A lot of writers have written about the importance of studying the games of the old masters because it allows one to see the basic strategic and tactical elements in practice.
In The Road To Chess Inprovement, GM Alex Yermolinsky admits that players like Tarrasch, Capablanca and Nimzovich were giants of the game but their books can be misleading.
These early teachers had to try and explain how to choose good moves by breaking the game down into the elements of a position. And, as Yermolinsky observed, this method is good for beginners and it is his contention that “one can probably go from ground zero to a respectable USCF 2000 by working exclusively on the subjects given (in their excellent books).”
According to him, the problem starts when you want to advance from that level because classical positional theory becomes a burden and can sometimes even be confusing. To advance from that level Yeromlinsky says you have to lay those books aside and start working on your own. Of course most players never reach a “respectable USCF 2000” rating!
Today the building blocks discussed in the classics get obfuscated by engine analysis to the point that the fundamentals are no longer recognized.
Back in the old days players like Chigorin, Steinitz, Lasker, Tarrasch, Nimzovich, Capablanca and Alekhine were creating theory themselves. All of the modern master have studied the games of those pioneers, so there must be some benefit to it.
Today, when a GM plays a game they have seen the first 15 or 20 moves maybe hundreds of times thanks to databases and today’s massive amount of opening theory is based on the work of previous masters.
When it came to studying the classics, Garry Kasparov studied Botvinnik’s games and Bobby Fischer spent an enormous amount of time studying the games of Steinitz. Fischer claimed to have studied over 1,000 of Steinitz’ games. I’m not sure about that number because my database has only 282 and the Chessgames.com database has only 914 Steinitz games. But you get the point.
In The Middle Game in Chess, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky, using games by Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Reshevsky, Botvinnik, Marshall, Pillsbury and others, tried to beak the game down into three elements: space, time and force.
Larry Evans wrote New Ideas In Chess, but there was nothing new in it. He discussed space, time and force plus he added Pawn structure.
You can have an advantage in all three elements plus Pawn structure and still lose the game and this is where difficulties arise...how does a GM explain those exceptions to those of us that are rating challenged?
Evans wrote that the amateur knows about these things, but doesn’t know how they interact and he admits that masters often are of little help because they are "notoriously inarticulate when it comes to explaining their thought processes.”
In his book Evans tried to translate into principles and put into words the thought processes that are natural to a master.
He began by playing over all of his tournament games and analyzing why he won or lost and then “extracting the quintessence from each one.”
Evans wrote that what was “new” about his book was explaining what is meant by an advantage and how to convert one element into another, the less durable into the more durable. I didn’t like Evan’s book because it was just a collection of diagrams showing a fragment of the game that illustrated his point.
The classics often spent pages discussing tempi and nothing else in the opening. For example, in My System, Nimzovich spent a lot of time explaining the matter in the Scotch Opening.
In a 1979 Chess Life and Review article titled How To Beat Your Opponent, then National Master, now an IM, Larry D. Evans talked about time in chess as being one of the most difficult to understand because it was intangible.
The opening is often a race to see who will be the first to mobilize all his forces and Evans, instead of using the word “tempo” preferred “beat.”
He preferred the term beat because of the similarity to its meaning in music where the metronome regulates the beats of the musical piece; if a musician misses a beat, the music suffers.
In a game of chess there is also a metronome, alternating moves. Once a player makes a move it becomes his opponent’s turn and if he misses his turn to develop a piece, he loses a beat.
According to Evans, counting beats is very simple. “If you have or will have one more piece out than your opponent has, you have gained one beat. Each subsequent move that your opponent wastes, allowing another of your pieces to enter the battle without adding another of his own, can be added to the tally as another extra beat.”
Really, I don’t know who pays any attention to all that stuff and, of course, many exceptions exist. One such game that wasn’t an exception was Adolf Anderssen vs. Carl Mayet played in Berlin, 1862. Mayet got beat to death.
