Adventures with 1…e5 (1)

So, as I explained last week, I’ve decided to play more positively and make some changes to my opening repertoire. In particular, I’m switching from c5 to e5 in reply to e4. You might think c5 is the more aggressive choice, but not in my case. I preferred the relatively stodgy Kalashnikov Sicilian, but in most cases my opponents preferred to avoid the main lines, as generally tends to happen at club level. As I teach 1.. e5 to my pupils I know rather more about it than I do about 1.. c5, but in the past I’ve been scared of the tactics.

Since 2001 my only competitive games have been played for my club, Richmond, in the Thames Valley League. I currently play about 20 games a year. I’ve never in my life played a FIDE rated game but if I had a rating it would be somewhere in the region of 1900. The season started with two matches between our A and B teams, which are both in Division 1 of the league. My first black of the season was in the second of these matches when I found myself playing on board 2 for Richmond B against Jochem Snuverink, who has a FIDE rating of 2341. Playing an opponent about 450 points stronger than me would at least give me the chance to learn something.

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4

So he’s going Italian rather than Spanish. My main choices are Bc5 and Nf6, against both of which White has sharp options where Black has to know the theory. I guess I could play defensively with Be7 if I didn’t want a theoretical battle. Of course, whatever Black chooses, White has the option of playing for a closed position with d3.

3.. Nf6

3.. Bc5 is probably the theoretically stronger move but Black has to be prepared to counter both the Evans Gambit (4. b4) and 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4. Both absolutely fine as long as you can remember the analysis. 3.. Nf6 is more fun for Black to play, though.

4. Ng5 d5

Black’s alternative here is 4.. Bc5, the scary Traxler (or Wilkes-Barre) variation. 5. Nxf7 is totally wild and unplayable for either side unless you know the theory. 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 may not give Black quite enough play for the pawn, although things are never so easy in practice.

5. exd5 Nd4

This is the next big decision for Black. The obvious recapture 5.. Nxd5 gives White a pleasant choice. The famous Fried Liver Attack with 6. Nxf7 is very popular and successful in junior chess. An alternative preferred by some authorities is 6. d4, when 6.. Nxd4 7. c3 b5 is a fairly recent try for Black. I would have said that Nxd5 was no longer played at higher levels but it was tried in Shirov-Sulskis (Tromso Olympiad 2014) when Black, who seemed unaware of ancient theory, lost quickly. I would have thought Shirov was the last person you should play 5.. Nxd5 against, but I guess there’s no accounting for taste.

5.. Na5 is, and has been for a couple of hundred years or so, the main line. I’ll return to this in a later post.

5.. b5 is the Ulvestad Variation, which usually transposes into my choice, the Fritz Variation. This was very popular for many years at Richmond Junior Club and scores well in practice (54% for Black on BigBase 2014), so it was a natural choice for me.

6. c3

Generally accepted to be the best move. A trap which I’ve used successfully online (and in games against small children at Richmond Junior Club) on several occasions goes 6. d6? Qxd6 7. Nxf7? Qc6 8. Nxh8? Qxg2 9. Rf1 Qxe4+ 10. Be2 Nf3#

6.. b5
7. Bf1

Looks strange, but again considered the best move here.

7.. Nxd5
8. cxd4 Qxg5
9. Bxb5+ Kd8

This is the main line of the Fritz variation. White now has an important decision: Qf3 or O-O.

10. O-O

10. Qf3 is the more popular option here (144 games on BigBase 2014 compared with 70 for O-O) but Stockfish considers Black to be fine after 10.. exd4 (much better than the more usual Bb7, which would probably transpose to my game) 11. O-O Rb8 or 11. Bc6 Nf4! 12. Bxa8 Bg4 when Black, despite being a rook down, appears to stand better.

Jochem’s choice seems to be a definite improvement, leading to an advantage for White in all variations.

10.. Bb7

10.. Rb8 11. Bc6 exd4 (or 10.. exd4 transposing) is probably a better try for Black, but, with his king in the centre, it’s still good for White.

11. Qf3 exd4

11.. Rb8 12. dxe5 Ne3 13. Qh3 Qxg2+ 14. Qxg2 Nxg2 15. d4 is another try, but leaves White with an extra pawn.

12. d3 Qf6
13. Qg4 Qd6

In this position Black has chosen Qe5 five times and Bc8 three times. Everything seems to favour White, though.

