"Distinguished - Plays With Great Style"

INTERNATIONAL master Gary Lane has always struck me as a most-perceptive analyst.
Well, that has certainly been my verdict since coming across some analysis of his while I was surfing the internet yesterday.
The analysis, now only available in a cached version, seems to have been part of an article about the Closed Sicilian for the openings site chesspublishing.com.
It brought back memories of playing in the annual 11-round Politiken Cup in Copenhagen.
The game Lane cites was played in round six of the 2001 tournament, when I was following a White repertoire laid out in grandmaster John Emms' Everyman book Attacking With 1 e4 (I had been asked to review the book for Chris Rice's now-defunct Weekend Chess Magazine).
Spanton (2051) - Michael Tandrup (1795*)
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
Emms' book is "aimed for those who want an opening repertoire based on 1.e4 (but) who have neither the time nor the inclination to learn reams and reams of the latest modern opening theory." He recommends, among other lines, the Bishop's Opening against 1...e5, the King's Indian Attack against 1...e6 and the Closed Variation against 1...c5.
Emms explains: "In general I've opted for 'opening systems' in which learning the major ideas is just as important as learning the actual variations (but) many of my recommendations have been played at one time or another by world-class players, even world champions."
If this sounds good to you, bearing in mind that most of the theory presented by Emms is not vulnerable to sudden new discoveries, the book is available via Amazon for around £10. For what it is worth, I used the repertoire in Copenhagen to score +4=1-0 for a rating performance of 2234.
2...e6 3.g3 b6!?
I had been able to predict MT's first two moves, based on his earlier play in the tournament. But I had not expected ...b6, which in any case is not covered by Emms. Looking at ChessBase's 2019 Mega database, I see the text is only Black's sixth-most popular move, although it has been played by strong players including grandmaster Jaan Ehlvest.
4.Bg2 Bb7
I had a bit of a think here. The normal repertoire recommended by Emms is based around d3, Be3 and Qd2 before White develops his king's knight. But that is aimed at combatting Black's commonest Closed Sicilian strategy of fianchettoing his king's bishop. I decided that in the particular circumstances of this game, I should postpone as long as was reasonable a decision on whether to play d3 or d4. The game continued:
5.Nge2 Nc6 6.0-0 g6?
I gave this move a "dubious" annotation (?!) in my review for Weekend Chess Magazine, and Lane did the same in his chesspublishing.com article, but I now think a straight question-mark is correct. Lane wrote: "Normally, when Black plays an early ...e6 he puts his bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal. The problem with trying to fianchetto is that it leaves d6 weak. White exploits this detail with remarkable ease."

Normally, when Black plays an early ...e7−e6 he puts his bishop on the a3−f8 diagonal. The

problem with trying to fianchetto is that it leaves d6 weak. White exploits this detail

with remarkable ease.

Normally, when Black plays an early ...e7−e6 he puts his bishop on the a3−f8 diagonal. The

problem with trying to fianchetto is that it leaves d6 weak. White exploits this detail

with remarkable ease.

7.d4
Lane gave this an exclamation mark. I got the idea from grandmaster Andrew Soltis's 1990 Chess Digest booklet Beating The Sicilian Defense - Chameleon Variation. The idea of the Chameleon is to wait to see Black's set-up before deciding whether it is better countered with a Closed (d3) or Open (d4) Variation.
Lane wrote: "In the 'Closed Sicilian' there are times when White needs to advance the d pawn in order to take advantage of Black's inaccurate move-order. Here the English player and distinguished journalist plays with great style." There is then a link, that no longer works, to the game, and, presumably, more analysis. But we are not missing much as the game only lasts another 12 moves.
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bg7
There is another game in Mega19 in which a 2245 played 8...a6, but only managed to reach move 16 before throwing in the towel.

White to make his 9th move and seriously embarrass Black 

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
9.Ndb5 Bf8 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qb8 12.Nb5 Qxd6
The best move, according to analysis engines. Contrary to first impressions, it does not lose a piece to a fork, but that does not matter as Black's position is already completely gone.
13.Nxd6+ Ke7 14.e5
14.Nxb7 is met by 14...Rb8, when White's knight is trapped.
14...Rb8 15.Rd1 h6
For a while, this is Komodo9's second-choice (to 15...Ba8). The move prevents Bg5, but that is not the only way the dark-square bishop can get at Black's king.
16.b4 Nd8 17.b5 Bxg2 18.Ba3 Ba8?
Allowing an immediate finish.
19.Nf5+ 1-0
*This must have been a Danish rating as MT seems to have entered the Fide lists in October 2002 with a rating of 1922, and is today 1979.

Tarrasch Triumph

ANYONE with even a passing interest in the history of chess and its great players will know something of the rivalry between Nimzowitsch and Tarrasch.
Thanks to the power of the former's writings, this is often thought of as a clash between the old school, represented by Tarrasch, and the hypermoderns, represented by Nimzowtisch, and there is a lot of truth in this.
Their lifetime score favoured Nimzowitsch by the fairly convincing margin of +5=5-2, although it should be noted Tarrasch had white in just four of the 12 games.
Interestingly, both Tarrasch's wins came with the black pieces, including this excellent endgame performance at San Sebastian 1911.
Notes in italics are algebraicised from 500 Master Games Of Chess by Tartakower and du Mont.
Aron Nimzowitsch - Siegbert Tarrasch
Scotch Game
The following game, which very soon enters upon the endgame phase, skipping, so to speak, the middlegame, is impressive in its almost geometric character, reserving to the very end, in a king-and-pawn ending, a most thrilling surprise.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
The modern defence, which tends to avoid fluctuation and thereby the pitfalls of the opening.
I am not sure what to make of this comment (the book was originally published in 1952 by G Bell & Sons - I have the 1975 Dover reprint), but I do not believe that people today play 4...Nf6 to avoid opening complications.
5.Nxc6
An impatient continuation, instead of 5.Nc3 with greater expectations. An amusing draw occurs after 5.e5 Nxe5 6. Qe2 Qe7 7.Ne5 Qe6 (or 7...Qb4+) 8.Nd4 Qe7 etc.
The text is today the main continuation, while the pawn-sac line given by Tartakower is considered dubious (because of 7...Qb4+).
5...bxc6 6.Bd3
Logical play. If 6.Nd2, 6...Bc5 seeking to assume the initiative.
Today's mainline runs 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5 8.c4 Ba6 9.b3 g6, with  a position that occurs more than 1,000 times in ChessBase's 2019 Mega database.
6...d5
More straightforward than 6...d6.
7.exd5
If 7.Nd2, 7...Bc5, and if 7.e5, 7...Ng4.
7...cxd5 8.0-0
The tension would be relieved after 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bxd7+ Qxd7 10.0-0 Be7 etc.
8...Be7 9.c4
White tries, in too dogmatic a fashion, to reduce the number of pawns. 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Bg5 c6 etc would lead to equality.
Armand Blackmar, of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit-fame, twice played 9.Bf4 at an 1891 New York state tournament.
9...0-0
Of doubtful value would be 9...d4 10.b4. In spite of its energetic appearance, White's last move only enable(s) all the hostile minor pieces to get into action.
10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.Be4 Be6 12.Nc3
Trying to speed up his backward development, but his pawns lose contact with each other.
12...Nxc3 13.bxc3 Qxd1 14.Rxd1 Rad8
Now it is Black who, with good reasons, seeks exchanges.
15.Be3
Hrvoje Stevic (2512) - Alexander Beliavsky (2650), 2002 Slovakian Championship, saw 15.Bf4, with a draw in 24 moves.
15...c5 16.Bf3
More to the point would be 16.h3, but he tries to make things complicated for his opponent.
16...Rxd1+ 17.Rxd1 Rb8
Occupying a more favourable file than that occupied by White's rook. If 17...Bxa2, 18.Rd7, easily recovering his pawn (not 18.Ra1 Rb8 19.Be4 Rb2 etc).
18.h3 Rb2 19.Bd5
The first attempt to save the loss of a pawn.
19...Bxd5 20.Rxd5 Rxa2 21.c4
The first disillusionment. If 21.Bxc5, 21...Ra5 and wins.
21...Ra1+ 22.Kh2 Ra5
Clearly not 22...Ra2, as White could play 23.Bxc5.
23.f4
With one pawn less, White cannot afford to remain inactive.
The analysis engines Komodo9 and Stockfish10 reckon White should start centralising his king with 23.Kg3.
23...f6 24.Kg3 Kf7 25.Kf3 a6 26.h4 Ra4
Having secured his weak points (the bishop by the king's proximity and the a pawn by moving it), Black can go on simplifying.
27.Bxc5 Rxc4 28.Bxe7 Kxe7
A rook-ending is now reached, which at first sight promises a drawn result, but some rare finessing is yet to enliven the game.
29.Rh5 h6 30.Ra5 Rc6 31.Kg4 Rb6
Now if 32.Kf5, 32...Rb5+ wins - a far more convincing way to prevent the white king getting into the game than 31...g6, which allows liquidation by 32.h5.
32.f5 Kf7 33.Kh5
Barring a miracle, White thinks himself safe, but the miracle occurs.
33...g6+
Accurately thought out. The result hangs by a thread.
The engines prefer 33...Rb5 34.Rxa6 Rxf5+ 35.Kg4 Kg6, but, with pawns on only one flank, White must have good drawing chances.
34.Kxh6
Or 34.fxg6+ Kg7 35.Ra2 Rb5+ 36.Kg4 h5+ 37.Kf3 a5, followed by ...Kxg6, and Black's advantage is definite.
The engines reckon Black only has a slight edge after the continuation 38.g4 hxg4+ 39.Kxg4 Kxg6. Earlier in this line, they assess 35.Kg4 Kxg6 36.Kf4 as dead equal, and it is indeed hard to see how Black makes progress. But it seems Nimzowitsch's choice should also draw.
34...gxf5 35.Rxf5 Rb8
The point being to force the exchange of rooks after 36.Kh5, as in the (game), or also after 36.Kh7.
Despite Tartakower's comment, White is not lost.

