Category Archives: Valer Eugen Demian

Reductio ad Finis (Latin)

Going straight to the end (approximate translation)

When there are no more dropped pieces for free and those around you are not scared anymore of the Fried Liver, the games grow longer. They test you patience and resilience, especially when you reach the endgame more often. It is the time when you should seriously start looking at the game of chess backwards or in other words to start from the end. Our app level 2 covers the basic endgames: queen versus pawn, rook versus pawn plus king and pawn versus king to understand the concept of the opposition. If you start going this way, it will reveal an important aspect: fewer pieces on the board do not mean a simpler game, but quite the opposite. There are a number of tricks you need to know to be successful and it is not enough to know them just for a month or two after you think you understood them. You have to know them for as long as you will play the game.

Let’s look at a couple of positions my students have played lately:


This was the end of a club game between students of around 800 CFC (Chess Federation of Canada) rating strength. They play decent openings and in the middle game can come up with interesting ideas and plans. The endgame however is what it is… How many mistakes did you see above? Here is a list:

  • In the initial position Black has the material upper hand and a simple 1… Rh1 would have maintained it; it is obvious Black was focused on capturing the g2-pawn without thinking the possible endgame outcome should have guided her against it. Anyone who has studied the basic endgames should realize quickly the exchanges on g2 lead white to a simply won position because of the extra, passed f4-pawn
  • The second important moment comes after 5… b5 White is still winning and all it has to do is to make sure Black runs out of pawn moves on the Queen side; once that happens, the Black king must move away and the f4-pawn march down the board is going to end up with a queen promotion and an easy win.
  • A simple move like 6. b3 … changes the situation on its head; now after 6… cxb3 7. axb3 a5 white cannot win anymore and should observe how the a5 and b5 pawns versus b3 will give Black a passed pawn that must be stopped. We are entering a more complicated endgame situation where the rule of the square governs (our app level 3) and ignoring it always leads to disaster. The move 6. Kf3 … loses on the spot
  • Game over right? Well, not so fast; in order for it to be over, Black must know what to look for (the rule of the square). I switched my attention from it to record another result when both players asked me to come over and told me they agreed to a draw. I was speechless. Our endgame lessons cannot come soon enough!


This one was played by my favorite student C you are already familiar with from previous articles. What do you think of the play on both sides? Are there any moments when you might have played differently? I bet there are. Let’s review a few of them:

  • White is indeed winning at the starting point of the above position
  • The first mistake is 38. b4 … Being up material, the main concern White should have is to take care of the h3-pawn, the only threat capable to give him headaches; obviously he lost track of it
  • The second mistake in a row is 39. Na5 …; again, it makes not sense to look for spectacular combinations white thought he saw (?); his material advantage is going to be lost
    It is hard to explain 43. Ke2 … for someone who can answer right away when asked “In the endgame the kings must go in the center”. This simple king move leads now to a draw instead of a win after 43. Ke4 …
  • Did you read the comment on move 46. Kd3 …? Talk about being confident. Rooks are out of the way and it must be a win, right? No!
  • The last mistake decides the winner: 49… Kb4 was not needed. Based on the rule of the square mentioned above, both kings can easily catch the opposing pawn
  • After 52. f8=Q+ … we reach one of the basic endgames queen versus pawn. White floundered around for another 13 moves, but managed to win it. There is hope though: he remembered this endgame and promised he will review it to play it better next time

Not sure if the above makes a strong enough case for studying endgames as part of your tournament preparation. I honestly hope it does. A player strengthening his game backwards (beginning with the basic endgames) will experience a sudden jump in rating to over 1000 and more. This growth will continue as the study of endgames will go deeper. There is excitement and rewards when going straight to the end!

Valer Eugen Demian

Puzzles at Every Move

“The art of simplicity is a puzzle of complexity”
Douglas Horton

Please open another tab in your favorite browser and play in the background ‘Fly like an eagle” by Steve Miller Band. Here are a couple of versions to choose from if you are not very familiar with it:
Steve Miller Band
Joe Bonamassa
It starts with
“Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping
Into the future…”
Yeah, now it is much better! It is one attractive solution to the puzzle in front of me writing this and you reading it. We are slipping into the future while solving puzzles at every move. What is your recipe for solving them?

