Facing the Breyer

Blitz can be useful for testing openings and finding new ways to play in tournaments. This morning, I opted to play the Spanish Opening. Of course, this choice was motivated by my current slow reading of Paul Keres, World Chess Championship 1948 (2016 [1949]), which has me studying a couple of lines in this opening.

Even though I have played both sides of this opening in tournament play, it is not my normal opening on either side of the board. Consequently, my experience against the Breyer variation is quite limited. This morning, an online opponent deployed it against me in a three minute game. A few moves later, I seemed to lose the thread of the game and gave up a pawn.

Somehow, I got the material back and could have exchanged into a an equal double rook endgame. I kept the queens on the board, and lost. These annotations were made quickly--almost as fact as the game. No engine was used. I did use an opening book: PowerBase 2016 (it may be time to buy a more recent version).

Stripes,J (1952) -- Internet Opponent (2096) [C95]
Live Chess Chess.com, 23.01.2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8

Black expends some tempi to bring the knight to a better square. This maneuver is the characteristic feature of the Breyer variation of the Spanish.

White to move

10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.d5

12.Bc2 is the main line

12...c6

White to move

13.c4

13.dxc6 looks better Bxc6 14.Bc2

13...bxc4 14.Bxc4?

14.dxc6 looks better here, as well. The move I played dropped a pawn. 14...cxb3 15.cxb7 Rb8 16.Nxb3 (16.Qxb3? Nc5) 16...Rxb7 17.Bd2

14...cxd5 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Nf1 N7b6 17.Bb3 Rc8

White to move

18.Be3

Perhaps 18.Bd2 with the idea of Ba5 would have been more sensible.

18...Nxe3 19.Nxe3 Kh8 20.Nf5 g6

White to move

21.Nh6

There were better options for this knight.

21.Nxd7, eliminating the bishop pair.
21.Ne3, attempting to use d5 as an outpost.

21...Kg7 22.Ng4 f5 23.Ne3 Bf6 24.Nd5 Nxd5 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Qxd5 Rc5 27.Qd2 Qc7 28.Rad1 Rc8

28...d5 and it seems that Black's central pawns will win the day.

29.Qxd6 e4

White to move

30.Nh2??

30.Qxc7+ R8xc7 31.Nd4 Bxd4 32.Rxd4=

30...Bxb2 31.Qxa6 Rc2 32.Rf1 Be5 33.g3 Bxg3 34.fxg3 Qxg3+ 0-1

Near Perfect?

Scoring 99.6% accuracy on Chess.com's computer-generated assessment might be considered an achievement, even if the game was 100% preparation. However, the game in question featured several risky and dubious moves--a line that I play in blitz and other casual games, but would never attempt in a serious game.

Note in the image from the website's game report that Black had a slight edge early on, even though it was short-lived. During this phase of the game, both players were making so-called book moves. Not all book moves, however, have equal merit. It does seem that the methods of evaluation built into the website's analysis feature does not count dubious or refutable book lines against a player's accuracy score.

Stripes,J. (1838) -- Internet Opponent (1805) [C44]
Live Chess Chess.com, 16.01.2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.c3?! Bc5

4...Nxe4 5.Qe2 d5 is also "book" but White scores poorly.

5.d4

This move is fun to play in blitz and often enough leads to games like the present one, but I doubt I would play it in a serious game.

5.d3 is better, and not surprisingly was played this week in Wijk aan Zee among Grandmasters at the Tata Steel Chess Tournament.

5...exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+

White to move

7.Nc3

7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Na5 11.Qa4+ Nc6 seems about equal (11...c6 12.Bxd5 Qxd5 13.0-0)

7...Nxe4 8.0-0 Nxc3

Now White has an advantage

8...Bxc3! 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 (10.dxc6 bxc6 Black is clearly better) 10...Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5 and White is worse.

9.bxc3 Bxc3

9...d5 10.cxb4 dxc4 11.Re1+ Ne7 White has a lead in development, and perhaps Black's advanced pawns are vulnerable. 12.Bg5

10.Qb3

10.Ba3 is preferred by Stockfish 10 on my computer, but Chess.com's version likes my move better. 10...d5 (10...d6) 11.Bb5

Black to move

10...Bxa1

Now White is winning. I like showing this position from Greco to my students. Black is ahead a rook and two pawns when you count all the material on the board, but all of White's pieces are in the game. Most of Black's forces are locked up. They are spectators, rather than players.

10...d5 is Black's last chance for equality 11.Bxd5 0-0 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7 (12...Kh8 13.Ba3 Bxa1 14.Bxf8 Nxd4 15.Nxd4 Bxd4) 13.Ng5 Be6 14.Qxc3

11.Bxf7+ Kf8

11...Ke7 12.Bg5+ Kf8 (12...Kd6 13.Qa3+ Nb4 14.Qxb4+ Kc6 15.Qc5#) 13.Bxd8

12.Bg5 Ne7

12...Nxd4 tests White a little more, but I won a long game from this position last month. White had an easy game.

13.Ne5

I've had this position in at least two other blitz games. It appears in several of Greco's model games and is one I've used often for instructive purposes.

13...d6

White to move

This was a new move to me, but I find that it appears six times in my copy of the ChessBase database.

13...Bxd4 14.Bg6 d5 15.Qf3+ Bf5 16.Bxf5 Bxe5 17.Be6+ Bf6 18.Bxf6 Ke8 19.Bxg7 is in Greco.

14.Bg6

Is a response suggested in Greco's models, despite the absence of Black's d6 move there. The checkmate threat is simple enough.

14...d5 15.Qf3+ Bf5 16.Bxf5

Black to move

16...g6

16...Bxd4 17.Bg6+ Nf5 (17...Kg8 18.Qf7#) 18.Qxf5+

17.Bh6+

Another move that exists in Greco, but with a small difference in the placement of one or two other pieces.

17...Ke8

17...Kg8 18.Be6#

18.Bxg6+ Nxg6 19.Qf7# 1-0

Black's errors offered an opportunity to reproduce one Greco's instructive model games with a new twist. Such minor alterations to the basic idea were his method as near as I can discern from the several books that have been made from his manuscripts.

The evaluation of my performance by Chess.com's software highlights that such resources should be treated with skepticism and using sparingly.

