A Pattern of Violence

One of the most crucial skills that club-strength players must develop to improve their game is pattern-recognition. This not only applies to tactical play, but also to positional themes; 're-inventing the wheel' is an unnecessary task when experts have shown already how such things work!

So, the more of these patterns we can assimilate into our practical chess knowledge, the easier it becomes to play for example, middle-game positions. Hopefully the following encounter will illustrate this important aspect of chess more vividly. A very useful little game in my opinion, highlighting some of the ideas we need to incorporate into our play and also some of the dangers we might face if we forget that our opponents' ideas have a right to exist too! Take your time and don't imagine they haven't seen what you think you have seen! The main idea we can take from this though, is that many if not most of the patterns of play we come across in our chess games have been seen many times before-it is to our advantage if we can secrete as many of them as possible in our memory banks to be brought out again as and when necessary. Now of course we are all limited to varying degrees as to

a) how many of these patterns we have the time to encounter let alone assimilate

b) how accurately we can reproduce them if the occasion arises

but as a starting point we should aim to be aware of the most common tactical and positional patterns/themes which occur frequently in our favourite openings.

My favourite opening is the Dragon Variation as we have seen, and one of the best books on this opening is Winning With the Dragon by GM Chris Ward, so have a look at the following game taken from the 2nd edition and see if it looks familiar! I hope you have enjoyed this little article.

Irish Pawn Formations

In my research for folklore of the Faeries of Ireland and Chess I stumbled across two pawn formations that have Irish names and while they may have weaknesses they do have some validity. So if you come across them do not panic. Study the games provided and your own and you may find the luck of the Irish in your game.

History.

There are arguments in both academic and ecclesiastical circles as to whether this pawn formation is due to Ireland being a Roman Catholic country, where the Holy Trinity is a pillar of Christian belief – perhaps due to the formation resembling a pillar comprised of a trinity of pawns.

The first one is the Irish Pawn Formation. It consists of three pawns on one file.

Pawn: E3

Pawn: E4

Pawn: E5

The second one, supposedly the Irish school of Chess is working on an opening using this structure, is called "The Shamrock."

Pawn: D4

Pawn: E3

Pawn: F4

Pawn: E5

Top 10 Chess Players

Below are the players we believe to be the ten greatest chess players of all time. Of course, these are debatable. If you disagree then please leave a message in our guestbook (here). We think that most of these players would make most people's top ten. Let us emphasise that any list of this kind is inevitably going to be highly subjective. We should also say that we think that playing strength is more important than practical results in judging greatness. The comments on the styles of the players listed here are, to some extent, a matter of opinion too.

1. Capablanca
Certainly the greatest natural talent of all time, he was sometimes extremely lazy and refused to "waste" time reading chess textbooks. However, he did make considerable contributions to opening theory so it is probable that he did spend some time on his openings. He had a score of 318 wins, 249 draws, and only 34 losses in match and tournament play between 1909 and 1939 1 2. No other master has sustained so few losses over such a period of time. When asked how many moves he looked ahead his reply was "One move, the best move", and this probably holds more than a grain of truth. Capablanca was renowned for his ability to instantly and accurately evaluate chess positions. Perhaps, of all the chess players through history only he had such an accurate evaluation function. Capablanca liked to control the position and to focus only on elements he felt were necessary to achieve victory. His endgame technique was legendary. It is often said that you can discover the true strength of a player by looking at how he handles endgames. If this is the case then Capablanca was the strongest player of all time.

2. Kasparov
World champion for 15 years and perhaps the greatest tactician of all time. He held the title of world champion from 1985 until 2000 (When he was beaten somewhat unconvincingly by Kramnik) and dominated major tournaments from the beginning of his reign (challenged only briefly by Anand) until 2001. His results do not fully reveal his talents and only by playing through some of his games can his true genius be seen. He was sometimes described as a ten eyed monster who saw everything in all positions (this quotation has been repeated with different numbers of eyes by different people - ten seems reasonable). He was exuberant and showy and had a photographic memory. He was, of all players, the most computer-like in tactical ability with incredible tactical vision and yet he possessed a profound positional understanding and had the deepest opening preparation in history.

