Back in the days when I lived in New York, I often battled my fellow IM, the ubiquitous Jay Bonin (famed as one of the most active players in USCF history).

However, one of my most memorable encounters with Jay occurred not over the board, but off it. The situation was this: first round of a strong Manhattan Swiss, played at the old Chess Center on 14th St. Jay and I were sitting next to each other, since our ratings were so close: we were playing down, in typical first round fashion, against experts rated about 300 points below us.

Jay dispatched his opponent with his typical efficiency. I, on the other hand, played a spectacular combination! I sacrificed a bishop, the point of which was buried no less than seven moves into the combination! What’s more, the sac was the only way to win! I drove my opponent’s King out into the center, and then magically coordinated my Queen and Rook and delivered mate! I thought I was a regular Tal!

So then I see Jay, and in the spirit of our good-natured rivalry, I said something like, “How’d you like my sac? Wasn’t that terrific?”

I was expecting some kind of congratulation, but Jay, absolutely dead pan, said, “You shouldn’t have to do that in the first round!”

I was deflated! But I also realized, perhaps not right then, but eventually, that he was right. If you play in American Swiss System tournaments, one art that you have to learn is how to defeat the weaker player. It doesn’t matter if you are 2400 like me, or 1500. If I play a 2100, I need to win, and if you play a 1200, you need to win as well. But we all know it’s not always that easy.

Over the next series of True Combat articles, I’m going to try to demonstrate the best ways to translate rating superiority into a point on the wall charts – but since this is a True Combat series, let’s first start with a disaster!

Here’s a game I’d rather forget, but hopefully my embarrassment will be your instructional value! Note the nearly 400 point rating difference!

IM Timothy Taylor (2407) – Jason Mielke (2028)

National Open, Las Vegas 2004

Bird’s Opening A02

1.f4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.e3 c5 4.Bc4 e6 5.0-0 Be7 6.b3 Nc6 7.Bb2 a6 8.a4 Rb8 9.Na3 0-0

It’s safe to say, and important to say, that White has gained nothing from the opening against Black’s cautious play. I will return to this point later.

10.Bd3 Qc7 11.Qe1 e5 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.Qh4 h6

Black continues to play cautiously, but White’s subtle maneuvers are having an effect.

14.Nc4 Ng4

Black misses a tactic. He can equalize cleanly with 14...b5! 15.axb5 axb5 as then 16.Ncxe5 leads only to a draw by repetition: 16...Ng4 17.Qh5 Nf6 etc. If White wants to keep the game going, I would have to play 16.Na3, when Black is equal after 16...Ng4 17.Qg3 Bd6.

15.Qh5 f5?!

I finally inveigle my opponent into making this weakening move.

Instead, the same basic tactic still works, though the variations are more complicated.

Black should play 15... b5! 16.axb5 axb5 17.Na3 (17.Ncxe5 Nf6 is the same draw) 17…Nf6! (but not 17... g6 18.Bxg6! and White has a strong attack) and now White can accept the draw with 18.Qh4 Ng4 etc., or try the greedy and risky 18.Bxe5 Nxe5 19.Qxe5 Bd6 20.Qb2 c4 21.Be2 Bg4 with excellent compensation for Black.

Now back to the game.

To sum up, so far, the higher rated player got nothing out of the opening – but with a few sly maneuvers, and some help from his opponent, he has obtained the better position.

POSITION AFTER 15... f5

There are two main features of the position, one tactical, one strategical. The tactic is obvious: Black is threatening to fork two pieces with ... e4.

The strategical feature is that, due to 15...f5, Black can no longer support his e-pawn, which is attacked by three White pieces directly, and by the Queen, indirectly.

Therefore, White should stop the tactic while simultaneously fixing the weakness at e5. Correct is 16.e4! when White is better in all variations:

A) 16...f4? 17.Ncxe5 wins a pawn

B) 16...fxe4 17.Bxe4 Nf6 18.Qg6 (notice that the weakening ...f5 gave White this much needed extra square for his Queen) 18…Nxe4 19.Qxe4 Bf5 20.Qd5+ Kh8 21.Ne3 and the superior pawn structure gives White the edge.

C) 16...b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Ne3! (the Knight has this active square now, instead of a3) 18…Nxe3 19.fxe3 and White maintains a small edge with his more compact pawns.

This is all true, but let’s apply the wisdom according to Bonin to this game: What is White doing, making all these subtle maneuvers, only to get ... plus over equals in variation C above!

When you are playing a weaker player, you don’t need subtlety, you don’t need brilliance, you definitely don’t need quiet positional openings – you need WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

But I’ll bring out the big guns next month. For now, let’s get back to the game, or what’s left of it.

To repeat, White can now “cash in” on his positional play and get a small but enduring edge. Had I played 16.e4, I’m sure I would have eventually won, albeit in a Bonin -unapproved way. But instead, I had a moment of chess blindness and played

16.h3??

Black looked at me in astonishment and played

16...Nf6 17.Qg6 e4

Winning a piece!

18.Be2 exf3 19.Rxf3 b5 20.axb5 axb5 21.Rg3 Rf7 22.Rf1 Be6 23.Na3 Ne5 and Black won.

So sometimes the weaker player can beat the odds!

Why did I lose this game? Obviously, the horrible blunder/blindness didn’t help! But there was also frustration due to the slight nature of the advantage I was barely able to secure. Essentially, my quiet subtle play was not suited to the job at hand, which was to win, Bonin-style, in a professional way against an opponent 400 rating points below me.