Mousetrapper's Chess Log

Up a pawn and drawn Shredder

2008-05-22T16:54:00.002+02:00

As White against Deep Shredder I blundered my Queen's Knight for a pawn early in the game but then, always up a pawn, I managed to keep the game even throughout a queen endgame and queen swap to a rook endgame with my 3 against his 2 pawns. Only at the very end Deep Shredder snatched my last pawn, and all material was traded down to the naked kings. Playing more than forty moves against the silicon monster with the reserve of only one pawn and not losing, this may be called a success.

White to move.

In this position, I had forced the swap of the dark-squared bishops on a3. In odds games, trading pieces is a general strategy, but it should be done very carefully. In most cases it is better first to complete development and block counterplay.

The move h3 looks very natural in this position. Do you see what happens after the trade on f3? Comments are welcome.

Brilliant endgame tactics of Deep Shredder

2008-05-21T12:51:00.002+02:00

In my most recent training match as White against Deep Shredder 11 with the odds of knight and move, I have run into a wrecked pawn structure that allowed the software to put me under heavy pressure. I was forced to give the piece back and arrived in an endgame equal in material but with a serious pawn weakness.

Black to move.

I thought I could defend my position but then Deep Shredder surprised me with the brilliant strike 1.-Rg3! He gives a full rook for no checkmate, but after 2.fxg3 Qa2+ I must give my rook for nothing more than a tempo or I get checkmated. I am forced to trade Queens, but before I can do it, Deep Shredder's Queen snatches another pawn, and with his f- and g-pawns against my h-pawn, the endgame is lost.

Very instructive! It tells me that my training strategy of playing at odds against the full power of Deep Shredder is exactly what I need. A weaker engine probably would have agreed to draw by repetition earlier in the game, and I would have missed this tactical combination.

Another point in favour of my method: the E=mc² of chess, that is, the balance between my material advantage and the "energetic" advantage of Deep Shredder.

Play it home, Sam

2008-05-17T16:06:00.006+02:00

I've discovered a very useful new training method for me, and I strongly recommend it to every chess player struggling for improvement. I probably never would have had the idea, but two days ago, I've been a full piece up and managed to blunder the game to a loss at last. I strongly felt that I have to cope with this loss, and this gave me the idea to play games against Deep Shredder 11 with the odds of the Queen's Knight, running it on my 2.4 GHz Intel Core Duo processor with 10 seconds calculation time per move by which Shredder reaches a full depth analysis of 12 to 17 ply.

I use a normal chess tournament board, a mechanical clock and I write down my moves plus time used just as in a slow over the board game. My time control is 60 minutes for 36 moves and 30 minutes for the rest of the game. After my move, I walk over to the computer, enter it, and wait for the reply.

In my first game, I played as White, with the odds of knight and move, and I chose the French defense (1. e4 e6 2. d4), Shredder responded 2.-d5, and I exchanged pawns in order to get an open file where I could trade the major pieces later. This plan worked quite well, I always was up between 3 and 4 pawn units until move 40. The critical moment emerged in this situation after the 42th move of Black.

White to move.

After 43. h4?, the Queen escaped to f5 and the light squares, where I have a weakness, paradoxically with my bishop. But it emerges that this bishop is just a better pawn, one that I have been forced to sacrifice earlier for activity. But now I gave my activity back for nothing. I squeezed my brain for seven minutes and found nothing better than 44. Qe5 which I should have played a move earlier. Now the Queen escaped with check on d3 and gained a pawn. I also gained a pawn with check, and ten moves later the game was drawn by perpetual check, with only two minutes left on my clock.

Instead, 43. Qe5 would have forced a queen exchange, along with the sacrifice of another pawn. But after that, the white King intrudes the position on the dark squares and wins easily. The move 44. - Qg3 which I feared was no option for Black because the queen loses too much time to get on the back rank.

Very satisfied with my performance

Deep Shredder has a rating of about 2800, and given the relatively short calculation time of ten seconds per move, it may be only 2500 or so which is still grandmaster strength. The odds of knight equals about 650 Elo, therefore a safe estimate of my performance in this game is around 1850.

