Decisive Advantage

My students this week are seeing a series of positions in which White has a decisive advantage. Before suggesting moves, or seeing those that were played, I ask them to assess the position. What features account for White's substantial advantage?

The intent is for them to grow in their understanding that a player must use all their pieces in coordination. They should notice that in each position, White's pieces are more mobile, offer concrete threats, and work together. Students are also asked to understand the difference between the pieces on the board and the pieces in the battle. This dynamic imbalance is temporary unless the player wit the advantage acts with vigor.

I spent about an hour gathering 16 positions for these lessons, but no student so far has seen more than eight. The first two are from famous games that many of the students have seen before.

The first is from Paul Morphy's Opera Game.

White to move

The second is from Gioachino Greco's best known use of the Greco Attack (see "Cultivating Error"). I have had this position myself in at least 17 games, winning 16. The one loss was a bullet game where I inexplicably put a horse on a square earmarked for an elephant.

White to move

The third position highlights the relationship between space and mobility. It comes from a game that I played on Chess.com a few days ago.

White to move

Number four was presented at "Desperation". It highlights concrete checkmate threats. Number five is a textbook endgame exercise.

White to move

The sixth proves difficult for students to assess. It comes from a cyborg game played in a match organized by the International Correspondence Chess Association (ICCF). In this game, White used his intuition and a great deal of time on moves 13-15 to acquire mobile center pawns that confer a dynamic advantage.

White to move

Thomas Engqvist's analysis of Morphy,P. -- Morphy,A., New Orleans 1849 in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) guided my selection of the seventh position (14-15).

White to move

Capablanca -- Lasker, Game 11

The eleventh game of the 1921 World Chess Championship between José Raúl Capablanca and Emanuel Lasker began one hundred years ago today and concluded the following night. It began, as so many others of the match, with the classical variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined, but Lasker then played an unusual seventh move.

He followed up this move with an eleventh move that many commentators have regarded as a mistake. But Capablanca stated that Lasker got the game he wanted. Cyrus Lakdawala suggested that Lasker was playing "deliberately inaccurate moves" out of desperation. The resulting game stands as a great example of how Capablanca exploited the immobility of Lasker's forces.

Fred Reinfeld, in The Immortal Games of Capablanca (1942), claimed, game eleven was "the decisive contest of the match" (102).

Coming on the heels of the previous game, it convinced Lasker that he could no longer hope to over take his adversary. One senses very quickly the older man's listless attitude and the challenger's confident and optimistic spirit. (102)

This post is number 19 in a centennial series on the match. It contains the moves up to the adjournment. Tomorrow's post will have the conclusion to the game. As with game ten, this game has been annotated by many commentators. I highlight Capablanca's instructive approach in A Primer of Chess (1935) with most of the briefer annotations from his book on the match (1921) and Lasker's relatively light annotations in Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca (1922).

Capablanca,José Raúl -- Lasker,Emanuel [D66]
World Championship 11th Havana (11), 13.04.1921
[Capablanca/Lasker/Lakdawala]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Rc1 Re8

"At the present time considered inferior to 7...c6" (Capablanca 1935, 217). Lasker would play this move two more times in subsequent games, but this was the first time.

White to move

8.Qc2 c6

"Difficult defense" (Lasker, 24).

9.Bd3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Rxe7

"This was probably the idea behind 7...Re8. It is evident from the development that Black had planned to play very much the kind of game that he obtained. The whole thing reminds one of Steinitz" (Capablanca 1935, 217).

This is the move that most commentators regard as a mistake. 11...Qxe7 should lead to equality. However, equalizing in a game differs from equalizing in a match from two games down. Lasker likely took chances in hopes that he could steer Capablanca astray, as Lakdawala suggests in his instructive Capablanca: Move by Move (2012).

White to move

12.0-0 Nf8 13.Rfd1 Bd7

"I do not consider the system of defense adopted by Dr Lasker in this game to be any good" (Capablanca 1921, 24).

14.e4 Nb6

"14...Nxc3 would have simplified matters somewhat, but it would have left Black in a very awkward position. The text move, by driving back the bishop, gains time for the defense" (Capablanca 1921, 24)

15.Bf1 Rc8

"Black here and further prevents the breakthrough with d4-d5" (Lasker, 25).

16.b4

"To prevent ...c6-c5, either now or at a later stage. There is no Black Bishop and White's whole plan is based on that fact. He will attempt, in due time, to place a Knight at d6, supported by his pawn at e5. If this can be done without weakening the position somewhere else, Black's game will then be lost" (Capablanca 1921, 24).

