Chess Performance Inventory

I've decided that it's worth the time to take stock of where I am regarding my chess performance.  I considered calling this a "skills inventory", which would be mostly correct, but I think some of the below categories (particularly tenacity) don't reflect what we would normally call a skill.  I also think that calling this a "performance inventory" is a useful approach, as it inherently makes the distinction between skill level (which is objectively demonstrated during play) and knowledge level (which is not necessarily manifested during play).

It's worth noting that there are a number of formal self-evaluation tests out there, two of the more popular ones being Igor Khemelnisty's Chess Exam and Training Guide (link is to a review at Wang's Chesshouse), which is comprehensive in nature, and the more narrowly focused Bain Rating Tactics Quiz at chesscafe.com.  While I may at some point tackle one or both as an improvement tool, by this point in my chess career I have a good insight into my performance strengths and weaknesses, in part stemming from recent analysis of both my historical and contemporary play (covered in Annotated Games #1-15 as of this post).

I give an overall grade in each of the below categories, with explanations and narratives that are designed to help guide subsequent training.  The grade is based on the standard A through F scale, with F being 59/100 or below.  In practical terms, an A (95/100) implies that there is little or no need for improvement, while the grades below that increasingly reflect either a significant performance gap between skill and knowledge level in the category, or simply a lack of knowledge.  For each category, I also give intended improvement steps ("Way Forward").  The first three categories look at performance during the traditional phases of a chess game (opening/middlegame/endgame), while the last three cover concepts that are more functional or universal in nature and tend to affect all phases of the game.

Opening:  B
This category covers openings selection and the evolution of an opening repertoire.  The criteria for openings effectiveness I discussed more at length in the latter post, but for me the essential, objective test is whether a player consistently is able to use their opening knowledge and understanding to reach favorable (or at least equal) middlegame positions against opposition of any strength.

This is one of my relative strengths as a player, with two solid, tested defenses against 1.e4 and 1.d4 (Caro-Kann and Slav) which also can answer almost any alternative setup by White.  The English opening (1. c4) as White has also been an effective weapon against players of all levels, although not one which is likely to score quick wins.  I have little experience or preparation in some of the more offbeat Queen Pawn openings, probably the largest hole in my repertoire.  With some English lines I also have very little practical familiarity, due to their lack of use by my opponents to date.

Way Forward:  Continue to analyze my historical and contemporary games; examine little-used but major theoretical lines and transpositional possibilities more closely in the English; play additional training games to highlight holes in the repertoire; complete initial study of the Dutch Defense; review selected repertoire lines in the database to improve memory and position recognition.


Middlegame:  C
This phase of the game covers a lot of chess skill area and is generally not fully defined, but the two major subcategories I will address here are:

• Strategic planning and evaluation.  This involves recognition of key positional factors, understanding of the typical plans available in different position-types, and knowing when to focus on attack or defense.  Here there is definitely a performance gap, as I am better able to understand a position analytically than to conceive and execute a fully correct plan.  This is also reflected in a tendency to have an advantage out of the opening phase, but then mishandle it into a more equal or even losing position; Annotated Game #15 is an excellent contemporary example.  One also needs to be aware of more sophisticated concepts such as prophylaxis, which I apply inconsistently.  My attacking play is also relatively weak.

• Tactical sight and calculation.  This refers to being able to see the tactical possibilities for both sides in a position and then calculate the resulting sequences (whether forced or not).  For some reason I have historically been weaker at visualizing counting sequences (i.e. when a series of material exchanges occur), so that is a needed area of improvement.  Board sight, including the problem of tunnel vision (focusing only on one area of the board), is also a recurring issue.  I am now much better acquainted with typical tactical and combinational ideas than when I began this blog, but still need further exposure to them.  

Way Forward:  Play more training games; continue working through The Art of Attack in Chess; continue regular practice with the Chess Tactics Server; continue reviewing annotated games from various sources.


Endgame:  F
Pretty self-explanatory score.  I have given very little study to the endgame, so this is the one area where there is no performance gap; I simply lack the requisite knowledge.  I would give myself a "high" F since I know some basic ideas, especially from K+P endings, and some other fundamental concepts - for example, that piece activity is the most important thing in rook endings - but 50/100 is still failing.  It's interesting to observe that this weakness has not had a major impact on past tournament performance, since almost all of my opposition has been nearly as bad in this category.  However, relying on performance that is only good in relation to similarly poor opposition ("grading on a curve") is not helpful to longer-term improvement.

Way Forward:  Once current opening and middlegame books are completed, start introductory endings book.


Thinking process:  D
This is the first of the "universal" categories and is often considered to be bound up with tactics, but it of course literally affects every move we make.  There are plenty of cases of people thinking for 10-15 minutes in the first few moves, for example, when they are uncertain of which opening to pursue or if an opponent takes them immediately out of their opening knowledge.

There are various different thinking processes described in the chess literature and blogosphere, often passionately argued over.  Here I'll focus on three sub-categories which should cover most of the substance necessary:

• Candidate moves.  Can I see all of the reasonable candidate moves in a position?  Can I narrow them down efficiently for calculation purposes?  When do I calculate one more deeply?  Having too narrow a focus in the candidate move selection process is a traditional weakness of mine, although computer-assisted game analysis and annotation is helping address this. 

• Falsifying moves.  This is closely allied to tactical sight and calculation ability, but does require additional thought and focus.  For those unfamiliar with the concept, it refers to the process (not unlike the scientific method of attempting to disprove hypotheses) of attempting to refute your selected move.  This involves seeing your opponent's potential threats in the current position and in the future positions that would result from your move.  A basic example is that your opponent has a mate in one threat on your back rank, which would falsify any move that did not protect against it.  This is a new concept for me and better incorporating it will go far toward addressing my failure to see and calculate my opponent's threats.

• Consistency.  Thinking well on half of my moves is not enough, it must be done on all of them, at least to the minimum standard of reviewing my opponent's possible threats in a position.  This is probably the most simple idea in this category, but also one of the most difficult to apply in practice, due to the ups and downs of a game that have a psychological impact.  I am not consistent in my thinking process.

Way Forward:  Play more training games; institute a minimum baseline thinking process on all moves ("checks, captures, threats"); consciously broaden search for candidate moves prior to determining which should be calculated; aggressively attempt to falsify each candidate move being calculated.


Time management:  A
This is the only category for me where there is no improvement needed.  I almost never have entered into unilateral time trouble (i.e. when the opponent still has significantly more time on their clock) and very rarely end up in mutual time trouble, for example in the last few moves of a time control.  (I tend not to think of the latter as a time management issue, as a player should theoretically use up nearly all of their time before a time control, in order to maximize their thinking.)  My relative strength in the opening phase has greatly helped in this regard, since as a result I normally have a significant amount of extra time to think during the middlegame, where I perhaps play somewhat slower than average.


