Game Of The Year X

End Of The Season

Monday, August 12, 2013

Well, another chess season has come to a close for me.  It is time for me to move on to managing the website for my other hobby (https://spamfootball.blogspot.com/), but I will return after the football season ends.  Before I go, I wanted to clean up some loose ends.

Of course, you can still send in news items or articles during the off-season, and I will email them along to the subscribers.  Any games I receive will be stored at the Colorado Springs Chess News’ Yahoo! group.  You can also join the group to keep receiving chess games all year round.

So, before I finish typing my chess thoughts for another year, I want to thank all the people who sent in games and articles, all the people who took the time to tell me something nice about the newsletter, and all the people who take the time to read this.

Game Of The Year

Wow!  It has been 10 years of the Colorado Springs Chess Newsletter.  I didn't notice until the Game Of The Year, which is now the tenth one.  Usually at this time, I look over the past year's statistics to see if it was a good or bad year for me.  With completing my 10th year, one would think it was good, but I don't always feel that way.

Looking over the statistics helps me get past the bad feelings that linger from my losses (and I had a bunch of them).  They bring me back into balance and force me to look at what I did right and what I did wrong.  This year, they gave me mostly good news:

• Same number of upsets as last year (2)
• 81.88% overall winning percentage (record: 2012 - 78.48%)
• 2116 peak CLUB rating (record: 2012 - 2067)
• 89.02% CLUB winning percentage (record: 2011 - 83.33%)
• 2058 peak USCF rating (record: 2012 - 2029)
• 48.5 most USCF-rated wins (record: 2012 - 46.0)
• 4.5 fewest CLUB-rated losses (record: 2011 - 7.5)
• 9 prizes won (record: 2001 - 12)

In addition to the statistics, I also earned my 1st invitation to the Colorado Closed Challenger and tied for 1st place, just missing out on tie breaks for an automatic invitation to the 2014 Colorado Closed.  It was my best tournament ever, and I selected my best game from the event as the Game Of The Year, which I wrote about for the Colorado Chess Informant earlier this year.

2013 Colorado Chess Informant Articles:

• 3 Ms Of Chess: Mate (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/05/3-ms-of-chess-mate.html)
• 3 Ms Of Chess: Material (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/3-ms-of-chess-material.html)
• 3 Ms Of Chess: Mobility (see below)

Black to move

When I started playing tournament chess, I read a pamphlet from GM Arthur Bisguier about how to improve at chess.  Since I had been crushed by him in a simul, I was more than willing to take his advice, even though I knew little about what a GM was.  He had a list of 10 principles to keep in mind when playing.  I thought that was a little too complicated for me to remember.

So, I condensed those ideas into what I considered the 3 strategies of chess.  I also wanted something easy to remember so I decided to use the trick of alliteration to make them even more unforgettable.  I called them the 3 Ms of chess:

• Mate
• Material
• Mobility

The idea was that every chess move was an attempt to accomplish one of these three strategies and provided an ordered thought process in choosing a move.

The 1st priority chess strategy (Mate) was to protect your King from checkmate.  Once you decide your King is not in harm, you can plan to get your opponents King.  However, in most chess positions checkmate is a long way off.  So, now what do you do?

The 2nd priority chess strategy (Material) was to gain a more powerful army than your opponent.  This idea involved not only a simple piece count, but also the understanding that each piece has a different value.  Learning tactics was the key tool to implementing this strategy.  However, in most chess positions you cannot capture a more valuable piece.  So, now what do you do?

The 3rd priority chess strategy (Mobility) was to gain more territory for your army and make it faster than your opponent.  This strategy was far harder to understand than the others as it involved both the ideas of space and time.  Understanding how to maximize the movement of different pieces was not easy, but it was all there was left.  If I wasn’t moving a piece to Mate my opponent’s King or capture Material, then the move should have been improving its Mobility.

I soon began to notice that the different Material value of the pieces was directly related to their level of Mobility.  The fastest piece, the Queen, was worth far more than the slowest, the Pawn.  However, there was no Mobility Value Chart that told me how to maximize each piece.

Of course, many games and the lessons from losses gave me the feeling that the different pieces liked different things in regards to Mobility.  So, I created my own chart:

Mobility Preferences Of The Pieces:

• King likes Endgames
• Pawns like being Passed
• Rooks like Open Files
• Bishops like Open Diagonals
• Knights like Outposts
• Queens dislike Openings

As I began to understand these preferences, I realized that a lot of creating Mobility is related to the Pawn structure.  A Pawn is Passed when it has no opposing Pawns in its path and the adjacent files.  Similarly, a Knight has an outpost when it is supported by a Pawn and has no opposing Pawns in the adjacent files which can attack it.  Open Files and Open Diagonals are a line of squares that contain no Pawns.

The King and Queen were a little different, as their very high Material values discouraged their Mobility in the Opening.  However, the Queen becomes useful in the Middle Game as it can activate like a Rook or Bishop.  The King almost always waits until the Endgame.

I also noticed that the different phases of the game favor different pieces.  The Middle Game is the time to activate the more mobile pieces (Rooks & Bishops).  While the Endgame is the time to activate the less mobile pieces (King & Pawns).

Of course, I realized that I could also move a piece to reduce my opponent’s Mobility too.

"Though most people love to look at the games of the great attacking masters, some of the most successful players in history have been the quiet positional players.  They slowly grind you down by taking away your space, tying up your pieces, and leaving you with virtually nothing to do!"

Yasser Seirawan

Here is an example:

Hartsook,David (2077) -Anderson,Paul (1999) [B06]

Colorado Closed Challenger Colorado Springs (4.3), 21.04.2013

1.e4 c6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Bc4 d6 5.Be3 Nd7 6.Qd2 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7 8.f3 a5 9.a4 b4 10.Nd1 Ba6 11.Ne2 c5 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Bd5 Rc8 14.Nd4 Qb6 15.Nb3 e6 16.Nxc5 dxc5 17.Ba2 Qc6 18.Bb1 Nf6 19.c3 0–0 20.Kf2 b3 21.Re1 Rfd8 22.Qc1 Nd7 23.Bg5 f6 24.Bh6 Ne5 25.Bxg7 Kxg7 26.Kg1 c4

“I noticed a long time ago that Josh Bloomer has an uncanny knack for keeping his opponent's pieces restricted.  Magnus Carlsen described that as his style on Charlie Rose.  There are many terms for keeping your opponent's pieces on the back rank.”

LM Brian Wall

• “The Sheep Pen” – LM Brian Wall
• “The Couch” – NM Josh Bloomer
• “The Police Lineup” – Paul Anderson

“Paul shackled all of David's pieces to the back rank - they looked like seated prisoners in a police transport van.

Paul asked me for advice for the 2013 Colorado Adult Challenger tournament.

‘Look at all their games and try not to be terrified when you play them,’ - Brian to Paul.

Tim Brennan gave Paul hundreds of database games to look at.

I didn't know if my advice would help, maybe Paul would get slaughtered tactically every game like his game against Chris Peterson.  Paul ended up surprising everyone by tying for first.”

LM Brian Wall

27.Qe3 Rd7 28.Nf2 Rcd8 29.f4 Nf7 30.h4 e5 31.h5 Qd6 32.Re2 exf4 33.Qh3 Qe5 34.hxg6 hxg6 35.Ng4 Qc5+ 0–1

Game Of The Year X

[Event "Colorado Closed Challenger"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2013.04.21"]
[Round "4.3"]
[White "Hartsook, David"]
[Black "Anderson, Paul"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "2077"]
[BlackElo "1999"]
[PlyCount "70"]
[EventDate "2013.04.19"]
[TimeControl "5400+30"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Bc4 d6 5. Be3 Nd7 6. Qd2 b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 8. f3 a5 9. a4 b4 10. Nd1 Ba6 11. Ne2 c5 12. dxc5 Nxc5 13. Bd5 Rc8 14. Nd4 Qb6 15. Nb3 e6 16. Nxc5 dxc5 17. Ba2 Qc6 18. Bb1 Nf6 19. c3 O-O 20. Kf2 b3 21. Re1 Rfd8 22. Qc1 Nd7 23. Bg5 f6 24. Bh6 Ne5 25. Bxg7 Kxg7 26. Kg1 c4 27. Qe3 Rd7 28. Nf2 Rcd8 29. f4 Nf7 30. h4 e5 31. h5 Qd6 32. Re2 exf4 33. Qh3 Qe5 34. hxg6 hxg6 35. Ng4 Qc5+ 0-1

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=83049

This Week In Chess

On August 6th, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held a Speed event (2RR, G3d2).  Eight players joined this unrated tournament.

Daniel Herman destroyed the field only losing one game to claim the 1st place tour points.

