Monthly Archives: March 2023

Useful acronyms 2: DAUT

1 Reply

We continue this short series on useful pieces of chess advice that could help to improve your results over the board. Today, DAUT, which stands for Don’t Analyse Unnecessary Tactics. Also known as DCUA, or Don’t Create Unnecessary Acronyms. However, who am I to second-guess one of England’s leading players, GM John Nunn, who invented this concept in another excellent strategy book, Secrets of Practical Chess (Gambit 2007).

This is what Nunn says:

“Tactical analysis is an error-prone activity. Overlooking one important finesse can completely change the result of the analysis. If it is possible to decide your move on purely positional considerations then you should do so; it is quicker and more reliable.”

I would add that this applies particularly if you already have a winning position, or you are much stronger than your opponent and want to win in as risk-free a manner as possible. In other words, Keep It Simple. This echoes the advice in yet another chess classic, Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb (Batsford 2005), on how Tigers should get the better of Rabbits.

Nunn follows up the advice with an example from his own games. I think nothing brings the point home better than drawing on your own experience, so here are some examples from games played by Barking. The first of these is from way back when. I was playing for Hackney in an away match against Hampstead.

White: Rodney Barking ( ? ), Black: D.Daniels ( ? ), Middlesex League 1989
B15: Caro-Kann, Tartakower Variation

I was pleased with the game so far. White is clearly winning. There are any number of good continuations here, for example 27.Qe5 / Qf4 / Qd4, winning the rook on a8, or else 27.Bxg2 Nxf6 28.Bxf8, also winning the rook. However, I analysed a variation which I thought resulted in a quick mate.
27.Bxh7+
Nothing wrong with this, it also wins if followed up correctly.
27…Kxh7 28.Qxf7+ Kh6
And now the simple 29.Qxd7 is good enough. White is only a pawn up, but Black’s king is completely exposed and he will have to give up queen for rook to avoid being mated. However, I carried on with the line I had previously analysed and immediately played…
29.Qf6+??
The idea is that both king moves (to h7 and h5) allow a rook check on e7 or e5 and mate follows very quickly. I had also previously seen that interposing the queen with 29…Qg6 allowed 30.Rh1+ and mate next move. So imagine my surprise when my opponent played…
29…Qg6+!
…and said “CHECK!” in a very loud voice. I had completely overlooked that this interposition came with a check, and dealing with the check took priority over delivering mate in two. I had no choice but to exchange queens, resulting in a lost endgame which I resigned immediately. The strong Hackney player Tim Kett published an analysis of the game later on, commenting that this was “…a sad end to an otherwise fine game.”

The second example is much more recent. I was positionally better and should not have chosen a tactical continuation.

White: Elliot Macneil (1905), Black: Rodney Barking (2052), London League Summer Tournament 2022
D78: QP Neo-Grünfeld

The opening had gone well for me. My pieces are actively placed, and White’s two bishops in particular are ineffective. I should now have continued with a sensible move such as 17…Nf6, strengthening my control over the important e4 square. Instead I was beguiled by his dark-squared bishop having no escape squares (he had just played 17.e3, blocking it in), so I played the aggressive…
17…g5
However, this doesn’t win a piece since White can bring out his queen with a counter-attack on my knight on f5 which is now undefended. I had seen this idea but didn’t take it seriously.
18.Qg4 gxf4 19.Qxf5 fxe3 20.fxe3
…when objectively I am still OK but the position is much more random. White can prepare e4, or bring his knight into the attack on e5 or g5, or play down the half-open f-file. By this stage I was no longer feeling good about the game and this psychological factor may have influenced my later moves. My opponent didn’t always find the best continuation, but I still managed to lose the game.

Finally, a game from this year, where Barking finally makes the right decision. Maybe the current model Barking is a sadder and wiser version.

White: Alan Palmer (1712), Black: Rodney Barking (2055), Battersea Internal 2023
A03: Bird’s Opening
Alan opened 1.f4 and I made the first correct decision of the game by avoiding my favourite From’s Gambit (the tactical 1…e5), which Alan later said he had been hoping for, instead choosing the more positional and objectively best move 1…d5. As the game developed, I put my pieces on active squares and he put his on passive squares, with the large rating differential no doubt influencing his decision to park the bus. We eventually reached this position:

White is completely tied down to the defence of his weak queenside structure. I had just played my queen from c4 to b3, attacking the undefended knight on b1. Now, knight moves would allow me to capture the pawn on c3, as would shifting the rook on c2 to the kingside, and bishop moves would allow me to capture the pawn on d4, so he had continued by moving the rook leftwards from c2 to b2, a move which was so ugly that I had not even considered it.

Although this seems to defend everything, I now saw the possibility of sacrificing my queen to achieve a breakthrough on the queenside. I spent a long time looking at 27…Nxc3 28.Rxb3 Nxd1 when White has a number of continuations:
A: 29.Bd2 axb3 30.Qxb3 Bxd4+ 31.Kf1 Rc2
B: 29.Bb2 axb3 30.Qxd1 Rc2 31.Bc3 R8xc3 32.Nxcd3 Rxc3
C: 29.Qxd1 Rxc1
D: 29.Be3 axb3 30.Qxd1 Rc2.

Lines A to C are winning for Black. Line D is White’s best when Black still has a very strong position but there is no immediate win. I saw all that in the analysis and concluded that the outcome was not clear enough to justify entering the complications. So I made like Captain Sensible and played…
27…Qc4
…going back where I had come from. I knew that White had nothing positive to do, so I decided to continue increasing the positional pressure in the hope of achieving a breakthrough in another part of the board.
28.Rc2 Bf6 29.Kg2 Qxd3 30.Rxd3 Rc4 31.Be3 g5
White has defended against the queenside tactics, but has no response to the plan of taking on f4 and invading with the rooks down the g-file. And in fact the game ended a few moves later when he blundered and lost a piece.

So the Good Doctor was right all along. If you want to improve your results, don’t indulge in unnecessary grandstanding.

A tale of two teams

Leave a Reply

If you play for an active chess club in the London area, fixture congestion is a fact of life. So last night, two of my teams were in action. Streatham EC in the revived London League Eastman Competition, 4 boards, away v The Hung Pawns (yes really) in Hammersmith at 6.45pm. Also Streatham 2 in London League Division 2, that’s 8 boards, away v Metropolitan 1 some miles further east at Aldgate, at 6.30pm.

I captain the Eastman team. It’s not difficult finding 4 players from our 12-man squad to play in this team, so I set that up and left them to it, with the very capable Graham K as acting captain. As it happened our opponents gave us advance notice of a default on board 4, so I was able to stand down one of our team.

For myself, I turned out for Streatham 2, who have had a challenging season in a division full of other clubs’ 1st teams. We’re in the relegation zone but have matches in hand on the teams above us. Our captain Martin S assembled a decent team and I was down to play on board 3.

I arrived in London early, around 5.45pm, to pick up a message on my phone from one of our Eastman players who had just had a domestic emergency and needed to withdraw. With only one hour before the match was due to start, I asked a couple of players who I thought might be available, but they couldn’t make it.

