Pawn's Progress

Best of the best: Bobby Fischer

2012-01-27T21:23:00.000-08:00

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

2011-06-07T23:06:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-28T21:57:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-12T20:16:00.000-08:00

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.

Back from the fires and still playing chess!

2009-08-08T22:35:00.000-07:00

As reported in the previous post, I lost my house, two cats, and all belongings in the fires at Kinglake on February 7, 2009.

This has become known as ‘Black Saturday’ in Australia. Many lost their lives and in our own particular area all the houses were burned to the ground and three neighbours lost their lives. Since then, my wife and I have been busy dealing with the recovery phase.

We have relocated to Melbourne until I can rebuild my home in Kinglake. We hope to have our replacement home built by January 2010. Meanwhile we are trying to replace our belongings as economically as possible and manage the whole process of rebuilding.

The following games are posted with light or non-existent notes, just to maintain the momentum with this blog and keep a record of interesting games played by my humble self.

As you can appreciate, I have little free time at present, and what I have, does not allow for much effort with prose or chess analysis. At some time in the future I will return to my normal approach of self-deprecating humour and detailed analysis. Even a few thimbles of chess-wisdom may find their way into the postings.

The first game I won since the fires, was on the White side of a particularly interesting Dutch Defence.

The game was part of a small correspondence chess tournament I had entered in 2008. I wanted to play in the old-fashioned way by snail-mail.

One of my opponents turned out to be Mark Roberts, someone I knew from a previous life in Melbourne when I played cross-board chess at the old Essendon Chess Club in the 1980’s. I only realised who I was playing in this CC game when my opponent in our mini-match of 2 games, played the exchange French as White and the Dutch as Black. It was then I realised the connection, because the Mark I recalled, always liked to play the French as Black and the exchange against the French. Against d4 he liked to try and go into the French with an e6 first move reply. Mark has an attacking style, tending towards complexity, much like mine. He was a very strong cross-board player.

In this first game I had white and decided to try and play a Queen-side opening. We crossed over into a rare and dangerous variation, where I opted for an untested line. The result was one of my best recent efforts in solid, aggressive, chess (my favourite style). Mark made an error under great positional pressure and that was it.

CCLA 4/2 Tournament 2777
White: George Eraclides VERSUS Black: Mark Roberts
Dutch Defence – Crazy Variation (only the crazy venture on this line)

1. d4 e6
2. c4 f5
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 d5
5. Bf4 c6
6. e3 Be7
7. Bd3 0-0
8. Qc2 Ne4
9. g4 Qa5
10. gxf5 Bb4
11. Kf1 Bc3
12. bxc3 e5
13. Nxe5 Bxf5
14. Rc1 Bh3+

All this is in Nunn’s Chess Openings – 1999; White can also play 14. f3 but I prefer Rc1 – it is more solid and White still gets a strong, aggressive, position.

15. Ke2 Na6?!

This is unfortunate, but he has to develop quickly or fall even further behind White in development. I now saw a strong combination with the possibilities of a crushing attack.

16. cxd5! cxd5
17. Bxe4 dxe4
18. Qb3+! Kh8
19. Rhg1!!

A smothered mate with 19. Nf7+ would be fun after Kg8 but Black does not have to oblige White and instead can cause trouble as follows: 19.....Rxf7! 20. Qxf7 Bg4+ and suddenly it is White who has problems.

19............Rf6
20. Nf7+ Kg8
21. Nh6+

If 21. Ng5+ Kh8 22. Nxh3 Qh5+.

21...........Kh8
22. Be5! Resigns

Any move loses for Black

One of my best recent efforts in correspondence chess and a useful addition to the theory of how to play this wild line of the Dutch.

The second game against Mark was a French Defence and ended in an interesting draw. Mark played the quite strong Bf4 line in an Exchange French, a line I myself like. Kasparov himself has played the Exchange French for White and it is not as harmless as many players of the Black side suppose. I was able to neutralise White’s threats and the draw was a logical outcome.

CCLA 4/2 Tournament 2777
White: Mark Roberts
Black: George Eraclides

French Defence – Exchange Variation

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. exd5 exd5
4. Bf4 Bd6
5. Qd2 Nf6

It is obvious that White is aiming for Queen-side castling and King-side attack

6. Nc3 0-0
7. 0-0-0 Bf5

This is good as it stops the White Bishop getting to its most dangerous square, d3; White might have done better to play Bd3 first, then castle.

8. f3 c6

8...Nc6 is a line others have played but my analysis lead me to believe it leads to the loss of a Pawn and ultimate defeat for Black.

9. g4 Bg6
10. h4 Bxf4!

Now is the perfect time to disrupt White’s piece configuration.

11. Qf4 h5

So far as per my calculations from move 7.

12. g5 Nh7

I preferred this retreat so I could later play Nf8 to defend the Bishop on g6 if I had to.

13. Bh3 f6!

This is quite good at stopping White’s plans – note his vulnerable Queen on f4.

14. gxf6 Rxf6
15. Qg3 Na6

Time to be generous and let this poor Knight into the game – note the similarity to the previous game above with Mark, where he also played Na6 in a different position.

16. Nge2 Qf8
17. f4 Re8

Classical positional ideas as I wait for Mark to commit himself.

18. Rhg1 b5

An investment in the future as you will see; besides, a little threat of counter-attack never goes astray.

19. Rd2 Qf7
20. Kb1?! Bf5
21. Bxf5 Rxf5
22. Ka1?! Nf6
23. Qg6 Qxg6

I had anticipated all this and planned a strong rejoinder.

24. Rxg6 Kf7!
25. Rg1 b4!
26. Nb1 Ne4
27. Rd3 Nf2
28. Rd2 Ne4
Draw offered and accepted.

White has no future and Black’s chances of a win without serious risk are negligible.

I would play this line myself as White but with a different attack structure.

Now for some games from the itsyourturn website http://www.itsyourturn.com/ where I play under the name ‘The Palooka’.

Let me remind you, dear reader, that on this site, I have been playing against the one opponent called Tayhk for a number of years. After the first match of 24 games, the score between Tayhk and Eraclides was: The Palooka 9, Tayhk 9, and draws: 6. See previous postings.

I wish to acknowledge the generosity of my opponent Tayhk, who was able to send me the scores of the first match, which I lost in the fires, so I now have those games back for future referral and analysis.

The games against Tayhk, as with the ones above against Mark Roberts, are worthy of careful analysis but lack of time prevents me from presenting them as I would ideally have liked.

However, the games are so interesting that they are still worth posting. I hope you enjoy the following three games.

White: The Palooka
Black: Tayhk
Nimzovich Defence

The ending is particularly pleasing. As usual, my opponent goes his own way and gets a dreadful position. His tactical gifts allow him to survive until I can find the knockout punch to put him away.

1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 f6 4. f4 h5 5. Bd3 Rh6 6. c3 a6 7. f5 Rh8 8. e6 Qd6 9. Nh3 g5 10. O-O b6 11. Be2 h4 12. Bh5+ Kd8 13. b3 Na7 14. c4 Bb7 15. Ba3 c5 16. Nc3 Kc7 17. dxc5 bxc5 18. Nxd5+ Bxd5 19. cxd5 Nb5 20. Bb2 Bh6 21. Be2 g4 22. Bxg4 Be3+ 23. Kh1 Nh6 24. Bh5 Rad8 25. Qd3 Bd4 26. Bxd4 Nxd4 27. Rac1 Qxd5 28. Nf4 Qc6 29. Ng6 Rhg8 30. Qh3 Nhxf5 31. Rxf5 Nxf5 32. Qxf5 Rd5 33. Qf4+ Kb7 34. Qxh4 Kb6 35. Nf4 Rd4 36. Bf3 Qd6 37. g3 Qd8 38. Qh7 Rg5 39. Qc2 Qd6 40. Rd1 Re5 41. Rxd4 cxd4 42. Qc4 Ka7 43. Qc8 Kb6 44. Nd3 Rb5 45. Qb7+ Ka5 46. b4+ Ka4 47. Bc6 1-0
February 2008

White: The Palooka
Black: Tayhk
English Defence

I play like a duffer after Tayhk plays a theoretically weak defence. If someone knows what I was doing, please tell me, because I sure as hell had no idea.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 b6 3. Bd3 Bb7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Qe2 g6 6. O-O d6 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 Bg7 10. c3 Nbd7 11. Nbd2 Nh5 12. Qe3 Ndf6 13. Rad1 Ng4 14. Qe2 Qe7 15. h3 Nxg3 16. fxg3 Nf6 17. g4 O-O-O 18. a4 h5 19. Nh2 hxg4 20. Nxg4 Nh5 21. Kh2 Nf4 22. Qe3 f5 23. Nf2 e5 24. d5 g4 25. Bc2
Rh5 26. g3 Nxh3 27. Nxh3 Rxh3+ 28. Kg2 f4 0-1
June 2009

White: Tayhk
Black:The Palooka
Sicilian Defence

Tayhk speculates with a sacrifice and comes undone, as The Palooka turns the tables on him after careful play. That’s how I like it!

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. Bc4 d6 5. d4 cxd4 6. Nxd4 Nf6 7. Nxc6 bxc6 8. Be3 d5 9. Bb3 Bb4 10. exd5 cxd5 11. Bd4 O-O 12. a3 Ba5 13. O-O Ba6 14. Re1 Bb6 15. Na4 Bxd4 16. Qxd4 Ne4 17. Rad1 Qf6 18. f3 Qxd4+ 19. Rxd4 Nf6 20. Nc5 Bb5 21. a4 Bc6 22. Ba2 a5 23. Kf2 Nd7 24. Nxe6 fxe6 25. Rxe6 Bb7 26. Re7 Rad8 27. c4 Rf7 28. Re3 Nf6 29. Rb3 Kf8 30. Rb5 Rfd7 31. c5 Ra8 32. Bb1 Bc6 33. Rb6 Rb7 34. Rxc6 Rxb2+ 35. Kg3 Rxb1 36. Rc7 Rc1 37. Kf4 Rc4 38. Ke3 Re8+ 39. Kd3 Rc1 40. g4 Rd1+
0-1
July 2009

The score in our developing second match of 24 games, currently stands at 2 : 2 with one game drawn.

Regards until next time.

I lose my home in fire

2009-03-08T20:38:00.000-07:00

On February 7, 2009, I lost my home and all possessions in the raging fires at Kinglake, in Victoria Australia.

Until I can recover and rebuild I will not be making any posts.

I lost two lovely cats (a Burmese and a Russian Blue). Also gone are all my chess games except a few I had on this blog. All my chess books are gone, all other books (I had over a 1000, many rare editions, and magazines), personal photos, records, CDs, videos and DVDs and most of my writing. But my wife and I will recover. We are lucky we have friends and family. Insurance will also help us rebuild.

Regards until lext posting.

How to lose a won game

2008-09-21T23:48:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,

Sometimes you play chess really well. Your positional feeling and strategy are so profound, you start to think that maybe you're actually a good player instead of an average trooper making up the numbers. Then your play goes off the rails – you lose the intensity, the tactics overwhelm you. Maybe your mental energy flags or you just ain't that good. The won position becomes dubious then is lost. What happened?

Firstly, the game is never over until the fat lady cries 'I resign!' You have to find a way of maintaining your energy level and attentiveness. If time allows, take a short break from thinking – easier in correspondence or server chess. If not, just talk inwardly to yourself. When you find your thoughts wandering, it's a warning signal to your mind, and talking to yourself can help you to stay focused or recover intensity.

Secondly, the bunny rules are critical (see earlier postings), to which you can now add the new bunny rule I enunciate in the notes to the game below. The content of chess is mainly tactics. Sure, it's built upon positional ideas and strategic thinking, but most of the moves in a game are a product of tactical thinking which is required to meet or implement ideas. The bunny rules help you to manage 'the business of chess'.

Thirdly, chaos happens. The best laid plans of mice and men are as nothing in the torrential flows of an erupting entropy. Wow, I like the sound of that. It seems to be saying something profound but I can't quite work out what that is. Anyway, you are not the master of the universe or even a game of chess. There are the guy or gal sitting opposite you, trying their best to stuff your game up. Then there are your human limitations – even chess-players whose name starts with a K have their limitations. So sometimes you will make errors and get belted in a game. Sometimes it will happen to that masterpiece, which in your innocence, you imagine you are creating. Bummer!

Learn the lesson and don't let it happen again.

The game I am presenting to you dear reader (please print it out; copy and paste it or whatever; never mind saving the trees – this is chess!) is the last in the informal match between Tayhk of Singapore and my good self from Melbourne in Oz. It is game 24, and with it, my opponent managed to square the match at 9 wins each with 6 draws. We played fighting chess all the way. We have now begun our second series of 24 games.

Tayhk V The Palooka (that's me folks)

The opening is a 'funny English'.

1. c4 c5 2. d4 (This is a weak attempt to be clever which backfires and he loses a Pawn for dubious compensation) cxd4 3. Nf3 e5! 4. e3 (If 4. Nxe5 Qa5+) dxe3 5. Bxe3 Nc6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Be2 d6 8. h3 (A useful prophylaxis; Black just develops) Be7 9. a3 (But this is too much prohylaxis and wastes time while creating a weakness which will later be exploited) O-O 10. Qc2 d5 (Black decides to simplify and with this small combination he returns the Pawn for a positional plus. The immortal Capablanca used to do this, and the chessically limited and very mortal Eraclides tries the stratagem as well, and for a change, gets it right) 11. cxd5 Nxd5 12. Nxd5 Qxd5 13. Rd1 Qa5+ 14. Bd2 Qc5 15. Bc3 Nd4 (This was the idea and Black's two Bishops become dominant) 16. Nxd4 exd4 17. Rxd4 Be6 18. Bd3 h6 19. Be4 Rac8! (White's Queen side is weak due to his indiscretion on move 9; Black threatens Bf6) 20. Rd1 (20. Bxb7 Rc7 and Qxd4 or just Qxd4 straight away) Qb5 21. Qd3 (He has to get away from the Rc8 and the hovering threats such as Bb3; if 21. Bd3 Bb3 is safe enough, but better for maintaining pressure would be Qg5 or Qb6. Note that even with 21. Bd3 Bb3 22. BxQ BxQ 23. Rc1 Bb3 Black has the threats of a6 to drive the Bishop away and Bf6 or g5 with Re8+ among other threats; in this line if 23. Rd2 Bb3 24. 0-0 a6 is good for Black with the threat of Bxa3. All of this because of White's time wasting) Bc4 22. Qg3 Qg5! (23. Qxg5 is good for Black: Bxg5 and Bxb7 is refuted by any Re8++. White is desperate to get some King safety and complete his development. Steinitz used to delay his castling because of positional considerations; he was also Steinitz, not Tayhk or Eraclides) 23. Bd3 Qxg3 24. fxg3 Bb3 (Black is winning) 25. Rd2 (25. Rc1 Bg5 or 25. Rb1 Bxa3; either way a Pawn is lost; if 25. Bf5 Rce8 26. Bd7 Rd8 and the exposed check is too dangerous) Bxa3 26. O-O (Better late than never but at what a cost) Bc5+ 27. Kh2 Rcd8 (Black is a well deserved Pawn up and now tries to use the themes of pin and Bishop attack on the Rooks to gain even more. This is based on the principle that when your opponent is drowning, you throw him an anvil. White copes well with all the pressure) 28. Rf3 Be6 29. b4 Bb6 30. Be4 Rxd2 31. Bxd2 Rd8 32. Rd3 Rxd3 33. Bxd3 Bd4 (f5 was worth a try to restrict the White Bishops) 34. Bf4 (Be4 was an option) Bd5 (Centralization, a Bishop swap, and the capture of the b4 Pawn are elements of the plan) 35. b5 (Worth consideration was Bd6) Kf8 36. g4 Ke7 37. h4 Be6 38. Kg3 Bd5 39. h5 Ke6 40. Kh3 Ke7 41. g3 Be6 42. Kh4 Bc8 43. Bd2 Kd6 44. g5 hxg5+ 45. Kxg5 Kc5 46. Kf4 Be6 47. g4 f6 (47...Bc4 was possibly better but I was worried about White being able to win or draw the game after 48. Bxc4 Kxc4 49. Ke4 Bf6 (best) 50. g5 (best) Be7 51. h6 gxh6 52. gxh6 Bf6 53. h7 Kxb5 54. Bg5 B moves 55. Bf4 or Kf5 and White will break the diagonal with his Bishop. Thus I preferred to strengthen my position and minimize counter-play. Alas, dear reader, I go astray, as you shall see) 48. Bc1 (It's a game of diagonal control and White is losing his grip on the position. He hopes to play Ba6+ and Bf8 but he doesn't get a chance. It's hard to find an alternative for him. After f6 Black threatened a series of checks which would improve his position anyway) Be5+ 49. Kf3 Kd4 50. Be2 Bd5+ 51. Kf2 Kc3 52. Ba3 Bd4+ 53. Ke1 Be3 (It's hard to believe that Black could lose from here but he does. A win or draw should have been his reward) 54. Bf8 Bh6 55. Bc5 b6 56. Bd6 Bc4 57. Bb8 Bxe2 58. Kxe2 Kc4 59. Bxa7 Kxb5 60. Kd3 Bf4? (Pointless as Black's strategy in trying to imprison the enemy Bishop is wrong. Better Kc6 and if Black can't get his Queen-side Pawn going he can at least get his King over to attack the White Pawns which can only be defended by the King. For intance, after 61 Bf8 Kd5 62. Bg3 b5 White has run out of ideas and Black will win) 61. Ke4 Be5? (61...Bh6 and reverting to the above idea was correct) 62. g5! (This was the move I missed. I have previously written about the 'bunny rules' which all players should adopt; to them you can add: check all pawn advances!) Bd6 63. gxf6 Bf8 (Perhaps no better was 63...gxf6 64. h6 Bf8 64. h7 Bg8 65. Kf5 wins; the Bishop will be drawn away or lost and the Pawn will Queen e.g. if Kc6 then Bb8 intending Bf4/h6 or any other similar plan depending on what Blak does with his King and b Pawn) 64. f7 Kc6 65. Bb8 Kd7 66. Kf5 Ke7 67. Kg6 b5 68. Be5 b4 69. Bxg7 b3 70. h6 (Not 70. Bxf8 Kxf8 71. h6 b2 73. h7 b1=Q+ and wins. How dangerous are endgames!?) Ke6 71. h7 Bxg7 72. Kxg7 b2 (There's nothing else left but a few petty moves continued by Black due to his shock at losing a 'won game') 73. f8=Q b1=Q 74. Qf7+ Kd6 75. Qg6+ Qxg6+ 76. Kxg6 Kc5 77. h8=Q 1-0

Thus the final score in the first series of 24 games was:
The Palooka 9 : 9 Tayhk (Draws: 6)

The new rule to always consider is: check all Pawn advances.
The battle continues.
See you next time pilgrims.

The Palooka versus tayhk match, continued

2008-04-20T01:16:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,
Time for some more entertainment (remember this is our mantra for chess).

Below is game 9 in the informal (ongoing) match between myself and tayhk via the itsyourturn.com server (http://www.itsyourturn.com/ ).

The Eraclides-tayhk games are complicated because of the respective styles or bad habits (take your pick) of both players: combative with a liking for complexity. They are best enjoyed with a merlot, one glass as you play over the game the first time, then a second glass as you play over the game again to analyse the critical positions. The notes are light but if you delve too deeply into the positions (as we did when playing the game) you may need something stronger than wine by the end (I recomment a cognac).

Currently we are in the middle of our 24th and 25th games. The score of completed games so far is: 23 Games played - The Palooka (GE) 9 : 8 Tayhk (Draws: 6).

In this game the win of a piece leads to some difficult play for White until he can convert his advantage. The final position is attractive, even piquant.

The Palooka (George Eraclides) Versus tayhk (of Singapore)

Ruy Lopez Steinitz Defence

Played in November 2005

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 exd4 (4...Bd7 is better) 5. Qxd4 Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. O-O-O (White gets an easy game with more space in the centre but the Steinitz defence to the Ruy Lopez is solid enough) h6 10. Bf4 (10. Bh4 is gnerally better in these type of positions; Black now gets equality) Nh5 11. Be3 Bf6 12. Qd3 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Qe7 14. Nd2 Nf6 15. f3 O-O (15. O-O-O was safer but he wants to attack on the Q-side) 16. c4 (White also has aggressive instincts; he first stabilises the centre then plans to attack on the K-side) a6 (he plans b5 but White has the better prospects for an attack) 17. g4 Nh7 18. h4 Rae8 (he picks the the wrong Rook to move and his Knight will pay for this error) 19. Rdg1 Qe5 20. Bd4 Qf4 (this comes to no good) 21. g5 h5 (21...hxg5 22Rg4!) 22. Qc3 f6 23. g6 Re7 24. gxh7+ Kxh7 25. Be3 Qe5 26. Qxe5 Rxe5 27. Bd4 Ra5 28. Kb2 Bd7 29. Rg3 (a White coming up, but concentration is needed against tayhk) Ra4 30. Rhg1 Rf7 31. Bc3 b5 (counterplay is his only hope) 32. cxb5 axb5 33. Nb3 Be6 34. Nd4 Bd7 (taking the Pawn at a2 does not help him: 34...Bxa2, 35. Ra1 b4 36. Bd2; or 34...Rxa2+ 35. Kb1 Bc4 36. Nxb5 with Nd4/f5 also as options) 35. Ne2 c5 36. Nf4 b4 37. Bd2 Ra7 38. Nxh5 Be6 39. Bf4 Rxa2+ 40. Kb1 Raa7 (40...Rfa7 41. Rxg7+ will win)41. Bxd6 Kh6 42. Nxg7 Rxg7 43. Bf8 1-0

The final position, with the impertinent White Bishop spearing the Black Rook, is quite piquant, and may be worth a cognac in its own right.

Until next time, may all your games be brilliant wins – except in cases where you ever play me.

Coffee and Strudel

2008-01-26T18:48:00.000-08:00

Another Vienna Gambit – enjoy it with coffee and strudel.