Here are the results:

Score, Player

13.0 Daniel Herman
10.0 Paul Anderson
10.0 Alex Torres
9.0 Mark McGough
8.0 Mike Madsen
4.0 Kevin Kaaoush
2.0 Dean Brown
0.0 Shirley Herman

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 3rd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

MAX POSSIBLE 104.00 24.00

1 Paul Anderson 76.00 15.50
2 Mark McGough 45.00 11.75
3 Isaac Martinez 42.00 4.50
4 Mike Madsen 27.50 3.00
5 Alex Torres 24.75 9.75
6 Daniel Herman 23.00 4.00
7 Dean Brown 17.75 3.25
8 Jeff Fox 17.25 2.50
9 Joe Pahk 17.00 4.00
10 Shirley Herman 15.50 1.00
11 Koji DelConte 14.75 1.25
12 Gunnar Andersen 14.50 7.50
13 Tim Brennan 14.00 2.00
14 Kevin Kaaoush 13.25 6.25
15 Peter Grigg 12.00 0.00
16 Richard Buchanan 11.75 2.00
17 Josh Divine 10.75 6.50
18 Josh Bloomer 10.50 0.00
19 Eugin Pahk 9.50 2.50
20 Tom Richardson 9.00 2.00
21 Alex Freeman 8.50 0.00
22 Sara Herman 7.00 0.00
23 Randy Canton 6.00 0.00
24 Brian Rountree 6.00 0.00
25 Scott Williams 4.00 0.00
26 Kathy Schneider 4.00 0.00
27 Nick Curott 4.00 4.00
28 Peter Barlay 3.50 0.00
29 Joe Polanco 3.00 0.00
30 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
31 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
32 James Powers 2.00 0.00
33 Wes Smith 2.00 0.00
34 William Wilken 2.00 0.00
35 Imre Barlay 2.00 0.00
36 Laurence Wutt 2.00 2.00
37 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
38 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
39 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
40 Curits Holsinger 1.00 0.00
41 Evan Baron 1.00 0.00
42 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 0.00
43 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 0.00
44 Katie Wise 1.00 0.00
45 Joseph Stafford 1.00 1.00
46 Istvan Hornyak 1.00 1.00

Pikes Peak Open Standings

By Buck Buchanan

4.5 Brian Wall
4.0 Jackson Chen
4.0 Kevin Seidler
4.0 Tim Brennan
4.0 Mark Schlagenhauf
3.5 Chris Peterson
3.5 Timothy Sage
3.5 Karl Irons
3.5 Mark Krowczyk
3.5 DuWayne Langseth
3.5 Ron Rossi
3.0 Joshua Samuel
3.0 Katie Wise
3.0 Jeff Baffo
3.0 Brady Barkemeyer
3.0 Victor Huang
3.0 Eric Barkemeyer
3.0 Andrew Lin
3.0 Isaac Martinez
3.0 Spencer Shook
2.5 Rhett Langseth
2.5 Justin Alter
2.5 Brian Rountree
2.5 Alex Freeman
2.5 John Krue
2.5 Lennon Gashwazra
2.5 Joe Pahk
2.0 Andy Wu
2.0 Daniel Herman
2.0 Cory Foster
2.0 Mihaly Toth
2.0 Ken MacRae
2.0 Rebecca Herman
2.0 Mike Madsen
2.0 Eugin Pahk
1.5 Alex Cacas
1.5 Kathy Schneider
1.5 Dean Brown
1.5 Victor Creazzi
1.5 Tara Martinez
1.0 Anthea Carson
1.0 Sara Herman
1.0 Tom Richardson
1.0 Shirley Herman
0.5 Trevor Sotosanti
0.5 Dustin Hoppe

I Told Carlos Danger To Resign

Game Of The Week

This week's game comes from Tim Brennan, author of Tactics Time (https://x.com/TacticsTime).  Our feud over when to resign was recently reignited via email.  You may remember the controversy we sparked last year when Tim and I had conflicting articles published in the Colorado Chess Informant:

• Nothing Is Over! https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2012/07/nothing-is-over.html
• Wise Beyond Her Years https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2012/07/wise-beyond-her-years.html

Of course, it looked like my wisdom had prevailed in the popular culture mindset when the Pope resigned earlier this year after careful thought and keen observation of his current position.  That news shut Tim up for a while.

However, after recent events in the mayoral race in New York City, Tim's "Never Resign" philosophy has found a new poster boy, Anthony Weiner.  In fact, as far as I can tell, Tim has just ended his lucrative computer career to become the campaign manager for the democratic party's rising star.  His goal is to prove that even the biggest dolt on the planet can make it to the white house armed solely with the motto that "NOTHING IS OVER!"

Yes, I admit I may have inadvertently encouraged him to join forces with Weiner in our email feud:

"Of course you disagree with having the ability to assess a position correctly and knowing when to resign, you are still working with a class brain!  You are the Anthony Weiner of Colorado chess - you just don't know when to resign!"

But I didn't expect him to take it seriously.  I was actually shocked when he responded:

"lol - well you can call me Carlos Danger then, since I just won a game DOWN A QUEEN!! :-) I had my best comeback win ever tonight at Panera Bread!  I dropped my Queen on move 14, for no compensation, and went into Tebow Time to come back and win.  I was remembering the words of my good friend Francisco Baltier and John J. Rambo - "NOTHING IS OVER!!! NOTHING!!!"

Of course, Tim quickly found out that the Carlos Danger screen name is already taken.  So, he used his former computer skills to write a program to give everyone who joins his campaign a similar name.  If you are ready for "Danger In 2016!", then get your name here:

Carlos Danger Name Generator

Having a Carlos Danger alias is not only beneficial for politicians, but also it is helpful for chess players as well.  Maybe Tim Brennan can handle texting images like this using his own name, but I would be using an alias if it was me.  This is more embarrassing than anything Anthony Weiner sent out.

So, to help Tim out I have changed his name in this game to his Carlos Danger alias:

Alfonso Covert vs Benito Dynamite

White to move

White plays a Discovery with Bb5+!  Now the black Queen is under attack while the black King has to get out of check.  Tim has just hung his Queen, and he doesn't seem too happy that I happened by with my camera phone.

Don't forget to vote for Danger & Dynamite in 2016!

I Told Carlos Danger To Resign

[Event "Academy Panera Bread"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2013.08.01"]
[Round "1.7"]
[White "Covert, Alfonso"]
[Black "Dynamite, Benito"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D03"]
[WhiteElo "1236"]
[BlackElo "1836"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2013.08.01"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Bg5 Ne4 4. e3 Nxg5 5. Nxg5 e5 6. Nf3 e4 7. Nfd2 Bd6 8. f3 Qh4+ 9. g3 Bxg3+ 10. hxg3 Qxh1 11. fxe4 dxe4 12. Kf2 Bh3 13. Bb5+ c6 14. Qxh1 Bf5 15. Be2 Nd7 16. Nxe4 O-O 17. Bd3 Bg6 18. Nd6 Nf6 19. Bxg6 fxg6 20. Ke2 Ng4 21. Qh3 h5 22. Nc3 Rf2+ 23. Kd3 Rf6 24. Nce4 Rxd6 25. Rf1 Re6 26. Rf3 Rae8 27. Nc5 Rxe3+ 28. Kd2 Rxf3 29. Nxb7 Ree3 30. b3 Rf2+ 31. Kc1 Re1+ 0-1

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=82906

This Week In Chess

On July 30th, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held a Swiss event (3SS, G30).  Six players joined for this USCF-rated event.

I got a forfeit win in the final round to lock in the 1st place tour points.

Here are the results:

Score, Player

3.0 Paul Anderson
2.0 Kevin Kaaoush
1.0 Mark McGough
1.0 Alex Torres
1.0 Koji Del Conte
1.0 Dean Brown

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 3rd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

MAX POSSIBLE 100.00 20.00

1 Paul Anderson 73.50 13.00
2 Mark McGough 44.00 10.75
3 Isaac Martinez 42.00 4.50
4 Mike Madsen 26.50 2.00
5 Alex Torres 22.25 7.25
6 Daniel Herman 19.00 0.00
7 Jeff Fox 17.25 2.50
8 Joe Pahk 17.00 4.00
9 Dean Brown 16.75 2.25
10 Koji DelConte 14.75 1.25
11 Shirley Herman 14.50 0.00
12 Gunnar Andersen 14.50 7.50
13 Tim Brennan 14.00 2.00
14 Kevin Kaaoush 12.25 5.25
15 Peter Grigg 12.00 0.00
16 Richard Buchanan 11.75 2.00
17 Josh Divine 10.75 6.50
18 Josh Bloomer 10.50 0.00
19 Eugin Pahk 9.50 2.50
20 Tom Richardson 9.00 2.00
21 Alex Freeman 8.50 0.00
22 Sara Herman 7.00 0.00
23 Randy Canton 6.00 0.00
24 Brian Rountree 6.00 0.00
25 Scott Williams 4.00 0.00
26 Kathy Schneider 4.00 0.00
27 Nick Curott 4.00 4.00
28 Peter Barlay 3.50 0.00
29 Joe Polanco 3.00 0.00
30 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
31 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
32 James Powers 2.00 0.00
33 Wes Smith 2.00 0.00
34 William Wilken 2.00 0.00
35 Imre Barlay 2.00 0.00
36 Laurence Wutt 2.00 2.00
37 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
38 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
39 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
40 Curits Holsinger 1.00 0.00
41 Evan Baron 1.00 0.00
42 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 0.00
43 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 0.00
44 Katie Wise 1.00 0.00
45 Joseph Stafford 1.00 1.00
46 Istvan Hornyak 1.00 1.00

Katie Did Me In

Game Of The Week

This week's game comes from Katie Wise, one of the top juniors and females in Colorado chess.  I first played her in 2009 just after I hit expert [2002], and she was at her low of 1206.  Since then she has skyrocketed, while I have only made modest improvements on my peak rating [2058].

Except for a streak of three games in 2011, I don't match up well against Katies.  My total combined record against all Katies is +5-7=0 for a winning percentage of 42%.  While that is not my worst amount of losses to a particular female name, it is very close.  Katie is only a half point behind the female chess name I hate the most!

Of course, there are twelve male chess names that top the female chess names in sticking me with losses over the chess board (losses, name):

42.0 JEFF
37.5 BUCK
22.0 JOSH
13.5 DAN
13.0 VIRGIL
11.5 BRIAN
9.5 DEAN
9.5 JASON
9.5 JOHN
9.0 ROBERT
8.0 ANDREW
8.0 MARK

So, I think just hearing the name of my opponent in my last game at the July Panera Wednesday tournament struck such fear in my mind that I was afraid to even play the simplest of moves.

White to move

White can just capture the Pawn on a7.  It is not even a tactic, except to Tim Brennan who thinks any move is a tactic.  It is chess 102.  After learning how to move the Bishop in chess 101, you learn that the Bishop captures the exact same way it moves.

Unfortunately, that knowledge could have helped me in this game.

