Blast from the Past

All Things Chess
1

In the Issues Forum, Harry Payne posed the question of what current Executive Board candidate had won a tournament 25 years ago while beating two experienced masters along the way. The answer was ‘yours truly’ - a win at the Northeast Oklahoma Open. However, it looks like it was 26+ years ago - close enough, right?

The following are the two games, from rounds two and three. I then drew with Robert Chalker in the fourth round, and we shared first prize.

White: Randy Bauer(2108) Black: Paul Kuroda (2410)
Northeast Oklahoma Open 1986
Sicilian Grand Prix Attack

1.e4 c5 2.f4
This was my favorite method for dealing with the Sicilian Defense at that time, and it is a very dangerous system that was also scoring well for aggressive international players like Hebden, William Watson, and Plasket. Unfortunately, Tal’s gambit with 2…d5 3.exd5 Nf6!? has taken most of the fun out of this for white. Those still interested in playing similar structures must generally play 2.Nc3 followed by f4.

2…Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Bb5 Bg7 5.Bxc6!
This is a good practical choice, as white now has a clear-cut aim:. he will seek the better pawn structure, put his pawns on the light squares, and play to gain space on the kingside.

5…dxc6
More popular is 5…bxc6, which aims for a big center and counterplay down the half-open b-file. The text is certainly playable, however.

6.d3 Bg4?!
Black’s primary trump is the pair of bishops, and it’s strange to give them up so readily. White’s solid center, however, makes it difficult to find active duty for the piece. White’s strategy has already paid dividends, as black has failed to find an active plan.

7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Nd2
One advantage of white’s move order (as opposed to 2.Nc3 and 3.f4) is that he can now develop his queen knight in this way. Now c4 would be a nice post for the piece, from where it can go to e3 or e5 to support a kingside attack.

9…0-0 10.0-0 Ne8
Black envisions …Nc7-b5-d4, but the idea is time consuming. White now has a relatively clear position (one of our goals) and must develop and execute a plan. He has extra space on the kingside, and his bishop is restrained by the f4 pawn, so the idea should be clear: white needs to play f4-f5.

11.Nc4?! Nc7?!
On their eleventh move, both white and black fail to react properly to the nature of the position. From white’s perspective, he must realize that his play is on the kingside. To improve his chances, he needs to active his dark-squared bishop, which is hemmed in by the f4 pawn. That means that white needs to play f4-f5, and he should do so immediately with 11.f5! He would then have a solid advantage, especially since black cannot quickly stick a knight on e5, which is often a useful antidote to f4-f5.

From black’s perspective, he should prevent f4-f5. 11…f5! is a thematic counter that is also found in the Closed Sicilian. Black would have fully equal chances after that move.

12.f5!
White now has a solid advantage. He can choose an active development for his bishop, and he may also use his kingside pawns aggressively.

12…Nb5 13.g4
Black now thought for 20 minutes, probably realizing that white’s demonstration on the kingside is very real. Unfortunately for black, he has already spent three moves to bring his knight to b5, so there is nothing better than continuing on to d4.

13…Nd4 14.Qf2!
The queen keeps an eye on the c5 pawn and stays off the soon-to-be-opened g-file. White continues to play with a clear plan of kingside play, but it doesn’t hurt that the queen move also eyes the underprotected c5 pawn.

14…gxf5 15.gxf5 Kh8 16.Kh1 Rg8 17.Bg5
White has a clear strategic goal: develop his pieces aggressively on the kingside. His kingside space advantage makes that possible.

On the other hand, black finds it difficult to make his pieces work together. The knight looks good on d4, but it is unstable there (white may play c2-c3 to dislodge it at the appropriate moment) and it blocks the action of the dark-squared bishop and it cannot readily help in the defense of the kingside. The black queen and queen rook also do not have much to do.

17…Qd7 18.Ne3 Be5!?
Hoping, no doubt, for something like 19.Bf4? Bxf4 20.Qxf4 Ne2 followed by …Ng3+. Black is forced to resort to mixing things up tactically, because white’s better placed pieces have won the strategic battle.

19.Ng4!
The logical continuation of white’s play. He simply brings another piece to an aggressive post on the kingside. Given their strong posts on the kingside, it is not surprising that the tactics are in his favor. The nice thing about this game is that white really didn’t have to do an extraordinary calculating or thinking. His moves were logical and pretty easy to find. That is exactly the type of situation you want against a stronger player. Having been on the opposite side of these positions, it is also frustrating for your opponent.

19…Bc7
Black was almost out of time (time control was 25/1), and this was an attempt to mix it up. White’s active pieces and the chance to dislodge the d4 knight give him nearly a winning edge after 19…Rxg5 20.Nxe5 Qe8 21.c3.

20.Nf6! exf6?
This loses prosaically. Black can still put up a fight with 20…Qd6, since 21.e5? Qd8 22.Nxg8 Qd5+! turns the tables after 23.Qg2 Qxg2+ 23.Kxg2 Rxg8. White must play 21.Nxg8 Rxg8 22.Rg1! (the natural 22.Bf4 Qxf4! 23.Qxf4 Bxf4 24.Rxf4 Nxc2 allows black to fight back. White should still have the advantage in a line like 25.Rc1 Nb4 26.Rf3!. Then 26…Rd8 27.Rc3 prepares a3, and 27…Nxa2 28.Ra3 Nb4 29.Rxa7. Then passive defense like 29…Rd7? fails to 30.Rg3!, but the straightforward 29…Rxd3 30.Rxd3 Nxd3 31.Rxb7 Nf2+ 32.Kg2 Nxe4 33.Rxe7 favors the rook. Still there’s a lot of play in this variation). Now the tactical 22…Nf3? fails to the counterstroke 23.Bxe7!, and the tactically greedy 23…Nxf5 24.Raf1! should also consolidate to a winning position.

21.Bxf6+ Rg7 22.Rg1 Nxf5 23.Qxf5
White must play accurately to the end. 23.exf?? Qd5+! 24.Rg2 Be5 allows black to climb back into the game.

23…Qxf5 24.Bxg7+ Kg8 25.exf5 1-0

White: Tom Amburn (2262) Black: Randy Bauer (2108)
Northeast Oklahoma Open, 1986
English Opening, Botvinnik System

1.Nf3 c5
One note about this move order is that black must be willing to play the Sicilian after 2.e4.

2.c4 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0-0 e5 6.Nc3 Nge7 7.d3 0-0 8.Ne1
This is a typical maneuver in this line. White intends to transfer the knight from f3 to d5 via c2 and e3.

8…d6 9.a3
This mixes ideas and doesn’t work out very well. The normal approach is for white to continue toward d5 with 9.Nc2. After 9…Be6 10.Ne3 Qd7 11.Ned5 Bh3 12.a3 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 Ne7 15.Nxe7 Qxe7 16.e4 f5! with equality (Karpov-Radulov, Leningrad 1973).

9…a5
In the only game that I could find in my database with 9.a3, black now played 9…Be6. After 10.Nd5 Rb8 11.Bg5 f6 12.Bd2 f5 13.Rb1 a5 14.Nc2 b5 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 bxc4 17.dxc4 cxb4 18.Ncxb4 e4 with equal chances (and a draw five moves later) in Bertok-Vlasic, Makorska 1994. This is a typical example where both sides get in their liberating pawn levers. Often when this happens there is a quick liquidation and a draw.

10.Bd2?!
This is passive. White does better in general in this line with the active Bg5 (as in Bertok-Vlasic above). Often black finds this disruptive and responds with …f6. In that case, black must eventually play …f6-f5 to get his black-squared bishop back into play.

10…Be6
Now black is threatening to activate his game with …d6-d5. By contrast, white is a long way from generating similar activity.

11.Nd5
A strategy that both sides must keep in mind in the Botvinnik is the other player blocking the center entirely (here with e2-e4). If white would do that now, the play would move entirely to the wings. In this instance, black’s pieces are slightly more active (Be6 versus Bd2, black ready to play …Nd4) so he should have reasonable chances.

