Jackal, Lebel & Kowalski anyone?
ChessFire
is the dreadfully complex Jackal Attack:
Named after characters from Frederick Forsyth's thriller, 'Day Of The
Jackal', the main opening lines explored are:
(1)'The Jackal Attack' 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5
6.Bg5
(2)'The Lebel Variation' 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 d4
(3)'The Kowalski Line' 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.ed ed 5.Bb5+ Nc6
6.O-O
go to : www.jackalattack.com
There is also an interesting innovation at the site, which shows start
positions of the 3 games above, and by hovering the mouse over the
position it goes instantly to variants 20 moves later.
For all the above much thanks to Adrian Skelton.
Phil Innes
None
The link is just as informative and accurate as you are.
ChessFire
as before, this is very much a matter of your intelligence, since I
used the same link as posted. do you never think that in writing 'The
link is just as informative and accurate as you are.' actually
communicates any information at all?
its just good old projection, no? by someone who can't be bothered
with anything not to his own liking and which is not easy. did you
ever play chess - maybe used to be a c player at best?
phil innes
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
The page - www.google.com/www.jackalattack.com - does not exist.
Suggestions:
Check the spelling of the address you typed
If you are still having problems, please visit the Help Center
ChessFire
I never wrote that. Please try to observe what is in front of your
nose see above.
hint: I wrote www.jackalattack.com
whereas you seem to have included google in your reference
i have no idea why you did so or why you have this sort of perceptual
problem, except to say that you may be overcome with a certain need to
be righteous over others - though as you will no doubt record here
later, this need is a rather treacherous one, if common
no apology is necessary, but please make a note of it
> Suggestions:
> Check the spelling of the address you typed
> If you are still having problems, please visit the Help Center
thank you for your usual level of advice. unfortunately those reading
this script will see for themselves that when i talk about projection,
i have from time to time a point of interest, here proved - which
escapes such certainties as you propose, and indicates something else
entirely - but of that, another time - as i said it is common as muck
phil innes
None
>
> I never wrote that. Please try to observe what is in front of your
> nose see above.
>
> hint: I wrotewww.jackalattack.com
>
> whereas you seem to have included google in your reference
>
> i have no idea why you did so or why you have this sort of perceptual
> problem, except to say that you may be overcome with a certain need to
> be righteous over others - though as you will no doubt record here
> later, this need is a rather treacherous one, if common
>
> no apology is necessary, but please make a note of it
>
> > Suggestions:
> > Check the spelling of the address you typed
> > If you are still having problems, please visit the Help Center
>
> thank you for your usual level of advice. unfortunately those reading
> this script will see for themselves that when i talk about projection,
> i have from time to time a point of interest, here proved - which
> escapes such certainties as you propose, and indicates something else
> entirely - but of that, another time - as i said it is common as muck
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adrianskelton/
Try this
ChessFire
>
> > I never wrote that. Please try to observe what is in front of your
> > nose see above.
>
> > hint: I wrotewww.jackalattack.com
>
> > whereas you seem to have included google in your reference
>
> > i have no idea why you did so or why you have this sort of perceptual
> > problem, except to say that you may be overcome with a certain need to
> > be righteous over others - though as you will no doubt record here
> > later, this need is a rather treacherous one, if common
>
> > no apology is necessary, but please make a note of it
>
> > > Suggestions:
> > > Check the spelling of the address you typed
> > > If you are still having problems, please visit the Help Center
>
> > thank you for your usual level of advice. unfortunately those reading
> > this script will see for themselves that when i talk about projection,
> > i have from time to time a point of interest, here proved - which
> > escapes such certainties as you propose, and indicates something else
> > entirely - but of that, another time - as i said it is common as muck
>
> > phil innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adrianskelton/
>
> Try this
Yes, that works. So does the URL I posted. Why did you abuse me for
posting a correct URL, and suggesting something I never wrote didn't
work?
Having done that, do you have some interest in chess? If so, did you
ever play any of these lines as black or white? What is your interest
in these things?
Certainly, anyone entertaining the Jackal as white might cause black
to think very much indeed, eh? And if you can do that and know your
lines, you have substantial advantage over any weak response. I think
White is always one tempo from winning, and if black gives it up, 1-0.
Of course, these are not the only possible black responses, so
essaying the Jackal is something of a 2-way pressure cooker, since as
above, if White gives up a tempo he is dust.
Phil Innes
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
There was a time I played the French but don't recall if this showed
up. I open d4 and reply c5 to e4 so...
None
Why Staunton Wouldda Whupped Morphy.--TM
Way back then I understand corporal punishment was in the vogue among
English gays. To some of them it is still in fashion. Witness His
Imness.
ChessFire
We already now that the person can't own his name and doesn't like
gays - actually abuses them in public, and also abuses people who
think they are equal human beings to others.
But most of all this dope can't talk chess. So what does he like? He
likes Kennedy's nihilism. And Kennedy who is too proud to play where
the rest of us do, thinks these are wacky openings, as if he could
refute them OTB, or even theoretically with computer=on ;)
Meanwhile despite pointing out the URL which he got wrong and then
blamed me for, NONE admits as much to knowing the first 2 plies of the
French. Shall we thank him for sharing? What can we thank him for?
