So I reached this position in a long game I played today. I am white.



White to play and win. (Hint... it's not Rh5 which is what I played).

I looked at the winning move, I calculated it a couple of moves and then rejected it. I think I screwed up my calculation two moves in.

My question is... how do I learn to see these moves? It doesn't seem to be one of the primary tactic forms, yet it's crushing. If it is a primary form, what's it called? After the game I went back and looked at this spot as it felt like the critical moment. I was really happy with this spot as I followed a definite plan to get to it, but then screwed up.

1.Qg3 intending Qh2? If that's correct it's more like a positional move. I can't make 1.Rh7+ Rxh7 2.Rxh7+ Kxh7 3.Qh3+ Kg7 4.Qh5 threatening Qg6+ Kh8 Bf7! work after 4.-Qe7

Qg3!

It scores over 12 in houdini, but by the third move in it's around 20. I think this constitutes a winning move.

If Rxh3 it's mate in 4: 1. Qg3 Rxh3 2. Qxh3 Qe6 3. fxe6 Kf8 4. Qh8+ Ke7 5. Rh7#

If Qe8 then: 1. Qg3 Qe8 32.Rxh8 Qxh8 33.Rxh8 Rxh8 34. Qe3... and it's mate in 9 apparently, but regardless I am a queen for a rook.

Houdini's best reply is Rbg8:
1. Qg3 Rbg8 2. Qh2 Rxh3 3. Qxh3 kf8 4. Bxg8 Qc6+ 5. Kf1 d5 6. f3 Qd7 7. Bf7! Qxf7 8. Qh8+ Qg8 9. Qxf6 Ke8 10. Rh8 Qxh8 11. Qxh8

Yea, thought process "penetrating on the h-file would sure be good times" "hmm maybe I can triple to get more grip"

I thought White might have an alternative endgame win, despite the opposite colour bishops, but I can't actually prove it. One line is

1. Rxh8 Rxh8 2. Rxh8 Kxh8 3. Qh3+ Qh7 (3...Kg7 4. Qh5, Bf7 as per wlrs leads to a much worse version of the same where Black loses his f-pawn) 4. Qxh7+ Kxh7 5. b4 a5 6. Kf3 Bb6 7. Ke2 Kg7 8. f3 Kf8 9. Kd3 Ke7 10. Bc6 d5! and I think Black holds by one tempo.

actually I think b4 is wrong there. White needs to bring his king to d5 and create a passed pawn on the queenside, everything else is less important.

So 1. Rxh8 Rxh8 2. Rxh8 Kxh8 3. Qh3+ Qh7 4. Qxh7+ Kxh7 5. Kf3 Bb6 6. Ke4 Bxf2 7. Bb7 a5 8. Kd5 Be3 9. Kxd6 Bc1 10. b4 Bxa3 11. Kc5 Bb2 12. Kxb5 Bxc3 13. bxa5 appears to win

regardless, I think Qg3 leaves a lot less margin for error

I ended up in an end game I thought I would be able to win with united passed pawns... but I was not able to convert.

As some of you are aware, I recently started going to my local chess club. It runs a tournament every month that lasts all month and has a game each Tuesday night with 90/30 time controls. Last Tuesday and I played a 1280 rated player and after he made a bad bishop sack on my h7 square I won an easy game. I will post it soon.

This Tuesday I played this game. It was against a 1688 rated player, which is stronger than I think I am rated, although this is only my second rated game ever. I went over this game with a couple of strong players (2000+) and received a lot of positive feedback and they were impressed with how simple it was. I felt good, but I realize there is more to learn from a loss than a well played game. Maybe I can learn something from this from you experts though!

I would love some comments and feedback on the game. I have annotated and provided some analysis (without the aid of a computer).

I don't know what to say about that. It's like you got all geared up for a boxing match and when your opponent got into the ring he just started punching himself in the face while you stood and watched.

