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...
Computers, Magic and Disaster
There is general agreement that accurate calculation is known to be one of the
most important facets of chess. Where there is less agreement is in how one
should calculate and how to develop this ability. As a teenager, I followed
Kotovs advice in Think Like A Grandmaster by setting up critical positions
on a board, writing down the variations I saw and then comparing them with
those of the annotator. Im sure this helped me develop my game, even if the
efficacy of Kotovs tree-like technique of calculation has been brought into
question, for example by J on Tisdall in Improve Your Chess Now.
I believe that many players have gone through a similar regime by analysing
sharp openings and Lev Polugayevsky describes this process in his
magnificent book, Grandmaster Preparation. One slight issue I have with this
is that in analysing sharp openings, players are likely to move the pieces
around the board, which doesnt help develop a players vision in the way that
staring at a single position can help them. But this is much better than the kind
of computer aided analysis that is all too common in the present day and age.
A chess player cannot use Fritz during a game, so why do so many people use
it for training purposes. And there may also be a more subtle erosion of our
thinking abilities because of an increasing reliance on machines to do the
easy stuff. Heres an excerpt from the J anuary 1987 edition of the magazine
Analog: Science Fiction and Fact about the use of pocket calculators in
schools:
The existence of pocket calculators has already posed serious
problems for education. Is it sensible, for example, to teach Long
Division in schools - when each child owns a little plastic box that can
do arithmetic more quickly, and more accurately, then an expert? It
wont be long before the plastic box can do algebra and calculus too -
and the problems arising may well be worse at school level, because a
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]
Let's Take A Look
very high proportion of the mathematical work done at school consists
precisely of routine calculation methods. Whatever the pros and cons,
education is going to have to adapt to the new technology.
The article further points out:
It may seempointless teaching children to performtasks that can be
done quickly, accurately and cheaply by machine; but its also
dangerous to build a society thats totally dependant upon machines,
that it no longer understands. Once Technology becomes Magic,
Disaster will soon follow.
The following game was sent to me by Luis Da Costa J unior, complete with
extensive analysis. My impression was that the variations were worked out in
conjunction with Fritz, rather than being computer generated alone. There
were some lines where I felt a human touch seemed to be present, but the
whole thing was too accurate and extensive to be human alone. It was an
impressive piece of work, but even so I think there are distinct advantages to
getting the board and pieces out and doing away with the computer altogether.
Of course in this day and age that would take monumental self-discipline.
Certainly this is better than the kind of slightly edited Chessbase/Fritz dumps
that are becoming increasingly prevalent, but in which you sense the authors
lack of understanding with every word that he writes. And then there are the
correspondence players who go for razor sharp openings (zero
understanding required when every move is in the book) and switch the
machine on to calculate out the tactics. I understand why Mikhail Umansky
uses 1g6 in his correspondence games, inviting his opponents to play chess.
Mascarenhas,A - Brooks,I
ICCF Correspondence Tournament 2002
Modern Benoni [A67]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+
Taimanovs variation, which has discouraged all but the most ardent Modern
Benoni fans from playing it via a 2...c5 move order. Specialists like Lev
Psakhis now play 2...e6 and wait for 3 Nf3 before venturing 3...c5.
In my reckless youth, and inspired by a game of J ohn Littlewood, I once
played 8 e5 against J ohn Nunn. Once was enough. The big problem with all
out attack is that if the attack doesnt work, you end up with a wreck of a
position. Pawn storms are especially dangerous the little guys dont move
backwards.
8...Nbd7!?
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]
Let's Take A Look
The most natural move on the board, the
drawback being that it involves a piece
sacrifice. David Norwood had some
success with this line in his pre-
businessman days, but got discouraged and
switched exclusively to the Modern.
I cant speak with much authority on this
line, but Im under the impression that
Subas 8...Nfd7 9 a4 Qh4+10 g3 Qd8!? is
a tough nut to crack. Of course, tacking to
and fro with your queen to induce 10 g3 is
not going to be everyones cup of tea.
9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Nh5 11 e6
The critical line. 11 Nf3 is met by 11...0-0 12 g4 Nxe5 13 gxh5 Bg4 14 0-0
Nxf3+15 Rxf3 Bxh5 as in Mierse - Goeke, Wiesbaden 1998. Blacks even up
on material in that one.
11...Qh4+12 Kd2
12 g3 has also been played, when 12Nxg3 13 hxg3 Qxh1 14 Be3 Bxc3+15
bxc3 a6 16 exd7+Bxd7 17 Bxd7+Kxd7 18 Qa4+b5 19 Qf4 Rhe8 20 0-0-0
Qe4 21 Qxe4 Rxe4 led to a draw (of course!), in Arencibia -Vera, Havana
2003. Is heading for the hills any better? Lets just call it unclear for the
time being, I have a natural mistrust of long analysis.
12...fxe6
After 12...Qg5+(or 12...Qf4+for that matter), Da Costa gives 13 Kc2 Qf5+
14 Bd3 Qf2+15 Kb1 fxe6 16 dxe6 intending Ne4, but this seems far from
clear to me. What about 16...Ne5 17 Ne4 Qd4 18 Bb5+Ke7 19 Bg5+Kxe6?
13 dxe6 Bxc3+
Seems that this is a new move. The only previous game I could find with
this line was Aleksandrov - Wojtkiewicz, Wisla 1992, which went 130-0 14
exd7 Bxd7 15 Bxd7 Rad8 16 Kc2 Rf2+17 Kb1 Bxc3 18 Qg4 and Blacks
attack was running out of steam.
