Chess 960 Match - TL Community Chess Match 5

Nice to activate the bishop and aim at the king but I vote for direct control of the center first. If he is randomly moving then we can bring our nice friend Ed along with e5 and d5.

Allow me to present the calgar initial 6-move action plan.

Which will result in a basic setup like this.


This pretty much incorporates the qrs plan but I would just go with e5 or d5 first. Ng5 (lol) is met easily with Nf6. The light-squared bishop can also go to d7/b5. Anyways, in this case I say d5 because it activates the light-square bishop and rook. After the 6 move plan we can 0-0 after developing the queen to e7? perhaps or 0-0-0 after Re8 to connect our rooks on the back rank.

1) Both we and our opponent have to move the g-pawn, to activate the h-bishop. It doesn't have to be right away, but at some point we will almost certainly have to play g6 (g5 being ruled out for the moment by the Nh3). Thus it makes sense that the move ...g6 appears in both the calgar and the qrs opening plans.

2) After we do move the g-pawn, our dark-squared Bishop is instantly activated along the long diagonal. It will take us at least two extra moves to transfer it somewhere else, and for the moment, there's no compelling reason for us to expect that we will do that. Therefore, I think that if possible we should avoid limiting our own Bishop by blocking this diagonal.

2a) Specifically, this means avoiding the moves ...f6 and ...e5 (...Nf6 is not as bad because it's easier to move a Knight at will than to move pawns). Already this means that I take issue with the move ...e5 in the calgar plan.

3) Since we will have to move the g-pawn in any case (point 1), we open the avenue to develop our Queen to h3. This is an attractive square for a number of reasons. Several of them have to do with our opponent's opening choice, and I will elaborate on those below. At any rate, ...Qh3 is a move that we can play no matter what else we do (because we are definitely moving the g-pawn).

1. We can expect that our opponent won't move the Knight again in the opening--and if he does, that's a victory for us. Also, the Knight is not especially well-defended: currently it's defended by a single pawn, which we'd be happy to pull to h3 (doubling/isolating two of Black's pawns). In any case, the pawn plans to move (to uncover the Bishop), as mentioned above. After the pawn moves, the Knight will be defended only by the Queen.

2. This suggests another component of the qrs plan: attack the Knight, via ...d6, ...Bd7. For this reason I take issue with the ...Bc6 component of the calgar plan: I think that we can take better advantage of White's first move by using our light-squared Bishop to take aim at the Knight.

3. In turn, intending to post the Bishop on d7 explains why I, at least initially, preferred ...d6 to ...d5: after our opponent moves his g-pawn (which he will surely do after we play ...Bd7, if not before) a pawn on d5 may become vulnerable to his Bishop. However, perhaps I'm being overcautious here. I'm willing to consider ...d5 over ...d6

4. Putting the Knight on h3 has weakened White's h-pawn. That pawn was already weak because there's no Rook on h1 in this game. Putting the Knight on h3 means that White can't defend the pawn by a) playing Nf3, b) playing h3, or c) playing Qh3.

5. Points 1 and 4 suggest the next component of the qrs plan, already alluded to above: ...Qh3. This move can accomplish a number of things (partly depending on what our opponent does with his future moves, of course)

• Pin our opponents d-pawn.
  
• Put pressure on our opponent's h3 Knight.
  
• Pin our opponent's Knight to the h2 pawn, which is weak, as mentioned above.

6. ...Qh3 works in conjunction with ...Bd7 to pressure the Knight. I imagine that White will respond with something like g3 and Bg2 to defend it. At all events, though, this ties down both the Bishop and Queen to defending the Knight and forces White to make an extra move with his light-squared Bishop, while we are only making developing moves.

7. ...Nf6 is a slightly tricky one: like calgar, I would like to play it; on the other hand, there is the question of whether to play it in front of or behind the f-pawn. Also, on f6 it blocks our Bishop, which is something to keep in mind.

8. One of the reasons I'd like to put the Knight on f6 is to threaten ...Ng4, after which the Knight threatens the h-pawn, which, as mentioned above, is not so easy for White to defend. For this reason, my trigger for playing ...Ng4 is White's playing f4. That's a plausible move for White, especially after ...Qh3: it gains space on the board, opens an avenue for White's dark-squared Bishop to develop, and relieves our pin of the d-pawn. On the other hand, it makes g4 a safe square for our Knight. So as soon White plays f4, I'm ready to play ...Nf6.

