0 Mating Attack

McDonnell -- La Bourdonnais 1834

In the seventeenth game of their first match, Alexander McDonnell overlooked the strength of his opponent's sacrificial attack. McDonnell (1798-1835) was born in Belfast, Ireland. He spent some time in the West Indies and then served as Secretary to a London group of merchants engaged in West Indies trade. He played chess in his spare time. By the early 1830s, he achieved recognition as the strongest player in England.

Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais (1795-1840), was the "undisputed champion of France" from 1822, according to David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld (The Oxford Companion to Chess [1996], 56). Hooper and Whyld note that France was the "home of the world's strongest chess players."

Prior to 1851, there were no international tournaments organized. Occasional matches took place between players with reputations as strong players, but most of their games were not recorded. Play at odds was common and most games were played for a stake. When La Bourdonnais crossed the English channel to visit London and contest a series of games against McDonnell, a new era in chess was born. Because their games were recorded and later published by William Greenwood Walker, they were studied by all top players through the next several decades.

Earlier this summer, I began working through all available games of McDonnell. Of his 110 games in the ChessBase database, 85 were against La Bourdonnais. I am slowly working through the games in their six matches, blogging each game. As I go through them, I am employing only minimal research into the opinions of other commentators on the games. I am wholly avoiding use of chess analysis engines to check my own calculations.

Studying these games in this manner should strengthen my positional and tactical skills, may develop my skills as an analyst, and offers my readers glimpses into my growing understanding of an important period in chess history. My series begins with "Three Fighting Draws". Following the links in each post permits the interested reader to go through the whole series in sequence. "Strong Knights," posted yesterday, concerns game 16 in the first match.

De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe -- McDonnell,Alexander [D20]
London m1 London (17), 1834

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Nf3 0–0 8.Be3

La Bourdonnais played this move only in this one game. Few others have tried it since. In other games, he tried 8.h3 and 8.0–0

Black to move

8...c6

As in game 15, I prefer 8...Nbd7.

9.h3 Nbd7 10.Bb3

10.0–0 Nb6 11.Bb3 Nbd5 12.Bg5 Be6.

10...Nb6 11.0–0 Nfd5

11...Nbd5 seems better to me.

12.a4 a5 13.Ne5 Be6 14.Bc2

Black to move

White is bringing his forces to bear on Black's kingside. How should Black defend? I would pursue a plan centered on fianchettoing the dark-squared bishop.

14...f5?!

 This move was made possible by  Black's 11th move, but looks to me like a weakening move. White's knight on e5 can no longer be dislodged except by Black's pieces. The bishops on the e-file could become targets.

McDonnell might have tried 14...Re8 with the idea of following with g6 and Be7-f6-g7. Play might continue 15.Ne4 (15.Qh5!? g6 16.Qf3 Bf6 17.Ne4 Bg7 18.Bg5) 15...g6 (15...Nb4 16.Bb1 N6d5) 16.Bh6 Nf6 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.f4 Bg7 19.f5 Bd5 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.f6+ Kg8 22.Qd2 Qd6 23.Qh6 Qf8.

15.Qe2 f4 16.Bd2 Qe8

Where is the queen headed? All the light squares on Black's kingside are covered by White's pieces.

17.Rae1 Bf7 18.Qe4

Black to move

18...g6

18...Nf6!? 19.Qf5 g6 20.Qxf4

19.Bxf4 Nxf4 20.Qxf4 Bc4 21.Qh6

All of White's pieces are positioned for an assault on the Black king.

Black to move

21...Bxf1?

21...Nd5 22.Bxg6 hxg6 23.Nxg6 Kf7 24.Qh7+ Kf6 25.Ne4+ Ke6 26.Nc5+ Kd6 27.Re6+ Kc7 28.Nxf8 Qxf8 29.Rfe1 and White has an advantage, but some play remains.

22.Bxg6! hxg6 23.Nxg6 Nc8

23...Nd5 24.Nxd5 cxd5 25.Nxe7+ Qxe7 26.Rxe7 Rf7 27.Qg6+ Kh8 28.Rxf7

24.Qh8+ Kf7 25.Qh7+ Kf6

White to move

26.Nf4! Bd3

26...Qd7 27.Ne4#

27.Re6+ Kg5 28.Qh6+ Kf5 29.g4# 1–0

McDonnell misplayed his knights, which resulted in the necessity to move one or more of the pawns in front of his king. He then moved the wrong one. Finally, he grabbed material and fell to a mating attack.

The next game is discussed in "Attack and Counterattack".

Detail: Mating Attack

0 McDonnell -- La Bourdonnais 1834

First Match, Game Fourteen

The ChessBase database contains 110 games of Alexander McDonnell (1798-1835). He was described shortly after his death as "the best English player," although he was born in Belfast (see image). Of these games, 85 were played against a single opponent, Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais (1795-1840). Their match, or rather series of six matches, was the first match between two masters in which the games were recorded and published.

Title Page from Walker (click on image to emlarge)

William Greenwood Walker, secretary to the Westminster Chess Club, recorded the games and published them in A Selection of Games at Chess (London: 1836), a book now widely available free through Google Books. Walker's text includes many games played at odds which are absent from the ChessBase database.