My comment on 12 should have said, "I'm not going to fight for that square".

I agree with the premise, but I think a slightly more accurate analogy would be the guy just stood there and let you punch him in the face. White didn't really do anything to try for any advantage, and basically gave black the entire center to do as he pleased. It's strange that white played so passively.

With that said, MarkD I thought you played really well. You played solid, principled chess and took advantage of some nice tactics when possible. I really liked your play.

Yea well played, it gets harder when the other guy shoots back Good job still

Well, thanks for the positive comments, although it appears I won because of my opponent's passive play. The players that reviewed my game also commented on my opponents inactivity and passive moves. I was pretty happy to beat a 1688 as I didn't expect to have much chance.

Last night I got completely humbled in four 15/5 games. I find 15/5 too fast to write down my moves and I got into time trouble in three of the games. The time trouble cost me one game that I was probably winning in (up material with a good position), but I was losing in all three of the other games despite time pressure.

So that makes me +0 -8 =0 in the O1400 section the past two Thursday nights. Blundering pawns, and just getting completely dominated isn't much fun.

Yep 15 5 is too fast for keeping score imo. Just keep going, sounds like with better time management you're going to score some points against those guys.

Well, I played another game Tuesday night at the chess club. This one didn't go so well. It was 90/30 time control.

Ratings weren't posted this week but I talked about the game with my opponent afterwards and asked him what his rating is and he said it is officially just over 1900, but he has lost some games and it should be just below 1900 now.

Hopefully my embedded comments are readable. The pgn didn't accept my paragraphs for the long comments.

I would really appreciate some comments on this one.

Your problems actually started with Nbd7. You can just play e5 right away, you don't need to prepare it with Nbd7. If the plan is to hit the pawn chain with c6, then e5 d5 c6 is a lot better than what you did, Nbd7 then back to b8.

After you commit to Nd7, a better follow up after e5 and d5 is to play Nh5 followed by f5. If White goes g4, you can just jump to f4 and if White takes the pawn you have fine compensation.

Your other idea of Nc5 is better than what you did, but I prefer the immediate Nh5 - at some point you have to play for f5, so you may as well get started immediately.

The KID is one of those defenses where you are going to get run over by better players sometimes. It's not a "better player wins a pawn and then I trade down and lose a simple endgame and it feels like it was a close game" sort of defense. But I consider that a good thing. Blowout losses are good for improvement.

I'm not a theory guru, but I *think* Nbd7 is playable but slooooooow. e5 there gets you some stake in the center quicker and gives you a better focus on what you're fighting for. White is all lined up and ready to come at you, guns blazing, and your plans all seem to require several preparatory moves.

After you've played Nbd7, you should probably c5 and not e5, because the e5 square is a logical landing spot for your d7 knight and you don't want a pawn clogging it up. If you play e5, you need to get your knight to c5, which is fine but doesn't mesh with your hopes of playing a c6 break.

I don't mind 9. ... a6 (although it's again a bit slow. You are facing a much quicker attack and probably need to start thinking in terms of trying to stabilize more quickly), but I think you played it for the wrong reason. You have to be really careful playing preventative moves, because it can be really costly to waste a tempo preventing moves that really don't help your opponent. Let's say you play a nothing move like 9. ... Kh8 instead. Now he plays Nb5. OK, so what? He's threatening c7, but you can easily solve that with Nc5 (a move you want to play anyway) or Qd8 (honestly, not that bad for you either, as it gives your queen more flexibility to deploy to either side of the board as needed). Now he's just left his knight hanging out on b5 with nothing to do.

So a6 is a lost tempo in a position where white is looking to push you around and you were running a bit slow anyway. It's one of those moves that the computer isn't going to drop the evaluation for a ton, because the computer can play perfect defense, but in practical terms you are going to lose the resulting position to stronger or equal players a very high percentage of the time because of the strength of the initiative white has.

