Time and Speed

I posted this position on Chess Skills' Facebook page yesterday and it has elicited some discussion. One poster offered the drawing line five moves deep, a few offered the key move that must be played in the position, and several recommended the move played in the game, which loses.

White to move

Let's back up a few moves to see how this position came about. It was a three minute blitz game, so inaccuracy should be expected. Even so, my opponent and I both found a series of only moves and moves where two moves had to be played, but the sequence was not critical.

White to move

White had been better since my error on move 12. Here, 41.h5! secures the win as Black's king cannot step into the square. After 41.h5, Black could try 41...Rc1 42.Kxg4 Rg1+ 43.Kf5 Rf1+ 44.Kg5 Rg1+ 45.Kh6 and White's rook will eliminate Black's b-pawn then work its way to the g-file. There may be other ways to win as well after 41.h5! White still had 54 seconds at this point in the game.

41.Re4??

White converts the win to a draw.

41...Rc4!= 42.h5

Now this move, winning a move earlier, is the only way to maintain equality.

42...Kf8

Black could exchange rooks first, then play this move.

43.h6 Kg8 44.e6

White also can opt to exchange rooks before playing this move.

44...fxe6

White to move

45.Rxc4

Other moves lose. For instance, 45.Ke3 Rxe4 46.Kxe4 g3 47.Kf3 b4  and the White king is outside of the square of the b-pawn. Black's king cannot move, but it does not need to.

45...bxc4

We now reach the position at the top of this post.

46.Kg5??

This move loses because Black's g-pawn is faster than White's seemingly powerful f- and h-pawns.

46.Ke5 is the critical move. Black must play 46...g3 47.Kxe6 g2 (47...Kh7 also holds) 48.f7+

Black to move

Analysis Diagram

48...Kh7 is the only move to avert checkmate. 49.f8Q g1Q= Black's c-pawn remains a threat and White cannot hold the h-pawn. 

Back to the game as played.

Black to move

After 46.Kg5??

46...g3-+ 47.Kg6

White's move is best, as it is the longest sequence to checkmate.

47.f7+ Kxf7 48.h7 Kg7-+

47...g2 48.f7+

Black to move

48...Kf8

The only move to avoid checkmate.

49.h7

White threatens checkmate, but a move too late.

49...g1Q+

White resigned.

Lasker -- Capablanca, Game 14

On Wednesday and Thursday, 20-21 April 1921, Emanuel Lasker and José Raúl Capablanca contested the fourteenth game of their historic world championship match. Chess Skills has been following this match as a centennial celebration, and will continue doing so through the end of the month. Game 14 was to be Lasker's last world championship game after twenty-six years at the top. It was not known to be his last when it was played, nor for several days after. The match was scheduled for 24 games; more than a week transpired before it was determined that this game would indeed be the last.

As referenced in "Refuge from Havana's Sun" and "Lasker -- Capablanca, Game 8", after the match Lasker raised issues concerning distribution of the game scores by Hartwig Cassel, a journalist working for American Chess Bulletin and the New York Evening Post. The score for game one was published in the New York Evening Post on 18 March 1921, and that paper continued to provide news on the match with game scores as it progressed.

Near the end of Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca (1922), Lasker addressed the differences between a responsible chess press, as he saw it, consisting mostly of master commentators, and the work of journalists with limited understanding.

The press in general has behaved worthily and meritoriously. The reporting and criticism have high responsibility. Messrs. Helms, Burn, Schelfhout, Mieses, Dr. Tarrasch--leaders of the chess press in the United States, England, Holland and Germany--made a factual, reasoned judgment. Good chess criticism includes, in addition to objectivity, a love of the game of chess and an understanding of master chess: that is why these chess writers stand out from the others. Mr. Hartwig Cassel is indifferent to the game of chess. (37)

In this post, number 23 in a series, I have placed commentary provided by Cassel to the New York Evening Post alongside that of Lasker, Capablanca, and Amos Burn.* Compare the contrasting perspectives at critical moments in the game. The juxtaposition will show that Cassel's understanding of the game lacks some depth. On the other hand, Cassel's worth as a journalist is not limited to these comments. He an introduction and other information to Capablanca's book on the match. Early in Capablanca's career, Cassel helped arrange some of his simultaneous exhibitions and related matters.

Lasker,Emanuel -- Capablanca,José Raúl [C66]
World Championship 12th Havana (14), 20.04.1921
[Capablanca, Lasker, Others]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bxc6

Black to move

Having the white pieces again and being obliged to essay an opening which held out better chances than the drawish variations of the Queen's Gambit declined, Dr. Lasker, in the fourteenth game of the championship match at Havana, last night, resorted once more to his favorite Ruy Lopez, which had been previously adopted in the third, sixth, and twelfth games. All three of these had been drawn, to be sure, but, with a greater variety of safe lines of attack, Dr. Lasker evidently hopes to get his watchful opponent off the beaten track.
Hartwig Cassel, NYP, 21 April 1921

Amos Burn's commentary in The Field was reprinted in American Chess Bulletin. He comments that he recommended 7.Bxc6 in his "notes to the sixth game" (106).

7...Bxc6 8.Qd3 exd4 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Bg5 0-0 11.Rae1 h6 12.Bh4

Black to move

12...Nh7

Lasker and Burn both call this move a "favorite" of Capablanca.

12...Ng4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.f4 Nf6  was drawn in 55 moves Schoenmann,W -- Bluemich,M, Berlin GER 1920.

13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.c4

"White has now a powerful position and Black has to play with extreme care in order to avoid drifting into a hopeless position" (Capablanca, 28).

15...Re8 16.f4

Black to move

16...c6

"This weakens the d-pawn, but something had to be done to obtain maneuvering space for the Black pieces. Besides, with the advance of the f-pawn, White's e-pawn becomes also weak, which is somewhat of a compensation" (Capablanca, 28).

"Black is constrained and must weaken the queens' pawn in order to free himself" (Lasker, 29).

17.Nc3! Qb6 18.b3 Rad8

It is noteworthy that both Capablanca and Lasker balance self-criticism with insight into their opponent's critical errors.

18...Re7 "was the proper move" (Capablanca, 28).

White to move

19.Kh1

This move "already reveals the slackening of my abilities. I could have gone over to the attack with h2-h3 and g2-g4. From here on to the gross mistake in the 29th move, I played without ideas" (Lasker, 30).

19...Nf6 20.h3 Bc8 21.Rd1

"This is waste of time. In order to obtain an advantage, White will have to make an attack on the kingside, since Black's d-pawn, though weak, cannot be won through a direct attack against it" (Capablanca 28).

21...Re7 22.Rfe1 Rde8 23.Re2

Black to move

"It will be noticed that Lasker loses much time with his rooks in this game, playing them with strange indecision. Much better than the text-move would have been g4, restraining the movements of Black's bishop and knight and preventing his queen going over to the king's side via a5" (Burn, 106).

Cassel suggests that Lasker's rook shifting was a psychological ploy: "Capablanca was not to be disconcerted" (6).

As noted above, Lasker stated that from move 19 up to the blunder on move 29, "my game was without any ideas."

23...Qa5 24.Rf1

Burn thought g4 could still be played at this point.

24...Qh5 25.Kg1 a6 26.Rff2

"A simple a2-a4 would be better to prevent the possibility of b7-b5" (Lasker, 29).