Katie Did Me In

[Event "July Panera"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2013.07.24"]
[Round "4.1"]
[White "Anderson, Paul"]
[Black "Wise, Katie"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A81"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "2013.07.03"]
[TimeControl "5400"]

1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. Nh3 Bg7 5. c3 c6 6. O-O O-O 7. Nd2 d6 8. Nf3 Qe8 9. Re1 e5 10. Bg5 Ne4 11. Be3 Na6 12. Qc1 Rf7 13. Nfg5 Nxg5 14. Nxg5 Re7 15. Qd2 h6 16. Nh3 g5 17. dxe5 dxe5 18. f3 Be6 19. Kh1 Rd8 20. Qc2 Red7 21. Red1 b6 22. Bf2 Nc7 23. a4 Nd5 24. Rd3 e4 25. fxe4 fxe4 26. Rdd1 e3 27. Bg1 Qh5 28. c4 Ne7 29. Rxd7 Rxd7 30. Nxg5 Qxg5 31. Qe4 Bf5 32. Qf3 Bd4 33. Rf1 Rd6 34. h4 Qg4 35. Bxe3 Bxe3 36. Qxe3 Re6 37. Qd2 Qxg3 38. Qd8+ Kg7 39. Qd4+ Qe5 40. Qg1 Kh7 41. Rf2 Rg6 42. Qc1 Be4 43. Qd2 Rxg2 44. Rxg2 Qg3 45. e3 Bxg2+ 46. Qxg2 Qxg2+ 47. Kxg2 Kg6 48. Kf3 Kf5 49. b3 h5 50. b4 Ng6 0-1

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=82790

This Week In Chess

On July 23rd, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held a Bughouse event (3SS, G5).  Twelve players formed 6 teams for this unrated, chess variant.

The team of Gunnar Andersen and Nick Curott claimed the top spot and the 1st place tour points:

Here are the results:

Score, Player

5.0 Gunnar Andersen & Nick Curott
4.0 Mark McGough & Alex Torres
3.0 Isaac Martinez & Kevin Kaaoush
3.0 Paul Anderson & Eugin Pahk
2.0 Joe Pahk & Mike Madsen
1.0 Buck Buchanan & Tom Richardson

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 3rd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

MAX POSSIBLE 96.00 16.00

1 Paul Anderson 69.50 9.00
2 Mark McGough 42.75 9.50
3 Isaac Martinez 42.00 4.50
4 Mike Madsen 26.50 2.00
5 Alex Torres 21.00 6.00
6 Daniel Herman 19.00 0.00
7 Jeff Fox 17.25 2.50
8 Joe Pahk 17.00 4.00
9 Dean Brown 15.50 1.00
10 Shirley Herman 14.50 0.00
11 Gunnar Andersen 14.50 7.50
12 Tim Brennan 14.00 2.00
13 Koji DelConte 13.50 0.00
14 Peter Grigg 12.00 0.00
15 Richard Buchanan 11.75 2.00
16 Kevin Kaaoush 11.00 4.00
17 Josh Divine 10.75 6.50
18 Josh Bloomer 10.50 0.00
19 Eugin Pahk 9.50 2.50
20 Tom Richardson 9.00 2.00
21 Alex Freeman 8.50 0.00
22 Sara Herman 7.00 0.00
23 Randy Canton 6.00 0.00
24 Brian Rountree 6.00 0.00
25 Scott Williams 4.00 0.00
26 Kathy Schneider 4.00 0.00
27 Nick Curott 4.00 4.00
28 Peter Barlay 3.50 0.00
29 Joe Polanco 3.00 0.00
30 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
31 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
32 James Powers 2.00 0.00
33 Wes Smith 2.00 0.00
34 William Wilken 2.00 0.00
35 Imre Barlay 2.00 0.00
36 Laurence Wutt 2.00 2.00
37 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
38 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
39 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
40 Curits Holsinger 1.00 0.00
41 Evan Baron 1.00 0.00
42 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 0.00
43 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 0.00
44 Katie Wise 1.00 0.00
45 Joseph Stafford 1.00 1.00
46 Istvan Hornyak 1.00 1.00

P Is For Pin II

Game Of The Week

Last year, I came up with a method to organize chess tactics.  I called it the DROP Method (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/drop-method.html).  The DROP method is an acronym for the basic kinds of tactics.  It is meant to remind you not to drop your pieces and help you get your opponent to drop theirs.

I said that the DROP Method was a work in progress, and it was.  So, I thought I would revisit each of the four kinds of chess tactics to clarify and improve the method:

1. The first kind of tactic in the DROP Method is Discovery, which I revisited on April 8th (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/d-is-for-discovery.html).
2. The second kind of tactic in the DROP Method is Removal, which I revisited on June 8th (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/r-is-for-removal-ii.html).
3. The third kind of tactic in the DROP Method is Overload, which I revisited on June 23rd (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/o-is-for-overload-ii.html).
4. The fourth kind of tactic in the DROP Method is Pin.

Pin is a chess move that immobilizes an opponent's piece.

The Pin is different from the other kinds of tactics in that it does not create multiple threats.  Its main function is to prevent a piece from moving.  A Pin on a target allows that target to be attacked by a lower value piece.  A Pin on a support allows the capture of the piece the support is guarding.

"The defensive power of a pinned piece is only imaginary." 

Aaron Nimzovich

The Pin works by threatening a low value piece that has a higher value piece behind it.  The low value piece is stuck (as if with a pin) to the higher value piece due to the loss of material should the low value piece move and allow the capture of the higher value piece.  If the higher value piece is the King, the low value piece is absolutely immobilized as the rules of Chess do not allow moves where the King could be captured.  Otherwise the Pin is relative, as the opponent can actually move the low value piece if he is willing to accept the loss of material.  The other types of Pins are rare:

• Absolute (Pins a target to the King)
• Relative (Pins a low value target to a higher value piece)
• Cross (Multiple Pins on one piece)
• Cross-check (blocks check and counter-checks)

Here is an example I found while going through the database of my 708 USCF-rated chess games.  I noticed that I had recently played my 700th tournament chess game.  Since these round numbers often have special events that coincide with them, I decided to look over my Septcenchessial to see if it deserved fireworks and a parade.

It did not.

I tried to play a "bishing pole" attack I had learned from LM Brian Wall's emails, but Eugin was not interested in my bait.  Of course, the bishop as bait seems less effective than the knight.  It is hard to just ignore the knight like Petrosian found out against Tal in this line they analyzed for GM Pal Benko when he played GM Bobby Fischer.

After my "bishing pole" attack failed, I reorganized my pieces until I found myself in this position.  There are a number of good moves here but see if you can find the tactical shot.

White to move

I decided to take advantage of the Pin on the c6 Pawn.  The lower value piece (Pawn) is stuck to the higher value piece (Queen) because of the Rook on c1.  So, I took the b5 Pawn with my Queen even though it is guarded by another Pawn.  This is a Relative Pin as Eugin can move his Pawn and capture my Queen, but since he is losing the Pawn either way it is best to keep his Queen on the board.

P Is For Pin II

[Event "June Mating Game"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2013.06.18"]
[Round "3.4"]
[White "Anderson, Paul"]
[Black "Pahk, Eugin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D61"]
[WhiteElo "2056"]
[BlackElo "1079"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "2013.06.11"]
[TimeControl "1800"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 O-O 7. Qc2 Nbd7 8. O-O-O a5 9. Kb1 dxc4 10. Bxc4 b5 11. Bd3 Bb7 12. h4 Re8 13. e4 Nf8 14. e5 Nd5 15. Nxd5 Qxd5 16. Be4 Qd7 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. Qc5 Qc7 19. Rc1 Ra6 20. Rhe1 f5 21. exf6 gxf6 22. Qxb5 Rb6 23. Qc5 Nd7 24. Qh5 Nf8 25. Qxe8 Qd6 26. Rc3 Ba6 27. Rxc6 Rxc6 28. Qxc6 Bd3+ 29. Ka1 Qb4 30. Bxd3 a4 31. a3 Qb3 32. Bc4 Qb8 33. Bxe6+ Kh8 34. Bf5 Qb3 35. Qxf6+ Kg8 36. Qd8 1-0

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=82548

This Week In Chess

On July 16th, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held a Swiss event (3SS, G20).  Eight players joined this Quick-rated event.

Josh Divine and myself battled to a draw in the final round to split the 1st place tour points:

Here are the results:

Score, Player

2.5 Josh Divine
2.5 Paul Anderson
2.0 Jeff Fox
2.0 Mark McGough
0.5 Mike Madsen
0.5 Kevin Kaaoush
0.0 Joe Pahk
0.0 Eugin Pahk

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 3rd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

MAX POSSIBLE 92.00 12.00

1 Paul Anderson 68.00 7.50
2 Isaac Martinez 41.00 3.50
3 Mark McGough 39.75 6.50
4 Mike Madsen 25.50 1.00
5 Daniel Herman 19.00 0.00
6 Alex Torres 18.00 3.00
7 Jeff Fox 17.25 2.50
8 Joe Pahk 16.00 3.00
9 Dean Brown 15.50 1.00
10 Shirley Herman 14.50 0.00
11 Tim Brennan 14.00 2.00
12 Koji DelConte 13.50 0.00
13 Peter Grigg 12.00 0.00
14 Josh Divine 10.75 6.50
15 Richard Buchanan 10.75 1.00
16 Josh Bloomer 10.50 0.00
17 Gunnar Andersen 10.50 3.50
18 Kevin Kaaoush 10.00 3.00
19 Alex Freeman 8.50 0.00
20 Eugin Pahk 8.00 1.00
21 Tom Richardson 8.00 1.00
22 Sara Herman 7.00 0.00
23 Randy Canton 6.00 0.00
24 Brian Rountree 6.00 0.00
25 Scott Williams 4.00 0.00
26 Kathy Schneider 4.00 0.00
27 Peter Barlay 3.50 0.00
28 Joe Polanco 3.00 0.00
29 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
30 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
31 James Powers 2.00 0.00
32 Wes Smith 2.00 0.00
33 William Wilken 2.00 0.00
34 Imre Barlay 2.00 0.00
35 Laurence Wutt 2.00 2.00
36 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
37 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
38 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
39 Curits Holsinger 1.00 0.00
40 Evan Baron 1.00 0.00
41 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 0.00
42 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 0.00
43 Katie Wise 1.00 0.00
44 Joseph Stafford 1.00 1.00
45 Istvan Hornyak 1.00 1.00

Thin Ice

Game Of The Week

By Anthea Carson NN

I read a post by James Powers that Paul Anderson beats people up in the endgame.  That made me feel better about my recent loss to Paul, in which I lost totally in the endgame.  I was not losing coming out of the middle game, in fact I might have even had a slight advantage.

