Category Archives: Articles

Secondary Matters

It seems to me that you might have three reasons for running a national chess project for children.

Firstly, you could run a ‘scholastic chess’ project, designed to use chess as an educational tool for young children, without any particular expectation that the children will go on to become strong players.

Secondly, you might want to look for ‘prodigies’, children who will be strong enough to play in top junior international competitions such as the World and European Youth Championships, some of whom will, you hope, reach IM or even GM standard.

Thirdly, you might want to produce serious adult standard competitive chess players, not just titled players but players of all levels.

You’ll probably agree that all three of these reasons are worthwhile in themselves. Observant readers might note that after-school chess clubs for younger children in more affluent areas of the country, and this has been the model here in the UK for the past generation, seem to have been only moderately successful at producing a generation of IMs and GMs, not at all successful at producing lots of serious adult competitive players, and, given the areas in which they tend to operate, have probably not made too many children ‘more intelligent’.

In this post I’m considering the third reason.

Here are just a few reasons (you can probably think of more) why you might want to produce more adult chess players.

  • The chess players in your country form a pyramid. Without a solid base the pyramid will collapse.
  • You need to produce players who will take part in tournaments at lower levels, to provide prize funds for elite players.
  • You need to produce chess enthusiasts who will become club secretaries, treasurers and match captains.
  • You need to produce chess enthusiasts who will become tournament organisers and arbiters, and run tournaments for elite players, as well as average players, to take part in.
  • You need to produce adults who will have an interest in chess and know enough to teach their children in a meaningful way.
  • You need educators who will be enthusiastic about chess and encourage it within their schools and colleges.
  • You need business people who will be keen to sponsor chess events because of their passion for the game.
  • I would contend that, if this is the aim of your chess project, you should target secondary schools rather primary schools. Here again are just a few reasons.

  • Most children only reach the point in their development where they can play ‘real’ chess at secondary school age.
  • Most children only reach the level of self-control to stop and think about their moves rather than playing the first thing that comes to mind at secondary school age.
  • Most children only reach the level of emotional maturity required to cope with the stress of competitive chess at secondary school age.
  • Most children only reach the level of emotional maturity to learn from their mistakes at secondary school age.
  • Most children are unable to study independently until they reach secondary school age.
  • Primary school children’s idea of a game is involving have low level fun with your friends, while secondary school children will see a game as something more serious at which you can learn to excel.
  • Primary school children’s interests are usually chosen by their parents, while secondary school age children choose their own interests.
  • When children move schools (at 11) and reach puberty they make new friends and develop new interests, usually giving up activities they associate with primary school.
  • If children associate an activity with school they are likely to give up when they leave, so they need to be encouraged to join adult chess clubs, which run too late and are too strong for most primary school children.
  • Older children can organise clubs themselves with minimal adult support as well as teach themselves if they’re interested, so there’s less need to find or pay for a professional chess coach.
  • Older children can travel to chess clubs and tournaments themselves without needing transport from their parents.
  • Our experience running, say, Under 14 teams at Richmond Junior Club was that the top boards would be children who’d been playing competitive chess half their lives and felt they were growing out of it, while the lower boards were often children who had started later, for whom chess competition was something new and exciting. It was often these players, rather than the top board stars, who continued playing into adulthood.

    Fortunately, things are starting to happen here in the UK as Neill Cooper is doing a great job promoting secondary schools chess on behalf of the English Chess Federation.

    All secondary schools need (apart from some sets and boards) is an enthusiastic member of staff who will ensure that children have the chance to play chess every day, setting aside a classroom for this purpose at morning and lunch breaks, who will organise internal competitions and matches against other schools for children who want to play competitive chess, and who will encourage those children to join outside clubs and take part in tournaments.

    The trick, of course, is to locate that enthusiastic member of staff, and, because, here in the UK, we’ve been getting junior chess wrong for the past 30 years, there are not very many younger adults around who are genuinely enthusiastic about chess.

