Forum

Long appreciated since the late 18th century (it was recommended by early Alsatian chess enthusiast Elias Stein) the Dutch Defense (1. d4 f5) has seen its fair share of troubles. In the 1930s, Siegbert Tarrasch, well-known for his rigid, "post-steinitz neoclassical" rules, asserted that White would be better after the Staunton Gambit, 1. d4 f5 2. e4 (...fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 c6 5. f3! exf3). Nonetheless, it has rebounded through ages. Botvinnik, for example, being himself well-versed in the French Defense, would avoid the Staunton Gambit by replying to 1. d4 with 1...e6 to transpose into the Dutch (it becomes clear in his 100 Selected Games that he was very unwilling to chance playing the Black pieces against the Staunton Gambit). But as of late, it has become less and less common at the top level. Hikaru Nakamura will use it on occasion and Loek Van Wely recently beat Aronian with it in Tata Steel. It is not a defense for the faint of heart, and it leaves many weaknesses in the Black position. For beginners, it should be mentioned that this is not similar to a "1. d4 Sicilian". The f5 pawn will be there for a while, and thus, the Black light square bishop (LSB) will be limited. Moreover, the Queen's Knight (b8 knight) may also have trouble developing in a few lines. Despite this, it is still a fun opening for those who, ironically (considering the challenges in Queen side development) like attacks, and many great sacrificial games have come from the Dutch Defense. Here are a few games from different eras in chess that illustrates its strengths. Hopefully, I will be able to upload a few games that illustrate its weaknesses soon. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to keep up with a lot of the modern theory in the ...g6/ Leningrad Variations.

I recently played against the chess.com "expert" level computer, which was supposed to be rated at least 2000 by the site's standards. I seriously doubt that it was that strong. It appeared to play by discernable principles, but its calculations were very dubious. Has anyone else encountered this? Was this a fluke? Because the computer did not play well. If this is the same engine provided to basic members for analysis, is there any point to the basic member engine analysis provided here?

I recently played a game that I thought I won quite comfortably. All of my moves seemed natural, the trades favored me, and I was even able to be a little creative. These games are the ones that make me wish I had rybka, or, at the very least, something stronger than the basic membership, once-a-week chess.com analyzer (to be fair, even the 2000-strength engine helps me). When I went over the game the first time, everything still had had a rosy tint. I patted myself on the back and figured I'd done quite well. Then something started to knot in my stomach. It was doubt. It was my pride being challenged. I know what my strengths and weaknesses are- the former are few, and the ladder are many. I looked over the game again and thought my ideas were sound, but also that the opponent played into my ideas. So I submitted the game to the chess.com basic engine. While it found that I made few outstanding errors, a few disappointing suspicions were confirmed. The first: the opponent did play into many of my ideas. The second: my favorite move in the game, my "brag-about-it-to-your-friends/ captive audience" move, was deemed a mistake. Which brings me back to the first suspicion and the lesson that can be learned from it: 1. Don't chase "ghosts"/ idealized variations. 2. Always put up a fight. Find a way to make things difficult for your opponent (though some players choose to make things easier for themselves). Here is the game. I'll include the computer lines, too, even though I doubt the engine's ability to be accurate in positional analyses at the strength given.

To be frank, there's something about the way Vasily Smyslov played that I have always found attractive from a stylistic perspective. Among the World Champions, he has to be among the most overlooked. He lacked dominance of Capablanca, despite having a similar appreciation for simplicity He wasn't as psychological as Lasker (as in, willing to play innacuracies knowingly). He didn't make a name for himself with erratic sacrifices like the crowd-pleasing Mikhail Tal. He never fathered a school of thought like Botvinnik or Steinitz. I could go on about what he wasn't, but not for too long. As we have seen in previous forum posts, Smyslov played with the endgame goals in mind, even from the middle game. This isn't to say that he would reduce material into the endgame quickly like Max Euwe, for example. Rather, he would find ways to create passed pawns in the middlegame and, instead of saving them for the endgame, begin pushing them while material was still abound to support them. We've gone through games here wherein Smyslov creates outposts on the opponent's third rank or threatens to queen while piece play seems active. Many of his strategies embody Philidor's philosophy that pawns are the soul of chess. This game is not one of those games. All world champions were capable of many styles and strategies, even if they preferred one over others. This game is a positional beauty with an early piece sacrifice. Please enjoy Panov vs. Smyslov, 1940.

I played a blitz game wherein I made a rash decision on move 22 to forgo my calculations for a move that appeared entirely flawed. It may have been a fingerslip. In fact, it probably was a fingerslip. However, after looking the game over, I want to give myself a little more credit as it appears that the accidental move was possibly stronger than what I had calculated. Either way, it was a fluke move.

Right now, my go-to defense against 1. e4 is the Caro Kann. Of course, being less than focused in my studies of the defense, I occasionally search the databases for less than pragmatic variations. One of those is Scandinvian GM's pet variation, the Hector Gambit. There aren't many games in the database employing the line (1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ng5) other than Hector's. Many of them lead to tense, but familiar middlegame positions that rapidly lead to trades and winning endgames for Hector. The following game, however, is a short and sweet example of a king side attack.

I recently lost a game in 3 minute blitz to a very pleasant combination. While I saw the combination, I saw no adequate way of preventing it (there were a few). Instead, I played very greedily and let a few winning chances go past me in doing so. I figured the game might be amusing for the rest of the group.

