Comments

These are quoted comments too long to be included as comments in Fritz 3, which for some reason only allows you a maximum 240 characters. Question not the decisions of programmers, for they work in mysterious ways. [Quotations cited under 'fair use' policy; readers should buy these books and write nice letters about them to the chess comics.]

Euwe-Keres

"Every positional achievement, in this case the pawn on d6 which engages the attention of the black pieces, is important not in itself but in its link with other combinational factors. In this position the factors for White are:-
-- BRONSTEIN

  (He added that if these factors could be given numbers, chess could be played by machines.)

  White should therefore play 22.b3 to slow up the Q-side advance, or 22.Rxe6 fxe6 23.Qe5 with enhanced play against the many Black weaknesses. Instead White plays something inconsequential, and the position fizzled out to a draw.

  [It is possible Euwe got the assessment exactly right, but still chose the wrong plan - or thought that 22.a3 was part of the correct plan.]

Nunn-Olafsson

"But already this opening has certain puzzling aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative, both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why should Black's position be so awklard? The question really boils down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the present position: Black's pieces are sensibly developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has problems.

  "The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position Black can easily get cought in a situation where his game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error (6...Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his position."

-- NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

  cf. also:
Vukic Milan - Suba Mihai [A30/03], Vinkovci, 1977
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b6 3.Bg2 Bb7 4.0-0 e6 5.c4 c5 6.d4 cxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.Nc3 a6 9.Rd1 Qc7 10.b3 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Be7 12.e4 0-0 13.Qe3 Rfe8 14.Nd4 Bf8 15.Rac1

 

t+-+tLj+
+lDs+xXx
xX-XxS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pNp+-+
+pN-Q-P-
pB-+-PbP
+-Rr+-K-
"A frequent picture in the Hedgehog. White's position looks ideal. That's the naked truth about it, but the 'ideal' has by definition one drawback - it cannot be improved."-- SUBA Dynamic Chess Strategy
Suba is quite mysterious about 'potential'. But as evidence, his book Dynamic Chess Strategy contains many practical examples of this Hedgehog Sicilian-style opening against the English (1. c4), where Black's flexible position threatens to erupt on ...b5 or ...d5. White finds it difficult to threaten anything on his own part without allowing Black's game to unfold suddenly.

15...Rad8 16.h3 g6 17.Kh2 Bg7 18.Qe2 Qb8 19.Qc2 Rc8 20.Qd2 Nc5 21.Re1 Qa8 22.f3 Qb8 23.Rcd1 Ba8 24.Nde2 Red8 25.Nd4 Ncd7 26.Qf2 Ne5 27.Qe2 Nc6 28.Nc2 Nh5 29.f4 b5 30.cxb5 axb5 31.Bf3 Ne7 32.Nd4 b4 33.Na4 Nf6 34.e5 dxe5 35.fxe5 Bxf3 36.Nxf3 Nfd5 37.Rc1 Bh6 38.Rc4 Ne3 39.Rcc1 N7d5 40.Rxc8 Rxc8 41.Qf2 Nf5 42.Re2 Be3 43.Qe1 Qb5 44.Nd2 Qd3 45.Nf1 Rc2 46.Rg2 Rxg2+ 47.Kxg2 Qe4+ 0-1

Hort-Nunn

"Very often, the side with a large positional advantage has to make a decision as to when to cash it in for some material (a pawn in this case). This is one of the most difficult areas of chess judgement. Too soon, and you will not have extracted the best value for the positional advantage. But it is also possible to manoeuvre too long; the optimum moment passes, and then the defender's chances start to increase again."

  "Here I should have been satisfied with winning a pawn by 29...Ra3 (...) when Black should win... The move played is a misjudgement."

-- NUNN

Chiburdanidze-Nunn

"Never reticent when it comes to lauching an attack, Chiburdanidze has spotted the slight weakness created by ...h6 and decides to go for the king. Now the game takes on a clear-cut form: White's kingside attack against Black's queenside counterplay."

