Category Archives: Articles

Better Maul Paul

Returning to my games from last season, I was in need of a win to boost my morale, and, in my next game, had White against Paul Barasi, whom I’ve known well since our first encounter back in 1968. This was our eighth meeting, and up to this point we’d both won twice, with three draws.

As Paul is a regular reader of this column I’ll have to be careful what I saw about him!

Here’s the game:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. d5 Ne5 5. Nf3 (f4 is the critical move in this southpaw Alekhine’s Defence) Nxf3+ 6. exf3 e6 (6… e5!?) 7. Bxc4 exd5 (7… c6!?) 8. Bxd5 Bd6

There are three games from this position on my database, all of them with the English FM Mark Lyell playing Black. In each case his opponents played Qa4+, and in each case White won the game. The engines prefer Qb3, after which they consider White stands better, so perhaps this line isn’t the best choice for Black. I chose a simpler move which poses fewer problems for Black.

9. O-O Ne7 10. Bb3 O-O 11. Ne4 Bf5 12. Nxd6 cxd6 13. Bf4 d5 14. Rc1 Be6 15. Qd2 a5

Giving me a fairly free pawn. Nc6 or Rc8 would have been OK for Black.

16. Bc7 Qd7 17. Bxa5 Qb5 18. Bb4 Rfe8 19. Bxe7 Rxe7 20. Rfd1 h6 21. Qd4 Ra5 22. g3 b6 23. Rc3 Qe8

Giving me a second pawn in order to threaten mate.

24. Qxb6 Rb5 25. Qd4 Bh3 26. Re3 Rxe3 27. fxe3 Qe7

There’s a third pawn if I want it. 28. Bxd5 Rxd5 29. Qxd5 Qxe3+ 30. Kh1 Qf2 looked scary and I didn’t have time to work it out. After the immediate 31. Rg1 Bf1, with the idea of Be2, White has to take a draw, but instead I can throw in 31. Qd8+ Kh7 32. Qd3+ g6 33. Rg1 when White is safe. 28. g4 is also an option, but again looked too scary. By now, needless to say, I was beginning to get short of time.

28. Kf2 Qc7 29. e4 (Bxd5!?) Rxb3

The engines, as expected, throw their hands up in horror on seeing this move, but it’s an excellent practical try in a lost position.

30. axb3 Qc2+ 31. Qd2 (the immediate Rd2 was also fine) Qc5+ 32. Qe3 Qc2+ 33. Rd2 Qc1

With insufficient time on the clock and facing a mate threat I went into panic mode and missed the correct defence here: 34. g4 Qf1+ 35. Kg3 when Black has nothing.

34. Qe1 Qc5+ 35. Ke2 dxe4 36. Qf2 (36. fxe4! Bg4+ 37. Kd3!) Qb5+ 37. Ke1 e3

I missed that one (exf3 was a better try for Black) but fortunately had a way out and just about enough time left on the clock to win the game from here.

38. Rd8+ Kh7 39. Qc2+ g6 40. Qd3 and i just about managed to beat the clock. I’m not sure that I deserved to win this due to my poor time handling, but still, a win is a win.

Another game, another White and another Paul, this time Paul Janota, another player of about my strength. This was our third encounter: we’d drawn in 2000 and I’d won in 2010.

1. d4 e6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Qc2 (d5!?) d5 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Bf4 O-O 9. e3 Nbd7 10. h3 (Unnecessary here: Bd3!?) a6 11. Be2 c5 12. O-O Rc8 13. Qd2 Re8 14. Rac1 Nf8 15. Rfd1 Ng6 16. Bh2 Bd6 17. Bxd6 Qxd6 18. dxc5 bxc5 (A typical hanging pawns position which should be fine for Black. My opening hasn’t been very impressive.) 19. Bd3 Ne5 20. Nxe5 Qxe5 21. Be2 Ne4 (Not such a good idea. Now I get some play on the d-file.) 22. Nxe4 dxe4 23. Qc3 h6 24. Qxe5 Rxe5 25. Bc4 Re7 26. Rd6 a5 27. Rcd1 Bc6 28. Rd8+ Re8 29. Rxe8+ Bxe8 30. Rd5 (Bd5!?) Kh7 (Kf8!?) 31. Re5 (winning a pawn) Rb8 32. Rxc5 Rxb2 33. Rxa5 Rc2 (Rb7!?) 34. Bd5 (winning a second pawn because of 34… f5 35. Be6 g6 36. Rc7+) 1-0 A rather generous resignation by my opponent. He might have played on for a few more moves.

