BRITISH CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS - THE GAMES

[Paul Littlewood]

Unfortunately it is a Brilliancy Prize so this would not count !

[andrew martin]

Paul,

Some points about your post.

The reason the general style of play has dried up is solely down to computing power. If you start playing gambits or over-aggressive opening systems on a regular basis you become a sitting duck. The trend towards more strategical play will only continue and has filtered down among even the youngest players.

I mentioned this trend towards ' ugly chess' in one of my earlier You Tube videos; that is the norm these days. There is no romantic style of play any more, apart from the usage of such ideas when very young to develop tactical appreciation.


We have to get used to it and move with the times.

[Roger de Coverly]

My own nomination for the best game played by an U18 in the Championship would be de Coverly - Dines from round 4, but again this is an endgame grind.

Have you spotted that I can take the Bishop on b5? It's something of a White to play and win position.

Later I can and should keep the pieces on and avoid that Nxf3 trick.

[Paul Littlewood]

I take your point Andrew but I hope your rather depressing view proves to be incorrect.......

Surely a game such as the first world championship game between Topalov and Anand in 2010 shows that there is still room for attacking and exciting chess !

[andrew martin]

I wouldn't say reality is depressing.

Look at the tactics employed by Short in the British; changing openings in virtually every game to keep opponents off-balence.

Not everyone can play like that though, because ultimately, it is exhausting to continually play different things.

[Richard Bates]

Interestingly this does not just apply to the higher-rated players. I am at present judging the most brilliant game played by an U18 in the Championship...and frankly I am struggling ! I remember at that age looking to play sacrifices at every opportunity but the youngsters nowadays play it so safe. Is this a consequence of early teaching which stresses how important it is to avoid losing ?
Perhaps we need to see more enterprising chess from our top players so that the youngsters will be inspired !

Hi Paul,

I hate to make an obvious point, but looking to sacrifice at every opportunity is all very well but ultimately the purpose is to win. A sacrifice which loses is ultimately a blunder. I would suggest that the most substantial obstacle to seeing the Littlewood prize won by a sacrificial brilliancy is not actually "modern computing power". It is simply that the standard of British U18 chess isn't actually that high at the moment. And that it is hard enough for U18s at the moment to be successful without requiring them to be sacrificial geniuses as well.

And what's wrong with grinding out the win in a long endgame anyway?

[Andrew Stone]

Watson's excellent chess strategy books painted a very optimistic view of modern chess with all sorts of wierd and wonderful things that were being validated as ok or even good by computers. Even if the computer could find holes in your sacrifices, this would only be relevant if they could be prepared for before the game. As long as they occured after theory ends or that you are playing you haven't played before, you should be ok. We must be getting to a point where it is impossible to know everything (unless you are Bogdan!) and so unless you are trotting out the same unsound line time after time, you should be ok. Of course Kasparov astounded everyone with what could be achieved with sacrifices. I very much doubt his ideas/approach has been consigned to the rubbish bin. The lower the standard also, the less likely problems will occur with an approach which is theoretically unsound.

[Paul Littlewood]

Interestingly this does not just apply to the higher-rated players. I am at present judging the most brilliant game played by an U18 in the Championship...and frankly I am struggling ! I remember at that age looking to play sacrifices at every opportunity but the youngsters nowadays play it so safe. Is this a consequence of early teaching which stresses how important it is to avoid losing ?
Perhaps we need to see more enterprising chess from our top players so that the youngsters will be inspired !

Hi Paul,

I hate to make an obvious point, but looking to sacrifice at every opportunity is all very well but ultimately the purpose is to win. A sacrifice which loses is ultimately a blunder. I would suggest that the most substantial obstacle to seeing the Littlewood prize won by a sacrificial brilliancy is not actually "modern computing power". It is simply that the standard of British U18 chess isn't actually that high at the moment. And that it is hard enough for U18s at the moment to be successful without requiring them to be sacrificial geniuses as well.

And what's wrong with grinding out the win in a long endgame anyway?

Hi Richard,

I take your point but I am talking about an attitude of mind here. You have to take some risks to win at chess and you can taylor your openings to do that. Take an example from my own games which was played when I was a young student :

P.E.Littlewood vs Stefan Kinderman

1/ e4 e5 2/ Nf3 f5 3/ Nxe5 Qf6 4/ d4 d6 5/ Nxc4 fxe4 6/ Be2 Qf7 7/ Nc3 Nf6 8/ Bg5 Nbd7 9/ Nb5 Kd8 10/ Qd2 Be7
11/ 0-0-0 b6 12/ Ne5!? dxe5 13/ dxe5 Ng8 14/ Bg4 Bxg5 15/ Qxg5+ Qe7 16/ Qf4 h5 17/ Bxd7 Bxd7 18/ Qxe4 Rb8
19/ Qc6 Ke8 20/ Nxc7+ Kd8 21/ e6 Nf6 22/ exd7 1-0

The sacrifice Ne5 is speculative and I am still not certain whether it is totally sound....but it felt right to me and in the event Black was unable to mount a successful defence.

I am afraid I do not see any of that sparkle in our juniors...but it may be, as you say, that they are just not good enough.

[Richard Bates]

Hi Richard,

I take your point but I am talking about an attitude of mind here. You have to take some risks to win at chess and you can taylor your openings to do that. Take an example from my own games which was played when I was a young student :

P.E.Littlewood vs Stefan Kinderman

1/ e4 e5 2/ Nf3 f5 3/ Nxe5 Qf6 4/ d4 d6 5/ Nxc4 fxe4 6/ Be2 Qf7 7/ Nc3 Nf6 8/ Bg5 Nbd7 9/ Nb5 Kd8 10/ Qd2 Be7
11/ 0-0-0 b6 12/ Ne5!? dxe5 13/ dxe5 Ng8 14/ Bg4 Bxg5 15/ Qxg5+ Qe7 16/ Qf4 h5 17/ Bxd7 Bxd7 18/ Qxe4 Rb8
19/ Qc6 Ke8 20/ Nxc7+ Kd8 21/ e6 Nf6 22/ exd7 1-0

The sacrifice Ne5 is speculative and I am still not certain whether it is totally sound....but it felt right to me and in the event Black was unable to mount a successful defence.

I am afraid I do not see any of that sparkle in our juniors...but it may be, as you say, that they are just not good enough.

I'm not sure that you can tailor your openings to your opponents' possibly playing the Latvian gambit though... Have you got any examples of sacrificial attacks against the Petroff defence?

EDIT: I suppose you might have given 4.Nxf7 a punt a few times

[Paul Cooksey]

I take your point but I am talking about an attitude of mind here. You have to take some risks to win at chess and you can taylor your openings to do that.
The sacrifice Ne5 is speculative and I am still not certain whether it is totally sound....but it felt right to me and in the event Black was unable to mount a successful defence.
I am afraid I do not see any of that sparkle in our juniors...but it may be, as you say, that they are just not good enough

I think strong modern juniors, indeed strong players of all ages, are less likely to play speculative sacrifices. But they are also more likely to be able to mount a successful defence.

I believe this is an increase in playing strength as a result of computers. But it does not mean that modern chess avoids risk. Risk is taken in seeking strategic complexity instead. A game like Howell-Gordon is a case in point.

I mention David Howell also because he is roughly the same age as Paul Littlewood was in 1978. We do have some good young players. Of course, in 1978 chess was booming and we had greater strength in depth.

[Peter Constantinou]

He has a chance to win the British Championship and goes in for such a dull line. What has happened to all the exciting, sacrificial games we used to witness in the times of Mestel, Speelman, Nunn etc ?

