Chess Tactics | Lapses in Continuity
#chesstactics #ruylopez #jaenischgambit #brilliant
An important tactical concept in chess, especially in the middle game is positional continuity. In essence, it is recognising the roles of individual pieces and the tactical resources in a position, and how that changes as pieces move. For instance, it can be easy to forget that a square was defended by a particular piece, and assume the square is still defended after the piece has moved. The greater the level of abstraction, for instance, tactical resources like pins, the easier it is to have a lapse in continuity. This becomes a potential for both you and your opponent to make a mistake, and from that, the opportunity to avoid and create traps!
This was a game where I had the black pieces, and my opponent played the Ruy Lopez Opening. As usual, I responded with the Jaenisch Gambit, and I quickly knew that I had taken my opponent off the beaten path as it took them a couple of minutes to respond. And they Accepted the Jaenisch (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. exf5) which is an inaccuracy!
We mostly play accurately from then on and enter an interesting position where we opposite side castle, and an equal evaluation. In the early middle game on move 12, my opponent strikes out with their b-pawn attacking my queen and this was a mistake [-1.6] as it creates a weak c-pawn which becomes a target. Here I make my first mistake, I miscalculated and thought I could capture the pawn immediately with (12... Nxc3) thinking that I was counterattacking White's queen. This was a mistake as the queen was defended by their knight on d4, and I saw this almost immediately after the move.
Having thought that I had blundered the position, I was pleasantly surprised when White didn't take my queen and captured my knight first (13. Nxc3). Almost without thinking, I immediately took their knight with my queen, moving it out of the attack by their pawn. However, this was a lapse in continuity. My queen was defending my bishop on f5, and by taking the knight on c3, the bishop was now hanging. The correct move was to capture the knight on d4, both moving my queen out of the attack from the pawn and removing the attacker of my bishop.
The next two lapses in continuity and errors were made by my opponent. On move 19, they made what the chess.com analytic engine labelled a brilliant move, by hanging their bishop on g7, and instead, playing (19. Rab1) forming a rook-queen battery down the b-file. Although I'm not so sure this move was "brilliant" as it's easy to see, it was the best move as it creates an immediate checkmate threat. However, after I play (19... b6) which temporarily removes the mate threat, White needed to remember that their bishop on g7 was still hanging. However, White was so focussed on the queenside attack they played (20. a4) instead of moving the bishop. This was a blunder as there was no reason why I shouldn't capture their bishop as their attack on the queenside isn't quick enough.
I noticed this lapse in continuity. So, on move 22, I played (22. Re2) as a massive bluff. My rook and bishop are both attacking f2 and looks scary. However, the attack doesn't work. However, on the surface the attack seems credible and rational. At the same time, the rook is hanging. My "gambit" was that White will make the interpretation that I hung my rook accidently while making a logical looking attack. And while they think down this line, this encourages another lapse in continuity that their knight was blocking a battery of my queen and rook down the g-file with a mating attack. As this attack didn't exist when the knight was moved originally onto the g3 square, they might not recognise its role, or it becomes easy to forget!
And it worked. After 20 seconds, White captured my rook with their knight, opening the g-file - (23... Qxg2#) - GG!
Game on chess.com: https://www.chess.com/game/live/78717725477