    Richard James

    Share

    Getting out of the Squeeze

    In past articles I’ve talked about methods you can use to acquire an advantage during the opening and early middle game. We’ve explored some of these ideas, such as having a spacial advantage due to better piece activity or going on the offensive and attacking before your opponent gets a solid foothold in the board’s center. However, I have not yet addressed the subject of what to do should you find yourself in an unfavorable position. What do I mean by unfavorable? How about a cramped position in which your opponent has greater piece activity and therefore better control of the board, leaving you feeling the tightening squeeze of the opposition’s forces!

    Every chess player has found themselves squeezed into a cramped position by an opponent at one time or another. While we all try to follow sound opening principles that allow us to develop greater piece activity and subsequently greater control of the board, we eventually square off against a stronger opponent who gets the upper hand early on. By upper hand, I’m speaking of having greater control of the board’s center during the opening as well as control of squares on our half of the board. This type of positional dominance cramps our position which can render our pieces nearly useless. Some chess players made a career out of suffocating their opponent’s position on the board. Tigran Petrosian, the tenth World Chess Champion, was nicknamed “the boa constrictor” because he could create absolutely suffocating positions.

    Obviously, we want to avoid playing in such a way that would lead to a cramped position! As obvious as this may sound, the simplest way to avoid such a positional scenario is to “Always Think Ahead” (ATA, as its known to my students). We often hear the phrase “think ahead” as beginners but don’t take this simple phrase to heart. Let’s look at how thinking ahead relates to avoiding a cramped position.

    A cramped position can come about in one of two ways. Either our opponent moves his or her pawns and pieces to extremely active squares, keeping our pawns and pieces from safely entering the game or, worse yet, we cramp our own position because we make bad moves. We’ll look at this idea first, making bad moves that cramp our position. Let’s first define a bad move. Since we’re discussing cramped positions, we’ll define a bad move as one that restricts a piece’s mobility or blocks in other friendly pawns and pieces which in turn restricts those pawns and piece’s mobility. For example, after 1.e4…e5, 2.Nf3…Nc6, White decides to move the Bishop on f1 to d3 (3.Bd3). This is a terrible move because it’s blocking in the pawn on d2 which inadvertently blocks in the Bishop on c1 in. This means that it will take a few moves to correct the problem and since the opening is a race for central square control, you can ill afford to be behind in tempo. The Bishop on d3 is on a less active square. If we count the number of squares the Bishop on d3 controls the answer is seven. If that same Bishop had been moved to c4 rather than d3, it would not be blocking in any pawns or pieces and would be controlling ten squares. On move three. Black plays 3…Bc5, gaining much greater spacial advantages than its counterpart on d3. Always think ahead when considering the placement of a pawn or piece early in the game!

    When moving a pawn or piece during the opening, consider not only the activity of that pawn or piece but it’s effect, spatially speaking, on the pawns and pieces around it. The beginner should always think about making a move in terms of opening up a position for themselves (positive space) or cramping that position for their opponent (negative space). A question the beginner must always ask is whether or not a specific move blocks in their own pawns or pieces. The beginner should also ask whether or not a move will block in their opponent’s pawns or pieces, cramping their opponent’s position. Coincidentally, moves that develop a piece more actively for one player often have the reverse effect for the other player. Therefore, if given a choice of moves, chose the move that is most active. If given the choice between two good moves that both provide equal piece activity, chose the move that potentially blocks in the fewest friendly pieces. Think ahead!

    When I say think ahead, I should add that you need to think ahead in relation to the problem at hand. In other words, you don’t need to think ahead in terms of the endgame when you’re only on move five. You should think ahead only as it relates to the potential problem at hand. Playing 3.Bc4 rather than 3.Bd3 because it blocks in a pawn and a minor piece, is an example of thinking ahead.