A long time friend of mine (DT) has been blessed with achieving some lofty goals during his chess career. One of them is winning the finals of the United States Correspondence Chess Championship with an impressive +13 =1 -0, a true Fischeresque result. Lately he still shares his accumulated wisdom with those willing to learn and does it online no less! Considering my father is afraid to touch the mouse not to break something, it is incredible my friend is active online like anyone many years younger than him. This past week he shared the following:
“There are 2 basic rules for solving tactics. These 2 rules will not solve all tactics but will solve about 90% of tactics.
1. Look at ALL checks no matter how dumb they may look at first
2. After looking at the checks, look at all forcing moves and captures no matter how dumb they might look at first”
Have you ever heard anyone tell you that before? What do you think of them? Here is a couple of selections from the puzzles DT added to illustrate his point:



The rules seem to be working, eh? One has to agree the checks on move 1 in both are not exactly your first choice, right? I think DT’s rules could be very useful in home preparation. That could for sure translate in coming up with better ideas in your games, as well as seizing the opportunity to see and unleash unexpected tactics when your opponents stumble on their own. Last but not least we should not omit the other 10% DT alludes to: those positions where no check is the starting move of the correct solution. Chess composition has opened the opportunity for the creation of real master pieces based just on that. I have been told as early as my junior days that no real chess composition puzzle of any value starts with check. Here is one of them I found online, stunning in its simplicity and difficulty. Hope you will enjoy it!

Valer Eugen Demian

A Case for Castling

“Castle early and often”
Rob Sillars

An interesting article “When to Castle” has been posted a while ago by Hugh Patterson. You can review it HERE
Castling is something we learn about from the very beginning and after we overcome the challenge of doing it correctly, moving our king to safety seems like a logical option. Time and time again the side not castling is punished for ignoring it and there is little to no excuse for that. Club players these days are challenged to do the right thing in an information overload era. Anyone can google for games and most common strategy or tactical aspects of the game. I often hear “GM X (insert the name of your favorite one) did not castle and won nicely”. Yes, they did. The difference is they knew why the position allowed them to skip castling and what were the positives and negatives to look for and consider when making the decision.

Voting chess I have used quite often for my articles here fascinates me lately. It is a microcosm of today’s reality: a lot participate, very few understand and even less learn a thing or two while being involved. Below is one of our recent games versus a team with a good reputation. Our team chose to ignore castling, lured by the mirage of winning the opposing queen; that did not happen, so looking back the question remains: should have Black castled at some point in the game or not? What say you? Hope you are going to enjoy the game.

Valer Eugen Demian

Imbalanced Material Conclusion

“When not opposed by the bishop pair, the queen is worth rook, minor piece, and 1½ pawns”
Garry Kasparov

Not long ago I presented a voting chess position where our team decided to go for an imbalanced material position by sacrificing our queen. You can review the article HERE
Our controversial queen sacrifice split our team in 2: those who agreed with it and those who thought we were simply losing. Here is the position we envisioned and reached, together with black’s following move:

Black’s move is baffling. If we analyze the position for Black, a few important points should have been considered:

  • White has no weaknesses
  • Nd4 rules the board
  • The 1st ands 2nd rank are controlled by the White rooks
  • The a2-pawn is passed and can become dangerous if it starts advancing; it should be blocked ASAP and captured
  • There is no back rank danger, so the a2-pawn should be attacked by the rook; a queen is the worst possible blocker of a passed pawn one can think of

Going back to our side we were aware if Black would target our a2-pawn, there was not much we could do to hope for more than a draw; that pawn was our only hope to reach for the stars. It is hard to understand how a team of 15 players on their side could miss such an obvious idea. Seeing your opposition play like this should always be a confidence booster. The following group of 16 moves white had a clear goal in mind: setup a more aggressive position, exchange a rook to leave the queen to fight alone and begin pushing the a-pawn forward.