3. Botvinik
The only player to hold the world title on three separate occasions, a feat unlikely to be repeated. He was a scientist and this showed through in his style of play. His style was to create closed positions characterised by flank movements and manoeuvres (as 'evidenced' by the variation of the English Opening which is named after him). His natural abilities although impressive, were enhanced significantly by his excellent preparation for games (which he himself refers to in a number of places) which involved intensive fitness regimes and extensive study, especially of endgames. The result was superb endgame technique and superb concentration which gave him the edge time and again. In addition to this Botvinik was an excellent judge of positions, probably at least partly because of his playing through and carefully analysing thousands and thousands of games. He was a practical player, more so than any before him, and this shows through in his games. His contributions to chess computing were also significant.

4. Steinitz
Somebody 3 once said that if you take all the pieces from the board, put them in a box, shake them around a bit and then pour them back onto the board you would have the style of Steinitz. His games include many bizarre positions and his original style of play made him an unpredictable and dynamic adversary. It has also been said that for 20 years he stood higher above his contemporaries than any other master. This overwhelming superiority demonstrated that he was well ahead of his time and his tournament record was the best up to his defeat in the world championship match in 1894 at age 59. His play could be tactical or positional as he excelled in both areas and this flexibility was arguably his greatest asset.

5. Alekhine
He held the world champions title twice, losing only once to Euwe but regaining it almost immediately afterwards. He lost the title eventually only because of his death. He was a drunk and a devious manipulator and would surely have lost his title to Capablanca had the match between them taken place. At first Alekhine seemed willing to play the match but after a couple of false starts he changed his mind and effectively refused to play it. He was a strong player with great determination and studied for many years to make himself "the complete player". He had an incredible combinative talent. He is Kasparovs' hero and this in itself is sufficient to make him a player worthy of imitation. Perhaps he is inimitable?

6. Karpov
Dull and uninspiring, Karpov takes positional play to new depths. The domination themes and willingness always to resolve tension make his games appear drab and dry. His talent however is undeniable. He was world champion for ten years and came close to retrieving it from Kasparov on several occasions. His tactical vision and positional understanding are outstanding and it is a shame he didn't put them to better use! (Note that the term 'Karpovian' is derived from Karpovs style and refers to slow and deep positional manoeuvres, thus "this is all deeply karpovian").

7. Fischer
A lot has been written about his chess and possibly even more about the rest of his life. The impression given by the literature (and by comments he has made in interviews) is that he's just an unpleasant person. Of course, that's not a good reason for putting him so far down the list. However, there is also something lacking in his chess. His play is often brutal and he's always forcing things. Much of his chess, though tactically brilliant and strategically powerful, lacks any kind of subtlety (not to be confused with depth or vision - the fact that Fischer's opponents didn't know what was going on does not make his play subtle, just too deep for them to appreciate). Subtlety is a sign of a player's calibre and of his positional feeling. Fischer's game relies heavily on opening preparation and I think that without it, his results would have been far less impressive. I think that this is less true of the players above him on this list (with the possible exception of Kasparov, though I still feel that Kasparov is fundamentally a stronger player than Fischer). Though Fischer shone for a short time, he did not, (arguably through no fault of his own), produce enough evidence that he deserved a higher place on this list.

8. Larsen
Never world champion but arguably the finest player not to be so. He would enter into positions which to others would appear ugly and yet was able to see original potential in all of them. Indeed, there is something Steinitzian about his play. Larsen never played for draws and as such his chess was extremely popular in the eyes of the public. His opening repertoire was extremely varied; the following quote from him describing it well; "I do not deliberately play openings that are obviously bad. I emphasize the surprise element and in some cases this makes me play a variation without being convinced that it is correct". A genius in his own right and a master of counter attack, drawing amazing resources from seemingly cramped and uninspiring positions Larsen's games will always be worthy of study.