Perhaps those who notice abuse can think of several things, since
perhaps they tolerate each others dumbth?
;(
Phil Innes
None
You jumped to the wrong analogy old timer. Mine was regarding being
whipped and how you, being English, seem to relish having the boys
beat you up. BTW why did you wink at me?
ChessFire
Please, return on chess subjects, not these lubricious fantasies and
projections you /chose/ to entertain. If you want, e-mail, but I think
you have a problem/opportunity here, no?
And also, I note you avoid 2 topics, your homophobia [fear of your own
homosexual predeliction, which is called variously, but certainly
'homosexual panic'], and your cheat with the URL and blaming episode.
Are any of these to recommend you? To whom? Greg?
Phil Innes
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thx for sharing Phil
None
> On Dec 28, 4:53 pm, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Please, return on chess subjects, not these lubricious fantasies and
> > > projections
>
>
> I'm not quite sure what is going on with Insane Innes-- he appears
> to have somehow externalised his own psychological difficulties and
> is now projecting them outwards onto the screen of "others".
>
> But luny jabberboxes aside, since you say you play 1.d4 as white
> this means you will sometimes have an opportunity to decide between
> playing the white side of the French, or something else. For example:
> after 1.d4 e6, you now have the opportunity to steer for a French via
> 2.e4, although this could lead to a Benoni instead if black
> plays ...c5
> instead of ...d5 and you push the pawn, 3.d5.
>
> This approach also avoids the Dutch, such as after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5,
> because after 1.d4 e6 2.e4 f5? is easily refuted (see the consultation
> game Capablanca/Alekhine/Lasker vs. Larry/Curly/Moe, 1-0, 15 moves).
>
> This "go ahead, make my day" approach in which you invite your
> opponents to play the French by playing 2.e4 in reply to ...e6 works
> against strong players as well (see Alekhine vs. Capablanca, a
> famous debacle in which black was squeezed to death owing to his
> lack of space, no pieces having gotten traded off, by pure chance-
> NOT!).
>
> If I am not mistaken, Mr. Innes created this thread with the idea of
> discussing what might be termed irregular lines against the French
> Defense. Now how do you suppose he lost the thread and decided
> that Jakal, Lebel and Kowalski are references to his own homophobic
> projections and other idiocies? My guess is that he may have fought
> in WWII, gotten hit in the head by shrapnel, and the surgeons were
> unable to remove all the pieces of metal from his severely damaged
> brain. Well, it's a theory.
1. d4, e6
2. Nf3
Don't tell me this is a blunder. It's my line. Oh what will I do.
Nahhh, Phil was RAF. One that never left the flightline.
None
> On Dec 28, 8:20 pm, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. d4, e6
> > 2. Nf3
>
> > Don't tell me this is a blunder. It's my line. Oh what will I do.
>
> > Nahhh, Phil was RAF. One that never left the flightline.
>
> of openings here, among them the Catalan, the Queen's Gambit, the
> Colle System, the Dutch, and the Queen's Indian-- all boring stuff.
> Real men play the King's Gambit and the Sicilian, of course, not
> fearing a tactical slugfest, but welcoming it with hairy, open arms.
But I like the Cat...
The Historian
> Nahhh, Phil was RAF. One that never left the flightline.
I thought he served in the Navy on HMS Oscar Wilde. The ship's motto
was "Rum, Phil, and the lash."
ChessFire
wrote:
Abuseniks write in with their curious liking for Gilbert and Sullivan,
one of whom he characterizes above, to an openly homophobic character.
Neither can attempt the topic here, but have presented their views on
every subject for a dozen years, without actually addressing content.
Are they in love? Who knows why they write to each other and to us?
They are not quite innocent people, the one being addressed by Polgar
to indecent utterances, then went silent, while the other popularized
the term 'Trollgar'. Both are off the hook to being the FSS, since in
the year of most expression by the FSS, both were absent this forum...
so they couldn't know.
But to the immediate point, both numbskulls cannot address chess
content, now or every before, and they operate on such degrees of
stupidity that is hardly credible. None accused me of finding nothing
in a URL which he invented, but cannot say what he found to the one I
actually referenced.
The other is the famous author of 'Old English is dead', which merely
requires 4 words of old english to say so.\
That it the wit of these commentators, and surely they are entirely
bust by their 'comments' on things, and lack of commentary about in
this instance a technical aspect of chess openings.
But from either in this instance... duh! Same as ever before. Duh! And
duh! And to make sure everyone knows, duh! duh! duh!
3 duhs you're out. You guys are scoring 300 duhs.
Get it? [let us estimate they do not] ;(((
Phil Innes
None
Get it? [let us estimate they do not] ;(((
Phil Innes
Us? Do you really think anyone here shows you a wit of respect?
Mike Murray
<onec...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Both are off the hook to being the FSS, since in
>the year of most expression by the FSS, both were absent this forum...
>so they couldn't know.
Not that I believe either did any FSS nastiness, but your reasoning is
ludicrous.
Even if neither *posted* using his own identity during the time the
FSS was most active, either (1) could have posted as the FSS and (2)
could have been a regular lurker and thus fully informed.
