Book completed: The Dutch for the Attacking Player

 

I recently completed The Dutch for the Attacking Player by IM Steffen Pedersen (Batsford, 1997), having originally purchased it in the 2000s soon after getting back into tournament chess. I previously looked at it mostly for casual entertainment purposes, although at one point I evidently transcribed some of the lines into my repertoire database. A little while ago I decided to actually learn (and start to play) the Leningrad Dutch, which has the image of being one of those cool, kind of scary openings that is only supposed to be for aggressive tacticians. This was certainly not my "playing style" for most of my tournament career, but I figure now is the time to put aside the fear of it and pursue something that brings more joy to to my chess experience.

Although this book is not my principal resource on the Dutch - I'll share details on that once fully completed - it was still good to seriously go through it after all these years, with a more knowledgeable approach to the opening, now that I have some other resources to compare it to. Some of its contents hold up better than other parts, which is what you would expect for a book published in 1997. 

Here is the contents page:

To provide some background and flavor from the author, below are two excerpts. 

From the preface: 

From a very early age I learned that the weakest spot from the very start of the game is f2 for White and f7 for Black. With this in mind, it seems that one ought to refrain from playing a move like 1...f5, but no one has yet demonstrated a concrete reason why it is wrong. From when I started playing international tournaments the Dutch has been a part of my repertoire. Even though I have come close to abandoning it on several occasions, I keep coming back to it.

At the outset, I should say that the Dutch can be an extremely difficult opening to handle, but please perservere, and I will try to show you that there is nothing better than winning with the Dutch. The funny thing is, though, I would never dream of playing 1 f4 as White!

The book is written for the ambitious player, who would like to play for a win as Black. Therefore, I have focused exclusively on the Leningrad variation. It is a repertoire book, i.e. against every system at White's disposal, I have chosen one or two lines that I believe have the brightest future (omitting lines in which I do not believe) and included suggestions against 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 as well. 

From the introduction:

The Leningrad Dutch can be a very difficult opening to handle. Indeed, I have suffered some terrible defeats with it myself and almost given it up. But believe me, there is no need to do that. Only by experience can an opening be learned and the occasional loss is inevitable.

Comments:

• As can be seen from the above excerpts, the author was a contemporary practitioner of the Dutch and (per the cover page) scored a grandmaster norm at age 16 using the opening. The best opening resources I have found come from people with real tournament experience in that opening; among other things, it gives them a practical feel for what works at the board, beyond pure theory. (This was similarly true before the era of modern engines, since there has always been a "best theoretical line" in existence at any given time.) It helps give the student more confidence as well, since the recommendations have been battle-tested. In this case, Pedersen includes his own tournament games among the examples.
• I appreciated the introduction containing broader structural ideas for Black and White (the ...e5 advance, playing on the kingside, playing on the queenside) before getting into the chapters on different variations and setups. Framing overall goals and showing key moves and typical piece placement help tie together opening concepts thematically.
• The first chapter on the Leningrad main line for the book I ignored, since it only covers 7...Qe8. This used to be the most popular choice for Black (and was played by the author), but it has since been largely dropped at top levels due to the discovery that White's line with Re1 provides a consistent theoretical plus. I'm sure it's still playable at the Class level, but 7...c6 has been the professionals' first choice for a while now.
• The rest of the book was still relevant for me, however, since there is a lot of territory to cover outside of the main line setup that begins on move 7. The Dutch is similar to the Sicilian opening in that respect, with early "Anti-Dutch" variations beginning as early as move 2 that cannot be ignored. Move-order and transposition tricks are common, and something that a practical player like Pedersen is able to provide useful insight into. One of the most important ideas is to avoid committing too early to ...g6 if White can advance the h-pawn and then get to h5 with their queen; this can mean postponing the fianchetto, or even going into hybrid Classical or Stonewall Dutch-type structures on occasion.
• Like any opening resource, the book was treated as informational input into my own custom-built repertoire, with each chapter's material evaluated and explored further with a database/engine setup. Some of the examples and variations, as you might expect, are outdated or do not hold up to modern analysis. However, older sources like this sometimes provide interesting ideas which engines can confirm are workable, but do not appear in contemporary practice. Looking at middlegame examples for piece placement and thematic ideas is also always useful on a general understanding level.
• On a technical level, in the latter part of the book I caught two serious variation errors (with missing moves that could not be reconstructed) and one diagram error (a missing rook). Other than that, the editorial quality was good.

Training quote of the day #54: Amishi P. Jha, PhD

 

From Peak Mind by Amishi P. Jha, PhD:

Time to Start Training 

Imagine a moment that calls for physical strength. Say you're about to help a friend move a piece of furniture. You approach the heavy couch, realize you're not up to the task and . . . drop to the floor and begin to do push-ups in an effort to gain the strength you need.

If that sounds silly, consider that this is what so many of us do every day, constantly, when faced with cognitive challenges - instead of developing a training regimen, making it a habit, and doing a little bit each day to build up our capacities, we drop and try to eke out a "mental push-up" or two once we're under stress or in crisis, the whole time believing that it will help and that we'll be able to stand up and "lift that couch." Instead, we'll only be more depleted.

We need to start training now, both for the period of high demand we may be in currently, and for periods of demand we'll face in the future. 