This is a genuine coffee-house chess game between two old friends who like nothing better than demolishing each other over the chess-board. Otherwise, what are friends for?

Both players go at it with no regard for the finer defensive, let alone positional, points of chess. Then again, the game was fun to play. And let us recall the famous adage, of the even more famous Icant Remember Who, when he proclaimed that the essence of playing chess is fun. We are here on this earth for such a short time. Why waste it hunched over a board if it ain't fun?

The notes to the game are light, strictly low-calorie, as befits the skill of the players and the mood they were in.

George Eraclides of East Preston Versus Gino Tomisich of West Preston
2001

Vienna Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Qe2 Ng5 (this is a viable alternative to the more normal line Nxc3) 7. d4 c6 (to safeguard the Queen-side from any predatory incursions by the Knight; Ne6 is the alternative) 8. Be3 Bg4 (better is 0-0; Black now comes under sustained pressure) 9. h3 Nxf3+ 10. gxf3 Bf5 11. Rg1 g6 (he intends h5 later with a solid position but he never gets a chance to try it; Bg6 was a reasonable alternative) 12. O-O-O Nd7 13. Qg2 b5 (Qc7 with an 0-0-0 was safer, but he prefers to attack) 14. Bd3 Bxd3 15. Rxd3 a5 16. f4 a4 17. f5 (to open lines for attack; if gxf5, then Qg7 Rf8, Qxh7 with many threats beginning with Bh6) b4 18. Ne2 b3 19. cxb3 (if axb3 then a3 with some counterplay; White has a devious plan) axb3 20. axb3 Ra1+ 21. Kc2 Rxg1 22. Qxg1 Qa5 (he should look to his defence with Nb6 and Qc7) 23. e6! (White now breaks through in typical coffee-house style) Nf6 (if fxe6 then fxg6 is better for White) 24. exf7+ Kxf7 25. fxg6+ hxg6 26. Nf4 Rg8 27. Bd2 Qb6 28. Rg3 g5 29. Rxg5 Rxg5 30. Qxg5 Ke8 (Ne4, Qg6+ Kf8, Ne6++) 31. Qe5 Qd8 32. Ng6 (simplest) Qd6 (if Ng8 then Bg5) 33. Qxe7+ (best way) Qxe7 34. Nxe7 Kxe7 35. Bg5! (the pin is deadly at any time; a lot of amateur players, like us, think of it as an opening tactic, but you can use it anytime if you remember the bunny rules, and look out for it; see previous posts on the bunny philosophy of chess) Ke6 36. Bxf6 Kxf6 37. Kc3 1-0

At least both players had a go. The Vienna is a much under-appreciated opening, as are most of the e4 19th Century openings.

See you next time pilgrims.

R.I.P. Bobby Fischer.

Forever young.

Forever the best.

The Fortress Defence, or how to give up your Queen and still survive the game

2007-11-10T23:20:00.000-08:00

Hi Pilgrims,

Draws can be very interesting, if you extract a 'moral victory of sorts or the game is particularly exciting. Such was my draw in the following game. As the underdog I claim the moral victory, and while I am at it, I might as well claim this is a really exciting game.

It was part of a 'thematic' tournament on the IECG web site (http://www.iecg.org/), and because I play the French Defence, I decided to participate. The IECG is an email based chess club, and I highly recommend it.

However, you must be prepared with the latest knowledge, in order to play at a high level in correspondence or email chess. I went into this using only my wits, which is a mistake in my case.

A BIG MISTAKE.

I was out of my depth in the IECG: I had no up to date computers, databases, or openings books. When players are of a high standard, and also have these latest 'aids', you are at a disadvantage, unless you have similar aids to assist your play or are a genius with a surname starting with 'K'.

I was knocked about a fair bit in this tournament, but I did manage to play one particularly good ending which I would like to share with you.

Guy Deschamp VERSUS George Eraclides

IECG TE-2004-P-01504

French/McCutcheon Defence
June 17, 2004

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.e5 h6 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Ne4 8.Qg4 g6 (I prefer this to Kf8; it's also Capablanca's recommendation) 9.Bd3 Nxd2 10.Kxd2 c5 11.Rb1 Nc6 12.Nf3 cxd4 13.cxd4 Qe7 (I like the Queen sitting e7, protecting the black squares and with dynamic potential) 14.Qf4 b6 15.Rhc1 (planning a future attack via c4 if Black risks castling either way) Qa3 (a critical position; a few choices present themselves and I had visions of variations following g5, Bd7, even Kf8/g8; I opted for a risky line. If you don't counter-attack in the French, you will be ground to dust) 16.Bb5 Bd7 17.Ke1 (he gets his King into safety and the game picks-up; I saw a way to take the Pawn and sacrifice my Queen, as you would) Qxa2 18.c4 a6 19.Ra1 (this is it; I thought I would come out of my sacrifice with real chances after winning some more pawns, but...) axb5 20.Rxa2 Rxa2 21.c5 Nb422.Rd1 bxc5 23.dxc5 Nc2+ 24.Kf1 b4 25.Rb1 Bb5+ 26.Kg1 b3 27.h4 (White gets some air for his King; note that Rxb3, Ra1+ wins) b2 28.Qd2 Ba4 (Black is labouring because of his Rook on h8 being out of the action) 29.Qc3 0-0 (I castle too late in order to win, but maybe I can save the game?) 30.Rxb2 Rxb2 31.Qxb2 Rc8 32.Qb7 (an error; he should hang onto the c5 Pawn with Qc3, but he was greedy) Rxc5 33.Qa8+ Kg7 34.Qxa4 Rc4 (I was already thinking about how to build a fortress defence) 35.Qa7 Re4 36.Qc5 Rc4 37.Qe7 Rf4 38.Kh2 Nd4 39.h5 (39. Nxd4 Rxd4 40. Qf6+ Kg8 41. h5 Rf4 was a better try although White still has a battle; now he gets doubled pawns which helps Black) Nxf3+ 40.gxf3 g5 (an absolutely key move in the viability of the fortress defence; as with a real castle, we can consider g5 a 'keystone'; White's doubled Pawns prevent him from breaking through; my position is unshakeable) 41.Kg2 Rf5 42.Qc5 Rf4 (obviously not Rxe5, Qd4 is good for White, but Black is not greedy – an important stratagem) 43.Qa3 Kg8 44.Kf1 Kg7 45.Ke2 Kg8 46.Qe7 Kg7 47.Ke3 Rf5 48.Kd4 Rxf3 49.Kc5 Rxf2 50.Qa7 Rf5 51.Qa4 Rf4 (Rxe5 may have won or lost – I was happy with my fortress and the moral victory) 52.Qd1 Drawn by Agreement. White cannot break through, while Black uses White's own pawns as part of the 'fortress'.

A well played ending after the sacrifice of a Queen failed to yield the victory I expected. I was following the Tal principle: ‘When I sacrifice, I win!’ but, of course, this principle is applicable to the extent that one's ability approaches the great Tal.

Guy said he liked endings and wanted to play on, but he was unable to break through and offered the draw. My secret strategy was not to get caught up with any attempt to win in the last few dozen moves and to keep my Rook on the f-file.

You have to love 40...g5 by Black after White allowed the exchange of Knights.

What a structure, what a fortress.

We build well at Castle Eraclides.

See you later Pilgrims.

The Palooka V tayhk Match: Game 3

2007-09-08T22:56:00.000-07:00

Hi fans of The Palooka.

This posting features a long, tough, endgame. I am proud of my play, because, despite errors in the opening, I rallied and played very well - I had to be very careful and played a series of ‘only’ moves to win. These kind of intricate, aggressively played games, have become the standard fare in The Palooka-tayhk match.

The Palooka Versus tayhk
Site: http://www.itsyourturn.com/

Irregular/tayhk-style Opening

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bd7 (tayhk certainly goes his own way in the openings) 5. Nc3 c5 6. dxc5 dxc5 7. Ne5 Bf6 8. Bf4 Ne7 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10. Nxd7 Bxc3 11. Qxc3 Qxd7 12. Rd1 (I thought at the time 12. Qxg7 Rg8 13. Qxh7 0-0-0 gave my opponent too much counterplay for the Pawns, but in hindsight maybe I was wrong: 14. Qxf7 Rdf8 15. Bxe6 Rxf7 16. Bxd7+ Kxd7 17. 0-0-0+ Ke8 18. Bg3 and the extra Pawns are worth the win; I now win a Pawn in a different way) Nd4 13. Be5! (we have a highly original position, partly from the 19th Century and partly from the 21st ) Rd8 14. Bxg7 Rg8 15. Bxd4 cxd4 16. Qh3! (he did not foresee this way of protecting the King-side Pawns) Qc6 17. Bd3 Ng6 18. g3 (18. 0-0 was playable; I was still nervous about tactical counter-chances like this: 18. Qxh7 Rh8 19. Qg7 Ke2! 20. e5 Rdg8, so I decided to hang onto my spoils and consolidate) Ne5 (the tactical shot 18...f5 19. exf5 loses for White to Qxh1+ but White only needs to reply19. f3 and retains a winning advantage) 19. Qxh7 Ke7 20. Qh4+ Kd6 21. Qf6 Qb6 22. f4 Ng4 23. e5+ Kc7 24. Qxf7+ Kb8 25. b3 Qc6 26. Kd2 (there is nothing better with Knight forks and Rooks on files attacking my Pawns, so I give up the exchange – a mere hiccup on the road to victory) Nf2 27. Rhg1 Rdf8 28. Qe7 Nxd1 29. Rxd1 Re8 30. Qb4 (White still has a winning advantage and now tries again to consolidate) Rc8 31. Re1 Rgd8 32. Re2 Rd5 33. Ke1 a5 34. Qd2 Qc5 35. a4 Rg8 36. Rg2 b6 37. g4 ('time to get rolling, boys' if The Palooka is to have any chance to win) Rd7 38. h4 Rh8 39. Qf2 Qd5 40. Rh2 Rf8 41. Qg3 (I thought it was possible to defend f4, but I was wrong; maybe I advanced my K-side Pawns too early?) Rdf7 42. Rf2 Rxf4! 43. Rxf4 Qxe5+ 44. Kd1 Rxf4 45. Qg2 Qg7 46. g5! (if Rxh4; Qg3+) e5 47. Qg3 Qc7 48. Bc4 e4 49. Qh3 Rf2 50. Qe6 e3 (an amazing position, typical of games in my match against tayhk; thank goodness I have a white-squared Bishop) 51. Kc1 Ka7 52. g6 Qg7 53. Bd3 e2 (I told you he was cunning) 54. Bxe2 Rf6 55. Qd5 Rxg6 56. Bf3 (and so am I) b5 57. Qa8+ (axb5 Rg1+ and after 58. Kd2 I was worried about Qh6+) Kb6 58. Qb8+ Kc5 59. Qxb5+ Kd6 60. Qc6+ Ke5 61. Qe4+ Kd6 62. Qc6+ Ke5 63. Qe4+ (just trying to force an error) Kd6 64. Qd5+ Ke7 65. Qxa5 Rg1+ 66. Kb2 d3+ 67. c3 Qg6 (still an amazing position, more typical of master games rather than pugilists at our level; maybe sometimes we average players play well) 68. Qc7+ Kf8 69. Qd8+ Kg7 70. Qe7+ Kh8 (he cannot allow The Palooka to swap Queens or allow a Bishop check my moving to the white squares) 71. Qe5+ Kg8 72. Be4 Qg3 73. Qe8+ Kg7 74. Qe7+ (finally!) Kg8 75. Qh7+ Kf8 76. Bxd3 Qe1 77. Qf5+ (White must not allow Black even a hint of a sniff of a whiff of attack or perpetual check) Kg7 78. b4 Qd2+ 79. Bc2 Qc1+ 80. Kb3 Rf1 81. Qg5+ (now it is easier to win, but Black had no real chances anyway) Kf7 82. Qxc1 Rxc1 83. h5 Rh1 84. Bg6+ Ke6 85. Kc4 Kd6 86. Kb5 Rg1 87. c4 Rg5+ 88. Kb6 Kd7 89. c5 Kc8 90. b5 Re5 91. a5 Re6+ 92. c6 Rf6 93. a6 Kb8 94. a7+ Ka8 95. Kc7! (if Kxa7; b6+ and b7 win) Re6 96. Kd7 Re5 97. c7 Rd5+ 98. Kc6 1-0
Completed May 29, 2004

A difficult 'won game' to win. I learned a lot about Queen endings with Bishop versus Rook, the importance of controlling key squares, diagonals, and not hurrying. The White Bishop, his weaker King and my Queen checks, were the critical factors. The strategy involved trying to balance safety, nudging my Pawns forward, and aiming to swap Queens.

The end is ironic: the mighty Bishop still stands proudly (he had God on his side), in control of critical squares; Black has to look on in horror as the White Pawns advance inexorably; the brave Black Rook can do little to help his Lord and Master.

The score in this match was now 2:1 in favour of The Palooka.

More in the future, when it's The Palooka's turn to get belted around.

Match of the Century The Palooka-tayhk Match: Games 1 and 2

2007-09-06T22:19:00.000-07:00

What did you expect? Another boring reprise of the Fischer-Spassky match? Endless Karpov-Kasparov matches?

We can do better than that, here at Pawn's Progress.

You will also learn all about a new syndrome afflicting chess players everywhere, which I have finally identified: PSSD. You can see my discussion of it in the first game below. Nominate me for the Nobel Prize and more importantly, the money that comes with it. I needs it.

Playing chess online via the Internet is a lot of fun. I have played in 'real-time', used servers and by email.

I play as 'George Eraclides' on IECG. This 'chess club' is full of very strong players, with all the skills that come from using chess databases and the knowledge to use them effectively. As you can gather, I have been duffed up a few times on IECG, although occasionally I get lucky and play a good game. I will post some in the future.

I use the web site servers brainking.com and itsyourturn.com, where I use the identity 'The Palooka'. I also play occasionally on other servers, using various 'identities'. Drop in and challenge me to a game. Please email me first so I know the challenge is coming, and take it up. If I have a lot of games on, I refuse challenges because of time constrains. Alternatively, put 'Pawn's Progress' in the challenge message, so it rings some bells in my shrinking brain mass.

The chess servers have some real advantages: You nominate a time limit and then play. Most players at the basic, free levels, are relatively unskilled.
Occasionally you find someone who is very good, and with luck, you can get to play a lot of games with them.

For aspiring players, it's a chance to practice openings and just have some fun, while you build up your pattern recognition skills. For the rest of us who only want to play a few good games we can recall and replay in the great twilight to come, it's an easy medium to use; the server gives you a chess board, manages the score and communications, and maintains a record of your games.

I found the opponent tayhk by chance on ‘itsyourturn.com’, and he has turned out to be excellent. ‘tayhk’ is from Singapoer and has a tactical style, but with poor knowledge of openings and positional play. He is very creative and dangerous. Just the sort of player who can test your skills.

The motto when playing him is: ‘Never relax’. We are continuing to play until one of us gets bored. I have assumed he is male and Chinese. He plays a lot of games online and tells me his specialty is Chinese chess, which is very tactical but prone to short moves; it is not common to move a piece across the whole board or make many long moves, as we do with pieces in Western chess. I suspect he is probably a better player than myself tactically, but then chess is more than just tactics, so we end up having very interesting games.

We have played about 21 games so far, all of them very difficult and unusual, with my good self slightly ahead. I am going to treat the first 24 games as a mini-match (similar to world championship matches from the good old days). Hopefully we will keep on playing a number of matches in the future.

I am giving light notes to make them more enjoyable. In the future I will analyze them more closely and 'publish' them as a match-book. When you play over some of them, you will see they deserve closer analysis. If you want a copy of the games palyed so far in pgn format, let me know and I will send them to you.

Game 1

In this game The Palooka lost to a Marshall-like swindle from tayhk. I felt like Fischer must have felt, as his superior position crumbled to a sucker punch from Tal.

I missed the lone pawn move to g6 in my analysis and resigned.

tayhk Versus The Palooka
Site: http://www.itsyourturn.com/

King's Indian

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. d4 d6 5. e4 O-O 6. Bd3 (Be2 or Be3 are better)
c5 (Black has to play something like this in the KI otherwise his game remains very cramped) 7. dxc5 (better is d5) dxc5 8. Be3 b6 9. Qc2 Bb7 10. O-O-O (White plays ultra-aggressively; if 10. e5 Ng4 is good for Black) Ng4 11. h3 Nxe3 12. fxe3 Nc6 (now we have an interesting position; structurally Black has superiority, but White has dynamic chances through the open d and f files. The endgame will favour Black with his two Bishops and better Pawn structure; but as Tarrasch famously said, 'before the endgame God has placed the middle-game') 13. a3 (to stop Nb4) Qb8 (attacking the black squares and getting the Q out of the d file, without losing a tempo to Nb5 – Qc7 Nb5; both sides now maneuvre) 14. Nd5 e6 15. Nf4 Qc7 16. g4 Rad8 (critical was 16...h6 in order to play 17...h5 if g5 was tried, neutralising the attack on the K-side, and with control of e5 Black should be better off; even better may have been 16...Ne5 to clarify matters. The Palooka is getting complacent) 17. g5! (thinking outside the box) Ne5 18. Nxe5 Qxe5 (better was Bxe5; the Q is not placed well here and later has to be reorganised, wasting time) 19. Rhg1 Bc6 (looking at controlling a4; White reacts well) 20. h4 Rd7 21. Rd2 Rfd8 22. Rgg2 Qb8 23. h5 Be5 (You get the impression that for all of Black's strengths, he lacks 'dynamic potential' i.e. opportunity for attacking his opponent; of what use is a strong structure if it is static and you cannot do something with it? At this stage I had forgotten Lasker's maxim for playing these kind of positions: 'Do nothing, but do it very well') 24. hxg6 hxg6 25. Nd5! (a brilliant 'Tal-like' counterstroke. It took me by surprise but in hindsight Black had it coming for his unimaginative play. For a while I knew what it must have felt like to be knocked around by a Tal or Alekhine) exd5 (if I play my King to g7 to avoid the fork, then after 26. Nf6 Bxf6 27. gxf6+ Kxf6 28. Qc3+ Qe5 or even e5 should hold and maybe win; 25...Bg7 is riskier as after 26. Nf6+ Bxf6 27. gxf6 White builds up his forces on the h-file. I was surprised by 25. Nd5 but thought I could take it and win. I was wrong. I call this syndrome POST SACRIFICE STRESS DISORDER – PSSD – you read about it here first; it's the the thinking you do and do'nt do, when you are in a state of shock after a devastating surprise move by your opponent; from here on, I am playing under the influence of PSSD. Enjoy the rest of the game as I get pummeled) 26. exd5 Bb7 27. Bxg6 fxg6 (Kg7?!) 28. Qxg6+ Rg7 29. Qe6+ Kh8 30. Rg1 Bc8 31. Rh1+ Rh7 32. Rxh7+ Kxh7 33. Rh2+ Bxh2 34. Qf7+ Kh8 35. g6 1-0 It's all over red rover: Qb7, g7+ wins everything.
Completed February 2004

A sparkling finish, I think you will agree.

At one point, even close to the end, I could have tried 27...Kg7?! and maybe hold the game or even win; but PSSD and tayhk's brilliant play did me in.

At least I had found a good, strong opponent, on a chess-server; I could play the kind of chess I like to play and see played – aggressive, with interesting strategy and tactics.

My revenge came in the next game.

Game 2

The Palooka Versus tayhk
Site: http://www.itsyourturn.com/

Vienna Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 Nc6 (one of the worst replies to the Vienna Gambit; White swiftly gets a classical centre and quick development) 4. fxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Ng6 6. e5 Ng8 (the ersatz Alekhine experiment has failed; tayhk now squeezes all that can be got from his poor position) 7. Bc4 d6 8. Qf3 Be6 9. Bxe6 (9. d5 was worth investigating; the logical reply is Bd7) fxe6 10. exd6 c6! (he saves a Pawn and manages to nearly complete his development and balance the position – amazing) 11. Nge2 Bxd6 12. Ne4 Nf6 13. Bg5 Be7 14. Nxf6+ Bxf6 15. Bxf6 gxf6 (I was trying for a better ending, but tayhk avoids it) 16. c4 Rf8
17. O-O-O Qa5 18. Kb1 O-O-O (is Black really so badly off? White has an initiative, the better structure of Pawns, space, and opportunity; but Black has enormous reserves of cunning) 19. Nc3 Nh4 20. Qe2 Qf5+ 21. Ka1 Rfe8 (but this is too much cunning and not enough sense. A few checks and linked Rooks do not an attack make, as my old Grandmother used to say. Better was Ng6 – or even e5 – although White is still better after Rh1f1 and g3; Black is driven back but there is still much play: 21...e5 22. Rh1f1 Qg5 23. g3 Ng6 24. dxe5 fxe5 or 24...Rde8 25. e6; Rook exchanges are also possible. In all these cases White is only slightly better and must take great care to consolidate his advantage; tayhk plays with too much cunning, presuming I will cave in like the previous game) 22. g3 e5 23. dxe5 (gxh4 exd4) Nf3 (23...Rxd1+ 24. Rxd1 Rxe5 25. Qd2 and Blacks' Knight is still en prise) 24. Rhf1 Rxe5 25. Qxf3 Qxf3 26. Rxd8+! Kxd8 27. Rxf3 Re1+ 28. Nb1 Ke7 29. a3 (White has a piece and will win despite inconveniences brough about by Black's cleverness) Rc1 30. Rf4 Ke6 31. Ka2 Rc2 32. h4 Rg2 33. Nc3 (White is not above a little cunning of his own: if 33...Rxg3 34. Rxf6+ Ke5 – if 34...KxR 35. Nxe4+ - 35 Rh6! and Black cannot do much with King and Rook) f5 34. Rf3 h5 35. Re3+ Kd6 36. Ne2 Kc5 37. Nf4 Rd2 38. Nxh5 Kxc4 39. Nf4 1-0
Completed April 2004

And a jolly good time was had by The Palooka, exacting some revenge.

So it was one all, and the match continues well into 2007. I will show you an incredible stoush next time in game three, and then sprinkle more games into future postings.