...
>Get it? [let us estimate they do not] ;(((
Whatever it is, doesn't look like you have it, Phil.
>Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> On Dec 26, 2:48 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adrianskelton/
>
> Try this
The second link works, but the one provided by Innes does not work
for me.
I don't understand why Skelton has named one line the Kowalski
Variation. The movie version of "Day of the Jackal" has no character
named Kowalski:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069947/fullcredits#cast
Perhaps he was thinking of Wolenski? Or is there a Kowalski in the
book, who was left out or renamed in the movie?
None
wrote:
Honesty is not ChessFarte's long suit.
jackdaw
wrote:
I took the names directly from the novel. The name is not important of
course; but it helps in distinguishing between basic lines. Typical
results from the opening's main line can be viewed at, for example,
chesslab.com if you enter 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5
6.Bg5!? Qb6 7.dxc5. The opponents' chess strengths can also be viewed
and these suggest that it is a difficult opening to face. Black has
yet to find his [or her] way to the key position which is extremely
unclear. It is, however, a specialist's opening and I would not
recommend it to some of those who have posted earlier.
Adrian Skelton
Taylor Kingston
> On Dec 30 2009, 9:55 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why Skelton has named one line the Kowalski
> > Variation. The movie version of "Day of the Jackal" has no character
> > named Kowalski:
>
> >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069947/fullcredits#cast
>
> > Perhaps he was thinking of Wolenski? Or is there a Kowalski in the
> > book, who was left out or renamed in the movie?
>
> I took the names directly from the novel.
OK, thanks for that info. What was Kowalski's role in the novel? In
the movie, Wolenski was the conspirators' courier, who was captured by
the French police and tortured into spilling the beans on the
assassination plot. Not a very inspiring figure to name a chess
opening for!
ChessFire
Who says so? Honest Stan?
ROFL. Is this a guy who was legally 'threatened' by Susan Polgar about
his statements who then went underground? :)
The link I cited worked, and Stan is again exposed as being a dumb
sort of cove, can't make it work for him, can't write his own name,
nor no-one else's either, and this is their fault.
<ggg>
We should all thank him for his entertainment value, though perhaps
this is an acquired taste for usenet-denizens.
Still, Stan Booz has not made any contribution here to the 'Jackal
French', and I rather suspect that he will not do so, because he
doesn't play chess and also doesn't understand the line.
;)
Phil Innes
jackdaw
wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:36 am, jackdaw <adrianskel...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30 2009, 9:55 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I don't understand why Skelton has named one line the Kowalski
> > > Variation. The movie version of "Day of the Jackal" has no character
> > > named Kowalski:
>
> > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069947/fullcredits#cast
>
> > > Perhaps he was thinking of Wolenski? Or is there a Kowalski in the
> > > book, who was left out or renamed in the movie?
>
> > I took the names directly from the novel.
>
> OK, thanks for that info. What was Kowalski's role in the novel? In
> the movie, Wolenski was the conspirators' courier, who was captured by
> the French police and tortured into spilling the beans on the
> assassination plot. Not a very inspiring figure to name a chess
> opening for!
The particular variation 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 c5 [Kowalski] -
although quite a popular continuation - is the weakest of Black's
options. There are both strategic and tactical problems for Black
after the further 4.ed ed 5.Bb5 in terms of a later isolated d-pawn
and White's very rapid piece deployment.
In the actual novel, Kowalski has very limited information to give
and this is the same in the chess opening equivalent: One can
certainly 'go down that line of inquiry' as Black - but this does not
challenge the strengths / weaknesses of White's opening in any branch
of the two-knights French [i.e. with the bishop on either f4 or on g5
as in the Jackal]. The line represents, maybe, 5% of the e-book
analysis so as to prove the above.
A
ChessFire
Agree - it is a pressure opening in that black is put to the test
early on. I should have liked to have introduced you to Albert H
Alberts while I was at Chessville, since the described positions are
just those he investigates with his computer, and then publishes: "How
To Fool Fritz" and as we jokingly called his second title, "Son of
Fritz".
More specifically, he would be searching for destabilizing moves
where, typ, White may give up a Bishop or Knight for one or two pawns,
but gain big initiative or spatial advantage. This, says Alberts, is
where all chess programs are weak - evaluating dynamic positions where
material advantage must be weighed against positionally negative
factors.
I think the range of openings you illustrate are a little different in
that there is no necessary sacrifice involved, yet they destabilize
the position in ways which computers and especially real players with
the clock ticking find hard to evaluate.
Thanks for these contributions. I admit I have never played the Jackal
- but some years ago I was making arrangements for a Petersburg
player, and he shared his researches on the French, Armenian
Variation, with me - which is interesting since for a change Black
attempts to disrupt White by tempting him forward on the Q side at the
expense of the minor exchange of Black's 'good' bishop. But the result
of the chase is that Black can then dominate the center of the board
by threatening to advantageously advance his pawns - the middle game
drives computers nuts!
In fact, that is what Albert says - at move 30, eg it has +2.5 for
Black, but by move 38 it is -1.0 for Black, after Albert's inserts his
'MAMS' move which otherwise the computer just will not consider, even
if the thing is set to search 20 plies.
