Here is a selection of chess puzzles. You have to find the next move. They are all taken from games played by Rodney Barking. They are shown in chronological order. In all cases there is only one correct move: nothing else is any good.
I’m not going to publish the answers as that would spoil the fun for everyone else. Feel free to email me your suggested first moves and in return I will send you the solutions and analysis. rodneybarking@gmail.com
Carnage. Chess engines are now significantly stronger than the best human players. Using an engine makes a real difference to the way you play correspondence chess and the outcome of the game. It’s not in the type of moves you make – engines will recommend the logical rather than the natural move, even if it looks non-standard. Instead it’s in the accuracy of calculation. Human players make tactical errors. Chess engines do not. So if your opponent blunders during the game, you know he’s not using an engine.
This is how Barking’s county captain put it at the start of the season: “An important point to note is that use of computer engines is permitted – nearly all players in the first and second divisions use engines and many in Division 3… [to Barking, the newbie:] I expect you’ll be using an engine; if not please let me know and I’ll put you in the Div 3 team.”
In tournaments at a higher level, where the use of engines is routine, the engine v engine contest is very often a draw. For example in one of my current ICCF tournaments, a 7-player all-play-all with an average rating of 1950, 20 out of the 21 games have finished and 17 of these were drawn with only three decisive games (and one of these was a win on time). The only game outstanding is one of mine, against the tournament’s highest-rated player. I am winning this, and it’s only still going on because my opponent has slowed the game to a crawl.
As you might imagine, a game of engine vs non-engine can be a real mismatch. This type of game is often a miniature (under 25 moves) with strong tactical strokes. Which leads me to…
Visualisation. It is a truth universally acknowledged, that the ability to calculate accurately is one of the most important skills in chess. Training and testing this skill is the basis of one of the most popular types of chess book – the tactical puzzle book. These give you a diagram and ask you to find the continuation, essentially calculating what should happen next, without moving the pieces.
What’s less well understood is how you go about developing the ability to calculate. Enter visualisation – the practice of calculating variations without looking at the board at all. Visualisation without the board is the most effective way of developing clarity and the depth of calculation. This is what the specialists in blindfold chess do all the time, sometimes in a spectular way through simultaneous exhibitions against many players.
This is the subject of chapter 2, ‘Blindfold Chess and Stepping-Stone Diagrams’, in Jonathan Tisdall’s book ‘Improve Your Chess Now’ (Cadogan, 1997). He quotes Dr Siegbert Tarrasch:
The whole game of chess is played as a blindfold game. For instance, every combination of five moves is executed mentally, with the only difference that one has the board before him. The pieces which one is looking at very often hinder the calculations.
Tisdall draws attention to the practice of some GMs (Shirov, Ivanchuk, Svidler, for example) who “often calculate variations by suddenly staring into space instead of at the board. Clearly, they have some built-in belief that they can more clearly focus their visualisation of critical variations by looking away from the board.”
You can try this at home without going out to find an actual opponent and playing an actual game. Take the score of any chess game (I don’t mean the result, but the set of moves as seen on the page), and at first the shorter the better, and try to play through the game in your head. See if you can visualise the position after each move. This is hard work, particularly when you first do it because the relevant chess muscles are weak and undeveloped, and the further you go into the game, the harder it becomes to maintain a clear mental picture of the board. But it is rewarding and it is a very good way to improve your game.
A similar method is to go through a book of chess games with diagrams at intervals in each game. Try to visualise the game without playing the moves on a board, using the diagrams as an aid or stepping-stone (another technique recommended in Tisdall’s book).
For starting out, I recommend ‘Blindfold Opening Visualisation: 100 Chess Puzzles’ by Martin B Justesen (Say Chess Publishing, 2021). This gives you the score of 100 games take from Lichess, all of 10 moves or fewer, and featuring tactical points, where you have to find the continuation.
Which brings us back to the carnage of engine-inspired destruction. Here are four of Barking’s miniature wins from 2022. Play through them with a board if you like, but if you feel up to it, play through them blindfold, and see if you can keep track of what’s going on.
In this post we examine deliberate losing on time, and its lesser cousin deliberate timewasting, in the world of correspondence chess.
The rules of the International Correspondence Chess Federation provide for a range of time controls. The one that I have used most often requires you to make 10 moves in 50 days. After 10 moves, a further 50 days is added to your clock, and the same at later stages of the game. As with OTB chess, total time is what counts, so you do not have to make 10 moves in each period of 50 days counted separately. If you make 19 moves in the first 50 days, you only have to make 1 move in the next 50 days.
Players may take up to 45 days of leave in a calendar year. During a period leave, the clock is stopped and neither you nor your opponent can make a move.
There are penalties for slow play and running out of time. If you don’t make a move for 20 days, your remaining time is used up at double speed so that each additional day of consideration counts as two days off your clock. This process is known as duplication.
