Skating On Thin Ice

     The late James R. Schroeder had a lot of good advice for us club players. Advice like: 

 

* The best way to play chess is to attack and attack, and attack some more. 

* I want my mind to tell me a good move. If it tells me the move to play, do not analyze long sequences of moves in order to determine if the move is good - a short sequence is enough. 

* Examine both logical and illogical moves. Examine all checks and captures...look at every move: it weakens something and threatens something, short-range tactics, long-range tactics, strategy relevant to the position... 

* Positional play can bring excellent positions. It can be used to put the opponent under enormous pressure, reduce their counterplay...However, to finish off the game usually requires a tactical blow which will convert the advantage in a technical way...Tactical ability and the ability to spot combinations thus helps to convert positional advantages into more concrete gains...Positional plans can fail tactically even though their concept is very good. 

 

     When I was starting out in chess Botvinnik was king and the emphasis was on positional play, so the study of tactics was pretty much ignored. I was not aware that positional play still requires that one be tactically aware and that one should learn tactics before positional play, because, as Schroeder pointed out, more often than not, securing the win will be a result of tactics not positional play. 

     When I feel like playing some blitz, Chess Hotel is my site of choice and a few things have become obvious. One, many players have fragile egos! Play on the site is anonymous and if you play as a guest, as most do, your rating disappears as soon as you leave the site. It's not unusual for some players who are quitters and can't stand losing to simply abandon the game; when they do you are awarded the win within a few seconds. Others are even more annoying...they simply quit moving and let their time run out. On a couple of rare occasions I have run into shameful individuals like the opponent the other day who, when he got a lost position, started messaging me with bad English laced with profanity. Read an article on Sore Losers HERE.

     Ego damaged individuals aside, many average players (everybody on the site!) seem to think tactics means sacrificing something, but in many cases they are not sacrificing anything at all...they are simply throwing away some material! For example, 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Bxf7+ is not a sacrifice, it's just giving away a piece for nothing. 

     That great teacher C.J.S. Purdy always emphasized sound tactics. Purdy explained strategy as “choosing aims,” meaning an attempt at reaching a particular type of position. He was always quick to point out that strategy is a reliable course of action to be undertaken only after tactics can be ruled out. 

     A Purdyism: All good players must be good tactically. All masters must be good both tactically and strategically. Someone who is good strategically and not tactically may understand the play of masters up to a point, but cannot possibly play well himself. 

     Of course, we amateurs often aren't good enough to know when a tactic is truly sound, but we should, at least, have some sort of logical basis for making a sacrifice. Even the tactics of great players have sometimes been proven unsound by engines, but sometimes they were successful because they lead to positions that were more complicated than a human could handle. 

     I don't usually post my games because they aren't that good, or even interesting, but the following game was really messy and even examining all the possibilities with Stockfish was challenging. 

     The game featured an idea I played in a postal game way back in 1960. As white against the Sicilian I had a B on g5 and Pawns on e4, f4, g4 and h4. After the B was attacked by ...h6, I let my opponent take the B with ...h6xg5. In that game and in this one I was skating on thin ice because the sacrifice was unsound, but it worked.

