Let's Take A Look

Lets Take A
Look...
Nigel Davies


by Bruce Alberston
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,
Lets take a look...
Nature or Nurture
What makes a great chess player, is it nature or nurture? J udging from some
of the enquiries I receive about coaching this is not a question people consider
very seriously. There often seems to be an assumption that someone can raise
the level of their game by several hundred points (or become an international
master/ international grandmaster/ world champion) just by wanting it and
taking a few lessons. Its very difficult to know where to begin in explaining
that the achievement of mastery requires talent and very serious dedication.
Whilst I tend towards brutal honesty this is not a great marketing ploy.
Usually people receive more positive messages from the salesmen they
approach, which is probably why they get the wrong idea about what can be
realistically achieved. There are a whole range of chess products that are
advertised in a way which implies its easy for someone to achieve their
chessboard dreams.
What are the qualities needed for success in chess. Undoubtedly some talent is
required, and the more the better. Grandmaster J on Levitt proposed the
formula that a players potential rating might be described as 1000 +10 x IQ,
though knowing Levitt he probably had his tongue in his cheek when
formulating this. There are certain aspects of intelligence that appear to be
critical, such as abstract reasoning. But perhaps what is most important is
personality.
I havent seen much written about this, but it seems fairly clear that certain
personality types are attracted to chess. Anyone who hopes to get to a very
high level will have to start early and devote themselves to the game over a
number of years. Far from being academic types, most of the grandmasters
Ive known tend towards being rather rebellious, having a dislike of authority
and insistence on checking everything for themselves. This last factor is
critical for someone who wishes to develop an understanding that will be
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]
Let's Take A Look
robust under competitive pressures. It also casts serious doubt on the idea that
chess can be learned from books in an academic fashion.
Dr. Piotr Wozniaks website contains one of the most interesting essays Ive
seen on the matter.
Of numerous interlinking factors, the personality of a chess player may
be one of the most important factors for his or her ultimate success.
The baseline IQ may determine the realistic ceiling of achievement.
However, it is hard work and training that makes a great chess player.
For this, you need a truly neurotic personality with an extreme
obsession for the game. Scrupulous analysis of the game and highly
competitive spirit are crucial ingredients. It is the personality that
turns a budding player into a computer-like achieving machine where
chess permeates all aspects of an individuals life. Training,
tournaments, game analysis and the highest accomplishment are
central points of a chess champions mind throughout his day. With
training, further qualities develop: the art of concentration, and chess
expertise. On-demand concentration plays a greater role in chess than
in other areas of creative activity. A chess player must reach top
concentration at the right moment and sustain a high-level of game
processing power until the next move is chosen. On the other hand,
success in sciences, engineering, business, etc. will rely on the quality
of the creative output independent of the speed at which it is reached.
More like in correspondence chess. If you can produce a better result
in 3 hours of thinking than another genius in 3 minutes of thinking, you
can still arrive to a better business plan, better scientific theory, better
algorithm, better design, better marketing idea, etc. Your creation over
many years will accumulate those incremental points. In creativity,
quality counts more than speed.
So whats the conclusion? The implication is that mastery of chess and indeed
many other fields depends very largely on a love of the game, and that this
love of chess will drive someone towards serious dedication. This contains an
important message for those who would attempt to create a future champion
by forced feeding; whilst there may be isolated examples of strong players
having been driven to their success, Ive seen many more thatve fallen by the
wayside and been seriously embittered towards those who pushed them.
This months game was sent to me by Harvey Caron who enquires where he
should have improved. The critical factor seems to have been his reluctance to
play f2-f4 and then not knowing how to reinforce his pressure (25 Ng3),
which suggests he should study some typical games with this Botvinnik
structure. I also gained the impression of an exaggerated respect for a higher
rated opponent, which is a much harder issue to deal with.
H. Caron (1741) MA (1870)
Canadian Open, 2005
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]
Let's Take A Look
English Opening [A16]
1 c4 Nf6 2 g3 g6 3 Bg2 Bg7 4 Nc3 0-0 5 e4 e5
This looks natural enough but it commits Black to a somewhat inflexible
central pawn structure. I prefer the more flexible 5...d6.
6 d3 d6 7 Nge2 c6 8 0-0 Na6
Black has an alternative in 8...Nbd7 intending ...a6 and ...b5 and he can also
consider the immediate 8...a6.
9.h3 Bd7?!
Many beginners books might approve of
this move as it develops a piece and
connects the rooks, etc. Unfortunately it
does little to help with Blacks middle
game plans, and to some extent even
hinders the attempt to play ...d6-d5 by
blockings the queens support for this
move.
A better move is 9...Nc7 when 10 f4 b5 11
cxb5 cxb5 12 a3 Bb7 13 Be3 Qe7 14 Rc1
Rab8 15 Qe1 Nd7 16 b4 a6 was playable
for Black in Paneque - Zapata, Bayamo 1990.
10 Bg5?!
And this in turn is not a move that I like. Whites plan in such positions is to
advance his f-pawn and 10 f4 would even have a serious positional threat of
f4-f5 followed by g2-g4 and Ne2-g3, with a severe bind on the kingside.
10...Qb6 11 Qd2 Rfe8 12 a3?!
Another dodgy move, allowing Black to get his a6-knight into play with gain
of tempo. 12 Be3 makes much more sense with the idea of reverting to the f2-
f4 plan.
12...Nc5
Threatening to win the exchange with 13...Nb3, which White promptly
covers.
13 Nc1 a5 14 Be3 Qc7 15 Rb1 Na6?!
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Inexplicably putting his knight back on a
bad square and allowing White to expand
on the queenside. 15...a4 looks much
better after which 16 f4 Nh5 17 N1e2 exf4
18 gxf4 f5 gives Black quite a good game.
16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 Rac8
Passive, but White is clearly better in any
case. After 17...Nh5 18.N1e2 f5 19.exf5
gxf5 20.d4 Blacks position would start to
look quite miserable.
18 N1e2 b5 19 cxb5
White could also ignore Blacks queenside demonstration and play 19 f4.
19...cxb5 20 Rfc1
And here, too, 20 f4 looks more to the point, keeping his rook behind the
advancing f-pawn.
20...Qb7 21 f4 Bc6 22 g4 Red8 23 g5
Black is so well organised here that 23.f5 is strongly met by 23...d5. This
really shouldnt happen in this line and only does so here because White has
lost so much time.
23...Ne8 24.f5?
Finally playing this thematic move, but
here it just loses a pawn. 24 d4 looks
better.
24...f6?
Why not 24...gxf5, the point being that 25
exf5?? loses a piece after 25...Bxg2.
25 fxg6
One mistake follows another. White
should keep his bind on the kingside with 25 Ng3 rather than release the
tension and activate Blacks pieces. Now the position becomes more or less
equal.
25hxg6 26 gxf6 Nxf6 27 Bg5 Nc7 28 Rf1 Rf8 29 h4 d5?! 30 exd5
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Missing an opportunity to throw a spanner in the works with 30 Bxf6 after
which 30...Rxf6 (Or 30...Bxf6 31 Qh6) 31 Rxf6 Bxf6 32 Qh6 Be8 33 exd5
winning a pawn. Now Black gets the better game, not least because of the
exposed position of Whites king.
30Ncxd5 31 Ne4 Nxe4 32 Bxe4 Qb6+33 Kg2 Nf6 34 Bxf6
Having played 29 h4 this represents a major concession. Without a dark
squared bishop the pawn on h4 is a serious weakness.
34...Bxf6 35 Kg3
Well thats one way to defend, but Whites king is even more exposed here
and it takes away a good square from Whites knight. 35.Rbc1 looks like a
better try; hoping for something like 35...Kg7 36 h5 gxh5 37 Ng3 with a nice
f5-square for the knight.
35...Bxe4+36 dxe4 Kh7
The check on d7 is ineffective and meanwhile Black prepares to bring a rook
to h8.
37 Qd7+Kh8 38 Qd2 Rc7 39 Qh6+
He should have taken the opportunity to bring his knight to a good square
with 39 Nc3 Rh7 40 Nd5 as 40...Bxh4+41 Kg2 will be far from easy for
Black to win.
39...Kg8 40 Kh2
Or if 40 h5 there is 40Rh7 ( 41 Qxg6+?? Rg7 ) etc.
40...Bg7 41 Qd2 Rxf1?
Giving White a chance to wriggle off the
hook. Black could decide matters
immediately with 41...Rf2+42 Kh1 Rcf7
with a winning attack.
42 Rxf1 Rc4 43 Qd7
43 h5 looks like a better try, meeting
43...gxh5 with 44 Rf5.
43...Rc2 44 Qd3 Qc6 45 Kg2 Qc4
Dull, but quite strong. Black wins a pawn in the endgame.
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]
Let's Take A Look
46.Qxc4+Rxc4 47.Rb1 Rxe4 48.Nc3 Rxh4 49.Nxb5 Bf8 0-1?
Whites resignation looks a tad early here to say the least. In fact I dont see
why this should be winning for Black after 50 Re1 intending 50...Rh5 51 Re4.
Recommended Reading
Life & Games of Mikhail Tal by Mikhail Tal (Everyman 1997)
The Magic of Mikhail Tal by Joe Gallagher (Everyman 2001)
Copyright 2005 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.


[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2005 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) [8/15/2005 4:53:06 PM]