Remember this ~ Chess is fun

2007-06-01T00:04:00.000-07:00

It’s time for some more fun. No chess tips or praise of players past and present. The following game is from the Whitehorse Open in 2000. I have already posted some games from this tournament, including another Vienna game.

This particular game is strictly coffee-house chess, intended for entertainment purposes. We sometimes forget why we play chess: Because we enjoy it.

I had the White pieces, and was drawn to play Anton Nincevic. I had played Anton before in a Box Hill Club Championship game (1999; I was a reserve for that one night - replacing a player who was ill – see a previous posting).

Anton was in his late fifties or early sixties; an old fashioned, East European player of average club strength; he is also one of the few players these days who plays e5 in response to e4, expecting endless versions of the Giucco Piano or Ruy Lopez.

And why not? Do we all have to play closed games or tiresome asymmetrical openings? Don’t you think the pendulum has swung too far the other way in chess? I do, and play the ‘romantic’ openings when I get a chance. Chess would be so much more fun if leading players…oops. Sorry. I am preaching again. But seriously, how about some thematic tournaments for the leading Grandmasters? Seeing Leko handle a King’s Gambit, Kramnik with a Vienna, Anand with an Evans. Why not? Sponsors, are you reading this? The fans (who pay the money) would love it.

G. Eraclides (1629) VERSUS Anton Nincevic (1425)

Vienna Gambit

1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. f4 exf4?

This is bad. White just gets a very good version of the Vienna Gambit.

4. e5 Ng8

So many players of average to below average strength play the hideous 3...exf4? instead of the correct 3...d5; perhaps they believe that White's
2. Nc3 is an inferior attempt at a King's Gambit and just play in that fashion.
In fact, as we Vienna afficionados know, 2. Nc3 and 3. f4 are the beginning of a very strong attack. Anton had previously played against me 3...d6 leading to a form of the King's Gambit Declined, where I obtained a strong attack against his King side.
Note that 4...Qe2; 5. Qe2 Ng8 6. d4 can be even worse for Black as in some variations White plays Nd5 attacking the Black Queen with gain of tempo.

5. d4 d5

Letting White regain his pawn for a chance to develop. Black will still remain in an inferior position.

6. Bxf4 Bf5
7. Nf3 h6?

Coffee-house chess - wasting time in a pointless prophylaxis. One of the maxims of this style of chess is that you must never allow a pin if you can avoid it - however much time you waste. White's position soon becomes overwhelming.

8. Bd3 Bxd3

Perhaps he should have just got on with some developing move and allowed White to exchange if he so wished. Sometimes a pawn on f5 (or c5 as can happen in other openings) adds strength to the centre in compensation for being doubled.

9. Qxd3 a6?

See note above. White has exchanged Black's best piece and now is granted even more tempi.

10. 0-0 Bb4
11. Rae8!

Who cares about this pin in this position?

11. ..........Ne7
12. Bd2

12. e6 does not achieve anything yet; I was already thinking along the lines of a future Bxh6. The move played blocks the pin and allows the Rooks to link up for an attack.

12. ..........c5

Expected, but he should have tried Nc6 and Qd7 with 0-0-0 to come; 12...Ng6? would be a blunder due to 13 e6!

13. a3!

Putting the question to the Bishop.

13. ..........c4?!

13. ..........Bxc3 14. bxc3 is OK for White, as another of Black's few well developed pieces is exchanged; 13...cxd4 14. axb4 dxc3 15. Bxc3! is also good for White. However, both of these options were preferable to the move actually played.

14. Qe2 Ba5
15. Kh1! 0-0?

Castling into it. White has cleared the decks for an all out attack. Black should have played Nc6/Qd7/0-0-0.

16. Nh4 Nc6
17. Be3

17. Bxh6 is still not quite right, so White must defend d4. Black tries to get something going on the Queen-side but to no avail as White's attack almost plays itself. There is nothing for Black to do except wait for the blows to fall.

17. ............b5
18. Qg4 Kh7
19. Rf3 Qc8
20. Qh5 Qe6?

20...Qe8 was better.

21. Rf6! Qd7

Best. If 21...gxf6? 22.Qxh6+ Kg8 23. exf6! Qg4 24. Bg5! and it's goodnight Irene.

22. Bxh6 Ng6

Necessary, because: 22…gxf6 23. Bg5+ Kg8 24. Bxf6 Ng6 25. Qh6!
Or: 22...gxh6 23. Rxh6+ Kg7 24. Rxh7+ Kg8 25. Rh8+ Kg7 26. Qh6++ or Qh7++

23. Bxg7 Kxg7 (Necessary)
24. Nf5+!

If 24. NxN fxg6 25. Rxg6+ (or 25. Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Qh5+) also wins.

24. .............Qxf5

The only move as 24...Kg8 is followed by 25. Qh6 and he will have to play Qxf5. White retains the two Rooks.

25. Qxf5 Nxd4
26. Qg4! Bxc3

He is nervous about Re2 and Nxd5. Black now plays for the clock as White was behind in time (a defining characteristic of mine).

27. bxc3 Ne6

He has no time for pawns - defence is everything. Even though I was behind on time, I enjoyed the rest of the game enormously.

28. Ref1 Ra7
29. h4! Rh8
30. h5! Kf8
31. RxNg6 Ke7
32. R6f6 Rf8
33. h6 Raa8
34. h7 Rae8
35. Kg1! Nd8
36. Qf5 Rh8
37. Rxf2+ Nxf2
38. Qxf2+ Kd8
39. Qxd5+ Kc8

If 39...Kc7 40. Rf7+ Kb6 41. Rb7+ Ka5 42. Qc5++

40. Rf7! Resigns

White was in a spot of time trouble, hence the exclamation marks - because the moves had to be found and played quickly.

I was over the moon and heading for the Oort Cloud after such an attacking game. It even attracted a few strong players who gathered around to see the denouement (every chess player loves a bloodletting). The Vienna was 2 for 2 for me in this tournament.

Spielmann (the original and the best) would be very pleased that his favourite weapon of attack can still yield so much fun at my level of play.

I felt good after my win against Anton. He had been so amazed at the game that he congratulated me more than was necessary; he was very gracious in saying I had ‘seen everything’ (which I had not); but it was a good game to have played - better for our level of chess than one of those ‘I win a pawn and grind out the win’ type of games.

Lessons about life from chess, Part 1 ~ Boldness pays off

2007-04-29T18:26:00.000-07:00

Does chess provide a template for real life?

Gary Kasparov, one of the greatest chess players our human race has produced, has published a new book, that looks at the lessons learned from chess that we can apply to life’s problems.

Kasparov should know better than anyone. He had monumental battles in chess, staked a claim as one of the greatest champions, and now has put his life on the line (literally), in order to oppose the despotic ruler of Russia, Putin, and bring a measure of democracy to his beloved homeland. Kasparov is 43 years old and that’s only early middle-age.

The idea of comparing chess to life has a long and honourable tradition. Lasker considered chess as an expression of the conflict at the heart of cosmic reality. The struggle against forces in the universe that would destroy us is reflected in the battles we face on the chess-board. How we conduct ourselves in chess is paralleled by how we deal with what fate serves up to us.

Lasker wandered into obscure German metaphysics, which left many of his readers behind. Nimzovich, who had also studied philosophy, made many allusions to chess as an allegory for life. In his wonderful book ‘Chess Praxis’ he talks about the defence of bad positions along heroic lines.

It is this latter ‘lesson’ from chess that I would like to write about. Kasparov knows this lesson well. It helped him to hang on grimly against a rampaging Karpov in their first abandoned match. Recall how he pulled himself back from the brink of humiliating defeat, by stubborn resistance, and then in the next match, became the worthy world champion.

It takes courage in life to hang on to what little you have left. To do it boldly is even harder. Most of us cringe as we hang on to the pittance that is our lot. But sometimes, when luck presents you with opportunities, boldness can turn a situation completely around. I humbly point out a few of countless examples: The Israeli raid on Entebbe to free the hijacked passengers taken to Idi Amin’s Uganda, the counter-attack by B25 Mitchell Bombers on Japan shortly after Pearl Harbour, and in the microcosm of the world we know as chess, Kasparov’s comeback against Karpov.

The lesson is to be bold in defence, be bold in attack, and be bold in life when you see a glimmer of a shadow of a smidgin of an opportunity. If you still lose, ‘going down swinging’ is better than abject surrender.

I present to you a humble example from the world of cross-board chess. A game by ordinary players (well, I at least wear the badge of ordinariness with pride), which illustrates why hanging on and being bold, can work for you.

The game is a French Defence, played at a tournament in Box Hill in 2001, coinciding with the City of Whitehorse Community Festival.

One hour per player was allocated to complete the game. You already know how slow a player I am (see previous postings). I like to believe it’s because of the depth of my analysis, but actually, I’m just slow, and it takes me a while to get my mind in gear.

Wendy Smith (1105) Versus G. Eraclides (1629)

French - Advanced Variation

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. e5

So many players just advance the pawn to e5 so as to save time in analysis. Then they book themselves up in a particular line because it allows them to dictate the play. A dunderhead like me wastes time preparing superficially against many variations and I then lack the depth of knowledge in particular lines. My errors in preparation were confirmed by this game. I would have done better to study deeply the Advanced Variation.

3. .........c5
4. c3 Nc6
5. Nf3 Bd7

This is played in order to protect against checks from White's King Bishop or a Knight move to b5.

6. Bd3 Qb6
7. 0-0 cxd4
8. cxd4 Nxd4
9. Nxd4 Qxd4

You can see why Bd7 was so important.
Apparently after Black's 7 ...cxd4 I was playing against something called the Milner-Barry Gambit. By transposition Black played right into it. I had a vague idea as the game was developing that pawns were on offer which Black could gobble up at considerable risk and then try and hold on. My opponent seemed to know more about the gambit than I did. At any rate, I found the right moves across the board until I played a GN (that's a George Novelty, to be contrasted with a TN – Theoretical Novelty - which is generally sound) and wound up in trouble again.

10. Nc3 Qxe5?!

I think this is one pawn too many. Watson in his classic monograph on the French suggests you can take this pawn and live. Uhlmann, the doyen of the French, thinks otherwise; he recommends 10 ...a6 leaving the e5 pawn to block Whites e-file attack on the stranded King. I knew nothing of this at the time I was playing, and used up the clock in calculations. In hindsight I think I would agree with Uhlmann. I decided to take the pawn and go for the excruciating difficulties. After 10 ...a6; 11 Qe2 Ne7 threatening Nc6 is unclear.

11. Re1 Qc7?

Oops. This is an inappropriate move. In other words, it's a blunder. I wanted to place the Queen as actively as possible, but correct according to Watson is the following:
11. ..........Qb8
12. Nxd5 Bd6
13. Qg4 Kf8 unclear.

12. Nxd5 Qc5
13. Qb3 Ne7

Black has lost a lot of tempi with his Queen, his King is stranded in the middle of the board, and his development is poor. Was I worried? You bet! Luckily we are playing a French Defence; the position is very complicated and both players are walking a tightrope. Black is still a pawn to the good and only needs to consolidate in order to win. He also has a few threats of his own: Ne7 breaks the line of the White Rook and my opponent has to exchange (developing Black) or move the Knight back (returning a tempo).

14. Nc3?!

Note here a variation, which illustrates the complexity of this opening:
14. Qxb7 Bc6
15. Bb5 Qxb5
16. Nc7+ Kd8
17. Rd1+ Nd5
18. Qxb5! Bxb5
19. Nxb5 Bc5

14. ............0-0-0?!

Can Black really get away with this? You can see how I got myself into a complete mess by ‘missing’ Qb8; I then could not get my King's Bishop out to d6; I had to think about two things: completing development and not being crushed in the process. My King was screaming: ‘Get me outta here!’
I remembered an observation of Steinitz (I often think of Steinitz when I get into a bad position - which is frequently), to wit, that the King is a strong piece. Here he can help defend the Queenside, development takes place;, and complications are enhanced (incredible as that seems). I calculated my options, and in dire straits, castling long was the best option. I thought I could see through to some judicious simplifications.

My opponent could not believe her eyes when I castled long.

15. Be3 Qa5
16. Rac1 Kb8
17. Bf4+ Ka8
18. Be4 Bc6!

I feel sure my opponent must have missed what I had seen, due to the shock of my audacious play. I was in time trouble and playing quickly. Black has concrete options and his defensive resources are deeper than appearances would have indicated. I had seen Bc6 when I castled; it kills the attack and I remain a pawn up. Notice something very important: Black's pawn on e6 blocks lines of the White Queen and takes squares away from the White Knight. This minor structural feature of the restricted centre, could not have been predicted strategically, and it allows Black to escape severe punishment.

19. Bxc6 Nxc6
20. Ne4 Qb4!

If the White Queen moves away Be7.

21. Qxb4 Bxb4
22. Red1 Be7

Black is now secure and a pawn up. My only problem was time, but luckily I was able to think schematically in the ending while my opponent drifted. Her disappointment was palpable, as she must have believed she missed a win somewhere. That's the French for you.

23 Be3 Nb4
24 a3 Nd5
25 h3?

A poor move caused by disappointment at previous poor play. I, on the other hand, am so used to playing poorly, that I don’t let it get me down.

25. ..........Nxe3
26. Rxd8 Rxd8
27. fxe3 Kb8!

Killing any counter-play - a maxim to remember - as the King takes away c7 from the enemy Rook.

28. Nc3 Bg5
29. Kf2 Rd2+
30. Kf3 Rxb2
31. Ne4 Be7
32. a4 Rb6!

Black's idea is to advance his King with the passed pawn, using his Rook as a barrier or shield to enemy incursions by the King or Rook. I used this idea in quite a few games in the past, and it’s a basic strategy in Rook endings.

33. Rd1 Kc8
34. Rc1+ Rc6
35. Rb1 Rc4
36. a5 Rc6
37. g3 b6!
38. axb6 axb6

The passed Pawn is created.

39. Ra1 Kb7
40. Rd1 Rc7
41. h4 b5
42. Ng5? Bxg5
43. hxg5 Kb6
44. Rd6+ Kc5
45. Rd4 b4!
46. Ke4 Kb5
47. Rd2 b3
48. Rb2 Kb4
49. Ke5 Rc2
50. Rxb3+ Kxb3
Resigns

Wendy extended a hand in congratulations then dematerialized.

Obviously she was very disappointed, but I would point out that the ‘sound and fury’ of her attack, may not have been as substantial as she thought during the game. Black's resources are quite deep in the French and difficult games are usually the result. Errors follow difficult positions like politicians chasing their superannuation.

The lesson? Be bold and take your chances, in chess and life.

The Greatest Player Who Ever Lived ~ Steinitz

2007-03-30T21:39:00.000-07:00

You don’t believe me right? You think it should be Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer? Maybe even Capablanca, Botvinnik, Alekhine or Lasker? How about Paul Morphy then? Of the ultra moderns, like Kramnik and Anand it is too soon to venture an intelligent opinion, but the others listed above are surely in a pack ahead of Wilhelm Steinitz.

Arpad Elo in his rating of great players, gave Steintz only 2650 for his best rating period. So maybe he would be on a par with lesser world champions such as Petrosian, Spassky, Smyslov, Tal and leading grandmasters Keres, Korchnoi, Rubinstein, Tarrasch, Ivanchuck, Nimzovich, Larsen, Gligoric, Pillsbury and so on.

But then again, there are ratings and then there are standards.

I used the word ‘greatest’ instead of finest, or best, because it is often used in describing legendary accomplishments ('I am the greatest! Ali). I think Steinitz has earned that accolade because of his achievements. By objective standards of accomplishment he is the greatest player. Consider the following.

He was no child prodigy. He learned to play chess late compared to many other great players, yet he triumphed over them all

He was a pioneer in the understanding and teaching of chess principles. To borrow from the philosophical adage that ‘all philosophy consists of footnotes to Plato’, we can say that all subsequent discussions of chess praxis consist of footnotes to Steinitz.

Steinitz did not duck any challengers. He played the best quality opponents of his era from Andersen and Zukertort to Chigorin and Lasker, spanning 28 years. He even met with, and no doubt tried to entice into a match, the great Paul Morphy. Contrast this with the avoidance techniques of a Lasker, Alekhine or even Fischer.

He played in all the leading tournaments of his era, facing all comers, up until his miserable end. No premature retirement for Steinitz.

His ideas about chess and theoretical analyses were made public property. Others could, and therefore did, use his own weapons against him. Contrast this state of affairs with the hoarding of information in later times, in order to surprise an opponent. In fact, contrast it with ‘team analysis’, including the use of amazingly strong computers, which later champions were and are able to employ today.

Steinitz was the greatest fighter in chess history. Among champion level players, where mental toughness is as much a requirement for success as sheer talent, Steinitz stood above them all. He fought hard, coming from behind to win matches or crush an opponent comprehensively and in his final years against Lasker, to fight on to the bitter end. Again contrast this with the tossing in of the towel by Lasker against Capablanca, and recall that Lasker had a great reputation as a fighter.

His longevity is another important sign of his greatness. Much has been made about Lasker’s dominance over 27 years, but he ducked strong opponents like Pillsbury, Rubinstein, and Capablanca for as long as he could. Steinitz fought the best available all the time, and he lasted 28 years. In fact, he could have retired in his forties or after the second match with Chigorin, and he would have been an undefeated world champion. History would then have had no choice but to recognize him as ‘the greatest'.

He was reputed to be stubborn, but in fact he was wilful and of strong character, and had a powerful belief in himself which he proved in battle. He was unafraid. For instance, he incurred great risks to his King in order to prove a point. His mettle was often severely tested, and he was triumphant.

He completely altered his approach to chess as a result of his theoretical work, going from a slash and burn combinative player to a positional player without peer. In fact, let me remind you, he discovered positional play.

He lost his title against a much younger man, conceding 32 years in age. Think about that. The difference in age between Steinitz and Lasker is equivalent to the age of a fully formed grandmaster of the first rank. Incidentally, he did not duck the match.

Then there are his wonderful games featuring wildly exciting play from his ‘romantic period’ to ultra exact positional masterpieces.

To their everlasting credit, players like Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich, Euwe, Kasparov and Fischer, have acknowledged the greatness of Steinitz.

Steinitz belonged to another era – the era before computers – and what he initiated took chess in directions that he would have only dimly perceived, if at all. He died in poverty, afflicted by mental problems. But his legacy is gigantic, and it is to the shame of modern players and writers, that his games and achievements are neglected.

In Steinitz we have a uniquely individual approach to chess, which through his sheer force of will and talent, became the standard by which sound and attractive chess could be further developed.

I discovered his games in my middle age, and thus I too deserve to be censured for my neglect of the great man. I was also pleased to discover that I liked the early ‘romantic era’ Steinitz. He played King’s Gambits and the Vienna Opening, my personal favourite.

So I present to you a game which could have been played in the cafes of old 19th Century Vienna by a couple of ordinary players, imbued with the spirit of the great Viennese master Steinitz, but alas, not by his talent. Still, it is a ‘Viennese game’, and one can imagine a youngish Steinitz wondering by, looking at the game being played, and saying to himself dismissively, ‘This is coffee-house chess. I can do better than this. I can do so much better I can be world champion!’

To be dismissed by a Steinitz is honour indeed.

George Eraclides VERSUS Anton Nincevic

Box Hill Chess Club
(pretend it’s in Vienna a 150 years ago)
Winter Inter-club 1999 - Sixty minutes each player for the whole game

Vienna Game transposing into a King’s Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. f4 d6
4. Nf3 Nc6
5. Bc4 Be7

Fearful of the Vienna he transposes to the King’s Gambit Declined. Note that 5…Nxe4 is too risky for Black after 6. Qe2 e.g. 6…Nxc3 7. dxc3! or if 6…f5
7. Nxe4 fxe4 8. Qxe4 and White is good. White can also play the conventional
6. Nxe4 d5 7. Bb5 dxe4 8. Nxe5 Qd6 (best) then 9. Bxc6+ or Qe2 are fine.

6. d3 Na5?!

Note that 6…Bg4 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Nd4 9. Qd1 (Qf2 Nh5) 0-0 10. Be3 c5 is slightly better for White who intends a King-side expansion after f5 and g4, with an interesting struggle.

7. Bb3 Nxb3
8. axb3

Larsen used to love these positions because Black is dead in the centre and the Queen-side while White can attack on the King-side almost at will, without worrying about a Black Knight on d4. White is now better.

8.……..exf4

If 8...Bg4 9. h3 or 9. f5 are good for White as well; Black will be attacked on the King-side.

9. Bxf4 Bg4
10. 0-0 0-0
11. Qe1

Breaking the pin and threatening Qg3

11…………h6

Fearful of the attack to come, he risks annihilation.

12. Qg3 g5?

Part of a faulty plan as it allows the following combination. Better was 12…Bxf3 as after Qxf3 (best) he can play Kh7 or Nh7 or Qd7 and try to regroup.

13. Nxg5!

Because of the relatively fast time control we were playing under, I had quickly analysed (and liked) Nxg5. I thought 13. Be3 Kh7 was unclear.

13…………...hxg5
14. Bxg5 Nh5

There is nothing better, and White will regain his piece and two Pawns.

15. Qxg4 Bxg5
16. Qxh5

Possible but more complicated is Rf5.

16………Be3+
17. Kh1 Qg5?!
18. Qxg5 Bxg5
19. Rf5

Black’s f7 Pawn is weak and King exposed. By combining attacks on the king with pressure on the Pawn White should win. Swapping pieces will also do the job.

19………Bh6

If 19…Be3 threatening Bd4, simply 20. Nd5.

20. Raf1 Kg7?!

He hopes to get his Rooks mobile but Bg7 may be better.

21. g3 a6
22. Kg2 Rae8
23. Nd5

Intending to play Nf4 and threaten an important check. This is very much a Tarrasch type of position where constriction must be maintained and slowly increased.

23………c6
24. Nf4

Planing Nh5+ and if Kg6, then g4 and h4.

24……….Bxf4!

The compromised Bishop is exchanged for the good Knight.

25. R1xf4

I knew I would have to exchange Rooks to win but I was concerned because getting to a ‘won’ position took up valuable time, and now I still needed to do a lot of careful calculating.