As near as I have verified so far, the games in the ChessBase database are sequenced in the same order as this book. However, game 14 is not in Walker's text. Rather, he offers, "The Fourteenth game is not preserved, it was not a good game" (155).

Chess Skills blog is following this historic match that took place 180 years ago. I am studying the games with some reference to databases, limited reference to the comments of other players, and no reference to engine evaluations. My analysis certainly contains errors. My principle goal is personal training in tactics, strategy, and analytic skill. This personal study journal, however, may be of interest to other chess enthusiasts. Indeed, comments posted on some of my previous posts confirms that it is.

There is a very good book on this historic match: Cary Utterberg, De la Bourdonnais versus McDonnell, 1834 (2005). Utterberg offers a narrative of the historical milieu, a compendium of comments on the games by other chess writers, and his own analysis. Of particular interest, perhaps, is Utterberg's summation of the state of opening theory when the match took place. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of Utterberg's book, but base my understanding of its contents and merits upon Utterberg's website and reviews o which it links. Utterberg's own critique of certain errors in the text, which was published as a ChessCafe article ("Errata and Punishment") serves to convince me of his skills as an historian.

My post, "Morning Coffee," contains my analysis of game 13. My series on the match begins with "Three Fighting Draws." Each post on this match contains a link to the next in the series. At my current pace, it will require many months longer than I anticipated when I determined to work through all of McDonnell's game. I may well own a copy of Utterberg's book before I finish.

According to Walker, the first match consisted of 21 games. Draws did not count towards this total. There were four draws in the first match.

McDonnell,Alexander -- De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe [B21]*
London m1 London (14), 1834

1.e4 c5 2.f4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.e5 Nc6 5.c3 f6 6.Na3 Nh6 7.Nc2 Qb6 8.d4 Bd7

Bourdonnais makes small refinements to his opening play.

White to move

9.Ne3

McDonnell continues to repeat errors that brought pain in previous games. This move weakens d4.

9.Bd3 0–0–0 10.0–0 Be8 11.Qe1 c4 12.Be2 Bg6 13.Ne3 Nf5 14.b3 cxb3 15.axb3 Qxb3 16.Bd1 Qb6 17.exf6 gxf6 18.Ng4 Bg7 19.Qxe6+ Kb8 20.Nxf6 Ncxd4 21.Nxd4 Bxf6 22.Qxb6 axb6 ½–½ Prosviriakov,V (2307)--Rozanov,P (2304) Moscow 2013

9...cxd4 10.cxd4 Bb4+ 11.Kf2

I commented on this king hike in "De La Bourdonnais Evens the Score."

11.Bd2 also leads to the loss of a pawn. 11...Nxd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 14.Qd2 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 0–0

11...0–0 12.Kg3 fxe5 13.fxe5

To McDonnell's credit, however, he is not yet down a pawn. Perhaps, he considered his own refinements an improvement.

13...Be8

The bishop aims at h5 and thence f3. Black increases the pressure on d4.

White to move

14.Kh3

14.b3 seems worse 14...Bc3 15.Rb1 and d4 will fall.
14.a3 offers prospects of securing White's center 14...Be7 15.b4 Bh5 16.Bb2 Bxf3 17.gxf3

14...Bh5 15.g4 Bg6 16.Bg2 Be4

When the knight on f3 disappears, the d-pawn will fall.

17.g5 Nf5 18.Nxf5 Rxf5 19.Be3

The d4 pawn gains another protector.

19...Bxf3 20.Bxf3

Black to move

20...Nxe5

The knight was also protecting e5.

21.Bg4 

21.dxe5 Qxe3 22.Rf1 Raf8 23.Kg2 Rxg5+ 24.Kh1 Black's advantage seems clear.

21...Nxg4 22.Qxg4 Raf8 23.Rhg1 Bd6

White to move

24.Bc1

24.Raf1 is worse 24...Rxf1 25.Qxe6+ Kh8 26.Rxf1 Rxf1
24.Rg3 seems to be Whiute's most stubborn reply 24...Bxg3 25.hxg3 Qxb2 26.Rg1

24...Rf3+ 25.Kh4 

25.Rg3 Bxg3 26.hxg3 Rf1

25...R8f4 0–1

McDonnell went on to lose the next four games before finally winning a long battle. See "That Pin of f7" for game 15.


*In "Two Losses" I noted that C00 should be the ECO code. In fact, one of the games with this opening appears in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings at that code. The B21 that appears is preserved as I find it in the ChessBase database.

Detail: McDonnell -- La Bourdonnais 1834

0 Preparing to Slay the Dragon

I have an opponent who plays the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defense. Rather than playing 1.d4, which is my top choice in USCF rated chess, I plan to court his Dragon. I need to meet players at their strength in order to improve my skill. I do not know how well my opponent understands the Dragon, nor how he has studied the opening. His games on Chess.com are too few, and his opponents too quickly deviate from sensible book lines.

This post documents my two days of preparation for a single chess game. I am beginning this article on Tuesday morning, the game is scheduled for Wednesday evening, and I plan to post on Thursday.

