Secrets of Grandpatzer Chess

Customizing the Openings/Endgames Training Databases in ChessBase’s Rybka Interface: Preliminary Results and Tips

2010-03-14T10:08:00.001-07:00

I have just started tweaking the opening and endgame training databases that shipped with my ChessBase version of Rybka 3. Here’s what I’ve determined so far:

1. Work with a BACKUP of the database. I have never had a ChessBase error so serious that it corrupted a database beyond repair…until just now. I’ll have to load my Openings database off the CD-ROM again.

2. Modifying the openings database seems easy enough. The computer recognizes an opening variation by the “White Player” field, and a sub-variation by the “Black” player field. For example, here’s the Sicilian section of the database:

The column headings were cut off in this screenshot, but “Sicilian Defence” is the “White Player” field, and the column to the right with the variation names is the “Black Player” field.

When practicing the opening, you are given the option of a general or a detailed list of openings. The default general openings list is generated from just the “White Player” field, so we have a generic Sicilian with just 1.e4 c5 and no “Black Player” entry. Under that, we have sub-variations of the Sicilian with the “Black Player” field giving the variation’s name.

If you add new openings to the list, they will automatically be alphabetized within the engine interface. For example, I added a “Colle-Zukertort” as a test case to the end of the database, and in Rybka it was automatically put in the openings list under the Cs.

You can include sub-variations, and influence how often the computer randomly chooses that line. For my Colle test-case, I entered three lines:

Using a “!” annotation doubles the likelihood that the computer will select that line. A “!!” triples it. Other annotations such as “?” or “?"!” mean the computer will NOT pick that line (so not that useful, unless you want to temporarily turn a line off).

In the above case, the computer would pick the “Colle” (1…d5) order twice as often as the “Zukertort” (1…Nf6) move order. Of the two “Colle” lines, the computer would pick either 2…Nf6 or 2…e6 3.e3 c5 randomly. Whichever line the computer chooses, it will play forwards to the end of the line, at which point you get to play against the computer.

The endings database was much harder to figure out. It was not as simple as substituting my “100 Endgames You Must Know” database. It took me a long time to figure out why Rybka was saying that my database wasn’t valid: I tried stripping annotations, stripping variations, truncating the games, and finally discovered:

The position cannot have an evaluation. No “1-0”, “+-” etc. Just “Line”.

Since I routinely include these evaluations (just as endgame books routinely indicate whether white to play wins, loses or draws), this means that the database will require each game to be re-saved without the evaluation.

As with opening training, the computer zips to the end of a line before play begins. In a lot of endgames there is one “best” move (only drawing move, or move offering greatest resistance), and I routinely record all the lines and their evaluations. I was hoping the computer would follow a line, or select a variation, and play it against me stepwise. Unfortunately, it seems the best you can do is save the bare positions and play them against the computer.

I’m going to just continue entering the contents of 100 Endgames You Must Know into my database as usual, and at some future point I’ll consider converting it to a Rybka-friendly database.

Customizing Opening and Endgame Training Databases For the ChessBase Interface?

2010-03-07T09:06:00.001-08:00

I have Rybka 3 with the ChessBase interface (Fritz11 generation), but its main use for my has been analyzing games. I haven’t used the training features much, and I do most of my work in ChessBase itself with the Rybka 3 engine running. However, while digging through the help files I realized that the databases the Openings Trainer and Endgame Trainer use are customizable.

That means, for example, that if I cleaned up my personal openings book in ChessBase I should be able to play against my own repertoire. Or, I can take the endgames from a book such as 100 Endgames You Must Know and play the positions against the computer (something I’ve done in the past, but manually, endgame by endgame).

I’m considering playing around with this feature and sharing my results. If any of my readers have tried this, share your experiences.

Chess Position Trainer 4.0 On The Horizon?

2010-03-05T14:04:00.001-08:00

{Edit: funny thing about horizons--as you approach them, they recede. Keep watching for CPT4, but don't hold your breath.}

I’ve never fully utilized Chess Position Trainer 3.3, but I’m excited to hear that the Chess Position Trainer 4.0 beta may be released in the next few days.
Apparently they had already released a buggy preview version in early January.
I’ve been making do with ChessBase for openings, but CB is designed around being a game/position database, not an opening variations database. Yes, you can manage a repertoire in it, but it’s clunky, especially when it comes to transpositions. The main reason I never used CPT much was that I found it easier to focus on one database program than two.
I’ve been a very good boy the last 3 months or so, barely looking at opening theory. I’m feeling the itch, though, so if/when CPT 4 is released I may give it a test run while working on my Sicilian as White repertoire.

GP Tactics: Unusual Mating Motif

2010-02-27T20:40:00.001-08:00

I was surprised to find two examples of the same unusual mating pattern in the tactics subset I created before Christmas. In the first position, I was losing anyways, but allowed an immediate resolution:

1.Kg3?? Rg1# , a type of epaulette mate.

The second example required a finesse move:

The immediate 1.Rb6?, as played by me, allows the king to escape with 1…Kc5. However, 1.Rd5! threatens 2.Rb5#. Black can only avoid mate by giving up a lot of material, e.g. 1…Rxc4.
A king in front of two isolated enemy pawns has its liberties seriously curtailed.

GP Tactics: Counting/Removal of the Guard Tactic

2010-02-23T08:28:00.001-08:00

{ Edit: Whoops, a last-minute picture swap introduced the wrong position. Fixed now--GP}

Continuing (at long last) with the theme of simple tactics data-mined from my own games, here’s a position that seems straight out of Heisman. If I can find where the heck I left my copy of his Back to Basics: Tactics, I have a nagging suspicion that he’s covered the same tactic. Analyze 1.Bg5:

Solution after the fold

1.Bg5? and my opponent missed 1…Bxf3, a removal of the guard motif. Pretty simple stuff, even if it’s an ICC blitz game. I had probably just calculated 1…Qxg5 2.Nxg5 Bxd1 3.Kxg1 and stopped there without counting through other move orders--sloppy. Not that it would have given much of an advantage even then.

GP Tactics: Endgame Oversight

2009-12-25T13:01:00.000-08:00

I will be publishing some of the tactical problems, labeled with the “GP Tactics” tag, that were data-mined from my own games, as described in this previous post.
A tactics set generated from your own games not only provides variety in difficulty level, but variety in motifs. For example, many of the problems involved endgame positions.
For the position below. Black seems to be making progress on the queenside. Analyze and evaluate 1…Nb4:

Solution after the fold

1…Nb4? is a clear example of the principle: don’t exchange into a pawn endgame if you aren’t sure of the outcome. 2.Nxb4! Kxb4 and what I missed was 3.f5!, a classic pawn breakthrough. If 3…exf5, the black king is outside the square of the e5 pawn:4.e6!

A tougher defense is to get the defending king back in the square of the potentially passed e- and f-pawns, but White should still win: e.g. 40…c3+ 41.bxc3+ Kc5 42. f6 gxf6 43. exf6 Kd6 44. c4! a3 45. c5+ +-

Creating Tactics Problem Sets From Your Games Using ChessBase Products

2009-12-08T09:00:00.000-08:00

I’ve played a lot of blitz online. A LOT of blitz. It seemed to me that if these games could be mined for tactical errors, they would make an ideal set of simple tactics problems for drills. Manually mining them for gold, however, would take forever. I routinely store and analyze my blitz games, but have been negligent in saving positions into databases for tactics or blunders (a project I started but didn’t keep up with).

One day I thought: what if I take Rybka and tell it to analyze the games to a depth of 5 ply? That should roughly correspond to a Chernev and Reinfeld-ish “Seeing Three Moves Ahead” or simpler level of tactics, and should be fairly quick. I was familiar with the ChessBase interfaces for Rybka and Fritz and new that it could automatically generate “Training Annotations”: when you load the game or position, it jumps to a position and opens a window prompting you for the correct move. I decided to test this idea with my 800 most recent Blitz games (about 10% of my total games on record).

I set Rybka with the ChessBase interface (Fritz and others Chessbase engines should be similar) to do a “Blunder Check” oh a .cbh file of my games with “Training Annotations” checked. I decided I would limit the set to obvious tactics, so I set the threshold at 300 (3 pawns, so approximately the value of a piece). 200 may be a better number (roughly equivalent to gaining a piece for a pawn), but I found with a threshold of 300 I was still getting results involving smaller advantages. I set the program to replace the games in the database after analysis and let it run. At 5 ply, it plowed through the games at quite a good clip.

After the database has been analyzed, and if you have ChessBase, you can right-click on the database in the main console and select “Properties”. This will open a window that allows you to define what type of database it is. Choose “training”, and if you want to randomize the questions you can hit the “training” button in this window and check that option. I would suggest not randomizing it at this point, so that you can pass through the first time in order and weed the results.

Depending on how much effort you want to put in, there are two ways to use the results.

The more thorough approach is to copy all the games with a black “tactics” medal to a new database, and proceed to move through them in order. If there is a game with a training annotation, it will automatically prompt you for an answer (or should…sometimes in ChessBase 9 you have to manually turn the feature on by selecting “Enable Training” under the Game menu). If you want to prune the game to the moves of interest, you can use the “[“ and “]” keys to delete moves before or after the highlighted move, respectively. If the game has multiple training annotations, you can save multiple copies of the game and prune each to reveal only one tactic problem. Otherwise, you have to forward through the moves to get to the next problem, and if you have a long game score you may not see that there’s another “***” lurking below.

If you open a game from the database that lacks a training annotation, you’ll still see that the engine’s evaluation added as commentary after every move. If the game earned a black medal, there should be some significant jumps in the evaluations. You can manually check for tactics with the assistance of the chess engine, and add your own training annotations for certain moves.

However, if you’re lazy like me, and if you have the luxury of a large dataset of games, you can use the second method: just accept the automatically-generated training annotations and banish the other black-medal games to the dust heap. Sure, there could be gold hidden in those games, but it takes time to pan for it. You can easily select just the games with training annotations by going to the “Themes” tab in the database window (you may need to install a key) and selecting “Training Questions”…all the games with training annotations will be listed in the bottom of the window. Select all, copy, and paste to a new database; definite it as a training database, etc. You now have selectively pulled out only the games with training annotations.

Not all of the training annotations will be correct, but most will. Sometimes the computer has picked a position where one side has an overwhelming majority, and the computer’s right answer is the one that mates in 18 moves instead of 17 (or, for the losing side, postpones inevitable mate slightly). Sometimes the position is taken from an endgame, where the short ply length leads to large errors in evaluation. Occasionally another move will be about as good, or better, and you can edit the training annotation to include it as a correct answer. I would suggest playing through all the games serially (i.e. not turning on the randomizing feature) and deleting examples that you don’t find appropriate. For games with multiple training annotations you can save multiple copies and prune each with the “[ ]” keys, as described above, if you want.

I think the advantages of this sort of a tactics set are:

they aren’t studies, but actual positions taken from your games.
they feature tactics that were either executed or missed by you or your opponent, so they are particularly memorable.
there will be a larger variety in difficulty, from pieces en prise up to (and occasionally beyond) the set ply length, which adds a touch of realism and requires you to be objective.
the Chessbase training annotations automatically create “Find the Best Move” quizzes.

I already feel that going through this pruned dataset of 549 games that I’m seeing tactics a lot more quickly. What’s more, my spidey sense for certain motifs has gone up. For example, I’m picking up on pieces that can be trapped much more often (it’s surprising how often that tactic appears in my games).

I’ve flagged some of my favorite tactics I’ve discovered in this data set with medals, and will be sharing them on the blog. My next endeavour will be to take my complete database of 8000-odd games and do the same thing. Based on my test run, that should give a dataset of around 5000 problems, which should keep me busy for a while.

Pardon the Mess...

2009-12-06T09:51:00.000-08:00

{Edit: I'm pretty much done tinkering with the blog layout. I still can't get one-click editing to work, but split posts do. I've decided not to delete this post to maintain the comment thread.}

If you see this text after clicking "there's more" it means I got the jump break to work.

Shifting Focus

2009-12-05T18:16:00.001-08:00

{Coincidentally, in an interesting example of parallel evolution, there seem to be many other bloggers that have recently taken self-improvement much more seriously as well. Check out Blunderprone's blog for more info on his ACIS (Adult Chess Improvement Seekers) movement.}

For the last while I've been content to learn more about chess –endings, opening repertoire, reading some of the classic game collections such as Alekhine's NY 1924 and Nottingham 1936 tournament books, and Botvinnik's 100 Selected Games, etc. However, as I enter my 40^th year of existence, I look at the sidebar of this blog ("hopes to become a B-class player before senility sets in") and the subtitle ("Do as I Say, Not As I Do") and have decided to do more of what I say.

For me, I identified the following areas as needing the most improvement:

Heisman's "Three Showstoppers" of time management, activity and safety (in order of increasing importance for me)
spotting simple tactics quickly. Heisman has pointed out that you use tactics more for defense than for offence. There are a limited number of moves during a game where your opponent makes a tactical error, but you have the opportunity on almost every move to screw up badly.
Cleary visualizing and calculating variations. This is the area that is most vexing for me. Even in fairly shallow calculations, I am prone to visualization errors. For example, I may have the illusion that a piece is protected when it's not. Here's a howler from a recent club game:

1.Rd5??

I actually spent 7 minutes on that move and did a safety check. The knight "felt" safe!

And here's an example where I get needlessly "cute", thinking I have a windmill tactic that doesn't work:

1.Re7? Qxc4 missing that after 2.Rc7+ Kb8 3.Rxc6+ that the bishop can be captured. (In my defense, I really needed to visit the washroom badly. Drinking too much coffee can adversely affect your playing strength!)

Especially for 7-ply and deeper calculations, I will have calculation errors based on whether a square or line is blocked or not. For example I will calculate that my queen can move from A to B but not see that I will have a piece in the way at the time of execution. So far I've been trusting that, by studying chess in general, my ability to visualize and calculate would go up as well. Now, it seems clear that heavier lifting is required.

I'm now focusing on the weakest links: the areas that are holding me back from becoming a stronger player. Here's what I've already started doing:

Paying close attention to my time usage. My use of the clock has been pretty good in the past, but I've been working at making it better. The most common error is for me to play a move too quickly. I don't do this often, but it only takes one such move to lose a game. I now write the clock times for both me and my opponent for every single move. I also figured out how to get my ICC games to auto save to my .pgn file with the times per move included.

Studying lots of simple tactics. Previously I've focused on tactics with a level that tests my limits. This refocus on simpler tactics is mainly to help me find safe moves quickly. I have always felt that I spot tactical elements more slowly than my opponents. If I have two minutes on average for a move, I need to rapidly spot threats for both sides, then come up with a safe principle variation (PV). The better I get at spotting simple tactical elements quickly, the better I can choose candidate moves. A rule of thumb is that it's more important to look wide than deep.

One very useful trick I've done is figure out how to turn my online blitz games into a file of simple (5 ply or fewer) tactics problems. That will be the subject of my next post. I can quickly flash through positions from my own games that contained a simple but devastating tactic that should be solvable in seconds. One added benefit is that these include a fair number of pieces en prise, so I'm honing how rapidly I can detect loose pieces. I don't know of any commercial set of tactics problems that has such simple "find the best move" problems interwoven with more complicated examples, which I find is more realistic.

I'm also plowing through some of the books on Heisman's tactics list, even the super-simple Chess Tactics for Students by Bain. I'll be installing Chess Tactics For Beginners onto my laptop (previously completed the series on my desktop). If anyone has tried the upgrades for CTB and CT-ART, I would be interested in knowing if they're worth upgrading to. The CTB upgrade looks like it's for both I and II, so that could be a good deal.

Even though I have been studying tactics for decades, I'm finding that by doing a lot of simple tactics my speed of pattern recognition has gone up. Sometimes as soon as I see the position, the answer comes in a flash…a good feeling, since I've always felt my brain took too much time to digest the features of a position.

Improving how deeply and clearly I can calculate. The deeper a calculation, the more prone it is to error…hence the rule of thumb described above. However, as the variations become more forcing you have to be able to see through the fireworks. I have started working through Anderson's Chess Visualization Course. So far it's fairly easy stuff, but I think the material will rapidly get more challenging. The next two areas also work on my ability to visualize my way through variations:

Going back to more "talky" annotated chess games. I'm going to work my way through Heisman's list of recommended game anthologies at the bottom of this page, even those I've read multiple times (although I've recently read the Euwe and Bronstein books). I've been plowing through maybe my 4^th reading of Chernev's "Logical Chess Move By Move". Many of his comments are obvious, and having him explain each and every game why 1.d4 or 1.e4 is a good move gets tedious fast. Still, there are things to be gained.

First, I've found when going over my games with a stronger player that there are natural, strong moves that I could have played but didn't. When I play through the annotated games I try to anticipate the next move, and I think that this is improving my feel for powerful moves that maintain the initiative. I especially pay attention to situations where the attacker attacks and the defender parries. Before I look at the next move, I consider what I would do and whether in an actual game I would play a move that loses the initiative, and then I see how the attacker dealt with it.

Second, even though I'm familiar with the rules of good chess play, I still fall prey to the consequences of breaking them. For example, there have been a few times where I've lost just because I never got around to finding the tempo to complete my development ("I'll castle next move…no, next move, no…well, shoot.) Seeing victims breaking the rules and being punished for it is reinforcing (even if there is an "annotation by outcome" bias that favours the victor).

Finally, I try to visualize my way through all the side variations. I've been playing these games over an tournament-sized board. If I can't visualize my way to the end of the variation, I make one move and then repeat. Whether this is the most efficient use of my chess time is debatable, but I think this is the best way to stretch the limits of how far I can see. I've also done this with with the works of other annotators (Alekhine, Botvinnik, Bronstein, …) but the variations in these beginner books are better suited for my visualization exercise.

Playing more slow, rated games. This, plus simple tactics, are the areas that I feel will improve my game the most. Since moving to a new city 3 years ago, I've been content to just play long unrated games at the chess club and Blitz online. I am going to try to play at least two slow games a week. I think this is probably the most important change I need to make. I am going to try to play monthly quads as well as slow games online, and play far less blitz. I'm actually refusing to play blitz online until I work up the gumption to sit down and play a slow game. I need to look into some of the slow leagues on ICC. If I can play one slow game on ICC a week, one at the club, and a quad each month, I should be in good shape. It will be interesting to see how my rating changes after this hiatus.

Any other aspect of chess besides these is getting put on the back burner. I'm only going to look at openings, endings, or positional material if they are related to a game that I've just played (particulary slow games). Let's see if focusing on the right things pays dividends.

Suggestions for Digital Chess Clocks?

2009-11-22T14:02:00.000-08:00

I'm getting ready to start playing rated tournaments again, and I've decided to get with the 21st century and replace my analog clock with a digital one. The main features I'm looking for are durability (I'm worried about opponents bashing it around in time trouble) and readability (so I can record the time taken by me and my opponent after every move easily). I'm assuming that all digital clocks allow a time increment, which is another mandatory feature.

I would welcome any suggestions for clocks that fit the bill. Price is a lesser consideration--I want to find a good deal, but I don't want to buy something that's going to break after a few rounds of blitz. Some of these plastic clocks I've been seeing my opponents with lately, such as this and this, just feel like they're too delicate.

Heisman's "Three Showstoppers"

2009-10-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

Last month, Dan Heisman's column at ChessCafe.com ("The Three Show Stoppers") set a lightbulb off for me. Which is odd, because he's discussing issues of time management, piece safety and piece activity that he's written about before. However, these concepts came together to form a "perfect storm" of chess instruction.

A theme of Heisman's is that there are certain basic skills such as time management and playing what Heisman calls "real chess" consistently on every move of the game. The trick, of course, is consistently. If 49 moves out of 50 you play properly, and 1 move out of 50 you launch a stinkbomb of a move because you moved too fast or a piece was hanging, then your chess strength is severely diminished. I think that, for most people, working on improving this aspect of their game will likely produce greater dividends than just about any other chess-related activity.

Easily said, but as the byline of this blog says: "Do as I say, not as I do." It takes gumption to work on this, and if most of your chess is online blitz then you're not going to be able to play "real chess" a la Heisman unless you're pretty gifted. However, in this column Heisman reduces the essentials to three principles:

Time Management: not moving too fast or too slow, but using the appropriate amount of time for each move
Safety
Piece Activity

Quoting Heisman:

As in math, some consistency in base issues is required before anyone can benefit from the multitude of advanced possibilities. From a graphical standpoint the chess bases look something like:

Slow –> Safe –> Active –> Explosion of all other strategies

Therefore, to get the full benefits of the wonderful world of chess strategy, a player should first be able to apply the base issues fairly well. In other words, since the base three issues are such critical “showstoppers” (i.e., chokepoints), we need to at least minimally pass them first before the main learning fun can fully bloom.

I've been pretty good at time management, but only, say, 95% of the time. In both slow and fast games, I'll occasionally toss out a disastrous fast move; in blitz games I'll often take far too long on one particular move rather than pull the trigger and move. Also, even when I ask "Is it safe?" before making a move, I still find that many of my mistakes are obvious shortly after releasing my moved piece.

I've thought for sometime that Blitz just reinforces bad habits, and that it's main useful purpose was to generate chess games that can later be analyzed (check the opening lines, analyze the tactics and blunders, review the endgame, etc.). However, for someone whose problem is with the "three show stoppers", I'm now wondering if these three concepts can be successfully practiced through Blitz at my usual time controls online.

First, a review of time management. If you assume a typical game length of 40 moves, you can calculate, with or without an increment, about how long the game should take and how much time should be spent per move.