The system also sends reminders. First after 14 days of inactivity, just to prompt you. Second after 35 calendar days (i.e. ignoring duplication). At this point you must, within the next 5 calendar days, either make a move, or indicate your intention to carry on playing.
You lose the game if you run out of time, or you ignore the 35-day warning and do nothing by 40 days. Losing on time carries additional penalties in that you may be barred from competing in future events.
The allocation of 50 days for 10 moves is generous. No matter how busy you are, you don’t need that much time for so few moves. And in most of my correspondence games, my opponents have got on with the game more of less expeditiously.
Unfortunately, some players tend to slow the game down when they realise they are losing. Either they want to postpone the moment of defeat as long as possible. Or they simply lose interest in the game – in some cases letting the clock run down to zero. This makes the game seem interminable. One possible reform would be to introduce duplication at an earlier stage, after say 15 days or even 10 days, to speed the process of retribution for players who behave like this.
Now for some examples of completed games in 2022. I make no apology for naming and shaming.
All this is theory, and is the line recommended for White by Simon Williams and Richard Palliser in ‘The Iron English’ (Everyman, 2020). Black normally continues with …Nc5 and …Nb4, and queenside play. My opponent pursued an independent path. It’s now 25 April – we have reached move 14 after only 10 days’ play. 14…b6 15.Rb1 a5 16.b3 Nc5 17.Rb2 Re8 18.Rd2 Black’s structure is quite rigid, with no obvious pawn breaks. In contrast White is well-placed to start a kingside attack. The computer evaluation is about +1.2, indicating a clear advantage to White. 18…Rb7 19.Nb5 Bd7 20.Nec3 Qc8 21.Kh2 Nb4 22.f4 Rb8 23.g4 Bc6 24.h4 Ra8 25.g5 Rd8 26.h5 Rf8 27.h6 Bxc3 28.Nxc3
White’s kingside attack has reached a dangerous point. The computer thinks White is winning (+2.8). My opponent should bring his pieces back to the kingside to defend. Instead he blunders a piece. After this the game becomes trivial. It’s now 9 May – we have made 28 moves in 24 days. Still quite a brisk rate of play. 28…Nxe4?? 29.Nxe4 My opponent realises that he is losing and starts to take longer over his moves. 29…Qb7 30.Qa1 f6 31.Qd4 Rae8 32.f5 gxf5 33.gxf6 e5 34.Qxd6 fxe4 35.f7+ Rxf7 36.Bh3 Qe7 37.Rg2+ Now the computer says that White can force mate in at most 7 moves. I could have sent my opponent a message to announce this, but the practice is passé. It’s now 4 June. The last 9 moves have taken 26 days, almost all used by Black. 37…Kh8 28 June – that’s +24 days. 38.Qxe7 Rexe7 17 July – that’s +19 days. 39.Be6 Be8 17 August – that’s +31 days. 40.Rfg1 Rg7 29 September – notionally +43 days, although I think most of this was annual leave taken by my opponent. 41.Rxg7 1–0 And now it’s mate in 2 moves. At this point Black resigned. 20 October – that’s +22 days.
From the start to White’s 37th move took 50 days. The remaining 5 moves took 138 days, over 4 months, although this did include a period of leave. Very unsporting behaviour by Herr Wiesinger. Normally after the game one exchanges pleasantries, e.g. “Good game – well played – thanks for the game,” but after this game I had nothing to say to my opponent.
Game 2 Start: 20 June 2022, End: 23 October 2022 (125 days) White: Rodney Barking (ENG – 1800), Black: Thomas Clarke (SCO – 1800) B06: Pirc–Robatsch, 4.Be3 Nf6 This was one game in a double-header on board 42 of the “friendly” match between Edinburgh and London. As the ICCF blurb puts it: “The Edinburgh Chess Club is the oldest chess club in Scotland, established in 1822 and one of the oldest chess clubs in the world. As part of the Club’s bicentenary celebrations this match against London is being played as a sequel to their original match with London which started in 1824.” Sadly unrated, but could resist such a romantic playing opportunity? 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 The English Attack is White’s most popular continuation against the Pirc / Modern, even at GM level, giving the lie to its reputation as the hacker’s weapon of choice (“the 150 Attack,” beloved of players graded 150, or about 1825 these days). The idea is very simple: play Bh6, advance the h-pawn, deliver checkmate. 4…Nf6 5.Qd2 a6 6.Nf3 O-O 7.Bh6 c5 8.Bxg7 Kxg7 9.O-O-O Nc6 10.dxc5 dxc5 11.Qf4 Naturally White keeps the queens on the board, to strengthen the kingside attack. 11…Qa5 12.e5 Ng4 13.Bc4 Bf5 14.Rhe1 b5 15.Bd5 b4 16.Ne4 Rad8 Now both sides are attacking on opposite wings in an exciting middlegame position. However, White’s threats are stronger. 17.Ng3 Be6?! Sacrificing a piece to break through on the queenside – but it’s not sound. White can take the material and defend successfully. 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Qxg4 Qxa2 Threatening mate in one, so White’s next few moves are forced. 20.Rxd8 Rxd8 21.Nd2 a5 22.Qe4 1-0
And that’s where the game stopped, with victory to White in an unclear position. What just happened?
