Read Critically

The Art of the Middle Game (1964) by Paul Keres and Alexander Kotov is an often recommended classic. I have the old Penguin paperback edition with an introduction by Harry Golombek, who also translated the book. This book is worthy of detailed study. I have started it on several occasions, but have yet to progress far.

Going through Kotov's "Strategy and Tactics of Attack on the King" (30-79), I get hung up on the first game fragment. One move played (9...R-Kt2; 22...Rb7 in the game score below) clearly loses material. Kotov does not consider alternatives. His book shows why the position after this move is lost for Black. But Black might have played a different move here or on the previous move.

Concerning attacks on opposite wings, Kotov offers a story that might be remembered when chess enthusiasts debate the relative merits of blitz (see "Improving through Blitz").

When I stayed behind at school with my school friends after lessons, and managed to play up to a hundred games in a single afternoon, the strategy was simple enough: I castled on the opposite side in the middle of violent (and mutual) king attacks. Whoever got his attack in first, won. The result was that I acquired an unfailing mastery of those positions where castling takes place on opposite sides, and from that time on I knew how to find my way about them.
Kotov, 32

As he begins to elucidate the principles of attacks on opposite wings, Kotov notes that "an offensive with pawns must be calculated with the same careful deliberation that one uses in assessing a combination" (32). Alas, Alexander Konstantinopolsky's calculations could have been refuted, even though his opponent did not do so.

Alexander Konstantinopolsky - Frank [E60]
Leningrad corr USSR, 1935

Kotov's analysis begins with the position after White's 14.O-O-O

Black to move

Kotov writes:

At the first glance it seems as though Black should arrive at a pawn attack first on the grounds of the advanced White pawns on c4 and b3 and also because he has 'good' pawns. But instead the isolated and scattered White pawns on the King's wing take over the task of destroying the enemy position." (33-34)*

14...a4 15.f4 axb3 16.axb3 b5 17.cxb5 Be6 18.h5

Although White's b- and c-pawns only appear to offer Black prospects for attack, Kotov suggests that Black's g-pawn is an essential target.

18...Bxb3 19.Rdg1 Ra7 20.f5! 

Black has not obtained anything concrete. The pawn on b5 is still alive and kicking; it stands adequately guarded and meanwhile Black's king's position collapses completely. Kotov, 34

20...Qa8

White to move

21.Bd3

A lesson that Kotov does not elucidate to my satisfaction in this example is the role of piece play. This move looked essential to me because the shattered pawn shield is less consequential due to the the defense of critical squares by White's minor pieces. Testing my belief that 21.Bd3 was necessary, I looked at some alternatives and then checked my analysis with Stockfish.

As it happens, my effort to refute alternative moves here revealed the refutation of White's next move. This refutation is absent from Kotov's text.

a) 21.fxg6 Ne4

a1) I considered 21...Ra1+? and saw 22.Bxa1?? loses for White 22...Qxa1+ 23.Nb1 Ne4 24.gxh7+ Kh8 25.Qd4 (25.Qb4 Bb2#; 25.h6 Bb2+) 25...Bxd4 26.exd4–+.

However, after 21...Ra1+, 22.Nb1± gives White the edge.

22.gxf7+ (22.gxh7+) 22...Rxf7 23.Qd4 Nxc3 24.Qxc3 Qxh1! and Black is better.

b) 21.hxg6 was judged by the engine as the only move offering White equality.

21...c5

Now White gets the opportunity of spreading confusion in the enemy camp. But other continuations too are of little help to Black. Kotov, 35

Confusion did indeed reign. Perhaps Kotov's choice of this word offers a clue that he understood the unplayed refutation of White's calculated attack.

21...Ra1+!! was not prevented by White's seemingly essential 21...Bd3.

22.Bxa1 is best (22.Nb1 Ne4-+) 22...Qxa1+ 23.Bb1 Nd5 24.Qb2 Qxb2+ 25.Kxb2 Bc4 and the pin on the knight leaves Black with more pieces.

22.b6! (Kotov)

Black to move

22...Rb7?

This move bothers me every time I go through Kotov's discussion. It should be clear than it loses a rook as well as abandoning the attack. If a rook must be lost, why not sacrifice one for play against the enemy king? After all, the other rook defends the pesky b-pawn's promotion square.

22...Ra1+!! is the correct move for much the same reasons offered in my analysis of the previous move.

