What's the Deal With Drawing Experts?

I seem to be awfully good at it for an ~1800ish player. This is the second game in a row in which I've screwed up an ending that I should have won and given up a draw. The only difference (and it is significant) is that unlike my previous effort I was pretty close to lost several times in this one. At the very least, I was much worse for several moves until a tactic came out of the blue to save me. That old saw of Steinitz's about tactics only arising when you have a positional advantage is BS. Sometimes your opponent just makes a mistake, maybe not an obvious one, and you win material. Of course, if one were particularly intent upon being an annoying sophist, then it could certainly be pointed out that once an opponent has made a mistake then you are automatically in a better position, but this is circular reasoning. In that sense, then Steinitz's statement is a meaningless tautology; not meaningless in the formal sense, just useless.

Well, that was a pointless digression.

In this game my opponent played well enough, though he seemed out of theory and on his own pretty quick. I've been playing the black side of a lot of Boleslavskys and English Attacks against my Classical Sicilian. This is probably because the Classical isn't that well studied by most players (unless they were theory hounds in the 90s), and so they revert to safe setups when faced with an unexpected move. I use the Nc6 before d6 move order, and I bet they all expect a Sveshnikov. I always smile when they stop banging out instant moves after ...d6 hits the board. Not one Richter Rauzer yet OTB. This game was a Boleslavsky as well, with Nb3 instead of the more challening Nf3. Here it is:

Perez-Rampley.pgn


I played the following game tonight (4-22) in the first round of the April/May SFCC tournament. Being in the upper half of the draw, I got to player a much lower rated opponent. I drew him the first game I played in Florida, but this game was much more of a route. His opening play was timid, and he gave up a piece early. It's so funny how consistency in the level of one's play is such a hallmark of rating. I've seen John (my opponent) play very well and beat players of ~1900 strength, but then he plays games like this. I really think the main thing that has led to my recent gain of strength has been consistency both from move to move and from game to game more so than any great leap in ability. Something to think about. The game:

Rampley-Haskel.pgn


I got a new book this week, 'Imagination in Chess' by Pata Gaprindashvili. Forgive any possible spelling errors of his name, I don't have the book handy. I bought this book as a tactical puzzle book, but it defied my expectations. Firstly, it is HARD. I can't emphasize that enough...HARD. These puzzles are in many cases beyond me. It's not so much because the solutions are complex, but rather because these are not typical tactical puzzles. Unlike most puzzle collections, the solutions often consist of moves that do not appear forcing but are in fact very strong. Quiet moves that put your opponent in a sort of middlegame zugzwang. Also, the goal is not in every case winning material. Sometimes you are merely searching for a way to get to a much better position.

I guess what I'm getting at is that this is not really a tactics book, but an advanced version of those 'find the best move' volumes that all chess publishers seem fond of releasing. While the introductory commentary to the chapters is interesting, it's nothing that revolutionary. The puzzles are the meat of this book (it contains 700+ or varying difficulty), and meaty it is. If you're strong, stronger than me especially, then this might be worth your time. For me, 3-5 a day could easily take 30-45 minutes and I still don't know if I'd get them right. I'd say the intended audience for this book is probably the same group that actually uses Dvoretsky's works. The puzzles are in many cases really beautiful, but if you're under 1800 don't bother. CT-ART it ain't.

Those are the games and thought from last week. The final round of the April BRCC tournament is this Friday, and I think I may have to play a master. Well and good. Maybe I'll draw him too. Due white, after all. No job yet, thanks for asking. Peace.

Two Game and Some Book Reviews

Two games in this one, both white piece draws against higher rated players. The first was played a few Fridays back in Boca Raton. My opponent was a young, strong expert. After a theoretical opening, I got a huge advantage that I subsequently pissed away via a series of slight (and not so slight if I'm being honest) inaccuracies. The opening was an f3 Nimzo, which I have studied but not had many opportunities to play OTB. Not so many 1800s seem to play the Nimzo, probably because of the wealth of options white has against it. Also, you have to learn either the QGD or QID as well, and since so many people start out playing the QGD they probably don't bother to learn the Nimzo despite its excellent reputation.