    Let’s say you’ve done everything I’ve suggested but are now playing against an opponent who you swear is the ghost of Tigran Petrosian. As would be the case, had you actually been playing against Petrosian, you now find yourself squeezed by “the boa constrictor” into an unbelievably cramped position. What now? Now we deal with the immediate, not the future. Now is the time to create some space on the board. We know that the position is cramped which means moving your pawns and pieces anywhere is apt to result in their untimely demise! Therefore, you have to try something else, namely, trading pieces!

    One idea I try to embed into my student’s thought process is that you don’t capture pieces unless doing so improves your position. Does that idea apply here? Absolutely! You’ve managed to play Tigran Petrosian reincarnated and he has put you into one of his famously cramping positions. This means that no matter where you move your pawns and pieces to, they’ll become casualties of the war and be quickly captured. In short, you have no space so you’ll have to make some!

    Of course, you’re going to have to part with some material in order to gain any space for your pawns and pieces. How you go about gaining this much needed space, via material exchanges, is the crucial consideration here!

    In a perfect world, you’s simply trade off material evenly, minor piece for minor piece, etc. However, in the real world, you’re most like faced with having to trade material in an uneven way, such as trading one of your minor pieces for a pawn or trading one of your major pieces for an opposition minor piece. How do you decide what gets traded? Now you have to think ahead a little.

    Let’s say you have a choice of two exchanges. In one exchange, you’ll trade a minor piece for a pawn. In the other exchange, you’ll trade a major piece, a Rook for example, for a minor piece. In both of these exchanges, you’ll be trading a unit of greater value for a unit of lesser value. Which trade works better? Look at the position and ask yourself which trade will give you more overall space immediately and in the near future. If you see that trading your Rook for an opponent’s minor piece opens up the board more than the trade of minor piece for pawn, then you should trade your Rook. While you’ll be down the exchange, the position will become less cramped and your other pawns and pieces will become more active.

    Sometimes, you have to sacrifice material to open a position up. Trading a Rook for a minor piece will leave you down two material points. However, if that uneven trade opens up the position, giving you the opportunity to gain better piece activity, then that two point deficit is worthwhile. So the next time you’re in a cramped position, see if a bit of material trading helps open things up. Even if you come out down the exchange, you’ll at least have a chance to get the rest of your material into the action. While we should all try to avoid cramped positions by employing sound game principles, we sometimes get boxed in by a stronger player. When this happens, don’t panic. Work your way out of it! Here’s a game to enjoy until next week!

    Hugh Patterson

    Share

    Attack on Godzilla

    My opponent is from Japan, which is why I used the Godzilla reference in my title. The only other Asian player that I have faced on ICCF was Graeme Hall in Hong Kong.

    This win gives me three wins, two losses and six draws in this section. That temporarily puts me back into fourth place out of thirteen players. I need a second place finish in order to advance to the next round. I have one game remaining in this section and I have Black in it. In that game I have even material. If I can win that game I may get my second-place finish.

    Initially, I started off with a queenside attack while my opponent played a kingside attack. My opponent’s attack stalled out while I switched my attack over to the Kingside. Like many of my opponents on ICCF, once he started losing he slowed the game down big time and he had only 3 days of reflection time left when he resigned. At the point in which my opponent resigned he was down 6 passed pawns and was four moves away from getting checkmated. I have no clue why people play out hopelessly lost endgames in correspondence chess!

    Mike Serovey

    Share

    Beware of Trying to Win Poisoned Pawns

    An important and advanced theme in chess openings is that of the “poisoned” Pawn belonging to one’s opponent, a Pawn that is unprotected and may be attacked with hope of winning it. I like to call “poisoned” the specific Pawn on one of four squares, directly diagonal to the opponent’s Rook in the initial position, that is often tempting to try to win using one’s Queen when the protecting Bishop is away:

    • White’s Pawn on b2 (which Black can try to win with a move like …Qb6)
    • Black’s Pawn on b7 (which White can try to win with a move like Qb3)
    • White’s Pawn on g2 (which Black can try to win with a move like …Qg5)
    • Black’s Pawn on g7 (which White can try to win with a move like Qg4)

    A paradox in pedagogy

    An important part of one’s chess education is understanding the value of material, of trying to keep one’s Pawns and pieces protected and finding opportunities to win material by capturing the opponent’s Pawns and pieces, either for free or for an advantageous trade according to a heuristic formula of worth (such as taking a Rook, worth 5 points, in return for giving up one’s Knight, worth 3 points).