Two rather unconvincing wins, but at least they went some way towards getting my season back on track.

Richard James

The Death of Competition

Competition drives civilization. While it’s really the ideas formed in the minds of our species greatest thinkers that advance civilization, it’s what is then done with those ground breaking ideas that sets the course humanity repeatedly embarks upon. To simply come up with a great idea and leave it just that, a brilliant thought rattling around the cerebral cortex, amounts to nothing. The idea must be made a reality and this means turning that idea into action be it the automobile or home computer. When the idea becomes reality it is introduced to the rest of the human species. In the case of the home computer, they were manufactured, sold to millions of consumers and then improved upon. Driving all of this was the idea of competition, one manufacturer creating a better model that would outsell those models introduced by other manufacturers. Sports is also the realm of competition, where individuals and teams compete to see who is the best in their given sport. In short, we are all touched by competition.

However, there has been a recent trend, when it comes to competition between children, whose aim is to remove competition from the equation, opting to create an environment within sports type endeavors in which everyone is a winner just for participating. This means, for example, that if your show up to an event in which traditionally, only the top three participants are rewarded for their performance, you’ll be rewarded for simply showing up and participating. It’s the parenting theory of “every child is special and should be rewarded just for that.” Some call it the “special snowflake” syndrome. This is where parents tell their children that they are special (which of course every child really is) and then steer those children away from a competitive environment. I really understand this point of view because we love our children and don’t want to see them suffer in any way, including their discovering that they’re just not good at something. I suspect some parents think that their child’s lives will become irreversibly damaged should they enter a competitive event and come in last. Again, I understand that you want to shield your child from the horrors of the world, but eventually they’re going to go out into the world and have to deal with competition. It’s everywhere and the sooner you prepare your child to deal with it, the better off they’ll be in the long run.

Everyone has something their good at and can take pride in. For some, it takes longer to find than others. When I was growing up, I was introduced to music and the arts in general. My parents didn’t have to keep me out of competitive sports because even I knew I’d be terrible at any sport (I really was). This is something parents need to understand. You’re children are a lot smarter than you think and intrinsically know their limitations. My parents greatly aided my dream of becoming a professional musician, knowing that it is one of the most competitive businesses around. They left dealing with the issue of competition to me, only making sure they’d be there if it all became too much for me to handle (a good way to approach this). I’ve been in this competitive business almost 40 years and it does require a tough outer layer of emotional skin to survive it. I, as you know, also teach and coach chess. I’ll never be the best chess player in the world (not even close) and I’m fine with that! Just because I’m not the best doesn’t mean I can’t pursue this game I love so much. As for guitar playing, I’m highly rated and very competitive, always aiming to out play the competition. This spurs me on to practice more than most players. I reap the rewards of such diligence. I mention these two things I do to make a point and that is: You don’t have to be the best at something to enjoy it, making it an important part of your life, and if you do find something your really good at, why not shoot for the stars (within reason). I think parents mistakenly steer their children away from chasing their dreams, which change with great regularity.

Children should be allowed to follow their dreams and be taught that there will be others who aspire to the same dream, thus creating an environment of, you guessed it, competition! When we try to avoid situations of competition in our child’s lives we shelter them from the inevitable, the plain and simple fact that life itself is competitive. Children eventually leave their mothers and fathers, setting out into a world that can be fierce and unforgiving. Better to be prepared than not.

