Category Archives: Articles

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

Hans Renette, in his biography of Henry Bird which I reviewed last week, reports that, on about 1 June 1874, three weeks before Staunton’s death, Staunton, Bird and Ignaz Kolisch discussed the Sicilian Defence over dinner.

“Ignaz who?”, you might ask if you’re not familiar with 19th century chess history. There’s another relatively new (2015) McFarland chess history book that will tell you all you need to know: Ignaz Kolisch The Life and Chess Games, by Fabrizio Zavatarelli.

Kolisch was a stronger player than Bird, and, from the limited information we have available, seems to have been one of the best players in the world in the mid to late 1860s. He was born on 6 April 1837 in what was then Pressburg, a city belonging to the Kingdom of Hungary. Now we call it Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia. In 1845 his family moved to Vienna, and young Ignaz soon learnt the moves of chess

He first came to the attention of the chess public in 1857, winning a match against Eduard Jenay, one of the leading Viennese players of the day. He travelled to Italy, then to France, where he drew a match against Adolf Anderssen, and then to England, where he played in two small knock-out tournaments run by the British Chess Association. In Cambridge in 1860 he beat the American Charles Stanley in the final. The following year in Bristol he was knocked out by the only other strong player in the competition, Louis Paulsen, in the first round. He spent much of the autumn playing a match against the same opponent. Paulsen won 7 games, Kolisch won 6, with no less than 18 draws, a remarkable number for the time.

At some point in the early 1860s Kolisch decided to cut back on his chess and enter the world of finance. By 1867 he was living in Paris, where an international tournament was taking place. He went along to watch, but after the event had already started decided to enter. He eventually won first prize (5000 francs and a Sèvres vase, which he immediately sold), ahead of the newcomer Winawer and probably the two strongest active players at the time, Steinitz and Neumann. Gustav Neumann, by the way, is another forgotten name who deserves a modern reassessment.

Rod Edwards gives Kolisch a rating of 2700 at the end of 1867, behind only the inactive Morphy, so, although there’s not much evidence to go on, you could argue that Kolisch was, if only briefly, the strongest active player in the world at the time.

But that was the end of his competitive chess career. He devoted the rest of his life (he died on 30 April 1889) to his business interests, investing wisely and becoming extremely wealthy. He continued his interest in the Royal Game, becoming a generous chess sponsor.

Zavatarelli considers Kolisch the first truly ‘universal’ player, equally at home playing dashing gambits and brilliant sacrifices in odds and coffee-house games, as he was playing the more modern positional chess which he preferred in most of his more serious encounters. His brilliancies deserve to be as well-known as those of Morphy.

Just as with the Bird book, if you have any interest at all in 19th century chess history you’ll find this an essential purchase. The chess and historical research appears to be meticulous, and if Edward Winter is impressed with its accuracy I’m not going to argue. It might be churlish to point out a couple of things. One of Kolisch’s earliest opponents, Karl Mayerhofer, an opera singer who might be considered for the Musicians team in any future edition of The Complete Chess Addict, is described on p12 as both a bass and a tenor. In fact he was a bass-baritone. We’re also told that the Duke of Brunswick’s father (yes, the Duke played Kolisch as well as Morphy) was killed at the Battle of Waterloo. He actually died in the Battle of Quatre Bras, two days earlier, so my Almey cousins from Earl Shilton, about whom more at another time in another place, just missed seeing him die. Curmudgeon that I am, I’d be tempted to deduct half a star because Zavatarelli’s English, unlike Renette’s, is not entirely idiomatic.

Here’s a game from Paris 1867. White’s 36th move is a blunder. Contemporary sources give Bc3, Qc3 and Qe3 as improvements. The engines concur, giving all three moves as likely draws with best play.

Richard James

Opening Principles Part Three: Working Together

In the first two articles in this series, we talked about pawns and minor pieces, specifically, what to do with them at the start of the game. The opening, the first ten to fifteen moves, is the foundation you build the rest of your game upon. Build that foundation right and you’ll set yourself up for a good middle-game, meaning you’ll be able to launch successful attacks which leads to a winning game. Build it wrong and you’ll more than likely be punished and lose the game. We know we should initially control the center with a pawn or two and then bring our minor pieces (Knights and Bishops) out to active squares, those that also add to central square control. However, there’s another key idea we must embrace and that’s coordinating our pawns and minor pieces.

