An instructive game I played

For anyone interested, here's a game I played earlier this year. I
think it's quite instructive because the opening revolves around the
fight for the 'd5' square, and the rest of the game is about depriving
the opponent of counterplay and gradually destroying him!

David Tebb,D - Andy Legge
English League Match 2002, Sicilian Najdorf: Fischer/Sozin System

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e5? [This is a
poor move because it turns White's bishop into a strong piece and
makes it harder for Black to defend the important 'd5' square] 7.Nde2
Be7 8.0-0 Qc7 9.Bb3 Be6! [A good move fighting to regain control of
d5] 10.Bg5 [Also joining in the fight] 10...Nbd7 11.Ng3 h6 12.Bxf6
Nxf6 13.Nh5! [Preparing to exchange another defender of d5] 13...0-0
14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Qd3 [White has undisputed control of d5, but there
is no rush to occupy the square] 15...Rac8 16.Rad1 Rfd8 17.g3 [A
useful move to give the King an escape square - you never know when
this may be needed! - and prepare a gradual advance of the kingside
pawns] 17...Rd7 18.Nd5 [Finally, White occupies his dream square]
18...Bxd5 19.Qxd5 b5 20.Rd3 Qb6 21.Rf3!? [The queen was in danger
of being trapped] 21...Rc5 22.Qd3 a5 23.c3 Rdc7 24.Rd1 a4 25.Bd5
Ra7 [Black is desperately trying to get some counterplay ...] 26.a3
[... so White stops it] 26...Rac7 27.Ba2 Rd7 28.Qe2 [Black can do
nothing but wait] 28...Rdc7 29.Rxf6! [With Black in such a passive
position, I could have slowly advanced the kingside pawns, but a
sacrifice is much more fun!] 29...gxf6 30.Qh5 Kg7 31.Rd3 [The rook
joins in the action] 31...d5!? [He gives up a pawn so that his queen
can defend f6] 32.Bxd5 Re7 [He couldn't pin with 32.. Rd7, because of
33.Qg4+ winning the rook] 33.Ba2 [Clearing the 'd' file for the rook]
33...Rcc7 [Trying to challenge the file] 34.Rd8 f5 [The only move to
defend] 35.exf5 Qf6 [So he can play ..Qg5] 36.h4 [so White prevents
this] 36...Kh7 37.Qg4 Qg7 [Again, the only move] 38.Qe4
[Threatening to win a rook with f6+] 38...Red7 [moving the rook to a
safe square] 39.Re8 [Swapping rooks would make it much harder to
attack] 39...Rd1+ 40.Kg2 f6?? [A blunder in time trouble] 41.Bg8+
Qxg8 42.Rxg8 Kxg8 43.Qg4+ [Ooops! There goes one of the rooks]
43...Kf7 44.Qxd1 Black resigned 1-0

I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed this.

If you haven't done so already and would like to improve your chess
then I strongly, strongly, strongly advise you to go through this game
(slowly) and any other game with notes found here in the chess theory
forum or any game with notes full stop.

All that text interspersed with moves can be quite scary for a beginner
to look at (took me an age to go through it) but utterly, utterly worth
it.

Since it's quite intimidating I thought perhaps I'd try and explain the
basics of what went on (mainly since that's probably all I understood
anyway!) for the benefit of any beginners looking at that and being
scared off (a concept sometimes top players fail to grasp, it's not easy
for the beginner to go through something like that, although they
should definitely try).

I think with a lot of players below this kind of level there is an
inclination to go all out and try and win pieces. To maybe try and set
up a tactical shot, looking for a pin or a fork or an outright win of
material.

One thing I'm learning is that sometimes winning a square can be just
as important (and sometimes more attainable) than winning a piece.
This is something that perhaps a lot of beginners miss.

The problem for the beginner (in that I'd include myself, I'm a fair
way off this kind of level) is, to my mind, three fold.

PART 1.Identifying which square/squares to try and "win".
PART 2.Actually winning it/them
PART 3.Using it/them to hurt your opponent

I will attempt to deal with each one and relate them to David's game.