26...Qg6 27.Rf3

Black to move

 "White has now made seven moves with his rooks, but could have had them in the same position in three moves. A serious loss of time" (Burn, 106).

27.Nf5 Bxf5 28.exf5 Qh5 29.Rxe7 Rxe7 and Black has a good game" (Capablanca 28).

27...Qh5

27...Nxe4 "would have cost a piece" 28.f5 (Cassel, 6).

28.f5

"Of doubtful value. While it shuts off the Bishop, it weakens furthermore the e-pawn and also creates a hole on e5 for Black pieces. The position, at first glance, looks very much in favor of White, but careful analysis will show that this is much more apparent than true" (Capablanca, 28-29).

"Hastiness, ruining the entire plan of attack. By playing b3-b4 or a2-a4, White would have a perfect position" (Lasker, 30).

28...Qh4

White to move

29.Kh2?

"A blunder, made under time pressure combined with difficulties attached to the position" (Capablanca, 29).

"Also, a serious mistake. It would better to play Rf3-e3. Possible was and a2-a4" (Lasker, 30).

29...Ng4+

"[B]oldly invited" by Lasker (Cassel, 6).

"Winning an exchange and the game" (Lasker, 30).

Dr. Lasker sacrificed his rook for Capablanca's knight, although superficially, it might appear that the Cuban had caught him napping. A glance at the position, however, will show that the black Queen, while not in immediate danger, has all too little scope and that great care must be exercised in order to bring about a wholly satisfactory state of affairs for the Cuban.
Herman Helms, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1.3

30.Kh1 Ne5 31.Qd2 Nxf3 32.Nxf3

Black to move

Capablanca sealed his 32nd move. The conclusion of the game will be presented tomorrow in "Lasker -- Capablanca, Game 14 (concluded)".

The article in the New York Post expressed optimism regarding Lasker's chances: "Dr. Lasker, although the exchange behind, had blocked off Capablanca's Bishop and altogether was left with excellent prospects, as the black Queen was none too comfortably placed."

*Edit (correction): I have credited assessments published in the newspapers to Hartwig Cassel, but that appears inaccurate. Lasker complained about Cassel's journalism, and others have noted that Cassel was on the scene in Havana. Cassel certainly provided the moves, but who wrote the commentary? Further research has shown that the unsigned articles in the New York Evening Post, which I relied upon for my narrative, are nearly identical to articles in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Herman Helms, publisher of American Chess Bulletin, and an accomplished player who had defeated both Frank Marshall and Harry Pillsbury, is the author. Collaboration between Cassel and Helms go back to the first issue of American Chess Bulletin in 1904.

Sources

Burn, Amos. "Fourteenth Game--Ruy Lopez." American Chess Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 5 (May-June 1921), 105-106.

Capablanca, José Raúl. World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927. New York: Dover, 1977.

"Dr. Lasker Resorts to Favorite Opening," New York Evening Post (21 April 1921), 6.

Helms, Herman. "Capablanca Exchange Ahead in Fourteenth Chess Game." Brooklyn Daily Eagle (21 April 1921), 1.3.

Lasker, Emanuel. Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, and Co., 1922.

Capablanca -- Lasker, Game 7

Part 12 of a series recognizing the Centennial of Capablanca -- Lasker, World Chess Championship, Havana 1921.

The seventh game of the match was played during a single session of less that three hours on Saturday, 2 April 1921. Because it is a short draw, it receives little attention by commentators, except in the context of frequent complaints by chess fans who want to see fighting chess.

Should World Championship contenders take risks? Faced with a dynamic option that entailed some risk, Capablanca notes in his comment on one move that he sought to avoid risk with a one-point lead in the match. Lasker, for his part, adopted a more solid defensive scheme than he employed in two previous encounters in this match. Perhaps the importance of this game is that both players were seeking information about the other's plans for a battle later in the match.

Capablanca,José Raúl -- Lasker,Emanuel [D61]
World Championship 12th Havana (7), 02.04.1921
[Capablanca/Lasker/Janowski]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nf6

Commenting on Game 5 for American Chess Magazine (April 1921), where Black's 2nd and 3rd moves were played in reverse of the order in this game, David Janowski wrote: "It has always been a puzzle to me as to which is the best defense for Black. The so-called orthodox defense, which Dr. Lasker, so far as I know, never adopted before until this match, I found some fifteen years ago quite unsatisfactory. In the internationals tournaments of Ostend, 1905, Barmen, 1905, I adopted with success dxc4, which up to date I consider very likely to be the best defense."

The database of Lasker's games on the DVD Master Class, vol. 05: Emanuel Lasker (2015) offers three games as Lasker's experience with this system from the Black side prior to the match with Capablanca: a game from 1890 against his older brother, a game against Blackburne in London in 1892, and a casual game in New York that year.

4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7

Commenting on the 4th move in game 5, Janowski adds: "Dr Lasker, in his chess magazine, made the following remark on one of my match games with Frank Marshall: 'Why should one develop the knight at d7, blocking his bishop, while that knight can be developed at c6?' I quite agree with him. Strange to say, all the great masters in their older days play against their own theory. They evidently miss the power of conviction and determination which is the characteristic of youth."

6.Nc3 0-0 7.Rc1

So far in the match, we have seen this position twice before when Lasker had Black. The exception was game three's Four Knights/Spanish.

Black to move

7...c6

Abandoning the dubious 7...b6, played in games one and five.

8.Qc2 c5

"This move is not to be recommended" (Capablanca).

I would note that in Capablanca's expression of general principles in Chess Fundamentals, A Chess Primer, and Last Lectures, he often stresses the concept of time. Moving a pawn twice to reach a square where it could go in one move is a clear violation of his advice. Edward Winter's narrative of Capablanca's visits to England in 1920 include a statement by Brian Harley that he examined proofs for Chess Fundamentals in October 1920 (106-107). According to Miguel A. Sánchez, the book was published in December 1921 in both England and the United States (259).

"Black has apparently lost a move, but by moving the queen to c2 White has reduced the pressure on d5 and has not gained anything essential" (Lasker).

9.Rd1

"Capablanca goes back to the familiar line, only that it took Black two moves to move from c7 to c5 and White to move Ra1 to d1" (Lasker).

"9.cxd5 would have been the proper to continue" (Capablanca).

9...Qa5 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Bd3 Nf6 13.0-0 cxd4

White to move

14.Nxd4

"14.exd4 was the alternative. It would have led, however, to a very difficult game where, in exchange for the attack, White would remain with an isolated queen's pawn; leading at this stage of the match by one point, I did not want to take any risks" (Capablanca).

14...Bd7 15.Ne4 Ned5 16.Nb3 Qd8 17.Nxf6+

"What if 17.Nbc5? so 17...Rc8" (Lasker).

17...Nxf6 18.Qc5 Qb6

"With this move Black neutralizes whatever little advantage White might have had. The draw is now in sight" (Capablanca).

White to move

19.Rc1 Rfc8 20.Qxb6 axb6 21.Rxc8+ Rxc8 22.Rc1 Rxc1+ 23.Nxc1 ½-½

Capablanca 1:22 - Lasker 1:20

The score stands at one win for Capablanca and six draws.

References

Sánchez, Miguel A. José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015.

Winter, Edward. Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1989.

A New Book and a Morphy Game

Initial Impressions Towards a Review

My copy of Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) arrived last Friday less than an hour before a lesson with one of my students. I took the book with me. Inasmuch as the first lesson each month is devoted to the endgame, we worked through the first several endings (positions 151-155) in Engqvist's book after finishing the materials I had prepared for the session. We also looked at position 194, which caught my eye while flipping through the book because I had seen a similar problem last week.