16...Be8

White to move

Capablanca's long comment on this position in A Primer of Chess offers exceptional instruction to the developing player.

The defensive position is Steinitzian in its character with most of the pieces massed on the last two rows. There are no weak points in Black's game, but the Black position suffers from lack of space for his pieces to maneuver. White's policy should be therefore to keep the Black pieces within their restricted territory, so that, sooner or later, in order to free them, Black may be forced to make a move that will weaken his structure. White may also take advantage of the fact that the Black squares c5 and d6 are not easily guarded, and try to place his knights in those squares. In order to place a knight at d6 White must first play e5. This advance must be well times, keeping in mind all the time that it will create a permanent weakness, by establishing a backward pawn at d4. It will also create a hole at Black's d5 where the Black pieces may be strongly posted, especially the knights. In the position of the diagram White must be on the lookout also for f6, which would permit the Black bishop to go to h5, pinning the knight at f3 and indirectly increasing the pressure against White's pawn at d4. (217-219)

Lakdawala's metaphors are interesting:

The roaches, though driven out of sight, yet remain within the walls. Lasker pulls a Steinitz by scrunching up all his pieces on the first rank, perhaps hoping to egg Capa on to overextension in the future. In doing so he initiates a contractionary spiral, losing more and more space. This was actually one of the worst strategies against Capa, who was a master at grabbing territory without ceding an inch of concession.

17.Qb3 Rec7 18.a4

"In order to drive back the knight, so as to have the Black pieces crowd each other" (Capablanca 1935, 219).

18...Ng6 19.a5 Nd7 20.e5 b6

"White has absolute control of the Black d6 square, so Black prepares for an eventual advance of his c-pawn to c5. It is evident that Black's position is very cramped, but it is not easy to see how to obtain a definite advantage for White" (Capablanca 1935, 219)

21.Ne4 Rb8

White to move

"The position is very interesting. But what is there to be done? Possibly the best move now would be a6 followed by Nd6, but that simply means that in his previous move Black should have played first bxa5 before playing Rb8. The only move that covers all these points is Qa3. White, however, failed to make it and as a result Black managed to come out rather well from this position" (Capablanca 1935, 220)

22.Qc3

This small error may have extended the length of the game.

"22.Qa3 was best. The text move gives Black a chance to gain time" (Capablanca 1921, 24)

22...Nf4

"The result of White's last move; the Black knight comes into d5 with a tempo" (Capablanca 1935, 220).

23.Nd6 Nd5 24.Qa3 f6 25.Nxe8

"This Bishop had to be taken, since it threatened to go to h5, pinning the Knight" (Capablanca 1921, 24).

25...Qxe8 26.exf6 gxf6

"To retake with either Knight would have left the e-pawn extremely weak" (Capablanca 1921, 24).

27.b5

Black to move

"The exposed position of the Black king is rather inviting for an attack, but before going into it White must liquidate his queenside pawns in order to remove all possible sources of weakness. Once those two pawns are exchanged, White can devote all his attention to the attack against the king without having anything to worry about on the other side" (Capablanca 1935, 221).

"In anticipation of this move, Black should have initially played bxa5" (Lasker, 25).

27...Rbc8

Black's next few moves are practically forced. Here, for instance, 27...c5 28.dxc5 bxc5 29.Bc4 and Black's position would be untenable (Capablanca 1935, 221).

28.bxc6 Rxc6 29.Rxc6 Rxc6 30.axb6 axb6

"After all these exchanges, Black's only compensation for the exposed condition of his king is the passed b-pawn, but the White bishop prevents its advance" (Capablanca 1935, 221).

31.Re1

"Possibly 31.Bb5 Rc7 was a better way to continue the game" (Capablanca 1935, 221). He offers the same suggested improvement in the earlier book.

31...Qc8

White to move

Capablanca sealed his 32nd move. See "Capablanca -- Lasker, Game 11 (concluded)" for the rest of the game (to be posted 14 April).

Works Cited

Capablanca, José Raúl. World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927. New York: Dover, 1977.

_______. A Primer of Chess. New York: Harcourt, 1977.

Lakdawala, Cyrus. Capablanca: Move by Move. London: Gloucester, 2012, Everyman ebook.

Lasker, Emanuel. Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, and Co., 1922.

Reinfeld, Fred. The Immortal Games of Capablanca. New York: Horowitz and Harkness, 1942.

