Proper Thinking in van der Wiel – Yusupov 1978 (0-1)

Since my return from vacation I have returned to Yusupov and here is a position from a 1978 game of the authors which I found intrinsically interesting.

Here is the position with Black to move:

The correct move here is 21…d5, and the reason is that it prevents castling.  After all 22.0-0 Qc5+ is brutal.

So by playing …d5 Black accomplishes a couple of things, but chief among them is the prevention of White from castling.

Here is the entire game:

One reason that I find this position to be so interesting is that it pays tribute to a saying of Shirov in one of his recent DVD’s, which is that tactics “exist within the variations” of high level games.  Meaning that while the combinations themselves rarely appear over the board, the threat of them still controls the play as it does here.

So in the initial position above the important thing to remember is John Nunn’s maxim LPDO (loose pieces drop off) which in this case means that Black is able to take advantage of White’s loose bishop by preventing castling.

It’s all about the approach.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Back From Vacation

After a relaxing week spent in Turks and Caicos I am back and ready to rock.

I didn’t fully leave chess behind during that week.  I took Glenn Flear’s Tactimania book with me and spent a few minutes here and there solving some tactical positions.  Granted, I didn’t do it in a rigid and structured way, but after all, I was on a family vacation.

As for the book, I think that Andrew Greet gave it quite the ringing endorsement when he said that he used it as part of his prep for the Olympiad.

Last night I got back to the real work of chess study, though not for as long as I would have liked.  I was only able to get in about 30 minutes, but what a 30 minutes it was.

Knowing that I had neither the time nor the energy for Yusupov last night I decided to work on some lines as White in the Slav.  I’m using Avrukh’s book on the Queen’s Gambit for this.

One of the positions I was looking at was this one, which delivers quite an important lesson.

Here is it White to move.  As you can see, b3 was played earlier.  The bishop clearly belongs on b2, otherwise there is no reason to have played b3.  So should White just move 7.Bb2 right now?  After all, the knight on d2 is attacked twice, but also defended twice.

Well, as it turns out the answer is that 7.Bb2 is a pretty serious inaccuracy which is exposed by 7…Qf6.

White now quickly gets in to trouble since now the knight on d2 is threatened.  Black is now threatening to play 8…Bxd2 and White cannot respond with 9.Nxd2 as 9…Qxf2 mates.

So in the first position above White needs to play 7.a3 and after 7…Bd6 White can put the bishop on b2.  However, the instinct so often is to play the move that looks so automatic and natural in the opening.

These are the types of themes that I need to learn in my opening play.  It’s not about memorizing lines (though doing so can be useful as long as it’s backed with understanding,) it’s about grasping nuances like this and understand the positions reached better as a result.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Perfect, Save for One

As part of the Book Challenge I am currently working on the first of the ten volume Yusupov series.

I managed a perfect score on the first test save for this one position with Black to move.

Here I correctly found the first move, but then after White’s reply I missed the best continuation.

The game is listed between N.N. – Morphy so I’m assuming it’s likely from a simul or was some sort of odds game.  The position was not in my database, but I don’t have Megabase.

Highlight the text between the brackets for the solution.

[ 1…Ng3 is the first move, which I saw.  My thought process was that the knight can’t be taken since White’s queen would hang, and if White takes Black’s queen with 2.Qxh7 then 2…Nde2 mates.  However, what I missed was that after 2.Qxd4 Ne2+ 3.Kh1 the correct move is not to take the Queen with 3…Nxd4 but rather for Black to sac his queen with 3…Qxh7+ 4.Kxh7 Rh8+ ]

I’m still please with the first test’s overall results, but I will continue to strive for perfection.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Strongest Win Ever (Wainscott – Wallach 1-0)

This game was my third of the day on the first day of the USATN last weekend in Schaumburg.

I haven’t analyzed it deeply but here is what I have.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Grinding Out a Win

Tonight I played Gauri Menon, who is the current fifth grade champ for the USA, and has been a competitor at the World Youth.  Although my rating was 80 points higher, she is a very rapidly improving opponent, so I didn’t assume I was any stronger than her at all.