Tenacity: C

This is something of a wildcard category, but nonetheless a very important one for performance purposes.  (See Braden Bournival's player profiles for another example of its use.)  How many times have we been hit by an unexpected move from our opponents that completely throws us off our game?  When a winning advantage is lost, it is also very common for the player on the downswing to make additional unnecessary mistakes and end up losing; see Annotated Game #13 for an example of this.  This kind of psychological effect is not limited to chess, as momentum and a positive/confident outlook (or its opposite) are powerful forces in other team and individual sports.  I would also put into this category a player's willingness to play a game out to the end, rather than take an easy draw while they believe they still have an advantage.

I can't think of another factor which so greatly affects our final win/loss results, but has nothing to do with our base chessplaying skills.  (Our overall health - both physical and mental - is of course also very important, as if we have the flu or are dealing with major personal problems, our ability to concentrate on a chessboard will be impacted.)  Some of my recent Chessmaster training games helped me understand how a lack of tenacity was affecting my results.  It was eye-opening to see that the majority of times that I blundered while having an advantage, I was in fact still at least objectively equal in the resulting position.  However, in one case I resigned outright, while in several others went down the slippery psychological slope and lost afterwards.  Since then, in training games I have gritted my teeth and refused to go down easy, with improved results to show for it.

Way Forward:  Mentally resolve before a game starts that I will not give up or panic after a blunder or an unexpected move by the opponent; do not accept easy draws when possessing an advantage.

Annotated Game #37: Swindle

This next game, from round 3 of the tournament, should have been a loss (which would have resulted in "castling long" on the tournament scorechart, 0-0-0).  Black played an inferior English Four Knights variation with 7...f6 and White had winning tactics available as early as move 9, which however were ignored.  At the time, I had relatively poor tactical sight and rarely even looked for tactical possibilities in the opening; this failure to consider tactics in the opening phase is still something of a blind spot for me.

In any event, I continued playing "normal" developing moves and achieved a positional plus out of the opening, only to lose a piece to an unusual pinning tactic by Black.  Showing tenacity, however, I decided to fight on and play aggressively, looking for whatever counterchances might be there.  This was psychologically the right choice, as Black passes up multiple chances to exchange material and simplify down to a position where White has no real threats.  White then weaves a net of force with his major pieces and Black stumbles into it, losing material and then resigning just before mate.

While this was not a high-quality game, it had its moments and it was a significant turning point for the tournament, showing that I was in fact capable of winning - in an ugly but effective manner - after a year's absence from serious play.  This is also a good example of a successful swindle, where the player who should lose refuses to go down easily and works hard to generate threats, which can hit home if ignored or mishandled by the opponent, as happened here.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A28"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Fritz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "65"] [EventDate "2003.??.??"] [TimeControl "240+2"] {191MB, Fritz8.ctg, LAPTOP A28: English Opening: Four Knights Variation} 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Bb5 f6 {one of three ways to protect e5, the other two being (with game examples):} (6... Qd6 7. d4 exd4 8. Nxd4 Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bd7 10. Bd3 Ne5 11. Be2 c5 12. Nf3 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Nxf3 14. Bxf3 O-O-O 15. Ke1 Be6 16. Bb2 c4 17. h4 Be7 18. a4 Bf6 19. g4 Bd5 20. Bxd5 Rxd5 21. g5 {Duverlie,V-Bonati,C/Cannes 2000/EXT 2001/1/2-1/2 (50)}) (6... Nxc3 7. Bxc6+ bxc6 8. bxc3 Bd6 9. Qc2 f5 10. d4 e4 11. Nd2 O-O 12. f4 Kh8 13. Bb2 Ba6 14. c4 c5 15. d5 Bb7 16. O-O-O Qe7 17. g4 fxg4 18. Rdg1 Rf7 19. Rxg4 Bc8 20. Rxg7 Rxg7 21. Rg1 {Syvanen,J-Pitkanen,J/Lahti 2000/CBM 79 ext/1-0 (47)}) 7. d4 {at this point the database only shows three games for White, all of them wins.} Bb4 8. Bd2 {safe development, protecting c3 again.} (8. Qb3 {would be the aggressive choice, directly pressuring Black's unwieldy group of pieces.}) 8... Qd6 $4 {this allows a winning tactic, which White however misses. It was reflective of my play at the time that I didn't look for tactics in the opening (still something of a weakness).} (8... Bxc3 {this exchange would help simplify Black's issues on the queenside.} 9. Bxc3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 {and White is still better positionally, but Black no longer has to worry about dropping a piece.}) 9. O-O (9. dxe5 $1 {exploits the fact that the Nc6 is pinned and therefore no help to its comrades.} fxe5 (9... Nxc3 10. bxc3 fxe5 11. cxb4) 10. Nxd5 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2) 9... Bg4 $2 (9... Bxc3 $5 {is better, in order to remove the tactical vulnerability} 10. Bxc3 e4 $14) 10. Ne4 (10. dxe5 {was again possible.}) 10... Qe6 (10... Qe7 {was necessary to protect the bishop.}) 11. Bxb4 $18 Ndxb4 12. Qa4 $6 {a good positional move, but again some tactics are missed.} (12. a3 $5 Nd5 13. Nc5 Qc8 14. h3 Bd7 15. dxe5 {with a discovered attack on the Nd5} Nb6 16. exf6 gxf6 {and Houdini considers White's attack to be worth over a piece in value, although there's no immediate knockout.}) 12... O-O 13. a3 {this comes a move too late. Now Black's rooks are connected and he can hit back with ...a6.} (13. Nfd2 Qe8 $16) 13... a6 (13... Bxf3 $5 {is preferred by the engines.} 14. gxf3 a6 $14) 14. axb4 $16 (14. Be2 b5 15. Qd1 Nd5 16. Nc5) 14... axb5 15. Qxb5 (15. Qxa8 Bxf3 16. d5 Qxd5 $16 17. Nc3 { is the unanimous choice of the engines.}) 15... exd4 {my opponent evidently missed the counterattacking reply} (15... Bxf3 16. gxf3 Rxa1 17. Rxa1 exd4 18. Qxb7 dxe3 19. fxe3 $11) 16. Nc5 $14 Qd5 {this imposes a somewhat unusual pin on the Nc5, which I did not recognize at that time, so played} 17. Nxd4 $4 Nxd4 18. exd4 b6 $1 {exploits the lateral pin of the knight.} 19. h3 Be6 (19... bxc5 {is clearly weaker, comments Fritz.} 20. hxg4 Qxd4 21. Rxa8 Rxa8 22. Re1 $14) 20. Rad1 bxc5 21. dxc5 {the position is now clearly won for Black, as the two pawns that White has for the piece are easily bottled up on the queenside.} Qb3 22. Rfe1 {White's only hope is to try to create some threats with his better-coordinated and centralized pieces.} Bc4 (22... Rae8) 23. Qc6 Qxb4 24. Re4 {White continues to play aggressively, although not objectively best according to the engines.} Qb3 (24... Qb5 25. Qxc7 Rfc8 26. Qb6 Qxb6 {would be an easy way for Black to simplify towards a win.} (26... Rxc5 {is what the engine like, which however lets White get in a series of checks. Computers don't mind defending under pressure.} 27. Rd8+ Kf7 28. Re7+ Kxe7 29. Qd6+ Kf7 30. Rxa8 Re5 31. Ra7+ Kg6)) 25. Rde1 {more sloppy than aggressive.} (25. Rd7) 25... Bd5 26. R4e3 Qc4 (26... Bxc6 {would simplify down and remove most of White's possible threats.} 27. Rxb3 Rfe8 28. Rxe8+ Rxe8) 27. Qxc7 Rac8 28. Qd7 Qxc5 $2 {walks into} 29. Rc3 Qa5 $4 (29... Bc4 {is not easy for a human to find as a defense.} 30. Rec1 Rcd8 $11 31. Qg4 Rd2 32. Qh4 Rxb2 33. Rxc4 { and it's drawn.}) 30. Re7 $18 {with mate threats.} Bf7 (30... Rxc3 $4 {[%emt 0: 00:03] fails to mate in} 31. Rxg7+ Kh8 32. Rxh7+ Kg8 33. Qg7#) 31. Rxc8 Qa1+ 32. Kh2 Qxb2 {an amusing pawn grab before the curtain comes down on Black.} 33. Rxf8+ (33. Rxf8+ Kxf8 34. Rxf7+ Kg8 35. Qe8#) 1-0