More on the Exchange French

Yesterday, I posed some questions concerning the position after the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4. I generalized about the relative absence of games in the Exchange French in Chess Informant. However, White has options other than 4.c4. Indeed, this move is the third most popular at top levels, after 4.Nf3 and 4.Bd3. Informants 1-138 have 158 games with the ECO code C01 and 80 of these open 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5. Black has tried other third moves and there are other move orders leading to Exchange-type positions, such as 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.exd5 that also reside within C01.

The mainline Exchange French begins after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5. I have had this position more than 2700 times, and not always as Black. This position appears in 80 games* that have been published in Informant.

White to move

PowerBook 2016 gives the following data (it may be time to update to PowerBook 2019).

My experience is that 4.c4 is the most dangerous, but all White moves are below White's average score across the database as a whole. If a chess player is looking for opportunities for creative play in an approximately equal position, there are several possibilities.

4.Nf3 is the most popular, and so deserves attention. In the 832 games of mine on Chess.com that have reached this position, Black has won more than White and there is a higher than average draw percentage. Usually I have been Black, but I have played both sides.

4...Nf6 is the most popular Black reply, but 4...Nc6 cuts more deeply into White's winning percentage. I've been on the Black side three times in April 2019 with two wins and a draw.

Internet Opponent (1965) -- Stripes,J. (1956) [C01]
Live Chess Chess.com, 10.04.2019

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5

White has many options, including 4.Bd3, 4.c4, 4.Bf4, 4.Nc3, 4.Qf3, and the move played in the game. A few other rare moves have been played.

4.Nf3 Nc6

4...Nf6 is more popular, as is Bd6.

5.Bd3 Bd6 6.0–0

6.c3 is the mainline.

6...Nge7 7.a4 an unusual move that may have originated with this game. 7...Bf5

White to move

Black's pieces are all on squares that they know well. Often, I will play Qd7 and O-O-O, which may have been anticipated by White. This plan works best when White helps my kingside storm get moving with Bg5. With opposite-side castling, the speed of one's pawns can be decisive.

8.Na3

White preserves the option of pushing the c-pawn

8...a6 9.Re1 Qd7 10.Ne5

Black to move

Practically forces my reply.

10...Bxe5 11.dxe5

Black already has a slight advantage. White's pawn on e5 could become vulnerable, bit also interferes with White's efforts to attack.

11...0–0 12.f4 Nb4?

12...Rad8;
12...Nd4

13.Bxf5 Nxf5

13...Qxf5

14.c3

14.g4 White's phalanx of pawns will give Black trouble.

14...Nc6

Both sides have chances. The minor piece and pawn structure imbalances render this a game that should not end in a dull draw.

15.Nc2 d4 16.g4?

Two moves too late. Now, this move is an error.

Black to move

16...Nh4 17.cxd4 Qd5

A beautiful queen outpost!

18.Re2 Nf3+?

White's resignation was the final error. The position is equal.

Black should have played 18...Nxd4 19.Nxd4 Nf3+ with a slight edge.

0–1

The French Exchange leads to open positions with opportunities for piece play. Although it has a drawish reputation, the positions do not lack complexity and opportunities for both players to err. It deserves our attention.



*This number is inflated, as sometimes a single game will appear twice in the same issue--once in the games section and also in one of the articles. Such is the case with the most recent game through Informant 138, for example. Safarli,E.--Huzman,A., Porto Carras 2018 Informant 138/114 appears in the games section and also with verbal annotations in an article on the European Club Cup.

Exchange French

Black to move

This position, which I have had in more than 900 games, appears in only twelve games in Chess Informant through volume 138. Is the position so theoretically dull that the editors of Informant lack interest in the position? Is it generally avoided by Grandmasters because Black too easily equalizes?

The games that have made it into Informant include some long middle games with dynamic piece play and instructive endings. What else should we want from an opening?

I think that Black should play Nf6 and Bb4 on the next two moves. It is less clear to me whether the sequence matters. In ChessBase's PowerGames database, Nf6 is played first more than 80% of the time.

Knights before Bishops

Most chess players have heard the rule that one should deploy a knight towards the center before moving a bishop. The standard move order in the Spanish opening is a good example--for White, a center pawn, the king's knight, and then the king's bishop. The Italian opening follows the same sequence. Likewise, in many lines of the Queen's Gambit, White will deploy both knights before moving a bishop. In other lines one knight comes out and one bishop a move or two later, while the other minor pieces await developments that reveal their best square.

However, in the London System, White plays the queen's bishop on the second move, and may bring out both bishops before a knight moves. Likewise, Black's first minor piece to come out in the Caro-Kann is a bishop.

Erik Kislik states that knights before bishops, "is not a very useful rule" (27) in Applying Logic in Chess (2018). This rule is the first of ten that Kislik quotes from the work of some unnamed grandmaster, presented as rules for beginners. He makes an important point:

Rules in chess assume 'all else is equal',but all else rarely is equal, so we need to judge ideas based on specific circumstances. Most of the time, advice given to amateurs is in the form of rules. Chess is a concrete game though, and more often than not, this advice is too stereotypical to be of much applicable value.
Kislik, Applying Logic in Chess, 26.

Kislik runs through each of the ten rules, offering his views of how each develops principles in certain circumstances but falls short in others. His analysis is almost completely verbal, with few diagrams and analysis of specific positions.

The Review

John Hartmann sold me Kislik's book through his review in Chess Life ("Logical Ambition," CL, September 2018, 20-21). Hartmann calls Kislik's book "one of the most interesting titles to appear in recent years, ... also one of the most maddening" (20). Hartmann notes that the cover, with a flowchart for making decisions in chess, is "misleading": "There is nothing in the text that resembles a flowchart for thought" (21). Kislik's view of logic and reason is more modest.

Another book on my shelf offers flowcharts, Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess: How to Think Creatively and Avoid Foolish Mistakes (2004). I reviewed it here on Chess Skills in February 2017. The core of that book is found in the quality and difficulty of the exercises. I have found the flowcharts marginally useful.

Hartmann's comments took me back forty years when some fellow undergraduates were taking a course on logic and making the efforts to systemize thought in terms like, "if p, then q". I did not find such an approach to logic any more useful for learning to think than studying semiotics for learning to read and write. The notion that seemed to represent this more modest view of logic, which Hartmann quotes from later in Kislik's book, that chess errors always can be explained clearly, was enough to interest me in the book.