After that, there's nothing terribly bad about your c6 plan, you're just going to get mated on the kingside long before you get a chance to see the results from it.

10. ... h5 is a nice try, I think. In these positions, I love to have the option of responding to h4 with h6, because you can lock up the pawns no matter whether he moves the g or h pawn next, but you don't have that option here because of the queen/bishop attack on h6. h5 is as good an attempt as any to try to blunt the attack.

I can't blame you for not wanting to go into the hxg4 line in the slightest. That's a computer move. I kind of want to try c6 here. If he wants to trade queens while winning the d6 pawn, well, down a pawn but not getting crushed on the kingside may be your best option at this point. But this line into the same problem you ran into later in the game: He doesn't have to take on c6, and if you take on d5, he plants a knight there and the pin on f6 becomes crushing.

14. Bd3 doesn't accomplish much for him. That bishop isn't really doing any more on d3 than it was on f1, but now it's blocking the knight's access to e2-g3, where it really crushes black's kingside.

And finally, you can't play c6 and b5 because, as you found out, it lets the knight get to d5, good game.

I wouldn't be too upset about the game. Yeah, you got rolled up pretty good, but you played a sharp position and that's going to happen sometimes against tough opponents.

If you have access to ICC, then John Watson has an *amazing* video series on pawn structure that includes I think eight lessons on the KID that are some of the best chess instruction I've ever seen.

I really looked at Nh5 g4 Nf4 but didn't play it because of Bxf4 exf4 Qxf4 and he is up a pawn. I figured that I wanted to play f5, which is why I looked at Nh5, but I stopped evaluating after I was a pawn down... I guess I should have looked at it further.

I played Nbd7 without planning c6, when I played Nbd7 I had no plan. I have no studied openings at all yet, but I know that often the knight belongs on d7 in KID so I often just play it without thinking about what I want to do. Here I wanted to push e5 or c5 and used it to prepare, but I guess that is a waste.

Kyle,

I am going to have to open my game up and take a look at all of your comments when I have a few more minutes than I do at the moment. Thank you for the response! Lots of stuff to chew on.

e5 right away - both you and Ikasigh say that is good. I have to look at that.

I don't have access to ICC. I am debating paying for chess.com or ICC, but I can't decide which I should invest in.

Mark

Another common idea in the KID is to play ...a5 so you can play ...Nc5 without worrying about b2-b4.

This is definitely a common plan, but I don't think it's very good against the Samisch variation where White plays f3 - basically the Knight on c5 doesn't really do much there, since the e-pawn is securely defended. And if White castles Queenside, this whole plan of Nc5 and a5 sort of blocks Black's counterplay.

Actually, activating the Queen's knight is a headache in most variations of the King's Indian.

Trouble is with the Samisch is that White lines are easier to play unless Black learns something good - personally I used to play c5 lines rather than e5 because the Benoni type structures look less threatening and if White does castle Q side then a6/b5 is a good way of opening up the lines to get at his King!

That's the trouble with the whole KID. It's great if played right, but every white player will have their own pet lines and they each require a very subtly different response or else you risk getting rolled up pretty good.

But that's no reason not to play it.

So, if the KID is very theory intensive and I need to learn a lot of lines to play it effectively is there another response to 1. d4 that is simpler to play? By simple to play I mean that the moves mostly follow opening principles and you can get into a reasonable middlegame without memorizing a bunch of lines?

I am looking for something similar for 1. e4. I have been playing the sicilian online, but that's super complex and these higher rated players live are going to eat me up because I don't know the lines. I have similar problems playing against he French. I get bad positions as white within a few moves quite often.

Why does all of the literature recommend not worrying about studying the opening until you are much higher rated when if you don't you can simply get crushed in a lot of the different openings?

Because there's no opening solution that will allow you to beat better players.

The less theory-intensive openings will have you losing just as often, but maybe instead of getting crushed you'll just get steadily dominated down to a lost endgame. That's not really better.