As with Jackal and co - these are little known openings, in fact Nunn
didn't include Armenian Variation in his Chess Openings. The
psychology of these things is that if even at move 5 you can create
such massive complications for both computer and OTB opponent that my
guess is that very few people could continue to play either side with
much credit. Alberts' TRAXLER Gambit analysis is totally mind
boggling. Fritz actually refuses the gambit - and finds a draw, but
can't by itself find a better move as suggested by Alberts.
My Russian correspondent was Alexander Khalifman, who I think was to
publish on the Armenian, but he 'accidentally' <laugh> became world
champion the next year. I don't know if he ever published his thesis
in English.
Cordially, Phil Innes
jackdaw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Phil,
I completely agree on your [and Alber H Albert's] observations
regarding computer analysis - particularly in 'dynamic' positions.
Fritz and similar programs are of course lethal where one side has a
tactical advantage that can be exploited in the short term - even if
this is, say, ten or twelve moves ahead. 'Announcing Mate in 8' is
nothing to such programs.
But give a position where the human merely 'suspects' trouble over the
horizon and therefore avoids taking [for example]that offered pawn,
the silicon chip will, by contrast, and more often than not, take that
pawn anyway.
This is an interesting difference between the approaches of these two
types of 'players' . It also presents a practical problem for those
trying to write 'a bit of common sense' into the computer's software.
In essense, the human is making a choice based upon intuition gathered
from experience. This also implies that he/she is not actually basing
that decision upon calculation. It saves a lot of time to simply say,
"No way am I taking that pawn - it just 'looks' too dangerous.'
And sometimes it really is: This is where the types of openings you
mention are simply 'too difficult' for the computer: The danger lies
too far over even its horizon. It has no intuition and no-one to
advise; 'Don't even go there.'
But just how far you can get in a game of chess by using intuition
alone [that is - with little or no concrete analysis].
That it is possible to do so is something you may be able to verify
for yourself: I dont know if you play much blitz chess online but, if
you do, what you will find by looking over such a game afterwards, is
just how well you have played - relative to your own normal playing
standard in a 'proper' game. I'd hazard a guess that maybe 80% of the
moves played would have been the same ones chosen if you had been
playing in a three hour game. I think this holds true even if one
discounts rattling off learned opening variations.
So there is a lot to be said for 'intuition' in chess and a lot of
danger in having none whatsoever. Someone once said that there are
traps in chess which require a high degree of skill in order to fall
into them - and this is probably especially the case with the silicon
chip.
A.S
ChessFire
I will attend your lower notes anon - but directly here is a less
known correspondent directly addressing preparation and play. My
commissioned interview at Chessville with him blamed his own lack of
preparation to indifferent acceptance of computer analysis
I excuse myself for letting the following text speak for itself, but
this is how GMs actually go about the game, in their own words, and of
their own preparation and what happens in actual play. The following
is © Phil Innes and Chessville.
===
Special thanks go to Phil Innes and to Boris Yeshan (Russian Chess)
both for arranging the writing of this column with GM Bezgodov, and
also for their work translating the original text into English.
GM Alexei Bezgodov: My loss to an excellent grandmaster from Moscow,
Evgeny Najer, one can say consists of two parts. First I prepared
badly for the game using an incomplete database and already from the
opening got a very difficult (maybe even lost) endgame. However,
later I managed to entangle the game by a surprise king activation.
But when the rescue seemed just round the corner I committed an error
which made my opponent's task so much easier.
(1) Najer,E - Bezgodov,A [D24]
56th Russian Championship (3.13), 05.09.2003
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
I should say before this Championship of Russia I almost never played
the Accepted Queen's Gambit. It was a 'surprise' for my opponents who
prepared for other openings. Due to my unexpected opening repertoire
I managed to win in the first round against Vladimir Epishin (ELO
2643), who - playing White - used a very dubious novelty.
This game with Najer was played in the third round and the player
could now expect this opening from me. Maybe I should have been more
sly and 'changed the record'? In hindsight I think so, but at the
time I believed (as it turned out without good reason) in the quality
of my home preparation.
3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3!
The simplest and perhaps the best move! White develops the pieces in
the quickest way in the best classical traditions, without haste to
get back the pawn.
4...c5
Black had a large choice on the fourth move. However, preparing the
opening I rested my main hopes upon just this move which I made in the
game.
5.d5
Najer is a chess player of principle who doesn't avoid complications.
5...e6 6.e4 exd5 7.e5!
All these moves have occurred hundreds of times. An important part of
the up-to-date chess professional's skill consists in an ability to
familiarize himself with the main achievements of theory and practice
a chosen opening system, plus adding something of his own. Then he
gets a chance to surprise an opponent and obtain winning chances.
7...Ne4
I rested my hopes on this interesting Knight jump in the center. The
most popular of all possible moves is the modest retreat 7...Nfd7
8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 Qd8, however I don't like Black's Queen
running 'here and there'. It's no secret that chess-players, even
high level ones, chose their lines not only on statistics or
popularity but also on a simple principle: 'they like or dislike it'!
