Let's Take A Look

Lets Take A
Look...
Nigel Davies


by Bruce Alberston
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 for us to know. 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,
Lets take a look...
Winners, History and Chess
One of the funny things about history is that it is usually written from the
perspective of the winners. Now it could be that they thoroughly deserved to
win by what is often reported as a moral or cultural superiority. Though I
suspect that in at least some cases this superiority was exaggerated, and many
glorious winners may have been nothing more then the less inept of two
blundering armies.
We have a similar situation in our little chess; the winners are usually the ones
to write the notes and may be loathe to criticise their own handiwork. So you
see their own moves adorned with exclamation marks whilst their hapless
opponents could barely do a thing right. Problems such as the questionable
soundness of a sacrifice are often glossed over, a sure sign being some general
comments when one was rather hoping for a few variations.
Are outsiders more objective? Actually no! This sort of bias tends to be even
more pronounced in the case of annotations by journalists; some of these guys
seem to start by looking at the result and then peel backwards to the point at
which a new move was played. Depending on whether the winner or loser
played it, the new move is praised as being brilliant or condemned as
being bad.
Stronger players tend to be more objective, valuing both their own ideas and
those of their opponents without particular bias. You can usually see such
qualities when someone is analysing their game, if a winner is agonising over
whether he made the right choice at a particular stage then hes probably
really good. If, on the other hand, hes trying to defend poor earlier decisions
(e.g. by continuing to analyse variations when hes a piece down) then hes
probably quite weak.
How can someone cultivate the habit of objectivity? Frankly its not easy, and
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]
Let's Take A Look
the game of chess itself may be one of the best vehicles for this form of self-
improvement. The trick is to wean oneself off the kind of self-delusion to
which most of us are prone, the kind that refuses to accept a single blemish on
ones ever so shiny personage. The best book Ive seen to address this is Scott
Pecks People of the Lie, in which the author examines the way that self-
deception is used to maintain a flattering view of themselves. I believe that
most people are unwilling to critically examine themselves either in chess or
in life. And thus they never improve.
The following game was sent to me by Luke McMullen and was played by
correspondence. Overall I have to say that its a well-played game by Black,
but I was concerned that some of the notes seemed inappropriately critical of
some of Whites decisions whilst glossing over the dubious nature of some of
his own.
Santa Drummer - McMullen,L
Correspondence, 2005
Nimzo-Indian Defence [E21]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4
Its refreshing to see the Nimzo rather than the Slav or Semi-Slav. These latter
openings have been spreading through club chess like an epidemic.
4 Bd2
This is criticised by the winner as being quite passive, this was in fact used
quite effectively by Saveilly Tartakower in his day. Tartakower often
managed to castle queenside, which is in fact what happens in this game.
4...0-0 5 Nf3 b6
A very normal looking move, but I quite like Whites chances in this line.
Either 5c5 or 5d5 seem more solid to me, though the positions these
moves lead to might be rather too sterile for the taste of many Nimzo-Indian
players.
6 e3 Bb7 7 Bd3 d6
One of Tartakowers lines went 7...Bxc3 8 Bxc3 Ne4 9 Bxe4 Bxe4 10 Nd2
Bb7 (Or 10...Bxg2 11 Rg1 Bb7 12 d5 with a strong attack) 11 Qg4, when
White is taking aim at g7 and getting ready to castle long.
8 Qc2 c5 9 dxc5
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Opening the d-file like this isnt a bad
idea, but maybe White can do better. I
quite like the move 9 d5 after which
9...exd5 10 cxd5 Bxc3 (10...Nbd7 11 e4
produces an odd-looking Benoni position
in which one might argue that Blacks
bishop on b7 is misplaced) 11 Bxc3 Bxd5
12 Ng5!? gives White interesting play for
the pawn.
9...Bxf3
Black explained this move in terms of playing for an endgame advantage,
though I dont quite see it myself. I personally like the bishop pair in
endgames and the doubling of Whites pawns seems to be little drawback in
this position.
For this reason I prefer the simple 9...bxc5, with approximate equality.
10 gxf3 bxc5 11 0-0-0?!
This is certainly in the spirit of the 4 Bd2 line, but theres a case for not
declaring where Whites king will live for the time being. 11 Rg1 looks like a
more flexible move, occupying the open g-file but keeping open the option of
putting Whites king on e2 or f1.
11...Nc6 12 Rdg1?
Right idea, wrong rook; White should keep this one on the d-file to inhibit
Blacks counterplay with ...d6-d5. A sample line is 12 Rhg1 d5 13 cxd5 exd5
14 a3 c4 15 Bf5 Be7 16 Ne2 intending 17 Bc3, with promising attacking
chances on the kingside.
12...d5
Exactly. The old rule of thumb is that a flank attack is best answered by a
counter-blow in the centre, and this is certainly the case in this position.
13 cxd5 exd5
The correct recapture, maintaining the pawn duo which control key central
squares and threaten to act as a battering ram. In my opinion White is already
in very serious trouble, and he may in fact be lost.
14 Rg2
To me this cumbersome rook doubling is a sure sign that things are going
wrong for White. The attack along the g-file is effectively stymied by Blacks
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]
Let's Take A Look
16g6, whilst his own attack steams ahead on the queenside.
14c4 15 Bf5
Its tempting to try and save time on the game with 15 Rhg1 but I cannot see a
good way to continue the attack after 15...cxd3 16 Rxg7+ Kh8 17 Qxd3 Ne5
18 Qd4 Ng6 etc.
15...Rb8 16 Rhg1 g6 17 Bxg6
In his notes Black queries the soundness of this sacrifice and suggests that 17
Kb1 might have been better. But frankly I think that White is committed to
the attack with his own king being in such jeopardy, and to be more specific it
seems that 17...d4 would be a powerful reply to the passive king move.
17...fxg6 18 Rxg6+ Kh8
And not 18...hxg6 because of 19 Qxg6+ followed by mate.
19 R6g5 d4!
Very good. Black doesnt sit back and try
to win on material, but instead takes the
initiative. The nails are being hammered
into Whites coffin.
20 Nb5
20 Na4 isnt much of an improvement
after 20...c3! 21 bxc3 Ba3+ 22 Kd1 d3
winning Whites queen.
20...Qa5
Splat! That Whites best is a piece down endgame says plenty about his
chances here. And Black might have done even better than that!
21 Nxd4 Bxd2+ 22 Qxd2 Qxd2+
This passes without comment but theres a case here for 22...Qxa2, keeping
the queens on with a winning attack. Exchanging queens is winning of course,
but it does take rather more time.
23 Kxd2 Nxd4 24 exd4 Rxb2+ 25 Kc3 Rxf2
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Black could also have taken the a-pawn,
not that it matters much any more.
26 Kxc4 Rxa2
The harvest continues.
27 d5
Nimzovitch advised us that passed pawns
must be pushed, but the attempt to queen
the d-pawn is a rather forlorn hope.
27...Rd2
Correctly placing his rook behind the passed pawn.
28 Kc5 Rd8 29 d6 R2xd6 0-1
Recommended Reading
My Best Games of Chess 1905-1954 by Saveilly Tartakower (Dover, 1985)
People of the Lie by M Scott-Peck (Touchstone, 1985)
Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 5) [2/14/2006 10:11:34 PM]