If you take the time control in minutes, and add 2/3 of the time increment in seconds, you get the time you have for a 40-move game. For example:

2+12: 2 + 8 = 10 minutes
5+5: 5 + (10/3) = 8 1/3 minutes
22+12: 22 + 8 = 30 minutes

So, if you want to commit to a g/22+12, you should be prepared to spend an hour or more on the game (30 min x 2 players).

As for how much time to spend per move: For 40 moves, each minute on the clock gives you 1.5 seconds per move. So:
g/5: 7.5 s/move
g/5+5: 12.5 s/move
g/2+12: 3 + 12 = 15 s/move
g/22+12: 45 s/move

For my favorite time control of g/2+12, that means I should be spending 15 seconds per move, ideally. It also means that even if the game goes longer and I'm running short on time, I still have 12 seconds to think. That means I can keep up a regular pace of moves without having to change my pace much for longer games.

However, in tournament chess a time delay of 5s is more common. I've started playing g/5+5 instead, which not only replicates real tournament time pressure more closely, but also forces better time management. 15 vs. 12 seconds though doesn't exercise this skill as much...there's not much variation between the regular pace of moves and time trouble. 12.5 vs. 5 seconds is a significant difference, and a player that better paces their moves should have a significant advantage.

At 12 seconds per move, I can't hope to play "real chess" (I can't really play "real chess" even with g/60, or 1.5 min/move), but I can at least force myself to think about Heisman's other two "show stoppers" during that time: safety and activity.

I have noticed in my blitz play that I have a tendency to opt for a fancier, less clear and active continuation than a safer, clearer one. Heisman on the other hand stresses safety over activity. It may be possible to reprogram myself to value safety over activity on a consistent basis even as I play Blitz.

Ideally, I would do all of this but play slower games. I may try to switch to playing 30-minute games instead of multiple blitz games, or play against the computer to practice my thought process. For now, as an experiment I'm trying to apply these "big 3" concepts to my blitz play (as well as my weekly club games), and see if it has a dramatic effect on my blitz rating. If I can consistently manage my time, and within 12 seconds ask "what does my opponent's last move do?" and "is my next move safe?", it should.

Give Heisman's article a read, and ask yourself if the "three showstoppers" are still limiting your chess progress. I think for a lot of club players, the answer is "yes". Fixing this problem won't be easy, but I'm going to try and follow this protocol religiously and try to push myself to the next level.

Mate in Two

2009-10-04T10:15:00.001-07:00

The following Mate in Two problem is from Yusupov's Build Up Your Chess I, and I think it's the hardest mate in two problem I've come across so far.

I'm not going to give away the answer, but it's a good test of your ability to analyze a dense thicket of short variations.

Laszlo Polgar's Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games has a ton of mate-in-two problems in it, and I occasionally turn to a random page and try to solve some. Some of them are really devilish, and are good practice for practicing Kotov-like analysis (trying to analyze each branch of a variation once and only once).

I'm going to try and get a couple more chapters of Yusupov's book knocked out this afternoon.

I'm In the Driver's Seat

2009-07-15T14:07:00.000-07:00

Encountered while surfing: the Advertising Slogan Generator. Here's one that was generated for me:

Everything We Do is Driven by Grandpatzer.

Generated by the Advertising Slogan Generator. Get more Grandpatzer slogans.

Play around with it and let me know if one tickles your fancy (for me, or you, or whoever).

Mate Analysis from Yusupov's BUYC2

2009-07-08T17:56:00.001-07:00

Just to give a taste of the level of Yusupov's book, here are the first 6 positions from Chapter 1, with my own, often flawed, analysis. It seems that I am capable of both relatively deep analysis and gross oversights.

I started off well, solving the first position with little difficulty (white to move):

1. Nf6+ Qxf6 2. Bh7+ Kh8 3. Bg6+ (key point: blocks Q from coming back to the defence) Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. Qh5+ Kg8 6. Qh7#

So, after calculating a mate-in-6 I felt pretty good going into the next position (Black to move):

This example revealed a couple weaknesses in how I analyze. First, the two most obvious candidate moves are 1...Qxd1+ and 1...Nf6+ (both the most forcing move possible: a check). I analyzed the latter move first, and when I arrived at a satisfactory answer I stopped there without analyzing 1...Qxd1+. I usually try to keep in mind the old advice "when you've found a good move, look for a better one". However, in tactical puzzles I've noticed a tendency to think, "oh I found the answer" and stop my analysis there when in a real game I would think a bit more.

I analyzed 1... Nf3+ and found that Black wins after 2. Bxf3, 2. Kh1 and 2. Kf1. However, after analyzing 2.Bxf3 I very quickly thought "and 2. Qxf3 is no different". However, 2... Qxd1+ 3. Qxd1 Re1+ doesn't work because of 4. Qxe1 (whereas after 2.Bxf3 and 3.B (or N)xd1 the e1 square isn't covered and 3...Re1 will mate. It's rather shocking that I dismissed 2.Qxf3 as leading to an identical result as 2.Bxf3 with about 1 second of thinking.

Correct is 1...Qxd1+, which the reader can work out leads to mate, e.g. 2. Nxd1 Nf3+ 3. Qxf3 Re1+ 4. Bf1 Rxf1#.

The next position I solved easily. White to move:

1. Qxf4 Bxf4 2. Rxh5 gxh5 3. Rxh5 *

I was then brought back down to earth in the next example. Curiously, I analyzed a double capture on h6 that failed, and missed a different capture on h6 that worked. White to move:

After 1.Rh8+ Kg6 I analyzed 2. Rxh6+ 2... Kxh6 (a secondary oversight: 2... gxh6 would also defend, but ...Kxh6 is stronger) 3. Rh8+ Kg6 4. f5+ exf5 5. Qh6+, which would mate except that there's still a g-pawn: 5... gxh6! -+

Correct, however, is 2. f5+ exf5 3. Qxh6+! because here after 3...gxh6 4. Rag8#

At this point I'm batting .500. I get the next position "half-right" (White to move):

The principal variation was clear to me: 1. Bxf6 Bxf6 2. Qxh7+ Kxh7 3. Rh5+ Kg8 4. Ng6 with mate to follow.

However, I had trouble with 1... gxf6. I calculated 2. Qg4+ Kh8 3. Rd3 Rg8 4. Nxf7#. Alas, 3...Nxe5!-+ defends, as well as 3...fxe5+/=.

The book solutions include both 2. Qh6 (which seems more straightforward, e.g. 2...Nxe5 3. Rh5) and 2. Rh5, e.g. 2...Nxe5 3. Rxh7 Ng6 4. Qh6. If instead 2... fxe5 (so the bishop defends after 3. Rxh7? Bf6), White has 3. Qf5!

I may charitably still been batting .500 after that example, but not after this position. Black to move:

This is another example where I had two moves to consider, and stopped after analyzing just one. I thought I had found a clever tactic with 1... Rh3, and indeed after both 2. gxh3 and 2. g3 Black mates. There was just one little problem: 1...Bxh3. On occasion, I overlook that bishops can indeed move backwards.

Yusupov mentions in the "Candidate Moves" chapter: "Accurately calculating over the distance of the first few moves is more important than the capacity to calculate long variations". This oversight certainly supports that remark.

Correct is 1...Nf3!, which leads to mate.

This should give the reader both an idea of the level of Yusupov's book, and the uphill battle I face in improving my ability to calculate.

Build Up Your Chess 2 by Artur Yusupov

2009-07-08T14:54:00.000-07:00

Yusupov has turned a series of chess lessons from his chess academy into a series of books. The first book at the under-1500 Elo crowd; the second is for the 1500-1800 Elo players, and the third book will be for the 1800-2100 Elo level. I'm barely into BUYC2, but so far this book is promising to be just what the doctor ordered.

For a long time I've recognized that one of the most important exercises I should be doing is just analyzing tactical positions at a board, without moving the pieces. The first chapter of mating combinations seems to be tuned to just the right level of difficulty for my needs. However, I would also like to to check out a copy of the first volume as well, because from what I've read on the intertubes it should still be plenty challenging enough).

Unfortunately, I won't be taking this book with me on vacation because I don't want to be packing a chessboard with me. Yusupov is instructing the reader to analyze the positions over a board, write down your analysis, and play the positions out; I agree with that advice and want to use the book accordingly.

For now, I want to give an overview of the contents of the book. I intend to follow up soon with another post featuring some mating problems from the first part of Chapter 1. This is in part to give readers a feel for the level of the book, and in part because some of my mistaken analysis reveals some of my chess weaknesses.

The Table of Contents includes:

1. Mating combinations
2. General endgame principles
3. Combinations involving the back rank
4. General opening principles
5. The double attack
6. Good and bad bishops
7. Candidate moves
8. The centre
9. The pin and the discovered attack
10. Zugzwang
11. Deflection
12. The Greek gift sacrifice
13. Evaluating the position
14. Planning in chess
15. An opening repertoire for White after 1.e4 e5
16. Destroying the castled position
17. an opening repertoire against 1.e4
18. Exchanging
19. Priorities when calculating variations
20. Pawn endings 1
21. Decoying
22. Time in the opening
23. Improving the position of your pieces
24. Pawn endings 2

Plus a final test and recommended books.

Two features immediately strike the eye. The first is the large number and variety of topics, which spans opening, middegame and endgame; tactics, calculation, strategy and endgame technique. The second is the apparent randomness of the order in which the topics are introduced. The first is readily explained: it's the author's intent that, through this series of books, that a student get a well-rounded education and that any gaps in the player's knowledge be filled. As for the second issue, I suspect that there's method in the author's madness. If nothing else, given the length of each lesson (1-2 hours) it would be good to mix it up a little. Plus, some order can be seen in the progression. General opening principles are covered, then the center, then specific opening repertoires, then a discussion on the value of time in the opening.

I will be very interested in the opening material, since the author's approach to developing an opening repertoire seems to match my own. For example, "This is... only an example...You should prepare your repertoire according to your own chess tastes and style. It is very important that you should like and understand the typical positions which result from your chosen opening." I have only skimmed the future sections of the book, but I get the sense the approach taken to studying the opening is "teach a man to fish" rather than "give a man a fish".

I leave for vacation tomorrow, but I'm looking forward to working through this book when I return.

Winning a R vs. Knight's-Pawn Endgame

2009-07-02T10:24:00.000-07:00

I recently had another of my obtain-crushing-advantage-then-screwing-up games. However, I managed to draw instead of lose because my opponent couldn't find the win in a R vs. P endgame. The analysis was interesting, because it showcases an interesting resource that is peculiar to knight pawns.

61...Rb2?= 62. g7 Rb7 63. Kh8 Rxg7 64. Kxg7 1/2-1/2

Instead, both 61...Kg5 and 61...Rh2 win for black. I find the former move the clearest, so I will use that move order.

61... Kg5 62. g7 (else 62. Kg7 Rf6) 62... Rh2! prevents promotion of the pawn 63. Kg8 Kg6 64. Kf8 threatens again to promote Rf2+! 65. Kg8:

65...Rf1

This is the key finesse: Black must capture the pawn via ...Rh7, not ...Rf7, to avoid stalemate: 65...Rf7?? 66.Kh8 Rxg7 is stalemate.

66. Kh8 Rh1+! 67. Kg8 Rh7 and the pawn falls.

After analyzing this game I found this same type of endgame covered in Muller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings (Vaulin-Gashimov, Swidnica 1999 on p. 162). In that game, the attacker also missed the best sequence of moves and ended up drawing.

DKos Chess Tournament, Round 3

2009-06-30T20:58:00.000-07:00

Not too much to add to the commentary in the Flash player for this one. I really like Black's 12th move, not because it was hard to find so much as just an interesting, tight cluster of mutually supported pieces and pawns.

The commentary to moves 15 and 17 show that this wasn't a stress-free game... I had faith in my ability to lose these types of advantages. I think my decision not to capture on h3 was practically best, no matter what Rybka thinks. White's remaining queen, bishop and rook make it look like nastiness could ensue against g7.

Current standing: 1.5/3

DKos Chess Tournament, Round 2

2009-06-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

It's very rare for me to attribute the primary cause of a loss to my not trying, especially in a serious game. It was clearly the main factor in the following game.

It's interesting to see how the flash player handles variations. I have to make more use of this widget! For this game I'm going to let the widget do my work, and skip .jpg images of key positions.

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6

This is as far as my "1% repertoire" continues. I've finished a lean repertoire database that contains only positions I've encountered in at least 1% of my games. Up until this point I haven't studied King's Gambit lines much...they're not encountered frequently, and opponents don't typically play main lines. 4.Bc4 is the main move that I encounter here, and the only one in my 1% repertoire (another example of how, at lower levels, sidelines are actually main lines). It's not specifically addressed in Marin's Beating the Open Games, but is likely to transpose to the main line...

5. Nc3 Nc6 6. d3

...as it does here. However, in my database of 7000+ personal games, I've only encountered this tabiya twice! So, until now, I've been justified in not studying the main lines of this opening.

6...a6

...and here I don't recall my "repertoire" move 6...Bg4, which was played in the other two games. Now that I've finally encountered this game in a serious game for the first time, I'll spend some time reading over Marin's chapter on this opening and map out a main line. I intend to flesh out my "1%" repertoire by mapping out one main line for each variation.

Marin actually has some analysis of 6...a6 in the footnotes. The idea is to preserve the bishop against Na4. This is a common moves in openings such as the Guioco Pianissimo, but here it's costing a tempo that could be used for developing. Some of the lines I'll be investigating are included in the widget's annotations.

7. fxe5 (7. Rf1!? Marin) ... dxe5 8. Bg5 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Rf1

Essentially a novelty (one unrated game in my main database). Marin gives 10. Nd5.

10...Qd6=

Understandable, but not addressing the need to develop. 10... O-O is preferred by Rybka, who doesn't seem to mind castling into a minority attack. However, I would be inclined towards queenside castling.

I like 10... Bg4, e.g. 11. h3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 (12. Rxf3 Qh4+ =/+) 12... Qxf3 13. Rxf3 Nd4 14. Bxf7+ Kd7 15. Rf2 Raf8 16.Rc1 Be7 =/+. However, because this line is still somewhat crazy tactically, 10... Be6 may be a better practical choice, e.g. 11. Bxe6 (11. Nd4?? Qh4+ -+) 11... Qxe6= (Rybka also likes 11... fxe6!?, which I find interesting...the doubled pawns take away key squares from White's knights).

11. Bxf7+?! -/+

Looks more dangerous than it is. At this point, however, I felt I had missed something and from this point on stopped trying--which is not like me at all.

11... Kxf7 12. Nxe5+ Ke8?! +/=

This move can't be explained. 12... Kg8!? is the obvious choice, even if it wasn't clear at the time whether Bxf7+ was "!" or "?". 13. Nxc6 is then probably the best chance for White. I would probably have played 13...Qxc6, deflecting the Q off of an important diagonal. Rybka prefers 13... bxc6 =/+.

However, 13. Nf7? would be a mistake: 13... Qxh2! -+ I think this is an example of where opening study can be helpful, not because knowledge of an exact sequence of moves would have helped, but because knowledge of a typical motif would help find the right move here. A Queen and Bishop ravaging the White kingside and creating mating threats appears as a common theme in the King's Gambit.

Even if Black didn't find this killer move after 13.Nf7?, a move such as 13... Qg6 would leave Black with a slight edge, e.g. 14. Nxh8 Kxh8. With the bishop pair offsetting a rook and two pawns, Rybka and I prefer Black. Black has an advantage in development; the white king is still stuck in the center; and White appears weak on the dark squares.

13. Qh5+ g6 14. Nxg6 +/- Black resigns??

Black resigned without even trying to find a solution. It would not have been hard, however, to find the following resource: 14...Bg4!, which would have allowed Black to play on. 15. Qxg4 Rg8 looks like it leaves Black a manageable game (B vs. three pawns). Rybka at this point initially evaluated the position as a modest advantage for White, but as I explored some variations it found a good continuation that leaves White with a distinct advantage: 16. Qh5! Rxg6 (16... Qxg6? 17. Qxc5) 17. d4!, e.g.17...Bxd4 18. O-O-O Qe619. Nd5 Kd7 20. c3!

Which is besides the main point: there was no need for Black to resign in this position.

23 lines

2009-06-19T19:11:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about how little opening theory can be applied to my games, so I conducted a little exercise with Chessbase and a database of about 7000 of my games (most from ICC). I constructed an opening tree consisting only of positions that I would expect to face as White in 1% or more of my games.

The result is shockingly small: 23 variations, with none longer than 6 moves.

Because I'm in the middle of an online tournament, I don't want to reveal too much of my repertoire, but just breaking down the percentages after 1.e4:

1...e5 44.6% (My mainest of main lines continues past move 5 just under 1% of the time!)
1...c5 16.0%
1...e6 9.0%
1...d5 5.9%
1...c6 4.6%
1...d6 3.3%
1...g6 1.7%
1...Nf6 1.6%
1...b6 1.4%
1...Nc6 1.1%

The data is somewhat skewed. My database of 7000 or so games goes back 12 years or so, and I only counted positions that I would face in my current repertoire. I've been quite faithful to my repertoire over those years, but there are notable exceptions (I used to play the exchange Spanish, and I avoided the open Sicilian with c3 or Bg5 systems for much of that period). In my current repertoire, no Sicilian line has been seen past move 5 more than 1% of the time! I need to see if I can do some sophisticated filtering to separate out the games that agree with my current repertoire.

The data also shows that at lower levels of play, "minor" variations actually become major. For example, in the Ruy Lopez the Steinitz, Cozio and Bird variations are now "major" lines to contend with.

My repertoire database has been getting a bit weedy, so I may start a leaner, meaner repertoire database using just these 23 lines, and making sure that I map each main line out several moves further. I can repeat the exercise for my Black games, although there I expect an even stubbier tree of variations because White gets to vary with the first move. The goal is to declare a chunk of theoretical turf where I know anything outside its boundaries is encountered less than 1% of the time.

DKos Chess Tournament, Round 1

2009-06-18T08:21:00.000-07:00

I'm taking part in an informal online tournament organized by the Daily Kos community. Apparently Mig Greengard caught wind of this, so there are actually prizes to be had, including a book autographed by Kasparov. I doubt I'll win anything, but you never know.

Here is my first round game, where I had White. The time control was 30 minutes...no incremental, no "insufficient losing chances" appeals to an arbiter. Rybka found a lot of interesting variations throughout the game, but I'm going to try and focus on key moments. Also, I may get some traffic from players that are new to the game, so I'll try to elaborate more on certain concepts that are unfamiliar to newbies. I'll also have a summary list of take-home lessons at the end of the game.

For those unfamiliar with chess annotation symbols such as "?!" or "+/=", I direct you here.

FreeRadical - FightingRegistrar [B35]

DKos Tournament (1), 16.06.2009

[Rybka 3 32-bit (120s)]

Rybka 3 is the name of the analysis software I used to help me analyze the game.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6

I'll have some commentary on the opening because I'm a bit of an opening wonk. I want to re-emphasize for the Kossacks that, for most of us, studying openings in depth isn't the best use of our chess time....but I enjoy it.

The "Accelerated Dragon". A standard Dragon inserts 4...Nf6 5.Nc3. When Black omits 4...Nf6 in the Sicilian, it can allow White to play 5.c4, leading towards a "Maroczy Bind" position. The pawns on e4 and c4 tend to cramp Black's game. In Beating the Sicilian 3 by Nunn and Gallagher, this is the approach they choose for White. I find the weakness of a1 and b2 early in the opening uncomfortable, but I should look into these positions more.

In Winning with the Fischer-Sozin Attack by Gary Lane, the author advocates Bc4 and kingside castling against dragon systems. This is the approach taken in this game.

5.Bc4 (5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0–0 8.Be2 d6 9.0–0 Bd7 10.Qd2 is the Maroczy Bind main line) 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3

7...0–0 So far the main line of this variation. I have 5572 games with this position in my reference database.

7...Nxe4 8.Nxe4 d5 is the "center fork trick" that White has to keep in mind. Here it fails for Black: 9.Bb5 dxe4 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bxc6+ Bd7 12.Bxa8.

8.Qd2 A stereotyped move in these Dragon positions, but not the choice of Grandmasters. 8.Bb3 (avoiding the center fork trick) is the main line, e.g.: 8...d6 9.h3 transposing into a regular (i.e. not accelerated) Dragon.

8...a6 The center fork trick 8...Nxe4! works now, e.g. 9.Bxf7+ (9.Nxe4 d5) 9...Rxf7 10.Nxe4. Black isn't "winning" but does have the bishop pair and a central (albeit hanging) pawn pair. White has a developmental advantage and fewer pawn islands. 9.0–0N ("N" stands for "novelty", meaning we finally have reached a position that's not in my database of about 3.6 million games) 9...b5 10.Bd3 Bb7

11.Rae1 11.f3 was considered during the game. Rybka likes it, but the weakening of the a7-h2 diagonal is unattractive. Also, a long-term consequence of pushing the f-pawn in these positions is that, if Black succeeds in penetrating the queenside (typically down the c-file), he can then sweep towards the kingside down the second rank. In such cases a pawn on f2 often provides important shelter. As an aside (because it was referred to in the DKos open diary), Bc4 and f3 are most commonly associated with queenside castling, in the Yugoslav Attack main line of the Dragon.

11...Ng4 Usually, if White has played this opening properly, ...Ng4 is either prevented with f3 or h3, or is allowed when Bf4/g5 is possible. White does not want Black to capture the e3 bishop if it can be helped. 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Bf4 Qa5

This was the "oh, crap" moment for me, because now it appears that I can't avoid a shattering of my queenside pawn structure. Rybka, however, found a solution.

14.a3?!

Rybka found 14.Nd5! Qxd2 (14...Qxa2 15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.b3 Qa3 17.Nd5+/=) 15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.Bxd2 Bxb2= Both sides now have isolated pawns on half-open files.

