[B] 19th August 2008. Openings Workshop 

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

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

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

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

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

Delaying castling or castling queenside in the London System?

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

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

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

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

I always liked Pillsbury's guidance:

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

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

Playing Black against 1.d4?

See separate sheets.   

What about 1.e4 c5 2.c4?

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

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

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

Here's a player getting caught out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Benoni any good?

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

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

Two reasons for choosing to delay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classical or Hypermodern?

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

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

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

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

""

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

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

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

Queen's Gambit

Accepted

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

Declined:

Marshall Variation

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

Albin Gambit

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

Tchigorin Variation

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

Baltic Variation

A trappy variation that needs some study by both sides.

Slav Defence

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

Semi-Slav: Noteboom

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

Semi-Slav: Meran

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

Semi-Slav: Botvinnik

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

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

Tarrasch Defence

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

Cambridge Springs Variation

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

Swiss Defence

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

Tartakower Variation

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

Indian Defences

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

English Defence

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

Modern Defence

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

Budapest Gambit

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

Blumenfeld Gambit

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

Dutch Defence

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

Grünfeld Defence

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

Benkö Gambit

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

Benoni Defence

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

King's Indian Defence

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

Old Indian Defence

An unpretentious and solid defence.

Bogo-Indian Defence

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

Queen's Indian Defence

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

Nimzo-Indian Defence

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

Notes

My recommendations for junior and club players usually run to:

  • Swiss Defence
  • Cambridge Springs
  • Noteboom

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

  • Benkö Gambit
  • Nimzo-Indian

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

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

""

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

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

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

Let's take them one at a time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, yeah?  One exasperated reviewer concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The contents list is an amusing read in itself:

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

Oh, and why Chess for Zebras?

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

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

Doing and being

Zugzwang Lite

""

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

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

GENERAL ATTITUDE

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

EXAMPLE GAMES:

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

    General advice:

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

    Further study:

    Try WEBB: Chess for Tigers

    THINKING PROCESS

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

    EXAMPLE GAMES for analysis and playing out:

  • Positions for analyis:
  • Positions for playing out:

    General advice:

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

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

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

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

    Further study:

    KOTOV: Think like a Grandmaster

    NUNN/GRIFFITHS: Secrets of Grandmaster Play

    JACOBS: Analyse to win

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

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

  • Further study:

    TROITZKY: 360 Brilliant and Instructive End Games

    BARDEN: How Good Is Your Chess

    KING: How Good Is Your Chess

    DVORETSKY: Secrets of Chess Tactics

    EGOISM

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

    EXAMPLE GAME: Short-Belyavsky (Helpmate in 2)

    General advice:

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

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

    Further study:

    Try PURDY: The Search for Chess Perfection

    or SILMAN: Reassess your chess

    STRATEGY

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

    EXAMPLE GAME: Pope (not that one) -Regis

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

    General advice:

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

    Further study:

    Try CHERNEV: Logical Chess

    EUWE/KRAMER: The Middlegame Vol.1

    SILMAN: Reassess your chess

    GOLOMBEK: Capablanca's Best Games

    OPENINGS

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

    EXAMPLE GAMES:

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

    General advice:

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

    I would be delighted to give your repertoire an MOT.

    Further study:

    Under 100

    Try WALKER: Chess openings for juniors

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

    100-125

    1.e4 Try

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

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

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

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

        SUMMERSCALE: A killer opening repertoire (Colle-Zukertort)

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

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

    125-150

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

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

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

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

    COLLINS: A White opening repertoire (Scotch Game, Alapin Sicilian and Advance French) [unforgivably careless [p.15], and someone should shoot the editor too]

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

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

    ATTACK AND DEFENCE

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

    EXAMPLE GAMES: first, preparation to the max!

    well, it was Kriegspiel...

