Mindful Chess

"The idea of this defence, introduce by Philidor (1749), is to protect the advanced King's Pawn from the adverse Knight before proceeding with Greco's Counter Gambit, [f5]. The second player limits the action of his King's Bishop and submits to a cramped position in the hope of establishing a strong center of Pawns. The first player, however, having the move, commences an attack on his own account by [3.d4], or [3.Bc4] (threatening [4.Ng5]). Against the latter [f5] is unsatisfactory, as was proved by Allgaier in 1795 (Note 1, Col. 6). Cols. 1-9 show the consequences if Black disregards his opponent's move [3.d4]. "The weakness of the Philidor," says Mr. Potter (1885), "consist in the fact that [exd4] being apparently incumbent on Black, whereby all his means of development become paralyzed. Could that capture be rendered unnecessary his development though slow would be assured, and the future of the game would be such as skill, hand in hand with patience, might hopefully face." Cols. 8-10 give various trials, showing on the whole that, as Mr. Potter adds, the inferiority which results is not very pronounced. He has demonstrated in Land and Water that the line of play given in Col. 8 permits numerous variations, from which we may conclude that it has not yet reached its final form." --Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern; 1889

The bracketed and bolded moves are simply transcriptions from descriptive notation to algebraic.

Interesting line from an old book for the Philidor. The ideas are mostly sounded and the lines are not fully optimized for white. For example, bringing the bishop back to the center when threatened by the pawn narrows its scope rather than dropping it back to b3. However, this might have been because of the flavor of the era and some of Steinitz's dogmatic views on the center and bishop placement.

Well, after a rather long hiatus of rearranging my place of living, I've finally made myself my own little study spot so that I can begin researching and studying again.

I have not played the Sicilian all that much until recently, picking up a few different lines to add some aggression to my repertoire one day. One line in particular that interests me is the Dragodorf variation, a hybridization of the Najdorf and Dragon which is an attempt to take the game away from familiar territory.

Yesterday I had one of my first experiences playing against a grandmaster. Not as an equal of any sorts, but in a simultaneous exhibition held at the end of a scholastic club practice match. As assistant coach, I got to take part as well. :)

Timur Gareev is the seventh strongest player in the United States and is planning on obtaining the record for most simultaneous games of blindfold chess. This is as far as I could reconstruct our game. I forgot to include the final move which is him taking away the fork from my knight by moving his king.

I decided to bring out the Caro-Kann after a long time on the shelf, and I honestly did not feel so bad with it. He played into one of the Anti-Caro-Kann lines, immediately launching a king side attack that put my bishop in an awkward position and lost me a pawn. I managed to keep up for a little bit, but the pressure from his bishops later in the game just got overwhelming and while the game was cut short due to time, I can assure anyone that I was going to lose, but I fought tooth and nail.

I make it a point to confront my losses quite frequently, so that I cannot feign ignorance and pretend my games are without flaws. This loss was an especially troubling one from the last time I played at a club tournament. My opponent was a candidate master that I frequently talk to at Thursday night clubs and receive help from regarding my games. He was playing white.

This game was a reminder that opening theory is not the end all be all of games. I played into the Caro-Kann, and it was the final over the board game I would use it in. The first twelve or so moves were pure theory, which is the classical main line. After that, he proceeded to sweep me up and finish with a crushing tactic in six moves. Looking at even now, I see a lot of problems, one of which is deciding not to develop the bishop before bring my knight to d5, playing the c5 break without taking into account all the pressure he had on my position, and then finally blindly playing tactics straight into his attack which took the "umph" out of my position.

After the match, I chose to temporarily give up the Caro-Kann for a number of reasons, and this omission of an opening stands today. Currently I use an unorthodox line of the Ruy Lopez (the Smyslov or Fianchetto variation), and I've been experimenting with some other ideas against 1.e4. One day I'll pick it back up, but for the time being I'm finding there is a lot of fun to be had in the double king pawn games.