9. At this point in the qrs opening plan, we already have developed our Queen, light-squared Bishop, and h-side Knight anyway, so we could consider ...0-0, as calgar suggests. Not bound to it, though.

Interesting. I'll throw out some random ideas here.

It looks like you've proposed a hypo-modern King's Indian development. This is going to allow white to set up shop and occupy the center with something like e4-d4 and c3 or f3. The KI plays for space on the kingside by advancing the f-pawn and gaining initiative while the center remains locked. In this case our king isn't on the kingside yet and the center remains open. To me this looks like it leaves us without a plan going into the middlegame. What is the plan to disrupt white's stronger center? I'm going to assume it will be stronger since all of our moves are allowing him to occupy it with pawns.

In response to blocking our dark square bishop, I don't think the knight blocking the fianchettoed bishop is an issue to be worried about since this happens in essentially every fianchetto opening. The pawn at e5 is well-placed and I feel that the control it asserts outweighs blocking the bishop since it is most likely to be temporary due to potential exchanges or advancing.

A thing to note, I'm assuming by ...Qh3 you mean Qh6 In regards to Qh6: The idea of attacking the knight is a good one. If white has played d4, though, he can immediately develop the bishop with tempo on the queen. Where does she go from there? g7 creates a battery but is essentially biting on rock since the queen will inevitably be attacking a protected piece. h5 and h4 seem misplaced and vulnerable to further harassment. Undeveloping back to f8 isn't attractive either. If Qh6 is immediately responded to by Bd2 then our tactic of attacking the knight loses its power. Along this note, would we really want to exchange bishop for knight? It doubles his pawns but if we can't take advantage of them by attacking them then we might regret it in the endgame if it becomes NvsB. He may fianchetto or move the knight to f4 also.

I do agree that c6 may not be the best place for the bishop. It's hard to tell on move 1 where it will end up but I think it is at least a possibility. I have a feeling b5 may end up being stronger since a4 will not be able to harass it as easily as a normal position.

I'm going to stand by 1... d5 as my vote for strongest first move. It is protected and right away stops e4. He has essentially given us white by playing a weak move so I don't think it makes sense to play hypomodern. Sure, it works, but in theory I think we would be better off seizing the initiative rather than playing hypomodern 1-move up.

1. Blocking the h8 Bishop:
A)
I essentially agree with you on this point--after all, I agreed with you in wanting to play ...Nf6. I only said that it's something to keep in mind: there might be times when we want the Bishop unblocked (without needing an extra move to unblock it), so everything else being equal, it makes sense to play our other moves before ...Nf6, unless we have a reason to play it earlier.

For example, you suggest the possibility of White's playing d4 and Bd2, to threaten a Queen on h3. These two moves leave White's d-pawn temporarily undefended: an unblocked Bh8 would put a crimp in that plan. Here's a line to illustrate:
1. Nh3 d6 different move order, but part of the same opening plan that I outlined above
2. d4 as you suggested for White: controls the center, develops, etc.
2...Bd7 threatens to disrupt White's pawn structure with 3...BxN
3. g3 in response to the above threat
3...g6 threatening to win the Knight by the fork 4...Qh3+

Now, at this point, White might want to play 4. Bd2, preventing ...Qh3+ and developing a piece at the same time. However, because our Bishop threatens the pawn on d4, he cannot play this move. A Knight on f6 would deprive us of this tactical resource.

This certainly doesn't refute the idea of ...Nf6, of course, and as I said, I'd like to play that too. It's just an illustration of the sort of idea that makes me cautious about playing that move before we have to.

B)
Here I disagree with you. I'll grant the "well-placed" part except insofar as it blocks the Bishop, but I don't think that we can say that "it is most likely to be temporary due to potential exchanges or advancing". I think that's largely in the hands of our opponent. If he plays to prevent us from advancing or exchanging the e5-pawn--for instance by playing d3 and g3, I'm not at all sure that we have a good way to get the pawn off e5--and if it's going to sit there and block our Bishop all game (or until we spend several moves getting the Bishop to a worse diagonal than it currently occupies), I don't think we can call the e5 pawn well-placed at all.

