Game of the Day 1

In my last post, I said that it was a good idea to look at classic annotated games where a lot of skills can be learned. I also said I would try to put up a game from my collection each day, so here we go.

Day 1:

The earliest player I have a set of games for is the second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker. I have "Lasker's Greatest Chess Games: 1889-1914" by Reinfeld and Fine, a book in the old descriptive notation which I am old enough to remember and have used! You don't have to go very far in the book to find beautiful ideas. In fact the first game, Lasker-Lipke Breslau 1899, has an excellent winning point to it

Lasker, as White, is a piece up, but Black threatens mate on h1. White can't play play Kh2, or it's a perpetual. But Lasker came out with 1.Bxf5+! giving back the piece with check. 1..Qxf5+ 2.Qg4!! an amazing retreat, giving up his active queen and a pawn to reach a winning endgame. This transition from aggressive middlegame, to winning endgame is something that we all need to understand. In fact, transitions are a hugely important aspects of the game that aren't really discussed much in books.

Earlier in the game Lasker showed his understanding for transitions. In the above position most of us would throw the c-pawn up to c4 holding on to the d5 pawn, but Lasker wants to play d4 to take control of the centre, and gain some extra space. So White played 10.Bg5! pinning at least one of the knights, and thus defending d5. While Black was untangling, White played d4 and took some space for his bishops.

Anyway, here's the game, in an algebraic form, with the notes of Reinfeld and Fine.

Enjoy :)

Loading embedded chess game...

Chess Study

Studying and teaching chess is not a very exact science. There seems to be no hard and fast rules as to what to study, how much to study, how to study, when to study, ratio of study to practice, and even goal setting to direct study. Everyone seems to have their own way, which reflects in the fact that there is no universal style to chess.

Some players devour opening theory, which can help with tactical knowledge and plan creation in complicated positions, but usually does little to help with technical play. Studying openings can also lead to psychological weaknesses, as gaps in opening knowledge become apparent and worried about, while reactions to non theoretical moves can be poor.

Some players solve thousands of tactical exercises, which can help with their pattern recognition. While tactical vision is a key element of a successful chess player, it is only one factor, and a danger in working solely on tactics can be a reliance on them, and a need to make certain tactics work in positions where they may not be justified.

Some players study endgames (I might be guilty of this), following in the footsteps of Capablanca. This study of simpler positions and technical precision can help a player earlier in the game to understand weaknesses, relative piece strengths and the transition to the endgame stage. But exclusive endgame training can dull creative and tactical vision, and lead players to search for simple solutions in the middlegame, where a may forceful, or dynamic approach may be necessary.

Of course, the best answer is to mix up that which is studied. Try to solve some tactical puzzles regularly, keep working on openings that you play, or that interest you, and look at theoretical and technical endgames. How much a player studies will depend on that player's time commitments. A working adult, who is very keen on improving might be able to devote 5-10 hours a week on chess study, but then again, they might only be able to put in an hour a week, especially if they have family commitments. So what should these precious hours be spent on?

Playing chess is of paramount importance, and studying your own games is the next most important things. Being extremely self critical in your analysis is key, and analysing without a computer is important as you then simulate analysis that will be used in a game. Checking your analysis with an engine is fine. Much of the opening work you undertake can come from post mortem analysis, when you check to see how your play in the opening went, and then look to improve your knowledge of that opening. If you prepare for games, then some opening analysis will also happen. But beyond this what should you do?

I read an interview with American women's super star, Jennifer Shahade, where she was asked this question. She suggested that 40% of your time should be spent on the middlegame, 30% on the opening, and 30% on the endgame, at least for non master players. I found this interesting as so many Grand Masters have suggested opening study as relatively unimportant compared to tactical study or endgame thinking, and this balanced approach seems to make more sense to me, especially as some players find certain elements of the game more interesting. I would also add that players who are self studying should be happy with whatever they are doing, as any study is better than none. So if a player loves attacking chess, then I see nothing wrong with them looking at lots of classic games with elegant mates, and solving tactical puzzles. At some stage they should find out that a one sided attacking game alone will not suffice at a certain level, and they can then feel the need to study other parts of the game.

In my opinion, the best way to study a balanced, all round game is to look at annotated games. These will probably give some basic thoughts to the openings played, will examine the thinking processes of the players, especially if the author is playing, and will consider both tactical and technical aspects of the game. A good book of a games collection is invaluable in any players library, and should be worked through deeply, and critically. The ideas and general advice that can be gained is invaluable and can lead on to other areas of study. Seeing a great player handle an opening that we don't know too well can inspire us to explore that opening. Likewise, finding analysis of classic endgames can engage us in that subject and make us inquire more deeply about certain types of technical position.

