Round 12 of the Corus Chess Tournament live, with regular updates.

The Corus Chess Tournament takes place January 16-31 in Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands. Next to hundreds of amateurs, three Grandmaster Groups (A, B and C) with 14 players each play a closed round-robin. The rate of play is 100 minutes for 40 moves, then 50 minutes for 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game, and 30 seconds increment starting from move 1.

Corus Chess Daily News

Corus Chess Newsflashes

Games round 12

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Round 12

15:09 CET
We have a winner already! The leader of the C grop, Li Chao, offered a draw to Stefan Kuipers after 9 moves in a Petroff, and the young Dutchman, who already scored an IM norm yesterday, had no reason to decline. The Chinese grandmaster has thus qualified for the B group next year as he’s on 9 points out of 12 games, and Robson, Vocaturo and Van Kampen have 7 points while still playing.

Leko and Carlsen (whose sister Ingrid, by the way, is currently playing in the amateur tournament in Gibraltar) repeated their game of the 2009 Tal Memorial until 12.0-0-0; today the Norwegian castled first before playing …Nc6. After one and a half hours of play they’ve reaced a rook ending that looks very drawish.

Yet again Van Wely, who remains faithful to his Najdorf, seems to have fallen into some nasty 6.Bg5 preparation, this time by compatriot Jan Smeets. Against Dominguez, Ivanchuk copied Kramnik’s set-up during the World Blitz in Moscow last year: the Scandinavian with …g6. Kramnik himself uses the Petroff against Anand; not much has happened there yet.

Shirov is in another theoretical Archangelsk Ruy Lopez against Karjakin; the two reached an ending in no time where White’s extra pawn doesn’t seem to be very relevant. Caruana-Nakamura is a Rauzer Sicilian that has some French tendencies while Short went for the rare 4…Nf6 Caro-Kann against Tiviakov.

16:17 CET
Two, not very surprsing draws: Leko-Carlsen – the rook ending was a draw indeed, and Karjakin-Shirov, which also remained equal. Also on the other boards it’s rather quiet so far, except for Smeets-Van Wely where White’s atack has already decided the game on move 23. “I like my Najdorf, but I don’t like my results. Apparently I mixed up something in the opening again,” Van Wely said after the game. We’ll have him and Jan in tonight’s Corus News video.

O, and strictly speaking we’ve been cheering too early for Li Chao, who can still be caught of course if he loses tomorrow. Sorry about that.

Corus 2010 | Schedule & results Grandmaster Group A

Corus 2010 | Schedule & results Grandmaster Group B

Corus 2010 | Schedule & results Grandmaster Group C

Corus 2010 | Round 11 Standings Grandmaster Group A

Corus 2010 | Round 11 Standings Grandmaster Group B

Corus 2010 | Round 11 Standings Grandmaster Group C

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC: Group A | Group B | Group C

Although not too convincingly, Alexei Shirov also won his 4th game in Wijk aan Zee, against Jan Smeets. Going into the first rest day, the Spaniard from Latvia leads with 4/4, a full point ahead of Carlsen, Nakamura and Ivanchuk, who defeated Loek van Wely.

The Corus Chess Tournament takes place January 16-31 in Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands. Next to hundreds of amateurs, three Grandmaster Groups (A, B and C) with 14 players each play a closed round-robin. The rate of play is 100 minutes for 40 moves, then 50 minutes for 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game, and 30 seconds increment starting from move 1.

Corus Chess Daily News

Corus Chess Newsflashes

Games round 4

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Round 4

15:04 CET
It promises to be another very interesting round at Corus! All eyes are on Alexei Shirov, who can increase his lead even further if he manages to beat Dutchman Jan Smeets. However, Smeets’ second GM Spike Ernst just told us he is reasonably happy in the theoretical Petroff they’re playing so far. A razor-sharp 6.Bg5 Najdorf can be seen in Ivanchuk-Van Wely. Chucky played the underestimated line with 8.Qe2 against Van Wely’s 7…Nbd7 and looks in excellent shape already.

Hikaru Nakamura bravely played the Dutch Defence against Vishy Anand and Nigel Short is no less adventurous with his Portugese variation of the Scandinavian.
More conventional theory can be seen by Dominguez and Leko, grinding out one of the main lines of the Marshall Ruy Lopez. Finally, more subtle manoeuvring can be expected in Kramnik-Tiviakov and Karjakin-Caruana (which, by the way, might well end in a draw any minute).

In the B-group, Akobian is trying out another Tarrasch Defence against Erwin L’Ami which we’ll be following closely, and we would also like to draw your attention to two games in the C-Group: Van Kampen-Plukken is a very interesting ‘ Shirov gambit’ against the Philidor while Swinkels-Muzychuk started rather funny as well. Enjoy!

16:15 CET
As expected, Van Wely quickly lost against Ivanchuk. There was some amazement in the press room when Ivanchuk didn’t go for 24.Qc8+ and 25.Rd7+, winning the queen (as also pointed out in the comments), but in fact the line he played wins even quicker.

Anand and Nakamura drew their game. In the post-mortem Nakamura made a strong impression. Perhaps White had an edge but Nakamura defended without much problems.
Meanwhile, Shirov is still pressing against Smeets. Leko and Dominguez are having fun it seems and Kramnik-Tiviakov seems to be a model IQP game. Will Tivi be able to hold? We expected a quick draw with Karjakin and Caruana, but they’re still playing. Looks like Karjakin is trying hard to win the game. PD: Well, after all he has the classical Ruy Lopez Exchange pawn majority…

In the B Group, let’s just note Dimitri Reinderman looks fine against Howell. In Group C, two games have finished already: Benjamin Bok crushed Niels Grandelius and Van Kampen’s Shirov Gambit proved successful against Sjoerd Plukkel.

18:00 CET
We just witnessed Shirov’s press conference about his win against Smeets: he was quite lucky, as he admitted his ‘ attack’ was just a bluff, though the audience surely didn’t mind. The computer indicated that 33.Kh1 would have been better, but Shirov said he felt both king moves had their disadvantages and it was just impossible to evaluate which was the right one. In any case, Smeets’ 33…Rcd8? ended the game immediately, where 33…Rce8 would have at least kept the balance in Black’s favour. Asked about his ambitions for the rest of the tournament, Shirov said he mainly wanted to avoid missing moves like 27…Bh7. The entire press conference will be up later, of course.

The other games in Group A ended in a draw, although especially Tiviakov won’t be happy with the result. In the press room, around move 25 a win for Black was predicted. Kramnik miraculously held the position.

In Group B, Harikrishna scored a win with the King’s Indian Attack over Naiditsch. Reinderman is still suffering a bit against Howell; all other games ended in a draw as well. In Group C, the boys were separated from the men – in fact, there are no ‘ mercy draws’ at all yet, although Muzychuk is still hanging in there. But then, after all, she is a lady.

01:27 CET
Reinderman eventually lost the endgame against Howell and is on a terrible 0.5/4 now. Compatriots l’Ami (2.5) and Giri (3) started their Corus better. In C, with 3.5/4 Robson and Li Chao are a full point ahead of a pack of five players. Wednesday is the first of three rest days.

Corus 2010 | Schedule & results Grandmaster Group A

Corus 2010 | Schedule & results Grandmaster Group B

Corus 2010 | Schedule & results Grandmaster Group C

Corus 2010 | Round 4 Standings Grandmaster Group A

Corus 2010 | Round 4 Standings Grandmaster Group B

Corus 2010 | Round 4 Standings Grandmaster Group C

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN via TWIC: Group A | Group B | Group C

Azerbaijan and Georgia are leading the European Team Championship in Novi Sad after four rounds; the two teams won all their matches so far. Also in the women section Georgia tops the standings. In round 4 the Dutch team held Russia 2-2; on board one Smeets beat Morozevich with Black.

The 17th European Team Championship is organized by the European Chess Union and Serbia Chess Federation. The Championship is held in Novi Sad, Serbia (80 km northwest of the capital Belgrade and 280 km south of Budapest).

The dates are October 21th (day of arrival) until October 31th 2009 (day of departure). It’s a nine round Swiss played from October 22nd to 30th, without a rest day. The time control is 90 min. for 40 moves + 30 min. & 30 sec. increment.

Round 4

After four rounds it’s clear that Georgia is the most successful country so far in Novi Sad, with both teams having won all its matches. Yesterday the men were too strong for Serbia’s first team: 1-3. As predicted, in the women section Georgia defeated Armenia; the score was 2½-1½.

There weren’t any real surprises this round, but the 2-2 draw against Russia was of course an excellent result for the Dutch team. Jan Smeets managed to beat Alexander Morozevich with Black in a very complicated game, and Stellwagen and l’Ami drew with Jakovenko and Alekseev respectively. Ernst was slowly but surely outplayed by Tomashevsky, but the question remains whether 35.Nxg7 Rf8+ 36.Kg2 Bf6 37.Nh5 Bc3 38.Rc1 was possible.

Azerbaijan won its fourth match, against Israel. Radjabov, Gashimov and Mamedyarov are doing well but Guseinov is a weak spot so far. Greece held Germany thanks to a win by Papaioannou with Black against Naiditsch, who sacrificed his c2-pawn in a Scandinavian to avoid move repetition, but never saw it again. The centuries old rivalry between France and England was decided in favour of the country of wine and champagne; McShane lost his first game, to Fressinet, and Feller beat Williams.

The fifth round will see Georgia-Azerbaijan, Israel-Russia, France-Armenia, Spain-Serbia 1 and Netherlands-Czech Republic. Other top pairings: Jobava-Radjabov, Sutovsky-Svidler, Bacrot-Aronian, Shirov-Solak and Smeets-Navara.

The best players who played all four rounds are Conquest, Feller, Mamedyarov, Markus and Nyback, who all scored 3.5 points. In the women section Georgia is the only team with a 100% score. Azerbaijan and Ukraine follow with one match point less. Nadezhda Kosintseva won all four games there.

All results round 4

Selection of games round 4

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Jan Smeets, board one of The Netherlands, beating...

...Alexander Morozevich, whose pokerface didn't help

The Georgian team with Baadur Jobava and Mikheil Mchedlishvili on boards 1 & 2

England vs Franc with Adams-Bacrot ½-½

The top match in round 4: Israel-Azerbaijan

The top match in round 4 of the women section: Georgia-Armenia

Photos courtesy of the official website

Links

• Official website
• Open section at Chess-Results
• Women section at Chess-Results
• Games in PGN: Open section | Women section

Starting Out: the Scandinavian has just arrived.

On the 320(!) pages of this latest volume of the Starting Out series, Jovanka Houska covers all the main lines of the Scandinavian, which has firmly established itself as an opening to be reckoned with.

The author, a Scandinavian expert herself, shows us that it’s relatively easy to learn and play because in many cases Black can rely upon the same system of development regardless of how White proceeds.

Because of the simplicity of the “big idea” fundamental to the opening, the Scandinavian (or the Centre Counter as it is also known) is an ideal opening choice for improvers, club players and tournament players.

The lines which you need to memorize are highlighted in this book and literally everything you need to know about this opening, whether you are employing it with Black or facing it with White, is revealed.

Your way to starting out the Scandinavian (only € 19.95), starts here!

Lutz-Wahls, Biel 1992.

The Scandinavian Defence does not enjoy a high reputation in top-level chess, but below that it is worth a shot. There are good reasons for trying it: after 1 e4 d5 there's no avoiding the opening, and you will invariably find yourself with a familiar pawn structure – like the one above. And if all goes according to plan, you could reach an endgame as good is this. There are no weaknesses in Black's pawn structure, the knights are menacing, and the rooks aim like cannons at the d-pawn. How should Black, to play, proceed?

RB The more I look at the position, the less convinced I am that c4 was a good move for White. Obviously he wants to shift the knight from its dominating central position, but by chasing it from the centre he drives it to another equally threatening post. So where to put the knight? The move that appeals to me is 1… Nde7 (1… Nb6? runs into 2 Ba5), from where the knight will jump to f5, adding to the pressure on d4 (I don't see anything wrong with 1… Ndf4 , except that I'd rather have a knight on f5 than f4). Since White doesn't have enough have support behind the d-pawn to force its advance to d5, his pieces are going to be tied down to passive defence.

DK 1… Nde7 is certainly the best move: from f5 the knight hits both weak pawns – h4 and d4. The game continued 2 Rd1 Nf5 3 Be3 e5! exploiting the pin on the d-file. White had nothing better than 4 R3d2 exd4 5 Nxd4 Nxd4 6 Bxd4 c5 7 Be3 Rxd2 8 Bxd2 Rd4. Black wins at least two pawns. This is a typical scenario in the Scandinavian: White felt the need to drive away the knight from d5, but it left the d-pawn fatally weak.

