Teacher: Generally, to win in such a situation, even if it’s early in the game, you should head for the endgame. You should try to trade off pieces, though not necessarily pawns. Ideally, you should be trying to create the pure situation of rook vs. minor piece, with no other pieces on the board. In such an instance, it would be okay if both sides still had a couple of pawns. In the process, you should stay vigilant to ward off enemy counterplay before it develops. Once you find yourself in your desired endgame, position your rook actively, trying to tie down the enemy king and minor piece, forcing them into defensive positions. Meanwhile your own king should take an aggressive stance, moving to key points or attacking positions, if at all feasible.
Student: Okay, suppose I do all that. What’s likely to happen?
Teacher: If this approach doesn’t bring further material gain, you may be able to surrender the rook for the enemy minor piece, either gaining an extra pawn in the process or enabling your king to penetrate decisively. You might win by promoting an extra pawn or using some pawn as a decoy to gain more pawns elsewhere. Eventually, you win by promoting a pawn to a queen and subsequently forcing checkmate.
Student: Could you give an example?
Teacher: Consider diagram 185. It’s Black to move. By giving up the rook for the knight, 1 … Rxa2+ 2. Kxa2, Black can clean out White’s pawns and eventually make a new queen. The game might then conclude: 2 … Kxc2 3. Ka1 Kxc3 4. Kb1 Kd2 (diagram 186), and Black’s pawn will advance with protection to become a new queen.
Diagram 185. Black gives up the exchange to win.
Diagram 186. Black’s c-pawn is now unstoppable.
Student: Okay, that’s one possible way to win when ahead by the exchange. But what about when behind by the exchange, if one had only a minor piece against a rook? How should I play to increase my drawing chances?
Teacher: If you’re in the opening stages of a game, you should play opportunistically by avoiding the endgame and constantly searching for creative counterplay, hoping to harass your opponent into rash actions. Furthermore, the more threats you issue, especially ones generating multiple attacks, the better chance you have of pulling off a swindle.
Student: What about if I’m no longer in the opening?
Teacher: If you’ve reached the endgame, and you’re still losing, you should drum up moves that swap pawns skillfully. You might be able to convert to a position with no pawns in which your lone minor piece confronts the enemy rook, when no further progress can be made. Even though the side with the rook could still win, there are reasonable chances to reach a positional draw. But the draw isn’t automatic. Being up the exchange is still a definite advantage.
Student: I’d like to get back to our own game and a possibility for Black on the fourth move. Instead of 4 … Bc5, what’s wrong with 4 … Bb4+ (diagram 187)?
Diagram 187. After the possibility of 4 … Bb4+.
Teacher: Plenty. It develops a piece, but not usefully. It gives a check, but not menacingly White can get out of check pronto with 5. c3 (diagram 188), and the bishop must move again, wasting time. A move that gives check isn’t necessarily a good one. A bad check can lose time and, on some occasions, even a game.
Diagram 188. After the punishing 5. c3, forcing the b4-bishop to move again.
Student: I don’t understand. Isn’t it a good idea to check the enemy king?
Teacher: Not automatically. Some checking moves can backfire, as in diagram 188, where Black’s b4-bishop is forced to move again. But because checking moves appear so forceful, they’re irresistible to many players. Be forewarned, however. Perfunctory checks can be deleterious to the giver. Sometimes they lose games. Suppose, for example, one of your units is attacked and, instead of countering that threat, you choose to check the enemy king. If your opponent responds to your check with a move that contains another threat, such as a king move that attacks a second one of your pieces or pawns, you would then need to cope with two threats: the new one and the one you didn’t answer to begin with. Chances are you’ll solve only one of your problems, not both.
Student: Could you give an illustration?
Diagram 189. White should capture the d4-pawn with his f3-knight.
Teacher: Certainly. In diagram 189 it’s White’s turn to move. White’s c3-knight is threatened by Black’s d4-pawn. White should capture the pawn and end the threat. But suppose White temporarily ignores the threat to his knight and gives a threat of his own, checking Black’s king, 1. Bb5+. If Black were to answer White’s check by the block 1 … c6, suddenly White would be faced with two threats: the one he never answered to his knight, and now the new one menacing his bishop. However White responds, he must lose a piece, thanks to his ill-considered check.