I prefer the Knight's position on e4 better than d7. For those who
like to counter-attack I caution that Black is in bad shape after
7...d4? 8.Bxc4 dxc3 9.Bxf7+! Ke7 10.exf6+ gxf6 11.Bd5 Qc7 12.0-0 Bd7
13.Ng5 Bg7 14.Re1+ Kd8 15.Nf7+ Kc8 16.Nd6+ Qxd6 17.Bxb7+ Kc7 18.Qxd6+
Kxd6 19.Bf4# 1-0 Prianishenko-Zaitsev.
8.Qxd5
It was possible to take on e4 but Najer's move is stronger.
8...Nxc3
And this is the only move. An attempt to exchange the Queens without
trading the Knights gives Black insoluble problems: 8...Qxd5 9.Nxd5
Na6 10.Bxc4 Be6 11.Bg5 Rc8 12.0-0-0 and Black's prospects are bad.
9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.bxc3
A very important moment in the game. Black currently has an extra-
pawn but no possibilities to keep this little advantage. And he has
another task - to equalize the position!
10...h6?!
It's sad to assert that I have made a decisive mistake already on the
10th move, and that was prepared as far back as home analysis! But
certainly it required Najer's correct play to prove the strength of
White's position. Most likely the best move here is a developing one,
10...Nc6, which is preferred by an expert in this system for Black,
the Champion of Europe-2003 Grandmaster Azmaiparashvili.
11.Bxc4
11.Ng5 Ke8 12.e6!?÷ Bareev E.- Azmaiparashvili Z., Plovdiv 2003, and
the game was drawn on the 55th move; 11...Be6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Ng5 Kd7
½-½ Dreev A. - Azmaiparashvili Z., Dos Hermanas 2001 (38).
11....Be6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Nh4!
I underestimated this plan in my preparation. White's knight arrives
at the very strong g6-square and its almost impossible to drive it
away from this station. The knight distinctly complicates Black's
defense. I must admit one more serious mistake - I played this
endgame against one of the strongest chess programs. My 'inanimate'
opponent didn't find White's 13th move and, against any other play
Black stands well and I would defend Black's position easily. I did
not suspect the existence of the knight's maneuver since my database
didn't have an old game - Najer-Belikov! A surprising 'unlucky
coincidence of circumstances' where actually only my own laxity was at
fault - nobody prevented me updating the data base and furthermore,
nobody prevented me analyzing this endgame more carefully!
Well, what to do? I engrossed myself in thought and realized that my
position is actually already very hard. I had only one possibility;
to look for any casual chances of rescue. The main thing which one
has to do in such cases is 'not to bury oneself alive' but to direct
all forces to extremely complicate the opponent's game, and to gain
victory!
13...Be7! 14.Ng6 Re8
Without this maneuver I would be forced to put my Rook on the nasty g8-
square! On e8 it could at least support the e6-pawn.
15.Be3 b6 16.h4 Nd7 17.h5
Most likely Evgeny decided that I prepared a strengthened line
compared with his old game against Belikov and deviated 'just in case'
from repeating that game. He thought well of me! I didn't know at
all about the game Najer-Belikov otherwise I certainly would play some
other line.
17.Ke2 Kc8 18.h5 Bd8 19.Kf3 (In my opinion more simple is the pawn
offensive 19.f4 Nf8 20.Nxf8 Rxf8 21.Kf3 Bc7 22.Ke4 Kb7 23.g4 Kc6
24.Rag1± and after a further g4-g5 White is able to reach the
weaknesses of Black's kingside.) 19...Bc7 20.Ke4 Kb7 21.Rh3 (And here
is a possibility to turn to the plan I suggested 21.f4 Nf8 22.Nxf8
Rxf8 23.g4 Kc6 24.Rag1±) 21...Nf8 22.Rf1 Nxg6 23.hxg6 Kc6 24.g4 b5
25.f4 a5 1-0 Najer E.-Belikov V., Moscow 1998.
I discovered this information preparing the annotations to this game.
Frankly, it's strange that Black lost in the final position - maybe on
time? Actually there still should be a lot of play and I am not quite
sure that White certainly wins here.
17...Nf8 18.Ke2 Kc7 19.a4
An old rule says: 'Don't move the pawns where you are weaker!' But I
do not presume to judge the move made by Najer - it doesn't give up
the advantage and doesn't even decrease it. White as before has a big
positional advantage. Other moves are possible, for example: 19.g4
Kc6 20.f4±
19...Nxg6
Maybe I ought to have waited with this exchange. Why it is bad for
Black? After trading it will not be difficult for White to create a
dangerous passed pawn on the kingside or to reach many weaknesses in
Black's position. But the knight on g6 is also very unpleasant for
Black! For example, one should constantly consider the possibility of
the White rook transferring to f7 via h3. Nevertheless, preferring to
use the King's activity, 19...Kc6 proceeding on the assumption that
there is a possibility to exchange on g6 later in case of need:
A) In case of 20.Rh3 Kd5 the Black king strongly complicates White's
task, appearing on c4 and threatening White pawns on the queenside.
