Two for the price of one!

As promised, Scott Fraser has very kindly sent the game I referred to in my post 'A day of two halves'. However, he has also sent his previous game in the same line against the same opponent - many thanks!

Here for your delectation then are the games, with with first one embedded in the notes to black's eighth move:

(1) Miettinen,Teemu (2003) - Fraser,Scott (2079) [B90]
League Garde (4), 18.11.2007

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nde2 Be6 8.f4 Nbd7

[8...g6 thinking I was vaguely following Nispi-Topa... 9.Qd2 Ng4!? bizarrely, this isn't that bad it seems. 10.Bg1 Bh6?! (10...Be7) 11.h3 (11.0–0–0 0–0 12.h3 Nf6 13.Be3) 11...Nf6 (11...Bxf4 12.Nxf4 Qh4+ 13.Kd1 exf4 14.Qxf4 0–0 15.g3 Qh6 16.Bg2 Qxf4 17.gxf4 Nh6 18.f5! +-) 12.Be3 Nc6 13.0–0–0 Qa5 (13...0–0 14.Qxd6 Qa5 15.Qc5 Qxc5 16.Bxc5 Rfd8 = is ok it seems! 17.g3 (17.Bb6 Rxd1+ 18.Kxd1 exf4) 17...Rxd1+ 18.Kxd1 Nh5 19.f5 Rd8+ 20.Ke1 Bc4 21.g4 Nf6 =) 14.a3 Bg7 (14...0–0 15.f5) 15.g4! (15.Qxd6 Bf8! rather sadly, I thought this just won the queen during the game... 16.Qd2 (16.Qd3 Bxa3 17.bxa3 Qxa3+ 18.Kb1 Nb4 (18...Qb4+ 19.Ka1 (19.Kc1 Qa3+ =) 19...Rd8) 19.Bc1 Ba2+ 20.Ka1 Qa5 21.Qd6! Be6+ 22.Kb1 Nxe4 23.Qxe5 Qxe5 24.fxe5 Nf2 25.Ba3 Nc6 26.Nf4 Nxd1 27.Nxd1 0–0–0 28.Nc3 and white is better.) 16...Bxa3 17.bxa3 (17.Nd5 Bxd5! 18.exd5 Bc5! 19.Nc3 Nb4 and the fight goes on - unclear.) 17...Qxa3+ 18.Kb1 Nb4 19.Qc1) 15...0–0 16.f5 Bc4 17.g5 Ne8 18.f6 Bh8 how did I manage to win from here? 19.Ng3 Be6 20.Qf2 (20.Nd5 Qxd2+ 21.Rxd2 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Rd8 23.Bb6 was probably enough.) 20...Nd4 21.h4 Bg4 22.Rxd4 (22.Nd5 h5 23.Bxd4 exd4 24.Rxd4) 22...exd4 23.Bxd4 h5 24.gxh6 (24.Nd5) 24...Rc8 25.Nd5 Kh7 26.h5 Be6 27.Bg2?! (27.Bh3 Bxd5 28.Bxc8 was just over.) 27...Rc4 28.Nf4 Rxd4 (28...g5 29.Nxe6 fxe6 30.Qe3 Rxd4 31.Qxd4 Qe5 might be survivable.) 29.Nxe6 (29.hxg6+ fxg6 30.Nxe6 Rxf6 31.Nf5! Rxe6 32.Nxd4 Qg5+ 33.Kb1 Qf6 34.Qxf6 Rxf6 +-) 29...fxe6 here there was a comical moment as my opponent suddenly gathered all the pieces together at the side of the board to confirm that yes, he was a rook down. 30.hxg6+ Kxg6 31.Qxd4 Qg5+ 32.Kb1 Qxg3 33.e5! forced 33...Qxe5 34.Qd3+ Kxf6 35.Qf3+ (35.Bxb7! Ke7 36.c3 Nc7 transposes, but disallows black's best.) 35...Kg6 36.Qd3+ (36.Qxb7 d5) 36...Kf6 (36...Rf5! 37.c3 d5 might just be winning for black.) 37.c3 Ke7 (37...d5) 38.Bxb7 Nc7 39.Bf3 Nb5 (39...Qb5 40.Qxb5 axb5 is favoured be the computer, but I decided I needed to play for the attack.) 40.Ka2 d5 (40...Qg3) 41.Rh5 (41.a4 Nxc3+ 42.bxc3 Qxc3 43.Qxc3 Bxc3 isn't that good.) 41...Qf4 42.Be2 and now 42...Qc1! the killer. 43.Rh3 Nxc3+! 44.bxc3 Rb8! it's all over. My opponent was severely disgruntled, and played on using all his time with the following. 45.Qh7+ Kd6 46.Bb5 Qd2+ 47.Ka1 Bxc3+ 48.Rxc3 Qxc3+ 49.Ka2 Rxb5 50.Qg7 Qc2+ 51.Ka1 Rb1#]

9.f5 Bc4 10.b3 10.Nc1 10...Bxe2 11.Bxe2 Qa5 12.Bd2 Rc8 13.Nd5 13.Bc4 Qc5 Is the line from Sharpest Sicilian 13...Qc5 14.Be3 14.c4 Nxe4 (14...Nxd5 15.exd5) 15.Be3 Qa5+ 16.b4 Qd8 17.0–0 And I'm not convinced white is doing that badly.; 14.Nxf6+ Nxf6 15.Bd3 14...Qxc2 15.Qxc2 Rxc2 16.Kd1 Rc8 17.Nxf6+ Nxf6 18.Bf3 (D)

