Is the KID dead?

Another quote from the introduction to Shereshevsky's 'Mastering the Endgame: Closed Games'
caught my eye.

The reader will note the relatively large number of 'King's Indian' endings, presented in the 'Dark-square strategy' section. The King's Indian Defense occurs increasingly rarely in top-level tournaments. The charm of its novelty has largely been lost, whereas the degree of risk has grown several-fold. White has a wide range of possibilities for developing his initiative -- from direct play 'for mate' in the Saemisch Variation to 'emasculating' set-ups with the exchange on e5.

I am a great fan of the King's Indian Defense (KID) and this was news to me. The introduction also mentioned, 'In recent years [the book was published in 1992], however, thanks to the successes of the World Champion [Kasparov], there is a justification for talking of another burst in popularity of the King's Indian Defense.'

Now that Kasparov is retired, has anyone taken up the slack? From a recent ChessBase article...

'King's Indian: Fear and trembling on the chessboard' by Steve Giddins
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3564

...'In recent years, however, the popularity of the [King's Indian Defense] at top level has waned sharply. If one thinks back a while, KID adherents amongst the super-tournament regulars included Kasparov, Gelfand, Judit Polgar, van Wely, Svidler and Topalov, yet if you search your database, you will be hard pressed to find a single KID game, featuring one of these players as Black, in the last five years. Fashion being what it is, this decline in popularity has been reflected at lower levels.'

Giddins went on to compare the unpopularity of the KID with 'flared trousers' (aka bell-bottoms) and to blame it on two Kasparov losses to Kramnik. The rest of the article is a puff piece for a DVD titled 'A World champion's guide to the King’s Indian' by Rustam Kasimdzhanov. [An aside: Has the world abandoned Nigel Short's initiative to spell the ex-FIDE World Champion's name as Kasimjanov?] Puff piece or not, Kasimdzhanov 'sets out to convince you that not only is there nothing wrong with the King’s Indian, but it remains one of the most dangerous defences for the 1.d4 player to face.'

Whew! I can still play it. Now I'm left with two questions: 1) What were the two Kasparov - Kramnik games? -and- 2) Who else besides Kasimdzhanov (currently FIDE 2672) plays it at the 2650+ level? Answers to follow.

The 'Grand Formation' of the Steinitz Defense

In his introduction to Tarrasch - Lasker, World Championship Match 1908, game 4 (see The Lasker - Tarrasch rivalry; the Steinitz Defense for background), Soltis made several remarks on the historical value of the game.

Lasker defended against Tarrasch's 1.e4 with the Steinitz Defense. This was something of a gauntlet. Tarrasch had scored six wins out of seven previous games against the various forms of the Steinitz. In fact, the best known previous example of the Steinitz Defense was [Tarrasch - Schlechter, Leipzig 1894]. Tarrasch, the finest strategist of his time, had built a Grand Formation based on Bb2, Rad1, Rfe1, and Pawns at b3, c4 and e4, followed by a Rook-lift. It was the "correct" way to punish Black's third move, he said. If he had been able to make strategy, not tactics, the issue in the match, Tarrasch would have become the third official world champion.

The position in the diagram shows the Grand Formation. White hasn't played the move order mentioned by Soltis -- the Rook-lift to the third rank was played before c4 -- but the formation is the same.

Leipzig 1894
Schlechter, Carl

Tarrasch, Siegbert
(After 19.c2-c4)
[FEN "4rbk1/ppq2ppp/2pprn2/8/N1P1P3/1P1QR2P/PB3PP1/4R1K1 b - c3 0 19"]

Schlechter played 19...Nd7. Within a few moves the only plan that he could find was to maintain the status quo and do nothing. Tarrasch pushed g4 and h4, doubled his Rooks on the g-file, and broke through on g5. Black resigned on the 37th move.

What is the origin of the phrase 'Grand Formation'? Soltis doesn't say.

Merry Christmas!

Shereshevsky's 'Mastering the Endgame: Closed Games'

Via eBay I was lucky to get a copy of Shereshevsky's 'Mastering the Endgame, Volume 2: Closed Games' (Cadogan 1992) for a reasonable price. This is the sequel to 'Mastering the Endgame: Open and Semi-Open Games'.

The introduction to the book, co-authored with Slutsky, says, 'In games begun with the open and semi-open openings, the endgame for a long time retains its individuality; thus one does not confuse a Sicilian endgame with a Ruy Lopez, or a Caro-Kann endgame with one from Petroff's Defence. In the closed openings things are more complicated. In many of them identical Pawn structures arise and, for example, openings so dissimilar in spirit as the Queen's Gambit and the Gruenfeld Defence can lead to analogous endings.'

The book has only four chapters: Dark-Square Strategy, Light-Square Strategy, Symmetry, and Asymmetry. Dark-square strategy means games where Black has played ...g6, like the King's Indian and Benoni. Light-square strategy means games without ...g6 and usually without ...d5, many of them with ...b6. This was new terminology for me.

A translator's note mentions, 'To reduce the original manuscript to a manageable size for publication, several games have had to be omitted'. I have no idea how many. Since my first task on a new book is to find or create a PGN file, I should discover how many games are missing.

MonRoi and Recording Moves: Now I Get It!

