Let's Take A

Look...
Nigel Davies
We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For all
games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of both
players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was played; (4)
The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information you think would
be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if
possible) to: nigeldavies@chesscafe.com. Who knows, perhaps you will see the
game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, "Let's take a look..."
Same Boot, Different Foot
In the June 2003 column (see the ChessCafe Archives) I suggested that over-the-
board (OTB) players might enjoy the benefits of correspondence chess in order to
foster opening research and deep analysis of positions. This time round the boot is
on the other foot. I think that correspondence players should seriously consider
playing some OTB chess, face to face with some guy who wants to beat them.
I can already hear the complaints! You don't have enough time, you've got a
demanding job, your wife won't let you wander off on the weekends, the games are
poor quality, etc. Yet I maintain that OTB offers vitamins and mineral supplements
that are vital to your healthy development as a chess player. Relying heavily on
painstaking research can foster dependence on such methods, at the expense of
intuition.
I am not alone in this claim, heres what Grigory Sanakoev had to say on the matter
in World Champion at the Third Attempt (Gambit, 1999):
I am convinced that a postal player who sets his sights high should take part
in ordinary tournaments from time to time. This disciplines his thinking,
revives his faculty for taking quick decisions, gets him out of the fatal habit
of examining all possible continuations and makes him trust his intuition
more. After all, nine times out of ten the first candidate move to come into
your head turns out to be the strongest, and the subsequent analysis merely
proves the correctness of your intuitive decision.
In a similar vein, Bent Larsen once quipped: Long think, wrong think. When the
mind focuses too heavily on the nitty-gritty of variations there can be a tendency to
move away from common sense and a more holistic, balanced view of a position. In
my own games Ive found that the longer I agonize over a decision the weirder and
more wonderful my thoughts become.
Fortunately I have learned from the follies of youth, at which time I burned a lot of
nervous energy during games, tried to calculate far too much, played some strange
moves, and then often ended up in time-trouble. In my current more enlightened era
I try to calculate only whats necessary and constantly gauge each of my decisions
for how sensible they are. Believe me, it helps!
Of course unless someone has decent intuition in the first place, making decisions
on this basis is going to be very difficult. Ten or more different moves might
suggest themselves whilst Fritz or Shredder will often propose something
aggressive but inappropriate based on their primitive strategic heuristic. Can these
possibilities be whittled down to a single decision by calculation alone? If they
Page 1 of 5 Let's Take A Look
5/14/2004 file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm
could then computers would already play perfectly.
Theres no easy way around it. Good intuition is indispensable if you want to play
good chess and OTB games are the best way to develop it. Did someone mention
internet blitz? Well maybe, up to a point. I have had several students whove
migrated from internet chess to terrestrial tournaments, and they have been stunned
at how different the game is. Its not just the moves that make up a chess game; its
your opponents body language, the feel of the pieces and the actual sensation of
reaching out and moving a piece, demonstrating your idea to the world.
I know this is just my opinion but I dont think these things cannot be separated out
from the overall chess experience. Chess is not a cold mathematical puzzle or an
academic exercise; its a living struggle in which we try to outwit the player sitting
on the other side of the board. And chess intuition encompasses all these aspects.
This month's game illustrates the problem that correspondence players often have.
Black's decision to part with his dark-squared bishop (10Bxc3) is not something
that a street-wise and experienced OTB player would even dream of; his hand just
wouldnt let him take the knight after even the most extensive calculations. You just
know theres going to be trouble with a white bishop coming to a3, except if you
confuse yourself by calculating dozens of variations.
