While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
Chess is war. However, there are some unwritten rules which are based on politeness. For instance, one should never offer a draw in a completely lost position. (As a side note, I don’t generally fault newer players or those with three-digit ratings, as they legitimately may not know that the position is lost.)
However, what about offering a higher-rated player a draw? Well, generally, the unwritten rule is that the higher-rated player should be the one to offer the draw. That’s a rule that I only believe in if the rating difference is extreme. For instance, I wouldn’t offer a draw against a GM since they’ll let me know when they think the position is drawn.
When it comes to offering draws against players who are within a few hundred points I have been known to use them as a strategy. Here’s an example from last Thursday.
Here I am Black, and I have been defending a worse position for some time. Here, however, I decide it’s level enough that I will offer a draw. I should point out that while Edgar and I are only about 70 points apart currently, historically he has outrated me by 200-300 points in most of our games.
My thought process is as follows:
Edgar generally doesn’t like draws.
Regardless of current rating, overall Edgar is the stronger player.
Sometimes stronger players will overpress trying to prove that the position is not a draw.
Let’s go back a few moves.
As you can see, I was worse a bit earlier in the game.
After I play 19…Nxa5, Edgar recaptures with the pawn. Had he played 20.Rxa5 I think he has the better part of the game in perpetuity and I have to fight to hold essentially for the rest of the game.
However, after 20.bxa5 I can see a tiny ray of light ahead. This is what allows me to essentially equalize and offer the draw. Edgar had spent a lot of time to this point and continued to spend more. Eventually the overuse of time led him to blunder. The game continues for 15-20 moves past when we stop recording, but ends in a win on time for me in a completely winning position.
Here is the game. I still need to analyze it, but the idea of the strategic draw offer is a lesson in itself.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
On Thursday, I played my best game in the past several years. There was nothing flashy or explosive about this game; it was just a nice, technical win.
However, since I am currently very much in the mindset of being an adult improver rather than an adult enjoyer (see my article here for an explanation of this concept), it is through games like this, where I show a better understanding than I have previously, which gives me hope that I am verging on a breakthrough.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
No, I’m not talking about this famous Fischer “win” from Palma when Panno didn’t play in protest:
Instead, we’re talking about his win in Buenos Aires in 1970. I am reading a new book I just got from New in Chess to review, and this is the first game in it. I’ll have a full review in the near future, but let’s take a look at this position:
It’s White to move. With a locked center, Fisher wants to attack on the kingside. He’s not quite ready as he needs to play a preparatory move. Take some time and try to figure out what he played. The answer is below.
Til Next Time,
Chris Wainscott
.
.
.
.
.
Bobby can’t just play 18.h4 as the attack would be stalled after 18…Nf5, so first Fischer stops the knight move by playing 18.g4
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
Something I have been giving a lot of thought to lately is how I can expand and improve my training program.
Over the decade-plus I have been blogging, I have had many “plans” that have seen the light of day. Some are well thought out, some not.
Generally it’s some mix of trying to create the perfect storm of materials plus time expenditure. At the end of 2021, for instance, I had this plan.
That’s a plan that was reasonably well-designed with quite a bit of thought put into it. Yet I failed. Why? I believe the answer is because I focused on the “what” but not the “how and when” of things.
The what is easy. What do I need to do to get better? You can find many answers to this question, most of them valid and based on the experiences of others. You can spend time analyzing your games and trying to eradicate weaknesses. You can work on your tactics, your endings, or your openings. You can do those last three with a board and set, a website/app, or with books. Again, this is the easy part.
The hard and less discussed part is the how and when. How are you going to achieve your goals? When will you work on them? That is something I didn’t consider when I wrote the above plan.
While I have no children, I am married and have a full-time career that typically sees me putting in at least 43 hours weekly. So, the how and when factor in when considering these things. I can’t very well ignore either my career or my wife and expect life to continue as is.
Something I have seriously thought about is the idea of waking up early in the morning for training. I currently get time every morning to solve some tactics and review some lines on Chessable each morning with my coffee. On Monday and Wednesday, I work from home, so the time I would usually spend commuting can be repurposed for training.
I have been thinking, “Sure, but what if I get up at 4:00 a.m. and then train daily from 4:00-6:00 a.m.?” That’s one possibility, but what would happen on Thursday nights when I play? To routinely get up at 4:00 a.m. in a state of mind where it’s possible to train, I’d have to go to bed by 9:00 p.m. each night. Yet on Thursday, I routinely am at the chess club until 10:00 p.m. and often am not home until as late as 11:00 p.m. So what then?
Also, if I get up at 4:00 a.m. on Thursday, I will be tired when I start my 7:00 p.m. game. I also couldn’t get up early on Friday to train since I would be going to bed hours later than normal. This means we’re talking about getting up early to train three days a week instead of five. As it is, I get some time in on Mon-Wed, so would this only benefit me on Tuesday? Is it even worth it, then?