  "There are two common errors when faced by such a direct attack. The first is to be terrified by the attack, resulting in unnecessary and time-wasting defensive moves. The second error is made by players who know perfectly well that such flank attacks shouldn't really succeed and believe that any old plan will be enough to show the opponent the error of his (or her) ways. Both errors can be fatal.

  "King's Indian (and Dragon) players have learnt to treat this type of flank attack with contempt, possibly because there isn't much they can do to stop it! The attck usually takes quite a long time to generate serious threats, but this is no excuse for delaying counterplay, since when the threats finally materialise they are usually quite powerful.

  "As the subsequent play shows, accurate play by Black should serve to refute the attack, but Chiburdanidze was probably under few illusions about the objective merit of her plan. The motivation for such moves is often psychological; an attacking player prefers (and plays better in) an attacking position, and heads for one regardless of the objective assessment."

  13... a4

  "The move played involves a pawn sacrifice, but I didn't spend long on the consequences of acceptance because giving up the initiative is not in Chiburdanidze's style."

  14. g5 hxg5 15. Bxg5 Qa5 16. Qb1 cxd5 17. cxd5 b5 18. a3 Rfb8 19. h5 b4 20. Nc4 Qc7 21. axb4 Rxb4 22. hxg6 fxg6 23. Bxf6 Bxf6 24. Qc1 Nb3

  "Precise calculation was necessary before playing this move; letting the queen in to h6 appears dangerous, but the King's Indian bishop holds the position together."

-- NUNN

Nunn-Marin

"...(like) the Samisch King's Indian, and the Yugoslav Attack against the Dragon. In all three cases White combines a flank attack with a solid central pawn structure."
9. g4 h6 10. O-O-O Bb7 11. Bd3 Ne5 12. Rhe1 Nfd7 13. f4 b4

  "Black declines the first sacrifice, only to be offered a larger one next move. The problem with declining such sacrifices is that the attack may gather strength anyway, and you may be forced to accept material later under less favourable circumstances."

-- NUNN

  Nunn analyses [13...Nxg4 14. e5 b4! =]

Nunn-Mestel

[18. h6 when:
18...Bh8 19. h7+ Kxh7 20. h5 +-
18... dxc3 19. hxg7 Kxg7 20. Rxd6 +-
18... Bxh6!! 19. Bxh6 Nxb3 20. axb3 dxc3 ]

  Nunn comments about the variations at move 17:

"When conducting a sacrificial attack, it is very important to consider lines in which the defender returns material in order to exchange some attacking pieces. If the attacker has made positional as well as material concessions, then the defender may even be satisfied with a final material balance in the opponent's favour, as he may even have a positional advantage or even a counterattack in compensation."

  "The move 18...Bxh6! is very hard to see, because it is very unusual for Black to give up his 'Dragon' bishop voluntarily, least of all for a mere pawn."

-- NUNN

Capablanca's schematic thinking

"Once in a lobby of the Hall of Columns of the Trade Union Centre in Moscow a group of masters were analysing an ending. They could not find the right way to go about things and there was a lot of arguing about it. Suddenly Capablanca came into the room. He was always find of walking about when it was his opponent's turn to move. Learning the reason for the dispute the Cuban bent down to the position, said 'Si, si,' and suddenly redistributed the pieces all over the board to show what the correct formation was for the side trying to win. I haven't exaggerated. Don Jose literally pushed the pieces around the board without making moves. He just put them in fresh positions where he thought they were needed."

"Suddenly everything became clear. The correct scheme of things had been set up and now the win was easy. We were delighted by Capablanca's mastery..."

-- KOTOV, Think like a Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty, pub. 1971 Batsford.

