...
""

25th Jan 09. Planning

I've written about planning before but mostly from a theoretical point of view; most of the practical planning advice I've come up with went into the books I write with Tim.  I did tuck some away some how-to-do-it in an ancient handout about what's wrong with club players, and had a reason recently to dig it out and have another go.  Here it is with a worked example:

Planning (level 1):

If someone were to ask you what you are trying to do at any stage in the game, you should have an answer.  (I'm trying to swap off pieces... I'm attacking the opponent's King... I'm picking on a weakness... I'm trying to make a mess...).

If you don't know what to do, pick out your worst placed piece and do something to get it working harder for you (Anderssen's Rule).

Planning (level 2):

...systematic planning comes down to: Ready, Aim, Fire!

Ready - Notice and assess the positional elements (see below),

Aim - Form a realistic plan based on an appraisal of the chances for each side, then

Fire! - Pick the move(s) which best meet your needs.

Planning (level 3):

Let's try and bring a bit of system to the sketch above.   I came up with the mnemonic To Know What Plan to Follow Look Carefully , standing for:

  • T actics (usually trumps other considerations),
  • K ing safety (again, if you're getting mated, it trumps other issues),
  • W eak squares & weak Pawns,
  • P iece position (good and bad),
  • F orcing moves (initiative, pawn breakthroughs, sacrifices),
  • L ine control (files, ranks, diagonals),
  • C entre and space.

The WPFLC are in no particular order, of course. 

This may be time-consuming to go through at first, but after doing a couple of dozen test positions this way (pick up a chess magazine!) you find it becomes automatic.  

Having identified the features of the position using this list, you should have a view about who is better and (more importantly) what you should be trying to do. Silman advises dreaming up a fantasy position to decide this.

Once you have an aim (or two) in mind, think about what you would need to achieve that aim -- which pieces need to move where, in what order...  This way you build up a set of candidate moves.  Work your way through the 'candidate' moves, calculating the likely consequences and assessing the resulting positions.  If no clear favourite emerges, just go for one. 

I think the relationship between your aim and your method is a dialogue: because you are interested only in achievable plans, your thinking may wander between aims and methods (moves) as you consider the position and conclude that some moves or sequences are impractical.  But the number of different aims you have in mind should be kept to a minimum. 

Again, this may all seem time-consuming, but you don't come to a position 'cold', you were looking at a very similar position just a move ago!  Every so often (coming out of the opening, say) you might need to take stock and make a plan from scratch, and this is worth 15-20 minutes of your clock time to get it right and guide your play over the next few moves.

Here's a position I had the misfortune to watch being played.  White came up with Kh1 "because I didn't know what to do".  Groan... Well, how could you decide what to do?  Have a go before reading on: listen to all your pieces:

Feature
 Suggested aim based on this feature
 Comment
K ing safety?  Both more or less OK: the moved f-Pawns make each a little weaker than usual (weak squares and possible pawn levers).
Plan: maybe we can attack the Black King by g2-g4: move h3, Kh1, Rg1, g4. Slow, but important if works! Generally, short-term plans are better than long-term ones which get upset by events.
W eaknesses?  White has a weak Pawn on d3 and a weak square at d4; Black has unprotected Pawns on d6 and e6.
Get rid of weak d3 Pawn by d3-d4. We would have to exchange e4 Pawn first, but even then e4xf5, Ne7xf5 improves Black's position and we will never play d3-d4.
P iece placement?  Na4 is doing nothing (I suppose it is co-operating with the Be3 in attacking c5). White is a little better mobilised.  There is a strong Black Bg7, and a poor Be2.  Rb1 and Rf1 aren't doing much.
 Move Be2-f3 (although that's not doing anything until the e-pawn moves).  Or Rf1-e1 (can't see a better square for the Rb1).  Or play Qd2 then Nb2-d1-f2... A couple of reasonable one-move plans there that fit Anderssen's recipe, but our worst piece is difficult to bring to life.
F orcing moves? Apart from g3-g4 (see above) there is e5 and exf5.
 The capture on f5 will force a recapture, and there is a natural break with e4-e5. 
There aren't any other forcing moves, so do we play e4-e5 straight away or prepare it? Does either move achieve anything?  exf5 doesn't appeal but e4-e5 undermines c5... a point we already mentioned.
L ines?  No open files, strong long dark diagonal for Black.
 Bc1-b2 challenges control... ...but that's our good Bishop.
C entre?  White has more space.  Centre is unfixed, so can be opened up.  Black has space on the Queen's-side. 
Play in centre or King's-side, use the extra space to attack? If we want to open lines we can do it with e4-e5.

White has two good-looking plans:

a. move across to King's-side and play g2-g4.  Good idea, bound to worry Black.  It is rather slow, and the centre is not yet fixed so Black's natural defence would be to blow up the centre. 

b. play in the centre: e4xf5 is poor (...Nxf5), but e4-e5 is possible.  In fact, e4-e5 undermines support by Pd6 of Pc5, and suddenly makes our 'lost' Na4 look like a useful piece.  Also, later we might play Be2-f3, using the opened long diagonal. Looking good!

[No obvious plan emerged for Black, who is rather passively placed; sometimes your best plan is to work out how to survive your opponent's best plan!]

So, after some thought, we come to the plan e4-e5, which has the ideas e5xd6, Na4xc5, and Be2-f3.  Does it work?

Don't play a good-looking move in vague hopefulness: consider what your opponent's reply might be. 

Black has four sensible replies which we must look at in turn:

A) 1. e4-e5 d6-d5, avoiding the attack on d6

B) 1. e4-e5 d6xe5, capturing the attacker

C) 1. e4-e5 Nb8-a6, defending c5

D) 1. e4-e5 Qd8-c7, defending d6 and c5

How should White react to each of these moves?

A) 1. e4-e5 d6-d5 2. Nxc5 because 2...d5-d4 just loses the Pawn.

B) 1. e4-e5 d6xe5 2. Nxe5 when the undefended Pawn on c5 is attacked twice.

C) 1. e4-e5 Nb8-a6 2. exd6

D) 1. e4-e5 Qd8-c7 2. exd6 Qxd6 3. Bxc5 wins the Knight on e7

One last look around for anything we may have missed – nothing, so, 1.e4-e5 is our move.

I promise you that, after a while, e4-e5 is the sort of move that jumps out at you as one to look at first.

""

24th Jan 09. Annotation

> I've never annotated a game. Could be interesting. Perhaps you could
> send me a game and I'll try to annotate it without computer. Might show
> you my thinking.

The games that are most valuable to annotate are your own games, (but maybe in future it might be a good exercise to look at somebody else's). I think it's a good discipline to look at all of your serious games at least briefly after the game with your opponent, then again at home with some software, and record your thoughts.

I'm happy for people to use a computer to reveal any tactical points. The aim is to get you to show yourself what you were thinking about during the game, what you think with hindsight, and, from any mismatch, see if there's anything you can learn from or smarten up in future. 

Never annotated before? You do it how you like, but the way I do it is: Fritz looks over my shoulder as I trot through the moves of a game, giving me a running assessment of the balance of the position (+0.31,+0.2, +0.2, +0.3, 0.0, -0.87). If you plotted this assessment on a chart, it would wander up and down around 0.0, taking an occasional lurch as one side or the other missed something, maybe settling at a new level after a particularly classy or duff move. A good annotation would comment on  the assessments while they are stable (The features of the position are... which is balanced or one side is better because...) and the lurches (This makes Black's position worse because... Here White overlooks...) and the mismatches (At the time I thought X and my opponent thought Y but really Z) and give some sort of overview of the game (White did this well, Black did that well but this not so well... I've made this mistake before, so... Lessons for next time might be...). 

The point of doing an annotation for training purposes is to compare what happened with what should have happened (the computer can do) but also to compare what you were thinking with what you should have been thinking. [I've got a bunch of my own games with my own comments here if you want to see what sort of mess I make of this task.]