14...Bxc3 15.Qxc3 Qxc3 16.bxc3=/-

The isolated doubled pawns on the c-file are ghastly. However, White does have the bishop pair. For a while, Black's N is offside and the bishop pair helps White stay alive. For those new to chess: a pair of bishops is usually considered an advantage, but a small one (about half a pawn). For more information on tallying the relative values of the pieces, see this article.

16...Nf6 (16...f6 17.c4= Rybka) 17.f3 Rac8

I now wanted to repair my queenside pawns, but I chose the wrong way. 18.a4?! Instead, 18.c4! looks best to me. It gets rid of one pawn off the c-file, and the remaining pawn can be backed by a rook and advanced. Rybka shows that complications can be found by Black, however: 18...bxc4 19.Bxc4 Bxe4!? 20.Bxa6 Ra8 21.fxe4 Rxa6 22.e5 Nd5 23.Rd1 with an unclear position to me. 18...bxa4 19.Bxa6

My plan was to offset pressure down the c-file with my own pressure down the a-file. However, Black isn't so much defending his a-pawn as attacking with it. The passed pawn is very dangerous and much more easily advanced than White's doubled, but not passed, c-pawns. The constellation of pawns on the queenside actually gives Black a space advantage. White will be cramped trying to attack the a pawn and defend the c pawns at the same time.

19...Ra8 20.Bc4 Actually at this point having three loose pieces on the c-file bothered me a lot. I was worried about ...Rfc8, and Rybka agrees. Rybka prefers 20.Bd3 d6, but I felt at the time I needed my bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal to help manage Black's passer. 20...Ra5 (20...Rfc8!?-/+ Rybka] 21.Be3 Thinking of using the two bishops to cause problems for Black's rook(s) on the a-file (21.Ba2 Rybka) 21...a3 (21...Rc8! Rybka) 22.Ra1 Rybka has more faith in White's defence at this point than I do, and considers this position roughly equal. 22...Rfa8

23.Rfb1 Rather than doubling rooks on a1 and a2, which seems futile, I wanted to keep one rook active. I felt that a rook on the b file could alternate between attacking the a pawn, defending a c pawn, and possibly creating other threats such as back-rank mates. 23...Ne8 (23...d5!? is given by Rybka), but activating the knight makes sense) 24.Bb6 Ra4 25.Rb4 trying to tempt Black into undoubling my c-pawns (25.Bb3 R4a6 26.Bc4 might lead to a draw by repetition as well) 25...Nd6 (25...Rc8!? Rybka: 26.Rxa4 Bxa4 27.Bd3 Rxc3 28.Ra2=)

26.Bb3

Over the board I couldn't see through the complications after 26.Rxa4, which Rybka prefers: 26...Bxa4 (‹26...Rxa4 27.Bb3 Ra8 28.Bc5±) 27.Bd5 Rc8=

26...R4a6 27.Bd4 simultaneously protecting the c-pawn and indirectly preventing a2 27...Nb5 (27...a2? 28.Rxa2 Rxa2 29.Bxa2 Rxa2?? 30.Rb8+ Nc8 31.Rxc8#) 28.Kf2 I was willing to give up the bishop pair to get rid of the active N and fix my pawns 28...d6 29.Bc4 Pressing the issue 29...Rb8

In several variations in the next few moves (omitted for brevity), I saw Rybka taking advantage of the fact that the knight is pinned to the b8 rook (e.g. Be3 is possible without dropping the c3 pawn). I was aware of some of the possibilities but did not appreciate at the time how valuable an asset this was. 30.Rb3 e5 31.Bxb5? I was worried that at some point the knight would be unpinned and become dangerous, but this is a premature release of the tension. White has given up the bishop pair and simplified the position. I think this should be a black win as long as an opposite-coloured bishop endgame is avoided.

For the novices: endgames with just pawns and opposite-coloured bishops (one on light squares, the other on dark) are the easiest for the defender to draw. In a nutshell, you can always defend with more force than the attacker, so for example your bishop and king can blockade passed pawns on, say, dark-coloured squares and be impervious to a light-squared enemy bishop.

31...Rxb5!-/+ 31...Bxb5 seems OK for White after either 32.Be3 or 32.c4. 32.Be3 Rba5? Rybka is adamant over the next few moves that "passed pawns must be pushed":...a2! 33.c4?! Rybka blockades the pawn with 33.Ra2! In the game I didn't like putting both rooks on the light diagonal, but Rybka is ok with it: 33...d5 and White just avoids …34.exd5?? Bxd5. 33...Ra4 (33...a2!)

34.c5? Finally getting rid of the doubled pawns, but Rybka considers this a clear error (34.Ra2!) 34...dxc5! 35.Bxc5 a2! 36.Rb2 Rc4 I think better choices include centralizing the King, advancing the f-pawn, and (my favorite) cycling the B to e6 via d7 to overprotect the pawn and commence working on another weakness. 37.Be3 Rca4

38.Bh6 At the time, I thought encouraging ...f5 and trading some kingside pawns would be advantageous. Actually, I think that gives Black further play options, e.g. creating another passer. At this point, however, all of White's options seem poor. Rybka initially liked 38.Bc5, but on further analysis seems no better: 38...Bd7 39.g4 Be6 40.Rb8+ Kg7 41.Bf8+ Kf6 42.h4 g5 43.hxg5+ (43.h5? Ra8 44.Rxa8 Rxa8 45.Bb4 Rb8 46.c3 Bc4 47.Ke3 Rd8 48.Kf2? Rd2+ 49.Kg3 Rb2) 43...Kxg5 38...f5 39.exf5 gxf5 40.Kg3?

I was thinking of penetrating with the K to grab loose pawns...if the 4th-rank barricade could be lowered. 40...Kf7?

Rybka, however, found a very interesting set of lines that gave Black a clear advantage, based on threatening to trap White's bishop with 40...f4+! I started to analyze these lines, but it gets rather complicated. However, given that White was under time pressure this complication would have been very uncomfortable.

41.c3? 41.c4! Without going into too much analysis, this provides a wrinkle in the line 41...f4+ 42.Kf2 The c4 pawn prevents ...Bd5, so Black's bishop gets in the way: 42...Bd7 (42...Ba8 43.Bg5 Rc6 44.Rbxa2 Rxa2+ 45.Rxa2 Bb7 46.Ra7) 43.Bg5 and the B can escape.

41...Kg6 (41...f4+!) 42.Bf8 e4 43.fxe4 fxe4

44.Rb4? Rybka considers this an outright error leading to a losing position. I think simplification helps Black, but at the time I wanted to get closer to an opposite-coloured bishop endgame. [44...Rxb4–+ 45.cxb4 Ra4 The move that bothered me was 45...e3! , since the king can't get in front of the pawn]. 46.Bc5 (covers both b4 and e3) 46...Kf5!–+ 47.Kf2 Ke5

48.g4 trying to get some counterplay as my clock is getting low on time. After losing several endgames because my opponent's pawns on one wing were further ahead than mine, I've come to appreciate such advances. In this game it turns out that my advanced kingside pawns save me. 48...Kd5 49.h4 Kc4 50.Ke3?! Kb3?! (50...Ra3+! Rybka. The rook on the third rank is powerful) 51.Bd4? The time crunch is taking a toll. It wasn't neccessary to give up the pawn. White could have continued with 51.g5, e.g. 51...Kb2 52.Bd4+ 51...Rxb4 g5

52...Ka3?? 53.Bc5!= White doesn't win the exchange because of his own weak rook. However, the resulting endgame should be a draw, even though White must give up the bishop to do so. 53...Kb2 54.Bxb4 Kxa1 55.Bc3+ Kb1

56.h5! Rybka had a hard time seeing that this leads to a draw. When you've used computers enough you realize that there are positions where they have difficulty "looking over the horizon" and need to be coaxed along. I had to drag Rybka through the variations kicking and screaming before it would agree. a1Q 56...Be8!? was Rybka's move, but the computer took a while to find that 57.g6! draws, e.g. 57...Bxg6 (57...hxg6?? 58.h6+-) 58.hxg6 hxg6 59.Kxe4= 57.Bxa1 Kxa1

58.g6! I was desperately short on time here. For a while I thought that maybe I should have pushed h6 first and then g6, but that doesn't work because of 58...Be8-+. 58...hxg6?? My opponent felt that 58...h6 was the move he should have made. Rybka agrees but still doesnt' see a win for Black. 59.Kd4! actually threatens to win for White by taking d5 away from the defending bishop: 59...Bd5! (59...Kb2 60.g7+-) 60.Kxd5 e3! 61.g7 e2 62.g8Q e1Q and if anything White should have the advantage in this queen endgame, but it's complicated and White would probably lose on time. 59.h6+- now White technically has a win, but only seconds on the clock. 59...g5 60.h7 g4 61.h8Q+ Ka2 62.Qc3 Ba4 63.Qd4 63...Bc2 64.Qd5+ 64...Kb2 65.Qg5 g3 66.Qxg3 Kb3 67.Qb8+ 67...Ka2 68.Qa7+ There are many forced mates in this endgame. I'll just show one mate in 4, because that's at least possible to see with about 15 seconds on the clock remaining: 68.Kd2 Bb3 69.Kc3 Ka1 70.Qxb3 e3 71.Qb2# 68...Kb1 69.Qc5 Kb2

70.Qxc2+ [70.Kd2 e3+ 71.Qxe3 Bb3 72.Qb6 Kb1 73.Qxb3+ Ka1 74.Qb4 Ka2 75.Kc1 Ka1 76.Qa3#] 70...Kxc2 71.Kxe4 ½–½ Draw forced with 3.6 seconds left on the clock.

Themes this game:

the center fork trick (moves 7-8)
using piece exchanges to weaken an opponent's pawns (moves 14-16)
the bishop pair (annotation to move 16)
"passed pawns must be pushed" (moves 21-35)
the pin (moves 29-31)
opposite-coloured bishops (annotation to move 31)
entrapment (moves 40-41)
advancing pawns as endgame insurance (move 48)
the skewer (move 53)

Pawn Breakthrough

2009-04-14T07:27:00.000-07:00

Here's the second recent endgame of mine that I thought was instructive. Don't panic, though...it's not nearly as complicated as that last rook endgame.

I've noticed that I have trouble with breakthroughs in pawn endgames. I think it's part blindness, part the avoidance of calculations, and part unwillingness to muck up my tidy pawn chains.

I entered into a pawn endgame where I, as black, had a pawn plus and the opposition.

However, after White played 49.Ke2-d2!?, Black can't win through opposition alone. In some endgames the attacker keeps re-seizing the opposition, pushing the defending king back and finally grabbing material. However here, after 49... Kf3 50. Kd3 for example, White takes the opposition, and after my 49...Kf4 White could have kept up resistance with 50.Ke2!? and repeating the position. Instead, he let me take the opposition and win with the usual opposition technique: 50. Kd3 Kf3 51. Kd2 Kf2 52. Kd3 Ke1 53. Kc2 Ke2 54. Kc1 Kd3 55. Kb2 Kd2 0-1.

The fact that opposition alone here shouldn't win should have been more obvious to me at the time. The following is a classic position of this nature. Black to move:

1...Ke7!=

However, in my game Black still wins in several lines by the breakthrough ...b4! For example, after 49.Kd2:

49... b4! 50. axb4 (50. cxb4 allows Kxd4) 50... a3 51. Kc2 a2 52. Kb2 Kd3 and after White captures the a-pawn Black gobbles all of White's remaining pawns and wins.

I tried to find a similar pawn endgame in my reference books, and also by ChessBase posistion searches, but couldn't find anything. I think this highlights how complex pawn endgames can be...only 4 pawns versus three, and yet this structure may be unique. ChessBase's search functions can be quirky, however. For example, if I searched my blog database, I could find this game using the position, or using the material count, but not both. Weird.

Two Killer Apps for the iPod

2009-04-07T19:11:00.000-07:00

Months ago I looked into chess applications for my iPod Touch and didn't find anything that grabbed me. I checked again this last weekend and found two I was quite pleased with. One is free, and one is ten bucks. Which is for you?

Glaurung is the free chess app. You can vary its playing strength on a scale from 0 to 100. You can play against it or analyze with it (best line only shown), and can set up positions. There are several different preset time controls, and you can tweak other options such as permanent brain, play style, and book variety. One advantage that Glaurung has is that it can save games or load them from a .pgn file. I have no idea where this .pgn file is located, or if it syncs to your computer, but it at least means you can save games.

Shredder has an app available for $10. What do you get for your money? First, you can vary the play strength from 850 to 2400 Elo (I can't independently verify the accuracy of its Elo scale, but I like it better than Glaurung's 0-100). It can also be set to automatically adjust its rating to your level as you play games. You can adjust its play style, and can turn on a coach feature. The one main drawback to Shredder is that, at least in the current version, you cannot save your game. However, you can email it.

One final edge that Shredder has is that it has a database of 1000 test positions built into it that you can solve. The points you get for each puzzle depends both on accuracy and speed of solving. I like this feature a lot, although for some of the positions it says "you have solved this puzzle" after getting the first few moves correct, when I would still like to see a few moves further into the solution. this isn't a big deal, though, because you can stop the quiz and select "play this position".

So far my conclusion is: Shredder has the advantage if you're looking for a program to play against. The Elo rating with a sliding scale and automatic adjustment to match your play level is a nice feature, and I really like the puzzle feature. However, if you want to be able to save your games (e.g. if you don't have email access and can't email the game to yourself), or if you're thrifty, Glaurung is really quite nice. Both look attractive, and both appear to be hideously strong (I'm worried about the consequences this technology will have on tournament play). If you're serious about chess, and can already afford an iPhone or iTouch, then I don't think you'll regret purchasing Shredder...but you can download Glaurung first and then decide if you really want or need more.

Instructive Rook Ending

2009-04-06T12:44:00.000-07:00

First: a shout out to chunkyrook. His endgame posts helped get my gumption level up to posting some endgame analysis of my own. I also rather liked this example of seizing a file...a fairly simple idea, yet one that was new to me.

Sometimes I get a basic ending that I thought I knew reasonably well , and then after analyzing it I realize how much of endgame play is still mysterious. I had two such instances recently where the analysis was instructive. Here is the first, which should have a dead-drawn R+P vs. R endgame. I was black:

I had just captured on c5. The defending king is able to get in front of the pawn, which should be an easy draw. A rule of thumb in 1-pawn rook endgames is the "Rule of 5": if the number of the rank of the pawn, plus then number of files the defender's king is cut off, is greater than 5 then the side with the pawn wins. There's exceptions but it beats assessing a position by coin toss. With a pawn on the third rank (counting from Black's side) the defending king would have to be cut off by 3 files to be winning according to the Rule of 5. Here, you don't even need to invoke the rule: the king isn't cut off at all and is free to get in front of the pawn, so this should be a cakewalk for White. However, after 76. Kd3 Rc1 77. Ra4 Kb5 78. Rh4 c5 79. Kd2 Rg1 80. Kc2 Rg3 81. Rf4 c4 82. Rh4 Kb4 83. Rh8 (threatens a series of checks from the rear, a theme of the Philidor position we are arriving at) Rg2+ 84. Kc1 Kc3 85.Rh3+ Kb4:

This should be a dead drawn Philidor position. For those unfamiliar with this ending, the Philidor position is one of the standard defensive techniques. All White has to do now is keep his rook on the third rank (e.g. 86.Rf3), which prevents White from getting their king ahead of the pawn. If Black delivers checks from the side, the White king just bounces between c1 and c2. If Black tries to make progress by advancing the pawn, White can play the rook to the 8th rank and deliver endless checks from the rear. If this drawing method isn't familiar to you, it's one of the first rook endgames you'll want to study.

However, my opponent played 86. Rh4?-+, probably thinking this prevented advancement of the pawn because of the pin. However, 86... Kb3 is now a win for White--but only barely! The king can use the pawn as shelter against a check on the 3rd rank. After 87. Rh8, a critical position has been reached:

87... Ra2?= If the pawn were on c3, and White was passively defending with a rook on the first rank, ...Ra2 would be involved in the winning line. This method of playing against passive defense is another basic rook endgame, but that's irrelevant to this position. Short on time, and with a 12-second increment on the clock, I was going with my gut at this point.

There is only one winning move here: 87... Rg1+! and it turns out that after 88. Kd2 c3+ white wins:

For example 89. Kd3 Rd1+ (89...Rg3+ also wins) 90. Ke3 c2 91. Rb8+ Ka4 92. Ra8+ Kb5 93. Rb8+ Ka6 94. Ra8+ Kb7.

I have not seen this winning method in any of my endgame manuals, yet it seems important. If anyone has seen this covered before, can you let me know where?

The game continued 88. Rb8+ Kc3

89. Kb1! Well played. This ending appears similar to one covered in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual as well as (if memory serves) Soltis' Grandmaster Secrets: Endings. Dvoretsky mentions Philidor's "second defensive method": if the rook can't occupy the cutoff rank, it should place itself behind the pawn. The king goes to the "short side" of the pawn (i.e. the side with less space between the pawn and the edge of the board...in this case the left side). Because the defending king is on the "short side", the attacking king is on the "long side" and if it tries to squeak out the long side it can be subjected to checks from the side.

89...Rh2 90. Rd8 This also draws, but 90. Rc8 is the thematic "attack the pawn from the rear" second defensive method. After 90.Rd8, White needs to be careful. 90... Rh1+ 91. Ka2 Kc2 (if the defending rook were on c8, this move would just lose the pawn to Rxc4)....

92. Rd7?-+

Now we see why the "short side" defence is an important resource. Because White's rook didn't stay behind the pawn, it is able to advance. Now the only way to draw is from side checks, e.g. 92. Rg8! (or 92.Rf8!) 92...c3 93. Rg2+ (93.Rg3 also draws) and if 93...Kc1 94. Kb3.

After 92.Rd7? there are still a few tricks involved in winning the endgame. 92... Rh5 wins, but the endgame tablebases reveal this shorter and sneakier winning line: 92... Rh8! 93. Ka3 c3 94. Rc7 Ra8+ 95. Kb4 Kb2!!

with the point 96. Rxc3 Rb8+ 97. Kc4 Rc8+ wins the rook. This appears to be an important resource. Several of the lines I analyzed in this endgame resulted in this position.

93. Ka3 Rc5?=

This allows checking from the side. It turns out the only winning move is 93... Rh3+! 94. Ka2 (94. Kb4 c3 95. Rc7 Kb2 is the sneaky win mentioned above) 94... Rh8 and wins.

94. Kb4?-+ (Many moves draw, but 94. Rh7 with the idea of checking from the side appears simplest, e.g. 94...c3 95. Rh2+)

94... Rc8! Now rook behind the pawn wins. Black can advance the pawn and use it as a shield from side checks. 95. Rd4 c3 96. Rh4 Kc1 (96... Kb2 is shorter) 97. Rh1+ Kb2 98. Rg1 c2 99. Rg2 Kb1 100. Kb3 c1=Q 0-1

Even the simplest rook endgames are difficult to play perfectly. Familiarity with the basic positions (e.g. Lucena/Philidor) and concepts (checking distance; Rule of 5; playing the king to the short side; defending via repeated checks from rear/side/front) help guide you in the right direction (86.Rf6; 89.Kb1!; 94.Rh7 etc.). However, sometimes there's no substitute for calculation (87.Rg1!).

Fine's Description of Chess Masters

2009-03-28T06:31:00.000-07:00

I found A Passion for Chess by Reuben Fine at a used book store. I've only played through a few games in it so far (I'm currently working on a collection of Alekhine's games), but I've really enjoyed them so far. I've never paid much attention to Fine or his writings in the past, although I noted while playing through the games of Nottingham 1936 that he shared joint second with 9.5/14 (Capablanca and Botvinnik won with 10/14; Alekhine was at 9/14).

He ultimately chose a professional career in psychology over chess. In one interesting passage, he categorizes the masters of the day into pure chess professionals and dabblers:

In the period from 1935 to 1938 I had come to know all the leading masters of the day personally. There were two types of master: one whose primary interest was in some other field, and who played chess chiefly as an intellectual exercise; the other the pure professional. Among the leading players the former type was more common; the pure professionals, surprisingly, were often second-raters. Lasker thought of himself primarily as a philosopher and a mathematician, though he did make a living at chess for a while. Capablanca was in the Cuban Diplomatic Service. Euwe was a mathematics instructor and assistand principal of a high school in Amsterdam. Vidmar was an eminent authority on electrical engineering; Botvinnik, who was in the same field, used to say admiringly that he would give up half of his chess skill to do what Vidmar had done in electrical engineering. Edward Lasker in this country is a well-known engineer; he invented the breast pump.

I was always struck by Edward Lasker's tournament photos. The expression was of someone daydreaming about something pleasant, with a gentle-yet-odd smile. Perhaps like many professionals he had a hard time getting work off his mind.

Fine continues:

The pure professionals, even in Europe where they got along better, were most uneasy about their status, and sometimes acted in a most offensive manner. Alekhine is perhaps the best example; he was a very sadistic individual, who became a Nazi sympathizer during the war. Bogoljubow had some of his rivals put in concentration camps by the Nazis when they arrived on the scene in Germany. But there were also many pure professionals who were quite attractive as personalities. Tartakower was a learned, witty, and amiable gentleman. The Englishman Winter was a most unusual and colorful man. Both of these could have done well in any number of other fields.

A famous quote of Bogoljubow's is: "When I am White, I win because I am White. When I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov." And then, there's the lesser known Option Three...

Rybka 3 Monte Carlo Analysis: Fixed!

2009-01-27T08:20:00.001-08:00

Commenter Stalemate gave a fix to my Rybka 3 problem with Monte Carlo analysis. I had to tweak his suggestion to fit the Vista folder hierarchy.