White to play and draw

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
36.Kh5?
This loses, although it takes beautiful play by Tarrasch to prove it. The engines show White draws with 36.Kh7, as it turns out in this case the exchange of rooks is not decisive, viz 36...Rb5 37.Rxb5 axb5 38.g4 (the point is that White will queen as well as Black) b4 39.g5 fxg5 40.hxg5 b3 41.g6+ Kf6 42.g7 b2 43.g8=Q b1=Q+ 44.Kh8 (the only move, but it draws).
36...Rb5 37.Kg4
Trying to get into the "square."
37...Rxf5 38.Kxf5 a5 39.Ke4

Black to play and win

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
39...f5+! 0-1
A beautiful final point.
This must have been what Nimzowitsch missed at move 36. White cannot capture the f pawn as his king would no longer be able to stop Black's a pawn, and after 40.Kd3, Black plays 40...f4!, preventing White's g pawn from protecting the h pawn. Black's king then has enough time to capture both of White's pawns before White's king can capture the a pawn and get back to the kingside. A "miracle" indeed.

Compensation For The Exchange

ONE of the trickiest things to evaluate in chess is how much compensation is needed when sacrificing the exchange.
Some books give the impression exchange sacrifices are available in almost every game.
But at club level they are rare birds indeed - the exchange is often lost, but seldom sacrificed.
Depending on whom you take as your authority, the exchange is worth somewhere between 1.5 and 1.75 pawns, with the latter figure being more commonly favoured.
One of the problems at club level is that most players still use the traditional piece-value table: P-1, N-3, B-3, R-5, Q-9.
This creates several anomalies, eg giving up bishop and knight for rook and pawn on f7 would seem to be an even trade - 6pts each - and so should favour the player giving up the bishop and knight as the opponent loses castling rights. In practice, this is nearly always a bad trade.
Another anomaly is that a minor piece is no stronger than three pawns - again this is rarely the case in the opening or the middlegame (although in an ending it all depends on the placement of the remaining material).
The traditional table also gives the impression that two pawns are needed to compensate for the exchange.
I prefer to use a table discovered - the right word, I believe - by international master (now grandmaster) Larry Kaufman.
He used a computer to analyse almost 300,000 games, coming up with the following average piece values: P-1, N-3.25, B-3.25, R-5, Q-9.75 (his full article, which is a fascinating read, can be seen here: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-evaluation-of-material-imbalances-by-im-larry-kaufman).
The values are not hugely different from the traditional ones, and it is nice to see confirmation of the amazing coincidence that knights and bishops, despite being very different in their actions, have the same average strength. Think how difficult it would be to devise a game from scratch with such a feature.
But while knight and bishop are on average equal, two bishops are better than knight and bishop or two knights. Kaufman's computer analysis showed that on average the bishop-pair is worth half a pawn.
This new table immediately clears up the anomalies mentioned above. Giving up bishop and knight for rook and pawn is now losing 6.5pts for 6pts. Actually, taking into account that the bishop-pair is lost, it is actually giving up 7pts for 6pts - rarely will positional factors compensate for that.
Similarly, three pawns are no longer worth a bishop (as with all material evaluations, the caveat "on average" is implied).
Getting back to sacrificing the exchange, it can be seen that the sacrificer is giving up 1.75pts. So getting a pawn for the exchange loses 0.75pts. And if the winner of the exchange has had to give up the bishop-pair, the material deficit is just 0.25pts.
In other words, giving up the exchange when you have a pawn and the bishop-pair as compensation is almost an even trade - the placement of the remaining material on the board is likely to determine whether the sacrifice is sound.
All of this is a preamble to my game last night in round three of the Pimlico Summer open tournament.

Black to make his 17th move in Richard Black (188) - Spanton (171)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
My main analysis engines want Black to play around the knight, eg Stockfish10 gives 17...Qc6 18.b4 Be6 19.Qd3 with a slight edge to White. But I felt I had to get rid of the monster.
17...Bf8!? 18.Bg5 Bxd6
18...Be7 19.Bxe7 seemed positionally hopeless to me.
19.Bxf8
White takes the exchange. I was actually more worried about 19.cxd6!?
19...Bxc5
For the exchange, Black has a pawn and the bishop-pair - as discussed above, this is almost full material compensation. Positionally, at first glance, Black might even seem to be better as White has doubled and isolated b pawns. However, Black has problems smoothly completing development, and this gives White the initiative.
20.Bf6?!
This natural-looking move is not liked by the engines, and their reasoning will soon become apparent.
20...Bd4 21.Qd2 Qf5 22.Bg5
Intending to get rid of the bishop-pair by playing Be3, but the manoeuvre Bd8-f6-g5 has cost White a tempo.
22...Be6
Stockfish10 and Komodo9 slightly prefer 22...Bd7!? The point after 23.Be3 is to continue 23...Bc6 24.Bxe3 Rd8, when Black has lost the bishop-pair but gained active pieces.
23.Be3 Rd8 24.f4?!
This looks weakening. The engines prefer 24.Rfe1, eg 24...Bxb3 25.Qb4 Bd5 26.Bxd4 Qg5 27.g4 exd4 28.Qxd4, when only White can reasonably hope to win, but Black seems to have decent drawing chances.
24...Bxb3
I rejected 24...Qe4 because of 25.Rae1 exf4 26.Rxf4??, missing that Black can simply take the rook on f4 because White's bishop is pinned.
25.fxe5 Qxe5 26.Bxd4 Qxd4+ 27.Qxd4 Rxd4 28.Rac1 Be6
Could I have played 28...a5 and tried to activate my queenside majority? Stockfish10 is at first quite keen on the idea, but its evaluation soon changes to =. Komodo9 also quite likes the move, but reckons the position remains even. To me, 28...a5 looked rather loosening.
29.Rfd1 Rb4 30.Rd2 h5 31.Rc3 Kg7 32.Kf2 Kf6 33.Ke3 Ke5 ½–½

