The Kibitzer 
by Tim Harding

Winning By One Tempo: Clever or Not?

Once upon a time, and we're talking about the early 1970s, the
Kibitzer was primarily an over-the-board hacker. After a hard
week's study of abstruse philosophical topics in the historic
Bodleian Library, on a Friday afternoon he'd feel he'd earned the
right to request an hour or two with one of the old chess books
bequeathed to that august institution by Professor H.J.R. Murray,
author of the monumental "History of Chess".

Thus, after half a dozen years of trying unsuccessfully to play like
Petrosian, began the Kibitzer's infatuation with open games and a
more tactical style of play. On Saturdays there would generally be
a university match or inter-county match, usually involving some
travelling. Horrors such as the following, unearthed from the
archives specially for this column, were liable to be perpetrated:

Tim Harding - R.J.Stockwell County Match: Oxfordshire-Surrey,
1971

1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 (One of my favourite discoveries in those old
books.) 2 Nf6 3 Nc3 (The Frankenstein-Dracula Variation, about
which I wrote in my first Kibitzer a year ago.) 3 Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6
5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 Qe7?! (The recommended line is 6 g6 7 Qf3 f5,
giving up the a8-rook in improved circumstances.) 7 Nxc7+ Kd8 8
Nxa8 b6 9 d3 Bb7 10 Nxb6 axb6 11 Be3 Kc7 12 f3 g6 13 Qg5 f6
14 Qg3 Nf5 15 Qf2 Nxe3 16 Qxe3 f5 17 Ne2 Qh4+ 18 Qf2 Qb4+
19 c3 Qb5 20 0-0-0 Bh6+ 21 Kc2 Na5 22 Rhe1 Nxb3 23 axb3 Bg5
24 d4 e4? 25 Qg3+ f4 26 Nxf4 Bxf4 (Seeing too late that if
26...Qf5 27 Ne6+ mates.) 27 Qxf4+ Kc8 28 fxe4 1-0.

It is typical of this line that White's fate appears to hang by a thread
for several moves, but that didn't bother me. The idea of winning
by one tempo was appealing. However, after a few such escapades
I came to realise that my friends who played on the higher boards
of the team were not so impressed. Their views would be expressed
on the journey back to Oxford, or in the oriental restaurant
afterwards or during the traditional late-night kriegspiel session.
(Maybe a future Kibitzer article can deal with kriegspiel, that
strangely compulsive chess variant in which the position of your
opponent's pieces is a mystery.)

The higher art of chess play, it was explained to me by Oxford
stars such as John Moles (already Irish Champion in his teens),
George Botterill (soon to win the British Championship twice) and
Peter Markland (later a correspondence grandmaster), was to
outplay the opponent strategically, perhaps with the aid of well-
researched opening improvements, and then apply the tactical
coup-de-grace when the opponent's position was so utterly ruined
that the chance of a swindle coming to his aid was remote. To rely
on seeing one move further than the opponent in an unclear
position was not just risky but somehow cheap. I could see their
point but, lacking their talent, I had to do it my way. On the
occasions, not so rare, when I didn't get away with it, the criticism
was more wounding, of course.

Nevertheless there are occasions when one does win a game by
seeing something, just one big thing or one key move, far enough
ahead when the opponent does not. In my over-the-board career the
classic example of this is the following game. The main variation,
the refutation of Black's plausible 19th move is (in computer chess
parlance) 18-ply deep, but it came to me in a flash, although it took
some checking before I played my 20th move. Afterwards I was
very proud of this, particularly since Black was a talented young
player who well outranked me (and became a GM within a few
years). However, I encountered a similar reaction to my earlier
dubious exploits: "You were just lucky!" I was told. Judge for
yourself:

Tim Harding - W.N. Watson Islington open (London), 1976 1 c4
Nf6 2 Nc3 g6 3 e4 d6 4 d4 Bg7 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 e5 7 d5 c6 8 Bd3 b5
This counter-gambit was fashionable at the time. Often it was
declined but I took up the challenge. 9 cxb5 cxd5 10 exd5 e4 11
fxe4 Ng4 12 Bf4 Qb6 13 Qe2 a6 14 Nf3 Nd7 15 h3 Nge5 16 Be3
Qa5 17 Nd4 Nxd3+ 18 Qxd3 Nc5 19 Qc4 To be honest, I don't
remember now at what stage I first saw the sequel but I'm pretty
sure I played the queen here rather than c2 to set the trap, and of
course with my queen having access to b5, it is less attractive for
Black to play  axb5. My opponent's manner when he played his
little combination now suggested that he believed I'd blundered.
19...Nxe4? Whatever Black should play here, this is not it but can
you see the refutation? (DIAGRAM) OK, it's decision time. Don't
scroll down the page without trying to work it out. You have the
advantage that I've told you it's an error! To make it harder for you
to see the answer by accident, let us have a little digression .
Chess masters are sometimes asked, how far ahead can you see in a
game. The answer is, it all depends. In a tactical sequence
consisting of captures, checks and direct threats or in an endgame
with only kings and pawns, long-range calculation is sometimes
possible to quite surprising depths. It's in quiet positions - where
the main decisions are strategic - that a different, and perhaps more
difficult kind of vision, is required. Have you found the refutation
now? It's a deep but very narrow variation, there are few alternative
moves for either side, which made it possible to see it to the end.
Of course, had Black seen the final move of the game here, he
would have played something else at move 20 or 21. 20 Nc6
Bxc3+ Consistent, but 20 axb5 was an alternative. Who has seen
further? 21 bxc3 Qxc3+? This was the last chance to keep things
messy, by 21 Qa3, but Black thinks I have overlooked his 25th
move. 22 Qxc3 Nxc3 23 Ne7+ Kg7 24 Bd4+ f6 25 Bxc3 Re8
There it is, the pin down the e-file will lead to level material,
maybe an early draw. Right? Wrong! 

