Sicilian Dragon, Yugoslav Attack

NM Jim West - IM Mike Valvo, Edgar McCormick Futurity 1991

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 g6


By a slightly unusual move order, a Sicilian Dragon has been reached.

6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.h4 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.O-O-O Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.h5 Nxh5 15.g4 Nf6 16.Nde2 Re8 17.e5


White often interpolates 17.Bh6 Bh8 before playing 18.e5.

17...Nxg4 18.fxg4 Bxe5?!


Valvo gets his lines mixed up. This move is playable with White's bishop on h6, as in the above note. But here Black must play 18...Bxg4 after which I was planning 19.e6 Bxe6 20.Bd4 f6 21.Nf4 Bf7 22.Qh2 h5 with sharp tactics in the air. Analysis by GM John Nunn now goes 23.Nxg6 Bxg6 24.Rdg1 Rxd4 25.Rxg6 Rg4 26.Qxh5 Rxg6 27.Qxg6 e6 28.Ne4 Rf8 with an unclear position. White appears to have a strong attack after 29.Qh7+ Kf7 30.Rg1 Rg8 31.Rg6, preparing to meet 31...d5 with 32.Nxf6. However, Black holds after 31...Qb6! 32.Rf6+ Ke7 33.Rxe6+ Kxe6 34.Qxg8+ Ke5 35.Qxg7+ Kxe4.

19.Bd4!


Now 19...Qa5, hoping for 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 transposing into variations good for Black in the 17.Bh6 line, would be crushed by 20.Qh6 threatening 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Qh8+ Bxh8 23.Rxh8#.

19...Rxd4 20.Nxd4 Bxg4


Black has four connected passed pawns on the kingside for White's extra rook. But my next move allows him no time to consolidate.

21.Qh6!


Now on 21...Bxd1 White wins by 22.Qxh7+ Kf8 23.Rf1! Bf6 24.Rxf6 exf6 25.Nd5 followed by 26.Qh8#.

21...Bh5 22.Nf5!


Black is busted. For example:
(a) 22...Bxd1 23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Qh8+ Bxh8 25.Rxh8#.
(b) 22...gxf5 23.Rxh5 f6 24.Qxh7+ Kf8 25.Rg1 Bf4+ 26.Kb1 Bg5 27.Rgxg5 fxg5 28.Rxg5 followed by 29.Rg8#.
(c) 22...Qc8 23.Rxh5 gxh5 24.Qxh5 Qe6 (24...Bxc3 25.Rg1+ Kh8 26.Rh1) 25.Nd5 threatening 26.Nc7 as well as 26.Rg1+ Kh8 27.Rh1 Qg6 28.Ndxe7.

22...Kh8 23.Rxh5 gxh5 24.Rh1, Black resigns.


A pretty finish might have been 24...Rg8 25.Qxh5 Bf4+ 26.Kb1 h6 27.Qxh6+ Bxh6 28.Rxh6#.

{This article originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1992}

Philidor Counter Gambit 1999

I would like to show a model game in the Philidor Counter Gambit in which Black remains a pawn down to the very end but has good compensation for it. Actually the game begins as a Latvian Gambit before transposing into the PCG. This should come as no great surprise since the PCG is really nothing more than the Latvian Gambit Deferred. Like 3...d6 in Bobby Fischer's "bust" to the King's Gambit, the move 2...d6 in the PCG is "a high-class waiting move" designed to keep the white knight from the e5 square.

The player of the black pieces in this contest is Dr. Michael Downey of Moorestown, New Jersey. He is the winner of the First Latvian Gambit World Championship, a correspondence event that included 26 players from throughout the world. More than half of them were ICCF Masters. Downey has been kind enough to mail me the scores to nine of his games, including the following which took place 7/24/1994 through 8/7/1995.

Jorg Pape [Germany] - Michael Downey [USA]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 d6 4.d4 e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5


6.Nc3 d5 7.f3 e3 8.Bxe3 Be7 9.Qe2 Nc6 10.g4 Bc8 11.O-O-O Nf6 12.Bf4 O-O


13.Ne6 Bxe6 14.Qxe6+ Kh8 15.Bg2 Bb4 16.Bg5 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Re8 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qf5 Qd6 20.Rhe1 Qa3+ 21.Kb1 Qxc3 22.Qxf6+ Kg8 23.Qg5+ Kh8 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Qd2 Qxd2 26.Rxd2 Na5 27.c3 Nc4 28.Rf2, draw.


