Lets Take A Look...

Nigel Davies



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...
A Trial for Chess Teachers
And this is the trial: They shall play with such weapons as they profess to teach
withal, three bouts apiece with three of the best English masters of defence & three
bouts apiece with three unskilful valiant men, and three bouts apiece with three
resolute men half drunk. Then if they can defend themselves against these masters
of defence, and hurt, and go free from the rest, then are they be honoured,
cherished, and allowed for perfect good teachers, and what countrymen so ever
they be. But if any of these they take fail, then they are imperfect in their profession,
their fight is false, & they are false teachers, deceivers and murderers, and to be
punished accordingly, yet no worse punishment unto them I wish, than such as in
their trial they shall find.
Paradoxes of Defence by George Silver, Gentleman
Some have argued that the swordsman George Silver was a tad nationalistic when he took
exception to the Italianated style of fencing that was introduced into Great Britain in the
sixteenth century. But there are also wonderful insights in his writings on swordsmanship
that can be applied to many other fields.
I think that the idea of having chess teachers prove themselves by playing against a variety
of opposition is a very good one, they should demonstrate that they have good technique
before passing on their knowledge to their students. Its amazing how often you see
players with talent essentially ruined through their assimilation of their teachers flawed
tendencies. Only the exceptionally talented manage to overcome this obstacle, at which
point the teacher will usually claim the credit anyway!
How exactly should we arrange bouts for prospective teachers? Well the exact equivalents
are hard to find, but perhaps something like Silvers criterium might be achieved via a
closed tournament in Moscow (instead of the best English masters of defence) where
theyd have to score fifty percent or higher and then two tournaments against the resolute
and drunks where they would have to go without a loss. An Open Swiss in, say, Scotland
might be good for the resolute but unskilled and then a tournament full of teenagers for the
drunks. OK, the kids wont be drunk on alcohol but I think that hormones, loud music,
Coca-Cola and Mars bars are a good enough substitute.
The result of flawed technique in teachers is that there are lots of students who acquire
really bad habits. Ive had quite a few of them come to me, wondering why they seem to
have hit a ceiling with their results, despite only being fifteen or so. Usually, theyve been
pumped full of opening systems, their untested teacher believing that this is somehow the
most important thing. Sometimes its superficial trick lines, sometimes its Garry
Kasparovs opening repertoire and sometimes the lines suggested in some repertoire book
that have been honed to the nth degree (though not in Moscow). Can the students hope to
recover?
Well yes, maybe. But for the unfortunate student its probably more traumatic than giving
up smoking as without the systems they will often have little to fall back on. I believe
that the cure is for people to immerse themselves in the games of the great masters,
reading the autobiographical games collections of Larsen, Korchnoi, Alekhine and Keres
(these are the best of the genre in my view) is like taking lessons with some of the greatest
players in history. It never ceases to amaze me how few people take this opportunity, and
you can find evidence of this via the sales rankings at Amazon and seeing how often such
collections get discounted.
With regard to the opening, the main problem is the belief that the opening is the basis of
victory. When youve got round this one then it isnt hard to find alternatives amongst the
zillion solid openings that reach a playable middlegame. This is what Lajos Portisch wrote
on the matter in How to Open a Chess Game:
It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated
opening variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is
indeed important in chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found
as well in the middle game and endgame. Your only tast in the opening is to reach
a playable middle game. (Taking advantage of a good middle game position
requires instruction that is beyond the intentions of this book.)
What is our task, then? How should we lay the foundations of our opening
repertoire?
It is hard to come up with a single answer to satisfy every player. Individuals will
have different objectives in the opening, as well as different playing strengths.
Nevertheless, to all players I can recommend the following: simplicity and
economy. These are the characteristics of the opening systems of many great
masters. They do not strain unduly for advantages in the opening; they would just
as soon move on the the next stage of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the
opponent in the middle game or endgame.
I think this is really wonderful advice, but as usual very few people will take it and might
even resent the fact that it has been offered! But one can see from Portischs games that he
practiced what he preached. And in his day he was known as one of the most outstanding
opening specialists, often playing quite simple variations.
This months game is from a junior tournament played in 2004, the two players going at
each other hammer and tongs. The teacher of the player playing Black had indeed
undergone the trial of a closed tournament in Moscow and an Open Swiss in Scotland, but
I fear that I let my student down by not recently facing enough hormone, Mars bar and
Coca-Cola laden juniors (perish the thought). As a result he did not fully cope with
Whites play.