I hate defaulting boards more than most things in life. I think I hold the club record for the highest number of players approached to fill a team. That’s 34 players asked, for an 8-board team, and yes we did turn out a full team on that occasion. So I hatched a cunning plan to rescue the Eastman team. I texted the Hung Pawns captain to say we were trying to find someone. I was the first to arrive at the Metropolitan venue. In the absence of our captain, I exchanged team lists and tossed for colours (I lost. We were black on odd boards).

I then explained the problem to their captain and my proposed solution. I would be happy to agree an early draw with their board 3 (in the trade we call this a Grandmaster Draw), leaving me free to dash across London and join the Eastman team before the default time of 7.45pm. Their captain quite rightly said I would have to discuss it with my potential opponent. So I did. But as it happens, this was his first game for Metropolitan, and he wanted to play a proper game. I understood that and I don’t blame him for insisting.

My next idea was to swap positions in our team so that I would move up to board 2 and my colleague Robin H down to board 3. There’s only a small difference in rating points, so that would have been acceptable. Facing an old stager on the Metropolitan board 2, I thought I had a good chance of agreeing an early draw. But here their captain stepped in and said he was unhappy with the idea of changing the board order once team lists had been exchanged. Nothing in the league rules prevents it, and I should know because I wrote them, but there was no point arguing about it so I let it drop. Unsporting or what?

At this point I resigned myself to the inevitable. I texted the Hung Pawns captain again to say that we would default board 3. I then turned my whole attention to the match in hand against Metropolitan, determined to make them pay for thwarting my attempt to be Captain Marvel. Here’s the game against my Swedish opponent.

White: Lars Astrom (FIDE 2098), Black: Rodney Barking (2070). London League 2023.
B22: Sicilian 2.c3
Online game: https://lichess.org/SWoQsZyK
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5
These days I usually play the other move, 2…Nf6, but I know the 2…d5 line well (years of practice against my SW Surrey sparring partner) and my results have been good.
3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 e6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.O-O Be7 10.h3 Bh5 11.Nc3 Qd6 12.a3 O-O
All theory so far – although my opponent had taken quite a long time over his moves. I like this position for Black. The isolated d-pawn is going nowhere, my pieces are actively-placed, and I have a clear plan of exchanging pieces to emphasise the structural weakness.

13.Qd2?!
The first sign that my opponent didn’t really know what he was doing. In this line the queen belongs on the white squares, rather than further restricting the passive bishop on e3. So 13.Qb3 with an eye on d5 and b7 was the way to go.
13…Rfd8 14.Rad1 Rac8 15.b4 Nd5
Stockfish slightly prefers 15…Qb8 followed by …Bd6 and …Ne7, gradually improving my pieces. It’s not as if White can do anything here.
16.Ne4 Qc7 17.Rc1 Qb6
To escape the pin and nullify the threat of b5. Possibly better was …Bg6 and …a6, since the queen is slightly better-placed on c7 than b6.
18.Nc5 a6 19.Rfd1 Bf6 20.g4 Bg6 21.h4
My opponent decided to get active with his kingside pawns. But this just creates weaknesses. He’d be better off concentrating on piece play and trying to arrange Ne5 under favourable circumstances. The problem is the weak d-pawn, as he always has to work out if I can take it.
21…h5 22.g5 Be7 23.Bc4
Again not good. I thought he probably wanted to sac on e6 in some lines. So I took time out to strengthen my kingside defences.
23…Bf5 24.Re1 g6 25.Bf4 Nxf4
I was happy to exchange off the bishop now that he couldn’t recapture with a pawn.
26.Qxf4 Bd6 27.Qe3 Qc7!
With the awkward threat of …Bf4 winning the exchange. At this point the engine evaluates the position as –1.20 in Black’s favour. But now my opponent blunders – again trying to be too active when his pieces aren’t ready for it.

28.Nxa6?? bxa6 29.Bxa6
Hoping to recoup the sacrificed material through the dual threat of Bxc8 and b5.
29…Bf4 30.Qc3 Bxc1 31.Rxc1 Nxd4!
My opponent clearly hadn’t seen this thematic tactical counterblow, which wins a piece and the game. Stockfish actually prefers 31…Qf4, also winning material and maintaining the tension in the position, but I think the move played is clearer and simpler.
32.Qxc7
He has no choice since 32.Nxd4 Qxc3 and 32.Qxd4 Qxc1+ both lose immediately.
32…Nxf3+ 33.Kg2 Rxc7 34.Rxc7 Be4
Now I’m a piece up in the ending. White has connected passed a- and b-pawns but they’re not dangerous.
35.Kg3 Ra8 36.Kf4?!
I was expecting 36.Rc8+ Rxc8 37.Bxc8, but I just transfer the king to the queenside and it’s an easy win.
36…Rxa6 37.Kxe4 Rxa3 38.b5 Nxh4 39.b6 Rb3 40.b7 Kg7 41.Kd4 Nf5+ 42.Kc4
One last mistake, but it’s all over anyway.
42…Rxb7 0–1
He resigned since 43.Rxb7 allows the fork with 43…Nd6+. I was pleased with the way I had played the game, even more so when the later engine analysis put my centipawn loss (as they call it) at just 0.07 with no blunders or mistakes and only four inaccuracies. That’s as close to perfection as I’ve ever come at the chess board.

So I made them pay for turning down the Grandmaster Draw offer. What was happening elsewhere? Our captain lost on time on board 7 in a complicated middlegame position. On other boards, it was draw after draw, reflecting the evenly-matched ratings. Most satisfying was Jagdip’s draw on board 5. He couldn’t find the venue and arrived almost 60 minutes late, leaving him just 15 minutes plus the increment for the entire game. He played quickly and eventually reached a rook, knight and pawn ending. He actually missed a couple of wins in time trouble, but had no difficulty notching up the half-point. So we drew the match 4–4, a good result against a team still hoping for promotion to Division 1.

In the Eastman match, the Hung Pawns fielded a very strong player on top board. We lost that one but won on board 2, also drawing the match with the final score 2–2.

What would have happened if I’d succeeded in getting an early draw in the Division 2 match, and travelled to Hammersmith where I would have faced a much lower-rated player on board 3? We would probably have won the Eastman match and narrowly lost the Division 2 match. But the Division 2 match actually mattered in terms of league position, whereas the Eastman match didn’t – we were always going to finish second in the Eastman, behind one very strong team and ahead of five others who don’t seem to be taking this competition seriously. It’s rather like the chess equivalent of the old League Cup in football. No one really cares. In the end it was right for me to stay in East London and do my best for the 2nds.

Surrey League time controls and starting times

5 Replies

The Surrey League are carrying out a survey of affiliated clubs, seeking views from players and club representatives. The two issues are the method for deciding games (time controls) and the starting time of matches.

The first of these is quite distinctive. In the Surrey League, all three methods of finishing a game are available. The away player must offer two options out of adjudication, adjournment, and finish on the night. The home player must choose one of those two. The rationale is that players can avoid a method they particularly don’t want, and can’t be forced into one option. The same system used to operate in the Croydon & District League, but they moved to a mandatory finish on the night this season.