25…………..Re6
26. g4!?

Possible, but not worked out due to a concern with time-trouble, was
26.Rg4+ Kh6 27. Rh4+ Kg6 28. R4h5!? with the threat of driving the King back by Rh6+ Kg7 (if Kg5, R4h5+ Kg4, h3++). In the time I had available I could not see a clear path.

26………..Rg6
27. Kg3

Bringing up the King is critical as will become apparent.

27………..f6

Hoping to be allowed to play Rf7 and Kf8/e7.

28. g5?!

White wants his pund of flesh – h4 is safer. I had too long a think trying to see everything but failed, so I played riskily with one eye on the clock.

28………...fxg5

If 28…Rxg5 29. Rxg5 fxg5 30. Rxf8+ Kxf8 31. Kg4 wins. My opponent thought he had found a way out of losing and made a run for the toilet – his point is that the Pawn on g5 can capture with check. When he came back he was met by:

29. Rf4g4!

Now if 29…Rxf5 30. exf5 Rf6 31. Rxg5+ Kh6 32. Kg4 or just h4 win; if 30…Rh6 then 31. Rxg5+ Kf6 32. h4 and Kg4 wins. He sat down to think again, and I remembered Tarrasch’s famous observation about when a player makes a bad move, it is usually the precursor to a series of bad moves.

29…………R8f6
30. Rf5xg5 Kh6?

Thank you Tarrasch. See what he meant? 30…Rxg5 31. Rxg5+ Kh6 would have made life more difficult for White. I could play 32. h4 Rf1 33. Rf5 Rb1 (better than c1; if Rh1 34. Rf6+ Kh5 35. Rxd6 Rxh4? 36. Rh6+! wins) 34. Rf6+ and Rxd6 or 34. Rf2 Rxb2 35. d4 is even simpler. Now his game implodes after the realization that what he played was wrong.

31. Rxg6+ Rxg6
32. Rxg6+ Kxg6
33. Kg4 d5?
34. e5 d4
35. h4 c5
36. h5+ Kh6
37. e6 Resigns

The French Connection and the Nature of Piquant Irony

2007-03-01T20:54:00.000-08:00

I admire players who have discovered the openings suited to their style and stay faithful to them all their lives. They acquire a depth of knowledge that prevents them from collapsing in a heap at the latest theoretical innovation from the umpteenth openings database.

The trouble with me (a muddle-aged chess player), and I suspect most young players, is that I do not stick with an opening or defence long enough to understand its essence. If I lose or get a difficult game, I look elsewhere for redemption. If only I can find the perfect opening or defence I will not be put into difficult positions. But hang on a minute. Isn’t the point of chess that you will be in a difficult position? You have to fight and overcome your opponent, who is trying to do you over. And in case you haven’t noticed, there’s not much perfection in our imperfect world. The perfect opening or defence doesn’t really exist, despite what Mr Fischer once so loudly proclaimed.

The Bot has explained the key to success in chess, as getting to the essence of a position. Then and only then will your analysis be sound. The same is true of openings and defences. Botvinnik is right of course, but that’s no reason to follow his advice. After all, we are human, and therefore prone to acts of the gravest irrationality – like not listening to the great Bot.

One of my finest acts of irrationality, is to play openings or defences that do not suit my style (whatever that is; at 54 I am still working on it) but which I find attractive. They appeal to my aesthetics, or I hope to surprise an opponent, or worse, they are recommended by the latest opening’s guru (and especially by his or her publisher). As a result I fall flat on my still modest derriere, cursing myself for being such an idiot.

How lucky then, to have discovered about 15 years ago, that I like the French Defence, and can actually play it well enough to survive the opening and make it into the middle-game with a playable position. I like the complexity and counter-attacking nature of the French, and even when I have lost with it, I have given a good account of myself, ‘going down swinging’. The French gives you an anchor in the centre and enables you to shift to the attack in the complexities that inevitably arise. Great attacking players (Fischer, Tal) have had difficulties with it; stupendously talented players like Nimzovich, Alekhine, Capablanca, and even the great Bot himself, have relied on it; contemporary players like Short, Korchnoi, Vaganian, Dreev, Yusupov use it. The greatest player of the French, its most loyal paramour, is Uhlmann, who has played it all his professional life.

The other amazing thing about the French, is that I somehow I can understand its main themes. I can reach a level of comprehension denied to me in other defences against e4, such as the Sicilian or Pirc. Finally I had a defence I both liked and which seemed to suit my evolving style – which is attacking or counterattacking (with a sprinkling of the bizarre). Thus I play it with confidence. I can honestly say, there is no other opening or defence with which I have lost with greater confidence. Sarcasm aside (I am a foundation member of the ‘Coalition of the Sarcastic’), I do reasonably well with it across the board or in correspondence chess, and like the Vienna, it has become a staple of my chess diet.

The Bot was right. He always is. I bet even God has to listen to him when it comes to chess.

Advice to the young and innocent: Find an opening or defence which suits your style and which you can understand, and play it; get experience with the different patterns it produces. Save your aesthetic delights for the
middle-game or ending. There is nothing more aesthetically satisfying than a victory.

I present for your edification the following game, which has a ‘piquant irony’. If you have to experience irony in your life, then piquant is the best kind.

The place is Norfolk Island in 1995, the second time I played there (see previous post, Eraclides versus the Masters ~ Part 3 Not Slam-Dunked by Craig Laird, for details about this tournament). I decided to play the French Defence against e4 and swotted up a few main lines. This defence is one of the greatest contributions of the French to civilization, along with croissants and champagne.

Anyway, why is this game so full of ‘piquant irony’? I hear you asking as you open a bottle of brandy. Because my opponent, one of the first few times I ever played the French, was himself a Frenchman. He was on holiday in Norfolk Island with his young family, and being a keen chess player thought he would play in the annual tournament. His name was Bernard Laugery and he was tall, youngish, elegant. His opponent on that day, was a 40 something, swarthy Eraclides from Australia.

I am sure that Monsieur Laugery must have thought I was trying to psych him out by playing the French Defence, but it was not so. I would have played the French against a Frenchman or a Martian.

Donc, fait le jeu! And remember to have that glass of brandy ready, or better yet, cognac. Take a snort before you start playing over the game. The notes are light, as befits the game.

Bernard Laugery VERSUS George Eraclides

Norfolk Island Open, 1995

Round 3

French Defence

1. e4 e6

He looked at me as though to say, ‘Are you serious? You’re going to play the French against moi? A Frenchman?’

2. d4 d5
3. ed ed

The exchange variation came as a surprise. It is supposed to be drawish and I thought maybe he was nervous about facing one of his national treasures. In any case, the exchange variation is not as mild as it appears. Attacking players like Blackburne (BC) and even Kasparov have tried it. It leads to an open game, which is always dangerous, and may not be to the taste of the Black player. For the next few moves both players try to avoid drawish book lines in order to play for a win.

Incidentally, when I use ‘BC’ it stands for ‘Before Computers’.

4. Nf3 Bd6
5. Be2?! Ne7?!
6. 0-0 Bg4
7. Nbd2 0-0
8. h3 Bh5
9. Re1 Nd7?!
10. Nf1 c6
11. Nh4 Bxe2
12. Rxe2?! Qc7
13. Qd3?! Nf6?!?
14. Qf3 Rae8
15. b3

If 15.Bh6 Ng6 16. Nf5 Rxe2 17. Qxe2 Re8 and Black can take the Bishop on h6. White hopes to eventually play c4 and expose the Queen on c7.

15….......Ng6
16. Ng6 fxg6 (For the attack)
17. Qd3 Qf7
18. Be3 Ne4
19. Nd2 Nxd2
20. Qxd2 Bb1

A common ‘French’ manoeuvre after Rooks have been linked.

21. Rae1 Qc7
22. g3?! Qf7 (Eyeing the f3 weakness)
23. Rf1?? Bxg3 (White blunders and Black says thank you very much)
24. f4?! Qd7 (Continuing the pressure; Black pieces are woefully placed)
25. Kg2 Bh4
26. Rf3 Re4
27. Bg1? Rfe8
28. Rxe4 Rxe4
29. Bf2 Qe7!
30. Re3 Bxf2
31. Rxe4 Qxe4 (Central domination)
32. Kxf2 Kf7 (Heading to the centre for the ending)
33. Kg3 Kf6
34. h4 h5! (Black plans a check on g4)
35. a3?! Qe6
36. Qf2 Qg4+
37. Kh2 Kf5! (This King does his own fighting)
38. b4? Qxf4+
39. Qxf4 Kxf4
40. c3 b5 (Or Kg4 is even simpler)

And Black won the King and Pawn ending easily.

Chess Tips 1 ~ Survive the Opening and Suceed in the Middle Game

2006-12-31T17:33:00.000-08:00

Hi Pilgrims,

How do I prepare for a tournament?

I decide first how I will open with White. Whether it will be e4, d4, c4 etc... Then I decide how I will play as Black. I have a main defence against e4, d4 and c4. I rely on my own judgment as to what to do against the irregular openings.

After these key decisions, I look at the main variations I would select for White if an opponent played any of the standard responses. For instance if I choose d4 I look at replies such as a King’s Indian, Nimzo, Benoni, Queen’s Pawn etc... For e4 I have to prepare against a Sicilian, French, e5, etc...

For Black it is simpler in some ways. I choose one defence against e4, d4 and c4 and prepare my lines against the main variations White may try. For instance against e4 I may play the French, and then if White chooses Nd2 lines I prepare say Nf6 or if the choice is Nc3 I may play the Winawer. Against d4 I may play the King’s Indian, and I may play a similar formation against c4 or anything else White throws up.

By preparing, I mean I go over the main lines, make some notes, try them out against clubmates or a computer. I try to understand the meaning of the lines, the strategy, rather than simply memorise lines. Memory without understanding is useless and will just get you into trouble against an opponent who understands the point of the opening and knows what to do. So I learn enough of the lines to understand what I am doing when I play them. For instance the c5 and f6 thrusts in the French, restriction and blockade ideas in the Nimzo etc...

Having done that, I feel confident that I can orient myself in situations where I may not know the exact sequence of moves. I simply do not have the time or memory capacity of a Master level player to learn all the theory. I also work on my psychology, telling myself that I am well prepared, to take my time and not worry too much about the clock, to breathe deeply so as to relax during the game (especially the opening or when surprises occur), and to talk to myself (internally) so as to help my thinking. I know that if I get through the opening phase I can do well against any opponent of my strength.

If you want to play a reasonable game of chess then you must follow the first maxim of chess: ‘Do Not Blunder’. Eliminating obvious errors is the first step to playing well. Then come what I call the bunny rules (or Purdy rules) and the rest is refinement by experience, a grounding in basic theory, and a knowledge of the main positional ideas from the great theorists.

I promised in an earlier posting to explain what I mean by the ‘bunny rules’, and I shall do so now.

They were first enunciated by C. J. S Purdy, a wonderful chess teacher and the first International Correspondence Chess World Champion. If you ever get a chance to get hold of his books, do so and study them. They will do more for you than any ‘Win with’ series of books. I was first introduced to the ‘Purdy Rules’ by IM Terrey Shaw (see previous post ‘Slam Dunked by the Masters Part 3’) and I promptly renamed them the bunny rules because I think that ordinary players, and even quite strong players, need to ‘think like a bunny’ before they let their thoughts wander onto the higher plains of chess strategy.

You begin first with the simple. When you have mastered that, then you go onto the next level. And so on. Simple isn’t it? Just like primary school. But too many of us leap ahead, often beyond our ability or at least our knowledge. That’s dumb. Consider the fluffy tailed denizen and how he deals with life.

The bunny first moves to the end of his burrow and sniffs the air.

He waits then moves out a little more, always sniffing the air and looking around; eventually he leaves his burrow and starts to explore and find food. But, he always checks around him, sniffs the air, looks for any movement around the place. Sometimes he gets caught out (just like a chess player) but checking around him all the time is his best chance against the fox. If he spots something, he has a chance to save himself. Otherwise, it’s checkmate and rabbit stew for the fox.

The ‘bunny rules’ say you should play chess like a bunny in the initial phase of your thinking process. When it is your turn to move ALWAYS check for all possible captures, checks, pins, forks, nets (tactics which surround - net - a piece or stalemate it for capture) or outright mates. ALL POSSIBLE. Sorry to shout but the point is important. However ridiculous it may seem, CHECK.

When it is your turn to move, run the bunny rules from your opponent’s point of view. That pin or capture you assume is stupid may in fact mean you lose a piece or get mated further along in the game. Then check all YOUR possible captures, checks, pins, forks, nets, mates. You may have a crusher in hand and miss it otherwise. Maybe there’s a crusher you can angle for later. Do this before every move you play. Eventually it will become a habit. You will discover crushes for yourself, and avoid blunders. There is no point in adopting a refined strategy for yourself and overlooking the loss of a piece or a mate in two.

Once you have applied the bunny rules, and there’s no brilliant zinger for yourself or a hidden killer shot for your opponent, then you can look at strategy and tactics in a broader framework. You go from the simple to the more complex, just like in school.

Purdy’s Rules are based on the maxim that tactics trump strategy and positional play. As said above, that brilliant outpost, that gorgeous open file, that flank attack is worth zip, if your opponent can do you in one. And also think of all those brilliancies you may discover, by the application of the ‘bunny rules’.

I know in my own chess play, even in correspondence chess, I have overlooked the simple in search of the complex, and been outdone. Most chess players, whatever their level, would improve if they applied the bunny rules to their game. You can still be a refined genius if you like, but at least you will not blunder. Build the foundation first.

I wish I could apply the bunny rules all the time, but I let myself down too many times for my own good. Maybe if I had had it drummed into me as a child learning to play, it would have become instinctive for me. Remember that if you are coaching young players. For the rest of us, all we can do is TRY HARDER.

There is one important thing you should do when you prepare your openings for a tournament. Study carefully all those moves and variations which the opening's gurus, with their thimble of pathetic wisdom, say are bad. You know what I mean. The kind of dismissive comments about a move as obviously bad, maybe with a question mark symbol, or an offhand remark that a variation is inferior, without going into much or any detail. On the surface, it seems the phoney gurus are right, so you don’t pay any attention to the line they dismiss.

YOU’LL BE SORRY!

Ordinary players make weak moves. They have even been known to select lines which the cognoscenti KNOW are bad. But, if you have not prepared yourself; if you have not even looked at the variations, just to know the main idea or how to orient yourself; if you have been too trusting or naive about the opening’s ‘experts’, then you have to work it out across the board with the clock ticking. Then the feeling will come over you ‘I know the move he/she just played is bad, but how am I supposed to refute it? Damn, I could end up losing on time even if I get a good position.’

But if you had bothered to check on all those obviously bad moves, then you may have not only saved time, but by playing with the confidence that comes with true understanding, won the game easily.

I did not do any of that in the past. I was a dumbo and only learned the main lines in my openings of choice, assuming falsely that they would turn up most often. Not so at the level of the ordinary player. The game below is an example where I was lucky to win in a Vienna despite getting into time-trouble working out across the board a refutation I should have known from my preparation.

The Tournament the game was played in was magnificently organized in an excellent venue, the air-conditioned Waratah Room of the Whitehorse Council Centre in Nunawading (in Melbourne - the world's 'most livable city'). Even Bobby Fischer would have been proud to have played in such a venue.

The event was approved by the Victorian Chess Association, the games were all rated, it was deemed to be a Class 2 Grand Prix event; featured participants included International Grand Master Darryl Johannsen (2530), a number of Master level players between 2100 and 2400, many strong club players, and of course my good self.

The tourney was organized over two days, with four rounds on Saturday and three on Sunday. They were going to be very long days, as there was often at least one hour break between rounds to recover from the ordeal of playing. The event was a seven round Swiss ‘accelerated at the discretion of the arbiter’.

Overall we had about seventy players participating. As it in fact turned out, I was the oldest player against all my opponents.

My opponent was then one of Australia’s most promising young female juniors. Her rating, like that of all juniors, was on the move upwards. Mine, as with most middle aged players, was on the move to the basement.

G. Eraclides (1629) VERSUS Narelle Szuveges (1780)

Box Hill One Hour Championship October 20-21, 2001. Round 3

Vienna Gambit

1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. f4! d5
4. fxe5 Nxe4
5. Nf3 Be7

This is supposed to be the soundest defence to the Nf3 Variation of the Vienna Gambit. It’s about time that this variation (Nf3) was given a proper name, and if no one else wants to do it, then I will. I hereby declare it to be ‘the King’s Knight’s Variation’.

6. Qe2 Bh4+?!

Black's move cannot be right. The theoreticians dismiss this variation with a few comments, but I had neglected to look at the line as I assumed nobody would play it, saving my preparation for the main lines (see my introductory remarks above). Black was supposed to play either Nxc3 or Ng5/c5. Both players are now at a point of no return. I suspect Narelle took a chance because she looked at my rating, my tournament score thus far, and decided I was an idiot.

7. Nxh4?!

Correct according to theory is:
7. g3 Bxg3 (Nxg3 just loses a piece for two pawns)
8. hxg3 Nxg3
9. Qg2 Nxh1
10. Qxh1 and White with his two extra pieces will wreak havoc on Black in the middle game before her Rooks can unite.
Do you suppose I could remember this bit of theory? How could you remember ideas or moves you did not bother to study? Instead, I sat there and worked things out across the board, while the clock was running, and my opponent looked skyward with that, ‘I must be playing a moron’ look a lot of juniors seem to adopt against anyone over the age of 21.
I sat and thought, then discovered another line, which as it turned out, was good for White. The cost? Time.

7 ........Qxh4+
8. g3 Nxg3
9. Qf2!

Seems very clever to me.

9 .........Nf5
10. Qxh4 Nxh4
11. Nxd5 Kd8
12. d4!

Clever and dynamic. Open lines are needed, even at the cost of a pawn. One of my psych-tricks was to say to myself: 'Think like or play like -------'. In this case it was Morphy, letting pawns go for the sake of open lines. Much better than 'Think like Eraclides....'.

12 ...........Nf3+

Perhaps Ng6 was safer, although she will still be in difficulties after
Bg5+.

13. Kf2 Nxd4
14. Bg5+!

Kapow! The previous comment comes from the comic-book school of annotating. The rest, as they say, should be a matter of technique, and in time-trouble I wish I had some.

14 ...........Kd7
15. Bh3+ Kc6

The powerful centre, superior development, the two Bishops with open lines, and the conjunction of Mars with Jupiter in the House of Aquarius, are some of White's advantages in this game.

16. Ne7+ Kc5

Anything else gives White even more tempi.

17. Bxc8

White can also play Nxc8, but I saw a very good forcing variation when the Bishop captures.

17 ..........Nbc6
18. Bxb7 Rab8
19. Bxc6 Nxc6
20. Nxc6 Kxc6
21. b3 Rae8
22. Rhe1

White has a won position a piece up. However, I was in dreadful time trouble, hence the difficulty in the next phase of the game in prosecuting the endgame.
Black, as an experienced junior, tried to make matters as difficult for me as possible so I would get flustered and blunder. But I was not going to let this one go.

22 ..........Re6
23. Rad1

Cutting off the Black King from the central squares.

23 ..........h6
24. Bf4 g5
25. Bc1!?

Best - why let her attack my fine Bishop on g3?

25 ..........Rhe8
26. Bb2 h5
27. Bc3

White is trying to exchange one pair of Rooks as this will make the win easier; the Bishop on c3 guards the Rook on e1 (in fact the square e1, a subtle difference great players of the endgame seem to understand instinctively). The e1 square is now protected twice; if Black plays f6/f5 after White moves the Rook on d1 to d3, then White can play PxP(ep).

27 ...........a6

Getting the pawn away from a square my Bishop can attack - obviously my opponent has had some basic tutoring on the endgame. However, even there it will become a target.

28. Rd3 g4
29. Red1

Now that the f-pawn cannot advance, White turns his attention to exchanging a pair of Rooks.

29 ...........h4
30. Rd8 R8e7
31. Rg8 Rg6
32. Rxg6 fxg6
33. Rd8 Rf2+
34. Kg1 Rf3
35. Bd4 Rf4
36. c3 Re4
37. Rg8 Kb5
38. a4+ Ka5
39. Rxg6 Re1+
40. Kf2 Rb1
41. b4+ Kxa4
42. Rxg4

It is much more important that the King-side Pawns be stopped or captured.

42 ...........Rb2+
43. Kg1 h3!

If:
43 .........Rb1+
44. Kg2! Black is doing her best to cause White to consume his rapidly dwindling time, but with one pair of Rooks exchanged, it is easier for me to calculate.

44. Rg6 Kb3
45. e6 Re2
46. Kf1! Re4 (Necessary)
47. Rg3 Rxe6
48. Rxh3 Kc4
49. Rg3

It’s all over now. Once I worked out the idea of a shield cover for my King, the moves came easily. White’s Rook provides a shield for his King and its ‘Goodnight Irene’.

49 ...........Rh6
50. Kg2 Rh5
51. Rg4 Kd3
52. Kg3 a5
53. bxa5 Rxa5
54. h4 c5
55. Bf6 Ra1
56. Kf4! Rh1
57. Kg5! Rf1
58. h5 Rh1
59. h6 Ke3
60. Kg6 Kf3
61. Rg5 Resigns

Narelle held out her paw and resigned graciously. ‘I was just trying to get you to use up time’ was her comment. She went on to win the 2002 Australian Women’s Championship title, so she must have learned something from playing against me.

Once again, the Vienna Gambit had produced a good win for me. But I had to work hard at a stage of the game when I should have been thoroughly prepared, and got into time-trouble.

So remember, study the weak moves as well as the main variations.

Here endeth this lesson.

Who is Tom McKay?

2006-12-26T18:02:00.000-08:00

Hi Pilgrims,

Tom is nobody and somebody. He is not a master or strong player, but one of the old familiars who are the mainstay of any chess club. They turn up to everything, play anybody, put their name forward for every club championship, have more than a few tricks up their sleeve with which to surprise opponents, and you would swear from the way they talk, that they were contemporaries of Botvinnik and remember kicking a young Fischer around the chess board, before he got some teeth.