I usually feel free to ignore my computer when it disagrees with me about exactly which side of 0.0 we are, except when the difference starts to get to be the size of half a pawn, when I worry that I've mis-assessed the position. [Either it is or I am bad at positional sacrifices; I played a pawn sac against Ivor on Saturday which I thought was just killing, but my computer reckoned I was losing all the way through.]

And always remember, you're trying to find the turning points, and not just noting mistakes but trying to find improvements.  While you're digging deeper, finding better moves for yourself or your opponent I have hopes that you're learning. When you're just describing what's happening and not pointing out better moves  I worry that you're not getting the most out of the exercise.

Jacob Aagaard throws in a how-to guide for annotating your own games in his Excelling at Positional Chess.  He describes a number of different levels of work, depending on your capacity for work:

"

  1. Write down three things you have learned from the game.
  2. Always write down the time you spent during the game
  3. Check the opening theory
  4. Write down the critical moments of the game, the things you saw during the game and what you think went wrong.  Do this the same evening.
  5. Analyse the game yourself.  Only when finished should you refer to [computers].
  6. Check for structural assistance [from your computer] to gain additional insight. "
    [This is a database search based on pawn structure and maybe ECO codes, to find similar games and find out how other people handled the position from either side.]
  7. "Tournament reports and diagnosis of weakness.  ...Make a list of all my mistakes from my games, and describe them." [The idea is to find your typical mistakes, things that you often get wrong.]
  8. Training based on tournament reports.  ... For every weakness there is a remedy."
""

4th Jan 2009: Returning to chess

I just had a nudge from an old sparring partner who is looking to get back into chess again. What advice might you give?

Practise, study, review your games...  So much, so obvious.

But I also recommended a book as a good MOT:
Ray Cheng, Practical Chess Exercises

It offers you sets of 8 positions for 'solving', so one of them will be a snap mate in 2... but among the others we might find something that looks like a mate in 2 but will fail because of some horrible smelly trap, or a delicate endgame finesse, or a promising attacking position where the best move is actually to win a pawn, or a position where the 'solution' is to avoid a haymaker coming your way, or a deeper tactic that takes a deal of head-scratching, or a positional coup... The exercises are graded in difficulty from one to four, and most sets include one at each level. I guess this as close to practical play as a book can get: you are faced with a variety of challenges, some straightforward, but some rather less so; sometimes you enjoy the chance to attack, at other times you have to defend, and you'll never know what's coming.

""

3rd Jan 2009: Classical Rocks

I was wondering about 1. e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 openings - would you recommend exploring some of these? I'm not enjoying being squashed as black any more and thought I'd make a longer term plan to learn a (very) few classical openings instead. I wondered about French (winawer?) but thought I try a complete new tack (why swap an early d6 for an early e6 ?!!)

My first thought was, I don't know how long you've been getting back into the game, but I'd leave the job of taking on two or three whole new opening systems for a bit. You're probably better off getting your eye in again on more familiar territory, before taking on a bunch of new theory (and indeed a new style of playing). But if you fancy it, go for it!

I certainly think going classical makes a lot of sense: I've told people to do it, and a couple of people have told me to do it... and I've tried it, but I don't think it suits me. I don't know if would suit you: 'suiting' isn't just style and temperament, but also time for study.

I always like to find a player who has the same repertoire as I want to play. Modern GMs tend to be a fidgety lot, but I remember digging out some of Nigel Short's games to study how he handled the Black side of the QGD Tartakower. I don't know who I'd pick as an archetypal defender of 1.e4 e5: Lasker? Unzicker? Korchnoi?

I don't know a good book to support playing 1...d5 if you fancy playing it; there are several repertoire books around, but I don't know them. Aagaard and Lund's book on Defending 1.d4 is based on the Tarrasch, and gives suggestions against all the non-2.c4 non-1.d4 systems as well. Sadler's book on the QGD I thought was excellent.

There's a fine book by John Emms on playing 1...e5 as Black against 1.e4, although the weight of variations is daunting it is thorough, practical and gives a couple of alternative lines for the reader to choose at many points. I never know how to use books like this: I feel it needs a 'Coles' Notes' version to accompany it, something to boil it down to a core of stuff I can learn.

You might like to have a browse of Nigel Davies' stuff (I can't now find a lot of the pages I used to point people to); he spent some time in Israel working with ex-Soviet GMs and felt rather keenly the lack of a 'classical education'; he began to play with the centre and moved away from the Modern towards playing 1...e5. He's also produced a repertoire book for Black about 1...e5. 

Lastly, I don't know if you'd get anything out of browsing below: #20th_Dec_08
#12thAugust2008

cheers

D

--
DISCLAIMER:
Advice is worth what you pay for it.

""

20th Dec 08 Chess DVDs: Is it just me?

I treated myself to a ChessBase Fritz Trainer DVD recently, 943Mb of files crammed into one corner of a 4.7Gb disc.  Nearly all the space is taken up with movies of a balding middle-aged guy stumbling through commentary like:

"Erm... Now, I'll show you... er... one of my own games... um... er... playing Black against... um... er... er... um... Z Grophulous in the New York open in 1985... er... yeah..." [names changed to protect the guilty, but that's a transcript]

Now, I'm quite happy to have audio commentary, even when it's as under-rehearsed as this, so at least I can follow the moves on the board without having to look somewhere else on the screen for the commentary: that seems to be a good use of the technology.  But I can do without actually watching the guy sweating under the lights... Does it really add to the experience?  Why would I want to look at the author and not the chessboard?  I have a strong feeling that, with the latest ChessBase products, we have a case of "we can do this, so we should do this".  Maybe if it was someone as important as Fischer or charismatic as Kasparov I'd change my mind, but currently I think it's a waste of effort.

And surely that disc space could have been better used?  There are only 114 games on this disc, and most of them don't have commentary. The previous generation of products, CDs, used audio to make just a few important points (rather than waffle over every move) and included a good-sized database with many annotated games, which to my mind is better value. 

[We seem to be repeating the problems with chess videos: all format and little content. Once I transcribed the moves from one video, and it came to less than 2 sides of A5.  How many A5 pages do you get in a book costing as much?]

""

That's what I call a book title

THE GAMES
in the
St. Petersburg Tournament
-- 1895-96 --
with
Copious Notes and Critical Remarks
by
Messrs. JAMES MASON and W.H.K. POLLOCK
and illustrated by
Numerous Diagrams of Interesting Positions
together with
Portraits and Biographical Sketches
of the Players
Herr LASKER, Mr. STEINITZ,
Mr. PILLSBURY and M. TCHIGORIN
""

19th Dec 08. Defending against 1.e4

I had a call about a player who "doesn't like playing the Two Knights', so what else is there?".  This is a longer version of what I said on the 'phone...

Playing Black after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3

Classical repertoire

Defending the Italian Game with the Two Knights' Defence and the Ruy Lopez with the Classical or other variation has always seemed to me to be good advice (even if it isn't advice I've ever been very good at following). You can find plenty of information about these systems elsewhere on the site. There's something wonderfully clear and crisp about playing like this.

Let me show you the Two Knights' at its best: in an all-action shoot-out, Black is quicker on the draw, with a bigger gun.

EG:
Petroff Defence

Well, not everybody wants to allow White to play their favourite line. Also, we might want to steer White away from playing some horrible pudding opening like Old Stodge.  The Petroff makes White think from move 2, and White will find it difficult to prove any advantage; I'm happy to recommend it for players who don't really feel comfortable allowing White their favourite line.  The sharpest lines can be exciting but it has a terrible reputation for being good only for making a draw.

The Petroff at its best: White doesn't get anything out of the opening and Black takes over.

EG:
Philidor Defence

I mainly use this opening as a source of examples of traps and other forcing lines in the opening. If you're confident as Black that you can avoid all these nasties, and that you can hold the position after the boring line with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.dxe5, then the Philidor offers a solid, flexible position with themes related to the Ruy Lopez (pawns on c3/d4/e4 facing e5/d6).  There was a fashion at one point for playing ...Qe7, ...h6, ...g5, ...Ng7 and ...O-O-O, and putting the boot in on the King's-side.  The most recent ideas for White include moving the g-pawn: either to g3, idea Bg2 to hold the centre, or to g4, as a gambit.