I must confess that I prefer playing the Botvinnik set-up against players of similar or higher rating. Part of the reason is that the opponent is less likely to go for the stodgy totally blocked positions that can sometimes arise in this complex.

11…Rb8
This helps carry out the typical wing thrust with …b7-b5. That advance strikes at the center, increases the scope of the rook, and may weaken the c4 pawn.

12.Rb1
If white wishes, he can wimp out with 12.a4, which puts to rest any ideas of …b7-b5. The play would then move entirely to the center and kingside. White probably avoided this because he didn’t want to give up his chances for his own b2-b4 advance.

12…b5!
If you can play this move in this line, you should. Levers are everything. If the c4 pawn disappears, black can dominate the center. Because he’s struck first, black has assumed the initiative.

13…Nxe7+ Nxe7 14.cxb5
Now 14.b3 f5 gives black an edge because of his better control of the center and attacking chances.

14…Rxb5 15.Qc1 a4! 16.Nc2 Qd7 17.Re1
White has no play whatsoever. Black now seeks to open up the position, which should benefit his better placed pieces.

17…Rc8 18.Ne3 d5
Black dominates the center and envisions c5-c4 with an attack on the queenside.

19.Qc2 Rb3 20.Nf1
White, short of space, wants to move his bishop and play Nd2 to drive away the b3 rook.

20…c4!
The difference in the scope of the rooks for the two sides is instructive.

21.dxc4 Rxc4 22.Qd1 Bf5
Not surprising, black’s active pieces win him a pawn.

23.Rc1 Rxb2 24.Ne3 Rd4 25.Nc2 Bxc2 26.Rxc2 Qb5 27.Qc1 Rxc2 28.Qxc2 Rc4
Controlling the open queenside files has been a recurring motif for black in this game.

29.Qd3 e4 30.Qe3 Nc6!
This simple re-development was my favorite move of the game. The knight controls a ton of key squares in the center and on the queenside. Now that the white queen is denied an avenue to black’s back rank, black is preparing …Qb3 and …Bf8.

31.Bf1 Qb3 32.Qg5 Rc2 33.h4 h6 34.Qf4 Qxa3 35.Rb1 Qe7 0-1
The a-pawn will end up costing white a whole piece.

2

Thanks for sharing. I wish the forum had more posts like this.

3

Thanks, Scott. I used to have a webpage on Compuserve (which tells you how long ago that was!) with annotated games and book reviews. Later, I migrated that content to IM Jeremy Silman’s website (where I still occasionally review books), but he has focused his content now entirely on the book reviews. I will post some more of my annotated games here. The following is an interesting one, as it combines annotations from both GM Yermolinsky and me on a game I played (and lost) to IM Michael Brooks:

Authoritative Help
I often counsel players to seek out well annotated games by grandmasters, because they demonstrate an analytical precision and understanding of the key aspects of the game that transcend those of other players. While masters will generally find most of the salient aspects of a game, they will miss many fine points, both tactical and strategic, that are deserving of attention.

I recently came upon a fine Internet site, the Yermo Chess Academy. One of the services that they offer is the opportunity to have a world class Grandmaster, former U.S. Champion Alex Yermolinsky, annotate your games.

I jumped at this opportunity, because a game I played several years ago against International Master Mike Brooks had always troubled me. I lost that game after a tough fight, but, even after many hours of my own analysis, I was convinced that I hadn’t found all of the game’s secrets.

Upon receiving Yermo’s succinct but precise notes, I found that my sneaking suspicions were correct. I also gained several valuable insights into the specific game that I was able to apply to my play in general.

I would heartily recommend this exercise to anybody seeking chess improvement. You may learn more about this and other services at the Yermo Chess Academy.

The comments in the following game are mine, as I wrote them up for the CompuServe Chess Forum’s CHAT magazine back in 1995. Grandmaster Yermolinsky’s comments are in italics, and I have provided some new comments in response to those of the Grandmaster.

[b]White: IM Mike Brooks (2558) Black: NM Randy Bauer (2212)
Midwest Open, 10-20-90 Pirc Defense, Classical Variation

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 Bg4 7.Be3 Nc6 8.d5 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Ne5 10.Be2 c6 11.f4 Ned7 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Rb1!? [/b]
Randy: The square b2 can be a problem for white in this type of position, since it is at the intersection of black’s g7 bishop and a rook or queen on the half-open b-file. White chooses to take a move to protect that spot before continuing with his natural play on the kingside, where he has more space and two bishops that can point in that direction.

GM Yermolinsky: 13.Qd3 Qb8 14.a3 Nc5 15.Bxc5 dxc5 16.e5 Nd5 17.Na4 f6 18.c4 Nb6 19.Nxc5 looked promising for white in Hracek-Ftacnik, Erevan Olympiad, 1996.

13…a5
Randy: My thought process about 13.Rb1!? was something along the lines of “what is he doing?! I don’t understand this move at all . . .” I finally decided that it was possible that he was preparing play on the queenside with b2-b4, a2-a4, and b4-b5, and my move discourages that plan. Black’s play is on the queenside anyway, so the move makes sense even if its original motivation was wrong.

Yermolinksy: Useless. Better is 13…Qc7 14.g4 (14.Qd3 Nb6 15.Kh1 d5 16.e5 Nfd7 17.Bg1 e6 black is very comfortable) 14…Nb6 15.g5 Nfd7 16.Qd2 e6 17.f5 exf5 18.exf5 Rfe8 followed by d6-d5, with an unclear game.

14.g4
Randy: “Oh, I guess I understand where white intends to play now.”

14…Nb6
Randy: This is a common reaction to the threat of g4-g5 – the knight on d7 clears that square for his partner. The point is that d7 is usually a better square than e8 – it contests the important e5 square and doesn’t interfere with the rooks.

15.g5 Nfd7 16.h4 f6
Randy: White is playing to overrun black in breathtaking fashion. How should black respond? The first thing that he shouldn’t do is panic. the black position is solid, and he’s played fundamentally sound moves. The next thing that black must do is seek his counterplay. In this case, black’s counterplay on the queenside is not sufficiently developed to serve as the way of slowing down the white pawn advances. There are other ways, however.

In the black fianchetto positions arising out of the Sicilian and Pirc Defenses, the e5 square can often be the key for the defender. From there, a black knight can protect the often vulnerable f7 and g6 squares while also attacking and controlling key white squares like c4, g4, f3, and d3. The knight also prevents the e-pawn from advancing.

It is very hard to mate black in these types of positions when he has an iron grip on the e5 square. In this position, if white blindly advances, with, say 17.h5? fxg5 18.fxg5 Ne5! gives black a very nice game – his knight dominates the board.

I can hear some players now – how can black afford to make a weakening pawn advance when white is attacking on the kingside? It is true that we should not make weakening pawn advances in the face of an opponent’s attack, but often the best way to deal with an opponent’s attack is to create sufficient maneuvering space for our own pieces. In this case, black feels that he can over the light squares because his knights are well placed. In the meantime, he may be able to secure control of …e5 and gain a trade of rooks on the f-file, which would lessen the white attacking force.

GM Yermolinksy: Good move. White can’t be sure about his attack when the center is collapsing.

17.Rf2
Yermolinsky: 17.Bg4 Kh8 18.Be6 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5.

17…Qc7 18.Qf1 d5!
Randy: White’s play has been wing-oriented. As a result, black finds that his logical response is in the center. We’ve all heard the tired old axiom that a wing attack should be countered in the center. This game is an example of the logic of that concept. White has to some extent abandoned that sector, so the black advance, with the threat of 19…fxg5 followed by 20…d4, gains strength.
GM Yermolinsky: Well played again! I should give black the edge here.

