Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
we lose
at chess
EVERYMAN CHESS
Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2010 by Gloucester Publi shers pic (formerly Everyman Publi sh ers
pic ) , Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
Copyright 2010 Colin Crouch
The right of Colin Crouch to be identified as the author of thi s work h as been as
serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of thi s publication m ay be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any m ean s, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior
permission of the publish er.
British Libra ry Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for thi s book is avail able from the British Library.
I S B N : 978 1 8 5 744 6 3 6 4
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 0643 7-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everym an Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
tel : 020 7 2 5 3 7887 fax: 020 7490 3 708
email : info@everym anchess.com ; website: www.everym anchess.com
Everyman is the registered trade m ark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under licence from Random House Inc.
Co n t e n t s
Preface
Introduction
Test One
17
Test Two
25
Test Three
33
Test Four
42
Test Five
53
Test Six
62
Test Seven
72
Test Eight
88
Test Nine
101
Test Ten
115
Test Eleven
124
Test Twelve
136
Test Thirteen
145
Test Fourteen
155
Test Fifteen
165
Your Move?
174
Preface
While writing up reports for various m ag azines, I h ave been thinking about the
idea of 'ordin ary chess', of g ames which are not technically perfect, but m ay still
be of interest to players, spectators, and hopefully to readers. For this to work well,
the writer h as to take the annotation s seriously. The idea i s that while the g ame is
interesting anyway, just think of wh at spectacul ar ideas might h ave been thought
of if the pl ayer could h ave found the occasional improvem ent. Often in chess, bril
liancy is just around the corner.
I h ave used a similar perspective in this book, but with a different, almost op
posite perspective. I am writing up 'ordin ary games', my own, with th e thought of
systematically going through them, spotting any mistakes of my own (and there
are several), and finding better moves. I am aiming to find ways of cutting out
mi stakes, thereby improving both my pl ay and th at of the reader.
Many g ames h ave been played in local and national league events, and I dedi
cate this book to those who continue to keep chess clubs going, in wh at is often
quite a difficult time. These days I am cautious about playing in long tourna
ments, and al so quickpl ay tournaments, sometimes travelling from one end of
Britain to the other. It is good to play in my local club, Harrow, where there are
often fifty chess pl ayers in a single evening, sometimes close to sixty if there are
visiting team s. My thanks to colleagues.
Colin Crouch,
Harrow Weald,
April 2010
5
I n t rod uct i o n
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
young players t o think about how t o pl ay better.
I am somewhere between the amateur level and the strong grandmaster level .
I am an International Master, with a good understanding of the basic ideas of
chess, but also the ability to m ake serious mistakes over the board, even ag ainst
much weaker opponents. A Dutch 1 M once characterized me as "a chess artist,
rather than a practical chess player", a reasonable comment, but it would be nice
to discover how to be practical . Possibly in writing this book, it would h elp me to
be more practical . But is thi s an excuse, or is it more a case th at while I h ave learnt
how to write a decent game of chess, I h ave not really learnt how to play a good
game of chess?
In term s of life and death in chess, as player and writer, there is something
even more important to me. It is a m atter of chance that I am still alive, in 2010,
rather than dead. It is a matter of chance th at I am merely partially sighted, rather
than blind. It was going to take a lot of h ard work to recover after my stroke in
2004, and I still h ave only partially recovered. I could not read for some time, al
though now I can read slowly, preferably on large print.
Fortun ately, I could see a chess board, just about, and I could therefore play
chess after my stroke. My thought processes were still slow after brain damage,
and at first I felt doubtful as to whether, if I pl ayed, I could play at over F I D E Elo
2000 strength (about 175 ECF rating). My memory was h owever largely intact, al
though it was going to be a lot of time before I could connect different thoughts.
Aphasia i s still a problem. I can understand wh at i s being said by others, but I
could not always string the words together when trying to read.
I needed to keep my mind active, and learn to think con structively again, in
chess or in anything el se. If anything, my thought processes became much more
focussed, as I felt th at I could not waste time. It is difficult enough that I found I
h ad to take naps in the afternoon, and th at my thoughts were no longer able to
fizz. I needed to think carefully about wh at to do next.
Chess was by now much more important in my life, even though I was playing
much less. I could no longer think in term s of playing lots of weekenders all over
the country (Scotl and and Wales, as well as England), and I h ave become increas
ingly reluctant to pl ay two g ames in a day. My g ames mentioned in this book, at
Bury St Edmunds and Kidlington, give good examples as to why. Creativity i s use
ful, but if you want to be successful, you need to focus on good technique, and you
h ave to respect tiredness.
I still wanted to show I could play good chess. Playing a standard nine-round
tourn ament was slightly beyond what I was capable of doing with comfort, but
m aybe in time I could try thi s agai n ? I h ave to admit th at almost five years after
In t ro d u c t i o n
m y stroke, I still h ave not summoned m y courage i n playing a nine-rounder, apart
from pl aying the occasional Braille event, and a small Middlesex versus junior in
tern ation al in London . I got too tired.
I al so wanted to get back into writing, and for a while I did not even go through
my own g ames afterwards. It was so embarrassin g . I had to tell myself th at thi s
was t h e result o f tiredness, because o f concentrating o n my books, rather th an a
sudden deterioration in my brain. At the time, I was working on my book on Tal,
Kasparov and Stein, and I felt confident that while I probably did not analyse com
pletely accurately in any position (who can ?), I was not yet gaga. So I continued
writing, while h oping th at my pl aying strength could improve again.
I h ad a g ap in my calendar in 2006/2007, before attempting serious chess
analysis on top grandmasters, and in this g ap I was writing up my own g ames,
maybe for publication, but primarily for my own interest, and learning again h ow
to play good chess, and how to write. Essentially the result is this book, although I
was able to revise my comments in 2009, not just because my earlier play and un
derstanding might not h ave been as good as I would h ave liked, but al so, m ore
importantly, because thi s was only an initial draft.
Back to Playing Chess
Clearly I wanted to play chess again, but I was not seriously out of touch enough to
think that I would be able to reach my peak in chess. My h ope was th at I could still
play chess, and not decline too fast. I h ad in fact lost almost a hundred Elo points
just before my stroke, and this was at the time a mystery for me. Now, though, it is
all very clear. There was accumulating dam age to my brain before the stroke.
Even so, I wanted to show that with con structive thinking I could recover most
of my peak, despite the slowing down of age, and other problem s. I am not too
surprised th at I h ave not fully achieved thi s yet.
Other readers, looking to improve their chess, will inevitably be thinking in dif
ferent ways. In particular, the young player, h aving reached a degree of experi
ence, will calcul ate quickly, and learn openings speedily, but will not yet h ave the
detailed knowledge of positional accuracy. These days I would not be able to calcu
late lines a dozen moves deep, with sub-variations, but an ambitious teenager
would see thi s as the core to chess improvement. If you can calculate quickly,
when your opponent can calculate less quickly or deeply, you h ave a clear practical
edge.
For those over thirty, the player will h ave to modify thought processes. The
general procedure would tend to be that, now you cannot calcul ate everything, it
is best to use your knowledge and experience to cut out extraneous thought proc-
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
esses. For me, I h ave been forced t o take a slightly more extreme approach, as
brain dam age means th at I am not able to think quickly.
This is recognized in this book. I h ave tended much more th an before to cut
down the number of moves to try to analyse, and concentrate instead on thinking
about just a few moves, systematically. In other words, do not try to thin k of a long
list of possible moves beforehand, trying to assess each position, but start off with
a couple of moves to con sider at first, while keeping a quick note of other lines.
The idea i s to examine two moves first, normally the most plausibl e moves. N atu
rally if there is an immediate tactic which must be calcul ated, then examine it. If it
can be rejected immediately, move on to other lines. Wh at I am thinking about is,
for example, a double piece sacrifice which brings the king out into the open, but
can quickly be seen as un sound. If, h owever, there might still be possibilities, then
look at it again. You never know, you might h ave a brillian cy.
Once we h ave made a quick scan of immediate checks, captures, and other bril
liancies, al so cutting out any immediate big threat by the opponent, we probably
h ave a few moves to be con sidered. These might be attacking moves, or defen sive
moves, or positional moves. You need to keep your eyes open .
For simplicity, in this test book, we give three alternatives; move A, which I am
regarding as the most obvious, then move B, the m ain alternative. If there are two
moves to be con sidered, and other moves are irrelevant, that makes life simple.
One must, of course, keep in mind th at there are al so possible altern atives, start
ing with 'Something Else', move C, and then m aybe D onwards.
Even if you feel you cannot an alyse in great depth over the board, you still h ave
to m ake a deci sion what you are going to play. U sually it is best to concentrate on
the most n atural move, A. If you are confident that it is a good move, and any
other move (C) seems senseless, you should play it without spending too much
thinking time. If, however, you decide that your initial move is not fully satisfac
tory - m aybe because you feel th at it is promising, but th at there should be some
thing better, or maybe because it i s ultim ately bad - then you need to think of al
tern atives.
Remember that for much of the time, the first move you think of i s often the
best. Thi s is because you h ave already been thinking about th at idea when looking
at the previous position. Maybe your opponent h as pl ayed the reply th at you h ave
expected, or m aybe there was a slightly unexpected altern ative, but your possible
reply might well seem good and natural . Or m aybe there might be som ething bet
ter.
Think of choice B next anyway, but remember that you must retain your as
sessment of the evaluation of choice A. Is your first move ending up as slightly bet-
10
In t ro d u c t i o n
ter for you? O r just equal ? Or, perhaps the m ost common assessment, slightly
worse, or at least m aking you feeling uncomfortable? Or is your initial thought
quite simply bad?
Then an alyse B, but with a quick flick though to see whether moves C, D, or
maybe even beyond could be worth trying later. As some guidance, if you are
thinking of analysing a fourth move, or even beyond, you are at ri sk of entering
time trouble, sooner or l ater. If you are juggling six possible moves in a given posi
tion, you will h ave to calcul ate much more th an three times as much than when
there are only two moves to be con sidered. You h ave done your basic calculation s,
and you must decide whether A or B i s better, and then, for example, whether B or
C i s better, then perh aps B or D. In the fin al stage, when you compare B and E,
wh at you would really not h ave wanted in retrospect i s to find that B i s better, and
th at in trying to analyse lines D and E, m aybe also F as well, you h ave wasted time
on the clock.
It is a m atter of judgement to decide whether m oves D and E should be ig
nored. Maybe D looks interesting at first, but a couple of moves l ater, your pawn
structure is sh attered, and you do not think th at it is worth defending the line. On
the other h and, E might be genuinely tactically interesting, and requires more
thought. We must not forget, either, th at an F try might well be worth examining,
even though first tim e round it did not seem so effective.
Quite clearly there are difficult deci sion s to be made. It is difficult to generalize
on how players should find the best thought processes, and find the best move.
The ideal is that a player should be able to calcul ate with complete accuracy, but
of course a hum an player cannot achieve this in over-the-board play. If anything,
it m akes chess far more interesting if the hum an player h as to find good, or in
deed excellent, moves without the h elp of a computer. It is an exercise for the
mind, and top players should quite properly be accorded great respect when find
ing accurate play and in spired brilliancies.
Most of us h ave great imperfections in our chess, but we do not give up the
g ame in respon se to them. We need to develop strategies to find ways of finding
good moves when we cannot calcul ate everything, and when we do not h ave full
understanding of positional chess. I do not pretend that I h ave found the an swer.
All I can do is to try to pinpoint ways in which mistakes, and indeed my own mis
takes, are m ade.
This is a preliminary investigation . I h ave indicated in this book 60 mistakes
over several month s that I h ave m ade. The main point is th at most of these mis
takes are not the result of highly complicated and difficult play. Just because I am
a master, I can still pl ay rubbi sh chess. At least half of these mistakes could easily
11
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
h ave been avoided by better thought processes. This is easy enough t o establish, to
the extent that in the test positions, A, B, and 'something else' (C}, I give improve
ments on each of my own games.
List of Exercises
Thi s table is not merely a brief contents page; it is al so a summ ary of research,
and a starting point for further examination . There are 60 identified mistakes in
12
In t ro d u c t i o n
thi s book, and no doubt I h ave overlooked some further points. I h ave not bothered
giving every single slip in each game if I played particularly awfully, for example,
in my horrible game again st McKenna (he h ad so m any chances of beatin g me), or
even in the l ater stages again st Pert, when I m ade so m any bad moves around the
time control, but arguably the worst of these m i stakes was missing an unexpected
ch ance of finding a fortuitous draw in the endgame.
Ready to start?
We h ave 60 exercises for the reader to con sider. It i s important to rem em ber that
thi s is not a quiz. We are not asking you to try to dig out your memory.
More to the point is asking readers to think about new and original positions,
to try to find the best move, and to avoid identifiable mistakes. I am setting out
my own errors, at m aster level, and you are invited to m ake improvements. Also,
at another level, you can think about how you can take full advantage of mistakes
by your opponent. Not all mistakes get punish ed. Quite often there could easily be
half a dozen slips in normal pl ay. If one of the pl ayers win s quickly, that often
mean s th at the opponent's mistake is so serious th at a reason able pl ayer should
be able to move quickly.
When playing through the g ames, take them seriously, but not excessively so.
Trying to analyse in great depth, with the h elp of your own brain and computer
suggestion s, can be extremely absorbin g . Som e of the position s in this book a re
analysed in great depth, sometimes spilling over extra days. The writer likes to aim
for perfection, but of course this does not always happen. The reader might by
daunted by the thought that it takes a coupl e of pages of inten se analysis to show
th at one interesting move eventually turn s out to be better than another. The
point is, though, that over the board one can only see a fraction of what could
have h appened, and quite often it is possible to say that a player is "lucky" if the
critical move turn s out to be good, and "unlucky" if an obscure move turn s out to
be an unexpected refutation . A player who loses m ay feel he is unlucky, but it is
still a loss and it is important to cut down your unluckiness by working out how to
avoid mistakes.
For the reader, think about seeing a new position in a g ame at the board. It i s
just a n ordin ary position, so w e are not asking you t o find a brilliant sacrifice. W e
are asking you t o find a good, ordinary move, avoiding any pitfalls.
At an initial glan ce, you will quickly decide whether you think your position is
better, or equal, or worse. Or m aybe you just won't know what is h appening and
will need to look further before you can m ake any sort of judgement. Once you
have sorted out your background information, you can try to decide wh at your
13
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
next move is going t o b e . I f there is genuinely only o n e sen sible move t o m ake, you
can play it immediately. Most of the time, you h ave to think, which is h ard work.
You are being asked to find a good move, and for the first part of the exercise,
to make a decision quickly. What would you play if you h ad to do something in the
next fifteen seconds? In this exercise, you h ave three option s, although the third
option is given as "som ething el se", which might be a choice of h alf a dozen rea
sonable alternatives, particularly in "quiet" position s. Or, on the other h and, there
are no reason able altern atives, and it is really only a choice between A and B. As
far as possible, I h ave tried not to give a big clue about the best move. Of the three
options given, A, B and C, one is the move I actually pl ayed, but was a mistake. The
other suggested option i s a natural move, which m ay h ave been right or wrong .
You need t o bear in m i n d th at there i s a third possibility, which might o r might
not be good.
For the initial assessment, decide which move you would play, and write it
down . We are not yet asking you which move you would decide to play in a tour
nament. You will h ave m ore tim e to think l ater. Wh at you are being asked for now
are your first impression s.