We both had dark squared bishops.  Due to several zugzwangs and some moves where I simply didn’t understand what was going on, I ended up with my pawns all on dark squares and my bishop unable to get to other side of the board to protect them.

On move 33, I wasted a move because I forgot that if I did manage to trade off queens he would win a pawn.  This is why after I played Qe2 he played Kf7, just as I noticed the trade would leave my king one square away and unable to guard my pawn on g3.  I rolled my eyes here because so many of Paul’s games are won just this way.  I suppose I shouldn’t roll my eyes.  It’s a perfectly good move.  It’s just so Paul.

Just to clarify here, for anyone who has read Call me Jane, the second book in The Oshkosh Trilogy, and the predecessor to Thin Ice, Paul is only coincidentally the name of the character in both those sequels to The Dark Lake.  Yes, Paul is dreamy, but he looks nothing like Paul McCartney and is not in a garage band.

Then I got to move 40.  I had no idea what I was doing.  I only knew to avoid the checkmate a couple moves earlier, but I really didn’t know how to play this.

I remember (was it Larry Evans or Larry Christiansen) whoever it was that gave a talk at the Ed Levy tournament many years back where I was teased with the comment, “And here she threatens to put all her pawns on the same color as her bishop.”  This was an endgame position he was talking about, and from the looks of the ridiculous endgame moves to come it looks like I’ve learned nothing since then.

Black to move

That’s typical.

I’m always doing things I should know better than to do.

Thin Ice

[Event "July Panera"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2013.07.03"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Carson, Anthea"]
[Black "Anderson, Paul"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D02"]
[PlyCount "106"]
[EventDate "2013.07.03"]
[TimeControl "5400"]

1. d4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 Bg4 4. Be2 Nd7 5. Nbd2 Ngf6 6. O-O e6 7. b3 Bd6 8. h3 Bh5 9. Bb2 O-O 10. Rc1 Re8 11. c4 Rc8 12. Ne5 Bxe2 13. Qxe2 Qe7 14. e4 dxe4 15. Nxd7 Qxd7 16. Nxe4 Nxe4 17. Qxe4 Bb8 18. Rfd1 Rcd8 19. Qg4 f5 20. Qf3 Qc7 21. g3 Qf7 22. Re1 Bc7 23. Rcd1 Rd7 24. Qe3 f4 25. Qc3 fxg3 26. fxg3 Qf5 27. Kg2 Rf7 28. Qe3 Ref8 29. Rf1 Qc2+ 30. Rd2 Qxd2+ 31. Qxd2 Rxf1 32. Qe3 R8f6 33. Qe2 Kf7 34. Qh5+ Ke7 35. Qe2 h5 36. Ba3+ Kd7 37. h4 R1f5 38. Bc1 g6 39. Bg5 Rf7 40. b4 Bb6 41. Be3 Kc8 42. a4 a6 43. a5 Bc7 44. Bg5 Kd7 45. Be3 Bd6 46. Bd2 Re7 47. Bg5 Re8 48. c5 Bf8 49. Bf4 Bg7 50. Be5 Bh6 51. Bd6 Rg8 52. Be5 Rgf8 53. Bd6 Rf2+ 0-1

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=82127

This Week In Chess

On July 9th, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held Quads (RR, G30).  The players were split into 2 groups of 4 players for a USCF-rated event.

I created a raffle for the $10 gift card.  Each player who scored points in the 2nd quarter received that many tickets.

Here are the results:

Tickets, Player

32 Isaac Martinez
21 Mark McGough
17 Mike Madsen
11 Joe Pahk [WINNER]
7 Gunnar Andersen
7 Alex Torres
7 Kevin Kaaoush
7 Tom Richardson

Gunnar Andersen and Isaac Martinez tied for the top spot in the higher quad, and Mark McGough went unbeaten to win the 1st place points in the lower quad:

Here are the results:

Score, Player

Quad A

2.5 Gunnar Andersen
2.5 Isaac Martinez
1.0 Tim Brennan
0.0 Joe Pahk

Quad B

3.0 Mark McGough
2.0 Alex Torres
1.0 Kevin Kaaoush
0.0 Tom Richardson

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 3rd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

1 Paul Anderson 64.50 4.00
2 Isaac Martinez 41.00 3.50
3 Mark McGough 38.25 5.00
4 Mike Madsen 24.50 0.00
5 Daniel Herman 19.00 0.00
6 Alex Torres 18.00 3.00
7 Jeff Fox 15.75 1.00
8 Dean Brown 15.50 1.00
9 Joe Pahk 15.00 2.00
10 Shirley Herman 14.50 0.00
11 Tim Brennan 14.00 2.00
12 Koji DelConte 13.50 0.00
13 Peter Grigg 12.00 0.00
14 Richard Buchanan 10.75 1.00
15 Josh Bloomer 10.50 0.00
16 Gunnar Andersen 10.50 3.50
17 Kevin Kaaoush 9.00 2.00
18 Alex Freeman 8.50 0.00
19 Tom Richardson 8.00 1.00
20 Josh Divine 7.25 3.00
21 Sara Herman 7.00 0.00
22 Eugin Pahk 7.00 0.00
23 Randy Canton 6.00 0.00
24 Brian Rountree 6.00 0.00
25 Scott Williams 4.00 0.00
26 Kathy Schneider 4.00 0.00
27 Peter Barlay 3.50 0.00
28 Joe Polanco 3.00 0.00
29 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
30 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
31 James Powers 2.00 0.00
32 Wes Smith 2.00 0.00
33 William Wilken 2.00 0.00
34 Imre Barlay 2.00 0.00
35 Laurence Wutt 2.00 2.00
36 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
37 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
38 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
39 Curits Holsinger 1.00 0.00
40 Evan Baron 1.00 0.00
41 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 0.00
42 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 0.00
43 Katie Wise 1.00 0.00
44 Joseph Stafford 1.00 1.00
45 Istvan Hornyak 1.00 1.00

How To Tell If Your Opponent Is Not Cheating

Game Of The Week

To get the chess players in the right frame of mind to play top chess, the Colorado Springs Chess Club has added classical music as an overture to the evening's event.

This week's game comes from a newcomer to the Colorado Springs Chess Club, Tom Richardson.  He started playing again in April after an 11 year break from tournament chess.  So far, he has gone 0-8 in USCF-rated games, but he prefers the slower games and getting used to the clock isn't easy.

However, he does much better in the correspondence games online.  His rating is about 500 points higher when he doesn't have to use the clock.

The only time I have played correspondence chess was an email match with my Dad.   I figured it was a different type of skill set that I didn't have.  It seemed liked the correspondence games favored the "researcher."  Someone who could take his time looking up each position to play precise openings would have a huge advantage.

I also thought that once someone had an advantage, they could use a decent computer to finish the game.  Therefore, a comeback would be eliminated.  You have no clock to save you and blunders are out of the question.

I was wrong.   Not everyone uses those aides.

Tom sent me a game where he makes one of the biggest comebacks in chess I have ever witnessed.  Here is a position from the game.

White to move

If you played Pawn take Rook (31. exf7), you just fell into Tom's trap and have thrown away your dominating performance.  You can see Tom's response on the chess viewer (below) if you aren't seeing it.  If you played Queen to g7 with check (31. Qg7!), you just earned the brilliancy prize with a Queen sacrifice that leads to mate.

How To Tell If Your Opponent Is Not Cheating

[Event "Chess World Correspondence Game"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2013.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SpottedDowel"]
[Black "trichardson"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1631"]
[BlackElo "1658"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[TimeControl "0"]

1. e4 c5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. O-O a6 5. d4 d5 6. exd5 exd5 7. Re1+ Be7 8. Bf1 c4 9. Nc3 Nf6 10. Ng5 O-O 11. h3 h6 12. Nf3 Kh7 13. Ne5 g5 14. b3 Nd7 15. bxc4 Ndxe5 16. dxe5 f6 17. cxd5 Nxe5 18. f4 Bc5+ 19. Kh1 Ba7 20. fxe5 b5 21. Bd3+ f5 22. g4 Qc7 23. Bb2 Bb7 24. gxf5 Qd7 25. f6+ Kh8 26. Qh5 Rf7 27. Qxh6+ Kg8 28. Qxg5+ Kf8 29. e6 Bxd5+ 30. Nxd5 Qc8 31. exf7 Qxh3# {White king  mated} 0-1

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=82052

This Week In Chess

On July 2nd, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held a Speed tournament (Double 5SS, G3d2).  Dean Brown played in an event with 3 minutes on the clock with 2 seconds of delay for each move and enjoyed it.  So, we switched from our normal 5 minutes on the clock with no delay.

I won the $10 Gift Card from the 2nd quarter Tuesday night tour.  I decided to offer it as a prize to the 1st player to beat me in the Speed event.  No one earned the prize, and I kind of like this new time control.

Next week I will raffle off the gift card.  Anyone who scored tour points during the 2nd quarter will get free entries.  I wish you the best of luck!

