By Davide Nastasio

Life is full of surprises. Thanks to the unexpected alignment of Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter, I had the chance to interview Cyrus Lakdawala, likely the biggest writer in chess history. Some love him, and some definitely hate his writing style. Whatever your inclination is, don’t miss this interview, because in it we discover more about a great professional player who has worked in chess for decades, and who has dedicated his life to something he truly loves.

Generally when I don’t know what to give as a gift for Christmas, I give Lakdawala’s books. I remember once I found an incredible offer of Korchnoi’s Move by Move for something like $6, and bought some for Christmas.

One of the friends I gave the book to never played chess again, so I guess Lakdawala was pure enlightenment! I loved interviewing Lakdawala for the following reasons: he is really articulate, he shows a human side of chess in which we can all find ourselves, but most of all I felt the similarities with his writings and my own.

As always in my articles I will pause the interview from time to time to show some excerpts from the great books written by Lakdawala, Some of the games I found in his books are quite important for our development as chess players.

Davide Nastasio: Could you tell for our readers how the chess journey began for you?

Cyrus Lakdawala: My father taught me how to play at age eight, and I have never forgiven him for it! I got immediately addicted, even though I didn’t display an iota of talent for the game.

DN: Who coached you when you were young?

CL: At first I only played my father (who was an A-player) and kids at school, but never had a formal coach. I was essentially self-taught from books — and I wasn’t a very good teacher, since my study was all over the place. Also, I was completely dishonest with myself, since at age eight, I strove to be the new Tal, which was a wee bit off the mark, since on the chess board I was the biggest dove of all time. When I was a kid, during summer vacation I desperately sought out strong competition and would walk miles to the shopping center bus stop, take a 45-minute bus trip to downtown Montreal, then take a 20-minute metro ride to the En Passant Chess Cafe. There I could play blitz with strong masters, like FM George Levtchouk (maybe I’m misspelling his name, if so, sorry George!) and GM Kevin Spraggett, and many others. I would play endless blitz games for stakes of 25 to 50 cents per game, which for a 13-year-old in 1973, was a fortune, since I only made $5 per week from my paper route. I was completely lopsided in playing strength with fast and slow time controls. I could hang with masters and even some titled players in blitz, yet in tournament play, I was still rated 1795 in over-the-board play when I was 17 years old, so it would be slightly dishonest to describe myself as a budding prodigy!

DN: Which books influenced you most in your formative years?

CL: Five chess books deeply influenced me:

1. I don’t remember its name or its author, but it was a book on Capablanca’s games. Going through them, I craved to replicate Capa’s Mozartian perfection in my own games and always fell short.

Let me pause the interview here to point out that Lakdawala wrote a book on Capablanca!

And this is a game from that book which shows Lakdawala’s great teaching skills!

[Event "Hastings"] [Site "?"] [Date "1919.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Capablanca, J."] [Black "Conde, A."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C84"] [Annotator "Cyrus Lakdawala"] [PlyCount "91"] [EventDate "1919.??.??"] [SourceTitle "Capablanca: Move by Move"] [Source "Everyman Chess"] [SourceDate "2012.12.21"] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate "2012.12.21"] [SourceQuality "1"]1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O d6 6. Bxc6+ bxc6 7. d4 exd4 8. Nxd4 Be7 9. Nc3 Bd7 10. Bg5 O-O 11. Qd3 Re8 12. Rfe1 h6 13. Bh4 c5 14. Nf5 Bxf5 15. exf5 Qd7 16. h3 a5 17. Re2 Nh7 18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. Rxe7 Qxe7 20. Nd5 Qd7 21. Re1 Re8 22. Rxe8+ Qxe8 23. Qe3 Qd7 24. Qe7 Qxe7 25. Nxe7+ Kf8 26. Nd5 Ke8 27. Nxc7+ Kd7 28. Nd5 Kc6 29. c4 Nf6 {The incessant haggling continues. Black seeks control over d5 as the vital component to his strategy, even at the cost of a pawn down king and pawn ending. EXERCISE (critical decision): Assess the position. Should we trade knights, or is the king and pawn ending drawn if we do so? ANSWER: Take the plunge.} 30. Nxf6 $1 {Capa soon proves that Black chased a conclusion which the position refuses to support. Black is dead lost in the king and pawn ending.} gxf6 {Black threatens …d6-d5 next, which either gives him king position or a protected, passed d-pawn if …d5-d4 is allowed.} 31. a4 $5 ({Capa didn’t like} 31. Kf1 d5 32. cxd5+ Kxd5 33. Ke2 Ke4 { which the computers say wins for White as well.}) 31... d5 32. b3 $1 d4 { QUESTION: Isn’t Capablanca’s 31st move a “??”. The position has to be a dead draw now. ANSWER: It isn’t. Let’s assess: 1. White is up a doubled extra pawn on the kingside. It is important to realize that White can still create a passed pawn with his majority. At the moment this doesn’t seem to bother Black a bit since his king can await and block the coming passer on the kingside. 2. Black’s pride and joy is his passed and fortified d4-pawn. This pawn keeps White’s king honest and near the d1 queening square. The position does indeed look drawn, but looks are deceptive. The position contains a hidden win for White which Capablanca had foreseen.} 33. f4 {Denying the black king entry via e5.} Kd6 34. g4 Ke7 35. Kf2 Kd6 36. Kf3 Ke7 37. Ke4 Kd6 38. h4 Kd7 {EXERCISE (planning/combination alert): The position looks like a dead draw, with neither side able to make progress. If you discover the correct idea, we find that Capa’s side does indeed win. How? ANSWER: Sac the (almost!) useless b3-pawn in order to create a second passer. Capa tosses his pawn negligently forward one move into hostile territory, as if any square will do.} 39. b4 $3 { Capa’s last move must have had the effect of a slap across the face to his opponent, as the armies abruptly collide with titanic force.} axb4 {It doesn’t matter which way Black captures. White wins with exactly the same plan both ways. QUESTION: Wait a minute. If this is the end of the world, then the end of the world doesn’t seem so bad. How does White’s pawn sac help? Capablanca just handed Black two passers as well. ANSWER: He gave Black a duo of passers only one file apart. This means White’s king is perfectly equipped to halt them both. On the other hand, White’s passers, a world apart, mean Black’s king is helpless to stop them.} 40. a5 Kc7 41. g5 $1 {Sorry rabbit, this is the turtle’s race to win. The second passer-in-waiting soon emerges.} fxg5 42. fxg5 hxg5 43. hxg5 b3 {Where do you think you are going? Black’s pawn sits only two squares from promotion, yet it feels like infinite distance.} 44. Kd3 {The crow grows attracted to the shiny object on b3. The optimistic b-pawn, hoping to win a race, finds itself in a cul-de-sac.} Kd7 {Make up your mind. Are you trying to halt the a-pawn or the g-pawn? Black’s king, floating in a limbo of indecision, can only barricade one or the other. When you are lost and without a GPS, each direction looks much like the others.} 45. g6 fxg6 46. fxg6 {Black’s king, with a sigh of resignation, passively witnesses the operation unfold, utterly powerless to partake.} 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

And now back to the interview!

2. I read a book on Nimzowitsch’s games (I don’t remember the name or author of this one either and I’m wondering if I should up my daily dose of Ginko Biloba) and desperately tried to imitate Nimzo’s play, usually with disastrous results, since I would cleverly transfer my queen to a1 and then get mated on the other side of the board, or with great erudition I would overprotect my e5-pawn (just as Nimzowitsch taught) and then overlook my opponent’s response …Bxa1, chopping my now hanging queen.

3. I devoured Fischer’s 60 Memorable Games, and swore to be his next incarnation and play just like him. As you may have guessed, this vow didn’t come to fruition.

I need to pause the interview once again to show another book by Lakdawala on Fischer. My idea to show entire games commented by Lakdawala has purpose to show the great deal we can learn from his format, thanks to his questions at the right moments.