I made a strong point to play more creatively.  I made sure that I had a plan and I wasn’t afraid to press a little rather than just hold back.

All in all I felt that I played pretty well although I think that had she not exchanged the knight for the bishop at the end the win would have been unlikely.

This should get my rating back up to 1802, so all in all I’ll take it.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Review of The Fighting Dragon by Paul Powell

Well here it is…the last review I’m likely to be doing for a while since I’m using only QC products for a while.

For the record I was working on this one for a bit.  In fact I nearly had it completed when my site crashed and I lost everything.

So here we go…

This book which was recently released by NM Paul Powell is subtitled “How to Defeat the Yugoslav Attack” which is of course the most critical line against the Dragon.

While Fischer may have once claimed the Dragon was a bust (“sac, sac, mate” anyone?) the truth is much more complex.  The Dragon remains one of the most critical and deeply analyzed openings in chess.

It also seems to be a favorite for lower level players.  I have a few thoughts as to why that is, and I think that they are relevant for this review.

First of all, I think that the Dragon seems “easy” to play due to it’s somewhat systemic nature.  The first 10-11 moves are pretty easy to remember unlike many other openings.

Secondly, I think that the Dragon (along with most lines of the Sicilian) comes with reasonably easy to understand plans.

Those two things combine to make this opening very popular among certain groups of players.

Seizing on that opportunity, Paul and his publisher, Mongoose Press, have written a book that speaks to those players.

Let’s be perfectly clear about what this is not.  This is not a book designed to show you the latest intricacies on move 22 against the 9.0-0-0 variation of the Yugoslav.  Books like that exist and if you are a player around the Class A or above level then those books are really what you want.  But if you are not (and let’s face it, the majority of chess players are not) then this book is the book for you.

Really the book is split in to two distinct books.  “Book 1: Ideas and Patterns” and “Book 2: Quizzes.”

The first book is composed of chapters which cover a particular variation through the annotation of sample games.  Lines include 9.Bc4 Nd7; 9.0-0-0 Nxd4; 9.g4 Nxd4; 9.g4 Bxg4; 9.Bc4 Nxd4; 9.0-0-0 d5; 9…a5; 9…Qa5; 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rb8; 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Qb8; 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Qc7, and an odds and ends chapter.

There is also a very nice interlude piece where the author discusses transpositions.  I think that concept is very undercovered as relates to club level players, so it’s nice to see it here.  In some cases it’s important to know what line is likely to transpose into a different line since it helps a player feel a bit more familiar in various move orders.

NM Powell’s annotations are to my taste perfect for what he is trying to achieve.  Often they are along the lines of “White should reject this move on principle as it weakens the c3-knight” or “As we have seen in many games, the pattern of sacrificing a knight at g4 or e4 is a common theme for launching an attack.  If you embed the search for these kinds of opportunities into your DNA you’ll win some spectacular games over your chess career.”

This is not to say that the analysis shies away from variations.  It does not. In fact, when it is needed, the author goes in to some quite deep analysis to show his point.  However where possible to explanations tend to be more verbal than variational, which I believe will serve readers of this book quite well.

It’s also important to point out that with so many variations covered in a 184 page book, nothing is covered deeply.  Then again, I don’t believe it’s intended to be. As near as I can tell it’s intended to lightly cover a wide range of topics which will give the reader a nice broad background from which to grow.

The second book – quizzes – also offers up a nice selection of typical Dragon positions and tactics to help the reader understand how to unleash the latent power in this opening.

Of course I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that one of the things that I really enjoyed about this book is the mention of Israel Zilber in the dedication.  If you don’t know who Zilber was then do yourself a favor and read Searching for Bobby Fischer by Fred Waitzkin.

All in all I think that this book achieves it’s goal and should be read by anyone lower rated than Class A who plays or is thinking about playing the Dragon.  It should also be read by anyone who prefers verbal explanatory analysis regardless of what openings they play.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

 

 

A Tale of Two Tournaments

This past weekend I competed in the US Amateur Team North tournament in Schaumburg, IL.  For me it was really two tournaments rolled in to one.

