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#.
====================