300 Most Important Chess Positions

A Book Review

If you follow Chess Skills, then you know that I've been working through Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) at a pace far more accelerated than recommended by the author. When I announced this 60 day effort in December, I noted, “failure may be expected”. I worked through the last four positions this morning, the 74th day.

I heartily recommend this book. Studying five positions per week, as the author suggests, improves retention, and likely long-term benefits from study. Having raced through the book, I will be reviewing and deepening my study of many positions in the book over the coming months.

Engqvist’s 300 positions are selected from classical games, recent master practice, and compositions. Engqvist also includes some of his own most instructive losses. He is guided by a library of chess books, many years of playing, and experience coaching. The core idea of deep study of a limited number of positions developed from the way he was coached by Robert Danielsson while a young player. He studied positions from Ludek Pachman’s books on the middlegame and endgame.

Alekhine builds his gun

In the introduction, Engqvist makes a case for careful, disciplined study and focus on a limited number of positions per week. This contrasts markedly with Jeremy Silman's recollection that as a young chess player, he went through "200 to 500 games a day, every day" ("Studying Master Games and Berkmaster's First Over-the-Board Tournament Battle"). Silman claims that he absorbed tactical patterns and positional concepts in this manner. Engqvist advocates reflection and review with intent to "understand, grasp and assimilate the most important idea(s)" (9). He asserts that studying too many positions at once lead you to forget what you have learned. At the core of this learning process, he writes, is "to gain a deeper appreciation of the inner qualities of the pieces, their movements and their actual value in any specific position" (emphasis in original, 9).

By way of illustration, he offers this composition by Paul Rudolf von Bilguer from 1843.

White to move

This position appears in the introduction and as number 281 in the text. Both Ludek Pachman and André Chéron advocate 1.Qe6 and consider the position a draw, but tablebases show that it is a win. There is much to attempt to absorb in the tablebase moves that Engqvist annotates (274-276), but he notes that sometimes the queen works best when it does no more than a rook can do (9). 1.Qc7! is the only winning move. The queen's demotion explains the first move, but subsequent moves draw on the full mobility of the queen, leading Engqvist to marvel at "how the attacker uses the queen over practically the whole board" (276).

The positions that he chooses are interesting, challenging, instructive, and practical. Most of them were tested with chess players who subscribed to an email course where they were presented five positions per week. Rarely is a single move or short sequence the solution that one must find while examining the position. Only a few offer long computer solutions as in the Bilguer study. A considerable number of positions feature equal or near equal positions from games where strong moves and persistent maneuvers eventually provoked error.

Many of the positions are suitable for training with a study partner. Engqvist recommends playing both sides with another person, or against the computer. Teaching the position to someone else improves retention he notes, and in my experience also depth of understanding. My young students often vex me with moves that were not anticipated in master commentary or computer analysis. The positions in this book are excellent resources for coaches. The day that I acquired this book in February 2019, I took it to a lesson with my top student. We looked at six endgames and then the first position in the book (see "A New Book and a Morphy Game"). The next few weeks, this student and I will be playing some of the rook and queen endings.

Emphasis is on positional concepts, rather than tactical operations. The author notes that this emphasis distinguishes his book from Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas (1997), which emphasizes tactics. Alburt also limits the number of endgames. He states that becoming a "strong player" requires knowledge of 12 key pawn endings, not hundreds (9). These 12 are in his Pocket Book. Alburt's book is the second one that I list in "Ten Books to Achieve 1800+".

Some positions in 300 Most Important Chess Positions are surprising, such as White’s second move in the English Opening, Sicilian Reversed.

White to move

But this position is placed alongside others (both English Opening and Sicilian Defense) with references to several games played by top players. There is plenty of study material in these games. I might also note that Engqvist’s opening choices reflected in the positions chosen offer more variety than those in another collection of 300 positions that I’ve spent time working through: Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). Ziyatdinov’s positions stem from games where 1.e4 is the overwhelming choice.

An instructive sequence of positions that I found highly motivating began with Bologan,V.--Frolov,A., Moscow 1991, a Sicilian Defense, then in a variation continued with Anand,V.--Illescas Cordoba,M., Linares 1992 and reference to Karpov,A.--Kasparov,G., Moscow 1985.  It continued with Bologan--Frolov for two more positions, then Marin,M.--Korneev,O., Capo d'Orso 2008 takes us through moves 2-4 through three positions in the English Opening, Sicilian Reversed.

The first position in the book is slightly less surprising, but with two book moves played by Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy, as well as many other players before and since, Engqvist’s preference for Morphy’s choice provokes reflection.

White to move

9.Nc3 and 9.d5 both get played by masters today. Adolf Anderssen favored 9.d5 and won many games from this position. Paul Morphy showed, Engqvist suggests, that 9.Nc3 is a better developing move.

As I consider Morphy’s 9.Nc3 in the Evans Gambit or Mihai Marin’s view that after 1.c4 e5, 2.g3 is the most precise, I am reminded of my tendency to blitz out opening moves by rote and only begin thinking after an inaccuracy. Engqvist’s positions from very early in the game should help me to develop better habits. Thinking should begin before the first move, even if positions at move 10 are well-studied.

There are positions in this book that I have used with students for many years and there are positions that are wholly new to me. There are many positions with several pages of analysis and variations. There are positions that should be drawn, but one player was able to present sufficient difficulties to provoke error.

Ziyatdinov advocates memorizing the 56 games from which he draws the middlegame positions; Engqvist is more selective in games that he suggests the student commit to memory. Schulten -- Morphy, New York 1857, a King's Gambit that Morphy won in 21 moves, appears in both and I'm close to having it in my long-term memory. I have not yet started the effort to memorize Karpov,A.--Unzicker,W., Nice 1974, which is another suggestion of Engqvist's.

