Bluff and thunder

Not fully deterministic

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

Although chess is a total-information game in which everything is laid bare on the board, in practice we can see only part of the picture (unless everything is totally decided), and so feelings do play a crucial role, at least in games between humans.

One necessary evil is the ability, when the need arises, to bluff, or at the very least to keep a reasonably straight face. This was highlighted recently by the dramatic incident between Viswanathan Anand and Shakhriyar Mamedyarov in Norway, in which Vishy played a blunder so horrible that he resigned immediately without checking that Shakh had seen it.

 

Anand, Viswanathan2751

0–1

Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar2759

10th Norway Chess 2022 Stavanger NOR09.06.2022[Speelman,Jonathan]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.0-0 Be7 7.Re1 0-0 8.Bf1 d5 9.d4 Re8 10.c4 Bg4 11.Nc3 Nc6 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.h3 Bh5 14.a3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Bd6 16.Be3 Qf6 17.Bd3 h6 18.g4 Bg6 19.Kg2 Bxd3 20.Qxd3 Ne7 21.Bd2 Ng6

22.Qb5?? 22.Qb5 Qxf3+! 23.Kxf3 Nh4# 0–1

In fact, he had not, and apparently asked Vishy why he’d resigned! Of course, he would very probably have done so “after two or three minutes”, as he told Jovanka Houska when interviewed afterwards. But Vishy obviously gained nothing by resigning – though it’s a very natural reaction to a huge shock.

Master Class Vol. 12: Viswanathan Anand

This DVD allows you to learn from the example of one of the best players in the history of chess and from the explanations of the authors how to successfully organise your games strategically, and how to keep your opponent permanently under pressure.

Despite the blunder, Anand had a fantastic performance in Norway | Photo: Lennart Ootes

The question — and this is something we can discuss now away from the heat of battle — is what best to do if you do realize that you’ve done something truly horrible. I think that this depends on the person and their habits. If they are strong enough to sit placidly across the board a move away from disaster without revealing anything, then that would be best of all. Most of us couldn’t carry that off and, in that case, it depends on whether you are a player who stays at the board throughout or gets up and walks around.

If the latter, then you can simply go for a wander round the playing hall. If you only get up to go to the toilet, then do so now and return a few minutes later to learn your fate. Either way you won’t be giving off anxiety, though if other games are going on then you’re probably scuppered anyway. Even after learning that Vishy had resigned, watching online it took me half a minute or more to see Qxf3+, so I submit that it’s not trivial: MV-L, though, noticed at a glance when passing the board. You can’t really imagine other players, however well-behaved, not taking an interest in such a possible dénouement, and the sudden ripple of excitement would almost certainly have transmitted to Mamedyarov.

Pushing one’s luck

I had an incident thirty years ago in Dortmund in which I put a whole queen en prise at the end of a furious time scramble against Daniel Campora. I held my hand out to resign, but my opponent looked baffled (as though he thought that I thought that he’d offered a draw) so I withdrew my hand and went for a walk round the luckily already-almost-deserted tournament hall. (Thinking about it now, I suppose a perfect gentleman would have insisted on resigning, but I’m not that perfect).

After about five minutes he made a different move taking my queen off prise and I made my reply and offered a draw which after a couple of minutes more he accepted!

On the walk back to the hotel, I decided I would tell him what had happened. I didn’t want to be rude, but it was obvious that he’d be told within an instant of meeting any other chess players, anyway.