After the lesson with my student, I read the front matter and looked at position number 1 in the book. This position is from Morphy -- Stanley, 1857, which I have been studying the past few days.

White to move

The correct move in this exercise is a matter of judgement. Many strong players have played the "wrong" move. Engqvist mentions Adolf Anderssen, but he could have noted that Morphy also played it several times in the two years after the game where he played the "correct" move. Morphy's "discovery" (14), however, has been the overwhelming choice of masters in this somewhat infrequent position (512 games in my database with a 63% score for White).

I can count on my fingers the number of books in my chess library that offer exercises where the correct answer is debatable. I think that is a testament to the value of this book. At first glance, 300 Most Important Chess Positions offers prospects for developing positional understanding.

Charles H. Stanley was one of four players to defeat Paul Morphy without odds in New York in 1857. Morphy, however, may have had the Black pieces more than his share in their games. Among the extant games between these two players, this game is the only one when Morphy had White.

Morphy,Paul -- Stanley,Charles Henry [C51]
New York, 1857

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4

6...d6 is hot

7.0–0

7.Qb3 Qf6 8.0–0 Bb6 9.e5 is another possibility.

7...d6

Black could try 7...Nge7 8.Ng5 Ne5 9.Nxf7 Nxf7 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qxa5.

8.cxd4 Bb6

See diagram above.

9.Nc3

Engqvist offers the diagram. Under the diagram, he offers the moves leading to the position and Morphy's move. He highlights Morphy's importance historically in a few sentences, then mentions center control and time as White's temporary advantages in this position.

It's more important to develop pieces instead of making useless short-term attacking or defensive moves. In other words one should avoid unproductive one-move threats and instead concentrate on long-term gains.
Engqvist, 14

One-move threats are certainly how I cultivate losing streaks in online blitz at least once every week.

9.d5 White has scored well. This move has been played by De Labourdonnais, Anderssen, Morphy, and others with good results. Engqvist calls this move "superficial" (14).

I think that this first position has instructive value. Engqvist says that he uses it with his students, and I think it is worthy of addition to my stock of lessons as well. Although the alternative to his "correct" move is playable, the lesson is clear. I could have stopped here and moved on to the next position, but I found Morphy's game interesting.

9...Nf6

Was this move the decisive error?

9...Na5 seems best. Engqvist suggests that he lets his students play the game out from the position before 9.Nc3. Students can try Anderssen's approach, and they can avoid Stanley's reply.

10.e5

My database shows eight games with this move and eight wins for White. Stockfish 10 says White has a clear advantage.

10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Qh4 was won by Black in 67 moves, De Labourdonnais,L -- McDonnell,A London 1834.

10...dxe5 11.Ba3 Bxd4

11...Nxd4 12.Nxe5 Be6 gives Black a slight edge, according to Hiarcs 12, but Stockfish 10 sees it as a decisive advantage for White.

12.Qb3

Black to move

This position is reminiscent of several of Greco's games.

12...Be6

And now +6 in favor of White.

After 12...Qd7 Fritz 11 considers the position equal, but Stockfish 10 has White with a winning advantage.

13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Qxe6+ Ne7 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Rfe1

Black to move

16...Nfg8

16...dxc3 17.Rad1 (17.Qxe7+? Qxe7 18.Rxe7+ Kd8 19.Rd1+ Kc8 White may have compensation for the pawns) 17...Nd7 (17...Nfd5 18.Rxd5) 18.Bxe7 Qc8 19.Bd6+ Kd8 20.Qe7#.

17.Nd5 Qd7 18.Bxe7

18.Qxd7+ Kxd7 19.Nxe7 Nxe7 20.Rxe7+ is given as better by Géza Maróczy in his book on Morphy. I do not have this book, but the annotations appear in David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981).

18...Qxe6 19.Rxe6 Kd7 20.Rae1 Re8 21.R6e4 c6

White to move

22.Rxd4 cxd5 23.Rxd5+ Kc6 24.Rd6+ Kc7 25.Rc1+ Kb8 26.Bh4! Nh6

White to move

27.Bg3 Ka8

27...Nf5 28.Rd8#

28.h3 Nf5 29.Rd7 g6 30.Rcc7 Nxg3 31.fxg3 Rb8

The rook ending is instructive.

White to move

32.Rxh7 Rxh7 33.Rxh7 a5 34.h4 Rg8

34...b5 35.h5 g5 (35...gxh5 36.Rxh5 a4 37.g4 b4 38.Ra5+ Kb7 39.Rxa4) 36.Rg7 b4 37.Rxg5 a4 38.Ra5+ Kb7 39.Rxa4

35.g4 b5 36.h5 a4 37.h6 b4 38.Rg7 Rh8 39.h7 b3

White to move

40.Rg8+ Kb7 41.Rxh8 b2 42.Rb8+ Kxb8 43.h8Q+ 1–0

Although Morphy had a clear advantage after Black's ninth move, his play through the whole game offers useful instruction in how to use the initiative to bring home the full point.

Thompson -- Morphy, New York 1857

Paul Morphy's first opponent at the First American Chess Congress was James Thompson. He had been born in England and emigrated to the United States as a child. After completing his education, he established himself in business in New York City, where he came to be known as a formidable chess player. In 1853, Thompson won the first tournament among members of the New York Chess Club. He represented New York in several correspondence matches with other cities.*

Morphy beat Thompson 3-0. The games offer useful lessons concerning opening principles, as Morphy easily gained better mobility and coordination of his pieces. Two of the games featured endgames where Morphy demonstrated how to convert a small advantage. In the third game, which I present here, a tactical error in the middlegame cost White a pawn. In the endgame Morphy's bishop proved far stronger than Thompson's knight. Having an extra pawn made the game easier.

Morphy won this game in the middlegame, but had to demonstrate proper endgame technique to complete the victory.

Thompson,James -- Morphy,Paul [C54]
USA–01.Kongress New York (1.3), 08.10.1857

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3

This move is superior to 5.d4. I tend to play the inferior move (see "Materialism").

5...d6 6.h3

I have my doubts about the merits of this move (see "Wasting Time" for Phillip Sergeant's criticism and Macon Shibut's rejoinder regarding the frequency that Morphy's opponents played this move).

6...Be6

6...a6 seems the top choice today. With Morphy's move, White has a problem: How should he resolve the tension between the bishops along the diagonal leading to f7?

White to move

7.Bb3

I might prefer 7.Bxe6 fxe6. Black's control of the central squares with his pawns more than compensates for any apparent weakness on the kingside. However, White's prospects might be better than in the game. The combination of the unnecessary prophylactic 6.h3 and this retreat of the bishop puts White two tempi behind. Soon, Black seizes the initiative.

Here we have a position that is typical of Morphy's games against all but his strongest opponents, and even a few games against his strongest. A few moves into the game, Morphy has all of his minor pieces mobilized. Many of his opponents, on the other hand, have fallen behind.

7...d5

Morphy seizes the opportunity to take the initiative.

8.exd5 Bxd5 9.0–0 0–0 10.Bg5

Black to move

Thompson is ever alert to tactical possibilities. He threatens to force a weakening of the pawns in front of Black's king.