PART 1: "Identifying a weakness" Here David was immediately able to
identify the weakness at d5 caused as a consequence of black's poor
6th move, namely 6...e5. This is a skill in itself that becomes
automatic almost with top players. Let's look at *why* d5 was a poor
move, and *why* Mr. Tebb would have been salivating as soon as he
saw it being played.

White's white squared bishop has already developed onto a potentially
dangerous square (c4) and as David said, 6...e5 suddenly makes this
bishop even stronger (it gives it white squares to attack). It also
means that Black's d pawn is "behind" or "backward" (someone correct
this if I'm talking rubbish). This could lead to an eventual weakness in
that it can't be defended by any other pawns.

But the main thing about 6...e5 was that it meant that the d5 square
was undefended by pawns. The establishment of "outposts" for
bishops and knights especially is very important in chess (there's a
chapter on it in Nimzowitsch's "My System" I think). This
apparant "hole" or weakness is all white needs. White's game plan for
the next few moves (and arguably the whole match) revolves around
the square "d5". No direct attempt at checkmate, no direct attempt at
winning pieces outright, just winning, then exploiting a single square
out of 64.

HOWEVER! Another thing I am learning is that before any plans can be
carried out it is wise to have completed development. Rather than
madly try and go after d5 immediately, white's next few moves are
Nde2 (moving to safety), 0-0 (castling his king to safety), Bb3, Bg5
(developing the as yet unmoved Bishop) and Ng3 (putting it in a
better position than e2. White has now developed his pieces. His
rooks are waiting patiently to enter into the action. Now is the time,
and not before now, to commence battle over d5.

PART 2: "Winning the battle". So, with d5 having been identified as a
crucial square, how does white go about making sure it's his? As ever,
there is method and clarity of thought behind this process. White
looks at what Black pieces are defending d5. White then sets about
dislodging them. The best way to do this is to either *move* them by
pushing pawns at them or in this case *remove* them by exchanging
pieces. The theory behind when to exchange and when not to, to me
anyway, seems a bit complex. It is fair to say though that one should
look to exchange one's lifeless/not very useful pieces for the very
active, strong pieces of the opponent.

White has a bishop on g5 and (in a move or two) a knight on h5.
Knights on edges of boards are (generally) not the best idea. White
manages to force Black to exchange these pieces for two key Black
defensive pieces, pieces which were defending d5.

After move 14 white has managed to do complete this exchanging of
pieces and without question *owns* d5 (Black's defensive pieces have
been dislodged as a result of the exchanging). White has a bishop, a
knight, and a Queen all pointing at d5. Black cannot defend d5 with
any pawns.

White has won the battle for the square.

PART 3: "Exploiting the square". This can be the tricky bit. It needn't
be though. I suppose in theory it's about slapping a piece down on d5
and playing around it. But it's probably not quite like that in practice.
White is patient once again.

Similarly to before, where white held back from battle until all his
pieces were developed to suit the opening, white decides to move a
few pieces around to gain a better platform to attack in the
middlegame and endgame, in a way I suppose he is now responding
to what has gone on since the opening and developing "again" to
accommodate how the middlegame is shaping up (someone tell me if
I'm wrong anywhere, I'm bound to be somewhere). Qd3 allows a rook
to slide in behind. g3 gives white's king a bit of breathing space and
potentially allows a kingside pawn charge if required. Once this is done
then white will land a piece on d5.

There is not much black can do. Black has no plan, no real ideas, no
real threats. He is desperate to try and get something going since he
knows that the knight on d5 and white's bishop are going to start
hurting him. So black tries some shenanigans down the kingside.

Another lesson that this game can teach you is the importance not
only in creating play for yourself but also preventing your opponent
from getting any momentum going. White does this twice in the game
to superb effect 26.a3 and 36.h4 are moves which effectively slam the
door shut on black.