(Updated) game analysis for improvement in play

Game analysis setup with CB18

At the start of this blog, which coincided with a new phase of more serious (and continuing) chess improvement efforts, analyzing your own games was identified as the necessary heart of an improvement strategy. This continues to be the central driver of the process for me, which is essentially an ongoing cycle of self-diagnosing issues with my game, then investigating and applying the chess knowledge gained as a result.

There are multiple guides on doing your own game analysis out there that may be helpful - although I've found some of them lacking sufficient detail on the "how" part of it, or sometimes recommending particular procedures that I don't find practical for my own purposes. Since the methods (and some of the tools) I've used have shifted a bit since "Game Analysis For Improvement in Play" was originally published, I thought it would be worth providing an updated analysis methodology outline. Caveat: this is not necessarily a template that will work best for everyone's practice, or that should be followed 100%. Rather, the intent is to provide a example of practical study methods in action. (I am a big proponent of the "whatever works for you" school of training, covered in more detail in "Do study techniques matter in chess?")

Some core tools are required for any setup: databases (at minimum one with your games, paired with a large reference database for comparison); an analysis program/GUI; and a top-class engine. Widely available options, both commercial and free, are covered in detail in the Chess Computing Resources (2021) post. Despite the age of it, the relevant links still work, and you just need to make sure to get the latest versions of the products; some of the main computing resources are also permanently linked in the sidebar. (For reference, my current analysis setup is displayed up top: ChessBase 18 running with the Dragon 3.2 engine and Annotated Game #323 displayed.)

Here's a description of my current step-by-step process, which typically takes around two hours for a fully annotated game:

• The game is entered into the database; I have one for all of my tournament games and a separate one for training games. If you are playing online at Chess.com, lichess.org or other sites, normally you can simply download a pgn file of your game and copy that into your database. For OTB games, naturally you'll have to enter it manually via your analysis program GUI - unless you're part of the elite where you play on an electronic board that records all your moves in the cloud. 
• During a tournament, I will make sure to enter all the games into the database before it is over. However, this will not necessarily happen on the same day they were played, if I'm too tired. Because it would be too much of a time and energy suck, I won't do a full analysis of my games while the tournament is ongoing, but I will normally take a quick pass through them with an engine running in order to validate (or refute) my understanding of what just happened in them. (For example, I would feel stupid to get caught out by the same error twice in a tournament.)
• During the initial manual entry of moves, or as a first pass during the analysis process if the full game notation is already copied, I capture my thinking process on significant moves in text comments. This could start as early as move 1, if the opening selection choice is worth mentioning, or it could start at the end of a typical main line sequence. In any case, I don't worry about polishing the language for publication, since it is more important to first record the thought process (whether accurate or flawed) and any other significant considerations at the time (physical or emotional stress, time trouble, etc.) that may have affected decision-making. This is also a good time to record other candidate moves that you considered, along with any related commentary and/or sample variations.
• During a full analysis session, I review the game from the beginning move-by-move with a reference database and engine running. Normally I will also have my opening repertoire database up in a separate window, so I can refresh my memory of the relevant opening line and note any deviations made by myself or my opponent. Here is where I will also investigate any new moves in the opening - new to me, at least - and update my repertoire database as needed. Considerations at this stage include the move's score percentage in the reference database, combined with the engine's evaluation and my own understanding and preferences in the opening line we are following. It is often useful to review some of the master-level games in the database that continue in the line being examined, to get a better idea of resulting middlegame positions and plans.
• After the "book" opening phase is past, the analysis process is devoted to examining and validating (or refuting) the actual moves played in the game, comparing them with the engine's and database's top other moves (for as long as the database has identical games). I normally have the top 4 engine moves displayed for variety, to get an idea of what good candidate moves are available in the position. Key variations are identified, understood (important!) and entered into the commentary, including alternative viable strategic plans and any tactical opportunities/threats overlooked (sometimes by both players). During this process, while the engine serves as an excellent reference, it is very important to avoid simply taking the top engine line for granted as "best" in a position. This is something which especially should not be done if you do not understand the moves it recommends. ("Pitfalls of Computer Analysis" goes into more detail regarding the practical considerations of using an engine for analysis.)

It was surprising to me how much rich content could be derived from just one reasonably thorough analysis of a tournament game. Especially when done regularly and in a timely fashion - something I have not always been the best at - it also inevitably highlights meta-trends in your performance. For me, that has included the recognition of a lack of a consistent thinking process, recurring flawed moves in a particular opening, or a repeated failure to maximize piece activity. Perceiving and rectifying these types of bigger problems with your game, not just identifying individual blunders that are made, can represent a major investment and payoff in long-term improvement potential. Sometimes, of course, positive trends in our game are also highlighted; it's especially important to recognize and celebrate when your mental toughness helps you draw (or even win) a lost position.

Some other typical training benefits I've observed, after employing the above methods:

• Openings: playing, then reviewing and analyzing what occurred in the chosen opening, has been the most effective way for me to understand more deeply and then remember opening lines for future use. This process also naturally results in the refinement of your repertoire based on new information and the practical challenges being encountered in your chosen lines at the board; there really is no better feedback loop.
• Tactics (and not just for the middlegame): what tactics were completely missed? Seen but miscalculated? Visualized improperly? Recurring patterns such as missing the idea of potential backwards piece moves, not visualizing discovered attacks that appear after several moves of calculation, etc. are in fact common phenomena. Although we cannot completely eliminate them, being more consciously aware of these issues in your games and mentally calling them out can help us overcome these blind spots.
• Candidate moves: in both the middlegame and endgame, the number of different types of candidate moves considered (both positional and tactical) has expanded significantly for me. Other than highlighting specific forced wins or clear blunders, this I believe is the most important function of engine assistance in analysis: showing the player possibilities that they would not otherwise have considered (either at the time, or during unassisted analysis).

