26 March 2024

Annotated Game #268: When a winning advantage evaporates

In my next "comeback" tournament, I blundered early (move 8) in my first round game after having a distracting morning, which was not worth analyzing beyond remembering the obvious lesson of avoiding that particular blunder again. We'll therefore start with the second round game, which helped highlight the previous theme of Annotated Game #267: How openings are really learned, as it featured a dubious variation from Black in an English Four Knights. I had faced it before twice in my tournament career, but did not recall the previous games at the time. After looking at this one, I should remember the ideas better and be more confident in choosing how to respond (either of two main options for White on move 7 are good for an advantage.)

The new theme for this game is the evaporating winning advantage. In this case, I go up a pawn early and also have a nice positional edge heading into a major and minor piece endgame. This should be an easy win, but I let Black get too much play on the kingside and then end up in a drawn rook endgame, despite retaining the extra pawn. It is a helpful illustration of how quickly even a decisive positional advantage validated by the engines can quickly dissipate, based on some inaccurate calculations and visualization. At least it wasn't a loss, is my only consolation.


[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A28"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [PlyCount "80"] 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Bb5 f6 {I've faced this twice previously in tournaments. Black is attempting a reversed Sicilian formation, but with a tempo down this weakening of the king position benefits White.} 7. O-O $14 {emphasizing king safety before commencing operations in the center. An immediate d4 is also possible.} Nb6 {seemingly a safe choice, but} 8. d4 $1 $16 Bd7 9. dxe5 a6 $18 {White should now just be winning, after the following.} 10. Bxc6 Bxc6 11. Nd4 {I thought for a while here, and the engine validates my choice. The centralized knight is a strong attacking piece, while Black's king remains in the center and White is also a full pawn up.} Qe7 12. Nxc6 {the clearest road to a positionally won game.} bxc6 13. exf6 {so far so good.} Qxf6 {White now has a decisive positional advantage, with Black's weak doubled c-pawns and king position, but there is no immediate knockout.} 14. e4 {played to control d5 and open up the diagonal for the bishop.} Bd6 15. Qh5+ (15. Be3 $5 {simple development is good.}) 15... g6 16. Qg4 h5 $5 {provocative, but playing it safe won't get Black much either.} 17. Qg5 {I would be happy to trade queens and grind the position in the won endgame.} Be7 18. Qxf6 Bxf6 {With a 4-2 advantage on the kingside and Black's shattered queenside pawns, this should be a simple win.} 19. e5 {a good start, advancing the passed pawn and seizing more space. It is tactically protected.} Be7 (19... Bxe5 $2 20. Re1 $18 {and the bishop is lost.}) 20. Rd1 {perhaps an inaccuracy, although not terrible.} (20. Ne4 {played immediately is good, leaving open where to put the rook. Here if} O-O $6 21. Bg5 $18 {essentially forcing another minor piece trade, bringing me closer to a simplified victory.}) 20... O-O 21. Ne4 {this has less punch now.} (21. g3) 21... Nd5 22. g3 {with the idea of advancing the f-pawn.} Rf5 23. f4 g5 {here I thought for a while and miscalculated the resulting position.} 24. Nxg5 $2 (24. Rf1) (24. Nc3) 24... Bxg5 $16 {Black regains the material.} 25. fxg5 Rxe5 $14 {Black hasn't fully equalized, but his active rooks and centralized knight largely compensate for White's (doubled) 3-1 kingside majority.} 26. Bf4 Nxf4 $6 {this gives back some hope to White, by undoubling the pawns.} (26... Re2) 27. gxf4 $16 Re4 28. Rf1 Rf8 29. Rad1 $2 {unfortunately after the following sequence White has no real threats. It was necessary to get back the material.} (29. Rac1 $1 Rexf4 30. Rxf4 Rxf4 31. Rxc6 Rg4+ 32. Kf2 Rxg5 $2 (32... Rf4+ $16) 33. Rxa6 $1 $18 {and White's outside passed pawn should win.}) 29... Rexf4 30. Rxf4 Rxf4 31. Rd8+ Kg7 32. Rd7+ Kg6 33. Rxc7 Rc4 {now White can't avoid giving Black a passed pawn and we reach a drawn rook ending.} 34. h4 Rxh4 35. Rxc6+ Kxg5 $11 36. Rxa6 Rf4 37. b3 Rg4+ 38. Kf2 Rf4+ 39. Kg2 Rg4+ 40. Kf2 Rf4+ 1/2-1/2

