Linares: Round 6 Recap

They are consistent, aren't they? Once again, the round's results consisted in one decisive game and two draws, and the players were even consistent in terms of who did what.

First, Peter Leko forced Rustam "Brick Wall" Kasimdzhanov to defend for a long time, but the game wound up drawn just the same - the Spassky approach to the Marshall Gambit is continuing to hold up:

Leko,P (2749) - Kasimdzhanov,R (2678) [C89]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (6), 28.02.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Qh5 18.a4 Re6 19.axb5 axb5 20.Qf1 Rfe8 21.Bxd5 Qxd5 22.h3 Bf5 23.Qg2 Qxg2+ 24.Kxg2



Of course White has an edge due to the extra pawn, but Black has the two bishops and no weaknesses, so his drawing chances are excellent. 24...R6e7 25.b3 f6 26.Ra2 Be6 27.c4 Bb4 28.Rc1 Bf5 29.g4 Bd3 30.Nf1 Be4+ 31.Kg1 f5 32.Ng3 fxg4 33.Nxe4 Rxe4 34.hxg4 Rxg4+ 35.Kf1 Bd6 36.Ra6 Bf4 37.Bxf4 Rxf4 38.Rxc6 Rxd4 39.cxb5 Rb4 40.Rb6 h5 41.Rc7 Re5 42.Rg6 Rexb5 43.Rgxg7+ Kh8 44.Rgd7 Rb8 45.Rh7+ Kg8 46.Rxh5 Rxb3

And now it's a theoretically drawn position, but as White can poke and prod indefinitely without any risk, the game continues for another 30 moves, though without any real danger to Kasimdzhanov. 47.Rg5+ Kf8 48.Rf5+ Kg8 49.Rff7 Rh3 50.Rg7+ Kh8 51.Kg2 Rh6 52.Rgf7 Rg6+ 53.Kf1 Kg8 54.Rfe7 Rf8 55.Rcd7 Rg5 56.Rd3 Rf7 57.Re8+ Kg7 58.f3 Ra5 59.Kf2 Ra2+ 60.Kg3 Ra1 61.Re4 Rg1+ 62.Kf2 Rg5 63.f4 Rg4 64.Rdd4 Rh4 65.Kg3 Rh1 66.Re5 Rg1+ 67.Kf2 Rg4 68.Kf3 Rg1 69.Re2 Rf1+ 70.Kg3 Rg1+ 71.Kf2 Rg4 72.Kf3 Rg1 73.Rf2 Ra7 74.Rd5 Kf6 75.Rd6+ Kf5 76.Rd5+ 1/2-1/2

Next, Veselin Topalov continued his roller-coaster ride, this time peaking against official tournament tailender Francisco Vallejo Pons, for whom this event probably can't end soon enough.

Topalov,V (2757) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B90]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (6), 28.02.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.f3 Be6 9.Qd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 b4 13.Ne2 Ne8 14.f4 a5 15.f5 a4 16.fxe6 axb3 17.exf7+N [17.cxb3 occurred in the game Ivanovic-Djukanovic, Bijelo Polje 2004 (0-1, 53).] 17...Rxf7 18.Kb1 A very dramatic move, but the idea is clear: White wants to preserve as much pawn cover as he can for his king and only then turn his attention to the loose Black kingside. 18...bxc2+

[18...Qa5 19.Nc1 keeps the lines closed.] 19.Kxc2 [19.Qxc2 is the obvious, "safe" move, but giving up the g5 pawn makes Black's eventual kingside defense a lot easier - the bishop can be active, the knights have access to f6, there's never the fear of a g6 spike from White, etc. But isn't White's choice insane? Is the g5 pawn really worth that much?] 19...Nb6 [19...Rxa2 appears to be the most testing move - not so much to grab a pawn but to prevent White from retreating into a cozy bunker with Kb1 and Nc1. I don't know what Topalov had planned here, but the following might be helpful to start the analytical process: 20.Bh3 (20.Nc1 Qc7+ 21.Kb1 Ra8 22.Qd5 Ra5 (22...Rc8 23.Bd3+/-) 23.Qc4 Nc5=) 20...Nf8 21.g6 hxg6 22.Qxb4 Qc7+ 23.Nc3 Ra8 (23...d5 24.Qb3+/-) 24.Rhf1 Rb8 (24...d5 25.Rxf7 Kxf7 26.Qb3+-) 25.Qa4=] 20.Nc1 d5 21.exd5 Nd6 22.Kb1 Rf3 This threatens ...Nc4 - or rather, seems to - but it also exposes the rook. [22...Nbc4 23.Bxc4 Nxc4 24.Qe2 Nxe3 25.g6 Nxd1 26.gxf7+ Kxf7 27.Rxd1 Bd6=] 23.h4 Na4 [23...Nbc4 24.Bxc4 Nxc4 25.Qe2 Rxe3 (25...Nxe3 26.Qxf3 Nxd1 27.Rxd1+/-) 26.Qxc4 Bd6 27.Qg4+/-] 24.Qe2 [24.Bd3!?] 24...Rg3 Black's position was difficult, but this seems to lose material without gaining sufficient compensation in return. 25.Bf2 Rc3

Fancy, but remember: this is chess, not checkers - White doesn't need to capture! 26.Qxe5! Nxb2 27.Bd4! [27.Kxb2? Qa5 28.Kb1 Qa3-+ 29.Qxe7? Rxc1+ 30.Rxc1 Qxa2#] 27...Bf8 28.Kxb2 Rf3 [28...Qa5 is pointless here due to 29.Bxc3] 29.Bd3 Kh8 30.Qe2 Rf4 31.Qh5 Nf5 32.g6 [32.g6 h6 33.Bxf5 leaves White up two pieces and a pawn and threatening 34.Qxh6+ to boot.] 1-0

Finally, the marquee match of the day: Anand-Kasparov. Kasparov put aside his signature Najdorf variation for the day and essayed one of the current fads, the Sveshnikov Sicilian. Anand chose the more positional approach with 9.Nd5 (9.Bxf6 gxf6 leads to a messy position where Black has some kingside weaknesses, but the extra f-pawn gives Black more central play than occurs after 9.Nd5) and sprung a new move on move 19. A typical Sveshnikov situation arose, where White's control over d5 and queenside advantage were challenged by Black's possession of the bishop pair and kingside counterplay. Perhaps Anand had an edge for a while, but Kasparov's typically active play sufficed for the draw.

Anand,V (2786) - Kasparov,G (2804) [B33]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (6), 28.02.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.0-0 f5 19.Qa4N

[19.exf5; 19.Re1 and; 19.Qd3 were already known to theory.] 19...Bd7 20.Bb5 Rxb5 [20...Nb4 forces White to sac the exchange, but apparently both players felt that White would have sufficient compensation after 21.Bxd7 Nxa2 22.exf5 However, I'm not sure what Anand's deep idea was, as Black seems to have at least a small edge after the following: 22...Rxb2 23.Nc4 Nxc3 24.Nxc3 Rb4 25.Qc6 Rxc4 26.Qxc4 Qxd7 27.fxg6 hxg6=/+] 21.Qxb5 Nb4 22.Qxa5 Nxa2 23.Qxa2 fxe4 24.b4

Now White is definitely better, but it's not easy to see how White can convert his edge - the only passer is the b-pawn, the knights look good but may be semi-frozen, and f2 could become weak if too many White pieces start to stray. So it's a lot of work for White to try to win this. 24...Be6 25.c4 Qc8 26.Qb3 Kg7 27.Rb1 [27.Qc2 Bxe3 (27...Qb7 28.Qxe4 Bxe3 29.fxe3 Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 Bxd5 31.cxd5 Qa6+ 32.Kf2 Qa2+ 33.Kg3 Qe2 34.h3 Qe1+ 35.Kh2 Qe2 and just sitting might be Black's best defensive try.) 28.Nxe3 d5 holds the pawn, but White's in great shape after 29.cxd5 Qxc2 30.Nxc2 Bxd5 31.Ne3+/-] 27...Rf7! 28.Rd1 h5 29.Qc2 Qa8 30.h3 [30.Qxe4 Bxe3 31.Qxe3 Bxd5 32.cxd5 Qa4 33.Qd2 Qb3 34.h3 Rb7 35.Rc1 Qxb4 36.Qxb4 Rxb4 37.Rc6 Kf6 38.Rxd6+ Kf5 is drawing - I think.] 30...Bh4 31.Rf1 Qf8 32.b5 Bc8 33.Nc3 Bb7 34.Ned5 Qc8 35.Qe2 Bxd5 36.Nxd5 Qc5 It's amazing how Kasparov always manages to coordinate his pieces so well! 37.b6 Qd4 38.Qc2 Kh7 39.Kh2 Rxf2 40.Rxf2 Bxf2

41.Qc1 [41.b7 Bg1+ 42.Kh1? (42.Kg3 Bf2+! 43.Kh2 (43.Qxf2 h4+ 44.Kh2 Qxf2 45.b8Q Qg3+ 46.Kg1 Qe1+=) 43...Bg1+) 42...Qa1 not only holds but probably wins: 43.Nc3 Ba7+ 44.Nd1 (44.Kh2 Qg1+ 45.Kg3 Qe1+ 46.Kh2 Bg1+ 47.Kh1 Bf2+ 48.Kh2 Qg1# is a mating pattern everyone should be familiar with.) 44...Qd4 45.c5 dxc5 46.Nc3 Qb4 47.Nxe4 Qxb7 and Black should win the ending.] 41...e3 42.b7 Qa7 43.Qb1 e2 44.Ne7 Bg3+ [44...Bg3+ 45.Kxg3 Qe3+ 46.Kh2 Qf4+ 47.Kg1 Qd4+ 48.Kh2 Qf4+ etc.] 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 6:

Kasparov 3.5/5
Anand, Topalov 3/5
Kasimdzhanov 3/6
Leko 2.5/5
Adams 2/5
Vallejo Pons 1/5

Pairings for Round 7:

Kasparov-Topalov
Adams-Anand
Vallejo Pons-Leko
Kasimdzhanov - bye

World Championship News

Since 1993, there have been two independent world championship titles, and despite reunification rumblings since 1996, the titles have remained divided. The Prague Agreement in 2002 offered some hope for a while, but with the apparent collapse of the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match a few weeks ago, it was back to square one. (See this post for details and links.)

But now, something new. According to the 2/28 issue of Chess Today, relaying information from Russian chess sites like this one, FIDE has proposed a double-round robin event with the following eight players: Kasimdzhanov, Adams, Kramnik, Leko, Kasparov, Anand, Topalov and Morozevich. The event, IF it happens, is scheduled to occur in October of 2005 in a country yet to be determined.

I like many aspects of the idea, but I suspect Kramnik won't, for at least three reasons. First, I think Kramnik's style is best suited to matches, not tournaments, so this probably hurts his chances for success. Second, while Kasimdzhanov (or Kasparov, were he to play and defeat Kasimdzhanov) as the FIDE champion would be plausibly seeded to face Kramnik on an even playing field, it's not as clear that the other players deserve such a privilege. Third, Kramnik, like Kasparov before him, has expressed a desire to maintain the classical world championship in its traditional form - qualifiers leading to a final match with the champion. If the follow-up to this event is going to be more knock-out events, then that too will serve as a deterrent to his participation.

