A couple of Ideas in the Opening

I've been easing myself into opening theory by looking at Michael Yip's Budapest Chess News (BCN). I've had a breeze through some games, and a couple of ideas have come to me from just looking briefly at his database.

The first position that grabbed my attention came from a Bird's opening. Now, I'll admit that I know very little about Bird's Opening (1.f4), but the game Capaliku-Hambleton Forni di Sopra 2013 needs very little theoretical knowledge. The game starts with the moves 1.f4 d5 (I'm with it so far) 2.b3 Nh6

For those of you who don't like the usual opening ideas, this should appeal! There have actually been some games played from a reverse position to this (ie, the Dutch) starting 1.d4 f5 2.Nh3. I admit to knowing nothing about this line either! Anyway, the Hambleton game continued 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.e3 Nf5 5.Bb2 e6 6.Be2 Nd7 7.0-0 Be7 8.Ne5 [8.c4 seems more in keeping with the Bird's generally] 8..Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Nxe5 10.fxe5 c6. Obviously, there could have been different moves up to this point, but this is the position that interested me.

So as white what should be played here? To me, white has 3 main options, 11.c4, 11.d4, or 11.e4. In the game 11.d4 was played, but I see more point in advancing on the central light squares. 11.c4 with the intention of developing Nc3 behind it seems a pretty reasonable idea. 11.e4 looks to undouble the central pawns. A sample line is 11..dxe4 12.Qxe4 Bc5 13.Kh1 Qg5 14.d4 Qe3 15.Re1 Qxe4 16.Rxe4 Rd8 17.c3 with a playable position for both sides.

Anyway, back to the game and after 11.d4 the game continued 11..0-0 12.Nd2, when Michael Yip suggests 12..Bg5 as an improvement over the game continuation of 12..Qa5.

I think it shows the strength of BCN that Michael Yip is prepared to stick his neck out, and try to improve on the games of strong players. Studying games, and by studying I mean critically analysing them, is the best way for players to improve their knowledge. It is hard work, but most rewarding. It is a good idea to work through some great annotated games so as to get an idea of what is expected in analysing a game. Try game collections by Botvinnik, Alekhine, or Karpov, or tournament books such as Zurich 1953, or Piatigorsky Cup 1966 to see some great annotations. When you've looked through games analysed by top players, then have a go at doing it yourself. The more you do it, the better you will get! Let's look at this move 12..Bg5!?

 - 13.Rf3 [Yip mentions this] 13..Qa5 [13..c5!?] 14.c4 f6 with advantage to black according to Michael, and I'm not arguing with him about this.

- 13.e4 [This is the move that interests me, because if white can rid himself of his weak e3 pawn, then his position shouldn't be that bad. Michael doesn't mention this move] 13..Ne3 [I don't think this is necessarily an easy move to find, but others don't impress: 13..Bxd2? 14.exf5 and white has great attacking chances on the king side; 13..Be3+ 14.Kh1 Nxd4 15.Qxe3 Nxc2 16.Qc3 Nxa1

and here, white has the excellent 17.Ba3!! (thankyou Stockfish) taking control of the key diagonal. In the case of 17.Rxa1, black has 17..Qe7 followed by c5; 13..dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxd4 15.Qg4 Be3+ 16.Kh1 and white has great activity, especially directed at black's king in compensation for the pawn] 14.Rfc1 f5! [Trying to open the f-file now that white has taken his rook away] 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Re1 Bxd2 17.Qxd2 f4

 So here's the end of my analysis line. Black is probably a bit better, because the knight seems better than white's bishop. Saying that, if white can manage a c4 and d5 type break then anything could happen. Of course, if white does play c4, then d5 will be almost obligatory, or the d4 pawn will be weak, but I think that both sides would feel they have a chance from this position.

 I have found Michael's analysis and work very useful as I ease myself into the crazy world of opening theory. In fact, I have to admit that it's a bit ironic that my interest in opening theory comes just after I give up playing internationally rated chess. Oh well, with some work on my openings I might be able to make a big come back at some stage :D

The Najdorf is a favourite with theorists, and as such is a nightmare for someone who is out of the loop. For example, the last time I looked at any Najdorf theory, the variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7 was considered a bit dubious for black. Now it seems like a viable alternative. I seem to remember white plays 7.Bc4 hoping for possible sacrifices on e6, f7 or d5. So I was a bit surprised when the game Paravyan-Mekhitarian Golden Sands 2013 continued 7..Qb6 [I think 7..Qa5 is the main move here] 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.0-0 e6

Here white has the thematic sacrifice 10.Bxe6 [Not played in the game, or mentioned by Micheal Yip] 10..fxe6 11.Nxe6 [when black must lose time as white threatens to fork on c7] 11..Kf7 [11..Qb6 is strongly answered by 12.Nd5 when black has the miserable choice between 12..Qa7 or 12..Nxd5 13.exd5 when white's rooks will come to the b and e-files with devastating effect]

And now white has the fantastic 12.a3!! threatening to trap black's queen.

Now I'll be honest, I didn't find the 12.a3 move but I did find 10.Bxe6 while looking at the game. I checked the move with my engine, which also liked it, and asked chessbase 12 to find the novelty in the position. To my delight, 10.Bxe6 has been played before in an online game on the playchess server. Amazingly, the white player did find the 12.a3 move in the game, though the 2600+ rating suggests he wasn't a patzer like me. Anyway, the moral of the story is that studying openings can be fun, is not necessarily about memorising ideas, but rather about finding themes, and tactical ideas which prevail in certain openings. Once this understanding has been mastered, or while it is being mastered, variations can be examined, and opening knowledge can be built up.

Amazing Online Resource

Yesterday, I tried my hand at opening writing which went pretty well besides putting an apostrophe on the wrong place. I guess like anything else the more one practices, the better one will get, so I'll keep taking a look at openings in the future. One thing I am determined to do is get to grips with the Najdorf. It's an opening that I used to play, and I have tried to play on the white side, though certainly not from a critical perspective. To be honest, I'm not that interested in the Najdorf (or any other opening for that matter) to buy a book on the subject. I prefer to learn openings from playing, and analysing games. I might then use a monograph as a reference once I have some ideas of my own. I've always believed that this method avoids the hype and dogma that opening books invariably contain, and keep me thinking for myself and looking for positions that attract me, rather than positions which are supposed to be theoretically preferred. This is important as a good position and a comfortable position are not the same thing. Some players prefer static advantages, whereas others look for dynamic features in positions.

One person who is putting a lot of work into their chess is Canadian Michael Yip. Yip lives in Budapest and writes his fantastic blog, Budapest Chess News (BCN). If you haven't checked it out yet, then definitely take a look. Yip writes mainly about chess in his native Canada, and his residence of Hungary. But there is so much more than that. He produces a monthly file with heavily analysed games, that can be downloaded from Kevin Spraggett's site. He also has 3 other blogs, all about opening theory which he updates almost daily. These blogs cover 1.e4, 1.d4, and other openings. This tremendous work is absolutely free, and is well worth a look for anyone wanting to start out with some theoretical knowledge. I, for instance, will be using Yip's coverage of the Najdorf as my basis for studying this opening.

So today, I downloaded the July issue of BCN and haven't yet had a good look through it. There are about 120 heavily analysed games in the file that is stored in chessbase format. Take a look at Yip's coverage of the Najdorf between Caruana and Nakamura from the recently concluded Tal Memorial.




This is an amazing dedication to chess and chess writing, which inspires me to do more as well. I doubt that I will be able to put as much into studying the opening of the game as Michael Yip has, but I still intend to do more than I was previously doing. Watch this space!

Four Knights Opening

I was going to look at some Najdorf theory, but it really is daunting to get into if you haven't looked at any over the past 25 years. Unfortunately I gave up the Najdorf just as Nunn and Short were pioneering the English Attack which had been known as the Byrne System before the 1980's. The latest issue of New in Chess magazine contains one Najdorf game, an English Attack between Anand and Topalov from the recent Norwegian super tournament. In the magazine, the first 14 moves get no commentary which doesn't really help me understand the nuances of this opening. So I've decided to leave the Najdorf for another day when I feel up to the challenge of wading through the reams of games and analysis.

Instead I saw a game from TWIC which featured the h3 move that Kramnik used last year in the Scotch Four Knights Opening. The position comes after the moves:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.Nxc6 [Someone fell for 6.Ndb5? last week which works well in the Sicilian Pelikan, but here loses material after 6..a6 when white's best is to drop back to d4 with his knight, losing the e4 pawn] 6..bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.0-0 0-0