Although the game started on 20 June, Black arrived late at the board and did not make his first move until 5 July. Play then progressed rapidly until after White’s 13th move on 8 July, just three days later. Black then slowed down and took 18 days over his next four moves.
After 17.Ng3, Black’s kingside pieces get into a tangle. He did not move again until 8 August, 13 days later, and followed up quickly with two more moves. I played 19.Nxg4 on 10 August. Inexplicably Black then took over a month to play 19…Qxa2, which is the only move in the position. He then played another two moves very quickly.
So to the final move in the game, 22.Qe4, which I played on 14 September. After that, nothing. I waited 39 calendar days, which with duplication amounted to 58 total days, and that point Black’s time ran out and he lost. I do not understand why he allowed this to happen. Maybe he thought there was no point continuing the game a piece down, even with compensation. As it happens the computer thinks Black can keep going with 22…Rd3, which keeps the white queen out of the queenside.
So this wasn’t unsporting, just very odd. I don’t see the point of starting a game of chess if you’re not going to see it through to the end. As Magnus Magnusson used to say on Mastermind: “I’ve started so I’ll finish,” his catchphrase whenever time ran out while he was reading a question on the show.
This is the first of two posts on games where a player deliberately runs down his clock in a position which he knows is lost. This post is based on online research and I am indebted in particular to the chess historian Edward Winter.
Count Curt Carl Alfred von Bardeleben (1861–1924) was a German nobleman and one of the foremost German chess players of his day. He led an interesting life. He gave up his law studies to become a professional player and came first or equal first in a number of tournaments in the 1890s and 1900s. in 1908 he lost a match to Alekhine, who described him as a “charming old chap” who lacked the will to win. The chess player and author Edward Lasker commented on his shabby vintage suit and his propensity to escape his numerous debts by marrying and divorcing rich women who wanted to buy into his title. He died in 1924 when he fell out of a window – whether intentionally or not is unclear.
His most famous game was in the international tournament at Hastings in 1895. A very strong event, featuring all the top players of the day, it was won by the American Harry Nelson Pillsbury with 16.5/21. In round 10, von Bardeleben was Black against the former World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz. This is how the game proceeded (C54, Italian Game): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3
A typical 19th century Romantic opening. Now theory recommends 7…Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5 h6 14.Qe2 hxg5 15.Re1 Be6 16.dxe6 f6 and White does not have enough for the pawn. 7…d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.O-O Be6 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bxd5 Bxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Re1 f6 15.Qe2 Qd7 16.Rac1 c6
Black’s king is stuck in the centre. White sacrifices the d-pawn to bring his knight into the attack. Play now becomes concrete (modern GM-speak for forcing and tactical). 17.d5 cxd5 18.Nd4 Kf7 19.Ne6 Rhc8 20.Qg4 g6 21.Ng5+ Ke8 22.Rxe7+ Steinitz has initiated a beautiful forcing sequence. Black cannot take the rook. 22…Kf8 23.Rf7+ Kg8 24.Rg7+ Kh8 25.Rxh7+
At this point, von Bardeleben got up and silently left the room. Tournament officials were unable to persuade him to return. 50 minutes later, his flag fell, and Steinitz claimed a win on time. He then immediately demonstrated a beautiful mate in 10 moves, which Black can avoid only by giving up his queen: 25…Kg8 26.Rg7+ Kh8 27.Qh4+ Kxg7 28.Qh7+ Kf8 29.Qh8+ Ke7 30.Qg7+ Ke8 31.Qg8+ Ke7 32.Qf7+ Kd8 33.Qf8+ Qe8 34.Nf7+ Kd7 35.Qd6# The crowd responded with loud and prolonged applause. Steinitz was awarded the brilliancy prize for the best game of the tournament.
Von Bardeleben was roundly criticised for his decision to lose on time in this way. In the Frankfurt General Anzeiger in November 1895, Dr Siegbert Tarrasch commented as follows (translated): “To our regret, we have to say that Herr von Bardeleben provoked the indignation of all participants in the tourney by the singular way in which he used to surrender lost games. As soon as he became conscious of having a losing position, he followed the advice given in a well-known humouristic chess couplet – ‘Whenever your game is bad and sore, Then sneak out and return no more.’ He simply vanished and left it to the committee to declare the game lost by time-limit. Thereby Herr von Bardeleben has at least acquired the merit of adding one more to the many analogies between chess and war – the flight before the enemy.”