Exploiting an Open File

Game of the Week

I am working through Neil McDonald, Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking (2004). This book follows the method made famous by Irving Chernev, Logical Chess: Move by Move (1957), which I reviewed here six years ago. My process for reading this book is slow and deliberate.

First, I play through the game without reference to McDonald's book. I play through the game several times without any resources. While observing the flow of the game, I seek the critical moments. Where was the error that made victory possible for the other player? What alternatives might have been considered? This process usually takes several days with varying amounts of time spent on the game each day.

As questions about the opening form, I check my databases for opening innovations. By this point, I have a pretty good idea where the game became unique.

I record my observations and alternate lines in ChessBase. Sometimes, as in the present game, I will take a quick look at annotations in Chess Informant. Sometimes other historical resources are consulted, as in the first game. Finally, I look through McDonald's annotations. If I use a chess engine, it is only after studying McDonald's comments.

The first two games in Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking concern games in the Spanish Opening, or Ruy Lopez. My study of game 1 resulted in "A Snubbed Handshake" last Thursday.

Huebner,Robert (2620) -- Portisch,Lajos (2605) [C92]
OHRA-A Brussels (9), 12.1986

This game can be found in Informant 42/434

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5

At this point, McDonald addresses my question in the previous game regarding the merits of the Morphy Defense. Black protects c6 from White's light-squared bishop and gains space on the queenside. On the other hand, these moves also slightly weaken Black's queenside pawn structure. In this game, Huebner steadily puts pressure on the queenside until Portisch errs.

7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8

All more or less main lines to this point. With move 12, the number of games drops below 1000. Four White twelfth moves have been played over 600 times, with Huebner's the most frequent.

White to move

12.a4

Also popular are 12.a3, 12.d5, and 12.Bc2.

12...Qd7

Played by both Svidler and Azarov in 2008, both winning.

12...h6 is the main line, and had been played by Gligoric, Karpov, and others with some frequency prior to this game. Karpov also has played 12...Qd7.

12...Na5 13.Bc2 b4 14.cxb4 Nc6 15.Nb3 Nxb4 is a viable alternative.

13.d5

This move was the novelty according to Huebner's annotations in Informant. It had, however, been played by Efim Geller the previous year in a game that ended as a draw a few moves later.

13...Ne7

13 games in my database reached this position.

13...Na5 14.Bc2 and McDonald highlights the threat of b4, when the knight must go to c4 and White will likely win a pawn. 12...Na5 (see above) has appeared in more than four dozen games.

14.c4

Black to move

I posted this position, which has appeared in five games beginning with the present one, on my Facebook page with questions. What are the plans for both sides? Respondents found Black's position uncomfortable.

14...Ng6

14...c5 seems like a sensible idea to me 15.dxc6 would have been Huebner's move, I suspect, drawing clues from his Informant annotations. 15...Bxc6 (15...Nxc6 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8 Bxa8 18.cxb5 Ne7 19.Bc4) 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8 Bxa8 18.cxb5.

15.Bc2 c6 16.b3 b4

Perhaps partially closing the queenside is not in Black's strategic interests. This pawn is undefended, but not easily attacked. Moreover, Black can quickly play a5 when needed. McDonald thinks this move is well timed.

16...Qc7 17.Nf1 bxc4 18.bxc4 a5 and Black won in 53 moves, Van der Wiel,J (2540) -- Karpov,A (2725) Tilburg 1988.

16...bxc4 seems to me a viable alternative 17.Nxc4 Qc7. Karpov achieved this improvement by changing the move order. In that game, both sides had active piece play and it would seem good chances. Karpov outmaneuvered his opponent to secure the win.

17.Nh2 Qc7 18.Ng4 Be7 19.Nf1

Black to move

19...cxd5

This move may have been the critical error as it opens the c-file, which White was able to control and use. Huebner identified this move as a mistake, suggesting 19...c5 as the alternative. McDonald calls this move a blunder.

McDonald states, "White's knight manoeuvres have unnerved Portisch" (23). Was the error a failure of logic? Did Portisch have concrete reasons for this move? Perhaps he understood the strategic idea of penetration on the c-file and judged his defensive resources to be adequate. If he closes the queenside, as recommended in Huebner's annotations and McDonald's, White still might mount a kingside attack and Black's position remains cramped. I do not dispute that this move was the critical error, but I think the reader would be better served if McDonald had worked harder at finding an explanation for the error grounded in logic, rather than psychological speculation.

20.cxd5 Nxg4

Perhaps Black can contest the c-file 20...Rac8 21.Nfe3.

