Prospect v. Schaumburg (3): Too Many Pawn Moves

Pawn moves in the opening can be quite useful. They provide space for the pieces to develop and they help control the center. But excessive pawn moves create weaknesses and allow an opponent to get a lead in development. Three of Schaumburg's losses can be traced to excessive pawn moves. On 4th Board, five out of Brandon Hunt's first seven moves against Mike Zwolenik were pawn moves. On 7th Board, Ryan Wehmeier used six of his first eight moves for pawns against Mike's brother Max, and on 8th Board, Ryan Koutnik made six straight pawn moves to open the game against Mike Busby. The results were lags in development and vulnerable kings.

On 2nd Board, Schaumburg's Alexander Savoy got his pieces into the action, but his single minded attack on Andrew Berowski's king was parried by accurate defense and White ran out of ammo. On 3rd Board, Schaumburg's Ben Wu developed his pieces reasonably but overlooked a double attack on move 13 that cost him a knight after which Tejas Shah maintained control.

The most interesting game of the match was played on 1st Board between Peter Dimopoulos and Schaumburg's Craig McIlvain. Craig played the opening somewhat timidly and wound up down a pawn with an exposed king, but Peter could not find a way to open the lines he needed to open to bring his rooks to bear. Craig in turn missed the chance to exploit the open lines available to his rooks and a rook and pawn ending was reached that probably should have been drawn. However, Craig allowed Peter to trade rooks to reach a winning king and pawn ending but Peter was too eager to advance his pawn and Craig managed Schaumburg's sole win in the match.

Prospect v. Schaumburg (2): Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

If you've never missed a flight, you're spending too much time in airports. Economist Stephen Landsburg.

If you never get in time trouble, you're making your moves too fast. Chess Expert Vince Hart.


The nicest thing about working chess problems in a book is that little phrase "White to play and win." The reader knows there is a good move there if he spends the time to look for it. In a real game, no one tells the player when he should move quickly and when he should invest some time in looking for a move that can change the course of the game. He has to figure that out for yourself.

A complicating factor in deciding how much time to allocate to a particular move is the fact that the player never knows how many moves the game is going to last. In the MSL, the player usually has sixty minutes to make all his moves, but I have seen move lengths ranging from eight moves to eighty-five moves over the last few years at Prospect. The player who spends three minutes per move is going to run out of time if the game lasts longer than twenty.

This complicating factor is somewhat offset by the fact that the last ten to fifteen to twenty moves of a very long game often consist of a player with an overwhelming material advantage picking off his opponent's remaining pawns, queening his own pawn, and tracking down the opponent's king to deliver checkmate. A great deal of time need not be budgeted for these moves as they can be played fairly quickly, often within the five second delay.

I would say that forty moves is probably a good first guess for the length of the game. That allows for 1.5 minutes per move. If a player finds that he has made twenty moves in the first ten minutes, then he knows he should start taking more time. If he finds that he has played only fifteen moves in a half an hour, he might consider picking up his pace, however even this is subject to the position on the board. In a complicated position where the right move might decide the game, it may be worth risking a time shortage later.

There will of course be times when a player invests all his time in the hopes of reaching a decisive position only to find himself continuing to face a complicated position with inadequate time to think. If it happens all the time, the player needs to start playing faster. However, occasionally facing time pressure is much better than consistently finishing a game with forty-five minutes left on the clock.

So when is a player warranted in spending a little more time looking for a decisive move? As usual, I steal my material from National Master Dan Heisman. In an article titled The Seeds of Tactical Destruction he lists the types of things that give rise to tactical possibilities.

• Loose (unguarded) pieces - "Loose Pieces Drop Off" = LPDO
• Pieces that can easily be attacked by enemy pieces of less value
• One or more pieces than can be attacked via a "discovered
  attack"
• Weak back rank
• Pieces on the same diagonal that may vulnerable to a bishop skewer or pin,
• Pieces along the same rank or file that may be vulnerable to a rook pin or skewer
  diagonal
• Pieces that may be vulnerable to Knight forks
• Inadequately guarded pieces
• Overworked pieces that are guarding more than one piece or square (which, if removed, will make another piece loose or inadequately guarded)
• A big lead in development
• Pawns nearing promotion
• King uncastled or lacking pawn protection (especially with Queens on the
  Board)
• Open lines for Rooks, Queens, and Bishops towards opponent’s King
  Pieces with little mobility that might be trapped if attacked
• A large domination of one side's forces in one area of the board

These are the kinds of things that players should be looking for all the time. When they appear on the board, it is worth spending some extra time to see if they can be exploited.