My critical opening position in the Sicilian

2008-05-13T17:12:00.003+02:00

My favourite plan against the Sicilian is 3. Bf1-b5, pinning a Nc6 or giving check. I stick to this plan since a strong (2200) player has admitted after the game (equal until I blundered in the endgame) that he hates Bb5 in the Sicilian. Another reason is Deep Shredder, considering it the best move against 2.-Nc6.

The critical line for my plan is thus 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 where I can neither pin a knight nor give a check.

The main purpose of e6 is a fast counterstrike d5 against White's center pawn, and if Black manages to reach this goal, he has an easy and equal game. White therefore has no time for slow moves such as c3, preparing d4 with equal pawn force in the center. If he wants to keep an advantage, he must prevent d5. The best move is 3.Nc3, keeping control over d5 and developing a second piece against none of Black.

Black now can prevent 4. Bb5 by 3.- a6, but the most played move is 3. - Nc6, allowing my thematic 4. Bb5. If Black attacks it by a6, I trade bishop against knight, and Black's double pawn and his lag in development give me a good compensation for the bishop pair.

White to move.

But Black can double his knights, playing 4. - Nge7. This is a critical position because after BxN NxB, Black has no double pawn and replaced his strong Nc6, and I have no sufficient compensation for the bishop pair. White therefore is forced to take action, and the best choice is 5. d4, of course.

That is, in this position I have to change my general plan, opening the position because keeping it closed will lose my advantage, allowing Black to equalize easily.

Knights attacking the Bishop pair

2008-05-08T13:50:00.005+02:00

In general, I like to keep my bishop pair. But, a paradox, I also like openings that give away the bishop pair very early, such as the Nimzo-Indian as Black or the Sicilian with Bb5 as White. Thus, I have to change my mind and learn how to attack the opponent's bishop pair with my strong knights.

In my next two games, I'll be White, and with my bad results against the Sicilian I am going to look at this position and its resources for both sides.

White to move.

Black has the "advantage" of the bishop pair which is only minimal at the moment with all pawns still on the board, and the disadvantage of a double pawn. He also has lost tempo by attacking the bishop with a6.

White therefore is ahead in development and has got rid of his light-squared bishop which would be a bad one in this position. In contrast, the knight pair has very good perspectives with two main plans: 1) pushing e4-e5 and moving Nb1-c3/d2-e4 and 2) pushing a2-a4-a5 and moving Nb1-a4/b2-c4. Deep Shredder prefers the second plan, rating it +0.51 pawn units at 18 ply depth, but the first plan (+0.36) is nearly as good.

When asked which side to take I would take White in this position. Black has not a very easy game at the moment. He must try to open the position, trade pawns and keep his bishop pair in the endgame. White, on the other hand, has two excellent plans for an active piece play in a pawn-clogged position where the black bishops play only a minor role.

Put off my Queen's Indian plan

2008-05-07T14:37:00.004+02:00

Yesterday, as Black against a -60 rated opponent at our city championship, I was surprised by 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4. After this first-time encounter I was put off my Queen's Indian plan because I didn't want to spend too much time considering whether the Queen's Indian can be used against this type of position, and I decided to play a "normal" Queen's Pawn opening like this one:

Black to move.

Black has a bit more space than in the Queen's Gambit declined, but the pawn-clogged center is not what I like, and really I was not able to turn it into a favourable position. The game was drawn after 21 moves, and the Deep Shredder analysis shows that neither side made any mistake, and the advantage for White remained always within 0 and 0.7 pawn units during the whole game. I accepted his draw offer in a dead-looking position.

Instead, I could have stuck with my Queen's Indian plan against his buildup which could have resulted in such a position:

Black to move.

According to Deep Shredder, this is not better than what I have played, but it fits my general plan of controlling the light-squared center and diagonal with my pieces and holding back my center pawns, thus preventing the intrusion of his pieces.

In this position, Black can make use of the exposed Bishop and gain a tempo with 7.-Nd5 8. Bh2 f5 9. Bd3 Nf6, and Black has a very good kingside play, keeping control over the strong point e4. I guess that it would have been much easier to get an advantage against my opponent this way, because this type of position may have been less familiar to him and more familiar to me.

Considering the Queen's Indian big fianchetto

2008-05-05T18:46:00.003+02:00

In my few first steps of the Queen's Indian defense, I always have used the classical fianchetto Bb7. GMs often play Ba6 with good success. I think I should adopt this plan, but what plan is it anyway? I should know before playing it. So let's have a try.

