Problem #7

The last problem was more than 2 months ago. Time for a problem!

I played this game earlier today. I have reached an obviously winning position, but I had to definitely take my time there to find the winning path. It's actually a mate in 6! (Well, technically it's mate in 7 given that White has Qxh2+ at some point, delaying the mate for one more move, but we all know in practice that he wouldn't play that move). Note that the mate in 6 is the only mate in the position, as confirmed by computer analysis.

White to move

To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below.

====================
Solution:

20. Qg6 Kg8 21. Qf7+ Kh8 22. Ng6+ Kh7 23. Ne7+ Kh8 24. Qg6 1-0. White will play Qh7# either next move or after Black throws in the sorry 24. ...Qxh2+.
====================

Positional chess: an exact science?

In most books on chess strategy, authors explain why such and such a move was the best in the given position, or even, they ask you to find the best move in a position. Some do this by giving a multiple-choice question, where you have to choose the best plan (e.g., Alfonso Romero in Ultimate Chess Strategy Book); others give a diagram and simply ask you to find the best move (this is the case for Aagaard in Excelling at Positional Chess, which was the subject of an earlier article).

The underlying postulate is that given any (or most?) position exists an objective best move or plan, and using abstract thinking you are asked to find it.

I used to tell one of my friends – who doesn’t like chess at all so needless to say that she didn’t care – that one of the big differences between the middlegame and the endgame is that very often in the endgame, one and only one move wins (or draws), and all other moves lose. Whereas in the middlegame, you can play many moves that are just as good as the others: it’s much less exact.

So what’s the answer to that question anyway? Is positional chess an exact science, much like the endgame, as Aagaard sees it? Is it a multiple-choice decision, where some plans are good but not equally, so they are not awarded the same amount of points by the author when you choose them? Or are there some moves which are equally right?

I don’t have the definite answer to that question, but I recently ran into a book which brings the most interesting (and nuanced) answer so far. The book is written by GM Lars Bo Hansen and is called Foundations of Chess Strategy. I haven’t read the whole book – I actually found it on GambitBooks.com, looking at their list of books, which comes with a sample of each book in PDF format; the sample for Foundations of Chess Strategy is here.

The author says that the best move in one’s position depends on their playing style. In the chapter “The Opponents: The Role of the Human Factor in Chess”, Hansen describes his viewpoint as thus:

The players in a chess game are humans [...], and the choices they make are influenced by their background, experience, self-confidence, personality, etc. This means that what is the right choice in a given position for one player is not the right choice for another player with a completely different personality and chess style. Therefore there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position – no ‘one size fits all’ approach! The right choice of plan in a given strategic position should not only be determined by purely chess reasons. [...] This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board.

Hansen appropriately gives the example of a positional (“solid”) player versus an attacking (“sharp”) player. When discussing a line chosen in the Queen’s Gambit by Karpov (solid) and Kasparov (sharp) – who did not choose the same line –, Hansen writes: “according to the statistics in my database Karpov has an almost 80% score against top-level opposition in ‘his’ line, while Kasparov even displays 90% in ‘his’! Despite their magnificent talents I doubt they would achieve the same scores if we switched the variations [i.e., Karpov playing Kasparov’s line and vice-versa]. Obviously they would still score well, but I don’t believe it would be this high.”

The author does make an interesting point. As he accurately points out, we all have played in positions in which we knew we had an objective acceptable position, but we still didn’t feel comfortable playing it. I might even add that although opening theory is huge and provides us with a wide choice of openings, only a few truly fit our style.

I think the example of Karpov and Kasparov speaks for itself. But don’t get me wrong: I am not discrediting neither Aagaard’s nor Romero’s approach. I have Aagaard’s book, and I think it’s excellent, and it has helped me a great deal. I think that all in all, critical judgement is still essential, even when reading GM books (although let’s face it, they’re more right than I am hehe). More importantly, you should choose moves (and openings for that matter) that truly fit your style, and that give rise to positions in which you are comfortable. Don’t choose a line because your chess idol or favourite author (in his positional exercises!) praises it.

Trap in Torre Attack & Game of the Day #2

As I said in my latest article, I am trying out openings for White that involve 1. d4 and an early Bg5 (the Trompowsky, Torre and Veresov attacks; just for the record, I don't think I like the Veresov very much). I played a game two days ago that involved a Torre Attack (1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5), and tried to set up a trap for my opponent who unfortunately didn't fall for it.

I heard of the trap from GreenCastleBlock (Matt Pullin, a USCF expert) on YouTube. The trap starts with 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 e6 4. e3 Be7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nbd7 7. Nbd2 b6 (7. ...O-O is also booked) 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qa4 O-O 10. Ne5 (D):

White is hoping for 10. ...Nxe5 11. dxe5 Nd7?? (11. ...Nh5 +/=) 12. Qh4!, and Black either gets mated or loses a Rook. Matt Pullin says in his video that he won two games with this opening at the same tournament in 2000. His video is available here (I strongly suggest GreenCastleBlock's videos on YouTube).

As for me, I wasn't so lucky, but the game that followed was exciting. It's an opposite-castling game, in which both sides attacked. I give a more or less short analysis of the game, with some interesting moves. Here it is:

[LINK REMOVED]

Game of the Day #1

Game of the Day will be a new series of articles, in which I will post a game that I played most likely on the same day, or at least in the recent past. Of course, I will try to post interesting games..

-

Today's game is interesting in a weird way -- it involves a big blunder. It was a 3-minute unrated game on ICC (3 0 u). I was playing as an anonymous player; and fortunately, my opponent was rated 1171, which is more than a thousand points below my own blitz rating. Otherwise, I would have lost in very few moves :)

-

I got interested yesterday evening in a bunch of openings for White, involving 1. d4 and an early Bg5. Namely, these are the Torre, Trompowsky and Veresov attacks. (They should be the subject of an upcoming article.) So I went earlier today on ICC to try some of these out. Unfortunately, the featured game didn't quite follow any of these openings' book lines, so I will have to play some more games eventually.

-

In the meantime, here is the game. Put simply, let's just say that I... well, traded my Queen for a Knight. More or less intentionally, in fact -- I just preferred defending my pawn than my Queen, that's all.

-

-

[LINK REMOVED]

Blunders #1

Here are three games that ended very quickly after big blunders. The first two games show blunders from two very strong and well-known players.

