ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024
It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.
One of the most compelling side stories of the 2017 Sinquefield Cup was the lackluster performance of defending champ Wesley So. What happened, and what can we expect from him in the upcoming World Cup?
First, let's take a step back. The following game from the Shamkir Chess / Vugar Gashimov Memorial tournament was very impressive for the maturity of the ‘squeeze’ on display, and it sets the stage for the theme I wish to discuss:
From an equal position, So kept up the pressure, and even an excellent defender like Karjakin ultimately cracked: 27...Rc7 28. Rxc7 Bxc7 29. Nc5 Bc8 30. Ba2 Nd5 31. f4 Bd6 32. Bd4 Kf7 33. Kd3 Ne7 34. Ne4 Bc7 35. f5! And So went on to win an impressive game.
This is also a perfect example of a theory of ‘being’ rather than ‘doing’ on the board — a way of conducting the whole game — as advocated by Jonathan Rowson in his brilliant book Chess for Zebras (Gambit, 2003). The stronger the player, the finer his (or her) feel for conducting a game, and especially for sensing mistakes in his own moves, while at the same time being alert for even the tiniest mistakes from one's opponents, all the while gently helping them go astray by complicating the position.
For example, in the above position, it is easy to criticise Karjakin for going down rapidly from a position in which he could have made a more tenacious defence. But consider the decisions he had to make:
To answer these questions, it is very very important that you set aside your chess engines and think for yourselves, to understand the weight of defence and criticality of the decisions we make over the chess board!
This may not sound like a universal analogy which applies to all games and varieties of positions a player may reach. For example, ‘being’ may hardly seem like a principle to follow when there is a sacrificial attack in a sharp Sicilian which will ultimately end in a checkmate! And in some sense you need to be ‘doing’ all the time over the board — calculating, attacking, sacrificing — taking action. It's true, chess is too complex to be stereotyped as being centred on a single dominant principle.
Karjakin - So, position after 11...fxe6 (reflected) | Photo: Lennart Ootes
But even in games full of ‘doing’, there will always be positions which a player calculates and then leaves aside, forming a technical assessment in which there will be work needed, more in terms of ‘being’ than ‘doing’. Rather, only the degree of action varies.
From the above principles, it is interesting to look at So’s games from the Sinquefield Cup 2017. His losses had a similar thread running through them:
The last couple of moves were repetitions — the black king being checked by the rook at e1 and f1. Unexpectedly, instead of continuing to repeat, So went into ‘active’ mode here, and played 40...Kd8? The presence of his opponent's bishops should have been a red flag.
The motif is obvious to see: black's knights are eyeing b3 and b6 and So was lured into capturing one of them by force. But what he overlooked was the power of the bishop as a long range piece. More important psychologically, he missed White’s potential counter-threat — aided by the bishop pair — in lieu of defending his pawns: 41.Be4! (Ignoring Black’s threat and creating play of his own.)
Now the crucial variations are clear: Black may threaten to win a pawn but White gains much more than that: So played 41...Nxb3 (41...Nxb6 runs into the simple 42.Bxd4 cxd4 43.Bxb7 and the a6-pawn falls too) 42.Kc3 Nd4 43.Bh2! and Black resigned, as 43...Nxb6 is met by 44.Bxb7 winning the exchange.
The first of many winning handshakes for Vachier-Lagrave and resignations for So | Photo: Lennart Ootes
More than materialism, there was a further aspect to Black’s play here; recall 'doing' instead of 'being' as the basic concept. In the above diagrammed position, if So had stuck to repeating the moves, and let his opponent play on, he would have continued defending a slightly worse endgame. But the impetus to 'do' intervened, luring him to choose 40...Ke8.
This first round game launched the two players on very different tournament trajectories as Vachier-Lagrave jumped out to a lead he never relinquished. Let us move on to the fifth round:
So goes into an active mode again here, and plays energetically to seize the initiative: 17.g4! Bg6 18.e5!
Taking advantage of the light squared bishop's pin on the knight on d7, So starts to exploit Black’s potential pawn weaknesses in the centre. An active operation is justified by the position; ‘doing’ is perfectly fine here.
18...Rb8
Black’s attack on b2-pawn is nothing more than a momentary distraction, and So would have regained a fair good advantage here with the simple 19.b3, but he was in a complete ‘doing’ mode and went ahead with 19.Bf4? and after 19...Rxb2 20.exd6 Bxd6 21.Rxe8 Qxe8 22.Bxd6 cxd6 23.Qxd6 Qe2, it was White who faced a tough defence ahead and lost the game just five moves later.
Once again, a classic case of ‘doing’ getting preference over ‘being’, but it gets complicated here. So was already in the middle of active play in the previous two moves, which made him stop to play the quiet 19.b3! and once again pursue his threats. And another minor point is, allowing 19...Rxb2 at the cost of your own activity is obviously associated with an error in calculation and judgement of the end of the variations.
Photo: Lennart Ootes
What Grandmasters Don't See Vol. 2: Discovered Attack
Many times, when a top player blunders, it is routinely described by the esoteric term “chess blindness“. In this series What Grandmasters Don‘t See, chess trainer and world class commentator Maurice Ashley strips away the myth and for the first time explains why the root of these mistakes is more often based in the psychology of human learning.
