Breaking Routine

For those keeping track, my five positions per day in Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) faltered. I continue to work through this book, but some days do two or three positions. This morning, I spent some time on number 246, a terrific ending played by Akiva Rubinstein against Emanuel Lasker in 1909. Had I remained on track with five per day, I would have been at position 266.

I have faltered in that routine, but also deliberately broke my routine in a rapid game this morning with good results, although my play could have been improved.

Internet Opponent -- Stripes,J. [B21]
Live Chess Chess.com, 17.02.2025

1.e4 e6 2.f4 c5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d3

Black to move

My database shows that I've been on the Black side of this position no less than 98 times in online play.

4...d6

4...d5 is the main move and my norm, but I've also played 4...g6, Nge7, a6, and d6. I last played my move in this game on the Internet Chess Club in 2002.

5.c3 b5?!N

5...Nf6=
5...g6 6.a4=
5...Be7 6.Be2=

6.a3

6.d4+/=

6...Bb7= 7.Be2 Nge7?!

The knight's prospects from this square are limited and the dark-squared bishop is denied its natural square.

8.Qc2

8.Be3 g6 9.0-0 Bg7 10.h4

8...g6 9.b4?! cxb4 10.axb4 Bg7

White to move

11.Ra2?

11.d4 a6=

One gets the sense that neither player grasps the needs of the position.

11...0-0

11...Rc8 12.Qb3 Qb6 and Black has an advantage.

12.Be3 a6

12...d5 13.e5 d4! (13...Nf5 also leads to advantage for Black) 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxg2 Black is better.

13.Nbd2 Rc8

14.-- △Nxb4 Black is getting pressure on White's position.

14.Rb2

Black to move

14...Nb8

14...f5! 15.e5 15.Qb3 d5 16.e5 d4 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bxg2 19.Bf3 Bxh1-/+

15.d4 Nd7 16.Bd3 Nb6

16...f5! was still the correct idea.

17.Qc1 Na4

17...Rc7 can be played at once.

18.Rc2 Rc7 19.0-0 Qa8 20.Re1

20.Qa3

20...Rfc8-/+

White to move

Black's pieces are well coordinated. Although completely different, the position sparked a memory of a correspondence game that I played in the 1990s (see "Playing by the Book"). In that game, I had pressure along the long diagonal a1-h8 and along the b-file and broke through to victory with penetration on the b-file.

21.Nb1?

21.Bf2 Rxc3 22.Rxc3 Rxc3 23.Qb1 Rc7 Black maintains an advantage, but there is still a game to be played.

21...Bxe4-+ 22.Ng5?

22.Bxe4 Qxe4 23.Bf2 Qd3 24.Rd1 Qf5

22...Bxd3 0-1

Process

On the sixth day of my quest to study 300 carefully selected chess positions in 60 days, another speed bump was thrown in my way. I have worked through 15 pawn endings and now find myself at the 12th opening position. Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018), writes, “At higher levels there are many subtleties when in the process of developing the pieces” (19). He proceeds to narrate an account of how Mark Taimanov developed the Sicilian variation that bears his name. This narrative sent me to look at his 1972 loss to Anatoly Karpov, and then to a book he wrote on the variation.

Other books, too, might be on the docket as I decide how much time should be given to this one position.

As I wrote in “Ten Books to Achieve 1800+”, I started playing the Sicilian Defense in the 1970s. In the late 1990s, I became enamored with the Kalashnikov variation and sought to memorize the critical lines, inevitably finding myself in trouble when White played a move outside my book knowledge. In 2003, I took up the French, which is not a better defense for Black. In fact, it might be worse. But, my approach to understanding the opening was altered.

Memorization of lines grows out of comprehension of the ideas, rather than the reverse. Now, Engqvist pushes me to comprehend the ideas in some move order nuances of Sicilian lines that I often reach via the French when White opts to play something other than 2.d4.

After writing and posting the above, I continued with the next positions in Engqvist's book. Three of today's five positions are from a single game (a feature I like about Lev Alburt and Al Lawrence, Chess Training Pocket Book II (2008)--one of the 300 positions series). Engqvist's analysis references some by the winner of the game, and his book of selected games has been ordered.

Ten Books to Achieve 1800+

Having seen many lists of top ten chess books recommended for players at different levels, I thought it time to reflect on how books contributed to my rise from C Class to A Class. My first non-provisional rating was 1425 when I was in my mid-30s. I played chess competitively many years earlier, but no events were rated. In the late-1970s, I had a USCF correspondence rating. But when I returned to active play after graduate school, the USCF had lost the records of my postal chess.

I rejoined the Spokane Chess Club in late 1995 and played in my first rated OTB event in March 1996. In October, I played my sixth event and no longer had a provisional rating. By the end of the year, my rating had risen to 1495, but would not rise above that point until 2002. I remained in C Class until fall 2006. While on this plateau, I was gaining both knowledge and skills, but rating progress was slow. Too much online blitz may have held me back.

