Randomise openings in tournaments and bring back sparkling chess

Hi Pilgrim,

One of the things that used to happen in playing chess before the age of analytical engines and databases was that chess players tended to make more mistakes, especially in the openings. That led to more scintillating play as the example below amply demonstrates. Even in correspondence chess, you would see the King’s Gambits and the Evans tried out with every expectation of victory.

Today, if you played in this way you would probably get smashed with no chance to fight back. Safety first and quiet positions that disadvantage chess engines, are the prevailing strategies used by players, except in the much lower echelons of correspondence or server-based chess. In cross-board chess, thorough preparation combined with the players’ phenomenal memories and understanding, is used to produce ‘gotcha chess’.

I have previously argued in another venue, for the randomisation of openings in chess tournaments. This would bring back excitement to those of us who like to follow the games of the very best. It would mean that when you sat down to play an opponent in a tourney, the opening which would be played is selected by a random process at that moment, from a long list of sound openings (including most gambits). So you can no longer count on your experience with a particular opening or the memorisation you have undertaken prior to meeting a particular opponent whose opening preferences you know. You and your opponent are on your own! All you have is your talent and general knowledge of all the openings.

Sure, positional players end up playing gambits sometimes, but by the same token, sharp tacticians end up having to play quiet variations. It depends on what is pulled out of the hat.

Imagine this wonderful scenario:

Carlsen sits down to play a game as White against Morosevich; the tourney official selects the opening to be played at random; it is a Vienna Gambit.

Next time these two players meet in this tourney with colours reversed, the draw produces a King’s Indian. And so it goes on for all the players.

Players like the comfort zone of familiar openings but if there were no rating points involved and a sponsor threw enough money at it, I am sure many first class players would take part. Amateurs around the world would love to see such contests.

I discovered the game below in an anthology by Purdy. He used it to show how it was possible to produce great combinative games in correspondence chess that rivalled anything produced across the board. Not something likely to happen today. Notice how Black’s king is penned up and then White has all the time he needs to finish him off. I hope you enjoy it.

The game is from the British Correspondence Chess Championship 1946-47.

R. (Bob) G. Wade Versus Wallis (no other details known at this time)

1. e4 e6

2. d4 d5

3. Nc3 Bb4

4. e5 c5

5. a3 cxd4

6. axb4 dxc3

7. Nf3! Cxb2

8. Bb2 Ne7

9. Bd3 Nbc6

10. Qd2 Ng6

11. b5 Nce7

12. h4 Nf5

13. h5 Ngh4

14. Nxh4 Nxh4

15. Ra4 Nf5

16. Rg4! Bd7 (not g6??)

17. Bf5 exf5

18. Rg7 bb5

19. Rh3 Qe7

20. Qa5! Bc6

21. e6!! f4

22. Re3!!! fxe3

23. exf7+ Kf8

24. Ba3 Qa3

25. Qa3+ Kg7

26. Qe7 exf2+

27. Kf2 Raf8

28. h6+ Kh6

29. Qf6+ Kh5

30. Kf3 Bd7 (...Rhg8!?)

31. Kf4 h6

32. Qg7 d4

33. g4+ Kh4

34. Qg6! Kh3

35. Qd3+ Kg2

36. Qe2+ 1-0 (Mate in 3)

Now that is a sparkling game which would grace any player's collection.

An intriguing Sicilian

Hi Pilgrims,

We have just seen completed the latest World Championship of Chess between Anand and challenger Gelfand. A few Sicilians were played in that match, although you would be forgiven for thinking they were but a pale shadow of Sicilian-slugfests, as we know them from previous World Championship contests.

I felt a sense of déjà-vu while the match was on. It was as though I had been placed in a time-machine and transported back 20 years. This was the Indian prodigy who took Europe by storm, the speed-king of chess, playing against one of the ‘beastie-boys’, as Short used to refer to that generation of amazing young players (which included the incredible Ivanschuk and a little later, Kramnik and Kamsky), coming along in the late 1980s and early 1990s to challenge the dominance of Karpov, Kasparov, and other aging Grandmasters.

These were the post-Karpov wunderkinds of chess, heirs to the aggression of Fischer and dynamism of Kasparov. And wasn’t chess wonderful for it? It is with some degree of hindsight that we can now say that the period of the 1990s was a modern golden age for chess and we may not see its like again.

So a mixture of nostalgia and regret tinged my following of this match. Well played by both; relatively risk-free play; boring for the average player. But regret at what was not there: players like Carlsen or any of the other current, youthful (or at least younger), giants of the modern game. Instead we have old gladiators in their forties duking it out, with punches lacking power but delivered with skill.

Of course, the younger players were not there because they either did not participate in a selection system they thought was unfair or they simply did not make it to the endgame. So it was up to the old(er) guys to make with the charisma, the danger, the conflict, the drama; make it a contest worthy of the highest level of chess competition. Did they succeed? 

The rapid-play decider is of questionable value; like a penalty shoot-out in soccer, it divides the fans. Is it exciting or just an ignominious way to decide such an important even? I think it lacks dignity for the game and the quality of the players. I am a traditionalist. Play the match to 24 games and if the match is drawn have done with it. The title-holder remains the champion because the challenger failed to defeat him or her.

It seems the opinions of the ‘experts’ are mixed, so your opinion reader, is as good as any one else’s at this stage. We shall see what history will make of it all.

Enough commentary.  Here is the rather intriguing Sicilian.

Kerecsenyi, Zoltan (1567) Hungary versus Eraclides, George (1649) Australia

ZI-2011–0–01085 Lechenicher SchachServer, 10.09.2011

This is game two of the mini-match we played on Lechenicher SchachServer.

