Hello all,
This is not an easy one to answer. There are several reasons for this.
One is that you may already know the result of the game and you wish to see how
a particular player applied their technique, only to discover that the game is
decided by a crashing blunder. In some cases in the Internet the result is
given wrongly and you wonder exactly what happened.
A case in point is Foguelman-Keres from Buenos Aires 1964. The game was scored
as a draw on one database, and as Keres finished equal first one might count
this as a good result for Foguelman, a minor Argentinian IM. In fact Keres was
spectacularly routed and lasted until move 50 when Foguelman appears to have
fallen into a trap and lost a Rook. It only needs a short bit of analysis to
work out that Foguelman gets his Rook back and is piece up in a simple ending,
but the game was scored a draw on 365chess.com. I've just checked that website
and the result is still wrong!
I always go through the on-line simultaneous games played by GM Bogdan Lalic
against USBCA members. Usually he wins the lot. I never look at the results
list so if it is something other than a Lalic win it might come as a surprise
to me. Well-played to anyone who does get a result but some of the lost games
have little useful content.Then again it depends on what level you are playing
at and what you want to learn.
There are two occasions on which it is useful to write analysis. One is
obviously your own games but you must submit them to your peers to get
feedback. The other occasion is in complicated positions that you may not
understand after a second long hard glance. Soviet GM Aleksandr Kotov applied
this method as a promising youth with success and endorses it in his well-known
book Think Like A Grandmaster.
Sometimes there are games that seem to be incomprehensible. One of the most
famous is Portisch-Tal, Amsterdam Interzonal 1964. Fun to play through but a
nightmare to objectively analyse. I have a Bristol League against Henry
Duncanson from 2013/4 which has appeared on some websites, but not here. It
includes a continual stream of tactics for 20 moves, little positional content,
and errors on both sides. Even our B team captain admitted that he still didn't
understand the game after going through it for the third time! I see no
educational value in putting it on this site as it is simply too
complicated.The moral is that you need to know where to draw a line with doing
analysis.
At the end of the day it is what works for you that matters.
Best wishes,
Tyson
On 10 March 2018 at 23:59 Chris Ross <c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’m not convinced about this.
I think that you should play through the game, reflect and consider as
you do, but do not spend any major time on it or each individual move. Get
the game over and see what happened and why it happened. That is the first
run-through.
Then, I would recommend to play through it a second time, as then, your
mind is settled, you have no expectation and curiosity is not an issue. This
will clarify your thoughts, as there are no expectations.
I don’t think it is necessary to write down your thoughts either. Be
comfortable in your own mind to why something has happened or a particular
combination has happened. I would strongly recommend not to move on, continue
the game, unless you have fully appreciated to why a move has been made or
what the positional or tactical justification behind it has been fully
comprehended.
Writing notes to a game is fine, but ensure to share and spread. Do not
be afraid to share or seek support. One man’s analysis is another man’s
opportunity to learn.
Cheers,
Chris
On 06 March 2018 at 12:03 Jim Homme <jhomme1028@xxxxxxxxx
mailto:jhomme1028@xxxxxxxxx ;> wrote:
Hi,
I have another question. Do you think that it is valuable to read the
scores of games and play through them, and while you are doing this, write
tanalysis as you are going along, before you know the outcome, to test your
chess knowledge? You would have to make yourself avoid looking ahead to the
end of the story.
Thanks.
Jim
On Mar 4, 2018, at 7:42 AM, Chris Ross < c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;> wrote:
All,
I agree with everything that Tyson has said here. There are a couple of
further points, that may be of interest.
First, consider your audience when contemplating writing up an annotated
game. Who is the game targeted at and is the annotated pitched in such a
manner that it is accessible (cognitively that is) and is of a suitable level
to be of some purpose.
For example, this list is fundamentally consisted of beginner to
club-level players. There are, to my knowledge, not any other “Masters”. So,
writing a game, that is targeted at the Master level is completely pointless
and would defy the objective of the annotated game. That’s why Evan’s post a
short while ago was slightly perplexing, so Tyson’s and my annotated games
are targeted at that level.
So, when composing a game, think about the language, depth of analysis
you want to give.
In general though, I would suggest, when setting out to write up a game,
that you should focus on thought processes. Justifications why you have done
something, or what you were attempting to do. Give the basics then. I did
because of x or I tried to do this because of Y.
Write all of that down first. Don’t worry whether it is valid or not.
That can come afterwards. And where computer engines should be used to
validate a variation, or consolidate a tactical combination. Stating that you
tried to do this, but the computer proves that it is inaccurate, is not a
sign that your play is not valid. For you played it at the time,
over-the-board or via correspondence, in the judgment of your best play. As
far as you know, no engines were being used, so it is a fair piece of
reasoning at the time and should be reflected as such in the notes.
Furthering this point, annotated games should be used as a platform to
clarify and to “voice” the author’s viewpoint. Often, say for myself, I know
why I have done something during a game, what I was aiming for, but was
unable to articulate it at the time. Writing it down afterwards, helps me to
crystallise that thought process. Making it clear to myself and the reader
puts it all into perspective and aids me in retaining that
thought/plan/concept for future play.
I would also argue that writing up a game should have a direct thread to
it. Theme if you like. Such as demonstrating how good-knight vs bad-bishop
can prove a winning strategic approach. Illustrating how pawn islands are
critical when entering into an end-game. If a focus can be identified, this
again clarifies to the author and reader and can direct the writing and
reading. Hence, why an introduction to an annotated game is often useful, for
that focusses the mind of the author and reader.
Also, annotated games should not be about bragging opportunities. They
should be used as a learning resource, not just for the reader, but also for
the author. There is absolutely nothing wrong, and should be encouraged, that
an author says, “well I did this, but I’m not sure, what do others think
about it”. Saying that outright, often gets responses from readers and that
supports in the learning development of all parties, as that dialogue opens
up.
As suggested, it is often valuable to write up an annotated game and then
pass it onto another party, before publication. Ideally somebody of a similar
strength or stronger. They can then highlight any glaring mistakes and can
offer advice on tone, intonation etc.
Finally, as Tyson rightfully points out, don’t be afraid to ask
questions. Ask and ask away, and whoever responds, consider, reflect and
discuss!
Cheers,
Chris
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew ;
(Redacted sender "tyson.mordue" for DMARC)
Sent: 04 March 2018 11:30
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Annotated game: Purry-Mordue
Hello Jim
There are many ways of analysing a game and different people may end up
learning different things, not necessarily the ones that the annotator
intends you to learn. The principle point of the current game is to show how
to grind down a passive but otherwise solid position. The previous two games
I submitted had an accent on attacking anf tactical play.
Generally I would suggest having two boards - holding a position on a
chess program counts as one board if you wish. Follow the game through
move-by-move on both boards until you come to a note, Usually the note will
either be a positional assessment or a set of variations that could be of any
length. Play through the variations on one board and when done, reset the
position using the second board. Of course even while.going through the main
moves when there are no notes your mind may flag something up. Again check
lines on one board while holding the game position on another.
How do you know if you analysis is accurate? A very good question. Making
a note of it and comparing it with a chess-playing program is one. You may
find that you have anticipated the annotator and that your analysis appears
later. Simply asking another player for their thoughts and opinions is
another that we definitely recommend. You don't have to do it on the group if
you don't want to.
Incidentally expert analysis is not always correct or enlightening. I
posted an adapted version of the game Fischer-Schweber, Buenos Aires 1970 on
this site a few years ago. Most of the original was computer-generated
analysis with little regard to explaining what was really going. Finally
there was one routine move that earned a double exclamation point, a load of
praise fror Fischer, and no explalnation at all of why the move was good. In
1987 i played, won and annotated a game against GM (then an IM) Keith Arkell
where I wrote that the critical point was at move 19. In fact when I
subsequently ran the game through a strong computer program some twenty years
later the computer.spotted an improvement in my notes at move 20 whith a
backward recapture that neither Arkell or I had seen. The upshot was that
Arkell's fatal error was actually on move 16. This sort of re-evaluation is
meat and drink to strong chess-players but instructive for anyone. A game
Tal-Larsen from 1965 was the subject of intense debate in the international
chess press for over a year with conflicting opinions and they didn't have
computers!
Finally analysis is one thing. There is also judgement of the positions
that arise from given variations. For example in Purry-Mordue one of the key
points from move 27 onwards is ... how useful is the Black Rook that is
apparently trapped on the a2 square?.It can't safely go anywhere but it still
has a significant influence on the game, yet some players would be reluctant
to get a piece trapped this way.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to post more questions. You're asking
good ones!
Regards,
Tyson
On 03 March 2018 at 21:22 Jim Homme <jhomme1028@xxxxxxxxx
mailto:jhomme1028@xxxxxxxxx ;> wrote:
Hi All,
If I have never analyzed a chess game before, what is the first thing or
two I can do to start learning how? Related to this, if I am not a good
player, how do I know if my analysis is att all accurate?