The Surrey League retains a preference for adjudication in that this is the default option if the system breaks down, and also the clocks are required to be set for the adjudication option at the start until the players decide.

With adjudication, the time control is 35 moves in 75 minutes, then 7 moves in 15 minutes repeating as needed to the end of the session. With adjournment, it’s 35 moves in 75 minutes, then 28 moves in 60 minutes, then 7 moves in 15 minutes repeating. With finish on the night, there’s a further division: either quickplay, which is 30 moves in 60 minutes then all remaining moves in a further 20 minutes, or Fischer, which is all moves in 75 minutes plus 10 seconds a move.

In practice, I have always played finish on the night, and in almost all cases, with the incremental time control, although one of my opponents insisted on the quickplay finish instead. This is the default option if the players do not agree.

I have not seen any stats on the frequency of the different options chosen, although in the matches when I have been present, most players have chosen a finish on the night with the incremental time control.

Matches in the Surrey League start at 7.40pm. The playing session is a minimum of 2 hours and 40 minutes.

This is what the Surrey League authorities are saying about their survey:

As the 22/23 season draws towards a conclusion, now is a good time to review the playing conditions for our inter-club standardplay matches.  We would like to collect feedback from as many players as possible and then bring a proposal to the next AGM at the end of June to reflect any changes that this process identifies as being needed.

We are keen that the chess competitions we offer are attractive and recognise that we are to some extent competing with other local leagues for players’ time. There are 2 aspects of particular interest which may be linked, but you may have other suggestions:

Firstly the start time of matches, which is set at a default 7:40pm, and a playing session of 2 hours 40 minutes.   Other leagues (Thames Valley, Surrey Border League, Mid-Sussex) tend to start earlier and play longer.

Secondly, finishing of games.  We have had the “Away player offers 2 from 3 options & Home player chooses” for many years and this has been an effective way to avoid the least favourite of the 3 options.    However, neighbouring leagues are increasingly play to a finish. These two factors should be considered together, because a longer playing session may make playing to a finish more achievable.

There have been some changes to the background working/commuting environment over recent years, digital clocks are now ubiquitous and captains’ match cards in the Surrey League show there is a clear trend away from adjournments and adjudications towards playing to a finish.

Before considering any changes we need to hear your views.   The link below takes you to a very brief survey we are running.  Please take a few minutes to complete this for us.   Just as important as your preferences are the reasons behind them.   The current basic version of SurveyMonkey does not allow us to capture text responses, such as “Why do you say this?”, so we would also like you to send your comments to a dedicated e-mail address.  These comments can include the reasons behind your preferences, other important factors we should consider or even new ideas/suggestions for the league.

You asked to respond by 6 April.
The email address is  sccasurvey@gmail.com  

The survey link:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/VPZHGKX

You can only take the survey once, and you have to indicate which is your club and whether you are responding as a player or club representative. The survey window is quite short: I only saw it on 20 March and the deadline is 6 April which is less than three weeks away. I suppose they must want to reach an internal decision in time for their AGM before the end of June.

I have completed the survey and also given a textual explanation of my views as below:

I would prefer the following set-up, which is consistent with a number of other leagues in the south east.

  • Playing session minimum 3 hours (maximum 3 hours 30 minutes)
  • Mandatory Fischer time control G75 + 15
  • No adjudication or adjournment provision.

This reflects my personal views that 

  • the game should finish on the night
  • the need to use post-session computer analysis or third-party adjudication procedures should be minimised
  • the playing session should be long enough to allow the participants to play quality chess
  • extending the increment (say from 10 seconds to 15 seconds) is more valuable to players, particularly later in the game, than reducing the basic game time (say from 80 minutes to 75 minutes).

One of my colleagues, responding separately, made the following observations, with which I completely agree:

For clubs that play in several leagues which all use club home venues (such as SCCA) the use of digital clocks (DGT 2010s are ubiquitous) poses particular challenges in the current arrangements. One is accommodating those who arrive late after the clocks have been started (there is always someone!). To cater for all eventualities clocks must be available in four possible settings (quickplay [guillotine and incremental]; adjournment and adjudication), or else a bespoke time setting must be made on the spot for the game in question, according to the finish adopted. If the captain has their own game to play this can be especially distracting. Life would be so much simpler for hosts/managers if there was a single mandatory game finish. It would also obviate the wearisome business of explaining to players all the game finish options before the match can get underway. 

Life would be even simpler for clubs playing in several local leagues (Streatham for example also plays in the Croydon and District Chess League), if there were harmonisation of game finishes across all leagues. Probably a pipe dream, but it would obviate the requirement to reset clocks for different control regimes between matches. CDCL, by the way, has moved to a default incremental of 75mins + 10spm. Even if the parameters varied between leagues, having a common incremental finish-on-the night regime would be a step in the right direction.

An additional practical problem is that not everyone is familiar with setting a digital clock and switching between options. I have had to help out with this on a number of occasions.

If all leagues moved to the same mandatory incremental time control, which I would regard as ideal, what should it be? It’s well-known that I regard G75 + 15 as superior to G80 + 10. But since the second of these is the most common incremental time control in use in English league chess, it would make more sense for everyone to move to that.

I hope the Surrey League will publish a summary of the responses to the survey and I look forward to seeing what’s proposed for the AGM.

 

The Janus Variation

Leave a Reply

This is not some new or obscure chess opening variation. Instead the Janus Variation is the generic term I have invented for a certain category of variation which will differ from one player to another and which may take a different form over time for each individual player. This kind of variation is hardly ever discussed in chess openings books – in fact I have only seen it mentioned once, long ago, and I can’t remember which book that was.

Confused? You won’t be. Read on. But first, an explanation of the name of this variation, for those of you without a classical education. In the religion and mythology of Ancient Rome, Janus was the god of beginnings and endings among other things. The month January is named after him (one year ends and another one starts). He is usually depicted as having two faces, each of which looks in the opposite direction.

When you think about the opening in chess, what naturally comes to mind are your chosen openings for either colour. For example I currently play the English Opening as White. My main Black defences are the Sicilian Sveshnikov vs 1.e4, and the QP Slav vs 1.d4. Actually I play a wide range of openings and these are just my current favourites.

It is a fact of chess that there is always one opening you have to play as both White and Black. This will be obvious if you ask yourself, What do I do if my opponent plays my favourite opening against me? Suppose you play 1.d4 as White and the King’s Indian Defence as Black. When you face the King’s Indian Defence as White, you play the Classical Variation with Nf3 and Be2. What do you do as Black if someone plays the King’s Indian Classical Variation against you? It doesn’t matter exactly what you play. At some point, you have to play the same line with either colour. This is what I mean by the Janus Variation. You have to look both ways.

I said that the content of the Janus Variation may differ for each individual player over time. Until recently I was playing 1.e4 as White and the Sicilian Najdorf as Black. Against the Najdorf I would play the highly-theoretical 6.Bg5 main line. So I had to be prepared to play that line as Black as well. Nowadays the Janus Variation has changed for me and I have to know the positions arising from 1.c4 c6 for both sides.