[Event "New York/Los Angeles match"] [Site "?"] [Date "1961.??.??"] [Round "2"] [White "Fischer, RJ."] [Black "Reshevsky, S."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B72"] [Annotator "Cyrus Lakdawala"] [PlyCount "75"] [EventDate "1961.??.??"] [SourceTitle "Fischer: Move by Move"] [Source "Everyman Chess"] [SourceDate "2015.11.14"] [SourceVersionDate "2015.11.14"] [SourceQuality "1"]1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 {Reshevsky goes for the Accelerated Dragon, which to my mind is safer than the main line Dragon.} 5. Nc3 {Fischer opts for piece play.} ({I have a feeling his towering strategic skills would have lent themselves well to the Maroczy bind line,} 5. c4 {.}) 5... Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Be2 ({In this position Fischer also played} 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 Na5 $6 ({ Black should go either for} 8... d6) ({or} 8... Ng4 9. Qxg4 Nxd4 10. Qh4) 9. e5 Ne8 $4 {. EXERCISE (combination alert): White to play and force the win. ANSWER: Attraction/queen trap.} 10. Bxf7+ $1 Kxf7 (10... Rxf7 11. Ne6 $1 { wins Black’s queen}) (10... Kh8 11. Ne6 {is the same old story; Black’s queen is trapped}) 11. Ne6 $1 {and Black’s queen has no place to go, R.Fischer-S. Reshevsky, New York 1958/59. If} Kxe6 12. Qd5+ Kf5 13. g4+ Kxg4 14. Rg1+ Kh4 15. Qe4+ {forces mate in two moves.}) 7... O-O 8. f4 (8. O-O $6 {is considered inaccurate. Black equalizes at a minimum after} d5 $1 9. exd5 Nb4 {.}) 8... d6 {QUESTION: If …d5 worked for Black after White castled, then why not here as well?} ({ANSWER:} 8... d5 $6 {doesn’t work out well for Black after} 9. e5 Ne8 10. Bf3 Nc7 11. Qd2 {with a comfortable space advantage for White.}) 9. Nb3 { White prevents …d5 freeing ideas, as well as …Qb6 tricks.} ({The careless} 9. O-O {allows} Qb6 $1 {(threat: …Nxe4)} 10. Qd3 Ng4 $1 11. Bxg4 Bxd4 $1 12. Bxd4 Qxd4+ 13. Qxd4 Nxd4 14. Bd1 {when Black stands about even in the ending.}) 9... Be6 ({Generally Black first tosses in} 9... a5 10. a4 {and only then follows with} Be6 {.}) 10. g4 $5 {When we make the decision to enter such a perversely compex line, we internally debate: “What will be our fate? Glory and treasure? Or unimaginable woe?} d5 {Principle: Meet a wing attack with a central counter.} 11. f5 {Undermining Black’s control over d5.} Bc8 12. exd5 Nb4 13. Bf3 $1 {Fischer deviates from the explosive Alekhine-Botvinnik draw with a pawn sacrifice which exposes Black’s king.} ({I think Fischer’s move is superior to} 13. d6 Qxd6 $1 14. Bc5 Qf4 15. Rf1 Qxh2 16. Bxb4 Nxg4 $1 {(this move forces perpetual check)} 17. Bxg4 Qg3+ 18. Rf2 Qg1+ 19. Rf1 Qg3+ 20. Rf2 Qg1+ {1/2-1/2, A.Alekhine-M.Botvinnik, Nottingham 1936 (a tournament in which Reshevsky participated). This game is annotated in ‘Botvinnik: Move by Move’.}) 13... gxf5 {Of course this weakens Black’s king, but otherwise White just remains up a healthy pawn.} 14. a3 $1 ({Superior to} 14. g5 Ng4 15. Bc5 Na6 16. Bd4 e5 $1 17. dxe6 {, as was first played in I.Bondarevsky-V.Alatortsev, Tbilisi 1937. Black stands at least equal after} Qxg5 18. exf7+ Rxf7 19. h3 Re7+ 20. Kf1 Ne3+ 21. Bxe3 Rxe3 {.}) 14... fxg4 15. Bg2 $1 {The trademark Fischer accuracy.} ({QUESTION: Why not just play} 15. axb4 gxf3 16. Qxf3 { when White isn’t even down a pawn? ANSWER: This line allows Black to seal the g-file with the manoeuvre} Bg4 17. Qg2 Bh5 $1 {intending …Bg6 next, when Black’s king enjoys a greater degree of safety than in Fischer’s continuation. Surprisingly, Black’s missing g-pawn turns out to be an unimportant vestige, not needed for the implementation of the defence.}) 15... Na6 {Now this knight sits offside.} 16. Qd3 $1 {Denying Black …Bf5, while preparing to castle long.} e6 $5 {It’s a tricky matter to stir up enmity in a region in which the locals outnumber your own forces. A violation of the principle: Avoid confrontation when lagging in development, yet it follows the principle: Meet a wing attack with a central counter.} ({Kasparov suggests the line} 16... Qd6 17. O-O-O Nh5 $1 {intending …Nf4. I still like White’s position after} 18. Kb1 Nf4 19. Bxf4 Qxf4 20. Rde1 Qg5 21. h3 $1 Qg6 22. hxg4 Qxd3 23. cxd3 Re8 24. Be4 h6 25. Reg1 {since g5 is threatened.}) 17. O-O-O Nxd5 18. h3 $1 {Black’s g-pawn dangles an almost irresistible lure in front of White’s nose. Fischer plays the position a bit like a kingside version of a Benko Gambit, where lines open with alarming rapidity.} g3 ({Maybe Reshevsky can take his chances in the line} 18... Nxe3 $5 19. Qxd8 Rxd8 20. Rxd8+ Bf8 21. Be4 f5 22. hxg4 $1 fxe4 23. Nxe4 Kg7 24. Ng5 h6 25. Nxe6+ Bxe6 26. Rxa8 Be7 27. Rxa7 Bd5 28. Rh5 Bg5 29. Na5 Nxg4+ 30. Rxg5+ $1 hxg5 31. c4 Bg2 32. Nxb7 Nb8 33. Nd6+ Kf6 34. b4 {. I like White’s chances to convert, with his three connected passers, although of course Black has a passer of his own. The comps have White up here by a bit over one point.}) ({However,} 18... Bxc3 $4 {is absolute suicide for Black after the simple} 19. hxg4 f5 20. gxf5 $1 Nxe3 21. Qxe3 Bxb2+ 22. Kxb2 Qf6+ 23. Kb1 exf5 24. Bd5+ Kh8 25. Rh6 Qg7 26. Rdh1 {forcing mate.}) 19. Rhg1 { Target: g3.} Qd6 ({GM Robert Hubner suggested} 19... Qh4 20. Bxd5 exd5 21. Bd4 Bxd4 {. Now White should just calmly play} 22. Nxd4 $1 Kh8 23. Nxd5 $1 Qg5+ 24. Kb1 {when} Qxd5 $4 25. Qxg3 Bg4 26. Qxg4 Rg8 27. Qf4 Qd8 28. Nf3 Rxg1 29. Rxg1 f6 30. Ne5 $1 Qe7 31. Ng6+ $1 hxg6 32. Rxg6 Rg8 33. Qh4+ Qh7 34. Qxf6+ Rg7 35. Rh6 {wins.}) 20. Bxd5 exd5 21. Nxd5 $1 {Both Fischer and Kasparov criticized this move, while Houdini claims it is White’s best.} ({Fischer preferred} 21. Bd4 Qf4+ 22. Kb1 Bf5 23. Rxg3 $1 Bxd3 24. Rxg7+ Kh8 25. Rxf7+ Qxd4 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Nxd4 Be4 28. Re1 Bg6 29. Re7 Rf7 30. Nxd5 {when Black stood only slightly worse. So it appears as if Houdini’s line (the move Fischer played in the game) may be White’s best after all.}) 21... Kh8 22. Bf4 Qg6 23. Qd2 $2 { The wrong square. An army is an organic entity which must be fed. Now White’s attack begins to grow skeletally weak with hunger.} ({White’s queen should fight for g4 with} 23. Qe2 $1 {. Now White amassed serious weaponry in the vicinity of Black’s king and the difference is Black is unable to play} Bxh3 $4 24. Rxg3 {as he doesn’t have the …Bg4 resource he had in the game.}) 23... Bxh3 $1 {Everyone who knows the bishop suspects him of malfeasance, since his wealth continues to increase, despite his modest salary. Reshevsky, one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the game, seizes upon his chance, counter-intuitively allowing the h-file to open.} 24. Rxg3 Bg4 $1 {For now, the bishop erects a barrier to White’s ambitions along the g-file, since it can be backed by …h5 and …f5.} 25. Rh1 $1 {The impact of a sudden shock on the chess board is only fatal to the brittle mind. Legendary players, contrary to popular belief, make mistakes. But they also recover quickly, from a psychological standpoint. The trick is to budget for errors in every game. Fischer now revises his earlier intent, intuitively realizing that the h-file, rather than the g-file, may provide White a new attacking lane.} Rfe8 $6 { The wrong rook. Black needs all available defenders near his king.} ({He can achieve this with} 25... f5 $1 26. Qh2 Rae8 $1 27. Kb1 h5 28. Bd2 {(idea Nf4 and Nxh5)} Be5 29. Nf4 Bxf4 30. Bxf4 b6 31. Rd3 Kh7 {and Black’s king position isn’t so easy to crack.}) 26. Ne3 Qe4 $2 {When we fail to understand our opponent’s intent, we become like a king who searches for his enemy in the forest, when in actuality, the enemy may be a trusted minister, sitting across the table from him. Reshevsky, a lifelong time pressure addict, was low at this stage. After this second mistake, Black’s previous defensive gains dwindle down to zero.} ({He may still have saved the game with} 26... f5 $1 27. Qg2 Rad8 28. Kb1 ({or} 28. Nxg4 fxg4 29. Rxg4 Qe4 $1 {and White must swap queens, since Black threatens the f4-bishop and also mate, starting with … Qe1+}) 28... Qf6 29. c3 Qe6 30. Nxg4 fxg4 31. Rxg4 Qe4+ 32. Qxe4 Rxe4 33. Rhg1 Rd7 {with reasonable chances for Black to save himself.}) 27. Qh2 $1 {In Shaolin Kung Fu, we are taught: When in combat, one hand should lie, confusing the adversary; the other reveals the truth. Suddenly, White has a winning attack and Black’s defensive backbone – overcooked asparagus – just wilts.} Be6 {EXERCISE (combination alert): White has two ways to win. All you need to do is find one of them. ANSWER: Annihilation of defensive barrier.} 28. Rxg7 $1 { Fischer reduces the once complex argument into a simple formula: Black is unable to defend the dark squares around his king.} ({Even simpler is} 28. Nd2 $1 {when Black must resign, since he either loses his queen or his king.}) 28... Kxg7 29. Qh6+ Kg8 {Forced;} ({since} 29... Kh8 {walks into the deflection shot} 30. Be5+ $1 {with mate in two moves. The bishop considers himself an intermediary between laity and divinity, even though he considers himself a member of the latter category.}) 30. Rg1+ Qg6 {The human response to trauma takes on multiple shapes and forms. Of course Reshevsky could have resigned here, but somehow when we are low on time, we forget to do so.} 31. Rxg6+ fxg6 {Black is not only down heavily in material, but his king remains under fire from White’s queen and minor pieces.} 32. Nd4 Rad8 33. Be5 {Fischer systematically probes the dreadfully weakened dark squares around Black’s king. } Rd7 34. Nxe6 Rxe6 35. Ng4 {Going after the f6-square.} Rf7 36. Qg5 { Theatening to mate with Qd8+, followed by Nh6.} Rf1+ 37. Kd2 {Still, Qd8+ remains a threat.} h5 38. Qd8+ {“I rule in the North, South, East”, and then the queen pauses for dramatic effect, before revealing “…and the West.”} (38. Qd8+ Rf8 39. Nh6+ Kh7 40. Qxf8 Rxe5 41. Qg8+ Kxh6 42. Qh8+ {ends Black’s resistance.}) 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

4. In the summer of 1977, I read my buddy IM Tony Saidy’s masterpiece: Battle of Chess Ideas and was so inspired that I made the slightly questionable decision of striving to become a professional chess player, despite the fact that I was 17 years old and rated 1795. I have since demanded an apology from Tony for tricking me with his book.