2. ...Qh36

Say no more. The fault is mine for overgeneralizing here. I don't want to play ...Qh6 (yes, that's what I meant; thanks for catching that) in the situation you describe, where White has moved his d-pawn, but not his dark-squared Bishop, and with the Knight well-defended. In that case, I agree that ...Qh6 would be a bad move for the reason you show: it loses tempo. Here are the situations where I'd like to play it:

A) If White has not moved his d-pawn yet--in which case it pins the d-pawn, as I said. Here's a very basic line to illustrate that case: 1. Nh3 g6 2. g3 Qh3.

B) If we'd be doubly attacking the Knight by playing that move. Here's a line that shows what I mean: 1. Nh3 g6 2. e4 d6 3. d4 Bd7 4. g3? Qh6+ 5. Bd2 Qxh3.

Of course, that last line would never actually happen--because g3 would be a blunder. But White doesn't have too many good alternative 4th moves either: 4. Nc4 (besides spending a second move on the Knight) would still allow 4...Qh6, winning that weak h-pawn, and if White just ignores the threat to his Knight, then 4...BxN doubles/isolates his pawns, as mentioned. So what this line shows is that the threat of Qh6+ can be pretty strong in these lines--so strong, that White may very well think twice before moving his d-pawn in these situations. If White doesn't move his d-pawn right away, see A).

3. ...Bd7 to attack the Knight

Well this is an important point, since I've been basing a lot of my reasoning on the assumption that yes, we would. First of all, it not only doubles his pawns, but moves the g-pawn away from the center, and isolates both. That weakens them greatly, and I think it is a weakness that we could take advantage of at all times in the game (assuming that Ng5 doesn't just outright sac one for initiative, as he did in TL Chess Match 4). Among other things, we can pressure the h3 pawn with the several-times-aforementioned ...Qh6.

In any case, even if we decide that we don't want to make that trade, the combination of a Bishop on d7 and a Queen on h6--or the threat of a Queen on h6, still puts a lot of pressure on White. After all, he has to move that g-pawn at some point, or his Bishop is blocked in forever.

4. Whether to play ...d5 or d6

I've explained my reasoning for disagreeing with you on this one: it basically follows from our other disagreements:

A) I want to put our Bishop on d7, which means that e4 will be temporarily unprotected (if we haven't played ...Ng6, which I don't think should be a priority as it doesn't pressure White at all), and potentially subject to attack from White's Bh1. Here's a very basic line that illustrates that: 1. Nh3 d5 2. g3, and now we can no longer play ...Bd7 without taking an extra move to defend our d-pawn.

B) You want to stop e4; on the contrary, I'd be happy for White to play it--and then to stop e5, instead, leaving White to block his own Bishop. See point 1B), above.

5. Control of the center

I haven't addressed this yet, because I think it's a bit too early to talk about it. You're making the assumption that White has the time to set up a strong center while we ignore it, but I'm not sure that's the case. I've already given reasons why I think White should hesitate to play a quick d4, for instance, and for why e4 is better for us than for White, in my opinion, so, vaguely speaking, at least, I'm not envisioning White gaining control of the center here. If you want to talk about this point, give me a line where White takes control of the center as we pursue the plan I've been describing. Then we'll have more to talk about.

Alright yeah I meant hyper sorry I sound stupid

I agree with some of your points, but lets assume he doesn't move randomly like he said he might and takes the center. You say you are content to stop e5 if he plays e4, but can he not brute force it after preparing with d4 and f4? Here is a hypothetical move 4 setup.

White move 4

I'm thinking Nb3, Qd3, and f4 could all be possibilities. They may all be played and just transpose into each other. I don't really see much point in going more than 4 moves deep right now since there is so much possibility and all but what do you propose against some kind of setup like that?

I don't think he is worried about BxN either because I don't think they will be very easy targets to hit. The rooks won't be active for many moves and I don't see any other ways for the minor pieces or queen to pressure. Would you agree it is an unclear trade heading to the endgame since the bishop could make up for their weakness?

Even though ...g6 and ...d6 may seem like passive moves, they do give us the support we need to challenge White's center, by playing e5 and f5. Here's a continuation of your line where we do just that. From there we can play ...Re1 and ...0-0-0. It looks to me like we're doing OK there: we're going toe-to-toe with White in the center, while continuing to maintain some pressure on that misplaced Nh3.

