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 Perceived Problem of Draws
There has been a recent flurry of interest in draw reducing legislature. A double round
tournament in Bilbao tried a scoring system with 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for
a loss. Ive also seen suggestions that a draw offer should stand for the rest of the game, or
at least another five or ten moves.
Personally Ive always felt that a reduction in legislature is more likely to improve matters,
the more rules that are created the greater the number of problems. For example, the 3
point win rule encourages the players to play like (semi) lunatics, even if the logical result
of the game is a draw. And allowing draw offers to stand would allow all sorts of crazy
ideas to be played before someone accepted the draw, queen and two rooks down and
about to be mated. Nobody would want to offer a draw and give their opponents such a
licence.
My own suggestion is to avoid major surgery altogether and perhaps tweak prize funds to
reward wins (for example have separate prizes for the number of wins). Another thought is
that FIDE could also publish statistics about the number of short draws players make
along with their rating. Whilst it might not act against short draws directly, players would
certainly be aware of the potential damage to their marketability.
Theres also a case for making tournament schedules somewhat less intense; the main
culprits vis--vis grandmaster draws may well be older players who need to take it easy
during gruelling events. Introducing a seven hour playing session certainly wasnt helpful
for older players. Shouldnt tournaments be about finding the best player, rather than those
with the most stamina? Theres a case for encouraging older players to compete in that
they may be able to converse more interestingly with sponsors. Are draw offers a bigger
problem than having too many spotty teenagers around?
One can also argue that draw offers provide a fertile field for psychological nuance that
actually enriches the contest. On the one hand they can show fear and on the other be used
as a means of provocation. In refusing a draw, players can either put pressure on
themselves to win or establish a sense of superiority. A classic example was when Bobby
Fischer refused Efim Gellers draw offer by laughing in his face. In a long game Geller
was unrecognisable, finally cracking in what should have been a drawn endgame.
I dont recommend Fischers tactic at club level, after all these games should be conducted
in a relatively friendly spirit, rather than being an extension of the cold war. But there are a
number of things club players should be aware of.
First and foremost Ive noticed that at club level draws tend to be offered out of the fear of
playing against a higher rated player, rather than the merits of the position on the board.
And they also tend to be refused for the same reason.
Perhaps theres some short-term sense in this because of the tendency for club games to be
decided by large mistakes rather than positional advantages, with higher rated players
making fewer large mistakes. But from an improvement point of view it isnt good at all,
first of all players dont learn to prosecute an advantage against decent resistance. It also
erodes self-confidence, is the best a lower rated player can hope for to have a good enough
position that is good enough to beg for a draw from? This self imposed psychological
boundary is a huge obstacle to ever getting better.
This months game is an excellent illustration of these issues. Black offers a draw as early
as move ten, after which the psychological tone is set for the rest of the game. White
makes ever more desperate attempts to win as his position becomes ever weaker. And
Black finally converts his large advantage into the sought for half point.
Stephan Van Kesteren (1955) Ken Castle (1701)
Bunratty Challengers, 2004
Sicilian Defence [B22]
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5
At club level Ive noticed a tendency for players to meet the astonishing 2 c3 by
proceeding with their favourite Najdorf or Dragon moves anyway. Thus the games often
continue 2...d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 cxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 (or indeed 5...a6 if its a Najdorf player).
3 exd5 Qxd5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 d4 e6 6 Be2 Nc6 7 O-O cxd4 8 cxd4
An isolated d-pawn appears on the board, which is really the key to both sides strategy.
As a general guideline, Black should be trying to simplify the position and gradually mark
this pawn as a weakness. White, on the other hand, should have a good reason for
exchanging pieces and try to use his space advantage. Chances are about even.
8Be7 9 Nc3 Qd6 10 h3
Its difficult to believe this can be the best,
though it has been played by some strong players.
More usually White proceeds with 10 Nb5 Qd8
11 Bf4 Nd5 12 Bg3, though I dont think theres
anything special for White here either.
10...O-O
Black offered a draw at this point, which is
probably a bit cheeky given the fact that hes
black against a higher rated opponent. Could
White have been insulted? Possibly. And some of
his later moves do betray signs of frustration as
he fails to get anywhere.