The next stage is to decide which move you would pl ay in a tournament g ame.
If you genuinely think that you h ave decided on your choice after a couple of min
utes, write down your move. In run-of-th e-mill positions, you would h ave on aver
age three minutes, or less, to decide anyway. In critical and difficult positions, you
will want to think for much longer. It often h appen s that a player m akes moves
quickly early on in the g ame, and then suddenly slows down . In a critical position,
a player will be aware th at the best move m ay keep an advantage, while a second
best move leads to only equality, and a worse move, attractive but leading to a
tactical oversight, may end up as being bad. Take your time, but do not waste
time. The clock ticks, and it does not h elp if you are spending 40 minutes on a
move if you then have to m ake your last ten moves before the time control in only
one minute. In a tourn ament, at some stage you will h ave to m ake a deci sion, and
it i s often best, if not necessarily desirable, to save some time for thinking l ater.
Use wh atever time you want in this exerci se, then m ake a deci sion and write
your move down . Do not be worried if you h ave ch anged your mind since your
initial assessment. It m ay well be th at you h ave given yourself extra time to allow
extra clear thinking. Maybe you h ave decided that the initial assessment was
wrong, inaccurate, or un subtle, and you h ave corrected your thought processes. A
more worrying aspect might well be th at you h ave chosen th e correct move i m
m ediately, but after some more thought you h ave introduced a n extra error
through over-sophi stication. Indeed, on the day after I finished the initial draft, I
14
In t ro d u c t i o n
m ade precisely thi s mistake.
Another possibility is th at you chose an inaccuracy, and pl ayed it too quickly.
This can be very common in the opening if a player saves time by relying on "natu
ral moves", and the problems come later. I h ave h ad to remind myself that it is no
bad thing to spend ten minutes in the opening, rather th an pl ay the first ten
moves in a couple of minutes.
After going through the exercises, the next stage i s to read closely through my
annotation s, in which I h ave m ade use of computer engines and of course a con
siderable amount of hindsight. I think I h ave learnt a lot from pl aying through my
own g am es, and I hope th at you will learn a lot in playing through them too, poor
though they m ay be when judged at the top level . After that, it is up to you to start
thinking about your own games, and to work out how to improve your play in
later encounters.
Good luck!
15
Te st On e
1.1 White to play
A) 5 cxb S
8) 5 Ji.e3
C) Something el se?
A) 7 . Ji.cS
8) 7 ... Ji.e7
C) Something el se?
A) 6 e3
8) 6 ttJes
C) Something el se?
A) 7 . .f6
8) 7 .. a6
C) Something el se?
..
17
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Test 1. 1
C.Crouch-J.Oryakhal
H i l l i ngdon League
18
2006
...
Te s t On e
a4?, to prevent Black from playing ... bS,
would be an over-reaction . White
would h ave weakened his b4-square.
Black naturally plays 4 ... bS, leading to
our first test position .
Test 1.2
C.Crouch-J.Radovanovic
London Open
2006
...
19
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
7 dxe s 'ilVxd1+ 8 'Dxd1 'Dfxd7 9 .1i.xC4
.1i.xf3 10 gxf3 'Dxes 11 .1i.e2, since Black
is slightly ahead in development. If my
opponent h ad played the best move, I
might in the end h ave tried this line,
but it leads to no advantage.
Test 1.3
S.Nurmohamed-C.Crouch
20
Te s t On e
White has lost a lot of tim e with his
knights. Should Black already be play
ing for an edge? Thi s seem s a little too
early. White has played ineffectively,
but he starts off with the advantage of
the first move, and it often takes more
than a couple of quiet moves by White
to allow Black to be already better.
Usually the m ost practical approach as
Black in such a scen ario i s to pl ay quiet
but forceful moves early on, and to al
low the opponent to try to prove that
he is equal.
In stead, I quickly played the naive
attack 7 ... i.. C 5?! (A). It's a developing
move, but it can h ardly be expected
that my opponent will be un able to
find a good defence to cover the f2square. As we will see in Test 3.1, a few
moves l ater, I soon found out, in the
main line and in a few variations, th at
the bishop is too exposed, and th at
White can create counterpl ay with one
of b4, ttJb3, or (after ... dS) a pawn ex
change on dS, and if Black recaptures
with the knight, then ttJe4. Black would
not necessarily be worse, but h e has
lost his initiative.
A reality check h elped by using the
computer i s th at the position after 7 c3
is close to equal . The hum an pl ayer
might well want to argue that Black
still keeps the initiative, though, by
playing a Scheveningen set-up, with
7... i..e7 (B), and ... d6, when Black i s
solid in his centre a n d his pieces can
develop quietly and securely. White's
pieces cannot be more effectively
Test 1.4
G.Wall-C.Crouch
2007
21
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
tried t o work out a possible improve
ment. U sually I prefer not to bother.
Chess is a tiring game, and I prefer not
to turn a four-hour session into a five
hour session, through pre-game analy
sis. In swiss tournaments or team
events, it is not possible to examine in
leisure the openings a day before. An
extra hour resting in bed, or a gentle
stroll is often better th an pre-match
preparation.
Play continued S ... d6 6 tiJC4 dxes 7
tiJcxes, and here I h ad to decide over
the board what to play next.
22
Te s t On e
wrong . Strange moves still need to be
con sidered, though, as well as n atural
moves, and it is best not to eliminate
too quickly some prom i sing ideas.
If then 9 ct:Jg4 e s 10 ct:Je3 e4 11
ct:Jxds+ 'iVxds 1 2 'iVe2, and Bl ack is
happy with his position . Once his king
has taken the time to escape to f7 after
12 . . . e6 (though not immediately
12 . . . 'it>f7 ? ? 13 C4), his other pieces and
pawn s will be more active.
White therefore can think about
aiming for a sacrificial attack, with 9
d4! ? Then perh aps 9 . . :as (there are
other tries) 10 d3 ! ? fxes 11 g s+ 'it>e8
12 ct:Jxes g6 1 3 'ilVf3 'ilVC7 14 0-0-0 (or
maybe 14 bs+ ct:Jc6 15 0-0-0 first),
and we reach a familiar sacrifice of
knight versus pawn, where Black's king
is in the open and his pieces are not yet
fully developed.
23
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
slightly better, but there i s no real
point in analysing every line in depth .
H ere, for example, 10 i.bs i.xbs 1 1
'iVxbS+ 'iVd7 12 'iVxd7+ 'it'xd7, and 10
iVe4 i.d6 11 d4 fS 12 'iVe2 cxd4 13
tbxd4 '*'f6 both seem promising for
Black.
In summ ary, 7 .. .f6 ! seem s the best,
or at the very least the most promising,
24
T e s t Two
2.1 Black to play
A) 9 . . cxd4
B) 9 ... ..te7
C) Something else?
A) 10 . 'iVC7
B) 10 ... SLe7
C) Something el se?
A) 11 'iVe2
B) 11 a3
C) Something el se?
A) 12 1tJxg 6
8) 12 0-0
C) Something else?
..
25
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Here I played 7 c5, and I com
mented th at "7 ... iLe7 appears to be
more common. Then after 8 iLd3 iLxd3
9 'ii'x d3 0-0 White can play 10 e4 c 5
with possibl e inter-tran sposition with
my m ain line, although White has an
extra recapture on d5 after 11 d5 exd5
12 exd5, with a slight edge for White.
My thought with an early ... c5 is th at if
White plays e4, Black keeps the option
with ... cxd4. It might not be needed,
but it is there ! "
The computer suggests that there
mig ht h ave been several equalizing
choices at the diagram position . I chose
wh at seem s to me the most natural .
Pl ay continued 8 iLd 3 iLxd 3 9 'ii'x d 3.
...
Test 2.1
D. Buckley-C.Crouch
British League (4NCL) 2006
Play started with 1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3
ttJf3 b6 4 a3 .ib7 5 ttJC3 . Fairly standard
so far. The next few comments were
written at the time.
5 ttJe4
"Here I realized that I h ad not played
this variation since my stroke, and I was
hazy with my opening. Never mind, I
remembered the knight exchange was
the move I had previously played, and I
recalled that there was some slight
problem (in retrospect, it was that
White had too easy a time to keep the
draw). I just played a move quickly.
5 ... iLe7 is standard. A quick flick through
the next couple of games suggests that
6 'ii'c 2 c5 7 e4 is reasonable, and has
been played several times. I looked at
this, and felt that maybe White has a
slight edge, nothing spectacular, but I
was h appy to simplify."
6 ttJxe4 iLxe4 7 e3
...
26
Te s t Two
th an if the position i s equal . Wh atever
happen s, the only way of playing for a
win is to rely on some sort of mistake
from the opponent, landing him or her
with a slight inferiority. If the opponent
is slightly better, it would take a larger
technical error to end up worse, than if
the opponent is only equal, and even a
microscopic slip becomes more signifi
cant. In a quiet and accurate position,
the lesson would seem to be th at it is
generally best to play quiet and accu
rate moves.
9 cxd4! (A) i s simplest and best, but
probably only to a slight extent. Then
10 tDxd4 tDc6 should be equal, and
could easily transpose later to the stem
game - see Test 8.1.
9 ill. e 7?! (B), as I pl ayed, is more
provocative. My notes at the time sug
gested th at 10 dS exdS 11 cxdS d6, fol
lowed by ... ill.f6, might give White a
slight edge, but not of any great sig
nificance. Looking at the position later,
10 dxcS ! is uncomfortable for Bl ack. If
10 ... bxcS, Black's pawn s are difficult to
mobilize, while 10 ... ill. x cs involves a
loss of tempo with the bishop. After 11
0-0 Black's bishop will probably h ave to
return to e7 at some stage. White is
slightly better.
In th e opening Bl ack is usually
slightly worse, with White h avin g
more options thanks to th e advantag e
of th e move. It i s often best for Bl ack
to try to simplify th e central pawn
structure, to try to cut down th e op
pon ent's option s.
Test 2.2
C.Crouch-M.Rose
Kid l i ngton
2007
..
...
27
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
'iVxd8 'iVxd8 9 CLlds, but the slightly
unlikely 9 ...l:1d7 ! equalizes easily.
So I tried 7 dS, and for what it is
worth, the computer gives this as a
reasonable edge for White. Al so, we are
starting to go beyond mainstream
opening theory.
After 7 ... CLla6, it is possible th at my
reply, 8 .i.d3, was inaccurate. There are,
however, alternatives l ater on which
might still give White chances of a
slight edge, so perh aps it is too early to
give question marks. The bishops on e3
and d3 look good and imposing in the
centre, except of course that Black's
knights will hit back with ... CLlb4 and
... CLlg4. Black n aturally starts with
8 ... CLlg4, then 9 .i.gs f6.
28
Te s t Two
Bl ack
exch anged
13 ... ctJxe4 14 ..ixe4 ...
again
with
Test 2.3
G.Wall-C.Crouch
2007
29
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
pair with 9 tDxd7 i.xd7 1 0 tDes cxd4
(10 ... i.e7 11 s 0-0 12 dxc S i.xcs 1 3
.i.d3 is promising for White) 11 tDxd7
't!Vxd7. Black has a few local difficulties
on the king side, so maybe he can
switch to the queen side after 12 'iVxd4
a-a-a ! ? : for example, 13 i.e2 "iJlC7 14
0-0 i.d6 15 h3 i.h 2+ 16 h l .i.es 17
a7 llVb8 18 't!Vxb8+ i.xb8. The bishop
pair is to be respected, but Black's
knight, bolstered by his pawn on a cen
tral square, may h old the bal ance.
Play
continued
in stead
with
9 ... tDxes 10 dxes, and now I h ad a
choice to make.
Test 2.4
C.Crouch-J.Radovanovic
London Open
30
2006
Te s t Two
b3 a s 9 t2:ies h S 10 t2:id 3, with White
having good chances of keeping a
slight edge, with attacking flexibility in
the centre. Still, 10 ... 'iVb6 keeps play in
reasonable bal ance. Black tried instead
10 ... t2:ia6 and I replied 11 t2:if4.
11 xa6 was tempting, but would
not h ave led to much after 11 ... bxa6 12
t2:ixb4 6 1 3 t2:ica2 t2:ids 14 d2 .l:[b8.
Black played 11 ... g6, reaching the
quiz diagram, and the first serious mis
take, though there h ave been a few
minor slips in the earlier pl ay.
31
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
starting t o set up the barriers o n the
king side. The reader will no doubt h ave
the impression that I am not h appy
with most of my moves in thi s game,
but somehow my pieces work together.
Radovanovic continued his devel
opment by bringing his rooks into play
immediately with 17 ... 0-0-0?, no doubt
thinking about doubling on the h -file,
but he could have improved.
Indeed, White is under pressure af
ter 17 .. .'!i:JbdS ! , and if 18 .Jtg 3 tt:Je4.
White is so busy, understandably so, in
cementing his pawn s on the stonewall
dark squares that he h as great diffi
culty covering the light squares. It's not
pleasant.
I was fortun ate, after he castled, to
32
Te st T h r e e
3.1 Black to play
A) 12 ... bxC3
B) 12 ... i.b7
C) Something el se?
A) 12 ... d4
B) 12 ... aS
C) Something else?
A) 1 3 'itf2
B) 13 i.d2
C) Something else?
A) 13 exfs
B) 13 0-0-0
C) Something el se?
33
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Test 3.1
S.Nurmohamed-C.Crouch
2006
34
Te s t Th r e e
Yes, I can g et tired in the evenings,
but I should all the sam e pl ay logically
and imaginatively. Th at said, 12 ... .L.b7?
(B) 13 cxb4 axb4 14 xb4 .l:!xa2 1 5 1i.a3
leaves the rook stranded, and is not to
be recomm ended either.
In stead 12 .. :Wid6 or 12 .. :Wia7 (C)
would h ave stopped the position mov
ing out of control, although undoubt
edly White keeps a slight edge.
After the exch ange on c3, and 13
1i.xc3 a7 14 ctJe5 ctJxe5 15 1i.xe5
White clearly h ad a substanti al edge.
For some reason, I h ad not expected
that after 15 ... b7, he h ad 16 f3 ! . I
suppose that I h ad vaguely expected
th at White would h ave wanted to play
eS, and then of course the queen on f3
would h ave self-pinned the pawn, but
of course the queen h as itself become
highly m obile with, for example, at
tacks with g 3, or, m ore immediately,
working with 1i.xf6 to win a pawn. I felt
I h ad to cover the threat on f6, with
16 ... a4 17 ctJd2 1i.d4.
I h ad expected, or perh aps hoped,
that White would allow the exch ang e
of bishops with 18 g 3 1i.xe s 19 xe s
0-0 and perh aps a minimal edge for
White, but White sacrifices a pawn in
stead, with excellent compen sation
after is 1i.d6! . It is difficult to say why I
did not con sider this sacrifice, which
keeps the bl ack king stuck in the cen
tre. The pawn dropping on b2 was only
of secondary importance. More likely
perh aps was th at I was so intent on
trying to take control of the long di-
35
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
Test 3.2
C.Crouch-M.Peacock
Kid l i ngton
2007
36
Te s t Th r e e
The natural an swer i s 1 3 '.tf2, but
Povah demon strated why he returned
with the queen to the starting square.
Not 1 3 ... 6?, as White gains space
quickly with 14 a s ! , but rather 13 .. .'i4Vc 7 !