One position that I studied in early January led me to improve my move order in a position that I frequently reach while playing against the Caro-Kann.

Several endgame positions that I played against Stockfish before or after reading Engqvist's notes drove me to dig into some of the volumes in Yuri Averbakh's eight-volume series.

Engqvist's analysis is fresh, lucid, and thought-provoking. Many of his memorable phrases guide me when they should--appropriate moments during play. For example, "Nimzowitsch tried to make his opponent tired and careless by doing nothing" (230). In Duras -- Nimzowitsch, San Sebastian 1912, more than twenty moves of rooks and kings were played in a completely equal endgame. Only when Duras erred did Nimzowitsch move a pawn.

I reflected on this lesson while playing online a completely drawn ending of bishop and knight versus bishop, and then nine moves prior to a draw by the 50-move rule, my opponent allowed a small combination that allowed me to win his bishop. That game, then, became my first opportunity to checkmate with bishop and knight that did not result from a deliberate underpromotion. Because of Engqvist's choice of positions, I had recently practiced that checkmate, too (see "Recognizing Known Positions").

300 Most Important Chess Positions was on my shelf nearly six years, serving as occasional study material and reference for finding positions suitable for some of my students. Now that I've been through every position, I will use it more actively.

I have a to do list that developed as I was going through the book. The list includes studying Jose Capablanca's analysis of a couple of his games in My Chess Career (1920), the only Capablanca authored book that I did not wholly read in 2021. Engqvist brought to my attention a game that Richard Reti analyzes in Master of the Chessboard (1930), which I intend to study. Some of Engqvist's analysis draws from Victor Bologan, Victor Bologan: Selected Games 1985-2004 (2007), and I added it to my library. The long rook endgames and queen endings are games worth reviewing periodically until I absorb their lessons.

Another task presented to me after racing through this book is that Engqvist has also published 300 Most Important Tactical Chess Positions (2020), 300 Most Important Chess Exercises (2022), and Chess Lessons from a Champion Coach (2023). Any or all of these books would be worth my time. Perhaps I'll continue to ignore Engqvist's advice on pacing, and race through his tactics book in the near future.

60 Days, 300 Positions: Day Two

Thomas Engqvist urges review as an integral aspect of the process of learning 300 chess positions. Today, I reviewed the first five positions in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018). Three of these appear among those in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), a book I labored part-way through more than a decade ago.

All five positions are derived from four games played by Paul Morphy. One, from a game against his father, is a position I had not studied prior to working through the first part of the book in February 2019, although I have a position from the game in my collection of exercises for students, Checkmates and Tactics (2019).

As noted yesterday, I wrote about the first position in the book shortly after it arrived in the mail. I noted there that two moves—both played by Morphy at different times—differ only slightly in their merits, but Morphy’s move in the reference game has been the dominant choice of masters. As both moves are playable, judgement is necessary. Engqvist’s observation that “one should avoid unproductive one-move threats” (14) is worth reviewing.

Positions 4 and 5 both derive from Schulten — Morphy, New York 1857, game 7 in GM-RAM. I have memories of attempting to imitate Morphy’s play in this game against a student in a blitz or rapid event a week or two after we had studied the game together. I remember his laugh as we found ourselves in the same opening. He won the tournament, but I won that game. Morphy’s play inspired my plans, but my young student avoided Schulten’s errors. That student achieved an expert rating as a high school student when he won the Spokane Falls Open in August 2019.

Both Engqvist and Ziyatdinov urged memorizing this game. Engqvist writes, “learn this model game by heart” (16). I had it lodged in my short-term memory when I was working through it with Ziyatdinov’s book about the time that I studied it with my young student, but I cannot completely reconstruct it from memory this morning.

Schulten, J. — Morphy, P.
New York 1857

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4!

I recall studying the opening stats and learning that 3…exf4 appears to score better. Nonetheless, I nearly always play 3…e4 here. I have had the position after 3.exd5 at least 426 times in online play. Black has won five games more than White. I've been White more often as the King's Gambit is an opening I play with some regularity. The first time that I played 3...e4 was in 2007 in a 15 minute game with a three second increment. I won in 45 moves.

My recollection of the game begins to falter here. I remember the next move, but with some uncertainty.

4.Nc3 Nf6

At first, I wrote Bb4 without sight of the board. I corrected the notation after checking the game score in 300 Most Important Chess Positions.

5.d3 Bb4

Of course, the timing of the bishop move is important, as here it pins the knight.

6.Bd2

Black to move

This is position 4 in Engqvist’s book. It does not appear in Ziyatdinov as a key position.

6…e3!

I played 6...exd3 in that 2007 game, which preceded my study of Morphy's game. I played 6...e3 for the first time in 2016. winning that game in 48 moves.

7.Bxe3 O-O 8.Bxd2 Bxc3

I still struggle with Morphy’s choice here, as it is not clear to me how the exchange of bishop for knight implements the principle of development.

9.bxc3

Why not Bxc3? This was the move played against me in 2016. According to the engines, bxc3 appears slightly better that capturing with the bishop.

9…Re8+ 10.Be2

This game is one of several Morphy games that merit study because of his effective use of pins. When my memory of this game gets me to point, I always remember Morphy’s moves when I’m able to recall Schulten’s.

10…Bg4 11.c4

Would Schulten have been better off here with 11.Nf3? Stockfish 16 favors 11.Kf2.

Black to move

Position number 5 in Engqvist is position number 150 in Ziyatdinov.

11…c6! 12.dxc6??

I identified this move as Schulten’s critical error when I first studied this game in detail, and capturing this pawn was one of my own errors in one of the worst tournament games I have played (see "Knowing Better"). In that game, my opponent played 3...c6!? and things went downhill quickly for me.