Sicilian Defence – Najdorf Variation

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. Bg5 Be6 9. O-O O-O (this has all been seen before; Black is following a line of Fischer’s) 10. Kh1 Nbd7 (a risky line; h6 and Nc6 are other risky alternatives; as this is a Sicilian Najdorf, you cannot expect any risk-free variations; this sentence sure carries a lot of ‘risk’!)11. Qd3 (he wants to link Rooks and also be able to transition to Qg3 if occasion calls for it) Rc8 (once again, Black had Qc7, h6, or even b5 with an unclear assessment; Black develops his Queen’s Rook to its traditional square – can it really ever be a Sicilian without that Rook on c8?)12. Rad1 h6 13. Bc1 (appears to make Black’s h6 pointless, although later in the endgame, h6 is useful for supporting a g5 pawn move – see move 34 below) Qc7 (the plan is to play Bc4 to exchange Bishops and control c4) 14. Qg3 Kh7 (avoiding his tactical trick of Bxh6 but also protecting h6 itself) 15. f4 Bc4 (15...exf4 16. Bxf4 opens the position too much in White’s favour)16. Bxc4 Qxc4 17. Qf3 (17. f5 may have been worth a try for its cramping effect but any follow-up is bound to be slow; Black’s counter-chances are on the Queen-side one way or the other; not surprising in a Sicilian) b5 18. a3 Qc7 19. fxe5 (19. f5 Nc5 20. Nxc5 Qxc5 with a5 and b4 threatened) Nxe5 (played this way on intuitive grounds; Black liked the Knight sitting on his outpost supported by the Pawn d6, radiating force into the White position; positionally more conservative – and perhaps correct – was dxe5; as it turns out Black gets a strong but cramped position) 20. Qf5+ Kh8 (leaving space for Ng8 if needed to defend h6) 21. Nd5?! (White gives up a Pawn for the dubious compensation of constricting Black’s position in the expectation of a winning attack, which alas for him never eventuates, due to accurate play by Black) Nxd5 22. exd5 Qxc2 23. Qxc2 Rxc2 24. Nd4 (Black now plays very accurately to slowly defend his weak points; then the next stage is to uncoil his position; finally Black maximises his winning chances with the extra Pawn; I felt like a very poor version of Lasker or Korchnoi, digging in for a long fight on the road to victory) Rc7 25. Nf5 Ng6 26. Bd2 Re8 27. Bc3 f6 28. Nd4 Ne5 29. Ne6 (this Knight is annoying but that is all White achieves with Queens no longer on the board; in fact, Black’s Knight is a more useful piece) Rcc8 30. h3 Nc4 31. Bd4 Bd8 (now we begin the ‘uncoiling phase’) 32. Rf3 (he still thinks he has an initiative so plays for the attack; it is hard to suggest a worthwhile alternative) Bb6 33. Bxb6 Nxb6 34. Rg3 g5 35. Rf3 Nxd5 (White has fallen for – or allowed to take place – a cheap tactic; it is interesting to go back and look at White’s position from move 29 onwards to see how brittle it actually is; all the tactical nuances are with Black) 36. Nxg5 hxg5 37. Rxd5 Re6 38. Rfd3 Rc6 39. Kh2 Kg7 40. Kg3 Kf7 41. Kf3 Ke7 (frees up the Rook from defensive duties so progress can be made in advancing the Pawns) 42. R5d4 Re5 43. g3 (he might as well have tried h4 with some drawing chances) Rf5+ 44. Kg4 Re5 45. h4 gxh4 46. gxh4 (an outside passed Pawn is his only hope but it is too late; Black aims to swap one Rook then get on with exploiting the few winning chances he has) Rc4 47. Kg3 Rxd4 48. Rxd4 d5 49. Kf4 Ke6 50. a4 (desperation; maybe b3 was better) f5 51. h5 Re4+ 52. Rxe4+ fxe4 (the united passed Pawns are deadly) 53. axb5 axb5 54. Kg5 Kf7! (obviously the Black King must stay close enough to stop the White passed Pawn) 55. h6 e3 and White resigned.

From Black’s point of view a satisfying, if flawed, game. I do not normally enjoy a cramped position, particularly one which requires me to play very accurately all the time. As Tarrasch taught us from years ago, it is hard to keep defending a cramped position. I think I played well to convert the meagre chances to a win. My opponent probably missed some opportunities to hold the game or at least to make it harder for Black to win.

But then again, it is human to make mistakes, otherwise we would never bother to play chess. Where would be the fun in endless, perfect, draws?

George Eraclides

A champion is forever - once good, always good

Hi Pilgrims,

I have been reading assiduously the works of Cecil J Purdy. You have come across some of his ideas in my reference to ‘bunny rules’ in previous postings.

There is no doubt that Purdy is the best writer, teacher, and annotator for chess players who are below Master Class. If you are an average player or no better than a category one player, then you would be very foolish to ignore his writings. Take your nose out of the latest ‘Win with...’ book or computer software upgrade and read Purdy instead.

Even if you later graduate to higher levels of play because you are talented or you want to study the current crop of openings guides so as to successfully play ‘gotcha chess’, you will have benefitted from Purdy. You will be able to orient yourself quickly and well to different positions. Purdy knew well the teachings of the greatest thinkers and writers on the game: theorists like Steinitz/Lasker, Tarrasch, Nimzovich; players like Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, up to the era of Fischer. He absorbed what was best but did not innocently just swallow everything. Practical play throws up its own kind of wisdom, and Purdy was canny enough to realise that chess is in the end, a practical activity: You want to know what will help you to play better and win; leave the dogmatic rhetoric for the theoreticians in their ivory towers.