    The paradox is that once one has absorbed this lesson, at some point one must learn to balance the hard-earned attention to material with more nuanced attention to other factors in a game. On general principles, as the next step after internalizing the value of material, I advise against club players trying to play opening variations involving winning a poisoned Pawn, because the effort to win it usually requires wasting three moves:

    1. Moving the Queen to attack the Pawn.
    2. Capturing the Pawn.
    3. Retreating the Queen to avoid getting captured or trapped.

    Three moves is quite a lot of time to lose for the sake of winning a Pawn in the opening, when development and one’s own King safety are critical and can be compromised. Granted, there are some very popular opening variations that involve taking the risk and winning such a Pawn, but they require absolute precision to even be able to defend a draw against a fierce attack coming from falling so behind in development.

    At some point after one’s tactical and defensive strength has improved enough, it may be worth trying these risky ideas, but I have seen too many instances of a club player moving a Queen out early in the game to win material and then failing to consolidate well. This is a habit that, although it sometimes works against weak competition, results in postponing one’s development as a more principled middle game player.

    Some concrete examples of disaster

    Quick one

    Here is a brutal example of punishing an early Queen excursion.

    More subtle one

    The following is a more subtle win in which Black, a world-class defender, won 2 Pawns at the expense of a whopping 9 Queen moves in the opening and middle game, and finally lost after hardly developing any pieces.

    Franklin Chen

    Share

    Working Together At Chess

    In business a partnership can bring more mutual benefits compared to being a sole proprietor. In chess too, if you work together with understanding, you can improve efficiently and effectively. But there are a few points which you should consider before working with someone.

    First and foremost the partners should be of about equal strength. They should also be very serious about their chess careers, casual players should not be welcome.

    You can work together on any phase of the game but what’s important is where to focus. What I have learned from experience that it would be much better if you focus on soft reasoning and ideas rather than finding or guessing good moves and concrete variations. For example take a look at the following position:

    White can win by playing any pawn move except a4, but for me the important thing is why White is winning with material balance on the board. The reasons are as follows:

    - Ability to create a passed pawn
    - Position of both kings
    - Pawn crippling

    Based on this you can find good moves, and it’s merely a matter of time. So focus on soft reasoning and ideas rather than calculating variations.

    Keep your ego aside: This is a common problem among chess players who are working together or discussing any position. They want to prove they are right at any cost after which healthy discussion becomes debate (and this sometimes happens between coach and students!). Avoid it by accepting your mistakes.

    Knowledge sharing: It is possible to choose different topics, work on them separately and then discuss them together. This can be a real benefit of working together as it saves lots of time and energy, but be honest as it is chess players’ tendency that they don’t want to share or disclose their preparation or knowledge.

    Ashvin Chauhan

    Share

    Is It the Chess?

    It was great to see a chess player, Sharon Daniel, win Child Genius 2014 on Sunday evening. Sharon actually mentioned that one of the reasons she liked chess so much was because the tactics and strategy helped her mind.

    My impression whilst watching was that she was better under pressure than the other competitors and I thought she’d win after watching the early rounds. But can chess turn your child into a genius?

    I’m fairly sure that it helps, though everything depends on degree. Doing an hour of chess a week at school may have some effect but this is in no way comparable to studying the game deeply for 10 or so hours per week and then testing your abilities in competition. I believe that the latter is where the real gold lies.

