21 September 2017

Annotated Game #179: An IQP lesson

This game is almost completely characterized by my strategic struggle against Black's isolated queen pawn (IQP), a normal result of the Tarrasch Defense.  The notes speak for themselves, with the key (wrong) choice made by me on move 24, thanks to a deflection tactic that makes my chosen sequence of moves lead to a very drawish position, rather than maintaining my positional advantage.  I could also have done a bit more with my knights, but that was the key strategic error and another (IQP) lesson learned.

ChessAdmin - Class C

Result: 1/2-1/2

D34: Tarrasch Defence: 6 g3 Nf6 7 Bg2 Be7
[...] 1.c4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.¤c3 e6 breaking the symmetry 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 I felt it made the most sense to exchange in the center at this point. It's the overwhelming choice in the database. 5...exd5 (5...¤xd5 would be the Semi-Tarrasch defense.) 6.d4 transposing to the Tarrasch Defense, which again makes the most sense here. If Black is allowed to play d5-d4 then his central pawn presence becomes very strong. The text move will eventually allow me strategic play against an isolated queen pawn. 6...¤c6 7.¥g2 ¥e6 8.O-O ¥e7 9.a3 played as prophylaxis against ...Nb4. The immediate capture on c5 is much more popular. 9...O-O
9...c4!? is the reason why White typically takes on this move, rather than the next one.
10.dxc5 ¥xc5 11.b4 helping develop my bishop with tempo. 11...¥e7 12.¥b2² White now has a very comfortable game. The basic strategy in an IQP position is to work against the pawn, including by dominating the square in front of it, and trade down minor pieces to make the defender's job tougher. Black is not really in a position to take advantage of the more dynamic qualities of the central pawn, so I have a small advantage. 12...£d7 13.¦c1 getting the rook in play 13...¦ac8 14.e3 dominating the d4 square. 14...¦fd8 15.¤e2 not a pretty-looking move, but strategically consistent (and validated by the engine). The battle revolves around the d4 square. 15...a6 16.¤e5 with the simple idea of exchanging pieces. Black otherwise has to retreat the queen to a less favorable square and leave my knight on a nice central square.
16.¤f4 was played in the one database game, with good results for White. 16...¥f5 17.£b3 ¥e4 18.¦fd1 £d6 19.¤d3 ¤g4 20.h3 ¥xf3 21.¥xf3 ¤xe3 22.fxe3 £xg3+ 23.¥g2 £xe3+ 24.¢h1 ¥d6 25.£c2 £g3 26.¢g1 ¦e8 27.£f2 £h2+ 28.¢f1 ¦e6 29.¥xd5 £xh3+ 30.£g2 £f5+ 31.£f3 £xf3+ 32.¥xf3 ¥g3 33.¤c5 ¦e3 34.¢g2 ¥f4 35.¤xb7 ¦xf3 36.¢xf3 ¥xc1 37.¦xc1 f5 38.¢f4 ¤e7 39.¦xc8+ ¤xc8 40.¢xf5 ¤b6 41.¥c3 ¢f7 42.¤c5 g6+ 43.¢e4 h5 44.¤xa6 h4 45.¥d4 ¤c4 46.a4 ¢e6 47.¤c5+ ¢d6 48.¤b3 g5 49.¢f3 h3 50.¢g3 g4 51.b5 ¢c7 52.a5 ¢b8 53.a6 ¢a8 54.b6 ¢b8 55.¤c1 ¢a8 56.¤d3 ¢b8 57.¥e5+ 1-0 (57) Martinovic,S (2400)-Gara,A (2337) Split 2007
16...¤xe5 17.¥xe5 ¦xc1 I'm happy with the additional piece exchange. 18.£xc1 ¦c8 while it's good for Black to occupy the c-file, that also forces my queen to a better square. 19.£b2 creating a nice Q+B battery on the long diagonal. 19...£b5 this repositions the queen a little further away from the fight, although it's not necessarily obvious how White can take advantage of this fact. (19...¥h3 20.¥xh3 £xh3 21.¤f4²) 20.¤c3 not a bad move, but not optimal.
20.¤f4 is a recurring theme, with the knight on a more influential square.
20...£c4 this maneuver to me just seemed to expose the queen to attack and made the next couple moves easy to find. 21.¦c1 £c6 Black has spent a lot of time on queen moves, while I've been able to improve my position.
21...£d3 would at least be consistent with the idea of trying to penetrate my position with the queen. 22.¥d4²
22.¤e2 £d7 23.¤d4 an example of lazy strategic thinking. The d4 square is already thoroughly dominated, so I don't have to actually occupy it. (23.¦xc8+ £xc8 24.¤f4²) 23...¤g4 (23...¦xc1+ 24.£xc1 ¤e4 25.f3) 24.¤xe6 this is an example of bad sequencing of moves.
24.¦xc8+!?24...£xc8 and now 25.¤xe6 £xe6 (25...fxe6?26.¥xg7+⁠−) 26.¥d4± with the two bishops on White's side and the isolated pawn on Black's, along with the pressure along the a1-h8 diagonal, White is significantly better here.
24...¦xc1+ now Black avoids the problems of the above variation by deflecting the queen. 25.£xc1 fxe6 White has the pair of bishops now, but the d5 pawn is no longer isolated and my Bg2 is relatively constrained. My slight edge is not going to be enough to make progress. (25...¤xe5?!26.¤f4±) 26.¥b2 ¥f6 27.¥xf6 ¤xf6 28.£c5 ¢f7 29.¥f1 ¤e4 30.£c2 ¤f6 31.¥d3²31...g6 32.¢g2 e5 33.e4 this brings things closer to a draw.
33.£c5² is the engine's recommendation, but there's still not much progress to be made.
33...dxe4 34.¥xe4 ¤xe4 35.£xe4 £e7
Powered by Aquarium