Chess performance and chess skills: not the same thing

The last two analyzed games (Annotated Game #104 and Annotated Game #105) provided a useful reminder that chess performance - by that, I mean a player's actual results in their games - is not necessarily a reflection of a player's chess skills.  This will not surprise longtime players, but it is still worth examining as a phenomenon.

It is said that there is no luck in chess, but that is not quite true.  Because it is a mental game (or sport), anything that affects our mental abilities on a particular day can significantly influence our performance at the board.  Life events, personal issues, random encounters and of course our physical health can all perturb our minds.  I recall that during one tournament, I drove about ten minutes away in order to pick up lunch and bring it back, with not a lot of time to spare before the next round.  Of course that was the time a police officer decided to pull me over for "aggressive driving" because I kept trying to beat the series of lights on the highway which were badly timed.  I hadn't in fact done anything wrong (wasn't speeding and hadn't run a light), so nothing happened to me, but I didn't have the best mental focus for the next round (also having to eat a cold lunch by that point).

Because your skills aren't going to improve while playing in a tournament (or an individual game), what therefore matters most about your performance is maximizing the use of what skills you already possess.  This requires concentration, focus and good judgment.  The flip side of this, of course, is that if you can disrupt your opponent's focus and judgment, your own relative winning chances increase.  I don't advocate intentionally annoying your opponent off the chessboard, but rather doing everything possible to disrupt their play on the chessboard.  This is especially needful when in objective terms you are losing.

As the analysis showed in the last two games, I was either objectively lost or at a serious material and positional disadvantage.  This indicates a failure of chess skills (thinking process, calculation, prophylaxis, etc.) but performance-wise I still won both games.  What happens when this kind of result occurs?

• One could simply say that the winning player was lucky enough to execute a swindle.  This may be true, but doesn't help our understanding of why and how this "luck" was created.
• Tenacity is essential for the initially losing and eventually winning player; for that reason, it was highlighted as its own category in my Chess Performance Inventory.  Annotated Game #104 was a great personal example, as I nearly gave up and resigned after Black's kingside breakthrough (which gave him an objectively won game), but made the deliberate decision to fight as hard as possible.
• Although refusing to give up the fight is a necessary condition, it's obviously not sufficient in itself to disrupt your opponent's play.  Creating threats by obtaining active play for your pieces is absolutely essential, otherwise your opponent will have no trouble finishing you off.  In other words, give them an opportunity to go wrong with their subsequent play by ignoring your threats (the same way you got in trouble in the first place, no doubt.)

On a more sophisticated level one can use what GM Alex Yermolinsky in The Road to Chess Improvement calls "trend-breaking tools".  For example, a pawn sacrifice in return for enhanced piece play can let you seize the initiative and get more practical chances, even if a computer engine might indicate no difference in the evaluation (or perhaps a slightly worse one).  One characteristic of master games is how highly valued the initiative is, as the side which possesses it is the one making threats and dictating the course of the game.  Psychologically speaking it is almost always harder to defend than attack, even when an objective evaluation of the position might be completely neutral.

Something that is often mentioned by chess trainers, especially for players at the Class level, is how aggressive players with less knowledge of the game tend to win much more often than players with greater skills and understanding, but who play passively.  Naturally a too-aggressive player can and will over-press their opponent and lose, but it's worth reflecting on how their performance over time will still overshadow that of a too-passive player, who simply does not create enough opportunities for themselves.  It's much easier for a winning, aggressive player to then fill in the skills and knowledge gaps and thereby improve, than it is for the passive player to break out of their rut.

My own historical "playing style" was certainly more on the passive side.  One of the key aspects of improvement for me has been to break out of that stereotype and my more recent games have reflected that - although it's obvious a good deal of work remains to be done on my skills.

What makes a chess nemesis?

A recent article by IM Silman at chess.com, "The Difficult Opponent", provides some useful insight into what makes particular individuals - of similar strength or even below that of a player - become someone else's chess nemesis.  Silman never actually uses the word "nemesis", but many of us have experienced the phenomenon where it seems that every time you play a certain opponent, they "have your number".

The article focuses on the idea of a matchup in chess style between two players that significantly favors one side, rather than emphasizing the psychological factors between the two players, although Silman also gives that some credit.  However, although he provides some entertaining examples, he never really defines what aspects of the chessplayers' styles contributed to this.

By comparison, the factors that go into personal pluses or minuses against particular opponents were also discussed by Viktor Kortchnoi in his "My Life for Chess" DVD interviews.  There he talked about his record against various top players during different phases of his career, which sometimes had more to do with playing strength and preparation, while other times it seemed more due to psychological dynamics.

To gain additional personal insight into this, I examined one series of games played during the later portion of my scholastic career against an opponent with whom I always had significantly more trouble than others.  In two out of three games I nevertheless managed an undeserved result (win or draw).  He had a somewhat unusual style, content to exchange off and head for endgames, which he understood better.  This matched up in an asymmetrical way with my understanding of endgames (nearly nonexistent) and the transition from middlegame to endgame.  My opening selection was also conducive to his style, as I had White in all three games and played an unambitious line in the English against his Queen's Indian setup.  What I think threw him off in the end was my refusal to give up (tenacity) and my ability (with some luck) to find unexpected tactical resources.  One could even say that we were "difficult opponents" for each other, for different reasons.

Another more recent example for me has been a two-game tournament losing streak against a lower-rated opponent.  Both games I should have won and I was looking forward to the second one as a revenge opportunity (which never materialized).  I hope the third time in fact, will be the charm.

