Classical Game Recap: Losing Against The French, Losing Against Myself
Classical Game Recap: Losing Against The French, Losing Against Myself
Let's call it Janowski syndrome. Plus, why I have to stop panicking when I make a mistake.
Time Control: 60 minutes with 15 second increment per move.
White: Me (1658 USCF)
Black: Robert Scherer (1654 USCF)
It’s round 1 of the Sacramento Chess Club Team Championship. In the past I’ve scored poorly in these events, but I’m determined to do better than before. My opponent is definitely at least my equal. We often trade wins back and forth. This may be our fourth game where I had the White pieces and it always starts with the French Defense.
The Opening
1.e4 e6
This is known as the French Defense. It has an undeserved reputation for being too solid — so solid that Black voluntarily shuts in their Queen’s Bishop on c8/d7, in the interest of keeping things safe. It is perhaps because of this characterization of the French that beginners are often directed to the Caro-Kann instead, under the false premise that the so-called French Bishop is ineffective and would be objectively better outside of the pawn chain". This is an extremely superficial appraisal of the opening, and in my opinion, one should look at the kind of players who played the French Defense before making such an uninformed statement: Alexander Alekhine. Viktor Korchnoi. Alexander Morozevich. Alexander Grischuk. No one can seriously doubt the dynamism of the French Defense. Plus: Lots of Alexanders in this list. Is your name Alexander (or Alex)? You should probably play the French — it’s fate.
In reality, this move (1…e6) prepares 2…d5, prevents early attacks on f7, and generally tempts White to close the center with the move e5 sooner or later, at which point Black can project their strength from the queenside, with all the tension released from the center. White will in turn seek to attack on the kingside where his strength clearly shines as well.
2.d4
This is just principled: In 1.e4 openings, if Black doesn’t control d4, White should occupy it with a pawn to build a strong center.
2…d5 3.e5
I prefer the Advance Variation, so-called because the e-pawn is advanced forward a square.. It’s generally simpler to play, and still gives White a typical edge in the kingside attack. It’s not as sophisticated as, say 3.Nd2 or 3.Nc3, but it’s still pretty good. If White doesn’t want to play a closed game, they can always open the game and allow Black perfect equality by exchanging on d5 with 3.exd5.
3…c5
This is the idea behind the French. Black has a slight initiative by being the first to attack, the target being the d4 pawn. White must defend against Black’s pressure on the queenside. Black seeks to pile up against the d4 pawn, and despite their space disadvantage, this is strong enough to keep position dynamically balanced.
4.c3 Nc6
Adding another attacker to the d4 pawn.
5.Nf3
Defends d4 once more.
5…Bd7
In my opinion, a sophisticated and very solid move. Black develops the bishop forward one square, making room the rook at c8, and not giving White any new targets. The main alternative is 5…Qb6, after which White may continue normal play with either 6.a3 or 6.Be2, or, as the attentive reader already knows, 6.Bd3, aka the Milner-Barry Gambit.
6.Be2 Nge7 7.O-O
I’ve played Na3-c2 here in other games. Both are fine.
7…cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Nc3
9.Na3 is an alternative, with the idea of Nc2 and maybe later Ne3.
9…Rc8
This is typical for Black, and scores well. This shows the benefit of 7…cxd4. Black has lost some tension in the position but in return acquires an excellent square for the rook.
10.a3
This is a simple waiting move. White could also play Kh1 or develop with 10.Be3. In some lines it may also prepare b4, but not yet, because Nc3 is hanging.
10…a6
Continuing the waiting game.
The mistake
11.b4??
I said, “but not yet”. I give this move a double question mark because of how amateurish this kind of mistake was. This move loses a pawn and doesn’t really have any real upsides. Why would I play this move? And why ??s?
It’s because I wanted to keep the bishop pair and was mentally blocked by my own insecurities of what would happen if 11.Be3(!) Nxe3(?!) 12.fxe3.
