Nepomniatchi - Ding: Game 5: "Colour complex - a perspective"

 "The basis for a game of Chess is a purposeful plan which, beginning in the opening, is consistently developed in the middlegame. The link between opening and middlegame is of topical significance. Together, we shall consider the problem of assessing a position and analysing - undoubtedly the paramount question of Chess theory. It should be borne in mind that any of these problems can only be studied succssfully given a critical, imaginative approach to them"
- Isaac Lipnitsky

The great authority of opening theory, during the pre-computer era; Lajos Portisch, observed, "Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame"

Very true! But what is a playable middlegame!? There lies the beauty and depth of chess as it means very different at different levels of mastery and even amongst the greatest masters of Chess, it is defined by factors which are beyond comprehension! 

Playable Middlegame is a very broad term!

Bronstein wrote in the preface to "Chess Struggle in Practice - Lessons from the famous Zurich Candidates Tournament of 1953  "A living human being sits at the board with the thoughts and feelings of his own day, which are sometimes far removed from Chess. As he chooses a plan or even the next move, he cannot help thinking about his standing and recalling the result of yesterday's game. A game of Chess is not an analysis; everything has to be worked out in the mind. The Grandmaster gets an idea, takes a last glance at the clock - it is time to decide, to take the risk! He moves the Knight to e5. It is easy, of course, a year later (now the next moment on the live chat with engine suggestion!), having become familiar with all the analysis and having sat for days with the position before him, for the writer to tell the reader authoritatively: "A Mistake. The cautious Ne1 to be preferred....."

......on hindsight, everything can be viewed differently.....but........!

One of the management model of decision making presents the following six steps inorder to take a "rational" decision:

1) Perfectly define the problem
2) Identify all criteria
3) Accurately weigh all of the criteria according to their preferences
4) Know all relevant alternatives
5) Accurately assess each alternative based on each criteria
6) Accurately calculate and choosethe alternativewith the highest perceived value

All the above fits the process of ideation and arriving at a move on the Chessboard! These days, one uses technology to minimise their work over the board and are atleast expected to come to the board with fairly high degree of knowledge about what is going to transpire on the board....upto a point where they can make rational decisions quickly! What is being overlooked is the fact that it is afterall two human minds which sit opposite to each other with variable (and limited) capacity for memory and on many occasions, a move which seemed familiar and easy during analysis would appear differently during thick of action on the board! The human mind will suddenly start looking at threats (at times illusory) and risks! The choice that one has during every move is the chief differentiator!

In the same book, quoted above, Bronstein said, "One of the characteristics of modern chess (though it is 70 years before, this still stands good to this day!) is the dynamicposition in which, although the chances for each side may be determined, it is difficult to decide which of them has the advantage. Each player usually thinks he stands better, although at times one thinks he is worse"

Nepomniatchi, Ian - Ding, Liren, WC - 5th game

Nepo rightly observed during the press conference that, this moment was pivotal and after the move 19.....Bd8, Black is left with no pieces taking care of the Kingside.

Perhaps, 19.....Ne7 right away would have been better, with the plausible continuation 20.Bb7 Qb7; 21.Nf1 Ra2 and if 22.Qb3 Qa6! and the position is in balance.

                                                                   (Position after 24.h5!)

An important move! White is trying to seize the initiative with his last move 24.h5! fixing the Kingside pawns. Black has options here, instead of 24....c4 forcing the further course of the game in a particular direction, why not just remain in the position with 24.....Qd7!? holding on to the light squares and if 25.Nh4 Qe6; 26.Nhf5 Nf5; 27.Nf5 Bd8! 28.Qg5 Bg5 =

24......c4; 25.d4 ed4; 26.Nd5 Qc5 


Instead 26......Qd7; 27.Nef5 Bd4 28.Nd4 Rb8 and Black can hope to neutralise White's slight advantage in the long run.

27.Qg4 Qe5; 28.Nf3 Qe6; 29.Nf5 Nf5; 30.ef5 Qf6?

