""

20th_July_2010: Initiative

Half a story

Some things in chess are very concrete and visible -- checkmate, or a knight fork, perhaps, or as we get better, we can also see superior development or pawn weaknesses.  There are more abstract features of a chess game which are less easy to see, at least at a glance, and you can appreciate best over a whole game or a part of a game.  Annotators often talk about a player's 'feel for the initiative', which is at least a warning that this is not going to be an easy session.

Half a story

For a long while, I understood only half the story of chess.  From the introduction to Michael Stean's excellent little book Simple Chess:

"Don't be deceived by the title--chess is not a simple game--such a claim would be misleading to say the least--but that does not mean that we must bear with the full brunt of its difficulty. When faced with any problem too large to cope with as a single entity, common sense tells us to break it down into smaller fragments of manageable proportions. For example, the mathematical problem of dividing one number by another is not one that can in general be solved in one step, but primary school taught us to find the answer by a series of simple division processes (namely long division). So, how can we break down the 'problem' of playing chess?

"Give two of the uninitiated a chessboard, a set of chessmen, a list of rules and a lot of time, and you may well observe the following process: the brighter of the two will quickly understand the idea of checkmate and win some games by 1. e4 2. Bc4 3. Qh5 4. Qxf7 mate. When the less observant of our brethren learns how to defend his f7 square in time, the games will grow longer and it will gradually occur to the players that the side with more pieces will generally per se be able to force an eventual checkmate. This is the first important 'reduction' in the problem of playing chess--the numerically superior force will win. So now our two novices will no longer look to construct direct mates, these threats are too easy to parry, but will begin to learn the tricks of the trade for winning material (forks, skewers, pins, etc.), confident that this smaller objective is sufficient. Time passes and each player becomes sufficiently competent not to shed material without reason. Now they begin to realize the importance of developing quickly and harmoniously and of castling the king into safety."

"So what next? Where are their new objectives? How can the problem be further reduced? If each player is capable of quick development, castling and of not blundering any pieces away, what is there to separate the two sides? This is the starting point of Simple Chess. It tries to reduce the problem still further by recommending various positional goals which you can work toward, other things (i.e., material, development, security of king position) being equal. Just as our two fictitious friends discovered that the one with more pieces can expect to win if he avoids any mating traps, Simple Chess will provide him with some equally elementary objectives which if attained should eventually decide the game in his favor, subject to the strengthened proviso that he neither allows any mating tricks, nor loses any material en route. "

"Essentially, Simple Chess aims to give you some of the basic ideas for forming a long-term campaign. It also shows you how to recognize and accumulate small, sometimes almost insignificant-looking advantages which may well have little or no short-term effect, but are permanent features of the position. As the game progresses, the cumulative effect begins to make itself felt more and more, leading eventually to more tangible gains. Combinations and attacks are shelved for their proper time and place as the culmination of an overall strategy. Given the right kind of position it is not so difficult to overwhelm the opposition with an avalanche of sacrifices. The real problem is how to obtain such positions. This is the objective of Simple Chess."

These permanent (or at least long-term) features of the position that he discusses are things like open files, outposts, colour complexes, space.  We might think about different levels of chess: Scholar's Mate (Level 1), tactics (Level 2), opening principles (Level 3), and now positional elements (Level 4).

With this firmly in mind, how can we explain Alekhin's 9th move here?

Alekhine  - Poindle [C67] (simul.) 1936

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 Nd6 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.Ng5

This move is not possible to understand in terms of the first four levels of chess.  In fact, it directly contradicts the opening principles that we have learned, like don't move any piece twice until you have move every piece once.  Alekhin judges that straightforward development (e.g. Re1+) would have allowed Black time to get sorted out - this move denies Black that time.  Threat follows threat, and Black can never settle.

    EG:

Alekhin-Poindle

So, brace yourself for Level 5: dynamic chess.

The Initiative: definition and description

The initiative is the capacity to make threats.

"As the pieces are set on the board both sides have the same position and the same amount of material. White, however, has the move, and the move is this case means 'the initiative', and the initiative, other things being equal, is an advantage. Now this advantage must be kept as long as possible, and should only be given up if some other advantage, material or positional, is obtained in its place. White, according to the principles already laid down, develops his pieces as fast as possible, but in so doing he also tries to hinder his opponent's development, by applying pressure wherever possible. He tries first of all to control the center, and failing this to obtain some positional advantage that will make it possible for him to keep on harassing the enemy. He only relinquishes the initiative when he gets for it some material advantage under such favorable conditions as to make him feel assured that he will, in turn, be able to withstand his adversary's thrust; and finally, through his  superiority of material, once more resume the initiative, which alone can give him the victory. This last assertion is self-evident, since, in order to win the game, the opposing King must be driven to a position where he is attacked without having any way to escape. Once the pieces have been properly developed the resulting positions may vary in character. It may be that a direct attack against the King is in order; or that it is a case of improving a position already advantageous; or, finally, that some material can be gained at the cost of relinquishing the initiative for a more or less prolonged period."

-- Capablanca in Chess Fundamentals, Chapter 4.

Examples: from initiative to attack

"The main objective of initiative play is not so much to force the win but rather to prevent your opponent from equalising." -- Colin Crouch, Attacking Technique.

EG: Akesson-Morozevich.


EG: Tal-Simagin.

Quieter forms of the initiative

This is much less exciting, but Black may also struggle to equalise in quieter positions

EG: Hort-Polugaevsky

Relinquishing initiative

I haven't found it so easy to find examples of this feature, which seems so obvious.  Anyone?

EG: Winawer-Zukertort


EG: Capa - allies

I know a young nman who often loses the initiative, having got a winning material advantage, and the consequences are sometimes painful to watch:

EG: Malam-Slade


The foundations of initiative (activity, King safety, structure and space)

Initiative based on superior piece Activity

We've seen Moro on the rampage, here's a simpler one:

EG:

Kramer-Busek

Initiative based on opponent's unsafe King

EG: Lasker-Reti


Initiative based on superior Structure

EG: NN-NN

Initiative based on Space

Another form of structural advantage, I guess.  Many games won on the basis of space can be thought of as having an element of initiative to them: the side with the extra space can organise threats much more easily, even if they can't at first break through.

