Really a piece of work--a walking advert for the death penalty.

On the gallows at last, he exclaimed to his executioner:

If 23.c3 then there follows...

Analysis by Stockfish 160716 64:

23...Bf8 24.Ng3 Nbd7 25.Ba3 Bxa3 26.Rxa3 Ra8 27.Rxa8 Rxa8 28.Nf5 Kf8 29.b4 Ra3 30.Re3 c5 31.Nd6 cxb4 32.cxb4 Ra4 33.Nxb5 Rxb4 34.Nd6 g6 35.Kf1 Ke7 36.Nc8+ Ke8 37.Nd6+ Kf8 38.Rd3 Rb1+ 39.Ke2 Rb2+ 40.Rd2 Rb4 41.Ke3 Ke7 42.Nc8+ Ke8 43.Nd6+ Kf8 44.Rc2 Ke7 = (-0.17) Depth: 31/48 00:00:26 27723kN

Hi John,

click for larger view

On the surface there is nothing wrong with 23.c3 but it is not a killer move. It gains a tempo which in this position means nothing.

The good guys (and these two are not too bad) give double thought to every pawn move.

The likes of me and you ruin our positions with thoughtless pawn moves and then wonder why we lose when we bump into one of the good guys.

These positions are all about not accepting responsibility.

Look at the position again. Black has the d-file. Big Deal, what is he going to with it. He cannot get into White's position.

However, when the c2-pawn goes to c3 the square d3 needs looking after and the suddenly so does the b3 pawn (responsibility).

An annoying twat like Carlsen will lick his lips and be thinking of Nd7-c5 eyeing d3 and if White plays b3-b4 to stop Nc5 then the b6 Knight hops onto c4. (not to mention with pawns on c3 and b4 the b2 Bishop is useless and needs go to c1 to get back into game which in turn interrupts the connection of the Rooks.)

All these little things matter, especially if you face an annoying twat like Carlsen. He is a genius at exploiting these little things.

Of course you cannot sit back in awe and watch him dance all over you, you have to do things yourself. But what?

All you have done with 23.c3 is given yourself the responsibility of holding weakened squares and have forced yourself to go ultra active against a solid position from a position that is not quite geared up to create counter play.

Carlsen played 22...Bf8-b4 tempting 23.c3 and then he goes back to f8 again. That's how annoying he is. Fortunately Karjakin is not easily annoyed and kept the c2 pawn on c2.

I'll sign that--it takes insight to understand the position, as opposed to reading evals of, say, +.23 or -.12, not to mention comprehending the different types of small advantages/disadvantages within those slippery numbers, which appear to erode some posters' ability to think critically.

As you once said to <AJ>: you're a good player; use your head and shut the dang thing off!

<....The likes of me and you ruin our positions with thoughtless pawn moves and then wonder why we lose when we bump into one of the good guys....>

Been there, done that--it is also possible to go wrong through undertaking nothing by seeing ghosts at every turn.

<....All these little things matter, especially if you face an annoying twat like Carlsen. He is a genius at exploiting these little things....>

So much so that the pesky wretch is numero uno.

<....Todays lesson is keep your hands off the middle game pawns unless you can find three good reasons for moving one. And when you do...move a piece instead. If you are wrong then you can move it back again. You cannot do that with a pawn.>

Even if I'm wrong someone will have to come on and speak chess instead of binary.

What a dreary game of chess. I have to do a mini piece on each game.

I got as far as 6 moves, knew what was coming and jacked it in. I simply cannot subject my readers to games like this.

We know what's going on in Karjakin's mind.

'Come and get me.....Champ!'

It's not going to be pretty.

The two guys (my contacts) at the venue have been arrested.

Another pitfall is trying to copy his French IQP games which are very dynamic....>

There was a player/writer back in the seventies--do not recall whom--who suggested that someone aspiring to improve their game should 'adopt' a top player, and follow his opening repertoire.

If unsure in whose style you play ask a colleague. You might think you are a Tal or a Petrosian, other might see you differently.

I latched onto John Nunn. I picked up and played to good effect his entire repertoire from his articles in B.C.M.

I once told him this in a bar and suggested because I like the Latvian Gambit could he please start playing it so I could start playing it.

Yep, it was the mention of the Latvian that did it.

If I recall correctly his hasty exit left me hanging with the bar bill.

:)

----

Actually we did chat in a bar in Edinburgh and I admitted I nicked his rep. He told me was venturing into the world of problem composition.

I think at the time his very first chess problem made the cover of BCM.

<perfidious: As to playing with the Tarrasch French IQP, it requires great mastery of the dynamic elements, as was seen when Karpov took up the cudgels long ago. Was never my bag, but that's the way it goes; I almost always played 3....Nf6 against the Tarrasch and never once tried 3....c5.>

In principle, both moves are sound and playable. But as one who only plays *against* the French, and consistently uses the Tarrasch, I have to say I'm always happy to see 3. ...Nf6.

That line stays far more in line with traditional French pawn structure and consequent thematic play. In other words: It's a lot of fun for a creative attacker with the white pieces, and only a very strong player with the black pieces can avoid letting himself in for such "fun."

Now, 3. ...c5, on the other hand: That's a whole different kind of game, and suddenly it is White who must play very soundly to avoid dangerous counterplay.

<Domdaniel: <Abdel Irada> I've played both 3...Nf6 and 3...c5 against the Tarrasch French (I've also played 3...a6, 3...dxe4, 3...Nc6, 3...Be7, 3...b6, among others, but that's another story.>

An expert of my long acquaintance, named Richard Flacco (who was also, in my college days, my first chess teacher), used to swear that 3. ...Be7 refuted the Tarrasch!