Must've been a Mouseslip

Online play this morning was odd. First I could get no advantage against a 900 rated player and that game was aborted because the Arena time ran out. Then, I was paired against a 1900+ (top .05% on a site that is 90% beginners) whose play left me confused.

Beginning at move five, my opponent's play was mysterious. We had reached a fairly normal position that can arise when White opts for the Catalan.

Black to move

I have had this position at least 283 times previously in online play, usually, but not always with White. In these games, both White and Black have performed within three points of their average rating with 138 White wins, 116 Black wins, and 29 draws. I have played 5...cxd4 and 5...Nc6, the two most popular moves.

5...g6?!

Only on Lichess, where the games database is huge, do I find any prior games with this move.

6.cxd5 exd5 7.O-O Bg7 8.dxc5

Black to move

8...Bf8? 9.b4

9. Nc3 was better. The one Lichess game with 8...Bf8 continued 9.Be3. It was a bullet game.

9...a5 10.Bd2?

10.Qa4+ Bd7 11.b5 Bxc5 and White is much better.

10...axb4 11.Bxb4 Nc6 12.Bc3

Black to move

12...Be7

White's poor play has restored Black to equality, but now White again has an advantage.

12...Bxc5 was the obvious move.

13.Nd4?!

13.Qc1 sets up a tactic to defend the pawn. To wit, 13...Bxc5 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Nc3 Be6 16.Nxd5+

13...Bxc5 14.Nxc6

And after 14...bxc6, the game is interesting and roughly equal.

14...Qd6??

White to move

15.Nd4 Bxd4 16.Bxd4 Ra4 17.Qxa4+ and Black resigned.

I had thought that 14...Qd6 was a mouse slip, or maybe a premove, but the 5.5 seconds Black used rules out premove. It was a strange move in a strange game. 16...Ra4, then, looks like Black trying to lose.

My next game was against a player in the high 1600s and featured some strange maneuvers also, but not such that dramatically altered the evaluation. Here, though, I thought I had trapped White's queen.

Black to move

24...Rf6

24...Rxf5, which I considered briefly is the engine's choice.

25.Nxd6?

White should have played 25.Qxd6 Rxd6 26.Bxf4 and White will have a rook, bishop, and pawn for the queen.

I went on to win this game, too, although my opponent proved resourceful without a queen.

Far more satisfying than this morning's games was one that I played yesterday. At move 11, I had the opportunity to win a pawn, but spend a few seconds making sure that I was not missing a zwischenzug. 

Black to move

11...Ncxd4 12.Nbxd4

12.Nfxd4 Nxd4 13.Bd3 might be better.

12...Nxd4 13.Nxd4 Qxd4 14.Bxb4 Qxb4 and I nursed the extra pawn into the endgame, eventually winning.

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.

Calculate

This past weekend was the 26th annual Collyer Memorial chess tournament. I have played most years, and have had my best and worst tournament results in this event. Twenty years ago, after my first date with my wife on the eve of the tournament, I lost every game and finished in last place. Round five in 1998 remains my only standard rated tournament loss to a player rated below 1200. In 2012, I won all four games--I have been taking a third round bye in every weekend tournament for the past ten years or so--and finished in second place.

Many years, the Collyer has been the tournament that gives me my greatest rating increase, but my terrible performance two years ago gave me my largest ever single event rating drop--70 points. This year, I won three and lost one, but all of my opponents were rated lower then me. My rating change was -1. I tied with four others for second place in A Class. The A Class winner is a former student who has surpassed me in the past two years.

On Saturday, I played well in the first game but was unfocused in round two and failed to thoroughly assess the consequences of my opponent's plan. He ended up with a clearly winning ending, which he played successfully. I played better on Sunday. The most complex position tactically occurred in round five against Loyd Willaford, who nearly always gives me a tough game, but now stands at seven losses and a draw against me in standard rated play. You might say that I've been lucky.

The critical position arose after Willaford's 17.Bf4

Black to move

Willaford,Loyd (1658) - Stripes,James (1833) [D05]
Collyer Memorial Spokane Valley (5), 25.02.2018

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 d5 5.Bd3 Bd6

Perhaps the bishop does not belong on this square. The combination of this move and 8...b6 gave my opponent chances that I should not have facilitated.

