Learning New Routes

Still busy unpacking into the new home. My computer is being cantankerous (stupid nvidia graphics driver causing crashes) but thought I'd pass on a quick analogy.

I'm currently learning how to get around in a new city. Right now it seems like the civil engineers are purposely trying to thwart people...no U turn here, no left turn allowed there, have to drive 3/4 of a mile just to turn around and get into the strip mall across the street. I knew my old routes so well I could drive on autopilot, even with all the finesses gained by experience (e.g. get in the left lane here, because the right lane will slow a half mile ahead). I've gone from rarely checking a map to needing a mapquest printout to get to the grocery store. I'm learning where the major destinations are and where the major highways lead and intersect, and not worrying as much about street names until I need to find a certain address.

Learning the ins and outs of a new opening is similar. Worry about the main roads first that lead to the most important destinations. As you do this, think about how you're getting there (why do I have to get in the right lane here? Why do I play ...h3 here?) until it's second nature. Learn new roads as required by need...don't try to memorize the entire map at once. Years later there'll still be places you're unfamiliar with, but you can find your way from one end of town to the other by feel if necessary.

Next Post Delayed

I am in the process of moving. The last post in the opening preparation series will be delayed until we're moved, unpacked and reconnected to the internet, which will take a week or more.

In contrast to the first two posts in the series, this one is requiring me to put in a lot of independent study because it's an example of what to do when opening repertoire books alone can't guide you. So I'll need a little time to unpack my library, get settled in, and finish the analysis.

Hopefully your patience will be rewarded.

How to Prepare an Opening, Part Two

Here we're going to hack our way through the jungle and eventually arrive at the main line of the Closed Spanish. I've tried to come up with phrases that describes what we're about to do:

• spelunking
• going on an Opening Safari
• dumpster diving
• mining for gold
• antiquing (when using old games and analysis to guide your thoughts)
  

The bottom line is we're going to be trying to understand the reason behind the main move order, question it, and see if we can find other sequences we like better.

Even if you're using a repertoire book for guidance, follow this thought process so that, at the very least, you've justified their move choice. If you think about the move for a bit, you're helping to transfer this move from short-term to long-term memory. I strongly recommend using an actual chess board, because I think it assists with this transfer.

We'll first go over the main line and see what each side is thinking. If these reasons for the moves aren't clear already, you can refer back to this sequence as we discuss alternatives. The ideas are superficial but they'll do. This is my own interpretation of the opening sequence. I may revise this if Marin's upcoming book on the Spanish turns more light bulbs on. Before I undertook this exercise, it wasn't clear to me why certain key moves for both sides (0-0, c3, and h3 for white; ...Be7, ...b5, ...0-0 and a possible ...Bg4 by Black) were played in a certain sequence. By going through this exercise, the picture is now a lot clearer. I recommend this technique of using an "internal Socratic dialogue (monologue?)" for any opening you work on....ask questions and try to answer them.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6:

5.0-0 ("I know my e4 pawn is attacked, but I've figured out how to deal with it")
5...Be7 ("I could take the e4 pawn, but I've figured out it can't really be kept, so I choose to develop.")
6.Re1 ("Ok, now I should protect e4. This also will clear f1 for a N manoeuvre I have planned.")
6...b5 ("I want to kick-start my queenside play before White can make an escape square at b2 for his bishop")
7.Bb3 d6 ("I want to play ...Na5 to chop the B off, but e5 is weak. This shores up my center and opens a diagonal for the queen's bishop.")
8.c3 ("I want to keep my bishop in case of ...Na5")
8...0-0 ("castling is good")
9.h3 ("I want to play d4, but if he pins me with Bg4 that's annoying.")
9...Bb7 ("develops the bishop on the long diagonal and hits e4"). Black has several options at this point. I've chosen this move because it completes Black's development (except for queen deployment), which is a good enough stopping point for this tutorial. If I were white, I would look at the main lines enough to get an idea for how my development will be completed (e.g. the standard Spanish N manoeuvre of Nb1-d2-f1-g3 or e3); as Black, I would choose my system starting at move 9 and extend the main line from there a short distance, in order to get a feel for the types of middlegames that ensue.

At lower levels of play, it's not that likely that your opponent makes it all the way through even the "mainest" of main lines without diverging at some point. In that case, studying the opening out further than the end of development won't pay direct dividends in your own games (although indirectly this may increase your understanding of typical play). You're better off, in my opinion, studying master games than worrying about exact move sequences here. When your opposition starts playing these lines through, then you can worry about extending your horizon.

I'm now going to cross-examine the main Spanish move sequence, see if I agree with it, and see if I can find alternatives for either side.

The first, obvious, question about 5.0-0 is: why doesn't White have to protect the e4 pawn? If you're castling here because it's the book move, but don't have an answer for this question, you're asking for trouble. 5...Nxe4 (the Open Spanish) is a reputable opening choice:


The standard move here is 6.d4. 6.Re1 is playable but should cost White the bishop pair. Now, the books say "it's too risky to play 6...exd4 in this position". This should trigger your intellectual curiosity. It turns out that this is called the Riga variation, and the main reason for that assessment is the endgame after 7.Re1 d5 8.Nxd4 Bd6! 9.Nxc6 Bxh2+!

