02 September 2017

Annotated Game #178: Patience is a virtue...which I lack

Analysis of this next tournament game, along with the previous ones, helps highlight one recurring flaw in my play: lack of patience.  This is a common fault in Class players, often reflected in the idea that each single move has to "do something" big.  Here, as in Annotated Game #176, when there is no obvious immediate breakthrough, I get frustrated and acquiesce to a draw.  Fixing this conceptual flaw in my play should bring better results over time.

The game itself contains some interesting ideas (not just psychological ones), including alternatives for Black on move 9 and move 12.  As part of the analysis process, it's very useful to see how modern engines (Komodo 10 in this case) help evaluate plans, not just individual moves; for example, it consistently highlighted the value of the b8-h2 diagonal and building up pressure on it through the variations on moves 12 and 15.  I also like the idea of the knight retreat on move 19, getting out of the way of the pawns and playing a more maneuvering type of game.  Finally, it was worth looking at the different options towards the end of the game, for both dynamic and maneuvering play, to continue working my positional advantage.

Class C - ChessAdmin

Result: 1/2-1/2

[...] 1.d4 d5 2.e3 usually an indicator that White is heading for a Stonewall formation. 2...¤f6 3.¥d3 c5 4.c3 ¤c6 5.f4 ¥g4 getting the bishop to an active square before playing ...e6 6.¤f3 e6 7.¤bd2 ¥e7 8.O-O O-O 9.£e1 cxd4 Normally it's a good idea to exchange c-pawn for d-pawn, and it isn't bad here. But there may be a more effective path forward for Black.
9...¥f5 is a more sophisticated positional idea, which is both the database and engine favorite. After 10.¥xf5 exf5 Black has a lock on e4 and White's e3 pawn will be weak on the half-open file.
10.exd4 ¦c8 11.¤e5 ¥f5 I'll give myself credit for recognizing this idea, even if a bit later than optimal. 12.£e2 a6 this was perhaps a waste of time. My idea was to play follow up with .. .b5 and prevent White from advancing the c-pawn to exchange off my d5 pawn. However, this is not a real threat as long as the Nc6 is there (due to the d4 pawn then being unprotected). If White exchanges on c6, then a subsequent pawn swap on d5 would just leave d4 isolated and weak.
12...£c7!? would develop the queen and connect the rooks. It also starts to build pressure up on the b8-h2 diagonal.
13.£f3 b5 sticking with the original idea. 14.a3?! done to prevent b5-b4, but this is too weakening. 14...¤a5³ now having a pawn on b5 is actually helpful, thanks to my opponent making holes on the queenside. 15.¦e1 ¦e8 not really necessary. Komodo still favors the plan of building pressure on the b8-h2 diagonal with ...Bd6 and ...Qc7. 16.g4 ¥xd3 17.¤xd3 ¤c4 18.¤xc4 bxc4 now I enjoy a significant space advantage in the center and on the queenside. 19.¤f2 g6
19...¤d7!? would activate the Be7 and give White fewer kingside targets for the pawns.
20.£h3 (20.f5 exf5 21.gxf5 ¦b8³) 20...¥f8 rather too cautious.
20...¦b8 with the idea of pressuring the b-pawn and forcing White to tie down a piece to its protection.
21.¥d2?! White will just have to move this back next move. 21...¦b8µ22.¥c1 £b6 here either more patience was called for in a largely closed position, or some more dynamic play. (22...h5!? is the dynamic option. 23.gxh5 ¤xh5³)
22...¦e7 is a more slow maneuvering approach, clearing the e8 square for the knight to go to d6 and perhaps to double rooks on the b-file.
23.£g3 ¥d6 24.£f3 at this point I saw no obvious breakthroughs for Black, so took the draw. Basically a lack of energy and patience was the reason, along with not really understanding the needs of the position. These include the importance of the b8-h2 diagonal and activating the bishop, the possible ...h5 advance, better and earlier development of the queen and rooks, etc.
Powered by Aquarium