Probably the decisive moment! 31......Qd7 and if 32.Qf4 Bd8! or if 32.Qe4 Ra2; 33.Qd5 Ra5!? (33.....Rb2?! 34.Qa8) 

The theme of colour complex in Chess is another intriguing aspect. In the above discussions, the move ......Qd7 which kept surfacing and returning back the Bishop to the Kingside via d8 (controlling f6 square in particular) is towards holding on to the light squares and Black's Queen is the only piece which can have some hold on to the light squares. Remember, it is just holding on to the squares and wait for what White does and correspondingly move your pieces to guard the squares and if opportunity arises, then use the Rook to go and attack White's b2, after fortifying the squares in the centre and on the Kingside with his Queen and Bishop.

Failing, which, Nepo went on to win the game in a fine manner. Caruana dubbed it as a model game in RuyLopez! The final blow, 44.f6! defines the position! As Bronstein observed, the weakness of light squares also mean that the adjacent dark squares are also weak!

In the context of this game, I wish to refer to a fine game by Kasparov against Spiridonov, on the aspect of colour theme.

Spiridonov Nikola - Garry Kasparov, Skara, 1980

White's last move, 16.Nd5? is a serious error and instead of it, he should have played 16.f3. The point is, that, White is offering to exchange the only White piece which will control the light squares!

16.....Bd5! 17.Qd5 Kg7! 18.OO Rac8!? 19.b4 Qb4 20.Rb1 Qa3 21.Rb7 Kf6!!

A fantastic move by young Kasparov which underlines the importance of control of dark squares! The Black King is absolutely safe on f6 in the middlegame! Later on in the game, after the e-pawn was pushed to e6 on the move 29, to take control of the d5 square, the King walked to e7 square to protect the d6 pawn!

Kasparov crushed his opponent in another 10 moves!

The difference between a playable position and an unplayable position is very thin even in Master Praxis! Even great players of the calibre of Paul Keres succumb to it!

Kholmov, Ratmir - Keres, Paul - URS Tbilisi - 1959

Right out of an unusual opening, a playable position was reached and here Keres should have played 11.....Nf5! a temporary pawn sacrifice, and after 12.Nc6 Qd1 13.Rd1 Bb7 would have got back the pawn and equalised.

Instead, Keres played .......

11.....c5?

and was shocked to see that Knight land on c6!

12.Nc6!! Qd7 13.Ne7!!

and lost in another 15 odd moves!

Coming back to the quote by Portisch.......

What is a playable position!?

It is safe to say that, there is no standard definition and description for a playable position, but it corresponds to one's understanding of chess and their comfort in handling a certain type of position, pawn structure and piece manoeurvres etc. Some may like cramped or closed positions and some may like open and unclear positions.

At best, one can say that if one has enough options to play around on each turn, that could be defined as a playable position and on most occasion, every player gets it but they also manage to mess it up! 

And there lies the beauty in the art of Chess!!

In Conclusion, I reproduce a fine observation by Renata Salecl in her fine book "Choice":

"Some time ago I stopped at an upmarket grocer's in Manhattan to pick up some cheese for a dinner party. There they were: countless shelves of dairy classics, specimens of perfectly judged maturation - the soft, the blue, the hard Dutch, the crumbly English, the superior French - all with an equal claim on my attention and my purse. I was spoilt for choice.

The mechanisms of a dutiful student kicked in: I began reading the labels. If my first mistake was to enter the shop without a definite idea of the cheese I wanted, this was my second, for now the dizzying magnitude of the selection was complicated by the rhetoric on the wrappers. What made a given cheese so distinct from the hundreds of others surrounding it? Each one sang its own virtues with precision and feeling. I began to grow woozy, and not just from the smell of Camembert. Most peculiar of all was that instead of resenting the unnecessary bother that came with picking up a decent cheese - by this time I would have been grateful for 'spreadable' or 'tastes good on toast: as opposed to the 'mellifluous' and 'smoky' varieties enticing me - I was soon very angry at myself for my indecisiveness. What were the names of all those great cheeses I had tasted before? What good had all that time in France done me?

My third mistake that day was to consult the man in charge of the cheese department. Hovering in a spotless liveried apron, his hands held primly behind his back, he appeared very knowledgeable, gladly taking on the role of authority, but still something made me suspect that perhaps his real aim was merely to offload some expensive cheeses that he would be unable to sell otherwise. Thus confusion descended into suspicion and resentment. In the end, ignoring his advice and blocking out the siren calls of the chorusing Brie and Cheddar, I decided to pick out five quite random cheeses......!"

Chess masters find themselves in no different situation.....when it comes to choice!

I remain!