In sum, we have reason for some optimism - but it's best to keep the bubbly on hold.

Linares: Round 5 Recap

In a dramatic change from previous rounds, each featuring 1 win and 2 draws, today's just-completed round featured 2 draws and 1 win. Oh, wait a moment...

Okay, it's not really that bad. Sure, it would be nice to have more blood on the board, but all three games went 40 moves or more, and at least two of the games had some real fight.

The least interesting game and the first to finish was Vallejo Pons-Anand. After getting nothing from the opening, Vallejo decided simply to restrict Anand's possibilities - successfully. If his tournament had been going more successfully, my guess is that he'd have played with more ambition. After two straight losses, though, a quick time-out against the number 2 seed was probably a wise move.

Vallejo Pons,F (2686) - Anand,V (2786) [E15]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (5), 27.02.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qa4 Bb7 6.Bg2 c5 7.dxc5 bxc5 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Rd1 d6 11.Bf4 Qb6 12.Qb3 Rd8 13.Qxb6 axb6 14.Nb5 Ne8 15.a3 h6 16.Rac1 Nc6 17.Ne1 Na5 18.Bd2 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Nc6 20.e4 Na7 21.Nc3 Nc7 22.a4 Nc6 23.b3 Bf6 24.Nc2 Kf8 25.h4 h5 26.Rb1 Ke7 27.Re1 Nd4 28.Nxd4 Bxd4 29.Ne2 e5 30.f4 f6 31.Rh1 g6 32.Rbf1 Ne6 33.g4 exf4 34.Nxf4 Nxf4+ 35.Bxf4 hxg4 36.Kg3 Rh8 37.Kxg4 Rh5 38.Rh3 Rah8 39.Rfh1 Ke6 40.Bd2 Be5 41.Be3 R8h7 1/2-1/2

Next to finish was Kasimdzhanov-Topalov, a King's Indian in which the players took turns having very small advantages, culminating in a position where, fittingly enough, White could force perpetual check or allow Black to. In short, a nice, clean game with some fight.

Kasimdzhanov,R (2678) - Topalov,V (2757) [E94]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (5), 27.02.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Na6 8.Re1 Qe8 9.Bf1 Bg4 10.d5 Nb4 11.Be2 a5 12.Rb1 Na6 13.Bg5 Bd7 14.Nd2 Kh8 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Bg4 Bg5 17.Bxd7 Qxd7 18.Nf3 Bh6 19.a3 Nc5 20.b4 axb4 21.axb4 Na4 22.Qd3 Nxc3 23.Qxc3 f5 24.c5 Qb5 25.h4 fxe4 26.Rxe4 Ra2 27.Rbe1 Qa4 28.cxd6 cxd6 29.Qc7 Qc2 30.Qb6 Bg7 31.Qe3 b5 32.Rc1 Qb2 33.Rf1 Ra1 34.Rxa1 Qxa1+ 35.Kh2 Qb1 36.Qe2 h6 37.Rg4 h5 38.Re4 Bh6 39.Ng5 Bxg5 40.hxg5 Rxf2 [40...Rxf2 41.Qxf2 Qxe4 42.Qf8+ Kh7 43.Qf7+= (43.Qxd6 Qh4+ 44.Kg1 Qe1+=) ] 1/2-1/2

Finally, there's the Kasparov-Adams game. Despite Kasparov's relative inactivity, book and DVD projects, political engagements, age (41 - from 6.5 years older than Anand to 19 years older than Vallejo Pons), family responsibilities and high blood pressure (See New in Chess 2004/3, p. 14), he is still quite possibly the hardest working player at the board on the super-GM circuit.

Adams tried his 7...e5 line again against the 4.Qc2 Nimzo (see Topalov-Adams from my round 1 recap), but unsurprisingly, Kasparov was ready with an improvement. Unlike Topalov, Kasparov was able to successfully solve the king-safety problem, after which White could start to utilize the advantage of the bishop pair. Accordingly, Adams opened up the position with 15...f5, hoping to generate some initiative before White finished his kingside development, but this only led to a position where Kasparov had an extra pawn in a queen and rook ending.

This ending, starting on move 23, showed Kasparov's chess and fighting qualities in their best light. Such an ending isn't easy for either side, because heavy pieces on an open board have virtually unlimited scope. That makes it very difficult - and exhausting - to keep calculating move after move after move. Difficult or not, Kasparov was up to the job, and won an ending which, I suspect, will repay careful study.

Kasparov,G (2804) - Adams,Mi (2741) [E37]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (5), 27.02.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Ne4 7.Qc2 e5 8.cxd5 Qxd5 9.f3 Nd6 [9...Nf6 was played by...Kasparov(!), successfully, albeit in a blitz game - and no doubt he would have been well-prepared for his old weapon had Adams the temerity to try it. 10.e4 Qxd4 11.Qxc7 Nc6 12.Ne2 Qc5 13.b4 Nxb4 14.Qxc5 Nd3+ 15.Kd2 Nxc5 16.Rb1 0-0 17.Ke3 Be6 18.Bb2 Rfd8 19.Bxe5 Rd3+ 20.Kf2 Ncxe4+ 21.Kg1 Nd2 22.Ra1 Nxf1 23.Nf4 Rd2 24.Rxf1 Bc4 25.Rc1 Nd7 26.Bc3 Ra2 27.h4 b5 28.Rh3 f6 29.Rd1 Ne5 30.Rg3 Bf7 31.Rd6 Rxa3 32.Bd4 Ra4 33.h5 h6 34.Bxe5 fxe5 35.Nd3 Rd4 36.Rxd4 exd4 37.Rg4 a5 38.Rxd4 a4 39.Rb4 a3 40.Nc1 Bc4 41.Rb1 a2 0-1 Kramnik,V-Kasparov,G/Moscow 1998/CBM 067 ext] 10.dxe5 Qxe5 11.e4 Nc6 12.Ne2 Be6 13.Bf4 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 0-0-0 15.0-0-0

Unlike Topalov in round 1, Kasparov has found a secure location for his king, and the threat of 16.Bxd6 leaves White a comfortable edge here. 15...f5 [15...Nc4 looks obvious, with the goal of avoiding a sickly isolani on d6, but 16.Nd5! is practically winning. White's threatening to take on c4 and to take on c7, and Black has no good response. For example: 16...Bxd5 (16...Nd6 17.Bd2+- - oops!) 17.exd5 Nxa3 18.bxa3 Qxa3+ 19.Qb2 Qc5+ 20.Kb1 Rxd5 21.Rc1 Qa5 22.Bc4 Rhd8 23.Be3+/- and White's two bishops overmatch Black's knight and three pawns.] 16.Bxd6 Rxd6 17.Rxd6 cxd6 18.Bb5 Nd4 19.Qd3 Nxb5 20.Nxb5 fxe4 21.Qxd6 Qxb5 22.Qxe6+ Kb8 23.Qxe4+/-



23...Re8 24.Qf4+ Ka8 25.Kb1 g5 26.Qf7 h6 27.h4 a6 28.hxg5 hxg5 29.Qf6 Qd3+ 30.Ka1 Qd2 31.Qf7 Re5 32.Qc7 Re8 33.Qf7 Re5 34.Qf6 Re8 35.g4 Ka7 36.Qf5 Ka8 37.Kb1! An excellent idea whose point is to get the White rook into the action. 37...Rd8 38.Rc1 Rd5 39.Qe4 Ka7 40.Rc3 Qd1+ 41.Ka2 Qd2 42.Rc2 Qd3 43.Re2 Rd4 [43...Qxe4 44.fxe4 (44.Rxe4 Rd3 45.Re5 Rxf3 46.Rxg5 Rg3 isn't as clear.) 44...Re5 45.Kb3 Kb6 46.Kc4 Kc6 47.Kd4 Kd6 48.Rf2+-] 44.Qe3 a5 [44...Qxe3 45.Rxe3 Rf4 46.Kb3 Kb6 47.Kc3 Kc6 48.Kd3 Kd5 49.Ke2 Rf7 50.Kf2 followed by Kg3 and whatever else is needed to force f4 should be winning.] 45.Re1 [45.Qxg5?? Qc4+!-+ (45...Qxe2?? 46.Qc5++-) ] 45...Ka6 46.Qxg5 Qxf3 47.Qg6+ Ka7 48.Re5 Ra4 49.Qh5 b6 [49...Rxa3+ won't lead to a perpetual: 50.bxa3 Qf2+ 51.Kb3 Qf3+ 52.Kc4 Qc6+ 53.Kd3 Qf3+ 54.Re3 Qf1+ 55.Ke4 Qc4+ 56.Kf5 Qc5+ 57.Kf6 Qd6+ (57...Qxe3 58.Qxa5+ Kb8 59.Qe5++-) 58.Kg7 Qc7+ 59.Qf7 and it's over.] 50.Qe8 Rc4 51.g5 Rc7 52.Qe6 a4 53.Re4 Qd1 54.Rb4




Black is completely tied down now and the g-pawn is ready to keep advancing, so Adams resigned. Nevertheless, Black could have tried one last, neat little cheapo suggested by former FIDE World Champ Ruslan Ponomariov: [54.Rb4 Ka8!? 55.Qxb6?? (55.Qe4+ wins easily.) 55...Qa1+ (Unfortunately, just a normal checking sequence draws as well, which undermines the cheapo's "suckerability quotient". (SQ? SUQ? Have I created a monster!) 55...Qd5+ ) 56.Kxa1 Rc1+ 57.Ka2 Ra1+ 58.Kxa1 Stalemate!] 1-0

Current Standings:

Kasparov: 3/4
Anand: 2.5/4
Kasimdzhanov: 2.5/5
Leko, Topalov: 2/4
Adams: 2/5
Vallejo Pons: 1/4

Round 6 Pairings:

Anand-Kasparov (the big game!)
Leko-Kasimdzhanov
Topalov-Vallejo Pons
Adams - bye

This Week's ChessBase Show

After several weeks of featuring completely crazy games, we'll take a brief respite into sanity. This week's game is a masterpiece of the aggressive positional chess that made Anatoly Karpov the World Champion for 10 years (and in the top 2 for nearly a quarter of a century).

