Rook vs. Two Minor Pieces

An unexpected win this morning motivated some study of rook and pawns vs. knight, bishop, and pawns. Errors characterized the game, but the ending interests me.

I was slightly better early in the middle game when I blundered into a slightly worse position, and then blundered again into a lost position, but I played on. My opponent blundered away the win to reach an ending that had strong drawing chances despite a dynamic imbalance. He missed an idea that gave him a slight advantage at one point, and then dropped a piece to give me a winning advantage.

White to move

33.Rxh7+??

Had White played 33.Rxb7, I might have decided that it was time to respect my opponent's superior position (as well as a rating 300 higher than mine) and gracefully resign.

33...Qxh7 34.Rxh7+ Kxh7

The position is equal. ChessBase's "Report" feature is useful for studying this sort of ending. A quick glance through the nearly 300 games that are found in MegaDatabase seem to indicate that the minor pieces prevail more often than the rook. Searching my personal database for this material turns up three previous games and I'm always the side with the rook. I have a win, draw, and loss in the three games.

Later in the game, after a pair of pawns are exchanged, the same search mechanism turns up 22 games, most of which were decided by such tactical errors as the rook and king walking into a fork by the bishop or the knight.

We continued.

35.h4 Kg6 36.hxg5 fxg5

White to move

With mobile pawns and each side having a majority, anything is possible. The rook's greater mobility seems promising, but White also could develop an advantage to play for a win. More than likely, good play on both sides should lead to a draw.

37.Ne5 Kf5 38.Nf7 Re7 39.Nd6+ Kg6 40.Nc8

A fork!

Black to move

40...Rh7+ 41.Kg1 a6

Both pieces escape.

42.Nd6 Rd7 43.Kf1 Kf6?!

43...Rc7 44.Ke2 Rc3 45.Nxb7 Rxa3=

The position is easier to draw, but Black was oblivious to the dangers.

44.Ke2 Ke6 45Ne4 Kf5 46.Nd6+ Ke6 47.Ne4 Kf5

Black is anticipating a repetition.

White to move

48.Ke3!?

Activating the king is the right idea, but there is a better way.

48.Nc5! Rh7 49.Kd3 and we see that White intends to dispose of Black's pawn majority. White missed an opportunity to gain a clear advantage. Even so, White is better.

48...Re7 49.f3 g4 50.Bh4

50.Kd4 was the right idea.

50...Re6 51.Bg3 gxf3 52.gxf3 Rb6

Black activates his rook for counterplay.

White to move

53.Nd6+ Kg6?

53...Ke6 was needed.

54.Nc4?

54.Ke4 and White again has a clear advantage. In this case, the f-pawn will work its way up the board with the help of the two minor pieces and the king until Black is forced to give up the rook.

54...Rb3+ 55.Ke4 b5 56.Ne5+ Kg7

White to move

57.f4??

Inexplicable.

Play might have continued 57.Nc6 Rxa3 58.Bd6 Ra2 59.Nd4 and neither Black pawn can advance.

57...Rxg3-+ 58.Nd3 Kf7 59.f5 Rg4+ 60.Ke5 Ra4 61.Kd5 Rxa3 62.Ne5= Kf6 63.Nc6 Kf6 63.Nc6 Kxf5 64.Kc5 Rc3+ 65.Kb6 Rxc6 and White resigned.

After the game, I spent some time looking through endgame books to see who had written about this material imbalance. Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual has four pages.

This position from Beliavsky,A. -- Dolmatov,S., Minsk 1979 shows a creative idea worth remembering.

Black to move

38...c4!! 39.Bxc4 Rc8 40.Bd3 a3! and the game continued another 16 moves. Both the game and Dvorersky's analysis are worthy of study.

Clumsy

In an online game yesterday, I managed to trap my own queen. Nonetheless, I had compensation until I missed some things that should have been clear. Later, I dodged my opponent's forced draw with a losing move. Trouble begins at move 24.