Here, 10.Kh2 allows perpetual check by 10...Qh4+ 22.Kg1 Qxf2+. So, if a draw is an acceptable result for you, this is fine. The main continuation for White is 10.Kh1! Qh4 11.Rxe4+! dxe4 12.Qd8+! Qxd8 13.Nxd8+ Kxd8 14.Kxh2+/= (see next position):


















Emms, for example, says that this endgame "has been known for many years to favour White" and leaves it at that. In my database, White scores 68%, which certainly backs this up. However:

1. This is a fairly forcing variation (although some homework on your part will be required). White has to find some good moves. If you're ok with a draw, this can be a good practical chance at club level.

2. If this were just a trappy, tactical line I probably wouldn't be attracted to it. However, ask yourself if the endgame (more like a queenless middlegame, in my opinion) is that bad for black.











Here's what I see:

• material is unbalanced but roughly equal. Two minor pieces + bishop pair = 3.25x2 + 0.5 = 7 pawns, balancing a rook plus two pawns. I'm using the Kaufman values for the pieces...see this Heisman article for an elaboration.
• black nominally has a lead in development, but at a glance I don't think Black will be able to keep it because he has to untangle a bit.
• Black has action for his rooks on the center files, and a 4:2 pawn majority on the king side. White's N has no outpost, but the open position is good for the two bishops.

This is some shallow analysis, and perhaps the best thing is to play the position from both sides against the computer to see how you really feel about Black's position. My suspicion is that Grandmaster technique makes this easier for white, but at club level familiarity with the position will triumph. I think that this would be an interesting line to try out in actual play.

Even if you don't go for the Riga Variation, the Open Spanish with 5...Nxe4 is a real option for Black's repertoire.

So, it turns out that White can get away with 5.0-0. It also turns out that White can play 5.d4 here. Remember a rule of thumb for White in these openings is "if you can get away with d2-d4, it's probably a good move." It turns out that 5.d4 (or 6.d4 after 5.0-0 Be7) is fully playable. Johnsen and Johannessen call this the "Central Attack Ruy Lopez (CARL)". The authors say that it's drawish but that Black has to walk a narrow path. If this is the GM assessment, that means that this would be perfectly acceptable for club players. Your opponents aren't likely to have figured out an antidote to this variation; I have never faced it myself. J&J give a fair bit of analysis in this line; Davies' repertoire book for Black only considers the 6.d4 move order. I played through much of J&J's analysis, and my gut feeling was that White was making a lot of pawn moves and falling behind in development, but had nicer pawns at the end.

{NEW: 9/22/07} When I initially prepared this I glossed over 5.d3. In Marin's A Spanish Repertoire for White, he devotes an entire chapter to this move (which can be played "anywhere between the 5th and 10th moves). I'll just point out that it logically protects the e4 pawn, and that it's respectable. It's a bit timid for my taste, but it would be a good compromise for those wanting to play a "grownup" opening yet also deviate early to throw off your opponent.

Black has a few other 5th-move options after 5.0-0. Both 5...Bc5 and 5...b5 with 6...Bc5 (the Moller variation) opt to place the king's bishop on its other viable posting (Bd6 blocks the d-pawn, Bb4 allows c2-c3 with tempo). 5...b5 with 6.Bb7, the Arkhangelsk, develops the queen's bishop to the long diagonal. I will leave it up to someone with more experience from the White side as to how common it is to see these in club play; I'll just say that the moves make sense and are respectable.

For the most part I'm glossing over variations where White captures on c6. I'll just point out that some black players are annoyed enough by the Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez Deferred (what a name!) with 6.Bxc6 that they play 5...b5 as above and only then 6....Be7.

Referring back to the main line now: after 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 the moves 6...b5 7.Bb3 are almost always seen. If Black delays, White plays c2-c3, and his bishop will reach c2 in one move instead of two.

Now, 7...0-0 is possible instead of 7...d6. The main difference here is that, if you castle on move 7 instead of move 8, your opponent may think you're going to play the Marshall Gambit (8.c3 d5!?). If you're perfectly happy with your opponent freaking out and avoiding a main-line Spanish by playing an "anti-Marshall" move like 8.a4, 8.h3, 8.d4 or 8.d3, go for it. If you were hoping to reach a main-line Spanish, then you're more likely to get it by playing 7...d6 here.

At this point, White normally plays 8.c3 here so that 8...Na5 doesn't lose the bishop. This move also helps prepare d2-d4, so it seems like the most natural choice. If you ask yourself, "Can I play d4 here?" the answer is "not really". The main point is that after 8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 exd4, White can't play 10.Qxe4? because of the "Noah's Ark Trap": 10...c5 11.Qe3 c4 -+. I won't go into moves such as 8.a4 and 8.d3 except to say they're playable and may transpose to other lines.