The first game involves GM Nick De Firmian, the author of the most recent Modern Chess Openings (MCO) editions. Here he in fact blunders very shortly after theory has ended. The game started as a Pirc Defense, Austrian Attack, and gave rise to this position after 17. ...Bxf3 (D):

-

De Firmian, N. (2540) - Wolff, P. (2305)

-

White to move

Here De Firmian responded with the natural-looking 18. Rxf3??, only to be confronted with the very brutal 18. ...Qa6!! (D)

He is losing the Rook due to back-rank problems. After 18 moves his c1-bishop is still undeveloped, and it proves decisive here. If he were to play 19. Rb1, Black has 19. ...Qa2 and the Rook is still a goner. The point of 18. ...Qa6 of course is 19. Rxa6 Rxc1+, followed by mate.

The game ended with 19. Be3 Qxa1+ 20. Bg1 Rc1 21. Nh3 Rf1 22. fxg6 hxg6 0-1.

---

The second game is from a very appreciated player these days, Magnus Carlsen. It's a blitz game played in 2006. This game will maybe be the object of a later endgame analysis here, but for now, let's just look at the very end of the game, where the endgame has simplified greatly:

Carlsen, M. (2675) - Gagunashvili, M. (2591)

White to move

This position is a draw. White played 64. Rxh5, which was rather forced, and Black responded with 64. ...Kxf3 (D):

This position is now more than ever obviously draw, because White has to give up his pawn in order to defend against the mating threat. Or does he? Carlsen played 65. e5??, and got immediately mated with 65. ...Rc1#.

---

The third game involves amateurs -- but strong players nonetheless. It was played in 2002, and reached an ending too. The endgame was completely won for White, but he messed up... twice. The position after 70. ...d2 (D):

Da Silva, J. (2064) - Singh, R. (2133p)

White to move

Here White threw away the win with 71. Rxc3?? (71. Rxd2+!) 71. ...Kxc3 72. Rxd2. I suspect White missed the following in his calculations: 72. ...Re8+ (D):

0-1 -- White resigned. Up to then I was thinking to myself, what a blunder, he was completely winning and he lost this game. I showed this game to my brother (who has approximately the same rating as I do), to show him the blunder on move 71, and he eventually told me "I don't understand why he resigned". And then it hit me -- the final position is a draw. It seems obvious at first sight that White is lost, but mere calculation would have saved this amateur at least a draw. The most obvious continuation (from the last diagram above) is 73. Kf4 Kxd2 74. Kf5 Rg8 75. Kg6 =.

Do you understand now what I meant when I said White blundered twice in this game? The second blunder was to resign!

Problem #6

This is taken from a game I just played today on Facebook, via the Chess application, which allows you to play correspondence chess games. Before the position arose, my opponent was up a pawn. He played 17. ...d5, and I replied with the tactic 18. Nxd5! Bxd5?! (D) (better was 18. ...exd5!, with many complications but keeping at least the advantage of a pawn).

Can you find White's best reply?

White to move

To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below. (download PGN)

====================
Solution:

19. Qxc2! (only move that equalizes) Bxa2?? Much better was 19. ...Bb7, admitting that 18. ...Bxd5 was a mistake, and retreating. Black would have lost back the pawn won earlier; but instead, he walks into a forced mate!

The game continued: 20. Ba6+!! Kd7 (20. ...Kb8 21. Qc6±) 21. Bb5+! Kc8 (21. ...Kd6 21. Qc6#) 22. Qc6 Bd5 (delaying the inevitable) 23. exd5 Kb8 24. Ba6 1-0. Black resigned because he gets mated next move with 25. Qb7#.

====================

Endgame Analysis: R&p vs R&p

This is a game I played on a correspondence chess website. The beginning of the game is excessively boring and symmetrical, and I thought it was going to be a draw, but my opponent was lower-rated than I am (around 1700 -- I am around 2000 on that website), and it did show in the endgame, where he played carelessly.

-

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.O-O Nf6 5.Nc3 O-O 6.d4 d6 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Bg5 Bg4 9.Be2 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Qxd1 11.Raxd1 Rad8 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nd5 Nd4 14.Rd3 Nxf3+ 15.Rxf3 c6 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 (D)

-

17.Rg3+! - An in-between move which gets Black's king further away in the corner of the board. In endgames, tempi tend to get very important, so it's not a bad idea to always look for such details, whether they seem relevant at the moment of the move or not.

-

17. ... Kh8 (D)

18.Rd3 - 18. Ra3 was also possible in order to stop Black from playing Rd2, because he'd be losing a pawn, e.g. 18. Ra3 Rd2 19. Rxa7 Rxc2 20. Rxb7.

18. ... Rd4? - Definitely better was 18. ...Rxd3, which would have given me a backward d-pawn. 19. cxd3 Rd8 20. Rd1, and White's position is definitely not as good as in the actual game. Moreover, after 19. Rxd4 exd4, Black now has double isolated pawns.

20.Rd1 c5 (D)

21.a4! - Making sure Black can't activate his Queenside majority too much. In Rook endgames in which pawns are all on the same side of the board, the side with the majority should try to push their pawns as much as possible and cramp their opponent. Meanwhile, the defender should try to make it impossible for their opponent to do such a thing; that's what I am doing now, even though there are pawns on both sides of the board. My reasoning is, if Black is going to get a passed pawn or connected passed pawn or something like that on the Queenside, I might be afraid of him making a new queen EVEN IF we have pawns on the other side of the board. I'd rather if he didn't make a new queen at all, you know...

-

21. ... b6?! (D)

Probably better was 21. ...a6, preparing ...b5 and ...c4, activating his pawn majority, trying to create a passed pawn.

22.f3 - Eventually, Black is going to attack the e-pawn with either ...Re8 or with ...f5. I thus protect this pawn while making room for the king to come into the game.

23. ...Kg7 (D)

23.c3! - Either opens up the d-file and activates my rook, or gives Black an isolated d-pawn (with or without Rooks). He opted for the latter.

23. ... Rd8 24.cxd4 (D)

24. ... cxd4 - The only move. Rook endgames tend to be very drawish. As Müller and Lamprecht put it in their Fundamental Chess Endings (p.249): "[...] a drawish tendency is inherent in many rook endings. So be careful when you exchange your last rook in an inferior position!" Entering a K&p ending with such a pawn structure -- isolated d-pawn, double isolated f-pawns, isolated h-pawn -- would have been suicide from Black's side.