This is maybe more fundamental: the biggest disagreement we have seems to be over whether or not it's good for us to trade Bishop for Knight. A lot of my reasoning has been based on the assumption that it is. If we assume that, it changes everything, of course: in that case, the continuation of your line would probably look more like this: we play the exchange immediately, conceding White the Bishop pair and a stronger hand in the center in exchange for disrupting his pawn structure.

Now, you are not so sure that the exchange is good for us, and you may be right. I'm a bit biased on this sort of question: my favorite book on chess is by Philidor. So, while conceding that your viewpoint is valid, I'll just sketch out the reasons why I like the exchange, even though it does come with some disadvantages.

1) Most advantages in chess are dynamic. The pieces move. Knights are good in some situations, Bishops are good in some situations, and if we don't like the pieces that we have in the situation we're in, we can always try maneuvering to exchange them. In other words, I don't know what will happen if we give White a Bishop to our Knight, and a little more central control, but I have confidence that if we play carefully, we can neutralize whatever he's able to do with that. Pawns are much more static. Changes to the pawn structure persist throughout the game. If we play carefully until we reach the endgame, those doubled pawns ought still to be there for us to cash in on.

2) Even in the middlegame, I think that these doubled pawns help us.
a) Since they're doubled away from the center, they weaken that center which White is trying to build up in your line. Without the support of a g-pawn, the f-pawn is relatively weak.
b) After the trade, White's h-side is blown open. Whereas we still have the flexibility to castle on either side, White can't even think about castling h-side. Knowing this so early in the game is an advantage for us, I think.

Pros: With the intention of moving our light squared bishop to g6 or h5 in order to apply a bit of pressure on those pawns covering the rooks, and pin one of them down for now. This could be done before or after g5 - probably after is best.

Cons: It is going to temporarily keep our dark squared bishop pinned in until we move that pawn on the f file futher along. It could also give us an awkward first move for that knight, but this is 360... so I'm not really sure what an awkward move for the knight at this stage in the game is.

I chose f6 over f5 because it allows that pawn to defend the g file pawn if we move it to g5 on the next move. Also, it doesn't clog up that light diagnal allowing us to put station our light squared bishop on g6, as one possible option, applying pressure on the c2 pawn, and essentially, the b1 rook. I guess my thinking is that if this is the route we take, wouldn't we want both of those light squared diagnals open and not clogged up by our own pieces?

on f6, the pawn blocks both our g8 Knight and our dark-squared Bishop, and White can clog that g6-c2 diagonal himself with the developing move e4.

Yea, I'm really just spitballing here. Was hoping to spur some discussion amongst others. But yes, a move that restricts the movement of two of our minor pieces this early in the game probably shouldn't happen.

I like the look of our position with pawns on d5 and f5. I think with Re8, 0-0-0, and Nb6 we've done alright out of the opening. So I agree with your assessment there if 4. f4.

Let's say he plays the Qd3 line instead of f4. 4. Qd3 line Here the queen seems to be well placed and exchanging minor pieces no longer doubles the pawns. If we pawn break with ... e5 he can respond d5 and +/- I think. What would you play then? f5? Nb6? Nf6?

In response to your 2 points on exchanging:

1. "if we play carefully, we can neutralize whatever he's able to do with that" - yes, agreed to an extent. I'm looking towards the endgame, though, and I doubt careful play is going to allow a knight to stop a bishop attacking 13 squares. I think we will be even at best midgame. The weakness do help us in the midgame, but he gets plus sides in return. In the 4. f4 line, where we decide to exchange as you linked --- I think this is going to lead him to play on the kingside and a rook is certainly going to use the half-open file. He can potentially play h4-h5 to trade off doubled pawns somewhere down the line. His plus sides: gains half-open file, opens h1-a8 diagonal (aiming at our king), bishop pair. I guess we can agree to disagree here.

2. This may or may not matter depending on whether or not he plays 4. Qd3. How do you proceed after BxN gxh3?5. gxh3

How do you think white will reply to 1... d5 that will make him better off than the center he has in your lines?

It's true that the Queen is fairly well-placed in this line, and it's also true that we can't immediately double the pawns with ...BxN. On the other hand, the second of these points somewhat undermines the first: although seemingly well-positioned to act anywhere on the board, the Queen is restricted for the moment by the need to defend the Knight, to prevent us from doubling his pawns, at the least (again assuming that White does not want us to double his pawns).