Part of the reason was that since I was playing the two day schedule my first two rounds were G/60 rather than G/90+30 seconds a move.

Round one saw me face an opening I had never faced before.  I have a rule when it comes to trappy openings, which is that I never bother to study them at all until and unless I wind up falling in to a trap.  The way I see it, the time I didn’t spend learning that opening was spent on other things.  So I’m OK with that.  In this case I fell in to the trap and was quickly dispatched by my 1800 opponent.

Round two saw me facing my first master of the event. I was in a bit of trouble, but then in time pressure I managed to both improve my position, and then throw it all away within the span of a few moves.  The plus was that this would be the last sudden death game of the event for me since the schedules were merging and this would give me the thirty second increment.

Heading in to round three I was 0-2 and learned that I would face Chicago NM Ken Wallach who was sporting a 2270 rating.  Nevertheless I dug myself in and got ready for the game.  I would up getting an OK position out of the opening but quickly found myself drifting and losing some ground.

Then Ken blundered allowing me to win the exchange for a pawn and I dug in and managed to convert a nice ending although my opponent did miss a draw.

So at the end of day one I was 1-2 but things were looking up.  2270 is by far the strongest rating I have ever scored against although it was my third win over a master.

Round four started out OK, but I very quickly found myself drifting lifelessly into a bad position (more on this later) and soon wound up having to dig in for some grim defense.  I found a beautiful sacrificial idea and almost saved the game, but the kid I was playing ground me down perfectly in an endgame.  As his rating was 1680 I realized I stood to lose rating points even though I had beaten someone who severely outrated me.

When I saw that I would once again face a master in round five I resolved to do my best.  I actually felt like I played OK for a while, but the issue was that I was exhausted.  Five games in two days is a lot of chess.

So at the end of the event my score was only 1-4 and I lost 14 rating points.  But none of that mattered much to me for two reasons.

The first of course is that I got the best win of my life.  But more importantly I figured out some things that I need to work on as much as anything to do my best to win the Book Challenge.

One thing is creativity.  For a long time now my games have been rather lifeless when it comes to creative play.  Sure, if I get an advantage I can convert it more often than not, but in level positions I tend to not find interesting ideas.

The one exception to that is when I’m defending.  When I am defending I find as many creative ideas as anyone I know.  So I started trying to figure out why I can only play creatively when defending and it occurred to me that the answer is that those are situations in which I have no choice.  It’s not that creativity is called for, it’s that it’s mandatory.

So why would I not be able to play that same way in positions where I am level or slightly better?  As near as I can figure out it must be some sort of fear of blundering.  I don’t feel on the surface like that is a fear that I possess, but it would appear that perhaps deep down I do.

Another thing that I need to work on is fitness level.  I was exhausted during the final round of this tournament.  I was also so tired in my game with Ken that I considered offering him a draw (he had offered me one a few moves earlier which I had declined) in what I felt had to be a winning position.

In fact, I missed easier wins in that game because I was too tired to calculate even some basic things correctly.

So that’s the plan.  Continue to work on fitness and work on mental toughness.

I’m going to formulate a plan to work on that second one.  As soon as I do I will post it.

In the meantime I received the first Yusupov books and have started it. In fact, I’ve bought several QC books since this began a few days ago.  I’ve bought Nikos’ book on 1.e4 e5, Kotronias’s fourth book on the KID, Tactimania by Glenn Flear,  and the first Yusupov.

So all and all I’m ready to go!

I have a game tomorrow night which will be the final game in a quad I am playing in.  A win and I will gain rating.  Otherwise I will lose a bit.

Starting Sunday I will be out of the country in the Caribbean for a week.  So I will have only a few minutes in the morning to work on chess.  But I’ll come back refreshed and ready to go.

I’ll post some of the games from this past weekend as I get them analyzed.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Coons – Wainscott 1/2-1/2

Last night I played my first game since the beginning of the Book Challenge.  I felt that I played well enough in the opening, then stumbled a bit followed by opponent missing a forced (though a long line) mate.

So all in all a bit of luck can often go a long way.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Time Waits for No One

One of the most challenging parts of any study plan, regardless of how it is formatted, is how to properly allocate the study time that you do have.

