Random Chess Nuggets

1. When _defending_ in the endgame, exchange pawns, but *not* pieces.

2. In endgames, in order to have a choice between moving one or two squares when a critical situation arises, it is often useful to keep pawns on their initial position. ( *The Steinitz Rule* )

3. Always have a plan.

4. You *MUST* attack when you are better, improve your position when equal and be ready to make concessions & defend when you are worse off.

4. Exchange off your bad pieces; keep the good ones.

5. Look for your worsed-placed piece, then strive to improve it's position.

6. Always think hard and thoroughly before making a move; use your time on the clock _(you can't sell it after the game_ )

7. Strive to seize the initiative; be energetic and forceful.

8. In chess, you are only as strong as what you know.

9. Do not interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake😁

10. Superior play almost always leads to Superior positions

THE BOOGIEMAN ON THE CHESS BOARD

It will be entirely impossible to divorce psychology from chess as long as the game lingers. Oftentimes, in tense positions, when playing against an evenly matched opponent, the pressure from one’s opponent is palpable over the board, almost in a curious spiritual way. This is usually more pronounced against a player with whom you share a history (positive or negative); the confidence or fear generated, as the case may be, will definitely sway the game. This also holds true for players whom you have never played but have heard a lot about or observed. It is difficult, probably impossible, to get this completely off one’s mind. All tournament chess players will agree with me that when pairings are put up for the next round during a tournament, there is uncontrollable excitement, which will only be heightened when you see your opponent’s name and/or rating.   

Psychology is the most important factor in chess.

---Alexander Alekhine

The 13^th World Chess Champion, who most believed to be the best ever player of the game before the annoying interference of Magnus Carlsen (there was Fischer on the side too, but I doubt that’ll hold much water), Garry Kasparov, once said, “You cannot overestimate the importance of psychology in chess, and as much as some players try to downplay it, I believe that winning requires a constant and strong psychology not just at the board, but in every aspect of your life”. Judit Polgar, the undisputed best female ever to play the game, for now at least (till Hou Yifan proves this fact wrong), said, “Chess is 30% 0r 40% psychology. You don’t have this when you play a computer. I can’t confuse it.”

Your reputation is bound to win or lose some games for you. You are also bound to underrate or overate opponents, at least occasionally. As if the above stated fact isn’t enough to worry about, there is the added distraction of having to contend with scary positions and overestimated ones. I even have a position where I was overconfident and scared at the same time. Yeah, some of you will doubt that that is a possibility, so I will give the game here so you can judge.

[Event "Lagos Classics"][Site "Lagos"][Date "2014.10.21"]

[Round "1"]

[White "Degondo Simplice Armel"]

[Black "Eluekezi Phoenix Chukwuikeh"]

[Result "1/2-1/2"]

[ECO "C18"]

[WhiteElo "2191"]

[EventDate "2014.10.21"][SourceDate "2014.10.21"]

[PlyCount "82"]

[EventType "swiss"]

[EventRounds "7"]

[EventCountry "NGR"]

(I was Black in the game and played my usual French Defence) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 O-O 8. Bd3 c4 9. Bg5 (9.Bg5, effectively sacrificing his d3 Bishop, is probably dubious. I was genuinely spooked because I saw the intended threat: he was going for a mating attack. However, I had played this position numerous times and even gone through some literature without ever seeing this move. So I applied my ‘guilty until proven innocent’ slogan and captured it. Though I did so only after spending close to 25minutes analysing the possibilities and convincing myself I had enough resources to hold the position.) The game continued 9…cxd3 10. Bf6 g6 11. Qg5 (I spent about 20minutes at this point too [the time control was 90mins for the first 40moves + 30mins for the rest of the game +30secs after each move from move 1] I had used up almost 60minutes of my 90 and was still at move 12!)

 

 Black to play

 

11…Qc7 12. g4 (to prepare Qh6 by eliminating the option of…Nf5) Qxc3+ 13. Kf1 Qxa1+ 14. Kg2 Qxd4 (at this point, I was confident I would coast to victory. I was a full Rook and Bishop to the good. I would appeal to the reader to subject this game to computer engine analysis and see how inconsistently it evaluates this game. The mix of material imbalance coupled with White’s mate threat makes it very challenging to evaluate, so you can only imagine what I was going through)

 White to play

15. h3??(the idea behind 15.h3 makes perfect sense, but Nf3!! would do so and more. 15.h3 is aimed at preventing Qxg4+ which would free up the f5 square for my knight. At this point, I was only a couple of minutes to the time control with 25moves to go!) …Nd7 16. Nf3 Qc3 (with the intention of 17…Nxf6 18.exf6 Qxf6 in the event of my opponent playing 17.Qh6) 17. cxd3? (My nerves were wracked, but with the benefit of hindsight my opponent wasn’t faring any better. 17.cxd3 completely let me off the hook, but I couldn’t seize the moment to play 17…Nxf6 18.exf6 followed by 18…Nc6 or 18…h6!) 17…Nc6 18. Rc1

 

Black to play

 

Qxc1 (Sacrificing my queen for some respite. I just couldn’t take anymore. I was still winning, but the will wasn’t there as much as it was just a few moves earlier. The siege laid on my king was unbearable) 19. Qxc1 Ncxe5 20. Bxe5 Nxe5 21. Nxe5 f6 22. Nf3 Bd7 23. Qc7 Bc6. 24. d4 g5 25. h4 h6 26. hxg5 hxg5 27. Nh2 Rf7 28. Qd6 Re8 29. Nf1 Rd7 30. Qc5 e5 31. Ng3 exd4 32. Qxd4 Kf7 33. Nh5 Rd6 34.f3 a6 35. Ng3 Rde6 36. Nf5 Rh8 37. Qb6 Rc8 38. Kg3 Kg8 39. Qc5 Rd8 40. Qb6 Rd7 41. Qa7 Rd8 (the game eventually fizzled out into a tame draw) 1/2-1/2

Aron Nimzowitsch aptly said, “The threat is greater than it’s execution.” Despite doing my best to live by and teach the principle of ‘play the position, not the man’, I have to admit that understanding and applying chess psychology will win you many games. There are many instances where one side keeps attacking and the other defending, going on and on, till the attacker makes a heinous blunder that loses the game due to the defender’s stubborn defence. A lot of players also make horrible concessions that lose offhand because of a perceived threat. 

