0 The Scotch Gambit

The 6.Qh5!? Line

My game of the week features a Scotch Gambit refuted by Paul Morphy (see "Meek -- Morphy 1855"). In the annotations to that game, I mentioned but did not explore 6.Qh5!? At first site, this aggressive line looks dangerous. However, with accurate play, Black gets the better game.

A handful of games in the nineteenth century revealed the main ideas and tactics.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

The Scotch Opening

3...exd4 4.Bc4

The Scotch Gambit

White sacrifices a pawn for rapid deployment.

4...Bc5

4...Nf6 is also playable.

5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5!?

Black to move

Black has three reasonable replies:

a) 6...O-O

b) 6...Qf6

c) 6...Qe7

For each of these Black replies, I offer an illustrative game.

6...O-O

A. Johnston played the Scotch Gambit twice in the Second American Chess Congress, Cleveland 1871. He had an advantage for much of the game in this encounter.

Johnston,A -- Smith,Harsen Darwin [C44]
USA–02.Kongress Cleveland, 1871

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 0–0 7.Bxf7+

A more recent game continued 7.0–0 d6 8.h3 Ne5 9.Bb3 Qf6 10.Kh1 Kh8 11.f4 d3? and Black threw away a nice position with a series of errors. Facchetti,G (2159) -- Bisignano,G (2055)/Gorgonzola 2003. White won in 24 moves.

7...Rxf7

Obviously not 7...Nxf7 8.Qxh7#.

8.Nxf7

Black to move

8...Nxf7

Black should have played 8...Bb4+ 9.c3 Nxf7 10.cxb4 Nxb4 11.Qd1 when Black has good compensation and a pawn for the exchange.

9.Qxc5 d6

The position is similar to the main line, except that White is ahead an exchange.

10.Qc4 Qe7 11.Qe2 Nfe5 12.0–0 Be6 13.Na3 Rf8 14.f4 Bg4 15.Qb5 Ng6 16.Qxb7 Qxe4 17.Qb3+ Kh8 18.Qg3 Bf5 19.Qf3 Qe8 20.Bd2 Be4 21.Qg3 Nce7 22.Rae1 d5 23.f5 Nxf5 24.Qxc7 Ngh4 25.Rf2 Qg6 26.Qg3 Qe8 27.Qh3 h6 28.g4 Qg6 29.Rxe4??

29.Rf4 Rc8 30.Kf2

29...dxe4 30.Kh1 e3 31.Rxf5 Nxf5 32.gxf5 Qc6+ 33.Kg1 exd2 34.Qd3 Rxf5 35.Qxd2 Qg6+ 0–1

6...Qf6

The last ten moves of Max Lange's thrashing of Hermann Pollmacher offer a study in piece coordination.

Lange,Max -- Pollmacher,Hermann [C44]
Leipzig, 24.09.1856

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.f4

White has other options, but this aggressive move is in the spirit of his play so far.

Black to move

7...d6

A pawn sacrifice appears to be Black's best option here. 7...d5! 8.Bxd5 Bg4 9.Bxf7+ is White's only move (9.Qh4 leads to a worse position quickly. 9...Nb4 10.Bb3 d3 and Black is running over the top of White's position.) 9...Qxf7 10.Nxf7 Bxh5 11.Nxh8 Nb4 12.Na3 (12.h3 Nxc2+) 12...0–0–0 with an initiative for Black.

8.h3 0–0 9.0–0 Be6? 10.Bd3 Qg6 11.Qxg6 hxg6 12.f5 gxf5 13.exf5 Bd5 14.f6

Black to move

14...gxf6??

14...Nb4

15.Rxf6

Even more convincing is 15.Nh7!

15...Kg7 16.Rxh6 Kxh6 17.Ne6+! Kh5 18.Nf4+ Kh4

18...Kh6 offers small hope 19.Nxd5+ Kg7 20.Nxc7 Rac8±.

19.Nxd5+- f5 20.Bf4 Ne5 21.Nd2 c6 22.g3+ Kxh3 23.Bf1+ Kg4 24.Kg2 Kh5

24...cxd5 25.Be2+ Nf3 26.Bxf3#.

25.Ne7 Ng4 26.Be2 Rae8 27.Rh1# 1–0

6...Qe7

6...Qe7 is probably Black's best choice. Adolf Anderssen was one of the first to play this move.

Von Eckstadt,Count Vitzthum -- Anderssen,Adolf [C44]
Leipzig, 1855

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.f4

7.0–0 may be better.

7...d6 8.h3

Black to move

8...Na5

Better might have been the simple 8...Bd7 9.0–0 0–0–0 Black's lead in development gives him an edge.

9.Bd3 Nf5 10.Nxf7

10.Qxf7+ offers White better prospects of equality. 10...Qxf7 11.Nxf7 Kxf7 12.exf5.

10...g6 11.Qe2

11.Qf3? Kxf7 12.0–0 Ne3 13.Bxe3 dxe3–+.

11...Ng3 12.Qf3 Nxh1 13.Nxh8 Qh4+ 14.Kd1? 

14.Kf1 is more stubborn.

14...Nf2+–+ 15.Ke2 Nxd3 16.Qxd3

16.cxd3 Qf6 17.Nxg6 hxg6–+.

16...Be6 17.Qb5+ Nc6 18.Qxb7

Black to move

18... d3+! 19.cxd3 Nd4+ 20.Kd1 Bg4+ 21.hxg4 Qh1+ 0–1

Detail: The Scotch Gambit

0 Opening Considerations

Szen -- Anderssen 1851

The 59 illustrative games in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) are presented as the source for the 120 essential middlegame positions that an aspiring player should strive to know. However, Rashid Ziyatdinov also suggests in his book that the aspiring player should memorize these games.

This process of learning these games by rote drives the student into study of the openings employed in each game. To memorize the game and not gain some understanding of all phases from the first move to the last would seem senseless. Moreover, some of the middlegame positions occur fairly early in the game.*

GM-RAM Position 143

Position 143 is a case in point. It arises after White's ninth move in the fourth match game between József Szén and Adolf Anderssen in the 1851 London Tournament.

