Gary Southerland

The Georgia chess community lost a long-time chess teacher and tournament director last week. Gary Southerland passed away in his sleep. I did not know Gary very well, but I'd seen him at all the GCA tournaments and spoken with him a few times. The next issue of Georgia Chess magazine will remember Gary. The upcoming Georgia Class Championship is also being named the Rueben Hand, Gary Southerland Memorial. He clearly had a passion for chess, and he will be missed.

Memorial Service Information (to be held August 30)
Newspaper Obituary

Dynamic Play

Consider the following three positions:

Slav
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3

Open Catalan
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3

Semi-Open Catalan
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0

What do they all have in common?

A main line move in each position is ...dxc4. What's going on here? Why is Black voluntarily giving White the center by removing that nice pawn on d5 which controls e4?

The answer is time.

In the Slav position, Black wants to develop his light-squared bishop before playing ...e6, but to do so immediately would invite cxd5 followed by Qb3 and Black is in trouble on the queenside light squares. In all three cases, it will take a few moves for White to recapture the c-pawn (in the Catalan positions White has to do so without the light-squared bishop since he wants to fianchetto it). While White is busy getting his pawn back, Black has a little extra time to develop his queenside and bring his pieces to active squares. Sometimes White will truly gambit the pawn and bet that the dynamic activity he gets will more than make up for Black's measly one-pawn advantage.

Is Black's position so cramped that he has to give up the center just for a few tempi? Can't he find a way to develop his pieces and retain the central tension? Won't Black just be worse without any lasting advantage for giving up the center? What is this dynamic compensation that Black receives?

Will you give up a structural/static advantage (or accept a structural/static weakness) for temporary dynamic play? This is a difficult concept to truly grasp and have the confidence and technique to use. After all, if you let your dynamic advantage fade away you're just left with a structural, long-term weakness.

I reached this position in a tournament game:

Kilgore - Tillis 2004

Black has just played 7...h6. In case you don't recognize the position, it was also reached in Deep Blue - Kasparov 1997, a game which Kasparov quickly lost. I knew immediately that I was supposed to play 8.Nxe6! White sacrifices material for dynamic compensation in the form of Black's king getting stuck in the middle and a long-lasting initiative. But I sat there and thought for about 15 minutes. A single thought kept going through my head. "Do I have the technique to make this dynamic compensation count?" I finally decided that I would never forgive myself if I chickened out, so I played 8.Nxe6! There's no forced mate or winning back of the material. If I let Black untangle himself, I'm simply down the material.

What would you do?

Do you like to play dynamic chess?

I drew the above game, after winning back the material plus a little more, but in mutual time trouble with a fairly balanced position I played it safe and offered a draw (one thing I am good at in chess is blundering in time trouble). I was still satisfied with the game on some level because I did maintain the initiative for a long time and eventually converted it into a material gain.

Yes, playing dynamic chess is scary, but it's also fun. And I believe it's an essential part of becoming a stronger player at some point.

Into the Lion's Den

How do you play a superior opponent?

I'm talking about someone rated way above you. 400+ points above you.

Do you play cautiously, trying to survive for as many moves as possible, praying for a draw?

Do you try to make the game as boring as possible, and hope to wear out your opponent?

Do you recklessly go for the kill, figuring that since you'll lose anyway you might as well have some fun?

Or is your approach more subtle, where you basically try to play your best, but:

- You play more conservatively, trying to keep it safe, avoiding complications for fear your opponent can navigate them better.

- You welcome complications, figuring there's more chances for your opponent to mess up.

One thing's for sure: Your higher-rated opponent wants to win. They won't be happy with a draw. Many times this translates into them taking unnecessary risks and making mistakes.

The 2005 Atlanta Chess Center Championship is August 19-21, and it is a little unusual in that the Open section goes all the way down to 1800. This means I'd be playing in the Open section and potentially facing players I've only seen on the upper tables until now.

I've only ever played in an Open section once before, at the 58th Annual Tennessee Open last year. Now that was a blast. Rated 1691 at the time, I beat two experts and gave a FIDE Master a rough time in a long game I eventually lost. I went into each game believing I could beat them all (well, to be honest, I was too nervous at the start of my game with the FM to believe much of anything, so nervous I accidentally knocked over two of my pieces on one of my opening moves!). This was also during the peak of my tactics bootcamp training.

While it's still up in the air as to whether I'll play this upcoming tournament (still recovering from bronchitis, and I don't want to play unless I feel 100%), I can't help but feel an extra element of excitement at the thought of so-called mis-matched pairings in the early rounds of these Open tournaments, because every now and then you get an upset or two.