So I intend to post classic games here from the books in my collection, which isn't extensive, but still has quite a number of titles. I'll try to post a game per day, though there might be times that I'm too busy for this. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear form both payers and coaches how they feel players should study the game.

Box Hill Chess Club Championship

The final round of the Box Hill Chess Club Championship was played last night, and it was a very close affair. The event was split into two divisions. There was a 10 player round robin championship event, and a Swiss open reserves event. The winner of the reserves qualifies to play in the following years championship.

I was playing in the Championship and was low on confidence and will power at the start of the tournament, but seemed to have played myself back into some sort of form by the end, so I was happy to compete. The Championship was very close with only 1 point separating the top 7 players. There was a 3-way tie for first place between IM Leonid Sandler and FM's Domogoj Dragicevic and Luis Chan on 6/9. I finished half a point behind along with John Nemeth, while a further half point back were FM Eugene Schon and Kris Chan. Nobody went through the event unbeaten and all players showed both the strengths and frailties of the 2000-2300 band of players, and having to play late on a Friday night after a week's work.

I'm not sure what will happen with a 3-way tie. I don't know if the Championship is shared, if a tie break system is used, or if there is a playoff. There was no tie in the Reserves, with Brendan Zou winning another competitive event. Brendan went through the tournament unbeaten, taking 2 draws, and a half point bye in the middle of the event. Brendan has made big improvement in the past 2 years, and is now a 2000+ strength player, so he should be a good addition to the Championship field next year.

I didn't get to see too much of the other games as I was putting a lot of effort into my own. So I'll show my best and worst moments from the tournament!

This was my endgame as White against FM Domaogoj Dragicevic. I had played for this sort of position thinking (correctly), that my outside a-pawn must guarantee me a winning advantage. What I had failed to consider in the immediate lead up to this position was that there is still a lot of play in this position, and I'd missed a couple of chances to make my win a lot easier in the previous few moves, which must have given Dom some hope. Here as White, there is only 1 winning move, and after some thought I was bale to find it! This was my best moment of the tournament, and I'll give the game at the end of the article.

Now for my worst! I had been playing a tough game against FM Doug Hamilton who had thrown a lot in my direction and I'd managed to find a way to equality, but nothing more, and perhaps I was the one who was fighting to hold the position.

I saw the continuation 1.Ke3 Bd6 2.Nb4 as a fairly natural way the game would go with neither side really able to make much progress. I hesitated and looked again, and again, convincing myself that my knight would go to b4 after he played Bd6, and I hesitated again, thinking through the same thing, and then picked up my knight and put it on b4!! 1.Nb4?? Doug took my f-pawn, then my g-pawn and I then should have resigned straight away, but I played on for a few moves more out of shock than anything else.

Anyway, besides the errors, I enjoyed the tournament Box Hill's venue is absolutely fantastic. Congratulations to all the winners, the arbiters, IA Peter Tsai and Kyle Gibson, and to Box Hill Chess Club for making this a great event to play in.

Loading embedded chess game...

re Winning Moves

My last blog post was about the following position:

What is the best move for White? Well, if you saw that 1.Rxh6+ skewers Black's king and rook, and even better, forces Black to play 1..Ke5 which then pins the other rook, then good for you, you chose the same move as legendary Hungarian GM Lajos Portisch, and his opponent promptly resigned.

However, if you looked at other choices, you may have found that 1.Qd8 forces mate in a few moves. 1..Ke5 2.Re8+ with the nicest line probably 2..Kf4 3.Qxd2+ Qxd2 4.Re4#

Which is better? I guess the computers and purists would demand 1.Qd8+, but practically, 1.Rxh6+ wins easily, so it can't be considered bad.

Loading embedded chess game...

Winning Moves

There are sometimes more than one way to win a position. If we don't choose the quickest, or the most stylish, or precise, how hard should we be on ourselves? I've noticed that sites with computer analysis of games like lichess promote accuracy, and will criticise moves that are ok but not best, especially if they win, but lose a level of advantage. As an example, trading a queen for a rook in a pawn endgame that allows a pawn to promote could be claimed to be inaccurate, even though many of us would see it as a practical way of realising an advantage and winning.

So in play, it's all about finding the best moves you can, while in analysis, it's all about finding the best moves there are. And I guess how hard we are on ourselves will depend on what sort of person we are, what level of perfection we strive for.

It's White to move in this position. White is winning and there is definitely more than one winning move. What would you play as White?

Victorian Chess Championship 2018 Round 2

The second round of the Victorian Championship was played yesterday and showed how tight this event will be as half the games played finished in draws. There are now only 2 players on 2/2, FM Luis Chan and myself.