14. Na3 c6
15. Ba4 Nf6

The losing move. 15.. Nb6 was a better try, but still pretty unpleasant for Black. Now Stockfish chooses Qh4, planning to follow up with moves like Nc4, Re1 and Bg5 when it can’t find a good defence for Black. Jochem’s move is also good enough to win.

16. Qg5 h6
17. Qa5+ Qc7
18. Nc4 c5
19. Bd2 Nd5

Leading to a quick loss, but after 19.. Qxa5 20. Bxa5+ Kc8 21. b4! White opens up the c-file for an attack on the black king.

20. Qb5 Qe7

The computer move Ke7 was the only way to play on.

21. Rae1 1-0

So it looks from this game that the Fritz Variation, while offering good chances against an unprepared opponent, is pretty much unplayable for Black as long as White knows the theory.

Richard James

Share

Trading Principles

Beginners learn the relative values of the pieces early in their chess studies and use those values to calculate the outcome of material exchanges (trading pieces). While using this numerical method can help a player avoid losing an exchange of material, it cannot be the sole basis for determining whether or not an exchange will be advantageous. Solely using the relative value system to determine the success of an exchange is akin to occupying only two dimensions in a three dimensional world. You’re going to miss something important and in chess missing something important leads to lost games! Players must see the bigger picture before considering exchanging material.

Obviously, we want to compare the relative value of both our pieces and those of our opponent before considering an exchange of material. Beginners are taught that trading a Queen for a Knight would be a bad trade since the Queen is worth nine points and the Knight three. Trading our Queen for a Knight would mean the net loss of six points which equals two minor pieces or six pawns. However, what if giving up the Queen for a Knight led to checkmate? We’ve all played through the games of Paul Morphy in which he sacrificed a major piece (or two) to win the game. Unfortunately, the average beginner doesn’t have the calculation skills to successfully sacrifice material. Fortunately, there are some trading principles the beginner can employ to help improve their position and lay the groundwork for good calculative thinking.

Here are some ideas to employ when considering an exchange of pieces. Applying these ideas will make a huge difference in your game. Again, its about seeing the bigger picture which means considering the entire position on the chessboard. Is the position open or closed? Are you ahead in material or behind? Are your pieces cramped or free to roam around the board? Are you under positional pressure? Is your opponent threatening checkmate? Positional questions must be asked before considering any exchange of material.

Consider a trade or exchange when you are ahead in material. While this might seem counter-intuitive, since beginners are taught to maintain as much material as possible, the more you trade down when ahead in material, the greater your advantage becomes later on. Both players start out with eight pawns each so both players have an equal number of pawns. Let’s say you and your opponent start trading pawns and reach an endgame position in which you have two pawns to your opponent’s one pawn. You have a much greater advantage since you have twice as many pawns. Of course, this is an extremely simplified example but the idea still holds true. Material advantages become greater or more pronounced as pawns and pieces are traded off the board. Always think about this idea as you approach the endgame. Good chess players think about the future as well as the present! Don’t live solely in the moment!

If you have a spacial disadvantage, where your position is cramped, trade pieces to open up the position. If your opponent has greater control of the board, leaving you stuck in a cramped defensive position, consider trading material to give yourself some room to move. However, you have to be careful in regards to what material you trade. If you’re in an open game, a game in which there is a lot of open space between you and your opponent, consider hanging on to long distance pieces such as the Bishops and exchanging Knights. In a closed position, your Knights should be kept. Of course, you must always consider the value of your material and your opponent’s material before starting any exchange. If you have the spacial advantage, keep applying pressure by controlling more space and avoid trading material.

Consider an exchange if doing so allows one of your remaining pieces to become more active. If you find yourself in a closed position, Knights are going to be more powerful because of their ability to jump over other pieces. If your opponent has an active Knight that you can exchange for a bad Bishop (a Bishop that has little mobility), consider the trade. While both the Knight and Bishop have the same relative value, meaning an equal trade will garner both players three points of exchanged material, a trapped or immobile Bishop really isn’t in the game when the position is closed. The Knight, on the other hand, is able to jump over the positional traffic jam which means it is in the game and has greater value.

If your opponent has an powerful piece that is stopping you from executing your plan, consider forcing an exchange. A Knight on f3 for White or f6 for Black, protects the h2 or h7 pawn when a player has Castled on the King-side. That Knight is a critical defender. Removing that defender leaves only the King to defend either the h2 or h7 pawn. When I say powerful piece, most beginners think of the Queen or Rook. However, we have to look at a piece’s value in relationship to the position. A pawn about to promote is extremely powerful. It might have a relative value of one but because it is about to promote, it’s value increase. Relative value is not absolute value.