These are the quandaries of trying to train under the family life circumstances. It’s not a question of what you can achieve as much as it’s a question of what you are willing to give up to have the chance.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
Spassky’s Best Games by Bezgodov & Oleinikov New in Chess 2023 280pp
This is the second recent offering by New in Chess, which covers the games of a World Champion. The other, Max Euwe’s Best Games by Jan Timman, was reviewed by me here.
While 61 games are included in this volume, the book focuses at least as much on the biography of the champion. The book is separated into two parts. Part I: A brief biography, and Part II: Games.
While there is no doubt that Spassky was one of the best players of his era, his reign as World Champion was nothing special. If I am being honest, I think Spassky would be largely forgotten by today’s players if not for the fact that he is the one from whom Fischer wrested the crown.
Talk to younger or newer players today, and they will recall names from the Soviet era, such as Tal, as his games sparkle with the creativity of sacrificial genius. Sure, he was one of the two “Winter Champions” spoken of by Botvinnik. So-called due to holding the title for a short time before the Patriarch reclaimed it. The other, Smyslov, while the greater overall player, is less well remembered today.
For Spassky, being Bobby’s opponent in 1972 keeps his memory alive. It’s not fair, but it is how life works.
To properly review this book, I also need to split my review into two parts.
Part I: A brief biography
This section of the book is quite well written. It covers Spassky’s first steps with famed trainer Vladimir Zak in St. Petersburg. Then, his training with Tolush once he became too strong for Zak. His professional relationship with Bondarevsky after parting ways with Tolush, etc.
From here, we see Boris gaining strength and winning accolades as he ultimately summits Olympus, only to fall out of favor with the apparatchiks of the communist party after losing to Fischer and his subsequent relocation to France, etc.
Along the way, game fragments show Spassky’s improving strength and skill.
I highly recommend this book for this section alone, alas…
Part II: Games
Here is where I take some exceptions with this book. I have two main quibbles: one minor and one not so much.
The minor quibble is the lack of what I would think is an appropriate number of diagrams and/or oddly placed diagrams.
To show an example:
We get this diagram from Spassky-Nezhmetdinov 1959
From here, we get the following:
“15.e4! Nh6
White’s idea is founded on the variation 15…f4 16.Nxg5!. White simply has an extra pawn and a winning position: 16…Nxh2 17.Ne6 Qh4 18.Nxf8 Nxf1 19.Bxf1 Kxf8 20.Nc7 Rh8 21.Qd5 Qe7 22.Ne6+ Ke8 23.Rd1.”
OK, I get it. Only two moves played after the diagram, so it’s not hard to reconstruct. But why not have another diagram appear after …Nh6 instead?
It gets worse as we then have:
“16.exf5 Nxf5 17.Bd3
Black’s attack has ended before it begun (sic). Losses, both material and positional, are inevitable.
17…Nf6
17…Nd4 18.Be4 a6 19.Nxd4 cxd4 20.Qh5 Rf7 21.Qh6 Kh8 22.Qe6 Rg7 23.b6 with a clear white advantage.”
I would like to see publishers better understand their potential target audiences for a book like this and understand the relationship that online training has with books.
I am by no means a strong chess player. Still, I am reasonably competent (US Chess rating is 1824 right now), and I find it much easier to read a book with a diagram before any analytical variation of more than a few moves. Most people reading this review will understand the pain of being well past some variation only to realize they left a piece on the wrong square for the last several moves. This is largely eliminated by placing diagrams there.
What I would do in the above passage is place diagrams after 15…Nh6 and 17…Nf6 which would help many readers, especially the lower-rated ones, with accurately playing through variations and then correctly setting the position from before the variation.
As for my remark about the relationship that online training has with books, when playing through games in Chessbase or watching a video with some analysis by strong players, there is zero chance that a piece will be on the wrong square after a variation. It can’t happen when playing through electronic content. Since it can happen when playing through games on a board, I feel that publishers would be doing themselves a favor by taking as many steps to eliminate this issue.
This brings me to my less-minor quibble. The overall lack of analysis is sad. Take this position from the 1968 Spassky-Korchnoi Candidates Final. The notes in this case are by English FM Steve Giddins.
This position is after the move 26…Qe6
“White’s attempted ‘attack’ on the kingside is brushed away like a fly, and this illustrates the depth of Spassky’s match strategy. The Korchnoi of those days was well-known as a brilliant defender and counter-attacker, but, by his own admission, was much weaker at seizing and using the initiative. In later years, partly inspired by his match defeat against Spassky, he worked exceptionally hard to broaden his style and become more versatile.”
OK, but why was the attack brushed away? What problem does …Qe6 solve that was not solved up til now? Can we illustrate what White’s threats were with a less accurate move perhaps?
Well, maybe this is just a fluke, right? No. Here is Spassky-Larsen 1978 after 14.0-0-0
“Such things are common at lower levels, but rare at Grandmaster level. White’s advantage can already be assessed as decisive.”
