Chess Tip Of The Day 454

The Blackmar-Diemer is similar to many gambits - not 100% sound, but extremely dangerous in the hands of a well-prepared and imaginative attacking player. In addition, the fact that White can get the key position against 90% of opponents is a significant advantage over many other gambit lines, which depend on Black's cooperation.

Steve Giddins, How To Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire

East Germany

AM making final preparations for flying to Berlin tomorrow for the 34th seniors' championship of Saxony-Anhalt, which starts at Magdeburg on Monday.

There are two sections, 65+ with 107 entries and 50+ with 39 entries.

Both tournaments have seven, mostly-morning, rounds over seven days, with a time control of 40 moves in 90 minutes, a further 30 minutes to finish, and a 30-second increment throughout.

The venue-hotel, Maritim, is also the venue for next spring's world senior team championships.

Image: German Tourist Board

Fascinating Ending

HERE is a a fascinating and instructive endgame position from Carl Portman's Never Mind The Grandmasters column in Chess magazine.

Black to make his 33rd move in Portman (1888 ECF) - Tayeb Kazemi (1791 ECF), Leamington (Warwickshire) League 2026

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Pawn endings with rival majorities are tricky, no matter how equal the engines reckon the position is (completely equal, according to Stockfish18 and Dragon1).

So how does one go about gaining winning chances, or, at least, setting the opponent problems?

The answer, I believe, is to try to create a passed pawn that will divert the enemy king, leaving your own king free to attack weak enemy pawns, and thus create another, this-time-winning, passer.

Here is an example from a 1991 rapid game at London's Barbican.

Black has just captured a knight on e6 in Spanton (151 BCF) - Martin Cutmore (152 BCF)

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

I played 26.Kf3, as advancing the king is rarely wrong in such positions, although the engines marginally prefer 26.g4!?

After 26...h5, I took the chance to also advance my backward pawn with 27.e4, and following 27...dxe4+ 28.Kxe4, we have a position with rival pawn-majorities.

The game is completely equal, according to Stockfish18 and Dragon1

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

28...f5+?

This natural-looking move not only gains space, but comes with a check, and yet after it Black is lost. The engines reckon several moves maintain the balance, including 28...g6, 28...a5 and 28...b5.

The problem with the text is that after 29.Kf4, Black is obliged to defend the kingside as 29...Kd5 30.Kxf5 Kxd4 is hopeless, eg 31.Kg6 Ke3 32.Kxg7 Kf4 33.Kh6 Kg4 34.g3, when Black's king will eventually have to move, allowing Kxh5.

My opponent played 29...Kf6 (29...g6 runs into the same trouble as in the game after 30.Kg5 Kf7 31.c4), but 30.c4 g6 31.d5 cxd5 32.cxd5 created a diverting passed pawn.

The game finished 32...a5 33.b3 b5 34.a4 b4 35.g3 Ke7 36.Ke5 1-0.

Returning to Portman-Kazemi, what would you play in the diagram position?
*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

The game saw 33...h5?, which, probably to both players' surprise, loses.

CP states that, after the move, "the engines goes up to '+7' for White." I do not know which engine he is talking about, but for a long time Stockfish18 puts White's advantage at a little over 3.00, while Dragon1 gives White only the upper hand. However, after allowing them more time than I usually would, Stockfish18's evaluation rises to just over +4.00, while Dragon1 agrees White is winning, but puts the advantage at a little under +2.00.

Even so, whatever the precise number, there seems little doubt White is winning, whereas moves such as 33...g4!? (CP's suggestion) and 33...a5 keep the game level.

I might have been inclined to play 33...Kd5, and if, as in the game, 34.c4, a sample continuation runs 34...bxc4+ 35.bxc4+ Kd6, when neither side is able to safely create a diverting passer.

In the game, White met Black's faulty 33rd move by gaining space with 34.c4!, which the engines agree is the strongest continuation by some distance.

There followed 34...a6 35.a4 Kd6 36.a5 Ke6.

How should White proceed?

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

37.Ke3

Also winning is 27.h4 - the idea will become apparent as the game progresses.

However, simply creating a passed pawn is NOT the way to go. Indeed, 37.cxb5?? turns a win into a loss after 37...cxb5 as, far from diverting Black's king, the sequence allows the king to advance to the d5 square, eg 38.Ke3 Kd5 39.Kd3 f4 40.gxf4 gxf4, when it is Black who has created a diverting passer, a possible continuation being 41.b4 f3!? 42.Ke3 f2 43.Kxf2 Kxd4 etc, or 41.h4 b4 42.Ke2 Kxd4 etc.