12…Nxc6-+ 13.Kf1

This position is number 151 in Ziyatdinov and I had it once doing tactics training on Chess.com.

13…Rxe2!

Morphy’s exchange sacrifice that maintains one of the pins on e2 is reminiscent of the Opera Game.

14.Nxe2 Nd4 15.Qb1

It is difficult to find a move for Schulten here that makes sense. The position is resignable. 

15…Bxe2+ 16.Kf2 Ng4+ 17.Kg1

Black to move

Morphy has a forced mate in seven.

17...Nf3+ 18.gxf3 Qd4+ 19.Kg2 Qf2+ 20.Kh3 Qxf3 21.Kh4

Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess (1957 [1916]), 229 ends the game score here, giving the moves to mate as a comment. Other books and some databases carry the game all the way to mate.

Both 21...Nh6 and 21...Ne3 finish the job. My students rarely find 21...Nh6 and then 22.h3 Nf5+ 23.Kg5 Qh5#.

Sourcing a Classic Game

Ten years ago I was studying a game that appears in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) and posted "Understanding Mayet's Thinking". Four years later, I found some discrepancies concerning its provenance while studying this game again. Ziyatdinov lists the game as Berlin 1851. In a video made in 2017, Kingscrusher has the game as Berlin 1859. In 2014, I checked David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol 1 1485-1866 (1981). Levy and O'Connell's book is an impressive work of scholarship. In the days before databases, it offered a greater selection of historic games than any other single book. The authors also source every game.

Unfortunately, checking Levy and O'Connell's source for Mayet -- Anderssen's miniature complicated matters. They have the game as Berlin 1859, but their source, Leopold Hoffer, and Johannes Zukertort, eds. The Chess-Monthly (1882) has London 1851, played "during the London International Chess Tournament" (212). I noted this contradiction in a comment on chessgames.com. The Chess-Monthly (March 1882) presents a game played in Jackson, Mississippi, which they reproduce from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, and appends Mayet -- Anderssen as a note to that game (211-212).

The Chess-Monthly

The Chess-Monthly omits a piece of information that can be found in the Globe-Democrat's account of the game: it was played at odds of rook plus move. Chess Archaeology's Jack O'Keefe Project has digital images of most of the chess columns from the St Louis Globe-Democrat. This image is from 15 January 1882, and was the source for the game that appeared in The Chess-Monthly.

The game:

Hunter,Rev. Dr. -- Galbreath,John A.
Jackson, Miss. c.1882
[Mackenzie, George H.]

Remove the rook from a8.

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 b5 4.Bb3 a5 5.a3 Bc5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.c4 bxc4 8.Bxc4 d6 9.0-0 Bg4 10.h3 h5 11.hxg4

With this capture White's troubles begin.

11...hxg4 12.Nh2 g3 13.Ng4 Nd4

The commencement of a highly ingenious combination, which the Reverend Doctor may be pardoned for having failed to see through.

14.Be3 Nxg4

White to move

Up until this point, White had a winning position, but here he blundered.

15.Qxg4?? Ne2+

The termination is exceedingly piquant and interesting.

16.Qxe2 Rh1+ 17.Kxh1 Qh4+ and mates next move 0-1

On Monday this week, I won a miniature using the fishing pole trap, and that brought me back to The Chess-Monthly, Mayet -- Anderssen, and for the first time this interesting game in the Globe-Democrat. That led to a renewed search for the provenance of Mayet -- Anderssen. In turns out, the original publication of the game had been identified at chessgames.com two years ago. The game was published in Schachzeitung in February 1851, a Berlin magazine for which Adolf Anderssen served as one of the editors. Staunton's London 1851 tournament began in late April. Once again, Chess Archaeology had a link to Schachzeitung at GoogleBooks, actually two links--one at the Bavaria State Library and one at the Austrian National Library.

The game:

Mayet,C. -- Anderssen,A. [C64]
Berlin, 1851

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bxc6

As I noted ten years ago, this move is inconsistent with 4.c3.

5...dxc6 6.0-0 Bg4 7.h3 h5

Putting a fishing pole out to see if Mayet might bite.

8.hxg4 hxg4 9.Nxe5

Black to move

9...g3

9...Nxe4 and Black is winning. The lines are instructive, and at the end of the best sequence for both, I am able to beat Stockfish on my iPad with Black's second best move (engine assessed), but not with the best.

10.d4 Nxe4

White to move

11.Qg4

Hoffer and Zukertort offer two alternatives:

11.Nf3 gxf2+ 12.Rxf2 Rh1+ 13.Kxh1 Nxf2+ 14.Kg1 Nxd1; 

11.fxg3 Nxg3 12.Re1 Rh1+ 13.Kf2 Qh4 14.Rxh1 Nxh1+ 15.Kg1 Bd6 16.Be3 (16.Nf3 Qf2+ 17.Kxh1 0-0-0) 

11...Bxd4

The greatest representation of dash and brilliancy is not satisfied with the gain of a hostile Queen by 11...gxf2+, etc. (Hoffer and Zukertort)

12.Qxe4

12.Be3 gxf2+ 13.Bxf2 (13.Rxf2 Bxe3) 13...Bxf2+ 14.Rxf2 Rh1+; 

12.Nd3 Rh4 13.Bg5 Rxg4 14.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 15.Nxf2 gxf2+ 16.Rxf2 Nxf2 (Hoffer and Zukertort)

12...Bxf2+ 0-1

In Schachzeitung (Berlin, February 1851), the sole annotation follows this move: "Schwarz kunigt ein erzwungenes Matt in funf Zugan an" (Black announces a forced mate in five moves).

This morning I copied eight games from the February 1851 issue of Schachzeitung into a database. All of them are in ChessBase Mega 2020. However, the versions in CB extend the games to checkmate where that did not occur in Schachzeitung, and in one case the players' colors are reversed.