1 4 !:t e l c 4 1 5 C 2 , with a n extrem ely
unclear position. He tried arguably the
safest option, first l S ... 6+, an d then
immediately offered a draw.
37
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
something better o n move i s ? Or
maybe not? I leave this as open-ended,
and to the theorists.
Back to the Crouch -Peacock game,
and 12 "iVe7.
.
Test 3.3
C.Morris-C.Crouch
2006
38
Tes t Th r e e
gam es, and therefore preferred to keep
the position fairly open . In H edgehog
set-ups, there is often plenty of close
ran g e m anoeuvring, with both pl ayers
havin g to m ake detailed calculation of
whether the position should suddenly
be opened up, or whether the ten sion
should be kept. Notoriously, the break
through in the centre sometimes only
takes place well after the first tim e
control . Not really what I would h ave
wanted.
After some thought, my opponent
in the g am e tried 6 "iVa4+!?, but I was
not worried about playing ... c6, espe
cially if White spends a tempo provok
ing it.
Maybe 6 cxdS exds 7 eS might be
met by 7 ...ttJfd7 8 d4 iLe7 9 iLd3 ttJf8 ! ?,
followed by ... ttJe6 or ... ttJe6. I am, how
ever, not wildly enthusiasti c about thi s
l i n e a s Black.
After White's check, both pl ayers
developed with 6 ... c6 7 iLg5 iLe7 8 iLe2
0-0 9 0-0 ttJbd7 10 :t:fe1 h6 11 iLh4 ttJC5
12 "iVC2.
39
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
1 2 ... dxc4?! 13 dXC4, o r the correspond
ing exchange on e4, gives White the
better placed bishops and pawn s in a
symmetrical pawn structure. This is no
encouragement for Bl ack.
The computer suggests 12951 (C),
which I h ave to admit I h ad not really
con sidered.
Test 3.4
C.Crouch-A.Lewis
Kid l i ngton
2007
40
Te s t Th r e e
light squares needing attention.
13 0-0 (C) 1 3 .. .fxe4 14 tDxe4 tDXe4
15 Xe4 tDf6 is safe enough for White,
but is only about level . Quite probably
there are other ways of keeping equal
ity. The computer gives about a dozen
alternatives, but it is unlikely that
m any of these lines would be con sid
ered as good by critical hum an an aly
sis. We could, for example, disregard
without an alysis such moves as 1 3
bl, 1 3 C l o r 1 3 dl, all highly un
con structive waiting moves.
13 O-O-O?! (B) is entertaining and
con structive, but it al so leaves weak
nesses on the queenside, in front of the
king . It breaks open the positional bal
ance, a n d while it i s not clear th at
White i s necessarily worse, White also
needs to play very accurately - which I
failed to m anage.
In the g ame Lewis played 13 .. a4,
then I tried 14 l:tdg1, again ambitious,
opening a square on dl, and thinking
.
41
Te st F o u r
4.1 Black to play
A) 13 . . .'i'd7
B) 1 3 .. .lkB
C} Something el se?
A) 14 .. l2JcS
B) 14 .. .'iVcB
C} Something el se?
A) 14 i.d3
B) 14 iLg s
C} Something el se?
A) 14 ... b S
B) 14 ... eS
C} Something el se?
42
Tes t Fo u r
Test 4.1
I.Lauterbach-C.Crouch
2007
43
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
cide later which square the rook should
move to.
44
Tes t Fo u r
ture is the same as in the m ain g am e,
but a knight on either side h as been
exchanged. When analysing thi s varia
tion just after the g am e, I assumed th at
this idea for Bl ack was not very effec
tive, as I h ad exch anged my active
knight for White's passive knight. Now
I am of the opposite point of view.
Black has a backward pawn on d5,
which requires protection, and gener
ally it i s easier to defend with one
knight against one knight, rather th an
two knights again st two. Bl ack should
be close to level .
Maybe thi s is one to be added to the
list of test position s? The trouble is that
if I were to try this con scientiously, I
would h ave to question thi s g am e
every third m ove o r so, and thi s i s po
tentially misleading. The game is not as
bad as it looks, and my opponent has
deserved the praise of outpl aying me in
the early middlegame, rather than the
suggestion th at I h ave played a whole
string of bad moves.
Pl ay continued with 16 ttJC1, then in
reply 16 ... l:i.ce8.
Test 4.2
C.Crouch-P.Gait
H i l l i ngdon League
2006
45
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
ued with the quiet line, 6 "iC 2, avoiding
the tempo loss with 6 d3 dXc4 7 xC4
bS, which is still highly theoretical, and
complicated.
46
Te s t Fo u r
talking about my current local club,
H arrow).
47
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
h i s development quickly.
Test 4.3
S.Sen-C.Crouch
London Open
2006
48
Tes t Fo u r
pected 1 3 'ilVa2 ! , keeping the pawn on
c4 safe, and al so the queen . Thi s should
end up in symm etrical equality ag ain,
after 1 3 ... dS 14 cxdS tiJxdS 1 5 j.,d2
tiJxc3 16 j.,xC3 j.,dS 17 1 tiJcS . There
are other possible quiet alternatives,
such as 1 3 j.,g s h6 14 j.,xf6 xf6 1 5
'ilVc2 lId8, m aybe slightly favouring
Black (one usually wants to keep the
bishop-pair in an open position), or 1 3
'ilVd3 tiJ c S 1 4 'ilVc2 tiJce4 1 5 b3 dS 1 6
tiJxe4 tiJxe4 17 j.,b2 dXc4 18 bXc4 tiJcs,
but again White has to work h ard to
gain full equality.
49
Why w e L o s e a t C h e s s
a6 17 b S as 1 8 tLib3, and the queen
is trapped, in favour of lS ... aS 16 bxas
l:txas 17 'iNxb6, which is level . I doubt if
many players would want to examine
this line over the board, but these days
if the computer suggests something, it
is worth con sidering.
14 :iYC5! (C) i s better and the cor
rect choice, pointing the queen in an
other direction, with the escape line
being to either hS or fS .
..
50
Te s t Fo u r
In stead, I pl ayed the move I previ
ously intended, 15 . ..luce4?!. He pl ayed
16 ctJe5, and tactically Black's position
is no longer under control .
Test 4.4
P Sowray C Crouch
.
London League
2007
51
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
options i n this quiz, one of the possi
bilities here is 'draw agreed, M. Katona
E. Kovacs, Hung arian Team Champion
ship 1995'. Thi s does not help us very
much, neither in theoreti cal term s nor,
since Sowray did not offer a draw, in
practical term s. I was on my own, try
ing to find a decent move.
52
T est F ive
5.1 White to play
53 White to play
A) 1 5 .l:tadl
B) 1 5 l:tfel
C) Something el se?
A) 16 lbxd4
B) 16 .l:tel
C) Something el se?
A) 16 'it'b3
B) 16 l:td4
C} Something el se?
A) 16 ... it'xb2
B) 16 ... l:td8
C) Something else?
53
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Test 5.1
C.Crouch-N.Hutchinson
54
Te s t F i v e
for the defender. In Test 6.2 we sh all
see wh at h appen s l ater. In the m ean
time, it might be of interest to the
reader to con sider wh at the pl ans and
counter-plans would be after lS .. :C7
16 f4.
Test 5.2
C.Crouch-R.Granat
2007
55
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
better, but i n fact i t i s not s o significant.
I later won, but this was far from forced.
Several years later, I played 9 'it>c2,
then came 9 . .4:Jxes, with possible
threats with ... 4:Jg4. This was difficult to
assess. My general preference in such
position s would be to prefer the bishop,
but in compensation Black is slightly
ahead in development. Probably the
position remains equal with best play
on both sides, but any slight slip on ei
ther side would start to change the bal
ance. It is not an 'easy' equality.
I played 10 e2. There h ave been
other games in which White h as tried
10 f3 or 10 h 3, but this seem s slow. I
considered 10 4:Jf3, but was a bit wor
ried about 10 ... 4:Jg4, continuing with 11
.tC4 4:Jxf2 12 lIft 4:Je4 13 4:Je5 4:Jh 6 14
4:Jxf7 4:Jxf7 1 5 .l::t xf7. Equal, probably.
Black's knight is an irritation, but
White has the bishop-pair.
Over the next few moves, both play
ers develop and consolidate with
10 ...4:Jf6 11 4:Jh3 h6 12 b4 .td6 13 .tb2.
The computer suggests th at early on
Black is slightly better, but th at later
th e position is equal . I would suspect
th at the l ast few moves were equal
throughout. There followed some more
quiet m anoeuvring with 13 ... lIhe8 14
lIbdl 4:Jfd7 15 4:Jf4 g6, and we h ave
now reached the quiz position.
Black's last couple of m oves h ave
seemed almost random, at least from
White's point of view, and I started to
feel more confident. It is often around
thi s stage th at a pl ayer might relax his
vigilance. So it proved.
56
Tes t Five
While thi s is far from deci sive, I was
starting to feel under pressure, and
later m ade mistakes. We shall return to
this exercise at a l ater stage (Test 9.3),
with an accumulation of minor errors,
plus a time trouble blunder, leading to
a clear loss.
So what possibl e improvements
could there be for White ? Thi s all seem s
open -ended, with several possible ideas
ending up reaching a position of likely
equality.
One n atural possibility is 16 cj;b1!?
(C) 16 ... lt:ib6 17 It:ids It:ibC4 18 i.xe s
It:ixe s, equal . At the time, I wanted
more.
16 It:idS (C) puts some slight pres
sure on the opponent, but with quiet
play, for example, 16 ... c6, it is unclear
that White can achieve anything con
crete.
Maybe the best move is 16 'f1.d4! (B),
preparing to play the other rook, either
to dl, doubling, or to set up pressure
on the c-pawn with :tCl.
Test 5.3
C.Crouch-M.Peacock
Kid l i ngton
2007
57
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
tLJd7, with equality, since both d-pawn s
drop, with a symmetrical opposite
coloured bishop position . However, 18
tLJc3 ! substantially improves. After
18 ...f5 19 xd4 White's comfortably
centralized queen causes problems for
Black.
I was al so concerned with 16 ... i.. g 4,
but 17 1:[a3 tLJxe4+ 18 i.. x e4 xe4 19
'Yi'xd4 xd4 20 tLJxd4 leaves White with
the more active pieces in a queenless
endgame.
The best line for Black i s 16 ... 4+!
17 'iit> g l tLJxd3 18 g3 tLJf2 19 gxh4 tLJxdl
20 1:[xdl i.. g 4 21 Wf2 tLJd7 22 ktxd4 f5 .
58
Test 5.4
M.Hebden-C.Crouch
2006
Te s t F i v e
White, ending up as a draw.
Thinking back to the earlier tour
nament, it seem s such an incredibly
long g ap between 'before' and 'after',
with a stroke intervening. It seem s so
strange th at after pl aying in Coventry,
first equal, then a hundred-mile walk
ing h oliday, then pl aying another tour
nament in Oxford, my health was in
such a sudden collapse. And indeed the
physician s were puzzled too. There
were some extrem ely elaborate diag
noses, quite often contradictory. I do
not want to discuss in great depth
wh at was h appening at the time, as
this is something of a digression of
analysing two g ames of chess. I tried
hard to understand what was going on
in the thought processes and degree of
understanding of the medical doctors,
and I was looking for contradictions
and possible mistakes. A difficult proc
ess, but necessary. After all, medics, like
chess pl ayers, can often m ake mistakes,
and I wanted to assess early on
whether a mi stake was being m ade.
We can add th at economists and
politician s too are highly capable of
making serious mistakes, something
fairly clear these days for the gen eral
public. Does anyone believe th at we are
in a stable economy now?
Anyway, pl ay carried on with 5 c3 e6
6 e4 h6 7 xf6 'ilVxf6 8 d3 cxd4 9 cxd4
CDc6 10 e5 'ilVd8 11 a3 d6 12 'ilVe2 e7
13 0-0, and if anything, I might well
have played better in 2006 th an in
2004.
59
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
feel uncomfortable about m y king get
ting forced away from the back ranks. I
have h ad a few bad experiences in the
past.
My plan was 14 dxe5 ttJd4 15 ttJxd4
"iVxd4, so far, equal throughout.
60
Te s t F i v e
counterattacking style of play, not aim
ing for quick solidity as Black, but in
stead keeping a sharp eye (these days,
alas only my left eye) for any possibility
of taking over the initiative after any
thing that seems slightly inaccurate.
In more normal circumstances, I
would h ave gobbled the pawn,
16 :xb2! (A), without much hesitation.
.
61
Test S i x
6.1 Black to play
63 Black to play
A) 1 7 .. :e6
B) 17 .. JUe8
C) Something el se?
A) 18 .. :Vxd2
B) 18 .. :xb2
C) Something el se?
A) 18 4'lxe4
B) 18 dS
C) Something el se?
A) 18 ... h 6
B) 18 .. .f6
C) Something el se?
62
Te s t S ix
Test 6.1
C.Morris-C.Crouch
2006
Test 6.2
C.Crouch-N.Hutchinson
B u ry St Ed m u nds
2006
63
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Either i t works or i t doesn't. To the best
of my calculating capability, I felt I was
doing well, but I missed a resource sev
eral moves later in a critical position. It
turns out that there were good alterna
tives for Black anyway, so my earlier
play was too ambitious.
64
Tes t S ix
covered, and I h ad not really con sidered
that there could be a danger for m e,
but then I saw a possibl e problem just
before he m ade a move, and back at
home I saw that it would h ave been a
major problem, and th at I could h ave
lost two games (the other again st
Gregory - Test 1 3 . 2 ) on the same birth
day.
Test 6.3
M.Hebden-C.Crouch
2006
65
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
pair, a good open file, and an active
queen . That said, I al so h ave obvious
disadvantages, with my king side pieces
being clogged up, and White h aving a
rook on the seventh .
66
Tes t S ix
Black's king i s on g 7), and his bishop i s
not mobile.
This, however, i s a first impression .
If Black were to try 2 3 .. J:td5 ! 24 .l::t d 7 (24
f4? ! g5 gives counterplay) 24 .. J:txd7 25
iLxd7, with the first pair of rooks gone,
Black increases his possibilities of hold
ing. He is of course not equal yet.
Bl ack can al so try to set up a differ
ent pawn structure in the endgame,
with lB iLxg2!? (C) 19 'it'xg 2 "iVxd2 20
'ixd2 l:txd2 2 1 l:!.xa7.
...
67
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
2 4 f4 g 5 2 5 4, Black holds the position with 25 .. J:tC7 ! . Once thi s has been
appreciated, 23 lIg 1 ! is quickly seen as
a good move, and if 23 ... xb 2 ? (but
other moves are not very good) 24 f4
f5 2 5 5 lIe7 26 lId8+, and m ate next
move.
Black can try instead 21 ... a5 22 4Jc3
d4 23 lId1 4 24 lIxd8+ xd8 2 5
lId7, and White keeps a steady edge.
The test position i s more compli
cated th an it looks, and time pressure
was beginning to be a problem. I did
not h ave time to analyse in depth, and
found one of the worst moves.
18 ... xg 2 ! i s the best, although thi s
would take good nerves. 18 ... xb2 i s
pl ayable, but not 18 ... xd2?, when I did
not see a tactic later on .
Test 6.4
I.Lauterbach-C.Crouch
2007
68
Tes t S ix
Another possibility i s l.B ..tDe6?! (C),
with a trap. If 19 iifS .tc8 ! ? 20 iixdS ?