Obviously, this move gains a tempo because a pawn is hanging, delaying White's fianchetto Bg2. But its main purpose is the retention of the e2 pawn, x-raying both the pawn and the Rf1 after the castling of White.

By Qa4, White can force Black to go back to the normal fianchetto Bb7, but with other moves, Black will keep the Bishop there and block the light squares with c6 and d5.

This transposes the Queen's Indian to a Catalan position that gives Black a good and at least equal play. I think this is a good plan and I am going to play it next time when White will be avoiding to play Nc3 to which I have my Nimzo-Indian.

Tackling my Indian nightmare

2008-05-02T15:49:00.003+02:00

I have done some stats on my own games recently, with very interesting results. My overall performance is slightly negative (46 percent). There are two ways of explaining this. Firstly, I regularly take part in an open tournament with many higher rated opponents. More interestingly, it is because I score very low against the Sicilian as White and against d4 as Black, especially when defending with Nf6 rather than d5.

My score without the nightmare openings is a plain 50 percent overall, 52 percent as White and 48 percent as Black. My Score against the Sicilian is 38 percent, and my real nightmare is the Indian systems 1. d4 Nf6 with only 23 percent. Of course I could return to 1. d4 d5 where I score 50 percent, but I do not like the Queen's Gambit as Black. I think that the Indian systems offer more opportunities to play for winning as Black.

Thus, instead of remorsefully returning to d4 d5, I am decided to tackle my Indian nightmare.

The main strategy is directed against the principal drawback of the "strong" move d4, that is, the weakness of e4, without occupying (and thus blocking) the center with own pawns. The key squares for Black are d5 and e4; it is mandatory to keep them under control. As soon as this is accomplished, d4 must be attacked by c5.

In this position, the immediate occupation of d5 by White is prevented by the fact that it cannot be defended in the long run with a lag in development. White will continue 3. Nf3 or 3. Nc3 in most cases.

With 3. Nf3, White does not increase his pressure on d5 which gives Black the time for a preparing move like 3. - b6 for controlling the key squares with the Bishop b7 later. This is the Queen's Indian defense. Black can also give the Bogo-Indian check Bb4+, but this seems to be a bit premature and can be played later in the Queen's Indian.

With 3. Nc3, the maneuver b6 Bb7 would be too slow, and White would take control of the squares e4 and d5. Instead, the Nimzo-Indian 3. - Bb4 is a strong move, neutralizing the Knight with a pin. Black must be ready to give the Bishop pair advantage, but White will get a double pawn weakness or, if he tries to avoid it, will lose tempo.

My French Paradox

2008-04-26T15:33:00.005+02:00

As White I like open games most. My performance of 54 percent after 1. e4 e5 reflects this feeling. And now the paradox: I hate to play against the French defense and I prefer Sicilian, irrespective of my quite good records of 50 percent against the French and the pathetic 38 percent against the Sicilian.

This week, I have lost a French game, and I think it is quite illustrative of why I hate this opening. But dealing with this loss, I discovered a much better way of playing it. In fact, it is the only way that fits my idea of how it should be played.

Here is the position where I began to feel uncomfortable. Black did not move Bb4 as I had expected:

White to move.

I played 4. e5 although I knew what to expect, because this always results in a very cramped position in the center, a pawn mass that is sieged by black Knights and defended by white Knights. I already knew that such an ugly move as Ne2, blocking the Bishop, and c3 is considered as good by the theory.

White to move.

And here we are. I hated this position and began to blunder, and eventually lost the game.

Instead, the move 4. Bg5 is much faster because Black is forced to counter the attack on the pinned Knight, thus the attack on the white pawn center is delayed. When Black unpins the Knight with Be7, he will not preserve his bishop pair and will be left with his bad Bishop c8. When he attacks with h6, he also loses tempo for his counter attack, and offering an attack mark for White's planned pawn assault.

White to move.

And this is a possible outcome after the stronger continuation Bishop pins Knight, Bishop unpins Knight, pawn attacks Knight, Knight withdraws, trade of dark-squared Bishops. Now, the attack h2-h4-h5-h6 is an excellent plan, because castling king-side is very dangerous for Black and if he delays castling and then castles queen-side, castles will be same side which is very safe for White.

