I have been notoriously inconsistent with the second part of any blog I divide into parts. My whimsical nature means new fancies and a new indentured servitude to this moment’s fashions. Nabokov told us, “Existence is a series of footnotes to a vast, obscure, unfinished masterpiece.” Still I know it’s a bit of a cop out and a shame when a part deux never materializes. This one’s for my grandfather, for whom the Korean War was just a giant after party – with some killing thrown in ; we think he’d have gone after any belief that had “ism” as a suffix…

Here’s a game I played online at the usual time control of Game 30. It features another sideline to the Albin Countergambit. This time I made my emphasis for the game “challenging beliefs”. I did my best to try nothing but concrete evaluations. A regular Kasparov!

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. e3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 dxe3 7. fxe3 Qe7 {
The problem with this move is that white can get in Nc3 instead of Nd2. Nd2 is
an important concession for black (if the queen captures on d2 it will have to
move again and cost white time). Although pressure on the e5 pawn is the plan,
and Qe7 is called for, move order is still important.} (7… Bxd2+ 8. Nbxd2 Nh6
9. Qb3 {Knights are very good in these types of structures. I want to play Bg4
if white allows it. It is not as easy to defend the pawns with a bishop as it
is to attack them with the knight. I can always play Ng8-e7-g6 if white plays
h3. Eventually the e5 pawn will fall. This is mostly on account of a)
potential rook pressure along the e-file and b) the lack of defensive help
from white’s knight.}) 8. Be2 Be6 {I decided to treat this position like an
isolani. This was nomothetical then, to put this bishop here. It turned out to
be correct, but of course I can’t yet bank on f5 an d5 weaknesses. I’ll get a
beautiful weak square on d4 if white advances his other pawn. It will also be
fixed.} 9. Bxb4 Qxb4+ 10. Nc3 Rd8 (10… Qxb2 {I rejected this because I’m two
moves from castling, I’ll be obliged to make a few hard-to-find defensive
moves to secure my position, which may come at the cost of more development.
The b pawn seems like a true white elephant. As far as concrete variations I
didn’t get very far. The move deserved consideration. Some of these pawn grabs
are traps and some are not. Some patterns stick in your memory, black losing
his queen in Sicilian variants, but a lot of times it pays to be frisky.}) 11.
Qc2 {I was frightened of Qb3. My hope of gaining an advantage was saved the original source. Qb3
is a crusher because I lose a move. I don’t like the capture for black because
my queenside pawns would become weak along an open file. If I recapture then
my knight is no longer targeting e5.} Nh6 {!} 12. O-O Ng4 {? White’s queen can
roost on e4 and be nigh unassailable.} 13. Qc1 Ngxe5 14. Ng5 O-O {? I wanted
the knights in this position. This is incorrect. White’s bishop will be quite
good. A queen trade is in the offing, due to their proximity, and then I’ll be
denied the advantage of a queen with the knight pair.} 15. Qc2 g6 16. Nxe6 fxe6
17. b3 {The game becomes difficult from here on out. Playing attack and
defense simultaneously is perhaps the last trick a chess player learns.
There’s precious little shorthand, and general principles are apt to lead the
unitiiated into an unbalanced and inappropriate balance of forces in an area.
I’m still not very good when under the gun. The signals that tell GMs about
piece distribution and the “value of time” are still invisible.} Rd7 18. Rxf8+
Qxf8 19. Rf1 {This position is equal. I sensed this. I tried to make a move
that would not wreck my position. Besides the plan to attack the base of
white’s pawn chain I’m fresh out of ideas. In four moves white’s knight can
get to f6 and the first player will be better for black’s inactivity.} Qc5 20.
Qe4 Qb4 21. Nd1 Rd2 22. Qf4 Rxe2 {A blunder. Unfortunate for white since I
believe his position was easier to play. White also has some concrete ideas
where as I had been trying to muster up the courage to take the a-pawn.} 23.
Nf2 Qf8 24. Qg3 Qc5 25. Kh1 Qxe3 26. Qh4 Kg7 {Missed Re1!. Due to heuristics I
thought I’d generate favorable tactics by securing my king and protecting e6
while involving the c6-knight somehow. This meant elaborate pawn moves and was
really quite silly. It came to me more naturally than Re1.} 27. Nd1 g5 28. Qh5
Qd2 29. Qxg5+ Qxg5 {Whew, thank God for blunders!} 0-1

