Prospect Chess

A Rook v. Knight Ending in the MSL Tournament

2012-01-29T13:29:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, the Mid-Suburban League held its championship tournament. In the first round, Prospect freshman Kyle Gilligan played Schaumburg's Vince Calabrese on 7th Board. Early in the season, Kyle struggled to keep accurate notation so it was a pleasure to find that his score sheet accurately recorded all sixty-nine moves for both players. Not surprisingly in a game that long, a lot of interesting endgame issues arose.

Pawn Structure: What is Black's best move in this position?

Material is even but Black would be happy to trade off all the pieces to reach the following king and pawn ending.

Black is effectively a pawn ahead here due to White's tripled c-pawns. Black will be able to create a passed pawn with his extra pawn on the king side while White won't be able to do so on the queen side. 15...Qxd1+ 16.Kxd1 0-0-0+ would have been very pleasant for Black.

Pieces Before Pawns: A basic endgame principle is that a player should improve the position of his pieces before he advancing his pawns unless the position involves a pure pawn race to see who queens first.

Black played 34...c6 here. It wasn't a bad move, but he should have been looking for a way to exploit the superiority of his rook over the White knight. 34...Re1 intending 35...Ra1 would have shortened White's resistance.

Confining Over Attacking: You cannot capture an opponent's piece without attacking it, however, attacking a piece that can run away often ends up being a waste of time. Therefore, covering the squares where your opponent's piece can move is often better than attacking the square on which it sits. Sometimes restricting a piece's movements is just as effective as capturing it. In the following position, Black played 44...Kb7 and the White knight simply skipped away with 45.Nd7.

Look what happens on 44...Kd6! though.

The White knight is completely confined. White can play Na6, but the knight cannot escape via b4 due to Black's c-pawn. White is helpless against 45...Rb1 46.Na6 Rb6 when he loses his knight.

Winning Efficiently: Having offered several criticisms, it is my pleasure to compliment an excellent move.

With 53...Rxg5!, Black gives up his rook to gain a new queen after 54.Nxg5 a3! when the a-pawn cannot be stopped. Black would still have been winning after 53...Rh4, but the potential for an unhappy accident involving a knight fork would have been greatly increased.

A Final Question: Is there any reason for Black to bother capturing the White c-pawn with 68...Kxc4?

All other things being equal, no. Black had three minutes on his clock and 68...Kc3 69.Ka1 Qb2# (which Black played) wins the game. However, what if Black was down to a couple seconds on his clock and he did not see the two-move checkmate? By grabbing that last pawn, even if Black ran out of time, the game would still be a draw because White would no longer have sufficient material to deliver checkmate. Of course every player should be able to deliver checkmate with a king and queen (or a king and rook) against a lone king using only the five seconds per move allowed by the delay. However, if you have any doubts, it doesn't hurt to grab your opponent's last pawn to guarantee yourself at least half the point.

Here's the complete game.

Leone-Moskwa Analysis

2011-12-15T12:43:00.000-08:00

29.Rc1 would force 29...c5 after which 30.Rb1 picks up the Black b-pawn.

Prospect v. Meadows: Gambit Play

2011-12-15T08:14:00.000-08:00

On 3rd Board, Rolling Meadows Jonathan Phillips played the Evans Gambit (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4!? against Caleb Royse. This is a dangerous opening where White sacrifices a pawn for rapid development. I know that it's dangerous because I lost against it last weekend. However, White got in trouble when he moved a piece twice with 9.Ng5? before he had moved them all once.

It is always fun to attack something that seems to be under-defended, however, you should always assume that your opponent is going to see the threat and respond to it. If your opponent is forced to put his pieces on awkward squares where they inhibit his development, that may be good reason to violate the general opening principle of "move every piece once before you move any piece twice." In fact, White frequently has the opportunity to make those kind of moves in the Evans Gambit. In this case however, Black meets the threat with a move that he was eager to make anyway, 9...0-0. White would have been better completing his mobilization with 9.d4.

Just a Pawn

One of the things that makes chess so frustrating is how a minor oversight can have such dire consequences. On 3rd Board, Meadows' Ben Kusnierz had played very solidly against Echo Genc for twenty-three moves before he missed a knight fork that netted Echo a pawn. Unfortunately for Ben, the loss of that one pawn left him with two isolated pawns which soon became targets.

Prospect v. Meadows: Imbalances

2011-12-15T06:23:00.000-08:00

Prospect finished its season with a 46-22 victory over Rolling Meadows that featured a very interesting material imbalance on 1st Board, where Prospect's Robert Moskwa reached an ending with two knights and six pawns against Anthony Leone's rook, bishop and three pawns. There is nothing strange about unusual imbalances in high school chess, but they are usually accidental rather than intentional. Unfortunately, the short time controls can make it very difficult to find the right path in unfamiliar waters.

What should White do here?

Hint: As I often say, a basic principle of the endgame is "Pieces before Pawns." I.e., pawns that are pushed before the pieces are in position to support them often become weak. Therefore, unless you are in a pure pawn race, it is usually better to improve the position of your pieces before you try to advance your pawns. The converse of that principle is that your opponent's pawns may become weak if you can get him to advance them before his pieces are ready to support them.

I will post the analysis later.

King, Rook and Rook's Pawn v. King and Rook (Analysis)

2011-12-14T13:32:00.000-08:00

Take a crack at the positions before you look at the solutions.

King, Rook and Rook's Pawn vs. King and Rook

2011-12-14T13:24:00.000-08:00

Consider the following two positions which were inspired by Robert Moskwa's recent game with the World Under 8 Champion, Awonder Liang. White has just checked the Black king with his rook and Black has the choice of moving away from the White king and pawn with 1...Kd7 or towards them with 1...Kb6. The only difference is that the White rook is on c4 in the first and c3 in the second. Both positions are theoretical draws if Black makes the correct choice. See if you can figure what the right move is in each case before you look at the analysis in the next post.

Battle of the Titans

2011-12-14T11:01:00.000-08:00

Coach Neil Mott of Rolling Meadows reminded me that I have been somewhat remiss in updating my blog and he particularly expressed an interest in seeing the showdown between the two top players in the conference, Buffalo Grove's Matt Wilber and Prospect's Robert Moskwa. I wish it were a more exciting game than it was. Robert achieved a solid position with the Black pieces out of the opening but over optimistically snatched what only looked like a free pawn on his 17th move. He quickly found himself down a pawn in a cramped position which is the last thing you want against a player of Matt's abilities. Matt kept tight control of the position and ground out the win.

Why Chess Drives You Nuts

2011-12-07T15:57:00.001-08:00

This is the position after Echo Genc's 17.exf7+ against Schaumburg's Charles Jaris. Jaris played 17...Rxf7, which is objectively the best move. However, if Black had played the weaker 17...Kh8, what would have been White's winning move?

Sometimes a Pawn Gets in the Way

2011-11-17T19:27:00.001-08:00

It's Black's move. Which position does he prefer?

Interestingly, Black is much better off with one less pawn. In the first position, he simply plays 1.Kc4 and 2.Kb5 which forces the knight to give up its protection of the White pawn. Once White's pawn is gone, the position is drawn.

In the second position, Black is dead lost because his pawn prevents his King from reaching a square from which it can attack both the knight and the pawn. After 1...Kc6 2.Kh4 Kb6, the White knight moves to safety with 3.Nc5. Now it will take three moves for the Black king to attack the White pawn, 3...Kc6, 4...Kd5, and 5...Kc4, whereupon the White knight protects the pawn with Na6, when it will take the Black king another three moves to get back to b6. White can use this time to pick off the Black h-pawn after which it comes over to gang up on the Black b-pawn.

Rules FAQ: Offering and Accepting Draws

2011-10-29T13:01:00.000-07:00

What is The Proper Way to Offer a Draw?

Make your move on the board. Say, "I offer a draw." Press your clock. (Rule 12-2-1)

What Happens if the Proper Procedure Is Not Followed?

Two minutes can be added to the opponent of the player making the improper offer and the offer can still be accepted. (Rule 12-3-4) (I personally believe that this is excessive since the recipient of the improper offer suffers no harm. It is unlikely that this penalty would be imposed in an MSL match. Nonetheless, that's the IHSA rule and you should expect the penalty to be enforced at state and other tournaments. To the best of my recollection, USCF rules do not penalize improper draw offers.)

What if Your Opponent Offers a Draw Before He Moves?

You are entitled to see your opponent's move before making your decisions on whether to accept. If you wish to be polite, you can say "Play your move first." If you don't wish to be helpful, you can simply remain silent until your opponent makes his move. (Rule 12-3-3)

Can Your Opponent Withdraw His Offer?

No. Once the offer is made it cannot be withdrawn. If your opponent offers a draw before making his move and then finds a move that absolutely crushes you, he cannot withdraw the offer. Once he makes the crushing move on the board, you can say "I accept." (Rule 12-2-3)

How Do You Decline a Draw Offer?

There are two ways to decline a draw offer. (1) Make a move. (2) Say "I decline." (Rule 12-2-2)

Should You Ever Decline a Draw Without Making a Move?

NO! If you say "I decline" before you have chosen a move, there is always a chance that you will find upon further reflection that your position is worse than you thought. However, once you have declined the offer you are out of luck. If you are practically certain that you are going to decline the offer, you might wish to say something like "Let me look at it." When, you are ready to make your move, you can also say "I decline" if you wish. There is no reason to orally decline the draw offer before you are ready to make your move on the board.

What Constitutes a Draw Offer?

In addition to "I offer a draw" or "Draw?", any attempt to determine whether an opponent might be interested in agreeing to a draw may be treated as a draw offer. For example, if your opponent says, "Do you think I can win this?" you may respond "I accept a draw." (Rule 12-4)

Can You Offer a Draw After an Offer Has Been Declined?

Making repeated draw offers may be penalized as a attempt to distract your opponent. If a draw offer has been declined, another offer should not be made unless the position has changed substantially or a player has some other reason to think that his opponent might respond differently. (Rule-17-8-1)

Prospect Falls to Fremd (2): Knowing the Score

2011-10-29T11:51:00.000-07:00

The result against Fremd could very easily have gone the other way if the players on 4th Board not agreed to a draw. At the time, Prospect's Ekrem Genc had good winning chances against Fremd's Chang. Unfortunately, he was running low on time and he lacked confidence in his ability to play the endgame correctly.

This position is winning for White, but it is going to take some work. After something like 48.b4 Bd2 49.a6, Black can give up his bishop for the a-pawn and b-pawn with 49...Bxb3 50.Rxb3 Rxa6. White's two extra pawns on the other side of the board should be enough to win, but it's going to take a while. With his king in front of the pawns and his rook checking from the side and from behind, Black could have held out for awhile. Nonetheless, given that Prospect needed a win to win the match, Ekrem should have kept playing. On the other hand, the fault does not lie entirely with the player.

A Coaching Failure.

When a match is down to one or two games, IHSA rules allow the coach to give a Communication Card to a tournament steward to give to a player telling him what the score of the match is and the effect that his result will have on determining the outcome of the match. Unfortunately, this did not occur to me until Ekrem was low on time and I did not know what the correct procedure was for going about it. As a result, I had to talk to Mr. Barrett about it and before we could get it figured out, the players had agreed to the draw.

Ideally, a player should always try to apprise himself of how the match stands before he agrees to a draw. IHSA rules also permit a player to have the steward pass a Communication Card to a coach in order to find out how the match stands. Moreover, a player can initiate a communication regardless of how many games are still being played in the match. A player can also get up and look at the match score sheet. However, a player with less than four minutes on his clock cannot reasonably be criticized if he decides that trying to figure out how the match stands is not a wise use of his remaining time.

Mr Barrett and I should have been prepared to communicate the score if the need arose.

Why Game 60 Sucks

Game 60 is a convenient time control if you want to hold a match after the school day ends without getting the players home so late that they can't have dinner and do their homework. G60 is also handy if you want to complete a seven round tournament for the state championship in two days. However, when it comes to developing endgame technique, G60 sucks. On those rare occasions where both sides play well enough to reach an endgame where the result is in doubt, it is even rarer for either player to have enough time remaining to do the position justice. On top of that, players are often so low on time that they quit keeping score in the ending making it very difficult to go over the game and learn from mistakes.

One of the best reasons for joining the United States Chess Federation is to get the opportunity to play in some longer time controls. The Continental Chess Association runs three area events each year, the Chicago Open, the Chicago Class, and the Midwest Class, that use a time control of forty moves in two hours filed by one hour sudden death (40/2, SD/1). That means that each side has up to three hours to complete the game which usually leaves enough time to devote some thought to the ending. The Illinois Open, the Illinois Class, and Tim Just's Winter Open use game in ninety minutes with a thirty second increment (G90 inc 30) which means that thirty seconds get added to each players clock on each move. In a game that goes sixty moves, each side will have two hours. This doesn't always leave time for deep thought in the ending but at least the thirty seconds per move allows the player to keep score for later review. Up in Madison at the University of Wisconsin Chess Club, they occasionally run events with a generous 45/2, 25/1, SD/1.

The downside to the USCF events is that the longer time controls tend to be bigger events with larger entry events. Nevertheless, the key to improvement in all phases of the game is to play slower games.

The Zwischenzug

Despite Ekrem's professed lack of confidence in his endgame skills, he actually found a couple of moves that demonstrate excellent chess thinking. "Zwischenzug" is a German word meaning "in between move." It refers to a quiet move that is played in an otherwise forcing sequence. They are very easy to overlook when calculating variations. Ekrem found a very nice one on his 36th move.

The most obvious move here is 36.Rxb5 when Black will find it very difficult to promote his remaing h-pawn. Running low on time, no one could blame White for playing this move immediately. However, Ekrem saw that 36...Rxc2 threatened both White's a-pawn and f-pawn. He also saw that the Black b-pawn wasn't going anywhere so he played the zwischenzug 36.Re5! driving the bishop away from e1. After 36...Bd2 37.Rxb5 Rxc2, White could play 38.a4 without worrying about his f-pawn. This is the kind of thinking that produces good endgame play.

Basic Endgame Positions

In order to succeed in endings at short time controls, it is necessary to have some of the basic positions down pat such as The Wrong Colored Bishop and Rook Pawn. A lone king can draw against a king, bishop and a-pawn or king, bishop, and h-pawn if the bishop does not control the queening square.

This is the position that White would have had with both rooks and all his pawns gone. It is a draw because there is no way that Black will ever be able to evict the White king from h1. The quick reason that Ekrem should have kept playing is that even if he managed to lose all five of his pawns, all White needed to do was trade rooks in order to reach a dead drawn position.

Prospect Falls to Fremd (1): Revisiting the Fried Liver Attack

2011-10-28T20:26:00.000-07:00

After winning the Mid-Suburban League conference tournament last year and finishing 18th at state, Prospect had high hopes for this season, but the competition is proving very tough. On Thursday, Prospect fell to Fremd 36.5 to 31.5. Robert Moskwa on 1st Board and Mike Monsen on 3rd Board continued their winning ways and Prospect got its first win on 8th Board from Brett Abraham. Unfortunately, Ekrem Genc's draw on 4th Board left Prospect short.Happily for me, there are many teachable moments to blog about:

Defending Against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 2.Nc6 3.Bc4.

The most natural response to 1.e4 is 1...e5. After the equally natural moves 2.Nf3 Nc6, White has the choice of several systems. One of the sharpest is 3.Bc4 which immediately targets f7 which is Black's weakest square.

The Two Knights Defense

Based on my experience the most popular response among high school players is 3...Nf6 which is known as the Two Knights Defense. The most popular move for White is then 4.Ng5. This violates the basic opening principle (or maybe just rule of thumb) which says that no piece should be moved twice until every piece is moved once. In this case however, the violation is justified by the fact that Black has no easy way to defend f7 against the dual threat of the knight and the bishop.