Capablanca-Ragozin

"White's plan is to prevent the advance of the enemy c-pawn which might make his own pawn at b2 weak, and to control the whole board as far as the fifth rank. This is achieved by playing the King to e3, the Rook to c3, the Knight to d4 and the pawns to b4 and f4. When this has been achieved White will advance his Q-side pawns"
-- CAPABLANCA, Moscow 1936 Tournament Bulletin, quoted by KOTOV in Play like a Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty, pub. 1978 Batsford. ("Note - no variations!" KOTOV)

  and...

"... I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active manoeuvres and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move, the Cuban won a second Pawn and soon the game."

  "'Why didn't you try to convert your material advantage straight away?' I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently: 'It was more practical to wait'."

-- Botvinnik

Tal-Botvinnik

"After the game I demonstrated some very interesting (at least, I thought they were interesting) variations. Mikhail Moiseyevitch, I think only out of politeness, listened to me and then said: "This is all very well, but - at first I was afraid of the piece sacrifice, but later I decided that I should exchange the Rooks, keeping the Queens on the board." I was surprised by these words. This assessment of the position seemed too abstract. But when we began analysing the position, I realised that Botvinnik was absolutely right. If I had exchanged the Queens, White's Pawns would have been stronger than Black's Knight. Provided Black's Queen had remained on the board, however, White's King would have been in real danger.

  "Of course, such an abstract approach to evaluating chess positions should not be regarded as a universal remedy; on the other had, in the course of the game one should not rely only on calculation of concrete variations."

-- Tal

 #19 Tal.

Najdorf-Bronstein, 1953

"Modern chess strategy has refined and widened many concepts. A player in deciding what move to play does not work on the external appearance of the position, but on a concrete assessment of the various possibilities open to both sides. Thus here Black can occupy d4 with a Knight, but he has to take account of the fact that then he has no real chance to strengthen his position further, while White can can get definite Queen's-side threats by Ra1-b1, b2-b4 and so on in conjunction with the pressure exerted by his fianchettoed Bishop.

  "One of the most important factors is the immunity from attack of the White Pawn as Black's Knight in fact would shield it from pressure along the d-file. That is why Black instead of the "strategic ...Nc6-d4" prefers the combinative ...Rfd8 aiming at the White d-Pawn."

-- Bronstein.

Kotov-Pilnik, 1952

"'I offer a draw,' said the Argentinian. My reply was, 'I want to play on a bit yet,' although I felt in my bones that I should win from this position. Pilnik then insisted, 'You have no advantage, except perhaps a bit more space. On the other hand my Pawns are safely guarded.' I could not resist asking him, 'Guarded by what?' 'By my Bishop,' he replied, and I could not make my mind up whether he was serious or joking. Just in case I decided not to spoil his illusions, lest he should suddenly find a way of rearranging his Pawns.
-- Kotov.

Assessment:
1. Black's bad Bishop, obstructed by Pawns on the light squares.
2. White has more active pieces
3. Black has weaknesses at a6 and f7

Plan
45: Exchange N, play R to c1
combine attacks on two weaknesses
add to pressure on f7 by h4-h5 (threat h5-h6), and after ...g6xh5, Bxh5

Psychology in Chess: Bronstein-Botvinnik

"Instructive examples of correct psychological preconditioning are furnished by Botvinnik's games. During his matches against Bronstein (1951) and Smyslov (1954) the score before the last round was 11 1/2: 11 1/2. A draw would secure the World Championship title for Botvinnik.

 "(In the 1951 match) The decisive game began. Bronstein with a smile of cunning on his face advanced his QP: 1 P-Q4. The hall was silent. People made guesses as to what opening Botvinnik would play? Somebody's voice predicted "It will be the Orthodox Defence. True, Black has to defend for a long time, but the position is stable. Botvinnik needs a stable position today."

 "But no! The first moves already refute the prognosis. We see the sharp and tense variation known to theory as the "Botvinnik Variation". The champion bravely challenges his opponent, as if saying: "Although I would like a draw I am not going to beg for it myself!"

