Category Archives: Strategy

Useful acronyms 2: DAUT

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.

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.

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.

The exchange sacrifice

1 Reply

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.