|
|
|
From the Archives Hosted by
|
From the Archives... Since it came online many years ago, ChessCafe.com has presented literally thousands of articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its worldwide readership. The good news is that almost all of this high quality material remains available in the Archives. The bad news is that this great collection of chess literature is now so large and extensive – and growing each week – that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate it effectively. We decided that the occasional selection from the archives posted publicly online might be a welcomed addition to the regular fare. Watch for an item to be posted online periodically throughout each month. We will update the ChessCafe.com home page whenever there has been a “new” item posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives... Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Lev Alburt & Al Lawrence
White is Always Equal, but Black is Always Worse! We all know the feeling. We decide to choose a serious opening repertoire. Our idea is first to find a promising game-starting scheme we like and then to learn it and stick with it. We want to make ourselves as Burgess Meredith, portraying boxer Rocky Balboa’s trainer, put it in imitation Brooklynese “a very dangerous poy-son.” So we sit down with our MCO, our Opening Encyclopedia or our ChessBase or BookUp disks. After hours or days, what’s our finding? See if this sounds familiar: “When I study white, the opening is always equal. When I study black, the opening is always worse!” Just so you understand that we all hit this wall, regardless of rating the common complaint is in this instance voiced by none other than World Champion Tigran Petrosian. We’re going to start discussing openings with you where we think it’s best to begin, long before the point of sitting down with an opening tome. We need first to talk about some basic realities, approaches and attitudes that go into selecting and studying your openings. Lucky in love or how to put the
romance back in your Romanishin It’s a lucky player who finds an opening system he loves to rely on, loves to protect from those who would inflict harm on it with their new, villainous ideas. A player and his favorite opening are really a bit of a romance. Even a tyro in such a relationship can rise on occasion to the role of hero to rescue his maiden in distress. (We make this analogy despite the danger of your thinking we’re channeling Freud and Reuben Fine.) As a handy example, early in his amateur tournament experience, co-author Al Lawrence found his sweetheart opening the Scandinavian. (Back then, American players called it the Center Counter.) In the 1960s, the Center Counter (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5) was commonly considered a joke, played either by masters who lived before modern principles were understood, or by modern park-players who just as often opened by advancing a rook’s pawn. The Center Counter was a great choice for Al. There was little theory to learn. His opponents underestimated his choice. Al became a bit of a Center Counter expert; enough to spot the holes in popular books. He was able to synthesize old, forgotten ideas and even to create a few new wrinkles. And he never played with as much commitment and focus as when his opponent could be seen smirking on the other side of a Center Counter. But these benefits were after-effects, not the selection criteria. Al never successfully courted a debut as white or as a defense to 1.d4. He dated around, but, when estranged from 1.e4, would wind up a lonely, on-the-board bachelor. As research for this column, he dug out a shoebox of gamescores (let’s just say his playing heyday was a bit before Pentium III). His best winning percentage by far, as white or black, was as second-fiddle against 1.e4. Of course, in time, this opening from the other side of the tracks won respect. The Center Counter was played even in a world championship match, Kasparov – Anand, 1995. In a dramatic turn-of-fate, there are now even serious, admiring books and articles on the opening! Perhaps every chess wallflower will have its day. Al’s is just a case in point. We all know club players who will take on all opponents and all debaters on the topic of their favorite starting moves. How do these lucky-in-love players find their beloved beginnings? Most often, it takes place as it did with Al. He happened to see an old game by German Jacques Mieses. (“Mister My-sis?” asked the journalist. “Meister Mee-sees,” came the master’s mnemonic-device correction.) For no completely logical reason, the moonlight struck the board. Al was hooked. The fact that the first dates were fun clinched the relationship. Even on a very top level of play, these same “romantic” factors can play a part. Co-author and three-time U.S. Champion GM Lev Alburt is famous for his Alekhine’s Defense. Despite the prevailing opinion that after 1.e4, 1…Nf6 is not quite correct, Lev played it consistently at the highest levels, with rewarding results. The switching syndrome What we need is a sort of computerized chess-opening dating service. After all, we could sit home for years, or even go to a hundred clubs, and not find that magic partner. The B. Dalton’s are always packed with self-help “relationship” books. Is there a logical approach that will at least narrow the field and provide us with some simpatico chess systems? Indeed there is. A simple review of the current state of openings and some empathetic but razor-sharp logic from GM Alburt can cut through years of disappointing dating and bring an end to this courtship analogy. Let’s take a look at the basic points to consider when choosing an opening repertoire. 1. Set reasonable goals for your