My journey from wholly ignorant beginner in the late-1960s, to competitive high school player in the late-1970s, to active C Class club member in the mid-1990s involved a lot of book study. Further progress from C Class in my 30s to high A Class in my early 50s included many books, active play, private lessons, chess videos, and I also started coaching elementary students in 2000.

It is no easy matter to choose ten books. By the time I reached A Class, I owned close to 300 chess books and there are very few I had not spent some time reading. At the same time, there are also very few that I read wholly. Some books, or my manner of reading them, may have held me back (just as hundreds of three minute blitz games every month may not have helped me).

The Ten

In November 1996, I played in the Washington Class in Federal Way. There was a book seller set up in one of the rooms near the playing hall. I spent a bit of time there talking with David Weinstock, owner of ChessMate. In our discussions, he recommended a book to me. I was skeptical. The title sounded more basic than my own self-assessment of my needs. Nonetheless, when I found the book at Auntie’s Bookstore when I was back in Spokane, I bought it and started to read it. It was transformative.

Consider my list of ten, pictured above and described below, as a provisional suggestion rooted in experience. What worked for me may or may not work for you. Read all recommendations with skepticism, but also with openness to trying something that might help. There are no magic books guaranteed to improve your chess, but only a few will fail to teach you something of value.

1) Georges Renaud, and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) was the book David suggested, and is my first recommendation. Having spent many hours in the 1970s learning the basic checkmates with heavy pieces and even two bishops, and having delivered many fine checkmates in many games, it was hard to believe there was much I could learn from such a book. Reading it, however, exposed me to new checkmate patterns, including some that I had seen, but not absorbed, from a book I studied in 1975: Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Renaud and Kahn not only taught me new patterns, but they gave me a framework for thinking about checkmate and checkmate threats.

As David Weinstock had, I began to recommend The Art of the Checkmate to any and all who would listen, and also to many who ignore what I say. I still do. This book helped me, and it can help you. But there are other books that could substitute, and might be even better. Victor Henkin, 1000 Checkmate Combinations (2011) takes a slightly different approach. It also teaches an abundance of vital checkmate patterns and greatly exceeds Renaud and Kahn in the amount of study material. Antonio Gude, Fundamental Checkmates (2016) is another option. It is comprehensive and to an extent combines the approaches of Henkin with that of Renaud and Kahn. One can find dozens of other books on checkmate patterns, but these three stand above the others. Get one of them, or even all three.

Vital

2) For a year or longer, Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas, 2nd ed. (2000) was my bedside reading. I read it cover-to-cover twice. Alburt’s book was the only tactics book I finished prior to early 2023 when I finished all 1320 exercises in Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations (1999). It is not an ordinary tactics book for practicing basic ideas, but rather, a small set of carefully chosen positions with tactical and positional concepts. It also has a small number of vital endgame positions.

Many grandiose claims have been made by different authors about the legendary 300 positions, but there should be no doubt that careful and deliberate study of a small number of carefully selected positions will take your game up a notch. Alburt’s book helped me. A few years after completing it, I began study of another book focused on 300 carefully selected positions: Rashid Ziyatdinev, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). More recently, Thomas Engqvist has gained my attention, now with a trilogy of books containing 300 in the title.

An Idea Worth Considering

3) Quantity matters, too, when it comes to tactics training. A classic that has lifted the skills of generations of chess players has also been part of my training. Fred Reinfeld, 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations (1955) deserves a place in every chess player’s library. In 2008, I spent quite a bit of time playing these positions against the computer. Often I could find the tactic, achieve a clearly superior position, and yet still fail to defeat HIARCS (see "Where the Rubber Meets the Road"). Reinfeld organizes the chapters by themes—forks, pins, double attacks, and so on. I set my database containing these positions to open randomly so I did not know which theme to look for. But I also use the book, either solving from the diagrams or sometimes setting up the positions on a board.

Endgames have been vital to my success. In 2007-2008, I invested a lot of time teaching some elementary rook endings to my top student, the strongest third grader in my city. That summer, in the Spokane City Championship, I played two rook endings against FM David Sprenkle, drawing one game.

Currently, I’m on a collector’s quest to have 64 endgame texts in my personal library. The quest stems from my enjoyment studying positions with few pieces, my conviction that endgame knowledge is vital for all skill levels, and my involvement in an online community of book lovers, Chess Book Collectors on Facebook. During my rise from the 1500s in 2002 to high-1900s in 2012, much time was invested in endgame study.

4) The endgame book that did the most for me was Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (2003). As one of ten books to recommend to class players, Dvoretsky is a controversial choice. Many players find it too difficult for anyone below master. Poppycock! Chess books are not novels. One does not read every word. Read the part that makes sense and push through a bit that stretches and challenges you. I have read the long chapter on pawn endings in Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual several times and have flash cards containing the 48 blue diagrams that I use for review, study, and teaching (see "Pawn Endings Flash Cards"). I’ve struggled through perhaps half of the chapter on rook endings and made flash cards for the first 24 blue diagrams. Other chapters I have dipped into from time-to-time.

