Maybe an interesting and instructional endgame to find and analyze is the game that Magnus Carlsen won as Black in the endgame by finding and successfully exploiting a weak square color complex. It is unusual to find that type of weakness in the endgame. I studied it on a video by Karsten Mueller. I will find it and post it here.
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
Sort:
Feb 27, 2014
0
#843
hi everyone. the thread won't die; as aronchuck writes, there is too much rich content on here to let it die; it will be resurrected! I've been very busy, and I should be back soon, like in a couple of days. I have some games scheduled this weekend; I lost a game at the chess club earlier this week, I haven't gone over it yet. I haven't done tactics puzzles in a while, and intend to get back to them, and to playing over master games. aronchuck, I haven't looked at the book in probably two weeks; I didn't finish it; it is top of my list, along with Chernev Logical chess. jojojopo, why don't you post a game?
Feb 28, 2014
0
#845
hi Yaroslavl. I watched the video at work ;-> (don't tell my new boss). (its good that we use aliases here because otherwise my boss could subpoena chess.com records and prove I'm watching chess vids at work!). So I watched the video. Frankly, I didn't get much out of it. The idea of two weaknesses makes good sense, but the challenge is how did Magnus force that situation, which the commentator seems to not understand also 'Magnus always seems to be able to do this, how does he do it'. Somehow, Magnus, in that game, saw weaknesses earlier on which he exploited, to get down to that two-weakness situation which traded down to a won endgame.
I think that video, while easily understood, is of a game which has a lot of prior moves which set up that situation. It would be nice to be able to set up such situation...but first I think I have to learn, for example, in endgames, king pawn endgames, king rook endgames, etc.
but first I have to finish the Lou Hays Winning Chess Tactics for Juniors, and then do it again!
I have a game tomorrow morning! I'll look for weaknesses, I'll look for my opponents idea, I'll drink lots of coffee before and I'll be wide awake. And I'll sit on my hands and I'll look deep.
Well, here is a game SBS and I played. I hope it is of your enjoyment!
@SBS: Good luck on tomorrow's game!
Good luck on tomorrow's game. Remember when you find a move always look for a better one. If you get stuck for a move. Walk away from the table even if your clock is running. Distract yourself. You will come back with a different perspective on the position and a better move.
jojojopo wrote:
@SBS: Good luck on tomorrow's game!
_______________
Prior to move 8 there are several opening principle errors. But, I will stick with concrete combinations for targeted weaknesses. After 8.Nd2 a better move than 8...exf4?! is 8...Ng4 (attacking the undefended White e pawn at e3. It is an obvious weakness because it is a pawn that can no longer be defended by another pawn.
A rather confused opening by White in this game, I think that it raises the question of what to do when your opening is countered & is unlikely to succeed... so what do I transpose to & when?
Judging by the date this game started I think SBS was working on the Stonewall Attack basics. By move 6 there is a definite Stonewall pattern & by move 8 we have a Stonewall centre with a Queenside fianchetto. If the plan was to find a more successful line for the Stonewall against Blacks Kingside fianchetto it failed after Black played 5....d6 denying White access to the key e5 square in conjunction with the blunting of the LSB's attack along the b1 – h7 diagonal by the Black Pawn structure.
As the game played out the White Queenside fianchetto became a problem & contributed to an error that helped lose the game. So maybe a quick look at fianchettoing on the Queenside is worthwhile. Most ppl learn about fianchetto from doing it on the Kingside in certain openings & many of us like the structure & the tactical play that develops from the Bishops centre pressure & long range pressure on the opposite Rook. But there is an important difference when you do it on the Queenside, there is no King to recapture with in an exchange so it cannot be treated as a mirror image of a Kingside structure …. maybe some words of wisdom from aronchuck on that.
Mar 1, 2014
0
#851
just a quick look before my game. Yes, indeed, I was at the time working on Stonewall pattern. I was white.
On another note, last night I reviewed a game I had played a few months ago, and saw a mistake very early on in the game. It was so obvious to me what I should have done, and why I did what I did. When I see an attack from the opponent I stop looking wide, I constrict my options, and think only of defense, without thinking of my offensive options.
I'm going to work very hard this upcoming game at looking wide. I'm going to ask what is my opponent's idea, and then I'm going to spend the majority of my time on looking for weaknesses, and for improving my pieces. My thinking process will be the main thing I focus on today in my upcoming game. I will post it whatever result.
