Jon Speelman: Agony Column #5

by ChessBase
6/8/2016 – Computer engines generate thousands and hundreds of thousands moves per second. The majority of these moves are utter nonsense but the sheer numbers help the machine to play strong chess. The move-generator of the human mind is less well-tuned and much more limited but also finds remarkable moves. As Jon Speelman illustrates in his Agony Colum #5.
Winning starts with what you know
The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.

Agony Column #5 June 8th 2016

This week's pair of games come from a player at the higher end of my spectrum: Frank Van Tellingen who is rated in the 2200s. A thirty-eight-year-old German teacher who lives in The Hague. Mr Van Tellingen studied German and Philosophy, venerates Misha Tal and Wittgenstein, enjoys playing the guitar, is married and has two young children.

After playing a game, it's normal nowadays to use a chess engine to check it. The important thing is not to follow the great silicon guru slavishly – though of course if it uncovers something huge you can't deny it – but to test the ideas you had during the game, or at least as much as you can remember.

Mr Van Tellingen has done this very well, quite rightly not taking too much notice of what Fritz has to say and I've incorporated a number of his original notes marked as FVT.

We start with Agony, in which he got a decent position from the opening, drifted somewhat, ended up worse but fighting after a melee, and then suddenly had a hallucination which turned a probably defensible position into one where he was a queen down!