White is now clearly winning. The passer has reached the 6th rank for the simple reason the queen is the worst blocker one can choose. The Black king arrived in the center to participate in the battle, but he did not have time to switch places with the queen and become the blocker. That would have given the queen a bit of freedom to come up with some threats against the White king. Does that d4-knight look strong or what? It has been dominating the position since move 25. Here we experienced another heated discussion, even if the voting was overwhelming in favour of 42. Ra1 … I argued that 42. Ra4 … was superior. I still believe it was. White’s pieces would have cooperated nicely as can be seen in the sideline below; the line looks quite logical and the moves have a nice flow connecting them. Unfortunately I was alone voting for it.
In the end we won regardless. Black gave up and played one bad move after another, inviting us to checkmate. One last question for you before looking at the last part of the game: which rook move would have you chosen?

Valer Eugen Demian

“What say you?” The 1 minute challenge (9)

“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer”
Bruce Lee

A quick reminder about how to do it:

  • Have a look at the position for 1 minute (watch the clock)
  • Think about the choices in front of you and pick the one you feel it is right
  • Verify it in your mind the best you can
  • Compare it with the solution

My student “C” is a very interesting character. He can play some of the worst and some of the best games for his level; also just to keep things interesting he can play his worst and best in the same game. You never know what you are going to get with him. Two weeks ago we discussed about a decent game he played and won when his opponent blundered. These are tougher games to look at. We are humans and when we win, we tend not to nitpick how it happened. I challenged him anyway to analyse an important moment in the game and find the best play he could think of. That would have enabled him to win the game outright and not rely on opposing blunders. Here is the position and his 3 choices in no particular order; which one would you choose?

Let’s have a closer look:

  • White is up a pawn; this is the reason for line C
  • Both kings are castled with the white one looking nervous at Black’s battery along the h1-a8 diagonal
  • White controls the e-file
  • The d4-pawn is powerful in the center; it is supported and blocks Bb2
  • The battery Bb7 + Qd5 is nasty and looks to cause major problems on the king side once g5-g4 gets played
  • I have mentioned the blocked Bb2 and will add to it the bad position of Qd3
  • The opposite colours bishops could give a false indication for a possible draw

So, which one did you choose? Were you a bit confused by the similar looking bishop moves in line A and B? The difference between them actually is like night and day. If you have seen it or sense it, you are a strong player with good instincts. If you have looked at the position with an engine (do not recommend it for the purpose of this article), you might be intrigued why the choice 25… Bc8 was not offered? Honestly we did not look at it. Keeping the battery aligned feels right for a human. Our reason for moving the bishop is to take advantage of the blocked Bb2 and to put pressure on it by doubling the Rooks along the b-file. Did you see that? We considered it key to the position. The idea is to create a new threat and combine it with the one along the h1-a8 diagonal. We had fun analysing it and I hope you did it too. Enjoy the solution!

Valer Eugen Demian

Going Back to the Basics (4)

“Everything in life goes back to the basics”
Kron Gracie

Material balance article was posted HERE
Kings’ position article was posted HERE
Pieces’ positioning was posted HERE
Last but not least one needs to be aware of the pawn structure on both sides. Pawns are a bit of an uncomfortable subject for many a player. Beginners don’t really know what to do with them. Their games do not last or keep the material balance long enough for the pawns to be more than a nuisance. At the beginning of the game pawns are too many to handle and more often than not they are obstacles impeding the pieces to move. Quite a few of my level 2 players choose to move a pawn when they cannot find a useful piece move, so we have been talking about them more often to make them pay more attention to them pawns.

