Chess: How playing bad moves can win games
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I HAVE said it before and I shall, no doubt, say it again: it is bad moves that win games. The main reason for this is that bad moves unbalance the position and create the pre-conditions for mistakes to be made. Good moves tend to retain equilibrium and prompt good moves in reply. Playing well simply makes life too easy for one's opponent. Take the following, from the Hudson International tournament in New York.
The opening was a curious variation of the Grunfeld Defence in which White surrenders the bishop pair in order to dislodge Black's king. The standard continuation is 10. Qf4 Bf6 11. h4, but this is not thought to lead to anything special for White. Alex Shabalov, one of the many ex-Soviet grandmasters now playing in the United States, chose a quieter plan, hoping for a later attack. His chance came at move 28.
I am not convinced that 28. Ng4]? is a good move. The double threat of Rxe8 and Qh6+ won him the exchange, but after Black's 30 . . . Qxb2 Black has a good pawn and a nice bishop pair. Had he played 31 . . . Qxa3, the issue would have been in great doubt.
Instead, Hellers, a Swedish grandmaster, played for safety with 31 . . . Bd7 trying to shift the rook from his back rank, but Shabalov produced a wonderful refutation. After 32. h5] Bxe8 33. h6+, White follows with 34. Qxf6, with a winning attack. As the game went, 33. Rh8] gave the kamikaze rook its desire. With Black's king never able to move to f8 without losing his knight to Qc5+, the resulting White attack was decisive.
At the end, Black had no defence to the threat of Qg6 mate.
White: Shabalov
Black: Hellers
1 d4 Nf6
2 Nf3 g6
3 c4 Bg7
4 Nc3 d5
5 Bg5 Ne4
6 cxd5 Nxg5
7 Nxg5 e6
8 Qd2 exd5
9 Qe3+ Kf8
10 Nf3 c6
11 g3 Be6
12 Bg2 Nd7
13 0-0 Bf6
14 Qh6+ Bg7
15 Qd2 Bf6
16 Rfe1 Kg7
17 e4 dxe4
18 Rxe4 Qa5
19 Qf4 Rad8
20 h4 h6
21 Rae1 Nb6
22 Ne5 Bf5
23 R4e2 Qb4
24 Rd1 h5
25 a3 Qb3
26 Kh2 Rhe8
27 Rde1 Nc4
28 Ng4 hxg4
29 Rxe8 Rxe8
30 Rxe8 Qxb2
31 Ne2 Bd7
32 h5 gxh5
33 Rh8 Kxh8
34 Qxf6+ Kg8
35 Qg5+ Kh7
36 Qxh5+ Kg7
37 Qg5+ Kh7
38 Be4+ f5
39 Qe7+ Kh6
40 Qf8+ Kh7
41 Qf7+ Kh6
42 Nf4 Qxf2+
43 Bg2 1-0
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments