Raging Tactics and Geometric Beauty

IM Silman
| Jul 18, 2012
| 8721 views
| 39 comments

IMPORTANT: [At the end of the puzzles, you should click MOVE LIST so you can see my instructive notes and variations. If you are having trouble solving a problem, just click SOLUTION, and then MOVE LIST. Even if you solve everything, DO click MOVE LIST or you might miss an important bit of prose.]

I’m giving this whole game for the simple reason that it’s GREAT FUN! At first White looks to be a rather weak player, but after the oddities of the opening and an overzealous leaping about with a Knight, White suddenly turns into a killer robot that not only sees some cool tactics, but also has a keen eye for geometric beauty.

I’ve added plenty of boards and puzzles so you can get personally involved, and (of course) gave the full game in the final board for those that prefer such things. I hope you enjoy this game as much as I did.

Epoqueepique (1591) – kaspa (1723), 2ème CHAMPIONNAT DE FRANCE chess.com 2012

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6

Playable if one knows what he’s doing, but in general in queen-pawn openings, neither side wants to block their c-pawn. Thus, Black will usually play the pawn to c6 or c5, and White will play it to c3 or, most commonly, c4. For Black, the pawn on c6 gives d5 a firm defense while the Knight can eventually develop on d7. For White, the pawn on c4 followed by Nc3 adds serious pressure to black’s d-pawn, and also prepares to open the c-file (which White can use by Rc1) by an eventual cxd5.

3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 Ne4 5.Qe2

A very poor move that blocks the f1-Bishop. What’s its point? Why does the Queen need to be on e2 when so many other white pieces have to be developed? As it turns out, White is trying to get all the queenside pieces off the back rank as quickly as possible so she can castle queenside. Typical female chess: no subtlety, just raw, animalistic aggression. Really ladies, you need to cut back on those testosterone injections!

Anyway, castling queenside shouldn’t be a priority here. The simple 5.Bb5 followed by 0-0 is fine, as is 5.Nbd2, challenging black’s advanced Knight. However, the usual 5.c4 runs into a problem:

5...e6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.g3 Bxf4 8.gxf4 Bd7 9.Rg1 g6 10.0-0-0 Qe7 11.Nb3

More natural was 11.Nxe4:

11...Na5??

There is simply no excuse to ever play such a move unless it’s a blitz game, you drank too much between moves, you’re in desperate time pressure, you were giving a blindfold simultaneous exhibition, or your eyesight has gone to seed: intending to push white’s Knight around with 11...a5 followed by ...a4, you somehow grabbed the Knight by mistake.

12.Nxa5

DOH! White is now a full piece ahead with a good, solid position. The game should be over, but holding onto one’s stuff proves to be harder to do than to say. Anyway, thank goodness it isn’t over, otherwise we would miss all the cool stuff that occurs.

12...b6

I can imagine black’s thinking here: “Please, please, please... leave your Knight there. Please!”

13.Nb3

More Imaginary Black thinking: “!DamnX!*%!”

13...f6 14.Ne1

It’s hard to understand this move, since d3 will prove to be no more active than f3. One should always try and have all their pieces participate. With that in mind, the b3-Knight stands out like a sore thumb. What does it do? It can’t move to a5 or c5, and d4 is also impossible. Thus, I would play 14.Nbd2 bringing it into the fight:

14...Nd6 15.Nd3 Bb5 16.h4 a5 17.a3 a4 18.Nd2 c5

19.dxc5?

Not very good since it opens up queenside lines, makes black’s pawns mobile, and (in effect) swaps the central d-pawn for black’s far less important b6-pawn. 19.c3 is a sane move, stopping any and all enemy counterplay based on …c5-c4-c3 ideas.

If you’re up a piece for nothing and easily winning the game, don’t give your opponent even the slightest bit of play if it can be avoided.

19...bxc5 20.Qg4 c4

21.Nc5?