opening A. Regardless of its theoretical assessment, we want
a position we know how to play. 2. Make use of what you know 3. Realize that openings are
schizophrenic But there just isn’t an opening with only one personality. Certainly, in every major opening, you can’t play in a way that will guide you only to tactical terrain or prevent positional games, or vice versa. Try staying in a “solid” Caro-Kann against someone who wants to pry the game open for an attack. Even Mikhail Botvinnik couldn’t do it in 1960. Or try playing the Sicilian for a sharp, attacking game against an expert in white’s c3 system, and you’ll likely find yourself in a positional struggle. Some variations of the French are passive, while some are downright counterattacks. Some forms of the Ruy Lopez are positional, some are wild and hoary. Some Giuico Pianos are hardly pianissimo. Your opponent can play the Queen’s Gambit like the draw-prone Schlechter or like the checkmate-obsessed Marshall. Openings are schizophrenic. So unless you suffer from multiple personalities and have learned to change them on cue, whatever variation you play, you risk getting a position that doesn’t match your own attitudes about aggression or passivity. 4. Petrosian’s Rule The great Petrosian was patron to his assistant, the young and talented Russian-Armenian master Karen Gregorian. Once Gregorian returned from an important qualifying tournament and showed Petrosian a game in which the young man had played some very risky opening moves as black and lost. Petrosian cross-examined him in a characteristically chiding way. Petrosian: “Why did you play such terrible moves?
Even you should understand these are bad.” Respect for material The variety of perspectives on the value of material versus the initiative is a fascinating subject in itself and certainly relevant to the overall topic of opening move choices. All players fall someplace on the material initiative continuum. Sometimes our chess heroes have a very similar place on the continuum to our own. Pay attention to the openings and sub-variations they choose. See how you like them. Desperate attack or stubborn
defense There’s a fascinating pair of Soviet grandmasters among the greatest players of the white pieces who illustrate these opposite reactions to a bad position. And there’s an extra wrinkle that’s on-point with our discussion of the openings although most GMs feel that white can’t force a win, both of these players felt black was nearly doomed against best play. GM Semyon Furman was an eminent theoretician who helped a young Anatoly Karpov become world champion. Karpov wisely made him his chief trainer and openings advisor. As a player, Furman was the terror of players of black. Furman felt that white could force a serious advantage, what Informator would mark with a +/–. He consistently got great positions out of the opening against the very best. So what did he do when he was forced to play black? He dug in. He played solidly and passively, offering stubborn, dogged defense, trying to reach the equal position that he felt he didn’t deserve. The joke among his peers was that Furman’s goal was to reach the weak side of a tricky but drawn rook-and-bishop-versus-rook ending, or defend to the end of the fifty-move rule. A dour outlook to have for half your professional duties! GM Lev Polugaevsky was one of the best players in the world throughout the 1970s. As white, he played extremely solid chess, most often getting an advantage that would be evaluated as +=. He agreed with Furman’s “white to play and win attitude.” How did he react as black? He played razor-sharp, few-holds-barred reactions. His pet variation in the Najdorf Sicilian, which bares his name today, bordered on the dubious. But he kept it playable by endless analysis to meet each new challenge. Against 1.d4, he played the edgy Meran variation. Nezhmetdinov sacrifices Comments from readers Regarding June’s column, “Standing Tal: Mikhail, Yin; Bobby, Yang,” Yui Tsao asked “Would it be possible to locate a picture of Tal wearing the oversized glasses getting a laugh from the audience?” We remember seeing such a photo, and it is funny. We’ll work on tracking it down for the column. |
Check out these
|
|
|
|
[ChessCafe
Home Page] [Book Review]
[Columnists] © 2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
|