When considering any trade, a player must look far beyond the relative value of the pawns and pieces. Its the relationship to a position that determines a pawn or piece’s value. Often we find ourselves under pressure in a position. A potential checkmate may be looming on the positional horizon. Trading pieces may reduce that pressure enough to stop the threat of checkmate. Always ask yourself, “am I under pressure and is there an exchange that will relieve some of that pressure.

Lastly, never, ever exchange material just to exchange. Good chess players capture or exchange pieces to improve their position. I love to capture pawns and pieces but I don’t do so unless I get something more than mere material for my efforts. I need my position to improve when I exchange pieces! Trade smart by looking at all your options. Speaking of trading, here’s a game to enjoy until next week!

Hugh Patterson

Share

Opening Blunders, Part One

This article will be a collection of short games in which either my opponent or I blundered early in the games.

All three of these chess games were played on ICC against a computer program called BethO. I have a bad habit of playing late at night or early in the morning making me too tired to play well. It is even worse when I am trying to eat or otherwise distracted while I am playing chess. This program tends to play goofy openings very quickly and I often fall into the trap of playing too quickly to match the speed of this program. Then, it will bite me with a move that I did not look for! Sometimes, when I am really tired, I will fall for the same trap more than once!

In this first game as White, I tried to play the Botvinnik System, but I messed up the move order when I got surprised by Black’s early Queen development and very aggressive play. On Black’s sixth move it put a Knight on d4 and I decided to develop normally. That turned out to be the beginning of the end for me. The White Knight on c3 is pinned to the White King by the Black Queen. I should have played either 7.Bd2 or 7.Qa4 to break that pin. Instead, I tried to castle out of the pin because I missed Black’s next two moves.

In the second chess game, I played an English: Bremen, reverse dragon and once again, I blundered early in the game. As White, my 18th move was weak because I traded my fianchettoed Bishop for a Knight and that left the light squares around my King weak. I also put the Black Queen on that diagonal. With the Black Queen on c6 my Knight on c3 was pinned to my unprotected Queen while that Knight was en prise. I could not save that Knight and thus I resigned two moves later.

Here is another chess game in which I blundered early against BethO while playing the White side of the English Opening. Once again, I played the Botvinnik System as White. This time, I played my more usual move order. Once again, Black puts its Knight on d4. Black also forfeits the right to castle by moving both of its rooks and then its King. This leaves the Black King in the Center. This should have altered my plan to attack on the Kingside and instead I should have opened up the Center. By move number 15 White has a special advantage across the board. Allowing the Black Rook to get to e3 was a mistake as was not protecting the White pawn on d3. It was bad enough that I gave away my pawn on d3 , but then I gave away the one on g3 too!  After that I resigned.

Mike Serovey

Share

The Danger Of A King Out Of Play In The Endgame

In a hard-fought game my student played that ended in a draw, when we were looking at it, I observed that his opponent missed a win at one single critical moment. This was a result of an accumulation of positionally questionable decisions that, although in themselves still led to defensible positions, led to a single blunder that could have been punished.

Three mistakes

Allowing an outside passed Pawn

The first unnecessary concession was made in the late middlegame when Black captured a piece on a5 allowing a recapture with a Pawn bxa5 resulting in White getting an outside passed Pawn. Granted, this being a Rook Pawn made it not as useful, but still created unnecessary danger.

King out of play

The second unnecessary concession was moving the King from g8 to h7, out of the main action. It was best to moving the King toward the center and toward the Queenside, with the goals of safeguarding the Pawn chain from c6 as well as, more critically, aiming toward White’s a-Pawn, either to capture it or at least prevent it from Queening. Granted, Black had a plan to get the King to f4, but it is slow. In fact, it ended up working in the game, but only because White did not act more quickly and decisively to try to Queen the a-Pawn.

Creating another outside Pawn for the opponent

The final concession, which in this case was a big blunder, was to accept White’s sneaky offer of a Queen trade, resulting in transforming White’s c-Pawn into an “outside” b-Pawn that could have been used as a Pawn break to lead the way for White’s King to invade the Queen side and successfully Queen the a-Pawn. A calculation shows that Black’s attempt to also Queen a passed Pawn is too late, because White’s active King can get to Black’s King side Pawns in time to ensure that after White gives up the Rook in turn, the resulting King and Pawn ending is an easy win because Black’s King ends up out of play and White can just push a passed Pawn to victory.