In many of his books, his annotations are sprinkled with nuggets of wisdom about how you should evaluate a position. What you should do. Why the player under scrutiny did what he or she did and what you can learn from the moves played. And as you look at the position he is commenting upon, you have the practical example before you to remember; not just a tactical motif to help with future pattern-recognition but an idea to treasure for many different positions in future encounters. Even in correspondence chess, the ideas of Purdy are invaluable to help you in a practical, no-nonsense way. It is with good reason that Fischer himself thought highly of Purdy as a teacher of chess.

I am currently reading volume one of ‘C. J. S. Purdy’s Fine Art of Chess Annotation and other thoughts’ published by Thinkers’ Press, Davenport USA and edited by Dr Ralph J. Tykodi. I obtained my copy via mail order from Neville Ledger in Tasmania nlchess@tassie.net.au . He may not have any copies left of this book or the other Purdy classics. You may have to seek them out in the specialist second hand trade or find a library which has copies. His annotations and essays are perfect for the average club player. He leaves just enough unsaid in an annotation to allow you to work things out and feel satisfied with your efforts.

Anyway, I was going through his notes to famous championship games, such as those of Bovinnink against Smyslov. It occurred to me to ask the perennial question: How good are the players of one era compared to the best of another era?

The answer from the evidence of history is that the best players from one era are in fact as strong as those of any other era. Perhaps one era has more of them than another but their strength is uniform. I base this claim not on ELO historical ratings or similar formulae applied to player results.

I believe that on the basis of players of different generations, playing against each other in the transition points of different eras, the strength of the best players can be assessed. Steinitz playing strongly, well past his best period against new players; Capablanca and Lasker did the same well into the subsequent era (the twenties and thirties) and against the hypermoderns and booked up theorists; Alekhine was devastating against players who would later come to dominate chess; Botvinnik was in the forefront of players well past his best period, which was in the thirties and forties, and he was a very, very hard man to beat, even by a rampant Fischer later in the 1960s; Smyslov, as we know, played off in candidates matches at the age of 61. And do I even need to mention Korchnoi?

If players from a more modern period were indeed so superior to those from the past, they would be giving them a hiding, almost all the time. This is not what history shows us.

So on those occasions when players of different eras actually met, played in tournaments or even matches (the transition points of eras) the results of those players past their best period, facing those about to reach or having reached their best period, are generally good to excellent. The new masters looking for a quick kill against the old and worn out, are often surprised and bested by the old warriors.

Therefore I conclude: once good, good for all time.

This is boon to those of us who like players and games from different eras. We can have fun and still learn much that is worthwhile.

Now, here is a game of mine recently completed on Lechenicher SchachServer http://www.chess-server.net/ which used to be the old IECG.

This ‘chess club’ is comparable to the ICCF and players are of a very high standard. I usually struggle against them but more recently (thanks to inspiration by Fischer – see previous post – and Purdy) I have been doing better. In the following game I make a mistake using a variation in the Open Sicilian (3.Bc4) popularised by the strong Australian player Bill Jordan in the 1980s. I lose a Pawn due to some speculative nonsense but then play inventively and aggressively in the ending which forces my opponent to play conservatively. He makes an error and the result is a draw. I should mention that the time control was quite fast, hence the errors in analysis by both players.

Eraclides, George (1649) Australia versus Kerecsenyi, Zoltan (1567) Hungary

ZI-2011–0–01085 Lechenicher SchachServer, 10.09.2011

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 e6 4.0–0 Be7 5.d4 (more in the spirit of this variation is 5.d3 with a patient build up) cxd4 6.Nxd4 a6 7.a4 Nf6 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Be3 Nc6 10.Kh1 Bd7 11.Qe2 Rc8 12.Rad1 Qc7 13.Bb3 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 e5 15.Be3 Be6 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.g4 (speculative and unsound; correct was 17.f3 with Qf2 and even a Rook on d3 in time) Qc6 18.f3 d5 (as Purdy and countless teachers from the past have pointed out, a central thrust is the complete answer to an unsound flank attack; I now lose a Pawn but get a strong Knight which dominates my opponent’s Bishop; I use this ‘domination’ to help me secure a draw) 19.exd5 exd5 20.g5 d4 21.gxf6 Bxf6 22.Ne4 dxe3 23.Qxe3 Qxa4 24.Qb6 (this aggressive move can lead to a loss by Black in certain variations after Qxb7 if White is allowed the time to place a Rook on the g-file and take on f6 at the right moment; Zoltan quite rightly now, plays most carefully after winning the Pawn) Qxc2 25.Qxb7 Qc6 26.Qb3+ Qc4 27.Qxc4+ Rxc4 28.Ra1 Bd8 29.Kg2 a5 30.Rfd1 Rb4 31.Rd2 Bb6 32.Nc3 Rd4 33.Rxd4 exd4 34.Nd5 Bd8 35.Rd1 Bf6? (any winning chances lay with 35...Re8 with a long endgame; my analysis showed White can still draw) 36.Nxf6+ ½–½ (Draw agreed)

I will not be playing this variation again, any time soon. Only Fischer lines when I can.

George Eraclides

Best of the best: Bobby Fischer

Hi Pilgrims,

Again profuse apologies for the lateness of a post:
re-establishing ourselves in Kinglake has been combined with a substantial writing project all of which kept me ridiculously busy.

On the chess front, I have renewed my acquaintance with an old inspiration, one whose games I had unjustifiably neglected for nigh on thirty years – Bobby Fischer. Remember him?