21.hxg4 Bc8

21...Rac8 22.Ne3 Bg5 23.Nc4 Bxc1 24.Rxc1 White has several potential outposts on the queenside, while the doubled g-pawns offer flexibility and strength, as well as the long-term possibility of building an attack on the h-file after g2–g3.

22.Ne3 Bg5 23.Nf5

McDonald states that White has a "strategically winning position" (23).

23...Bxc1 24.Rxc1 Qd8

24...Qb6 25.Bd3 Bb7 26.Rc2 (26.Re3) 26...Rac8

White to move

Black's lack of mobility is becoming apparent

25.Bd3 Ne7 26.Qd2 Rb8

26...Bxf5 opens up attacking possibilities on the kingside for White, according to McDonald. 27.gxf5 a5 28.Bb5 (28.Qg5 f6 29.Qg4) 28...Rf8 29.f6 gxf6 30.Qh6 Kh8 Perhaps Black can defend.

27.Rc2 Nxf5 28.gxf5 f6

Reducing the queen's mobility, although the queen cannot do much on the kingside alone and now other piece can get there. Now all play will focus on the c-file, which White controls.

28...a5 29.Bb5 seems unpleasant.

McDonald points out some checkmate threats that 28...f6 prevents. 28...Re7 29.f6 gxf6 (29...Rc7 30.Rxc7 Qxc7 31.Qg5) 30.Qh6 Rc7 31.Re3 Rxc2 32.Rg3+

29.Rec1 Re7 30.Rc6

Black to move

30...Ra7

30...a5 31.Bb5 Bd7 32.Rxd6

30...Bb7 31.Bxa6 Bxc6 32.dxc6 was prepared by Huebner, according to McDonald. Indeed, Huebner gives this line in his Informant annotations.

31.Qe2 a5 32.Bb5 Bb7

32...Bd7 33.Rxd6

33.Rc7 Rc8 34.Qc4 Raa8

34...Rxc7 35.Qxc7 Qxc7 36.Rxc7 is also given by McDonald as worse, and it was in my annotations before reading his.

35.f3

McDonald gives this move a double exclam, and the move is also praised in comments on chessgames.com. As Black can do nothing, there is no rush. White has time to improve the position of his king.

35...Kf8

35...Rxc7 36.Qxc7 Qxc7 37.Rxc7 Rb8 38.Bc6 Ba8 39.Kf2

36.Kf2 Rab8 37.Ke3

Black to move

37...g6

37...Rxc7 38.Qxc7 Qxc7 39.Rxc7

38.Bd7 Rxc7 39.Qxc7 Qxc7 40.Rxc7 Ba6 41.Be6 Rb7 42.Rc6 Bf1 43.Rxd6 Bc4

One last trick before resignation.

43...Bxg2 44.Rd8+ Kg7 45.d6

White to move

44.Rd8+

44.bxc4?? b3 and Black will get a queen.

1–0

This game is a good example of White gaining the initiative out of the opening and keeping up the pressure. The most significant error led to a clear strategic plan that White executed well.

Tarrasch -- Schlechter 1894

[T]his game becomes an instructive example of how a minor advantage can be nursed and finally converted into a win.
Siegbert Tarrasch, Three Hundred Chess Games (1999 [1895])

Seigbert Tarrasch's first game against then twenty year old Carl Schlechter is an instructive positional game in which White uses greater space to build an attack against the king. He annotated the game for the final chapter of his Three Hundred Chess Games, originally published as Driehundert Schachpartien (1895). White's systematic destruction of all Black counter-play is the theme of a lesson that Jeremy Silman developed for the chess software Chess Mentor, and which is now available on Chess.com. Silman's lesson expands upon his discussion of this game in How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd ed. (1993), 139-141.

Sabina Foisor also has created a YouTube video of the game, although her game score differs from that of the ChessBase database, Three Hundred Chess Games, and Silman. Nonetheless, her fifteen minute video is a good introduction to the players and to the main themes in this game.

Tarrasch,Siegbert -- Schlechter,Carl [C66]
DSB–09.Kongress Leipzig (1), 1894

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.0–0 Be7 7.Re1 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.Bxd7+

Black to move

9...Qxd7

9...Nxd7 Silman, How to Reassess Your Chess, and Foisor both point out that this move is now considered a better effort for Black to achieve equality.

10.Qxd4 0–0 11.b3 Rfe8 12.Bb2 Bf8 13.Rad1 Qc6 14.Rd3 Re6 15.Rde3 Rae8

White to move

The beginning of Silman's Chess Mentor lesson.