18...Be7 18...d5! 19.exd5 e4 20.Be2 Nxd5 21.Bd4 Rd8 22.Ke1 Nb4 is the sting in the tail - c2 and d4 are dropping 19.g4 d5 20.exd5 e4 21.Be2 Nxd5 22.Bd4 0–0 23.Rc1 Bg5 23...Nb4 24.h4 24.Rc4 b5 25.Rc5 Rxc5 26.Bxc5 Rc8 27.h4 Bf4 28.b4 Nxb4 29.Rf1 Nd5 29...Rd8+ 30.Ke1 Bg3+ 31.Rf2 0–1 (D)

In memoriam - Steve Webster

Today I played my first game of chess since the second game of my match against Jos Woolley. (Mentioned in ‘b2 or not b2, that is the question!’) Sadly my intention to play in the Steve Webster Memorial tomorrow was thwarted by the tournament being cancelled due to lack of entries.

I find this a very sad state of affairs for a Memorial Tournament. I hope it was simply down to unavailability of players (I know that it was due to clash with a couple of events), rather than a lack of willingness to play. I may be more sentimental than others, but I have always felt a great obligation to play in such matches and tournaments. This has mainly been down to knowing most of the players that are being remembered and having a lot of great memories to call upon. I feel sure that the same rings true for most others, especially in the case of Steve Webster; and I hope the tournament can take place again in 2008.

Given the lack of opportunity to create anything worthwhile tomorrow, I dedicate my win from today to his memory.

Shemilt,Jim (149) - Hopwood,Paul (162) [D00]
Alwoodley A vs. York C, York Railway Institute, 24.11.2007


1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0–0 6.h4?! c5! (D)



White seemed to reason that playing h4 before ...c5 would make the hack option viable, but I saw no reason for not adopting classical principles. 7.Ne5 Nc6 7...cxd4 8.exd4 Nc6 surprisingly has been played before, but in an online game. 8.Be2 cxd4 9.exd4 Qb6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Qd2 11.Na4 is a standard Barry Attack position, except white has swapped castling for h4. I was in no doubt that this was to my benefit in the long term, but it seems better than what was played. 11...Qa5+ 12.c3 and now I was planning on 12...Re8, once again aiming for an eventual e5 advance. 11...Qxb2 I also looked at 11...Nd7 12.0–0–0 e5 13.dxe5 Rb8 14.b3 Nxe5 , but I saw nothing wrong with taking the pawn because now white must win at any cost, due to being a pawn down and having no truly safe haven for his king. I felt sure that Jim would launch everything at me, but on positional grounds I simply did not believe that the attack would work. The course of the game bears this view out - see my comment to white's 14th. 12.Rb1 Qa3 13.Rb3 Qa5 14.h5 (D)



White sounds the starting pistol, but I was not worried in the least. White's only potential breakthrough point is h7 and so as long as the black knight stays put, there is no way through. 14...Bf5 15.g4?! Having played in the same team as Jim for several years in the York League, I expected no other move! 15.h6 Bh8 is liked by the computers, but they can't see far enough to realise that white's main source of play was a kingside attack.By blocking that avenue, white is simply a pawn down in a standard position.; 15.hxg6 fxg6 immediately was better. The text simply ups the anti when white can ill afford to do so. Whilst the investment is only one pawn, white is just about hanging on - the text pushes him over the edge. 15...Bxg4 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.Bh6 Bxe2 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.Kxe2 Rab8 Simple chess - the rook is the only piece that defends the liability on c3, so I simply threatened to knock it out. Now white is forced to start going backwards. 21.Qe3 21.Rhb1 is no good, because now I can proceed with 21...Ng4 unhindered, due to there being no threats on the h-file. 21...Rxb3 22.axb3 e5! (D)


23.f3! 23.Qxe5?? Re8; 23.dxe5 Ng4 24.Qh3 Rxf2+ 25.Ke1 (25. Kd1? Qa1+ 26. Nb1 Qxb1#)Qa1+ 26.Nd1 Qxe5+ wins 23...exd4 24.Qxd4 Qb6 Here I tried to make more forceful continuations work, such as 24...c5 25.Qd3 Re8+ 26.Kf2 d4 27.Ne4 Nxe4+ 28.fxe4 , but I was reluctant to swap off the badly placed knight. Having said that, 28...Qc7! re-routes the queen back into the action and should also be good enough to win. 24...Qc7 was the other move considered, re-routing the queen straightaway and preparing ...Nh5-f4,but with time running a little low, I decided to play it safe. 25.Qh4 25.Qxb6 axb6 was probably the best practical option, but with the pawn no longer on a7, I wasn't worried about white ideas based on Rh1–a1–a6. 25...Qc7 Here I was simply planning to 'invite everyone to the party' on the e-file. White's best seemed to be 26.Re1 and now I was going to get on with my plan of re-routing the knight with 26...Nh5 and with everything covered, there doesn't seem to be a constructive continuation for white. 26. Qg5 26...Re8+ 27.Kf2?! White's position was very difficult, but now the game is up. I was expecting 27.Kd2 Qe7 , but with hindsight the plan to run the king away simply fails to 28.Kc1 Qe3+ 29.Qxe3 Rxe3 and a third pawn drops. 27...Qb6+! 28.Kg3 Qd4 (D)