EG: Fischer-Gheorghiu


Losing the initiative when you have more space is awful; you're defending a much longer line, that is well within reach of your opponent.

EG: Webb-Hartston


You will notice that I have so far drawn example from master play; club games tend to be cluttered with so many errors in tactics and strategy that the issue of the initiative is lost in the fog.   But among the top county players you can see the pursuit of a persistent initiative in good style, and I watched one this year:

EG: Mackle-Edgell

The psychological initiative

Jonathan Rowson is always interesting to read, and he does not disappoint in his chapter on the initiative (Chess for Zebras).  However, he ends up folowing Suba in saying that the initiative is largely psychological in nature.  I don't deny that the initiative has strongly psychological elements, but there is something on the board too.  Rowson (and I) find this easiest to see in those games where White tries to attack Black's position from the first move, say, in the sharp main lines of the Najdorf.  Black can always find a defence after the game, but during a game it's not so easy.

The struggle for the initiative in the opening

Alekhin's defence: 1.e4 Nf6 "White has his initiative to defend" -- Tartakower.

The opening can be played to seek an advantage in development, or space, or both, but some lines cannot be understood except as a struggle for the initiative.  In many modern variations this makes for very sharp play, and some 'unnatural' moves.  The main lines of the Najdorf, an opening we looked at earlier, have this quality.

EG: Sicilian Najdorf

EG: Fischer-Tal


The initiative can be more important than general opening guidelines

EG: Alekhin-Wolf

The initiative can be more important than material

Kasparov did some video interviews a while ago, and John Watson commented in his review "Kasparov also believes that the new generation of the 90s plays a different kind of chess than that of the 80s, believing that 'initiative can be worth material'." This comment is utterly lacking in historical subtlety.  Alekhin's quest for the initiative often took precedence over material, and I can think of a few of Capablanca's games where his initiative won out over a lost pawn. More recently, Alexei Suetin's book Modern Chess Opening Theory, translated by our very own David Richards, gave many examples of material sacrifice for the initiative.  Perhaps the top players of the 1990s extended the range and daring of such sacrifices for the initiative, but it is hardly a new insight. 

EG: Marshall-Capa

EG: Nimzo-Capa

EG:

initiative in the opening & a pawn sacrifice for White (Suetin)

EG:

a pawn sacrifice for initiative in the opening for White (Kasparov: Geller-Tolush gambit)

EG: a pawn sacrifice for initiative in the opening for Black (Browne: Benko gambit)

EG: other sacrifices of material for initiative (Bronstein: exchange sac in the Grunfeld)

EG: not enough initiative

(Korchnoi: Poisoned pawn)

“I like to coax my opponents into attacking, to let them taste the joy of the initiative, so they may get carried away, become careless and sacrifice material.” -- Korchnoi

The struggle for the initiative in the middlegame

EG: Spassky-Tal


The initiative can be more important than structure

A revealing moment:

EG: Fischer-Larsen

Defending against the initiative

Defence is another session or three, but to some extent it depends on your style: do you prefer to defend in an active, enterprising, opportunistic, counter-attacking style (Lasker, Kasparov, Korchnoi) or is it more your style to be solid, gritty and patient? (Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov)  Of course, all the best players can play how they like, and it's hard to put the latest generation (Kramnik, Topalov, Anand, Carlsen) into pigeonholes.

I mentioned last time Karpov's tenacity in defence: strengthening his position where he can, challenging and exchanging his opponent's strong pieces, making progress with his own ideas when given a chance; here's an example.

EG: Timman-Karpov

Defensive sacrifices

I was very struck, following the first Karpov-Kasparov encounter, in how many games Kasparov sacrificed a pawn.  We have seen an example of him doing so when trying to win, but he also uses the same device when trying to get enough counterplay to hold the balance.

EG:

Karpov-Kasparov 85

Turning points of a game

...may be seen in the transfer of the initiative.  John Watson in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy talks for a while about the ebb and flow of initiative in modern chess, but without an example to support his highfalutin talk.  It is difficult to find games where the initiative is exchanged as a result of good play based on the features of the position, rather than losing the initiative because of a second-rate move.  Anyhow, here is a game where we see an exchange of the initiative; play it through and see if you can 'feel' who is pressing.

EG:

Karpov-Kasparov 87

At club level it's even harder to find games where the initiative might go back and forth as a result of something other than errors, but try this one, perhaps:   

EG: Regis-Littlejohns

Further reading:

Dvoretsky in School of Chess Excellence, vol.3, says something characteristically sniffy along the lines of 'annotators often mention the initiative, so you can tell it's important, but hardly anybody has written anything good about it...' and then offers a couple of chapters of his own.  But don't start there!  His books feature a succession of very complicated examples which I expect are just the thing that aspiring IMs should study if they want to be GMs, but are generally hard to make use of if you aren't that good yet. 

Nonetheless, I think an understanding of the initiative is useful for club players.  Fortunately, Dvoretsky is quite wrong to say that there is nothing worth reading on the subject; besides the references mentioned above, Max Euwe dealt very well with it in his Middlegame books with Kramer, and Hansen's more recent chapter in Improve your Positional Chess uses very much the same framework.  I've also noticed (but not read) a long chapter by Beim in How to Play Dynamic Chess.  Suba talks a lot about initiative in Dynamic Chess Strategy, a book that I have struggled to get much out of; again, the talk floats a little too high above the evidence.

""

13th_July_2010: Thinking

A thinking task (de Groot)

Six positions to consider; pick one, perhaps the one in the top left.  Now, I want you not just to think up a move, but notice how you think it up.  You will need to write down your thoughts, or get someone to write while you think.  Off you go, take as long as you like.

EG:

de Groot A.
Scholtens C.