A commentator in the Yorks O. Budget noted: “Bardeleben was almost as notorious a drawing master as Schlechter, and he introduced a method of resigning a lost game by the simple device of walking silently and without explanation from the board and allowing his time to run, which added a new verb “to bardeleben” to the vocabulary of his chess contemporaries.”
And from the British chess player and author Gerald Abrahams, in Teach Yourself Chess (1948), which introduced me to the Steinitz–von Bardeleben game, here is a quotation which has stayed with me down the many years since I read the book as a teenager: “At this point Von Bardeleben is reported to have made no comment but to have put on his hat and quietly walked home, leaving his opponent to win by effluxion of time. That was a Teutonic way of showing that he knew what was coming.”
And yet, von Bardeleben has been pilloried unfairly. Edward Winter draws attention to the annotation of the final move of the game by a fellow-competitor, W H K Pollock, in La Strategie, from 15 October 1895: “La partie a été terminée ici, M. de Bardeleben s’est retiré sans abandonner et la partie a été adjugée à M. Steinitz à l’expiration du temps limité. M. de Bardeleben a dit à son adversaire que sa conduite était pour protester contre les applaudissements souvent trop prolongés dont les visiteurs saluaient les victorieux et c’est à la suite de cet incident que le Comité du tournoi a défendu toute démonstration.”
As Winter points out, von Bardeleben made his silent exit “because of the disturbance caused by spectators applauding winners of games, and he informed Steinitz personally of this.” The tournament organisers responded promptly with a notice asking spectators to refrain from applause at the end of the game on the basis that foreign players would be unused to it and in any case the players found it annoying. However, von Bardeleben’s reputation seems not to have recovered (in so far as it matters to anyone apart from chess historians).
There are two main approaches to learning an opening. The first is to study the main lines – for example, as White, the Open Sicilian, the King’s Indian Classical, the Ruy Lopez. All serious chess authors agree that this is the best way to develop as a player and improve your results. Mainline theory is mainline for a reason – it poses the most problems for your opponent. Studying these lines exposes you to complex strategical and tactical ideas and broadens your chess education.
The downside (and it is a big downside) is that it takes a lot of time and effort. You have to work hard and memorise tons of theory. Many chess players below master level just don’t have the resources for this. Hence the second approach, which is to play a universal system against everything. Examples for White include the London System, the Colle / Zukertort, the Trompowski. This is quite a narrow way to play the opening, but these lines are less theoretical and the ideas and plans are easy to learn. Also, if you play the same thing all the time, you get a feel for the resulting positions and this should also improve your results. It’s not very good for your chess development long-term, though, and the lines are less critical so you may not get anywhere against a well-prepared opponent.
Which brings us to the book review in today’s post. Keep It Simple 1.d4, by the German IM Christof Sielicki, published by New In Chess in 2019. Sielicki is perhaps better-known for his courses on Chessable and in fact this book was first developed as an online Chessable course. Sielicki is a very good teacher of the opening. He explains the ideas and plans very clearly, with particular attention to the significance of different move orders. The theory doesn’t matter so much – you can play slightly different moves but you have a basic idea of what you’re doing and you should reach a decent middlegame position. And that’s the main thing you want from the opening.
The theme of Keep It Simple 1.d4 is a White repertoire based on the moves 1.d4, 2.Nf3, 3.g3 against almost everything. White fianchettoes the bishop and castles kingside before deciding on the best deployment of his pawns and pieces. This is a very solid system. It’s hard for Black to develop active counterplay and you are very unlikely to go down to a kingside mating attack (I hate it when that happens to me). As the blurb points out, the repertoire is easy to understand and play, and requires very little maintenance.
So this book is nearer to the second approach to learning the opening than the first. But there is one important difference. In most of the universal systems, White plays d4 but not c4, aiming to keep the centre closed and develop a kingside attack. In contrast, Sielicki recognises the value of following up with c4 to attack the centre. Only in his repertoire, c4 is delayed until after completing kingside development. This has the advantage of cutting out a number of Black’s options, for example the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, or the anti-Catalan or Semi-Slav lines based on …dxc4, or the Nimzo-Indian, or offbeat lines like the Albin Counter-Gambit.
Sielicki particularly likes c4 when Black has already committed to a defence based on …d5. The repertoire often transposes to a mainline White system after c4, for example the Catalan against QGD set-ups. In my view these are the best parts of the book. You get to play a proper line as White with less theory than usual, on the basis of a clear explanation by Sielicki of what you’re trying to do. It’s a much easier way to learn the Catalan system than diving into the deep end with Avrukh’s monumental Catalan-based series on 1.d4.