In a different Mayet -- Anderssen battle, Anderssen let a win slip away from this position.

Black to move

What would you play? Probably the move suggested in the notes to the game.

Queen versus Knight

Winning with queen versus knight is an elementary skill, but it is easy to falter with the wrong plan. This morning, I struggled briefly with a position that resulted from misplaying a bishop and pawn versus knight ending that I found in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000).

White to move

1.Be5

Obvious first move--trap the knight.

1...Ke7 2.Kc5 Kd7 3.Kb5 Ke7 4.Kc6 Kf7

White to move

5.d6 Ke6 6.d7

6.Bd4 would have simplified matters. 6...Nf4 7.d7 Ke7 8.Bc5 and attempting to occupy the promotion square leads to a quick checkmate.

6...Kxe5 7.d8Q Nf4

White to move

I reached this position thinking it would be easier than it was. It became clear that I could use some work on elementary skills.

Elements of the Game of Chess

After several efforts, then engine checking, followed by further practice, I began to see some patterns. I then remembered an old textbook that had some exericises, William Lewis, Elements of the Game of Chess (1822). In "Lesson One" (August 2017), I discussed the merits of Lewis's approach to elementary checkmates with the queen. Queen vs. knight is the next chapter in his book.

Lewis's first position is instructive, and his solution is very close to what chess engines reveal today.

White to move

Lewis
Queen vs. Knight, 1822

1.Qd4+ Ke6 2.Ke4

Black to move 

2...Ng6

Lewis gives the variation 2...Nc6 3.Qd5+.
The engine shows that 2...Nf7 holds out one move longer.

3.Qb6+

Lewis's technique takes one move longer than the engine's top two choices.

3...Kf7 4.Kf5 Ne7+ 5.Kg5 Nd5 6.Qd6 Ne7 7.Qf6+ Ke8 8.Qe6 Kd8 9.Kf6 Nc8

White to move

10.Qc6 Na7

10...Ne7 11.Qd6+

11.Qb6+ 1-0

Lewis treats his readers to two more positions. In both cases, White has a knight-winning fork on the second move.

White to move

My students will be seeing these positions this coming week.

Creating the 300

In GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), Rashid Ziyatdinov offers his version of the legendary 300 positions that a player must know to become a strong chess player. I have written about this book on several prior occasions, especially "Hitting the Books" (March 2015); "The Training Standard" (January 2015); "To Know a Position" (December 2014); "Morphy's Fingerprints" (December 2014); "Fingerprints" (April 2010); and my initial review of the book, "GM-RAM: Essential Knowledge" (February 2010).

Ziyatdinov leaves 47 of the 300 to the reader. I am tentatively and slowly adding critical positions from my study in search of 47 that matter to me. I have so far added:

Alekhine -- Levenfish 1912

White to move

After 14...Qxb2

Carlsen -- Tomashevsky 2016

White to move

After 12...Ng6

Byrne -- Fischer 1956

Black to move

After 11.Bg5

Bogoljubov -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922

Alexander Alekhine gave up three queens to beat Efim Bogoljubow in their last round game at Hastings Six Masters in 1922. The game featured some spectacular tactics and a textbook finish with a near zugzwang position giving way to an elementary pawn ending. Many chess enthusiasts consider it one of  the greatest games ever played. I included it among my ten candidates in the list created for my Spring Break Chess Camp class on the subject of the best game ever played.

Alekhine needed a win to finish first in the tournament as he was tied with Akiva Rubinstein going into the last round. This need drove his choice of the Dutch Defense, which he characterized as risky. Many recent accounts of this game confuse this event, held September 1922, with the Hastings International Chess Congress, held December 1922 -- January 1923. Rubinstein won the latter. Alekhine did not participate. The Six Masters event was a double round robin featuring two British masters--George A. Thomas and Frederick Yates--and four of the leading masters from outside Britain--Alekhine, Rubinstein, Seigbert Tarrasch, and Efim Bogoljubow.

The round-by-round results with links to the games are posted on Chessgames.com. I looked at crosstables for this event and for the Hastings Chess Congress in John Donaldson, and Nikolay Minev, The Life and Games of Akiva Rubinstein, vol. 2: the Later Years, 2nd. ed. (2011).

A. Alekhine from Wikimedia Commons*

Alekhine considers this game against Bogoljubow, alongside his win against Richard Reti (Baden-Baden 1925), as "the most brilliant wins of [his] chess career" (Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess, 1924-1937 [1965], 13). Irving Chernev also calls this game, "the most brilliant game ever played" (The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played [1965], 67). Chernev annotates this game in The Chess Companion (1968) and in Twelve Great Players and Their Best Games (1976). The former is quoted on the website Master Chess Open:

Alekhine's subtle strategy involves manoeuvres which encompass the entire chessboard as a battlefield. There are exciting plots and counterplots. There are fascinating combinations and brilliant sacrifices of Queens and Rooks. There are two remarkable promotions of Pawns and a third in the offing, before White decides to capitulate.
Chernev, The Chess Companion (as quoted at Master Chess Open).

Andrew Soltis lists this game as number four in The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked (2006).

Despite such praise, Bogoljubow -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922 is absent from Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms, The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998). Burgess does include it in Chess Highlights of the 20th Century (2000), but that book contains 270 games. The editors of The World's Greatest Chess Games carefully culled their list to one hundred. Their criteria were:

Quality and brilliance of play by both contestants.
Historical value.
Historical significance.
Burgess, Nunn, and Emms (1998), 7.

Bogoljubow's play falls short of this standard. He makes several positional errors in the opening and middle game, which Alekhine then exploits brilliantly. Even then, however, Alekhine may have eschewed the clearest path to victory in favor of artistic chess.