37...Kd6 38.h4!?

This could also have been played in answer to 37...Kf6.

38...bxc4 39.bxc4 gxh4

Or 39...g4 40.Kf4 Ke6 41.Kg5 etc.

40.gxh4 Ke6

Black has created a passed pawn, but rather than diverting White's king from a crucial part of the board, the sequence has created weak squares that invite the king to advance

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

41.Kf4 Kf6 42.d5!?

But this does create a passer that diverts.

42...cxd5

Or 42...c5 43.d6!? Ke6 44.d7 Kxd7 45.Kxf5 etc.

43.cxd5 Ke7

As CP points out, 43...Kg6 loses to 44.Ke5.

44.Kxf5 (1-0, 53 moves).

So why was 33...h5? weak? The answer is it eventually let White create kingside weaknesses in Black's position with 38.h4!?

Could Black have prevented this? Well, he could have prevented the h4 thrust, eg with 34...g4, but that does White's job for him by immediately creating black kingside weaknesses, a likely continuation being 35.Ke3 a6 36.Kf4 Kf6 37.cxb5 cxb5 (37...axb5 38.a4) 38.d5, when the diverting passer wins.

As is often the case, a 'simple' pawn ending has proved to be anything but simple.

Blogger Blow

TWO months ago I reported that the feeder widget on Blogger, which I use to update my Chess Tip Of The Day on Beau Chess, was malfunctioning.

It is supposed to take my daily tip from https://chessnuggets.blogspot.com/ and insert it in a space reserved in the top-right corner of https://beauchess.blogspot.com/.

From the start, the feed only worked on the web version of Beau Chess, not the mobile version, but at least it did work.

Then two months ago it started stalling, with long delays between updates, and it still only works intermittently, despite the problem being repeatedly reported by myself and others.

I know Blogger is free, and is indeed a remarkable product, but don't Blogger's owners Google feel any duty to maintain standards and correct bugs?

Lessons From Bischofsgrün IX

MY round-nine game, in which I was Black against Thomas Bildt (2029), featured a rare but sharp line from the King's Gambit, the following position being reached after White's eighth move.

White has just played 8.Bc1-d2

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

White is a pawn up, and is slightly ahead in development in that White has four pieces developed (queen, bishop and two knights), while Black has two (bishop and knight), but has also castled.

If left undisturbed, White will, next move, castle long, after which he will have no worries.

Black's obvious move to delay castling is ...Re8+, but there is also ...Ng4 to be considered, which indirectly delays castling by threatening the triple fork ...Nf2 (if White has castled, the knight would hit the queen and both rooks).

I chose 8...Ng4?, and was rewarded by the sequence 9.Ne4?? Bf5, after which, as I showed in my annotations to the game, Black has a large advantage.

However, while Ne4 was a blunder, turning a winning position into a losing one. according to Stockfish18 and Dragon1, the idea is correct.

But the right way to implement it is with 9.Ng5, threatening checkmate. Black can defend against the threat by 9...g6, or 9...Re8+ 10.Be2 g6, but in each case there follows ...Nce4, when White simultaneously defends f2 and attacks c5.

LESSON: when you have two moves that seem to answer an important need in the opening, but one of the moves involves moving an already developed piece, while the other move develops an extra piece, you must be absolutely certain the former move is significantly better as you are not helping your development.

Lessons From Bischofsgrün VIII

I HAVE been asked why, if I dislike draws so much, did I acquiesce to an exchange of queens in the following position in round eight, where I was White against Udo Waltenberger (2033).

Black has just played 21...e7-e5!, and, after 22.Qxd8 Rbxd8, offered a draw, which I accepted

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****
The main, purely chess arguments, for White playing on are that White has the bishop-pair and more space in the centre.

But, apart from the fact that Black's knight has a strong outpost, and the bishops do not have great diagonals to work on, there is another major consideration.

This is that to avoid a draw by by keeping queens on would mean play remains very much in the middlegame, and in the middlegame a kingside majority (assuming both sides have castled short) is a potent force.

So. in the diagram, 22.Qf2, for example, could be answered by 22...f5, when Black is already better, both in engine terms and in practical human play.

LESSON: to paraphrase Cecil Purdy, taking risks to avoid a sterile draw against a higher-rated opponent is not a paying proposition.