Here are the results:

Score, Player:

9.5 Paul Anderson
7.5 Josh Divine
7.0 Larry Wutt
5.0 Buck Buchanan
4.0 Joe Stafford
4.0 Joe Pahk
3.5 Jeff Fox
3.5 Mark McGough
3.5 Dean Brown
2.5 Steve Hornyak

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 3rd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

1 Paul Anderson 64.50 4.00
2 Isaac Martinez 37.50 0.00
3 Mark McGough 34.25 1.00
4 Mike Madsen 24.50 0.00
5 Daniel Herman 19.00 0.00
6 Jeff Fox 15.75 1.00
7 Dean Brown 15.50 1.00
8 Alex Torres 15.00 0.00
9 Shirley Herman 14.50 0.00
10 Joe Pahk 14.00 1.00
11 Koji DelConte 13.50 0.00
12 Tim Brennan 12.00 0.00
13 Peter Grigg 12.00 0.00
14 Richard Buchanan 10.75 1.00
15 Josh Bloomer 10.50 0.00
16 Alex Freeman 8.50 0.00
17 Josh Divine 7.25 3.00
18 Sara Herman 7.00 0.00
19 Tom Richardson 7.00 0.00
20 Eugin Pahk 7.00 0.00
21 Kevin Kaaoush 7.00 0.00
22 Gunnar Andersen 7.00 0.00
23 Randy Canton 6.00 0.00
24 Brian Rountree 6.00 0.00
25 Scott Williams 4.00 0.00
26 Kathy Schneider 4.00 0.00
27 Peter Barlay 3.50 0.00
28 Joe Polanco 3.00 0.00
29 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
30 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
31 James Powers 2.00 0.00
32 Wes Smith 2.00 0.00
33 William Wilken 2.00 0.00
34 Imre Barlay 2.00 0.00
35 Laurence Wutt 2.00 2.00
36 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
37 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
38 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
39 Curits Holsinger 1.00 0.00
40 Evan Baron 1.00 0.00
41 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 0.00
42 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 0.00
43 Katie Wise 1.00 0.00
44 Joseph Stafford 1.00 1.00
45 Istvan Hornyak 1.00 1.00

MAX POSSIBLE 84.00 4.00

Ahead To Advancement

Game Of The Week

This week's game comes from the Wednesday night, month long tournament in June.  You get one 3 hour game (G90) each week and the results are combined into a Swiss tournament.  One problem that has arisen is that with so much time between rounds (1 week) some players forget they entered the tournament and fail to show up, causing a forfeit win for someone there.

One participant was very upset when these forfeit wins occurred in the final round, effecting the prize payouts.  So, now we have decided to implement fines, according to USCF rules, to encourage players to remember it is their obligation to contact the TD if they cannot make it any week.

Jason Loving vs Brian Rountree

In June, Jason Loving, a local expert, was incorrectly paired and suffered an upset.  He didn't care about the pairing mistake but was disappointed that he was not going to be facing me in the final round.  Some people have gotten the impression that I breeze through these tournaments winning every game.

However, I know that is far from the truth.  There have been a couple of times where I have won every round, but it is not easy to do.  My longest streak of USCF wins is 10 games.

In fact, I lost in round 3 and was paired against Jason Loving in round 4.  He got what he wanted after all.  When I failed to beat him, he offered to write about the game for the newsletter.  Here is what he had to say:

So, here's my annotations on the game in PGN format.  I'm not sure how you'll want to display it, whether you'd like to set up the game as playable through or if you play through several moves, put a picture of the position, and continue.  I think it would be awesome if you also included your thoughts on the game so it could have both sides.

[Awesome it will be.  My comments will be in brackets from here on.]

Paul Anderson vs Jason Loving

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 e6

Ne4 is more fun, but I don't know the lines well enough to play it in a serious game.  e6 offers a solid position.

[Jason played Ne4 last time we played and lost in 21 moves:  https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2012/04/double-trouble.html]

3. Nf3

e4 is the mainline, but Paul usually prefers to avoid the mainline.  Now the opening is a Torre attack. 

(3. e4 h6 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 {And black often has to play Qd8 later and ends up with a french-like position.})

[I played a similar line against Robert Ramirez and got the draw.  I was hoping to improve on that result: https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-thrill-of-chess-victory.html]

3... Be7

Avoiding making a claim on the center, waiting to see how white will set up his center first.

4. e3

(4. c4 {Transposes into a Queen's Gambit Declined after d5} 4... d5)

4... O-O 5. Bd3 d5

Black is finally forced to place his central pawns.  Delaying for another move allows white to play e4, which gives him excellent attacking chances on the kingside after an eventual e5.

6. O-O Nbd7

The goal of this move, as opposed to, say, c6, is to play c5 in one move.

7. Nbd2 c5 8. c3

So here is what I thought was the first really important position.  White has developed soundly but passively, looking to the fact this his bad bishop is outside of his pawn chain while black's is still inside to give him a small edge.  This is a point where black really must come up with a plan.  The first question is which side of the board to play on, after which it is apparent that the kingside is an awful idea, the middle is rather locked (only white can open it, with e4, but in post game analysis we concluded that black could secure a draw in this variation without too much difficulty), so this leaves the queenside.

8... Qc7

This move strives for an advantage, rather than seeking equality 

(8... b6 {Is probably good enough for equality, though it is passive, planning Bb7, staving off white's e4 advance. If white plays c4, then Ba6 swaps off black's bad bishop for the white's good one.})

(8... Rb8 {Is the move that black would like to play, as it allows the pawn storm to move forward quickly, but it runs into the rather abrupt Bf4, after which Ra8 is forced.} 9. Bf4 Ra8)

(8... a6 {Is another way of going about the pawn storm, but is isn't as fast as the Rb8 idea. The problem is that if white plays a3, then black will have to spend another tempo pushing the pawn to a5. An example is:} 9. Re1 b5 10. a3 Qb6 11. e4 {And black's counterattack isn't fast enough to be meaningful.  White is dictating the play.})

9. Bf4

This is the first move that had to be examined when playing Qc7.  The other option (which I thought to be more dangerous) was Rc1 

(9. Rc1 Rb8 10. c4 {And suddenly the c file is about to be opened and black's queen is under attack, and it still can't easily move away, as Bf4 would come, hitting the rook.} 10... dxc4 11. Nxc4 b5 {Was as far as I calculated and concluded it was manageable for black, though probably better for white.}).

9... Bd6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6

I think it is important to compare this to the position prior to 8...Qc7.  Black's queen effectively jumped forward two squares and the dark squared bishops are gone.  This means:  1) White has exchanged his "bad" bishop for black's "good" one, 2) White exchanged his active bishop for black's passive bishop, 3) Black's queen is significantly more active, covering the e5 and c5 square now.  These factors mean that black will have great play in the short run, but if White keeps black contained, the superiority of the light squared bishop on d3 will shine over its c8 counterpart.

[I was looking for the long-term advantage and favored 1 and 2.]

11. Re1

White's plan revolves around playing e4 at a timely moment.  Play on the kingside is limited, and the queenside is black's domain (Always play where your pieces are).

11... Rb8

The continuation of the plan begun with Qc7.  Ideally, black would play b5, b4, and a5, a4, a3, undermining white's pawn chain.

12. a4

Slowing black's attack.  The immediate b5 is no longer possible.

12... a6

In such positions, it is often necessary to play the b pawn forward one first, and only then push the a pawn forward one, as otherwise the other side could lock down the queenside by pushing their a pawn again.  This isn't the case in this example.

13. Qb1

This turned out to be a mistake, but there is a rather great idea behind it.  If black plays b5 now, it is met suddenly by b4!, when the queenside is locked and white has all the play.  The alternative, c4 followed by b5 (intending play on the b2 pawn) runs into the problematic e4! 

(13. a5 {Runs into the simple} 13... b6 {When black opens up the queenside for play.})

13... e5

An attack on the flank (or the movement away from the center) is met by a counterattack in the center!  This is a basic rule, but it is often forgotten 

(13... b5 14. axb5 axb5 15. b4 c4 16. Bc2 Bb7 {The locked up state makes it difficult for black to make any meaningful progress on the queenside, and e4 is coming for white.} 17. e4 )

(13... c4 14. Bc2 b5 15. axb5 Rxb5 {And black has play against the b2 pawn (it can't move due to en passant) except for...} 16. e4 {And black's pieces are running for their lives.}).

14. Bf5

Trying to take control of the d4 square.  The downside is that it gives black a free hand 

(14. dxe5 {Seemed to be most logical.} 14... Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Qxe5 16. Nf3 Qh5 {And black is slightly better owing to a better center.}).

[The immediate 14. e4 might be the best idea to keep my bishop and rook active.]

14... e4 15. Bxd7

Necessary, any knight move loses material.

15... Nxd7

(15... Bxd7 {Would be natural, but after} 16. dxc5 Qxc5 17. Nd4 {White enjoys a reasonable position.})

[Realized this option too late and my Knight outpost idea was not going to be as good as I hoped.]

16. dxc5 Nxc5

The point of capturing on d7 with the knight.  The knight now has a lovely outpost on d3.

17. Nd4

This is probably the second key position for black.  White's next move, almost regardless of what black does, will be c4, as he has to undermine the massive block that is black's center before black overruns white's king.  Black would love to play f5-f4, swing the Queen over to either h6 or g6, move the knight to d3, and take the e3 pawn with his f pawn, or push on to f3 depending on the situation.  Black also wants to move the bishop out to g4 or h3, and maybe even use a rook lift to get the rook into the battle.  Unfortunately, the only one of these that black has time for is the f5-f4 push.

[Now I begin to realize my King is very lonely.  I need to be sure my pieces can get back to protect him, as Black's Queen and Bishop are looking pretty scary.  The Rook is going to have to go e2 so the Queen can move to f1 quickly.  Also, the d2 Knight may have to redeploy to c1 to unseat the Black Knight on d3.  I will be on the defensive for awhile.]

