Hi Tyson,
Thank you for your insightful commentary on my little game. I really enjowed
hearing your thoughts on it. But even here, the analysis missed a crucial
point—the psychological threat of that Bishop on the diagonal staring down the
King, with that terrible Knight just ready to pounce all over his Kingside.
More experienced players have learned how to handle this, perhaps without a
thought, but the weaker players may have trouble setting this aside, and
playing logically. This seems to be why Black never got his Q-side moving. He
seemed to be afraid to move his Knight to D7 as you suggested—because it
weakened his E6 pawn. And he could not move his Bishop to B7 after playing B5
for the same reason, so the QR never even saw the light of day in the game.
You are right, however, passive play seems to invite such positional
developments that evolve into overwhelming attacks like the one seen in the
game.
I should tell you that I am an attacking player, always with an eye to a piece
sacrifice to rip open the position for me to storm into a position. The game
you discussed runs against my usual style of play. In fact, I had just
finished studying a game with a Bishop attacking into the teeth of a pawn
chain, supported by a Knight attacking the base of the chain, as in the game. I
had just finished studying a game where such a technique was used by
Capablanca, and I saw a possibility of using it, and decided on the spur of the
moment to give it a go. And I was actually surprised at how effective it
turned out. Of course, Black was a fully obliging victim here, as it were. :)
I have had numerous games where I lost material to gain a positional advantage
as you said. I wish I still had this particular game against a very aggressive
opponent. His Knight was on F6 and I was trying to get my Queen on D5 or
something in the center that the Knight controlled to coordinate with the
Bishop on B2 to attack the Kingside. I had a pawn on h3, and he had a bishop
somewhere on the H3-C8 diagonal. And I had this rather useless Bishopp. So I
put it on G4. And he took it, and won a pawn, but my Queen moved to the all
important D5 square, and the game was over in a few more moves. That was in
fact the last OTB game I had won against a sighted oopponent, back in 2009. I
will not play any more OTB against sighted players again, unless the TD
promises to post someone to oversee the verbal exchanges to make sure no
mistakes are made. I am strictly correspondence now, and that is further
re-inforced by my meditation retreat.
The fact that the Queen wanted that square that the Knight controlled is
something I learned from a comment by Karpov. Karpov says to talk to your
pieces. It sounds insane, but it actually works. In this particular case, in
a very important match, Karpov saw that his Knight on B1 was his worst
developed piece. So he asked it, “Ok. Knight, what square do you want to be
on?” And he formed an internal dialogue between himself and the Knight,
negotiating over which square to go to. And he decided on an impossible square
on the other side of the board, and proceeded to move that Knight. In fact he
moved that Knight only for the next eleven moves to maneuver it through all the
hazards and obstacles to get it to that square. And when the Knight finally
got there, Black simply resigned. There was simply nmo defense against the
many threats the Knight posed from that square. So I always talk to my pieces.
In this particular case, I asked all of my pieces--:Ok. I need to get my Queen
on this diagonal.” And the Bishop volunteered to make it happen. I exploited
a known weakness in my opponent—his inability to resist grabbing material.
Putting the Bishop on G4 served no positional purpose, and if I saw an opponent
make a move like that, I would be hearing alarm bells going off before I would
grab that material.In the game I posted under discussion, I saw that my
A1-rook, and my Queen were not involved in the attack, so I devised the plan to
get them into the game, and it played out pretty much as I had envisioned it.
F4 to provoke F5, followed by G4 to open the file, exchange rooks, and get the
Queen into the fray. That was the genesis of the plan. Crafty saw a better
plan to accomplish the same, as you saw in the annotations.
Thanks for your thoughts. I am rated 1630 CC, and obviously you are a much
stronger player than I am. But I have never used a computer program to analyze
a game before. This is a new experience for me, and I will try to see what
other programs I can use that will allow me to compare analyses, as you have
done here in your commentary. And I will analyze the game from both points of
view.
And I did find a game where I sacrificed a Queen in what apparently was an
impregnable position, but had a single fatal flaw I was able to exploit fully.