Since I lost all my chess books along with all other belongings, in the Black Saturday fires of 2009, I have been judiciously on the lookout for chess books in second-hand book stores, mail-order, and on the internet. I stumbled across the complete games of Fischer in a 1995 book: ‘Bobby Fischer: Complete Games of the American World Chess Champion by Lou Hays’.

It coincided with a time when I was getting hammered in chess straight out of the opening and in the early middle-game. I was looking for something to inspire me as I seemed to be getting older but no wiser. I knew I had to change my openings. If I was doing so badly, I reasoned that it must be because the openings I was playing were wrong for me; I had no special feel for them, therefore was incapable of reacting properly when my opponents (all booked up and with microchips embedded in their brains) took me into unfamiliar variations. And then along came the Fischer collection by Hays.

It was a delayed epiphany of about 40 years. You see, it was because of Fischer I took up chess again as an adult, back in 1972, when he took on the chess system and won. I liked his games. So why did I not emulate his openings as many others had done? Had I wasted 40 years? Probably. A late epiphany is better than none.

So I have renewed my acquaintance with the games of Fischer. I like his style. I naturally gravitate to his mix of clear strategy, classical play, and accurate, forceful tactics. All I lack is any semblance of his talent – but then so do all my opponents at the level I play. So I have decided to unleash the ‘inner Fischer’ that’s been there for 40 years. I have started to study his games and the openings he played. I have adopted the Sicilian and King’s Indian as Black and e4 as White.

Already, my results have improved. I play with more confidence because the openings and defences suit my style. Maybe there will be some glory-days still left for the old dog (me). We shall see.

Reviewing Fischer’s career and games was like leaving behind the polluted environment of the city and going up into the mountains, where the air is crystal clear and you can see for miles around you. You can actually breathe the air instead of choking. This is what life (chess) is supposed to be like.

Fischer’s approach is classical and direct. A keen student of Steinitz, he easily absorbed the principles of classical chess. Combined with his innate talents, these principles became the foundation of an aggressive style of chess that has had no equal. Even the players of today, the great ones, do not have his level of direct aggression, soundly based and meticulously planned. And they have the benefits of modern computer assistance and hordes of seconds to help them.

The impression is given that every move is a step in the strategy; each move is a threat of some kind; the cumulative effect is of a series of hammer-blows aimed at the enemy, and when he weakens, the surgical knife comes out to finish him off.

Fischer is the greatest representative of what I call the ‘American style’ of playing chess: direct, clear, aggressive. No elaborate complexity of strategy; no bending of the knee to chess aristocracy; egalitarianism is applied – all enemies are to be treated equally. The detritus of European complexity seems to have never made it across the Atlantic to infect the American side of the ocean: Morphy, Pillsbury, Marshall, Capablanca, and Fischer. Reshevsky was prone to the European disease but then his early influences were steeped in European chess.

Fischer had patriarchal attitudes. He identified closely with Steinitz who was an outsider and a patriarch in his own way. For Fischer as for Steinitz, it was ‘my way or the highway’. You do as I say because I know what is right: this move, this variation, this opening or defence, this way of conducting chess tournaments. Fischer seems to have taken a dislike to Lasker because he deposed the Patriarch he so admired; and Alekhine’s complexity seemed to displease Fischer’s aesthetics as much as the fact he deposed the clear style of Capablanca. Even so, there are similarities to Lasker (tactical nuance, fighting spirit) and Alekhine (aggression, combinative attacks) in Fischer’s play. As Newton was wont to say, when his genius was being announced to the world, he was fortunate to be able to stand on the shoulders of giants who came before him. Same for Fischer.

In a way, Fischer is the patriarch of modern chess as Steinitz was of the classical period and Botvinnik, of the so-called, Soviet School of Chess. Of course, chess players are individuals and give their own individual twist to the influences on their development. The really talented break new ground and influence future generations. Fischer’s approach, and gift to the rest of us, is of relentless aggression, soundness, never giving up the fight even when a draw is ‘logical’; classical play with White and hypermodern openings with Black in order to have winning chances.

His style seems to have become a major influence on all the top players, as Kasparov himself has indicated in his ‘Great Predecessors’ series. Despite the difficulties he had with officials, Fischer was well liked by many of his rivals as well as respected for the principled stand he would take over conditions and player-payments. Tal, Spassky, and Gligoric among many other top players, seem to have been on friendly terms with the often cranky Fischer. The world owes an enormous debt to Spassky for the sporting qualities he displayed and the forbearance he showed towards Fischer’s behaviour, which allowed the world championship matches to proceed. Perhaps deep down, Mr Spassky also had a less than positive view of the Soviet system.

Recent analysis using computer assistance has revealed that Fischer did not always play perfectly correctly. Top level commentators, some of them world champions themselves, have shown that this or that move, if played by his opponents, would have undone Fischer’s aggressive play. Does this belittle the great man’s reputation? Hardly. It is as nonsensical to apply modern computer tools, group-think, and ‘post-Fischer’ knowledge, to devalue his legacy, as it is for an ordinary scientist today to scorn the greatness of a Newton or Einstein because they did not have the modern technical marvels and knowledge of the present day. As for Fischer’s appalling political and social attitudes, they go to a critique of Fischer the man not Fischer the player. We know of many great cultural figures, whose attitudes and values are despicable, even by the standards of their day, yet we still respect the contribution they have made to our civilisation.

Fischer’s play still stands up as sound, aesthetically pleasing, and an example for all players to aspire to, irrespective of class.