Black can if he wishes ignore the threat with 4...Bc5 which is known as the Traxler Gambit. This is very exciting, but completely sound. The recommended move is 4...d5, which blocks the bishop's attack on f7. However, Black faces another choice after 5 exd5.

Practice has shown that Black's best move here is the odd looking 5...Na5. This move also moves a piece twice when other pieces haven't moved once. On top of that, it places a knight on the edge of the board.

While the Two Knights with 5...Na5 is considered a perfectly sound approach, it is tough to play without a decent level of book knowledge It seems to me that it is an openings where the common opening rules of thumb (like not placing a knight on the edge of the board) get violated more often than usual. One main continuation goes 7.Bb5+ c6 8.dxc6 bxc8 9.Qf3.

These are not the easiest moves to find over the board in a sixty minute game if you haven't seen them before.

The Fried Liver Attack.

After the more natural looking 5...Nxd5, White has the option of playing the Fried Liver Attack where White sacrifices a knight for a pawn with 6.Nxf7 in order to expose the Black king and draw it out to the middle of the board. Apparently the name derives from the fact that Black frequently winds up as dead as a piece of liver.

The Fried Liver Attack is not necessarily winning for White but it is not easy for Black to defend after 6...Kxf7 7.Qf3+ when Black is forced to play 7...Ke6 in order to defend the knight on d5.

One possible continuation is 8. Nc3 Ncb4 9. Qe4 c6 10. a3 Na6 11. d4 Nac7. However, 6.d4, delaying the knight sacrifice may actually be a better move for White. This allows White to add his other bishop to the attack quickly and it turns out that Black doesn't have anything that particularly improves his defensive chances. For example 6...Be7 7.Nxg7 Kxg7 8.Qf3+ gives White a revved up Fried Liver.

The Italian Game

In the ten years that I have been coaching at Prospect, I may have seen the Fried Liver a dozen times in matches. To the best of my recollection, Black won most if not all of them. So what is Black to do if he doesn't want to allow the Fried Liver and he doesn't want to have to find a lot of counter-intuitive moves after 5...Na5? I've seen some players go for 3...h6 to prevent 4.Ng5, but neglecting development isn't a good idea. My preference is simply 3...Bc5 leading to the Giuoco Piano aka the Italian Game.

Now 4.Ng5?? simply loses the knight to 4...Qxg5. If White plays 4.0-0, after 4...Nf6, Black can meet 5.Ng5 with 5...0-0.

3...Bc5 doesn't eliminate the possibility that White may sacrifice material to get a nasty attack. 4.b4 is the Evans Gambit which can be very tricky to handle. However, White often plays more quietly with 4.0-0 or 4.d3 and even if he chooses a more aggressive line, overall I think opening principles are violated much less frequently than in the Two Knights.

To sum up: After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4

The Two Knights Defense 3...Nf6 is perfectly sound however after White's most common move, 4.Ng5, Black is likely to wind up in tricky positions that are hard to play without some prior study.

3...Bc5 is also perfectly sound and the odds of Black reaching a position that requires less book knowledge is much greater.

Here's an example of a Fried Liver from the Prospect-Fremd match. In many ways, it is typical of the genre. The Black king is exposed and stuck in the middle and Black is forced to play defense the entire game. He manages to find some good defensive moves but he doesn't find enough of them.

White to Play and Win

2011-10-14T07:53:00.001-07:00

This position occurred on 7th Board in the Prospect-Hoffman match. What should White have played?

Prospect v. Hoffman: An Important Drawing Technique

2011-10-13T18:03:00.000-07:00

Prospect lost for the first time this season to Hoffman Estates, 46-22. Prospect had winning chances on 4th and 7th Boards and drawing chances on 3rd and 6th, but was unable to convert.

The drawing chances on 6th came in a position similar to this. If White is to move here, he wins easily with 1.Rd6+. However, if it's Black's move, he draws with 1...Qc3+ 2.Kb1 Qb3+ 3.Kc1 Qc3+. White has no way to escape the queen checks as long as Black keeps his queen on the same file as the White queen. Unfortunately, in the match White played 3...Qa3+? which allowed the White king to get to safety with 4.Kd2.

Is It Safe?

2011-10-11T11:33:00.000-07:00

Hey! You guys on the lower boards . . .

STOP HANGING YOUR PIECES!!!!

Ahhh . . . It felt good to get that out of my system.

There are very few players in the Mid-Suburban League who do not hang a piece from time to time, but the players on the upper boards do it much less frequently than the players on the lower boards. When a 1st or 2nd Board hangs a piece it is usually because he overlooked an attack on his piece. when a 7th or 8th Board hangs a piece, it is often because piece safety is not a habitual part of his thought process. The 7th or 8th Board may be perfectly capable of figuring out whether a piece is safe or not, but he only bothers to do so intermittently.

As usual, my favorite source of advice is Dan Heisman's Novice Nook column at ChessCafe.com I recommend reading The Safety Table.

Prospect v. Palatine: Pieces Before Pawns

2011-10-09T07:31:00.000-07:00

Prospect beat Palatine 57-11 in its second match of the season. Although normally one of the toughest teams in the conference, Palatine lost many of its upper boards from last year to graduation.

It's always nice when a principle I write about in one post is perfectly illustrated in a game from the next match. In my last post, I stressed the need to improve the position of pieces before pushing pawns in the endgame. That principle arose again on third board where Palatine's Karan Patel had White against Prospect's Ekrem Genc. At first glance, it appears that the Black rook can pick off the White pawns at its leisure, however, White can still draw the game with 46.Kf4! After 46...Rg8 47.Ke5 Rxg7 48.Kd5 Rb7 49.Kc5, the White king has just enough time to protect the b-pawn. Since the Black king is to far away to help, the game will be drawn after Black is forced to give up his rook to stop the pawn from queening.

In the game, however, White pushed with 46.b6? which leaves the White king with insufficient time to come to the aid of either of the pawns. White lost after 46...Rg8 47.b7 Rxg7+ 48.Kf4 Rxb7.

Endgames: Position Pieces Prior to Pushing Pawns

2011-10-05T08:27:00.001-07:00

The most common mistake I see players on the lower boards make in the endgames is pushing pawns before their pieces are in a position to support the advance. Sometimes the game does come down to a race between unobstructed pawns, but I think it is much more common that a pawn will need support to advance. A player should always ask himself whether he needs to improve the position of his pieces before pushing a passed pawn.

This position occurred on 5th Board in the Conant match. White has an extra passed a-pawn, but all three of Black's pieces are well positioned to oppose its advance. The only piece supporting the pawn is the White rook, but since it is front of the pawn, it will have to move off the a-file in order for the pawn to reach the queening square at which point the pawn will be completely unprotected. Since the a-pawn is perfectly secure on its present square, White's first priority should be to get his king and knight involved in the game. Bringing the knight to c4 via e3 is one obvious plan.

The game eventually reached a king and pawn ending. The winning technique here is for White to get his king in front of his pawn with 57.Kg5 Kf7 58.Kh6 Kg8 59.Kg6 Kh8 60.g5 Kg8 61.Kh6 Kh8 62.g6 Kg8 63.g7 Kf7 64.Kh7 and the pawn queens. After 57.g5, which White played, Black should have been able to draw with 57...Kf7 58.Kh5 Kg7 59.g6 as long as he remembered that Straight Back Draws 59...Kg8 60.Kh6 Kh8 61.g7+ Kg8 62.Kg6 stalemate.

This endgame occurred on 6th Board against Conant. It should be a fairly easy win for Black. In an open position with pawns on both sides of the board, the rook is a much stronger piece than the knight. All Black needs to do is to find a square for the rook that maximizes its attacking capabilities. Any square on the 2nd rank would give the rook many targets. 26...Re1 is a logical way to start.

Unfortunately, Black chose to advance pawns instead.Rooks are much better at attacking than defending. Even after several pawn moves, Black still could have gone on the offensive with 32...Rd2.

In this final position, the Black pawn doesn't need any support, but Black still needs to improve his piece before pushing it. In the game, Black played 50...b3? and lost after 51.a7 b2 52.a8=Q+ Ke7 53.Qa2. Black could have won with 50...Kb8! 51.a7+ Ka8 52.c5 b3 53.c6 b2 57.c7 b1=Q+.

Prospect v. Conant: Putting the Horse in the Corral

2011-09-30T08:35:00.000-07:00

The third veteran to come through in the Conant match was sophomore Mike Monsen on 2nd Board. Although tactically a little rusty from the summer layoff, Mike played a very solid game positionally. The ending from the game provides a good example of the way that a bishop can dominate a knight in an ending.

While watching the game, I liked the idea of taking the c1 square away from the Black knight with 41.Be3 when Black will be forced to give up a pawn to extract his knight with either 41...c5 42.Kc3 Na5 43.Bxc5 or 41...b5 42.cxb5 cxb5 43.Kc3 Na5 44.Kb4 Nc4 45.Bd4 Nd6 46.Kc5 Nb7+ 47.Kxb5. The knight would be trapped after 41...Na5 42.b4 Nb3 43.Kc3 Na1 44.Kb2.

The computer indicates that 41. Kc2! is an even stronger way to confine the knight. 41...Na5 42.c5 Nc4 43.Bd4.

The only way Black can save the knight is by giving up the b-pawn. 43...b5 44.cxb6 (Don't forget en passant!) Nd6. 41.Be3 merely wins a second pawn. 41.Kc2! wins a second pawn on the 6th rank.

In the game Mike played 41.Kc3 and the Black knight managed to slip away to a secure spot via c1-e2-f4. Happily, Mike's technique was more than sufficient to win with only one extra pawn.

Prospect v. Conant: The Veterans Come Through

2011-09-28T13:28:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple more games from the Prospect-Conant match. On 1st Board, Caleb Royse won a piece in the opening and kept a tight grip on the position throughout the entire game. His opponent really never had any counterplay. On 3rd Board, Ekrem Genc built a very solid position out of the opening but blundered away a knight on the 19th move. However, because Echo had a good position before the error, it was not easy for his opponent to consolidate his advantage. When he failed to find the best move, Echo quickly took advantage.

Prospect v. Conant: Fast Freshmen Face First Foes

2011-09-28T13:02:00.000-07:00

Prospect opened the 2011-2012 season with a 41-27 victory at Conant. With Robert Moskwa unavailable, Caleb Royse played 1st Board for the first time and Mike Monsen and Ekrem Genc moved up three boards from last year to 2nd and 3rd. On 4th through 6th Boards, Prospect fielded freshmen Kyle Gilligan, Marc Graff, and Alexander Johnson. While a junior, Giovani Roldan was also new to chess club and playing in his first match. Prospect started 5 points in the hole when it forfeited 8th Board and faced a 27-0 deficit after three of its newcomers lost quickly. However, Mark Graff managed a win on 5th Board and the three returning players all won their games to give Prospect the win.

Freshman Futility.

I well remember my first visit to the high school chess club as a freshman exactly thirty years ago. I had learned the game at home and I held my own pretty well against my older brothers so I was optimistic about my chances. That didn't last very long. I was slaughtered in game after game. After a few visits, I gave up on chess and didn't return for the rest of the year.

During the summer between my freshman and sophomore years, Bobby Fischer played Boris Spassky for the World Chess Championship and for a brief shining moment, chess was cool in the United States. A good friend of mine became interested in the match and we played through the game scores that appeared in the newspaper. We also watched some of the games on public television where a master would analyze the games.

While most of the analysis was way over my head, it was clear to me that real chess players thought through their moves in ways that had never occurred to me. They did not play the first move that came into their heads and hope that something good would happen. They considered all their possible moves and spent time trying to figure out how their opponent might reply to each one. Real chess players played real chess.

When school started again, my friend and I both joined the chess club and we managed to move up to 3rd and 4th Boards by the end of the year.

The Newcomers at Conant

The performance of Prospect's newcomers was pretty typical for players in their first match.

(1) They played much too quickly. All of them had made twenty moves before five minutes were gone from their clock. Often they took no more than a few seconds to think about their moves.

(2) They did not think about what their opponent was threatening.

(3) They played the first move that occurred to them without thinking about alternatives.

(4) They did not try to figure out how their opponent was likely to respond to the move they were considering.

Here are a couple examples of what I'm talking about from the game on 5th Board between Marc Graff and Ming Tsai:

The game began 1.e4 d5.

Question: What is Black threatening?
Answer: 2...dxe4 winning a pawn.

Question: How can White deal with that threat?
Answer #1: Capture the attacking pawn with 2.exd5. This is considered best.
Answer #2: Move the pawn that is being attacked with 2.e5. This is reasonable.
Answer #3: Protect the pawn that is being attacked with 2.d3 or 2.Nc3. These are rather passive.

What White actually played was 2.Nf3? which just loses a pawn.

Question: Why did White play this move?

Answer: Although I don't know for sure, my guess would be that he made his move automatically without thinking about what his opponent had done. He might have expected his opponent to play 1...e5 which is much more common than 1...d5. After 1...e5, the best move is 2.Nf3. 2.Nf3 is also the best move against 1...c5. 2.Nf3 is also a perfectly playable move against 1...e6, 1...c6 and 1...d6, and 1...Nc6. 2.Nf3 is only bad if Black plays 1...d5 or 1...Nf6 because those moves threaten the White pawn on e4.

(I will confess that I have played 2.Nf3? in the same situation, however, I did it in a one-minute blitz game on the internet.)

Question: What is Black threatening?
Answer: 17...Nex4 winning the e-pawn.

Question: How can White deal with that threat?
Answer #1: Capture the attacking piece with 17.Qxc5?? This is terrible due to 17...Qxc5.
Answer #2: Protect the pawn that is being attacked with 17.f3.
Answer #3: Force Black to deal with a more serious threat by attacking the Black queen with either 17. Nf5 or 17.Rd1, which is what White played in the game, which was followed by 17...Nxe4 18.Rxd6 Nxc3 19.Rxc6.

Question: Which is stronger, 17.Nf5 or 17.Rd1?
Answer: 17.Nf5. If Black plays 17...Nxe4??, White plays 18.Nxd6+! After 18...exd6, White moves his queen to safety. Black must move his queen an the knight on c5 will be unprotected, e.g., 17...Qe6 18.Qxc5.

Question: Why did White play 17.Rd1?
Answer: I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that he saw that move first and did not take the time to think about other possibilities. To be clear, 17.Rd1 was not a bad move, however, there was a much better move available and White had plenty of time to evaluate alternatives.

Casual Chess vs. Serious Chess.

Chess can be a very unforgiving game. If you make a mistake in a tennis match, you can forget about it and move on to the next point. If you make a mistake in chess, however, you are stuck with the consequences for the rest of the game. Lose a piece and you may never have the chance to get it back. Allow a back rank mate and the game is over.

In serious chess, you have to think on every move. You have to look for your opponents threats. You have to consider your alternatives. Most importantly, you have to think about your opponent's best response to the move you are thinking about playing.

The good news is that every time you put in the effort, your understanding of the game will increase. Patterns and tactics will become familiar to you. You will learn to spot your opponents threats and anticipate responses to your moves more quickly.

Bishop v. Knight at the 2011 Illinois Open

2011-09-07T12:44:00.000-07:00

The most frustrating thing about taking up a new opening is when no one will let you play it. I decided to try playing 1...e5 in response to 1.e4 earlier this year, but I only had one chance to do so at the Chicago Open and no chances at the MAC July Swiss. At the Illinois Open, however, my luck changed and I faced 1.e4 all three times with the Black pieces and I won all three games. Unfortunately, I could only manage a single draw out of three games with the White pieces which may be my worst relative performance with the White pieces in a tournament ever. Of course, part of the disparity was due to the fact that average rating of the opponents' I faced with White was 2180 versus 1837 with Black.