NLD Ch prelim
1936











1-0 [de Groot]


EG:

Shafritz A.
Heisman D.

Main line CC Chp G/75 (3)
Palm Handheld, 2002











0-1 [Heisman]


EG:

Wind J.
de Groot A.

Club Competition
1935











0-1 [de Groot]


EG:

NN
NN

de Groot (2)
Ernie, 2010











1-0 [Heisman]


EG:

Pannekoek J.
de Groot A.

Match (12)
1934











1/2-1/2 [de Groot]


EG:

NN
NN

de Groot (1)
Zyme, 2010











1-0 [Heisman]



Comments:

I liked
(a) the way Charlie started off with 'what are my opponent's threats
(b) Jonathan's search for a direct forced win
(c) Charlie's use of a list of candidate moves

I didn't like so well:
(a) some people didn't mention the opponent at all!
(b) lists of candidate moves sometimes didn't include very direct moves like captures
(c) having spotted a threat, you didn't check to see if your chosen move met the threat
(d) some people didn't check their chosen move at all

Flip-Coin Chess, Hope Chess and Real Chess (after Dan Heisman)

hopeless chess

Unless you're playing Real Chess, every move, you will be accident-prone.  It's slow for us, I think, when GMs seem to take in so many tactics at a glance, but the ideas are not complicated, we just need to be consistent and to be thorough.

Chess is unlike the 'white to play and win' problems from books and magazines, where there is a right answer which you may be able to spot quickly, and where you might spot the first move almost instantly.  Mistrust what you think, as your opponent will surely try to find out what is wrong with it.

A thinking mnemonic (the least we have to do)

thinc

A thinking process (the best you can do)

Do you know how to analyse?

"Recently I was invited to the closing ceremony of a team tournament in which candidate masters and first-category players were playing. I asked my audience what they would like me to talk to them about, and I was inundated with requests. Some asked me to demonstrate some interesting combination, others wanted to know how to play the Sicilian Defence correctly for Black. `But do you know how to analyse variations?' I asked my listeners, and without giving them time to reply went on, `I will show you how to analyse variations and if I'm wrong, then stop me. Let us suppose that at one point in your game you have a choice between two moves, R-Q1 or N-KN5. Which should you play?' You settle down comfortably in your chair and start your analysis silently saying to yourself the possible moves.

`All right, I could play R-Q1 and he would probably play B-QN2, or he could take my QRP which is now undefended. What then? Do I like the look of the position then?' You go one move further in your analysis and then you pull a long face--the Rook move no longer appeals to you. Then you look at the Knight move. `What if I go N-KN5? He can drive it away by P-KR3, I go N-K4, he captures it with his Bishop. I recapture and he attacks my Queen with his Rook. That doesn't look very nice ... so the Knight move is no good. Let's look at the Rook move again. If he plays B-QN2 I can reply P-KB3, but what if he captures my QRP. What can I play then? No, the Rook move is no good. I must check the Knight move again.  So, N-KN5, P-KR3, N-K4, B x N, Q x B, R-Q5 No good! So I mustn't move the Knight. Try the Rook move again. R-Q1 , Q x RP.'

At this point you glance at the clock. `My goodness! Already 30 minutes gone on thinking whether to move the Rook or the Knight. If it goes on like this you'll really be in time trouble. And then suddenly you are struck by the happy idea -- why move Rook or Knight? What about B-QN1?' And without any more ado, without any analysis at all you move the Bishop. Just like that with hardly any consideration at all. My words were interrupted by applause. The audience laughed, so accurate was my picture of their trials and tribulations."

Think Like A Grandmaster, Alexander KOTOV (Tr. Cafferty)
A good model

Positions A-C are taken from de Groot's PhD study in the 1930s (published as Thought and Choice in Chess, 1946), and Dan Heisman has used the other positions in the same way, as reported in his recent book The Improving Chess Thinker.  This was Max Euwe's approach to position A, which might be a model for how to approach a fairly lively position.
(G5; A) S: MAX EUWE E: DE GROOT T = 15 MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1938
( Italics are for tactual clarity and do not represent G5’s emphases.)

Algebraic

Euwe’s verbalisation

Comments

　

First impression: an isolated Pawn; White has more freedom of movement.

Orientation (de Groot);
Evaluation (Heisman)

...Qxb2
a3

2.Nxd5
a3
f6
e7
...Qxb2
a2

Black threatens...QxNP. Is it worthwhile to parry that? It probably is; if he takes, then QR3 is also attacked. Can White then take advantage of the open file? Does not look like it. Still again 2.NxB and then by exchange the Pawn at QR3 is defended by the Queen. Indirectly in connection with the hanging position of the Knight at KB6 and possibly because of the overburdening of the Bishop at K7. But wait a moment: no, ...QxNP is rather unpleasant after all because the Bishop at R2 is undefended. Can I do something myself?

Consider opponent’s threats (Heisman)

Threats

f6 & d5

Investigate that first: the pieces on KB6 and Q5 are both somewhat tied down.

　
　

Let us look at the consequences of some specific moves.

Exploration (de Groot)

1.Nxd5, 1.Nxc6
1...Rxc6

1.NxN, possibly preceded by 1.NxB. Then 1...RxN is probably impossible because of taking on Q5.

Hopes
　

Black has a number of forced moves, there may be a possibility to take advantage of that.

 　
　

It's not yet quite clear.

　

1.Bh6 f7

Let us look at other attacks: 1.B-R6 in connection with KB7 - but I don't really see how to get at it.

　

1.b4
1...Nxc3 / 2...Bb5

2.Qxc3

1.P-QN4 in order to parry the threat - but then exchange on QB3 will give some difficulties in connection with 2...B-N4 - oh, no, that is not correct, one can take back with the Queen.

　

　

1.Nxc6
1.Nxd5
1.Bxd5
1.Bxf6

So far a somewhat disorderly preliminary investigation. Now, let's look in some more detail at the possibilities for exchange: 1.NxB or 1.NxN or maybe 1.BxN/5 or maybe first 1.BxN/6

Investigation (de Groot).