Student: So, what are you saying?
Teacher: Check only because it’s necessary or useful in accomplishing one of your objectives, just as any other move. It’s a reasonable rule: Don’t give pointless checks.
LESSON 9
TRADES, PINS, AND MORE ON MINOR PIECES
Teacher: Let’s begin this lesson by first going back. We’ll start with our actual game. Can you give the position in algebraic notation, please?
Student: We’re here, after the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4.
Diagram 190. The actual game, after 4. Nxd4.
Teacher: White appears to have his way in the center, with both a knight on d4 and a pawn on e4. Admittedly, Black has nothing yet in the center, but he’s attacking the White knight at d4, which is presently defended. With his next move, he could try to take away some of the initiative by attacking White’s e-pawn. So he plays 4 … Nf6 (diagram 191).
Diagram 191. After4 … Nf6.
Student: So Black has developed a piece toward the center with a gain of time. I see you are threatening to take my e-pawn.
Teacher: Four moves into the game, and the position seems fairly equal. But this can change at any moment, perhaps because of the next move, the move after that, or the move you thought of and forgot to play.
Student: You’re right. I’m having trouble remembering the day, let alone the last move.
Teacher: Maybe it’ll come back to you. In the meantime, think over this fact: Chess rarely offers players a single choice of moves. On the first turn of a game, twenty moves are actually possible for either side, some better than others. After our game’s first four moves, White can consider a number of plausible responses. They include defending the pawn immediately (by either f3, Qd3, or Nc3), or first exchanging knights on c6 and then dealing with the threat to the e-pawn.
Student: What about 5. f3? That guards the e-pawn.
Diagram 192. After the possibility of 5. f3.
Teacher: This move echoes many of the attendant problems of Black’s 2 … f6, which we explored in diagram 167. Unlike opening pawn moves on the d- and e-files, moving the f-pawn now loses time. White neither develops a piece nor clears a line to allow new pieces to come into play. And 5. f3 also weakens the h4-e1 diagonal leading to the king. Furthermore, if White should now castle, his king becomes potentially vulnerable along the gI-a7 diagonal (say by a Black bishop from c5). The move 5. f3 is just not an effective way to cope with the threat posed by Black’s f6-knight. White wants to secure his e-pawn while continuing to build his game. This move, surrendering the initiative, doesn’t do it.
Student: Is 5. Qd3 okay?
Diagram 193. After the possibility of 5. Qd3.
Teacher: You can guard the menaced e-pawn this way, but making this choice relies on the queen unnecessarily. At d3 the queen blocks in White’s light-square bishop, which means it’s unable to get to d3, c4, or b5 in the present situation. Moreover, the queen would now be overburdened with the defense of the d4 and e4 squares. As a rule, try not to use the queen in the opening, unless it’s clearly desirable for the circumstances at hand. If possible, develop your lighter pieces first; then you’re better prepared for the queen’s participation.
Student: I have another idea. What about interposing the capt
ure 5. Nxc6 first, and then dealing with the threat to e4?
Teacher: This is actually a strong continuation. White can start by playing 5. Nxc6 before satisfying the defensive needs of the e-pawn. Taking on c6 practically forces an exchange of knights. Otherwise, Black loses a piece and faces an additional attack on his queen, which would have no safe place to go. After 5 … bxc6 (diagram 195), where Black takes back toward the center to avoid an unpleasant trade of queens on d8, White can then secure his e-pawn. By exchanging knights on c6, White doesn’t lose time. But he does make it easier to defend his center, for now the knight that used to be at d4 no longer has to be guarded. Such a decision illustrates two sides of an important chess principle: You can gain time by exchanging pieces, or you can lose it.
Diagram 194. After 5. Nxc6, delaying the defense of e4.
Diagram 195. After the possibility of 5 … bxc6
Student: Could you explain that a little bit, please?