The ultimate achievement for black in The Barry Attack - White is completely hamstrung by the knight. 29.Na4 Re2 30.Nc5 There is nothing better - 30.Rh2 Qg1+ and 30.Rf1 Nh5+ 31.Kh3 Nf4+ 32.Kg3 (32.Kh4 Rh2+ 33.Kg3 Rg2+ is the same) 32...Rg2+ finish proceedings. 30...Qf2+ 31.Kf4 31.Kh3 Qxf3+ 31...Qe3+ 0–1

A day of two halves

The presentation went reasonably well. The only problems were my lack of energy (due to frequent disturbances in halls this week) and only presenting to five people! The latter was an issue because I have been used to presenting to large groups in lecture theatres. The advantage of that type of setting for me is that wherever I am looking, there is a person in my line of sight and so I actually feel like I’m constantly addressing someone. With such an intimate setting as occurred on Thursday, I had problems keeping eye contact with the audience, because I was always having to look down at them! This is something to be worked on for later in the year!

Predicted mark = 2:1

What was particularly nice though was one person afterwards commenting that I had made chess sound much more interesting than he had given it credit for and that perhaps the general perception of the game in this country is wrong – A moment thirteen years in the making!

Today I have spent my time working on my Cognitive Psychology essay, ‘Is there a single factor that could unify the symptoms of autism under a single cognitive umbrella?’ - There will be more written here about this piece of work when I have completed it. My deadline is November 29th.



The second half of my day was spent enjoying some further analysis of my beloved Sicilian Najdorf. However this time, I moved away from the Poisoned Pawn lines and focussed my attention on four variations:

6. Bc4
6. Be2
6. Be3 with 7 Nde2
6. Be3 with Nf3

It was nice to cover some really meaty positions in these lines too! Of special interest to me was the coverage of Kolev from NIC Yearbook 84 that looked at the variation 6. Be3 e5 7. Nf3 Be7 8. Bc4 0-0 9. 0-0 Be6 10. Bxe6!? as played in Ivanchuk – Toplov, Morelia/Linares 2007. (D)




Further points of note:

From a general point of view, there seems nothing wrong with dealing with the Karpov System in the following manner: 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. 0-0 0-0 9. Be3 Be6 10. Qd2 Nbd7 11. a4 Rc8 12. a5 Nc5 13. Nxc5 dxc5 14. Qxd8 (The alternatives are no better) 14…Rfxd8. (D)



However from a practical point of view, the winning chances for black are almost zero and at my level that is a concern.

Having spent all of the time I have been playing the Najdorf looking at the anti - Sozin line 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 b5 8. 0-0 Be7 9. Qf3 Qc7, it was nice to have a look at 9…Qb6 instead. There seems to be less to learn for this line and the positions look to be of a more heavyweight maneouvering nature.

With regards to 6. Be3 e5 7. Nde2, my good friend Scott Fraser played a lovely game in this line recently as black, when his opponent dared to deviate from the path of ‘Sharpest Sicilian'. I hope to be able to reproduce it here soon.

6. Be3 e5 7. Nf3 needs to be treated with respect!

The road is long, with a many a winding turn...

I have recently been having a bit of a rethink about what I wish to do for a living. The plan for a long time was to finish my psychology degree and then aim to do postgraduate study in clinical psychology. However, the numbers for those courses do not make pretty reading. According to the British Psychology Society website, the average acceptance rate is 30 percent and in Leeds the situation is worse – only one in eighty.

Upon discovery of this, I started polishing up my Plan B, which was to do post-graduate Sports Psychology. I have thoroughly enjoyed my undergraduate studies and as most people will tell you I have a healthy interest in most sports! Furthermore, as my earlier post ‘Mind over Matter’ revealed, I have relished the challenges of my ‘Applied Sports Psychology’ module.

However, I have enjoyed nothing quite as much as my dissertation. The fervour that that piece of work is causing feels very similar to when I was writing the draft of my book a few summers ago. Then, I simply couldn’t wait to see what the book looked like after each and every stage of production; causing me to work on the writing of it for long hours with unbridled enthusiasm.

Most people tend to be of the view that most psychology students have picked the course in part because they wish to learn something about themselves. In my experience of being around another 120 undergraduates, that view does seem to hold true!

With regards to myself; that experience came true in Cognitive Psychology last year, when I was learning about memory and perception. With those topics in mind, came the initial idea for my dissertation and since then that same unbridled enthusiasm has come back and I have never found studying a particular academic area so much fun.

Given that a lot of people consider their ‘dream job’ to be one where they can combine their hobbies and interests with work, it now seems slightly silly not to consider doing a postgraduate course in Cognitive Psychology. The reason behind wishing to do clinical was the desire to help people, but with ‘Cog’, I would still be able to do that AND be able to enjoy researching areas that relate to my other interests.

I now need to go and speak to ‘Careers’ again to find out when the deadline for Cognitive applications are.

Awesome hat-trick by Kramnik

I have to confess to being extremely impressed with the way that Vladimir Kramnik is playing at the moment. I have been particularly struck by his awesome Catalan Hat-trick at the 2nd Tal Memorial.