Hartmann also notes that, "there are multi-page stretches unsullied by diagrams or analysis" (21).

Kislik's Assessment

After declaring the rule "not ... useful", Kislik highlights both its merits and shortcomings. He starts out noting that the corollary to the rules that, "developing bishops early on is suboptimal ... is definitely not true" (27). What matters, he suggests, are the reasons. Kislik highlights piece coordination, the principle of improving the worst-placed piece, and flexibility. The last is where the rule's merits become evident. The knight on g1 usually finds itself well-placed on f3 early in the game, but the optimal placement of the bishops is less certain.

His views on this rule and those that follow are thought provoking and worthy of attention. Nonetheless, his discussion seems incomplete. He laments the instruction methods for beginners that proclaim these rules without, "making sense of the principle or idea, or understanding where it came from" (26). My way of thinking about "where it came from" drives me towards historical explanations. Kislik does not offer any history of these rules.

In Common Sense in Chess (1917), Emanuel Lasker offers the text of lectures that he presented in London in 1895. In the first of these lectures, he develops four rules--including knights before bishops--through concrete analysis of several short model games. Five years ago, these rules and games, as well as a few others that I selected, comprised the core of my lessons for youth players over several sessions (see Lasker's Rules).

Rule Independence

Erik Kislik is not original in his suggestion that concrete analysis of specific positions should take precedence over abstract and universal rules. This idea was well-expressed in John Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch (1998). Even so, strong Grandmasters who teach young players still promulgate these rules with the understanding that their pupils will need to learn how and when to violate them. I recall during a tournament broadcast a few years ago, hearing Peter Svidler discuss his struggle with both promoting and resisting the teaching of such rules. These rules have a purpose even though in the long-run they can retard development.

Consider the very common position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

White to move

Many youth players will not reach this position because they would have played 3.Nc3. While this move is not inherently bad, young players will make it by rote, often oblivious to the moves played by Black. They will often play it without thinking. Kislik's underlying notion, it seems to me, is that even at this early stage of the game, it is critical that reasoning must be part of every move. Whether one plays 3.Nc3, 3.Bc4, 3.Bb5, 3.d4, or some other move, it must be rooted in understanding.

From the diagram, most of the youth games that I have witnessed continue 4.Nc3. Master games, on the other hand, more often proceed with 4.d3 or 4.c3 (which violates one of Lasker's rules). In my play, I favor 4.c3 as more dynamic, and I usually will follow it with 5.d4. However, as more and more opponents fail to exhibit the greed that leads to disaster in the Greco Gambit, I am shifting towards 5.d3.

In my play and in my teaching, I teach students that it is okay to play 4.Nc3 (or 3.Nc3), even though I think there are stronger moves. What is critical, I urge is that these moves are made with thought and understanding, not simply played by rote. In the end, that's the point of these rules for development: they are guidelines that assist our thinking, not rules that direct our play. I think Kislik agrees.

Morra Miniatures

This morning I won a short game employing the Smith-Morra Gambit. The Morra fascinates me because I lost to it in eight moves in a chess tournament twenty years ago. I also have faint recollection of struggling against it in an email game several years later. In junk chess, that is, the online blitz that I play most days, I often employ a variation of the Morra Gambit that mimics the Danish Gambit. However, in the Danish Gambit, Black cannot play e7-e6. Against the Morra, that move is quite normal.

After winning this short game this morning, I spent some time looking at other Morra games, but between masters, using the ChessBase iOS app on my iPad. That program tends to crash, but it does give me access to the ChessBase online database. The game that caught my interest is not available at 365.com, chessgames.com, or other free game collections online. However, via the winning player's name, I was able to download a PGN file of all the games from the event from FIDE's website.

Stripes,J (1968) -- Internet Opponent (1995) [B21]
Live Chess Chess.com, 21.08.2018

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.c3 dxc3

This move order confuses the database. It shows eight games with 5.Nxc3 and a horrid score for White, but entering 5.Nxc3 brings up nearly one thousand games. The two most popular Black replies--5...e6 and 5...d6–-both increase the number of reference games. White's score remains such that the line might be considered a poor choice in serious competition.

5.Nf3

My intention was to play an obscure Morra variant akin to the Danish Gambit.

White normally plays 5.Nxc3 e6 (5...d6)

5...e6 6.0–0 a6

I think that Black wastes time driving the bishop to a square where it will not need the queen's protection.

7.Qe2

7.Nxc3 transposes to somewhat normal Morra.

7...b5 8.Bb3 d6 9.Rd1 Qc7 10.Nxc3

Now that White has played this move, there are reference games in the database.

10...Bb7 11.Bf4 Nf6

Black is finally beginning to get the kingside developed. White is ready to attack with all of his forces and the Black king remains in the center. Already, Stockfish sees White as having the edge.

White to move

12.Rac1 Qb8 13.e5

13.Nd5! As in the King's Gambit, players of the Morra Gambit should be prepared to sacrifice a piece or find another opening.

13...dxe5?

Does not help Black's defense.

Necessary was 13...Nh5 14.Nd5 Nxf4 15.Nxf4 d5 (15...dxe5 16.Rxc6 Bxc6 17.Nxe5 Bd6 18.Nxc6 Qc7 19.Nxe6 Qxc6 20.Nd4+) 16.Nxd5 exd5 17.e6 White's attack is strong and should prevail, but Black has faint hopes.

14.Nxe5+– Nxe5

14...Bb4 is the engine's top choice

15.Bxe5

Black to move

15...Qa7

15...Be7 Stockfish would give up the queen.

16.Bxf6

16.Nxb5 is stronger, but White's move is good enough 16...Be7 (16...axb5 leads to a forced checkmate 17.Qxb5+ Bc6 18.Qxc6+ Nd7 19.Rxd7 Qa6 20.Rd8+ Kxd8 21.Rd1+ Bd6 22.Rxd6+ Ke7 23.Qd7+ Kf8 24.Rxa6 Rb8 25.Ra7 and checkmate in one) 17.Nxa7

16...gxf6 17.Bxe6

17.Nxb5 remains best

17...Rg8 

Moves into checkmate in five.

17...fxe6 18.Qxe6+ and checkmate in nine 18...Be7 19.Rd7 Qc5 20.Re1 etc.

