Let's Take A Look

Lets Take A
Look...
Nigel Davies


by Bruce Alberston
We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this column. For
all games submitted, please provide the following information: (1) Names of
both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3) When and where the game was
played; (4) The time control used in the game; and (5) Any other information
you think would be helpful for us to know. Please submit the games (in PGN
or CBV format if possible) to: nigeldavies@chesscafe.com. Who knows,
perhaps you will see the game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you,
Lets take a look...
Dealing with Distractions
America should tell themthey have 48 hours to get out of Kuwait and
if not, theyll nuke Baghdad!
This is how one grandmaster proposed that Iraqs invasion of Kuwait be dealt
with, excitedly explaining it to myself and Lev Psakhis as we sat in the
restaurant during one Groningen tournament. He was Bulgarian.
Now I dont have anything against Bulgarians even though my first wife was
one of them. Im not bitter, really Im not. But for some reason this incident
just floated into my mind as the rest room shenanigans unfolded in Elista.
Thinking about the origins of this notion, I finally concluded that its not a
Bulgarian issue. Its a question of fallout.
This was evidently on the Bulgarian Prime Ministers mind when he wrote to
Kirsan stating: I sincerely hope to see all games of the match played. I figure
he was talking about game 5, indicating that he valued the reputation of his
country (not to mention the Bulgarian tourist industry) higher than his boys
free point. Victor Korchnoi also weighed in, asking where we would find
sponsors with this kind of publicity hitting the headlines:
All this talk of how someone or other is cheating leaves its mark on
chess, on its integrity and honesty, and is very bad. But I hope that
means will be found to prevent information being passed, and so to
preserve chess as it is. I find it hard to believe that all this talk about
toilets is going to lead to an increase in sponsors after all, it is pretty
dirty publicity.
I personally had had enough when Topalovs delegation started comparing
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (1 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Kramniks choices with those of Fritz, rather obviously hinting that this was
suspiciously high. Knowing a little about how this can be done scientifically I
sent the following letter to Chessbase, doing my level-best not to foam at the
mouth. Thats probably why they didnt publish it:
Dear Chessbase,
It was with interest that I read Mr Danailovs so-called statistical
analysis of the number of Kramniks moves coinciding with the
recommendations of Fritz 9. I amnot an expert in statistics by any
means, but in this case I might be able to offer some advice.
In order to show that the number of moves coinciding with Fritz 9s
recommendations in this match is of a certain significance, Mr
Danailov should test Kramniks moves outside the match and then
assess whether the match subset differs by several standard
deviations. In this way he might establish confidence limits.
There has been some interesting work in this area by Steve Levitt,
author of Freakonics, who the Bulgarian teammight like to consult (no
doubt at huge expense) if they are sincere in their claim. And to
demonstrate their integrity and even-handedness they might also
commission a similar study of Topalovs moves, both during the match
and after his ascendancy to the number one spot.
I would expect that both studies would be entirely consistent with
randomness, but who knows?
Sincerely,
Nigel Davies (International Grandmaster of FIDE)
From the point of view of the average enthusiast, Im sure this has all been a
bit of a joke, but a serious issue is raised by this match that should be of
interest to every competitive player. How does one deal with an opponent
who is out to distract you?
You probably wont get too many people accusing you of using Fritz in the
loo, but they could be trying to distract you some other way. Ive had one guy
blow cigar smoke in my face, there are draw naggers (people who offer a
draw move after move), finger tappers, loud coffee stirrers, people who stand
over you, those who chat with their friends within earshot and those who
never put their pieces in the middle of the squares.
Do you want to try complaining to the arbiter? Well to do this you have to
leave the board and explain the situation, all of which can be distracting and
make you lose time on the clock. Do you think something will be done? In my
experience, arbiters are very reluctant to take any kind of action unless they
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (2 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]
Let's Take A Look
personally witness a clear breach of the rules. How could it be any other way?
But meanwhile it seems that the cheat is getting an unfair advantage.
This may be true in the short term, but it depends largely on how their
opponent reacts. Concocting and executing ways of distracting ones
opponent is a distraction in itself, its always better to think about the board.
So if their opponent doesnt react, or even motivates himself to try harder
their cheating will have backfired.
From a longer term perspective the most obvious fallout is that those who do
this kind of thing get bad reputations and the only people who will want to
deal with them are the equally dodgy. Theres also a more pernicious effect in
that cheating is at odds with the noble and fair spirit of chess, fostering the
wrong mentality when the cheats come to play.
