Quality Chess Blog

In New in Chess 2/2014, which finally popped through the door today, there is a longer review of Playing the French, as well as a glowing review of From GM to Top 10 by Judit Polgar (which in my opinion is a good deal better than the ECF book of the year winning predecessor; which obviously is quite great too!).

To get a positive review from such a great player (and reader) as Matthew Sadler is always a great moment for any writer. Especially Nikos and I are happy that he did not manage to put a dent in my weird 12…h6 in the French Tarrasch (which was played once before, so we do not call it a novelty, don’t worry):

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 a6 11. Re1 Qc7 12. Qe2 h6!!
[fen size=”small”]r1b1kb1r/1pq2pp1/p3pn1p/8/2BN4/8/PPP1QPPP/R1B1R1K1 w kq – 0 13[/fen]

Like me, Sadler is enthrolled and disgusted with this move at once. Surely White should be able to refute it with active play? But the problem is that the bishop on c1 lacks an active outpost. Sadler does not manage to find anything after 13.b3 or 13.Bd2.

Sadler is very positive, but prefers out previous book together, Grandmaster Repertoire 10 – The Tarrasch Defence. He specifically mentions what is probably the highlight of that book, Nikos’ discovery in the 11…h6-variation:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 c4 10. Ne5 Be6 11. b3 h6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. bxc4 dxc4 15. e3 Qa5 16. Qc2 c5!!
[fen size=”small”]r4rk1/p4pp1/4bb1p/q1p5/2pP4/2N1P1P1/P1Q2PBP/R4RK1 w – – 0 17[/fen]

There we had 10 pages of analysis, proving the validity of the variation (which I famously never memorised properly…).

This leads us to the point of this post. Basically we are talking about liking one concept over the other (though Sadler has 1-2 points of criticism that seems very valid). In the Grandmaster Repertoire series we seek to present the reader with an in-depth, deeply analysed and detailed repertoire. In the Grandmaster Guide we aim differently; to give some essential information, with the understanding that many people will prefer something that is easy to take in, because they have those weird things called jobs that eat away the time they should be spending on learning the ins and outs of the French Defence. It is especially poignant that Sadler comes with this reflection in this opening, as the Emanuel Berg 3-volume series exists in the same territory 8-). I personally share Sadler’s taste, but this does not mean that I think it is the only way to do things. I know some of you ask quite focussed questions, based on a clear understanding of what we are trying to do with these two concepts, but maybe we need to make it a bit clearer about what we are trying to do at times.

Anyway, we are very pleased and humbled by the fact that Sadler found our book interesting enough to both review and to scrutinize to the degree he did. Simply put: it is an honour.

Those who obsess about these things will know the famous Steckner idea in this theoretical endgame position:

[fen size=”small”]8/R4p2/P4kp1/7p/7P/4K1P1/r4P2/8 w – – 0 1[/fen]

Here endgame theory was revolutionised by Steckner’s discovery that after 1.Kd4 Rxf2 2.Rc7 Ra2 3.a7 Kf5 White plays the brilliant 4.Kc4!!

[fen size=”small”]8/P1R2p2/6p1/5k1p/2K4P/6P1/r7/8 b – – 0 4[/fen]

The idea is that 4…Kg4 5.Kb3! leads to a win for White.

In Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual version 4 from 2011 (and later on Forward Chess) 1…Rxf2 is the only move mentioned and it is believed that White is winning. However, a very complicated draw was found by Poghosyan starting with 1…g5 2.Kd5 g4. See here for the details (and there is a lot of them).

Looking at this position recently I think I found a simple way to draw:

[fen size=”small”]8/R4p2/P4k2/3K2pp/7P/6P1/r4P2/8 b – – 0 2[/fen]

2…Kg6!? with the idea …f6, …Kf5 and counterplay. I cannot see how White can improve his position. Are there anyone who has an opinion on such things? Maybe there is a chance to analyse it a bit deeper?

