The Chess Mind

The game Jobava-Ivanchuk from the Capablanca Memorial in Havana earlier this year began as follows: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 Be7 6.Nc3 c5!? 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 d6 9.Ndb5 a6, and now Vera in his notes to the game in New in Chess 2005/5 considers 10.e5 (instead of Jobava's 10.Bxf6) dxe5 11.Bxf6, etc. While replaying the game, I was immediately drawn to 11.Qf3,



and in a first post I recommended that both my readers and I analyze the resulting position for ourselves, without the help of our little silicon friends. My unretouched, semi-quickie analysis can be found here, and while I'm not including analysis from my friends, readers and students, let me say that they did a pretty good job with this position!

Without further ado - and there has been far too much already - here is a tidied-up, finished product which not only presents the 11.Qf3 analysis, but the actual game in its entirety, complete with some of Vera's commentary. Click here for further enlightenment.

Two weeks ago, I presented some spur-of-the-moment analysis of a student's game, demonstrating what I thought was a very nice tactical idea, but which I also knew to be flawed. The reader's mission was to find the flaws, so for those of you who would like to check your work or just see the answers, click here.

(Reminder: when I'm presenting puzzles for which solutions are promised, please write me via the Contact link rather than comments, so that those who might otherwise try to solve the position don't have the opportunity to peek. Thanks!)

A switchback, for those unfamiliar with the term, occurs when a player moves a piece from point A to B, and after the opponent makes some committal move (e.g. a pawn move or a capture), the first player immediately and favorably returns the piece from point B to point A. It's a common theme in chess compositions, but it occurs in game situations, too.

Naturally, I have an example for you, one from tonight's issue (#1775) of Chess Today. The featured game was Korobov-Bogner from the Grundfos Young Masters in Aarhus, Denmark, and while the game is noteworthy on several other levels (it's theoretically significant, it displays several unusual pawn formations, and features some brilliant play - especially White's 28th and 30th moves), my primary excuse for presenting the game is to demonstrate the switchback idea IM Maxim Notkin mentions in his annotations.

What now? Click here, of course!

When I came across the Khalifman analysis presented in the post Hokey Pokey Chess, what caught my eye was the yo-yoing of Black's pieces, punished, ironically, by a similar back and forth maneuver by the White queen.

My readers, however, seem to have been most taken by the nice queen sac with 14.Qg7!, and were reminded of a pair of precursors. Kyle Askine rightly remembered Ivanchuk's brilliant, spontaneous queen sac against Shirov, while Jonathan O'Connor (whose geometrically interesting correspondence game was presented here, with his notes) recalled a game Ermenkov-Kovacevic, featuring an interesting ...Qb2 combo. O'Connor also wonders, "[i]s there any such thing as an original combination?"

There are several possible answers; I'll start with the obvious one: of course it's possible - someone had to be the first to play Qg7/b7/g2/b2 with the relevant idea! On the other hand, if originality requires producing a thought no one else had, or producing an idea that didn't already exist, then no, not if there exists either an omniscient God or a Platonic realm.

Sticking with the mundane, I tried to investigate these sacrificial ideas, to see if I could find precursors to Khalifman, Ivanchuk and Kovacevic. It wasn't at all easy, and I can't claim anything like completeness for my search, but I gave it a shot. Most of the Qg7 (etc.) examples were simple mating and promotion combinations, but some of the best of the early, more original versions can be found here, together with the Ivanchuk and Ermenkov games. (Readers who find other examples are of course welcome to comment.)

The Dutch Championships are underway, and after five rounds of nine Loek van Wely leads with 4/5, a point ahead of the top-rated Sergei Tiviakov. I plan to cover one of van Wely's games from the event very soon; for now, I offer the nice miniature Jan Werle-Sipke Ernst.

Most of us are familiar with the "Greek gift" sacrifice Bxh7+, which stereotypically shows up in the French, and we're probably also familiar with the related two bishop sac, best known from Lasker-Bauer and Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch. While the position-types exemplified by those examples are the best-known manifestations of the sac, it can show up in other situations, too, and even very strong players can miss it!

So take a look here, and note the position after White's 20th move. Black's kingside is a bit exposed, but nothing so bad that a little exchanging move can't fix, right? Well...

