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.]
After 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 White played the odd 3.e5
White wrote: “Wanting to close in the opponent’s dark-squared Bishop.”
That’s a noble idea, but there’s a problem with it: Black’s general plan is to attack white’s center, while White can often build up a big pawn center and use it (eventually) to initiate an attack, or to simply use it as a space gaining device that will squeeze his opponent to death in boa constrictor fashion.
Both sides can go about their respective plans in various ways. White can go for the gusto with lines like 3.f4 followed by 4.c3 or 4.Nc3 when the center is firm and White (at the moment) controls the c5, d5, and e5 squares. Black will try and bash this center with breaks like …c7-c5 or, on occasion, …e7-e5.
White can also go for a bit less, which also risks less: 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 (or 4.c3 followed by Nbd2) trying to create a small but firm center. As always, Black will seek to pressure this center by (at some point) …c7-c5 or …e7-e5 or …Bg4 followed by …Nc6 or even …a7-a6 followed by …b7-b5 and …Bb7, to name just a few setups.
Clearly, the soul of this opening is central battle: one side builds the center, the other strives to tear it down. If you aren’t aware of this impending battle, you can’t play either side of this opening correctly.
And this (finally) brings us back to 3.e5. White, before developing anything, pushes his e-pawn a second time and allows Black to initiate immediate central strikes: 3…d6 4.f4 dxe5 (There was no hurry for this, but everything still makes sense.) 5.fxe5 and here Black played the clueless 5…e6?, not only blocking his light-squared Bishop, but also sets up a d6-hole if Black plays the thematic …c7-c5. Instead of the advance of the e-pawn, which has nothing to do with the position, Black should have played 5…c5 cracking white’s center (even 5…Nh6, intending an eventual d4-bashing …Nf5, made sense) 6.Nf3 Bg4 when Black is living up to his center-killing responsibility. Black never got around to attacking white’s center. Instead he played …c7-c6 (horrific) followed by …b5 and …a5 and just tossed stuff forward without having any idea about how his opening works.
The following game was played in a serious tournament with a slow time control.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Ngf3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.a3?! Qb6 8.Nb3?!
White hasn’t played the opening well since his 7.a3, common in lines like 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3, isn’t very wise here since the Knight on d2 (which breaks the protective connection between the white Queen and the d4-pawn) is usually misplaced for the a3 system. His 8.Nb3 further highlights his position’s deficiencies.
As you can see, when players with 2000+ USCF ratings can’t get through the opening by move 7, then everyone is vulnerable to opening disasters!
How should Black react to white's inaccurate opening play?
In this game Black avoided the best line due to an irrational fear (e.g., a White Knight living forever on d4. You can see black's comment in the problem's move list.) that had nothing to do with the immediate position, and would never have occurred if he played correctly.
Make Sure Your Pieces and Pawns Work Together
1.c4 Nf6 2.b3 e6 3.Nf3 d5
In the diagrammed position, what would make more sense, 4.d2-d3 or 4.e2-e3?
Actually, 4.Bb2 (which is pretty much the same thing as 4.e3 since e3 will usually follow) and 4.g3 are the most popular moves here, but if we have to choose between 4.d3 or 4.e3 then 4.e3 wins hands down. Why? When White played b2-b3 his intention was clear: to place the Bishop on b2 and strive to control the a1-h8 diagonal. The move d2-d3 has nothing to do with controlling the dark-squares (in fact, it actually weakens the dark squares inside white’s camp), but e2-e3 does since it hits d4 (which is a dark-square). From the diagram, White should play 4.Bb2 followed by e2-e3 (or 4.e3 followed by Bb2) when an interesting, strategic battle would ensue (also note that in many lines White will eventually play d2-d4 after Bb2 and e3. The immediate 4.d3 seriously cuts down on white’s options). Remember: chess is a team effort. Right from the opening you want to have your pawns and pieces working together for the same goals!
Here’s a famous (and extremely exciting!) game that features the setup we were talking about:
LESSONS FROM THIS GAME
* What we saw in all these examples is quite common. People play an opening because they watched (or came across) a game that attracted them. But they play the opening without knowing what it’s about. I highly recommend that you make a point of knowing the verbal explanations behind every opening you play – what is the philosophy behind it? What are the normal ways to implement this philosophy? That way, no matter what crazy thing your opponent might do, you will know how to play your side.
* In openings like the Modern Defense, the Pirc, the Alekhine Defense, the Grunfeld, and others, the soul of the opening tends to be fixated on central battle: one side builds the center, the other strives to tear it down. If you aren’t aware of this impending battle, you can’t play either side of this opening correctly.
* The French Defense is a very dynamic opening that features lots of key strategic setups. Learn the basics of those setups, and you'll do very well with the French.
* When developing, it's important to know where your pawns and pieces generally go so they can complement each other.
HOW TO PRESENT A GAME FOR CONSIDERATION
If you want me to look over your game, send it to firstname.lastname@example.org.
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… 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!