I showed this game to my then NM coach, and he said he would not have seen this
sacrifice coming—when I in fact had envisioned it many, many moves before. I
was simply waiting for him to make this one little slip and then BOOM! To give
you an idea of my playing style, the most important chess book in my opinion is
“The Art of the Sacrifice” by Rudolph Spielmann. A true sacrifice is planned
for, prepared and then delivered. They are seldom as spontaneous as they
appear to be.
Konchog
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
Hello folks
A further note on the game. I sent this, went to lunch, came back and sat down
with the board in front of me, and immediately realised that after 18...Rxf5 19
g6+ Kh8 (If 19...Kg8 20 Rxf5 can't be recaptured because of the pin on the e6
Pawn) 20 Rxf5 wins because 20...exf5 drops the Queen to 21 Nf7+. This means
that although 20 Qg4 is a good move it is still an error because there is
something much more effective. If you found this before I did then well done.
Tyson
On 17 July 2016 at 14:31 mordue andrew <tyson.mordue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello folks.
I feel a need to comment here on a couple of aspects, not just the game. I
haven't contributed to this thread previously because it has been purely
technical but we've finally got to quality of analysis and I think I need to
say a few words.In fact, a lot of words!
I frequently get people asking me opinions on positions in their games when
there is no board or pieces to hand and they don't have the scoresheet of the
game. They then describe to me a small portion of the position and say that
they could have done this, that, or the other and expect me to respond
constructively. Of course without knowing the specific position I can't, so I
always say get the whole position/game and I'll be happy to look at in detail
another time. I'm not going to waste my time speculating what the position is.
Out of these requests about one quarter do have constructive follow-ups at some
later time.
My point here is that handing out a small chunk of a position such as "But
there was only one place where Black could have improved his position, and he
would have had to abandon the pawn on e6, and try to start an counter attack
with BB7, Nd7-f6, a5-a4. But even here White could still maintain his iron grip
on the center and forced the King side to collapse. " either leaves the reader
wanting more or, more frequently, is just a signal to switch off because
there's nothing to relate to.
First well done to Mark Hague for asking for the whole game and secondly thank
you to Patrick for providing it. I'll just emphasis these points. If you don't
ask you don't necessarily get. What's more players are very wary of
contributing whole games of their own at the risk of someone like me tearing it
apart. Please don't be wary. Any criticism will be done in as constructive
fashion as possible.
Now to the game itself. First a general point. Asking a computer program for
lines related to just one player's moves is a very lopsided and incomplete
approach. To understand a game well it is necessary to look at both sides moves
objectively. Yes, there are games where a gulf in class may mean attaching
question marks to all the moves of one player, but if the refutation of certain
moves is not forthcoming in either the game or the notes then where is the
value?
Black's opening play here is very passive. With either 6 or 7...c5 he would
transpose to a well-known line of the Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
variation. Black needs the c6 square for his Knight, ...c7-c6 denies the steed
this square and indeed Black never gets his Queenside developed. White takes
early advantage with Ne5, occupying an important central outpost with impunity.
Black's big problem in the Queen's gambit is how to develop his Queen's Bishop.
In this game he never does.
Now some constructive criticism move-by-move which is what you're not getting
from the computer.
White's 8 Bc4 is okay but the Bishop is pointed at a solid Pawn-chain f7-e6. So
White's game strategy should revolve around the d4-d5 break or f2-f4-f5 to
liquidate the e6 Pawn and focus on f7. Alternatives are 8 Be2 or 8 Bd3 and
personally I would choose the latter because there is no Black Knight on f6
guarding h7 so playing e4-e5 may introduce the possibility of Bxh7+ followed by
Ng5+ and Qh5. I'm aware that the Black Bishop on e7 controls g5 but one of
White's ideas is to play a2-a4 and Bc1-a3 to swap it off. This actually happens
in the game.