6.0–0 0–0 7.Re1 Nbd7 8.Nbd2 b6

This move brought me some difficulties.

9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Be7

I considered and rejected 10...Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Rb8, but my database tells me the line has been played in three master games with an even score.

11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Nxc5 Bxc5 13.Bg5 

Black to move

13...h6

13...Bb7 appears in the database. My move does not.

14.Be3 Qc7 15.Nd4 Bb7 16.Qd2 

I started trying to calculate the tactical and positional possibilities thoroughly during the five minutes I spent on this position and the twelve minutes spent on the next.

16...Ng4 17.Bf4

see diagram above the game score

17...Bd6

I think my move is best.

17...e5 is a nice fork, but after 18.Bg3, Black must see that the knight is safe due to the pin. With the knight on g4 without protection, is it wise to offer White an unprotected pawn to gang up on?

18.Nxe6

During my thinking, I considered the main line to be 18.Nb5 Bxf4 19.Nxc7 Bxd2 20.Re2 Rac8 21.Nb5 and then my bishop must retreat to f4 or g5. I was not sure I liked my position, and only during the post-mortum discovered that I would have been ahead a piece in this line.

18.Bxd6 Qxd6 19.g3 gave me some concern because of the threatened discovery on my queen.

I also looked at the moves that followed in the game all the way to the end, as well as some unplayed variations.

18...fxe6 19.Bxd6 Rxf2

White to move

20.Qxf2

I was satisfied that 20.Bxc7 Rxd2 was better for me because I overlooked 21.Bf1. My engine says the position is equal.

After the game, Loyd and I examined 20.Re2 and White came out better in the lines we considered. This was a line I did not foresee during the game.

20...Qxd6!

This zwischenzug was the key to making 18...fxe6 work.

White to move

21.Qg3 Qc5+ 22.Kh1

22.Kf1 looks bad, but was better. 22...Rf8+ 23.Ke2. I did not calculate further because it appeared that the lines would be forcing enough and I should not be worse due to the vulnerability of White's king.

22...Nf2+ 23.Kg1 Nxd3+ 24.Kh1

I thought 24.Re3 was better, where I thought I would play 24...Nxb2.

24...Nxe1 25.Rxe1 Rf8 0–1

Loyd Willaford's graceful resignation a piece down ended this game within the limits of a miniature.

Rook versus Bishop

When I think that I understand something, I expect to be able to execute the maneuver in mere seconds. Sometimes, my understanding of the patterns is not strong enough. It is well-known that rook versus bishop is usually a draw, but that a few positions favor the rook. One such position is an exercise in my Essential Tactics: Building a Foundation for Chess Skill (2017).

White to move

The tactic is simple. 1.Kf6, forcing the bishop to move. But then, the finish takes me more time than I think it ought. I want to execute the moves to checkmate in ten seconds or less, but find that the calculation can require a minute or more. Each White move must contain a concrete threat of a) checkmate, b) capture of the bishop, or c) the final threat that pins the bishop on the back rank, creating zugzwang. One slip and a drawn bishop versus rook ending is reached.

In rare instances, usually with more pieces on the board, the bishop dominates the rook. This composed problem came to my notice via Mikhail Tal, and Victor Khenkin, Tal's Winning Chess Combinations (1979).

White to move

White need only check the king from a square where the bishop cannot be captured. Alas, both the immediate 1.Bh3 and 1.Bg4 fail. A zwischenzug is necessary to divert the rook from control of these squares.

Watching Fireworks

A couple of evenings ago, I played a blitz game online that seemed as though it turned bad in a hurry. My assessment was wrong. At the very moment when my opponent opened up the center and initiated exchanges, causing me to feel helpless, I had a clear win. My assessment, much to my delight, was completely wrong. I made the only moves that seemed sensible, and it turns out that most of them were the best possible move.

Stripes,J (1978) -- Internet Opponent (1921) [A33]
Live Chess Chess.com, 26.04.2017

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.g3 cxd4 5.Bg2

5.Nxd4 may be more accurate.

