Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Few annotated game collections are written primarily for instructive purposes.
Most, but not all, game collections that are written for instruction are
anthologies. So what I aim to do this month is compare annotated game
collections that are instructive anthologies with ones that are not. The
difference is often important enough to separate a great learning experience
Novice Nook from a mediocre one.
Dan Heisman The best way to begin is by choosing examples from almost any "normal"
annotated collection of master games. These are the works that are not
instructive anthologies, and most annotated game collections fall into this The Improving Annotator
[Find us on Facebook.]
category. Let's take two well-known and respected books, My 60 Memorable by Dan Heisman
Games by Bobby Fischer and My Best Games by Anatoly Karpov. We could
Translate this page
have used Alekhine's Best Games by Alexander Alekhine and Capablanca's
Best Games by Harry Golombek; it really doesn't matter. For our purposes
many of these books are similar in the type of annotation, the intended level
of reader, and what they are trying to achieve for that reader.
Here are some annotations taken at random from these two books. From My
60 Memorable Games, after White's move 13.h3 in Keres-Fischer (Game
Thirty-seven):
[FEN "r2q1rk1/p3npbp/1pn3p1/2ppP3/1P3Pb1/
P1PP3P/4N1B1/RNBQ1RK1 b - - 0 13"]
Black replies 13Bxe2 and Fischer writes, "Even stronger is 13Be6 14.
Ng3 Qd7 15.Kh2 f6. The absence of Black's QB makes it difficult to exploit
the white square weaknesses." The Art of Logical Thinking
by Neil McDonald
Another random remark from the same book is in the position after 11.Nf3 in
Fischer-Rossolimo (Game Fifty-two):
[FEN"rnbqk2r/pp3p2/4p1pp/2ppP3/3P2Q1/
2PB1N2/P1PK1PPP/R6R b kq - 0 11"]
[FEN"r1r3k1/1p2ppbp/p2pbnp1/6B1/
N1P1P3/1P3P2/P2KB1PP/2R4R b - - 0 15"]
Black plays 15Rc6 and Karpov writes, "The other defensive possibility,
15Nd7 (16.Bxe7? Bh6+), preparing f7-f6-f5 should also have been given
some attention."
These books were written with the primary purpose of showcasing the
player's best or most interesting games, providing analysis to the game, and
adding a dash of insight into the player's feelings. The latter is possible since
in both these books the author was also the player in question. This personal
view is one reason why, when buying such books, preference should be given
to ones authored by the player. Another important purpose of such books
(besides making money for the author and publisher) is to create a historical
record of those games considered by the player to be his best or most
interesting at a particular point in time.
One reason for this lack of benefit to lower-rated players is that the notes are
not written to provide a general understanding of what is happening. Most
notes are not only very specific to the position, but expressed in variations,
placing less emphasis on the text. Notice that this specificity is clearly evident
in the above annotations.
Yet there is a more insidious reason why reading good game collections
above your level can be counterproductive. Most annotated game collections
that assume a fairly high level of understanding will not confuse readers much
weaker than the intended level. Instead, these annotations often
unintentionally give them false hope that the subtle and advanced strategies
employed are just what they need to improve, when in fact much more basic
tactical and thought process skills and knowledge are really required. I run
into this confusion all the time when giving instruction to adults, who don't
understand why intense study of the 300 books in their library has not made
them expert level players. For more on the proper sequence of learning chess
material and the likely diminishing returns when encountering this material
out of order, see Chess Books and Prerequisites and The Three Showstoppers,
along with other Novice Nooks.
Very welcome additions to this genre are Neil McDonald's Chess: The Art of
Logical Thinking and Chess Secrets: The Giants of Chess Strategy. The latter
presents strategic ideas from the games of Kramnik, Karpov, Petrosian,
Capablanca, and Nimzowitsch. Here is an example from his notes to
Capablanca-Blackburne St. Petersburg 1914, after 19Bf5?:
[FEN"r4rk1/4npbp/pq4p1/1p1pPb2/2pP1P2/
2P2N1P/P1BB2P1/1R1Q1RK1 w - - 0 20"]
"I can sympathize if you feel somewhat reluctant about pushing all your
kingside pawns in this fashion. After all, in books the moves h2-h3 or
h7-h6 are often condemned as a thoughtless weakening of your king's
shelter so goodness knows what the same experts would make of a
move like g2-g4! However, there is nothing thoughtless or gratuitous
about Capablanca pushing his pawns here. He is carrying out a strategic
plan that suits the requirements of the position; and with an invincible
center and the initiative on the kingside, his monarch has nothing to fear
from the black pieces. On the contrary, it is the black king who has to be
afraid of White's pawn roller.
"You will see many instances in this book of the aggressive use of
pawns in front of the king."