9...h6 is a waste of time and a weakening move. See note specifically to both
Black's 13th and 18th moves. I've said before and I know I'll say it again but
Pawn to Rook Three (a2-a3, h2-h3, ...a7-a6 and ...h7-h6) is the most common
poor move in chess. Unless it's part of a clear plan or a forced move try
moving a piece instead. And yes, I do play the Sicilian Najdorf with 1 e4 c5 2
Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6.
The simplest way of dealing with the White Knight at e5 is to offer an exchange
of Knights with 10...Nd7. Moving a piece twice in the opening is not usually
recommended and 10...Bf6 is not great. Bearing in mind that White's next is 11
Ba3 does that not indicate that maybe Black should consider 10...Bishop to d6
instead?
After 11 Ba3 Be7 Black has lost two tempi and had his good Bishop swapped off
with no loss of time for White. Clearly things are going badly for Black. Now
instead of the retreat in the game 11...Re8 is possible. However, such are
Black's problems I seriously considered sacrificing an Exchange for a Pawn with
11...Bxe5 12 Bxf8 Bxh2+ 13 Kxh2 K or Qxf8. Maybe Black can throw in 13...Qh4+
first. I'm not saying this cures all Black's ills but it would certainly make
White think about different ways of continuing and maybe cause him concern
about his slightly exposed King. Some strong players may criticise my
suggestion but it may be worth a go in the right circumstances.
13...f5?? is the move that got me writing this. Nowhere does Crafty point out
that 14 Ng6 is a simple fork winning the Exchange for nothing. Again 9...h7-h6
is the move that allowed this so what useful purpose did that achieve? Once
again Black should play 13...Nd7. There is a clear moral that if you King is
under attack then you should not move the Pawns in front of it unless you
absolutely have to.
16...b5? is a desperate move. This drives the White Bishop to a spot where it
is solidly defended by a Pawn. It also weakens the Queenside when Black already
has problems in the centre and Kingside. Specifically it ties down the Knight
on b8 to defending the newly-weakened c6 Pawn. As for supporting counterplay
with ...a7-a5-a4 - I'd be happy to see ...a7-a5 and I'd just reply with a2-a4
and now my a1 Rook is in play. I'm prodding the sensitive point on b5 and I can
even swing my Rook across to the Kingside via a2. After 16...b5 17 Bb3 Deep
Rybka evaluates this as +2.60 for White.
Whenever an annotator criticises a move they should always provide a sensible
alternative if possible. Here, once again, I suggest 16...Nd7. I'd like to
point out that in some lines this may threaten ...Nxe5, dxe5 Qc5+ picking up
the loose Bishop on c4, yes the same one that Black has just pushed back to
safety with 16...b5. I'm aware the f6 Rook may be en prise after dxe5 in this
line but I want to reinforce how 16...b5 has reduced Black's options, not
enhanced them.
After 16... Nd7 White has two options.
A) 17 fxe6? Rxf1+ 18 Qxf1 Nxe5 19 dxe5 Bxe6 and Black is better due to White's
exposed King and ragged Pawn structure.
b) 17 Bxe6+ is obviously better. Black should try 17...Rxe6!? 18 fxe6 Nxe5 19
dxe5 Bxe6. Deep Rybka evaluates this as +1.02 for White.
Now the big question is why the difference in the +2.60 after 16...b5 17 Bb3
and only +1.02 in Line B even though Black has given up an Exchange? Part of
the answer is that Black has resolved his development difficulties. Another is
that White's Pawn structure, as in Line A, is rather ragged and finally White's
King is exposed whereas Black's is relatively safe. Put the g4 Pawn back on g2
and I would confidently expect the evaluation to up to about +1.50 in White's
favour.
Now this hasn't happened by magic. Black has had to give up a Rook for Bishop
to avoid getting slaughtered but this is the penalty for playing a poor
opening. On the other hand I recall a game I played in 1987 where I was
positionally worse then overlooked a simple Knight fork with which my opponent
won an Exchange. My first reaction is unprintable but my second immediately
afterwards was "That's all my positional problems solved!" The White Knight
that had so restricted my pieces was gone and I was able to play freely. Indeed
I drew the game a dozen or so moves later.