9. Nezhmetdinov
A wildcard in this list. Almost an unknown player but a tactical genius who had a plus score against non other than Mikhail Tal (possibly the most attack oriented and exciting world champion of them all). His games vary from the tactically inspired to the totally incomprehensible. His victories were frequently incredible but he lacked the support to reach the summit of the chess world. He deserved to achieve so much more. Until you have studied his games you cannot really hope to understand quite how remarkable this man really was.

10. Lasker
A phenomenal talent, Lasker employed Steinitz's theories but with a greater emphasis on combinations. He thus refined Steinitz's approach by finding a different balance between tactical and positional considerations. His style was to play into dangerous and often precarious positions and then to defend with nerves of steel. He was the first player to systematically tailor his play to take advantage of his opponents psychological weaknesses, sometimes playing inferior moves confident that this particular opponent would not play the critical line. He was world champion for over 26 years, second only to Steinitz's 28, and was successful in tournament as well as in match play.

Why Isn't ...
We are often asked why Morphy does not make it onto this list. Our answer is that Morphy never defeated anyone strong enough (when he played them) to really stretch him. We cannot tell whether he was great, just as we wouldn't be able to tell if Kasparov was great if he had only ever played against IMs. It's possible that Morphy was the greatest, but there isn't enough evidence to show it to be even probable. Phenomenal playing strength can only be proved in games against phenomenal opponents. Morphy had no such opponents to hand. He was a fine attacking player with great tactical vision but the players of his time didn't really push him far enough for us to be able to be sure how good he really was.

Two Common Tactical Maneuevers

The Pin
A pin is a tactic to freeze an opponents peice so that it cannot be moved, either because moving it will cause the king to be captured, or will cause the loss of a major peice.

Knight Fork
A knight always attacks a peice or pawn in a diffrent colored square from the one it stands on. Sometimes if a knight is well positioned, it can attack two enemy peices at the same time, when this happens one of the peices must be captured unless the defending peices are not in check and are able to put the enemy king in check.

Standard Openings

Kings Pawn Opening
1. e4

Ruy Lopez
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5

Sicilian Defense
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6

French Defense
1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Nf6

Queens Gambit Declined
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5

Queen's Indian Defense
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 b6
4. g3 Bb7
5. Bg2 Be7
6. 0-0

Rules of Chess

Chess is a game, played by two players. One player plays with the white pieces, and the other player plays with the black pieces. Each player has sixteen pieces in the beginning of the game: one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and eight pawns.

The game is played on a chessboard, consisting of 64 squares: eight rows and eight columns. The squares are alternately light (white) and dark colored. The board must be laid down such that there is a black square in the lower-left corner. To facilitate notation of moves, all squares are given a name. From the view of the white player, the rows are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; the lowest row has number 1, and the upper row has number 8. The columns are named, from left to right, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h. A square gets a name, consisting of the combination of its column-letter and row-number.


Alternately, the players make a move, starting with the white player (the player that plays with the white pieces.) A move consists of moving one of the pieces of the player to a different square, following the rules of movement for that piece - there is one special exception, named castling, where players move two pieces simultaneously.

A player can take a piece of the opponent by moving one of his own pieces to the square that contains a piece of the opponent. The opponents piece then is removed from the board, and out of play for the rest of the game. (Taking is not compulsory.)

Chess

When it comes to mind games, chess is undoubtedly at the top of the list. This game has been around for more than sixteen hundred years. To this day, chess is one of the most popular games
among people of all ages. The game includes kings, queens, and soldiers who fight for victory. This interpretation of chess pieces may seem a bit funny, but these are the kinds of pieces we play with. People who are familiar with this game are aware of the extent to which this game helps increase the sharpness of mind. This is a common game among the military, as it helps them come up with strategic approaches.

The game is based on mathematical techniques, and you need to defeat the opponent’s king in order to win. This is known as checkmate. You might think that it is an easy task, but you should not be too relaxed unless you are very aware of the technical moves. It goes without saying that chess boards are indispensable to a game of chess. Unless there is a chess board, the game or ‘battle’ cannot start. Chess boards have sixty-four squares that come in a format of eight rows and eight columns. The squares come in two different colors, black and white. However, the squares on the chess boards used in competitions are normally off-white and dark green.