25.Kf1!! - The natural 25. Kf2?! makes it easier for Black to reach a draw, by acivating his own Rook. The active Rook is crucial in Rook endings, and here after 25. Kf2?! Rc8!, the pawn is virtually immune since 26. Rxd4 Rc2+ gives tremendous activity to Black's Rook, who wins back the pawn anyway. Also, Black's d4-pawn is a weakness, and since it's isolated, odds are I'll be able to win it soon enough. I should be in no rush getting rid of his permanent weaknesses, mostly if it means I am going to lose one of my own not-so-weak pawns doing so. Notice that after the excellent 25. Kf1, if 25. ...Rc8?!, I can just take the d4-pawn since 26. ...Rc2 doesn't come with check. I wouldn't lose back any pawn, and just would be up a pawn.

25. ... Kg6 26.Ke2 (D)

26. ... f5 - A good move. His two f-pawns are incredible weaknesses, so he's getting rid of one of them while possibly giving me one, i.e. and isolated e-pawn.

27.Rc1 - Now that my King can defend against Black's passed pawn, I can activate my Rook.

27. ... fxe4 28.fxe4 d3+ 29.Ke3 f5 30.exf5+ Kxf5 (D)

31.Rd1 Winning the d3-pawn 31. ... Ke5 32.Rxd3 (D)

33. ... Rc8! - Black correctly avoids the exchange of Rooks. It is much, much easier for Black to hold for the draw with the Rooks still on the board.

33.Rc3! - Avoiding all possible counterplay from Black. If 33. Rd7 instead, Black had 33. ...Rc2, which looks just too active for what I would like. Black should now play 33. ...Rg8! 34. g3 Rg4, activating as much as he can. But mostly, he should NOT trade Rooks; remember, Rook endings are rather drawish, whereas K&p endings aren't -- and would the Rooks come off, White is certainly winning due to his extra pawn on the Kingside. But, oh well, he traded Rooks anyway... not in such a good way either, but it's lost anyway.

33. ... Rc5? 34.Rxc5+ bxc5 (D)

35.g4! - Beware! -- 35. h4?(or ??) h5! would be as bad as it could get. When you have a majority on a side, advance the extra pawn first.

35. ... c4 36.h4! - Mobilizing the majority. Müller & Lamprecht in Fundamental Chess Endings give the following guidelines as to what to do in a K&p ending when you have a side majority (p.46):

1. You activate your King;
2. You mobilize your majority (i.e., you create a passed pawn where your majority is);
3. You go on the other side with your King and take your opponent's pawns.

36. ...h6 (D)

37.a5! - Remember what I said about tempi? They're very important in endgames, and you should always look for ways to gain time. With the text, my a-pawn is one step closer to queening, and the beauty is that Black has no moves, so I *can* take my time and take care of such small details. Odds are that I'm going to create a passed pawn on the Kingside and thus force Black to defend on that side of the board. Meanwhile, I'll go on the Queenside, take his pawns and queen my a-pawn, which is why the furthest it is up the board, the better it is for me. Plus, since Black can't get his King too far away from my pawn majority, and that all his pawns but one can't safely move, I must not be afraid of making slow moves. Black is just frozen, so before making a passed pawn, I can take my time and make my position even better. That's why I didn't play g5 right away, even though I could have. Oh, it's slow in correspondence chess, true... but I'm patient :)

37. ...a6 38.g5 Creating the passed pawn, which from now on becomes nothing but a decoy to take Black's king away from the real action. 38. ... h5 39.Kd2 Ke6 40.Kc3 1-0 (D)

Black can't even leave the Queenside now, because of my protected passed g-pawn. All in all, Black should have tried and activate his Rook more throughout the game, and mostly, he shouldn't have traded down into a K&p ending. From the initial position, where we started our analysis, my guess is that the game should have ended in a draw. But Black failed to activate his own majority, ended up with positional weaknesses, and later on failed to activate his Rook. Meanwhile, I was able to immobilize his pawn majority, and then take his weak isolated d-pawn. I then converted my extra pawn in a passed pawn in a K&pawn ending, and it was all over.

We can take two very important statements from this ending (which are known to be true anyway, as far as Müller & Lamprecht are concerned at least, given that they say the same thing in their Fundamental Chess Endings):

1. Activity of the Rook in Rook endings is crucial;
2. If you are on the losing side, keep your Rook as long as the pawn ending isn't drawn -- it's much easier to hold for a draw with the Rooks still on the board!

Mating pattern: sacrificing the decoy

Why more specifically would we want to sacrifice a piece when our opponent's King is trapped -- or almost trapped -- somewhere? To remove its flight squares. By sacrificing one of our useless pieces, i.e. our decoy, we can force our opponent to capture it and thus occupy a square that was once available to the King in order for him to escape.

Staying alert for such sacrifices when the opponent's King is almost frozen is important. We all know that when the two Kings face each other with one square between them, both Kings can't move in the direction of the opposed King. One of the flight sides of the King has thus been taken care of!, now the task is to remove the remaining flight squares.

Let's take this following position:

Black's King is in a precarious position, frozen in the middle of the board. It can't move towards White's King, and in fact only has one square available to him at the moment. Maybe White can remove it? 1. Ng4+! Throwing away the decoy. Black is forced to recapture and blocks a square near the King. 1. ... Rxg4 2. Rf5+! The two Kings will now face each other, and Black's space is narrowing down. This last move forces Black where available squares are missing. 2. ... Kxf5 3. Rd5# (D)

White needed only one Rook to mate, since Black's King has seen all of its flight squares taken away! Two decoys were needed in order for White's Rook to deliver mate along a single rank, but my guess is that White shouldn't regret it :)

Try finding the solution to the next game. It is extremely similar, so you should be able to find it within a few seconds.

====================
Solution:

1. Ne5+ Rxe5 2. Rf4+! (forcing the King where flight squares lack) Kxf4 3. Rh4#

====================

Problem #5

This problem is taken from Laszlo Polgar's "Chess". Most problems are rather very easy, but this one gave me a hard time...-

Mate in 3

-

White to move

To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below.

====================
Solution:

1. Qc4 Kxc4 2. e4, and no matter what Black does, White mates with either 3. Nd6# or 3. Na3#.
====================

Psychology: Importance of tactical, positional and general chess knowledge

Reference: Holding, D. H. (1985). The psychology of chess skill. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

_______________________________

-

The book cited above is not a chess book per se; rather, it discusses different psychological aspects of the chess player, such as his cognitive abilities.