During the years spent studying Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual, other books have also supplemented my work. These include, Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course (1988); Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course (2007); Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001); and several others. My top recommendation for those looking to begin endgame study is Yury Averbakh, Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (1993). There are many choices. Choose that one that you like, but do not neglect the endgame. Make endgame study a priority if you want to play better chess.

Splurge

5) Jacob Aagard, Excelling at Technical Chess (2004) also concerns the endgame. However, it is distinct from the endgame manuals listed above. The core of the book focuses on “seven technical tools”—schematic thinking, weaknesses, domination, do not hurry, passed pawns, how to arrange your pawns, and freaky aspects. Aagaard develops each of these ideas with compelling prose and detailed game analysis. As he states in the beginning, this book follows an approach that has made Mikhail Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy so highly regarded. The technical tools are worthy of detailed attention, and I hope to find time to explore them in more detail. I blazed through this book is a couple of days, reading all the prose and glancing superficially at the game analysis. However, this superficial reading was enough to transform my game. My endgame play became more resilient. Formerly, I would often offer or accept a draw in seemingly equal positions. After reading the book, I play out most positions to the end, often lone kings. If there is any reason to play on—an imbalance, a weakness of any sort in my opponent’s position, even a better king position—a draw is anathema unless it secures a tournament victory.

Annotated games have always been a regular part of my chess study. In my youth, I spent many hours playing through games from three GM tournaments that resulted in books that I purchased: San Antonio, 1972; Leningrad, 1973 (the 42nd Soviet Championship); and Wijk aan Zee, 1975. In addition, I bought and still have two books by David Levy that were collections of games by specific players: Karpov’s Collected Games: All 530 Available Encounters, 1961-1974 (1975); and Gligoric’s Best Games, 1945-1970 (1972). All these books influenced my play as a teenager as I sought to imitate the play of the world’s elite.

6) In my 40s, I had many more chess books to choose from and studied annotated games from many of them. One source of such games that I returned to frequently is Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006). Kasparov culls some of the best insights from many years of chess literature and presents many of the most important games of every world champion before him, as well as many contenders for that title who fell short. Chess history offers a reliable foundation for the development of chess skill. Although Kasparov does a poor job of documenting his sources (see my Patriots and Peoples blog for examples of sourcing problems in the writing of US history), the series remains an important practical overview of chess history.

7) Paul Morphy’s games are particularly useful to chess players who want to play well. Perhaps one day I will be able to report that I have played through every one of his available games. So far, I have been through at least one-third of them, some of them many times. His eighteen tournament games have been imposed by me on some two dozen students, who have been through all of them. I’ve shown the Opera game to students at least one hundred times and of course know it fully. For insights into Morphy’s play, few books are in league with Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). This book has enriched my study.

8) Chess Informant was long the indispensable source for current master games from before I took up the game in the 1960s into the twenty-first century. Now, of course, these games are readily available from many sources. In 1996, as I was coming back to chess with some seriousness of purpose, I was curious about Informant, which I had seen only in the USCF sales catalog. At the Washington Class, however, David Weinstock had some on the table. He allowed me to look at them and we talked about how they were organized. A month or so later, I included Informant 64 in an order of books from USCF sales. It aided my correspondence play in a concrete way (see "Playing by the Book"). More importantly, learning the Informant system of codes changed my thought processes during play. There are so many things that one contemplates during a chess game while looking for the right moves or the correct plan. Sometimes these thoughts are noise that interferes with clear focus on what matters. To an extent, the limited analytical possibilities in the Informant codes distills chess down to things that really matter in the quest for advantage.

As I grew as a player, Chess Informant was a useful tool. Today’s Informants are changing with the information explosion and are oriented more towards the needs of class players than they were in the past. Give them a try.

A Growing Collection

Of course, I did not rise from C Class to strong A Class without studying the works of Jeremy Silman. His endgame book is already listed above, although it was less useful to me than Dvoretsky. In fact, the day I bought it, I read everything through the section on B Class, finding very little that I did not know. Silman’s endgame book has done more for my teaching than for my own progress as a player. That’s plenty! His writing is compelling and many of his metaphors and personal anecdotes are unforgettable.

I bought and read (partly, of course) How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd. ed. (1993); The Reassess Your Chess Workbook: How to Master Chess Imbalances (2001); The Amateur’s Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd ed. (1999); and The Complete Book of Strategy: Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z (1998). When it finally came out, I added How to Reassess Your Chess: Chess Mastery through Chess Imbalances, 4th ed. (2010), but my rating had risen above 1800 before then.

9) Of these books, Reassess Your Chess and the companion workbook were most useful in helping centralize imbalances in my thinking. When I need to win a tournament game, seeking imbalances from the very first move often proves vital.

The Complete Book of Strategy did nothing for my game and very little for my teaching. Its usefulness has been so slight that I struggle to show proper supportive enthusiasm when a young student has shown me that they just acquired it. I must remind myself that there is a difference between this book’s presence in a chess library of more than 400 volumes that includes several dictionaries and encyclopedias, and a chess library for which this book is the first book acquired. It is a good book, even though it does not meet my needs.

What about the Opening?

