|
|
|
Let’s Take a Look... Nigel Davies
|
Scoundrel Chess Following up last month’s column about how to deal with distractions, and the recent release of my new DVD, Chess for Scoundrels, I think it’s appropriate to look at some of the fair and legal means of conducting psychological warfare. Please don’t write in to say that it’s all about pieces, this view is just very naïve and will hobble your performance to the same extent as having to move the pieces with your teeth. Do I really have to explain? Very well then. Every move that is played on the chessboard is not just a question of knowledge and technique, certainly not when it’s played by humans. Chess moves are imbued with hopes, dreams and fears at what one might describe as a subatomic level. A decision to play one way or another will be influenced by many such factors, such as the opponent’s demeanour, the amount of thinking time he has left and any revelations gleaned from a study of his games. That’s not to say that good moves will be ignored. It’s more a question of the choice being given a certain bias whereby one good move will be chosen over another. Many players may even go so far as to choose a move they know to be inferior. Emanuel Lasker was particularly adept at this; for example, giving the bishop loving Janowsky the two bishops at almost every opportunity. Victor Korchnoi might have even surpassed his idol in the psychology department. And indeed every world champion has been expert in this field. Yes, you’re right. Bobby Fischer did claim that the objectively best move was also the subjectively best move. Of course he said this before wrong-footing Boris Spassky with the English Opening, Pirc and Alekhine during their 1972 encounter, not to mention the various ego crushing methods he used over the years. Maybe Fischer didn’t set out to crush his opponents’ egos, but he certainly did a nice job of it. Neither Mark Taimanov nor Bent Larsen were ever quite the same after their 6-0 drubbings. Is this any different at club level? Not really. Players do not suddenly start thinking about psychology once they’re awarded the grandmaster or international master title, it’s there from the very first steps. Once you realise that old George with the pipe doesn’t like tactics, it’s only sensible to throw the pieces around against him. As for the juniors you can stop them in their tracks with a nice queen exchange and continue the game until after their bedtime. There’s nothing wrong in doing this, it’s just sensible. And oh yes; generally speaking it works to have the initiative at club level, whether or not your moves are perfect. I’ve mentioned this a few times in this column, and this is why I wrote the two Gambiteer books. What about the DVD? Well there I get a little bit more sophisticated, examining a number of different situations and discussing what one should do in them. And very often the correct approach may appear anti-intuitive. For example, many players, when they want a draw, can’t help but to blurt out a draw offer early on in the game. This, however, is entirely the wrong approach as it shows weakness. Once your opponent knows you’re desperate to draw he can take liberties, confronting you with double-edged lines in which it’s very difficult to head for safety. If you do want a draw it’s much better to play a normal game in which your opponent faces some risk. This is far more likely to bring him to the negotiating table because he’s got something to lose. And if he still believes that you’re intentions are only peaceful he can easily be wrong footed. I look at other things too such as the reasoning behind Tony Miles’ use of 1…a6 against Karpov. Time trouble issues are also examined plus various forms of deception. Once again I make no apology if any of this sounds underhanded; this is chess we’re playing, not pass the parcel. There’s a clear dividing line between fair tactics and foul. And the goal of every serious player should be to tread the ground between naïve idealism and keeping to the rules. In this month’s game, White trounces an opponent nearly 400 points higher rated than himself. Many players tend to cower in such situations and lose without a fight, but pursuing the initiative is a much better idea. The point is that this reduces the opponent’s margin for error – there are fewer good moves and more bad ones. And even strong players can pick a losing ticket in such a lottery. Vozza, N
(1735) – Sorcinelli, F
(2122) 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 These days most players tend to play the Modern Benoni using a 2...e6 3 Nf3 c5 move order. This is to avoid lines such as Taimanov’s Variation with 7 f4 and 8 Bb5+. 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 g6 5 e4 exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 Bd3