Annotations to this game are found in many books, websites, and YouTube videos. Most annotators start with Alekhine's own comments in My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1923 (1927) or in W.H. Watts, The Book of the Hastings International Masters' Chess Tournament 1922 (1924). A. J. Goldsby offers detailed annotations on his website and also a YouTube video. While going through this game, I studied annotations in S. Tartakower, and J. DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1975); Max Euwe, From Steinitz to Fischer (1976); and Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 (2003). The game without annotations is included in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), which I mention frequently on Chess Skills. There are three middlegame positions in GM-RAM from this game.

In my annotations, I aim to highlight the critical moments of this game, rather than creating a compendium of all that has been said by others.


Bogoljubow,Efim -- Alekhine,Alexander [A90]
Hastings Six Masters, Hastings, 21 September 1922

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2

6.Qxd2 offers White much better prospects. This game well-illustrates how this capture leads to a misplaced knight and reduces White's influence in the center. As long as this knight stands on d2 it prevents White's rooks from controlling the d-file and it stands as a potential target should Bogoljubow seek exchanges in the center. Tartakower suggests 6.Qxd2 and Nc3. Kasparov concurs.

6...Nc6 7.Ngf3 0–0 8.0–0 d6 9.Qb3 Kh8

White to move

While running a youth chess tournament at the end of our Spring Break Camp, I spent my idle moments going through this game. The position in the diagram above was on my board for much of the day. I asked many of the youth players and coaches whether they agreed with Alekhine's assessment that Black already has the upper hand. The first youth to face this question suggested 10.d5 and thought White was better. Tartakower also prefers 10.d5 to the move Bogoljubow played in the game.

Black's queen knight on c6 is more active than its counterpart on d2. White's queen is temporarily more mobile than Black's, but knowing how the game continued makes it hard to evaluate the position objectively. Black's queen proved to have more influence in the game. Perhaps the White queen is somewhat misplaced on the queenside. White's rooks are connected. Many youth players suggested that White has a lead in development and cannot be worse.

Alekhine annotated this game from the perspective of having won a brilliant victory. He might not have been particularly objective in his assessment of the game up to this point. We know that Black's queen made a foray to the kingside, where it provoked weaknesses, then returned to e8 to support action in the center and on the queenside. From the standpoint of the game's whole, Black's queen proved much more flexible and effective.

After 9.Qb3, Alekhine wrote, "This manoeuvre does not prevent Black from realising his plan, but it is already difficult to suggest a satisfactory line of play for White (Alexander Alekhine's Best Games [2012], eBook, loc 2665). Presumably, it is this comment that Euwe translated into the Informant symbol for Black has the upper hand in From Steinitz to Fischer. But, it seems to me that Alekhine might be annotating by result.

Tartakower and DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess offer several improvements to White's play over the next several moves. Most of these suggestions are repeated by Kasparov in My Great Predecessors. I think the game is still balanced at this point, but that Black has a clear edge after move 18. Kasparov quotes Alekhine's "already difficult ... for White," adding "Why?"

10.Qc3

After 10.d5, Kasparov offers two lines that the young players and I examined at the youth tournament.

10...Na5 11.Qc3 c5
10...exd5 11.cxd5 Ne7

In both cases, it does not seem that Black has an advantage. Kasparov states, "Black would have faced a thankless defence" (365).

10...e5 11.e3

Alekhine points out the vulnerability of White's knight on d2. If 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5 and the knight on d2 is en prise. Tartakower, Euwe, and Kasparov all repeat this line.

11...a5

Upon seeing this move, I might agree that Black has a slight edge after White's failure to play 10.d5.

White to move

12.b3 Qe8 13.a3 Qh5

At this point, Kasparov quotes Alexander Kotov, "The start of a deep strategic plan. First of all Black creates threats on the kingside and provokes a weakening of the opponents pawns" (Kasparov, 365).

A defect of My Great Predecessors is the absence of documentation. The whole series is full of quotes from other chess writers. Parts IV and V offer bibliographies, but not the sort of documentation that is desirable for a work that is so much a digest of the work of others. The first three parts offer less.

Kotov wrote several books about Alekhine in Russian (I saw the number six somewhere). One book exists in English, put out by R.H.M. Press: Alexander Kotov, Alexander Alekhine, tran. K. P. Neat (1975). I am tempted to buy this book. There are used copies floating about, and also an Ishi Press reprint.

14.h4

Alekhine writes, "A good defensive move, which secures new squares for his f3-knight and revived the threat of 15.dxe5" (loc 2682). I do not see why 14.dxe5 was not possible. Tartakower rejects it because after 14...dxe5 15.Nxe5 drops a piece. It seems to me that White could open the center and does not need to follow-up by blundering away a knight. The h2-h4 push can be played later.

I considered 14.Rab1 to support b3-b4. The immediate 14.b3-b4 drops a pawn because after 14...e4 15.Ne1, the rook is skewered through White's a-pawn.

14...Ng4 15.Ng5 Bd7

White to move

16.f3

Alekhine sought to provoke a weakening of White's kingside, and did so. But, Bogoljubow might have been a little too cooperative. I am tempted to regard 16.f3 as a mistake. Alekhine suggested in comments to 15.Ng5 that 15.b4 was preferable. Kasparov repeats Alekhine's suggestion.

Here Alekhine offers a tactical line that is even worse for White: 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.f3 exd4 18.fxg4 dxc3 19.gxh5 cxd2 with a better endgame for Black.

16...Nf6 17.f4

Black threatened 17...f4, which would have pried open White's pawn shield.

e4 18.Rfd1

18.d5 was White's last chance to be slightly worse.

