Corby Chess Club Magazine
Issue 002
In this issue:
A Question Of StyleAlan Moffat analyses...
- Moffat, A - Gibbs, P
- Brown, A - Moffat, A
- Douglas, R - Moffat, A
- Thomson, J - Moffat, A
A Question Of Style
I had an interesting conversation some time ago with Pat Kenny. We were discussing the playing style of individuals we both knew. When it came to discussing John Sawiak's style we disagreed. I was surprised because in my opinion there isn't a better example to be had of the style of an out and out attacking player than our own J.S., though Pat insisted otherwise.Ideal, I thought - before us we had a cut and dried case that we could surely resolve. We began to exchange insights and reminiscences of games played with John but neither of us would change our positions and I knew that if we couldn't agree about John we wouldn't agree about anyone. A simple case of mistaken identity - perhaps he thought I was talking about John Thomson? No. We both considered each other's arguments equally absurd. Eventually we agreed to disagree, both having failed to convince the other. How could it be that two individuals given the same information (therein lies a clue) can arrive at conclusions so diametrically opposed to one another.
One thing did come to light - it isn't as easy to define a player's style as you might imagine. In fact it isn't even clear what 'style' is.
Positional or Combinative?
I have struggled to understand this subject since my first encounter with the terms in my first chess book. Within the pages on general advice would be comments like: Base your choice of openings on your style or Play through master games conducive to your style. Style? What style? If I had any style at all it could best be described as weak. I became frustrated with my inability to understand. The famous phrase by Reti "Every chess master evolves a style corresponding to his individual character" didn't help at all. Chess by horoscope was not the way I had imagined things to be. I recall thinking: Positional or combinative? What nonsense! Weak or strong? Certainly. It was black and white in my eyes. Chess is a game of logic and the position dictates the best move - style does not figure in the equation. Some months later after playing through many master games I began to appreciate what was meant. Time and again certain types of position would appear in an individual's games thus forming the basis for a definition of their style.Ask any six players to define style and the only thing you are guaranteed to get is six different answers. So and so is combinative. Why? Because he plays the King's Gambit. So and so is positional? Why? Because she is shy and reserved. Are these definitions wrong? No, not entirely - we undestand what is meant but they are not accurate. Players aren't pigeons, we all bring something to the party. So any attempt to categorise must be taken with a large pinch of salt. Nevertheless it has its uses, I suppose.
The Problem Of Definition And The Historical Perspective
Changes through the ages are many and varied. Not merely in terminology but also in application. I am sure we are all familiar with the term romantic as a term defined by an open combinative style. In essence it boiled down to these concise definitions:- Positional
- Seeks the further improvement of his position.
- Combinative
- Seeks an early opportunity for attack
Romanovsky To The Rescue
Romanovsky's definition was like a breath of fresh air. He stated that we may play cautiously, riskily, sharply, boldly, experimentally, cunningly, circumspectly, subtly, imaginatively, ingeniously or aggresively but that these factors of themselves do not constitute a positional or combinative style. Only when there are two paths to the same goal can one be said to choose. Therefore we can say that the prerequisite to defining a player's style is the study of games in which that player has chosen his path from a more or less equal position.It all boils down to this: A position of choice - a choice of style.
A Modern Interpretation
Burgess in his book The Mammoth Book Of Chess(1997) describes the style of three famous masters thus:- Kasparov
- Ultra-dynamic scientific attacker.
- Karpov
- Structurally minded minimalist. A specialist in prophylaxis who needs only the slightest edge to grind out technical wins.
- Fischer
- An all-rounder. Especially skilled at transforming one type of advantage to another.
The attentive reader will recall that in my discussions with Pat I said "therein lies a clue". What I meant by that is that it would be absurd to expect a player to employ the same style against different opponents, not to mention other factors like mood or recent history.
The next time I get to thinking about John Sawiak's style I'll just ask John.