The mainline here is 10.Bg5 which seems like a natural enough move, but last year Kramnik used the move 10.h3 against Aronian in the 2012 Tal Memorial. That game ended in a draw, though it seemed as if Aronian was under a little pressure. Since then the line has come under top level scrutiny, with Karjakin, Morozevich, Wang Hao and Anish Giri playing this position for white among others. I have a database of recent games, and in 100 games from September 2012 until now white has scored 59% with the move 10.h3. Funnily enough, running Stockfish for 10 minutes on my laptop just brings up a level score for this position, -0.08 with 10..c6 as it's main move and 10..Re8 as the main alternative. Well these are 2 of the top 3 moves, but neither score particularly well for black. The move that is performing the best for black at the moment is the "pass the ball back to white's court" 10..h6. The obvious idea behind white's tenth move is to prevent black from using g4, especially for his bishop. So the prophylactic 10.h3 secures white's queen along the d1-h5 diagonal, and means that white will develop the queen to f3 most likely. So by playing 10..h6, black deprives white of the most natural move for their dark squared bishop, g5. White can still develop the dark squared bishop to f4 which is a pretty good square. Usually white develops the queen first 11.Qf3.

I guess this position is a vital one to understand. White has the better structure and white's pieces seem more centrally directed. After white plays Bf4 and connects rooks it will be time to plan on how to bring about the demise of black's centre. Because black's central pawns, whether they are on c6/d5 or c5/d5 are annoying and holding on to a lot of space. Black may have to work a bit harder with the pieces to coordinate them properly, but black's pieces have great shelter from the central pawn mass. Black has 2 natural files for the rooks, the semi open b-file, and the open e-file, and the possibility, at least temporarily, of shattering white's queen side by exchanging on c3. Saying that, giving up the bishop pair for pawn weaknesses is not a risk free strategy in this type of position.

The most high profile game played from this position is the all GM clash Quesada-Bacallao Cuban Ch 2013.
11..Re8 12.Bf4 c6 [interesting that black does not trade dark squared bishops by 12..Bd6. This plan seems to be scoring well for white. Also the c6 pawn prevents white's knight from using b5] 13.Ne2?! [Now I don't want to start criticising GM's for their moves (lol) but 13.Rfe1 seems to make a lot more sense, challenging the e-file, as played int he game Zelcic-Bayer Austria 2013. In that game, white simply centralised his rooks, and only regrouped his knight after black had played Bb4-d6, so as to recapture on f4 with the knight or transfer it to the king side] 13..Ne4 [Throwing the knight into the centre, taking advantage of white's last move. Also notice that white cannot develop a rook to the e-file for the moment] 14.Rad1 Qf6 15.c3

Black's bishop needs to retreat, but where to? In the game it dropped back to f8 but it certainly could have stayed more active on either c5 or d6.
15..Bd6 [and white can hardly play 16.Bxd6 Qxf3 17.gxf3 Nxd6 with an excellent game for black] 16.Rfe1 and black can force a similar structure to the last note after 16..g5!? 17.Bxd6 Qxf3 18.gxf3 Nxd6 and black is better
15..Bc5 [Covering both d4 and f2, though the down side is that that black will not be playing Rb8 in a hurry] 16.b4 Bb6 17.a4 [This queen side expansion is probably what black was wary of in the game] 17..a6 [17..a5 allows white to push 18.b5 undermining black's centre; 17..g5 is not so good here as after white's bishop retreats, a queen swap will not favour black eg. 18.Bh2Qxf3 19.gxf3 Nf6 20.a5 Bd8 and black's pieces have been pushed uncomfortably backwards] 18.c4! I think this move keeps white in the game eg. 18..Be6 19.c5 Ba7 20.Be3, a nice regrouping taking control of the d4 square and keeping the balance, though maybe not much more.

All in all an interesting little look at what seems an innocuous move. I'll leave you with a database of games :)

Opening Study

Ok, so I'm curious. How much opening study do you do? What percentage of your time is spent studying openings compared to looking at other aspects of chess? I will admit that as I've got older, it has become a less consuming part of my chess study and I now spend more time looking through games, working through tactical puzzles, and looking at endgames. I have some vague opening ideas that have been picked up over the years, but to be honest, I'm no expert on any opening.

Now I guess this brings some good and bad. On the plus side, it makes me quite flexible and imaginative. I'm not tied to theoretical systems, and am not trying to uphold the honour of certain variations. I play a number of different openings, all equally averagely, and just kind of find myself in a middlegame position all of a sudden, which I just start working on over the board. As FM Bill Jordan once said to me "you can only be out-theoried by one move" as when you make that move which your opponent doesn't recognise they are also on their own to some extent. Of course, this is a simplification of the issue, as studying opening systems should enable players to develop feel for typical positions as well as knowing the best theoretical lines. On the down side I don't get many cheap points in games and have to work hard at the board from fairly early on in games. While my general understanding of chess might not be that bad, my specific understanding of certain openings will be poor meaning that I am missing chances of getting the best start to games.

