Category Archives: Annotated Games

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

Short and Sweet (2)

In a recent Thames Valley League match my teammate Chris White managed to win a game against an opponent graded 173 in only ten moves.

Here’s how it went.

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Be2

Chris is playing a reverse Philidor, which doesn’t seem the most likely place to find a ten-mover. Still, you never know.

3… Nf6
4. d3 d5
5. Nbd2 dxe4

This seems rather obliging. Bc5 and Be7 are more challenging options.

6. dxe4 Bg4

Again he might have preferred Bc5 here.

7. c3 Bd6
8. h3 Bh5
9. Nh4

Chris wants to put a knight on f5 (a knight on the rim isn’t dim if it’s on its way somewhere else) but he has to calculate this accurately.

9… Nxe4

A familiar tactic, apparently winning a pawn, but Chris has it all worked out.

10. Nxe4

Now Black, to his credit, realised that he was losing a piece and resigned without waiting to be shown:

10… Bxe2

Or 10… Qxh4 11. Nxd6+

11. Qxe2 Qxh4
12. Bg5

And Black’s queen is trapped.

This is a quiescence error. Black thinks the position after Qxh4 is quiescent (there’s nothing immediate happening) but it isn’t. You have to look at all forcing moves before deciding a position is quiescent and stopping your analysis.

This seemed to be a relatively unusual idea, although I’d remembered seeing this game in Chernev’s 1000 Best Short Games of Chess.

I did a quick search on MegaBase 2018 and found several other examples. The game between Roberto Diaz Garcia (2037) and Leandro Jimenez Jimenez (1974) played in the Championship of the Dominican Republic last May, was almost a repeat of Busvine-Birnberg, the only difference being that White had played O-O rather than Nf1.

A few more examples of the same queen trap. This one’s from a very different opening and has happened more than once. 8. dxe5 would have been OK for White.

Even fairly strong players seem to miss this idea.

The final example features a very different setting, but the queen still gets trapped in the same way.

So there are two tactical ideas you might want to learn. If your opponent plays Nh5 you can sometimes win a pawn using a discovered attack: Nxe5 followed by Qxh5. But you must make sure your queen isn’t going to be trapped as a result. The general idea of trapping a queen in this way is also worth remembering.

Richard James

“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 (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

Short and Sweet (1)

When Mike Fox and I were writing our Addicts’ Corner column in CHESS one of our regular features was ‘Short and Sweet’, in which we invited readers to submit their own very short wins (or losses).

Every week I download the latest TWIC and search for mini-miniatures. This week’s TWIC offers a bumper 7872 games, many of them played in the World Rapid and World Blitz Championships, but also much else from Christmas/New Year tournaments around the world. The World Rapid and Blitz Championships, held, controversially, in Saudi Arabia, featured some less experienced local players who were easy prey for the visiting GMs.

Let’s look at some of last week’s quicker decisive games.

Cho Fai Heng (1476) – Benjamin Yao Teng Oh (1855)
Jolimark HK Open 24 Dec 2017

1. e4 c5
2. Ne2 Nc6
3. Nbc3

The Closed Variation is a nice system to play against the Sicilian. You can close your eyes and play the first eight moves without thinking. Or can you?

3… Nd4

Not optimal, but hoping for a Christmas present. White duly obliges.

4. g3 Nf3#

Of course it’s easy to fall for this if you’re, like White in this game, a low graded and perhaps inexperienced player.

Strong players would never make that sort of mistake. Or would they?

Six days later, this happened.

Gulnar Mammadova (2357) – Sarah Hoolt (2405)
World Blitz Women 2017, Riyahd R17 30 Dec 17

1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 e6
3. b3 b6
4. c4 Bb7
5. Nc3 Nc6
6. Bb2 e5
7. Nd5 d6
8. g3 Nge7
9. Bh3

White’s not threatening anything so Black decides to prepare a fianchetto.

9… g6
10. Nf6#

It’s blitz so you move fast. These things happen. But if you stop to ask yourself the MAGIC QUESTION ‘If I play that move what will my opponent do next?’ it really shouldn’t happen. It’s also a pattern which you should recognize. Pattern recognition is an important part of chess and will save time in analysis. It doesn’t mean you don’t have to analyse at all, though.

Now here’s something strange. Perhaps the most frequent opening tactic of all is Qa4+ (Qa5+ for Black) picking up a loose minor piece. It’s a pattern you have to remember. Like this.