I was at a chess tournament thrown by a school a while back and noticed that they had a huge number of trophy’s displayed on the stage. Upon asking why there were so many of them, I was informed that every child playing in the tournament would receive one simply for showing up. I felt a bit uneasy about this idea because some of my students were playing in that tournament and those students spent countless hours working on their game so they would have a chance at winning one of the normally coveted top place trophies. One of my students also found out that everyone was getting a trophy and while he was glad there wouldn’t be anyone going home empty handed, he felt slightly cheated because he had worked so hard to prepare for what was not really a straight forward competition. Do we need to reward everyone for simply showing up? Imagine if this idea of “everyone’s a winner” was applied to the competitive world of technological businesses. Would we see all of the rapidly developed technologies that have changed our lives for the better come about in such a lightning fast way? Would we see once expensive computers we use in our daily lives come down to an affordable cost. I suspect not because competition drives advances and affordability. Yes, you’re a winner for trying, for giving it a shot, but if you want to truly be the best at something, you have to compete against other like minded individuals who also want to be the best at something. The only way to determine one’s level of skill is by comparison, namely comparing your skill to the skills of others who share your interest in that endeavor. This is done, using chess as an example, by playing another person.

One of the tough things about competition and chess is that chess comes down to you and your brain against your opponent and his or her brain. You might say that it’s a battle of brains and when we lose, we tend to take it a bit personally. Is the person you just lost to smarter than you? Absolutely not but people think that chess skills go hand in hand with one’s IQ, meaning the better the chess player the smarter he or she is. Wrong! I’ve heard parents say that “wow, that little boy that won first place sure is smart.” Does this mean that the parent’s son that came in 19th place is less smart? Absolutely not! It means the little boy that won first place may have been playing longer or had better pattern recognition skills. You can’t take your child losing a chess tournament or any other competition as a sign there’s something wrong. You also can’t shield them from what they’re going to meet head on when they mature, competition. So what should you do?

Tell them that the very fact they tried counts for a lot and even if they don’t do well in this endeavor, there is something out there that they’ll be great at. The adventure for the child is finding that. Competition should not be avoided but embraced in a healthy way. I mention this because there are parents who, upon finding their child’s uber talent, become slave drivers who force their children to improve at all costs. Let the child develop the interest and if they’re really into it, they’ll put in the time. Accept competition. Now that you’ve suffered through my rant, I give you a game to enjoy until next week!

Hugh Patterson

Crawling In With The King

Here’s a game of mine from the recent Manchester Open which was very much a strategic affair. I improvised the early 6.Nc3 and 7.Qc2 and fortunately managed to get a strong position in the early middle game.

The decisive moment came when Black played 23…Ng5 rather than 23…Bg5, which allowed me to saddle him with a really bad bishop and lots of light square weaknesses. My king just marched in:

Nigel Davies

The d5 Square in the Sicilian from Black’s Point of View

Last week we looked at the importance of the d5 square in the Sicilian Defence from White’s point perspective. In this article we will see it from Black’s point of view. Black plans for either d7 to d5 or d6 to d5 in order to free his game. If you just start learning the Sicilian, you might wonder why it frees Black’s game? Well here is the answer:

1) In most the Sicilian lines White attacks Black’s kingside and we all know that a flank attack can be countered by an attack in the center. Playing …d6-d5 fits this bill.

2) Black can neutralise White’s attack along the half open d file by opening it for his rooks.

3) To eliminate the weakness on d6.

4) Once Black plays d5, his position will be not be cramped. Thus he can use his pieces to their full potential, especially a dark square bishop on e7.

What happens if Black is not able to play d5? What would be the next strategy? He needs to stop White from using is for his pieces and at least try and force White to recapture with a pawn on d5.

Here are a couple of games in which Black manages to get …d6-d5 in, with great success:

Semyon Dvoirys vs Wang Yue in 2007 (Black sacrifices a pawn on d5 for piece activity)


Alexander Kovchan vs Sergey Karjakin in 2010 (Just counting the numbers of attack and support of d5 is not sufficient)

Ashvin Chauhan

Counterattack in the Queen’s Gambit Declined

Here is a dramatic game in the Queen’s Gambit Declined Exchange Variation. My Dad showed me this one so I could see the strength of a Black rook on the third rank, both defending the weak pawn on c6 and menacing White’s king. A particularly instructive move was 29…h5 which saves Black’s king from back rank problems and brings up another attacker, if only a pawn.