Hopefully it does not require extensive explanation to understand the
enormous difference between what GM McDonald is trying to do (similar to
When Is A King Safe?) versus the intent of the Fischer and Karpov
annotations. To reinforce this distinction, let's take another example from the
same book. This one is from Marshall-Capablanca, New York 1909:
[FEN"r4rk1/pp2qppp/4b3/2p5/8/
4PQP1/PP3PBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 16"]
GM McDonald:
"Black has a 3-2 majority of pawns on the queenside; White has a 4-3
majority on the kingside. In what follows, Capablanca does everything
possible to exploit the value of his majority, whereas the potential of
White's kingside pawns is entirely wasted.
16.Rfc1?
These remarks are superbly instructive, and in tune with his chapter title,
"Understanding Pawn Majorities." I often see students making the same
mistake as Marshall did in this game. However, they would be more aware of
the correct idea without my intervention when practicing The Four
Homeworks; one of the key suggestions there is to read as many books like
this as quickly as you can for how best to do this, please refer to Reviewing
Chess Games.
Readers of Chernev, Nunn, and Learning Chess will recall that Chernev is
unnecessarily harsh in criticizing moves like h2-h3, whose effects can run the
gamut from completely unnecessary and weakening to subtle restriction (see
A Guide to P-R3). Notice how GM McDonald, in his notes to Capablanca-
Blackburne, seems aware of his predecessor's viewpoint and not-so-subtly
addresses this issue head-on in an attempt to set the record straight. There are
a large number of complex issues that an aspiring player will encounter on the
way towards better general understanding of chess positions. That is why it is
important to read many different viewpoints; the consensus opinion is more
likely to be near the truth than any individuals. More to the point, reading
varying views, reasons, and conclusions should result in a much better
understanding of the specific issues that occur in various chess positions.
Let's take a final "instructive" example from an older classic of this genre,
Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur by Max Euwe and Walter Meiden. Black
has just played 22Rxe5 in Game Fifteen, Master-Amateur:
[FEN"6k1/pbp2p1p/2p2p2/4r3/8/
P1N5/1PP2PPP/3R2K1 w - - 0 23"]
"Black has three weaknesses: (a) pawns (two sets of doubled isolated
pawns); (b) bishop (it is badly placed and can possibly be trapped; (c)
king (it is restricted on the one hand and unprotected by its Pawns on the
other). Each of these weaknesses is the result of the double isolated
Pawns. If the pawn on Black's c6 were on b6 and the one on his f6 on
g6, Black would be all right, even better off than White, because an
active bishop is, in general, superior to a knight.
"White looks at three possibilities: (a) the difficulties into which the
black bishop will come through Nc5 combined with several pawn moves
(the continuation will show what this means); (b) the possibility of
winning Black's pawns, all of which are very weak-though, if the white
rook makes a sally, the black rook can do the same, and this may mean
that White will exchange his sound Pawns for Black's unsound Pawns;
(c) the possibility for playing for direct mate.
Again, superbly instructive annotations, both in general and with regard to the
specific position. Is it any wonder that those who read the wrong collection of
annotated master games find the going tough and not very instructive?
Ironically, many of these same game collections are considered the best chess
books of all time, and they are but not for their instructive value, at least not
their instructive value to the overwhelming majority of the chess population.
After reading one or more of these books the reader will be able to graduate to
individual game collections that may not be written specifically for
instruction. For example, the following anthologies are much more advanced.
I would suggest at least a 1700 USCF/FIDE rating before tackling these. A
good individual game collection is Marshall's Best Games of Chess, also
known as My 50 Years of Chess, by Frank Marshall.
Answer I assume you mean "promote the pawn," rather than checkmate and
that you can checkmate once you get the queen. The key position (the hard
one for the side possessing the pawn on his move) is where the pawn is on the
fifth rank and the kings are on the sixth and eighth ranks:
White to move
The point to remember is that the offensive king, if moving first, has to go to
the rook file. So play should continue 1.Kh6! Kh8 2.g6 Kg8 3.g7 Kf7 4.Kh7
and promotes. If instead 1.Kf6, then after 1Kh7! White can make no
progress with 2.Kf7 Kh8 because 3.g6?? is stalemate. Even worse than 2.Kf7
is 2.g6+? Kh8! Draw. Therefore after 2.Kf7 Kh8 White has to settle for 3.Kg6
Kg8 repeating the initial position and winning with 4.Kh6!
If Black is to move in the initial position, the win for White is trivial: 1Kh8
2.Kf7 Kh7 3.g6+ Kh8 4.g7+ and wins. If instead 1Kf8, 2.Kh7 and the
pawn promotes.
With a bishop or center pawn a king on move in front of the pawn can go in
either direction to win; that's why the knight pawn is the hardest in this case
only going to the "outside" wins.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.