5...Nc6

5...e5

6.Nxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bxc3+

7...d5

8.bxc3 0–0

8...Qa5 9.0–0 0–0 10.Qb3 d5 11.Rd1 Ne4 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.c4 Be6 15.cxd5 Bxd5 16.Qa3 Qb5 17.Bf3 Nf6 18.Bf4 Bxf3 19.exf3 Rfe8 20.Rd2 Re6 21.Rad1 ½–½ Schlosser,P (2485) -- Hracek,Z (2455), Brno 1991.

9.0–0 a6 10.Ba3 Re8

White to move

11.Rb1?

11.c5 Qc7 12.Rb1 Rb8 13.Qb3 Qe5 14.Bxc6 dxc6 15.Nxc6 Qh5 16.Nxb8 Ng4 17.h4 g5 18.c6 gxh4 19.c4 bxc6 20.Nxc6 Bd7 21.Ne7+ Kg7 22.gxh4 f5 23.Qg3 Kf6 24.Rb7 Rxe7 25.Bxe7+ Kxe7 26.Rd1 1–0 Schroll,G (2385) -- Kwatschewsky,L (2300), Gamlitz 1993.

11.Bd6!

11...d5

11...Ne5 and White's advantage is minimal.

12.cxd5 Nxd5?

12...exd5 hold White to a minimal advantage.

White to move

13.c4

13.Nxc6 is better 13...bxc6 14.c4+-.

13...Nc3?

13...Nde7±.

14.Nxc6

Only non-losing move.

14... Nxd1?

I saw and expected 14...bxc6 15.Qxd8 Nxe2+ 16.Kh1 Rxd8 but I didn't realize that I was winning here.

15.Nxd8+-

Only non-losing move.

White has an overwhelming advantage, but I did not yet know that. I thought I was fighting for a slightly worse position, thinking that I would be down an exchange. On ChessTempo, it is possible to train with tactics exercises labelled "counting pieces". That's where my assessment failed during this game.

Black to move

15...Nc3 16.Nxb7!

The best move.

16...Nxb1 17.Rxb1+-

The best move.

17...Bxb7

White to move

18.Rxb7

18.Bxb7 is better 18...Rab8 19.Bd6 Rbd8 20.c5.

18...Reb8

18...Red8 is also losing, but keeps the game going longer.

19.c5!

The best move.

19...Rxb7 20.Bxb7

The only non-losing move, of course, but easy.

20...Rb8 21.c6 1–0

Black must give up the rook to stop the pawn from queening.

Byrne -- Fischer, New York 1956

"Game of the Century"

It was quite an experience to watch [Bobby Fischer] during the critical stage of the game. There he sat like a little Buddha, showing his moves with the calm regularity of an automaton.
Hans Kmoch, "Game of the Century," Chess Review (December 1956)

Hans Kmoch, as manager for the Manhattan Chess Club, directed tournaments there. The Third Lessing J. Rosenwald Trophy Tournament took place 7-24 October 1956 at the Manhattan Chess Club and the Marshall Chess Club. Fischer was invited because he had won the U.S. Junior Championship in July, the youngest player ever to do so. The Rosenwald tournament was the first time that he played against the top masters in the United States. His round 8 win against Donald Byrne won the tournament's brilliancy prize and was dubbed the "game of the century" by Kmoch.*

Kmoch wrote that the game, "matches the finest on record in the history of chess prodigies" (Kmoch, Chess Review, rpt. in Bruce Pandolfini, The Best of Chess Life and Review, vol. 1, 1933-1960 [1988], 525).

This game has been annotated many times. For my annotations, I went through the game several times. At several critical positions, I wrote my anticipated variations without moving the pieces. After recording these lines, I checked mine against Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, part IV Fischer (2004). I then checked some of my lines with Stockfish 7.

This game strikes me as a good one for honing a player's calculation skills. It is among my candidates for "best game ever played."