CiJe], and the queen i s unexpectedly
about to be trapped. 21 'ilYxC4 is the
only move, but 2 1 ... .ta6 skewers the
knight. An attractive variation, but the
simple 20 hS keeps an edge for White.
In the g ame, White quietly re
treated with 19 .td2.
.
69
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
the alternative. Black's mi stake came
later. I felt the knight was, in several
respects, worse with 20 . ..tlJe7 than on
h8, blocking the e-file.
70
Te s t Six
ered lz'lxc4, and Black can hit back, later
on, with .. .f6 followed by ... lZ'lf7. Probably
White should leave the knight at home,
allowing Black to decide whether to try
.. .f6, without any tempo gain, and have
to decide whether it is playable or bad.
23 l:tab1! would be a way to test her op
ponent. Looking at this now, 20 ... lZ'lh 8
was over-elaborate, and does not do the
job, so deserves its ' ? ! '.
After her knight advance, I played
71
Test S eve n
7.1 White to play
73 Black to play
A) 19 J::t a 3
8) 19 tLig s
C) Something el se?
A) 20... ii.a3+
B) 2o . f6
C) Something else?
A) 20 h 3
8 ) 20 .l:!.d1
C) Something else?
A) 2 1 h 3
8 ) 2 1 'iVd4
C) Something el se?
72
Te s t S e v e n
Test 7.1
C.Crouch-M.Peacock
Kidlington
2007
73
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
White is then slightly better after
20 ... 'ilVxf3+?! 21 xf3, moving towards
a favourable endgame. I feel sure th at I
would have assessed thi s position cor
rectly. I h ave no fear of a queen ex
ch ange. Indeed, I would almost cer
tainly h ave decided that 20 ... 'ilVd4+! i s
best, a n d highly unpromising if White
is thinking of playing for an edge. After,
for example, 21 i.. e 3 'ilVxb2+ 22 g l
tte8 2 3 ttab1 'ilVC3 White will later re
cover the pawn on b7, but this will lose
time, and Black's knight will reach good
central squares after ... ttJd7. There is a
clear danger th at White could easily
end up worse, and thi s is exactly wh at I
wanted to avoid.
We move next to the line I actually
played, 19 tta 3?! (A) 19 ttJd7 20 tte1
(but not 20 tte3 ? 'ilVxf4 2 1 l:Ie7 fS, and
Bl ack win s a pawn). Then 20 'ilVb4!
proved uncomfortable for me.
...
...
74
Tes t S e ve n
1i.e3 (C), but after 19 .. .'Jd7 followed by
... tt:Jf6, the knight suddenly reaches a
good square.
There are various other possibilities
for White, including 19 as, 19 b3 and
19 l:.fl, but none seem s completely
secure. Bl ack quickly plays ... tt:Jd7.
By now, it is easy to see that analysis
can easily run around in circles. After
some thought, I played what seems to
be the natural move, having found
nothing better over the board. It looks
like that there ought to be an improve
ment for White, but even in later analy
sis, I cannot find a clear drawing line, let
alone a win. So perhaps I was worse?
Around the roundabout, White's origi
nal exit, 19 l:.a3, now looks the best, but
I had to find good moves later on.
Test 7.2
Colin Crouch - Andrew Lewis
Kid l i ngton
2007
75
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
course one of the players is already bet
ter. What this in practical terms would
mean is that if your position feels okay
before the opponent's attempted sacri
fice, and if you see no clear advantage
for your opponent, then you are at lib
erty to accept the sacrifice, however
dangerous the opposing sacrifice might
appear. 'Fortune favours the bold', and
bold defending, as well as bold attack
ing, should be praised.
Bl ack h as no win after 19 .. :f6 ? ! ,
which sets u p an apparently extremely
dangerous attack, but it turn s out that
Black has no more than a draw after 20
hxg4 al+ 2 1 i..b l i.. x g4 (he h as to
aim for ... idS) 2 2 l:I.dl ii.b2+ 2 3 C2
i.. C 3 24 Cl i..b 2+ 2S Cl. And, second,
th at the sneaky 24 .l::i. c l ! ! gives White an
unexpected advantage after 24 ... iLfS+
2S dl i.. x bl 26 e6+ h 8 2 7 f7.
This line would h ave been extremely
difficult to foresee for either side.
So 18 i.. xf4 is extremely promising,
but 18 iLC2 !? f6 19 iLC3 iLd7 i s al so
fully playable, provided I play accu
rately.
76
Te s t S e ve n
So wh at else i s there? Clearly I need
to bring my pieces into pl ay, but in the
game I soon h ad to give protection
with l::t d 2, thereby losing time. This
suggests an improvement, with 20
fl!? (C).
77
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
board, the natural inclination would be
to think th at Black is better, despite
being the exch ange down . Black has
two advanced pawn s on the queenside,
whereas White has a weakened pawn
structure there, making it difficult for
White to bring his pieces into play. If
the bishop moves, for example, ... c2
would be a reflex reply.
If the reader is finding it confusing
over the intricate changes in move or
der, and the sudden emergence of tac
tics, then me too. I still feel th at it is
almost a m atter of principle that White
ought to be able to keep some sort of
edge in the King's Indian, with the ad
vanced central pawn structure, but thi s
turn s out t o b e extremely difficult to
prove. Every time that White feel s that
h e has a secure edge, there always
seem s to be some unexpected way for
Bl ack to hit back.
Positional chess is so often ex
tremely delicately bal anced, particu
l arly when it involves sh arp position al
pl ay. It might often be the case th at a
player might h ave four natural moves
with which to carry out a m anoeuvre,
but it is far from clear which precise
move order needs to be pl ayed, given
the case th at the opponent might al so
h ave four possible manoeuvres. Of
course, at any stage one of the pl ayers
might well ch ange the balance of pl ay,
possibly ending up with tactics, or pos
sibly with a slightly varied new strate
gic pl an . A move not only puts a piece
on to a new square, but al so removes a
78
Test 7.3
P Sowray C Crouch
.
London
2007
Te s t S e v e n
have ended up as an advantage for
White, often after tactical play.
I played 1s ... e s ! ?, a move l ater than
I should h ave done, as we saw in Test
4.4. Black's ... bS proved to be unneces
sary. Instead, Bl ack could h ave tried
taking up the ch allenge with lS ... b4 16
liJdS exds 17 exds+ <t>d8 18 liJc6+ ..txc6
19 dxc6.
79
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
Bl ack uncomfortable, for example after
19 ... 3Le6 20 'it'b2 b4 21 3Lxf6 gxf6 2 2
'ilVxa6.
16 ... 'ilVas is slightly more accurate,
80
Te s t S e ve n
It is, of course, a bad defen sive mis
take to retreat m eekly with 17 ... liJb6 ?
White crashes through in t h e centre
with 18 e 5 . Black needs to play actively,
either returning the extra piece, or us
ing it in a counterattack ag ain st the
white king . So 17 .. :a5 ! ? needs to be
examined.
81
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
example, 30 c4+ bXc4 3 1 bxc4+ 'it>d4 3 2
f4+? (but 3 2 'iVxd8+ 'iVd6 i s al so a win
for Black) 32 ... 'it>cS+, and yes, thi s is a
counter-check, so White i s not allowed
to play f2+.
The mistake took pl ace much earlier
in this line. Back to 17 ... 'iVas, and now
18 bXC4 ! .
82
...
Tes t S e ve n
making it far m ore difficult for White
to advance his passed pawn .
83
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
out of time. Then 34 ...e 4 3 5 l:td1 led to
my final mistake, which is worth re
cording for psychological interest, but
not really worth giving as an exercise.
Test 7.4
C.Crouch-M.Peacock
Kid l i ngton
2007
84
Te s t S e ve n
understandably nervous about thi s
position , m y pieces all being o n the
edge, except for the pinned knight and
the exposed king, whereas Black's
pieces are on good positions or on open
lines. My position is not yet drastically
bad, but I need to be careful, and cer
tainly I am not better.
Someh ow I need to activate my
pieces, or to exchange some m aterial . I
chose the second idea, playing the sim
ple 21 h3?! (A) 21 ii.xf3 22 l::i. xf3 l::i.fe8,
but my position was worse, and I was
fortunate that h e eventually decided to
take a perpetual when he was better,
but short of time. The problem with the
move I tried to defend with i s that it i s
using u p another pawn move, when
really I needed to concentrate on bring
ing my pieces together.
Even 21 rj;;g3!? (C) is a possibility, in
viting Black to exchange on f3, while
also m oving the king to a safer square
quickly.
...
85
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
2 2 l:tb3 a2, the queen is o n the edge,
but then what next? 2 3 l:txb7 .i.xf3 24
gxf3 tLlC5 win s the exch ange for Black.
Or 21 ae3?! (C) 21 ... xf4 22 e7
f5, and White does not h ave quite
sufficient compen sation for the pawn .
There were clearly quite a few al
ternatives to con sider, but offering to
exch ange the queens with 2 1 d4
looks the best and safest.
We return to the position as di s
cussed on move 22, and then 2 3 xe8+
xe8.
..
86
Tes t S e ve n
87
Test E i g h t
8.1 Black to play
A) 2 1 ... gS
B) 21 .. .fS
C) Something el se?
A) 22 ...'it>d7
B) 2 2 ...WfS
C) Something else?
A) 2 1 ... as
B) 21 .. . a7
C) Something el se?
A) 2 2 ..ib4
B) 2 2 'iVg 3
C) Something else?
88
Tes t E ig h t
Test 8.1
D.Buckley-C.Crouch
89
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
up a s equality. I tried 1 4 'ilVC7, telling
myself th at there was no reason to
move the knight just yet.
.
90
Te s t E ig h t
20 Wh8!, avoiding the rook check. A
close escape.
...
...
91
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
2 2 :tg 3 ( 2 2 g 3 llgd8 ! ? 2 3 'iYxd8+
llxd8 24 llxd8+ 'itg7 25 :tcl e2 26 b4
'iVb2 27 llcdl 'iYxa3 should draw)
22 ... llxg 3 23 hxg 3 , with a position we
have discussed above. Then 23 ... llf8 24
xa7 'iYe2 25 llfl 'iYxb2 26 'iYe7 'itg 7
keeps the balance.
Test 8.2
N.Pert-C.Crouch
B u ry St Ed m u nds
2006
92
Te s t E ig h t
weaknesses on his own part of the
board, with later thoughts of his own
counterplay. On thi s occasion, since
White has no genuine weaknesses on
the kingside, Black should h ave over
protected on the queen side.
Therefore, (B) 21 ::071 (and indeed
there m ay be others, such as 21 .. JUc8
or 2 1.. . .l:!.a2) 2 2 .l:!.xb4 .l::tfa8, and Black's
pieces are tightly compacted, but with
ch ances of springing out again.
..
93
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
2 5 ...I;!.a5?!, and soon fell into difficul
ties after 26 I;!.xa 5 bxa 5 27 I;!. a 1, when
my pawn soon fell, and I h ad to scrab
ble around for any sort of compensa
tion . Possibly I could h ave tried to re
engage my pieces with 2S ... I;!.dd8, but
even here White is standing well after
26 I;!.fc1 4:JdS . Then after 27 'iVb7 ! White
has taken control of the seventh rank,
and this is why Black should h ave tried
21 ... I;!.a7 much earlier.
Test 8.3
G.Wall-C.Crouch
2007
94
Te s t E ig h t
Here 17 ttJxe6? d6 18 fS gxfs 19
S+ e7 favours Black, but 17 ttJe4
iLe7 18 hS leads to sh arp pl ay. Black
could continue either with h and-to
hand pawn fighting with 18 ... e S , or
consolidate his king side with 18 ... g 8.
Either seem s reasonable.
My notes at the time stated that:
"My regret i s not so much th at I did not
play this, m ore th at I did n ot even con
sider it." Probably the alternative move
is interesting, but not necessarily bet
ter.
The g ame continued with quiet po
sitional play, with 16 ttJe4 ..tc6. I sensed
that if I was trying to overprotect my
self by defending the pawn on c4, I
would lose m omentum with my pieces.
If now 17 iLxC4 ttJb6 18 iLd3 ttJxa4,
and Black m ay h ave a slight edge.
So in stead 17 'ife2, and now it is
time to protect the c-pawn with
17 b5. White simplified with 18 axb5
axb5 19 l::t x a8+ ..txa8 20 g3 h 5 .
...
95
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
White's attack. White can, of course, try
to continue the attack with 2 5 h 5 .l:th 8
2 6 hxg6 l:th4 2 7 'iWg4 fxg 6 28 lbg 5, and
h e i s better. This is the sort of position
that I was worried about, and decided
to avoid.
So it is a simple king move, but
where?
22 ri;j8! (B) is best, and then de
fending with ... ri;g 7.
96
Tes t E ig h t
I h ad to defend the b-pawn with
27 JWb6 for as long as possible, other
wise my position would collapse. I was
hoping th at m aybe I h ad chances of
scrambling for a draw. It was now
White, rather than Black, who started
to take the initiative on the long di
agonal, with 28 ttJC3 .l:.d8 (if 28 ... b2?,
then simply 29 xb2).
Thi s i s a typical sort of frustration
position for the attacker. There are
many obvious choices to play for a win,
but nothing quite seem s to work, with
the position fizzling out to a draw on
best play. Wall goes for the apparently
deci sive fin al effort - and loses!
..
97
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
still b e able t o take advantage of his
extra king side pawn, with e6 and/or fS
pawn breaks.
In stead, Wall blundered with 30
ii.xd 5??, and now 30 .. J:txd 5 ! 3 1 1::tx d 5
b2, winning for Black (and indeed
31 ... 'ii'f2+ 32 c,t>h 3 'ii'f3 is even quicker).
The most likely explan ation for White's
blunder, perh aps, was that he saw both
of his captures on dS as leading to a
likely advantage for him after a double
exch ange (indeed a triple-exch ange),
but missed that in playing the wrong
move order, his opponent h ad the op
portunity of an intermediate m ove. A
common blunder, which we h ave seen
many times in this volume. Here Wall
loses the g ame.
After 3 2 ii.xb2 'ii'x b2+ 3 3 c,t>h3 'ii' b l
34 c,t>h2 'ii'e l, White's rook cannot
move, and Bl ack can capture the ex
ch ange at leisure, staying the exch ange
up. On 3 5 'ii' b 3+ c,t>C7 3 6 'ii'd l 'ii'f 2+ 3 7
c,t>h3 ii.xd 5 38 'ii'x d 5 'ii'g l I knew that I
would be given a long string of checks,
but I felt I would survive the perpetual
and win .
Test 8.4
S.Nurmohamed-C.Crouch
2006
98
Te s t E ig h t
advantage just with good and logical
pl ay. There might well be a forced win
somewhere, though, without any
chance of Black wriggling out.
Nurmoh amed immediately pl ayed
for a direct attack again st my king,
with 2 2 .tb4?! (A), and it looks ex
tremely threatening, but Black was
able to squeeze out with 22 :a4! 2 3
ttJd6+ f8, and now White h as no time
for a winning discovered attack, as
White's bishop is threatened.
99
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
the diagram after 2 S .. :>t>g8.
Then he played 26 es?, natural
enough, but I had expected 26 .i.bS !
'Va8 and now 2 7 eS, which i s more ac
curate timing. White then doesn 't h ave
to worry about the bishop on c S .
100
Test N i n e
9.1 White to play
9 .3 White to play
A) 24 llb 5
8) 24 'iWe2
C) Something el se?