The Chronos chess clock has a feature that will record the time that each player spends on each move so that it can be reviewed after the game. For the Schaumburg match, I had Dhruvin Talati use the clock for his game on 6th Board against Schaumburg's Chuck Novak. Dhruvin frequently demonstrates nice tactical vision, but he often finishes his game with more than forty minutes left on his clock (which is actually an improvement over last year when he would finish with fifty minutes left on his clock). As a result, he commits some painful blunders.

Against Schaumburg, Dhruvin got a big lead in development when his opponent failed to get all his pieces into the action, but Dhuvin did not take the time to find a way to exploit the advantage. He eventually found some Knight forks to gain a substantial material advantage but then proceeded to give much of it back on two consectutive moves on which he spent three and twenty-one seconds. Luckily, he retained enough of an advantage that he was able to win the game.

Prospect v. Schaumburg (1): Opening Principles

On November 1, Prospect beat Schaumburg by a score of 56-12. If the match had been decided purely on the number of tactical blunders made by each side, the score would have been much closer. The main reason for the lopsided score was that the Schaumburg players neglected the three basic goals of the opening: (1) Development, (2) Control of the center. and (3) King safety. It is very difficult to put up a good fight if you don't play the opening with these concepts in mind. As always, I highly recommend the article Opening Principles by National Master Dan Heisman.

Development is job one. More pieces in action means more possibilities to attack your opponent. More pieces in action means more pieces your opponent must keep track of meaning more possibilities that he will overlook what one of them is up to. More pieces in action means more possibilities of responding when your opponent does something unexpected. More pieces in action means more possibilities that you can defend something that needs to be defended. More pieces in action means more possibilities that you can create such strong threats of your own that you can ignore the unexpected thing your opponent did.

An exellent rule for less experienced players to follow: Move every piece once before you move any piece twice unless there is a good reason to do so. In the context of development, piece means knight, bishop, rook or queen, not pawn. Good reason usually means that you can win material by moving a piece twice or you can avoid losing material by doing so.

The second purpose of the opening is to control the center. Take a look at this diagram of the Battle of Gettysburg.

The Union Army under General George Meade controlled the center of the battlefield and was able to shift forces quickly from one point to another as the battle dictated. The Confederate Army under General Robert E. Lee had a very difficult time coordinating its attacks. The same thing happens in chess. The player who controls the center of the board finds it much easier to redeploy his forces and concentrate them where they will do the most good.

For beginning players, the most natural way to to obtain central control is to occupy it with pawns. There are some opening setups in which the center is controlled with pieces alone, but they tend to require more advanced knowledge. There are also openings in which one side cedes control of the center in the hopes that his opponent's position will become over extended and weak. These openings are even trickier and probably should not be attempted until a player is comfortable with the simpler methods.

The third goal of the opening is finding a safe spot for the the king. This usually means castling on a side of the board where the king will have good pawn cover. The great thing about castling is that it often meets the first two goals as well because it develops the rook to a square where it can support and control the center.

On 5th Board, Schaumburg's Michael Simboli neglected opening development in favor of queenside pawn expansion and left his king in the center. Although Prospect's Parth Patel did not counter as sharply as he might have, Michael found it difficult to defend his advanced pawns. When Michael continued to operate on the queenside, Parth took advantage of the White king's vulnerability to put the game away.

Prospect v. Schaumburg

This is only Schaumburg's second year in the Mid Suburban Leauge. Against the current teams in the league (Hersey dropped out this year after a single season), Schaumburg was blanked in every match last year but for a single draw on eighth board against Fremd for a grand total of 2.5 points all season. This year, they scored 152 points against the same schools and managed to win two matches. Prospect beat Schaumburg 66.5-2.5, but that score belies Schaumburg's improved play. 1st Board; 2nd Board; 3rd Board; 5th Board; 6th Board; 7th Board.