In our game, Dutch legend Jan Timman essays the Pirc Defense, an opening that typically generates serious counterplay for the second player. Typically, but not always - Karpov absolutely strangles the Black position into submission without allowing so much as a whiff of play from Timman's side of the board. How did he do it? We'll figure out the details this Monday; for now, to whet your appetite, here is the game:

Karpov,Anatoly (2705) - Timman,Jan H (2625) [B07]
Montreal Montreal (2), 1979

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.Nge2 e5 7.0-0 Na6 8.Re1 c6 9.h3 Re8 10.Bg5 h6 11.Be3 Qc7 12.Qd2 Kh7 13.Rad1 Bd7 14.g4 Rad8 15.Ng3 Bc8 16.f4 b5 17.a3 b4 18.axb4 Nxb4 19.Nce2 exd4 20.Nxd4 a5 21.c3 Na6 22.Qc2 Bd7 23.Nf3 Re7 24.Bf2 Be8 25.Qd3 Qb7 26.Ra1 Nc7 27.Rxa5 Rdd7 28.b4 Ne6 29.Be3 c5 30.f5 Nd8 31.b5 Kh8 32.Bf2 Qc7 33.Ra4 Qb8 34.c4 Ra7 35.Rxa7 Rxa7 36.e5 dxe5 37.Nxe5 Ra2 38.Bxc5 1-0

[For details on how to watch the show, click here; for a list of previous shows, try this link.]

Linares: Round 4 Recap

Today's round was far more interesting than its immediate predecessor, but as if by fate this round, like all three before it, concluded with one win and two draws.

Anand-Kasimdzhanov was the first game to finish, drawn in a relatively brief 33 moves - but not for want of effort! Anand maintained a real initiative from early on and even managed to win a pawn, but Kasimdzhanov, who is rapidly developing a reputation as a defensive genius, capitalized on an Anand error to achieve a position in which all his pieces were active, White's pawn majorities were blockaded and in which his passed a-pawn was the most dominant feature of the position. Incredibly, it seems that if anyone was better in the final position, it was Kasimdzhanov.

Anand,V (2786) - Kasimdzhanov,R (2678) [C88]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (4), 26.02.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.h3 Bb7 9.d3 d6 10.a4 Na5 11.Ba2 c5 12.Nbd2 Nc6N 13.Nf1 Nd7 14.Ne3 Nb6 15.Nf5 Bc8 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Bg5 Qc7 18.Nh4 Be6 19.Nf5 c4 [The knight is annoying, but capturing is bad, as after 19...Bxf5 20.exf5 White will follow up with f6.] 20.dxc4 Nxc4 21.b3 Nb6 22.c4 bxc4 23.bxc4 Nd7 24.Qxd6 Qxd6 25.Nxd6 Nc5 White has won a pawn, but his queenside structure and Ba2 are less than impressive. If he can safeguard the queenside and get the light-squared bishop into the game, he will have good winning chances. 26.Be3 Nd4 [26...Nxa4 27.Bb3 Nb2 28.Re2 Nd3 29.Rd2 Ndb4 30.Ba4+/- transforms the position: Black has restored material equality, but White's pieces completely dominate.] 27.Rad1 Rab8 28.Bb1 Nxa4 29.Bxd4 exd4 30.Rxd4 Rb2 31.e5 Nc5

32.Bf5? [Black has done a good job the last few moves: he has managed to restrain White's pieces to some degree while activating his own, but 32.f4 - getting the kingside majority rolling - leaves White with a clear advantage. Anand's move impedes that idea and wastes time, immediately allowing Black to equalize.] 32...a5 33.Bxe6 [33.Bxe6 fxe6 34.f3 a4 35.Nb5 Ra8 and now White has just as much need to be careful as Black does.] 1/2-1/2


The next game to finish was Adams-Vallejo. Vallejo is the second-lowest rated player in the tournament, and now, with two consecutive losses, is in danger of becoming the event's official punching bag. In today's game, he was in trouble very early with a loose kingside, and although Adams may have missed some easier wins, Black's chronic weaknesses made the loss a matter of time against a player of Adams' caliber.

Adams,Mi (2741) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B90]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (4), 26.02.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Ng4 This move is less popular than 6...e6 and 6...e5, but it's also important and creates positions of a radically different sort than the English Attacker generally hopes for. 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7 10.h3 [10.Be2 is the most common move.] 10...Ne5 11.Be2 This is much less common than 11.Nf5 or 11.f3, and not particularly testing according to Sammalvuo. Of course, Adams is a little stronger than Sammalvuo... 11...Nbc6 12.Nb3 b5N However, we won't get to discover what Adams had in mind, as Vallejo is the first to offer a new move. 12...Be6 is the usual move, and the results have been good for Black. 13.Nd5 Nc4 14.Bxc4 bxc4 15.Nd2 Bxb2 16.Rb1 Be5 [16...Bg7 17.Nxc4 Be6 18.0-0 Rb8 looks safer, keeping the f-file closed and the kingside dark square situation under control.] 17.Nxc4 Bxg3 18.fxg3

Okay, White has a pawn structure only a mother could love, it's true. But let's ask ourselves some questions here: (1) How is Black going to attack any of these White pawns? (2) How is Black going to achieve any activity at all? And (3), where is Black's king going to reside? Black isn't losing yet, but just six moves after his novelty, his position is unpleasant at best. 18...Be6 19.0-0 Rb8 20.Rb3 A nice move, giving White the option of swinging along the third rank (to f3 or even a3), of possibly doubling on the b-file. Further, if Black wants to exchange the rook, it fixes White's queenside pawn structure and opens the a-file to a possible massaging operation on the Black a-pawn. 20...Rb5 21.Kh2 0-0 Looks suicidal, but again, the king wasn't going to be safe anywhere. 22.Nce3 Ne5 23.c4 Rc5 [23...Rxb3 24.axb3 Bxd5 25.exd5 e6 Trades off a couple of pieces, thereby increasing his king's safety, but at the cost of fixing White's structure. Here White still has a big advantage: Black's king isn't completely safe yet and his position is riddled with pawn weaknesses.] 24.Qh5 Kh7 25.Rb7 Re8



26.Nf5 [26.Rf5 was a very interesting idea recommended by an online kibitzer. The threat is to capture on g5, and most of Black's defenses lose immediately: 26...Bxf5 27.Nxf5 and the threat of Qxh6+ followed by Qg7# decides. Or if 26...Rg8, White plays 27.Nxe7, winning. 26...f6 hangs the f-pawn due to the pin: 27.Rxf6 or 27.Nxf6+ are both lethal. 26...Kg7 is best, but here too White's attack is very powerful after 27.Rxe5 dxe5 28.Nf5+ Bxf5 29.exf5 and now White is threatening 30.f6+, when a king retreat hangs either h6 or f7, while 30...exf6 allows 31.Qxf7+ and mate next move. Black has two choices here, and White is winning in either case. 29...Rxd5 (29...Rf8 30.Rxe7 Rc6 31.Rxe5 leaves Black in a lost but at least not yet resignable position.) 30.f6+! Kxf6 31.Qxh6+ Kf5 32.cxd5+- Qxd5 33.g4+ Kf4 34.Qxa6 and the remainder will resemble the culmination of a a nature program's chase scene, where the rapid cheetah tracks down and kills the defenseless deer. In the interests of not traumatizing any small children who may be playing through this game, I'll stop the variation here.] 26...Bxf5 27.exf5 Once again, 28.f6 is the threat, and Black can't prevent it with 28...f6 because of 29.Nxf6+, exploiting the pin. 27...Rf8 28.Nxe7 Qa8 29.Rfb1 [29.f6 with the idea of 30.Nf5 might look like an easy winner, but it's not quite: 29...Qxb7 30.Nf5 Ng4+ 31.hxg4 Rxf5 32.gxf5 Qe4 and Black can still resist.] 29...Rb5 30.cxb5 Qxb7 31.f6 threatening 32.Nf5 31...Qe4 32.Rf1 Rh8 33.Nf5 [33.Rf5 looks even more efficient - threatening both 34.Rxe5 (34...Q/dxe5 35.Qxf7#) and 34.Rxg5, and Black can't prevent both threats. Even so, Adams' move is more than sufficient.] 33...Kg8 34.bxa6 1-0


Finally, Topalov-Leko. In a Sveshnikov Sicilian - one of the hottest opening lines in contemporary chess - Topalov offered an interesting pawn sac with the dual purpose of opening the h-file and gaining a tempo for kingside expansion. Normally sacrificing something against Leko is a nice way to ensure a losing endgame against him, but Topalov's judgment was correct.

Sure enough, Topalov eventually regained the pawn and took another for good measure, finding himself with a completely winning position, no time trouble...and at the end of the day, only half a point for his troubles.

Topalov,V (2757) - Leko,P (2749) [B33]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (4), 26.02.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4 Not a novelty, but rare. 18...Bxh4 19.g3 Bg5 20.f4N exf4 21.gxf4 Bh4+ 22.Kd2 Ne7 23.Kc1 Nxd5 24.Nxd5 Be6 25.Qd4+ Kg8 26.Ra2 Bxd5 27.Qxd5 Qf6 28.Qd2 Bg3 29.Rf1

So far, Black has played quite well, and White has at best adequate compensation for the pawn but nothing more. 29...h5 [29...d5!?=/+] 30.Rxa5+/= Ra8 31.e5 Qf5 [31...dxe5 32.Rxa8 (32.fxe5?? Qxf1+ 33.Bxf1 Rxa5-+) 32...Rxa8 33.fxe5 Qe7 (33...Ra1+ 34.Kb2+-) 34.Rxf7 Ra1+ 35.Kc2 (35.Kb2? Qa3+) 35...Ra2+ 36.Kb1 Rxd2 37.Rxe7++/-] 32.Rxa8 Rxa8 33.Kb2 h4 34.Qxd6 Re8 [34...Bxf4 35.Qe7 h3 36.e6] 35.Bb5 Rf8 36.Bd3 Qe6 37.Qd4 Qe7 38.Bc4 Kh7 39.b4 h3 40.Qd3 Qh4 41.f5 Bf4 [41...Bxe5 42.fxg6+ Kg7 43.gxf7 h2 44.Qe2 Qg3 45.Rf3! Qg5 46.Rh3+-] 42.e6 fxe6 43.Qd7+ Kh6



Now comes the first in a series of bad moves for Topalov - tragically, considering that he has a completely winning position and has made the time control. 44.fxe6? [44.fxg6 is completely crushing. For example, if 44...Kxg6 45.Bd3+ Kf6 46.Qd4+ Ke7 47.Qc5+ Kf7 48.Qc7+ wins everything after 48...Kf6 (48...Kg8 49.Rg1+ Bg5 50.Rxg5+ Qxg5 51.Qh7#; 48...Ke8 49.Bb5#; 48...Qe7 49.Rxf4+) 49.Rxf4+] 44...Bc1+ A very high-class bluff! Simply 45.Rxc1?? [45.Kxc1 Rxf1+ (45...Qxc4 46.Rxf8 Qxc3+ 47.Kd1 and there is no perpetual.) 46.Bxf1 h2 47.Bg2 h1Q+ 48.Bxh1 Qxh1+ 49.Kb2 Qg2+ 50.Kb3 and White wins easily: White will promote a pawn and Black has no chances for a perpetual.] 45...Qxc4 46.e7? [46.Qd2+ Kh7 47.Qe3 h2 48.Ra1 still seems to keep White in the driver's seat, though it's nowhere near as clear as it was before White's 45th move.] 46...Ra8 47.Qxh3+ Kg7 and now the threats of Ra2+ and better still, Qa2# mean that White's advantage is almost entirely gone. 48.e8N+ Kg8 49.Nf6+ Kf7 50.Qd7+ Kxf6



