'What's good for the goose ...'

I'm not going to use the phrase 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander' to raise feminist issues ie that the sexes should be treated the same way (goose=female, gander=male) and so on! In this case the goose is equivalent to a Grand Master and the gander is us poor average players.

All chess players need to find openings that work well - but the problem is that, having chosen them, we perhaps expect too much. The opening has yet to be invented that is a 'catch all' (sorry to have to disillusion you). And the reasons we choose as we do are often suspect. Let's talk about the Catalan, thrust into the limelight by the current Anand versus Topalov battle for the World Chess Championship match, Sofia 2010. The openings used so far are as follows:

Game 1 - Anand responds to 1.d4 with the Grunfeld defence (loses)
Game 2 - Anand deploys the Catalan, also a favourite of Vladimir Kramnik (wins)
Game 3 - Anand switches to the Slav Defense after his loss in game 1 (draw)
Game 4 - Anand again deploys the Catalan (wins)

Well, Anand certainly seems to have found an opening that works - but is this a useful signal to the rest of us that maybe our previous choice of opening needs to be re-evaluated? in other words, 'is what's good for the goose, good for the gander'? No, I don't mean that Anand is a 'goose' in any derogatory sense - if you've ever been stalked by a goose, hissing insults at you, then you'll know that a goose is no mean opponent anyway!

So - the Catalan. As Wiki usefully describes it - "The Catalan is a chess opening which can be considered to be White adopting a mixture of the Queen's Gambit and Réti Opening: White plays d4 and c4 and fianchettoes the white bishop on g2". From my point of view as an average player, it is quite a revelation that White allows this opening whereby he is a pawn down with a weak looking Q-side structure. For example, the comment at 64 Squares is that "Topalov has been allowed to build up a strong queenside pawn position".

As you see, my interest has been caught by the fourth Sofia 2010 game, the moves of which are given, with my comments, below.

My point is that, although this opening is working for Anand at the highest level, it would be silly of me, as an average player, to go into a line where I have to play seemingly anti-positional moves such as 10.Na3 - which places a knight at the edge of the board. at my level I am still meeting players who do not always find the best moves against simple, straightforward developing moves. But then again, when they do (find the best moves) - of course I lose. What to do? If I develop simply and naturally then I am going over well trodden paths and my opponent can pluck out a nice line from theory with which to hit me.

Yet the alternatives (for me) seem to be far too dangerous. Of course, First of all, I accept that any new line will need to be thoroughly tested over a period of time before it can become a useful part of my repertoire. That's OK. But it's too much of a stretch at my stage of chess development to start using the alternatives which are being used by the 'geese' - simply trusting that, if such an illustrious player thinks the line is sound, then so be it! It's not just an issue of their knowledge of the latest opening lines as such - the problem is that they have the 'imagination' which allows them to 'see' complete lines of play starting from moves, which in my clumsy hands, would lead to complete disaster. For example, I would never play a move like 8.Qxd2 in the game below - which for me would represent a lost opportunity to develop the queen's knight and a preference for the beginner's fault of moving the queen twice! I would play 8.Nbxd2 - of course!

It's either a case of my reach exceeds my grasp or "don't run before you can walk". One must only play moves that one actually understands! In this case it is dangerous to follow Robert Browning's injunction relating to “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” - even if it well behoves us to follow his advice ... most of the time.

The game is analysed more fully at both Chessdom and The Week in Chess.

Read more...

The Key Opening

I refer to the Giuoco Piano. To my knowledge, it has never been stated forcibly enough that this opening is an integral part of every chess player's development. When I started the game I was naturally told all about piece development as a first step. The openings, as such, were presented to me as a separate issue, on the lines of "here are some openings, some more popular than others - choose the weapon that suits your style". Of course I had no "style" - I was just starting out, so this last advice didn't help me.

What someone should have told me is as follows. Yes, of course they should begin by telling me about the importance of developing all my pieces, not wasting time in moving any of them twice (except in exceptional cases which they would advise me to leave for later consideration), getting castled and trying to control the centre of the board. That's all fine - but what is the next logical stage? Inarguably it would be to demonstrate these principles in the particular opening which embodies them best - the Giuoco Piano would seem to be the only choice. There is no logical alternative.