Is Tom McKay a real person or a figment of your dear blogger’s fevered imagination? Well actually he is, or was, a real person, but I like to write about him as the ‘every chessplayer’ who is the backbone of chess clubs the world over. Without the Tom McKays of the world, you ain’t got a chess club, unless you come from Moscow and your name starts with a ‘K’ and maybe in that case, you don’t need a club at all.

Tom was a club mate of mine, a member of the Essendon Chess Club to which I belonged for a time during the 1980’s. For the benefit of my vast overseas readership, I will mention that Essendon is part of the area of Moonee Ponds, the home of ‘Edna Everage’ a woman of formidable mediocrity, and one of the key characters created by the brilliant satirical performer, Barry Humphries, who as far as I know doesn’t play chess.

Tom was always ready for a game. Skittles or a fair dinkum tournament, his eyes lit up at the prospect. He loved to play the Marshall Attack as Black and had gathered many scalps to prove the old adage, that if you know a sharp line really well, you will get enough points to offset those occasions when you play against someone who actually knows what they are doing.

I present as an accompaniment to your glass of wine or snifter of Brandy, two interesting games I played against Tom. The first was played for points. The second was played for blood.

Tom passed away in the late 1990’s, long after I had left the club, and I am sure he is in heaven troubling all complacent chess players with his sharp counterattacks. He may even be showing the shade of Frank Marshall a trick or two. Go Tom!

Tom McKay (1550) VERSUS George Eraclides (1487)
Essendon Chess Club Championship May-June 1995
Nimzo Indian (club style)

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. Qc2 0-0
5. Nf3 d6

This is too passive. Better is c5.

6. e4 Nbd7?

Black wants to play e5, but Nbd7 is bad; better is c5.

7. Bd3?

As so often happens in the nervous opening phase of a game in a club
championship, mistakes become complementary. White misses a tactical opportunity to secure a winning position after 7.e5! If Black plays 7...Bxc3 then 8.bxc3! secures White an advantage in all cases. Even an exchange of Pawns by Black, before or after Bxc3, leaves him weak because he has no good square upon which to place the f6 Knight. White could even have played
7. Bg5 and after h6 8. Bh4 e5 9. dxe dxe (best because if Nxe5, 0-0-0) 10. 0-0-0 Qe7 is unclear. Note that 7. Bf4 Qe7 or b6 is solid for Black.
The threat after 7. Bd3 is 8. e5 winning the h7 Pawn.

7 .............e5!

Black is eating up the clock, but this is a needed ‘blockade’ move. The White centre, which threatens to become mobile, must be neutralised before routine development takes place. I know this, because I once read a book by Nimzovich.

8. 0-0

If 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 is equal; if 8. d5 then BxN and Nc5 are equal.

8 ...........Bxc3

The Bishop’s job is over and he sacrifices himself for the well posted White Knight.

9. Qxc3

If 9. bxc3 h6 with Qe7 and White is at risk of becoming passively placed with weaknesses in the ending. The ending would be difficult for White because of the doubled Pawns; if d5, a Knight can slip permanently into c5.

9 .............h6

Prophylaxis in order to avoid the unpleasent pin.
Interesting is 9...exd4 10. Nxd4 (also good is 10. Qxd4 Ne5 11. Nxe5 dxe5 and the Queen does best to retreat while Black plays h6 and Qe7; if 12. Qxe5 Re8) 10...Nc5 (10...Ne4 11. Bc2 is good for White) and now after 11. Bg5 Nfxe4?! is dramatic but insufficient after 12. Bxd8 Nxc3 when13. bxc3 Rxd8 wins a Pawn for Black, but 13. Bxc7! Nxd3 14. bxc3 Nb2 15. Bxd6 Nxc4 16. Bg3 favours White by the diameter of a cat’s whisker. In this line, another alternative besides 11. Bg5 is 11. Qc2 Nxd3 12. Qxd3 Qe7 13. Re1 (or f3) Re8 14. f3 or 14. Bg5 with a substantial plus.

10. b4!

To stop a Knight landing on c5.

10 ..........exd4
11. Nxd4

Possible is 11. Qxd4 Qe7 12. Bf4 Ng4 13. Rae1 and White is good;
11...Ne5 12. Nxe5 dxe5 13. Qxd8 (13. Qxe5 Re8) Rxd8 14. Bc2 is unclear.

11 ..........Ne5
12. Bc2 Qe7
13. Re1 Be6!?

Finally the dormant Bishop - a worry for Black - is developed with a threat. But Bd7 is probably sounder.

14. Nf5?!

I think that there are better moves to gain an advantage. For instance 14. Nxe6 (14. Bb3 is unclear) Qxe6 15. Bb2 is better because of the two Bishops and strong centre. Also 14. f4! Nc6 (not Nxc4 15. f5!) 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Bb2 and Black has a lot to worry about.

14 ............Bxf5

The Prelate developed only to be exchanged. White’s Pawn on f5 will be an impediment to him. White should have done a lot better with his opportunities after 5...d6 and 6...Nbd7.

15. exf5 Rae8

Finally secure centralization is achieved. Can White’s two Bishops deal with Black’s prancing ponies?

16. Bd2

Interesting is Bb2!?

16 ............Qd7
17. Rad1 Qc6!
18. Bb3 Ne4!

The Knights dance merrily in the centre causing havoc and stealing a Pawn.

19. Qd4 Nxd2

The two Bishops were dangerous to Black. It’s ironic that the Queen Bishop for both sides developed late and was soon vanquished.

20. Qxd2

If 20. Rxd2 Nf3+!

20 .............Nxc4
21. Qf4

If 21. Bxc4 Qxc4 and the heavy piece ending is fine for Black with 4:2 Pawns on the Queen side.

21 ..........Nb2!

With the threat of Ne3. Beware the prancing knights, with their odd movements which can leap tall pieces at a single bound. If 21...Ne5 22. Bd5 Qb6 23. f6?! Ng6 24. Qf3 or Qg3 is unclear and White has too much mobility for my liking. If 21...Nb6 22. f6?! is also troublesome.

22. Rxe8

If 22. Bd5 Qxd5!

22 ..........Rxe8

Black has the only open file plus a Pawn and should win.

23. Rb1

I think 23. Rf1 is slightly better; note that if Rc1 then Ne3!

23 ..........Qc3

White cannot be allowed to play Qd2 and improve his defensive chances.

24. h3

He needs a bolt hole, as any self-respecting Monarch has always needed throughout history. One’s subjects, let alone enemies, can be very intimidating.

24 .......Re1+?

Dumbo! 24...Ne3 first is winning; the Knight attacks the Queen and b4, and most importantly is out of the pocket.

25. Rxe1 Qxe1+
26. Kh2 Qe5?

Dumbo! Again too quick to get into the ending; Ne3 is still relativel best. You must know when to transpose into a good ending. This is poor play by Black in time-trouble.

27. Qxe5 dxe5
28. Kg3 Nd3
29. a3 Kf8
30. Kf3 Ke7?!

I think 30...Nf4 31. h4! (threatening g3 or g4) Nh5 was better for Black. Now the Knight stops prancing.

31. g3!

Shutting down all escape routes.

31 .........f6
32. Ke3 Nb2

If 32... Nc1 33. Bc4 c6 34 Kd2 b5 35. Bxb5 and I am not sure about the ending although perhaps Black still has winning chances. In the meantime I had seen another good move.

33. Kd2?

Tom repays the favour: 33. f3?! Kd6 34. Kd2 (34. b5 Kc5!) b5! 35. Kc3 Na5+ is still volatile with a very interesting K+P ending when/if White plays BxN bxa4! Now Black in time-trouble finds a saving resource.

33 ..........e4!

With a Draw offer which White accepted. The Black Knight has a square to run to, but analysis later showed that Black still had winning chances but for his time-trouble. For instance: 34. Ke3 Nd3 35. Kxe4 Nxf2+ or 34. Bd5 c6!
35. Bxe4 Nc4+ or 34. Kc2 Nd3 35. Bd5 c6 36. Bxe5 Nxf2 37. Bg2 Kd6 and the Black King comes to the rescue of his brave Knight.

Although the game was infected by the results of poor analytical skill by both players, the game itself was interesting and typical of a club championship where first one player has the advantage and then the other. It must be mentioned that 33...e4 was a surprise which rocked White.

The next game was played in a Rapid Tournament at the Essendon Chess Club on March 6, 1996.

The final position is enjoyable. We need mistakes now and then to give some ‘frisson’ to our lives.

If you get nothing out of this next game, at least you will have learned a new word, as in ‘I have just been frissoned.’

George Eraclides (1487) VERSUS Tom McKay (1550)

Vienna Irregular

1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Bc5!?
3. d3 d6
4. f4

I am always keen to play this move, even if I am not involved in a proper Vienna Gambit. As this is a ‘rapid play’ event, expect loose play.

4 ......Ne7?!
5. Nf3 Nbc6
6. Na4

The Bishop on c5 is a nuisance, and I want to castle King-side.

6 .........Bb6!?
7. Nxb6 axb6
8. Be3 Bd7?!

Too passive for a fighting player like Tom. Better is 8...exf4 9. Bxf4 Ng6 or 8...Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 exf4 with interesting play to come. I shudder to think of all that mayhem about to be unleashed on the board. White’s King Bishop is a worry, but in hte ned he does not have to do much.

9. a3

Blocking the a-file to Black.

9 ......0-0
10. f5!

The logic is as follows: Black has steadfastly refused to capture the f-Pawn in case he opens lines for a White attack. He wants to capture in his own good time and play Ng6 to build up a counter-attack. BUT, and it’s a big BUT, chess is a game of two minds and I don’t mean split-personalities. White reasons that since Black had to play 0-0 (leaving his King in the middle is too risky), f5 stops Ng6 and allows a later advance to f6 opening lines after castling. This has happened not a few times in my Vienna games. Black is in difficulties if he takes on f4 because he develops White’s game, or he is in trouble after an f5.

10 ........d5

The natural response to weaken the White Pawn chain.

11. Be2 d4?!

Lets the pressure down, but 11. dxe4 dxe4 is also good for White.

12. Bd2 Nc1

He is feeling the pinch.

13. 0-0 Nd6
14. Qe1

Where is this lady going with her flashing sword and murder in her eyes?

14 ........Kh8

He doesn’t like the look of that fearsome woman.

15. Qg3 f6

It is hard to suggest any good moves for Black. White’s attack plays itself.

16. Nh4!

I was having incomplete flashes of a combination streaming through my mind.

16 ...........Qe7?

And in time-trouble, which is the essence of blitz play, Tom makes room for the combination happen.

17. Ng6+! hxg6
18. Qh4+ Kg8
19. fxg6 Resigns

It is mate in two. Black has been punished for not taking the f-Pawn earlier.

I wish I could play like this in normal time-control chess, but on the other hand, an opponent’s mistakes would not be happening either.

Remember the f4/f5 push because it is useful in many similar situations. Once I played it I knew I would win the game.

Eraclides versus the Masters ~ Part 3 Not Slam-Dunked by Craig Laird

2006-11-17T23:28:00.000-08:00

Hi Pilgrims,

In 1994 and 1995 my partner Vivien and I went on chess holidays to Norfolk Island. At that time and for a while after, the Norfolk Island Chess Club used to host a chess tournament every year for players rated below 1600. It was aimed at attracting average players from the mainland of Oz who would like to combine a holiday package tour with some chess competition.

It was absolutely terrific, but we could only afford to go for two years, 1994 and 1995. You flew out of Sydney and the accomodation, tours and ‘chess-fun’ was organised for you.

Vivien I am sorry to say, does not play chess, (she is chessically challenged) although she understands what a wonderful game it is, with its rich history (which I have bored her with) and colourful personalities (like me). We had a wonderful time touring the island and learning about its history. Made friends, dined out, basically had a ball. As this is a chess blog, I shall stick to the royal game, although I want you to realize that a chess tournament, accompanied by glorious sights, conversation, fine food, and wine, is a jolly good thing.

International Master Terrey Shaw and FIDE Master Craig Laird were the chess organisers. They gave lectures, organised competitions such as problem solving, and gave simultaneous exhibitions. There were two tournaments: A lightning event (five minutes on each clock; all play all) and a major tournament (normal time). In 1994 I came second in the lightning and the major tourney and I was referred to as ‘George the Second’. In 1995 I won the lightning but still came second in the major event. Everybody received some kind of prize at the tournament dinner, however humble their performance.

In the future I will post some games from these events.

What was of the greatest benefit, were the lectures and tutoring from Terrey and Craig. You could spend months pouring over a chess manual and not gain the insights which one lesson from these teachers can give you. It demonstrates the importance of a good teacher, who can point out the essentials in the learning process.

For instance, in the final round of the major in 1994 I had a winnable ending and only needed a draw. But being the lummox that I am, I lost the game. Terrey and Craig pointed out to me in an impromptu lesson the next day, that I needed to have retained the white squared Bishop which guarded the white squares. Instead I exchanged it and lost in a Rook ending. As they showed me, in the position I had, the squares without pawns on them needed guarding, so my opponents Rook could not penetrate, while my Rook supported the advance of my pawns.

The way they showed me what to do has stayed with me and my endgame play has actually improved. I am no Capablanca or Rubinstein but I am not a bunny in the ending any more, just in the other phases of the game.

Craig gave simuls in 1994 and in 1995. He had played overseas and regularly competed in Australian and State Championships. Both he and Terrey had a droll sense of humour and neither of them had any tickets on themselves among us ordinary players. Terrey had a regular chess column for many years in the The Bulletin - a major news and current affairs magazine in Oz. The low-brows who then ran the magazine saw fit to cancel his column and this was very upsetting to himself and chess fans.

A chess column, as everyone with a scintilla of intelligence knows, is the bench mark for quality in a magazine. I stopped buying the magazine and told as many people as I could. Terrey Shaw passed away sometime later, succumbing to a long illness. I still remember him and the advice he had given me and others. When I ignore his teachings, as I do because I am a fool sometimes, I can imagine him shaking his head while I admonish myself.

His advice, if followed, would eliminate the most obvious errors players like me commit. I shall tell you about his teaching in a future posting.

The point of the Norfolk Island tournaments was to have fun, play some good chess, and improve your standard of play. I played in the simuls in both 1994 (lost via an inexcusable blunder - inexcusable even for me!) and 1995. Please note: Simultaneous exhibitions are difficult for Master level players, even against ordinary players. They hate to lose or even draw. Pride is on the line and they also have to think hard and quickly while we try and outfox them.

The game below is from 1995, and I think I played rather well. I was true to my style (of course I have one!) and had Craig worried for quite a while.

Craig Laird (FM) VERSUS George Eraclides (Definitely not FM)

Simultaneous Exhibition at Norfolk Island, 1995

Catalan/Pirc/Kings Indian Hybrid - in other words, irregular

1. d4 Nf6
2. Nf3 g6
3. g3 Bg7
4. Bg2 0-0
5. 0-0 d6
6. Re1 c5?!

Black is trying to play a King’s Indian and White is aiming at a Catalan set up without c4. This is a simul and a few kitchen-sinks are going to be thrown into the mix. I think Laird can play 7. dxc5 because Qa5 8. cxd6 Rd8 doesn’t really do anything much, and 7...dxc5 is passive. But he had a full board of games to worry about and tries to play it cool, hoping to avoid complications. But he is playing Eraclides - the man who can’t even spell complictoains.

7. d5?!

I think he should have either taken the Pawn or played Nc3. Note, that unlike other annotators, I capitalize the ‘P’ in Pawn, out of respect for all life forms, however pathetically humble they are. Craig was also playing quickly, coming around to the boards as fast as he could - a trick of simul players to get us ordinaries to make a blunder or a significant positional concession. Ettiquette dictates that you move as soon as the Master player is in front of your board. Sometimes players are allowed to think a little longer, but in terms of the spirit of the simul, it’s like passing wind during prayers at a requiem mass.

7 .................Bg4!?

This Bishop is often hard to develop in the King’s Indian, so exchanging it for White’s well placed Knight can be a good idea. Note that by playing d5, Craig has blocked the diagonal of his g2 Bishop and opened the diagonal of my own warrior-priest.

8. Nc3 Qd7!?

It may be thought that Nfd7 or Nbd7 would me more normal but I am hatching a little scheme, or if you prefer scheming a little hatch. Besides the complications which arise, Black threatens Bh3 and restrains h3.

9. e4?!

Not sure about this. Logical given White’s sixth move and the difficulty Black will have of getting a Knight to fill the hole at e5, but he self-pins his Queen and further progress in the centre is slowed down.

9 ...............Na6!
10. Bg5

If he plays a4 to prevent Black’s next move, he leaves a gaping hole for the Knight at b4. If he plays a3, Black builds up his Queen side initiative anyway. White’s position is already looking a bit porous and I was relatively satisfied with the way things were going. King’s Indian formations seem to suit my style.

10 ............b5
11. Qd3 c4!
12. Qf1 Bxf3

I need to take the Knight before White has a chance to move it into d4.

13. Bxf3 Nc5

Apart from the risky and silly 6...c5 I have played reasonably well, and now have a promising position. That’s the King’s Indian for you, it’s either very good or very bad - no grey areas.

14. a4 b4!?

Black could play 14...a6, which is safer, sounder, and giving better long term prospects. For instance 15. axb5 axb5 and Black tries Qb7, h6, and possibly Nfd7. If I was a Wiz in the King’s Indian, like Fischer or Kasparov, I could do really clever things with this kind of position. Alas I am only an Eraclides playing quickly in a simul. So I go for more complications.

15. Nb5 a6
16. Nd4!?

Obviously. But wait, Black has been doing a scheming hatch (see note at move 8 above). Okay, okay, I know I’m not Alekhine, and could never seriously claim to foresee so many moves ahead (I often stumble over just the next move), but I was trying to see if you were awake.

16 ...........Nfxe4!?
17. Bxe4 Bxd4
18. Qxc4 Bxb2

Just cleaning up MY DIAGONAL (one gets so possesive in the King’s Indian).

19. Raa2 Bc3

Is it true? I am a Pawn up against a Master and have the initiative as well. It’s the complications what did it. And all the other games Craig had to worry about.

20. Re2 Nxa4
21. Qc6 Qg4!?

This seemed the best at the time but 21...Qxc6 22. dxc6 Nc5 is also interesting. Then 23. c7 (23. Bxe7 Rfe8) Nxe4 24. Rxe4 f6! 25. Bc1 with favourable complications for Black after e5 and a Pawn roller. White’s Pawn on c7 is going nowhere fast. I was thinking that if I win this game I should build a shrine to the King’s Indian in my living room.

22. f3 Qxg5
23. Rxa4 Qc1+

This woman is mad I tell you, mad. Stay away from her, she’s on a rampage.

24. Kg2 Bd4
25. Rxb4 Qg1+
26. Kh3

Now what?

26 ...........Rac8!?

Cunning, eh what. If now 27. Qxa6 Qf1+ 28. Kh5 (Kg4, f4+ is a show-stopper) g5+ 29. Kxg5 Be3+ and either he takes the Bishop and loses his Queen, or Black will probably nail the enemy King, e.g. 30. f4 Qh3! or 30. Kg5 Kh8! It’s these complications, so imperfectly presented, which bring a warm inner glow to a player with attacking proclivities. However, puting proclivities aside (which you should, because they are quite heavy to carry for too long), why not just play 26...Qf1+ 27. Rg2 f5!
If 28. Bd3 Qxf3 29. Be2! Qe3! Heavy. He has to lose the exchange.
Or 28. Rxd4 fxe4 29. Rxe4 (fxe4 Rac8 and Rf2 or Rxc2 depending where the Queen goes) Qxf3 with the problem-like threat (I have always wanted to write this) of 30...Qh5+ 31. Rh4 Qf5+ 32. g4 Qf3+ 33. Rg3 Qf1+ 34. Rg2 Rf3++ To prevent all this is hard. For instance 30. Rg4 Qf5 or 30. Rge2 Qf1+ 31. Rg2 (a King move loses as well) Qf5+ or 30. Qc4 Qf5+.
It is all very complicated if you are an ordinary and playing in a simul where players are dropping off. I was almost last around here, so I played quickly. Attacking a Queen can’t be all bad.

27. Qa4

He dare not take the Pawn.

27 ...........Bf2

Threatening Qf1+.

28. Rb1 Qxb1
29. Rxf2 Qb5!

The dust has settled and all the cliches can now go to bed. I am the exchange and Pawn up so I figure to go for simplification, and win by technique. Problem is, I don’t really have any technique. I am also playing a Master and I am now the only player left in the simul. It’s mano-el-mano against a player far better than me, who is unlikely to make any more mistakes. We play very quickly from this point on.

30. Qxb5 axb5
31. Bd3 Rb1
32. Re2 Rfe8
33. f4

He’s doing the best he can with a losing position. It’s a principle of practical chess that you fight as hard as you can, making it difficult for your opponent who may lose heart or make a mistake in the face of your defiance. Craig probably also suspected that I play the endings worse than I do the opening and middle game, because I am such a well rounded player.

33 ............Kf8

Not bad, but why not e6 or e5 and if he doesn’t take then f6?

34. Kg4 h6

I am scared of shadows. If I let the King get to g5 then f6+ and if Kh6 Kf7 and if then Kxh7?? Rh8++

35. h4 e6

Finally, but is it too late?

36. dxe6 Rxe6
37. Rxe6 fxe6
38. Bxg6 Kg7
39. Bd3!

The strategy for White in this ending is to exchange Pawns. Black is vulnerable on the King side and he could conceivably be tricked into letting White get a passed Pawn, which will need blockading. I will then find it hard to get my Queen side Pawns rolling. But I had the glimmer of a plan to win the ending. Combinations again.

39 ..........b4
40. Kf3 b3!?
41. cxb3 Rxb3
42. Ke4 Rxd3!

I saw a win with this little combo Not that I want to brag or anything, but Capablanca won a lot of endings this way.

