Don't Look Too Close

Blitz chess reveals a player's skill. It reveals intuition, judgement, and pattern recognition. Sometimes, it shows endgame strength or the ability to perform elementary checkmates in under ten seconds.

My strength is evident by my rating, which put me briefly on the USCF list of the top one hundred players older than 50 (see "Top 100"). My chess.com blitz rating, which is based on vastly more games, tells another story. It is volatile because my skill rises and falls day-by-day and hour-by-hour. Sometimes I play well when I squeeze in a game or two between other activities. Sometimes my play is horrid, especially during an addictive binge.

The Past Ninety Days

My ability to play well during a winning streak cultivates self-confidence. It reveals that I am a strong player as long as the games are not examined too closely.

This morning, I prevailed with the White pieces against a Sicilian Taimanov. We castled on opposite wings and both threw our pawns at the other's king, just as Alexander Kotov recommends in The Art of the Middle Game (1964). With a clear attack, I shed a bishop with nary a worry, Then, I blew it. An error in calculation gave my opponent a clear win.

White to move

After 21...Qb7

White's space advantage should lead to victory, However, Black might get some play on the a-file if White dallies.

The game continued:

22.g6 fxg6

Black's prospects improve after 22...e5, but White still has the edge.

23.hxg6 hxg6

I was prepared to meet 23...h6? with 24.Rxh6.

24.Bc4 d5 25.Qh2! dxc4 26.Qh7+ Kf7

White to move

27.Nxc4

This defensive move was unnecessary.

27.Rh6! Bf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Bxf6+ gxf6 30.Rd1 and White wins.

27...Bf6 28.Bxf6 Kxf6 29.e5+

29.Rcg1 is better.

29...Ke7 30.Qxg6??

It should not have required more than a few seconds to calculate 30.Qh4+ Kf7 31.Qf4+ Ke7 32.Nd6 Rdc8 33.Qg5+ Nf6 34.Nxb7.

30...Bb5 31,Qg5+ Kf7 32.Rhg1??

Black to move

32...Bxc4?

32...Kg8 and is is White's turn to defend. With best play, Black will prevail.

33.Rxc4= Qd5 34.Rf4+ Kg8 35.Qe7

Black to move

35...Rd7??

35...Qd3+ 36.Ka1 Qc3+ and Black forces a draw by repetition.

36.Rf8+ Kh7 37.Rh1+

37.Qh4#

37...Kg6 38.Rg1+ Kh7 39.Qh4#.

In the end, I could not even coordinate my queen and rooks with enough precision to demonstrate skill. It might be time to give up blitz after such a performance. On the other hand, blitz is fun. I also managed to play two games in a row with the Taimanov Sicilian, winning first with Black, then with White. Even though the games do not bear scrutiny, the experience could prove useful should I play the Taimanov in a tournament game.

What is Development

Every chess player is taught to develop his or her pieces. When did this term come into being as a cardinal principle? How is the term defined?

I offer this selection of quotes as a partial definition. All quotes have been typed from a physical copy of the book in question.

“The process of moving pieces from their starting positions to new posts, from which they control a greater number of squares and have greater mobility.” Yasser Seirawan, Winning Chess Strategies (1994), 240.

“By development is to be understood the strategic advance of the troops to the frontier line.” Aron Nimzovich, My System (1930), 4.

“[I]t is essential to bring pieces into play quickly at the start of the game. This process is called development.” Graham Burgess, Chess: Tactics and Strategy (2002), 459.

“The whole art of the Opening consists in bringing into action pieces which are first shut in, in freeing pieces by a very few pawn moves, and in getting them to favourable positions and that as quickly as possible. … A game is usually already more or less developed when, after the necessary pawn moves, the minor pieces are out, and the player has castled, generally on the King’s side.” Siegbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess (1935), 231.

“Development is getting the pieces out. … The basic principle is that it is essential in the opening to develop all the pieces harmoniously and in such a way as to secure the most favorable position possible in the center.” Reuben Fine, The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1943), 2.

“To have the better development is to have one’s pieces more effectively placed, always an advantage; to be ahead in development is to have a greater number of pieces in play, usually but not necessarily advantageous.” David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992), 107.

“The process of moving chessmen into positions where they can play an active and aggressive role, either defensively or offensively. … To get the chessmen into organized, cooperative and active positions, as quickly as possible, is the essence of sound development.” Byrne J. Horton, Dictionary of Modern Chess (1959), 50.

“In a chess game, develop means to move the pieces off their starting squares on the back row to squares where they have more freedom.” Jeff Coakley, Winning Chess Strategy for Kids (2000), 46.

“The main opening principle is rapid development of your pieces. What this means is that you should bring your pieces into play as quickly as possible.” Roman Pelts and Lev Alburt, Comprehensive Chess Course, vol. II (1986), 35.

“[T]he principle of bringing into play the greatest number of pieces in the shortest possible time.” Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005), 16.

“[I]t is essential to develop the pieces without delay, to bring them quickly into action and not lose any time.” Richard Reti, Masters of the Chessboard (2012 [1930]), 20.

“First of all we shall mobilize our troops, make them ready for action, try to seize the important lines and points which are yet wholly unoccupied.” Emanuel Lasker, Common Sense in Chess (1917), 10.

“The process of increasing the mobility of the pieces by moving them from their original squares.” Larry Evans and Burt Hochberg, How to Open a Chess Game (1974), x.

Balancing Advantages

A friend posted this position on Facebook, which he had reached in a game against a computer. He managed to lose it. Initially, I thought that his move from this position was the losing move and suggested another. After a few minutes analysis playing ideas out on a board, I discovered that his move and mine lead to the same result.

After more time with the position, I concluded that it had instructive potential.

White to move

How do you play?

a) Escort your passed h-pawn?
b) Rush your king to the queenside with ideas of capturing Blacks pawns there?
c) Something else?

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.

Determination

Reading Chess Informant

Last Thursday, Chess Informant 128 arrived via courier. With each new issue, I resolve to read all the articles or play through all of the games in the traditional section (see "Discovery"). With each new issue, I fall short of my goals.

I am determined to establish a new pattern, reading all of Informant 128.

Since Thursday, I have read all of the narrative text in Ernesto Inarkiev, "Moscow Candidates Tournament 2016"; Aleksandar Colovic, "Moscow Opening Report"; and Sarunas Sulskis, "European Championship 2016". I also solved rather quickly the first ending and was working on the second when I was interrupted by a text message that required action. Using the CD version that comes with the printed book, I have been working through the games and analysis in Inarkiev's article.

Black to move

Sergey Karjakin played 17...cxb4.

Inarkiev's comment brought my reading to a halt. He writes, "This is a tempting decision. Black sacrifices his queen for a rook, minor piece and a pawn, a balance of material that is usually sufficient" (18). My eye did not perceive the danger to the queen until I saw 18.axb4 Bxc3 19.Nc6 on the board, and only then could I begin to calculate the resulting imbalance.

Karjakin's determination at the Candidates shines in Inarkiev's narrative and analysis. The depth of the analysis and the complexity of the games reveals to me that my determination to read all of the issue clear through will require a significant investment of time.

My reading of Informant goes back two decades. The quality of my play has benefited. On this blog, I wrote about the first tangible benefit--a correspondence win in the 1990s--in "Playing by the Book" (March 2011). In a more recent correspondence game, I had this position with White.

White to move

Our game had been following Botsari -- Polgar,J, Eretria 2011, which Polgar won. Botsari played 28.Re7 and Polgar's pieces put an end to White's initiative. Apparently unbeknownst to my opponent, however, was the analysis of this game in Informant 112/51 by Dejan Antic who recommended 28.f7. I played that move and our game followed Antic's line 28...Rg7 29.Re8+ Nf8 30.Qd6 and then instead of the necessary 30...Qh4, my opponent played 30...Qh5+ and I won a few moves later.