Downey gives the likely continuation 28...Re1+ 29.Kc2 Ra1 30.Kd3 Rd1+ 31.Ke2 Rc1 32.Kd3 Rd1+, etc.


{This article originally appeared in the May-June 1999 issue of Atlantic Chess News}

Neither Fish nor Fowl

This game of mine against Asa Hoffmann is a hybrid opening. It was played at the Manhattan Chess Club in December 1986 at the end of a long year of chessplaying.

Jim West (USCF 2223) - Asa Hoffmann (USCF 2387), Manhattan Chess Club 1986

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6 3.f4 Qc7 4.Nc3 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.f5 Nf6 7.Nf3 Bc5 8.Bc4 b5 9.Bb3 a5 10.a3 Ng4 11.Qe2 Ba6

If 11...Bf2+, then 12.Kf1 Ba6 13.Nd1 b4 14.Bc4 is adequate for White.

12.Nd1 O-O


Black would like to play 12...Nd7, but 13.Bxf7+ Kxf7 14.Ng5+ followed by 15.Qxg4 wins a pawn for White.

13.h3 Nf6 14.Bg5 Nh5?


A natural move, but a tactical mistake.

15.Nd2!


Prepared to meet 15...Ng3? with 16.Qg4 Nxh1 17.Bf6 g6 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Qxg6#.

15...Nf4 16.Qg4 Kh8 17.g3 Ng2+ 18.Kf1 f6 19.Kxg2 fxg5 20.h4!?


Objectively correct is 20.Qxg5 winning a pawn, but the game move subjects the black king to a strong attack.

20...gxh4 21.Rxh4 h6 22.Qg6?


But this move is inaccurate. Stronger is 22.Nf3 threatening 23.Ng5.

22...Qd6 23.Nf3 Qxg6 24.fxg6 Be7 25.Rh5 Nd7 26.Ne3


Though material is equal, White has a positional advantage, based on the f5 square.

26...Nc5

Here Black offered a draw.

27.Nxe5 Nxb3 28.cxb3 Bf6 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.e5 Bd8 31.Nf5 Bc8 32.Rxh6!


Now 32...gxh6 33.N7xh6+ Kh8 34.g7+ wins.

32...Rxf7

Black must do something about 33.Rh8#.

33.Rh8+! Kxh8 34.gxf7, Black resigns.


Besides the obvious queening threat, White is also threatening mate beginning with 35.Rh1+.

The next time I saw Asa, he said that losing this game to me had been the low point of his year! From my standpoint, it may not have been the high point of my year, but it was certainly sweet revenge for my 19-move loss to him at the 1986 U. S. Open.

{This article originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1987}

Turning the Tables

The Sozin Attack versus the Najdorf Sicilian is the only opening variation that I play both as White and as Black. Every now and then, I run into an opponent unkind enough to beat me at my own game.

That is exactly what happened in my contest from the New Jersey Masters Invitational against current state champion Mike Valvo.*

Mike Valvo (USCF 2411) - Jim West (USCF 2248), New Jersey Masters Invitational 1986

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7 9.Be3 O-O 10.f4 Bb7


Black's tenth move is Kavalek's recommendation from the RHM book on the Najdorf. This position can also be arrived at via the move order 9.f4 Bb7 10.Be3 (Kasparov's suggestion in Batsford Chess Openings) O-O.

11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nd5


The only logical continuation. After 12...Nfd7, there is 13.Qh5!. Or, 12...Ne4 13.Nxe4 Bxe4 14.Qg4 Bg6 (anything else and 15.Bh6) 15.Rad1 with 16.Nxe6 to follow.

13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Bxd5 Qxd5


This position is undoubtedly what Kavalek had in mind when he recommended 10...Bb7. Black's game looks good. White's weak e-pawn is an inviting target.

Unfortunately for me, my opponent now uncorked a theoretical novelty which, to the best of my knowledge, remained unemployed at the start of this game.

15.Nf5!


Of course, 15...Qxd1 16.Nxe7+ loses a piece. And 15...exf5?? 16.Qxd5 is unthinkable. Not much better is 15...Qb7 16.Qf3!, winning the exchange after 16...Ra7 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Bxa7 Qxa7+ 19.Kh1. So I made the only reasonable try.