I find Sielicki’s repertoire less effective against Indian-type set-ups such as the King’s Indian and the Grunfeld. Against the King’s Indian he recommends a sideline based on a queenside fianchetto (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.b3 – the Przepiorka Variation). This leads to interesting play. White tends to do well against responses involving …e5, less well against …c5 opening the long black diagonal. But it’s not the most threatening continuation. White is more likely to secure an advantage by transposing into the Fianchetto Variation against the King’s Indian with 6.c4. Against this positional approach it’s harder for Black to develop typical kingside counterplay. To give Sielicki credit, he does point out on several occasions that White has the option to extend the repertoire into more ambitious areas if time permits.
The repertoire in Keep It Simple 1.d4 is a good choice against less experienced players. They may know the theory quite well against mainline systems, for example playing the Dragon against an Open Sicilian, but they’re often less well-prepared against the systems Sielicki recommends which require you just to play chess. Here’s an example from a game Barking played as White soon after working through the book.
White: Rodney Barking (2058), Black: Craig Fothergill (1839). Surrey League 2021. A49: King’s Indian, Fianchetto (without c4). 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.O-O d6 6.b3 I have now moved on to systems with c4. 6…Nc6 7.Bb2 d5?! This can’t be right. Black is now playing a Grunfeld set-up a move down. I decided it was time to switch to mainline systems. 8.c4 e6
Passive. Where is Black’s counterplay coming from? White’s plan now is Nbd2, Re1, e4 with the initiative. 9.Nbd2 a5 10.a3 Rb8 11.Rc1 Ne7 12.Ne5 b5 The latest in a series of anti-positional moves. 13.cxb5 Rxb5 14.a4 Rb6 15.Rc5 Going after the weak pawn on a5. 15…Nd7 16.Nxd7 Qxd7
17.Rxa5 But this is too hasty. I overlooked that my d-pawn drops in two moves’ time. Instead I should play 17.e3 to shore up the centre. Black can hold the a5 pawn with 17…Nc6 but after 18.Qc2 his queenside comes under a lot of pressure. 17…Nc6 18.Rc5 Nxd4 19.Ba3 Nxe2+ 20.Qxe2 Ba6 21.Qd1 Bxf1 22.Bxf1 Black has given up a knight and bishop for a rook and pawn. This doesn’t work out well as White’s minor pieces become strong. 22…Rfb8 23.Qc2 Be5 24.a5 R6b7 25.a6 Ra7 26.Rc6 Rb6 27.Rxb6 cxb6 28.Qd3 Qc6 29.b4 Qc8 30.b5 After this Black is positionally lost. 30…Rc7 31.Bb4 Rc1 32.Qe3 With a double attack on the bishop on e5 and pawn on b6. 32…Bc7? But this is not the right way to defend. Black had to play 32…Qc7.
33.Ne4! Exploiting the lack of communication between queen and rook arising from his last move. 33…Be5 33…Rb1 loses to 34.Nf6+ Kg7 35.Ng4 with Qh6+ to follow. No better is 33…Rxf1+ 34.Kxf1 dxe4 35.a7 Qa8 36.Qh6 with the threat of Qf8+ and then queening the a-pawn. 34.Nc5! An artistic move. Placing the knight en prise, but with a double attack on the Black rook and bishop. 34…Rxf1+ 35.Kxf1 bxc5 36.Qxc5 Qd7 Missing White’s next. 37.Qf8# 1-0
Rodney Barking likes to bring you original material, but will of course credit his sources when he draws on their work.
He particularly likes to bring you material which is based on original research and which has never been presented before.
So today: what criteria are used to determine the team board order in league chess in England? There are two main criteria. One is the order of playing strength. The other is the published ECF rating order. In either case, should the rules provide for displacement, such that a higher-rated player may play on a lower board than a lower-rated player?
Playing strength is more flexible and subjective. It can accommodate rating disparities more easily than a system based on the objective rating order. One can conceive of cases where (for example) a player rated 1950 is in better form than another player rated 2000 and should play on a higher board. But how far can this be stretched?
This may seem like a niche subject to which many players are indifferent. But it can give rise to heated argument, as Rodney has discovered on more than one occasion. Mostly recently in a difficult online exchange with another league official.
Now, people settle arguments in different ways. Some resort to brute force, or in extreme cases the power of the gun. Rodney prefers to use logic and reason, based on actual evidence. This is what you would expect since one commentator has characterised him as “an Oxbridge-educated civil servant”.
Rodney carried out an internet survey of leagues and playing rules overnight to obtain evidence about what provisions actually do apply. He surveyed all chess leagues in England (excluding online and junior-only) with an internet presence. There are 86 of these. These are the main points:
In 34 leagues, teams are in order of playing strength. 17 of these have a points differential and 17 do not.