Which brings us back around to the psychological factors.  I analyzed both of the games (the first being Annotated Game #116) and the common feature in both was that I made things more complicated for myself - and simpler for the opponent - than they needed to be.  Part of the challenge in my next game with this opponent, if and when it occurs, will be making the necessary correction in my approach to the game, along with not getting psyched out by our previous history.  I think the latter consideration starts to loom large in a player's thoughts after a losing streak gets going, so can become a perpetuation of defeatism.  One way to break out of the mental trap - I believe probably the best one - is to focus on playing the board, not the opponent.  This requires mental toughness but is quite doable, unless your opponent is truly significantly stronger than you are.

Annotated Game #230: Bishop vs. Queen

This next, first-round tournament game illustrates the practical value of tenacity in achieving results. My opponent varies from normal Caro-Kann Panov lines with 7. Be2, which is however a solid move. I play the opening well, but start going wrong on move 15, heading into a queenless middlegame, by mis-evaluating the results of a piece exchange. Following that, neither of us really understand how to deal with the pawn structure on the queenside, but I make the last mistake and end up an exchange down with no compensation by move 21.

The ensuing struggle of R+B vs. 2 rooks turns complicated and I miss the correct drawing line on move 36. However, my active play still provided counterchances and I end up with a bishop and 3 pawns versus White's new queen, which proved frustrating enough to secure the draw. An unorthodox way to fight back, but a practical success.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class B"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "B14"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Komodo 11.2"] [PlyCount "98"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Be2 {an uncommon but solid move.} O-O 8. O-O Nc6 (8... dxc4 $5) 9. c5 b6 10. Bb5 Bb7 ( 10... Bd7) 11. Bxc6 Bxc6 12. b4 Ne4 {it's good to play actively here.} 13. Ne5 (13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. Ne5 Bd5 {and Black is comfortable with the strong bishop, the doubled e-pawn being more of a help than a hindrance.}) 13... Nxc3 $15 { correctly continuing with active play.} 14. Nxc6 Nxd1 15. Nxd8 Rfxd8 $6 (15... Nc3 {preserves the knight, which is better than its White counterpart.} 16. Nc6 Ne2+ 17. Kh1 Bf6 $15 {The White knight looks menacing on c6, leading the pawn formation, but in fact has nowhere to go.}) 16. Rxd1 a5 $6 {with the next sequence, it becomes clear that neither of us know how to properly handle the queenside structure.} 17. bxa5 $6 (17. b5 bxc5 18. Ba3 $14 {this ability of White to force a recapture on c5 is what I missed, as it pins the c-pawn against the Be7.}) 17... Rxa5 $2 {here I am too afraid of the c-pawn, but inadvertently empower it using the rook to recapture and leaving the b6 pawn en prise. Capturing (but not recapturing on a5) with the pawn is perfectly fine and also eliminates some White tactics based on the a3-f8 diagonal.} ( 17... bxc5 $1 18. dxc5 (18. Ba3 $6 Rxa5 {now the rook capture makes sense} 19. Bxc5 Bxc5 20. dxc5 Rxc5 $17) 18... Rxa5 $17) 18. cxb6 $6 (18. Bf4 {now tactically punishes the pawn capture on c5, although Black has no better option.} bxc5 (18... Rd7 19. cxb6 $16) 19. Bc7 Rda8 20. Bxa5 Rxa5 21. dxc5 Bxc5 $16) 18... Rb8 $2 (18... Rb5 $11) 19. Bf4 $1 $18 {my opponent now sees this idea, which tactically ties me in knots, given the possibility of Bc7 and a skewer on the d8-a5 diagonal. However, there is nothing better, given the power of the advanced passed b-pawn, so I am forced to sacrifice the exchange.} Rxb6 (19... Rb7 20. a4 $18 {and the Ra5 can now be driven back, followed by a4-a5, which is winning for White.}) 20. Bc7 Rba6 21. Bxa5 $18 Rxa5 {Black has no compensation for the exchange. However, I did not give up on drawing chances, since my R+B combination can fight to restrain the a-pawn, and my structure otherwise is solid.} 22. a4 g6 23. Kf1 Kg7 24. Ke2 Bb4 25. Kd3 { my opponent is correctly bringing his king into the fight. Meanwhile, I am working to restrain it.} Ra7 {vacating the a5 square for the bishop and covering the 7th rank.} 26. Rdb1 Ba5 27. Rb5 Bd8 $6 {the bishop should continue blocking the pawn.} (27... h5 $5) 28. Kc3 (28. a5 {is more to the point.}) 28... Bf6 {my idea was to tie to the king to the defense of the d4 pawn. This is not a bad idea, although White can simply accept this fact and ram the a-pawn through eventually. However, in practice it is not so simple, as I can get counterplay without careful precautions by White.} 29. a5 Rc7+ 30. Kd3 Rc4 31. a6 $2 {this underestimates Black's counterplay.} Rxd4+ 32. Kc2 $14 Rc4+ 33. Kb3 Rc3+ {White has to somehow seek shelter from the rook while not losing material, for example the Ra1. The advanced a-pawn means that I must be careful about taking material, however, and can only do it if it helps with my goal of perpetual attack on White's king.} 34. Ka2 Rc6 {again not giving White time to consolidate.} 35. Ra5 Bxa1 {I had sufficient time to think this through and conclude that it led to a draw.} 36. a7 Bd4 $2 {this, however, is not the drawing line.} (36... Rc8 $1 37. Kxa1 (37. a8=Q Rxa8 38. Rxa8 Bd4 { with a comfortable draw for Black.}) 37... Ra8 38. Kb2 Kf6 39. Kb3 Ke5 40. Kb4 Ke4 {is the trick, keeping the balance with counterplay. Black's king can be shut out of the queenside by White's, unfortunately, but the passed d-pawn counterbalances this.}) 37. a8=Q $18 Rc2+ 38. Kb1 Rb2+ 39. Kc1 Rxf2 40. Ra2 Rxa2 {I judged that making my opponent prove the superiority of a queen to a bishop plus three pawns was my best practical chance.} 41. Qxa2 Bf6 42. Kc2 d4 (42... Be5 $5 {Komodo calculates that Black is better off not moving the central pawns and just making moves with the bishop, perhaps with ...h5 thrown in.}) 43. Kd3 e5 44. g4 Bg5 45. Qa6 h5 $2 {giving White the chance to open lines with a queen on the board is not the right idea. Specifically, this also will allow the king to penetrate via f5 after a pawn exchange.} (45... Be3) 46. h3 (46. gxh5 gxh5 47. Ke4) 46... hxg4 47. hxg4 Bf4 48. Qc6 Bg5 49. Qf3 f6 $2 { again opening lines unnecessarily, in this case the 7th rank, but my opponent was tired of trying to crack my position and offered a draw.} (49... Bf4) 1/2-1/2

2013 Women's World Team Championship

I followed this year's Women's World Team Championship with great interest and was not disappointed, due to the high level of fighting chess.  The U.S. team placed in the middle, after a slow start but a stronger finish including a victory over the Russian team in round 7.