There isn't a huge amount of theory on the Scandinavian. Everyman Chess is publishing The Scandinavian by Jovanka Houska in the Starting Out series in October. And I would recommend John Emms's book on the opening by the same publisher. Scandinavian expert Curt Hansen has authored an excellent CD containing a database and annotated games (chessbase.com).

chess@guardian.co.uk

Hjartason-Hansen, Reykjavik 1995. Black to play.

RB I'm looking for possible threats against my queen, always something to watch out for in the Scandinavian, and I don't like that its retreat squares on the short a5-d8 diagonal are blocked by the knight on b6. That said, I can't actually see a concrete threat. For example, if I play safe with 1... 0-0, what has White got? 2 a3 Bxc3 3 Bxc3 Qb5 and the queens come off. But so what? I might not be winning but I don't think I'm losing. 1... Nbd5, facilitating the queen's retreat and blockading the d4-pawn, looks okay: after 2 Nxd5 Nxd5, White's light-squared bishop is blocked in (or has to take). I can't really see anything else. I'd probably opt for castling and follow it up with Nbd5.

DK This is a complex position. Black has a number of options, and it isn't clear which is best. Like Ronan, my first thought here would be to bring my king to safety: 1…0-0. However, my second thought would be, what about 2 Nh4…? Exchanging off this bishop is a significant step forward for White: he can then play with a freer hand in the centre. 1… Nbd5 runs into something similar: 2 Nxd5 Nxd5 3 Nh4, with the idea 3… Bg6 4 Nxg6 hxg6 5 c3 Be7 6 c4. Once Black's knight is pushed from its central position, White takes the initiative.

To address this problem, Curt Hansen, a Scandinavian specialist, played 1…Bxc3. Black gives up bishop for knight voluntarily, but after 2 Bxc3 Qb5 he was fighting for the key squares c4, d5 and e4. Black's queen also makes way for the a-pawn to hassle White's bishop. The game continued 3 Qxb5 cxb5. The pawns might be doubled, but Black has taken control over the c4 square, and that means he controls the d5 square. The game continued 4 Ne5 a5 5 a3 Be4 6 Rhe1 0-0 7 f3 Bd5 8 Bxd5 Nfxd5. With the knight settled on d5, Black was ready for a queenside pawn storm. This position shows all the advantages of the Scandinavian: Black's pawns form a barrier that protects the king, and prevents any incursion from the enemy pieces. White has no counterplay while Black attacks on the queenside.

chess@guardian.co.uk

After the typical Scandinavian opening moves 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3 c6 6 Bc4 Bf5 7 Bd2 e6 8 Qe2, Black has snatched a pawn with 8… Bxc2. Can he get away with this?

RB This looks very suspect. On general principles alone – king still in the centre, enemy queen on the e-file – I would never try this pawn grab. But there are also compelling concrete reasons for not doing so. 9 d5 exploits the pin on e6 and the exposed position of the black king. The discovered threat against the queen may not be very subtle, but it severely embarrasses Black. If 9... cxd5, White continues 10 Nxd5 and even without spending a lot of time calculating the variations I can already see that the bishop on c2 is in serious trouble: 10... Qc5 11 Nxf6 gxf6 12 Rc1 threatens another nasty discovered attack against the queen if the bishop moves, so 12...Qf5 is the last try to save the threatened piece. But this is met by 13 Nd4, when White is winning. Dan may tell me that Black has something better than 9...cxd5, but even if he does it wouldn't warrant the pawn grab, in my mind at least.

DK In the Scandinavian defence, with the queen already in play and lagging slightly in development, Black must play cautiously. 8…Bxc2 would be reckless in the extreme and Ronan has pointed out the clear refutation with 9 d5. Let's just complete the variations. Black has to play 9…cxd5 or White crashes through on e6. After 10 Nxd5 Black could try 10…Qd8, but White wins easily with a direct attack: 10 Bb5+ Nc6 11 Nxf6+ Qxf6 12 Qc4 hits the bishop and the knight; or 11…gxf6 12 Rc1 Bg6 13 Rxc6 wins.

Instead of grabbing the pawn, Black should play 8…Bb4, shielding the queen from a discovered attack and preparing to castle on the kingside. At some point over the next few moves it is highly likely that Black will have to give up the bishop for the knight on c3 and retreat his queen, but getting rid of this knight can give Black increased control over the d5 and e4 squares.

chess@guardian.co.uk

Hello to everyone once again. Unfortunately, because I am a total idiot, I accidentally hit the back button after finishing up my annotations on the first game from the 960 final against GM Aronian. Thus, I ended up erasing 1 hour of hard work...c'est la vie. Therefore, I am simply going to be writing up a blog entry without annotations as it will be too excruciating to redo all of it at this time.

Day 5: "Showdown in Mainz"

Once again, keeping in tandem with my 'normal' schedule up to this point, I chose to stay up for most of the evening prior to the looming showdown on the following day. Thus, I enjoyed a scrumptious breakfast at 6:30 AM eventually turning in around 7:30 AM. To avoid any potential nightmare, I set an alarm for 4:30 PM just to be safe. After waking up, I decided to chill out for an hour before I meditated and got ready for the big match. Surprisingly, I was very loose before the actual start. In many ways, my goal was to simply make it to the final, so by making it there and also beating Levon along the way, I felt that even if I lost 4-0, it would have been successful. I cannot reiterate it enough that being relaxed rather than overly tense is always more enjoyable. Of course, more often than not, the pressure is on me to win and not the other way around! This time around though, it definitely helped to not have to prove anything.

In the first game itself, I played the first couple moves quickly and the position should have been relatively balanced. However, Levon after using more time was unable to come up with the right idea and I came out of the opening with a surprisingly big advantage. When coupled with the nice time advantage which I had, I was able to get a winning position. It was at this point that Levon tried to complicate matters by sacrificing a rook. I managed to maintain my cool and was able to convert with any real scare. All I can say is wow! Obviously, I felt that I would have chances in the match, but to start off like this really surprised me and definitely made me believe that I had a legitimate shot at winning.

After winning the first game, my goal was to simply play chess and not do anything overly stupid if possible. Surprisingly enough, I was able to trick Levon with a nifty little pawn manouver in the opening after which I really had no major problems. In the middle game, Levon used nearly all of his time trying to solve the complications which I created. Much like in the first game, he reacted badly and after two quick blunders, I netted a piece and the game. This game had a lot less drama than the first game as the result was very sudden. Right before I won the game, I really started thinking to myself if this was really happening or if it was all a dream. Running into ICC journalist Macauley Peterson outside the playing hall after the second game, I realized that this was actually reality!

The start of the third game brought a sense of tension and urgency on both Levon and my part since we both had something to prove. If I drew or won the game, the match was over while he was in a must win situation with Black. In this third game, Levon chose to play a Philidor type of setup which was, without a doubt, the wrong plan. I got a big advantage after 10 moves while Levon's time simply kept on ticking away. As the game progressed, I am pretty sure I missed one or two ways to convert the win quicker, but I went for tactics since he was low on time. In the end, my simple attack on the queenside was just too strong and there was no obvious defence at the very least. When Levon resigned the third game, there was a lot of clapping in the Rheingold Halle. To put it simply, I was just elated with the result. However, in some ways I was definitely disappointed since I was expecting more of a challenge. I do think that if I can beat the number five player in the world that easily, then I definitely have a chance at becoming world champion in a few years. I know that Levon attributed it to having a bad day, however, I simply do not believe in this justification as his play the previous day was also very shaky with losses to Bologan and myself. Before I get ahead of myself we did, in fact, play a fourth game in which I completely winged it and somehow miraculously drew from a much worse and probably losing position. This meant that the final score was 3.5-.5.

What conclusions can be drawn from the 960 Fischer Random event? I think that what it showed me is that I am capable of competing with the best players when it becomes "chess" as opposed to simple systems and preparation. Therefore, I am very optimistic about my future chances if I am adequately prepared and maintain my current level in classical chess. As far as my overall view of Fischer Random, I think that what it shows more than anything is pawn structure and middlegame structures more than anything. However, I still do believe that it is not an adequate means of attempting to become a better tactician (I think blitz or bullet online is more productive in this regard).

Day 6: "Sleep"

I know that many people were expecting pictures, but I simply was too entrenched in my routine by this point so I simply was asleep pretty much the whole day as I needed to try to recharge my batteries prior to the Ordix Open which was starting on Saturday.

Day 7: "Ordix Open Day 1"

Having played in the Ordix Open last year, I knew that it would be brutally strong and tough. Overall, playing 11 games over 2 days is tough, but adding 7-8 games against GMs makes it simply an endurance test. Coming off of the 960, I simply was not ready for rapid, and I did not start off well as I blundered terrible and was losing in the first game to a 2100! From there, things really did not improve as I misplayed the English against GM Cvitan and was probably close to losing at a certain point before I swindled him. The one other game of note was in round five when I played GM Shomoev in the final round of the day. We played a hair raising Scandinavian in which it seesawed back and forth. I suspect that at more than 1 juncture, we both missed wins. After all the smoke cleared, we ended up in an endgame where I had R+N+pawn against R+B. However, Caissa must have decided that I had enough luck on the day since Shomoev played well and avoided cracking in the horribly time scramble. The end result was a draw with left me on 4.5/5. Overall, I could not complain with the result due to my horrible chess.

Day 8: "So Close and Yet So Far"

On the second and final day of the Ordix Open, the games started bright and early at 10 AM since we had 6 rounds to play! This definitely did not favor me as I had spent the last week (prior to day 1 of the Ordix Open) going to sleep in the early morning and waking up in the evening. However, I somehow I forced myself to get a few hours of sleep before play resumed in the open. In the sixth round, I had White against GM Andrei Sokolov of France. After playing a slightly offbeat variation in the English, I got an advantage only to play the variation in the wrong order. After this disaster, I was much worse if not outright losing ONCE AGAIN. My saving grace was that I had a big advantage on the clock. After tricking Sokolov in the midst of his bad time pressure, I got a small edge in a rook and pawn ending only for him to flag in a position where there was still a lot of work left. The seventh round worked out a lot better for me since I got Black against GM Gyimesi from Hungary and was able to execute a nice tactical combination in the Kings Indian. This left me on 6.5/7 and one of the clear leaders now. In the eight round, I was White against GM Sasikiran of India. This time around, there would be no repeat of 2.Qh5 like the one time we played in the Sigeman round robin in 2005! After blitzing out the first 15 moves in a Grunfeld, I simply forgot the theory and went astray instantly. At this point, I was clearly losing but I managed to just hang on while forcing my Indian opponent to use up valuable time trying to find a forced win. In the end, I somehow survived the dust but was still worse when he overstepped on time, thus giving me another miracle win. I really wish I could be more positive about the games, but my horrid play continued in the ninth round when I was Black against German GM Arkadij Naiditsch. After playing the opening like an idiot, I was simply losing YET AGAIN! Somehow though, I found a nifty little exchange sacrifice which gave me quite a bit of counterplay. My opponent was unable to find the right defensive plan and I was victorious.

At this point, having amassed a huge score of 8.5/9, I was really not sure what to make of anything. I was tied with GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov heading into the tenth round game. As we were the only two people on 8.5, this game more or less would decide the winner of the Ordix Open if it was decisive. Since I had White in this game, I figured that this was the one time when I really needed to find a way to play a good game of chess as it could give me a miracle victory. Overall, I felt that I played the game very well and always had a small advantage. It was only towards the end as we both headed for the time scramble, that I went horribly astray. The first mistake I made was not simplifying when I could have. The second and much more major mistake was getting cute and winning a piece. Although this was the best choice in the game, from a practical standpoint it made life horribly difficult as I always had to find the right moves in the scramble while Mamedyarov's moves were all natural and easier to see. In the end, I simply got careless and blundered horribly. This blunder cost me both the game as well as any chance of winning the tournament. In the eleventh round game against GM Gashimov, I simply was unable to focus at all and lost without putting up any sort of fight. This left me on a final score of 8.5/11.

In conclusion, the Ordix Open was really a mixed bag. To play so badly in 9 of the 11 games and yet have a chance to win the tournament proved that even if I have a bad day or two, I will always be contending. Overall, I really could not have expected better than I did considering my lack of sleep and energy and all the ridiculously bad positions I achieved, so I am pleased. I would just like to point out that I had a great time in Mainz and although I doubt I will be back next year, I look forward to defending my Fischer Random 960 title in two years! Anyone who has a free week in the summer and wants to play chess should definitely consider taking a trip to Mainz if they want the real European chess experience. That is all for now since it is 2 AM and I have to pack for my trip to Japan!

Continuing our foray into the much-maligned Scandinavian. After 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 where should the black queen move to?

RB Life is busy and time is short, too short for me ever to have bothered to study the Scandinavian, so I have no idea what theory recommends. I can see two viable options. The first is the retreat to safety, 3...Qd8. The only reason I'd be tempted to play this is that I have a dim memory of seeing the black queen get cornered and captured in some Scandinavian game or other. But it seems such a waste of time. The more aggressive option is 3...Qa5, with the hope of putting further pressure on c3 with a later ...Bb4. Play might go 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3 and maybe now 5...c6 would be advisable, providing an escape route for the queen.