This game is my second in the 2014 Spokane Contenders Tournament. Participants in this six-player round robin earned their spots. I am in the event because I played in and lost last year's City Championship Match. The others either won club events or finished near the top in the Grand Prix. The winner of the Contender's Tournament earns a position as challenger in this year's City Championship.

I am the second highest rated player in the 2014 Contender's with a USCF rating of 1917. My opponent is the fifth highest and rated 1694. His rating was provisional this spring. He is a relative newcomer to competitive chess and is improving fast. His first rated event was last August.

Tuesday Morning

After walking my dogs and eating breakfast, I started this blog post.

The Sicilian Dragon is ECO B70-79.* My first step is to open my personal database of previously played games matching those codes and review them. My search turns up 406 games. Reviewing them all would be daunting.

To get some control over this mass of data, I sorted by Black's rating in order to review games against my highest rated opponents. My own name appears near the top in the Black list, indicating that I, too, play the Dragon. I will review those too.

One recurring pattern crops up:

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7, I have often played 7.Be2. This move does not score as well as the more popular 7.f3. Even so, it may be worth considering.

Black to move

My post, "Losing Pawn Wars," came from a Dragon in which I played 7.Be2.

There are also games where I play 6.Be2, which has been played by Kramnik, Kamsky, Nepomniachtchi, and other top Grandmasters. 6.Be2 is the Classical Variation.

Looking through about two dozen games sorted thus, it is clear that my losses are characterized by gross tactical blunders. My wins also profit from blunders by my opponents. The key to my preparation, it seems, should be to seek lines that apply such pressure as to provoke opportunities for miscalculation.

In some losses, I simply drop pawns.

Having spent some time on the model game, Karpov -- Korchnoi, 1974, it comes as no surprise that I have attempted in online blitz to imitate Karpov's winning strategy. This game is an example of one failure in these efforts.

Stripes (1657) -- Internet Opponent (1819) [B78]
FICS 2013

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0–0 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.Bh6 Ne5 11.Bb3 Rc8 12.0–0–0 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Nde2 Qa5 16.h4 h5 17.Qg5 Rc5 18.Qe3 Be6 19.Nd4 Bxa2 20.Nxa2 Qxa2 21.Qb3 Qa1+ 22.Kd2 Qa5+ 23.Ke2 Rfc8 24.Qd3 Rc4 25.g4 hxg4 26.fxg4 Nxg4 27.h5 Ne5 28.Qg3 Rxd4 29.Rxd4 Rxc2+ 30.Kf1 Qa1+ 31.Qe1 Rc1 32.h6+ Kh7 33.Ke2 Rxe1+ 34.Rxe1 Qxb2+ 35.Rd2 Qb5+ White resigns 0–1

One factor that looms clear in my review of these games is a lack of precision in the opening. This weakness is not surprising. I have long been of the opinion, expressed frequently in internet forums, that class players should not spend a lot of time studying openings. Rather, tactics and endgames should be the primary focus. Openings can be played on general principles.

Against the Dragon as well as other variations of the Sicilian Defense, I have not developed precise, booked-up responses. Rather, I seek to deploy my pieces to good squares. Most often my bishops go to e2 and e3 with little regard for Black's set-up, but on occasion I will try Bb5 or Bg5. As all of the 400+ games in my database are from blitz, many of these games represent liberal use of premove (making a move on the screen that will be executed after my opponent moves so long as it is legal).

At my current level, however, further progress calls for serious opening study. I need stronger opening preparation to beat the Experts whom I must beat to become an Expert myself. It may be less important to prepare an opening in order to face a B Class player, but is it not a waste of time.

After a bit over an hour reviewing my own games, it seemed time for a quick review of basic ideas and plans as explained by Nick DeFirmian (Modern Chess Openings, 13th edition [1990]).**

DeFirmian's simple summation is useful for organization.

Yugoslav Attack

"The Yugoslav Attack ... is White's most successful antidote to the Dragon" (246).

My database contains 108 games with the position reached after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3. I was White in 105 of these, scoring 48-6-51 WDL. Improvement is needed.

Black to move

I find that I am playing h2-h4 too early.

DeFirmian gives as the main line from the diagram 6...Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O, although Big Database 2012 with The Week in Chess updates reveals that 7...O-O is slightly more frequent than 7...Nc6. The order of popularity at the highest levels, however, is as DeFirmian describes, although 7...O-O remains popular at the top.

In my games, 9.h4 accounts for many of my losses. After 9.Bc4, I score 56.5%. I fare poorly after 9.O-O-O, although that move scores well in Big Database 2012.

Hence, I studied one loss in more detail, with an eye to understanding both the most precise move order and the central ideas.

Stripes,J (1770) -- Internet Opponent (1855) [B79]
Chess.com, 2013

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0–0 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.0–0–0

10.h4 is worth considering here.

10...Qa5 11.Nb3?!

Possibly the beginning of my problems. 11.Kb1 and 11.Bb3 are preferred by the top players.

11...Qc7 12.g4?

Another inaccuracy. 12.Bh6 was better.