White to move

18.Bd7+ Kd8 19.Qe8+ Kc7 20.Nd5+ Kd6 21.Nxf6+

21.Nb6+ prevents a delaying move

21...Bd5

21...Qd4 22.Rxd4+ Bd5 23.Rxd5#

22.Rxd5# 1–0

Georgy Pilavov was not known to me before this game, although he is in FIDE's list of the top 200 active players.

Pilavov,Georgy (2611) -- Poliakov,Vladimir (2401) [B21]
Crimean Dridge Golubitskaya (3), 26.05.2018

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3

The normal moves in the Smith-Morra Gambit.

4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Qe2

Until this move, both players have played the most common move order.

7.0–0 is the normal move order.

Black to move

7...a6

Two moves that occur more often also seem more in keeping with Black's need to get the king out of the center: 7...Nf6 and 7...Be7.

8.0–0 Qc7 9.Rd1 Nf6 10.Bf4 Ne5

Black's second most popular move in the position.

10...Be7 is the most popular.

11.Bxe5 dxe5 12.Rac1 Qb8

White to move

13.Nb5!

This move appears in two prior games in the database, one between juniors in 1997 and a more recent game between class players. White lost both games. According to my chess engine, Black can draw with best play. However, an International Master failed to find the necessary defense. Those who play the Smith-Morra in serious games might find benefits from studying this game.

13...Bd7

13...axb5 14.Bxb5+ Bd7 Both ways to capture the bishop lead to equality, according to Stockfish.  Nanni,S (1709) -- Bozzao,F (1883) Arco ITA 2015 was won by Black in 28 moves.

14.Rxd7!

Although Morphy's Opera game differed in substantial ways with Rxd7 keeping most of Black's pieces pinned, there is a way this game is similar. All White's pieces are participating in the attack, while Black's forces are spectators. In this game and Morphy's Opera game, Black's king is stuck in the middle.

14.Qd3 Eissing,C -- Philipowski,R Hiddenhausen 1997 was won by Black in 30 moves.

14...Nxd7 15.Bxe6!

Black to move

15...fxe6?

15...Nc5 16.Bxf7+ Kxf7 17.Ng5+ Kg6 18.Qf3 Kxg5 19.Qf5+ White can force a draw by repetition.

16.Nc7+ Ke7 17.Qc4 Kd8 18.Ng5

18.Nxe6+ Ke7 19.Neg5

Black to move

18...Nc5

18...Bc5 19.Ncxe6+ Ke7 20.Nxc5 Qg8 21.Qb4+–

19.Ncxe6+ Nxe6 20.Qxe6 1–0

I really enjoyed playing through GM Pilavov's game.

Alekhine-Chatard Attack

In the past, I have struggled against the Alekhine-Chatard Attack, which only seems to get deployed against me in blitz. I have neither faced it over the board, nor in correspondence play. Nor have I spent as much time studying the books than on other variations for White against the French Defense. Consequently, I rely on my instincts and often falter.

Last night, I faced it in a blitz game against a National Master. I won!

Anonymous NM (2075) -- Stripes,J (1922) [C14]
Live Chess Chess.com, 31.05.2018

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4

Black to move

Black has many choices here.

Accepting the gambit has been my usual response, but I have tried all or most of the main options. I have lost more than I have won. A year or so ago, while discussing this opening with a friend who has played the French longer than I have and is higher rated, he mentioned that Black can simply castle.

Viktor Moskalenko recommends castling in The Even More Flexible French (2015).

6...0–0 7.Bd3

According to Moskalenko, 7.Qg4 is the "most aggressive option" (339). According to PowerBook 2016, however, 7.Bd3 has a better scoring percentage for White.

7...f5?!

7...c5 is the recommended move.

8.exf6

8.Nh3!

8...Nxf6 9.Nf3

Black to move

9...Nc6!?

I have two prior games from this position. Both are losses.

9...c5 is the only move in PowerBook 2016.

10.0–0

10.Qe2 was played in those two prior games. One ended quickly: 10...Ng4 11.O-O-O Nb4 12.Bxh7+ Kxh7 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Ng5+ Kg8 15.Qh5 and missing 16...Bf5, I was mated two moves later.

10...Bd7 11.Qe2 Nb4

White to move

Perhaps Black has equalized. Both players have several options for the struggle. Having castled kingside, White's thematic pawn storm is less of a threat. My opponent quickly lost his way.

12.Bxf6?! Bxf6 13.Ne5? Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Bxe5 15.dxe5 Qxh4

White to move

With a one pawn advantage and no problems, I went on to win.

It's Only Blitz

I beat a National Master yesterday afternoon. It has been a couple of months since my last win against a titled player, so I was happy to get this one. It was my last game in a blitz playing session characterized by poor play, but it was a better game. Of course, I made errors, but they were less egregious than in my previous several games.

I spent a little more than an hour playing blitz, and at least that much time analyzing this one game. This game was played in less than six minutes. Did it deserve more than an hour of post-game analysis? My opponent shall remain unnamed because he left a clue on his Chess.com page that suggests he would prefer it that way.


Stripes,J (1892) -- Internet Opponent (1926) [E11]
Chess.com, 07.08.2017

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2

4.Bd2 is the most popular move. Some years ago, I bought and read partly through The Chess Advantage in Black and White (2004) by Larry Kaufman. Many of the lines that Kaufman recommends do not suit me well, but his basic idea has been an influence. He advocates "second best" moves early in the game when it reduces the amount of theory that one must learn.

I am not certain that 4.Nbd2 is second best, but it is second most popular. 4.Bd2 is played twice as often. 4.Nbd2 has a better scoring percentage for White and a slightly higher Elo performance as well. I had the impression that 4.Bd2 was the choice of top Grandmasters, but a check this morning refuted that. Garry Kasparov has played both moves. Magnus Carlsen has played both, but 4.Nbd2 more recently. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave seems to favor my choice.

I spent some time thinking about the relative merits of the choice that White makes here in the Bogo-Indian Defense. Why is 4.Bd2 more popular?

4...Qe7 5.g3 b6

The databases suggest that this move is rare, but the structure is certainly familiar.

6.Bg2 Bb7 7.0–0 0–0

Castling leads via transposition to a small batch of reference games.

8.Nb3

It is hard to believe that this move has not been played before. There must be something wrong with it. Perhaps, this move offers a clue to the popularity of 4.Bd2. The knight blocks the bishop when it stands there. It also lacks good squares that can be reached from d2. On b3, where I placed it, it interferes with queenside pawn expansion. Other moves seem worse.