 

Campora, Daniel Hugo2455

½–½

Speelman, Jonathan S2535

Dortmund 1981[Speelman,Jonathan]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nh3 e6 8.Nf4 Bh7 9.Bc4 Na6 10.Qe2 Nc7 11.c3 Nf6 12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.Nxd3 Qd5 14.Bf4 0-0-0 15.Bxc7 Kxc7 16.Ne5 Bd6 17.Nxf7 Qxg2 18.Nxd8 Rxd8 19.Rf1 Re8 20.Qe3 Qd5 21.f4 g5 22.hxg5 hxg5 23.Ne2 g4 24.Qd3 Rh8 25.Qg6 Be7 26.0-0-0 Rh2 27.Rde1 Qc4 28.Qc2 Qxa2 29.Rh1 Rf2 30.Rhf1 Rh2 31.Rh1 Rf2 32.Qd3 Nd5 33.Rh7 b5 34.Qb1 Qa4 35.Qc2 Qa2 36.Qb1 Qa4 37.Kd2 Kb6 38.Rf1 Rf3 39.Rxf3 gxf3 40.Nc1

40...Qb3?? 41.Nd3? Nxc3 ½–½

Sometimes you absolutely need to bluff because the alternative is too awful and too easy for the opponent to play. I remember an occasion from the Bunratty tournament a few years ago in which I saw a forced win against my intended move and chose an alternative but resigned after a simple reply. Of course, I should have pushed my luck. My opponent hadn’t yet seen the combination when I asked him after the game, and I ought to have put him to the test.

 

Gheorghiu, C..

1–0

Speelman, J..

Bunratty 18.02.2017[Speelman,Jonathan]

1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd3 Na6 7.0-0 c5 8.d5 Rb8 9.Qe2 Nc7 9...Nb4 10.Bc4 a6 11.a3 b5 12.axb4 12.Bb3 c4 13.axb4 cxb3 14.cxb3 e6 15.dxe6 fxe6 12...cxb4 13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bd3 10.a4 a6 10...b6 11.Nb5 a6 12.Na7 Bb7 13.c4 Ra8 14.Nc6 Qd7 15.e5 Nfxd5 11.a5 e6 11...b5 12.axb6 Rxb6 13.Na4 Rb8 14.c4 12.dxe6 Nxe6 13.f5 Nd4 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.Nd5 15.Nb1 15...Nxd5 16.exd5 Re8 16...Bxf5 17.Bxf5 gxf5 18.Ra3 17.Qf3 Bxf5 18.Bxf5 gxf5 19.Qxf5 Qc8?! Too optinmistic, though it's already rather nasty. 19...Qc7 20.Bf4 Re2 21.Bh6 Re5 20.Qxf7+ Kh8 21.Bf4 Qc5 22.b4! Qxb4 23.Rab1

23...Qxa5? The ? for stupidity. I had to play Qc5 and cross my fingers. 23...Qc5 24.Rxb7 d3+ 25.Kh1 Rg8

26.Qxg7+! 26.Rc7 was his intention! Qd4 and I'm maybe worse but can fight. 26...Rxg7 27.Rxb8+ Rg8 28.Rxg8+ Kxg8 29.Bh6 Qc8 30.cxd3 24.Bxd6 Black is totally busted. On move 23, I had to play Qc5 and cross my fingers. 1–0

Bluffing a machine?

Bluffing can work well against humans, but you certainly shouldn’t try to bluff or second guess a machine. At the end of his second match against Deep Blue, Garry Kasparov decided to play a line of the Caro-Kann since, having worked against a version of its opening book, he supposedly knew that it wouldn’t go in for a dangerous sacrifice. Of course, it did, and sadly he was soon toast.

The Fashionable Caro-Kann Vol.1 and 2

The Caro Kann is a very tricky opening. Black’s play is based on controlling and fighting for key light squares. It is a line which was very fashionable in late 90s and early 2000s due to the successes of greats like Karpov, Anand, Dreev etc. Recently due to strong engines lot of key developments have been made and some new lines have been introduced, while others have been refuted altogether. I have analyzed the new trends carefully and found some new ideas for Black.