Adolf Anderssen - Karl Mayet
Result: 1-0
Site: Berlin GER
Date: 1862
Evans Gambit Accepted
[...] 1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.♗c4 ♗c5 4.b4 Since this gambit was introduced by Captain W.D. Evans back in 1830 this opening has won a boat load of brilliancy games...mostly for white. If black wins it's mostly in games that reach the ending. A few players have played it in recent times: Kasparov, Shirov, Nunn, Conquest and Christiansen. Still, its glory days are over. 4...♗xb4 5.c3 ♗a5 6.d4 exd4 This is most popular, but just a wee bit more solid is 6...d6. Either way, in my database only about 10-15 percent of the games are drawn. 7.O-O
7.♕b3 This is occasionaly seen, but black does better against it than he does if white castles. 7...♕f6 8.O-O d3 9.♖e1 ♘ge7 and black is doing OK.
7...dxc3 This is too risky as it squanders time that could be used for development. White is ahead in development and at some point black's lag will become fatal.
7...d6 8.cxd4 ♗b6 9.d5 ♘a5 10.♗b2 This position has resulted in a huge plus score for white even though black's defensive resources should be adequate after 10...Ne7. 10...♘e7 11.♗d3 (11.♗xg7 ♖g8 12.♗b5 c6 13.dxc6 bxc6 leaves white with two Bs threatened.) 11...O-O Technically equal, but in practice this position has proven difficult for black to play.
8.♕b3 ♕f6 This has proven the best way to defend f7. 9.e5 By far the most frequently played. It gains space and time by attacking the Q. The developing move 9.Bg5 also gains time and so has some merit. 9...♕g6 10.♘xc3 White is now two Ps down. Yermolinksy says the number of Ps is just another positional factor. When you sacrifice a P, you give a little and you get a little. He also notes that you have to be patient and not expect immediate returns. The loss of a P should be considered a positional factor that should be taken into account the same as any other factor. It's interesting that engines think the position is equal. Humans look at it as though white's domination in development gives him a clear advantage. Indeed, in practical play white does score considerably better. 10...♗xc3 This move, trading a B for a N, is against general principles which hold up in this position.
10...♘ge7 This move was first tested in Anderssen-Dufresne in 1851 and has since been established as the best move. 11.♘e2 b5 With this counterattack black is beginning to gain time and neutralize white's lead in development. 12.♕xb5 This is bad. Correct is 12.Bd3 12...♖b8 13.♕c5 d6 and black is slightly better.
11.♕xc3 White has sacrificed two Ps, but in return he has an advantage in space, a lead in development and the pair of Bs. Black's position is going to be very tricky to defend. 11...♘ge7 12.♗a3 Continuing his development and connecting his Rs . Purdy used to say your development wasn't completed until your Rs were connected.
12.♘g5 Attacking f7 has also been tried. 12...♘d8 (12...O-O 13.♗d3 and h7 is under attack.) 13.♖e1 and whiyte is better.
12...O-O 13.♖ad1 This prevents ...d6
13.♗d3 is not quite so good. 13...♕h5 Not good! After 13...Qh6 black can defend himself. 14.♗xe7 ♘xe7 15.♕xc7 Del Pilar,R (2306)-Milton,C/Los Angeles 2005. White went on to win.
13...♖e8 14.♖fe1 White is strategically won even if an immediate win is not on the horizon. This is often the case, but at some point advantages tend to be realized one way or another. 14...a6 It's hard to suggest any inprovement for black.
14...b6 To try and complete his development is met by 15.♗d3 ♕h5 16.♖e4 and black is in a predicament.
15.♗d3 Black has scant choices here. 15...♕h5
15...f5 16.♘h4 ♕h5 17.♗b2 ♔h8 (17...♕xh4 18.e6 ♕g5 19.exd7 ♗xd7 20.♗c4 and white is winning.) 18.e6 ♕h6 19.♗xf5 dxe6 20.♗xe6 leaves white with a big advantage.
16.♖e4 A nice Rook lift which adds it to the attack. 16...♘g6
16...♘d5 isn't much better. 17.♕b3 ♘xe5 18.♗e2 wins material.
17.g4 ♕h3 18.♗f1 ♕h6 19.♗c1 This retreat is the final blow and so black resigned. Powered by Aquarium
No comments:
Post a Comment