Club players today could also do a better job looking after the pawns and involving them more in their games. It could be the fact pawns are slow pace moving pieces. They take a while to get going and be of importance. Everything today is about speed and instant gratification. Engines are setup to look for the line with the most positive mathematical outcome; how many times does that take into consideration the pawn structure? This being said pawn structures still are and will be of importance. I thought for a couple of days about what to write in this article and then I got the idea to go back in time and remind everyone of a few long forgotten, dusty pawn structures. Why would I do that? First these pawn structures deserve to be in the forefront of anyone’s home preparation and second it is a bit of a sentimental trip down the memory lane for me; nevertheless I hope this will tickle your curiosity to find out more about them.






Valer Eugen Demian

Going Back to the Basics (3)

“Everything in life goes back to the basics”
Kron Gracie

Material balance article was posted HERE
Kings’ position article was posted HERE
Observing how all pieces are positioned is the third step anyone needs to do during their games. It is a challenging one for beginners and intermediate players in the opening and middle game just because of the sheer number of pieces to look at on both sides. My students fall in this category and need to be reminded of it time and time again. Do you do it in your games? We can start with obvious examples and continue from there:

  • Have you developed all your pieces?
  • How are the knights doing in closed positions?
  • How are the bishops doing in open or semi-open positions?
  • Are the rooks where they should be, especially if there are open or semi-open files available?
  • Where is the queen and what other pieces could work together with it?

Pieces’ positioning is a critical aspect in anyone’s game. It takes time to get better at it; some are better than others simply because they have the inner ability to sense where their pieces should go. That cannot be taught. I remember back in the 80s and early 90s I would know and admire strong players with an incredible intuition and vision in this regard. They were the most feared in tournaments because they could create things out of the blue. I would look at the same position as they did (including while playing them) and as I could not see more than the obvious (pieces developed, king castled), I was mesmerized to see them come up with plans I never saw coming. It took me a long time to work on this aspect of my game and I still have trouble with it more often than I would like. We are humans so the main flaw of those players was relying all the way on their intuition to the point where other aspects of their play (such as learning openings) would be completely ignored. That was the reason why they reached their plateau and could not advance anymore their entire life. I am sure many will agree and could name a few players in this category, players they envy and have trouble playing against in regular competitions.

Let’s see a few challenges one could face when playing and not doing very well at this aspect of the game:

What do you think about this position? Black’s last move was “Rf8-e8” and probably he was feeling good about pieces’ positioning; afterall his only “undeveloped” piece is Ra8, while white is a couple of steps behind. Well, how about a closer look?

  • The worst developed Black piece is Nc6; in a 1.d4 d5 opening setup, playing it in front of the c7-pawn eliminates any useful queen side play Black can think of. In the same time the c7-pawn is an unnecessary target Qd7 must take care of
  • Nf6 has the e4-square to go to (good prospects), but it could be chased away with ease (f2-f3 for example)
  • Bg7 has a very good defensive position; however its prospects of being involved in an attack are slim to none
  • The last move Rf8-e8 developed Rf8; however from this point on Black never tried to open up the e-file by moving e6-e5. In the case of deciding to keep the e6-pawn there, the move Rfe8 does nothing and concluding it was a waste of time is easy to make

Overall Black’s setup is very defensive, so why would anyone want to reach such a middle game position with no prospects?
Conclusion: White has a considerable upper edge in pieces’ positioning and that should have led to a winning game


The comments in the game are by White. Please replay the moves starting with 10.Bg5 … until you reach the diagram and think about pieces’ positioning during that part of it. Who do you think played better and obtained more out of it? Here are a few pointers to help with your decision; hopefully you have identified them as well:

  • The poor dark squares White bishop was well traveled during this sequence and by move 23 he was stuck behind his own d4-pawn, blocked by Nd5
  • White’s indecision where to place Bc1 allowed Black to castle and improve the position of Nb8 all the way to d5 from where it dominates the position at move 23
  • 17… Re8 is as pointless in this position as it has been in the previous one above
  • White’s idea to push c2-c4 is excellent as long as it is combined with the purpose of chasing away the excellent placed Nd5
  • 19… Qc8 is another move without an obvious reason
  • 22.c5 … is a strategic blunder since it allows Nb6 to go back to its dominant d5-square (outpost); it proves the c2-c4 idea was not combined with the purpose of chasing away Nd5 and possibly was not combined with anything at all

From move 23 on black improved his position by taking control of the b-file with white being forced to defend the badly misplaced Bb2. It did not continue with improving the position of Be7 (possible Be7-f6) and when white launched a dubious 2 pieces attack in the center (!), it resigned seeing an illusory imminent checkmate.
Conclusion: White wandered around and should have had a tough time saving a draw in a game where it should have had good chances to play for a win.