The Philidor at its best: White makes all the early gestures, but Black quietly unwinds and swamps White's position.

EG:

Playing Black after 1.e4 (half-open defences)

Scandinavian Defence

If you want an open game as Black, it's hard to beat the Scandinavian. White is struggling to prove an advantage, and Black has an attractive choice of a solid system where your pieces come to natural squares (2...Qxd5) or some fiesty gambit lines (2...Nf6 and 3...e6).

The Scandinavian at its best: one where Black takes over the light squares, and one where White is tempted to accept a gambit.

EG: EG:
French Defence

The French is very hard to attack yet still offers Black some active play. You have to suffer a little as Black, and in the French you suffer with a bad Bishop, but if you learn how to deal with that, the French can provide you with years of confident play and many wins.  I think once you know you can handle open games, the French is a very practical defence for juniors and club players.

EG:

The French at its best: a solid start, an unbalanced middle and a crushing finish.

Caro-Kann Defence

The Caro-Kann improves on the French by not blocking in the Bishop, but you have to work harder to get counterplay. I think of it as being perhaps as solid as the French without being as interesting (it is notorious for draws), but if White knows their stuff the play can be as sharp as anything else in chess.

The Caro-Kann at its best: White's initiative is deftly suffocated and Black finds enough in the endgame.

EG:
Alekhin Defence

This is a new (hypermodern) idea: Black tempts the White pawns forward so they can be more easily attacked! You have to be careful not to get squashed, but if you do get the White centre to fall over, you have the same satisfaction as watching one of those big industrial brick chimneys come down...

The Alekhin at its best: White charges into the centre and declares "King of the Hill", but Black soon has a share of the centre and a better Bishop for the endgame.

EG:
Pirc and Modern Defences

These flexible defences share some of the ideas of the Alekhin, without allowing White to chase you around so much. The play is complex and subtle, and, to my mind, too hard for most junior and club players.  (Again, that's advice I'm better giving than taking!)

The Pirc at its best: White's attack never happens, the centre gets bogged down and Black comes at the White King around the sides.

EG:
Nimzowitsch Defence

This defence is law to itself: not rubbish at all and gives you a chance to play chess and not theory.  Larsen tried it many times over his career and Miles made a living out of it in his last years.

The Nimzo at its best: original piece and pawn play in the opening leads to an old-fashioned attack down the f-file and then a winning endgame.

EG:
Owen's Defence

This logical defence has never been completely convincing; Black doesn't get the counterplay and White can usually sit on a comfortable edge with e4/d4/Bd3/Nf3/c3/Qe2...  There are a few maverick spirits (the late Tony Miles again) who play it, but any interest in the opening tends to lead to White coming up with an even more secure way to squash Black's play.  At club level it's probably playable (I seem to recall playing it myself), but it's at its best when White has a rush of blood to the head and tries to attack too early or grab more space than they can hold.  If White is content to seek a smaller advantage it's probably easier to do that against Owen's Defence than any other.

The Owen's at its best: White is forced to defend the centre and the attack never comes.

EG:
St.George's Defence

The improved Owen's defence... Black takes an extra move to adopt a more harmonious system of development (in particular, holding back White's c-pawn in case of e4-e5, Nf6-d5) but these systems have never been popular at master level for the same reasons as Owen's Defence.  But they didn't half sit up when Miles beat Karpov with it...

The St.George's at its best: White's centre is surrounded.

EG:
Borg Defence / Basmania

Perhaps only Mike Basman can make this sort of thing work... No, that's not fair: like all openings, it's only as good as the ideas you bring to it, but if you have more and better ideas than your opponent, then it's going to work for you.  I guess it's an 'improved' Modern Defence, where munching on the long diagonal is combined with holding back White's f-pawn and so better control of e5.

The Borg at its best: in the murk, Black sees more clearly. It all turns Sicilian on White when he has to face minority attacks on both sides of the board.

EG:
""

[all] Chessboxing 14th Dec 2008

Following Andy Costello's good performance and much interest in his other sport at Torbay, I wondered if people would be interested in knowing more about chessboxing:
  • Chessboxing article in the Guardian
  • Chessboxing feature on the BBC
  • One of Andy's fights on YouTube
  • Chessboxing site
  • Boxers who play chess include Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko brothers and Terry Marsh.
    • ""

    [C] 13th Sept 2008

    P.S. Further to my talk about Rowson, there's a characteristically thoughtful piece about Rowson as part of Streatham & Brixton Chess Club's series of posts about Improving at Chess
    ""

    [C] 9th Sept 2008. Bird lives!

    Ah, not Charlie "(Yard)Bird" Parker, whose untimely departure in 1955 prompted jazz fans to write this graffito all over New York, but Henry Bird, who left us two sprightly variations: the Bird Defence to the Ruy Lopez, and his very own opening, 1.f2-f4.  2008 is the 150th year since Bird died, and at this year's Paignton Chess Congress, there was a special prize for the best game played with his opening.  This resulted in a bigger crop of Birds than usual, as you might expect, and the prize winner was the following game (courtesy of Bill Frost at ChessDevon:

    Because of the increased risk of the Bird, I reviewed what I knew about it in case someone played it against me... No-one did, so I thought I'd record the results of my review here.

    " Having forgotten familar openings, I commenced adopting KBP for first move, and finding it let to highly interesting games out of the usual groove, I became partial to it." -- Henry BIRD

    I first found out about Bird's opening (1.f4) in some random beginners' book, where the author dismissed it (as have many authors since) with the recommendation that Black play From's Gambit (1...e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 [idea 4...Qh4+ mating] 4.Nf3 g5!?), and noted that if the From turned out one day to be better for Black then White could dodge into the King's Gambit. 

    That satisfied me for a while, but I became interested again when the opening kept cropping up in B.H.Wood's CHESS magazine in the 1970s.  That may have had something to do with the editor's own liking for the opening, but surely it was more than that: lots of players were happy to try the Bird (directly or by transposition) and you never saw a From.  Could it really be dismissed?  I rather suspected not, and that the From wasn't all it was cracked up to be: critical, surely, but if White knew what they were doing, perhaps they could keep the pawn and survive.

    I was reassured when Neville Gill wallopped the Bird when winning the PCC Championship for 1976, then woken from my dogmatic slumbers when Jerry Anstead used the Bird to beat Gill (and others) winning the title in 1980.  Yet, Rumens and Bellin, both players of the Dutch defence, weren't above the occasional Bird while contesting the Grand Prix in weekend congresses.  Then I discovered Bent Larsen had been interested in it; not mere dabbling either, he took out Spassky with it in a crucial game:

    "In this last game with the white pieces I played Bird's Opening, of which most masters have no high opinion, but I chose it for the very reason that they do not play it and do not know it. I know it quite well, have many original ideas. Now I challenge Spassky with it; let us see what ideas he has to show."

    Since Larsen's heyday, IM Tim Taylor and GM Henrik Danielsen have both played and promoted the Bird extensively; it's also a familiar feature of club and county games in the Westcountry. So, there's more to this opening than is obvious in the books; in fact, it's an ideal club opening in many ways -- unbalanced, untheoretical and underestimated!  [And like all such openings, it will become better known, people will write books about it, and eventually it will become an opening like any other...]

    Bird plays the Bird

    Lasker bids for immortality

    Larsen has ideas

    Fischer transposes

    Wood pushing

    Dutch specialists turn the table

    Wallop

    The biter bit

    Bird spotting in Devon

    A World Championship Bird

    Defending against the Bird

    This is really what I spent my time looking at.  There is no consensus in the books and comics about Black's best line: Gufeld recommends the From; Keene & Levy suggest 1...d5, 2...Nf6 and 3...Bg4 (but consider only 3.e3); Aagaard & Lund prefer 2...Bg4; and so on.  Perhaps all are adequate, but it seemed to me that the From would be no surprise, and that systems with ...Bg4 allowed White to play the sort of unclear attack with 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 and 6.g4 that they were surely hoping for.