I am surprised by this poll. Carlsen has looked incredibly strong and determined, while the players in the candidates are all showing their “human” sides. Anand today looked not very good for the first time, but I am not sure people were thinking he would have a big chance in a rematch. A question is if he would even enjoy one…

I personally voted Anand, though this was more because I think his cautious play is the right strategy for this long event, than because I have been blown away by his great chess. I just think the others have played too poorly as well, relying a bit too much on luck. I feel that the 2013 candidates was played on a much higher level by especially Kramnik and of course Carlsen. Aronian looked as shaky then as here.

Quality Chess do not have a political affiliation and inside the company we have a lot of different opinions. Thus I am not in any way going to state an opinion on which person would be the best FIDE president.

Read more…

I am sadly busy producing books. I will of course go into whatever debates are on this blog, but I will not put something up for a few days.

Live video on YouTube

Anand – Kramnik 1/2-1/2 (1.42.52)
Karjakin – Topalov 1/2-1/2 (4.10.12)
Mamedyarov – Andreikin 1-0 (4.15.06)
Aronian – Svidler 1-0 (5.21.33)

I only have two small points to add to today’s games. The first is in Mamedyarov – Andrekin, which was essentially decided by time trouble. Obviously it is stupid to be down to seconds at move 37, but still this happens to all of us at times.

The main point is that the position after 37.Rd8+ is a classical example of elimination, the main defensive calculation technique:

[fen size=”small”]2qR2k1/2P3b1/1p2b2p/5p2/4rQ2/6P1/2N2P1P/6K1 b – – 0 37[/fen]

Andreikin chose wrong. He should have played 37…Kh7 with more or less even chances, while after 37…Kf7 38.Qd6 Qa6, White does not only win back his piece, but won the entire game after 39.Rd7+!. Had the king been on h7, this would not have been possible. Andreikin had seen this, but said he had missed that 39…Kg8 loses to 40.c8=Q (as well as everything else). It is all a bit bizarre to me, but in time trouble people can often get confused.

In Aronian’s game Svidler could early on have gone for a slightly worse opposite coloured bishops ending, as he mentions in the video. This would not have been as simple as some would think.

But more importantly, I think he made a big mistake at this point:

[fen size=”small”]2r1k3/pb2qn1p/1p4p1/1Q1PP3/8/8/2r2PPP/B2RR1K1 b – – 0 34[/fen]

Rather than suffering in an unclear position with 34…Kf8, which is without doubt easier to play for White, Svidler played 34…Qd7 to go into an opposite coloured bishops ending. He is only somewhat worse, objectively. But I have noticed that when we have positions with opposite coloured bishops, the stronger player scores much better than he otherwise would. If you look at Kramnik’s games in London 2013 and also his game with Karjakin here, his only game with White so far, he aims for positions early on in the game for positions with opposite coloured bishops. Carlsen also has a fantastic score in endgames with opposite coloured bishops.

Obviously, with this in mind, it is quite interesting that Svidler and Aronian both praised 34…Qd7. In my experience things that hang on very long calculation in defence are very unreliable. This is what Svidler was counting on. Do not miss the press conference; the player’s comments are very interesting.

So, although it looked dangerous to play on with an extra piece with queens on the board, probably this was statistically the better choice. If nothing else, it also gave some chance that he would win the game as well.

[fen size=”small”]1R3b2/p1r2r1k/4pq1p/5ppN/1ppR4/4P2P/PP3PP1/3Q2K1 b – – 0 33[/fen]
Black to play – …Qe7 or …Qe5?

A while ago I looked at one of Ray’s games as a part of this Monday training tips thing. My opinion was quite different than his was on what had gone wrong in his games. Now Ray had sent a good game he played recently, where he was looking more at the basics than before. And with the basics I am really talking about the three questions, as represented in Positional Play:

•    Where are the weaknesses
•    What is my opponent’s idea
•    Which is the worst placed piece

Read more…