5. In 1994, I was mired at a USCF rating of 2500 for several years and it felt as if I had reached my peek rating. Then to my great good fortune, I bought a copy of my buddy Jeremy Silman’s Reassess Your Chess as a teaching tool for my students, since I considered it a beginner’s book. To my great astonishment, the book shifted something which was previously jammed in my thinking process and my rating rocketed to nearly 2600 within the space of a very short time, which I completely attribute to Jeremy’s indispensable book. The reason Reassess Your Chess is the best-selling chess book of all time is that it may be the greatest chess book of all time. There is some hidden secret within it. Exactly what the essence of that secret is I can’t fathom, but it is there.

Again, I pause the interview to interject my own comments: I bought a 3rd edition of Silman, because I thought it was a classic. And I also bought the last edition, now I just need to find the time to read them!

DN: How did you become an IM?

CL: I probably reached (weak) GM strength from the years 1994 to 2002, but was unable to go for the GM title since my wife Nancy and I bought a house in San Diego (one of the most expensive places on earth to live!) and I was financially unable to trot off to Europe in search of norm tournaments, since Nancy’s income alone wasn’t enough to pay the mortgage and bills. My peak USCF rating was 2598 in 1998, and with rating inflation factored in, would be around 2650 today. In blitz I could hang with world class players. I beat GM Alexey Shirov four in a row the first time we played and I broke even with Gary Kasparov, scoring 1.5-1.5 when he was World Champion in 1996. I never could figure out why there was such a disparity between my blitz and my tournament play, but I suspect it stemmed from chronic back issues, which only affected me in long tournament games. I just didn’t play in very many FIDE tournaments, so my FIDE rating never went over 2450, although I was about 50 to 75 points stronger than that at the time. A second reason I never went for the GM title was the chronic back problems. The constant back pain I suffered lowered my performance over the board in slow games. I know a bunch of older American IMs who would have made GM if they lived in Europe. For some reason, there were very few norm opportunities in the U.S. from the 1970’s through the 1990’s. In fact, I didn’t even bother to get my IM title until I was 42. I became an IM on my 42nd birthday (talk about a late bloomer!) in 2002. It was pretty easy for me to get the title, since I already had the rating requirement and my USCF rating was still in the high 2500’s.

DN: Keres and many other GMs do describe their chess life as a via crucis; there are some pleasant experiences, but also a lot of pain, especially when one loses important tournaments or games. What about you?

CL: I was cursed with the dreamy (and occasionally volatile) personality of a poet, so I never felt the life-and-death compulsion to win at all costs, which most other professional players went though in their careers. I just put 100% effort in my games and preparation, and regarded the game’s result as incidental, as a product of my past karma and not something in my power to alter. The idea of control is a myth. All we can do is our best and let the result arise as it arises. I had this intuitive realization that it wouldn’t matter much if I took first or second place in the American Open after I was dead, cremated, and my former body resembled pipe tobacco, while my mental continuum floated in the bardo awaiting rebirth for my next life.

DN: Is professional chess a good career option for the young today?

CL: I wouldn’t describe it as “good,” but it’s a lot easier than it was in old days. Today it’s not so bad, due to the boom of coaching young kids. When I was younger, it was the most idiotic profession you could possibly pick. It was similar to telling your parents, “Mom, Dad, I don’t want to go to Harvard Medical School, even though I was accepted with a full scholarship. Instead, I want to follow my dream and become a park mime. Here, let me show you my awesome mime interpretation of walking against the wind.” Look, your parents are not going to be too happy with your decision. Mine weren’t so thrilled at my admittedly dumb decision to become a chess professional/teacher/writer, either. My parents ran a very successful printing/advertising business with about 50 employees. They wanted me to take over but I knew in my heart that dreamy artists (more suited to be shepherds who play the lute) don’t make competent CEOs! So my younger brother, Jimmy, took over and became wealthy, while I tra-la-la-ed into Van Gogh-like poverty for about 25 years by entering the non-lucrative world of chess. Except, unlike Theo Van Gogh, that cheapskate Jimmy never sent me any money! With time, life altered for the better. Edgar Degas was right when he said, “One does not marry art. One ravishes it.” While it’s true that in the past, many gloomy chess professionals acted as if they had just finished reading the complete works of Dostoyevsky, many are not so bad off today. I’m financially comfortable today after having written 41 books (three of those are in edit), mainly for Everyman, and a few for New in Chess, which in turn made me a high-demand chess teacher (since my prospective students incorrectly believe that I am a world-renowned expert on every chess opening in existence!), so I’m never worried about finding new students.

DN: Lately there has been great talk of Chess960 as the future of chess. What is your opinion about it? Did you play it?

CL: Don’t hold your breath about Chess960. I have heard this before. It won’t go anywhere. Chess players as a society are not going to brush aside the momentum of 400+ years of recorded chess, with its accompanying theory, to take up Chess960, a game which disorients us on move one! Although I totally sympathize with the concept of Chess960, since it has gotten to the point where some players love study of opening theory, more than chess itself. They are in love with the idea of powerful chess computers and databases coming up with answers for them, rather than finding the moves and ideas themselves with the flawed human brain. Today, I watched game one of the Carlsen-Caruana championship and a master watching was stunned that I didn’t turn on my engine while watching the game. I will do that later when I go over the game again, but for the first time, I want to try and solve the problems with my flawed human brain, rather than have them delivered gift wrapped to me with a bow by the all-knowing comp. In my book Winning Ugly, I wrote, “Your technophobic writer loathes what computers have done to chess. It is a growing hatred which I nourish daily, each time I work on a book and the 3200-rated computer/instant-answer-genie assures me that my human brain is obsolete and now there is no need for us humans to think for ourselves. I don’t view our electronic era as some kind of virtual Eden, since comps and databases are the ones who, by giving us an overload of knowledge, simultaneously hand us humans our eviction notices from our past innocent, pre-comp Eden, where we had to think for ourselves. With the arrival of comps in the late 1970s, it never occurred to me that they would turn chess into a new world order, which I’m still not completely accustomed to. It’s a depressing realization that whatever the human mind can conjure or calculate, technology can do it better and far more efficiently. The old flesh-and-blood, carbon-based order must make way for the inhuman new. Our era is the sci-fi story of the robot who arises in sentience, and seeing his mental superiority to humans, claims it is God. If the (chess) world were ruled by Terminator-like sentient robots, I’m convinced their prime directive to us humans would be: Conform or be deactivated.”

DN: Can you play blindfold games, and what is your opinion of blindfold play?

CL: Yes, I can still play blindfold games and I think any player rated over 2200 can do so as well. I used to be able to play up to four games at a time, but now with the approach of senility/dementia, I doubt that I can play more than one at a time. Blindfold chess is a really powerful tool, since it deepens imprints necessary to calculate in our over-the-board games. I strongly urge young, ambitious players to add it to their training routines.

DN: How far do you trust the computer evaluation of a position?

CL: They are getting stronger and stronger. For example, the below diagram arose in the game Larsen-Bronstein, Moscow 1962.

Larsen, up two pawns against Bronstein, is stymied by Bronstein’s iron blockade of the light squares and the position is dead even. Larsen played the rather astonishing/insane move g3-g4!!??, followed by the sacrifice of two more pawns. Even though the comp evaluation remained at even, Bronstein got disoriented and lost an unloseable game. In Larsen: Move by Move, I wrote the following about Larsen’s move: “The cold, algorithmic non-mind of a computer can sometimes come up with achingly beautiful equations through its mysterious churnings. Yet, no comp would ever consider Larsen’s triple pawn sac, mainly because computers are programmed to be sane, while we humans are capable of generating revelation in our unique madness.” Today, I am forced to repent my past words. Why?: I turned on Komodo 12 and within 10 seconds it demanded that White play Larsen’s 42 g3-g4!!??, which may mean that the comps have equaled or surpassed us in the realm of creativity in chess.

Once more I pause the interview to show one of Lakdawala’s books, in this case on the great Larsen.

And, of course, I present one of the games annotated by Lakdawala, giving everyone the chance to increase their chess level!