In understanding this position, opening principles come to the fore.

In terms of one classic formulation of the opening phase, the diagram position nears the end of the opening. White has castled, has all of his minor pieces posted to central squares, and his queen has stepped forward to connect the rooks. Black lags behind in terms of this classic definition. One minor piece remains immobile and the rooks are not connected.

It may be surprising, then, that from this position with Black, Anderssen chose to start an attack: 9...f5! After the ensuing 10.exf5 Rxf5, the absence of White's e-pawn made 11...d5 a serious threat. White suddenly faced some serious problems. It is hard to find an improvement to Szen's unfortunate retreat of his knight to its starting square as preparation to redevelop it on d2.

Black seized the initiative. Ten moves later, Anderssen missed a forced checkmate in ten moves.** Nonetheless, he launched a decisive assault of tremendous instructive value and won the game. Something went horribly wrong for White in the first nine moves. Where did Szén err?

Szén,József -- Anderssen,Adolf [B30]
International Tournament, London 1851 (2.4)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e6

This position is found in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings under B40, so the B30 classification by ChessBase might be inaccurate. Four possible moves for White are then given in ECO: 4.Be2, 4.g3, 4.d4, and 4.Bb5. Szén played none of these.

4.Bc4?!

This move should probably be considered dubious even though control of d5 is a strategic aim. The most popular moves 4.d4 and 4.Bb5 aim at control of d4. 4.Bc4 is more popular than 4.Be2 in the ChessBase database, but it scores worse. White's scoring percentage is poor enough to recommend against 4.Be2, but it is far worse after Bc4. The number of games reaching the position after 4.Bc4 is more than twice the number of times that 4,Bc4 was played. The difference suggests that move order variations account for this bishop's presence on c4 most of the time.

The only game in Chess Informant that reached this position had the move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 e6 4.Nc3, CI 93/(122).

4...a6 5.a4

5.d4 is worth considering. 5...b5 6.Be2 when White's fourth move cost a tempo, but little else.

5...Nge7

The comparison of Staunton's play as Black against Anderssen to Anderssen's play as Black deserves analysis. Anderssen's placement of this knight resembles Staunton's. But, Anderssen's queen does not go wandering on pawn grubbing expeditions.

6.Qe2

6.d4 should be considered. If there is anything wrong with Black's slow deployment, White needs to act with vigor to demonstrate the point.

6...Ng6

Why not harass White with 6...Nd4! 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Nb1 Nc6?

7.d3 Be7 8.Be3 O-O 9.O-O

We have reached the diagram position.

My first impulse as Black might be to solve the problem of the light-squared bishop with 9...b6 and 10...Bb7. Anderssen, however, chose to strike.

9...f5!

Did Szén have a better way to meet this thrust? Did Black have an advantage that compelled him to attack? How can we best characterize the errors in White's opening play? Lethargy? Misplaced pieces?

The c4 square often proves an active square for the bishop in symmetrical king's pawn openings. The bishop also goes there frequently in open Sicilians. However, White chose a closed Sicilian, delaying the d4 thrust. It seems, perhaps, that in such positions, the bishop is better placed elsewhere.

Nonetheless, I often see such bishop placement in my own games--at least in online blitz. I usually thrust forward my d- or b-pawn and drive the bishop back to a2 or b3. Later in the game, this bishop bites back.

Anderssen's f-pawn thrust offers another way of looking at similar positions.



*Ziyatdinov's recommended references offer another indication that opening study walks hand in hand with comprehending essential middlegame positions. For example, he lists Paul Keres, and Alexander Kotov, The Art of the Middle Game. The English edition of this book contains an additional chapter by Harry Golombek, who also translated the book into English. Surely, Ziyatdinov would expect me to read Golombek's section as well. Golombek stresses that the middlegame plan, "must arise naturally and logically out of the opening" (17).

**I posted the other middlegame position from this game last month (see "Mate in Ten").

Detail: Opening Considerations

0 Evergreen Alternatives

"...a brilliant combination bewitches men to such an extent that they willingly believe falshoods and are blinded to the truth."
Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Manual of Chess (1932)

In the Evergreen Game, Anderssen -- Dufresne, Berlin 1852, this position was reached after White's 19.Rad1!?*

Black to move

Dufrense played 19...Qxf3, which is obviously a mistake. Of course, it is obvious to us because we know Anderssen's winning combination. Dufresne threatened checkmate in one. Did he play this move out of despair because he fully understood the implications of Anderssen's last move?

Black has alternatives that require study if I am to meet Rashid Ziyatdinov's training standard (see "To Know a Position"). Diagram 146 in GM-RAM is this game before 19.Rad1. These alternatives may be explored in several ways: playing the position against a friend, carbon or silicon; watching chess videos (there are several good ones); or reading books that analyze this historic game.

19...Qh3 also threatens checkmate in one, but has the additional benefit of defending the pawn on d7.

19...Rg4 threatens the queen, frees g8 for the king's escape, and prepares interference plans on the fourth rank.

Practice against the Computer

I tried 19...Qh3 this morning against Hiarcs on my iPad.

That game continued 20.Bf1 Qf5 21.c4 Rg4

21...Rg6 was Stockfish's most significant improvement to my play, with rough equality, according to my silicon friend.

22.Qb4 Rf4 23.Bxe7 Qxb5 24.cxb5 Nxe7 25.Rxe7 Kf8 26.Rdxd7 Rxf6 27.Bc4

Black to move

27...Bxf3

I looked at 27...Rd8, but failed to calculate as I knew that I was already lost.

28.Rxf7 Rxf7 29.Rxf7 Ke8 30.Rxh7 Rd8 31.Rh8+ Ke7 32.Rxd8 Kxd8 33.gxf3 1-0


Book Study

19...Rg4! was suggested by Lasker in Lasker's Manual of Chess. He notes, it "causes difficulties" (272).