Bad time management

2008-04-21T14:38:00.004+02:00

I admit, I am complaining on a high level. I have won my last game as Black in the Swiss Team Championship, and our team booked a comfortable 4-2 win. Against my -150 rated opponent, winning was mandatory, and I never was in danger as the diagram below shows: From move 13, the advantage always has been on the Black side. On move 28 we arrived at this position where I had the opportunity to end the game with one move:

Black to move.

I quickly spotted Qg3 threatening mate in one, but after Ne1 the weak spot g2 is sufficiently covered and I cannot attack it further. Therefore I rejected my mating plan and concentrated on plans to retire the hanging Bishop. I used two minutes on these plans and decided to trade Bishops by Bh3-e6-a2, freeing the f-pawn for the attack f7-f5. Not a bad plan, but I made a big time management blunder here.

I had 55 minutes on my clock for 12 moves, that is, more than 15 minutes ahead of a steady time schedule. And this is a very tactical position. At least I should have identified all its motives. Playing faster than average in such a position, this must be called a time management blunder.

Do you spot the winning move? Two hints: the strong dark-squared Bishop and my Rook on the b-file play important roles in this plan.

Endgame winning the hard way

2008-04-16T18:33:00.004+02:00

Yesterday, at our city championship, I had Black against a -150 rated opponent. I outplayed him in the middlegame but decided to go the safe way and avoid a hot double-edged battle because I had spotted a won endgame position, and here it was:

View from Black's side, Black to move.

The winning plan seems to be obvious: push my d-passer. My rooks strangle him, and I have all time in the world to push my passer and even to come along with my King if his help may be necessary. But no, I wanted to win more material fast and pushed c4 with the idea of winning his two pawns against my c-pawn. Bad idea!

View from Black's side, Black to move.

The drawback of my greediness can be seen here: His rook got counterplay and I could forget winning more material. Earlier, White has offered a draw which I rejected of course, but meanwhile I had to make myself familiar with the half point. But then new hope came because he pushed his f-pawn too far, giving my King a shelter for escape. I saw new hope for a win, giving my two distant passers and winning his two remaining pawns instead.

View from Black's side, Black to move.

At this point, seemingly even in material, my opponent asked me whether I still did not see that the game was drawn. I ignored his remark, silently looking at the position until I saw my winning plan: Moving my Rg6-b6-b3-g3, taking his last pawn that cannot be protected by his King, then pushing my rim passer to the Queen. And that's how I played it and won. After the game, I said to myself that a cat learns more about catching mice by letting the mouse slip once again instead of swallowing it on the spot. But that's post hoc reasoning. Playing best moves should be better advised.

Good position but bad plan

2008-04-09T12:01:00.005+02:00

Yesterday I had to concede a draw to a -90 rated opponent. I did not play really badly, as Deep Shredder tells me to my surprise. But neither did my opponent, it happens that so-called weaker players have their good moments, and obviously this has been such a day.

As White, I came out of the opening (Sicilian) quite well. Such a position should be transformed to a winning game with the right plan.

White to move.

All is very obvious and simple. White should take the open c-file with his Rook as soon as possible and install a Knight outpost, why not on c5? The Bishop e2 is bad and should be traded for the strong Knight d5.

So I played Rfc1 in this position, of course. My opponent replied Nce7 in order to push d7-d6. Now I lost the thread and played Nfd2 with the idea of Bf3 and Ne4-d5. But this all is too complicated and too slow, and it weakens my strong point e5. It came out that my strong center pawns and his queenside wing pawns disappeared. We came to an endgame where he always had a small advantage and I saw no chance of pushing my isolated passer to the Queen. I agreed to draw by repetition.

This diagram shows that the game never left the draw bandwidth. I have only seven of 38 drawn games where this is the case. The red line marks the situation immediately prior to the turning point of the game where I missed the conversion to a win.

Two lessons for free

2008-04-04T16:54:00.005+02:00

I always try to think positively. After my last game, a loss against a -100 rated youngster, this has been a hard try. But only until I realized that, in my game before, despite of having undergone a lesson, I had won all those points now lost again, except one. That is, I had two lessons costing me only one point, that is, nothing.