Candidate moves (Heisman).

All forcing moves (Heisman); note the order – the most positionally desirable first.

1.Nxc6 Rxc6
2.Nxd5 exd5 b2
2...Nxd5 3.Bxd5 Rxc1 / 3...Bxg5
1...bxc6

1.NxB RxN; 2.take on Q5; for instance 2.NxN PxN; wins a Pawn but there may be compensation for Black on QN2. But better is 2...NxN; then 3.BxN RxR is nearly forced, no, it is not, he can play 3...BxB as well. I see no immediate advantage. 1...PxN is not forced therefore; and even if it were, you couldn't be quite sure of winning. It's happened before that such a position proved less favourable than at seemed to be. The point Q5 is reinforced by it, that is a disadvantage.

　

1.Nxc6

(So let’s think about) 1.taking on Q5. 1.NxB at any rate gives the pair of Bishops; if I don't find anything better, I can always do this.

Bookmarking ‘best so far’.

1.Nxd5 Bxd5 d7
2.Bxf6 Bxf6 3.Nd7 Qd8

1.NxN, BxN; is that possible? Q7 is free then. 2.BxN, BxB/3; 3.N-Q7, Q-Q1 can then be done.

　

1.Nxd5 Bxd5
2.Bxf6 Bxf6
1...Nxd5 2.Bxd5
Bxg5/ c6 / f2-f4

1.NxN, BxN; 2.BxN, BxB/3 will probably yield something. 1...NxN is also possible; maybe better. Then 2.BxN BxB/5 and now there are the possibilities to take on QB6 or to play something like P-B4; once again:

　

1.Nxd5 Nxd5
2.Bxd5 Bxg5
3.Rxc6 2.Bxe7 1...exd5

1.NxN NxN; 2.BxN, BxB/5 - no, nothing then, 3.RxB does not help any; it is a cute move but at the end of it all everything remains hanging. Something else: 2.BxB - he just takes back. 1...PxN is very favourable; he won't do that; it needn't be investigated.

 　

1.Nxd5 Nxd5
2.Bxd5 Bxg5
3.Bxc6 Bxc1
1...Nxd5 2.Bh6 Red8 3.Qf3
e8

1.NxN NxN remains. 2.BxN BxN; 3.BxB, BxR is then possible. No, can find no way to make anything out of this. 1...NxN; 2.B-R6, KR-Q1; 3.Q-KB3 with some threats; if Black now has to play his Bishop back to K1 then one gets a good position.

　

1.Bxd5
1.Bxd5 Bxd5
2.Nd7
2...Bc4

1.Bxd5 Nxd5
2.Nxd5

1.BxN/5: this must be looked into. Does that make any difference? 1.BxN/5, BxB is again impossible because of 2.N-Q7. That is to say, we will have to look out for 2...B-B5, but that we can probably cope with: the worst that can happen to me is that he regains the exchange, but then I have in any case some gain of time. 1.BxN/5, NxB; 2.Same difficulties as just before. No, that is now impossible: 2.NxN wins a piece.

　

1.Bxd5 Bxd5
2.Bxf6 Bxf6
3.Nd7 Qd8
4.Nxd5 exd5
1.Bxd5 exd5
f6 / e7 / c6 1.Bxd5

1.BxN/5, BxB; 2.BxN, BxB; 3.N-Q7, Q-Q1.Let's have a closer look at that: 4.NxB/5, PxN and I'm an exchange to the good: very strong. 1.BxN/5, PxB is therefore forced. But that is good for White. The Knight on KB6 is weak, the Bishop at K7 hangs - and the Bishop on QB3 stands badly. On positional rounds one could already decide on 1.BxN/5. Is there some immediate gain?

　

1.Bxd5 exd5

2.Qf3 f6
2...Kg7

1.Bxd5

1.BxN/5, PxB; it looks bad for Black. Probably some more accidents will soon happen. Much is still up in the air. One plays, for instance, 2.Q-B3. Defending the Knight on KB6 is not so easy; 2...K-N2 looks very unpleasant. Yes, I play:

1.BxN/5.

Proof (de Groot) Check

Not sure how good it is, but is sure that it’s good and is better than the rest! (Heisman)

Euwe discounts the possibility that a non-forcing move will be any better. (Heisman) Improve

To be honest, not every GM analysed so long or in such an orderly manner; you almost got the idea that Fine homed in on Bxd5 in the first minute or so and spent the rest of the time justifying it!  But if you don't have his judgment or intuition, try Max's approach.

Tips for thinking

Lots of ideas there: candidate moves, bookmarking, looking at forcing moves and generally desirable moves, trying things in different orders...  Here's a set of tips.

  • Unhelpful thinking habits
    • Overlooking key features of the position
    • Thinking for yourself, not your opponent
    • Playing without a plan (and playing by general principles more than the position in front of you, and playing openings without understanding the ideas)
    • Endgames are boring and complicated
    • Wishful thinking (also anxiety, haste, vagueness, confusion and simple-mindedness)
  • Helpful thinking habits
    • List all the candidate moves to start with and look at them all quickly first
    • Look at forcing moves first
    • Try different move orders
    • Check moves before you play them (this doesn't mean go round in circles - decide first, then check!)
    • Exchanges are just moves: don't prefer or avoid them without a reason
    • Good positions don't win games - good moves do
    • "Play a move which improves your position no matter what." - SILMAN
    • Expect your opponent to play the best move
    • Take nothing for granted
    • Set priorities:
      • Opponent's threats rather than your dreams
      • Pieces rather than Pawns
      • Sooner rather than later
      • Flexible rather than committal
      • Central rather than wing play
      • Preventable before inevitable

Instead of a conclusion:

I think this sort of exercise is useful.  Repeat once in a while, and see if your thinking process gets any better.