In two of the games with the Black pieces I faced sidelines in the Ruy Lopez that I haven't gotten around to studying yet. In one of the games, I managed to come up with the plan recommended by the books and in one I didn't, but in both games I wound with two bishops against two knights as compensation for a damaged pawn structure.

Bishops v. Knights

Novice chess players are usually taught that knights and bishops are equally strong pieces so that trading one for another is an even swap. However, I have run across many high school players who view the knight as much more dangerous. I suspect that this is because the knight's move is more difficult to visualize and they tend to show up on unexpected squares to deliver nasty forks. Many young players will happily trade their bishops for their opponents knights at the first opportunity.

At higher levels, bishops are thought to be slightly stronger pieces, although the features of any given position determine which one is superior. The bishop does well in positions where it has open diagonals upon which to operate. In a position blocked with pawns, knight's ability to leap over pieces and pawns may give it the advantage. A knight is happiest when it has a secure outpost where it is defended by a pawn. (One thing to keep in mind is that blocked positions often open up, while the opposite rarely occurs). In an ending where there are pawns on both sides of the board, the bishop tends to dominate due to it's ability to operate at long range, but when the action is confined to one side, the knight's ability to attack squares of both colors may be key. Queen's and knights tend to work well together while the bishop would prefer to be paired with a rook.

One of the things that makes a bishop very handy in an ending is its superior ability to make a waiting move. Whenever a knight moves, it no longer protects or attacks any of the pawns it protected or attacked before it moved. If the knight is preventing an opponent's king from advancing to a more favorable square, it won't be after it moves. When a bishop moves along a diagonal, on the other hand, it still can still cover squares on that diagonal.

The position I reached in the 1st round of the Illinois Open illustrates some of bishop's advantages. Although Whites is down a pawn, one might think at first glance that his nicely centralized king and superior pawn structure might give him some chances to draw. In fact, it is a pretty easy win for Black. There is no way for the White knight to get at any of the Black pawns, and the Black bishop easily forces the White pieces to give way. The game continued 42.Nb1 c5+ 43.Kc3 Kd5 44.Nd2 Be2! (Just in case the knight had any thoughts about heading over to the king side via f3 and h4) 45. Nb3 Kc6 46.Nc1 Bf1 47. Nb3 Kb5 and the White a-pawn fell.

In the 4th round, the bishops proved their superiority in the middle game. My opponent played the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez but the long distance power of my bishops prevented his knights from ever getting passed the third rank. When knights are forced to defend each other it is usually a sign of a passive position. The game finished 33.a3 Be5+ 34.Ka2 Kc3 35.Rd1 Re3 36.Rf2 Rd8 37.f4 Bxd3 38 fxg5 Bb1+ 39.Kxb1 Rxd1 0-1.

MAC June Swiss

2011-06-21T11:48:00.000-07:00

On Saturday June 18, Prospect 1st Board Robert Moskwa and I played in a four round G60 in Elgin run by the McHenry Area Chess Association. I managed to give back 20 of the rating points I picked up at the Chicago Open by failing to find the winning move in the first round against 1766 rated Tim Ailes.

As Robert pointed out on the way home, 46.Nxe6! Ke7 47.Ra6 wins. Unfortunately, I thought that I would just drop the d-pawn because I didn't notice that the Black bishop was hanging. So I played 46.Rxd4 which lost painfully to 46...f5! I followed this up with a loss to Expert Larry Cohen.

Robert, on the other hand, had another fine performance. After a first round bye and a loss to 1959 rated Joe Cima, he finished with wins against 1798 rated Caleb Larsen and 1904 rated Chris Baumgartner. This gained him another 57 points to bring his rating to 1830 after only 22 USCF rated games. After I returned to tournament chess in 1996, it took me 80 games to reach that point.

I did have the consolation of beating the 69th highest rated eleven-year old in the country, Haoyang Yu, when he tried to control the center with his pawns while neglecting his development. Haoyang opened with 1.d4 and I played the Nimzo-Indian Defense 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4. White played the Classical variation 4.Qc2 which is currently the most popular approach among grandmasters. After, 4...0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6, he had achieved his goal of obtaining the bishop pair without weakening his pawn structure.

The problem for White is that his only developed piece is his queen, and he is still several moves away from castling. The most usual move here is to get on with development with 7.Bg5, but my opponent continued making pawn moves with 7.e3 Bb7 8. f3?! c5 9. d4?! cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qd1.

White's pawns don't look bad, but after having played eleven moves, all his pieces are sitting on their original squares. Naturally, It is time for Black to open up the position. 11...d5 12.cxd5 exd5 13. Bd3 Nxe4! when White cannot play 14.Bxe4 due to 14...Bh4+. After 14.Nf3, I was able to use my superior development to win a second pawn and trade down to an easily won ending.

Chicago Open

2011-06-01T16:28:00.000-07:00

After nearly slipping out of the expert class last November, my rating now stands at 2069 after I picked up 36 points while tying for 4th-5th in the U2100 section of the Chicago Open with 5.5-1.5.

My tournament began inauspiciously with a first round draw when I responded to 1...e4 with 1...e5 for only the second time in a USCF event and the first time in thirteen years. After watching Bobby Fischer win the World Championship in 1972, I took up the Sicilian Defense and I have stuck with it ever since. However, having looked at so many Open Games (1.e4 e5) while working with high school players over the last few years, I decided it was time to try it for myself. In the second round, I over played an attack and wound up with a dead lost position, but my opponent similarly misplayed his attack allowing me to win.

My wake up call came in the third round. I played the opening terribly, but I fought back to reach a rook and pawn ending where I had decent drawing chances. Unfortunately, I didn't have a clue about the right way to play it and my opponent marched his pawns to victory. After that, I settled down and worked on finding solid moves and I managed to win my last four games.

Here are a couple instructive positions from my games.

In the Endings, Takebacks Are Sometimes Allowed

In the opening and middle game, it is very rare that a player gets to take back a move that didn't achieve the desired result. However, in the ending it sometimes happens. I took advantage of that to find the correct plan in the following position.

Black to move would like to trade off the knights to reach an easily won king and pawn ending without letting the White king penetrate on the queen side. What is the quickest route?

I looked at the position for awhile trying to figure out whether checking the White king accomplished anything useful before it occurred to me that I could always return to my knight to c6 as the White king cannot stray from c4 or d4 without losing the knight. So I figured I would give a couple checks with my knight and see whether things looked any different. As soon as I played 39...Ne5+, I saw that that checks got me exactly what I wanted. After 40. Kd4 Nf3+ 41.Kc4 Nd2+ 42.Kd4 Nb3+ 43.Kc4 b4+!, my opponent resigned. The White king can no longer protect the knight and the king and pawn ending is lost for White after 44.Kxb3 Kxd5.

If You See a Good Move, Look for a Better One

Here's a position where my opponent said he would have resigned immediately if I had found the right move. Unfortunately, I simply played the move that I had decided upon before I played 16.Qxb7.

What move would have caused Black to resign? 17.Bc7! deflects the Black queen from protecting the bishop on b4. Unfortunately, I played 17.Bd6? and after 17...Bxd6 18.Rxd6 Rab8 19.Qxc6 Rb6, my queen is trapped. However, 20.Rxe6 Rxc6 21.Rxc6 gave me adequate compensation and I still wound up winning.

How to Beat Me

2011-03-06T16:42:00.001-08:00

For about the last ten years, I have had the same basic opening repertoire. I play the English (1.c4) as White and as Black, I have played either the Najdorf Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6) or the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4). I recently looked through my database of games against players rated 1800 and above, of which there were

The best way to beat me is to move first. When I have had the White pieces, I have 44 wins to 29 losses with 17 draws for 58%. When I have had the Black pieces, I have 33 wins to 39 losses with 16 draws or 47%. Against 1.e4, I have scored only 47% and against 1.d4, I score only 40%. My worst record comes against 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3, when my combined record with the Bogo-Indian (3...Bb4+) and the Queen's Indian (3...b6) is only 27% in 11 games.

USAT North: Expert vs. Masters

2011-02-21T11:01:00.000-08:00

After watching Prospect play in the IHSA Team Championship s week ago, I played in the United States Amateur Team Championship North over this weekend. This is an annual USCF rated event in which players put together their own four-man teams. The "Amateur" in the tournament means that the average rating of each team must be under 2200 and the teams ranged from 1265 to 2188. I played with four players that I know from the Chicago Industrial Chess League with an average rating 1862. I could have played as an alternate on the official CICL team which had an average rating of 2145, but I decided that playing first board on a lower rated team would be more fun and it was. I got to play three masters and I beat one of them.

The win came in the third round when Len Weber played rather planlessly against 1.c4 and we reached the following position. I've played the English long enough to look for a tactic involving Qd5+ that exploits the unprotected knight on c6.

Although I won the game on tactics, I didn't feel like I calculated all that well. I just figured on instinct that it was right to try to exploit the loose knight on c6. I hadn't even noticed 17...Nh3+ until Black played it. In the next round, we played a team that included IHSA champ Whitney Young's 1st and 2nd Board, Mike Auger and Sam Schmakel and Barrington's 1st Board from last year Zach Kasiurak. I got to play Whitney Young's coach, 2296 rated William Aramil. In that game I learned why instinct plus calculation beats instinct alone.

After a long calculation, I played 18...Nc5. William hadn't figured that this was playable, but he quickly calculated the strongest response. When we looked at the game afterwards, I generally was happy with the moves I played, but I found that I had overlooked many possibilities and I had spent a lot of time worrying about moves that William had dismissed quickly.

So that is the difference between myself and a master. Against both Weber and Aramil, I was able to spot a tactical possibility based on disharmony among my opponent's pieces, but in neither case did I calculate accurately or efficiently. Against Weber it didn't matter because the tactic produced a winning position. Against Aramil, the tactic merely freed my cramped position and I was unable to calculate well enough to find the best way forward after that.

After playing two games against masters with which I was reasonably pleased, I played an awful game against an 1800. After several missteps, I managed to win an exchange for a pawn, but the resulting position was very complex and my calculations failed me again. We wound up in an ending where I had a rook, bishop, and two pawns against his knight, bishop, and four pawns.

With the number of mistakes I had made in this game, I should have been happy with a draw, but my opponent seemed to want to keep playing. I did not think that I was in any danger of losing since I could always trade my rook for his knight to reach an ending with opposite colored bishops. As my opponent tried to find a way to make progress, I got his king and knight thoroughly tied up. By the time he did offer the draw, I said "Let's play a few more moves" and he promptly blundered.

Not a very pretty win, but it assured that I gained a few rating points for the first time in a couple of years.

My teammates for the event were Joseph Cygan, Mark Engelen, and our captain Gee Leong who put the team together. Mark had a terrific tournament beating 2114-rated Yuri Fridman while only losing to 2093 Zach Kasiurak. Joe also played well drawing with Whitney Young's 1st Board Michael Auger and losing a heartbreaker to master Steven Tennant.

Perhaps next year, I'll see if I can put together a team of players from Prospect.

In Chess, There Is No Penalty for Piling On.

2011-02-13T14:00:00.000-08:00

You would think that I would be content with a 5th Board who goes 5.5-1.5 at state and who, as a freshman, will be with the team for three more years, but I'm not. Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled with Mike Monsen's performance, but in three of his games he opted for favorable endings in which he still had some work to do when he might have put his opponents away in the middle game if he had piled on a little more weight in the form of a rook.

Let's start with a puzzle:

White to play and mate in six moves. The solution is at the the end of the post.

That position arose in Mike's first round game against Plano's Paul Rieke. In a 60 minute time control, it is not wise to spend a lot of time looking for pretty checkmates when simple moves preserve a substantial advantage, so there is no cause to criticize White's 20. Ba6. However, a little bit later, Mike did overlook a rather obvious opportunity to shorten his opponent's resistance.

Here White chose 28. Qxd6+ Qxd6 29. Bxd6+ Kxd6+ and with an extra bishop and pawn, he won the game comfortably in another 28 moves. However, 28. Rc1+ Kb8 29. Rc8+ was even deadlier. Playing in his first game at state, it's hard to fault Mike's eagerness to trade queens when he was ahead by a bishop. On the other hand, the chance to add a rook to the attack with check should never be discarded without some consideration.

Mike's next chance to pile on came in the third round against Dontrell Green from Thornton Fractional North. Having earlier won an exchange with a very pretty tactic, White grabbed a pawn here with 24.Qxa5. However, 24. Rac1 Qxe4 25. Rc7 would have made Black's life even more difficult.

A few moves later, White went for an exchange of queens with 27.Qb3? rather than piling on a rook with 27. Rac1. Had Black played 27...Qxb3 28. axb3 Nd4, it would have taken White a long time to bring home the full point. Black tried to keep the queens on with 27...Qc5?? and found himself mated in three moves.

In the 5th Round against Naperville North's Stephen Gaggiano, Mike didn't have the chance to pile on with a rook, but he did have a tactical opportunity that turned on the possibility of piling on. If White plays 18. dxc5, Black cannot play 18...Bxc5? because 19. Rac1! forces Black to part with either the rook or the bishop. After 18...Qa6 19.Qf4 Nf6 20.Qg3, the loose rook on c7 will lead to the loss of a couple more pawns and an exposed Black king. Instead White exchanged on d7 first. After 18. Nxd7 Rxd7 19. dxc5 Qc6 20.Qxa7 0-0, White was ahead by two pawns but the Black king was safe. The game eventually wound up in a rook and pawn ending where Black had a number of drawing chances.

It's hard to argue with success and Mike did win all three games by playing conservatively. Nevertheless, he will be moving up to 3rd Board next year and may well find himself on 1st Board one day. As his opponents become stronger, it will become more and more dangerous to let them hang around any longer than necessary. As Emanuel Lasker said "When you see a good move, look for a better one."

Solution: 20. Rd7+!! Kxd7 21. Qxb7+ Kd8 22. Bb5 Qe7 23. Bg5! Qxg5 24. Qd7++.

Prospect Goes 5-2 at State

2011-02-13T08:53:00.000-08:00

Prospect achieved its best result ever at the IHSA State Championship this weekend with 5 wins and 2 losses to finish in 18th place out of 128 teams. Mid-Suburban league rivals Buffalo Grove and Hoffman Estates also finished 5-2 in 22nd and 26th place. The biggest surprise for the MSL was Rolling Meadows which managed to go 4-3 to finish 32nd place despite being seeded 96th after a disappointing regular season. Joining Meadows at 4-3 Fremd in 30th, Palatine in 52nd, and Barrington in 59th. Elk Grove and Conant finished 3-4 and Schaumburg finished 2.5-4.5.

Prospect's top scorers were 5th Board Mike Monsen and 6th Board Ekrem Genc who went 5.5-1.5. Happily, Both players are freshman. Junior Caleb Royse went 5-2 with 3 wins and 4 draws on 3rd Board and Sophomore Robert Moskwa finished at 4.5-2.5 on 1st Board with his only losses coming to 2304 rated FIDE master Gauri Manoj of Glenbrook South and 1905 rated Chengliang Luo of Northside Prep in Chicago. I can't wait for next year.