15...Nc6 16.Qxd5 exd5 17.Rad1 Rad8 18.Nxe7+ Nxe7 19.Bc5 Rfe8 20.Bd6


With a clear advantage for White. As Valvo pointed out after the game, Black may be able to draw this position but he will never equalize fully.

20...Rd7 21.Rf3

Stronger seems 21.a4, to unhinge Black's queenside pawns.

21...Nc8 22.Rxd5 f6 23.Rdd3 fxe5 24.Bxe5 Rxd3 25.Rxd3 Rxe5 26.Rd8+ Kf7 27.Rxc8 Re1+ 28.Kf2 Ra1 29.Rc7+ Kf8 30.a3 Ra2 31.b3 Rxa3 32.Ke3 Ra1 33.c4!


Having made the first time control at move 30, I should have spent more time considering my next move.

33...Rb1?

It wins a pawn but loses the game. Black's extra b-pawn will serve only to ensure his defeat, since in some lines White's king will find a haven on the b6 square behind the black pawn. After the correct 33...bxc4 34.bxc4 a5, Black can hold on to draw, although White has all the winning chances due to Black's king being restricted to the back rank.

34.c5! Rxb3+ 35.Kd4 Rb2 36.Ra7 Rxg2 37.c6


Now 37...Ke8 loses instantly to 38.Ra8+ Ke7 39.c7.

37...Rxh2 38.c7 Rc2 39.Ra8+ Kf7 40.c8=Q Rxc8 41.Rxc8


And White's rook was able to subdue the black pawns.

On the basis of this game, it seems fair to conclude that 15.Nf5! leads to an enduring advantage for White. Certainly Kavalek's claim that, after 10...Bb7, "Black can think about taking over the initiative" seems overblown. Thinking about it is as close to the initiative as Black can come.

*{This article originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1986}

GM Eliot?

T. S. Eliot's modern poem The Wasteland has been called the greatest poem of the 20th century. It is divided into five parts, the second of which is labeled "A Game of Chess". In this section of the poem, we encounter two frightened, obsessively neurotic people hiding from life's storms. It is interesting to note that Eliot's original title for this segment was "In the Cage", which gives a psychological insight into the characters' frames of mind. Eliot's friend Ezra Pound suggested the present title.

Quite literally, a storm is going on, at one point, outside the house where the man and the woman are taking shelter. One of them says: "What shall we ever do? A hot bath at ten./ And if it rains, a closed car at four./ And we shall play a game of chess,/ Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door."

Just before these lines are uttered, Eliot makes one of his typical witticisms. One of the characters remembers the lyrics to a song:"O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag."

Now, if it had been any other poet than Eliot, I might be inclined to think that the use of four consecutive O's is mere coincidence. However, anyone who is familiar with Eliot's Prufrock and its veiled allusions "en passant" to Hesiod, Dante, Shakespeare, and Homer - to name a few - can not dismiss "O O O O" so lightly.

Obviously, it reminds one of the chess notation for castling. And this is the perfect metaphor for what is going on in "A Game of Chess". Both the man and the woman find refuge at home, or in their castle if you prefer.

{This article originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1986}

Sounding Out the Winawer

I had only one over-the-board encounter with the late Larry Schwartz*, but we produced one of the most exciting games I have ever played. This game made such an impression on one of the spectators that he wrote a letter to Larry Evans on Chess, in large part inspired by our post mortem analysis.

Published in the November 1985 issue of Chess Life under the heading "Sounding Out the Winawer", the letter posed the query as to whether White got sufficient compensation for the exchange in these sacrificial lines.

Jim West (USCF 2260) - Larry Schwartz (USCF 2086), Mel Benson Memorial 1984

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.a4 Nbc6 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.Bd3 c4 11.Be2 f6 12.O-O O-O-O 13.Ba3

Analyzing the position after White's thirteenth move, John Moles in The French Defense: Main Line Winawer writes: "The critical position: in practice White has done well from it but all too often Black's handling of it has been nothing short of dismal."

I must admit that I have always been tempted to steal a line from George Orwell and say that in such positions White is "more equal" than Black. In other words, the second player must be prepared to "find moves" whereas White is under less of a constraint in this regard.