[Event "8: Capablanca Memorial, Havana"] [Site "?"] [Date "1967.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Gligoric, S."] [Black "Larsen, B."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E43"] [Annotator "Cyrus Lakdawala"] [PlyCount "54"] [EventDate "1967.??.??"] [SourceTitle "Larsen MBM"] [Source "Everyman Chess"] [SourceDate "2015.01.05"] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate "2015.01.05"] [SourceQuality "1"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 {I sometimes reach this Nimzo-Indian position with an extra tempo, with colours reversed, starting with 1 b3!, the Nimzo-Larsen Attack.} 5. Bd3 Bb7 6. Nf3 Ne4 7. O-O f5 {Black thematically fights for e4 rather than go off on a pawn-grabbing adventure on c3. QUESTION: Why isn’t c3 hanging?} ({ANSWER: It is, but it’s a known pawn sac, where White gets decent compensation. For example:} 7... Nxc3 8. bxc3 Bxc3 9. Rb1 Ba5 10. Ba3 d6 11. c5 {and White’s huge development lead and attacking chances offer full compensation for the pawn, A.Denker-R.Fine, US Championship, New York 1944.}) (7... Bxc3 8. bxc3 Nxc3 9. Qc2 Bxf3 10. gxf3 Qg5+ 11. Kh1 Qh5 12. Rg1 $1 (12. Qxc3 Qxf3+ {is perpetual check}) 12... Qxf3+ 13. Rg2 f5 14. Ba3 $1 {Keres’ idea, playing for the win;} (14. Qxc3 Qd1+ 15. Rg1 Qf3+ {is perpetual check again}) 14... Ne4 15. Rf1 g6 16. Be2 Qh3 17. f3 Nf6 18. d5 { and White’s massive lead in development and two bishops in the open position easily compensate for the missing pawns, H.Neto-T.Wilczek, correspondence 2010. }) 8. Bxe4 {At the time this was thought to be one of White’s best continuations. Today, it may even sink to the level of a “?!” assessment, mainly due to Larsen’s convincing play in this game.} fxe4 9. Nd2 Bxc3 10. bxc3 O-O $1 ({Larsen prepared this surprise, which was a huge improvement over} 10... Qg5 $6 11. Ba3 Na6 $6 12. c5 h5 13. Qe2 Qg4 14. f3 exf3 15. Nxf3 O-O-O 16. h3 Qg3 17. Ne5 {, when Black was already busted, S.Gligoric-Bor.Andersen, Copenhagen 1965. Larsen said that Gligoric had discovered 10…0-0! (and Black’s next move) independently, but then forgot about it and allowed it in the game! If a top GM is capable of this mistake, then shouldn’t we forgive ourselves when we bungle our opening prep as well?}) 11. Qg4 {QUESTION: Does Black get enough for the pawn, seeing as e4 is about to fall? ANSWER: Actually, e4 may fall, but Black doesn’t lose a pawn. Larsen’s next move is the point of his 10…0-0! novelty.} Rf5 $1 ({Larsen’s clever idea is that} 11... Rf5 12. Nxe4 $4 {is met by} h5 {, which wins a piece.}) 12. d5 $5 { Passive defence is anathema to a player with an active style, as it is for a restless person to remain inert in a sickbed for weeks on end. White hopes to activate the sleeping c1-bishop,} ({whereas Black looks a shade better after} 12. f3 exf3 13. Nxf3 {.}) 12... Rg5 13. Qf4 {Still hoping to take on e4 with the knight.} exd5 14. cxd5 Bxd5 15. c4 Bc6 $1 {QUESTION: This move blocks … Nc6. Doesn’t it deserve a question mark rather than an exclam? ANSWER: The exclam stands for the following reasons: 1. Both bishop and d7-pawn keep each other secure. 2. The knight was never going to c6, so the bishop blocks nothing. Black’s knight intends to emerge via a6.} 16. Nxe4 Rg6 17. Bb2 { The once-awful bishop asserts himself along the a1-h8 diagonal.} Na6 18. f3 Nb4 $1 {The knight’s eyes shine ominously in the direction of d3, which isn’t so easy to cover.} 19. Bc3 {A difficult choice in a nest of tricky variations.} ({ The alternative was} 19. Rad1 Qe7 20. Qxc7 (20. a3 $6 Nc2 21. Rf2 Nxa3 22. Rc1 Rf8 23. Qxc7 Bxe4 24. fxe4 Rxf2 25. Kxf2 h6 {leaves White struggling}) 20... Bxe4 21. fxe4 (21. Rxd7 Qg5 22. Rf2 $1 Bc6 23. h4 $1 {should also be okay}) 21... Qxe4 22. g3 Qxe3+ 23. Kh1 {and although the white king is quite exposed, Black doesn’t seem to have anything more than perpetual check.}) ({Kasparov gave} 19. Rfd1 Qe7 20. Ng3 Rf8 21. Qe5 {, but perhaps he meant the other rook since} Re6 $1 {is strong here; for example,} 22. Qxc7 Rxe3 23. Rd2 Nd3 $1 24. Bd4 Nf4 25. Qxa7 Re1+ 26. Rxe1 Qxe1+ 27. Nf1 Ne2+ {wins the exchange.}) 19... Nd3 20. Qf5 Qh4 $1 {The queen decides to hold court on the kingside, which soon turns into a seething caldron of suspicion and paranoia. Triple purpose: 1. Black adds another attacker into the mix. 2. Black threatens structural damage on e4. 3. If the white knight moves, then c4 hangs.} 21. Nf6+ $5 { Success and failure have their gradations. Kasparov thought this move was a blunder; whereas Houdini disagrees, considering that the real mistake came later.} ({Gligoric probably feared the line} 21. Rad1 Nc5 (21... Rf8 22. Nf6+ $1 gxf6 23. Qxd3 {is similar to the game, with the useful Rad1 thrown in for White}) 22. Nxc5 Rf8 $1 {(Larsen), though after} 23. Qc2 Rxf3 24. Nxd7 Rxf1+ 25. Rxf1 ({not} 25. Kxf1 $4 Bxg2+ {and wins}) 25... Bxd7 ({and not} 25... Rxg2+ $4 26. Qxg2 Bxg2 27. Rf8#) 26. Rf4 {, White should be hanging on despite his inferior pawn structure.}) 21... gxf6 22. Qxd3 {Gligoric’s idea: White is just one move away from playing e3-e4, after which his king is safe. Amazingly, Larsen never gave him the breather he needed to play it.} Rh6 23. h3 Kf7 $1 { The passage of time fails to wither the power of Black’s attack. Larsen clears g8 for his last undeveloped piece.} 24. Rf2 $2 {The rook numbly obeys his king’s command. After this move, the white fortress, built on porous plaster, begins to crumble.} ({Amazingly, White has access to a relief fund in a time of famine:} 24. Be1 $1 Qh5 25. h4 $3 {only a computer could come up with such an unnatural defence;} ({instead,} 25. Kh1 $2 Rg8 26. Qe2 Rhg6 27. Rf2 { is met by the crushing} Rxg2 $1) 25... Rg8 26. Rd1 Rhg6 ({not} 26... Bxf3 $4 { due to} 27. Qxd7+) 27. Rd2 {and e3-e4 follows with a playable game for White. Surprisingly, Black’s amalgam proves to be inert and devoid of force. A combination seems simultaneously near and yet inaccessible. Houdini doesn’t see anything concrete, and it feels as if Black chases after an essenceless entity in White’s king.}) 24... Rg8 25. Kf1 $6 {Running doesn’t help. White’s king hopes to emerge from his not-so-secure lair, based on the philosophy that it’s better to live on the outskirts of a ghetto than in the middle of one. He realizes his defenders are useless objects, like paintings of ancestors in a mansion, people who are meaningless to their current, living descendants. EXERCISE (combination alert): The position is suited for a surgical strike, rather than indiscriminate fire. How would you conduct Black’s attack?} ({ The text loses quickly, but White wouldn’t last after} 25. Qf5 Rh5 26. Qf4 Qxf4 27. exf4 Rxh3 {either; for example,} 28. Kf1 Rh1+ 29. Ke2 Rh2 30. Kf1 h5 31. Kg1 Rh4 32. Bd2 Rh3 33. Raf1 Ke6 34. Re1+ Kf5 35. Re3 h4 {and White’s king is trapped and in agony, the way a moth flies into hot candle wax: trapped, suffering, yet unable to die.}) {ANSWER: Demolition of king’s cover.} 25... Rxg2 $1 {White is jarred rudely awake from his somnolent musings. Black’s rook feels restored, thinking to himself: “There is nothing like making good on an old vendetta to soothe a troubled spirit.”} ({Gligoric may have counted on} 25... Rhg6 $2 26. Qd4 $1 Qg3 27. Re1 Qh2 28. Qf4 {and White survives.}) 26. Rxg2 {Not much choice,} ({since} 26. Kxg2 {walks into} Qxh3+ 27. Kg1 Qh1# {.}) 26... Qxh3 27. e4 Rg6 ({The defence collapses after} 27... Rg6 28. Qe2 { (the dreaming queen is present in body, yet absent in mind and spirit in her given task of protecting her king)} Qh1+ 29. Kf2 {(White’s king, knocked down and prone, looks up at Black’s queen, an armoured mass of bone and sinew, towering over him)} Rxg2+ {etc.}) 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

DN: If one side is attacking and the other side defending, who needs to calculate more? Why?

CL: It depends upon the way your brain is wired. The general consensus is it is easier for the attacker to find good moves, while the defender agonizes and burns up time on his or her clock. But it depends upon your style. For an IM, I am an embarrassingly weak attacker and an exceptionally competent defender. So for an anomalous defensive player/pure strategist like me, it would be easier to defend, since my mind works in a reversed polarity, where my first natural thought is “What is my opponent attacking?” For the majority of us chess players, the flow is forward rather than reversed and they think, “Is there a favorable continuation for my side?”

DN: Is it better to rely on one’s own intuition and judgment rather than calculate endlessly and get into time trouble?

CL: Once again, this depends upon your style. Most titled players — usually natural attacker/tacticians — are more mathematics/calculation based, and they win games by out-calculating the opponent, or seeing a hidden combination missed by the opponent. For natural strategists/defensive player/endgame grinders like me, it is the opposite. I majored in literature and creative writing, and barely survived math and science classes. I can count to 10 quite easily, but if you ask me to count to 20, then I can only do so if I remove my shoes and socks. So it’s painfully clear that I am not a math-based person. As much as I dream of playing like Tal or Morozevich, cruel nature didn’t construct my brain that way and I rely heavily upon intuition to win games. But don’t believe that tactical/calculation ability is somehow forever denied to players like me. Even for those unfortunates like me who are not natural calculator/combination finders, the magic of hard work reverses our lack of natural ability and we can at least be competent in this area with long hours of practice. There is nothing special about being a decent tactician. If you solve enough puzzles the imprints eventually gel within your mind and you start to see them over the board, routinely.

DN: What is your advice for a promising young player (2200-2300 Elo category)?