What should be the characteristics of the Janus Variation? Obviously it has to be playable for both sides. It should result in middlegame positions which offer chances to both players and which you would be happy to play as either side. Learning an opening for both sides is a good way to improve because you have to understand the typical plans and positions for both sides. This leads you towards a consideration of the best moves. It’s no good playing a trappy but inferior continuation for one side if you know how to refute it from the other side.

In my case, from my 1.e4 and Najdorf days, I have a copy of every recent and important opening work on the Najdorf for both sides, and I also have the relevant Chessable courses for both sides. I’d like to think that my understanding of this opening, and my ability to play it properly, has improved as a result.

The trend in openings books does not lend itself to this kind of study. Many years ago, openings books tended to examine the opening objectively and recommend the best play for both sides with comprehensive coverage of all lines. Sometimes these were reduced to tables of opening variations with analysis of each line and an evaluation at the end of it. Think Modern Chess Openings (MCO), 15th edition by Nick de Firmian, published 2009, or Nunn’s Chess Openings (NCO), published 1999, with the Good Doctor leading a team of openings experts.

Over time, repertoire books have become much more common. These present an opening from the point of view of either White or Black. It must be what players want these days. So for example The Iron English by Simon Williams analyses the Botvinnik Variation of the English for White (the setup with c4, Nc3, d3, e4, g3, Bg2, Nge2, 0-0) and considers everything Black might play against it. If you’re looking for something Black might play against the English, and in particular against non-Botvinnik lines, this is not the book for you. I’m not saying anything against this very popular repertoire book, which is as engaging and thorough as the man himself. I’m just making the point that it’s written from one point of view.

Where it gets interesting is when the same author produces a book on the same opening for first one colour and then the other. For example take the Keep It Simple series by IM Christof Sielicki. In Keep It Simple for Black, originally a Chessable course then published in book form by New In Chess in 2022, he recommends the Caro-Kann as Black’s main defence to 1.e4. Against the Exchange Variation he analyses a setup with …Nc6, …Nf6 and …e5, often resulting in positions where Black has an isolated d-pawn. He also has some useful things to say about the “Carlsbad” pawn structure arising from the Exchange, typically where Black doesn’t play …e5 but keeps the position closed, where White has the half-open e-file and Black has the half-open c-file, and he outlines the main plans for both sides.

Then, around the end of 2022, Sielicki publishes the Chessable course Keep It Simple for White 2.0, an update on the original course published a few years previously. In the original course, Sielicki recommends the Two Knights’ Variation against the Caro-Kann (1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3). For version 2.0, he changes course and recommends… the Exchange Variation! So here he has to present the same opening from White’s point of view that he recently presented from Black’s point of view. Sielicki is honest enough to recognise the difficulty and points out that the positions are playable for both sides. Let’s take the position arising after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.h3 (6.Nf3 prevents …e5 but allows …Bg4 pinning the knight) 6…e5 7.dxe5 Nxe5 8.Nf3 Nxd3+ 9.Qxd3 Bd6 10.0-0 0-0.

Sielicki goes on to say: “The move 11.Be3, now my suggestion for White, is not mentioned in KIS Black, as I focused more on the direct attempts to pressure Black. Our strategy with White is a slow grind, trying to keep Black’s pieces passive and making slight progress. I think that chances are equal, but White’s job is quite easy, and it is not every Caro player’s forte to defend IQP positions.”

I’m not sure where that leaves Black supporters of the Caro-Kann. What are they supposed to play against the Exchange Variation? I guess we’ll have to wait for Keep It Simple for Black 2.0 to find out. 

The Professionals

2 Replies

What does the title of this post mean to you?

  • A crime-action TV series broadcast in the UK from 1977 to 1983 and featuring Cowley, Doyle and Bodie from the unit CI5
  • the sort of people who do bad things without getting emotional, such as Bond villains like Dr Kaufman in Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), “I’m just a professional doing a job”
  • trained, skilled and experienced members of a set of respected occupations including doctors and lawyers
  • members of a chess team who get paid to play chess.

Yes, today’s correct answer is the last of these. We turn the spotlight on professional chess players in English chess, or more precisely in the London League. But first, some context. Arguably the strongest national chess league in the world is the German Bundesliga, founded in 1980 and home to many of the world’s top players. The nearest domestic equivalent is the 4 Nations Chess League (4NCL), founded in 1993. This is the UK’s premier chess league competition. Many of its teams are sponsored, enabling them to bring in top players. This is expected, and no one gets worked up about it. Professionals have to make a living somehow and being paid to play for a team in a league is just one more source of income.

The London League was the strongest league in the UK before the advent of the 4NCL and remains its strongest amateur league. This happened naturally. England’s capital city is the most populated in the UK and has the largest concentration of chess players of all abilities. Most of these don’t – or can’t – make money from chess and play for enjoyment.

Then along came Wood Green. This is a chess team composed almost entirely of professionals and managed by the controversial Brian Smith, formerly Secretary of the League. Although some professionals turn out for other clubs, Wood Green are the only team that could be described as a professional team. They have won the League title for as long as anyone can remember.

A look at the latest Division 1 league table for 2022/23 makes the point. This is up to date as of today. 11 teams have between them played 39 matches out of a total of 55.

TeamPldPts%AvgMinMaxRange
Wood Green77100%24082394241824
Hammersmith86.581%217920642394330
Richmond8563%217520252319294
Hackney64.575%212120382179141
Streatham63.558%210219812186205
Cavendish53.570%22012173223764
Mushrooms7343%20281978205981
Battersea82.531%201919192155236
Athenaeum6233%199919482072124
Kings Head71.521%201718542164310
Imperial College1000%179716481907259

Wood Green are the only team to have won all their matches. They stand out as consistently higher-rated on average, at around 2400 each match. Most of the other teams are in the range 2000 to 2200. The lanterne rouge goes to Imperial College, rated just under 1800 and already certain to be relegated. The overall average is 2079.

It’s interesting to note the narrow rating range of only 24 points across 7 matches for Wood Green – much lower than for any other team. This arises from a core squad (see table below for more details) where a small number of players turn out for most matches. To be exact, 7 players out of a squad of 14 have each played in at least 5 out of 7 matches. You would expect this from a paid team. If turning out for the team is a source of income, you would naturally prioritise that over other non-paid chessplaying opportunities.

TitleNameRatingPldPts%
GMNicholas Pert2606100%
GMJon S Speelman253110.550%
GMJonathan W Rowson251075.579%
GMJohn W Emms250922100%
IMRichard G Pert24872150%
GMAlexander Cherniaev24877571%
GMNeil R McDonald246775.579%
GMBogdan Lalic24233267%
GMChris G Ward239455100%
FMDavid L Haydon237365.592%
IMGraeme N Buckley23376467%
CMPeter D Lalic227566100%
IMSusan K Lalic222422100%
Max P Pert207110.550%
Total145644.579%

The presence of one professional team in a league of amateur teams has both positive and negative points. On the positive side, the professional team is a benchmark for others to aim at. Matches against Wood Green provide an opportunity to play a GM or an IM, which is a valuable experience in itself. As long as you leave your ego out of the equation, losing (which usually happens) is manageable and you can learn a lot from the way the strongest players approach the game.