Thanks.
Jim
On Mar 2, 2018, at 2:55 PM, mordue andrew (Redacted sender "tyson.mordue"
for DMARC) < dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;>
wrote:
Hello all.
In contrast to the last two violent attacking games here is something
quiet, positional, instructive and, hopefully, easy to understand. Let me
know otherwise ...
Regards,
Tyson
Text begins:
PURRY,C - MORDUE,A T
BRISTOL OPEN (Round 2), 22.08.2016
The only previous game between these two had been a Downend & Fishponds
(Bristol) Club Championship game in the 1980s. Chris Purry, a junior
debutant, had played far too quickly, made several serious errors and was
routed in twenty-odd moves. Now Purry had an ECF grade of 150+, equivalent to
an Elo rating of 1800+.
1. e4 c5
2. c3 d5
3. exd5 Qxd5
4. d4 e6
5. Nf3 Nf6
6. Bd3 Be7
7. 0–0 cxd4
8. cxd4 Nc6
9. Nc3 Qd6
This is a well-known line of the 2 c3 Sicilian. White has an isolated
Queen's Pawn (IQP) but theoretical attacking chances on the Kingside. as the
game goes it is Black who does all the running on that side of the board.
10. Re1
A rare move. More common are 10. Be3, 10. Bg5, and 10. a3.
Possible is 10. Nb5 Qd8 11. Bf4 but after 11... Nd5 Black defends the c7
square with tempo, occupies the important d5 (the one in front of the
isolated Pawn) and can push White Back with ...a6 and ...b5 gaining Queenside
space. Note that after the text Black can't win a Pawn with 10... Nxd4?? 11.
Nxd4 Qxd4 12. Bb5+ wins the Queen. This is an example of an indirect defence.
After Black's next, 10... 0–0 the indirect defence still applies because. say
11. a3 Nxd4?? 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 13. Bxh7+ also wins the Queen...a6 and ...b5
gaining Queenside space.
Note that after the text Black can't win a Pawn with 10... Nxd4?? 11.
Nxd4 Qxd4 12. Bb5+ wins the Queen. This is an example of an indirect defence.
After Black's next, 10... 0–0 the indirect defence still applies because.
say. 11. a3 Nxd4?? 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 13. Bxh7+ also wins the Queen.
10... 0–0
11. Ne4?!
Generally in IQP positions, the player with the isolani should avoid the
exchange of pieces, because this tends to expose it further. That is exactly
what happens here. White still has all the options mentioned in the last note
and he should choose one of those.
11... Nxe4
12. Bxe4 Rd8!
A quick and efficient development of this Rook that gives extra control
to the d5 square, the one directly in front of the IQP that White can't
control with a Pawn, and increases the pressure on the isolani itself.
13. Be3 Bf6
An excellent square for this piece which White helped create by swapping
off the Black Knight on f6.
14. Bxc6?
Reducing the immediate pressure on d4 but losing control of the light
squares. This may not seem like much but said light-square weaknesses now
persist until the end of the game! Deep Rybka suggests 15. Qc2 - threatening
16. Bxh7+ - and after either 15... g6 or 15...h6 play 16 Rad1 and it claims
White has a slight advantage. I disagree because Black can play 16...Nb4 and
switch his Knight to the important d5 square with a tempo.
14...Qxc6
15. Qb3
After the obvious 15. Rc1 Black would probably have gone 15... Qd5
regardless. The point of the text-move is to go 16. Ne5 which is not playable
immediately after 16... Bxe5 and White can't recapture because of the pin
down the d-file.
15... Qd5
White's Queen is his only active piece so Black is happy to swap it off.
Deep Rybka evaluates the position as +0.45 to Black. He has the Bishop pair,
the IQP to attack and White has no counterplay. It might be a long grind
before the win but it's a joyless task for White as a defender.
16. Qxd5 Rxd5
17. Rac1 Bd7
18. Rc2
The inviting 18. Rc7 is a fatal cul-de-sac. After 18... Bc6 the Rook is
trapped and Black will win an Exchange with 19... Bd6 or Bd8.
18... Bc6
This closes the c-file so White has no play down it. On the other hand
from this square the Bishop soon glares at White's Kingside. The Bishop and
the b7 Pawn mutually defend each other and this factor is of such importance
that the pair never move again during the game, yet their presence and
influence is enduring. Deep Rybka now evaluates the position as 0.66 in
Black's favour.