Now White faces a fundamental choice: go for a queen ending or a rook ending? Neither is clearly winning nor completely clearly drawn; it's just a matter of practical judgment. 51.Qd4+ [51.Rf1+ Qxf1 52.Qc6+ Kf5 53.Qxa8 Qe2+ 54.Ka3 Qc4 might be the place to start looking for the truth here.] 51...Qxd4 52.cxd4 g5 Is this ending a draw? Probably, but there's not even a question about it after White's next move. 53.Rc6+ This move is just incomprehensible: it aids the Black king in becoming active, doesn't help advance the queenside pawns and places the rook where it's less able to combat the g-pawn. (Note White's "apology" on move 56.) The problem, as I'm sure all of us have experienced, is that once a player realizes he or she has blown a win, the psychological momentum starts to carry one ever further down the hill. So there's at least some good news for Topalov here: his position is unloseable! 53...Kf5 54.b5 g4 55.Kb3 g3 56.Rc1 Ke4 57.Rg1 [57.Rg1 Kxd4 58.Rxg3 Kc5 59.Rg5+ Kb6 60.Kb4 Ra1 61.Rg6+ Kb7 is a trivially easy draw for Black, who will just check the White king until it either costs him the b-pawn or until White blocks with the rook, when it's a standard king and pawn ending draw. Here's how that might go, for the sake of those for whom this isn't all obvious: 62.Rg4 (62.Rh6 Rb1+ 63.Kc5 Rc1+ 64.Kd4 Rb1 65.Kc4 Rc1+ 66.Kb3 Rb1+ 67.Ka4 Ra1+ etc.) 62...Rb1+ 63.Kc5 Rc1+ 64.Rc4 Rxc4+ 65.Kxc4 Kb6 66.Kb4 Kb7 67.Kc5 Kc7 68.b6+ Kb7 69.Kb5 Kb8 (69...Ka8?? 70.Ka6 Kb8 71.b7 Kc7 72.Ka7+-) 70.Ka6 Ka8 71.b7+ Kb8 72.Kb6 stalemate.] 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 4:

Anand, Kasparov: 2/3
Leko, Kasimdzhanov, Adams: 2/4
Topalov: 1.5/3
Vallejo Pons: .5/3

Round 5 Pairings:

Kasparov-Adams
Kasimdzhanov-Topalov
Vallejo Pons-Anand
Leko - bye

How Long Can a Game Go?

For those who have checked out the mammoth game referred to here, one question that might have come to mind (aside from "Why?") is just how long, in terms of the number of moves, a game could possibly go.

In trying to answer this, we will assume two parameters. First, of course, full cooperation by the players; second, the 50-move rule must be obeyed - a game will count as automatically drawn if both players make 50 moves without either moving a pawn or making a capture.

A first attempt:

The most obvious approach goes like this:

Both sides move their knights around (without falling into a 3-time repetition), and move 50 Black plays 50...h6. We continue as follows - assume meaningless piece moves in the intervals:

100...h5, 150...h4, 200...h3, and then the same 200 move sequences for all of the pawns: 400...g3, 600...f3, 800...e3, 1000...d3, 1200...c3, 1400...b3, 1600...a3.

For our next stage, White will capture these pawns on his 50th move: 1650.Nxh3, 1700.Nxg3, 1750.Nxf3, 1800.Nxe3, 1850.Nxd3, 1900.Nxc3, 1950.Nxb3 and 2000.Nxa3.

Next, capturing all the Black pieces will use another 350 moves, bringing us to move 2350. At move 2400, let's have White push a pawn - say e3 - and eventually force the Black king to shuttle between a8 and b8 with the White queen on d7 and White king on d8 (just to make visualizing the position convenient). Then we'll have 2450.d3, 2500.c3, 2550.b3, 2600.a3, 2650.f3, 2700.g3, 2750.h3. Repeat in 400 move increments to bring the pawns to the fifth rank (culminating, say, with 3550.h5), and now we'll just take care of the kingside pawns:

3600.h6, 3650.h7, 3700.h8Q, and then 3750.Qa8+ Kxa8 (or 3750.Qb8+ Kxb8, depending on where Black's king is). Repeat with the g, f and e-pawns, and we're up to 4350...Kxa8.

Next, we'll get rid of both rooks, both knights and one of the bishops (if we're assuming Black's 4350th move is ...Kxa8, it will be the light-squared bishop), taking us to 4600...Kxa8. At this point we'll drive the Black king to the h8 corner (clearing the way for the queenside pawns) and there give up the remaining bishop: 4650...Kxh8. Pushing and promoting the pawns and then sacrificing the promoted queens gets us another 800 moves (5450...Kxh8), and now all that remains is to mate the king on the 50th move: 5500.Qg7#.

A second try:

Of course, one normally doesn't want to combine captures with pawn moves, as that would throw away 50 moves. However, there's reason to do so here - 50 moves are lost, but 100 moves are gained by a Black pawn's being able to go two ranks further, for a net gain of 50 moves per eligible pawn.

I believe we can do this with every Black pawn - sometimes by that pawn's capturing a White piece, and sometimes by a White pawn's capturing a Black piece. Thus:

50...h6, 100...h5, 150...h4, 200...h3, 250.g3, 250.Bg2 hxg2, 300.Nf1 g1(Q), 350.Rxg1. One Black pawn down, seven to go.

400.g4, 450.g5, 500.g6, 549...Rh7 550.gxh7, 600.h8(Q), 650...Nxh8, 700...g6, 750...g5, 800...g4, 850...g3, 900...g2, 950.Rh1 g1(Q), 1000.Rxg1. Two Black pawns down, six to go.

1050.h3, 1100.h4, 1150.h5, 1200.h6, 1250.h7, 1299...Ng6 1300.h8(Q), 1350...Nxh8. (Just clearing out the superfluous debris.)

1400.Rg6 fxg6, 1450...g5, 1500...g4, 1550...g3, 1600...g2, 1650...g1(Q) 1700.Nxg1. Three Black pawns down, five to go.

During this next stage, move the Black king out of the way (to a6, say) and the Bf8 to b6, and now: 1750.f3, 1800.f4...2000.f8(Q) 2050...Qxf8, 2100.e3, 2150.e4, 2200.e5, 2250.e6, 2299...Qf7 2300.exf7, 2350.f8(Q), 2400...Nxf8.

Now let's get White's king out of the way - h8 looks convenient, and continue: 2450...e6...2700...e1(Q), 2750.Qxe1. Four down, four to go.

2800.d3...2950.d6, 2999...Ne7 3000.dxe7, 3050.e8(Q), 3100...Nxe8.

3150...d6...3400...d1(Q), 3450.Qxd1. Five down, three to go.

3500.c3, 3650.c6, 3699...Bd7 3700.cxd7, 3750.d8(Q), 3800...Rxd8.

At this point we have more pieces than we need, so let's get rid of some clutter before finishing the pawns off: 3850.Qxd8, 3900...Bxg1, 3950.Ne3 Bxe3, 4000...Bxc1, 4050.Rxc1. We're down now to this: White: queen, rook and two pawns; Black: knight and three pawns.

Continuing:

4100.Rh1 c6, 4150...c5...4350...c1(Q), 4400.Rxc1 (six down), 4450.Rc6+ bxc6...4700...c1(Q), 4750.Qxc1. (Seven down.)

At this point, for convenience' sake, let's remaneuver things so that the Black king is on h8, the White king on e8, the White queen on e7 and the Black knight is hopping along elsewhere. Now:

4800.b3...5050.b8(Q), 5100...Nxb8, 5149...Nb3 5200.axb3...5450.b8(Q)...5750...a1(Q), 5799...Qa8 5800.Qxa8 (mission accomplished!), 5850.Qh8+ (or Qg8+, again depending on where the Black king is) Kxh8, and finally, at long, long last: 5900.Qg7#

Is there some further trick that enables the move count to increase even further? Can the magic 6000 move barrier be broken? Readers who like puzzles of this sort, or with more time than they know what to do with are encouraged to try.

Linares: Round 3 Recap

"The fact that a player is very short of time is, to my mind, as little to be considered an excuse as, for instance, the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the time he committed the crime." – Alexander Alekhine

Round 3 of Linares was looking like an audition for the Nobel Peace Prize, with two quick draws in the books and the players in the third game preparing to beat their swords into plowshares. But then...time pressure happened.

Let's start with the least interesting game, a Marshall Gambit between Kasimdzhanov and Adams. While the Gambit can lead to wild, complex play, it is just as often used as a drawing weapon (this goes back to Spassky in the 60s - check his 1965 Candidates' Match with Tal and a couple of his games with Fischer in that decade), and that's just what happened in this game, as Black's two bishops, active position and White's frozen queenside equalized the chances.

Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) - Adams,Michael (2741) [C89]
Linares Spain (3), 25.02.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d3 Bd6 13.Re1 Bf5 14.Qf3 Qh4 15.g3 Qh3 16.Bxd5 cxd5 17.Be3 Bxd3 18.Qxd5 Rad8 19.Qf3 Bf5 20.Nd2 Be6 21.Bd4 h6N 22.a3 Bb8 23.Qg2 Qf5 24.f3 Rfe8 25.Ne4 Bd5 26.Re2 Re6 27.Rae1 1/2-1/2

Next, we turn to the shorter but richer draw between Leko and Anand. It's funny that the overtly aggressive Marshall often peters out fairly quickly, while Petroff's Defense, long scorned as a shameless drawing weapon, often leads to very sharp and imbalanced positions.

Leko,Peter (2749) - Anand,Viswanathan (2786) [C42]
Linares Spain (3), 25.02.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Re1 Bg4 9.c3 f5 10.Qb3 0-0 11.Nbd2 Na5 12.Qc2 Bd6 13.Ne5N Bh5 14.b4 Nc6 15.Ndf3 Re8 16.Bb2 Qf6 17.Qb3 Kh8 18.Be2

[18.Qxd5 is a sharp alternative, but Black has resources here, too: 18...Rad8 19.Bxe4 fxe4 20.Qxe4 Bxf3 21.Qxf3 Bxe5 22.dxe5 Qxf3 23.gxf3 Nxe5 24.Kf1 Nxf3 25.Rxe8+ Rxe8 26.Rd1 Nxh2+ 27.Kg2 Ng4 28.Rd7 Rc8 29.c4 Nf6 30.Re7 Ne8 31.b5 Kg8 and although White has enough compensation for the pawn, Black should hold.] 18...Rxe5! A strong exchange sacrifice, after which White has nothing better than to accede to perpetual check. [18...Nxe5 19.dxe5 Bxe5 20.Nxe5 Bxe2 21.Rxe2 Rxe5 (21...Qxe5 22.f3+/-) 22.c4+/-] 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5 [20.Qxd5 Nxf3+ 21.Bxf3 Bxh2+ 22.Kf1 (22.Kh1 Bxf3 23.gxf3 Qh4 24.Rxe4 fxe4 25.Kg2 e3 26.fxe3 Rd8-+; 22.Kxh2 Qh4+ 23.Kg1 Qxf2+ followed by ...Bxf3 forces mate.) 22...Bf7 23.Qd4 Bc4+ 24.Re2 (24.Be2 Qxd4 25.cxd4 Nd2#) 24...Bxe2+ 25.Kxe2 Be5-+; 20.Nd4 Nd3! (20...Ng4 21.g3 f4 might even be better for Black.) 21.Bxd3 Bxh2+ 22.Kxh2 Qh4+ 23.Kg1 Qxf2+=] 20...Bxe5 21.Bxh5

21...Bxh2+ 22.Kxh2 Qh4+ 23.Kg1 Qxf2+ 24.Kh2 1/2-1/2

Finally, Vallejo Pons-Kasparov. Kasparov played a relatively uncommon line best known from the massacre Anand-Karpov (1-0, 36). Vallejo deviated first, got nothing, and was on the slightly less comfortable side of what looked to me a relatively routine draw.