13...Rdf8 14.Rfb1 Rf7 15.Rb5 Qd8 16.Rab1 b6 17.Qc1


Instead of my 17.Qc1, Evans gives 17.a5! Nxa5 18.Rxa5 bxa5 19.Bd6 Nc6 20.Bxc4 dxc4 21.d5 exd5 22.Nd4!, calling White "on top".


It is difficult to agree completely with this analysis since, after 22...fxe5 23.Nxc6 Bxc6 24.Rb8+ Kd2 25.Rxd8+ Rxd8 26.Bxe5, White is hardly "on top".


Nor does 23.Nb5 Be6 change this assessment.


Yet if White tries 22.Qxd5! instead of 22.Nd4?, then the verdict is less clear.

17...Na5 18.exf6 gxf6 19.Rxa5 bxa5 20.Bd6 Nc6 21.Bg3 Be8 22.Qb2 Qb6 23.Qc1 Qd8 24.Rb5 Rb7 25.Qf4 Qe7 26.Nd2 h5 27.Bxc4

dxc4 28.Nxc4 e5 29.dxe5 fxe5 30.Qe4 h4 31.Rxb7 Kxb7 32.Nxa5+?


Better was 32.Bxe5.

32...Kb8?

Instead 32...Kb6! wins.

33.Nxc6+ Bxc6 34.Qxe5+, Black resigns.

Although Black's extra rook managed only to get itself captured at the tail end, nevertheless from an objective standpoint White probably did not have enough for the sacrificed material in this game. However, practically speaking, White had good chances to win.

So the central question remains unresolved. Is the Winawer French sound?

Perhaps we should let Bobby Fischer have the last word, from My 60 Memorable Games, in this argument: "I may yet be forced to admit that the Winawer is sound. But I doubt it! The defense is anti-positional and weakens the kingside."

*{This article originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1986}

Improve Your English

After the opening moves 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.e3 Nf6 6.Nge2 O-O 7.O-O d6 8.d4 Bf5 9.b3 Rb8 10.Bb2, international master John Watson in his book on the English Opening gives 10...a6 a question mark based on the continuation 11.dxc5 dxc5 12.Na4, considering 12...Nd7 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.f3 when Black's position is difficult as in Herb Hickman - Ralph Cilento, West Orange NJ 1985.


However, a significant improvement for Black is the theoretical novelty 12...Qc7!, sacrificing the c5 pawn for dynamic play. My game as Black against Herb Hickman in the 1986 West Orange Club Championship continued 13.Nxc5 Nb4! 14.Na4 Rfd8 15.Bd4 b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.Nc5 e5 18.Qd2? Qxc5!, winning a piece.


If White had tried 18.a3, then 18...exd4 19.axb4 dxe3 20.Na6 exf2+ would have left Black with a big advantage.


Another sharp line would have occurred if, instead of walking into the pin with 15.Bd4, White had played 15.Qc1. I was prepared to follow with 15...Nd3 16.Qc3 b5 17.cxb5 Qxc3 18.Bxc3 axb5 19.Nb2 Nxb2 20.Bxb2 Rd2 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Rae1 Bd3 23.Bf3 Rxa2, again with a tremendous advantage for the second player.


Or 22.Nd4 Bxd4 23.exd4 Rxd4 with a good game for Black. For example, 24.a4 Bc2 25.a5 Bxb3 26.a6 Bd5 27.a7 Ra8.


The critical variation after 13...Nb4 is 14.e4. Now, if nothing else, Black could regain the pawn via 14...Qxc5 15.exf5 Qxf5.


But more in the spirit of the position would be 14...Bg4 15.f3 Rfd8 with tactical complications that do not disfavor Black.


Of course, Black could have avoided this line entirely by playing Watson's recommended 10...Qa5 and only then 11...a6. However, it is not clear that Black's queen belongs on a5 since in effect he is playing a variation for White one tempo down which can well be answered by 11.Qd2 and 12.Rfd1.


After the immediate 10...a6, White does better to avoid Watson's 11.dxc5 which only opens the d-file to Black's king rook. But this also allows Black the option of developing his queen to c8, threatening the standard ...Bh3. For example, on 11.Qd2 Qc8 12.Rfe1 (to answer 12...Bh3 with 13.Bh1), we have reached by transposition my game against the same opponent from the 1985 Mel Benson Memorial. The game proceeded 12...b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Rad1 Ne5 16.e4 Bg4 17.Qe3 c4 with double-edged play (draw in 34 moves).