10...Bxb3 11.axb3 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 e4

Thompson's tactical threats have forced Morphy to play this move. However, Black's position is superior due to White's difficulty bringing the b1 knight into the game. This positional weakness will prove decisive.

White to move

14.Ne5 Nxe5 15.Bxe5 exd3 16.Bxf6

16.Nd2 might be better than exchanging the only active piece in order to immediately regain the pawn.

16...Qxf6 17.Qxd3

Black to move

Now, Morphy mobilizes his rooks with further gain of tempi. Meanwhile, White's queenside knight and rook remain spectators to the action.

17...Rad8 18.Qc2 Rfe8 19.b4 Bb6 20.Na3

20.Nd2 is now impossible in the light of 20...Re2.

20...Qf4

Morphy prevents Nc4, and also prepares a battery along the diagonal leading to h2.

21.Rad1 c6 22.Rd3?

White's position was slightly worse. Now, it is lost. However, Black must strike vigorously, or White's will equalize.

Black to move

Surprisingly few chess players have found the correct plan for Black when I have posted this position online.

22...Bxf2+ 23.Kh1

23.Rxf2 loses instantly. 23...Re1 24.Rf1 Rxf1#.

23.Qxf2 loses the exchange. 23...Qxf2+ 24.Rxf2 Re1+ 25.Kh2 Rxd3

23...Rxd3 24.Qxd3 Re3

White to move

Black's checkmate threat is quite serious.

25.Qd8+ Kg7 26.Qd4+

26.Qd7 Bg3!

26...Qxd4 27.cxd4 Re2 28.Nc4 Re1 29.Rxe1 Bxe1

White to move

White managed to fend off the checkmate threats and enter a minor piece ending down a mere pawn. However, Black's bishop will prove vastly superior to White's knight.

30.Na5 Bxb4 31.Nxb7

This moment in the game can be useful for provoking a discussion of schematic thinking.

31...Kf6 32.Nd8 c5 33.Nc6 Ke6 34.dxc5 Bxc5 35.g4

It is hard to criticize White's effort to hinder Black's pawn majority on the kingside in this manner, but the problems on the queenside prove fatal. The knight is helpless to manage workloads on both sides of the board and the king alone cannot battle Black's forces.

Black to move

35...Kd5 36.Nd8 f6

Reducing a vulnerability that could permit White back into the game.

37.Kg2 a5 38.Kf3 a4 39.Ke2 Bd4

Only now does Morphy attack the unprotected pawn after preventing its advance.

White to move

40.Kd3 Bxb2 41.Nf7 Be5 42.Kc2 Kc4 43.Nd8 a3 44.Nb7 a2 45.Na5+ Kb4 46.Nb3 Ka3 0–1

The final position offers a nice illustration of zugzwang.


*The biographical sketch of Thompson in Charles A. Gilberg, The Fifth American Chess Congress (1881), 77-80 provides these details. The Congress was held in 1880. The book contains a detailed history of the first four congresses, as well as the games of the fifth.

Principle of Development: Early History

Morphy is sometimes credited with inventing the concept of development, or at least understanding it better than anyone else before those who followed him began to articulate it in their books and articles.
James Stripes, "Chess at the Opera" (2 February 2017)

Development Theory

Paul Morphy (1837-1884) is often credited with having been the first chess master to comprehend the principle of development. Richard Reti seems to credit him with practically inventing the concept.

[T]his is Morphy's most important discovery--it is essential to develop he pieces without delay, to bring them quickly into action and not to lose any time. Morphy's contemporaries on the contrary indulged all too frequently in premature attacks with their forces insufficiently developed, or in unnecessarily timid defensive moves.
Reti, Masters of the Chessboard (2012), 20.

Max Euwe expresses the point with slightly more nuance, and filtered through the writings of Wilhelm Steinitz.

Development, the centre, open lines; these, according to Steinitz, were the three leading principles which Morphy followed. They were for him prime objectives, absolutely fundamental factors in the battle, whereas for Anderssen they had real significance only insofar as they furthered some previously selected aim.
Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1966), 23.

In Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (1993), Macon Shibut challenges Reti's claim, echoed by Euwe. Shibut analyzes Morphy's games with Anderssen, and Reti's analysis of them, demonstrating a tendency by Reti to force the facts of the games to conform to his thesis. Morphy's development was systematic and intentional. Anderssen's development was haphazard and incidental. Shibut argues that their games reveal otherwise.

Shibut states, "Whatever the date of its first explicit formulation, the principle of development was certainly understood in a practical sense long before Morphy" (29). Shibut advocates examining carefully eighteenth and nineteenth century master games. His view is that these games "at least manifest the principle of development" (29).


History of Development

The explicit formulation of this principle of development, as is well known, occurred after Morphy had given up chess. Wilhelm Steinitz gets credit. Hence, his name is associated with the Modern School, chess as a scientific enterprise with laws of strategy. Articulation of development in the late nineteenth century gave chess theory a solid foundation upon which to build, and thereafter the games of the masters before Morphy lost their instructive value.

Previously on Chess Skills, I have inquired into the origins and meaning of this term, development. In my reading of old classics of chess literature, I have attempted to trace how the term has been understood. I also have sought its first articulation in the writings of Steinitz and his predecessors. Two previous posts offers snippets of this ongoing research: "Thinking about Development" (August 2015) and "What is Development" (July 2016).

This morning's reading, however, revealed that articulation of the concept of development precedes Morphy's birth by more than half a century. It is found in an 1820 English translation of an 1869 Italian text. The Italian text is Il Giuoco Incomparabile degli Scacchi by Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719-1796), but Ponziani's name does not appear in the English translation, which credits Dr. Ercole dal Rio (1718-1802) with authorship. The English book is by J. S. Bingham, a pen name for J. B. Smith, an English naval officer, according to David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), 314.

Here, then, might be the earliest clear formulation of the principle of development. Credit the Modenese Masters--Dominico Ercole del Rio, Ponziani, and Giambattista Lolli (1698–1769). Ercole del Rio published La Guerra degli Scacchi (The War of the Chessmen) in 1750. Lolli expanded this work as Osservazioni Teorico-pratiche Sopra il Giuoco degli Scacchi (Theoretical-practical Views on the Game of Chess) in 1863, and then Ponziani's text appeared in 1769. A second edition of Ponziani's text appeared in 1782 and included his name. Nonetheless, Smith chose to translate Ponziani's earlier version and credit it to Ercole del Rio.

One hopes that Smith was a better linguist than he was a historian.

Whether the principle of development was articulated in earlier works by Ercole del Rio and Lolli must await further reading. Of course, some of my readers may be well ahead of me on this matter. Ercole del Rio's La Guerra degli Scacchi was translated into English by Christopher Becker and published alongside the Italian thirty years ago.

Here, then, is Ponziani's articulation of the principle of development, as translated by Smith.

The opening of the game ought to be made with the greatest possible development: that is to say, it is to be executed by the shortest method, chusing those moves which put in action the greatest number of combatants; that one Piece does not impede another, but can act with due promptitude; and that every Piece be so situated, that the adversary cannot annoy it, without danger to himself, or loss of time.--Whoever, at the beginning, has brought out his Pieces with greater symmetry, relatively to the adverse situation, may thence promise himself a fortunate issue in the prosecution of the battle.
Bingham, The Incomparable Game of Chess (1820), 32.

This formulation of the principle of development certainly bears a strong resemblance to the principle that guided Morphy's play, as Valeri Beim expressed it in Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005), he "sought the move that followed the principle of bringing into play the greatest number of pieces in the shortest possible time" (emphasis in original, 16).