Soza,J (ICCF 2351) - Martins,F (ICCF 2281)
Correspondence: Semi-Final Peru Cup
Slav Defence D17
1 Nf3 d5 2 d4 Nf6 3 c4 c6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Bf5 6 Ne5 e6
Morozevich likes the old 6Nbd7 in this position, for example 7 Nxc4 Qc7 8 g3 e5
9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Bf4 Nfd7 11 Bg2 g5 12 Nxe5 (12 Ne3 gxf4 13 Nxf5 0-0-0 14 Qc2
Nc5 15 0-0 Ne6 led to complex play in Bareev - Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2002)
12gxf4 13 Nxd7 0-0-0 14 Qd4 Qxd7 15 Qxf4 Bd6 16 Qc1 Kb8 (16a5 17 0-0
Be5 18 Nb5 Qe7 19 Na7+ Kb8 20 Nxc6+ bxc6 21 Qxc6 gave White a strong attack
in Kramnik - Morozevich, Monaco 2002) 17 a5 a6 18 0-0 Qe7 19 Ra4 Bc7 was OK
for Black in Kempinski - Morozevich, Bled 2002.
7 g3
A less common alternative to 7 f3 in which the main line features a piece sacrifice
for three pawns via 7Bb4 8 e4 Bxe4 9 fxe4 Nxe4 10 Bd2 Qxd4 11 Nxe4 Qxe4+
12 Qe2 Bxd2+ 13 Kxd2 Qd5+ 14 Kc2 Na6 15 Nxc4 0-0 16 Qe5 Rab8 (This
mysterious looking rook move has been played by a number of very strong players,
so probably it's quite a good one) 17 a5 f6 18 Qxd5 cxd5 19 Nd2 Rfc8+ 20 Kb1
Nb4 looked about equal at this stage in Vescovi - Gelfand, Bermuda 2004, though
Vescovi managed to win after a gruelling 90+ moves.
7Bb4 8 Bg2 Ne4
In his notes to the game Mr. Soza mentioned another possibility in 8Qa5 of
which there are no examples in my database. But after 9 Bd2 (9 0-0 is unconvincing
after 9 Bxc3 10 bxc3 Qxc3 11 Ba3 Nbd7 12 Nxd7 Kxd7! etc) 90-0 10 Nxc4
Qd8 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bxf6 Qxf6 13 e4 Bg6 14 0-0 is better for White because of his
strong centre.
9 Bxe4
Page 2 of 5 Let's Take A Look
5/14/2004 file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm
In the early days of the 7 g3 line White tried to play it like a gambit with 9 0-0!?
Nxc3 10 bxc3 Bxc3 11 Ba3, but theory has since come to question the value of this
idea After 11Qxd4 12 Nxc4 Qxc4 13 Qd6 Bf6 14 Rfd1 e5 White has been
unable to keep his initiative going, for example 15 Qc7 (15 Rab1 Qe6 16 Qc7 Qc8
17 Qxb7 Qxb7 18 Rxb7 e4 19 g4 Bc8 20 Rc7 Bxg4 21 Bxe4 Bd7 22 Bd6 Be7 was
also inadequate in Khalifman - Wojtkiewicz, Linares 1997) 15Nd7 16 Qxb7 Rb8
17 Qxa7 Rd8 18 Qc7 (18 Bd6 is answered by 18e4 and 18 Rac1 by 18Qb3)
18e4 left White with inadequate compensation in Tyomkin - Summerscale, Tel
Aviv 1997.
9Bxe4 10 0-0 Bxc3?
This is the kind of move that strong OTB
players would not even consider. Black gives
up his dark square bishop in order to try and
hold the c4-pawn but the concept is deeply
flawed. White's queen's bishop will land on a3
and the bishop on d5 is vulnerable to a later
e2-e4.
A much more sensible move is simply 10
Bg6 after which 11 Nxc4 0-0 12 Qb3 a5 13
Rd1 Nd7 14 Bf4 Qe7 (14Nb6?! 15 Na2 Qd5
16 Rdc1 Nxc4 17 Nxb4 axb4 18 Rxc4 b5 19
Rxb4 Qxb3 20 Rxb3 bxa4 21 Rb4 Bc2 22 Rc4
won a pawn for White in Wiedenkeller -
Matulovic, Banja Luka 1987) 15 Na2 Rfd8 16 Nxb4 Qxb4 17 Qc3 c5 18 Qxb4 axb4
19 dxc5 Nxc5 was about equal in the game Kramnik - Shirov, Monte Carlo 2000.
