Look for checks! Beginner tactics for better chess
#ViennaGame #ViennaGambit
I remember that when I was a beginner at chess, I didn't appreciate the danger from checks. I understood the rules, of course. What I didn't appreciate were how checks were "forcing" moves, insofar as it gives power, even if temporarily, for one player to absolutely dictate the flow of the game.
So, one of the first beginner tactics for better chess is to look for checks: you against your opponent, but perhaps more crucially, the checks that your opponent has against you. This can be seen as an operationalisation of the principle that the first priority is king safety.
I recently played a couple of matches in a Team Australia tournament against a relatively lower-rated player, @lolimjon, who was rated in the 700s at daily games. This game exemplifies the importance of looking for checks.
I played with the White pieces and we ended up with the Vienna Gambit, Declined with Nc6 (1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 Nc6). Those of you who know the Vienna Gambit might know that this is a mistake for Black [+1.75] as a few moves later by move 6, one of Black's knights is forced to undevelop back to its opening square and White has a massive lead in development.
I thought that it would be exciting to play the "bishop sacrifice gambit" (https://www.chess.com/blog/vitualis/win-and-lose-with-the-bishop-sacrifice-gambit) on move 9 (9. Bxf7+) as I knew that I was playing against a substantially lower-rated player, and I wanted to test out the system a bit more. Although this is technically a blunder [-2.08], the bishop sacrifice does have some logic. It opens the f-file, draws the Black king into the newly open file, which places it at risk from multiple aggressive attacks.
And this is where the beginner tactics come into play. You must look for checks against your king. Black correctly captured my bishop with their king (9... Kxf7) but needed to notice that after my short castles (10. O-O), their king was at risk of a double-check with a forward move by my knight on f3. This was something they had to address on move 10.
My opponent possibly didn't see this threat, opting to simply develop a piece (10... Bd6). However, checks often effectively wins tempo, especially if it comes with development or chains an attack! My next move (11. Nxe5+) gave a double-check - knight and discovered check with rook. My opponent must move their king, but to which square? Unfortunately, their choice (11... Ke7) was a serious blunder [+7.40] and this could have been seen if looking out for potential checks. The king on e7 was subject to a subsequent check three different ways!
At this point, I wasn't sure which was the best check to play (a good problem to have), and played a suboptimal one (12. Nd5+). However, I chose this option as I saw a potential funny checkmate line! On move 12, the Black king had only two options - it could retreat to e8 (the correct move) or it could step forward to e6, seemingly counterattacking both of my knights in the centre of the board. However, if they did so, it would have been mate in 2 with the king trapped in the centre of the board, with a pawn delivering the fatal blow! (12. Nd5+ Ke6 13. Qg4+ Kxd5 14. c4#)
Black, however, moved their king to e8 (12... Ke8). I respond with another [+M1] threat by forming a battery with my queen and rook on the f-file (13. Qf3). My opponent, unfortunately, again misses the impending check on their king and the game ends next turn with checkmate.
Game on chess.com: https://www.chess.com/game/daily/428930947