Black to move

8...d5 9.a3 Bd6 10.c5!?

This brilliant pawn sacrifice was actually an oversight. I was unaware that I was down a pawn until at the end of the game, savoring my victory, I noticed that material was equal. This sacrifice creates a minor piece imbalance that sometimes favors White, but was it worth a pawn?

10...bxc5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Nxc5 Qxc5 13.Be3 Qd6

13...Qe7

14.Rc1 Na6

14...Nbd7

15.Bf4 Qd7

15...Qe7

16.Ne5 Qe7 17.Nc6

Black to move

At this point of the game, I was pleased with my position. I seem to have my opponent's forces tied down.

17...Qd7 18.Qc2 Rfc8 19.b4 Nb8 20.b5 Bxc6

After this exchange, we have two bishops against two knights and only the c-pawns are blocked.

21.bxc6 Qe7

White to move

How might White squeeze Black from this position?

22.Qb3 with the idea of Qb7 seems to have some merit.

22.Bg5 threatens e4.

I did not spend much time on this position during the game, but invested about fifteen minutes with it on the deck in the evening. It might be one that could be added to the store of middlegame positions for performing Jeremy Silman's inventory of imbalances.

22.e4 dxe4 23.Bxe4 Nxe4 24.Qxe4 a5

Maybe 24...Qxa3

25.Rfd1 Qxa3

Maybe 25...Ra6

26.Bxc7! Na6

26...a4 27.Bxb8 Raxb8 28.c7 looks overwhelming for White.

26...Rxb7 27.Rd8+ Qf8 28.Rxf8+ Kxf8 and the material balance has shifted strongly in favor of White. Even so, a queen and pawn agianst a rook and bishop is not always a winning material advantage in time pressure.

27.Bd6 Nb4 28.c7 h6

White to move

29.Bxb4?

29.Be7! My target is d8. Why not make a move that contributes to this plan?

29... axb4

29...Qxb4 30.Qxa8!

30.Rc6

Black to move

30...b3

30...Qa5 is equal and takes advantage of my error a move earlier.

31.Rcd6 g6 32.Rd8+ Kg7 33.Qe5+ f6 34.R8d7+

34.R1d7+ Qe7 35.Rxe7#

34...Kg8 35.Qxe6+ 1–0

Maybe my pawn sacrifice was sound. Both players committed the sort of positional errors that one might expect in a blitz game.

Falkbeer Counter-gambit

Ernst Karl Falkbeer (1819-1885) founded Austria's first chess magazine, Wiener Schachzeitung, but is remembered today mostly for the response to the King's Gambit that bears his name. He published an article analyzing Black's third move and also played several games employing the gambit.

The main line appears to be 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 (the signature move of the Falkbeer Counter-gambit) 3.exd5 e4 (the topic of Falkbeer's 1850 article) 4.d3 Nf6 and then White has four main options.

a) Nc3
b) Qe2
c) Nd2
d) dxe4

According to John Shaw, The King's Gambit (2013), "White has excellent chances of an edge in the traditional main lines" (560). The Falkbeer "has become something of a museum piece at the highest levels," according to Neal McDonald, The King's Gambit: A Modern View of a Swashbuckling Opening (1998). Even so, Dmitrij Jakovenko has played it as recently as the 2014 Russian Championship.

My Round Four Opponent

When I was facing the King's gambit yesterday, I had recollections of one of the Polgar sisters playing the Falkbeer, and also remembered two games that I have studied in some depth, Schulten -- Morphy 1857 and Rosanes -- Anderssen 1862. Both historic games were won quickly by Black. A check of my database this morning shows that Susan Polgar lost to Boris Spassky in 1988 when she played the Falkbeer. She opted for the 3...c6 line that was popular for awhile.

The oldest game in the ChessBase database with Black's 3...e4

Anderssen,Adolf -- Falkbeer,Ernst Karl [C32]
Berlin m3 Berlin, 1851

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Bb5+ Bd7 5.Qe2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bc5 7.Nxe4 0–0 8.Bxd7 Nbxd7 9.d3 Nxd5 10.Nf3 Re8 11.f5 Bb4+ 12.Kf2 N7f6 13.g3 Qd7 14.c4 Nxe4+ 15.dxe4 Nf6 16.e5 Qxf5 17.Kg2 Rad8 18.a3 Bd6 19.Rd1 Qh5 20.c5 Rxe5 21.Qxe5 Qg4 22.cxd6 Re8 23.Qxe8+ Nxe8 24.d7 Qe4 25.d8Q Qc2+ 26.Bd2 1–0

Two memorable historic games.

Schulten,John William -- Morphy,Paul [C32]
New York blindfold m New York, 1857

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 Bb4 6.Bd2 e3 7.Bxe3 0–0 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Re8+ 10.Be2 Bg4 11.c4 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Kf1 Rxe2 14.Nxe2 Nd4 15.Qb1 Bxe2+ 16.Kf2 Ng4+ 17.Kg1 Nf3+ 18.gxf3 Qd4+ 19.Kg2 Qf2+ 20.Kh3 Qxf3+ 0–1

Rosanes,Jacob -- Anderssen,Adolf [C32]
Breslau m Breslau, 1862

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Bb5+ c6 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Qe2 Bc5 8.Nxe4 0–0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.d3 Re8 11.Bd2 Nxe4 12.dxe4 Bf5 13.e5 Qb6 14.0–0–0 Bd4 15.c3 Rab8 16.b3 Red8 17.Nf3 Qxb3 18.axb3 Rxb3 19.Be1 Be3+ 0–1

My fourth round opponent started with the Bird, which I met with the From, then we transposed into the King's Gambit and the Falkbeer. That is exactly how one of my worst tournament games ever began two years ago, except that I had White (see "Knowing Better").

Tito Tinajero (1614) -- James Stripes (1845) [C32]
25th Collyer Memorial Spokane Valley (4), 26.02.2017

1.f4 e5 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Nc3

4.d3 is considered best. 4...Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2 "theory and practice have demonstrated with a high degree of certainty that White will obtain an advantage" (Shaw, 585).

4...Nf6 5.Bb5+

I expected 5.d3, which is the main line. Shaw mentions 5.Bb5 as a means of avoiding established theory. It's certainly a worthy move at the club level.