Inga Charkhalashvili (2337) – Bedor Al Shelash (-)
World Rapid Women 2017, Riyahd R2 26 Dec 17

1. d4 e6
2. c4 d5
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Bb4
5. Qa4+ 1-0

Except that it isn’t. Black could have defended with Nc6. Perhaps she didn’t notice, or perhaps her mobile phone went off. Who knows?

I’d have been tempted to wait a move, playing something like 5. Nf3 hoping for 5… b6 in reply.

In rapid and blitz games mistakes like this will inevitably happen. But a grandmaster playing in a slowplay event would never hang a piece on move 5.

Wong Meng Kong (2252) – Denis Molofej (2081)
Jolimark HK Open 25 Dec 17

1. Nf3 d5
2. c4 dxc4
3. Qa4+ Qd7
4. Qxc4 Qc6

Trading queens on move 5 would be pretty boring so White prefers…

5. Qb3 Qxc1+ 0-1

Until I came across these games I was planning to write about a particular book and author this week. The book included an analogous position to this:

Mohammed Alanazy (1850) – Ahmed M Al Ghamdi (2159)
World Blitz 2017, Riyahd R15 30 Dec 17

1. e4 c5
2. d4 cxd4
3. c3 d3
4. Nf3 d6
5. e5 dxe5
6. Nxe5 Qc7
7. Qh5

White defends his threatened knight while at the same time threatening mate in 2. What could be more natural? Sadly, the blitz time limit didn’t allow him to ask himself the MAGIC QUESTION.

7… g6

Black defends his threatened king while at the same time threatening the queen which is defending the knight. If 8. Qg5 he can choose between Bh6 and f6, both winning a piece.

8. Qf3 Qxe5+ 0-1

My last offering for now highlights another recurring tactical pattern in the opening. Again, an idea all competitive players need to know.

Johan-Sebastian Christiansen (2495) – Hassan M Al Bargi (1579)
World Rapid 2017, Riyahd R2 26 Dec 17

1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Qxd5
3. Nc3 Qd8
4. d4 Nf6
5. Nf3 c6
6. Bc4 Bg4

Allowing a familiar combination. At least it should be familiar. My database has 28 examples of White’s next move, with two of the victims being rated over 2200. The earliest example is Albin – Lee New York 1893, a tournament which also featured William Henry Krause Pollock.

7. Bxf7+ Kxf7
8. Ne5+ Kg8
9. Nxg4 Nbd7
10. Qe2 Nxg4
11. Qe6#

Which is why an early section of Chess Openings for Heroes covers these tactical patterns which happen over and over again. You won’t find this, as far as I know, in any other elementary openings book.

Richard James

Critical Central Control Combat

“The centre is the Balkans of the chessboard; fighting may at any time break out there” – Aron Nimzowitsch

I seem to keep making mistakes playing the French. The crucial pawn lever is c5 and Black has to play it in a timely manner. In this game it was important to play 6…c5. Instead I got a very cramped position with a very troublesome light squared bishop. However, Nigel thought I defended well and was able to take advantage of White’s blunder on move 23.

Dan Staples

Last Throes

William Pollock is not the only chess player I’ve been reading about recently. I’ve been waiting three decades to read Jimmy Adams’ book Gyula Breyer, The Chess Revolutionary. published by New in Chess. It was well worth the wait.

You probably know two things about Breyer, that he played 9… Nb8 in the Ruy Lopez and that he claimed (perhaps because of 9… Nb8) that after 1. e4 White’s game was in the last throes. But neither of these is true, or at least there’s no evidence. The Breyer Variation of the Ruy Lopez was named by Barcza and other Hungarian players in the 1950s: they had been told by Viennese players that Breyer had recommended it in an essay, but the essay in question has not yet come to light. It was Tartakower who first claimed that Breyer had written that after 1. e4 White’s game was in the last throes, but again there’s no evidence that he wrote anything beyond saying that White’s position was compromised.

Like Pollock, Breyer had a short life and a short career. He was born in Budapest in 1893 and died of heart disease at the age of only 28 in Bratislava in 1921. His career started early, by the standards of his day, and he won the Hungarian Championship in 1912. He played at Mannheim in 1914, and was sharing fourth place when the tournament was abandoned due to the outbreak of war. There was no international chess for the next four years so he was only able to take part in national competitions. His best result came in Berlin in December 1920, when he scored 6½/9, finishing a full point ahead of Tartakower and Bogoljubov, but 11 months later he was dead.

Breyer’s historical importance was as a founder of the Hypermodern School of chess. He was a friend of Réti and a big influence on Nimzowitsch. Breyer may not have said that after 1. e4 White’s game is in its last throes, but he made some pretty sweeping and controversial statements about openings.