Our pawns and pieces must work together the way in which a successful sports team works together. This means coordination between all members of the team. One team member can’t win a game by himself and if everyone on the team is working against one another, chaos ensues (as well as a big loss). Coordination is a skill beginners must develop if they wish to improve and win games. While our first two opening principles, controlling the board’s center with a pawn or two and developing the minor pieces towards the center, seem easy enough to comprehend, there’s a bit more to it. Again, pawns and pieces must work together.

We know that control of the board’s center is your primary goal during the opening. Step one is moving a pawn or two to control one of those central squares (an opposition central square). Step two is bringing out the minor pieces, the Knights and Bishops to add additional support to your centralized pawns as well as further centralized control. Now what?

Let’s start by looking at the Italian Opening (for White), an opening that all beginners should consider learning first. I suggest this as a first opening because the opening principles are clearing seen and learned when playing it. We’ll look at the first three moves. White starts with 1. e4 which opens up diagonals for both the Queen and the King-side Bishop. Just because it opens a pathway for the Queen to enter the game doesn’t mean you should bring her out right away. You have better pieces to bring into the game. When Black plays 1…e5, White follows with 2. Nf3 and Black defends the e5 pawn with 2…Nc6. White’s third move, 3. Bc4, puts the Bishop on a diagonal that cuts through the center and attacks the weak f7 pawn (weak because it’s only defended by the Black King). There are other squares upon which the Bishop can move to such as e2, d3 or b5 ( Bb5 being the Ruy Lopez opening which is a bit advanced for the absolute beginner). Moving the Bishop to e2 is rather passive and Blacks in the Queen. Moving the Bishop to d3 blocks in the d2 pawn and prevents the dark squared Bishop on c1 from coming out along the c1-h6 diagonal. You should never make moves during the opening that block in your pawns and pieces (within reason). Moving the Bishop to c4 seems to be the best choice here (for the beginner) and is the move that defines this opening. Let’s say that Black plays 3…Nf6. Now what do we do?

Principled play tells us that we should continue with the development of our pawns and minor pieces. When in doubt as to what to do, consider a move that adheres to the opening principles regarding the development of your pawns and pieces.

You should always try to find three potential moves before simply committing to one move. As the old chess adage goes, when you find a good move, look for a better one! We could make the move 4. d3 which allows the d pawn to protect the e4 pawn. While this appears to make sense since the pawns value is one while the Knight’s is three (meaning Black won’t trade Knight for pawn), try to think of a better move. How about 4. Nc3? The reason 4. Nc3 is better than the pawn push to d3 (remember, this article is for beginners first learning opening principles) is that the Knight on c3 is defending the attacked pawn and also attacking the d5 square. We want to control as much of the center as possible before our opponent does. When your opponent makes a move, look to see if any of your pawns or pieces are being attacked. It a pawn or piece is attacked and it has no defender, add one! The other move to consider would be 4. 0-0, Castling on the King-side (we’ll get into Castling next week). Castling is important but if your King is not under attack, hold off and continue development. Black play 4, Be7, Now What?

Now we can consider 5. d3. This move bolsters the e4 pawn and gives the Bishop on c1 a diagonal to patrol. Notice that the Bishop on c4 is outside of White’s pawn chain. Had White played 3. d3, our King-side Bishop would have been trapped. This is what I mean by piece coordination and not blocking in your pawns and pieces! The few moves shown above are to serve as a starting point for understanding opening principles and piece coordination.. Of course, there are many ways in which both White and Black can play but beginners should start by just simply getting their pawns and pieces to active squares, those that control the center of the board. As you get better, you’ll play more advanced openings and their variation. For now remember, you have to learn to walk before you can run. Next week we’ll look at Castling. It’s simple to learn but there’s more to it than you think. Here’s a game to enjoy until then.

Hugh Patterson

Winning From The Baseline

If chess has analogies with any physical sport it would probably be tennis. Serving can be likened to playing White and the return of serve is like playing Black. Serve and volley players are similar to those with sharp openings who rush out at their opponents whereas others prefer to win games from the baseline.

The following effort is an example of winning from the baseline as I barely moved a piece beyond the fourth rank, despite being White. But at the end of the game Black’s position was absolutely hopeless:

Nigel Davies

Preparation For Blitz?