The Shortest Game

AT last weekend's Steve Boniface Memorial in Bristol I played - and lost - my longest ever recorded game, which took a draining 141 moves.
It got me thinking about my shortest decisive games, ie competitive games which resulted in a win or a loss.
I have 12 such games that finished in 10 moves or fewer, with Black winning eight of them. I seem to do rather well at this sort of thing as 10 of the 12 games were won by me.
Here is the shortest:
John Nicholson* (1910) - Spanton (1982)
Isle of Man 2007, Round 6
Spanish Closed Berlin
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Ne7!?
This is known as Mortimer's Trap, named after a James Mortimer who, if ChessBase's Mega database is taken as the sole authority, played it with a particular lack of success in the late 1800s. My notes to the game include a Kenilworth Chess Club online quote from Michael Goeller: "If White does not fall for the trap and does play aggressively, he can get a strong attack in at least three ways: with an early h4 thrust to harass the wandering knight on g6, a d4 break to blow open the centre, or a direct attack on f7 by Bc4 and Ng5."
And yet 4...Ne7!? comes to be the analysis engine Stockfish10's top choice!
5.Nxe5?
Can you see the trap White has fallen into?
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
5...c6 0-1
White resigned because he is losing a piece. Stockfish10 gives White's best as 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Bc4+, giving Black the upper hand - but not a winning advantage - after 7...d5.
Note that 6.Nc4? threatens mate but is easily met by 6...Ng6 or 6...d6. I was planning 6...d5?, but as John Saunders pointed out with the help of Fritz (I cannot recall which version), Black stays in the game with 7.e5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my quickest checkmate:
Jim Ship (119) - Spanton (160)
Southern Counties Chess Union Championship 2011-12, Herts @ Sussex
Albin Countergambit
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bg5!?
This logical-looking but uncommon continuation has been tried by strong players, including grandmaster Keith Arkell.
5...Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7?!
More popular, and almost certainly better, is 6...Ngxe7.
7.Nbd2?
This defends against 7...Qb4+, but that was not the threat it appears to be at first glance, eg 7.Nxd4! (I see from my notes that I was expecting 7.Qd2, which is solid but not as strong) Qb4+? 8.Nc3 Qxb2? 9.Ndb5, when White wins material. Better in this line is 7...Nxe5, but Black does not seem to have sufficient compensation for his pawn-minus.
7...Nxe5
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
8.Nxd4?? Nd3#
*This is the Irish John Nicholson; not to be confused with England's John G Nicholson.

Puzzling Ending

HERE is the ending of a game that has not made its way into ChessBase's Mega database.

White to make his 38th move in Joseph Blackburne - Louis van Vliet & James Manlove, London 1893

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
Black is a pawn up and, in my opinion, has the better minor piece (the pawns have little flexibility of movement, and two white pawns are fixed on dark squares - the same colour as the bishop). But the presence of rooks favours White, as he has the bishop, and it is far from obvious, at least to me, how Black is to make progress. For example, an exchange of minor pieces to remove the blockader of Black's passed pawn would result in a rook-and-pawn ending, with definite drawing chances for White.
Stockfish10 reckons Black's advantage is worth just under half a pawn. Komodo9 rates Black's chances as higher than this, but only by about a fifth of a pawn.
Notes in italics (algebraicised where appropriate) are by Tartakower & du Mont from 500 Master Games Of Chess.
They introduced the game thusly: The salient feature of this fine game is the clever manner in which the consultants gradually succeed in wresting more and more territory from their great opponent, the endgame in particular being of classic beauty.
38.Rc2?
This move passes unremarked, but allowing the rooks to come off virtually guarantees White's defeat. Perhaps there is some feature of the position I am missing, but I find it almost impossible to understand why Blackburne would play in this way, and why Tartakower would not call him on it.
The engines suggest 38.Re1, which stops Black's rook from invading.
38...Kd7
Accepting the challenge of a duel between knight and bishop.
Without actually saying so, Tartakower implies that allowing rooks to come off is a brave decision by Black (presumably on the ground that a bishop is often better than a knight in an ending with pawns on both sides of the board). However, Black did not have much choice, eg 38...Ra6? 39.Rc7 allows White right back into the game.
39.Rxc6
If White had changed his mind about exchanging with, say, 39.Re2, White's rook would have invaded with 39...Rc1.
39...Kxc6 40.Bg7 Nc5+ 41.Ke3
White's king would be nearer his vulnerable queenside pawns with 41.Kd2, but then Black's king would invade with 41...Ne6 42.Be5 d4 43.Kd3 Kd5 with ...Nc5+ to come.
41...Ne6
Good enough, but even stronger is 41...a4, when White will eventually lose both his queenside pawns for just one of Black's.
42.Be5 Kc5 43.Bf6
Or 43.Kd3 d4 44.Bb8 Kd5 etc.
43...d4+ 44.Kf3
The king prefers to remain the guardian of the f4 pawn.
44...Kb5 45.Be5 Kc5 46.Bb8 Kd5 47.Ba7
The bishop has to leave the useful diagonal. If 47.Be5, 47...Nxg5+ etc.
47...d3 48.Ke3 Nxf4!
The beginning of the end.
49.Bb6 a4 50.Bd8
Not 50.bxa4 Kc4 etc, nor 50.Kxf4 d2.
50...axb3 51.axb3 Ne6 52.Bb6 Nc5
Well thought out, for in the king's endgame Black's passed pawn ensures victory.
53.Bxc5 Kxc5 54.Kxd3 Kd5 55.Ke3 Ke5 56.h3 f4+
And Black wins.

Website Of The Year!

THE annual English Chess Federation awards have been announced https://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecf-awards-2019-2/ and I am proud to say website of the year has gone to … a club where I am a member: https://www.batterseachessclub.org.uk/

The Danger Of Not Computer-Checking Analysis

HERE is a fascinating ending that received much (misguided) praise in the December 2000 issue of Chess Life,  the magazine of the US Chess Federation.
The game is from a primary-schools championship held in Norway and, not surprisingly, did not make it into ChessBase's Mega database.
We are told the player of the black pieces was 12 years old and had a national elo of 708 (that converts to an ECF of 1).
He still plays chess today and has a Fide of 1926. His Finnish opponent is also registered with Fide, but does not have an international rating.