18...h6 19.Nh3 d5

White to move

Black clearly has the upper hand now, in my view. Where did White fail? On moves 10-18, Bogoljubow had several opportunities to open the center and possibly create a balanced struggle. He opted instead to close the kingside and close the center. As a consequence, his pieces lost their mobility and became passive. His long-term plan seemed oriented towards action on the queenside, but the game's subsequent course revealed surprising resources for Black there.

Kasparov offers another juicy quote from Kotov, which highlights the success of Alekhine's long-term strategic plan. Kasparov's note preceding the game highlights the centrality of Kotov's commentary.

The last of the wins is one of the most grandiose Alekhine canvases. It once again shows that his amazing combinations did not arise out of thin air, but were the fruit of very deep strategic preparation.
Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 364.

20.Nf1

This position is the first of the three in GM-RAM from this game.

Ne7 21.a4

This position is the second in GM-RAM from this game.

Now, Boguljubow weakens his queenside, offering Black a nice outpost for his knight. Could he have tried to close matters there, too, and then hunkered down inside a fortress? To wit, 21.c5 Qg6 22.Qe1 Neg8 23.Kh2 Nh5 24.Ng1 Ngf6. White has no play, but how will Black break through?

21...Nc6 22.Rd2 Nb4 23.Bh1

This bishop could be useful preventing Black's knight for employing d3 as an outpost. Alas, there is no way to maneuver the bishop to such a useful square so long as the knight on f1 must guard the weak g-pawn. Perhaps White could redeploy his knights to h1 and h2 to guard g3 and g4? Surely, that would offer Black some opportunities elsewhere on the board.

Maybe 23.c5 is no worse than White's other choices. the tension between c4 and d5 only benefits Black. 23.cxd5 looks suicidal.

23...Qe8!

White to move

Now, c4-c5 is not possible due to b6. The problems with 24.cxd5 are worse than before.

24.Rg2 dxc4 25.bxc4 Bxa4

Alekhine has won a pawn. More significant than the pawn, however, is the preponderance of force for Black on the queenside as things open up. Half of White's army is sitting in the bleachers with their monarch, watching the game.

26.Nf2 Bd7 27.Nd2 b5 28.Nd1 Nd3

Alekine rejected 28...bxc4 because it would bring a White knight to e5.

29.Rxa5

White has won back the pawn, but his position is now much worse than it was a few moves ago. Now the game enters the phase where Alekhine's flashy tactical brilliance shines. Black has several ways to win, but the manner he chose elevates this game in the opinions of many chess students.

29.cxb5 and Alekhine offers 29...Bxb5 30.Rxa5 Nd5 31.Qa3 Rxa5 32.Qxa5 Qc6 with a winning attack for Black.

Black to move

29...b4! 30.Rxa8

Ziyatdinov's third position in GM-RAM from this game has now been reached.

30...bxc3!! 

This brilliant move was not necessary to win. 30...Qxa8 31.Qb3 (Alekhine's suggestion) 31...Qa1 (Kasparov's improvement over Alekhine's 31...Ba4) 32.Qb1 Ra8 and Black has a technical win.

31.Rxe8 c2 

The point of Black's last few moves.

32.Rxf8+ Kh7 33.Nf2 c1Q+ 34.Nf1 Ne1

Threatening smother checkmate.

35.Rh2 Qxc4 36.Rb8 Bb5 37.Rxb5 Qxb5

White's moves 30-37 are the computer's top choice. Alternatives lose much quicker.

White to move

38.g4 Nf3+ 39.Bxf3 exf3 40.gxf5 Qe2

White to move

What can White do? He is in zugzwang. Pawn moves delay the end.

41.d5

41.Nh1 Ng4 42.Rxe2 fxe2 and after sacrificing two queens. Black will gain one more to sacrifice.

41...Kg8 42.h5 Kh7 43.e4

Now White's remain pawn moves lose pawns.

43...Nxe4 44.Nxe4 Qxe4

White to move

45.d6 cxd6 46.f6 gxf6 47.Rd2 Qe2

Alekhine threatens checkmate in one.

48.Rxe2 fxe2 49.Kf2 exf1Q+

Alekhine's third queen sacrifice in this game.

50.Kxf1 Kg7 51.Kf2 Kf7 52.Ke3 Ke6 53.Ke4 d5+ 0–1

There is not much to criticize in Bogoljubow's moves after about move 20. But, his inaccurate play in the early game deprives this game of some of its merit. Alekhine's strategic preparation and tactical execution deserve study.


*George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress) derivative work: Jesus Angel Rey, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16985493.

Cultivating Youth Skills

My chess students range from absolute beginners who have just learned how the pieces move and are beginning to discover forks and pins to some of the perennial trophy winners at local scholastic events. Students who meet with me one-on-one get tailored instruction that includes analysis of their tournament games. They also get a heavy dose of classic games.

This week, both students who meet one-one-one and my advanced after school club worked through some positions on my green cards. These cards have diagrams from Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). One of these positions is from Schulten -- Morphy, New York 1857.

These positions are presented not merely as a tactical problem to solve, but also as a position to play. I emphasize, as does Ziyatidinov, finding the best plans for both sides. Yes, there is a tactical shot. But, there is also a need to cultivate the skill that converts the resulting advantage into a win.

Black to move

Having seen and learned Morphy's Opera Game last week, some students found the key move quickly after being told it is a Morphy game and we need to look at pins.

13...Rxe2 14.Nxe2 Nd4

In the game, Shulten played 15.Qb1.

We explored how Black might proceed after 15.Qe1. Together, we played both sides trying to find a win for Black and the stubborn defense for White.

One of the interesting lines continued: 15.Qe1 Bxe2+ 16.Kg1 Qb6 17.Be3 Ng4 18.Bf2 Re8 and we played on from here, taking back moves that seems to fail and looking for better tries.

We also looked at this position from one of my online games.