CL: The following:

1. Be faithful to your natural abilities and play in a style which suits your strengths. When I was a Bobby- worshiping kid in 1972, I foolishly gave the beautiful yet hateful Najdorf my unrequited love. I’m over her now,

since when I played the Najdorf, the only return I got was a stream of patronizing, insulting, stinging losses. I was the abused spouse who longed for the Najdorf’s love, even though she beat me routinely when we were together as an unhappy couple.

2. Be ruthlessly honest with your flaws and work to fix them.

3. Out-work your rivals. If a person as ungifted as me (who was a B-player at age 17) can become a titled player, then anyone can. It’s simply a matter of time and ruthless determination. Sometimes the chess goddess doles out natural ability and for others like me, she is just kind of a miser, who maliciously holds back on natural ability. In either case, know that hard work overcomes the lazily gifted. If you can get to a B-level rating, then you have it in you to reach the level of Master, at a minimum. My life is proof of this theory.

DN: Do you have any advice for senior players?

CL: If we are the exquisitely carved porcelain doll, then old age is the hard stone floor when we are dropped, destined to smash into a thousand tiny shards. It’s difficult not to regard old age as a personal rebuke, since it is also a thief who slowly and brazenly embezzles our abilities over time. Survival in an unforgiving environment means having to make ruthless choices, so adjust your style to reduce calculation and complications, which exhaust us old guys. If you are an older player now way past your prime, you are most certainly better than your younger counterparts when it comes to decision-making and technical positions. So strive for these, rather than math-based situations. Our brains just don’t work as well as they did in our prime, so think about switching to the Caro-Kann and put your Dragons on the shelf. Factor in that your synapses don’t fire in the brain as fast as they used to and stop being the antlered buck who wants to smash heads, vying for dominance in the herd. Be sneaky, rather than forceful. So steer the game to logic-based positions, rather than irrational ones. Look, it isn’t all doom and gloom for us old guys and gals.

I’d like to pause the interview here to show Lakdawala can help also in the field of openings. He just mentioned the Caro-Kann for senior players, and he wrote a book on the Move by Move series.

And here is a game from that book:

[Event "Kiev"] [Site "?"] [Date "1959.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Matanovic, A."] [Black "Petrosian, T."] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B17"] [Annotator "Cyrus Lakdawala"] [PlyCount "81"] [EventDate "1959.??.??"] [SourceTitle "MBM: The Caro-Kann"] [Source "Everyman Chess"] [SourceDate "2012.02.08"] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate "2012.02.08"] [SourceQuality "1"] 1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 {We return to a golden oldie, quite popular in the 1990’s, the Smyslov Variation of the Caro-Kann. Black intends to develop smoothly by challenging the e4-knight next move with …Ngf6.} ({ QUESTION: So much for the will of the people! IM Houska and GM Schandorff both advocate the more popular} 4... Bf5 {line. Why not cover this one instead?}) { ANSWER: On occasion, nows embrace their beloved thens! Sometimes a question is its own answer. We cover the 4…Nd7 line because it is currently out of fashion. I favour lines which are good but unpopular! The popularity of chess variations is much like women’s hemlines, which go up and down each year with the random flux of fashion. Also, sometimes, through no fault of its own, a line acquires an undeserved reputation (often as the result of one spectacular game), like the upright son of the town drunk. There is nothing wrong with the Smyslov line. It is simply not in vogue. I prefer playing out of fashion lines because my opponents are less likely to be booked up on such lines. It’s simple maths: If your opponents don’t bother to study your lines, they tend to goof up and correspondingly our win ratio with the unpopular line automatically goes up. QUESTION: What are some of the differences between 4… Nd7 and 4…Bf5? ANSWER: In the 4…Bf5 lines: 1. Black’s light-squared bishop gets chased, first to g6 then to h7. We don’t have this problem in the 4…Nd7 lines. 2. Black’s light-squared bishop is vulnerable to Ne2 (or Nh3) and Nf4 tricks. In these lines White contrives tricky sacs on e6. We don’t worry about either of these issues in the 4…Nd7 lines, since our bishop can’t be hunted down and sacs on e6 are very difficult with a guardian bishop watching the sac square from c8. 3. On the downside of 4…Nd7, we often voluntarily entomb our light-squared bishop inside our pawn chain once we play …e6. But this tends to be a minor problem since the bishop is later developed on the h1-a8 diagonal, either via fianchetto or through the manoeuvre …Bd7 and …Bc6. 4. In my opinion, the Smyslov lines tend to be more tactical than the 4…Bf5 lines. Therefore it’s more critical that you know your opening lines well by thorough study of excellent books like this one! Conclusion: One line isn’t superior to the other. It’s simply a matter of preference and the whims of fashion.} 5. Nf3 ({In the next couple of chapters we examine} 5. Bc4) ({and} 5. Ng5 {.}) {5 Nf3 is the safest of White’s fifth move choices, but we shouldn’t let its placidity lull us from vigilance. Remember, White still enjoys a slight development lead and also controls more space thanks to his pawn on d4. QUESTION: What is our goal as Black? ANSWER: A three-part aim: 1. Complete our development without allowing White to gain in his development lead. 2. Challenge White’s centre with a well timed …c5 break. 3. Most importantly, don’t get mated!} 5... Ngf6 6. Nxf6+ {We examine too:} ({a)} 6. Ng3 {in the last two games of this chapter.}) ({b)} 6. Bd3 Nxe4 7. Bxe4 Nf6 8. Bd3 Bg4 9. c3 e6 10. h3 Bh5 11. Bf4 Bd6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 {and Black has easily equalized. After} 13. Qe2 Qd5 $1 {(forcing an imbalance)} 14. g4 Bg6 {White has more space, but also more weaknesses to worry about. I already prefer Black, B. Baker-C.Lakdawala, San Diego (rapid) 2009.}) ({c)} 6. Nc3 g6 7. Bc4 Bg7 8. O-O O-O 9. Re1 Nb6 10. Bb3 Bg4 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 e6 {is standard operating procedure: Black exchanges off his bad bishop and switches the pawn structure, Y.Balashov-V.Malakhov, Moscow 2003.}) ({d)} 6. Neg5 $5 {(I don’t claim to understand the motivation behind this move, yet here we have a FIDE 2600 player as White!)} h6 7. Nh3 g5 8. Nhg1 e6 9. Bd3 Bd6 10. Ne2 b6 11. h4 g4 12. Nd2 Bb7 13. Nc4 Bc7 14. Bf4 {was Zhang Pengxiang-Wang Hao, JinZhou 2009. The complications favour Black after} c5 $1 {.}) ({e)} 6. Ned2 e6 7. g3 b6 8. Bg2 Bb7 9. O-O c5 {is equal, V.Zvjaginsev-R.Wojtaszek, Pamplona 2010.}) 6... Nxf6 7. Bc4 {Other moves:} ({a)} 7. Bd3 Bg4 {transposes to the Baker-Lakdawala game in the above notes.}) ({b)} 7. c3 Bg4 8. h3 Bxf3 ({this simple formula is an equalizer; there’s also} 8... Bh5 $5 {if you are in the mood for adventure}) 9. Qxf3 e6 10. Bc4 Bd6 11. Bg5 ({or} 11. O-O O-O 12. Bb3 a5 13. c4 e5 14. dxe5 Bxe5 {and if anyone stands better, it’s Black due to his dark-square central control, D.Jakovenko-V.Anand, Moscow (blitz) 2009}) 11... h6 12. Bh4 Qe7 13. O-O-O O-O-O {is equal, E.Schmittdiel-E.Meduna, Passau 1998.