Basically, copy of the contents of the c:\Program Files\Common Files\ChessBase\Engines.uci\ folder to a "local settings" folder. You may need to turn on the ability to see hidden files to do this.

Stalemate's destination folder:c:\Documents and Settings\xxx\Local Settings\Temp\ (where xxx is your user name). This appears to be for Windows XP.

For my Vista laptop, the path was c:\users\xxx\AppData\Local\Temp\

Note: you're not copying the Engines.uci folder to the Temp directory, but its contents (i.e. the .uci engines). At first I just copied the folder, and it didn't work.

I'll be letting ChessBase support know about this fix.

Commiserating with BDK

2008-12-30T22:22:00.000-08:00

Ah, sweet, sweet internet access. I'm typing this from a hotel room; tomorrow I fly back home (about 10 pounds heavier from all the Christmas goodies). Before I left on my trip, I had read BDK's recent post on chess suckage. I'm sure we can all identify with his lament:

"It makes me wonder, sometimes, why I bother with this game if I'm going to suck so badly at it after more than three years playing. It's one of those games that I felt so bad about that I don't even want to analyze the game it makes me feel like s*** to even think about it."

Heck, yeah.

I strongly identified with his observation:

"I've also noticed that in real over the board games my chess vision is just not as good. I miss tactics I spot immediately when playing over the computer. I learned on the computer, trained on the computer, and almost always play on the computer.

"That has to stop. I've begun playing games on ICC using my actual board, using the computer only to relay my moves. We'll see if it helps. It feels hopeless sometimes, like my brain is permanently locked into a 2-D way of thinking, where all the pieces are always equally distinct and visible."

The last chess club before Christmas was a blitz tournament, and I truly sucked. I'm terrible at blitz, especially 5-minute games with no time increment (I typically play with a 12-second increment for internet games). I was struck by a couple things:

lack of awareness of the whole board. In one game that I luckily won, my checkmating queen on d5 could have been captured by a bishop on a1 had my opponent not conceded. I would tend to focus on one region of the board and miss long moves or tactics in another region. On a computer 2-D board, it's easier to take in the whole board.
absolute inability to play anything remotely resembling "real chess" a la Heisman at those time controls. My king was captured twice by missing checks while pressing my attack in time trouble.

With regards to the first point: even though I don't seem to have any trouble switching between 2-D and 3-D positions, I know that I retain material better when using a real board...whether it's practicing tactics problems, learning basic endgames, or deciding on opening lines for my repertoire.

As for the second point: I've only skimmed Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster, but I recall one of his infamous pronouncements is that the thinking method ("think like a tree") doesn't change in time pressure situations...you just do it faster. This seems like a pretty stupid piece of advice on the surface ("gee, thanks!"), but it actually cuts to the heart of the matter. You have to train yourself to consistently play "real chess" so that it's second nature, even in time pressure. It's not enough to know how you're supposed to think: it takes practice to play "real chess" consistently.

I am currently playing a pair of games by email, and I'm trying to play "real chess" in these games. Even with days available per move, I'm not consistent. In one game, I analyzed a promising rook sacrifice but missed a killer response from my opponent. With the luxury of having as much time as I want per move, I still have to force myself to consistently consider my opponent's move, identify candidate moves, select one, and consider all of my opponent's responses.

Training myself to play "real chess" reliably will be like breaking a bone and resetting it. Playing "hope chess", particularly in ICC Blitz, just reinforces the same old bad thinking habits. I'll probably post more on this with a set of New Year's Resolutions.

From GP's Undisclosed Location in the Wilds of Canada...

2008-12-28T09:17:00.000-08:00

I'm currently visiting family for Christmas, and internet connectivity is dodgy. I have some material ready for posting, but it'll have to wait for New Year's Day.

I managed to winnow down my books for the trip to:

Alexander Alekhine's Best Games (Alekhine/Nunn)
Anthology of Chess Combinations (Informator)
100 Endgames You Must Know (Jesus de la Villa)
Rook Endings (Levenfish/Smyslov)

plus Lev Alburt's Chess Training Pocket Book for the airplane, and some of Karsten Mueller's endgame DVDs. Way too much material, objectively. I figured that being stranded without internet would be a good opportunity to crack open Levenfish/Smyslov and work on my rook endgames, but so far I haven't gotten that desperate.

I actually was able to teach my mom and dad some basic endgame stuff. Dad didn't humour me as much and we only did some stuff with the opposition and bare kings. Mom actually did fairly well...we moved on to some basic pawn endgame positions that I set up, and she even figured out the "underpass" herself on the second try.

My wife still refuses to participate. It's weird. Right now she's probably doing some logic problems or sudoku. As a chemist, she enjoys analyzing spectra and determining molecular structures. We've even played checkers once (neither of us could remember the rules, but it was still fun). But she won't even look at a problem involving bare kings and only 3 files. I tried to point out that it wasn't even chess at this point, only a harmless puzzle, but no luck. The closest I ever got was by equating the White king as a woman advancing her career, and that if it got past "the man" (opposing king) blocking her progress, it would reach the 8th rank and thereby shatter the glass ceiling. That, at least, elicited a "nice try."

iPod Touch Chess Applications?

2008-11-20T16:18:00.000-08:00

I scored an iPod Touch for my birthday. I saw that there are several chess apps available, but I get the impression that the reviews are grossly padded by developer sockpuppets.

Anyone have iPod/iPhone chess apps that they particulary like? I noticed that at least one (Caissa Chess) mentions playing by email. This is of some interest, since I'm currently playing a pair of email games with someone from the club.

Rybka 3 Arrived, but...

2008-11-18T13:47:00.000-08:00

My birthday gift to myself arrived...Deep Rybka 3 with the ChessBase interface. Unfortunately, one of the features I was most interested in--Monte Carlo analysis-- isn't working. Shortly after starting the analysis, the program crashes.

I just contacted ChessBase support. Hopefully the issue will be resolved in time for my birthday! I'm curous, though, if other readers have had a similar problem and know a solution.

Simple Forcing Variation

2008-11-15T09:11:00.000-08:00

The following tactic is fairly easy to calculate, yet it gave me some trouble. I'm finding that, when calculating forced variations, I have more difficulty when I have a choice of moves than when my opponent has a choice of moves.

White to play:

4r1k1/ppn1bppp/q7/7Q/1nN1P3/1B1P4/PP5P/KN4R1 w - - 0 1

Black to play has a straightforward mate in 2 starting with 1...Qxa2+, so White's play either has to interfere with this mechanism, or be with check. Moves like 1.Nca3 or 1.Na5 don't lead to anything. That leaves two checks: 1.Rxg7+ or 1.Qxf7+. The former check doesn't seem to lead anywhere either (e.g. 1...Kxg7 2.Qg4+ Qg6).

1.Qxf7+ looks like an "obvious" queen sac, because after 1...Kxf6 the knight can move to e5 or d6 with a discovered, double, check. But which knight move?

Correct is 2.Ne5+, because on either 2...Kf6 or 2...Kf8, 3.Nd7#.

However, when I tried to calculate this as I would in an over-the-board game, I would stall at this point. I was seeing the king slipping out of the mating net with 2.Nd7, and didn't immediately see the mate after 2.Ne5 Kf6. That was enough for me to second-guess the entire line and try to find ways to get other first moves to work. In a real game I probably would have bailed out by playing a knight to a3.

This demonstrates both quiescence errors (not calculating out until all checks, captures and threats are spent) and not "thinking like a tree" a la Kotov (calculate each branch of each line only once). And yes, Kotov's technique has been criticized by others, but in general (especially for simple problems like this one) it's an ideal worth striving for.

Euwe Blunder

2008-11-11T09:47:00.000-08:00

The next time you feel bummed out because you made some patzer oversight, remember the following blunder that Euwe played against Lasker in the Nottingham 1936 tournament:

8/pp4pp/2p1kp2/b7/2nP4/3K3P/PP3PP1/2B1N3 w - - 0 24

Euwe (Black) had just played 23...Bc7-a5, attacking the knight on e1. If White captures on c4, Black captures on e1. If white moves the e1-knight, Black moves their threatened c4-knight.

But what if White could move the knight with threat?

24.b4! Bxb4 25.Nc2! and Black is going to lose a piece. Euwe chose 25...Bd2 26.Bxd2 Nb2+ 27.Ke2 and resigned six moves later.

Capablanca Making It Look Easy

2008-11-04T06:40:00.000-08:00

I've been working on Alekhine's tournament books for NY 1924 and Nottingham 1936. I've finished the first, but am still adding the annotations to my "Master Games" database (a real pain, because all the annotations are footnotes, so there's a lot of page flipping involved). I'm about halfway through the Nottingham book.

I keep finding that it's the little details that I find the most interesting. I don't retain much about the games as a whole, even if it won a brilliancy prize. Yet Alekhine can mention in a footnote "This move loses a tempo", and I can appreciate how such minor inaccuracies can lead towards a loss.

Similarly, I'm once again impressed by the elegance of Capablanca's endgames, especially against weaker players. One of my favorite chess books was Capablanca's Best Chess Endings by Chernev. If there is one player's style I would most like to emulate, it's Capablanca's ability to accumulate advantages and then win the endgame. A lot of the moves in these endgames feel natural, or even simple.

Here is a snippet from the game Thomas-Capablanca, Nottingham 1936, after White's 25. a4?

White's last move has weakened the b-pawn, and Capablanca proceeds to nail it down as a weakness:

25...Bxd4 My instinct would have been to retain the bishop, because there will be play on both sides of the board. Fritz seems to want to keep the bishop as well. 26. Rxd4

Alekhine gives 26.cxd4 Re1 27. Kg2 Rxf1 28. Kxf1 Ke7 29. Rc3 Kd6 30. Rc5 Rb8 31. Ra5 Rb6, which completely ties White up.

I looked briefly at 27. Rxe1 (instead of Alekhine's 27.Kg2) 27... Rxe1+ 28. Kg2 Rc1 29. Re3, where the white rook cuts off the king from running to the queenside. However, Black's majority is on the kingside and it looks like Black can work on both sides of the board towards a win.

Now, however, Capablanca's crisp play nails down the new weakness:

26... c5 27. Rd2 Rb8 28. Rb1 a5

The b-pawn is a fixed weakness, whereas Black's e-pawn isn't really weak. The king will move towards the queenside and help protect it. Black's king is then well placed in the center, whereas White's king is off to the side keeping an eye on Black's majority.

Capablanca concluded by playing on both sides of the board, using both his majority on the kingside and White's weaknesses on the queenside. The game concluded: 29.Kg2 Ke6 30. Rc2 Kd6 31. f3 g5 32. Kg3 h5 33. h4 gxh4+ 34. Kxh4 Re3 35. Kg3 c4 36. b4 axb4 37. cxb4 Rb3 0-1

The "simple idea" here for me was fixing the backwards b-pawn as a weakness. However, we can see a number of other classic themes in this example: mobilization of a pawn majority; play on both sides of the board and the principle of two weaknesses; centralizing the king; control of an open file.

Opening Archaeology

2008-10-11T07:44:00.000-07:00

First: shortly after my last post, I dug into my settings and found that I actually am 32-bit...so at least I don't have to deal with OS shuffling. The extra computing power would have been sweet though. I'll be editing the post to fix that.

I'm going to make a new tag, "opening archaeology" for intriguing old opening ideas I come across as I'm studying collections of master games. The following Sicilian idea seems a bit dubious to me, but those that find the 2...e6 Sicilians annoying may want to look at it.

In The Book of the New York International Chess Tournament 1924, Alekhine in the footnotes of a couple games reveals that after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 he likes 3.Be2!?

One of the ideas is that it may be possible to avoid playing Nc3 to protect the e4 pawn. In most open Sicilian lines, ...Nf6 attacking the e4 pawn is played early, which prompts White to play Nc3 and block their c-pawn. The Maroczy Bind (pawns on c4 and e4 in the Sicilian) was considered a Very Good Thing at the time.

In this case, if 3...Nc6 (or another move besides 3...Nf6--3...Nc6 is the most common in this position) 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6, now 6. Bf3 protects e4:

In theory, c2-c4 would be in the cards now. However, in Tartakower-Steiner, Saltsjobaden 1948 I see that White never got around to it: 6...Ne5 7. O-O Be7 8. b3 O-O 9. Bb2 (9.c4!?) ...d5 10. Nd2 Nxf3+ 11. Qxf3 Bb4 12. e5 Nd7 13. Qe2 Bxd2 14. Qxd2 Nxe5 15. Nxe6 Nf3+ 16. gxf3 Bxe6 17. Kh1 f6 18. Rg1 Bf5 19. Bd4 b6 20. Rg3 Rc8 21. c3 Qd7 22. Rag1 Bg6 23. Qf4 Rf7 24. Re1 Re8 25. Re3 Rff8 26. Rg1 Qh3 27. Rg3 Qf1+ 28. Rg1 Qh3 29. Rg3 Qf1+ 1/2-1/2

In case of 3... Nf6, Alekhine gave 4. Nc3, with the idea of 5. e5 Nd5 6. Nxd5 exd5 7. d4. I started looking at sample lines, and it doesn't seem that simple, but Fritz is giving White a nice edge. I'll leave it to the reader to explore those variations.

I'm unconvinced by the idea of putting the bishop on f3 behind the e4 pawn, and in a few of the games I looked at this indeed became a problem if the pawn remained there. Also, to me the most testing response to 3.Be2 is 3...Nf6, where White ends up playing 4.Nc3 anyways. However, it seems playable, and I think the odds are your opponent would not have looked at these lines.

64-Bit Vaio Ships With 32-Bit Windows?

2008-09-28T06:07:00.000-07:00

{Edit: although it seems from my googling that this has been an issue with some Vaios, it is not with mine...I received a 32-bit comp. Disregard, but thanks for all the input!}

It seems that my Sony SR should be able to run the 64-bit version of Visa, but ships with the 32-bit. Grr.

I'm only an average computer user, so it's not clear to me yet how easy it'll be to solve this problem. My understanding is that when installing a new OS you want to wipe the hard drive clean, but then I'd lose all the stuff that came pre-installed. It looks like I can get a physical copy of the 64-bit OS from Microsoft for a nominal fee, but I've read that installation on Vaios can be problematic because of the Sony drivers.

I'll be phoning various Sony and Microsoft tech help in the next few days to try and find a solution. Until then: if you're ordering a 64-bit computer and want the 64-bit OS, you should check and see which version comes pre-installed.

New Toy

2008-09-27T13:18:00.001-07:00

I received my Sony Vaio SR laptop today. So far, so good. I've managed to put ChessBase 9, Fritz 9 and CT-ART on it and test them out. The latter two required some googling to figure out how to get them to work in Vista, but everything seems to check out so far. I'm not looking forward to transferring the 4 GB of endgame tablebases over.

Fritz 9 is running at over double the kN/s on the laptop. I'm tempted to try playing my two computers against each other and see how the laptop stacks up.

I've started to shop around for Rybka. I'm interested in picking up other free engines that I can pit against each other in engine tournaments. If anyone has some favorite engines, feel free to share your thoughts.

Brief Update

2008-09-23T08:25:00.000-07:00

I'm still alive, but I've been distracted by other things. For much of the fall I have to work when the local chess club meets. Lately I've been slowly plugging away at collections of old master games, but haven't had any "Aha! this would be good blog material!" eureka moments.

I've ordered a laptop for work and for play, so I expect once it arrives I'll be spending more time organizing material and training. I would be very interested in hearing from people how the new Rybka 3 stacks up to the previous release. Until now, I've been using my old Fritz 9, but I've been hearing "Rybka says this, Rybka says that" for a long time now.

I'd also like to hear if anyone feels that it is worthwhile to upgrade from Chessbase 9 to Chessbase 10. I haven't heard a compelling reason to do so yet...although if it's easier to keep your reference database up-to-date that alone may be worth the price. Currently I do the online updates that download TWIC files...but I tend to put it off and have to manually search their archives. Either way, I still have to cannibalize each TWIC and incorporate into my reference DB.

I have no illusions that new engines or database software will translate directly into better chess skills...but as a hobbyist I enjoy what these programs can do. For example, I'm interested in the use of engine tournaments to assess various positions, as described in Nunn's Secrets of Practical Chess. However, all I really have are Fritz 9/7/5 engines at the moment, which strikes me as incestuous. I've tried a few free engines such as Crafty, but they've caused crashes when trying to run engine tournaments.

Any thoughts on Rybka 3, Chessbase 10 or other nifty software?

Spot the Back Rank Weakness

2008-08-05T07:48:00.000-07:00

Even though (if you're at all like me) we still fall prey to "simple" back-rank weakness tactics, I think these tactics are sometimes dismissed as obvious, beginner cheapos. However, these motifs can be quite deeply concealed. The following example from Marshall-Alekhine, NY 1924 caught my attention:

20...h6. Alekhine: "It was surely disagreeable to deprive the Rook of the control of h6, and yet there appeared to be no other way of preparing for Rf6 (20... Rf6 21. Qxe4 Qxe4 22. Nxe4 Rxe4:

23. Rxd5." Of course 23...cxd5?? 24. Rc8+ and back-rank mate to follow. It's not hard to calculate this forcing line, but you'd have to look pretty carefully at the first diagram to see that there was a potential back-rank weakness and that making luft with ...h6 was a good idea. Besides being a good example of calculating a forcing variation, this is also a good example of playing "real chess" a la Heisman: "What can my opponent do after I make the move I want to make?"

To add a dose of humility, I'll conclude with a recent blunder of mine from a blitz game:

I had actually made luft with ...g6 seven moves ago, to hopefully thwart back-rank problems. In time trouble I played 29...Rcc7??, hoping for something like 30.Bxc5?? Rxc5 31.Rxc5 a2 -+.

However, to my opponent's credit, he almost immediately whipped out 30.Bh6! Ke8 31.Ra8+ 1-0.

Was Alekhine Unaware of the Noah's Ark Trap?

2008-08-02T17:34:00.001-07:00

The Noah's Ark trap refers to the following tactic that can be found in lines of the Spanish. After, for example, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. d4 b5 6. Bb3 Nxd4 7. Nxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4?

8... c5! 9. Qd5 Be6 10. Qc6+ Bd7 11. Qd5 c4 -+ traps the bishop.

Yet, in a footnote to Yates-Alekhine, NY 1924, Alekhine says {note: I'm converting the notation to algebraic} "...White, after 5.d4, must reckon with either choosing an immediate drawing line (5...b5 6.Bb3 Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4 c5 9.Qd5 Be6 10.Qc6+ Bd7 11.Qd5 Be6 = {instead of 11...c4!-GP}), or being forced to embark upon a doubtful sacrificial variation beginning with 8.c3".

My understanding was that the Noah's Ark Trap gets its name from its antiquity. Yet I see that even 6 years after Yates-Alekhine was played, Steiner used this line as White against Capablanca (unsuccessfully).

Were the masters at the time of the NY 1924 tournament actually unaware of this trap, or am I missing something?

A Thought on GM Openings

2008-07-28T16:20:00.000-07:00

I just renewed my lapsed subscription to New In Chess, and I've been going over some of the recent tournaments. My repertoire database in Chessbase is starting to get to a decent size, so for kicks I tested it out by generating a repertoire using the games from the Corus tournament (Section A). For those not familiar with this feature: Chessbase can search a collection of games and compare it to a database of lines you consider to be part of your repertoire. It then spits out all games that match your repertoire. This search actually did produce some significant games (Carlsen-Polgar and Radjabov-Anand, for example).

In the course of reviewing some of these games, I was struck once again by how many of these GM lines seem to teeter on the brink of disaster. Some lines are just positionally awkward, and can only be justified tactically.

I would compare these cutting-edge openings to cutting-edge aircraft. Planes are now being designed with "negative stability". These aircraft are inherently unstable and require a "fly-by-wire", computer-controlled system in order to stay aloft. If a system were to fail, the plane would be uncontrollable. In contrast, a plane designed with "positive stability" will tend to maintain its attitude without external control. The pilot can't just doze off, but the plane has a natural tendency to stay aloft.

My preference is middle of the road...major lines that you see high-rated players play, yet fairly well grounded in general chess principles. No Colle or King's Indian Attack for me (though those would fit the bill as openings with "positive stability"), but no Smith-Morra Gambit or Botvinnik Semi-Slav/Anti-Moscow either.

To each his own. There's an argument for playing highly tactical openings, in that they force you to hone your ability to calculate. For some of these GM lines, though, I think the average club player would just fall into the trap of spending time memorizing lines rather than understand why certain crazy moves are essential.

A Gem of an Endgame Book

2008-07-12T13:31:00.000-07:00

Back at my first chess club we had a National Master, originally from Russia, that gave group lessons. He would set up positions for us to play against him, and then we would discuss what was played and what proper play would have been. Many of these lessons were on endgame technique. At least one group member questioned the value of the lessons, along the lines of: "What are the odds that I'll see this position in my own games? Maybe I should just work on my openings." I, however, felt I really "got" what the instructor was doing and why.

I have been working through Chess Endgame Training by Bernd Rosen, and I'm strongly reminded of these group sessions from years ago. This endgame book, while instructive on its own, is actually structured pedagogically so that an instructor can use the material in their own group lessons. The bulk of the book consists of the positions and their analysis, with the final section of the book giving advice on how to teach the material.

I am about halfway through this book, and I am completely enthralled by it. This review from Chesscafe.com struck me as being relatively accurate, but lukewarm. In particular, this book is not intended to be the first endgame book you ever read. However, I would say that players class C and above that have already spent time covering endgame basics can get a lot out of this book.