White to move

40.Rh7+ was played in the game, and it worked well because Black did not find 40...Kg6 41.Rxe7 Rxc5, which gives Black excellent drawing prospects.

40.Bxe7 is White's best move, leading to 40...Kg7 41.Bd6 Rc1 42.Be5+ Kg6 and White should win.

My beginning students completed the worksheet Beginning Tactics 3 after seeing an illustration of the power of pins from the game Portisch -- Berger, Amsterdam 1964.

White to move

16.Nxh7 Kxh7 17.Rh5+ Kg7 18.Be5+ f6 19.Rg5.

Lesson of the Week

My beginning students continue to work on fundamental tactics. This week, the emphasis was on decoy. They worked through the problems on the worksheet Beginning Tactics 10 (reproduced at "Lesson of the Week [19 December 2012]"). They also saw the decoy tactic that I blundered into in my round two game last weekend (see "Don't Be Clever").

My advanced class drew one card from each of three packets: pawn ending cards, rook endings, middlegame positions (from GM-RAM). The first two are from Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. We labored together to find the solutions with mixed success.

Black to move

Most of the students were convinced that White was winning the pawn ending. I played Black and slowly convinced the students of the truth of the position.

White to move/Black to move

The rook ending position is two positions--White to move and Black to move. We only looked at White. The students tried several schemes that failed, but with correct play, White can transfer the move to Black. Then, it becomes clear that Black is in zugzwang.

White to move

This position arose in Morphy -- De Riviere, Paris 1863. The students favored Morphy's move (18.g4), which may not be best. However, they struggled with my refutation (18...Rh7). De Riviere played 18...Rxh3, which is superior to 18...Rh7. The group saw 19.Bxf6 Nxf6, but not 20.Ng5!

Rating Woes

I set goals and resist setting goals. Setting these goals in terms of rating produces disappointment. It is better to set them in terms of learning targets.

I might set as goals:

1) In 2016, I will master the French Defense. See "A Batch of Games".
2) I will be able to reproduce the whole games from each of the first 48 fingerprints in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge. See "GM-RAM: Essential Knowledge" and "Year in Review 2015".

Nonetheless, rating strokes the ego or chops it down. Last Thursday I was at the top of my game with blitz rating peaks on two sites, both over 2000. Thursday night after my wife went to bed, I renewed my USCF membership in preparation for the Collyer Memorial Chess Tournament. Then, I renewed the licenses for two of my dogs. It was probably 10:00 pm at that point.

Four hours later, my wife asked from the bedroom. "what are you doing still awake?" I looked at my Chess.com blitz rating and saw that it had dropped to the low 1800s. I cannot account for those four hours, but I must have been playing blitz and playing it badly.

This graph shows last week's gain and then collapse. The two horizontal lines represent 1800 and 2000.

After winning a nice miniature in round one of the Collyer, I had the tactical collapse in round two that I posted yesterday in "Don't Be Clever". There was still a chance to cut my losses with two wins on Sunday. Somehow, I managed to lose two games. In round four, I gave away a minor piece, then converted that to a rook through further errors.

A rook down marks an improvement over dropping a queen on Saturday!

In the last round I played my friend Ted Baker. He is always convinced that he will lose when we play, but he has an even score over the past several years. He won biggest upset in one tournament when he beat me.

He and I were both convinced that I was winning very late into our long game, but in the end I lost. My rating dropped 70 points.

This graph shows my USCF rating over the past four years, including my peak in 2012 of 1982.

Maybe I should just play chess because I  like the game. Setting goals sets me up for frustration.

On the other hand, it seems that only yesterday I first broke through to A Class (see "Class A!"). Moreover, I had more fun analyzing and playing chess this past weekend than in many tournaments over the past few years.

Carlsen -- Tomashevsky, Tata Steel 2016

A London Model Game

Magnus Carlsen does not have an ambitious opening repertoire. Rather, he consistently reaches a playable middlegame outside of any deep opening preparation of his opponent and then plays chess until there are no resources left in the position. Today, he employed the London System against Evgeny Tomashevsky and won an instructive game.

This position merits inclusion in middlegame collections, such as can be found in books like GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2001)by Rashid Ziyatdinov, and Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book (2000).

White to move

All of the pieces remain on the board and chess engines regard the position as approximately equal. Nonetheless, according the the World Chess Champion, Black has already committed the error that will give him a very uncomfortable game. The novelty was played by White on move 11 and this position is after Black's move 12.

This morning I opted not to blog while watching the games live, deviating from my practice through the first five rounds of this year's Tata Steel Chess Tournament. I watched as many games as I could and watched most of the game commentary. My inclination had been to blog Hou Yifan's game against Wei Yi. Hou has been playing well in this tournament (Wei Yi's game against Carlsen was my focus in round three). That game would have been an excellent choice. She seemed to get an adavnatge and was pressing, but Wei found some clever defensive resources. That game was the last one to finish. As the games began and I made coffee, fed the dogs, and turned on my computers, I also grew interested in Wesley So's battle with Fabiano Caruana. They played the Italian Opening and all the bishops left the board by move 12. As several of my students routinely play this opening, that game could prove instructive for their lessons.

There were several other exciting games that the commentators moved among. Today, IM Robert Ris joined Yasser Seirawan as co-host; Ris conducted the postgame interviews. He seemed particularly excited about Carlsen's game, mentioning that the London System is something that he recommends to his students. In the fantasy variations that he and Seirawan played out on the analysis board, there were many instructive checkmate combinations, including one with White's knight on h8 to cover f7 while a queen and rook battery on the h-file do the rest.

After the broadcast concluded, I watched two videos on Chess.com: Maxim Dlugy, "Best Blitz Openings: The London System," and Eugene Perelshteyn, "Gems from the 2012 US Championship -- Part 2." Armed with quick analyses of two of Gata Kamsky's nice wins with the London System, I played a couple of games of blitz. I was able to use the London system as White twice and once as Black, going 3-0 in these games.