19.Rd1 e6 20.Qh3 f5
Randy: Black was now happy: he had placed his pawns on the light squares, which didn’t interfere with his bishop while blunting his opponent’s. My thought process was that 21.h5 Re8 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Rh2 Kf7! got the king out of the way of the attack on the h-file. If 22.h6 Bf8 was better for black, since the white attack is stalled (by its own pawns!), but black’s central and queenside play was just beginning. Finally, 22.exf5 exf5 gave black good central control.

21.h5!?
Randy: this threatens to obtain a positionally won game with h5-h6 followed by e4-e5, when the black bishop is dead and white can play the game effectively a piece up (another typical pattern to recognize).

21…Rfe8?!
Randy: If the pawns were exchanged on either f5 or d5, this move would allow the rook to assume an active position on the open file, but, as white plays it, 21…Rfb8 would have saved an important tempo.

The key question, of course, is whether black can capture on e4. 21…fxe4 22.Qxe6+ is obviously bad for black, but perhaps he can defend after 21…dxe4 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Rh2 Rfe8 24.Bd4 (24.Qh7+ Kf7 25.Bd4 Rg8 with …Nf8 coming seems to defend, and 25.Qxg6+ Kxg6 26.Bh5+ Kh7 27.Bf7+ Bh6 28.Rxh6+ Kg7 is not convincing) 24…Nf8. White would, of course, have an attack for his pawn. I decided that I didn’t want to give my opponent that type of position.

GM Yermolinsky: I guess you paid too much respect to your opponent. Michael Brooks is a good player, but stepped over the line in this game. Better is 21…dxe4! 22.Rh2 Kf7. I don’t see a refutation of this. 23.Bd4 e5 24.fxe5 Nxe5 25.Rf2 Kg8 (25…c5? 26.Nb5 Qe7 27.Qb3+ c4 28.Qa3 unclear) 26.hxg6 hxg6 27.Rh2 Rad8 28.Qh7+ Kf7 29.Rh6 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Qe7 and black wins.

Randy, upon reflection : Grandmaster Yermolinsky’s comment, that I paid too much respect to my opponent, is right on the mark. Upon reflection, I probably would have taken the pawn against a lower-rated player. Food for thought!

22.hxg6
Randy: Now, since the bishop can retreat to f8, 22.h6 would only close up the kingside, which would favor black.

22…hxg6 23.Rh2 Nf8
GM Yermolinsky: 23…dxe4! 24.Qh7+ Kf7 25.Bd4 e5 26.fxe5 Nxe5 27.Rh6 (27.Nxe4 Rh8) 27…Rh8 28.Bxe5 Qxe5 29.Qxg6+ Ke7 is messy, but what is white to do here?

Randy, upon reflection: Bent Larsen once made a perceptive comment that a player must always examine every position with a fresh perspective, without regard to the moves played previously. Here black is still under the impression that taking the pawn is inadvisable, but, as Yermo shows, this isn’t necessarily the case.

24.e5 Nbd7
Randy: Black is going to prepare play on the b-file so gets the knight off the file. He also prevents an intrusive Bc5.

GM Yermolinsky: Black has a slight advantage.

25.Bf2?! Reb8 26.b3 Rb4!
Randy: Black needs counterplay. this hits the weak f-pawn and envisions play with, perhaps, …a5-a4. the absence of the bishop from e3 makes this possible.

27.Qf3?
Randy: Understandable, but I think that Mike just missed black’s idea. White wants to free his rook on d1 for offensive action, and 27.Be3 means that the rook must stay on the d-file because of the threat of …d5-d4. 27.Bg3 turns the bishop into a big pawn, but now . . .

27…Rxf4!
GM Yermolinsky: Fantastic concept!

28.Qxf4 Bxe5 29.Qh4 Bxc3 30.Rd4!?
Randy: Another fascinating move that I hadn’t considered, yet Mike played it fairly quickly. At this point I had about 20 minute and Mike 15 to get to move 45, and I didn’t spend too much time thinking about my response. Objectively, I felt that I had a good position and didn’t want to subject myself to a lightning attack. It’s not entirely clear that black cannot take the exchange, but the attack is easier to play. After 30…Bxd4 31.Bxd4 e5 white has several ways to pursue the attack.

After 32.Qh8+ Kf7 33.Rh7+ black may be able to defend with 33…Ke8 34.Bc5 Qd8 when the threat to the g5 pawn is hard for white to meet, and winning the queen by 35.Re7+ Qxe7 36.Bxe7 Kxe7 looks better for black. A better try for white seems to be the immediate 32.Bc5, the point being that 32…Nxc5? 33.Qh8+ Kf7 34.Rh7+ wins the queen under much better circumstances for white. After 32.Bc5 Qd8 33.Qh8+ Kf7 34.Rh7+! Nxh7 (34…Ke6 35.Qg8#) 35.Qxh7+ Ke6 36.Qxg6+ Nf6 37.Bd3! e5 38.Bf1! threatens both Bd4 and Bh3. Still, there may be a better defense for black in there somewhere.

GM Yermolinsky: 30.Bd4 Bxd4+ 31.Rxd4 Qe5.

30…Qe5 31.Bf1 Qg7 32.Rd3 Be5 33.Rh1 Bd6 34.R3h3 Rb8
Randy: Black decides to take a tempo to get his rook on a square covered by his minor pieces to prevent tactical ideas based on winning the rook at the tail-end of a checking combination. Still, there were some other ways for black to pursue the position. Black could play, for example, 34…a4, intending to meet 35.bxa4 with 35…Nc5.

GM Yermolinsky: 34…e5 35.Qh8+ Qxh8 36.Rxh8+ Kf7 37.Rah7+ Nxh7 38.Rxa8 Nxg5 39.Rxa5 e4 with a clear advantage for black.

Randy, upon reflection: John Nunn talks about lazy moves, and this is, as Yermo’s analysis shows, an example of one. While it’s understandable that black wants to remove those troublesome tactics based on the undefended rook, it is not necessary at this particular point in the game. The tactics don’t work for white, and black should be seeking ways to develop his play, not respond to threats that aren’t there yet.

35.c4!
Randy: White needs to soften up the strong black pawn center to get his light-squared bishop involved. This concept is something that black will soon fail to grasp, to his detriment.

35…Nc5 36.Be3 a4
Yermolinsky: maybe you shouldn’t have given him a passer (36…Ne4).

Randy, upon reflection: Actually, I recall being moderately surprised by this move. I think that, for whatever reason, I had a mental block and didn’t think that white could play 38.b4.

37.cxd5 cxd5 38.b4 Ne4 39.b5
Randy: This is the critical position. White has succeeded in creating play somewhere other than the h-file, which black has effectively defused. Indeed, both white bishops are now engaged and he has a passed b-pawn. Black, however, has also helped himself. His knight on e4 is very strong, his king is relatively safe (note how well the knight on f8 holds white at bay on the h-file), and with the white big guns on the h-file, it was time for black to turn his attention to a real problem for white, the a-pawn.

39…e5?
Randy: With about 3 minutes to get to the time control, black falters. A much better idea is 39…Qa1!, which threatens both …Rxb5 and …Qxa2. Black would intend to play …Be5 next, followed by taking the a-pawn, when his a4 pawn would be very hard to stop. This may force white into 40.Qh8+ Qxh8 41.Rxh8+ Kf7, but the trade of queens would cut down on white’s attacking chances, and black would seem to have the better chances in that endgame.

Black’s move weakens the central pawn bulwark that had been so effective in holding together the light squares. By recognizing their vulnerability, white quickly takes control.

GM Yermolinsky: You give this move a question mark, but I think you made some mistakes later on. The move e6-e5 is a bit loosening, but how are you going to win this game if not with the pawns?