It aims directly at the centre of the board with e4, followed by preparation for d4. There are no indirect attacks on the centre either by advancing bishop pawns or pinning knights (which are protecting the centre) with bishops placed on the b or g files. Then a knight and a bishop are developed, followed by moves to either develop or pressure the centre - and so on.

So why are the openings presented as a separate issue? Why confront the beginner with a forbiddingly large selection of openings when they have no means of knowing which are the most suitable for a style of play that they have yet to develop?

Of course Giuoco Piano no longer poses as much of a threat as it used to - except in the hands of certain top players who continue to find new lines with which to irritate their opponents (these days it even has surprise value). It can often be dismissed as being drawish. However, I maintain that any such arguments for not recommending it to novice players on that basis are spurious.

Omitting the opening from a chess teaching programme is, in my view, a little irresponsible. In my own case, I was lead directly from my new-found knowledge of piece development to the search for a "nice looking" opening - I plumped for the Polish and the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit! Yes! Unbelievable isn't it? I thought that these were suitably eccentric and would perhaps help me to catch my opponent out. I reasoned that, as a beginner, my opponent would be acquainted with all the 'standard' openings and that the best thing to do was use something obscure.

It is only recently that I discovered the error of my ways - on my own initiative I may say. Here are two games in which I tested out the opening in Blitz games - more recently I am venturing to play them in my rated ICC correspondence games. In fact, poor old "toad" (my ICC handle) was up against two stronger players here ...

Game 1:

Well, after all my brave comments about how to cope with losing in a previous post - here is a rather unfortunate loss which was a little bit hard to get over. I lost on time - having worked very hard against a stronger player to gain a clearly winning position. Never mind, I was pleased with some of my moves and I "gave as good as I got"! I hope you enjoy them ... and if you haven't already given some time to the Giuoco Piano - maybe now is the time to think about so doing?



Before going on to the next game, let me quote from Watson's (see my GoodRead recommended books list) excellent text (Page 99, Volume 1). It is useful to remember the following possibilities, thus:

"Black secures the e5-pawn against threats such as b4-b5. Here is a general warning for Black: you shouldn't be in too great a rush to play the tempting ... d5, because your centre can become too vulnerable; for instance, 5 ... d5?! 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 b4 (7Qb3 is also dangerous) 7 ... Nb6 8 b5 Na5 9 Nxe5. Notice that the pin on the knight by 9 Qe7?! means nothing after 10 O-O! because 10 ... Qxe5?? loses to 11 Re1.

Also weak would be 5 O-O 6 O-O d5?! 7 exd5 Nxd5 8 b4! followed by 9 b5. These lines show one of the benefits that White gets by playing c3".

Game 2:

Sometimes you can fool the opposition into thinking that you know what you are doing ...


Having surveyed some of the literature relating to the Giuoco Piano, I would recommend having a look at the useful and very readable review of "Italian Game and Evans Gambit" (Jan Pinski) by Rick Kennedy at Chessville.

Read more...

Losing ... sucks

A delicate subject! Too easy to say "you must develop this or that way of thinking about the game you just lost - to prevent you from losing enthusiasm for the next". We've all read that type of cod-psychology and come away thinking - yes, but I'm still fed up (to put it in polite terminology).

I'm not worried about a series of losses putting me a frame of mind where I just stop playing. After all, it IS just a game, right? What I am worried about is that I get in a bad frame of mind for the next game, play below par and start kicking myself for not playing as well as I could and should do. I mean, that's the thing isn't it? My goal is always to play as well as I am capable, no more and no less.

What we should be worried about, however, is linking your self-esteem to a recent lost game. You are not a bad person just because you lost a game of chess. You just had a beneficial learning experience is all.

Yes, of course it is useful to go over the game in some way or another afterwards, either with or without the benefit of your opponents comments. Checking all the variations is great - if you have the guts to do this, that's great. Many times we are not able (or willing!) to do this. But it is still useful to ask yourself a few questions about the game nevertheless. For example:

* Maybe I lost the game because I was worrying about whether the car will start in the morning. The forecast was bad and I know that the battery is a bit dodgy.

* Did my opponent know the opening so well that (s)he'd got a winning position very quickly. If so, it can't be helped. Maybe I'll have a look at that opening sometime - or think about abandoning the wretched thing (for example, in my case, the Orang Utang Opening!!)