Teacher: You can gain time by exchanging if you stop the opponent in his tracks, leaving him no choice but to take back without positional improvement. You can lose time by exchanging if your opponent can use the take-back move to strengthen his game. If you can exchange a threatened piece without losing time, you’ve lightened your burdens. You needn’t worry anymore about the menaced piece, since once off the board it ceases to exist. You don’t have to protect what isn’t there. And by virtue of the exchange, you’ve truly gotten equal value for it, so you’ve lost nothing. After the exchange, you can go on with your game as if time had stopped for one move. It hadn’t, but the beauty of the exchange is that you can act as if it had.
Student: I thought a trade is just a trade, and you don’t necessarily have to have a reason for making it.
Teacher: You have to have a reason for everything in this game. Otherwise, it’s not chess. A trade ought to have a purpose, like anything else. If you decide on an exchange that allows your opponent to develop his pieces or improve his position, you have helped build his game at the expense of yours. Then you’ve I gained no time at all, but actually lost it. Here are some standard rules of thumb:
• Don’t trade a developed piece for an undeveloped one without a good reason.
• Avoid trades that develop enemy pieces in the transaction, unless you have a reason for doing otherwise.
• Trade to gain time, not to lose it. Remember that a bad trade can lose time and a good one can gain time.
Student: So 5. Nxc6 is a good move?
Teacher: It’s not only good, it’s a kind of chess tactic known as a zwischenzug.
Student: I know that’s not French.
Teacher: It’s a German term that means “in-between move.” A zwischenzug is usually played in between a series of other moves without necessarily affecting them. It can be an unpleasant surprise, particularly if your zwischenzug poses an additional and unexpected threat to your opponent’s game—for example, if it raises the specter of an uncomfortable check, which would stop the action in its tracks. In this case, 5. Nxc6 qualifies as an in-between move, but not a terribly frightening one.
Student: I’ve seen that White could play 5. Nxc6 quite satisfactorily, but I’m not going to make that move. Instead, I’m going to protect my e-pawn by 5. Nc3 (diagram 196), and develop a new piece toward the center.
Diagram 196. After the actual 5. Nc3.
Teacher: Of course, we have to respond to opposing threats, but it doesn’t seem that you have any. I will accordingly use this free move to continue my own plans. So I’m going to continue my development with 5 … Bb4 (diagram 197). Now, in addition to clearing the way for castling, what does this move threaten?
Diagram 197. After the actual 5 … Bb4.
Student: I see your point. Your bishop move attacks my knight on c3. But the knight is guarded by the b-pawn, so my position is all right.
Teacher: But you’re missing something. I do have a threat. My bishop is now pinning your knight on c3. The knight can’t move without exposing the White king, which is illegal. If it can’t move, it’s not really guarding the king-pawn, so the f6-knight is threatening to take on e4 without repercussions. The pin on the c3-knight prevents you from taking back. By the way, if you don’t remember the pin, or any other tactics we may find ourselves discussing, go back to your notes from Lesson 2.
Student: Fortunately, I remember. But how does this relate to the position after 5 … Bb4?
Teacher: After 5 … Bb4, the bishop pins the knight to the king. The knight can’t move no matter what because it would be against the rules. So this is known as an absolute pin. If the knight were free to move, then it would be only a relative pin, where White would have the choice of moving the knight on c3 and accepting the consequences. But there is no choice here because you’re not allowed to expose your king to capture. Diagram 198, for example, shows a relative pin, with Black to move. Black may move the knight and expose his queen to capture, if he so chooses.
Diagram 198. A relative pin: Blacks knight may move.
Student: Could you walk me through a sample variation from here?
Diagram 199. After breaking the relative pin by 1 … Ne4.
Teacher: Let’s say Black plays 1 … Ne4 (diagram 199). If the rook takes the queen, the knight gives a smothered mate at f2 (diagram 200). If instead the d1-rook moves to f1 to guard f2, 2. Rdf1, then Black mates in two moves: 2 … Ng3+ 3. hxg3 Qh7# (diagram 201).