Unfortunately, Vallejo was in time trouble (as always), with about 3 minutes for 14 moves. In such situations, there's always a strong temptation to find clear, simple solutions, and that's what 27.Ra5 seemed to offer: the Bc5 is pinned, the knight can come to a6, Black loses the two bishops - all is well. All very nice and tidy, and 27...Bxf2+ 28.Qxf2 Qxa5 is met by 29.Nxe6, grabbing a pawn and attacking the Rf8, which can't move because of 30.Qxf7+ followed by 31.Qxg7#.

Of course, there was a hole in his analysis, to put it mildly: 29...Bxg2! wins immediately. I have no doubt that if Vallejo had Black after 27.Ra5, he would have found that combination 100 times out of 100, and likewise, had he not been in time trouble, he'd have found it with White 100% of the time too - and the calculation wouldn't have taken him very long, either. In time trouble, bad things are likely to happen, and as Alekhine wrote, time trouble is not an excuse. Avoid it!

Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) - Kasparov,Garry (2804) [D21]
Linares Spain (3), 25.02.2005

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 dxc4 4.e4 b5 5.a4 c6 6.axb5 cxb5 7.b3 Bb7 8.bxc4 Bxe4 9.cxb5 White scores well in this variation, but Kasparov knows best! 9...Nf6 10.Be2 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nc3 Bb7 13.Bf4 [13.Ne5 a6 (13...Nd5 may improve.) 14.Bf3 Nd5 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Rb1 Qb6 17.Be2 axb5 18.Rxb5 Qc7 19.Bf4 Bd6 20.Bd3 Ba6 21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 22.Qh5+ Kg8 23.Rb3 Bxe5 24.Rh3 f6 25.dxe5 Qe7 26.Qh7+ Kf7 27.Rg3 Ke8 28.Rxg7 Qe6 29.exf6 Nc6 30.Ra1 Kd8 31.h4 Bb7 32.Rd1 Ba6 33.Ra1 Bb7 34.Rd1 Ba6 35.Qb1 Rxf6 36.Bg5 1-0, Anand-Karpov, Las Palmas 1996] 13...Bb4 14.Na4 Nbd7 15.Qb3 Nd5 16.Bg5 Be7 17.Bd2 a6 18.b6?! [18.bxa6 Bxa6 19.Bxa6 Rxa6 leads safely to a draw] 18...Bc6= 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nxb6 21.Nxb6 Qxd2 22.Nxa8 Qxe2 23.Nc7 Qxe5 24.Qg3 Qf5 25.Rxa6 [25.Nxa6 is better, preventing the Black bishop from reaching c5 and starting to bring the knight back to civilization.] 25...Be4 [25...Qe4!-/+] 26.Ra7 Bc5

27.Ra5?? Bxf2+ 28.Qxf2 Qxa5 29.Nxe6 Bxg2! [29...Bxg2-+ 30.Qxg2 (30.Kxg2 Qd5+; 30.Nxf8 Bxf1) 30...Qb6+] 0-1

And Now, For Something Completely Different...

In an earlier post, I mentioned, among other things, some of the silly games guests will play with each other. Some players never bother to resign, and that approach to sportsmanship has inspired a wide range of counter-measures, from adding time to the opponent's clock to letting one's own clock run almost all the way down before winning, to offering a draw an instant before giving checkmate. (The idea is to mate them before they succeed in accepting. My countermeasure on those occasions when I'm in the victim role and suspect my opponent is going to do that: hit the draw button when they're down to about half a second - it often works!)

As I mentioned in that previous post, ICC no longer lets guests add time to their opponents' clocks, while the other two options are ones I never found particularly attractive. As I like to play "bullet" chess (roughly, chess at a time control faster than three minutes per side for the whole game, with one minute per side the preferred form) as a way to unwind at the end of the day, I had to find an alternative solution, another way to make a statement in response to the never-resigners.

My solution was to take up 0 1 chess, in which the players begin with 10 seconds and are awarded an extra second after every move. This takes care of the adding-time problem, and I don't have to worry about my own clock running down while extending the entertainment experience. My goal was to keep the game going as long as possible, and after a while, I had it down to a fine art.

Indeed (are you reading this, Dave?), it became a quest. Just how many moves could I make a game last? To see my best - and most likely last - effort turned out (against a cooperative opponent - he had been on the receiving end before and decided to let me have my way from the start), you'll have to take a look at game 30 in my library on the Internet Chess Club. (Once you log in, whether on a registered account or as a guest, type "examine Initiative %30" [without the quotation marks] and start replaying the moves. Quickly.) It's not that I'm trying to be coy by not posting the game; rather, it's that reproducing it here would chase all my other posts into the archives!

I eagerly await reader reactions on this one.

Linares: Round 2 Recap

Today's round was a lot like yesterday's: White won game, two games were drawn - one without any real fight, and two of the games featured late errors costing their perpetrators at least half a point each.

First, the non-game:

Adams,Mi (2741) - Leko,P (2749) [C88]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (2), 24.02.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.a4 b4 9.d3 d6 10.Nbd2 Na5 11.Ba2 Be6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.c3 bxc3 14.bxc3 Rb8 15.Qe2 Nh5 16.g3 Qe8 17.Ba3 Nb3 18.Ra2 Nxd2 1/2-1/2

Second, "game 1" of the match that never was (and probably never will be). Garry Kasparov had White against FIDE knockout champ Rustam Kasimdzhanov, gained a significant advantage in the opening and reached a winning endgame an exchange ahead. However, Kasimdzhanov is a remarkably feisty defender (as he proved repeatedly in the FIDE knockout in Tripoli last summer), and Kasparov failed to bring home the full point.

(12) Kasparov,Garry (2804) - Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) [C42]
Linares Spain (2), 24.02.2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 0-0 10.a3 Nc6 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.Nc3 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Bf5 14.Re1 Bf6 15.Bf4 Na5 16.Bf1

Nothing new so far, but now Kasimdzhanov makes a new move that looks like an error. 16...c5N [16...b6 17.Ne5 Rad8 18.g4 Be4 19.Qe2 Bxe5 20.Bxe5 Nb3 21.Ra2 Bf3 22.Qe3 Na5 23.Rc2 f6 24.Bxc7 Rd7 25.Bg3 Bxg4 26.Bg2 Qb3 27.Rcc1 Qf7 28.d5 Qh5 29.c4 Nb7 30.a4 g5 31.Rc3 Qg6 32.Qd4 Bf5 33.Rce3 Nc5 34.a5 h5 35.axb6 axb6 36.h4 gxh4 37.Bxh4 Rg7 38.Rg3 Qf7 39.d6 Rxg3 40.Bxg3 Qg6 41.Re7 Nd7 42.Kh2 Kh8 43.Bc6 Rf7 44.Qd5 Rg7 45.Qd4 Qg5 46.Rxg7 Kxg7 47.Bd5 Qg4 48.Qe3 Ne5 49.Bxe5 fxe5 50.Qxe5+ Kg6 51.Qe8+ Kg5 52.Qe5 h4 53.Qg7+ Bg6 54.Qe5+ Qf5 55.Qe3+ Kg4 56.Be6 1-0, Anand(2769)-Sokolov(2637), Chess@Iceland-B rapid (4) 2000] 17.Be5! Black's problem is that he can't swap on e5, as it hangs the c-pawn after 17...cxd4 [17...Bxe5 18.Rxe5 Qd7 19.Rxc5 Note that this tactical possibility wouldn't have been available on 16...b6.] 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Nxd4 Now White's simply in great shape: Black's kingside structure is fractured and his active-looking pieces are in fact somewhat vulnerable. 19...Bg6 20.h4 [20.Qa4 Nc6 21.Rad1+/-] 20...Rad8 21.Qa4 Qc5 22.Qb4+/- Rd5 23.g4+-



23...h5 24.Bg2 hxg4 25.Bxd5 Qxd5 26.Qe7 Qd8 27.Qb4 Qd5 28.Qe7 Qd8 29.Qxd8 Rxd8 30.Re7 Rc8 31.Rc1 Kg7 32.Rd1 f5 [32...Rxc3 33.Ne6+ Kh6 (33...Kh7 34.h5+- Bxh5? 35.Rd5) 34.Rd8 Rc1+ 35.Kh2 Kh7 36.h5+-] 33.Ne6+ Kf6 34.Rc7 Rh8



35.Nf4 [35.Nd8 may be better, as White's winning chances may require winning a queenside pawn to get a passer as soon as possible. For example: 35...Rxh4 36.Rd6+ Kg5 (36...Ke5 37.Rd4+- threatens both Rc5+ and Nxb7) 37.Nxb7] 35...Rxh4 36.Kg2 Kg5 37.Nxg6 fxg6



38.Rh1?= [38.Rd5+/- improves. First, it wins a queenside pawn immediately; second, it allows White to retain the ability to create various threats with the active rook pair. White's aim with 38.Rh1 was to eliminate Black's most active piece, but the loss of time allowed Kasimdzhanov to save the game.] 38...Rxh1 39.Kxh1 Kf4 40.Kg2 Ke4 41.Kg3 b5! giving up the pawn, but with the idea of ...Nc4 followed by ...Kd3. 42.Rxa7 Nc4 43.Ra6 [43.a4 bxa4 44.Rxa4 Kd3 45.Ra6 Nd2! (45...Kxc3 46.Rxg6 Nd2 47.Kf4 Ne4 48.Ke3+/- Kc4? 49.Rxg4! fxg4? 50.Kxe4+-) 46.Rxg6 Ne4+ 47.Kg2 Nxc3 draws.] 43...Kd3 44.Kf4 Kxc3 45.Rxg6 Nxa3 46.Kxf5 Nc4 47.Ke4 Nd2+ 48.Ke3 Nc4+ 49.Ke2 b4 50.Rxg4 b3 51.Kd1 Nb2+ 1/2-1/2 Kasparov,G-Kasimdzhanov,R/Linares ESP 2005 [51...Nb2+ 52.Ke2 (52.Kc1 Nd3+ 53.Kb1 Nxf2 is a dead draw, while) 52...Nc4 repeats]

Finally, the world's number two player (Viswanathan Anand) took on the world's number three (Veselin Topalov), and won a seesaw struggle.