Burgess

Graham Burgess offers the view that 19...Rg4 "is the best try" (The World's Greatest Chess Games [1998], 23). He develops several lines in his analysis.

a) 20.c4 Rxg2 21.Kxg2 Qg4+ 22.Kf1 Qxf3

White to move

Then the combination as in the game: 23.Rxe7+ Nxe7 24.Qxd7+ Kxd7 25.Bf5+ Ke8 26.Bd7+ Kf8 27.Bxe7+ "is no longer mate, because Black has the g8 square at his disposal."

Alternately, 23.c5 Qh3+ 24.Kg1 Ne5 "and it is Black who is attacking."

b) 20.Re4 "the key line". 20...Rxe4 21.Qxe4 "although White's threats aren't too devastating, ... it is difficult for Black to find a decent move." Burgess continues with analysis of several possibilities, all favoring White.

Lasker

Lasker offers three brief lines after 19...Rg4.

a) The combination as in the game: 20.Rxe7+ Nxe7 21.Qxd7+ Kxd7 22.Bf5+ Ke8 and his variation ends here, but he notes that g8 is available to the king, so checkmate is no longer a threat.

b) 20.Qc2 (Lasker mentions the queen moving, but does not offer the square) 20...Rxg2. His line ends here, but it is easy to imagine that he considered the moves suggested by Burgess after 20.c4.

c) 20.Be4 d5.

Because the soundness of 19.Rad1 is put into doubt, Lasker concludes, "the aesthetic value of Anderssen's move has as yet not been demonstrated" (272).

Kasparov

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors. Part I (2003) mentions Lasker's analysis, which followed efforts by Paul Lipke, Deutsche Schachzeitung (1898). He also mentions the efforts of Hoppe and Heckner (no citation) who, "tried to demonstrate a win for White" in 1930 (28). Kasparov presents two lines from this work. The first begins with 20.c4 and follows the moves presented by Burgess.

The main variation, according to Kasparov, begins with 20.Bc4.

20...Qf5 21.Rxd7 Kxd7 22.Ne5+ Kc8 23.Nxg4 Nd5 24.Qd1

Black to move

Kasparov indicates that Hoppe and Heckner continue 24...Nd8 25.Bd3 Qd7 26.Ne5 Qe6 27.Nxf7++-.

He offers an improvement:

24...Nxf6 25.Bd3 Qxg4 26.Qxg4+ Nxg4 27.Bf5+ Kd8 28.Rd1+ Nd4 29.Bxg4 Bd5 30.cxd4 Bxa2 "with a roughly equal endgame," according to Kasparov.


The Way Forward

There is much to do in my study of the Evergreen Game.

Memorizing the game itself and Anderssen's final combination is easy enough. I already recognize the position before 19.Rad1 as a fingerprint of the game.

Burgess and Kasparov's annotations offer insights into the opening, middlegame, and concluding combination that merit study and practice.

There are lines after 19.Be4 that I have yet to examine.

Today's work on the possibilities after both 19...Rg4 and 19...Qh3 only scratch the surface. It should be clear that at a pace of one game per week, there will be plenty of work remaining on this game after I have moved on to the next.


*Emanuel Lasker points out, as have many writers in his wake, that 19.Be4 wins with fewer complications.

Detail: Evergreen Alternatives

0 Anderssen -- Staunton 1851

The fifth match game between Adolf Anderssen and Howard Staunton at the 1851 London International Chess Tournament is the source for three essential middlegame positions in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). I have been going through this game for the past few days and now sense that I am ready to post my initial annotations. This game and the one preceding it in Ziyatdinov's text have often slowed my efforts to work through the other games in the text. Staunton's play seems a little amateurish.

Anderssen,Adolf -- Staunton,Howard [C01]
London knockout London (3.5), 1851

1.e4 e6 2.d4 g6?!

This second move is not how the French Defense is played today.

3.Bd3 Bg7

Black assaults d4, attempting to weaken White's center. In this case, at least, Staunton's positional sense is consistent with twenty-first century practice.

4.Be3 c5 5.c3 cxd4 6.cxd4

Black to move

6...Qb6

The fork at the heart of Black's assault on d4. After the same initial five moves, Anderssen, playing Black, opted to continue his development, rather than win a pawn. 6...Nc6 7.Ne2 Nge7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Nbc3 d5 10.e5 f6 1–0 Morphy,P -- Anderssen,A Paris 1858 Morphy won in 35 moves.

7.Ne2 Qxb2 

Black has won a pawn at the cost of moblization of his forces.

8.Nbc3 Qb6 9.Rc1

This move is "well conceived", according to Staunton. Better than the more obvious Rb1, he states. Stockfish disagrees.

9.Rb1 Qa5 10.Bd2 (10.Rb5?! Qd8) 10...Nc6 11.Nb5 Qd8 and a clear advantage for White.

9...Na6

9...Ne7 10.d5 Qb4

10.Nb5 Bf8

10...Ne7 seems better to me. Even so, White already has a nice game.

11.d5 The threat that Staunton identified as rendering Bf8 necessary. 11...Qd8 12.Nd6+ (12.d6 Nc6) 12...Kf8 13.Nd4 -- with the idea of 14.Qf3, attacking the weakness of f7.

11.0–0 d6 12.d5 Qa5 13.Bd4 e5 14.Bc3 Qd8

White to move

GM-RAM Diagram 140

Only one of Black's pieces is off its starting square. All of White's pieces have moved, except the queen. Although down a pawn, White's pieces are in action.

See "To Know a Position."

15.f4‚ f6 16.fxe5 fxe5

Black's king cannot escape the center, but how will White break through to exploit its vulnerability?

17.Qa4

Beginning the assault on d6 with a threatened discovery.

17...Bd7

Pinning the knight prevents a discovered check, but reduces the defenders of d6.

18.Bb4 Nh6 19.Kh1

White avoids forks that defend d6.

19...Nf7

This position before White's move 20 is GM-RAM diagram 141.