Lessons From Bischofsgrün VI & VII

IN round six I was White against Dieter Bauer (1787), and in round seven I was Black against Manfred Herbold (2075).

The openings were very different - an English and a Sicilian Grand Prix Attack - but there was something similar about Black's position in both games after 10 moves.

Black has just captured on c4 in the English game

Black has just pushed the e pawn in the Sicilian game

In the English game, Black has one developed piece, a knight, against White's three - a bishop and two knights.

In the Sicilian game, Black has one developed piece, a bishop, against White's, arguably, four - both rooks and both knights, and White has castled.

In both games it is White to move, so Black's lack of development is even starker.

But there is a huge difference in how Stockfish18 and Dragon1 evaluate the positions.

In the first diagram, White is winning, according to the engines, after the game's 11.0-0, and after 11.Nxc6!

In the second diagram, again according to the engines, White has the normal slight edge one associates with moving first.

Why the difference, especially in view of the discrepancy in development being greater in the second diagram, and White having a doubled and vulnerable pawn in the first diagram?

The answer is that in the first diagram, lines have been opened in the centre, which makes it easier for pieces to attack the opponent's position in general, and the opponent's king in particular.

In the second diagram, while the centre is not closed, it is definitely not open either, with both sides having eight connected pawns, and none in contact with enemy pawns.

LESSON: the importance of development increases dramatically as lines are opened.

Lessons From Bischofsgrün V

MY round-five game, in which I was Black against Rolf Zens (1884), featured an instructive moment as the pressure built on my opponent's position.

I have just played 20...h7-h6

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

The move stops Ng5, and makes ...e4 a major threat.

Indeed, if it were Black to move in the diagram, Stockfish18 and Dragon1 reckon 21...e4 would give Black an advantage worth almost a minor piece, one of the points being that not only does the move attack the white knight, it threatens ...exd3 with ...Bxc4 to come.

Probably best is 21.Rac1, reinforcing c4, although the 3ngines agree Black is positionally winning.

The game saw 21.Ng1, which is not the most ridiculous move on the board as, although the knight is out of play on the back rank, White now has a pawn and three pieces covering the e4 square.

But the move did not achieve what was presumably its primary purpose (we did not have a postmortem), as I played 21...e4! anyway.

LESSON: when making a retrograde move that you feel is the only way to stop an opponent's dangerous continuation, you must be certain the move actually achieves its purpose.

Lessons From Bischofsgrün IV

IN round four, where I was White against Stef van Kesteren (1861), I reached the following lost rook-and-minor-piece ending.

I have just played 26.Rc7-c6

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Black is a pawn up, and has the better minor piece for play on an open board with pawns on both wings, especially when rooks are present.

Stockfish18 and Dragon1 reckon a reasonable consolidating move, such as 26...f6 or 26...Rfd8, leaves Black with a winning advantage worth about two pawns.

Naturally, there would still be a long way to go before the advantage could be turned into victory, but one way to virtually rule out winning chances was to play the game's 26...Bxd6?

After 27.Rxd6, the activity of the rook on the sixth rank means Black has at best a slight edge (Dragon1), or effectively no edge at all (Stockfish18 fluctuates, but eventually more-or-less settles on Black's advantage being worth a tenth of a pawn).

I was able to draw the game without any trouble.

LESSON: almost the last thing you want to do when playing for a win in an endgame is to swop off into a rook-and-pawn ending.

Lessons From Bischofsgrün III

IN my round-three game, where I was Black against Fide master Jochen Bruch (2115), my opponent offered a draw in the following position.

White has just captured on f7

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

I am a pawn up and have two passed pawns, so it did not take me long to play 33...Kxf7, confident that, barring a catastrophic mistake, I would either win or have to settle for a draw.

I should have remembered that in rook-and-bishop endings with opposite-colour bishops, what counts more than the odd pawn is the activity of the bishops.

In the diagram, White has a dark-square bishop, anchored on d4 and bearing down on g7, while the black light-square bishop is 'loose', albeit not immediately endangered, and impeded by the black pawn on e4.

If I had seriously considered such matters, I would not have been so surprised after my defeat to discover the position in the diagram is completely equal, according to Stockfish18 and Dragon1.

LESSON: Cecil Purdy put it rather more succinctly, if with a dash of hyperbole: "In endings with bishops of opposite colour, material means NOTHING, position EVERYTHING."