Black to move

24...Rab8?

This move surrenders most of my advantage.

24...Qxd2+ 25.Kxd2 Bc6+-+

That I have been looking at discoveries in Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Tactical Chess Positions (2020) makes this oversight even more distressing.

25.Qxa7 Ne5?

25...Rxb2! 26.Rxd3 exd3 27.Qa3 Rc2 was a little more difficult to see, but I could have done more to find ways to use my greater piece activity and the vulnerability of the White king.

26.Rxd3 Nxd3+

White to move

27.Ke2?!

27.Kf1 Rxb2 is equal. White's apparent material superiority includes a rook with near zero prospects of deployment.

27...Rxb2 28.Kd1

28...Kf1 is better.

28...Nxf2+ 29.Kc1 30.Kd1-+

Black has a bishop and rook for the queen. White's rook remains on its starting square.

Black to move

Rxg2??=

I considered 30...Be8, but failed to see a clear way forward after 31.Qc7. It should not have been difficult to see 31...Nf2+ 32.Ke1 Rdd2 and checkmate should come soon.

30...f4 was an alternative to which I was oblivious. 31.h3 Be8 and now 32.Qc7 is met with a clear mate threat 32...fxe3! White must give up the queen.

31.Qc7 Rc8 32.Qxd7 Nf2+? 33.Ke1?

33.Kd2 gives White an advantage

33...Nd3

Here, I was sure that I could force a draw if necessary, but that is an illusion. However, my threats render it necessary for White to force a draw with checks by the queen.

34.Kf1 Rf2+ 35.Kg1 Rxc3

White to move

36.Qd5+ Kf8 37.Qd8+ Kf7 38.Qd7+ Kf8 39.Qd6+ Ke8??

Of course, surrendering to the repetition with either 39...Kg7 or 39...Kf7 was the correct course.

40.Qe6++-

Black to move

My king is forced to a dark square where the queen can fork my king and rook.

I could have resigned here, but played on as my opponent was behind on the clock. White's rook became active in the final assault on my king.

Three Positions

My beginning students—young players in grades kindergarten through second grade—saw three positions in chess club this afternoon. These all occurred in my online play this morning.

White to move

White played 50.Bd7 and the students were asked how they would play as Black. Oblivious to the dangers, they made the same error as my opponent in the blitz game: capturing the bishop with 50…Bxd7 ends the game with stalemate. 50…Kxd7, on the other hand, leads to victory for Black.

Black to move

The students found 53…Re1+ 54.Kd6 Rd1+. It was unclear whether all of them would exchange rooks, however. We then pushed the pawn to promotion and worked on the elementary checkmate of queen and king against a lone king.

White to move

The third position was rather advanced for these students. I discussed my thought process during the game, looking for ways to restrict the knight’s mobility. I played 34.Kf1. Black’s reply 34…Nd4 did not seem to me the best choice. Some of my students indicated that they would exchange bishop for knight. We then discussed the resulting weakness of the Black pawn on d4. After 35.Bxd4 exd4 36.Ke2, Black resigned.

While looking at the position, I discussed the imbalances of bishop vs. knight and differences in the pawn structure. This concept takes time for students to grasp. Several have heard it in the past and they will hear it again.

Lasker -- Capablanca, Game 12

In the twelfth game of the 1921 World Chess Championship, Emanuel Lasker found a forcing combination that left him with a clear material advantage, but perhaps a somewhat worse position. José Raúl Capablanca considered his combination "all wrong". The game was adjourned with an incredible imbalance, but instead of playing it out, they agreed to a draw.