11 Be3 Nb4
Rather than move this knight again (and indeed invite Whites knight into e5), I would
prefer 11...b6. A game Haas - Gheorghiu, Graz 1987 continued 12 Qd2 Bb7 13 Rfd1 Nb4
(only now) 14 Bf4 Qd8 15 Rac1 Nbd5 16 Nxd5 Nxd5 17 Be5 Qd7 and White didnt have
much play to compensate for his isolated queens pawn.
12 Ne5 Nbd5 13 Bd2
This looks a bit passive. If White wishes to maintain his dark-squared bishop, then 13 Bg5
looks more natural. On the other hand, he might well consider 13 Bf3, offering Black the
bishop-pair in return for a central pawn majority.
13...b6 14 Nb5
This, followed by the invasion on c6, nets White the bishop-pair. But theres a cost
involved in this transaction, because White loses time with his knights and another piece is
exchanged. Generally speaking, its better to avoid exchanges when you are the possessor
of an isolated queens pawn.
14Qb8 15 Nc6
This may look scary for Black, but the bark is
worse than the bite.
15Qb7 16 Rc1 a6 17 Nxe7+ Qxe7 18 Nc3 h6
Preventing Whites bishop from landing on g5.
19 Bf3 Bb7 20 Qe1?
Heres the frustration. White threatens to
capture on d5 and then win the exchange with
Bd2-b4, but Black deals with this idea with the
greatest of ease. Meanwhile it cant be said that
the queen on e1 does much for Whites position, though he later tries to give it some
purpose by advancing to e5.
20Rfd8 21 Nxd5?!
White is really losing the plot now, the exchanges
on d5 give him a typically poor isolated queens
pawn position in which he has a bad dark-square
bishop against a good knight. Its not easy to find
a good line for White, but perhaps he could have
made life harder for his opponent with 21 Na4!?.
The main point of this is to sidestep the threat of
21...Nxc3 22 Bxb7 Ne2+, getting a similar
position to the one reached in the game.
21...Bxd5 22 Bxd5 Nxd5 23 a3?!
Making doubly sure that Blacks knight cant
land on b4, but further weakening the light
squares. In some knight versus bishop minor piece endgames you might want the
queenside pawns on a2 and b3.
23Rac8 24 Qe5 Qd7 25 Qg3
Another primitive threat (26 Bxh6), which has nothing to do with improving Whites
position. The best threats are more like afterthoughts of good positional moves.
25Ne7 26 Rxc8 Rxc8 27 Bc3 Nd5 28 Bd2 Ne7
Another tacit offer of a draw? Probably, because
a real one soon follows.
Black explained that he wasnt keen on lines with
28...Kf8, because he was concerned that h7 might
become an entry point for Whites queen. But
this doesnt look like a problem after 29 Qd3
Qa4, because 30 Qh7?! Qc2 31 Qh8+?? Ke7 wins
a piece for Black.
29 Qb3?!
If I were White, I would have tried very hard to
look exasperated and allowed repetition with 29 Bc3, hoping that Black wouldnt realise
how good his position was.
29...Nd5 30 Be3
And here exasperation plus 30 Qg3 was in order. White is clearly worse and should be
delighted to make a draw.
30...b5
Black accompanied this move with another draw offer. And once again White refuses...
31 Bd2 Rc4 32 Qg3 Ne7 33 Be3 Nf5
33...Rc2 is very unpleasant for White here.
34 Qb8+ Qc8?!
34...Kh7 is probably the best, but Black is still
playing for a draw. White should now exchange
queens and drive Blacks knight back with g2-g4,
but he in turn is playing for a win.
The next few moves repeat this scenario. In
Blacks defence, I should point out that he was in
some time-trouble, but this too was probably
caused by treating his opponent with too much
reverence.
35 Qf4?! Qc7?! 36 Qe4?! Qc6?! 37 Qd3?! Rc2
Missing a tactic that saves Whites bacon. One way to keep the advantage would have
been 37...Nxe3, when 38 fxe3 (Or 38 Qxe3 Rc2) 38...Rc2 39 Rf2 Rxb2! 40 Rxb2 Qc1+
wins a pawn. And Black has some good alternatives such as 37...a5.
38 d5 Qc4 39 Qxc4 Rxc4 40 dxe6 fxe6 41 Bd2 -
And having achieved his best position for some time, White now offered a draw.
Recommended Reading
Devious Chess: How to Bend the Rules and Win by Amatzia Avni (Batsford 2006)
Practical Chess Psychology: A Chess Players Behavioral Guide by Amatzia Avni
(Batsford, 2001)
2008 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]
2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.