Best of luck for the game. You're doing everything right & have been for a while now...... but there's so much to absorb, don't overthink it, use the KISS principle & apply the 3 Q's, all the other work you have done will help your vision, thats all you should need.
Mar 1, 2014
0
#853
I made a critical tactical error, completely changed the course of the game. It was subtle to me, I didn't realize how critical it was. I memorized the first few moves of the English, and played the opening according to my memorization. I was making my own moves from about move 7. Please analyze the error. thanks.
I think the play after 11. ... Qxe6 was inconsistent. You do the right thing in taking black's LSB out as he is a defender of the potential prime target, the pawn on d5. After that you change to attack another weakness (c7) which is easily defended and at that moment less important. If you instead play 12. Bxf6, you take another defender off and can follow up with Qf3, adding another attacker to the d4 pawn. Look for example in that line: 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. Qf3 Rad8 14. Nb5 (attacking the pawn on c7 now) and if he defends the pawn with a rook move to the 7th rank, you have the excellent 15. Bf5! and from there you put pressure along the c-file and the center.
If he takes with the queen on his 12th, I'd still play 13. Qf3, if he takes the queen, I'd take back and still play against c7 (on a quick try for lines I found some rather tactical ones), if he defends the pawn with 13. ... Rad8 a simple queen exchange follows with chances for both sides. Hope I didn't miss anything though..
Somebodysson wrote:
hi Yaroslavl. I watched the video at work ;-> (don't tell my new boss). (its good that we use aliases here because otherwise my boss could subpoena chess.com records and prove I'm watching chess vids at work!). So I watchedQ the video. Frankly, I didn't get much out of it. The idea of two weaknesses makes good sense, but the challenge is how did Magnus force that situation, which the commentator seems to not understand also 'Magnus always seems to be able to do this, how does he do it'. Somehow, Magnus, in that game, saw weaknesses earlier on which he exploited, to get down to that two-weakness situation which traded down to a won endgame.
I think that video, while easily understood, is of a game which has a lot of prior moves which set up that situation. It would be nice to be able to set up such situation...but first I think I have to learn, for example, in endgames, king pawn endgames, king rook endgames, etc.
but first I have to finish the Lou Hays Winning Chess Tactics for Juniors, and then do it again!
I have a game tomorrow morning! I'll look for weaknesses, I'll look for my opponents idea, I'll drink lots of coffee before and I'll be wide awake. And I'll sit on my hands and I'll look deep.
_______________
Magnus Carlsen played a King's Indian Attack opening with a theme of controlling the light squares. Notice also that Carlsen is using the Hypermodern Theory for controlling the center. After 9...Nxd5 White has no pieces or pawns in the center that can become targets for Black. By contrast Black has a pawn on e5 and N on d5, both occupying the center and potential targets for White. The idea of White's moves 2.d3 and 5.c3 have to do with logistics in warfare. Control first, ground that is closest to your arms, food and water. The central squares that White is establishing control over are d4 and e4 with the power of his pawns at c3 and d3. Avoiding creating any targets with his pawns and pieces that Black can target. I will add more analysis and commentary after you have viewed the video 2 times. If you have questions after that please post them and I will do my best to explain in a way that is understandable to you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RNGGrK3gU4
aronchuck wrote:
@Yaroslavl - both 8...exd4 anf 8..exf4 are stronger tham 8..Ng4. It is not just the e3 pawn that is weak but the e3 square and that can't move. Of the 3 moves exf4 is the strongest.
8...exf4 9. e4 Ng4 10. Ngf3 Ne3 11. Qe2 when 11. Nc5, 11..c5, 11..d5 and 11..Re8 are all easily winning for Black.
if 10. Qf3 in the above line then Black has both Nc5 and Ne3 stopping white castling. The position is crushing for Black.
I don't know who was playing white. But whoever it was the idea of the opening is to get your pieces out - lol. What on earth was 6.f4 all about? e5 was the best response and white is almost lost already! White is losing because he should have been developing his bits. I will analyse the game tomorrow or sometime in the next few days when I've not had a few too many whiskys ;)
________________________
aronchuck wrote:
@Yaroslavl - both 8...exd4 anf 8..exf4 are stronger tham 8..Ng4. It is not just the e3 pawn that is weak but the e3 square and that can't move. Of the 3 moves exf4 is the strongest.
