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.

Peach State WoW

The 2005 Peach State Open is next weekend, July 22-24, and I'll be playing in it.

What chess study and playing have I done since Emory?

Well, I'm afraid I've been sucked into the World of Warcraft, an MMORPG, affectionately known as Warcrack.

At least finally the age old question can be answered: Is Warcraft suitable training for weekend Swiss tournaments?

I'll let you know.

Not me, but you get the idea.

How To Lose To a Grandmaster in 22 Moves

GM Susan Polgar gave a simul last night in Stone Mountain Georgia (just north of Atlanta). This was the first time I've played a GM, much less a world class GM, and it was a lot of fun. I believe she won all the games, and we had some strong players from the House of Pain there to play.

Check out Susan's blog from June 21-25, 2005 for posts with photos of her visit to Atlanta.

You can see how she demolished me here.

Atlanta Chess Center

The Atlanta Chess Center is the place in Georgia to play in USCF tournaments. Known as The House of Pain by its regulars, they have finally gotten something resembling a real web site up and running. Yay!

http://www.atlantachessclub.com/

This is the End

I've been watching IM Timothy Taylor's 5-part series on How to Defeat the Weaker Player, and the final article has arrived. And this one covers endgame play. This may be my favorite article of the bunch, for many times it will work against the stronger player.

Taylor spells out the need to study endgames very convincingly:

Let’s say you get no attack (HOW TO DEFEAT THE WEAKER PLAYER 2); let’s say you get no special opening advantage (HOW TO DEFEAT THE WEAKER PLAYER 3); let’s say your experience gets you nowhere in the middlegame (HOW TO DEFEAT THE WEAKER PLAYER 4); then all is not lost, for the ending is the most difficult part of the game, and it’s the hardest part of chess to play well without experience.

I can't tell you how many times I've played games like that. No opening advantage (or it fizzled out). No killer tactics. No big middlegame advantage. Pieces trade down. No major activity by anybody. Draw? Sure.

I remember one blitz tournament game (out of the two blitz tournaments I've ever played in), where I had a K+P vs K. I saw right away it was a dead draw. But my excitable opponent didn't understand the opposition and I soon promoted the pawn. Most endgames aren't that simple. Many times you need to visualize a winning endgame after a forced sequence of trades. Here's an example from a fairly recent tournament of mine:

Cope (1985) vs Kilgore (1741)

White has just played 30.Red3?? Black can now force play into a winning endgame. Can you find it? The solution is here.

I still feel that I have a lot to work on for my endgame (don't we all?), and that many of my "boring draws" can turn into wins if I become much better in endgame play.

My current favorite endgame books are:

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual

Fundamental Chess Endings