Byrne,Donald -- Fischer,Robert James [D97]
New York Rosenwald New York, 1956

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 0–0 5.Bf4 d5 6.Qb3 dxc4 7.Qxc4 c6 8.e4 Nbd7 9.Rd1 Nb6 10.Qc5?! 

10.Qb3 seems better.

10...Bg4 11.Bg5?

11.Be2 seems necessary.

11...Na4!

This move stunned me when I was playing through the game on a chess board last week. On the one hand, it is a simple deflection combined with a threat to remove the guard of the e4 pawn. On the other hand, Black cannot win a pawn, but rather offers an exchange sacrifice. Fischer had to calculate several lines. In all of these, the vulnerability of White's king proved decisive.

White to move

This position was on my board at the dining room table for most of the weekend. I returned to it several times to study and record possible variations.

12.Qa3

Alternatives begin with 12.Nxa4 Nxe4 and then:

a) 13.Bxe7 was the first line I recorded in my notes. 13...Re8 is the computer's second choice (The engine prefers 13...Qc7 14.Bd6 Nxd6) 14.Bxd8 Nxc5+ (Kmoch has this line, but revereses the order of the previous two moves) 15.Be2 Nxa4 16.Bh4 Nxb2 and Black is clearly better.

b) 13.Qxe7 was my second line. 13...Qxe7

My analysis falls short here. The engine prefers 13...Qa5+ 14.b4 Qxa4 15.Qxe4 Rfe8 16.Be7 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Bf8 Garry Kasparov credits Sergei Shipov with this line. Clearly Black is winning.

Continuing my line: 14.Bxe7 Rfe8 15.Be2 (The engine prefers 15.Bd3 ) 15...Rxe7 16.0–0 (The engine prefers 16.h3 ) 16...b5 17.Nc3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Rxe2 Black is ahead a piece.

c) 13.Qc1 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Nxg5 is offered by Kasparov. I did not look at this line.

d) 13.Qb4 Nxg5 14.Nxg5 Bxd1 15.Kxd1 Bxd4–+ Kasparov. Another line that I failed to examine.

My third line continued:

e) 13.Qa3 Nxg5 14.Be2 Nxf3+ (Stockfish prefers 14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Qa5+ 16.Nc3 Qxa3 17.bxa3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3) 15.Bxf3 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 and Black is winning.

12...Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qb6

White to move

15.Bc4

What if White accepts the exchange sacrifice?

15.Bxf8 Bxf8 16.Qc1

I also considered 16.Qb3 Qxb3 (Kasparov gives 16...Nxc3, attributing the suggestion to Yuri Averbakh) 17.axb3 Nxc3 18.Rd2 Re8+ 19.Be2 Bb4-+

16...Re8 17.Be2 Nxc3

Analysis diagram after 17...Nxc3

I spent a lot of time trying to find a defense for White here. Instead, I found only lines leading to checkmate or to an overwhelming material advantage for Black.

18.Rd2

(Stockfish prefers 18.Qxc3 Bb4 and there was no doubt in my mind that Black was winning here)

18...Rxe2+ 19.Rxe2 Nxe2 20.Kxe2 Qb5+ 21.Ke1

(21.Kd1 seems best 21...Qd3+ 22.Qd2 Bxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qxf3+ 24.Kc2 Qxh1-+)

21...Bb4+ 22.Kd1

(22.Qd2 Bxd2+ 23.Kxd2 [23.Nxd2 Qe2#])

22...Qd3+ 23.Qd2 Qxd2#

15...Nxc3 16.Bc5

I considered 16.Qxc3 Rfe8 17.0–0 is Stockfish's choice, as it was mine (I did not look at Kasparov's line 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7 18.Ng5+ Kxe7 19.0–0 Bxd1 20.Rxd1) 17...Rxe7 and Black has a clear edge.

16...Rfe8+ 17.Kf1 Be6!!

White to move

18.Bxb6

After the possible 18.Bxe6, I spent a lot of time looking at complex and unclear lines before I saw Fischer's plan: 18...Qb5+ 19.Bc4 Qxc4+ 20.Kg1 Ne2+ 21.Kf1 Ng3+ 22.Kg1 Qf1+ 23.Rxf1 Ne2#.