(10) Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Topalov,Veselin (2757) [C42]
Linares Spain (2), 24.02.2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.g4 h6 9.Qd2 b4 10.Na4 Nbd7 11.0-0-0 Ne5

Topalov repeats the important novelty he introduced against world champ Vladimir Kramnik in the recently completed Corus tournament in Wijk aan Zee. 12.b3 [The Kramnik-Topalov game concluded with perhaps the shortest slow chess loss of Kramnik's super-GM career: 12.Qxb4 Bd7 13.Nb3?! (13.Nc3 may be better, according to GM Scherbakov in Chess Today.) 13...Rb8 14.Qa3? Nxf3 15.h3 Nxe4 16.Be2 Ne5 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Bd4 Nc6 19.Bc3 d5 20.Nbc5 Qa7 0-1, Kramnik-Topalov, Corus 2005] 12...d5 13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Bxe5 Bxe5 15.Nc6 Qc7 16.Nxe5 Qxe5 17.Qxb4 dxe4 [17...Rb8!?] 18.Nb6 Rb8 19.Kb1 [Anand could have forced perpetual with 19.Qa4+ Ke7 20.Qb4+ Ke8=] 19...Qc7 20.Qa4+ Kf8 21.Nxc8 Rxc8 22.Qc4 Qxc4 [22...Qb8 23.Qd4 exf3 24.Bxa6 e5 25.Qa4= S9] 23.Bxc4 a5 [23...exf3 24.Bxa6 Rb8 25.Rdf1=] 24.Ba6 Rb8



leaves us with a very interesting ending. White might have a slight pull due to the bishop vs. knight advantage, but Black's central and kingside pawn mass is just about enough to equalize. 25.fxe4 h5! 26.gxh5 Nxe4= [26...Rxh5 27.Rd4+/-] 27.Rd4 Nf6 28.Be2 Nxh5 29.Rh4 g6 30.Rg1 Ke7 31.Ra4 Ra8 [31...Ng7 32.Rg2 Ra8 33.Bf3 Ra7= 34.b4 Nf5 35.Be2 (35.Rxa5 Rxa5 36.bxa5 Nh4-/+) 35...Ne3 36.Rf2 Rc8 37.Rxa5 Rxa5 38.bxa5 Nxc2=/+] 32.Bf3 Ra7 33.Rg5 f5 [33...Ng7 34.Rgxa5 Rxa5 35.Rxa5 f5 36.Ra7+ Kf6 37.b4+/-] 34.Rxg6+- White seems to be in control now, but it's still a mess - enough so that just a few imprecise moves sufficed to let Black equalize! 34...Kf7 35.Rg2 Nf6 36.Re2 Rh3 37.Bh1 Ng4 38.Kb2 Kf6 39.Bg2 Rxh2 40.Bf3 Rxe2 41.Bxe2=/+ Ne3 42.c4 e5 43.c5 e4 44.b4



The next two moves are key. Black can either go for a counterattack, as in the note, or can employ the clever switchback idea offered in the next note. Both should suffice to draw, but Topalov, recipient of a gift yesterday, was destined to be the Santa du jour. 44...Rc7 [44...Rd7 45.bxa5 Rd2+ 46.Kb3 Rxe2 47.a6 Nd5 48.a7 Re3+ 49.Kc4 Nc7 50.a8Q Nxa8 51.Rxa8 Re1 and I'm not sure what's going on here, but I think Black is okay: White's c-pawn may be a move ahead in the race, but Black's connected pawns are probably sufficient compensation.] 45.bxa5 Rxc5?? [The switchback with 45...Ra7 looks good for Black - now White's pawns are all pretty miserable and easily blockaded, and Black should draw routinely.] 46.a6+- Nd5 47.a7 Nc7 48.a8Q Nxa8 49.Rxa8 f4 50.Rf8+ Ke5 51.Bg4 f3 52.Rf5+ Kd4 53.Rxc5 Kxc5 54.Kc3 Kb5 55.Kd2 f2 56.Be2+ Kb4 57.Kc2 Ka3 58.Kb1 e3 59.Ka1 White simply pushes the a-pawn up the board, mating the Black king in the corner if it tries to prevent queening from a8. 1-0

Reppert on the Dragon, and You Can't Always Believe What You Read

Fellow blogger Victor Reppert has started a series on his old Dragon, and the first entry is anything to judge by, it will be well worth following. One point of special interest to me doesn't concern Dragon theory, however, but the trustworthiness of theoretical sources. He presents a game in which he followed the advice given him by the Informant, but it turned out to be bad advice, leading to a forced loss. Nice.

Now, to be fair, theory develops, and what really looked safe and sound at one time may turn out otherwise. Chess is to we limited and fallible human beings as good as infinite in its riches, so we have to discover things a bit at a time. Many - hopefully most theoretical errors in books reflect nothing more than the limits of our abilities even after we've tried our best.

But not all, unfortunately. Here's one particularly odious example, from Alexei Shirov's generally magnificent book Fire on Board (note: many of the annotations in the book are based on notes first given in various publications shortly after the games were played). In game 26, Shirov-Kozul, Biel 1991, Black played 15...b5. Shirov gives this move the dubious sign ('?!') and writes this: "Preferable was 15...Bb5 16.Bxb5 Qxb5 17.Kf2 Rxc1 18.Qxc1 Nc6 19.Qb1 Qa6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.e5 Rd8 22.Qe4 Qxa2 23.Qh4 Kf8, as in Shirov-I. Gurevich, World Junior Championship, Santiago 1990)."

However, just a few weeks later in the Lloyds Bank tournament in London, Shirov-Ernst continued with the same first 21 moves as Shirov-Gurevich, but then White sprang 22.a4!, winning five moves later (though Black could have reached an acceptable but inferior position with best play).

Did Shirov just discover this improvement between the time of his published notes to the first game and his playing the second one? Unfortunately not. In Shirov's comments for the book, he admits that the note with his suggested "improvement" on move 15 of game 26 was "just a trick." Professionals are probably all fully aware that this sort of thing takes place, but amateurs, beware!

Linares: Round 1 Recap

The yearly tournament in Linares, Spain (also the home of the late, great Andres Segovia) - the "world championship of tournaments," as Kasparov once put it - is underway. Round 1 is in the books, and while there will be more thorough commentary available on the web soon, here are at least some first comments to tide you over until then.

Round 1:

Kasimdzhanov-Vallejo Pons, 1/2-1/2, 26 moves
Topalov-Adams, 1-0, 41 moves
Leko-Kasparov, 1/2-1/2, 26 moves
Anand - bye

Kasimdzhanov (the current FIDE knockout champion) - Vallejo Pons never got too interesting to start with, and when the players started repeating the position that was excuse enough to call it a day. The moves:

Kasimdzhanov(GM) (2678) - VallejoPons(GM) (2686) [E52]
Linares Linares, Spain, 23.02.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 Bb7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.a3 Bd6 10.b4 Nbd7 11.Qb3 a6 12.a4 Qe7 13.Rb1 Rfd8N 14.b5 Nf8 15.Bb2 Ne6 16.Rbc1 axb5 17.axb5 Ne4 18.Qc2 N6g5 19.Nxg5 Nxg5 20.Rfe1 h5 21.f4 Ne4 22.Nxe4 dxe4 23.Bc4 Ra5 24.Bc3 Ra3 25.Bb2 Ra5 26.Bc3 Ra3 1/2-1/2

Topalov-Adams was a wholly different affair.

Topalov(GM) (2757) - Adams(GM) (2741) [E37]
Linares Linares, Spain, 23.02.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 Ne4 7.Qc2

7...e5 8.e3 [8.dxe5 Nc6 9.Nf3 Bf5=/+] 8...exd4 9.cxd5 Qxd5 10.Nf3 Nd6 11.Nxd4 Bd7 12.f3 Nc6 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.a4 [14.Be2 was seen in an earlier game and looks like a healthier choice in light of the game continuation.] 14...Qh5 15.Be2 Qh4+-/+ 16.g3 Qh3 17.Kf2 0-0-0 [17...0-0 is safer and also good, but White's king will be less vulnerable in this case too.] 18.Ra3 Rhe8

19.Bf1 Qe6 [19...Qh5 is what came to mind while watching this, with good prospects after 20.Bg2 Re6 (or 20...g5 ) ] 20.Be2 g5 Threatening ...g4, puncturing White's light square defenses. 21.Rf1 g4 22.fxg4 Qh6 [22...Qd5 23.Ke1 (23.Rg1 Ne4+-+ 24.Kg2 (24.Kf1 Qd6 with the threat of ...Qf6+ 25.Rg2 Nd2+-+) 24...Ng5+ 25.Kf1 Nh3 26.Qf5+ Qxf5+ 27.gxf5 Re5 is completely winning) 23...Qg2 leaves Black with a big advantage; 22...h5 is also quite strong] 23.Kg1 Qh3 24.Bd3 Black is still better, but White has consolidated quite a bit and covered most of the open lines. 24...Ne4 25.Rf4 Nxg3

Looks impressive, but the bad news is that White doesn't have to take the knight. 26.Rc3! [26.hxg3?? Rxd3 wins 27.Rxd3 (27.Qxd3 Qg2#) 27...Qh1+ 28.Kf2 Qg2+ 29.Ke1 Qxc2] 26...Re6?? [26...Rxd3 was forced 27.Rxd3 Rg8 28.e4 Bxe4 29.Rxg3 Qxg3+ 30.hxg3 Bxc2 31.Rxf7 Bg6 32.Re7 Re8 else White plays Bf4 and is at least equal (32...Kd8 doesn't help, due to 33.Bg5) 33.Rxe8+ Bxe8 34.a5 and White draws.] 27.e4 Suddenly, White is winning! 27...Nh5 28.Bc4 Qh4 29.Bxe6+ fxe6 30.gxh5 Qxh5 31.Rd3 Rg8+ 32.Rg3 Rd8 33.Be3 e5 34.Rf1 h6 35.b4 a6 36.b5 axb5 37.axb5 Bxb5 38.Rg7 c6 39.Qa2 Ba6 40.Qe6+ Kb8 41.Qd6+!

1-0

A tragedy for Adams, but it shows the level of resistance one must expect at the super-GM level.