In high school, I spent many hours studying lines in I. A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1964). In the 1990s, Walter Korn, and Nick DeFirmian, eds. Modern Chess Openings, 13th ed. (1990) took its place. Even more time was spent on opening monographs, including several on two related variations of the Sicilian Defense that feature an early e5 push by Black. There is some evidence this study hurt my game, or at least retarded my improvement. I tried to memorize lines and often faltered when my opponents deviated from the lines that I knew.

Use at Your Own Risk

In 2003, I began to switch from the Sicilian to the French as my primary defense against 1.e4. The French Defense is not superior to the Sicilian. It might even be a worse choice, but for me it marked a shift in how I approached opening study. Rather than grinding through lines in a book, I sought understanding of the principles, of basic concepts, such as one finds articulated clearly in José Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921), of the ideas behind the moves. Unquestionably, I learned many lines, but when my opponents deviated from these, I was prepared. My play improved.

Detailed opening study and learning concrete lines has aided my preparation for specific opponents in several cases. At a crucial moment while still a B Class player, I won the Spokane Contender’s tournament, earning a shot at the title of Spokane City Champion. Expectations of victory were nearly non-existent. No one expected a B Class player rated in the 1730s to prevail over FM David Sprenkle, rated in the 2250s, down considerably from his peak. As preparation, I spent close to 40 hours on two semi-obscure variations: the Raphael variation against the Dutch Defense for when I had the White pieces, and a seemingly risky Nh6 idea for Black in the French Advance. It took Sprenkle 72 moves to compel my resignation in the French, and I drew my second game with White. It was a very good day.

Most of the time in tournament play, however, such extensive opening preparation is more of a crap shoot. Unless an opponent walks into your pet line, where is the benefit? Tactics win and lose games. Endgames keep chances alive as players grow weary or hungry.

10) Hence, my tenth recommended book is one that I’ve read very little, but that exemplifies how I have come to believe opening study should be pursued. Reuben Fine, The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1943) is out of date in terms of the line presented, as should be expected. But, players of the French Defense well-know that White’s pawn on d4 is always a target. The Sicilian Defense is always grounded in creating pawn imbalances and active piece play in the quest for equality and even winning chances.

Other Books

Many other books helped me in my successful quest to reach A Class, and remain there for fourteen years so far, as well as my quest to rise into Expert Class, falling just short and less a goal in my 60s than it was in my mid-50s. Learning drives me. My knowledge continues to grow even as my performance in competition is less consistent.

If Only...

Chess engines deflate our egos. I thought I had played a reasonably strong attack, but chessdotcom's "coach" wryly remarked about my star move, "Curious move. Maybe not exactly what the position demands--but an interesting idea." The engine has my move at +6.4: clearly winning! What did the position require?

White to move

Theoretical Position

In this diagram position, White has a forced checkmate in seven moves. I had rejected the move that might have led to this position because I wrongly believed that Black's king was relatively safe from further abuse on f7.

After 20...d5, the game reached this position.

White to move

The time control was ten minutes and I spent nearly three minutes considering 21.Nd6+ and 21.Nf5+, which I ultimately played. I quickly rejected 21.Qh6, as noted above. Both 21.Qh6+ and 21.Nd6+ are superior to 21.Nf5+.

After 21.Qh6+, the computer's best line continues 21...Kg8 22.Nf6+ Kh7 23.Kf2. Instructive, but humans do not see these things. After 21.Qh6+ Kf7, the position in the diagram at the top of the post would have been reached.

After 21.Ne6+, 21...Bxe6 loses quickly and I should have been able to calculate that line. Maybe I did. I recall only that I saw something that seemed unclear. For instance, the bishop is not required to capture the knight.

The game continued:

21.Nf5+ gxf5

I was prepared for 21...Bxf5 22.Rb7+ Kf8 23.Qh6+ and probably considered a move or two deeper. I was certain that good moves would be available.

22.Qh6+ Kf7 23.Qxf6+ Kg8

Here I began to struggle to find the best moves, but reliably kept up pressure until my opponent resigned seven moves later.

Queen vs. Three Pieces

Continuing with my resolve to work through all of the games in Chess Informant 152, I have settled into a pattern of 4-8 games plus those embedded as annotations in a morning session of 30-60 minutes. This morning, however, a single game fully captured my attention. The game was played in the second event of the 2022 FIDE Grand Prix just over a week after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The war affected the game and was the focus of the post-game discussion. Dmitry Andreikin won with Black against Alexander Grischuk. Andreikin said that he opted for the Sicilian Defense because he "would fall asleep" if the game reached a long endgame. The war disrupted his travel to Belgrade. Grischuk made a critical blunder and focused in the press conference on the situation in Ukraine and his disapproval of Vladimir Putin's decision to invade.

I have embedded a video of the press conference at the bottom of this article.

Grischuk's blunder made sense superficially, but provided Andreikin an opportunity to exchange his queen for a rook and two minor pieces. Bringing his remaining pieces to a position where they were all working together brought the game to an end. Milos Perunovic annotated the game for Chess Informant.