Don't Trade Your Rooks

2011-02-01T16:36:00.000-08:00

I become frustrated with players frequently, but I only get angry in rare circumstances. One of those circumstances is when a player voluntarily trades his last piece to reach a lost king and pawn ending. Consider the following position that arose in the MSL Tournament:

Fig. 1

White is dead lost here. There are pawns on both sides of the board and Black has a healthy extra pawn. Since he can obtain a passed pawn any time he wants by ...a6 and ...b5, White has to keep his king on that side of the board to defend. That leaves the Black king free to run over to the other side of the Board and pick off White's g-pawn and h-pawn. If Black's extra pawn was doubled or backward, White might have a chance, but Black's extra pawn is healthy so the position is hopeless for White. If all the pawns were on one side of the board, White might be able to trade down to a drawn king and pawn verses king ending, but with pawns on both sides, that's not going to happen.

With a couple of rooks on the board, White chances are much improved.

Fig. 2

Black should be able to win this ending with his extra pawn and better pawn structure, but it is not a lock. At some point, Black will want to attack the White pawns with his rook, but if he is not careful, he will find his own pawns falling as well. Such endings are often drawn as a result of all the pawns getting traded off. Unfortunately, White played 1.d4 cxd4 2.Rxd4 Rxd4 3.Kxd4 and reached the dead lost position in Figure 1.

Here is another dead drawn position from the MSL Tournament:

Fig. 3

Black has more space and a more mobile king, but the White rook can prevent his king from ever getting close enough to the White pawns. All White has to do is put his rook on the 8th rank and keep the Black king cutoff.

About the best that Black can hope for is to reach a position like the following:

Fig. 4

Unfortunately, Black still can't take the f-pawn because he will lose his rook. 1...Rxf3 2.Ra2+ Ke3 3.Ra3+ Ke2 4.Rxf3.

So the position in Figure 3 should be drawn and the players in fact agreed to a draw after a couple more moves. Those moves were 1. Re1 Kd5 2. Rf1 Kd4 3. Rf2 Rd1+ 4.Rf1 Rxf1+ 5. Kxf1 Ke3 6. Kg2 1/2-1/2. Although the players agreed to a draw and the material is even, White is now dead lost.

Fig. 5

All Black needs to do is play 6...Ke2 and the White king must give way 7.Kh2 Kxf3. 8.Kg1 Kg3 9.Kh1 Kxh3 and all the White pawns fall.

It is never a good idea to trade off your last piece if the resulting king and pawn ending is a loser. You almost always have better chances of making a comeback with pieces on the board, even if those chances are only marginally better. With rooks, however, the chances are often dramatically better with Rooks. If you add a pair of knights to the position in Fig. 5, White's hopes would improve, but Black still would have excellent winning chances. However, if you add a pair of rooks, Black's hopes evaporate and the position is dead drawn.

Here's the lesson to remember: If your only reasonable hope is a draw, unless you can clearly see how you will get it in the king and pawn ending, keep the rooks on the board.

Moskwa v. Wilber

2011-02-01T14:01:00.000-08:00

A week or two before Conference, Robert asked me whether I thought he should play Bird's Opening (1. f4) against Matt Wilber in the tournament. My natural reaction was that he should stick to the openings that he is comfortable with rather than choosing his opening based on the strength of his opponent. However, he beat me with it in practice so I certainly wasn't inclined to press the point.

In their regular season game, Matt had played very quietly and patiently until Robert grew frustrated and made a mistake, however, in this game Matt played an impulsive knight sacrifice on his 15th move. He may have felt he had to play more aggressively for a win because Buffalo Grove was missing several of its regular players on the lower boards, however Robert invested the time necessary to find the strongest response leaving Matt down a knight with little to show for it.

After gaining a material advantage, Robert played a bit too conservatively allowing Matt to generate some attacking chances, but Robert defended carefully and brought home the point.

MSL Final Standings

2011-01-31T18:01:00.000-08:00

Final Standings for the MSL Tournament

1st Prospect 4-0
2nd Palatine 3-1
3rd Fremd 2.5-1.5
4th Hoffman Estates 2.5-1.5
5th Buffalo Grove 2-2
6th Barrington 2-2
7th Rolling Meadows 2-2
8th Conant 2-2
9th Elk Grove 0-4
10th Schaumburg 0-4

Click for Crosstable.

Final Standings for Regular Season

1st Buffalo Grove 9-0
2nd Prospect 7-2
4th Palatine 6-3
3rd Fremd 6-3
4th Palatine 6-3
5th Barrington 6-3
6th Hoffman Estates 5-4
7th Elk Grove 2-7
8th Rolling Meadows 2-7
9th Conant 1-7
10th Schaumburg 0-8

Prospect v. Buffalo Grove

2011-01-31T14:11:00.000-08:00

In the 4th round of MSL, tournament, things looked bleak for Prospect as the first four games to finish, 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 8th went Buffalo Grove's way. The games on 1st, 4th, and 5th looked promising, but Prospect's Caleb Royce was down a knight for a pawn on 3rd board in a position that didn't seem to offer much hope for counter-play. If Caleb lost, there would be a four-way tie at for first at 3-1. If Caleb could draw and the other three games went Prospect's way, the match would be drawn at 34-34 and Prospect would win the tournament with 3 1/2-1/2.

Caleb isn't the type of player who is happy defending an inferior position (not that anyone really is), but he hung tough and displayed unusual patience. Although down on material, his pawn structure was solid and there were no obvious weaknesses in his position. Buffalo Grove's Mike Diamond was unable to come up with a plan to convert his material advantage and Caleb managed to create a passed pawn. Eventually, Mike was forced to give up his extra knight. Although the game could still have gone either way, Mike was in time trouble and his king was exposed, which proved his undoing.

Another nail-biter was Nick Martin’s game against Karen Wilber. The players had castled on opposite sides of the board and Nick was attacking Karen’s king. I wished at the time that Caleb and Nick could trade positions as Caleb’s attacking instincts are stronger while Nick is the more patient defender. Nick missed several chances to deliver the coup de grace, but he kept the pressure on until the defensive task proved too great.

With Caleb, Nick, and Mike Monsen on 5th board winning, the match game down to Robert Moskwa's game against the strongest player in the conference and one of the strongest high school player's in the state, Buffalo Grove's Matt Wilber. Robert was up a piece but there was still a lot of play in the position. Eventually, Robert was able to quell Matt's counter-play to bring home the game as well as the match and the tournament.

Prospect Wins MSL Tournament!

2011-01-30T13:11:00.000-08:00

For the first time in its ten-year history Prospect won the Mid-Suburban League tournament 4-0, beating Elk Grove, Barrington, Fremd, and regular season champion Buffalo Grove in the final round, where Robert Moskwa beat the strongest player in the conference, Matt Wilber. Hopefully, I can get some games posted this week.

Prospect's Best Season Ever (I think)

2010-12-17T20:56:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday Prospect beat Hoffman Estates 38.5-29.5 to finish the regular season 7-2, which is it's best record ever if memory serves me correctly.

Wrong Colored Bishop and Rook Pawn

2010-12-04T08:43:00.000-08:00

The Rule of the Square is absolutely essential endgame knowledge, but there are many other handy tricks that are worth knowing as well. One of them is the problem of the wrong colored bishop and rook pawn.

This position is a dead draw because White cannot force the Black king out of the corner. In endings with a bishop and an a-pawn or h-pawn, if the bishop moves on the same color as the queening square, the game is an easy win. If the queen moves on the opposite color, it is a draw (assuming that the defending king can reach the corner).

This can be an important drawing resource. A player who is down by a piece and a pawn may be able to draw if he can arrange the right exchanges. A player who is down by two pawns may sometimes achieve a draw by sacrificing his last piece for a pawn.

This was the position that Mike Momsen had against Fremd's Meyyappan Ramu on 5th Board. If Black grabs the pawn with 46...Qxb4, his drawing chances increase significantly because White has the wrong colored bishop for the h-pawn. If Black can manage to trade any one of his four remaining pawn for the White g-pawn, a queen trade would lead to a dead draw. Instead, Black played 46...Qe5+ and continued to put up stiff resistance leading White to eventually make a generous draw offer which Black happily accepted.

Defending an Inferior Position

One thing that pleased me greatly was the way that Mike Monsen on 5th Board and Nick Martin on 4th Board hung tough while down material. Too often, players who fall behind look for cheap traps to turn the game around quickly. When the trap doesn't work, their position falls apart quickly. Mike and Nick did it the right way. They maintained solid pawn structures and avoided giving their opponents any easy targets.

Defending an inferior position can be dreary work, but the goal is a simple one, stop your opponent from making progress on his next move. If you can do this for several moves, your opponent may start to wonder whether his advantage is as big as he thought it was or he may start to feel like his advantage is slipping away. He may start playing for a draw instead of a win or he may take unnecessary risks and blunder. For Mike it was the former. For Nick it was the latter.

The Rule of the Square

2010-12-03T09:18:00.000-08:00

Prospect moved to 6-2 yesterday without a hard fought win over Fremd which was much closer than the 57-11 score indicated. After an hour an a half of play, each team had one win, Prospect was in trouble on two boards, and the other four boards were tense games that could have gone either way.

A vital question in any king and pawn ending is whether a king can catch a pawn before it queens. Of course it is possible to simply calculate out the moves, but the quickest way to figure it out is to apply the Rule of the Square. Take the distance from the pawn to the end of the board and draw an imaginary square extending towards the defending king. If the king can move into the square on his move, he can catch the pawn. If he cannot move into the square, he cannot catch it.

On 3rd Board, Fremd's Mihir Awati reached this position as Black with seven seconds left on his clock against Caleb Royce. The Rule of the Square would have told him that his king would have reached the White pawn before it queened, but he was unable to calculate out the moves quickly enough and he lost on time. It was a very tough loss as Mihir had played very well in time pressure for many moves to reach this position. On the other hand Caleb had also missed a chance to win using the Rule of the Square a couple moves earlier with twelve minutes left on his clock.

I'm Still an Expert...Barely

2010-12-02T08:54:00.000-08:00

Last weekend I played in a three-day, nine-round event at the North Shore Chess Center. After the first two days, I had 1 win, 2 losses, and 3 draws and I was confident that when the tournament was over my rating would dip below 2000 for the first time since 2006. It's only a number, but it is fun to be able to say that I am an "expert" chess player. As fate would have it, having resigned myself to being a Class A player again, I won all three games on the last day of the event to finish with 4 wins, 2 losses, and 3 draws and a rating of 2006.

I really have to work on my endgames. Twice I offered draws in positions where I held a material advantage because I was unable to figure out a plan to win. In the first round, I reached the following position against Aakaash Meduri, a junior at Hinsdale Central with a rating of 2010.

I was fairly low on time at this point and I could not figure out how to convert my material advantage into a win. I cannot win the b-pawn and if I bring my rook over to capture the g-pawn, Black can simply play ...Bxh3. I thought there should be some way to make progress, but I could not figure out how. It appears to me now that my goal is to try to reach a position where after I play Rxg5, I can follow up Black's ...Bxh3 with Rg7 so that rook attacks the b-pawn and prevents Black from protecting it with Bg2. How I go about accomplishing this isn't entirely clear to me. In the game, I played 55.h4 gxh4 56.Kxh4 and offered a draw.

I also accepted a draw in the following position against Paul Seet.

At the board, I couldn't decide whether Black's passed pawns offset his material deficit and exposed king so I accepted the draw when Paul offered it. I'm still not sure about the position.

If I am going to remain an Expert, I am going to have to improve my endgame technique.

Some Endgame Lessons

2010-11-24T07:16:00.000-08:00

Prospect split with the Groves last week, losing a tough match to undefeated Buffalo Grove 42.5-25.5 on Tuesday and beating Elk Grove on Thursday 56.5-11.5. With some better endgame play, the Buffalo Grove match could have been much closer.

Endgame Lesson #1: King and Rook v. King and Pawn

The following position (more or less) occurred on 4th Board with Nick Martin playing white against Buffalo Grove's Matt Wiewel.

This should be a fairly easy win for White. Black will be compelled to give up his for White's d-pawn and White's king and rook should be able to round up the remaining Black pawns easily. However, it is possible to go wrong, so it is worthwhile considering an even more basic position.

The only way for White to win here is with 1.Rb5 cutting off the Black king from supporting the pawn. 1...f3 2.Rb3 f2 3.Rf3 f1=Q 4.Rxf1 and hopefully White knows how to mate with a king and rook. It is vital that White cut off the Black king immediately because the game is drawn if Black's king and pawn are another square farther down the board.

Now 1.Rb4 doesn't do the trick. After 1...f2, White is forced to play 2.Rb1 Kb4 3. Rf1 Kb3 and the game is drawn because White will be forced to trade his rook for the Black pawn.

Returning to the position from Martin-Wiewel, the easiest way for White to avoid a position where his rook might have trouble coping with the Black king and pawns is to get the White king into the action. Unfortunately, White tried to win the game without his king. 1.Ke8?! Heading the wrong direction. After 1.Ke6 Ra8 2.d8=Q Rxd8 3.Rxd8, the White king would have been two squares closer to the action than it was in the game after 1...Ra8+ 2.d8=Q Rxd8+ 3. Kxd8 Kf6. Still if White gets his king moving the win should be fairly easy. 4.Rf2?! Still on the wrong track. 4...Kf5 5.h3??. This was White's last chance, he still could have won with 5.Ke7 g4 6. Kd6 f3 7.Kd5 Kf4 8. Kd4 g3 9.hxg3+ Kxg3 10.Kf3. Now the win is no longer there after 5...g4 6.hxg4 Kxg4

The White king is too far away. The rook is a wonderfully powerful piece, but it cannot handle the combined king and pawn by itself. If it cannot cut off the king before the pawn has advanced too far, the rook must have the king's help to cope.

Endgame Lesson #2: Defending Rook and Pawns v. Rook and Pawns.

There is an old aphorism in chess that goes "All rook endings are drawn." This is obviously not true, but rook endings often offer unexpected drawing possibilities. Before considering the ending that arose between Michael Monsen and Matt Wiewel on 5th Board in the Buffalo Grove match, let's start with another basic position.

This position is drawn as long as White toggles his king between g2 and h2 because the Black rook is stuck in front of its own pawn. If White plays 1.Kg3, Black wins with 1...Rg1+ 2.Kf2 a1=Q. If White plays 1.Kf2, Black wins with 1...Rh2 2.Rxa2 Rh2+ 3.Kg3 Rxa2. However, after 1.Kh2, the Black rook cannot escape without dropping the pawn. If Black tries to bring his king over to help, the White rook will check it away.

Black has an extra pawn, but as in the previous diagram, his rook is defending the pawn from in front and the Black king is in no position to relieve the rook of its defensive chores. White panicked with 43.Rd3?? and was helpless against Black's extra pawn after the exchange of rooks . However, if White could have gotten his rook behind Black's passed pawn, I think he should have had pretty good drawing chances. 43. Rd5! looks very solid. After 45...a4 Ra5, it is hard to see how Black is going to improve his position as his king is tied to the defense of the f-pawn and the rook is tied to the a-pawn. If Black should try to bring his king over to support the a-pawn, White can bring his king over to defend and leave the rook to defend pawns on the other side.

The Queen and Pawn Ending

2010-11-10T15:52:00.000-08:00

Which player has the better chances in the following position?

While having an extra pawn is usually preferable, when the only pieces on the board are the queens, a single pawn that is far advanced can be worth more than several pawns that are not if the advanced pawn cannot be blockaded by the opponent's king. In Patel v. Monsen, the players agreed to a draw after 44...Qg7 45.Qf4+. While a draw was not an unreasonable result, had the match still been in doubt, it would have been reasonable for Black to have played for a win.