I also saw 18.Qxc3 Qxc5 19.dxc5 Bxc3 20.Bxe6 Rxe6.

After Fischer's queen sacrifice, the moves seemed rather forcing and I did not look at variations again for many moves.

18...Bxc4+ 19.Kg1 Ne2+ 20.Kf1 Nxd4+ 21.Kg1

I did not examine 21.Rd3 axb6.

21...Ne2+ 22.Kf1 Nc3+ 23.Kg1 axb6 24.Qb4 Ra4 25.Qxb6 Nxd1

White to move

26.h3

I did not examine 26.Qxb7 Bd5 27.Qd7 Re2.

26...Rxa2 27.Kh2 Nxf2 28.Re1 Rxe1 29.Qd8+ Bf8 30.Nxe1 Bd5 31.Nf3 Ne4

Here it seems to me that White is running out of moves. He has not been in the game since capturing Fischer's queen. In fact, he was lost before that. His role is to make the moves that permit the young Fischer to demonstrate his skill.

32.Qb8 b5

Kasparov mentions 32...Kg7.

33.h4 h5 34.Ne5 Kg7 35.Kg1 Bc5+

White to move

36.Kf1

I knew that 36.Kh2 would lose quickly, but my Ra1 is inferior to 36...Nd2!

I saw 37.Qc7 (37.Nf3 Bd6+) 37...Bg1+ 38.Kh1 Nf2#.

36...Ng3+

36...Bc4+? 37.Nxc4.

I found another checkmate as fast as Fischer's: 36...Rf2+ 37.Ke1

37.Kg1 loses faster 37...Rf4+ 38.Kh2 Rxh4#.

37...Bb4+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Rc2+ 40.Kd1 (40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Ka1 Ra2#) 40...Nf2#.

37.Ke1 Bb4+

Kasparov points out a faster checkmate: 37...Re2+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ba3+ 40.Kb1 Re1#.

38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ne2+ 40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Kc1 Rc2# 0–1

After this game, the world noticed Bobby Fischer. Within a few years, he became a leading candidate for a future World Championship match. When he finally reached the summit, he gave up on chess. Of course, there were reasons. He set conditions that were not met wholly.


*For some of the historical details concerning this tournament, I am indebted to John Donaldson, and Eric Tangborn, Bobby Fischer: The Early Years: 1943-1962 (Amazon Digital Services, 2017).

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.

Remove the Defender

This position arose via a French Tarrasch.

Black to move

I played the correct move after 3.7 seconds of thought. My opponent overestimated its potency and abandoned the game after one more move.

It looked to me that Black is simply winning, but Black has some problems and White has some resources.

Ne2?

Last weekend I played in the Spokane Contenders, a round robin tournament that determined the challenger to our city champion. I had won this tournament in 2008 and 2012. I also tied for first in 2010, finishing second on tie-breaks. I played again in 2014, but my play was mixed and I finished in the middle.

My play was mixed again this weekend. I won my first round game on the Black side of a Ragozin--the first time I had played this opening in over-the-board play. I had been reading The Ragozin Complex (2011) by Vladimir Barsky and practicing the opening in some online blitz (see "Opening Inaccuracy" [2014]).

On Sunday, I played a long and interesting game against a former student, a three-time elementary state champion finishing his sixth grade year. He is growing accustomed to beating the A Class players who occupy the top tier of players in my city. In round three, he beat the player I had defeated in round one. We played a long game that ended in a draw. After he offered a draw on move 46, I tortured him as long as I could, struggling in vain to provoke an error. I had trained him well in the endgame and he refused to crack. After twenty moves of probing, I exchanged my rook for his bishop and advanced pawn and we played out the dead drawn pawn ending rapidly until stalemate on move 79.

Then, in round five, I misplayed a Sicilian Kan in the same manner that I have done in the past and was essentially lost by move eleven. I played another fourteen moves attempting tricks, all of which failed.

In the second round, Saturday afternoon, I played the lowest rated player. I had beaten him in all of our prior encounters and sat at the board with confidence. We quickly reached a familiar tableau.