 
New ...
Open...
Share...
Layout...
Flip Board
Settings
MoveNResultEloPlayers
Replay and check the LiveBook here
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Nbd7 8.Qe2 FVT "Here I thought: aha, someone who doesn't know "his Najdorf" and was looking forward to an easy game." JS: Yes, Qe2 is slow. In this line, ... Nxc5xb3 threatens to blunt White's play so he must react quickly. It was a key battleground in the Kasparov v Short world championship match in London 1993. Nigel played 8.f4 three times and all three games were drawn but Kasparov was in terrible danger before escaping in the latter two.. Nc5 9.Bg5 Be7 10.0-0-0
10...Nxb3+ FVT: Till today I cannot understand why I did not play Nfxe4!. I saw and planned the move and I guess something with Nf5 scared me but I cannot even remember what exactly. JS: Indeed Nfxe4 equalises easily. 10...Nfxe4 11.Bxe7 11.Nxe4 Bxg5+ 12.Kb1 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 0-0 is simply better for Black 11...Nxc3 12.Bxd8 Nxe2+ 13.Nxe2 Kxd8 14.Rxd6+ Ke7 15.Rhd1 Bd7 and Black is extremely comfortable 10...Qc7 was also sensible if Black doesn't want to release the tension with Nfxe4. In general you don't want to play Nxb3 until you have to - but of course you have to check that Bd5 isn't an issue while the bishop remains on the board. 11.axb3 Qa5?! Mr Van Tellingen was very critical of this move but it's far from ridiculous, and there is a tendency when you lose a game to look for mistakes everywhere. Nevertheless, I can see his point. At this stage Black should be deciding where to put his king. Castling short is possible but a bit hubristic so for safety's sake castling queenside looks sensible and 11...Qc7 12.f4 Bd7 13.Kb1 Bc6 is the solid way to play. Engines then flag up 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nd5 Bxd5 16.exd5 e5 17.Nf3 but this is very far from disastrous for Black. 12.f4 Bd7 13.Kb1
13...h6 Rejecting long castling but for the wrong reason. FVT: Originally I intended to play 13...0-0-0 but after 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nd5 16.Nxd5 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Rhf1 which is why Black rejected 0-0-0 is a little uncomfortable but far from terrible. 16...Bxg5 17.b4 Qxd5 the move 18.c4 which I did not even consider, simply wins. JS: Had Black not considered 17.b4 it would have been easy to miss this line completely (at least at the board before he consulted Fritz.) But in his calculations Black here looked at 18.Nf3 - and in a melee like this you should at least briefly consider the effect of any attack on the queen and indeed any check. 14.Bh4 g5?! Logical after his previous move and a good idea in many Sicilian lines but here Black is not yet fully developed and, moreover, Black exchanged a knight which would have liked to go to e5 against a white bishop. 15.fxg5?! 15.Be1! gxf4 16.Nd5 Qd8 17.Nxe7 Qxe7 18.e5 is really nasty because the black squares are caving in. 18.Bh4 e5 15...hxg5 16.b4 FVT: This took me by surprise, although I saw it coming - however, only after I had already played 14...g5? Qxb4 17.Bxg5 Rc8 18.Qf1
18...Ng4? FVT: Based on a miscalculation JS: 18...Ng8 19.Bxe7 Nxe7 20.Qf6 Rh7 is obviously much better for White but Black can at least try to fight. 19.Bxe7 Rxc3 20.Bxd6 Qxd6 21.Nf5 Qb4 22.Nd6+ Kd8 23.Nxf7+ Kc8 24.Qe1! FVT: I completely missed that one. I only looked at 24. Nxh8?? Rxc2! winning, although it cannot really be surprising White has a good move in a good position. Rf8
25.Qxc3+? Mr Van Tellingen doesn't comment on this but it's a very serious mistake. 25.Rd3 Rb3 26.Nd6+ Kc7 27.cxb3 Qxe1+ 28.Rxe1 is completely winning 25...Qxc3 26.Nd6+ Kc7 27.bxc3 Nf2 28.e5!? 28.Rhf1 Nxd1 29.Rxf8 Nxc3+! 29...Kxd6? is the line Mr Van Tellingen gave but here Black loses at once since after 30.Rf3 the knight is trapped. 30.Kb2 Na4+ Saves the black knight and allows Black to take the white knight with ...Kxd6. But White's kingside pawns are enormously dangerous and so White still looks much better, for example 31.Kc1 Kxd6 32.Rg8! with the idea to counter 33. Ke7 with 33...Rg7+, which prevents the king from approaching in time. Bc6 33.h4 Ke7 34.h5 Kf7 35.Rg4 Nc5 36.h6 Bxe4 37.Rg7+ Kf6 38.Rc7 b6 39.h7 should be winning I imagine 28...Nxh1 29.Rxh1 Rf2 30.h4 Rxg2 31.h5 Ba4 FVT: Now it should have been a draw, but I was hoping to get a chance to win and lost objectivity. JS: In fact White can win the bishop for the h-pawn and will still be much better. 32.Ka1 32.h6 Bxc2+ 33.Kc1 Bh7 34.Ne8+ Kc6 35.Nf6 Bg6 36.h7 Bxh7 37.Rxh7 Re2 38.Rh5 I imagine this is winning though White certainly would still have to work hard. 32...Bxc2 33.Ne8+ Kc6 34.Nf6 Kc5 35.Rh4 a5 36.h6 a4?! 36...b5 37.h7 Bxh7 38.Nxh7 38.Rxh7 Kc4 38...Kd5 and Black should be able to eliminate the pawns and survive. 37.h7
37...a3?? 1 FVT: Horrible. I was assuming that black was threatening mate. 37...Bxh7 38.Rxh7 Kc4 JS: still gave very reasonable drawing chances. 38.h8Q FVT: (not that there is anything to justify, but the "brilliant" trick was: 38.Rh1 I had mistakenly thought this was forced. Bb3 39.h8Q Ra2+ 40.Kb1 Rb2+ 41.Kc1 Rc2+ 42.Kd1 White has to allow the discovered check to avoid a draw. Rh2+ 43.Ke1 Rxh8 44.Rxh8 a2 45.Ra8 and somehow I had thought that Black here would win with 45...Ba4, (in my calculations I must have slipped in the nonsensical Nd7+ Kb5 somewhere) but it seems in this position Black would be lucky to escape with a draw after b5 In fact, this looks like an interesting position for a study. .JS: 45...b5 indeed does seem to draw. The main point of the latter half of this game though is the need to maintain objectivity. Black believed that he was threatening mate when he patently wasn't - which is an extreme but far from unique or even that unusual reaction to the extreme strain that arises as the end of a game approaches. 1–0
  • Start an analysis engine:
  • Try maximizing the board:
  • Use the four cursor keys to replay the game. Make moves to analyse yourself.
  • Press Ctrl-B to rotate the board.
  • Drag the split bars between window panes.
  • Download&Clip PGN/GIF/FEN/QR Codes. Share the game.
  • Games viewed here will automatically be stored in your cloud clipboard (if you are logged in). Use the cloud clipboard also in ChessBase.
  • Create an account to access the games cloud.
WhiteEloWBlackEloBResYearECOEventRnd
Van den Bos,J2067Van Tellingen,F22491–02015B86KNSB Competitie 2e klasse 2A9

In his second "Ecstatic " game Mr Van Tellingen played extremely well positionally though I have at some points had issue with his "move generator" which wasn't firing on all cylinders in all the variations he calculated.