Having received a lot of praise and derision for his development of the black ‘weapon’, the Berlin Defence, it has been intriguing to see his development and use of a white equivalent.

From a personal point of view, the beauty of his Catalan wins has been that you look at the moves and are convinced that you could make most of them yourself. This factor, combined with his Karpovian ability to create 'something out of nothing' has made me wonder why he never played the opening regularly before 2006!

I found the grinds against Leko and Shirov incredible. I have followed many of his classic positional wins, but in Moscow it seemed like he had discovered the secret of chess alchemy. Kramnik always had the draw in hand, but was able to keep giving his opponent a little more rope:

Kramnik – Leko, Tal Memorial, Moscow 2007 (3)

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O dxc4 7. Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9. Qc2 Bb7 10. Bd2 Ra7 11. Rc1 Be4 12. Qb3 Nc6 13. e3 Qa8 14. Qd1 b4 15. Qf1 Bd5 16. Be1 Rc8 17. Nbd2 Na5 18. Ne5 c5 19. dxc5 Bxc5 20. Nd3 Bf8 21. Bxd5 Nxd5 22. e4 Nb6 23. Rxc8 Qxc8 24. Nf3 Qb7 25. Nxb4 Qxe4 26.Qd3 Qxd3 27. Nxd3 Nac4 28. b3 Nd6 29. Rc1 Nd5 30. Rc6 Nf5 31. Ba5 Ra8 32.Nfe5 Nfe7 33. Rd6 Nf6 34. b4 Ned5 35. Rc6 Be7 36. a4 g6 37. Nc4 Kf8 38. Nc5 Bxc5 39. bxc5 Ke8 40. f3 Ng8 41. Nb6 Nge7 42. Rd6 Rb8 43. Nxd5 Nxd5 44.Rxa6 Rc8 45. Bb6 Nb4 46. Ra7 Nc6 47. Rb7 Ra8 48. Rc7 Nd4 49. a5 Nxf3+ 50.Kf2 Nxh2 51. c6 Ng4+ 52. Kf3 Nf6 53. Rb7 Nd5 54. Ke4 Nb4 55. c7 Rc8 56. Kd4 Kd7 57. Kc5 Nc6 58. a6 h5 59. a7 f5 60. a8=Q Rxa8 61. c8=Q+ Kxc8 62. Kxc6 1-0

Kramnik – Shirov, Tal Memorial, Moscow 2007 (5)

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. Qc2 dxc4 7. Qxc4 a6 8.Bf4 Bd6 9. O-O b5 10. Qc2 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Nbd7 12. Nb3 Be4 13. Qd2 Qe7 14. Rfc1 Rfc8 15. Bxd6 cxd6 16. Qa5 Rcb8 17. Nbd2 Bd5 18. Rc2 Qd8 19. Qxd8+ Rxd8 20. Rac1 Nb6 21. Ne1 Rac8 22. Nd3 Rxc2 23. Rxc2 Rc8 24. Rxc8+ Nxc8 25. Nb4 Bxg2 26. Kxg2 a5 27. Nc6 a4 28. e4 Ne8 29. Kf3 Kf8 30. Ke3 Nc7 31. Kd3 Ke8 32. Kc3 Na6 33. Nb4 Nc7 34. Nf1 Kd7 35. Ne3 Ne7 36. g4 g5 37. Nd3 f6 38. f4 gxf4 39. Nxf4 e5 40. dxe5 fxe5 41. Nfd5 Ncxd5+ 42. exd5 Kc7 43. g5 Kb6 44. b4 axb3 45. axb3 Ka5 46. h4 Ng6 47. h5 Nf4 48. g6 hxg6 49. h6 g5 50. h7 Ng6 51. Kd3 1-0

For the final part of the hat-trick it was nice to see Kramnik showing up some of his critics who despair of his ‘safety-first’ play. The following is as consummate a demolition of a 2700 Grandmaster as there is ever likely to be:

Kramnik – Alekseev, Tal Memorial, Moscow 2007 (6)

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 b5 6. e4 Nxe4 7. Qe2 Qe7 8. Bg2 Nd6 9. Be3 b4 10. Bxc5 Qxe2+ 11. Nxe2 Na6 12. Bxd6 Bxd6 13. Nd2 Rb8 14.Nc4 Be7 15. d6 Bf6 16. Nf4 Nc5 17. O-O Ba6 18. Nd5 O-O 19. Nxf6+ gxf6 20. Bd5 Na4 21. Rfc1 Rfe8 22. Ne3 Rb6 23. Rc7 Rxd6 24. Rd1 Kh8 25. Nf5 Rb6 26. Bxf7 Nxb2 27. Rdxd7 Re1+ 28. Kg2 Bf1+ 29. Kf3 Be2+ 30. Kf4 Rb8 31. Bc4 1-0

Mind over Matter

This coming Thursday (November 22nd) is the first assessment deadline of my final year. It is for my ‘Applied Sports Psychology’ module and for it I have had to produce a report and a twenty minute presentation. The theme of these two pieces of work has been to look at an ‘Elite Performer’ and the psychological factors that affect their performance.

The work has been in order to find out the main psychological difficulties that the Performer has in their field and to suggest no more than two interventions to counter these.

