing!" (Staunton)

I do not agree with Staunton's assessment here.

a) 20...Qe7

Hangs onto a material advantage, but leaves Black's position in shambles.

21.Nxd6+ Nxd6 22.Rxf8+! Qxf8 23.Bxd6 White's position is very strong.

b) 20...Qb8

Fails to bolster the pawn.

b1) 21.Rxf7!? Kxf7 22.Bxd6 (22.Nxd6+ Kg8 23.Bxa6 bxa6 24.Ng1 with compensation for the material) 22...Bxd6 23.Nxd6+ Kg7 24.Nxb7! Rc8 25.Qe7+ Kg8 26.Rb1+-

b2) 21.Rf6! is the computer's choice.

c) 20...Be7

Black's best choice, although it does not retain the pawn.

21.Nxd6+ (21.Bxd6? 0–0) 21...Nxd6 22.Bxd6 Bxd6 23.Qxd6 Qe7 24.Rf6 and White's position seems better.

21.Nxd6+

Better is 21.Bxc5 dxc5 22.d6 and White must regain the pawn with interest. 22...Nxd6 23.Qxc5 (23.Rxf8+!? Kxf8 24.Nxd6‚) 23...Nxb5 24.Qxe5+ Qe7 25.Qxh8 White is up the exchange and Black's king remains stuck in the center.

21...Bxd6 22.Bxc5 Bxc5 23.Qxc5 Qe7 24.Qc7 Nd6 25.Qa5 h5 26.Rc7 Rf8 27.Rfc1 a6

White to move

GM-RAM Diagram 142

28.Nd4! Rc8

28...exd4? Staunton observed that taking the knight would be an error. 29.e5 Nf7

(29...Qxe5 30.Bxg6+ Nf7 31.Re1 White will win material of greater value than the knight ... and the assault on Black's king will continue.)

30.e6 Nd6 31.exd7+ Kf7 (31...Kd8 32.Rc8+ Kxd7 33.Qc7#) 32.d8N+ Rfxd8 33.Rf1+ Nf5 34.Rxe7+ Kxe7 35.Bxf5+-.

29.Ne6

"At this crisis, the game, having lasted several hours, was postponed by mutual consent until the next day." Howard Staunton

Staunton notes that White has a clear advantage.

29...Rxc7 30.Rxc7 Rf7 31.Qb6

Fiddling around is search of the most precise moves, I looked through these variations. Neither of them seem superior to Anderssen's choice.

31.Qc3 Nb5 32.Bxb5 axb5 33.h3.
31.Nc5 Qf6 32.h3

31...Rf6 32.h3 g5 33.Qb2 Nb5 34.Bxb5 axb5 35.Qxe5

Black to move

White finally has a material advantage.

35...h4 36.Rxb7 Rf1+ 37.Kh2 Qf6 

White to move

White has a mate in six.

38.Rb8+

The game ends more rapidly after 38.Qb8+ Kf7 39.Rxd7+ Qe7

(39...Kg6 40.Qg8+ Kh5 41.Qh7+ Qh6 42.Ng7#)

40.Qf8+ Kg6 41.Qxe7 Rh1+ 42.Kxh1 b4 43.Qxg5#.

38...Ke7

a) 38...Bc8 39.Rxc8+ Kf7

a1) 39...Kd7 40.Qc7#.
a2) 39...Ke7 40.d6+ Kd7 41.Rc7+ Ke8 42.Ng7+ Kf8 43.Qe8#.

40.Rf8+ Kg6 41.Rxf6+ Rxf6 42.Qxg5+ Kf7 43.Qg7+ Ke8 44.Qxf6 b4 45.Qf8+ Kd7 46.Qd8#.

b) 38...Kf7 39.Rf8+ Kg6 40.Rxf6+ Rxf6

b1) 40...Kh5 41.Ng7#.

b2) 40...Kh7 41.Qxg5 Rh1+ 42.Kxh1 Bxe6 43.Rh6#.

41.Qxg5+ Kf7 42.Qg7+ Ke8 43.d6 Rxe6 (43...Bxe6 44.Qe7#) 44.Qg8#.