DK Forget 3… Qd8 - too passive – or any other queen move for that matter. 3…Qa5 is Black's most reliable line. The queen reaches the side of the board, out of range of White's pieces, but it still influences the centre. Playing ... c6 allows the queen to retreat behind the solid shell of pawns if menaced, and covers some important squares (b5 and d5), making Black's position much safer. The last few moves have seen a trade-off: with the exchange of the e-pawn, White's control of the centre has been diminished, but in achieving this, Black has had to bring his queen into the game at a very early stage; therefore, for the next few moves some caution is required. The rewards for Black in the Scandinavian are in the middle to long term: once castled, Black's king will be secure behind a barrier of pawns, and then he can organise pressure in the centre down the d-file and perhaps on the queenside.

I most often find myself playing this position with the white pieces, and it can be frustrating. I want to launch a quick attack, but with only one centre pawn, it is usually impossible to overrun your opponent. So patience is required – something I often lack, particularly playing with White. More on the Scandinavian next week.

chess@guardian.co.uk

Over the next few weeks we're going to take a look at the Scandinavian defence. Doubtless many of you react the way we do when our opponent replies to 1 e4 with 1...d5 – a deep intake of breath, wearily expelled just audibly enough to let Black know that he has already ruined the game for both of us. But the Scandinavian has hidden depths, not least the rock-solid pawn structure. Let's start with the basic position in the diagram. How would you deal with 2 e5 or 2 Nc3?

RB I like playing the French, so after 2 e5 I'd probably try to steer the opening into the Advance variation with 2...e6, and hope that I'm not going to be move-ordered. After 2 Nc3 I am tempted to push the pawn – 2...d4. Where does the white knight go – 3 Nce2...? Black looks OK. The obvious move now is 3...e5, grabbing space, supporting the d-pawn and setting up a central pawn chain.

DK How Black deals with 2 Nc3 is largely a matter of taste. Pushing is OK as White loses some time, but personally I don't feel comfortable with Black's position. After 2...d4 3 Nce2 e5 White will play Ng3, Bc4, Nf3, d3 (in roughly that order) and get a decent attacking position on the kingside. If I were playing Black I would prefer 2...dxe4 3 Nxe4 Nd7, followed by ... Nf6 and simple development. Black has broken down White's pawn centre, and that is already some achievement.

Against 2 e5, Ronan's preference of 2...e6 could lead to a French defence after 3 d4 c5, which is wholly acceptable. But Black can play more ambitiously. 2…c5 is a strong move, starting the process of surrounding the e-pawn. Black is still aiming for a French-type position, but with the vast improvement that he can bring his queen's bishop outside the pawn chain. So 3 Nf3 can be met by 3…Bg4 – adding pressure to the e-pawn, and only then … e6.

To sum up, 2 Nc3 and 2 e5 present Black with no difficulties. If White wants to gain an advantage against the Scandinavian, 2 exd5 is the only move – and it's the one we'll be considering next week.

chess@guardian.co.uk

Since I finished my sixth round in relatively quick fashion today, (more below) I figured now would be another good time for a blog as we have progressed from 33% to 66% of the way there. Before I get into the actual blog itself, I would just like to thank everyone on ChessNinja, ICC and my blog here for the well wishes and congratulations (premature) which I have received thus far. Such inspiration greatly motivates me and keeps me going onwards as I try to push for world champion. So once again, thanks to everyone out there for the positivity.

Round 4: "Play To The Death"

In round four, I was paired with White against the Spaniard, Paco Vallejo Pons. Oddly enough, in a weird sense of pre-destiny, we first played on an airplane waaaaay back in 1996. I am not sure if Paco remembers this event at all but back in 1996, my brother, Asuka was playing in the World Youth Chess Championship in Menorca. While my brother played in the U10 for the US, Paco played for Spain in the U14 section. When my family left Menorca on the short flight back to Barcelona, I remember having the misfortune of ending up seated next to a random person at the time. For some reason, I took out my chess set and was looking at some stuff, when the guy next to me asked if I wanted to play. Although I was obviously not any good at the time, I figured why not. I should still be able to win as I was already about 15-1600 strength at the time. In the following two games which we played, I got completely blown off the board which left me terribly confused. I think it was only after we were on our way back to the US that it dawned on me that my opponent must have been someone who was playing in one of the higher up sections.

As far as the game was concerned, Paco seems to have a style much like mine in that he plays a little bit of everything. Despite the fact that I had a rest day after the third round, the task of preparation was not an easy one. Kris and I devised some basic stuff on pretty much of all of his openings except what he played! Paco made a very good choice by playing the Scandinavian with 3...Qd6 against me. After playing a highly conservative variation which led to a queenless middlegame, I declined an early draw offer as I felt there were some minimal chances of Paco going wrong. Nevertheless, I didn't see any real risk so I proceeded to continue with the middlegame. The position was roughly equal until Paco started trying to play on the kingside instead of simply exchanging bishops on d6. After I got the bishop to e3, there was always some hope for me. But it was only once I was able to exchange the queenside pawns and push it down to b6 that the winning chances became quite realistic. Also, not to be forgotten was the time control which hurt Paco considerably as we both neared time pressure. In the end though, I was able to avoid any real danger and pick up the full point after a few miscues around move 30. After this rather unexpected (after the opening) win, I was pretty thrilled as this gave me a chance to really rack up the points.

Round 5: "The Art of Surprise!"

In the fifth round, I got Black against local Spaniard GM, Pablo San Segundo who at 2577 is the lowest rated player in the group. Although, San Segundo has not had an inspiring event overall, he has played quite solidly and were it not for an unfortunate oversight and a flag against Granda in a very complicated position, he would be undefeated. Over the past few years, I have a penchant of finding ways into trouble against lower ranked players in round robins. Case in point was back in 2007 when I was leading the Magistral event in Barcelona by 1.5 points after seven rounds only to go and lose to GM Oms who was the bottom seed. This led to a lot of unnecessary drama although I managed to win a highly dramatic last round game against GM Narciso to take the title. This time around, I really wanted to avoid such drama. Nevertheless, I decided to play the Cambridge-Springs for the first time (in a rated game) in my life. After the first nine moves of standard theory, I chose to play something off the beaten path when I chose 9...e5. Although this occurred in Kasparov-Smyslov, 1984, I was not particularly impressed with White's play. That being said, the first surprise was when San Segundo allowed queens to come off the board with 14.cxd4. Even if he had chosen to play 14.exd4 0-0 15. 0-0 b5!? I thought that I was better. In the end, we went into a long endgame which I probably was winning in a much simpler way than how it actually went. Luckily though, I never was in any real danger of losing. With this monster win it put me on 4.5/5 and a point clear of the lead as Ponomariov was only able to draw against Movsesian in a Catalan.

Round 6: "Take Advantage of Your Chances When You Have Them"

In the sixth round, I had White against former Fide World Champion and current number 1 Ukrainian player, Ruslan Ponomariov. There really is not a whole to report here other than the fact that it was a rather quick, theoretical variation leading to a draw. No doubt, there are those who will ask why I took a quick draw when I have generally taken an anti-draw attitude towards events like Dortmund. In certain situations such as today where I have easier opponents at the end, and a clear lead, it is smart to avoid any potential disasters. Also, make no mistake about this much: IF WE WERE TIED GOING INTO THIS SIXTH ROUND GAME, I WOULD HAVE 99.9% PLAYED FOR A WIN. As is, the situation dictated that I did not need to be overly aggressive and that was my rationale behind the quick draw. In equally good news, Peter Svidler took a quick draw today with White despite having what I felt was more play than what I won with against Vallejo two days ago. Therefore, I maintain my one point lead as we head into the final stretch. That being said, I will now go and prepare for my game tomorrow and leave the internet sphere for the time being....

With 3.5/4 Hikaru Nakamura is still the proud leader in the top group of the Donostia Chess Festival in San Sebastián. In the second group Dutch GM Loek van Wely is doing even better, with a perfect 4/4 score.

The Donostia Chess Festival takes place July 6-16 in San Sebastián, Spain. It consists of four different, 10-player round-robins: the “San Sebastian European Cultural City 2016″, the “Kutxa Tournament”, the “Euskal Xake Eskola Tournament” and the women tournament “Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa”. For all details see our first, big pictorial report.

Rounds 3-4

In the third round Hikaru Nakamura passed a big test when he drew comfortably with Black against top seed Peter Svidler. In an Advance Caro-Kann the American even missed some chances for an advantage with 17..Qb3.

Similar to the game Caruana-Perez, Zafra 2009 which was analysed in ChessVibes Openings #25, Ponomariov beat Granda with a nice kingside attack in an opening where you wouldn’t expect it: the Catalan! Vallejo-Kasimdzhanov and San Segundo-Movsesian were two very short draws while Karpov lost his second Black game in a Petroff, against Vachier-Lagrave. Quite impressive play by the young Frenchman in that one.

After a rest day on Friday the 4th round was played yesterday. Nakamura played, and won, his third White game, against Vallejo, who tried the 3…Qd6 Scandinavian. They quickly reached a BBRR-BBRR ending in which Nakamura managed to keep a slight plus, pushing his queenside pawns supported by an active king. Especially nice was 32.Bc5! with the pointe 32..Rec8? 33.Rxe5! fxe5 34.Bd6+ Rxd6 35.Rxd6. Another power move was 33.Re3! after which it was soon over.

Vachier-Lagrave was totally slaughtered by Svidler; in a Marshall the Frenchman used the Bc2-d1 idea one move later than in Motylev-Beliavsky, Corus B 2006 and it’s indeed the computer’s first choice at move 19, followed by Almasi’s 19.Ne4 on second place (with which the Hungarian beat Gyimesi in 2006).

However, Vachier-Lagrave might have made the same mistake as Svidler once did as a second of Kramnik in the 2004 World Championship match against Leko, also in a Marshall: not letting run the computer long enough! In the position after 22.Bd2, in less than ten seconds it finds Svidler’s killing sequence of moves.

Movsesian-Ponomariov was a completely crazy game which you shouldn’t miss either; in a Sicilian White sacrificed two minor pieces for a rook and got a devastating attack, but then with 39.Qe6? he allowed Black a devilish counterattack with 40…Ba3+! where the patient choice 39.Rd1 (or even 39.a3!) would have been winning.

Anatoly Karpov is the tailender after four rounds, with two draws with White and two losses with Black. Yesterday he had a nice edge in an ending against Granda, but couldn’t convert it into a point.

Anatoly Karpov vs Julio Granda Zuniga | Photo © David Llada

In the second group, top seed Loek van Wely won all of his games so far. The Dutch grandmaster is the big rating favourite but you still have to do it! He still has to meet the strongest players, but so far it’s going pretty smoothly. In the early 90s KingLoek worked himself up to world class strength in many tough open tournaments, and perhaps it helped that recently he played a few of those in the U.S., before heading to Spain.

All games of all groups can be replayed below!

Donostia European Cultural City 2026 | Round 4 Standings

Kutxa Tournament | Round 4 Standings

Euskal Xake Eskola Tournament | Round 4 Standings

Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa Tournament | Round 4 Standings

All games for replay

• Donostia 1
• Donostia 2
• Donostia 3
• Donostia 4

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN: Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, Group 4

“So, who-ya-gonna-call? Opening busters? Not quite. For the reasonable price of 25 euros per year, once a week you can receive intelligent, interesting opening surveys and analysis presented by a team lead by Dutch IMs Merijn van Delft & Robert Ris”, wrote Eugene Manchester in his review for ChessCafe yesterday, about ChessVibes Openings.

Which openings are hot in top level chess? Which are not? Receive the latest opening novelties right in your mailbox with ChessVibes Openings, a weekly PDF magazine (+ PGN!) covering the latest openings news, co-authored by International Masters Merijn van Delft and Robert Ris and published by ChessVibes.

July 1, 2009: Eugene Manchester reviews ChessVibes Openings for ChessCafe

In the July 1 issue of ChessCafe’s Book Review (mirror here) ChessVibes Openings was reviewed by Eugene Manchester. Some quotes:

“So, who-ya-gonna-call? Opening busters? Not quite. For the reasonable price of 25 euros per year, once a week you can receive intelligent, interesting opening surveys and analysis presented by a team lead by Dutch IMs Merijn van Delft & Robert Ris.”

“The format and presentation are consistently of high quality, with variety of coverage and opening analysis.”

“The cost per year is roughly equivalent to a good chess book. Each week you get a four- page issue packed with opening analysis, at least two thoroughly annotated games with one or more of that week’s featured openings, a glimpse into the world of the latest opening novelties, in short, a quality weekly opening report.”

What is ChessVibes Openings?