In 21 leagues, teams are in rating order. 16 of these have a points differential and 5 do not.
In 7 leagues, there is no provision at all about the playing order.
In 24 leagues, the playing rules are not available online.
Where there is a rating points differential (33 leagues), this ranges from 38 to 150 points (equivalent to a grading difference of 5 to 20 points).
The most common points differential is 75 points (16 leagues), followed by 100 points (7 leagues).
Rodney draws two conclusions from this. The first is that playing strength is a more common criterion than rating order. The second is that a points differential is much more strongly associated with leagues where teams are in rating order than in leagues based on playing strength. This is what one might expect given that there is a logical connection between rating order and rating differentials, whereas playing strength and rating differentials are of a different nature. If you’re going to allow a rating differential, you might as well have a basic rule of playing in rating order.
So Rodney has placed this on the table and awaits a response. In line with a famous work by an American evangelical Christian author (Josh McDowell), this is ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-changing Truth for a Skeptical World.’
There are many ways to create an imbalance in chess. For example you can alter the pawn structure, obtain the bishop pair, castle on opposite sides. But the most obvious way is to sacrifice material. Gambits usually involve sacrificing a pawn for the initiative or some positional gain. Sacrificing a whole piece is more spectacular and generally relies on a short-term tactical justification where you might recover the material with interest or even deliver checkmate.
The exchange sacrifice is in a category of its own. You give up a rook for your opponent’s bishop or knight. Sometimes you get a pawn for it, sometimes you don’t. You’re looking for an enduring positional advantage based on superior piece activity. The classic example is in the Sicilian where Black sacrifices his rook for the white knight on c3, wrecking his opponent’s pawn structure and sometimes picking up the e4 pawn as well. Here’s Kasparov showing how to do it, on the black side of a Sicilian Najdorf against Movsesian in a tournament in Sarajevo in 2000.
13…Rxc3! 14.bxc3 Qc7 What has Kasparov got in return for sacricing the exchange? No extra material, but White’s queenside pawns are wrecked and Black’s minor pieces are ready to join the attack. 15.Ne2 Be7 16.g5 0-0 17.h4 Na4 18.Bc1 Ne5 19.h5 d5 20.Qh2 Bd6 21.Qh3 Both sides are attacking on opposite wings, but Black’s pieces are much more active and co-ordinated and his attack is much more dangerous. 21…Nxd3 22.cxd3 b4 23.cxb4 Rc8 24.Ka1?! This gives Kasparov the opportunity to detonate the centre, when his pieces swim like sharks towards the defenceless white king. 24…dxe4 25.fxe4 Bxe4! White can’t take the bishop: 26.dxe4 Be5+ and mate follows shortly. 26.g6 Bxh1 27.Qxh1 Bxb4 28.gxf7+ Kf8 29.Qg2 Rb8 30.Bb2 Nxb2 31.Nd4 Nxd1 32.Nxe6+ Kxf7 0–1 White’s knight forks king and queen, but he can’t take the queen because it’s mate in one.
Actually this is just the most famous kind of exchange sacrifice. There are many different ways to do it. Their sheer variety is one of the themes to emerge from a new book by Kotronias entitled ‘The Exchange Sacrifice according to Tigran Petrosian’. Kotronias argues that the former Soviet-Armenian world champion was the greatest exponent of the exchange sacrifice. The book brings together many examples from his games, usually successful but sometimes not, and all annotated in detail. This is from the game Troianescu–Petrosian, Bucharest 1953, in which Petrosian manages to sacrifice the exchange not once, but twice.
25…Rxe4! 26.Bxe4 Bxe4 This time Black gets a pawn for the exchange. His central pawn majority and active pieces provide more than enough compensation. 27.Nc2 d5 28.Nd4 b4 29.cxb4 axb4 30.a4 Qa7 31.Qf2 Rc8 32.b3 Bf8 33.Nb5 Qa6 34.Qe2 Qb6+ 35.Kf1
35…Rc3 Here we go again… but this time Petrosian is grandstanding. He probably couldn’t resist giving up a second rook, but a better plan is 35…h5 intending to advance to h4, open the h-file, and bring a rook to the side with a very dangerous attack. 36.Nxc3? Taking the material, so that temporarily White has two rooks for two bishops, but it soon becomes clear that the bishops are the stronger pieces. 36…bxc3 37.Rc2 Qxb3 38.Rec1 Bb4 29.g4 Bxc2 30.Rxc2 Qxa4 That’s one exchange back, with a lot of extra pawns. White can do nothing about this. Petrosian gradually advanced his pawns and White resigned on move 57.