Finally, we turn to the marquee matchup of the day, Leko-Kasparov:

Leko(GM) (2749) - Kasparov(GM) (2804) [B90]
Linares Linares, Spain, 23.02.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e6 7.Be3 b5 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.g4 Nb6 10.a4 Nc4 11.Bxc4 bxc4 12.a5 Bb7 13.Na4N Rc8 14.Qc3 Nd7 15.0-0-0 Be7 16.h4 Bxh4

17.Ne2 [17.Qb4 Rb8 18.Qxd6 Be7 19.Nc6 (19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Qxe6 Qc7 21.Nb6 Nxb6 22.axb6 Qc6 23.Qe5 Kf7 24.Bd4 Rbg8 25.Qf5+ Ke8 and White certainly has good compensation here.) 19...Bxd6 20.Nxd8 Be7 21.Nxb7 Rxb7 22.Nb6 c3+/=; 17.Nb6 Nxb6 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Qxg7 a) 19.Bxb6 Bg5+-+; b) 19.Rxh4 0-0-+ (but 19...Qxh4 20.Qxg7 keeps things fun.) ; 19...Bf6 20.Qxb7 was a fun idea I was looking at during the game, but Black has one (more than) sufficient resource: 20...Na4 21.Rxd6 Qxd6 22.Qxc8+ Ke7 23.Qb7+ Qd7 24.Qb4+ Kf7-+] 17...Bf6 18.Bd4 [18.Qb4] 18...e5 19.Be3 Be7 20.Kb1 [20.Ng3 g6] 20...Qc7 21.Nb6 Nxb6 22.axb6 Qd7 White's fine here, but his next few moves seem to just waste time and, if anything, leave the queenside more vulnerable. 23.Rh5 f6 24.Ng3 g6 25.Rh2 0-0 26.Rhd2

[26.Rhd2 Qb5 seems to leave White in big trouble! 27.f4 d5 28.Rxd5 Bxd5 29.Rxd5 Bb4 The point. 30.Rxb5 Bxc3 31.Rd5 Be1

seems to be winning for Black - the only question is if White's b-pawn can bother Black enough to create some drawing chances.] 1/2-1/2

Pairings for round 2:

Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov
Adams-Leko
Anand-Topalov
Vallejo Pons - bye

Chess and Music

In the last few days, I've come across a couple of sites featuring music dedicated to chess, (accessible here and here). But when it comes to sheer cornball fun, follow this link and take a listen. If you can make it through the song without cracking up, you should first seek immediate medical attention and then consider a career as a poker player or a secret service agent.

My Favorite Strategy!?

Sometimes non- and casual chess players will ask me: "What's your favorite strategy?" I've always heard this question as something like asking a philosopher to name her favorite law of logic; a question that makes sense to those whose exposure to the game is mostly limited to the Scholar's Mate but not to the SERIOUS [here one pulls his lapels] chess player. The problem is that only very cooperative opponents will allow "strategies" like the four-move checkmate to work, so we quickly learn to adapt - a process that will lead to our mastering hundreds, even thousands of mini-strategies, each applying to some positions but not to others.

But upon reflecting on a game I won a few days ago, one of countless blitz and bullet games won using essentially the same, cookbook-like approach, I've come to reconsider.

Here's the game, played with 1 minute per side:

NN-Monokroussos

1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4



Be7 5. f4 exf4 6. Bxf4 a6 7. Nf3



Bg4 8. a4 Bxf3 9. Qxf3



Bg5 10. Be2 Bxf4 11. Qxf4 Qf6 12. O-O Qxf4 13. Rxf4 Nd7 14.Raf1 Ne5



15. Bd3 Ne7 16. Ne2 N7g6 17. Rf5 O-O 18. Nf4 Nxf4 19. R5xf4 f6 20.g4 c4 21. Be2 b5 22. axb5 axb5 23. b3 cxb3 24. cxb3 b4 25. Bd1 Ra2 26. g5 Rd2 27. gxf6 Rxf6 28. Rxf6 gxf6 29. h4 Kg7 30. h5 h6 31. Bf3 Rd3 32. Bd1 Re3 33. Rf4 Re1+ 34. Rf1 Rxf1+ 35. Kxf1 f5 36. exf5 Kf6



37. Bc2 Ng4 38. Ke2 Ke5 39. Kd3 Kxd5 40. Bb1 Nf6 41. Bc2 Nxh5 42. Bd1 Nf6 {White forfeits on time} 0-1

Black's plan was very simple and can be delineated in four steps:

1. Create the locked pawn formation which renders Black's dark-squared and White's light-squared bishops bad. (See the position after White's 5th move.)

2. Trade off the dark-squared bishops. (Thus Black's 9th move.)

3. Trade off the light-squared bishop for a knight. (Sometimes 3 must be done before 2, as in the game - see Black's 7th move.)

4. Maximize the good knight vs. bad bishop advantage, fixing the opponent's pawns on light squares. (This occurs, roughly, from moves 14-36 of the above game.)

With steps 1-4 complete, all that's left is to devour all the light-squared goodies - bon appetit!


Of course, White can stop this plan from succeeding, though its relative sophistication makes it (much) more likely to be effective even against reasonably strong opponents. But okay, really: is my "4-step win" different in kind from the 4-move checkmate?

Maybe I have an answer for the casual chess player!

Here and There

(1) We've certainly spent quite a bit of time and space looking at IM Andrew Martin's earlier contributions to TWIC Theory; this week, I'll merely note the presence of his third installment, which offers an unusual Black response to the Trompowsky.

(2) I've always loved studies, and like all my readers (I hope!) I have a sense of humor, too. So what could be better than a tournament combining the two? I'm not sure if all the entries to the Humor Study Composing Tournament are or are going to be available to the general public, but the amazing second prize-winning entry can be found and replayed in Tim Krabbé's outstanding Open Chess Diary (see entry 276).

(3) Finally, the Linares super-tournament is about to start (see here for TWIC's news item and here for the tournament website [in Spanish]). There will be several good places to see it live (ChessBase's playchess.com server, for example, which will almost surely have plenty of informal GM and computer commentary), but where do we go to see high-quality analysis after the fact? If you can read Russian, you're in luck: the Chess pro website has lots of great material.

If you're like me and can't, however, you (and I) may still be in luck: Jim Marfia has opened a site with his own translations of some of the best recent material from the Chess pro site, and I'm hoping he'll have the time, inclination and permission to continue doing so with their coverage of Linares. I know I'll be checking, and if you do too, please send him a thank-you note - Marfia's many translations over the years have contributed greatly to English-speakers' chess literature.

Chess Isn't a Sport, Revisited

The ever-active Boylston Chess Club blog has taken on Howard Goldowsky as a guest blogger. Welcome aboard!

Mr. Goldowsky's opening post challenges my earlier argument that chess is not a sport, based, appropriately enough, on his rejection of my definition of sport. On my view, it's a necessary condition of some activity's being a sport that it has an irreducibly physical component, while Goldowsky thinks it's a sufficient condition that its practitioner relies on timing and pattern recognition.

It's clear that the pattern recognition condition fits chess, but it seems to fit universally acceptted sports as well: in football offensive players need to recognize defensive alignments and defensive players various offensive schemes; in basketball, there's the pick-and-roll and the zone defense; in baseball, the batter looks for characteristic arm movements, leg kick and ball rotation patterns from the pitcher, and so on. And certainly timing is important in those sports as well, as the reader can readily confirm for him or herself.

[A brief aside: the meaning of "timing" is pretty clear when it comes to sports, but it may be equivocal when applied to chess. There isn't some physical movement requiring excellence in timing; rather, timing in chess has to do, broadly, with the way in which one attempts to execute some idea - with the order of moves. Thus it's a conceptual sense of timing rather than a physical sense, and one might think that it's the latter sense of timing rather than the former that's appropriate to an activity's being a sport. I'm congenial to this objection, but will let it pass for the remainder of this post.]

That's a bit of the positive case, but now let's turn to critique. Goldowsky says that timing and pattern recognition are sufficient - presumably he means jointly sufficient - for some activity's being a sport, which means that any activity requiring those two conditions will automatically be a sport.

So here's a very partial list of new sports:

(1) Driving. Of course auto racing is a sport, but Goldowsky's definition makes all ordinary driving a sport as well. Clearly there's pattern recognition involved - one learns how to negotiate the roadways without getting into accidents, and preferably without getting into situations in which accidents are reasonably likely to occur. And certainly driving involves timing, too; ergo, driving is a sport.

(2) Poetry. Language use involves tons of pattern recognition - indeed, words are patterns of a certain sort - and timing (including but not limited to meter) is involved too. So, poetry is a sport.

(3) Making music. Recognizing key structures, chord progressions and so on are all clear cases of pattern recognition, and the role of timing in music is obvious. Music is a sport!

Without elaborating the details, we can also include (4) walking, (5) cooking and (6) brushing one's teeth as sports, too. But clearly, I think, a definition of sport that includes (1)-(6) as instances is an overly liberal definition.

Perhaps Goldowsky's definition can be improved by adding some further conditions - a competition condition, for example. That would plausibly render (1), (4) and even (6) as sports, though even then I remain skeptical about (2), (3) and (5).

Even if this is waived for the sake of argument, I think there is another problem. Even if we suppose that it's sufficient for something's being a sport that it involve pattern recognition and timing, that won't show that chess is a sport. The reason is that it's possible for someone or some thing to play chess without recognizing any pattern at all; say, by using a purely brute force approach. God, for example, or some sort of idealized computer [assuming, as I don't, that a computer plays chess at all] is the sort of being who could figure chess out from move 1 through the end without recognizing any patterns at all (beyond those required to involve and interpret the rules of the game).

It might be objected that even if God or some super-powerful intellect could play without relying on pattern recognition, we humans can't. True enough, but I claimed that chess isn't a sport, because the game doesn't necessarily have the conditions required of a sport. Likewise, even if chess sometimes fits Goldowsky's definition, it doesn't always - doesn't necessarily.

In sum, Goldowsky's definition of a sport is too liberal, letting in many activities that clearly are not sports . The definition also fails to include chess per se. So I conclude that while chess has many characteristics of a sport - it's sports-like - it is nevertheless not a sport, strictly speaking.

Follow-up (2) on TWIC Theory II: Return of the Dragon

In my previous post I addressed some background issues concerning Martin's latest contribution to TWIC Theory; in this post I will briefly address some of Victor Reppert's suggestions to rehabilitate Black's fortunes against Martin's (and Rogozenko's) critiques.

We start with the position after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.O-O-O Qa5 11.Bb3 Rfc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.Bg5 Rc5 14.h4 Re8 15.h5 Nxh5 16.Bh6.



Martin is following the game Movsesian (2624)-Bergez (2370), Cappelle op 2002 which concluded rather brutally for Black after 16...Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Rxc3 18.bxc3



18...Rc8 19.g4 Nf6 20.g5 Nh5 21.Rxh5 gxh5 22.Nf5 Bxf5 23.exf5 (threatening 24.f6) Kh8 24.Rh1 Qd8 25.g6 Nxg6 26.Qxh5 Qg8 27.fxg6 fxg6 28.Qh3 1-0

Dragon fan and fellow blogger Victor Reppert offers two improvements, one for each diagram above.

(I) 16...Bh8 instead of 16...Bxh6.
(II) 18...Nf6 instead of 18...Rc8, with the key point that 19.g4 Bxg4! gives Black good compensation.