Black to make his 51st move in Mikko Salama - Hakon* Astrup

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
51...Nxb4??
In the Chess Life article this move gets an exclamation mark. The annotation is credited to "International Master Bjarke Kristenson." I suspect the surname should be Kristensen, as a Bjarke Kristensen was the lead author of Learn Chess From The World Champions: Kasparov-Anand 1995. He seems to have ceased being an active player in 2003, but there is a Fide-registered player called Bjarke Hautop Kristensen, born in 2000 and with a rating of 2223 - maybe his son?
Anyway, Kristensen, as I shall call the Chess Life annotator, commented: "51...Nb4! Sometimes it takes a child to see it! As White's knight is fully employed blocking a pawn, Black can afford to enter a 'king-and-pawn ending' - and still win!"
Kristensen says Astrup rejected 51...Nxe5 because "he wasn't sure how to stop White's pawn in time after 52.b5." Komodo9 and Stockfish10 show Black wins with 52...Nd3 (other moves, including 52...Ke7 and 52...Nd7, also win) 53.c6 (or 53.b6 Nxc5+ 54.Kb5 axb6) Ke7 54.Ka5 Nc5 55.b6 axb6+ 56.Kxb6 Ne6 etc. I am not claiming this was easy to see from the diagram (especially for a player with the equivalent of an ECF grade of 1), but I do not doubt Kristensen could work it out. Incidentally, 51...Ke7 also wins.
In any event, it is clear the move played does not deserve an exclamation mark. Indeed, as the following analysis shows, it should have turned a win into a loss.
52.Kxb4 Ke7 53.Kb5 Kd7 54.Nf3 Kc7 55.c6 a6+
Kristensen also gave this an exclamation mark, but it does not change the assessment of the position as winning for White.
56.Kxa6?
Kristensen does not comment on this move, but now the result should be a draw. White's correct plan was to force the queening of his c pawn, viz 56.Kc5 a5 57.Nd4! h2 58.Nb5+ Kd8! (58...Kc8 loses more quickly, ie 59.Kb6 h1=Q 60.Na7+ Kd8 61.c7+ Ke7 62.c8=Q and, according to the engines, White mates in 11 moves) 59.Kd6 h1=Q 60.c7+ Kc8 61.Na7+ Kb7 62.c8=Q+ Kxa7 63.Qc7+ Ka6 64.Qxf7. White's more-advanced passed pawn means he is winning this queen-and-pawn ending.
56...Kxc6 57.Ka5?
Again Kristensen does not comment, but this loses a tempo and changes a draw into a loss. Correct was 57.Nh2 as 57...Kd5 58.Kb5 Kxe5 59.Kc5 Kf5 60.Kd4 Kxg5 is a Nalimov endgame tablebase draw.
57...Kd5 58.Kb4 Ke4
Kristensen: "Another example of just how poorly a knight can guard a passed h (or a) pawn."
59.Nh2 Kxe5
This draws. Winning was 59...Kf5! (or 59...Kf4!), eg 60.Kc4 Kxg5 61.Kd3 (or 61.Kd4 Kf4) Kf4 62.Ke2 Kg3 (but not 62...Kxe5?? - another tablebase draw) etc.
60.Kc3 Kf4
This is given as 60...Kf5 in Chess Life, but Kristensen's next annotation suggests the text is correct.
61.Kd2 Kxg5
Kristensen gave this an exclamation mark, commenting: "Astrup was (not) fooled by 61...Kg3? 62.Ke3 Kxh2 63.Kf2 Kh1 64.Kf1! with a draw."
Kristensen added this final comment: "In the resulting endgame, Black's three passed pawns slowly but surely outplay White's single knight." Actually, the ending is drawn, although clearly much more fun for Black to play as he is the only one who can hope to win.
62.Ke3 Kh4 63.Kf4 g5+ 64.Kf3 f5 65.Kf2?
White is now losing. The only drawing move was 65.Nf1, when Black cannot make progress, eg 65...g4+ 66.Kf4 h2 67.Nxh2 g3 68.Nf3+ etc.
65...g4 66.Kf1 g3 67.Nf3+ Kg4 68.Ne5+ Kf4 69.Ng6+ Kf3 70.Nh4+ Kg4 71.Ng6 f4 (0-1, 90 moves)
As should go without saying, but I will state it anyway, Kristensen is a much stronger player than I am ever likely to be, but his annotations show how easy it is to get even simple-looking positions drastically wrong without the help of engines (admittedly they were not as strong in 2000 as they are today, but even so …)
*Chess Life has the spelling Haakon, but Fide uses Hakon. This is presumably due to a matter of taste when transliterating from the 29-letter Norwegian alphabet that uses accents.

The Longest Game (Steve Boniface Memorial - Day Three)

LOST this morning in 141 moves  - easily my longest ever game (at least where the scoresheet has been kept to the end) - against a 2100/196. And this afternoon I collapsed feebly against a 1979/172 in 28 moves. My final score of +2=0-3 meant I lost 0.4 Fide elo.

The Worst Move He's Ever Made

FACED an opponent with almost exactly the same rating as mine this afternoon in round three of the open section of the Steve Boniface Memorial at Bristol Grammar School.

I guarantee you will never guess how he blundered:

White to make his 40th move in John McGregor (1882/no ECF) - Spanton (1884/171)

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

White played 40.Bg3 - so far, not so bad. Then he went to the loo. I played 40...Nc6, and JM returned just as his time ran out. Heading for the toilets was "the worst move he's ever made." Despite this being a round-three game, JM did not realise the time control was 90 minutes plus a 30-second increment for all moves (no extra time at move 40).
I have now gained 11.4 Fide elo in the tournament.

King Safety

FACED a junior this morning in round two of the open section of the Steve Boniface Memorial in the Great Hall at Bristol Grammar School.

Black to make his 31st move in Lorenzo Fava (1603/142) - Spanton (1884/171)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
Grandmaster Nigel Davies teaches that the most important factor in chess is king safety.
In some ways that is stating the obvious, but I find it a useful piece of advice to keep in mind when assessing a position.
Here both kings are exposed, and the presence of queens and a pair of rooks means the kings are far from safe despite the general lack of material.
Bearing in mind the adage that it is normally a good idea to get queens off against juniors as that tends to defang their tactical skills, has Black got a good move here accomplishing this?
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
Definitely not. Catastrophic would be 31...Qa2+? 32.Qxa2 Rxa2+ 33.Kd3 Rxd2+?? as the pawn-ending is a simple win for White. His b pawn would divert Black's king to the queenside, whereupon White would clean up on the kingside.
31...Kf7!?
My main analysis engines, Stockfish10 and Komodo9, suggest moves such as 31...h5, 31...h6 and 31...Kh8, rating the position as completely equal.
The idea of the text is to free Black's queen from defending the e pawn, while not fearing a check from White's rook.
32.f4?
This loses, or at least makes White's defence very difficult.
Although Black need not fear a rook check, 32.Rd7+ was one way to draw despite looking dangerous at first sight because it leaves White's king further exposed. The point is that after 32...Kf6 White has 33.c4! as 33...Qa2+ 34.Qxa2 Rxa2 35.Kb3 Rxg3 36.Rxh7 Rg3 37.Kb4 Rxf3 is dead-equal, according to the engines, despite Black being a pawn up.
Simple queen moves, such as 32.Qb2, are also good enough.
32...Ra7
Simple, but very hard to meet.
33.g3?
This loses immediately. The engines agree White's best try was 33.c4 Rb7 (33...Qa1 also looks strong) 34.Qc3 Qa4+ 35.Kc1, but then 35...h5, protecting the h pawn, prepares to finish things off. The engines give lots of lines involving multiple checks by Black, with Black ending up winning a pawn (and the game). In practice it would be incredibly hard for White along the way to avoid losing more than a pawn.
33...Rb7
Out of a clear-blue sky, as it were, White's queen is trapped.
34.Rd6 Qe2+ 0-1
I am now 1.4 elo up in the tournament.

Steve Boniface Memorial

AM playing in the Steve Boniface* Memorial at Bristol Grammar School - five rounds over three days with a time control of 90 minutes plus a 30-second increment.
My hotel, the Ibis Bristol Centre, is less than a 15-minute walk from the venue, but getting there in that short space of time means passing some striking and opulent architecture.

Bristol University

Bristol Cathedral

Bristol's wealth was built on the profits of 18th-century commerce, and yet there are people who contend the slave trade was all bad.
My tournament certainly got off to a bad start this evening when I lost a rook-and-pawn ending to international master Chris Beaumont (2264/212), costing me 1.8 Fide elo.
*Steve Boniface was a prominent English arbiter. There is a tribute to him here: http://chessarbitersassociation.co.uk/html/boniface__steve.html

Knight v Bishop

I WAS on top board last night in round two of the open section of the Pimlico Summer congress, which is being held over five consecutive Thursdays.