The first opening that I ever learned and tried to employ was the Dutch Defense, an opening known for its combative nature and incredibly tactical positions. Black tries to create an imbalance on the board by attacking from the flank, rather than staking a claim in the center, a concept similar to that of the Sicilian Defense. The Dutch is notorious for black's questionable king safety and a tendency for more decisive games that end in a win or loss, rather than matches that end in draws.

The particular line provided is the Leningrad Variation. Black fianchettos the bishop as a means of improving king safety, while preparing for a king side attack. An interesting motif is black's tendency to get a bad position after trading off the dark squared bishop, as it is the only truly active defense for the king. A benefit for black however, is that the e-pawn and d-pawn remain flexible allowing for dynamic struggles in the center.

While white can obtain a good game with accurate play, it is still a rather unorthodox defense with numerous possibilities and sharp attacking lines that gives black a host of opportunities against the unprepared opponent.

"Boris Spassky was born in 1937. When the Great Patriotic War began and Hitler's armies moved on Leningrad, he was evacuated together with thousands of other children. He spent four years in a Kirov Region children's home, where he began school and learned chess. His first chess teachers were the boys in the upper grades.

The young schoolboy was instantly attracted by the broad variety of combinational possibilities; he was deeply impressed by beautiful and unexpected moves and bold plans of attack.

After his return to Leningrad he joined the chess club of the Palace of Young Pioneers in the autumn of 1946. A quiet, shy boy, at first he was afraid to meet players who had ratings, and when games were discussed or analyzed he usually listened, rarely contributing suggestions of his own.

The suggestions he did make, however, were always to the point. He attracted the attention of the club's senior coach, Vladimir Zak, an experienced candidate-master, who urged him to attend classes for second-category players, and then to enter tournaments.

In 1947, at the age of 10, Boris appeared in his first major competition, the junior championship of the Russian Federation. His opponents were older, physically more developed and more experienced than he. Although he finished in the middle of the tournament table his fine playing attracted notice. One of his games was adjudged the best in the tournament.

In the Soviet Union, gifted children are assisted and encouraged in every way to develop their talents, and Boris Spassky had every opportunity to make progress in the game he loved so much. Leading Leningrad masters gave him instruction. The teachers in the Palace of Young Pioneers attentively followed his progress in school, on guard against chess becoming his sole interest. "To be a good chess player you have to be an educated person and be physically fit." they told him. Boris successfully combined his school work with chess training and athletics.

In 1948 he finished fifth in the Leningrad junior championship and was promoted to first-category rating. The prominent Leningrad players Taimanov and Chekhover competed hors concours in that tournament. The Spassky v. Taimanov game was a stubborn battle. At the decisive moment 11-year-old Boris let himself be carried away by his plans; he underestimated his opponent's threat and lost the game.

This was a valuable lesson. Boris realized the consequences of not paying sufficient attention to the ideas and plans of his opponent.

His game with Chekhover ended in a draw.

At the junior championship of the Russian Federation in 1948 Boris placed second. In the championship of the Labour Reserves Sports Society in Minsk he won all his games.

Continuing his quick progress, Boris became schoolboy champion of Leningrad in 1949 and played successfully in the U.S.S.R. junior tournament of 1950. Summing up those tournaments, Pyotr Romanovsky noted at the time that Spassky was confidently advanced towards mastery in chess.

A year later the young Leningrad player became a candidate-master. He made a good showing in the quarter-final of the U.S.S.R. Championship, defeating a number of masters."

A little bit of a throwback to an older part of my repertoire. Against 1.e4 I used to exclusively play the Caro-Kann defense, but recently I had decided to include the Ruy Lopez as a more aggressive alternative to the Caro-Kann.

This line in particular is the Advance Variation, named simply for the fact that the the e4 pawn "advances" to e5 and locks up the position. It shares a lot of similarities with the French and has many different ideas and variations for the adventurous spirit on both sides.