17... f5

(17... Be6 {Strives to hold black's center together before launching an attack.  It's slower, but probably still effective.})

(17... b5 {Is ineffective at stopping c4.} 18. axb5 axb5 19. Ra5 Bd7 20. b3 {and c4 will come soon.})

18. c4 Nd3 19. Re2 Qg6

A huge positional blunder (19... f4 20. cxd5 Qg6 {The main threat is Bg4, winning material.} 21. Ne6 This move stops Bg4, but allows f3.  I am unsure how else white would defend, though. 21... Bxe6 22. dxe6 f3 {And black wins material. I haven't checked this with a computer, but it seems won for black.}).

[I thought 19...f4 20. f3 would work, but there still seems to be a lot of problems for White.]

20. f4

And just like that, black's attack is gone!  His pieces can't get over to the kingside with his pawn still on f5.  If black can't find something effective on THIS TURN, he's going to be in for a long obnoxious grind as white uses his superior knight to torment black.

20... Nxf4

Hanging a piece.  Whoever said that 2000 players are so good anyways? 

(20...exf3 {is necessary.} 21. N2xf3 f4 {Defending the knight, continuing something of an attack.  It's not great for black, but it's probably about equal.})

21. exf4 Qb6 22. c5

The move I missed (any other move allows black to reclaim his piece with a great game).  The game is probably resignable.  White is up a piece for two pawns, and his knights are vastly superior to black's bishop.  The only thing black can gloat about is a nice space advantage, but that will go away once white starts nomming black's weak pawns.

22... Qxc5

[I had nothing more interesting to do than keep playing, so I figured I'd make him earn his win.]

A bad plan is better than none at all

Frank Marshall

23. Nb3 Qd6

Forcing white to react for a turn.

24. g3 Bd7

Simple development, allowing for a potential b5 push, possibly allowing Be8 and swinging over to the kingside.  The game is lost for black, but that doesn't mean black can't make it complicated for white.

25. Qa2

I was quite thrilled to see this move.  Positionally, it makes quite a bit of sense, piling on the weak d5 pawn.  However, it decentralizes the queen further, making black's next move not only possible, but a reasonable threat.

25... b5

When you're in a losing position, the best thing you can do is try to make the position as complicated as possible (often by launching an attack on the king) and hope the opponent screws up at some point.  This move aims to destabilize white's hold on d4.  If white maintains his knight there, the game is hopeless for black, if black manages to dislodge the knight somehow, black may still be in the game.

26. axb5 Bxb5 27. Nxb5

Not forced, but makes a lot of sense, the knights were redundant anyways, might as well trade one off for a useful piece.

27... Rxb5

The threat is Qb6+.  Qxa6 doesn't work because the knight on b3 is loose.  So far, complications have been created, check.

28. Nd4 Qc5

Now comes the effort to break the blockade on d4.  The game for black depends on it.  This is important because the passed pawns are absolutely useless to black if they're blockaded (they can even be a bad thing!)

29. Rd1 Rb4 30. Rc2

(30. Red2 {Would have made black's day.} 30... e3 31. Rd3 e2 {And suddenly black's winning!})

(30. Qa3 {Seemed to me to be the best move. After this move, the queen gets back into the game.})

30... Rc4 31. Rxc4

b3 would have won effortlessly 

(31. b3 {Taking and moving the rook are bad as they release the pressure on d4 (though, obviously it must move).} 31... Rc3 32. Rxc3 Qxc3 33. Qd2 {Now the game really is resignable.})

[I still like Rxc4, gaining a Pawn back right away.]

31... dxc4

Now black can at least hit the knight with his other rook.

32. Qxa6

Mixing defense with offense!  There is no good way to proceed with black, only "less bad" options.  A couple examples of bad, though tempting, options include:

32... Rd8 

The only move to keep some pressure (and therefore, hopes of drawing) 

(32... Kh8 33. Qc6 {Is resignable.}) 

(32... Re8 {Trying to prevent Qe6+} 33. Qc6) 

(32... Rf6 33. Qb5)

33. Qe6+ Kh8 34. Qe5

And black's left in a bad way, but it was necessary.

34... Qb6

Again, black must keep some pressure, some threats going, or the position is resignable, as black is a piece down.

[For a Pawn.]

35. Rd2

Qxf5 allows for more complications. 

(35. Qxf5 Qxb2 36. Qxe4 c3 37. Qe3 c2 38. Rc1 Qxd4 {3v2 pawns on the same wing with a rook is a theoretical draw.})

[37. Re1 removes the pin on the Knight allowing it to protect c2 and creates mating threats.]

35... Qb4

Overreaching, but there aren't really any good moves for black.

36. Nxf5 Qb6+ 37. Kf1

Kg2 was much simpler (though, objectively the same), as it kept the king safe.

37... Rg8

And black's initiative is gone.  The game is resignable, but, again, I didn't have anything more interesting than forcing Paul to prove the win.

A bad plan is better than none at all

Frank Marshall

38. Rd7

Simple and strong.

38... Qb3

Hoping for a perpetual.

White to move

39. Nh6

A very pretty way to finish (or it should have been), though Rxg7 brute forces the mate quite nicely without a loose knight.

[Nxg7 mates! "Mate in 9" would have been my highest number announced for moves to mate, but I am not a computer (39. Nxg7 Qf3+ 40. Kg1 Qe3+ 41. Kg2 Qe2+ 42. Kh3 Qg4+ 43. Kxg4 h6 44. Kh5 Rf8 45. Nf5+ Rf6 46. Qxf6+ Kg8 47. Qg7#).]

39... Qf3+ 40. Ke1

And the game is suddenly equal!  This is why resigning is pretty much always suspect, because even a strong 2050 player like Paul can throw the game away with one careless move 

(40. Kg1 {This move leads to a forced mate.  The black queen can't stop the king from runing to h4 where it will be safe.} 40... Qe3+ 41. Kg2 Qe2+ 42. Kh3 Qf1+ 43. Kh4 {And white's king is safe, and Nf7 checkmate is coming (Qxg8 checkmate on any rook move by black).})

[Crap.]

40... Qh1+ 41. Kd2 Qxh2+ 42. Kc1 Qh1+

A small finesse.  The idea is that if the king comes forward, the Queen can come forward as well, and if it comes too far forward, black's rook will come into the battle with a likely mate.

[Who cares? I hate this game now.]

43. Rd1

Acknowledging potential of black's last move, putting the rook back on the first rank.

[Why didn't I just play 40. Kg1?]

43... Qxh6 44. Qxe4

And black, miraculously, has an equal position, though his pieces are somewhat oddly placed.  I only had about 5 minutes left to play the rest of the game though, so my mind was focused on obtaining a draw.

[My mind was focused on 40. Kg1!!!]

44... Qa6

Simple and to the point.  Defends c4 while creating counterthreats of my own.

[Simpler would have been 40. Kg1!!!!]

45. Rh1

Attempting to use the superior placement of his rook to force an advantage.

[I hate my Rook!]

45... Qa1+

Trading off queens.

[I hate my Queen!]

46. Qb1 Qxb1+ 47. Kxb1

The ending is interesting, upon going into it I was convinced white was better as it seemed "apparent" that black's pawn on c4 couldn't hold.  On the other hand, I underestimated how strong my king was right by the majority of the pawns.

[Why are we still talking about this?  This should have been over by now.  I would have gotten rating points and money.]

47... g5

Absolutely essential.  Passiveness is a luxury that can not be afforded in rook and pawn endgames.  Black needs to make his king and rook as active as possible.

[I hate Rook and Pawn endgames!]

48. f5

Taking activated the rook, and not taking activated the rook.  Not taking was probably best 

(48. Rc1 gxf4 49. gxf4 {Black is struggling for the draw.}).

[Taking the game back to 40. Kg1 was best!]

48... Kg7 49. Rd1

White was playing quickly, attempting to take advantage of black's time pressure, and in doing so, allows black to get the upper hand!

[Uh oh, I messed up the mate, I messed up the endgame, and I better come up with a plan not to lose this stupid game now.  I am not so mad as to give up the draw as well.]

49... Kf6 50. Rd5 h5 51. Kc2 Rb8

The game continued for several more moves, black had a better position and was up a pawn, but had 8 seconds on the clock and was unable to find a winning continuation, so settled for the draw.

[I hate draws!]

Ahead To Advancement

[Event "June Panera Wednesday"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2013.06.26"]
[Round "4.3"]
[White "Anderson, Paul"]
[Black "Loving, Jason"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A46"]
[PlyCount "140"]
[EventDate "2013.06.05"]
[TimeControl "5400"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 e6 3. Nf3 Be7 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d5 6. O-O Nbd7 7. Nbd2 c5 8. c3 Qc7 9. Bf4 Bd6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. Re1 Rb8 12. a4 a6 13. Qb1 e5 14. Bf5 e4 15. Bxd7 Nxd7 16. dxc5 Nxc5 17. Nd4 f5 18. c4 Nd3 19. Re2 Qg6 20. f4 Nxf4 21. exf4 Qb6 22. c5 Qxc5 23. N2b3 Qd6 24. g3 Bd7 25. Qa2 b5 26. axb5 Bxb5 27. Nxb5 Rxb5 28. Nd4 Qc5 29. Rd1 Rb4 30. Rc2 Rc4 31. Rxc4 dxc4 32. Qxa6 Rd8 33. Qe6+ Kh8 34. Qe5 Qb6 35. Rd2 Qb4 36. Nxf5 Qb6+ 37. Kf1 Rg8 38. Rd7 Qb3 39. Nh6 Qf3+ 40. Ke1 Qh1+ 41. Kd2 Qxh2+ 42. Kc1 Qh1+ 43. Rd1 Qxh6 44. Qxe4 Qa6 45. Rh1 Qa1+ 46. Qb1 Qxb1+ 47. Kxb1 g5 48. f5 Kg7 49. Rd1 Kf6 50. Rd5 h5 51. Kc2 Rb8 52. Rd4 Rb4 53. g4 hxg4 54. Rxg4 Kxf5 55. Rg1 g4 56. Rb1 Rb3 57. Ra1 g3 58. Ra5+ Ke4 59. Rg5 Kf3 60. Rf5+ Kg2 61. Rf4 Rb4 62. Kc3 Rb3+ 63. Kc2 Rb4 64. Rd4 Kh2 65. Rd2+ g2 66. Kc3 Rb3+ 67. Kxc4 Rxb2 68. Rxb2 Kh1 69. Rb1+ g1=Q 70. Rxg1+ Kxg1 1/2-1/2

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=81911

This Week In Chess

On June 25th, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held a Bughouse event (2RR, G5), where players chose partners and play as a team where you can drop in captured pieces from your partner in leiu of a move.