39.d6+ Kf7 40.Rf8+ Kg6 41.Rxf6+ Rxf6 42.Qxg5+ Kf7 43.Qg7+ Kxe6 44.Qe7# 1–0

To Know a Position

300 Positions

Rashid Ziyatdinov, in his provocative GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), builds on an idea that has been put forth by others: knowing well a set number of critical positions is essential to chess strength.*

In Russian chess folklore it is said there are 300 positions which comprise the most important knowledge which an aspiring player must acquire. (12)

Ziyatdinov continues with the recognition that several sets of 300 positions have been presented by other authors, that the collections vary, and that opinions "vary regarding which positions comprise the magical 300". He cites Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions & Ideas (1997).** Alburt claims that his 300 positions will provide a foundation for becoming a "strong tournament player" (8). Ziyatdinov makes a more ambitious claim:

Assuming understanding of the strategy, openings, and of chess tactics, a student who knows every position in this book "by heart" ... will achieve Grandmaster status. (13)

I shall return in a moment to the important qualifications marked by the ellipses in this quote.

Both Alburt and Ziyatdinov employ computing metaphors in their work. Alburt refers to the 300 positions as "zipped files". Each contains "volumes of chess playing knowledge" that can be assessed via the "programs" of a player's "problem-solving skills" (9). Ziyatdinov, on the other hand, does not present the information as locked up and needing access by a special program. Rather, the essential positions are "tacit knowledge" akin to basic words in one's native language.

When using information in its RAM memory, a computer works more than 100 times faster than when using information from its hard drive. (7)

While Alburt presents positions that will be stored at the back of one's memory, Ziyatdinov asks that students know the position cold, "such that in a matter of seconds he or she understands everything important about the position" (13). Part of the knowledge of a position is memorization of the game from which it comes. Positions are "the fingerprint of the games" (77).


Anderssen -- Staunton 1851

Ziyatdinov's positions include 133 endgame positions and 120 middlegame positions (three positions are duplicated because Ziyatdinov discusses them). He leaves it to the reader to fill in the gap to bring the total to 300. The 120 middlegame positions stem from 59 games. Three positions are from the fifth match game between Adolf Anderssen and Howard Staunton at the First International Chess Tournament 1851. The diagram below is the first of these three.

GM-RAM, Position 140

What must I know about this position?

The moves leading up to it featured a queen sortie that netted Black the pawn on b2. Then the queen was driven back to her starting square. Black's dark-squared bishop also left its initial square, but then returned in an unsuccessful effort to keep the queen in play.

Staunton's annotations in the tournament book of the First International Chess Tournament explain his reasoning when he played 10...Bf8. I think that 10...Ne7 would have been better, although even then White already had a clear advantage.

I have been going through this game repeatedly over the past few days. After 14...Qd8, which led to the diagram position, I wrote:

Only one of Black's pieces is off its starting square. All of White's pieces have moved, except the queen. Although down a pawn, White's pieces are in action.

Black's lack of development is certainly one element that makes this position notable.

Over the course of the next few moves, Anderssen put pressure on the weak backwards pawn on d6. After 20...Nc5, Staunton wrote, "Child's play. Throwing away his most important Pawn for nothing!" The only way that I have found for him to retain this pawn leaves his position utterly hopeless, although he maintains a material advantage. White still gains the pawn, but sacrifices the exchange (rook for bishop) in order to do so.

Looking Toward 2015

I am ambivalent concerning any chess related New Year's Resolutions for 2015. My resolutions for 2013 were only partly successful and ended in disappointment. The year before, I met my rating goal but not my training goal. I did not bother in 2014.

Nonetheless, I am presently inclined to make an effort to work through one game per week from GM-RAM. How far into 2015 this current interest will carry me is unknown. I suspect that at some point other training interests or non-chess priorities will intervene and break me from this path. That is what always happens.

I cherish no illusions that I will attain Grandmaster strength. Even USCF Expert seems a long shot in the light of my current playing strength and tournament opportunities. I spend a lot of time on chess, but the bulk of this time is divided between the thrill--positive and negative--of online blitz, on the one hand, and nurturing the skills of children, on the other hand. I am privileged to coach several of the area's top elementary players. I am applying some of Ziyatdinov's training ideas in this coaching, using a batch of Paul Morphy's games (see "Morphy's Fingerprints"), followed by the eleven Anderssen games in GM-RAM.

Whether for my own progress, or for that of my students, the time that I invest studying Ziyatdinov's 59 games should prove beneficial.

I might also spend more time plowing through the 133 endgame positions in GM-RAM. The six positions in "Six Pawn Endings" are essentially identical to the first six in the book. These have been among the fundamental positions that I have been teaching youth players since even before I bought Ziyatdinov's book. In his 133 positions, however, are quite a few that I have yet to invest any serious time. Perhaps that will change in 2015.