 

Comp Deep Blue

1–0

Kasparov, Garry

New York Man-Machine 11.05.1997[Nunn]

I found this game in MegaBase with notes by John Nunn. I've left the notes intact and added some diagrams. The important thing from out perspective is that 5...h6? was a misapprehension, believing that since the monster's opening book had allegedly not been changed since the version that GK had received from IBM, it wouldn't play Nxe6. This was a huge gamble and when it did, GK was plunged into a position which would have been unpleasant enough against another human, let alone an engine. 1.e4 c6 As in game 4. Will Garry use the same hybrid system again? 2.d4 d5 No: Garry switches openings and opts for a genuine Caro-Kann. An opening less suited to Garry's playing style could hardly be imagined, but at least he is very familiar with it, having had many clashes with his old rival Karpov, albeit on the other side of the board. 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ironically, Deep Blue uses the same system which Kasparov used to play himself against Karpov. Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3

7...h6? But Karpov never played like this! This move forces White to sacrifice a piece, but the resulting attack is so dangerous that there are almost no human players willing to take Black's side. This line seems particularly inadvisable against a computer: a wide-open position, tactical ideas on all sides and a vicious attack for the silicon monster. 7... Bd6 is normal. 8.Nxe6 Qe7? After this Black is just lost. The score in over-the-board play tells a grim story: 13/14 for White. According to current theory, Black's last attempt to survive in this line is 8...fxe6 9.Bg6+ Ke7 10.0-0 10.Bf4 Stockfish 15 10...Qc7 11.Re1 Kd8 At the cost of losing a tempo with his king, Black avoids having his queen stuck at e7, where she blocks in the whole of Black's kingside. With the queen on c7, the bishop on f8 can move and Black has somewhat more freedom. Having said that, White's attack is still very dangerous, but it is by no means a forced win. 12.c4 12.Rxe6 Bd6 13.Re1 Nf8 14.Bd3 Bg4 12...Bb4 13.Re2 Nf8 14.Ne5 14.Bc2 Bd6 15.g3 Qe7! 14...Nxg6 15.Nxg6 Re8 16.c5 Qf7! Granda Zuniga The Peruvian GM thinks that the black position is better.. 17.Ne5 Qh5 18.f3 18.Nc4 b5 19.Ne5 Bd7 20.a4 bxa4 21.Rxa4 a5 22.f3 Re7 18...Ba5 19.g4 Qh3 20.Rg2 Bc7 21.Rg3 Qh4 22.Ng6 Bxg3! 23.Nxh4 Bxh4 Wolff,P-Granda Zuniga,J/New York Reshevsky 1992/CBM 31/[Granda Zuniga] 9.0-0 fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4