26 August 2017

Annotated Game #177: How could I not win this?

While it's always disappointing to lose a game, there's another - sometimes just as poignant - feeling of disappointment at not winning a game.  This next tournament game falls into that category.  I build up excellent attacking prospects on the kingside, with open lines and an overwhelming local superiority of pieces (4-0), but at the crucial point I failed to actually execute an attack.  My opponent started to do a good job of defending while making threats and turned the game around as a result; what happens after move 27 is an excellent illustration of the importance of the initiative, both on the board and psychologically.  I almost had the full disappointment of losing the game, as things went rapidly downhill, but after an error by my opponent I managed to calculate the drawing sequence and wrapped the game up.

Analyzing this game was helpful in highlighting certain clusters of turning points and strategic choices, for example around moves 17-19 and again on moves 27-31.  Hopefully I can make better future decisions as a result.

ChessAdmin - Class C

Result: 1/2-1/2

[...] 1.c4 e5 2.¤c3 ¤f6 3.¤f3 ¤c6 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 ¤xd5 6.¥b5 ¤xc3 7.bxc3 ¥d7 8.d4 ¥d6 9.O-O O-O 10.¥e2 ¦e8 11.£c2 e4 12.¤d2 now e4 becomes an easy target to focus on, although the position is still equal. 12...¦e6?13.f4 here I believed my opponent a little too much, when he failed to defend e4, although the text move is also good for White.
13.¤xe4 I correctly saw there was a threat for Black involving ...Qh4, which made me avoid this line. However the engine shows that this is unnecessary, since Black's attack just looks scary rather than being effective. 13...£h4 (13...¥xh2+ 14.¢xh2 £h4+ 15.¢g1 £xe4 16.£xe4 ¦xe4 17.f3 ¦ee8 18.¢f2±) 14.f4 ¦h6 15.h3 ¦g6 16.¥f3 ¥xh3 17.¤xd6 cxd6± and White is fine.
13...exf3 14.¤xf3± here Komodo considers White to be about the equivalent of a pawn ahead. The central pawns are quite powerful and I have some nice open lines on the kingside. 14...¦e8 15.¥d3 h6 16.e4 mobilizing the central pawn majority 16...¥g4 17.e5 this is premature; I should bring more pieces into play first, or (as shown by the engine) challenge the Bg4, which is Black's only good piece on the kingside at the moment.
17.h3 would help get the pesky bishop out of the way. For example 17...¥h5 18.e5 now this pawn advance has more bite, since g4 is threatened and the bishop has no good square to go to. So 18...¥xf3 19.¦xf3+⁠− and White is rolling on the kingside with four pieces (queen, two bishops and rook) currently versus zero for Black.
17.¦b1!? is a simple move that gets the rook in play and makes life more awkward for Black.
17...¥e7? an obvious retreat but not a good one. (17...¥f8) 18.¦b1 a good move but not great.
18.¥c4!+⁠− pinning the f-pawn causes major problems for Black, as now Qg6 is threatened.
18...¦b8 19.¥e4 right piece to move, but not the best square for it (per above). I thought for a while here on where the best spot for the bishop would be, but ultimately was too focused on queenside play, when in fact the big payoff is on the kingside. 19...£d7 20.h3 ¥xf3 (20...¥e6 is more solid.) 21.¦xf3+⁠− with the f-file now open and two strong bishops pointing towards the king, along with the dominating central pawns, I have a major advantage. 21...¥d8 22.¦g3 going for the somewhat cheap-looking, but still effective, threat of Bxh6. (22.£f2!?) 22...¤xd4 23.£d3 seeking to avoid having to take on d4 with the pawn and then give Black ...Qxd4+. However, that would in fact be fine for White as well.