The final move that I included in this line is my personal favorite move that I use when I go into the Advance Variation. 6...Qc7 is definitely not the most popular continuation, only accounting for 1% of the games that hit that position in the database I use.

"Vasily Panov was born in the small Russian town of Kozelsk in 1906, and began to play chess when a schoolboy. He competed in tournaments of second- and first-category players in Moscow, and from 1928 on, in Moscow championships.

In 1929 Panov won the championship of Moscow. He was awarded the title of Master in 1934.

Panov is a player with a sharply aggressive style. He has produced many games with far-reaching attacks culminating in a series of sudden combinational blows. Among his best performances are first place in a masters' tournament in 1936 and in the semi-final of the U.S.S.R. Championship of 1938. He played in the finals of the U.S.S.R. championship of 1934, 1937, 1939, 1940 and 1948.

International Master Vasily Panov is known in the chess world as a prominent theorist and investigator of problem of strategy and tactics. Great popularity is enjoyed by his variation of the Caro-Kann Defense, and his system of defense in the Benoni Opening, which fully deserves to be called Panov's Opening because of its original strategic plan of development. Also worthy of note are his analyses of the Ruy Lopez, the Four Knights' Game, the Sicilian Defense and many other openings.

A journalist by profession, Panov is the author of the books The Attack, Textbook of Chess, and Chess for Beginners. He has contributed many articles to chess journals.

Panov has spent many years studying the game of Alekhine. A few years ago his collection of Alekhine's 300 best games appeared."

A beautiful game by Mikhail Tal against Zeid that I have analyzed twice now from Mikhail Tal--Master of Sacrifice. They start with the Slav Defense as the opening and Tal plays into one of my favorite lines as white in these sorts of position. He plays the pawn push to e4, turning the opening into a true gambit, giving up the c4 pawn for compensation in the form of a strong pawn center and fast development. Tal would enjoy this initiative for the rest of the game.

Black creates a lot of issues for himself by putting to much emphasis on the queen's side of the board. The first major mistake was capturing the pawn on c3, instead of leaving the tension and continuing development. Later Zeid would continue to use tempi to try to create an attack, only to be shown the error of his ways when Tal ignores the attack and goes for the finishing blows on the king side. Black does not spend enough time concerning himself with the center, or Tal's incoming attack, and this would ultimately lead to Tal winning.

"David Bronstein (born 1924) was thirteen years old when he first took an interest in chess. He studied the fundamentals of strategy in the club at the Kiev Palace of Young Pioneers. His strict and demanding teacher was Master A. Konstantinopolsky, who did not set any store in originality for the sake of being original. He mercilessly laid bare mistakes, but always gave useful advice and instruction.

In 1938 Bronstein became schoolboy champion of Kiev. The following year he made his debut in a tournament of the leading first-category players and masters of the Ukrainian capital. The outcome was totally unexpected: the schoolboy defeated his strong and experienced opponents.

At 16 David Bronstein won the title of Master, repeating the record set by Botvinnik.

Appearing in the Ukrainian championship of 1940 Bronstein placed second, yielding only to Isaac Boleslavsky.

His playing at that time was characterized by outstanding skill in attack, and resourcefulness in discovering latent tactical possibilities."

Another variation of the Grünfeld, this one relevant to me because of a thematic tournament game. This is the Grünfeld Defense, Russian, Alekhine Variation. (Bit of a mouthful.)

This is a variation of the Grünfeld in which white uses the smaller two pawn center, with pawns on d4 and e4. The queen is on a nice attacking square with b3 and whit then obtains space by pushing the e-pawn forward with e4-e5-e6. By sacrificing the pawn, black accepts doubled pawns and less mobility on the king side, but has compensation in the form of a queen side initiative.

The Grünfeld Defense is the opening that ultimately consumes most of my study time when it comes to opening theory. As my primary response to 1.d4, it holds a rather important position within my repertoire.