Grischuk,Alexander (2764) -- Andreikin,Dmitry (2724) [B48]
Beograd 152/55, 2022

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.a3 d6 8.f4 Qc7 9.Bd3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Kh1 Re8 12.Qf3 Bd7 13.Rae1 Rac8

White to move

It seems to me that both players have developed logically to reach this position and was surprised that it occurs in only one previous game in my databases: Radoszta,A. -- Giardelli,S, Villa Martelli 2013. In that game, however, it was with Black to move.

14.Qg3 Nh5 15.Qf3 g6 16.f5 Ne5 17.Qh3

Black to move

Grischuk stated in the post-game interview that his blunders in the game included missing Andreikin's move from this position and his move 20 as well.

17...Qd8! 18.fxe6

Perunovic offers some analysis of 18.Be2

18...fxe6 19.Nxe6 Qa5 20.Nd5 Bd8

White to move

21.Bh6??

Grischuk thought after the game that White was better after 21.b4. In Perunovic's Informant annotations, the main line is given as unclear, but White is better in all the other lines. There are sharp tactics.

On the surface 21.Bh6 seems a sensible way to defend the pinned knight with a checkmate threat, but Andreikin found the refutation.

21...Qxe1! 22.Rxe1 Bxe6 23.Qe3 Ng4 24.Qd2 Nxh6

Black has three pieces--rook, knight, and bishop for a queen and pawn. This imbalance provoked me to spend more time on this game.

25.Be2 Ng7-+ 26.Rf1 Nf7 27.Nf6+ Bxf6 28.Rxf6 Rc5 29.h3 Nh5 30.Bxh5 Rxh5 31.Qf2 Re5 32.Qb6 Re7 33.Rf4 g5 34.Rf2 Rxe4 35.b3 Bd5 0-1

It is an instructive game.

Sandpoint Chess Tournament

Sandpoint, Idaho is a small community of less than 9000 residents that sits on the north end of Lake Pend Oreille. About thirty years ago, Lou Domanski, an A-Class chess player, moved there after retirement and developed some chess programs, including an annual chess tournament. Organized by Sandpoint Parks and Recreation, the event draws 20-50 chess players of all ages, an impressive turnout for a community this size.

In 2009, I was asked by a local who had been bringing his daughter to youth events that I ran in Spokane, whether I could run the event as Lou Domanski was no longer able to do so. It has become an event that I look forward to every April. A 75-90 minute drive from my home, depending on the weather, Sandpoint is a terrific community to visit.

I sometimes play in the event to reduce byes in the open section. One year, I played because I was looking for revenge after losing to Savanna the previous year. I had coached her a bit prior to her success as Idaho Girl's Co-Champion, which earned her a trip to Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls, where she finished 9th. At the next event where we faced each other, she beat me again. The final moves of that game found their way into Forcing Checkmate (2017), which can be purchased through Amazon. For a few years as she finished school, Savanna regularly won the open section. I beat her the second time I played in the event, but lost to another player and still finished in 2nd place.

Coming back after two years without the event due to COVID, yesterday's event was small. There were five players registered for the open section, and fifteen in the other two. I opted to play so no one would get a bye. It gave us a round robin, albeit paired via Swiss System rules.

In the first round, I played the horrid 5...a6 from this position.

Black to move

My opponent punished the error and my position grew worse with further errors. However, when my opponent gave me a free piece with 15.Bxh7+, I clamored back into the game and eventually won.

Round two found me playing the risky and inaccurate 4.c3 in the Italian Two Knights

White to move

Play continued 4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.O-O Bg4 7.d4 e4?

White to move

After this error, I was able to take control of the game.

In round three, I gained a nice position from the Nimzo-Indian Defense and finished the game with a nice move here.

Black to move

Round four gave me an opportunity to show that Damiano's Gambit is a clear win for White, but I threw it away.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?! 3.Nxe5 fxe5?

3...Qe7

4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6

White to move

8.Qg3+

This move is not best. 8.h4 presents Black with unsolvable difficulties.

8...Qg5 9.Qxc7 Ne7

White to move

This position was not new to me. I had it earlier this year in a rapid game on Lichess. It led to my only loss with Damiano's Gambit.

10.Qd6+??

From winning to equal. 10.h4 was the correct move.

10...Kh5

On Lichess, my opponent answered 10...Qf6, and after 11.e5??, I went from equal to losing.

11.e5 Bg6 12.Nc3??

Hunting for checkmate, I am blind.

12...Bxd6-+

I should have lost this game, but my opponent returned the gift of the queen three moves later.

My last round opponent is fairly new to active play and was eager for resources to develop his game. We had a nice conversation.

I quickly gained the upper hand with Black after the opening moves 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e6 3.h4 Nc6 4.c3 Nf6 5.Qe2 Be7 6.Nf3 d5

White to move

The annual Lou Domanski Chess Festival is friendly unrated competition that I run in accordance with USCF rules, sans clocks until the last 20 minutes of each one-hour round and no expectation of scorekeeping. Although my play was less than stellar, it was a good day. I enjoyed seeing again and playing some of the regulars at this event. It was a nice road trip, too. 