""

29th_June_2010: Three results

Charlie suffered a bit in the last round and wondered if he could fight harder when he was losing.  IM Douglas Bryson once said that in every game he wins there is one point where he loses control and the likely result of the game wobbles for a moment.  That should tell us that in our games there may be opportunities to strike back: we can still hope for a draw or even a win when we are losing.  This is part of a more general problem of getting the right result for you in a game.  Jonathan Rowson talks about playing for two results as opposed to three, or even one...  If you aim at a win and miss, you might draw, but if you aim for a draw and miss?

We often talk about winning a won game, or indeed losing one.  I thought about making some notes on
Winning...
...won
Drawing...
 a
 ...drawn
 ...game.
Losing...
...lost
Things are rarely so identifiable: I know when I'm worse, but the transitions between worse and losing and lost may pass me by.

Let's consider:

 Winning
 Drawing
 Losing
Won


Better


Drawn


Worse


Lost



And putting a bit of meat on the bones, some advice, some good examples, some horrible examples, some master games, some club games:


 Winning
 Drawing
 Losing
Won
 EG: Botvinnik-Szilyagi
EG: Regis-Dale
EG: Regis-Anderson
  • Control the game
  • Vigilance at all times
  • Keep your eye on the ball
  • Strike when necessary

 EG: Regis-Knox
  • Faint heart
  • Fear of losing
  • Fear of opponent
  • Vagueness
  • Letting critical moment pass
  • Lack of technique
 EG: Regis-Walton
EG: Regis-Paulden
EG: Royle-Marsh
  • Losing control
  • Losing concentration
  • Losing interest
  • Not in the moment
  • Your opponent changes gear and you don't react properly
  • Hope Chess
Better
 EG: Botvinnik-Kann
EG: Ditmas-Regis
EG: Brusey-Regis
  • As above
  • Keep up pressure
  • Cashing in
  • One wobble (Bryson)
EG: Regis-Greet
EG: Blackmore-Isaac
EG: Morgan

  • (As above)
 EG: Regis-Lubrook
EG: Brusey-Regis
  • As above; also:
  • Carrying on in the hope that your better position reappears
Drawn
 EG: Miles-Webb
EG: Regis-Hewson
EG: Gurevich-Short
  • Persistence
  • Patience
  • Suitable modesty
  • Accumulation of advantages

 EG: Richmond-Regis
  • Patience/Stubbornness
  • Don't make concessions
  • Keep active
  • Exchange with caution

 EG: Regis-Jamieson
EG: Capablanca-Menchik
  • Trying too hard to win!
  • Trying too hard to draw!
  • Making unnecessary concessions 
  • Not making necessary concessions
  • Going passive
  • Trying to force the issue
  • Wanting the game over
  • Panicking
Worse
 EG: Gosling-Regis
EG: Pope-Regis
  • Avoid concessions
  • Avoid exchanges
  • Keep active
  • Don't lose
  • Keep going
  • Create threats
  • See The Swindle
 EG: Regis-Sedgwick
EG: Waley-Keen
  • Be realistic
  • Recognise trouble
  • Do something before it's too late
  • Don't panic
  • Keep going
  • Don't lose!
 EG: Waley-Keen
EG: Regis-Anderson
  • Sleepwalking to the graveyard
  • Losing interest
  • Lashing out
  • Lack of technique
Lost
 EG: Annetts-Regis
EG: Stean-Webb

The Swindle:
  • You need an accident to happen to your opponent
  • Eliminate losing options quickly
  • Force game out of usual channels
  • Randomising moves (chaos)
  • Keep enough pieces on
  • Keep enough pieces active
  • Make threats
 EG: Regis-Greet
EG: Waters-Regis
  • Perpetual check
  • Bluff
  • Sieze the carp
  • Elimination method
 EG: Brusey-Regis
  • Let events take their course
  • Leave flaws in your position unmended
  • Let game proceed normally
  • Haste
  • Blunder in a bad position

Several of these squares complement each other (highlighted): if you are trying to win a better game, your opponent should be at least trying to avoid losing!

Let's start with Charlie's initial bleat: how to avoid losing. EG:

Waley-Keen. 

Well, there was certainly the moment when White lost control, right at the end, and perhaps the way to find the best line for Black was the process of elimination (41...Kb5?? loses to two fairly obvious checks, so that's a hint to play 41...Kb7).

Working backwards, and with the help of Fritz, we can find some improvements for Black. 

Chart of game evaluation at each move

However, I can't find a move that gives Black any counterplay.  In fact, Black's attempts at getting some play (22...f5? and 36...b5) just make things worse! 

So this was one of those unpleasant games where Black just has to avoid making the situation worse, and find small ways to make things better (22...f6 and 23...Kf7 doesn't save the game for Black, but improves the position a little).  Karpov was the master at this sort of thing, whether he was better or worse!

However, that is a pretty miserable way to play chess, so I'm going to point the finger at 8...d4?!, making a concession for no good reason, and also 3...Be7, which rather says that Black is making things up as they go along -- which I had a lot to say about last time.

""

22nd_June_2010: Openings workshop

The simpler and more specific queries were dealt with first:

Some introductory remarks

Some signs of trouble:

EG:

A problem in the Stonewall Attack

Maybe the answer is a different system!

EG:

Defending against the King's Gambit

Some ideas for Black

EG:

The Sicilian for beginners

The Sicilian is not for beginners!

EG:

The Slav for beginners

Learn at least a few moves of an opening to play against 1.d4

EG:

Benonis

There is no guaranteed route to happiness...

EG:

The Reversed Sicilian

If the Sicilian is the best defence, why isn't the English the best opening?

EG:

Defences that work against 1.d4 and 1.c4

The Tarrasch and the Stonewall Dutch

EG:

""

26th_May_2010: Summer Coaching 2010

With the close of the club championship (congratulations Graham) I am thinking about organising some coaching sessions over the summer (the latest phase of the blind leading the wossname).  If people would like this, I would like suggestions, and perhaps even volunteers, for sessions.

I've had the approach in previous years of asking you to identify three things in chess that you do well (or well enough) and three things that you would like to improve.  I've taken the list of targets for improvement and anything that more than one person wanted to do I've arranged a session on.  I've also usually done a general Q&A on Openings and am happy to kick off the series with that one.