Black has just played 34...Ke7-d6 and offered a draw in Spanton (171) - Gergely Kiss (207)

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
Normally a bishop outplays a knight in an ending with rival pawn-majorities. But here White can stop Black activating his queenside majority, after which it is just a question of whether White can win or only draw with his kingside majority. Bearing in mind that Black's bishop is fairly bad - four out of six black pawns are on light squares - Black's practical chances of holding this ending are very low.
35.Kd4 Be2 36.Nc3 Bf3 37.a4 bxa4 38.Nxa4 Bd1 39.Nc5 Bf3 40.Nb7+
40.e5+ is probably a quicker way to win, but there is no harm in probing with the knight as Black cannot prevent White coming back to the e5+ idea.
40...Ke6 41.Nd8+ Kd7 42.Nf7 Ke6 43.Nd8+
I got cold feet about 43.Nh8 because of 43...f5, when 44.Nxg6 seems to be the only way to keep winning chances. White then has to be certain he is winning after both 44...fxe4?! and 44...Bxe4. I was not sure, but I was fairly confident that returning the knight to the queenside would win.
43...Kd7 44.Nb7 Ke6 45.Nc5+ Kd6 46.Nd3 Ke6 47.Ke3 Bg2?
This speeds defeat, as does 47...Bg4? 48.Nf2. Black had to play 47...Bd1 or 47...Bh1, but in each case White wins slowly but comfortably, eg 47...Bd1 48.Nc5+ Kd6 49.Na6 Ba4 50.Kd4 Bc2 51.e5+ fxe5 52.fxe5+ Kd7 (52...Ke6 53.Nxc7 Kf5 54.e6 Kf6 55.Kc5) 53.Ke3 Bf5 54.Kf4 Bc2 55.Nb8+.
48.f5+ gxf5
If 48...Kf7, then 49.Nf4.
49.Nf4+ 1-0

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Junior?

RECEIVED the following email earlier in the week from fellow Battersea-member Joe Skielnik:

I was interested in your recent blog about playing juniors which reminded me of my own experience. Here is an extract from a recent article on Chessbase that you might have already seen?

Players develop particularly rapidly between the age of 10 to 18 but in these years you now only gain Elo points from other players (unlike previously). Some of these rating points come from junior players who quit chess. However, because the playing strength of virtually all junior players increases from the age of 10 to the age of 18 years these junior players mainly gain rating points from adult opponents who "sponsor" the ratings of the juniors. As a result a lot of players ranging from 1000 to 2000 Elo points are underrated which also affected higher Elo levels.

The full article is here  https://en.chessbase.com/post/problems-of-calculating-ratings-of-junior-players

Strange that FIDE are aware of the problem but seem unable to resolve it. Perhaps the answer is just to add 100-200 rating points according to age.

I think there is no doubt:
a) Juniors improve more quickly than adults, and so at any point in their development are more likely than adults to be underrated;
b) As the article contends, juniors improve with (almost) every tournament they play;
c) If a tournament is an all-junior affair, the average rating of the participants will not change even though each one of them has (probably) improved;
d) When such juniors later play in tournaments not restricted by age, their adult opponents are going to get an undeservedly lowered rating performance.
So what can be done about this?
Joe's suggestion of adding points to a rating according to age is similar to how the ECF/BCF used to treat juniors in its grading system. It may be the answer, but I am not statistically expert enough to know.
What I do know is that many adults exacerbate the problem by taking a defeatist attitude to playing juniors.
They expect to get outplayed tactically, so they either:
a) Fail to give the game a 100 percent effort, and so their fear of being outplayed tactically becomes self-fulfilling; or
b) Try to avoid complications at all costs and end up playing so passively that their young opponents get to build winning attacks unhindered.
There is no doubt most juniors are much stronger tactically than positionally. A junior rated 1700 could easily have a tactical strength of 2000, but positionally be little better than 1400.
This is why an old adage has it that the best way to play against juniors is to get queens off as soon as possible, even at the cost of positional concessions.
It might also be a good idea - I have no authority for this - to try opposite-side castling if reasonably possible.
This may sound counter-intuitive as such positions often lead to rival attacks, but my point is that many key decisions players have to make in such games are of a positional nature, eg when to make a move on the side of the board where you  are attacking, and when to make a move on the side of the board where you are defending.
Once you reach a certain age, another way to get back rating points you have been "robbed" of is to play in tournaments restricted to seniors.
Just as almost all juniors are underrated, so almost all seniors are overrated, as is evidenced by a gradual decline in their ratings.
Perhaps surprisingly, this can be especially true with titled players. This is because Fide has privileged the best players with a lower K factor, meaning their rating drops more slowly than non-titled players of the same strength.
But at the end of the day I suspect the best antidote to juniors is to have the right mental attitude, and to remember that they may well be afraid of your (hopefully) superior positional skills, as well as quite possibly being more nervous as a natural consequence of their immaturity.

Top Dogs

PLAYED top board last night for The Dogs Of Battersea against Richmond Juniors Gligameshs in the 150-average division of London's Summer League. We won the round-two match 4-0 to take us to 7.5/8 game points.
Kennan Kesterson (159) - Spanton (171)
Giuoco Piano
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 a6
Second in popularity only to 5...d6. The point of the text, if you have not seen it before, will soon become clear.
6.Bb3 Ba7
If you are not familiar with the Giuoco Piano, both players' sixth moves may seem a little peculiar. The idea in both cases, I believe, is that bishops are best-placed out of harm's way from enemy pawns and knights while still being able to exert long-range pressure. It is, however, perhaps surprising that Black especially can afford such slow play in a double-e pawn opening.
7.Nbd2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9.Nc4 Be6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Ne7?!
Most popular is 11...g5, but 12.Nxg5!? hxg5 13.Bxg5 Kg7 seemed unclear to me. Stockfish10 and Komodo9 reckon White has full compensation for the material deficit after 14.Qf3. The text has been chosen by players rated well over 2300, but is very suspect.
12.Ne3?!
Possibly a new move - it is Komodo9's second choice. All four games to reach this position in ChessBase's 2019 Mega database saw 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Nh4, with the engines agreeing White is much better.
12...Ng6 13.Nf5?
Now Black will be better. The engines prefer Bg3. either immediately or preceded by Bxe6.
13...Bxf5 14.exf5 Nxh4 15.Nxh4 Kh7 16.Bc2 Nd5!?
Possibly not the best, although it works out very well in the game. The engines find it difficult to come up with a recommendation they are happy to stick with, but eventually more-or-less settle on 16...Re8 or 16...Qd7.
17.Nf3 Qf6 18.Re1 g5?! 19.h3
As I had seen, 19.hxg6+ fxg6 is fine for Black, but the engines' 19.Nd2! is more problematic.
19...Rae8 20.Nd2 Kh8?!
Probably better was 20...Kg7 as 21.Ne4? can be safely met by 21...Qxf5, and if 22.d4, the engines calmly continue 22...exd4, the point being that the knight is pinned, eg 23.Nxd6?? Rxe1+ 24.Qxe1 Qxc2.

White to make his 21st move

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
21.g4??
Two question-marks might seem harsh, but after this positional howler, permanently giving up the f4 square to Black's knight, White is as good as lost. The engines like 21.Qf3, with roughly equal chances.
21...Nf4 22.Qf3?
Somewhat better is 22.Ne4, but after, say, 22...Qe7, Black is much better thanks to the dominant knight on f4.
22...d5 23.Bb3 c6 24.Bc2
Komodo9's choice, at least for a while, but it does not give a good impression. I thought White should try to break free with 24.c4, but the engines reckon 24...Rd8 keeps Black in control.
24...Qd6
The time was ripe for getting on with it on the kingside with 24...h5, but nevertheless the text leaves Black well on top.
25.Rf1?
Horribly passive, but neither Stockfish10's 25.Nf1 nor Komodo9's 25.Kh2?! help achieve any real counterplay.
25...f6 26.Rae1 Kg7 27.Rb1?
Completely aimless, but the engines' 27.Bd1 is not much help either - White is simply lost.
27...Rh8 28.Bd1 h5 29.Qg3 hxg4 30.Bxg4 Rxh3 0-1
A lot of people would have played on here but after 31.Bxh3 Ne2+ 32.Kg2 Nxg3 the engines assess Black's advantage as being worth more than a rook.
My updated Battersea statistics for 2018-19
Event...Colour...Grade...Opponent's Grade...Result
CLL........B..........167...….........196...............…D
LL...…….B...…...167...………..159...………….D
CLL...…..B...…...167...………..161...………….W
CLL...…..B...…...167...………..190...………….D
LL...…….W...…..167...………..161...….………W
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..148...………….D
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..165...………….W
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..160...………….D
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..159...………….D
LL...…….B...…...167...………..168...………….D
LL...…….W...…..171...………..159...………….W
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..198...……….….L
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..169...…………..L
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..196...…………..L
LL...…….B...…...171...………..182...…………..D
CLL...…..W...…..171...………..189...…………..L
LL...…….B...…...171...………..178...…………..L
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..164...…………..D
LL...…….B...…...171...………..188...………….W
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..200...…………..L
LL...…….B...…...171...………..169...…………..L
CLL...…..W...…..171...………..186...…………..D
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..153...…………..D
LL...……W...…...171...………..188...…………..L
LL...……W...…...171...………..159...…………..L
LL...……W...…...171...………..153...…………..L
CLL...…..B...…...171...…….….172...……….....D
LL............B.........171................139..................W
LL...….….B...…..171...…….….214...……....….L
LL...……..B...…..171...………..173...……….….L
LL...…….W...…..171...………..166...…………..L
SL...……..B...…..171...………..167...………….W
LL...…….W...…..171...………..122...………….W
SL...……..B...…..171...………..159...………….W
Overall this season for Battersea I have scored +9=12-13 for a grading performance of 166.
In season 2017-18 I scored +10=8-9 for a grading performance of 175.
CLL - Central London League; LL - London League; SL - Summer League