First, let's look at the breakdown of chapters:

6 chapters on pawn endgames
1 chapter each on knight, bishop, and bishop vs. knight endgames
4 chapters on rook endgames
2 chapters on queen endings
1 chapter to test your knowledge

plus the final chapter on Advice for Teachers. This may seem heavily weighed towards pawn and rook endgames, but I think that this is justified. Pawn endgames serve as a foundation for other endgames (for example, you always have to consider possible transitions from an unclear piece endgame to a concrete pawn endgame). I also think that pawn endgames are more coachable than the others, and that they are good tools for practicing visualization and the calculation of variations. Rook endgames are the most common endgame in practice, and are technically demanding, so emphasis there is warranted.

Each chapter contains roughly 8 easier problems and 8 tougher problems. What makes this book special for me is how the more advanced problems are related to the easier. The author is making connections between the classic endgame positions that you may have seen time and again to more complex positions that resemble actual games. Someone casually flipping through the book in a book store may think that this is old material. For example, many of the positions in the first two pawn chapters are old chestnuts. However, dig deeper and you'll see the author bringing in fresh material (fresh to me, at least) that extrapolate from these basic concepts.

The end result is an endgame book that, in a relatively concise manner, manages to both cover the essential basics of endgames and provide examples to challenge good endgame players. I would estimate that players from Class C to Class A can benefit from this book. Weaker endgame players will find many of the endings difficult, and stronger ones will find much of the beginner material obvious, but there is a lot of middle ground here. The easier positions demonstrate standard endgame techniques, but many of the harder positions demonstrate that sometimes there's no substitute for brute-force calculation.

I'm going to share a handful of the many endgames from Chess Endgame Training that, to me, shone like jewels. I've struggled with what to include here, since there is so much to enjoy. The following are taken from the first four chapters. I'm going to show a basic endgame, followed by a more advanced endgame of the same theme. In some cases I've truncated the analysis--in part for brevity, and in part because I want to encourage people to check out Rosen's book themselves. I've also added my own comments and analysis in places. Once again, I'm trying to cleave closely to the Nunn Convention for annotating endgames, so you will see a lot of "!"...there's not much room for error in these endgames.

Chapter 1 covers the square of the pawn, the opposition, waiting moves, and key squares. For this introductory chapter, all of the examples look like standard positions you'd find in endgame manuals, so I've selected a pair that demonstrate the opposition.

1.6
Black to move

This is a standard position on opposition. Its position in the chapter (1.6) places it on the more difficult side of the "easy" half. I think that this is a good test to see if Rosen's book may be for you. If this position elicits a "yeah, yeah, I know how this position is played, with either side to move, and can do it in my sleep", then you're ready for this book.

(The solution is 1...Kd8! taking the distant opposition, e.g. 2.Kd5 Kd7! 3.Ke5 Ke7!).

1.13
Kranki-W. Lange, Bad Oeynhausen 1940
Black to move

Although this position looks like a study, it's taken from an actual game. This is a great example of how the opposition is used to invade and capture your opponent's pawns. It's pretty obvious that Black needs to seize the opposition, but less obvious to see how they can penetrate. If you still don't have a feel for how to use the opposition, this could be a good position to play against the computer.

1... Kg2! seizes the opposition 2. Kc3 (2. Kc1 was played by Fritz vs. me: ...Kf3! 3. Kd2 Kf2! 4. Kc2 Ke2! 5. Kc3 Kd1! 6. Kd3 Kc1! 7. Kc3 Kb1! 8. Kd3 Kb2! 9. Kd2 Kxb3!) 2... Kf1! the only move that doesn't cede the opposition 3. Kd2 (3. Kd3 Ke1! 4. Ke3 Kd1!
5. Kd3 Kc1! 6. Kc3 Kb1! Note the theme of "scraping off" the opponent's king on a barrier such as a pawn or an attacked square, causing them to lose the opposition) 3... Kf2! 4. Kd3 Ke1! 5. Ke4 Kd2 6. Kd5 Kc3 7. Kc6 Kxb3! 0-1

The next three positions from Chapter 2 demonstrate body-checks and the opposition. The first is a standard position you'll find in many books:

2.5
Schlage-Ahues, Berlin 1921
White to move

1. Ke6! Kc3 2. Kd5! the body-check (in the actual game, 2. Kd6? led to an instructive draw: Kd4! 3. Kc6 Ke5! 4. Kb7 Kd6! 5. Kxa7 Kc7!= A standard technique in K+RP vs. K endgames) 2... Kb4 3. Kc6! Ka5 4. Kb7! Kb5 5. Kxa7! Kc6 6. Kb8!+-

However, the next two are far from obvious:

2.10
White to move

Seizing the opposition with 1.Kd5? draws, as does 1.Ke5? and 1.f4?. However, 1.Kd4! wins by force (see Rosen for details, or play this against a chess engine).

2.11
White to move

A common theme in pawn endgames is defending from the rear. For example, 1. Kc3? Kg4 2. Kd4 Kf4! 3. Kxd5 Ke3!=. White has to take a more coy approach to winning the pawn:
1. Kb4! Kg4 2. Kc5! Kf4 3. Kd4!+-

I feel these last two endgames demonstrate a point: sometimes there's no substitute for calculation. Some people prefer books that help them "understand the ideas" behind endgames, openings and whatnot, and certainly there are standard endgame positions where such commentary is helpful. On the other hand, there are endgames where rules of thumb and pattern recognition are actually detrimental. For example, in 2.10 using intuition and taking the opposition is wrong.

The next two examples from Chapter 3 cover the protected passed pawn:

3.2
White to move

1. h6! Kf8 2. g5! creates a protected passer 2...Kg8 (2... f5 3. gxf6! Kf7 4. h7!+-) 3. Kd2! (3. Kc2? The king cannot dilly-dally; the passed pawn doesn't win on its own: 3...Kh7! 4. Kd3 f6=) 3... Kh7 4. Ke3! f6 5. gxf6! Kxh6 6. Kf4! g5+ 7. Kf5 Kh7 (7... g4 8. Ke6! g3 9. f7! g2
10. f8=Q+!+-) 8. Kxg5 Kh8 9. Kh6 +-

3.14
White to play

1. b4! creates a passed pawn (1. Ke2? Ke7 2. Kf3 Ke6 3. Kxf4 Kd5=) In the pawn race that follows, both sides queen but White can win by force. However, this is not something that I would care to have to play over the board! 1... Ke7! (1... axb4 2.
a5 +-) 2. b5! Kd6 and the main line, stripped of Rosen's analysis, runs 3. Ke2 Ke6 4. Kf3 Ke5 5. Kg4 Ke4 6. b6 f3 7. Kg3 Ke3 8. b7 f2 9. b8=Q f1=Q 10. Qe5+ Kd2 11. Qxa5+ Kd1 12. Qd5+ Kc1 13. Qc5+ Kd1 14. Qd4+ Kc2 15. Qf2+ +-

One of the most useful chapters for me dealt with separated, isolated, passed pawns. Rosen did an excellent job presenting rules for determining whether such positions are a draw or not.

4.2
Black to play

Rosen's rules indicate that here the pawns cannot defend themselves on their own: 1... Kh5! threatens to capture on h4 and still remain in the square of the e4 pawn 2. e5 now 2...Kxh4? would be a mistake, but 2...Kg6! switches the attack to the lead pawn: 3. Kg2 Kf5! 4. h5 Kxe5!=

Here again, Rosen takes basic endgame examples (here: separated, isolated passed pawns) and extrapolates to more complicated scenarios:

4.16
White to move

The first stage is a Reti-style manoeuvre (pursuing two objectives at once): 1. Kg3! a5 2. Kf4! a4 3. Ke5! White's king couldn't get into the square of the a-pawn, but by threatening to it got close enough to its own passed pawns. 3...Kg7 (3... a3 4. Kf6! a2 5. g7+! Kxh7 6.Kf7! a1=Q 7. g8=Q+! Kh6 8. Qg6#) 4. Kd4! d5 5. Kc3! +- White can now capture both pawns in the same manner as the previous example.

I hope these examples have whetted your appetite for more. This book is chock-full of positions whose solutions made me think, "whoa, cool!"

In a nutshell, this book impresses me because:

it relates basic endgame positions and concepts to more complicated and realistic scenarios
it provides rules and guidelines, yet ultimately reinforces the need to think concretely and analyze accurately
the careful selection of examples, combined with the chapter "Advice for Teachers", makes this a very good resource for trainers

I highly recommended this book to students that have already studied elementary endgames, and to trainers looking for lecture material.

Reti Opening: Rare Bird?

2008-07-08T13:35:00.000-07:00

I'm making a push to finish my New York 1924 tournament book annotated by Alekhine. This tournament was a showcase for the Reti opening (18 games, 6 of them classed as the "Reti Reversed").

I updated my file of personal games, and it's approaching 6000 games (mostly ICC). I did a quick search, and only 6 games had Nf3, c4 and g3 as the first 3 moves for white. I did a search of my 3.4 million game database and it only came up about 12000 times...so maybe 3x as often as it does for me, but still pretty rare.

I'm curious if other people find this to be a highly rare opening, either online or over the board. I have no interest in playing the opening as white, and don't think I'd recommend it to a beginner, but it seems like it would be a good surprise weapon based on my statistics.

Name That Gambit

2008-07-05T20:39:00.001-07:00

Here is a quest for my dear readers: does the following gambit have a name? Is there any theory associated with this, or a clear refutation?

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e4:

There were very few examples of this in my large database. I couldn't find a clear path forwards for Black. Surprisingly, Fritz evaluated 3...Nxe4, which I think is the most testing response, to be nearly equal. Even after following plausible moves for both sides down to move 12 or so, Fritz didn't seem to notice that Black was up a pawn! For example, I played this series of moves that felt natural to me and that looked fine to Fritz at first glance: 3... Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 Nd6 7. Bf4 O-O 8. Nbd2 b6 9. Qe2 c5 10. c3 Nc6 11. Ne5 Bb7:

Fritz evaluates this as dead even, despite the pawn minus. I've only done some preliminary, superficial analysis, and I don't suggest the above variation is some sort of main line. My point is that there seems to be more going on here than meets the eye. It would be interesting to grab another chess engine and see its evaluations, or to play engines against each other and see the results.

Other moves such as 3...c5 and 3...d5 may transpose into other openings such as the Sicilian or the French, but that can't be the most serious test (otherwise this opening would be seen more often).

My conclusion right now is that Black takes the pawn and converts the material advantage with good technique. However, I would say that any unusual pawn gambit that Fritz can't easily refute is probably worthy of home analysis and potential use as a secret weapon.

Preview of Forcing Chess Moves

2008-06-24T06:58:00.000-07:00

{edit: fixed the first diagram}
{second edit: fixed the third. Good grief!}

I've been slowly working my way through Forcing Chess Moves by Charles Hertan. I see that it was reviewed at the Chess Cafe here, so I'll just add a few impressions so far.

First, be forewarned: the author uses ALL CAP EMPHASIS for certain KEY SAYINGS that are repeated throughout the book. I understand the pedagogical intent, but it's distracting. I still haven't decided yet if it's a net plus...if at some point I play a game and suddenly my COMPUTER EYES kick in to realize it's time for BRUTE-FORCE CALCULATION to find the winning move, then I suppose it will be proven effective.

The theme of the book is to train you to analyze the most forcing candidate moves first. What makes this book unique is that it's overall goal appears to be to expand your perception of what a forcing move is. The premise is that a computer will find winning moves that often are omitted as candidate moves by humans, because at first glance they look bad. The author hopes to train the reader's COMPUTER EYES so that they will consider these odd, but forcing moves, as candidates in their own games.

I'm still in the earlier part of the book, which more closely resembles a standard collection of advanced tactical problems in that the forcing moves tend to be checks and direct sacrifices. An example:

NN-Keene

simul 1995

1... Qh2+!!

"...it is the most FORCING MOVE on the board. Perhaps your COMPUTER EYES are even able to follow the chain of forcing moves and find the tricky but logical 'quiet forcing move' on move 4?"--Hertan.

2. Kxh2 Rxf2+ 3. Kh1 Ng3+ 4. Kg1 Ree2 0-1

A standard tactical problem, although the not-most-forcing (i.e. non-check) 4...Ree2 could be considered foreshadowing of what's to come.

Here is an example featuring a much less obvious forcing move:

Gershon-Mihailidis

Kavala 2004

1. Qb6! a6 (1... axb6?? 2. Nxb6#; 1... Nd7 2. Qxa7) 2. Nc5 Ne8 (2... Nb5 3. Bxb5
axb5 4. Nxb5 cxb5 5. Nxb7+) 3. N3a4 Nd6 (3... Qc7 4. Qa7! Rd7 5. Nb6+) 4. Qa5 1-0.

I found that the author's comments can be misleading, and that it's better to try and solve the problems yourself with an open mind, and then consult the book text. For example, for the following problem the author says: "Here a beautiful stock mate on h7 relies on a SELF-BLOCKING ENEMY PAWN on g5 containing the black king. Excellent COMPUTER EYES are in play, as all five white moves are the MOST FORCING:"

Weissgerber-Rellstab
Bad Pyrmont 1933

1. Qd8+ Kg7 2. Rxg5+! hxg5 3. h6+!

I missed this move. I saw that 3. Qxg5 was with check, and assumed this must be the most forcing move...what's stronger than a queen check?... but saw that 3... Kf8 4. Qd8+ Kg7 5. Qg5+ draws. Further, Fritz found that Black could win with 3...Kh8.

3... Kxh6 4. Qh8+ Rh7 5. Qxh7#.

One thing I've found in analyzing my own games is that Fritz will find moves that are clearly strong, but I would never have considered the first move of the sequence. Sometimes, the tactic will defy categorization as a fork, pin, skewer, deflection, removal of the guard, etc, but simply be a move that works. My impression is that Hertan's book may help open the reader's eyes to these opportunities. I also think that endgame training can also help, because sometimes the winning move can only be found by BRUTE-FORCE calculation. More on that in a future post.

I feel that the standard practice of studying tactical motifs can blind us to other possibilities if we can't classify them as one of these motifs. This is not to say that studying basic tactics is detrimental. My point is that if humans can't name or categorize something, they have a hard time recognizing it. For example, some languages have words that cannot be adequately translated into others, and describe concepts or feelings particular to that culture. I wish I could come up with a good example of that on short notice, but "schadenfreude" comes close...in recent years it's crept into common English because it fills a gap in our language. Similarly, let's say a certain winning move puts the opponent into zugzwang, forcing a self-blocking move that allows a successful king-hunt and mate. For us, that may be an example of BRUTE-FORCE CALCULATION of QUIET FORCING MOVES. For some alien chess culture, that may be a classic example of a "glibberfunken" motif that every alien schoolboy knows.

Another Example of Engame Transitions

2008-05-27T08:40:00.001-07:00

This post is in part to let people know I'm alive, and in part to whet my blogging appetite. The end of the semester has been a busy one. I have a couple of book reviews that I've been dragging my heels on but should post shortly.

This is from an online blitz game (2+12 time control). Evaluate 1.Rb5.

I was Black and had been suffering all game. Finally my opponent slipped with 1.Rb5?? I had been hoping for this, but didn't think my opponent, who had played credibly to this point, would fall for it. Even if my opponent had been in time trouble (which he wasn't), 12 seconds is enough time for someone our level to follow the most forcing line and see that this move is bad.

1...Rxb5! is forced, otherwise the h-pawn drops and the connected passed pawns win. After 2.axb5, black steps into the square of the passed pawn, e.g. 2...Ke7:

Now Black will have a protected passed pawn, which takes care of itself while Black's king gobbles the isolated passed b-pawns: 3.Kg5 g6! 4.f4 Kd6 5.f5 Kc5 6.fxg6 fxg6 0-1.

It was only necessary to follow the most forcing moves 4 ply ahead (up to 2...Ke7) to see that White's chosen move loses--assuming a basic knowledge of pawn endgames. Knowing the rule of the square means, for example, that you don't have to calculate ahead another 6 ply to see whether White can promote a pawn safely. It also means you don't need to calculate much to convince yourself that Black's kingside pawns will be safe. After g7-g6, Black has a protected passed pawn. If White tries to capture the base of the pawn chain, the king will be out of the square of the leading pawn, which will go on to queen. If anything in this last paragraph isn't clear to you ("What's 'the square'?") I strongly recommend picking up a basic endgame book (Silman, Pandolfini, or Alburt for example) and getting started.

One possible explanation for my opponent's move is just a silly oversight (I know those all to well), perhaps thinking Black's king wouldn't be able to get into the square of the pawn. It's also possible that they just haven't studied endgames much, and that certain themes such as the square of the pawn or the strength of a protected passer were not yet second-nature. My reason for choosing this position was to demonstrate once again the importance of endgame study: it's not just so that you know the technique required to win a certain endgame, but also so that you can spot transitions to winning endgames...or, to avoid transitions to losing endgames.

By the way, the theme of analyzing the most forcing sequence of moves is foreshadowing for my next mini-book review.

Brief Update: Preparing for Summer

2008-04-19T16:11:00.001-07:00

I've had a couple posts in varying stages of completion for a while now, but between real-life distractions and the amount of work they've turned into, I've delayed posting them for a while.

I hope to post a review of Chess Endgame Training by Bernd Rosen soon (short version: me likey!) and some endgame analysis in about a week. I just wanted to confirm that I'm still alive, and also give myself a little kick in the pants to produce something worth reading soon.

I'm looking forward to summer evenings on the porch with a book and a chessboard, and putting a dent in my list of master games to play through.

Important Addition to Marin's A Spanish Repertoire for Black

2008-04-01T09:47:00.000-07:00

I think that Marin's two-volume opening repertoire based on 1.e4 e5 (Beating the Open Games and A Spanish Repertoire for Black) is amazing, and packed full of chess knowledge. However, the two books are targeted towards either more-advanced players (particularly the latter), or the ambitious student. They're also directed towards main-line players rather than offbeat-variation players. This means that the reader has to plug a lot of holes themselves, as they find that the opponents they encounter at their level frequently play a line not covered.

I just checked qualitychessbooks.com, and found that a 25-page addendum to ASRFB is available for download in .pdf format. It covers, among other gaps, my biggest problem with that book: no discussion of the departure from the Chigorin mainline with 12.d5 (instead of 12.Nbd2). I see the former more than the latter in my online games, and it's the #2 line by statistics (74 out of 1051 Grandmaster games, according to my home-made opening book; 478 out of 6050 games total).

In other news, it appears that the first volume (BTOG) is about to be reissued as a second edition. When I bought it, it contained a 4-page insert covering two omitted lines. It sounds like a combination of popular demand and reader critique has prompted an upgrade. According to the publisher, it should be out very soon (Spring 2008).

It's annoying when you just buy a book and a new edition comes out shortly after. When the second edition of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual came out, I decided that I didn't need to worry about the second edition until I completed the first (which is still a loooooong way off). Also, I've heard the quality of print for the second edition of Dvoretsky wasn't as good. However, Marin's BTOG has become indispensable for me, so I'm looking forward to seeing what's been added in the second edition.

Real chess players will roll their eyes because I've held Dvoretsky on the back burner while salivating over an upgrade to an opening book. Well, like the banner says: Do as I Say, Not as I Do.

Polgar Error

2008-03-21T17:18:00.000-07:00

I was going over some of the basic endgames from L. Polgar's Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games. The book's analysis for Position #5113 is incorrect: Black surprisingly can draw!

White To Play

The provided solution is 1.e8=Q, followed by 1...e1=Q(?) 2.Kf6+ and White wins.

However, Black has a surprising draw if instead they play 1...Ke3!:

At this point, I'd like to quote from Muller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings: "If {a single pawn} has advanced to the seventh rank and is threatening to promote, everything depends on whether the attacking king can assist the queen. With a central pawn, this is almost always possible, no matter how far away the king is." I briefly touched on these endgames in this earlier post.

Here we have an exception to this "almost always" rule. It turns out that White has an unfortunate placement of king and queen. For example, 2.Kf5+ Kf2!

Black's king hides in the shadow of White's, and supports the pawn's promotion. The queen lacks any move that prevents Black from obtaining their own queen (e.g. by delivering check or by pinning the pawn to the king).

I've been entering endgame positions for books into databases. One reason is that I can later play these positions vs. the computer and practice my endgame technique. Another reason is that I can explore variations not mentioned in the books to make sure I understand the positions thoroughly. However, here we can see one final benefit, especially if you have endgame tablebases at your disposal: you can find errors in old analysis and learn new tricks.

Help Finding Pocket Set Replacement

2008-03-07T09:04:00.001-08:00

I bought this pocket set off of the USCF web site sometime around 1995:

I still have all the pieces, which for me is some sort of miracle. However the plastic case is cracking and I'm not sure how much longer it will last.

I'm calling out to the community for help in either identifying a supplier for this pocket set, or the nearest equivalent. Here is what I find special about this set:

The board is metal, not vinyl.
The board does not fold.
The board can be held comfortably in one hand.
The magnets are very strong. There's no chance at all of the position being lost in transit.
A plastic lid snaps on with magnets, protecting the pieces in transit.
The set is thin... roughly 5 mm. Almost thin enough to act as a bookmark:

The only negative thing I can think of is that there is limited room to place pieces not in play. If I'm in the middle of a game and want to save it, I have to creatively place the pieces so that they avoid the spots where the lid's magnets touch the board.

My backup set is a metal case set I grabbed at Starbucks. However, the board is hinged, so there's a barrier wall that runs between the 4th and 5th ranks. The files also don't quite match up where the hinge is, and I find the slight offset a bit distracting. Finally, the magnets aren't as strong as I'd like.

This is your mission, dear readers. Can anyone tell me who the maker of my set was, and if it can still be found? Or, does anyone know of a pocket set that would be a worthy replacement?

