Speelman's Agony #62

by Jonathan Speelman
10/8/2017 – This week's games are by John Thornton, a Welshman who was 70 earlier this year. Years ago, he sent me some corrections for my book 'Analysing the Endgame' and he says, very pleasingly that: "I recently went back to that to provide material for a session that I ran at a local club where I used analysis of the famous Spassky vs. Fischer game — the analysis you gave holding up exceedingly well against computer analysis."

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.

A triple header

John writes:  

I took early retirement as a Head of Maths at a comprehensive school in 2003, and since then chess has been my main occupation. Maths, chess and music often seem to go together and when I was younger, I was competent enough as both a violinist and classical guitar player to play occasionally in concerts at the local music club. My other big interest, coming originally from Bradford — I was at school with ex-British Champion George Botterill — is Rugby League.  

In Wales, I do a lot of arbiting and achieved the FA title earlier this year, and am responsible for the Welsh Junior Rapidplay Ratings and its website. I also do some junior coaching.  

Nearly all my chess playing is in team events and since Wales started entering teams in the European/World Seniors event I have been an ever present. It is my Welsh Seniors' team-mate Rudy Van Kemenade who you have featured twice in your column who has persuaded me to submit games.

The three games John sent are all from the current Welsh Correspondence Championship and he says:

WCCF

I am a fledgling correspondence player with the games I sent being from my first event using a server — I flirted with postal chess many years ago, before computers were any good.

I am not sure whether they are really eligible since players are encouraged to use computers. This elevates the standard of play of even very weak players to possibly GM level, but we probably don't really appreciate the subtleties involved in trying to choose the best moves from a selection of good ones, and then there are also the clerical errors to avoid. 

Also computers are still fallible as I found to my chagrin playing a Modern Benoni where neither Houdini 5 nor Komodo 11 could help me find a good plan while I was being mangled down the K-side. Both programs said I was perfectly OK until you made them look at my opponent's 'human' move h4 when the assessments rapidly changed to 'you are lost!' I still can't find where I went wrong in that game — which is below in case you find it better for your column than the Yeo–Thornton game which I believe deserves to be well known.

I'm happy to include both games and also of course his "Ecstasy" game. All three are, above all, good illustrations of our ambivalent relationship with chess engines. Once the tactics start in earnest, these are way beyond the capability even of top grandmasters but in the run up, it's very different as we have to apply our own understanding to pick sensible moves from a morass of information.

"Analysorrhea"  is a very common problem when looking at games with engines and when I analyse myself or receive games from others, one of the most important actions is to prune the analysis down to a state in which it makes sense in human terms and to add sufficient written notes — which don't have to be detailed at all just clear — to make it all reasonably legible.  

We start with his game with Paul Hatchett, in which the engines led John astray or at best in rather useless circles.