Isaac Martinez & Daniel Herman repeated their dominance from last month and tied with Gunnar Andersen & Shirley Herman to split the 1st place points.

Here are the results:

Score, Player:

5.0 Isaac Martinez & Daniel Herman
5.0 Gunnar Andersen & Shirley Herman
4.0 Alex Torres & Kevin Kaaoush
3.0 Paul Anderson & Eugin Pahk
3.0 Mark McGough & Joe Pahk

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 2nd Quarter Results

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

1 Paul Anderson 60.50 35.50
2 Isaac Martinez 37.50 32.50
3 Mark McGough 33.25 21.25
4 Mike Madsen 24.50 17.00
5 Daniel Herman 19.00 15.00
6 Alex Torres 15.00 7.00
7 Jeff Fox 14.75 10.25
8 Dean Brown 14.50 7.50
9 Shirley Herman 14.50 12.50
10 Koji DelConte 13.50 7.00
11 Joe Pahk 13.00 11.50
12 Tim Brennan 12.00 0.00
13 Peter Grigg 12.00 9.00
14 Josh Bloomer 10.50 8.00
15 Richard Buchanan 9.75 9.75
16 Alex Freeman 8.50 3.50
17 Sara Herman 7.00 3.00
18 Tom Richardson 7.00 7.00
19 Eugin Pahk 7.00 4.00
20 Kevin Kaaoush 7.00 7.00
21 Gunnar Andersen 7.00 7.00
22 Randy Canton 6.00 6.00
23 Brian Rountree 6.00 2.00
24 Josh Divine 4.25 4.25
25 Scott Williams 4.00 4.00
26 Kathy Schneider 4.00 3.00
27 Peter Barlay 3.50 3.50
28 Joe Polanco 3.00 3.00
29 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
30 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
31 James Powers 2.00 0.00
32 Wes Smith 2.00 1.00
33 William Wilken 2.00 2.00
34 Imre Barlay 2.00 2.00
35 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
36 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
37 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
38 Curits Holsinger 1.00 1.00
39 Evan Baron 1.00 1.00
40 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 1.00
41 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 1.00
42 Katie Wise 1.00 1.00

MAX POSSIBLE 80.00 52.00

O Is For Overload II

Game Of The Week

Last year, I came up with a method to organize chess tactics.  I called it the DROP Method (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/drop-method.html).  The DROP method is an acronym for the basic kinds of tactics.  It is meant to remind you not to drop your pieces and help you get your opponent to drop theirs.

I said that the DROP Method was a work in progress, and it was.  So, I thought I would revisit each of the four kinds of chess tactics to clarify and improve the method.  The first kind of tactic in the DROP Method is Discovery, which I revisited on April 8th (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/04/d-is-for-discovery.html).  The second kind of tactic in the DROP Method is Removal, which I revisited on June 8th (https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/r-is-for-removal-ii.html).  The third kind of tactic in the DROP Method is Overload.

Overload is a chess move that attacks a target.

The Overload is played when the player creates a threat on a target that cannot be defended.  The classic example is choosing a target and piling more attackers on it than supports the defender can muster.  When the number of attackers are greater than the number of supports, material can be won through a series of captures.  Each capture creates a new target until the final support is exhausted and an unguarded target appears.

However, the Overload is, perhaps, the most broad kind of tactic.  Not only does it use multiple attackers on one target, but also it uses a single attacker on multiple targets.  The idea is the same:  to gain a target than cannot be defended.  So, most players will become familiar with the different types of Overload:

• Battery (Overload with multiple attackers on a file or diagonal)
• Fork (Overload with multiple targets by the Knight)
• Double Attack (Overload with multiple targets by the other pieces)
• Over-Worked Piece (Overload with multiple targets)
• Skewer (Overload with multiple targets where high value piece is in front)

Here is an example from one of my readers.

Alexander asks, "Coach Paul, I am confused about what an Overload tactic is?  Did I play any in this game?"

Well, Alexander, I understand that the DROP Method can be confusing at first, especially the Overload idea.  Most chess coaches probably use different terminology.  But seeing some examples from your own game can help clear things up.

You quickly found an Overload on move 9 when your opponent played Pawn captures Pawn on d4.  Now, it is white to move.

White to move

The immediate recapture of the Pawn on d4 is not the best move, even though that Pawn is threatening your Knight on c3.  Your position includes an Overload and some checks to give you time to save the Knight.

"Tactics flow from a superior position."

Bobby Fischer

You found the best move, even though you may not have known that your Bishop and Queen are Overloading the Knight on c6.  This is the classic Overload.  Multiple attackers (2) have piled up on the target, who only has 1 support (b7 Pawn).

When the Bishop captures the Knight with check, the Pawn will recapture and become the next target. When the Queen captures the final unguarded target with check, you have won a Pawn and can save your own Knight from capture.

It is interesting to note that you saved your Knight by jumping to d5 which attacks the c7 Pawn, along with the Queen.  This would not be considered an Overload yet.  While you have 2 attackers on a target with 1 support, it is still Black to move.  If he failed to defend the Pawn, another Overload would have occurred.  However, he thwarted your attempt to set up an Overload by adding another support.

Thanks for the question, Alexander!  I hope this helps.  Keep studying your chess games, get plenty of rest, drink lots of milk, and someday you can be an expert like me.

O Is For Overload II

[Event "January Panera Thursday"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2012.01.19"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Freeman, Alex"]
[Black "Kondracki, Kurt"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "1685"]
[BlackElo "1896"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "2012.01.05"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e3 e5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Bxc4 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 Nf6 8. Bb5 exd4 9. Bxc6+ bxc6 10. Qxc6+ Nd7 11. Nd5 Bd6 12. exd4 O-O 13. Be3 Re8 14. Rc1 Rc8 15. Rc4 Nb6 16. Nxb6 axb6 17. d5 Bc5 18. O-O Bxe3 19. fxe3 Rxe3 20. d6 Re6 21. dxc7 Qe7 22. Qb7 Qe8 23. Rd4 f6 24. Qd5 Rxc7 25. Re4 Rce7 26. Rfe1 Kf7 27. a4 Qc8 28. b4 g6 29. a5 f5 30. Rxe6 Rxe6 31. Qxe6+ Qxe6 32. Rxe6 Kxe6 33. a6 {black resigned} 1-0

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=81595

This Week In Chess

On June 18th, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held the final rounds of the June Mating Game (4SS, G/30, USCF-rated).

Joe Pahk not only went unbeaten and earned the 1st place prize money and tour points, he also earned his 5th norm for the 2nd Category title six years after earning his 1st norm.

Here are the results:

Score, Player:

3.5 Joe Pahk 1st $30.00
2.5 Alex Freeman 2nd $5.00
2.5 Isaac Martinez 2nd $5.00
2.5 Paul Anderson 2nd $5.00
2.5 Gunnar Andersen 2nd $5.00
2.0 Mark McGough
2.0 Kevin Kaaoush U1700 $10.00
1.5 Buck Buchanan
1.5 Brian Rountree
1.5 Daniel Herman
1.0 Eugin Pahk
0.5 Shirley Herman
0.5 Tom Richardson
0.5 Dean Brown

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 2nd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

1 Paul Anderson 59.50 34.50
2 Isaac Martinez 34.00 29.00
3 Mark McGough 32.25 20.25
4 Mike Madsen 24.50 17.00
5 Daniel Herman 15.50 11.50
6 Jeff Fox 14.75 10.25
7 Dean Brown 14.50 7.50
8 Koji DelConte 13.50 7.00
9 Alex Torres 13.00 5.00
10 Tim Brennan 12.00 0.00
11 Peter Grigg 12.00 9.00
12 Joe Pahk 12.00 10.50
13 Shirley Herman 11.00 9.00
14 Josh Bloomer 10.50 8.00
15 Richard Buchanan 9.75 9.75
16 Alex Freeman 8.50 3.50
17 Sara Herman 7.00 3.00
18 Tom Richardson 7.00 7.00
19 Randy Canton 6.00 6.00
20 Brian Rountree 6.00 2.00
21 Eugin Pahk 6.00 3.00
22 Kevin Kaaoush 5.00 5.00
23 Josh Divine 4.25 4.25
24 Scott Williams 4.00 4.00
25 Kathy Schneider 4.00 3.00
26 Peter Barlay 3.50 3.50
27 Gunnar Andersen 3.50 3.50
28 Joe Polanco 3.00 3.00
29 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
30 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
31 James Powers 2.00 0.00
32 Wes Smith 2.00 1.00
33 William Wilken 2.00 2.00
34 Imre Barlay 2.00 2.00
35 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
36 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
37 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
38 Curits Holsinger 1.00 1.00
39 Evan Baron 1.00 1.00
40 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 1.00
41 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 1.00
42 Katie Wise 1.00 1.00

MAX POSSIBLE 76.00 48.00

3 Ms Of Chess: Material

Game Of The Week

When I started playing tournament chess, I read a pamphlet from GM Arthur Bisguier about how to improve at chess.  Since I had been crushed by him in a simul, I was more than willing to take his advice, even though I knew little about what a GM was.  He had a list of 10 principles to keep in mind when playing.  I thought that was a little too complicated for me to remember.