Even if ...BxN is not a threat, the ramifications of having our Bishop pointed at that Knight still affect the Queen on d3. One disadvantage of the strong-looking move Qd3 is that, having played it, White now cannot play g3 until he moves his Knight; else he loses the Knight to our Bishop (of course g4 is ruled out by the Bishop directly). This is far from a trivial disadvantage, in my opinion: it means that until he clears that situation up, one of White's pieces (the Bh1) is entirely locked out of the game. His best case scenario may be to spend an extra move repositioning the Knight (perhaps even to f3, via g5), and if the best White can do involves giving us a free move, then I think we can already declare our opening a success.

As for how to continue, this is interesting: you give exactly the moves for us that I would, but whereas I like the position Black achieves in this line, you assess it as +/-. I don't understand how this position significantly differs from the one that I gave with 4. f4, where you agreed that we'd "done alright out of the opening"--after all, there, too, White has the option of playing d5 if that's really such a good move. The only possibly-important differences that I can see in this case are that we don't have the option of playing dxf4 and that White retains the option of supporting his e-pawn with f3, but if White intends to refrain from playing f4, I think that this gives us an advantage in itself (see next paragraph).

In any case, after ...e5, I'm not worried about the response d5. In various openings, such as the French Defense, Black actually invites such a central pawn advance from White, planning to undermine it by advancing a pawn from the flank, and it seems to me that this sort of approach is not only valid, but actually stronger than usual, in our position, for the following reasons:

1. Whereas normally a White pawn on the fifth rank would hinder the development of our Knight, in this case, with our a-side Knight on a1 rather than b1, the d5 pawn is almost irrelevant. Let White control c6 if he likes: we don't need it.
   
2. Normally, in a position like this, if we attempted to undermine White's central pawns by a move like ...f5, White could buttress his position with the move f3. Indeed, perhaps that's the response you intend in this position as well--but here I think it's a more problematic move for White than usual, because it even further obstructs the poor imprisoned Bishop on h1.

So, in short, after 4. Qd3, I'd continue with your suggested 4...e5. In response to 5. d5, I'd play 5...f5, reaching this position--but unlike you, I don't think that it strongly favors White. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I prefer Black here: we're about equally well developed, but I think that White has more things to worry about, particularly the h3 Knight and the h-side in general, including the omnipresent threat of ...Qh6+, which is a bit stronger now that we can meet Bd2 with ...f4.


Well, I don't claim to be an expert on endgame theory, but surely Knights and Bishops each have strengths and weaknesses which are more or less important depending on the situation. A Knight does not have a Bishop's range and mobility, as you point out, but, on the other hand, a Bishop does not have a Knight's flexibility.

You may well be right nonetheless that in most endgames a Bishop is better than a Knight. In fact Wikipedia confirmed this when I looked it up just now. However, my main point was that the endgame is a long way off: who knows how it will turn out? Perhaps we'll manage to steer the endgame into one of the minority that favors Knights over Bishops or where they have around equal value. Perhaps at some earlier point in the game, we'll be able to re-equalize the minor piece count by trading a Knight of ours for a Bishop of his. Even failing both of these, it's quite likely that there will be a phase of the endgame involving Rooks and Queens, where the Bishop vs Knight advantage will be less pronounced. All of these are things that I don't feel I can predict.

However, pawns are much more predictable, because they can't move sideways unless we let them. A doubled/isolated pawn now will most likely be a doubled/isolated pawn all the way through, and that doubling/isolation is certainly a weakness in itself. It's a bird in the hand, whereas White's potential Bishop vs Knight endgame advantage is imo no more than a bird in the bush.


Well, you do make a good point about the offensive strength of the half-open file. Let's agree not to disagree here after all and call the midgame around even--or at least with some strengths and some weaknesses for both sides, which I don't think I'm qualified enough to weigh against each other.

About your h4-h5 to trade off doubled pawns suggestion, I did consider that, but he can't really play that unless we let him. For instance, ...h5 stops that plan cold.