David's comments on the last 17 moves or so illustrate what is going
on far better than I can. Just note what is the final nail in the coffin for
black. It comes as the result of a blunder, but yep, that white squared
bishop of white, which all those moves ago we said had become a
strong piece as a result of e5, it is that wins the black queen (as well
as some good queen moves and a good rook for bishop sacrifice).

CONCLUSION:-

5 lessons that the beginner can take away from this game:-

1.Identify a weakness in your opponent's position as soon as you can.
Understand *why* it is a weakness.
2.Develop all your pieces before carrying out any kind of plan.
3.In trying to win a square try and *move* or *remove* black's
defenders of that square, as well as getting lots of your own pieces
pointing at that square.
4.Don't rush to land on the square once it is yours. Develop further if
required.
5.Don't neglect your own defence, or the importance on refusing your
opponent any kind of play or momentum.

There are probably other things that can be gained from the game, as
well as many things that I've missed. I've done my best though in
trying to convey some of the basic, important ideas that occured
during this game. Hope it helped someone (and if not, not to worry, it
helped me a lot to go through the game and think about it!).

Mark
The Squirrel Lover

Mark, thanks for a wonderful post. I'm flattered you took the time to
really go through the game and then respond in such a manner.

Your analysis and summary was spot on. I particularly liked the way
you divided the game into 3 stages and explained what was going on
in good, clear prose. I also thought the general points you made were
very sound.

You explained the game far better than I did (or was able to) and I'm
sure that anyone who reads your post will gain something from it (it
made me want to be a better writer!).

Thanks again,

Dave
who is now sorry he nabbed T1000's rook!

Hey!!!! I got an extremely (as in VERY y'all understand) dangerous
bishop for that rook I'll have you know ;o)

Mark
Gone 30 moves with Senor Tebb and is still kinda half standing.
Kinda.

Thanks Mark and David. I printed out both analysis and plan to go
through them when I have some time. While I enjoy playing, I rarely
(actually never) go through my past games/losses or those of others.
If I ever hope to improve my chess that's really how I'll need to start.
I've been playing over a year and my rapid improvement has
stopped. Mark, you are a machine! your posts are more like
books🙂. I read your posts on set theory. I hope you can get some
sleep soon, but I'm benefiting from your insomnia.
Franklin

Cheers Franklin. It was good of David to post his game with notes in
the first place.

Bit long-winded and verbose I know, I guess it's down to speedy
typing and having to the chance to doss around before having to enter
the world of work when my few saved pennies runs out.

Mark
The Squirrel Lover

Thankyou.This looks very instructive.I will find time to go through it.
Can you give us some background info-re:Is this correspondence or
over the board,and what are your ratings for this league,and time
limits,and anything else you might think is interesting?

Mark-the squirrel lover.I printed your post out to use with the game-
thanks (3 pages)

Mari.

Mari, perhaps I should have given more background info, but I
thought too much detail might put people off!

Anyway, the game was played over the board, in a Wirral League
(Merseyside) match between Hoylake (my team) and Wallasey. The
time control was 45 moves in 90 minutes. My opponent was rated
approx 1900 Elo / 160 BCF.

Thanks for your interest. I hope you enjoy the game :-)

A very instructive game and well analysed..I still would like to play the
only other titled player on here that I know of.

When these tourneys are done Dave...are you going to give me a
shot?

Dave

Thanks Dave, it's good of you to say so. I enjoyed the annotated
game you recently posted - it was an even better example of how to
punish sloppy opening play!

I'll play you anytime you want, Dave. I would have challenged you
myself, only I was aware of just how many games you're involved in.
Good luck with the tourneys, although I should really be saying that to
your opponents!

David (who usually calls himself Dave!)

Thanks David (and Mark) for posting and commenting on that game, I meant to
thank you much earlier, can't believe I didn't.

please do more! it was very helpful.
Mark, your description of the general principles involved was fantastic and a
big help to me!

Thanks again guys!

Michael

Mark, I just read this for the first time (I LOVE these new forums, SO much better!), and it's
absolutely incredible. You spent so much time and energy going through this for us all, thank
you so much!

Joe 😀