This was ‘only’ a blitz game but it was interesting to see how far Garry Kasparov prepared. His 10.Ba3 is rare and Wesley So’s answer, 10…c5, is a whole lot rarer. Even so Kasparov played 11.g3 very quickly, and it had a distinct look of having been prepared.

It’s interesting that even blitz games feature heavy preparation now. It makes you wonder what could be in store with a full 30 minutes on the clock…

Nigel Davies

Knight vs. Bishop Endgame

In practice it has been shown that a bishop is usually stronger than the knight because of its mobility, but there are always some exceptions. Do remember that in such endgames position of the kings and pawn structure matters a lot. Here are some general pieces of advice with instructive examples:

The pawns are both the side and the position is more dynamic – the bishop is usually better

The pawns are on both sides and the bishop has no targets; generally the knight is better

If pawns are on just one side of the board and position of the king is not passive, then usually a side with a pawn down holds because the defender can sacrifice a piece for a pawn or pawns and can achieve an easy draw. We can conclude that if there are pawns on one side only, most of the time the game ends in a draw.

Ashvin Chauhan

Endgame Openings

There are some openings which lead directly into an endgame, missing out the middle game altogether. Here’s an example of this in the Caro-Kann Defence. White might be better off playing 16.Be3.

Sam Davies

Bird in the Hand

I have a Bird in my hand at the moment. A big fat blue Bird. Or, to be precise, a book about Henry Edward Bird.

H.E. Bird A Chess Biography with 1,198 games, written by Hans Renette, a Belgian FM and chess historian, and published by McFarland. A handsome, large format hardback of more than 600 pages, going into immense detail about Bird’s life and times, and with about 40% of the games annotated, often in considerable depth, using both contemporary sources and computer-aided analysis.

Of course we all know the name. We’ve encountered Bird’s Opening (1. f4), still popular with club players seeking to avoid theory with White, and favoured by two of my regular Thames Valley League opponents. We also know about Bird’s Defence to the Ruy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4), seen occasionally at GM level even today. Carlsen lost the only time he played it, but it’s been played several times by the young Hungarian talent Richard Rapport, as well as by the likes of Morozevich and Sokolov. Bird was also a pioneer of the Dutch Defence and the Sicilian Dragon, and favoured the currently highly fashionable c3+d3 in the Giuoco Piano, although his plan of rapid queenside expansion with b4, b5 and a4 is considered rather inflexible today. The likes of Aronian, So and Short, have tried it, though, and it’s often been played by Jobava.

Bird was the coffee-house player par excellence, with his crowd-pleasing style, and brilliant and creative ideas marred on occasion by gross blunders. I guess it’s the experimental, left-field players like Rapport and Jobava who can be considered Henry Bird’s heirs today.

If you’re interested in chess history you’ll be aware of his long chess career, spanning half a century, from the first modern tournament (London 1849) to the great London International Tournament of 50 years later. You may also have read about his personality, outgoing and friendly but occasionally disputatious.

For these reasons, he’s better remembered than some of his stronger contemporaries, but the details of his life are less well-known. Henry Edward Bird was born in 1829 in Portsea, now part of Portsmouth, which also saw the birth of two illustrious near-contemporaries: Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806) and Charles Dickens (1812). A few years later the family moved to London where the teenage Bird picked up the moves in a coffee house, soon coming into contact with the celebrated chess playing historian Henry Buckle. Our hero was active in London chess circles for several years, but the game soon came to take a back seat to his chosen profession of accountancy, specifically railway accountancy. Sadly for accountancy, but happily for chess, his business ultimately proved unsuccessful and in 1870 he was declared bankrupt. At the end of 1872 he decided to return to his first love, playing in Vienna in 1873, spending two years (1876-77) in America and, on his return, becoming a regular on the international chess circuit. He reached his peak in the middle to late 1870s, when in his late 40s, but his later years, when he was increasingly incapacitated by gout, saw an inexorable decline in his powers.

How strong was he? Jeff Sonas and Rod Edwards have both done an impressive amount of analysis of 19th century chess results, Sonas only using formal competitive games and Edwards using everything available. They also use slightly different mathematical models to produce their results. Sonas has retrospective monthly lists while Edwards has only annual lists. Edwards keeps inactive players on the list longer than Sonas.

Sonas gives Bird a top rating of 2635 in September 1875 and a highest position of 2nd in March and April 1876. Edwards rates him much lower: with a top rating of 2545 in 1878 and a highest position of 10th in both 1877 and 1878. I consider Edwards’ figures more accurate in this case. He usually finished somewhere mid-division in top international events, behind the elite players such as Steinitz, Zukertort and Blackburne but ahead of the local players at the foot of the table.