Lessons

The main lessons to learn are that even in a drawable position, it is wise to keep the draw simple by not giving a passed Pawn to the opponent, not giving a Pawn break to the opponent, and keeping one’s King ready to prevent Queening of a passed Pawn if it does exist.

Franklin Chen

Share

Identify The Key Defender

Identifying the key defender can be a very useful technique, particularly when you are in attack. For example in this position (taken from The Encyclopedia Of Chess Combinations):

Here the queen sacrifice on f3 look very promising (it is often good to start your calculation with forcing moves as your opponent won’t get time to execute his plans) because it opens the g- file and increases the scope of bishop (f1-a6 diagonal) and knight. Then I calculate ….Qxf3, gxf3 Rg8+, Nxg8 Rxg8+ and notice that he can return the queen by playing Qg4. Even after Kf1 Ba6+ he can return the material. So I rejected that variation and looked around for something else, and note that Black has to do something as otherwise his own position is critical.

However we can conclude that the queen is the key defender if I want to play Qxf3.

With this in mind I looked position again and tried to see what happen if queen was not on the d-file or the h3-c8 diagonal. Now it is crystal clear you can deflect the queen by playing …Rxe7!, again this is a forcing move. It is also wise to see whether your opponent has a good intermediate check before executing this kind of sacrifice.

Now you know how to try to solve such positions.

Ashvin Chauhan

Share

Seek The Initiative

We chess players are told that when we have the advantage we must attack. It is not an option, said Mr. Steinitz, it is a ‘duty’ — an obligation.

The top chess Grandmasters, however, don’t just leave it there, they actively seek initiative. They look in every corner for it, every nook and cranny. And, furthermore, they are willing to do whatever they (legally) can for it.

The game I am going to share with you this week has been analysed in a few sources. Nevertheless, it is my game of choice to illustrate the point of actually ‘seeking’ the initiative, looking to go that one step further in order to manufacture it, rather than waiting for it to just happen … or not.

The game is between British GM’s Adams and Howell. It was played at the London Chess Classic of 2010. You will watch as Michael Adams, playing White, actively seeks the initiative. He seeks it so much that he is willing to take a risk, enticing his opponent in to wasting some time and neglecting his development. And then, into accepting a pawn sacrifice a few moves later. In return for the pawn, Adams obtains much superior development, and a powerful Kingside initiative. He wastes no time in using this to make threat upon threat towards his opponent, giving him no time to develop or organise his pieces. In fact, when Howell does complete development, it is too late to be of use, and Adams finishes the game superbly.

A very nice display, in which Mickey is in complete control throughout — Enjoy!

John Lee Shaw

Share

The Moller Defence To The Ruy Lopez

With White having won the only game with the dreaded Berlin Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6) in the Carlsen – Anand match (and surprisingly Magnus Carlsen was White in this one) it could be that we’ll be seeing 1.e4, and the Ruy Lopez, making a comeback. If this happens then I’d recommend something a bit livelier for Black than clomping around in a Berlin endgame, that arises after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 (Carlsen played 4.d3) 4…Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8. Yawn.

A much livelier alternative is the Moller Defence, which goes 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5. Black develops his pieces on natural squares and has excellent chances to take the initiative in the middle game.

I did a video on the Moller in the 1990s. It was the one I did the most research for, finding some obscure games and analysis of Alexander Alekhine (a Moller exponent in his day) and then taking his conclusions a step further by supplementing them with modern games.

The Moller video is now at my Tiger Chess site, together with a pgn download to make it easier to learn. Here’s a video about how you can learn the Moller in a very effective way:

Nigel Davies

Share

Aggression in Chess

Chess is a violent sport according to artist and chess player Marcel Duchamp. It’s a vicious game, says folk singer Nic Jones. Nigel Short is frequently quoted as saying that chess is ruthless: you’ve got to be prepared to kill people. Grandmaster Boris Gulko tells his (adult) pupils that chess is a game for hooligans.

Your favourite chess book dealer will offer you a killer opening repertoire, advocate street fighting chess, and even provide a chess terrorist’s handbook.

Aggression is natural in all species, particularly among males, and is, in itself, neither bad nor good but a natural instinct. One reason for promoting chess, along with other competitive activities, it seems to me, might be to provide a positive outlet for aggression. Those who favour physical competition might let their aggression loose on the football field, or, more directly, in the boxing ring, while those who favour mental competition might choose a chessboard instead.