White will probably play 9.h3 to avoid the ...Bg4 pin next move, so 8...Bg4 seems like a sensible alternative for Black here. I have not fully determined why it's not normally played. The "antidote" seems to be d2-d3, h2-h3, and Nb1-d2-f1-g3 for White, but that's not clearly bad for Black, and 8...Bg4 was actually played by Karpov against Short. This may be another opportunity for Black to do some homework and play an offbeat line.

If white omits h2-h3 and plays 9.d4 instead, 9...Bg4 is now supposed to be uncomfortable for White to play against. However, this is still a respectable option for White. Black is threatening to win the d4 pawn, so White has to be prepared to deal with this (e.g. 10.Be3 or 10.d5). 9.d3 here, or at many points in the Spanish, is playable but feels timid to me.

So, we can see that, compared to many openings, the Spanish has a very clear and logical main line. However, as I also showed here, even this classic opening sequence has lots of opportunity for both sides to deviate before Black's move 9. There's plenty of opportunity for a player to diverge and fight your opponent on your own turf. However, I would only diverge from the main line because you genuinely prefer your moves, rather than just diverging for the sake of "getting your opponent out of book".

To summarize the last two posts:

1. Become familiar with basic opening rules of thumb. Then, choose the opening moves that you want to play based on basic principles and guided by theory. When you don't have an overwhelming preference for one move, steer towards "respectable" openings that offer a variety of pawn structures and piece deployments.

2. Map out a "main line" where you decide what you would play against your opponent's "best" response. Chessbase's opening statistics makes it easy to determine what these "best" lines are, but use whatever resources you have (Nunn's Chess Openings, Modern Chess Openings, Fritz's opening book). If you're not sure which is "best", just choose one. Map this main line out until the approximate end of the opening phase (ideally, where all your pieces are developed and you've castled). This is generally about 9-12 moves.

I think the more clearly you understand the main line of your openings, the better equipped you are at dealing with your opponents' deviations. For example, White omitting c2-c3 when its called for may be a sign to seize the bishop pair with ...Na5.

The hardest, most time-consuming part is determining what your main lines will be. After that, your focus will be on analyzing your own games and determining how you'll deal with other lines as you encounter them. I think this is one area where internet blitz can be helpful...you can get a large number of examples of how players of your level treat the opening. You may find that "inferior" lines such as the Steinitz or Cozio variations of the Spanish are actually the "main lines" at your level.

So, what if your opponent plays something odd? The next post will will show an example of opening preparation triggered by my opponent's novelty. It will also show the limitations of opening repertoire books compared to general familiarity with the opening.

How to Prepare an Opening, Part One

I am going to demonstrate a thought process that would result in choosing the main line (closed) Spanish (a.k.a. Ruy Lopez) for both white and black. The Spanish is a good choice for this demonstration, because the main line for both sides up to move 9 or so is fairly clear. It also happens to coincide (mostly) with what I play myself, so I can pretend to speak with some authority. Finally, I suspect most amateurs have at least some familiarity with the opening. This is good, because I want people to focus on the thought process behind constructing the repertoire, rather than the opening itself.

Part One is just an introduction to the process. I imagine many people reading this won't find the first 5 moves of the Spanish too mysterious. The next post in the series will be more advanced, and show how you can, with a little research, come up with your own pet lines to surprise your opponents. After that, I hope to show a real-world example of opening preparation, where an opponent's odd treatment of the Nimzo-Indian demonstrates how opening books can lead you into a dead end. Even people that have played the Nimzo for years may learn something there. So, if this post strikes you as "baby talk", bear with me. I'm hoping by the end of the series that most readers have learned a thing or two.

Let's consider the first move for White. From general opening principles, you want to control the center and open lines for your pieces to come out. To me, the most natural moves are 1.d4 and 1.e4. Other moves such as 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 are perfectly acceptable, but they don't have the clear idea behind them that 1.d4 and 1.e4 do. From my own experience, and from the opinions of many chess trainers, I would say 1.e4 is the best choice for developing players. Just consider this advice (and other opinions that follow) as a "tie-breaker". If you did choose 1.d4, the only warning I'd have is not to play some system like the Colle or Stonewall that lead to stereotyped play. In the short term they may save you time by avoiding theory, but in the long term I feel they'll hold back your chess progression.

Similar logic applies to choosing 1...e5 as black. You may find that you like other moves better. Just be sure you understand the reason behind your favorite move. For example, the Scandinavian (1...d5) may be an acceptable opening but it's not intuitively a good opening move. It violates basic opening principles, because after 2.exd5 Qxd5 your queen will be chased around, and with 2...Nf6 you are down a pawn. I now know that the Caro-Kann (1...c6) and French (1...e6) tend to result in a limited number of pawn structures that trap your pieces behind light-squared pawns, so I would steer away from those (my cautionary tale can be found in this post). However, if you understand those moves and like them, go for it.

