Let's Take A Look

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..."

The Old Frying Pan

Let's Take A Look...

Nigel Davies

One of the aspects of chess that is most talked about and agonized over is the opening. Many amateur players spend what little time they have for chess wondering how they should play the first few moves. They end up flitting from one line to another, depending on the last impressive game they played through or openings book that they bought. The problem with this random approach is that they never get to understand anything very well and this in turn leads to many very reasonable openings being abandoned. What is needed is an understanding of the weaponry a particular chess player needs and then a plan to acquire it. You can find some guidance in conventional chess literature, for example Lajos Portisch gave us the following valuable insight in How to Open a Chess Game: The crowd mimics its heroes. This is a natural tendency, but there is no need for such mimicry. It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is indeed important in chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found as well in the middlegame or endgame. Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlgame. OK, so you dont need to play openings favoured by Kasparov and Kramnik, but that still leaves an ocean of possibilities. What kinds of openings will suit a particular player? Its here that chess books tend to be quite unhelpful, many of them recommending openings for attacking club players and the like, but without offering the player any kind of advice as to their suitability. It seems that chess is not the only game with this kind of problem, those which involve a racquet or bat also faces such issues. Searching through my literature on other sports I discovered that Geoff Boycott, the former England cricketer,

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

had something to say about ones choice of weapon. A lot of today's batsmen have had their techniques ruined by using heavy bats. The obsession with heavier bats is inextricably linked with the high backlift, as batsmen strain for extra power. I had all my bats tailor-made at 2lb 5oz, the balance being most important in guaranteeing manoeuvrability. A batsman must be able to control the swing of the bat and it is nonsense to suppose that I could have used the same weight of bat as Botham, who is around a stone and a half heavier, or that a schoolboy could use one of my bats. The bat should feel like an extension of the arm rather than a plank and it should be used as a rapier, not as a cutlass. It seems that a player needs to control the swing, but what does that mean in chess terms? My translation is that a player must choose openings he is able to understand and use effectively. The sharpest openings (the heaviest bats) need a player with the right muscles (memory, tactical ability and good nerves) to wield them, otherwise he wont be able to exercise any sort of control over the positions he gets. This may sound obvious but Ive come across many quite strong players who dont think in these terms at all. You get older guys with dodgy memories, little time and bad nerves trying to play sharp Sicilians. Then there are kids who are as sharp as whips playing turgid stuff like the Exchange Ruy Lopez and 2 c3 Sicilian. What openings should they use? Lets try to think about this from a common sense approach and try to choose a defence to 1 d4. The first thing to bear in mind is that it should also be used against 1 c4 and 1 Nf3. A lot of White 1 d4 players, including myself, will switch to one of these moves if they see their opponent plays the Grnfeld, Benko Gambit, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Nimzo-Indian or Stonewall Dutch. 1 c4 can also be used against Slav Defence players after 1...c6 comes 2 c4 with a likely Caro-Kann Panov Attack. So lets rule those out for a start. What about the all-court defences which can be used against both 1 d4 and flank openings? These include the King's Indian, Leningrad and Classical Variations of the Dutch plus the Queen's Gambit Declined (including the SemiSlav). Do you want something that has a good reputation for soundness? Then bid farewell to the King's Indian and Dutch. So were left with just the Queen's Gambit Declined, and assuming you don't want an isolated d-pawn then you can scrub the Tarrasch. Now Im going to be rude and ask your age. If, like me, youre over 40 then the QGD Tartakover (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Be7 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 0-0 7 e3 b6) is definitely the defence for you, and this is also the case if youre under 40 but not a tactical genius with a good
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