12...Rfc8 13.Bd5? Ne5 14.Qf2? Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.h4=

That my further errors led to an even game is a symptom of blitz. The value of this game for opening study ends here.

16...a5 17.h5 a4 18.Rd4 Qc6 19.Nd2 a3 20.Rc4 axb2+ 21.Kxb2 Qa6 22.Rxc8+ Bxc8 23.Nb3 Be6 24.Bd4 Qa3+ 25.Kb1 Bc4 26.hxg6 fxg6 27.g5 Nh5 28.Bxg7 Nxg7 29.Qd4 b5 30.f4 Ne6 31.Qd2 b4 32.Nd5 Qxa2+ 33.Kc1 Bxb3 34.Nxe7+ Kf8 35.Nxg6+ hxg6 0–1

I continued this process for a few more games.

Classical Variation

I fare better after 6.Be2 (53.4%). Here, though, my move order rarely follows that DeFirmian gives as the main line, 6...Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Be3 Nc6. I tend to play 7.Be3 first. I also castle on the queenside often enough to reveal that I confuse the classical system with the Yugoslav attack.

Levenfish Variation

I find only six games where I played 6.f4 and I lost four of those.

Other Ideas

I find that I have frequently played 6.Bg5, scoring over 53%. This move has been an occasional weapon of top players, but generally scores less well than the Yugoslav and classical variations. I shall concentrate on honing my understanding of the correct move order on those two.

Tuesday Afternoon

It is not possible to spend the whole day studying chess, nor is it productive. The morning session, which was interspersed with other activities, was not highly efficient. But, it did serve to identify weaknesses in my play against the Sicilian Dragon.

My afternoon session was shorter and better focused. I spent an hour going through the B70 lines in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings that feature 6.Be2 (the classical variation). These are lines 3-12. they contain an abundance of variations and links to important reference games. The electronic version is a nice resource.

At this moment, I am aiming for 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Nb3 Nc6 9.Re1. This plan may change.

Black to move

Ideas here include overprotection of the e4 pawn for when the knight on c3 is kicked, retreat of the light-squared bishop to f1, deployment of the dark-squared bishop on g5 to put pressure on e7 or to provoke h7-h6. Black has many choices. By looking through several of the reference games in ECO, however, I should be familiar with common patterns.

Of course, my opponent has plenty of opportunities to deviate from main lines of the Dragon, to try the Accelerated Dragon, or to avoid the Dragon altogether. He could even try the French.

Tuesday Evening

While sipping wine on the deck with my wife, I spent a little time going through games via the ChessBase iPad app. I set the position in the diagram above as my search parameter. There were several hard-fought draws between 2700+ players.

Wednesday Morning

During coffee, I looked through some games in Chess Informant, including CI 113/69, from which a position appeared on this blog last October ("Expose the King").

After walking the dogs and then spending some time at work (I work at home most of the time), I reviewed some recent games via The Week in Chess. One that went badly for White merits study.

Malloni,M (2350) -- Mogranzini,R (2499) [B70]
46th TCh-ITA 2014 Condino ITA (6.1), 03.05.2014

1.e4 d6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.Nb3 Be6 10.Re1 a5 11.a4 Rc8 12.Bf1 Nb4 13.Nd4 Bc4 14.Ndb5 Bxf1 15.Rxf1 Qd7 16.Re1 Qe6 17.Rc1 Rc5 18.Be3 Rc4 19.b3 Nxe4 20.bxc4 Nxc3 21.Nxc3 Bxc3 22.Bd2 Qxc4 23.Bxc3 Qxc3 24.Rxe7 d5 25.Re3 Qc4 26.c3 Rc8 27.Rb1 Na2 28.Rxb7 Nxc3 29.Qe1 Ne4 30.Qa1 Qxa4 31.Re1 Qc6 32.Rb2 a4 33.Ra2 Nc3 34.Rd2 Qc5 35.Re3 d4 36.Red3 Rb8 37.Rb2 Rxb2 38.Qxb2 a3 39.Qb8+ Kg7 40.h3 a2 41.Qa8 Qb5 0–1

White's eighth move offers choices. What is the optimal move order? Should White play Nb3 before Black commits to Nc6? Is 8.Bg5 accurate, or should it follow Re1?

Yesterday's move order (above) derives from the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. Is it optimal? It also appears in DeFirmian's MCO-13.

8.Nb3 first appeared in Chess Informant in Timman -- Miles, Luzern 1982 (CI 34/260). It is one of the reference games that I examined during my morning coffee. I marked it as deserving further study. Tony Miles won that game brilliantly, but the next issue of Informant had a second game with 8.Nb3, which was won by White. Although my search does not turn up earlier instances of 8.Nb3, Miles' annotations identify his 8...Nbd7 as the game's novelty.

Scrolling through the 78 games in CI 1-113 that contain the position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O, I find many instances of 8.Kh1, 8.Bg5, 8.Be3, and 8.Nb3. The earliest instance of 8.Re1 appears in Ermenkov -- West, Novi Sad 1990 (CI 50/[233]) and Ermenkov -- Chandler at the same event and with the same CI number. Again, 8.Re1 is not presented as a novelty. Perhaps, transpositions in move order are the reason the move is not considered new.

