Never turn your back on pawns.
That was my pin number.
How can anyone remember that. I trotted off to the bank
to get it change to something a Chess Player can recall.
Easy enough to explain that. Two chess boards.
I was then advised that it is considered bad form to have
numbers the same in your pin number. In this case I have
two. Two sixes and two fours.
The teller advised me.
"What about your date of birth?"
(same year as Karpov - me and Karpov went to different schools together)
"No. Two ones."
"The date you got married"
The 7th of the 7th 1977 = 7777
"er.. No Mr. Chandler. Four Sevens."
(the same year as Karpov - me and Karpov married different women together)
This was minor dilemma and the queue behind was beginning to growl.
What pin number can a Chess Player use?
To pin is a tactical term. Something tactical.
What tactical term can be expressed in numbers?
"Hurry up you bald head clown!"
said a shifty looking character in the growing queue.
Forget that. Pin...Pin...KING PIN the chess magazine.
Kaprov's wife looks like Minnie Mouse.
(My one looks like Foghorn Leghorn.)
(Me and Karpov married... enough of the Karpov links. Ed)
The above copy was sold to me by Sam Collins.
He knows Dougie Bryson. Dougie writes for the
Scotland on Sunday a paper that Keith Ruxton reads.
Keith is captain of Bells I and on board 5 in Bells I
is Mike Chisholm. Mike and me took the wrong to Motherwell.
We ended up in Newcastle. Newcastle won the F.A. cup three
times in the 50's the first occasion was.... 1951. (damn).
Wait a minute. The cashline machine.
Who played chess with machine like precision. Fischer.
Think of Fischer and you think of the match v Spassky.
"1972" I shouted out.
"Yes Mr Chandler but you are supposed to keep it secret."
The crowd started shouting at me and in the ensuing argument
I was ousted from the bank by a burly security guard.
I'm currently pinless.
As I mentioned last C.C. I pleaded for some games on the
Chess Scotland Notice board. Here are a couple of games
that were sent in.
First up is Amy Officer (1570) v Walter Burnett (2001).
Walter promised a me a game a few weeks back.
It never arrived. Jokingly I asked for any of his losses
and actually receive this. Let us hope he sends in
the promised game soon (else I'll keep showing this one).
The where and when this game was played was not sent.
Amy avoids the Dragon with 5 Qxd4. Walter tries to
mix it up a bit to confuse his lower rated opponent.
This should have worked, It usually does when playing
an under 1800 player. But Amy picked her way through
the tricky bits and assumed control with some tactical
play. 17 Nc7+ and 18 Qe6+ are good moves that I suspect
Walter saw but possibly thought his opponent would miss.
It's a good players gamble. This time it never came off.
From there on in Amy is winning. Walter wriggles a bit
but the day belonged to Amy and the difference in grading
points (431) means nothing when one player has an off day
and the other is in the mood.
Also of note is the anti dogmatic 6 Nd5 to prevent black from
gaining a developing tempo with Nc6.
Wasting a tempo to prevent your opponent from gaining a tempo.
Not a golden rule to follow. The situation had to be sized up.
In this case the right decision. A good game.
[Click here to replay the game]
A. Officer - W. Burnett
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Qxd4 a6 6.Nd5 Nxd5 7.exd5 Nd7 8.c4 b5 9.cxb5 axb5 10.Bd2 Ba6 11.Rc1 Qb6 12.Qb4 e5 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Qg4 d5 15.Ng5 e5 16.Ne6 Nf6 17.Nc7+ Qxc7 18.Qe6+ Qe7 19.Qc6+ Kf7 20.Qxa8 Bb7 21.Qa5 Ne8 22.Bxb5 Kg8 23.Bxe8 Qxe8 24.Rc7 Bc6 25.Bb4 Qg6 26.0-0 d4 27.f3 Bxb4 28.Qxb4 Qe6 29.Qb6 Bd7 30.Qb7 Be8 31.Re7 Qg6 32.Rc1 h6 33.Rxe8+ Qxe8 34.Rc8 Kh7 35.Rxe8 Rxe8 36.Qe4+ Kh8 37.a4
Still plenty of time for Walter to send me in his game.