After nine games, British Chess Magazine stated in the May issue, "These games are perhaps models of accuracy, but are mainly incredibly dull, but as a matter of record we will publish them in the Magazine, beginning next month" (184). Then, when George A. Thomas annotated game 12 in the September issue, he expressed regret:

...that this ending was carried no further. It is difficult to say which player, if either, held an advantage. But there was obviously still a great deal of play in the position, which is of a most uncommon type, owing to the widely dissimilar character of the opposing forces. The continuation could scarcely have failed to be both interesting and instructive. (349)

Thomas called the game, "thoroughly interesting" (349). The game was played one hundred years ago today. This post is number 21 in a series on the match. As has been the norm, annotations by the players offer insights into where they think they could have improved.

Lasker,Emanuel -- Capablanca,Jose Raul [C66]
World Championship 12th Havana (12), 16.04.1921
[Capablanca/Lasker]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Re1 exd4 8.Nxd4 0-0

Up to this point, the moves have been the same as in game 6. This position was also reached via a different move order in game three when Capablanca had White.

White to move

9.Bf1

"White can of course make many moves here without taking any damage, for example what usually happens, 9.Bxc6. Or 9.b3 and the text is not bad either" (Lasker).

Even today, half a dozen moves are played when White eschews the main line. It is not a common position, having appeared only 220 times in the entire run of The Week in Chess. 9.Bxc6 is the most popular move and 9.Bf1 the second choice. 9.b3, 9.f4, 9.h3, 9.Bf4, 9.Nxc6 and others have been played.

9...Re8 10.f3 Bf8

The following year, Capablanca played 10...Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Be6 12.Qf2 c6 13.Bd2 Qb6 14.Na4 Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 0-1 (38) Euwe,M -- Capablanca,J, London 1922.

11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 g6

"The defense that Capablanca chooses here is difficult" (Lasker).

13.Nd5

Thomas in BCM gets to the heart of what the players of the game concluded: "This leads to some very interesting play; but the ensuing complications seem, on the whole, somewhat unfavourable to White who only just succeeds in maintaining equality" (348).

I am reminded of Cyrus Lakdawala's comment on Lasker's gambling tendencies in game 11.

13...Bg7

"I cannot very highly recommend the system of defense adopted by me in this variation" (Capablanca).

White to move

14.Nb5

"The combinations beginning with this move are all wrong. White's proper move was simply to hold the position by playing 14.c3 After the text move, Black should get the better game" (Capablanca).

14...g5

"The only alternative was 14...Rc8 whereupon white with 15.c4 restricts Black badly and yet forces 15...g5"  (Lasker).

15.Ndxc7

"If 15.Bf2 Nxd5 would give Black the better game. The combination indulged in by White is good only in appearance" (Capablanca).

15...gxh4 16.Nxa8 Qxa8

White to move

17.Nc7

"Here I made a mistake. It was better to take a central pawn than an exchange. By playing 17.Qd6, White would get a strong game. For example, Rd8 18.Qf4 h3 19.Rad1 and White has a rook and two pawns for two light pieces with better development" (Lasker).

17...Qd8 18.Nxe8 Nxe8

White has gained material, having two rooks and a pawn for three minor pieces. However, Black's pieces seem much better placed than White rooks.

19.Rb1

"Now the d6-pawn serves as a support point and White has no minor pieces to take it. Because of this, all efforts of White to win the game must ultimately fail" (Lasker).

19...Be6

White to move

20.c3

"If White plays 20.c4, the hole on d4 is worse than the loss of the pawn, and Bf1 would be condemned to inaction. The Field [Amos Burn] gives the next continuation 20.c4 Qa5 21.a3 Bc4 22.Bc4 Qc5+, but I believe that  Black with 20...Be5 21.Qd2 Qf6 can continue the game much better" (Lasker).

20...Bxa2

"A mistake. The question of time at this point was not properly appreciated by Black, who went in to recover a pawn, which was of no importance whatever. Worse yet, the capture of the pawn only helped White. Black had here a won game by playing 20...Be5" (Capablanca).

21.Ra1 Be6 22.Qd2 a6

"22...h3 was better. After the text move Black has an extremely difficult game to play" (Capablanca).