I have vacillated a bit about what to play against the Nimzo. The f3 variation has been a favorite of mine after examining several games in which Shirov rolled some super GMs, but I have dabbled in the Qc2 and Rubinstein as well. The biggest issue for white is that black can often seize the initiative, and while white may have more space black is often calling the shots, while white is primarily reacting. Like all broad statements in chess you can certainly find many examples in Nimzo-Indian praxis that indicate otherwise, but overall my opinion is that black has the initiative. Believing that to be the case, I've settled on a variation where white at least gets a pawn for his trouble, even if it's hard to hold. In addition, the open position favors his bishop pair unlike in the Rubinstein, where the center can often be semi-closed. The fact that Anand played it against Kramnik only boslters my belief that there's something there for white, even if it's hard to prove. This game is a good example of what white gets if black doesn't play with great activity, though I did screw up the ending horribly to let him off with a draw.

Rampley-Goss.pgn


So the ending is an embarassement, but you must admit that white's domination in the middlegame was absolute.

The other game I have is from last night (Wednesday), played in the final round in Margate. It had been a bad day. I was trying unsuccessfully to do last minute taxes, and since everyone else in the US was too the site was running very slowly. I spent 8 hours on it, getting kicked off the disconnected, waiting for the site to process forms, etc, all the while playing really bad ICC chess duing the load times. I was in a shitty mood when I got to the club. So of course I had to play a Benko.

I hate playing against the Benko gambit. My results aren't horrible and I feel that I understand white's aims in the opening more than in many others I play, but white's strategy is very hard for me to stomach. Take your pawn, hold for 25 or 30 moves until black's activity is gone, and then hopefully win in the ending. I've done it successfully several times, but it requires a lot of patience and vigilance which I didn't have last night. I ended up fudging the move order and allowing a knight into c4, after which point only an endgame blunder by my opponent allowed me to draw. It was dispiriting to say the least.

It is funny how critical one piece on the right square can be. The system I play, the Fianchetto Benko, is designed to do one thing and that is prevent a knight from getting to c4. I had never allowed it to happen before, and I will never let it happen again after last night. God, that sucked. You can see for yourself.

Rampley-Sinanman.pgn


Terrible. I was not pleased with this game at all. I was lucky to draw.

And now, a book review or two.

Winning Chess Middlegames, Ivan Sokolov

Great book, if you play d4 or c4. Not so much if you play e4. This book is similar to Soltis's classic 'Pawn Structure Chess', with an emphasis on pawn structures arising from more modern variations, primarily in from the Nimzo-Indian and English openings. Sokolov's annotations are excellent and at times dry and witty as he questions whether or not certain moves or variations are as good as their reputations. The book functions well as a games collection too, with many coming from Sokolov's own praxis (wins and losses). The author's tone is not removed and pedagogical, but very engaging. As you might expect, Sokolov's own games are discussed with added verve. By the way, for those who don't know, Sokolov was one of the best players (consistent top 10) of the 90s, so when he chooses to write a book it's worth getting.

Fighting the Anti-Sicilians and The Bb5 Sicilian, byRichard Palliser

Recently got these two because I wasn't happy with my anti-Sicilian repertoire. For those who don't know, anti-Sicilians are any but open Sicilians. I was unhappy with the repertoire I built using Rogozenko's book on the subject because I always seemed to end up passive (though equal, in deference to Rogozenko). Since I hate playing without the initiative, I wanted a more active approach and so I checked these two volumes out. The two books are very different, but I have found both useful.

FtAS is organized in a tree of variations format, which I usually don't care for but in this case appreciate because there are many variations to cover. The lines are active and fighting, though as such I feel that black takes a little more risk than he otherwise might. d5 against the Alapin with Nc6 and Bg4 to follow is one example. The Nf6 lines are dull IMO, but safer. Another example is Palliser's choice of Nf6 against the Closed rather than Nge7. I will probably try it out, but as I usually end up playing a pseudo-Swedish English against the Closed anyway I don't know if it will make it into my permanent repertoire. Palliser's style is easy and clear, and the book reads well despite its variation tree format.

tBb5S is organized by complete games which I prefer, though the best setup is the Hybrid system with games and an MCO like table ala the incomparable Mihail Marin in 'Beat the Open Games'. In any case, the games are modern and topical and the coverage seems thorough. If you have little experience in anti-Siclians, then these are both good books to start with as I feel they're more accessible and promote more active systems than Rogozenko's classic.

I'll try not to go so long without a blog posting in the future. Still no job, due to recession. Peace.

Getting my Strength Back. Plus 'Starting Out: the Dutch' Reviewed

So it's been well over a month since my surgery, and I'm really just now starting to get my strength back. Did a little work with a Chen Tai Chi stylist, his approach was very different from the Yang style I'm somewhat proficient in (I'm probably about 1800 in Tai Chi). I might do more.