This, though, raises a number of questions. Young boys, at the age most of them take up chess, are often interested in weapons and fighting, and by using appropriate metaphors we can make chess more attractive and exciting for them. But one big problem the chess world faces is the small number of female participants. This is something especially true here in the UK. If we promote chess as an ‘aggressive’, competitive activity, will this deter girls from taking part? Or perhaps we should encourage girls to be more competitive: something Alice has to learn in Chess for Kids.

Or we could promote chess in a non-competitive way, as a fluffy game equally suitable for boys and girls. Many schools would be in favour of this: primary schools are often run by ‘nice ladies’ who find it hard to understand and come to terms with the sort of mock aggressive play favoured by many boys (and some girls). But, if we do that, are we not removing something essential from chess? After all, chess started as a war game. Perhaps we’re also removing something essential from the lives of some of the boys who enjoy chess. To be honest, I really don’t know what the answer is myself. If you’re doing chess in the classroom I think you need to take a non-competitive approach, but within a chess club you need to encourage mental aggression over the board, while, of course, prohibiting any form of physical or verbal aggression away from the board and encouraging good sportsmanship at all times.

When you’re playing chess, aggressiveness over the board works in two ways. You can choose an aggressive style, favouring attacks, gambits and sacrifices, or a non-aggressive, ‘vegetarian’ style, playing quietly and trading pieces off to reach an ending. You can also choose a non-aggressive psychological approach, being eager to agree a draw in an unclear or even position, or if you’re feeling sorry for your opponent for some reason, or you can be aggressive in playing out every position to try to win, taking risks in complex positions or grinding away in equal endings as Carlsen, for example, does, waiting for your opponent to make a fatal mistake.

Genna Sosonko wrote about this in an essay entitled Killer Instinct, first published in New in Chess and later reprinted in one of his essay collections, Smart Chip from St. Petersburg (New in Chess 2006). Among his anecdotes was that concerning Boris Gulko, who was teaching an older adult player who would reach good positions but lacked the killer instinct to finish off his opponents. He told him that chess was a game for hooligans and advised him to show more aggression. This more aggressive approach to chess led to a sharp improvement in his results. The nicest person I ever met was a man called Gene Veglio, who was, for some years, a clubmate of mine at Richmond & Twickenham Chess Club. He was always willing to play, but equally willing to stand down if someone else wanted to play. Whenever he reached a good position, though, he’d offer his opponent a draw because he didn’t want to hurt their feelings by beating them.

Now, here’s my problem. Superficially, I come across as an extremely non-aggressive person. I play chess non-aggressively: I usually prefer fairly safe openings and am usually happy to agree a draw. For reasons which I won’t go into here I find it very hard to deal with losing a game, with making a mistake, with any form of confrontation. But when I play blitz on the Internet, where I’m not so bothered about the result, I play much more aggressively, using a totally different opening repertoire. So I’ve decided to make some changes to my opening repertoire this season, to play more aggressively. I’ll explain the reasons for this in more detail next time. Will I, like Gulko’s student, see an improvement in my results?

My next series of articles (with possible interruptions as and when the whim takes me) will let you see how I get on.

Richard James

Share

Endgame Checklist

Most beginning players never get to the endgame because they’re defeated in the middle-game. When they do get into the endgame, they don’t know what to do with the small amount of material they have left on the board. A beginner once told me that he felt the endgame to be easier than the middle-game because you didn’t have to deal with so many pawns and pieces. The opposite is true. With fewer pawns and pieces on the board, there is no recovering from a single bad move. I give a list out to my students before we start our endgame studies so they know what they need to do to be successful during this game phase. Here are a few key points from my endgame list:

Get your King into the game! The King needs to be active during the endgame. We spend the opening and middle-game ensuring our King’s safety. We don’t dare bring our King out into the open when there are large numbers of enemy pawns and pieces within attacking range. However, when the majority of both side’s pawns and pieces are off the board, the King can become an active attacker or defender. A piece doing nothing is a piece not in the game. This holds true for the King as well. Activate your King. Leaving your King on it’s starting rank in the endgame invites danger!

Always push a passed pawn! A passed pawn is a pawn that has no opposing pawns to stop it from reaching its promotion square. If you create a passed pawn, its your job to get that pawn to its promotion square. This means that you’ll have to use any available force to protect that pawn. If you don’t have the passed pawn, you’ll want to do everything you can to stop your opponent’s passed pawn from promoting. This means using your available material to stop the pawn from promoting by capture or blockading. If you were down to an endgame with only pawns and Kings, you’d need to bring the King into the game to aid in either the promotion of your pawn or stopping the promotion of an opposition pawn.