As White, I played my usual bishop attack against the Sicilian. I am not yet very used to it and missed an important point. All opponents have avoided the double pawn on c6 so far, and I never have played against the semi-open d-file.

White to move.

My best plan would have been castle short first and delay pawn moves in the center, waiting for Black's response. After a6, BxN and dxc6, a good plan would have been to establish a pawn outpost on e5 and to play Nb1-c3-e4 with a strong position.

Instead, I continued c2-c3, and after some more opening moves, we came to the following position.

White to move.

There is some pressure on my weak d3 pawn. My Knight is hanging. In this position, any passive move is doomed to disadvantage, but I didn't like the drawish trading on f6. I retired Ne3? and lost the game at last. Instead, I could have solved all my problems by the surprising strike Ng(f)xe5! The idea is to give the weak d3 against the strong e5 pawn, along with the trade of two Knights against Knight and Bishop. This is possible because the Queen cannot protect the lone Nh5 forever (it is chased away by f2-f4), and the lone Knight can be taken by the white Queen.

I guess I would not have had the courage to play it, but I should have considered it at least. And at the very least I should have traded on f6 and make myself familiar with the idea of a draw.

Mirrored discovering disasters in the f file

2008-03-03T13:42:00.004+01:00

It was my teammate Ruth who has pointed at a striking symmetry when we analyzed my recent game in our traditional pizza round after the team match. First, and most important, our team has won 5-1 against a stronger rated opponent. Woo-hoo!

My +70 rated opponent had served a King's gambit which I declined. Besides the first declining move I didn't know the theory, so I used 30 minutes against his one minute in the opening. In my last move, I had just pinned his King's Knight and he had taken my center pawn. And here I took back with my pawn which was a gross mistake.

Black to move

The white King's Knight must not be allowed to enter the fifth rank, attacking the vulnerable point f7. Thus, it was mandatory to keep control over the square e5, playing Nc6. After 5.-dxe5? 6.Bxf7+! I already had to fight against loss. Of course, the Bishop was taboo, and I had to play Kf8. My opponent brought the Queen's Knight and Bishop into play, depinned his King's Knight, all reasonable plans, but I think he somehow missed to bring all his forces, including his Queen, castle queenside and open the center and attack my exposed King in the center. On the 18th move, we came to the following very sharp position.

White to move

With 17.-Nd4 I had attacked his Rook on f5, and here it was, the symmetric mistake, retiring the Rook to f2 instead of f1. The discovered attack looms, but the Knight has no useful goals. Not yet. Thus I played 18.-b5! and now the Bishop isn't allowed to move. Yet my opponent made the disaster complete, retiring 19.Bb3, and now the discovering move Nxb3 wins material. Game over!

Interestingly, he could have kept the game even by no less than three alternatives! Firstly the counter-attack c3, secondly the trade Nxf6+ and thirdly the trade Bxf6. Even the pawn "sacrifice" b4 was possible, followed by Bxb4+ and c3.

A tactical game

2008-02-27T10:28:00.004+01:00

Yesterday, as Black in a club championship game, I had lost a pawn in the opening. Or should I say I sacrificed it? No, it was not planned, but it came out that I had quite a compensation for it. Just look at this position after black Rook attacks Bishop and white Queen protects it, move 18.

Black to move.

I have five developed pieces against his only two. And even more important, his King is still in the center. Thus, I thought that the Knight sacrifice on e4 must be good. Interestingly, Shredder sees me as winning after Nxe4, but my feeling at the board was quite different as soon as I realized that I do not win his Bishop and I am a full piece down. I thought that I was struggling against loss! On the other hand, I had the impression that my opponent had the feeling of winning because he seemed not to be very concerned about the danger of his King. This has been a very important experience, learning more about the power of a compensation.

Despite some weak moves of mine I managed to keep the upper hand and, due to his weak defense, gained material back. And here is the beautiful finish after 32. Bf4.

Black to move. My final blast makes use of the overworked Queen. I guess you see it.

Too greedy for material

2008-02-15T09:52:00.003+01:00

The thoughtful comments on this position (thanks Christian, Phaedrus and Sciurus) tell me that I should reconsider it. I think this is also worthwhile because Shredder rates it as +2 pawn units with a couple of candidate moves, even without an immediate material win. Only after a depth of 14 half-moves he spots a tactic.

