Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 17 Sep '11 03:14 / 1 edit
    I posted this position in another thread.

    That thread is in severe danger of getting pulled and all the posters
    (including me) getting a 7 day ban. Thought I'd pull this bit out.
    Too much work went into it. (and if I get a 7 day ban - this is next week's blog.)


    It's Kasimdzhanov -v- Anand, Linares 2005. Black to play.


    I spun the board (forgot to mirror it) Datafly twigged it was a reverse.
    I did it just in case anyone recognised the position and dug it out of a DB.
    (the paranoia in that other thread was contagious.)

    Black to play, what's the plan? what is the next move.

    Without a shadow of doubt I would have played 18...Rad8 because if
    19.Qxa7 then 19..Bc5 traps the Queen. It's a two move trap. 🙂


    Back here.


    Some considered the minority Q-side attack with Black.

    When I first started playing and really studying the game I use to think
    these writers looked at who won and then wrote accordingly.

    One day Capablanca wins because he has a minority attack.
    Next day he wins because he has the Queenside majority.
    I wish they would make their minds up.

    Is 2 v3 on the queenside a plus or a minus?
    (I'm still convinced it all depends who won and who is doing the writing.)

    However I can put my hand on my heart and honestly swear I have never
    played a minority attack in my life.

    If I'm throwing two pawns at three pawns then that is because there
    is a King hiding behind those three pawns. Nothing more.


    Anand played 18.f5!

    It's all about the kingside majority and White's lack of development.
    That Knight on g3 is a pawn storm target f5-f4-f3

    So 18....f5 is the move.
    Get the ball rolling before White gets fully developed.

    The big clue was me posting it. Do you think I would post a position that
    did not contain a cheapo and a king-side attack. 🙂

    Here is the full game and how it went. Watch how from move 18 Anand restricts
    tactically the development of the c1 Bishop (which in turn restricts the a1 Rook).

    I'll use as a reference Neil McDonald's notes on the game from his book.
    The Art of Planning in Chess.

    It is the thinking man's Logical Chess. He skips past the opening - reaches
    the point where the plan/strategic idea was germinated and then gives a
    note after practically EVERY MOVE.

    A nice intro containing a quote from Lasker which I will shorten.

    We can look at and marvel at master paintings but it will not make us master painters.
    We can listen to music but it will not turn us into musicians.
    Chess differs.
    We can look at the games of the master players and in doing so it will
    help make us better chess players.

    I'm enjoying the few games I have played over. Especially this one.
    I'd like to think I could have put together at least 50% of the moves after
    the posted position but possibly not for the same reasons as Anand.

    There are a few of course that would have passed me by
    22....b5, 27...Be6 and 31...e3 And these were critcial.

    Also I don't think I would have been to keen to swap the pieces,
    especially the Knights, as Anand does.
    I'm very dogmatic. The defender goes for swaps, the attacker keeps
    his deveoped bits on the board.

    Again. Watch how Anand keeps that Bishop on c1 on c1 for the whole game
    and remember White is a world class player.

  2. 17 Sep '11 07:55
    Thanks for reminding me that I have that book somewhere. Weekend reading sorted!
  3. 17 Sep '11 08:30 / 1 edit
    wow! f5 was da move, awesome position GP, awesome reasoning. Even though i got it
    wrong its still very instructive. Thanks for that. I wonder if other strong players would
    have played f5 as well?
  4. 17 Sep '11 10:10
    I posted this in another thread (these multiple threads are getting confusing!) using your reversed board from yet another thread. Now that it has been pointed out, f5 does seem like a great move (or c3 in the reversed board below). Here were my thoughts beforehand:



    If I was black I would be looking at Nb6a4, then Bd4xa4 in response to Bb3xa4. White has still a fair amount of defence possibilities but I like the two bishops on the diagonals pointing towards the king side with the queen having a bit of freedom to move around.
    If I was white I would want to stop that, so would think about playing Bd2c3 and stopping the forced knight-bishop swap that would be coming from black...
  5. 17 Sep '11 13:02
    Hi Robbie.

    See what I mean about 'White to play and find the plan' positions and
    'White to play and win' type puzzles.

    Even in the posted Anand game there are some if's and but's.
    Some lines would shoot off into a plus endgame, others a clockwork mate,
    others just a very very good postion.

    If the author misses one plausible move (very unlikely in a tactcial postion
    these days with a box on hand.) but with space limitations in all books then
    some moves would have to left out.