 
New ...
Open...
Share...
Layout...
Flip Board
Settings
MoveNResultEloPlayers
Replay and check the LiveBook here
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Bd3 Bg7 8.h3 0-0 9.Bg5 9.Nf3 is more common when b5!? leads to a morass of analysis. Obviously, in a correspondence game, you can decide at your leisure which particular morass you want to explore. 9...Re8 10.Nf3 c4 11.Bc2 b5 12.a3 Nbd7 13.0-0 a6 14.Re1 Bb7 15.Qd2 Rc8 16.Rad1 Qc7 16...Qb6 looks normal immediately. 17.Nh2
This position is quite a test for an engine, since things will kick off several moves into the future, and what happened is that John followed a series of recommendations which weren't disastrous in the short term but achieved nothing, giving his opponent time to build up to the point when his play became serious. The general assessment is that White can hope eventually to create a serious kingside attack while Black must create play on the queenside. One way to do this would be to get the knights to c5 and e5 and then jump into d3 but while this is happening, Black will have to move the knight from f6 and White can get in Ng4 which should create serious kingside play. The other obvious plan is to leave the knights on f6 and d7 and play for b4 but Black must be careful that when he plays ...a5, he doesn't run into a4 at a bad moment. 17...Ne5 17...Ba8 18.Be3 Rb8 19.Bd4 makes sense but now if a5?! 20.a4! when bxa4 is postional capitulation and 20...b4 21.Nb5 Rxb5 22.axb5 is totally unvonvincing. 17...Nc5 18.Qf4 Nh5 18...Nfd7 19.Ng4 19.Qf3 isn't impossible but But Black's play looks planless. 17...Qb6 makes te most sense 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Bd4 a5 and now 20.a4? 20.Qf4 Nh5 21.Qe3 b4 22.Na4 Qb5 23.Nxc5 Bxd4 24.Rxd4 Qxc5 is one sensible line. 20...b4 21.Nb5 Ba6 is good for Black 18.f4 Ned7 18...Nd3 19.Bxd3 cxd3 20.Qxd3 Nd7 21.f5 19.Kh1 Ba8 20.Nf3 Nc5 21.f5 Nfd7 22.Bh6 Bh8 23.Ng5 Ne5 24.Rf1 Rb8 25.Qf4 Qe7 26.Qh4 Ncd7 27.fxg6 fxg6 28.Rd2 a5 29.Rdf2 b4 30.Ne2 b3 31.Bb1 Bb7 32.Nc3 Rbd8 33.Qg3 Nc5
John said that the engines he was using didn't really consider h4 at this moment but quickly realised when presented with it, that it was very strong. I tested this myself with Houdini 5.01, Fritz15 and Komodo 10 all 64 bit on a fairly fast machine. They took about 3 seconds, 10 seconds and 20 seconds respectively to decide on h4 and once there all quickly realised that it was very strong. (Obviously this is by no means a ranking of the engines in all positions.) I think a strong player would also certainly gravitate towards h4 though it would then take a lot of calculation at the board to get a good assessment. Apart from anything else, It's far from instantly obvious that the position with queen versus two rooks is so good for White. 34.h4! Bg7 35.Nf7 Rf8 35...Nxf7 It's crucial that if 36.Bxg7 Kxg7 37.Rxf7+ Qxf7 38.Rxf7+ Kxf7 39.Nb5 Ke7 40.Qg5+ Kf7 41.h5! White is too quick and Black simply can't stabilise the position. For instance if Nd3 42.Qh6 Rh8 43.Bxd3 cxd3 44.Qf4+ Ke7 45.e5 blasts through 36.Bg5 Qd7 37.Nxd8 Rxd8 38.h5 Re8 39.Rf4 h6
40.hxg6 The obvious sacrifice. At the board, you'd have to check it but in a correspondence game an engine offers total reassurance. hxg5 41.Qxg5 Bf8 42.Rf7 Qg4 43.Rxf8+ Rxf8 44.Rxf8+ Kxf8 45.Qh6+ Ke7 46.Qg7+ Kd8 47.Qh8+ Kc7 48.g7
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
Hatchett,P-Thornton,J-1–0 A65Welsh Corr ch1
Yeo,G-Thornton,J-1–0 C18Welsh Corr ch1
Thornton,J-Baron,M-1–0 C11Welsh Corr ch1

To switch games, click or tap the game in the list below the board!

Submit your games

Did you enjoy the column and instructive analysis by GM Jonathan Speelman? Do you wish you could have a world-renowned grandmaster analyzing your play? You can!

Just send in two of your games: one success story (Ecstasy) and one loss (Agony). Tell why you chose them, where or when they were played, and if they are selected, not only will you get free detailed commentary of your games by one of chess’s great authors and instructors, and former world no. 4 player, but you also win a free one-month ChessBase Premium Account!

At the airport, in the hotel or at home on your couch: with the new ChessBase you always have access to the whole ChessBase world: the new ChessBase video library, tactics server, opening training App, the live database with eight million games, Let’s Check and web access to playchess.com

A one-month Premium subscription to ChessBase Account means you get:

  • Premium access to the Playchess server with ratings, simuls, lectures, and live commentary of top games
  • Access to all Web apps with no restrictions, such as the Cloud database (MyGames.chessbase.com), and more!
  • Full access to the Video archive, which not only includes all the past lectures by Daniel King, Simon Williams and others, but also a large number of full ChessBase products you would normally need to buy in the ChessBase Shop, but that you can view for free as a Premium subscriber.

See also:


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.

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.