    On the other hand, going for 2...g6 and allowing White to play the Dutch with a move in hand wasn't attractive either; all the various treatments that Black can adopt (Stonewall, Ilyin-Zhenevsky, Leningrad, Antoshin) have their counterpart in the Bird and all looked thoroughly playable for White, and, as I don't play the White side of the Dutch, I thought I wouldn't thrive a move behind.  As long as White avoids the various pitfalls known to theory (e.g. 1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3? d4!) I imagine White would be pleased to play this way.

    Actually, what am I familiar with?  I have a reputation for knowing a lot of opening theory, but, while I do find it fascinating, my actual over-the-board choices are usually driven by the desires to (a) avoid any theory, and (b) avoid whatever my opponent wants to play.  This rather negative philosophy led me to consider 1...c5 and 1...g6, both systems that I have played on and off against 1.e4 for years.  Checking with Tim Taylor's excellent monograph, I see he concluded that White cannot expect any advantage with standard Bird moves against 1...c5, and should instead transpose into either the Closed or Grand Prix variations of the Sicilian Defence.  As I am usually very happy to see White choose either of these when I play 1.e4 c5, I resolved on 1.f4 c5.  I have an idea that if Black were more recently rehearsed in the Modern and King's Indian than I am currently, then 1...g6 with ...d6 and eventually ...e5 would be an equally uncooperative yet satisfactory way to defend.

    ""

    [B] 19th August 2008. Openings Workshop 

    Interesting... much more general questions than previous years. There may be a theme of these questions, about the  tension between seeking opportunity and accepting risk.  So here goes...

    How should you play against 1...Nf6 when you want a Stonewall Attack?

    The Stonewall Attack is 1.d4 d5 with 2.e3/3.Bd3/4.f4, intending to clamp down on the centre then attack on the King's-side with moves like Nf3/O-O/Ne5/Qf3/Qh5/Bxh7+... 

    This can be very dangerous if Black castles into it, although if you can see it coming in time it's easy enough to dodge (Bf5/g6/O-O-O).  If Black replaces 1...d5 with 1...Nf6, White's system may come to nothing, pointing in the wrong direction.  

    The common solution is for White to play 2.Nd2, threatening to take over the centre with e2-e4, which may provoke Black into playing 2...d5, when we can return to our standard system with relief.  If Black doesn't play ...d5 then you can either stick to your guns with e3 and f4, or carry out your threat to play e4.  It's not a bad idea to have a second string system, like the Colle, that you can switch to in case of move order problems.

    Delaying castling or castling queenside in the London System?

    It's unusual.  Johanssen remarks in his book with Kovacevic that:
    "Although queen's-side castling is relatively rare in the London system, it may sometimes pay to keep the option open."

    ...which is about as much use as a rubber crutch.  There are some games in that same book where Queen's-side castling appears:

    These suggest that the times you might consider queen's-side castling are:

    •   If there is an open h-file
    •   When you wish to throw up your King's-side pawns
    •   When your opponent is aiming at the King's-side in a similar manner

    I always liked Pillsbury's guidance:

    "Castle because you will or because you must; but not because you can." -- Harry Pillsbury.  

    See http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/castling.html for general advice on delayed castling.

    Playing Black against 1.d4?

    See separate sheets.   

    What about 1.e4 c5 2.c4?

    I was surprised to find 800 games played in recent years where this move was played, with a normal spread of results (55% to White).  I wouldn't play it as White because I would find it difficult to make any play against the locked centre after 2...Nc6 and 3...e5.  However, out of the 800 games, this scheme was rarely chosen by the defenders, presumably because Black also wants to leave enough play to win, hoping also to leave open the option of transposing into a favourite version of the Sicilian.  If that's so, White might be able to sneak across into a version of the Maròczy Bind; for example, lots of Black players went 2...g6, which probably leads to the best-known version of the Bind.  I'd prefer 2...e6, even though 2...g6 is in my repertoire.

    Why is the Bind so uncomfortable for Black?  Because lots of the appeal of the Sicilian depends on having a half-open c-file, a minority attack with ...b5 and the chance of blowing up the centre using your extra central pawn with ....d5; once White plays c4, all that goes out of the window.

    I keep getting caught out in common gambit openings...  

    Here's a player getting caught out:

     [C21] Danish gambit - fork, 2000
    1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 c6?? 9.Nf6+ gxf6 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Bxf6+ ...

    Full marks to Black for having the courage to take on White's opening and accepting the gambit, but this involves definite risks if you forget (or never knew) the traps in each variation.  Most gambits have traps like this.  Let's have a list of gambits:

    • Vienna Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 (3...exf4? 4.e5)
    • King's Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4
    • Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3
    • Göring Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3
    • Scotch Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 and 5.c3
    • Evans' Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

    The best way to avoid problems depends on your taste: "...d5 is the antidote to the venom in most gambits" as they say, but you will struggle to play that against the Evans.  I recommend to start with:

    • Vienna Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5!
    • King's Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf5 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Nf6! 5.e5! Ng4 and 6...d5
    • Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5!
    • Göring Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 d5!
    • Scotch Gambit 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4!
    • Two Knights' 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5!?

    All of these lines need some study, but I hope this is a shove in the right direction.  

    P.S. The game I found where Black got Danished... was won by Black (Berry)!

    Is the Benoni any good?

    Sometimes! The type of Benoni usually played is the Modern Benoni with ...e6xd5.  This is a high-stakes opening where you really can't busk it in the sharper lines, you have to study and learn... and all the lines are pretty sharp...  That said, it's a fine way to unbalance the game and so play for a win as Black.

    I've recently recommended to Charlie that he play the Benoni, but delay the exchange.  (I believe our very own Andy Pickering was a fan of this approach.)

    Two reasons for choosing to delay:

    1. After ...e6xd5 and cxd5, White has a standard way of arranging their pieces which usually includes Nf3-d2-c4, where the Knight frees the f-pawn to move, and from c4 it supports e4-e5 and puts pressure on d6.  If Black delays ...e6xd5, then clearly White is going to have to find something else to do for a while, and there is a view that Black can more easily find useful things to do [trying to arrange ...b5 with Na6-c7,Rb8,Bd7] than White.  
    2. The main line Modern Benoni has a problem, which is the Taimanov Attack (Flick-Knife Attack) with 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4! Bg7 8. Bb5+!.  e.g.
      Black faces a serious attack and has found no clean way to equalise; White is taking risks too, so if White falters at all the counter-attack will be swift and terrible...  but many players of the Benoni prefer these days to play it only after White has played Nf3 (e.g. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5). Delaying the exchange avoids this difficult line (and maybe some others).  

    The lines without ...e6 are slower and stodgier; Black often plays ...e5 when the lines divide according to whether you plonk the Bf8 on g7 or e7 (when it usually goes next to g5).  These lines are more solid but harder to play for a win.

    What are the Dos and Don'ts of the Scandinavian with 2...Qxd5? What plans should each side follow?

    "This fine defence..." -- Jonathan Speelman
    "...Sucks all the life out of the position." -- Anon.  

    Many of us associate the Scandinavian with some devastating Fischer miniatures from the 1960s.  But since Larsen re-established this defence as an option for GMs at Montreal 1979...

    ...it has had a dedicated following, resulting in its ultimate achievement, successful use in a World Championship match by Anand, when Kasparov couldn't show anything against it, even though he won in the end.  (However, Anand did not repeat his experiment!)

    The Scandinavian 2...Qxd5 is particularly difficult to get a handle on because the unforcing nature of most of the variations.  After the exchange of pawns we have a 'structure' rather like the French Rubinstein or main line Caro-Kann, in which lines Black has given up their stake in the centre and can be said to have made another concession, either blocking in the Bc8 with ...e6 or playing the unnecessary ...c6.  After ...Qxd5 and ...Qa5 (say) Black has supposedly lost time but has made no commitments with their pawns, which means they can adopt a very natural development scheme.  

    It's often said that exposing the Queen on d5 'wastes time', but after Nc3, Qa5 each side has developed one piece, so I don't see it: however, White is still ahead in development because they start first.  White can maybe get another free hit against the Queen by Nf3-e5-c4 or Bd2/Ne4, and that's when White gains time to improve their position (not to develop).