-

According to one study, the main things a chess player should work on is his tactical abilities, as well as his positional judgement. Pfau (1983, cited in Holding, 1985) administered tests to nearly 60 chess players. There was a 75-item multiple-choice test, which covered the different areas of a chess game, namely the opening, the middlegame and the endgame. For instance, Holding (1985) cite the following question that was used by Pfau (1983): The Staunton Gambit is employed by [white] in the [Dutch Defense]. Seventy-four other questions were thus used.

-

The participants were also given a series of diagrams of gamelike situations, and were asked to find the best moves. Some of these diagrams were aimed at testing the tactical level of the player, while the rest of the diagrams were aimed at testing positional judgement.

-

Results. There was a very strong positive correlation between tactical skill and rating (.76); between positional judgement and rating (.72); and between results at the knowledge test and rating (.69). There was also a moderate/strong positive correlation between memory for positions and rating (.44), but that's nothing compared to the enormous correlation observed in the first three mentioned cases.

-

Note that the correlation between the knowledge test and the participants' Elo ratings was observed both for general chessic questions in the questionnaire, as well as for specific questions (regarding openings, the middlegame and endgames).

-

Also note that there was a small insignificant correlation between time spent studying and rating (.10). This suggests that what is learnt is much more important than how much time you spend studying it. In other words, learning techniques used by the players while studying is of major importance. This could also suggest that those who learn fast could be at advantage here.

Psychology: are men better at chess than women?

The question as whether men are innately better at chess than women is controversial. At least, this idea is widespread, to the point where it has become a stereotype : men are better at chess than women.

An interesting article that stresses this point is the one by Anne Maass et al., who conducted a study in Italy. I will discuss this study further, but before entering the subject, here is the reference for those who are interested in reading the full article :
Maass, A., D’Ettole, C., & Cadinu, M. (2008). Checkmate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 231-245.

Women chess players represent less than 5% of all tournament players worldwide. Added to that underrepresentation of women is their underperformance: they are only 1% of all grandmasters. It is easy to say that men are more interested in chess for one, and better at it for two. The aforementioned study tends to go in the other direction.

The goal of Maass et al. was to investigate the role of the widespread stereotype (men are better than women at chess) in the women’s underperformance. It seems that it’s the first time researchers investigate another venue than cognitive differences to explain the better performance of men in chess.

First, the authors lead a pilot study in order to verify that the stereotype is indeed widespread. They found that the participants of the pilot study did think that men were innately better at chess than women. They also found that the participants thought other players too had the idea that men are superior to their female colleagues.

In the study, Maass et al. explicitely tested the impact of the activation (mention) of the stereotype before a game. They also checked for the importance of cognitive differences in the results obtained (for instance, it is well established that men score better in mental imagery and mental rotation, so they wanted to check if these cognitive differences could explain more the difference of results than the mention of the stereotype would).

The experiment. The study was conducted via Internet. Fourty-two male participants and 42 female participants were paired according to their Elo rating for the games, i.e. each woman was paired to an equal-strength man. There was a maximum difference of 30 points between the man and woman’s ratings. All in all, this means each player was of the same strength. These pairs of players played 2 games against each other, but without knowing they were playing twice against the same opponent. They just thought it was two games against two different opponents, because the nicknames weren’t the same in both games (they were neutral-gender nicknames, so that guessing the sex of the opponent would be impossible).

There were two conditions in the experiment. In the control condition, participants were just playing two games with their paired opponent of the other sex (still without thinking it was the same opponent twice). They didn’t know whether the opponent was a male or a female, and the experimentators never mentioned anything about men being superior to women. In the experimental condition, the participants were told in the first game that they were playing against a man, whereas in the second game they were told they were playing against a woman (that order was reversed for half of the participants). Before the game, the participants in the experimental condition were told "that recent studies had shown that men earn clearly superior scores than women in chess games. The aim of this study is to provide further tests for these findings". That was the way to activate the stereotype for the participants in the experimental condition (as I said, the participants in the control condition weren’t told anything about that stereotype).

So, what were the results of the games?

First of all, women in the control condition played just like anyone else (they scored approximately 1.0/2.0). Women in the experimental condition also played as expected when they thought they were playing against another woman (1.0/2.0), but their performance dropped drastically when they thought they were playing against a man (they scored around 0.5/2.0) (see figure below, adapted from Maass et al., 2008).

-
Moreover, the authors checked for the participants' intention of playing aggressively for the win before their game. In the control condition, there was no difference between men and women as to how much they planned on playing for the win (as opposed to playing to avoid making mistakes). There was no sex difference either when the women in the experimental condition were told that they were playing against another woman. But when the women in the experimental condition were told that they were playing against a man, they planned on playing much more defensively, and effectively ended up doing so. The participants’ results in their games was positively correlated with their intent to play aggressively, so this could partly explain the women’s underperformance in chess : due to the activation of the stereotype, they play overly defensively.

Also, results suggest that men are not cognitively at advantage over women, since there was no significant correlation between mental rotation or imagery capacity, and results in the games.

Moreover, despite the women knowing they had the same Elo rating as their opponent, they showed a lower chess-specific self-esteem, which too was positively correlated with the results in the games. This lower self-esteem is most likely at least partly due to the knowledge of the stereotype : this could also explain the underperformance of women in chess.

It is to note that women score higher on individual tests evaluating chessic abilities than they do in tournaments, whereas it is NOT the case for men (in their case, both scores match). It is very plausible to believe, given all this data, that women would score just as much as men in chess tournaments would it not be for the existence of the pervasive – and false – stereotype that leads people to believe (women included) that men are better than women at chess.

Be back around May 20

You may have noticed that I have stopped posting for a while now. I have been overly busy with university, given that it's the end of the semester, and that it ends on May 20; until then, I probably won't be posting much. I have not given up this project altogether though, but I had to set priorities somewhere and university won them all :) I will start posting again after the end of this semester.

Take care of yourselves until then!

Problem #4

This is not the kind of problems you are used to. This is more like a "positional chess problem" than a tactics problem. Even though the position is one of attack and defense, it doesn't have anything to do with it. So I warn you: don't look for mates, or forks, or stuff like that.

The game was played in 1990, and is between Kamsky and Petursson. The game started with a King's Indian Defense.

-

-

Kamsky - Petursson, 1990

-

White to move

-

To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below.