 

Blunderful

I might prefer to forget this game, but Chris Bird gave a shout out for my blog at the end of the Twitch broadcast of the event. He mentioned that I won't like the broadcast of this game when I watch it, and that he looks forward to reading about it here.

Naturally, after the broadcast ended, I immediately went to the recording and advanced to round two. I did not need to see the oversights that Chris pointed out to know that I missed some opportunities, but the number was shocking. My opponent also missed several opportunities. This was my fifth game against Edwin Matos in these Morning Membership events. I won the first three, but we had two draws this week.

Maybe you will find our errors instructive and this game will serve a purpose other than polluting the web with examples of substandard play.

Stripes,J (1798) -- Matos,E (1426) [B21]
Morning Membership Event (Friday) Chess.com (2), 21.08.2020

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

4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 is a line that I have dubbed the Danish Morra. It is unsound, of course, but I win my share of blitz games with it.

4...e6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Nf3 d6 7.0–0 Nd7 8.Qe2 Qc7

8...Ngf6 9.Rd1 b5 10.Bb3 Bb7 11.Bf4 Qb8 12.Nd5 Ne5 (12...Nxd5 13.exd5 e5) 13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Bxe6 Bc8 16.Bd5 and White won in 54 moves, Jussupow,N (2152)--Kalinitschew,S (2472) Schwaebisch Gmuend 2013.

9.Rd1 Be7

We have reached a unique position, according to my databases, but it still has a familiar feel.

10.Bf4 Ne5

White to move

11.Nxe5

11.Bxe5 dxe5 was better according to Stockfish on chess.com. I like my bishop and might get to place it on b6.

11...dxe5 12.Be3 Nf6 13.Rac1 0–0 14.Bb3 Bd7 15.Nd5! 

Black to move

This is the sort of tactical problem that I like to set for my opponent when I play the Smith-Morra. However, it turns out that I was ill-prepared to follow through.

15...Bb5

15...Qd8 16.Bb6 Qe8 17.Nc7 Bb5 18.Qc2+–

16.Qf3

Why did I reject 16.Qxb5 Qxc1 (16...axb5 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Rxc7+–) 17.Nxe7+ Kh8 18.Qxe5+–?

16...Qd8

16...Nxd5 17.exd5 (17.Rxc7 Nxc7) 17...Qa5 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.Qxb7+–

17.Nxe7+?

Again, there is a a simple route to a decisive advantage: 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Rxd8 Raxd8 19.Bc5+–

17...Qxe7 18.Bc5 Qe8 19.Bxf8

While I was thinking about my move, Chris was wondering whether I thought the bishop was better than the rook. No. The rook cannot move, so I might delay the capture if I can do something else that is useful. Not finding a useful alternative, I spent nearly a minute contemplating what to do after taking the rook. How best should I coordinate my pieces after winning the exchange? Finally, I came up with a plan--a terribly flawed plan.

19.Qe3 Nd7 20.Bxf8 Nxf8 might have been what I sought.

19...Qxf8 20.Rc7??

The plan was to get a pig. 20.Qe3 was better.

20...Bc6

The pig is destined for the butcher. I played the opening well, created problems for my opponent, and should have had a won game. Now, the position is equal, difficult, and we both have about two minutes on the clock. The time control was 5+2.

White to move

21.Qe3 Ne8 22.Rxc6 bxc6 23.Qb6 Nd6 24.f3 Nb5 25.Ba4

Black to move

25...Rb8

25...Nd4 and Black has a clear advantage.

26.Qxa6 Qc5+ 27.Kh1 h6

27...Nd4

28.Bxb5 cxb5 29.Qd6

Black to move

29...Qc2?? 30.Qd2??

This blunder was likely what Chris had in mind when he stated that I wouldn't like it. I had 36 seconds on my Clock, and spent three on my move. Edwin had 59 seconds after 29...Qc2. The failure of my thought process here reminds me of a difficult game at the Spokane Chess Club a week ago. We have continued to meet on Lichess, instead of in person, at the usual time on Thursday nights. Kenny wins most of his games and usually finishes at the top of our events. I played well in my game against him, finding a combination that gave me a queen against a rook, knight, and pawn. We each had five other pawns. I could clearly see a line that I had to avoid that could have walked into checkmate, and found a forced draw that ended the complications. But, my queen was completely dominant and I should have won. Replaying two positions from that game gave me two easy wins against Komodo.

I saw Edwin's threat to checkmate me and missed that I could take his rook with check and then bring my queen back to defend my rook.

30.Qxb8+ Kh7 31.Qd6+–

30...Qc4 31.b3 Qc5 32.h3 Rc8 33.Qd6 Qf2 34.Rd2 Qe1+ 35.Kh2 Qe3

White to move

36.Qb4??

I was at 23 seconds after this blunder. Edwin had 44. Speed kills, as they say.