Another reasonable move is 10Bf5 after which 11 e4 Bg6 12 Nxc4 0-0 13 f3 Na6
14 Be3 f6 15 Qe2 Re8 16 Rfd1 Bf8 left Black solidly placed in Illescas Cordoba -
Gulko, Dos Hermanas 1994.
11 bxc3 Bd5
Presumably this was Black's idea in playing his previous move, and by now it's
rather too late to bail out with any dignity. After 110-0 12 Ba3 Re8 13 Nxc4
White's knight wants to hop into the d6-square.
12 Re1
Probably the best. It's also interesting to play 12 Ba3!? after which Black's best try
seems to be 12Nd7 (12f6 13 e4 Bxe4 14 Qg4 is horrific) 13 e4 Nxe5 (13
Bxe4 14 Nxc4 is followed by 15 Nd6+) 14 exd5 Nd3 15 dxe6 Qd5 16 Rb1 b6,
holding the position together with string.
12f6
The only move. 12Be4? 13 Ba3 keeps Black's king in the centre and threatens 15
Nxc4.
13 e4
This incisive move must be right. After the lethargic 13 Ng4 Black can play 13
h5!.
Page 3 of 5 Let's Take A Look
5/14/2004 file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm
13fxe5 14 Qh5+ Kd7?
Heading for the hills with his king, but he won't be safe there either Black really has
to try 14g6 15 Qxe5 0-0 (15Rg8 16 Bg5 is even worse) after which 16 Bh6
Rf7 17 exd5 Qxd5 18 Qxd5 cxd5 19 Rxe6 Na6 20 Rae1 Nc7 allows him to put up a
fight at least.
15 Qg4 Kc7 16 Qxg7+ Nd7
After 16Kc8 there follows 17 exd5 exd5 18 Rb1 with massive pressure.
17 exd5 cxd5 18 Rxe5!
This nice positional exchange sacrifice shows
who's the boss. White gets a flood of passed
pawns plus a massively strong bishop on e5.
18Rg8 19 Qxh7 Rh8 20 Qf7 Rf8 21 Qxe6
Nxe5 22 Bf4 Qd7
After 22Rxf4 there follows 23 Qxe5+! Qd6
24 gxf4 etc.
23 Bxe5+ Kc8 24 Qxd7+! Kxd7 25 f4
This position is quite hopeless for Black. The
three passed pawns are not going to be stopped, especially when supported by that
bishop on e5
25Kc6 26 g4 b5 27 axb5+ Kxb5 28 h4
"Forward patrol", as Tartakover would have commented!
28a5 29 h5 Ra6
Pushing the a-pawn doesn't help either - after 29a4 30 g5 a3 31 h6 Ka4 32 g6
Rg8 33 g7 Kb3 White can even play the leisurely 34 f5 Kb2 35 Rf1 a2 36 f6 a1Q 37
Rxa1 Rxa1+ 38 Kg2. Just try stopping those pawns, even with two rooks!
30 g5 Rf5
After 30a4 White even has little tricks like 31 h6 Rf7 32 Rb1+!? Ka5 33 f5!?
with the point that 33Rxf5 (33a3 34 g6) is answered by 34 Bc7+ etc.
31 Rb1+! Ka4 32 Rb7 Ka3 33 h6 1-0
Recommended Reading
World Champion at the Third Attempt by Grigory Sanakoev (Gambit, 1999): The
former correspondence champion presents his games and insights.
Selected Games of Chess, 1948-69 by Bent Larsen (Bell, 1970): Not only was
Larsen was one of the best players and writers, his insights into the nature of the
struggle are immensely practical and unpretentious.
Page 4 of 5 Let's Take A Look
5/14/2004 file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm
Winning Ugly: Mental Warfare in Tennis-Lessons from a Master by
Brad Gilbert and Steve Jamison (Simon & Shuster, 1994).
Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.
[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Page 5 of 5 Let's Take A Look
5/14/2004 file://C:\cafe\davies\davies.htm