If you’re like me, time for chess is limited.  Improving at chess is important to me, but I have a job and I have a wife and I will not continuously neglect either of them for the sake of improvement.

This means that in the typical day I get around one good hour to work and parts of another hour more often than not.

On the weekends I can usually get an extra hour each day over and above the weekday time.  So in a good week I’m getting 10 quality hours if I use them all.  So how to use them properly?

Well, one thing that you should know about my chess schedule is that it includes a rated club game every Thursday.  This means I typically know who my opponent is at least a couple of days in advance.  So it would seem that opening prep should be a natural part of what I do.

Well, it is, but lately not in the way that it used to be.

Until recently I would prep for my next opponent.  So if I was White this Thursday against a QGD player I might work on some 5.Bf4 stuff for a while, but then next Thursday I wind up Black against someone who plays the Spanish so I wind up working on the Breyer for a bit or whatever.

The problem with this is that it started to become very disjointed.  It never felt like I was digging deeply in to the openings I play because I was always rushing off to study the line for next week.

So lately I have changed that up quite a bit.  Now I work on openings a couple of days a week, and I just work on whatever opening I’m working on.  My idea is that I can work on the specific opening for the game I just played when I analyze that game.  Otherwise, I want my opening time to revolve around the same one so that I can dig much deeper than I have in the past.

I am currently waiting on the first Yusupov volume, and my plan for when I receive it is to do the following.

Two days a week I will spend at least an hour on openings.  In a more perfect world it would be more like 90 minutes.  This would mean that roughly 30% of my time is spent on opening work.  That’s a bit high for my tastes, but I’m playing catch up here since I’ve never studied openings at all until recently.

One day per week (likely Friday) I will analyze the game I just played that week.

The rest of the time will be devoted to Yusupov.

Now since I play on Thursdays this leaves only six days per week to study (and less than that during weeks like this one where I have a weekend tournament coming up.)

In order to maximize my efforts I intend to not work on openings at all on the weekend.  Instead, all opening work will be done during the week.  The primary reason for this is so that I’m not spending the longer amount of time I get on the weekend each day on openings, but rather on the item that should pay off the most, the Yusupov.

In theory this breakdown should mean that in a week with no weekend tournament (and since I only play one every couple of months, this means most weeks) I can work on openings for three hours, game analysis for two, and Yusupov between five and seven.

Jacob Aagaard told me that he thinks that if I push myself I can get through one Yusupov book each month.  I honestly don’t know if 20-30 hours per month will be enough for the Yusupov, but that will be my intention starting out.

So we’ll see what happens.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott

Hooked on a Feeling

One of the things that chess players often talk about is intuition.  Whether it’s a top flight GM explaining in their post game interview that they did something because they “had a hunch” or one of the class players at your local club intuition plays a large role in the royal game.

However, there are times when intuition simply won’t do and precise calculation is an absolute must.

Here is an excellent example that Boris Gelfand discusses in his book Positional Decision Making in Chess.

This is the position after Black’s 20th move in Gelfand-Ivanchuk Dagomys 2009

Writes Gelfand “We have reached maybe the last critical moment in the game.  At this point I had to calculate accurately to ensure that the knight endgame was winning.  As this was the case I more or less forced him to enter it.  You cannot do such things on feeling.”

What struck me quite deeply about that line is that only a few days prior I myself had done just such a thing “on feeling” in my game against Gerlach.

Here is the position with White to move:

My notes to the game say “I felt the need to try to press a little to see if my opponent would crumble at all, which he did not.”

That’s the danger – I “felt” that I had to play 22.b5.  My logic was that I couldn’t calculate any immediate danger so therefore this decision was justified.

The problem is that I also couldn’t calculate any advantage.  So therefore why was I playing on feeling.  At this point in the game I had maybe a 15 minute advantage on the clock, so if anything I should have just played solid, logical moves and hope to nurse my clock advantage to a point where my opponent was more likely to make a mistake.

Instead, I played something that was quite committal.

Clearly this is something that I will need to be much more mindful of during my games.

Til Next Time,

Chris Wainscott