A) 2 8 tiJd3
8) 28 tiJc4
C) Something el se?
9 .2 White to play
9 .4 Black to play
A) 2 5 e 5
8 ) 2 5 .l:!.f1
C) Something else?
A) 2 5 ... ..txh l
8) 2 5 ... C2
C) Something el se?
10 1
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Test 9.1
C.Crouch-J.Cox
10 2
Te s t N i n e
tion . I like the extra pawn in the centre,
but I am worried about the doubled
isolated pawns.
103
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
hold the balance, perh aps only tempo
rarily if he has a better occasion to
break with e S .
104
Te s t N i n e
Here I was expecting 18 ... lDg4, to
which I planned to play 19 lDe4 lDgxe s
(19 ... lDdxeS 20 g s f6 2 1 xf6 lDxf6 2 2
.l:txf6 tran sposes) 20 g s f6 2 1 xf6
lDxf6 2 2 .l:txf6. I assumed this was go
ing to be slightly better for White, al
though now it seem s th at it i s only
equal . For example, 22 ... .l:thf8 23 .l:Iafl
l::t xf6 24 .l:txf6 .l:tf8 2 S d6 d8 26 l::t xf8
'iYxf8 2 7 'iYa4 lDf3+ 28 cj;>g 2 lDh4+ 29
cj;>g l, and Bl ack would be advised to
take the draw. 19 f4! ? is also to be
considered.
In stead, Cox went for counterattack
with 1S ... lDh S ! ?
105
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
W e have just gone through a phase
of sacrifice and counter-sacrifice, with
the initiative swinging from one side to
th e other. White has sacrificed a pawn,
in return obtaining good piece activity;
Black has returned the exch ange,
eliminating White's more attacking
pieces. Now Bl ack has the more effec
tive piece and pawn form ation, even
though he is down in m aterial . White is
not under immediate attack on the
kingside, but h e h as to be careful about
wh at might h appen in the future.
I played the natural developing
move, 2 3 J::i. b l!?, trying to create pres
sure on the queenside. I underesti
mated his reply, 2 3 :iVa6!, when Black
has covered all his queen side pieces,
and threaten s to take the critical C4pawn, and with all likelihood, White's
open lines in the centre and king side.
..
106
Te s t N i n e
107
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
of the g-pawn, whether i n a middle
game, or, with the passed f-pawn com
ing through, the endgame.
After the text move, Black blocked
off White's queen side attack by 26 ... b6,
avoiding any sacrifice on c 5 . 26 ... tDe4?
would h ave been too combative, and
would lose after 27 Itel g 5 ? 28 ':xe4
Itxe4 29 .i:!.xC5+ tDxC5 30 'iVxc5+ <t>d7 3 1
'iVC7+ e8 3 2 'iVc8+ f7 3 3 'iVxf5+.
White pl ayed 27 .tg3, with the
none-too-subtle thought of placing the
queen in front on the diagonal, and
trying to give m ate.
I did not like the idea of giving up a
few pawns with 2 7 Itel Itxel+ 2 8 'iVxel
'iVxa2 29 'iVe6 'ivxc4 30 'iVc6+ <t>d8.
There might be a coupl e more checks,
but then wh at? If, for example, 3 1
.tC7+ e8 3 2 'iVd6+ f8 3 3 .td6+ g 7
34 'iVe7+ h 6, and White run s out of
checks. Al so, if 3 1 d6 e8, and again
the king escapes.
108
Test 9.2
C.Crouch-P.Gait
Te s t N i n e
10 9
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
next move was a blunder, though,
which forced me to resign quickly, as
we'll see in Test lOA.
Earlier, 25 '1J./l! (B) is much better,
with a clear advantage for White after
2 S .. :xd4 26 xg s xg s 27 "iiix g s
"iiix C4 28 e s ! (better th an the obvious
28 '1J.d8+). Black h as only a pawn in re
turn for the exch ange, and his bishop is
ineffective, while White's m ajor pieces,
plus a possible advance with the h
pawn, create great problems.
Again, after my earlier big mistake, I
got nervous, and made further mis
takes and blunders.
Test 93
C.Crouch-R.Granat
2007
1 10
Tes t N i n e
of the g ame. The intention for White
here should h ave been to exch ange a
pair of knights.
...
111
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Test 9.4
R.Randall-C.Crouch
112
Te s t N i n e
I h ad the luxury of setting up a mi
nor piece sacrifice in order to break up
White's centre pawn s, with 18 ... a4 19
lbbc1 lbxe4 20 fxe4 iLxe4+ 21 'it>a1
lbc5.
1 13
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
ering both the h l-square and the a-file.
It was difficult at the time to cover both
the long diagonal plus a-file, as well as
what was going on in the rest of the
board. Indeed, I was un able to visualize
the whole board. I could see part of the
board, and such visualization is, of
course, extremely important for chess
pl ayers. I was unable as yet to find
ways to visualize and see different
parts of the board, but later I was able
to learn how to improve on this.
What I 'saw' was 2 S ... ..txh l 2 6 'iWcS+
'iWxcs 2 7 l:!.xcS+ ..tdS 2S .l:i.xdS, m ate.
Except this is a complete illusion . He
cannot move his rook to cS. He can
move his queen, 'iWcl-cS, but he cannot
move the rook as well, l:tCl-CS, in a sin
gle m ove. The queen and rook are not
doubled on the c-file. Logically this i s
absurd, since the queen i s firmly an
chored on cl, to protect the sacrifice on
a3, and there i s no rook coverage on
the c-file, just behind the queen .
Maybe for some readers thi s might
at first be of relevance only to partially
sighted players. Try though to think of
a complicated combination, when you
h ave to think of possibilities h alf a
dozen moves in advance, when som e of
the pieces on either side h ave m oved
on, and other pieces and pawn s h ave
disappeared. The player would not be
able to see the position in advance, as
the pieces are not yet there. What i s
1 14
T e st Te n
10. 1 Black to play
A) 2 S ... g 6
B) 2 S ... d7
C) Something el se?
A) 26 . . .4:Jg S
B) 2 6 ...d7
C) Something el se?
A) 26 ... 4:Jg4
B) 26 ... 4:JdS
C) Something el se?
A) 2 7 g4
B) 2 7 g 3
C) Something else?
1 15
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Test 10.1
C.Morris-C.Crouch
2006
1 16
Tes t Te n
Black should earlier h ave played
25 .i.d7! (B), in stead.
...
Test 10.2
S Nurmohamed-C.Crouch
2006
1 17
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
S o which is better? I concentrated
on thinking of where the best counter
attacking and defensive move for the
knight is. I felt at the time that
26 ... ti'lg4?! (A) looked best, with the aim
of taking White's bishop on c S .
The alternative was 26. . .ti'ld5! (B),
aiming to take the knight to one of the
four central squares a move earlier.
This seem s to be a draw. I was almost
certainly worried about 27 g s g6 28
..Ite4!, and it looks like Black's king will
be swallowed after the central knight
has gone.
1 18
Te s t Te n
Sometimes, especially in time trou
ble, it is easier to envisage tactics on
either side, rather th an to con sider
quiet positional chess. Here 28 'iVxg4
'ifxC5 29 liJe8 ! gives White a clear ad
vantage. Then 29 ... 'iWe7 30 liJxf6+ 'iitf8
3 1 liJxh 7+ 'iit g 8, with several ways of
keeping the upper h and, for example,
3 2 e4.
I m anaged to escape, with
29 . . liJxes, covering the f7-square.
.
Test 10.3
I.Lauterbach-C.Crouch
2007
1 19
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
t o work out whether a player should
then aim for careful equality, or
whether it is possible to play for more.
Here I got it wrong .
120
Te s t Te n
simplification with 29 ttJd2+ 30 'it'xd2
'it'xfs 3 1 ttJf4, and the prospect of fur
ther simplification . The trouble is that
the backward pawn on d5 will continue
to be weak, before simplification, and
perh aps even more dangerously, after
simplification.
..
121
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
i n g th at I could squeeze a draw. Thi s
indeed happened after 3 5 l:te1? l:txe1+
36 "iix e1 Wf7 (now Bl ack can hold) 37
iLf3 "iif5 38 "iie 2 'i!Ve6 39 "iid 2 "iif 5 40
iVe2 iLc6 (maybe 40 ... iVe6 and offer a
draw?) 41 iLg4 iVb1+ 42 Wg2 iVe4+ 43
'i!Vxe4 dxe4 44 iLe2 iLd5 45 Wh3 f5 46
Wh4 wg6 47 iLh5+ Wf6 48 iLe8 We7 49
iLg6 'it'f6 50 iLe8 We7 51 iLg6 Wf6
Yz-Yz. White h ad simplified a little too
far.
In stead, 3 5 "iif4! is winning for
White, as my opponent noted after the
game.
Test 10.4
C.Crouch-P.Gait
H i l l i ngdon League
122
2006
Te s t Te n
th at my brain was clearly not in full
focus on chess. Young children m ay
occasion ally try to move a bishop or
queen on a diagonal , and m ay try to
switch from a light square to a dark
square, or vice versa. I was making a
similar mistake with the rook, seeing
her rook moving from the c-file to the
b-file.
The end result was a draw, after a
time penalty for my illegal move. I was
amazed th at I h ad got away with it,
thinking th at if I m ake a mistake, she
should be allowed to take my piece in a
quickpl ay finish. Apparently though
the arbiter was correct. Thi s was a
quickpl ay finish, not an actual blitz
game.
Back to the G ait game. Not a one
move blunder, but a two-move blun
der.
123
Test E l eve n
11. 1 White to play
A) 2 7 ..txh 6
B) 2 7 .l:f.xa8
C ) Something el se?
A) 2 7 ... e5
B) 2 7 . ..1:1g 5
C) Something el se?
A) 2 7 fxg 6
B) 2 7 lIxh 6
C ) Something else?
A) 2 7 .. Yiilc 2
B) 2 7 ... h 5
C) Something el se?
124
Te s t E l e v e n
Test 11.1
C.Crouch-J.McKenna
London Open
2006
125
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
with an immediate capture o n c6, and
decided th at it was time to eliminate
the bishop on a8. Partly too I would
have lost concentration . I h ave a win
ning position, my opponent is clearly
on the lower h alf of the board, so why
should I use up energy in such an easy
position ? The trouble i s that an easily
winning position plus lack of concen
tration adds up to the loss of grading
points.
I pl ayed my sacrifice, and then after
27 .. J1Vxa8 I suddenly noticed that not
only h ave I given up the exch ange, but I
h ave allowed Black to control the a-file.
126
Test 11.2
C.Crouch-D.Okike
Te s t E l e v e n
setting up a new weakness. The prob
lem for Black is not so much the weak
ness of g6 itself, but more the threat of
a sacrifice on h6, forcing Black's king
into extremely open play.
He tried, m aybe with great anxiety,
21 ... g5, covering the g 6-square, but
also an open invitation for White to
sacrifice, or a dangerous pawn ex
change with h4. The computer explores
the idea of defending with 21 ... .l:tc8, but
after 22 .l:tf3 .l:tfd8 2 3 l:tg 3 'iif7 24 'iih 4
f8, there i s a sacrifice o n a different
square with 25 l:txg 7+ xg 7 26 ii.xh 6.
White ties thing s up after, for example,
26 .. :iVg 6 27 ii.e3+ 'it>g8 28 l:th 8+ ct;f7 29
l:th 6 g 8 30 l::rh 7+ ct;f8 3 1 l::rh 8 .
For the next few moves, White qui
etly undermines Black's king side with
22 h4 l:tg8 23 l:tf3 l:tg6 24 l:th3 ct;g7.
127
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
White t o calculate with clarity. Unfor
tunately I did not do this well.
128
Tes t E l e v e n
White, but who can doubt th at White,
and indeed Bl ack, could h ave pl ayed it
so accurately?
This was one of m any club games I
played against David Okike over a few
years, playing again st Kin g s Head and
Hayes. I won most of them, but h e h as
scored a win and a draw against me.
The strangest encounter was a few
month s after thi s one.
I walked through Oxford Circus be
fore the start of a London League
m atch, then realized th at I was starting
slightly l ate, so I got up the stairs at the
venue, quickly m ade my way through
the dimly lit room, m ade my first move
as Black, ... c7-c5 on the dark squares,
pressed the clock, sat down, then sud
denly noticed th at I h ad played closer
to th e edge, light square to light
square, 1 e2-e4 b7-b 5 ? ?, in stead of the
intended 1 ... c 5 .
M y opponent briefly wondered what
I had planned with my unexpected
opening move, when it suddenly be
came clear from my shock that I h ad
blundered on move 1, a mixture of poor
eyesight (I am only partially sighted)
and being distracted by having to rush
to the venue. I did not ask for the game
to be restarted at the beginning, and I
suspect that it would have been im
proper for me to do so. My opponent
sportingly suggested that we could start
the game at the beginning anyway, be
ing aware that I was barely able to see,
and that he would rather have an inter
esting game rather than a hollow win.
129
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
' Rook H ector Eva One' takes more time,
and the intern ation al Germ an Braille
version, 'Turm Hector Eva Eins', takes
several seconds to work out. By the end
of all this, I cannot remember what I
have written down on my scoresheet.
Fortun ately, Braille pl ayers know
their own allowances. After all, every
player has his or her own disability.
Test 11.3
D.Buckley-C.Crouch
2006
130
Te s t E l e v e n
He now tried 24 ltd 7, doubling on
the seventh . It i s possible th at h e h ad
previously considered trying 24 ltdS
'iYg 7 25 ltg s 'iYh 6, but thi s seem s
messy. If 2 6 ltbS 'iYg 6, White's best op
tion is 27 ltg s 'ii'h 6, with repetition., as
27 'iYxa7 ? ltg 8 28 'iYb7 ltcd8 ! i s ex
tremely dangerous, with threats of ...
'iYbl+ and ...ltdl, and m ate on h l . If 2 9
lt c l lt d S 30 g4 (otherwi se m ate o n g 2 )
30 .. .fxg 3
31
cxdS
gxf2+,
soon
checkm ating. 50 White definitely h as to
pl ay carefully.
The other option is an immediate
capture with 24 'iYxa7, and thi s looks
good, even though White h as lost time.
24 ... 'iYe2 2 5 ltcd3 'iYxb2 2 6 'iYe7 ! h as
drawn Black slightly out of pl ay with
his pieces. Then 26 ... 'iYg 7 27 ltd8 ltg 8
28 ltxg 8+ (not, of course, 2 8 ltxc8??
'iYxg 2 m ate) 28 ... xg 8 29 'iYb7 is decep
tive. It might look as though the pawn
on g2 is seriously weak, but as long as
Bl ack can do nothing to add extra pressure (for example, 29 ... 'iYg 6 when 30
ltd7 e S 31 lte7 prevents ... e4), he can do
nothing with his pieces, and White can
gradually improve.
After the move actually played, the
computer suggests several option s for
Black, including keeping the a-pawn
safe with 24 ... a6 or 24 ... aS. The aggres
sive counterplay, with 24 ltce8 2 5
'iYh4 'iVf5, looked t o me far more ap
pealing, not least because my king was
now safe. I felt that m aybe I was better,
and that it was up to him to prove oth
erwise.
...