He believed, for example, that 2. d4 in the French or Caro-Kann was a mistake, preferring instead 2. d3, not, as we might today, playing a King’s Indian Attack but instead going for a reversed Philidor. He also recommended 1. e4 Nf6 2. d3, considering 2. e5 a mistake, and planning to meet 2… e5 with 3. f4, claiming a white advantage.

After 1. d4 Breyer awarded 1… d5 a question mark, and, if instead 1. d4 Nf6, 2. c4 also received a question mark because of 2… d6. I guess you can see what he’s getting at. Any pawn in the centre could be a target for attack. Did he actually believe his assessments or was be just being, like many chess players, a professional contrarian? Who knows?

His chess playing style was unconventional, as well, favouring paradoxical ideas and obscure manoeuvres, but also demonstrating an extraordinary combinational talent.

This book is very different from the scholarly biographies published by McFarland. What we have, in a hardback book of 876 pages, is a compendium of 240 games played by Breyer, with annotations collated from many sources, along with Breyer’s essays, articles and newspaper columns (he was a prolific journalist), translated into English for the first time, and articles about Breyer from many other sources. The material is arranged chronologically and interspersed with a biography of our hero.

Let’s examine Breyer’s most famous game. He’s playing white against Johannes Esser, in a tournament played in Budapest in 1917.

1. d4 d5
2. c4 c6
3. e3 Nf6
4. Nc3 e6
5. Bd3 Bd6
6. f4 O-O
7. Nf3 dxc4
8. Bb1

Most of us would recapture without much though, but Breyer has his eyes set on a king-side attack.

8… b5
9. e4 Be7
10. Ng5 h6
11. h4

This is Breyer’s immediate idea: the same idea as the Fishing Pole Trap. The intention is to mate Black down the h-file.

11… g6
12. e5

At this point Breyer claimed he’d seen up to move 26. Do we believe him? I have my doubts.

12… hxg5
13. hxg5 Nd5
14. Kf1

This extraordinary move is the reason this game became famous. The immediate point is to avoid a potential pin if Black plays Bb4, but the grandiose idea only becomes clear many moves later. White wants to avoid a potential Bh4+.

14… Nxc3
15. bxc3 Bb7

This looks suspect: how does this move help defend his king-side. Qe8 and Nd7 were better alternatives.

16. Qg4 Kg7
17. Rh7+ Kxh7
18. Qh5+ Kg8
19. Bxg6 fxg6
20. Qxg6+ Kh8
21. Qh6+ Kg8
22. g6

Now we see the main point of Kf1. If the king was still on e1 Black would have been able to defend with Bh4+ here.

22… Rf7
23. gxf7+ Kxf7
24. Qh5+ Kg7

Black could draw here by playing Kg8. Now 25. f5 fails to Qf8 so White has nothing better than perpetual check. However, I can find no mention of this in the book.

25. f5 exf5
26. Bh6+

Some sources stop the game here claiming either that Black resigned or that White won in a few moves. White did win – eventually, after mutual blunders in time trouble. 26. e6+ would have forced mate in 9 moves, as would either Ke2 or Bf4+ but Breyer’s choice didn’t spoil anything.

26… Kh7
27. Bg5+ Kg8
28. Qg6+ Kh8
29. Qh6+

29. Bf6+ was the quickest way to win.

29… Kg8
30. Qe6+

White could still return to the previous position but now Black can escape.

30… Kf8
31. Qxf5+ Kg7
32. Bh6+ Kxh6
33. Ke2 Bc8
34. Rh1+ Bh4
35. e6

35. Rxh4+ Qxh4 36. Qf8+ is a perpetual check. Now Black can win by returning one of his three extra pieces: 35… Bxe6.

35… Qe7
36. Qf4+ Kg7
37. Rxh4 Qxe6+
38. Kd2 Na6

38… Bd7 was a possible improvement.

39. Rh5 Qf6

The final mistake. After 39… Bd7 White would win the black queen under less favourable curcumstances and Black would have been able to fight on. Now a series of forks will pick up Black’s loose pieces.

40. Rh7+ Kxh7
41. Qxf6 Bg4
42. Qh4+ Kg7
43. Qxg4+ Kf6
44. Qf3+ Ke7
45. Qxc6 Rg8
46. Qxa6 Rxg2+
47. Kc1 1-0

A flawed masterpiece, you might think. The same could also be said for the book. The amount of research, much of which was carried out three decades ago, is prodigious and the material endlessly fascinating. It’s strange, though, that, although twenty pages are devoted to discussing this game, quoting analysis and articles from many sources, and some computer analysis has been carried out, there’s no mention of 24… Kg8, which demonstrates that Breyer’s combination, spectacular though it was, should only have sufficed for a draw.