Sam Davies

You Made Me Lose

It was in the very early days of Richmond Junior Club, 40 or more years ago. One Saturday morning a boy approached me accusingly. “Mr James, you made me lose!”, he said.

I soon discovered what had happened. The previous week I’d demonstrated Legall’s mate to him. A few days later he had a school chess match and was presented with the opportunity to move his pinned knight, following up with a check when his opponent captured his queen. Sadly, there was no mate there: the position was similar but not the same. Of course this is one reason why chess is so hard. you learn an idea: there will be many similar positions where the same idea will work and, equally, many other similar positions where it won’t work. You can’t just use memory. You have to calculate as well.

I was reminded of this the other day by something one of my private pupils said to me. When he arrived for his lesson his mother told me that he had a tournament coming up in a couple of weeks time so could I teach him some openings? At his level chess is about not making oversights and understanding what’s happening at the start of the game, not, as many parents assume, about learning some moves off by heart before a competition.

I printed off what I’ve done so far on Chess Openings for Heroes, which takes a very different approach to the begnning of the game, and decided I should start by making sure he knows how to stop Scholar’s Mate. In this sort of tournament there are always kids who will try it on. We’ve done this several times before, but unless it’s reinforced at home, children will forget. I played the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 (he argued with me that Nf6 was better because he seemed to remember someone once told him that was the move to play) 3. Bc4. To his credit he played Qe7. I told him that was fine, but that he could also play g6. He looked horrified by this suggestion and told me his chess teacher at school, who is a much stronger player than me as well as a very experienced chess coach, said that this was a bad move. No doubt he was told not to play 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 g6 but had remembered the advice without understanding the reason and was unable to differentiate between the two positions.

At this level children remind me of Eric Morecambe’s attempt to play the Grieg Piano Concerto in the famous Morecambe and Wise sketch: they play all the right moves, but not necessarily in the right order.

There was also a boy at a school chess club more than 20 years ago who had remembered that after 2. Qh5 you could defend by putting one of your big pieces on e7, but couldn’t remember which piece to use. So week after week he played 2… Ke7 and week after week lost game after game in three moves.

Children who try to memorise moves without understanding and without calculating will inevitably become confused and frustrated. But memory is much easier than calculation and understanding for young children, and their parents often suffer from the mistaken belief that chess is mostly about memory.

It’s not just the moves that can leave children confused: it’s also the rules of the game. A few months ago another of my private pupils played in the Megafinals of the UK Chess Challenge, just failing to qualify for the Gigafinals. He told me that in one of his games he was winning and decided to castle. When doing so he accidentally knocked his king over. His opponent claimed a win on the grounds that my student had resigned. His father then came up (I don’t know why he was in the playing hall at all) and explained that the result was correct: if you knock your king over you forfeit the game.

I’ve seen children cheat in this way but you can also see how a misunderstanding might arise. You’re watching a video of a game between two grandmasters. One of them turns his king over to indicate that he’s resigning. Your child asks why he did that and you reply that if you knock your king over it means you resign.

Some years ago, another pupil was playing in the Megafinals. In one game he was winning but his opponent moved his king next to my pupil’s king and claimed a draw. My student, thinking this was a rule he didn’t know about, accepted the result. Again, you can guess what might have happened. The other player witnessed a board with the kings on e4 and e5. He asked the reason for this and was told that if two kings stand next to each other it means the game is drawn. Taking it out of context, he assumes that if you move your king next to your opponent’s king at any time you can claim a draw.

Most children are resilient and get over this sort of experience pretty quickly, but a few aren’t, and don’t.

You see misunderstandings at a more basic level when children first join school chess clubs. They’ve been told ‘you win the game by taking your opponent’s king’ and ‘you castle by swapping round your king and rook’: maybe because their dad really believes that these are the rules, but more likely because he doesn’t explain checkmate and castling clearly and make sure that his children understand.

How can we avoid these misunderstandings and ensure that children are well prepared before they join a chess club and before they play in their first tournament?