23.Qf2

Black to move

23...h5

"23...Qg5 would have given Black better chances to win. After the text move there is nothing better than a draw" (Capablanca).

24.f4 Bh6

White to move

25.Be2

"With this White wins a pawn, but the important e4 pawn is exchanged. 25.Bd3 h3 26.Kh1 was more sustainable and the rooks would come into their own" (Lasker).

25...Nf6 26.Qxh4 Nxe4 27.Qxd8+ Nxd8 28.Bxa6 d5

White to move

29.Be2

"On 29.Bd3 there would be 29...Nc5" (Lasker).

29...Bxf4 30.Bxh5 Bc7 31.Rad1

"This move is not a clever move because it exposes the rooks too much to the attacks of the minor pieces, but White cannot win in any way as long as Black restricts himself to defense" (Lasker).

Black to move

The game was adjourned here, and presumably Capablanca sealed a move. But a draw was agreed without resumption.

½-½

Lasker 2:05 - Capablanca 1:54

"Having had twenty-four hours to consider the position, we both came to the conclusion that there was nothing in it but a draw" (Capablanca).


Sources

Capablanca, José Raúl. World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927. New York: Dover, 1977.

Lakdawala, Cyrus. Capablanca: Move by Move. London: Gloucester, 2012, Everyman ebook.

Lasker, Emanuel. Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, and Co., 1922.

"The World's Championship." British Chess Magazine, vol. 41, no. 5 (May 1921), 184.

Thomas, George A. "Game No. 4,865." British Chess Magazine, vol. 41, no. 9 (September 1921), 347-349.

Knight vs Bishop

Jeremy Silman devotes the first chapter of How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th ed. (2010) to the imbalance of knight vs. bishop. Somewhere in the third edition, he suggests that a player ought to play in a manner that makes his or her minor piece the superior one.

White to move

This position arose this morning in the seventh round of the World Open, being played on the Internet Chess Club. I had White. Black's knights are menacing with the threat of Nxc3, followed by Nxe2+. 

16.Bxd5 

My move seemed forced. Now Black faces a choice of how to capture the bishop. I would submit that my opponent's move was not the best choice.

16...exd5

I went on to win a knight vs bishop endgame where all my pawns were on dark squares and my king decisively penetrated to the center of the board.

Seeking Truth

What if? Central to every game of chess even played are the moves that were rejected. Immature chess players care only for the moves that were played, rather than what might have been played.

Several years ago, I was going through a game with a friend who had just finished playing it. As we were examining what might have taken place, his opponent came by and redirected our attention to the game as played. My friend and I were laboring to improve our understanding of the game--the tactics and positional ideas--as preparation for the future. We were seeking missed opportunities where he might have gained an advantage or refuted an attack. I cannot recall the specifics. His opponent seemed to care only for the result of the game just played (he probably won). I have long remembered this event because I believe the attitude of my friend's opponent is the core reason that particular player will never rise above a certain level in his chess skill.

Regularly I see the same attitude among young children. For the past several years, several of the strongest players in our community have staffed an analysis table at youth tournaments. Youth players who bring their game score to the analysis table get a raffle ticket and a free lesson, often from a chess master (FM Jim Maki has been the most consistent analyst since moving to the area). Every child who collects five raffle tickets in a five round tournament earns a pawn key chain, and then there are the prizes that are raffled off--rook, knight, etc. key chains, books, chess sets. In pursuit of the raffle tickets, children sometimes show impatience with the lessons.

I usually run the pairings at these tournaments, but sometimes also spend time at the analysis table. Several times after the next round begins, I've spent time playing through variations on a child's game with one of the other coaches. These are the best moments of the tournament.

Last night, this quest for the truth of a position brought me back to a game that I posted in November (see "Crushing Attack"). I had also posted the game in a forum at Chess.com, where I had highlighted Nana Dzagnidze's brilliant 17...Rxd5 from this position.