Today, during a lesson with one of my students, we reached this position from one of his recent tournament games:



Here my student, playing White, opted for 15.Nf3, aiming to return the piece to the center before choosing either e5 or f5. Since his focus, rightly or wrongly, was to attack h7 (ultimately with the queen, knight and bishop), I asked why he didn't play 15.e5 immediately, followed by 16.Qh5.

That's by way of preface, to note that I'm not endorsing 15.e5, but to say that it's the thematic, logical continuation, given his intended plan. In my view, unless one sees a problem with carrying out an intended plan immediately, or sees that delaying won't give the opponent any further chances, then the right thing to do is to get on with it!

Okay, so 15.e5, and then the line I offered for my student's consideration as representative went 15...Nd5 16.Qh5 Ndb4 (16...Ncb4 is better, but my thought was to clear d5 for the Be6) 17.Re2 (defending the c-pawn and preparing to swing it over to g2 in some variations) 17...Qd7 (hitting h3 and preparing ...Bf5) 18.Be4 g6 19.Qxh6 and now, with the idea of making Ng4 more difficult and preventing Rg2, 19...Bxh3.



Here, actually, while thinking about what Black should play on move 19, I saw a beautiful idea, and here's how it goes:

20.f5!

This threatens 21.Qxh3 and 21.f6, so Black's reply is forced.

20...Bxf5 21.Ng4!!

And now we see a hidden point to 20.f5 - the Black queen can't capture the knight. Meanwhile, White threatens both 22.Nf6+, mating, and the equally devastating 22.Rh2. Black's reply is forced again:

21...Bxg4 22.Rh2



Here 22...Bh3 changes nothing, due to 23.Rxh3, but Black has one last surprising defensive try:

22...Bh5 23.Rxh5 Qg4+



Of course, Black threatens 24...Qxh5, so White's next is forced if he's to have any chance at all.

24.Ng3! Qxg3+ 25.Kf1 Qf3+! 26.Bxf3 gxh5



Black has avoided the immediate catastrophe, but nevertheless, he is well and thoroughly lost after 27.Bg5 (27.Be4 is probably winning but much less convincing after 27...f5 28.Bxc6 (28.exf6?? Rxf6+ -+) Nxc6 29.Bf4) 27...f6 (else 28.Bf6) 28.exf6 Rf7 29.fxe7.

A very nice idea, I think, but nice doesn't mean correct! So take a careful look, readers, and see if you can find a rat or two, or...

Answers - if there are any! - will be given in a day or two.

In a recent post, I presented this position:



It's White's turn in the game Gennady Nesis-Pablo Buj, 11th World Correspondence Championship (1981-1987), and although he has an attack and an extra piece, Black's b- and c-pawns offer a substantial distraction! Can White win? Click here for the answer.

Another nice game that caught my eye tonight was a battle from the Russian Championship semi-finals (an event, like the Spanish Team Championships, that has been underreported despite the presence of many elite GMs). It's a rather one-sided affair, in keeping with the 250-300 point rating difference between the players, but sometimes such a gap is conducive to the creation of model games. (The opposition has to be weak enough (relatively speaking, of course - I'd be an underdog against the loser of this game) to succumb, but strong enough to require the winner produce something of value, to exert genuine effort.)

Click here for Motylev-Obolenskikh.

The Spanish Team Championships may not be enjoying much coverage in chess's version of the mainstream media, but some great players are producing wonderful chess there. Last Wednesday I presented three games from the event, and tonight I present another, a heavyweight matchup between two young players who have flirted with the 2700 barrier, Russian Vladimir Malakhov and Azeri Shahriyar Mamedyarov.

The first part of the game is a nice illustration of how to utilize an isolani on its fifth rank, as Mamedyarov uses his central space advantage to force his opponent's pieces into passivity. Then, with White's position seemingly holding together by a thread, Black finds a brilliant idea to break through. As an added bonus, Black concludes with a problem-like tactic, capping a strategically complete win over a strong opponent.

Click here.

We start with the following position, from the game Gennady Nesis-Pablo Buj, 11th World Correspondence Championship (1981-1987):



White's up a piece and has the heavy artillery camped out on his majesty's doorstop, but Black has two passers ready to promote. Can White win against Black's best defensive moves? This is one of my easier exercises, but it's still interesting and good practice, so I think readers will enjoy it. At least I hope so!