memory. If and only if you check all the right boxes you might be able to wield a heavier bat. Choose the Semi-Slav Defence (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c6 4 Nf3 Nf6) as Kramnik and others have played, but use the lines recommended in Larry Kaufmanns The Chess Advantage in Black and White. Now we know how it should be done lets go back to the reality of amateur chess and its weird assortment of openings. This months game features 1 b4, the move of a man who has lost all faith and interest in chess theory and just wants to get out of the book. But is this a move that will help foster a greater understanding of chess? Can it be considered a repertoire? The answer to both these questions is an emphatic no; its just a random move which doesnt threaten Black in any way. Id describe it as an old frying pan rather than a bat, and I wouldnt let Geoff Boycott catch you playing an inning with it. Pena,A (1875) - Helfst,M (1359) Orang Utan Opening A00 Internet Game (60 minutes per player), 2004 1 b4 Wow! Exotic stuff! Tartakover named this move after an Orang Utan he met in New York zoo, noting the similarity it had to one of the creature's outstretched arms. 1...b6 An almost equally exotic reply - there's nothing wrong with Black taking the centre here with 1d5 or 1e5. For historical interest the game Tartakover - Maroczy, New York 1924 went 1...Nf6 2 Bb2 e6 3 b5 d5 4 e3 Be7 5 f4 0-0 6 Bd3 a6 7 a4 axb5 8 axb5 Rxa1 9 Bxa1 Nbd7 10 Nf3 Ne4 11 0-0 f5 12 Be2 Nd6 13 Qc1 Bf6 with a nice game for Black. 2 e3 Bb7 3 Nf3 e6 4 Bb2 Nf6 5 a3 d5 6 c4 c5 I'm not overly fond of this move as it allows White to exchange off his b-pawn for one nearer the centre; 6...Bd6 looks better, intending just to castle. 7 bxc5 Bxc5 8 d4 Bd6 9 Be2 0-0 10 0-0 Nbd7 Despite the unusual opening a fairly standard sort of position has been reached. I would suggest that White has a slight edge here, though it's not much. 11 Nc3

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

My own preference would be for 11 Nbd2, protecting the pawn on c4 so that White wouldn't be forced to exchange on d5 after 11...Rc8. But this is not such a big deal. 11...Rc8 Almost forcing White to relieve the central tension. 12 cxd5 Nxd5 13 Nb5 Bb8 14 Rc1 N7f6 15 Qd3 Qe7 15...a6 looks simpler, driving White's knight away. Now White gets the initiative. 16 a4 Rfd8 17 Ba3 Qd7 18 Ne5 Qe8 The right way to play it; 18...Bxe5 19 dxe5 would give White a nice outpost on d6. 19 Nc4 a6? But this is wrong. 19...Ba6 would prevent White's invasion by pinning the knights against his queen. 20 Nbd6 Qxa4 21 Nxc8 This should be good enough, but it's far from being the most devastating. 21 Nxb7 wins a whole piece. 21...Rxc8 22 Nd6 Rxc1 23 Rxc1 Bxd6 24 Bxd6 b5 24...a5 might be a bit better, leaving the bishop on b7 with more scope. But of course Black should be losing this in any case. 25 Bf3 Qa5 And this should be disastrous, Black allowing a pin with Bd6-c7. Mind you, it shouldnt really matter now one way or another. 26 Bxd5 Missing 26.e4 Nb6 (or 26...Nb4 27 Bxb4 Qxb4 28 Rc7 picking up the bishop as well.) 27 Bc7 Ne8 28 Bd8 when Black can't move either his queen or the knight on b6. 26...Nxd5 27 e4 Qb6 28 Bc5 Nf4 29 Qe3
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

It would have been simpler to play 29 Bxb6 Nxd3 30 Rc7 when Black can't move his bishop without allowing mate. 29...Qc7 30 Bb4?? A blunder, turning a winning position into a lost one; 30 Ba3 is correct, with a winning game for White. 30...Ne2+ It's even better to play 30...Qxc1+ 31 Qxc1 Ne2+ winning a piece. 31 Qxe2 Qxc1+ 32 Qf1 Qxf1+ 33 Kxf1 Bxe4 34 f3 Bd5 35 Ke2 f6 0-1 This seems a bit premature as the opposite colour bishops present practical problems. For example White can put his bishop on a5, stopping Black's queenside pawns. Though I suspect Black should eventually be able to get through with his king and win. Recommended Studies Boycott on Cricket by Geoffrey Boycott (Guild Publishing, 1990): One of the great batsman speaks frankly and instructively about cricket. The Chess Advantage in Black and White by Larry Kaufman (Random House 2004): The most intelligent repertoire book Ive come across, the suggested lines including the Semi-Slav. How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, Svetozar Gligoric, Vlastimil Hort, Tigran Petrosian, Lajos Portisch, Paul Keres and Bent Larsen (RHM Press 1974). Some of the greatest players in history offer insights; a great book which is sadly out of print.

Copyright 2004 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]

Let's Take A Look

[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.

file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [8/13/2004 1:57:08 PM]