}) ({c)} 7. Be2 Bg4 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Bxf3 e6 10. O-O Bd6 11. c4 O-O 12. Qb3 Rb8 13. Be3 Bc7 14. Qa3 Qd6 15. Qxd6 Bxd6 16. Rfd1 a6 {was A.Rios-J.Cuartas, Sitges 2008. I get such endings all the time from Caros, Slavs and Scandinavians. Don’t be afraid of White’s bishop pair and space. Just be patient and pile up umpteen ways on White’s d4-pawn.}) ({d)} 7. h3 {(a little pathetic looking but the point is to avoid …Bg4)} Bf5 8. Bd3 Bg6 9. Bxg6 hxg6 10. O-O e6 11. Qe2 Bd6 12. Rd1 Qc7 { and Black has no problems, P.Zelbel-K.Sasikiran, Vlissingen 2010.}) ({e) Next game we look at} 7. Ne5 {.}) 7... Bf5 ({QUESTION: Is pinning with} 7... Bg4 { a better plan? ANSWER: We must weed through all of White’s opening traps in this line. Your suggestion loses instantly to} 8. Bxf7+ {. Don’t feel bad though, as 77 players in the database also had the same notion and happily pinned with 7…Bg4??. Let’s make sure we are not number 78! Other 7th move tries:}) ({a)} 7... g6 {(the position becomes similar to ones arising from Alekhine’s Defence)} 8. Ne5 Nd5 9. O-O Bg7 10. Re1 O-O 11. c3 Be6 12. Qf3 Qd6 13. Nd3 Bf5 14. Bg5 Rfe8 15. Bh4 {and White’s extra central influence gives him the edge, J.Zorko-A.Simutowe, Nova Gorica 2009.}) ({b)} 7... Nd5 {(the point is to enable Black to play …Bg4 without falling for the Bxf7+ cheapo)} 8. O-O Bg4 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 e6 11. c3 Bd6 12. Re1 {was drawn in K. Georgiev-A.Karpov, Biel 1992. Of course both sides can play on.}) 8. Qe2 ({Or} 8. Ne5 e6 9. g4 $5 {(I love it when White lashes out with g4)} Bg6 10. h4 Nd7 $1 11. Qe2 $6 ({she should probably just take the bishop on g6, but even then I prefer Black, who also stands better after} 11. h5 Nxe5) 11... Nxe5 12. dxe5 h5 13. g5 Bc5 {and, behold, the classic White/Caro overreach. Black stands clearly better, S.Lalic-K.Arkell, Torquay 1998.}) 8... e6 9. Bg5 Be7 10. O-O-O {It’s clear that White isn’t intimidated by his World Champion-to-be opponent and intends an opposite wing attack. EXERCISE (critical decision): Petrosian was a master at snuffing out fires, even before his opponents purchased the lighter. Find a way to kill White’s attack in its crib.} {ANSWER:} Bg4 $1 { The Snuff Master eliminates White’s most dangerous piece.} ({The ho-hum} 10... O-O $2 {quickly gets Black in trouble after} 11. Ne5 $1 h6 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. f4 Qc7 14. g4 {when White’s attack is clearly faster, R.Fischer-P.Benko, New York (blitz) 1963.}) 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 {QUESTION: It looks to me like White stands better: 1. He owns the bishop pair in a semi-open position. 2. His d4-pawn gives him a space advantage. 3. He leads in development. Is my assessment correct? ANSWER: Everything you said is true, but I think the assessment is incorrect! The position is deceptive. Let’s break it down point by point: 1. White’s bishop pair “advantage” is in question in such a rigid, static position. 2. White owns space for now, but Black may later expand with . ..b5 and …a5, taking back some territory. 3. White’s development lead fails to impress either since he has no effective method of opening the game. My assessment is dynamic equality.} ({QUESTION: How about instead} 12. gxf3 { , intending to attack Black along the open g-file? ANSWER: Who said Black would castle kingside? If Black castles the other way White is left wondering why he destroyed his own structure.}) 12... Nd5 $1 {Principle: When the opponent has the bishop pair, swap one of them off if possible.} 13. Bxe7 { Essentially giving up on his attacking dreams.} ({Perhaps White was afraid of Black’s attacking chances after} 13. Bd2 $5 b5 14. Bd3 Qb6 {.}) 13... Qxe7 14. Rhe1 O-O $5 ({Going opposite wings is slightly more ambitious than} 14... O-O-O {.}) 15. Kb1 ({QUESTION: Doesn’t} 15. Bxd5 {win material due to a tactic of Qxd5! next move? ANSWER: No, Black has the in-between move} Qg5+ $1 {.}) 15... Rad8 16. Bb3 Qf6 17. Qe2 $6 {White begins to drift and lose the initiative.} ({ He should swap queens with} 17. Qxf6 {. Even then such positions are not automatically drawn. I would rather have Black, who doubles rooks on the d-file and then engineers either a …c5, …b6/…c5, or …e5 pawn break when it suits him.}) 17... Rd7 18. c3 {QUESTION: Why doesn’t he kick the knight with his c-pawn?} ({ANSWER:} 18. c4 $6 {only weakens the d4-pawn without any benefit after} Ne7 {.}) 18... b5 19. g3 Rfd8 20. f4 ({Simagin suggests} 20. Bxd5 {with a claim of equality. I have a lot of experience as Black in such positions (Caro, Slav, Scandinavian, as mentioned earlier) and emphatically disagree with the GM. Black stands better after} Rxd5 {. He may triple on the d-file and then later break with either …c5 or …e5. White can only wait.}) 20... b4 $1 {This bank shot to his right undermines the base of support. This line is like the mob hitman with the manners of a lamb – deceptive and lulling to the opponent, who often misses the danger until too late.} 21. Qf3 $6 {Allowing a rupture to the pawn cover around his king.} ({ He had to try} 21. Bxd5 Rxd5 22. cxb4 {when Black still holds a microbe of an edge after} h5 {.}) 21... bxc3 22. bxc3 {EXERCISE (multiple choice): We reach a fork in the path. Where would you like to go? a) 22…Qf5+, which picks off the h-pawn; b) 22…c5, ignoring the pawn offer and continuing to erode White’s pawn cover around his king.} {ANSWER:} c5 $1 {Playing for initiative over material.} ({Petrosian is unwilling to hand over the initiative for a pawn with the line} 22... Qf5+ $5 23. Ka1 Qxh3 24. Bc2 h5 {.}) 23. Re5 $1 { Principle: Counter in the centre when threatened on the wing.} (23. c4 Nb4 $1 24. dxc5 Nd3 {also puts White under pressure.}) 23... cxd4 24. Bxd5 Rxd5 25. Rxd5 exd5 $1 {He must retain rooks on the board in order to attack.} ({If} 25... Rxd5 26. Rxd4 $1 Rxd4 27. cxd4 Qf5+ 28. Kb2 g6 {and Black’s edge probably isn’t enough to take a full point.}) 26. Rxd4 h6 {No more back-rank tricks to worry about. As in most chess transactions, one party usually walks away the worse for it. In this case it’s White, whose king, somewhat undressed without full pawn cover, can’t feel comfortable even after the flurry of exchanges.} 27. g4 ({Instead} 27. Rxd5 Rb8+ 28. Kc2 Qb6 {gives Black a nasty endgame attack,}) ({as does} 27. Qd3 Qe6 28. g4 Qe1+ 29. Kc2 Rb8 {.}) 27... Qe7 28. Qf2 ({Or} 28. Qd1 Rb8+ 29. Ka1 Qa3 {,}) ({while} 28. Rxd5 $4 Qb7+ {pops the rook.}) 28... Rb8+ 29. Ka1 Qa3 {Black’s queen and rook share the common goal: Torment White’s king.} 30. Qc2 Re8 31. Rb4 $2 {EXERCISE (combination alert): Black has a trick, but the time to act is now. How does Black break through?} ({White didn’t like the look of} 31. Rd1 Re3 {, but his last move was an error.}) {ANSWER:} 31... d4 $1 {Overload!} 32. Rxd4 Re1+ 33. Rd1 Rxd1+ 34. Qxd1 Qxc3+ 35. Kb1 Qxh3 36. a4 {EXERCISE (planning): The queen ending doesn’t look all that easy to convert, yet Petrosian found a plan which forced his opponent’s resignation in just a few moves. Take your time. Let’s see what you come up with.} {ANSWER:} h5 $3 37. gxh5 Qf5+ 38. Kb2 Qxf4 39. Kb3 Qf5 $1 { Do you see Petrosian’s idea behind 36…h5!! now? There is no good way for White to stop …Kh7-h6 and clipping the h5-pawn.} 40. Kc4 {White’s king walks around like a man temporarily revived from the dead, yet disoriented and between two worlds.} Kh7 41. Qd2 {A blunder but it didn’t matter at this point. } ({EXERCISE (calculation): Work out the straightforward queening race line after} 41. Kb4 {in your mind’s eye:} a5+ 42. Kc4 Kh6 43. Qe2 Qxh5 44. Qxh5+ Kxh5 45. Kb5 g5 46. Kxa5 g4 47. Kb6 g3 48. a5 g2 49. a6 g1=Q+ {. An impressive 18-ply if you made it to the end. For those who didn’t, don’t worry. We practice such exercises until we do! SUMMARY: 7 Bc4 is too timid to produce an edge for White.}) 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

