The Art of Analysis

How do you analyze a chess game?

I was thinking about this question this morning when I would have preferred to sleep another hour. Hence, I thought to open Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955) to the next game and analyze it. Then, I would compare my annotations to those Chernev offers. I am working my way through this book.

While analyzing a game, I look at many possibilities that will vary depending on the game and why it has come to my attention. For miniatures, such as one finds in this classic Chernev text, I expect to find a game-losing blunder and sometimes a series of weak moves. I make an effort to identify these before seeking any assistance from the annotations of others or from engines.

Wills -- Sparks [C42]
USA, 1942
Stripes,James

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?

This move is the critical error and a common beginner's mistake. There are few chess coaches who have not shown this error and the subsequent refutation to their students. It also appears in some of the oldest chess books and manuscripts (see the section on history below).

4.Qe2 Qe7

4...Nf6?? worsens matters and should be shown to beginners 5.Nc6+ wins the queen.

5.Qxe4

Black to move

5...d6 6.d4 f6

6...dxe5 and Black is a pawn down. Surely, this should be preferred to a futile effort for equality that cannot succeed against attentive play.

7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5

White to move

9.Nd5!+-

The refutation of Black's idea is a good example of an intermezzo. Instead of continuing a sequence of exchanges, White attack's Black's queen.

9...Qd6 10.fxe5 fxe5 11.dxe5 Qc6

11...Nxe5 12.Bf4 Yes, Black ends up a piece down, but that piece is a knight. Alternatives leave Black down a rook or a knight.
11...Qxe5 12.Qxe5+ Nxe5 13.Nxc7+ Kd8 14.Nxa8 Black may be able to trap the knight, being down only an exchange.

12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 1-0

Chernev does not highlight the critical error, but offers some analysis after the game is already lost. His headnote, however, offers a clue to Black's fatal decision: "Mimicry can be very amusing, but in chess it usually turns out to be expensive fun" (91).

Wills -- Sparks [C42]
USA, 1942
Chernev,Irving

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7

The knight must not move, as the discovered check will cost Black his queen.

5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.Nd5 Qd6 10.fxe5 fxe5 11.dxe5 Qc6

11...Qxe5 12.Qxe5+ Nxe5 13.Nxc7+; or 11...Nxe5 12.Bf4 wins a piece

12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 1-0

I must credit Chernev's sometimes cryptic annotations for driving me to think and analyze for myself when I first encountered this book 47 years ago.

History

Neither the players Wills and Sparks, nor this particular execution of these moves are well-known apart from Chernev's book, but the moves and ideas can be found in the texts of Pedro Damiano, Ruy Lopez. Giulio Cesare Polerio, Gioachino Greco, and others. In ChessBase Mega 2020, Greco's game is the oldest, but Chessgames.com has one attributed to Damiano.

The following game appeared in ChessBase News in Spanish and German versions on 21 May 2009. The only English versions I have found are Google Translate versions of these. The article is an interview with Mário Silva Araújo, an amateur historian who produced a biographical study of Damiano. Araújo suggests that Damiano fled Portugal to Rome because he was Jewish. In December 1496, King Manuel I of Portugal ordered the expulsion of Jews from the nation. According to Araújo, "It is the oldest known game played--and won--by a Portuguese."

Damiano [C42]
Rome 1497

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.Nd5 Qd6 10.dxe5 fxe5 11.fxe5 Qc6 12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 Qxe3+

The game presented on chessgames.com lists Araújo's study as its source and concludes 13...Qxb5 14.Nxc7

14.Nxe3 1-0

Early Petrov lines similar to those in these games span pages 449-452 in Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess". There the move order presented from Damiano's published text and its many reprints have 7...dxe5, but still reach a position after White's move 11 that is shared by all the games presented in this post.

Black to move

There are several continuations from this point in manuscripts from the late fifteenth century to Greco's seventeenth century work: 11...Qc6, 11...Qc5, and 11...Qg6. Monté also presents a fair number of alternatives to the main line that were explored in these manuscripts. Whoever Sparks may have been, he fell prey to one of the oldest known opening fiascos.

The Immobile Rook

As I plod through games that are referenced in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, sometimes a game will catch my eye. This morning it was Franzoni,G.--Dreev,A., Luzern 1993, published in Chess Informant 59/325. Dreev provided the annotations.

Black to move

After 23.Bf3

23...dxe3

My first impulse is to guard against the capture of the knight that forks king and rook. Dreev, however, found that his pawns and queen were quite strong enough for the attack. Meanwhile his pawn chain, immobile rook, and bishop could neutralize White's threats.

I should file this position away as an example of intermezzo.

24.Bxc6+ Kf8

White to move

25.Re2

Dreev offers two alternatives for this rook: 25.Rff1 and 25.Rf3. He carries out the second to move 31 when Black is forcing the queens off the board when ahead by a rook.

25...c3 26.Bxa8 cxb2 27.Rb1 Bxe2

White to move

28.f5 Qd2–+ 29.h3 exf5 30.e6 Bb5

One wonders how many moves back Dreev discovered this important resource. White's threats are not insignificant even though Dreev renders them impotent.

