The Chess Mind

Matt Nelson writes:

Great blog!

Have you ever addressed the application of 3-1-0 football/soccer-style scoring to Chess? It seems to work well in football by encouraging decisive games without unduly penalizing a well fought draw. Any comments or suggestions for further reading on this idea?

Thanks!

While that particular proposal hasn't been covered on the blog, as far as I recall, there has been a great deal of discussion about draws in general. Here, in brief, is my view on draws:

(1) There's nothing wrong with draws per se. First of all, a chess game is almost surely a draw with mutual best play. Second, even though humans don't play perfectly, draws often reflect both sides playing well and giving a good effort.

(2) This doesn't mean that all draws are acceptable - short draws in super-tournaments seem to me to dishonor the sponsors, who are putting up big money (in part in the form of honorariums) to put on a show. For these tournaments, I think there are two good solutions. First, there's the no-draw-offer rule in use at the MTel tournament in Sofia. Second, the organizer should make it clear that offenders will not be invited back.

(3) The last round draws at the European Championship don't require an extrinsic penalty, as they are self-penalizing. Players who engage in such draws cost themselves serious money in the long run.

I don't think the 3-1-0 system is needed at this point, and I'm inclined to think it undervalues draws - not that I know exactly what a draw "should" be worth. There are obvious motivations for making a draw worth half a point: it makes score-keeping easy and it's the mean between a win and a loss. And even if the opponents in a draw both played as well as the winner of another game, giving a point for both wins and draws would eliminate almost all motivation. So it looks like half a point for a draw is about right. More than that would reduce motivation, and less than that seems unduly punitive against what could have been a well-played game.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment!

In 1991, Dvoretsky had a training session with some American juniors, and was unfavorably struck by the way they handled certain competitive situations:

To my surprise I observed that many of them, when playing important games or meeting more eminent opponents, did not want to play actively and thought only about a draw. Clearly, the result would often turn out directly the opposite - ultra-cautious, passive play usually leads to a worsening of the position. (From Mark Dvoretsky & Artur Yusupov, Secrets of Chess Training (Edition Olms 2006), p. 34.)

That's the problem, as he saw it (at least then). What is the cause, and what is the solution?

Now I will express my version of events. In America parents begin closely following the competitive achievements of their children from their very first steps in chess. Too much emphasis, even in junior competitions, is given to ratings, prizes, isolated successes in games with strong opponents, and so on. Such an approach is of course passed on to the children, and they try to give their parents joy and boast to the contemporaries about any current success. For the sake of momentary successes they became cautious. Alas, the result sometimes turns out just the opposite and, more important, is sharply slows the creative growth of the children.

An improvement process is only effective when the work is done with a future aim. This means that trainers should teach young players to sensibly combine fighting for successes in competitions and experimenting and taking creative risks. The fostering of a depressing pragmatism from early childhood cannot be good. (Ibid., p. 37.)

Hard data and a comparison with other countries' players is needed to test his claims about American players (a look at the last two rounds of the European Championship isn't going to inspire anyone looking for examples of fighting spirit), but even so it's worth considering his diagnosis and prescription. Positively: strive for creative growth and don't be afraid. Negatively: remember that pragmatism, ironically, doesn't work!

In my blurb for this week's ChessBase show, covering the game Robert Byrne - Yuri Balashov, I asserted that the English Attack against the Najdorf was invented/introduced into tournament play by Byrne long before "Nunn, Short, and Chandler were hammering people to bits with this plan".

To my surprise, John Nunn dropped ChessBase bigwig Frederic Friedel a note, which the latter passed along to me. Most of it quoted my blurb, and then Nunn wrote this:

The name English Attack refers to the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7 f3 (or 7 Qd2), etc; in other words, the idea of meeting ...e6 by f3, Qd2, 0-0-0, g4, etc. Actually, I don't know of a single game in which Byrne played this way (he generally met ...e6 by lines involving Be2).

Very interesting! But is it true? And who decides these things? Here is a pair of quotations that might be of interest:

“The English Attack starts with the moves 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be3 [bolding in original] and is named after a group of then young English grandmasters (Short, Nunn and Chandler) who in the 1980s used the set-up Be3 + f3 against the Najdorf with great success….

“Black can also choose the traditional Najdorf plan 6…e5. This is also the most popular way of meeting the English Attack.”

This suggests that the English Attack isn’t limited to the Scheveningen lines with 6…e6, but refers to White’s set-up against the Najdorf, which can be met by Black in various ways. Of course, my source could be wrong, too, but if so I’m in excellent company: it’s from the introduction to Tapani Sammalvuo’s 2004 The English Attack, typeset by Nunn himself for his own publishing house (Gambit). Likewise, the Gambit work Mastering the Najdorf by Arizmendi and Moreno refer to Be3 + f3 vs. the Najdorf as the English Attack, and give that label the chapter in their book covering 6.Be3 e5. So maybe I'm wrong, but at least I'm in very good company - in company with Nunn's company!

Perhaps it's a case of semantic drift. Maybe "English Attack" originally referred to the anti-6...e6 Scheveningen system alone, but eventually and imperceptibly came to refer to the attacking formation with Be3, f3, Qd2, g4 and O-O-O against Sicilians with a Najdorf beginning, whether they continued with 6...e6 or 6...e5.

Let's assume the account in the previous paragraph is historically accurate. What now? Should we name Byrne's Variation solely after him, and reserve the English Attack for the ...e6 lines alone? That would give credit where credit is due, but will anyone follow suit? If Nunn hasn't corrected his own authors, to say nothing of the many other authors out there who call 6.Be3 e5 the English Attack, is there any hope of linguistic reform?