Subject every move to objective analysis. Try not to get spooked by the opponent’s reputation or that of the position. Be objective!

VEER OFF THE SANE PATH

The human brain is highly selective, and this comes at great cost especially for chessplayers. When making decisions over the chess board, only 'rational' moves will be considered. Most other options won't be looked at. But what is rational to one player might not be exactly rational to another. Alexey Shirov, known for his love for razor sharp positions, admitted he grew up playing chess at a local chess club which the former World Champion, and tactician, Mikhail Tal frequented. Watching the “Magician from Riga” do his thing, in the mostly smoke-filled room, no doubt molded Shirov into the violent chess player he has become. The human brain judges what is rational or not based on previous experiences. A chess player can stretch his 'rational radius' as much as he wants. Peter Leko, during a post mortem interview just after his first loss in his World Championship match against Kramnik back in 2004, said he decided against playing a particular move because he felt it would be too "ugly" for a World Championship game. For one to spot extraordinary moves over the board, one has to think in an extraordinary way.

After the following moves – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 Nbd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Nf3 h6 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Bf4 Re8 12.Nb5 a6, the position below arose from the L'Hermet Variation of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence.

 White had just played 12.Nb5 to which Black responded 12... a6, effectively 'kicking' the knight. As most ‘mere mortals’, the first thing we would ask ourselves is "Where do I retreat my knight to?"

Here White played 13. e6! (notice how 13.e6 exposes the c7 square to a double attack from White's knight and bishop, effectively threatening to fork Black's rooks with the looming Nxc7). The game continued... 13…axb5 14.exf7+ Kxf7 15.Qd5+ Re6 16.axb5!? Rxa1 17.Rxa1 Bb6 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Qc4 d5 20.Qc3 c5 (=) with an equal position. Nothing out of the ordinary, of course, but most players would first consider retreating the knight at first glance before any other considerations are permitted to creep in.

Chess engines look at everything. Before making their move, they consider every legal sequence of moves. This is why Komodo 9, for instance, won't make any shallow oversights. While it would be time consuming and counterproductive to consider every legal sequence of moves during a chess game, it is worth a million bucks to always keep an open mind. Take a cursory look at the position, sweep for intermezzos, useful checks and other hidden tactical continuations before getting back to your 3 or 4 sane candidate moves. Always keep the option of veering off the sane path in hand.

Alexander Grischuk, when asked how he managed to keep a poker face when Fabiano Caruana had the option of playing 46.Qg6 during their game in the just concluded London Chess Classics 2015, replied, “I didn’t see it.” This will probably offer some consolation to less successful chessplayers. You are only human and will miss a lot of things over the chess board.

Keep an open mind. Train your mind to veer off the sane path, for therein lies the ‘secret’ of masterpieces!

The Timeline Challenge

"I think I would beat Tal pretty easily. Fischer would be more difficult, but I think I could beat him too."


The reigning World Classical Chess Champion and World No.1 chess player by a decent distance, Magnus Carlsen, made the above 'quote' while granting an interview to THE TELEGRAPH, a few weeks ago. It is annoyingly reminiscent of the argument I found myself entangled in with a group of friends (all chess players) after we watched clips from the Tyson Fury vs Vladimir Klitschko boxing match. Someone noted that Tyson Fury's parents named him after former Heavyweight Boxing Champion, Mike Tyson (true or not, I can't say); then another declared that Tyson Fury would "beat 20 year-old Mike Tyson like a child!" Yeah, he said that. Two debating teams were magically formed. Sadly, like all such 'silly' timeline arguments are notorious for, hardly anything was learned or agreed upon.

I agree that the level of chess has improved astronomically over the years. However, making categorical sweeping statements, like "Kasparov would beat Fischer in a match", doesn't hold much water if any. Notably, Tal beat Kasparov in a blitz game (which he went to from hospital) in 1992, a month before the former's eventual demise. Kasparov did have a go at the ageing and ailing Mikhail Tal at Tblisi in 1978 and in 1979 at the USSR Championship, without coming away with a victory! Though Kasparov has a +1 score over Tal if you include 'every' recorded game they played (the simul exhibition by Tal, when Kasparov was just aboy + the 15games from 1978 to 1992), it doesn't help the argument on either side.

In 1988, at the age of 51 and in deplorable health, Mikhail Tal won the second official World Blitz Championship at Saint John, ahead of such players as Kasparov, the then reigning world champion, and ex-champion Anatoly Karpov. He defeated Rafael Vaganian by 3½–½ in the final.

At the risk of having totally gone off the point, I would also like to mention the isolated case of 79year old Victor Kortchnoi beating 18year old, then rising star, Fabiano Caruana in 2011 at the Gibraltar Opens.

I don't have to state the obvious, by saying the level of chess play is what it is today because we are "standing on the shoulders of giants". That's not the point I am making here. I just feel the timeline arguments are outright silly since they can't be proven credibly.