36...Qf4+ 37.Kg1 Qe3+–+

Another upset is in the works. Had I been in my opponent's position, I might have played 37...Rc1+ 38.Kf2 Qh4+ 39.Ke2 Qe1+ 40.Kd3 Qf1+ 41.Re2 Rd1+ 42.Ke3 Qg1+ 43.Rf2 Re1+ 44.Qxe1 Qxe1+–+. Of course, such things are easier to see after the game is over and the clock is not a critical factor.

38.Kh2 Qf4+ 39.g3 Qxf3 40.Qxb5

40.Qa3 was a defense that I overlooked.

40...Rc1 41.Rg2 Qd1 42.g4 Qh1+ 43.Kg3 Qe1+

43...Rc3+ ends matters in favor of Black 44.Kf2 Rc2+ 45.Qe2 Rxe2+ 46.Kxe2 Qxg2+

44.Kh2 Qxe4 45.Qe8+ Kh7 46.Qxf7

Black to move

46...Qf4+??

And suddenly, the game is equal again.

47.Qxf4 exf4 48.a4 f3?

48...Rb1+ is equal.

White to move

49.Rf2!

"Not what I would play." Chris Bird

I was playing by intuition, but had there been time, I might have thought that Black's pawns are coming faster than White's. I do not have time to work two pawns up the board.

49.Rb2 e5 50.Kg3 e4 51.Kf2 Kg6=

49...Rc3 50.a5=

50.Kg3 keeps an advantage.

50...Rxb3 51.Ra2 e5 52.a6

Black to move

52...e4??

52...f2 53.Kg2 Rxh3 54.a7 Rh1 55.Rxf2 (55.a8Q f1Q+ 56.Kg3 Rh3#) 55...Ra1 and Black is better, but perhaps the advantage is not decisive. With Black's error, White again has a decisive advantage. Chess.com's computer assessment tabulated that each player had three missed wins as well as blunders numbering in double digits.

53.a7+– f2 54.Kg2

I lacked the time to calculate this "simple" win: 54.a8Q f1Q 55.Qxe4+ Kg8 56.Ra8+ Kf7 57.Qe8+ Kf6 58.Qf8+ Ke6 59.Qxf1

54...Rf3 55.Kf1

Forced.

55...e3 56.a8Q e2+

White to move

57.Kxe2??

The website shows that I had 19 seconds, but it felt like less.

57.Rxe2 wins.

57...f1Q+

"White is getting mated." Chris Bird

58.Kd2 Rf2+

Chris pointed out 58...Rd3+ 59.Kc2 Qd1+ 60.Kb2 Rb3#. This elementary checkmate pattern is the second one in Pandolfini's Endgame Course, and should be second nature to all chess players. Of course, blindness under time pressure is also common.

59.Kc3 Qxh3+ 60.Kb4 Rf4+ 61.Kc5 Qc3+ 62.Kd6

Black to move

62...Qe5+??

Black gives away the queen.

62...Qd4+

63.Kd7??

And White leaves it on the board. 63.Kxe5 wins.

63...Rf6

The first checkmate in Pandolfini's Endgame Course: 63...Rd4+ 64.Kc6 Rd6+ 65.Kc7 Qe7+ and mate in one.

64.Qa3 Qb5+ 65.Ke7 Qb7+ 66.Ke8 Qf7+

66...Qc8+ 67.Ke7 Re6+ 68.Kf7 Qe8#

67.Kd8

Black to move

67...Rd6+?? 68.Qxd6 Qg8+

68...Qxa2

69.Kc7 Qf7+ 70.Qd7 Qf4+

My clock is down to eight seconds.

71.Qd6

71.Kb6

71...Qc4+ 72.Qc6 Qxa2 73.Qe4+ Kh8 74.Qe8+

Black to move

74...Kh7

"Black can block." Chris Bird

74...Qg8 with an advantage.

75.Qe4+ Kh8 76.Qe8+

76.Kd6

76...Kh7 77.Qe7 Qa7+ 78.Kd8 Qxe7+ 79.Kxe7

Black to move

79...g6??

79...Kg6–+

80.Ke6 h5 81.gxh5 Kh6

81...g5 82.Kf5 Kh6 83.Kg4 Kg7 84.Kxg5 Kh7=

82.hxg6 Kxg6 ½–½

This game was a battle.

Foolishness

One year ago, I won the Eastern Washington Open. This year, I finished second in A Class with 3.5/5.0. I won three games, lost one, and took my usual third round bye. My loss was to a young girl who I played in the first round last year. She finished with 4.0 and a tie for second place in the event.

I gave her an easy game because I engaged in some foolishness.

Deng,Lily -- Stripes,James [B43]
Eastern Washington Open (2), 28.09.2019

1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2

Black to move

6...Bb4

I play this move because it has brought me success in blitz.

6...Nc6 is the normal move.

7.Bd2

7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qd3 Nc6

7...Nf6 8.Bf3

8.0-0 Nc6
(8...Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Nxe4 is a line that makes a virtue out of 6...Bb4, as in Fuchs,J (2197) -- Farago,I (2482), Nuremberg 2008, which Black went on to win after a long battle. )
9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bd3 a5 11.Qe2 d5 12.a3 Be7 Nezhmetdinov,R -- Furman,S/Moscow 1957, URS-ch was drawn in 31 moves.

