Lets Take A

Look...
Nigel Davies




We invite you to submit games to be considered by Nigel in this
column. For all games submitted, please provide the following
information: (1) Names of both players; (2) Ratings of both players; (3)
When and where the game was played; (4) The time control used in
the game; and (5) Any other information you think would be helpful to
us. Please submit the games (in PGN or CBV format if possible) to:
nigeldavies@chesscafe.com. Who knows, perhaps you will see the
game in an upcoming column, as Nigel says to you, Lets take a look...
Wearing Different Hats
I recently received the following email from Benoist Busson from
France, which reflects the concerns of many of us:
Your last two Gambiteer books are quite nice for us players
rated about 1900-2000. But the Scotch is difficult to cope with, as
I cant see how to 'fight the stodge' in case of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.
d4!? exd4 4.Nxd4...
What is your opinion about the right response to try to get some
activity against it:
a) 4...Qh4?! too risky, isnt it, and letting White have all the fun!
b) 4...Bc5 with 5...Qf6 or 5...Bb6. But what is best for Black?
c) 4...Nf6 5 Nc3 is boring, isnt it?
d) 4...Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 is very theoretical, isnt it?
e) 4...g6?! in order to try for a Larsen variation of the Philidor?
f) 4...Others
Unfortunately I dont have a particularly good answer; the Scotch is a
problem for players who like to play actively as Black. This is why
Gambiteer II was not presented as a complete repertoire, sometimes
theres little choice but to play positions that one doesnt particularly
like. And this is why an all court style is a distinct advantage; a good
player should be adept at wearing different hats.
Check out these
bestselling titles from
USCFSales.com:

Deluxe Tournament Scorebook

Diary of a Mad
Poker Player
by Richard Sparks

Play through and
download the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
In this day and age, when there are so many games in databases, you
can rest assured that your opponents will do their utmost to make life
unpleasant for you. This may or may not involve cooking up specific
moves, and indeed its far more dangerous to face an opponent who
has noticed certain preferences in your playing style and set about
exploiting them.
This has happened to me a number of times, most notably against the
ex-Russian Israeli IM Mark Berkovics. The first time I played him it all
went wonderfully and I emerged victorious in a flowing game. After
that a very different pattern emerged with him playing a very tight,
methodical game and giving me no chances. Hed obviously thought
about how to play against me and came up with a good solution.
Many players have these weak spots, even the very best. I remember
watching in amazement when Gary Kasparov failed to get anywhere
against Vladimir Kramniks Berlin Defence. But looking at their previous
games it became clear that at one moment Kramnik had found a
relatively weak spot in Kasparovs game in that he wasnt at his best
when it came to winning advantageous endgames. One of the ironies
of the situation is that Kasparov might well have signed his own death
warrant when he hired Kramnik as a second. Kramnik got to observe
his future opponent up close.
At amateur level these idiosyncrasies tend to be much more
pronounced and can therefore be far more easily exploited. The most
common scenario is for players who are afraid of tactics to get bullied
by those who are not. All sorts of weird and wonderful ideas can be
ventured against someone who has little confidence in their tactical
ability. And cowering just gives the attacker further encouragement.
So back to Monsieur Bussons question, and I can only answer that one
has no choice but to play chess, trying not to be too one sided in ones
approach. Even if one gears a major part of ones repertoire to gambit
play, there are inevitably going to be times when ones opponent
makes it really dull.
In the following game we see Black make ever more desperate
attempts to win against his opponents Scotch, coming close to losing in
the process. Ironically he could have done it as early as move nine, had
he seen the tactical opportunity White presented to him. This perhaps
is a greater truth, the opening is not as important as overall playing
strength.
McGregor, S (1618) Beats20Cents (1869)