So, I condensed those ideas into what I considered the 3 strategies of chess.  I also wanted something easy to remember so I decided to use the trick of alliteration to make them even more unforgettable.  I called them the 3 Ms of chess:

• Mate
• Material
• Mobility

The idea was that every chess move was an attempt to accomplish one of these three strategies and provided an ordered thought process in choosing a move.

The 1st priority chess strategy (Mate, https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/2013/05/3-ms-of-chess-mate.html) was to protect your King from checkmate.  Once you decide your King is not in harm, you can strategize about getting your opponent’s King.  However, in most chess positions checkmate is a long way off.  So, now what do you do?

The 2nd priority chess strategy (Material) was to gain a more powerful army than your opponent.  This idea involved not only a simple piece count, but also the understanding that each piece has a different value.

Piece Values In Chess:

1. Queen = 9
2. Rook = 5
3. Bishop = 3
4. Knight = 3
5. Pawn = 1
6. King = Eternal

I quickly learned to grab up the pieces my opponent was giving away and hold on, as tight as I could, to mine, but also I used this simple chart to calculate the success of piece trades.  Trading a lower value piece for a higher one was almost always the right move.

I learned that even a one Pawn advantage could be the difference in the game.  The special move a Pawn has, called Promotion, is probably the most decisive way to gain a material advantage.  In one move you typically gain 8 points of material (Pawn + Promotion = Queen; 1+8=9).  The more Pawns you have versus your opponent just means more chances to promote.

Here is an example:

Anderson,Douglas -Anderson,Paul [B12]

7-7-3 Email,17.05.2000

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.dxc5 e6 5.Be3 Qa5+

Black to move

This could have been called the Anderson variation since I played it a lot in my beginning days of chess.  However, the lack of success I had with my own idea killed any chance of this opening catching on.  Here I just give up a Pawn with no clear plan to get it back.

“In a gambit you give up a Pawn for the sake of getting a lost game.”

Samuel Standige Boden

6.Qd2 Qxd2+ 7.Nxd2 Nc6 8.Bb5 Nge7 9.c3 g6 10.f4 Bg7 11.Ngf3 0–012.Kf2 Nf5 13.Bd4 h5 14.g3 Bd7 15.Bd3 Nfe7 16.Rae1 a5 17.h3 f6 18.exf6 Bxf619.Kg2 Nf5 20.Bf2 Kf7 21.g4 Ng7 22.g5 Be7 23.Nh4 Nf5 24.Nxf5 exf5 25.Nf3 Bd8 26.Re2 Bc7 27.Kg3 Rfe8 28.Rhe1 Rxe2 29.Rxe2 Re8 30.Rxe8 Bxe8

Another idea about Material strategy could have helped me in this game:  Trading pieces favors the player with the material advantage.  Here I trade off all the big guns in my army.  This makes it harder to create tactics to regain my Pawn deficit.  A better approach is to trade Pawns not pieces when behind in material.

While the simple piece value chart has served me well, even up to this point in my chess career, I understand it is subjective.  The value of the pieces does vary based on their position on the board. Clearly, a Pawn on the 8th rank is more valuable than one on the 2nd rank.

“A passed Pawn increases in strength as the number of pieces on the board diminishes.”

Capablanca

31.h4 Ke6 32.Bb5 Bd7 33.a3 Na7 34.Nd4+ Ke7 35.Bxd7 Kxd7 36.a4 Bd8 37.b4 Nc8 38.Kf3 Ne7 39.b5 b6 40.c6+ Kd6 41.Ke2 Bc7 42.Be3 Nc8 43.Kd3 Ke7 44.Nf3 Ke6 45.Kd4 Bd6 46.Ne5 Ne7 47.Nd7 Bc7 48.Kd3 Nc8 49.Ke2 Bd8 50.Bd4 Bc7 51.Kd3 Bd8 52.Be5 Nd6 53.Bxd6 Kxd6 54.Kd4 Bc7 55.Ne5 Ke6 56.Nxg6 Bd6

With an army that is only larger by one Pawn, it is not going to be a quick win.  However, my dad finally breaks through and gains a second Pawn.  At the top levels of chess, two Pawns are winning.

57.Ne5 Bc5+ 58.Kd3 Bd6 59.g6 Kf6 60.Nd7+ Kxg6 61.Nxb6 Bxf4 62.Nxd5 Bd6 63.c7 Bxc7 64.Nxc7 f4 65.Ke4 1–0

To finish out the game he used the threat of Promotion to reduce my army to almost nothing.  If that had been his last Pawn, I could have salvaged a draw.  However, trading off his pieces and not his Pawns left me in the helpless position of facing multiple promotions.  I chose to raise the white flag.

“Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.”

Luke 14:31-32 (KJV)

3 Ms Of Chess: Material

[Event "7-7-3"]
[Site "https://cschessnews.blogspot.com/"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Anderson, Douglas"]
[Black "Anderson, Paul"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B12"]
[PlyCount "129"]
[EventDate "2000.03.13"]
[TimeControl "0"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Be3 Qa5+ 6. Qd2 Qxd2+ 7. Nxd2 Nc6 8. Bb5 Nge7 9. c3 g6 10. f4 Bg7 11. Ngf3 O-O 12. Kf2 Nf5 13. Bd4 h5 14. g3 Bd7 15. Bd3 Nfe7 16. Rae1 a5 17. h3 f6 18. exf6 Bxf6 19. Kg2 Nf5 20. Bf2 Kf7 21. g4 Ng7 22. g5 Be7 23. Nh4 Nf5 24. Nxf5 exf5 25. Nf3 Bd8 26. Re2 Bc7 27. Kg3 Rfe8 28. Rhe1 Rxe2 29. Rxe2 Re8 30. Rxe8 Bxe8 31. h4 Ke6 32. Bb5 Bd7 33. a3 Na7 34. Nd4+ Ke7 35. Bxd7 Kxd7 36. a4 Bd8 37. b4 Nc8 38. Kf3 Ne7 39. b5 b6 40. c6+ Kd6 41. Ke2 Bc7 42. Be3 Nc8 43. Kd3 Ke7 44. Nf3 Ke6 45. Kd4 Bd6 46. Ne5 Ne7 47. Nd7 Bc7 48. Kd3 Nc8 49. Ke2 Bd8 50. Bd4 Bc7 51. Kd3 Bd8 52. Be5 Nd6 53. Bxd6 Kxd6 54. Kd4 Bc7 55. Ne5 Ke6 56. Nxg6 Bd6 57. Ne5 Bc5+ 58. Kd3 Bd6 59. g6 Kf6 60. Nd7+ Kxg6 61. Nxb6 Bxf4 62. Nxd5 Bd6 63. c7 Bxc7 64. Nxc7 f4 65. Ke4 1-0

https://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game-replayer.php?id=81378

This Week In Chess

On June 11th, the Colorado Springs Chess Club held its annual June Mating Game event.  This 2-week, USCF-rated tournament costs $5 and allows players to join in the 2nd week (3rd round) with a half point bye.

The 1st week saw Gunnar Andersen, Alex Freeman, and Joe Pahk score 2 wins to jump into the lead.  However, with the half point bye even a late entrant has a shot at first place.

Here are the current standings:

Score, Player:

June Mating Game (4SS, G30) results:

2.0 Gunnar Andersen
2.0 Alex Freeman
2.0 Joe Pahk
1.0 Buck Buchanan
1.0 Brian Rountree
1.0 Mark McGough
1.0 Daniel Herman
1.0 Eugin Pahk
0.5 Dean Brown
0.5 Kevin Kaaoush
0.0 Shirley Herman
0.0 Tom Richardson

Tuesday Night Chess Tour Cumulative and 2nd Quarter Standings

Current Standings (rank, name, total, quarter):

1 Paul Anderson 56.00 31.00
2 Isaac Martinez 30.50 25.50
3 Mark McGough 30.25 18.25
4 Mike Madsen 24.50 17.00
5 Jeff Fox 14.75 10.25
6 Koji DelConte 13.50 7.00
7 Daniel Herman 13.50 9.50
8 Alex Torres 13.00 5.00
9 Dean Brown 12.50 5.50
10 Tim Brennan 12.00 0.00
11 Peter Grigg 12.00 9.00
12 Josh Bloomer 10.50 8.00
13 Shirley Herman 9.00 7.00
14 Richard Buchanan 7.75 7.75
15 Sara Herman 7.00 3.00
16 Randy Canton 6.00 6.00
17 Alex Freeman 5.00 0.00
18 Tom Richardson 5.00 5.00
19 Josh Divine 4.25 4.25
20 Brian Rountree 4.00 0.00
21 Scott Williams 4.00 4.00
22 Eugin Pahk 4.00 1.00
23 Kathy Schneider 4.00 3.00
24 Joe Pahk 4.00 2.50
25 Peter Barlay 3.50 3.50
26 Joe Polanco 3.00 3.00
27 Kevin Kaaoush 3.00 3.00
28 Anthea Carson 2.00 0.00
29 Mike Wanek 2.00 0.00
30 James Powers 2.00 0.00
31 Wes Smith 2.00 1.00
32 William Wilken 2.00 2.00
33 Imre Barlay 2.00 2.00
34 Rebecca Herman 1.50 0.00
35 Mike Toth 1.00 0.00
36 Buddy Diamond 1.00 0.00
37 Curits Holsinger 1.00 1.00
38 Evan Baron 1.00 1.00
39 Teppei Monjiyama 1.00 1.00
40 Nicholas Wyle 1.00 1.00
41 Katie Wise 1.00 1.00

MAX POSSIBLE 68.00 40.00