|
Chess as a Source of Personal Growth
by Eric C. Johnson
Chess is many things to many different people. For some, chess is just a game, a simple diversion from the daily stresses of life. For others, it is a serious sporting activity.
And for some, chess is a source of personal growth opportunities for themselves and those around them.
The typical player who joins a local chess club very quickly finds his or her "niche" in the ratings-based performance ladder of the group. Some players dedicate themselves to a serious course of study, earn a high rating, and perform well week after week. Others are satisfied with just participating in events and scoring the occasional upset.
This "stratification" of chessplayers is well known and occurs at every level of play. The USCF recognizes the phenomenon by issuing general rating categories such as "Class C" or "Class A" or "Expert" and on up the chain to "National Master" and even "Senior Master." It takes considerable effort for an established player to make consistent progress up the chain of these categories, and when two players from different rating classes are paired against each other in a tournament, the result is usually a foregone conclusion.
Usually, but not always.
Every player, in every rating class, experiences those wonderful, brief moments at the board when all the calculations of probabilities and past performances mean absolutely nothing. A moment when their higher-rated opponent hands them the opportunity for, not just an ordinary upset, but an upset across several rating categories. A game they can show to anyone, anywhere, and say "this is what I am capable of producing!"
Such moments can be significant opportunities for personal growth, depending on how the players (plural!) respond to them. The lower-rated player who responds well to the challenge will find a source of inspiration for many months of future play and study. The higher-rated player who handles the situation with grace and dignity will gain the admiration and respect of his clubmates.
Even the top players suffer an occasional upset. And there is no harm in trying one's best to fight hard or even "swindle" the opponent to avoid it. But on some occasions, aesthetics and even simple fairness seem to require that the lower-rated player prevail.
Thus, despite the rigors of the "sporting situation," in some rare sets of circumstances BOTH sides can find themselves rooting for the same result. Not because the "fix" is in, but because it is the result that just seems "right."
And those are the moments when both sides can experience personal growth through chess.
White: Larry Cesare (1400 USCF)
Black: Eric C. Johnson (2100 USCF)
Chess Book G/40 Swiss
Played April 7, 2001
English Opening: 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e4!?
Larry is an opponent to be taken seriously, as he often achieves good positions against higher-rated players (a fact that was about to be driven home to me in this game).
He has also had some unpleasant experiences where he has spoiled some nice opportunities for major upsets.
Prior to the start of this game, I was very unsure of what opening I should expect. I had played Larry once before, although a repeat of that game was unlikely:
Cesare-Johnson, Allentown 2000: 1. d4 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 c6 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Nf3 Bg7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Re1 Ne4 10. a3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 b6 12. Nd2 (12. e4!?) Bf5 13. e4 dxe4 14. Bxe4?! Bxe4 15. Nxe4 Rc8 16. Be3 Na5 17. f4 Qd5 18. Qd3 Rfd8 19. Nd2 e6 20. Reb1 Nc4 21. Qe2? Nxe3 22. Qxe3 Rxc3! 0-1
I played 3. ... e6 without too much thought, expecting to get a Tarrasch after 4. g3 or a hedgehog-type position after 4. d4 (in both cases expecting to gain active play against a lower-rated player). White's choice of 4. e4 not only surprised me, but left me fuming that I had not opted for 3. ...d5.
4. ... d5?!
An impulsive decision. Better is the normal 4. ... Nc6. ECO (2A) tends to agree, giving 4. ...d5 as slightly dubious after 5. cxd5 exd5 6. e5 d4 7. exf6 dxc3 8. Bb5+ with a big edge to White. Our game gets there by a slightly different move order, but the evaluation seems to be about the same.
5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. 0-0 d4 9. e5 dxc3 10. exf6 Qxf6 11. dxc3
11. ... Qd6
Black's position is absolutely miserable, even with the move in hand. The game is opening up much too fast and the second player is too far behind in development. 10 ...Qxf6?! in particular was not a good choice - better might have been 10. ... cxb2 to keep the enemy bishop off the c1-h6 diagonal.
Fritz seems to think that Black can take time out for 11. ...h6 and still survive. But it will be a miserable existence, with the King stuck in the center for a very long time. My move is motivated by the vain hope that the lower-rated player will not recognize just how good his situation is and will seek to "lower his risk" by trading queens. A fast time control adds some plausibility to this gamble.