ChessBase has 8.Re1 in Basman -- Cooper 1972. Cooper's rating of 1830 suffices to keep the game out of Chess Informant.

The position after 8.Re1 appears in thirteen games in Informants 1-113. I am going through all of these games and the annotations. Although I remain uncertain that 8.Re1 is the optimal move order, I am leaning towards that move this afternoon. I will hold Nd4-b3 in reserve to meet Nc6 should my opponent play that move before castling.


The Game

Stripes,James (1917) -- Dussome,David (1694) [B70]
Spokane Contenders Spokane, 09.07.2014

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Re1 Nc6 9.Nb3

We reached the position that I prepared via the move order I settled upon this morning.

9...Be6 10.Bf1 Rc8 11.Nd5 Ne5!

White to move

Despite my preparation, I had not examined this move.

12.c3

My move has been played by strong Grandmasters, as has the immediate 12.Bg5.

12...Bg4

I expected 12...Nc4, and was not certain that I would play 13.Bxc4.

13.f3 Bd7 14.Bg5

Black to move

14...a5

14...Nxd5 was played in the only remaining reference game.

15.a4

I considered 15.Nxf6, but my hopes of winning the d-pawn were easily refuted. I spent twelve minutes on this move--my longest think of the game. My move is the third choice of Stockfish. 15.Bxf6 was probably best, although I considered this move for only a moment.

15...Nxd5 16.Qxd5?!

Originally, I planned 16.exd5, which was better.

16...Be6 17.Qb5 b6 18.Nd2!?

The computer likes 18.Nd4, which I considered. Despite my 12.c3, I found myself concerned for the safety of my b-pawn as the vulnerability of my queen and knight facilitate Black's efforts to mount an attack.

18...Rc5 19.Qa6 Nc4

White to move

20.Nxc4

20.Bxe7! would have given me an advantage. I did not spend enough time on this move. My opponent had spent ten minutes on 19...Nc4. I needed to make certain that I understood all that he was looking at.

20...Bxc4 21.Bxe7?

21.Bxc4 Rxg5 was much better, preserving a balanced game.

21...Bxf1!

I missed this move in my calculations. My preparation gave me a position that I liked, although my opponent, too, liked his position. He won because he calculated better than me.

22.Qa7 Rc7 23.Bxd8 Rxa7 24.Bxb6 Ra6 25.Be3 Bc4

White to move

I resigned a few moves later. It was a tough loss, and yet I feel that I gained something from the experience of preparing and playing the Classical Variation against the Dragon. My opponent demonstrated that he understand the Dragon well. His tactical skill is strong. He will become one of our city's top players.

*ECO Code is a trademark of Chess Informant.
**I use an old, out of date edition of MCO because I invested in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, which I use more extensively. I have ECO both in print and electronic formats.

Detail: Preparing to Slay the Dragon

0 Three Fighting Draws

McDonnell -- De La Bourdonnais 1834

The chess games of Alexander McDonnell (1798-1835) offer abundant instruction in tactics. McDonnell, born in Belfast, Ireland, is considered to have been the strongest chess player in Great  Britain during the early 1830s. He is most often remembered, however, for his matches with Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais (1795-1840). McDonnell lost more than half of their 85 games played during six matches. He was thus the runner-up in the first unofficial world chess championship. He also won 27 of those games, however.

For the past several days, I have working through McDonnell's games during my morning coffee. My intention is to go through all of his available games (ChessBase has 110; chessgames.com has 105). Most of his play was at odds, as was customary in his day, so the selection of available games in databases is small. There are 35 games in addition to the match games against Bourdonnais. Two of these are short losses to Captain William Davies Evans, including what is probably the oldest recorded instance of the Evans Gambit. Most of the rest are games played during simuls.

After going through these 35 games neither as fast as Jeremy Silman claims was his habit as a young player, nor slow enough to understand every nuance, I reached the La Bourdonnais match games this morning. They appeared to play by a rule that would remain common for the next several decades: draws do not count and must be replayed. Hence, La Bourdonnais had White through the first four games. Each draw led to another game with the same colors.

Although all drawn, the first three games were battles from the first moves to the finish.

De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe -- McDonnell,Alexander [C21]
London m1 London (1), 1834

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 c5 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.c3 Qf6 6.0–0 d6 7.cxd4 cxd4 8.Ng5 Nh6 9.f4 Be7 10.e5 Qg6 11.exd6 Qxd6 12.Na3 0–0 13.Bd3 Bf5 14.Nc4 Qg6 15.Nf3 Bxd3 16.Nce5 Bc2 17.Nxg6 Bxd1

White to move

18.Nxe7+

18.Nxf8? loses material. 18...Bxf3. After the text, White remains down only the sacrificed pawn and retains a slight initiative.

18...Nxe7 19.Rxd1 Nhf5 20.g4 Ne3 21.Bxe3 dxe3 22.Rd7 Rfe8 23.Re1 Ng6 24.f5 Nf4 25.Rd4 Nh3+ 26.Kg2 Nf2 27.Rc4 Rad8 28.h3 h6 29.Re2 b5 30.Rd4 Rxd4 31.Nxd4 a6

La Bourdonnais's aggressive play has led to exchanges and an ending where Black retains the advantage of one pawn, albeit one that will fall.