To me, 1...e5 feels the best. It's good for the same reasons 1.e4 was: it contests the center, and opens lines for the development of the king's bishop (which will get you closer to castling) and the queen. Finally, it discourages an immediate 2.d4 by White. In any opening, if White gets two pawns at d4 and e4 without some serious concession it suggests Black was too passive.

I suspect a lot of readers are already familiar with this principle. After 1.e4, White wants to achieve 1.d4 to dominate the center, and Black wants to prevent it; after 1.d4, White wants to get 1.e4 in. Black would also like to achieve this, but it's less likely. Yet if you go over your games, I'm sure you'll find examples where after weak opening play these basic ideas are forgotten. I'm going to assume an understanding of the importance of the center in this post.

(Aside: At the time I write this, I am about two thirds the way through Marin's Beating the Open Games, which is a repertoire for Black after 1.e4 e5 and handles White's systems that avoid the Spanish before 4...a6 Ba4. This is hands-down the most instructive repertoire book I've ever encountered. It's so well written, and so objective, you could go a long way towards choosing your white repertoire by looking at what Marin considers the more difficult lines. My attitude towards some of these White options has changed from "boring", or "inferior but annoying", to "I wouldn't mind giving that a shot!" I'm looking forward to his sequel, which will handle the main-line Spanish portion of the repertoire. )

After 1.e4 e5, 2.d4 would produce the classic d4/e4 center, but it would be immediately destroyed, e.g. 2...exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6, and so would be suspicious based on basic opening principles. So, what moves feel good here? At this point, you could see what the most popular moves at this point are to help guide you. For this demonstration I'll use Chessbase to see what the most popular moves are. References such as this, or your chess program's opening book, a one-volume book such as Nunn's Chess Openings (NCO), or whatever, are only being used as a guideline...they'll either confirm that your choice is playable, or serve as a warning that it might not be such a good idea. I made an opening book from the games of players rated 2400 or higher, to see what the "big boys" like to play. Here's the number of occurrences of the top 5 choices for White's second move:

Nf3 34110
Bc4 1054
Nc3 780
f4 565
d4 156

Again, realizing 2.Nf3 is the most popular continuation here is not earth-shattering in itself. Determining what's "popular" will be used for a couple reasons in my tutorial. Here, it's a tip-off as to what the "best" moves are and helping us to feel good about our choice. We're also going to use popularity to determine what the main lines are for our opponent so that we know which lines to learn first.

One notable exception from the above list is 2.c3. It's logical to think, "OK, I'm going to prepare d2-d4 by playing c2-c3 first". It makes sense. It can lead to a Ponziani-type opening, and was played by Morphy, but no GMs seem to play it. Let's say this was your favorite move at this point. You can either decide to make it your repertoire move, or you can try to understand why it's not popular. First, it moves another pawn instead of developing a piece, so on general principles that may not feel as good. Second, it now makes 2...d5 a decent move for Black, because after 3.exd5 Qxd5 the queen can't be harassed by 4.Nc3. In other words, c3 took away a natural developing square for the b1 N. So, you're letting Black get feisty in the center. If, after that explanation, you still like c3, then go for it...it was good enough for Morphy. If you progress to the point where your opponents are punishing you in the opening, you may decide that c3 isn't your favorite move after all.

Going through the other main moves: 2.f4 loses a pawn to 2...exd4. The King's Gambit is a real opening, but it's tactically complex and not a "common sense" opening. Odds are, if you were looking at the chessboard and knew nothing about openings, you'd consider 2.f4 a blunder (drops a pawn, exposes your king, and doesn't develop a piece). 2.Nc3 doesn't help you play d4, and doesn't get you any closer to kingside castling. Bc4 violates the guideline of developing knights before bishops. Of course, this isn't a guideline to be adhered to slavishly, but it's one that makes sense. Usually, it's clearer where you want to put your knights than your bishops, so it makes sense to delay it for a bit. Do I want to play the bishop to c4? b5? Let's see what Black does first. So, that brings us to 2.Nf3, the clear favorite. It develops a N, gets you closer to kingside castling, and supports d4.

Even if you're using a repertoire book for guidance, follow this thought process so that, at the very least, you've justified their move choice. If you think about the move for a bit, you're helping to transfer this move from short-term to long-term memory. I strongly recommend using an actual chess board, because I find it assists with this transfer.

This same technique of finding the move you like and checking it against the "book" moves is repeated until you've determined what your personal main line will be. For example, for Black we will see that by asking "if my opponent makes the most popular move, what do I want to respond with?" you can arrive at the Spanish main line of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Bb7. I haven't actually settled on move 9 yet for my own repertoire, but Bb7 completes development (apart from moving the queen off the back rank) and is a good stopping point for these tutorials. This variation, if chosen, would be your foundation, your bedrock, your home turf, the trunk of the tree of variations. This is where you waggle your sword and proclaim, "NONE SHALL PASS!"