Black to move

The game continued 18.Bxd4 Rxg5 and Antoaneta Stefanova resigned. However, she might have played 18.cxd5.

A poster questioned whether 17...Rxd5 was such a brilliant move. What if White had responded differently? First, Black's second best move from the diagram is 17...Nxh3 and then 18.Bxh3 Qd3 leaves Black with some pressure against the king as compensation for the piece.

When I first looked at this game with a group of children in an after school chess club, I liked White's 17.Nd5 because it appeared to solve White's problems and at the same time render Black's attack somewhat critical. Discovering how giving up the queen leads to a unstoppable attack, however, showed me that White's position after 17.Nd5 was not so good.

But, White is not forced to capture the queen.

After the alternative, 18.cxd5, it seems that Black must play 18...Qxd5.

White to move

I spent more than an hour playing against Stockfish from this position this morning. Continuing Black's attack proved challenging.

Stockfish played 19.Qg4, which appears to be White's best option.

19...Nxg2 20.Kxg2

20.Qxg2 Rh5 leads to a version of what transpired against Stockfish that is even better for Black.

I did not easily find the best move here, so took the advice of the engine.

20...Bd7 21.Bxg7 Rh5

White to move

22.f4

22.h4 Bxg5

22...exf3+ 23.Qxf3

Black to move

I tried a lot of different moves here. In every case, I eventually faltered and reached a position that was either equal or clearly worse for Black. I found that I needed to maintain some pressure against White's king and grab some pawns as long as it could be done without loss of time.

It is clear that Black has a nice position. Nonetheless, with the sort of skill Stockfish brings to the position, White's pieces become coordinated and counter-pressure against Black's king makes it difficult to find a clear win.

23...Qxd2

This move kept me in the game longest.

24.Kh1

Running in the database program, instead of the playing program, Stockfish prefers 24.Rf2 Qxg5+ 25.Kh1 when Black at least has two pawns for the sacrifice of the exchange.

24...Qd7 25.Rfd1 Qc8 26.Rd3

Black to move

I played on for awhile, and may try from this position again. Although Black might be objectively better, White's position seems a little easier to play.

Wow!

Chess Informant 140 arrived yesterday, but I went to a concert after work. On the way home from the concert, we stopped for burgers and brought them home. While eating my burger, I opened Informant to the first page and started trying to "see" the best game from CI 139 in my head. The tactics and imbalances were hard to fathom, so I installed the CD on my computer immediately after dinner and went through the game again.

The fireworks started with this position, which also appears as a diagram in Informant.

White to move

Instead of the obvious 21.Ne4, Aleksey Goganov played 21.Re4, which annotator Branko Tadic gives !?

Obviously, White wants to swing the rook to h4 to make the bishop sacrifice on h6 effective. Abhimanyu Sameer Puranik would not allow such a thing, so 21...f5.

Now what? The rook should go back to e1, perhaps.

Goganov wanted to fight.

22.Rxc8!

My imagination had to work hard to keep the hamburger juice off my chin while contemplating the possibilities. Puranik takes the centralized rook, as the other cannot get away.

22...fxe4 23.Nxe4 Qf8

White to move

Exchanging rooks on d8 seems sensible enough, but White had ambitions for something more.

24.Bb3!?

Tadic deals with Rxd8 in the commentary. The move evaluations are his.

24...Kh1

Obviously, Black doesn't want to give up the whole cavalry for a rook.

25.Bxh6!?

Well, this was the idea, but does it work now?

25...Ne7 26.Nxe5!

Black to move

I wouldn't touch the bishop on d5, of course, but the other must be executed.

26...gxh6 27.Nf7+ Kh7

In the subsequent battle, both players made errors. Running an engine while playing through the game confirmed Tadic's series of question marks as White was winning, then Black, then White again. White, as they say, made the second to the last error. This game was not the best of Informant 139 for its accuracy of play. But, it is a worthy game for the creativity of White's aggression and the fighting spirit of both players. I think I'll play through it a few more times, and maybe show it to some students.