Every issue consists of a ZIP archive file, including both the PDF Magazine and the accompanying PGN file. The PDF consists of three pages (A4 size) with the following contents:

• What’s hot? A round-up of this week’s important opening developments, with statistics about the frequence and score of the week’s most important opening novelty (page 1)
• What’s not? Which openings are not recommended at the moment, according to the top players? And why not? (page 1)
• Game of the week Each week you’ll find the theoretically most important game analysed by our two IMs, with a detailed survey of the opening phase (page 2).
• This week’s harvest Four more new important opening ideas from this week (page 3) revealed and described with explanation of the opening and early middlegame (page 3).
• Opening expert Every week an opening expert is covered, explaining the GM’s expertise and showing a key game with annotations (page 4). Examples from the first two issues: Teimour Radjabov (King’s Indian with Black), Alexey Dreev (White: Nimzo-Indian; Black: Caro-Kann and Slav).

Latest issue: #26, July 1, 2009

ChessVibes Openings #26
The latest opening developments of the last week of June 2009. All about the Taimanov Sicilian which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Ruy Lopez, 3…Nge7
• Sicilian Najdorf, 6.Bg5 Nbd7
• Sicilian Dragon, 9.0-0-0
• Queen’s Indian, 4.g3 Bb4+

This week’s opening is expert is French GM Christian Bauer.

Previous issue: #25, June 24, 2009

ChessVibes Openings #25
The latest opening developments of the fourth week of June 2009. All about the Open Catalan which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Sicilian Four Knights
• Sicilian, Taimanov
• King’s Indian, Exchange Variation
• Grünfeld, Exchange Variation

This week’s opening is expert is Cuba’s number one GM Leinier Dominguez Perez.

Older issues: #19-24, May 13-June 17, 2009

ChessVibes Openings #19
The latest opening developments of the second week of May 2009. All about the Chebanenko Slav (5.e3 b5 6.c5) which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Accelerated Dragon
• French, Rubinstein
• Semi-Slav, Marshall Gambit
• Grünfeld, 3.f3

This week’s opening is expert is GM Yuri Shulman.

ChessVibes Openings #20
The latest opening developments of the third week of May 2009. All about the 6.Bg5 Najdorf which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Sicilian Najdorf, 6.Be3
• Sicilian Dragon, 12.Kb1 b5
• Slav, 6.Ne5
• Grünfeld, 4.Bf4

This week’s opening is expert is GM Hikaru Nakamura.

ChessVibes Openings #21
The latest opening developments of the fourth week of May 2009. All about the Sveshnikov with 9.Bxf6 with which Alexei Shirov beat Magnus Carlsen, our Game of the Week, to win the M-Tel Masters 2009. Other lines that are covered:

• Petroff, 3.d4
• Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev
• Semi-Slav, Botvinnik
• Catalan/Benoni

This week’s opening is expert is GM Surya Shekhar Ganguly.

ChessVibes Openings #22
The latest opening developments of the end May and early June 2009. All about the Slav with 6.Ne5 which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Sicilian, Najdorf 6.Bg5
• Semi-Slav, Meran
• Grünfeld, g3-system
• King’s Indian, 7.Be3

This week’s opening is expert is GM Murtas Kazhgaleyev.

ChessVibes Openings #23
The latest opening developments of the second week of June 2009. All about the move 6.Qf3!? against the Sicilian Najdorf which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Petroff, 8.Re1
• Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev5
• Sicilian Dragon 9.0-0-0
• Grünfeld, 5.Qb3, 7…a6

This week’s opening is expert is GM Alexander Motylev.

ChessVibes Openings #24
The latest opening developments of the third week of June 2009. All about the Bayonet Attack of the King’s Indian which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Petroff, main line
• Ruy Lopez, Exchange
• Scandinavian, 3…Qd6
• Nimzo-Indian, 4.Qc2 d5

This week’s opening is expert is GM Vugar Gashimov.

Ehm… can I have a look?

Here’s what ChessVibes Openings #16 (April 22, 2009) looks like:

FREE SAMPLE ISSUE - ChessVibes Openings #16 - click to download!

• What’s hot? A round-up of the most important opening developments of mid-April, including statistics about the frequence and score of the Chebanenko position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.c5 Nbd7 6.Bf4 Nh5 7.Bd2 Nhf6
• What’s not? This week 1.e4 e5 was hot, as the top players categorically avoided the Semi-Open Games. Interestingly, the classical 1…d5 was also much more popular than the more modern answers to 1.d4, at the FIDE Grand Prix in Nalchik.
• Game of the week ““I didn’t spend much time on it before the game, but I prepared seriously for this tournament and we did investigate this line,” Peter Leko said at the press conference in Nalchik, after his game against Sergei Karjakin. Page two has a closer look at this highly interesting draw in the Chebanenko.
• This week’s harvest For more opening ideas from the Ruy Lopez Marshall, Sicilian Taimanov, Queen’s Indian and Ragozin Defence.
• Opening expert This week Rustam Kasimdzhanov is highlighted. The former FIDE World Champion and current second of Anand has a broad repertoire, switching from hypersharp openings like Dragon and Anti-Moscow to positional Queen’s Gambit lines.

FREE SAMPLE ISSUE - ChessVibes Openings #16 - click to download!

What does it cost?

As a subscriber you’ll receive the PDF Magazine and accompanying PGN files in your mailbox every week.

A one-year subscription is € 25 (that’s less than € 0.50 per issue!) - for price in US $ click here

Please note that it’s still possible to start your subscription as a first-week subscriber.
Just let us know and we’ll send you all previous issues!

May 7, 2009: GM Hedinn Steingrimsson reviews ChessVibes Openings for Chess Today

In issues 3103 (Thursday, May 7) of Chess Today, the daily chess newspaper which also comes into your inbox by email in PDF, ChessVibes Openings was reviewed by GM Hedinn Steingrimsson from Iceland. Some quotes:

“What I like about ChessVibes Openings is their focus on the trend and discoveries that are revealed in super tournaments and by very strong players. It makes sense for all tournament chess players and opening theoreticians to follow these developments and getting an overview from ChessVibes Openings definitely saves time.”

“I find it positive that there is consistency in the openings covered so that the readers will with time have a certain repertoire available based on different theoretical articles from ChessVibes about e.g. the Anti-Moscow Variation.”

“For those that really want to find out how to get a better position out of the opening and are willing to enter complications and do some homework in order to succeed, ChessVibes Openings can be recommended.”

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6!? (Dia)

In recent years this seems to overshadow the old mainline 3...Qa5. Quite recently there has been a second edition of Michael Melts' 'Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3...Qd6'. The book is a treasure chest containing an enormous amount of well organized information on the line and lots of independent analysis. Unfortunately it's also very hard to navigate and contains very little prose or guidance except for a few introductory chapters.

4.d4 Nf6

For some minor (possibly insignificant) reasons I prefer 4...a6 - usually followed by 5...Nf6.

5.Nf3

5.g3!? is an alternative move-order with some independent ideas.

5...a6

I find this a much more attractive move than ...c6. Black may follow up with ...Nc6, ...Bg4 and 0-0-0 but also ...b5, ...Bb7 and ...e6.

6.g3

This seems to be the new mainline. White not only makes ...b5 less attractive but also prepares Bf4.

6...Bg4 7.Bg2

7.h3 is another important option.

7...Nc6 8.0–0

Black also needs to prepare for the immediate 8.d5.

8...0–0–0 9.d5!?

Again the immediate 9.Bf4 must be considered.

9...Ne5! (Dia)

This is Melts recommendation (Game 18, page 151, line B2e2d2!) and indeed the move is starting to look forced:

a) 9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.Qxd5 Rxd5 12.Ng5 of Lakos-R.Perez, Ortigueira 2002 is entirely unattractive for Black.

b) 9...Nb4 is a more optimistic approach, forcing White to choose between a repetition and complications. Unfortunately the complications seem close to winning for White: 10.h3 Bh5 11.Bf4 Qc5 12.Be3 Qd6 13.Qe2! Nbxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Rad1! Qf6 and White has a pleasant choice:

b1) 16.Bd4 Qe6 17.Qxe6+ fxe6 18.Be5 Bxf3 19.Bxf3 c6 20.Bg4 Nc7 21.Rxd8+ Kxd8 22.Rd1+ +- Ibarra Jerez-Trent, Chalkidiki 2003.

b2) 16.c4 Nxe3 (16...Nb4 17.Rxd8+ Kxd8 18.Rd1+ Kc8 19.Qd2 Qd6 20.Qe1 Qf6 21.g4 Qxb2 22.Rb1 +- Humphrey-Aplin, Kuala Lumpur 2006) 17.Rxd8+ Kxd8 18.Qxe3 c6 19.g4 Bg6 20.Qb6+ Kc8 21.Rd1 e5 22.Nxe5 +- Rasik-Antoniewski, Czechia 2006.

10.Bf4

The queen sacrifice 10.Nxe5!? is enterprising but on closer scrutiny doesn't seem too terrifying:

a) 10...Qxe5 11.f3 Be6 12.Re1 Qf5 13.f4 Qg6 14.Re5 Bf5 = Ninov-Panbukchian, Pleven 2005.

b) 10...Bxd1 11.Nxf7 Bxc2 12.Nxd6+ exd6 13.Re1 Re8 14.Be3 g6 15.Rac1 Bf5 16.Ne2 Bg7 17.Nd4 Ng4 18.Nxf5 gxf5 = Ragger-Nikolov, Kranj 2004.

10...Nxf3+ 11.Bxf3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 e5 13.dxe6 Qxe6 14.Bg5 (Dia)

This seems to be the crucial position. Black has tried a number of different moves but none seem to give full equality:

a) 14...Qc6 15.Qxc6 bxc6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Rad1 Bb4 18.Ne2 Bd2 19.Kg2 += Rasch-Aepfler, Germany 2007.

b) 14...h6 15.Rfe1 Qb6 16.Nd5 (16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.Re4 Bc5 19.Rae1 Rd2 20.R1e2 Rxe2 21.Rxe2 Bd4 22.Re7 Bxc3 23.bxc3 += Tukhaev-Vasiliev, Evpatoria 2006) 16...Rxd5 17.Bxf6 Qc6 18.c4 Rd6 19.Qxc6 Rxc6 20.Re8+ Kd7 21.Rd8+ Ke6 22.Bc3 +/- Mardell-Brandt, Taby 2007.

d) 14...Bd6 15.Rfe1 Be5 16.Ne4 (16.Re2 Rde8 17.Rae1 Nd7 18.Bf4 f6 19.Qe3 g5 20.Bxe5 Nxe5 = Stiri-Dounis, Athens 2007; 16.Bf4 Nd7 17.Nd5 f6 18.c4 g5 19.Bd2 h5 20.Ba5 Qg4 = Williams-Hamad, Turin 2006) 16...Rhe8 17.Nc5 Qd5 18.Qxd5 Rxd5 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Nd3 Re6 21.f4 Bd6 22.Rad1 += Huerga Leache-Garcia Paolicchi, La Massana 2008.

c) 14...Bb4 15.Rfe1 Qb6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Nd5 (is 17.Rfe1 better?) 17...Rxd5 18.Qxd5 Bxe1 19.Rxe1 Qxb2 20.Qxf7 Kb8 = Pesotsky-Bazarov, Lipetsk 2008.

e) 14...h5 15.Bxf6 (15.Rfe1 Qg4 16.Qxg4+ hxg4 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Rxe4 f6 = Sedina-Danielian, Elista 2004) 15...Qxf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Rad1 Bd6 (17...Bc5 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Rfe1 Rhe8 20.Nc3 c6 21.Rxd8+ Kxd8 22.Kg2) 18.Nd5 h4 19.Kg2 Rh5 20.b3 b5 21.Rfe1 += Fernando-Galego, Vila Real 2005.

Preliminary conclusion:

This line may attract a (semi) professional player who feels confident that he can hold a draw against well prepared opponents in one of the lines after 14.Bg5. However, for the average club player (who represents the main segment of chess book buyers) defending a slightly inferior endgame like this for several dozens of moves sounds like a nightmare and will not be a good selling point.

Wee Che En - Sv. Johnsen

Thailand Open 2009 (8)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 a5!?

This was what I had prepared against 1.e4 for this tournament. I like to call it the Scandinavian variation but may well be the only one to do so.

10.a4 b4 11.d4 bxc3 12.bxc3 exd4 13.cxd4 (D)

13...d5!

This is Black's idea in the 10.a4 line. Now it looks a little like a Open Ruy Lopez with Black controlling b4.

14.e5 Ne4 15.Nbd2

15.Re3 Nb4 16.Nc3 Bb7 17.Ne2 Kh8 18.Ba3 f6 19.Nf4 Ra6 20.Bxb4 axb4 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Qxd5 23.Qd3 Nc5 24.dxc5 Qxd3 25.Rxd3 fxe5 = Castillo-Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 1950.

15...Bf5 16.Ba3!?

I didn't remember having ever seen this move and thought it looked a little funny. But when consulting my notes I had actually analyzed a GM game with it.