The problem for White is that the only way to stop the Black pawn from advancing is by keeping the Black king in check. As a result, he does not have the time he needs to advance his own pawns. The problem for Black is that his king is in the of a wide open board and White has lots and lots of checking opportunities. Nevertheless, White has to careful not to deliver a check that can be blocked with a counter-check or with a pin that will force the exchange of queens. For example, after 44...Ke7, 45.Qe4+ would be met with 45...Qe6 forcing the queens of the board. Black may be able to use this possibility to leave White without a good check for a move or two which is all Black needs to advance the pawn.

One possibility after 44...Ke7 is 45.Qg5+ Qf6 46.Qc5+ Qd6 47.Qg5+ Kf7 48.Qf5+ Qf6 49. Qh7+ Qf8.
White now has no checks and he must try to prevent the pawn from advancing with 50. Qb1. Black then can prepare the advance with 50...Qf7 when Black can force the queens off the board after either 51.Qc8+ Qe8+ or 51. Qc5+ Qe7+. After 51.Kd2 a2 52.Qa1 Qf2+ 53.Kd3 Qxh2, Black has reestablished material equality, but he is going to be subjected to another avalanche of checks. Whether Black can actually force the pawn home is far from clear, nevertheless, there will be plenty of chances for White to go wrong and the winning chances definitely lie with Black.

Two things to remember in endings with queens and pawns on both sides:

(1) Having the most pawns is not as important as having the most advanced pawn.

(2) Even though the board looks wide open, don't assume that perpetual check is inevitable. It is often possible to leave your opponent without any good checks.

Prospect moves to 4-1

2010-11-10T11:35:00.000-08:00

Losing 49-19, Prospect discovered last week that even with the graduation of expert Zach Kasiurak, Barrington is not a team to be taken lightly. However, it rebounded yesterday with a 53-15 win over Conant. Next week brings the groves of the buffalo and elk.

Prospect Moves to 3-0

2010-10-22T08:25:00.000-07:00

Prospect avenged last year's loss to Schaumburg by a score of 48-20. From a coach's standpoint, I think the match produced a number of teachable moments.

Wehmeir v. Royce, 3rd Board

There are many positions in which a passed h-pawn or a-pawn is less desirable than a central pawn, but this is not one of them. Knights have a very difficult time handling pawns on the edge of the board by themselves because the opposing king is capable of controlling the squares that the knight needs. Consider the following position:

White has a substantial material advantage, but the game is only a draw, If White had a bishop, the win would be easy because the bishop could control a square in front of the Black pawn from a distance, but the knight can only control the squares in front of the pawn from squares that the Black king can reach in one move. After 1.Nc1+ Kb2, the White knight can not reach any of the defensive squares it needs, so White must play 2.Nd3+ when either b4 or c1 will be available to the knight. It may like Black can even make some progress with 2...Kc2 3.Nb4+ Kb3 4.Nd3, but if Black tries to advance the pawn with 4...a2??, White has 5.Na1+ forking the king and pawn. If Black had a central pawn, the White knight could find a square that the Black king could not reach in a single move, but with the a-pawn White will never get the chance to advance his own pawns.

In Wehmeir v. Royce, White's a-pawn is not so far advanced as to make the game a draw because Black has time to bring his king over to help. However, if Black makes the mistake of leaving his knight to stop the a-pawn alone while using his king to attack the pawns on the other side of the board, Black could find himself in the kind of position we saw in the first diagram. White's best chance here is 31.Kc3! Ne6 32.Kc4.

Instead White played 31.c3? Nc5 which merely drove the Black knight where it wanted to go. Even worse the pawn on c3 prevents the White king from getting up to where it can support the advance of the a-pawn. If 32.Kb3 Na5+ and Black controls all the squares that the White king needs to advance.

Hanley v. Dixit, 5th Board

Every tactic is founded on the idea of forcing your opponent to do two things at the same time in the hopes that only one of the threats can be met. However, no matter how dangerous an opponent’s threats might be, they can be ignored if a more dangerous counter-threat can be found. Even if one of your opponent’s threats is checkmate on the next move, he must deal with a check to his king before he can deliver the final blow.

In Hanley v. Dixit , on Black’s 8th his double attack threatened two pieces and White dealt with one of the threats by delivering check. However, on Black’s 10th and 18th moves, his double attack threatened a piece and a checkmate. On both those occasions, White failed to find the check that would have allowed him to escape unscathed.

Prospect Beats Rolling Meadows

2010-10-20T12:22:00.000-07:00

In its second match of the year, Prospect beat Rolling Meadows 45-23. On 2nd Board, Arun Nair lost a tough game to Rolling Meadows' Anthony Leone as a result of failing to show proper respect for his opponent's passed pawn.

In this position, Black could simply swap his d-pawn for White's passed d-pawn with 22...Qxb4 23.Bxd5. Even stronger is to round it up with 22...Rb8 23.Qd2 Qxb4 24.Qxb4 Rxb4, although White still can still capture the d-pawn due to Black's vulnerability on the 8th rank, 25.Bxd5 Nxd5 26.Rd1 Rb5 27.e4. Instead, Arun played 22...e4? in hopes of picking up the b-pawn without giving up one of his own. Unfortunately, White played 23.b5! and Black has missed his chance. To complicate matters, Black has weakened his d-pawn and restricted his knight's mobility.

I am very impressed by White's last few moves. I frequently see inexperienced players advance a passed pawn too quickly, but Anthony has improved the position of his pieces so that they can support the pawn when it does advance deep into enemy territory. Black's has a couple reasonable choices here. He can try to maintain the blockade with 30...Rb8 or he can exchange queens with 30....Qxc6. The latter choice allows the pawn to advance, but it removes the pawn's strongest supporter and offers Black the chance to bring his king over to aid in the defense.

Arun is a naturally aggressive player, however, and was unable to adjust himself to the defensive task of blocking the pawn. He chose to keep his queen with 30...Qd8?, but this allowed the pawn to get another square closer to promotion with 31.b6. The game had a few more twists and turns, but White was eventually able to promote the b-pawn because Black kept trying to find ways to win rather than ways to draw.

Season Opener (2)

2010-10-03T07:45:00.000-07:00

Monson v. Morgan 5th Board

Freshman Mike Monson’s game against Palatine’s Adam Morgan is perhaps the best played game on 5th Board that I have ever seen. Mike outplayed Adam in the opening to win a pawn, but Adam didn’t panic. Rather than take risky chances to turn the game around, he simply found strong moves that made Mike’s job as difficult as possible. Eventually, Mike’s inability to find a way forward led him to make his fatal mistake.

As often as not, when the advantage shifts from one player to the other on 5th Board, it is because one of them has blundered away material through some gross tactical oversight. What made this game so interesting is how the momentum changed as the result of subtle strategic points.

Diagram 1.

Here White saw the chance to win a second pawn and played 18.e5. Black cannot play 18…dxe5?? due to 19. Qxd8. The strategic error here is being too eager to convert a positional advantage into a material one (or in this case a bigger material one). At present, Black's pieces are all tangled up defending the weak pawn on d6. His knight is stuck on e8 which traps the rook on f8. White could activate his other rook with 18.Rhe1 or expand on the kingside with 18.h4 and Black would be hard pressed to respond. Unfortunately, 18.e5 was also a tactical mistake due to 18...Qg5+ 19. Kb1 Qxe5. After 20.Qxe5 dxe5 21.Bxb7, Mike is still up a pawn, but Black's pieces are no longer tied down to defending the glaring weakness on d6.

I cannot be too hard on Mike here. Even masters have a hard time deciding when to convert a positional advantage into a material advantage. Too early and the weaker side’s position is unnecessarily eased. Too late and the opportunity may slip away.

Diagram 2.

Here White played 26.a3 in order to create a sheltered spot for his king. The strategic problem here is the failure to make a transition from middle game to end game. In the endgame, the danger of a sudden checkmate is much less and the king becomes a powerful piece. White should be trying to activate and centralize his king, rather than protect it. Just as important, White's a, b, and c-pawns are only opposed by Black's a-pawn. They are much more valuable advancing as offensive units than they are as defensive units shielding the king. 26.c4 would get White's passed pawn moving as well as providing the White king a route towards the center.

Diagram 3.

Here White missed a chance to take firm control of the position with 29.Bd5. After 29...Re7 30.c4, Black has to figure out both how he is going to stop White's pawn as well as how he is going to extricate his knight. Instead, White played 29.Re2, but after 29…Rd7, the Black knight is more firmly established. I think White’s problem here is that the Black knight on d2 looks much more dangerous than it really is. White becomes fixated on ejecting it when he would be better off ignoring and advancing his own pawns. I have to admit though, that the knight looked pretty dangerous to me as I watched from the sidelines (although 29.Bd5 looked good).

I think this is a point that White might have recognized with a few minutes thought, but in a sixty minute game, a player has to allocate such long “thinks”. Sometimes it is obvious that a game has reached a crucial point where extra time is warranted, but it is hard to identify any particular feature in this position that might have suggested to White that an extra investment of time might pay dividends.

Diagram 4.

Here White played 31.c3, which really isn’t a bad move if his plan is to bring the bishop to c2 where it can target the Black pawns. However, since Mike’s plan was to bring his king over to oust the knight, 31.b3 would have been better.

Diagram 5.

Adam has given a very good demonstration of how to play when behind. Too often the player who is down tries to turn the game around quickly. Playing solid defense is preferable. Every move in which you can prevent your opponent from making progress is a victory in itself, especially if you can improve your own position. The cumulative effect of such moves is to cause your opponent to question whether his position is as good as he thought it was and whether he can actually figure out how to win it. This can create a feeling of panic that leads to mistakes.

Compare this position to the second Diagram. In seven moves, Black has created two very dangerous looking central pawns and White seems to have made no progress at all. Interestingly, White is still in good shape. If he simply brings his king over with 34.Kb2, he will have sufficient defensive capacity to stop the Black pawns and he can start advancing his own. However, feeling the game slipping away, White lashed out with 34.f3?? whereupon his position quickly fell apart.

When the advantage switches from one player to another on 5th Board, it is usually because one of the players has lost material through some unprovoked tactical oversight. This game is fascinating in the way the momentum shifted as the result of subtle strategic points. When the tactical oversight occurred, it was the result of Black's patient play over many moves.

Prospect Wins Season Opener

2010-10-01T08:05:00.000-07:00

Prospect won their first match of the year against Palatine, 42-26. Prospect swept the top four boards and Palatine swept the bottom four. As I have in the past, I will try to analyze games from the matches that illustrate tactical and strategic points that I have seen arise regularly in high school games.

Medrano v. Gunawan 8th Board.

Games on the lowest boards are frequently decided by unprovoked blunders. One of the players overlooks the fact that his queen is under attack or fails to see that he is vulnerable to a back rank mate. Just as frequently, however, the blunder does not simply materialize out of this air. Often one of the players has achieved an advantage in space or development that that leaves his opponent without any good choices. When a player says "I lost because I missed a tactic on the 20th move," the truth is often that they lost because they failed to develop their pieces and fight for the center on the 5th to 15th moves.

Palatine junior Cyntia Madrano's win over Prospect freshman Adrian Gunawan is a good illustration of this principle. Cyntia took control of the center and developed her pieces actively. Playing in his first match, Adrian played somewhat passively and found himself in a cramped position with his pieces undeveloped. When Cyntia's attack came, Adrian overlooked some tactics, but none of his choices were very attractive.

Piotrowski v. Jian, 7th Board.

Nick Piotrowski's game against Harry Jian was decided by unprovoked blunders. Neither player had an advantage in either space or development, however, they overlooked tactics that should have been within their skill set. In such cases, the player to make the last mistake will be the loser and in this game it was Nick.

My best guess is that the blunders were mostly the result of the players playing to quickly. A player should not make his move on the board until he has taken the time to figure out his opponent's strongest response to the move he intends to play. If he is unsure of his opponent's best move, he should probably think some more. Sometimes of course, his opponent will come up with a tactic that he hadn't anticipated, but if he has taken the time to think about the position, that tactic is much more likely to become part of his own skill set in the future.

I hope that no one will take offense when I point out mistakes. Mistakes are part of the game and everyone makes them. I can assure every player in the conference that I can give examples of blunders in my own games that are just as bad as anything I have seen in the Mid-Suburban Conference. The primary difference is that I don't make them quite as frequently.

A New Season

2010-09-07T16:44:00.000-07:00

The Prospect Chess Club had its first meeting today. Most of our top boards returned and several freshman came out. The Mid-Suburban League lost two of its toughest players to graduation with Zach Kasuriak of Barrington and Shiny Kaur of Palatine moving on to college. Matt Wilber of Buffalo Grove returns sporting a USCF rating of 2104 after the Illinois Open this weekend. I also played in the Illinois Open. It was my first tournament in almost two years and it showed.

One of the Prospect players today was experimenting with the Sicilian Defense, which gives me a chance to took talk about the Thematic Sicilian Exchange Sacrifice which happened to arise in my one game from the Illinois Open that gave me a brief flicker of hope for a decent result.

The Thematic Sicilian Exchange Sacrifice is ...Rxc3. It is most frequently scene in the Dragon Variation but it can arise in any of the Open Sicilians where White plays 2. Nf3 followed by 3.d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 and 5. Nc3. Here are a couple of typical examples from the Dragon Variation. The first arises after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Qa5 11. Bb3 Rfc8 12. h4 Ne5 13. h5 Nxh5 14. g4 Nf6 15. Bh6 Bxh6 16. Qxh6 Rxc3:

By removing the knight on c3 after White castles has castled queenside, Black disrupts the White king's pawn cover and stops the White knight from joining the attack on the kingside with Nd5.

The second arises after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be2 Bg7 7. O-O O-O 8. Kh1 a6 9. Nb3 Nbd7 10. a4 b6 11. f4 Bb7 12. Bf3 Rc8 13. Qe1 Re8 14. Qg3 Rxc3:

When White has castled kingside and played f4, the exchange sacrifice ruins the White pawn structure and weakens the e4 pawn.

Any player who is considering playing the Dragon variation must be ready to sacrifice the exchange on c3 at the drop of a hat. The sacrifice also arises in other Sicilian variations, just not as frequently. In my case, it came up in the Najdorf variation, however, as a former Dragon player, my instinct was to grab the chance when it came after

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3

Nbd7 9. Qd2 b5 10. g4 Nb6 11. Qf2 Nfd7 12. O-O-O Rc8 13. Kb1 Rxc3

As White has castled queenside, Black's compensation consists of the disruption of the White king's pawn cover as well as reducing White's control of the d5 square which is often one of Black's most vulnerable points in the Najdorf. In neither White's knight on b3 nor his light squared bishop have any convenient way to get into the action. On the other hand, unlike in the Dragon, Black's dark squared bishop is not bearing down on the White king on the long a1-h8 diagonal and Black needs to finish developing. White's best course of action in this position might well have been to simply continue his pawn storm on the kingside.

It often happens after players castle on opposite sides that each player launches an attack on the other's king. These can be very exciting games in which time is of the essence. The players often disdain to make defensive moves which might slow down their attack. In my game my opponent tried unsuccessfully to secure his own king's position and never gave me any threats to worry about.

What Makes a Master is Memory

2010-01-09T19:33:00.001-08:00

I dropped by Niles North High School today where Prospect went 2-2 in a team tournament losing to 2008 state champion Stevenson and 2006 state champion Niles North.

Also attending the tournament was Glenbrook which is coached by chess master Steve Szpisak. I had not seen seen Steve for several years and he struggled somewhat before coming up with my name when I said hello. I congratulated him on his memory to which he responded "Najdorf" and "Bogo-Indian." These were the openings in the two game we had played back in October 2002 and January 2003, both of which he had won pretty handily. I only vaguely recalled one of them, but when I got home and looked at my database, I was able to verify that he had remembered both of them correctly.