If you’re ahead a pawn, trade pieces not pawns in the endgame and if you’re not ahead a pawn trade pawns rather than pieces, aiming for a draw. Beginners think that pawns are expendable because they’re plentiful and lowest in relative value. The beginner often concludes that he or she can lose a few pawns during the game. However, every pawn you lose is one less pawn in the endgame which is one less chance to promote. Pawn endings can be easier to win compared to an endgame position with pawns and pieces still on the board. Simplify in the endgame, reducing the material to pawns and Kings.

Pawns do not belong on the same color squares as your Bishop. So if you have a light squared Bishop in the endgame, your pawns should be on dark squares. Why? The answer has to do with mobility. In the endgame, there is generally little material left on the board. This means that every pawn and piece must be as active as possible. If you have a light squared Bishop in the endgame, every pawn on a light square denies that Bishop a bit of mobility. A lack of mobility translates to an inactive piece. With little material on the board, activity and mobility wins endgames.

Bishops are better than Knights in all but blocked pawn endgames. The Bishop is a long distance piece, meaning it can move from one side of the board to the other in a single move. The Knight, on the other hand, is a short distance piece who takes a lot longer to cross the board. Of course, the Bishop is of little use if it is blocked in by its own pawns. Thus, why you want to keep your pawns off of the same color squares your Bishop travels on. In general, long distance attackers, such as the Bishop, Rook and Queen are beneficial in the endgame.

Activate your Rooks. A Rook is useless unless its in the game. Get a Rook on the seventh rank if playing the White pieces or the second rank if playing the Black pieces. A Rook on a rank occupied by pawns can do a great deal of damage. Remember, the more pawns you have in the endgame, the greater the chance of promoting one of them. A Rook on a rank full of pawns is like a hungry fox in a hen house. If you’re attacking your opponent is defending and may not be able to protect all of his or her pawns. All beginners learn Rook checkmates but often think that is all the Rook is useful for. Rooks can be used to go after pawns, reducing your opponent’s chances of promotion. In the endgame, everyone (pawns and pieces) must play aggressively.

Speaking of Rooks! Rooks belong behind passed pawns. We know that pawn promotion is key in the endgame. However, to get a pawn to its promotion square, it needs a bodyguard. Why does it need a bodyguard? If you have a passed pawn your opponent is going to do everything possible to stop it from promoting. The Rook makes an excellent bodyguard because it can protect the pawn from the other side of the board. If your opponent possesses the passed pawn, your Rook still belongs behind it, threatening the potential promotion. You Rook should not be in front of the passed enemy pawn because with each move of the pawn, your Rook loses some of its mobility. It is better to blockade with another piece such as a Knight or, in the case of my next checklist item, the King.

When facing an opponent’s passed pawn, we have to block that pawn’s access to its promotion square. This means playing defensively rather than offensively. Playing defensively, in this example, means tying up a piece to create a blockade. If given the choice of blocking the passed pawn with your King or Knight, you might consider the King. Why? You King cannot attack your opponent’s King but your Knight can. The piece blockading the passed pawn should be the piece who has the lessor of attacking abilities. Because Rooks can be employed so aggressively in the endgame, they shouldn’t be used to block a passed pawn.

The lesson to be learned here is that pawns are critical in the endgame and should be handled with care from the game’s start. Don’t give away pawns early on unless necessary. Save them for the endgame. Rooks can be great assets in the endgame, making excellent bodyguards for passed pawns. Everyone needs to participate in the endgame, including the King. Simplify the material. Piece activity and mobility win endgames. If you’re new to the game, I recommend Bruce Pandolfini’s book, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course. That’s where I learned all of this. Here’s a game to play though until next week.

Hugh Patterson

Share

Another Comedy of Errors

This is a game that I played back in July of 1990. This is one of four chess games that I played against Rick Christopher back then. I won three of those games and lost one of them. This game is one of my wins.

Rick was a player that I didn’t take seriously because I was rated much higher than he was and because he never wore shoes to any chess tournaments that I can remember, not even in the winter! In this game I got a little lazy and did not see some of my opportunities to win more quickly and Rick (White) missed some opportunities to equalize. I basically waited for Rick to blunder and then won the endgame after he did blunder. This strategy does work against weaker players, but it is better for my game play overall to force errors.

Mike Serovey

Share