The collection of data took place in two forms. The first was to do a Performance Profile, where the Performer had to draw up a list of all the psychological factors that they felt affect their performance and give themselves a score out of ten for each. (Where 10 was ‘couldn’t be any better’ and 1 was ‘couldn’t be any worse’) Then they had to choose someone at a higher level of expertise within their field, who was performing at a standard they wished to obtain (For instance a Championship footballer comparing themselves to a Premiership player) and score them in the same fashion.

The second stage was to carry out a semi-structured interview that was specific to the Elite Performers specialist area. I liked this idea, because throughout my psychological studies, I have become a big fan of the combined 'Typology' (Eysenck) approach; where quantitative and qualitative research methods are combined.

I have to say, I have found it thoroughly enjoyable and am looking forward to delivering the presentation on Thursday. These have been a strength of mine throughout my degree and so hopefully there are some ‘easy marks’ for me to gain.

The next step will be to present the Performer with the interventions and specific instructions on how to use them. Then after a given period of time, the interventions will be evaluated and any necessary modifications will be made to them.

The final part of my assessment will be to write a larger report, looking at how the interventions have worked, any modifications that have been made and an evaluation by the Performer of the service I have provided.

I am certainly looking forward to presenting my Elite Performer with my program. I also have no fears about the interventions and whether they will work or not. They may not be the most ideal due to my lack of experience, but they certainly won’t negatively affect their performance. I have picked them not only for their suitability, but also on the grounds that they have been thoroughly tried and tested. Also, I know I have put the work in and done the research. Furthermore, I have had regular meetings with module supervisor, who is an accredited Sports Psychologist and her feedback has given me plenty of confidence.

I’ll feedback later on how the presentation went.

b2 or not b2 - that is the question!: Part Two

Today I have enjoyed spending some time analysing my new chess love. (See my earlier post of the same name for details) More specifically, my attention was focussed on the currently critical lines involving 10. e5 - see diagram.

I have started drawing up a Chessbase database solely dedicated to the Poisoned Pawn variation and all of it's branches. My current verdict on the big main line is as follows:

10. e5 dxe5 11. fxe5 Nfd7 12. Ne4 h6! 13. Bh4 Qxa2 14. Rd1 Qd5(!)

14…Qb2!? was a move that was immediately written off after the game Radjabov – Karjakin, Cap d'Agde Rapid 2006. However with current analysis it also seems viable at present thanks to a crucial novelty. If this is so then it represents a very important alternative to following the ‘forced’ sequence up to move 20. This will allow black to avoid the reams of analysis that have already developed after the tabiya position following 20. Bd6.

15. Qe3 Qxe5 16. Be2 Bc5 17. Bg3 Bxd4 18. Rxd4 Qa5+ 19. Rd2 0-0 20. Bd6



Out of the three main alternatives tried so far 20…Nc6/Rd8/Re8, I believe that the latter is currently black’s best option, although playing it requires been very well prepared and having faith in your defensive technique. Furthermore, I’m not sure what the winning chances are at elite level. However, at less exalted heights, the passed black a-pawn could certainly tip the balance.

Currently, I think that the critical line is 20...Re8 21. 0-0 f5 22. Qg3!? Nc6! 23. Qg6 Qd8 24. Bc4! Kh8 25. Ng5! Qxg5! 26. Qxe8+ Kh7 27. Bf4!? Qg6 28. Qxg6+ Kxg6 29. Bxe6 Nf6 30. Bc4


This position was reached in the game, Deep Junior - Deep Fritz, Ultimate Computer Challenge, Elista 2007. Here Deep Fritz played 30...Kh7? - a move I simply do not understand, how does this help black to unravel? Maybe the machine was planning ...g5 and ...f4 to release the c8 bishop, but it looks artifical to me.

Instead I suggest 30...a5, intending ...a4 and ...Ra5. The black bishop is quite happy where it is for the moment and the black knights do a good job of fighting for the centre. Furthermore, pushing the a-pawn is using black's major asset.

Whatever the current verdict, the assessments are currently in a state of flux. This is a variation where any prospective exponent is going to have to keep their database up-to-date and their tactical vision sharp, plus also bear in mind that the current evaluations are still pretty unstable. However, in my analysis this afternoon, there seemed to be certain rules of thumb to guide the search for black improvements.


1. First and foremost be looking to co-ordinate the black forces.
2. Try and establish whether you should be playing ...f5 or ...f6.
3. If ...f6 is a good idea, it will quite often be in conjunction with placing knights on e5/f8 and g6.
4. Always remember the a-pawn! However, don't be tempted to push it too far in the middlegame when it may simply drop off. Furthermore, this is often the best way of developing the a8 rook.
5. Black is usually happy to trade both a and b pawns for the white c-pawn. If this happens, then white's winning chances considerably diminish with all the pawns being left on the kingside.
6. Try not to be too concerned about the bishop being stuck on c8 for long periods. This piece does a valuable job protecting the b-pawn. Once that pawn leaves the board, white's c-pawn becomes passed. If you are going to sacrifice the b-pawn to develop the bishop, make sure you get considerable activity for it, or try to do so with an aim towards following rule 5.
7. If white manages to win the b-pawn (Usually after Ne4-d6xb7), there is usually counterplay for black down the newly opened file. If there isn't, then white's c-pawn tends to get motoring pretty quickly.
8. With the dark-squared bishop back in the box, black needs to be wary of sacrifices on f6, g7 and h6 as well as any other problems relating to the dark squares.