23.cxd4 £xd4+ 24.¢h1 ¦xe5 here I was too materialistic and thought that the three pawns for a piece wasn't a good deal for me. 25.¥h7+ ¢h8 26.¥b2+⁠−
23...¦xe5 24.cxd4 ¦h5 25.¥b2 lining up against g7.
25.¦xb7!? would pursue a simpler winning strategy, based on my material advantage. 25...¦xb7 26.¥xb7 ¥f6 27.d5+⁠−
25...¥g5 26.¦f1 now all pieces are in on the attack and the engine evaluates this as the equivalent of White having an extra piece and then some. 26...¦e8 27.£f3?! a significant slip, since it would be much better to double the rooks on the f-file rather than leading with the queen. Also, the lack of a battery on the b1-h7 diagonal leaves me with fewer options for the bishop and allows Black's next move. I did not in fact have a concrete plan here.
27.¦gf3 ¥f6 28.¦xf6!28...gxf6 29.d5+⁠− and Black's king is stripped of cover.
27...¦h4 well played. Black now starts taking back some of the initiative by making his own threats, the first in a while. 28.¥f5 £b5 29.£c3 now I am responding more to Black's threats than looking for my own.
29.¥d3 would take advantage of the weakness on f7. 29...£d7 30.£xb7+⁠−
29...¦f4 30.¦xf4 ¥xf4 31.¦f3? missing the way to keep an advantage. The position is now equal. (31.¥d3!+⁠− extracts the bishop with tempo, also saving the Rg3.) 31...£xf5 by this point the game has fully turned around and Black is the one with all the threats. Psychologically this was a blow and I was tired of calculating variations, prompting the next error. 32.g3?? this in fact should now lose.
32.¥c1 is in fact the only move to preserve the draw, as it blocks Black's next.
32...£b1+ 33.¦f1 £xa2? allowing me to draw. (33...¥e3+ should win for Black.) 34.¦xf4 at least I was able to correctly calculate the next sequence. 34...¦e2 35.¦f2 £b1+ 36.¥c1 ¦xf2 37.¢xf2 now the engine evaluates the position as dead drawn. 37...£f5+ 38.¢g2 £e4+ 39.¢f2 £f5+ 40.¢g2 £e4+ 41.¢f2
Powered by Aquarium

23 August 2017

What to think about on your opponent's time

While the Simplified Thought Process (that works) I think is a good practical framework, there are some aspects of it that could use more depth.  One aspect that can have a major impact on play - since on average it will occupy half of your time during a game - is what to think about on your opponent's time. The famous Botvinnik quote, which I paraphrased in the above-linked comments section, is a good place to start:
When my opponent's clock is going I discuss general considerations in an internal dialogue with myself. When my own clock is going I analyse concrete variations.
(From http://chess-quotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/botvinnik.html)
I've been participating in more tournaments recently, and the experience has reminded me of the importance of efficient clock use.  Not just to avoid time trouble, but to really make the most of your limited available time and get the best result you can.  The idea of not analyzing concrete variations on your opponent's time is indeed very efficient, since unless time is short or there are obvious forcing moves on the board, mathematically speaking you will inevitably spend the majority of your thinking time on variations that will never get played.  This process may not be a complete waste of time, as you should be spotting available ideas for both you and your opponent.  However, I think there are much more efficient (and less mentally tiring) ways of identifying key ideas and even concrete sequences, than to be constantly calculating speculative variations.