Against that, the league is not as competitive as it might be, because one team always wins and everyone else is playing for second place. This devalues the status of champions. Is a title worth having if you can buy it for money? And it’s easy to say how players / teams on the outside can resent the one team with the most resources. Compare the Premier League in English football. Many people resent Manchester City, unquestionably the strongest team of the past decade, because their financial resources have enabled them to buy many of the world’s best players. It’s not a level playing-field.

Finally, a note on payment. I don’t have any inside knowledge of the financial arrangements in operation at Wood Green. About 15 years ago, the going rate for a GM or IM in the London League was £100 a match plus expenses. That may have gone up since then with inflation. I’m assuming that what is now paid is still a flat rate rather than relating to performance. In some sports you get a bonus if you win rather than draw or lose. But in the London League, most Wood Green players win most of their games, so this is normal. I imagine the manager is prepared to take the occasional hit as long as the team gets the result – as it always does.

Death by correspondence

Leave a Reply

Over the board, if you choose a dubious opening, you may score a quick win but against a well-prepared opponent you will end up in a bad or losing position more often than not. That’s the value of mainline openings: they are sound at all levels, and if you know some theory and the general plans and where your pieces and pawns should go, you will reach a decent middlegame where you can start to play chess. And that’s all you can ask from an opening.

In high-level correspondence chess, where the moves are backed by engine analysis, it’s a different matter. The top engines operate at the 3500 rating level. In so far as you can ascribe emotional states to a machine, they are ruthless: they will exploit any mistake, no matter how small.

So I have discovered, to my initial surprise, that some mainline openings are no longer playable in correspondence chess. Let me give two examples with illustrations from games played by Rodney Barking.

The King’s Indian Defence

Since February 2022 Barking has started 218 correspondence games. 173 are finished and 45 are ongoing. Of the finished games, Barking has won 57, drawn 111, and lost only 5. Of the losses, 2 were down to carelessness: Barking played out a linear conditional sequence but got the moves in the wrong order at the point of implementation and lost material. This will not happen again.

The other 3 losses, where Barking was simply outplayed over the board, were all on the Black side of the King’s Indian Defence. Despite relying on the magisterial 2-volume set King’s Indian 1 and King’s Indian 2 by GM Gawain Jones (published 2022), Barking was simply pushed off the board. In this opening Black concedes a significant space advantage. As the engines show, White’s best strategy is to concentrate his forces on the kingside and neutralise Black’s initiative, before gradually expanding all over the board. Computers have become very good indeed at exploiting a space advantage. Barking also relied on engine analysis, but did not always follow its recommendations where the engine departed from Jones’s ideas, and this did not work out well. I am not saying anything against Jones, who is possibly the world’s leading expert on the King’s Indian Defence, and whose books were surely checked with the best-available engines at the time.

White: Michael Moyses (1800), Black: Rodney Barking (1800), ICCF 2022
E94: King’s Indian, Classical Variation
Online game – https://lichess.org/QyQdEy2c
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7
This is Gawain Jones’s trademark and he analyses it in detail in his book. Of course the main line is 6…e5 followed by 7…Nc6 and Jones analyses that in much greater detail. I’m not ascribing the loss to the 6…Nbd7 line despite losing with it in another game as well. The third game I lost was in the 6…e5 main line.
7.0-0 e5 8.Be3 Qe7 9.Qc2 c6 10.d5 c5
The plan endorsed by Jones is to close the centre, slowing down White’s queenside play, and to prepare kingside expansion with …f5. Often Black will play …Ng8 and …Bh6 to exchange the bad bishop.

11.Kh1
Jones considers a range of 11th moves for White, but this is not one of them. It’s the prelude to a kingside build-up by White. Alarmingly, the engines already evaluate White’s advantage as over +1.00 for several different 11th moves.
11…Kh8 12.Rae1 Ng8 13.g4 Ndf6 14.h3 h6 15.Qc1 Nh7 16.Rg1 Bd7 17.Rg2 a6 18.a4 f5 19.gxf5 gxf5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Reg1 Rf7 22.Nd2 Ngf6 23.Qd1 Bxh3 24.Rh2 Qd7 25.Bh5 Rff8 26.Qf3 Bf5 27.Rhg2 Rg8 28.Bf7 e4 29.Qf4 Bh3 30.Rg3 Qxf7 31.Rxh3 Qd7 32.Rgg3 Raf8 33.Qh4 Qf5 34.Ncxe4 Nxe4 35.Qxe4 Be5 36.Rxg8+ Kxg8 37.Rxh6
Over the course of the game, White has steadily increased the pressure on the kingside and has now won a pawn. His advantage is now around +2.00. Black’s king is also very exposed. I give the remaining moves although the game is effectively over as a contest.

37…Qxe4+ 38.Nxe4 Nf6 39.Nxf6+ Bxf6 40.Kg2 Kg7 41.Rh3 Kg6 42.b3 Kf5 43.Kf3 Bg5 44.Bxg5 Kxg5+ 45.Ke3 Rb8 46.Rh7 b5 47.Rd7 bxc4 48.bxc4 Kf5 49.Rxd6 1–0

The Sicilian Najdorf 6.Bg5

This is one of the most exciting and heavily-analysed of all opening variations. Fischer chose it as Black and defended the Poisoned Pawn line where Black snaffles the White b-pawn and aims to weather the storm in potentially quite irrational positions. In practical play, Black often declines the pawn in favour of completing development, and a complex position arises with chances for both sides. The variation as a whole is fully-playable both over the board and in correspondence chess. However, what used to be the main line – a Black option at move 13 – is now regarded as a serious error. Watch and learn.

White: Rodney Barking (2000), Black: Luis A. T. Frazão Ferreira (1668), ICCF 2022
B99: Sicilian Najdorf, 7…Be7 main line
Online game – https://lichess.org/FRZOtJZX
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7
7…Qb6 leads to the Poisoned Pawn variation. Because it is so theoretical, it tends not to be seen as a practical choice in over the board chess, and not many opening books analyse it for Black. One exception is The Sharpest Sicilian by Georgiev and Kolev, but that dates from 2012 which is a lifetime ago in the theory of this opening. Nor are there any Chessable courses on the Black side of this variation. In contrast, 7…Be7 is well-covered from the Black side, both in Playing the Najdorf: A Practical Repertoire by David Vigorito (2019), and on Chessable in Lifetime Repertoires: Giri’s Najdorf Sicilian by GM Anish Giri (2020).
8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7 13.f5

Black has a major choice here. Currently the best is thought to be 13…0-0! when Black seems to be castling into a kingside attack, but theory suggests that Black can successfully defend these positions.
13…Nc5?
The question mark may seem to be audacious for what was the main line of this variation until relatively recently. Vigorito considers it briefly and dismisses it in these words: “The big theoretical main line used to be 13…Nc5 but this never appealed to me in view of: 14.f6 gxf6 15.gxf6 Bf8 16.Rg1. The ensuing variations can be quite irrational and Black’s king is always in danger, with Rg7 and various knight sacrifices in the air. Maybe in a correspondence game Black can hold his own, but over the board it looks too scary. One recent example went 16…h5 17.a3 Rb8 18.Re1 Nd7 19.Nxe6! with a winning attack for White in Vallejo Pons–Wynn, Bangkok 2016. No thank you.”