Ne2?

Last weekend I played in the Spokane Contenders, a round robin tournament that determined the challenger to our city champion. I had won this tournament in 2008 and 2012. I also tied for first in 2010, finishing second on tie-breaks. I played again in 2014, but my play was mixed and I finished in the middle.

My play was mixed again this weekend. I won my first round game on the Black side of a Ragozin--the first time I had played this opening in over-the-board play. I had been reading The Ragozin Complex (2011) by Vladimir Barsky and practicing the opening in some online blitz (see "Opening Inaccuracy" [2014]).

On Sunday, I played a long and interesting game against a former student, a three-time elementary state champion finishing his sixth grade year. He is growing accustomed to beating the A Class players who occupy the top tier of players in my city. In round three, he beat the player I had defeated in round one. We played a long game that ended in a draw. After he offered a draw on move 46, I tortured him as long as I could, struggling in vain to provoke an error. I had trained him well in the endgame and he refused to crack. After twenty moves of probing, I exchanged my rook for his bishop and advanced pawn and we played out the dead drawn pawn ending rapidly until stalemate on move 79.

Then, in round five, I misplayed a Sicilian Kan in the same manner that I have done in the past and was essentially lost by move eleven. I played another fourteen moves attempting tricks, all of which failed.

In the second round, Saturday afternoon, I played the lowest rated player. I had beaten him in all of our prior encounters and sat at the board with confidence. We quickly reached a familiar tableau.

Stripes,James (1811) -- Frostad,John (1608) [D18]
Spokane Contenders Spokane (2), 04.06.2016

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0–0 0–0

White to move

9.Ne2?

In 2007, I played 9.Qe2 against my phone, a RAZR running Chessmaster. I won that game easily. I also played 9.Ne2 once before in a correspondence game that I lost after a long struggle.

Perhaps the question mark is not fully warranted. Several strong Grandmasters have played this move, although the highest rated Black player who has lost is Rok Hrzica 2296.

The central problem with this move is that it wastes tempi, conceding the initiative to Black. In the game, I not only expended several tempi to gain the bishop pair, but also failed to attend to the needs of my bishop on c4 and hence did not continue with a pair of bishops into the middle game.

9...Nbd7 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Nh4

Both 11.Bd2 and 11.b3 seem a little better.

11...c5 12.Nxg6

12.f4 was played in Bogoljubow,E -- Alekhine,A, London 1922, which was drawn in 70 moves.

12...hxg6 13.Qf3

13.dxc5 is probably best 13...Nxc5 (13...Ne5 and drawn in 58 moves,.Piket,J (2670) -- Shirov,A (2710), Aruba 1995) 14.Qe2 Nfe4 and Black went on to win a long struggle Rubinstein,A -- Alekhine,A, London 1922.

13...cxd4 14.exd4 Nb6

White to move

15.Qb3?

15.Bb3 keeps the prospect of maintaining a bishop pair alive. White is already suffering for his errors. Black's pieces are mobile and coordinated. Black's plan to eventually win the isolated d-pawn is simply and straightforward. Meanwhile, my only effort to generate counterplay hinged on a mating attack employing either quuen and knight against f7 (easily stopped) or creating a battery of heavy pieces on the h-file (nearly impossible).

15...a5

15...Qxd4 and Black is clearly better.

16.Rd1

16.Be3

16...Nxc4 17.Qxc4 Nd5 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Bxb4 Nxb4 20.Ne4

20.Rac1

20...Nd5 21.Qe2 Rac8 22.Nc5 Rfd8 23.Qf3 Qc6 24.Nd3 Qb6 25.Ne5 Nf6 26.g4?

Black to move

26...Rc7

26...Rxd4! 27.g5 Rxd1+ 28.Rxd1 and White can consider resigning.

27.Rac1

27.g5 would at least be consistent with my desperate plan to go all in for checkmate. Of course, Black maintains an advantage and a comfortable game.

27...Rxc1 28.Rxc1–+ Qxd4 29.Qg3 Nd5 30.Nf3 Qxb2 31.Rd1 Qc2 32.Rd2 Qxa4 33.Qh4 Qa1+ 34.Kg2

Black to move

34...f6

34...Nf4+! wins more quickly, as I showed my opponent after the game. 35.Kg3 Rxd2 36.Nxd2 f6 37.g5 (37.Kxf4 g5+) 37...e5-+.

35.g5 b5 36.Nd4 Kf7 37.Qh3 Nf4+ 0–1

Frostad's play was solid enough to let me self-destruct. He went on to win the event and gets to play the city champion is a four game match in August. He is the second lowest rated player to play in our city championship (see "Fifteen Minutes"). I wish him well.

The loss of time with the Ne2 maneuver is a feature that I note with some frequency in my lessons with young students. Once these young players reach the point where they can understand three move tactics and are ready for complete games, we go through the eighteen games that Paul Morphy played in the First American Chess Congress. In his first game, James Thompson wasted time playing Ne2. His plan was grounded in a tactical shot aimed at the f5 square. Morphy calculated the tactics one move deeper and gained a clear edge via a zwischenzug.

Thompson,James -- Morphy,Paul [C50]
USA–01.Kongress New York (1.1), 1857

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 h6

White to move

6.Ne2 d6 7.c3 0–0 8.h3 Kh8 9.Ng3 Nh7 10.Qc2

White's play is grounded in the belief that Black's intent to push f7-f5 fails tactically.

10...f5!

Morphy understood both Thompson's plan and the tactical refutation.

11.exf5

Black to play

11...d5

The zwischenzug.

12.Bb3 e4 13.dxe4 dxe4 14.Ng1 Ne5 15.Be3 Nd3+ 16.Ke2 Bxe3 17.fxe3 Qh4 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Qxd3 Qxg2+ 20.Kd1 Bxf5 21.Qe2 Qxh1 0–1

There is a moral to this story. If I insist on making the sort of moves that I teach my young students to avoid, I will lose. Regular readers may recall another tragicomic loss when I failed to heed a lesson from a familiar Morphy game (see "Knowing Better").

Bad Blitz

Blitz chess can be fun. It also can serve as part of a training regimen that develops chess skills. For several years, during the questions after IM John Donaldson's annual lecture in Spokane, he was asked whether blitz was helpful to a player's improvement. His answer was that he did not play blitz, but that another IM friend of his who plays a lot recommends limiting play to five games at a time and following the playing session with analysis of the games.

Sometimes I limit my blitz (see "Improving through Blitz").

When life is stressful, on the other hand, blitz serves to refocus my thoughts and work out some frustrations. It also becomes a self-fueling source of additional frustration as unfocused play is often substandard. Through the past ten days, I have had several multi-hour blitz marathon sessions and have played several hundred games of blitz. The following game is illustrative both of the poor quality of play in these sessions and of some of the lessons that can be gleaned from such games.

Stripes, J (1696) -- Internet Opponent (1702) [C41]
Live Chess Chess.com, 29.10.2015

1.e4 

During my blitz marathon, I alternated between 1.e4 and 1.d4 with the White pieces, occasionally playing 1.Nf3 or other moves. Some 1.e3 or 1.d3 moves were played due to mouse slips (or touch screen errors). "The First Move", posted last week, offers data concerning my opening patterns.

1...e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 h6?!

This unnamed opening move might be dubbed the Anti-Fried Liver.