5...c6

5...Nbd7 or 5...Bd7 were options. Because I needed to win, I was happier accepting weaknesses in pawn structure than offering minor piece exchanges. Later, however, concrete analysis forced me to consider some exchanges.

6.dxc6 bxc6 7.Bc4

Black to move

7...Bg4?!

7...Bc5 seems better and was played in the only game in PowerBook 2016 with 5.Bb5+. That game continued 8.d4 Qxd4 9.Qxd4 Bxd4 10.Nge2 Bb6 11.Na4 Ba6 12.Nxb6 axb6 13.Bb3 0–0 14.h3 c5 15.a3 e3 16.Bxe3 Re8 17.Kf2 Ne4+ 18.Kf3 Bb7 19.Rhe1 Nd7 20.Ng3 Ndf6 21.Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Ke2 Ba6+ 23.Kf3 Bb7 24.Ke2 Ba6+ 25.Kf3 Bb7 26.Ke2 ½–½ Metz,H (2275) -- Baburin,A (2530) Liechtenstein 1993

8.Be2

8.Nge2 was worth considering.

8...Be6 

8...Bf5 9.d3 Qb6 10.dxe4 Bxe4 was played in Richter,E -- McAloon,J, Ca'n Picafort 1992, which White won in 36 moves.

9.d3 Bb4 10.Bd2

Black to move

10...exd3

I first thought of 10...e3, as Morphy played against Schulten, but my c-pawn makes a critical element of Morphy's attack impossible.

I missed an opportunity: 10...Qd4! 11.Qc1 (11.dxe4? Bc5 12.Qc1 Qf2+-+) 11...Nbd7 and Black's pieces are more active.

11.Bxd3 Qb6?

I should have castled, but failed to anticipate White's next move.

12.f5 Bd5

I spent twenty minutes on this move.

13.Nxd5 Nxd5

During that twenty minutes, I thought that I would play 13...Bxd2+, but now spent another five minutes considering whether that was best. Although several of my moves in this game were not best, the time that I invested and the care taken are indicators that I was taking the game seriously. I was playing the board, not my opponent. I was not making the sort of hasty moves that cost me a draw on Saturday (see "Stronger King").

14.Qe2+

Black to move

14...Kf8

I spent another thirteen minutes on this move. I considered 14...Kd8, as well as several other options that seemed to fail tactically. I wanted to castle, but blocking the check and the castling seemed to drop a piece after White drove the knight away. Of course, White would need to castle first or face a skewer along the e-file. Blocking the check with the knight seemed to be going backwards.

My chess engine prefers 14...Kd8, which I rejected because it seemed too easy for White to move the bishops, producing a discovered attack against my king. If I could calculate as well as a computer, I might have been able to assess these dangers. 15.0–0–0 Re8 16.Qf1 Nd7 and Black is equal, according to Stockfish.

14...Kf8 is the computer's second choice.

15.0–0–0 Nd7

Stockfish prefers 15...Be7, which would have been consistent with my earlier plan to avoid exchanges. But, now, I sensed the need to catch up in development. Despite my sacrifice of a pawn for activity, my opponent's pieces seem more active.

16.Bxb4+ Qxb4 17.Bc4?

17.Qd2 and White retains the edge.

17...Re8

The game is equal.

White to move

18.Qd3??

18.c3 Nxc3 19.bxc3 Qxc3+ 20.Qc2 Qa1+= and Black forces a draw. I likely would have played something else and been worse.

After 17 moves, my opponent had 1:15 remaining to my 45 minutes. Being behind thirty minutes on the clock might have motivated me to cut my losses and bail. Happily, he spent four minutes finding a horrendous move that I quickly exploited.

18...Ne5 19.Qf1 0-1

After making this move, my opponent tipped his king before I could play 19...Nxc4.

It may be worth my time to find another line against the King's Gambit, or to meet the Bird with something other than the From. Against 1.e4, I usually play the French.

Fiddling with the London System

In the first round of the Winter Championship at the Spokane Chess Club last night, I played an opponent who has been difficult for me. We first played forty years ago in a match between our respective high schools. There may have been some other games after that, but the oldest game in my database is from my first USCF tournament, which was March 1996. I had White, played the King's Gambit, gained a slightly better position, and then lost.

Although I have been higher rated than him for most of the past twenty years, we have a nearly equal score. I believed last night when the game began that I was at +1, but a check of the US Chess Federation's website reveals that I am +2 until last night's game is rated.

My struggle against this opponent is a struggle with myself. My weakness in chess tournaments is playing to the level of my competition. Instead of playing the board and finding the best moves, no matter who is sitting across from me, I take unnecessary risks against weak players. Players in C Class seem weak to me now that I have risen well above that level, but they are strong enough to exploit stupidity.

Patrick Kirlin's excessive nervousness at the chess board compounds my tendency to play the player, rather than the board. Indeed, I credit my compassion for his time trouble and panic as the cause of letting a slightly better position deteriorate rapidly in that game in 1996. It is fine to be friendly with opponents before and after the game, and to be polite at the board, but compassion has no place in competition during the battle. I need the focus of my friend John Julian who looks at me as if I am his most hated enemy when we play each other (see "City Championship, Game One").

Last night, I had White. After thinking about various opening plans, I opted for the London System. I have been playing this opening a bit in online blitz lately, but I think this was my first game in the system in over the board play at standard time controls. The London System is not particularly ambitious for securing an advantage from the opening with the White pieces, but may suit my interest in playing for a long endgame--a strategy that often produces success against players at all levels in our local pool.

Simon Williams, in one of his YouTube videos advertising a DVD characterizes the London System, "a great opening for the lazy players out there." Dejan Bojkov, in a video about an instructive miniature in the London, offers another view: "Whenever you play the London System, you expect people to fight for a very long time." Indeed, this long fight is why players like Vladimir Kramnik, Gata Kamsky, and even Magnus Carlsen have played it. Carlsen's play, in particular, inspired me to give it a try.

Stripes,James (1791) - Kirlin,Patrick (1410) [A48]
SCC Winter Championship Spokane (1), 19.01.2017

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Bf4

3.c4 might be more sensible than trying to force every game into a cookie cutter London System, but this was my initial foray with the London.

3...Bg7 4.Nbd2

White's scoring percentage is poor after this move. Looking back, I do not comprehend why I played it.

4.e3 is the normal move.