With age comes the following:

1. Our experience translates to instant understanding in some positions, which youth and inexperience sorely lack.

2. With a slowing of our brain speed comes an increase of deceit, from decades of having been tricked ourselves. Young, inexperienced players can sometimes be easily tricked into positions which require experience and understanding, rather than calculation. I wrote in Play the London System, “Old age and deceit overcome youth and talent,” and I meant it! So there are actual advantages to being old, and as the spokesperson for Farmer’s Insurance loves to repeat, “We know a thing or two, because we’ve seen a thing or two.”

Lakdawala has written an impressive number of books, and it would be unwise not to take advantage of them. In the book mentioned above there are a number of good games that are well annotated by Lakdawala, clearly a treasure trove for everyone interested in learning an opening. Here is an example:

[Event "Koltanowski Memorial, San Francisco"] [Site "?"] [Date "2000.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Lakdawala, C."] [Black "Ilfeld, E."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D02"] [Annotator "Cyrus Lakdawala"] [PlyCount "69"] [EventDate "2000.??.??"] [SourceTitle "Play the London System"] [Source "Everyman Chess"] [SourceDate "2011.01.15"] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate "2011.01.15"] [SourceQuality "1"] {I desperately needed to win this game to get my first IM norm. After studying my opponent’s games, I realized he was very comfortable in wild tactical situations but less happy in more controlled, strategic games. The perfect opening choice: The London.} 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 e6 3. Bf4 Bd6 {This is a no-nonsense approach by Black, who immediately challenges White’s f4-bishop. Some of the ideas behind …Bd6 are: 1. The ability to capture a white knight if it lands on e5; 2. To swap bishops, reducing White’s pressure on e5; and 3. Perhaps to achieve the freeing break …e5, freeing Black’s game.} 4. e3 $5 ({ These days I usually play the alternative} 4. Bg3 {, daring Black to take and open the h-file.}) 4... Nf6 ({The most accurate continuation is} 4... Bxf4 $1 5. exf4 Qd6 $1 {. For example,} 6. Qd2 ({after} 6. g3 $2 Qb4+ 7. Nbd2 Qxb2 { it’s doubtful whether White has compensation for the pawn}) 6... Ne7 7. Na3 O-O 8. c3 Nd7 $6 (8... b6 {improves}) 9. Nb5 $1 Qb6 10. a4 $1 c6 11. a5 Qd8 12. Nd6 Nf6 13. Nxc8 Nxc8 14. Bd3 Nd6 15. O-O Qc7 16. g3 c5 $6 ({it’s a mistake to give White the d4-square for his pieces;} 16... b6 $1 {looks better}) 17. dxc5 $1 Qxc5 18. Nd4 {gave White a pleasant edge in E.Prié-M.Saucey, Montpellier 2003: White controls d4 and has extra space.}) 5. Nbd2 Bxf4 6. exf4 Qd6 7. g3 O-O 8. Bd3 {White has a tiny pull due to his grip on the e5-square.} b6 $1 { Black plans to eliminate his bad bishop via a6.} (8... c5 $6 {is a strategic error which is punished by} 9. dxc5 $1 {clearing d4 for a knight:} Qxc5 10. c3 {and White follows with Nb3, controlling both the d4- and the e5-squares.}) 9. Qe2 a5 $1 {He insists.} 10. O-O Ba6 11. Rac1 $1 Bxd3 12. cxd3 {The point of White’s 11th move. The doubled pawns are not weak and White exerts some pressure down the c-file.} c5 13. Rc2 Na6 14. a3 Rac8 15. Rfc1 Qb8 $6 {This may be a waste of time.} ({The natural plan} 15... Rc7 16. Ne5 Rfc8 17. Ndf3 { looks better than the game continuation.}) 16. Ne5 Qb7 (16... cxd4 $4 {falls into a trap after} 17. Nc6 Qb7 18. Ne7+ $1 {.}) 17. Ndf3 Nd7 18. Rc3 {Leaving open the possibility of Qc2, if the c-file opens.} Nxe5 $6 {Why allow the white queen to enter the kingside? Black had two other possibilities:} (18... f6 $6 {fails to equalize:} 19. Nxd7 Qxd7 20. dxc5 bxc5 ({after} 20... Rxc5 $6 21. Rxc5 Nxc5 22. d4 Ne4 23. Qc2 {White’s total control of the c-file puts Black under pressure}) 21. d4 Qd6 ({if} 21... c4 $2 {,} 22. b3 {wins a pawn}) 22. b3 a4 23. dxc5 Rxc5 24. b4 Rxc3 25. Rxc3 {. Despite his passed d-pawn, Black is in a bit of trouble here. The main problems are the defence of his weak a-pawn and White’s control of the c-file.}) ({Probably Black should have kept his cool with} 18... Rc7 $1 {, with only a microbe of an edge to White.}) 19. Qxe5 {Now Black must worry about f5. The black defenders are missing in action over on the queenside.} g6 $2 {This halts f5 for the moment but creates a larger problem of weak dark squares around the king. White begins a direct attack.} 20. h4 h5 21. Qf6 $1 cxd4 22. Nxd4 Rxc3 23. Rxc3 Nc5 ({I have a feeling my opponent intended} 23... Rc8 $4 {but then realized that White had the game-ending shot} 24. Nxe6 $1 {.}) {Despite the reduced material, White has a powerful attack after his next move.} 24. g4 $1 {Ripping his king position open, and mine too! The white king is totally secure despite the lack of pawn cover.} hxg4 25. h5 gxh5 26. Qg5+ Kh7 27. b4 {Removing a defender of e6, the key to White’s attack.} axb4 28. axb4 Na4 (28... Nd7 $2 {loses even faster after} 29. Qxh5+ Kg7 30. Qxg4+ Kh7 31. Qh5+ Kg8 ({or} 31... Kg7 32. Nf5+ $1 exf5 33. Qg5+ Kh7 34. d4 $1 {allowing the rook a deadly entry to h3}) 32. Nf5 $1 exf5 33. Qg5+ Kh7 34. d4 $1 {.}) 29. f5 $1 {The f-pawn transforms into another attacker.} Rg8 ({Black gets mated if he eats the rook:} 29... Nxc3 $4 30. f6 Rg8 31. Qxh5# {.}) 30. Qxh5+ Kg7 31. Qg5+ {Paradoxically, Black’s g4-pawn shields White’s king.} Kh7 ({If} 31... Kf8 {, there follows} 32. Qf6 $1 Nxc3 ({or} 32... Ke8 33. Nxe6 fxe6 34. Qxe6+ Kf8 35. Rc8+ {winning the queen}) 33. Nxe6+ Ke8 34. Qd8# {.}) 32. Qh4+ ({More accurate than} 32. Qh5+ {because White watches the dark squares f6 and d8 from h4.}) 32... Kg7 33. Rc6 $1 { Demolition or clearance of the e6-pawn is the quickest path to victory.} Nb2 { Trying to get this poor guy back into the game, but it’s much too late.} 34. Nxe6+ $1 fxe6 35. Rxe6 {Black gets mated shortly.} 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

DN: Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your books, because I know you are a prolific author. How did you select material for your own books?

CL: Sometimes I propose an idea and sometimes the publisher suggests one. I’m at the point right now where there is no time when I’m not simultaneously working on at least two books. For me, the books are all consuming and I think about them day and night. Since I began writing chess books, I filled up 77 yellow notepads with notes for my books. If I average about 650 notes per pad, that is a lot of notes. I can’t give you the exact number, because I already mentioned that I’m not very competent in math and am only able to count to 20.

DN: What is your philosophy for teaching?

CL: My philosophy for teaching is to never BS the student (or parent) and always ruthlessly tell them the truth — even when it hurts — which I do, since I’m not afraid of losing students by offending their parents. It is the nature of humans to crave praise, but false praise (which I see some teachers engage in) is harmful to the student. It’s a ruthless world out there and the student shouldn’t be congratulated if they didn’t prepare, lost 50 rating points in the tournament, ignored your opening advice and placed 40th in their section, yet some of the parents clap their hands in delight and tell the kid, “Great job! High five!” Instead, the student must be toughened with the truth. If the student is weak in a portion of the game or with a psychological aspect, I insist that they strive to fix the problem. The other issue is unrealistic expectations from parents. Their kid is lazy, 14 years old and rated 1400, yet they believe he or she is a prodigy and expect me to have the student break the 2200 barrier by the end of the year, achieve the IM title the following year and GM the year after that. I tell them this is impossible, yet love is blind and many parents believe their kid is the next Caruana or Carlsen.

Speaking of Carlsen, Lakdawala also wrote one Move by Move book on the World Champion.

Here is one of the games from that great book!