White to move

32.Kf3 Nxh3 33.Rxe3 Ng5+ 34.Kf4 Rxe3 35.Kxe3

And now it is a knight ending with pawns on both sides. Such knight endings are often sought by players substantially stronger than their opponents because they offer better prospects of victory than rook endings.

35...g6 36.fxg6 fxg6 37.Nc6 Ne6 38.Ke4 Kf7 39.Ke5 h5 40.gxh5 gxh5

White to move

McDonnell has the advantage, but La Bourdonnais has the draw well in hand. As long as he holds, he gets another game with the White pieces.

41.Kf5 Nc7 42.b3 Ke8 43.a4 bxa4 44.bxa4 Nd5 45.Kg5 Ne7 46.Nb8 a5 47.Na6 Ng6 48.Kxh5 Nf4+ 49.Kg5 Ne6+ 50.Kf5 Kd7 51.Ke5 Nd8 ½–½

De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe -- McDonnell,Alexander [C44]
London m1 London (2), 1834

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4

Switching the move order of the first game has led to the Scotch Gambit, an opening occasionally employed as a surprise weapon in our day.

4.Bc4 Qf6 5.c3 d3 6.Qxd3

This time, White recovers the pawn quickly.

6...d6 7.0–0 Qg6 8.Bf4 Be7 9.Nbd2 h5 10.Rfe1 Bh3

McDonnell, too, shows some aggression.

White to move

11.Nh4 Bxh4 12.Qxh3 Bf6 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxe5 Bxe5 15.f4 Nge7 16.fxe5

This time, it is White who has a vulnerable e-pawn that is far advanced.

16...Qg4 17.Qxg4 hxg4 18.Nb3 Ng6 19.e6 f5 20.Rad1 Nge5 21.Bd3 Rh5 22.Bc2

Black to move

22...Ke7 23.Nd4 Kf6 24.Rf1 Ne7 25.b4 Rah8 26.Ne2 Rxh2

McDonnell wins a pawn.

27.Ng3 g6 28.Bb3 Kg5 29.Rde1 Nd3 30.Re3 Nf4 31.Rf2 R2h7 32.Rd2 Nh5 33.Nxh5 Rxh5 34.Kf2 f4 35.Re5+ Nf5 36.e7 Re8 37.Rd7

Black to move

La Bourdonnais is positioned to win back a pawn, but McDonnell finds the way to another ending with a one pawn advantage.

37...Rh7 38.Rxc7 Rhxe7 39.Rcxe7 Rxe7 40.Rxe7 Nxe7

White to move

The players reach a minor piece ending where the bishop must contend with a knight that fights alongside a superior number of pawns.

41.a4 Kf5 42.a5 Ke5 43.Bd1 g3+ 44.Kf3 Nd5 45.Bc2 g5 46.b5 Nxc3 47.b6 axb6 48.axb6 Nb5 49.Kg4 Nd6 50.Bd3 Ne4 51.Be2 Kd5 52.Bf3 Ke5 53.Be2 Kf6 54.Bf3 Nf2+ 55.Kh5 g4 56.Bxg4 Ke7 57.Bc8 Kd6 58.Bxb7 Kc5 ½–½

The Frenchman survives again.

De Labourdonnais,Louis Charles Mahe -- McDonnell,Alexander [C44]
London m1 London (3), 1834

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Qf6 5.0–0 d6 6.c3 d3 7.Qxd3 Qg6 8.Bf4 Be7 9.Nbd2 Nh6

McDonnell deviates from the previous game.

White to move

10.Rae1 0–0 11.Nd4 Ne5 12.Bxe5 dxe5 13.N4f3 Bd6 14.h3 Kh8

Preparing to thrust the f-pawn forward.

15.Nh4 Qh5 16.Qg3 f5 17.Nxf5 Nxf5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Ne4 Bxe4 20.Rxe4 Rf6 21.Rh4 Qf5 22.Qe3 Qd7

White to move

The tension builds in the match as the players keep their queens on the board longer than the first two games.

23.Bd3 g6 24.Be4

La Bourdonnais sets the stage for Aron Nimzovich to articulate the concept of blockade.

24...Raf8 25.Qg3

The g-pawn is threatened.

25...Qg7 26.b4 a5 27.a3 axb4 28.axb4 c5 29.Rb1 cxb4 30.cxb4 Bc7 31.Kh1

Black to move

31...Rb6

31...Rxf2? 32.Bxg6

32.b5 Bd8 33.Rg4 g5 34.Bf3 h5 35.Re4 g4 36.hxg4 hxg4 37.Qxg4 Rh6+ 38.Kg1 Qh7

White to move

39.g3 Rg8 40.Qc8 Bb6 41.Qc3 Rxg3+

Exploiting the pinned f-pawn, and the continuation of tactical actions aimed at the rook on b1.

42.Kf1 Bd4 43.Qc8+ Rg8 44.Qc4 Rh1+ 45.Ke2 Rxb1

Black wins the rook

46.Rxd4

White takes a bishop in exchange.