Richard James

Opening Studies for the Beginner

Learning the game of chess, beyond the basic rules, is perhaps the most daunting endeavor any beginner undertakes. Of course, it’s the idea of having to learn or master something from the very beginning (from scratch), all the while traveling along an often bumpy road that leads to mastery, that seems herculean in effort not matter what the subject being studied. However, there’s a second and third factor that makes learning difficult and those factors are, the approach taken and the material actually being studied. With a subject such as organic chemistry, learning is very straight forward (not easy but straight forward). What I mean by this is that the overwhelming majority of organic chemistry textbooks are written for college classes that follow a structured curriculum. Also, organic chemistry is the study of carbon based molecules and the curriculum is designed to start with simple carbon based structures and move on to more complex ones, with the previous chapter of the textbook laying the foundation for the current chapter being read. It’s a very a, b, c, d or straight forward approach. However, trying to learn the game of chess (beyond the rules) can be extremely difficult for the novice player. With so many learning options and approaches available to the beginner, our novice player can become hopelessly lost and ultimately discouraged before they even have a chance to really learn something. Therefore, we’re going to look at how the beginner should approach, for example, learning various chess openings.

The first questions beginners should ask themselves are what methods of study are appropriately suited for my (beginner) skill level, what materials within that chosen method (books, videos, software programs) are specifically written for my skill level and lastly, how can I maximize the time I spend studying? We’ll look at each one later on, but first we have to talk about the importance of understanding the game’s opening principles.

The opening principles are a simple series of ideas or concepts that have been proven to really help players lay a solid foundation for the rest of their game. As I mention to my students, the house you live in is only as solid as the foundation that house is built upon or in chess terms, your game is only as good as the foundation its built upon and that foundation is built during the opening phase of the game, the first ten to twenty moves.

Thankfully, for the beginner, there is a set of opening principles to guide them as they study the opening. These principles are simple: Control the board’s center (d4, d5, e4 and e5) with a pawn (or two), develop (move) your minor pieces (Knights and Bishops) toward the center and Castle your King to safety. We always want to fight for the center of the board during the opening, which means moving pawns and pieces towards their most active opening squares as soon as possible, those that control or influence the board’s center. Therefore, we want each move we make to employ a principle. There are things we don’t want to do such as bringing our Queen out early, making too many pawn moves and moving the same piece over and over again (during the opening). Employing these principles will ensure that the beginner builds a much better foundation for the rest of their game. If this isn’t reason enough to employ the opening principles, consider this thought: You will never understand why various moves are being made when you sit down to study a specific opening unless you know these opening principles!

All good chess openings employ the opening principles and use them to their fullest advantage. If you know these principles, you’ll understand why certain moves were made during a specific opening. Of course, deciding which of the many openings is right for you is another story altogether. There are over a thousand openings and the next task the beginner faces finding the right one for them. Some teachers have suggesting choosing an opening that fits the player’s personality. However, just because you’re a chaotic person doesn’t mean you should pick a chaotic opening, such as The Benko Gambit, to learn first; especially when you’re just starting your chess career. This would leave you in a world of hurt because the opening is far above the beginner’s skill set. You need to start with simpler openings such as the Italian Opening. Many teachers consider the Italian too passive but I think it’s better suited for the novice player because the opening principles are clearly defined within the opening’s moves and the opening can transpose (change into) a couple of other openings (The Evan’s Gambit and the Fried Lived Attack) which allows the beginner to broaden their opening studies a bit using the same starting moves. In other words, the Italian Opening serves as the foundation for the other two openings mentioned above. Only after the beginner has done some work studying opening theory should they move on to more complex openings. Start simple and then move on to more advanced ideas.

