Resources for players, parents, organizers, and TDs.
Miguel Quinteros (born 1946) won the championship of Argentina in 1966 and 1980. Bent Larsen (1935-2010) was, of course, one of the top players in the world for decades and a multiple World Championship Candidate.
In our featured game, White initiates several powerful pawn structure transformations, using accurate tactics to see his strategy through.
How did White continue?
38. ?
When playing through the game and notes below, clicking on a move brings up the current board position.
Wolfgang Uhlmann (1935-2020) was eight-time champion of East Germany between 1955 and 1985, and an early International Grandmaster, earning his title in 1959. He reached the Candidates Quarter-Final in 1971, but was eliminated by Bent Larsen.
Uhlmann was arguably the greatest expert on the French Defense in the history of chess. He replied to 1.e4 with 1…e6 almost exclusively. This is exceedingly courageous in high-level play, when all of his opponents would have been expecting it! To this end, I still highly recommend Uhlmann’s 1995 book Winning with the French, as his insights are invaluable even if some of the theory has moved on.
Today we’ll look at Uhlmann’s sparkling victory with the Black pieces against Miguel Cuellar Gacharna (1916-1985) in the first round of the 1973 Leningrad Interzonal. Cuellar Gacharna was an International Master (1957) and nine-time champion of Colombia between 1941 and 1971. During his career he scored several victories over top players including Efim Geller, Viktor Korschnoj, Miguel Najdorf, Oscar Panno, and Samuel Reshevsky.
Black to play.
15… ?
In Part 1, we discussed 1.e4. Part 2 was all about 1.d4. Now it’s time to talk about the so-called Flank Openings.
Since I have discussed 1.c4 previously, I’ll focus on other moves, starting with…
Unless you are married to 1.e4 until death-do-you-part, opening with 1.Nf3 seems very appealing because of the flexibilty it allows in the closed openings. You can weave in and out of different systems based on your preferences or the opponent you are facing.
I’ve dabbled with 1.Nf3 since 1999 (A Strategic Opening Repertoire by John Donaldson). Conclusion: the move is more trouble than it’s worth.
Prepare an opening repertoire based on main lines, then play it. Start with 1.e4, 1.d4, or 1.c4. Your rating will thank you. Don’t get cute. More often than not, you’ll confuse yourself or you’ll wind up in lines your opponents know better than you do!
There is one more move to seriously consider that doesn’t get mentioned nearly as often:
Obviously, this move commits White to a kingside fianchetto; otherwise, I think it could be a good choice for the right player. Black cannot be sure what exactly he’s facing, or not facing: 1.Nf3 takes away the King’s English (1.c4 e5), the Benko, Albin, and Budapest…but it also creates limitations against the Queen’s Gambit, Grunfeld, and King’s Indian, for example.
GM Samy Shoker has made a career of this move and wrote a book about it, with Emmanuel Neiman.
Now onto a bunch of moves I don’t recommend against your peers or better. My commentary may be harsh or dismissive, but that’s exactly how strong opponents will treat these moves.
Yes, they are playable. No, you should not be struggling for equality with the White pieces! It’s not the right way to play chess (though anything is fine occasionally). Sorry, not sorry!
I wholeheartedly agree with Greg Shahade when it comes to building an opening repertoire.
Of course, all of this goes out the window if you are facing significantly weaker opposition, or find yourself in a blitz/rapid competition.
I’m kidding…sort of. In case you don’t know, I’m referring to this:
50 years have passed since this game; even now strong players occasionallly use Larsen’s Opening. So why do I bring up this game?
Black’s play is easy and natural; White’s setup is shaky from the get-go. Why do this to yourself?
Once again, I’m not saying to never use it, but please don’t on a regular basis!
Be honest, Bird’s Opening regulars: how many of you push the f-pawn because you don’t want to spend time and energy studying something else?
Experienced opponents will be on guard from the beginning, recognizing the latent attacking potential in your setup and prepare for it long in advance.
One can argue White is playing a Dutch with an extra tempo, so it can’t be that bad. Still, I would not want to use it all the time against players who know it’s coming.
Most likely, this move will box you into worse versions of openings you’re desperately trying to avoid. Next…
I think the Orangutan (or Sokolsky’s Opening) is a great opening for creative types to employ against someone rated 400+ points below them, because it is not completely ridiculous, admittedly.
Fittingly, New York IM Yury Lapshun wrote a book about it, co-authored with late National Master Nick Conticello. RIP, NIck.
But I’ll echo what I’ve said many times already: White is taking on a handicap by regularly using this against peers.
1.g4 is, to me, a riskier version of stuff like 1.b4. Instead of this, you’re better off pushing the a- or h-pawns, if you feel you must.
If you want to play with chemicals, the Sodium Attack (1.Na3) and Ammonia Attack (1.Nh3) at least develop a piece.
Again, no argument from me if you want to use this stuff against much lower-rated players, or in non-classical settings. Otherwise, avoid!
Arthur Bisguier (1929-2017) was a grandmaster (1957) from New York. The 1954 U.S. Champion won clear or shared first place at the U.S. Open five times between 1950 and 1969. He also represented the USA in five Olympiads between 1952 and 1972.
As an author he wrote, among other works, The Art of Bisguier: Selected Games 1961-2003.
Bent Larsen (1935-2010) was a top player, and a famously combative one, often employing risky openings with both colors. This may have extracted more points than usual against relatively weaker opposition, but sometimes things went badly wrong, as here.
In May 2020, I featured another classic demolition of the Pirc; do I have something against this opening?
Variations and symbols are from the bulletin (source: MegaBase). The text comments are mine.
How to Get Better At Chess contains answers from Grandmasters and International Masters about their thoughts on chess improvement, motivation, study methods, etc.
Because the interviews were collected in the late 1970s and 1980s, this book doesn’t talk about analysis engines or databases at all … I find this refreshing! The respondents also don’t give too much advice on openings.
You’ll find answers given by players like Nick DeFirmian, Larry Evans, Bent Larsen, Vladimir Liberzon, Viktor Kortschnoj, Yasser Seirawan, and lots more.
The players often have conflicting opinions, but that shows there isn’t just one recipe to success as a chess player. I find it inspiring that different approaches can be highly successful. Find what works for you.
The authors also includes a selection of games.
If you’re a fan of “thought-provoking” chess literature, I consider this book a must-buy!