    Actually I’ve had an opportunity to test this, and on my own son. Prior to teaching him chess he was languishing at the bottom of his year in every subject at school. His mental arithmetic and memory were very strong, but a dire weakness in English comprehension undermined his ability to grasp anything.

    Four years on and he’s moving up strongly, getting glowing reports at school and becoming very interested in both academic and chess success. How did the ‘miracle’ occur?

    Even members of staff at his school now put it down to the chess. Basically he has done something like 60,000 chess ‘problems’, from basic captures and material saving moves to forced checkmates. With English comprehension being taken out of the equation it gave him an opportunity to build his confidence by getting things right, and then competing on even terms with other kids. More recently he has been dipping his toes in adult tournaments and within a year or so should be well established there.

    Knowing that we take it rather seriously I’ve had plenty of well meaning comments of the ‘as long as he’s enjoying it’ variety. Actually I can say that he would have enjoyed some XBox games much more, especially Grand Theft Auto and the like. But I’ve seen my job as helping him develop rather than providing entertainment, and it looks like it’s working.

    Can other parents do the same? Well for chess it helps a lot if you know something about the game yourself and can at least supervise any training activities. But I’m fairly sure there are other fields that will work very well, for example playing a musical instrument, reading or developing mathematical skill. Many people have some sort of skill that can help their kids develop, but do they have the time and patience? In most cases it looks like they don’t.

    Nigel Davies

    Share

    The Second Front (4)

    The first player to write extensively about the concept of two weaknesses was Nimzowitsch, who had a chapter on “Alternation” in his classic book, My System. By a coincidence of truly Plaskettian proportions, my own new book, “Nimzowitsch Move by Move” (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nimzowitsch-Move-Steve-Giddins/dp/178194198X ) has just been published by Everyman, and includes 30 of Nimzo’s best games, deeply annotated in the Q&A style used in the series. That seems a suitably tenuous, but nonetheless sufficient excuse to give a classic example of the man himself employing two-front strategy.

    The game that follows is annotated extensively, over some 9 pages, in my book, but what principally concerns us here is the way in which Nimzowitsch keeps switching his attack from the kingside to the queenside and back again, especially starting from move 29. Whilst preparing a breakthrough down the g-file, Nimzo also keeps torturing White with threats against the a2-pawn (29…b5!, allowing a later Qa6, etc). White sets himself up to meet gxf4 by taking with the bishop, keeping things blocked, but Nimzo’s alternation tactics induce some discoordination in the white camp, and the constant switching of the attack between the two flanks eventually sees Black force a collapse of the white defences on the g-file. But then at move 38, just as the kingside looks about to cave in and both white rooks have had to come over to shore up g3, Nimzo switches his queen back to a6 again and calmly lifts the a2-pawn, and it is Black’s passed a-pawn which actually delivers the final blow. A perfect demonstration of two-wing strategy.

    By the way, did I mention that my book is available from fine bookstores everywhere?

    Steve Giddins

    Share

    Drop Outs

    We saw last week that most children will only be able to play ‘real chess’ at secondary school age. (For readers from other countries, children in the UK usually attend primary schools up to the age of 11, at which point they transfer to a secondary school.) Our experience at Richmond Junior Club, and, yes, I’ll return to its history later, is that children who start chess at primary school (usually at about 7 years old) and fail to reach adult club standard, ‘real chess’ in other words, will see chess purely as a children’s game, and, unless there is significant chess activity in their secondary school, will fail to make further progress and soon drop out of the game.

    For those of us who were at secondary school in the years between the end of the Second World War and the late 1970s, chess was something you did in your teenage years. Many of us are still playing. In the recently concluded British Championships the British Senior Championship (for players aged 60 and over) attracted 61 competitors while there were also two grading restricted sections for seniors . By contrast, there were only 25 players in the Major Open, which in the past would have attracted many ambitious younger players. I played in it myself a few times in the 1970s.