Wow! This has nothing to do with tightening white's position. Instead, White tosses her Knight into the wilderness where it’s all by itself with nothing protecting it. Why risk so much for a one-move threat against e6 (easily defended) when the extra piece will lock in the full point if White just avoids enemy counterplay? 21.Nb4 c3 22.bxc3 is still easily winning for White, even though white's King position has been disrupted. The Knight on b4 is a defensive powerhouse.

21...Rc8! 22.Nxe6

Avoiding 22.Qxe6 Rxc5.

22...f5!

White hung the piece back, but retains a clear advantage since Nf3-e5 or Nf3-d4 leaves White with pressure against d5, an extra pawn, and a kingside attack based on h4-f5. 22...Bd7 was also possible:

23.Qg5 Qxe6 24.c3!

At last! White stops the pawn shattering …c4-c3.

24…Nf7 25.Qg3 Nh6

Black has no plan (getting to play ...Ng4 isn’t a plan!), he’s just moving his stuff about in a fog.

26.Be2

White stops the ...Ng4 nonsense. Now White has a simple way to dominate the position (other than the obvious h4-h5): Nd2-f3-e5, followed by Bf3, Rd4, Rgd1, and even Qg2 with a full-on attack against d5.

26...0-0

Black fantasy comment: “Hurt me! I deserve it. Hurt me!”

27.h5

White fantasy comment: “If you insist on pain, I’ll dole it out. But only because you remind me of my first husband.”

27...Be8

Black fantasy comment: “I’ve changed my mind! Don’t hurt me! Don’t hurt me!”

28.Nf3

Wonderful! After her poor opening and misguided 21.Nc5, White has pulled things together and is playing very well. She now brings up the reinforcements, insisting that all her pieces participate in the upcoming execution.

28...Ng4 29.hxg6 Bxg6 30.Ng5 Qd7 31.Rh1?

Much too tame for such a drool-inducing position. However, it still gets the job done. Nevertheless, our puzzle asks the question: "What's better than 31.Rh1?"

31...Rc7?

31...h5 32.Bf3 Rc5 and black’s holding on like grim death (though he’s still completely lost).

32.Bf3

Missing the move she missed on move 31.

32...Nf6??

Black slits his own throat. Better was 32...Rc5 followed by a prayer.

33.Qg2

A strong, logical move that, unfortunately, isn’t best.

33...Rc5??

Giving White another chance at glory.

34.Rh6

Missing the same idea she missed on move 33.

34...Re8??

Poor Black has no idea what’s going on. Like it or hate it, he had to try 34...Kh8, though that still falls short:

35.Qh1

She misses the instant kill again, but her move is actually geometrically beautiful: it doubles on the h-file and continues the pressure against d5. However, in chess “pretty” has to take a back seat to clubbing the enemy over the head and eating his brains:

35...Re7 36.Nxh7!

Strangely, White plays this sacrifice in its most complicated form!

36...Rxh7

36...Bxh7 37.Rxf6.

37.Rxg6+ Kf7 38.Qg2 Ke6 39.Rd4?

Sigh. Black’s side of the board is on fire, and White decides to pose by putting the Rook on d4. It wins of course - everything does. But why not finish with style?

39...Rf7 40.e4!

Yay! She finds this too! In both cases, it’s better late than never.

40...Ke7

40...fxe4 41.Bg4+.

41.e5 Qc7 42.Bxd5

This wins, but White has better.

42...Rxd5??

42...Nxd5 43.Rxd5 also wins easily for White, but at least Black wouldn’t go through the total hell that his 42...Rxd5 brings.

43.Rxd5

43.exf6+ is so obvious and delicious and sadistic that I can only guess our dear Epoqueepique decided to be merciful.

43...Nxd5 44.Qxd5 Kf8 45.Qa8+ Ke7 46.Rg8 Qd7 47.Rb8 Qd3 48.Re8+ Kd7 49.Qc8 mate.