I still think that's a reasonable starting point, but we could have an extra productive session if these lists of chess skills/understanding could be emailed or otherwise notified to me in advance.  So, all material gratefully received.  The comment system below I think still works, we have a fine Yahoo group and many of you know my email address.

""

13th_Feb_2010: A bird's eye view of repertoires

I've compiled a spreadsheet of recommended White repertoires from various books, websites and other sources; it is interesting that some sort of consensus emerges, at least for the 1.e4 player, even though no one book recommends the complete list:
  • Main system: Scotch Four Knights'
  • Alekhin (1...Nf6): Exchange
  • Caro-Kann (1...c6): Panov-Botvinnik
  • French (1...e6): Tarrasch
  • Pirc/Modern (1...g6): 150 Attack
  • Scandinavian (1...d5): Main lines
  • Sicilian (1...c5): Alapin 2.c3
There's some sort of theme there about looking for regular structures: there are IQP/hanging pawns structures around in several of the lines.

I'd be interested to hear of any additions (or corrections -- I don't own all this stuff so I've had to take some of it from reviews and BB comments).

Repertoires spreadsheet in Open office format
Same again in Excel 97 format

""

12th_Feb_2010: When and where to attack

Steinitz' accumulation theory

Steinitz became World Champion (more or less) in 1866 by beating Adolf Anderssen in a bloodthirsty match (+8 -6 =0).  His style was very much in the tradition of the Italian school, playing for attack from the word go.  He was awarded the brilliancy prize for this Rook sacrifice:
His play in the of 1872 was still in this style, but his play in the tournament of 1873 was in marked contrast, playing for small positional advantages in the opening and early middlegame, and converting to a win only later.  Converting to a win might still be a brilliant attack, but it was more likely to be scooping up a few pawns.
Steinitz was World Champion for 20 years -- because, he said, he was 20 years ahead of his time!  His theories diffused into the chess world through lots of little pieces in newspapers and magazines, as never produced a book or a summary of his theory during his life (he died before he completed The Modern Chess Instructor). Lasker undertook to explain Steinitz to the world after he died, and Tarrasch also wrote a lot about Steinitz' theories.

Steinitz' elements (after Lasker) Steinitz' rules of attack

Permanent advantages

1. Material advantage
2. Bad king position
3. Passed pawns in the middlegame
4. Weak pawns for the opponent
5. Strong and weak squares
6. Pawn islands
7. Strong pawn centre
8. Control of a diagonal
9. Control of a file
10. Bishop pair
11. Control of a rank

Temporary advantages

12. Bad piece position
13. Inharmoniously placed pieces
14. Advantage in development
15. Concentration of pieces in the centre (centralization)
16. Space advantage

 "
  1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium.
  2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game.
  3. Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning move.)
  4. As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the attacking pieces and the attacker will then inevitably suffer disadvantage.
  5. Therefore a player should not attack until he already has an advantage, caused by the opponent's error, that justifies the decision to attack.
  6. At the beginning of the game a player should not at once seek to attack. Instead, a player should seek to disturb the equilibrium in his favour by inducing the opponent to make an error - a preliminary before attacking.
  7. When a sufficient advantage has been obtained, a player must attack or the advantage will be dissipated."
From David HOOPER, Steinitz' Theory, British Chess Magazine Vol. 104, p.370, Sept 1984.

Now, where to attack may be obvious, but just in case not: you attack where you are strongest or where your opponent is weakest.

Here's a quick example:
  • (306)
    QGDD63

    Marshall
    Kline

    weak pawns: creating holes
    1913


    1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. e3 O-O 7. Rc1 b6 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Qa4 Bb7 10. Ba6 Bxa6 11. Qxa6 c6 12. O-O Ne4 13. Bxe7 Qxe7










    14. Qb7 Rfc8 15. Nxd5 Qd6 16. Rxc6 1-0

If we compare pieces and pawns, the inequalities are:
White's plus points Black's plus points
  • White's Queen's Rook on c1 is more active than Black's Queen's Rook on a8.
  • White's Queen on a6 is more active than Black's Queen on e7
  • Black has a weak pawn on c6 -- in fact, Black has a few weak light squares around on the Queen's-side.
  • Black's Knight on e4 is more active than White's Knight on e4

This all suggests that White can, should and even must attack on the Queen's-side. 
The continuation is also a good example of Lasker's famous maxim:

“No combination without a considerable plus, no considerable plus without a combination [...]”
“In the beginning of the game ignore the search for combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having attained these ends search for the combination - and then with all the power and will of intellect, because the combination must exist, however deeply hidden.”
""

11th_Feb_2010: How not to beat Andrew Greet

An account of our Christmas simul

Genial Cornish giant Andrew Greet came to show us how it was done before Christmas, and I'm sorry it's taken me this long to catch up and do some notes.  Bob Jones was generous and prompt in his transcription of the games to PGN, so please don't blame him!

Having watched Gary Lane wipe the floor with us a few times, I thought I had a view about how it was done, but clearly personal style has a bearing too: Andrew seemed much less inclined to go for broke and played quite conservatively in the openings, content to go for a solid position with a bit of an edge and wait for us to self-destruct.  In most cases, he didn't have too long to wait!