This brings to mind my victory over International Master Bob Gruchacz in a friendly 5-minute game back in 1981. Bob and I had become friends through work and after hitting a couple of bars one night we decided to play some chess at my apartment. In the first game, I managed to set a trap for him that was just a little more subtle than he thought I was capable of setting and he dropped a knight enabling me to win the game. After that, he began to concentrate and he slaughtered me in at least ten games in a row. It was so clear that I did not have a chance against him in chess that we only played backgammon after that.

Many years later (my guess would be 1998), I ran into Bob in the elevator with a mutual acquaintance. I happened to be carrying a chess book and the acquaintance asked me whether I knew about Bob's accomplishments in chess. I said I did and I told him the story about me getting lucky in that one game. What I found most interesting was the way that Bob grimaced when I told the story. Even after more than fifteen years, it still pissed him off that he had let his guard down enough that a patzer like me was able to beat him even if it was a casual game of blitz chess, and the fact that he had completely dominated me after that did not make him feel any better.

Sometimes I Hate Computers

2009-12-20T09:32:00.001-08:00

Wednesday night I played in a match in the Chicago Industrial Chess League where I thought I had successfully refuted my opponent's novel opening strategy. As I played, I was thinking about the instructional value of the game and the interesting post I would write for this blog. When I got home and ran the game through Fritz, I was sadly surprised to find that there was a big hole in my refutation. Moreover, the cute little tactic I found to reach an ending with an extra pawn was much less impressive given that I didn't find the fairly obvious tactic to win a bishop and rip the game wide open.

I decided to post the game anyway figuring its instructional value is the warning not to be overly confident that you have seen all there is to see in a position.

Prospect Upsets Buffalo Grove's by Virtue of Correct Priorities

2009-12-11T06:18:00.000-08:00

Prospect dealt Buffalo Grove its second defeat of the season yesterday after several BG players including top board Matt Wilber inexplicably decided to compete for the school's math team in Libertyville rather than its chess team in Mount Prospect. Prospect's mathletes were not forced to make such a choice as its math competition was just a couple of miles away at Hersey, although I am confident that they would have made the right choice had they been forced to do so.

1st Board: The Sicilian Dragon

As I pointed out last week, players usually have to balance the need to thwart their opponent's plans with their desire to pursue their own. Sometimes, however, when the players castle on opposite sides of the board and race to attack their opponent's king, neither side can afford the time for defensive moves. Such games often end with one of the players being checkmated in spectacular fashion. Few openings lead to such games as frequently as the Sicilian Dragon that BG's Andrey Puzanov played against Prospect's Robert Moskwa on 1st Board.

I have always loved the Dragon, and though I no longer play it in tournaments, I still resort to it regularly when playing on the internet. When White plays the Yugoslav Attack, as Robert did, Black needs to remember a couple points: (1) If both sides advance their pawns, White has the advantage so Black needs to attack with his pieces, and (2) Black must be prepared to sacrifice the exchange with ...Rxc3 in order to create weaknesses that his pieces can exploit. Unfortunately, Andrey's pawn storm proved too slow.

2nd Board: When to Agree to a Draw

Most high school players never resign no matter how hopeless their position. On one hand, I can appreciate the logic. Even if there is no rational expectation of winning, there is nothing to lose by playing the game out on the outside chance that an opponent will blunder and allow a stalemate.

On the other hand, there are situations in which playing a game out is a mistake. Sometimes, a position is so evenly balanced that neither player can reasonably expect to create winning chances without taking unnecessary risks. In such cases, the reasonable course is to agree a draw rather than giving one’s opponent the opportunity to win. On 2nd Board, Prospect’s Mike Zwolenik blundered a pawn in the opening but got it back when BG’s Ryan McGonagle missed a tactic in the middle game. In the resulting ending, both players had very solid positions that were evenly balanced. An agreed draw would have been a very reasonable outcome. Instead, Ryan tried to create imbalances which gave Mike the chance to win.

New Format

2009-12-09T07:30:00.000-08:00

I am experimenting with a new template for the blog due to the new javascript playable board that I am using. By widening the column for the post, I can put the board and comments side by side making it easier to follow the comments and the game on the board at the same time. Comments and questions are welcome.

Playing Serious Chess

2009-12-07T10:29:00.000-08:00

When I got to high school, I looked forward to joining the chess club. I had grown up playing against my older brothers and I thought that I was a pretty decent player. In my first couple visits, however, I was crushed in every game I played. I didn’t go back for the rest of my freshman year.

During the summer before my sophomore year, America’s Bobby Fischer beat Russia’s Boris Spassky for the World Chess Championship. For one brief shining moment, chess was cool and hip. A friend of mine got interested in the game and we spent the summer playing chess and following the match. In the fall, we both joined the chess club and eventually worked our way up to 3rd and 4th boards.

I think a lot of the players who come to Prospect High School's chess club are like I was. They have played the game casually for a few years and they have a decent eye for tactics, but they have never thought about most of the things that serious players need to think about. They don’t think about controlling the center developing all their pieces or getting their king to safety. Other than obvious direct threats, they don’t worry about what their opponent is trying to do to them. Perhaps more importantly, they only think hard about some of their moves. Most of the time, they just make the first move that comes into their heads.

I want to say up front that there is absolutely no reason that anyone should take chess more seriously. As far as I am concerned, all chess is good chess. If someone just wants to push the pieces around, that’s fine. That’s the kind of attitude I have towards golf. However, like me, some of these players might find that they might enjoy chess more if they took it a little more seriously and they enjoy out thinking their opponents.

I wanted to get that all out in the open before I take a look at a couple of the games from the lower boards in Prospect’s match against Rolling Meadows because I cannot help but point out a lot of poor moves. I hope the players won’t take anything I say as a character judgment. I just want to point out the kind of things that they might want to think about if they would like to improve their play.

One of the most important things that the serious player does is to work hard on every move. In many games and sports, it is possible to come back after a lapse in concentration because every point is independent, however, in chess a single oversight can so ruin a position, that chances of recovery are almost non-existent. I often find that casual players are capable of solving a complicated problem when they think it through, but too often they play the first move that occurs to them only to be surprised by their opponent’s response. Serious players think about their opponent’s threats and potential responses on every move.

Respecting Pawns.

One thing I have been noticing a lot this year is a lack of respect for pawns. Most high school games are decided by one of the players overlooking a tactic and dropping a piece so it may be natural to think that pawns don’t matter much. However, in addition to having the potential to become queens, pawns control space, protect the king, and restrict the movements of an opponent’s pieces. They should always be treated with respect.

Neither Prospect’s Tom Hanley nor Meadows’ Daniel Rabbotini showed much respect for pawns in their game on 6th board. It was Tom’s first game in a match and he can feel good about the 3.5 points he got for a draw that provided Prospect’s margin of victory. On the other hand, had he been a little more parsimonious with his pawns, he could have brought home the full point. On the other hand, had Daniel realized the potential of his pawns he might have scored the win.

King Safety.

Another thing that distinguishes the serious player from the casual player is attention to king safety. The serious player takes precautions to protect his king from attack. This usually involves castling; however, castling alone is not enough. The serious player takes care to maintain the pawn cover for his castled king and brings pieces to help in the defense when necessary.

On 7th board, Prospect’s Alex Esau dropped a knight when he overlooked a tactic that many stronger players have missed. After that he castled, however, he castled to the side of the board where his opponent had more space and more pieces. This might not have been fatal though if he hadn’t invited in his opponent’s major pieces by opening the pawn cover in front of his king.

Whose Plans Matter?

2009-12-05T17:37:00.000-08:00

To pursue your own plans or thwart your opponent's plans: that is the difficult question that comes up time and time again. Sometimes players ignore each others plans completely when they castle on opposite sides of the board and launch attacks against each other's kings because everything depends on who breaks through first. More commonly, however, the players must solve the problems their opponents are creating as well as create problems for their opponents to solve.

Before sending me his score from his game against Tom Chung in the Prospect-Rolling Meadows match, Robert Moskva wrote down what he was thinking at several points during the game. I found this very helpful as I usually have to guess at what might have been going through a player's mind. In the opening, Robert spent too much time defending against possibilities that were not very dangerous, but in the ending, he did a very good job of assessing which threats were worth worrying about.

My comments are in blue italics.

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 This is a perfectly logical developing move, but it is rarely seen at the master level. In most cases, White would rather wait to see how Black develops before he decides where he wants this bishop. 2...Nc6 (2...e6 is more popular, but i wanted to play a solid, well thought-out game) My choice would have been 2...e6, but I like the thinking behind this move. Black isn't sure exactly how he wants to deploy his pawns, but he knows that he's going to want the knight here so he defers the decision about his pawns for a move. "Knights before bishops" is sometimes cited as a principle of opening development (although I don't think it qualifies as much more than a rule of thumb). I think the point is that the bishops have a lot more possible destinations, each of which requires a pawn move. Knights really only have two, so developing a knight first leaves more flexibility.

3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.0-0 e6 (blocked my bishop, but it shortens opponents bishop diagonal and I'm planning to play d5 at one point) Interesting thing about the blocked bishop: other than the Classical Variation of the Caro-Kann, I cannot think of any mainline openings in which Black's light squared bishop ventures out to f5 or g4. I'm not really sure why this is so. 6.d3 Be7 7.d4? (? because he wasted 2 moves for the same idea) 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4

Now we have reached an Open Sicilian where White has an advantage in space and easy development. As compensation Black has a very solid compact position, an extra central pawn, and the possibility of counterplay on the c-file. If White wants to make something of his advantages, he is almost obligated to launch an attack against the Black king. Black usually expands on the queen-side, often targeting White's pawns. Sicilian endgames tend to be good for Black. Timing can be crucial in the middle game though, so the fact that White spent two moves to get the pawn to d4 is a serious drawback. 8...0-0 9.Nf3?! By bringing the knight back to f3, White is signaling peaceful intentions. It would be hard for him to get an attack going without advancing his f-pawn. 9...h6 (Once again, he makes an odd move order, but I played h6 in order to stop any funky bishop or knight g5 stuff followed by maybe bxe6 and then Nxe6. So in a way, I'm proving his light square bishop a bit more useless) This is a bit too much precaution for my tastes. I don't think that Bg5 is that dangerous when Black has already played ...e6, ...Be7, and ...0-0. There is a little tactic Black should know about that sometimes wins a pawn against Bg5. 9...a6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Nxe4!? 12.Bxe7 Nxc3 13.Bxd8 Nxd1. As far as Ng5 goes, if White had been thinking about Nxe6, he would have left the knight on d4. 10.Bb5 a6 11.Ba4

11...Qc7 (I had to make a tough choice,did I want to win the pawn or not? I chose not to because my pawns would be very extended and my position would be slightly awkward, and from what I have realized I have a reputation for blowing good positions, so I played more solidly trying to prevent e5) Having played the Sicilian for years, I can say unequivocally that Black must be careful about trying to pick off the e-pawn this way. However, I would have gone for it for based on the following logic: (1) Black has developed reasonably in the usual Sicilian fashion; (2) White has lost time by using two moves to get his pawn to d4, moving his knight back to f3, and moving his light squared bishop three times. (3) If the Sicilian Defense is sound (which it undoubtedly is), Black should be able to take advantage of White's dilly-dallying. After 11...b5 12Bb3 b4 13 Ne2 Nxe4, Black's position is dominating.

It is not possible to calculate every possible line or visualize every possible position, particularly in shorter time controls. Therefore, a player has to factor in his assessment of the relative development when choosing between thwarting plans or pursuing. If he is confident that he has done a better job developing than his opponent, then the chances are that his own threats will be more dangerous and he shouldn't let them slip away.

12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Re1 d5 ( I finally allow the pawn push but in exchange He now has to worry about the pawn a little and the only truly open side for play is the queen side, which I have the advantage in) An accurate assessment and quite typical of the Open Sicilian. 14.e5 Nd7 15.b3 Bb7 16.Bb2 c5 (Now I decided I was defensively solid, so I'm trying to win his pawn/storm him with my pieces) I think Robert was defensively solid several moves ago and that he has let his opponent get more solid in the meantime. 17.Nb1 Nb6!?(Better was 17...Rfb8, should've kept some pressure on e5) I like the rook move, but I think this is fine, too. I don't think that pressure against e5 would really do much for Black as White has it more than adequately protected. 18.Nd2 c4?! A good idea but it gives White a lovely square for a knight or a bishop on d4. I think Black could have increased the pressure with 18...a5 or 18...Rc8. 19.Bd4 Rac8 Why not the other rook? 20.Qe2 cxb3(20....Nd7 21. c3)21.Bxb6?(why give it up?)Qxb6 22.cxb3 Rc2 (I should've tried to open up my light-squared bishop with a5! but I got to excited with my position) Robert may be right about this. His neglect of that bishop was a problem in this game, but it is hard to resist the temptation of putting a rook on your opponent's second rank. 23.Rec1 Rfc8 24.Qe1 Qc7?!(24...Rxc1 25.Rxc1 Bc5! and black is clearly winning) I am always reluctant to use phrases like "clearly winning" when analyzing games between high school players, but Black certainly would have had a strong position. 25.Rxc2 qxc2 26.Ne1 Qxd1 27. Rxd1 Bg4?!

I think that most masters would prefer to have the two bishops in this ending, particularly with pawns on both sides of the board. The key to exploiting the bishops is opening lines for them. I would have liked to see 27...a5 to get the light squared bishop into the action or 27...f6 to open things a little on the king-side.

28.Nef3 Rc2 29.Nxg5 hxg5 Robert is stuck with a "bad" bishop because his pawns restrict its movements. 30.a3 Bc6? Robert finally tries to get his bishop into the game, but this allows White to get his knight to a more active square. 30...Rc3 would have kept the knight tied down defending the b-pawn. 31.Nf3 Rc3 32.Nxg5 Nxb3 33.Rc1 g6??

(All the advantage I had was lost, simply 33..Rxa3 and I'm fine, I just did the move for extra precaution on the back row, but in exchange white got a great knight) I think that "??" is unduly harsh, although 33...Rxa3 was certainly stronger.) 34.f3 Be8 35.Rc8 Kf8 36. Nh7+ Ke7 37.Nf6 Bb5 (It was essential that I play my defense in pin-point accuracy, and I'm glad to say that I did) "Pin-point" might be a little too strong, but I really do like the way Robert keeps his wits about him with a White rook and knight deep in his territory. 38.Rc7+ Kd8 This is a key point. Black's only chance to make progress is by giving up the f-pawn. If he plays 38...Kf8, White can force a repetition with 39.Rc8+ Ke7 because 39...Kg7 would give White nasty mating threats after 40.g4. 39.Rxf7 Rxa3 40.Rg6 Bd3(Seems like this move allows the deadly-looking Rd7+, but it is a harmless check and his position would end up the same in any way, I wasn't bothered by his possible little advantage, I was happy with my past a-pawn) After being unduly cautious earlier in the game, Robert does a very good job of figuring out which threats are really worth worrying about in the endgame. 41.Kf2 a5 42. Ra7 a4 43.Ra8+ By this point White is in serious time-trouble and he succumbs to the natural temptation to deliver some checks. It is a serious mistake, however, because it lets the Black king off the back rank and allows it to support the a-pawn. This is one of the most common errors that inexperienced players make in endgames, i.e., checking the opposing king and driving it where it wants to go rather than confining it. 43...Kc7! (important to play the kind here contrary to 43...Ke7 because that allows a bit of chance for a draw, while the more crazy looking 43...Kc7! maintains my advantage) 44.Ne8+ Again pushing the Black king where he wanted to go anyway. Inexperienced players tend to think "Always check because it might be mate." Stronger players know that checking is frequently a mistake and should not be done without good reason. 44...Kb7 45.Ra5 Bc2?(d4!) It would have been good. 46.Nd6+ Kb6 47.Ra8 Ra2 48.Rg8? a3 49. Ke2??(I'm guessing it was time trouble, but this blunder cost white the game) After 49.Ke3 Rb2, White is still losing because he is going to be forced to give up his rook to stop the a-pawn, but this does make Black's life easier.49...Ba4+!(Just a bit better than Bf5+ and less riskier by far) Actually, it is quite a bit better. 50.Ke3 Rxg2? This gives White a chance to prolong the game. 50...Re2+! 51.Kxe2 a2 would have been quicker. 51.Nc8+?? Once again, an impulsive check in time trouble. After 51.Ra8! Bd1 52.Rxa3 Rxh2, Black would be up a pawn but would have a lot of work left to do. Now there is no way for White to get to the a-pawn. 51...Ka5 52.Ne7 a2 53Ra8+ Kb4 54..Rb8+ Ka3!(Now all is lost. The earlier ...Ba4+ was a very useful move; it safeguards the king) and it shields the pawn. 55. Ra8 a1/Q 56.Kf4 Qd4#.