As mentioned above, I believe the exact methods used are probably not as important as the fact game analysis is consistently occurring at the effortful study level for a player. In fact, I think it would actually be rather difficult to avoid improving your game as part of this process, if it is done regularly and you deliberately follow up on what you discover with both curiosity and a positive intent to apply the lessons learned.

2025 U.S. Chess Championships off to a good start (for some)

The 2025 U.S. Chess Championships have kicked off. Round 1 featured some interesting games and decisive results, with two in the open section and three in the women's, including one by GM Irina Krush shortly after she was inducted into the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame. GM Fabiano Caruana won by taking his opponent (and normally his second) GM Grigoriy Oparin out of normal lines early - a good strategy against someone who knows your usual preparation.

Full round 1 coverage from Chess.com is at https://www.chess.com/news/view/2025-us-championship-round-1

The main tournament site can be found on the host St. Louis Chess Club's event page - https://saintlouischessclub.org/event/2025-us-chess-championships/

I've already begun downloading selected games of interest for at least an initial review. Some of those then I expect will be added to my (longstanding) queue for full commentary game analysis (see "Analyzing master games for training").

Annotated Game #323: Shoulda, coulda, woulda...

The thematic title for this last-round game analysis ("shoulda, coulda, woulda...") refers to the slang expression for regretting missed opportunities ("Shoulda done this, coulda done that" etc.) This game followed directly the same day after the rather exhausting Annotated Game #322, so I'll ascribe my calculation fatigue to that circumstance. That said, after an exchange of somewhat complicated tactical blows it's a simple oversight (a backwards minor piece move by my opponent) that seals my fate. I do not go down without a fight, though, and make him work for the extended endgame win.

Although I scored poorly in this tournament, I actually didn't feel terrible about my overall level of play. My opponents were all higher-rated and I managed to obtain what "shoulda" been winning positions in my last two games. It was therefore not a case of me thinking "I'm terrible at this game!" and wanting to quit after getting blown off the board repeatedly. So with some adjustments in my game, I'm looking forward to my next tournament, which I expect to be sometime in November.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class A"] [Result "0-1"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [ECO "D94"] [WhiteFideId "-1"] [WhiteFideId "-1"] [PlyCount "134"] [GameId "2217637991596088"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. e3 Bg7 4. Be2 O-O 5. O-O d5 6. c4 {this is the generally recommended line for Colle/Stonewall Attack players against the KID, but not the Gruenfeld.} (6. b4 $5) 6... c6 7. Nc3 Bf5 {we now have a Slav structure hybrid on the board.} 8. cxd5 (8. Qb3 $5 {leaving the central tension in place is also a good option.}) 8... cxd5 9. Qb3 $14 {pressuring b7 and d5; White now has the more pleasant and active game.} b6 10. Bd2 {developing the bishop as best I can and connecting the rooks.} (10. Ne5 {immediately would be prophylaxis against Black's next move, and make getting out the Nb8 more difficult.} Be6 11. Bd2 Ne4 12. Rad1 Nd7 $14) 10... Nc6 11. Rfc1 {for once, it is the correct rook. White's play will be focused more on the queenside, so this deployment of the rooks is appropriate.} Rc8 $6 {mirroring White on the c-file, but I am able to identify the problem with it:} 12. Ba6 {White gains a tempo and is now dominant on the queenside.} Rb8 $6 (12... Na5 {is Black's only chance to play dynamically.} 13. Qa4 Rb8 {and there is no immediate direct threat to be made by White, although there is a menu of good options to select from.} 14. b3 {denying the knight the c4 square, for example.}) 13. Nb5 $16 {product of a long think, as I could tell this was a critical position. This improves the position, but misses a winning idea.} (13. Nxd5 $1 {I looked at this and calculated wrongly that it did not work} Qxd5 {and here I hallucinated that this covered everything, without taking into account the exchange on d5.} (13... Nxd5 {obviously fails to} 14. Rxc6 $18) 14. Qxd5 Nxd5 15. Rxc6 $18) 13... Qd7 {under pressure, my opponent again gives me an opportunity that I do not see.} (13... Bc8 $16) 14. Ne5 $2 {this would be a good idea, but it is played too early.} (14. Qc3 {simple chess, but I missed this idea, being unreasonably worried about a black rook appearing on the c-file, while forgetting the Ba6 is covering c8.} Na5 {and now} 15. Ne5 $1 $18 {after which White uses c7 to dominate the 7th rank.}) 14... Nxe5 $15 15. Rc7 $5 {my opponent was surprised by this tactical move, temporarily sacrificing the knight, but it is not decisive.} (15. dxe5 Ne4 16. Bc3 Nc5 17. Qa3 $15 {is awkward for White but not fatal.}) 15... Qe6 {this limits the squares available to Black's queen, which I understood at the time, and looked to exploit.} 16. dxe5 Ne4 {I missed this rather obvious idea, which appears to gain a tempo on the bishop. However, the engine finds another tactical resource for White.} 17. Bb4 $2 {aggressive but flawed.} (17. f4 $1 {is the non-obvious idea, apparently just hanging the bishop.} Nxd2 18. Qb4 {forking the Nd2 and the e7 square, which would force Black to give back material or see his queen get trapped after Rxe7.} Bxe5 19. fxe5 Ne4 20. Rxe7 Qc6 $11) 17... Bxe5 $6 {this justifies my previous play.} (17... Nc5 $1 $19 {physically blocks the threat and leaves Black with a winning game.}) 18. Rxe7 Qf6 19. Rxe5 {the key follow-up, with a discovered attack from the Bb4 which my opponent likely missed (and was my originaly idea for placing the bishop here).} Qxe5 20. Bxf8 Rxf8 $11 {The tactical dust has settled with an equal position, although I did not pay enough attention to the need to rearrange my awkward queenside pieces.} 21. Rc1 $4 {"Long think, wrong think." I simply missed the backwards knight move by Black.} (21. Rd1 {would avoid Black's threat, as White no longer loses a tempo at the end of the sequence} Nc5 22. Qa3 Nxa6 23. Qxa6 Qxb2 {and now} 24. Nd4 $1 {is best and active, rather than trying to immediately regain the pawn.} (24. Nxa7 Bg4 $15)) 21... Nc5 $19 22. Qa3 Nxa6 {long think for my opponent here, evidently making sure of the follow-up.} 23. Qxa6 Qxb2 24. Rd1 Rc8 25. Nd4 {this now comes a tempo too late to save me.} Rc1 26. Rxc1 Qxc1+ 27. Qf1 Qxf1+ 28. Kxf1 {this is still a win for Black, but not so simple in the minor piece endgame. However, he now does a good job of leveraging his queenside pawn majority and long-range bishop versus my centralized knight, which puts up a good fight.} Bd3+ 29. Ke1 Bc4 30. a3 Kf8 31. Kd2 a5 32. a4 $6 {this blocks Black from making progress via b5 for a while, but the pawn is also more exposed here in the long run.} (32. g4 $5) 32... Ke7 33. Kc3 {although my king makes it first to the battleground, there is nothing further for it to do.} Kd6 34. f4 Kc5 35. g4 b5 {now the pawn lever is possible.} 36. axb5 Bxb5 37. g5 Ba4 38. h4 Bd1 39. Kd2 {although Black has a winning position, there is still a lot of maneuvering to be done, so I keep resisting.} Bg4 40. Kc3 a4 41. Nc2 Bf5 42. Nb4 {part of the fatal problem set for White is that the knight must avoid getting exchanged, otherwise Black immediately has a won K+P endgame.} Be4 43. Na6+ Kb6 44. Nb4 Kb5 45. Na2 Bf5 46. Nb4 {my only real hope is for Black not figure out how to crack the knight hops and perhaps get a draw via repetition of moves.} Be6 47. Nc2 Kc5 48. Nb4 Kb6 49. Nc2 Kb5 50. Nb4 Kb6 (50... a3 $1 {is playable now, using the principle of two weaknesses. White must stop the a-pawn, but cannot do that and protect his e-pawn at the same time, While the Black king runs rampant in the center.} 51. Nc2 (51. Nd3 a2 52. Kb2 d4 53. exd4 Kc4 $19) 51... a2 52. Nd4+ Ka4 53. Kb2 Kb4 54. Kxa2 Kc3 $19 {and Black's king will gobble the White pawns.}) 51. Nc2 Kb5 52. Nb4 a3 {Black now figures out the idea from the above variation and goes for the decisive win.} 53. Nc2 Ka4 54. Na1 Bf5 55. Nb3 Bg4 56. Na1 Be2 57. Nc2 Bc4 58. e4 {still fighting} Ba2 59. exd5 Bxd5 60. Na1 Be6 61. Nc2 a2 62. Kb2 Kb5 {the winning idea, abandoning the a-pawn and heading for my soft underbelly with the king.} 63. Kc3 Kc5 64. Na1 Kd5 65. Kd3 Bf5+ 66. Ke3 Kc4 {threatening to return to the passed pawn} 67. Kd2 Kd4 {now it is inevitable.} 0-1

Annotated Game #322: Calculated disappointment

This next game was my most disappointing of the tournament, although it also was my only score and I therefore avoided "castling long" (0-0-0) on the standings sheet. I was slightly surprised by my opponent as White choosing the Panov Variation of the Caro-Kann, since these days it seems a lot more people play the Exchange Variation with this move sequence start. In any case, I was still well-prepared to take advantage of an early mistake by him on the queenside, and for most of the game I had what should be a strategically winning advantage.

Although there are a couple examples of less-active piece placement here, that was (thankfully) not the main theme of the game. My calculation (and evaluation) was sub-optimal in several key instances. In two cases, it even resulted in minor panic when my opponent found a backwards bishop fork - thereby equalizing - and when I thought I might be in trouble due to my opponent's charging passed a-pawn in the endgame. While the late middlegame issues were in large part due to time pressure, that points to managing the process better, and also hopefully thinking more clearly before then to begin with.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class A"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [ECO "B14"] [WhiteFideId "-1"] [WhiteFideId "-1"] [PlyCount "98"] [GameId "2218878855508069"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 {heading into the Panov Variation.} Nf6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O (7... dxc4 $5 {would take more advantage of the early bishop development.}) 8. c5 {this is not dangerous, as long as Black knows to respond with} b6 9. b4 a5 10. bxa5 $6 {an obvious error, but I took a little while here to make sure my follow-up was correct.} (10. Na4 $11) 10... bxc5 11. dxc5 {now Black has several good options.} Bxc5 {this recapture is not the strongest. Black can delay it and achieve a more dominating position.} (11... Qxa5 {is better and what I considered as the principal alternative. At the time, I erroneously felt my queen would be too exposed.} 12. Bd2 Qa3 13. O-O Ba6 14. Bxa6 Qxa6 $19 {the c-pawn is still doomed and Black's pieces are more active.}) (11... Ba6 $5 {immediately I did not consider.} 12. Bxa6 Nxa6 13. O-O Nxc5 $19) 12. O-O Nc6 $17 {now delaying the capture of the a-pawn is not so good, although still advantageous.} 13. Bg5 Be7 (13... h6 $5 {would immediately kick the bishop, leaving the Bc5 on a more active square.}) 14. Re1 h6 15. Bd2 {Black's overall strategy now is to win the advanced a-pawn and simplify down, having dominated the center.} Bb4 {a reasonable follow-up. Other options were still present in the position.} (15... Ba6) (15... Qxa5) 16. Nb5 Qxa5 {the main point of the sequence, as I am guaranteed to exchange off the bishop.} 17. a3 Bxd2 18. Nxd2 Qd8 {an unnecessary retreat. I was still skittish about having my queen "exposed" when it was not, really.} (18... Bd7 $19 {develops a piece and protects the Nc6, while leaving the queen on an active square. Simple and effective.}) 19. Nf3 Ba6 {now this move is not as strong.} 20. Rc1 Bxb5 21. Bxb5 Na7 {correctly kicking the bishop.} 22. Bd3 Qa5 $19 {now the queen is active again. There is very little White can do to improve his position, so I should be able to consolidate my advantage with some maneuvering.} 23. a4 Rfc8 (23... Nc8 {would also be a good alternative; this is my worst piece, so getting it off the rim and repositioned, in this case heading for d6, is an easy way to make progress.}) 24. Ra1 Nc6 {the knight has some more traveling to do from here to be most effective, although I am still positionally much stronger.} 25. Bb5 Ne4 {eyeing c3 and beautifully centralizing the knight.} 26. Rc1 Ne7 {after a long think, I went for safety, which is validated by the engine. Here we are seeing how although my advantage is considerable, it would have been easier to position the knight differently, as in the earlier variation.} 27. Qd4 {I missed this centralizing idea for the queen, which apparently rattled me.} Rc7 {by this point I was low on time and decided to try to exchange down more.} (27... Nf5 $5 {would be a simple and logical follow-up.}) 28. Qe5 Rac8 29. Ra1 Rc2 {I was pressured to make the time control here, and missed White's backwards bishop move, with a double attack on the Rc2 and Ne4.} (29... Rc3) 30. Bd3 R2c5 $2 {made the time control, but gave up the pawn and the advantage, because I could not see anything better under pressure.} (30... Nc6 $1 {this counterattacking defense is found by the engine. The point is that the f-pawn is still hanging, with the rook on c2.} 31. Qf4 g5 $1 {is also necessary} 32. Qe3 Rc3 $19 {and the bishop is pinned.}) 31. Bxe4 $11 dxe4 32. Qxe4 Ng6 {this is still equal, but there is no reason to make the knight passive like this.} (32... Rc4) (32... Nd5) 33. h4 Rc4 34. Qb7 Rc2 {While White has the passed a-pawn, my rook activity fully compensates for it.} 35. Qe4 $2 Qa7 $6 {I was too focused on threatening f2 to see how to exploit White's last move.} (35... R8c4 $1 {targets White's over-extended h-pawn, giving the Ng6 something to do finally.} 36. Qd3 Nf4 $19 {and once Black's queen is transferred over to the kingside, ignoring the a-pawn, Black should have winning threats.}) 36. Qe3 Qxe3 $6 {this is in fact equal, but I give the move a dubious mark because I did not in fact understand how to draw the position after the queen exchange.} (36... Qa5 $11 {physically blocks the pawn and Black's queen is at least as good as White's.}) 37. Rxe3 $11 Rb2 {still OK by the engine, but with the wrong idea in the position.} (37... Ra8 {perhaps the most straightforward way to block the pawn.} 38. a5 Rc6 39. Ne5 Nxe5 40. Rxe5 Rca6 $11) 38. Ree1 Rcc2 39. Rf1 Kf8 40. a5 {at this point I realized that Ra2 did not by itself stop the pawn and was not able to see how it would in fact work, so repositioned the rooks.} Rc8 (40... Ra2 41. a6 Rxf2 $1 $11 {the only move}) 41. g3 Ra8 42. Ra4 Rb5 43. Rfa1 Ne7 44. Nd4 {here I start losing the thread a bit again, overcomplicating my calculations.} Rd5 (44... Rb7 $11) 45. Nc2 {now it's easier for me.} (45. a6 $5 {would keep the pressure on.}) 45... Rc5 46. Ne3 Nd5 47. R4a3 Nxe3 48. Rxe3 Rcxa5 49. Rxa5 Rxa5 {reaching a rook ending that is a theoretical draw. White's rook is sufficiently active so that I have no advantage, so draw agreed.} 1/2-1/2

New addition to "Chess Blogs That Used to Be Good (and might be again)"

Blogs That Used to Be Good (and might be again)

These chess blogs used to frequently titillate the reader with witty, useful or simply entertaining content, but no one really knows when they'll be updated again or if the blogger still cares about his/her followers. Bloggers who are dead (or at least dead to the chess world) are ineligible. 

Today we have a new entry in the above-linked collection - also in the sidebar - of (formerly?) great chess blogs: TheOnoZone's Blog at lichess.org. I've recently gotten active at the site, mostly for purposes of playing more regular online training games versus humans, and have also dipped a curious toe into the blog feed. 

The post entitled "Your (Chess) Personality" was the first one to catch my eye, since the chess style/personality topic has been one examined here as well, in "Playing Styles Deconstructed". "Ono" is an excellent writer, and has a somewhat different (and much more entertaining) take on it. I was going to leave a pithy comment on that particular post, to engage on the subject, then noticed it was from 2022 and that the last blog entry was from November 2024. It's therefore been gone long enough to qualify for the (dubious?) honor of inclusion on this list.  

Because chess improvement is an evergreen topic, I'd say that all of the blogs in the linked list are still worth perusing, even if Temposchlucker's is the only one currently active. If he can resurrect himself, however, perhaps there's hope for TheOnoZone's return.

Annotated Game #321: The supremacy of piece activity

This next tournament game follows a common pattern that has been more evident as of late, a lack of an ability (or desire?) to maximize my piece activity. The game itself is reasonably hard-fought, but after I end up with an isolated queen pawn (IQP) in the middlegame, piece activity becomes even more important to offset the long-term structural weakness, and my play is not up to the task. Structurally, I should have opted for hanging pawns, since my pieces were actually well-placed to support them. As is the case with many "lost" games, my opponent gave me opportunities to re-enter it on even terms. In particular I failed to spot the "heroic" engine defense (as I labeled it in the annotations) on move 35, which is an excellent example of the supremacy of piece activity, as opposed to an overly materialistic and sometimes passive approach. 

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class A"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [ECO "A13"] [WhiteFideId "-1"] [WhiteFideId "-1"] [PlyCount "117"] [GameId "2218878855508068"] 1. Nf3 d5 2. e3 {the Keymer Variation.} Nf6 3. b3 e6 {not bad but unnecessarily passive, blocking the c8 bishop in immediately, and although it is the #2 choice in the database, it scores notably worse than the main alternatives:} (3... Bg4) (3... Bf5) (3... c5) 4. Bb2 Be7 5. c4 O-O 6. Be2 b6 $11 {heading for a solid Queen's Indian formation.} 7. O-O Bb7 8. cxd5 exd5 {all of the recaptures work here. The engines slightly prefer the knight recapture, which is paralelled by the results in the database.} 9. d4 Nbd7 {the engine validates this choice of a developing move. Naturally the knight does not want to go to c6 and block both the Bb7 and the c-pawn.} (9... Ne4 $5 {I considered, but it does not seem to lead to anything special.}) (9... c5 {seems a little premature. However, I wait too long for this pawn break during the game.}) 10. Nc3 Rc8 {placing the rook to support a c-pawn thrust.} (10... a6 $5 {preparing to improve a piece with ...Bd6, by preventing Nb5. This is a mirror idea of the Colle-Zukertort for White.}) (10... Re8 {this rook is doing nothing, unlike the Ra8 potentially doing something where it is, so no reason not to do this first.}) 11. Bd3 {White spots a similar idea, to centralize and improve his bishop.} Re8 {Black does well to activate both rooks.} 12. Bf5 {this was unexpected, but after a short think I decide the simplest path is to kick the bishop back. White is not in a position to exploit the dark squares around Black's king.} g6 13. Bd3 Bf8 {done primarily to free the Re8's power projection. The bishop is fine on f8, retaining its mobility along the f8-a3 diagonal and watching the dark squares around my king.} (13... a6 {is still a good plan, as the bishop would be better on d6 and does not in fact have to plug the kingside dark-square holes.}) 14. Re1 Ne4 {I'm fine with an exchange on e4, something White wisely avoids.} 15. Qe2 Bg7 {while this adds to control of e5, the bishop is not actually better here.} (15... c5 {is better, gaining space and putting pressure on d4. However, I would end up with an IQP or hanging pawns, which I was reluctant to go for at the time.} 16. dxc5 Nxc3 17. Bxc3 bxc5 $11) (15... c6 $5 {would consolidate the queenside and keep the position more closed.}) 16. Ba6 {I was surprised by this, but it is not to White's advantage.} Nxc3 17. Bxc3 Bxa6 18. Qxa6 {while the queen threatens the a7 pawn, this could easily lead to it being trapped. I had a long think here and decided to play actively, if perhaps not optimally.} c5 {not bad, but I did not find some other resources in the position.} (18... Nc5 $5 {would activate the knight, nicely taking advantage of the pin on the long diagonal against the hanging Bc3.} 19. Qe2 Ne4) (18... Nf6 {I rejected because I thought the White queen could sneak away after} 19. Qxa7 Ra8 20. Qb7 {but now} Qd6 $1 {I did not see this possibility during calculation.}) 19. Rec1 Rc7 {deciding for safety first, guarding a7 and also opening the c8 square for another heavy piece.} 20. Qf1 {no better square for the queen's evacuation.} Qc8 {another think here, without an obvious plan to follow. Improving the queen's reach by doubling on the c-file is in any case a positive idea.} (20... c4 $5 {would create an imbalanced pawn structure after} 21. bxc4 dxc4 {which the engine evaluates as equal, but at the time I did not like White's apparent central dominance.}) 21. dxc5 Nxc5 {not terrible, but this gives me an IQP and appears to be the worst of the recapture options.} (21... bxc5 $11 {Black is OK in the hanging pawns structure, with adequate support for them.}) (21... Bxc3 22. Rxc3 Rxc5 {and Black will have pressure on the c-file unless the Rc5 is exchanged, creating hanging pawns again.}) 22. Bxg7 Kxg7 23. Qd1 Qb7 {another long-ish think in an unclear position for me. I go for supporting the pressured d-pawn, although there were other active options I did not see.} (23... Ree7 {the engine line.} 24. Qxd5 Red7 25. Qe5+ f6 26. Qb2 Nd3 27. Rxc7 Rxc7 28. Qe2 Rc1+ 29. Rxc1 Qxc1+ 30. Qf1 Qxf1+ 31. Kxf1 Nc1 $11 {and Black recovers the pawn.}) (23... Ne4 $5 {should have been an obvious move candidate to improve piece activity.} 24. Qd4+ Nf6 $11) 24. Qd4+ {White correctly plays actively with his queen.} f6 $6 {unfortunately, unlike in the above variation, this now creates a permanent weakness on the 7th rank.} (24... Kg8 $11) 25. Rd1 $14 Rd7 (25... Ne4 {the engine prefers active play again, over static defense.} 26. Qxd5 Qxd5 27. Rxd5 Rc2 28. Rd7+ Kf8 $14) 26. b4 {this should simply drive my knight to a better square, but} (26. Qb2 Ne4 27. Nd4 $14) 26... Ne6 $6 {is not optimal.} (26... Ne4 {I still was not considering this idea.}) 27. Qb2 Rc8 28. Rd2 {while the engine now considers the position equal, Black has strategic problems here, having to defend the IQP.} Kf7 $6 {rather than attempt to bring the king into the action - we are still in the middlegame - it would have been better to activate the queen, as White's pieces are better coordinated and more threatening.} (28... Qc6 29. Rad1 Qc3 30. Qxc3 Rxc3 31. Rxd5 $4 Rxd5 32. Rxd5 Rc1+) 29. Rad1 $14 Rcd8 $2 {now a difficult position has become close to losing.} (29... Rc4 {with a more active defense, is the engine preference.} 30. h4 h5 31. Nd4 Nxd4 32. Rxd4 b5 $14) 30. Nd4 $16 Ng5 $6 (30... Nxd4 {it would be better to exchange, since White's knight is simply better.}) 31. f3 (31. Qb3 {adding pressure to d5.}) 31... Re8 $6 {a one-move threat which is well answered by White.} (31... Ne6 {it would be no shame to return, having provoked f3.}) 32. h4 $18 Ne6 33. Nxe6 {now this makes more sense, since Black's rooks are misaligned.} Rxe6 34. e4 $1 {the classic exploitation of an IQP, attacking it while it is effectively pinned to an inadequately defended piece.} Red6 35. e5 $6 {missing a forcing sequence that establishes a brutal pin on the remaining black rook. However, this is not immediately fatal, so my opponent likely overlooked it.} (35. Rxd5 $1 Rxd5 36. exd5 Rxd5 37. Qb3 Ke6 38. Qc4 $18) 35... fxe5 (35... Re6 $1 {is the heroic engine defense.} 36. exf6 Qb8 {the pawn is temporarily sacrificed so that the queen can penetrate on the kingside, for active defense.} 37. Rd4 Qg3 $11) 36. Qxe5 Re6 $2 {as often occurs, a move played too late becomes a liability rather than a good idea.} 37. Qh8 $1 $18 {I did not see the power of this move. White now has a won game, since the queen cannot be evicted without destroying Black's kingside in the process.} h5 {I decided to at least save the pawn, though I realized the seriousness of my position.} 38. Rd4 $6 Qc6 $2 {almost the right idea.} (38... Qc7 $1 $11 {I rejected because of the eventual skewer on the 7th rank, but after} 39. Rxd5 Rxd5 40. Qh7+ Kf6 41. Qxc7 Rxd1+ {saves the day; I did not see this finish.}) 39. Qh7+ Ke8 40. Qh8+ Ke7 41. Rf4 {correctly bringing another piece into the attack.} Kd6 {I still thought I might wriggle out of White's net, but my opponent plays accurately and does not let me escape.} 42. Qb8+ Rc7 43. Qf8+ Rce7 44. Rfd4 {now White threatens to simply capture on d5.} Re2 {desperation, but also an admission that Black simply cannot parry all of White's threats.} 45. Qd8+ Ke6 {time was very low for both of us at this point, which helps explain the following sequence.} 46. Rxd5 $6 (46. Qg8+ $18) 46... Kf7 $16 {the best move, but also the most obvious. White's queen is no longer such a direct threat to the king.} 47. R5d4 Qf6 48. Qd5+ Kg7 49. a3 R2e5 $6 {now playing at blitz speed} (49... Kh6 $5 $16 {would tuck the king away more, but I was concerned it did not have an escape route .}) 50. Qd6 R5e6 $2 (50... Qxd6 {I should have seized the chance to go into a pawn-down double-rook endgame.} 51. Rxd6 Kh6 $16) 51. Qg3 $18 {because of Black's relative 7th rank weakness, there are no good moves here.} Qf7 (51... Re2 52. Kh2 Kh7 53. Rd6 R2e6 54. a4 {is one sample line. White's more effective queen makes a big difference.}) 52. Rd5 Kh7 53. Rd8 Qg7 54. Qf2 Re2 55. Qd4 {evidently the idea of the queen transfer. Now, with no time to spare, I simply exchange down.} Qxd4+ 56. R8xd4 Re1+ {this quickens the loss.} (56... Kh6 57. Rd7 $18) 57. Rxe1 Rxe1+ 58. Kf2 Ra1 59. Rd7+ {making it clear why the king was better on h6. With further material loss coming and no time on the clock, I resigned.} 1-0