    Hmm, plans... It's not possible to 'read' the structure to generate moves in such a straightforward way as, say, the French Advance.  [For these reasons, I dislike playing against it and I don't think I'd ever take it up!]  It's hard to talk in general terms, it's more about specific piece arrangements and move orders and whether they make any progress, but let's have a go.   [In his magisterial two-volume review of the strategies behind chess openings, John Watson pointedly avoided talking about any variations with wPd4 and bPe6/bPc6, rather devoting 7 pages to common themes from the French/Caro/Scandinavian.]  Deep breath:

    White normally gets in d4 and operates on four ranks.  Black holds back on the first three ranks, not wanting to open up lines while they are behind in development, and must avoid weaknesses – which I guess is a plan of sorts.  

    White has advantages in space and development but these are each hard to make use of because of the lack of tension in the position and because these advantages can evaporate with time and exchanges.  So, White needs to avoid exchanges, to keep active, to make problems...

    Next level down: the Scandinavian is what I call a light-square defence, leaving White with a pawn on d4 and control of e5 but disputing the centre at d5 and e4. Perhaps the ultimate for Black is to play ...Bb4, ...Bxc3, ...Nb6, ...Qb5 with a grip on all the light squares.

    If White gets enough oomph, it may be they can blow up the position with d4-d5.  Black usually restrains the white d-Pawn with ...c6, when it starts to look a bit like a Caro-Kann, with White's Queen's Knight on c3 instead of e4.  

    Black wants to play ...e6 and play the Bf8 somewhere, but before playing ...e6 the Bc8 should be developed.  Black can't hang around, as Bc4 in combination with Ne5 will force ...e6.  The Bishop when on g4 or f5 then can become the target of attacks, either by h3/g4/Ne5 or Ne5/g4.  This can lead to some very sharp play with both sides making committal moves, as in the famous game Anand-Lautier.


    Black has some choice over the timing of ...Nf6, ...c6 and ...Bf5, depending on which ideas they wish to avoid or allow.  [Ian Rogers tried hard with ...Bg4 but these days ...Bf5 holds sway.]  So, delaying ...Bf5 gives you the option of ...Be6 against 6.Ne5; while delaying ...Nf6 avoids White's Bd2/Ne4/Nxf6, making a mess of Black's pawns.

    Let's have a look at the quiet main line variation:

    Black has been experimenting with 3...Qd6; this keeps the Queen in play but obviously restricts the Bf8 and may offer White another free hit with Ne4 or Bf4.  There are other sidelines like 5...Nc6, 5...Ne4 and 4...e5 which are tricky to meet if you haven't seen them.  White can also mix it up by delaying Nf3 in favour of Bc4, or playing an early Bd2/Ne4.  

    Advice for White?  There's no consensus in books for our level: Keene/Levy ignored 5...Bf5 in 1994; Gufeld (1996) gives the quiet main line; Collins recommends the sharp main line as played by Anand; Dzindzhi (2007) suggests Kasparov's 6.Ne5, a move order also favoured by Baker (1998); and Emms (who must have some sort of grasp of this opening, having written about it several times) recommended 6.Bd2/7.Ne4 in 2001 without considering it a cosmic mind-blower in 2004.  Emms' 2004 book includes the direct try 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 c6 5.Bc4 Bf5 6.Bd2 e6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.d5 cxd5 9.Nxd5 Qd8 10.Nxf6+ Qxf6 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Bc3! which he thinks is better for White.

    Nigel Short went through a creative phase when playing against the Scandinavian, and we can perhaps borrow his idea of delaying d4:

    Or 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.d3 followed by Nge2, 0-0, Ng3 and perhaps f2-f4-f5 (Sodjerg).  And if you really can't bear it, you can try 2.Nc3 or 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3.

    What about the Four Knights' Game with 4.g3 (Glek Variation)?

    Some White players are prepared to give up the fight for the advantage in the Ruy Lopez and just get into a reasonable position which suits their style and look forward to outplaying their opponent around moves 25-40.  One opening that is used for this purpose is the Four Knights' Game, where Gunsberg's 4.a3 and Glek's 4.g3 have been played.  John Nunn's "New Ideas" reviews some of the early experiments with both moves.  There is no 'answer' for Black, because there is no 'question' being put, other than, can you survive the middlegame against me?

    I think the earliest g3 was Nimzo, but here's the main man these days, Igor Glek.

    One response that you might save for a rainy day in Exmouth is 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Nxe4?! 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nc3 e4 7.Ng1 Bc5, with some attacking chances.  I've managed to lose to this idea in Blitz...  Here's a game from a chap who sounds like an Indian computer facing the reincarnation of the spirit of defence...

    Classical or Hypermodern?

    The eternal debate...  I recommend avoiding hypermodern approaches until your chess is good all round; because of their amorphous nature, you have to be prepared to play a variety of positions.  So, after 1.e4 g6, White has a number of systems available, most of which are very flexible, and Black has a hard time deciding whether to challenge the centre by ...c5, ...d5, ...e5 or all three, while making sure that White doesn't break through with d5, e5, f5, h5 or all five.  

    Having said that, I know Jonathan W has been playing the Alekhin and Grünfeld: "I have to adopt unusual openings, as otherwise I tend to get into trouble with more experienced players who know the familiar ones that little bit better than me.".  

    Perhaps these defences are not so variable in their themes as the Modern.  I dunno, for a while I was playing nothing but hypermodern openings...  On your own head be it!

    I have a piece on this issue elsewhere: www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/Openings/hypermod.html

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Emms Attacking with 1.e4
    Keene/Levy An opening repertoire for the Attacking Player
    Alburt, Dzindzhikhashvili & Perelshteyn Chess Openings for White, Explained
    Gufeld An opening repertoire for the Attacking Player
    Plaskett The Scandinavian Defence
    Emms The Scandinavian
    Collins  Attacking repertoire for White
    Johanssen/Kovakevic The London System
    Soltis The London System
    Baker A startling chess opening repertoire
    Keene/Jacobs An opening repertoire for White
    Nunn New Ideas in the Four Knights
    Psakhis The Complete Benoni
    Evans Stonewalling
    Fine The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings
    Znosko-Borovsky How to play the chess openings

    ""

    [B] 12th August 2008. Playing Black against 1.d4

    I've tackled this a few years ago (12!?) in a big document for class C/D players. If that no longer satisfies, perhaps have a browse below:

    Choosing a main defence to combat 1.d4/2.c4 depends partly on style, partly on how it fits in with the rest of your repertoire, and partly on how much appetite you and your opponents have for study.  I've given a list here with how the defence works... on a good day! Remember there will be bad days, where White stifles your play and trundles over your defences.

    Queen's Gambit

    Accepted

    Black gives up the centre hoping to achieve an open, fighting game; although it's one of the oldest defences, it is still being developed at the top level.

    Declined:

    Marshall Variation

    An unusual variation that should give White a plus with best play (viz. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3! and 5.e4).

    Albin Gambit

    A classic gambit played for central domination; there has been more interest recently due to Morozevich experimenting with 5...Nge7.

    Tchigorin Variation

    A combative variation emphasising piece play also revived by super-GM Morozevich.

    Baltic Variation

    A trappy variation that needs some study by both sides.

    Slav Defence

    In its classic form, it has the same hypermodern 'give up the centre and restrain' feel as contemporary lines of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. These days the fashion is for 4...a6.

    Semi-Slav: Noteboom

    A waltz on the edge of a cliff: don't look down!  Every time Black gets a chance, he pushes a passed pawn...

    Semi-Slav: Meran

    A complex line with plenty of theory that has a special band of followers.

    Semi-Slav: Botvinnik

    A principled attempt to win the point by force; fantastically complicated.