20.Qa3

Black to move

20...Nc5

"Child's play. Throwing away his most important Pawn for nothing!" (Staunton)

I do not agree with Staunton's assessment here.

a) 20...Qe7

Hangs onto a material advantage, but leaves Black's position in shambles.

21.Nxd6+ Nxd6 22.Rxf8+! Qxf8 23.Bxd6 White's position is very strong.

b) 20...Qb8

Fails to bolster the pawn.

b1) 21.Rxf7!? Kxf7 22.Bxd6 (22.Nxd6+ Kg8 23.Bxa6 bxa6 24.Ng1 with compensation for the material) 22...Bxd6 23.Nxd6+ Kg7 24.Nxb7! Rc8 25.Qe7+ Kg8 26.Rb1+-

b2) 21.Rf6! is the computer's choice.

c) 20...Be7

Black's best choice, although it does not retain the pawn.

21.Nxd6+ (21.Bxd6? 0–0) 21...Nxd6 22.Bxd6 Bxd6 23.Qxd6 Qe7 24.Rf6 and White's position seems better.

21.Nxd6+

Better is 21.Bxc5 dxc5 22.d6 and White must regain the pawn with interest. 22...Nxd6 23.Qxc5 (23.Rxf8+!? Kxf8 24.Nxd6‚) 23...Nxb5 24.Qxe5+ Qe7 25.Qxh8 White is up the exchange and Black's king remains stuck in the center.

21...Bxd6 22.Bxc5 Bxc5 23.Qxc5 Qe7 24.Qc7 Nd6 25.Qa5 h5 26.Rc7 Rf8 27.Rfc1 a6

White to move

GM-RAM Diagram 142

28.Nd4! Rc8

28...exd4? Staunton observed that taking the knight would be an error. 29.e5 Nf7

(29...Qxe5 30.Bxg6+ Nf7 31.Re1 White will win material of greater value than the knight ... and the assault on Black's king will continue.)

30.e6 Nd6 31.exd7+ Kf7 (31...Kd8 32.Rc8+ Kxd7 33.Qc7#) 32.d8N+ Rfxd8 33.Rf1+ Nf5 34.Rxe7+ Kxe7 35.Bxf5+-.

29.Ne6

"At this crisis, the game, having lasted several hours, was postponed by mutual consent until the next day." Howard Staunton

Staunton notes that White has a clear advantage.

29...Rxc7 30.Rxc7 Rf7 31.Qb6

Fiddling around is search of the most precise moves, I looked through these variations. Neither of them seem superior to Anderssen's choice.

31.Qc3 Nb5 32.Bxb5 axb5 33.h3.
31.Nc5 Qf6 32.h3

31...Rf6 32.h3 g5 33.Qb2 Nb5 34.Bxb5 axb5 35.Qxe5

Black to move

White finally has a material advantage.

35...h4 36.Rxb7 Rf1+ 37.Kh2 Qf6 

White to move

White has a mate in six.

38.Rb8+

The game ends more rapidly after 38.Qb8+ Kf7 39.Rxd7+ Qe7

(39...Kg6 40.Qg8+ Kh5 41.Qh7+ Qh6 42.Ng7#)

40.Qf8+ Kg6 41.Qxe7 Rh1+ 42.Kxh1 b4 43.Qxg5#.

38...Ke7

a) 38...Bc8 39.Rxc8+ Kf7

a1) 39...Kd7 40.Qc7#.
a2) 39...Ke7 40.d6+ Kd7 41.Rc7+ Ke8 42.Ng7+ Kf8 43.Qe8#.

40.Rf8+ Kg6 41.Rxf6+ Rxf6 42.Qxg5+ Kf7 43.Qg7+ Ke8 44.Qxf6 b4 45.Qf8+ Kd7 46.Qd8#.

b) 38...Kf7 39.Rf8+ Kg6 40.Rxf6+ Rxf6

b1) 40...Kh5 41.Ng7#.

b2) 40...Kh7 41.Qxg5 Rh1+ 42.Kxh1 Bxe6 43.Rh6#.

41.Qxg5+ Kf7 42.Qg7+ Ke8 43.d6 Rxe6 (43...Bxe6 44.Qe7#) 44.Qg8#.

39.d6+ Kf7 40.Rf8+ Kg6 41.Rxf6+ Rxf6 42.Qxg5+ Kf7 43.Qg7+ Kxe6 44.Qe7# 1–0

Detail: Anderssen -- Staunton 1851

0 To Know a Position

300 Positions

Rashid Ziyatdinov, in his provocative GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), builds on an idea that has been put forth by others: knowing well a set number of critical positions is essential to chess strength.*

In Russian chess folklore it is said there are 300 positions which comprise the most important knowledge which an aspiring player must acquire. (12)

Ziyatdinov continues with the recognition that several sets of 300 positions have been presented by other authors, that the collections vary, and that opinions "vary regarding which positions comprise the magical 300". He cites Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions & Ideas (1997).** Alburt claims that his 300 positions will provide a foundation for becoming a "strong tournament player" (8). Ziyatdinov makes a more ambitious claim:

Assuming understanding of the strategy, openings, and of chess tactics, a student who knows every position in this book "by heart" ... will achieve Grandmaster status. (13)

I shall return in a moment to the important qualifications marked by the ellipses in this quote.

Both Alburt and Ziyatdinov employ computing metaphors in their work. Alburt refers to the 300 positions as "zipped files". Each contains "volumes of chess playing knowledge" that can be assessed via the "programs" of a player's "problem-solving skills" (9). Ziyatdinov, on the other hand, does not present the information as locked up and needing access by a special program. Rather, the essential positions are "tacit knowledge" akin to basic words in one's native language.

When using information in its RAM memory, a computer works more than 100 times faster than when using information from its hard drive. (7)

While Alburt presents positions that will be stored at the back of one's memory, Ziyatdinov asks that students know the position cold, "such that in a matter of seconds he or she understands everything important about the position" (13). Part of the knowledge of a position is memorization of the game from which it comes. Positions are "the fingerprint of the games" (77).