23.Ne4 Nxe4 24.Bxe4 Qa4 25.Bxb7

White has already won a rook and Black's attack has still hardly got into motion. It is interesting to note that White defers for so long on the final capture on g6 and that the mere threat of exchanging forces Black to lose a piece. A beautiful illustration of the precept 'the threat is stronger than the execution.' Kotov, 35

25...Qc4+ 26.Kb1 Rb8 27.hxg6 hxg6 28.Bxg7 "and White soon won." Kotov 1–0



*My copy of the book is in descriptive notation. I have converted the notation in quotations to algebraic.

Refuting a Beginner's Error

While running a youth chess tournament on Saturday, I played a short game with a young student. He opted for Damiano's Defense, a not uncommon beginner's error. Some of my students this week are gaining experience by playing both sides of the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?! (see "Opening Disaster: Damiano's Defense").

White to move

For the beginning students, I asked them to play from this position for several minutes. Then, I showed them my game from Saturday, as well as a few alternative variations. After the instruction, they played from this position again, taking turns as White.

3.Nxe5! fxe5??

Black is only a little worse after 3...Qe7, a move once played by Mikhail Chigorin in a match (1850-1908), the great Russian master. That game was the source for a lesson in December (see "Outplay Chigorin").

4.Qh5+ Ke7

Black's other legal move, here, does offer prospects for counterplay if White's play lacks vigor.

4...g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 7.Kd1 Ne7 and White is technically winning, but not without problems. This position is a good one to practice against the computer.

5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ Kg6?

6...d5 allows the bishop to cover f5.

White to move

7.h4?

7.Qf5+ was the correct move.

7...h5

7...d5 was still possible.

8.Qf5+ Kh6 9.d4+ g5 10.hxg5+ Kg7 11.Qf7#.

My beginning students need to learn to recognize immediate threats and two move tactics. Advanced students, too, may learn from this short game and from practice from the positions after Black's move two, White's third move, and the variation given after Black's better fourth move.

Using Pins

ChessBase indices offer instructive access to the high quality games published in Chess Informant. Using the endgame index in my database of all Informants, I found this instructive position where Mikhail Tal simplified into an elementary pawn ending. The game was published as Informant 2/539 (1966) and was annotated by Aleksandar Matanović, founding editor of the publication.

White to move

Tal played 48.b5! threatening bxc6 and the pinned bishop. Perhaps b5-b6 was also a threat if Black tried 48...Kd8.

Petar Trifunovic played 48...Rxc5.

49.Bxh3 piling on the pinned bishop.

49...f5 50.bxc6 Rxc6 51.Bxf5 Rd6

White to move

Black's pieces are immobile.

52.Kg3 Ke8

Finally, Black steps out of the pin.

53.Rxd7 Rxd7 54.Bxd7+ Kxd7 55.Kg4

I wanted to say that White had only one winning move here, but 55.Kh4 works just as well.

55...Ke6 56.Kg5 Kf7 57.Kf5 1-0

In the final position, Black is in zugzwang--a common motif in pawn endings. See "Six Pawn Endings".

Lesson of the Week

Remove the Guard

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

White to move

After the unplayed 10...Qh4??

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

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

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

White to move

White to move

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

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

Black to move

After 16.g4?

Inaccuracy

Working through Practical Chess Exercises: 600 Lessons From Tactics to Strategy (2007) by Ray Cheng,* I came to this position:

Black to move

Two moves occurred to me and I examined both. As it turns out, my two candidate moves are the engine's top choices. After some thought, I selected the second best move. Tigran Petrosian selected the best move and went on to win.

*This position is number 28. John Dill brought Cheng's book to my attention last Wednesday as described in "A Zugzwang Lesson". Cheng's book contains tactics and positional exercises that span all phases of the game--opening, middle, ending. Some solutions are defensive in nature; others offensive. They are neither sequenced by theme, nor by difficulty. Many originate in games between amateurs.

Guioco Siciliano

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The game began:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

A Central Pawn Break

This morning, I planned to spend some time reviewing the first 48 middlegame positions in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (see "Year in Review 2015"). However, opting to quickly race through six games in the Paramount Database (see "Who is Better?") ended my planning of the day's study session. I reviewed one game. Black's thematic pawn break caught my eye and pushed me back through the game at a slower pace, absorbing the annotations along the way.

Nijboer,Friso (2534) -- Glek,Igor V (2566) [C11]
Wijk aan Zee II 75/265, 1999

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2

I have never faced this position in over-the-board play, but have seen it at least 79 times online. I have held White under 52%, but my overall score in my database is stronger. White's fifth move usually provokes a sense of discomfort because my plans for the middlegame are not yet formed. This move tests my preparation in the French Defense and finds me wanting. It is one of those weaknesses that provoked the current project of playing through every French Steinitz game ever published in Chess Informant.

5...c5 6.c3

6.f4 is often played.