[Event "2: Helsinki"] [Site "?"] [Date "2002.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Carlsen, Ma"] [Black "Nyysti, S."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C47"] [Annotator "Cyrus Lakdawala"] [PlyCount "83"] [EventDate "2002.??.??"] [SourceTitle "Carlsen MBM"] [Source "Everyman Chess"] [SourceDate "2014.11.25"] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate "2014.11.25"] [SourceQuality "1"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. a3 {QUESTION: This looks like a random move. What is its purpose? ANSWER: There is actually nothing wrong with the move (although I didn’t advocate it in my Four Knights book). White wants to play Black, but with a (hopefully) useful extra move a3, perhaps useful if White may later expand with b4.} g6 {This move makes Carlsen’s coming eye-popping sacrifice all the more tempting.} (4... d5 {is the normal reaction to White’s passive looking 4 a3:} 5. Bb5 ({or} 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Bb5 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Bd6 8. d4 exd4 9. Qe2+ Qe7 10. Qxe7+ Bxe7 11. cxd4 Bd7 12. O-O O-O-O 13. Be3 {and the ending is even, N.Short-Wang Yue, Liverpool 2007; okay, I admit a3 isn’t all that useful}) 5... Nxe4 6. Qe2 Nxc3 7. Qxe5+ Be7 $5 {a pawn sacrifice;} ({ Shirov isn’t the type to chicken out with dull equality after} 7... Qe7 8. dxc3 Bd7) 8. Qxc3 O-O 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Qxc6 Rb8 11. d4 Rb6 12. Qc3 Ba6 13. Be3 Qb8 14. Ne5 Qb7 15. b3 {and Black achieved full compensation for the pawn, with a development lead and the bishop-pair, I.Glek-A.Shirov, Dresden 2006.}) 5. Nxe5 $5 {Who among us has not at some time been borne aloft by the enticing call of sacrificial speculation? Even as a child, Carlsen refused to be ruled by convention or precedent, constantly experimenting, constantly rooting out odd ideas. His decision is similar to the curious case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, with Carlsen following his meek 4 a3 with a deranged-looking piece sacrifice. “The pattern is clear – Magnus likes to sacrifice material. The correctness of the variation is not the main thing; White gets a lasting initiative, and that is most important,” writes GM Simen Agdestein. QUESTION: What the hell! Why did White just give away a piece for one pawn? ANSWER: I don’t think we are in Kansas anymore. Well, I suppose we shouldn’t expect a feast of restraint from an 11–year-old. I do concede this idea is suffused with optimism, more than actual power behind it. Believe it or not, this sacrifice isn’t nearly as unsound as it looks, since White gains numerous tempi on Black’s prancing knights, as they evade White’s central pawns. In fact, Houdini rates it virtually even and my database shows White scoring 54.3% from this position – in the range of an average score for White.} Nxe5 6. d4 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8 $6 { Catastrophe often commences with a single insignificant looking misstep, and I suspect it is this move which may be the parent of Black’s coming difficulties. Black undevelops to hang on to his extra piece, no matter how dear the cost in tempi.} ({I would opt for the GM’s pragmatic solution} 7... Bg7 $1 {, played with the philosophy: what use is all our wanting, when reality dictates that we cannot have? In such positions we should measure success and failure with greatly shortened yardsticks. Black wisely returns the piece to achieve a dynamically balanced position, where White’s a3 doesn’t make all that much sense. After} 8. dxc6 bxc6 9. Bd3 O-O 10. O-O d6 {I would be happy to play Black’s side, E.Gullaksen-J.Pinter, Barcelona 2007.}) ({QUESTION: What about playing} 7... Ne5 {, with the intention to return the piece, in exchange for breaking up White’s pawn centre? ANSWER: I can’t find a single game in the database with your suggestion. Let’s take a look:} 8. f4 Neg4 9. e5 Bc5 10. exf6 Nf2 11. Qe2+ Kf8 12. Ne4 $1 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Qxf6 14. Qe5 Kg7 15. Qxf6+ Kxf6 16. Kd2 Re8 17. b4 Bd4 18. c3 Bf2 19. Bd3 d6 20. Bb2 Be3+ 21. Kc2 Kg7 22. c4+ f6 23. Rhf1 {with equal chances. So your idea doesn’t look so bad, and in fact, may be a huge improvement over Black’s continuation in the game.}) 8. e5 { Kid Carlsen’s intent is innocent of adornment, yet effective. He plans to push his opponents off the board, preferably on to the ninth rank.} Ng8 {A journey, once embarked upon, compels us forward, or in this case backward. Surreal stuff. I suppose a gardener can view the stark winter garden and still imagine the coming summer’s bloom. One defect with our eyes and brains is if we witness a traumatic sight, there is no way to unsee it. Just look at Black’s undevelopment-fest! I get the feeling that Paul Morphy, if he were with us today, would raise a pair of disapproving eyebrows at Black’s interpretation of the opening. Opposite powers collide, with soft yin’s attempts to evade hard yang. Black’s position feels as constricted as an overly tight shirt on an obese person, where excess fat pushes out at every opportunity from its enclosed casing. In my database, Black scores 20% from this position. Do you still believe White’s sacrifice was unsound? Black may be up a piece, but his position doesn’t make for a pretty picture, with White’s pawns lunging on e5 and d5, and Black still grossly behind in development.} ({If} 8... Nh5 9. Qe2 f5 {(U.Reyer-G.Hoegerl, correspondence 2008), Houdini suggests} 10. g4 $1 fxg4 11. Ne4 {, and if} d6 12. exd6 Kf7 13. Bg5 Qd7 14. h3 $1 {. Houdini rates this at even, but I feel like White still gets strong compensation for the piece, and prefer his side.}) 9. d6 $1 {We note an absence of internal check on Carlsen’s growing territorial ambitions. How on earth is Black going to complete his development now?} cxd6 $5 {A violation of the principle: avoid opening the game when behind in development.} ({Houdini suggests the nauseating alternative} 9... c6 10. Bc4 {when it will be a miracle if Black survives.}) 10. exd6 {Threat: Qe2+.} Qf6 11. Nb5 $1 Na6 {Now White’s knight gets to hang out on b5, free from fear of …a6.} 12. Bc4 Bh6 13. Qe2+ $6 { I feel a bit ashamed giving an 11-year-old kid a dubious mark for not finding 3267-rated Houdini’s suggestion, especially when I think back and realize just how painfully idiotically I played at that age.} ({Stronger is} 13. f4 $1 { based on the principle: the side with more space should avoid swaps. Analysis runs:} Qh4+ 14. g3 Qh5 15. Qxh5 $1 gxh5 16. Be3 Bg7 17. O-O-O b6 18. Rhe1 Kf8 19. Bd5 Rb8 20. b4 Nf6 21. Bc4 Bb7 22. Nxa7 Ne8 23. Bg1 h4 24. Bb5 Nf6 25. Re7 {and Black is busted.}) 13... Kf8 14. Be3 {The idea is to open the f-file if Black swaps.} (14. f4 {doesn’t work as well for White, now that his queen sits on the open e-file:} b6 15. Be3 Bb7 16. O-O Re8 17. Rae1 Qf5 18. Qf2 Nf6 19. Bd4 Ne4 $1 {when Black’s pieces slowly emerge and gain activity. Houdini rates this at dead even.}) 14... Bxe3 15. fxe3 Qh4+ ({Only a person with a death wish would consider} 15... Qxb2 $2 {, which allows Black’s development lag to increase.} 16. O-O f6 17. Nd4 Qb6 18. Bxg8 $1 Qxd6 {(Black can’t allow Rxf6+)} 19. Bc4 {and White regained his piece with a winning attack.}) 16. g3 Qh5 17. Qf2 Qf5 18. Qe2 ({I would actually consider declining the draw and playing a piece-down ending with} 18. Qxf5 gxf5 19. O-O Nh6 20. Nd4 {. It feels like White still has full compensation for the piece, since he soon picks up another pawn for it.}) 18... Qh5 19. Qf2 {It’s a little disorienting to see a future world champion, and candidate for greatest chess player of all time, aim for a repetition draw versus a 2242-rated player. But at age 11, we were all intimidated when we played adults.} Qf5 20. Qe2 Nh6 $6 {The will to fight sometimes exceeds the body’s ability to follow. If Nyysti were clairvoyant and could view the future, I’m pretty certain he would have claimed the threefold repetition and taken the draw, had he known he played a future world champion. “Black should have been content with a draw,” writes Agdestein, with vast understatement.} 21. Rf1 $6 (21. O-O-O $1 {is correct and gives White a close to winning attack.}) 21... Qh5 22. Qf2 Qf5 {Here we go again.} 23. Qe2 Qe5 $2 { The queen’s guard slowly goes down, as an infant calms to a mother’s lullaby. He still refuses the draw.} (23... Qh5 $1 {was correct.}) 24. O-O-O {Now Black is busted. Kid Carlsen is completely in his element of attack. Just watch how he takes control of the entire board.} Kg7 25. Rd5 $1 Qe8 26. Qd2 $1 { Intending to transfer to the a1-h8 diagonal.} ({Also tempting is} 26. Qf3 $1 { when I can’t visualize any scenario where Black escapes.}) 26... Rf8 27. Qd4+ { From g7, the black king peers into the queen’s face with the same look of a mouse gazing upon the owl who is about to consume him.} f6 {EXERCISE (planning) : The worst part of defending such positions is that it’s too early to resign, and yet all we can do is await the inevitable boot to our soon-to-be-tender rear end. Find White’s most efficient attacking continuation. ANSWER: Play for g5! Black’s kingside displays a red, angry welt on f6.} 28. g4 $1 b6 (28... Nxg4 29. Qxg4 Qxe3+ 30. Kb1 Nc5 31. Nd4 $1 {(threatening Nf5+, as well as Rxc5) } Qe4 32. Qg3 b6 33. Re1 {traps the queen in mid-board.}) 29. g5 Nf5 30. gxf6+ Rxf6 {EXERCISE (combination alert): Carlsen gained a decisive material advantage after his next shot. Do you see it? ANSWER: Removal of the guard, overloading the defender.} 31. Rdxf5 $1 gxf5 32. Rg1+ Qg6 {Black’s queen can only shake her head at her incompetent king, the way a kindly teacher regards a slow-witted student. A doctor looks for three factors in a medicine: 1. A cure. 2. A booster for the immune system, which prevents the sickness from arising in the first place. 3. An ease to suffering, where there is no cure. It feels like Black applied number three on the list with his last move.} 33. Rxg6+ {The kingside is a tangle of arms and legs of the corpses of defenders.} Kxg6 {Black’s king is obliged to abandon the relative safety of his enclave, to brave the perils of the open road.} 34. Bd5 Rb8 35. e4 Bb7 36. exf5+ Rxf5 37. Qg4+ Kf6 {To the clinically depressed king’s mind, the saving of his own life doesn’t seem worth the bother.} 38. Qh4+ {The deranged queen, a jealous and vindictive ex-girlfriend, refuses to loosen her embrace on Black’s king.} Kg6 39. Bc4 Nc5 40. b4 ({Simpler is} 40. Nd4 Rg5 41. Bf7+ {.}) 40... Ne4 41. Nc7 {I don’t understand the motivation behind this move.} ({I would play} 41. Qg4+ Rg5 42. Qxd7 {.}) 41... Nxd6 $2 {EXERCISE (combination alert): The defences of Black’s position are frayed to the nub, as he stares into the face of ruin. Previously raw aggression was White’s single hue, but now a new shade emerges, encouraging him to acts of theft. White to play and win more material. ANSWER: Double attack. Black’s knight falls.} 42. Qg3+ $1 {. “Our wisdom, grace and courage is celebrated with much renown, as we prepare to add a new chapter to Our glory,” brags the obnoxious white queen, who loves the sound of her own voice, as she plunders all which is portable.} 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

DN: What are your present plans (playing and writing)?

CL: As for writing, I plan to write until I drop dead, or senility gets there first. I have been a writing addict since I was a kid and have been writing professionally since the early 1980’s when I wrote a syndicated column for Copley News Service, which appeared in about 300 newspapers. I always dreamed of writing novels, but I know this won’t happen, because I write 40 hours per week for my chess books and articles, and teach 20 hours, so there isn’t much time left over.

As for playing, I have few remaining ambitions left, except for playing as long as I can and not making (much) of a fool of myself at the board. Also, I’m a bit nervous about playing since I suffered a heart attack at the board in December of 2016, so now I subconsciously believe that every game I play will be my last one (I guess it’s not such a bad way to go, doing what you love, is it?). Still, the addictive power of chess is so strong that I continue to play about twice a month in our local Gambito G/45 tournaments, just to keep warm and to keep feeding my books with my games. It’s psychologically hard to draw or lose to players who I know I would have destroyed 30 years ago, but with old age comes an enforced humility, since you can’t do anything as well as you did before. Still, if you love chess, you keep playing joyfully, even when you now do it incompetently and as a caricature of your younger self.

I’d like to conclude this interview by thanking Lakdawala for so graciously answering my questions at length and donating to us his wisdom. And if you have never read any of his books, I gave plenty of examples in this article of books which are worth reading and enjoying, but most of all are good additions to your chess library to improve your chess! As Lakdawala pointed out, Silman’s book is also worth reading, especially for those who have trained extensively with tactics and want to gain a better understanding of the middlegame. Give Lakdawala a chance to introduce you to the universe of chess through a wealth of analogies and questions which will surely help to improve one’s own chess culture. I would also like to thank Everyman Chess for providing book covers and games.

About the Author: Davide Nastasio Davide Nastasio is a novel chess aficionado, who has made of chess his spiritual tool of improvement and self-discovery. One of his favorite quotes is from the great Paul Keres: “Nobody is born a master. The way to mastery leads to the desired goal only after long years of learning, of struggle, of rejoicing, and of disappointment…” He has contributed previously to Georgia Chess Magazine in 2013 and is now a contributing writer in this new exciting media format.

Related Posts