22 February 2024

Video completed: The 4...Nf6 Caro-Kann by Nigel Davies

 

I recently completed the FritzTrainer The 4...Nf6 Caro-Kann by GM Nigel Davies, which was published in 2016. It covers lines in both the Bronstein-Larsen (5...gxf6) and Tartakower (5...exf6) variations for Black, which is unusual, since Caro-Kann opening resources normally focus on one or the other, because of their major structural differences. The content description is copied below; there are also 16 quiz positions at the end, mostly from the Bronstein-Larsen side. In each of the lines, a full game is presented as the baseline, although certain sub-variations or ideas are demonstrated within it. There is also a separate, larger database of model games included in both variations.

As is reflected in my annotated games database attached to this blog, I've long played the Classical (4...Bf5) variation of the main line Caro-Kann. I have no intention of giving it up, but the 4...Nf6 variations are of interest both from a general improvement standpoint and for potentially expanding my personal repertoire. The position-types that result have some resemblance to familiar ones, but especially the Bronstein-Larsen requires a more dynamic, attacking approach from Black. The positional imbalances that result are also a useful way to deliberately (if more riskily) play for a win as Black, versus the normally more staid positions of the Classical variation.

Although this video set is one of the more comprehensive ones available on the topic, it still covers a lot of territory without much depth, particularly in the main line Bronstein-Larsen 6. c3, where Davies recommends ...h5 as Black's response, rather than the much more common ...Bf5. The database supports this choice, however, with ...h5 scoring significantly better. White has a large number of 6th move possibilities, as can be seen below, so this lack of depth is probably unavoidable.

I avoided the Tartakower variation when originally building my personal repertoire largely because of Korchnoi's defeat against Karpov in the world championship series while relying on it. That said, it's certainly solid and in fact underwent something of a renaissance several years after this video was published. I don't believe it's quite as trendy at the moment, but there are many current games with it and it scores significantly better than the Bronstein-Larsen, so it may be worth delving into further. If you are looking for an introduction to the modern (2017 and on) treatment of the Tartakower, this blog post by GM Max Illingworth on Chess.com may be of interest: https://www.chess.com/blog/Illingworth/the-modern-caro-kann-antidote-to-3-nc3

  • The 4...Nf6 Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6
  • 01: Introduction [06:28]
  • 02: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 Strategy 1 - Kavalek,L - Larsen,B [11:17]
  • 03: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 Strategy 2 - Victor Ciocaltea - Mikhail Botvinnik [10:09]
  • 04: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 1 - Rosino,A - Bilek,I [14:29]
  • 05: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 2 - Torre,E - Kortschnoj,V [12:00]
  • 06: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 3 - Tarrasch,S - Tartakower,S [07:56]
  • 07: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 4 - Perez - Alekhine,A [07:52]
  • 08: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.c3 Bf5 - John Fedorowicz - Nigel Rodney Davies [09:47]
  • 09: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.c3 h5 - Eggleston,D - Short,N [15:40]
  • 10: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Qc7 8.Be3 - Tiviakov,S - Short,N [06:42]
  • 11: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Qc7 8.0-0 - Lombaers,P - Jones,G [06:46]
  • 12: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.g3 h5 - Nakar,E - Paichadze,L [10:29]
  • 13: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.0-0 - Aseev,K - Bronstein,D [05:17]
  • 14: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.c3 e6 8.Ne2 - Pohla,H - Bronstein,D [06:09]
  • 15: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.c3 e6 8.Qf3 - Ivanovic,B - Bronstein,D [08:58]
  • 16: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bf4 - Davies,N - Groszpeter,A [04:45]
  • 17: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Be3 - Bakulin,N - Bronstein,D [08:53]
  • 18: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Ne2 - Kopaev,N - Bronstein,D [07:35]
  • 19: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Qd3 - Barczay,L - Bronstein,D [05:32]
  • 20: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Qc2 Re8+ 9.Ne2 Kh8 White castles short - Tiviakov,S - Spraggett,K [10:37]
  • 21: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Ne2 Re8 9.Qc2 Kh8 White castles long - Fontaine,R - Asrian,K [07:19]
  • 22: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 Be6 - Arakhamia-Grant,K - Korchnoi,V [07:33]
  • 23: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Qe7 7.Qe2 Be6 8.Bxe6 - Ivanovic,B - Miladinovic,I [09:03]
  • 24: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Qe7 7.Qe2 Be6 8.Bb3 - Estevez,G - Lechtynsky,J [09:43]
  • 25: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Qe7 7.Be2 - Karjakin,S - Jobava,B [11:19]
  • 26: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Bd6 - Bednarski,J - Donner,J [11:38]
  • 27: 5.Ng3 g6 - Sax,G - Larsen,B [16:23]
  • 28: 5.Ng3 h5 - Elezi,E - Akopian,V [09:21]