[Event "Chess Hotel"] [Site "?"] [Date "2022.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Tartajubow"] [Black "John Doe"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B99"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "47"] [EventDate "2022.??.??"] {Sicilian Najdorf} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 (2... Nc6 {An early example of the ... h6xg5 Bishop sacrifice.} 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Bb5 { I was always fond of this move.} Bd7 8. Ba4 {This doesn't show up in the databases, but is was given with a ! in Modern Chess Openings, 10th edition.} Nxd4 {This is wrong, but it was book. 8...Be7 is best.} 9. Bxd7+ {Book, but 9. Qxd4 was better.} Qxd7 10. Qxd4 Be7 11. O-O-O Qc6 12. f4 Rd8 13. g4 b6 { Passive. 13...b5 was better. Or 13...Rc8} 14. Rd2 O-O 15. h4 h6 16. Bxh6 (16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. Qa4 Qxa4 18. Nxa4 g5 {Black is better..}) (16. Qd3 {This is correct. The B is immune.} hxg5 17. hxg5 Nxg4 18. Nd5 {He can't take the N because 19.dxd5 attacks the Q and threatens mate on h7.} Rd7 19. Qf3 f5 20. exf5 exf5 (20... Bxg5 21. Qxg4 Bxf4 22. Qxf4 Rxf5 23. Qh4 Kf7 24. Ne3 { Stockfish says white is clearly winning, but in practice I am not so sure.}) 21. Nxe7+ {wins the Q}) 16... e5 17. Qe3 Nxg4 18. Qg3 Nxh6 19. Rg2 g6 20. Nd5 Qd7 21. h5 exf4 22. Qxf4 {1-0 Tartajubow-JRW, Correspondence 1960}) 3. d4 { This game is a rare occasion when playing online blitz that I did not try some bizarre opening.} cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Nbd7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Be7 {Equally good was 9...b5} 10. g4 {The book offers black two good choices here: 10...b5 or 10...b6.} Nc5 {But not this after which Stockfish give white a 2.5 Pawn advantage if he plays 11.e5. This game is a good example of why it is useless for non-masters to put a great emphasis on studying openings. Rarely have I had a game in which the players followed book lines for more than 6 or 8 moves.} 11. h4 (11. Nb3 Bd7 12. Bd3 Rc8 13. Kb1 b5 14. Rhe1 {Black is slightly better. Wegener,D (2305)-Fokin,S (2420) Katowice 1993.} ) (11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. g5 Be7 13. f5 e5 14. Nb3 Nxb3+ 15. axb3 Bxg5+ 16. Kb1 b5 17. Rg1 {White is slightly better. Nuno Spiewak,M-Morera Rodriguez,I (1646) Madrid 2009}) (11. e5 {This is by far the best.} dxe5 12. fxe5 Nd5 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nf5 Qg5+ 15. Rd2 exf5 16. Qxd5 Ne4 17. Nxe4 fxe4 18. h4 Qe7 19. Qxe4 { White is clearly better.}) 11... h6 {Better was 11...b5 trying to get counterplay on the Q-side. When analyzing this game I was completely surprised to discover that this position is not new! it wasn't reached in a master game, far from it, but it has been reached before and white played the correct 12. Bxf6 and enjoyed an advantage.} 12. Bd3 {[%mdl 8192] Need it be said that this is unsound? Even so, it's not totally bad...Stockfish evaluates the position as a little less than a P and a half in black's favor, not a whole piece worth. ..3 Ps.} (12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. g5 hxg5 14. hxg5 Rxh1 15. Qxh1 Bxd4 16. Qh8+ Ke7 17. Rxd4 d5 18. exd5 e5 19. d6+ Qxd6 20. Rxd6 Kxd6 21. fxe5+ Kxe5 22. Qxg7+ Ke6 23. Qf6+ Kd7 24. Bh3+ Ne6 25. Qxf7+ Kd6 26. Ne4+ Kd5 {Harokopakis,G (1845) -Tsiros, D (1548) Athens 2008 1-0}) 12... Nxd3+ {Strictly speaking this is not quite as good as 12...hxg5, but it was the move I didn't want to see.. I am not sure why!} (12... hxg5 {was also good.} 13. hxg5 Rxh1 14. Qxh1 Nfd7 15. Qh8+ Bf8 {According to Stockfish black's advantage is not quite one Pawn.}) 13. Rxd3 (13. Qxd3 {This is also a reasonable alternative.} hxg5 14. hxg5 Rxh1 15. Rxh1 Nd7 16. Nf5 (16. g6 {is also plausible.} Nf8 (16... fxg6 17. Nxe6 Qa5 18. Qc4 Nb6 19. Nxg7+ Kd8 20. Qf7 Qc5 21. Qe8+ Kc7 22. Qxe7+ {White wins.}) 17. gxf7+ Kxf7 18. g5 b5 19. Qf3 Qc5 20. Nb3 Qb6 {Black is only slightly better.}) 16... exf5 17. Nd5 Qc6 18. gxf5 {Black is better.}) 13... hxg5 14. hxg5 Rxh1+ 15. Qxh1 Nd7 {[%cal Od6d5] Black's advantage is less than 3/4 of a P.