It's often thought that top players have a vast depth of opening theory and a capacity for lightning calculation.  I'm sure they do, but you don't need all that to beat us!  I guess my game followed established theory for the longest -- 7 moves -- after which Andrew produced a move I hadn't seen before, but which has been seen recently among the elite.  And as for calculation, there were rather few tactics around, and Andrew generally let them go -- except against Keith, when perhaps he wished he hadn't!  Keith made a determined effort to attack Andrew's King, but it was White's centralised and active pieces who were best able to make use of the newly opened lines and spaces, a story that was repeated in my game.  Other common faults by the home team were making unnecessary concessions (Richard, Sean, Robin) and in particular making up new unsound moves in the opening (Brian, Bob) -- there's really no need to do this, and I expect if you wanted to play a main line of theory (like Simon) then Andrew would be the first to dodge.  Freddie perhaps did best for longest, although Richard was last to finish.
""

10th Feb 2010 : Swindles

Diligent explorers of this website may have found a little collection of the finest swindles that I had perpetrated in my career, up to the point where I established this website.  I pulled off another one so appalling that I thought it too should be displayed as a dreadful warning to others.  The serendipity of life ensured that a week or two before, hot new signing Tim Paulden had pulled off a win when a piece down in an endgame, and a week or two after, I witnessed Ian Jamieson come out with a win in a position that the most sympathetic reading would say was unpromising. I am reminded of the wise words of Grigory Sanokoev:

"There are no hopeless positions; there are only inferior positions that can be saved.
There are no drawn positions; there are only equal ones in which you can play for a win.
But at the same time, don't forget that there is no such thing as a won position in which it is impossible to lose."
-- Grigory SANAKOEV
[I am grateful to my esteemed former colleague Peter Lane for drawing my attention to this quote.]

""

10th January: Co-ordination

Left over from the summer, some examples with light notes from a session on Co-ordination
P.S. I had a couple of complaints about leaving out Tigran Petrosian.  As soon as I manage to understand any of Petrosian's games, please be assured that I will include some examples by him too.

""

23rd_Sept_09 Your chess profile

Ish has been kind enough to give me his copy of Igor Khmelnizky's Chess Exam and Training Guide.  You remember me banging on a couple of years ago about knowing your chess profile, having an idea of what your strengths and weaknesses are?  Well, this book does what I was telling you to do: it gives you a rating for a set of diverse features.  So, if your study of your own games gives you no clues, or you'd like a second opinion, I think you can't do better than this book.

Sample Profile

""

21st Sept 09: What you see with your mind

"Sight is what you see with your eyes, Vision is what you see with your mind." http://lessons.chessvision.net/

There is a gap between what is under your nose and what you actually notice. It's the gap between what is obvious once your opponent lands a punch and what you did failed to see beforehand...

Chess uses a big board and it's hard to see how things join up sometimes. How can we see things coming before the accident happens?  Can we somehow look ahead better? This is sometimes called sight of the board, or chess visualisation, or chess vision... Shall we call it boardsight, rather than eyesight?  

I was putting together a set of mixed exercises (below), and came across several exercises for developing your boardsight... Here's a selection.

There's a great free online exercise from the Chess Drum

with items like:
  • Without looking at a board: what colour is the square ... b3?

  • Complete the sequence... a7-b8-h2, a5-d8-h4, a3-f8-h6, d1-a4-?

  • On which square can you put a knight to attack .... the g7 and e3 squares?

  • Where would you place a Queen so that it attacks h6, e4 and a3?

  • With a knight, you can attack the d2 and a5 squares from both c4 and...which square?

  • After the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nbd2 d5 4.g3 c5 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.Bg2... What should black play here?
Chessboard tasks (Martin Gardner)


  • Place eight queens on a chessboard so no queen attacks or defends another (you can use 8 pawns to stand for Queens).

  • How many Bishops can you place on a chessboard so that no Bishop attacks or defends another?

  • ...And how many knights?

  • Arrange five queens on the board so that every single square is attacked.

  • How many Knights does it take to do the same thing?
Knight Dance

The famous Czech IQ test:
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+x+-X-+
+-+-----
-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-----+-+
N-+-+-+-


Visit in turn the squares a1, b1, c1...h1, then h2-a2, a3-h3, etc. WITHOUT ever moving to a square occupied or attacked by a Black Pawn. Not too difficult, but can you beat 5 minutes against the clock?
Blindfold chess


Play chess without the pieces, calling moves out to each other.  If you play an illegal move, you lose!  You need a referee for this, who does have the pieces! (There's software too.)  Or try it when only one player plays blindfold… 

Commercial:

Chess Eye


A demo offline/online chess visualisation trainer
Chess Vision trainer


You play against the computer on the screen, but the board shows the position two ply behind...  If you can manage that, it will hide one quarter of the board!
Professor Chess (Jim Mitch)


Jim offers a sample homework set, with questions like:

In this position:
  • How many possible White captures? 
  • How many possible White checks?
  • How many possible Black captures? 
  • How many possible Black checks?

Count again, picturing the board two moves hence!

What's the fastest way for a [Knight] to move from [a7] to [a6]?

Which squares are attacked by both [Qd3] and [Nd2]?
Alex Bartashnikov's chess software


A superb suite that includes some try-before-you-buy visualisation training (including blindfold chess).  Excellent for youngsters!
Detective Chess (Gerry Quinn)


There are White pieces KQRBN at b7,c3,d4,g8 and g5.
The squares a4 and e1 are attacked once each,
the square g1 is attacked twice, and the square g7 three times.
Where is each White piece?

I dunno about playing blindfold or with a partly hidden board: I find playing blindfold a zillion times easier if I have an empty board to look at, and you will never be without a board during a game.

Maybe the simplest idea is: load up a complete game from a database, or open a book of chess games, pick a position half-way through, then imagine the position two moves hence, and count all the possible White checks and captures for each side. Then make the two moves, and check to see if you were right.  Slap yourself once for every one you missed.  Then pick more complicated positions.  Then look further ahead.  Then slap harder.

""

20th Sept 09 Free junior club cards e-book

[DOWNLOAD CARDS]

Here is a set of cards that you can have up your sleeve while running a junior chess club.  Sometimes you have a spare player -- and sometimes players get a bit bored playing the same old faces each week – so here are some ways to mix things up. 

There are four sorts of card:



BOARDSIGHT



Chess uses a big board and it's hard to see how things join up – these tasks will help you get your eye in

EXERCISES



Practice for a chess skill

GAMES



A variation of chess – maybe one that will help you practise an important chess skill

ENDGAME



Target practice for finishing off a game

Draw a card for everyone to have a go at when they arrive, or draw one later for  one or two players who are at a loose end. The number of possible ideas is enormous, but these have been tried and tested.