    "A brilliant game where both players were very creative. Thanks Vladimir for your excellent idea which puts 10. ..Nh5 under pressure.  Generally I think his mistake at the critical moment would have succeeded against another opponent, but unfortunately it was Anand who found a very unexpected refutation which was very hard to foresee, taking into account that white had a very wide choice of possible continuations to consider." Scherbakov

    Tarrasch Defence

    An uncompromising defence securing active piece play at the cost of some loose squares.

    Cambridge Springs Variation

    A vigorous attempt at counter-play, perhaps too well known these days for White to stumble into without having some ideas of their own.

    Swiss Defence

    A half-forgotten defence recommended by Tony Dempsey that does very well against natural play by White.

    Tartakower Variation

    The banker for Grandmasters: a solid variation that still allows you to play for a win, often with hanging pawns.

    Indian Defences

    Black does not claim a central stake straight away, but aims to control or counter-attack White's centre pawns.  They can be thought of as grouped into light-square defences (Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, Dutch) and dark-square defences (Benkö, Benoni, King's-Indian); ideas and variations flow within each group.

    English Defence

    White is tempted to blot out the cheeky black Bishop; I fear a lot of the fun goes out of Black's game after 3.a3, but Miles is undaunted:

    Modern Defence

    A hypermodern system where Black reserves their options until White has committed to a set-up.

    Budapest Gambit

    A popular line among club players, which concedes some squares in the centre and goes for active play.

    Blumenfeld Gambit

    An ancient gambit that occasionally has a new lease of life;  5.Bg5 leaves Black loose and underdeveloped.

    Dutch Defence

    An unbalanced continuation with a range of contrasting systems in it; White has some annoying ways to avoid the main lines, so many French players sidle into it with 1...e6.  You can play it with e6/d6, with e6/d5, or d6/g6.

    Grünfeld Defence

    A hypermodern defence that goes for active piece play and central counterattack.  Watch how White's big centre is destroyed and Black takes over.

    Benkö Gambit

    An unusual gambit where Black gets long-term pressure, even into the endgame.  As Black can play the main variations almost on autopilot, White has developed some sharper ways of taking on Black's opening.

    Benoni Defence

    The Modern Benoni with ...e6xd5 is a fighting defence that looks for chances on the wings to counteract White's extra central pawn. There is an argument for delaying the capture, and it has some ancient relatives that omit ...e6 altogether.

    King's Indian Defence

    An elastic system with a lot of sharp theory, distrusted by the super-GMs but with a dedicated following elsewhere.

    Old Indian Defence

    An unpretentious and solid defence.

    Bogo-Indian Defence

    Another unambitious system that doesn't take on too many responsibilities.

    Queen's Indian Defence

    A solid defence that has been thoroughly tested in all variations.

    Nimzo-Indian Defence

    The Queen's-side Ruy Lopez: a subtle molten mixture of piece and pawn play to contest the centre.

    Notes

    My recommendations for junior and club players usually run to:

    • Swiss Defence
    • Cambridge Springs
    • Noteboom

    If you want to avoid 1...d5 for some reason, then I suggest:

    • Benkö Gambit
    • Nimzo-Indian

    None of these variations can be forced; for example, nearly all the fancy defences to the Queen's Gambit can be avoided by playing c4xd5 at some early point, and nearly all the Indian defences can be avoided by the Trompowsky (2.Bg5).

    You also need to have something to play against all the systems without 2.c4 like the Colle, London, Stonewall and Blackmar-Diemer, not to mention the English and Réti Openings.  There's more stuff around on each of these somewhere:

    ""

    [B] 5th August 2008. The Seven Deadly Chess Books (Simon)

    Jonathan Rowson is a young Scottish GM who has written two of the best and most important books of recent years: The Seven Deadly Chess Sins and Chess for Zebras.  They are important because they are some of the best discussions about how chess is actually played that I have ever read; often Rowson seems to be writing for the first time about things that have rarely been mentioned, let alone explored in any detail.  The books are also confusing, pretentious and irritating by turns. 

    'I'm enjoying it - but I don't like it.' Geoff Chandler, October 2005

    Let's take them one at a time.

    The Seven Deadly Chess Sins is an exploration of chess psychology.  There is a psychology of chess, the academic study of what chessplayers do.  In fact, chess players have been called the 'fruit flies of psychology' because they are such a favourite research subject.  Rowson isn't very interested in all that stuff.   He quotes with approval:

    "It seems to us that the theories associated with board reconstruction experiments represent an idealised picture of master chess which may be misleading. ... So often, as any player will agree, it is hopes and fears which seem to influence the choice of a move." – Hartston and Wason

    It’s the emotional swamp which is Rowson's territory, seeing it not just as the source of mistakes but a promising route for seeking improvement. 

    His sins are: Thinking, Blinking, Wanting, Materialism, Egoism, Perfectionism and Looseness.  (I'm very amused that Thinking is a sin.)  Perhaps some detail would help:

    • 1. Thinking: Confusion, pattern limitations, lack of faith in intuition.
    • 2. Blinking: Missing key moments, lack of “trend sensitivity” and “moment sensitivity.”
    • 3. Wanting: Attachment to results, carelessness, expectation.
    • 4. Materialism: Misevaluating, lack of dynamism, oversights.
    • 5. Egoism: “Forgetting” the opponent, fear, impracticality.
    • 6. Perfectionism: Time trouble, inappropriate copying.
    • 7. Looseness: “Losing the plot,” drifting.

    Warming up?   The first example in the first chapter (Thinking) shows an example from a GM which obviously provides Rowson with some real inspiration but which might make the rest of us despair...

    Wow. Is chess really that hard? Do I really have to be able to come up with ideas like that?  Well, no, but if you want to get better, you do need to stop playing the way you do right now.  Shaking up your ideas is part of Rowson's plan.

    •  1. Thinking:
    •  
    • 2. Blinking:

    • 3. Wanting:
    • Black has just offered a draw.
    •  4. Materialism:
    • 5. Egoism:
    • 6. Perfectionism:
    • 7. Looseness: 

    These are quite sophisticated mistakes, but I think the same things can be seen at club level as well.  (I just made a mental note to myself to find club-level examples of all of these things).

    The irritating bit of Rowson's book is that it is hard going.  The examples are hard.  He gets distracted when discussing them.  Not all the examples are clear.  And then he includes a huge variety of anecdotes, quotations and ideas from outside chess, some of which are hard to see the value of, and some of which seem included just to let us know how widely-read is the author. 

    "When considering whether to use these ideas in the book, I was concerned that it might seem too abstract or contrived for most readers and hard to apply to their real games… So even if I’m not making any sense, or if you only partly understand what I’m saying, the main thing is to have the courage to look at chess with new eyes."

    I like the aim.  However, he's not really achieving it with passages like this:

    “There are some striking parallels with quantum theory in the way of viewing chess outlined above, particularly Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ... and Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity.” (p.84).

    Oh, yeah?  One exasperated reviewer concluded:

    "It is at best a flawed if earnest effort. At worst it is a pretentious, barely mitigated disaster ... The Seven Deadly Chess Sins is strong evidence that to the seven we should add two more: writing this book, and buying it." http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review274.pdf

    Harsh... I understand this love of quotation and pursuit of analogy from Rowson's point of view; writing something like this, or a PhD, is rather like being in love, everything you read or think about reminds you of what you are doing, and you want to include everything.  I did end up wishing that he had a more brutal editor, but it’s a record of his journey and his thinking, and after a while you enjoy the ride with him.

    He has a final rather defensive note, entitled The Author's Redemption, where he says:

    "I've tried to write about chess as I've come to understand it: a complex a rewarding game that lies, tantalisingly, beyond the full grasp of the human intellect. ... There is no virtue in giving easy answers to the questions posed by a difficult game. "

    And while I think it is not usually given to the author to decide whether he is redeemed or not, I will concede the point.  10% of the book may get up your nose, but the other 90% is witty, informative, thought-provoking, and more likely to focus you on your bad habits of chess than anything else I know.

    Chess for Zebras is much more focussed.  The examples are just as demanding (you remember that I used one of his examples when we looked at planning in the endgame) and Rowson's temptation to throw in a quote by 'my favourite Buddhist writer' is still there, but where in Sins the author seemed happy to show us a deal of thought-provoking material and let us get on with it, in Zebras Rowson is more helpful in guiding us through the thoughts he hoped to provoke.  He is also to be commended for listing our website in the bibliography!

