Index of Stonewall Attack games.
To play through each game, click on the underlined game number. Each game is annotated by the Author.
Category 1 games: After Game 1, which is a glorious ‘advert’ for the Stonewall Attack, we proceed with a selection of illustrative games from category 1. As these are ‘more favourable’ for the Stonewall Attack one would expect them to have a preponderance of wins for White. But, within the range of defensive skills from players with the black pieces, a wide variety of defensive measures are adopted … and, White must find the correct answers. The first few moves almost play themselves - but then it is up to you!
One aim, as stated in the introduction, must be to free the black-square bishop by playing e4. To smash through to the black king however, g4 is usually played. But whether followed up by g5 or f5, or even by advancing the h-pawn, depends on how Black has defended. Also concerning the e4 square … every effort must be made to deter Black from playing Ne4. Thus, Nd2 and Qf3 are vital early moves to reinforce the bishop on d3.
Another move which I favour is Nh3 (I used to play the knight to the more usual f3). Here on h3 it almost has a multipurpose role - it defends the f4 pawn, is poised to step forward, or even to drop back to the excellent defensive square f2. Another objective behind this latter move is that the N covers any advance by Black’s N. However the games show that White must beware of a premature g4: Qf3 is a must first.
Game 2 was a good win against a very strong opponent (usually 100+ above my grading on the site). In this game White makes good use of an open e-file.
Game 3. This game illustrates an important lesson learned by White (in another similar game it proved fatal) … as mentioned above, an ill-advised premature advance with g4. Somehow White recovered in a weird game of ‘hanging pieces’.
Game 4. I played several games against this strong opponent with honours shared. Here, although he made an early resignation, it would have been difficult to survive White’s attack!
Game 5. Made easier, after levelling exchanges, by the gift of a piece.
Game 6. An easier win … but not happening until the 18th move.
Game 7. A strong opponent who came back at me with a powerful attack but, unaccountably, let the win go with an incredibly poor move.
Game 8. Another game against my game 2 opponent … this time he ran into a ‘sucker punch’ while looking good.
Game 9. A loss on time in a 'won' position.
Game 10. To conclude the ‘easier’ category 1 games played as per my system in 2008 and played on the web (Chessmaniac site) we see how the SA fared against one of the top graded players on the site. He won the game but was the SA discredited? Not totally, I think. But it did lead to further evolution ... the idea of opening up the h-file to give the attack added bite. And that meant abandoning my love of castling.
Game 11. A modern game, bang uptodate, versus my computer's Microsoft Chess Titans. At its top level (10) I find we are reasonably equally matched ... But ... it cannot handle the Stonewall Attack!
Game 12. Although the Stonewall Attack should have shown its metal, the Author fails under some time pressure to make the correct winning analysis and loses a never-the-less interesting and instructive game.
Category 2 games. …… Category 2a. The first batch of games here illustrate the problems for White where Black plays Bf5. Note that it can be very dangerous for White to exchange bishops if Black has retreated his to g6 as this opens up a good attacking file for Black. Also, an exchange on f5, where the Black bishop may have become supported by the e-pawn is not advised (probably because Black may make use of the half-open e-file to attack White’s backward pawn on e3). Quite often Black may initiate the exchange of bishops on d3. This not only draws the sting out of the Stonewall Attack but puts White’s queen on an inferior square. All these ‘negatives’ are probably why Norowitz advocates a change of strategy! He recommends that White plays c4, claiming that Black’s bishop on f5 is then misplaced. But, here we examine some concrete examples where White persists with the SA and at a lower skill level.
Game 13. An easy win against an ‘average’ opponent after the bishops were exchanged on d3.
Game 14. Another game where Black exchanges on d3. This stronger opponent (1689) had a winning position but lost on time.
Game 15. A very strong opponent but White was at least equal in material until a blunder on move 20.
Game 16. In a level battle, White spots a tactical win.
Game 17. Russell is a strong player who I have played several times with mixed results. In this game there was a battle of wills over control of the b1 diagonal which worked to his advantage but then he misplayed the endgame.
Game 18. An interesting game - with a completely different approach to the bishop problem - where I gained a ‘won’ position only to lose on time.
Game 19. An 'average strength' Black plays an open K-side attack ... well, this was a new line ... but never poses serious threats.
Next to category 2b games where Black adopts the Kings Indian defence. .
Game 20. A tough opponent. After I misplayed the ending I was fortunate to win on time.
Game 21. I was equally matched by grading with this player but she (assuming the Username is a true guide) beat me in a previous encounter. Here I gain revenge playing against the strong category 2b defensive set-up.
Game 22. A win against a very highly graded opponent who adopted both the fianchetto AND Bf5.
Category 3 games
Game 23. Perhaps Black's handle - "fergieboys" - indicates support for Manchester United. Here he counterattacked with all their flair and aggression and I was caught off-guard and played some very poor moves in defence. This game is included never-the-less to show that not all Black's early moves are predictable or defensive. and White must be able to adapt to any deviation from the Stonewall 'norm'.
Game 24. Two 'new' moves to consider but, in this game, they are not played by Black to truly test the deviation.
Game 25. A Grantham Club tournament game [featured also in the other book on this site, Chess for Ordinary Mortals].
This concludes the illustrative games for now ... but others may be added if it is thought they may add another dimension to our look at the Stonewall Attack. Several more may be found in Chess for Ordinary Mortals. I noted that many of the Stonewall Attack games to be found on the internet and played by more illustrious players than myself were not perhaps originally intended to follow the main ideas of the Stonewall from move 1 ... they tend to 'drift' into it some way into the game.