Here, then, is Carlen's inspiring win.

Carlsen,Magnus (2844) -- Tomashevsky,Evgeny (2728) [D02]
Tata Steel Chess Wijk aan Zee (6), 22.01.2016

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 b6 4.e3 Bb7 5.h3

Tomashevsky faced 5.Bd3 in another loss 5...c5 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.c3 0–0 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.a3 Rc8 10.e4 d6 11.0–0 Qc7 12.h3 e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 dxe5 15.Bh2 Rcd8 16.Nc4 b5 17.Nxe5 Bd6 18.f4 c4 19.Bc2 Rfe8 20.Rad1 Ba8 21.Bg3 Qc5+ 22.Kh2 Bf8 23.Bh4 Be7 24.Bg3 Qb6 25.Rfe1 Qe6 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Nf3 Nh5 28.Nd4 Qg6 29.Qf3 1–0 Radjabov,T (2784) -- Tomashevsky,E (2738) Moscow RUS 2012.

5...Be7

Already, Tomashevsky is starting to burn time, using 3.5 minutes for this move.

6.Bd3 0–0

Black used 3 minutes

7.0–0 c5 8.c3 Nc6

The Russian champion used more than five and one-half minutes for this move. Carlsen's longest move time so far was 64 seconds for 5.h3.

One of Kamsky's wins continued 8...cxd4 9.cxd4 Nc6 10.a3 d5 11.Nbd2 Rc8 12.b4 Bd6 13.Ne5 Ne7 14.Qa4 a6 15.Rac1 b5 16.Qb3 Ne4 17.Qb2 f6 18.Nef3 Bxf4 19.exf4 Qd6 20.g3 g5 21.fxg5 Nxg3 22.gxf6 Rxf6 23.Rxc8+ Nxc8 24.fxg3 Qxg3+ 25.Kh1 Rh6 26.Nh2 Qxd3 27.Ndf3 Nd6 28.Qc1 Nf5 29.Qc7 Rg6 30.Rg1 Rxg1+ 31.Kxg1 Qe3+ 32.Kf1 Qd3+ 33.Kf2 Qe3+ 34.Kf1 Qd3+ 35.Kg1 Qe3+ 36.Kh1 Qf2 37.Qb8+ Kg7 38.Qxb7+ Kg6 39.Ne5+ Kg5 40.Nhf3+ 1–0 Kamsky,G (2762) -- Leko,P (2732), Beijing CHN 2012.

White to move

9.Nbd2

9.a3 has been playd by Kamsky and others.

9...d5

Nearly ten minutes thinking time for Tomashevsky on this move.

10.Qe2 Bd6

This position appears in 22 games in my database. Tomashevsky used fifteen minutes for this move.

11.Rfe1N

In the highest rated precedent, 11.Bxd6 was played. 11...Qxd6 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.e4 White nursed a small edge, but did not find a win in Potkin,V (2646) -- Kurnosov,I (2676), Moscow 2010 (drawn in 62 moves).

11...Ne7

The beginning of a faulty plan.

While watching, I was thinking about 11...Bxf4 12.exf4 cxd4 13.Nxd4 (13.cxd4 Qd6 14.f5 exf5 15.Bxf5) 13...Nxd4 14.cxd4. There may be a reason that Tomashevsky rejected such ideas.

12.Rad1 Ng6

See diagram at top of article.

After the game, Carlsen suggested that this move was misguided as it gives White firm control of e5.

13.Bxg6 hxg6 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Ne5

Black to move

There are probably dozens of books on my shelves that discuss the merits of such a fine knight outpost, but I usually think about Peter Romanovsky, Chess Middlegame Planning, trans. Jimmy Adams (1990).

15...g5 16.f4!

Carlsen's pawn sacrifice elicited a good deal of excitement among the broadcasters and on Twitter.

16...gxf4 17.Rf1

Black to move

17...Nd7 

17...fxe3

Ris and Seirawan concluded that Black could not open the f-file in this manner. Stockfish 7, however, considers it among its top three choices. Later, after the knight returned to f6, this Nd7 move was criticized. Stockfish prefers it.

18.Rxf6 exd2

18...gxf6?? 19.Qg4+ Kh7 20.Rf1 e2 21.Qxe2 Ba6 22.Qh5+ Kg7 23.Rf4 Be2 24.Qh4 Bd3 25.Qxf6+ Kg8 and checkmate is a few moves away. Carlsen said that he didn't need to calculate much in considering these possibilities, as he always has a draw by repetition.

19.Rxd2 Qe7 20.Rf4 White has plenty of compensation for the pawn.

18.Qh5 Nf6

18...Nxe5 19.dxe5 Qc7 20.Rxf4 f5 21.Rh4 Qxe5 22.Ne4

Analysis Diagram

After 22.Ne4

22...Qxe4 (22...dxe4? 23.Rd7 checkmate in two) 23.Rxe4+-.

19.Qh4 Qd8 20.Rxf4 Ne4 21.Nxe4 

21.Ndf3? Qxh4 22.Rxh4 and suddenly Black is better.

Black to move

21...Qxh4

Only move

22.Rxh4 dxe4+-

And the rest is a matter of technique, as they say. Studying Carlsen's technique will help the developing player.

23.dxc5 bxc5 24.Rd7 Rab8 25.b3 

Black to move

Black is very nearly in zugzwang.

25...a5 26.Rc7 a4 27.bxa4 Ba8 28.a5 Rb7 29.Rxc5 Ra7 30.Nc4 1–0

Carlsen joins Caruana and Ding Liren in first place after six rounds.

Standings after six rounds.