Of course, in hindsight the benefit of this move is obvious: The back rank is cleared for White’s major pieces to contest the open c-file. Nxe3?! is a strategic error for Black: in positions like this with the closed center, the black Knight shines on f5. It’d be giving itself up the dud Bishop on e3 anyway, and that’s why Be3 is actually safe for White to play and doesn’t lose the bishop pair — or, if Black does take, White gets a semi-open f-file and lots of play on the kingside owing to the newly opened lines, and no longer has a bad Bishop, instead having two well-placed Knights.
I gave all of this potential up because of a propensity toward valuing the bishop pair as a matter of dogma and overly-rigid application of principles, such as the general aphorism about bishops being worth slightly more than knights. In chess, this is called the sin of materialism. One player whose games I have noticed the same problem occurring in is David Janowski, a player in the late 1800s and early 1900s. So averse was he that in New York 1924, it is stated to be characteristic of him to hesitate ridding himself of the bishop pair. I would like to rid myself of this characteristic, and for this reason, 11.Be3 lives rent-free in my head from now on.
My opponent thought for a moment, but immediately saw the tactic and chopped on e5.
11…Nxe5! 12.Nxe5 Rxc3
And now Black’s up an important central pawn. Despite the position being pretty poor for White, it’s not quite lost. White may have lost an important central pawn, but there’s a chance to seek compensation for the missing pawn.
13.Bb2?
In my opinion, the game becomes lost as soon as I decide this was the best I could do. This move sucks. The bishop has no future because it is so busy babysitting the whelp on d4. OK, I have the bishop pair, and I’m also dead in the water. Hooray for me? The other move I looked at, 13.Bd2 was a failure for similar reasons. There was an interesting move that would have not committed the cardinal sin of just falling into the opponent’s plan, however:
13.a4!
This ignores the rook on c3, and is far more constructive because White is not reacting but proactively playing on the queenside while Black has some coordination issues owing to the tempo lost winning the pawn + the undeveloped kingside. In other words, White plays it as a positional sacrifice, wherein after the sacrifice is made, you just continue playing as if everything were normal. This gives typical gambit-esque compensation for the pawn.
Hmm. I’ve heard about this idea somewhere…
13…Bd6
If 13…Bxb4 then 14.Bd2 and White wins the exchange for two pawns with a dynamically balanced position.
14.b5 a5 15.Bg4 O-O
Let’s evaluate the analysis position:
Both sides are castled, and the kings are safe.
White has a space advantage on the queenside, and despite it being isolated, the d4 pawn is doing a job making it difficult for Black to do anything in the center at the moment.
The rook on c3 is still rather poorly placed, and White could conceivably play Bd2 to kick it somewhere else more constructively.
Black’s French bishop is still a French Bishop and doesn’t actively contribute to the position. One could say that it doesn’t have a very effective job at the moment since White isn’t really in a position to attempt to take on e6 anyway.
White has a much more comfortable position than I got in the actual game, despite the pawn minus. Stockfish 16 (on a Lichess analysis board) tips the scales ever-so-slightly at a -0.1 evaluation for Black. In other words, the position is virtually equal.
This position seems plenty playable for White. One idea, suggested by Stockfish, would be 16.Bxf5 exf5 17.Bd2 Rc8 18.Bxa5! Qxa5 19.Nxd7, winning back the pawn, leaving White with a queenside majority and black with two doubled f-pawns and an isolani to match White’s. This would be a very viable position for White indeed — at least equal.
Of course, I didn’t play this. I lacked the fortitude to even imagine something like this.
After 13.Bb2? my game continued to deteriorate and I lost. I won’t show the rest of the game, because as far as I am concerned, the loss can be attributed to a poor mindset and everything after that flows from that poor mindset. A quick summary: I found a way to win back a pawn, and even gain a passer, but Black’s position was simply too active, and this was all due to me choosing to passively react to his play rather than try to proactively create my own counterplay. This is a serious weakness of mine that I will need to overcome if I want to become a better player. I have lost the habit of assisting on my own agenda, and this game and analysis was the painful lesson I hope will serve as a kick in the pants to stop playing so reactively and start playing like I want to, even if my opponent has the better position.
See you over the board!