"Black has completed his development and the positions are almost symmetrical. White's attack seems to have reached a dead point. It is hard to see how White is going to increase his minor advantage" (Tarrasch, 348).

16.h3

Taking away g4 from Black's knight.

16...Qb6 17.Qd3 c6 18.Na4 Qc7 19.c4

The point of moving the knight to the rim was to secure d5 with this pawn push.

19...Nd7

19...a6 with the idea of b7-b5 would have been better (Foisor).

20.Kh1

Prepares to use the g-file for the heavy pieces and also steps away from any tactics along the a7-g1 diagonal.

This and the subsequent six moves are somewhat of a riddle to Black. White has a very specific plan, ... White must not allow Black to break out of the steadily increasing blockade by playing for access to c5. ... White's attacking plan is play the knight to f5 via c3-e2-d4, but to execute this plan he has to overcome a lot of difficulties.
Tarrasch, 349

Black to move

20...f6 21.Qc2

21.Qb1 was better.

21...Ne5 22.Nc3 Nf7

White to move

23.g4?

"The only bad move that White makes in this game" (Jeremy Silman, Chess Mentor).

23.Qb1 is Silman's recommendation.

23.Ne2 allows 23...f5, according to  Tarrasch.

Silman's Chess Mentor course offers a separate lesson looking at this position from the Black side.

Black to move

23...Qa5

Tarrasch gives the line 23...d5 24.exd5 Rxe3 25.Rxe3 Rxe3 26.fxe3 Qg3, which is the solution to Silman's exercise. However, Tarrasch suggests that the king's presence on h1 takes the sting out of this little combination. Silman, on the other hand, claims that Black equalizes.

24.Rd1 Qb6 25.h4!

25.Ne2 Ng5 "will attack the e-pawn and thus force the knight to return" (Tarrasch, 349).

25...Ne5 26.Rg3 Nf7 27.f3

"Before the knight can complete its journey, the e-pawn must be guarded. Now there is no way for Black to keep the knight from reaching its destination" (Tarrasch, 349).

27...Nh8 28.Ne2

White has plenty of time because Black's counterplay is dead.

Black to move

28...Qc7

28...Qf2?? 29.Bd4.

29.Rdg1

Here Foisor goes astray in her account of the game with Rgg1.

29...Qf7 30.Nd4 R6e7

"The Black pieces are crowded together like a flock of sheep with the wolf standing at the door ready to break inside" (Tarrasch, 349).

31.g5 fxg5 32.Rxg5 g6 33.Nf5

Black to move

33...Re5

33...Re6 34.Qc3 Re5 35.f4 Tarrasch.

34.f4 Rxf5 35.exf5 Bg7 36.fxg6 1–0

Thinking about Development

Ever since reading Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999) by Dan Heisman fifteen years ago, I have thought a little differently about development.* Before reading this book, I had been content to get my pieces out, hopefully to good squares. I did not think deeply about which rook to move first, nor when to delay deploying a bishop because I was uncertain of its best square, nor what exactly is meant by the term development.

Heisman calls development a pseudo-element.

Development theory yields more contradictions than any other single positional theory, and if noting else comes out of this work, it is hoped that the overused "development" will be exposed for what it really is: a vague catch-all which confuses more than it clarifies. For a definition, we finds such indefinite generalizations as "getting your pieces into play," "moving a piece from its original square," and "putting your pieces on squares where they are well placed for the middlegame."
Heisman, Elements, 28.

I have sought to employ Heisman's seven elements--mobility, flexibility, center control, vulnerability, piece coordination, time, and speed--in my teaching of juniors and in my own play. I have sought through my reading and rereading of classic works to understand the historic evolution of the concept of development. Chess writers before Steinitz concerned with positional play used the term time before development became a catch phrase.

A position that I recently faced in a correspondence game provoked further considerations of development, and surprisingly, perhaps, found me relying on something I read in Siegbert Tarrasch, The Game of Chess (1935). Tarrasch employs the concept of development throughout this book. However, he breaks it down into three factors: time, material, and space.

White to move

It was my move in this position. My first impulse was to play 10.Nxf6+, but then I remembered Tarrasch's sage advice in his section on time, "every care must be taken not to develop one's opponent, for by so doing one presents him with one or more tempi" (227). There was no rush as this was a correspondence game with seven days to move. I spent a leisurely 45 minutes or so contemplating and researching this position.

It seemed clear to me that White had an advantage. Tarrasch would note White's occupation of four ranks while Black's pieces occupied three (space). Counting tempi in the manner that Tarrasch suggests yields 5-4 in favor of White because a knight on the fourth rank is worth two tempi (229). Capturing the knight on f6 would restore the balance of tempi, something obviously not in White's best interests.