The attempt at a mating attack gives White only a draw by perpetual
check: 21.c4+ Kxc4 22.Nf4 (Unfavorable for White is 22.Rc1+ Kd5 -
Black remains with an extra-pawn and the King 'hides' on c6) 22...Bg5
23.Rc1+ Kb4 24.Bd2+ Kxa4 25.Rb1 Bxf4 26.Bxf4 b5 27.Ra1+ Kb4 28.Rd3 c4
29.Rb1+ Ka4=
B) 20.c4! The most correct decision in my opinion. 20...a6 (20...Nxg6
21.hxg6 a6 22.f4 b5 23.axb5+ axb5 24.cxb5+ Kxb5 25.g4±) 21.Nxe7+ Rxe7
22.Rhc1 (Premature is 22.a5? b5 23.cxb5+ axb5 24.Rhc1 c4÷) 22...Nd7
23.f4 g6 24.hxg6 Rg8 25.g3 Rxg6 26.Bf2 a5 27.Rd1±
20.hxg6 Kc6 21.f4
One ought not to call this move weak because White keeps a great
advantage. However it did cheer me up since now the possibility for
my King to appear on c4 gives me hope that my opponent will become
entangled! Simpler was 21.c4!±
21...Kd5 22.Kf3
No advantage to White is the line 22.Kd3 c4+ 23.Ke2 Ke4" - the Black
King on e4 is completely safe and even becomes a strong fighting unit!
22...Kc4 23.g4
This is correct - it's time to advance where White is stronger! One
shouldn't defend the c3-pawn since it's impossible to take it.
23...Rad8
Let us make sure that the pawn is inviolable: 23...Kxc3 24.Rab1! It's
astonishing, but in this position with few pieces Black couldn't
withstand the mate threats! 24...c4 25.Ke4 Ba3 26.Bd4+ Kc2 27.Rb5 Bc1
28.Rh2+ Kd1 29.Rb1+-
24.Rhd1 Rd5
The goal of the move is to entangle the game as far as possible. I
couldn't resort to a bishop's endgame or allow the opponent's rook
access to d7. The only my hope was connected with an attempt to
create my own pawn 'army' in contrast to my opponent's! And this idea
almost turned out well.... Again it was impossible to take the
'bewitched' c3-pawn: 24...Kxc3 25.f5 White's offensive is very
dangerous! 25...Kb4 (25...Bf8 26.f6+-) 26.Bxh6! The simplest and, in
this position maybe the only, way to a White victory. The pawn-chain
becomes irrepressible. 26...gxh6 27.g7 Rxd1 28.Rxd1 Rg8 29.f6 Bf8
30.Rd8 Rxg7 31.fxg7 Bxg7 32.Ke4 c4 33.Rg8 Bxe5 34.Kxe5 Kxa4 35.Rg6+-
25.Rxd5 exd5 26.f5 Bf8!
This move is good since it puts before White the biggest practical
difficulties in attaining a win. Other moves offer White less
difficulty. For example one loses quickly in case of a simple pawn
capture: 26...Kxc3 27.Bxh6 gxh6 28.g7 Rg8 (28...Bg5 29.f6+-) 29.f6 Bf8
30.gxf8Q Rxf8 31.Kf4+-
27.Bf4
A delay. White was able to strike a winning blow in spite of the
danger of miscalculation. I had seen this move during the game and
intuitionally recognized that after it Black must lose. Nevertheless
I proceeded to this position. Why? First, because I had nothing
better; second, since the proof of a White win requires a sizable
boldness from my opponent. White hardly could win without a
sacrifice! But not every player could dare to sacrifice without
having the possibility to analyze everything exactly, in view of the
time limit. Thus I used a practical opportunity for a rescue which
could bring me the desired draw in a (objectively) losing position.
Here is how White was able to obtain a forced win: 27.Bxh6! Rxe5
(Beautiful was also the line 27...gxh6 where a huge role in obtaining
a win is played by the powerful White king. 28.Kf4! Kxc3 29.f6 c4
30.Kf5 d4 31.e6 d3 32.e7 Bxe7 33.f7 Rf8 34.Ke6+-) 28.Bf4 Re4 29.g5
Kxc3 30.f6 Re6 31.Kg4 d4 (After 31...gxf6 32.gxf6 Black alas couldn't
take on f6 because of a check on e5 losing the Rook.) 32.Kf5 Re8
33.Rh1 d3 34.Rh8 d2 35.Bxd2+ Kxd2 36.Rg8 Even the piece's loss turned
out not to be feared by White! His overwhelming superiority on the
kingside quickly decides the game. 36...Rd8 37.fxg7 Rd5+ 38.Ke6 Rd6+
39.Ke5 Be7 40.Kf5+-
27...Kxc3 28.Rd1 d4
29.Ke4?!
Najer shows absolute - and unusual for him - indecision in spending
precious time for the King's activation in a position where a
combination was required of him. Strong was 29.f6 Kc4 The king
hurries to d5 in order to limit White's offensive on the kingside.
But a spectacular bishop sacrifice could face Black with insoluble
problems: 30.Bxh6! gxh6 31.Ke4! (Not impossible is 31.Kf4?? Kd5!-+)
31...Kb3 32.Kf5 Kc2 33.Rh1 d3 34.e6 d2 35.e7 Bxe7 36.f7 Rf8 37.Ke6 Bf6
38.Kxf6+-
29...Bd6!