By all accounts it's a cracker. So to even things up
if he sends in his game. I show you my loss v a 1250 player.
Next up is Lynsey Shovlin 1212 v Stuart MacQueen 1198
from the Perth Congress Minor 2006.
Black played a French and I would have been interested to see how
he would have handled one of the main lines. I like seeing junior
games where one player adopts an opening that has strategic and
positional motifs. They come up with fresh ideas and solve problems
in very imaginative ways.
Alas it was not to be as White turns the game into an exchange
French and the open position sees wood getting chopped.
Black clumsily drops a central pawn. (8..Bxe2 was the move)
Having nicked the safe central pawn White, for some reason,
trades it for the f-pawn (14 e6?! better was 14 f4!).
Black is still a pawn down but now Black has counter play.
So with counter play going through his mind he has only
eyes for his attack on c2 and misses a trick.
White too missed the trick. (or did he?)
In this position, white to play.
18.Nb6+ axb6 19.Rxd8+ Kxd8 20.Qd3+ wins the exchange.
Yet again The Undefended Piece, this time the Rook on e2.
Now did White see this?
Because her next move, 18 Qd3?! sets up the same combination,
but instead of merely winning the exchange. White goes
for mate which Black could have prevented by 18...Rde8.
Black missed it and grab the f2 pawn.
White saw it and grabbed the mate.
Was this is a gamble that paid off?
[Click here to replay the game]
L.Shovlin v S. MacQueen
1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Nc6 8.Ne5 Nxe5 9.dxe5 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 Nd7 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nxd5 Qc5 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.e6 fxe6 15.Qxe6 Rhe8 16.Qh3 Re2 17.Qxh7 Nf8 18.Qd3 Rxf2 19.Nb6+
I picked this up for 25p at a Jumble Sale.
Chess Quiz by Fred Reinfe.
300 test positions, some from real play, some made up.
They get progressively harder as you plough through the book.
What I like doing is finding a nice combination, then
playing over the original game and see the play leading to
Here are two. I'm not going to names and places.
Now this is going to be more beneficial than simply
giving the diagram adding white or black to play.
Play over the game on auto. Somewhere along the line white missed a
winning combination. Can you see where the critical position arises
and can you find the winning shot? In both cases White has the trick.
(if I ever do this again you won't even get that clue)
See if your 'inner eye' can suddenly alert you that there is a trick on.
In the actual game white missed it.(answer at the bottom)
[Click here to replay the game]
White - Black
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 0-0 5.Bg5 c5 6.Qc2 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Be7 8.e4 Nc6 9.Nf3 Qa5 10.Bd2 Qh5 11.Be2 d5 12.0-0 dxc4 13.Bxc4 Bd6 14.Ne2 Ng4 15.Nf4 Qh6 16.Nh3 Qh5 17.Rad1 Nce5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Bf4 Nxc4 20.Qxc4 Qc5 21.Qd3 Bxf4 22.Nxf4 b6 23.Qd6 Qa5 24.b4 Qa4 25.Nh5 Qb5 26.e5 Qe2 27.Ng3 Qb5 28.Rfe1 Bb7 29.Re3 Qc6 30.Qxc6 Bxc6 31.Ne4 Bxe4 32.Rxe4 Rfd8 33.Red4 Rxd4 34.Rxd4 Kf8 35.Kf1 Rc8 36.Ke2 Rc2+ 37.Rd2 Rxd2+ 38.Kxd2 Ke7 39.Kd3 Kd7
In the second test. I have tampered. White found the shot.
I have played another move and set the game off along a
new path. Again play it out on auto and see if you can spot
the move that white played which forced immediate resignation.