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

    General advice:

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

    Further study:

    Try WALKER: Attacking the King

    CHERNEV: Logical Chess

    COZENS: Lessons in Chess Strategy

    VUKOVIC: The art of attack

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

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

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

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

    ZNOSKO-BOROVSKY: How NOT to play chess

    HARDING: Why you lose at chess

    SOLTIS: Chess Mistakes

    HEISMAN: The Improving Annotator

    BAKER: Learn from your chess mistakes

    SILMAN: The Amateur's mind

    ROWSON: The Seven Deadly Chess Sins

    ""

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

    White sacrifices for attack on f6 in the Sicilian

    White sacrifices for attack on h5 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for attack on c3 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for initiative on c3 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for too little on c3 in the Sicilian

    Black sacrifices for initiative in the King's Indian

    Encore!

    White sacrifices for all sorts of compensation in the Grunfeld

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (1)

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (2)

    Compensation for the exchange

    Rooks don't like defending against passed pawns

    A defensive sacrifice

    Petrosian is at it again

    The Karpov sacrifice

    A whole Rook

    ""

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

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

    How to plan, anyway (Silman).


    Botvinnik
    Kan

    First fantasy











    * [Silman]


    Botvinnik
    Kan

    Second fantasy











    * [Silman]


    Botvinnik
    Kan

    Third fantasy











    * [Silman]


    Botvinnik
    Kan

    Fourth fantasy











    1. a4 Kh7 2. a5 bxa5 3. Qxa5 Ra6 4. Qxc5 * [Silman]

    Elements of endgame planning:

    1. Passed pawn

    2. Pawn majority

    3. Rook on the seventh

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

    5. Accumulation theory

    6. Two weaknesses

    7. Manoeuvring

    8. Minority attack

    9. Endgame technique

    A bit of Capablanca magic

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

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

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

    Alekhine plays for a win

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

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

    Looking forward to this one!

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

    Some notes on books about chess psychology:

    ""

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

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

    Example games:

    Ish follows some theory:

    Kramnik wins with the Rooks:

    Fischer wins with the Queen:

    The Queen on the attack:

    The Rooks make a team:

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

    Yusupov loses to the Queen:

    Yusupov has another go with the Rooks:

    Chernin finds an improvement:

    Ish's game in hindsight:

    ""

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

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

    These turned out to be:

    STRATEGY

    Lack of strategy

    Not looking for outposts enough

    Moving pieces which leave holes in my position

    Failure to spot strategic weaknesses early enough

    GENERAL ATTITUDE

    Moving rather than taking more time

    Poor psychology: making mistakes and then making worse ones

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

    THINKING PROCESS

    Playing a middlegame sequence out of in the wrong order

    Running out of time

    Miscalculation (poor vision)

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

    Careless loss of material

    EGOISM

    Moving without working out what my opponent can do in reply

    Not seeing the opponent's intended move

    Not being completely aware to what my opponent up to

    OPENINGS

    Opening inaccuracy

    Inferior opening preparation

    Poor openings

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

    ATTACK AND DEFENCE

    Getting shafted on the diagonals

    Playing unsound attacks

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

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

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

    ""

    [All] 12th May 2008 Comments

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

    ""

    [All] 5th April 2008 London 1922

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

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

    ""

    Help on using inserted games [palview].

    I've re-worked this page to use palview, which I think is wonderful; had I been starting from scratch now, I'd use it for everything.

    1. Whole games will be displayed in a new window or tab if you follow the link; play through them if you like, then come back to the main text.
    2. The control panel buttons are, in order:

      |<

      		<<

      		<

      		>

      		>>

      		>|

      		^

      		( )

      		/\

      Go to start

      		Back 5 moves

      		Back

      		Forward

      		Forward 5 moves

      		Go to end

      		Flip board

      		Autoplay

      		Step into variations

      It's working for you, you should see a diagram and a game which will open a new window to play through below:

      Keen C.
      Ward G.

      Exeter vs. Met. Office
      2008


      21... Rf8










      (White to move) ... 1-0 (42) 1-0

    3. Visitors without Javascript, and perhaps with other configurations, may not be able to view and play through these games as intended.  You can download all the games and positions as a PGN file, and this can be viewed using a PGN viewer (N.B. WinBoard is also a PGN viewer, as well as a front end for GNU chess and online play.)
    4. Any other problems, suggestions, etc., let me know.
      5. ""

    KEY to classes [explanation]

    class A class B class C class D

    class [All]

    Game(s) in PGN