As for my play – please do not ever use it as an example of anything except the struggle of a keen chess player with a modest skill set, occasionally producing an interesting game (as long as you do not look too closely), as the disclaimer of Pawn’s Progress proclaims.

This next game is from the ongoing second match of mine against Tayhk from Singapore played on http://www.itsyourturn.com/ as previously posted. The game was completed in January 2012.

I was Black and managed to win after a few positional mistakes by my opponent. The tactical play involved dancing on a knife-edge for both of us in an open position but in the end I prevailed. I played this game under a ‘Fischer influence’ which meant that I tried to play soundly but aggressively after an unfamiliar opening tried by Tayhk; the tactics were well calculated and forceful, blending well with classical principles. Anyway, I tried. I hope you enjoy the game, especially the final part.

Tayhk versus The Palooka (George Eraclides)

Nimzo-Larsen Opening

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 (3...e4 is quite acceptable but I wanted a tight formation against this clever, improvising player) 4. e4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bc4 (the play of my opponent does not seem to suit the essence of the Nimzo-Larsen; the Bishop will be misplaced here and I now noticed a tactical opportunity. Remember the great chess teacher Purdy’s advice: look first for forcing tactics for both sides before playing strategically, because if you don’t, you may be overlooking a brilliant strike for yourself or by your opponent; I referred to them as ‘Bunny Rules’ in earlier posts) Bg4 7. h3 (of course if he had played Be2 there would be no need for this weakening) Bxf3 8. Qxf3 (in hindsight 8. gxf3 Nd4 may have been better with 9. Nb5 or a4 to dislodge the Black Knight; given he has not yet castled, he can sneak in Queen-side castling and try to attack down the g-file) Nd4 9. Qd3 c6 (Black hits the Bc4 which is poorly placed, threatening to capture His Holiness) 10. a4 a6 11. b4 (necessary to save the Bishop) O-O 12. Nd1 (on d1the Knight becomes an impediment to his positional structure but he must try and dislodge Black’s well-posted Knight; Black takes the opportunity to try some clever space-grabbing moves on the Queen-side which keep the pressure on White. All this because of the poor move 6. Bc4) b5 13. Ba2 (he wants to save the Bishop because it attacks f7 or he does not want to admit to himself 6. Bc4 was a poor idea; I would have played 13. Bb3) c5 14. Bxd4 cxd4 (capturing towards the centre works best here, as it does most of the time) 15. c3 d5! 16. exd5 Nxd5 17. O-O Nf4 18. Qe4 Ng6 (I was quite pleased with my position. Now White gives me an opportunity to win a tempo, a dubious Pawn, and further improve my position; note: any pawn exchanges on the Queen-side initiated by White will favour Black because of White’s poor development and separated Rooks) 19. g3 Qd7 20. Kh2 bxa4 21. f4!? (high stakes play by White to cash-in on the Ba2 spearing f7; a better try was 21. Nb2) exf4 22. gxf4 Bf6! (a clever threat which White imagines he has dealt with by his next move) 23. Qf3 Rad8 24. Rf2 Rfe8 (alarm bells should be ringing) 25. Nb2? (desperation or a blunder) Nxf4! 26. Rg1 (his choices are to attack, and in the complications force a swindle, or be ground down in the long run) Be5 27. Rg3 (he is working in very tight spaces to meet numerous threats and now gives up the exchange) Ne6! (this may have come as a surprise; it blocks the attack on f7 by the Bishop on a2 and gives Black all the time needed to attack; the theme of an assault on f7 lingers in the air, never to be fulfilled) 28. Kg1 Bxg3 29. Qxg3 dxc3 (tidying up loose ends) 30. dxc3 a3! 31. Nc4 (forced and now the diagonal of the Bishop is blocked) Qd3 32. Rf3 (Black can win the Queen-less ending easily but now clever tactics by Black decide matters once and for all) Qc2! 33. Rf2 Rd1+! 34. Kh2 Qc1 35. Qf3 Ng5 36. Qc6 Rde1! 37. Nd6 R1e2! 38. Qg2 (38. Qxd8 Rxd8 39. Nxd8 Qe3 was quite unpalatable to White) Qd2! 39. Kg3? (‘Resigns’ was the alternative) Qxd6+ 0-1

So this was my ‘Fischer inspired’ effort to emulate the approach of the great man. It gave me the point and a slight lead in our second match of 24 games.

Hope you enjoyed the effort and maybe learned something useful.

To err is human, to then still win, is absolutely divine

Hi Pilgrim,

Once again, my apologies for being so late with my posts.

Since we moved into our rebuilt home in Kinglake I have been extremely busy with landscaping, gardening, and painting the outside of the house. I am still painting and estimate I shall be doing so for most of 2011. The reason is that the outside is made of Hardiplank, and painting it is like painting a sponge – it sucks up the paint and progress is very slow. I am also doing the gardening of my partner’s house in Melbourne (she does not want to live in Kinglake permanently) and also trying to resuscitate my writing.

My crime novel is finished and I have been trying to interest publishers in it. I also write a column for the CCLA website called ‘Ramblings’ at http://www.ccla.asn.au/ as well as for Kinglake’s Mountain Monthly. These are ruminations on chess from the POV of an average player with some capacity to think.

We have had the wettest year on record in Victoria and the gardens have been lush instead of dying-back in summer; hence so much gardening. At least we had no major bushfires.

My chess-playing skills have become patchy and I have been troubled mainly by my opening play. A review of all my recent games has revealed that my weakness is in the opening where I end up after a few moves in variations that either do not suit my style or which are of questionable soundness.