When I say half the games played, there were a couple of postponed games, and 3 players took a half point bye this round. In the first round 5 players took a half point bye and the question has arisen as to whether we should allow byes in a Championship event. In the previous format, when the tournament was a round robin, there were no byes, but players could rearrange games as the draw was all prearranged. Now with the Swiss system in place, the pairings only come out a few days before the round so it is more difficult to rearrange with a specific opponent. But saying that, the round dates and times are known and so players should have some idea of whether they'll be able to play games or not.

My personal feeling is that the tournament would be better off as a round robin without byes, even if that meant I didn't qualify to play. However, as a Swiss event I don't see a problem with players being allowed to take byes, and I know the move to the Swiss format was partly due to Chess Victoria's funding of the event. There used to be 2 or more round robins running as Championship, Reserves etc, but it became harder to find players to enter these events as the Victorian chess calendar became more packed with club and weekend tournaments. These round robin tournaments were excellent. I played in both Championship and Reserves sections, which were competitive and great for learning about preparation and working on your chess in general.

In the second round, 8 games were played yesterday though I didn't get to see too much as I was grovelling as Black against Milenko Lojanica and having to work hard to cause him some problems. This paid off as Milenko failed to take advantage of promising positions, and the game finally equalised, and then I was able to take an initiative which my opponent seemed oblivious to. Instead of going in to deep defence he continued to try to play actively and his position fell apart.

Even though I was hard at work at the board for most of my game, I am still able to see a lot of games after the round because Box Hill Chess Club have now got 6 DGT boards displaying live games. I remember getting up after about 20 minutes and having a brief look at the openings of the games, then again about about 45 later. But the next time I got up to stretch, some games were already finished! FM Luis Chan won to go to 2/2, but it was a tough game against David Beaumont, with an interesting ending of rook and 4 vs rook and 3 which would be worth looking at in some detail.

There is a large bunching of players just behind first, led by top seed FM Domogoj Dragicevic who won comfortably. The game that most interested me from an early stage was Canfell-Dissanayake which started as Caro but soon turned into a crazy opposite side castling position. Black's king looked ominously placed at times, but he held on and in the end Greg Canfell had to take a repetition draw.

Loading embedded chess game...

It is early days in the tournament and a 3 week break before the next round means that the event will really only start properly from round 3, when the games will be played each week, and most of the players will be playing rather than taking byes.

Playing on

It's a really difficult skill to move from defence to offence in chess. Imagine you've been soaking up pressure for a good while, and then your opponent makes an inaccurate move, or a few inaccuracies. Suddenly you have the chance to take the initiative and go for it. But this psychological shift is difficult to put into practice.

For a lot of players, when the pressure comes off, they are first and foremost relieved that they have survived. This doesn't lend itself to picking up the gauntlet, and going for the win. There can also be a lack of objective assessment. For instance, if I feel my position has been difficult, then I might be looking at the negative sides in my game rather than objectively assessing who is in the better position. Finally, there is an energy factor. It is generally tougher to defend than attack, and after a tough defence it might be that a player just doesn't have the energy to turn things around and start playing for a win.

My game is generally based on stodging positions and especially with Black, holding on to some fairly ugly positions int he hope that I'll be able to equalise and then take my opponent on in the endgame, where I feel confident. In the Box Hill Chess Club Championship which is coming to a close, I have had 2 positions where my opponents have offered me draws that I'd like to look at.

Here I was Black against young FM Luis Chan who had just played 17.Re1 and offered a draw. For the previous 15 moves I had basically grovelled, trying to cover any weaknesses I might have and develop some pieces. White has some difficulties with having over extended on the queen side, and I declined the draw offer and played on. The game should have ended a draw, but after some adventures from both sides, I managed to win this game.

This position is from last night, where White, FM Eugene Schon, has just captured my rook on c8. He offered a draw here, and after some contemplation I agreed. Again, I had been trying to equalise in this game for about 15 moves and I have probably just done it. I feel that I could have played on in an attempt to get something from this position, but my fighting spirit just wasn't at the same level. In this position, White is a pawn up and has the bishop pair, but Black will regain the pawn on d6, and Black's knight will probably be at least as good as either of White's bishops. White's pawn weaknesses are an issue.

So how to explain why I decided to play on in one game, but not in the other? To be honest, I can't explain it, it is totally inconsistent, and that has been a factor that has plagued my play this year. So for the rest of the year, I intend to play on whether I want to or not! I will force myself to keep playing moves, and to seek chances while there is still something in the position, a la Carlsen!

Perhaps I can also inspire others to not give in too easily to the temptation of taking a draw. After all, the logical conclusion to this is that eventually, our fighting spirit will wear down, and we won't put up the best defence in positions. So taking draws early, may lead to us losing defensible positions, because we can't put up enough of a fight.