One of Bird’s claims to fame was as the first recipient of a brilliancy prize: for his imaginative but, as engines now demonstrate, queen sacrifice in this game. His opponent, James Mason, had missed a fairly simple win a couple of moves earlier.

This is a 5-star book in every respect: outstanding historical and chess research combined with outstanding production values, as you would expect if you are at all familiar with McFarland’s chess history books. Much more than just a handsome addition to your library shelves. If you have even the slightest interest in chess history and culture you should rush out and buy a copy now.

Richard James

Opening Principles: Part Two

Last week, we discussed the importance of controlling the center of the board with a pawn move or two, giving the greatest consideration to 1. e4. As I mentioned. We don’t want to make too many pawn moves during the opening, opting instead to introduce our minor pieces quickly. For any beginners reading this, the minor pieces are the Knights and Bishops while the major pieces are the Rooks and Queen, Both types of minor pieces, the Knights and Bishops, have a relative value of three points each. We use the word “relative” because the value of these two very different pieces can fluctuate based on the position at hand (on the chessboard). If the board is wide open, meaning there are plenty of free squares void of pawns and pieces, Bishops can control a great deal of territory, being able to attack long distances across the board. If the board is clogged with pawns and pieces, our Bishops are limited in their mobility so the Knight, who can jump over pawns and pieces rules the roost. Thus, When the board is littered with pawns and pieces (belonging to both players), the Bishop has limited abilities so the Knight has greater relative value. Bishops rule open positions or games while Knights lord over closed positions or games.

The Knight and Bishop are like night and day in that both are key parts of a complete cycle. Night follows day and day follows night, both tied together in an endless cycle. However, night and day each has unique qualities or attributes that distinguishes one from the other. In chess, both the Knight and Bishop are considered minor pieces and are closed tied to one another when it comes to the opening, middle and endgames. However, the way in which each moves is absolutely different, one being designed for close combat fighting while the other more like a long distance sniper. Knowing which one to use for a specific positional situation is crucial to one’s chess success. Before we discuss this last idea we first, as beginners, need to know how to employ both pieces during the opening phase of the game, the first ten to fifteen moves. Remember, the opening builds the foundation for the rest of your game. Fail during the opening and it’s not likely that you’ll even get into a proper middle-game!

There’s an old chess adage that states “Knights before Bishops” and while it’s not a rock hard rule, there are good reasons for developing (moving) your Knights before your Bishop. In the first article in this series, I mentioned that we have to move some of our pawns out onto the board in order to give our pieces mobility. Getting your Bishops into the game requires moving at least two pawns, otherwise, our powerful Bishops will be stuck on their starting squares, inactive, and you don’t want to leave pieces inactive. The Knights, on the other hand, have the ability to jump over pawns and pieces, be they yours or your opponent’s pawns or pieces. This means they have immediate access to the board. The Knight’s ability to jump over any material (pawns and pieces) in their way makes them an extremely valuable weapon, especially when the board is clogged with pawns and pieces. You should note that their ability to jump means you cannot block an attack by a Knight. This is valuable because it reduces the way in which you deal with an attack by one. When attacked, you often have the choice of moving the attacked piece, blocking the attack or capturing the attacker. That’s potentially three choices. I say potentially because you don’t often have the choice of all three methods of dealing with an attacker. Removing one of those methods, blocking an attack, can thus severely limit your choices!

Another consideration regarding the power of the Knight is the way in which it moves. All the pieces move in a linear manner, straight lines along the ranks, files and diagonals. The Knight moves in an “L” shape which makes it slightly more difficult for the novice player to follow. Therefore, beginners and even more experienced players sometimes miss a Knight’s attack because of its peculiar movement. However, you should always keep in mind that this “L” shaped movement can make it slow going when it comes to the Knight attacking a square directly next to it. Now let’s talk about where the Knight should go during the opening.