I have also looked at the other key variations in the Poisoned Pawn and provide a short summary below:

10. Bxf6

10... gxf6 11. Be2 h5! is the way to go now. 11…Nc6 looked good for black for a long time, until it was busted by a big novelty from Atanas Kolev. Given that he is one of the authors of ‘Sharpest Sicilian’, it’s almost certainly safe to take his word that this line is best for black!

10. Be2

...10...Nbd7! 11. 0-0 Qc5 or 11…Qa5 as recommended by Richard Palliser, seem simplest. This is a line where Georgiev’s theory that the Poisoned Pawn is easier to learn than other anti 6. Bg5 lines certainly holds up. Constant analysis over the decades has narrowed the path right down to the critical line and therefore it is simply necessary for black to learn that line and all the offshoots.

The same holds true for 10. f5

...where the critical line is 10…Nc6 11. fxe6 fxe6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. e5 (and 13. Be2) 13…dxe5 14. Bxf6 gxf6 15. Ne4! Qxa2! 16. Rd1 Be7 17. Be2 0-0 18. 0-0 Ra7! 19. Rf3! Kh8 (or 19…Rd7, which I have played over the board and personally think is simpler.) 20. Rg3 Rd7 21. Qh6 Rf7 22. Rg3 Rxd1+ 23. Bxd1 Qa5! 24. Kf1 Qd8 25. Qxf7 Qxd1+ 26. Kf2 Qxc2+ 27. Kf3 Qd1+ 28. Kf2 Qc2+ 29. Ke3 Bc5+! 30. Nxc5 Qxc5+ 31. Kd2 (31. Kf3 e4+!) 31…Qf2+ 32. Kc3 Qc5+ 33. Kd2 Qf2+ 34. Kc3 ½ - ½ Vallejo Pons – Kasparov, Moscow 2004.

9. Nb3

...is not causing too many problems at the moment, but a fair body of theory has built up after 9…Qa3 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Be2 Nc6 12. 0-0 Bd7 13. Kh1 Rc8 and now white has to make a crucial choice. This can be considered the tabiya position of this line.

I also count 7…Qb6 8. Nb3

...as part of the Poisoned Pawn. Positions in this line tend to turn into typical Sicilian races after 8…Be7 9. Qf3 Nbd7 10. 0-0-0 Qc7 11. Bd3 b5 12. Rhe1!?, although again there are numerous alternatives.

Sorry for not posting more analysis, but when I started this blog, I intended to write rather than post reams of chess analysis! If anyone is interested in discussing these lines further, or wishes to suggest additions/amendments to my rules; feel free to do so in the 'comments' section!

So many fascinating lines already viewed – so many more to see!

It's Chess Jim, but not as we know it...

I’m very much enjoying working on my dissertation. The field I have chosen is Cognitive Psychology and more specifically expert memory.

For over 40 years, chess players have been used to research theories of expert memory. This has been to try to decipher whether ‘experts’ in a field simply have a better memory than non-experts, or whether their chess education has helped them to develop subject specific techniques.

The path taken to my research idea was as follows:

1: I looked at the original research of Adriaan de Groot (1965), who looked at the differences in thought processes between the world’s elite, Grandmasters and National Masters by getting them to analyse positions and provide an ongoing commentary of what they were thinking.

2: My next step was to look at research into memory techniques. The first I came across was ‘Chunking’ – Chase & Simon (1973), who put forward the idea that a chess expert sees not individual pieces, but groups of pieces – These were termed ‘chunks’ and the authors reckoned that experts split positions into about seven of these.

3. The next significant idea was that of ‘Template Theory’ – Gobet and Simon (1996a), who claimed that the idea of chunks was too rigid. Their idea was that experts actually remember positions in two parts. The first part was termed ‘The core’, referring to perhaps the pawn structure. This part was identical to a chunk, in that an expert would memorise it exactly. The second part was called the ‘slot’, which referred to different piece configurations in and around the core.

4. The final key part of my preliminary research looked at the ‘Constraint Attunement Hypothesis’ – Vicente & Wang (1998). This theory stated that experts remember more, even in very random positions, because they are aware of various constraints surrounding any given chess position. Examples of this are that there are always two kings on the board and that pawns never appear on the first or eighth rank.

To test this idea, Gobet & Waters (2003) set up an experiment comparing Template Theory and the Constraint Attunement Hypothesis. This experiment tested experts and non-experts at memorising normal positions, positions with a certain percentage of the pieces scrambled and then ‘truly random’ positions. These were positions where the normal rules of chess were broken as in the examples given above.

The results were that experts still remembered significantly more of truly random positions than non-experts, although the percentage gap was smaller than on any other type of position. In their discussion section, Gobet & Waters (2003) hypothesised that the reason for this was that players of all levels could work out the absence of such constraints and that ‘ceteris paribus’, the experts superior use of Template Theory was the crucial factor.

Finally, they went onto discuss whether 'all' the constraints had been removed in their experiment and here is where my idea comes in! The authors pointed out that the pieces used are another possible constraint that should be tested. This is because most players, whatever their strength, have played in a tournament using the standard ‘Staunton’ pieces. Therefore my idea is simply to test whether memory and recall is affected by the types of pieces that the position is presented to the player on – simple!