So that still leaves us with what to think about when it's your opponent's move.  "General considerations" per the above quote is quite vague, and I've often seen it paraphrased as "positional considerations" - but I would argue that is misleading.  "Positional" characteristics or general considerations about the board position can (and should) in fact encompass things like tactical ideas, including up to short sequences.  These often will not be playable ideas - yet - and therefore cannot be calculated like true variations, but they help uncover the potential of the position and also offer strategic goals to work towards.

(Important! It's always necessary to think about your opponent's ideas as well as your own - so do this for both sides. This should come naturally when it's your opponent's move, as you are looking for his threats and trying to identify his plans in order to stop them.)

As a practical approach, I would suggest starting by recognizing important general positional features, followed by identifying more specific ideas involving individual pieces.  One outline for this process would be:
  • Explicit recognition of the open lines - diagonals and files - available for use, and possibilities for opening additional lines (including via sacrifices)
  • Visualizing the pieces' "power projection" along both open and closed lines.  Another way this idea can be expressed is as perceiving "lines of force" that emanate from each of your pieces along their movement axes; knights have an "arc" of force around them.  Being able to constantly perceive the pieces' power in this manner is very helpful for spotting latent tactics, for example those involving discovered attacks and backward movements, and I would say is another indicator that you are becoming a stronger chess player.
  • Noting all loose pieces, including ones that are pressured and could become underprotected. One of the most basic mantras for tactical sight is "Loose Pieces Drop Off" (LPDO)
  • Pawn levers / breaks that will open up the position and change it significantly (as in Annotated Game #176)
To get at the full potential of your pieces, the idea of conducting a piece "status examination" as presented in Understanding Chess Tactics is a valuable one and can quite profitably be done by you on your opponent's time.  This goes beyond "LPDO" and forces you to evaluate the status of each piece - what is it doing right now?  Is it vulnerable to a threat by my opponent?  Can it threaten anything? etc.  These lead to tactical ideas, but also strategic goals, as one of the most important ideas in general with chess strategy is to improve the position of your worst pieces; this will naturally result in a stronger position and give you more options.  Some specific considerations:
  • What is your worst piece - in other words, which piece is "not playing" for you right now? How can you best improve it? Common options include moving it towards the center (which automatically increases the "power projection" of all pieces except rooks); opening lines (via pawn moves, moving other pieces out of the way, etc.); or simply maneuvering the piece to a new square where it has more activity (for example on an open line), especially when it can directly influence key squares in the enemy camp.
  • Be on the lookout for potential near-term forks / double attacks that can be conducted by each piece, as the most common tactic.
  • Examine potential pawn advances, especially by passed pawns, for both their tactical and strategic power.
  • Evaluate where you currently have the best prospects for active play on the board: queenside, center or kingside.  This can change based on your pieces' status and tactical possibilities.
As with the original Simplified Thought Process description, the above isn't intended to be 100% comprehensive, but should help fill in some of the more important "general considerations" when thinking on your opponent's time.

20 August 2017

Annotated Game #176: Follow the mental toughness rule

This next first-round tournament game is a Classical Caro-Kann that goes into uncharted territory relatively early on (move 8). I am unable to correctly take advantage of my opponent's opening deviations, and more importantly miss - consciously reject, actually - a major idea of the position (the ...c5 break, which at various times ranged in potency from advantageous to devastating). However, I still manage to execute some good ideas and my opponent eventually goes seriously astray.

Despite the relatively low number of moves, I took quite a lot of time in making decisions move after move, which resulted in mental tiredness. My lack of board vision clarity lead to missing an advantageous tactic (in this case, a tactical defense of the e6 pawn, preventing a knight fork). As a result, as you'll see, the evaluation of the position goes up and down in rapid succession. In the end position, I still have an advantage, but I was low on the clock and mentally not prepared to continue after such a disappointment, although I should have.

First-round games in tournaments are often mental "warm-ups", so we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves too early, but I think I can and should do better. Taking less thinking time because I already know effective ideas in a position will help (...c5!), as will better energy management. Finally, it's all-important to follow the mental toughness rule of not taking a draw unless the position on the board is, in fact, known to be drawn. This rule has given me great success when I have followed it, and I only have myself to blame for the results when I don't.

Class B - ChessAdmin

Result: 1/2-1/2

[...] 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤d2 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤f6 8.¥f4 not in the database. My opponent had evidently not seen the previous move before and was looking to try to take advantage of it. 8...¤d5 choosing to immediately challenge the bishop. I wanted to try to take advantage of my opponent's opening deviation - a commendable goal, but this is probably not the best way to do it. (8...e6!? with straightforward development is simpler.) 9.¥xb8 £xb8 this is the wrong recapture. The engine points out the below variation. 10.a3
10.¤e5 targeting the Bg6 and f7 square, awkwardly for Black. 10...£c7 11.¥c4 e6 12.¤xg6 fxg6² and it looks pretty ugly.
10...e6 unlike earlier, I should now have taken advantage of the Nd5's placement, rather than play "normal" moves.
10...¤e3 is the computer line. I had actually thought about this possibility during the game, but wrongly turned it down as too "gimmicky". 11.fxe3 £xg3+ 12.¢d2 O-O-O³
11.h5 while this is a standard idea in the mainline Caro-Kann, here White has less to back it up, in terms of putting together a kingside attack. 11...¥h7 12.£d2?! this is in fact a very problematic move for White. I'm assuming that he originally wanted to prepare to castle queenside. (12.¥d3 ¥xd3 13.£xd3) 12...¥d6µ develops and threatens to win a pawn by exchanging on g3. 13.¤e2 O-O at this point I have a significant advantage in development, thanks to my castled king, good piece placement, and my opponent's blocked-in Bf1. 14.g3 smart, to take away the f4 square from me and blunt the h2-b8 diagonal. 14...b5 played to restrain c4 and maintain the Nd5.
14...c5!? is evaluated as slightly better by the engine. It would more quickly open lines in the center, an important consideration with White still not being castled. I rejected it at the time, thinking that it would free up White's minor pieces by giving him the d4 square to occupy with a knight.
15.c3 a5 the idea being to target and break up the queenside pawns, giving White's king even less cover. 16.¥g2 £c7 a bit of a wasted move. (16...¥e4!? would be annoying for White.) (16...¦d8 would get the rook in the game, lining up on the Qd2.) 17.b3 b4 not a bad move, but I'm focusing too much on pawn play on the a/b files and not considering the c-pawn break, or bringing in other pieces. 18.c4 ¤f6 not the logical follow-up. This would have been a logical choice earlier, to reposition the knight, but now there is more pressing business.
18...bxa3 would maintain the advantage, given the threat of ...Bb4. 19.c5 ¥e7 20.¦xa3 ¥f6µ
19.a4!? (19.c5!? closing off the c-pawn break permanently.) 19...¦ad8 now I really should be well-placed for a central breakthrough. However, the mental block I have on the c-pawn lever prevents me from accomplishing it. 20.£b2 ¥e4µ not a bad move, but I'm still refusing to play the c5 break.
20...c5!−⁠+ and White now has to think about getting his king to safety, while having weaknesses in the center and on h5.
21.¦c1 ¤g4³22.¦h4 f5−⁠+ maintaining the Ng4 on its outpost. 23.c5 now this doesn't help White nearly as much as it would have previously. 23...¥e7 24.¤f4 targeting the e6 pawn with a triple fork, which I was very worried about during the game; however, this should not be effective for him tactically. If I get the two bishops off of the file, then I can simply pin the knight on e6. I did not realize this at the time, unfortunately. 24...¥xh4 good but not best. (24...¥xf3 25.¥xf3 ¥xh4−⁠+) 25.¤xh4 ¥d5? far too conservative, and still missing the e-file pin which tactically protects e6. This position is now equal. (25...¥xg2 26.¤hxg2 ¦fe8−⁠+) 26.¢f1 ¦de8 27.¦e1 £d7 28.f3 ¤f6 29.¤hg6 £f7 30.¤xf8 ¦xf8µ at this point I took a draw as I did not see any way to make real progress and (the real reason) I was also very disappointed at missing a win. But of course the h5 pawn is hanging and the draw outcome was quite premature. So the moral of the story is that nothing good comes of violating the "no draws unless the position is actually drawn" rule.
Powered by Aquarium