Well that was 2019. Roll on 2021 and the 2-volume set The Najdorf Bg5 Revisited by Lukasz Jarmula. This is the most detailed and up-to-date coverage of the Bg5 Sicilian from White’s point of view. His assessment is even more stark: “This is the old main line, which has been pretty much refuted in correspondence practice.” He demonstrates this in 8 pages of detailed analysis backed up by recent games, concluding that the line “…has been simply refuted by modern engines. The whole line is unplayable unless as a provocation in a rapid or blitz game against an unprepared opponent.”
14.f6 gxf6 15.gxf6 Bf8 16.Rg1 Bd7
I have also faced 16…h5 in a more recent correspondence game which is still ongoing. We are only at move 20. The engine evaluation in that game is +1.60 and I am already winning.
17.Rg7 Bxg7 18.fxg7 Rg8 19.e5 0-0-0 20.exd6 Qb6 21.a4

White has sacrificed the exchange for an irresistible attack. 21.a4 opens up the queenside. The evaluation is now +2.50 and the game is effectively over.
21…Qb7 22.Qh5 f5 23.axb5 axb5 24.Bxb5 Rxg7 25.Qe2 Qb6 26.b4 Ne4 27.Qc4+ Kb8 28.Bxd7 Rdxd7 29.Nc6+ Kb7 30.Na5+ Kb8
Although Black has a slight material advantage, his king is completely exposed and is no match for the marauding White pieces.
31.Nxe4 fxe4 32.Qxe6 h5 33.Qd5 e3 34.Nc6+ Kb7 35.Ne7+ Kb8 36.Rf1 Rxd6 37.Rf8+ Kc7 38.Qc4+ Rc6 39.Rc8+ Kd7 40.Rxc6 Qa7 41.Qe6+ 1–0
It’s mate next move although Black could have resigned a long time ago.


Incremental time controls

Leave a Reply

Rodney Barking brings you further original research on the playing rules of league chess in England. This time the subject is incremental time controls. This arose from an internal consideration of a potential attempt (not by the league committee) to amend the rules of the London League. Currently the rules stipulate a time control of 75 minutes for the game plus a 15-second increment from the start.

The main issue is whether the basic game time should be shortened, and the increment lengthened to 30 seconds a move. The point of the 30-second increment is to provide more thinking time in the later stages and to ensure that all moves are recorded throughout the game. The drawback is that reducing the basic game time may impair the quality of the chess played in the earlier stages.

Bear in mind the maths underlying the different ratios. In considering the effect of increments on the length of the playing session, the chess authorities assume that a game will last typically 60 moves. So a 15-second increment adds 1 minute for every 4 moves, whereas a 30-second increment adds 1 minute for every 2 moves. If the game lasts exactly 60 moves and both players use all the available time (without actually losing on time), then both G75 + 15s and G60 + 30s will result in a total playing session of exactly 3 hours.

There are 86 standardplay leagues in England (excluding online and junior leagues). Information on the playing rules is available online for 63 of these leagues. Of these, 52 provide for an incremental time control (either mandatory or the default option or simply an option) and 11 do not.

Almost all leagues with an incremental time control are based on a single session of play (49 out of 52). In these cases, this is the frequency of the different incremental controls (in ascending order of length).
G60 + 30s – 5
G65 + 30s – 1
G70 + 10s – 1
G70 + 15s – 2
G75 + 10s – 8
G75 + 15s – 6
G80 + 10s – 20
G80 + 15s – 2
G85 + 10s – 2
G110 + 10s – 1
G135 + 15s – 1.

The last two of these stand out from the rest, but they are afternoon leagues where more time is available.

In three leagues, the rules provide for two sessions of play. The first session is a set number of moves in a set time (eg 30 moves in 70 minutes). The second session is a guillotine with all remaining moves in a set time (eg all moves in a further 10 minutes). In all cases the increment applies from the start of the game.
G30/70 + all/10 + 10s – 1 (Coventry & District)
G35/70 + all/10 + 10s – 1 (Bedfordshire)
G40/100 + all/50 + 30s – 1 (4NCL).

There are some particular points I want to make about these results.

Although the most common time control is G80 + 10s, in one case known to Barking the relevant league moved from this to G75 + 15s and not the other way round. This was the Central London League, which made the change about 10 years ago. The league’s decision-makers agreed that the extra thinking time provided by an increment of 15 seconds rather than 10 seconds was more important than the reduction of the basic game time from 80 minutes to 75 minutes.

They may have been influenced by the early starting time in the Central London League (6.30pm). Late finishing was less of an issue. In contrast, the Surrey Border League rejected the same proposal (to move from G80 + 10s to G75 + 15s) at its AGM in 2022. Games in this league start an hour later, at 7.30pm, and the potentially-extended finishing time would have run up against venue closing time constraints in some cases.

The session length at the two London League central venues is limited to 3 hours and 30 minutes. This applies whatever time control is used. So although it is the case that a longer increment will prolong the game where more than 60 moves are played, that is not an argument against the longer increment, at the central venues at least. Barking knows of only one case where the game was not finished on the night. 

Finally, going all the way to G60 + 30s, in other words reducing the basic game time to 60 minutes, would have a direct implication for the default time allowed. As Barking has argued elsewhere, a league the size of London with regular transport problems requires a generous default time of 45 or 60 minutes and this is not easily accommodated within a basic 60-minute game time.

Useful acronyms 1: CEM

1 Reply

The start of a short series in which we examine useful pieces of chess advice that could make your experience at the board less disastrous than it might otherwise be. For some reason the authors of such advice tend to convert it to an acronym. Maybe they think this makes it easier or remember, or else they mean something uncomplimentary about their readers’ attention span.

Today, CEM, which is short for Check Every Move. This advice features in the excellent book The Survival Guide to Competitive Chess by John Emms (Everyman Chess, 2007). The aim is to avoid the type of blunder or mistake where you have a line in mind but you overlook a good move for your opponent. Emms says that when you have worked out what you want to play, you should methodically examine the position and consider every legal move your opponent can make. In doing so you are bound to visualise the position on the board after each move and you are more likely to spot any obvious problem with your intended line. It’s not about calculation since this kind of problem almost always arises on the very first move.

Now this procedure does add to the thinking time (although many of your opponent’s potential moves can be dismissed very quickly). So Emms does not advise doing this on every move, but only where you reach a critical position and it matters that you get it right.

Here are two examples from recent games where I did not follow this procedure and only spotted a problem after making my move. In the first case I was fortunate that my opponent did not find the right continuation.