 
New ...
Open...
Share...
Layout...
Flip Board
Settings
MoveNResultEloPlayers
Replay and check the LiveBook here
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Bg4 FVT: The only thing I could remember from my theoretical occupation with this line that this was inaccurate. A few years ago I had played 8.c3 in this position and had won quickly, but from that game I vaguely remembered that after 8.c4 Nxd4 is not possible because White wins with 9.Bxe4. JS: 7..Bg4 is the second most common move after 7...Be7 but has hardly been played in top games though Anatoly Karpov tried it three times against Garry Kasparov in their first epic match - all three games ending in a draw. 7...Be7 8.c4 Nb4 Mr Van Tellingen didn't expect this and indeed 8...Nf6 is normal 9.cxd5 FVT: This seemed to be the logical way to punish Black. However, in my database White almost exclusively played 9.Be2 as though on autopilot. 9.Be2 Be7 10.Nc3 0-0 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.cxd5 Qxd5 9...Nxd3 10.Qxd3 Nd6 11.Bf4 FVT: How to keep the king in the middle? I could not find a convincing way to do this, so I tried to get a structural advantage. Be7
12.Bxd6!? A very interesting decision: Whites gives the two bishops for the initiative. Qxd6 12...cxd6 13.Re1 0-0 14.Qe4 Bxf3 15.Qxe7 Qb6! is a nice trick that nearly equalises though White is still slightly better after 15...Bxd5 16.Nc3 Qxe7 16...Be6 17.Qxb7 Rb8 18.Qxa7 Rxb2 is a reasonable way to play for a draw 17.Rxe7 Bc6 18.d5 Rfe8 19.Rc7 FVT: Was the nice trick I saw when playing 11.Bf4 JS: This is a very nice line but it's not too surprising that Black can improve in several ways. 16.Qe3! Bxd5 16...Qxb2 17.Qc3 Qxc3 18.Nxc3 Rfc8 19.Rac1 Bg4 20.Ne4 gives White an edge 17.Nc3 Qc6 18.Qg5 Bc4 13.Ne5 Bd7 FVT: Forced in view of Qb5+ JS: I more or less agree with this since it's hard to predict that 13...Bc8 14.Qb5+ Bd7 15.Qxb7 0-0 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Qc6 Qxc6 18.dxc6 Rab8 19.b3 Rfd8 20.Nc3 Bf6 gives Black reasonable chances to hold 14.Nc3 0-0 15.Rfe1 Bd8 FVT: It is not so easy to find a plan in this position. White has an extra pawn, but black has no real weaknesses. But his pieces are not cooperating well. Black to move could improve the position of the bishop on Bd7 with ...f6 and ...Be8-g6. I tried to counter this idea. 16.Qf3 16.Re2 FVT: was another option. I saw a trick, but I also thought that it did not work. Be8 16...b5? 17.Rae1 b4 18.Ne4 Qxd5 19.Qf3 Kh8? 19...Qxd4 20.Qf4 Qd5 21.Rd2 wins a piece, and had I seen this line during the game, I might have tried 16.Re2. however, 19...Be6! is a reasonable defence. JS: I very much like the amount of calculation that Mr Van Tellingen is doing during the game but (like all of us up to my current pay grade and beyond) it's hard to be accurate in the welter of variations and White's move generator is sometimes failing to deliver. 20.Nf6‼ FVT: This was the trick I saw during the game. However, I thought Black would simply play 19...Qxd4 instead of 19...Kh8, after which it seems that 20.Qf4! wins the house. Nevertheless, the plan with 16....b5 and 17...b4 seems to be a bit to ridiculous and it is unlikely Black would really go for this. Qxf3 21.Nxf7+ Rxf7 22.Re8+ Bxe8 23.Rxe8+ Rf8 24.Rxf8# 17.Rae1 f6 18.Nc4 Qd7 19.Na5 FVT: This is what Fritz likes, but I fail to understand what future the knight has on b3. 16...f5
17.Nxd7 FVT: This looked logical to me. I had to think of a famous Fischer-Petrosian game and thought the possession of e6 would fully justify the exchange. JS: Since it clarifies the advantage I like this even though White is giving up a wonderful knight. Qxd7 18.Re6 Bf6 FVT: At first I tried to make variations work in which White does not have to waste time covering d4. However, after failing to make such lines work and in view of the little time I had left on the clock (18 minutes) I thought it would be better to make a solid move. 19.Qf4 19.Rae1 Bxd4 20.Re7 Rae8 21.d6 Rxe7 22.dxe7 Re8 23.Qxb7 FVT: During the game this did not seem enough to me during the game, but according to the silicon enemy White is 1.5 pawn units ahead - whatever that means. JS: It depends on your enemy - Houdini is giving just under one pawn here and Hiarchs just over a pawn. But strictly speaking this line isn't particularly relevant anyway because d6 is so strong. 19.Rae1 Bxd4 20.d6! c6 The best of a bad lot 20...cxd6 21.Qd5 Bxc3 22.Re7+ Kh8 23.Rxd7 Bxe1+- 20...Rae8 21.Rxe8 Rxe8 22.Rxe8+ Qxe8 23.g3 c6 24.Qxf5 21.Nd5 Kh8 22.Qf4 Bxf2+ 23.Qxf2 cxd5 24.Qd4 If I were analysing at the board, I would stop here - or at least be very content and come back later after satisfying myself that Black couldn't do better on the way - because White is clearly very close to winning if not demonstrably so. 19...Rad8 20.Rae1 FVT: What if black does nothing? How to make progress? c6? 