    That endgame example is accompanied by a long transcript of exchanges between Rowson and one of his students.  I guess that Sins is the result of Rowson thinking about how he got good at chess and how he is going to get better, and Zebras is the result of Rowson trying to teach others to get better.  It's lower-key in many respects but more punchy.  I threw a couple of quotes at you last time:

    "If you want to get better at chess you need to place much less emphasis on 'study' whereby you increase your knowledge of positions, and place more emphasis on 'training,' whereby you try to solve problems, play practice games, or perhaps try to beat a strong computer program from an advantageous position." (25).
    "Chess skill emerges from chess playing combined with chess training, where ‘training’ means working things out by yourself.  The main skill a chess-player needs is skill in making decisions, so that’s what you need to do and do repeatedly.  If you want to become a better player, you need better habits, and you cultivate better habits through training.  The best training is the kind that pushes you up against the edges of your comfort zone, where you force yourself to take responsibility for difficult decisions.  It is so much easier to read books that give strategic guidelines, hints and tips, etc., but what you need is ‘know how’ and that means learning by doing."

    The contents list is an amusing read in itself:

    • Part 1: Improving Our Capacity to Improve
    • 1. What to Do When You Think There is a Hole in Your Bucket
    • 2. Psycho-logics
    • 3. Storytelling
    • 4. Which Myth are You Playing By?
    • 5. Concentrate! Concentrate? Concentrate.
    • Part 2: Mental Toolkit for the Exponential Jungle
    • 6. Why is Chess so Difficult?
    • 7. Something that Works for Me
    • 8. Doing and Being
    • 9. Why Shouldn’t I be Defensive?
    • 10. Glorious Grinding
    • Part 3: Thinking Colourfully about Black and White
    • 11. Three Types of Theory and What They Mean in Practice
    • 12. White’s Advantage
    • 13. Black’s Advantage
    • 14. Finally….

    Oh, and why Chess for Zebras?

    ‘Thinking like a zebra’ therefore means being more open to experience and less constrained by convention.  It means allowing yourself to think differently."

    It's going to be hard to do more than scratch the surface of what you can find in Zebras, but let's give another couple of examples, ones that rang a bell with me.  The first section of the book is about productive training; we already looked at one from the this section in an earlier session (the Estrin endgame).  The second section is about expanding your conceptual toolbox, and the third is about openings from the points of view of White and Black.

    Doing and being

    Zugzwang Lite

    ""

    [All] 29th July 2008. The Secret of Not Losing (DR)

    With my newly published plumetting grading, it is clear that I haven't yet got the hang of this... Anyhow, in the Introductory Session in June this year, I asked everyone to name the three main reasons you lose chess games. These turned out to be:

    GENERAL ATTITUDE

    • Moving rather than taking more time
    • Poor psychology: making mistakes and then making worse ones
    • Letting my opponent off when I was ahead on material with a better position

    EXAMPLE GAMES:

  • I fail to win with an extra piece:
  • I manage to lose with the exchange:

    General advice:

    This is a list of symptoms, not diseases. The disease may be... relaxing? ...wishful thinking? But it needs a good hard look at yourself to find the disease, which may be a long step towards curing it. Why are you making these mistakes, what are you doing that is wrong, what are you not doing that would be right? Is there a point you can identify in a game where you chose a wrong move or plan, and can you recall what you were thinking or saying to yourself at the time?

    Further study:

    Try WEBB: Chess for Tigers

    THINKING PROCESS

    • Blunders -- mainly after 1 hour+ -- due, I suspect, to lack of recent practice
    • Careless loss of material
    • Miscalculation (poor vision)
    • Playing a middlegame sequence in the wrong order
    • Running out of time

    EXAMPLE GAMES for analysis and playing out:

  • Positions for analyis:
  • Positions for playing out:

    General advice:

    [This set of symptoms may be related to themes in the last and the next category.]

    I struggle with this issue constantly myself; I expect I do best when I practice, with slow games against real people, and faster games against computers who of course are utterly unforgiving of errors...

    The main thing to do with blunders is to look: make the first and last thing you think about be, what are they threatening? and having chosen a move, what do they threaten now?  You might have a look at some of the thinking schemes laid out by Purdy and Silman, reviewed in last year's programme: 17th July 2007: A thinking process

    The other thing I think makes a difference is getting a tournament in early in the season, so I'm up to speed when I take on the less frequent club and county games. There aren't very many books which particularly focus on analysis (as opposed to the 'spot the bonecrusher' tactics books); Dvoretsky recommends 'playing-out' positions chosen from fiendishly complicated games, and points to a couple from Nunn.

    Further study:

    KOTOV: Think like a Grandmaster

    NUNN/GRIFFITHS: Secrets of Grandmaster Play

    JACOBS: Analyse to win

    Simon I know likes flexing his analytical muscles against the deceptively simple-looking compositions of endgame studies.

  • John Nunn's favourite study: a whole-board tactics workout! One naturalistic approach is found in the 'How Good is Your Chess' features in Chess magazine, where you are thrown a sequence of strategic and analytical decisions, rather like a real game.  Dvoretsky's famous Secrets of Chess Tactics throws you a succession of problems and exercises in a rather unstructured way; you might find some of the examples too chewy.

  • Further study:

    TROITZKY: 360 Brilliant and Instructive End Games

    BARDEN: How Good Is Your Chess

    KING: How Good Is Your Chess

    DVORETSKY: Secrets of Chess Tactics

    EGOISM

    • Moving without working out what my opponent can do in reply
    • Not seeing the opponent's intended move
    • Not being completely aware to what my opponent up to

    EXAMPLE GAME: Short-Belyavsky (Helpmate in 2)

    General advice:

    In a sense, if you could cure this problem, itwould be impossible to lose a game of chess.  Underestimating your opponent or their resources is really the only mistake we ever make... So this is going to be a tricky one to solve!

    However, there are some useful routines to get into.  A junior player might do well just to say to themselves as the FIRST and LAST thing they think about when it's their turn: "What can my opponent do to me now? What can they do to me if I make this move?"  Adults might have a look at some of the thinking schemes laid out by Purdy and Silman, reviewed in last year's programme: 17th July 2007: A thinking process

    Further study:

    Try PURDY: The Search for Chess Perfection

    or SILMAN: Reassess your chess

    STRATEGY

    • Lack of strategy
    • Not looking for outposts enough
    • Moving pieces which leave holes in my position
    • Failure to spot strategic weaknesses early enough

    EXAMPLE GAME: Pope (not that one) -Regis

  • A masterly example:
  • Read and learn:
  • A game for playing-out:

    General advice:

    I am inclined to think that simple strategy is easier to teach than tactics; the general structural feaures of a position hang around for a long while and club players seem quite good at listing these features when asked.  The hard thing is making your knowledge work in a real game.  The main things are to learn to identify the key features, to make a reasonable plan, and develop enough technique to exploit an advantage.  Silman has done some interesting work in 'playing-out' of strategical positions with his students, which you could try for yourselves.

    Further study:

    Try CHERNEV: Logical Chess

    EUWE/KRAMER: The Middlegame Vol.1

    SILMAN: Reassess your chess

    GOLOMBEK: Capablanca's Best Games

    OPENINGS

    • Opening inaccuracy
    • Inferior opening preparation
    • Poor openings
    • In opening, occasionally make over-easy moves which weaken my position

    EXAMPLE GAMES:

  • The worst opening I ever had:
  • Maybe the best:

    General advice:

    It's as simple as 'Study and practice your openings'.  Study with books (the fewer the better) and practice at the club or online or against a machine. Find a player who uses your favourite openings and play over some games by them; I like Botvinnik.

    I would be delighted to give your repertoire an MOT.