The point is that giving up material (a Pawn, an Exchange) to relieve an under
pressure position is acceptable under certain circumstances. It means the game
will probably take on a fresh phase where the player with the extra material
has to think about bringing the game down to a purely technical level whereby
he can exploit his plus, but that's when the player with the material deficit
has to make the most of whatever practical chances they have. It's no good
crying and saying I'm the Exchange down. This very game is a clear example of
having level material and being squashed because Black's forces are sitting
still and usued on the Queenside!
Back to the game.
After White's excellent 18 g5! there is no analysis of the obvious reply
18...hxg5. After the obvious 19 Qh5+ Rh6 Deep Rybka suggests 20 Qf7 Qxf7 21
Nxf7 exf5! 22 Nxh6 Kxh6!? at +1.31 to White. Actually 23 Rae1 looks quite
strong but the attack on the King is gone. We're getting near the technical
phrase described in the earlier paragraph. Instead after 18 g5! hxg5 19 Ng6!
(that weak square again - see note to Blacks 9th) is crushing. The only defence
to 20 Qh5+ is to take twice on g6 but then after 20...Rxg6 21 fxg6+ Kxg6 22
Bc2+ leaves White attacking the defenceless light squares with Queen, Rook and
Bishop and the computer evaluations are in excess of +10.
After 19...Kh8 the obvious line is 20 Nf7+ Kg8 21 Nxh6+! gxh6 22 Rxf5
exploiting the pin on the e6 Pawn. Naturally this comes out as a big plus for
White, nearly +6 by Deep Rybka. The game line with 20 Qg4 anticpates answering
the pin 20...Rg5 with 21 Nf7+ Qxf7 22 Qxg5 (a desperado or intermediate move
answered by the same with...) 22...Qxf1+ 23 Rxf1 hxg5 24 Rf8 mate. Again note
that Black's undeveloped Queenside pieces do nothing for the defence.
At move 21 Black finally plays ...Nd7. This cuts off the defence of the e6 Pawn
but there was little else to do.
White finishes clinically with 22 Nf7+ Kg8
23 Nxh6+! - eliminating the h6 Pawn or, as Black plays, opening up the 7th rank.
23...gxh6
24 Bxe6+ - exploiting the cutting off of the c8 Bishop's defence
24...Kh8 - If 24...Kg7 25 Rf7+ is a massacre.
25 Rf7 and the motif is a mating net with Pawn g6 supporting a checking Rook on
h7 while the Bishop controls the g8 square. Black rightly resigned.
Summary: A nice attacking game by White justifying the development of his
Bishop to c4. However, Black's play was poor. He had a cramped opening, failed
to develop his Queenside pieces, made various weakening moves and failed to
take the chances inherent in his position to give him any chance of staying
afloat in the middle-game. There is a style of play which invites players to
come and attack you, but you must be ready to counterattack at the right
moment. For Black this moment doesn't even appear in the notes, let alone over
the board.
Further observation. The evaluations that I've put here are the ones given by
Deep Rybka. My personal opinion on most of these is that White is better that
arithmetically stated because either of Black's lack of development in certain
positions or White's ability to dominate open lines. This comes from the
experience of knowing how to play that pre-technique phase that I referred to.
Naturally other chess programs may give different evaluations, maybe even
different evaluations. However, it is by comparing the different evaluations
given by both computers and humans that is part of the learning experience.
Finally, if you'll pardon a pun, not everything in chess is always Black and
White.
Regards,
Tyson
On 17 July 2016 at 03:23 Karma Könchog Jungné <venkkj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sure. No problem. It does suggest in a couple of places ideas for small
improvements, but at my level, this small of an improvement is perhaps not
significant. My CC rating is 1630. My ICCF rating is 1627. And my OTB
rating is 1588.