White: Rodney Barking (2073), Black: Joshua Blinkhorn (1934). London League 2023.
C82: Ruy Lopez, Open Variation.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Be3 Qe7 12.Rd1 Rad8

This is a fairly typical position for the Open Variation. I chose 10.Qe2 to prevent Black sacrificing his knight on f2 then opening the f-file with …f6 (the Dilworth Attack). With correct play White is better but it can be complicated and I couldn’t remember all the theory as I don’t often face the Open. Then after Qe2, I was able to play Be3 and neutralise Black’s dark-square bishop.

Black’s last move, 12…Rad8, reinforces the centre but leaves his queenside unprotected. In this case the standard (and in principle best) White plan is to attack on the queenside by pushing a4. I looked at various Black attempts to hold the queenside together. 13…bxa4 14.Bxa4 is better for White, and 13…Rab8 14.Bxd5 wins a pawn. 13…b4 didn’t look problematic either (although the computer later identified this as Black’s second-best option in this position). So without checking anything else, I continued:
13.a4??
Can you see what’s wrong with this move? I could – but only after I’d played it on the board. Black has the massively-strong continuation 13…d4! with a double attack on the bishop on b3 and the bishop on e3. I can’t avoid losing material. For example 14.Rxd4 Bxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxb3 16.Qxe4 Bd5, or 14.cxd4 Bxb3 15.Rc1 Nxd4 and in both cases I can resign. If I had applied the CEM technique I would have considered all Black’s possible replies, dismissing most of them, but identifying 13…d4! as fatal to my plans. You only have to notice the move to see this instantly. Instead of 13.a4?? I would have played 13.Nbd2 retaining a definite pull.

As it happens my opponent didn’t find the killer move. The game continued 13…Na5 14.Bxc5 Qxc5 15.Bc2 and I went on to win.

You would think I learned a lesson from this, but in fact the next example is from a game that I played only two days later.

White: Chris James (1996), Black: Rodney Barking (2073). Sligo 2023.
A36: English, Symmetrical Variation.
1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 e6 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.0-0 0-0 8.a3 b6 9.Rb1 Bb7 10.b4 d6 11.d3 Qd7 12.b5 Nd4 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Ne2 Bg7 15.Bb2 Bxb2 16.Rxb2 d5 17.Rd2 Rad8 18.Qa4 dxe4 19.Qxa7

White’s 1.e4 turned out to be an Anti-Sicilian, converting after 1…c5 2.c4 to an English Opening, Botvinnik Variation. This must be recommended in some opening book. The Botvinnik Variation is White’s most popular choice if you’re new to the English as it’s easy to learn (with a standard piece deployment) and it’s effective against one of Black’s most common responses to the English, which is a King’s Indian formation. There are several good ways of responding to the Botvinnik Variation. In this game I chose the Symmetrical Variation with 1…c5 and a later …e6, which Fischer used to play, and which was recommended by GM Victor Bologan in a DVD with a Black repertoire against the English some years ago. I was happy with the position I got from the opening as Black has active development and no obvious problems.

Perhaps recognising this, my opponent decided to go in for complications with 18.Qa4, since I was threatening to win a pawn by capturing on c4 or e4, and preventing this by capturing on d5 himself is nothing for White. After 18…dxe4 19.Qxa7 we reach the diagram position. Now the best continuation for Black is 19…exd3, when the tactics work out well for Black after either:
(1) 20.Bxb7 Nc8 21.Qa6 dxe2 22.Rxe2 Nd6 23.Bc6 Qc7, or in this line 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Re1 Rd1 24.f3 Rxe1+ 25.Kf2 Ra1, or else
(2) 20.Qxb7 Qxb7 21.Bxb7 dxe2 22.Rxe2 Nf5.

Note that in the diagram position, even if Black makes a quiet move such as 19…Nf5, White can’t take on e4 because the d3 pawn is pinned, e.g. 20.Bxe4 Bxe4 21.Qxd7 Rxd7, exploiting the undefended White rook on d2. The problem with quiet moves is that White is threatening to win a pawn with Qxb6. I can defend it with 19…Nc8, but after 20.Qa4 exd3 21.Rfd1 this time the pin on the d3 pawn (which is now a Black pawn) works against me. Then 21…dxe2 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Re1, or 21…Bxg2 22.Rxd3 Qxd3 23.Rxd3 Rxd3 24.Kxg2, are both quite good for Black but you feel White has rather got away with it.

You can see what’s coming next. If only I could defend the pawn on b6, and also remove my queen from the potential pin on the d-file, I would not only be threatening to take on d3, but also to win White’s queen with …Ra8. So without really considering what White might do about this, I played 19…Qc7?

As soon as I had played this move, I saw that White could capture on e4 with the bishop and win a pawn. Yes, his d3-pawn is still pinned because the rook on d2 remains undefended, but more importantly my queen on c7 is no longer defended by the rook on d8, so my bishop on b7 is pinned and I can’t recapture on e4. Again if I had applied the CEM technique when considering 19…Qc7, I would have thought about 20.Bxe4 (among all the other moves White might play, all of which lose for White) and I would instantly have seen the problem.

The game continued 20.Bxe4 Rd7? (one bad move leads to another: instead the problem-like 20…Nd5! 21.Qa4 Ne3! 22.fxe3 Bxe4 is fine for Black) and now 21.Qxb7 Qxb7 22.Bxb7 Rxb7 23.Ra1 would have cemented the extra pawn. However, White played the inferior 21.Nc3? and after 21.Qe5 22.Bxb7 Qxc3, I went on to win.

Since these games I have been trying to apply the CEM technique in my games and in most cases it has helped me to avoid some obvious errors that I might otherwise have made.

Winning with the English 1

Leave a Reply

Rodney Barking has recently moved across to 1.c4 as his main opening as White. The English used to have a reputation for being a boring positional opening until players discovered its potential as an attacking kingside opening. Also it is less heavily analysed than 1.e4 or 1.d4 so you are more likely to reach original positions.

Rodney has been very successful with the English so this is the start of a new series showcasing his games. You can play through the unannotated game on Lichess online, or alternatively set up the board and follow the game and annotations in the old-fashioned way.