Just remember that it's sometimes appropriate to accept a draw as Black:



Back to our exercise in opening preparation:

2...Nc6 protects the pawn and develops a piece at the same time.

Now, if I were creating my own repertoire from scratch again, 3.d4 makes sense here. On basic principles, if pushing d4 is allowed it should be good. If Black exchanges the pawn on d4, a common pawn structure that results is called the "little center" by King and Ponzetto in their book on the Spanish, and is an example of what Kmoch calls a "jump formation":



This good for White because of the space advantage...White is less cramped and has a bit of an easier time than Black. This e4 vs. d5 center is a common feature of 1.e4 e5 openings in general, and explains White's advantage in many of the variations.

It is almost amazing how much of the theory of the Open Games can be figured out by just thinking about the center and the moves e4, d4, ...e5 and ...d5. In this case, following the basic idea of "if I can get away with d2-d4, play it!" results in the perfectly respectable Scotch opening. If you like the logic of 3.d4, and you like the pawn structures that typically arise in the Scotch, then go for it!

Back to White to play for their third move. 3.c3 would be the Ponziani opening. Theory would warn you that it's not the best choice, but it's playable. Here's a case where the guiding hand of theory might lead you to something "stronger", but if you absolutely loved it you could play it.

3.Bc4 develops the bishop to a nice diagonal and prepares castling, but it's less obvious how it addresses the center. It's not helping d2-d4, but it does help thwart d7-d5 and it also targets the sensitive f7 square. I choose 3.Bb5 because it develops the bishop and also weakens Black's control of e5. The latent threat is Bxc6 and Nxe5. This isn't possible right now (for example, 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4!), but the motif is there.

Black has many, many choices right now. Probably the most intuitive is 3...Nf6, which develops a piece, gets Black closer to castling, and attacks the e4 pawn. 3...d6 protects the e5 pawn and lets the queen bishop out. 3...Bc5 develops the bishop to a good diagonal before it can be imprisoned with d7-d6, and so on. My choice of 3...a6 is not the most intuitive, but it's the most popular. Here, rather than automatically play the "main" move, I've thought about it and have chosen it for my repertoire...I haven't had it chosen for me.

Here, challenging the bishop with ...a6 doesn't cause Black to fall behind in development (you can work this out for yourself). If White captures on c6, Black has gained the two bishops, and if White backs up (e.g. 4.Ba4) Black has turbocharged his queenside advance (...b5 will come soon). In this regard it has some resemblance to the Sicilian Najdorf. Often, wasting time in an opening by pushing a rook's pawn for no good reason is a waste of time (i.e. costs a "tempo"). Here, there are good reasons for pushing the rook's pawn. I am consciously violating a rule of thumb because there are concrete reasons to do so.

As White, I used to play the Exchange with 4.Bxc6 here. You give up the bishop pair but cripple Black's queenside majority. As someone who enjoys endgames,this sounded like a great idea, in theory... limit Black's choices, avoid theory, play positionally. Over time I found that I didn't like how my pieces coordinated, I didn't get endgames as much as I hoped, and most importantly I was missing out on the experience of playing against a variety of pawn structures. I prefer 4.Ba4 now. In both cases, I've said "this is the move that I like to play in this position", not "I don't like that book anymore, so I'm going to play something from this other book because I liked the blurb the publisher put on the back".

At this point, the main move is 4...Nf6, developing a piece, hitting the e4 pawn, and preparing to castle. I like that, so I play it. By the way, if you asked here or on the last move "is ...d5 possible?" the answer would be "not really", but you'll have to figure that out for yourself. Piket actually won a game with 4...d5 here against an IM, so it's not completely wacky, but you've been warned.

After 4...Nf6, White's e-pawn seems like it's in danger of being captured. As white, I currently play 5.Qe2 here to protect it. This is not the main move in this position, but the move makes sense (protects e4, develops the queen, vacates d1 for the king's rook) , and it's the move used in my current repertoire book. Remember: if you splurge on a repertoire book, treat them as menus of suggestions, not orders to follow. I may choose a move that the author recommends, or I may play something I like better. For example, I've gotten a lot of use out of Kaufman's repertoire book (there are very few books that provide white and black repertoires all in one volume) but I've rejected a lot of it for my own repertoire.

The standard move here is 5.0-0, and we'll see that 5.d4 is also possible. At this point there are a lot of move-order issues and unusual sidelines. In Part 2 I'll talk about how to navigate the maze that follows, and possibly help you come up with your own pet weapons to surprise an opponent.

Chess Tactics for Beginners Arrived

I finally picked up CTB, so I have something to smack around after CT-ART's done abusing me. Did the first 110 problems over lunch. I had an embarrassing think over one of the mate-in-one problems, an example of chess blindness if there ever was one:


The funny thing is, I knew the theme was queen mates in one, but I instinctively kept trying to find a longer sequence, or returning to a failed one, rather than focus on every possible queen move. I kept looking at the criss-cross "mate" with Qd5, thinking, "man I wish that were possible...wonder if the programmers made a mistake with this one." After about a minute of this I forced myself to actually think concretely and found the answer (which I'll leave to the reader to find.)