5.e4

I was thinking about my teaching of children and how often I tell them, "if your opponent lets you put two pawns on e4 and d4, you should do so." This teaching compelled me to play this move, grabbing space. However, both 5.c3 and 5.e3 is more in keeping with the needs of the position. White must prepare the e4 push. In this respect, the London System bears similarities with the Colle System.

5...d6 6.Bd3

6.c4 was my move when I had the same position in a blitz game in October 2016. I won that game quickly.

6...Nh5

Given who I was playing this move was expected. Although I more or less invited it, I also may have underestimated it.

6...c5 7.c3 cxd4 8.cxd4 e5 should give Black a slight edge.

7.Be3

At this point in the game, I recalled that often in Paul Morphy's games he would have all of his minor pieces in play while his opponent had but two or three. After this move, my opponent left the board seemingly in a panic. His behavior at the tournament director's table seemed to indicate that he was in search of a different writing instrument. I learned about ten minutes later that his intention was to create a distraction. He wrote the name of America's worst mistake on his forehead, and then made certain that I looked at his forehead when he returned to the board. He said, "it is to psych you out."

I have engaged in a few behaviors that have irritated him in years past, albeit never with such explicit intent. For instance, once I came to chess club with some apple juice in a whiskey flask. It had no effect on my opponent that night, a former US Army Ranger. However, when Pat walked into club and saw the flask, his distraction could be read on his face. I also routinely place a captured pawn behind the clock to stymie the calculation of those who do their material count off the board.

I told the tournament director that my opponent's behavior was a violation of the rules, but did not press the matter. Spokane tournament chess is friendly competition. A few bad behaviors are tolerated within reason. A cell phone rang later in the round and the player on the other side of the board declared loudly, "you just forfeited." However, the threats to forfeit those whose phones ring during play is mostly talk. It was the first instance for this particular player. Another regular at club has a ringing cell phone nearly every event. We make it a point to remind him before round one of weekend Swiss events, when there are many players from out of town.

7.Bg3 did not seem like a good idea.
7.Bg5 merits consideration. 7...h6 8.Be3.

Black to move

7...e5 8.c3?

After brushing off the explicit effort to distract me as of no consequence (I said, "I've made my peace with the coming apocalypse"), my first move upon my opponent's return to the board was an error.

8...Nf4 9.Bf1

My intention was to play g3 after preparation, perhaps h3 or h4. Unfortunately I looked at the knight going back to h5, overlooking the value of the e6 square as a posting for the knight. This oversight became more serious a few moves later.

9.Bxf4 exf4 occupied my thoughts for several minutes. I preferred to avoid both giving up the bishop pair and creating a phalanx of pawns for my opponent on the kingside. In retrospect, I should have snapped off the knight.

9...b6

I started thinking that my opponent was planning to help me secure the h3 square so that I could play g3.

10.Qc2 Ba6 11.c4?

My move severely weakens the d4 square. Failing to notice such things stems from short-term tactical responses without considering long-term positional consequences. Playing to the level of my opponent is one cause of these mental errors. Playing too much online blitz is another (see "Good Blitz, Bad Blitz").

11.Bxf4 is probably still a move that I should have considered more seriously.

11...c5 12.dxe5?

12.d5 is objectively better. I considered that having more space could be useful, but did not like closing the center. It was probably a better decision to close the center and remove Black's knight.

12...dxe5 13.0–0–0

I hoped to play Nb1–c3-d5 after castling, but quickly realized that my opponent would need to make a few terribly weak moves to facilitate this maneuver.

13...Nc6

White to move

14.Bxf4 exf4

14...Nb4 15.Qb3 exf4 16.a3 Nc6 17.Nb1 Qc7 18.Nc3 seems to give Black the edge.

15.Nb3 Nd4

With 15...Qf6 Black has a clear advantage, when neither 16.a3 nor 16.Kb1 are fully adequate.

16.Nbxd4 cxd4 

16...Bxd4 17.Nxd4 cxd4 18.Bd3 gives White equality and long-term prospects of winning the isolated d-pawn in the endgame.

17.Bd3 

Black to move

It is clear that my position is worse. My king is vulnerable to attacks along the c-file as well as the diagonals that begin at b1 and c1.

17...f5?

Now that the game is over, I can feel compassion for Patrick for throwing the game away with this move.

17...Re8 18.Rhe1 Bb7 19.Qd2 Qc7 20.Kb1 should retain the advantage for Black and keep me suffering for my early missteps.

18.exf5

Now I have a clear advantage

18...Bb7

18...gxf5 19.Bxf5 Bxc4 could have been effective if not for the response being check. 20.Qxc4+ Kh8 and White is clearly better.

19.fxg6+- h5

19...hxg6 20.Bxg6

20.Be4 Rb8

20...Bxe4 21.Qxe4 Qd6 (21...Qc7 22.b3 Rae8 23.Qd3)

21.Rhe1

My game has become comfortable and my moves easy.

21...Bc8

My opponent keeps finding ways to help me.

22.Bd5+ Kh8 23.Ne5 

I considered 23.Nxd4 Qf6 24.f3

Black to move

23...Bxe5

23...Bf5 was Black's last chance to stay in the battle 24.Be4 Bxe5 (24...Bxe4 25.Qxe4) 25.Bxf5 Bg7

24.Rxe5 Qf6 

24...Kg7 was forced, but Black is lost anyway.

25.Rxh5+ 1–0

Playing anything less than the best moves, no matter who I'm playing against, is a behavior that must be exorcised if I am to make progress back into A Class and up. I won last night because my opponent played worse, not because I played well. I cannot blame the London System, but can blame the way I handled it with move order errors, ambition (the premature e4 push), tactical oversights, and shallow positional thinking.

A Batch of Games

I was lucky to get a draw against an underrated youth player in late summer 2014 in the Spokane Falls Open. Happily, this same event went much better for me the following summer (see "Winning an Open"). Against the youth player, we reached this position after a couple of minutes and then I started to rush matters and handed him a long-term initiative through inaccurate play. In the end, he did not see his winning chances and fought hard for a draw while I sought an elusive win. Eventually, kings were all that remained on the board.

Black to move

This position is a typical position in ECO C11*, the Steinitz variation of the French Defense. My game against the underrated youth was not the first time that I had steered too close to the ditch in this variation.