46...Rb2+

46...exd4 appears to lead to a draw by repetition due to perpetual checks by White's queen.*

47.Rd2 Rxd2+ 48.Kxd2 Rd8+ 49.Ke2 Qh6 50.Qc3 Qg7 51.Be4 Kg8 52.Qb3+ Kf8 53.Qf3+

Black to move

Again, perpetual check appears to be a resource for White.

53...Qf7 54.Bxb7 Qxf3+ 55.Kxf3 ½–½

After three games without gaining a clear advantage with White, the Frenchman will find his way to victory in game 4 (see "McDonnell Blunders").

*It is my intention to go through these games and write my own comments without reference to engine analysis. I will check my analysis after completing a pass through all games.

Detail: Three Fighting Draws

0 Philidor Position: Practice

Demonstrating fundamental understanding of the Philidor position in rook endings is one of the tests for the Rook Award in my series of scholastic chess awards. Naturally, when I have a student working through that stage, I spend additional time looking through my own games both to find evidence of correct play and to extract study positions where failure occurred.

Tragicomedies abound in my database of online games, which includes thousands of turn-based (correspondence) games, nearly as many "standard" (fifteen minute and longer) live online games, and fifty thousand blitz games. There are dozens of games where the last several moves clearly indicate both players trying to run the other out of time in a dead drawn ending, or even in endings where one player has a decisive advantage but the other manages to win. There are also far too many games where moves played demonstrate intuitive failure or lack of understanding of correct technique.

Using the classification keys in ChessBase 11, I am able to quickly locate hundreds of rook endings and skim through the positions rapidly. With an eye for thematic positions, I seek those with results at odds with the truth of the position. I play out the position from before the error to practice correct technique. This practice also tests my understanding of which positions are drawn and which won or lost.

As White, I threw away a draw from this position, but then won on time a few moves later. The game was played on the Internet Chess Club in August 2000.

White to move

54.Ra6?? loses to 54...Rf6+. My opponent returned the position to drawn status with 54...f4, allowing my rook to maneuver to f1 where it awaited help from its king.

My ICC opponent in 2000 could have held the next position easily by shuffling the rook across to a3, b3, ... Even 78.Rh5, the move played, could have held if not for the blunder several moves later.

White to move

78.Rh5 Kg4 79.Rh3 Re7 80.Rg3+ Kf4 81.Rg2 Rh7+ 82.Kg1 Ke3 83.Rf2?? and I won with a rook swap that took us into an elementary pawn ending. Playing my opponent's position against Stockfish DD earlier this week, I reached a draw in a few seconds of play keeping the rook on the third rank until Black advancd the pawn to f4, then keeping up a barrage of side checks.

My own errors were glaring in the next game.

Black to move

In a three minute game on ICC in 2001, I played 55...Re5?? in this position. My opponent exploited the error to win.

In this game from 2001, I maintained the draw for several moves. Even so, my moves call into question my intuitive sense. Keeping my king in front of Black's pawn should not require conscious thought.

White to move

70.Ke3 (I played 70.Kf3 against Stockfish) 70...Ra3+ 71.Kd4 Ra4+ 72.Kc3?? and I lost the game.

Improvement?

Moving forward in the database to 2006, I should find better play. By then, I had spent at least a little time learning some principles of rook endings, although serious work began in 2007. It was then that I bought Jeremy Silman's new book, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (2007) and quickly went through everything up through the chapter for C Class. In the fall of 2006, I also broke through to B Class with my USCF rating.

After studying the section on the Lucena and Philidor positions in Silman's text, I changed the requirements for my Rook Award. The Lucena and Philidor positions replaced checkmate with a bishop and a knight. Silman's arguments concerning the relative value of each influenced my decision, as did one of my pupils requiring 51 moves to checkmate my king with a bishop and knight after many attempts over several weeks.

In this game on Free Internet Chess Server (FICS), I started well.

White to move

52.Rh3+ Ke4 53.Rb3 f4 54.Kf1 f3

I have occupied the third rank. Black has advanced his pawn.

55.Rb4+ Ke3 56.Rb3+ Kf4 57.Rb4+??

I threw it away. It was time to check from the rear.

In another game on FICS in 2006, I threw away a win.

Black to move

56...f2?? leaves my king unprotected from White's checks. Against Stockfish this week, I won quickly after 56...Re1+.

Several years later, rear checks allowed my to transition into a drawn pawn ending in this game from Chess.com that was played in 2013.

Black to move

70...Rxg3+ 71.Kf4 Rg1 72.Ke5 Re1+ 73.Kd6 Rxe6+ 74.fxe6 Ke8

My opponent tested my time management skills for seven moves before we reached stalemate.

Nonetheless, failures continued to manifest themselves in 2013.

I blew a draw in this game on Chess.com.

White to move

70.Rf3+?? leads to passive first rank defense that is lost (and straight out of the textbooks).

Against the engine, I held the draw after 70.Rb6+ Kc3 71.Kb1.

As recently as January of this year, I demonstrated a continuing need for improvement.