There are several sources of inspiration to learn, practice and effectively get better and pieces’ positioning such as books, online articles and apps (our app levels 3, 4 and 5 has several lessons focusing on many variations of this subject). I guess any and all could be useful and the important point to make is to be aware of it, do your best to find the source good for you and start going at it relentlessly. Mastering it could be a long journey with one certain result: you will get better as a player and the results will follow. The higher levels you will reach will be sure things, so you won’t just bounce back down to lower levels once you passed them. Hope these thoughts convinced you to pay a more serious attention to pieces’ positioning!

Valer Eugen Demian

Going Back to the Basics (2)

“Everything in life goes back to the basics”
Kron Gracie

Last week I wrote about material balance in response to a call for help from my online student C:
“Recently I’ve been noticing that when I’m in a game, sometimes I don’t find an attack, or a really good move right away, and I start to focus on dumb, and pointless things in the game like taking a side pawn, and I forget about what is happening around me. This is mainly why I blunder and then lose. If you could give me some advice before the tournament I would appreciate it.”

The second aspect one should always keep an eye on is the kings’ position at all times. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense; capturing either king ends the game on the spot. We should all strive to keep our king out of danger, while attacking the other one whenever the opportunity arises. Beginners in general face a real challenge to follow this. The number of pieces on the board at the beginning is overwhelming and the number of possible moves is plain and simple scary. Who has time to look at the king when we know it is not useful? Another challenge comes from the rules in place for castling. I have seen countless times total confusion when club players stumbled over castling, wanted to do it and did not know how. It starts as simple as to know how many squares the king moves (it happens often to see a Queen side castle with Kb1+Rc1) and it continues quite often with castling through check or castling while in check and getting away with it (the opponent accepts it!).

I can hear you saying “I can castle. I am not a beginner anymore”. Moving on to more entertaining situations, I wonder how many times do you really watch the kings’ position? Do you do it constantly throughout the game? If you do, it is highly unlikely to be in the same shoes as C. Their position gives you most of the times enough information to figure out what to do. Of course this is not enough; you also need to find the right idea and put together the most appropriate plan to use to your advantage the kings’ position. That requires more advanced positional and tactical knowledge, as well as a lot of practice. C has offered me the perfect opportunity to expand on it based on one of his games from that tournament. Here is the position in question, the way he played it and the way he should have played it:

The good (White):

  • he realized he should attack the opposing king
  • his pieces were positioned almost perfectly (this ties into the third aspect) and beginning the attack was the right thing to do
  • eventually he clued in to bring Rf1 into the attack

The bad (White):

  • he could not make up his mind what to do with Bc4
  • trying to create a battery with 19. Qf5 and 20. Bd3 was an unfortunate waste of time
  • he got scared of a potential one move threat Rg8-g5

The ugly (White):

  • he should have realized from the beginning Qe2 and Bc4 were already in attacking positions, so the correct way to play would have been 18. Rf3 to bring another attacker
  • the fact there were semi-open files on g- and h-, an isolated h6-pawn and no piece outside Qe7 defending the king, should have pointed to the need to bring a rook into the action

Conclusion: the play was dictated exclusively by the weakened position in front of the Black king. The first needed step was to recognize it and that meant White was on the right track. It did not mean he reached the destination yet and he also had to choose the most appropriate plan to attack it. It is striking how Black could survive and save a draw when his position was completely lost at move 18. Do not allow such anomalies to happen in your games!