Really, really embarrassing. If this had been given to me as a "white to play and win" I may never have gotten it.

Prelude: Preparing an Opening Repertoire

Part of me is loathe to discuss openings yet again, but I see people tie themselves up in knots over this. I have had a monster tutorial on how to go about opening preparation rolling around my head for some time now, so I'm going to try and spit it out over the next few postings. I wanted to emphasize a few things right off the bat.

The idea is to decide for yourself what you like to play in a position, and keep track of those decisions. Unless you have a photographic memory, this means you need to maintain a record of some sort. If you're "old school", this could even be notebooks or index cards, but if you're reading this it's likely you own a computer, so I'll focus on using one to manage your repertoire.

Programs such as Bookup or the free download Chess Position Trainer allow you to move back and forth through the variations, and will spot transpositions. For example, let's say after you enter 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 you write a note about the Rubinstein variation of the French. If you then enter 3.Nd2 (the Tarrasch variation of the french) dxe4 4.Nxe4 you'll see your previous note and realize that you just transposed out of the Tarrasch and into the Rubinstein. There are other fancy things you can do with such opening databases, like automatically import your internet games for analysis if you want. Bookup has recently been revamped as the Chess Opening Wizard. I'm not ready to plop down money on it when I have the free CPT plus ChessBase 9 at my disposal (as well as the old Bookup Express).

Alternatively you can use software like Fritz, Chessbase (which has a new, free CB Light version) or whatever. I'm sure there's even free software out there that will do the job as well. With these, you would have to save your repertoire as separate lines and variations, so you have to spot transpositions between openings yourself. There's a tutorial here on one method of constructing a repertoire database in this fashion.

The ideal repertoire, in my opinion, consists largely of moves that follow good opening principles, that you consider the best in the position (or that you have come to understand are the best). Theory can help steer you towards more reliable lines, but what's most important is that you like and understand the moves you make. If you do this, memorization is less of an issue. Also, if you're consistently playing the moves you've decided yourself that you like, then there is no need to waffle and hop from opening to opening. If you really think 1.e4 makes more sense than 1.Nf3, then why play the latter? If you think 1...d5 in response to 1.d4 makes more sense than 1...Nf6, then why not play it?.

As I've mentioned in my previous opening guidelines, I would strongly encourage you to choose systems that tend to follow classic opening principles: play just enough pawn moves to get your pieces out, develop your minor pieces (knights before bishops, unless you know what you're doing), castle and connect your rooks. Do so in a manner that gives you a say in what happens in the center. If the "book" opening move violates any of these principles, understand why or play something else. (btw: if you still don't have a good feel for what good opening play is, Emms' Discovering Chess Openings is a terrific book).

Where opening theory is helpful is in guiding you towards good choices and away from bad ones. This way, you don't paint yourself into a corner. If you look at the ground and follow the most attractive path, you may find yourself looking over a cliff. For example, perhaps you may like the Ponziani opening, but theory pooh-poohs it. If you can understand, and agree with, that assessment, you may find that you agree more with the Scotch, Italian or Spanish than the Ponz. On the other hand, if the Ponz move sequence makes sense to you, and you can't understand why they're dissing your opening, then play it. Play your favorite move until you realize and understand that it's inferior. The goal here is to consistently play "your" moves instead of hopping from opening to opening.

Here's a better example of what I mean. I am in the early stages of figuring out what I want to play against the Sicilian. I currently lean towards systems with Bc4 (although I also like the feel of systems based on Be2, Be3 and f4). Here is a standard Sicilian position that arose in an ICC game:


If you crack open a theory book, 7.Bb3 is the overwhelming favorite here, with barely a mention of 7.0-0 except to say that it usually transposes after 7...b5 8.Bb3. So, if I were a lemming theory monkey (hmm... maybe I should avoid metaphors with multiple species) I would move the bishop twice in the opening, play Bb3, and perhaps not even try to find out why the move is played. I would be relying on my memory at this point. In contrast, 7. 0-0 is completely playable, and is the natural developing move. It's not quite that simple...there's actually a lot of interesting material surrounding these two move options that I'm sweeping under the rug, and certain black responses can be met with a rude shock. The point is: 7.0-0 is good, it's natural, the move order subtlety is overlooked in a lot of books and by playing "my move" I have a possibility of surprising my opponent if they play bookish moves robotically. I may have to play Bb3 next move anyway, but I've looked the lines over and decided I'll move it when I have to and no sooner.

I very much like the approach to opening preparation mentioned in Johnsen and Johannessen's book on a Spanish repertoire for black. Study the main line of the opening system you've chosen and try to get a mastery of that line. "Your attitude should be something like this: I may not be a grandmaster in chess, but on this particular branch of the game, I want to be an authority!" For the club player, I'd temper that as "I understand this entire branch up to the end of the opening (pieces out, castled, rooks connected...move 8-12ish) and have an idea about how the middlegame goes from there". As you encounter deviations in your games, determine what you'd play the next time you encountered it and follow the main line from there. One nice thing about Chessbase is that the database statistics can help you find out what the "main" line is.

In the short term, playing simple systems allows you to concentrate on other things such as tactics. However, if you approach opening study the way I recommend, you won't spend much more time studying a main line opening than your pet system. Basically, after you play a game (even internet blitz), look at the opening, see where it leaves theory, and determine what you would like to play the next time you encounter it. Also, make sure you're familiar with the main line itself. Make a record of this line. There, you're done! This automatically keeps your opening study down to the appropriate level. If you play the Spanish as White, for example, you may find that the "minor" 3rd-move deviations such as the Steinitz, Classical and Cozio occur more frequently than the main-line closed Spanish. If you routinely do an opening checkup after each game, you'll consequently be studying the lines that occur in your games the most.

In the long run playing main lines (in my opinion) will be the best for developing your chess. I have read several masters that have said "I would be a better player if I had started playing main lines (the Spanish is a common one that comes up in this context) at a younger age." If your intent is to progress in chess as far as you can, I say choose a repertoire that will grow with you. It's often said that chess masters can play any position well. I think choosing a repertoire that exposes you to many different kinds of pawn structures, while initially intimidating, ultimately helps you to become a better player. I think the more pawn structures out of Kmoch that you see in your own games, the better.

Review of Daniel King's Power Play 2/3 DVDs

I've finished going through Daniel King's second and third DVDs in his Power Play series, and want to give my assessment of their utility to the club player. I have not viewed the first DVD in the series that deals with mating attacks. I will explain why at the end of this post.

First, a few relevant quotations:

"I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get into the same positions."
-- Spielmann

"The player who is better must attack or risk losing the advantage"--Steinitz

"Properly taught, a student can learn more in a few hours than he would find out in ten years of untutored trial-and-error."--Em. Lasker

The two reviewed DVDs show how one initiates an attack so that you can get to the point of mating your opponent. The second DVD (Attacking the King) focuses on the idea of "inviting everyone to the party" by bringing pieces into the attack, in particular the heavy pieces. It also demonstrates the use of the g-pawn to crack open the g-file (particularly when the defender has played P-KR3). The third DVD focuses on pushing the f- and h-pawns.

I purchased these DVDs because I felt that, in my own games, I wasn't making the most of my attacking chances...I have a tendency to be risk-averse (although I do routinely sack a piece if I can get two defending pawns in exchange). However, I wondered if the DVDs would show example of example of sparkling attacks, and thereby encourage the viewer to launch into unjustified attacks in their own games. Then, through weakness of tactics and disregard of positional elements, their games would end in smoking ruins.

In short, these DVDs are an excellent example of Lasker's quote above. King provides a balanced, objective assessment of these attacks. In both DVDs, he has you pause the playback, set up the positions on a board, and think about the next move (in the second DVD, pauses during the lessons are common, and a few test positions are at the end of the DVD; in the third, there are fewer pauses in lessons but seventeen test positions at the end). Frequently, you are asked not for the attacker's next move but for the defender's. He shows not only attacks that break through but attacks that are ill-conceived. This approach adds instructional value, not only by encouraging a "real chess" approach (considering your opponent's responses) but by indirectly providing a primer on defence in chess. One benefit of learning mating patterns and attacks is so that, as a defender, you can see them looming and take prophylactic measures.

A strength of King's presentation is the use of repetition to drive home key concepts--and not just attacking principles, but general principles such as central control and space advantage. Here are some of the themes I detected:

• In order to attack, you must have the center under control. You don't need opposite-side castling in order to launch a pawn storm. The center doesn't need to be locked, or even occupied by pawns, but it must be under control. Otherwise, your opponent can counter your attack by counterplay in the center (editorial aside: queenside counterplay may also be possible, but a counterattack in the center tends to be more powerful and more common.). This was wonderfully reinforced throughout the DVDs.

• One signal for the attack is a lack of defenders around the king (well, der!) but particularly where the defender's queen is off on an adventure on the queenside, and/or when the cramped opponent doesn't have their rooks cooperating. An overriding theme of the second DVD is the following "story arc": central control cramps the opponent; their position gets pinched in two, limiting communication between kingside and queenside; the lack of communication prevents defenders, particularly queen and rooks, to come to the rescue of the king; the attacker gets overwhelming, localized superiority of force around the defender's king and mate follows.

• You really want to get the heavy pieces into the attack. This was a bit of an eye opener for me, not because it doesn't make sense (a common patzer problem is activating your rooks), but that they are that much more special than other pieces. Previously, I followed Colin Crouch's advice from his handy little book Attacking Technique: "In general, a successful kingside attack will need at least three pieces participating; one to be sacrificed and two to give checkmate." Also, paraphrasing crouch, 0-1 pieces attacking the king = premature; 2 = consider getting a third (or play elsewhere); 3=may be in business, 4 or more = start looking for winning combinations. I didn't place that much higher an importance to getting the rooks involved than the minors.