Disrupted 'Tube Puzzle'

TRAVELING from Shoreditch High Street to Peckham Rye on London Overground, I had the bad luck to be on a train taken out of service because of a "disruptive passenger."
The carriage I was in had the serial number 38153. As usual, each number should be used once, and once only, and must be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided to make a balanced equation.
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
My solution: 8 = 5 - 3 x (3 + 1)

Hampstead Highlights

IN this post I intend to highlight the moment the result of each of my games was decided in the weekend's five-round Hampstead U2200.
Round One
Spanton (1884/171) - Gavith Dharmasena (1560/154)

White to play and win

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
67.Kd5?
This only draws.
Interestingly, the analysis engine Komodo9 reckons the position is drawn, while Stockfish10 assesses it as winning for White. The latter engine is correct, as can be checked with the Nalimov endgame tablebase. The winning method is 67.Nd4 Kc4 (only now does Komodo9 recognise the win) 68.Ke5 (68.Ke3 also wins) Kc5 69.Nf3 Kc4 70.Nd2+ Kc3 71.Nb1+! (the key move, diverting Black's king as far as possible from a8) Kb2 (71...Kc4 does not help as Black's king soon has to give way to White's) 72.Kd4 Kxb1 73.Kc3 Kc1 74.Kb4 Kc2 75.Kxa4 Kc3 76.Kb5, and Black's king cannot reach a8.
The game saw:
67...Kxc2 68.Kc4 Kd2 69.Kb4 Kd3 70.Ka4 Kc4
This is drawn because White's king cannot escape the a file while simultaneously protecting the pawn and keeping Black's king out of a8. The remaining moves were:
71.Ka5 Kc5 72.Ka6 Kc6 73.a4 Kc7 74.Ka7 Kc6 75.a5 Kc7 76.a6 Kc8 ½–½
Round Two
Theodore Slade (2125/no ECF) - Spanton (1884/171)

Black to play and equalise

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
20...Nb4?
Correct was 20...g6, which equalises, according to the engines, eg 21.N5d4 Nb4 22.Rd7 Nd3 23.Nf5!? Nxb2, when neither 24.Nh6+ nor 24.e6!? seem to give any appreciable advantage. In any event, 20...g6 was much better than the text.
The game continued:
21.Rd7 Nxa2?
Another mistake, although White is well on top after any continuation.
22.Ng5 (1-0, 52 moves)
Round Three
Spanton (1884/171) - Wolfgang Jekel (1684/148)
I have already covered this game in the post https://beauchess.blogspot.com/2019/06/73rd-hampstead-u2200-round-three.html
Round Four
Ethan Sanitt (1723/159) - Spanton (1884/171)

Black to play and win

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
54...c4??
Somehow, in my mind's eye, White's bishop had captured on h7. After the text, White played 55.Bxc4 with an instant draw.
Instead, Black wins easily with 54...Kd3, eg 55.Bxh7 Be5 followed by ...c4 etc.
Round Five
Alex Barlov (1740/154) - Spanton (1884/171)

White to play and win

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
45.Bf1
This does not spoil the win but, after making the move, AB pressed his clock and almost immediately offered a draw, which I accepted.
White wins with 45.c5, eg 45...bxc5 46.bxc5 Kd5 47.Bb5 Kxc5 48.Bd7 etc.

73rd Hampstead U2200 Concluded

ROUND five this afternoon saw me draw with a 1740/154 junior in a game in which I was winning out of the opening, soon went wrong in the early middlegame, and carried on pushing much too long in an ending which, it seems from inputting the game into ChessBase, I was completely losing.
I finally could see no way of making progress, so when my apparently draw-focussed opponent, for the third time, offered a draw while my clock was running, I accepted.
I have much to look at and think over from this weekend's games, but whichever way I look at it my tournament score of +1=3-1 saw me lose 14.6 Fide elo.

73rd Hampstead U2200 Day Two

DREW this morning against a junior (1723/159) when I blundered a one-pawn advantage while pushing for a win in an opposite-coloured bishops ending.
I will need to look at this in detail to see if I was indeed winning - it was certainly fascinating, and deserved a better effort from me.
I am now losing 10.8 Fide elo in this tournament.

73rd Hampstead U2200 Round Three

Spanton (1884/171) - Wolfgang Jekel (1684/148)
Tiviakov Scandinavian
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.g3
The mainline runs 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Nc4 Qc7 8.Qf3 Nb6 9.Bf4 Qd8 10.Be5 Be6 11.Ne3 with a position that is supposed to be a little better for White, but with plenty of play left. What surprises me about this line, and lines like it, is why Black is apparently happy spending several tempi to get his queen back to d8 when he could have put it there without it being harassed on move three.
6...Bg4 7.Bg2 e6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Bf4 Qd8
Again, I do not understand how this line, with the queen ending up back on d8, can be considered good for Black.
10.Re1 0-0 11.h3 Bxf3
This was Tiviakov's choice in a similar position, but without the moves Re1 and ...0-0.
12.Bxf3 Bd6 13.Be5 Qc7?!
A better way to get rid of White's bishop-pair was 13...Bxe5, when 14.dxe5 leaves White with a small edge.
14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Ne4 Be7 16.Bg2
Clearing a way for White's queen to get to the kingside.
16...f5
The choice of Stockfish10 and Komodo9, but the position of Black's king looks increasingly draughty.
17.Nc3
This gives the option of the knight going to f4 via e2.
17...Nd7

White to make his 18th move

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
18.d5!?
Komodo9's choice; Stockfish10 prefers 18.Ne2.
18...e5?
Neither capture is satisfactory for Black: 18...exd5?? loses a piece to 19.Rxe7, while 18...cxd5 19.Nxd5 Qd8 (or 19...Qc5 or 19...Qd6) 20.Nxe7+ Qxe7 is problematic for Black after 21.Qf3 (Stockfish10) or 21.c3 (Komodo9).
It seems Black's best try was 18...Nc5, although White has a pleasant choice between 19.dxc6, 19.dxe6 and Stockfish10's ambitious 19.b4!?
19.dxc6 bxc6 20.Qf3 (1-0, 30 moves)
My tournament rating loss is now 6.6 Fide elo.

73rd Hampstead U2200 (cont)

LOST this afternoon to a teen rated 2125 (no ECF) who, naturally, did not make even a single draw offer. That cost me a further four Fide elo, bringing my tournament loss to 11.4.