8...exf4 9. e4 Ng4 10. Ngf3 Ne3 11. Qe2 when 11. Nc5, 11..c5, 11..d5 and 11..Re8 are all easily winning for Black.
if 10. Qf3 in the above line then Black has both Nc5 and Ne3 stopping white castling. The position is crushing for Black.
I don't know who was playing white. But whoever it was the idea of the opening is to get your pieces out - lol. What on earth was 6.f4 all about? e5 was the best response and white is almost lost already! White is losing because he should have been developing his bits. I will analyse the game tomorrow or sometime in the next few days when I've not had a few too many whiskys ;)
______________________
Your move sequence is exactly what Houdini recommends. I analyzed with Houdini only after using the old fashioned low tech method of analyzing the position with my brain. At the top of my priority list when analyzing and I see an advantage I also not only look for a better move but I also am looking for the move that will KILL COUNTERPLAY on the part of my opponent. I did see 8...exf4 and 8...exd4 but the variations available to White with those 2 choices gave White too much counterplay. Since we are human and not computers killing counterplay is usually our best option when faced with several moves which initially are equally good.
When I had My latest version of Houdini running on a Toshiba PC with 2 CPUs running simultaneously 50 plies deep (25 moves deep), it displayed in its analysis sequences (8...exd4, 8...exf4 and 8...Ng4.) Its Assessment for all 3 moves was -1.46 in favor of Black. It eventually after analyzing several million moves settled on 8...exf4 with an assessment of -3.26 in favor of Black. The analysis by Houdini is a move sequence of all optimal moves. I downloaded the internal analysis that Houdini was doing in order to reach that optimal move sequence. I analyzed that internal analysis and found that there were many variations where White could achieve dangerous counterplay because the position to a human being looked riddled with complications. However, analyzing the internal Houdini analysis for the 8...Ng4 option I saw the complications in the center get exchanged away and the resulting position after 25 moves left Black with almost a 1 1/2 (-1.46) pawn advantage and no complications. Given the choice between 8...exf4 and 8...Ng4, as a human being I would choose 8...Ng4. Also, I noticed that in your analysis Black plays 9...Ng4. It seems that our difference in choice of moves is close to being a move order issue.
aronchuck wrote:
Here is some advice. Chess evolved and went through many eras, Romantics, Classicists, Hyper-modernists up until the current day where all dogmas are dropped and everything is very concrete.
If you are a beginner or novice you shouldn't try and understand the games of modern day GMs yet. Why? Because they have studied the games of the past and are building their ideas on top of those. Someone said "We stand on the shoulders of giants". Unless you are familiar with the earlier ideas you will be building your chess understanding on a foundation of sand and what you take from each game will be less. Another point is that the modern day GMs opponents also have this understanding and the level of defence and preparation is at a very high level that you couldn't possibly hope to fathom out until you have done the prep work.
So what should you do? The answer is actually very simple. Study chess in the same order it evolved and then you will evolve as a player the same way as the game did. This will mean when you come round to studying modern games you will actually get something more out of them.
So what would I recommend.
1. Study a selection of Morphy games - With these you will learn that in Morphy games Development was King. His games usually follow a pattern where he gets a development advantage and then does something violent to wrap the game up. So tactics are key and you will find examples of all tactical patterns in Morphys games. There is a little more to Morphy than that though. I distinctly remember what a classy game he played against Lowenthal. Both players played really well and Lowenthal lost only because of a seemingly insignificant Qg7 instead of Qg8 where he would have remained equal. This coupled with your tactics training will take you to phase 2.
2. Steinitz developed the 7 points for evaluating a position. You should read these and understand what they are. See an earlier post by me if you are unsure what they are. You will see that development was one and you've already learned that from your Morphy study. A lot of Steinitz's games were quite experimental while he worked out his theory so the main lessons here are his eventual conclusions but also that tactical vision was very important and that Steinitz's was excellent. For example, Steinitz first thought that the King was a strong enough piece that it could go for walks in the middlegame. It was only after a few losses and near misses that we refined the idea into only getting the King active in the endgame when the threat of mate no longer exists.