People have been trying to make 8...Nbd7 work for years and it still isn’t 100% clear. A fairly recent example went 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Nh5 11 e6 Qh4+ 12 g3 Nxg3 13 hxg3 Qxh1 14 Be3 Bxc3+ 15 bxc3 a6 16 exd7+ Bxd7 17 Bxd7+ Kxd7 18 Qb3 b5 19 O-O-O Rhe8, as in Mankeyev,R-Kononenko,D, Alushta 2006. 7...Bg7 8 Nge2 O-O 9 O-O Re8 Keeping open several different options for development, either by playing ...a7-a6 or ...Nb8-a6. 10 h3 Getting ready for the attacking plan (f4 etc), but it’s not the only way to play this position. White also has plans based on the consolidating f2-f3; for example, 10 f3 b6 11 Rb1 Ba6 12 b4 Bxd3 13 Qxd3 Nbd7 14 Bf4 Ne5 15 Bxe5 Rxe5 16 bxc5 bxc5 17 Qa6 Re7 18 Rb3 Ne8 19 Rfb1 was slightly better for White in Spraggett – Suetin, Vienna 1990. 10...Na6 11 f4 Nc7 12 Ng3 Rb8 13 a4 a6 14 Qf3
14...b5 15 axb5 There’s also a case for the immediate 15 e5; for example, Gruenberg,H – Postler, Goerlitz 1972 continued 15…dxe5 16 fxe5 Nfxd5 (16...Rxe5 17 Bf4 Rxd5 18 Bxc7 Qxc7 19 Nxd5 Nxd5 20 Qxd5 wins a whole rook, though even this isn’t completely clear after, say, 20…Bxh3!?) 17 Qxf7+ (17 Nh5!? is interesting) 17...Kh8 18 Nxd5 Qxd5 19 Qxc7 Bxe5 20 Qf7 Qxf7 21 Rxf7 Bxg3 and White had enough for the pawn, but no more than that. 15...axb5 This seems like a new move, though I’m sure that neither player knew this at the time of the game. In the game Kopjonkin – Ionescu,D, Decin 1996, Black played 15...Nxb5 and after 16 Nxb5 (16 e5! looks stronger, for example 16…Nd7 17 Nxb5 axb5 18 Ne4 dxe5 19 f5 is a typical Pawn sacrifice which gives White powerful compensation) 16...axb5 17 Bd2 (17 e5?! can now be met by 17…dxe5 18 fxe5 Rxe5 19 Bf4 Rxd5 as Black is then hitting the bishop on d3) 17...Nd7 he achieved a satisfactory game. 16 e5 dxe5 17 f5
17...e4? Definitely not the best. Black can seriously test the soundness of White’s sacrifice with 17...c4! 18 Bc2 b4 19 Nce4 Ncxd5. Frankly I don’t think White has enough. 18 Ncxe4 Qxd5?? And this is a very serious mistake. After 18...Nfxd5, Black is very much in the game. Now he is completely lost. 19 fxg6 Qd4+ 20 Be3 Qxd3 21 Nxf6+ Kh8 22 Nxe8 Bb7 23 Qf4 Rxe8 24 gxf7 White is winning this position, but it still requires care and attention. 24…Rf8 25 Rad1 Qc2
26 Rd2 Qb3 27 Nh5? Allowing Black to fight on. White could win comfortably with 27 Bxc5 as after 27…Ne6 28 Bxf8 Nxf4 29 Bxg7+ Kxg7 30 Rxf4, there’s nothing Black can do about the f7-pawn. 27...Nd5 28 Rxd5 Qxd5 29 Qg4 Bxb2? Putting his head back on the chopping block. But even after the superior 29...Rxf7, White is still doing well with 30 Rd1, when 30…Qe5 is answered by 31 Bf4 Rxf4 32 Nxf4 (threatening 33 Rd8+) 32…Bf6 33 Qg3, renewing the threat of Rd1-d8+ because if Black takes with the bishop, Nf4-g6+ will win his queen. 30 Rf5 Qd3 After 30...Qd7, White would play 31 Qf4, threatening 32 Qh6 and 32 Bxc5, amongst other things. 31 Bxc5 Not only threatening the rook on f8, but mate via 32 Qg8+, etc. 31…Qb1+ 32 Rf1 Qxf1+ 33 Kxf1 1-0 Recommended Viewing Chess for Scoundrels by Nigel Davies (Chessbase, 2008) We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to: nigeldavies@chesscafe.com. Who knows, perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, “Let’s take a look...” © 2008 Nigel Davies. All Rights Reserved. |
Check out these
|
|
|
|
[ChessCafe
Home Page] [Book Review]
[Columnists] © 2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
|
Introducing
a line developed by the German grandmaster Rainer Knaak. The dreaded
Taimanov Variation is introduced with the moves 7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+, though
it’s not that clear that this position is unplayable for Black. One very
high level example is the game Bareev – Topalov, Dortmund 2002, which
went 8…Nfd7 9 a4 O-O (9...Qh4+ 10 g3 Qd8 is also played, arguing that
White’s g2-g3 does him less than two tempi’s worth of good and more than
one tempo’s worth of harm) 10 Nf3 Na6 11. O-O Nb4 (11... Nc7 has also
been played) 12 h3 a6 13 Bc4 f5! 14 Ng5 Nb6 15 Bb3 a5! 16 Be3 fxe4 17
Kh1 Nd3 and Black was doing rather well.
White
often has a choice in the Benoni to either allow ...b7-b5 or play a4-a5
and split Black’s pawns. 14 a5 is certainly playable here, after which
14…b5 15 axb6 Rxb6 Black would seek counterplay along the b-file.
This
is a known type of pawn sacrifice by which White secures the e4-square
and cramps Black’s kingside. Whether it’s quite enough is another
question. I think it was better to play 17 fxe5, when 17…Rxe5 18 Bf4
Nd7! 19 Rad1 looks very messy.
Hitting
g2, though White handles this easily enough.