Heisman's elements were also helpful. White's pieces struck me as slightly better coordinated than Black's. The old pseudo-element (Heisman's term) of space helps. In particular, White's pieces are well coordinated to generate pressure against h7 and start an attack on the castled king. Despite seemingly adequate protection, Black's king could prove vulnerable if White could build an attack.

I looked at several lines designed to create a checkmate threat on h7. Inevitably, Black was forced to play g6, but then Black's bishop became well-posted on g7 or f6. As pieces were exchanged, White's initiative failed to expose the king and began to dissipate.

Exploring my database, I found that this position had occurred in at least fourteen prior games with thirteen White wins and one draw. One of the wins, however, came as a consequence of a long endgame with one knight and five pawns each. Black was outplayed in what looked to me like an equal position. In those fourteen games, White had played ten different moves.

Before looking at the move that I played and the subsequent course of the game, it may be of interest to see how this position came about.

Stripes,J (2175) -- Internet Opponent (1919) [C04]
www.ChessWorld.net, 31.05.2015

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nd2 Nc6

The Guimard variation has long had a reputation for being weaker than 3...c5 and 3...Nf6, as well as the flexible 3...Be7 that is recommended in several recent books on the French. Even so, John Watson offers a chapter on it in Dangerous Weapons: The French (2007).

4.Ngf3 Be7

4...Nf6 is nearly always played and is the only move discussed in Watson's Dangerous Weapons. Other moves that can be found in ECO are 4...g6, 4...Nh6, and 4...dxe4. The last transposes to a obscure variation of the Rubinstein French.

5.c3 has been played in over half of the small number of games reaching this position. White's score of 84% is impressive, but the sample is too small and most of the games are between players below Candidate Master.

5.e5 f5 (5...Nh6 6.c3 Bd7 7.Bd3 Nf5 8.Nf1 Na5 9.Ng3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 h6 11.g4 a6 12.g5 h5 13.g6 Bb5 14.g4 h4 15.gxf7+ Kxf7 16.g5 Ke8 17.Bxb5+ axb5 18.Qd3 c6 19.Nxh4 Nb3 20.Rb1 Nxc1 21.Qg6+ Kd7 22.f4 Qf8 23.f5 Nd3+ 24.Kd2 Nf4 25.fxe6+ Nxe6 26.Rbf1 Bxg5+ 27.Kc2 Qe8 28.Rf7+ Be7 29.Nf5 Rxh1 30.Nxg7 Rh6 31.Qf5 Qxf7 32.Qxf7 Rf8 0–1 Fernandez Romero,E (2383)--Pons Boscana,G, Mallorca 2000) 6.c4 Nh6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Nb3 Nf7 9.Bd3 a5 10.0–0 a4 11.Nbd2 g5 12.Bb5 Ra5 13.Bxa4 g4 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Nb3 Ra7 16.Ne1 Ba6 17.Nd3 Qa8 18.Re1 Bb5 19.a3 Ba4 20.Bd2 c5 21.dxc5 d4 22.e6 Nd8 23.Nf4 Bxc5 24.Qc2 Bd6 25.Qxf5 Bxb3 26.Qh5+ Kf8 27.Ng6+ Kg8 28.e7 Ne6 29.Nxh8 Bxe7 30.Qf7+ Kxh8 31.Qxe7 Ra6 32.Bh6 1–0 Rogers,I (2574)--Buecker,S (2341), Hertogenbosch 1999.

5...dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nf6

White to move

With Black's move the game transposes into a slightly larger data set, perhaps the seventy games are sufficient for justifying some optimism for White in the 92% score.

7.Bd3

A thematic move against the French.

7...b6

7...Qd5 8.Qe2 0–0 9.Bf4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 Qa5 11.0–0 Bd6 12.Ne5 Bxe5 13.Bxe5 Bd7 14.a4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Rab8 16.b4 Qa6 17.b5 Qb6 18.Qd3 Rfd8 19.Bxh7+ Kf8 20.Be4 c6 21.c4 Qc5 22.Qa3 Qxa3 23.Rxa3 Be8 24.Rd3 Rxd3 25.Bxd3 Rd8 26.Rd1 cxb5 27.axb5 a6 28.bxa6 bxa6 29.Be2 Rxd1+ 30.Bxd1 a5 31.f4 f6 32.Kf2 Bc6 33.g3 a4 34.Ke3 a3 35.Bb3 fxe5 36.fxe5 Kf7 37.Kd4 Kg6 38.Kc5 Be4 39.Ba2 Kf5 40.Kd6 g5 41.h4 gxh4 42.gxh4 Bf3 43.h5 Bxh5 44.c5 1–0 Mortensen,E (2440)--Crawley,G (2345), Copenhagen 1987.