I recently undertook a review of all openings and defences by going through the main lines in Modern Chess Openings 15. I was trying to see what I felt comfortable playing these days. Not surprisingly, I still seem to be more comfortable with a defence that gives me counter-playing chances rather than just a passive but safe position, however, any complexity has to be manageable; sheer speculation is out of the question in this age of computer-chess, where even amateurs of modest ability are thoroughly prepared, or in correspondence chess where players have access to massive databases.

I like an opening with White where I will not be surprised by a latest innovation from some GM’s research team thrown at me by an amateur not stronger than I but just better prepared or resourced. My time is at a premium these days. It has to be sound, strategic, play with any tactics arising out of a sound position.

I have had some good fortune as ‘The Palooka’, in my second match of 24 games against ‘Tayhk’ of Singapore, playing on www.itsyourturn.com. I have gone up 5-2 with 2 Draws and it is up to him to pull back the deficit with better play. Currently I have a Nimzo as Black, and a crazy Philidor as White.

A recent win of mine against him, was as Black playing a Dutch Defence.

I should have lost the game. I made a gross blunder in the opening, losing a pawn. My opponent then became greedy and fanciful, imagining he could get more out of the position. He made a dreadful mistake in return. After that, we ended up in a Queen-less middle-game and ending, where the themes of prevention, centralisation, restriction, and blockade predominated as strategy on my part.

The pressure got to my opponent and he made a final, terrible blunder. Thus the game I expected to lose was turned into one of my most memorable wins, because of the strategic play I was able to execute. Not bad for an amateur. It shows that some of my studying over the years has been absorbed and used creatively.

The game is instructive for a number of reasons: it shows how you can frustrate your opponent by continuing to create problems in an inferior position; it demonstrates the value of the Nimzovich stratagems of prevention, restriction and blockade to immobilise an enemies position; it proves the claim that the one who makes the next to last mistake, wins the game; and it is an example of chess-optimism as exemplified in the statement ‘Nobody ever won a game by resigning.’

I hope you will enjoy this flawed but instructive game.

Tayhk versus The Palooka
Dutch Defence

1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd2 Be7 5. h3 b6 6. Nf3
Bb7 7. a3 O-O 8. Bc4 d5 9. Ba2 Nbd7 10. Ng5 Re8 11. Nxe6
Qc8 12. Nb5 c6 13. Nbc7 Rb8 14. Qf3 g6 15. O-O-O Nf8
16. Nxe8 Qxe8 17. Nc7 Qd7 18. Nxd5 cxd5 19. g4 fxg4
20. hxg4 Qxg4 21. Qxg4 Nxg4 22. Rdf1 Kg7 23. f3 Nf6
24. c3 N8d7 25. Rh3 Re8 26. Rg1 Bd8 27. f4 Ne4 28. Be1
b5 29. Rh5 Ndf6 30. Re5 Bc7 31. Rxe8 Nxe8 32. Kc2 N8f6
33. Bb3 Bc8 34. Kd3 Bf5 35. Ke2 Nd6 36. Bh4 Nc4 37. a4
bxa4 38. Bxa4 Nxb2 39. Bb5 Nc4 40. Ra1 Bb6 41. Ra4
Ne4 42. Bxc4 Nxc3+ 43. Kf2 Nxa4 44. Bxd5 Nc3 45. Bc6
Be4 46. Bd7 Kf7 47. Ke1 Ba5 48. Kd2 Nd5+ 49. Ke2 Bb4
50. Bg4 a5 51. Bf3 Nc3+ 52. Kf2 a4 0-1

Until next time, may your games be full of genius on your part and blunders for your opponents.

Grab a Grob

Hi Pilgrims.

A long time between postings – humblest apologies but I have been exceedingly busy getting replacement goods and rebuilding a house in Kinglake to replace the one we lost in the fires of 2009 (see previous postings). Finally it is built and we moved furniture in on July 12, 2010. There is a lot still to do, such as painting the outside of the house, oiling the timber decks, building fences and establishing a garden, as well as moving the small things, such as books, and so on. Ironically, we have had one of the coldest and wettest winters of recent memory and we cannot complete the fences because the ground is too soft from the rains. No fences means, we cannot take up our dogs, so we have to wait.

Re-establishing myself in Kinglake will also take time. Vivien does not wish to live there permanently, so she is keeping her home in Preston (a sophisticated, inner suburb of Melbourne, where countless stylish people – like us - live). So we will be alternating between her place in Preston and mine in Kinglake. They are only about 60 kilometres apart (1 hour) so it is quite manageable. I will probably spend more time in Kinglake to write and just be.

In June this year, I also left my regular job (librarianship, records management, and copyright law compliance for a large educational institution) in order to devote my time fully to writing. That means a lot of creative satisfaction but no income. I will be relying on the interest payments from my superannuation to see me through. I feel I have to give the writing a serious shot while I still have my youthful energy (I am a young 57). I figure when I get to 70-75 I will want to take things easy and enjoy life. Vivien and I are ‘freelance writers’ so we will be looking for writing or editing jobs as a team, as well as pursuing our own individual projects.

Back to Chess.

Sometimes it is worth playing something unusual, even unsound, so as to give your self a chance to win on your own mettle. It can also be fun. So much of modern chess is based on computer-assisted preparation. Even ordinary players prepare and play like Grandmasters, thanks to the databases and analysis engines that are available. Not much original thinking is needed unless the opponent deviates into an inferior line; someone like me is liable to do that because I do not have a chess database or powerful chess engine.