Another possibility is 13...Qg5+, but then 14 Ke1 Bxc3+15 bxc3 Qe5+16
Qe2 Qxc3+17 Qd2! Qxa1 18 exd7+Ke7 19 Qg5+Ke6 20 Ne2 gives White
what looks like a winning attack.
14 bxc3 0-0 15 Nf3!
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Da Costa analyses 15 exd7 in some depth,
concluding that the move in the game is
better. Heres a reduced version of his
analysis: 15...Bxd7 16 Nf3 (16 Bxd7?
Rf2+! 17 Ne2 Rd8! 18 Qb3+Rf7 19 Ba3
c4! 20 Qc2 Qg5+21 Kd1 Rfxd7+22 Ke1
Re8 wins for Black, whilst 16 Qb3+?! Kh8
17 Bxd7 Qg5+! 18 Kc2 Qxg2+19 Bd2
Qxh1 also looks favourable) 16...Bxb5! 17
Nxh4 Rad8+18 Ke1 (18 Kc2 Ba4+19
Kb2 Bxd1 20 Be3 Bg4 21 Bxc5 Rfe8 gives
Black the better endgame) 18Rde8+19
Be3 (19 Kd2?? Rf2+) 19Rxe3+20 Kd2 Rd3+21 Kc1 Rxd1+22 Rxd1 Nf4
with compensation for the sacrificed exchange.
15...Qg4
After 15...Qf2+, there follows 16 Qe2 Qxe2+17 Kxe2 Re8 18 Kf2 Rxe6 19
Bc4 etc.
16 Re1!
Da Costa analyses 16 exd7?! out to a draw after 16Bxd7 17 Bxd7 Qxg2+
18 Kd3 (18 Ke3 Rad8! leaves Whites king too exposed) 18Rxf3+19 Kc4
b5+! 20 Kxc5 (20 Kxb5 Rf7 is dangerous) 20Rxc3+! 21 Kb4 Rc4+22 Kb3
Qe4 23 Re1 Rb4+24 Ka3 Ra4+25 Kb2 Rb4+26 Ka3.
16...Nf4 17 e7!
Here, too, Da Costa claims that taking on d7 is less good, an abridged version
of his line running 17 exd7?! Bxd7 18 Qb3+(One beautiful variation runs 18
Bc4+?! Kh8 19 g3 Ng2! 20 Ne5 Rad8!! 21 Nxg4 Bf5+! 22 Bd5 Rxd5+23
Ke2 Bxg4#) 18Kh8 19 Bb2 c4! 20 Bxc4 Qxg2+21 Be2 (Or 21 Kc1 Qxf3
22 Bf1 Bc6 23 c4+Kg8 24 c5+Nd5! with ongoing problems for White)
21Nxe2 22 Rxe2 Qxf3 23 c4+Kg8 24 c5+Qxb3 25 axb3 Bc6 and Black is
in the driving seat in the endgame.
17...Re8 18 Qb3+Kg7 19 c4!
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Opening up the long diagonal for Whites
dark-square bishop.
19...Qxg2+
With Blacks king coming under fire, he
has to keep going forward. 19...Ne6 20
Bb2+Kg8 21 Rxe6 Qxe6 22 Qc3 is an
example of what happens if he plays
passively.
20 Kd1 Nf6
Or if 20...Qg4, there follows 21 Qc3+! Kh6 (21 Kf7 22 Re4!) 22 Rg1! etc.
21 Bxe8 Bg4 22 Bc6! bxc6 23 Bxf4 Bxf3+24 Kc1 Re8 25 Rb1 Be4 26 Rb2
Qg4 27 Qe3?!
Whilst the position is still good for White
after this, I dont think this is the best.
Both 27 Bd6 and 27 Qg3 look stronger.
27...Bf5
27...Rxe7 would have been strongly met
by 28 Bg5.
28 Be5 Qxc4+29 Qc3
29 Bc3 might have been even stronger, but
given the wild nature of the early stages one can understand Whites
enthusiasm for entering an exchange up endgame.
29...Qxc3+30 Bxc3 Kf7 31 Bxf6 Kxf6 32 Rb7 a5 33 Ra7 Be6 34 Rxa5
Rxe7 35 a4
Black would be doing just fine, if it wasnt for the a-pawn.
35Rb7 36 Rxc5 Bd5 37 Re3 g5 38 a5 g4 39 a6 Ra7 40 Ra5 h5 41 Ra4
Kf5 42 Kd2 h4 43 Rd3 Kg5 44 Rdd4 Bf3 45 Ke3 Re7+46 Kd3 Ra7 47
Ra5+Kg6 48 Rf4 c5 49 Ke3 c4 50 Kf2 c3 51 Rc4 Kf6 52 Rxc3 h3 53 Rxf3+
gxf3 54 Kxf3 1-0
Some rooks endgames in which one side has two extra rooks pawns are
drawn, but not this one. Blacks rook is far too passively placed.
Recommended Reading
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Grandmaster Preparation by Lev Polugayevsky (Pergamon 1981)
Analyse To Win: Visualising Victory by Byron J acobs (Batsford 1998)
Think Like A Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov (Batsford, 2003)
Test & Improve Your Chess by Lev Alburt (MacMillan, 1994)
Improve Your Chess Now by J onathan Tisdall (Everyman, 1997)
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 (6 of 6) [8/12/2006 5:12:18 PM]