3. Study the games of Capablanca. Here you will learn that in addition to the Development (which Capablanca was also fanatical about) he started coming up with new ideas. He plays the world's first Benko gambit from a Ruy Lopez! against Nimzowitsch, He showed how strong Rooks were when they got to the 7th rank. He took a lot of care on prophylaxis and preventing his opponent's plans. He showed the importance of pawn islands in many endings (fewer the better). He showed the importance of patience and he just generally had a very good feel for where the pieces belonged. I think it is fair to say he was an intuitive player. There are many more lessons you will learn but that was just a taster.
4. Study Games by Alekhine. He was the first complete player, in my view. The Alekhine of 1930-1932 was the strongest player the world had ever seen and some of his creations are wonders to behold. You will see how he infuses concrete calculation - instead of the intuition of Capablanca with Steinitz's 7 steps. Watch how in many games he outplays opponents from equal positions by methodically going through and improving his position 1 step after another - first squares, then control open files etc until his position is overwhelming. One of the best examples is a QGD against Capablanca and in this game we see the crown and the evolution of chess move forward.
5. Study the games of Botvinnik - he has so much to teach about strategic play I can't list it all. His ideas took chess beyond the principals of Steinitz and Nimzowitsch and re-infused it with half forgotten ideas like the importance of the initiative etc and many new ones. A summary of the 1950s understanding of chess can be found in Questions on Modern Chess Theory - Lipnitsky - One of Fischer's favourite books.
6. Then do Fischer – where you see the ideas and the clinical precision taken further.
7. Then do Karpov. - and again with Karpov you see the ideas refined further but his play resembles a much better version of Capablanca.
You may think I have missed out a lot of greats. I have! But I think that these players will give the foundation where you can study a load of players again. A lot of the other greats, for example Petrosian, I think are too deep for Novices to gain much out of. But perfect for the second list. By the time you have finished the first list you will probably be quite a strong player already.
The second pass through I would do
Steinitz, Lasker, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Keres, Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky and Kasparov
Then I think I have still missed out several greats worth learning from like
Reti, Bronstein, Geller, Larsen, Korchnoi, Anderssen and many more.
Then I reckon you'd be ready to start trying to comprehend what the modern GMs are doing in their games.
The problem is that this all seems so much work! But anyone wanting to get to IM level or above simply has to do this. In order to not get too overloaded I would take maybe 10-15 games of each player and ensure that each game has a valuable lesson in keeping with what that player has to teach us about the game. Make sure the game forms a fairly strong impression on you as it will then be easier to remember. I would annotate it and analyse it yourself – very important as the game will then form a deep inprint on your chess memory. Then find a good annotation from somewhere else and go through it. This work will take you several years (many years) but it will be so enjoyable it won't feel like work. Draw a conclusion from each game and ensure it fits with the existing GM annotation you've found. After you have improved go over the game again and analyse the games again. Make these games your own private school. Look up stories, personality traits of players (anything to make it more colourful and interesting) to associate with the games so it helps your brain remember them even better.
Your brain is one of your biggest enemies. It is always trying to reserve space and neurons for stuff it thinks is important – like knowing to run away from tigers etc. Adding stories of players to your little compilation of games will give some emotion. Any emotion is good (like fear of tigers!) as this will trick your brain into thinking that remembering these chess ideas is important too! The active learning you get by analysing the games yourself will help even more. Watching videos is a passive activity and you won't learn half as much from doing that. It is good entertainment but not real learning.
Above all – enjoy the experience of discovery. There are no books that do this or cover this and yet all the GMs and Ims have done this work to varying degrees. Usually the stronger the player the more they have done.
You will have to source the games yourself from Best games collections etc or from ChessBase. You can get a short cut to prepare your list of the best and most instructive games for each player to focus on from Wikipedia, chessgames.com, chess articles in various magazines, chess.com articles and videos, and best game collections.
Just writing this has made me wish I was a beginner again and discover all these chess wonders for a second time.
I am now going to do exactly that – start at the beginning, and find my 10 favourite and most instructive Morphy games and analyse them...