The following games caught my attention in particular.

Round 7: GM Alexandra Kosteniuk (Russia) - IM Irina Krush (USA)
In this game Krush plays with fire in a Richter-Rauzer Open Sicilian, but it's her opponent who ends up getting burned.  After the middlegame fireworks explode all over the board, by move 34 an unusual material balance (N+2 pawns vs. rook) is present.  Just looking at the position then, one thinks that the Black rook has the upper hand, given the open nature of the position and the pawn structure, but it takes some more creative play from Krush to overcome Kosteniuk.  The key move at the end seems to be 43...Bc1! which White could have prevented by taking the Black b-pawn earlier.

[Event "FIDE Women’s World Teams"] [Site "Astana KAZ"] [Date "2013.03.10"] [Round "7.2"] [White "Kosteniuk, Alexandra"] [Black "Krush, Irina"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B66"] [WhiteElo "2495"] [BlackElo "2448"] [PlyCount "98"] [EventDate "2013.03.03"] [WhiteTeam "RUS"] [BlackTeam "USA"] [BlackTeamCountry "USA"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. O-O-O h6 9. Be3 Qc7 10. f3 Rb8 11. g4 Ne5 12. Kb1 b5 13. Bd3 b4 14. Nce2 d5 15. g5 hxg5 16. Bxg5 dxe4 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Bxe4 Bd7 19. Qf4 Ke7 20. Qg3 Bh6 21. f4 Nc4 22. Rhe1 f5 23. Bd3 Nd6 24. Ng1 Kf8 25. Ngf3 a5 26. Ne5 a4 27. Nxd7%2B Qxd7 28. Bb5 Qc7 29. Bxa4 Ne4 30. Qb3 Bxf4 31. Qxe6 fxe6 32. Nxe6%2B Kf7 33. Nxc7 Nd2%2B 34. Rxd2 Bxd2 35. Bb3%2B Kf6 36. Re6%2B Kg5 37. Re2 Bf4 38. Rg2%2B Kh4 39. Ne6 Be3 40. a4 bxa3 41. Rg7 Rh6 42. Nc7 axb2 43. Re7 Bc1 44. Ne6 Ra8 45. Ba2 Rhh8 46. Nc7 Ra7 47. Rd7 f4 48. Rg7 f3 49. Rf7 f2 0-1

Round 7: WGM Olga Girya (Russia) - WIM Viktorija Ni (USA)
The most striking thing about this game is the final tactical sequence, in which White clearly lacked the requisite sense of danger.  White's position is in fact fine, but what appears to be an obvious defensive interposition is punished by a classic pinning theme.  Ni clearly never gave up trying to create winning chances for herself and was rewarded for her tenacity, as this win plus Krush's gave the U.S. team the victory.

[Event "FIDE Women’s World Teams"] [Site "Astana KAZ"] [Date "2013.03.10"] [Round "7.4"] [White "Girya, Olga"] [Black "Ni, Viktorija"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E46"] [WhiteElo "2440"] [BlackElo "2263"] [PlyCount "98"] [EventDate "2013.03.03"] [WhiteTeam "RUS"] [BlackTeam "USA"] [BlackTeamCountry "USA"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Nge2 Re8 6. a3 Bf8 7. d5 d6 8. dxe6 Bxe6 9. Nf4 Bg4 10. Qc2 Nc6 11. h3 Bd7 12. Be2 Ne5 13. O-O Qc8 14. b3 Ng6 15. Nxg6 hxg6 16. e4 c6 17. Rd1 b5 18. Bf4 Re6 19. Rd2 a5 20. cxb5 cxb5 21. Bxb5 Bxb5 22. Nxb5 Nxe4 23. Re2 Qb7 24. Nc3 d5 25. Nxe4 dxe4 26. Rae1 Rc8 27. Qb2 Rb6 28. Re3 Qd5 29. Be5 f5 30. Bd4 Rb5 31. a4 Rb4 32. Be5 Re8 33. Bf4 Be7 34. Rg3 Bf6 35. Qd2 Rd4 36. Qc2 Kh7 37. h4 e3 38. Rgxe3 Rxe3 39. Bxe3 Rxh4 40. Rd1 Qb7 41. f4 Rg4 42. Rd2 Qf3 43. Qc5 Qg3 44. Rf2 Rh4 45. Qc1 Rh3 46. Rf3 Qh2%2B 47. Kf1 Qh1%2B 48. Bg1 Rxf3%2B 49. gxf3 Bd4 0-1

Round 8: IM Irina Krush (USA) - GM Anna Ushenina (Ukraine)
Krush here defeats the current Women's World Champion, having disposed of former World Champion Kosteniuk the previous round.  This game has a completely different character, as White chooses a compact Reti-type structure and maneuvers quietly for the first 12 moves.  After that, though, the latent offensive potential on the kingside comes into play featuring a highly aggressive space expansion by White's pawns through move 20, followed again by a period of maneuvering.  The end comes suddenly as White lines up a threat on the f-file that Black's uncoordinated pieces are unable to meet.  For an English Opening player like me, where some similarities exist in both the maneuvering and attacking possibilities, this is an example of high-level chess that is most instructive and entertaining, mixing various kinds of play to make a satisfying result.

[Event "FIDE Women’s World Teams"] [Site "Astana KAZ"] [Date "2013.03.11"] [Round "8.2"] [White "Krush, Irina"] [Black "Ushenina, Anna"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A07"] [WhiteElo "2448"] [BlackElo "2477"] [PlyCount "81"] [EventDate "2013.03.03"] [WhiteTeam "USA"] [BlackTeam "UKR"] [WhiteTeamCountry "USA"] 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c6 3. Bg2 Bg4 4. d3 Nd7 5. h3 Bh5 6. Nbd2 e6 7. O-O Bd6 8. b3 Ne7 9. Bb2 O-O 10. Qe1 e5 11. e4 Re8 12. Nh4 f6 13. f4 Qc7 14. g4 Bf7 15. f5 h6 16. Nhf3 Bc5%2B 17. Kh1 Qb6 18. h4 Be3 19. g5 Bh5 20. gxf6 gxf6 21. Ng1 Kh7 22. Bc1 Bd4 23. Rb1 dxe4 24. dxe4 Ng8 25. Ne2 Bc5 26. Nc4 Qc7 27. b4 Bf8 28. a3 Bf7 29. Ne3 a5 30. Rg1 axb4 31. axb4 Re7 32. Bf3 Be8 33. Ng3 Rg7 34. Bh5 Qd8 35. Bd2 Qe7 36. Qe2 b5 37. Rg2 Nb6 38. Rbg1 Ra7 39. Bxe8 Qxe8 40. Nh5 Rxg2 41. Qxg2 1-0

Congratulations on a well-fought tournament to the U.S. team and especially to IM Krush, who earned a gold medal for her individual performance, scoring 7/9 with a performance rating of 2607.

Annotated Game #111: A first Dutch Defense

This game, my first in the Dutch Defense, contains pretty much what you would expect from the occasion: an opening blunder on the kingside, lots of tactics, and unexpected resources by Black that (almost) save the day.  I was unfamiliar with the sideline my opponent chose - probably so was he - and learned the hard way the need to look for tactics in the Dutch from very early on, rather than proceeding only on opening principles.

White chose to let up on the pressure in the middlegame, however, and also missed a tactical blow from Black on move 16, which eventually let me equalize.  I should have entered the tactical complications of 17...Qxb2! after which White has no better than a perpetual, but even after spending a great deal of time on the calculations, could not definitively resolve them in my favor.  Even with the lesser move, a bishop retreat, I was able to transition into an equal endgame, but being tired (or lazy, depending on how you look at it) I allowed White to win a decisive central pawn, then called it quits after blundering another one.

The game showed how psychology and fatigue can influence both sides in what was a rather wild, see-saw match.  However, that's exactly what a Dutch Defense game should be, so I'll keep working on it.  Lesson learned in one sideline, at least.  On the positive side, my tenacity in the middlegame was good, as I constantly sought for opportunities to strike back rather than accept my fate.  My tactical vision (when I actively looked for it) was also good in places, for example with the exchange sacrifice sequence started on move 9, the need to play 13...e5 to try and free my game, and seeing the possibilities on moves 16 and 17, even if I failed to fully calculate the large amount of complications after the best move.

[Event "DHLC Slow Swiss #11"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2014.01.04"] [Round "2"] [White "MurkyLizard"] [Black "ChessAdmin_01"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A80"] [WhiteElo "1611"] [BlackElo "1435"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Houdini"] [PlyCount "61"] [EventDate "2014.??.??"] [TimeControl "45"] {A80: Dutch Defence: Unusual White second moves} 1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 {this move normally implies that Bg5 will follow} Nf6 3. Bg5 {with similar ideas for White as in the Veresov Attack (the same initial three moves, except with Black playing ...d5 instead of ...f5)} d5 {Black gets a lock on e4 and opens the diagonal for the Bc8} 4. e3 (4. Bxf6 {is by far the most common choice.}) 4... Ne4 {here I had no idea what to do, having expected the bishop to take on f6, so thought for a bit and figured that the best way to take advantage of White's omission would be to use the knight actively. I was wrong. This was a failure to correctly evaluate the resulting position, as well as a failure to consider the burden of proof on Black of violating general opening principles (not moving the same piece twice early on).} (4... e6 {would be a reasonable move, freeing the Bf8 and reinforcing Black's central pawns. Black would thereby head for a type of Stonewall position.}) 5. Nxe4 fxe4 {Black now has major problems developing his pieces and his king position is weak.} 6. c4 $146 {now out of the database; only one other game had been played previously in this line, a White victory.} h6 $2 {this move was played because I completely focused on my own "threat" against the bishop, assuming it would have to be retreated, and therefore missed White's next move. In the Dutch Defense, one has to be looking for tactics from early on, something which I forgot and was playing simply on (poor) principle. Specifically, Black after his first move has to guard the weakened h5-e8 diagonal.} (6... Qd7 {is Black's best try, according to Houdini, but this is still quite awkward.} 7. Ne2 e6 $16) 7. Qh5+ $18 Kd7 {the only move} 8. Bf4 g5 $2 {Black's game is strategically ruined by this point, but the text move makes it even worse.} (8... c6 {would put up the most resistance.} 9. a3 (9. cxd5 {was what I had worried about most, but Black has the useful maneuver} Qa5+ 10. Kd1 Qxd5) 9... e6) 9. Be5 {Houdini's evaluation function gives White the advantage of more than a full rook here.} e6 {the only move to allow Black to try and get some activity going, an exchange sacrifice.} 10. Bxh8 {White goes for the easy material gain, somewhat freeing Black's game (which is still losing objectively).} (10. Qf7+ {would be more effective for White's attack, at least temporarily passing up on capturing the rook.} Be7 11. Bxh8 (11. cxd5 $18) 11... Qxh8 12. cxd5) 10... Bb4+ 11. Kd1 Qxh8 12. Qf7+ Kd8 13. cxd5 e5 {my opponent apparently did not expect this and thought for some time here. As with the exchange sacrifice, it is Black's best (and only) attempt to generate some counterplay, based on attacking d4 and getting the Qh8 into the action.} 14. Rc1 Bd7 {I considered this the most active defensive move. Black protects c7 by interfering with the 7th rank.} (14... Nd7 {is what was preferred by the engine, although it's no solution to Black's problems.} 15. Ne2 Qf6 16. Qg8+ Bf8 17. dxe5 Nxe5 18. h4 $18) 15. dxe5 $6 {I was happy to see this, as it opens up the long diagonal and activates my queen. White is still winning, of course, but Black now has more chances.} (15. Ne2 {instead would bring another piece into the fight.}) 15... Qxe5 16. a3 $2 {ironically, White makes a similar tactical oversight as Black previously did on the kingside, when attempting to kick White's bishop.} (16. Kc2 {is the best defense, apparently, but would be difficult for a human to play without misgivings.} Bd6 17. h4 $18) 16... Ba4+ $1 $11 {I thought for a little while here, but the bishop move was clearly best, so saved my big think for the next move.} 17. Rc2 {the only move that prevents mate} Be7 $2 { my opponent, who was significantly lower on time, must have appreciated this defensive retreat from me.} (17... Qxb2 $1 {is what I spent most of my time calculating, but I could not see the end-state clearly after White's series of checks and thought that White would eventually be able to do something besides check the king. I was wrong, as it turns out White can pick up a couple of pawns, but has nothing better than to keep a perpetual check going, or suffer a similar fate from Black.} 18. Qg8+ {is actually what I spent most of my time on.} (18. Qxc7+ Ke8 19. Qc8+ (19. axb4 Nc6 {using an interference theme} 20. f3 Qxc2+ 21. Ke1 Rd8 $11) 19... Kf7 20. axb4 Qb1+ 21. Kd2 Nd7 $11) 18... Ke7 19. Qh7+ Kf8 20. Qxh6+ Ke8 {I thought I had to avoid this square, because of} 21. Bb5+ {which I thought would be a decisive deflection tactic, but it in fact loses. Black still has enough material left to mate.} c6 22. Bxa4 $2 Qb1+ 23. Rc1 (23. Ke2 Qe1#) 23... Qd3#) 18. Kc1 (18. Qg8+ $5 Kd7 19. Qe6+ Qxe6 20. dxe6+ Kxe6 21. Bc4+ Ke5 22. b3 $16) 18... Bxc2 $14 {the attack is over, so I cash in the material.} 19. Kxc2 Bf6 20. Qg8+ (20. Qf8+ $5 Kd7 21. Qb4 Qxd5 22. Bc4 $14) 20... Ke7 $11 21. Qe6+ {White has nothing better now than to head for the even endgame, as he has to exchange off the Qe5.} Qxe6 22. dxe6 Kxe6 23. Bc4+ Ke5 { the king is properly placed here, at an active central location, although I thought that it got in the way of my other pieces afterwards; it should have been strategically withdrawn to e6 at an appropriate time.} 24. Ne2 Nc6 25. Nc3 Na5 $2 {simply a lazy move.} (25... Rd8 $142 $5 $11 {was what I had originally planned. Then I had the idea of chasing the Bc4, without seeing that it could now move forward to d5 with the Nc3's protection. This was a thinking process failure, by not asking myself what the previous White move had accomplished (additional control of d5, attacking e4).}) 26. Bd5 $16 {Attacks the isolani on e4, notes Houdini via the Fritz interface. A positional characteristic (isolated pawn) I also should have paid more attention to when starting the endgame, from a strategic point of view.} c6 27. Bxe4 $16 {Things are now looking rather grim for Black, with the passed e-pawn. However, resistance is still possible.} Nc4 28. Rd1 Nd6 {not a bad move, closing off the d-file.} 29. Bg6 (29. Bf3 Rf8 $16) 29... Rg8 {this was a rather cheap threat.} (29... Ke6 { would be better here, untangling the king from the Bf6 and also covering the d7 square.}) 30. Bh5 g4 $2 {the last mistake. I had ideas of isolating the bishop on h4, but White's rook move ended that.} (30... Ke6 $16 {again would be best.}) 31. Rd4 $18 {Black will lose another pawn and have no counterplay remaining in the ending, giving the game to White.} 1-0

Annotated Game #18: Comeback (Round 3)

This is the final game from my "comeback" tournament (previously shown in Annotated Game #14 and Annotated Game #16).  Against a strong Class A player, I face the London System for the first (and only) time in tournament play.  My lack of familiarity with the position-type shows, as I try to apply some standard ideas from the Slav and other d4/d5 openings with poor results.  White seizes the initiative with 8. g4! but fails to put Black away, while at the same time creating some weaknesses in his own camp.  Black shows tenacity by continuing to look for counterthreats and then seizes the moment after White overlooks a mating pattern with two bishops.

In this tournament I scored 2/3 against an opposition with an average 2026 rating, resulting in a 2149 performance rating.  Statistically that is not meaningful across a whole career.  However, it at least showed that I am capable of playing level with Expert rated opposition in a tournament.  Certainly my opponents helped me achieve this result, but that's all part of the performance aspect of chess.  In that context, it's worth noting that I played at a much higher level in the loss (#16) than I did in this win.

For future annotated games, I intend to have them be a mix of past tournament games, starting chronologically from this point on in my career, and contemporary training games.  I find it encouraging that my chess knowledge has increased to the point where I can easily recognize common flaws in my play, including certain types of positional understanding and patterns of thinking.  This game again demonstrates a past ignorance of the relative value of minor pieces and how/when it is best to exchange them, for example the key role of the White knight on e5.  My contemporary play also reflects a "hangover" of these past practices - it is very hard to eradicate bad habits - but acknowledging the problem is the first step to fixing it.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class A"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D02"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Friz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "32"] [EventDate "1992.??.??"] {D02:1 d4 d5 2 Nf sidelines, including 2...Nf6 3 g3 and 2...Nf6 3 Bf4} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 Bf5 {the third most popular response to the London System. Black keeps the symmetry and some of the standard Slav ideas.} 4. e3 e6 5. Nbd2 {Bd3 is played most often here, the game move and c4 being the secondary choices.} Nbd7 {the bishop development with Bd6 looks superior here.} 6. Ne5 c5 {an incorrect reaction that does not take advantage of the Nd7 placement to exchange the Ne5.} ({Compare with a simple continuation such as} 6... Nxe5 7. Bxe5 Bd6 8. Bd3 O-O {where Black has equalized and has comfortable development. }) 7. c3 Be7 8. g4 {White, no doubt benefitting from his better experience in the system, finds an aggressive (and best, according to Houdini) way to exploit Black's development scheme.} Be4 {while this is a common idea in Slav positions, to provoke a White positional weakness, it doesn't work here. Nxe5 was still the best approach.} 9. f3 $18 Bg6 10. h4 (10. g5 $18 {as Fritz originally pointed out, is the killer move. The problem for Black is that c5 has loosened the queenside and allows Bb5 to pin the knight with a double attack, once the Nf6 is forced to move. For example} Nh5 11. Bb5 O-O 12. Nxd7 Nxf4 13. exf4 Qc7 14. Nxf8 Rxf8) 10... h5 {Black still resolutely ignores his chance to exchange off the Ne5 and forces White to make his best move.} 11. g5 Nxe5 {a little late in coming} 12. gxf6 $18 Bxf6 {Fritz here already spots the coming mate threat for Black, using the two bishops.} 13. dxe5 {one of those times where a capture decision is critical to the position. The e5 pawn now significantly reduces the scope of the Bf4 and with it White's threats, along with relinquishing the d4 square.} (13. Bxe5 Bxh4+ 14. Ke2 $18 O-O 15. dxc5 { and White is doing very nicely.}) 13... Bxh4+ 14. Ke2 c4 {setting up the mate threat.} ({Here Houdini prefers simply castling, with some compensation for the material due to White's king position and uncoordinated pieces.} 14... O-O) 15. Qa4+ Kf8 16. Rd1 $4 {as Fritz puts it, an unfortunate move that relinquishes the win. In practical terms, Black would still be able to make White have to work for it.} (16. Kd1 $18) 16... Bd3# 0-1

Annotated Game #48: English-Leningrad Dutch Swindle

This sixth-round tournament game featured the first time I had taken on a true Leningrad Dutch-style defense by Black in the English Opening; Annotated Game #3 doesn't really count, as it contained a major (and inferior) deviation by Black.

It's amusing to see how both sides somewhat mishandle the opening, for opposite reasons.  White, at the time unfamiliar with the opening, wastes a bit of time with an early Qc2, then a few moves later makes the strategic error of exchanging his dark-square bishop for Black's Nf6.  Black in the meantime, despite his evident experience with a true Leningrad Dutch setup, did not think to seize the opportunity offered by the English-style approach taken by White, which he could have done by playing an earlier ...e5.

The position is therefore level going into the middlegame.  From my perspective, it was instructive to see how the delay in White's queenside pawn advance and the bishop exchange significantly weakened my overall prospects for good play.  On the Black side, his putting the queen on d7 meant that the standard kingside attacking motifs would not be available to him.  Nevertheless, after White prematurely resolves the central pawn tension, Black is left with whatever play there is in the position by move 17.  White then chooses to trade queens, but thereby leaves himself with a difficult queenless middlegame.