White to move

52.Kh1

Choosing the short side is as effective here as 52.Kf1.

52...f3 53.Rc4+ Kh3 54.Rc1??

54.Rc8 would have been simple and effective. Passive defense leads to checkmate.

The work continues.

Detail: Philidor Position: Practice

0 A Typical and Uncommon Position

Although this position contains several common elements that arise in the French, it appears in only thirteen games in the ChessBase online database. It also cropped up in my second blitz game this morning.

The position arises in the Tarrasch after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3 cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 9.Ne2 Bb4+ 10.Kf2 fxe5 11.fxe5 O-O*

White to move

My opponent played 12.Kg1 and I won the game in 47 moves. He lost a pawn on move 33 and lost a piece to a knight fork on move 44.

Black's immediate target is e5. If it were Black's move, the pawn could be taken as one of the defending knights is pinned. The locked center with targets on d4 and e6 is typical of the French Defense. White's king on f2 is a common maneuver. White's bishops have more scope even though neither has moved.

My opponent stepped out of the pin.

A) 12.Kg3 was played in three games. That was the end of one game--a draw was agreed. It was the only game between masters. 12...Ne7 and 12...Nb6 were played in the other two games.

12...Ndxe5+ has not been tried. 12.Kg3 might be regarded as an error.

B) 12.Be3 was played in three games. All continued 12...Ndxe5 13.dxe5 Nxe5

White to move

Skripchenko -- Maric, New Delhi 2000 continued 14.Qb3 b6 15.Rd1 Qe7 16.Kg1 and was drawn in 42 moves.

14.Bd4 was played in the other two games.

Black won a long battle in Matsura -- Cordova, Sao Paulo 2006 that continued 14...Nc6 15.a3 Bd6.

A draw was reached after a few moves in the more recent Kumaran -- Ram, Chennai 2013: 14...Qh4+ 15.Ng3 Nxf3 16.gxf3 e5 and drawn three moves later. 16...e5 may be inaccurate.

Black certainly has the better game after 12.Be3, which may be regarded as dubious at best.

C) 12.a3 was played in three games.

A correspondence game continued 12...Qh4+ 13.Kg1 Rxf3 14.gxf3 Ndxe5

White to move

White should have been happy to escape this correspondence game with a draw.

12...Ndxe5 was played in the other two games.

Black seems to have found frustration in Popov -- Danin, Smolensk 2005, which continued 13.dxe5 Bc5+ 14.Ke1! Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Bf2+ 16.Kd2 Qg5+ 17.Kc2 Qxe5 18.Kb1

Black to move

After his long journey, the White king appears less vulnerable and White went on to win.

White also survived Black's early attack in Polgar,J -- Hernandez, Merida 2000. That game continued 13.axb4 Qh4+ 14.Kg1 Nxf3+ 15.gxf3 Rxf3 16.Ng3 Nxd4 17.Bg2

Black to move

White went on to win.

Black should have the better game after 12.a3, but in practice has failed to prove it.

D) My opponent's 12.Kg1 may be an error.

However, I missed the thematic 12...Ndxe5. Instead, I tried 12...Qb6. My opponent played 13.Be3

Black to move

13...Ndxe5 remains the correct move. Instead, move-by-move, I squandered my advantage and won only due to tactical errors by my opponent in the ending.

Searching the database for the position in the first diagram produces games where it appears that White should be okay. With optimal play by both sides, however, Black should have a clear advantage. White's pawn center is weak in part due to the vulnerability of the White king.


*Notation leading to the diagram position was added per a request in the comments below.

Detail: A Typical and Uncommon Position

0 Power of Knights

Even after too much online blitz, I sometimes review a batch of my games. Sometimes I look at the openings and make efforts to refine my repertoire. If I improve the quality of moves I make in the beginning of the game before I start thinking, I may reach better positions. Sometimes I review the tactics that I missed.

My database software, ChessBase 11, easily guides me to master games that shared the opening that I fell into (or played deliberately). One of these games (Kallio -- Anastasian, Batumi 2002) caught my eye with its spectacular finish.

Black to move

32...h1Q 33.Rxg7+ Qxg7 34.Rxh1 Nb3+ 35.Kb1 Nbd2+ 36.Kc2+ (36.Kc1 appears to save the game) 36...Nc4 37.Qc6 (hastening the end) 37...Qg2 38.Kb3 Na5+ 0-1

After looking through these moves several times, then going back through the game as a whole, I returned to the diagram position and began to ponder.

I liked 32...Nb3+ and wondered why it was not as good as the move played in the game.

White has two choices.

1) If 33.Kb1, then 33...Ned2+ 34.Kb2 Nf3+ (here I first considered 34...Nf1 to aid the pawn's promotion) 35.Kxb3 Nxe1 36.Rxg7+ Qxg7 37.Qxh2. White has exterminated the promotion threat, but leaves Black a rook ahead.

2) If 33. Kd1, the position seems complex.

Black to move

Checking my ideas with an engine, I learned two things. First, my 32...Nb3 is superior to the move played in the game. Second, I failed to find the correct continuation from the second diagram. Perhaps you can do better.

Detail: Power of Knights