Weaknesses become strengths when training is guided by deliberate practice (see "Hanging Pieces"). When Chess Informant's Paramount Database arrived, I browsed through some its features. Of immediate interest was a list of the openings that had in excess of 500 published games through the first 123 volumes of Informant. There have been 588 games in C 11!

Naturally, I set out to quickly run through all of them. Some days I have raced through thirty games. Other days, I am too busy with other things to look at any from this set. A few times, I have forgotten which game I left off with and have gone through a batch that I had seen a few days prior.

When I have finished all 588 games and pick up any of my opening monographs on the French Defense, the reference games for the Steinitz variation shall be familiar. This morning I am on Nijboer -- Visser, Hoogeveen 2002, Informant 86/284. It is game 392 in the list of 588.


*ECO Code is a trademark of Chess Informant.

Refuting a Beginner's Error

While running a youth chess tournament on Saturday, I played a short game with a young student. He opted for Damiano's Defense, a not uncommon beginner's error. Some of my students this week are gaining experience by playing both sides of the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?! (see "Opening Disaster: Damiano's Defense").

White to move

For the beginning students, I asked them to play from this position for several minutes. Then, I showed them my game from Saturday, as well as a few alternative variations. After the instruction, they played from this position again, taking turns as White.

3.Nxe5! fxe5??

Black is only a little worse after 3...Qe7, a move once played by Mikhail Chigorin in a match (1850-1908), the great Russian master. That game was the source for a lesson in December (see "Outplay Chigorin").

4.Qh5+ Ke7

Black's other legal move, here, does offer prospects for counterplay if White's play lacks vigor.

4...g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 7.Kd1 Ne7 and White is technically winning, but not without problems. This position is a good one to practice against the computer.

5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ Kg6?

6...d5 allows the bishop to cover f5.

White to move

7.h4?

7.Qf5+ was the correct move.

7...h5

7...d5 was still possible.

8.Qf5+ Kh6 9.d4+ g5 10.hxg5+ Kg7 11.Qf7#.

My beginning students need to learn to recognize immediate threats and two move tactics. Advanced students, too, may learn from this short game and from practice from the positions after Black's move two, White's third move, and the variation given after Black's better fourth move.

A Central Pawn Break

This morning, I planned to spend some time reviewing the first 48 middlegame positions in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (see "Year in Review 2015"). However, opting to quickly race through six games in the Paramount Database (see "Who is Better?") ended my planning of the day's study session. I reviewed one game. Black's thematic pawn break caught my eye and pushed me back through the game at a slower pace, absorbing the annotations along the way.

Nijboer,Friso (2534) -- Glek,Igor V (2566) [C11]
Wijk aan Zee II 75/265, 1999

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2

I have never faced this position in over-the-board play, but have seen it at least 79 times online. I have held White under 52%, but my overall score in my database is stronger. White's fifth move usually provokes a sense of discomfort because my plans for the middlegame are not yet formed. This move tests my preparation in the French Defense and finds me wanting. It is one of those weaknesses that provoked the current project of playing through every French Steinitz game ever published in Chess Informant.

5...c5 6.c3

6.f4 is often played.

6...cxd4 7.cxd4 f6 8.exf6

In his Informant annotations, Igor Glek notes that CI 59 has a game with 8.f4.

8...Nxf6 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Nc3 Bd6 11.Bd3 0–0 12.Bg5?! 

12.0–0 is the normal move, and is given without comment by Glek.

12...Qe8! 13.Qd2N 

Both 13.0–0 and 13.Qe2 had been played in previous games. One game in 2004 followed this one with 13.Qd2. Glek notes that Black gets an advantage after 13.O-O Qh5.

13...Nh5 14.Ne2

Black to move

This position slowed my race through the moves of the game.

14...e5! 

Black often plays this move in several lines of the French. Racing through this game, I paused to consider that I lack principles for understanding when this break is appropriate. Certainly tactical considerations are primary, but there must be some guiding positional concerns too. Although the position itself is unlikely to recur, elements of this position must be more common.

Breaking open the position while the opponent's king has not yet castled is an obvious point, but I sense there is more going on here.

15.Nxe5 

Glek offers 15.dxe5 Bb4 16.Nc3 Rxf3 17.gxf3 d4 with advantage to Black.

Analysis diagram after 15.dxe5 etc.

15...Nxd4!

I have retained Glek's move evaluations. In retrospect, this move executes a simple tactic of removing the defender. However, the point is less Black's immediate regain of the pawn than Black's control of the center.

With his thematic central pawn break, followed by strong moves, Black has seized control of the game's direction.

Such possibilities make the French Defense a good choice for players who like to attack.

16.Nxd4 Qxe5+ 17.Be3 Nf4 18.Bf1 Bg4

Black's minor pieces and queen occupy strong points in the center. One rook bears down on the White position and the other is prepared to move to the center. White's light-squared bishop was forced to retreat. Seigbert Tarrasch would certainly evaluate this position as substantially better for Black (see "Counting Tempi").

19.h3 Bh5 20.g3 

Black to move

20...Rae8?

Glek notes that he missed an opportunity here: 20...Qe4 21.Rg1 Qe7 22.a3 Ne6 with an advantage for Black.

It is hard for players at my level to see a tactical maneuver that forces the White rook to move so as to deprive White of the ability to castle. Is there another point to Glek's sequence?

21.gxf4 Rxf4 22.Be2 Rxd4

Black has compensation for the sacrificed material, according to Glek. He offers a long alternative variation here that begins with 22...Bxe2!? The main line ends in equality, but White has opportunities to err along the way.

23.Qxd4 Qxd4 24.Bxd4 Rxe2+ 25.Kf1 Re4! 

White to move

It is not difficult to understand how the bishop pair and a passed pawn compensates for White's extra rook, but I do not see good prospects for gaining a winning edge from this position. Even so, some precision is required from both players.

26.Bxa7 Be2+ 27.Kg2 Re6

Glek offers 27...d4 28.Rhd1! d3 29.Rxd3! when White's other rook finally joins the game to remove one of the Black bishops.

28.f4 Bxf4 29.Rhe1!= Bd2 30.Kf2 Bxe1+ 31.Rxe1 Ra6 32.Bd4 Bh5 33.Re7 Kf8 34.Rxb7 Rxa2 35.Bxg7+ Ke8 36.Ke3 Ra4 37.Bd4 Bg6 38.b4 Ra3+ 39.Kf4 Rxh3 40.Ke5 ½–½