19 February 2024

The learning cycle articulated

In Annotated Game #267 ("How openings are really learned") I highlighted the cycle for acquiring deeper understanding of openings and their early middlegame plans: play consistently, analyze your games, and you will inevitably expand your understanding of them step by step.

Separate but closely related to that, I recently ran across what I thought was a well-articulated (and simple) version of the broader learning cycle at Chessmood:

https://chessmood.com/blog/how-to-get-better-at-chess

The full article addresses other things like the importance of mindset, but below is how they present the cycle. It's worth clarifying that the "Practice" step, in the sense we are talking about, does not mean reviewing your stored opening repertoire (or other knowledge) by yourself; rather, it is about using your chess knowledge (opening, middlegame, endgame) under actual combat conditions. Improvement via analyzing your own games then becomes an iterative process that yields concrete results over time, even if temporary setbacks occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The chess improvement formula

It’s quite simple.
Study -> Practice -> Fix -> (Repeat)

You learn something first.
You practice it; otherwise, you’ll forget it.
You fix the mistakes you make.
Then you learn new things, and the cycle continues.

Annotated Game #267: How openings are really learned

This final-round game illustrates several useful themes, including recent ones highlighted like the importance of playing an idea at the right time and the power (and necessity) of simple development. The mutual "??" moment on move 32 shows how time trouble was affecting my game, as I had a chance to turn things around, and played the correct move one tempo too late. 

This game is also a perfect example of a broader theme of how openings really get learned - namely, the hard way.

During the game it was clear that my opponent as White was out of his personal experience in the opening phase of a Panov variation of the Caro-Kann. This however did not stop him from finding the correct attacking setup and plan, which to be honest is not that hard for an experienced White player. In contrast, never having faced/studied the position starting on move 11, I struggled to adapt and ended up committing the sin of moving a piece multiple times in the opening to no good effect, which essentially handed my opponent the initiative and an excellent attack.

I did not feel too badly about missing the one tactic, since my opponent had simply outplayed me for most of the game, although it stung a bit. The main lesson for me was the need to keep playing consistently, analyze my games, and constantly expand my understanding of openings and early middlegame plans in that manner. Databases and references are great, but understanding comes from the actual fight on the board.