A strong move. Now I saw White has no win. Weaker is 29...Be7 30.e6!
(An amazingly beautiful idea for Black's rescue could be realized
after 30.Kd5 d3 31.Ke6 Bg5+ 32.Kf7 Bxf4 33.e6 Rc8 34.f6 gxf6 35.e7 Kc2
36.Rh1 d2 37.g7 d1Q 38.Rxd1 Kxd1 39.e8Q Rxe8 40.Kxe8 c4 41.g8=Q White
has an extra Queen! But Black can escape: 41...c3 42.Qd5+ Kc1 43.Kf7
c2 44.Kxf6 Bg5+ 45.Kf5 Kb2 46.Qd4+ Kb3=)
30...Bf6 (30...Bg5 31.Bxg5 hxg5 32.Ke5 d3 33.f6 gxf6+ 34.Kxf6 c4
35.g7+-) 31.Be5! After the exchange of the main defender of the
kingside White wins easily. Black's pawns turn out to be too
'sluggish'. 31...Bxe5 32.Kxe5 d3 33.f6 gxf6+ 34.Kxf6 c4 35.Kf7 Rc8
36.e7+-
30.Rh1
In this position my usually imperturbable opponent was noticeable
anxious, realizing that the win could slip from his hands. He had
only about two minutes against my five. But one shouldn't forget that
after each move the opponents automatically got an additional 30
seconds, so there wasn't a very big danger of losing on time.
Nevertheless I have achieved this position!
The variants after a logical 30.e6 in any case don't promise a win to
White, for example: 30...Bxf4 31.Kxf4 Kc2 32.Rh1 d3 33.Ke5 d2 34.f6
gxf6+ 35.Kxf6 d1Q 36.Rxd1 Kxd1 37.g7 c4 38.Kf7 Rc8 39.e7 c3 40.e8Q
Rxe8 41.Kxe8 c2 42.g8Q c1Q-+
30...d3!
A rare case where I was able to make a good move! White is forced to
think not only about his own passed pawns but also about the
opponent's ones.
Here are the variants which prove that White could win in case of
other moves:
30...Kb3 31.Kd5! (Weak is 31.e6? Bxf4 32.Kxf4 c4 33.Ke4 d3 34.Ke3 Kc2
35.Rh2+ Kc3 36.Rh1 a6-+; 31.Rxh6 gxh6 32.f6 Bf8-+) 31...Bb8 32.f6 gxf6
33.exf6 Bxf4 34.f7 Re5+ 35.Kc6 Re6+ 36.Kb5+-; or
30...Kc4 31.Rc1+ Kb3 32.Kd5 Bb8 33.f6 gxf6 34.exf6 Bxf4 35.f7 Rd8+
36.Ke6 Bxc1 (36...Rd6+ 37.Kf5 Bxc1 38.f8Q+-) 37.g7 Kxa4 38.g8Q Rxg8
39.fxg8Q d3 40.Qh7 c4 41.Qxa7+ Kb3 42.Qxb6+ Kc2 43.Qd4 c3 44.Qa4+ Kd2
45.Kd5 Ke2 46.Qc4+-
31.Rc1+ Kb2?
This move leads to a loss! In a situation of mutual time trouble
(more pointed for White) it was difficult to give preference to the
saving 31...Kb3! and one can't see a win for White after:
A) 32.Kxd3 Bxe5 33.Bxe5 Rxe5=;
B) 32.Rd1 c4 33.Kd5 Bb8 34.Rb1+ Kc2=;
C) 32.e6 Bxf4 33.Kxf4 d2 34.Rh1 c4-+;
D) 32.Rh1 d2 33.Kd5 Bxe5 34.Bxe5 c4 (34...Rd8+ 35.Kc6 d1Q 36.Rxd1
Rxd1 37.Bxg7 Rg1 38.f6 Rxg4 39.f7 Rxg6+ 40.Kb5 Rxg7 41.f8Q+-) 35.Rb1+
(35.Bxg7 Re1 36.Rh3+ Kxa4 37.Kc6 d1Q 38.Bf8 c3 39.Rxc3 Re3 40.Rxe3
Qc1+-+) 35...Kc2 36.Rb2+ Kc1 37.Rxd2 Rxe5+ 38.Kxe5 Kxd2 39.f6 gxf6+
40.Kxf6 c3 41.g7 c2 42.g8Q c1Q-+;
E) 32.Kd5 Bb8 33.f6 gxf6-+;
F) 32.Rb1+ Let's make sure that other possibilities don't promise
White more than a draw: 32...Kc3 33.Rc1+ One doesn't see anything
better than this repetition of moves... A couple of days after the
game I asked Najer his opinion about this position. He was going to
play just this way and accept a humbling draw. 33...Kb3 34.Rb1+=
32.Rd1
There is no rescue for Black. An advantage in time has dwindled.