11...b5 A new move, but not one which will resurrect this variation. A few examples should demonstrate the true horror of Black's situation. 11...Ne8 12.Bg3 Nd6 13.Re1 Nf6 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Ne5 Qd5 16.Nf7+ Kc7 17.Nxh8 Qg5 18.Qd3 Bd6 19.Nf7 Bxh2+ 20.Kxh2 Ng4+ 21.Kg1 Qf6 22.Qg3+ e5 23.Nxe5 1-0 Schott,R-Kirner,M/Eppingen HT2 1988 11...Qb4 12.a3 Qb6 12...Qxb2 13.Qe2 Nd5 14.Bd2 Bd6 15.Qxe6 Kc7 16.Rfb1 Qxa1 17.Rxa1 Ne5 18.Qxd6+ Kxd6 19.Nxe5 Kc7 20.c4 Ne7 21.Bf4 Rf8 22.Nf7+ Kd7 23.Bh5 b5 24.c5 Nf5 25.Ne5+ Ke6 26.Nxc6 Bb7 27.Re1+ Kf6 28.d5 g6 29.Re6+ Kg7 30.Be5+ Kg8 31.Rxg6+ Kh7 32.g4 Bxc6 33.gxf5 Rxf5 34.Rg7+ Kh8 35.Rg5+ Rxe5 36.Rxe5 Bd7 1-0 Geller,E-Meduna,E/Sochi 1986 13.Qe2 Be7 14.c4 Rf8 15.Bg3 a5 16.Rfe1 c5 17.d5 e5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Qxe5 Ng8 20.Qxg7 Qf6 21.Qh7 Ra6 22.Re3 Bf5 23.Bxf5 Qxf5 24.Qxf5 Rxf5 25.Rae1 Kd7 26.f3 Bf6 27.Rd3 Bxb2 28.Rb1 Rb6 29.Kf1 Rff6 30.d6 h5 31.Be5 Re6 32.Rxb2 Rxb2 33.Bxb2 Rxd6 34.Rxd6+ Kxd6 35.Ke2 Ne7 36.g4 Bengtsson,O-Henriksson,J/ SVE-ch op Vaxjo 1992/ 1-0 (46) 11...Nd5 12.Bg3 Qb4 13.Re1 13.Qe2 Be7 14.c4 N5b6 15.b3 Bf6 16.Rad1 Qe7 17.Rfe1 Nf8 18.Be4 Bd7 19.Qd3 Qf7 20.a4 a5 21.Qe3 Ra6 22.Qf4 Bc8 23.d5 cxd5 24.cxd5 Ke8 25.Bd3 Ra8 26.Bb5+ Bd7 27.dxe6 Nxe6 28.Qd6 Bxb5 29.Rxe6+ Be7 30.axb5 1-0 Dvoirys,S-Zakharevich,I/ Kursk 1987 13...Be7 14.Qe2 14.a3 Qxb2 15.c4 Nc3 16.Qd3 Na4 17.Qe3 Nf8 18.Ne5 Nxg6 19.Nxg6 Rf8 20.Nxf8 Bxf8 21.Qf4 Ke8 22.Qf5 Nc3 23.Rxe6+ Bxe6 24.Qxe6+ Be7 25.Re1 1-0 Schlosser,M-Kholmov,R/Sochi-A 1989 14...Bf6 15.c4 Ne7 16.a3 Qb3 17.Bd3 Nf5 18.Bxf5 exf5 19.Qe6 Qb6 20.c5 Nxc5 21.Qd6+ Nd7 22.Ne5 Bxe5 23.Rxe5 Re8 24.Rxe8+ Kxe8 25.Re1+ Ne5 26.Rxe5+ Kf7 27.Re7+ 1-0 Chandler, M-Huebner,R/Biel 1987 The idea of Kasparov's move is to secure the d5-square for his knight against the thrust c2-c4. However, it gives White the chance to open new lines on the queenside and bring his a1-rook into play without loss of time. Moreover, it fails to deal with the main problem of Black's position - his inability to move his queen. The only square available to her is b4, but this not only leaves the e6-pawn undefended, it also allows White to gain time by chasing the queen. 12.a4 Bb7 After Nach 12...bxa4 13.Rxa4 Nd5 14.Bg3 Black still cannot move the queen, while c4 is imminent. 13.Re1 Nd5 Attempting to keep the position closed by 13...b4 doesn't work because of: 14.c4 bxc3 15.bxc3 Nd5 16.Bg3 Nxc3 or else c4 17.Qb3 attacking c3 and b7 Qb4 18.Qxe6 Be7 19.Bf5 Nb6 20.a5 with a decisive attack. 14.Bg3 Kc8 Another move which does little to unblock the traffic jam of the kingside. However 14...Qb4 is no better: 15.Rxe6 Be7 16.c3 Qxb2 17.c4 N5f6 17...bxc4 18.Rb1 Nc3 19.Rxb2 Nxd1 20.Rxb7 is easily winning 18.Ne5 Nxe5 19.dxe5+ Nd7 20.Bf5 and wins. 15.axb5 The a1-rook enters the game. cxb5 16.Qd3 Bc6 Black must defend the weak pawn on b5. Going for 16...Nc7 loses to 17.Qc3 Nf6 18.Rxe6 Qd8 19.Bf5 Kb8 20.Ne5 Nfd5 21.Nc6+ Bxc6 22.Qxc6 Since 16...a6 is met by 17.Bf5 as in the game, there is nothing better than the text-move. 17.Bf5 exf5 Other moves also lose, for example 17...Nb4 18.Qc3 Kb7 19.Rxe6 Qd8 20.d5 Bxd5 21.Re8 or 17...Nc7 18.Bxc7 Kxc7 19.Rxe6 Qd8 20.Qc3 Bd6 21.Ne5 Nb8 22.Be4 18.Rxe7 Bxe7 Or 18...Nxe7 19 Qc3 Nb8 (19...Kb7 20 Qa5 mates) 20 Ne5 Or 18...Nxe7 19.Qc3 Nb8 19...Kb7 20.Qa5 mates 20.Ne5 with a crushing attack. After the move played, Black has sufficient material for the queen, but his position is a complete wreck. Many of his pieces are still on their original squares, the ones that are developed are hopelessly uncoordinated and his king is horribly exposed. 19.c4