43. Kxd3 h5!

This boy can play the ending. I read in Capablanca’s ‘Chess Fundamentals’ that this kind of move keeps enemy Pawns back. If you haven’t read Capablanca’s book, you should. It’s the best starting place to learn to play well. Not mine, but The Bot's opinion (Botvinnik).

44. Ke4 Kf6

Surely, if there is a God, or even just a super powerful extraterrestrial watching over the world, Black should win.

45. Ke3 Kf5
46. Kf3 e5??

WRONG PAWN YOU KLUTZ! 46...d5 wins. What kind of a Palooka is this guy?

47. fxe5 dex5

If 47...Kxe5, g4.

48. Ke3 d5

Moron.

49. Kd4 Drawn

49...Kg5 50. Kxe4 Kxg3 51. Kf5 Kxh4 52. Kf4 is a theoretical draw even I know about.

So justice was not done, the world is not a fair place, the supreme comedian of the universe failed to guide my hand to the right Pawn, and the Master player got away with a draw. Don’t give me any of that nonsense about us being responsible for our actions, and therefore because I blundered, the result was fair.

My intellect agrees with you but my emotions do not. Grrrrrrrrrr.

Black is left with all of the agony and none of the ecstacy. Just a few bad cliches for comfort.

Still, from a positive point of view, in future games I learned to take time in the ending. Don’t rush your moves, think before moving. Botvinnik once made the pithy observation that too many players move before they think. It seems obvious that thought should precede movement in chess, but sometimes it takes a genius like The Bot to point it out. I also studied endings more and more and I can now say confidently, that I play the ending better than I play the opening and middle game. That’s encouraging don’t you think? Maybe not.

Oh Caissa, you brazen hussy.......

It’s fun with bluster and bombast ~ the immodest approach to chess annotation

2006-11-15T22:20:00.000-08:00

Hi Pilgrims,

In going over games annotated by today’s Master players I find a distinct lack of personality coming through the annotations. It’s as though a humourless computer has prepared the notes. Maybe that is what happens. Fritz is not noted for having much of a personality.

I miss the bombast, the snide asides at an opponent, the sheer chutzpah of the ‘I am wonderful and I saw it all’. The annotators I like are people such as Nimzovich, Alekhine, Tartakower, Larsen, Fischer, Bronstein, Tal, and of the non-champion level players, Chernev and Reinfeld. You learn something, and you know a human being with a sense of humour, a personality, is behind the notes.

Today’s players seem to have been infected by the computer disease: Think like a computer, play like a computer, annotate like a computer.

At any rate, the following game is annotated in a bombastic style which suits the actual play. An unusual defence and tricky play calls for the old fashioned annotating style.

Older readers should be reminded of some of the writings of past great players, from before the age of computer (uninspired) chess.

J. M. Bruere (2020) VERSUS G. Eraclides (1830)
Correspondence Chess League of Australia Tournament 2603/1997

Reti/b5

1. Nf3 Nf6
2. g3 b5!?

As always we intend to be original and put theory aside as much as possible. White is an experienced player and Life Master of CCLA; Black is a pain in the neck.

3. Bg2 Bb7
4. 0-0 e6
5. d3 c5

Bravely played. If space is there for the taking, and you want to play for a win, then a move like this is necessary.

6. e4 d6

We have assymetry: A solid Kings Indian type of formation for White; Queenside expansion and opportunities for Black.

7. Nbd2 Nbd7
8. Qe2 Qc7

Preventive prophylaxis (and is there any other kind?) against e5, which is a thematic idea for White in this kind of position.

9. c3 Be7
10. d4 a6

Karpov’s idea to stabilize the Queenside; c4 is also possible.

11. Re1 e5!?

Our move to destabilize the game! Black has not yet castled, but is taking measures to prevent White's threat to expand in the centre: 11 ...0-0 12. e5 dxe5 13. dxe5 leaves White with a strong position in the centre. An eye on the centre, and a squint to the flanks - that is the watchword.

12. dxe5

White does not want to lock things up after 12. d5 c4, with Black threatening Nc5/d3, or a long game of maneuvering in blocked conditions. He also reasons that as Black has not yet castled, any opening of the position must favour the more developed side. This is routine, classical thinking, of the year dot. It may be true in symmetrical openings, on which so much of the classical ‘pseudo-thinking’ was based, but with assymetry comes tension. This creative challenge for both players means that concrete analysis is the order of the day.

12 .........dxe5
13. Nh4

Intending Nf5 and/or f4 with a swift mobilization. Black reacts concretely.

13 .........g6

It may look ugly, but beauty, we have always maintained, is to be found in the effectiveness of the move. On the broader canvas on which we think, the assymetry and concrete play of Black has made this an interesting game, avoiding the soporific dangers posed by White's Nf3 opening.

14. Nf1

To unleash the Bishop on c1 to h6 and trap Black's King in the centre. Black replies accordingly, increasing White's frustration and need to think concretely at all times.

14 ......Bf8!?
15. f4 c4

Forget 15 ......exf4? White takes with the g Pawn and then just plays the rest of the game by the numbers. Black prefers a threatening gesture, and lays a deep positional trap for his opponent.

16. Nf3?!

With the Rook on e1 instead of f1, White's coordination is inadequate when Black does not oblige with exf4. If 16 fxe5 Black has Nxe5 (even Qxe5 is possible), 17 Bf4 Qb3+ (17...Be6 allows 18 Bh6/g7) with Nfd7 to follow and the isolated Pawn is blockaded; if now 18 Be3 Bc5 (18...Qc7 19 Bd4 Bc5 is also interesting) and matters are still unclear (Black's prefered strategy in the b5 line); 16 f5 is not strong with the Rook on e1; Black can play Nc5 and Bg7 or Rd8 or 0-0 after Bg7, with matters remaining complicated for both players. White prefers the clearer strategy of reorganizing his forces more effectively, and this gives Black time to act.

16.......Bc5+

Hoping to exchange black square Bishops, and if that does not occur, then following manoeuvre was already calculated as being creatively interesting.

17. Kh1?!

He wants the Bishop for attack on h6 and the weakened black squares, but in the creative complications, something has been overlooked.

17.......Nxe4

When he played 16. Nf3 he blocked the Bg2 diagonal defence of e4, making this charming exchange possible. We formed the impression that our unconventional play was becoming an irritation to White.

18. Be3

There is a danger on f2 if the dancing Knight should land there, so he defends this point first. Black's reply avoids helping White by exchanging.

18 .........0-0
19. Ne5 Rfe8

At this stage we feel rather pleased with our highly original game and can indulge in a positional move even traditionalists can understand.

20. Nxd7 Qxd7

Best. If Rxd7, 21. BxB is good for White (the Re7 is loose), and our preventive strategy cannot allow that.

21. Rad1 Qc7

Not a problem.

22. Qc2

Getting out of the line of the Rook.

22 ..........Bxe3
23. Rxe3 Nc5

Black now indulges his fantasy of being a positional player.

24 Rde1

Note that 24. RxR would simply reinforce Black's pressure on the open central files; 24. BxB QxB+ gives Black the d3 outpost after all the exchanges (as in the game). White hopes to bring his Knight out to defend g2.

24 ...........Rxe3
25. Nxe3

Poor Knight - finally coming back into the game, but on a less than optimum square.

25 .........Nd3!

What an outpost! Only our innate modesty prevents us from assigning this move two exclamation marks. The devious plan, first worked out with 2...b5, now bears fruit.

26. Re2 Bxg2+!
27. Nxg2

Begginers should note that 27. Rxg2 Ne1 wins the house and 27. Kxg2 Qc6+ is unwelcome.

27.........Qc6

A pin, an attack on the white squares, control of the diagonal - it doesn't get better than this.

28. Kg1 Qc5+

The step-wise technique (Troitzky) to acquire more space as we get closer.

29. Kf1 Qd5

If the Knight moves, its Qh1 mate! A triumph of restriction.

30. Kg1 Qc5+

Making up time; White would love a draw.

31. Kf1 Rd8
32. Ne1 Qd5

Threatening mate (not mateship).

33. Kg1 NxN
34. RxN Qd2

It’s time to cash in on on all that positional pressure. Otherwise, ‘What's it all about, Boris?’

35. Re8+

White is aiming to place his Rook as aggressively as possible for this ending, but 35. QxQ RxQ 36. Rb1 or 35. Qb1 Kg7 (or Rd3) are better, although Black is still for choice and to a player of our level, the win is a matter of technique.

35 ..........Kg7
36. Qxd2 Rxd2
37. Ra8 Rxb2
38. Rxa6 b4!!

Ka-Pow! This is the move White missed.

39 cxb4 c3!

White Resigns. 40 Rc6 c2 and it is over.
Thank you linesmen, thank you ball-boys.

We were pleased to win in the fashion that we did, demonstrating the soundness of our philosophy.

If a player can use the principle of ‘creative randomisation’, taking the game out of the natural flow which the opponent expects, then there are plenty of winning chances for both players.

The games of the pseudo-classical period (1885 to 1938) looked so impressive (Steinitz, Tarrasch, Rubinstein, etc...) because White was allowed to play symmetrical positions where the best Black could hope for was equality. The stale technique of these great players was such that Black was doomed if he made a slight error in position. As our modern praxis shows, asymmetry and a drop of chaos can do wonders for Black's game and the cause of chess as a spectacle.

Our ideas, which have hypermodernized the sterile play of the past, rarely lead to characterless equality.

PS
I want to acknowledge all the great players of the past whose phrases I have purloined, especially the great Aron Nimzovich.

Eraclides versus the Masters Part 2 ~ Slam-Dunked by Greg Hjorth

2006-11-04T20:57:00.000-08:00

Hi Pilgrims,

Here is another game against a master level player. This time it’s against International Master Greg Hjorth.

When I played him in 1986, he was quite young, still a student at University, and already a very strong player. He had represented Australia in youth tournaments and was rated in the top three or four players in the country.

Greg had, and probably still has, a very relaxed style. He never seems to rush his moves, which seem simple and direct. Invariably they are positionally sound, particularly when contrasted to a player at my level. Somehow, during the course of a game, his opponents seem to self destruct and that’s exactly what I did in the game below.

In a lot of open tournaments, they use what is called an ‘accelerated draw’ when matching players. Someone rules a line through the median point of chess players listed by rating level; who-plays-whom in the first two rounds is determined by the principle of matching the top-half (the strongest players) against the bottom-half (the weaker players). The idea is to get the strongest players out in front so they can then be matched or paired in further rounds by points scored as well as ratings.

The assumption is that the strongest players will most likely win their first two round games and form a glamorous subgroup within the general tournament participants, the rest of us ‘hoi poloi’. Great for the onlookers, not so good if you are in the bottom half of the draw, because you end up on minus two points before you get to play someone remotely close to your rating level. Sometimes a weak player manages to get a point or two and join the elite group in the tourney, but most times he or she just gets hammered. And to think you paid to enter the tournament!

As you can tell, I was invariably in the bottom half and generally went into the third round on minus two.

So, in this tournament, in the first round, I was matched against the number one player of the top-half, International Master Greg Hjorth. He was rated 2390. I was rated 1471. I have to confess, that if the fascists who organise such tourneys select a strong player for me to play, I would rather it was someone really strong and even famous. Then I could say I was beaten by somebody, rather than another nobody who just happens to be a few rating points on the other half of the dividing line. And maybe I could learn something. Was I nervous? Not really. What’s wrong with conceding 900 rating points in a slam-bang weekender?

What was the first thing I learned in playing against this level of opponent? One of the characteristics of Greg’s play was speed. He played very quickly, and not just against a bunny like me, but against anyone. He knew intuitively the right squares to place his pawns and pieces. One of the dangers you face against someone much faster than you is being tempted to speed up your play to match theirs. Don’t do it!

In order to avoid falling in with your opponent’s speed of play, you may need the willpower of a Botvinnik. The old Bot was definitely on the slow side in playing speed, and even avoided lightning games with the lame excuse that it would make him superficial in normal time games. I think he just did not fancy getting duffed up by lesser players who could play quickly.

I know it’s hard, but you must MAINTAIN YOUR NATURAL PLAYING TEMPO. Sorry to shout, but the point has to be made. You must not speed up. Equally important, you must not slow down too much in compensation or to get your nerves under control. If you have a way of playing which gets you good results and manages the clock effectively, then try and stick to it. Ignore the clock pounder on the other side.

To underscore this point, here’s a story about what happened to me in a club game. I once faced a schmuck who played a normal time game at blitz speed. He would slam down the pieces after his moves, belt the clock, and glare at me while I thought. I was less experienced back then and should have given him The Three Stooges ‘two-fingered eye poke’, for daring to disturb my strategic ruminations. You can probably tell I did not like this schmuck, I mean fellow. I concentrated on my play and slowed right down to annoy him in return. You want speed? I’ll give you glacial slowness and hope your arteries are hardening. Alas I overcompensated. I slowed down too much, and although I got ahead in material and had a winning position, I lost on time. So I became the schmuck in the end.

Greg Hjorth was a very fast player, but throughout our game he was polite and a fine sportsman. He did not even get up disdainfully from the board, although I am sure he was often bored as I tried to get my fossilized neurons to synapse with each other. I played too quickly at the start of the game and then slowed right down when I saw I had made things difficult for myself. I managed to play reasonably well and could have done a lot better but by then I was in my all too familiar time trouble. I went from too fast to dead slow.

When I arrived at the table, Greg Hjorth was already sitting down, reading a book on philosophy. He was demure, soft featured, with an ersatz pageboy haircut. He looked very young. We shook hands, and I resisted the temptation to improve my playing chances by dislocating his shoulder. I’m not that kind of player.

He noted my surname and asked whether it bore any relationship to the surname of the ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus. Coincidentally, I had an honours degree in philosophy, and was able to explain to the young master that my surname was of Greek-Cypriot origin and meant ‘son of Hercules’. You know how we Greeks love our classical heritage, and wasn’t the old Hercules some kind of philosopher as well? At any rate, I lacked both my namesake’s physical and chess playing strength. You didn’t know Hercules played chess? Let me set you straight, the ancient Greeks invented chess, or rather their mythical heroes did. The Trojan War as recounted by Homer, was actually just an allegorical account of the great chess match between the top clubs of Mycenae and Troy. At stake was which club would get Helen - an indifferent player with great knockers. Even back then, it was hard to get women to join chess clubs.

Greg Hjorth is now a mathematics professor somewhere in the United States, I think in California, and plays in chess tournaments in the USA. If you’re reading this Greg, ‘Hi from Oz’, and while Eraclides is not a lineal descendant of Heraclitus, the Eraclides playing style may suggest some kind of connection. It’s all those disconnected fragments that fall short of coherence.

Victorian Chess Association Daylight Weekender March 14 to 16, 1986

Greg Hjorth IM (2390) VERSUS George Eraclides (1471)

1. Nf3 e6!?
2. g3 Nc6?!

Hjorth used to play the Catalan formation against almost anything. I was trying to get out of the books early and although my moves look odd, the position I reach is not as bad as it looks. Thank you Nimzovich.

3. Bg2 d5
4. 0-0 Nf6
5. d4 Be7
6. c4 0-0
7. b3 b6
8. Nc3 Bb2

Seems pointless, as Hjorth now just closes the diagonal, but how do you develop the Queen’s Bishop otherwise in this position? Or maybe it’s all about overprotecting d5. Thank you Nimzovich.

9. cxd5 exd5
10. Bg5 Ne4

Best under the circumstances. An outpost. Thank you Nimzovich.

11. Bxe7 Nxe7

At least Black is trying to play actively instead of just sitting back waiting for the master player to unleash his genius.

12. Qc2 Nxc3?!

Hjorth does not want to ‘release’ the b7 Bishop’s diagonal by exchanging on e4 but did Black have to capture on c3? A clamp on the centre may have been tried with 12...f5. I let Nimzovich down by turning away from central ideas.

13. Qxc3 Nf5?

Hjorth is going to pummel my c7 so why didn’t I try Rac8 intending c5, or even Ng6? I was playing too fast for my own good (see introductory warnings above).

14. Ne5 Qd6
15. Rac1 f6?!

We now get a series of exchanges and I start to play too slowly because of the complications my play had generated. I lose a Pawn and get into my regular time trouble (see introductory warnings above).

16. Qxc7 Qxc7
17. Rxc7 fxe5
18. Rxb7 Nxd4
19. Bxd5+ Kh8
20. e3

The discovered skewer of the Rook at a8 leads to nought.

20..............Rad8
21. Be4!?

If 21. e4 Nf3+ Black can play his Rook to f6 and perhaps generate counterplay.

21..............Nk7+
22. Kg2!?

He wants to be nearer the centre for the ending and also avoid a back rank check at some stage. See notes at move 26 below.

22................Nc3
23. Bf3 Nxa2

I could have tried e4 but after Bg4 I could not see a clear and strong line. In time trouble I play the check.

24. Rxa7 Rd2
25. Rd1 Rb2?!

I was nervous about the possibilities of a back rank mate but 25...Rxd1
26. Bxd1 Nc3 was better, although the Knight’s flightiness will not prevent a lost ending.

26. Rc7

What was it Nimzovich said about the seventh rank? Absolutely fabulous. Could I now have played 26...Rxb3? If I move my Rook from it’s seventh rank and a possible double attack on f2, Hjorth plays 27. Rdd7.

26 .............Re1?

So I oblige with a silly move in time trouble. Instead 26...e4 was worth a try:
27. Bxe4 Rfxf2+ 28. Kh3 Rxh2+ 29. Kg4 h5+ 30. Kg5 Rhd2 is a more noble way to go down.

27. Rdd7 e4?

In time trouble I thought I still had my Rook on f8. Daft play with more daftness to come as I get slammed for the count.

28. Bxe4 Rg8
29. Bd5 h3
30. Rxg7! Rxg7
31. Rc8+ Kh2
32. Be4+ Rg6
33. Rc7+ Kg1
34. Bxg6 Rxb3??
35. Bf7+ Resigns

Black saves his best move for last. Goodnight Irene.

If I had a little more time at the end or used a bit more time at the start - in other words played to my own tempo - perhaps I could have done more with a reasonable position (see note at move 12).

But equally, if I was a good player, or played at master level, or if the sea breezes had not irritated my sinuses (the Tarrasch excuse for losing to Lasker) then I would not have lost.

In the counterfactual world where ‘maybe’ is reality, we are all world champions. Hooray!

Shock and Awe with the Vienna Gambit

2006-10-20T01:23:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,

Here is a temporary break from the indignity of my getting thrashed by master level players, in the shape of another Vienna where I, and hopefully your good self, get to have some fun.

Recall if you will, the charms of Vienna. It has nothing to do with the modern city of Vienna. We have to go back to a seedier time; when the human dregs of the dying Austro-Hungarian Empire drifted through the city; when bohemians (ethnic or in lifestyle) played chess in coffee houses; when Steinitz was the past champion of the world, Tarrasch the great teacher, Lasker and Capablanca the colossi of the moment, and only Rudolf Spielmann was flying the lone flag of romanticism in the face of scientific chess.

In the end even Spielmann fell by the wayside as he also took up the scientific way of playing, albeit in the style of the so-called neo-romanticism of Nimzovich. But it wasn’t the old rock and roll that was playing. True romantic chess was as dead as the imagination of a player of the Queen's Gambit.

You don’t always have to play scientifically. Life is short, so don't die wondering. You can put a little adventure in your life by playing the Vienna Gambit.

Anyway, the Vienna has a science of it's own if the truth be told. But what an enjoyable way to be scientific. Just let the orchestra play those waltzes. Bring out the pieces and the champagne and let's have at it.

The following game is part of a series of Vienna’s played over 25 years by correspondence chess, email, and across the board (see previous posting 'The Vienna Gambit ~ more tricks than a dog has fleas'). I have always relied on the Vienna - especially it's wilder scion, the Vienna Gambit. And why not? It's fun; it's sound; people think it's rubbish and don’t study it; and therefore, it wins.

Apart from Spielmann, essentially a spirit of the 19th Century, the only other modern players to have tried it have been (in order of playing strength) Spassky, Larsen, and Harding. The latter wrote a wonderful monograph on the Vienna (and the Bishop's Opening) and I would urge you to find a copy and start reviving your stale chess repertoire, before you get told to play chess. Do you really want to be known in the nursing home as a player who once played quiet, positional chess, or would you rather be known as a rakish, bold, gambiteer?

Do it now. Your wives and children will thank you for it. At the carrot eater level of play - somewhere around 1600 and below, I am the only person I know of who plays it regularly if given a chance. I have done so since the 1970's; even in the so-called ‘ultra accurate’ world of correspondence chess I have done well with it. More importantly, I have had fun with it.

In the absence of any other player of note, or another average oik like me willing to stick his furry neck out, the following game will have to suffice as an ersatz tribute to the Vienna.

Hope you have some fun playing over this latest offering.

Played by correspondence in the 4-2 Tournament 2570, 1996/97 of the Correspondence Chess League of Australia.

This game received only a runner-up award for ‘best game with sacrifice’ in 1997. I thought it was better than the competition, but then I would, wouldn’t I?

George Eraclides Versus M. S. Schmidt
Vienna Gambit

1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. f4 d5
4. fxe5 Nxe4
5. d3

The Oxford Variation - the thinking players gambit line. Other variations start with Nf3 or even Qf3!?

5. .........Nxc3
6. bxc3 d4

Black tries to stop White from building a strong centre with d4 and Bd3. So far we are playing by the numbers.

7. Nf3 Nc6

The other main line is 7 ...c5; 8 Be2 but that's another story.

It’s time now to reflect upon the general idea of the Vienna and in particular, it's sly and seedier relation, the Vienna Gambit. It begins seemingly without passion or threat with 2 Nc3; a move many annotators have denigrated in their ignorance. However, that move is only a feint. Matters become feral very quickly after 3 f4! If Black is not careful and naively believes what the Opening's hacks tell him, he will very quickly become the victim of a whirlwind attack. Of the relative moderns, Spassky and Larsen have bludgeoned opponents to death with this opening. One awaits a further spiritual awakening among players like Kasparov, Shirov, Short, Morozevich, and other neo-romantic attacking players - what a wonderful surprise weapon it would make in their hands.