“Nomothetical” is an adjective used to describe an approach given to the formation of universal laws. “Idiographic” is its antonym, that is an approach revolving around individual cases. Related to chess you might ask, “Why am I losing so often?” or, more narrowly, “What caused me to lose this last game? What do you suppose are the pros and cons of these diametrical approaches? I’ll analyze the following game from both points of view. It’s not very deep, or very well played, but presents an opportunity for metacognition. I am black in a Game 30. My opponent is a 1480 and I am a 1560 on this particular server

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. e4 Nge7 6. Bd3 Ng6 7. O-O Ngxe5 8.
Nxe5 Nxe5 9. f4 Nxd3 10. Qxd3 Bc5 11. Nd2 O-O 12. f5 Bd6 13. Nf3 c5 14. e5 Bc7
15. f6 gxf6 16. exf6 Qxf6 17. Ng5 Qg7 18. Bd2 Qg6 19. Qf3 Be6 20. Qxb7 Bd6 21.
b3 f5 22. Qc6 Bxc4 23. Qf3 Bxf1 24. Rxf1 Kh8 25. Qd5 Rf6 26. Qxa8+ 1-0

The Opening

Nomothetical: I play this opening although it’s not very highly regarded. The road to equality is very difficult. Although I know the Cambridge Springs Defense to the Queen’s Gambit Declined I often refuse to play it, so annoyed am I by the QG Exchange that takes me far afield. As a law I play openings that I enjoy; perhaps I have a good game with them once in a while and that’s what I remember.

Idiographic: I can’t blame the opening. I equalized on move five and was better shortly thereafter. White’s Bd3 was an early inaccuracy, no doubt caused by his unfamiliarity with my offbeat try.

Nomothetical: I can’t presume they’ll make an opening error. In this case white picked the e4 thrust, but it’s regarded as a non-threatening idea. Also by playing the Albin, which I won’t play in a longer time control, I’m being extremely inefficient with my play. Games should reinforce my study and vice versa.

Before Black’s Seventh Move

Nomothetical approach: I didn’t realize I was ready for a very good game. I knew I should be okay, but didn’t pause to figure out how. I do this a lot. I will know an opening’s principles and then “forget” to look for better responses after my opponent deviates. I need to start a) looking for great moves instead of good moves and b) ensuring that all forced moves are calculated c) ensure that I understand who is better or worse in a given position. I can assume that when playing a sideline to a sideline the player should be worse, objectively.

Idiographic: I’m not sure if the last thing can bear the stamp of law. I don’t have a comprehensive understanding of openings so it’s hard to say. In some examples like this one, it could have benefited me. In other cases I may be chasing a chimera and trying too hard to refute something beyond my ken. I may stray, or waste valuable time. In this game my time trouble caused me to blunder. I certainly would not have found 7…Be7 no matter what. I should have seen that the variation with the knight exchange is relatively equal (a passed pawn and a bishop pair versus a slight lead in development), and been happy. That’s what I did. Time saved for later will allow me to make moves that truly matter.

In part two I’ll evaluate the rest of the game, as well as the right approach to wins and losses.

After reading the revolutionary “How to Win Chess Almost Every Time” on Wikihow I’m reduced to tears dropping down upon a keyboard. I’ve been writing to you for six months, on chess topics ranging from the Stygian to the sunny, but I still don’t have you winning nearly always. I promise to turn over a new leaf soon! You can look forward to such illustrious columns from me as “Proceeding When your Opponent Also Knows how to Win Almost Every Time.” Won’t you stay tuned for my reflection piece, “Why are you Settling for Winning Half your Games? I think that the columns will be a bit derivative because everything needed to be said is already on that one page, but I’ll press on if I can.

I’d like to apologize to a necessarily angry readership. You should’ve expected more. Never once did I tell you to move your pieces forward. Sometimes the only advice you need is simple common sense! It’s all easier than studying the Najdorf too.

Perhaps you would even be right to question my fitness as a writer of a chess column. After all, I don’t even win more than half of the time against players of equal strength. To think that these writers have avoided arbitrary considerations and codified the Philosopher’s Stone of chess…”Go about as a rule of thumb, 60% aggression and 40% defending.” What have I been doing but dabbling?

Reading this piece gave me some cold comfort despite the abrupt end to the search for answers in chess, and my own guilt at not having forecast it. The flamboyant talent of Nakamura and Carlsen has heretofore been wasted, many contests decided by threefold-repetition as they refused to move pieces forward; we should see some more exciting contests now that strategic principles are available. I’m not the only one who has fallen down on the job either. Writers like Jacob Aagaard have been penning useless books on the Queen’s Indian; everyone now knows that it’s ridiculous and unsound to settle for a backward move like e6 in your opening. Support groups for chess players exist if you’re distraught about the sudden invalidity of defenses such as the French. There is help!