{This article originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1986}

Losing by the Book

The first diagram comes from page 123 of The Chess Opening for You by Larry Evans. The game is Evans-Grefe, U.S. Championship 1974.


Evans played 13.Bd2, writing: "Less accurate is 13.Be3 fxg4 14.fxg4 Qd7 15.g5 Ng4 16.Rxf8+ Bxf8 17.Bd2 Nxh2 18.Kxh2 Qh3+, with at least a draw by perpetual". However, 18.Kxh2 is second-rate. After the best move 18.Nf2!, Black has a lost game.

The second diagram can be found on page 75 of Sicilian Dragon: Yugoslav Attack by Miles and Moskow.


It arises after the opening moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.h4 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.O-O-O Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.h5 Nxh5 15.g4 Nf6 16.Nde2 Qa5 17.Bh6 Bxh6 18.Qxh6 Rfc8 19.Rd3 Be6 20.g5 Nh5 21.Ng3 Qe5 22.Nxh5 gxh5 23.Qxh5 Qg7 24.f4 b5 (a suggestion to which the authors give an exclamation point, calling the position unclear).

But the position is clearly in White's favor following 25.f5. Now 25...Bd7 26.Kb1 b4 (26...e6 27.f6 Qg6 28.Rdh3) 27.Nd5 Rxc2 28.f6 is bad for Black. Even worse is 25...b4 26.Rdh3! bxc3 27.Qxh7+ Qxh7 28.Rxh7 cxb2+ 29.Kb1 when Black can not prevent Rh8+ and R1h7#.

{This article originally appeared in Atlantic Chess News in 1986}

Obvious and Bad

There is no proper term to decribe a certain type of faulty analysis with which we are all familiar. The attacking player wins in Morphy fashion provided the defender is allowed to make obvious moves only. However, if the defender finds good moves which are not so obvious, then he draws or even wins. So I have coined an expression. I say that such analysis falls into the fallacy of the "obvious move imperative". A few examples will illustrate this mistaken logic.


The above diagram comes from Jim West - Steve Pozarek, North Jersey Chess League 1982. White has misplayed the Sozin Attack so that it now resembles a Sozin Defense. But his position is just barely tenable. My opponent's analysis (as given in The Castled King, March-April 1983) now runs: 1...Rd4 2.Nf6+ Kxg7 3.Qxb7 cxb2+ 4.Kxb2 Rc2+ 5.Ka1 Rxa2+! 6.Kxa2 Qc2+ and mate next. Brilliant tactics! But why do I want to act like a suicidal maniac? Instead of 3.Qxb7??, White has the sane 3.Qf5. And, although play is still complex, he can survive Black's attack.


The second diagram is Rich Napoli - Jim West, Four County Open 1984. Black has just played ...Na4+ (from b6) which looks promising but is actually a blunder. He should have held this move in abeyance and played ...Qc5, leaving open the possibility of ...Nc4+ which if played immediately would lose to Qxc4! My opponent now failed to punish this inaccuracy, blundering in return with Ka1. However, Kc1 would have won, despite Herb Hickman's analysis in the Sunday Star-Ledger. Herb gives 1.Kc1 Qc5 2.Nxd6+ Ke7 3.Nxb7 Qa3+ 4.Kd2 Rhd8+ 5.Nxd8 Rxd8+ 6.Qd3 Rxd3+ 7.cxd3 Qxa2+ 8.Ke3 Qxg2 9.Ra1 Qh3+ 10.Kd4 Qxh2. This otherwise brilliant analysis crumbles if White varies with the not-so-obvious 3.Qe3 instead of 3.Nxb7. Now Black is busted since 3...Qb4 is met by 4.Qb3, and Black can resign.


The third position is already familiar to readers of The Castled King, September-October 1984. It comes from Porreca's analysis to Geller-Fischer, Curacao 1962. Porreca gives only the obvious and bad 1...Rxe7 2.Rc1 and wins. However, as I pointed out in that earlier article, the seemingly unthinkable rejoinder 1...Kf8 wins for Black. The main line continuation is 1...Kf8 2.Rc1 Rxb2 3.Qg5 Qxc1+ 4.Qxc1 Rb1 5.Ra1 Rxc1+ 6.Rxc1 Kxe7 with a won endgame for Black.

{This article originally appeared in the January-February 1986 issue of Atlantic Chess News}