Drawing To A Close

AM playing at the Adam Raoof-run 73rd Hampstead weekend congress, which has a time control of 60 minutes with a 30-second increment.
This morning in the U2200 section I played a junior (1560/154) who four times offered me a draw while my clock was running.
Ironically, once he had equalised, he stopped offering draws, although the game did end in a draw after 76 moves, costing me 7.4 Fide elo.

Pim O'Clock

THE annual Pimlico Summer congress, held over five consecutive Thursdays, began last night with a full complement of 64 entries.
It is split into three sections - open, U150 and U120 - with a time limit of 75 minutes plus a 15-second increment.
Combined with a 6.30pm start, this means the vast majority of games are over before 9pm.
Paul Carlucci (154) - Spanton (171)
Colle-Zukertort
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6
The fourth-most popular move in ChessBase's 2019 Mega database, and the worst-scoring percentage-wise among the top 10 replies. Nevertheless it has been tried by strong players including Carlsen and Rapport.
3.e3
The Colle route. More popular these days is the London System with 3.Bf4, while 3.c4 transposes into a mainline of the Chigorin.
3...Bg4 4.Be2 Nf6
Rapport and Morozevich have preferred 4...e6, which was played all the way back in 1882 by Winawer in a win over Blackburne. I guess the two moves will normally transpose.
5.0-0 e6 6.b3 Bd6
Morozevich chose 6...Ne7!? in a 1995 rapidplay win against Malaniuk (both players had ratings just above 2600). There are no other examples of the move in Mega19, and analysis engines Stockfish10 and Komodo9 disapprove, but it is dangerous to rely on engines' positional judgments in the opening.
7.Bb2 0-0 8.Ne5 Bf5!?
There is a lot to be said for 8...Bxe2. It exchanges White's good bishop, but also develops White's queen to a decent square.
 9.c4
An obvious alternative is 9.Nxc6 bxc6, but Black will be able to dissolve his doubled pawns. The engines continue 10.Nd2 (Stockfish10) or 10.c4 (Komodo9), with Black in each case replying 10...c5.
9...Nd7?!
The engines are not keen on this, preferring 9...Ne7 (Stockfish10) or 9...dxc4 (Komodo9). My idea, after a move such as 10.f4, was to evict White's knight with 10...f6, but then 11.Nxc6 bxc6 leaves Black looking vulnerable to a kingside pawn-storm.
10.Nxd7!?
This surprised me. The engines reckon it is enough for a slight edge, but they prefer 10.Nxc6 or 10.f4. Note that after 10.Nxc6 bxc6 White can prevent undoubling by 11.c5!?
10...Qxd7 11.Bd3?!
An old rule-of-thumb has it that when you have a bad bishop - in this case White's dark-square bishop, which is shut in by White's central pawns - you should not trade your good bishop. True, the dark-square bishop is doing a useful job in helping control the e5 square, and the coming exchange develops White's queen to a good square, but I do not believe these factors compensate for White's vulnerability on the light squares.
11...Bxd3 12.Qxd3 f5 13.a3

Black to make his 13th move

The stage is set for a battle of rival attacks - White on the queenside, Black on the kingside. Regardless of the merits of the two attacks, there will always be the realisation in both players' minds that White is playing for a long-term positional advantage while Black is playing for mate.
13...Rf6
I rejected 13...f4 because 14.Nd2 prevents an effective ...f3 as Black is not in a position to sac the exchange with 14...f3? 15.Nxf3 Rxf3?
14.c5!?
This comes to be Stockfish10's choice, at least for a while, but Komodo9 is unimpressed. As usual, pushing on like this is double-edged - it is certainly consistent with White's plan of queenside expansion, and it drives Black's bishop to an inferior square, but it means Black's kingside attack is less likely to be inconvenienced by central counterplay.
14...Be7 15.b4 Raf8
The engines do not like this, but I felt committed to playing on the kingside, and I wanted to be able to meet b5 with ...Nd8 without obstructing the a8 rook's route to joining the attack.
16.f4 h6?!
This may be too slow. I wanted to play 16...g5 but thought White was doing OK after 17.fxg5 Rg6 18.h4? h6 19.gxh6 Rxh6? 20.g3, which may be true. However, 19...Bxh4 is a major improvement.
17.Bc3?!
Komodo9 is happy with this move - for a while it is the engine's second choice - but if the idea is to stop b5 being met with ...Na5, then the idea is misplaced as 17.b5 Na5? 18.Nd2 will leave Black's queenside in disarray after a later Bc3 (indeed Stockfish10 reckons Black's best after 18.Nd2 is to sac a pawn with 18...Nc4 etc). However, having said all that, 17.Bc3?! does make the bishop better-placed for defensive duties on the kingside.
17...g5 18.fxg5?!
It was probably better to leave Black to open lines with an eventual ...gxf4 as g2 will be easier to defend than h2. Black could also push on with ...g4, but then will find it very difficult to open any lines on the kingside.
18...hxg5 19.b5 Nd8 20.Nd2 Rh6 21.Nf3 Bf6

White faces a tricky defence

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
22.Ra2?
Best seems to have been 22.Be1. The point is that if play proceeds as in the game with 22...g4 23.Ne5 Bxe5 24.dxe5 Qh7, White defends h2 with 25.Bg3. The text also envisages a defence of h2, but at great positional cost.
22...g4 23.Ne5?!
Komodo9 prefers 23.Ne1 (but not 23.Nd2? Qh7) although Stockfish10 is unsure; either way, Black is well on top.
23...Bxe5 24.dxe5 Qh7 25.g3 Nf7
White's light-square weaknesses (see note to White's 11th move) mean he is lost despite the material balance.
26.e4!?
Objectively this cannot be good, but trying for counterplay may be White's best practical choice.
26...dxe4 27.Qd7 Ng5
Also tempting was 27...Rd8!? but there is no need to complicate.
28.Qxh7+ Rxh7 29.Rd1 Nf3+ 30.Kh1 f4
Simpler is 30...Kf7 (or 30...Kg7), meeting 31.Rd7+ with 31...Kg6, but the text also wins.
31.Be1
This is Stockfish10's choice for a while, but the engines come to agree that best was 31.gxf4, when Black has a pleasant choice between 31...Rxf4, 31...Rh3, 31...g3 and several other moves.
31...Nxe1 32.Rxe1 f3 33.Kg1 Rd8 34.Rf2 Rd4 35.Kf1 Rh5 (0-1, 45 moves)

Uncork The Bubbly

TASTED my first champagne of the year last night after Battersea beat Kings Head to claim the unofficial title of best amateur team in London.
As you can see in the table below, our win in a match postponed from earlier in the season means we finish second in division one of the London League to the all-pro Wood Green.

Team	Matches played	Won	Drawn	Lost	TBD	Games for	Games against	Games diff.	Adjourn.	Match points	Double defaults	Penalty points	Penalty Match points
Wood Green 1	11	11	0	0	0	95	15	+80	–	11	–	–	–
Battersea 1	11	9	1	1	0	72.5	37.5	+35	–	9.5	–	-2	–
Richmond & Twickenham 1	11	8	1	2	0	71.5	38.5	+33	–	8.5	–	–	–
Streatham & Brixton 1	11	5	2	4	0	61.5	48.5	+13	–	6	–	–	–
Hackney 1	11	6	0	5	0	57.5	52.5	+5	–	6	–	-2	–
Wimbledon 1	11	5	2	4	0	54.5	55.5	-1	–	6	–	-2	–
Athenaeum 1	11	5	1	5	0	59.5	50.5	+9	–	5.5	–	–	–
Cavendish 1	11	2	4	5	0	52	57	-5	–	4	1	–	–
Mushrooms 1	11	2	2	7	0	45	65	-20	–	3	–	-2	–
Drunken Knights 1	11	3	0	8	0	19.5	88.5	-69	–	3	2	–	–
Kings Head 1	11	2	1	8	0	45	65	-20	–	2.5	–	-2	–
Drunken Knights 2	11	1	0	10	0	23.5	83.5	-60	–	1	3	-4	–

My contribution to this was a score of +3=1-2 for a grading performance of 173.