16...Bxa3

The game I had analysed went 16...Nb4 17.Nf1 c5 18.Ne3 Be6 19.Bxb4 axb4 20.dxc5 Bxc5 21.Qd3 Rc8 22.Rad1 Bb6 and Black was clearly better in Hellers-Kupreichik, Malmo 1987. The big question is whether these moves ever entered my mind or if they only appeared on my screen with Rybka doing the thinking. In earlier days I always played through my notes on a chess board (frequently a pocket set but a full size board if circumstances permitted me). It is too time consuming for my present life situation, but far better for memorization.

17.Rxa3 Nb4 18.Ra1 c6

I tried to calculate 18...Nd3 19.Re3 and now I looked at 19...Ndxf2 20.Qe2 Nxd2 21.Nxd2 Ne4 as well as 19...Nexf2 20.Qe2 and decided against the entire variation as I didn't find the resulting positions particularly clear. After the game I was pleased to see that Rybka agreed in this evaluation. That being said, the move I played probably reveals my lack of understanding for this kind of positions. It seems that Black in similar positions play a quick ...c5 with active piece play. Instead I tried to stabilize the queenside, hoping to create kingside chances with ...f6 at some point. This may be sufficient for equality but demands quite exact play.

19.Qe2 Rb8 20.Rec1 h6 21.Qe3 Kh8 22.Nxe4 Bxe4 23.Nd2 Bh7 24.Rc3 Qe7 25.Bd1 f6 26.f4 fxe5 27.fxe5 Rf7 28.Nf3 Rbf8 29.Qd2 Be4 30.Be2 Rf4 31.Rf1

For the last dozen of moves I as well as my opponent have played quite decent chess. My problem was that I didn't quite appreciate my opponent's play and felt that I should be looking for an advantage. Instead my small weaknesses on a5 and c6 were slowly beginning to be felt. So rather than accepting that I had to fight for equality, I played a somewhat desperate move:

31...g5?

It is tempting to add another question mark as this move isn't only weakening; it's also completely unprovoked.

32.Rc5 Qc7 33.Nh2!

This move I had completely missed.

33..Rxf1+ 34.Bxf1 Rf4 35.Ng4 Qd8

Probably 35...Kg7 36.Nf6 Bg6 is a somewhat better attempt to keep my position together.

36.Nf6 Bg6 37.Be2 Qb6 38.g3 Rf5 39.Qe3! Na2? (D)

Objectively this is a losing error but as my position is creaking in its seams anyway, I only give it one question mark. Actually I considered '?!' as it forces White to calculate a fairly long line.

40.Bd3 Qb3 41.Rxa5!

This wins as does 41.Rxc6.

41...Nb4 42.Ra8+ Kg7 43.Rg8+ Kf7 44.e6+ Kxf6

44...Ke7 45.Rg7+ Kxf6 46.Rxg6+ Ke7 47.Rg7+ comes to exactly the same.

45.Rxg6+ Ke7 46.Rg7+ Ke8 47.e7!

The move I overlooked when I played 39...Na2.

47...Qd1+ 48.Kg2 1–0

Vassily Ivanchuk and Boris Gelfand lead at half-time in Bazna after both won their 5th round game, against Kamsky and Shirov respectively, who both blundered. Today is the first rest day.

The 3rd Kings Tournament, a six-player round-robin with Radjabov, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Gelfand, Kamsky and Nisipeaniu, takes place June 14-25 in Bazna, Romania.

Round 5

Two big blunders marked this round of the Kings Tournament. Kamsky’s last move dropped a full rook, although it must be said that his position was already very difficult there. After a mistake on the 15th move, the American stood worse with White, but then fought back very well. Close to the time control Ivanchuk built up the pressure again, and then Kamsky missed a double attack by the black queen.

Shirov, who needed a lot of time in the opening phase against Gelfand, also missed a double attack when he put his rook on b1, where it was unprotected, and so after 18 moves he was already looking at a horrible position. The game shows what happens when you drop not just a pawn, but an important central pawn…

Nisipeanu went for Tiviakov’s pet line 3…Qd6 in the Scandinavian and equalized effortlessly against Radjabov, who probably should have put his queen’s bishop on f4 as soon as it was possible. In the game White had nothing; perhaps Radjabov had missed or underestimated Black’s strong 12th move.

Today is the first rest day. According to the tournament website, (unlike Sofia) there will be one more, between rounds 8 and 9. Gelfand and Ivanchuk lead with 3.5/5 while Radjabov and Shirov are on 50%. The Azerbaijani drew all of his games so far.

Games round 5

Click on the pairings at the top of the board to reveal a drop down list of all the games. Click on the arrow under the board just once, then the arrow keys of your keyboard also work. Silverlight works on all browsers and platforms except for Linux, but this should be fixed soon. Contact us for questions, not in the comments section, please.

Bazna 2009 | Schedule and results

Bazna 2009 | Round 5 Standings

All photos courtesty of the official website, used with permission

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN

It’s been a while since we last mentioned our PDF (+PGN!) subscription service in which we cover the latest developments in chess opening theory. Meanwhile, the Chebanenko Slav is under pressure, the 6.Bg5 Najdorf is back on top and the 9.Bxf6 Svesh is as complicated as ever. In this week’s issue the great game Gelfand-Nisipeanu (a King’s Indian Bayonet Attack) of only three days ago is analysed!

Which openings are hot in top level chess? Which are not? Receive the latest opening novelties right in your mailbox with ChessVibes Openings, a weekly PDF magazine (+ PGN!) covering the latest openings news, co-authored by International Masters Merijn van Delft and Robert Ris and published by ChessVibes.

Latest issues: #19-24, May 13-June 17, 2009

Issues #19-24 discuss all important theoretical opening novelties from the the last six weeks, or in other words: all you need to know about the latest opening developments from the Azerbaijan-FIDE World match, the US Championship, Bosna Sarajevo, Mitropa Cup, M-Tel Masters, Asian Continental Open, ACP World Rapid Cup, Ivanchuk-Navara, Leko-Anand, Chinese Championship, French League, Poikovsky, Sigeman, King’s Tournament (Bazna), Ruy Lopez (Zafra) and the Capablanca Memorial.

ChessVibes Openings #19
The latest opening developments of the second week of May 2009. All about the Chebanenko Slav (5.e3 b5 6.c5) which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Accelerated Dragon
• French, Rubinstein
• Semi-Slav, Marshall Gambit
• Grünfeld, 3.f3

This week’s opening is expert is GM Yuri Shulman.

ChessVibes Openings #20
The latest opening developments of the third week of May 2009. All about the 6.Bg5 Najdorf which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Sicilian Najdorf, 6.Be3
• Sicilian Dragon, 12.Kb1 b5
• Slav, 6.Ne5
• Grünfeld, 4.Bf4

This week’s opening is expert is GM Hikaru Nakamura.

ChessVibes Openings #21
The latest opening developments of the fourth week of May 2009. All about the Sveshnikov with 9.Bxf6 with which Alexei Shirov beat Magnus Carlsen, our Game of the Week, to win the M-Tel Masters 2009. Other lines that are covered:

• Petroff, 3.d4
• Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev
• Semi-Slav, Botvinnik
• Catalan/Benoni

This week’s opening is expert is GM Surya Shekhar Ganguly.

ChessVibes Openings #22
The latest opening developments of the end May and early June 2009. All about the Slav with 6.Ne5 which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Sicilian, Najdorf 6.Bg5
• Semi-Slav, Meran
• Grünfeld, g3-system
• King’s Indian, 7.Be3

This week’s opening is expert is GM Murtas Kazhgaleyev.

ChessVibes Openings #23
The latest opening developments of the second week of June 2009. All about the move 6.Qf3!? against the Sicilian Najdorf which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Petroff, 8.Re1
• Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev5
• Sicilian Dragon 9.0-0-0
• Grünfeld, 5.Qb3, 7…a6

This week’s opening is expert is GM Alexander Motylev.

ChessVibes Openings #24
The latest opening developments of the third week of June 2009. All about the Bayonet Attack of the King’s Indian which is analysed in our Game of the Week. Other lines that are covered:

• Petroff, main line
• Ruy Lopez, Exchange
• Scandinavian, 3…Qd6
• Nimzo-Indian, 4.Qc2 d5

This week’s opening is expert is GM Vugar Gashimov.

What is ChessVibes Openings?

Every issue consists of a ZIP archive file, including both the PDF Magazine and the accompanying PGN file. The PDF consists of four pages (A4 size) with the following contents:

• What’s hot? A round-up of this week’s important opening developments, with statistics about the frequence and score of the week’s most important opening novelty (page 1)
• What’s not? Which openings are not recommended at the moment, according to the top players? And why not? (page 1)
• Game of the week Each week you’ll find the theoretically most important game analysed by our two IMs, with a detailed survey of the opening phase (page 2).
• This week’s harvest Four more new important opening ideas from this week (page 3) revealed and described with explanation of the opening and early middlegame (page 3).
• Opening expert Every week an opening expert is covered (page 4. Examples from the first two issues: Teimour Radjabov (King’s Indian with Black), Alexey Dreev (White: Nimzo-Indian; Black: Caro-Kann and Slav). (page 4)

Ehm… can I have a look?

Here’s how it looks like:

Below is ChessVibes Openings 19 which you can download as a free sample issue!

• ChessVibes Openings #19 - click to download!

What does it cost?

As a subscriber you’ll receive the PDF Magazine and accompanying PGN files in your mailbox every week.

A one-year subscription is € 25 (that’s less than € 0.50 per issue!) - for price in $ click here

May 7, 2009: GM Hedinn Steingrimsson reviews ChessVibes Openings for Chess Today

In issues 3103 (Thursday, May 7) of Chess Today, the daily chess newspaper which also comes into your inbox by email in PDF, ChessVibes Openings was reviewed by GM Hedinn Steingrimsson from Iceland. Some quotes:

“What I like about ChessVibes Openings is their focus on the trend and discoveries that are revealed in super tournaments and by very strong players. It makes sense for all tournament chess players and opening theoreticians to follow these developments and getting an overview from ChessVibes Openings definitely saves time.”

“I find it positive that there is consistency in the openings covered so that the readers will with time have a certain repertoire available based on different theoretical articles from ChessVibes about e.g. the Anti-Moscow Variation.”

“For those that really want to find out how to get a better position out of the opening and are willing to enter complications and do some homework in order to succeed, ChessVibes Openings can be recommended.”

Everybody has a favourite chess move. Many just love 23…Qg3. Tim Krabbé’s favourite is 16…Nc6. According to British Chess Magazine, it’s 47…Bh3. And a member of my local chess club is obsessed by the move 7.Ke3! in the Traxler Counter-Attack. These are all highly spectacular moves. My own favourite is the very modest queen-shuffle 2.Qe2.

I’m talking about the little-known Chigorin Variation of the French Defence, which arises after 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2.

I still remember the moment when I first encountered this move. I stumbled upon it in an old volume on chess strategy by Euwe and Kramer and, incomprehensibly, the authors didn’t comment on the move at all! I couldn’t understand what was going on, and was very frustrated about it. The quoted game was Chigorin-Tarrasch, 1893 and this frustrated me even more: how could such an outstanding player like Mikhail Chigorin play this absurd move?

Baffled at first, I started hypothesizing that White must have some idea with it, and I supposed (correctly, as it turned out) that it was to prevent d7-d5. But this didn’t make much sense either. First of all, Black could still play 2…d5 and after 3.exd5 Qxd5 he would have a position from the Scandinavian Defence with a rather strange Queen on e2, would he not? Secondly, even if Black couldn’t play d7-d5, it hardly seemed worth misplacing the queen just for that.

As always, things turned out to be not so easy. I started stuyding the line and discovered many things; mostly that, of course, the white king’s bishop could simply go to g2 and wasn’t so blocked after all. The game would then look much like a reversed King’s Indian. Also, if Black played Nc6-d4 at some point, chasing the queen even further over the board, the knight could be forced to retreat with tempo by c2-c3, making a nice ‘hole’ for the Queen on c2 in the process. It seemed there was actually some positional basis for Qe2 and this showed me in a profound way what a deep and rich game chess is.

Nowadays, it’s of course well-known that Qe2 and the idea to develop the bishop to g2 is a kind of prelude to later King’s Indian positions. Being a French player myself, I too sometimes face the move 2.Qe2 and in my experience, white players indeed usually strive for a quiet KID-like setup, apparently in an attempt to deviate from better known lines such as after 2.d3. Alexei Suetin, in his classic 1982 mongraph on the French, writes of the move:

It may be looked upon as the forerunner of the modern openings strategy which in semi-open systems aims at achieving a King’s Indian position with opposite colours, e.g. in the variation 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 etc.

Similarly, Gligoric, Uhlmann and Botvinnik (The French Defence, 1975) note:

Tchigorin’s [sic] move, 2.Qe2, can transpose to the King’s Indian Attack (in which White’s queen usually plays to e2) but by playing his moves in a different order Black can bypass the K.I.A. setup and take a more aggresive stance.