The exchange sacrifice is part of the strategic arsenal of every strong player. What interests me is that this form of material disdain has crossed the boundary to computer chess. Traditionally the engines would prefer to take material and hang on to it. But now they know that material gain is not everything. They are prepared to sacrifice for long-term gain in the greater interest. The final example in today’s post is from another correspondence game. Jean-Paul Dellenbach (2079) v Rodney Barking, ICCF 2022.
White has just played 23.Bh6, attacking the rook and no doubt expecting it to move. But, on advice from the computer, I left the rook where it was. 23…dxe4 24.Bxf8 Rxf8 25.dxe4 I didn’t get any pawns back. But the computer has worked out that White is now very weak on the dark squares and will have trouble defending them given than his pieces are passively placed. 25…Bc7 26.Bc2 Qd6 27.g3 Re8 28.Kh2 Re5 Bringing the last piece into the attack. The rook is destined for the h-file where it will bear down directly on the white king. I’m not sure I would have thought of this manoeuvre unaided. 29.Qf2 Qe7 30.Nf4 Nxf4 31.gxf4 Rh5 32.Qe3 Bc8 33.Rf3 g5! Exploiting the pin on the f4-pawn to open the position further. 34.e5 gxf4 35.Rbxf4 Qxe5 White decides to return the exchange, but this doesn’t stop the attack. 36.Kg2 Bxh3+ 37.Rxh3 Qxe3 38.Rxe3 Bxf4 39.Rh3 The smoke has cleared and White is now two pawns down. His best hope is to get the rooks off the board and reach an opposite bishop ending with drawing chances despite the material deficit. I didn’t need a computer to tell me that rook and opposite bishop endings are anything but drawish, so it was an easy decision to keep the rooks on even though White now gets one of his pawns back. 39…Rc5 40.Bxh7+ Kg7 41.Bd3 Be5 42.Rh7+ Kf8 43.Rh6 f6 44.Rh7 Rxc3 45.Bxb5 Rc2+ 46.Kf3 Rxa2 47.Ra7 a3 Two safe pawns up again, with rooks and bishops still on the board, Black is winning this ending. White could have prolonged the struggle but blundered on move 53 and resigned.
I first played correspondence chess a long time ago. Maybe in the 80s or 90s. I agreed to play for Surrey in a county match. This was before the time of chess engines. The rate of play was very slow. One move at a time, sent by postcard. I still remember the game, dimly. I was White. It was a French Winawer. The only resource I had was the 1975 Batsford classic ‘The French Defence Main Line Winawer’ by John Moles, and that was written from the Black point of view. I followed theory as far as I could (move 21 or thereabouts) then had to think for myself. I was outplayed in the middlegame and lost. And the game seemed to take forever. After that I decided I would never play correspondence chess again.
Fast forward to 2022. I have returned to the correspondence world. In less than nine months I have started 120 correspondence games and finished 70 of them, with a score of +33 =33 –4, or about 71%. My opponents have been rated 1866 on average (that’s not FIDE, but ICCF, or the International Correspondence Chess Federation). I started with a default rating of 1800 and this has been rising steadily by over 100 points a quarter. I now like correspondence chess very much. How and why has this happened?
It started with a mailshot from the Surrey captain almost a year ago inviting interest in the 2022 round of county matches. He explained how modern correspondence chess worked. Instead of sending moves by post, games were played online on a server. Although the rate of play was still rather stately (10 moves in 50 days is standard), players could move as quickly as they wanted. My completed games have ranged from 1 day to 156 days in length, at an overall average of 34 days. Apart from one game (ongoing) where there is bad blood between me and my opponent, I always play very quickly. My opponents tend to play the opening at a decent pace, continuing in a timely fashion when the game is still quite balanced, but slowing down considerably when they realise they’re losing.
The more significant innovation is that the use of chess engines to analyse during the game is actively encouraged. Engines have improved tremendously over the past 20 years or so. The top engines are rated about 3500 – well above world champion human level. They play technically perfect chess. They also play beautiful chess, developing concepts that go beyond human experience. They are not afraid to enter mind-boggling complications. And finally, they have started to play like humans, incorporating intuitive factors such as the value of the initiative and prioritising piece activity over materialistic considerations. Since this is the one chess format where it is allowed, I simply could not resist enhancing my game with riches as wonderful as this.
I will have more to say about correspondence chess in later posts. For now, here is one of my first correspondence games from early in 2022.
White: Rodney Barking (1800, Surrey), Black: Ken Clow (2099, Essex). B31: Sicilian, Rossolimo. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 5.0-0 Bg7 6.Re1 Rb8 7.e5 7.h3 is the theoretical move. I rather like 7.e5, cramping Black’s position and forcing him to weaken his pawn structure in order to develop. 7…f6 8.d4 cxd4 9.Bf4!
