Lets Take A Look...

Nigel Davies





Play through and download the games
from ChessCafe.com in the DGT
Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
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 to us. 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...
The Universal Style
One of the criticisms most often levelled at players such as Bent Larsen and Oleg
Romanishin is that they never learned how to bite the bullet and just defend. Forever
striving for the initiative, they would even come out shooting when their positions were
starting to wobble. Probably theyd even go on to win some of them but with most of these
results coming against weaker opponents. Against the strong ones this strategy is likely to
rebound.
This is probably why such players do better in tournaments than in matches, especially
events of mixed strength. Whilst their rivals might be winning some and drawing some,
those who play every game to the limit would notch up a ferocious rate of scoring in
which even an occasional loss was nothing more than a temporary set-back. In many of
the tournaments he won in the late 1960s, Larsen would often be well clear of the rest of
the field.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a limit to how far attacking players can go unless they
temper their aggressive inclinations with iron discipline. Alexander Alekhine is probably
the most outstanding example of someone who did this, going on to beat Capablanca in
quiet positions in their match in 1927. Gary Kasparov too underwent a transformation
after his marathon first match with Anatoly Karpov, though in Kasparovs case one has to
say that his early education in chess wasnt too bad to begin with. As for Mikhail Tal, Id
say that he had just so much talent that it didnt too much matter that he was ill-
disciplined. But there has only ever been one Tal.
Can club players also undergo such transformations? Indeed they can. Ive seen a number
of talented aggressors develop new aspects to their game after being stuck for years in a
kind of shoot em up mode for years. How did they do it?
I dont think this can ever be an overnight thing; the maturing of someones style takes
years. Painful defeats can drive home the importance of playing according to position,
particularly if a guide is on hand to show them why they lost. Other factors can include a
liking of endgames, which was certainly Jon Speelmans stylistic salvation and played an
important part in the development of the great Paul Keres too. When players arent
restricted to winning by delivering checkmate in the middle game, they tend to start toning
any wildness down.
The other thing that can help is a schooling in positional chess by learning what to do in
different types of pawn structures. One of the things that characterises the attacking club
player seems to be a willingness to do just about anything to create a threat or two. When
they learn that particular pawn structures require certain kinds of typical moves, they can
start to do what the position wants rather than just wave the meat cleaver around.
There are a number of good books for developing this facet of someones game, such as
the two volumes on The Middlegame by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer or Ludek
Pachmans Complete Chess Strategy, which deal systematically with different types of
positions. My own Power-Chess Program was similarly motivated and provided test
positions to make sure the reader wasnt slacking.
Yet another way to sober up wild attackers is for them to analyse their own games in
depth, with the emphasis being on how their opponents could have defended better. Very
often superior defensive lines are overlooked, especially when someone got a buzz from
their handiwork. And the times when the attack works rather than falls flat on its face
are usually put down to good or bad form.
Needless to say theres an unhealthy dose of self-delusion in such conclusions which
doesnt help the problem at all. Iron discipline and brutal self-honesty are what is required.
This months game is a classic example of an aggressive and creative player being caught
in a passive position and trying to shoot his way out of trouble. To make matters worse
this was actually a correspondence game in which plenty of time was available to White to
keep things under control.
Velilla Velasco,F - Rhodes,J
Correspondence 2007
Dutch Defence [A96]
1 d4 f5
A perennial choice of aggressive players, particularly if they dont like openings in which
theres a lot of theory, such as the Kings Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7) Grnfeld
(1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5) and Semi-Slav (1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 e6). Other
possibilities include Alexander Morozevichs former darling the Chigorin Defence (1 d4
d5 2 c4 Nc6) and the Tarrasch (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5).
Along with the Dutch, the Tarrasch and the Kings Indian have the advantage that they can
be used against the English (1 c4) and Rti (1 Nf3) openings. This is no small
consideration, especially for those with limited time to study.
2 g3 Nf6 3 Bg2 e6
And here another possibility is the Leningrad Dutch with 3g6. Victor Korchnoi used to
play this way, but then realised that neither he nor his opponents knew what was
happening.
4 Nf3 Be7
When White puts his knight on f3 really early, theres a good case for 4...d5, followed by
putting the bishop on d6 rather than e7. The main problem with Stonewall formations
comes when White can put his knight on h3.
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6
This has become quite popular since having been suitably propagandised in Simon
Williams book Play the Classical Dutch. But I have my doubts as to whether Blacks
position is as good as its portrayed. Black can still play a Stonewall with 6d5 or even
delay committing himself with 6c6. Theres also Alekhines interesting move, 6Ne4.
7 Nc3 Ne4
This so-called Ilyin-Zhenevsky System is
awarded an exclamation mark by Williams.
8 Qc2 Nxc3 9 Qxc3 a5
Restraining White on the queenside. Another
approach is to play the immediate 9Bf6,
aiming for e6-e5.
10 Re1
A simple plan, aiming for e2-e4. Certainly Black
has to react precisely, as inaccurate play will
leave White better.
10...Nc6
Williams himself has also played 10...c6; for example, 11 b3 (11 e4 d5 12 a3? dxe4 13
Ne5 Bb4! won material in Balogh - Williams, Budapest 1994) 11...e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13
Bb2 Nd7 14 a3 Bf6 15 e4 Nc5 16 Nxe5 Qc7 17 f4 Rd8 18 Qe3 was probably good for
White, though he chickened out with a draw (-) in Bisby - Williams, London 1993.
11 e4 fxe4?!
Deviating from theory and leaving White clearly better because of the weakness on e6.
The critical move is 11...e5; for example, 12 exf5 (12 dxe5 dxe5 13 c5 Bf6 14 exf5 Bxf5
15 Qb3+ Kh8 16 Qxb7 Nb4 transposes back into the main line) 12...Bxf5 and now
Williams analyses 13 dxe5 (13 Be3 Be4 was very comfortable for Black in Gallagher -
Williams, Port Erin 2001) 13...dxe5 14 c5 Bf6 15 Qb3+ Kh8 16 Qxb7 Nb4 17 Nxe5 Nc2
18 Bf4 and now just 18...Nxe1 (Rather than Williams wild suggestion of 18...g5!? 19
Rad1 Nxe1 20 Rxd8 Raxd8 21 Qxc7 Rd1 22 Bf1 Be4, with unfathomable (at least for me)
complications) 19 Rxe1 Rb8 20 Qd5 Qxd5 21 Bxd5 g5 22 Bc1 Rb5 looks very
comfortable for Black.
12 Rxe4 Bf6 13 Bf4 Ra6?!
The first sign of Rhodes creativity working
against him. Black really should be defending
here and keeping his position as well-balanced as
possible. With this in mind the right move is 13...
Bd7, when White is better, but with the main
fight lying ahead.
14 Rd1 h6?!
Here too 14...Bd7 looks best.
15 h4 Ne7 16 Bg5 Qd7?!
And this is another somewhat strange move that often appears when aggressive players get
cornered. The simple 16...Nf5 was the proper move.
17 Ree1 Qa4 18 b3 Qa3 19 Bc1 Qb4
19...Qxa2 20 Rd2 Qb1 21 Rc2, intending Nd2, would win the queen.
20 Qd3 Nf5 21 Bh3
The pressure against e6 is mounting, and its going to get much worse than this.
21Bd8 22 Bd2 Qb6 23 Re4 c6 24 Rf4 d5
This leaves Black with horrific weaknesses, but
what else he can play? White was threatening 25
d5 himself.
25 c5 Qc7 26 Ne5
The arrival of this knight on e5 signals the
beginning of the end for Black.
26...Ra7 27 g4!
A crusher. Black cant play 27Ne7, because of
28 Rxf8+ Kxf8 29 Qh7, so he at least grabs a
pawn.
27Nxh4 28 Rxf8+ Kxf8 29 Qh7
With Blacks pieces so passively placed he is powerless against this invasion of his
position.
29...Bf6 30 f4 Nf3+
A desperate move if ever there was one!
31 Nxf3 Qf7 32 g5 Qg8 33 Qxg8+
1-0
Black never really got going in this one and the
short term answer would be to play the opening
more precisely with 11e5. But in the long run
theres still the issue of approaching the ideal of
developing a universal style and learning to
hang tough when things start to go wrong.
Recommended Reading
Play the Classical Dutch by Simon Williams (Gambit, 2003)
The Chiggorin Defence According to Morozevich by Alexander Morozevich and Vladimir
Barsky (New in Chess, 2007)
The Middlegame: Static Features Book 1 by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer (Hays
Publishing, 2001)
The Middlegame: Dynamic and Subjective Features Book 2 by Max Euwe and Hans
Kramer (Hays Publishing, 2001)
2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.


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