I'll readily admit that the reason I searched for chess games between these two grandmasters was their shared passion for opera. In fact, both were trained baritones. In the game, Smyslov employs a strategy that is seen throughout many of his matches. Namely, he creates a "victory pawn", that is, a passed pawn which he supports throughout the middle game until its queening is inevitable. For those studying strategies and styles, this might be a good plan to keep in mind.

This game is short and sweet. The other player used an odd opening and lost a lot of space and the opportunity to develop in the opening. I thought it might be entertaining. Not a great or brilliant game, though.

In this blitz game, I chose to pursue an odd endgame piece dynamic: equal pawns, with 2 Knights and a Bishop vs. 2 rooks. The opening was a flop, and based on opening alone, I should have lost this game. The opponent had my number in our little match. Each time an opening prompted me to overextend myself, I would take the bait. To be fair, I wasn't always punished for stretching my pawns thin. Either way, the endgame I reached was new to me. There were errors in the game. But until I find a master level game with a similar endgame piece imbalance, I'll leave you guys with this.

I recently played a blitz game with the Dutch Defense that demonstrates the opening's strengths- namely, Black's ability to create a strong King side attack. While the defense is currently considered rather unweildy by most GMs, it can still be an entertaining weapon to add to one's arsenal. And while it may be considered slightly unsound, the Dutch Defense shows up every once in a while at the top level of play. For example, Loek Van Wily recently beat Lev Aronian with the Dutch Defense at Tata Steel.

I remember hearing on an online analysis that weak pawns can mean better pieces. While not always true, there are a few times when an isolated pawn can be a means to increasing piece activity (a good example would be the oft-mentioned isolated Queen's Pawn, as seen in the Tarrasch Defense). This game is one of my own. In it, White willingly accepts weak pawns to increase file pressure. It's not perfect, so any criticisms are encouraged!

There are many ways to win in chess (ok, there's really only checkmate and resignation, but bear with me). As of recent, I have been going through the master games database to see how top-tier players execute strategies. Strategic, long-term thinking defines middlegames and I have always found it very hard to grasp how and when long-term strategies come about in games. Some strategies (long-term plans) I've seen include immobilizing the enemy (destroying counterplay- much like Karpov), provoking innaccuracies, and simplifying for winning endgames (Smyslov was famous for this). Relevant to this theme is the idea of finding winning pieces- these are pieces that will offer anything from slight advantages (such as the bishop pair vs. knight pair in open games), or complete victory. In the Karpov-Miles Pterodactyl Defense game I previously posted, many things did Miles in at the end. Karpov gained space, destroyed counterplay, and rallied behind passed pawns. In this game, passed pawns created in the middle game give Euwe a decisive advantage. Passed pawns, in other words, can be "victory pawns". Recognizing these pawns in your games can help you create tactics for victory.

Many people know Anthony "Tony" Miles for his famous victory against then-World Champion Anatoly Karpov employing the St. George's Defense. So the story goes, Karpov was stunned by the choice of 1. e4 a6 and he was not able to cope with the unorthodoxy of Miles' choice. The "Incorrect Opening" game is well-known as an example of "surprise" value at the highest level of chess. In this game, Miles uses an unconventional defense against Karpov and is absolutely crushed. Perhaps the element of surprise can only get a person so far.

I've been interested in the Petroff Defense (1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6) for a while now. While studying the games of Artur Jussupow, one of its leading exponents, my interest has admittedly waned. Many variations just don't seem to fight for an advantage (from the Black perspective). The lines that do require precise play, and games can still become very dull further in. That said, it's great for tournament games where the opponent must win as it is so prone to draw. This was evident in Jussupow's games (there are many draws with this opening relative to wins). The following game, however, presents an interesting material imbalance. Though 90 moves long, many of the moves are repetitions. Black refuses to draw eventually finds the winning moves. Here is Yuri Balashov vs. Artur Jussupow, 1982:

I was quite proud of a recent blitz game I played. In it, I built up a spacial advantage, created a positional strategy, and closed with a winning attack. Upon reviewing the game, I realized two important things: 1. At a certain point, my advantages were so great, that there was basically no way to lose. These advantages, however, were not material. Moreover, the position in which I had these overwhelming advantages was a few moves earlier than my attack and earlier than I had recognized in the game. 2. The game was handed to me on a silver platter. The opponent played the opening without a clear plan and made a few weakening rook moves. I thought the opponent had given me the game in one move (right when the opponent was open for attack), but it turns out he/ she had weakened the white position throughout the course of the game. In the end, I believe Steinitz's idea of a winning attack being the consequence of accumulating small advantages is true, and that this game demonstrates this idea.

I played white in this game. It was a 2 minute blitz game with one second increments. There were many inaccuracies throughout the game on both sides. As the game progressed, I noticed I was counting each mistake or less-than-optimal move I was making. In the end, I won despite myself. Hopefully, we can all pitch in to critique this game.

Here is an interesting game I found while searching the database. In it, Bogoljubow shows his capacity for making sacrifices work to break through closed positions.

Since I won't have much time to post a good, complete analysis of this line anytime soon, I'm considering doing it in a series. My goal is to post a Black win with the most common White response, a White win, of course, a Geller-Smyslov midgame draw (so we can analyze the position), and a loss with the White continuation 8. Nc3 (Which only appears three times in the database; two losses for white and 1 draw). Until then, you can study for this forum by checking out the games of Jonny Hector, who has a great record with this defense. Position: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 That's the Basic Ruy Lopez. 3...a6 4. Ba5 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 Bb7

Here's a game. Title says it all. Poorly-played, but entertaining with a few nice combinations.