5-Pawns Attack

I posted previously on the 6-Pawns Attack. This time I was a little more conservative and only played the 5-Pawns Attack. I like to meet the K-Indian with the Four Pawns Attack. White immediately builds up a large pawn center in order to gain a spatial advantage and it often leads to highly tactical possibilities. It seems I run into opponents who like to avoid advancing any of their pawns beyond the 6th rank before undertaking any action in the center quite often and pushing all my P’s seems to leave them befuddled and it’s always great fun!

What’s Your Chess Personality?

 

    Here’s a fun test consisting of 20 questions designed to tell your ‘chess personality.’
     I was rated a Technician which seems to be pretty accurate - Technicians are the quietest and calmest chess players. Strategists who rarely attack directly and prefer to quietly exploit positional advantages, Technicians utilize their exceptional intuition to guide their positional play. Rarely losing control, the Technician exploits almost invisible positional weaknesses to win in the endgame. Technicians do not like to take many risks, and therefore rarely lose - but also win less than more aggressive players.
     Vladimir Kramnik (born 1975) of Russia, the fourteenth world champion, is the ultimate Technician. Known for his great endgame skills and excellent opening knowledge, Kramnik became the world champion by defeating Garry Kasparov, who had reigned for fifteen years. Despite being seen as unstoppable, Kasparov was unable to win a single game against Kramnik's iron play in their London 2000 match, while Kramnik exploited small mistakes to win two games. Now if only my moves were as good as his.
      Just as a comparison I re-took the test and answered the questions the opposite from the way I did the first time and the result was a Romantic. Romantics are full of good ideas. These ideas might be either positional or attacking, but they are always unusual and unique. The Romantic doesn't usually win by out-calculating his opponent, but rather finds some unexpected and unusual concept that his opponent didn't expect. Romantic players are very emotional and therefore can be very distraught when they lose, but their moodiness also means that when things are going well, they can be unstoppably brilliant.
     Vassily Ivanchuk (born 1969), the Ukrainian grandmaster, is a good example of a modern-day Romantic. A moody, brilliant genius, Ivanchuk is capable of beating anybody on the right day, but his results can be erratic. Ivanchuk's play is typified by its great humanity, and many call him one of the most talented players ever, ranking as high as #2 in the world at one point. Anand said of him: "You never know which mood he is going to be in. Some days he will treat you like his long-lost brother. The next day he ignores you completely. His playing style is unpredictable and highly original, making him more dangerous but sometimes leading to quick losses as well."

Take the test

Be Alert!

 

    A while back I was facing an online opponent who happens to be rated around 2100 OTB and met his Petroff Defense with 3.Nc3 hoping to transpose into the Four Knights Game but he opted to play 3…Bc5 (they always do!) and I was out of my book knowledge. 
     Things went pretty well and the game was dead even until the early middlegame. That’s when I couldn’t come up with any ideas and started playing slightly inferior moves while he built up his position on the Q-side where both our Kings happened to be. The result of this drifting on my part was that  I was soon hopelessly lost. I was about to resign, but then noticed a threat…my first one in the entire game. Fortunately Black fumbled and fell into a mating net. A lucky escape.