Fly, my monkeys! Fly!

Adgj

2008-03-06T07:45:00.001-08:00

Adgj

Edit: Wow, three responses!

I was trying to use the new remote blogging tool for Blogger, and thought I had failed at a test message from my new phone. Didn't check to verify the fail though.

The pictures that I tried to send from my phone will be in my followup post.

Interesting CTB Error

2008-02-23T17:20:00.001-08:00

When using the program Chess Tactics for Beginners, one shouldn't unquestioningly accept their answers. Sometimes there are alternate solutions to the problems that aren't accepted as correct answers. But you should also question their evaluations of variations.

The following problem was interesting. White to draw:

Note: for the following analysis, I'm trying to abide by the Nunn Convention for annotating endgames, hence the extensive use of "!". It's not just me being over-excited. (Technically, some of them might really be "!?", because other moves waste time but don't actually give away the win, but close enough.)

The move 1.Ng1! indeed does lead to a draw, as shown by 1...c1(Q) =. However, the software also gives the following line as a draw: 1...Kf5 2.Ne2 Ke4 3.Kg1 Kd3 4.Kf1 Kd2=. I've checked this with Fritz, and 1...Kf5? actually appears to lose for Black! The main theme appears to be that the white Knight can prevent the c-pawn from promoting (either from e2 or a2, as required) while White queens the h-pawn.

After 1.Ng1!= Kf5?-+ 2.Ne2! Ke4 3.Kg1! Kd3 4.Kf2! (instead of CTB's 4.Kf1?=):

For example, 4...Kd2 5.Kf3! Kd1 6.Nc3+:

It seems clear that Black cannot queen the c-pawn. However, I wasn't ready to trust Fritz yet. I wondered: is it possible that Black can draw the rook-pawn endgame, as I discussed in my previous post? Apparently not. One line continues: 6...Kd2 7.Na2 Ke1 (7...Kd3?! 8.Nb4+. This is a common theme in this, and other knight endgames: some squares such as d3 are "mined" because a king on that square falls victim to a knight fork that wins the offending pawn.) 8.Kg3 Ke2 9.Kxh3 Kf3 10.Kh4 Kf4 11.Kh5 Kf5 12.h4 Kf6 13.Kh6 Kf7 14.h5 Kg8 15.Kg6 Kh8 16.h6 Kg8:

We've followed the drawing procedure for K+RP vs. K, and it looks like Black will draw. However, after 17.Nc1! Kh8 18.Nd3! Kg8 19.h7! Kh8 20.Ne5!:

20...c1=Q 21.Nf7#.

Totally freakin' cool.

Another Example of Applying Basic Endgame Knowledge

2008-02-19T15:49:00.000-08:00

Here's an example from a recent game where knowledge of a basic endgame helped resolve a more complicated position.

In the case of King and Rook's Pawn vs. King, the defender draws if their king gets in front of the rook pawn. Barring that, if the king can reach the B7 or B8 squares (e.g. f7/f8 vs. an h-pawn), it prevents the attacking king from reaching the key N7/N8 squares (e.g. g7/g8 vs. an h-pawn).

{Aside: although I normally use algebraic notation, the old descriptive notation has one advantage in cases such as this: it doesn't matter if we're talking about white or black queening the pawn, or whether it's the queen's or king's rook pawn.}

For example, in the following position:

Black draws if their king gets to one of the green squares; White wins if their king gets to one of the yellow squares. For example, with Black to move in the above position, 1...Kd7 2.Kg5 Ke7 3.Kg6 Kf8! and Black's king reaches the f8 square and secures a draw:

There are two basic drawing ideas from this position: either get the defending king in front of the rook pawn, or trap the attacking king in front of its pawn.

For example, 4.h4 Kg8! and the king reaches the corner:

White, at best, can stalemate Black (e.g. 5.g5 Kh8 6.h6 Kg8 7.h7+ Kh8 8.Kh6 =).

If White tries to get his own king ahead of the pawn, it can be trapped on the h-file, e.g. after 4.Kh7 Kf7!

As long as White's king is on h7 or h8, preventing Black from reaching g8 and h8, Black keeps his king on the drawing f7/f8 squares. Eventually White will either advance his pawn as far as possible and be stalemated, or he'll try to get his king off of the h-file (e.g. moving to g6), which allows Black to play ...Kg8 and reach the previously described drawing scenario.

There is one exception to this rule that the defender will draw by getting to the B7/B8 square first:

Here, 1.h7! prevents 1...Kg8 and wins.

Studying basic endgames allows you to spot favorable transitions (or avoid unfavorable transitions) to them from more complicated endgames. An example occurred in one of my recent ICC games, where I had White:

If White chooses to capture the d-pawn, does he have to be afraid about Black trading off all the rooks and threatening to queen the h-pawn? {Fritz actually prefers 39.Rg2+!, but we'll let that slide}. No. After 39.Rxd4 Rxd4+ 40.Rxd4 Rxd4+? (Keeping a rook offers the best defensive chances for Black), 41.Kxd4+- Kxf5:

Black has traded down to a lost pawn endgame. On the kingside, we have the standard draw vs. a rook's pawn. However, White has a majority on the queen's side, which wins on its own. The game concluded: 42.b4 (no rush) Kg4 43.Ke4 (or 43.a4--still no need to rush) Kh3 44.Kf3 Kxh2 45.Kf2:

and now the win is clear. The game concluded 45...Kh3 46.a4 Kg4 47.b5 axb5 48.axb5 h4 49.b6 h3 50.b7 h2 51.Kg2 1-0.

If you've avoided studying endgames up to this point, hear me now and believe me later: mastering these basic positions will help your chess.

Reference: Secrets of Pawn Endings, by Muller and Lamprecht

Deceptive Tactic

2008-02-18T14:59:00.000-08:00

It took me a few minutes to solve this tactic from "Chess Tactics for Beginners":

The reason is that this looks like it's set up to be the old "windmill" or "see-saw" tactic: rook moves along a rank or file to deliver a discovered check; king moves; rook returns to original square to check. This is normally combined with other threats, such as merely gobbling material with the rook. I was thinking, "well, this is a tactics problem, the answer must involve this tactic" and kept trying to make it work.

Here, rook moves along the 7th rank or the g-file don't accomplish anything. I briefly wondered if the trick was to set up a winning zugzwang after moving the rook, but (for example) 1.Ra7+ Kg8 2.Bg7 can be met by 2...Rf7=.

Then I realized that a safe king move would also put black in zugzwang. Correct is 1.Ka2! Only the black rook can move, and it will be lost to the discovered check (e.g. 1...Ra8+ 2.Ra7+).

However, 1.Kb1 doesn't work, because here the white rook can't block the check after 1...Rf1+, e.g. 2.Ka2 Rf8.

The hardest part of this problem was letting go of my preconception of what the solution must involve, and postponing the "obvious" windmill pattern for one move. Sometimes familiarity with standard tactical motifs can blind you to other tactical possibilities.

Interesting Sicilian Tactic

2008-02-13T12:05:00.000-08:00

I've set my formula on ICC to play opponents 0-200 points higher than my current rating, and I'm seeing games where the opening resembles something "normal", including a lot more open Sicilians. So far, the Sicilian/Najdorf hybrids seem pretty common, although they seem to leave book quite early. I've been playing Sicilian systems with Bc4, f4, and kingside castling for the most part. I should reread the sections in Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess on the e4-e5 and f4-f5 breaks, since that's a key issue in a lot of my Sicilians.

The following position occurred in a recent ICC game:

I dismissed 14.fxe6, which Fritz discovered, because I thought the exchanges relieved the tension and gave Black a freer game. It turns out that the main line seems to lead to about a pawn advantage for White after 14...Bxe6, but the line isn't very forcing so I forgive myself for not seeing this at the board. What's more interesting is that the alternate recapture 14...fxe6 is a tactical blunder. The reason is the nasty move 15.Nf5!:

There's a few motifs here that I should remember for future games. One is the possibility of a pin on the a2-g8 diagonal allowing a piece to hop into f5. Another is that the bishop on e7 is often insufficiently protected. When lines open up, these factors may come into play.

Here, the knight move is possible because the e5 pawn is pinned. Mate on g7 is threatened, as is the knight fork on e7.

If Black tries to defend by playing 15...Rf7:

White has the simple "removal of the guard" tactic 16. Nxe7+ Rxe7 17. Rxf6, since the g7 pawn is pinned.

Another defensive try is 15...Ng6:

But a removal-of-the-guard/counting tactic gives White the clear advantage: 16. Qxg6! hxg6 17. Nxe7+ Kh7 18. Nxc8. After the knight is recaptured White is a piece up and has a great position to boot.

Back with New Year's Resolutions

2008-01-17T16:19:00.001-08:00

I took a bit of a break from chess and blogging after Christmas, but I'm starting to get back into it. If you sent email in the last couple weeks, my apologies for the delay in responding.

I'm going to start the year with stating a few of my chess resolutions for the coming year, which will hopefully help keep me "on the wagon".

Things to do:

Play slow games against Fritz to practice consistency

Resume playing through master games. I'm thinking I should set a goal of at least one per day

Work on tactics, especially tougher problems. Key references: Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames, Anthology of Chess Middlegames, Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics, Tal's Winning Chess Combinations, and CT-ART

When tempted to play a few quick blitz games, substitute the above tactical exercises

Work my way through Muller's Rook Endgame DVD, entering all the examples into ChessBase and playing the positions versus the computer

Start analyzing my blitz games without a chess engine, and then check my analysis with a chess engine.

Play more rated tournaments

Things not to do:

Late-night ICC blitz benders

Now I need to get off my butt and get some instructive posts up. Thanks for your patience.

ZOMG WTB l33t Chessbase h4xX0r Skillz!

2007-12-27T15:31:00.000-08:00

Translated: "Jeepers! I wish to obtain elite Chessbase hacking skills!"

Whereas my DVD on the French Defense by Ziegler has a spiffy database of annotated games that's easily accessed, the King Powerplay and the Muller Endgame DVDs have the game fragments embedded in the multimedia lessons.

I would like to be able to access the chessbase content itself, directly, for a couple reasons:

1. You can't enter your own variations. You can't hit pause and then say, "Yeah, but what if I play..." and explore your own line of inquiry.

2. I want to play the positions over versus Fritz.

The only way I've found to circumvent this is to pause each lesson (preferably near the end of the discussion, so all variations that were covered are present) and then use "save as..." to save it to a .cbh file of my own creation. It's a bit cumbersome, but it works.

One trick you can then do is open two game windows: one with the multimedia lesson playing, and another with your saved copy. You can right-click on the bottom of your screen in Windows and select "Tile windows vertically" (or horizontally, but I prefer the former) and get something that looks like this:

(I have no idea what happened to Muller's video image in the left window. Depending on what copy of the image file I was using, you could either see the bottom half of his head or nothing at all. Weird.)

The left window is the video lesson, and the right window is my own copy, with personal annotations and with Fritz+5-man tablebases providing assistance. With the above setup, I can pause the lesson at any point, and in my own game window check the variations with Fritz (hooray for tablebases!) and add my own commentary and variations. This is good, because when Muller gets the bit in his teeth he goes through variations at breakneck speed. Some of the endgames towards the end of his first DVD were just crazy. "check check check andnowdoyouseeit ofcourse! decisivezugzwangdecisivezugzwangdecisivezugzwang and the game is over decisivezugzwang decisevezugswang and...fatal...zugzwang"

Also, Muller very frequently points out positions that he feels should be played against Fritz or people at the chess club, in order to master them. You can indicate these moments in your copy of the game, and later load them into Fritz and practice them.

I very strongly recommend using such a two-window approach when viewing DVD lessons.

How Far to Take Post-Mortem Analysis?

2007-12-25T14:01:00.000-08:00

{I'm on the road for Christmas, and decided to post this with some minimal editing. I actually did end up taking some endgame resources with me--Karsten Muller's DVDs as well as Smyslov and Levenfish plus Chess Endgame Training by Bernd Rosen, which I may review in the near future.}

This post was partially prompted by BDK's question on how much time you should spend analyzing a game. The short answer, in my opinion, is: analyze it until you've learned about as much from it as you're going to. If it's "I blundered my queen in the opening and resigned", your work is limited: check what the best or book move would have been, understand the tactic or oversight that was responsible, resolve not to repeat it, and move on.

Then there's cases such as the following.

I'm going to show an extreme case of where analysis of a game may take you. This could have been a "throwaway" ICC blitz game, but there was a lot of information to mine from it. You get spared the scholarly dissection of the opening that I'd normally perform, because I uncharacteristically deviate from my repertoire on move 2. Instead I'll focus on how the game highlights weaknesses in my play, and suggests areas worthy of study.

Relentless Bastard-Grandpatzer, ICC 2007

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6

This is quite uncharacteristic. My repertoire move is 2... Bc5. It turns out to be a happy experiment.

3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. d3

I actually like the feel of this position. I intend to go back to playing 2...Bc5, but I feel that 2...Nc6 could be a good repertoire move. I imagine White players wouldn't be as prepared for it, although I have no idea what advice repertoire books for the King's Gambit give against 2...Nc6. This is an example of a place where you, a chess engine and a chess database could arrive at your own opening repertoire.

5...Na5

The logic being, "If he's willing to surrender the bishop pair, go for it." This is a common theme in these 1.e4 e5 openings. Apparently here ...Na5 is a novelty, suggesting it's not actually appropriate here. 5... Bg4 appears to be the main move. The pin strengthens e5, and it's a developing move. Challenging with h2-h3 would weaken White's kingside, yet I see Topalov has played it: Topalov,V-Morgenstern,H, Frankfurt 1997.

5... Be7 also appears to be common in this position, e.g. Larsen,B -Najdorf,M, Buenos Aires 1979.

6. Bb3 Nxb3 7.axb3 and here I ignore the threat to e5 by playing 7...Be7, which Fritz surprisingly agrees with. After 8. fxe5:

8... Ng4

Fritz prefers 8...dxe5. Both lead to positions where Black has the bishop pair, a two tempi lead in development (the customary rule of thumb is that three tempi is worth a pawn), and saddled White with darksquare weaknesses, whereas White has an extra pawn and a mobile pawn center.

Fritz surprisingly finds 8...dxe5 9. Nxe5 O-O to be about equal, suggesting a sound sacrifice.

9. exd6 Qxd6 and I don't think White had to be afraid of castling here, although the future development of the queenside pieces looks awkward. However, my opponent played 10. h3??

White already had serious darksquare weaknesses. Isn't this the sort of thing King's Gambit practitioners try to avoid? 10. Qg3+! 11. Kd2 Qxg2+ 12. Qe2 Qxh1 13. hxg4?! Bxg4 14. Nc3?

This is the first of many critical moments where Black, bit by bit, lets slip his overwhelming advantage by not finding the best move. I would be hard pressed to find a more extreme example of my thematic obtain-overwhelming-advantage-and-pee-it-all-away style of play Remember this position and compare Black's crushing advantage here to the game result.

14. Qxf3?!

The logic here was that, if I'm going to win the knight, I may as well offer to trade queens to simplify to a won endgame. 14... Bxf3! is actually clearly superior, e.g. 15. Qe3 Qg2+! 16. Ne2 (16. Ke1 Bh4+ 17. Qf2 Qxf2#) 16... Bg5 {and it's Good Night, Irene.

15. Qxf3 Bxf3 16. Nd5 Bg5+ (the bishop move looked good, but it seems that it would have been better to batten down the hatches and not allow ...Nxc7, e.g. 16...Bd8 or 16...Bd6) 17. Kc3

17...Bxc1 I felt I could let him have his knight fork, because it helps me simplify to a won endgame. 18. Nxc7+?! (18.
Rxc1) 18... Kd7 19. Nxa8

This is an instructive moment. My idea of allowing ...Nxc7 was correct, but it required a zweichenzug finesse to make it clearly good:

19...Bxb2+ ?

19... Rc8+ !? This or the immediate ...Be3 saves the bishop while the knight remains trapped. A typical "he takes, I take..." exchange series calculation oversight. Play might continue 20. Kb4 Rxc2.

20. Kxb2 Rxa8 Black is still a bishop and a pawn up 21. Rg1 Rg8

21... Bh5!? surprisingly works, because 22. Rxg7 Bg6 traps the rook.

22. c4

22...a5?!
I seriously considered Fritz's 22...g5! in the game but I wanted to try and put some brakes on White's pawn advance first.

23. Ka3 Kc6 24. Ka4 b6 25. Rg3 Be2 26. d4 f6 27. Re3 Bh5 28. e5

28...Re8

Fritz-approved, but maybe too tricksy for Blitz. I didn't like the looks of 28... fxe5 29. dxe5, but it's really OK: e.g. 29... g5 30. e6 g4.

29. e6 Re7

Throughout this sequence I'm ignoring active play (pushing my kingside pawns) in favor of prophylactic play. This is a recurring theme in my games....not pushing pawns early enough. At this point I'm planning to play my Bishop to the a4-e8 diagonal and sac it if necessary for a passed pawn or two. Again, I'm in the mindset that I have the luxury of jettisoning material to make the endgame simpler.

30. d5+ Kc5 31. Rd3 Be8+ 32. Ka3 b5 33. cxb5

33...Kxb5 (Fritz found the far less emo 33... Kd6! The king blockades and Black will gain the b-pawn. The bishop sac is not essential) 34. d6 Rxe6 35. d7 Bxd7 {the planned sac of the bishop} 36. Rxd7 g5 37. Rxh7

This is the start of the rook endgame that I could spend a lot of time on. Black should be good here, but two features strike me as important: White's rook is behind the passers, while Black's defends from the side; Black's king is better poised to dash over to the kingside, but neither king wants to leave their queenside pawn and allow a passed a- or b- pawn.

37...f5 38. Rg7 g4

One factor I need to determine is whether the f- or the g-pawn leads. I know when the attacking king is there, it's typical to lead with the outside pawn and tuck the king in the short-side hole. For the defense, a typical fortress seems to be where the defending king is on f4 with a rook on the 4th rank. I have seen in endgame books that the case of a g- and an h-pawn is the most drawish, and there are fortresses like this to watch out for. I intend to bone up on this material.

39. Rg5 Rf6

Following the rule that rooks belong behind passed pawns. A cursory glance at these types of endgames indicates that there's a lot of exceptions, and in some cases having the attacking rook in front of the pawns can even work.

39... Re5 seems clearly best. The a-pawn will be protected, allowing the Black king to invade, and it also cuts the white king off from the kingside.

40. Kb2 Kb4 41.Kc2

We can see the problem emerging...White threatens to get his king in
front of the pawns. 41...Ka3 42. Kc3 a4?

I thought if I free my king (as well as his) from kingside defense that it made the win easier. It made the win harder or maybe even disappear. 42... Rc6+ (Fritz) appears to lead to the win.

43. bxa4 Kxa4 44. Kd4 Kb4 45. Ke5 Rf8 46. Kf4

Fritz is giving this a +2.38 still for Black, but this is looking like a draw {if you're not accustomed to the idisyncracies of computers, you need to realize that you can't rely on such an evaluation in an endgame. If the computer sees a material advantage, but can't see how to convert it via queening a pawn and/or mate, the line is still unclear.} Part of my homework for this game is studying these types of fortresses.

The game concluded: 46...Kc4 47. Rg7 Kd5 48. Re7 Kd6 49. Re3 Kd5 50. Re7 Rf6 51. Re1 Re6?! (or ?, depending on whether you thought Black still had winning chances) 52. Rd1+ Kc6 53. Kxf5 Re8 1/2-1/2

Compare this result to Black's position to that on move 14. Unfortunately, this game is all too representative of my style of play: obtain advantage, then fail to find the best moves and return material "to simplify to a won endgame".

Now, if you've read this far you may wonder why I said this was "extreme". Maybe an unusual amount of analysis for a blitz game, but not extreme.

What makes this extreme is that the analysis is not done, and there are several levels of "extreme" that I could justify passing through to get closer to the "truth" of this endgame.

I can't help but feel that a grandmaster would look at the position after White's 37th move and know exactly what's going on, and how each side must play. But the position is not one that you're likely to find described in an endgame book. The positions where the game has simplified down to two connected passers are more fundamental.

One less extreme option is to study these g+h-pawn endgames, see how the defender draws, and try to extrapolate to the case in my game.

A more extreme option is to open up Muller and Lamprecht, or Fine, or Dvoretsky, and work through the pertinent sections on R+2P vs. R endgames.

Another is to finally crack open Smyslov and Levenfish's "Rook Endings" and finally read the bastard cover to cover.

All of these options could be justified. Rook endgames are the most common, so even the last option mentioned isn't that extreme.

I think a characteristic of good players is that they don't put off learning something for a rainy day. They analyze their games and try to find the best moves for each side, and if something is unclear they try to figure it out. Here, I think that at least studying a few of the typical drawing fortresses is warranted, and I think I'll take this opportunity to brush up on my rook endgames in general.

I happen to have Muller's rook endgame DVD on order anyway, so I think I'm going to start with looking at the g+h-pawn endgames and then watch the DVD. But I think Smyslov and Levenfish is going to find its way into my luggage for my Christmas vacation.

Daniel King's Powerplay Series: Like Steroids, But Legal

2007-12-13T20:01:00.001-08:00

I'm about halfway through the first DVD in Daniel King's Powerplay series. I had viewed the second and third DVDs earlier this year, which deal with how to go about conducting an attack. I had found that the DVDs had a pronounced effect on my play, and that I had absorbed and retained a fair amount of the material.