My impression over the board has been in the range of one pawn unit of positional advantage, and I spotted a plan to materialize it.

White to move.

The game went as follows: 1. Bf5 Bxf5 2. Qxf5 g6 3. Qd7 Na5 4. Qxc7 and I win a pawn according to my plan. But it has a hole because Black can play Nb3 with counterattack, reducing my advantage to a meek 0.8 pawn units. My opponent played passively 4.-Nc4 covering the pawn, and after 5. exd6 Nxd6 I win another pawn because of the overworked Queen f8.

Now I try to figure out how Shredder may come to its 2 pawn units of positional advantage. My bishop pair accounts for 0.5 pawn units. My center pawn outpost may be worth another 0.5 units. The poor Nh5 gives me at least another 0.5 units, the worse Nc6 and Qf8 may be 0.25 each, so we get a total of 2 pawn units.

A good plan would have been the minority attack a4, as pointed out by Sciurus. Opening the game would have accentuated the superiority of my bishop pair. Actually, I control the center and I have more material power on queenside, thus I should attack there. Very logical.

But I have missed a tactic here. The poor Knight on h5 has no squares and I could fetch it with g4 were not the Bishop on d7. But this Bishop can be overworked with 1. Be4! If now Rad8 to unpin the Knight, 2. g4 gets the piece. Very nice. But Shredder took a while to find it.

Trading a bad for a good piece

2008-02-14T10:05:00.002+01:00

Ten days ago I had a win as White in a club championship match. As you can see, White has a superior position. In spite of equal material, Shredder rates White 2 pawn units better. But it is funny that I did not play one of the moves Shredder rates best here: Be4, a4, Bh7+, c4, and even h3. I simply cannot figure out a sense behind these moves.

What I played is Bf5, offering the piece I considered worst of all my pieces against his best piece, the Bishop d7. My main idea was bringing my Queen into play with various threats against uncovered pieces and pawns. The only drawback is that I lose the advantage of the bishop pair. But this is more than compensated by his loss of best piece. He took on f5, Queen took back, protecting the Knight with g6 was forced, and now my Queen entered his seventh rank, Qd7, forking the unprotected Knight and the pawn. After that, my game was won.

The interesting point here is how differently humans and computers look at a position. Shredder did not even consider Bf5, yet I am convinced that this was my best move because it is part of a clear plan.

A stupid loss of tempo

2008-02-13T16:32:00.003+01:00

Yesterday I played as White against my old friend Martin. I came better out of the opening but my positional advantage was only minimal when we came to this position after the eleventh move of Black.

White to move.

My small advantage is a faster connection of the Rooks and better prospects of taking the e file, hoping to invade the seventh rank. Going for this plan, I should have played 12. Re1 or 12. Bxg5. I rejected the latter because I did not want to give his Queen a tempo.

I played 12. Be3 with the vague idea of taking back with the pawn, opening a battery on f7. But after he took the Bishop I came to the conclusion that this attack can easily be parried, leaving me with a wrecked pawn structure. So I took with the Queen, he attacked the Queen and I lost one more tempo. The advantage has gone, and after another twelve moves the game was drawn.

Somehow I was not able to keep books of the tempi. His Bishop g5 has used 2 tempi so far, mine at c1 has used none. Whether I wait for the Bishop being taken or take myself on g5 does not matter, I always gain tempo. The only thing to avoid is giving a tempo by moving the Bishop on e3 or f4. Which I did, unfortunately.

After Bxc1 Rxc1 my Rook has lost a tempo because it will not remain there, but this loss is fully compensated by the tempo loss of the black Bishop.

A second fault in this position was not ruling out the attack battery plan on f7 at once. If this plan is not feasible, then Be3 has no purpose at all.

The psychology of tactics

2008-01-16T12:02:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, again in club championship with Black, I have got on the loser's road with a horrible blunder at move 26, facing a slow and painful death. How long should I struggle for survival? I launched a desperate pawn attack at the kingside, and really, my opponent parried it with a weak Queen move, still up to pawns. This is the position on move 30.

Black to move: 30.-Qd7(!)