The only question I have is that if the article makes you win nearly always then why do the authors advise you to practice?

Isaac Newton accomplished quite a bit. He was an inventor, though of course no one truly needs some of the more highbrow stuff – either this Calculus, or the one with numbers and symbols. He was also a theoretician who happened upon gravity. Newton is supposed to have had one of the highest IQs, by inference since they didn’t have such tests in the 17th century, even among geniuses. He wrote theological works and found time to study optics. It’s a luminous CV, but one thing he couldn’t do was play chess.

There is record of him owning a board, but no evidence exists of his game scores. I surmised the other day I could “wipe the board with him” and set out to prove it. Of course he’s quite dead, so a human being had to play as Isaac.

“Isacc” agreed to calculate variations well, but without a conscious plan. A genius unfamiliar to chess but possessing formidable analytic skills might play this way. Isaac agreed on forgoing any positional considerations not noted down in literature extant to Newton. His technical endgame technique would be purposefully hideous and we decided that Newton, cagey fellow, would play a random opening to try to get his more modern opponent away from a theoretical struggle. Here is how the old coot fared. He has black in a Game in 30.

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. f3 {I’m trying to convert this Pirc into a Saemisch
King’s Indian. Black can play the lines of the Austrian Attack, this has some
similarities, without issue since white’s f4 will take two moves. F3 attempts
to “strongpoint” the e4 square.} g6 4. c4 Bg7 {They didn’t really fianchetto
bishops back then, nor did they have Indian Defenses. Of course, without
mixing it up a little an older player would be lost in a theoretical jungle
against even an average tournament player.} 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Nge2 e5 8.
d5 Ne7 9. O-O Nd7 {Perhaps better for white is just to develop and take the
dark squares. He’s solid and has a spatial advantage. He’s proven what he
needed to out of the opening.} 10. b4 a5 11. bxa5 {B5 would be better because
I can control the hole on c5 thanks to my queen. That knight on c3 isn’t going
anywhere, anyhow.} Rxa5 12. Nb5 Nc5 13. Bc2 c6 14. dxc6 bxc6 {Isaac gave me a
preponderance of pieces in my area of attack. Let’s see if he can deny me the
space I need for my plans.} 15. Qxd6 cxb5 16. Qxc5 {This pawn sacrifice is
quite exceptional and enough to make black slightly better. Not bad for a
human computer.} bxc4 17. Qxc4 Qb6+ 18. Rf2 Ba6 19. Qb3 Rb5 20. Qa3 Rc8 {This
is quite a critical section of the game. Black is under no threat, and I like
his practical chances. Unfortunately Newton doesn’t know how to optimize his
piece placement.} 21. Be3 Qb7 22. Bd3 {Black is now threading a fine line
between activity and chaos in the ranks.} Bf8 23. Bxb5 Bxb5 24. Bc5 {Not as
good as the simple Qc2 which breaks one pin and engages another. I was in love
with the a3-f8 diagonal but it’s time to change plans.} Nc6 25. Bxf8 Ra8 26.
Qb3 Kxf8 27. a4 Qa7 28. Qxb5 1-0

Sorry old boy. We might not do a lot in the world today, but we did build a society where mediocrity can flourish. Take that back to the 17th century with you.

The United States Chess Federation’s rating system has built-in rating floors. These prevent sandbagging, intentionally dropping your rating to play against lower-rated opposition, and also help preserve chess dignity. Without floors you could jeopardize a rating you worked your whole life to build.

My chess rating has dropped precipitously in the past few months and I’m nearly at my floor. At this proverbial fork in the road I can either take a break, I am taking up a new combat sport and trying to learn the piano anyway, or I can have some fun. I choose the latter.  I will be venturing The Vulture as black (as white I will be launching my f-pawn forward one square in what is known as the Barnes Opening). You may be asking why someone who wants to rehabilitate his game would reject generations of accumulated theory. Let me tell you why I will place my scant remaining respectability to 1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. c4 Ne4?!

I am interested in rehabilitating my ability to work at problems I face over the board. Moving from the specific to the general for a moment I should mention the will to find the best move must also be improved. I plan to be tied down in a Gordian Knot of hanging material, shuttered knights, and an insecure king. There will be no far-flung hope for a draw, not with the amateurish undermining of my game without rhyme or reason. I will finally be forced to look for initiative and lose my penchant for passivity. That is one thing keeping me in the ratings cellar.

Chess is wonderful. There is no method which can hide your true strength. When you sing, chances are your friends tell you that you’re a regular nightingale. When you draw, well-meaning loved ones say “I just love impressionism!” to your badly-rendered portraits. Chess is a form of art which suffers no delusions. Much unmasked I must try the radical to improve.