A recently published book (by Dutchman, Robert Timmer) is
called "Startling Castling"! Well, here is a candidate for his next
edition. 26 0-0! And Black resigned, for if 26 Rxe7 27 Bxf6+ and
Bxe7. In correspondence play, as opposed to over-the-board,
seeing more than your opponent has a different significance. In my
1979 book, "French: MacCutcheon and Advanced Lines", I
published the following game as an illustrative example; John
Watson, in the first edition of his "Play the French" called this win
unconvincing. I felt this was unfair, like the criticisms I had
received from friends about those over-the-board games, since he
did not indicate any specific improvement for my opponeny. OK,
if the last 10 moves had been played in time trouble in an OTB
game, you might say: "Surely White missed something" but in a
postal game the case is quite different. White has as much time as
he wants to find a way for his attack to break through but it doesn't
exist; Black methodically takes the white queenside apart, all the
while checking that he has defensive resources to cope with White
tries. This is very typical of correspondence play, where tempting
the opponent to over-reach or go into superficially attractive lines
that in fact don't work is very much part of the game. 

Jensen (Denmark)- Tim Harding 3rd ICCF Cup Semifinal, 1977-78

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Nc6 5 Nf3 Qb6 6 Be2 cxd4 In his
second edition, Watson recommends 6 Nh6 but I am not really
concerned with the opening phase in this month's article. 7 cxd4
Nh6 8 Nc3 Nf5 9 Na4 Bb4+ 10 Bd2 Qa5 11 Bc3 b5 12 a3 Bxc3+
13 Nxc3 b4 14 axb4 Qxb4 15 Bb5 Bd7 16 Bxc6 Bxc6 17 Qd2 0-0
18 0-0 Rfb8 19 Rab1 a5 20 g4 Ne7 21 Qe3 a4 22 Rfd1 Rc8 This
was actually the first new move of the game, suggested to me by
Wolfgang Heidenfeld after I showed him a grandmaster
correspondence game Dunhaupt-Rittner, 1971, in which Black
played 22...Be8 and a draw eventually resulted. Heidenfeld's plan
is better, but it can be more precisely executed by the immediate
18 a5 as I played in a later game OTB. 23 h4 Rab8 24 h5 h6 25
Nh4 Bb5 26 Nxb5 Qxb5 27 g5 Kh7 28 Rd2 If 28 Kh2 Rc2 or 28
Qg3 Qe2! 28...Qb3 DIAGRAM White's dilemma is now apparent.
Black's heavy piece build-up on the queenside files is reminiscent
of the Benko Gambit, without sacrificing a pawn. Black has two
possible entry routes to undermine the white position: down the c-
file or (if White exchanges pawns on h6) down the g-file. If White
exchanges queens on b3, then the rook recaptures and  a3
becomes a strong threat. So White's only real choice is to avoid the
queen exchange and try to conjure up some attack but he lacks the
basis for success. 29 Qf4 If 29 Rd3 Qc2. 29...hxg5 30 Qxg5 Rc2!
31 Rbd1 White's position is also on the verge of collapse after 31
Nf3 Nf5 or 31 Rxc2 Qxc2 32 Rc1 Qxb2. 31...Qxb2 32 Rd3 White
can threaten mate in one by 32 h6 but after 32 Rg8 who do you
think is going to enjoy the use of the g-file? Even 32 gxh6 is
playable. 32...Rc7 33 Rg3 Rg8-+ 34 Ng6 Nf5 35 Rg2 a3 36 Rh2 a2
37 h6 gxh6 White resigned (0-1).

What's the moral of all this? Perhaps it's just a matter of taste but I
still enjoy winning by one tempo. It's like the old cliffhanger
serials, Indiana Jones and so on. At the end of the day, however,
strategy is the higher art and the only way that man will stay ahead
of the computers.