7...0–0 is the most popular move in the position.

8.0–0

8.Qa4 has been played by the strongest players who reached this position 8...Bb7 9.0–0 (9.Bb5 Qd5=).

8...Bb7 9.Qe2 0–0

And we have reached the diagram position at the top of this post. Notice that it emerged from the Tarrasch variation of the French.

Fourteen games in the ChessBase database have reached this position. White has tried ten different moves. One game was drawn and White won all the others.

10.Re1!N

Moving my rook to the semi-open file strengthens my grip on the center, prepares for an eventual rook lift if I can generate an attack on Black's king, leaves d1 available for the other rook, and defers development of my dark-squared bishop. Even more important, it makes no concrete threats that guide Black's choices. I am developing with a very slight increase in pressure. I have increased the mobility of my rook (Tarrasch would count the rook's placement on e1 as a tempo because there is no White pawn blocking it). My pieces remain well-coordinated as others join in the battle. I continue to eye potential vulnerabilites in Black's position. I am not wasting time, nor am I helping my opponent gain time through exchanges.

Whether my move is better than others that have been played in this position is unclear. It seems that almost everything has led to success.

Indeed, I like this position for training because it is not the move, but rather the rationale that is most telling. Although I will likely never see it again, and my students are not likely to ever play it, it could be a useful position for asking students to articulate their thinking. The concepts and principles that a player brings to this position may help identify what one still needs to learn concerning positional play in the later phases of the opening.

10.Qc2 was played on move 11 in a fifteenth game. 10...Nxe4 11.Bxe4 f5 12.Bd3 Bf6 13.Bc4 Bc8 14.Re1 Qd6 15.Qxf5 Bxd4 16.Qe4 Bf6 17.Bf4 Qc5 18.b4 Qh5 19.Bxe6+ Kh8 20.Qxc6 1–0 Jovanovic,Z (2541)--Patarcic,D (2157), Bosnjaci CRO 2015.

10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Qe4 g6 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Qf4 Qe7 14.Bg5 Bxg5 15.Nxg5 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Be4 Bxe4 18.Nxe4 Nd3 19.Nf6+ Kh8 20.Qh4 h5 21.Qg5 Qf8 22.Nxe8 Rxe8 23.Qb5 Nc5 24.Rfe1 Ne6 25.f4 Rd8 26.Qe5+ Kg8 27.f5 Qc5+ 28.Qxc5 Nxc5 29.Re7 Na4 30.Rxc7 Nxb2 31.fxg6 fxg6 32.Rxa7 Nd1 33.Rb1 Nxc3 34.Rxb6 Rd1+ 35.Kf2 Rd2+ 36.Ke3 1–0 Mirabile,T (2203)--Stenzel,H (2077), Nassau 1999.

10...Qd7

10...Nxe4 helps White 11.Qxe4 g6 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Bb5 Bf8 (13...Na5 14.Qf4) 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Qxc6 Bxg5 17.d5 with an attack.

11.Bg5

This move becomes Stockfish's second choice after several minutes, although it does not make the top six through the first minute or so. It does not make it into Komodo's nor Hiarcs's top eight even after five minutes. The moves that appear favored by more than one engine are 11.Nfg5, 11.b4, and 11.Bd2. 11.Nxf6+ is an early choice that drops after the engine has a few minutes of thinking time.

Black to move

11...Rac8??

This move fails to address the needs of the position. White's forces are well-deployed for action against the king.

11...Nd5 is the top choice of every engine that I checked. 12.Bd2+/=. Perhaps 11...Nd5 was the only move with all others giving White an explicit advantage.

12.Nxf6+

The time is now! Black's position is collapsing.

12...Bxf6

12...gxf6 was the only try 13.Qe4 f5 14.Qh4+/-.

13.Qe4 g6 

I was surprised to see that this move was Stockfish's top choice. I considered it tantamount to surrender.

13...Rfd8 or Rfe8 struck me as the only reasonable try. Both moves drop two pawns and leave White with kingside pressure. 14.Qxh7+ Kf8 15.Qh8+ Ke7 16.Qxg7+-.

14.Bxf6 1–0

Black resigned.