We know from the first article in this series that we want to control the board’s center (especially those central squares on our opponent’s side of the board) during the opening. Once we employ a pawn or two (don’t make too many pawn moves at the game’s start), it’s time to bring in the minor pieces, the Knights and Bishops. The key point to remember about Knights is that they can enter the game without moving a pawn. In the last article, I suggested that beginners commanding the White pieces start off with 1. e4 (1…e5 for Black). Now, as White, we want to bring a minor piece into the game and no other piece is better suited (for the beginner) that the King-side Knight. The Knight has a choice of three squares, e2, f3 and h3. While 2. Ne2 (the Alapin Opening) does adhere to the opening principles by controlling one of the four central squares (d4, d5, e4 and e5), it blocks in the White Queen and White’s light squared or King-side Bishop. Don’t block in your pieces when possible because doing so means you’ll have to unblock them which comes at a cost of tempo or time and time is of the essence during the opening phase of the game. Playing 2. Nh3 is an absolute stinker of a second move. Not only does it not control the center but a Knight on the rim or edge of the board controls half as many squares as it would when placed on a more centralized square. This leaves 2. Nf3 which is developing with tempo. Tempo? In chess tempo means time and Black will have to expend the extra time to defend the Black pawn on e5 that the Knight on f3 is now attacking! Moving the Knight to f3 also has some bonuses. Not only does it attack the Black pawn on e5 but it also controls the d4 square as well as the g5 and h4 squares. What’s so important about g5 and h4? Those are two Squares Black’s Queen might take up residency on in an effort to launch an early King-side attack. It also adds a defender to the h2 pawn and brings White a move closer to castling on the King-side. In short, 2. Nf3 does many things at once and if every move you made during a game did more than one thing, you’d be winning more games than you lost!

Black’s best response, at least for beginners is 2…Nc6. This move protects the e5 pawn as well as putting pressure on the d4 square. Remember, when you’re commanding the Black pieces, you’re a move behind so you should aim to equalize the position, keeping things balanced rather than trying to launch a premature attack.

After developing you’re first Knight, you may want to consider either developing your remaining Knight with a move like 3. Nc3 (for White) or 3…Nf6 (for Black). Developing both Knights allows you to control all four of the central squares. Place Knights on c3, f3 (for White), c6 and f6 (for Black) and note the squares they control. Remember, Knights can jump over pawns and pieces so they can control the center very quickly, without having to move any pawns. The opening phase of the game is a race to see who gains control of the center first. The player that does gain control of the center first will usually have the advantage because the opposition doesn’t have much in the way of counter play since you control key squares they need to place their pawns and pieces on. Centralized control is the name of the game when it comes to the opening.

Now let’s look at those deadly sharp shooting snipers, the Bishops. The Knight, because of his ability to jump over any pawn or piece on the board, is an expert in close combat. However, when the board is wide open (plenty of empty squares ), the Bishop is King, so to speak! The Bishop, unlike the Knight who has to get up close and personal with his target, can attack an opposition piece from the comfort of his own starting square. However, bringing your Bishops into the game requires moving the e and d pawns (or b and g pawns), so their immediate entry onto the board is hampered until some pawns are moved.

The best places for the Bishops (at least for the beginner) are c4 and f4 for White and c5 and f5 for Black. A Bishop moved from f1 to c4 as it’s first move into the game, controls more squares than anywhere else it’s moved to along that diagonal. Remember, the more of the board you control the less of the board your opponent controls. From the c4 square it cuts through the board’s center squares and aims itself at the weak f7 pawn. For Black, the c5 squares has the same effect. Sometimes, you don’t have the option of placing a Bishop on the c or f files because there may be opposition pawns controlling those squares. Beginners are often tempted to use their Bishops to pin opposition Knights to either the King or Queen. While it seems like a good idea, the pin can easily be broken or the Bishop pushed away by pawns. On occasion, a player will ignore the pin and let you capture their Queen. When you do, they deliver a nasty attack that leads to mate. Therefore, when looking for a Bishop move (other than c4 or c5), I suggest making a non committal move, such as placing a Bishop on the e or d files (for White, e2 or d2 and for Black e6, e7 or d7) where it can move to either side of the board quickly if needed for an attack. Good chess players build up their position and the activity of their pieces before launching attacks.

Next week, we’re going to put our pawns and minor pieces together in an opening and see how they work together, as well as discussing castling. Until then, here’s a game to enjoy until then!

Hugh Patterson

Bela Perenyi

There are many little known players who have played some wonderful games. Among them is Bela Perenyi, a Hungarian International Master who also came up with many creative ideas in the opening. Tragically he died in a car accident in 1988.

It’s well worth checking out his games if you want some inspiration. Here’s a dramatic example of his play:

Nigel Davies