Emory Tate

     International Master Emory A. Tate, Jr. (born December 27, 1958, Chicago, Illinois) has a current USCF rating of 2355. Not so high now, but his highest FIDE rating was 2413 in 2006 and his highest USCF rating was 2455, also in 2006.
     He is a 12-year US Air Force veteran and a 5-time All Armed Forces Champion, and 6-time Indiana Champion. 
     He reached 2500-plus after winning the Eastern Open in 1996 and won the IM title at the 2006 World open. Tate’s first rated tournament was the 1992 New York Open which was won by GM Eric Lobron with 7.5 points ahead of Jaan Ehvest, Alex Schneider, John Fedorowicz, Igor Ivanov, Alonzo Zapata and Mihail Braude (all at 7.0). There was a whole gaggle of GM’s participating. Tate finished in 84th place (out of 183), scoring wins over Dr. Ariel Mengarini (2231), Anjelina Belakovskaia (2288), Boris Kreiman (2383) and Alfred Carlin (2331) and drew with Lev Albert (2599). He lost to Semion Palatnik (2616), John Fedorowicz (2626), Vladislov Fedorov (2658) and Antonio Fernandez (2144) for a provisional rating of 2427.
     Tate has a reputation as a dangerous tactician and has won at least 80 tournament games against Grandmasters. The downside is that he often loses to much weaker players with his risky brand of chess. Known as a vicious predator he has the ability to analyze complicated variations with amazing clarity and speed and his games often contain amazing ideas. Here’s a classic Tate game wherein he constantly poses tactical problems to his GM opponent. Tate's best wins, like this one, have been achieved with a tactical style.

Trangulation

 

    Speaking of Griffiths’ book in the last post prompted me to pull it out and thumb through it; one of the first positions I stopped to examine was the famous “Fahrni Position” under triangulation.
     Triangulation is used to put one's opponent in zugzwang by returning to the initial position in such a way that one's opponent is then forced to move first when it is a disadvantage for that player to move. This because he must abandon a blockade and let the other player penetrate his position.
     Triangulation occurs most commonly with only kings and pawns when one king can maneuver on three adjacent squares in the shape of a triangle and maintain the basic position while the opposing king only has two such squares.
     An example of triangulation is from Fahrni vs. Alapin below. The details of when and where the game was played or if was an actual game position is unknown. It is believed to have been played between 1909 and 1917, possibly in Munich since the two players met in a match (won by Fahrni +3 -0 =1) there in 1909. In Fahrni’s book Das Endspiel im Schach he just quoted it as "From a game Fahrni-Alapin".  
     What’s weird is that the same position could have occurred in Paul Fiebig vs. Savielly Tartakower in the Barmen Main B tournament in 1905 but White missed the win and only drew because he did not know about triangulation!
     One valuable point Griffiths emphasizes is that in defending these types of positions, it is very important that the defender keeps his Pawn as far back as possible since it is less exposed to attack. For example, in the starting position, if Black’s Pawn were on a7 the game would be drawn regardless of who was to move. Also, it is important in any Pawn ending to have as many spare pawn moves as possible because there are many examples where the player who first runs out of pawn moves finds himself in Zugzwang.

All Rook endings are drawn

 

   …except those that aren’t.

     What about double Rook endings?  Are they more likely, less likely or likely to be drawn with the same frequency?  The 'all Rook endings are drawn' rule of thumb is probably a good one, but I know it's wrong.
     Mark Dvoretsky wrote, "...the number of positions that must be known exactly is relatively small. It is only in Rook endgames that it is essential to memorize thirty or forty concrete positions; in other types of endgames there are even fewer." For me, that’s way too many…beyond my ability actually, but it’s a moot point because Dvoretsky didn’t say what those 30-40 endings are.
     Karsten Müller in ChessBase Endings 13 did a CD on how to play double rook endings, but who has the time or gumption to study it? Fine’s Basic Chess Endings as been my ‘go to’ ending book for years, but there are only a few pages on double Rook endings in it. About all I was able to glean from it was superior side must take care to reduce to an ending which is favorable for him. That doesn’t tell me much though because I’m not always sure of 1) which side is superior and 2) which endings might be favorable.
     The endgame book I learned the most from was one I purchased back in the 1970’s by Peter Griffiths titled The Endings in Modern Theory and Practice. This is an excellent book, but you should probably be at least 1800 before tackling it and you’ll also need to be serious about studying it. Anyway, all Griffith had to say about double Rook endings was, “Sometimes they are nothing more than complicated versions of single Rook endings, but in many cases they have their own special characteristics…” Not much help and he only gave one gave example.
     The only thing I know for sure is that the main characteristic of such endings is the chance of doubling Rooks on the 2nd or 7th rank and this can often be so great an advantage that it usually overrides all other considerations, even a material advantage.
     In the following G15 we reached a double Rook ending early in the game and it appears that neither of us handled it well which is not surprising considering the complexity of the game.  In fact, anybody familiar with Pal Benko's long running endgame column in Chess Life will be aware that sometimes even Grandmasters don't always play Rook and Pawn endings well.  Also, given all the nuances of these endings, I'm not sure one can rely totally on engine analysis either.

Mystery Man

     Little is known about Philip Woliston though I believe IM John Donaldson and John Hilbert wrote an article on him for Chess Life back on 2003. Woliston was born in 1920 and first came to the attention of the chess world when he won the 1939 California State Championship. 
     In the December 1939 issue of Chess Review there was a brief article stating, “Philip Woliston, 19-year-old Los Angeles youth, scored a smashing victory in his conquest of the California State Championship tournament which concluded 23 November. Losing only one of his eight games, he outranked a field which included Harry Borochow, state titlist since 1930, Herman Steiner of the 1931 American international team, and George Koltanowski, better known for his exploits sans voir. Woliston, youngest competitor in the field of nine, and the youngest state champion ever to win El Dorado’s crown, has made an auspicious entry in this, his first important tournament.”

The final standings were:
1. Woliston 7.0
2-3. Borochow and Steiner 6.0
4. Koltanowski 4.5
5. Kovacs 4.0
6. Fink 3.0
7. Patterson 2.5
8. Bazad 2.0
9. Gibbs 0.0

     Later in 1939 Woliston lost a match to Herman Steiner and the following year he played in the US Championship and Ventnor City, New Jersey. In Reshevsky's Best Games of Chess Reshevsky published his win over Woliston in the 1940 Championship (see the previous post).

Final standings at Ventnor City 1940
1-2 Bernstein & Hanauer 8.0
3- Adams 7.5
4-6- Donovan, Santasiere & Ulvestad 6.5
7- Seidman 6.0
8- Woliston 5.5
9- Morris 4.0
10-11- Burge & McCormack
12- Stephens

     After Ventnor City name of Philip Woliston disappears. It is known that he lived in Seattle, Washington during his high school years and attended the same high school as Olaf Ulvestad only a few years after Ulvestad.  Supposedly Woliston and Ulvestad played chess 16 hours a day during that period.  During the mid 1930s, Woliston and his mother moved to the Los Angeles area and while there he played in a quadrangular tournament against Reuben Fine, Herman Steiner, and Harry Borochow.
     At some point Woliston changed his name to Philip Geffe and in 1972 he was still good enough to defeat a former World Junior Champion.  In 1975, playing under the name Geffe, he took second place in the Reno-Sparks tournament in Nevada.  According to the USCF his last published rating was in 2002 and he was rated 2230.
     According to Fred Reinfeld, "Woliston and Littman were quite outclassed, lacking the necessary experience for so formidable a contest." One of Woliston's losses was to 22-year-old George Shainswit. Also according to Reinfeld, this game “produced the most amazing position of the whole tournament!" Here is that strange game.

