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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 22 Dec '12 20:48 / 6 edits
    Found this interesting, maybe you will too.

    Klyavin v Zhdanov, Latvian Championship, 1961



    The tendency to pronounce White confidently in the lead is based on his advantage
    in development and the weakness of Black's queenside and center. However,
    development is a value that varies in significance with the openness of a position. In
    the Morphy era of 1.e4 e5 games, development took on great importance because
    every position was crosscut by open lines. But in the diagram we have a closed
    position with no open files and several stifled diagonals.

    Both players, in fact, must redevelop their pieces on new squares because their
    original development doesn't jell with the middlegame pawn structure. Black, who is
    about to redevelop his dark-squared bishop by moving it from a blocked line at g7 to
    an excellent vista at f8, stands quite well in terms of development!

    More important is the nature of the weaknesses on both sides of the board. Black
    has "holes" on his weakened black squares such as d6, c5, f6, and b6. They are
    weak because they've lost all or part of their pawn protection. Remember that we
    defined defense in the Introduction as the protection of weaknesses. With the closed
    nature of the position and the misplacement of the White minor pieces, these
    weaknesses are unexploitable.

    True, if he could just get the White dark-squared bishop to d6, or open the e-file or
    somehow bring a knight to c5, White would have a terrific game. But as it is, many
    moves must be made before White will be able to exploit the obvious weaknesses.

    Now look at the game from Black's chair. White has made no pawn weaknesses on
    the queenside where his king is housed, and none of his central or kingside squares
    is beyond pawn protection. His pieces appear well placed. But actually White's
    queenside is easily attackable by way of N-d7-b6-c4 and the recapture with the
    b-pawn if the knight is taken on c4. In the meanwhile White has to take several
    preparatory steps to make his minor pieces work. He needs f4 and g4 in preparation
    for f5 before he can release the pent-up, potential energy of his pieces.

    Now, does this seem fair to White who ostensibly hasn't made a single mistake while
    Back has been losing time and retreating his pieces behind weaknesses? But White
    has made a mistake, a bad one: 10.0-0-0??. If he had castled kingside and begun to
    exploit the queenside with a2-a4, the shoe would be on the other foot. This simple
    difference - plus the series of mindless attacking moves that followed - is what cost
    White the game.

    source:http://www.chess.com/article/view/quotthe-art-of-defense-in-chessquot-by-andrew-soltis
  2. 23 Dec '12 01:08
    Great analysis, and I agree, white is overconfident and grossly overestimates his position. He comes up with a
    plan to castle queen side and attack his opponents king side, his only problem is that black’s king has not even
    castled yet (notice that black never castles) and the position is locked up with no immediate way to open lines.

    Lots of lessons to be learned here, one of them – don’t attack ghosts in closed positions!
  3. 23 Dec '12 01:43 / 2 edits
    White made lots of mistakes, not just 0-0-0.

    Developing your pieces to bad squares isn't really developing in my mind, its rather the opposite. White mindlessly pushed his pieces around until he got in trouble.

    The queen and bishop belong on the b1-h7 diagonal, the knight on c3 is way out of place and really just gets in the way on c3, and the dark square bishop should have traded itself for the knight on b8 if e5 really was to be played. If white was really intent on gaining something for having better development he should not have played e5. I probably would have played Bd3 with a completely different game... Maintaining the tension "should" favor white.
  4. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    23 Dec '12 01:52
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    White made lots of mistakes, not just 0-0-0.

    Developing your pieces to bad squares isn't really developing in my mind, its rather the opposite. Whit mindless pushed his pieces around until he got in trouble.

    The queen and bishop belong on the b1-h7 diagonal, the knight on c3 is way out of place and really just gets in the way on c3 the, and the dar ...[text shortened]... played Bd3 with a completely different game... Maintaining the tension "should" favor white.
    Thanks. I was going to say poor development is probably worse than lack of development. It's easier to arrange than to rearrange.
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    23 Dec '12 03:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    White made lots of mistakes, not just 0-0-0.

    Developing your pieces to bad squares isn't really developing in my mind, its rather the opposite. White mindlessly pushed his pieces around until he got in trouble.

    The queen and bishop belong on the b1-h7 diagonal, the knight on c3 is way out of place and really just gets in the way on c3, and the dark ...[text shortened]... played Bd3 with a completely different game... Maintaining the tension "should" favor white.
    White probably made mistakes because of the psychology of the position. 😏

    P.S. I would bet greenpawn34 would have had the right psychology to win as white with such a lead in development.
  6. 23 Dec '12 04:20 / 1 edit
    The posters above me make a good point that White's development is poor. Aimless would be my description. White failed to put pressure on Black's centre, and so Black was free to push pawns on the queenside and redeploy pieces.