This is an understandable decision, considering the following variations: 19.c4 bxc4 19...Nb4 20.Qxf5 bxc4 21.Ne5 20.Qxc4 Nb4 21.Re1 Re8 22.Nh4 Nb6 23.Qf7 N6d5 24.Nxf5 Kd8 25.Nxg7 A disaster for Kasparov. 1–0

Read more: Vladimir Kramnik on Man vs Machine

One from the Candidates

To finish, a moment from the first round of the Candidates which was yesterday as I sent this (and also did the video). If Richard Rapport was trying to wind Jan-Krzysztof Duda up when he played 8...g6, then he suffered for it. But maybe he just thought it was the best move?

 

Duda, J..2750

½–½

Rapport, R..2764

FIDE Candidates 2022 Madrid ESP17.06.2022[Speelman,Jonathan]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Bf4 d6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 Ne7 8.c4 g6? Was this a wind up or just a misapprehension? 8...Bb7 9.c5! A very strong reply after which Rapport was already suffering.. e5 10.Bg5 Bg7 11.cxd6 Qxd6 12.0-0 Be6 13.Na3 Rd8 14.Be2 Qxd1 15.Rfxd1 Rxd1+ 16.Bxd1 Kd7 17.Be2 Nc8 18.Rd1+ Kc7 19.Bc4 Bg4 20.f3 f6 21.Be3 Bd7 22.Be2 h5 23.Nc2 Bf8 24.a3 a5 25.Kf1 Be6 26.Bd2 Kb6 27.Ne3 Nd6 28.Rc1 c5 29.Be1 Bh6 30.Rd1 Rd8 31.Nd5+ Bxd5 32.Rxd5 Be3

33.Rd3 33.a4± 33...Bd4 34.Rb3+ Kc6 35.Bxa5 Ra8 36.Rb6+ Kd7 37.Ra6 Rxa6 38.Bxa6 Bxb2 39.a4 c4 40.Bb4 h4 41.Ke2 Kc6 42.Ba5 Bc1 43.Bd8 Bg5 44.Kd1 Kd7 45.Bb6 Kc6 46.a5 Bf4 47.Kc2 f5 48.Kc3 fxe4 49.fxe4 Nxe4+ 50.Kxc4 Nd6+ 51.Kb4 Bxh2 52.Be2 e4 53.Bc5 Nf5 54.Bb5+ Kc7 55.Bb6+ Kb7 56.Bc4 Nd6 57.Be2 Kc6 58.Bc5 Nf5 59.Bb5+ Kc7 60.a6 Bd6 61.a7 Bxc5+ 62.Kxc5 Kb7 63.Bc6+ Kxa7 64.Bxe4 Ne3 65.Kd4 Nxg2 66.Bxg2 g5 67.Bh3 g4 68.Bxg4 h3 69.Bxh3 ½–½

How I became World Champion Vol.1 1973-1985

Garry Kasparov's rise to the top was meteoric and at his very first attempt he managed to become World Champion, the youngest of all time. In over six hours of video, he gives a first hand account of crucial events from recent chess history, you can improve your chess understanding and enjoy explanations and comments from a unique and outstanding personality on and off the chess board.

Links

• Previous column: Eight staircases, two stairwells and a drunken soldier
• All Speelman’s Agony columns