♛
Category 1 games: After Game 1, which is a glorious ‘advert’ for the Stonewall Attack, we proceed with a selection of illustrative games from category 1. As these are ‘more favourable’ for the Stonewall Attack one would expect them to have a preponderance of wins for White. But, within the range of defensive skills from players with the black pieces, a wide variety of defensive measures are adopted … and, White must find the correct answers. The first few moves almost play themselves - but then it is up to you!
One aim, as stated in the introduction, must be to free the black-square bishop by playing e4. To smash through to the black king however, g4 is usually played. But whether followed up by g5 or f5, or even by advancing the h-pawn, depends on how Black has defended. Also concerning the e4 square … every effort must be made to deter Black from playing Ne4. Thus, Nd2 and Qf3 are vital early moves to reinforce the bishop on d3.
Another move which I favour is Nh3 (I used to play the knight to the more usual f3). Here on h3 it almost has a multipurpose role - it defends the f4 pawn, is poised to step forward, or even to drop back to the excellent defensive square f2. Another objective behind this latter move is that the N covers any advance by Black’s N. However the games show that White must beware of a premature g4: Qf3 is a must first.
Game 2 was a good win against a very strong opponent (usually 100+ above my grading on the site). In this game White makes good use of an open e-file.
Game 3. This game illustrates an important lesson learned by White (in another similar game it proved fatal) … as mentioned above, an ill-advised premature advance with g4. Somehow White recovered in a weird game of ‘hanging pieces’.
Game 4. I played several games against this strong opponent with honours shared. Here, although he made an early resignation, it would have been difficult to survive White’s attack!
Game 5. Made easier, after levelling exchanges, by the gift of a piece.
Game 6. An easier win … but not happening until the 18th move.
Game 7. A strong opponent who came back at me with a powerful attack but, unaccountably, let the win go with an incredibly poor move.
Game 8. Another game against my game 2 opponent … this time he ran into a ‘sucker punch’ while looking good.
Game 9. A loss on time in a 'won' position.
Game 10. To conclude the ‘easier’ category 1 games played as per my system in 2008 and played on the web (Chessmaniac site) we see how the SA fared against one of the top graded players on the site. He won the game but was the SA discredited? Not totally, I think. But it did lead to further evolution ... the idea of opening up the h-file to give the attack added bite. And that meant abandoning my love of castling.
Game 11. A modern game, bang uptodate, versus my computer's Microsoft Chess Titans. At its top level (10) I find we are reasonably equally matched ... But ... it cannot handle the Stonewall Attack!
Game 12. Although the Stonewall Attack should have shown its metal, the Author fails under some time pressure to make the correct winning analysis and loses a never-the-less interesting and instructive game.
Category 2 games. …… Category 2a. The first batch of games here illustrate the problems for White where Black plays Bf5. Note that it can be very dangerous for White to exchange bishops if Black has retreated his to g6 as this opens up a good attacking file for Black. Also, an exchange on f5, where the Black bishop may have become supported by the e-pawn is not advised (probably because Black may make use of the half-open e-file to attack White’s backward pawn on e3). Quite often Black may initiate the exchange of bishops on d3. This not only draws the sting out of the Stonewall Attack but puts White’s queen on an inferior square. All these ‘negatives’ are probably why Norowitz advocates a change of strategy! He recommends that White plays c4, claiming that Black’s bishop on f5 is then misplaced. But, here we examine some concrete examples where White persists with the SA and at a lower skill level.
Game 13. An easy win against an ‘average’ opponent after the bishops were exchanged on d3.
Game 14. Another game where Black exchanges on d3. This stronger opponent (1689) had a winning position but lost on time.
Game 15. A very strong opponent but White was at least equal in material until a blunder on move 20.
Game 16. In a level battle, White spots a tactical win.
Game 17. Russell is a strong player who I have played several times with mixed results. In this game there was a battle of wills over control of the b1 diagonal which worked to his advantage but then he misplayed the endgame.
Game 18. An interesting game - with a completely different approach to the bishop problem - where I gained a ‘won’ position only to lose on time.
Game 19. An 'average strength' Black plays an open K-side attack ... well, this was a new line ... but never poses serious threats.
Next to category 2b games where Black adopts the Kings Indian defence. .
Game 20. A tough opponent. After I misplayed the ending I was fortunate to win on time.
Game 21. I was equally matched by grading with this player but she (assuming the Username is a true guide) beat me in a previous encounter. Here I gain revenge playing against the strong category 2b defensive set-up.
Game 22. A win against a very highly graded opponent who adopted both the fianchetto AND Bf5.
Category 3 games
Game 23. Perhaps Black's handle - "fergieboys" - indicates support for Manchester United. Here he counterattacked with all their flair and aggression and I was caught off-guard and played some very poor moves in defence. This game is included never-the-less to show that not all Black's early moves are predictable or defensive. and White must be able to adapt to any deviation from the Stonewall 'norm'.
Game 24. Two 'new' moves to consider but, in this game, they are not played by Black to truly test the deviation.
Game 25. A Grantham Club tournament game [featured also in the other book on this site, Chess for Ordinary Mortals].
This concludes the illustrative games for now ... but others may be added if it is thought they may add another dimension to our look at the Stonewall Attack. Several more may be found in Chess for Ordinary Mortals. I noted that many of the Stonewall Attack games to be found on the internet and played by more illustrious players than myself were not perhaps originally intended to follow the main ideas of the Stonewall from move 1 ... they tend to 'drift' into it some way into the game.
♛
Thanks for reading this. I hope you found it interesting. Anyway, enjoy your chess (whatever opening lines or plan you play!