The only dodgy thing about this months game is Whites opening and his
25
th
move. In the endgame Black wins with a spectacular bishop sac to set up
two connected passed pawns.
Lorens,B J efferies,L
Chester & District League Division 2, 2005
Sicilian Defence [B20]
1 e4 c5 2 c4
Broadbent used to play this way. It isnt such a bad idea, but needs to be
played accurately.
2...Nc6 3 f4 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Nc3 d6 6 d3 e6
I think that 6...Bg4 is strong here, aiming to remove a piece (the knight on f3)
that covers the hole on d4. A sample line is 7 Be2 e6 8 Be3 Nge7 9 0-0 0-0
10 Rb1 a6 11 a4 Bxf3 12 Bxf3 Nd4 13 Kh1 Nec6 as in Doman Bolvary,
Balatonlelle 2001.
7 Be2 Nge7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Qe1
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (3 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]
Let's Take A Look
After 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Qd2 Nec6 11.Rae1 f5,
Black also got a good position in
Schaffarth Scholz, Germany 1992.
9...Nd4 10 Bd1 Nec6 11 Nxd4 Nxd4 12
Kh1 Bd7 13 Rb1 a5
I dont particularly like this move as White
can now close the queenside and achieve
approximate equality. The immediate
13...b5 looks like the thematic move.
14 b3
White might have done better to play 14 a4, after which 14...f5 15 Nb5
doesnt leave Black with much.
14...b5 15 Bb2
Black should probably meet 15 cxb5 with
15...Bxb5! when (15...Nxb5 16 Bb2 looks
fairly even) 16 Nxb5 Nxb5 keeps control
of the dark squares and in particular d4.
15...b4
I dont think Black should have closed the
position here it starts to look fairly equal
after this. 15...bxc4 seems better, after
which 16 bxc4 (16 dxc4 Bc6) 16...Rb8
puts White under pressure.
16 Ne2 Nxe2 17 Qxe2 Qc7 18 Qf2 Bxb2 19 Rxb2 e5 20 Qh4 f5
A standard reaction in such positions. Black could also capture on f4 or play
20Qd8 before committing himself to either pawn move.
21 Rbf2 Qd8 22 Qh6 Qe7 23 Bf3 Rae8 24 exf5 Bxf5??
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (4 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]
Let's Take A Look
This could and should have had very
serious consequences. Blacks only good
move is 24...Rxf5, after which 25 fxe5
Qxe5 looks about equal. 24...gxf5?! is less
good after 25 fxe5 dxe5 (25...Qxe5 26
Bd5+Kh8 27 Rf3 is awkward) 26 Qb6 etc.
25 Bd5+??
Missing it, and White now has to fight for
equality because of his offside queen and
worse bishop. 25 fxe5 wins a pawn,
because 25...dxe5 (Or 25...Qxe5 26 Bd5+Kh8 27 g4) 26 Bd5+Kh8 27 g4
would cost Black a piece.
25...Be6 26 Be4 Qg7 27 Qg5 exf4 28 Rxf4 Rxf4 29 Qxf4 Rf8!
The bishop endgame maximizes Blacks winning chances because of Whites
very bad bishop. But its not easy.
30 Qxf8+Qxf8 31 Rxf8+Kxf8 32 h3 Kf7 33 g4?
The losing move. White had to march his king to e3, when it wont be easy
for Black to make progress. So 33 Kg1 was correct.
33...Kf6 34 Kg2 Ke5 35 Kf3 Kd4
Theres no way for White to defend that a2-pawn now, but hes hoping to get
counterplay on the kingside.
36 Kf4 Kc3 37 Kg5 Kb2 38 Bc6 Kxa2 39 Ba4
After 39 Kf6, Black can win with
39...Bxg4! (39...Kxb3 40 Kxe6 a4 is also
good) 40 hxg4 Kxb3 etc.
39...Bd7!!
Very nice indeed. Deflecting the bishop is
the quickest way to win.
40 Bxd7 Kxb3 41 Kh6 a4
Theres no stopping Blacks passed pawns.
42 Bxa4+Kxa4 43 Kxh7 b3 44 Kxg6 b2 0-1
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (5 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]
Let's Take A Look
Recommended Reading
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
by Steven D. Levitt (Roughcut, 2005)
Copyright 2006 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
file:///C|/cafe/davies/davies.htm (6 of 6) [10/14/2006 9:13:04 PM]