The Tarrasch

So the question is, 'am I bothered about it'? Well in some ways yes, but generally no. I am well past the stage in my life where I have that many goals to achieve in chess, and virtually none of my goals are to do with playing myself. However, as I've started playing less chess, and less seriously, I've found that I'm enjoying looking at theoretical works more. I have started playing games on chess.com using a time limit of 3 days per game, and have started studying openings through that, like I imagine correspondence players do, though I would never consider myself one of them! I've also been working with stronger kids than in the past, and I could really do with helping them with openings as well as other parts of their game.

Sicilian Najdorf

So I've decided, at the age of 46, I'm going to start looking at openings again (probably the first serious opening study I've done in the past 25 years!). I will share some ideas here, though of course, you'll have to be ready to accept the openings that I choose. And talking about choosing, the whole subject of openings is pretty massive, so finding a starting point is a pretty daunting prospect. So I'll even tell you where I'm going to start looking. I'm going to try to go in depth into the following openings:

- Tarrasch Variation of the Queen's Gambit
- Four Knight's Opening
- Sicilian, especially Najdorf (my great favourite as a junior).

I think these systems offer a wide range of styles of play, from opposite side castling to isolated queen pawns, gambits to near symmetrical systems, pawn minorities, pawn majorities, and broken pawn structures compensated by pieces. I find these imbalances, and I suppose balances, the main interest in the opening and where it leads us to in the middlegames. I'll be playing these systems a lot as well, so if you do play me in a tournament, or online, there's a good chance I'll play one of these openings, if allowed. I remember back in the 1970's or early 80's in the UK, IM Mike Basman announcing that he would be playing 1.b4 or 1.g4, and the same things in reverse when he played in tournaments, allowing players to prepare for him. I think that was a pretty amazing thing to do, so I'm basically doing the same thing. Well almost, as I get bored easily by openings, so I apologise in advance if you've prepared one of those systems against me and I come up with something completely different! Of course, you can be content that I won't know that opening better than any other system I play!!

Four Knight's Opening

I will gratefully accept any help and analysis on these openings, and once I start publishing some opening ideas, I'll gladly accept criticism of them. Watch this space, and let's get these openings understood!

Teams Chess and Magazines

I've been away for a few days and when I arrived home I found a New in Chess magazine waiting for me. I haven't bought these magazine's for a long time, and had forgotten how much content they contain. I was browsing a bit, and reading quite a bit which is something that NiC magazine has over Informator style publications. I like the tournament reports, the interviews and editorial style pieces. In fact, I enjoy the written word much more than the symbols that all chess players eventually get used to, and even start using as language (after that it's "plus-minus"). It's good to read what top players were thinking during the games they analyse and their reasons for choosing moves and plans.

New in Chess magazine with excellent quality material

The current issue of New in Chess Magazine has tournament  reports from the Zug Grand Prix, the Alekhine Memorial, the Norway Chess Spectacular and the US Championships. All of these were great events, and all of them had great online live coverage which makes magazine reports seem somehow obsolete. However, the NiC reports bring an extra dimension with great game analysis and GM reports bringing inside information about the events. Besides these reports, the current magazine has interviews with GM's Topalov and Hammer, an historical article on Carlos Torre and interesting commentary articles by GM's Short and Ree. I guess that the New in Chess editorial team realise that live chess with Houdini style immediate analysis is giving many players all they need of chess analysis. So instead the magazine is filled with expert commentary, ideas, photo's and the emphasis is on quality of material.

Carlos Torre Repetto

The article by Nigel Short I found very interesting, and somewhat frustrating. Short's double page article contains no actual chess moves, but it tells his story of recent adventures in club chess. Nigel does a great job of describing the tension that team chess can generate, the bonds that can develop by playing regularly for a team, and some issues that only team chess can bring up, such as board orders and not knowing which players the opposing team will have playing on a given date. These were issues that I grew up with in the UK, and I've experienced the joys of winning games for my team and the misery of losing games that cost us matches (the worst being when you turn a winning position into a losing one, which feels a million times worse when the rest of your team are looking over your shoulder!).

So why did I find Nigel's article frustrating? Nothing to do with the article, which helped bring back some memories of team matches I've played. Rather it is because here in Melbourne, team chess seems to have died away again. When I first arrived here, there was a dwindling teams competition which finally died out for a couple of years. I then helped to rejuvenate it, and for the past couple of years there has been a teams event. However, we have heard nothing so far this year from Chess Victoria about a teams event. I'm beginning to think that the State body aren't the best organisation for running such an event, and a separate league organisation would be better. This was my original idea when I first hatched the plan over 2 years ago, but CV President, Leonid Sandler said it would be better under CV auspices. However, Chess Victoria is a voluntary run organisation that has its hands full with the events they currently organise, let alone taking on the burden of other tournaments. There's just too few people with too little time. A sad fact.