* He was a stronger player than me. In spite of this I played well and we explored some interesting territory together. I gave him a good game. I did not waste his time. Anyway, I made him think.

* Hey! I liked my 24th move. If I can keep coming up with moves like that, well, I can't be so bad.

What else? Well, if you have lost your confidence, your energy - even to the slightest degree - I would advise against a rematch, at least until you have had time to lick your wounds. On the net we often get an immediate challenge from an opponent. Whether you have just won, or just lost, I think it better to think carefully about your state of mind before accepting such a challenge. OK, you may have just beaten the guy - but if it took a lot of your energy in so doing, well better to put him/her on your 'Notify' (be notified on arrival) list and play a game some other time. But, on the other hand, if you're raring to go ... well, "fine, go and get 'em tiger!".

And to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Win as if you were used to it, lose as if you enjoyed it for a change".

Just to cheer you up a bit (amid all this gloom and doom) here are some of the more humorous reasons for losing chess games which I have filched (there are many more at the Sutton Coldfield Chess Club site).

* My opponent looked as if he had a contagious disease, so I thought it best not to take any of his pieces.
* Studied book 'How to Beat Bobby Fischer', was unprepared for other opponents.
* I wanted to see if the refutation worked, and I was proved right.
* My perpetual check didn’t last very long.

And maybe enjoying a good laugh is the best way to cope with losing at chess anyway!

Read more...

Chess, loneliness, books and blunders

Well you can't have a better post title than that!

Chess is, like it or not, analogous to warfare - in particular warfare with infantry. You, as the Commander of the army, need to employ your soldiers effectively. An overall strategy needs to be implemented and this is your responsibility, no-one elses. The loneliness of command and all that. However you are thankfully not in the real life position of having to worry about putting real people into danger, nor do you have to worry about the morale of your troops. In the words of Dr Michael McKernan at the Curtin University of Technology, 20 October 2005 during a Public Lecture by Dr Michael McKernan, Curtin University of Technology, 20 October 2005:

"The loneliness of command, they call it, and it strikes various leaders in different ways. A military leader treads a fine line between concern for his troops and getting the job done. We look at generals of the First World War and marvel that they could seemingly so blithely contemplate and plan for casualty numbers such as the world had never known or can even now understand".

In a moment (forgive me, I'm prone to rambling  today) I'm going to provide an extract from "Sharpe's Triumph" by Bernard Cornwell - a book that I am currently reading. Not "the" book you understand - it's nice to have different books available, depending on one's mood. Since you ask, I am also ploughing through "Revolution in the Head" - Ian Macdonald's superbly detailed factsheet of each and every Beatle track.

You can see my booklist in the MY CHESS BOOKSHELF widget in the left hand column of this blog. Just before the extract, let me put in a plug for Goodreads as being a marvellous way to not only acquaint your blog readers with your reading material - but also because of the following reasons (in their words):

- Get great book recommendations from people you know.
- Keep track of what you've read and what you'd like to read.
- Form a book club, answer book trivia, collect your favorite quotes.

Well, if you're a bookworm (or you have bookwarm tendencies, or aspire to bookwormery!) I heartily recommend same.

So what's this extract from historical fiction doing here? Well, as I write this I am cogitating over the best move to play as Black in the following position.

No it's not particularly exciting - which is the point. Oh, I can attack his Queen! Great except that this does not yield any great dividends. Oh, he might threaten mate eventually with Ng5 - but that seems easy to defend. Can he play e4 - well, I haven't a clue but it doesn't seem earthshattering. And what do I do, what is my plan?

Well, perhaps the following extract (Page 151) from this very exciting book will provide me with an answer, thus:

"I was thinking, Dodd, that it is no bad thing that we wander so aimlessly."
"It isn't?" Dodd retorted with astonishment.
"Because if we do not know where we are going, then nor will the British, so one day they will march a few miles too far and then we shall pounce on them. Someone will blunder, Dodd, because in war someone always does blunder. It is an imutable rule of war; someone will blunder. We must just have patience."

Yes, that'll do me. Rather than make an unjustified sally into the opposing camp, I'll make a waiting move. This move should hopefully be a developing move, maybe a move which will help the situation at some unspecified point in the future. A move which is not a complete waste of time, but would not satisfy those who demand "action, any action". It's a current game on ChessWorld and I've decided to play h6. Whether you agree or not, I think you might at least concede that these so-called "waiting moves" are the difficult ones to decide on.