White, M - Hart, D
Millfeild Junior Masters, 2004
Max Lange Attack [C55]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4
A sign of maturity, in junior circles the so-called Fried Liver attack with 4 Ng5 d5 5
exd5 Nxd5?! 6 Nxf7 has been all the rage for years, so much so that many British twelve-
year-olds are being pumped with variations arising from 4...Bc5.
4...exd4 5 0-0 Bc5
Still on the subject of junior wars, I noticed that Russian juniors get primed with the
variation 5...Nxe4 6 Re1 d5 7 Bxd5 Qxd5 8 Nc3 Qh5 9 Nxe4 Be6 10 Bg5 Bd6 11 Bf6
Bxh2+ 12 Nxh2 Qxd1 13 Raxd1 gxf6, giving Black an extra pawn in the endgame. I
remember a nine or ten-year-old David Howell getting caught up in this in a European
Junior Championship after which I recommended that it was time he played a mans
opening with 3 Bb5. Seems to be working.
6 e5 d5 7 exf6 dxc4 8 Re1+ Be6 9 Ng5
After banging on about juniors I do have a small
confession to make. As a teenager I once played
this line against Dominic Lawson, the son of
Britains former chancellor Nigel Lawson, but I
think I varied at this point with the lesser known
9 fxg7.
9Qd5 10 Nc3 Qf5 11 Nce4 0-0-0
Well, were still in really heavy (if somewhat
old) theory here and Id be lying if I claimed to
know the first thing about it. In fact very few
GMs would have much a clue about this line, the
wild complications making this a no-no as far as
a repertoire choice is concerned. Theres little chance to use ones positional
understanding and a serious danger of accidents.
Conversely, I should think that this line will tend to be popular with those whose
correspondence rating that is double their OTB rating and have access to a super-computer
at their place of work. Its amazing what Fritz can come up with on a powerful enough
machine.
12 g4 Qe5
Apparently 12...Qd5? is bad because of 13 fxg7 Rhg8 14 Nf6 Qd6 15 Nge4! etc, which
makes sense even to my addled brain.
13 fxg7
13 Nxe6 fxe6 14 Bg5 is an alternative here that some commentators seem to think is good.
Once again I must plead total ignorance.
13...Rhg8 14 Nxe6 fxe6 15 Bh6 Bb4 16 f4 Qb5 17 Nf6 d3 18 Nxg8 Qd5
According to my woefully inadequate databases,
this is a new move, though I suspect that more
accident was involved than design. In previous
games Black has played 18...Qc5+ when 19 Kg2
Bxe1 20 Qxe1 Qd5+ certainly doesnt look worse
for Black.
19 f5 exf5 20 Nf6 Qd4+ 21 Be3 Qxf6 22 c3 Bd6
23 Qf3 Qxg7
A preliminary 23...f4 was worth considering, but
Black is fine in any case.
24 Qxf5+ Kb8 25 Qg5 Qd7 26 Qf5 Ne5 27 Qxd7 Rxd7
Black is certainly no worse here with his mighty
passed pawn on d3. But accuracy is needed
because of the strength of rooks versus knights in
endgames.
28 Kg2 Nxg4 29 Bf4 b5 30 Re8+ Kb7 31 Bxd6
Rxd6 32 h3 Nf6 33 Re5 Kb6 34 Kf3 c5
I dont really see the need for this. 34...Nd5 looks
like the natural move, when the mighty knight
can be supported by a later ...c6.
35 Ke3 b4 36 Kd2 Nd5 37 Rf1 h6 38 h4 Kc6 39
a3 a5
And here Black should get his rook active with 39...Rg6.
40 h5 Nb6 41 axb4 axb4 42 Ref5 Re6?
After this, White is actually better, Blacks lone
knight being no match for Whites rook. Black
should avoid the exchange of rooks with 42...
Nd7, when its still game on.
43 Rf6 Kd6 44 Rxe6+ Kxe6 45 Rg1 Nd5?
This should immediately lose, though White in
turn slips up. 45...Kf5 was the best try, when
Black still has drawing chances.
46 Rg6+
46.Rg4 was stronger.
46...Ke5?
Another losing move, and this time White takes advantage. 46...Nf6 47.Rxh6 Kf5 would
have given Black some chances.
47 Rc6! Nf4 48 Rxc5+ Kf6 49 cxb4 1-0
Recommended Reading
Paradoxes of Defence by George Silver, Gentleman (Edward Blount, 1599)
How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, Svetozar Gligoric, Vlastimil Hort, Paul
Keres, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian and Lajos Portisch (RHM Press, 1974)
2007 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.