 "I would like to make clear to the reader that I do not wish to deprecate the Orthodox Defence, which was used by Lasker and Capablanca. The point is that Botvinnik hardly ever used to play this system of development. The champion chose the safest, most thoroughly analyzed and, perhaps, the most aggressive continuation in his repertoire. One can only guess what the feelings of his opponent were, but the movements of the White pieces suggest that he was assailed by doubt. One can see a sort of resignation in the action of the White army. Perhaps he was recalling the successful course of his battle in the preceeding twenty-third game of the match, or perhaps his balance was upset by Black's coolly executed, precise and relentless attack. The denouement was not long in coming: after gaining a won position the champion offered a draw "just in case". It was accepted.

 "[...]

 "In my game against Gheorghiu at Sochi in 1964 ... I did not think only of defence. Although a draw would secure me first place and the Grandmaster norm... Gheorghiu did not expect such an aggressive, even if positionally justified, style of play. When the game ended in victory for me he remarked: "I did not think one could play like that when going for the first place." "Not only 'can', but must" -- I mentally answered the Rumanian."

-- KROGIUS

Ragozin-Boleslavsky

This position was well-known to players and theorists of the 19th century. Lasker, for example, comments:
"White's plan consists in realising his pawn superiority on the Queen's side while remaining passive on the King's side. Black, on the other had will attampt to force his opponent to advance one of his pawns on the King's wing, in order to start play against White's King's side with his pawns."
Lasker has in mind moves for White such as c4 and d5 to create a passed pawn, and for Black ...Bg4, ...Bd6, ...f5 and ...Qh5. In fact play went 9 ...Bd6; 10 Re1, Bg4; 11 Qe4! Bh5; 12 Nh4, Nd7; 13 Qf5. Steinitz and Lasker would undoubtedly have criticised White's crude and 'unjustified' attack. What's going on? Ragozin, a strong and experienced Soviet master, must have been aware of Lasker's views, and of the theories of Steiniz, so why is he playing on the 'wrong' side? He has made in fact a much more dynamic and concrete assessment of the position which notes, not just the Q-side majority, but also: the awklardly placed bishops, missing Nf6, the compromised f-pawns and White's development and control of space. Given time, Black could no doubt disentangle his pieces. Ragozin gives him no time at all.

Capablanca-Bogolyubov, 1922

"Black's Queen, Rook and Knight are aggressively placed, and compared to White's pieces, have greater freedom. All White's pieces are defensively placed and his c-pawn and e-pawn are subject to attack. The only way to defend both pawns would be Nd2, but then Black could play ...Qb4 and he could advance his a-pawn with no difficulty."

  "So far everything has been in Black's favour, and, if there were no other factors in the position, White's game would be lost. However, there is a feature which is very much in White's favour, namely, the position of the Bishop at h7. This Bishop is not only completely cut off from play, but, even worse, there is no way of bringing it into the game. White is playing, as it were, with an extra piece."

-- CAPABLANCA

Sunye Neto-Nunn

"One of the most important chess skills is being able to recognise when the position is turning against you strategically, and to spot this early enough to counter it. Here White intends Nec3 followed bu O-O, with a firm grip on the important central squares d5 and e4, so I decided that quick action was necessary. Black must take advantage of the fact that White's King is temporarily stuck in the centre. The only way to do this is to play ...e4, clearing the way for the c6 Knight to jump into f3 via e5. The consequences of this are not at all clear-cut, but I played the move quickly because everything else allows White to consolidate his grip."
-- NUNN

Nunn-Chandler

"As a young player I was puzzled by games in which White played the manoeuvre Nc2-e2-g3 against the Pirc. It seemed to me that the Knight was not very well placed on g3, because Black's g6 pawn prevented the Knight advancing. Indeed its one and only duty seemed to be to defend the pawn on e4. Then, in 1984, I lost a game with Black against Murray Chandler, in which he used precisely this manoeuvre. The crucial distinction is whether White is attacking or defending. If White doesn't hold the initiative then the Knight on g3 is truly inactive, but if White holds the initiative and has pressure in the centre then the Knight can be very useful. The Rooks and Queen operating on the open files are so dangerous for Black that he cannot counter them directly; instead, Black must somehow aim for counterplay. The only weakness in White's position is the vulnerable Pawn on e4. If this is secure, then White has plenty of time to improve his position. The function of the g3 Knight is precisely to support the e4 Pawn and give White the freedom of action he needs to step up the pressure.