8. cxd4 Bb4+

This is better than the immediate 8 ...Nxd4. First some pieces are exchanged and Black is ready to castle.

9. Bd2 Bxd2+
10. Qxd2 Nxd4

According to the collected wisdom to date, White is supposed to play 11. c3 next. That’s the line given by Harding in his classic work ‘The Vienna Opening’ published by Batsford in 1976. Older players whose chess has become stale should try and get a copy - it’s Viagra for chess. My impression of the analysis hereabouts revealed only a relatively bleak landscape, where Black upsets White's pawns (11...Nxf3), develops apace, and White is left scowling and thinking ‘Is that all there is?’ So I tried something new and impulsive.

11. 0-0-0!? (TN)

This appears not to have been seriously attempted before. No doubt because it seems so obviously a stupid move. No one with a modicum of chess talent would bother with 11. 0-0-0. Given that my chess talent is ‘negligible-to-the-vanishing-point’, I seriously examined and then played this theoretical novelty (TN). It exposes the White King somewhat, but it also forces Black to play on his or her own terms in what is a very complicated position. The Queen's Rook is swiftly centralised, and any attack by Black will increase the quanta of complexity to chaotic proportions. Meanwhile passivity by either side will be met with swift retribution, for instance White can work up an attack on any part of the board. Those are the objective reasons for playing this move. The other important reason is that no one with any brains would play this way!

11 .........Be6!?

The possibilities here are, of course, practically endless, each unleashing a totally different chain of complicated play:
11...Bg4 and White has:
12. Qe3 or 12. Qb4 or 12. Qf2 or 12. Qc3 or even 12. Qf4; Black can be hit with c3 if he does not exchange; after 11...0-0 we have 12. c3 or 12. h4 - what complicated fun. Black decides not to sit on his hands and gets on with it; he now has Bxa2, Qd7 and 0-0-0 as serious options.

12. Qe3!?

Also possible was:
12. Qb4 Nxf3
13. gxf3 Qc8 (or Rb8)
14. Rg1
or
13.......Qg5+
14. f4
and the world is still a very dangerous place. With 12. Qe3 I wanted to force an exchange and open lines for the King's Rook, in order to attack the kingside.

12 .........Nxf3

Black obliges White. 12...Nf5 was perhaps safer, with one line 13. Qe4 and if 13...Qd5 white can try for the ending after 14. Qxd5 Bxd5; 15. Kb2 but
15. c4?! Bxf3; 16. gxf3 Nxd4 seems good for Black; also possible is the riskier 14. Qa4+. Every line seems to be unclear.

13. gxf3

It is important to keep the White Queen on this black diagonal (13. Qxf3 Qg5+), where she also threatens a7 restricting the opponents options. Notice that White is poised to play moves like Rg1, Bg2, or d4 depending on Black’s actions. My opponents lack of development and White’s piece placement will soon start to tell. In particular, Black’s Rooks remain frustrated onlookers.

13 ...........Qe7

A cautious move, making possible O-O-O at some future time and threatening to check on a3. White has offered a speculative Pawn sacrifice for development, which is temporarily declined. Pity the humble infantry, always singled out for sacrifice.

14. Rg1

Again offering the a2 pikeman in return for time to attack.

14 ............O-O

Black is reacting to the accumulating threats by simple but inappropriate development. This is an example of the clash between routine thinking (development must take place in the opening) and the needs of the actual position. He wants to take the offered Pawn and mix it with White, while also achieving the requisite level of development so he can feel safe - desires which are basically incompatible. Perhaps 14...Qa3+; 15. Kd2 O-O-O; 16. f4 was better. If 14...O-O-O immediately, the a7 and g7 pawns are loose, while 14...g6; 15. d4 stops any a3 Queen check. White is unafraid of a few checks on his King as the sequel shows, and in the meantime thereis a definite target of royal proportions for his aggressively inclined pieces.

15. d4

Stopping the a3+ and planning to develop the Bishop on d3, from where he will menace the opponent’s King-side while also defending c2.

15 .........Bxa2

Finally - but what a time to go Pawn-grabbing. I should mention that the White a2 Pawn left the board with a very sullen expression directed at his King. Perhaps it was not too late for Black to play 15...c6 or even 15...Bf5.

16. Bd3

All kinds of combinative visions swam before my eyes but I lacked the ability or the organizing skills to place them in any coherent order. I thought it was best not to rush, as now the Bishop eyes h7, the Rook g7, and the White centre is made more secure. I was concerned at the lack of a dashing Knight (so complementary to a Queen, with perhaps a little dalliance on the side), but the pious Bishop would do. Notice that 16. Qh6 is superficial and bad; Black plays 16...Qa3+ spoiling the fun.

16 ...........Rad8

Now that he has ‘won’ a Pawn Black tries to consolidate by restricting the White centre and lining up on the King. But too much time has been lost. 16...f6 allows 17. Qh6 now that the Bishop has been played to d3.

17. Rg5

Intending either Rh5 or Rdg1 depending on Black’s reply.
I thought that 17. Rxg7+ was a flamboyant gesture which just fails. I was not concerned about Queen checks, believing in Steinitz’s dictum that the King is a strong piece and can look after itself while Black wastes time.

17 ...........f6

If 17...h6; 18. Rxg7+ is decisive after 18...Kxg7; 19. Rg1+
Interesting is 17...Qa3+; 18. Kd2 Qb4+; 19. Ke2 transposing to similar themes as in the actual game below.

18. Rh5 g6

I thought a better chance was 18...Kf7 but 19. Rxh7 Rg8; 20. Rg1 (or Bg6+) threatening 21. Bg6 keeps the initiative with a Medieval ‘hack and slash’ in prospect. If 18...Qa3+; 19. Kd2 Qb4+; 20. Ke2 Qd4 (or Rxd4); 21. Bh7+ wins.

19. Rg1 Qa3+

Hoping the checks will stop some of the relentless pressure.

20. Kd1!

If 20. Kd2 Qb4+ and White must play 21. c3 or alose a Pawn and the game.

20 ............Bd5!

Black has to do something to meet White’s smorgasboard of threats, including the brutal Rxg7+ or Rxh7 with a final, deadly, embrace to come. The move played is relatively best and ‘threatens’ the Rook at g1, but White has anticipated this position and is prepared for more sacrifices.

21. Rxh7! Bxf3+
22. Qxf3 Qxa1+
23. Ke2!

The best square as will soon become evident.

23 ...........Qxg1

It looks as though Black has saved his game, but...

24. Qh3!

The immediate threat is Bc4+ and checkmate to follow soon after. Notice that Black has no useful checks at all with the White King on e2.

24 ...........c6

Despair. If 24...Rd7; 25. Bc4+ wins.
If 24...Rf7; 25. Rh8+ Kg7; 26. Qh6/h7++
If 24...Qxd4; 25. Rh8+ Kf7; 26. Bg6+! Ke7; 27. Rh7+ Rf7; 28. Rxf7+
If 24...Rxd4; 25. Bc4+! Rxc4; Rh8+ Kf7; 27. Qd7++
If 24...Rd5 then simply 25. Rxh8+ and 26. Qh7+ or even the piquant 25. e6!
Could the soul of the humble Pikeman at a2 become reborn at e5 I wonder?

25. Bc4+ Rd5
26. Rh8+ Resigns

If 26...Kg7; 27. Qh7 brings down the curtain. Similarly after 26...Kf7; 27. Qd7++

You can see what fun the Vienna has been for me over the years, and how I regret not being able to play it more often.

Eraclides versus the Masters Part 1 ~ Slam Dunked by Ian Rogers

2006-10-13T22:11:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,

Sometimes an average player can have the opportunity to play against some of the world’s best players. In Melbourne I was fortunate to watch world champions, such as Spassky and Karpov, give simultaneous diplays. Spassky delighted everybody with his play, good grace and manners.

Karpov received a standing ovation when he entered the auditorium to play, because he had just drawn the 1987 world title match with the rampaging Kasparov. The audience knew that Karpov would never be as good as he had been while world champion, but they admired his fighting spirit, the way he drew and almost won that match. For that period of time, they considered him co-equal champion with Kasparov.

Usually only a celebrity or club champion would be nominated to play in a simultaneous exhibition. For instance the great Australian Rules footballer Ron Barrassi got to play against Spassky (Barrassi lost), and the club champion of my chess club, Essendon, Alex Lemesz (ex Latvia, rated over 2100) played against both Spassky and Karpov. He drew both games with his trusty Modern Defence. It is interesting that Alex was into his late 60’s and early 70’s when he played these titans, which gives you some idea how strong a player he was in his day.

I have been lucky enough to play against a master, international master and a grandmaster. I would like to say that I gave them a few scares (I glared at them over the board - I am almost big, and mean looking, although I am really a gentle, caring person), but in the end their damnable talent won the day.

However, I did not lose quickly, the games were interesting, and for any fellow carrot-eaters, highly instructive. All the games illustrated the ability of the master player to keep to a minimum any errors during the game, take advantage of opponent errors, and demonstrate excellent technique. They also show the different styles of these players. One combinative, one effortless, one complicated.

Among the next few Blog postings, I will show you these games, begining this posting with a Grandmaster, then at some future time my games against an International Master, and finally a Master player.

The first game is against the Australian International Grandmaster, Ian Rogers. It was played in 1981 at a simul I helped organise at my then chess club in Glenroy (Melbourne, Australia). Ian was rated at 2440 which was about 100 points below his real strength. In those days, players from Oz were underated compared to their international counterparts. The reason was that our players did not get many chances to play in overseas tournaments, but visiting ‘big name players’ from overseas usually got a hiding from local strong players if they made the mistake of underestimating their ability based on a dubious rating.

Ian was then about 19 or 20 and was studying Meterological Sciences at the University of Melbourne. I was 28 and the Secretary of the Glenroy Chess Club, an amateur outfit for which we were trying to get publicity in the hopes of increasing membership. We met every Thursday evening at the Glenroy Public Library, and apart from me, most of the players were East Europeans who had come out to Oz as refugees after WWII. Our collective style of play is best described as mad coffee-house.

I collected Ian from his home at Malvern and remember discussing the ideas of Nimzovich with him. I had just discovered Nimzo (I told you I was a late starter - see the first few Blog postings) and was hoping some of his ideas would soak through my cranium and into the grey matter (I’m still waiting). But for Ian, it was all terribly old hat. He had been playing at such a high level for years, that the ideas of Nimzo were kind of obvious and kind of boring.

Ian had a party trick he used to do when playing a simul. He was a very good draughts player, and would play young kids at draughts, while playing chess against the rest of the bunnys with his back to the chess boards. In effect without sight of the board and the moves called out to him. In the present simul, he just played chess.

The game he played against me is a Sicilian, and it was wild, as befits his style and to some extent my own.

Ian Rogers (GM 2440) VERSUS George Eraclides
(My Bunny rating was: Too embarassing to mention)

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 g6

You’re kidding right? George is going to play a Dragon against Ian Rogers. the Sicilian is bad enough, but a Dragon? Someone get a psychiatrist.

6. Be3 Bg7
7. f3

The Yugoslav Attack, the strongest against the Dragon.
But is George afraid? Is he?

7 .........0-0

Oh well, about here was the end of what I could remember of opening theory. How about Ian?

8. Qd2 Nc6
9. 0-0-0 Bd7

I was not sure if I was doing the right thing, but I had a secret advantage. Ian had no real idea how strong or weak I was as a player. After all I was playing the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian, which only experienced, tough competitors (like Larsen) would play. So could George be secretly Danish?

10. g4

I knew with this move White was about to go for Black’s throat, so I decided to try something daring myself.

10 ...........Nxd4!?
11. Bxd4 Bc6

Looks like a good position for the Bishop, with the possibility of some future
threats. The Sicilian is after all a ‘fighting defence’, according to the openings hacks, but I suspect that just means you go down fighting. But you still go down.

12. Kb1

Getting his King into safety. Has Black scared White with his profound 11th move, or is Ian just having a yawn?

12 .........Qa5

Black is still trying to develop some counterplay, and hatches a little aggressive plan.

13. h4 b5!?

Goodness me, this is going to be a savage little game.
Mother’s please take the children away.

14. h5 b4
15. Nd5 Bxd5

I did not want to give up my g7 Bishop, because I was hoping to use his holyness in some kind of attack. Why else fianchetto in a Sicilian?

16. exd5 Qxd5

I win a Pawn against a Grandmaster - temporarily. Should I go for a win based on pure technique?

17. hxg6 fxg6

I know that in general you should capture towards the centre, but I felt that my King’s position would be too drafty on the h-file. Plus I wanted my Rook to have a chance to land a few blows on the f-file.

18. Qxb4 Qxf3
19. Bc4+

Ooops. Things are looking crook in Tootgarook.

19 ...........d5

Take that, you insufferable prelate!

20. Ba6

Note that Bb3 gives up the important diagonal a6/f1 which Ian wants to control.

20 ...........Qxg4
21. Qxe7 Rfe8
22. Qc7!

The White Witch is going to hang onto that seventh rank.

22 ............Qe6

I read somewhere that centralization was a good thing.

23. Bb7!? Re7!?

Touch my Rook and the Queen-Witch is history.

24. Qxe7!?

Don’t you hate it when they call your bluff? Okay, White had to do something, because swapping Queens is kind of bland when you are a Grandmaster playing a windbag.

24 ...........Qxe7
25. Bxa8 Qd7?!

I had trouble deciding what to do in the time available. I was the last player left and as honour demands in a simul, had to play reasonably quickly. Maybe h5 was better and if Bxf6 Qxg6 threatens something.

26. Bxf6 Bxf6
27. Bxd5+

Now I am losing. Did I have a chance to save this game? Could a halfway decent player have done better? Your task, dear reader, is to go back and play over the critical phases of this somewhat complicated game, and see if you could have improved on my play against the Grandmaster. I suggest you do not have an onerous task.

27 ...........Kg7??

What a Gazoo! Kf8 is better, but Black still loses.

28. Rxh7+!

Good players are so much better than the rest of us at seeing the simple, obvious tactics, most of the time. I have often gone into esoteric lines of thought only to be tumbled by simple tactics. That’s the definition of a Gazoo, in case you were wondering: Not seeing the obvious because of the pursuit of the esoteric and complicated. Unlike a dunce who is not capable of any substantial thought.

28 ...........Kxh7
29. Bg8+ Kxg8

It’s all over red rover.

30. Rxd7 g5
31. Rxa7 g4
32. Ra4 Resigns

The late Australian International Master and great human being, Terrey Shaw, once told me during a lecture, that the ordinary player would do better to study endings and tactical themes. Improving your tactical sight of the board, through pattern recognition, is far better than trying to study the openings all the time. So you would do better to work your way through ‘Play to win’ tactical or endgame exercises rather than loading up your memory with opening lines. Rogers has also said that chess is mostly tactics, so you would do well to try and master tactics.

The Vienna Gambit ~ more threats than a dog has fleas

2006-09-05T17:26:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,

What is it about Vienna which raises so many exciting mental associations? Is it the fact the Ottomans were stopped at the gates of Vienna, thus saving Western Europe? Is it the Blue Danube and Strauss Waltzes? Could it be the excellent movie ‘The Third Man’, starring Awesome Welles as Harry Lime, with Joseph Cotten as the writer of westerns trying to convince a reading circle of his literary credentials? Could it be Alida Valli in the same movie? All that Zither music?

Maybe it’s the coffee-houses and chess. Steinitz honed his skills in Vienna. It was also the home of the antithesis of close, positional chess, of ‘The Last Knight of the King’s Gambit’, Rudolph Spielmann. If you ever get a chance to get a copy of Spielmann’s best games, do so, and enjoy some scintillating chess. You will encounter many fine attacks and combinations, and not a few Vienna Games.

Also inspirational were Tim Harding’s book ‘The Vienna Opening’, published by Batsford in 1976, as well as the chapter on ‘Other King-side open games’ in Barden and Harding’s book ‘The Batsford Guide to Chess Openings’ also published in 1976. If you can find copies of these old books, add them to your collection. They may be old theory, but if like me you are an ordinary club player, you will find much that is still good for you to use.

I took up the Vienna, because I like the way it misleads an opponent through suggested passivity combined with positional soundness. The move 2. Nc3 while good, seems to lack punch. Black is led to believe this by the so-called ‘experts’, who ply their trade with dreary close games or with the overrated Ruy Lopez. Black supposes he or she will have an easy time of it in the Vienna, but then comes a powerful attacking game after White has developed (the normal Vienna Game) or an attack almost immediately, with the Vienna Gambit.

It’s said by the ‘coffee-house’ style players here in Kinglake where I live, that while the Vienna Game is very good, real men play the Vienna Gambit.

George Eraclides VERSUS B. K. Tope

Correspondence Chess League of Australia 7-Player Tournament 1983/84

This game was nominated for a prize in the category of ‘Best Played Game with Sacrifice’ in 1984. It came second.

Vienna Gambit

1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. f4 d5

3...exf4 4. e5 is a very good gambit for White after the following
plausible moves:
4...Qe7
5. Qe2 Ng8
6. d4 with a strong initiative as long as White does not overeach.

4. fxe5 Nxe4
5. Nf3

Here 5. d3 is a major alternative which I have played to advantage (see
future Vienna postings).

5. ...........Bc5

The alternatives are numerous: Bg4, Bf5, Bb4, Be7 (common and safe), Nc6,
and Nxc3 all of them producing lively games if played with a will to fight.

6. Qe2

This is the sharpest alternative. Other lines lead to equality, for instance:
6. d4 Bb4
7. Bd2 Nxd2
8. Qxd2 Nc6
9. Bd3 Bg4
If 6. d3 Bf2+ and NxN+

6. ...............Bf2+

If 6...Nf2 7. d4 Nxh1 8. dxc5 and the h1 Knight will also fall; Nxc3 leads to
no appreciable improvement for Black; interesting is Larsen’s idea (now
there was a player who thought outside the opening’s square!) after 6...Bf5
7. Nd1 d5 8. g4 Bg6 9. Bg2.

7. Kd1 Nxc3+
8. dxc3

8. bxc3 is solid but slow in developing White’s game.

8 ..............Bc5!?

8...Bb6 is safer, as the later progress of the game shows.

9. Qb5+! Nd7
10. Bg5 c3!?

Theory has been left behind by the two players; 10...Be7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7
12. Qxd5 is Pachman’s analysis.

11. Qe2

Neither 11. Qxc5 or 11. Bxd8 appealed to me. Apart from some temporary
disruption to the position, there is no long-term crusher. The move played
keeps things complicated.

11 .............Be7
12. e6!?

This adds to the complications Black has to deal with.

12 .............Nf6!?

Black becomes disoriented by the ‘quiet complications’. By that I mean
situations where there is no thicket of variations but a strategic
complexity, where if one player goes astray then there may arise forceful
lines leading to a loss of the game. No clear cut strategy presents itself yet
there are no forcing lines. At times like these one needs the practical
wisdom of Lasker, and his art of doing nothing much and doing it very
well. Possible and even reasonable was 12...fxe6 13. Qxe6 with Nc5 or Nf6
to come. The position is unclear, because after White plays Qe3, Black has
control of e4 and can play his Knight there. Perhaps White has the better
long term prospects anyway. Now White compromises Black’s King side.

13. exf7+ Kxf7 (Kf8?!)
14. Ne5+ Kg8

14...Kf8 was possible but understandably, he prefers no to be on the open file.

15. Qf3 Be6
16. Bd3 Qb6

White has built up a menacing position and Black is forced to try and find
counterplay.

17. Kc1 Rf8!?

Defence and threat, but look at how cramped Black’s King-side looks.
White has a threat as well.

18. Qe2 c5

White threatened Ng6, a recurring motif from now on.

19. Re1 Bd8!

Black throws out some poisoned bait; 20. Ng6 is now possible but:
20 ...............hxg6
21. Qxe6+ Qxe6
22. Rxe6 Rxh2 and Black is suddenly showing a fine set of fangs.
White prefers to keep the tension going.

20. c4!

This is my favourite move of the game. I plan to stabilize things in the
centre and Queen-side before striking at Black on the King-side.

20 ...............d4

20...dxc4 21. Nxc4 is jolly nice for White.

21. h3

Because after an eventual Ng6 Black cannot target the h pawn with his Rook following hxg6.

21 ...............Re8

Now Black seems safe (he isn’t) but White continues with his plan initiated
at move 20. It’s a strategy you can try in correspondence chess, but which
would not be easy to do in regular chess with very strict time limits. You
need the extra luxury afforded by correspondence chess to work out a
position thoroughly in order to determine you can execute a plan which will try and place the King in safety on a2 and free up the Ra1 for attack. Black will
suppose he has beaten off the threats (he hasn’t) and perhaps be enticed
into a hostile demonstration. I have never had the time to think so
cunningly in regular chess, where making the time control was urgent
for a slow player like myself. On with the plan.

22. b3 Qb5

He takes the bait, presuming the Black squares are weak (they are not).

23. a4! Ba5

Or White plays Bd2 driving the Queen away and consolidating anyway.

24. Kb2!

Why not? The White King will be perfectly safe on a2 if Qc3+ is played.

24 ............Qb6!

Now a Rook must fall, but all is not as it seems.

25. Bxf6 Rxe1
26. Qh5! Bc3+
If 26...g6, Nxg6 wins; or:
26 ..............gxf6
27. Qxe8+ Kg7
28. Qe7+ Kg1
29. Rxe1 fxe5
30. Rxe5
Notice how safe and snug is the White King and how dynamic his forces.
Black is playing, in effect, with a piece down due to his glum old Rook
locked in the corner.

27. Ka2 Rc8

If Rf8, 28. Bxg7 with more threats than a dog has fleas.

28. Bxg7! Bxa1

Perhaps excessively materialistic, but he was lost anyway. For instance:
28 ..............Kxg7
29. Qg5+ Kf8
30. Rf1+ Ke1
31. Qf6 Rg8 (still glum)
32. Bxh7 and wins the house.

29. Qg5!

Perhaps Black hoped for Bxh8, with a little time to put up a defence.