OK. Neat. Why? What could Black have done to prevent this from happening? Why is White’s advantage so decisive? Again, I say these things with the understanding that the publisher is likely as happy with a player rated 1000 buying this book as they are with a player rated 2200+.
It’s not all bad, though. After each game, a brief description of the lesson to be learned is given.
All in all, I’d say this book is a solid 3.5 out of 5. Mostly for the biography, but not completely. Some of the games covered have nice analytical breakdowns; it’s just that it’s the exception rather than the norm.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
Last night I sat down to play seven-time Wisconsin State Champion Bill Wiliams. Though he is well past his prime, Bill remains a strong player who will capitalize on any opportunity.
I managed to outplay Bill for most of the game, but then I made an unforgivable blunder and was simply crushed. While devastating, this is a great learning opportunity.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
Max Euwe’s Best Games by Jan Timman New in Chess 2023 304pp
One of the latest offerings by New in Chess is this excellent tome on the 5th world chess champion. Timman notes in the introduction that he wanted to write a book on Euwe for several years, primarily due to the fact that Euwe is the only world champion that the Netherlands has produced to date.
Of course, the author knew the subject, and they even wrote a book on Fischer-Spassky together. Nevertheless, this book is a nice, objective work rather than a hagiography.
Over its 304 pages, the book covers 80 of Euwe’s games in depth. The book is split into four chapters.
The 1920’s
World Champion
Dethroned
After the war
There is a nice index of openings in the book and a list of names. One glaring omission is the lack of a games index. The “list of names” does cover the names of the opponents, but it also includes names of players who may have commented on a game in published analysis, so there is no direct list of the opponents. I find that to be the only real omission here.
The rest of the book is very well presented. The analysis of the games is thorough, and there are multiple diagrams on just about every page. I personally find this to be rather important. I do enjoy playing over the analysis in books, and I find this to be sometimes difficult without enough diagrams.
I also think that Timman did a wonderful job of combining explanations with variations. Here is an example from Thomas-Euwe Carlsbad 1929
19…e4
“A logical move, gaining space in the centre. However, 19…Qxd1 20.Rxd1 Rfc8 was stronger. At the board, it was hard to calculate why the queen trade is so strong. The hidden point emerges in the variation 21.Ra1 e4 22.Rxa2 exf3 23.Bxc5 and now Black has the surprising 23…b5!, gaining a decisive advantage on the queenside. “
Lastly, I want to give serious kudos to New in Chess for what appears to be a reversal of a recent horrible decision. About a year back the paper quality of the books published by New in Chess declined significantly. At first I assumed there was a paper shortage or something similar, but New in Chess released a statement saying that the new paper was easier on the eyes, etc. While that was true, it made the books look less elegant and cheaper.
Lately they have gone back to the much higher quality of paper. I sincerely appreciate that.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
A piece of advice that we hear over and over again is to analyze your games, especially draws and losses.
On the surface, that seems like sound advice, and here is a game I played on Thursday which I not only won, but was quickly up material. So why would anyone waste their time analyzing such a trivial win?
So what would be the point of looking at this at all? Well, in spite of the fact that the win was pretty straightforward there is one extremely teachable moment for Black here.
Recently I learned WHY White plays 4.Bd3 in the Exchange Caro. The idea is to prevent an easy …Bf5 by Black.
So now I can work on what to do in a position like this one, reached in the game:
I have been saying for years that I need to work on openings, but it’s only for the past few months or so that I truly have been doing so.
Now I have a position to analze which will help me understand why 4.Nc3 is inaccurate, and knowing why the book line is played will help with that. Whereas if I simply took the position that this game isn’t worth looking at since I won then I would miss something.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
Many chess players are familiar with this Lasker quote. “If you see a good move, look for a better one.”
I myself am certainly familiar, but sometimes it’s easy to forget to follow that advice. Take this position from a 10+5 game I just played:
Here I have decided that a possible path to victory is just to ram the a pawn down the board. So I begin this plan with 25…a5 and after a few moves we are here:
The nice thing is that the rook on c1 can’t block the a pawn as the bishop hangs. One reasonable idea for White would be to exchange the bishops with 28.Bxe4, but instead my opponent decides that he’d rather preserve the bishop, and so he plays 28.Bd1??.
I am now so fixated on my plan of shoving the a pawn, that the next move I play is 28…a4 and then after 29.h4 I respond 29…a3
This is why we are supposed to look for a better move. To be clear, I have plenty of time here. I am not in time trouble AT ALL.
What move did I miss? See below…
Til Next Time,
Chris Wainscott
.
.
.
.
.
In either position the correct idea is …Rxg2+, forking the queen and king.
While you’re here, let me ask for your help. I want to keep this blog and journey going in perpetuity, but it’s not free to me.
If you feel like helping me out and can spare it, please click here and become a supporter. Even $1 a month can help me continue this project.
Here is my game from last night with some light notes. A total blunder fest, but part of my prep for the Senior Open was to play until nothing was left. I feel like I did that part well, at least.