I was preparing for a longer struggle. By slowly building pressure and forcing my opponent to make critical decisions in a seemingly quiet position, I gave him the opportunity to self-destruct.





*The fourth edition came out in 2010 and is much expanded over the edition that I read fifteen years ago.

Space

The concept of space in chess is difficult. It "is not an easily definable or recognisable concept," according to Michael Stean. In Simple Chess (1978), Stean offers the capacity of a position as a guide. "Any given pawn structure has a certain capacity for accomodating pieces efficiently. Exceed this capacity and the pieces get in each other's way, and so reduce their mutual activity" (97).

Stean illustrates capacity with two positions that have an identical pawn structure. They are differentiated by the number of pieces on the board. In the first position, all of the pieces remain and White has a clear advantage with more space to manuever. In the second position, both players have traded off a knight and a bishop. White is overextended and Black has the advantage. With less space, Black's position lacks the capacity for the full complement of chess pieces. With two fewer pieces, "the size of Black's forces is here well within his position's 'capacity'" (98).

This diagram illustrates Stean's second position. In the first, White has an additional knight on c3 and bishop on e2. Black has a knight on f6 and bishop on c8. Black's position is congested.

In the old Modern School, space is one of the three elements, or "basic factors". Siegbert Tarrasch wrote, "the more space a player commands the freer his game and the easier his development" (The Game of Chess [1935], 225). Space triumphs the other factors.

The systematic utilisation of Space, or, to put it another way, the systematic disposition of the pieces, is the most important factor in a game of chess and, within certain limits, even more important than Force, that is to say than a superiority in material. Often a win is obtained because one player forces a decisively better position by a sacrifice of material--a triumph of mind over matter.
Tarrasch, The Game of Chess, 227.

Space is calculated by counting the number of squares that are controlled in the other player's side of the board. But matters are not so simple. In The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld present the game Tarrasch -- Marco, Vienna 1898. After 25...Bf6, the game reached this position.

White to move

Counting squares reveals, they note, "the players each control about the same number of squares" (380). However, Black is unable to make use of his greater space on the queenside. White's advantage on the kingside is of more account. White's pieces have greater mobility, and as a consequence, a combination is possible.

They observe at the beginning of their article on space that the terms space and mobility are sometimes indistinguishable.

To gain an advantage in space is to achieve the possibility of moving one's men to more squares than are available to the opponent's men. Not all the squares "gained" need to be controlled--they may simply be inaccessible to the opponent's men. Normally, to gain space is to gain mobility, and the terms are frequently synonymous.
Hooper & Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 379.

Stean does not use the terms interchangeably. Rather, mobility "is the essence of simple chess," and space is "the single most important factor in determining mobility" (97). Space, thus, appears to be a means to an end, and that end is mobility. The terms are not so much interchangeable as primary and secondary. Mobility is a principal factor in chess positions; space is important when it affects mobility.

Mobility, according to Dan Heisman, is an "element of positional evaluation," while space is a pseudo-element. In Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power, 4th edition (2010), Heisman asserts that, "space is not an end in itself, nor even a means to an end other than mobility/activity" (Loc 1528, emphasis in original). Heisman's examples are somewhat extreme, as he acknowledges, but his conclusion appears in harmony with Stean's discussion.

Mobility can be measured and quantified, just as can space according to some definitions. Activity is subjective, Heisman asserts. Activity is "how much the piece can do in an actual position" (Loc 744). Mobile pieces are more likely to be active.

Heisman offers an interesting position from the Deep Blue -- Kasparov rematch.

Black to move

Black has more pieces on White's half of the board, and contests more squares there. Black has more space. Heisman does not mention space in relation to this position, however. He employs it to assert the relation between mobility (quantifiable) and activity (subjective). White's pieces contest every entry point along the d-file, which at first glance appears to be controlled by a Black rook on d8. The other Black rook supports a passed pawn, but that pawn is blockaded by a White knight. Despite a quatifiable advantage in both material and mobility, Black lost this game. Heisman observes, "the rooks have good mobility but not all that much activity" (Loc 751). Heisman sees mobilty as the "basic tool," but activity is "the better 'real position' indicator" (Loc 759).

Might we conclude that space, the old "basic factor," can be understood better insofar as it contributes to mobility, and mobility is an element insofar as it correlates with activity? How do we distinguish activity from Stean's notion of capacity? Capacity is a static concept. Activity might be a consequence of adequate capacity. But for pieces to experience activity, they need targets. Hence the opponent's position must exhibit some vulnerability that can be attacked.