Now there is just the usual problem of trying to find enough volunteers!

Apparently I know what I am about to write...

As a psychology undergraduate, I have never ceased to be amazed at just how divisive it can make other people. Fortunately, one of my lecturers has kindly divulged a key weapon that may finally start shifting the momentum back in favour of the humble psychologist! I wish to share this advice with anyone else who is in my position.

In my experience (For what it’s worth), most people upon finding out I am studying psychology; tend to fall into three main overlapping groups.

The first are those who also have a fascination with the subject matter and are interested in the knowledge that I can bring into a discussion. This group is by far the smallest!

The second group mainly consists of people who have studied physics, chemistry or biology and delight in pointing out that they think I am studying a weaker/inferior/unsound science. This is then usually followed up by asking me why I am not doing a proper degree. The size of this group tends to be on a par with the next one.

The third (and usually the most insidious) group are those who wheel out the standard question, “So, what am I thinking right now?” Fortunately there is a simple antidote to such people, that I am grateful to my former flat-mate Tom for sharing with me. This simply involves pointing out that, “I am a psychologist, not a psychic!”

That is ok for the majority of ‘Group Three’ members, but now like a more virulent viral strain, a new and stronger sub-group is emerging and beginning to wreak vengeance for their fallen colleagues. I am referring to those people who take the whole ‘prove it’ philosophy to an entirely new level and ask me to demonstrate my abilities by performing an instantaneous character profile.

Up until now these people have just had to be dismissed with a laugh and a wave of my hand, but this is an outcome I have never been happy with. I had always hoped that there would be some way of shining such ignorance under a bright searchlight and exposing it, but up until last Monday I did not have what I considered to be a suitable riposte…

However, now I consider myself suitably well armed and it is all thanks to the generosity of Dr. Paul Smith. His idea is that you take the ‘offender’ up on their question in a manner similar to the following…,

“Well, judging by the way you are standing, I would say that you are a closet homosexual. The long distant look in your eyes would suggest that you have not told your wife yet and that this feeling is BURNING A HOLE RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SOUL!”

Obviously, it is possible to expand upon this idea, or develop new ones, but the basic premise is there and I hope will come in useful for myself and many others.

Oh, the joys of being outside of the laboratory and not having to adhere to ethical guidelines!

b2 or not b2 - that is the question!

I now haven’t played a serious game of chess since the day of the 2007 Wimbledon Men’s Singles Final. As fantastic a match of tennis as that was, it did not put me off the Royal Game! Rather, I felt like I wanted to concentrate my efforts for the coming year on my degree and therefore only play chess when I chose to, rather than when I had to. The consequence of that decision is that I am currently not playing any team chess.

There have been those who have doubted that my ‘self-imposed exile’ would last and that surely my ‘insatiable’ appetite for the game would draw me back sooner rather than later. However, they couldn’t be more wrong. My appetite is as sated as I have ever known it. The reason for this is because there is more than one road leading to Rome. Let me explain…

During the summer, I picked up an excellent new tome, ‘The Sharpest Sicilian’, dedicated to my beloved Najdorf Variation.

The surprise for me was that the recommended line against 6 Bg5 was the famous Poisoned Pawn Variation. I remember first coming across this line in 1995, when I was a slip of a chess-playing lad and my initial response was to look at most of the arising positions and think, “Black isn’t playing that?- surely!?”

A decade later, I got hold of Kasparov’s DVD on the line and began to see what all the excitement was about. I felt there was something truly magical about the way the black position kept holding together in the face of mass white assaults. There didn’t seem to be that much chess logic behind how black hung on, just cold calculation! However, the DVD only covered a fraction of the necessary knowledge and so I never gave the line a second thought, until…

Fast forward to summer this year and having purchased a book recommending the line, I thought I would try and tweak my interest further. In conjunction with my Najdorf books by Nunn and Palliser, I began to dig deeper. Needless to say, the ‘magic’ I had first experienced watching the DVD; kept leaping out from the pages. I was like an eager child, desperate to turn the page and find out what happened next! For the rest of the summer, most of my chess-related efforts were devoted to learning the secrets of this amazing variation.

At the moment, I am sadly not devoting any efforts to my new chess-related love. However, whenever I find myself getting a gentle pining for chess, a position from the Poisoned Pawn flashes into my mind and after five minutes of analysis I feel fine once more.

Beautiful ideas are just that, whether they occur in play or on the board at home. However, I intend to return from exile on November 25th, to play in The Steve Webster Memorial – I hope to see a lot of my York comrades there and also many more beautiful ideas created in memory of our wonderful ex-colleague.

Not the greatest adventure into the depths of the mind...

Each and every Calendar year, I tend to develop one ‘major’ insight into my life or life itself. So far in 2007, I have been lucky enough to experience both this year’s insight and a startling revelation to boot. I shall deal with the first here, whereas the revelation may take me some time to put into words.

My insight for 2007 was developed from two sources. The first was watching a documentary in my Level Two Psychology studies entitled, ‘Five steps to Tyranny’. In it, the host runs through what she feels are the five different steps to go from a perfectly peaceable society to a tyrannous regime. Looking at the documentary it seemed to me that each of the five steps could imperceptibly creep into the collective unconscious and that any problem caused may only be discovered when it was too late – It was most intriguing to this pair of eyes anyway!

