A Game From Which to Learn

This is a long article where I wax philosophical a bit and have a lot to say about a game that is not too important from a sporting point of view.

I have not published many games by Michael Stanley. Mostly it is because he has not won many over the few years he has been playing tournament chess. Today’s game is not a win or a draw either, but Michael played a difficult opening well. He sacrificed a pawn to get a comfortable lead in development. Then, after obtaining all Black could ask for in this difficult line, he let the advantage slip away, and shortly thereafter the game. Two things were made apparent in this game; Michael plays stronger than his rating, and Dilip can be too casual in his treatment of the opening.

Aaron, Dilip - Stanley, Michael [C58]
SCC Consolation Schenectady, NY, 16.02.2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Ba4?!

Way back when the Two Knights Defense was very much mainstream at the top level of chess. James Mortimer, a strong English master of those days defeated Chigorin, grandfather of Russian chess according to the Russians, when he tried it out in in one of those hugely long tourneys of long ago.

(263) Mortimer, James - Chigorin, Mikhail [C59]
London (26), 1883
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.d4 exd3 12.Nxd3 Bd6 13.h3 0–0 14.0–0 Bf5 15.Nc3 Rad8 16.Bd2 Nc4 17.Qc1 Rfe8 18.Bf3 Bh2+ 19.Kh1 Bxd3 20.cxd3 Rxd3 21.Be3 Nxe3 22.fxe3 Rdxe3 23.Bxc6 Qxc6 24.Kxh2 Qd6+ 25.Kh1 Nh5 26.Qd1 Ng3+ 27.Kg1 Rd3 28.Qa4 Qc5+ 29.Rf2 Re6 30.Rd1 Rxd1+ 31.Qxd1 Nh1 32.Qd8+ Kh7 33.Qd3+ f5 34.Qxf5+ Qxf5 35.Rxf5 Ng3 36.Ra5 Rf6 37.Rxa7 h5 38.h4 Rf1+ 39.Kh2 Nf5 40.Ra4 Rf2 41.Ne4 Rxb2 42.Ng5+ Kg6 43.Ra6+ Nd6 44.Rxd6+ Kf5 45.Rd5+ Kg6 46.a3 Rb3 47.Ra5 Kh6 48.Ra6+ g6 49.Ra8 Kg7 50.Ra7+ Kf6 51.Rf7+ Ke5 52.Rf3 Rb2 53.Kg3 Rd2 54.Re3+ Kf5 55.Re5+ 1–0

The strong master Pruess was not so lucky in more recent times against one of my favorite commentators on ICC, “Yermo“. If you haven’t got on ICC yet, try it. His weekly video talks; “Every Russian Schoolboy Knows” is worth the price of admission alone. In this game Yermolinski shows there are many ways to skin the Two Knights cat.

(1201551) Pruess, David (2424) - Yermolinsky, Alex (2517) [C58]
2nd Imre Konig Memorial, San Francisco, 26.07.2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.Bd3 h6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 g6 12.g4 Bg7 13.b4 f5 14.gxf5 gxf5 15.Qh5+ Qf7 16.Qxf7+ Kxf7 17.Bf3 e4 18.Bh5+ Ke7 19.Nc3 Nc4 20.Rb1 Be6 21.b5 cxb5 22.Rxb5 Rab8 23.Rb3 Rhc8 24.Rg1 Be5 25.Rg6 Rxb3 26.axb3 Nxd2 27.Bxd2 Bxc3 28.Rxh6 a5 29.Bxc3 Rxc3 30.Kd2 Rh3 31.Rh7+ Kf6 32.Rh6+ Ke5 33.Rh7 Rxh2 34.Ke2 a4 35.bxa4 Bg8 36.Rh6 Bf7 37.Bxf7 Rxh6 38.c3 Rb6 39.Ke1 Rb1+ 40.Kd2 Rb2+ 0–1

The move played in our game is not very good. If you want to test a less experienced player, “Yermo’s” try is a better way to vary from the standard 8 Be2. By the way, there are tons of games in the databases with strange quirks in the Two Knights, most begin with the usual 8 Be2. It is later the fun begins. The most notable and puzzling example is Steinitz’ favorite early development of the KN to h3. The first World Champion lost many in this line, and won some too.

In the game under discussion Black has invested a pawn intending to obtain a lead in development as compensation. Success in such transactions is not always some ringing mating combination, although such is possible. The mature and perceptive player recognizes recovering the invested pawn and emerging with superior development and a playable game is also success.

8..., h6

Black now gives a demonstration how to play against the retreat of the Bishop to a4.

9.Nf3 e4 10.Qe2 Bc5

It may be that 10..., Bd6; is a little better because it prevents the White Knight jumping to e5.

11.d3 Ba6 12.Bb3?,..

This move makes no sense. The key problems for White are his King and Queen residing on e-file and the pinned pawn at d3. Clearing up those flaws should be taking priority. Instead White begins to engineer a threat to f7. That is result of either over-confidence, or the utter ignoring of the opponent’s threats. It is this move that convinced me Dilip is too casual about the opening play. The reasonable move is 12 0-0.