And the great Kasparov, in the first part of My Great Predecessors, says the following of the line (as played in the game Chigorin-Teichmann, Hastings 1895):

Chigorin demonstrated all the basic ideas of the set-up with the X-ray bishop at g2 and symmetrical pawns on e4 and e5: restriction of the knight at c6 by c2-c3, manoeuvre of the knight to c4 (…) This was the style of the future! Many decades later the King’s Indian Attack became fashionable.

Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934)

Now, I must make a personal confession. Although I really love the move Qe2 for all its initial weirdness, I don’t like the stereotyped moves that usually follow after it! White often automatically plays g3, Bg2, Nf3 and 0-0, then goes for d3 and/or c3 and he reaches ‘normal’ King’s Indian structures. Played this way, the system loses all its charm, at least for me. It’s just another boring KID with reversed colours! Therefore, in this article I will take a different point of view than the (however highly esteemed) opinions quoted above. In an attempt to stop this cliché treatment of the move Qe2, I will show that Mikhail Chigorin played it with many different ideas in mind as well, and that it’s not such a boring setup at all. In fact, Chigorin played the move to deviate from stereotyped chess to force the opponent and himself to think right from the start of the game.

In 1893, the Russian Mikhail Chigorin and the German Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, two of the strongest players of those days, played a 22-game match in St. Petersburg (Chigorin’s home town) against each other. It was not an official title match, but the stakes were high. It was a clash not just of chess giants, but of chess schools. As Raymond Keene describes the situation in The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory:

Steinitz’s games had taught the chess world much but certain eccentricities persisted in the old master’s conception of opening play, which could not satisfy an idealogue and purist such as Tarrasch. For the first time, we now see the multiplicity of Steinitzian options narrowed down and pruned. Variations and moves are ‘incorrect’ for general and logical reasons and Chigorin’s objections (in his games with Tarrasch) that his incorrect or ugly moves are actually quite viable were more or less ignored. That was until Nimzowitsch came along to renew the challenge to Tarrasch, and until (much later) Soviet writers rediscovered Chigorin as the ideological father of Russian chess, finding that his ‘ugly’ moves, too, had a scientific basis.

The final score of the match was +9 -9 =4. The games were famously analysed by Tarrasch in his masterpiece Dreihundert Schachpartien (300 chess games). In all-but-one of Chigorin’s white games, the ‘ugly’ Qe2 line was played, making this historic match the ‘creation story’ of this particular variation. But according to Tarrasch himself, Chigorin wasn’t the first to have played the move. In his comments to the first game, Tarrasch writes:

This move was no surprise for me, I had seen it already in a game by Pollock, but given it no attention. It has no other value than to prevent the usual methods of play, and to lead to a difficult, closed game for both. Such experiments are usually allowed to white without huge risks.

Tarrasch's first comment on Qe2 in his book 'Dreihundert Schachpartien'

So far, I have not been able to dig up this game by Pollock, but it must exist, as it is also mentioned in the official match book by Albert Heyde (Der Schachwettkampf zwischen Dr. S. Tarrasch und M. Tschigorin, Ende 1893).  Can a reader locate it? (Interestingly, Kasparov quotes Chigorin mentioning how he got the idea for 2.Qe2 from a game he played - as Black - against Steinitz in their 1892 match in which Steinitz also played Qd1-e2 to prevent d7-d5: ‘It was this that gave rise to my initial plan with g2-g3, Bg2 and d2-d3, which was later varied’. Didn’t Chigorin know the Pollock game while Tarrasch did? An why, if he already had the idea, didn’t Chigorin play this setup on the first opportunity he got - the second match game - in the match against Tarrasch?)

In any case, Heyde makes a very important observation about these games, which is also important for our pursuit:

The games with this opening which were played in this match are the most interesting. In these, Chigorin tries a move tried in America - by Pollock if I’m not mistaken - 2.Qe2, which is well underestimated by most players.  Admittedly, Chigorin himself did not immediately find the right continuation, since in the defence with 2…Be7, the queen move gains in strength only by means of 3.b3 and 4.Bb2.

Here’s the thing. I’ve played the logical move 2…Be7 (preparing d7-d5) myself a number of times against 2.Qe2, and on none of those occasions did my opponent go for b3 and Bb2. In all cases, White automatically went g3, Bg2 and d3, without even thinking. I find this very strange. If you play such an interesting move as Qe2, why follow up with such boring schemes?

But let’s not overhaste things. After all, Tarrasch himself didn’t play 2…Be7 until the 10th match game. In the first four games, he played 2…c5. And as already briefly mentioned, Chigorin didn’t play the g3, Bg2 and d3 setup until the second time he got the line on the board. Chigorin’s first attempt went as follows (comments are by Tarrasch):

Chigorin - Tarrasch
St. Petersburg (m/2), 1893

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 ‘With this, Black switches to a Sicilian game, in which the position of the white queen on e2 in any case can’t help the attack.’

3.Nc3 ‘This is, on account of the however insignificant threat Nb8-c6-d4, not good and lays the foundation of later problems. White should play g2-g3, as in the 4th and 6th games of the match, and not rob himself of the possibility to chase away the enemy knight with c2-c3.’

3…Nc6 4.Nf3 a6 5.g3 ‘The wing development of this bishop was of course already intended with Qe2.’

5…Nd4 6.Qd3

At this point, we get a marvellous example of Tarrasch’s famous sarcasm: ‘One sees, Chigorin has learned a lot from Steinitz, perhaps too much. In any case it was more natural to withdraw the queen to d1 and continue the game with d3, Be3, Bg2 etc.’ In the end, Tarrasch got a beautiful position indeed, but unfortunately, he got mated.

Well, never mind that Black got a good position out of the opening - what’s important for us is to note is that White wasn’t playing the typical KIA moves here. It shows that the move can also be used to achieve interesting, different kind of positions. Tarrasch himself understood this point well when he wrote, in that other famous book of his, Die Moderne Schachpartie (1916): ‘The one idea of this unusual move is that it complicates the game and makes it more difficult.’

Although Tarrasch obviously was no fan of Qe2, I think it does show that Tarrasch values the move not as a way for White to reach a certain kind of standard setup, but to make play interesting. And this can be done in many more ways than just one! In a way, Tarrasch acknowledged this also by varying his own setup as Black during the match. For instance, even though he reached a perfectly fine position (and a classic victory) in game 6 after 2…c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nd4 5.Qd3 Be7, he played differently with 4…Be7 in the 8th game, ‘to take a new course as soon as possible’.

Let’s now turn our attention to the line described above by Albert Heyde.

Chigorin-Tarrasch
St. Petersburg (m/12), 1893

1. e4 e6 2.Qe2 Be7

While searching for contemporary sources in the Max Euwe Centre in Amsterdam, I discovered that at the time, opinions about how to play this line varied considerably. In the november 1893 issue of the Deutsches Wochenschach magazine, the text move is regarded as the ’simplest and securest’ reply to White’s concept. On the other hand, in the same issue of the Deutsche Schachzeitung, 2…c5 is considered ‘clearly the best answer to this untheoretical move’. 

In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right. For instance, The Handbuch des Schachspiels by P.R. von Bilguer (1922) mentions that Steinitz considered best a setup with …c5, Nc6, d6, Nf6, Be7 and 0-0, later followed by d6-d5. Euwe (Theorie der Schaakopeningen, 1953) does likewise. Suetin (1982) and Psakhis (The Complete French, 1992) also prefer 2..c5, and so does Uhlmann (Französisch - richtig gespielt, 2004). It has also been the choice of players such as Morozevich, Bareev, Jussupow and Kortchnoi., but I wonder if it was just an ‘autoreply’ or if they actually considered 2…Be7, which I personally find more esthetic.

In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right

3.b3 ‘A creative reply, directed against d7-d5′ - Tarrasch.

3…d5 4.Bb2 Bf6 Tarrasch’s notes are worth quoting in full:

The normal development would have been 4…Nf6, after which Black must ruin his king’s side by means of 5.exd5 exd5 (5…Qxd5 is not good for Black) 6.Bxf6 gxf6. Because of this, I chose the bishop’s move in all games with this opening. This further provokes the advance of the e-pawn, which is almost always more unpleasant for Black on e4 than on e5. In general, central pawns are best advanced only two squares, and because of this 4…d4 isn’t good; White would attack the pawn several times with c2-c3, Nf3 etc, and the end force the exchange.

An interesting discourse, but it’s interesting that Chigorin appears not to have intended 5.exd5 at all! In three later games, he chose 5.Nc3 or 5.e5. The latter move, by the way, was also played against Grandmaster Rafael Vaganian in 1998. It seems these positions have not lost all relevance after all…

5.e5 Later in the match, Chigorin deviated with 5.Bxf6. But according to Kasparov, who analyses some of these games in his already mentioned My Great Predecessors vol. 1, taking the bishop is inferior to the text.

5…Be7 This position also occurred in the 14th match game. On both occasions, Chigorin played

6.Qg4 after which Tarrasch played the amazing 6…Bf8

A unique position: on move 6, Black has ‘completed’ his bishop manoeuvre with Bf8-e7-f6-e7-f8! According to Tarrasch,  this is better than weakening the king’s side with g7-g6. He writes: ’One can’t blame the bishop now for making four moves; of course, taken together these are wasted. But because of the move e4-e5 Black has the opportunity to develop play on the queen’s side well, and start an attack there, while not much can happen to him on the king’s side.’

In my opinion, this manoeuvre also shows that Siegbert Tarrasch wasn’t only the dogmatist he has often been called , but also, like Chigorin, an empiricist who liked to experiment. Recall the Keene quote, or what Robert Wade (in his well-known book Soviet Chess) had to say about it:

Dogmatic as benefits a teacher and a methodist, Tarrasch tried to explain chess in an uncomplicated mechanical fashion rather similar to the way in the same period that the universe was explained. Just as small exceptions upset the rules to which the universe supposedly conformed, small exceptions required the rules propounded by Tarrasch to be modified. Chigorin was a non-confirmist, just as Nimzowitsch became in the days of the twentieth century preceding World War I.

Well, that may be so, but I fail to see what’s so ‘conformist’ about making four bishop moves in your first six moves, ending up on f8 anyway! (By the way, in an internet game from 2004, Alexander Repritsev played 6.h4!? against the well-known grandmaster Sergey Shipov, so we’ll never know if the grandmaster analyst also intended Tarrasch’s non-comformist move Bf8…)

But this wasn’t the end of it. The idea of attacking g7 by means of Qg4 inspired Chigorin in 1899 to play (against Showalter) the even more radical 3.Qg4!?! after 2…Be7. The game continued in ‘Winawer style’: 3…Nf6!? 4.Qxg7 Rg8 5.Qh6 and White won - all of which goes, I hope, to show the potential versatility of the move Qe2.

And even if Black doesn’t play 2…Be7 but the more popular 2…c5, White can still play differently than a standard King’s Indian Attack setup with Nf3 and g3. This time, it was Géza Maróczy who found out how. In early 1904, after 2…c5 he played the move 3.f4 against Swiderski, postponing the development of the white squared bishop to a more suitable moment.

Two months later, during the famous Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament, Chigorin himself caught Maróczy’s idea and tried it two times (against Showalter and Marco). He lost both games, though, and generally was in poor shape in those days. (He did win $67,50 for his final result, according to the tournament site.)

Still, despite this bad experience with 3.f4, the move was regularly seen in tournament pratice. It was employed by Paul Keres in the 1930s, and after that occasionally used by strong players. Admittedly, most white players later went for a KIA setup anyway (but now with the standard move f4 included already), but not always. Canadian IM Lawrence Day, for instance, has played the position with considerably more gusto, trying, after 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 g6 the move 5.Na3!? and after 4…Nge7 our good old plan 5.b3!? And as a perfect example of how the system can be played in a creative fashion, consider the beginning of the following game:

Day - Stonkus
Toronto open 1995

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c3 b5 6.g4!? Nxg4 7.Qxb5 Be7 8.Rg1 Bh4+ 9.Ke2

and White won.

Now, according to my database, 3.f4 is still only White’s third most popular move behind 3.Nf3 and 3.g3, but not too long ago, it has also caught the attention of the creative British top grandmasters Nigel Short and Luke McShane. Short employed the move twice in his 1997 FIDE knockout match against Viktor Kortchnoi, while McShane, too, has played it against Kortchnoi. (Short told me that he had played the move mainly because he ‘must have been desperate’. Well, even better, for apparently he hoped that  Chigorin’s move would somehow bring back his usual creativity!)

Nigel Short, who admitted playing 2.Qe2 only because he was desperate...

The strong Belarus grandmaster Alexei Fedorov has also played 3.f4, and guess what - he played b2-b3 two moves later. I consider all of this sufficient proof that Chigorin’s Qe2 is not just ’some move’ to enter a King’s Indian Attack in a less theoretical way, but has independent value as a system. However, to my knowledge, no monograph or theoretical survey has ever been written about the variation in over 100 years! Why is this?