Many bad games are saved by such bluffs. Of course, many others are lost by lower-rated players who stay in risky complications when advantageous endings are near. But here, both the ending and the middlegame favor White, so it is just a question of how much weight to place on each one.
12. Re1+ Kd8 13. Qa4 Qc6 14. Qxc6!?
If White keeps the queens on the board, it seems unlikely that Black will make it to move 20. Yet it is hard to criticize the move, in part because the ending is still good for White.
14. ... bxc6 15. Bf4 f6 16. Rad1 g5?! 17. Bd6
Winning on the spot is 17. Bxg5! fxg5 18. Ne5, but he missed it...so the game goes on. In bad positions (especially with fast time controls), bluffing works.
17. ... Bxd6 18. Rxd6 Kc7 19. Ree6 Rhe8 20. Rxc6+ Kb7 21. Kf1
White's last move stops any back rank tricks or tactics based on ...g5-g4, and brings his king closer for the ending.
21... Rad8 22. Rcd6
Setting up a winning tactical sequence. 22. ... Kc7 would probably tempt Larry with the easy repetition after 23. Rc6+ Kb7 24. Rcd6, etc. Lower-rated players are often falsely satisfied by draws in grossly superior positions. But the proper chess result from this position is not a draw. Plus, the rating system compels the higher-rated player to aim for counterchances, no matter how remote. Errors are still possible.
In fact, I often tell my students to "make a draw, don't take a draw," which means that one should play out advantageous positions to the end. If the opponent holds, so be it. But make a draw from a position of strength, not fear.
22. ... g4?! 23. Rxe8 Rxe8 24. Rxd7+ Kc6 25. Rxh7 gxf3 26. gxf3 a5 27. Rf7 Re6
28. h4 a4 29. c4 Kd6 30. Ra7 Ke5 31. Rxa4 Rb6 32. b3 Kf4 33. Kg2 f5
Black has tried his best, but what can one do to save the game when there is nothing to do? Not only does White have a grossly winning position, but he has played efficiently and quickly, and has a substantial time advantage on the clock. End of story, right?
Yet at this exact moment, a perverse thought started to intrude on Larry's play. He got caught in the grip of the (incorrect) fear that Black was generating real counterthreats, based on non-existent mates along the edges of the board.
After all, he couldn't have such a good position against a higher-rated player, right? Chess is not that easy, is it? Self-doubt is a major problem for players of all levels.
He consumed a good 8-10 minutes here, getting redder in the face and visibly distressed. He let his emotions cloud his calculations, and proceeded to play....
34. h5 Rh6 35. Ra7
White is gripped with the obsession of stopping the check on the g-file, and so races to place his own rook on g7. Of course, if this "threat" carried any substance, then Black could regain the material balance and hold the game - White would be stalled out.
But that is not the case. There are no real threats on the g-file. Just phantoms of a sort that very often lead lower-rated players to doubt themselves and stumble in good positions.
In fact, after his long think, he reached out to place the rook on a6...realizing at the last second that it would have been a terrible blunder. Did his fingers leave the piece? Perhaps for a split-second. I wasn't sure, but the look on his face made it seem possible. Certainly, his agitation grew by leaps and bounds after this move.
But would it have been sporting for Black to press the question, if any doubt existed at all? Winning a game in such a fashion, and with such a miserable position, would not be sporting at all.
Remember: Make a draw, don't take a draw (or a win) - even by such means.
35. ... Rxh5 36. Rg7 Rh8 37. a4 Rb8 38. a5 Rxb3 39. Rc7
White is still winning, but his move was accompanied by a draw offer. By this time, a crowd had gathered and this was the final game to finish. Larry's body language showed he was having a difficult time controlling his emotions (after the game, several spectators remarked that he looked like he might have a heart attack at any moment!).
But agreeing to a draw here would leave us both feeling miserable: I would know that my position was horrible the entire game, and Larry would have cheated himself out of a real accomplishment.
I found myself in a curious situation: not wanting to lose (of course), but also rather strongly desiring that Larry should find the proper path and convert his chances. I resolved to simply make moves, and see what happened.