Diagram 200. A smothered mate.
Diagram 201. A possible corridor mute by the queen.
Student: So a player can move pieces and pawns out of relative pins, if he can accept the consequences, and in an absolute pin units can’t move off the line of the pin no matter what, right?
Teacher: Correct. Absolutely pinned units can’t move off the line of the pin, even if threatened further. That’s why it sometimes makes sense not to capture them right away. Bringing in additional forces may lead to the gain of material. In diagram 202, we see a situation where piling up on a pinned piece offers White a significant advantage. Instead of capturing Black’s rook at b5 with his bishop at a4, winning only the exchange (a rook for a bishop), White should push his c-pawn, attacking the helpless rook. White will thereby be able to capture the rook for a mere pawn on the next free move. It’s this threat to attack pinned pieces with lesser material that gives the tactic much of its strength.
Diagram 202. The pinned rook shouldn’t be taken, it should he attacked again.
Teacher: If you have the time, and circumstances allow you to do so, attack pinned pieces and pawns again and again. Pile up on them, if you can; or, as the saying goes, pin it and win it.
Student: So far in the game much of the discussion has focused on the development of knights and bishops. Both are minor pieces, but their powers are vastly different. Which is better?
Teacher: You know what I’m going to say, right?
Student: It depends.
Teacher: You got it. A bishop is usually better when: (1) the position is open and diagonal attacks from far away are possible; (2) there are potential targets or operations on both sides of the board; (3) facing a knight, which the bishop can corral on the side of the board, so that the knight can’t move safely (see diagram 203); and (4) time-gaining or time-losing moves must be played, when the same key squares remain guarded by the bishop after it moves. One drawback with a knight is that it can’t move and still keep an eye on the same squares.
Diagram 203. Black’s bishop corrals the knight.
Student: I guess if it’s Black’s turn, the knight is lost after 1 … g5. Let me turn it around: when is a knight preferable to a bishop?
Teacher: Knights get the nod over bishops when: (1) the position is blocked and the knight can jump over obstructions that impede a bishop; (2) the knight is anchored deep in the enemy position and can’t be dislodged; and (3) squares of both colors must be guarded. The last condition obviously can’t be satisfied by a bishop, which can guard only the color it travels on. In diagram 204, we see
the knight dominating the bishop. No matter who moves, Black can play to win the c-pawn and eventually the game.
Diagram 204. Black’s knight leads to a win.
Student: That’s quite a knight you have there. But don’t think you’re off the hook yet. I hear a lot about the two bishops. Why are two bishops generally considered to be superior to a bishop and a knight or to two knights?
Teacher: Two bishops, often used as a technical term signifying a type of advantage, tend to be stronger than other minorpiece combinations because, when working in synchronization, they negate a single bishop’s chief failing, the inability to guard squares of both colors. In cooperation, each bishop can stand sentinel for the other, allowing each to achieve fuller potential.
Student: I suppose two bishops can be particularly strong when they attack in the same direction.
Teacher: United bishops, also known as the two bishops or the bishop pair, tend to be stronger than other minor-piece combinations because they: (1) control the center more easily, either aligned in the same direction or crosswise from opposite sides of the board; (2) are effective long-distance attackers and therefore don’t have to be close to their targets, as do knights; (3) restrict minor-piece movement better, especially by coralling knights along the board’s edge, preventing their safe movement; (4) induce pawn weaknesses with greater ease, whether from far away or behind the pawns; (5) more fluidly support an invasion by their own king and gain tempi to make it happen; (6) create favorable exchanges more readily, often enabling simplification to good-bishop-vs.-bad-minor-piece endgames; (7) contend satisfactorily with advancing pawn masses, for though driven away, bishops remain in attacking position by staying on the same diagonals, still assailing enemy pawns and the squares over which they must pass; and (8) convoy a passed pawn splendidly, controlling in concert consecutive diagonals before the advancing pawn, clearing a path to its promotion. Basically, two bishops are wonderful, as we can see from diagram 205.
Pandolfini’s Ultimate Guide to Chess Page 12