While I absolutely agree and sympathise with Mr. Littlewood's stylistic analysis of a "risk-free" chess culture- particularly when he makes the cogent point of needing to inspire younger players-, can there not also be beauty in subtle manoeuvring? I remember Jonathon Rowson writing that grinding has an "image problem". Personally, I quite enjoyed Nigel's king wanderings against Hawkins, challenging the assumption of an easily drawn position, even if I would admit that a repeat of Short's Kh2-f6 walk in the middlegame vs Tinman would have been more dramatic to watch.

[Paul Littlewood]

I take your point but I am talking about an attitude of mind here. You have to take some risks to win at chess and you can taylor your openings to do that.
The sacrifice Ne5 is speculative and I am still not certain whether it is totally sound....but it felt right to me and in the event Black was unable to mount a successful defence.
I am afraid I do not see any of that sparkle in our juniors...but it may be, as you say, that they are just not good enough

I think strong modern juniors, indeed strong players of all ages, are less likely to play speculative sacrifices. But they are also more likely to be able to mount a successful defence.

I believe this is an increase in playing strength as a result of computers. But it does not mean that modern chess avoids risk. Risk is taken in seeking strategic complexity instead. A game like Howell-Gordon is a case in point.

I mention David Howell also because he is roughly the same age as Paul Littlewood was in 1978. We do have some good young players. Of course, in 1978 chess was booming and we had greater strength in depth.

I understand what you are saying,Paul but take a look at the wonderful game where Nunn beat Portisch with Black. This involved a speculative Rook sacrifice on f4. There may have been a defence but Portisch didn't find it..and he was one of the strongest players in the world at the time. Meanwhile thinking of sacrifices on f4, Tal also beat Botvinnik with a speculative Knight sacrifice on that square...and that was in a World Championship match !

[Paul Littlewood]

He has a chance to win the British Championship and goes in for such a dull line. What has happened to all the exciting, sacrificial games we used to witness in the times of Mestel, Speelman, Nunn etc ?

While I absolutely agree and sympathise with Mr. Littlewood's stylistic analysis of a "risk-free" chess culture- particularly when he makes the cogent point of needing to inspire younger players-, can there not also be beauty in subtle manoeuvring? I remember Jonathon Rowson writing that grinding has an "image problem". Personally, I quite enjoyed Nigel's king wanderings against Hawkins, challenging the assumption of an easily drawn position, even if I would admit that a repeat of Short's Kh2-f6 walk in the middlegame vs Tinman would have been more dramatic to watch.

I absolutely agree that there can be beauty in a positional squeeze as well...and despite what you might think I have also won games like that ! In fact the best player to look at from that point of view is Alekhine. He made many briliant sacrifices but his positional crushes were also incredibly impressive. It is interesting to note that Kasparov was inspired by him and you can see a lot of similarities in his style.

[Peter Constantinou]

I absolutely agree that there can be beauty in a positional squeeze as well...and despite what you might think I have also won games like that ! In fact the best player to look at from that point of view is Alekhine. He made many briliant sacrifices but his positional crushes were also incredibly impressive. It is interesting to note that Kasparov was inspired by him and you can see a lot of similarities in his style.

That is indeed some food for thought. I've always grasped at chess aesthetics rather intuitively, without really thinking about what precisely constitutes chess beauty, but that probably illustrates the deficiency of my reading (I haven't played or seen that much chess yet either!) more than anything else. I suppose we all admire sacrificial play, but presumably an "ideal game" is quite a complex and variable concept? Interesting stuff anyway.

[Peter Sharpe]

What has happened to all the exciting, sacrificial games we used to witness in the times of Mestel, Speelman, Nunn etc ?

Had Mestel, Speelman and Nunn (all now over 50 years old) played in the 2011 BCC, would they play exciting sacrifical games? I notice that a lot of chess players play more positional after they reach 40 years of age.

Paul, I remember your Uncle Norman and Michael playing in the Sheffield Chess League. I know that Norman passed away some years ago, but does Michael still play chess? Michael used to write chess columns for the Sheffield Star in the mid 1980s but I have not seen him for about 20 years