The November Chess Life has an article titled 'First the Digital Clock, Now This' by Jerry Hanken. Among other things, it explains why FIDE (and the USCF) added the rule forbidding players from writing a move on the scoresheet before playing it. This is a well established practice among many players and was recommended by Kotov in 'Think Like a Grandmaster' as a technique for reducing blunders.

The MonRoi, an electronic scoresheet, has a display which shows the current position. As Hanken pointed out, 'if one could see his or her move on the small monitor prior to making it, it would actually bring one a step closer to the personal horizon of analysis.' The rule change was made to avoid that problem.

***

That sentence I just copied strikes me as somewhat clumsy. What is 'the personal horizon of analysis'? Why not, 'if you could see the position on the small display before playing a move on the board, it would bring you a step closer to visualizing your analysis'? On the other hand, I have no training as a writer, so what do I know? Hanken is president of the Chess Journalists of America (CJA).

The Lasker - Tarrasch rivalry; the Steinitz Defense

The next game in the series on Lasker's Moves that Matter is Tarrasch - Lasker, World Championship Match 1908, game 4. I've already discussed these two players in The Lasker - Tarrasch rivalry; the Berlin Defense.

In 'The Game of Chess', Tarrasch said of the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5; p.278), 'There are two good defenses, viz. 3...Nf6 and 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6.'

(p.291); An unfavorable -- but very frequently played defense -- is 3...d6 a move that was strongly recommended by Steinitz. This move, which shuts in the King's Bishop, is as little recommendable here as at the second move. White invariably captures the center and thus obtains the better game.

The most important continuations are 4.d4! Bd7 (Naturally Black attempts to maintain the center as long as possible.) 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.O-O Be7 7.Re1 and Black must give up the center by 7...exd4, for, if 7...O-O? he certainly loses a Pawn and perhaps the Exchange, e.g. 8.Bxc6 8...Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Nxc5 Nxc5 16.Bg5 Rd5 17.Be7 Re8 18.c4 (Tarrasch - Marco, Dresden 1892). After 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 O-O 9.Bf1!, Black has a cramped game and only if White makes mistakes can it be freed.

Tarrasch said nothing about 8...Nxd4, the move Lasker played in game 4 of the match. He continued:

After 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 the following line of attack is even more forceful: 6.Bxc6. The exchange of a strong piece for an inferior one is justified by the continuation. 6...Bxc6 7.Qd3. Now Black cannot well support the point e5 any longer and consequently gets a disadvantage in position. After 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 White's position is appreciably the better. Black's best continuation is 8...Be7. The attempt to maintain the center by 7...Nd7 is refuted by 8.Be3 for then White threatens 9.d5 (8.d5? Nc5).

Steinitz's defense is only slightly strengthened by the interpolation of the move 3...a6.

In his 'Manual of Chess', Lasker had this to say (p.77):

The oldest defense [to 3.Bb5] is 3...d6 which is the most direct one. Surely a sound and substantial one, though it may not appeal to the high-flown fancy. 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 (5.Bxc6 Bxc6 6.dxe5 Bxe4) 5...Nf6 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Qd3. Black must now decide what to do with his e-Pawn. Obviously 7...Qe7 blocking the Bishop is doubtful, as is 7...Nd7, which limits the action of the QB. However, an unpretentious move suffices. 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7. Black desires to keep the two Bishops and to guard the point f5.

Quite a difference in opinion, isn't it. The 1908 match was a clash of two chess philosophies.

Endgame: Marshall - Lasker, 1907 Match, Game 1

Continuing with Lasker's Moves that Matter, this is the fourth post on the same game. The endgame that starts with the diagrammed position is one of Lasker's most famous.

Kasparov mentioned some Shereshevsky analysis. I found it on p.87 of Endgame Strategy, along with an extended quote from Capablanca.

In his book Chess Fundamentals Capablanca comments as follows on this position: "In this position it is Black's move. To a beginner the position may look like a draw, but the advanced player will realise immediately that there are great possibilities for Black to win, not only because he has the initiative, but because of White's undeveloped Queenside and the fact that a Bishop in such a position is better than a Knight. It will take some time for White to bring his Rook and Knight into the fray, and Black can utilise it to obtain an advantage. There are two courses open to him. The most evident, and the one that most players would take, is to advance the Pawn to c5 and c4 immediately in conjunction with the Bishop check at a6 and any other move that might be necessary with the Black Rook. The other, more subtle, course was taken by Black."

Capablanca goes on to explain that with his Rook Black must all the time force White to defend something, when the activity of the White Rook and Knight is restricted, whereas the Black Rook and Bishop retain complete freedom of action.

Lasker played 19...Rb8, and the game continued 20.b3 Rb5 21.c4 Rh5 22.Kg1 c5 23.Nd2 Kf7

World Championship Match (g.1)
New York 1907
Lasker, Emanuel

Marshall, Frank
(After 19.Kg1-f1(xR))
[FEN "r1b3k1/p1p3pp/2p5/8/3pP3/6P1/PPP4P/RN3K2 b - - 0 19"]

Now Marshall played 24.Rf1+. All commentators condemn this as the losing move and recommend instead 24.a3, followed by 24...a5 25.Rb1. Here Kasparov showed that 25...Ke7 and 25...Ke6 are insufficient to win, while Soltis did the same for 25...Bg4.

Now I have to return to Lasker's 13...fxe5!, which he played instead of 13...Ng5 . Since 13...fxe5 draws after best play by both sides, does it really merit a '!' award? Perhaps '!?' is more appropriate.