Valer Eugen Demian

Going Back to the Basics (1)

“Everything in life goes back to the basics”
Kron Gracie

One of my online students (let’s name him C) sent me his latest analysed games and the following message as he was preparing for a local tournament:
“Recently I’ve been noticing that when I’m in a game, sometimes I don’t find an attack, or a really good move right away, and I start to focus on dumb, and pointless things in the game like taking a side pawn, and I forget about what is happening around me. This is mainly why I blunder and then lose. If you could give me some advice before the tournament I would appreciate it.”

Week after week we repeat the same process while going over his games. It is interesting to see how he struggles to make connection between our analysis and his thought process during the games. I have seen it too many times: the student believes after the lessons taught and puzzles solved, we are done and they do not have use for them anymore. During my earlier years as a coach I would not even think about it (too obvious, right?) and could become frustrated; one such moment was about 10 years ago during the national final of a team competition when I was coaching team British Columbia. Our province is a perennial 3rd in the country with Ontario and Quebec being in a league of their own. There are a number of reasons why this is the reality, but they are not important for the purpose of this article. Anyway the matches versus Ontario and Quebec are always a measuring stick of how we are doing; any wins or draws versus them are important. Our player in question was an up and coming junior at the time and he happened to be my student as well. Do not remember exactly what was the situation he missed in the endgame after a long battle in the match versus Ontario; it might have been going for a draw in the side pawn and bishop of wrong corner color (our app level 3, lesson 24). The point was that coincidentally we covered that situation right before the tournament (one would assume to be fresh on his mind) and I could not believe he failed to remember it.

Coming back to today I just reminded C of our process. One hears a lot in sports “go back to the basics” when things are not going well. It is easy to dismiss it as a cliche and to believe it does not apply to you when in reality it does very much. The first step in going back to the basics is to mind at all times the material balance or in simpler terms to know how many pieces you have versus what the opponent has. Do you mind this at all times in your games? Is it just as simple as counting the pieces and their value, subtract it from what the opponent has and see what you got? Do you count the pieces left on the board or the ones already captured? I see some of my level 2 students counting the pieces captured because they are fewer. This is not very good practice. Do you know why? There are a couple of obvious reasons for it:

  • The captured pieces cannot influence what is going on in the game anymore
  • Some captured pieces could be misplaced (example: falling under the table) or the opponent might hold one or more in their hand

Get into the habit of counting the pieces on the board and watch the balance between you pieces and the opposing ones. It is a basic aspect of the game you can use from the simplest “I am up by a point”, to the most sophisticated ones such as “I am going for an imbalanced material situation”. I am not going to spend time on “I am up by a point” C was alluding to when he mentioned taking a side pawn; however I am going to show a very interesting position where the imbalanced material situation was the answer. Here it is from one of our unfinished team voting games:

We had a long discussion about what to do here and some of the ideas were as follows (in chronological order):