    Not only 10 0-0-0 but also 7 e5 was a bad mistake, relieving central tension and rendering White's 'better development' useless. 7 Be5 looks better.
  7. 23 Dec '12 04:25
    What's black's rating?
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    23 Dec '12 04:57
    It is clear that Black did not play the opening very well. However, he made up for that by his excellent play in the later part of the game, whereas white played miserably in the middle part of the game.
  9. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    23 Dec '12 05:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by geo86012
    The posters above me make a good point that White's development is poor. Aimless would be my description. White failed to put pressure on Black's centre, and so Black was free to push pawns on the queenside and redeploy pieces.

    Not only 10 0-0-0 but also 7 e5 was a bad mistake, relieving central tension and rendering White's 'better development' useless. 7 Be5 looks better.
    I don't think 7.e5 is a mistake at all. White gains a nice space advantage and blunts the activity of the g7 Bishop. I'm actually wondering if black was the one who played the opening inaccurately up to that point.

    I face this opening as white and it's much more annoying when black plays ...h5 and possibly ...h4 with ...Nh6 eyeing the f5 square. In that case, white really does lose something by playing e5.
  10. 23 Dec '12 06:13
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I don't think 7.e5 is a mistake at all. White gains a nice space advantage and blunts the activity of the g7 Bishop. I'm actually wondering if black was the one who played the opening inaccurately up to that point.

    I face this opening as white and it's much more annoying when black plays ...h5 and possibly ...h4 with ...Nh6 eyeing the f5 square. In that case, white really does lose something by playing e5.
    I don't think e5 was such a bad mistake but the pieces are misplaced in that structure. My main dig is that you cant slag off a development advantage when the side with said advantage isn't playing the position in a way to use it as such. If white wanted to exploit an edge in development then ...e5 is ill advised.
  11. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    23 Dec '12 06:28
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    I don't think e5 was such a bad mistake but the pieces are misplaced in that structure. My main dig is that you cant slag off a development advantage when the side with said advantage isn't playing the position in a way to use it as such. If white wanted to exploit an edge in development then ...e5 is ill advised.
    OK, let's look at piece placement. Sure, Bf4 would probably rather be on e3 to suppress ...c5 and allow the f-pawn to advance if need be, but white can fix that in one move. Black's Ng8, on the other hand, is going to need more time to get back in play.
  12. 23 Dec '12 07:12
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    OK, let's look at piece placement. Sure, Bf4 would probably rather be on e3 to suppress ...c5 and allow the f-pawn to advance if need be, but white can fix that in one move. Black's Ng8, on the other hand, is going to need more time to get back in play.
    At move seven the pieces aren't misplaced really, I was talking about later moves like Be2 which clogs up whites whole position. The knight usually hops to e2 which, along with c3, helps blunt ...c5 and often goes to f4 later to put pressure on e6 and make it uncomfortable for black to play ...f5.

    I should have been more clear in this. 7...e5 starts to look like a mistake with whites later play but isn't really... It looks like white doesn't have a clue and is just making moves to keep his clock from ticking. He probably had the opening memorised up to ...e5.
  13. 24 Dec '12 09:03
    I’m thinking you are showing the wrong Zhdanov game
    in a thread about under-developing.

    A. Vitolinsh - I. Zhdanov, Latvia 1964

    after 31 moves this is the Black Kingside…


    ……and he is winning.

    In both games he dances his Knights around in a very delicate manner.
    A joy to watch.



    To show the lad Zhdanov does know how to play a ‘normal’ game.
    The Final position with the two Knights getting the better of the two Bishops is delightful.

    I. Zhdanov - R.Etruk, Estonia, 1963

  14. 24 Dec '12 11:59
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    I’m thinking you are showing the wrong Zhdanov game
    in a thread about under-developing.

    [b]A. Vitolinsh - I. Zhdanov
    , Latvia 1964

    after 31 moves this is the Black Kingside…

    [fen] 5bnr/8/8/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
    ……and he is winning.

    In both games he dances his Knights around in a very delicate manner.
    A joy to watch.

    [pgn]
    1. e ...[text shortened]... s.} 26. Ne7+ Kh8 27. Nd6 {The two Knights look better. Nothing can stop Nxf7 checkmate.}[/pgn][/b]
    that dude was the king of under-developing
  15. 24 Dec '12 19:00
    Petrosian also has several "underdevelopment" games. Here are 2 of them: