Seeing the whole board

by Jonathan Speelman
6/18/2023 – When a strong player looks at a position (in a real game of chess, not a problem) he or she will automatically see it not as a random collection of pieces but as a series of chunks — patterns that are recognisable and have known features. And the patterns will also generate ideas of moves which may be profitable. Curiously, sometimes apparently insignificant changes can be crucial, and today I’m focussing on an instance of this phenomenon. | Pictured: Mikhail Tal
Your personal chess trainer. Your toughest opponent. Your strongest ally.
FRITZ 20 is more than just a chess engine – it is a training revolution for ambitious players and professionals. Whether you are taking your first steps into the world of serious chess training, or already playing at tournament level, FRITZ 20 will help you train more efficiently, intelligently and individually than ever before. 

(Apparently) insignificant changes

[Note that Jon Speelman also looks at the content of the article in video format, here embedded at the end of the article.]

Mikhail TalWhen a strong player looks at a position (in a real game of chess, not a problem) he or she will automatically see it not as a random collection of pieces but as a series of chunks — patterns that are recognisable and have known features. These will knit together to create some sort of assessment, though if it’s messy enough you may have explicitly to count the pieces to establish the material balance. And the patterns will also generate ideas of moves which may be profitable.

Normally some patterns will be very sharp in your mind, but some may be a little fuzzy. And this led to an incident years ago at the Taxco Interzonal of 1985 in Mexico (which I played in) when Misha Tal adjourned a game against one of the tail-enders and duly won it. He then started analysing with his opponent, showing him a better defence before it became clear that the queenside pawns — which were more or less irrelevant — had been set up incorrectly. His opponent insisted that they replay and Tal simply accepted this (rather than referring it to an Appeals Committee which would very likely have taken his side), before winning the game a second time a different way — though apparently, according to an article I’ve just found, not till 3am!

The exact queenside wasn’t important in this instance (apart from triggering the incident), but sometimes apparently insignificant changes can be crucial, and today I’m focussing on an instance of this with a position which was kindly shown to me by somebody I teach. He found it in Secrets of Practical Play by John Nunn and as I'm writing this (I'm sure I have it on my shelves but couldn’t find it immediately) has sent me a scan of John’s excellent analysis, which predates what I rediscovered by a decade and a half.

This position has occurred at least twice, in Kuzmin v Sveshnikov (Moscow 1973) and also Busquets v Mortazavi (San Mateo 1994).

There are several interesting questions, and perhaps these three are most pertinent:

  1. What is the obvious thing to look at first, given the white bishops on d3 and d4, and why doesn’t it work?
  2. How can White prepare the above continuation with an introductory move?
  3. (v difficult) Why in the world would it make a difference if the a-pawn were on a3 rather than a2?
  4. We can also add: (much easier) What happens if we take the a2-pawn off the board?

It would be worthwhile if you have the time and inclination to try to solve some of these yourself if you’re a pretty strong player or with computer assistance (though preferably not just hanging on the magical silicon’s coat tails).

The full analysis appears in the game file, and I’ve also talked about it in the video version, but we can summarise as follows:

  1. The immediate double bishop sacrifice doesn’t work because Black can put his king on h6 and interfere with the white attack by playing Nxf4 at a critical moment.
  2. White therefore plays the deflection 16.Nb6!. In the two games I know of, Black took with 16...Nxb6 after which the double bishop sacrifice works like clockwork.

But Black can also try ...Rb8 or ...Ra7 (both given by John Nunn) which eventually lose to a sequence in which White wins the black queen and is then able to fork king and rook.

Instead, ...Bb7 avoids this (there’s now no fork at the end if White sacrifices the bishops) but White can take the exchange which should be decisive. And ...Bxc5 is another way to jettison the exchange, which should also lose eventually.

  1. If the a-pawn is on a3, then this weakens the b3-square and in the line after Nb6 Rb8 Black has the defence Rb8-b3 at a crucial moment to prevent Rh3 mate. White can win this rook with Qh3+ followed by Rxb3, but it turns out that then Black can defend and should even be winning
  2. If there’s no a-pawn, then White can play the double bishop sacrifice immediately and then Ra3 rather than Rf3, after which the ...Nxf4 defence doesn’t work at all.

A single square makes all the difference

Continuing from this, I’ve got a couple more examples in which moving a pawn a single square changes the assessment.

How does it change the position if the h pawn is on h3 rather than h2?

More examples

Of course, there are lots of examples in which a combination ends and you have to assess the resultant endgame. This pair is fairly trivial but does illustrate the point.

To finish, a very pretty study by the great Leonid Kubbel which I’ve been sharing recently with anybody who will listen:

Select an entry from the list to switch between games

Let us learn together how to find the best spot for the queen in the early middlegame, how to navigate this piece around the board, how to time the queen attack, how to decide whether to exchange it or not, and much more!

Links

Topics: Jon Speelman's Agony Column
Jonathan Speelman, born in 1956, studied mathematics but became a professional chess player in 1977. He was a member of the English Olympic team from 1980–2006 and three times British Champion. He played twice in Candidates Tournaments, reaching the semi-final in 1989. He twice seconded a World Championship challenger: Nigel Short and then Viswanathan Anand against Garry Kasparov in London 1993 and New York 1995.