Despite Black's threatening central mass of pawns, White almost manages to finesse things with 21. d4, but then misses two tactics in a row, while Black only misses the first one, leaving him with a winning positional and material advantage.  White therefore goes into swindling mode starting on move 25, playing actively and aggressively, trying to create situations for Black to go wrong.  As occurred in Annotated Game #37, my opponent failed to fight off the swindle, being distracted by White's threatening play; in fact, the game becomes won for White.

Alas, I too go wrong in the endgame and the swindler is in turn swindled into a draw due to a nice rook sacrifice from Black, with White then having to force perpetual check or let Black queen a pawn.  The endgame play is overall rather typical of Class players, with neither side understanding the kinds of winning ideas that needed to be executed.  While I'm not particularly proud of my play in this game, at least it's another plus sign for my tenacity.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A10"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Fritz/Houdini"] [PlyCount "94"] {A10: English Opening: Unusual Replies for Black} 1. c4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O d6 6. Nc3 O-O {this marks the first time I had faced a proper Leningrad Dutch setup with the English.} 7. Qc2 {the only three games in my database with this move are all wins for Black.} (7. d3 {is more to the point here, following the English strategy of taking away the e4 square from Black rather than transposing to the main line Leningrad Dutch with d4. Queen placement is better deferred.}) 7... Qe8 $146 {Black seems to be playing the opening on automatic; this is one of the standard Leningrad Dutch main lines moves, with the idea of supporting e5 and swinging the queen over to the kingside eventually.} (7... e5 {can be played immediately without the White pawn on d4; it would strike harder in the center and support a future ...f4 push. The general rule in the Leningrad Dutch is that if Black can get in ... e5 without any problems, it should be played.}) 8. d3 c6 {Consolidates b5+d5, notes Fritz.} 9. Bg5 {White chooses to exchange off Black's strong Nf6.} (9. b4 {would instead more quickly activate White's plan of queenside expansion.}) 9... h6 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 {Houdini now rates the position as equal. Black has an excellent, unopposed dark-square bishop and a head-start on his kingside pawn advance.} 11. Rab1 e5 (11... Qf7 {alternatively would deploy the queen as part of the kingside attack buildup.}) 12. b4 Be6 13. Nd2 (13. b5 {immediately may be slightly better.}) 13... Qd7 {I'm a little skeptical that this is the best placement for the queen, which in the Dutch usually is most effective on the g- and h-files.} 14. b5 d5 15. bxc6 {a premature resolution of the pawn tension.} (15. Rfd1 {would put the rook in play with latent threats on the d-file.} d4 {closing the file would lead to other penetrations by White on the queenside.} 16. Na4 Qe7 17. Nb3) 15... bxc6 16. cxd5 cxd5 17. Qa4 (17. Nb3 $5 { is Fritz's preference.} Na6 18. Qd2 $11 Bg5 {and Houdini also assesses the position as equal, but I think Black is having all the fun.}) 17... e4 $15 { Black finds the most effective counter, mobilizing his central pawn wedge.} 18. Qxd7 Nxd7 19. Nb5 Rfc8 20. Rfc1 Be5 (20... Rab8 {is the engines' choice.} 21. Rxc8+ Rxc8 22. Nb3 a6 23. N5d4 Bf7 {and Black's superior minor pieces and rook placement give him a definite edge.}) 21. d4 {White takes the opportunity to improve his central position.} a6 22. f4 $2 (22. Rxc8+ Rxc8 23. dxe5 axb5 { and only now} 24. f4) 22... axb5 {misses an opportunity to win a pawn via a desperado tactic.} (22... Rxc1+ 23. Rxc1 Bxf4 24. gxf4 axb5 25. Rc2 $19) 23. fxe5 $2 {this costs White a pawn.} (23. Rxc8+ {and White hangs on, comments Fritz.} Rxc8 24. dxe5 $11) 23... Rxc1+ $19 {this time the tactic is much simpler to spot.} 24. Rxc1 Rxa2 25. Rc6 {White chooses to play aggressively and actively. We are starting to reach swindle territory here, as White's game is essentially lost.} Rxd2 {a misstep.} (25... Kf7 $5 {keeps an even firmer grip, notes Fritz.} 26. Nb3 Rxe2 27. Rc7 $19 {and here White's rook is effectively contained, with no counterplay evident.}) 26. Rxe6 Rxd4 27. Rxg6+ Kf8 28. e6 $4 {objectively very poor, but I was in desperado mode by now.} (28. Bh3 Nxe5 29. Rb6 Rd1+ 30. Kg2 $17 {is preferred by the engines.}) 28... Ne5 29. Rxh6 Rd1+ 30. Bf1 ({Not} 30. Kf2 Ng4#) 30... Ng4 31. Rh7 {White by now is completely lost but is determined to keep throwing difficulties at Black.} Ne3 32. Kf2 Nxf1 33. h4 Nh2 {Black starts to get distracted here.} (33... d4 { instead would create unstoppable queening threats.} 34. g4 fxg4 35. Rd7 e3+ 36. Kg2 d3) 34. Ke3 Ng4+ 35. Kf4 {White's aggressive play now gives Black a chance to go wrong.} Nf6 {and he does!} (35... Rf1+ {and Black has triumphed, trumpets Fritz.} 36. Kg5 d4 $19) 36. Rf7+ Ke8 37. Rxf6 b4 (37... d4 38. Ke5 Rc1 $18) 38. Ke5 {the engines show this is now in fact won for White.} Ra1 39. Rh6 (39. Rxf5 $6 {is a weaker possibility, notes Fritz.} b3 40. Rh5 b2 41. Rh8+ Ke7 42. Rh7+ Kf8 43. Rh8+ Ke7 44. Rh7+ Kd8 45. Rh8+ Ke7 $11) 39... Ra6 40. Kf6 Kd8 41. Rh8+ Kc7 42. Kf7 $2 {the position is now drawn, White having missed Black's saving rook sacrifice.} (42. Kxf5 {secures the point} Kd6 43. Kf6 $18) 42... Rxe6 $11 43. Kxe6 b3 {the point being that Black's king covers the b8 square, preventing White's rook from stopping the pawn.} 44. Kxd5 (44. Kxf5 $4 {the pawn is safe and cannot be captured without dire consequences, notes Fritz.} b2 45. h5 b1=Q $19) 44... b2 45. Rh7+ Kb8 46. Rh8+ Kc7 47. Rh7+ Kb8 1/2-1/2

Play like Sofia Kenin

As mentioned in Chess vs. Tennis, the dynamics of the two sports/games have a lot of similarities, as individuals face each other in an extended strategic and tactical struggle.

Today's victory in the Australian Open final by Sofia Kenin showed brilliantly some of the qualities needed for similar victories in the chess arena. When down and pressured, she would raise the level of play, in turn pressure her opponent relentlessly and patiently, then at the right moment play an ideal shot as winner. She was able to play hard, put mistakes behind her and focus on playing as best as possible in the current moment. Tenacity was a word used often by the commentators, which characterized her play throughout.

Congratulations to Sofia on working hard to be a champion and sporting role model.