6...cxd4 7.cxd4 f6 8.exf6

In his Informant annotations, Igor Glek notes that CI 59 has a game with 8.f4.

8...Nxf6 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Nc3 Bd6 11.Bd3 0–0 12.Bg5?! 

12.0–0 is the normal move, and is given without comment by Glek.

12...Qe8! 13.Qd2N 

Both 13.0–0 and 13.Qe2 had been played in previous games. One game in 2004 followed this one with 13.Qd2. Glek notes that Black gets an advantage after 13.O-O Qh5.

13...Nh5 14.Ne2

Black to move

This position slowed my race through the moves of the game.

14...e5! 

Black often plays this move in several lines of the French. Racing through this game, I paused to consider that I lack principles for understanding when this break is appropriate. Certainly tactical considerations are primary, but there must be some guiding positional concerns too. Although the position itself is unlikely to recur, elements of this position must be more common.

Breaking open the position while the opponent's king has not yet castled is an obvious point, but I sense there is more going on here.

15.Nxe5 

Glek offers 15.dxe5 Bb4 16.Nc3 Rxf3 17.gxf3 d4 with advantage to Black.

Analysis diagram after 15.dxe5 etc.

15...Nxd4!

I have retained Glek's move evaluations. In retrospect, this move executes a simple tactic of removing the defender. However, the point is less Black's immediate regain of the pawn than Black's control of the center.

With his thematic central pawn break, followed by strong moves, Black has seized control of the game's direction.

Such possibilities make the French Defense a good choice for players who like to attack.

16.Nxd4 Qxe5+ 17.Be3 Nf4 18.Bf1 Bg4

Black's minor pieces and queen occupy strong points in the center. One rook bears down on the White position and the other is prepared to move to the center. White's light-squared bishop was forced to retreat. Seigbert Tarrasch would certainly evaluate this position as substantially better for Black (see "Counting Tempi").

19.h3 Bh5 20.g3 

Black to move

20...Rae8?

Glek notes that he missed an opportunity here: 20...Qe4 21.Rg1 Qe7 22.a3 Ne6 with an advantage for Black.

It is hard for players at my level to see a tactical maneuver that forces the White rook to move so as to deprive White of the ability to castle. Is there another point to Glek's sequence?

21.gxf4 Rxf4 22.Be2 Rxd4

Black has compensation for the sacrificed material, according to Glek. He offers a long alternative variation here that begins with 22...Bxe2!? The main line ends in equality, but White has opportunities to err along the way.

23.Qxd4 Qxd4 24.Bxd4 Rxe2+ 25.Kf1 Re4! 

White to move

It is not difficult to understand how the bishop pair and a passed pawn compensates for White's extra rook, but I do not see good prospects for gaining a winning edge from this position. Even so, some precision is required from both players.

26.Bxa7 Be2+ 27.Kg2 Re6

Glek offers 27...d4 28.Rhd1! d3 29.Rxd3! when White's other rook finally joins the game to remove one of the Black bishops.

28.f4 Bxf4 29.Rhe1!= Bd2 30.Kf2 Bxe1+ 31.Rxe1 Ra6 32.Bd4 Bh5 33.Re7 Kf8 34.Rxb7 Rxa2 35.Bxg7+ Ke8 36.Ke3 Ra4 37.Bd4 Bg6 38.b4 Ra3+ 39.Kf4 Rxh3 40.Ke5 ½–½

Who is Better?

This position arose in Morozevich -- Bareev, Sarajevo 1999 (Chess Informant 75/264). Does Black already stand better, or did White err in the middle game? Perhaps this game was decided in the ending.

White to move

Morozevich played 14.Bg3 and Bareev went on to win after a long struggle. It was the my sixth study game this morning. I went through the game quickly, then marked it for further study.

Having identified the Steinitz variation as a weak point in my handling of the French Defense, I am laboring to transform weakness into strength. The first step involves absorbing patterns by rapidly playing through a large body of games.

My resource is the Paramount Database. The indexing system that this database brings to the material in all Informants 1-123 is proving useful. A list of the most popular openings contains links to all games in that opening. There are 588 games classified C11. I am working through all of these games, learning patterns. Sometimes I race through a game in two minutes. Sometimes I print a copy of the game for further study on a physical chess board after my first pass through the list.

The games published in Informant contain the development of theory in this opening through the past half century. When I return to study of opening monographs, the reference games will be familiar.

Morozevich -- Bareev is game 292 in the list of 588. Both players are devotees of the French Defense and have had many games published in Informant through the years.

The diagram position was reached at least once since 1999 in Wongwichit -- Song, Australian Open 2005. White played 14.Kb1 and went on to lose in 25 moves.