Is it because White’s move still just looks too silly to take seriously, as Tarrasch used to think? Or is it because people think it’s just another boring (when you’re playing black) or easy (as white) way to arrange your pieces without actually having to think the first few moves? I hope I have convinced you that this was not the fate Chigorin intended his variation. He played it as a way to start a chess game in an interesting, creative way. When I first saw the move Qe2, I thought it was a great big mystery.

Now I know it still is.

In his fifth column about beauty in chess, Michael Schwerteck was inspired by the attractive style of Romanian GM Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu.

In an interview with the German magazine Schach, the manager of the Bundesliga team Tegernsee, Horst Leckner, recently made an interesting comment about chess media. He regrets that most of the time only approximately the world’s top 20 are in the focus of attention, while many grandmasters below this level do not get the attention and, even more importantly for them, the invitations they deserve. Mr. Leckner observed that it’s always more or less the same people who play each other in the top tournaments, which he doesn’t find particularly interesting.

I had tried to make a similar point in one of my previous columns. If you, as a chess fan, are mainly interested in high quality, even if it consists of bloodless draws by Kramnik in the Petroff or by Wang Yue in the Slav, fine, concentrate on the 2700 guys. If you want to be entertained, however, don’t neglect games played by lesser mortals. Let me quote Mig Greengard’s advice from one of his Amber reports: „Those who think the blindfold games are exciting should watch more games between IMs and the under-2600 crowd in general. They aren’t as worried about Elo, are more speculative, and also make more mistakes, therefore leading to more tactical action.“

I do not want to be disrespectful at all towards the world’s best players. Of course, they can play the most wonderful games. I would just like to recall that there are plenty of guys (and girls) out there who play immensely creative and entertaining chess, although they lack the consistency to belong to the elite, and it would be a pity not to take notice of it. Now you might say you just don’t have the time to look at everything – well, in this case, fortunately enough, there is someone who is ready to do some work for you and dig out some really cool games from time to time.

To give you an example, let’s have look at a game I just happened to stumble upon:

There are quite a few players who produce such gems with regularity. That’s why I decided to start a small series of portraits, in which I present some of my favourites. I can promise many entertaining games and hope I can show to my idols that their efforts are really appreciated.

Our first portrayed player is actually quite well-known and not far away from the real elite, but as he rarely participates in the top tournaments, I decided to include him nevertheless. I’m talking about the Romanian GM Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu. Why him of all players? Well, I was hesitating but took the final decision when the esteemed editor-in-chief of this site pointed out a recent game to me which our hero lost. That’s the nice thing about these creative players: even their losses are often spectacular. This one was so amazing that I’ll show it as well, albeit without comments:

Okay, now let’s move on to some of Nisipeanu’s wins. What’s so special about them? Mainly, it has always impressed me how unpredictable his moves usually are. Quite often it seems that he somehow plays his own kind of game, with his own opening theory, his own strategic principles and unexpected tactical ideas – like chess from another planet. I just checked the German Wikipedia article on him, which says that „Nisipeanu plays inventive, creative and entertaining chess which reminds of the former world champion Mikhail Tal.“ Curiously enough, these were exactly my thoughts as well. Already in his youth Nisipeanu managed to outfox even experienced GMs with his unusual ideas. Here’s an example:

Fans of the Benko Gambit might also enjoy the following game. Black normally doesn’t win with a quick kingside attack in this opening, but what is normal for our Romanian hero?

Nisipeanu’s progress wasn’t quite as comet-like as Tal’s, but he made steady progress and was soon able to successfully compete with very strong grandmasters. Of course, he became a member of the Romanian national team. When they faced Russia at the olympiad in Elista 1998, Nisipeanu played the following pittoresque game against Evgeny Bareev:

Nisipeanu still wasn’t that well-known then, but he really got into the limelight when he reached the semifinals of the knockout World Championship on Las Vegas 1999. He eliminated Ivanchuk and Shirov, amongst others! His most spectacular game (also thanks to his opponent’s efforts) was the one with Black agaist the latter. It’s really well-known and has been extensively analyzed by competent people, so I’ll give it without comments here:

For those who start wondering: yes, sometimes Nisipeanu won good games with White as well. Here’s proof:

Nisipeanu continued to improve his rating up to about 2700, although he played mostly in team events and open tournaments. One has to wonder what would have become of him, if he had got a few invitiations to the likes of Linares and Wijk aan Zee. It’s hard to understand why the organizers weren’t interested in him at all, for he continued to play in his accustomed original style. One of its trademarks is the extremely broad opening repertoire, full of rare, allegedly dubious lines. Do you know any other super-GM who likes to play the Blumenfeld Gambit? Nisipeanu has been playing it even against the strongest opposition (drawing against Mamedyarov and Gelfand, for instance). His win against Gabriel Sargissian (Bundesliga 2006) was convincing, but I chose an even more spectacular one:

Nisipeanu at least got a little bit more attention when he won the European Championship in Warsaw 2005. In 2007 he was finally invited to one of the really big events, the MTel tournament in Sofia. He started extremely well by beating Topalov on the black side of a Scandinavian Defense and in the end made a respectable 50 percent score.

One final thing I would like to mention is the headaches Nisipeanu has been causing to Najdorf players. One of the systems he devised is 6.Be3 e5 7.Nde2!?. You might want to have a look at his 25-move-win against Bologan (France 2006). Nowadays, however, the Romanian seems to favour the 6.Bc4 system which (supplemented with many new ideas, of course) has brought him a lot of nice wins. It was really hard to make a choice, but I went for the following one:

Last but not least, a very recent game in typical brutal Tal style. Don’t care about material, just open some lines and play for mate!

There’s a good index of games and another for variations. The bibliography is extensive and shows over 40 sources, impressively ranging from Land and Water (an early London magazine) to recent New in Chess Yearbooks.

However, adding this line to your repertoire could prove to be a case of ‘all or nothing’; to make the most of the material offered here, one would have to devote considerable attention and effort.

For those prepare to take the plunge, there’s no doubt that this is a deep and very thorough work which is very unlikely to be surpassed as the ultimate reference work on 3...Qd6.

New in Chess Yearbooks
Volume 89 and Volume 90

246 pages each
New in Chess

New in Chess Yearbooks appear four times each year. The format is a settled one and each volume follows a familiar structue.

This provides all readers with an opportunity to respond to anything from previous Yearbooks. The correspondence comes from all over the world, with titled players and top authors freely joining in the debate.

Sosonko’s Corner

GM Sosonko’s regular column is a good read and offer good advice, such as ‘Don’t Panic’ when faced with something new in the opening. That is the subject of his article in Yearbook 89.

Surveys

The real meat of the Yearbook is obviously to be found in this section. There is typically a prose introduction followed by a selection of very recent top-level games, complete with deep annotations (using symbols rather than words in the vast majority of cases). There’s good use of photos too, one per survey and most of which were new to me.

32 opening lines are covered in volume 89 and 33 in volume 90. Highlights from the former include ‘The Variation That Decided The World Championship’, in which Peter Lukacs and Laszlo Hazai take a good look at this key position from the Semi-Slav.

Kramnik - Mamedyarov

Nice Rapid 2008

From volume 90, GM Eingorn’s survey on 7...Kf8 in the Winawer and Nikolay Ninov’s analysis of the Traxler Gambit are particularly interesting.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Bd2

‘In contrast to the classical continuations 7...Qc7 and 7...0-0, Black’s strategy here is based on a completely different logic and White has to try and demonstrate (not in words, but in deeds) that the opponent’s voluntary rejection of castling has substantial significance. One of the best replies is considered to be 8 Bd2, which is directed against the standard manoeuvre ….Qd8-a5-a4 and at the same time does not allow the complications which are possible after 7 a4 Qc7 8 Nf3 cxd4.’

It would be quite possible to spend a huge chunk of one’s life analysing The Traxler. The author focuses on lines resulting from a strong ninth move:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1 Qe7 7 Nxh8 d5 8 exd5 Nd4 9 d6!

‘…which is definitely the best winning attempt in my opinion.’

Brain-twisting positions are commonplace in this opening, such as this one:

…when Black’s best move is apparently 22...Ne1+!!

The point is that these Yearbooks are not afraid to spend time and effort on unusual variations as well as all of the popular main lines. With a few volumes in one’s library it would be possible to start to build up a very impressive repertoire based on the high level material on offer.

Some of the comments betray a sign of the times, such as this one from Paul Boersma, during a survey on the Queen’s Indian in volume 89.
‘For uneducated or younger players I should perhaps add that Nimzowitsch was a nervous grandmaster of the first quarter of the twentieth century who invented many positional ideas/terms regarded as superfluous in our era of computers.’

Book Reviews

GM Glenn Flear inhabits the final section of the Yearbooks and is given six or so pages to convey his thoughts on recent chess books.

Volume 89’s reviews, under the umbrella title of ‘Cherry Picking’, takes a good look at five opening books.

‘All the authors below are cherry-picking for us, but can we rely on them having a discerning taste for fruit?’

The amusing titles continue in Volume 90 with ‘Never Mind The Quality…Feel The Width’. Once again five opening books are assessed, including New in Chess’s own edition of ‘The Black Lion’ (which will be given a full review here very soon).

New in Chess Yearbooks are impressive tomes and will definitely be of benefit to stronger players. Average club players will probably find them tough going and a on the deep side…

…which allows my segue neatly into this series:

King’s Indian Defence

White has just played 13 Nc3-b5

The strategic concept is to eliminate the fundamentally important c8 bishop after 13...a6 14 Na7. Do not forget that Black’s chances of successfully attacking the kingside are reduced to practically zero without the light-squared bishop, which supports …g5-g4 and attacks the h3 point. This is true not only in this line but for all the Mar del Plata variations.

The tactical justification for the move lies in the fact that after 14...Rxa7 15 Bxa7 b6 16 b4 Bb7 17 c5 dxc5 18 Rc1, every attempt to capture the bishop on a7 has failed.

However, unfortunately for White, after the simple 13...b6! The knight move is shown to be a waste of time.’

The examples quoted are both typical of those found throughout these books.

Learning the moves in conjunction with the relevant ideas and plans is clearly a good way to develop a firm understanding of the openings.

These books are ideal for improving club players, including keen juniors. Even experienced players will find them useful as a starting point if they intned to add more openings to their arsenal.

Why is 3 … Qd6 good for you? Asks Michael Melts in the brand new edition of his Scandinavian Defense.

Basically, the Queen is more active on d6, says Melts, and Black can castle queenside. These factors help Black to equalize and obtain viable counterplay.

And what about Tiviakov’s loss in this variation against Svidler in Wijk aan Zee 2006? For Melts, this game is just a minor concern: he gives a convincing improvement.

This second edition is enlarged (almost 25% more pages), fully revised and updated. And it is hot off the press.

In his foreword GM Ian Rogers writes that Melts’ study shows there are no worries for Black: “Easy to play and theoretically sound - how many openings can boast that?”

A forcing, solid & exciting line, thoroughly covered in a serious book.

Michael Melts, The Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3...Qd6 (Russell Enterprises 2009); $29.95. (Available here.) Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

To be honest, the opening line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 isn't one I know very well, nor one I have much interest in taking up at this point. What I can say is that the new book on this system by Michael Melts (the second edition of a 2001 book) is insanely detailed. It's packed like an openings encyclopedia with game references and analysis; indeed, one might think that every 3...Qd6 game in history is included.

I'll list some pros and cons, but be aware that this is not a detailed review based on my thorough investigation of the book. With that caveat, then, let's continue.

PROS:

1. As mentioned above, the coverage is encyclopedic. As a source book, one would be hard-pressed to top this.

2. It's an economical system, by which I mean that it's pretty well one-stop shopping against 1.e4. If you want to play the Najdorf Sicilian, you first have to worry about 2.a3, 2.b4, 2.c3, 2.d4 and 2.Nc3; then after 2.Nf3 d6 there's 3.Nc3, 3.Bc4 and 3.Bb5+; after 3.d4 cxd4 there's 4.Qxd4; and even after 4.Nxd4 Nf6 there's 5.f3 and even 5.Bc4. After 1.e4 d5, however, there's really just 2.Nc3 and 2.d4 to worry about, and they're not much of a worry.

3. It's probably not such a bad system, either. Tiviakov has been playing it regularly for several years now, with generally good results, and other strong (2600+) GMs like Nisipeanu, Almasi, Dreev and Gashimov have experimented with it as well.

CONS:

1. Almost all of the book comprises variations, whether game citations or original analysis. Once the book gets going, there's almost no hand-holding for the reader, explaining what's going on, what to do next, etc.