    Further study:

    Under 100

    Try WALKER: Chess openings for juniors

    KEENE/LEVY: An opening repertoire for the attacking player (1977) (Scotch Gambit, Pirc, and Benko Gambit)

    100-125

    1.e4 Try

        KEENE/LEVY: An opening repertoire for the attacking player (1994) (Scotch Game, Scandinavian, and Tchigorin Defence)

        EMMS: Attacking with 1.e4 (Bishops' Opening, Closed Sicilian, French KIA)

        RAETSKY: Defending against 1.e4 (Sicilian Four Knights')

    1.d4 Try KEENE: An opening repertoire for White (Queen's Gambit Exchange Variation)

        SUMMERSCALE: A killer opening repertoire (Colle-Zukertort)

        DUNNINGTON: Attacking with 1.d4 (Queen's Gambit Exchange Variation)

        AAGAARD/LUND: Defending against 1.d4 (Tarrasch Defence)

    125-150

    Try three single-volume opening books on your main White or Black openings.  I rely on KOSTEN: English Opening, WATSON: Play the French and WILLIAMS: Play the Classical Dutch. (I would eschew a video [poor value] but CDs are fine if you get on well with screens.)

    There are opening books out there which I don't recommended:

    GUFELD: An opening repertoire for the attacking player (Vienna, Sicilian Dragon and Leningrad Dutch) [a maze of complex variations suitable only for a computer or a GM]

    BAKER: A startling opening repertoire for White (Scotch Gambit/Max Lange, Sicilian sidelines and French Two Knights') [again, very variation-heavy, I can't imagine anyone going through all this detail and retaining any of it.]

    COLLINS: A White opening repertoire (Scotch Game, Alapin Sicilian and Advance French) [unforgivably careless [p.15: exactly how do you reply to 15...Be6 16.O-O Nc4?*], and someone should shoot the editor too] (* P.S. I discover he reveals all(?) in his book on the c3 Sicilian for Gambit)

    ALBURT et al.: Chess Openings for White, Explained (Scotch Game, Sicilian Grand Prix and Classical French) ["The main point is not that so many of the lines the authors have given us above are bad, or ineffective, although that is certainly an issue. Rather, it's the lack of integrity throughout." -- WATSON]

    ALBURT et al.: Chess Openings for Black, Explained (Accelerated Dragon and Nimzo-Indian) [I can't guarantee this is any better.]

    ATTACK AND DEFENCE

    • Playing unsound attacks
    • I can be over-keen to attack, i.e. launch an attack before I've prepared the necessary back-up
    • Over-extension in the middle-game (trying too hard to win)
    • Getting shafted on the diagonals

    EXAMPLE GAMES: first, preparation to the max! well, it was Kriegspiel...

  • The attack works (1):
  • The attack works (2):

    General advice:

    The affliction needs only be named for a treatment to suggest itself: "Set up your attacks, so that when the fire goes out, it isn't out!" (Pillsbury).  However, it might not be so easy to learn how to do that... Playing over example games in the usual intructional books I'm sure will go a way to giving you a feel for it, as well as games by great attackers like Pillsbury, Marshall, Tal, Fischer, Stein and even Nezhmedtinov.  [These GM games will be more close to call than anything we play, of course.]

    Further study:

    Try WALKER: Attacking the King

    CHERNEV: Logical Chess

    COZENS: Lessons in Chess Strategy

    VUKOVIC: The art of attack

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    I was glad you all had an opinion about what were the most common reasons that you lose games.  Self-criticism, or at least self-awareness, is the starting point for improving.

    "I'm going to stop saying I'll kill him, and kill him!" -- Sid James as Sid Abbott in Bless This House

    Turning intention into action is a puzzle I have been battling with personally and professionally all my life...

    "Ask yourself the following question, “Of all the games I have lost recently, what percent were lost because of something I did not know, and what percent were lost due to something I already knew, but were not careful to look for?” " -- HEISMAN

    ZNOSKO-BOROVSKY: How NOT to play chess

    HARDING: Why you lose at chess

    SOLTIS: Chess Mistakes

    HEISMAN: The Improving Annotator

    BAKER: Learn from your chess mistakes

    SILMAN: The Amateur's mind

    ROWSON: The Seven Deadly Chess Sins

    ""

    • [C] 22nd July 2008. Material imbalance II: Exchange sacrifices and their kin (DR)

    White sacrifices for attack on f6 in the Sicilian

    White sacrifices for attack on h5 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for attack on c3 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for initiative on c3 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for too little on c3 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for initiative in the King's Indian

    Encore!

    White sacrifices for all sorts of compensation in the Grunfeld

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (1)

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (2)

    Compensation for the exchange

    Rooks don't like defending against passed pawns

    A defensive sacrifice

    Petrosian is at it again

    The Karpov sacrifice

    A whole Rook

    ""

    [C] 15th July 2008. Planning in the endgame (DR)

    Lessons that can be applied elsewhere, I hope; if you have examples of games where you have struggled, send them in.

    How to plan, anyway (Silman).

    Elements of endgame planning:

    1. Passed pawn

    2. Pawn majority

    3. Rook on the seventh

    4. Infiltration (Weak colour complex), blockade, breakthrough

    5. Accumulation theory

    6. Two weaknesses

    7. Manoeuvring

    8. Minority attack

    9. Endgame technique

    A bit of Capablanca magic

    "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.

    Alekhine plays for a win

    The best books for further study of endgame planning are undoubtedly Shereshevsy's.
    ""

    [All] 8th July 2008. Chess Psychology (Ish)

    Looking forward to this one!

    Meanwhile, here are three games from Gandalf which explore the wilder shores of compensation for a Queen (83,84,85)

    Some notes on books about chess psychology:

    ""

    [A] 1st July 2008. Material imbalance I: Queen vs. Rooks (DR)

    I have to say, if this is the aspect of your game most in need of fixing, then count yourself lucky, but there are some general lessons to be learned.

    Example games:

    Ish follows some theory:

    Kramnik wins with the Rooks:

    Fischer wins with the Queen:

    The Queen on the attack:

    The Rooks make a team:

    So, what features favour the Rooks, which the Queen?

    Yusupov loses to the Queen:

    Yusupov has another go with the Rooks:

    Chernin finds an improvement:

    Ish's game in hindsight:

    ""

    [All] 17th June 2008 . Introductory session (DR)

    So, starting in a similar way as last year, I asked everyone to name the three main reasons you lose chess games.

    These turned out to be:

    STRATEGY

    Lack of strategy

    Not looking for outposts enough

    Moving pieces which leave holes in my position

    Failure to spot strategic weaknesses early enough

    GENERAL ATTITUDE

    Moving rather than taking more time

    Poor psychology: making mistakes and then making worse ones

    Letting my opponent off when I was ahead on material with a better position

    THINKING PROCESS

    Playing a middlegame sequence out of in the wrong order

    Running out of time

    Miscalculation (poor vision)

    Blunders -- mainly after 1 hour+ -- due, I suspect, to lack of recent practice

    Careless loss of material

    EGOISM

    Moving without working out what my opponent can do in reply

    Not seeing the opponent's intended move

    Not being completely aware to what my opponent up to

    OPENINGS

    Opening inaccuracy

    Inferior opening preparation

    Poor openings

    In opening, occasionally make over-easy moves which weaken my position

    ATTACK AND DEFENCE

    Getting shafted on the diagonals

    Playing unsound attacks

    I can be over-keen to attack, i.e. launch an attack before I've prepared the necessary back -up

    Over-extension in the middle-game (trying too hard to win)

    I'll try to come up with a programme which includes some material relevant to these topics as well as suggestions made earlier

    ""

    [All] 12th May 2008 Comments

    I'm trying out a new comments system, vaguely anticipating a new season of coaching sessions. Suggestions and comments invited. What did I leave out last year?

    ""

    [All] 5th April 2008 London 1922

    Some of you may know that I've done a bit of work editing and typesetting for Hardinge Simpole, and my first project for them was pulling together everything I could find about the tournament in London in 1922 (which gave its name to the London System). It would have pleased me to be able to include some splendid cartoons that I've just come across: enjoy...

    http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter14.html#3937._Comic_strips

    ""

    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:

    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]