Lessons From This Game

* There is absolutely no reason to hang pieces in midair. Be aware of where every one of your guys is, and be aware if they are vulnerable to attack.

* Do this same “safety laundry list” when you’re about to move something in enemy territory. The closer a piece of yours gets to the enemy camp, the more chances there is of it being snapped off!

* If you’re up a piece for nothing and easily winning the game, don’t give your opponent even the slightest bit of play if it can be avoided.

* If you have an overwhelming position ripe with juicy tactical possibilities, take extra time to try and find the most brutal way to end the game.

* If you are able to end the game, do so since allowing things to linger often results in a painful turnaround.

HOW TO PRESENT A GAME FOR CONSIDERATION

If you want me to look over your game, send it to askjeremy@chess.com

I need your name (real or chess.com handle), your OPPONENT’S name (real or chess.com handle), both players’ ratings, where the game was played, and date. If you don’t give me this information, I won’t use your game! BTW: I’ve noticed that many people are reluctant to give me their opponent’s name. This is very strange! Showing the names of both players is the way chess games are presented in databases, books, magazines, websites – everywhere! Permission from the opponent isn’t necessary. If permission was necessary, everyone who ever lost a game wouldn’t allow their name to be on it!

Comments

10 months ago
SummersIron

steveattagged57 appears to be reading a different article to me.

'Good analysis but totaly sexist you are out of line suggesting woman cant play .which is what you suggested at the intro,why stop there?'

Silman does not suggest women can't play chess in the introduction at all. To verify this, here is the introduction in its entirety:

'I’m giving this whole game for the simple reason that it’s GREAT FUN! At first White looks to be a rather weak player, but after the oddities of the opening and an overzealous leaping about with a Knight, White suddenly turns into a killer robot that not only sees some cool tactics, but also has a keen eye for geometric beauty.

I’ve added plenty of boards and puzzles so you can get personally involved, and (of course) gave the full game in the final board for those that prefer such things. I hope you enjoy this game as much as I did.'

Not even a mention of the fact that white is female, let alone generalising his remarks to apply to all female players. Galileo182 (thank goodness someone has some sense) has already explained the one remark that could be seen as sexist - 'Typical female chess: no subtlety, just raw, animalistic aggression' - a simple play on and inversion of gender stereotypes.
10 months ago
davidmelbourne

Wot Gargleblaster said:)

(and: a really enjoyable game:))
10 months ago
GargleBlaster

FWIW, I guess I should also point out the obvious: one or two ill-considered/maladroit gags in an otherwise decent article isn't exactly grounds to burn someone at the stake of political correctitude. I just found it interesting to explore why I thought the joke was in poor taste, really.

That said, epoqueepique has a point as well - criticism is well and good, but this is a public forum and a writer should show some modicrum of sensitivity to an inexperienced pupil and at least avoid gender-based jokes with an obviously high coefficient of potential offense.

To conclude, I hope that lessons have been learned here, and that in the future we all stick to Polish jokes.
10 months ago
floi

"no subtlety, just raw, animalistic aggression" is not even close to reverting gender stereotypes- it's the classic image of the fury. and I can't see the positive value in the supposed lack of subtlety when it comes to a game like chess.

also, do you really think that what you call real sexism is not related to the more subtle things, such as what people think, say and consider funny?
10 months ago
GargleBlaster

I enjoy SIlman's articles very much, but I did find the joke about "testosterone injections" rather awkward and potentially offensive. Of course, explaining exactly why an attempt at humor does or doesn't work is generally an exercise in mass futility, but I'll try anyhow:

First off, the joke appears to suppose that it is somehow paradoxical for women to play aggressively. To illustrate, let us instead suppose the player of the White pieces was a Hungarian man, and Silman wrote: "Typical Hungarian Caveman chess: no subtlety, just raw animalistic aggression. Guys, cut down on the Goulash over there!". Notice that now we then have a totally different (and, actually, rather better) joke, for it is merely ironically exaggerating a silly cultural stereotype for comic effect. However, in our actual case, the idea behind the joke is different - there is no general public perception of women as particularly aggressive and thus the idea is not to stretch a common preconception in an absurd way but rather to instead patronize women who play aggressively, as if the idea was something novel or cute, like a cat trying to chase a deer.