    Sometimes my colleagues at Richmond Chess Club ask me why so few members of Richmond Junior Club graduate to adult chess (and, on occasion blame me personally for the decline in club membership). Sometimes questions are asked on chess forums about why, with more young children playing chess and more chess players making a living out of teaching chess to young children, the number of teenagers and young adults playing chess is not increasing. These are good and important questions.

    In other countries things are different. In many East European and Asian countries chess is taken much more seriously. Their chess clubs are open every day, not just once a week, and children learning the game are given regular homework. Here in the UK, by contrast, parents want their children to have a rounded education and don’t want them to spend more than an hour or so a week on chess.

    In other West European countries chess clubs operate very much like football, rugby or cricket clubs, meeting at weekends, with members getting involved in coaching and with a natural progression from junior club teams through to adult club teams.

    Primary school chess, whether in the form of using chess as a learning tool on the curriculum or through after-school or lunchtime chess clubs, is great in itself, and provides many extrinsic benefits for children, but for the past 30 years, and there’s no sign of improvement, we haven’t been successful in feeding children through into adult chess. For reasons I explained last week, playing adult standard chess is just too hard for most children of primary school age.

    There are two things the English Chess Federation could do to help improve the situation. One of them, promoting chess in secondary schools, is already happening with some success. The other, providing a path to take children from learning the moves to playing ‘real chess’, is not. Future posts will consider this in more detail.

    Richard James

    Share

    Paul Morphy

    A parent of one of my new students asked me the question “what’s up with that Paul Morphy guy?” For some reason I found this question delightful in its vagueness. Many times, parents will ask very specific questions that are designed to make them look like they know something about chess, such as “which variation for Black do you prefer against the Ruy Lopez.” Of course, my answer to such a question is usually “ ah…the winning variation,” at which point said parent mutters something about my lack of sanity and wanders off. However, I found the question regarding Paul Morphy to be one worth exploring. I told the parent, I would answer the question in this article. So Ian (parent), this one’s for you!

    I think what Ian was getting at was the question of why Paul Morphy is so prevalent in my teaching program and the programs of many others. It’s a good question if you look at it from Ian’s point of view. His son goes to chess class one day, comes home and does nothing but talk about the amazing Paul Morphy. Ian looks up Paul Morphy online and becomes perplexed because he managed to find the one website that published descriptions of some of Morphy’s more eccentric non-chess habits. Fortunately, Ian did continue to read on and discovered that Paul Morphy played chess. Ian had also been trying to get his son interested in George Washington and American history with no luck. Ian wondered how his son could be so fascinated with one “old historical guy” (to quote Ian) and not with another. So what is it about Paul Morphy?

    The question is really, what is it about Paul Morphy’s chess that appeals to both young and old alike? With that said, it should be noted that there are a plethora of chess players who find Morphy’s games to be unrealistic and ridiculous which makes this topic even more interesting. Love him or hate him, Morphy made an indelible mark on our beloved game. To answer Ian’s question, we must first look at the period in which Paul Morphy played. This was the romantic era of chess when gambits and all out daring attacks were the order of the day. The game of chess was played differently during the 1800s. Bravado seemed to be the watch word of Morphy’s day. I mention this because many modern players simply dismiss Morphy because he’d never hold up against today’s more sophisticated players. However, I would say to my modern counterparts that they need to look at Morphy in a historical context. Here’s an analogy: The Model T would certainly be an impractical car to drive around today. However, the Model T paved the way for the cars we do drive today and we should appreciate that! Morphy paved the way (along with others) for modern chess.

    Chess students learn about specific chess players because those player’s game provide excellent examples of specific concepts. Those player’s games are published in books and used by chess teachers in their lectures. Chess teachers love games that clearly illustrate a specific point or multiple points. Clarity is the key when presenting a game during a lecture or lesson. Paul Morphy’s games clearly illustrate a number of crucial concepts beginning chess players need to learn. Those concepts include opening principles, attacking, defending and checkmating to name a few. However, what really makes Morphy so irresistible to many (but not all) chess teachers is the clarity of specific chess concepts combined with the excitement of his games.