Beginners have a choice regarding their method of study, such as books, DVDs and software programs. Which method a beginner chooses depends on what type of learner they are. If you’re a visual learner, then DVDs or software programs will be more suited for your needs. However, before investing in DVDs or software training programs, consider a book that provides an overview of the opening principles and the many openings played by contemporary chess players. I would recommend Chess Openings for Dummies by James Eade. This book (which I’ve read twice because I don’t recommend books unless I’ve read them) carefully explains the opening principles and gives you an overview of a number of different openings from both White and Black’s perspective. The explanations are clear and concise and the opening principles are pointed out throughout the books many and varied openings. I’m often asked by those who start reading this book, which of those many openings in the book should I start my studies with? The answer is simple: Start with the opening that made the most sense when you played through one of the sample games provided within the book. When reading this book (or one of the other fine books on openings for beginners), you’ll find openings that don’t make sense from a beginner’s perspective, such as the Ruy Lopez or Spanish Opening. This is an opening you must eventually learn but later on when you really have a solid grasp of the principles. Stay away from these until you know more about opening theory. Eventually, as your understanding of theory increases, that opening that didn’t make sense early on will now make perfect sense. When you find an opening and can say to yourself, that makes sense (regarding the moves within the opening), you’ve found an opening to study in more detail.

General opening theory books often give you a game in which White wins and a game in which Black wins, centered around the specific opening being discussed. Play through and study both perspectives (White and Black). You may find an opening that you love and will use every chance you get but remember, you may have to play against that very opening so you need to know how to defeat it! Always study both sides of the board when it comes to openings.

When working through the opening, don’t move on from one move to the next until you know exactly why that move was made. Skipping over moves because you don’t understand them will lead to further confusion because one move during an opening often sets up the following move. Take your time when studying opening theory, especially as a beginner. Patience is your new best friend. Go through the entire book, even if you’ve found an opening you love early on. You want to at least have a feel for the many openings played. You don’t have to memorize every opening in the book, just be able to look at the first few moves of a variety of openings and understand why (in terms of opening principles) those moves were made. Speaking of memorization: Avoid simply memorizing openings as opposed to understanding the underlying mechanics. If you don’t know why a move way made, you’ll become lost very quickly. Opening principles are the beginners lifeline so hang on to them for dear life!

When you study an opening, learn some of the variations to that opening as well. When the beginner sees an opening being played out in a book, they’re seeing a specific game in which specific moves were made. However, in real life, other moves are often substituted into the opening mainline (the way it is traditionally played), creating what are called variations. Again, use the opening principles to guide your studies.

You could spend a life time studying openings. However, I suggest that the beginner choose an opening for White and one for Black (remember, you can’t always play the White pieces so you need to know openings for both sides of the board) and study them, starting with the mainline and working outward towards the more popular variations. Start with a book covering the principles and a sampling of openings for both White and Black. When you feel comfortable, then try DVDs and training software. I have my students hold off on these training tools until they’ve gotten a solid grasp of the opening principles. Also, take it slow, starting with small blocks of time set aside for studying. A solid twenty minutes during which you’re concentrating fully is worth a great deal more than two hours of your mind starting to wander because you’ve lost focus. It takes a lot of time to build up your mental stamina so you can sit for three or four hours and concentrate on your studies. Keep it simple and streamlined. Here’s a game to enjoy until next week. These guys know their opening theory!

Hugh Patterson

No Gold For Rossolimo

Many chess enthusiasts know about Frank Marshall’s brilliancy against Livitsky in which he sacrificed his queen, probably because gold coins were then thrown on the board. On the other hand very few people will know of Nicolai Rossolimo’s very similar sacrifice against Paul Reissmann, which was also a better game. Was this because Marshall was better known? Possibly.

Here anyway are the two games so that readers can judge for themselves. One thing is clear though, there was no gold for Rossolimo:

Nigel Davies

The d5 Square in the Sicilian From White’s Point of View

One can’t ignore the d5 square in almost any Sicilian line, both from a tactical and positional point of view. In this article we will see the importance of d5 square from White’s point of view.

Tactical aspects: White sacrifices a piece on d5 in order to open the e-file and launch a decisive attack against Black’s king. Sometimes White’s pieces also find c6 as an outpost after exd5. If Black declines the sacrifice, it is really difficult to tolerate that piece on d5.

Here is a brief commentary by Mato on the game played by Mikhail tal vs Mikhail Mukhin in 1972 on the same theme.

Positional aspects: If White gets control over d5 he tries to establish a piece there, and possibly a knight. This can lead to positions where a knight on d5 is far superior to Black’s dark square bishop. Here is a nice game explained by Kingcrusher:

In my next article we will examine the same d5 square from Black’s point of view.

Ashvin Chauhan