3...Be7 is the most popular move in Philidor's Defense.

4.d4

The third most popular move scores best among games in the database.

4.Nc3 is slightly more popular; 4.0–0 also scores well. Is one move better than the others? It seems to me that 4.d4 is a principled response to Black's time wasting 3...h6.

4...Nd7

With this move, the game transposes into an obscure line of the Hanham variation of Philidor Defense. It was Black's early h6 that renders it obscure.

White to move

5.Nc3

5.0–0 leads to two reference games worthy of further study.

5...Ngf6 6.Nc3 c6 7.a4 Qc7 8.a5 g6 9.h3 Bg7 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Ba2 0–0 12.Nh4 Kh7 13.f4 Ned7 14.Be3 Qd8 15.Qf3 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 d5 17.Bf2 dxe4 18.Qxe4 f5 19.Qd3 Bxb2 20.Rad1 Qf6 21.Rfe1 Qg7 22.Qg3 g5 23.fxg5 hxg5 24.Nf3 Bf6 25.Be6 Ne5 26.Bxc8 Nxf3+ 27.Qxf3 Raxc8 28.Qxf5+ Qg6 29.Rd7+ Bg7 30.Qxg6+ Kxg6 31.Rxb7 Rf7 32.a6 Rcc7 33.Reb1 c5 34.Bg3 Bd4+ 35.Kh2 Rce7 36.Bb8 c4 37.R1b4 Re1 38.Rxf7 Kxf7 39.Rxc4 Bg1+ 40.Kg3 Kg6 41.Kg4 Re6 42.Ra4 Re2 43.g3 Rxc2 44.h4 gxh4 45.gxh4 Be3 46.h5+ Kf7 47.Rb4 Ra2 48.Bxa7 Bxa7 49.Rb7+ Kf6 50.Rxa7 Ra4+ 51.Kf3 Kg5 52.Ra8 Rf4+ 53.Ke3 Rf7 54.Rb8 Ra7 55.Rb5+ 1–0 Kotronias,V (2628)--Dervishi,E (2543), Cappelle la Grande 2008.

5...c6 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Nxe5+ Kf6 9.Qd4 Ke6 10.Ng6 b5 11.Nxh8 Qf6 12.Qxf6+ Kxf6 13.b3 Bd6 14.Bb2+ Be5 15.Bxe5+ Nxe5 16.f4 Ng4 17.e5+ Ke6 18.Nc3 Ne3 19.Rf3 Nxc2 20.Rd1 Ne7 21.Rd6+ Kf5 22.Ne2 c5 23.h3 1–0 Peng Xiaomin (2590)--Du Shan (2399), Xiapu 2005.

5...c6 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.O-O

Another reference game: 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Nxe5+ Ke6 9.Qg4+ Kxe5 10.Qf5+ Kd6 11.Bf4+ Ke7 12.0–0–0 Ngf6 13.Rd6 Qb6 14.Qe6+ Kd8 15.Rd2 Bb4 16.Rhd1 Re8 17.Qf7 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qc5 19.Rd6 Qxc3 20.f3 Re7 21.Qf8+ Ne8 22.R1d3 Qa1+ 23.Kd2 Qxa2 24.g4 Qf7 25.Qxf7 Rxf7 0–1 Nadal Garcia,L (2048)--Munoz Pantoja,M (2499), Barcelona 2008.

7...Qc7

White has a development advantage with more minor pieces mobilized and the king safely castled. Now, White must find a plan for developing pressure through the course of the middle game. In blitz, these plans are a matter on instinct.

8.a4N

Aimed at preventing b7-b5. Two other games had reached the prior position. The players were well below master. Both moved the light-squared bishop. One to d3 and the other to b3.

8...Be7 9.Be3 Ngf6 10.Qd2

Maybe a sacrifice on h6 to expose the king. Maybe a queen and rook battery along the d-file.

Black to move

10...0–0 11.Rad1 a6 12.Nh4 b5 13.axb5 axb5 14.Bb3 b4 15.Nf5 Bd8

15...bxc3 16.Nxe7+ Kh8 17.bxc3

White to move

Threats have been made and parried by both players. Now, White must determine how to address the threat on his knight.

16.Ne2?

With this error, my game began to deteriorate.

16.Na4 was acceptable. 16...Nxe4 17.Qxb4±.

16.Nxh6+! should have been seriously considered. I recall glancing at it briefly. 16...gxh6 17.Bxh6 Nh7

The alternatives:
17...bxc3 is worse. 18.Qg5+ Kh8 19.Qg7#.
17...Ne8 gives White a clear material advantage.

18.Nb5 cxb5 19.Bxf8±.

16...Nxe4 17.Qc1 Ndf6

White to move

18.Bxh6?? 

Amaurosis scacchistica!

18.Nxh6+ gxh6 19.Bxh6 Re8 20.Ng3
     (20.f3 Qb6+ 21.Kh1 Nf2+? 22.Rxf2
        [22.Kg1?? Nxd1+ 23.Kh1 Nf2+ 24.Rxf2 Ne4–+]
     22...Nd5
        [22...Qxf2 23.Qg5+]
     23.Rff1±)

18...Bxf5–+

I could resign.

19.Bg5 Be7 20.Ng3 Bg6 21.f3 Bc5+ 22.Kh1 Nf2+ 23.Rxf2 Bxf2 24.Bxf6 gxf6 25.Ne4 Bxe4 26.fxe4 Rad8 27.Rf1 Qb6? 28.Qh6 Qe3 29.Qg6+ Kh8 30.Qxf6+ Kh7 

I was looking for a perpetual, but Black's queen covers h6. Moreover, decoying the queen there does not net the bishop due to a back rank weakness.

White to move

31.Qxe5

31.Qf5+ Kg7 32.Qxe5+ f6 33.Qe7+ Kg6 34.Qxb4.
31.Bxf7! Qxe4 32.Qxf2 with an advantage for Black.

31...f5 32.Qe7+ Kh6 33.Qe6+ Kg5 34.Qe7+ Kh6 35.Qe6+ Black lost on time 1–0

So many blitz and bullet games are won by the player who made worse moves. Sometimes it seems that the clock is more the game than what happens on the board.

Thinking about Development

Ever since reading Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999) by Dan Heisman fifteen years ago, I have thought a little differently about development.* Before reading this book, I had been content to get my pieces out, hopefully to good squares. I did not think deeply about which rook to move first, nor when to delay deploying a bishop because I was uncertain of its best square, nor what exactly is meant by the term development.

Heisman calls development a pseudo-element.

Development theory yields more contradictions than any other single positional theory, and if noting else comes out of this work, it is hoped that the overused "development" will be exposed for what it really is: a vague catch-all which confuses more than it clarifies. For a definition, we finds such indefinite generalizations as "getting your pieces into play," "moving a piece from its original square," and "putting your pieces on squares where they are well placed for the middlegame."
Heisman, Elements, 28.

I have sought to employ Heisman's seven elements--mobility, flexibility, center control, vulnerability, piece coordination, time, and speed--in my teaching of juniors and in my own play. I have sought through my reading and rereading of classic works to understand the historic evolution of the concept of development. Chess writers before Steinitz concerned with positional play used the term time before development became a catch phrase.

A position that I recently faced in a correspondence game provoked further considerations of development, and surprisingly, perhaps, found me relying on something I read in Siegbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess (1935). Tarrasch employs the concept of development throughout this book. However, he breaks it down into three factors: time, material, and space.