I have written about this in my regular ‘Ramblings’ column at: http://www.ccla.asn.au/

Below is a Grob opening, named after the iconoclastic chess master Henri Grob, who used it in many correspondence chess games. It was played on the ICCF webserver, event ‘WS/O/244’. My opponent is Jan Erik Zimmermann from Denmark. Like me, he does not use chess computers but prefers to play ‘alfresco’. Any success or failure is due to your own play and not that of a silicone substitute.

The question of the soundness or otherwise of this opening, is not settled. When the great computer in the sky analyses all possible variations issuing from 1. g4!? it may well be the case that the Grob is a win for White after all. The analysis on this opening is scant and still based largely on positional assumptions. Surely, it has to be bad, it is said; look at how it ignores the centre and weakens the King’s position. All true and beside the point. White places his Bishop on g2 to attack the centre and also grabs some space on the King-side. Black has to react quickly and perhaps aggressively or he/she will be in difficulties – remember, White has the move and gets into threatening positions quicker if Black plays passively.

Indeed, this is what happened in this game. My opponent, unfamiliar with the opening, played too passively and then after a mistake which lost the exchange, he had a hard struggle and eventually succumbed.

I present the game with light notes for your enjoyment. Consider adding the Grob to your arsenal when playing for a win. If you lose you can always blame the opening rather than your playing skill. If you win, you can take all the credit. That’s a win-win scenario.

George Eraclides (1800) V Jan Erik Zimmermann (1636)

ICCF WS/O/244

November 2008 to April 2009

Grob’s Opening

1.g4 e5 2.Bg2?! c6?! (too passive; MCO 15 advises h5 with a complicated game not unfavourable to Black) 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 d5 5.Nc3 Qf6 (he realises that White is developing his pieces very quickly and gaining useful space, hence the Queen exchange) 6.Qxf6 Nxf6 7.g5 (this impudent Pawn continues to irritate Black, showing that 2...c6 was not a good idea) Nfd7 8.Nf3 Bd6 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Bc7 (he had no real alternatives; the Grob is looking pretty good) 11.Be3 Ne5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.O-O-O O-O 14.Ng3 g6 (so as to be able to place the Bishop on g7 eventually but White cooks up a little tactics) 15.Rhe1 Be6 16.Bc5 Bf4+ 17.Kb1 Re8 18.Ne4 Nd7 19.Bd6 Bxd6 20.Nxd6 Rf8 (20...Reb8 21. Nxb7 anyway) 21.Nxb7 Rac8 22.Nd6 Rc7 23.Bf3 (to stop a nuisance Bf5; White’s tactics have netted him material and positional superiority) Nc5 24.Ne4 Na4 25.b3 Nb6 26.Nf6+ Kg7 27.Rd6 h6 28.Bxc6 hxg5 29.Ne8+ Rxe8 30.Bxe8 Nd5 31.c4 Nb4 32.Red1 (White has done very well out of the tactics and now has a won position; his aim is to snuff out any counter-chances by Black and avoid errors in the coming won ending; for his part, Black tries to make life as hard as he can for White and encourage a blunder) Bf5+ 33.Kb2 Re7 34.Ba4 Re2+ 35.R6d2 Re4 36.Kc3 a5 37.a3 Na6 38.Bd7 (simplification is a key to winning for White) Bxd7 39.Rxd7 Rh4 40.R7d5 Rxh2 41.Rxa5 Nc7 42.Rxg5 Rxf2 43.Rd2 Rf3+ 44.Rd3 Rf2 45.Kb4 Ne6 46.Rgg3 g5 47.c5 Rf5 48.Rc3 Nc7 49.Ka5 Kg6 50.Kb6! Nd5+ 51.Kb7 Nxc3 52.Rxc3! (this return of the exchange leaves Black having to give up his Rook for the passed Pawn while White’s Rook can stop anything on the King-side) g4 53.b4 Rf3 54.Rc4 g3 55.c6 1-0

I was pleased to win this game and actually found the ending harder than gaining the middle-game advantage.

So grab a Grob next time you sit at the board and you will not be bored.

The French can be so difficult

Hi Pilgrims,

No postings for a while but I, and she who must occasionally be obeyed, have been busy first setting up accommodation in Melbourne after the fires (see previous post) and then starting the rebuilding of our house in Kinglake, once the insurance and relief funds kicked in. Without the generosity of family and friends, the Australian community, the government and various businesses, we would not have made it. When the story is finally written about ‘Black Saturday’, as the day of the killer-fires has become known, the amazingly positive community response will be a prominent feature.

I will soon(ish) place all my photographs of the fire and aftermath, plus other photos, on Facebook and/or Google Picassa, organised in albums. It is a good way to safeguard them should another disaster strike. I have lost all my photographs and those of my parents and relatives in the fires and I do not want to lose what I am now accumulating.

MeanwhiIe, I have been playing chess, at my usual middling standard, with the occasional good game thrown in as a surprise. I have also been trying to recreate my library of books with affordable second-hand editions. Progress has been made. I also regularly contribute a column of thoughts, called ‘Ramblings’, on the CCLA website at http:http://www.ccla.asn.au/.

The following game is against one of my correspondence chess club-mates, Mark Bruere. We have played often and results have been about even. I have previously posted a game against Mark which was as lively as the one below.
This time we play the French Variation, and I must admit I was not looking forward to it because I myself play the French.

George Eraclides V Mark Bruere

Correspondence Chess League of Australia (CCLA)

Tournament 4/2777 2008-2009

French Defence – Tarrasch Variation

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nd2 Nf6

I used to play this line until a few severe defeats made me give it up. White always has the easier game and Black struggles to find any counter-play.