The exclamation mark stands for a good move, and the brackets mean that its goodness is not out of position but of psychology. The d-file has played an important role in this game. My opponent had conquered it in the middlegame with his Rook, gaining a positional advantage and setting me under pressure. Even more, with his Rook he had been harassing my Queen. I immediately saw the pin in the e-file, due to his weak Queen move. I knew that his first intention would be not to give me the d-file back, and to harass my Queen once more. So I played Qh3-d7, hoping he would overlook the pin. Which he did: 31.Rd6 Qxd6 and I won.

Six missed reasons for a counterattack

2008-01-15T15:03:00.001+01:00

In my last club championship game, I had Black and in the 11th move of an English opening we came to this position.

Black to move.

My center pawn is attacked, and this post is about why on earth I played a weak move (c5) to protect it.

The first and most important feature of the position is the uncastled white King. He needs a full three moves to castle. This alone would have been enough compensation to give a pawn.
I do not even give my pawn but gain it back with my counterattack d6-d5.
My e-file is already half open to the opponent King.
The Knight, grabbing the pawn, exposes the King.
After having taken the pawn, the Knight is unprotected.
With my counterattack d5xc4 or d5xe4, I launch a discovered attack on the unprotected Knight.

Yeah, instead of «oops, my pawn is attacked, I must protect it» I should have looked at the whole position. Even the simple rule «checks, captures, threats» would have done the job. By the way, after my weak move, the position was dead drawn and I, trying to force a win, ran into a counterattack and lost.

In Memoriam Kurt Riethmann

2008-01-09T14:16:00.000+01:00

I have the sad duty to report the most important chess related event for me in the year that just has begun: My old chess club pal and our teammate Kurt Riethmann has died last Thursday at age 87. Not only our team, but also our chess club in Winterthur and the Swiss chess scene, especially the promotion of youth chess, are greatly indebted to him.

For me as a freethinker, the words "may he rest in peace" do not come easily over my lips. I am about to leave for the funeral this afternoon, and I have posted some thoughts about the Final Checkmate at my Med Journal Watch Blog.

Too Much Respect For An IM

2007-10-26T15:55:00.000+02:00

I'll take my time for reviewing my games of past Winterthur Chess Week, and this one is the first position to review. Well, my opponent of first round is not (yet) an IM but he left some IMs behind him in the final standing. This is the position after move 10 of Black. I was White.

(White to move)

I moved 11.Ne3 because I wanted to keep the Knights against his (bad) bishops and said to myself my position is not bad and after all he must win so he must make the game. In retrospect I must say that nothing had been more wrong. It came out that both of us moved around without a real good plan, up to move 35 where the position still was equal but both of us in time trouble. I lost a pawn, then blundered a piece. That was it.

Instead, I had excellent chances to dominate the middlegame by 11.e4-e5, creating a strong pawn outpost and chasing his Knight. After 11.-Nd5 12.Qe2 the outpost is overprotected in a Nimzowitsch manner and cannot be taken by a piece, and when it is attacked by a pawn, for instance by d7-d6, it advances further e5-e6, putting pressure on f7. I guess this is very unpleasant for Black who has to defend carefully and is far away from making his game.

I should have followed a saying of Charly, one of my club pals: You must keep your opponent busy. Also I forgot that attack is the best form of defense. I think that this important lesson was worth losing the game.

Chess Week Telegram

2007-10-14T08:31:00.000+02:00

First Round
White against young Hungarian (2200) defending Sicilian. I have pressure, opponent fearing my attack but I play wait and see for a draw. Equal game until move 30, then mutual time trouble, I lose material and resign. (0/1)

Second Round
Black against senior (1500), I defend Queen's Indian against his Colle system. Clear advantage after the opening, but he does not fight but gives up at move 19. Strange. (1/2)

Third Round
White against youngster (2000) defending French, quite passively but I miss some good tempo moves, equal game after the opening. I have pressure but not sufficient for a win. Draw by repetition in the middlegame. (1.5/3)

Fourth Round
Black against Serbian routinier (2000), Ruy Lopez, he refutes my doubtful variant that I decide to abandon after this game. I suffer right from the opening, try all the best and fight until time control at move 40. Lost Queen endgame with a piece down and no perpetual check. (1.5/4)

Fifth Round
White against club pal (1600) defending Caro-Kann, I use the Nimzowitsch strategem of overprotected outpost (see diagram) on a semi-open file and get a winning middlegame, snatch two pawns and should have won the endgame but run into his counterplay with doubled rooks threatening mate, so I must resort to perpetual check. (2/5)

Black to move.