Stripes,James (1811) -- Frostad,John (1608) [D18]
Spokane Contenders Spokane (2), 04.06.2016

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0–0 0–0

White to move

9.Ne2?

In 2007, I played 9.Qe2 against my phone, a RAZR running Chessmaster. I won that game easily. I also played 9.Ne2 once before in a correspondence game that I lost after a long struggle.

Perhaps the question mark is not fully warranted. Several strong Grandmasters have played this move, although the highest rated Black player who has lost is Rok Hrzica 2296.

The central problem with this move is that it wastes tempi, conceding the initiative to Black. In the game, I not only expended several tempi to gain the bishop pair, but also failed to attend to the needs of my bishop on c4 and hence did not continue with a pair of bishops into the middle game.

9...Nbd7 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Nh4

Both 11.Bd2 and 11.b3 seem a little better.

11...c5 12.Nxg6

12.f4 was played in Bogoljubow,E -- Alekhine,A, London 1922, which was drawn in 70 moves.

12...hxg6 13.Qf3

13.dxc5 is probably best 13...Nxc5 (13...Ne5 and drawn in 58 moves,.Piket,J (2670) -- Shirov,A (2710), Aruba 1995) 14.Qe2 Nfe4 and Black went on to win a long struggle Rubinstein,A -- Alekhine,A, London 1922.

13...cxd4 14.exd4 Nb6

White to move

15.Qb3?

15.Bb3 keeps the prospect of maintaining a bishop pair alive. White is already suffering for his errors. Black's pieces are mobile and coordinated. Black's plan to eventually win the isolated d-pawn is simply and straightforward. Meanwhile, my only effort to generate counterplay hinged on a mating attack employing either quuen and knight against f7 (easily stopped) or creating a battery of heavy pieces on the h-file (nearly impossible).

15...a5

15...Qxd4 and Black is clearly better.

16.Rd1

16.Be3

16...Nxc4 17.Qxc4 Nd5 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Bxb4 Nxb4 20.Ne4

20.Rac1

20...Nd5 21.Qe2 Rac8 22.Nc5 Rfd8 23.Qf3 Qc6 24.Nd3 Qb6 25.Ne5 Nf6 26.g4?

Black to move

26...Rc7

26...Rxd4! 27.g5 Rxd1+ 28.Rxd1 and White can consider resigning.

27.Rac1

27.g5 would at least be consistent with my desperate plan to go all in for checkmate. Of course, Black maintains an advantage and a comfortable game.

27...Rxc1 28.Rxc1–+ Qxd4 29.Qg3 Nd5 30.Nf3 Qxb2 31.Rd1 Qc2 32.Rd2 Qxa4 33.Qh4 Qa1+ 34.Kg2

Black to move

34...f6

34...Nf4+! wins more quickly, as I showed my opponent after the game. 35.Kg3 Rxd2 36.Nxd2 f6 37.g5 (37.Kxf4 g5+) 37...e5-+.

35.g5 b5 36.Nd4 Kf7 37.Qh3 Nf4+ 0–1

Frostad's play was solid enough to let me self-destruct. He went on to win the event and gets to play the city champion is a four game match in August. He is the second lowest rated player to play in our city championship (see "Fifteen Minutes"). I wish him well.

The loss of time with the Ne2 maneuver is a feature that I note with some frequency in my lessons with young students. Once these young players reach the point where they can understand three move tactics and are ready for complete games, we go through the eighteen games that Paul Morphy played in the First American Chess Congress. In his first game, James Thompson wasted time playing Ne2. His plan was grounded in a tactical shot aimed at the f5 square. Morphy calculated the tactics one move deeper and gained a clear edge via a zwischenzug.

Thompson,James -- Morphy,Paul [C50]
USA–01.Kongress New York (1.1), 1857

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 h6

White to move

6.Ne2 d6 7.c3 0–0 8.h3 Kh8 9.Ng3 Nh7 10.Qc2

White's play is grounded in the belief that Black's intent to push f7-f5 fails tactically.

10...f5!

Morphy understood both Thompson's plan and the tactical refutation.