Video completed: The Golden Rules of Chess Strategy by Mihail Marin

  

I recently completed The Golden Rules of Chess Strategy by GM Mihail Marin, as part of my "Back to Basics" study series. Although this is one of ChessBase's shorter "60 Minutes" video products and the content description does seem fundamental at first glance - how to strategically organize placement of the pieces - the analysis and guidance provided by Marin is at a fairly complex level; this is probably not a surprise to those familiar with his theoretical products. However, the "golden rules" of the middlegame for dynamic piece placement are themselves universal, and can be recognized in our own games, even if the product's examples are not exactly pitched at the beginner level. 

You can see a description of the contents in the below screenshot, as well as in a list at the above ChessBase link.

As shown above, the videos are divided into three sections:

• The first one focuses on the idea of achieving optimal piece placement prior to effectively executing a strategic plan. Marin uses the concept of piece harmony to describe how they are working together, ideally at their maximal/most harmonious level. He offers examples from three different high-level games, in which the primary plan would fail if extra piece(s) were not brought into play, sometimes in non-obvious ways. At a more complex strategic level, this idea reflects the "always seek to improve your worst piece" general middlegame principle. The examples in this section (and subsequent ones) illustrate a sophisticated strategic approach of envisioning what you want to accomplish, then working backwards from that to calculate where the pieces can be placed to best execute the idea. Sometimes this means they need to move out of the way proactively from the opponent's threats, thereby gaining you a tempo in subsequent calculations, rather than doing something directly threatening. 
• The second section examines the power of looking for moves that do multiple things at once, in particular when they create more than one threat at a time. Here Marin is not talking about double attacks - he even states this in the video - although that is the most basic tactical expression of the idea, such as with a knight fork. Instead he looks at moves that have multiple different positional threats - although threatening material gain could be one of the ideas - that make it more difficult for the opponent to block all of them. There is some synergy of ideas with the first section, in terms of describing optimal piece placements and similar examples of finding retreats (for bishops and the queen) that can do multiple things for the position. These "backwards" type moves are typically harder to spot and we may also think (consciously or unconsciously) that retreating a piece is normally bad, when in fact the piece can become more powerful as a result, and/or enable the success of other pieces.
• The third section shifts perspective to the player defending against threats. As Marin notes in the introduction, one should look for an economy of force in defense - in other words, don't move pieces to over-defend weaknesses or only passively confront your opponent's threats. Rather, if you can, use just the right amount of defensive action to leave yourself more flexibility and opportunities for counterplay. The power of preparatory moves, which is also a theme in the first section in order to enable the main strategic idea in a position, is further demonstrated here, along with the idea of countering threats by following your own "dream plan" if you can.

Marin chops through many of the move sequences rather quickly, so this is definitely not a "move-by-move" type product. Neither does he explain how to find the correct plan in the first place during the middlegame, although he discusses what the principal ideas are for the players in each initial game position. Periodically he makes some useful comments about how to conduct practical calculation of variations during a game, in contrast with some of the longer analytic lines presented. This is a useful distinction and makes it explicit how we (including professional players) should not expect to be able to fully solve and analyze complex lines to the end while at the board. Rather, we need to confirm moves do not lose and also appear to be the best available, then continue refining our calculations as the game continues.

Thanks to Marin's deep level of theoretical knowledge, along with his long study and evident love and enthusiasm for chess, this thoughtful discussion of core middlegame principles and the practical illustrations contained in this video are worth the study time. Just don't expect to keep up with every click of his mouse on the board, or to automatically achieve the same depth of strategic vision (and calculation) as the GM-level players in the examples. As usual with ChessBase products the games are also available in an accompanying database with some annotations by Marin, so that can be a supplemental method of study for those who want to go over them at leisure.

Training quote of the day #53: Tim Gallwey

 

From The Inner Game of Tennis by Tim Gallwey:

How to Make Best Use of Technical Instructions

So the question that remains is how one person's greater level of experience can help another person. The short answer is that a valid instruction derived from experience can help me if it guides me to my own experiential discovery of any given stroke possibility. From the point of view of the student, the question becomes how to listen to technical instructions and use them without falling into the Self 1 traps of judgment, doubt, and fear. For the teacher or coach, the question has to be how to give instructions in such a way as to help the natural learning process of the student and not interfere with it. If insight can be gained into these questions, I believe they would be applicable to the learning of skills in many different domains.