Sixth Round
Black against a young guy (2000), I defend Queen's Indian but soon switch to Catalan, I lose a center pawn but get some (enough?) compensation in a very tactical middlegame. He spends too much time calculating and finds himself in zeitnot while I can deeply analyze the position on his time. His zeitnot blunder gives me a winning endgame but I manage to find the only losing move. I return to playing good chess while he finds a couple (!) of only (!) moves to let me escape to a draw. Pawn race, Queens endgame where I must kill his plus pawn, avoiding two deadly landmines. Oops! That has been a Hitchcock game! (2.5/6)

Seventh Round
White against a friend of my fourth round Serb (2000) defending Sicilian, I am not yet sure about the best path of the Queen's Knight and lost too many tempi, getting a powerful position all the same but, unfortunately, too late for a tactical shot. Equal middlegame instead, until I put a Bishop offside forever. With virtually a piece down I have no chance to hold the game. (2.5/7)

Eighth Round
Black against a senior (1500) attacking with 1. f4, I have a solid position but so has he, I miss to open it early and weaken my square e5 where he installs an Eternal Knight which I must take out with my Bishop at last. With Bishops of opposite colors the game is dead drawn. (3/8)

Last Round
White against younger guy (1600) defending Petroff which I decline. Quiet and solid development, he does not know what to play and moves around in an underdeveloped position. I have every time in the world to build up a crushing pressure. I win a pawn, then his Knight is trapped, in despair he sacrifices a Bishop and the game ends with a nice tactic threatening his Queen plus checkmate. (4/9)

This is my best result so far, a steady improvement every year: 3 points, 3.5 points, 4 points. I come back to the conclusions in my next posts.

Understanding Nimzo, Using His System

2007-09-29T12:15:00.000+02:00

Temposchlucker has motivated me to pick again Nimzo's "My System" from my shelf. A second reason for doing this is that I have included Nimzoindian defense into my repertoire and I still have some deficits in understanding this concept. The concept of tempo and development is crucial in this opening, and after having read again the first chapters of “My System", I have come to important insights that I want to share with you.

My first, incomplete idea about this opening is Black giving up the bishop pair advantage which is compensated by a double pawn of White. But I did not like that White can “refute" this plan by playing 4.Qc2 (after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4) in order to retake with the Queen, avoiding the double pawn. After 4.-c5, the best move in my opinion, we come to this position:

White to move. If he wants to win the bishop pair, he must invest a second tempo by 5.a3, Black takes Bxc3 and after 6.Qxc3 he is still two tempi ahead. And he gets even more after 6.-cxd4 7.Qxd4 Nc6 the Queen is forced to her fourth move and Black has a substantial lead in development. The ideas behind all these moves have been described in detail in the first chapters of “My System", using other openings, sometimes with unsound play of amateurs, but this is really great in this book: A GM who is ready to comment on patzer moves in order to make his ideas as clear as possible.

Aha, now I have got why theory does not recommend 5.a3 but 5.dxc5 Bxc5 and Black keeps his bishop pair. Thus, I think that 4.Qc2 is not the best idea of White.

Winterthur: One Week To Start

2007-09-28T10:19:00.000+02:00

Who will be my first opponent at Winterthur Chess Week, next Friday? Most likely it will be one of these players, and whoever it will be, I am looking forward to that game. The reason is simple. First, it will be my strongest opponent of all times in a direct one-to-one encounter. Second, I have the opportunity to play my best chess, whatever it will be that day. Is it good, my opponent will have to work a bit for his or her victory. Is it bad, I will be punished immediately, giving me the opportunity to learn a lot. Whatever may happen, I only can win.

My mental preparation for this game is quite simple. I just imagine sitting at the board and looking at the two sets of pieces in their home position. Does this look like an advantage of my opponent? I say to myself: They play with the same pieces as me, these are not magic pieces at all. And this is not Vishy but just an IM or FM or WGM. Against Vishy they just would look like me now. They would have the chance of a good game against Vishy, so I will have the same chance against them. Yeah.