4. e5 Nfd7
5. Bd3 c5
6. c3 Nc6
7. Ne2 cxd4
8. cxd4 Nb6

Unusual. More normal is ...Qb6 or ...f6; if 8...Nb4 9. Bb1 Be7 10. a3 Qa5?! White just develops normally with castling, Nc3, Bd2, f4 etc... and eventually Black has wasted time as he has to relocate the Knight and the Queen while White uncoils; if he does not and castles instead, then he runs the risk of a Bxh7+ winning the black Queen after White allows Qxa1. Nonetheless, this line is worth a try as Black if you can prepare it for a fast paced cross-board game such as lightning. So far we are playing by the book.

9. a3 a5
10. b3

Tal has played this line so I hoped for a lively game. White follows up with Bb2 securing the pawn centre and promising trouble should Black castle King-side, or heaven forbid, play f6.

10... Bd7
11. Bb2

Another option was 11. 0-0 Rc8 12. Bb2 Be7 13. f4

11... h6

Mark smells a future rat and he is right. He needs to stop any White incursion by the Knights into his King-side, now that they are not needed to defend the central Pawns. However, his own Pawns become weak later, so perhaps Be7 or Rc8 may have been better. Also interesting is f5!? We have now left the secure comforts of the book-lines.

12. O-O Na7

Black is very cramped and underdeveloped. He must gain some traction on the Queen-side while leaving his King in the centre, fearful of any attack should he castle King-side. White develops appropriately, maintaining a restrictive strategy while his opponent walks a tightrope, seeking exchanges and space. Perhaps Be7 or Rc8 first were better. White’s next move maintains the clamp.

13. Nc3 Bc6

If ...Nc6, not only has he wasted time but the simple 14.Nb5 or Nf3 are good.

14. Rc1 Qd7
15. Qe2

Still restricting Black.

15... Nbc8

On principle this cannot be good. True, he forces White to play a4 and gets an outpost on b4 but positionally ‘it don’t look good, mate’.

16. a4 Rb8

Forcing b5 is his only chance

17. Nb5 Bb4

If Bxb5 then axb5 leaves him cramped and weak on the c-file.

18. Nxa7 Nxa7

Black has had his wish: a few exchanges and some space to wriggle in. As they say, be careful what you wish for – it may come true, in a form you do not like.

19. f4 g6

He wants to stop any f5 but his Pawns and black squares eventually become weak, especially after his later 21st move. The familiar tactic of Bxg6 hovers in the air and Black must be ever watchful. As this game shows, it is hard to play the Nf6 variation, even at correspondence club level.

20. Rc2

White plays both sides of the board because the open c-file is so tempting. This alternating strategy of attacking different weaknesses was a favourite strategy of the great Nimzovich, discussed in his ‘The Praxis of My System’, a book full of amazing games.

20... Ke7

The best option and a typically French ‘make do’ idea, intending to connect his Rooks if needed.

21. Rfc1 h5

This is one Pawn move too many. Not only are the black squares weakened but the pawns themselves become targets. White, consistent with his alternating strategy, redirects his attention back to the King-side.

22. Nf3 Rhc8

Black thinks he can ride out the storm developing on his King-side by countering on the Queen-side. He really has no choice given the strategy he has pursued.

23. Ng5 b5
24. g4!? hxg4

He could have tried 24...bxa4 25. bxa4 Bxa4 (best) 26. Rxc8 Rxc8 (best) with:
(A) 27. Rxc8 Nxc8 (Qxc8 is similar) 28. gxh5 gxh5 29 Qxh5 with the threat of Qh4 among other things; White has the better chances.
(B) 27. gxh5 Rxc1 28. Bxc1 Qc6 29. Be3 Qc3 with the following fun possibility of 30. hxg6 Qe1+?? 31. Qxe1 Bxe1 32. g7! Winning.

At any rate, a complicated position would have resulted with only a slight edge for White in the possibilities to come. Black may have thought that because the White King will also be exposed should I sacrifice on the King-side, that I would not dare to open the position with a sacrifice, but he has overlooked something.

25. Qxg4 bxa4
26. Nxf7! Kxf7!?

If he does not take then White plays Qg5+ and while Black chomps his way through irrelevant material on the Queen-side his King gets devoured, for instance: 26...axb3 27. Qg5+ Kxf7 28. Bxg6+ Kf8 (necessary) 29. Qf6+ Kg8 30. Rg2! Bf8 (what else?) 31. Bf7+ Kh7 32. Qg6+ Kh8 33. Qg8++; in this line if 27...Ke8 28. Bxg6 and now (A) 28...bxc2 29. Nh6+ Kf8 30. Qf6+ (B) 28...Kf8 29. Qf6! Ke8 30 Nd6++.

27. Qxg6+

This is the best way although Bxg6+ also wins.

27... Kf8

Necessary. If 27...Ke7 28. Qf6+ Ke8 29. Bg6+.

28. Rg2!

This is the move I think Black missed. As Fischer liked to say, it’s a ‘crusher’.

28... Qf7
29. Qh6+ Resigns

Wherever the King goes his Queen is lost and Black does not have enough pieces or positional compensation. It is the quiet moves like Rg2 that you miss in complicated positions, but Mark was under pressure from the start in this variation.

When playing against the French-Tarrasch Variation I now play 3. c5 or 3. Be7 as recommended in the latest book on the French by Watson (John Watson, ‘Play the French’ 3rd Edition, 2003). If you play the French, you cannot afford to be without copies of all the editions of this book, as he investigates different lines in each edition.

In the same correspondence chess tournament I lost the other game to Mark so our record of results continues its even trajectory.

Until the next posting, may all your games be happy ones.