11.exf5

Black to play

11...d5

The zwischenzug.

12.Bb3 e4 13.dxe4 dxe4 14.Ng1 Ne5 15.Be3 Nd3+ 16.Ke2 Bxe3 17.fxe3 Qh4 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Qxd3 Qxg2+ 20.Kd1 Bxf5 21.Qe2 Qxh1 0–1

There is a moral to this story. If I insist on making the sort of moves that I teach my young students to avoid, I will lose. Regular readers may recall another tragicomic loss when I failed to heed a lesson from a familiar Morphy game (see "Knowing Better").

Crashing Through

Although it is difficult to calculate more than a few moves deep in blitz, the positions created in such play remain instructive. White has a clear advantage in this position, but the final blow was not clear to me. I had White.

White to move

The game continued 26.Qh8+ Bg8 27.Ne6+ Rxe6 28.fxe6 Qxe6 29.d7 Rd8 and it is no longer clear that White has the advantage.

How might I have found better moves with only seconds available for calculation?

Lesson of the Week

Chess students are divided into two groups: beginners and advanced. Beginners range from those who do not know how to move the the pieces, but want to learn, to those who have been playing chess a year or more, but have not yet played in tournaments. Advanced players competed in scholastic tournaments last year. Most qualified for and played in the Washington State Elementary Chess Tournament. Some of these students won trophies at state.

The lesson of the week differs for these different groups.

Beginners

We began by understanding the chessboard as ranks, files, and diagonals. Each square has a name. The students learned these names. We then discussed two pieces: king and rook. Even those who had never played chess before should now know how the king and rook move. They should understand check and checkmate. We looked at checkmate from two positions. Some of the students will need additional work.

Cutting off the defending king's escape is essential to finishing the game from both positions.

White to move

White's is able to checkmate Black in two moves. First, one of the rooks moves to the seventh rank, cutting off the Black king's escape from the edge. After Black moves the king to one side of the other, the other rook moves to the eighth rank with checkmate.

White to move

Moves that put Black in check delay the end of the game. For example, 1.Rf8+ forces the defending king off the edge of the board, which is what Black wants. Cutting off the king's escape, on the other hand, ends the game quickly.

1.Rc5 Ke8

Black had only one legal move.

2.Rc8#.

Checkmate.

Advanced

Advanced students were presented with a position from a game between masters, Skembris -- Gouloutis, Anogia 2015. The core of the lesson comes from a variation that might have been played. This variation is presented in the notes to the game in Chess Informant 125, which was published last week.

Black to move

The first lesson from this position is understanding that despite superficial appearances, Black's b-pawn is not protected. The a-pawn is pinned because White's queen and a1 rook both eye the rook on a8. The rook on b8 also fails to protect b4 because moving the rook would leave the a8 rook unprotected.

In the game, Black played 26...e5. The game concluded 27.Nxb4 exd4 28.Nc6 Rf8 29.Ne7+ Kh8 30.Re4 Nf6 31.Rh4+ Nh7 32.Qe4 Qc5 33.Ng6+ and Black resigned.

Although we looked at the game's actual moves, we concentrated upon the variation in the notes by Spyridon Skembris, the game's winner.

26...a4 27.Nxb4 Ra7 28.Nc6 Rxb3

White to move

How should White respond to the threat upon his queen?

The in-between move is best. This concept of an in-between move--doing something else that is forcing before taking necessary action against an opponent's threat--is often expressed by chess players with the terms zwischenzug (German) or intermezzo (Italian). This concept is the second lesson for advanced players.

We see the in-between move Ne7+ in the actual game, as well as in the variation. In the variation, however, this tactic and the multiple pins do not give White a decisive advantage as they do in the game.

The variation continues:

29.Ne7+ Kf8

We also looked at the consequences of 29...Kh8, which is not discussed in the notes, to wit, 30.Re4 Rxf3 31.Rh4#.

30.Nxg6+ Kg8 31.Qe2 Qb7+ 32.d5 Nf6 and Black has counterplay that balances against White's attack.