20...a6 21.d6? cxd6 22.Nd5 Be5! Was a nasty variation we found after the game. Instead of forcing the issue White should probably improve his position slowly by means of constructive moves like g3, h4-h5 and Kh2. Black cannot do much in that case. JS: Absolutely. When you've got control, it's often most unpleasant for your opponent if you quietly improve the position and allow him the glorious "opportunity" to make moves of his own. 21.d6 Rde8 FVT: Doing nothing was the best policy I suppose. JS: Indeed, it would be harder work for White if Black sat back but in any case Black's task is very unpleasant. 22.Rxe8 Rxe8 23.Rxe8+ Qxe8
24.g4! FVT: This is the move that I am really proud of (again I had to think of Fischer, namely the first game of his match against Spassky in Sveti Stefan 1992) - because 24.g4 frees e4 for the knight the move looks much stronger than g3 or h4. fxg4 25.Ne4! 25.Qxg4?! FVT: would give black the chance to go in for a pawn endgame, which I could not clearly evaluate. Besides, Qxg4 is inconsistent. During the game I analysed Qg6 26.Qxg6 hxg6 27.Ne4 Bxd4? 28.d7 Bb6 29.Nd6 Kf8 30.Nxb7 Ke7 31.d8Q+ Bxd8 32.Nxd8 Kxd8 33.Kg2 Ke7 34.Kf3 Kf6 35.Ke4 g5 and I thought that this pawn ending is better for White. But I think White should only go for this, if it his best chance to win by force. Besides, I never realised that Black is not forced to play 27... Bxd4?, but could also play 27...Kf7. JS: The pawn ending is nice but this was another failure of the move generator. In any case, 24.g4 was played to free e4 for the knight and was a really excellent idea. 25...Qd8? 25...Bxd4 26.Qxg4 FVT: Is Fritz's idea. After this you would end up in the "desired" pawn ending. But I had discovered a 'Zwischenzug' for White: 26.Ng5 after which my calculations led me to believe that White is winning. 25...Bxd4 0 26.Ng5 Bf6? 26...Bb6 JS is much better to maintain the attack on the f2 pawn though 27.Qc4+ Kh8 28.Qe6 Qf8 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.Ne5+ Kh8 31.Nxg4 is still better for White 27.Qc4+ Kh8 28.Qe6! Qf8 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.Ne5+ Kh8 31.d7 is indeed winning. 26.Qf5 b6 to prevent the knight entering via c5 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.d7 Be7 If 28...Qe7 29.Qxc6! is winning but not 29.Nxf6 Qxe6 30.d8Q+ Kf7 31.Nd7 Qe1+= 29.Qxc6 h5
FVT: I could not see a forced win (because I missed the idea d5+), but I guess what I played does not throw away the win. 30.Qe6 30.Qc8! Kf7 31.Nd6+ Ke6 32.Nb7 Qxd7 33.d5+! FVT: I missed that one. 30...g6 31.Nc3 Kg7 32.Nd5 Bg5 33.Nb4?! Bf6?? 34.Nc6 Qc7 35.Qxf6+! A very good positional game 1–0
  • Start an analysis engine:
  • Try maximizing the board:
  • Use the four cursor keys to replay the game. Make moves to analyse yourself.
  • Press Ctrl-B to rotate the board.
  • Drag the split bars between window panes.
  • Download&Clip PGN/GIF/FEN/QR Codes. Share the game.
  • Games viewed here will automatically be stored in your cloud clipboard (if you are logged in). Use the cloud clipboard also in ChessBase.
  • Create an account to access the games cloud.
WhiteEloWBlackEloBResYearECOEventRnd
Van Tellingen,F2238Schippers,M22631–02014C42KNSB-Competitie, 2e Klasse A9

 

About the author

Jon was born in 1956 and became a professional player in 1977 after graduating from Worcester College Oxford where he read mathematics. He became an IM in 1977 a GM in 1980 and was a member of the English Olympic team from 1980-2006. Three times British Champion he played twice in the Candidates reaching the semi-final (of what was then a knockout series of matches) in 1989 when he lost 4.5 - 3.5 to Jan Timman. He's twice been a second at the world championship for Nigel Short and then Viswanathan Anand against Garry Kasparov in London 1993 and New York 1995. He's written for the Observer (weekly) since 1993 and The Independent since 1998. With its closure (going online, but without Jon on board) he's expanding online activity and is also now offering online tuition. He likes puzzles especially (cryptic) crosswords and killer sudokus. If you'd like to contact Jon, then please write to jonathan@speelman.demon.co.uk

Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, analysis cookies and marketing cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies. Here you can make detailed settings or revoke your consent (if necessary partially) with effect for the future. Further information can be found in our data protection declaration.