8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Nxc6 dxc6

Black to move

8...Qe5?!

Emboldened by the odd placement of White's bishop, I put my queen where I knew she could be vulnerable.

8...Nc6 is simple and correct.

9.Nde2 Nc6

9...g5 at least makes sense.

10.a3

Black to move

10...Ba5??

10...Be7 11.Bf4 Qa5 12.b4 Qb6;
10...Bxc3 11.Bxc3 Qc7

11.b4+- Bb6 12.Bf4 0-1

I was home early.

Smith-Morra Sideline

In my online blitz junk, I often play an extreme version of the Smith-Morra Gambit that takes an idea from the Danish Gambit, offering a second pawn for rapid mobilization. It is unsound. The opening is for blitz only. The regular Smith-Morra, however, can be useful in standard rated over-the-board play and even in correspondence.

Black can decline White's sacrifice in the Smith-Morra Gambit. In a blitz game last night, my opponent did that. The game proved testing for a line that had been mostly successful for me.

Stripes,J. (1997) -- Internet Opponent (2042) [B21]
Live Chess Chess.com, 13.04.2019

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d3!?

Black's idea seems to point out that the pawn is not well-placed on c3.

White to move

4.f4!?

My innovation, played 18 times with 14 wins and 4 losses. Although I cannot claim to be the first who has played it.

4.Bxd3 is the normal move.

4...d5!

I have not seen this move often, but in retrospect, it seems the best way to make the argument that White's line of play may be poorly thought out.

5.exd5

5.e5!?

5...Qxd5 6.Qxd3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Nc6

White to move

8.Nbd2

8.Qxd5 Nxd5 9.Bc4 Nb6 10.Bb3 Bf5 11.Be3 e6 12.Nbd2 Bd6 13.0–0–0 0–0 was drawn in 45 moves, Papp,C (2128) -- Tamas,G (2164), Hungary 1999.

8...Bf5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Nc4 e6 11.Ne3 Bc5

White to move

The engine has the game as equal and both players are making top choices. Nonetheless, White seems to lag in the mobilization of his pieces, which also lack coordination. White's king is also more vulnerable.

White's position is much more difficult to play than Black's. In blitz, that alone can be decisive.

12.Nxd5?!

12.Nxf5 is still roughly equal.

12...exd5

Black has a better game.

13.Bd2

13.b4

13...0–0 14.0–0–0 d4 15.c4 d3

Black has the upper hand.

White to move

16.b3 Ba3+ 17.Kb1 Rfd8 18.h3 h5 19.Nh4

19.g3 Be4 20.Bg2 Nd4 21.Rhf1

19...Be4 20.Rg1?

20.Nf3

Black to move

20...Bc5–+ 21.Rh1 Nb4

21...a5

22.Re1

22.Nf3

22...f5?

Black lets White back into the game.

White to move

23.Nf3

23.Nxf5 Re8 (23...Bxf5 24.Re5 and White has an edge) 24.Rxe4 Rxe4 25.a3 Nc2 26.Bxd3=

23...Nc2 24.Rd1

24.Rc1

24...Na3+ 25.Kb2 b5 26.cxb5

26.Ne5

26...Nxb5

White to move

27.Ne5? White collapses.

27.a4

27...Bd4+ 28.Kb1 Na3+ 29.Kc1 Rac8+ 0–1

White struggled the whole game to mobilize his pieces without success. Black, meanwhile, was able to consistency apply pressure. White eventually collapsed from the pressure. Despite my nearly 75% scoring percentage with 4.f4, the line cannot be recommended.

My Worst Game

I had a date Friday night. My son and I met a woman and her son at a pizza place, had dinner together, and then went ice skating. The next morning, I was not well focused and found myself on board one against the top rated player.

Rodriguez,Luis (2211) -- Stripes,James (1472) [B21]
Collyer Memorial Spokane (1), 21.02.1998

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 d6

I was playing by rote, barely conscious of White's moves.

4...e6 is what I would play today.
4...Nc6 is also good.

5.Bc4 a6

Although not yet disastrous, it seems to me that this move accomplishes very little.

5...e6;
5...Nc6

6.Nf3

Black to move

6...Bg4??

6...Nc6;
6...e6

7.Ne5

7.Bxf7+ Kd7 (7...Kxf7 8.Ng5+ Ke8 9.Qxg4) 8.Ne5+ Kc8 9.Qxg4+ Kc7 10.Nd5# 1–0 Ferreira,V (2198)--Tokarchuk,Y Dos Hermanas 2004.

Black to move

7...dxe5

I must have seen 7...Bxd1 8.Bxf7#
7...Be6 is Black's only chance.

8.Bxf7+ 1–0

There was no reason to play without my queen.

Rodriguez went on to win the tournament. I lost every game in the event and placed dead last. In 2012, I won every game that I played in this annual event, took a third round bye, and finished in second place.