13 1
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
ing the tactic, White kept an edge with
2S lIcd 3 lIe6 29 lIdS lIeg6 30 lIxgS+
'it>xgS 31 'iVdS+ 'it>g7, and should h ave
carried on with 3 2 'iVd5 ! in stead of 32
lId6?!, equal, but l ater a loss. Yes, it has
to be admitted that the play in this
g ame has been for the most part ex
tremely unexciting, with too many
mistakes on both sides. Unfortunately
it doesn 't get better, as we'll see in Test
15.2.
27 ...e S ? (A) is solid enough, but as
Keith Arkell pointed out, 27..JJ.g5! (B) i s
very strong, with a winning queen sac
rifice after 28 1:txf7 J::t e g 8 ! ! 29 J::t xf5
lIxg 2+ 30 h 1 lIg1+ 3 1 h 2 J::t 8 g2
mate. Sometimes the spectator has the
best view. And I think th at neither
player was seeing the g ame well any
way.
White can, of course, avoid the im
mediate checkmate, playing defen
sively with 2 8 f3 lIeg 8 29 'iYf2 lIxg 2+ 30
'iVxg 2 lIxg 2+ 3 1 xg 2. Then 3 1 ...'ilVb 1 !
seem s the best way t o prevent White's
rooks from coordinating properly, and
White still has defen sive problems.
One would not expect White to be
able to h old the draw after 28 g4 fxg 3+
29 fxg 3 'iVf2+ 30 h 1 1:teg 8, but h e can
struggle on in a rook and pawn ending,
with 3 1 'iVd4+ 'iVxd4 3 2 J::t x d4 1:txg 3 33
J::t x g 3 J::t x g 3 34 J::t d 7 J::t xh 3+ 35 g2 J::t x a3
3 6 1:txf7. White i s going to be a pawn
short of safety, though, once the
queen side pawns are eventually ex
ch anged.
After my less accurate move, miss-
13 2
Test 11.4
N.Pert-C.Crouch
B u ry St Ed m u nd s
2006
Te s t E l e v e n
way of each other. Visualize a position
where White takes the a-pawn with his
rook, Black pl ays ... 'iVdl+, then h 2
s+ and a perpetual , and the point i s
easily m ade.
I played very poorly over the next
few moves, quite simply losing concen
tration . 27 ... h S ? (A) was bad. I noted at
the time th at " I see from my scoresheet
that I pl ayed thi s more or less immedi
ately, with 29 minutes to go until the
time control on move 36. No time
shortage therefore, but I was con scious
th at there was going to be a quickpl ay
finish coming up. I should h ave
thought much, much h arder, and m ade
White work h ard to try to win the
pawn ."
U sually I am reason ably good at
time pressure, m aking it a rule for my
self that I try to keep at least five min
utes for the last few m oves, to en sure
that I h ave some time, if necessary, to
think about the last couple of moves.
Sometimes, as here, I speed up too
early before the time control . There is
no general rule to deal with thi s type of
question, as different people genuinely
thin k differently, and there are many
players who can think superbly with
the fl ag about to fall, while others pre
fer to take their time, and can get flus
tered by h aving to move in stantly.
On thi s move, I got 'pre-flustered',
just m aking a move, hoping to set up
some sort attack against White's king
side, and vaguely thinking th at at least
I am opening up a flight square for my
13 3
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
The correct 2 8 'iVC5 i s safe, and then
28 ... 'ivxc 5 29 dXc5 tra8 30 tiJC4 Wf8 3 1
Itxa5 (m aybe 3 1 tiJxa5 ! ?, keeping the
rooks, but Black should still hold)
3 1...trxa5 3 2 tiJxa5 e8 3 3 f3 d7 34
f2 C7 35 tiJC4 tiJd7 3 6 tiJd6 f5 37
tiJe8+ c,t>d8 3 8 tiJxg 7 tiJxC5.
13 4
Te s t E l e v e n
31 xa 5 lbd5 32 a7. My play continued
to fall apart after 32 ... g6?! (weakening
my pawn structure ) 33 d7 'it>g7?! (in
credibly, I was thinking of opening up the
h-file for queen and rook ) 34 d6 lbf6 35
e5, and when I started to recognize
that the queen exchange would lose, if
not necessarily quickly, I retreated with
the queen, without much hope, tryi ng
13 5
Test Twe l ve
12. 1 White to play
A) 28 'iWf4
8) 2 8 'iWc2
C) Something el se?
A) 30 .l::!. a c8
8) 30 .. .'!i'lc6
C) Something el se?
A) 28 fS
8) 28 'iWxC7
C) Something else?
A) 3 1 b7
8) 3 1 ct'lb3
C) Something el se?
13 6
...
Te s t Twe l ve
Test 12.1
C.Crouch-J.Cox
London League
2006
...
13 7
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
28 ... ttJes ! 29 l:I.e1 ttJxg 3 30 l:I.xes ttJe2+!
(seen after the game!) 3 1 l:txe2 l:I.xe2 3 2
'iYd6 'iYxa2 is good for Black, i f you have
time to think about it.
...
13 8
Tes t Twe l v e
In stead, h e started with checks, with
32 ... g4+ 33 hl e4+ 34 gl, and
quietly improved his pieces with
34 ... b7. Thi s time, White's sacrifice
gives nothing, after 35 .l::[ x a7+ xa7 36
C7+ a6 37 .l::[ a l+ b 5, and the king
escapes to c4.
I fought on with 35 I:tfel, and the
casual 3 5 ... ct:Jf3+? 36 f2 even gives
White an edge after 36 Wf2 C2+ 3 7
xf3 xc3+ 3 8 f2 "iVd4+ 39 f1.
So 3 5 ...g4+ 3 6 Whl "iVf3+ 3 7 Wgl,
and to my con siderable surprise, h e
offered a draw.
13 9
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
though, are often of great interest, and
enjoyable for the pl ayers.
Test 12.2
C Crouch P Roberson
.
2007
140
Te s t Twe l v e
dxC7 xc7 White has a comfortable
extra passed pawn . It i s possible that I
would h ave been concerned about
whether I would h ave a genuine ad
vantage after the more natural 27 e6
c8 2 8 a2 c4, and decided in retro
spect that m aybe 29 iLe7 l:tfS 30 ttJxd6
ttJxd6 3 1 xd6 ttJxdS did not give
White much of an edge.
In the end, I went for the simpler
option . This was by no m ean s bad, but
was still sub-optim al, and it turn s out
th at I soon m ade a mi stake even in the
'simple' line.
Play continued with 2 5 ...ttJxd6 26
ttJxd6 xd6 2 7 e7. Here Black could
try 2 7 ... xf4 28 .l:i.e4 fS, but White is
doing well after 2 9 d6+ 'iith 8 30 .l:i.e3
'ii'f4 3 1 dXc7 'ii'x C4 3 2 .l:i.d7 g 8 3 3 'ii' d 6.
However, 29 g4? ! would be more
speculative, and after 29 ... xf3 30 .l:i.d3
xd3 31 xd3 l:tf7 32 d6 ttJxdS Black
is better after, for example, 3 3 C4 iLf8
34 'ii' e 6 .l:i.d8 3 5 xf6 ? .l:i.d6.
Bl ack in stead pl ayed 27 ... .l:i.ad8.
14 1
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
slightly the better of a draw in the endgame, but after a mistake by either
side just before the time control, I
missed a chance of winning. We re
sume the position later in Test 14. 3 .
Much earlier, m y superficial original
intention had been 28 'iixd6 (C)
28 ... xd6 29 e7, but after 29 ... f7
Black holds, and may be better. My tac
tical vision was clearly not very good yet.
Test 12.3
M.Cutmore-C.Crouch
Kid l i ngton
2007
14 2
Te s t Twe l v e
Cl for White, with an exchange of
queens, but thi s is a simplification
rather than a m ating attack.
Test 12.4
C.Crouch-J.McKenna
London Open
2006
14 3
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Certainly like all of us, I have lost some
games incredibly quickly, but, beyond
beginner and minor level, thi s would
generally be the case of one ridicu
lously bad move, completely misunder
standing wh at was going on, and per
h aps a couple of slight slips, based on a
misunderstanding of the big error.
Alas, after my illness I m anaged to lose
quite a few of these miniatures, some
of which h ave been published in this
book. This game, though, i s different,
and arguably worse. There must h ave
been well over h alf a dozen serious
mistakes in thi s game, and I am only
giving a few sample exercises, to avoid
m aking the reader feel bored. "Yes, I
see the point. Now give up the pawn on
b7, and your bishop will escape. You do
not h ave to make a meal out of this."
Statistically, there are likely to be
more blunders in a poor game of 50
moves th an in a g ame of 1 5 moves.
I was stunned by my previous blun
der in this g ame, giving away an ex
ch ange for nothing when I h ad a win
n i n g position. I was disorientated, but
then felt a sense of relief that I still h ad
the two united passed pawn s. If I h ad
thought more closely, I would h ave
seen that the pawn s were useless, and
that it is time to simplify and aim for
equality.
Indeed, 31 tiJb3! (B) was best. If
3 1 ... c2, there would h ave been a temp
tation to bring White's bishop into
proper pl ay, with 32 3l.c6 ? ! , but as
144
T e s t T h i rt e e n
13. 1 Black to play
A) 3 1 ... 'iVxds
8) 3 1 ... f7
C) Something el se?
A) 34 e4
8) 34 ttJel
C) Something el se?
A) 3 2 .. .fxg 3
8) 3 2 .. .f3
C) Something el se?
A) 34 ... h 8
8) 34 .. JlxdS
C) Something el se?
14 5
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
Test 13.1
R.Randall-C.Crouch
146
Tes t Th irte e n
wh atever h appened, the line h e tried
was not a m assive blunder, contrary to
wh at I thought afterwards. He played:
30 1:[xc2 !? 30 bxc2 31 xC2!? ( 3 1
.ig2 o r 3 1 iLh 3 also gives a n edge).
Test 13.2
S.Gregory-C.Crouch
B u ry St Ed m u nd s 2006
Not a particularly h appy day for a
significant birthday celebration .
Pl ay started steadily, with 1 e4 c5 2
14 7
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
tiJf3 e 6 3 d3 d S 4 tiJbd2 tiJc6 S g 3 .id6 6
.ig2 tiJge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 l:te1 .iC7 9 'ii'e 2
b6 10 tiJf1 a s 11 .id 2 .ia6, equal, with
perh aps Black h aving slightly the better
chances. White's play is not very ag
gressive. Black's idea in the early part
of the opening was, with ... .id6 and
... tiJge7, to prevent White from gaining
a tempo with es, by avoiding ... tiJf6.
White readjusts, playing the stan
dard king side attacking plan with h4h s , and tiJf3-h2-g4, but without es. He
pl ayed 12 exd s exd s 13 h4 h6 14 tiJ1h2
'ii'd 7 lS h S , and Black might well start
to think th at White h as overpressed.
Then ls ...l:tae8 16 11ff1.
148
Tes t Th irte e n
Thi s win s the pawn, but as so often
the h ard work is yet to come, as the
opponent has ch ances of gaining time.
H e tried 22 ct:\g6 ct:\xg6 2 3 hxg6 'Yi'xg6,
keeping his pieces better coordin ated.
Then 24 .id6 .ie7 2S .iC7.
14 9
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
passed pawn, not yet immediately im
pressive, but a threat later on . Al so
White h as to try to keep his isolated a
pawn safe.
Test 13.3
C.Crouch-R.Granat
2007
150
Te s t Th i r t e e n
Therefore I needed to add an extra
pawn defence on the kin g side, with 3 1
h3, and then came a counterattack
with 31 J:td6 32 g4! fxg4 33 hxg4.
..
...
15 1
Why we L o s e a t Ch e s s
I sensed that Gran at's play was in
accurate, and felt I could even play for
a win. I played perh aps too h astily to
take the initiative, overlooking my op
ponent's reply. 34 e4 (A) looks good,
but thi s proved to be deceptive, as after
34 ... .l::i.f6! it was Black who was starting
to create pressure.
This I found to be an unexpectedly
difficult middlegame to an alyse, and
therefore an interesting test position, I
hope, for the reader. Of course, the test
is one of positional sense, rather th an
tactics.
To cut down a couple of pages of
analysis, I give only a brief outline.
34 e4 was not a positional mistake.
It is equal . My mistake was only on
move 40, just before the time control .
In stead, 34 0.b4!? (C) 34 ... .l::i.f6 ! 3 5
i.xd5 J::t xf2+ 3 6 J::t c 2 i s equal .
And 34 0.el!? (B) 34 .. J:tf6 ! ? 3 5 J::t c 2
0.b4 3 6 110 0.d5 3 7 .l::i. c 2 0.b4 is a repe
tition . I was fascinated by the thought
that here White could h ave tried 3 7
l1Cl ! ?, a rem arkable zugzwang idea.
15 2
Te s t Th i r t e e n
Test 13.4
S.Gregory-C.Crouch
B u ry St Ed m u nd s 2006
153
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
I struggled o n with 36 ... b 4 3 7 h4
'iVxh4 38 gxh4 .i.xd3 39 l:txd4 .i.e2 40
l:tc1 l:tf6 41 l:tg4 g6 42 l:tc5, and played
a few more moves, but he did not lose
on time, and so he won .
Instead, 34 . .'JithB (A) should be a
draw, although perh aps slightly the
worse of the draw. For example, 35 l:te8
l:td8 36 l:txd8 l:txd8 37 .i.xf3 g s 3 8
'ifh s 'iVxh s 39 .i.xh s cxd3 4 0 cxd3 l:tc8
41 .i.g6 .i.b7, a small edge to White as
the bishop on g6 i s uncomfortable.
.
154
Te st F o u rt e e n
14. 1 Black to play
A) 3 S ... .l:i.g8
8) 3s .. .'!iJe4
C) Something el se?
A) 3 7 tLJg s
8) 3 7 l:txdS
C} Something el se?
A) 3 S .. J:tg4
8) 3 S .l:i.dl+
C} Something el se?
A) 3 8 'it'xc2
8) 3 8 b8'i\i'
C} Something else?
...
155
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
was fortunate th at I had an opportu
nity to keep some counterplay.
Test 14.1
C.Morris-C.Crouch
2006
156
Te s t Fo u rt e e n
White, but he should eventually prevail.
In stead, after the text move, the po
sition i s still alive.
157
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
shut, and the alarm was set off. I n
other words, a complete accident.
There was not much chance to con
centrate with a noisy fire alarm. When
all the players had to escape from a
crowded room I am sure that many
players would have been extremely dis
rupted during the last few minutes of
the time control. But what can be done?
Upon resumption, I completely lost
my thread of thought, and lost even
before move 40, starting with the
blunder 3 5 1'!.f4 ttJe4?? (B), overlooking
that h e could take the central pawn
after 36 ttJd6 (or 3 6 1'!.xdS immediately)
36 ... a6? (a quick loss, but 36 ... ttJxd6
37 exd6 ..te6 38 ttJb7 only slightly de
l ays the result) 37 1'!.xd 5 ..td3?? (another
blunder) 38 ttJxe4 1-0.
This was sickening. I could h ave h ad
no complaints if I h ad lost as a result of
my poor earlier play, but losing as a
result of a fire alarm, when I was back
in the game after much effort ... Well,
this was tough.
After the bell, 35.. Jlg8! (A) was, of
course, much better.
Test 14.2
M.Cutmore-C.Crouch
Kid l i ngton
2007
158
Te s t Fo u rt e e n
40 .l:i.e4 .l:i.h 1+ 4 1 'it'g 2 ltcg 1+ i s a draw.