31.e7+ Kg8 32.Bf3 Qxc2 33.Bd5 Qxb1+ 34.Kh2

Black to move

34...f4

White's checkmate threat had to be stopped.

35.Qe5

Another checkmate threat.

35....Be8

Stopped.

36.Be4 Qe1 37.Bxg6 Qg3+ 38.Kg1 0–1

I'm always curious about the circumstances when the player who lost gets in the last move. White still has threats, but they are easily parried.

Zwischenzug

Zwischenzug is also known as intermezzo. It is an in-between or intermediate move, often a check, thrown into the middle of a tactical sequence. Missing these can dramatically alter your calculation of variations.

It is the last entry in David Hooper, and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992), where the authors define it as "a move interspersed during an exchange or series of exchanges" (460). They note that whether a given move is a zwischenzug may depend on one's point of view. It may be a natural part of the combination. Hooper and Whyld offer an interesting nuance in the definition, suggesting that the term is limited to failure of calculation.

Yasser Seirawan offers an instructive example in Winning Chess Tactics (2003), 118.

Black to move

Black intends to exchange rooks and then push the a-pawn. This plan fails because of an in-between check. After 1...Rxh4, White forces a draw with 2.Qd8+ Kh7 3.Qxh4+.

Two examples that I often use with my students are from Paul Morphy's first round games against James Thompson at the First American Chess Congress (1857).

White to move

In the first game, Thompson had planned a discovery as part of a series of exchanges on f5. 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.Nxf5 Rxf5 13.d4. However, Morphy interrupted the sequence with an in-between move.

11.exf5 d5! 12.Bb3 e4 13.dxe4 dxe4 and then Thompson missed the resource that could have kept him in the game, and so retreated the knight. Morphy won seven moves later.

In the second game against Thompson, Morphy used an intermezzo to win a pawn.

White to move

The Bishops will be exchanged, but White has some choice in the manner of exchange.

30.Bxb4 axb4 31.Rad7 and White (Morphy) went on to win an instructive endgame.

My young opponent at the Lou Domanski Chess Festival in Sandpoint, Idaho on Saturday found a slightly more sophisticated sequence involving an in-between move. It was not forcing, but offered me a series of unpleasant choices.

Black to move

After 16.e4

I played 16...dxe4, expecting 17.Nxe4 Nxe4 18.Bxe4 Rad8 with equality.

My opponent offered me the choice of a wrecked pawn structure on the queenside or on the kingside.

17.dxc5 Bxc5

I chose the wrecked kingside structure and the bishop pair.

18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Nxe4 Be7 20.Qh5

I could have been only slightly worse after 20...Rad8, but instead blundered away my queen and resigned.

Learn from Others' Errors

My students this week are seeing a series of positions from my games in the 25th Collyer Memorial Chess Tournament. From the same positions, the lessons vary due to skill levels of my students. These students can learn from my error in one game, and the errors of my opponents in others.

In the first position, I erred and lost the game. My error is an instructive tactic that might work in other circumstances.

White to move

I played 52.e6+ with the intent of deflecting Black's king from defense of g6. After 52...Kxe6 53.Kxg6, the game would have been drawn. However, my opponent played 52...Kg7! As it turns out, his move wins. It is also the only winning move after my attempted deflection.

Some of my students are learning this deflection tactic for the first time. For them, understanding how it might have worked is more important than comprehending why it failed.

Most of this game is presented with some detailed discussion at "Stronger King".

The second position comes from my first round game. My opponent had a tactical shot that she missed. After her move, I immediately eliminated the vulnerabilities that made this tactical knockout possible.

White to move

My opponent played 25.Bd2 and then I removed my rook from the e-file.

She could have played 25.Bxb6, capturing a pawn with a discovered attack on my rook. If I capture the bishop, I lose quickly. 25...cxb6 26.Rxe8 wins a rook for bishop and pins the queen against the king, winning it for a rook. Hence, I would have been forced to play 25...Rxe1 and after 26.Rxe1 the problem of the pin remains, so 26...Re7 27.Bxa5 when White has gained two pawns on the queenside for no cost and the bishop now guards White's vulnerable rook on e1.

I often say there is no luck in chess, but I was lucky that my opponent missed this tactic.

From the third position, my opponent executed a fork combinations that forced the exchange of his two knights for one of my rooks and a pawn. He failed to anticipate, however, my in-between move. In chess, there are two names for an in-between move. There is a German word, zwischenzug, and an Italian, intermezzo. These words mean the same thing. Chess students will find both words used interchangeably by different writers and speakers.

Black to move

21...Ngxe3 22.fxe3 Nxe3 23.Qe2 Nxf1

I need to capture this knight on f1, but before I do, I have my in-between move. Because my move gives check, the knight does not get time to escape. The importance of my in-between move is not the check, but that it gains a pawn and protects my pawn on d6.

24.Qxe6+ Kh8 25.Rxf1

My d6 pawn was vulnerable and is now secure. Because it is so far advanced, it is also extremely dangerous. After my opponent offered the exchange of queens, I was left with an overwhelming advantage due to the the queening threat of my advanced pawn.

My opponent could have played 21...Qxe6. Then, both players have chances as the game continues.