[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class A"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B14"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Stockfish 16"] [PlyCount "73"] 1. c4 c6 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. d4 {the Panov variation, by transposition.} Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 {my opponent did not seem particularly familiar with the opening, or at least this variation, based on the amount of time he took at the board. However, he found a good path as White - perhaps not to difficult to do.} 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 Nf6 11. Bg5 {I was only familiar with the a3 line, so now had to start thinking about the differences.} h6 {logical and objectively best.} (11... Nb4 {would be the direct way to take advantage of White's failure to guard the b4 square.} 12. Bb1 {the bishop is fine on this square, but the drawback for White is locking the rook on the a-file.}) 12. Bh4 a6 $6 {this turns out to be too slow.} (12... Nh5 {immediately trades off a minor piece, reducing White's attacking prospects.}) (12... Bd7 {simple development is also good, while clearing the c8 square for a rook.}) 13. Rc1 Nb4 $6 {this is now possible, but is only a distraction for Black, as the light-square bishop is just fine on b1. This would have made more sense played earlier, as shown on move 11.} 14. Bb1 Nbd5 $6 {compounding my loss of time in the opening. White will now get an attack rolling without my pieces being well-enough developed to counter it.} (14... Bd7 $16 {would be at least somewhat better, also allowing the bishop to go to e8 on defense.}) 15. Qc2 $16 Nb4 16. Qd2 Nbd5 17. Ne5 {I thought for a long time here and could not find a good response. I thought the text move would hold, but White is able to bring too many pieces into the attack.} Ne8 (17... Ne4 {is the engine's best try.} 18. Qc2 Bxh4 19. Qxe4 f5 20. Qf3 $16) 18. Nxd5 Bxh4 19. Qd3 f5 {this was basically as far as I originally saw in calculating the sequence on move 17.} 20. Nf4 $1 $18 {now, however, the knights are dominant.} Bg5 21. Neg6 Bxf4 22. Nxf4 Qd6 23. Qe3 Nc7 24. a3 {restricting the Black queen's activity by controlling b4.} Nd5 25. Nxd5 Qxd5 26. Rc5 {I missed this, which ends up giving White too much pressure on e6 by driving away the queen.} Qd8 27. Ba2 {the game is essentially over at this point, but I play on in hopes of a blunder from my opponent.} Kh8 28. Qe5 Bd7 {far too late for this basic developing move.} 29. Rc7 {well played by my opponent, as Black has no good response.} Rc8 30. Rxb7 Rf6 31. d5 Rg6 {setting up some desperation tactics involving the g-file. This was the correct practical choice, especially under mutual time pressure.} 32. dxe6 $4 (32. Qd6) 32... Qg5 $4 {the wrong choice of threat to make, in time pressure.} (32... Bc6 $1 {forking g2 and the Rb7 wins. I saw this earlier as a possibility, but somehow hallucinated that White had an effective comeback that negated the threat.} 33. g3 Bxb7 $19) 33. g3 $18 Bc6 {too late.} 34. Rb8 Rxb8 35. Qxb8+ Kh7 36. e7 Qh5 37. Qg8# {I had not seen this, with the Ba2 now covering g8.} 1-0

18 February 2024

Annotated Game #266: The importance of playing an idea at the right time

I happened to get two Whites in a row and I was not unhappy, given the previous result, that this game paralleled Annotated Game #265's Symmetrical English until move 8. Black's asymmetric reaction in the center with ...e5 created an imbalance in the position which I could have reacted to with the idea of Bg5, looking to trade the now "bad" bishop off. However, I pass up several early opportunities, only to play it at a much worse time later in the game, which nearly gets the bishop trapped. A similar theme applies to my light-square bishop's back-and-forth maneuvers.