Anderssen -- Staunton 1851

Ziyatdinov's positions include 133 endgame positions and 120 middlegame positions (three positions are duplicated because Ziyatdinov discusses them). He leaves it to the reader to fill in the gap to bring the total to 300. The 120 middlegame positions stem from 59 games. Three positions are from the fifth match game between Adolf Anderssen and Howard Staunton at the First International Chess Tournament 1851. The diagram below is the first of these three.

GM-RAM, Position 140

What must I know about this position?

The moves leading up to it featured a queen sortie that netted Black the pawn on b2. Then the queen was driven back to her starting square. Black's dark-squared bishop also left its initial square, but then returned in an unsuccessful effort to keep the queen in play.

Staunton's annotations in the tournament book of the First International Chess Tournament explain his reasoning when he played 10...Bf8. I think that 10...Ne7 would have been better, although even then White already had a clear advantage.

I have been going through this game repeatedly over the past few days. After 14...Qd8, which led to the diagram position, I wrote:

Only one of Black's pieces is off its starting square. All of White's pieces have moved, except the queen. Although down a pawn, White's pieces are in action.

Black's lack of development is certainly one element that makes this position notable.

Over the course of the next few moves, Anderssen put pressure on the weak backwards pawn on d6. After 20...Nc5, Staunton wrote, "Child's play. Throwing away his most important Pawn for nothing!" The only way that I have found for him to retain this pawn leaves his position utterly hopeless, although he maintains a material advantage. White still gains the pawn, but sacrifices the exchange (rook for bishop) in order to do so.

Looking Toward 2015

I am ambivalent concerning any chess related New Year's Resolutions for 2015. My resolutions for 2013 were only partly successful and ended in disappointment. The year before, I met my rating goal but not my training goal. I did not bother in 2014.

Nonetheless, I am presently inclined to make an effort to work through one game per week from GM-RAM. How far into 2015 this current interest will carry me is unknown. I suspect that at some point other training interests or non-chess priorities will intervene and break me from this path. That is what always happens.

I cherish no illusions that I will attain Grandmaster strength. Even USCF Expert seems a long shot in the light of my current playing strength and tournament opportunities. I spend a lot of time on chess, but the bulk of this time is divided between the thrill--positive and negative--of online blitz, on the one hand, and nurturing the skills of children, on the other hand. I am privileged to coach several of the area's top elementary players. I am applying some of Ziyatdinov's training ideas in this coaching, using a batch of Paul Morphy's games (see "Morphy's Fingerprints"), followed by the eleven Anderssen games in GM-RAM.

Whether for my own progress, or for that of my students, the time that I invest studying Ziyatdinov's 59 games should prove beneficial.

I might also spend more time plowing through the 133 endgame positions in GM-RAM. The six positions in "Six Pawn Endings" are essentially identical to the first six in the book. These have been among the fundamental positions that I have been teaching youth players since even before I bought Ziyatdinov's book. In his 133 positions, however, are quite a few that I have yet to invest any serious time. Perhaps that will change in 2015.



*My initial review of this book is available at "GM-RAM: Essential Knowledge." Subsequent ruminations appear by clicking with the label "Ziyatdinov" below.

**Since the publication of GM-RAM, Alburt has brought out a second book with an additional 320 positions, Chess Training Pocket Book II: 320 Key Positions for Players at All Levels (2008).

Detail: To Know a Position

0 Mate in Ten

In the International Chess Tournament, London 1851, Adolf Anderssen prevailed over all of his opponents. Through play of casual games, he and József Szén determined that one of the two of them would win the event. The two met in the second round, which Anderssen won 4-2. This position occurred in the fourth game of their match. Anderssen won the game with a strong attack on Szén's king. However, his play was far from perfect.

Anderssen missed a forced checkmate in ten moves.

Black to move

It should not come as a surprise that this position is one of two from this game that appears in the "Essential Middlegame Knowledge" section of Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Chess Knowledge (2000).

Detail: Mate in Ten

0 Training with Anderssen

Imbalances are the doorway to planning.
Jeremy Silman, How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th ed. (2010)

In Adolf Anderssen's well-known miniature against Carl Mayet, Anderssen missed the best move. Many ambitious players study this game because it is the first in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Chess Knowledge (2000).

Mayet,Carl -- Anderssen,Adolf [C64]
London, 1851*

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.0–0 Bg4 7.h3 h5

The infamous fishing pole.

8.hxg4 hxg4 9.Nxe5

Black to move

9...g3?

9...Nxe4 is clearly winning.

10.d4 Nxe4 11.Qg4?

White needed to play 11.fxg3, when the critical line appears to be 11...Nxg3 12.Re1! Rh1+ 13.Kf2 Qh4 14.Nf3+ Ne4+ 15.Ke2 Qe7 when Black has nothing to show for the sacrificed knight.

11...Bxd4 12.Qxe4 Bxf2+ 0–1

After 9...Nxe4! 10.Qxg4, we have one of the positions that I put in front of a group of scholastic players last week (see "Sacrificial Attack", problem 2). The answer I expected from the students was 10...Bxf2+ 11.Rxf2 Rh1+ 12.Kxh1 Nxf2+ 13.Kg1 Nxg4 and Black has won White's queen, regaining the sacrificed material with interest.

White to move

Analysis Diagram After 13...Nxg4

Of course, White will capture the knight leaving Black with a queen and pawn for three minor pieces.

How should Black then convert the advantage?

14...Qh4 is forcing. 15.Nf2 seems the only sensible move. 14...Qh4 is also the computer's choice.

Starting from the resulting position, I played out the game against Stockfish. I maintained the advantage until White's pieces became active. Then, my position began to deteriorate. Small human errors against a silicon monster eventually concedes the advantage.

I tried the second best move: 14...Qd3

White to move

Analysis Diagram After 14...Qd3

The imbalance that seems easiest to play against is White's underdeveloped queenside.

Rather than frustration stemming from failure against the computer, I quickly provoked the machine's resignation.