Randy, upon reflection: Grandmaster Yermolinsky did not have my notes when he looked at the game, so I don’t know if he considered my suggestion of 39…Qa1 or not. After I sent a follow-up query about this position, Yermolinsky was good enough to have Boris Men, another member of the Yermo Chess Academy and former participant in the U.S. Championship, take a look at the game. This was his response:

Boris Men: About 39…Qa1. Alex asked me to look at your game too. I didn’t follow his analysis. In my opinion, this position is winning for black. You simply must keep track of the h8 square and a1-h8 diagonal. Say, for example, 39…Qa1 40.Kg1 Be5 (not 40…Rxb5? 41.Qh8+) 41.b6 Qxa2 42.Bf4 Bd4+ 43.Be3 Qb2. I would not go 39…e5 in order to keep control over this artery a1-h8. And of course, your pawns d5, e6, f5 along with your Ne4 is a guarantee of safety. I would not consider altering the structure.

Randy: This is an instructive exchange. To my way of thinking, the point is that, in chess, there are many positions where there will be a legitimate disagreement among strong players about the best plan. I think that both the move played and the suggested 39…Qa1 are good for black in this position – a sure sign that things are going well for the second player.

40.Qe1 f4 41.Qd1!
Randy: Hitting black’s Achilles heel.

41…Qf7 42.Bf2 Nxf2GM Yermolinsky: I understand that you wanted to simplify, but there was a better move – 42…Nxg5. You must have missed that one. After 43.Rd3 Rxb5 44.Qxa4 Qb7 black has a winning advantage.

Randy, upon reflection: Yermo is pointing out another common flaw in the thinking of the lower-rated player – that exchanges should always be welcomed. As noted, black should, with active minor pieces, not shrink away from the material gain. Over the next couple of moves black throws away a very good game.

43.Kxf2 Qa7+?
GM Yermolinsky: What was the time control? You play leaves an impression of a time scramble.

Randy, upon reflection: Yes, indeed, both players had less than a minute to get to move 45, and black suffers from the old “duffer sees a check, duffer gives a check” syndrome. Still, black totally falls apart at the end, and the clock shouldn’t be the only excuse.

44.Kg2 Qf7
GM Yermolinsky: 44…Qc5 and black is still better!

Randy, upon reflection: This is amazing to me. I had, during the game and while annotating it, already given black up for lost. The point, of course, is that black’s pawns are very threatening. If white would play 45.Qxa4 e4! looks very promising for black. I became fixated by the number of pawns, when actually the advanced nature of the black pawns is much more important than whether he has one or two pawns for the exchange. This is, of course, the type of thing that separates the great players from the not so great.

45.Bc4! dxc4 46.Qxd6
Randy: Things have changed dramatically, and white’s attack is now overwhelming. After 46…Rxb5 47.Rh8+ Kg7 48.Qxf8+! Qxf8 49.R1h7#

Yermolinsky: 46…Rxb5 47.Rh8+ Kg7 48.Qxf8+ Qxf8 49.R1h7#

46…Qb7+? Kf1 1-0
Randy: The moral of the story: seize your opportunities, but remember that pawns can’t move backward.

Randy, upon reflection: Grandmaster Yermolinsky makes a telling point that black’s mistakes didn’t necessarily come from the pawn advances but from not seizing other tactical opportunities that presented themselves along the way.

In many ways, this is a remarkable insight for me. I have always felt that I let this game get away with loosening play. In reality, it was from a lack of analytic precision, and maybe a bit of chess laziness sprinkled with over-respect for my opponent. This has given me some things to work on before my next meeting with an internationally titled opponent.

4

I love it.

I can hear Yermo’s deep, heavily Russian accented voice actually saying what’s quoted from him.

I’ve listened to him on ICC quite a bit; “Every Russian Schoolboy Knows”.

5

I learned a lot from his annotations. He’s a very gifted teacher. I’ve tried to do the same with my annotations of games, but there is clearly a difference between a 2700 player and a 2300 player.

6

Excellent thread. More actual chess would be a good thing around here.

7

Yep. I used to play a lot of ‘actual chess.’ Sometimes I wish I could do it more - hoping that, perhaps, in my retirement years I can do this more actively again.

In the meantime, here is another game from my past, which was key to my winning the State of Iowa Championsip. One of the problems I have with the USCF website is its lack of events prior to 1992. I was actually a NM in 1989, and lots of events, like this one, are not listed on the USCF website:

White: Mitch Weiss (2350) Black: Randy Bauer (2250)
1989 Iowa State Closed Championship
Sicilian Defense

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5
This was the critical game of the championship. My opponent, the defending champion, was the top-rated player and I was number two in the six-player round robin. Most of my pre-tournament preparation had been spent on 6.f4, my opponent’s usual choice. Before the tournament, however, I had prepared “something different” in case he played this most popular try.

6…e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 h6!??
The position after 10.g4 is considered the main line of the 6.Bg5 Najdorf and is still a hot topic in high level play. The theory on it is extensive and ever-changing. As an example, the primary theoretical work at that time on the Najdorf was John Nunn’s excellent Najdorf for the Tournament Player. That 1988 book contained 16 pages of double spaced text on the line with 10.g4. Black’s choice, 10…h6, merited just 6 lines in one column on one page.

Things have only gotten worse theory-wise since this game was played. John Nunn has recently starting revising his 1988 book. In 1988, he was able to cover all the variations of the Najdorf in 288 pages. Earlier this year, Nunn released a partial revision of his work. This time, he spent 320 pages on the lines with 6.Bg5 alone, of which 60 are devoted to 10.g4. All the other popular tries (6.Bc4, 6.Be2, 6.Be3, 6.f4, etc.) will be covered in a second volume of similar length!

By finding lines like the text, black is able to sidestep most of that theory. Of course, avoiding theory is of little use if the move you play is downright bad. In this case, I’ll grant you that 10…h6 is not as objectively good as black’s primary choice, 10…b5. However, the move isn’t without its points.

Black envisions a typical attack on the dark squares with …g5, which helps secure a fine outpost on e5 for black’s pieces. In similar positions, the g-pawn would be on g2, which is probably a better square for it.

Still, 10…h6 costs time, and white should be able to get an edge with accurate play. In my database, however, black scores about 50% with it (albeit from a small sample).

11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.h4 Qb6 13.Nb3
In 1988, all Nunn gave was 13.Nce2 g5!? without further comment, and I did a fair amount of original analysis on that position. After the game, I analyzed the game quite a bit with NM Dan Harger. His suggestion was 13.Nde2 g5 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.e5. Then 15…Rxh1 16.Qxh1 dxe5 17.f5! causes black some problems, but 16…Be7!? looks playable.

Interestingly, Nunn gives a little further information on Harger’s 13.Nde2 in his 1997 book. He gives 13.Nde2 g5 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxg5 e4 16.Qxe4 hxg5 17.h5 Ne5 18.Nd4 Bd7 19.Rh3 0-0-0 as unclear, based on Molvig-Kristensen, Copenhagen 1995.

At the time, I thought 13.Nb3 passive, as it removes the knight from a strong central post, and the knight does nothing but watch for the rest of the game. Nunn also ignores it in both his 1988 and 1997 books. However, when I repeated this opening in a preliminary game of the 1994 Iowa state postal championships, I found an interesting idea for white that I’d been oblivious to.

13…g5(?) 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.Rxh8+ Bxh8 16.f5?
Although this seemed logical at the time, it weakens the dark squares and hands over control of e5 without a fight. Of course, 16.fxg5? would be no better, as after …Ne5 black’s knight dominates the board and white’s pawns are fractured.

The testing try, which I found while analyzing my postal game, was 16.Nd2! Suddenly, the d6 pawn is a big weakness and the knight coming to c4 controls the e5 square as well.

I could find no satisfactory method for black and concluded that 13…g5 was in fact an error. In my postal game, I avoided 13…g5 and played 13…Qc7, offering to repeat the position. My opponent chose something else and I ended up winning the game.

16…Be5!
This may seem strange, since black generally bases his play in these types of positions around securing a knight on e5, but here it is the right decision. For starters, after 16…Ne5 17.Qh3 the dark squared bishop is uncomfortably placed and hard to activate. Second, the bishop on e5 absolutely dominates the board. It has no counterpart, and it simultaneously supports the weak d-pawn, threatens to block the f-file if necessary via …Bf4, and also keeps an eye on the c3 knight. No other minor piece on the board does so much.