Gambiteer II
by Nigel Davies
Internet 2003
Scotch Game [C45]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Bc5 5 Nxc6 Qf6 6 Qd2
6 Qf3 has been causing Black some problems of late; for example,
Ivanchuk - Leko, Mukachevo 2007 went 6bxc6 7 Be2 Qxf3 8 Bxf3 Ne7
9 Nc3 O-O 10 O-O d6 11 Rd1 a5 12 Na4 Ba7 13 c4 Ng6 14 c5 dxc5 15
Be3 with an edge for White because of his kingside pawn majority and
Blacks weak pawns on the qeenside.
6...dxc6 7 Bd3 Be6 8 Nc3 Ne7 9 b3
This could have lost on the spot.
Whites main choice in this position is
between 9 Qf4 and 9 Na4, the latter
move having scored quite heavily for
White.
9...Bd4?
Missing 9...Bxf2!,when 10 Qxf2 Qxc3+
wins.
10 Bb2 b5
Threatening to win a piece with ...b5-b4, but weakening the qeenside.
11 Rb1 Rd8 12 Nd1 Be5 13 O-O Ng6
As this doesnt prevent Whites f2-f4, Black should probably have just
castled.
14 f4 Bxb2
After 14...Bxf4 15 Bxf6 Bxd2 16 Bxd8, White wins the exchange; whilst
14...Nxf4 15 Bxe5 Qxe5 16 Qxf4 bags a whole piece.
15 Nxb2 Bc8 16 e5 Qe7 17 Qf2
Besides the obvious threat against the a7-pawn, Whites queen now
probes the weakness on c5.
17Qa3 18 Bxg6?!
A somewhat simplistic approach that leaves Black with a strong bishop.
A better way would have been 18 Be4 O-O 19 Nd3, neatly regrouping
Whites pieces and preparing to occupy c5.
18...fxg6 19 Nd3 O-O
And not 19...Qxa2, because 20 Ra1 wins the queen.
20 Qc5
The start of a curious sequence of
moves that has more to do with the
ratings of the players than the position
on the board: White invites the
exchange of queens, which gives him
equality at best. And Black in turn
declines, leaving himself with what
should have been a rather desperate
position.
20Qa6?!
Theres nothing whatsoever wrong with 20...Qxc5+ 21 Nxc5 Rd4,
hitting the pawn on f4 whilst activating his rooks. Black is soon forced
into the exchange of queens to avoid a draw by repetition, but he
should probably have taken either opportunity with alacrity.
21 Nb4 Qa3 22 Nd3 Qa6 23 Nb4 Qa3 24 Nd3
Whites comment at this point sums it up: Not the most positive of
play, but I would have settled for a draw given that I was playing for
teams points and against a higher rated opponent. 24 Qc3 was
probably the objectively strongest move, and one which leaves Black in
a difficult position.
24...Qxc5+ 25 Nxc5 Rd2
25...Rd4 26 g3 Rfd8 was another good way to play it.
26 Rbc1 Bf5?!
Probably wrong as it allows White to free his position with 27 Rf2.
27 Nd3 Be4
27...g5 looks like a good move here,
the idea being that after 28 fxg5 Be4
29 Rf2 Rfxf2 30 Nxf2 Rxc2, Black is
actually better.
28 Rf2 Rxf2 29 Nxf2 Bf5
And not 29...Rxf4, because of 30 g3,
winning the exchange.
30 g3
30 c4 would have been a strong move here.
30...Rd8 31 Rd1
White was still going for a draw at this point and felt that the
repositioning of his knight would guarantee a draw. Actually hes clearly
better after either 31 g4 or 31 Nd3 Bxd3 32 cxd3 Rxd3 33 Rxc6 etc,
and certainly in no danger of losing.
31...Rxd1+ 32 Nxd1 Bxc2 33 Ne3 Be4 34 Kf2 Kf7 35 Ke1 Ke6
36 Kd2 a5 37 Kc3 h6?!
37...c5 looks like the right move,
stopping Whites king from coming into
d4. Strangely White decides against
taking this opportunity.
38 h4?! g5
38...c5 is still correct.
39 hxg5 hxg5 40 b4?!
40 Kd4 is obvious and good. Black in
turn should now take on b4, but for some reason doesnt do it.
40...a4 41 a3 Bg6 42 Kd4 gxf4 43 gxf4 Be8? 44 f5+
Suddenly White is clearly better. It was a very odd decision by Black to
release his hold on the f5-square.
44Ke7 45 Kc5 g5 46 fxg6 Bxg6 47 Kxc6 Be8+ 48 Kxc7 Ke6
49 Kb6 Kxe5 50 Kc5 Ke4 51 Nc2?
It seems that after 51 Nd5 and 52 Nc7, White is just winning.
51...Kd3 52 Nd4 Kc3 53 Nxb5+ Kb3 54 Kb6 Bxb5 55 Kxb5 Kxa3
56 Kc4 Kb2 57 b5 a3 58 b6 a2 59 b7 a1=Q 60 b8=Q+ Kc1 61
Qf4+ Kb1 62 Qf1+ Kb2??
Blundering into what should have been a mating net. J ust 62...Ka2 is a
draw.
63 Qe2+ Kc1 64 Qe3+??
64 Qe1+ Kb2 65 Qd2+ Kb1 66 Kb3
wins on the spot.
64...Kb1 65 Qb3+ Qb2 66 Qxb2+
Kxb2 -
Recommended Reading
Gambiteer II by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2007)

Play 1.e4 e5! by Nigel Davies (Everyman, 2005)

Beating the Open Games by Mihail Marin (Quality Chess, 2005)
2008 Nigel Davies. All rights reserved.


[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]
2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.