Stockfish -- Stripes,J

15.Ne3 f5 16.g3 g5 17.b3 f4 18.gxf4 gxf4

White to move

19.Kf2

I expected 19.Ng2 and planned 19...Kd7 when I have a rook and queen against a knight. Pieces that cannot join the fight are not part of the material count.

19...fxe3+ 20.dxe3 Qc2+ and Stockfish resigned. 0-1

*ChessBase's database has Berlin 1859 for this game, matching how the game is presented in David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981), 280. However, Levy and O'Connell cite Leopold Hoffer and Johannes Hermann Zukertort, eds., The Chess Monthly 3 (1882), which states the game "was played during the London International Tournament of 1851" (212).

Detail: Training with Anderssen

0 Lesson of the Week

Most of my advanced students this week will see a position from Anderssen -- Staunton, London 1851. Focus, however, will be upon an unplayed variation. I used a position from late in this game as the week's lesson early in 2014 (see "Find the Best Move").


Anderssen,Adolf -- Staunton,Howard [B40]
London knockout London (3.1), 1851

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Ba7 7.Bd3 Ne7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Qh5 Ng6 10.e5 Qc7 11.Rae1 b5 12.f4 Bb7 13.Ne4

Andressen is beginning to build an attack that will punish Staunton for his poor handling of the opening that a century later would begin to be called the Kan variation of the Sicilian Defense.

Staunton decided to eliminate Anderssen's centralized knight with 13...Bxe4. Had he played 13...Nc6, however, how would Anderssen continue the attack? See diagram below.

White to move

Theoretical Position

My beginning students were shown the second position from Saturday's problem solving contest (see "Sacrificial Attack"). After explaining the solution, they were given a worksheet containing the first five problems from January's "Creating Knight Forks". They needed and were given lots of help.

Detail: Lesson of the Week

0 Analyzing Variations

Lesson of the Week

My chess students range from beginners struggling to remember how all the pieces move to several of the top local scholastic competitors. In a club for beginners this week, I worked with most of the students individually on checkmate with queen and king against a lone king (see "Teaching Elementary Checkmates").

My other students--both those receiving individual lessons and those in groups--were presented with a variety of positions that might have occurred in actual games. A few were also shown a portion of a game from the 1969 World Championship between challenger Boris Spassky and Tigran Petrosian.

Many students saw two positions that might have resulted in the first match game between Louis Charles de la Bourdonnais and Alexander McDonnell (see "Three Fighting Draws" for the whole game).

Black to move

After 46.Nxe7

Could White have preserved the draw after 46.Nxe7 instead of the move he played in the game?

This variation might have led to the following position.

White to move

Can White prevent Black's pawn from becoming a queen?

Several students were shown the entire game Mayet -- Anderssen, London 1851.*

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc4 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.O-O Bg4 7.h3 h5 8.hxg4 hxg4 9.Nxe5 g3 10.d4 Nxe4 11.Qg4 Bxd4 12.Qxe4 Bxf2+

The game may have ended here, or been played one move longer, or even all the way until checkmate.

White to move

After 12...Bxf2+

Those who were shown this game went through it repeatedly, looking for improvements. First, efforts were made to find where White's position became hopelessly lost and to suggest alternatives. Then, efforts were also made to find improvements for Black.

One group and several individuals were shown the final portion of Spassky -- Petrosian 1969.

Spassky,Boris V -- Petrosian,Tigran V [D41]
World Championship 27th Moscow (5), 23.04.1969

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0–0 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.0–0 b6 13.Rad1 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rc8 15.d5 exd5 16.Bxd5 Na5 17.Qf4 Qc7 18.Qf5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Qc2

White to move

The most important element in this position is White's passed d-pawn. In Chess.com's Chess Mentor, this position is presented with guidelines for handling such pawn. I communicated these ideas to the students.

1) control the square in front of the pawn
2) trade off minor pieces
3) keep the queens on the board to prevent the defending king's activity
4) keep at least one rook

The player defending against such a pawn, of course, hopes to trade queens, blockade the pawn with a minor piece, and activate the king. The Chess Mentor lesson focuses on White's side of things in this struggle and does not elucidate the defensive ideas.

20.Qf4 Qxa2 21.d6 Rcd8 22.d7 Qc4 23.Qf5 h6 24.Rc1 Qa6 25.Rc7 b5 26.Nd4 Qb6 27.Rc8

The Chess Mentor lesson ends here.

27...Nb7 28.Nc6 Nd6 29.Nxd8 Nxf5 30.Nc6 1–0

*The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games (1981) presents this game as Berlin 1859 with the source as The Chess Monthly (1882). In that publication, however, it is stated that the game was played during the International Chess Tournament, London 1851. Mayet and Anderssen did not play each other in that tournament, but all of the participants played many non-tournament games with one another during the course of the event.

Detail: Analyzing Variations

0 Attack and Counterattack

McDonnell -- La Bourdonnais 1834

In my series of blog posts on the matches between Alexander McDonnell (1798-1835) and Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais (1795-1840), we have reached the eighteenth game of the first match. The match was scheduled for twenty-one games, draws not counting. La Bourdonnais has won the match with eleven wins. McDonnell has two wins and there have been four draws. Nonetheless, they continue the match until completing twenty-one decisive games.

I am going through the games without benefit of engine analysis. There are likely appaling errors in some of my analysis. The series begins with "Three Fighting Draws" (June 2014) and I discuss game seventeen in "Mating Attack".

In game eighteen, McDonnell again adopts the King's Bishop's Gambit as he had in game eleven (see "Losing Takes a Toll"). This opening would develop a strong reputation over the next several decades, although it is rarely played today. Adolf Anderssen's "Immortal Game" began as a King's Bishop's Gambit.


McDonnell,Alexander -- De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe [C33]
London m1 London (18), 1834

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.d4 Nc6

An unusual move. More common is6...Ne7. One notable game continued 7.g3 fxg3 8.Kg2 d6 9.hxg3 Qg4 10.Qxg4 Bxg4 11.Bxg5 Capablanca,J--Allies, Philadelphia 1910. It ended as a draw in 29 moves.
La Bourdonnais played 6...d6 in three other games in these matches.