====================
Solution:

1. h6 Bh8 2. f5!, and the Bishop is in a prison. White effectively played "up a piece" for the rest of the game, and Black eventually resigned in an opposite-color bishop ending. Black's Bishop never left its cage.
====================

Panov Formation

The Panov formation gets its name from Panov (duh), who played it for the first time in 1929 in a game against Mudrov, as White. As you maybe already know, Panov has a line in the Caro-Kann Defense named after him, the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, which goes 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4. The Panov formation is characterized by the pawn-chain formed by d4 and c5, and Black generally has his own pawns on e6 and d5.

-

The game continued: 4. ...Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bf5(?) 7. c5! (Diagram)

-

-

It is GM Andrew Soltis in Pawn Structure Chess (which will be the subject of a future book review) who annotates 6. ...Bf5 with a "?". He writes that White would have thought twice about playing 7. c5 had Black played 6. ...Bg4!, since in the Panov formation, the d-pawn is a permanent weakness in a fixed center. We will see that attacking the d-pawn is one of the three main options Black has against that formation.

So, why did White play c5 ? Let's look at the pawn structure which defines the Panov formation:

-

-

We see that White has excellent outposts on e5 and d6, which means for him "excellent use of the black squares in the middlegame and a trump in the ending" (Soltis). Indeed, according to Soltis the reason as to why Bf5 is not nearly as good as Bg4 is because it lacks control over the dark squares (notice that Bg4 would have removed the f3-knight's capacities of defending the dark squares). The main drawback -- besides the fixed backward d-pawn -- is that it is Black who has the potential now to make any pawn-move to contest the center, with ...b6 or ...e5.

Black has three main plans:

1. contest the center with ...e5;
2. contest the center with ...b6;
3. attack White's d-pawn with Bf6 and Ne5 (or simply play Ne4 and f5 and attack on the kingside).

White doesn't have to fear ...e5 all that much, because it comes with its own consequences: after dxe5, White has gotten rid of his backward d-pawn and has created an isolated d-pawn on Black's camp, thus having an outpost on d4. Whether White's c5-weakness is better or worse than Black's d5 isolated pawn depends on your style of play (and your opponent's) I guess.

As for ...b6, White has two main options: he can take it with cxb6 or let Black capture on c5, and in both cases White can control the c-file with heavy pieces; or he can support his c-pawn with b2-b4, and maintain a passed c-pawn. (But beware!, use your head before playing b2-b4: ...a5 could make it look kind of bad, because a3 doesn't always succeed in defending the b4-pawn, if your rook on a1 is not protected and would thus be captured after ...a5xb4 axb4. Make sure your a-pawn wouldn't be pinned.)

Note that the Panov formation doesn't have to come from a Caro-Kann Defense. Even Black can obtain a Panov formation. For example, in the Tarrasch Defense of the Queen's Gambit Declined: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 c5 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 h6 8. O-O Be6 9. Be3 Ng4 10. Qd2 c5 (Diagram)

-

YouTube Phenomenon

The YouTube phenomenon generally refers to the huge amount of videos being posted everyday by plenty of people about plenty of things. But of course, I don't mean it that way here...

-

We know what a chess lecture is. For instance, ICC offers some on http://www.chess.fm/ (some don't require your being registered on the ICC). Simply defined, a video chess lecture is a video about chess (an annotated game, the discussion of a specific theme such as the endgame, etc.), in which a player explains or describes something. They most commonly have an educational aim.

-

Have you guessed what I am going to talk about yet? Oh, yes, chess lectures on youtube... this time though, it doesn't go through any selection process like there is on ICC. On ICC, the lecturers are either IMs or GMs. It would be senseless to let any random user publish their own little video... Enter youtube. Very few are decently rated -- I saw one FM, one NM and one USCF class A player, but as for the rest, they are not what I could call "rated high enough to make a video chess lecture with an educational aim". Oh, but they do anyway, they do :)

-

Some of them are just painful. I will mention a few of them, so that you can bleed with me.

-

-

1) Slattster (http://www.youtube.com/user/slattster)

-

There are videos from him in which he is rated in the 800s on FICS. So, I mean, whatever he says, it's to be taken with a grain of salt :) He has now a 1200-something USCF rating... muuuuuch better.

-

One nice thing to look at is his videos in which he is commenting a game while playing it, i.e. you get to see what his thought-process looks like, for one; and for two, it means that it is all spontaneous, he didn't prepare his analysis whatsoever. Oh, priceless. Mates-in-2 being missed are awkwardly common, and so are pieces being hung (he sometimes notices it afterwards and says things like "let's see if he'll take it"... of course he'll take it!, you just hung a piece for no reason).

-

Not to mention, many of his games are being played on Yahoo! Chess, in the beginners' room... I mean, who plays there?

-

-

2) JRobi (http://www.youtube.com/user/jrobichess)

-

Painful too, but in another way. He doesn't do any live games, and you can tell that his analysis are prepared (I won't say "well" prepared, but that's just because he and I don't have the same quality standards for a chess lecture). That gives a much better initial impression: it has been demonstrated (Petty & Wegener, 1998) that the message is more credible when the person speaks fast. And I'll have to admit it, the content is not too bad.

-

The main problem is that it comes from a 1400 player. That's for the recent videos; in the oldest, I believe he is rated around 900-1000. He has a great variety of harmful videos: opening analysis, annotated games, endgame studies (for example, the Philidor Position), etc. One particularly irritating series of videos is his "Grandmaster Chess Tactics: Can you spot the line?". I just have one thing to tell him: it's not because it was found in a game between two grandmasters that it is a grandmaster level tactics (pins exist at all levels).

-

The guy himself is somewhat irritating. The most frustrating thing is that he calls a game a "match", systematically. A match is a set of games between the same players -- it is not a synonym. His pronunciation of "bishop" and "position" gets on your nerves very quickly too, but what are you gonna do...

-

Unfortunately, reinforcement comes from everywhere, since many, many, MANY beginners appreciate his videos. His videos attract an enormous amount of comments, most of them being extremely positive.

-

It makes me cry at night.

-

-

3) Chessplayerdan (http://www.youtube.com/user/Chessplayerdan)

-

I thank Mother Earth everyday that he only made 4 videos. He is rated 1000 on FICS. Just like Slattster, he made a live game analysis too. Since he was on FICS he had to wait a lot before a game popped up, and it's nice to see him try to fill in the silence during that time.

-

Note that if you try to listen to his videos (you shouldn't), you will have to turn your speakers really loud, because that guy doesn't seem to quite get how a microphone works. Oh well.

Update...

Long time no see!