White to move

It was my move in this position. My first impulse was to play 10.Nxf6+, but then I remembered Tarrasch's sage advice in his section on time, "every care must be taken not to develop one's opponent, for by so doing one presents him with one or more tempi" (227). There was no rush as this was a correspondence game with seven days to move. I spent a leisurely 45 minutes or so contemplating and researching this position.

It seemed clear to me that White had an advantage. Tarrasch would note White's occupation of four ranks while Black's pieces occupied three (space). Counting tempi in the manner that Tarrasch suggests yields 5-4 in favor of White because a knight on the fourth rank is worth two tempi (229). Capturing the knight on f6 would restore the balance of tempi, something obviously not in White's best interests.

Heisman's elements were also helpful. White's pieces struck me as slightly better coordinated than Black's. The old pseudo-element (Heisman's term) of space helps. In particular, White's pieces are well coordinated to generate pressure against h7 and start an attack on the castled king. Despite seemingly adequate protection, Black's king could prove vulnerable if White could build an attack.

I looked at several lines designed to create a checkmate threat on h7. Inevitably, Black was forced to play g6, but then Black's bishop became well-posted on g7 or f6. As pieces were exchanged, White's initiative failed to expose the king and began to dissipate.

Exploring my database, I found that this position had occurred in at least fourteen prior games with thirteen White wins and one draw. One of the wins, however, came as a consequence of a long endgame with one knight and five pawns each. Black was outplayed in what looked to me like an equal position. In those fourteen games, White had played ten different moves.

Before looking at the move that I played and the subsequent course of the game, it may be of interest to see how this position came about.

Stripes,J (2175) -- Internet Opponent (1919) [C04]
www.ChessWorld.net, 31.05.2015

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nd2 Nc6

The Guimard variation has long had a reputation for being weaker than 3...c5 and 3...Nf6, as well as the flexible 3...Be7 that is recommended in several recent books on the French. Even so, John Watson offers a chapter on it in Dangerous Weapons: The French (2007).

4.Ngf3 Be7

4...Nf6 is nearly always played and is the only move discussed in Watson's Dangerous Weapons. Other moves that can be found in ECO are 4...g6, 4...Nh6, and 4...dxe4. The last transposes to a obscure variation of the Rubinstein French.

5.c3 has been played in over half of the small number of games reaching this position. White's score of 84% is impressive, but the sample is too small and most of the games are between players below Candidate Master.

5.e5 f5 (5...Nh6 6.c3 Bd7 7.Bd3 Nf5 8.Nf1 Na5 9.Ng3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 h6 11.g4 a6 12.g5 h5 13.g6 Bb5 14.g4 h4 15.gxf7+ Kxf7 16.g5 Ke8 17.Bxb5+ axb5 18.Qd3 c6 19.Nxh4 Nb3 20.Rb1 Nxc1 21.Qg6+ Kd7 22.f4 Qf8 23.f5 Nd3+ 24.Kd2 Nf4 25.fxe6+ Nxe6 26.Rbf1 Bxg5+ 27.Kc2 Qe8 28.Rf7+ Be7 29.Nf5 Rxh1 30.Nxg7 Rh6 31.Qf5 Qxf7 32.Qxf7 Rf8 0–1 Fernandez Romero,E (2383)--Pons Boscana,G, Mallorca 2000) 6.c4 Nh6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Nb3 Nf7 9.Bd3 a5 10.0–0 a4 11.Nbd2 g5 12.Bb5 Ra5 13.Bxa4 g4 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Nb3 Ra7 16.Ne1 Ba6 17.Nd3 Qa8 18.Re1 Bb5 19.a3 Ba4 20.Bd2 c5 21.dxc5 d4 22.e6 Nd8 23.Nf4 Bxc5 24.Qc2 Bd6 25.Qxf5 Bxb3 26.Qh5+ Kf8 27.Ng6+ Kg8 28.e7 Ne6 29.Nxh8 Bxe7 30.Qf7+ Kxh8 31.Qxe7 Ra6 32.Bh6 1–0 Rogers,I (2574)--Buecker,S (2341), Hertogenbosch 1999.

5...dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nf6

White to move

With Black's move the game transposes into a slightly larger data set, perhaps the seventy games are sufficient for justifying some optimism for White in the 92% score.

7.Bd3

A thematic move against the French.

7...b6

7...Qd5 8.Qe2 0–0 9.Bf4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 Qa5 11.0–0 Bd6 12.Ne5 Bxe5 13.Bxe5 Bd7 14.a4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Rab8 16.b4 Qa6 17.b5 Qb6 18.Qd3 Rfd8 19.Bxh7+ Kf8 20.Be4 c6 21.c4 Qc5 22.Qa3 Qxa3 23.Rxa3 Be8 24.Rd3 Rxd3 25.Bxd3 Rd8 26.Rd1 cxb5 27.axb5 a6 28.bxa6 bxa6 29.Be2 Rxd1+ 30.Bxd1 a5 31.f4 f6 32.Kf2 Bc6 33.g3 a4 34.Ke3 a3 35.Bb3 fxe5 36.fxe5 Kf7 37.Kd4 Kg6 38.Kc5 Be4 39.Ba2 Kf5 40.Kd6 g5 41.h4 gxh4 42.gxh4 Bf3 43.h5 Bxh5 44.c5 1–0 Mortensen,E (2440)--Crawley,G (2345), Copenhagen 1987.

7...0–0 is the most popular move in the position.

8.0–0

8.Qa4 has been played by the strongest players who reached this position 8...Bb7 9.0–0 (9.Bb5 Qd5=).

8...Bb7 9.Qe2 0–0

And we have reached the diagram position at the top of this post. Notice that it emerged from the Tarrasch variation of the French.

Fourteen games in the ChessBase database have reached this position. White has tried ten different moves. One game was drawn and White won all the others.

10.Re1!N

Moving my rook to the semi-open file strengthens my grip on the center, prepares for an eventual rook lift if I can generate an attack on Black's king, leaves d1 available for the other rook, and defers development of my dark-squared bishop. Even more important, it makes no concrete threats that guide Black's choices. I am developing with a very slight increase in pressure. I have increased the mobility of my rook (Tarrasch would count the rook's placement on e1 as a tempo because there is no White pawn blocking it). My pieces remain well-coordinated as others join in the battle. I continue to eye potential vulnerabilites in Black's position. I am not wasting time, nor am I helping my opponent gain time through exchanges.

Whether my move is better than others that have been played in this position is unclear. It seems that almost everything has led to success.

Indeed, I like this position for training because it is not the move, but rather the rationale that is most telling. Although I will likely never see it again, and my students are not likely to ever play it, it could be a useful position for asking students to articulate their thinking. The concepts and principles that a player brings to this position may help identify what one still needs to learn concerning positional play in the later phases of the opening.

10.Qc2 was played on move 11 in a fifteenth game. 10...Nxe4 11.Bxe4 f5 12.Bd3 Bf6 13.Bc4 Bc8 14.Re1 Qd6 15.Qxf5 Bxd4 16.Qe4 Bf6 17.Bf4 Qc5 18.b4 Qh5 19.Bxe6+ Kh8 20.Qxc6 1–0 Jovanovic,Z (2541)--Patarcic,D (2157), Bosnjaci CRO 2015.