19. Rec1 Rad8
There is a slight drawback to this move in so much as the a7 Pawn is no
longer defended. However, I was aware of this and didn't consider the detail
that relevant. As it stands Black threatens a retreat (!) with 20... R5d6 or
20... R5d7 followed by 21... Bxf3 22. gxf3 Bxd4 winning the d4 Pawn. Note
that currently White can't play 20. Ne5 Bxe5 21. dxe5 because of 21... Rd1+
and mating. Hence White creates a loophole for his King on the next move and
Black does the same.
20. h3 h6
Now Black may be threatening 21... Ra5 22. a3 (or b3) 22... Bxf3 23. gxf3
Bxd4 winning a Pawn. After 24. Bxd4 Rxd4 25. Rc8+ Kh7 demonstrates the value
of 20...h6. Now play could continue 26. RcRc7 - hitting b7 and f7 - 26... Rf5
27. Rxb7 Rxf3 with an unbalanced ending that should favour Black. This line
is not completely forced and it is White's move. However, he has no apparent
active prospects. Purry attempts to go active and this is based on a tactical
possibility. It's worth studying this position before reading on.7 - hitting
b7 and f7 - 26... Rf5 27. Rxb7 Rxf3 with an unbalanced ending that should
favour Black. This line is not completely forced and it is White's move.
However, he has no apparent active prospects. Purry attempts to go active and
this is based on a tactical possibility. It's worth studying this position
before reading on.
21. Ne5!? Bxe5
22. dxe5 Rxe5
23. Bxa7
Reinforcing the point that Black's earlier ...Rad8 left this Pawn loose.
However, White's a2 Pawn is also loose. Now the fork 23... Ra5?? is a blunder
because 24. Bb6 forks the Rooks in return so Black has to play the other Rook
to the a-file and execute a skewer instead.
23... Ra8
24. Bc5
The counterattack 24. Bd4 is met by 24... Rg5 when White has two Pawns
under fire. The difference with the text move is that if Black ventures
...Rxa2 the reply Ba3 will seal it in. The b2 Pawn and a3 Bishop mutually
protect each other in the same way that the b7 Pawn and c6 Bishop do.
24... Rg5!?
Around here I realised that if I wanted to play for a win then I would
have to take on a2 and risk having the Rook interred for a while. Before
committing myself I wanted to see if White was willing to weaken his Kingside.
25. g3
There are two defences by moving the f-Pawn. 25. f3? Bxf3 isn't good
though because Black now has a 4-2 Pawn majority on the Kingside and real
winning chances.
Instead 25. f4 Rf5 means Black maintains his simultaneous attack on two
Pawns and, for the reason given in the last sentence, White should defend the
f4 one and drop a2. I think this is probably the critical moment of the game.
Purry was probably reluctant to go 25 f4 Rf5 because how does he defend the
f4 Pawn comfortably?
26. Bd6 is no good because 26... Rxa2 and now 27. Ba3 simply drops the f4
Pawn. Instead 25. f4 Rf5 26. Rf2 puts the Rook in an apparently passive
position and after 26... Rxa2 27. Ba3 Rd5 Black has control of the d-file.
The final line is 25. f4 Rf5 26. g3 but then White has opened up the
whole second rank, something that any experienced player would be reluctant
to do. Nevertheless I feel White should try one of the last two continuations.
25... Rh5!
Forcing White into an awkward decision. Does he make a further concession
in the his structure with 26. h4 or put his King on a worse square?
26. Kh2 Rxa2
27. Ba3 Rb5!
Time to evaluate this intriguing position. Black has an extra Pawn and an
active Rook and Bishop. The Bishop is very impressive, cutting a swathe
through White's Kingside. The extra Pawn is part of a viable 4-3 majority on
the Kingside so Black should be able to advance there easily particularly
with the support of the King. White's pieces do not impress. The Bishop can't
move without letting the other Black Rook out of its cage while the White
Rooks do little but defend each other.
The interesting piece is, of course, that apparently trapped Rook on a2.
It still generates some influence and White must constantly consider Black
giving up the Exchange on b2 or a3 for a second Pawn. Black would definitely
not be losing, but whether he would be winning would be debatable.
Another element is the opposite-coloured Bishops. Contrary to opinion
these are not necessarily a drawing factor. Other than keeping Black's Rook
in White's Bishop does nothing. On the other hand, imagine Black having the
move ...Ra1 for free. He would be threatening mate on h1. White has lots of
problems here.
28. Rd2
Allowing Black's infiltration on b3 for free. However, if White tries to
stop it with
28. Rc3 Black switches files with 28... Rd5. White needs to control all
of d3, d2 and d1 and any swap of Rooks lets the a2 Rook out.
28... Rb3
Deep Rybka assesses this as +1.24 for Black. His tactical options have
increased considerably. If White puts a Rook on b1 Black plays ...Raxa3
exploiting a pin on the b-file. With a Rook on the second rank White is
vulnerable to ...Rbxa3 exploiting a horizontal pin. Currently this does not
win a piece because White has the interpolation Rd8+, then again after the
sequence ...Rbxa3, Rd8+ Kh7, bxa3 Black has ...Rxf2+, Kg1 Rg2+ picking up the
g3 Pawn when Black has three Pawns for the Exchange and will be winning.
White has to be careful.
29. Kg1 Kh7
30. Rd4
Giving Black a free tempo for ...e5 but it is difficult to find
constructive moves.
30...e5
31. Rdc4 f6
32. Rc5
Not 32. Kf1?? Bb5 pinning and winning.
32... Kg6
33. Kf1 h5
Black is slowly creeping up the board. He threatens 34... h4 compromising
White's Kingside even more.
35. gxh4 is met by 35... Rxh3 now that White’s King has moved away.
White can offer the swap of Rooks with 34. R either to c3 but, because
the b2 Pawn defends the Bishop on a3, he must recapture with the other Rook
and allow 35... Ra1+. So White chooses to stop ...h4 the simple way - by
playing it himself.
34. h4 Kf5
35. Ke1 Kg4
Finally we see the consequences of White's 14. Bxc6. The light squares
are a highway for the Black King into the porous White Kingside.
36. R5c4+ Kh3
37. R4c2 e4
Black has two ideas. One is the break ...e3 when the elimination of the
f2 Pawn leaves the Black King in prime position to feed on the other White
Pawns. Alternatively Black plays ...g7-g5 and he should be able to create a
passed h Pawn whatever White does. This should leave White completely
overstretched.
Now could be White's last chance to play 38. Rc3 but understandably Purry
continues to shuffle.
38. 36 Bc5 stopsBc5 stops ...e3 but allows Black to take on b2.
38. Kf1 e3
39. fxe3 Rxe3
40. Bd6 Rb3!
And back again. Now either b2 or g3 must fall as 41. Rb1 is simply met by
41... Be4 skewering the Rooks. More light-square misery.
41. Kf2 Rbxb2
42. Rxb2 Rxb2+
43. Ke3 Rb3+
44. Kd4 g5?!
Even quicker is 44... Rxg3 45. Bxg3 Kxg3 46. Rg1+ Bg2 but I wasn’t
willing to risk giving up the Exchange just yet.
45. hxg5 fxg5
46. Rc5 h4
47. gxh4 gxh4
48. Rg5 Rb5
49. Be5
Swapping Rooks is no good. Black just plays ...Kg2, advances the h-Pawn
to h2 when White has to give up his Bishop, and then Black still has that
extra Bishop and Pawn on the Queenside. Oddly enough I'd overlooked 49. Be5.
I'd anticipated 49. Bc5 when 49...b6 leads to the same winning ending. It’s
of no consequence though.
49... Rb4+
50. Kc3 Rg4
51. Rh5 Kg2
52. Rh6 h3
53. Kd2 Rg5
54. Bc7 Rg7
Black can ensure the advance of his Pawn to h2 by playing ...Rg3 whenever
he likes. The sequence could be 54... Rg3 55. Bxg3 Kxg3 56. Rg6+ Kf2 57. Rf6+
Kg1 58. Rg6+ Bg2 and advance the Pawn, or 54... Rg3 55. Bxg3 Kxg3 56. Rg6+
Kf2 57. Rh6 Bg2 followed by 58... Kg1 and advancing the Pawn. As long as the
Bishop defends the b7 Pawn White has no counter-chances. I was just nudging
the Bishop around to see if White put it on the wrong square ...
55. Be5 Re7
56. Bd6?
…and sure enough he obliges.
56... Rd7
57. Ke3 Rxd6
Breaking the blockade by force.
58. Rxd6 h2
59. Rg6+ Kf1
With the Pawn now on h2 the light-squared Bishop’s support alone ensures
promotion. A trivial ending follows after White gives up his Rook.
60. 0–1
Text ends.