I had postponed getting the first DVD on mating paterns, because I felt I had enough books on the subject and that I wouldn't gain that much from the DVD. After playing through much of the DVD, I realize...I was half right. Objectively, the material is "old hat". For example, the Greek Gift sacrifice is covered quite well in such works as Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess, and Znozko-Borovsky's The Art of Chess Combination (both classics). I thought that the material on the Lasker double-bishop sacrifice was a bit skimpy as well. The videos are very enjoyable to watch, although in this first DVD there was some clumsiness early on as King figured out how the technology worked (aside: what does Chessbase have against editing?). Based solely on the content, however, I would think that the DVD was intended for beginners that hadn't studied mating patterns much (although the level of commentary indicates a more advanced target audience).

However, after going down to the chess club I found that once again King's DVD had planted ideas in my mind, and I had many successful attacks in my games. The Greek gift motif popped up in one of them, where I pushed h2-h4 to secure a g5 knight. Again, I found that although I was not consciously trying to be an attacker, or trying to force an attack where it wasn't justified, I was finding attacking motifs and applying them.

I feel that the DVD format, while perhaps delivering only a fraction of the information that a good book would, delivers that information more efficiently and more memorably. I've been highly satisfied with the other DVDs I've viewed (Ziegler's on the French Defense, and Muller's first endgame DVD). However, King's DVDs seem to have reached into my head and reprogrammed my brain. I feel like Neo from the Matrix....someone downloads a library into my skull and suddenly I know kung-fu.

The effect is pronounced enough that I may consider adding future Powerplay DVDs to my collection. Again, objectively the subject material (opening play; pawn structures) is adequately covered by book material I already have... but I'm left wondering if King has magic to work here as well.

I'll try to update this once I've finished the DVD. I also now have Muller's second and third endgame DVDs, and will likely review them at some point.

A Bit Demoralized

2007-12-10T12:09:00.001-08:00

I've had another post almost ready to go for a couple weeks now, and haven't gotten around to wrapping it up and posting it. I've been a bit demoralized, and for what should objectively be a trivial reason: my ICC blitz rating.

I've gone on jags before where I play lousy, my rating tanks, then I get serious again and it returns to normal. I've never really obsessed over my rating before. However, in the last two weeks I've had a losing streak the likes I've never seen. My rating plummeted to over 400 points below its highest, and 300 points where it normally resides. Normally I just knuckle down, focus, and my rating returns to normal. I've played a LOT of games now. It's entrenched. What makes it harder to understand is that it's not simply a matter of increased blundering...I'm feeling much stronger resistance from lower rated players.

Assuming that there hasn't been a sudden ratings deflation, I can only assume that this is psychological in origin. So, I think it's time to just quit blitz cold turkey for now and work on other things. I keep putting off the #1 thing on my list of things to do to improve: play slow games against a dumbed-down Fritz, and write out my analysis. Maybe this is the kick in the pants I need.

I received some DVDs for my birthday (the first Daniel King Power Play that I had skipped getting, plus the second and third Karsten Muller endgame DVDs). I hope to go through all of them before leaving for Christmas, so I may be reviewing them soon.

Let's see how long I can stay on the wagon.

Why I Don't Accept Tells on ICC

2007-12-04T16:04:00.001-08:00

A long time ago I stopped accepting tells on ICC during games. Part of me feels bad about this, because I know I'm filtering out greetings like:

"Hello! My name is Paulo, and I am 11 years old. I am from Brazil. Where do you live?"

but poor Paulo's words meet a wall of cold silence.

Unfortunately, there are enough idiots on "Teh Intertubes" that I feel it's necessary.

Case in point: in a K+P vs. K endgame, I was about to promote the pawn, but my opponent didn't resign yet. That's totally fine...I have no hatred for people that are prepared to fight all the way to checkmate. I decided to underpromote to a rook just to practice the mating technique.

We reach a position where his king is in the corner, he has one legal move, and it will be followed by mate. He has over 7 minutes on the clock, to my 5.

After no response for a while, I decided I at least had 5 minutes to unload the dishwasher. My opponent let the clock run down to about 1 minute, then moved.

I immediately mated him, and got the following response:

(click for a larger view...if anyone knows how to circumvent this auto-shrinking Blogger does, let me know)

This amused me so much I had to share it, for two reasons:

1. He ran down the clock, and then complained about the game being a waste of time.

2. Why does he think I don't accept tells during games? Here's a hint for him: look in the mirror.

Feel free to respond to this post and share your most "my head a-splode" examples of idiotic behavior by online opponents.

You've Been Spared

2007-12-01T12:12:00.000-08:00

With a heavy heart, the B vs. N endgame post I've spent far too much time on is being swept under the rug. As fascinating as it was, I just wasn't able to turn it into something clear and instructive.

I strongly recommend that, in your analysis of your own games, you spend some time on the endgames. After the game, make a note of what moves you felt (with 20/20 hindsight) were the key winners and losers, and then analyze them later with the help of a computer. Ask lots of "what if..." questions and follow the lines out.

One benefit is that, as you play through the possible variations, you tend to simplify to more basic endgames, and you get practice analyzing and solving them. Another is that you see how a more complicated endgame can transpose to a simpler one. Some beginners may have the attitude that studying a position that is unlikely to arise in their own games isn't worth their time. After you've studied endgames for a bit, you realize that:

a) certain types of endgames do arise fairly often (rook endgames and some basic pawn endgames, for example), and

b) that a big reason for studying basic endgames is being able to spot winning transpositions to won (or at least advantageous) endings. For example, you may realize after swapping minor pieces that your outside passed pawn should win for you. Or, given the choice of leaving your opponent with one of two pawns, you choose to leave him with the rook pawn because you know how to draw that King-plus-Rook-Pawn vs. King ending.

I'm working on a rook endgame at the moment and hope to have that posted soonish.

Seeking Clarity

2007-11-17T09:50:00.000-08:00

I've been trying to finish a couple posts on endgames, but each time I try to wrap it up I find interesting twists. I'm going to push to get them done this weekend.

In other news, I've been playing at the local club and I'm fairly pleased with my play. A few things are clear though:

I really need to summon the gumption to play long games against Fritz to ingrain my thinking technique. The last game was a complex one, but I lost a winning game against a strong player because on just one move I inadequately answered the question, "what does my opponent's last move do for him?"

Don't skimp on "easy tactic" drills. In my last game (g/60 + 5 sec increment, which is still too fast for my liking) we were down to 13 minutes each, and I was trying to keep the thinking time short enough to allow for a possible endgame. My opponent's tactic should have been picked up in a few seconds of scanning the board.

Don't skimp on "hard tactic" drills. This is probably the most important. I'm finding that a lot of the times I'm calculating tactics that I end up with fuzzy impressions rather than concrete answers. These are cases where the tree of variations has a number of branches, and I have to calculate multiple responses for both my opponent and I. Later, with Fritz, I'll see that it the answer is clear, when I should have been able to achieve that clarity myself.

The last two are reminiscent of my "Mental Muscle" article, and show I need to do more weightlifting.

In addition to master games and playing Fritz, a few resources strike me as being particularly good material for practicing calculation:

CT-ART (natch), the Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames, and the Anthology of Chess Middlegames have some problems featuring forcing lines, but a lot of the problems require calculating multiple defensive resources. In particular, Part I ofECM seems to be about the right level for me. I would probably use it more if it were more legible (faded, out-of-print copy).

I've seen players using Hall's Endgame Challenge! book, and these endgames seem like excellent training, especially if you can play them against someone else or, failing that, the computer.

Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics, if you're up to a vigorous workout, or just for the schadenfreude of seeing grandmasters screw up.

Chess Tempo (Tactics Webpage)

2007-11-01T12:36:00.000-07:00

I found out about an alternative to the Chess Tactics Server today (hat tip to BDK from his comment on Polly's blog here). I've added it to my sidebar.

Besides a better layout, it has separate ratings for accuracy and speed of solution. One of my beefs with the CTS is that you have to solve the problems within a few seconds, so if you're trying to train yourself not to make hasty moves it can be counter-productive.

The Perfect Example of How I Lose

2007-10-30T11:00:00.000-07:00

I had two memorable bishop vs. knight endgames recently on ICC (g/2+12).

One appears to be quite instructive, and I still have a lot of analysis to do. I'll post the results soonish.

The other could be a diagnostic that highlights how my brain is broken.

Earlier in the game I, as White, faced this moment:

If the kingside pawn structure remained fluid, I was worried about Black's king penetrating...something like 28. Nf6 Ba6 29. Nd7 Bf1 30. g3 Kh5, although this specific line is thwarted by 31. Nf8!. I therefore decided on 28.g4.

My analysis was: Black's king will have no way to penetrate into my position (I felt the queenside would be sewed shut as well, or that by the time his king got there my knight would eat whatever was abandoned). His "bad" bishop will become active, but the only targets will be the kingside pawns. As long as my king stays there, this is at least a draw.

Later on, I even manage to win a pawn and gain a protected passer, although it's still probably a draw because my king can't penetrate either:

All through this endgame, I have been thinking "the only way White can lose is to let the bishop take his kingside pawns." This is a very good endgame technique, by the way. When trying to figure out how to win or draw, first determine how you can lose. So with that in my mind, and with plenty of time on the clock, I play the waiting move

43. Ke3??

which of course allows 43...Bf1 and I resigned a couple moves later.

This is akin to repeating the mantra, "look both ways before you cross the street" as you stare straight ahead, step off the curb and get schmucked by a bus.

There's games where you can't understand where you went wrong (a rarity to me), games where the correct moves were difficult to find, and games where your errors were obvious if you had just considered your opponent's response.

And then there's my games, where you clearly see the threat and then simply walk into it.

I am at a loss for how to explain this, or correct it. I think I simply own a defective brain.

Memorable Moves

2007-10-20T08:57:00.000-07:00

I don't have the world's greatest memory. I don't routinely come across a middlegame plan and recall a specific classic game. So, when I'm playing a game and have one of these flashes of recollection, it suggests that a certain move or plan had an impact on me.

Here's an idea that I've encountered several times in my own games. It's not particularly flashy, but it has extra impact when you've been the victim of it:

Paulsen-Morphy, New York 1857
White to play

White wanted to play d4, but played 12.c3 to prepare it. It was necessary to play 12.d3 first, then c2-c3 and d3-d4. The problem with taking the "fast route" to playing the pawn to d4 was shown by Morphy's response:

12...Qd3!

which puts a terrible cramp on White's position:

It's not a flashy move, winning material or threatening mate, but it's quite powerful. I have fallen victim to this move myself, and I've also been able to recall this game and avoid this scenario.

After a bit of tardiness on my part, I'm trying to get back on track with my study of master games. I hope to post more extraordinary (to me) moves as I encounter them.

What moves from classic games have had a special impact on you? Feel free to respond with your own. If you post it on your blog, I'll add a link in this post.

Using ChessBase's "Repertoire Database" Feature, Part 2

2007-10-18T14:41:00.000-07:00

Link to Part 1

Here, I'm going to describe how I created a repertoire database and how I maintain it. It's based on the following premises:

1. The database should be relevant to your own games, not necessarily grandmaster praxis. If your opponents are more likely to play the Steinitz or Cozio variations of the Spanish rather than the main-line Closed Spanish, then your repertoire database should reflect this.

2. Studying the opening should be largely driven by the analysis of your own games.

3. A main reason for maintaining a repertoire is to record what you have chosen to play in a given circumstance, and to record what you've encountered in the past.

The method I'm advocating is to start a "lean" database similar to that described in my previous post, and then to add to this skeletal database as you play games. I've constructed a "lean" database of some key Spanish opening variations, plus a couple Philidor positions (for reasons I'll explain later). Again, click on any graphic to see the larger version.

These are positions I would encounter as White. I've also decided to include a couple main lines: the Worrall for White and the Closed Spanish, Chigorin Defense as Black. If you've read my series on preparing an opening, you'll see that I advocate determining a "main line" that you would play against your opponent's "best" moves, and then build from there. As you determine these main lines, you can record them in your repertore.

The naming system is similar to that in Lopez's articles. The general opening description is in the "White player" field, and the moves are entered into the "Black player" field. If you run out of room there, you can continue into the "Tournament" field. The more descriptive the entry in the White Player field, the more you can truncate. For example, if I'm familiar with the main-line of the Worrall I could perhaps just have "Spanish: Worrall mainline to 10.Re1" and save the Black and Tournament fields for more detailed continuations. Also, if some responses are forced or very common I could consider skipping over them (e.g. for Bird's defense I could just put 5.0-0 in the Black field). What's important is that you can look at the game header and know exactly what position it deals with.

If you are familiar with the Medals feature of ChessBase, you can use them to deliver additional information at a glance. I have the following reminder saved as a text entry in my personal repertoire:

For this database, I am going to interpret the medals as follows:

In White repertoire: Defense (light grey)
In Black repertoire: Tactical Blunder (black)
Novelty: Novelty (blue)
Surprise weapon (rare or tricky line): Tactics (deep red)
Require Research: User (cyan) (easy to mark in a game list with + key)
Gambit: Sacrifice (bright red)

So, for example, in a mish-mash of French Defense lines I can tag which ones I may encounter as White by tagging the key opening move with the "Defense" medal. If I've decided I need to think about a certain line, I can just highlight the game in the database window and hit "+" on the numerical keypad, and it automatically assigns the "User" medal to the entire game. I can use these medals to also mark which lines are my own "home cooking" as opposed to standard book lines.

(Aside: deciding on the main lines you want to play can involve some reflection and study. I have recently taken to creating a database that I call "Laboratory" and save ponder-worthy lines to it, and then later determine what my main line will be. When I've worked it out, I transfer the result to my repertoire database).

In these lines, the critical opening positions so far are marked at a position I would reach, with my opponent to play. This means that if I do a repertoire search, I will get games returned that show where I've stayed "in book". You can also mark positions that your opponent would reach and where you are to play. A repertoire search then could return games where your opponent was "in book" and where you may have deviated. When considering whether to have a line for a certain critical position in the database, ask yourself if you would be interested in a search result for that position. This may not be clear until you've actually done a few practice searches, so don't sweat it for now.

So, what's wrong with the repertoire database lineup shown above? Well, let's do a test search using an issue of The Week in Chess. The results:

1. Philidor (3.d4): 12 games
2. Spanish: Steinitz (4.d4): 2 games
3. Spanish: 92 games

As I mentioned in my previous post, the order that the games appear in the database is of critical importance. Here, the only subvariation of the Spanish that appeared above the "catch-all" Spanish position (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5) was the Steinitz. All non-Steinitz games got caught in that filter.

I sort my repertoire database manually, approximately by the ECO code, but tweak the sort orders to avoid search problems. For example, I manually moved the games around to the following order, and fixed them in this position by selecting "Tools-->Fix Sort Order". It re-saves the database with the new game order. It now looks like:

Which now returns a more useful search result:

12 Philidors
2 Steinitz
1 Berlin
3 Worralls
1 Chigorin
77 Spanish

The last entry shows all the Spanish variations that didn't match one of our specific variations. Further additions to the repertoire database will tweeze them apart.

However, you still have to be careful about transpositions, and there isn't much you can do about that. For example, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nc6, I play by transposing to the Spanish Steinitz with 3.Bb5. Yet any games that I played in this line would be filed under the Philidor if I used the repertoire database shown here. In some cases you can bump the less-likely move order further down the list, but that can get messy, especially when dealing with big ECO differences such as here. Alternatively, you can make a new Philidor entry for the moves up to 3...Nc6, and annotate it so as to point out the transposition there. This is one area where programs like Bookup and Chess Position Trainer have an advantage...they catch all transpositions for you.

I do not recommend that you attempt to enter your entire repertoire into the database...it's not worth your time. Put in a few of the lines you commonly see, and try a few "generate repertoire" scans on your databases to make sure you're doing it right. Then, as you play games and analyze them, you can add the results. Here's a couple of examples on how you may go about adding to the repertoire database shown above. This will also highlight how I think one should approach studying the opening.

On a game-by-game basis, you can load your game into ChessBase for analysis. As part of your analysis, you can find out where the game left the main lines, and where it left all previous knowledge, by right-clicking on the board and selecting "Editorial Annotation(RR)":

In this case, I had a Philidor with 3...Bg4, which currently is not in my repertoire database. In the course of my analysis, I tried to determine a main line and where I could have played better.

I'm using a custom opening book that I made from grandmaster games as ChessBase's default opening book, plus the ChessBase megabase as the reference database. The Editorial Annotations tend to show where you deviated from the best book lines, and from the entire megabase (marking the first new move with an "N" for novelty). This is no substitute for an independent assessment...you should determine for yourself what you'd like to play. But it's a quick and dirty way of seeing where you went off the beaten path.

Here, my moves seemed reasonable. My 7th move was passable, and one GM played 7.c3 here. However, the reference database shows 7.Qb3! to be the most common move here, and Fritz shows that it's winning.

How you choose to save these results to your database is up to you, but here is how I would approach it:

1. The move 3...Bg4 deserves its own entry. With some experience in these lines, I can tell you it's a common move at my level so it's good to be able to play consistently here. 4.dxe5 will usually prompt Black to play 4...Bxf3, because of the threat of 4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Nxe5. After 4...Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5, Black has given up the bishop pair. So I would enter this game into the repertoire database:

I've included my moves up to 6.Bc4, because it constitutes my chosen "main line" response. For this minor variation I don't feel compelled to analyze out to the end of the opening...this position is already comfortable for White. However, I missed a critical response to my opponent's subsequent play. Depending on its importance, I could choose not to record it (tactical oversight), incorporate it as a game footnote, or give it its own entry. I think that since it was missed by a Grandmaster, and because Black's erroneous move feels natural, it deserves its own entry.

One option is to go back to the actual game, and right-click on the board and select "Add to Repertoire". If you select "Merge with Philidor Defense: 3...Bg4" it will appear as a variation in that entry. I think it's more important than that, so I create a new entry for the line up to 6.Bc4. I then go back to the actual game, and select "add to repertoire" to add my own inferior game to the repertoire. The result:

I like to include the games where I didn't play the best move in my repertoire databases, for a few reasons. One is that it helps to cement the variation in your mind. Another is that you may find that you repeatedly make the same mistake, indicating you need to think about the line a bit more. Finally, if you perform a "find position in " function, it will determine if you've had the position before even if it's not part of the repertoire main lines.

If you're tardy (like I've been) or just starting out, you can also generate a repertoire of a batch of your games, and look to see where the filter is getting badly clogged. This either indicates a gap in your repertoire database that can be filled using your own games, or indicates a possible problem with the sort order that needs to be tweaked. I go through, analyze the games, and add new entries to my repertoire as needed. When working on a batch, I flag each completed game with the User medal to indicate that I've already taken care of it.

This is taken from an actual repertoire search of my backlog of ICC games:

I see that I played 3 Pozianis. I can click on each game individually, or load all three. The latter produces a window like this:

I preview the games here, then open individual game windows for them if they need to be annotated/added to repertoire/saved separately. Don't try to annotate in this 3-game view... the save/replace buttons are greyed out and you'll lose all your work.

When I'm done reviewing, analyzing, and saving the results wherever they belong (personal game collection, repertoire database, tactics, blunders, endgames, whatever) I click on the game in the game list and hit "+" on the number keypad to flag the game with the cyan user medal, so I know that I've taken care of it. If I resume reviewing my games at a later date I can tell at a glance if I've taken care of a game or not.

Currently GrandpatzerBase is at 390 entries and growing. Many of these openings have multiple variations, indicating I've experienced them more than once or found them ponder-worthy. One advantage of such a database is that it indicates if you keep making the same mistake. Each time you enter your faulty play into the database, and you see your previous foibles, it reinforces that you need to understand the position better.

If you've never saved and analyzed your games before (even blitz), you have no idea how much knowledge gained from experience you're letting slip through your fingers...and not just opening theory, but tactics, strategy and endgames too. I haven't been as zealous with the last three (my tactics, blunders and endgame databases are much smaller), but one advantage of starting a repertoire database is that it encourages you to sit down and start looking at your games. Once you've checked out the opening, keep on going through the game....spot tactical errors with Fritz, ponder the positional factors, analyze the endgame.

To summarize: the purpose of the GrandpatzerBase-style repertoire is not to book up on theory. Its purposes are:

To keep track of what main lines you've decided to play as your repertoire
To record the opening lines you've experienced in the past, and your thoughts and analysis on them.
To focus your opening study on the lines you encounter in your own games
To allow you to search databases for games that pertain to your repertoire
To encourage you to analyze your own games routinely and thoroughly

There's a time investment to get your repertoire database set up and to figure out how to use the software, but once it's up and running it's easy to maintain if you're diligent about analyzing your games.

Using ChessBase's "Repertoire Database" Feature, Part 1

2007-10-09T09:16:00.000-07:00

The Repertoire features of ChessBase are potentially very useful, yet frustratingly difficult to implement. I'm going to explain what you can do with such a database, and how you may wish to construct one. Some of this has been determined "by guess and by golly", but I think I've gotten most of the kinks worked out.

In this part, I'm going to briefly explain what a repertoire database is and how it can be used. I will also construct a "low-resolution, low-maintenance" sample database to show one approach to using this feature.

In a future post, I'll show the format that I use that is based on articles by Lopez and Mig Greengard describing a "GarryBase" approach similar to what Kasparov used. This is more work, and more maintenance, but eventually yields a more useful database. Basically, I'll be forcing ChessBase to fill the same role as an "tree of variations" opening database such as Bookup or Chess Position Trainer.

Before jumping in, you may want to read Lopez's articles here and here and here. The structure of our repertoire database will be similar, but how we use it will be different.

I got the size of some of these screenshots wrong, but you can enlarge them by clicking on them if needed.