17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Qh3
White logically aims at the black kingside via the open h-file. Another plan would have been to attempt to utilize the open f-file, but after 18.Be2 Qd8! black re-deploys his queen to the kingside with good play.

It’s important to note that all the long term prospects are black’s. His two bishops are potentially very strong (and his dark-squared bishop already the best minor piece on the board), and white’s g and e-pawns are targets. That means that black can defend by offering queen trades.

18…Qf2!
After I played this move, my opponent thought for 16 minutes. I think he was realizing that black was taking control of the game. Black’s move maintains his dark square grip while re-deploying the queen to the kingside. Now on Be2 or Bd3 black plays …Qh2 and, if necessary, …Qf4+ Black welcomes the trade of queens, since in any endgame the white light-squared bishop will be the worst minor piece on the board because of the e and g-pawns, and black’s dark squared bishop will be the best. The other point of black’s move is that 19.Qh5+ Qf7 20.Qxg5?? Bf4+ wins the queen.

I can probably hear some of the skeptics now. “How can black be better? White is better developed and black’s king looks insecure.” In the Sicilian, however, black often looks optically bad when in fact his position is quite good.

This is one such example. Although white appears better developed, neither of his knights is doing much, and his light squared bishop is severely constricted. Black’s position is solid, and if he develops his queen bishop, he’s got much better long term chances.

19.Bc4 Nb6 20.Rf1 Qh2! 21.Qd3 Nxc4 22.Qxc4 Bd7 23.Qc7!?
White decides to mix it up, since if black gets to play …Rc8 white will be totally defensive.

23…b5 24.Kb1
White gets out of ideas based on checking on f4, but it is too slow. A better try was 24.Qb7 Rc8, but white can’t play 25.Qxa6 because of 25…b4, or 25.Rf7 because of 25…Bf4+ 26.Kd1 Qg1+ 27.Ke2 Qe3+ 28.Kd1 or Kf1 Qf3+ followed by a bishop check and …Qxf7. White has to stop for 25.a3, when Bxc3 26.bxc3 Rxc3 27.Nd4 at least muddies the water. Black shouldn’t give up his strong dark-squared bishop. After 25…Bf4+! (which removes tactics based on the rook getting to f7) 26.Kb1 Qh3 27.Rd1 Be5 black is clearly better.

24…Qg2 25.Rf7?
White can’t hope to get anything out of this, since his knights are so far removed from the action. A better try was 25.Rd1, but after 25…Qxg4 26.Rh1! Rc8 27.Qb7 Qg2! 29.Rh7 Qf1+ 30.Nc1 Rd8. White’s problem is that he can’t get the rook to the 8th rank, and black intends to just push the g-pawn.

25…Kxf7 26.Qxd7+ Kf6 27.Qh7 Qxg4 28.Qh6+ Kf7 29.Qh7+ Bg7
The threat of …Rh8 forces back the white queen. With white’s knights just spectating, the rest is simple technique - penetrate with the big guns to the seventh and eighth ranks.

30.Qh1 Rh8 31.Qf1+ Qf4 32.Qg1 Rh2 33.Nd1 Be5 34.Nc1 Qxe4 35.Nd3 Rh1 36.Nxe5+ dxe5 0-1
This win catapulted me into the lead. I ended up winning the state championship by half a point over Weiss.

8

Showing my age - when I first saw this in the early 1970’s - it was often (probably even generally) referred to as the Evanston variation - because it was played as the almost exclusive counter to the Sicilian by the Evanston High School team (Harold Boas, John Conner, Pete Conner, Paul Clarke, Philip Wong, Jay Adler, Adam…(Lastname? Rosen…?), etc.)

9

The first time I learned of it, it was called the Larsen-Santesiarre (?) variation. It was the subject of a Chess Digest pamphlet. That said, even as a junior 1800 player, I didn’t find the analysis particularly compelling.

10

Yes, IIRC that pamphlet came out shortly thereafter I believe (a year? Months?)

11

You are welcome Randy… :slight_smile:

12

Randy,
Question (dumb ole cowboy type) on move 18 why didn’t Kuroda play 18…f6 complications still, but seems stronger…perhaps even equalizes(or close). As well 19…Bc7 would appear to need a ? also. So there was 3 (18,19,20) bad moves for black leading to defeat…

13

What is this “chess” of which you speak? :laughing:

There are a few games of US chess pols that are worth looking at. Randy’s annotations are quite good - thanks for sharing, Randy!

Here’s an Interzonal win from Ruth Haring, and a Lone Pine sparkler from Bill Goichberg.

Both of these games were played when I was a toddler… :slight_smile:

14

Harry,
You’re right that 18…f6 is a better approach, but it’s hard for black to make this move when he outrates his opponent by 300 rating points. After this his structure is ugly and his bishop looks like a big pawn. At that point, black is probably just playing for a half-point.

I suspect that Kuroda intended to play …f6 after …Be5 but missed the strength of 19.Ng4!

15

Thanks! Since you enjoyed them, here’s (yet) another, which turned out to be the decisive game in the 1989 Iowa Closed State Championship:

White: Mitch Weiss (2350) Black: Randy Bauer (2250)
1989 Iowa State Closed Championship
Sicilian Defense, Najdorf Variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5
This was the critical game of the championship. My opponent, the defending champion, was the top-rated player and I was number two in the 6-player round robin. Most of my pre-tournament preparation had been spent on 6.f4, my opponent’s usual choice. Before the tournament, however, I had prepared “something different” in case he played this most popular try.

6…e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 h6!??
The position after 10.g4 is considered the main line of the 6.Bg5 Najdorf and is still a hot topic in high level play. The theory on it is extensive and ever-changing. As an example, the primary theoretical work at that time on the Najdorf was John Nunn’s excellent Najdorf for the Tournament Player. That 1988 book contained 16 pages of double spaced text on the line with 10.g4. Black’s choice, 10…h6, merited just 6 lines in one column on one page.

Things have only gotten worse theory-wise since this game was played. John Nunn has recently starting revising his 1988 book. In 1988, he was able to cover all the variations of the Najdorf in 288 pages. Earlier this year, Nunn released a partial revision of his work. This time, he spent 320 pages on the lines with 6.Bg5 alone, of which 60 are devoted to 10.g4. All the other popular tries (6.Bc4, 6.Be2, 6.Be3, 6.f4, etc.) will be covered in a second volume of similar length!

By finding lines like the text, black is able to sidestep most of that theory. Of course, avoiding theory is of little use if the move you play is downright bad. In this case, I’ll grant you that 10…h6 is not as objectively good as black’s primary choice, 10…b5. However, the move isn’t without its points.

Black envisions a typical attack on the dark squares with …g5, which helps secure a fine outpost on e5 for black’s pieces. In similar positions, the g-pawn would be on g2, which is probably a better square for it.

Still, 10…h6 costs time, and white should be able to get an edge with accurate play. In my database, however, black scores about 50% with it (albeit from a small sample).

11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.h4 Qb6 13.Nb3
In 1988, all Nunn gave was 13.Nce2 g5!? without further comment, and I did a fair amount of original analysis on that position. After the game, I analyzed the game quite a bit with NM Dan Harger. His suggestion was 13.Nde2 g5 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.e5. Then 15…Rxh1 16.Qxh1 dxe5 17.f5! causes black some problems, but 16…Be7!? looks playable.

Interestingly, Nunn gives a little further information on Harger’s 13.Nde2 in his 1997 book. He gives 13.Nde2 g5 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxg5 e4 16.Qxe4 hxg5 17.h5 Ne5 18.Nd4 Bd7 19.Rh3 0-0-0 as unclear, based on Molvig-Kristensen, Copenhagen 1995.

At the time, I thought 13.Nb3 passive, as it removes the knight from a strong central post, and the knight does nothing but watch for the rest of the game. Nunn also ignores it in both his 1988 and 1997 books. However, when I repeated this opening in a preliminary game of the 1994 Iowa state postal championships, I found an interesting idea for white that I’d been oblivious to.

13…g5(?) 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.Rxh8+ Bxh8 16.f5?
Although this seemed logical at the time, it weakens the dark squares and hands over control of e5 without a fight. Of course, 16.fxg5? would be no better, as after …Ne5 black’s knight dominates the board and white’s pawns are fractured.

The testing try, which I found while analyzing my postal game, was 16.Nd2! Suddenly, the d6 pawn is a big weakness and the knight coming to c4 controls the e5 square as well.

I could find no satisfactory method for black and concluded that 13…g5 was in fact an error. In my postal game, I avoided 13…g5 and played 13…Qc7, offering to repeat the position. My opponent chose something else and I ended up winning the game.

16…Be5!
This may seem strange, since black generally bases his play in these types of positions around securing a knight on e5, but here it is the right decision. For starters, after 16…Ne5 17.Qh3 the dark squared bishop is uncomfortably placed and hard to activate. Second, the bishop on e5 absolutely dominates the board. It has no counterpart, and it simultaneously supports the weak d-pawn, threatens to block the f-file if necessary via …Bf4, and also keeps an eye on the c3 knight. No other minor piece on the board does so much.

17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Qh3
White logically aims at the black kingside via the open h-file. Another plan would have been to attempt to utilize the open f-file, but after 18.Be2 Qd8! black re-deploys his queen to the kingside with good play.

It’s important to note that all the long term prospects are black’s. His two bishops are potentially very strong (and his dark-squared bishop already the best minor piece on the board), and white’s g and e-pawns are targets. That means that black can defend by offering queen trades.

18…Qf2!
After I played this move, my opponent thought for 16 minutes. I think he was realizing that black was taking control of the game. Black’s move maintains his dark square grip while re-deploying the queen to the kingside. Now on Be2 or Bd3 black plays …Qh2 and, if necessary, …Qf4+ Black welcomes the trade of queens, since in any endgame the white light-squared bishop will be the worst minor piece on the board because of the e and g-pawns, and black’s dark squared bishop will be the best. The other point of black’s move is that 19.Qh5+ Qf7 20.Qxg5?? Bf4+ wins the queen.

I can probably hear some of the skeptics now. “How can black be better? White is better developed and black’s king looks insecure.” In the Sicilian, however, black often looks optically bad when in fact his position is quite good.

This is one such example. Although white appears better developed, neither of his knights is doing much, and his light squared bishop is severely constricted. Black’s position is solid, and if he develops his queen bishop, he’s got much better long term chances.

19.Bc4 Nb6 20.Rf1 Qh2! 21.Qd3 Nxc4 22.Qxc4 Bd7 23.Qc7!?
White decides to mix it up, since if black gets to play …Rc8 white will be totally defensive.

23…b5 24.Kb1
White gets out of ideas based on checking on f4, but it is too slow. A better try was 24.Qb7 Rc8, but white can’t play 25.Qxa6 because of 25…b4, or 25.Rf7 because of 25…Bf4+ 26.Kd1 Qg1+ 27.Ke2 Qe3+ 28.Kd1 or Kf1 Qf3+ followed by a bishop check and …Qxf7. White has to stop for 25.a3, when Bxc3 26.bxc3 Rxc3 27.Nd4 at least muddies the water. Black shouldn’t give up his strong dark-squared bishop. After 25…Bf4+! (which removes tactics based on the rook getting to f7) 26.Kb1 Qh3 27.Rd1 Be5 black is clearly better.

24…Qg2 25.Rf7?
White can’t hope to get anything out of this, since his knights are so far removed from the action. A better try was 25.Rd1, but after 25…Qxg4 26.Rh1! Rc8 27.Qb7 Qg2! 29.Rh7 Qf1+ 30.Nc1 Rd8. White’s problem is that he can’t get the rook to the 8th rank, and black intends to just push the g-pawn.

25…Kxf7 26.Qxd7+ Kf6 27.Qh7 Qxg4 28.Qh6+ Kf7 29.Qh7+ Bg7
The threat of …Rh8 forces back the white queen. With white’s knights in peaceful slumber, the rest is simple technique - penetrate with the big guns to the seventh and eighth ranks.

30.Qh1 Rh8 31.Qf1+ Qf4 32.Qg1 Rh2 33.Nd1 Be5 34.Nc1 Qxe4 35.Nd3 Rh1 36.Nxe5+ dxe5 0-1
This win catapulted me into the lead. I ended up winning the state championship by half a point over Weiss.

16

This is something of the ‘yin’ to the previous game’s ‘yang.’ Here I ventured into the main line I avoided in the Weiss line, but my opponent ‘one-upped’ me by also varying. The resulting struggle is one that I referred to in annotating this game as ‘hanging tough’ - as I had to work very hard (and find some tactics, both for me and against me) to eke out an exciting (for me at least) draw.

White: FM Benedikt Jonsson (2385 FIDE) Black: Randy Bauer (2245 USCF)
1989 Twin Cities Open
Sicilian Najdorf Variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 b5
I’ve always believed in going my own way in the opening – even in theoretically critical lines like the Najdorf. This is the key variation, but see the previous game where I won a key game in the Iowa State Championship against NM Mitch Weiss with the theoretically discredited 10…h6.

11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7 13.f5 Nc5
At present, the most solid move for black is considered to be 13…Bxg5+. After 14.Kb1, black cannot hold the e-pawn. For example, 14…Nc5? 15.Bxb5+! axb5 16.Ndxb5 and 17.Nxd6+ gives white a big attack. Likewise, 14…e5 15.Nd5! Qb7 16.Ne6 fxe6 17.Qh5+ gives White a nice attack. However, black can return the pawn and attain an acceptable position with 14…Ne5 15.Qh5 Qd8! 16.Nxe6 Bxe6 17.fxe6 g6! 18.exf7+ Kxf7 19.Qe2 Kg7 (van der Weije-Krudde, Dieren 1990) with about equal chances.

14.f6 gxf6 15.gxf6 Bf8 16.a3
The theoretically critical move (and the reason that 13…Bxg5+ is back in vogue) is 16.Rg1! This move, found by the creative genius Perenyi, puts great pressure on the Black position because of the threat of a timely Rg7.

White’s move is motivated by a desire to maintain his knight on c3. I was familiar with the move, however, and voluntarily played into a variation that John Nunn, in his 1988 book, Najdorf for the Tournament Player had dismissed for Black.

16…Rb8!? 17.b4! Nd7!?
Nunn claims that 16…Rb8 is dubious, quoting a correspondence game that went 17.b4! Na4 18.Nxa4 bxa4 19.Rg1! a5 20.Qh5 Bd7 21.Rg7! (Perenyi’s idea again) Bxg7 22.fxg7 Rg8 23.Nb5 Rxb5 24.Qxh7 Rxg7 25.Qxg7 Re5 26.Rd3 with a winning position for White (Berg-Zinman, 1982-83).

When looking at this game, I thought that Black would gain more by having his knight on e5 than he got from the line openings with …Na4. Interestingly, Daniel King, in his 1993 book, Winning with the Najdorf, reaches the same conclusion (obviously not knowing of my 1989 experience with the line!). He comments about 17…Nd7 that “With the knight on e5 Black’s central position would remain secure, giving him the chance to put more pressure on White’s king. Food for thought.”

18.Rg1
As we’ve seen from Berg-Zinman, this is a key idea. The rook aims for g7 and, just as importantly, prevents the black rook from seizing the file. The caveman approach doesn’t work–18.Ne6 fxe6 19.f7+ or 19.Qh5+ Kd8 and Black has adequate defensive resources.

18…Ne5 19.Qh3 Bd7 20.Be2 h5 21.Kb2 Rc8 22.Qe3!
Up until this point I felt that Black was all right. Black envisioned eventually putting his bishop on the active c1-h6 diagonal, but White’s move radically prevents this, since 22…Bh6?? 23.Qxh6! wins because of the back rank mate. This is an attacking theme that Black must monitor carefully.