There are a few minor oversights: for example, the tournament table on p853 is incorrectly captioned. There has been, understandably some criticism concerning insufficiently detailed sources. This might be annoying if you’re a serious chess historian and want to refer to the originals but will be of no concern to most readers.

If you have any interest at all in chess history this book is an essential purchase. If you have an specific interest in the development of chess ideas over the years, again you have to buy this book.

One final thought. Last week I suggested that we were living in a golden age for chess history, with outstanding books such as this one being published regularly. Now chess is becoming a game for small children and professional players, will there be anyone left to write, or even read books like this in twenty years time? Or is chess history in its last throes?

Richard James

Golden Age

We’re currently living in a golden age for chess history, due in no small measure to the American publishing house McFarland & Co, who, for some years now, have provided us with a constant stream of elegant, beautifully produced hardback books concerning the history of the Royal Game.

I’ve recently enjoyed reading one of this year’s offerings, a biography of William Henry Krause Pollock, written by two of McFarland’s most experienced authors, Olimpiu Urcan and John Hilbert.

Pollock was a relatively minor figure in the history of chess, with a career of only a decade or so playing at master level. His highest EDO rating, 2463, ranked him 36th in the world in 1892. His short but interesting life, together with his attractive style of play, make him a worthy subject for a full biography.

William Pollock was born into an Anglo-Irish family in Cheltenham in 1859, the son of a clergyman. After various postings his father, now a widower, eventually settled in Bath. William studied medicine in Dublin, qualifying as a surgeon, but decided to forsake the operating theatre for the chessboard.

He started off playing in club matches and in lower sections of congresses, but by 1885 had graduated to the Masters sections. The 2nd Irish Chess Association Congress in 1886 provided him with what would be his greatest success, when he beat the visiting masters Blackburne and Burn as well as all the local players, the strongest and most interesting of whom was Richard Whieldon Barnett, also an expert rifle shooter, who would become the Conservative and Unionist MP for St Pancras West, and later St Pancras South West.

In 1889 Pollock crossed the Atlantic to take part in the 6th American Chess Congress in New York, one of the great international tournaments of the time. He finished 11th out of 20 competitors with a score of 17½/38, well behind the leaders Chigorin and Weiss (29/38), Gunsberg (28½), Blackburne (27), Burn (26), and Lipschütz (25½). He did, however, have the consolation of winning the Brilliancy Prize for his Round 35(!) victory with the black pieces over one of the joint winners, the very strong but now forgotten Miksa (Max) Weiss (1857-1927), who would give up professional chess soon after this event. Oh, look! It’s game 11111 in my database!

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6
5. d3 b5
6. Bb3 Bc5
7. c3 d5

The opening is of some interest. Weiss plays the sort of slow set-up with c3 and d3 much favoured today, and Pollock hits back in the centre, offering a pawn sacrifice in the style of Marshall.

8. exd5 Nxd5
9. Qe2 O-O
10. Qe4 Be6
11. Nxe5

This is too dangerous. 11. Ng5 g6 12. Nxe6 was to be preferred.

11… Nxe5
12. Qxe5 Nb4
13. O-O Nxd3
14. Qh5 Bxb3
15. axb3 Re8
16. Nd2 Qe7
17. b4 Bxf2+
18. Kh1

18. Rxf2 loses to 18… Qe1+ 19. Rf1 Qe3+. Black has many good moves now, but Pollock, typically, chooses the most spectacular option.

18… Qe1
19. h3

Allowing the following queen sacrifice.

19… Nxc1
20. Rxe1 Rxe1+
21. Kh2 Bg1+
22. Kg3 Re3+

22… Ne2+, regaining material, was also possible but Pollock correctly prefers a mating attack.

23. Kg4 Ne2
24. Nf1 g6
25. Qd5 h5+
26. Kg5 Kg7
27. Nxe3 f6+
28. Kh4 Bf2+
29. g3 Bxg3#

After this event Pollock decided to stay in America, even though there were fewer opportunities for competitive chess there than in Europe. He travelled the country giving simuls and meeting local players, and, for a few months in 1892, he acted as Steinitz’s secretary in New York. He later moved to Canada, and it was as Canada’s representative that he was invited to take part in the famous Hastings tournament of 1895.