32...c4
32...Kc2 33.Rd2+ Kb1 34.Rxd3+-
33.Kd5 Bxe5
I saw this idea as insufficient but the game is lost. It's too easy
for White to find the decisive moves. 33...Kc2?? 34.Rd2+ Kc3
35.exd6+-
34.Bxe5+ Kc2
34...Rxe5+ 35.Kxe5 c3 36.Rxd3+-
35.Rh1 d2 36.Bxg7 c3 37.Bxc3 Kxc3 38.g7
38...Kb4?!
A nervous move which one obviously ought to make. Certainly in my
calculations I hoped on the move 38...Re1 but after an obligatory
39.Rh3+ Kb4 (39...Kc2 40.Rh2+-) 40.Rd3 I did not see the refined
maneuver 40...Re7! (40...d1Q 41.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 42.Ke6 Rd8 43.f6+-)
41.Rxd2! (An untimely pawn's transformation to a Queen deprives White
of his advantage. 41.g8Q Rd7+) 41...Rxg7 42.Rd4+ Kc3 43.Rf4+- However
here also White's victory is quite simple in spite of a material
equality.
39.Rd1 1-0
Here I was not able to make a move for the remaining 30 seconds and
lost on time although I could have resigned. A desperate game which
is really no shame to lose. Finally I tried hard and did my best.
But as a professional I am obliged to reproach myself for: first, bad
preparation for the variation generally; second, for bad preparation
after solidifying this game to contain it; and third, that after
several not bad moves I nevertheless 'dropped' an already obtained
draw!
Phil Innes
SAT W-7
jackdaw
Phil - thanks for the game and what a good one - well explained and
offering honest insight.
In the context of the discussion in which it is quoted [i.e the role
of intuition v calculation] there is no doubt from Bezgodov 's notes
that even the strongest players are sometime greatly influenced in
move choice by factors that have little to do with the actual position
on the board...
['...even high level [players] choose their lines on a simple
principle ....They like it or dislike it.']
This is not surprizing: Every chess game is a unique 'story' and, in
focussing on the position analysis, we tend to overlook the two most
important pieces involved - the players themselves. Which move or plan
is actually chosen at a given moment is often as much influenced by
psychological factors as it is by the board position.
Early on in this particular story, we learn some of the extermal
factors that are soon to directly influence the moves:
This opponent, Najer, we learn, is one who, as a matter of principle,
will not avoid complications. Sure enough - Najer finds the key
opening move, 13.Nh4! which both Black and his 'inanimate' friend
missed - or at least underestimated.
Although the complications soon set in and are favourable to White,
they are probably more interesting than he would have wished for. He
has Black to thank for this: The most dangerous opponents are those
who know they are losing. Black's strategy and practical play
thereafter is as much characterized by a 'mindset' [notes to White's
13th move] as anything else. Far from 'burying himself alive' he seeks
to greatly complicate things for his opponent in an attempt to mend
the opening error. In 'Sixty memorable games' [a Reshevsky game, I
think] Fischer also comments on how demoralizing this can be for the
player who knows he holds what should be a decisive advantage.
What Black is doing is seeking to play dynamic chess - never mind if
the moves are not exactly the best - so long as they are hard to
answer; move after move.
Black finally falters just when he has achieves his goal of equality.
White also hesitates at a critical moment [29.Ke4?!] and this I find
interesting.
There can be no doubt that the winning plan, as described in the
notes, would have been foremost in Najer mind. However, I suspect that
his opponent had, by that stage, succeeded in creating such
counterplay that it caused White to suffer from a moment of self-
doubt:
In these sorts of positions [where a piece sac is required to force
the win] one always worries that some unforseen resource could turn up
for the defender that might totally reverse the outcome - the fear of
losing a 'won' game is a powerful force and can cause indecision -
sometimes even a virtual 'paralysis'.
[- Bezgodov's comment on move 19.Ke4?! -- "Najer shows absolute - and
unusual for him - indecision in spending
precious time for the King's activation in a position where a
combination was required of him. ]
It seems that, for a moment, White didn't know whether to put out
Black's fire on the queenside - or heap still more fuel on his own. If
so, this is a testament to Black's psychological resourcefulness in
recovering from a bad start.
But in the end, a very good and interesting 'story' by both players.
What ultimately lost it for Black was a reliance on a machine that is
influenced by neither intuition nor emotion - it merely calculates. It
will continue to do so- even when there is nothing worth calculating
on this side of the horizon. That is not the type of opponent Black
was preparing against however. When Bezgodov came to the board his
opponent found the best move. No doubt he did some superficial
tactical checks; but I suspect his move choice was largely strategic
and basically intuitive - he knew this knight move was the only one
likely to cause Black real problems. In the 'final analysis' - his
intuition proved correct.
Bezgodov - i think unfairly - reproaches himself for relying on the
computer. He was unlucky. Their main failing is on positions featuring
a very complex balance of material v tempo. But their second weakness
is when there is nothing to calculate at all. He should have pulled
the plug and simply asked himself - 'What would I play here, as
White?'
I believe that such factors as intuition and emotions play a very
large part in chess decision making. Many players would improve their
game - not by learning openings - but by understanding how they
currently make decisions during a game. In other words - how they
actually play chess.
[Based on an essay - 'thoughtless chess']
SAT W-7
Thanks ....
Very good thread .....