Of course we must "never pass (ie make a waiting move) and hope that a move comes to you next time. Every move should strengthen your position somehow" as Terry Chaisson reminds us at "Chess on the Borderline".

UPDATE - after all this, I changed my  mind! Instead of h6, I've played Bd7. I think Terry might approve.  You'll know why I was reluctant to play this move right away I suppose - yes, I didn't want to lose a bishop for a knight after his Ne5. Just shows how we get stuck in a rut! In fact I believe his knight is stronger than my bishop, so I'll be quite happy to swap them. Please refrain from commenting on this move as it's an ongoing match :)

So here is perhaps a better example of a "waiting move" played by none other than by Bobby Fischer in his "Bobby Fischer's Best Games of Chess" (Simon & Schuster). He says that "The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it. In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force, thus 1 P-K4 P-K4 2 P-KB4 PxP 3 N-KB3 P-Q3! This last move, P-Q3, is the key to a troublesome position, a high-class waiting move". A full treatment of the move can be found at mysite.verizon.net.

It's played very early in the game - so if anyone can provide a better example (played a little later on in the game) I would be grateful. Bobby's example is really an opening improvement as much as anything else, I think.

Footnotes (from Chess-Poster):

“The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake”
(Savielly Tartakover)

“Chess is war over the board. The object is to crush the opponents mind”
(Bobby Fischer)

“The blunders are all there on the board, waiting to be made”
(Savielly Tartakover)

Read more...

The concept of checkmate

Next time you have the difficult task of explaining checkmate to a beginner at chess, maybe the ideas in this post will help.

Newcomers often feel that it is somehow unsatisfactory that they never actually capture the king itself. Indeed (according to Wikipedia) "In early Sanskrit chess (ca. 500-700) the king COULD be captured and this ended the game ... Later the Persians added the additional rule that a king could not be moved into check or left in check. As a result, the king could not be captured. Checkmate was thus the logical and only decisive way of ending a game (since if it was checkmate, any move would be illegal)".

That's the usual concept - but, if they don't accept this argument (and it's certainly a bit purist for, say, the youngsters) maybe you have to talk around the issue a little. Try this for size!

"You can think of checkmate as representing the inevitability of loss of the king. If the game did continue until the king was captured, then you could give check from a checkmate position, but you'd still lose. The opponent wouldn't be forced to move his king; he'd take yours. I think that's the clearest way of explaining why the checkmate rules are the way they are." (being an unattributed reply to one Bubba73 in one of the Wiki edit pages)

Of course there's always someone who asks the awkward questions (!), thus:

Q. Can you - while your king is in checkmate - move your piece to put your opponent's king in check, ultimately forcing your opponent to move his king, and avoiding your own checkmate?

A. No. If your king is in checkmate, the game is over and you lose. If your king is in check but not in checkmate, you can check the opponent's king - if that move gets you out of check. (Bubba73)

There's more in a similar vein at the end of this post - but this last comment intrigued me ie the idea of avoiding checkmate by moving a piece which puts the opponent's king in check ... or even checkmate!

And so, dear reader, I present a game in which this actually happened in match play (of course I would be delighted if you can post other examples in the comments). I originally found this game in a Yahoo ANSWERS page.



OK, so now you are armed with lots of material to explain the concept of checkmate fully and completely. Or are you? Is your mythical newcomer still unconvinced with your explanations? Here, in a discussion on a Wiki editing page, is there more to be said?

What's the reason for all the rules about checkmate and check when the goal is so obvious?

What I'd really like to be explained in this article is why chess stops one move before the real goal (capturing the king) is achieved. To my knowledge, this makes chess different from all other board games. For example, playing Checkers you haven't won by saying "whatever you do, the next move I'll capture all your remaining pieces". You actually have to capture them, just saying that you can in the next move is not enough (you don't have to prove it either). Furthermore this seems to make the rules of the game unnecessary difficult. If the game would simply end by capturing the king, it's pretty obvious that a check-situation is not very desirable and you'd want to do something about that instead of moving around some other pieces. You wouldn't need the rules to include the word "check". I guess it's got something to do with politeness, it's not nice to have your king actually captured so there's no need to keep on fighting until the inevitable outcome comes true, but I'd say that the politeness should be shown by the loser instead of the winner (as the article points out, the loser should resign when he knows he is to lose, so if he didn't see it coming, why not simply resign in the very last move?). From a programmer's point of view: a program that values the optimal situation to be when the opponent's king is captured is a simpler than a program that would try to reach a checkmate situation (which would have to do exactly the same calculations). I guess a professional chess player thinks in a similar vein, not trying to reach checkmate but trying to kill the opponent's king. Joepnl 3 March 2010