12..., Qc7?!

After excellent conduct of the opening phase of the game, here’s a slip. The previously mentioned problems of the monarch and his consort on the e-file and the pinned e-pawn are central to understanding the position.

It is on those factors on which the choice of Black’s next move must be based. When the opponent is in some difficulties, directly increasing those difficulties is best. To that end 12..., 0-0; is clearly an excellent way to continue. This sample line shows what can happen; 13 0-0 Nxb3 14 axb3 exd3 15 Qd1 dxc2 16 Qxc2 Bxf1 17 Kxf1 Re8; and the back rank mate threat defends the Bc5.

Maybe the calculation of this line is a bit daunting, but searching for a move that that increases White’s difficulties is not so hard. Compare the move played, 12..., Qc7; and the move suggested, 12..., 0-0. Moving the Queen to c7 makes no direct threat, although it does advance the Black development. By castling Black immediately raises the specter of a capture on d3 and a decisive pin on the e-file. The first move does something good but not threatening, and alternative does something equally good, castling is development, and makes a serious threat. Active play, dynamic play, whatever terminology you choose, means, at least in part, making threats to advance your cause. Black elected the less dynamic option and gave up a big piece of his advantage here.

13.0–0 0–0 14.Nfd2?,..

Dilip has played Mike before and won. He probably thought most any move will do here. This casual choice of a place for the Knight returns the big edge to Black. With castling done for both sides, the pinned pawn on d3 is the immediately important feature in the position. It would be better to play 14 Ne1, shoring up the threatened point than to agree to the probable recovery of the pawn Black invested..

14..., exd3 15.cxd3 Rfe8 16.Qf3 Rad8 17.Bc2 Nb7?

What? After an opening and transition to the middle game creditably if not flawlessly conducted, Black fails to remember one of the first principles; a lead in development is a fragile and transient thing. Give your opponent respite and he will catch up. When your compensation for a material deficit is development, every move you make has a high value. Use as much clock time as required to find the move that keeps the pressure on. It is the only way to not have the position gradually swing in the favor of the other side.

Rather than the retrograde 17..., Nb7; which has no greater purpose than some redeployment of the of the Knight to a more useful place, Black needs to press on with dynamic play. Better is 17..., Rd4. In this case Black should be thinking in terms of switching to a direct attack on the King with 18 Nc3? Rf4 19 Qd1 Ng4; laying siege to f2 and making slightly hidden threats to h7.

Again a comparison; the text and the idea just sketched out. Both have reasonable purposes. The text move; getting the least well placed piece back into the game, and the alternative suggested; dynamic play forcing more concession from the opponent. The chess wisdom about finding your least well placed piece and improving its position is well and widely known. It is a good piece of advice from the great masters. What is forgotten too often is the caveat; if you can find no other useful idea. Computers calculate everything, score the choices and pick the highest value. Human beings reason from generalities to specifics as a rule. At this point in the game the general observation the material deficit, a pawn down, and a lead in development means activity is the priority, not positional maneuvering. That is the cue that should guide us towards a search for moves like 17..., Rd4; and 18..., Rf4.

18.Nc3 Bd6 19.h3 Nc5 20.Nc4 Bxc4?

Black had somewhere in his mind the switch to a direct attack on the King idea. His methods were slow letting White off the hook. This move unnecessarily repairs the damage to the White pawn formation. Such should only be done if there were no other choice. Black should have tried to take the game to a reasonable ending here with 20..., Nd5; if then 21 Nxd6 Qxd6 22 Nxd5 Qxd5 23 Qxd5 Rxd5 24 Be3 Nxd3 25 Bxd3 Rxd3 26 Bxa7?, gives Black the edge after 26..., Rd7. If White more carefully plays 26 Rfc1, then 26..., Bb2 27 Bxa7? Rd2; is not entirely hopeless for Black. White is clearly better; he has the extra pawn, is not too far behind in development, and his Bishops are leering hungrily at the Black King. On the opposite side of the board, Black has to contend with the material deficit and weakened pawns on the Q-side, unpleasant facts they are if an endgame comes about. All of that is unpleasant to contemplate.

Perhaps the best way forward is; 21..., Be5 22 Be3 Nd3; attacking the supports of the Nc3. White then might be persuaded he has to play 23 Bxd3 Rxd3; which superficially looks good for Black. There is a but however. The line continues; 24 Rad1 Red8 25 Bb6!, picking up the Exchange for White. An improvement for Black with 24..., Rxd1 25 Rxd1 Bxc3 26 bxc3, does not quite get him to equality. White’s extra pawn is somewhat devalued, but White’s development is superior. He threatens c4-c5 and Be3-f4 with an eventual Bf4-d6 as an active possibility although that gives Black some access to d5 for his Knight. Alternatively White can not advance his lead c-pawn tempting Black to play .., c6-c5; and White then can try to work against the Black c-pawn. White’s pawns have been injured, but it is Black’s pawn that appear vulnerable.