Unfortunately, my internet connection went off on last Sunday, and it's only yesterday (Friday) that someone came here to fix it. Now I will be able to start posting again.

But still, messages won't be as frequent and as of good quality as they should be. For those who didn't read that message, I'll repeat the reason: I have a huge rush at university right now, and I won't have any real free time until May 15. You can still check out the aforementioned message, I gave in it some of the articles that will be soon published. (I can't wait for those about cognitive psychology!)

In the meantime, I'll keep posting problems and easy stuff like that... perhaps bigger articles too, but they might be slightly more rare until May 15 than they used to be :)

Problem #3

What's impressive about this problem, is that White saw an incredible combination, very hard to see. I guess he thought his position was so huge that there most likely was something forcing to do, but he definitely had to search deep to find it. And White is not even some kind of top GM -- just a "regular" grandmaster, rated 2518 (around 2510 at the time of the game).

The following position arose:

White played the incredibly strong 1. Nxc6!! Nxc6. Black didn't have much choices there: not only would he have lost a whole lot of material had he not captured, but he'd still have to deal with a very strong attack. Chessmaster XI gives White a minimum advantage of the equivalent of 6 pawns (+6.00), no matter how Black responds.

Can you see why Maksimenko sacrificed his Knight?

Maksimenko - Nielsen, 2003

White to move

To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below.

====================

Solution:

2. Qxh7+! Kxh7 (2. ...Kf8 3. Qxg7+ 4. Ke7 Qxf7#) 3. Rh3+ Kg8 4. Ng6!, and Black will get mated with Rh8#.

====================

Caro-Kann Defense, Advance Variation: 3. ...g6 Line

The Caro-Kann Defense is known as one of the most solid systems against 1. e4, and a good one too against ruthless attackers. It also tends to offer a good endgame for Black, who generally ends up in a pawn structure similar to the one in the Scandinavian defense after 1. e4 d5. Note that the great Karpov is a big fan of the opening.

The Caro-Kann, as you most likely know, starts out with 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5. From there, White has three main choices, which are 3. Nf3, 3. exd5 and 3. e5. We will talk about the Advance Variation, 3. e5 :

-

This is a reasonable line for both players. In the PGN from the PGNMentor.com website (see article PGNMentor.com PGN Library), a total of 12 042 games are to be found. Of them, 41,1% were won by White, whereas Black won 30,7% of them -- the 28,2% left were drawn.

In my own practice (I play the Caro-Kann), the Advance Variation is what I meet the most. But as White, when confronted to the Caro-Kann, I never play that. I find that it lacks flexibility, and that it's hard to keep that central bind for a long time anyway -- but that's another story. What interests us is the Black side here.

This can pose some problems for Black. If he doesn't react properly, he will get spatially crushed. The main idea in the Caro-Kann is to allow Black's light-squared Bishop on c8 to develop before closing the pawn structure with e6. Notice that initially, that's the main difference with the French Defense (1. e4 e6). So it makes sense that Black's main move is 3. ...Bf5 :

-

That line has been played almost exclusively in response to the Advance Variation: 10 367 games out of 12 042 followed with 3. ...Bf5 (86% of the games!). And yet, it is not the line that statistically scores best! White won 41,0% of the games, whereas Black won 30,7% of them (28,3% were drawn). Unfortunately, for those who are afraid of moves like g4 (attacking that f5-Bishop) and h4, the 3. ...Bf5 is not an option.

So what are the other options? The second most popular response is 3. ...c5, which was played in 1 177 games out of 12 042 (9,77% of the games). At this point, the decision as to whether you prefer 3. ...Bf5 or 3. ...c5 is more of a stylistic decision, because results in practice are very similar for both lines. The latter scores perhaps slightly better: W 38,4% ; B 32,0% ; Draw 29,7%.

I find the third option for Black much more interesting though. It has been played a mere 214 times (1,78% of the games), but is the third most popular response nonetheless. Of course I am talking about 3. ...g6 :

-

This line makes things much more exciting. The draw percentage drops by 4%, and is now of 24,3%. That 4% though, it is Black who takes it home: White won 40,7% of the games, and Black, 35,1% -- the highest percentage for Black's wins so far. Moreover, this gives kind of a problem to White. White isn't used to dealing with Black's light-squared Bishop, but now it is still waiting to get developed! For instance, 4. Nf3 Bg4, and e6 is coming. Note that Black isn't afraid of exchanging his Bishop for the Knight, because the position is closed and Knights are said to be slightly better than Bishops in closed position, and that anyway, given the e6-d5-c6 formation, Black could consider his light-square Bishop to be his bad Bishop.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, Black's other Bishop is going to get on g7, an incredible diagonal given White's pawn structure. Black can push his c-pawn to c5 whenever he wants, and White might just start to regret 3. ...e5 altogether. I have played many games with the 3. ...g6 line, and have had very good results.

Other third moves for Black include (in order of frequence): 3. ...Na6, 3. ...e6, 3. ...h5, and 3. ...Qb6. Although only played in 22 games out of 12 042, Qb6 led to 6 wins for White, but 8 wins for Black (and 8 draws). Maybe Qb6 is worth an investigation, who knows...

P.S.: 3. ...e6 leads to disaster;
P.P.S.: Karpov plays 3. ...Bf5, so it can't be all that bad :)

PGNMentor.com PGN Library

PGN Mentor is a program "for working with PGN files", but that's not what I am going to talk about here. I didn't try that program, and after a trial you need to order it.

But on their website, they have a huge database of PGN files of various Players, Openings and Events.

1. The PGN files with specific players' games are classified in alphabetical order (the first one being Michael Adams and the last one, Vadim Zvjaginsev).
2. The PGN files classified by openings are tremendously useful, and they seem to cover virtually all possible openings. They are classified based on the first moves, thus the 5 categories: Modern Queen Pawn (1. d4), Classical Queen Pawn (1. d4 d5), Modern King Pawn (a.k.a. semi-open games; 1. e4), Classical King Pawn (1. e4 e5), and Flank and Unorthodox.
3. The PGN files classified by the type of events offer three choices: Tournaments (from 1851 to 2007 (!)), Candidates and Interzonals (from 1948 to 2007), and World Championships (1886-2007).

What's incredibly impressive is the large amout of games in each PGN. For instance, Kasparov.pgn has 1968 games, while SicilianGrandPrix.pgn contains 6616 games!

So here's the address to the page with all the PGN files: http://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html; and this is the address of the PGN Mentor website, where you can download their software: http://www.pgnmentor.com/.