Disappointing

This morning after feeding the dogs and making our coffee, I sat down on the couch and began following a game in the Ukranian Championship. I know nothing about either of the players, but they are playing the Italian Opening, and it interests me.

I considered "live blogging" the game, recording it as it transpired along with my thoughts and efforts to guess the move. I decided against that plan and simply watched. The game had some interest, but the players agreed to a draw before move 20. I was disappointed.

Baklan,Vladimir (2655) -- Kravtsin,Martyn (2608) [C54]
Ukranian Championship Kiev (5), 17.12.2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.0–0 0–0 6.h3

Philip Sergeant has been justifiably criticized for the comment, "In nothing was Morphy so fortunate as in the frequency with which his opponents played P-R3" (Morphy's Games of Chess [1957], 44). That comment, however, appeared in a Scotch Gambit game where Black fatally weakened his kingside with such a move. In some lines of the Italian, the move is required to prevent decisive attacks on a pinned knight.

6...h6 7.Re1 d6 8.c3

I spend a lot of time working to get my students to understand how this move can be far more useful than a knight on this square, especially after the prophylactic P-R3.

8...a5

My database tells me that this move has been played only once before. Of course, my database is not 100% up-to-date. Even so, that confirms why I was not expecting this move. After the move, however, there are five reference games, so the idea has been played via other move orders. Notably, Kravtsin was Black in the highest rated of these games. Baklan might have expected it.

9.Nbd2 Be6

White to move

10.Bb5

Keeping the light-squared bishop! This move was played in six of the nine games that reached this position. Clearly, the apparent novelty of 8...a5 was merely a move order nuance.

10...Qb8

Wow! This strikes me as a new idea. I'll need to check the database.

Kravtsin played 10...Bd7 in 2015 and went on to win the game.

In my database, I found over one thousand games in the Italian with Black's queen on b8. Most of these featured the move late in the game. There are a few with Black's heavy pieces arrayed on a8, b8, and c8 before move twenty. Even so, in the few dozen that I glanced at, I did not find any that compared substantively to this game.

11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.d4

Black seemed to go into a long think here, and I spent time looking at other games. However, Black used less than a minute on this move and nine on the subsequent move. Sometimes the boards and clocks in the Follow Chess app are not up-to-date.

12...exd4 13.cxd4 Bb6

These were the moves that I expected without a long think. Even so, I'm curious what else Black was looking at. Is Black considering moving the queen up, or lifting a rook and putting the queen on a8 with ideas of swinging the other rook over to the queenside? Years ago, I played a lot of games with my heavy pieces deployed in this manner in the Benko Gambit. Does the idea have merit in the Italian? The half open b-file could offer prospects of attack for Black. On the other hand, White might get a strong kingside attack if Black pursues this plan.

14.Nf1

Black to move

Now, Black thought for 41 minutes.

14...d5 15.e5 Ne4 16.Be3 a4

White to move

17.Qc1

The first move that I considered, played after sixteen minutes. My fantasy position puts the rook on d3 and drops the f3 knight back with ideas of a bishop sacrifice on h6.

This game has everything that I need of instructive value for my students: classic opening, provocative novelty, and a minor piece imbalance.

17...Qe8

Both defends the attacked c-pawn and brings the queen closer to the king.

18.Ng3

Maybe my idea of Rd1–d3 and N3h2 is too slow.

18...Nxg3 19.fxg3 ½–½

A draw? I'll grant the position is probably equal, but there is plenty of play left in the position.

There was a lot of talk--mostly complaining--about the twelve straight draws in the recent World Championship, but with one exception those were hard-fought draws from start to finish. Even the one was drawn after slightly inaccurate play by the World Champion. He may have had more dynamic chances a few moves earlier.