However, In Silman's defense, I suspect that quite a few players actually *do* think that women play more aggressively than men due to certain high profile players such as the Polgar sisters, Kosteniuk, etc., On the other hand, I hardly think that that alone is enough to make the concept of "aggressive female chess" a sufficient enough cliche to build an effective joke out of, especially to a target audience of potential chess novices. Furthermore, I rather doubt that this notion of "aggressive female chess players" is based in reality to begin with (Polgar and Kosteniuk are a very small sample size) and in any case expect it would reek of chauvinism when expounded upon.
10 months ago
galileo182

You people are ridiculous. Real sexism is nowhere to be found here. It is obviously meant to be taken ironically and not as a genuine representation of Silman's position. But I guess if you're offended by jokes, there's not much of a point in trying to reason with you.

Epoqueepique astounds me by the way. "Yay! She found it too!" is an insult? You must have lived a remarkable and incident free life if this strikes you as an insulting statement.

You people need to lighten up. Go about the business of fighting real sexism in political and social institutions. When a chess writer calls men timid and women aggressive (thus inverting stereotypical gender portrayals) and you chastise him you are likely doing greater harm than any joke Silman is going to make.
10 months ago
epoqueepique

But it is not just a "joke", it is the mark of a very nasty and flawed personality. You are invited to send your games "for consideration", and send one that you know is imperfect because what you want is advice and you trust the analysis will be interesting. What I see is a series of insults such as "Yay ! She finds this too! Better later than never!" and other hurting remarks towards someone who showed him trust. I am surprised chess.com allows this.
10 months ago
tdronzek

Nice article

! :D
10 months ago
floi

it is still a sexist joke...
10 months ago
galileo182

steveattagged57 is kind of dopey...

If I were Silman your comment would send me close to despair. He's a chess writer. If he can't make harmless and clearly absurd jokes from time to time, how is he supposed to distinguish himself?

Plus, go back and read what he said. Beyond the fact it's OBVIOUSLY tongue in cheek, he doesn't suggest women play poorly. He *jokingly* identified a characteristic of female play, but didn't call them inept. If anything, given the tone of the rest of the article, Silman seems to enjoy aggressive attacking play.

Your profile picture leads me to believe you are too old to need this explained to you. But here we are.
10 months ago
PawnAvalanche

Can somebody please post a copy of the game in interactive form?
10 months ago
steveattagged57

Good analysis but totaly sexist you are out of line suggesting woman cant play .which is what you suggested at the intro,why stop there? people of different races cant play properly? Im too short to be a chess player,oh its tuesday and we must not sac on that day,get a life man and save me from having to sending these ridic messages
10 months ago
a_Mental_Torture

thanks
it was very usefull
10 months ago
epoqueepique

Well... thank you so much.

I think you should offer your personality "for consideration". There is a lot to say about it, but I won't put you to shame.

(Thank you TonyH).
10 months ago
sryiwannadraw

Insightful, as always. just finished the revised 4th edition, loved it (:
10 months ago
EliasAStern

thanks silman. love your articles
10 months ago
TonyH

HI Jeremy, the name thing is something odd to me as well. Its something people do here as a sort of self imposed extension of the rule to not shame people by using their name. As you have posted, I think it a bit over done because players play games and results happen. If someone is embarrassed about the result then maybe its not the game for them. I always use the famous Immortal game as a lesson in this since it was (according to what i have read) Kieseritzky that turned in the game to the papers for publication
10 months ago
SummersIron

Great article as always. Thanks.
10 months ago
Dekker

I like the article :D