Improving

If I continue to read Informant in bits and pieces and utilize my complete collection in electronic format as a reference in correspondence games, I will continue to see benefits. But I want more. I remain determined to improve my performance in USCF tournaments, reverse the slow downward slide that has been occurring since summer 2012, and renew efforts to push to a new peak rating (see "Eleven Consecutive Wins!" [July 2012]). I believe that Informant is among the most useful tools that I have for improving.

In the wake of my tournament success in 2012, I purchased Informant 113 as book and CD combination. Prior to that point, I acquired most of my Informant books after they went on sale because they were a year or more out of date, and acquired even more electronically via the CDs that had a year's worth. Gaps in my collection were filled when I placed fifth in the Reader's Contest for those who purchased Best of the Best 1000 (2008). When I bought Informant 113, I had a complete collection through the current issue. Several months later, when my collection was no longer current, I began systematically working through the games section (see "Training Log: August 2013"). That enterprise lasted several months, but eventually gave way other training priorities and my recurring obsession with blitz.

I bought a few more multi-issue CDs in 2014. Then, with download editions of Informants 119, 120, and 121, I was up-to-date with the latest issues. These were followed with timely downloads of Informants 122 and 123, keeping me current. Beginning with Informant 124, I became a subscriber. Each issue becomes the center of my chess focus for a few weeks after its arrival, but I never get through more than a fraction of the issue. I skim several articles and play through the games that interest me. Several printed issues contain brief notes that I make as I go through the games on the screen of my computer.

I am determined that with Informant 128 I will maintain the focus and self-discipline to work through every article, the games section, and the endings and combinations sections. There will be distractions. Since Thursday, I have played dozens of blitz games online. I also remain committed to study of Greco's and Morphy's games. I use these with my students. Time spent reading Informant must balance with study of classics.

The time and effort spent on Informant will improve the quality of my play.

Calculate

In pawn endings, a rook pawn (a- or h-pawn) usually draws. There are exceptions. While reading about these exceptions this morning in Muller and Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001), I suddenly remembered a game from last summer. From this position, I saw clearly the next ten moves or more.

Black to move

Rule of the Square

Earlier this week, I taught a class called "Six Most Important Pawn Endings" in Inland Chess Academy's June chess camp. I sought to highlight six principles that occur with some frequency. The rule of the square, also called the square of the pawn, was one of these principles. The basic illustrative position is presented in my post "Simple to Complex" (June 2012). There is further discussion in "Square of the Pawn" (January 2014).

In the camp, I also presented an illustrative position from a recent online blitz game where an ill-advised capture transformed a simple draw into a simple win for the opponent.

White to move

Despite an extra pawn, Black can make no progress without help. Almost any move here holds the draw. However, my opponent played the inexplicable 57.Rxg5?? Perhaps he was frustrated that I was playing on in a dead draw after he had offered a draw.

57...Rb6+ 58.Kf5 Rb5+ 59.Kf4 Rxg5 60.Kxg5

White's king is outside the square.

Black to move

61...a5-+.

Today, in a 15 10 game online, a different opponent missed a draw through failure to recognize the rule of the square.

White to move

I played 28.h4 because creation of a passed h-pawn seemed my best chance for advantage in this opposite color bishops ending. As Black's kingside pawns are on light squares, the bishop has difficulty stopping the pawn. Indeed, a few seconds of calculation confirmed that Black's bishop will fail.

28...Be8?

28...Kd7 or Kd8 stops the future passed pawn by moving into the square.

29.f5 gxf5?

29...exf5 30.gxf5 Kd7 should hold.

30.gxh5??

30.h5+-

30...exf5 31.Kf4 Bd7?

31...Kd7 was still possible

32.h5+-

Black to move

Perhaps my opponent saw this position a few moves back and found a way for his bishop to cover h8.

32...f6 33.exf6

I spent over one minute on this move. It was clear that the bishop cannot stop both pawns, but the king is in the square of the f-pawn. Alas for Black, the tempi that must be spent by the bishop leave the king unable to participate.

33.h6 was sufficient, however.

33...Be6 34.h6 Bg8 35.f7 1-0

With an overworked bishop, my opponent resigned.

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").