The first three moves (1.d4 Nc3 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5) are the moves which lead into the Grünfeld Defense. The main idea behind this particular variation is that black allows white to create an imposing center with pawns on c3, d4, and e4, while black holds a solid position which will attack the large center from the outside. This is the most popular line of the Grünfeld, with the last move by black being a deviation from the main line.

The main motifs of the Grünfeld include open positions with sharp tactical lines. The pawn on c3 and the bishop on c4 become major points of attack for black in some variation of the Grünfeld defense, and the c5 break is a common way for black to undermine the center. White's plans will revolve more around mobilizing the center and creating weakness in black's position.

"When the 24th U.S.S.R. Championship opened in Moscow in February 1957 it never occurred to anyone that Mikhail Tal, the youngest entrant, might possibly take first prize. Discussing the prospects of this 20-year-old Riga University student, fans said: "He is gifted, of course, and he'll make a name for himself some day--but not in this tournament, where he faces men like Bronstein, Keres, Petrosian and Taimanov."

Mikhail Tal upset all the predictions. Playing in brilliant combinational style, he deservedly captured first place. When we say "deservedly" we are not simply paying Tal a compliment. The point is that he defeated all his main rivals: Paul Keres, David Bronstein, Tigran Petrosian, Alexander Tolush and Mark Taimanov. By beating these renowned grandmasters he forced them to vote, as it were, in favour of awarding him the coveted title of U.S.S.R. Grandmaster.

What the predictions failed to take into account was Mikhail Tal's fast progress. The 1957 tournament showed that he had greatly improved his defence and his end-game technique since the previous U.S.S.R. Championship. His play was steadier and more balanced.

And so, at the age of 20 Mikhail Tal became champion of the U.S.S.R. and a Grandmaster. The only other player ever to win the Soviet chess crown so young was Mikhail Botvinnik, in 1931.

The story of how Mikhail Tal came to be one of the strongest grandmasters in the world is both typical and instructive.

He got his introduction to the game in 1945, when he was eight, from a visiting cousin who was several years older. When Mikhail suggested palying hide-and-seek one day, his cousin proposed chess instead. "That's more fun," the older boy said. He taught Mikhail the moves and then trounced him six times in a row. Next day they played again, with the same result.

This kept up for a few days. When Mikhail asked his cousin how he had become such an excellent player, the boy explained that he was a memeber of the chess club at the Palace of Young Pioneers and had fourth-category rating.

Impressed, Mikhail visited the chess club of the Riga Palace of Young Pioneers several days later. He liked everything he saw in that fine building. Soon afterwards he became a member of the club. He studied chess theory, played in tournaments, and analyzed games and problems under the guidance of experienced coaches.

Some great players reach the top by a long and tortuous path, while others clumb the rungs with a speed and ease that belie the hard work they put into it. Without creative effort there cannot be any creative achievement.

Mikhail Tal worked persistently, but this did not safeguard him against bitter setbacks and doubts. At the beginning, his performance in tournament after tournament was nothing more than mediocre, but then victories gradually took the place of defeats.

His play is characterized by a spirit of innovation, a bold approach to the solution of creative problems, and a constant striving for the initiative. This has brought him good tournament results.

After a series of victories in junior events in the Baltic republics and in U.S.S.R. school-boy championships, Mikhail Tal was paired in a match with Vladimir Saigin, an experience Byelorussian Master. He scored a hard fought 8-6 victory, and received the title of Master. He was 16 at the time.

In the 23rd U.S.S.R. Championship (1956) he came to grips with prominent masters as an equal. Next he made a good showing in the world student team championship.

In the spring of 1958, at the 25th U.S.S.R. Championship, he won the Soviet chess crown for the second year in a row.

The Government of the Latvian Republic presented him with an Honour Certificate in March 1957 in recognition of his creative attainments. In the spring of 1957 he graduated from the history and philosophy department of Riga University."