In this DVD, Volume 2 of the three part series, Ashley shows that no other standard tactical theme is more over-rated, overlooked and misunderstood than the Discovered Attack. In each example, Ashley illustrates how often players are confused by discovered attacks because the examples in the majority of chess books are poorly chosen to show how this important tactical idea really works in most practical games.
Ashley uses interesting and entertaining positions to explain the points in his trademark effervescent style, and then tests you with examples to ensure that you have learned discovered attacks thoroughoy, with a series of exercises of increasing difficulty. The material is drawn both from classic and from recent games.
Video running time: 3 hours 36 minutes
So’s failure to put up a defence in a slightly worse position in the remaining part of the game above was probably nothing to do with the position itself. It was a combination of an inability of the psyche to adjust itself to the role of a defender from being an aggressor moments earlier. When dogged defence is called for, the disenchantment which comes from blowing away a better position, can be your worst enemy. Now, once again look at the above diagrammed position, you will realise how dogged was Magnus Carlsen in his defense, and you will understand one of his biggest strengths - creating possibilities from even slightly inferior positions when it will look almost none exist but passive defence!
Now, in the context of these two games, if you look at So’s loss to Aronian in the 6th round, it all makes sense:
Two aspects of the position stand out: White’s potential to grab the centre, and Black’s knight on a5 — rim, grim, dim and all that. A cautious approach to the position could have enabled Black to play 17...Qh4 18.f3 (18.f4 doesn’t make it any difference for Black here) 18...Nc6 (Watch that knight!) followed by 18...Ne7 will simply improve Black’s position while sticking to the basics. But what happened in the game was surprising:
18...Qf5 (Not bad in itself, but not strictly conforming to the basics.) 19.Bd3 Bc6 20.f3 and now came the surprise.
19...Bxe4? Shocking, almost. This extreme example of 'doing' at the cost of ‘being’ sees Black's position going rapidly down the hill. Instead of 21...Nb7 was called for — another move which encourages ‘being’, trying to re-route the knight to a better square and letting the opponent play, after checking first if he faces any tactical threats here.
20.fxe4 Qg5 21.Rf3 and without doing much, White gained an advantage. Now the kingside is getting opened up for invasion, enough for Aronian to pursue this pleasant turn of events further.
Sometimes you can't stop the slide | Photo: Lennart Ootes
These three losses probably took a toll on Wesley So’s confidence, and he seemingly went to the other end of the spectrum in the last two games: positions where he should have taken the initiative and gone for the kill (as he did against Carlsen and Vachier-Lagrave — even when it was not justified). Instead he held back, preferring to manoeuvre, and paid the price.
22...Qf7?
So misses 22...Nf4 which tactically exploits White's weaknesses on the kingside 23.axb5 (23.gxf4 Qg6+ 24.Kh2 exf4 Watch that Rook on e3! Or, alternatively 23.Nxf4 exf4 24.Ree1 [24.gxf4 Qg6+ 25.Kh1 Rxf4] 24...bxa4 25.Qxa4 fxg3 26.fxg3 Qxc3) 23...axb5 24. Nxf4 exf4 25. Ree1 Ne5 with initiative for Black.
23.Nh2 d5 and it's a level position again but Karjakin managed to win in a long manoeuvring struggle.
The last round too had the same pattern repeating:
White’s advantage is obvious. He has just two pawn islands compared to Black’s four, and eyes the weak pawn on c4 and the fractured kingside. A careful consideration of these two factors would have enabled him to find the strongest move here:
21.Qe1! The idea behind the move would be, to attack the c4-pawn in future with a further Qe1-f1 when necessary, as well as to play Nf3-d4 followed by f2-f4, creating a path for the white queen to be shifted to the kingside to probe Black’s weaknesses. 21...Rc5 (21... Ba6 22.Qf1 keeps an eye on c4) 22.Nd4 Ba6 23.f4! and suddenly the white queen can switch over to the kingside.
Not being suitably spirited to play for an advantage due to having had an uneven tournament, So preferred 21.Qc3 aiming for just the centralisation of the queen on the next move.
21...Kg7 22.Qd4 (It was still possible to play 22. Qe1) Whiling away his advantage, the game ultimately ending in a draw in 33 moves.
Anand himself could understand Wesley So’s play in this game:
“I have been (in his situation) — You have had a really bad event, you want to really play solid (in the last game), cut your losses and get out”.
We contacted So for an interview to gain his insights on these events. He declined, but did send the following response via his adoptive mother, Lotis Key:
“Thank you for your analysis, Wesley looked it over and while it makes some sense he does not think is the essence of his problem here. When the brain refuses to cooperate it is not because it doesn't understand the fundamentals of what it is supposed to do (however true).
The brain simply does not do what it does not want to do. We were told that people in many walks of life, have had this happen to them... their minds simply stop cooperating for no apparent reason. Wesley is in good health and feeling physically well. His brain though is tired. He is tired of chess all the time day in and day out. He needs a break from the pressure of trying to be ‘amazing’.
Remember he is just a kid. I am taking him off of chess for as long as realistic so he can bike and swim, watch movies and go to the State Fair.
I am sorry we cannot meet but this day is full of duties he must fulfill and we leave tomorrow for MN. We have two weeks before World Cup and he needs to de-stress."
So's next challenge at the board should be rather easier. He's paired with Joshua Daniel Ruiz Castillo, a 2377-rated IM from Columbia in the first round of the FIDE World Cup in Tbilisi, starting Sunday, September 3rd.