22…Nc4+ 23.Bxc4 Qxc4 24.Rd3 e5!?
This is a key point in the game. Black must find a way to involve some more pieces beyond the queen and rook on c8. There really are only two ways, and I rejected 24…a5 because I didn’t think I would get enough initiative for the pawn after 25.bxa5 b4 26.axb4 Qxb4+ 27.Nb3. Black still has his problem kingside pieces.

Black’s move cedes the d5 square and keeps the dark squared bishop passive, but it allows black to play …Be6, which removes the back rank mate problems, when Black can envision developing his kingside via h6.

25.Nb3 Be6 26.Rg2
White protects c2 to allow him to play Nd5. If allowed, White will regain a bind on the position, since a knight vs. dark squared bishop ending would greatly favor the knight.

26…Rh6!
Counterplay! Just in time, Black creates threats of his own. The f6 pawn is a real thorn in black’s side, so Black targets it, since its advanced nature makes it hard for White to support.

27.Rg8!
White recognizes that 27.Rf2? Rg6! cedes the initiative to Black.

27…Rxf6 28.Rxd6 Rg6
My original idea behind 26…Rh6 was to now play 28…Rf2. Then 29.Qh6?? Qxb3+! wins for Black, and 29.Qxf2 Qxc3+ 30.Kb1 Bxb3 31.cxb3 Qc1+ also wins. However, 29.Rxe6+!? fxe6 30.Qxf2 Qxc3+ 31.Kb1 Ke7 32.Qh4+ gives White a clear advantage, and 29.Rd2 also looks good. Black, as they say, had to switch (reluctantly!) to Plan B.

29.Rxg6
Even though this allows White to keep some advantage, I was more worried about 29.Rh8, which ties down the black pieces and entombs the black king. 29…Rg2 30.Rd2 again consolidates. Black would probably have to try 29…Ke7, hoping for 30.Rd2? Bh6! with counterplay, for example 31.Rxh6 Rxh6 32.Qxh6 Qxc3+ 33.Ka2 (33.Kb1 Bxb3 34.cxb3 Qc1+ 35.Ka2 Rc2+! draws) Qf3!? and White may have to settle for 34.Qg5+ Ke8 35.Qg8+ with a draw. Other moves, such as 35.Qxe5, allow 35…Rc2+

29…Bxd6 30.Rg8+! Kd7 31.Rxc8! Qxc8
Black must now be very careful. The first point is that 31…Kxc8? 32.Qb6! wins the a6-pawn. The trade of rooks has neutralized Black’s counterplay on the c-file. Both the white knights have nice entry points on the fifth rank, and Black’s bishops don’t do much.

32.Qd2?!
Black’s biggest concern is the h-pawn. If White can win it while keeping control of the position, he’ll probably win. White’s move seeks a positional solution: White will play Nd5, when, after the inevitable …Bxd5 White will recapture with the queen and have a great knight against a lousy bishop endgame. The problem is that Black does not have to acquiesce.

I think that White should view the h5 pawn as the bigger target in the position. The immediate 32.Qh6! gives White a more workable advantage than in the game. After 32…Bg4 (32…Qg8 33.Qxh6 Qg2 doesn’t seem to yield anything tangible for Black) 33.Nd5 Qf8 34.Qe3!, with the threat of Qa7+, puts Black under great pressure.

32…Bxb3!
The game has reached a crisis point for Black, as White is threatening to penetrate with both knights. The text sets a devilish trap, since 33.Kxb3? Qc4+ 34.Kb2 Qd4! turns the tables entirely: 33.Qe2 Bxb4! is clearly better for Black, and 33.Qxd4? exd4 34.Ne2 Bxh2 35.Nxd4 Be5! wins for Black.

Still, while the trap is nice, it is not why I played the move. We must be careful about playing for our opponent to err – eventually we run into stronger players who “see through” our plans.

In this case, the move cripples White’s queenside pawn structure and creates an important drawing scheme for Black: perpetual check. There are now no escape squares for the white king, so queen checks on the first and second ranks may draw. Black utilizes this motif throughout the rest of the game.

It’s important to familiarize yourself with these types of concepts. They’ll crop out from time to time for both the player with the advantage and the player trying to save a poor game.

33.cxb3 Qd8
Now 34.Nd5 Qh4 creates counterplay for Black and denies White the use of the f-file.

34.Qf2 Ke8! 35.Qf5?
The text seems logical, attacking the h5 pawn and not allowing 35…Qh4 on account of 36.Qc8+ Ke7?? 37.Nd5#. Still, if White had seen what was coming he would have preferred 35.Qa7, when Black probably has to defend with 35…Qc8 and White keeps an edge.

35…Bxb4!
The bishop finally goes on the offensive. The point, of course, is that 36.axb4? Qd2+ 37.Kb1 (37.Ka3 Qxc3 threatens mate on a1, when 38.Ka2 Qxh2 gives Black a clear advantage) Qxc3 is good for Black. 36.Nd5 doesn’t solve the problem either, as 36…Bxa3+! 37. Kxa3 Qa5+ 38.Kb2 Qd2+ 39.Kb1 Qd1+ 40.Ka2 Qd2+ 41.Ka3 Qa5+ draws.

Now, of course, Black is still threatening 36…Qd2+, and to maintain material equality White must liquidate what Hans Kmoch referred to as a ‘ram pawn’ – the e5 pawn that has been hampering the black squared bishop.

36.Qe5+ Be7 37.Qh8+
The queen check on d2 still prevents White from taking the h5 pawn.

37…Bf8 38.Nd5 Qg5
This is sufficient, as is 38…Qd6 when, with both rook pawns under attack, White probably has to play 39.Nf6+ Ke7 (not 39…Ke6? 40.Qf6+) 40.Nd5+ with a draw.

39.Nf6+ Ke7 40.Nd5+ Ke6 1/2 - 1/2
Faced with threats of …Bg7+, …Qg2+ or …Qd2+, White has nothing better than 41.Qxf8, which allows the perpetual starting with 41…Qd2+.

17

Adam Robinson! I KNEW I’d eventually remember.

18

It would be good, and even helpful to some lower rated, Chess Players. To have more threads like this. I am sure Kevin and some others would have some good instructive games to share.
Harry

19

Well since you insist! I think the knight/bishop interplay is one of the more critical ones in chess that often gets over/underlooked. For some reason, I do better with the bishops. The following two games explain:

The following game, against longtime master Hugh Myers (who has written a number of books and the world famous Myers Openings Bulletin) is an example. Myers played one of his patented variations, and I burned a lot of time in the opening. We eventually reached a tough (for both sides!) middlegame, and he sacrificed a pawn. Unfortunately, he spent too much time winning back the pawn and overlooked the fact that, in the R+B versus R+N ending, his knight was no match for the bishop.

White: Randy Bauer (2220) Black: Hugh Myers (2200)
Hawkeye (Iowa) Open, 9-25-94
Scandinavian Defense (by transposition)

1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d5 3.ed Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qa5 5.d4 Bg4 6.Bb5 e6
The game, which started as a Nimzovich Defense, has now transposed into a Scandinavian Defense. The problem with the lines with …Nc6 in these positions is that white can inflict structural damage because of the pin of the knight by the bishop. This also makes black think twice about castling queenside. Even so, 6…0-0-0 is a double-edged alternative.

7.h3 Bh4
Interestingly, when I looked up this line in my database, I found one of those strange statistical anomalies: 7…Bxf3 has a great score for black, while the logical text doesn’t do as well. You always have to watch out for the “garbage in, garbage out” syndrome in bases with a small sample. I think 7…Bh4, forcing white to weaken his pawn structure to eliminate the pin, is stronger than 7…Bxf3, which too easily falls in with white’s plans to get the queen off the d-file and break the pin.