Captain Midhun Unnikrishnan (centre) with five other members of Battersea's first team

My game last night was the second to finish in a match that ended in our favour 7.5-2.5.
Afterwards I was congratulated by at least two of our stronger plays on a smooth positional performance. However, it was anything but …
Spanton (171) - Alistair Morton (122)
Spanish Exchange
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
On the morning of the match, Battersea captain Midhun Unnikrishnan sent an email with the admonition: "Do remember, the NWGC trophy (non-Wood Green championship) is at stake in this match. Every half a point matters."
I took this to be a plea not to try anything crazy as our likely grading advantage should take care of itself, so I played:
4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4
The oldest and most thematic approach. White dispenses with subtleties such as 5.0-0 or 5.Nc3 and gets on with creating a kingside pawn-majority.
5...exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 Nf6?!
A popular move, but it was condemned almost 80 years ago by Alekhine, who wrote: "This is an inferior move since White's e4 square can easily be protected while the knight has only very small prospects at f6. The correct plan consists of occupying the centre files with the rooks, not reducing the forces (particularly maintaining the two bishops) and gradually restricting the enemy pieces."
8.f3 Bc5?!
Easily the most-popular move in the position, but again Alekhine did not like it: "Now the exchange of one of the bishops is necessary without the slightest positional compensation."
[The quotes are from a collection of Alekhine's training annotations, published by Oxford University Press in 1980 as 107 Great Chess Battles.]
9.Be3 0-0 10.Nf5
"Of course!" - Alekhine.
The move was not so obvious to Lasker, who preferred 10.Nd2 and only drew in a simul given during his 1908 British tour.
10...Bxe3
Alekhine's comment: "10...Bb4+ would be no better; 11.c3 Bf5 12.cb etc with advantage to White."
11.Nxe3
A final word from the fourth world chess champion: "From now onwards any exchange that does not alter the pawn structure will favour White because it will facilitate the exploitation of his extra pawn on the king's side."
While during the game I did not recall Alekhine's exact words, I did remember the general thrust, and I rather stupidly thought the rest of the game would play itself.
11...Be6 12.Nc3
In two previous games in this line I preferred 12.Nd2, which allows queenside castling.
12...Rad8 13.Rd1
The game Alekhine was commenting on, Walter Cruz - Fricis Apsenieks, 1939 Olympiad, saw 13.0-0 (1-0, 46 moves).
13...Rxd1+ 14.Kxd1 Rd8+ 15.Ke2 Kf8 16.Rd1 Rxd1 17.Nxd1
Intending to route the knight via f2 to d3, from where it would eye the important dark squares c5, e5 and f4.
17...c5
Not 17...Bxa2?? 18.b3 etc.
18.a3 b5 19.Nf2 c4

White to make an instructive mistake

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
20.c3?
It is normal for White in the Spanish Exchange to arrange his queenside pawns in a V formation as it makes Black's task of creating a passed pawn extremely difficult (but not impossible, as we shall see).  However, there was as yet no need to move the c pawn, and here the main effects of playing c3 are to weaken the d3 square and leave White's queenside very inflexible, in particular making the b pawn a weakness.
Interestingly, Kings Head's top board David Okike (203), going over the game with my opponent, made some comment such as "yes" or "of course" when c3 was played on the board. That only goes to show how natural-looking the move is, but nevertheless it is a mistake and the root cause of White's later problems. A much better plan was to get on with it on the kingside with 20.f4 or 20.e5.
20...Nd7!
The knight heads for a4.
21.f4 f6 22.Nc2 c5
This takes away the c5 square from Black's knight but keeps White's pieces out of d4. Meanwhile Black's knight will continue its odyssey to a4.
23.Ke3 Nb6 24.h3 Ke7 25.Ne1 Kd6 26.g4 Na4 27.Nd1 h5!?
I am not sure Black should be pushing pawns on the kingside, where he is weaker, but my main analysis engines Komodo9 and Stockfish10 are happy with the move, assessing the position as completely equal.
28.f5
A la Lasker's famous win over Capablanca at St Petersburg 1914, as someone was kind enough to comment afterwards.
28...Bf7 29.Kf4 a5 30.Nf3 b4

A critical moment … Black threatens to win with 31...Nxb2! as 32.Nxb2 loses to 32...bxa3, when Black's cleverly created passer (see note to White's 20th) cannot be stopped

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
31.axb4
This averts the immediate crisis, but better was 31.e5+! I rejected it because of 31...fxe5+ 32.Nxe5 Nxb2?? missing that White has 33.Nxb2 bxa3 34.Nbxc4+ Bxc4 35.Nxc4+ and 36.Nxa3.
Instead of 31...fxe5+, the engines prefer 31...Ke7 32.exf6+ gxf6, with rough equality after 33.axb4 or 33.Ne1.
31...cxb4
Now Black has the better pawn-majority, and the only bishop (nearly always superior to a knight in a race between rival majorities).
32.Nd4?!
Trying to keep watch on the queenside and the kingside at the same time, but a knight is not well-suited to such work. The pawn thrust e5+ was still the way to go, although now it is good for no more than equality.
32...Kc5
This may not be the best - the engines cannot agree - but, like many moves for Black here, it is enough for an edge.
33.e5?
Now e5 is a mistake. It seems White had to settle for defence with 33.Nc2 or 33.Ke3.
33...fxe5+?
Returning the compliment - Black wins with 33...bxc3 34.bxc3 Nxc3! 35.Ne6+ Bxe6 36.fxe6 (or 36.Nxc3 fxe5+ 37.Kxe5 Bg8) Nd5+.
34.Kxe5 hxg4 35.hxg4 Nb6?
The final mistake. Correct was 35...bxc3 36.bxc3 Nb6, which the engines reckon is equal, but there is still a lot of play in the position.
36.Ne6+ Bxe6 37.Kxe6
This wins, whereas 37.fxe6 only draws.
37...b3
Nothing saves Black, eg 37...Nd5 38.g5 bxc3 39.Nxc3 Nxc3 40.bxc3 a4 41.f6 gxf6 42.gxf6 a3 43.f7 a2 44.f8=Q+ - the check gives White time to capture the a pawn.
38.g5 a4 39.f6 1-0
My updated Battersea statistics for 2018-19
Event...Colour...Grade...Opponent's Grade...Result
CLL........B..........167...….........196...............…D
LL...…….B...…...167...………..159...………….D
CLL...…..B...…...167...………..161...………….W
CLL...…..B...…...167...………..190...………….D
LL...…….W...…..167...………..161...….………W
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..148...………….D
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..165...………….W
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..160...………….D
CLL...…..W...…..167...………..159...………….D
LL...…….B...…...167...………..168...………….D
LL...…….W...…..171...………..159...………….W
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..198...……….….L
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..169...…………..L
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..196...…………..L
LL...…….B...…...171...………..182...…………..D
CLL...…..W...…..171...………..189...…………..L
LL...…….B...…...171...………..178...…………..L
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..164...…………..D
LL...…….B...…...171...………..188...………….W
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..200...…………..L
LL...…….B...…...171...………..169...…………..L
CLL...…..W...…..171...………..186...…………..D
CLL...…..B...…...171...………..153...…………..D
LL...……W...…...171...………..188...…………..L
LL...……W...…...171...………..159...…………..L
LL...……W...…...171...………..153...…………..L
CLL...…..B...…...171...…….….172...……….....D
LL............B.........171................139..................W
LL...….….B...…..171...…….….214...……....….L
LL...……..B...…..171...………..173...……….….L
LL...…….W...…..171...………..166...…………..L
SL...……..B...…..171...………..167...………….W
LL...…….W...…..171...………..122...………….W
Overall this season for Battersea I have scored +8=12-13 for a grading performance of 164.
In season 2017-18 I scored +10=8-9 for a grading performance of 175.
CLL - Central London League; LL - London League; SL - Summer League