1940 US Championship

     The 1940 was the third championship tournament. Prior to that the title has been decided by match play until Frank Marshall had stepped aside in 1936 to allow a new championship era to begin.
      What was significant about this tournament was that it was the last championship tournament in which Reuben Fine, Samuel Reshevsky and Isaac Kashdan competed together. All three remained active during the 1940’s but never again competed in the same event. Eventually Kashdan abandoned chess for a business career and Fine for a career in psychiatry leaving Reshevsky to dominate American chess until the arrival of Fischer.
     There still wasn't much of a financial reward in chess and the championship prize fund had not grown; in fact between 1936 and 1938 it had been reduced.  In this tournament the organizers had unsuccessfully tried to drop the prize fund down to $400 (about $6,500 in today’s dollars). More than 50 years earlier in the Sixth American Congress held in 1864, first place had been worth over $7,500 in today’s dollars. In addition to Fine and Kashdan, other top players were devoting less time to chess because they needed to make a living. Two years earlier after the 1938 tournament the losing players had even asked the tournament organizing committee to return their $20 entry fees, around $325 in today’s money, because the tournament had made a slight profit, but the organizers refused. There had been a recession in 1937–1938 that actually occurred during the Great Depression. The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937 and lasted for 13 months through most of 1938 and personal income was 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. Times were hard for everyone and other things were more important than playing in chess tournaments.
     Reshevsky described the 1940 championship as a personal battle between him and Fine but that wasn't quite true. Their last-round game determined first prize, but there were actually other players who figured in fracas. Albert Pinkus had returned to chess after almost 10 years during which time he had been leading an adventurous life. Pinkus made a series of expeditions to the jungles of Guyana and Venezuela starting in 1932. Pinkus had won several major tournaments in the 1920s before he left on his expeditions with the intention of collecting both zoological and botanical specimens. His most important botanical collections took place between 1938 and early 1939, when he made a trip from Georgetown, British Guiana to the vicinity of Mount Roraima where he assembled some 290 herb specimens. His route took him up the Mazaruni River to the Kurupung River, overland to the Kamarung River from wherehe followed the Pakaraima Mountains on the Venezuelan side. Reaching Arabupu at the base of Roraima, he spent three months in the region, including ten days at the summit. His collections were important because they added to the few holdings obtained by previous explorers. 
     He called off further expeditions due to the outbreak of war and returned to New York in 1939 and resumed his chess career while working as a stockbroker. He went on to win the New York State Chess Championship in 1947 among other competitions.
     This tournament was also Kashdan's best challenge for the championship. Kashdan was from Brooklyn, New York, and was a 34-year-old insurance salesman. 
     Kashdan had taken an early lead and after 12 rounds was slightly ahead of Reshevsky. Fine was some distance back as a result of a 5th round loss to the colorless but solid Abraham Kuphick. To maintain his hopes Kashdan, playing White, had to score at least a draw his Round 13 game with Reshevsky while a win would likely mean first place. Their individual game was a Ruy Lopez with Kashdan conducting operations on the kingside when Reshevsky opened up the center and Kashdan exchanged minor pieces to obtain his favorite: the two bishops. That was a mistake because Reshevsky's two knights were so strong that at the cost of a pawn he had the better chances. They finally traded down to an ending which Kashdan lost when he made a major blunder. Unnerved by the loss, he lost the next day to a brilliant attack by Weaver Adams and so, after leading most of the way, ended up in third place two and a half points behind Reshevsky.
     Fine had overcome his loss to Kupchik by winning 10 and drawing 4 games so Fine and Reshevsky reached the final round to battle it out for first.

Final Standings:
1) Samuel Reshevsy 13
2) ReubenFine 12.5
3) Isaac Kashdan 10.5
4-5) Albert Pinkus and Albert Simonson 10.0
6-7) Abraham Kupchik and Arnold Denker 9.5
8-11) Sidney Bernstein, David Polland, Fred Reinfeld and George Shainswit 7.5
12-13) Weaver Adams and Herbert Seidman 7.0
14-15) Martin Green and Milton Hanauer
16) Philip Woliston 3.0
17) George Littman 2.0

Sicilian Wing Gambit Deferred

     I’ve been playing a lot online lately and am bored playing the Sicilian over and over, so gave the Wing Gambit a try. It worked OK, but for the most part I wasn’t satisfied with the positions I was getting so switched to the Wing Gambit Deferred: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.b4
     I don’t know any theory on it or even if there is any theory, but so far it’s been working out well and I like the positions I’ve been getting, but to be honest, I think that’s a testimony to the poor play of my opponents rather than the gambit itself. Against stronger opponents I don’t think it’s going to work. 
     In this game my 1600-rated opponent played the opening quite well, but his position suddenly collapsed when he overlooked my surprising 18th move. It was one of those moves I only noticed at the last moment and when I took a quick look at it, it was apparent that I couldn’t calculate the consequences, but played it anyway because of déjà vu.