*My initial review of this book is available at "GM-RAM: Essential Knowledge." Subsequent ruminations appear by clicking with the label "Ziyatdinov" below.

**Since the publication of GM-RAM, Alburt has brought out a second book with an additional 320 positions, Chess Training Pocket Book II: 320 Key Positions for Players at All Levels (2008).

Lesson of the Week

Most of my advanced students this week will see a position from Anderssen -- Staunton, London 1851. Focus, however, will be upon an unplayed variation. I used a position from late in this game as the week's lesson early in 2014 (see "Find the Best Move").


Anderssen,Adolf -- Staunton,Howard [B40]
London knockout London (3.1), 1851

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Ba7 7.Bd3 Ne7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Qh5 Ng6 10.e5 Qc7 11.Rae1 b5 12.f4 Bb7 13.Ne4

Andressen is beginning to build an attack that will punish Staunton for his poor handling of the opening that a century later would begin to be called the Kan variation of the Sicilian Defense.

Staunton decided to eliminate Anderssen's centralized knight with 13...Bxe4. Had he played 13...Nc6, however, how would Anderssen continue the attack? See diagram below.

White to move

Theoretical Position

My beginning students were shown the second position from Saturday's problem solving contest (see "Sacrificial Attack"). After explaining the solution, they were given a worksheet containing the first five problems from January's "Creating Knight Forks". They needed and were given lots of help.

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").

Find the Best Move

Lesson of the Week

The young chess players in my several chess clubs this week have an opportunity to discover the finish of one of the games from the Adolf Anderssen -- Howard Staunton match at the 1851 London International chess tournament. Staunton organized the event to coincide with the London World's Fair. It was the first World's Fair and the first international chess tournament. Anderssen won the knock-out tournament and was considered the best player in the world until Paul Morphy beat him in a match later in the decade.

White to move

A Teacher's Angst

You'd better not kno so much than know so many things that ain't so.
Josh Billings

One of those dreaded phone calls began with the caller going on at length how much he appreciates my work teaching chess in his grandchild's school. His anguish came through in his words of gratitude. Something in his tone or the way he started the conversation caused me to hear "but" at the end of every statement of praise. Every compliment was the lead up to an unspoken criticism that I knew was coming.

My memory of the conversation is hazy because it was a dream, a bad dream.

The man had taught his grandchild to play chess. Then, the child learned the game from me at school. Now the grandfather was conflicted. The child is telling him that he has some of the rules wrong.

He is not certain why I think my way is the correct one. He has played chess all of his life, and he had never heard of some of the things his grandchild learned in school. The man had been his school's champion sixty years ago.

I woke up before the conversation got into specifics. Even so, I knew what was coming. Children frequently tell me their father, grandfather, uncle taught them a way of chess that differs on some point or another from what I am teaching. I am careful not to tell them that an older relative is wrong. Kids often think they hear one thing, when something else was said. I do emphasize, however, the correct rule.

In the dream, I was preparing my defense: listing my tournament successes, describing the global culture of competitive chess play--email chess with opponents from South Africa to Poland to Iceland, websites where I have played opponents in every country, the FIDE Laws of Chess.

For some casual players to whom chess is just a game, the scope of chess in global culture comes as a surprise.

Many of the things they get wrong have a long history. Some were rules in another era.

"You forgot to say check, so I can ignore it."
"En passant is an optional rule."
"The king always stands to the right of the queen."
"A pawn can only be promoted to a piece that has been lost."
"When you castle, the king and rook swap places."
"Castling is not allowed if the king was ever in check."

Chess books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries began with lists of rules that attempted to account for regional variations--whether en passant was permitted, whether stalemate was a win, a half-win, or a draw, the peculiarities of castling in Italy. Some leading players made efforts through their clubs to standardize the rules. Most of the rules we use today were in place and accepted by the time that Howard Staunton organized the London International Chess Tournament of 1851.

Some old ideas from earlier eras persist, however. Sometimes they are reinvented by those who did not quite learn the rules before they started teaching others. Millions of chess players compete online in formal and informal competition through websites, mobile devices, and face-to-face. Far more people play the game casually with family and friends.