[Click here to replay the game]
White vs. Black
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.Ne2 Ne7 8.Ng3 c6 9.Ba4 Ng6 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 d5 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.c3 Bc5 14.Bc2 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 Ndf4 16.Rd1 Qc7 17.Re1 Bd7 18.Bxf4 Nxf4 19.Re7 Rad8 20.Rd1 Rfe8 21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 22.Rxf7 Ne6 23.Qd3+ Kh8 24.Rxd7 Rxd7 25.Qxd7 Rd8 26.Qxe6 Rxd1+ 27.Nf1 Qd6 28.Qe8+ Kh7 29.Qh5+ Kg8 30.Qe8+ Kh7 31.Qh5+ Kg8 32.Qe8+
Levenfish - Riumin, Moscow 1936
In this position White could have played
27 Nf6+ gxf6 28 gxf6 threatening Qg3+ and Qxf8+
forcing Black to give up the Queen with 28...Qxf1+
Levenfish missed it. The game ended in a draw.
Janowski - Burn, Ostende 1907
Here Janowski DID play 21 Qxd7! and no matter how
you play it the back rank weakness is the telling factor.
White remains a piece up (21...Qxd7 22 Rxd7).
Points also for 21 Qe4 which is good enough to win
but not as forcing. Black can play on for a few more moves.
An interesting game that.
Janowski's 16 Rd1 and 17 Re1 look as if he was setting
Burn up for the blunder. It is a blunder, Black was not
forced to play 20...Rfe8? Here is the position again.
Black's position is wretched and is most likely lost.
I can't find any defence for Black here.
At first I thought 20...Nd5 was a move but 21 Nh4
is very strong.
Of course if Lasker had been white then it would have
been another strike for Lasker's psychological play.
(playing bad moves to lower his opponents guard etc etc).
And out would come Lasker V Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914.
Lasker needing a win plays a drawish line (the exchange Lopez)
to put the Young Cuban into a relaxed frame of mind.
Somebody wrote this and chess journalists have been
regurgitating the same dribble ever since. A large percentage
of what is written about chess today is copied parrot fashion
from previous writers and if the original source happen to get
make a mistake or are simply on the wrong track...
Just prior to the game in question, Capa as black played an exchange
Lopez v Pavlov & Selesniev in Moscow 1914,it ended in a draw.
Lasker knew of this game and noted Capa's poor handling of the opening.
It was not psychological, it was good preparation.
Lasker was one of the greatest chess players that ever lived.
An excellent end game player, superb defensive play and
fine manoeuvering skill,
(the art of doing nothing but at the same time not weakening
one's own position, probing for weaknesses, tempting errors).
But to me Lasker's chief ability was his tactical play.
He would accept inferior positions as long as there were
tactical chances. He did not seek these positions on purpose.
He would weigh up the situation to see which position gave
him the best chance to display his skill.
Another game usually given to show Lasker's psychological powers
is the 1st game of the Lasker v Marshall 1907 match.
Yes I have seen Kasparov's notes to this game after 13...fxe5.
"...Lasker makes a wise psychological choice.
He knows that in the forthcoming complications after
the piece sacrifice Marshall would feel more comfortable
with the black pieces."
Hindsight is a wonderful gift. Lasker's sac is good enough
for a draw at the very least. If he retreats the Knight
White has a reasonable position with 14 Bf2.
So what to do. 2 choices.
14...Ng5 giving White a safe position with a slight pull.
14...fxe5 sac a piece for a probable draw but with chances
for my opponent to go wrong.
I think we would all take option number two.
Where is the psychology in that? It's called good chess.
Same game and this position pops up.
The 'deep thinkers' have had a go at this position as well.
Lasker played 19...Rb8! (not my exclams - other writers).
They then continue along this path of thought...
"Marshall expected 19 Bh3+ developing a piece with check.
Once again Lasker plays with Marshall mind."
How about placing a rook on an open file with a gain of tempo.
Forcing b3 which robs the Knight of a fine square (after Nd2).
And the rule of thumb about never checking in an ending unless
you have two good reasons for doing so. (usually pointless checks
improve the position of the checked King).
Again good simple chess.
It was Reti who first suggested this tripe about Lasker's
psychological play. Other writers have been copying him ever since.
"Lasker often deliberately plays badly."
Richard Reti - Masters of the Chess Board.
Actually an excellent book, but this is a bad conjecture.
This is me having a rant - I need more games.
I need a PIN number - any ideas.