White to move

7.e5

McDonnell's move is unique in the ChessBase database. It removes f6 from the undeveloped Black knight, but opens f5 for the same. This move also has the consequence that Black's d-pawn cannot be captured on d5. This move opens e4 for a White knight, which McDonnell will use soon.

The immediate  7.Nf3 is probably a better move. Play might continue 7...Qh5 8.Nd5 Kd8 9.Be2 Qg6 10.Nxg5 Qxg5 11.Bxf4 Qg6 12.Bxc7+ Ke8 13.Bh5 Qe6 14.Bg3 Nagibin,G (2392)--Logashov,S (2325) Moscow 2009. White won in 43 moves.

7...Nge7 8.Nf3 Qh5 9.Ne4 h6

White to move

10.Nf6+

McDonnell might have prepared his attack with 10.Qe2 Nf5

Here I looked at two ways to proceed:
a) 11.Nf6+ Bxf6 12.exf6+ Kd8 13.c3

b) 11.Nd6+ Nxd6 12.exd6+ Kd8 13.d5 (13.dxc7+ Kxc7 14.c3) 13...Ne5 14.Nxe5 Qxe2+ 15.Bxe2 Bxe5 16.dxc7+

He also might have tried 10.c3 Nf5 11.Kf2.

I am not certain if any of these lines are better than McDonnell's play in the game.

10...Bxf6 11.exf6 d5 12.Bd3 Nf5 13.Qe1+

13.c3 is an interesting alternative, which La Bourdonnais could meet with the simple 13... 0–0 or the double-edged 13...Ng3+!? 14.Kg1 Nxh1 15.Qe2+ Be6 16.Bf5 0–0 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Qxe6+ Kh7 19.Qf5+ Kh8 20.Bxf4! Here White appears to have compensation for the sacrificed material.

Analysis diagram after 20.Bxf4

13...Kd8 14.Ne5

14.c3 Ng3+

14...Nfxd4

14...Ng3+ 15.Kg1 Nxh1 16.Nxc6+ bxc6? 17.Qe7#.

15.c3 Nxe5 16.Qxe5 Nc6 17.Qxd5+ Ke8

White to move

18.Bb5

18.Bxf4!?

McDonnell missed a simple pin, or he rejected it for the gain of material in the game.

18...Be6 19.Re1.

18...Be6 19.Bxc6+ Kf8 20.Qc5+ Kg8 21.Bf3 Qg6

White has more material on the board, but how will the rooks come into play? How will the dark-squared bishop participate in the battle?

22.Qd4?

The effort to defend the f-pawn proves costly. This move seems to me to be McDonnell's critical error.

22.Bd2 seems better to me with at least three ways for Black to proceed:

a) 22...Qxf6 23.Re1.

b) 22...b6 23.Qf2 Rd8 24.Rd1 g4 25.Bc6 Qxf6.

c) 22...Qd3+ 23.Ke1 Rd8 24.Qf2 g4 25.Bxb7.

White's chances seem to me better in each of these lines than they were in the game, although Black has seized the initiative in each case. White retains material superiority and may be able to defend against Black's counterattack.

22...c5 23.Qe5 Re8

White to move

24.Be2

Perhaps 24.Kf2 was necessary. Black's response might have been 24...Bd7 25.Qd5 Bc6 26.Qd2.

24...f3! 25.Kf2

25.Bxf3 Bc4+ 26.Kf2 Rxe5 and Black wins.

25...fxe2 26.Be3 b6 27.h4

27.Rhe1 Bd7 28.Qc7 Qf5+ 29.Kg1 Rxe3 and Black wins.

27...Bd7 28.Qd5 Qxf6+ 29.Kxe2 Bg4+ 30.Kd2 Rd8 0–1


White's attack fell short, although he recovered the pawn sacrificed in the opening. McDonnell showed that he could achieve material superiority through tactics, but he then faltered.

McDonnell's long sequences of losses, interrupted only by a single draw, would end with the next game. The contestants would alternate wins--always with the Black pieces--until La Bourdonnais would win with White in the final game of the first match.

Detail: Attack and Counterattack

0 The Camp Workbook

This morning concluded my seventh summer chess camp for elementary age chess players. The first camp was in June 2008 and drew only youth from Deer Park School District, where the camp was part of a very active summer enrichment program. With permission of the summer coordinators, I began recruiting students from outside the district in 2009. The second year, the three hour block was split: 1:45 for the advanced camp and 1:15 for the beginning camp. This time seemed too short for strong youth players, but about right for beginners.

In 2012, I moved the camp to a private school where I was now coaching.* At the new school, I restored the three hour block and extended the camp from four days to five. Although I do not run a beginners camp, a few beginning players join each year. I make accommodations for them with some separate activities. Sometimes I produce a separate workbook for the beginners.

A distinctive element of my camp is the camp workbook. I do not know how common this element is among others who run camps for young players. I am certain that I am not unique. Even so, my changing themes year after year put me outside the norm.

My workbooks generally include annotated games, other related games presented without comments, tactics problems and a short glossary of tactical motifs, essential pawn positions. Some workbooks have more endgame positions, some less. Some elements of the workbooks are carried over from previous years.

My first two camps used the same workbook, except for the date on the cover. In 2010, my camp theme was "Attacking with Anderssen." The 56 page workbook contained several Anderssen games that I annotated for young players (see the link for an example). Also, the tactics problems stemmed from Anderssen's games. I reworked some of these annotations for this year's camp.

In all my camps, awards at the end of the week are based on accumulated camp points. Youth earn camp points for good behavior, solving chess problems, recording their games in the camp tournament, answering questions during presentations, and so on. The winner of the camp tournament does not always accumulate the most points, although that win is also worth some points.

In 2011, I produced my shortest camp workbook (41 pages), but edited it carefully. The focus was Vasily Smyslov's search for truth. I also found tactics puzzles from Smyslov's play. A section from that workbook on rook endings was imported into this summer's workbook, too, but was not included in the camp curriculum. The workbooks always contain more materials than we have time for in camp. Ambitious students go home with study material that will carry them through the summer.

The 2012 camp and workbook profiled a different chess player each day: Jozsef Szen, Paul Morphy, Mikhail Tal, Alexander Chernin, and Yasser Seirawan. This year's workbook recycled some of my materials on Morphy, which are built on the solid work of Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005).

In 2013, I omitted the endings from the workbook, although pawn wars remained part of the week's activities. This ambitious workbook of 59 pages was almost all new material. It had a long section on Gioachino Greco that was built on my work converting all the games and fragments from William Lewis, Gioachino and the Game of Chess (1819) into ChessBase format. Unfortunately, I failed to back-up this database and my hard drive crashed a month after camp. The material included in the workbook is all that remains. There was a shorter section on François-André Danican Philidor, which was also based on work with an old English text.

Most of the materials in this year's workbook were revisions of materials from previous years. However, I added a wholly new section: teacher vs. student. For many years, I have notated games played with young chess players during their chess club practice. I annotated two of these games for the workbook to highlight common errors made by young novice players. A camp theme was learning from errors.

Mistakes are part of chess. It is often said that the winner of a game was not the player who made no mistakes. Rather, the winner made the second to the last mistake. 

Good chess players learn from their own errors. After the game, they analyze with their opponent and often with a stronger player or coach. They seek to understand where they might have improved their play. Even wins are subjected to critical analysis. 

Better chess players learn from mistakes made by other players. The best chess players invest a lot of time studying other players’ games. They look for patterns that will be useful in their own games. They practice finding the critical errors and seeking better moves. They look for new ideas.
Stripes, "Dragon Chess Camp 2014: Basic Training for Chess Success" (7).

After presentation of one of these games, students worked together to identify the errors in a batch of other student vs. teacher games. Among their tasks was to try to discern which player was the teacher.

I also added checkmate in one problems to the start of the tactics problems at the back of the workbook. These proved helpful to the beginning students while also building confidence for the stronger players. At 87 pages. it was my longest workbook so far.



*I continue to coach the teams in Deer Park, as well. I started coaching chess in Deer Park as a parent volunteer, becoming a paid coach when we moved out of the district.

Detail: The Camp Workbook

0 Vulnerability on f7

In the King's Gambit, White seeks to attack the vulnerable f7 square immediately. In the nineteenth century, this was business as usual among top chess players. As chess players learned to defend, these immediate assaults and the King's Gambit itself faded from popularity.

Below the top levels, however, the King's Gambit remains a potent weapon. I play it with some regularity every few years, then shift to other openings. Many of the instructive games that I use with youth chess players are King's Gambits.

Black to move

This position arises after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.d4 d6 6.c3

White's intention with 6.c3 is obvious: bring the queen to b3 to construct a battery against f7. How should Black play?

This position occurred twice in the series of McDonnell -- De Labourdonnais matches in 1834. White won one and Black the other. McDonnell was White in both games. William Lewis had it in one recorded game. Tassilo von der Lasa had the position at least four times, three as White, before he was on the Black side in a game against Adolf Anderssen (one of the featured games in tomorrow's chess camp).

ChessBase Online contains 74 instances of this position. Black scores well with most moves. What is Black's best reply? Stockfish's top choice has been rare. Is the engine's second or third choice superior on positional grounds?

Detail: Vulnerability on f7

0 Camp Warm-Up

My annual chess camp is next week. The young players are greeted each morning with a warm-up exercise. Due to he range of skill levels, I will use two warm-up exercises each day.

This position from a game we will examine Monday morning will be the harder of Monday's two warm-ups.

Who stands better? Explain why.

White to move

Detail: Camp Warm-Up

0 Match Wits with Anderssen

This position arose in Anderssen -- Von der Lasa, Berlin 1851.

White to move

Adolf Anderssen played 9.Nf2, which seems sensible and sound. I wonder, however, whether he considered 9.d4. Is this position a good one for contemplating the sacrifice of a knight?

I am preparing some notes on this game, as well as several others, for my Dragon Chess Camp.

109: Dragon Chess Camp

Instructor:  James Stripes
Camp Location: Lower School
Dates: June 23-27
Times: 9:00am - 12:00pm
Dragon Chess Camp is fifteen hours of fun learning and practicing chess skills, as well as testing them in competition. Participants in chess camp will improve all aspects of their chess game: opening principles, middlegame strategy, tactics, endgame technique. There will be puzzle solving contests and lessons from great masters of the past. Awards will be based on camp points which are earned through each of the camp activities. Each participant will receive a camp workbook packed with chess tips, problems, and instructive games.
Grades: K-6
Tuition: $150

http://www.sgs.org/student-life/summer_programs_2014/index.aspx

Detail: Match Wits with Anderssen

0 The Evergreen Game

Lesson of the Week

This week, young students are asked to think their way through one of the most famous chess combinations of all time. Some may know it, of course. Four years ago, when I last put this position in front of young students, two brothers recognized it immediately. They had been poring through the famous games lessons in the Chessmaster software and had learned it there.

This game acquired the name "Evergreen Game" after Wilhelm Steinitz described it as "the evergreen in Anderssen's laurel wreath."

Anderssen,Adolf -- Dufresne,Jean [C52]
Berlin, 1852

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0–0 d3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Re1 Nge7 11.Ba3 b5 12.Qxb5 Rb8 13.Qa4 Bb6 14.Nbd2 Bb7 15.Ne4 Qf5 16.Bxd3 Qh5 17.Nf6+ gxf6 18.exf6 Rg8 19.Rad1 Qxf3

White to move

20.Rxe7+ Nxe7 21.Qxd7+ Kxd7 22.Bf5+ Ke8 23.Bd7+ Kf8 24.Bxe7# 1–0

Detail: The Evergreen Game