The second was a conversation with a history graduate, who remarked that all he had learned from his dissertation was that for the citizens of any given country, there was only one difference between a moderate leadership and an extreme left/right wing government or dictatorship. ‘That’ difference, he explained, was that in a democracy unless there is a law saying that something cannot be done, then it can and vice versa under an extreme leadership.

These points got the psychologist in me thinking. Many times during my upbringing I had been ‘subjected’ to the explanation that someone was too old to change, or that certain bad habits/attitudes/beliefs were too well ingrained in them. The two examples above made me question those explanations that I had been given in the past. When looking at them with my own eyes, it seemed that the changes required in each case were not big, per se; rather they were small, but significant.

Now, whenever I hear that someone is too old or stubborn to change, I adopt a much more positive (Yes, it is possible even for me!) frame of mind than before, because in each case I am almost certain that it cannot be true. It also gave me an interesting insight into the potential source of the origins of the ‘It’s grim up North’ attitude, or indeed the perceived cynicism of The British.

That’s been one of the frustrations of studying psychology – I’ve had to come down from my contented and smiling cloud and see the effects of the rain that falls from it! However, it has at least allowed me to form this cognitive minuet. Not the greatest adventure into the depths of the human mind, but one that gave me a nice warm feeling!

Please Sir, I want some more!

I am currently having one of those weeks that tend to come along every three/four months where I lose all willpower regarding my food intake.

So far this week a large amount of Indian snacks, Swiss Chocolate and two 500ml tubs of Chunky Monkey have seen their way past my lips without so much as an iota of resistance.

The strange thing is I have no idea why this happens! It’s not due to having a bad time in the near past, or feeling ‘that way out’. Nor is it due to suddenly fancying some snacks or a sugar rush. In fact, it is due to no ‘desire’ whatsoever!

Given that I’m a budding psychologist, I feel as though I probably should know the answer. However, I am not at all concerned as long as it only lasts for a week at a time. If I am not back in the gym tomorrow, then there may well be a slightly more concerned post appearing on Monday morning!

Controversial - or perhaps not!

Having re-read my previous post and received a response from an 'eager correspondent' - I shall clarify a quick point.

I don't intend every musing presented here to surround issues that are open to debate. That would be far too 'interesting' by my standards! However, when I do present any such material, I shall make sure I can back it up in a public forum as previously stated.

Blimey, three posts in and already responding to the public - what have I let myself in for?!

(With thanks to Catherine and her holistic voice of reason!)

(What) to write, or not to write - That is the question!

Since starting this blog, I've spent the majority of the time wondering about what I should not write, as opposed to what I wish to...

A couple of days ago I was reading the blog of 'The Great' Stephen Fry and he was talking about the days when he used to regularly write newspaper columns. The crux of his point was that if he needed a quick thousand words, it was very easy just to pick something he didn't approve of/dislike/hate and wax lyrical.

I found myself nodding along with this point, but then decided to take it one step further. (Two years of psychology training to develop critical thinking kicking in at last, I hope!) It has always seemed easier to me to be able to write constructive (or indeed any form of) criticism, publish it and then hide behind the words. When it becomes necessary to back those same words up in a public forum, to me that is entering a whole new sphere - For instance...

Over the summer, I spent some time 'hand-crafting' an e-mail to be sent out to the York chess mailing list, regarding the 'group-think' (See me or Social Psychology texts for details!) that had set in at The York R.I. Chess Club. The e-mail consisted of two sides of written text dealing with the salient facts and the conclusions that could be drawn from them. This whole process took me a week, because I wanted to make sure that the conclusions I represented were as close to what I wished to say and factually accurate as possible. This was because given that I rarely enter public debates, I wanted to make sure that I could state my case in public discussion with others, so as not to appear like I was hiding behind said aforementioned words on my computer screen.

The result of this exercise, for those of you who are wondering...well I received a fair degree of anger, but no-one decided to challenge me on any of the key facts that my 'words' had been based upon. Given the backlash I received, despite not being directly challenged on any of my points, I can only assume that I was too close to the truth for the liking of various people and I am now being portrayed as a dangerous and eccentric outsider who hides behind his keyboard!

Despite that little 'failing', I do intend to stick to my principles and anything that I write here will only be presented if I am able and prepared to back it up in a public forum. Perhaps one day, I may even have the confidence to back my points up in a dialogue with Stephen Fry himself. However, given that that man knows more about the English language than I know about the Sicilian Najdorf, that day may be someway off!

Right, now what do I actually wish to write about?

Hello, good evening and welcome!

I've considered the idea of writing a diary for years. However, there was one aspect that didn't quite appeal to me and that was the 'implied compulsion' to have to write something every single day.

Even if I felt something interesting or worth sharing actually did occur each and every day of my life, there was then the small issue of no-one seeing it. That in my mind meant it would 'merely' add up to a collection of memories and anecdotes that would only become available to a wider audience after I had shuffled off this mortal coil - not a pleasant thought!

Which leads me to this very moment - my debut as a Blogger! Now I can write when I wish to, about what I wish to and finally when I feel that something worth writing about has actually happened.

So there we are - Now I only have to decide what I consider to be interesting, or when I have something valid to say! Given that the inspiration for writing further musings has not hit me yet, I shall leave my debut post here.