The Vulture is a cruel creature elegantly adapted to a grisly job. Ever wonder why the bird is bald? It’s to keep clean when he’s snacking on the dearly departed. Feathers would require constant cleaning. The Benoni wannabe is every bit like its namesake in its stark rejection of formalism. The wizened bird knows one thing: notions of decorum must occasionally give way.

I’m not sure if Whose Line is it Anyway? is featured on British television but it’s worth finding some archived footage of the American version starring Colin Mochrie. You gave us  The Office so it’s the least we can do. Sometimes I feel I’m improvising when I’m playing chess. I play combinations and I’m hopeful, but, much like an impromptu gag with a rubber chicken, count on the unexpected happening. The results of my failed tactic late in this game sure had unforeseen consequences.

It is a game I played on Chess.com. It demonstrates some of the problems that face a setup featuring bishops both fianchettoed. It’s possible to fall into passivity early if you cannot pry open one good diagonal. I used the shaky Four Pawns Attack against the formation since it at least provides white great space. The onus is on the defender to prove the instability of the attacker’s central formation.

1. e4 g6 2. d4 b6 3. c4 Bb7 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. f4 e6 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. Be2 d6 8. O-O
Nbc6 9. e5 (9. d5 {The crux of this move is that Ng5 is able to punish the
weak e6 pawn if the f pawn recaptures. Thus exd is virtually forced and white
gets a great position.} exd5 10. cxd5 {The queen’s knight has no useful square.
}) 9… dxe5 10. fxe5 Nf5 11. Bg5 Qd7 12. d5 Nxe5 13. dxe6 Qxe6 14. Nb5 {I was
concerned about Qc6. This consolidating move stops the threat of the fork.
This plagued black for some time.} Nxf3+ 15. Bxf3 Bxf3 {?} 16. Qxf3 {? I
evaluated Nxc7 several moves deep but did not recognize it as an effective try.
I did see that Kf8 was forced after Nxc6, but I missed the fact that I can
recapture black’s queen with check. It’s a simple but important geometric
pattern.} (16. Nxc7+ Kf8) 16… O-O 17. Nxc7 Qxc4 18. Nxa8 Bxb2 19. Rab1 Nd4 {
Sometimes concrete analysis is the only way to find the right move. Qb7 looks
so ugly but it’s the only try that wins directly. What is the queen to do
there besides defend the wayward knight? It also lets black off the hook with
his f7 weakness. I am flummoxed here.} 20. Qf2 (20. Qb7 {With the idea of
extracting the piece and making sure white’s queen doesn’t get overburdened.})
20… Ne2+ 21. Kh1 Bd4 22. Qf3 Qxa2 {I commented during the game that Rbe1 was
a better try, and certainly safer than the text. Once the b-rook punches its
ticket to the 7th rank white is doing well.} 23. Nc7 (23. Rb3 {Looking at …
Rc8 and then Rb3!? on I am proud of this move although it’s objectively not
that fantastic. I chop a lot of wood and try to keep the game rather stable.
Once in a great while I sense an opportunity to do something cool with my guys.
I was not at all confident. As it turns out, I foresaw little of the variation
that I ended up getting in the game. Chess is a game of luck indeed.}) 23…
Rc8 {Nd5 was accurate and Rbe1 is still winning here.} 24. Rb3 Rxc7 25. Qa8+ {
? Move order is everything! I needed to stop the king from running.} (25. Bh6
Qa6 26. Rd3 {Gradually increasing the pressure until black cracks. With so
many loose pieces the game must be close to a close here.}) 25… Kg7 26. Rh3 {
H5 scared the dickens out of me. It is the correct defense.} (26. Bh6+ {A neat
try that I dismissed because I did not think I could force a mate. It turns
out I was correct in one line and not the other.} Kxh6 27. Qf8+ Kh5 (27… Kg5
28. Rh3 h5 29. Qd8+ f6 30. Qxc7 {Anything can happen! How’s that for expert
analysis? Hey, maybe you should upgrade to the premium membership!}) 28. Rh3+
Kg4 29. Rh4+ Kxh4 30. Qh6+ Kg4 31. h3+ {Good luck seeing this! I certainly
didn’t}) 26… Rc2 (26… h5 27. Qd8 {Everything is aimed at f6} Qc4 28. Bf6+
Bxf6 29. Qxf6+ Kh7 30. Rxh5+ gxh5 31. Qf5+ Kg8 32. Qg5+ Kf8 33. Qd8+ Kg7 {
Perpetual check!}) 27. Bh6# {A sad way to end a hard-fought game. I wanted to
keep playing.} 1-0