The Opera Game

H.R.H. the Duke of Brunswick is a thorough devotee to Caissa; we never saw him but he was playing chess with some one or other. We were frequent visitors to his box at the Italian Opera; he had got a chess-board even there, and played throughout the performance. On our first visit "Norma" was performed. The Duke's box is right on the stage; so close, indeed, that you might kiss the prima donna without any trouble. Morphy sat with his back to the stage, and the Duke and Count Isouard facing him. Now it must not be supposed that he was comfortable.
Frederick Milnes Edge, Paul Morphy: the Chess Champion (1859), 172.

A casual reader of Frederick Edge's Paul Morphy, could easily surmise from this passage that Vincenzo Bellini's Norma was performed on stage when Paul Morphy played his "most famous game".* However, David Lawson, who researched matters thoroughly, asserts that the game was played during a performance of Barber of Seville by Gioachino Rossini.

On the second of November they heard the Barber of Seville, during which Morphy played his most famous game, the Duke again consulting with Count Isouard. In his games with Morphy, the Duke always had a partner, sometimes two, Counts Isouard and Casabianca consulting against him.
Lawson, Paul Morphy: the Pride and Sorrow of Chess (2010), loc. 3271 Kindle ed.

Lawson's documentation is not on par with his research. Verifying his claims, and the counter-claims of many writers before him, has proven vexing. Edward Winter's outline of several unknown details and the contours of disagreement is well-worth reading (citation below).

It seems clear from these two passages in the books by Edge and Lawson that Morphy played several games against the Duke of Brunswick in consultation with one or more Counts. Several of these games were played at the opera as a guest of the Duke. Yet, it seems, only one record of these games remain.

This one recorded game was a stellar performance by Morphy. It is included by Rashid Ziyatdinov in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge as game 14. It was my study game a week ago, and this past week comprised my "lesson of the week" for youth chess players. It is an instructive illustration of effective and ineffective pins. My annotations were written without sight of a chess board, giving me confidence that I am beginning to understand this game.

The Game

Morphy,Paul  -- Duke of Brunswick, Count Isouard [C41]
Paris, 1858

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4

The inadvisability of this pin is addressed in "Lasker's Rules".

4.dxe5

Black to move

The rapid conclusion of this game may give the impression that the Duke and Count were weak chess players. But, here, they demonstrate understanding of zwischenzug--something many of my young chess students need to learn.

The immediate 4...dxe5 loses a pawn.

4...Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4

This simple checkmate threat is far too effective against scholastic players. Even at the Washington State Elementary Chess Championship, games will end quickly with Scholar's Checkmate.

6...Nf6

The Duke and Count block access of White's queen to f7.

7.Qb3

Morphy renews the threat against f7, adding an attack on b7. From b7, the queen may snatch the rook.

Black to move

Thinking that many of my students could quickly find the answer, I asked: How can Black protect both the pawn on f7 and the rook on a8? I was disappointed at the answers.

7...Qe7 8.Nc3

8.Qxb7 Qb4+ 9.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 10.c3

8...c6 9.Bg5

Morphy's pin of the king's knight is vastly more effective that when his knight was pinned, although he, too, violates the letter of Lasker's Rule.

9...b5?

9...Nbd7 seems better.

White to move

10.Nxb5! cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7

White to move

Morphy has managed to pin both of Black's knights.

12.0–0–0

Both White rooks will come to d1 for the battle of d7.

12...Rd8 13.Rxd7

It was important to capture with the rook, temporarily sacrificing an exchange when already down material, because this capture keeps a Black piece pinned on d7.

Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6

White to move

White is down a rook for two pawns, and yet has more force in the battle. If Black is able to mobilize their bishop and other rook, this game will become one of Morphy's rare losses.

15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Qb8+

Forcing Black's response and leading to checkmate. This queen sacrifice is the essence of the Opera Checkmate, a combination that leads to a more elementary bishop and rook checkmate.

16...Nxb8 17.Rd8# 1–0



*Frank Marshall called Morphy's opera game, "the most famous game of all time" (Comparative Chess [1932]). See Edward Winter, "Morphy v the Duke and Count," Chess Notes (updated 20 March 2014).