Getting down to brass tacks, eh? Well, I have to say that I don't have a very detailed plan in that line. Taking the Knight on the 4th move is kind of a premature climax to my opening plans: we've cashed in the pressure we were putting on the h3 Knight rather earlier than expected; now we have our small advantage (again assuming that it is a net advantage; I know we're still somewhat debating that) and no further pressure on our opponent, and our task is just to complete our development as well as we can and nurse that advantage until a point where we can use it. Incidentally, at the beginning of TL Chess Match 4, where we are playing White, I advocated the Exchange Variation of the Spanish Game, which might not surprise you.

So...plan: basically, just develop our remaining pieces. In light of the point you made about the half-open file and White's likely plans to use it, probably aim at a-side castling. Maybe play ...e5, to at least partly contest White's control of the center and to open the long diagonal for our Bishop. If you want a specific next move in that line, oh, let's make it 5...e5.

I'll also note that I'm not totally sold on the Bishop for Knight exchange: you've made some good points going the other way, and if we can find a way to maintain our pressure on White without cashing it in so soon, I'm definitely willing to consider that. The position that I linked to in my first spoiler last post, which we both tentatively agreed looked all right for us, might be worth going into instead.


This one I already answered: as simple a move as 2. g3 will hinder us from putting that pressure on the h3 Knight which was the mainstay of my opening plan. After 2. g3, we can no longer play ...Bd7 at least until we take a move to defend the d5 pawn; furthermore, White may now be able to play Nc4 with tempo, as it strengthens his attack on d5.

I don't mean to say that a plan involving 1...d5 is not viable for us; only that if we go down that road, we may not be able to exploit 1. Nh3 as effectively. Had our opponent chosen a more orthodox first move, I might very well be on board with your plan, but since he chose to roll the dice, and they landed on such a...dubious first move, my first goal is to take as much advantage of that as we possibly can. That's why I prefer to avoid 1...d5 here.

It's true that White has 2. e4, or even 2. c4!? to discourage ...d5 if we don't play it right away, but if White chooses to play one of those, then we can shift into the ...Qh6 plan, which becomes all the stronger now that it achieves the pin of the d-pawn, especially if White has also foregone the ability to play e3 by playing 2. e4. (As for 2. c4, it comes with its own share of weaknesses, especially around White's King, and I think we'd probably both be happy if White chose to play that.)

5... f5 In regards to the line with f5 I actually didn't look at it for more than a few seconds. My gut reaction was that the dark-squared bishop becomes blocked and white has more space in the center so I said +/- pretty quickly. I probably should have looked at it for longer to get better acquainted with it.

True, I imagine he would have to try a maneuver like f3-Ng2 or Ng5-Nf3 to try and get it into a better position. Which is a victory for us like you said. It seems pretty similar to the other 5... f5 line and they could potentially go on to transpose. If we do get into this second line I think white would probably continue with f3, Nb3, developing the dark squared bishop, moving his h-knight, etc. but I would agree with you that black looks to have equalized, contrary to my earlier assessment.

Let me change directions for a second here... do you think he is likely to play into a system that is something like what we've been looking at here? Here's something he might try to reroute the knight 4. bf2 and activate his bishops fairly early. I don't know if h6 would be better or worse than Nf6 but I figured developing might be slightly better. Just throwing out potential lines here.

Here is another similar variation with 4. Bf2. It seems like a natural square because it hits the unprotected a7 pawn and has good central control while not blocking the h1 bishop.

Or a third wacky one with an early 0-0. 5. 0-0 I'm not actually sure how to get it to castle in the diagram. (I had to review the rules here to make sure he actually can but it's legit).

Me neither, I am just inclined to hold on to the bishop out of preference based on my experiences.

Agreed. It's early in the game to be discussing these things and there is a chance we will never come to it in the game. We can revisit the topic in length if an important situation comes up.

To the brass tacks, (my least favorite line we've discussed!), I will further the play to move 8 of whites turn. He wants to 0-0-0 here but he might have to play something like Bd2 in order to do so. What do you think here? I think white might be slightly better from the looks of it. I imagine he would continue with things like Bd2, 0-0-0, Nb3, Qc4 etc. the position Definitely playable though. It's gonna be a grind.

I never said I didn't like g6 Just that I thought taking the center might be better. Tough to say really, just a difference in philosophy of openings. I do play the dragon and king's indian so rest assured g6 occurs in most of my black games!