8.g4 Bg6 9.Ne5
My opponent, who has written several books on the Nimzovich, had been blitzing out his moves, while I was now on my own. At this point, I’d used 20 minutes to his 2! The text seems logical; black must do something about the threat of Nc4, winning the queen, so his next move is forced.

9…Bb4 10.Bd2
Likewise, white must deal with the threat of 10…Qxb5. Of course 10.Bxc6+ is possible, but not 10.Nxc6? Bxc3+ 11.bc Qxb5 when white’s pawn structure is a mess. Upon returning home, I also discovered that 10.0-0, which I didn’t consider, is playable. A game from my database continued 10…Bxc3 11.Bxc6+ bc 12.Qf3! (the move I had missed) followed by bxc3, with an interesting game.

10…Bxc3 11.Bxc6+ bc 12.Bxc3 Qd5 13.f3
This is an extremely unbalanced middlegame. Black has a bad queenside pawn structure but a nice grip on the d5 square, and white’s kingside pawns leave some holes that have “knight outpost” written all over them. I’d say the chances are roughly equal.

After the game Myers told me that he had played this position several times, including wins against a couple of 2300+ players. He also said that one of the games was in his latest book on the Nimzovich Defense (I’d meant to order that book, too!). I’m glad I didn’t know all of this during the game. At this point, I’d used 35 minutes and my opponent 5; he now doubled his thinking time and played…

13…Ne7
I don’t know if this natural move can be ‘bad’ but it gives white some chances he probably shouldn’t have. For white’s position to work, he needs to eject the queen from d5, thus c2-c4 is called for. That means the bishop has to move. If black had played, for example, 13…Rb8, he would make it more difficult for white to undertake this action, and also place the rook on the half-open file.

14.Bb4
White takes the opportunity to improve the scope of his bishop. This also prepares the key c2-c4 advance and sets up some tactics. If, for example, black would play something foolish (say 14…a5? or 14…Rb8??) then 15.c4 Qd8 16.Bxe7 wins material because of the knight fork on c6.

14…Qb5
Black logically interferes with white’s plan. Now 15.Qd2 Nd5 looks dangerous for white.

15.a3
So that 15…Nd5 can be met by 16.c4, forking the pieces. As a result, white will get in c2-c4.

15…a5
A few weeks after playing this game, I actually did get around to ordering Myers’ book on the Nimzovich. There I found that, up to this point, we had been following Mitch Weiss-Hugh Myers, Bettendorf (Iowa) 1981. National Master Weiss is a several time Iowa State Champion and a strong positional player, so I think my moves were probably on the right track. However, after 15…f6 16.c4 Qa6 17.Nxg6 Nxg6 18.Qc2 0-0-0 19.0-0-0 e5! black had the initiative and went on to win. I think that 18.Qe2 is a much better try, as it calls black back to the defense of his e-pawn at a time when …e5 isn’t as strong.

16.c4 Qb7 17.Bc3
Myers thought I would play 17.Bxe7 Kxe7 18.Nxg6, but I thought that black would have all the play down the half-open h and b-files. I hate those kinds of positions.

17…f6
Logical – the knight is a pain for black. If white now plays 18.Nxg6, either recapture gives counterplay.

18.Nd3 Bxd3
Black cannot let the knight go to c5 – it would paralyze his game by fixing the doubled pawns and also covering the important central light squares – d7,e6,e4,d3.

19.Qxd3 c5!?
A very double-edged pawn sacrifice. Black pitches one of his doubled, isolated pawns but also frees his queen and the c6 square. I was expecting 19…Qb3, which seeks to exploit the queen’s need to protect the c4 pawn, but I thought 20.a4 a good reply, as it fixes the a5 pawn on a dark square and allows Ra3, if necessary, to expel the queen.

20.dxc5 Qc6
This is a key decision point for white. Recognizing these points in a game and reacting properly is very important. White has a couple of logical ideas. First, I rejected 21.Rd1 because after 21…Qxc5 22.Qd7+ Kf7 white has no clear follow-up. Although 23.Rh2 Qxc4 24.R2d2 gives some play for the pawn, I thought black could sit tight with 24…Rhe8 threatening simply …Qc6. Maybe white has enough, but this was just too speculative.

Next I had to decide whether or not I wanted to play a queenless endgame. Because of black’s piece placement, white can play 21.Qe4, which guarantees the queen trade. Was this good for me, especially since 21.Qe3, simply protecting the pawn, was a viable option? Looking at the position schematically, I didn’t see (after 21.Qe3) an easy way for white to combat the black plan of playing …a4…Ng6…e5…Nf4…Ne6 and winning the c5 pawn. Now, granted, white gets some moves in there, but it seemed that black’s queen was more relevant than mine.

Looking at the resulting positions, it seemed to me that while the black knight has some nice squares, it was still a game with pawns on both sides of the board – the bishop should be better.

21.Qe4 Qxe4+
Black wants to make the capture, because it further weakens the white pawn structure. Now …e5 will deaden the bishop, and the e4-pawn may become weak.

22.fe e5 23.Ke2 Ng6?
This underestimates white’s play and is virtually the losing move. Black needs to take the time to slow white’s queenside pawns with 23…a4!, when he has better chances than in the game. White would probably play 24.b4! anyway, since 24…ab 25.Rhb1 gives an outside passed a-pawn – another situation where the knight is inferior to the bishop.

24.b4!
White recognizes that this continuation allows black to “win” back his pawn, because of the threat of playing …Rxa1 Rxa1 Nf4+, but the price is steep. This is an example of the relative value of things in chess. The h3 pawn means nothing to white – he intends to win by queening a b-pawn. Black has no similar way to quickly take advantage of the pawn majority he would get on the kingside by winning the h3 pawn – in fact, it just makes him misplace his knight on the edge of the board, far from the battle on the queenside.

24…Nf4+ 25.Ke3!
The king must stay as close as possible to the queenside. Again, worrying about the h-pawn serves no purpose.

25…ab 26.ab Ke7
Likewise, black must keep his king near the center as well. 26…Kd7 would probably transpose to the game after 27.Rhd1+ Ke7 28.b5 Rxa1

27.b5 Rxa1 28.Rxa1
Better than 28.Bxa1?, which turns the bishop into a big pawn and robs the rook of the file it needs. Why on earth would white do that to protect the inconsequential h3 pawn?

28…Rd8!
Black fights back. The threat of …Rd3+ forces white to defend.

29.Ra3!
This is the key move that white envisioned when embarking on this course of play (with 24.b4). The rook and bishop will interfere with the black rook’s ability to stop the advancing pawns. Now a move like 29…Ne6 30.Ra7 is crushing, so black forges ahead with his “attack.”

29…Rd3+ 30.Kf2 Nxh3+ 31.Kf1!
Now the threat is simply b6, since 31…Kd7 32.c6+ Ke6 33.c5 Rd1+ 34.Ke2 Rb1 35.Ra5! allows a theme like the game’s – black is powerless to prevent Kd2-Kc2 ejecting the rook from the b-file.

31…Rd1+
After the game Myers thought that 31…Nf4, getting the knight back into the game, was a saving defense. White still wins with 32.Ke1 Ng2+ (otherwise the rook doesn’t get to the b-file) 33.Kf2 Nf4 34.b6, or 32…Ne6 33.b6, since 33…Nxc5? 34.Bb4! and either 34…Kd6 35.Rxd3+ or 34…Rxa3 35.Bxc5+ win immediately.

32.Ke2 Rb1 33.Kd2!
The winning plan. Once the rook is forced away, the queenside pawns advance triumphantly.

33…Nf2 34.Kc2 Rg1 35.b6 cb 36.cb Kd7 37.b7 1-0
Since 37…Kc7 38.Rb3 Kb8 39.Ba5! and Bc7+ forces a new queen for white.

20

Doesn’t Iowa have a chess history website? Appears Randy could prove a lot of
material for it. I know Idaho, Washington and Oregon have websites with history on them. WA/OR is called NORTHWEST CHESS while Idaho is now again part of NORTHWEST CHESS but has a website of it’s own.