• Getting the queen early into the attack adds urgency and can provoke your opponent to create weaknesses. Transfering the queen to the kingside is emphasized. For example, the f4 push allows the queen to enter via the manoeuver Qd1-e1-g3(h4).
  

• Pawn moves leave weaknesses. Pushing the f- pawn makes the king not only vulnerable along the diagonal (e.g. the a7-g1 diagonal after pushing the f2 pawn) but also along the second rank (a2-h2). (editorial aside: in Kopec's Mastering the Sicilian, he talks about Black's "Queenside-Kingside Swipe" where he penetrates down the c-file then swipes down the back ranks towards White's king. This demonstrates King's point nicely). Pushing the h-pawn is surprisingly safe in many cases, but you have to worry about, say, weakness on g4 after pushing h4. As the defender, if you can avoid making a weakening pawn move, avoid it. For example, DVD 2 really drives home how playing the modest P-KR3 can be asking for trouble.

A few comments about production quality of the DVDs: King is very engaging and entertaining. He sounds a lot like the old speech recordings used by Fritz 5.32...I wonder if he's the guy behind the curtains there (and I wonder if they'd use him again...the speech from Fritz 7 and 9 annoys the hell out of me). There's some minor fumbling with drawing arrows and making moves, and in some cases he desparately needed a drink of water, but it wasn't that distracting. I enjoyed the second DVD more...the third has fewer "pause and think" exercises during the exercises (although more "test positions" at the end of the DVD), and moves at a faster clip. The third DVD was more overwhelming at times with the rapid-fire analysis (but you can always pause). Besides the hours of DVD playback, the DVDs come with databases of annotated games (although some of the annotations appeared to be in German), so I would have to say that they are packed with value.


So, let's return to the plight of the club player and ask if this is $70 well-spent (>$100 if you decide to get the first DVD as well).

In theory, this material is covered in other formats. Looking at my bookshelf, I have books on attack by Vukovic, Znozko-Borovsky, Crouch, Tal, and Alburt. I've read all of them cover to cover except Vukovic (which I hope to re-read to completion soon) and yet these DVDs had many revelations for me. King's repetition of themes was very effective. It's becoming instinct for me to look at these positions in the following way:

• Does one side have an advantage that would justify considering an attack? (Space, development, coordination etc.)

• Does the attacker have the center under control? Can the defender counter in the center or on the queenside?

• Can I get a local superiority of force through piece play alone? If not, can I do so via a pawn storm? Will my king be safe enough if I execute the pawn storm? Will the pawns leave serious weaknesses in their wake?

After taking a few weeks off from Blitz, I played a handful of games recently. I didn't seek to go out and put this new knowledge to the test...I just tried to play chess as usual. However, during play my new training automatically kicked in. I had several mates, and one failed attack where I missed the best continuation and the opponent regrouped. Fritz revealed multiple tactical errors in both attack and defense, but my attacking ideas themselves appeared to be justified.

Granted, this is a handful of blitz games, but it suggests that I successfully internalized a lot of King's material.

Another beneficial side-effect of the DVDs is that it ultimately reinforces what you already knew: tactics and calculation are the most important part of chess. There were a few instances where a Grandmaster had a winning attack and then couldn't convert at the end because they missed the mate. If you can't spot the basic mates, or have trouble with calculation, it doesn't matter how brilliant the attack was if you can't put the puck in the net. King didn't have every line completely mapped out, so when he would get to a certain position in the attack he would stop, analyze and assess on the spot. This was very enlightening, not only to see how he goes about thinking about the position but also how rapidly he spots and executes tactics. So, while it's been great learning how to set up these attacks, it's back to the grindstone for me.

So, in a nut shell: studying tactics probably will have more effect on your chess strength than improving your attacking technique. However, as I mentioned in my Synergy post, a little bit of basic knowledge can pay off disproportionately. These DVDs added to my knowledge and to my game something that was lacking. My games are still going to be decided largely through tactics, but I now have a better feel for if I should attack, how I can attack, and thus how I can get a stronger position where I will have an easier time than my opponent. I suspect after these lessons I'm going to need a dose of prophylaxis to balance me out, so it's back to My System shortly.

Finally, about the first DVD: I'm delaying getting this because, from the description and preview from Chessbase.com, there seems to be considerable overlap with the material I already have (particularly Znozko-Borovsky, Vukovic, plus Tal's Winning Chess Combinations). Both Znozko-Borovsky and Vukovic, for example, have multiple examples of the Greek Gift sacrifice in different settings. However, because I found that I more efficiently learned (and hopefully retained) via DVD, I may yet relent. I am still adverse to getting the fourth DVD because I think I have had enough material on opening play for now.

However, if I were to somehow receive review copies of the other DVDs in the series I would gladly review them here (crosses fingers, hopes someone from ChessBase is reading this). Yes, I'm shameless.