In this game (as Black), I got a strategically won game very early. At some point, I had all the time I wanted to actually bring my King all the way from the Kingside to the Queenside, in order for the King to protect the a8, a7 and a6 squares and thus taking these squares away from White's Rook. In the meantime, White had nothing better than to move his King back and forth.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Problem #8
The next position is obviously a won endgame for White: I am up a Bishop and a pawn in a R+B vs R ending. The game could go on for a while though, taking pawns and trying to queen one and all that stuff. But I have a faster way to end the game. What is it?
White to move
To see the solution, just highlight the hidden text below.
====================
Solution:
29. Rf8+ Rg8 30. Rxg8+! Kxg8 31. e6!! : the entombed King. Now his King can only go to either h8 or g8. I don't even have to use my King because I have a 3-2 pawn majority on the Queenside; I quickly activated my pawns, and my opponent was forced to resign 4 moves later, as it was mate in 3.
====================
Friday, January 2, 2009
Game of the Day #3
It's very hard to say why I didn't start writing again after my semester has ended, at mid-December. Oh and by the way, Happy New Year!
I played this game earlier today, and although I rarely attack, in this one my opponent allowed for my pawns to advance with tempo, so the pawn storm kind of imposed itself as the only logical plan.
Hopefully I'll post again soon!
I played this game earlier today, and although I rarely attack, in this one my opponent allowed for my pawns to advance with tempo, so the pawn storm kind of imposed itself as the only logical plan.
Hopefully I'll post again soon!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
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+.
====================
Sunday, November 2, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
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]
Thursday, October 23, 2008
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.
-
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)