I'm only now regaining my chess strength too, and I've found that I've lost the ability to play good 3 minute chess. It's crazy, I know, but all those long games have made me fond of thinking about my moves, if you can believe it. I find myself getting good positions and losing on time every game. I know that the clock is an integral part of the game, especially at such fast time controls; this is not an excuse, merely a pattern I see emerging that makes it hard to play 3 minute. 5 is about the fastest I can go, and I prefer 5/3 or even 2/12 or straight 15. Eventually I might just stop playing quick chess altogether. I don't know. I like long games better now. Evolution of a chess player, I suppose.

I was going to post a 2/12 game I played on ICC, but upon reflection I realize that no one wants to look at the fast games of a Class B player. So instead, I'm going to give a brief review of a book I recently bought.

A little background: I hate the Dutch. I find it hard to play against, because there is no set plan that one can employ. It's very flexible for black (a good reason to play it if a draw won't do), and the battles tend towards the positional. It's the opposite of openings I like (such as the Najdorf), where I know exactly what I'm after and can develop my pieces freely with few initial worries about strategy. I've struggled with it since I started pushing the queen's pawn, and I figured it was time to try and learn the basics.

I found Starting Out: the Dutch (by Neil McDonald) to be a good basic text, though the coverage is tilted heavily towards black in all sections. McDonald makes a point of covering white's best lines, but in each case leaves the reader with the impression that they're not really all that challenging if black knows the proper response. I've never liked such statements, because they are universally true. If one assumes chess is a draw from the starting position (a bold assumption perhaps), then all openings are equal if black makes the correct replies for the whole game. I don't feel that McDonald really gives the second player a feeling of which white plans are hardest to counter, which are most flexible, etc. As a d4 player this makes it hard for me to take McDonald at his word that a particular line is strong for white, since he usually undermines his case right away.

Those few issues aside, I do think the book is a good introduction to the theory and strategy of the Dutch. I have changes a few lines that I play against various Dutch setups as a result of reading it, and I have changed the way I play some of my current repertoire as well. I think this book helped me to get a better understanding of how to play against the flexibility of the Dutch, as well as how much patience is required on white's part to make his space advantage count. Since you can get this book new from outside vendors on Amazon for something like $8, it's worth picking up if you are interested in playing or playing against the Dutch.

Chess Explained: The Classical Sicilian, Reviewed

I bought this book at the same time as the Rizzitano book on the Taimanov, in an effort to figure out which of the two I wanted to play as I struggle to create a Sicilian based repertoire vs. 1.e4 (The Lopez just proved too much to deal with. I suck at closed positions, and the Open I found to be very hard to equalize in). Besides the format, common to all Chess Explained books, what both these titles had in common was quality.

I must admit I may be a little biased for two reasons. First off, I like the Classical Sicilian positions, especially the Kozul Suicide variation lines. They're sharp, open and fun. Secondly, I am a huge fan of Alex Yermolinsky's writing. He writes very frankly with no hint of pretense or attention to form (by this I mean the rather pedantic writing style that characterizes many chess books, seemingly drawn from the annotative style of the early masters like Nimzovitch). That being said, I think I can say that even judged purely on its own merits this opening manual is very solid.

The games are recent, high level, well annotated and explained, and cover the gamut of important positions in the Classical. That is hard to do, because many different systems with different feels can spring from the Classical starting position (Black knights on c6 and f6, pawn on d6, neither a6 or e5 yet played). I think the balance of material is about right, with special emphasis being given to the Rauzer as the most challenging line theoretically. One thing I like about the Classical is that even online and at class level, people (whether by accident or design) often play some of the sharper, more challenging lines. As such, the extra time spent on the Rauzer isn't wasted. Good explanation are also given of the Boleslavsky and English Attack positions, which are highly transpositional with one another, as well as some of rarer lines.

Yermo didn't significantly alter his writing style in switching from a personal games collection and chess history (Road to Chess Improvement, read it if you haven't) to crafting an opening survey, and I 'm happy that he didn't. His dry humor and good pacing, combined with frequent diagrams makes this book easy and fun to read even without a board. Overall, I highly recommend it.

In closing, I must say that for those above ~1600, the Chess Explained series provides a great bridge from the (generally, though there are exceptions) lower level Starting Out series by Everyman and the more advanced opening books published by all the major companies. The topics are more specific than the SO books, but the analysis is not so deep that single sub-variations dominate long chapters or even whole volumes. I'm very glad Gambit is producing this series, and I hope it sells well enough that they don't stop.