10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Qe4 g6 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Qf4 Qe7 14.Bg5 Bxg5 15.Nxg5 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Be4 Bxe4 18.Nxe4 Nd3 19.Nf6+ Kh8 20.Qh4 h5 21.Qg5 Qf8 22.Nxe8 Rxe8 23.Qb5 Nc5 24.Rfe1 Ne6 25.f4 Rd8 26.Qe5+ Kg8 27.f5 Qc5+ 28.Qxc5 Nxc5 29.Re7 Na4 30.Rxc7 Nxb2 31.fxg6 fxg6 32.Rxa7 Nd1 33.Rb1 Nxc3 34.Rxb6 Rd1+ 35.Kf2 Rd2+ 36.Ke3 1–0 Mirabile,T (2203)--Stenzel,H (2077), Nassau 1999.

10...Qd7

10...Nxe4 helps White 11.Qxe4 g6 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Bb5 Bf8 (13...Na5 14.Qf4) 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Qxc6 Bxg5 17.d5 with an attack.

11.Bg5

This move becomes Stockfish's second choice after several minutes, although it does not make the top six through the first minute or so. It does not make it into Komodo's nor Hiarcs's top eight even after five minutes. The moves that appear favored by more than one engine are 11.Nfg5, 11.b4, and 11.Bd2. 11.Nxf6+ is an early choice that drops after the engine has a few minutes of thinking time.

Black to move

11...Rac8??

This move fails to address the needs of the position. White's forces are well-deployed for action against the king.

11...Nd5 is the top choice of every engine that I checked. 12.Bd2+/=. Perhaps 11...Nd5 was the only move with all others giving White an explicit advantage.

12.Nxf6+

The time is now! Black's position is collapsing.

12...Bxf6

12...gxf6 was the only try 13.Qe4 f5 14.Qh4+/-.

13.Qe4 g6 

I was surprised to see that this move was Stockfish's top choice. I considered it tantamount to surrender.

13...Rfd8 or Rfe8 struck me as the only reasonable try. Both moves drop two pawns and leave White with kingside pressure. 14.Qxh7+ Kf8 15.Qh8+ Ke7 16.Qxg7+-.

14.Bxf6 1–0

Black resigned.

I was preparing for a longer struggle. By slowly building pressure and forcing my opponent to make critical decisions in a seemingly quiet position, I gave him the opportunity to self-destruct.





*The fourth edition came out in 2010 and is much expanded over the edition that I read fifteen years ago.

Counting Tempi

During a lesson with one of my top students last week, he observed that a particular candidate move lost a tempo. I opined that tempi did not seem as vital in this variation of the Pirc Defense as in certain open positions. The conversation brought to my recollection something that I had read in John Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (1998) more than a dozen years ago.

Later in the week, I pulled Modern Chess Strategy off the shelf to revisit the half-remembered passage. Watson's book drove me back into Aron Nimzowitsch, My System (1930). After spending idle moments of three days rereading Modern Chess Strategy and My System, I started digging through other books on the shelf. William Steinitz. The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) did not offer anything to my inquiry, although he mentions a move "losing time" as early as 1873 in The Field.* Seigbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess (1935) was published after My System, even though it seems to precede Nimzowitsch theoretically.

In order to illustrate his point concerning tempi, Nimzowitsch presents a curious position that has arisen in very few games. Watson carries the position further through logical moves as a critique of Nimzowitsch.

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Nf6

Black's third move does not appear in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). My database does have three instances of this position prior to publication of My System. All three games were played in 1839 by William Davies Evans, inventor of the Evans Gambit. Evans had White against three different opponents, the best known of which was Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant. One of these games reached this position by transposition (1.e4 e5 2.c3 Nf6 3.d4 exd4).

Concerning this unusual 3...Nf6, Nimzowitsch states, "Black lets what will happen, and this is what every beginner should do in order to gain experience of the consequences of an advance in the center" (12).

4.e5 Ne4

White to move

"The knight can maintain himself here, for Bd3 will be answered by a developing move of full value, namely d5" (Nimzowitsch, 12-13). Nimzowitsch suggests that after 5.Bd3, Nc5 would be an error because the continuation 6.cxd4 Nxd3+ 7.Qxd3 "would yield an advantage of four tempi to White" (13). The resulting position appears once in my database--a seventeen move draw, perhaps one of those notorious arranged draws that plays out an obscure line from a book for a few moves.

Watson states concerning this advantage of tempi in Nimzowitsch's line:

Four tempi or not, 7...d5! leaves Black with two bishops and a healthy share of the centre (and it is White's 'good' bishop which has just been devoured). Most players would be quite content here as Black. (14)

After 4.e5, Captain Evans faced 4...Ne4 against George Perigal, 4...Qe7 against Saint-Amant, and 4...Nd5 against F.L. Slous.

Watson describes as "egregious", Nimzowitsch's assessment after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5.

White to move

Nimzowitsch offers the continuation: 5.Qxd4 c6 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Nf3. He states, "White has here six tempi as against two or one and a half, for the knight is not better placed at b6 than at f6, and the pawn at c6 is not really a whole tempo, since no move of a central pawn is here in question" (13).

Black to move

Watson asks, what has become of those valuable tempi after the logical 7...Nxc4 8.Qxc4 d5? Again, Black has the two bishops and is about to catch up in the number of minor pieces developed. He asserts that White is struggling for equality (15).


Tarrasch

For his part, Siegbert Tarrasch claims that counting tempi originated with Semion Alapin and him.

It is a very good thing, from time to time at least, to balance an account of the tempi visible on the board. This tempi reckoning originated with Alapin and myself. To be sure Alapin, as indeed is quite correct, included in his reckoning such moves as a4/a5, whilst I include only the developing moves and ignore the others--a system which, in my opinion based on my experience, gives results of greater practical value.
The Game of Chess, 228-229

Tarrasch offers a diagram to illustrate.

From his discussion of earlier positions, we learn that center pawns that have cleared out of the way of the pieces can be counted even if they have been captured. In this position, however, he does not count the pawns because both players have advanced both center pawns, making matters equal.

He explains further that a queen that has moved off the back rank counts as one tempo, regardless of how many times it has moved or where it stands. A rook is counted only if it has some space to move. Both of White's rooks have squares in front of them, and so count. Black's rook on g8 has moved, but is blocked and so does not count. Tarrasch does not count the rook on a8 because it has not moved, although perhaps he might consider it developed if the a-pawn were advancing against some target. Knights are more valuable when further advanced. The knight on c3 is one tempo. A knight on the fourth or fifth rank would count as two tempi, and Tarrasch counts three tempi for the knight on e6. Each bishop counts as one tempo when developed no matter how many moves were required to reach its present post.

Tarrasch thus finds that in this diagram, White has nine tempi to Black's five.

Most useful in Tarrasch's discussion, however, is the relationship of Time to Force and Space. "By good play tempi once gained are never lost," he asserts, "but rather are ultimately transformed into a gain in Space or Force" (231).

He is worth quoting at length.

These three factors of Force, Space and Time work together at every move. The whole art of the Opening consists in bringing into action pieces which are first shut in, in freeing pieces by a very few pawn moves, and in getting them to favourable positions and that as quickly as possible. Each tempo must be fully utilised for development, and one must advance one's game. (231)

Although Tarrasch is considered the dogmatist among classical chess theorists, I see the beginnings of modern dynamic chess in his discussion of the balancing of tempi with material and board control.


*See Sid Pickard, The Collected Works of William Steinitz (2003), CD for Steinitz's magazine annotations.