Karpov vs. Spassky Match 1974

     Boris Spassky held the World Championship title from 1969 to 1972. In 1969 Spassky defeated Tigran Petrosian to become World Champion, then lost the title to Fischer in 1972.
     In the 1974 Candidates' matches, Spassky first defeated American Robert Byrne and so advanced to the semi-finals where his opponent was the rising star, Anatoly Karpov. Before the start of the semi-finals everybody was making predictions with most experts preferring the chances of Petrosian and Spassky, both former champions. Korchnoi and Karpov had both had recent successes but most people gave a lot of weight to the two former champions because neither seemed to have lost any of their strength and they had tremendous match experience at the highest level. But most experts were wrong. 
     The most sensational victory was Karpov’s crushing defeat of Spassky in Leningrad, despite Spassky’s winning the first game; the final result was a +1 −4 =6 loss for Spassky.
     Paul Keres wrote in the August 1974 issue of Chess Life: "I have the feeling that Spassky lost this match mainly for psychological reasons. I do not know why, but he apparently felt rather unsure in the handling of certain opening setups, and some strategical problems. Some games give me the strong impression that Spassky has lost faith in his own abilities, with a consequent reduction in his usual fighting spirit. Psychological disadvantages are sometimes sufficient to decide the issue in an encounter between equal opponents."
     Mikhail Botvinnik wrote in the preface to his book Anatoly Karpov, His Road to the World Championship: "In the second game, Spassky, who had won the first game did not play for a win with White, and on the seventeenth move - agreed to a draw. It is now clear that this decision of Spassky's was symptomatic. It was typical of the present-day Spassky, who wants to win with the minimum of extertion, and does not press himself. And when in the subsequent games Karpov forced him into a stern and uncompromising battle, Spassky suffered four defeats in 9 games."
     Karpov had developed a style that was very unusual for a young player. Instead of preferring complicated positions rife with tactical possibilities, Karpov preferred quiet positional play and ‘boring’ endgames. The result was he rarely lost. Karpov, mostly as a result of his association with one of the world’s leading opening theoreticians, Semyon Furman, had superb opening preparation.
     Keres thought Karpov had a weakness though in in handling of complicated strategic problems especially when good defensive technique was required. Spassky, on the other hand, had suffered a serious setback when he lost the title to Booby Fischer. In his loss to Karpov, Keres felt that Spassky’s defeat was a result of his own uncertainty and lack of fighting spirit. In some of the games Spassky was unable to exploit his chances and in game 6 he totally misjudged the position. He also had opening problems as White in handling the Car-Kann. As Black he made several dubious opening experiments and ended up in Keres’ words, “…not playing his own game.” He felt unsure handling openings and in some games gave the impression that he was unsure of himself.
     The following (game 3) was a beautiful performance by Karpov.

Ignoring Opening Principles

     I played some guy, let’s call him Butthead, a couple of games recently who ignored opening principles in our two games and as a result lost both games rather quickly. It made me wonder how he got a 1700+ rating on the site.
     In the first game as Black he opened 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.Nf3 e6 6.0–0. His setup looks fairly solid but looking at the position you immediately notice he had one piece developed while I have three and have castled.



This lead in development may not sound like much, but when he wasted another move by playing 6…c5 it completely opened up the position and after 7.exd5 Bxd5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9.dxc5 Qxc5 10.Be3 Qd5

 

he lasted another 7 moves. He immediately challenged me to another game and played the opening better but still got into trouble by ignoring general opening principles. I call him Butthead because, as I previously posted about guys like him, when mate was couldn't be avoided he set on the position for 5 minutes then disconnected.