29 ...........Bf7
30. Bh6+ Bg6
31. Qe7 Resigns

If Qc7, then 32. Nd7 interposing. This kind of blocking idea was also seen
in my game against Fenwick (see previously posted ‘George against the
Sicilians’).

I particularly liked the idea in this game, of securing the White King, and
after Black is lured into making a hostile demonstration, initiating a
deadly combination.

I have played the Vienna in regular chess and correspondence and it has
never let me down. Spielmann, Spassky and Larsen among other great players have used it for fun and profit. Try it.

Playing badly can make you free

2006-08-18T01:03:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,

Ever wondered why you lose at chess, maybe even at the game of life itself?

What do you mean you never lose? And you gave up on introspection long ago as well? Maybe you're right. Self analysis ain't what it's cracked up to be.

However, in chess, it can help improve your play. Take the game below for instance. It made me realize that as a certified bunny-player I need to be, and stay, focused. Anything less than that and no more carrots, unless it's in the stew along with me.

Also, having a stronger position carries certain responsibilites, which can wear you down unless you stay resolute and even a little humble in the face of having an advantage. If you don't, the player with nothing to lose can find a creative freedom which carries the day.

Easier said than done, but one thing is for sure: Bunnies can never relax until the game is over, and if it's a win, then have an extra brace of carrots to go with the brandy.

George Eraclides (1338) VERSUS P. Crofts (1076)

Correspondence Chess League of Australia (CCLA), Tournament 7/1051, 1992. The player ratings are not ELO but peculiar to the CCLA.

This game is dedicated to the memory of that devilish imp, Dr Savielly Tartakower, chess duelist par excellence and champion wit.

This game features some clever play punctuated by gross errors on both sides, and illustrates the aphorism from that wit of chess, Tartakower, that ‘The player who makes the next to last mistake, wins the game’.

White makes a terrible blunder in this game (a feat in itself, when playing correspondence chess), thus placing the burden of winning upon Black.
Relieved of the pressure of having to maintain equilibrium or gain any advantage, White starts to gather his meagre forces and play more confidenly.

For his part, unable to cope with the pressure of having a winning position, Black succumbs to White's desperate and clever tactics.

White unashamedly wraps up a game he should have lost.

Pirc Defence

1. e4 d6
2. d4 Nf6
3. Nc3 g6
4. Bg5

The Byrne Variation. I play it because it seems to offer aggressive chances at relatively little risk - or so I thought at the time.

4 ...........Bg7
5. Qd2 h6
6. Bf4 g5
7. Bg3 Nh5
8. 0-0-0

Hoping (pointlessly) for Nxg3 so that after hxg3 the Rook file could be used for attack.

8 ............Nc6
9. Bb5 Bd7
10. Nge2

I think White has the better position here - he has the classic centre, more space, security, and the potential for an attack. From this point on, compacency sets in and white drifts, missing a key tactical stroke. The ‘Purdy Rule’ to check all threats, should be a mantra for all players; another one could be: If you have a superior position, redouble your efforts to check all threats.

10 ...........Na5?! (TN)
11. Bd3

This leads to unclear play, as the Bishop gets in the way of the Queen's Rook; 11 Bxd7 followed by Rhe1 was simple and good.

11 ............c5!

With the irritating threat of c4.

12. dxc5 Nxg3
13 Nxg3

Presuming the Rook would now need to come to the centre, making the opening of the h file a waste of time and structure.

13 ...........dxc5
14. Nd5?!

I think someone, somewhen, called this kind of move ‘creating an outpost’; 14 Rh1 was correct, followed by Bf1.

14 ............e6
15. Nc3

Not a very secure outpost after all; White's complacency has now assumed mamoth proportions.

15 ............a6!?

What kind of devilry is this? Securing the Queen-side before castling?

16. Nh5 Bd4
17. f4 Qb6!

This move has a sting in it's tail which White is oblivious to; Black's strategy is correct - he is allowing complications to occur. When your position is ‘structurally’ inferior, dynamism can be an effective antidote; this is different to another approach which some players take, which involves just toughing it out in case the better placed opponent makes a mistake.

18. fxg??!

An idiot's move (??), or a deeply penetrating insight (!) into the position? The point needs to be made once again: White is labouring under an excess of smugness brought on by his deluded perception of having ‘positional superiority’; the facts are that Black, cognizant of his inferior state, has embarked on interesting complications. Whit is playing too routinely.

18 ...........c4!
19. Be2 Be3

Not the sort of move you like to receive in the mail - it really spoils your whole day.

20. Nf6+!

The coincidental situation of this Knight at h5 (played to allow f4 above) is a stroke of luck, which allows White to make a fight of it. I now started to really concentrate, as I should have been doing all along. My previous desultory play prevents me from representing my stroke of good luck as insightful play.

20 ..............Kd8 (Necessary)
21. Nxd7 Bxd2+
22. Rxd2 Qa7

White has created some threats of his own. Nothing clears the head like a hand grenade going off in your mail-box. I have started to play really well, whereas poor Black finds the burden of 'winning a won’ game too much to bear. His nerves betray him into making inferior moves.

23. Nb6+ Ke8
24. Nxa8 Qxa8
25. gxh5 Rxh5
26. h3

So that the Rook can move. The dust has settled, and white has Rook, Bishop, and Pawn, for his dull-witted Queen. Not a bad trade under the circumstances.

26 ..............Qb8
27. Rhd1 b5

Black is actually constrained to find a good move; perhaps
27 .............Qf4
28. Kb1 Kf8
may have been of more use.

28 Rd6!

28. Rd8+ Qxd8
29. Rxd8+ Kxd8
Leaves white the exchange down for a Pawn (no thanks).

28 ............Qa7
29. Kb1

A little nervous about
29 ............b4
30. Na4 Qe3
winning the Bishop.

29 ...........Nb7?

Black in turn is worried about the White Rooks and the poor position of his Knight; however b4 is more worthy of play:
29 ............b4
30. Na4 Qe3
31. Rd8+ achieves nothing because the Black King can escape via d7, while White has left himself exposed on his back rank. It’s a heavy burden to carry the mantle of material advantage.

30. Rd7!

With a nice pin, making the threats of e5 and Bf3 possible.

30 .............Qb6
31. e5

This is still good, because White needs to clear the diagonal; at the same time the Pawn closes the bolt-hole at f6 for the enemy King.

31 ............Nc5
32 Rd7d6!

Still pointless would be Rd8+.

32 ............Qa5

Black is effectively playing with Queen and Knight against all four of White's pieces. The move e5 has quarantined the Black Rook in an irrelevant pocket of the board.

33. Bf3 Rg6
34. Ne4?!

Needlessly provocative. Better, although still unclear was
34. Bc6+ Kf8 (Ke2 is the same in practice);
(i) 35. Ne4 NxN
36. BxN Rg5!
37. Rd7 Re5
38. Rf1 RxB
39. Rxf7+ with possibly a draw;
(ii) 35. Bb7 Rxe5
36. Rxa6 Re1
37. Rd6 Qc7
38. Rxe1 Qxd6
39 Bf3 is unclear;
(iii) 35. Rf1 Rf5! and Black's Queen still attacks e1;
(iv) 35. g4 Re1+
37. RxR Qc7
38. Bg2 Rh2!
As these variations show, Black had winning or drawing chances, while White's attempts to complicate, although successful, should have been inadequate. Again psychological factors have been allowed to dominate over the logic of the position.

34 ...........Nb7?

The pressure is getting to Black. The simple Nxe4 was best, with continuing uncertainty.

35. Rd7 Nc5??

Having an advantage is simply too much, and Black blunders:
35 ............Qb6
36. Nf6+! R XN
37. exf6 will win eventually, but it was still preferable to giving up a piece. Black has paid a heavy price for the splitting of his forces.

36. Nxc5 Qb6
37. Ne4 Kf8
38. Nf6 Qc5?

38 .........Rxf6 or a King move also loses. The old Tarrasch observation that when one mistake is made, you should expect more to follow, is borne out in this game.

39. Rd8+ Resigns

Because:
39 ...........Ke7
40. R1d7 is mate, OR
39 ......... Kg7
40 Rg8+ Kh6
41 Rh8+ Kg7 (Kg5, Ne4+ that square again!)
42 Rh7+ Kf8
43 Nd7+wins the house.

A game with grave psychological implications. Black lost because of a mishandling of the position; he was playing under the pressure of having to win because of a material superiority. In such circumstances one must try and remain calm and be patient; if they are available, simple moves which add positional pressure should be played. Time is on the side of the better structure, and as has often been said - there are no special prizes for finishing quickly.

George against the Sicilians

2006-08-10T22:26:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,

In chess I play e4 because I like the romantic openings of the 19th Century - slash, cut, thrust, tension, combinations, pyrotechnics. Recall that my first chess book was the Best Games of Paul Morphy (Dover Books), ‘the pride and sorrow of New Orleans’ and I was first attracted by that exciting kind of chess. Also, Bobby Fischer was the leading player of the 1970’s and he famously pronounced e4 is ‘best by test.’

The problem is, that in the modern era, very few opponents in crossboard or correspondence chess play symmetrically. So instead of for instance, being able to play my favourite Vienna Opening (I will post some Viennas soon), I found that I was facing the Sicilian, Caro Kann, French, Pirc and other less popular semi open defences. They were, and are, saturated in theory and I lack the patience to pursue that aspect of the game.

So over time I have drifted across to playing Queen centres based around d4, although I still ventured the Kings pawn in more than half of my openings as White, in the hope of getting symmetry and the chance to play a Vienna. What I needed was a generic way of playing against the semi open defences, where I would get a reasonable game without having to live my life with my nose buried in a book or worse, a database.

In a second hand bookshop some time back, I came across a book by Larry Evans the USA Grandmaster, who suggested using the Kings Indian formation as a generic opening for White, especially against opponents too cowardly or too savvy to reply symmetrically to e4. So I tried it and in many cases it worked.

So I offer for your amusement the following effort in a correspondence tourney where I first used what I like to call ‘The Smart Alleck Variation’.
I did not invent the variation, just the name.

George Eraclides (1338) VERSUS John Paul Fenwick (1339)

Please note these are Correspondence Chess League of Australia ratings; the conversion to the ELO standard did not occur until the mid to late 1990's.
CCLA Tournament 7/1051 1992

Closed Sicilian, Smart-Aleck Variation.

John Paul Fenwick, along with his brother Chris, is a very experienced and strong over the board player, as I have found to my displeasure. Correspondence chess is, of course, quite another kind of battlefield.
In this game, using the Smart-Aleck Variation, White manages to first frustrate his strong opponent, and then extinguish counter-play of any substance; after dominating the centre, White switches over to a successful attack with some attracive motifs.

1 e4 c5
2 Nf3 d6
3 g3

Introduces the Smart-Aleck Variation - Black, having been lulled into thinking he was going to play a conventional Sicilian, now faces a closed game requiring patience and supreme alertness, because any winning chances (and they are few in this line of the Sicilian) lie with White.

3 ...........g6

There are of course, many possible replies. In the system chosen, he hopes for a more normal Sicilian attack structure; the drawback is that he becomes loath to ever play e5 and thereby block the diagonal for his Bishop; consequently, White can aim for an f4 attack, similar to many King's Indian formations.

4 Bg2 Bg7
5 0-0 Nc6
6 c3

A natural response in these systems, in order to prevent Nd4.

6 ..........Qb6?!

This turns out to be a waste of time. The Queen ‘threatens’ b2 and d4 together with the Bishop on g7, as well as eyeing f2. However White is not obliged to play so as to open the position with a later d4. In fact opening the game is anathema to the kind of system White has chosen. Straightforward development was a better option.

7 d3 e6
8 Qe2 Nge7

At least he is consistent with the Qb6 idea, wishing to keep the Bishop's diagonal open.

9 Nbd2 0-0

Here Na5 was a possibility, in order to prevent an eventual Nc4; a consequence of having placed his Queen on b6, is that he does not have b5 - a useful counter-attacking line against a King's Indian formation.
If Na5 then,
10 Nc4 Nxc4
11 dxc4 Qa6
could lead to interesting possibilities; White seems to control the centre and restrict Black's play, but in return Black has some chances on the Queen side. White could try Be3, Nd2, and f4 with complications.

10 Nc4 Qc7
11 a4

Stopping b5. I astonish myself with a positional insight.

11 ............Na5

Too late, he cried.

12 Nxa5 Qxa5
13 Be3

I thought e5 was premature.

13 ............Bd7

Black is drifting into a passive position--a terrible condition for a player of the Sicilian.

14 Nd2

14 d4 just does Black a favour by opening up the position.

14 ............Nc6

14 ...f5 is not so good:
15 exf5 and 16 Bxb7 with Nc4 to come, extricating the Bishop after Black plays Rb8;
14 ...Bc6 was worth considering, with the idea that if Nc4, then Qc7-a6-b5 to drive White back; note here, that 16 a5 is unclear for White because of the possibility 16 ...Rb8 and 17 ...Bb5.

15 f4 Qc7

This is a second home for the Queen in the Sicilian, but this time Black is in trouble.

16 e5! dxe5
17 Bxc5

Best, capturing with tempo.

17 ..........Rfd8!

Allows the Bishop to go to e8 and defend f7; the open file is a bonus.

18 fxe5

White is opening up lines into the heart of Black's position. White has acquired a very strong initiative; time wasting manoeuvres like Qb6 above are too risky if you play Black; the lesson is: Don’t do it.

18 ..........Qxe5

Hoping by the Queen exchange to dampen the attack. However, an attack based on sound positional play is very hard to stop.

19 Nxe4

High art or low cunning?
Low cunning: 19 Qf2 was reasonable and perfectly sound, but lacking ambition; then
19 ...f5 would be answered by 20 Rae1;
19 ...Qf5 by 20 Qe2 (20 Qe3 Bh6 is unclear) and Black plays 20 ...Qe5 with a draw offer or White risks Bh6 at some stage.

19 ...........Be8

Defending f7 (see note above to Black's 17th move) and d6; if 19 ...f5 White plays 20 d4 and then 21 Nd6 and the Bishop cannot move from d7 due to 22 Qxe6.

20 d4 Qc7 (This Queen likes her familiar haunts).
21 Qf2

This is best now.

21 ...........b6
22 Ba3 Rac8

What else? White's a3 Bishop slices through the Black position like a death-ray. Desperado moves like f5 allow the Knight to dance away to g5 where it will be particularly obnoxious. Perhaps 22 ...e5 was worth a try, although 23 d5 in reply seems dangerous:
23 .......Rxd5
24 Nf6+ or
23 .......Na5
24 d6 Qd7
25 Ng5!? and if 25 ...Nc4, 26 Bd5 is hard to meet;
Also, in reply to 22 ...e5, White has
23 Nf6+ Bxf6
24 Qxf6 with the threats of 25 Bxc6 and 26 Be7 (Barrier motif) is decidedly unpleasent.

23 Nf6+ Bxf6
24 Qxf6

Thus the black square defender is eliminated.

24 ..........Na5

Black has to try something; c4 and b3 are the only weak points in White's position he can attack - but so what? The action is in the other quadrant North by North-East.

25 Rae1

You can never have too much heavy artillery. Note that 25 Be7 or Bf8 are ineffective.

25 ..........Nc4

Black is in virtual zugzwang. When this happens in the middle-game you have big problems.

26 Be7

Forming a barrier to the Queen's defence of the second rank. I consider this idea to be almost the pinnacle of White's strategy in this game - evidence that even a mediocre player can on extremely rare occasions play with a little intelligence.

26 ..........Rd7
27 Rxe6! Nxb2

If 27 ...fxe6?? 28 Qf8 ++

28 Rc6! Resigns

Because:
(i) The Bishop on e8 has to guard f7;
(ii) 28 ............Qb8
29 RxRc8 Qxc8
30 Bh3 Qc7
a) 31 BxRd7 Qxd7 wins the exchange; White does a re-organisation to place the Bishop on f6 (say with Qg5) to mate or win more material; or
b) 31 Be6! (the brilliant alternative - can you see the gold coins tossed by admiring fans White?); or
c) 31 Bf8 Kxf8
32 Qh8+ Ke7
33 Re1+ Kd6
34 Qe5+ Kc6
35 Bg2+ Rd5
36 Bxd5++ This is the more vulgar - sadistic - denouement.

White managed to play well and was very pleased to defeat such a strong player in over the board and correspondence chess.

The Smart-Aleck Variation has proved itself a solid line against the Sicilian, with just enough venom in it, should Black become overconfident and stray from the dictates of sound play.

Try it yourself and frustrate a player of the Sicilian.

Marshall attacks Eraclides

2006-08-05T23:04:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,
Yes, I once had the pleasure to cross swords with the great Marshall. No, I am not that old! I refer to Kate Marshall, whom I played in 1978. Wow - that does feel so long ago. It was 1978 BI (Before Internet). Imagine that.

City of Melbourne Under 1600
October 1978

This was my first crossboard tournament. At 26 years of age, I was a late non bloomer, and I got smashed around a lot. I had trouble with the chess clock (why does time have to move so quickly?) not to mention the other chess players. I only have the scoresheets of a few games.

Kate Marshall (you have to love that surname if you care for ‘real chess’) and I had already played correspondence chess against each other. A King’s Gambit and a Sicilian, both of which I won (see later), but in crossboard chess she was much the better player. Eventually she became one of Australia’s best female players in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

In this game I played tentatively because I had been belted a few times already in this tourney. I used the ‘scared rabbit’ technique, to see if I could improve my tournament position and lift myself up from the bottom of the scorecard.

Kate took a bit too long to use her opening initiative. I gave up the centre (who needs all that space? The world is too crowded for such selfishness) and tried to use my pieces to hold the key squares. I fought back well and the game was drawn by agreement. I stood reasonably well at the end, but time trouble was devouring me as usual, and besides, I needed to replenish my supply of carrots.

Round 6
Kate Marshall VERSUS George Eraclides
Queens Gambit Irregular
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. cxd5 Nxd5?!
5. e4 Nxc3
6. bxc3 Be7
7. Bc4 O-O
8. Ne2 a6
9. O-O b5
10. Bb3?! Bb7
11. Ng3 c5
12. Be3 c4!?
13. Bc2 Nd7
14. f4 Qc7
15. f5 e5!
16. Nh5 Nf6
17. dxe5 Nxh5
18. Qxh5 Qxe5
19. Bd4 Bc5!
20. Bxc5 Qc5+
Drawn by agreement

Tell us more about yourself and your chess games

2006-08-05T23:00:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims,

You are hereby warned that the chess career of George Eraclides has so far managed to escape the attention of the great players, such as Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, and others of their station. Even those below their august level - the merely talented grandmasters - have not heard of Eraclides.

That is probably a good thing, because their time is valuable and they will not have learned very much by studying Mr Eraclides’ games. In fact, they may have had their own abilities undermined by his insidiously bad style of play.

The Eraclides collection of stories and games is intended to provide light amusement to the chess fan who is also looking for honest and humorous writing related to chess. The games have their moments, it is true, but the writing is so much better.

Mr Eraclides, realizing the paucity of his chess ability, and the meagreness of his successes, has endeavoured instead to write and annotate with humour, providing a few moments of fun as he blunders, and continues to blunder, his way across chessboards since 1965.

Do not delve too deeply into the intricacies of his games, although it is true that the occasional insight may be of use to the ordinary reader.

If you are one of those types who will not open a chess book or play a game over, unless you think you can derive some measure of self-improvement from the experience, then I suggest that you do the following: Play over the games of Mr Eraclides, examine his annotations (try not to laugh too much except in places where he intends that you laugh) and then see if you can discover improvements to the lines of play.

In other words, use his collection of games as a manual of poor play, and enhance your skill by discovering better, winning, moves. What a stout fellow you will become. A good player, but perhaps somewhat humourless.

For the rest of you who are much more sensible, and realize that we cannot all become great players through self improvement and the lack of a sense of humour, you are urged to play these games over for fun, enjoy the writing, and read the whole thing with a glass or three of brandy.

You are bound to enjoy the brandy!

Games and stories will be added to this Blog over time in no particular chronological order. Please be patient (a good trait in a chess player) as I have a day job, a loving partner who insists on her share of attention, I am a slow chess player and an even slower annotator.

I also wish to check what I publish, just in case I actually played better than I realised at the time.

What is this Blog about and who is this George Eraclides

2006-08-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

Hi Pilgrims.

The dude on the left is George Eraclides trying to look hip. Hip that is, for a chess player and writer.

I learned to play chess at the age of twelve in London, England. The game was taught to me by the two older sons of a Greek-Cypriot family from whom we were renting a miniscule bed-sit (the immigrant dream not quite realised).

I astounded my immediate circle with the slowness of my development and it became obvious in hindsight that I would not be a player of any significance. I did however learn the moves quickly enough and developed a penchant for complications and occasional attacking play that have distinguished my style to this day. I did not play very much at all, especially after we re-emigrated, this time to Australia. Apart from some play now and then onboard the P&O Orient liner Himalaya, or against the odd friend at school, I left chess alone until my 19th year.

I blame this lack of developmental experience for not having played off in a world chess championship or three. Mr Karpov, you are so lucky.

I did however develop other characteristics from a combination of my nature and the migrant experience, that have helped me in life’s combat zones: A commitment to struggle, fight, never give in, use lateral thinking, and employ an ability to write well and humorously about my chess in the absence of any shred of talent.

In 1972 the great Bobby Fischer was fighting for the world championship and I became interested in chess again. I bought books - all the early Dover books including Morphy’s games, which was my very first chess book (and I have no complaints about beginning with Morphy); I played correspondence chess a lot (I was a university student and lacked time for crossboard), joined chess clubs, played interclub, tournaments, more correspondence chess, and eventually managed to rise to the level of an average club player with a rating in the ranges of 1450-1630 depending on which way the wind was blowing.

I was, and am still, the kind of player that plays aggressively, gets into time trouble, and is predisposed to the complicated lines of play.

If you’re a strong player and come up against me across the board or on the internet, you will probably beat me, but you will need a tranquilliser after the game.

Enough of my boring, non-epoch making, biography in chess.

Further posts will feature my games and chess writing, Believe me, you are in for a treat. Look at the photo above. You know you can trust me.