GM Nigel Short (second left) with Iranian Bronze medal winning team from the  2006 Asian games (from chessbase)

What I think we need is a dedicated league which perhaps can be incorporated into Chess Victoria, but which is a separate entity and responsible for the organisation of team chess across the city and even the state. It would be good if the chess clubs around Victoria became involved in the league administration, but a small and dedicated committee is needed, at least to start with. If the league grows, then so can the organisation. The feedback I received from the team's events was mostly all positive, so there are plenty of people who want this form of chess. It just takes a bit of work to organise. So should I try to organise a league, perhaps for 2014? Would anyone be prepared to help?

Last Day of Chess Camp

The 2013 Chess Kids camp finished with a day of serious play.After clearing out of our cabins, the kids had one more coaching session this morning before getting on with tournament games. The kids had been placed into 7 teams, and they were to play a round robin event. Before today, they had played 4 rounds so there were 3 games left to play. There was a great deal of tension around the games as each player was trying to win their board prize. In the end the event was very close which meant that our seeding of players into teams worked well. Before we headed off there was a prize giving, with loads of books, t-shirts, caps and other things given out tot he kids.

I think everyone had a good time and I'm sure all the kids will go away with some great memories of this camp, and with a better appreciation of chess endgames, and a better understanding of chess generally. Some parents came along, and they did a great job helping out around the scenes, making the jobs of the coaches somewhat easier. It meant I had more energy to spend on actual coaching, as I needed to do less child minding over the 4 days. I've already been talking to David Cordover about next year's camp. Last year we had a good time in Hobart, Tasmania, but we wanted to make it even better this year, and I think we succeeded. We won't sit still though, and hope to make it even better next time round!

I'm pretty tired after the camp so I'm leaving this post fairly short. Here's a final few photo's of the last day of the camp.

Good play is encouraged, good sportsmanship demanded

The Winning Team, l-r Ryan, Ethan, Oliver, Daniel and Yoni

Top board 1 player, Rebecca

Chess Camp Day 3

The weather took a turn for the worse today, but when you're a chess player that's usually a good thing as it means more indoor time. Unfortunately, today was scheduled as excursion day, which meant we spent quite some time outside. The day started with a round of tournament chess before breakfast, and there is no doubt that the games are becoming tougher as the tournament goes on. Any early nerves, or excitement are over and the kids are just getting down to fighting it out with other kids around the same strength. With every game a tough game, and with chances of the result going any way, I am even more convinced that round robin formats are the best test of skill for players.

I was impressed by this position today. Mikaela, as black is a pawn down, but found a way to become material ahead. Can you beat the tactical vision of a kid? Black to play and win.

After the morning game we took off on our excursion for the day. First stop was A Maze n' Things in the centre of Phillip Island. Besides having a very big fence maze (the biggest in Australia), there are lots of interesting attractions to explore, including sensory illusions. The kids had great fun going round this (the adults did too!) and then we held a blitz chess tournament through lunch which included a barbecue. The blitz session was held outside, which was a bit cold, but none of the kids seemed bothered and the tournament was hard fought with Max Phillips (1212) being the winner on 6/7.

First stop for the day

None of the players lost their heads during the day

Al fresco blitz tournament and barbecue

After the blitz, we all got back on the bus, and headed to Phillip Island's chocolate factory. As can be imagined, this brought great excitement to everyone. The chocolate factory has an interesting tour exploring how chocolate is made, it's origins, history, flavours, manufacture and some activities for kids (and adults) to take part in. Of course, there's a shop and cafe with many specialty chocolates and other goods for sale.

Chocolate sculpture of "David"

Chocolate Moose :D

After all that, and some sports when we arrived back at the camp (basketball, rock climbing), the kids still had the energy to go through another coaching session on endgames before the evening meal. I obviously can't speak for the other coaches, but the group I worked with tried really hard, and the session went very well (we were talking about minor pieces in the endgame, and the differences between knights and bishops.

It's been a pretty exhausting camp but thoroughly enjoyable. Tomorrow we will all be heading off home (though not before more games and coaching) and hopefully all the kids will be taking some fond memories away with them. Friendships have been developed, chess skills have been improved, and fun has been had by eveyone.