MIND GAME WIN! | Bishop Pair Kingside Attack ⚡ Quick Wins #94
#psychologicaltactics #quickwins
This was a very fun quick win in an unrated game of 10-min rapid. I had the Black pieces and White played the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack, and then a double fianchetto setup (1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. g3?!). A couple of months ago in Quicks Wins #86, I covered a little bit of the history of (1. b3), including 19th century Dutch chess master Maarten van ‘t Kruijs, who is recorded to have first played this unusual opening; Aron Nimzowitsch, one of the leaders of the hypermodern movement; and the relatively more contemporary Danish GM Bent Larsen, who played (1. b3) at the elite competitive level.
Although what is now known as the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack was considered suboptimal for much of chess history, we now know that it is sound. Stockfish at high depth evaluates the opening at [0.00]. That said, hypermodern openings can be complicated and difficult to play for beginners.
For instance, White’s double fianchetto setup is inaccurate and arguably a mistake. Simply, it’s just slow and it gives Black the opportunity to launch a rapid attack while White is setting up. Indeed, on move 3, the most logical (and best) for Black should be (3… d5), following opening principles by taking the full centre with pawns when allowed. However, I instead played the less accurate (3… Bc5), to immediately prepare for an attack on White’s weak f2-pawn. If White continues the way I think they would, there might be enough tempo for a critical and crippling blow!
White’s tactical logic became apparent with (5. Bxc6?), trading their light square bishop for a knight, removing the defender of my e5-pawn, and then winning that pawn (5… dxc6 6. Bxe5?). However, although White does win a point of material, and I applaud the audacity, this was not a good attack. Simply, winning a pawn doesn’t mean much in the opening, and by losing their powerful light square (king’s) bishop, White now has a serious weakness along the light squares on their king side.
I see this, and there is a pattern to recognise as it can be exploited for a quick win!
First, the “knight attack” with (7… Ng4) and now two attackers on White’s f2-pawn. White attempts to win tempo on my queen with (8. Nc3), but I first have (8… Bxf2+). As White has not developed either of the central pawns, the king is forced to move (9. Kf1). Remember the weak light squares? If I can get my queen or bishop to h3, it’s checkmate!
I suspected that White didn’t see the danger in the position. On move 10, White’s dark square bishop gobbled my g-pawn (10. Bxg7) and attacks my h8-rook next. Here, I spent some time deciding the best next move. I saw Qh5, which threatens Qh3#. Stockfish rates this as the most accurate move. However, the problem with this move is that the checkmate threat is obvious. White would most likely consider why the queen moved this position, and then would see the checkmate possibility, and neutralise it.
I eventually settled on a tricky move, (10… Nf6!?) which Stockfish rates as a blunder. However, this was a psychological play. The knight move opens the light square diagonal, giving access to the h3 square to my light square c8-bishop across the board. My prediction was that White wouldn’t see the checkmate-in-one. The knight on f6 effectively offers White’s g7-bishop a choice – capture a knight for free or capture a rook for free! This obscures the decision White should be considering, which is whether they should be moving the bishop at all!
White, distracted, doesn’t see the trap, takes the rook, and blunders checkmate – (11… Bh3#), a beautiful double bishop mating pattern. Good game, GG!