Yeah whatever he said
@aronchuck- regarding your recommendation of studying the old masters' games there is some merit to that idea. However, I would only recommend studying Capablanca endgames, a smattering of old games to the present in their 2 chosen openings for their opening repertoire. Before computers you had to build an opening tree by hand, and studying a lot of old games was necessary to build it. I know it took me 8 years to build an opening tree for my repertoire. Today the computer automates the building of the opening tree, but it still takes 2-3 years to become confident and handle that particular opening in a competent manner by building familiarity with the themes, move sequences, move orders, repeating tactical themes,plan(s) of attack for the middle game and transpositions at critical junctures. In other words, if you want to get your PhD inyour chosen repertoire opening and transpositions then yes by all means study the old games to the present. But, if what you want as a player is to markedly improve your play in a chosen repertoire opening then 2-3 years is a short enough time to see a very definite increase in your playing strength. By the time the players that we are giving advice to reach a level where they are facing an opponent that can trot out and old variation that has been collecting dust in the archives of master chess game history, they will be facing a lot stronger opposition and am reasonably certain that they will be able to analyze the flaw or the draw in the old continuation. But, there is no doubt that studying the evolution of an opening will certainly enhance understanding for use at very high levels of chess.
Wonderful conversation.
@aronchuk, your comment on the analysis of master games was really inspiring! I think you have nailed the point here, it has happened to me that I try to look into games of grandmasters only to find out that I don't really understand almost anything of what's going on - lol. The activity becomes like a brain grind, spending lot's of time trying and effort to understand an idea or predict a move and then finding out that things were really far from that. It's kind of exhausting and not very pleasant. But I'll take your advice on this approach, makes sense and seems to ensure that you can absorb the concepts a little at a time instead of simply drowning.
Respecting the ...exf4 debate (I have my analysis of the game ready if you want to see it now), I chose it instead of ...exd4 for a very simple reason, after ...exf4 if white wants to recapture his pawn he'll have to open the e-file and that leads to all kinds of trouble. I calculated a bit but didn't give the move much more thought, I don't know if that's faulty play or it's reasonable to settle for that in this position and play the move if you can't find anything stronger. I didn't follow with ...Ng4 because I felt somewhat unsure of what would happen next, so I continued to develop since I thought that would be beneficial too, but it was a really hard decision. I like how it looks so clear what you have to do when you see the game afterwards, but while you are playing the emotional aspect takes it's toll and makes you doubt the potential of some moves that you really wanted to play (...Ng4 in this case, it was the first move that came into my mind in that position).
@Yaroslavl, About the video I'll only say that I watched it, but honestly I feel it may be kind of too advanced for me now. I think that the little time I have to study chess is better spent on other aspects of the game right now. And I guess that it's the same for SBS (although he can speak for himself :P).
And something that is not directly related to chess, but life in general. The advice about using the emotional aspect of things to help them imprint better on your memory, is really true. It's something I knew on an intuitive level, but couldn't grasp objectively until now. I thank you personally for that, as a person that loves to teach that little piece of insight is unvaluable to me.
This seems to me to be a game where we take a step back & look at thought processes & planning. Ok, there was a tactical blunder that lead to Mate in very short order & SBS is well aware of it so we don't have to dwell on that, it happens, its Chess & we have all done it.
I haven't had time to go back over SBS's old games but I'm sure I have seen something similar when a piece is attacked. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here) I seem to remember similar situations where instead of moving, exchanging or protecting the attacked piece the threat is countered by an attack on one of the opponents pieces. There is nothing wrong with this if it is calculated out & you are sure it works, but it can be very complex. I know you are devoting a lot of effort towards studying tactics but it has yet to fully translate to OTB games. So my question is “Are you over thinking the position to a point where errors creep in?” I'm getting a weird feeling because in my good luck post I said keep it simple & don't over think it, & now I'm addressing that in my analysis. Hope I didn't put a curse on you :)
Tactics training is essential but translating it onto the board is another step. Sure patterns will imprint & eventually you will start to see them but solving a tactics puzzle is different to playing a game.
Another point is planning. When we play a specific opening there is a basic plan or strategy behind it. As the game evolves that plan may change as in this game after 7....Nc6 where Black locks in his c Pawn & deprives the d Pawn of support. When we ask Q2 “What are the weaknesses?” the answer should give us what we need to develop a plan. In this case the d5 Pawn becomes a target. So after asking Q2 maybe its a good idea to follow up with “How do I exploit the weakness?”
I'm just throwing this into the mix at the moment, what works for one may not work for another.
Finally back to my favourite Chess Lecturer Yasser Seirawan. Check out his video on Back Rank Mates, its very instructive & works for both delivering them & defending against them. Also his lecture on the Minority Attack gives a good illustration of the technique mentioned by aronchuck in an earlier post.
I'm still here, working on the English opening, just no games to post at the moment. I'll see what I can come up with over the next day or 2