After my panic, Cutmore played the
simple and natural 36 .i.f6!, and I was
in trouble. 36 ... .l:i.g6 37 e6 was unentic
ing for Black: for instance, 37 ... tiJe7 3 8
exf7+ xf7 39 .l:i.xe7 ltc1+ 4 0 h 2 xf6
41 xdS+ 'it'h 8 42 Vixh S+ 'it'g 8 43 VidS+
'it'h 8 44 Vid8+ l:tg8 4S l:th 7+, picking up
the queen .
So, 3 6 tiJd4 3 7 Vixh S .l:i.g7.
...
15 9
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
nificant edge, though, with, for exam
ple, 3 9 .l:i.f3 lbd4 40 .l:i.d3 lbe6 41 ..txg 7
'iYxg 7 42 .l:i.f2 .
Instead, however dire my position
was, I suddenly had counterplay after
39 .l:i.gS?? .l:i.C1+ 40 'iit h 2 "iVCS.
Test 14.3
C Crouch P Roberson
.
160
2007
Te s t Fo u rt e e n
tive squares, Black would h ave to
careful after 3 6 as f4 37 h 2 b S
tDd2 ! .
I n the m ain line, White played
.i.e3. Black's bishop i s now under
tack again.
be
38
35
at
..
16 1
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
a s the most stressful part of the game.
These days, I h ave the fear of my eye
sight suddenly deteriorating, or possi
ble dizziness when short of time, and
so I felt I needed to pace my play. How
ever, if you h ave five minutes left, it is
sometimes useful to use part of that
time to find the best move.
Here he m ade a tactical blunder
with 36 ...f5?? Even with plenty of time
on the clock, it is difficult to find the
most accurate defen sive move, as if he
moves his bishop, the rook exch ange is
favourable for White, but if he does not
move the bishop, his pieces remain
tied up.
The computer suggestion, 36 ... h S ! ,
looks irrelevant at first, but compare
3 6 ... 'i.t>g7 37 g4!, and the point is quickly
m ade. Black needs to avoid being
pressed down on his king side pawn s.
After 3 6 ... hS, the computer gives the
line 3 7 b4 ii.f8 3 8 as 'i.t>f7 3 9 ii.d3 cxb4
40 axb6, with perhaps a slight edge for
White.
What, however, i s the problem with
the other pawn move, in the game? The
answer i s that Black has m ade a slight
weakness in his pawn structure, the f
pawn no longer defending the e S - or
g s -squares. I h ad looked at ttxds on
move 36, a move earlier. I did not at
tempt to analyse the position a move
later. I h ad already spent time analys
ing it the previous move, and did not
want to eat up extra time on the clock.
As a result, I missed a chance of win
ning.
16 2
Te s t Fo u rt e e n
d4+ 52 e2 e5 5 3 gl d4 54 e3
xe3 55 xe3 e7 56 g8 f6 57
d3 tbe7 58 c4 e5 59 a6 d6 60
b7 tbg6 61 C4 tbf4 62 b5 C7 63
f3 tbe6 64 C4 d6 65 b7 tbf4 66
b4 cxb4 67 xb4 tbd 3+ 68 b5 C7 69
d5 tbf4 70 f3 tbe6 71 a8 tbf4 72
g4 fxg4 7 3 hxg4 tbg6 74 e4 74 ... tbe5
75 f5 tbf7 76 e6 tbe5 77 b4 d6
78 c8 tbd 3+ 79 WC4 tbC5 80 b5 e5
81 as bxa 5 82 xc5 f4 Yz-Yz.
A frightful number of years ago, I
won the British Under-18 Ch ampion
ship with a string of minor endgames,
solely on the basi s that I was able to
understand such endgames better
than my opponents, who m ade mis
takes. Nowadays the young defenders
seem to pl ay more accurately!
Test 14.4
C.Crouch-J.McKenna
London Open
2006
163
Why w e L o s e a t C h e s s
take i t yet, a s White would reply with
b8+), but more significantly, the king
i s now protecting the ds-pawn, so that
any breakout sacrifice with b8 fol
lowed by C7 no longer allows White to
win Black's ds-pawn .
My last legitimate chance to save
the game was 38 b8+! (B) 38 ... xb8
39 C7 lLle4+ 40 'iii x c2 xC7 41 xdS
lLlxf2, and although Black i s a pawn up,
his position i s totally unwinnable, with
no passed pawn s, no pawn weak
nesses, and with opposite-col oured
bishops, leaving no chan ces of a
zugzwang .
In the game, after Black played
38 ... d6, White somehow convinced
himself that he was a pawn up, and
therefore had no reason to worry about
losing. A big mistake. It was time to
grovel by sacrificing the passed pawn on
the seventh, bringing the bishop back
into play, although he still h as to work
hard to try to set up a draw.
164
Te st F i ft e e n
A) 3 9 'it>d4
B) 39 l:.h l
C) Something el se?
A) 4B .. .'JbB
B) 4B .. .fxg4
C) Something else?
A) 46 ... e4
B) 46 ... 'it>fB
C) Something el se?
A) SO . .. .l:td2+
B) SO .. .lDf2+
C) Something el se?
165
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Test 3.5.3.
C.Crouch-R.Granat
2007
166
Test 1 5.2
D.Buckley-C.Crouch
2006
Te s t Fift e e n
White is still better after mediocre
play by both sides. I h ad missed a clear
win a few moves ago, as we saw in Test
11.3, and now he is on top. He has a
clearly better queen and rook ending. It
is easy enough for him to create a well
guarded passed pawn o n the queen
side, whereas Black's extra pawn on the
kingside m ay be vaguely useful, but is
unlikely to do anything con structive.
My opponent immediately threw
away h alf his advantage, by offering
the exchange of rooks, with 3 2 1:td6?,
in stead of trying to strang Ie the queen
side with 3 2 'iWdS ! .
Indeed, White soon lost the whole of
his advantage, as Black now fully
equalized with 32 ...f3 33 1:txg6+ hxg6
34 'iWd S.
167
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
king stays in the centre a little longer)
46 g4, and I still h ave to play accurately.
168
Te s t Fift e e n
desirable square. There would be some
uncomfortable zugzwangs later on.
Black's queen looks good at first, and I
was relying on this, but while the queen
is on an advanced square, it h as little
impact further behind. There is only one
square, on e1, to protect both the e4and a5-pawns, and this is the reason
why there could be zugzwang problems.
16 9
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
His sister, Melanie, said th at David ever
so often completely forgot about his
time, even in the last few minutes.
Test 1 5.3
C.Crouch-J.McKenna
London Open
170
2006
Tes t Fift e e n
when he pl ayed 44 ... tt'lc6+?!, still win
n i n g , but not so direct, since Black will
h ave to play the knight back to b8 at
some stage. The most direct plan for
Black would h ave been 44 .. .f6. The
computer still initially suggests that
White is better, but thi s is clearly mis
taken. After, for example, 45 'It>d3 h5 46
'It>d4 'It>c6 47 f4 h4 48 'It>e3 'It>C5 49 'It>d3
d4 50 'It>e4 'It>C4 51 'it>f3 'It>c3 it i s easy to
see that the pawn will queen .
After 45 'It>e3 f5, I could h ave con
tinued pl aying rather longer with 46
b8+ ! ? tt'lxb8 47 'It>f4 tt'ld7 48 'It>g 5, al
though Bl ack eventually win s with
... 'it>e 5 and ... tt'lf6. I pl ayed the opponent
h ere, rather than the board. I reasoned
th at if h e wanted to 'activate' the
knight, rather than squash the passed
pawn, then let him. Amazingly, it
worked. After 46 f4 'It>C5 47 g3 'It>C4 48
g4, Bl ack blundered.
Test 1 5 .4
N.Pert-C.Crouch
B u ry St Ed m u nds
2006
..
17 1
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
saw i n Test 11.4. My position i s , of
course, losing . At the time, I noted that
"maybe I did not quite h ave the
strength to aim convincingly for the
draw". To which we can add that in a
weekend tournament, with five long
games, sometimes even six, in two
and-a-half days, even the young and
physically stronger players can become
tired, and make mistakes. I used to play
m any weekenders, from the late 1970s
onwards. Nowadays, it becomes more
difficult.
What i s interesting i s that for most
of the finish, my opponent, a grand
m aster and the younger player, actu
ally played worse than me in the next
part of the game. Thi s can be proved,
and is not a matter of opinion. Just
now, he has a clearly winning position,
but at a l ater stage I had the chance of
forcing a draw. The trouble is that I h ad
only a couple of minutes before the
flag-fall, and I missed the opportunity.
Pl ay continued 3 7 :ta7?! (the imme
diate 3 7 xf5 gxf5 3 8 ,U,a7 is perh aps
more accurate)
17 2
Tes t Fift e e n
I counterattacked, or at least aimed
for a perpetual, with 46 tiJe4 47 I1xf7
I1b2+ 48 'it>el 11bl+ 49 'it>e2 11b2+ 50 d3.
...
173
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Yo u r M ove
Players want to improve their grading scores. An extra point per ten games over
the year would mean 10 extra points in term s of the English grading system (this
is very easy to calculate ! ) , or approxim ately 7 2 extra points in Elo term s. All this
would mean a substanti al increase in grading term s.
I h ave, of course, calculated my results of the 200617 season, as analysed in this
book, and we shall turn to thi s later. In th e meantime, I h ave gone through the
games pl ayed in the few month s since I wrote thi s book, to see whether I h ave im
proved my accuracy.
Between May 2009 and September 2009, I pl ayed 18 tourn ament or match
174
Yo u r M o ve
g ames, but not in international events. I wanted to concentrate on this book !
There were 18 games, m ainly but not entirely against con siderably lower rated
opposition.
My results were: +12 4 -2, which m akes 78%.
The scores were inflated by six easy win s in the British Braille Champion ship.
My seventh opponent, Chris Ross, was a much stronger opponent, and drew
again st me.
The interesting question i s whether I could h ave scored con siderably more if I
h ad avoided mistakes. Clearly if I h ad avoided my two losses, I would h ave scored
at least an extra point. In fact, in one of these games I could h ave won with accu
rate play. Of the four draws, I could h ave found a win against Graham Morrison .
What should h ave h appened then would h ave been : +14 4 -0, which m akes
89%. Thus just avoiding three slips could h ave created an 11% increase in per
formance.
Maybe this is the one part of the g ame, the avoidance of errors, th at m akes the
biggest difference in improving one's perform ance. My challenge for the season is
to h alve this 11% slippag e.
It is perh aps important to recognize that you should avoid double-counting. If
you m ake a mistake, and reach what should h ave been a losing position, but later
won, then congratulations, but you are lucky. Wh at is more important, in term s of
results, is to remember the games you h ave lost, or only drawn after h aving h ad a
winning position.
=
In thi s book, I h ave used the computer in analysing my own games, and the rec
omm endation for the reader is, of course, to take advantage of the computer. Do
not overestimate th e computer though, but use it as a tool .
I was relatively l ate in making use of the computer, partly being suspicious of
computer assessments. I h ave been suspicious of reading computer-based as
sessments which h ave clearly been wrong, and h ave preferred my own an alysis,
with board and pieces. The computer i s important in generating ideas quickly, but
even h ere th e hum an reader should treat everything with suspicion.
It is still important to take advantage of making brain -power in analysis. After
all, in a proper g ame, the player is not allowed to use the computer, and the hu
man needs to practice in thinking about the game.
And Final ly ...
Except, of course, chess is not final . Even after the last melting of the pol ar icecaps,
175
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
there will still b e chess being played, and new Noah s will still b e enthralled by the
game. It is, of course, quite possible th at theory has gone so deeply that almost
everything has been studied in depth, and that new version s of chess, maybe
based on western chess, or eastern chess, could be tried, m aybe a fusion of rules
with ideas from western and eastern chess. Thi s would be a long way ahead. For
the next h alf-millennium, we still h ave the current chess of Greco and Ruy Lopez.
For individual pl ayers though, any chesspl ayer is mortal . A pl ayer might h ave
learnt the game, become fascinated, learnt so m any ideas of chess strategy and
tactics, maybe becoming a strong pl ayer, m aybe hoping to become an even
stronger player. Then perh aps before the final push, at the peak of the pl ayer's
strength, ch ess ability starts to decline. It is now reasonably well established that
for a professional player, the peak strength will be around the mid-thirties, and
will start to decline slowly. For me, I really only seriously started studying chess at
the time th at theoretically I should h ave been starting to decline. I h ave played a
lot of chess, but did not h ave time to study h ard. Perh aps I can still add to the
g ame, but not through my playing strength . I h ave continued to study the g ame,
but can contribute more to the theory of the game, rather than through pl aying
over-the-board chess. As the old saying goes, I h ave forgotten more about chess
th an most players h ave even learnt.
A S u m m ary of Games, in Chronological Order
Note: See the list of exercises at the end of the introduction for all the test g ames.
This list is used partly as a research tool , to h elp to indicate when and why bad
moves h ave been played. There being rel atively few games in thi s book, all pl ayed
by myself, that it h ardly seem s worthwhile to add a second alph abetical list.
All games were pl ayed in England.
September 2006
Buckley-Crouch, 0-1 (win)
October 2006
Hebden -Crouch, 1-0 (loss)
Crouch -Cox, '/2-V2 (draw)
Gregory-Crouch, 1-0 (loss)
Crouch -Hutchin son, 1-0 (win)
Pert-Crouch, 1-0 (loss)
176
Yo u r M o ve
November 2006
Nurmoh amed-Crouch, 0-1 (win)
Morris-Crouch, 1-0 (loss)
Randall-Crouch, 1-0 (loss)
Crouch -G ait, 0-1 (loss)
December 2006
Sen-Crouch, 1-0 (loss)
McKenn a-Crouch, %-% (draw)
Crouch-Oryakh al, 1-0 (win)
January 2007
Crouch-Radovanovic, %-V2 (draw)
Crouch-Okike, 1-0 (win)
Crouch- Roberson, V2-V2 (draw) [see al so Crouch -Povah, V2-V2, November 2006,
given in the notes]
Lauterbach -Crouch, V2-% (draw)
February 2007
Crouch- Peacock, V2-V2 (draw)
Cutmore-Crouch, 0-1 (win)
Crouch - Rose, 0-1 (loss)
Crouch -Lewi s 0-1 (loss)
March 2007
Crouch -Gran at, 0-1 (loss)
Wall-Crouch, 0-1 (win)
Sowray-Crouch, 1-0 (loss)
A substanti al m ajority of the remaining games in this period were wins, al
though it i s possible th at a small number of games may have been misl aid, a prob
lem of being partially sighted.
24 g ames h ave been analysed in this collection, of which 7 were wins, 6 were
draws, and 11 were losses, a score of 45%.
Once you h ave gone through your games, the next stage, if you want to im
prove your playing strength, i s to go through your statistics. Altogether in the
main part of the season up to late March, I h ave recorded 5 6 games. A few of the
games might h ave dropped out of the system, sometimes because with poor eye-
177
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
sight, I could not read the scoresheet. Also, I should perh aps h ave added the final
game of the season, a London League loss against 1 M John-Paul Wall ace, when I
should probably have been better. I beat him the next time around, to level the
scores, sealing a match win against the formidable Wood Green team, previously
unbeaten for close to ten years.
