Forum

As I've stated before, the time pressure of a blitz game is prone to create sharp, yet unsound, positions. Strategy oftentimes takes a backseat to tactics (not that the two are mutually exclusive) and bizarre miniatures are played in the time it takes to microwave instant oatmeal. Here's one such game I recently played in Blitz. It is not a good game. But it was a fun one, and one I hope the rest of you find entertaining.

Last time, I gave a postmortem of a rather embarrassing loss, with an emphasis on opportunites and complications I either overlooked, was too timid to engage in, or simply forget. But before you think I'm modest or man enough to show you all a loss like that just for your benefit, here's a game where I took the more complicated route. It was a blitz game, but I felt much more confident this time, trying to both remember the lessons and ideas demonstrated in the master games we've analyzed.

Here is a blitz game I lost with some sharp moves and missed opportunities. Lots of innacuracies, but those are what make the game fun to go through.

Here are a few things a person can use to help analyze games. These are some "hard and fast" rules that help to be able to identify at a glance.

This game is from the 1935 match for the title of World Champion. Playing White was the defender, Alexander Alekhine, and on Black was Dutch mathmetician and challenger Max Euwe. It was during this match that Euwe established himself as one of the most formidable minds in chess. This particular game demonstrates the need of looking ahead (an obvious need in chess) with clarity- not simply having an idea of what the consequences are for a certain move, but knowing exactly what will happen. For the beginning player, this game is a great example of prioritization, as many recaptures are delayed to avoid nastier combinations.

I'll be honest and admit my bias- I prefer to study the games of the less glamorous World Champions (such as Euwe, Smyslov, and Petrosian). They never got the fandom of Tal or Anand, but for a moment in time, they were the best players on the face of the Earth. Studying the games of these oft-overlooked champions gives me an opportunity to go through top-level games that others might pass by for not having the flare of other greats. With that said, these next two games are all about holding off aggression against the best of the best. I chose to look at Smyslov's games because, well, he's my favorite. He also has a knack for defending against sacrifices, as well as making a few great sacs of his own (Panov-Smyslov 0-1).

Bent Larsen was one of the top GMs of his day, and he was well-known for his less-than-conventional approach to the game. One of his favorite openings was 1. b3, which eventually he would become the namesake of. Here is a short game he played against Brian Eley using the Nimzo-Larsen Attack.

This is the 14th game of the 1963 World Championship. It demonstrates Petrosian's genius. He keeps trades low, spaces tight, and pressure high. While not exciting (it doesn't have any stand-out moves or ridiculous combinations), each move builds on the last with grace. It's ugly and beautiful; the pawns create a cramped center, pieces become constrained, and precise calculations can't be replaced by following broad principals. The positions are demanding and in the end Petrosian has left a frustrated Botvinnik on the defense.

Milton Hanauer may not be a well-known name in the chess world, but he did have one brilliant publication for the curious chess player. It was a small "How-To" book published as part of a line of self-improvement books, the kind you would order from the back of comics and magazines. Hidden between the listings of "Psychic Freudianism" and "Fortune Telling for Amateurs" was Milton Hanauer's guide to chess. My grandfather gave me this book from his collection when I wa young, and when I was in highschool, I read it cover-to-cover. The booklet gave me a great analysis of Mackenzie-Tarrasch, instructive examples of the Sicilian, and it made me hungry for more. I decided to explore Hanauer's games, and, though there weren't many in the database, I found some good fodder for analysis. The game being analysed here is a frustrating but obvious loss for White. The final position is a great example of tempo and King development in the endgame.

Filip vs. Petrosian: Defense and Aggression in the Modern Defense The Modern Defense seems like a natural for the former World Champion Tigran Petrosian. His style was defensive and he often excelled in cramped and tight positions, using waiting moves to slowly accumulate tiny advantages before springing the center loose. We have seen already how Smyslov has used the Modern to achieve a victory in this fashion. In this game, Petrosian creates a solid defense and launches a crushing attack on the king side.

Robert Hess vs. Yury Lapshun: Transposing in the Modern Defense This game reaches the position of the Modern Defense: Psuedo-Austrian Attack and then establishes a queenside lock-down and a king side attack (an idea explored in my last analysis, Singh vs. Smyslov). Of course, the Black king's knight is deployed on f6, so the same position can be reached from the Pirc. In this game Black transposes in and out of Modern Defense Variations, demonstrating the fluidity and parallels of the moves 1... g6 and its brother, 1... d6.

Game 2: Singh-Smyslov: How to Open the Game Well into his old age, Vassily Smyslov was still an active and brilliant master of the game. The following is an example of his ability to increase his pieces' power by forcing a change in the pawn structure. The Modern Defense often requires an eye for such strategies as it wants an open board for the fianchettoed bishop, but invites a closed game by using pieces to control the center.

These games were analysed for a group dedicated to studying the Modern Defense. Game 1: Smyslov's curious 3...a6?! In this game, former World Champion Vassily Smyslov used the Modern Defense to play into his endgame strength. Of note is his peculiar third move.

Another puzzle.

I reached an interesting position today in live chess and decided to share it.

I recently played a blitz game with many sharp positions that forced me to respond creatively. Unfortunately, I lost the game on time. However, I hope the positions can are helpful to others looking for ways to defend against attacks.

I think I my have already posted about the Tennison Gambit back when I was gxtmf1. I'd like to return to the gambit after trying it in blitz and against a computer, as well as checking the chess.com database. The Gambit is essentially a reversed Budapest Defense.

This may be a bit odd for a forum topic, but it seems certain places develop a distinct style of play when it comes to chess. The clearest example is Britain. For some reason or another, British masters on a whole don't have much regard for the opening. Keene, Miles and Basman (though not born in Britain, he resides there and competes in tournaments in the UK) definitely come to mind. Of course, not every game has an off-beat opening between those three, but a wide variety of curious (and even dubious) openings can be seen in the British championship tournaments. After noticing this trend among the British players, I checked other national tournaments to see if there was a distinct style that had developed there. Some regions, mainly Eastern Europe, produce so many chess players that a variety of styles are employed. However, I did notice that tournaments in Latin American countries produced many hypermodern games reminiscent of the games played in the developing stages of the era. Is there anything to be said for these trends? While I may be grasping at straws in the case of the Latin American tournaments, Britain really seems to have an "artistic" approach to the opening phase of the game.

hey guys, I am doing a blog on Yasser Seirawan's games. Check if you're interested! http://blog.chess.com/shuttlechess92/learning-from-yasser-seirawan-part-1 thanks! Any feedback would be greatly helpful as I am new to analysis.

Seems everyone has been busy this year- I know it's been quite a few months since I've analyzed any games or even been involved in chess. However, I found a very shap game from 1998. I'm not going to strain myself trying to analyze this game like I've done in the past; I doubt my ability to do so is still with me. This game features the offbeat Chigorin Defense, an under-utilized response to the Queen's Gambit. The basic opening position is this: This game follows a line known as the Modern Gambit. Both the standard line and the gambit are favorites of GM Morozevich. Anyone looking to become better acquainted with this defense is recommended to study his games.