I don't think it makes the rules unnecessarily difficult. In chess the king is never captured. In ancient times they probably considered it undignified for the king to be captured or didn't want games to be decided simply because poor play allowed the king to be captured. They wanted capture to be inevitable. You can't put it in check and you can't leave it in check. It is different from checkers. As far as programs - I think they do play that way. They give the king a higher value than all of the other pieces combined, and then the program will do anything to achieve or avoid checkmate. That should also be easier than programming in checkmate, and should execute faster too. Bubba73 3 March 2010

Thank you for your contributions to the article. I didn't know (but did expect) ancient rules did say that in order to win you have to capture the king. It's very interesting that first check was invented and checkmate later. I thought the humiliating capture of the king was the origin of checkmate, check logically following that rule, but it's the other way around. I still find it kind of curious that chess is the only (to my knowledge) board game (of for that matter, any game) that has a build-in protection against losing for making mistakes, but I guess life would get really boring if all mysteries were dissolved instantly on Wikipedia :) Joepnl 4 March 2010

Thank you. As far as I know that is only true about chess. The king in chess came from the king, the monarch, and that must be why it is special - opposed, say, to kings in checkers/draughts. But also losing the king ends the game - accidentally losing other pieces doesn't (checkers and chess). Bubba73 4 March 2010

STOP PRESS: I have found this issue neatly and interestingly discussed (page 48) in Paul Hoffman's "King's Gambit" - which I am thoroughly enjoying.

Read more...

Whether to announce "Check!" or not

I just read a comment by Michael Goeller at Castling Queen Side blogspot, thus "He had "gotten mad at me" because I had said "check" after playing Bxh7+ and you "only say check to children.".

I always thought that this was mandatory so I googled it and here is the definitive answer to whether you need to announce "Check!" or not, after putting the opponent's King into check. OK, I'm lying again - I just got the following variety of answers which left me more confused than I was before.

Indeed, since writing the above, I came across a forum discussion which suggests that it is bad form to announce check when playing in an OTB tournament. I never realised this, must remember next time I play OTB (if I ever get the chance again). Maybe ask around a bit in the tournament hall before the game begins?

'mxdplay4' in  same forum reminds us that in an OTB blitz game you win automatically if your opponent doesn't notice (s)he's in check "and made a move that didn't get them out of check". For those who don't already know - you just physically take the King and announce "my game" or something.

OK, here's the google results:

1. Actually, saying check is not obligatory, but just polite. Note however that if the other player fails to see he is in check, and moves without lifting the check, that player also does not lose, but has to make a different move.

2. Checkmating your opponent is the goal of chess. If your opponent gets your King into check they must announce this by saying "check".

3. When a king is under the threat of being captured it is said that the king is in check (usually the side attacking the king announce this by saying 'check' but this is not imposed by the rules).

4. Actually, in chess you should not have to say 'check', since players should be paying attention to the threats that are on the board. If a player in check makes a move that leaves them in check, which is illegal, their opponent may not simply capture the king. Instead, the opponent should kindly inform the player that they are in check, then the player should take back their previous move and make a legal one using the piece that was touched, if possible.

5. I recall that when I started playing regular club chess after high school, that saying check was not required and was indeed considered rude because it interrupted the (as I interpreted it) hypersensitive thought patterns of the checker's neighbors.  Further comments can be found at Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

And there's always one 'smartass' isn't there (in this case it's one 'E. Blackadder') - who says "In a crowded restaurant, if you don't say "check" out loud, you have to stay until the place closes down."

Last word from 'ChessDweeb':

"I like to say "Checks In The Mail" right before I make my move and yell "Check!" when I do. Then in return my opponent inevitably laughs and slowly moves his rook to block my check and uncovering his Queen while whispering "checkmate" ever so softly to me."

Read more...