Rodney Barking (2070) – Ewan Wilson (2142)
Surrey Border League, 16 March 2023
A13: English Opening
In the Surrey Border League, public transport is scarce and you have to make most journeys by car. That’s OK when the venue is within about 10 miles of your home club (Guildford in my case). However, this match was away against Reading A which is an hour’s drive on a good day so the travel is much more of an effort.
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5
There are many ways to play against the English. Black chooses a solid Queen’s Gambit Declined setup. I already knew this would happen. You can’t normally predict your opponent in league matches but Ewan Wilson is their strongest player and has been playing board 1 all season. Also the Border League rules gave me White as the away player on top board. So I spent an hour before the match checking the theory and recommended lines in the Anti-QGD English. For this I used the Chessable course “Lifetime Repertoires: 1.c4 / 1. Nf3 – Part 2” by IM Christof Sielicki. I was not so interested in the exact move order as the plans for both sides, which he explains very clearly.
4.e3 Be7 5.b3 O-O 6.Bb2 b6
The basic idea of this variation is to delay playing d4 until absolutely necessary (otherwise you would have the QGD proper which is a different opening). Instead White relies on controlling the centre from afar in hypermodern style. The main issue is at what point White should clarify the centre with cxd5. Sielicki explains that the right time is when Black has committed to a particular pawn structure with …b6 or …c5. In these cases the exchange on d5 will eventually leave Black with either an isolated d-pawn or hanging pawns on c5 and d5. In contrast, Sielicki explains that White should not exchange on d5 if black has played …c6, because after recapturing with the e-pawn Black would have a solid pawn chain on b7-c6-d5 with no weaknesses.
7.cxd5 exd5 8.d4 c5
8…Bb7 is theory. After 8…c5, either White can inflict hanging pawns by capturing on c5, or Black will close the centre with …c4 and leave White a free hand on the kingside.
9.Bd3
This is slightly inaccurate since Black could now play …Nc6 with pressure on d4 and could also hassle the bishop on d3 with …Nb4. Instead Sielicki recommends 9.Rc1. However, my opponent didn’t take advantage. I suspect his chosen system involved playing …Bb7 and …Nbd7, and he didn’t see a need to deviate from that.
9…Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Rc1 Bd6 12.Ne2
This is a key idea that I picked up from Sielicki’s course. The knight transfers to the kingside with the manoeuvre Ne2-g3-f5 where it takes up an attacking position.
12…Re8 13.Ng3 Rc8 14.Nf5 Bb8
I can see why he played this as he wants to follow up with …Qc7 and his own kingside attack. But 15…Bf8 defending was safer.
15.Bb1 c4
This is one of the turning points in the game. Black’s plan is now to create a protected passed pawn on the queenside. He must have decided that my kingside pressure was not a threat.
16.Ba3
The idea was to exploit the dark squares with Nd6 gaining the bishop pair. Black’s only way to prevent this is with …Nf8, but then Ne5 and the attack builds. Ne7+ winning the exchange is a secondary theme. However, Stockfish prefers to clarify matters in the centre with 16.bxc4 dxc4 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Bxe5 19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.Rxc4 Rd5 21.Rxc8 Bxc8 22.Nd4.
16…b5 17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.Bxd6 a5
Continuing with the queenside plan as my attack is a slow burner.
19.Bf4
The bishop has no future on the queenside. From f4 it controls the h2-b8 diagonal (this becomes important much later in the game) and prepares Ne5.
19…b4 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.dxe5 Nd7
Now unless I do something Black will follow up with …c3, …Nc5 and …Ba6. But Black’s pieces are temporarily uncoordinated and this gives me the chance to clarify the centre and develop the attack.
22.bxc4 dxc4 23.Bf5 Nc5
Black is more or less forced to give up the exchange in this way:
A: 23…Rc7? 24.e6 wins for White.
B: 23…Re7 24.Bg5 f6 25.exf6 gxf6 26.Bh6 leaves the black king exposed.
C: 23…Nxe5 24.Bxc8 Qxc8 25.Bxe5 Rxe5 26.Rxc4 is also very good for White.
24.Bxc8 Qxc8 25.Rxc4
And now I decided to return the exchange for a pawn, otherwise black plays …Ba6 and …Nd3 with counterplay and the queenside pawns could become dangerous.
25…Ba6?
This is the obvious move, skewering the rooks, and he played it quickly, but actually it’s a blunder since I could create a lasting pin on the c-file and win the knight on c5. However, it’s not easy to see how this is done, and in fact I didn’t see it during the game.
26.Qc2?
Stockfish points out the correct manoeuvre: 26.Rc1 Bxf1 27.Qxf1 Qc6 28.Qc4 Rc8 29.e6 fxe6 30.Be5 with Bd4 to follow.
26…Bxc4 27.Qxc4 Ne6 28.Rc1
I’m a pawn up, but Black has compensation and my back rank is vulnerable. The safest course was to gain time by attacking the a5 pawn and create a bolthole for the king: 28.Qb5 Qa8 29.h4. I considered Qb5 but decided to take queens off and go for the ending with rook and bishop against rook and knight.
28…Qxc4 29.Rxc4 g5
The attack on the bishop gains a tempo and ensures Black won’t get mated on the back rank, so freeing his rook for active play.
30.Bg3 Rd8
The mate threat wins the pawn on a2, creating two connected passed pawns on the queenside for Black. However, I get to activate my king and push my pawns on the kingside. The race is about to start…
31.f4 Rd1+ 32.Kf2 Rd2+ 33.Kf3 Rxa2 34.f5 Nf8??
This natural move loses. My opponent played it very quickly. Instead Stockfish points out that Black can reach a drawn rook and pawn ending by pushing the b-pawn and sacrificing the knight: 34…b3 35.Rc8+ Kg7 36.fxe6 fxe6 37.Rb8 b2 38.Rb7+ Kg6 39.Rb6 Kf7 40.Be1 (there’s nothing better) 40…Ra1 41.Rxb2 Rxe1 42.Ra2 h5 43.Rxa5 is +0.00.
35.Rc8
Now e6 and Bd6 winning the knight is a real threat.
35…Kg7 36.f6+ Kg6
This allows me to win material and chase Black’s king around. Instead 36…Kg8 37.e6 fxe6 38.Bd6 Kf7 39.Rxf8+ Kg6 wins for White.
37.Rxf8 b3 38.Rg8+ Kf5
38…Kh5 39.e6 b2 40.Rb8 is no good as White queens and stops Black queening.
39.e4+ Ke6 40.Re8+?!
I had seen all this and played it automatically intending to follow up with Re7+ and a strong attack. However, if I’d stopped for a moment, I would surely have found the better continuation 40.Rd8 forcing immediate resignation as Black can’t prevent mate on d6.
40…Kd7 41.Re7+ Kc6
His only hope is to run to the queenside and try to stop my rook coming to the b-file where it would control the queening square.
42.e6 b2 43.Rc7+ Kb6 44.Rc8!
The position is now so sharp that this is the only winning move. Everything else loses for White. If Black queens first then White is in big trouble. After Rc8, Black can’t queen on b1 because the x-ray move Rb8+ picks up the queen for nothing.
44…Ka7 45.Rb8 Ra3+ 46.Kf2
Alternatively 46.Kg4 Rxg3+ 47.hxg3 Kxb8 48.exf7 b1=Q 49.f8=Q+ and white will win because the queen can support the promotion of the advanced pawn on f6.
46…Ra2 47.Ke1! fxe6
My last move allowed black to queen with check, winning the rook, but… 47…Ra1+ 48.Ke2 b1=Q 49.Rxb1 Rxb1 50.exf7 and crucially black can’t get back to stop the f7 pawn from queening because the bishop on g3 guards the b8 square.
48.f7 Ra1+ 49.Ke2!
Better than 49.Kd2 Rf1 50.Rxb2 Rxf7 although white will still win this eventually. Black has nothing left in the locker and so he resigned.
1-0

It’s time to get jingoistic in the words of an old song:
“The English the English the English is best /
So up with the English and down with the rest!”