Have fun!

Lack of time & what's next...

As you might know, I'm a psychology undergraduate student. And unfortunately, the students of the faculty of social sciences of my university (as well as of many other faculties) went on a strike for 8 weeks. The sad part about it is that only 3 weeks were added to the initial calendar for the semester, so we are now stuck with 4-hour classes, and condensed readings to do. I have exams every 2 or 3 weeks now, depending on the course in question.

-

All in all, what I mean to say is that time lacks incredibly. It is for that reason that the posts here have become slightly more spaced, and slightly less long. As of now, I am not doing much else than reading for my classes or studying -- even sleeping has become a luxury.

-

But don't you worry!, I'll continue posting here anyway. It's just that if there are slightly more "Problems" than other types of articles (they take less time to prepare and to publish), or things like that, you'll have to forgive me. Still, I'm giving here a short list of soon-to-be-published articles. Of course, this list is not exhaustive: some articles that I had not planned as of now will be published. But these will be available here for sure, eventually:

• Book review: Perfect Your Chess (Volokitin);
• Book review: Silman's Complete Endgame Course (Silman);
• Book review: Rethinking the Chess Pieces (Soltis);
• Book review: Chess Pawn Structure (Soltis);
• Book review: Fundamental Chess Endings (Müller)
• YouTube Phenomenon (you'll see...)
• Caro-Kann Defense, g6 line

Also, as soon as time allows it, I will post articles of another kind, which I'm sure you'll find interesting. These articles will be about cognitive psychology, and will involve studies made on chess players. Being a psychology student, I have access to huge databases of scientific articles published in recent periodicals. I already have one of these articles saved on my computer, so you'll hear about that one for sure :)

(P.S.: I said before showing Problem #1 that it was an easy problem, and that subsequent problems should not be as easy. Well, I had feedback on Problem #2, and it's indeed much harder! Mission accomplished =) )

Problem #2

The first World Computer Chess Championship was held in 1974 in Stockholm. It was won by a computer named Kaissa, at the time rated around 1700.

At the end of the 1970s, computers reached the expert level (ELO 2000). And in 1977, in another World Computer Chess Championship -- this time in Toronto --, Kaissa found its match. It played against Duchess, and you'll have understood it by now, it is Duchess that won the game.

In the assistance were around 500 people, among which we could find computer-specialist IM Levy, and former World Champion GM Botvinnik. Rumor has it that nobody (or very few) had seen the variation that was played. But let's cut to the chase, and see what the fuss is all about.

Duchess - Kaissa, 1977, Toronto

-

White to move

-

To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below.

====================
Solution:

1. Rxd6 Qxd6 2. Qa8+ Kg7 3. Qf8+!! Kxf8 4. Bh6+, and mate follows.
Of course, being a computer, Kaissa didn't resign nor move its king to g7; instead, it just played 2. ...Re8, and went on to lose the game, without much surprise there.
====================

Problem #1

This problem has kind of an obvious solution, but the future problems should not be as easy, so you might as well like it while it lasts.

-

-

Bogey-Patou (ICC), August 2006

3-minute game

Black to move

To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below.
====================
Solution:

1. ...Rxd5! 2. exd5 Qf4!! 3. dxe6 Nf1+ 0-1
Black resigns in view of 4. Kh1 Qh2+!! 5. Nxh2 Ng3#. A weird variant of what looks like a smothered mate.
====================

Movement-limitation patterns in pieces

Arrangement between two pieces (or more) can result in limitation of movement for one of the pieces, or both of them in mutual-movement limitation. That's well known. The typical example is the Bishop and Knight separated by two ranks or files (see Diagram below), where the Knight sees all of its movements stopped in the direction of the Bishop. As for the Queen, being on the adjacent square leads to the same result -- the limitation of the Knight's movements towards the Queen.

One less well known pattern is the one involving the Rook and Knight. Perhaps you know that a Rook and Knight on two adjacent squares on the same diagonal leads to the limitation of the Knight's movements in the specific direction of the Rook (i.e., it blocks two squares; see in the Diagram below and imagine the Knight one step closer to the Rook). But there is another important pattern: when the Rook and Knight have a square between them on the same diagonal. In that case, the Knight sees four of its available squares taken away, with devastating results when the Knight is on the side of the board. When in the corner, this is the way to trap the Knight with a Rook (see Diagram below).

I remember using this pattern during a middlegame, where my opponent's Knight was on the side of the board, and my using this pattern led to the trapping of the Knight (and eventually to its capture). You might also be interested in the game Karpov-Ftacnik, Olympiads 1988 (you can search on http://www.chesslive.de/), which involves a pawnless Rook vs Knight ending.

-

The last pattern I will discuss here is of another kind. It shows the cooperation between two Knights separated by two ranks or files, given that they are on the same file or rank (see Diagram below). In that case, both dark- and light-squares in-between them are under their control, except for the squares directly aligned with the two Knights.

-

In the game Harikrishna-Volokitin, 2005a, White could have used this pattern to win a pawn:

1. Bxf5! Bxf5 2. Rf4 Kg5 3. g3!!

-

This move protects both the Rook and Knight, but most importantly now, whatever Black plays, White's next move is to take back the Bishop with the Rook and then throw the powerful Ne4+, winning back the material. A possible continuation is 4. ... Ne6 (attacking White's Rook and defending Black's own Rook) 5. Rxf5+ Rxf5 6. Ne4+ (see Diagram below).

And we see the pattern. Black needs to move his King, but due to the configuration of the Knights, it can't go anywhere to protect the Rook, and White ends up being a pawn-up in a two-knights-vs-two-knights ending.

Queen sacrifices in openings

Queen sacrifices are fairly rare, and one might say that they're generally made in mating combinations. Still, some openings involve Queen sacrifices, and some of them are even established in theory. Here are three lines in which one of the players sacrifices their Queen -- note that the two first ones have been reasonably tried in practice, whereas the last one is neither popular nor efficient; more like a eye-candy, if I might say.

1 – In the Kholmov Variation of the Pirc Defense

In this line, White sacrifices his Queen and two pawns for two Knights and the dark-squared Bishop.