Reply: This is mitigated somewhat by a 32 page chapter (or "Part") called "Information for Club Players", which is geared to readers in the 1400-2000 range. Ironically, a fair chunk of this chapter is in the same vein - moves without explanations - but overall it's still useful. The chapter includes examples of "opening catastrophes" for White and "typical mistakes" for Black, and then offers some tidbits on the major structures Black can choose after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6. There's a subsection on ...c6 approaches, ...a6 approaches, and ...g6 approaches (the latter is the specialty of GM Bojan Kurajica). Melts rounds out the chapter with recommendations - a commendable inclusion.

All the same, the explanations look awfully superficial to me, and there's much that goes on in the main chapters that isn't conceptually addressed in the info chapter or elsewhere. Here's an example, from Charbonneau-Kamsky, Montreal 2007, which is the first "official" game in the book: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Nf3 Be6. After two pages discussing Black's 6th move alternatives, Melts writes this: "With 6...Be6 Black plans to exchange light-squared bishops." Well, yes, that's pretty clear, but should he? Is it better here than on f5 or g4, and is there any general strategic reason we can appeal to for understanding? And if it is, does that mean that White should avoid 5.Bc4?

Continuing with the game, White played 7.Bxe6, and after 7...Qxe6+ Melts says that Black has no problems. Here's the note to White's 7th move, in full:

7.Bd3 (7.Bb3!?; for 7.Ne5 see 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Ne5 Be6 7.Bc4, Game 17) 7...Nbd7 (Schallueck, H. - Klawitter, B., Hamburg 2004) 8.0-0+=; 7...Bg4 - Game 13; 7...Na6!? 8.a3 g6.

At the end of the game Melts writes that "White needs to play 7.Bb3, 7.Bd3 or 7.Ne5." Ok, maybe so, but why was White's choice bad? What did he allow in the position that he shouldn't, or what did he fail to pursue that he should have? If 7.Bxe6 Qxe6+ was nothing, then why is 7.Bb3 Bxb3 8.axb3 Qe6+ something? Is Black supposed to castle long here (he doesn't in Charbonneau-Kamsky), but not now thanks to the half-open a-file, or is that file just a generic asset for White, or is the issue that a pawn on b3 supports a knight or other piece on c4? The point isn't that Melts should explain everything, but that almost nothing is explained. Even Boris Avrukh's 1.d4! repertoire book and the Khalifman books, both of which are primarily geared towards professional and near-professional players, offer the reader more help than Melts does.

2. Who is Melts? OTB, there's not much to see: I didn't find a FIDE rating, and he has a 2100 USCF rating based on only three tournaments. On the other hand, he's an IM in correspondence chess, so even if he's not as strong a practical player as the typical openings book author, he clearly has some skill in analysis.

In summary, it is clear that Melts has put a lot of effort into this book, and even if Khalifman or some other elite author could puncture his analysis, I imagine it should hold up pretty well in the rough-and-tumble world most of us inhabit. Whether you want to play this system is up to you, but if you do you will surely want this as a sourcebook. As I've suggested, it's rather thin on explanation (even with the one special chapter taken into account), so my recommendation is that players on the lower end of the 1400-2000 spectrum only consider taking this up if they are already reasonably familiar with the main line Scandinavian, or perhaps the Caro-Kann or the Fort Knox French.

Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik are in shared first place with 9/14 at the Amber tournament. In the 7th round in Nice they both won 1½-½: Anand beat Karjakin while Kramnik defeated tournament leader Aronian. Scoring 2-0 against Wang Yue, Carlsen climbed to shared third with Aronian.

The 18th Amber Blindfold and Rapid tournament, organized by the Association Max Euwe in Monaco, takes place from March 14 (first round) to March 26 (last round) at the five-star hotel Palais de la Mediterranée, splendidly located on the famous Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France. The total prize-fund is € 216,000 and this year’s field is stronger than ever with all the world’s best players taking part.

Round 7

Carlsen continued doing well in the blindfold tournament with an easy victory over Wang Yue, who refrained from the obvious 26.f4 but then found out that he had tricked himself. Topalov-Ivanchuk was about equal all the time; 26…Qd4! and 27…g5! were very nice moves but yielded Black only a symbolic advantage. Morozevich escaped with a draw against Leko, who had a big advantage. “It looked like I was completely winning but after the very tricky move 30.h4 it was not completely winning but just winning. I thought 30…Bg7 was the most precise but in fact it was probably the only legal move that was not winning!” the Hungarian said.

Radjabov & Kamsky both won their White games

The top match Kramnik-Aronian started with a draw in the blindfold; the Armenian GM surprised his opponent with the Grünfeld and, to use the words of one of the kibitzing GMs, “the guy is so practical, he can play anything.” Against Karjakin, Anand again made blindfold chess look deceptively simple; his bishop on d5 was a monster and didn’t have to move for the rest of the game to have decisive influence anyway. And don’t miss that nice little combination at the end.

Ivanchuk and Topalov drew again and amazingly quickly this time - it took them about ten minutes. After running with both kings to the queenside there was nothing to do else. Carlsen easily beat Wang Yue again, while Leko finally won. “It would have been more logical if I had one the other promising positions I had, instead of this one.”

Leko-Morozevich at the moment when Mororezich wants someone in the audience to be quiet and Leko making his last move, caught on video

Anand-Karjakin was theory for a long time (rare at this event!); 14…Nh5 was the novelty while the same variation was played two years ago in the same tournament between Anand and Van Wely, where the Dutchman had chosen 13…Qc7. The rest of the game was as sharp as the opening and we have to give credit to Karjaking for holding everything together against the world champ.

Kamsky then levelled the score against Radjabov with one of his trademark positional victories; the American is just so strong in positions with a slightly better pawn structure. Impressive.

An important game for the tournament was of course Kramnik’s win with Black over Aronian; according to the Russian it was a game “full of mistakes”, and he “wasn’t really happy with the level of play”. He thought 29.Nb4 to be the decisive mistake and did think he played quite accuretaly in the remainder of the game.

Carlsen is now the sole leader in the blindfold tournament while Kamsky tops the rapid! It’s an important phase for the tournament since tomorrow we’ll have Anand-Kramnik.

• Official website
• Chess.FM blog
• Games in PGN: blindfold | rapid

Yearbook 90 has just arrived!

In this issue of The Chess Player’s Guide to Opening News
you will find answers to urgent quenstions like:

– what was the most original gambit of the year 2008?
– will KingLoek finally admit defeat in the Botvinnik Slav?
– is the Berliner Variation of the Two Knights out of business?
– has Erwin l’Ami refuted Rybka in the Classical Nimzo?
– what were Perenyi’s ideas behind his all-out Attack on the Najdorf?
–can Black still hope for a win in Tiger’s Modern?
– how did the Senior World Champion rejuvenate the Morozevich French?
– with what gambit did Kasparov combat the Scandinavian in simuls?
– have Naiditsch and Bacrot succeeded in killing the Marshall Attack?
– has Nikolay Ninov found the ultimate Anti-Traxler plan?
– have new horizons opened in the sharp Leningrad Dutch?
– with what obscure variety of the Staunton Gambit can you catch Topalov?
– and much more!

“Fantastic value for money”, is what the British Federation for Correspondence Chess said about the Yearbook.

Pleas have a look at the full contents of Yearbook 90.

I arrived in Oslo Monday afternoon, so I have now been here four full days. My first impression was that it looked absolutely like something out of a fairy tale. Oslo has been getting a lot of snow this winter — in fact, it has snowed every day since I arrived. The snow piles up on the branches of the pine trees, of which there are very many, and so it looks just like a painting of a Nordic winter scene. I am half expecting Santa’s elves to pop out from behind the trees any moment. (Actually, I guess the more traditional creature in Norse folklore is a troll.)

The hotel I am staying at is right on a fjord! The fjord is frozen, of course, close to shore, but farther out it is still unfrozen and I saw ships traveling on it.

The hotel is also right across from the new Telenor Arena, which opened this week with … a concert by AC/DC. I didn’t know anything about this; I just went out for dinner on Wednesday night and fell in with an enormous crowd of pedestrians heading toward the arena. Most of the people going to the concert were young and rowdy, so I was wondering what the event was. I was amazed when the hotel receptionist told me it was an AC/DC concert! When I was the age of those people, I was listening to AC/DC too. My ex-wife was a big fan, and we had a copy of their “Back in Black” album. I wasn’t such a fan, although I did warm up to them just a little bit. This was in 1981. I never would have dreamed that they would be attracting huge audiences … in Norway, at least … 28 years later! I’m also surprised that for the very first event in the new arena they didn’t pick something a little more Scandinavian. If you’re going to go retro, why not Abba? But I think that the Norwegians don’t get along that well with the Swedes, so maybe Abba isn’t so popular here.

Okay, well, I know that most of you aren’t that interested in elves, trolls, or AC/DC. I have not yet found the time to go looking for the Oslo chess club, but I did play a little bit of speed chess a couple days ago against the best player at the research lab that I am visiting for two weeks (a government-owned nonprofit company called Simula AS). He is a Brazilian post-doc named Bernardo, and I don’t know what his strength is or if he has a rating. I am guessing that he might be about 1700 strength, because I beat him 2 out of 3 and the one I lost was only because I sacrificed a piece unsoundly just for the fun of it.

I was really nervous, though, playing him. I always feel that way when I play chess in a new place where I don’t know anyone and don’t know how strong anyone is. However, we had one fairly decent game (at least for 5-minute chess), and since this is a chess blog I will show it to you.

1. e4 c5 2. f4 d6 3. d3 Nc6 4. c3 g6 5. Be3 Bg7 6. Nd2 Nf6 7. Be2 O-O 8. g4 …

This is a position I see often. Most Black players, if they avoid an early … d5, will end up in this position by just playing the most obvious moves. A few people, especially in “real,” non-blitz games, will avoid castling on move 7 because they see 8. g4 coming. According to Fritz there is no need for Black to fear this, but to most humans it does look a bit intimidating.

There are two good plans for Black here. One, favored by the computer, is to play 8. … b5, with dueling attacks on the two flanks. The other, which humans are more likely to choose, is to play … b6, … e6 and … d5. I think that either of these plans are okay. Even so, I like playing this position as White because my opponents won’t know it and I will.

In this game, Bernardo plays what I think is an inferior move.

8. … e5?

This gives White exactly what he wants, namely:

9. f5! ef 10. gf b6 11. Ngf3 d5 12. Rg1 Kh8 13. Bg5 h6 14. Bh4 Qd6 15. Qc2 Ba6?

White to play and win.

Black’s last move seemed positionally quite reasonable — he is trying to put pressure on White’s d3 pawn — so it is surprising that Black is actually lost here. The best continuation for White is not hard to find, but if you want to make it more of a challenge, make sure to work out all the variations. (In a 5-minute game, I have to admit, I didn’t do this.)

16. ed! …

This just looks like a routine trade, but actually Black loses a piece if he takes the pawn back. The first point is that if 16. … Qxd5 17. Nxe4 Nxe4 18. de White wins the bishop on a6. For those of you who listen to my ChessLectures, remember what I said about loose pieces! As John Nunn says: Loose Pieces Drop Off. More precisely, loose pieces give rise to combinations.

So Black can’t play 17. … Nxe4, but what else can he do? The only way to defend his knight is 17. … Qxd8, but this would lose to 18. Rxg7! followed by 19. Bxf6+ (a constant threat for White). So Black can’t trade the knight and can’t defend it. But finally, if he moves it away from f6, then White plays f6 and wins a piece just as in the game.

Instead Bernardo played 16. … Nxd5, but this ran into the same problem. I played 17. Ne4 Qd7 18. f6 and the game is basically over. The finish was 18. … Nxf6 19. Nxf6 Qf5 20. Qd2! (The weak pawn at h6 prevents Black from capturing on f6. This is a good type of move to play in speed chess, because it demoralizes your opponent. He thinks he is making a threat, but you show him that it was not a threat at all.) 20. … Rad8 21. Ne4 Rd7 22. Bf6 Rg8 23. Qxh6+ resigns

Final position.

Black had 4 seconds left on his clock (plus a 3-second-per-move time delay), but throwing in the towel is quite justified here because he loses a rook after 23. … Qh7 24. Qxh7+ Kxh7 25. Bxg7 Rxg7 26. Nf6+.

Next week I will try to report on the Oslo chess club. I am sure that they will give me a much, much more difficult time. But it was nice at least to have my first chess experience in Norway be a positive one.

Share This

Training Schedule

Bookshelf

Showing amazing persistance, Ivanchuk managed to win an almost dead drawn ending in game 5, and then drew the 6th and last game of the match using the Scandinavian Defence. The Ukrainian won the Revanche Match against Leko deservedly, after showing better preparation and… better chess.

4th-6th January Ivanchuk and Leko played a 6-game rapid match (25 minutes + 10 seconds per move) in Mukachevo, Ukraine. It was called Revanche Match, after a similar match in October 2007 had ended in 6-6, after which Ivanchuk had won the blitz playoff. The first four games, playe