I did not embrace these complaints. The string of fighting draws was very satisfying high-level chess of terrific instructive value.

But, this game, it seems to me should not have been drawn so early.

Planning

In 1864, Johannes Zukertort reached a level in his chess skill high enough that Adolf Anderssen no longer gave him odds. That year, the two played a number of games. David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 lists eight games between these two players in 1864. Zukertort had White in all eight. Levy and O'Connell list their source for the games as Neue Berliner Schachzeitung (1867). Zukertort began serving as principal editor of this serial in 1867.

Anderssen's play reveals weaknesses that were less frequent in his tournament play of the time. These games offer a number of interesting positions for exploring the elements of chess strategy.

Black to move

After 12.Qe2

What are the plans for both sides?

Anderssen castled and went on to lose after several errors.

Study Material

Chess Informant 134 contains an article by Ivan Ivanisevic on "The Art of Unequal Exchange" that has material suitable for chess players across a range of skill levels. An unplayed variaton in his first game fragment offers some positions highlighting fork threats.

Black to move

The game is Gurieli,N. -- Matveeva,S., Moscow 1986. In the game, White played 15.Kxh2 and Black won back the sacrificed queen. Ivanisevic suggests 15.Re1 Rxg2+ 16.Kf1, which leads to the position in the diagram above.

White's battery on the e-file appears menacing. But after 16...e5 17.Qxe5, Black draws with a perpetual that forces repetition. Alternatives give Black White's queen for a rook via a knight fork. Black's material advantage should prove decisive.

Ivanisevic begins his article with this position.

Black to move

Black played 10...Qxd4! Simple tactics allowed White to win the Black queen, but in the resulting position, White's queen and king proved vulnerable. To this game fragment, the author adds material from historic games and several played more recently.

There is a 1962 game where Rashid Nezhmetdinov's three minor pieces were superior to a queen and rook due to the enemy king's vulnerability. There is a 1994 blitz game between Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik. Among the other games are a nice queen sacrifice by Hou Yifan and another by Fabiano Caruana.

Ivanisevic also includes one of his own games, a game where engines have shown in the decades since the game was played that his opponent missed several chances for clear advantage. Such positions offer good training material for sitting at a board and struggling through the imbalances and plans without silicon assistance.

White to move

From Drasko,M. -- Ivanisevic,I, Pale 1997.

Beware the Horse

Where should the queen move?

White to move

This position caught my interest. It appears in "The Art of Unequal Exchange" by Ivan Ivanisevic in Chess Informant 134, which I received last week. This article is quite interesting and offers study material that promises to improve my game, as well as helping me develop some materials for teaching young players.

It's Only Blitz

I beat a National Master yesterday afternoon. It has been a couple of months since my last win against a titled player, so I was happy to get this one. It was my last game in a blitz playing session characterized by poor play, but it was a better game. Of course, I made errors, but they were less egregious than in my previous several games.

I spent a little more than an hour playing blitz, and at least that much time analyzing this one game. This game was played in less than six minutes. Did it deserve more than an hour of post-game analysis? My opponent shall remain unnamed because he left a clue on his Chess.com page that suggests he would prefer it that way.


Stripes,J (1892) -- Internet Opponent (1926) [E11]
Chess.com, 07.08.2017

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2

4.Bd2 is the most popular move. Some years ago, I bought and read partly through The Chess Advantage in Black and White (2004) by Larry Kaufman. Many of the lines that Kaufman recommends do not suit me well, but his basic idea has been an influence. He advocates "second best" moves early in the game when it reduces the amount of theory that one must learn.

I am not certain that 4.Nbd2 is second best, but it is second most popular. 4.Bd2 is played twice as often. 4.Nbd2 has a better scoring percentage for White and a slightly higher Elo performance as well. I had the impression that 4.Bd2 was the choice of top Grandmasters, but a check this morning refuted that. Garry Kasparov has played both moves. Magnus Carlsen has played both, but 4.Nbd2 more recently. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave seems to favor my choice.