I have no doubt that in the 5 6 games I h ave recorded, there will be unrecorded
mistakes, often slight inaccuracies. In 24 of my g ames, I found identifi able in accu
racies. As an approximation, I won, or occasionally played a solid draw, in h alf my
games, and I h ave no reason to an alyse these in much detail. The other h alf is of
much more interest. These are the g ames I need to focus on to cut out mistakes,
and to increase my percentage scores.
So: 5 6 games (100%) were played, of which 3 2 g ames (5 7%) seem to be 'clean ',
including two win s against I Ms, and indeed a win against a G M .
Many o f m y opponents were o f con siderably weaker strength, and therefore
did not force me to h ave to play under pressure, so it would be unrealistic to claim
th at I necessarily played well.
The rem aining 43% (24 games) is of more interest. Thi s included: 7 win s
( 1 2 . 5 %), 6 draws (10.7%), and 11 losses (19.6%).
Clearly at the very minimum, I would h ave gained 10.7 percentage points by
avoiding losses, if I had turned losses into draws. The theoretical maximum of
turning bad moves into win s would by 3 1. 1 percentage points, but this, of course,
would be unachievable, in th at we cannot claim th at my opponent would h ave
made mistakes if I h ad pl ayed the best moves.
So we need to examine, move by move, wh at the most likely result would h ave
been h ad I avoided the mistakes, and found the best m oves.
Starting with the Losses
The obvious starting point is cutting down the losses. If there are pl ayers of
roughly equal strength, but not players of top grandmaster strength (where draws
are more likely as there are few mistakes), a typical score might be +40% = 20% 40%.
As an illustration, let us assume that a player improves, and can cut out a
quarter of his losses. Thi s might turn out next season with a result of +50% =20% 30%, an end percentage score of 60% as opposed to 50%. For simplicity, we call
thi s an increase of 10 English (ECF) grading points.
It is, of course, unlikely that a pl ayer will turn all his or her losses into wins. A
m ore likely assumption will be th at h alf the reduction of losses will turn into
draws, and the other h alf will turn into wins. The previous draws would, after a
178
Yo u r M o ve
year of improvement, turn into wins.
10 grading points (an approximate equivalent of 7 2 Elo points) is quite a big
jump. Even h ere, the pl ayer is far from cutting out losses, and thi s is far from per
fect play. It is, however, progress. A fast improving junior, absorbing the ideas of
chess rapidly, may often show an increase of 2 5 English grading points, with a
score of +65% = 20% - 1 5 %, and perh aps the implication that it would be time to
play stronger and more testing opposition .
For more established players, it i s difficult to gain 2 5 grading points a year, or
even a decade, or ever. All you can do is to chip away at the margins. If your mind
is befuddled when trying to calculate complications, then sadly you will not be
able to calculate ten moves deep, and, of course, there are other physical limita
tion s.
Therefore one can not h ave unusually high expectations. If you can cut out
even a tenth of your losses, thi s is an improvement, and maybe if you start to feel
encouraged, you can try again next tim e around. Thi s is perhaps a more pessimis
tic, but certainly realistic, view th an in the m ain argument of the book. After all,
one of the m ain thrusts of the argument i s that if the reader can learn to cut out a
few basic and not so esoteric weaknesses, you can improve your chess substan
tially. Just cut out a few silly blunders, and there can be a substantial gain.
It i s time to con sider the perspective of the Elo rating system, rather than the
English rating system , a ladder system rather than one of finding th e average. Two
good and useful rating system s, but with highly different perspectives. In the Elo
system, we start off with the rating of the two players, and calculate in an individ
ual game or tourn ament how m any points may be gained or lost in a particular
game. If two pl ayers m ay be of roughly similar strength, then we can imagine th at
one of the pl ayers might gain 20 Elo points over 20 games without gross blunders,
through better understanding of the game. This is a slow progress. Under the cur
rent system of the Elo international rating system, a player can suddenly drop in a
move from a gain of 10 points to a loss of 10 Elo points, a total drop of 20 points.
The D u m best Moves
Maybe it is time to consider the worst moves, and kick them out of the way
quickly. I should perh aps note th at in the previous few years, the effects of brain
dam age h as h ad rel atively little damage to my understanding of the game, but a
much greater impact in my speed of thought, both in term s of speed of calcula
tion, and lack of clarity of eyesight. Al so dizziness and tiredness have tended at
times to make it difficult for m e to think clearly, and I have at times been unable
to concentrate on pl aying anything other than the most superficial an alysi s.
17 9
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
There have i n fact been much worse periods of pl ay in chess terms, particularly
at times when I have been actively working on writing books. A compl aint for
many other chess writers, but probably worse for me, since my physical ability
over the board has led to a deterioration in play. Just after my stroke, I gloomily
wrote that I h ad probably gone down to 1 7 5 (about 2000 Elo) in playing strength,
but fortun ately I h ave consistently reached 200 ECF, and stayed well over 2 3 50 in
Elo terms. My target ambition is to get back to 2400, but any loss will tend to go
down the greasy l adder, so I need to plan exactly which tournaments to play.
The general conclusion is that I am still quite likely to m ake serious and unex
pected mistakes, and my hope i s that I can cut down the blunders to a rating I
would be h appier to reach .
Time now to look through the most h orrendous blunders; the single moves
that with even the smallest of thought I could h ave recovered my score.
The Very Worst Games
1. Crouch-McKenna
Drawn . I should h ave won easily, but I displ ayed a lack of concentration, then
m ade several bad moves, and I should h ave lost. Half a point lost.
When I think of all the bad games in th at year, thi s is the one which I remem
ber the most readily. I feel confident I could h ave won it easily with better health .
2. Randall-Crouch
A loss, which should h ave been a win, with a strong attack for me. I h ad the chance
of taking a rook, but I worked out that if I h ad taken this, he h ad th e chance of
pushing two m ajor pieces to a winning back row check. In fact there was only one
check, and I would h ave h ad everything covered. To m ake it worse, I h ad the sim
ple opportunity of taking a rook, after h e too h ad m ade mistakes, but I rejected it,
not noticing that after he won a rook in reply, I could then take the rook with
check. A full point lost.
Again, with my mind functioning properly, I should h ave won easily.
3. Nurmohamed-Crouch
By common consent, the venue at thi s club was not the most attractive place to
pl ay. We were playing in a hut, in the winter, with in adequate heating. I played
the opening embarrassingly badly, losing concentration after quickly g aining an
edge, and before long I h ad a losing position, but recovered to some extent, and
even later won after my king somehow wriggled out of an attack.
180
Yo u r M o ve
4. Buckley-Crouch
Thi s was one of those nightmare games where both players exchange mistakes,
neither player i s able to find a knockout, and eventually my opponent found an
auto-blunder, when even I could find an easy way to win a pawn . Even worse, h e
ran out o f t i m e after a lot o f thought. It was a dreadful g ame, although i f o n e of
the players h ad played even very slightly worse, the opponent would h ave won
quickly. No points lostfor me, as I won.
5. Wall-Crouch
An awful game, with serious mistakes on both sides. My king move, when I at
tempted to bring it towards safety, was quite simply bizarre, bringing it into the
open . My opponent l ater made a serious miscal culation.
One-move Shockers
In each of these cases, I feel I pl ayed well, or reasonably, in the opening, then lost
concentration, pl aying a superficial move quickly, not calculating as far as I should
h ave done. I h ave played sh arply with good effect, but suddenly when the game
became critical, I played limply.
1. Sen-Crouch
Good opening play, and with the chance to sn atch a pawn as Bl ack. Then, at a later
stage of the opening, I needed to think of the one move for my queen to escape to
a good square, admittedly difficult to find a few moves ahead, and instead pl ayed
a 'simpler' line, which soon ended in collapse. I lost, and instead should have been
better.
2. Hebden-Crouch
I trusted him when h e offered a pawn, to keep the initiative. I shouldn 't h ave. It
would h ave been better to grab the pawn, with the aim of breaking open the
queenside. I lost, and with good play it should have been a reasonably comfortable
dra w.
3. Crouch-Rose
An experimental opening to avoid m ainline theory. The opening itself looks play
able, if not especially dynamic, but I missed a big tacti c, which I should have seen
in advance. I lost, although the opening was about equal.
18 1
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
4 . Crouch-Lewis
I wanted to prove th at the Crouch-Rose game was not really so bad, and so over
night I aimed to find improvements. Maybe the opening was not so bad in analyti
cal term s, but I was under the psychological pressure of proving that my idea was
good, and lurking behind is the thought that if anything h ad gone wrong again, I
would have been extremely anxious about my pl ay. Thi s was the wrong way to
start a game.
I thought I was doing reasonably well in the opening, but a ' Petrosian ex
change sacrifice' knocked me back. Analysis showed that, slightly beyond my game
horizon, I could h ave satisfactorily found a draw after taking the exch ange, but
the position was scary, and I tried to pl ay around the sacrifice, rather than accept
it. f lost, when f had probably a clear dra w.
Four losses, then, when by pl aying better moves on four critical moves, my ex
pected score would h ave been 2'1214.
Over- p laying the Opening
The last four games indicate a lack of confidence, and I lost heavily. Quite often,
though, there is a tendency in my game for over-confidence in the opening, and
there are a few examples to be con sidered. Of course, the best way is to find the
correct level, but it is extremely difficult to find it. Of 'my 60 forgettable mistakes'
in thi s book, a quarter are uncovered on move 16 or earlier. The next quarter move
us only to just beyond move 20. The opening is the most difficult part of the game,
because the vast possibilities of chess still remain, and on every m ove the player
has to assess not only what sort of position is likely to arise (attack, positional play,
complications, or simplifications), but al so wh at possibilities need to be gradually
eliminated. It is only several moves later th at it becomes clearer as we move past
th e opening.
In the next few g am es, I pressed the position much too far, aiming for attack,
but with no real chance of finding a way to safety. It is do or die, but before too
long I would be highly relieved if I could escape to a draw.
When I played at Kidlington early in 2007, I clearly decided that I wanted to
play imaginative chess, with the confidence that spring was about to come. There
were too many bad games as a result.
1. Crouch-Peacock
I played far too imaginatively, and I cannot reali stically claim th at, even after some
m odest improvements, I h ad anything more than the advantage of the first move.
18 2
Yo u r M o ve
My play went out of control, and I was fortunate th at my opponent went for a
perpetual, when he coul d h ave gone for a winning endgame. A lucky draw.
2. Crouch-Gait
Without thinking in great length, I developed my bishop with gain of play, by
threatening a big check with the queen and bishop. H ad I thought for longer, I
woul d h ave appreciated that h e could defend the threat with counterplay, and
that a move later I could have been much worse. H e missed it, but my equilibrium
was disturbed, and I m ade mistakes l ater. A loss, but I was slightly better out of the
opening.
3. Crouch-Hutchinson
I could not claim much of an edge, and it should h ave been very close to equal as
White. I found a complicated way of pl aying for an advantage, but this was an il
lusion, and with accurate tactical play by the opponent, I would h ave been much
worse. He missed it, and ended up losing. A win, but I overpressed. I should have
lost.
4. Crouch-Radovanovic
I was still out of touch with my opening theory, and I improvised. My opponent
missed a well -known opportunity to give Black a slight edge, and then later I m ade
a bad knight versus bishop exch ange on g6, allowing Bl ack a semi-open file lead
ing towards h 2 . I h ad to work hard for a draw, although there were improvements
for him. Afortunate dra w.
Sim ple Tactical Slips in the Middlegame
183
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
2. Crouch-Roberson
I was able to keep a stable positional edge, with a passed d-pawn against a Be
noni. I was then lazy in my calculation s. A dra w, rather tha n a win.
3. Crouch-Okike
I had to give up a queen for assorted play, but I did it the wrong way round, and he
could have improved. I still won, but I could have played better.
4. Crouch-Cut more
A defen sive mistake, rather th an a tactical mistake. I was better, in a sh arp posi
tion, but I soon m ade the big mi stake of playing too slowly in a sharp position of
attack and counterattack. Before too long, I was clearly losing, but then he h an
dled the attack badly, perhaps surpri sed that he was suddenly in a winning posi
tion again st an 1M. He allowed m e a sudden checkm ate. I won, but I very m uch de
served to lose.
Getting Gro u nd Down
It h appen s, and players hate it. With very best play, one cannot, of course, lose a
g ame from the beginning, but sometimes even the slightest mistake, alm ost in
visible, will decide the game. This in fact very rarely h appen s except at the highest
level - in my previous book, I am thinking, for example, of Kramnik-Leko, Dort
mund 2006. U sually what will h appen, if the players play well but not totally accu
rately, is th at there will be a series of minor slips, the defender gradually slipping
away, or the attacker losing his advantage.
Th e examples I give tend in the end not to h ave been rel atively subtle errors,
and there is therefore the chance of being able to learn more from the errors.
1. Lauterbach-Crouch
Even the less experienced pl ayer would quickly h ave seen th at my knight was bad
on h 8 . After a few slips, I should h ave lost, but she avoided the best m ove, and I
was able to hold for a draw. Of course, I did not particularly want to move the
knight to such an uncomfortable square, but my mistake came earlier. To kick out
White's bishop on g 5, I should h ave hit the bishop with .. .f6, rather than ... h 6 . I
needed my pawn on h 7 . A fortunate dra w.
.
2. Morris-Crouch
I again m anaged to find one of the knights in the corner, this time on a8 rather
th an on h 8 . Thi s was a result of placing my pawn s carelessly, creating weaknesses
184
Yo u r M o ve
on the queen side. I wanted to advance my pawn to as, to prevent my opponent
pushing forward with b4 to attack the knight on c5, but in the end my knight h ad
to retreat to a8 much l ater. There was the strange incident of the fire alarm just
before the time control, but even so, I deserved to be losing anyway. A loss, even
though I seem to have equalized earlier on.
Messing up the Endgame
There are surprisingly few examples of losing in the endgame, or throwing away a
win . My biggest fear after returning to playing chess was that I would be so tired,
and my eyes dizzy, that I would completely lose the thread of things in the end
g ame. Thi s in fact has not h appened so often, m ainly because if I was not feeling
in good health that day, I would probably h ave gone wrong much earlier, in the
opening or the middlegame. Nevertheless, in earlier years I often m an aged to lose
concentration in the endgame in the fifth hour, m aking ridiculous errors from
good endgames, and then losing. Such disasters stick in the mind, but, of course,
often it was my opponent who m ade the silly losses, and usually I h ave forgotten
about those games.
In general, I do not particul arly fear the endgame as such, but I do fear being
short of time, and I do fear tiredness.
I h ave already noted the poor play again st both Buckley and McKenna. In both
cases I ought to h ave been holding the draw, rather than under the illusion of try
ing to squeeze an endgame advantage, but both my opponents m anaged to play
even worse.
Also:
1. Pert-Crouch
I got tired in round 5 in a critical weekender, and as I drifted from a late middle
g am e into an ending my position became worse and worse. My opponent did not
play particularly accurately, and to my regret I managed to miss a chance of a
draw. A loss, but I could have recovered half a point.
2. Crouch-Granat
A difficult queenless middlegame and then endgame, where I started with the
bishops and h e started with the knights. Neither pl ayer h andled thi s with com
plete positional confidence, but in th e end I h andled things worse th an he did. A
loss, but with good chances perhaps of a slight edge at various stages.
185
Why we L o s e a t C h e s s
Two Difficult Games to I nterpret
Crouch-Jamshit
My concentration l apsed in an unorthodox opening, and I was already worse after
my fifth m ove. Before too long, I recovered my edge again. A win.
186
Yo u r M o ve
Assessments
187