    I teach the game of chess to my beginning students in a rather theatrical way due to my past as a musician. I want them to share my passion for the game so I try to make the game interesting to them. I want to show them games that are both educational and exciting. This is where Paul Morphy’s games come into play. The majority of my students are young and youngsters like excitement. They want to see outrageous moves made on the board. I want to teach them specific fundamentals. The games of Paul Morphy allow my students to embark on an adventure and learn something during their travels across the sixty four squares.

    One idea young beginners should embrace is the concept of playing attacking chess. Junior players should start their chess careers being attackers rather than defenders. Of course, they cannot be careless attackers or their careers will be short lived! Morphy’s games are ripe with brilliant attacks. To add intellectual icing to the educational cake, those attacks are extremely clear in scope. Take the first three moves of the game Morphy versus Charles the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard de Vauvenargue. Morphy, playing the White pieces follows the opening principles to the letter (1. e4…e5, 2.Nf3…d6, 3d4…Bg4) while the Duke and the Count do their best to hold on. Move three for White demonstrates a very straight forward attack to deny Black’s foothold in the center. 3. d4, attacks the pawn on e5. The d4 pawn is defended by the Knight on f3 and White’s Queen on d1, introducing the idea of counting attackers and defenders. Black’s Bishop on g4 pins the Knight on f3 to the Queen with 3…Bg4, introducing the pin to students and a subsequent discussion regarding this tactic. Three moves into the game and some very important ideas have cropped up!

    Another lesson that can be learned through the games of Paul Morphy has to do with putting pieces on the rim or edge of the board. We teach the beginner to develop pieces toward the board’s center where they’re more powerful or influential. However, there are times when moving a piece to the a or h file makes sense. One of Morphy’s signature moves was to put his Queen-side Bishop on a3 where it attacks the f8 square stopping Black from Castling on the King-side.
    Morphy was also a great Gambiteer. His Evan’s Gambit games were stunning in their Blitzkrieg-like assaults. I use his Evan’s Gambit games to introduce my students to the idea of the Gambit. While there are plenty of other great chess players who play the Evan’s Gambit better than Morphy, their games are nowhere near as user friendly to the beginner. Morphy’s games are beginner friendly and that is extremely important to someone who is new to the game. After all, to learn from a game you have to be able to follow along.

    So Ian, there is your answer. Morphy’s games are exciting, educational and relatively easy to follow. I know some readers will disagree but Morphy’s games work within my program and most importantly, my students are crazy about the pride of New Orleans. Here’s a game by the great Morphy to enjoy until next week!

    Hugh Patterson

    Share

    Playing Chess in a Modern Age

    Here is a game from the first international event that I played on the ICCF server. Both of us had provisional ratings of 1800 points at the start of this. Now, my established rating on ICCF is 2027. My opponent’s established rating is now 2192. 

    The opening that I played is known as both the Modern Defense and the Robatsch Defense. I usually call it the Modern Defense , even if I start off with a different move order. In chess openings there are two schools of thought. The first one is called the Classical School and it teaches players to occupy the Center with pieces and pawns. The second one was developed by Aron Nimzowitsch and Richard Réti and is called the Hypermodern School of thought. This school of thought teaches players to not occupy the Center but to attack it from the wings instead. I have played both styles and which one I will use in a particular game depends on my mood and what my opponent is rated. Also, if I know or suspect that my opponent is going to play some kind of anti Sicilian opening I will play the Pirc or Modern Defense.

    Although we both played a couple of second-best moves there were no outright blunders until I decided to trade queens on move number 20. That lead to the loss of a Bishop for a pawn and then I resigned. I can’t explain that kind of a blunder in a correspondence chess game! At the time that I played this game I did not know that ICCF rules allowed me to use chess engines. If I had used an engine in this game I would not have made that blunder.

    Mike Serovey

    Share