I spent some time thinking about the relative merits of the choice that White makes here in the Bogo-Indian Defense. Why is 4.Bd2 more popular?

4...Qe7 5.g3 b6

The databases suggest that this move is rare, but the structure is certainly familiar.

6.Bg2 Bb7 7.0–0 0–0

Castling leads via transposition to a small batch of reference games.

8.Nb3

It is hard to believe that this move has not been played before. There must be something wrong with it. Perhaps, this move offers a clue to the popularity of 4.Bd2. The knight blocks the bishop when it stands there. It also lacks good squares that can be reached from d2. On b3, where I placed it, it interferes with queenside pawn expansion. Other moves seem worse.

Black to move

8...d5 9.a3 Bd6 10.c5!?

This brilliant pawn sacrifice was actually an oversight. I was unaware that I was down a pawn until at the end of the game, savoring my victory, I noticed that material was equal. This sacrifice creates a minor piece imbalance that sometimes favors White, but was it worth a pawn?

10...bxc5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Nxc5 Qxc5 13.Be3 Qd6

13...Qe7

14.Rc1 Na6

14...Nbd7

15.Bf4 Qd7

15...Qe7

16.Ne5 Qe7 17.Nc6

Black to move

At this point of the game, I was pleased with my position. I seem to have my opponent's forces tied down.

17...Qd7 18.Qc2 Rfc8 19.b4 Nb8 20.b5 Bxc6

After this exchange, we have two bishops against two knights and only the c-pawns are blocked.

21.bxc6 Qe7

White to move

How might White squeeze Black from this position?

22.Qb3 with the idea of Qb7 seems to have some merit.

22.Bg5 threatens e4.

I did not spend much time on this position during the game, but invested about fifteen minutes with it on the deck in the evening. It might be one that could be added to the store of middlegame positions for performing Jeremy Silman's inventory of imbalances.

22.e4 dxe4 23.Bxe4 Nxe4 24.Qxe4 a5

Maybe 24...Qxa3

25.Rfd1 Qxa3

Maybe 25...Ra6

26.Bxc7! Na6

26...a4 27.Bxb8 Raxb8 28.c7 looks overwhelming for White.

26...Rxb7 27.Rd8+ Qf8 28.Rxf8+ Kxf8 and the material balance has shifted strongly in favor of White. Even so, a queen and pawn agianst a rook and bishop is not always a winning material advantage in time pressure.

27.Bd6 Nb4 28.c7 h6

White to move

29.Bxb4?

29.Be7! My target is d8. Why not make a move that contributes to this plan?

29... axb4

29...Qxb4 30.Qxa8!

30.Rc6

Black to move

30...b3

30...Qa5 is equal and takes advantage of my error a move earlier.

31.Rcd6 g6 32.Rd8+ Kg7 33.Qe5+ f6 34.R8d7+

34.R1d7+ Qe7 35.Rxe7#

34...Kg8 35.Qxe6+ 1–0

Maybe my pawn sacrifice was sound. Both players committed the sort of positional errors that one might expect in a blitz game.

Imbalances and Planning

Years ago, I read Jeremy Silman, How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd ed. (1993). The book offers useful instruction concerning imbalances and planning. However, sometimes in blitz, I play as if I am in utter ignorance of how to assess a position. Instead, I play for simple cheapos that are easily refuted.

This position from a blitz game offers a case in point.

White to move

I played 21.g5, hoping for 21...hxg5 22.hxg5 and thought that somehow my rooks could penetrate. Not only is there no clear tactical breakthrough, but it's not entirely clear that I should seek exchanges on the kingside.

How should White play here?

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.

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.
Barsky, Ragozin Complex, 29.

8.e3

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.
Lipnitsky, "How to Study a Concrete Opening," in The Ragozin Complex, 24. 

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.

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