All the foregoing is rendered moot by Black suddenly running out of ideas, or he misunderstood the position.

21.dxc4 Ne6 22.Be3,..

The Bishop sacrifice is simmering in the background. It is not quite ready to be served, yet. If 22 Bxh6? Nd4!; swings the advantage to Black in a big way.

22..., Nc5?

Black found nothing else to do other than to send this Knight back to c5. It is my guess, Mike summed up the position as balanced in someway. That conclusion overlooks there is a real threat on the board. Probably 22..., Rb8; making his own threat is the best try for Black. White will still be better, but no winning line is immediately apparent.

I had similar experiences playing against Mike Stanley. He conducted the games in a very competent fashion up to a point, and then a blunder. Jacob Aagaard, the Danish-Scottish Grandmaster, wrote about this problem in his book Excelling at Chess Calculation, Everyman, London, 2004. Much of what Aagaard has to say applies to this moment in the game.

Aagaard comes at the blundering problem several different ways in the book. The first is; look, don’t think. He means examine the position as that, a position, not a way station in the process we call a game of chess. What went before doesn’t really exist if we are looking at the position in isolation, and all the hopes, fears and assumptions we had getting here are out of the way of your thinking. Aagaard’s says often our own brain gets in the way of our understanding what is right there if front of you. That may be an idealistic notion, but it is worthwhile trying to divorce yourself from what went before for a moment at least and see what is there.

His second prescription is; calculate more slowly. Take your time and fix in your mind the position after each step of calculation. The clock may force you to move before you are entirely satisfied, and you have to make a decision on an incomplete or truncated calculation. That is just the way it is in chess with clocks. If you have taken your time and fixed the positions however much of the way you have gone, there is the chance intuitively you will pick a good, or best move.

The third prescription is; look wide not deep. If Mr. Stanley had done so at this move he would have not lost so soon, or maybe not at all. There is a story I have heard more than once about World Champion Petrosian. It was said he never calculated more than one move deep, but he saw everything there was to see there. GM Aagaard is saying having a clear idea of what the position will look like all across the board is at least as important, and probably more so, as is drilling down many moves deep on a specific line. Calculating the far future is often defeated by missing the mate in one, or as in this instance, a material lost.

The fourth prescription is; cultivate unforced thinking. The GM believes blunders can be traced to us players forcing our thinking based on assumptions made as the positions develop. The assumptions may well have been valid when first made in the process, but as the relationships between the chess pieces change as the position develops the assumptions may no longer hold; the pawn defended is no longer is, or a pinned piece can be attacked more than it can be defended. Unforced thinking in Aagaard’s parlance is a systematic re-examination of assumptions made as the position develops. Here it is the defense of the Nf6 and the workload of the pawn on g7.

Mr. Stanley needs to work on his play in the middle game. He has shown here a nice feel for the opening and the initial transition to the middle game. All of Aagaard that I quoted, and more in his book on calculation, is a good starting point from which Mike should work for improvement. If there was no talent evident in his game, all this writing is pointless. That is not the case. Stanley can obtain better results. I, for one, hope he does so.

23.Bxh6! 1–0

The loss of a second pawn results in resignation. This is not an unreasonable decision. The winner has a +700 point rating advantage. With that large a difference in past performance, two pawns is a huge deficit to overcome and resignation the correct decision.

Mr. Aaron can take a lesson also. It is much harder to learn from your victories than from your defeats. “Hey, I won. So what if there were errors along the way?” Such is the all too human feeling that I and others have experienced in our careers. One difference noted between OK players like myself, and those who excel: Deepak Aaron, Philip Sells, etc., is they seem to learn as much from victory as from defeat. These excellent chess players have at least one universal trait in common; a critical attitude towards their own play. Winning the game is not quite enough. They are looking for perfection, that most difficult of all goals.

Specifically for Dilip; and here I quote from GM Har-Zvi’s comments on a game I won from his brother Deepak back in the days when Deepak was much less accomplished than he is now: “Trickery such as this is not correct. Playing stuff you know is unsound is just not good chess. If you know better, play better, don’t resort to swindles. It is lazy thinking”. When we estimate our opponent is far behind us in experience, the temptation is to scatter traps and tricks like bait in their path hoping for some easy win. There are two problems with this approach: First, one can never tell when the worm may turn, and the undervalued opponent will exploit your gamble to take an embarrassing point from you. Second, and this may be the more important, the approach fosters an attitude of casualness in your play that holds back future development. Ask the questions; I may have won, but how could it have been smoother and cleaner? Where did I give him chances, and why did I do that? Just as there should be an internal dialogue by the player about the game in progress to develop his thoughts, a similar dialogue needs to take place about the game when it is over to fit it in to your effort towards improvement. One of the great philosophers said; an unexamined life is not worth living. My twist on that thought for the chess player is; unexamined games lead to stagnation. Your performance plateaus and frustration sets in.

More soon.