Sacrificing a pawn for active play is the computer’s top choice. I preferred this to retaining the material balance with 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qxd4, when Black has open lines and a dynamic position. 9…Rxb2?! Greedy. He should have clarified the position in the centre with multiple exchanges on e5 so as to develop and castle. This was for me the first indication that my opponent was either playing without a chess engine, or with an engine that wasn’t as strong as mine. The evaluation is now +1.36 despite the temporary two-pawn deficit. 10.Qxd4 Qb6 11.Qd3! Ba6?! 12.Qa3 fxe5?! Black is again two pawns up and his developed pieces are superficially active. But the computer soon demonstrates that White has a very strong initiative. 13.Be3 Qb7 14.Nc3 d6?! 15.Rab1 Rxb1 16.Rxb1 Qc8?! The position looks messy, but Black is behind in development and his king is still in the centre. White’s advantage has now risen to +4.71 which tells me that I am now winning. Black cannot hold his queenside together. 17.Bxa7 Bb7?! 18.Qb3 Ba6 19.Ng5 Nh6 20.Nd5! Not really a piece sacrifice. 20…cxd5 21.Qa4+ Kf8 22.Qxa6! wins immediately. 20…Bf6 21.Nxf6+ exf6 22.Ne4 Nf7! 23.Qa3! Ke7 24.Rb8 Qxb8! 25.Bxb8 Rxb8
Black’s queen sacrifice has produced a very interesting endgame with an unusual material balance. Material is dynamically equal: I have queen for rook, bishop and pawn. On the face of it, Black should be able to hold this position. But chess engines are very good at exploiting the limitless potential of the queen – especially in combination with a knight. The evaluation remains at between +4 and +5 for quite a long time. 26.h3! Bc8 27.Nd2! f5 28.Qa5 Bd7 29.Nc4! Rb7 30.a4 e4! 31.Kh2 f4?! Black’s pieces are awkwardly-placed and he finds it hard to co-ordinate. In fact there is now no defence to the simple plan of advancing the white a-pawn. 32.Nb6 f3 33.gxf3 exf3 34.Qa6 Nd8 35.a5 Rc7 36.Qa8 Rb7 37.Qxb7! Nxb7 Sacrificing queen for rook to force the pawn through to promotion. The black knight on b7 is spectacularly badly placed and cannot stop the pawn. This is an elementary endgame tactic and you don’t need a chess engine to see it. 38.a6 1–0
Black resigned. On the face of it, this was a crushing victory. But the computer’s summary is interesting: “White loses 0 pawn per move (no errors), Black loses 0.17 pawn per move (8 inaccuracies).” Computer analysis shows that Black did not make any blunders or obvious errors. It shows that at the very top level, you have to play perfectly to survive.
It’s rare for an event to ignite not just the chess world but the world outside. Two previous events stand out, in positive ways: the Fischer–Spassky world championship match at Reykjavik in 1972, and more recently the Netflix drama The Queen’s Gambit which has inspired a generation of young female players. Now we have something decidedly negative which has the potential to turn people off the game completely.
It is beyond doubt that Niemann has cheated at online chess. Either two times or a hundred times, depending on who you believe. But there is no evidence that he has cheated at over the board chess. Of course there are suspicions: how did he gain 100 FIDE rating points so quickly, and how did he inflict a rare defeat on the strongest player in the world? Carlsen, and many others, clearly believe he must be up to something. Actual proof of underhand methods is another matter.
Niemann is clearly discredited online, but what does the OTB future hold for him? On one view, he has not been shown to cheat in this mode, and he will surely be scrutinised more closely than any other player in future. As if even his bowel movements will be watched. He, of all players, has no opportunity for wrongdoing. And it is an important principle in judicial and quasi-judicial matters that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
But this is to assume that the worlds of online chess and OTB chess can be clearly separated. Yes, they have different procedures, and ratings in one form do not cross over to the other. But it is the same game involving the same mental and psychological processes. Knowing that your opponent has cheated online is bound to affect your play against the same opponent over the board. There is always the possibility that your opponent may have found some ingenious and hitherto undetected method of gaining an unfair advantage. Once the taint arrives, it’s very hard to make it go away.
It would not be surprising if more chess players followed Carlsen’s lead and theatrically resigned against Niemann in the early stages of the game – or even refused to play him altogether. When these things reach a critical mass, what can the chess authorities do? One option would be to ban Niemann from OTB chess. But that is hard to reconcile with notions of fair play.
Maybe the solution lies with Niemann himself. While maintaining his innocence in the OTB format, he could acknowledge the furore that his online actions have caused and the psychological problem he has inflicted on his opponents. He could voluntarily withdraw from all forms of chess and self-isolate for a significant time, at least a year. And then come back to the OTB world and start again. He would be a weaker player through lack of practice, but the chess world might have calmed down by then and might be ready to accept him on equal terms.