Besides, it should not be underestimated how the act of declining a draw, even in an unfavorable situation, can put the pressure back on the opponent. His agitation was palpable.
39. ... Rb8
Would he race back to the g-file? Or would he find the right path?
40. Rxc5 Ra8 41. Rb5 Rc8 42. c5 Rg8+ 43. Kf1 Kxf3 44. Rb3+ Ke4 45. f3+ Kd4 46. c6 Rc8 47. Rb6 Ke3 48. Rb3+ Kd4 49. Rb6
49. ...f4?!
This move deserves condemnation only because it removes the last opportunities to "pressure" the opponent through threats of repetition. The fact that such "threats" are phantoms should not bother us too much - our interest here is with psychology, not chess moves!
50. Kf2 Kc5 51. Kg2 Ra8 52. c7 Rc8 53. Rb7 Kc6 54. a6 Ra8 55. Ra7 Rg8+ 56. Kh3 Rc8 57. Rb7 Kd7 58. a7 Kc6 59. a8=Q
1-0
I extended my hand and gave my opponent a firm handshake, congratulating him. The crowd (at this point there were 10-12 spectators) burst into spontaneous applause.
But the story does not end there. In this particular tourney, the prizes were chess books, to be distributed by a "lottery" system where each win earned the player a spot in the drawing. That way, the top players are not always guaranteed the top prizes; even one win can allow the average player to walk away with something.
We quickly organized the prize drawing...and pulled the name for the top prize. You can guess the result: Larry won a collection of GM Averbakh's best games. It seemed a fair and just outcome!
And to return to our theme: if our individual game had been drawn, either by agreement or some undeserved repetition, then Larry's fine sporting result (3-0 score, share of 1st prize, having his name drawn in the book lottery) would surely have been spoiled.
An otherwise meaningless game took on great meaning, precisely because Larry was forced to rise to the challenge. On this rare occasion, both sides were able to celebrate a significant chess accomplishment.
***********
Again, please do not think that such events occur solely at the lower rating levels. They happen at every step in the rating ladder, whenever a player rises to the moment. And that moment depends in part on the cooperation of the higher-rated player. For example:
White: Eric C. Johnson (2150 USCF)
Black: IM Jay Bonin (2450 USCF)
1996 US Amateur Team Championship East, Parsippany, NJ
Nimzo-Indian Defense:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Nge2 d5 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. Nxc3 cxd4 8. exd4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nc6 10. Be3 0-0 11. 0-0 b6
12. Rc1
A more promising long-range plan is 12. Qd3, with the idea of Rfd1, f3, Bf2 and kingside expansion via g2-g4, exploiting the bishop-pair, as in one of the games from the 1978 Karpov v. Korchnoi world championship match.
12. ... Bb7 13. Ba2 Rc8 14. d5 Nxd5 15. Nxd5 exd5 16. Qxd5 Qf6 17. b4 Rfd8 18. Qh5
18. ... Nd4?
Yes, even titled players can blunder. After this move, there is no saving Black. The only question is whether White can show the proper technique (part of which is controlling one's nerves under such circumstances).
19. Rxc8 Bxc8 20. Bg5 (not 20. Rd1? g6!) Qf5 21. Qxf7+ (Black's suggestion of 21. Bb1 is also good) Qxf7 22. Bxf7+ Kxf7 23. Bxd8 Nc2 24. Rc1 Bf5 25. g4 Bg6
Stronger players resign only when the lower-rated player demonstrates that he or she knows the key to the position. Generating a passed kingside pawn is the quickest way for White to force the issue.
26. Kg2 Ke8 27. Bg5 Kd7 28. h4 Nxa3 29. Re1 a5 30. Re7+ Kc6 31. bxa5 bxa5 32. h5 Bc2 33. Rxg7 Nb5 34. Bf6 a4 35. g5 a3 36. g6 hxg6 37. h6 1-0
Such games don't happen often. And because chess is primarily a competitive, not a cooperative, activity, they are often viewed negatively by the losing side.
But every great while, they should be viewed more positively...as a personal growth opportunity for the other side. Thinking of them in this way might make some otherwise frustrating tournament experiences more bearable!
|