} 16. Qh8+ Bf8 {[%cal Od6d5]} 17. Rh3 {Bringing the R to the h-file looks logical, but it is vastly inferior as indicated by the fact that the engine now puts black's advantage at a whole piece after striking a blow at the center with 17...d5!} ( 17. g6 {keeps white in the game.} Nc5 (17... d5 {is a losing blunder.} 18. gxf7+ Kxf7 19. Nxe6 Kxe6 20. Qg8+ Kd6 21. e5+ Kc6 22. Nxd5 Qb8 23. Qe6+ { and wins. The K can't run away.} Kb5 24. a3 {mates in 12.} Qd6 25. Rb3+ Kc6 26. exd6 Bxd6 27. Rd3 Rb8 28. Ne7+ Kb6 29. Qxd6+ Ka7 30. Qc7 Ka8 31. Nxc8 Rxc8 32. Qxc8+ Ka7 33. Rxd7 Kb6 34. Qxb7+ Kc5 35. Rd5+ Kc4 36. Qc6#) 18. Rf3 fxg6 19. b4 Qe7 20. f5 {Pressing on with the attack is white's best option.} (20. bxc5 dxc5 21. Nde2 Bd7 {Black is much better.}) 20... exf5 21. exf5 Bd7 {The N cannot be saved.} (21... Nd7 22. Ne6 Ne5 23. Nd5 {white wins...} Qf7 24. Nxf8 Qxf8 25. Nc7+ Ke7 26. f6+ gxf6 27. Nd5+ Ke8 28. Nxf6+ Ke7 29. Nd5+) 22. bxc5 O-O-O 23. Qh2 gxf5 24. gxf5 Qg5+ 25. Kb1 Re8 {with unclear complications.}) 17... b5 ( 17... d5 {This counter in the center was far better.} 18. e5 {Somewhat better is 18.Nce2, but this allows an instructive tactical blow.} Nxe5 {[%mdl 512]} 19. fxe5 Qxe5 20. Nf3 Qf4+ 21. Kb1 Qxg4 {and clack is winning.}) 18. g6 { Pressing on.} Nc5 (18... fxg6 {Not good!} 19. Nxe6 Qb6 20. f5 Qg1+ 21. Nd1 Qxg4 22. Rh4 Qf3 23. Rh7 gxf5 24. Qg8 Bb7 25. Nxg7+ Kd8 26. Ne6+ Kc8 27. Nxf8) ({ Black should play} 18... Nb6 $1 $19 19. f5 Qe7 20. gxf7+ Qxf7 $19) 19. f5 { White missed a very pretty Q sac!} ({Only move:} 19. Qxf8+ Kxf8 20. Rh8+ Ke7 { To stay in the game white has to play yet another sacrifice!} 21. Nf5+ Kd7 ( 21... exf5 {allows white to get the advantage after} 22. Nd5+) 22. gxf7 Kc6 23. f8=Q Bb7 24. Ne7+ Kb6 25. Qxg7 $17 {Stockfish gives black a less than one P edge, but in practical play things are unclear.}) 19... b4 {[%mdl 8192] This turns the advantage over to white.} (19... Qe7 {would have left black with a bright future.} 20. b4 Na4 21. Nxa4 bxa4 22. gxf7+ Qxf7 23. fxe6 Bxe6 {White has no attack left and is a piece down; black wins.}) 20. f6 {[%cal Oh8f8] As it turns out this is the best move, but at the time I was getting worried and was just trying to complicate. Also, I was about a minute ahead of my opponent on time . The time limit was 8 minutes plus 2 seconds. Stockfish puts white's advantage at about 2.75 Ps.} (20. Rh7 {results in messy complications after} Nd3+ 21. cxd3 bxc3 22. Rxg7 cxb2+ 23. Kxb2 Qa5 24. gxf7+ Kd7 25. fxe6+ Kc7 26. Qxf8 Qd2+ 27. Ka3 {But black has a draw by repeated Q checks.}) 20... fxg6 { Black used some precious time here, but found the relatively best move. My next move also took some time trying to figure out how to continue the attack which at the time I was not even sure I had! In fact, white is winning.} (20... bxc3 21. Qxf8+ Kd7 22. Qe7#) 21. Rh7 {[%cal Rf6g7][%mdl 128] This threatens 22. fxg7} bxc3 (21... Qf7 {Was the only defense. White is still winning IF he finds the correct continuation and the planned capture of the B isn't it!} 22. fxg7 (22. g5 {This is the only move that keeps winning chances, but the complications are head whirling.} Ra7 (22... bxc3 23. Rxg7 Ra7 24. Rxf7 Rxf7 25. e5 {White has a decisive advantage according to the engine.}) 23. Rxg7 bxc3 {He could also play 23...Qxg7} (23... Qxg7 24. fxg7 Rxg7 25. Nd1 Nxe4 {The engine says white is winning.}) 24. Rxf7 cxb2+ 25. Kxb2 Rxf7 26. e5 dxe5 27. Nc6 Nd7 {And Stockfish comments white is clearly winning, but I am not Stockfish.}) 22... Qf4+ 23. Kd1 bxc3 24. gxf8=Q+ Qxf8 25. Qxf8+ Kxf8 26. bxc3 e5 27. Nc6 Kg8 {Black is winning.}) 22. fxg7 {[%csl Gh8][%cal Rg7f8]} cxb2+ 23. Kb1 {[%csl Gh8][%cal Rg7f8] Black was running out of time and fell into a mate. } Nxe4 (23... Qf7 {Threatens a check on f1 followed by ...Nxa4+ and black has a perpetual check.} 24. Nf5 {The only move that wins because it blocks the f-file.} (24. gxf8=Q+ Qxf8 25. Qxf8+ Kxf8 {Black has a decisive material advantage.}) 24... exf5 25. g8=Q (25. gxf8=Q+ Qxf8 26. exf5 Qxh8 27. Rxh8+ Kf7 {and wins}) 25... Qxg8 26. Qxg8 Be6 27. Qxg6+ Kd8 28. gxf5 {White is winning.}) 24. gxf8=Q# {A very complicated game!} 1-0