Crossposted at Bill Brock's Chicago Chess Blog.

The Weakest Squares: f2 & f7.

2009-12-04T11:10:00.000-08:00

In the starting position, the weakest square on the board for White is f2 and the weakest square for Black is f7. These squares are vulnerable because they are only protected by the kings. The Fool's Mate (1.f3? e5 2.g4?? Qh4#) and the Scholar's Mate (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5?! 3.Nf6?? Qxf7#) exploit this weakness. In fact, in any game that gets decided in the first ten moves, the odds are pretty good that something bad happened on f2 or f7.

What this means is that players should keep a watchful eye on these squares, particularly before castling. If you start to see your opponent's pieces aiming at your vulnerable square, take the time to make sure that you can handle the threats.

Martin v. Kawalek,

On 4th Board in the Rolling Meadows match, the trouble that Prospect's Nick Martin found himself in can be directly traced to his neglect of the f2 square. While Black's king was neatly tucked away after castling, White's king was under fire for the entire game. Meadows' Matt Kawalek missed several opportunities to shorten White's resistance, but he had so many threats against White's exposed king that the result was almost inevitable.

Prospect Beats Rolling Meadows

2009-12-03T19:58:00.000-08:00

Prospect squeaked by Rolling Meadows today by a score of 36.5-31.5. Prospect won the top three boards but Rolling Meadows dominated on boards 3-8. Were it not for a draw on 6th Board the match would have gone the other way. I won't be able to get to the games for a few days so I figured that I would pontificate upon a couple of notation rules that came up in the match.

Writing Your Move Before You Make It

Many players like to write down their move before making it on the board. After concentrating on a position for many minutes, the act of writing down the move breaks their focus and enables them to take a fresh look before they make the move on the board. Sometimes this enables them to spot something that they missed before. The problem is that if they realize that the move they wrote is a blunder, they will erase it or scratch it out and make a different move. Some people claim that this is "making notes" rather than simply taking notation.

I am not personally persuaded by the arguments against writing a move first, but the fact of the matter is that these arguments seem to be carrying the day. The United States Chess Federation has ruled that a move must be recorded after it is made. The Illinois High School Association seems to be moving in that direction. So my advice to all players is to get used to writing down your move after you make it. You never know whether both your opponent and the steward might happen to be anal retentive.

Taking Notation in Time Trouble

When a player has less than five minutes on his clock, IHSA rules allow him to quit taking notation or to ask one of his teammates to take notation. Should he do so, his opponent is also permitted to cease taking notation or turn the responsibility over to a teammate even if he still has twenty minutes on his clock.

I advise the player with more time on his clock not to take advantage of this provision.

The biggest mistake that a player with a large time advantage can make is to move as quickly as his opponent. If a player has twenty minutes while his opponent has two, the best way to get his opponent to use up those two minutes is by using part of the extra time to come up with a move that forces his opponent to think. Moving quickly wastes the time advantage.

I have seen several games in which a player with plenty of time on his clock turned over notation to a teammate because his opponent had done so in time trouble only to begin moving as quickly as his opponent. On several occasions, the player with the time advantage blundered and lost. Had he continued to take notation, I cannot help but think that he would have been forced to play somewhat more slowly and might have come up with a better move.

The game on 1st Board in today's match was very even all the way to the endgame, however, Prospect's Robert Moskva had a considerable time advantage. After Rolling Meadows' Tom Chung turned over score keeping to a teammate, Robert continued to keep his own score and played the ending very deliberately and accurately enabling him to win. I do not know that he would have played less carefully if he had quit taking notation, but I have seen it happen several times.

Schaumburg Beats Prospect 46-22

2009-11-21T11:52:00.000-08:00

Playing While Behind

I remember a match at state a few years back where several Prospect players had poor positions out of the opening, but in which their opponents had a lot of work to do yet. Thinking that the games would be going on for awhile I decided to take a look at some of the matches that were taking place in the ropes. When I returned to the table ten minutes later I found half the Prospect players packing up their boards. It turned out that they had played quickly, gone for the first cheap trap they saw and then watched their positions fall apart when their opponents didn't take the bait.

Despite the loss to Schaumburg, I was gratified to see three of the games featured Prospect players handling poor positions very well. On 1st Board, Robert Moskwa actually did go in for a dubious tactic against Ben Wu after dropping a pawn, which lead to the loss of a rook for a bishop. After that, however, he settled down and played patient defense. As his opponent was a bit too careless with his pawns, Robert gradually regained enough material to draw. On 2nd Board, an oversight allowed Andrew Joo to develop a dangerous attack against Arun Nair, however, Arun played patiently and turned the game around when his opponent over-extended. On 4th Board, Alex Burke dropped a piece in the opening to Kanish Thakkar and fought back to equality, but failed to come up with the right plan in the endgame.

Question: Should black (a) trade his rook for the two Black knights, or (b) penetrate White's position with the rook and pick off some White pawns? See move 47 of Thakkar v. Burck for the answer.

Playing While Ahead

Among stronger players it is not uncommon to see a player resign upon losing a piece as happened in a game of mine that I posted recently. This is sometimes puzzling to high school players who tend to play most games out to checkmate. Stronger players, on the other hand, know that their opponent knows how to play defensively when ahead on material. The stronger player knows that if the position on the board doesn't promise them any chances to recover, their opponent is unlikely to take any risks that provide them with such chances.

The key to playing with a big material advantage is to think defense first.

“Think defense first” simply means that the more you are ahead, the more likely it is that any reasonable plan of yours will win so long as you do not let your opponent win back material or generate an enormous attack. Therefore, HIS moves become MORE IMPORTANT than yours!

NM Dan Heisman

Consider this position from Jaris v. Esau on 7th Board where Black is ahead by a rook and a pawn. This is more than enough material to checkmate White if Black can simply trade off all the other pieces. Black's question to himself should be "What bad thing might happen to me that would let White back into the game."

I hope that most players would see that White has a rook and a queen lined up against the Black king who is feeling rather lonely with most of his pieces on the other side of the board. If Black cans successfully parry the threats against his king, the win should come easily.

As so often happens, however, Black continued to play in the aggressive (and somewhat reckless) manner that he had used to achieve the material advantage in the first place. Although he responded to direct threats when he saw them, he did not think defensively. Here is a typical example from later in the game.

Black played 24...Nxg2+?! winning another pawn. However, Black doesn't need another pawn to win and the knight has nothing to do on g2. In fact, it was still sitting on that square when the game ended thirty-three moves later. I would have much preferred 24...Nc4+. Even though the knight is not stopping any immediate threats, it is well placed to prevent any later trouble that might develop.

Good players adjust their style to the dictates of the position. Having a big advantage dictates playing more defensively.

1. e4 or 1. d4?

2009-11-16T10:14:00.000-08:00

I generally encourage players who are new to competitive chess to worry less about specific opening variations and more about general principles like development, central control, and king safety. However, it is very difficult to avoid questions about specific variations and the most basic of these is "1.e4 or 1.d4?" While I am a firm believer in "play what you like," I think there are good reasons why less experienced players might find they like 1.e4 better.

1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6.

This position occurs in countless tournament and match games every year between chess at every skill level from woodpusher to International Grandmaster. White has several good options that give Black immediate problems to solve. He can play 3.Bb5 (the Ruy Lopez) threatening to remove the knight that guards Black's e-pawn. He can play 3.Bc4 (the Italian Game) targeting the weak f7 square. After both these moves White is ready to castle. Another popular move is 3.d4 (the Scotch Game) which attacks Black's e-pawn a second time and opens up the game for active piece play.

The positions that arise after 1.e4 e5 are known as the "Open Games" as there is often an early liquidation of the center and open lines for pieces. This is certainly not always the case, however. Some lines in the Ruy Lopez can go twenty moves without a single piece being exchanged. Still, in many lines the players have the option of opening up the position.

1.d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6

This position is seen with some frequency on the lower boards in high school matches, however, it becomes much rarer as players become stronger and it is almost never seen in games between masters. Although it looks very similar to the first position, the dynamics are completely different. Unlike the first position, Black's central pawn is defended more times than it is attacked and it is very difficult for White to increase the pressure. White cannot play 3.e4 without losing a pawn. He can prepare e4 with 3.f3 or 3.e3 and 4.Bd3, but the former approach makes king side castling less secure and the latter is time consuming.

The positions after 1.d4 d5 are known as "the Closed Games." There are generally fewer direct threats than in the Open Games and the players have more flexibility in development. There are also less opportunities to open up the game by liquidating the center. This can be frustrating for less experienced who may find themselves slipping into a passive position in which they are unable to come up with a plan.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6

This is the Queen's Gambit and it is the way 1.d4 d5 is often handled at the top levels. Chess masters don't play Nc3 without first putting pressure on the Black center with c4. Even so, White still finds it difficult to open the game by forcing the liquidation of the center and White is still four moves away from castling.

The Closed Games are in no way inferior to the Open Games, however, the center tends to remain static until the players have completed their development. Even then, the players often leave the center intact while they expand on one of the wings. This can be disconcerting for the player who is just moving into competitive chess from casual play where they are used to coming to blows much more quickly. I would never want to discourage a player who wanted to try these openings, but it is important to understand how they differ. I might suggest that they start out with something like the Torre Attack rather than the main lines of the Queen's Gambit.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.e3 Be7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nbd2 b6 7.c3 c5.

The Torre Attack is a very sound way to play the Closed Games. Although I have never played it myself, I have faced it several times without particularly good results. White's plan is to leave the central pawn structure intact while he expands on the king side with moves like Ne5 and f4. He plays c3 to fix the pawns in place rather than creating tension with c4. The White knight goes to d2 rather than c3 with the intention of occupying f3 after the other knight moves forward. White's plan is not terribly subtle but it can be very dangerous even for a strong player as can be seen in Rozentalis v. Schneider, Stockholm 1990.

My Return to Competitive Chess

2009-11-10T08:42:00.000-08:00

Find the winning move for Black.

Morris v. Hart

Last night I played my first serious game of chess in over a year in a Chicago Industrial Chess League match. I had the Black pieces and my opponent had just played 21. Nd4 a little too quickly. I didn't feel like I had handled the game particularly well up until this point, but I spotted the tactic here. Click on the game link to see the solution.

Barrington Thumps Prospect

2009-11-06T10:55:00.000-08:00

Prospect has been one of the few teams in the MSL that has found a way to beat Barrington in the last few years, but they had no such luck yesterday, losing 63-5. Nevertheless, Prospect had reason to be hopeful. Caleb Royse won on 8th Board in his first match and freshman Robert Moskwa playing in only his third match gave last year's top individual player at State, Zach Kasiurak, everything he could handle on first board.

Moskwa v. Kasiurak 1st Board,

After debuting two weeks ago on 5th Board against Elk Grove and playing 3rd Board against Conant last week, with Mike Zwolenik sidelined by the flu, Robert Moskwa moved up to 1st Board against Barrington's expert rated Zach Kasiurak.

Earlier in the week I had played a practice game against Robert in which I employed the Kan variation of the Sicilian because I knew that is what Zach had played against Prospect's Mike Pozsgay three years ago. However, I don't know the Kan system very well and I did not feel like I could give Robert much insight. So when Robert asked me to play a practice game before Barrington arrived on Thursday I played my usual Najdorf.

Our practice game went 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5.

At this point, Robert played 7.Nf3. This is a perfectly reasonable move and at one time it was thought by some strong players to be superior to the more popular 7.Nb3. However, in the Open Sicilian variations with 2.Nf3 and 3.d4, White obtains a lead in development and space against a Black position that is solid and flexible and I think that he has to be willing to undertake a king side attack in order to exploit those advantages. I wasn't sure I should tell Robert this because I did not want him to be second guessing his judgment before such a big game but I did and I am glad.

As luck would have it, Zach decided to play the Najdorf rather than the Kan system and Robert put him under intense pressure for the first fourteen moves of the game. On his fifteenth move, Robert allowed Zach some breathing room and Zach methodically built his initiative until Robert missed a tactic and dropped a piece on his twenty-ninth move. Robert did not let it rattle him though and he took advantage of a couple of inaccurate moves to get some dangerously advanced pawns that made Zach's job extremely difficult.

At this point, Zach put on one of the most impressive displays of blitz play I have ever witnessed. With just a few seconds left on his clock, Zach forced Robert to give up a rook for a bishop. Then with a single second left on his clock, Zach unrelentingly harassed Robert's king until the advanced pawns dropped and the win became a simple matter of exploiting the extra material.

Bakol v. Burke 4th Board

Last week I talked about the problems that sometimes occur when a player chooses an opening that doesn’t fit his particular temperament. Aggressive players should play openings that offer attacking chances. Players who like endgames should play openings that offer the opportunity for early exchanges. Cautious players should choose openings that the type of positions that will make them happy.

The openings that I find most annoying are the ones that are designed to specifically suck all the life out of a position such as the Exchange Variation in the French Defense or the Exchange Variation in the King’s Indian Defense. Such positions often involve symmetrical pawn structures and an early exchange of queens. The players who choose these positions must be willing to play patient defensive chess in the hopes that their opponent will become frustrated and overreach in an effort to generate winning chances.

On 4th Board, Prospect’s Alex Burke reached such a position as Black when he played 1.e4 d6 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8.

I am not sure whether this opening has a name or not, but I have come across it a number of times while playing blitz on the internet. Black has given up the right to castle without gaining any offsetting advantage. However, it is very difficult for White to take advantage of Black's passive play. With the queens gone, king safety is not that big a problem for Black. The symmetrical pawn structure leaves White without any obvious targets. Black will be hard pressed to find any active plans of his own, but his position is solid enough to parry White's threats.

It takes a certain temperament to play this type of position well. Black must be willing to play defensively with the sole purpose of denying White any targets. He must patiently wait for White's frustration to build the point where he will take unwise risks in order to create active play. Unfortunately, it seems that it was Alex who became frustrated. He initiated an unwise exchange that gave White the open lines and targets that he wanted.

Royse v. Katz, 8th Board

Prospect's only win came on 8th Board where Caleb Royse made his debut against Nate Katz. It was a solid if unspectacular win that was remarkably free of the kind of wildly illogical moves that one often encounters on the lower boards. Still, the forty-nine move game was over long before any of the other games indicating that Caleb may have been making the first move that popped into his head when better moves were available. The good news is that the first move that popped into his head was generally pretty reasonable holding out the promise the if he uses his time more wisely, he will recognize those better moves when he sees them.

The Art of Trading

2009-11-02T08:03:00.000-08:00

As a general rule, the player who is ahead material wants to exchange pieces while the player who is behind wants to exchange pawns.