[Event "Walter Nuir CC"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2009"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Patrick Walsh"]
[WhiteElo ""]
[Black "Dennis Kohler"]
[BlackElo ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Crafty v20.14"]
{annotating only white moves.}
{using a scoring margin of +0.30 pawns.}
{search time limit is 3:28}
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. cxd5 Nxd5
5. e4 Nxc3
6. bxc3 Be7
7. Nf3 c6
8. Bc4 O-O
9. O-O h6
10. Ne5 Bf6
11. Ba3
({16:+0.46} 11. Ba3 Be7 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Rb1 b5 14. Bb3
Bb7 15. Qg4 Rd8 16. f4 c5 17. d5 c4 18. dxe6 Qxe6 19. Qxe6 fxe6 $14)
({16:+0.79} 11. Qg4 Kh8 12. Qh5 Bxe5 13. Qxe5 Nd7 14. Qf4
Qf6 15. Rb1 Qxf4 16. Bxf4 b5 17. Bd3 Bb7 18. a4 Nf6 $16)
11. ... Be7
12. Bxe7 Qxe7
13. f4 f5
14. exf5 Rxf5
15. g4
({17:+2.35} 15. g4 Rf6 16. f5 b5 17. Bb3 Qe8 18. Qd3 a5 19.
fxe6 Bxe6 20. Rxf6 gxf6 21. Bxe6+ Qxe6 22. Qg6+ Kf8 23. Rf1 Nd7 24. Qxh6+
Ke7 $18)
({17:+3.09} 15. Qg4 Qf6 16. Bd3 Nd7 17. Rf2 Nxe5 18. fxe5
Qg5 19. Bxf5 exf5 20. Qxg5 hxg5 21. Re1 Be6 22. Rfe2 Rd8 23. Kf2 $18)
15. ... Rf6
16. f5 b5
17. Bb3 Kh7
18. g5
({16:+5.79} 18. g5 exf5 19. gxf6 Qxf6 20. Qf3 a5 21. Bf7
Ra7 22. Bg6+ Kg8 23. Qd3 Re7 24. Bxf5 Qg5+ 25. Kh1 Bxf5 26. Rxf5 Qh4 $18)
({16:+6.46} 18. fxe6 Rxf1+ 19. Qxf1 Bxe6 20. Qd3+ Kg8 21.
Bc2 Qg5 22. Rf1 g6 23. h4 Bc4 24. Qxc4+ bxc4 25. hxg5 hxg5 26. Bxg6 c5 27.
Bf7+ Kg7 28. Bxc4 $18)
18. ... Rxf5
19. g6+ Kh8
20. Qg4
({17:+3.95} 20. Qg4 Rg5 21. Nf7+ Qxf7 22. Qxg5 Qe8 23. Qh5
Nd7 24. Rf7 Kg8 25. Re1 Nf6 26. Qf5 Bd7 27. Bxe6 Kh8 28. Re5 Bxe6 29. Rxe6
$18)
({17:+8.51} 20. Rxf5 exf5 21. Qe2 Be6 22. Bxe6 Na6 23. Nf7+
Kg8 24. Nxh6+ Kf8 25. Nxf5 Qg5+ 26. Ng3 $18)
20. ... Rxf1+
21. Rxf1 Nd7
22. Nf7+ Kg8
23. Nxh6+
1-0
-----Original Message-----
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark R Hague
(Redacted sender "Mark.hague.list" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 9:55 PM
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
Hi,
plese could you post the annotated game as I would like to have a look at
Crafty's annotations.
Many thanks for shareing your experiences with the list.
Regards,
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karma Könchog Jungné" <venkkj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 1:33 AM
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
This is so cool! I just ran it on the game I posted here last night.
Basically, I avoided mistakes and won the game with sound play, but there
were a couple of places where I could have substantially improved my
position even more. One of which involved forcing Black to sacrifice the
exchange in order to save his King which I missed. But there was only one
place where Black could have improved his position, and he would have had to
abandon the pawn on e6, and try to start an counter attack with BB7, Nd7-f6,
a5-a4. But even here White could still maintain his iron grip on the center
and forced the King side to collapse. This is very interesting. I will use
this tool frequently.
Thanks so much!
Konchog
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