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 White’s last move is called the Kholmov Variation. 4. … Bg7 Just so you know, instead of Bg7, or at any point with that configuration still on the board, Black has the possibility of 4. … Nxe4 5. Bxf7+ Kxf7 6. Nxe4 =. 5. Qe2 Nc6

6. e5! Nxd4 7. exf6! Nxd2 8. fxg7 Rg8 9. Ngxe2 +=

(9. …Rxg7 10. Bh6 Rg8 11. O-O-O +=)

White scores excessively good with that line. With 129 games from Chesslive, White scores an impressive 74 wins, 35 losses and 20 draws (W 57,36% ; B 27,13% ; Draw 15,50%). Instead of entering that variation, Black should simply play 6. … exd5 or 6. … Nd7, with perhaps even a slight advantage.

2- In the Saëmisch Variation of the King’s Indian Defense

In this line, it is Black who sacrifices his Queen for a pawn and two Bishops, with relatively acceptable results, although White still scores better.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 Nh5 8. Qd2 Qh4+ 9. g3 Nxg3 10. Qd2

10. … Nxf1 11. Qxh4 Nxe3 +=

Out of 184 games from Chesslive, White wins 86, loses 54 and draws 44 (W 46,74% ; B 29,35% ; Draw 23,91%). As we can see, this line has been slightly more tested than the one in the Kholmov (this one is still booked at move 11 where it is not in the Kholmov at the moment of the Queen sacrifice, given that Black did not play the best moves).

3- In the Botvinnik Variation (Main Line) of the Semi-Slav defense

This one is here more for the anecdote that will follow than for the actual line. Chesslive gives only 8 games with the Queen sacrifice in this line, with 7 wins for White and only 1 mere loss. The line goes thus :

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. g3

This is still booked, and g3 enters the Anti-Meran Gambit / Lilienthal Variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined. Chesslive shows 990 games after g3, ranging from 1944 to December 2007. Lilienthal seems to be the first one to have used it – against Botvinnik himself – and lost… anyway. In this position, Chesslive gives only 9 games (0.09% of the 990 games) that continued with 11. … b5, which GM Soltis annotates with "?".

The interesting story behind it is that GM Vladimir Bagirov played as Black in this position in 1971, and White answered with the less forcing 12. Ne2, and Black eventually won the game. This game is the only one out of the 9 games reaching 11. …b5 which did not lead to the Queen sacrifice.

GM Bagirov was once again confronted with the position in 1980, with more disastrous results, where he did indeed sacrifice his Queen. So, instead of 12. Ne2 after 11. …b5 (see Diagram above), White answered with 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Bxd8 Kxd8 14. Bg2 f5 15. exf6(ep) Ndxf6??

_

GM Bagirov is reported to have said that he had chose this line because all the manuals gave the advantage to Black, and that he had prepared the continuation 16. Qe2 Nd6 17. Bxc6 Rb8. But then, he was thrown off when his opponent played 16. Bxe4 Nxe4 17. Qf3!, winning instantly. Four of the 8 games that got to 13. …Kxd8 followed this exact variation, one of them as recently as 2003 (Black resigned on his 17th move).

Remember : 8 games that got to the Queen sacrifice, 7 of them were won by White. So you know what I suggest? I might surprise you but… don’t play it as Black.

Chesslive.de

Chesslive.de (http://www.chesslive.de/) is an online database of chess games (Java Applet), provided by Chessbase.com (the creators of the program ChessBase – for more info, just visit their website). What is wonderful with Chesslive, is that it’s immensely large : 4.2+ million games. Moreover, that database is updated weekly, but also includes old, old games (e.g., from the 19th century).

The search is easy : you can search with position, and/or with either one of the players’ names, or both names. In Advanced mode, you can search by year and/or site where the game was held.

You can go through the moves of the game, but also explore variations of your own. You can always go back to the main line when you are done. There is also the great possibility of selecting games from the list of results your research has brought, and seeing them in a PGN notation, just by right-clicking the game in the list and clicking on the button View * as PGN.

But the most amazing thing about Chesslive… oh, the most amazing thing – besides that it’s always easily available on Internet -- … it’s completely free!

Book review: Excelling at Positional Chess

Title: Excelling at Positional Chess
Author: IM Jacob Aagaard
Pages: 176
Publisher: Everyman Chess (2003)
Phase of game: Middlegame (mostly)

Rating: ~ 1700+

Description and review:
The book is divided into two informal parts, namely theory and exercises.

The theory on positional chess is very brief, and covers the first 66 pages of the book. This part seems to be aimed at any player level, but I feel as though it is rather aimed for beginners than anyone else. The first 66 pages don't say much at all; let's face it, if you buy that book, you buy it for the exercises, not the theory. The first 6 chapters of the book are Simple Truths; Primary Concepts (comparing pieces, ideal squares, one move away from the ideal square, improving your worst placed piece); Defining Weaknesses (and creation of weaknesses); Squares - and how pieces exploit them (knight, bishop, heavy pieces); Analysing your own games; Positional Sacrifices.

The first chapter is -- in my opinion -- useless. As for the rest, there is very little theory. Positional rules are written in italics (perhaps 4-5 at best). The examples are well explained, but very rare. Moreover, the theory is, I think, to take with a critical mind: Aagaard gives a very dogmatic vision of the chess game. For instance, he writes that heavy pieces (rooks and queen) win in power and value with every exchange (due to the higher number of empty squares on the board). Without going into details, GM Andrew Soltis clearly demonstrates in Rethinking the Chess Pieces that things are not that simple, and that no straightforward law can be extracted from such exchanges. But then again, if you consider that the theory part is more for beginners, it can't be too bad not to mix them up with exceptions...

If it was for the first 66 pages, this book would be a no-no. But there comes chapter 7, Positional Exercises, followed with complete, detailed solutions up to the end of the book. There are 108 positional exercises, and fortunately, they're much more aimed at intermediate/advanced players than they are at beginners. Even though Aagaard says that the exercises are related to the theory exposed in the first chapters, it doesn't feel like it's the case -- which is a good thing anyway, otherwise it would be a book for beginners. The exercises are the heart of the book, and they are very useful, and well explained. They are taken from real games, from all kinds of openings. Most exercises show a middlegame position, even though some are taken from an opening or endgame position.

This book is highly recommendable, not only because the exercises are instructive and well explained, but also because positional and strategical decisions have to be made during all the course of a chess game. As opposed to tactics, which happen every now and then (without saying they are unimportant to practice of course), moves with no forced variation happen very often. And although plenty of moves are good in a given position, some are better than others; and these are the precise subject of this book. Overall, this book will make you used to, and better at, evaluating a position abstractly and finding plans when there is no tactics exploding right away.

All in all: a must!, for any player who wants to improve their middlegame
Grade: 9/10