    The solver is wandering about trying to see what is wrong with his idea.
    (quite possibly and very likely nothing.)
  6. 17 Sep '11 16:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    The solver is wandering about trying to see what is wrong with his idea.
    (quite possibly and very likely nothing.)
    The best way to analyse these sort of positions is with a bunch of your pears (players neither too much stronger, nor too much weaker than yourself). Two hours spent on a game like this will undoubtedly improve your chess ability . Too much work for most players nowadays but the sort of thing we did all the time when I was young (before t'internet).
  7. 17 Sep '11 16:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    The best way to analyse these sort of positions is with a bunch of your pears (players neither too much stronger, nor too much weaker than yourself). Two hours spent on a game like this will undoubtedly improve your chess ability . Too much work for most players nowadays but the sort of thing we did all the time when I was young (before t'internet).
    hmmm...didn't realise that chess was pear reviewed but I see what you are saying. Sometimes it generates additional noise if you mix apples and oranges.

    But since we are all fruit we just have to bear with it. The way I see it, the burden of proof should be on each aspiring analyst. So, if someone comes and and says "I think my line X is better than your line Y" I expect him/her to justify it. The emphasis is on the "better".
  8. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    17 Sep '11 18:37
    I agree with Fat Lady, I can remember analysis sessions with other players far better than most of my work in my study.
  9. 17 Sep '11 19:07
    that was a great riddle and solution. it goes hand in hand with the suggestion of the 'no pawn rule', is a great exception to it... my Be3 would have just blocked the attack later on... nice to see...
  10. 17 Sep '11 19:59
    Originally posted by tharkesh
    that was a great riddle and solution. it goes hand in hand with the suggestion of the 'no pawn rule', is a great exception to it... my Be3 would have just blocked the attack later on... nice to see...
    my Bc3 would have blocked the pawn making f5 impossible, man i got a lot to learn!
  11. 17 Sep '11 20:07 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Robbie.

    See what I mean about 'White to play and find the plan' positions and
    'White to play and win' type puzzles.

    Even in the posted Anand game there are some if's and but's.
    Some lines would shoot off into a plus endgame, others a clockwork mate,
    others just a very very good postion.

    If the author misses one plausible move (very unli ...[text shortened]... out trying to see what is wrong with his idea.
    (quite possibly and very likely nothing.)
    while that is certainly true GP can you see how this type of study is more rewarding,
    the principles are easier to assimilate and easier to remember, black is behind in
    development, what is the best way to punish him, attack with tempo and exchange
    his active pieces! I am surprised that no one considered development, i guess we
    wereall in positional mode. I have to admit that i scanned for a 'cheapo', and was
    relieved to find that there were none. I still think that strong players would have found
    the same move though, the fact that we never, is in itself not a litmus test against
    writing a book. Can you see the benefits, what this type of exercise does is expose our
    way of thinking, our thought process in finding a candidate move, its just so good. I
    am gonna get the Neil MacDonald book, I have one of his other books, the Bb5 Sicilian,
    which for an opening manual is quite good.
  12. 18 Sep '11 01:00 / 1 edit
    Hi Fat Lady.

    I've been in loads of these group analysis sessions.
    After every league match we used to have one. They were great.

    Been fortunate to enough to have sat in with GM's and IM's.
    You cannot help but pick up loads of things when you get a group of strong
    guys round a board looking at each others games.

    You learn more from a couple of these nights than one would with a years
    self study.

    Hands and variations flying everywhere.... seen some hefty arguments
    over which is the best move/plan. All forgotten when the next game is up.

    Played in the same team as GM Jonathan Parker for a season.
    Once we chatted on the way back from a match and I became aware
    that he had seen more into my game than I did.

    I was playing the game, he was glancing at it in between his moves. 🙁
  13. 20 Sep '11 12:04
    Originally posted by tharkesh
    that was a great riddle and solution. it goes hand in hand with the suggestion of the 'no pawn rule', is a great exception to it...
    Not really. The "no pawn" rule doesn't say "don't move a pawn" or even "don't move a pawn if you could move a piece". It says "don't move a pawn if you are still searching for a plan". In this case, Anand very much had a plan in mind, and the pawn move was part of it. The "no pawn" rule isn't about such situations in the first place.
    Now, if I had moved that pawn, it would have been in violation of that rule - but that's only because I would have had no idea of how to continue the attack, or even that it was part of an attack at all.

    Pawn move, no plan = you and I = violation of the rule.
    Pawn move, great plan = Anand = the rule does not come into it.

    Richard