Lets Take A Look...

Nigel Davies



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...
Analysis or Blitz?
Quite often Mishas permanent trainer Alexander Koblenz, Maestro to his
friends, would arrive. This is also what Misha invariably called him. Behind their
distinctive jokingly-ironic manner of conversing lay a sincere attachment that went
back many years. Thats enough for today Misha would say, Blitz, blitz.
Sacrificing pieces against each of us in turn, for the most part, incorrectly, he
would repeat: Never mind, now Ill make his flag fall. Or in very sharp situations,
when he himself had only a few seconds left, his favourite Calmness is my
sweetheart. I do not recall an occasion when he played blitz without any evident
pleasure. Whether it was a game from the championships of Moscow or Leningrad,
most of which were won by him, the world championship in Saint John in 1988, or
simply a five-minute game with an amateur who had cornered him in a hotel foyer.
Genna Sosonko (writing about Mikhail Tal) in Russian Silhouettes
At this stage you have to learn how to analyse and comment on games, for this
enables you to criticize your own failures and successes.
Mikhail Botvinnik in One Hundred Selected Games
One piece of classic advice, coming from both Alexander Alekhine and Mikhail
Botvinnik, is that one should annotate ones games in order to improve. Is this the secret
of success?
Certainly there are cases of players making remarkable strides after doing so, for example
Alex Yermolinsky started seriously studying his games before leaping to stardom. In fact
many GMs have tried this at one time or another, but in most cases it had a limited
duration. I have a number of notebooks from around 1989 to 1995, but very few of my
games got annotated. There just never seemed to be time.
In my experience it is far more common for players to acquire knowledge in a less formal
setting, such as the bar. For example, if you play an open game and then encounter Mark
Hebden there, you invariably receive excellent advice on how you should have played.
Several English GMs acquired their open game knowledge from Mark, including Glenn
Flear, John Emms and to a certain extent myself. And Joe Gallagher acquired his Kings
Gambit from him, I understand in exchange for some poker lessons Joe delivered in Spain.
Blitz is another way for players to hone their skill, once again served with suitable
refreshments. Games between aspiring players, with occasional bits of advice thrown in,
help hone an understanding for positions that is impossible to acquire from books alone.
Many professionals will consult books now and then, but I really dont think this is their
primary source of knowledge.
In my own youth I read Laskers Manual of Chess several times, plus plenty of
biographical games collections. But there wasnt much formal study, except in occasional
patches. I have learned a lot through post mortems with experienced colleagues, especially
when I learned from Danny Kopec to write notes on my score sheet. And I learned a lot
from visiting Lev Psakhis when I lived in Israel, his influence being largely responsible for
my subsequent acquisition of the GM title.
So what is the answer for amateur players? Ive always believed that the primary thing is
to play as much as possible and the Internet has made this much easier. Whats not so easy
is getting useful information from peers, Internet groups have plenty of chat but not much
in the way of useful advice. Books by great players can be worth their weight in gold, but
do many people actually read them? Perhaps videos and DVDs offer a more accessible
answer, and I personally have been learning a great deal through watching Viktor
Korchnois DVDs (My Life for Chess, Vol. 1 & Vol. 2) whilst on the exercise bike in the
mornings.
Modern lifestyles often require such multitasking.
So what about annotating games? Theres certainly a place for it if you have time, but for
most amateurs theres rarely much opportunity to do anything apart from have Fritz look
at it and check for blunders. Perhaps the most important things are to see if there are any
general causes of defeat, such as particular openings or poor play in the last hour because
of time trouble. I also think its useful to look up the openings of games you have played,
to see what strong players have done in similar situation. This can help build ones
opening knowledge.
This months game is from candidate grandmaster Steven Gordon, whose march through
the ranks has been quite remarkable. When the following game was played he really
wasnt very strong, though he was keen enough to annotate the game and send it to me
whilst I was the trainer at his club. But before drawing the conclusion that this is what
helped him improve, I dont think he made a regular practice of this.
Talent is very helpful.
Gordon,S Arnott,J
Stockport Quickplay, 2004
English Defence [A40]
1 d4 e6
A willingness to play the French (into which White can transpose with 2 e4) gives Black
this interesting universal move. After Whites reply, he has the solid 2...Bb4+, as well as
transposition into a Dutch with 2...f5, but having sidestepped some of Whites dangerous
second move alternatives, such as the Staunton Gambit.
2 c4 b6!?
But this move has the mark of bare faced cheek.
Having been used extensively by Englishmen in
the 1970s and 80s (Tony Miles and Jim Plaskett
come to mind as leading exponents) it lost most
of its charms when placed under the microscope.
Even so it remains an interesting way to play, and
those who would like to explore it further should
get Christian Bauers recent book on it.