Not surprisingly, he found the competition there a bit hot and finished 19th out of 22 competitors with a score of 9 points. His victims, though, included both Tarrasch and Steinitz.

Shortly after the tournament his health worsened due to tuberculosis, and Hastings proved to be his swan song. He died at his father’s house a year later.

So that was Pollock. Consistently inconsistent, I suppose you could say, typically finishing below the recognised masters but above the local players who were there to make up the numbers in most 19th century events. A player capable of beating anyone on his day, a producer of brilliancies but also likely to lose games due to unsound attacks or careless oversights.

While there are many more distinguished practitioners of our game who have yet to receive a full biography, if you have any interest at all in chess history of this period you should buy this book. You’ll find almost 200 pages of biography followed by 523 games annotated using both contemporary sources and modern insights. I have just two minor complaints. I’d have liked to see the cross-tables of the tournaments in which Pollock participated, and would have preferred more detailed solutions to the problems which appear in various places in the book. The quality of research, writing and production are all exemplary and, as a matter of principle, writers and publishers of such a high quality product should be supported. If you don’t have any interest in chess history, I’d suggest you should. It’s part of our history, part of our heritage, and, although the openings may be old-fashioned there’s still much to learn from the games. It’s also a delight to witness the attacking skill of Pollock at his best. You might think that, just as the early 21st century is a golden age for chess history, the late 19th century was a golden age of chess playing.

Richard James

Two Rooks on the Seventh

Nimzowitsch was one of the first ones to highlight the power of two rooks on the seventh rank in his famous book “My System” published in 1925. Many a player are reminded of it time and time again or are happy to have it as a resource to draw or win their games. This month I got a first hand reminder during one of my online games. It is not that I have forgotten about it, but I simply overlooked it and lost half a point in the process. Lesson 24, level 4 of our app will get a new addition to the existing collection of puzzles on this subject. Let’s see the game together:

Do not dismiss the potential of two rooks on the seventh. Contrary to the popular belief the purpose for such rooks is not to checkmate the opponent or even win the game on the spot. Their purpose is to use their dominance and gain material advantage one can further use to win the game; in our case their purpose was to save half a point for white after a dubious opening and some poor play. Next time I will be far more reluctant to find exceptions (are there any?…) where those rooks on the seventh won’t help.

Valer Eugen Demian

Rating and Psychology in Chess

Chess is more of a psychological battle than a battle on the board, in particular when facing higher or lower rated opponents. If I talk about myself, I much prefer endgames especially against lower rated players and won’t hesitate to go into endgame even with equal pawns or opposite color bishops. This is because I believe that lower rated players tend to be weak in endgames and so far this strategy worked for me the majority of times. Most people adopt a different approach when playing against lower rated players and take more risks compared to how they would play against higher rated players. They will also go for more pieces exchanges against higher rated players. A person who overcomes this mindset is likely to perform better which is why coaches tell their student to play their natural game. Eperience shows, more or less, that this works.

Here is a game of mine against one of my friends, a much higher rated player. We both had full points after 4 rounds so whoever wons would become the champion. We reached to following position after 22 moves and it is Black to move.

The first move came to my mind was …Nd5 (psychology works) and exchange down into a position in which White doesn’t have a clear win but he does have a very active position. As we know each other very well, my opponent was hoping for this because I prefer endgames. But I decided to reject this move.

The second move came to my mind was more ambitious, placing the rook on open file (Rad8), but then I was very worried about the f6 and d6 squares. So finally played …f6! which was a necessary exchange.

22. …f6 23. exf6 Qxf6 24. b4 Rad8 25. Ne4 Qf5 26. Nc5 Rf7 27. Rce1 Nd5 28. Ne6! Re8?!

Much better was …Rd6.

29. g4?!

Better was Ng7!, a difficult move to see, and that was the reason Rd6 was much better than Re8.


In this position …Qf6 might be Ok for Black but I choose …Qxe6!. At that time my evaluation was that the rook and knight would hold White’s queen.

29…Qxe6
30. Rxe6 Rxe6
31. f5 Re3
32. Qg2 g5
33. Rf3!

And now I realised that my evaluation was incorrect because I can’t generate significant threats with the rook and knight whereas his queen will be much active. Luckily the exchange of rooks was not compulsory and soon we had a repetition of moves and game was ended in a draw.

So basically you can perform better if you can overcome this psychological issue of wanting to exchange pieces against higher rated players. It can be hard to do but seems easy when you actually do it.

Ashvin Chauhan