The game overall was more stressful than the previous one, with Black's space advantage and better piece activity keeping me on the ropes for much of the time, although I had a number of chances to equalize (and did so several times). Time trouble for both sides played a major role in the outcome, as well.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class A"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A37"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Stockfish 16"] [PlyCount "99"] 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. d3 d6 8. Rb1 e5 {first break in the symmetry. Black opts to seize territory in the center, at the cost of obstructing the Bg7.} 9. a3 {continuing with the plan of the b-pawn advance.} a5 10. Ne1 (10. Bg5 $5 {is an interesting idea, now that there is an obstructing pawn on e5. Normally the bishop is needed on d2 (or perhaps b2) to help counter the Bg7's pressure.} h6 11. Bxf6 {exchanging the "bad" bishop for Black's good knight.} Bxf6 12. Ne1) 10... Be6 11. Nc2 {it would be better to develop the bishop.} (11. Bg5 {fights for d5 indirectly as well.}) 11... d5 {now Black's central play equalizes.} 12. cxd5 {at the time, I thought there was no other real option. However, the Bg5 idea is still good.} Nxd5 13. Ne3 (13. Ne4 $5) 13... Nde7 14. Bd2 {finally developing the piece. Black has a space advantage by this point, so I have to look for ways to give my pieces greater scope.} Rb8 15. Nb5 {played after long thought. I felt this had better long-term prospects than alternatives such as Na4. I did not consider Ne4 here, having dismissed it earlier.} Qb6 {first move out of the database. I didn't think the queen was well-placed on b6. However, it does provoke my next move, which helps resolve the situation on the queenside for Black.} 16. a4 {this gives up the idea of the b4 break, but I didn't think it was happening anyway by this point in the game. I thought it was a solid option to maintain the knight outpost.} (16. Qa4 $5 {would be one way to develop the queen and free up space for other pieces. White can then chase away the black queen with Nc4.}) 16... Qd8 $15 17. Nc4 {pressuring a5 and controlling d6. Black according to the engine still has a small advantage, but at least I was now striking back in his territory.} b6 18. b3 (18. f4 $5 {is an interesting alternative, preferred by the engines. In the game, I considered it for a while and ultimately did not like due to the opening of the g1-a7 diagonal, which I thought would be better for Black.}) 18... Bd5 19. Bh3 $11 {choosing to preserve the bishop. My opponent seemed surprised by the maneuver. I was heartened by the seizure of the h3-c8 diagonal, which makes things more equal, and provokes Black's next move. Exchanging on d5 also would have been fine.} f5 20. Nc3 $6 {unfortunately at this point I had run out of ideas in the position. More active play would keep the balance.} (20. Bg5) (20. f4) 20... Bf7 $15 21. Nb5 Nd4 22. Nxd4 {effectively getting rid of the annoying outpost knight, as exchanging it is better than leaving the strong Nd4 in place.} Qxd4 23. Bg2 {bringing the bishop back into the game.} Nd5 24. Ne3 {another longer think without a good result. It's better to try to get the queen into the game, or at least more actively supporting the other pieces.} (24. Qe1) (24. Qc1) 24... Nxe3 (24... Nb4 $5 {would have maintained more pressure.}) 25. Bxe3 $6 {an example of stereotypical thinking, rejecting the idea of creating doubled pawns, which would actually give White a more dynamic position.} (25. fxe3 {I should have considered this more seriously, but was in significant time pressure by now.} Qd6 26. e4 $11) 25... Qd6 $17 {Black has a significant space advantage and better piece activity.} 26. Qc1 Rfe8 27. Rd1 Rbd8 28. Bg5 {this idea comes too late to be effective, as Black easily sidesteps with his rook.} Rd7 29. Bf1 $2 {a blunder, missing the danger the Bg5 is now in of being trapped.} Bd5 {luckily my opponent was also in similar time pressure and missed the refutation, giving me time to retreat it.} (29... f4 $1) 30. Bd2 Qc6 31. Bc3 (31. e4 {is actually possible and probably best here, due to the latent tactical possibility of a skewer on the a4-e8 diagonal.} fxe4 32. dxe4 Bxe4 33. Bb5 {and Black can only save himself by} Qf6 $11) 31... Qb7 32. f3 {playing it safe by blocking the diagonal, although the position is still very problematic for White.} e4 $6 {an attempt to force the situation in the center, which simply dissolves Black's pressure.} 33. Bxg7 Rxg7 34. dxe4 fxe4 35. f4 $11 e3 {after the last sequence, White should be equal now and out of the woods. I thought for a little while here, but was unsure of the best way to proceed.} 36. Qc3 Qc6 37. Rbc1 Rf7 38. Rd3 {this is a little slow.} (38. Qd3 $5) (38. Bh3 {reactivating the bishop.}) 38... Qe6 39. Rcd1 Rf5 40. Bh3 $2 {blunder at the time control. Another example of a good idea played too late, and in this case without considering my opponent's responses.} (40. Bg2 {was necessary.}) 40... Qe4 $1 {threatening mate on h1.} 41. Rxd5 {essentially forced.} Rxd5 42. Rxd5 Qxd5 $19 43. Bg2 Qd2 $6 {this allows White's next move, giving me a saving burst of activity against his king.} (43... Qd1+ 44. Bf1 Qd4 $19 {and the White pieces have nowhere to go.}) 44. Qc4+ $1 Kg7 45. h3 {giving the king an escape square, so the bishop would not have to go to f1 following a queen check.} (45. h4 $5) 45... Re7 46. Kh2 Qd4 47. Bd5 $2 {played in the (correct) expectation that Black would feel obliged to trade queens. However, the engine shows it would be better for White to keep the queens on.} (47. Qb5) 47... Qxc4 (47... b5 $1 48. axb5 Rd7 49. Be6 Qxc4 $19 {and now the endgame is winning for Black.}) 48. Bxc4 Kf6 49. g4 g5 50. Kg3 {low on time, my opponent offered a draw, believing I had a viable fortress. I thought it was not 100%, but it would have been difficult to break down. The engine considers Black the victor.} 1/2-1/2