3 e4 Bb7 4 Bd3 f5!?
What can one say? Not only is this move
theory, but it has been played by notables such
as Tony Miles and Lev Psakhis. On the other hand is it really wise to go into such sharp
and messy lines against the young?
5 exf5 Bxg2
Steven passes over this move without comment, assuming that the line up to 8Kf8 was
forced for both sides. But Black has an important alternative in 5Bb4+, which is to my
mind a better practical try. Black must give up material in some lines but gets
compensation. Yet the real problem is that after 6 Kf1 (with f8 cleared for Blacks king
White must defend g2) 6Nf6 7 Nf3 (Chasing material with 7 c5 bxc5 8 a3 c4!, or 7 Be2
0-0 8 c5 bxc5 9 a3 Ba5 10 bxc5 Ne4 produce rather murky complications in either case)
70-0 8 a3 Bd6 9 Nc3, hes left with a rather lousy position.
6 Qh5+ g6 7 fxg6 Bg7 8 gxh7+ Kf8 9 Ne2?!
Here is what Steven has to say about this move:
This is actually seen to be the main line but I
now believe it to be dubious because it allows
Black an extra option in a few moves. 9 Bg5! Nf6
10 Qh4 Bxh1 11 Nd2! I feel is the best move
order to play as it cancels out Black Bf3-g4
ideas.
Interestingly 11 Nd2 isnt mentioned at all by
Bauer and he thinks that 11...Bf3 isnt really
worth preventing either. On the other hand, 11
Nd2 might be answered by 11...Qe7, which
Bauer thinks is also the best after 11 Ne2.
9...Bxh1 10 Bg5 Nf6 11 Qh4 Bf3
After 11...Nc6 12 Nd2 e5, Bauer gives 13 0-0-0! as best and after 13...e4 14 Bxe4 Bxe4 15
Nxe4 Rxh7 16 Qf4 Kf7, White won quickly with 17 N2c3 in Magerramov - Psakhis, Riga
1980 and with 17 Rg1 in Dan Cramling - Gausel, Gausdal 1982. On the other hand, he
believes that 11...Qe7 holds after 12 Nf4 Qf7 13 Ng6+ Ke8 14 Ne5 Qf8, intending ...d6,
followed by ...Nbd7. White obviously has compensation, but a rook is a rook.
What do I think is happening? I have no idea whatsoever! Suffice it to say that if youre
Black and play moves like 4...f5 you can expect trouble.
12 Nf4 Nc6 13 Nd2
To my surprise this has actually been played before, and White has scored well from this
position. Steven Gordon
13...Nxd4?
A new and losing move, which just goes to show
that if youre going to let your king get opened
up, then you really need to know what youre
doing. Theory gives 13...Bg4, but then 14 Bxf6
(Steven only analysed 14 Ng6+ Kf7 15 Ne5+
Nxe5 16 dxe5 Bf5 17 Bxf5 exf5 18 exf6 Bxf6 19
Qh5+ Kg7 20 Qh6+ Kf7 21 Qh5+ with a draw by
perpetual check, opining that after allowing Bf3
this is the best that White has got) 14...Qxf6 15
Qxg4 Qxd4 16 Rd1 (Bauer only gave the line 16
Nf3 Qxb2 17 Rd1 as in Lower - Marshall,
Correspondence 1999, but then 17...Ne7 doesnt
seem too clear) 16...Ne7 17 Qf3! hits the rook on
a8 and threatens a horrid discovered check to
boot.
14 Ng6+ Kf7 15 Ne5+
Simply winning the errant knight on d4 after which he is only the exchange down. An
attack of this strength is worth far more than that.
15...Ke7 16 Qxd4 Bh5
After 16...Bb7, there might follow 17 Ne4 Bxe4 18 Bxe4, with a multitude of threats.
17 Qh4 Qe8
Protecting the g6-square, but now the knight on f6 comes under pressure.
18 Ne4 Rf8 19 Ng3 Bf7 20 0-0-0
This is not exactly an attractive position for
Black. Can anybody see a move for him?
20...d6 21 f4 Rd8 22 Ng4 Bg6 23 f5!
Absolutely crushing. After 23exf5 24 Nxf5+
Bxf5 25 Bxf5, the deadly threat is 26 Re1+.
23Bxh7
I am amazed that Black continued here. The
torture scene in Braveheart comes to mind.
24 Qxh7 Qf7 25 fxe6 Kxe6 26 Qf5+ 1-0
One of the most horrific games Ive ever seen, and a good advert against playing
provocative defences for Black.
Recommended Reading
One Hundred Selected Games by Mikhail Botvinnik (Dover, 1960)
Russian Silhouettes by Genna Sosonko (New in Chess, 2001)
Play 1...b6 by Christian Bauer (Everyman, 2005)
2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.