The first step is to create a repertoire database. Create an empty database, then right click on it from the main chessbase window:

and select it as your repertoire database:

For the "lean" database, we're only storing key positions of interest. These could be the classic "tabiyas" for the openings you play. However, at the lower levels you're less likely to see, say, the classic Najdorf poisoned pawn tabiya or the Spanish Chigorin, Rubinstein System tabiya than some earlier deviation, such as the Accelerated Dragon or the Spanish Exchange.

As a test database, I took the starting positions from each chapter of Nunn's Beating the Sicilian 3. In this case, all I had to do was create a new board, enter the moves up to the key position that starts the chapter, and then right click on the board and choose "Add to Repertoire":

What this does is automatically save the line to your designated Repertoire Database. It also automatically selects a move as defining a "Critical Opening Position", and also automatically gives a title in the White and Black player fields:

In this case, it happened to choose the final move of each line as the critical opening position, which is what I wanted. However, you can't trust the program to do this. If you were looking at a game with variations, and select "add to repertoire", the first move before the first branch will be marked automatically as the critical opening position. In long unbranched lines, it may choose an earlier move as the critical move, for reasons unfathomable to me. If you use the "add to repertoire" feature in this manner, I recommend checking each new entry to the repertoire database, and if necessary delete the old critical position and add a new one. You can do this by right clicking on the move in question:

Alternatively, you can enter, the position in a new game board, mark the critical opening position manually, and then save it directly to the repertoire database like you would to any other database. This way you know exactly what's appearing in the repertoire DB.

For searching purposes, you want only one critical opening position in each repertoire database entry. If another position earlier in the line interests you, make a new entry for it. However, this opens up a huge can of worms, which I'll tackle in the next post. As foreshadowing, I'll briefly explain why.

Basically, if you have multiple positions in a singe opening line that are of interest, it is critical to make sure the database is ordered so that the longer lines appear above the shorter lines). With this low-resolution database, each line is unique and we're sure that if we search a database for our "repertoire" positions that one game won't match more than one database entry. However, imagine if we also saved the line 1.e4 c5 as the first database entry, and marked c5 as the critical opening position. In that case, every single game beginning 1.e4 c5 would be caught in this "filter" and no lines would be found for a Najdorf, Dragon or other Sicilian line. However, if this same 1.e4 c5 position were at the end of the repertoire database, it would catch all other "oddball" Sicilians that fell through the cracks, which could be useful.

The "automatic" titles that ChessBase gives a repertoire database entry may or may not be useful. I use a naming system similar to that described in Lopez's article. I'll elaborate more on this in the next post. Ideally, you want the game title to describe exactly what position you're talking about. For example, at some later point you may come across a game that you'd like to add to your repertoire database. After choosing "Add to Repertoire", you will be given the option to create a new entry or to merge it with an existing entry:

If the game description in your repertoire book isn't detailed enough, you may not know whether a new entry is required or not.

OK, I have a database of 19 Sicilian positions that define the start of my fictional Sicilian repertoire. What can I do with it?

Well, one thing you can do is select a database of your games, and go to "File-->New-->Generate Repertoire":

I took a database containing a few months of ICC blitz games and searched it using this feature for positions in this mini-repertoire. I got two hits:

This shows that I don't use many of the book's recommendations, and that not many of my opponents play a proper Sicilian as well. A better test database for my own games would be to take the main, early positions from, say, Greet's "Play the Ruy Lopez" and see how many times I encountered a Steinitz, Classical, Norwegian, Cozio or some other early-Spanish branch.

Another good use of such a repertoire database is to search a database of master games and see who played your lines. For example, with the same Sicilian mini-reference database I searched a random issue of The Week in Chess (~2100 games) using the "Generate Repertoire" feature and it found examples of 15 of the 19 lines contained in my reference database:

A snapshot of the search result for the TWIC database

This would allow you to keep up-to-date on recent developments in your favorite opening variations.

You can also look at a position and search your reference database to see if it's found anywhere in there. For example, let's say I'm not sure if this position is covered:

If it occurs in any repertoire entry (all positions, not just the blue "critical opening" positions!) it will find each instance. This is very useful if you're looking over one of your games and asking, "Is this position in my repertoire somewhere?", especially when dealing with tricky transpositions.

You can start fiddling with repertoire database functions by constructing such a "lean" database that gives the bare backbone of your own repertoire, and see if you find it useful. If you're like me, and find this whole process oddly appealing, you'll find yourself adding more and more positions to it as you encounter them. Your database will start accumulating random game snippets from all over, and resemble some reference book with post-it notes sticking out of everywhere. Finally it will degenerate into a disorganized heap of haphazardly-arranged lines and redundant positions, and will return no useful data when generating a repertoire.

Unless you take precautions.

Which I will explain in the next post, where I demonstrate the other reference-database extreme: the GrandpatzerBase.

Odds and Ends

2007-09-28T13:13:00.000-07:00

I'm still on a semi-holiday while my parents are visiting, and I'm still getting caught up on my backlog of ICC games to analyze.

I tweaked some of the older posts. Most notably, I mentioned Marin's and Johnsen's books in the post on suggested openings as black for improving players. Seriously, if you play 1.e4 e5 as black, or if you've been wanting to but haven't taken the plunge yet, you should check these out before considering buying any others...especially Marin's two books.

Are any readers interested in a tutorial on how to use ChessBase's "repertoire" feature? It's a bit labor-intensive to use properly, and I imagine not that many readers have CB, but if you're hard-core it's pretty nifty.

I Tried to Avoid Chess, and Failed

2007-09-22T18:23:00.001-07:00

"Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in"-- Michael Corleone

So, I thought I'd take a break from chess and enjoy time with the family. Unfortunately, chess lurks everywhere:

A giant board in a mall courtyard.

I tried to ignore the fact that the pieces weren't set up right, but was only partially successful. I corrected the positions of the black king and queen but refrained from repositioning all of them so that the pieces are on the right side of the board.

Since my move, I had been missing my notepadpad of thoughts and analysis that was to provide fodder forl some future blog posts, but finally I found it today. I'll try to have something more substantial up after I'm done traveling.

Hall of Shame, Episode 2

2007-09-17T09:37:00.000-07:00

In my defense, I was on a late-night blurry-visioned blitz binge when I missed this mate. Still, there is no reason for me to miss this as long as I still test positive for brain stem activity.

Make sure you're familiar with this mating mechanism...it pops up quite often, and you see it in a lot of tactics books.

1. Bxh7+ Kh8 2. Bg6+ Bh6 3. Qxh6+ Kg8 4. Qh7#

This was an example of chess blindness. During my few seconds of analysis I thought that the king would escape via f7, missing that my queen prevents that.

What a Coincidence!

2007-09-12T11:50:00.000-07:00

This is bizarre. A few hours after final editing and posting of my previous article dealing with a piece sacrifice, I encounter something very, very similar when analyzing one of my blitz games:

This is not the actual game continuation, but a "what if my opponent had played x instead?" scenario. After the bishop sacrifice with1...fxe3 2.fxe3 White will gain the f7 pawn and the f-file. In this case it's not as crushing as in the Nimzo game, but Fritz still gives a nice edge to White.

If you've never studied classic games, you may not appreciate how relevent they can be to your own games.

Would You Sacrifice Here?

2007-09-12T11:40:00.000-07:00

The following game, Samisch-Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen 1923, contains an example of a piece sacrifice that is actually quite understandable. Look at the following, and ask yourself if you would have sacrificed the knight given the same position, or if you would have fallen into the trap of "point-counting" and tried to save it.

White had just played 20.e2-e4, with a discovered attack on the knight.

20... fxe4!

You don't need Fritz to tell you that this is good. All you have to do is visualize what the position will look like after 21. Qxh5 Rxf2:

Black has seized control of the f-file (note that White can't play a rook to f1 because of the bishop on b5) and will probably double up on it. White's pieces are all tangled up defensively on the back ranks. Black's bishops are like sharks with frickin' laser beams, pewpewpew, whereas White's just seem to be in the way. All this, and two pawns, for the sacrificed knight. Then, consider that White's extra piece is the undeveloped knight on b1 that's stuck protecting the d2 bishop.

Just for kicks, let's also apply the space-counting technique mentioned in Best Lessons of a Chess Coach. The rules are a bit unclear, but here's how I apply them:

For every Black piece, count the number of squares it attacks on the opponent's side. For example, the bishop on b5 attacks 5 squares on White's side of the board.
If there's a piece blocking the way, you can't count the squares beyond. So for the bishop on d6 I count g3 and not h2.
Occupying a square on the opponent's side doesn't count, but protecting a piece on the other side does. So I count d2, e2, g2, f1, f3 and f4 but not f2 for the rook on f2. I count b4 for the bishop on d6 but not for the b4 pawn itself. We're counting applied force, not occupation.
You can count a square more than once if more than one piece attacks it, because that means you're projecting extra force. The square f3 is counted twice for Black because it's attacked by both pawn and rook.

If you don't like these rules, relax. This is just one way of illustrating whether one side has a space advantage. Here, it's pretty clear just looking at the board who has the advantage, but I thought I 'd introduce the concept here.

Black out-attacks White by 20 to 17. However, it's only that close because of the relative queen activity (9 for White vs. 0 for Black), and it's clear that the White queen can't do much all by herself. Should the a8 rook finds an open file and the queen placement change, White will be absolutely smothered.

I want to re-emphasize that this is more of a party trick than meaningful analysis, but it gives you another way of thinking about space advantage. Don't do this over the board, for Pete's sake!

White lost fairly quickly after 22. Qg5 Raf8 23. Kh1 R8f5 24.Qe3 Bd3 25. Rce1 h6 0-1. Fritz finds some inaccuracies on both sides but nothing that would save White.

Counting the point values of the pieces is helpful, but shouldn't be adhered to dogmatically. You should be willing to risk some of the "safer" sacrifices, like minor piece for two pawns, or Rook for minor piece and (usually) a pawn, if you feel there's adequate compensation. I think it's important to get practice exercising such judgements. For example, such sacrifices can be used defensively, as well as offensively, to help defuse an attack.

Nimzo's sacrifice here feels perfectly natural to me, and I would like to think that I'd find it over the board. I know that I've made similar judgement calls in my own games. Sometimes I've been wrong, but at least I'm confident that I'm capable of thinking outside of the point-counting box and considering other factors.

Back On the Wagon

2007-09-07T11:02:00.000-07:00

Since the move in July, I've been a bad, bad boy. I played 187 ICC games and barely looked at them. I'm going to atone for my sins and examine all of them before I play another ICC game.

In other news, I finally snagged Mihail Marin's latest Spanish repertoire book. When I've read a decent chunk of it I'll post a review. However, since his previous book was simply the best opening repertoire book I've ever come across, I have high hopes.

I am starting to think that any book with Marin's name on it is gold.

Hall of Shame, Episode 1

2007-09-07T10:29:00.000-07:00

I'm still getting settled in to my new locale, but I've started playing chess locally and getting back into the groove.

The following position is from a casual but slow game, which was a grueling, back-and-forth, positional struggle. I am relying on my memory here, since regrettably I did not keep score:

I am playing Black. I decided to dart across enemy fire to bring my king to the defense on the kingside. I had calculated that the pawn endgame after 1... Ke5 2. Re1+ Kf6 3. Rxe7 Kxe7 should at least be a draw. However, there are two major flaws with this sequence. My opponent found the lesser of the two rebuttals (which was enough for me to immediately resign) but missed the best response.

Try to find the two biggest flaws with my intended sequence. Using a chess engine is gauche.

I'll post the answers later.

Finally Got the Monkey Off My Back

2007-08-14T14:55:00.000-07:00

I'm looking forward to not writing about the opening for a good long while.

I've been slacking since my move, and not doing much besides throwaway, unanalyzed blitz on ICC. Naughty, naughty. At least most of the chess books are now unpacked.

Back to practicing what I preach. Besides playing over master games and working on tactics, I'm going to try and force myself to play against a dumbed-down Fritz and work on my thinking technique. If any of you have favorite settings for Fritz as a "tough, but not impossible" opponent, feel free to share. I'm going to experiment with simply tweaking the ply depth so I can consistently perform at a certain level.

How to Prepare an Opening, Part Three: Filling In Sidelines

2007-08-14T14:00:00.000-07:00

Choosing the main lines that form the core of your opening repertoire is the part that will require the most work. After that, I would stick with analyzing your own games, and only worrying about opening issues that arise there. In many cases it's as simple as one player blundered or played an obviously weak move. In other cases, more work is required.

Until fairly recently, I was following the strategy of "analyze your games, find out where the game left theory, decide what you'd play next, and move on." I have recently come to realize that if your opponent played a "proper" move, it's important to follow the "what you'd play next" for some length afterwards. If the deviation occurs before development is complete, follow the line you'd play in the future until the approximate beginning of the middlegame. If you actually made it into the middlegame, extend the "trunk" out a distance so that you know where you want to take the variation. You need a view of the road ahead to provide context for the move. I find that if I only try to understand and remember the move I should have played, I often have to make the mistake several times before it really sinks in.

I don't consider myself to have a very good memory, but by following this procedure of using a board and determining a main line I'm finding myself able to recall variations and ideas much better than before. Just the other day, I reproduced a main line from the Italian game out to move 12, when previously I would have made an error around move 7. I had made no attempt to memorize that line beyond thinking about Black's moves and reading through Marin's explanatory text. This is the line, plus what I was thinking as I played it:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bxd2+ (Black's last two moves avoid losing a tempo. See the chapter "On Exchanging" in Nimzowitsch's My System) 8. Nbxd2 d5 (now I break up White's center!) 9. exd5 Nxd5 (and saddle him with an IQP! {isolated queen's pawn}) 10. Qb3 Na5 (forking queen and bishop) 11. Qa4+ Nc6 (threatens queen and offers a draw by repetition). My opponent finally played a move that avoided the repetition. After the game, I mapped out how I would respond against his move and left it at that.

This is a case where minimal opening study was involved. I checked out a minor branch from the trunk of my opening, which only took a few minutes.

Then there's the following case, where I faced a novelty in the Nimzo-Indian. It's not much of a novelty...I'm sure my opponent simply didn't understand what he was playing. However, by trying to answer "what would I play next" I found that I had my work cut out for me.

My opponent's "novelty" was: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3, an odd blending of the Samisch (4.a3) and Classical (4.Qc2) lines. A point of 4.Qc2 is that the queen can capture on c3 and avoid doubled c-pawns. Therefore, this appears to be a Samisch where white has "wasted" time by playing Qc2.

I am in the very early stages of working out a Nimzo repertoire for black. Since not many of my opponents allow it as White, it hasn't rated as highly on my "things to do" list. I have some repertoire books as guides but I'm still in the process of deciding what my main lines will be.

First, as a starting point, let's look at the Samisch variation. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4, White challenges the Black bishop with 4.a3 Bxc3 5.bxc3. Quoting John Watson from Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 2 (which I will be referring to for analysis):

The Samisch variation is in many ways the most instructive of all Nimzo-Indian lines. It seems odd to force Black into ...Bxc3+, a move he is likely to play anyway, and thus to accept the weak doubled c-pawns while losing time....Indeed, 4.a3 was one of the earliest methods of play versus the Nimzo-Indian and many of the best players of the time...were infatuated with possession of the bishop-pair....The Samisch Variation is the ideal starting point for discussing the Nimzo-Indian because it contains a majority of the fundamental themes that arise from the opening.

I have been using repertoire books by Dearing (Play the Nimzo-Indian, my favorite), Emms (Easy Guide to the Nimzo-Indian), and to a lesser extent Alburt et al (Chess Openings for Black, Explained) for guidance. I have also used the general guide Mastering the Nimzo-Indian (with the Read and Play Method) by Kosten, which is more concerned with pawn structures and typical middlegame plans than specific lines.

My tentative main line against the Samisch was that of Dearing and Emms. I will just give it without a move-by move explanation...the point here is that my repertoire did not feature an immediate ...d5: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Ne2 b6 9. e4 Ne8 10. O-O Ba6 11. f4 f5.

However, my opponent played the Classical move order with 4.Qc2. In that case, my main line is tentatively that of Dearing. Here also, I'll just give the main line without commentary, and point out that here an immediate ...d5 is played: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. cxd5 Qxd5 6. Nf3 Qf5 7. Qxf5 exf5 8.
a3 Be7 9. Bf4 c6 10. e3 Be6 11. Bd3 Nbd7 .

Now, back to the Samisch. In my game, it was as if my opponent had played the Samisch 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 d5 6.Qc2. However, none of my repertoires play 5...d5 against the Samisch! After the game, I tried to determine how one should play against this supposed inaccuracy by White. Referring to Watson and Kosten, I looked into Samisch lines that featured the ...d5 move lacking in my repertoire.

First, here is an example taken from Watson of inaccurate play on White's part by Botvinnik (!). In Botvinnik-Kotov, Groningen 1946, after 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Bg5?!

7... c5! Watson says, "The problem is that after the natural
8. e3, 8...Qa5 forces some awkward defence like 9. Qc2 Ne4 10. Bf4 cxd4 11. exd4
Nc6."

Now, let's try the same thing against my opponent's move order. After 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3, Black is a tempo up if they can show that 4.Qc2 was a waste of time. So, let's make use of that free time by doing something useful, such as castling. However, after 6... O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Bg5, we reach a position nearly identical to the previous one:

However, this may actually be respectable. We have transposed into a known position, according to my Chessbase. For example, if we continue as in Botvinnik-Kotov with 8...c5 9. e3, the queen already protects c3, and 9...Qa5 doesn't have the same punch as in Botvinnik-Kotov. For example, in Petrosian-Korchnoi, Moscow 1971, Black instead played 9... Nbd7.

What this shows is that, if both sides play stereotypically against the "waste of time" move Qc2, we find that it's not necessarily a waste of time at all! The refutation of this move order (if any) must lie elsewhere.

At this point, spending hours trying to prepare a line against a "goofy" novelty wouldn't be productive. However, in the course of trying to figure out what was going on in this position, I learned quite a bit... I've only included some of this work here. What becomes obvious is that the general ideas that you find in Watson and Kosten (or Kmoch, for that matter) are of more use than repertoire books such as Dearing and Emms. For example, in these Samisch-like lines featuring ...d5 (which Watson calls the "Botvinnik approach"), we often arise at a pawn structure that Kosten calls the "light-squared blockade", as shown in the following "skeleton" position:

If Black can keep White's pawns on dark squares and exchange the light-squared bishops, White will lose the bishop pair and be stuck with a bad bishop. White is going to try and push e4.

Studying main lines not only ensures that you're playing sensible moves against your opponent's sensible moves...it also gives you experience in playing the typical structures and plans that arise in the opening. When your opponent plays something odd, you're going to have to rely on tactical awareness (yes, tactics are important!) plus your experience with and understanding of the position. In this particular case, I'm still not sure what the "proper" response to my opponent would have been, but I'm sure that the more I study and play these positions the better I'll be able to handle them.

In particular, the game made me question what I want to play against the Samisch. I'm attracted to this "light-squared blockade" pawn structure. If I like the move ...d5 against other variations, why not here? The short answer is: none of my repertoire books cover it! Therefore, I am going to say "heck with the books" and try to figure out my own ...d5 lines against the Samisch. If I had an established repertoire, I would not tear it all down and start again just because of one odd game. However, since I'm just starting out I can take the approach of "play the move you like the best" and build the repertoire around that. Remember, books are only there to guide you.

To summarize, when you analyze your games afterwards:

If your opponent played a reasonable (book) response that you're unfamiliar with, work out what you would play in the future as a "main line" and then get on with life.

If your opponent played an odd novelty, try to refute it. If a chess engine doesn't find an obvious tactical or gross positional problem with it, try to use your understanding of the opening and general principles to find a good response. In the process of finding the answer, you may learn quite a bit.

Not Dead Yet

2007-07-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

Just a brief update. Still unpacking and getting settled in to the new digs. Don't even have a place to set up my chessboard yet. I'll also be out of town next weekend.

If I get my books unpacked I'll try to post something substantive before the trip.

An Aside on Opening Preparation

2007-07-20T21:53:00.000-07:00

Just thought I would clarify my stance on opening preparation, prior to the next installment of my series.

I think it's important to analyze your games--even online blitz. Part of that analysis should include how the opening was treated. Of course, you'll also be looking for errors in tactics, endgames, and strategy as well, but I don't think the opening should just be ignored, regardless of your chess strength.

If you do not want to maintain an openings repertoire, and just fly by the seat of your pants, then you could keep your opening study down to spotting gross errors. However, if you've ever bought an opening book with the intent of playing certain lines routinely, I strongly feel you need to understand the suggested moves, and have followed the main line through the opening so that you understand what each side is aiming for. If you're plopping money down on opening books, but just "looking up the answer" to what you should have played, or just trying to memorize lines, you're wasting time and money. You owe it to yourself to try and understand the lines you want to play, and I believe that studying openings in this limited but focused way can improve your chess as a whole.

For example, perhaps you learn that Black plays ...d5 at some point to prevent e4. If you understand that, and your opponent omits the "book move" of ...d5, that serves as an alert: Perhaps it would be good for you to push e4 in response. Or perhaps Black normally avoids exchanging a bishop for a knight, and your opponent doesn't. That suggests that winning the bishop pair may be a good idea.

The main lines of your opening are models of good opening play. Understanding them helps you to find good opening moves for yourself, and directs you towards reasonable middlegame strategies.

When you're not analyzing your own games, go ahead. Study tactics. Study endgames. Play through master games. Practice martial arts so you can strike the button on the clock with the reflexes of a cobra. Whatever you think helps your game more, or whatever tickles your fancy. Knock yourself out.

However, when it comes to analyzing your own games, I think you need to consider the game in its entirety, including the opening. Don't just focus on the knight you dropped in the midgame, but also the tactic you missed that would have regained it; the endgame you could have drawn a piece down; and the opening error that led to the difficult position you blundered in.