Staunton Gambit vs. the Dutch Defense

Three weeks ago, I posted "Staunton Gambit," describing a variation of the Staunton Gambit against the Dutch Defense in which White does not actually gambit a pawn. That assertion, however, was not entirely accurate. The way I decided to play this line in two games--one correspondence, one over-the-board,--Black has the option of snatching a pawn. In my correspondence game, my opponent did so. Nonetheless, I quickly won back the pawn, and then due to an error on his part, gained another.

Stripes,James (2089) -- Opponent (2248) [A83]
www.ChessWorld.net 2012

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.e4 fxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Qh5+

Part of what I found attractive about this variation was its relative simplicity, combined with a strong scoring percentage for White.* In my two initial efforts with this idea, I maintained a lasting initiative. Errors were made by my opponents, and by me, but I was never worse in either game. Computer analysis has me always a minimum of 1/3 pawn ahead (even when materially down a pawn).

CB 11 data on games between players over 2000

7...g6 8.Qh6

Black to move

Here Black has the option of snatching the pawn on d4. My opponent did so. It has been a rare choice in the database, although a superficial glance would suggest the move has merits. White's initiative and less vulnerable king more than compensate for the pawn.

8...Bxd4 9.0–0–0 Bf6 10.h4 Nc6

Hiarcs 12 prefers 10...Qe7, which was played in Krouzel -- Fiala, Czechia 2000.

White to move

11.Nxf6+?

The immediate 11.h5 maintains the clear advantage. 11...Qe7 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.hxg6.

11...Qxf6 12.h5 Ne7 13.Bd3

Black to move

White has considerable pressure against g6. When I first explored this line by looking through some games, I noticed a few where White won an endgame due to a kingside pawn majority. Black usually gains a queenside majority, but without any passed pawns. That's an opening that can excite me: immediate pressure via surprising opening moves, lasting initiative, and endgame advantage.

13...Qf8?

Black's move is a clear error, but perhaps the best move is not so easy to find. 13...Rg8 maintains equality.

14.hxg6+-

White has a strong position, and objectively a decisive advantage. Nevertheless, there remains much play in the position. Continuing to find accurate moves will lead to victory, but errors may let Black back into the game.

14...Qxh6+ 15.Rxh6 0–0 16.gxh7+

16.Rxh7 is slightly better.

16...Kh8 17.Nh3 b6

White to move

18.Rh1

I might have started the g-pawn thrust here, but was playing too cautiously.

18...Bb7 19.f3 Nf5 20.Rg6

My long-term plan was to keep Black's rooks tied down to defense of his king, and to prevent the promotion of my h-pawn. Meanwhile, Black had to move something. Eventually, I thought, Black would be forced to make weakening moves.

20...Rf7

20...Nh4 disrupts White's plans slightly.

21.Ng5 Rg7 22.Rxg7 Kxg7

White to move

23.g4

I failed to see the tactical shot 23.Nf7!

23...Nh6 24.Rh3 Rf8 25.Kd2 e5 26.Ne4 Bd5 27.c4 Bf7 28.g5 Nf5 29.Nf6 Be6

White to move

White has an excellent position. Black's pieces are all tied down to defense, while White can choose his targets. The pawn on h7 is a constant reminder to Black that he must defend accurately.

30.Ng8?

I overlooked the necessary defensive resource. Better was 30.Bxf5 Bxf5 31.Rh6.

30..Kh8 31.g6 Ng7 32.Rg3 Bxg8 33.hxg8Q+ Kxg8

White to move

My pawn promoted, but the queen was quickly lost. I no longer have a material advantage, and my positional advantage is no longer overwhelming. Black remains in a difficult position. Defending against a constant attack can make errors more likely. Indeed, Black erred under the pressure just as he was nearing equality.

34.Be4 c6?!

Just the sort of weakening move that I anticipated would come. 34...Ne6, or Ne8 would have offered more stubborn defense. Sometimes it is best to sit and wait, to let the opponent prove that he has a means of breaking through. In this position, it is not altogether clear that White can make things happen.

35.Rg1 Nf5 36.Rg5 Nd4?!

36...Nd6 was better.

37.Ke3 Kg7?

37...d6 was necessary.

White to move

38.Rxe5+-

Again, White has a clear and decisive advantage.

38...Ne6 39.Rh5 Nc5 40.Rh7+ Kf6 41.Bc2 a5 42.f4

Black to move

42...d5 43.cxd5 cxd5 44.f5 Ne4 45.Rf7+ 1–0


*See "Playing with Databases" for a discussion of some strategies for using such data in correspondence chess.