I've left out perhaps some of the better-known ideas, like blitz chess, doing tactics puzzles, and crazy lightning.  In the unlikely event that you haven't heard of these, you will find them on the Internet.   

I don't think any of these ideas are completely original, but I don't know where they all came from.  Credits are due to Gerry Quinn (Detective chess), Jeff Coakley (Winning Chess Exercises) Steven Addison (100 other games to play on a chessboard) David Pritchard (The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants), Raymond Smullyan (The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes) and Martin Gardner (Mathematical Carnival).

[Sample page]

Suggestions and comments welcome – then soon there might be another set.

P.S. Print them on card or onto labels; A6 labels can be stuck to the A5 playing cards made by Stratus.

""

18th Sept 09 Free tactics e-book

[DOWNLOAD BOOK] [DOWNLOAD PGN]

Here is a collection of very short games organised by tactical theme.  The main aim is to give you a quick run-through the basic tactical ideas in genuine positions.  One advantage of using short games is that you can set the positions up on a board very quickly and accurately.  You can of course just use the diagrams as test positions.  If you have a database that you can use with a group, you might like the PGN regardless.

Anyone could have done this, and maybe you would have done it better, but you might find it useful that it has been done by someone else.

Nearly all the games start 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, which I hope means they will connect with, and reinforce, good opening principles for learner players, and show poor play punished. There is an opening index by ECO code so you can run through several tactical ideas associated with one opening or even one variation.

Sample page

""

18_Aug_09 Mopping up

There were three issues raised at the start of the summer that I haven't dealt with yet, and thought I'd offer some reflection.  It turned out that the people who wanted to work on these issues aren't around at the moment, so I might come back to these!
  1. Making practice (at club and at home) really helpful in terms of improvement
    That would be a good thing to solve!  Well, in many ways I've tried to promote and model this over the last few years, so I will be brief here.
    I think most have us have come across some variation or other of the experiential learning cycle, which Kolb and colleagues have developed over many years, originally in connection with adult education.  A chess version of this might look like:

    PLAY
    		 ==>
    		 REVIEW
    /\
    /\
    		\/
    \/
    STUDY/PRACTICE
    		 <==
    		 REPORT

    The idea is to learn from experience, and focus on what actually is holding you back, and not what you enjoy studying.  Simon Webb (and Ish) have provided good models for how to look at your own game and identify weaknesses; Rowson and Dvoretsky have provided some good ideas about how to study.
    It is possible to improve at chess just by playing, because of course each exchange of moves allows for your current thinking to be challenged, each game gives you new experience to interpret.  But playing without reflection might just rehearse bad habits...
    It's hard to talk in general terms: it's also not clear what it is reasonable to expect from your study.  If you're a tennis player and work on your backhand, you might reasonably expect to be able to play a few backhands in your next match.  But if you study IQP positions, you may not see one for months.

  2. Too narrow an opening repertoire
    I wonder what sort of problem that is.  I would have thought for most of us, we could do with getting into a groove with our openings, getting to know them better.  So, I've been trying to get Brian to stick to one opening system as White and two as Black, so he can get familiar with and eventually expert in those formations.  I think he's doing well with White but keeps making it up as he goes along as Black.  You branch out later, once you've got something solid to base it on.  When you do branch out, you can take on related systems, similar formations, and broaden your expertise in that way.  It's a good goal to be able to play any opening well, any type of position well, but be realistic about what you want to take on as an amateur with limited study time.
    It's possible to play any opening at amateur level, I think, and play it well and with your own ideas.  There is the Tony Dempsey IQP repertoire:
    White:
    Scotch Four Knights' Game
    Tarrasch Variation vs. French
    Panov-Botvinnik vs. Caro-Kann
    Alapin vs. Sicilian
    Black:
    Swiss Defence vs. QGD (although the Tarrasch also makes sense to me: you get into it a lot earlier so you're more likely to end up playing it!)
    Petroff's Defence vs. 1.e4

  3. Calculating all the tactics out (relying too much on intuition i.e. Laziness)
    The penalty for doing that is of course missing things and losing.  If that doesn't hurt enough to make you change your ways...
    As for a cure, perhaps take on sharp positions against a computer, when you will surely be punished for being lazy.  Dvoretsky recommended a couple of deeply-analysed games from John Nunn to be used for playing-out against an opponent, (see the Canon) but by all means pick positions from an anthology of games by your favourite attacking player. 
    A similar technique is: play a series of games against your computer in open games (1.e4 e5), and re-start the game after any oversights.  Aim to extend the average length of the games!
.
""

Archived posts:

Help on using inserted games [palview].

I've re-worked this page to use palview, which I think is wonderful; had I been starting from scratch now, I'd use it for everything.

  1. Whole games will be displayed in a new window or tab if you follow the link; play through them if you like, then come back to the main text.
  2. The control panel buttons are, in order:

    |<

    		<<

    		<

    		>

    		>>

    		>|

    		^

    		( )

    		/\

    Go to start

    		Back 5 moves

    		Back

    		Forward

    		Forward 5 moves

    		Go to end

    		Flip board

    		Autoplay

    		Step into variations

    It's working for you, you should see a diagram and a game which will open a new window to play through below:

    Keen C.
    Ward G.

    Exeter vs. Met. Office
    2008


    21... Rf8










    (White to move) ... 1-0 (42) 1-0

  3. Visitors without Javascript, and perhaps with other configurations, may not be able to view and play through these games as intended.  You can download all the games and positions as a PGN file, and this can be viewed using a PGN viewer (N.B. WinBoard is also a PGN viewer, as well as a front end for GNU chess and online play.)
  4. Any other problems, suggestions, etc., let me know.
""

List of previous blog articles: (please open in a new window or approach through the
[RSS logo] RSS feed)

  • KEY to classes [explanation]
    class A class B class C class D

    class [All]

    • Game(s) in PGN