 In the current position, Black is attacking e4 twice, but at the moment he cannot consider taking the Pawn because of the exposed Knight on d7."

-- NUNN

Nunn-Sokolov

"Conducting an attack requires good judgement. Sometimes the attack demands quick action and there is no time to bring up reinforcements, but sometimes it is better to bring all the pieces into play before attampting a knock-out blow. Which if these holds true depends on whther or not the defender is threatening to consolidate quickly. If his weaknesses are structural, then the attacker may have time to bring all his reserves into action before the final onslaught. Here, for example, [variations]. It is clear that these lines would both be easy wins for White if he had a Rook on d1, so 18 Rad1 deserves consideration. A few moments' thought shows that Black has nothing better to do than to play 18...h4, but then White can play Nxf6+ having gained an important tempo."
-- NUNN

Nunn-Short

"If White wishes to play for a direct attack he can try 15. g4 [variation]. In olden times White would often attack by g4 and Ng3 in the Closed Spanish; once in a while White would break through with a Nf5 sacrifice, but now it is recognised that so long as all Black's pieces can reach the King's-side, a direct attack should not work. Thus, the emphasis has switched to diversionary Queen's-side play, with a King's-side attack being reserved for a favourable moment when Black's pieces have been lured away. Moreover, the King's-side attack is usually based on f4 rather than g4, since only f4 offers the chance of activating the light-squared Bishop on c2.

  White's preliminary a4 gives him control of the a-file; this may not appear relevant to the conduct of a King's-side attack, but watch what happens later!"

-- NUNN

Nunn-Portisch

"The traditional way of assessing such positions is to say that Black has an inferior pawn structure, but in compensation he has the two Bishops (*). Looked at this way, Portisch's plan appears strange. However, a static evaluation takes no account of the potential activity of Black's pieces. His main problem is the future of the c8 Bishop; he doesn't want to play ...Bd7, because that would prevent the manoeuvre ...Nd7 and ...Bf6, which is his best chance of activating the other minor pieces. After ...Be6, the Bishop would be a target for a later Nf3-d4 or f2-f4-f5, and it would block the e-file, making it ipossible to develop pressure against the e4-pawn by ...Re8. The only real solution is to get rid of the Bishop by ...Bg4 followed by ...Bxf3. This plan has to be executed immediately or else White plays Qd3, preparing to meet ...Bg4 by Nd4. Perhaps there is even an argument for 10. Qd3!?, although this might tempt Black to develop his Bishop another way - by 10...a5 followed by ...Ba6.

 The exchange on f3 not only relieves Black's slightly cramped position, it also gives him a grip on e5."

-- NUNN

Nunn-Dlugy

"If you want to lose a miniature, then here are three helpful tips. First of all, it is a big help if you are Black. losing in under 20 moves requires a special talent which few possess. Secondly, choose a provocative opening, for example an opening in which you try to realise strategic ambitions, but at the cost of backward development and delayed castling. Thirdly, if something goes slightly wrong, don't reconcile yourself to defending a bad position - seek a tactical solution instead! Don't worry about the fact that tactics are bound to favour the better developed side; just go ahead anyway. Follow this advice and at least you will get home early."
-- NUNN
(*) "Annotate like Raymondo" is good further reading... - DR
Back to index [cool blue cat]
Dr. Dave
Back to Chess Coaching Page

This document (Canon\comments.html) was last modified on 13 Aug 2005 by [cool blue cat]

Dr. Dave