  • “19. c5 gives us a passed pawn but it’ll be very difficult to defend; 19. Rfd1 is also a good idea since b5 is such a slow move”
  • “I like 19. Qb2 to move the queen away from the Black rook”
  • “Going back to 19. c5 it could be interesting to look at: 19. c5 Na5 20. Rbc1”
  • “19. c5 Na5 20. Rbc1 Nb7 21. c6 Bxc6 (21… Rxc6 same line) 22. Qxc6 Rxc6 23. Rxc6 and Black loses at least one queen side pawn”
    This was the seed of looking for an imbalanced material situation!
  • “19. a4 bxa4 20. Qxa4 Nd4 21. Qd1 Nxe2 To me this doesn’t seem great as I’d think their bishop is a bit better than our knight in such an open position, and both …Be6 and …Bg4 look like good moves for them”
  • “At the moment, the blunder 19. cxb5?? is in the lead, so we’re going to have to unite around a move. How about 19.Qb2 … ? It doesn’t seem to have any immediate downsides, and it gets us out of the pin”
  • “One quick note; 19. cxb5 is not a “blunder” per se. 19… Nd4 20. Qd2 Nxe2+ 21. Qxe2 Bxb5 22. Rxb5 axb5 23. Qxb5 with two pawns and a knight for a rook. Not the best, but not a total disaster”
  • “19. Qb2 is a safe option, but the resulting position (19. Qb2 b4) is probably not too much better for us than the a4 line”
  • “19. Qb2 b4 20. Rfc1 a5 21. Rc2 Rc7 22. Rbc1 Rfc8 23. Qb3 a4 doesn’t seem very good for White”
  • “I am not convinced that 19. cxb5 is all that horrible. I also wonder about 19. a4 having an issue with 19…b4 19. Qb2 looks interesting but the variations I see so far look defensive. So, let us look at 19. cxb5 in a little more depth. Tell why it is bad”
  • “19. cxb5 Nd4 20. Nxd4 Rxc2 21. Nxc2 Bxb5 22. Bxb5 axb5 23. Rxb5”
  • “In that line it is not clear to me how Black wins just with the queen, rook and 3 versus 4 pawns after they capture the a2-pawn (worst case scenario). White defends the f2-pawn with one rook and holds (for example) the 4th row with the other rook and knight. It feels easier to play than suffering in the 19. Qb2 line”
  • “I don’t like a4 b4 now (thanks to eric for finding that!). I am skeptical of cxb5; we’ll hold, but it won’t be easy, and we won’t have winning chances. The lines with Qb2 and Nd4 looks pretty good for us. Therefore, my vote goes to Qb2 (though I would be really unhappy if cxb5 won out)”

It is very interesting to go over the above and follow the train of thoughts. In the end 19. cxb5 won by one vote (10 votes) over 19. Qb2 (9 votes). Which move would have you chosen if you could be white in this position? Looking back here we were at the crossroads and going for 19. cxb5 made all the difference. My guess is it also surprised the opposing team and the resulting material imbalance influenced them into playing from bad to worst; now we are in an endgame where winning is just around the corner. Before showing you how the game went on for a few more moves, please remember to watch the material balance at all times until your subconscious will take over and do that for you.

Valer Eugen Demian

Stalemate Tuesday

“Any problem that features a pawn moving from its starting square to promotion in the course of the solution is now said to demonstrate the Excelsior theme.”
Excelsior by Sam Lloyd

Chess offers many more opportunities to enjoy it than what we get from the original position and normal play. There are several chess variants to choose from, as well as trying your hand at reaching the most unusual positions one can think of. Stalemate is very hard to reach given its main condition: no pieces can move and the King is not in check. It is logical to look for such positions in the endgame where we have few pieces left. Has it ever crossed your mind though to look for stalemate in the opening? Some have done it already. You can try to do better either by yourself or with your friends at the club. Why would you even consider doing that? I always regarded such unusual exercises as a way of being inventive; way too many times we blitz our moves without thinking in long opening lines, most of the times with no understanding why those moves are played in that order.

Here is an example of juniors who discovered a beauty composed by Sam Lloyd (shortest stalemate possible) and played it on the national stage. It did not go very well with the organizers and both got “0” at the end of it. If you want to play a pre-arranged draw, choose something “normal” to avoid the spotlight. I remember doing it once back in the University Championship. We chose a game with some spectacular sacrifices ending in perpetual; in hindsight it was a bit too spectacular and a number of players came over to watch it live, plus at the end of it a lively analysis erupted. There was no internet at the time and the likelyhood of someone knowing the game was not very high. Today if you want to do something similar, be careful what you choose; google is always watching… Below is what those juniors did. That is asking for trouble or being as inventive as one can be, depending on your perspective:

You can pick up the challenge and see if you can beat Sam Lloyd by finding a shorter stalemate. A couple of players from Germany chose to add a nice wrinkle to it and created a stalemate on move 12 with all the pieces on the board! The position might look familiar since Wheeler (Sunny South 1887) and Sam Lloyd (him again) composed similar positions some 100 years prior; still reaching it requires some work and from this point of view it is as good of a chess workout as anything. Enjoy!

Valer Eugen Demian