Alan Moffat
County Scene
Northamptonshire v Leicestershire
The match went to the wire with Leicestershire winning out in the last game. Three players from Corby took part. (Bill Murray, who was scheduled to play had to withdraw through illness. It was good to see him back at the club.) John Thomson and I took draws while John Sawiak fell into his favourite trap of obtaining a winning position too early in the game and then going to sleep.Moffat, A - Gibbs, P [B31]
Northamptonshire v Leicestershire, 23.10.1999
[Moffat, A]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.d4 c×d4 5.N×d4
5.B×c6 d×c6 6.Q×d4 Q×d4 7.N×d4 Bg7 8.c3 e5 9.Nc2 Be6 10.Be3 Nf6 11.f3 Nd7 12.Nd2 0-0-0 13 0-0-0 Nb6=
5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3
7.Nc3 0-0 8.0-0 Ng4 9.Q×g4 N×d4 10.Bd3 d6 11.Qd1 Bd7=
7...0-0 8.0-0 Qb6 9.B×c6 d×c6 10.Nf5
10...Qc7 [10...Q×b2!?] 11.N×g7 K×g7= [11...Rd8] 12.Nc3 Rd8 13.Qe1 Qa5 14.Qh4 Qh5 15.Qg3 Qa5 16.Rad1 Be6
17.e5 [What else?] 17...Nd5 18.N×d5 [18.Bg5 is unclear] 18...R×d5 19.R×d5 Q×d5 20.f4 [intending f5-f6] 20...Bf5
If 20...Q×a2 a possible continuation might be 21.f5 Bc4 22.f6+ e×f6 23.Qh4 f×e5 24.Qf6+ Kf8 25.Bg5 Kg8 26.Bh6 ~ 27.Qg7#
21.Qg5 f6 22.Qh4 h5 23.Qf2 b6 24.h3 Rd8 25.Re1 c5 26.b3 a5 27.a4 Rd7 28.Qe2 Rd8 29.Qf2 Rd7 30.Qe2 Rd8 31.Qf2
½-½
Silver King
Northampton A v Corby A
Sawiak Saves Corby WhitewashCorby lost 4-1 at Northampton, but were saved from a whitewash in the war of the wizards - John Sawiak beating Paul Pribanich in a wonderful game (alas no score available).
Brown, A - Moffat, A [A53]
Northampton A v Corby A, 25.10.1999
[Moffat, A]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 Qc7
6.e4 e5 7.Be2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Rc1 Re8 10.h3 Nf8 11.Be3 a6 12.b4 Ng6 13.Qb3 h6 14.Rfd1 b6 15.Qb1 Bd7 16.c5 d×c5 17.d×c5 b×c5 18.b×c5 Qa5 19.Qb6 Bd8 20.Q×a5 B×a5 21.Na4 Be6 22.Nb6 Ra7 23.Nc4 Bc7 24.Nd6 Rb8 25.Bc4 B×c4 26.R×c4 Rb2 27.Rd2 Rb1+ 28.Kh2 Ra8 29.Ra4 a5 30.Rd3 Rab8
I began to feel somehow distracted and found it more and more difficult to retain the thread.
31.Nd2 Rd1 32.Rb3 R×b3 33.a×b3 Nf4 [with the idea of Nf4 - d3 - f2] 34.N6c4 Nd3 35.N×a5 N×c5?
Time control. Better is 35...B×a5 36.R×a5 N×f2.
36.B×c5 R×d2
36...B×a5 37.R×a5 R×d2 38.f3 +=
37.N×c6 Rc2 38.Ne7+ Kh7 39.Be3 Rb2 40.Ra7 Bd8
40...Bd6 41.Nf5 +-
41.Nc6 N×e4 42.N×d8 N×f2 43.R×f7 Nd1 44.Bc5 Kg6 45.Rb7 Nc3 46.Bf8 e4 47.R×g7+ Kf5 48.Rf7+ Kg6 49.Re7 Kf5 50.B×h6 Nd5 51.Re6 R×b3 52.g4#
1-0
Addendum
From Issue 001 - MacFarland-MoffatDelete "...and takes his sorry ass off to the pub."
Insert "...given the mistake MacFarland played the game with consumate mastery throughout."