Consider the following position in which Black has lost a knight in exchange for a pawn early in the opening.

Ideally, White would love to trade off all the pieces to reach a position like the following.

White would send his king to one side of the board and his knight to the other side of the board and the Black king would be unable to defend his pawns on both sides.

Black, on the other hand, would like to trade off pawns, followed by trading off pieces, to reach the following position.

Black is still down on material, but White cannot checkmate with a knight alone.

If Black were down by a rook, simply trading off the pawns would not be enough to draw as White could checkmate with the king and the rook, however, Black's chances of coming back are better if he does not have to worry about White queening a pawn.

Even when it is in a player's interest to trade pieces, it may not be in his interest to initiate the trade. It is always important to consider what the position is going to look like after the exchange.

QUESTION: Which of the following positions is better for White?

Pos. 1

Pos. 2

If you said Pos. 1, you would be correct. In both positions, White is ahead by three pawns. However, in Pos. 1, White's rook is sitting on an open file threatening to win another pawn while in Pos. 2, it sits inactively in the corner.

Pos. 2 resulted from White's decision to initiate a rook exchange with 26. Rxe8?! in Martin v. Brahmbhatt on 4th Board.

While White is happy to trade rooks with his three pawn advantage, 26. Rae1 would have left him with greater control of the position.

Hanging Tough and Letting Up

2009-10-30T22:08:00.000-07:00

In the two games I posted from the Prospect-Conant match, players almost got away with some poor opening moves when their opponents failed to pursue their advantage with sufficient vigor. I thought I would take this opportunity to share a game of mine in which the highest rated player I have ever beaten achieved a dominating position against me but let me slip away when he hesitated to make the crucial breakthrough.

Onyekwere v. Hart

The game is from the second round of the 2006 U.S. Open that was held in Oakbrook, Illinois. I had the black pieces against Chickyere Onyekwere who I later found out was the champion of Nigeria. His rating at the time was 2272 while mine was 1969. The time control for the game was forty moves in two hours followed by sudden death in one hour. Due to my opponent’s rating, the tournament provided us with electronic score keeping devices so that the game was broadcast live on the internet.

I played the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian Defense which is a sharp opening that is popular at the highest levels of the game. I really didn’t have any business playing it against a player of Onyekwere’s caliber as I hadn’t kept up on the latest innovations. Not surprisingly, my opponent played a move that had recently become fashionable for which I was unprepared. I quickly found myself on the defensive and the following position was reached after I played 14...Ne8

Any time you find yourself retreating your pieces to the back rank against a master, you can be sure that you are in trouble. At this point, my opponent sank deep into thought for fifty-seven minutes. The move that scared me most was 15. f5, after which, I was pretty sure my position would be ripped open and my king subjected to a withering attack. However, after nearly an hour of thought, my opponent played the relatively sedate 15. a3.

When we looked at the game afterward, Onyekwere showed me all the variations he had thought about during those fifty-seven minutes. He spent most of his time considering 15. f5 and sure enough, bad things seemed to happen to me in almost every variation. However, he could not quite see all the variations through to an easily won position and he was concerned that I might come up with an unforeseen defensive resource. Moreover, he felt that his position was still very strong and that there would be future opportunities to storm my position. As a result he played a waiting move.

Onyekwere’s delay turned out to be fatal. Although his position was still commanding, his passivity allowed me to improve my defenses even if only slightly. As a result, while he continued to have attacking possibilities, they would never be quite as attractive as 15.f5 and having passed that up, he couldn’t bring himself to settle for less. More importantly, having invested so much time on his 15th move, he didn't have the time to test the later possibilities. As he kept trying to press his attack, he failed to notice that I was generating threats against his king and I finally managed to turn the game around with 26…Qc7.

After pressing the attack for so long and being low on time, Onyekwere was unable to adjust himself to the need to play defensively and he failed to counter my threats.

I have often thought that if Onyekwere had been playing another master, he would have played 15. f5 after about twenty minutes of thought. He knew that it was the right time to launch his assault and he knew that 15. f5 was the most promising continuation. Against another master, I think he would have accepted the possibility that his opponent might come up with an unexpected move, however, against a player he out rated by 300 points, he wasn’t willing to launch the attack without being absolutely sure that it would succeed. Against another master, he would have been afraid to let such an opportunity slip away, but against me, he expected that better chances would come.

As we went over the game, Onyekwere’s frustration over letting the game get away was obvious, but he was very gracious nonetheless. One of the most enjoyable parts of the evening was getting home and finding e-mails from three friends who had watched the game on-line. One of them congratulated me on my cool defensive play and I admitted that I just been hanging on for dear life.

Based on this game, I would offer the following advice to MSL players the next time they come up against a very strong opponent as they might in a match with Barrington or Buffalo Grove or at State:

(1) Don't be intimidated by your opponent's rating. Even the strongest players can go astray against determined resistance.

(2) Don’t change your playing style. Don’t be more aggressive or more passive

(3) Don’t change your openings. Your opponent may well know more about your favorite opening than you do, but he probably knows more about other openings as well. Playing the opening you are familiar with gives you the best chance of finding good moves.

(4) When you get in trouble against a strong opponent (or any opponent for that matter), work as hard as you can to find the best defensive moves that you can. As much as you might want to turn the game around in a single move, it may be enough just to keep your opponent from making progress. The pressure will build on him when the win does not come as easily as he thinks it should.

Prospect v. Conant: To Thine Own Self Be True

2009-10-29T21:53:00.000-07:00

Prospect beat Conant 51-17 with Conant winning on 1st and 8th boards and Prospect capturing all the middle boards.

Yoon v. Zwolenik 1st Board

In working with high school players, I have noticed that they are not always the best judges of what types of positions they handle well. For example, I have known players who would choose openings that tend to lead to sharp attacking positions, however, at the crucial moment when it came time to throw caution to the winds and break open the position, they instinctively sought a sedate move. I think that such a disconnect between preferences and instincts was at work on 1st Board.

Playing the Black pieces, Prospect's Mike Zwolenik allowed Conant's Jiwon Yoon to play the legendary "Fried Liver Attack" (Yes, that's really what it's called) in which White sacrifices a knight in order to force the Black king out into the center of the board where it is subject to a withering attack. If Black survives the attack, he has an extra knight and an easily won endgame. That's a very big if though. It is not a position that I would have any desire to play as Black, but Mike has told me that he likes it. The board looked like this after White's tenth move.

Mike has two choices: (1) Grab the White rook with 10...Nxa1 whereupon White will capture the knight on d5 leaving the Black king all alone in the middle of the board with only the e-pawn to hide behind; or (2) shore up the center with 10...c6 allowing Black to capture the knight on c2. He chose to shore up his center. Discussing the position out in the hall with Prospect coach Don Barrett, I sympathized with Mike's reluctance to part with his only centralized piece while he believed that giving up the knight to pick up the rook was worth the risk. As I look at the game more closely however, I am persuaded that Mr. Barrett was correct. I think that Black could have survived White's attack and that the extra material would have paid off in the long run.

I certainly cannot fault Mike's choice on a practical level as the position is very complicated and he had to rely on instinct to some extent because there isn't enough time to calculate out all the possibilities. On the other hand a person who "likes" to play the Black side of the Fried Liver should be a person who is willing to take his chances on his king's ability to survive a drafty without its death of cold in order to gain a material advantage. The fact that Mike wasn't inclined to do so suggests to me that he might not be as comfortable with a variation like this as he thinks he is.

As it turned out White still had a very nasty attack and Mike found several very accurate moves to stay in the game although he eventually succumbed to the pressure. Even if he had survived the attack though, material would have been even and a draw might have been the result. On the other hand, if he had survived the attack after grabbing the rook, he would have had enough extra material to win.

Meyers v. Itskovich

The game on 5th Board between Prospect's Pat Meyers and Conant's Peter Itskovich provided an interesting contrast between a player who disregarded opening principles and one who adhered to those same principles a little too dogmatically. "Don't make too many pawn moves," "Don't bring out the queen early," and "Develop knights before bishops," are all useful principles, however, all opening principles implicitly include the caveat "without a good reason." The most common good reason is to either win material or prevent the loss of material, but acquiring dominant control of the center and a substantial advantage in space can be good reasons, too.

Openings like this are not all that uncommon on the lower boards of high school matches. The failure to fight for the center may make serious players cringe, but it does not lose automatically. Moreover, just because Black ignores accepted opening theory doesn't mean that he doesn't have some tactical skills that may make White's life miserable if he doesn't take the position seriously. As the game turned out, White did was not as aggressive as he might have been and Black came out of the opening with a tenable position. However, when Black cooperated in opening the position, White was able to take advantage

Three Keys to Improvement

2009-10-29T06:58:00.000-07:00

There aren't more than a handful of the players in the Mid-Suburban League who wouldn't see their results improve significantly simply by concentrating on these three principles.

1. Take almost all your time for the game without getting into
unnecessary time trouble; i.e. avoid playing much too fast or too slow. For the overwhelming majority of high school players, playing too fast is a much bigger problem than playing too slow. You are much better off getting into time trouble occasionally than finishing every game with a half your time left on the clock. The bad moves induced by time trouble will be more than offset by the good moves you will find in by playing more slowly.

2. Keep your pieces safe and, win your opponent’s unsafe pieces. Check every move to see whether your pieces and your opponent's pieces are protected. Check every move for basic tactics like forks, pins, skewers, removing the guard, and discovered attacks. Never try to see three moves ahead if you haven't carefully checked one move ahead.

3. Attempt to involve all your pieces at all times.

As usual, my best advice is lifted from NM Dan Heisman's Novice Nook column at ChessCafe.com.

Hopefully This Will Work for Awhile

2009-10-28T18:54:00.001-07:00

I have switched the games to a different free webhosting service. The previously posted games are working for the moment.

You Get What You Pay For

2009-10-27T10:49:00.001-07:00

Apparently the free web hosting service that I was using to post the analysis of the games has gone rogue on me and the games cannot be accessed. My thanks to Mr. Mott at Rolling Meadows for pointing this out. I will try to straighten out the problem, but perhaps I will have to pay for a webhosting to get something reliable.

The First Rule of Endgames: Straight Back Draws

2009-10-26T08:45:00.000-07:00

Here is the first thing every player should know about endgames: in an ending with king and pawn v. king, Straight Back Draws. Consider the following position:

POS. 1

With White to move, he draws if he drops his king straight back to e1 but loses if he drops the king back to f1 or d1. After either 1.Ke1 Kd3 2. Kd1 e2+ 3.Ke1 and 1. Kd1 Kd3 2. Ke1 e2, the following position is reached:

POS 2.

So why does it matter whether White drops straight back or not in POS 1? BECAUSE IT DETERMINES WHOSE MOVE IT IS IN POS 2! If White dropped straight back, it is Black's move and he must abandon his pawn or play 3...Ke3, which is STALEMATE. If White dropped back at an angle than it is his move and he must play 3.Kf2 to which Black responds 3...Kd2 with 4...e1=Q coming next move and checkmate soon thereafter.

While it is only that last drop back that determines whether White draws or not, I recommend that all the drop backs are handled that way. Consider the following position:
POS 3.
It does not matter whether White plays 1.Kd3, 1.Ke3, or 1.Kf3. It only matters that he drops straight back from e2 to e1 at the appointed time. However, I always feel much better when I see one of my players move 1.Ke3 because it gives me confidence that he understands STRAIGHT BACK DRAWS.
Their is an entire body of endgame theory regarding the principle of "opposition" which applies to most endings where only kings and pawns are left and the player who understands it will be able to figure out this position at the board. However, even if a player does not remember the opposition or is too low on time to figure it out, STRAIGHT BACK DRAWS will enable him to save the half point. It will also tell him whether he want to trade off rooks in a position where he has a rook and king against his opponent's pawn, rook and

Prospect Sweeps Elk Grove

2009-10-23T08:30:00.000-07:00

After losing its first two matches, Prospect bounced back with a sweep of Elk Grove High School on October 22.

An Important Drawing Technique

Question #1: How does Black save a 1/2 point?

Answer #1: 1...Ka1!, because 2. Qxc2 is stalemate. The winning technique for White if Black had a pawn on the b, d, e, g files would be to repeatedly force the Black king in front of the Black pawn and bring White king to help. However, when Black has a c-pawn or f-pawn, Black can move into the corner because it will be stalemate if White captures the pawn.

The weaker side can also draw with an a-pawn or h-pawn if the stronger side's king is too far away. After 1...Kh1, White cannot bring up his king to help because Black will be stalemated.

These are important positions to keep in mind when deciding which pawns to exchange earlier in the game. The weaker side will want to leave himself with the pawns that give him the best chance to draw.

In Moskwa v. Rosca, Black missed the drawing possibility with the c-pawn and White got the win. However, White could have earlier avoided the exchanges that left Black with the possibility.

In Gonzalez v. Nair on 2nd Board, Black went for a quick queen side expansion. White had a choice between ignoring Black plan while completing his development and grabbing space for himself on the other side of the board or countering Black’s expansion immediately It seemed that White had a hard time making up his mind. When he did try to slow down Black's advance, he wound up giving him targets that he otherwise would not have had.

Fremd Beats Prospect

2009-10-15T18:41:00.000-07:00

After a twenty month hiatus, I am back to blogging about chess. My previous blog was Vinny's Chess Adventures which still exists. Unfortunately, Yahoo is shutting down GeoCities so the links to the games will only work for another two weeks. I still have most of the games on my computer so I may upload some of them to the new webhost if I think they have instructional value.

This week, Prospect lost to Fremd by 50.5-17.5, only managing wins on 5th and 8th boards. As was my practice in the past, I will analyze some of the games from each week's match with an eye towards illustrating basic chess principles that I hope will be helpful to high school players. I hope that no one will take any of my criticisms personally. I may say that a move is really awful, but there is no reason to be embarrassed. There are few moves so bad that I cannot show you one from one of my games that is even worse.

Question No. 1
In the starting position for the Ruy Lopez (or Spanish Game) that arises after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5, is White threatening to win a pawn with 4.Bxc6 and 5. Nxe5?

Answer No. 1
No, not yet. Although White can remove the knight that is guarding the Black pawn on e5, after 3... a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. Nxe5, Black can recover the pawn with 5...Qd4! with a double attack on the White knight and pawn.

This is a very basic opening tactic that everyone should know. As a general rule, White has to secure his own e-pawn as with 0-0 and Re1 before he can try to grab Black's. The most common move for Black is 3... a6.

Black can of course reinforce his e-pawn immediately with 3... d6 as Johnston did against Moskwa on 5th Board, although this is considered somewhat passive. Black should never, never do what White did on 1st Board, 3... Bd6?!.

There are very few moves I hate seeing in the opening as much as someone blocking one of his center pawns with his bishop. Essentially, this takes the bishop which is a very useful piece and turns it into a big pawn which is reason enough to hate this move. On top of this, it makes it much more difficult for Black to develop his other bishop. On top of this, it takes away Black's ability to open up the game with ...d5 if an appropriate opportunity should present itself. I won't say that it is never the right thing to do, but I can assure you that the situations in which blocking a center pawn with a bishop is the best move are pretty rare. Feldman v. Zwolenik bears this out.

Question No. 2

Black just captured a pawn with 31... Bxc7. What is White's best move.

Answer No. 2

32. Bxc7! Black cannot recapture with 32... Rxc7 because 33. Rb8+ leads to mate.

This game illustrates the need to keep concentrating even when behind. White had been playing down a rook for a dozen moves. One of his only hopes was that Black would be careless with his back rank, but when it came up, White still missed it in Burke v. Nanduri.