I offer the following not as anything remotely resembling the final truth of the matter, but as a start for future analysis:

(I) 16...Bh8 17.g4 Nf6 18.Qh2 and now three lines:

(IA) 18...Bxg4? 19.fxg4 Nexg4 (19...Rxc3 20.Bd2+-) 20.Qg2 Nxh6 21.Rxh6+-
(IB) 18...Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4 20.Nd5 and Black is in trouble, e.g. 20...e6 (20...Nxd5 21.Bd2+-) 21.Nxf6+ Bxf6 22.Bf4 h5 23.Nb3+-
(IC) 18...Bc6 looks reasonable, not rushing to commit and helping shore up the d5 square. White has lots of possibilities here; I'll just present one: 19.Qh3 (with the idea of 20.Bg5; 19.Bg5? failed due to 20...Nexg4-+) e6 20.Qh4+=, or 20.Bg5 Nexg4 21.Bh4 Ne3 22.Nxc6 bxc6 23.Bxf6 Rh5 24.Qxh5 gxh5 25.Rdg1+ Ng4 26.Bxh8 Kxh8 27.fxg4 hxg4 28.Rxg4 Rg8+=.

(II) 18...Nf6 19.Ne2 and now two ideas come to mind, both with the idea of advancing Black's queenside counterplay with ...Nc4:

(IIA) 19...Bb5 20.Nf4 (threatening 21.Nd5) and now

(IIA1) 20...Nc4 21.Nd5 Qa3 22.Nxf6+ exf6 23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Qh6+ Ke7 25.Qc1 and Black's compensation seems inadequate.
(IIA2) 20...e6 21.Qg5 (preventing ...Nc4 because of the horizontal pin - 21...Nc4?? 22.Bxc4 Bxc4?? 23.Qxa5) Qd8 (21...Nfd7 22.Rxh7! Kxh7 23.Rh1+ Kg7 24.Nh5+ Kf8 25.Nf6+-) 22.Rd4 +-

(IIB) 19...b5 20.Nf4 (the prophylactic 20.Ka1 might be best, preparing Rb1 in case of emergency) Bc6 and now there are lots of possibilities, like 21.Nd3, 21.Rh3 and 21.Rd4, and just for fun, 21.Rd5!? Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Ned7 (22...Nc4!?) 23.f4 e6 24.Nxf6+ Nxf6 25.e5 Ne4 26.Qxh7+ Kf8 27.exd6 Nxd6 28.Qh6+ Ke7 29.Qg5+ Kd7 30.Rd1 Rd8 31.Qe5 Qb6 32.g4 with some initiative.

I'm sure much more can be said about this, but Reppert is right that Black can at the very least put up much more of a fight. Perhaps St. George hasn't slain the 10...Qa5 Dragon just yet!

Follow-up (1) on TWIC Theory II: Return of the Dragon

This week's TWIC Theory features Andrew Martin taking on 10...Qa5 in the Sicilian Dragon, focusing on 11.O-O-O Rfc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.Bg5 as more or less refuting the variation.



[Position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Qa5 11.O-O-O Rfc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 13.Bg5]

My initial impression as a non-Dragon player was that Martin was offering something new or at least little-known (which he often does in his theoretical articles), but it turns out that he's reporting what looks like the consensus: in PowerBook 2004, White's score after 13.Bg5 (sometimes called the "Moles Variation") is a garish (from Black's perspective) 73%, Golubev praises the move and gives line after line leading to a clear White advantage, and Rogozenko's ChessBase work on the Dragon praises 13.Bg5 as well as "a very attractive line for White, which offers multiple possibilities both in the middlegame and the endgame." Thus while I don't have Ward's latest Dragon book or the new Gambit volume, there seems to be widespread agreement in both theory and practice as to the virtues of the Moles Variation.

As 12.h4 is viewed as the main line, however, Martin is performing a useful service for the White player by letting him or her avoid much potentially superfluous theory, so even if he's simply repeating what others have already written, publicizing that information has value.

Unfortunately, Martin's repetition of others' work is taken to an extreme. Compare the following:

On move 15 of the game Arizmendi-Etchegaray, White played 15.Nb3. Martin offers this note:

"15.Bxf6 brings nothing, here is a recent example: Bxf6 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+ Kg7! 18.Nh5+ Kh6! A well-known motif - Black isn't forced to break the pawn structure. 19.Rxd2 Kxh5 20.Ne2 1/2-1/2, Lobron, E-Cebalo M/Wijk aan Zee 2003"

Rogozenko annotated this same Arizmendi-Etchegaray game for ChessBase long before Martin's TWIC Theory column came out; here's what he had to say about this variation:

"15.Bxf6 brings nothing, here is a recent example: Bxf6 16.Nd5 Qxd2 17.Nxf6+ Kg7! 18.Nh5+ Kh6! A well-known motif - Black isn't forced to break the pawn structure. 19.Rxd2 Kxh5 20.Ne2 1/2-1/2, Lobron, E-Cebalo M/Wijk aan Zee 2003"

Hmm, I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Continuing along, after 15.Nb3 Black plays 15...Qd8. Here's Martin:

"After 15...Qd8? we will see Black fall victim to one of the typical traps in this line where he gets wiped out in the center."

Now Rogozenko:

"There are so many opening traps in the modern theory of chess openings, that it is hardly possible even for a GM to remember all of them. However, if one plays [the] Dragon, one should know certain typical dangers."

Not so bad; but what do they have to say Black should have done?

Martin: "15...Qe5 is practically the only move, although I am not sure that the resulting positions are satisfactory for Black at all: [line follows]"

Rogozenko writes this: "15...Qe5 is correct [Note: the word "correct" appears in his first set of notes for ChessBase - presumably for some issue of ChessBase Magazine, but drops out in his notes to the game on his Dragon CD] and practically the only move, although I am not sure that the resulting positions are completely satisfactory for Black."

Then, after 15...Qd8? 16.e5!, Martin writes: "Of course. The idea is as old as Dragon itself [sic]. This was the initial main idea behind the move Be3-g5 (although in different variations)." This passage can be found verbatim in Rogozenko's analysis.

Martin's second game (Hernandez-Amura) isn't annotated in any of my sources, so I can't do any comparing with that one. Still, it is clear that Martin repeatedly lifted Rogozenko's notes without quotation or attribution, though unless one is aware of a pattern in his work, the charitable interpretation is that he imported Rogozenko's annotations for the sake of his research (something I do when preparing my weekly audio lectures for ChessBase) but neglected to make a note in the game file as to whose notes were whose (something I'm careful to do, for precisely this reason).

All that is by way of background discussion; next I'll turn to a brief discussion of some Victor Reppert's suggestions.

More on the Anti-French Line - and a New Question

Two very interesting comments have come in on the Anti-French Line starting 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3, and its skeletons are starting to come out of the closet.

Rick Kennedy's comment addresses some of the divergences between the work I've independently done (some of which I've presented here) and that of the gambit's originator, Stefan Bücker. For instance, after 4...Nf6, I considered and played 5.e5 for a while before moving on to 5.Nc3, but Bücker (at least in 1983) was advocating 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3. Second, in the gambit accepted with 4...dxe4 5.Bc4 Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.d3 exd3+, Bücker prefers 8.Be3 to the 8.Kf1 advocated in my initial Anti-French post.

Bucker is right on both counts, although I'm ambivalent about the first case, as the positions after 4...Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3 are rather flat and allow Black several ways to keep the balance. (For problems with 5.Nc3, see Dragon's comment here. My view is that unless Black is a strong player who has worked things out in advance with the computer, White has nothing to fear, but the chess truth is in Black's favor there, as far as I can tell.)

The second case is more interesting and entertaining. Dragon's line, which I also discovered some time ago as well (as did Bücker, I'm sure), refutes 8.Kf1, but 8.Be3 is more robust. Ironically, when I was figuring out the line for myself, years ago, 8.Be3 was the first move I came up with, but since 8...d2+ in reply can force the king to move anyway and I'd rather have the bishop on g5, I moved on to 8.Kf1.

It turns out that 8...d2+ isn't such a big deal, but Black can get an edge if he threads the needle very carefully: 9.Kxd2 Nc6! 10.Re1 Ne5! 11.Bf1 (not the most forceful move, obviously, but allowing 12...Nxc4+ 13.Qxc4 Be6 gives Black an easier life) Qd6!

(11...c6 is less clear: 12.Bd4 Nfg4 (12...Be6 13.Rxe5 Bxb3 14.Rxe7+ Bxe7 15.Bxf6 Rd8+ 16.Kc1 Bxf6 17.axb3 is similar) 13.Bxe5 Nxe5 14.f4 Be6 15.Rxe5 O-O-O+ 16.Kb1 Bxb3 17.Rxe7+ Bxe7 18.axb3 results in an imbalanced ending which is probably slightly in Black's favor, but it's not unusual to find the two minors coming into their own against the rook.)

12.Kc1 Be7 13.Nb5 Qc6+ 14.Qc3 Qxc3+ 15.bxc3 and now Nd5 gives Black some pull, though I believe White can hold.

In sum, the improvements are there for Black, but finding them OTB is an arduous task, and in most cases White's disadvantage is at worst a slight one.

Here's a new question (discuss amongst yourselves...I'll give you a topic): is it somehow improper to play such variations; that is, to play a line one knows to be unsound? Reasons one might think so include disrespecting the game, disrespecting one's opponent, placing competitive ends over the sorts of noble motives like self-improvement and creating beauty one might think necessary to ethically justify playing chess, etc.

A Game and a Puzzle, Revisited

Just over two weeks ago, I presented an attractive little game by the late 19th/early 20th century British great Joseph Henry Blackburne, expressing not just my appreciation for the game but my perplexity that the move 10.Qd8! (instead of 10.c3? as in the game) leaves Black needing to scrap a bit just to save a draw.



(Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.Qd8)

Rick Kennedy has offered a very useful comment, helpfully providing notes from several other sources. In reply, I'd first like to express my gratitude to Mr. Kennedy for taking the time to write, and I look forward to investigating the links he has included.

As for the analysis, most of it repeats what I presented, but three lines are worth mentioning.

(1) 7...Qe7! I hadn't explicitly said it, but I certainly implied that Blackburne's 6...g6 was objectively a mistake, played for the sake of "coffeehousing" his opponent when the simple 6...Kf8 7.Qxe5 d6 leaves White without any real compensation for the material. I still think 6...Kf8 is a good move, but I didn't even consider 7...Qe7 (after 6...g6 7.Qxe5). If White doesn't take the rook, then the situation is essentially the same as it is after 6...Kf8, while if White does take the rook, it's pretty easy to prove that Black wins.

(2) In my main line, Kennedy, citing analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov, varies from my 12.Qxb7 with 12.gxh3, showing that it likewise draws after 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ 14.Kh1 Qf3+ etc. or 13...Ng4 14.Qxa8+ etc. (Note that Black can't escape the checks with 14...Ke7 15.Qb7+! Kf6?? [15...Kd8/e8/f8=] because of 16.e5+ followed by 17.Qg2.)

(3) Chandler & Dimitrov also mention 12.Qxb7 and suggest it loses, but the culprit is not 12.Qxb7 but their 14.e5?, after which Black has a forced mate.

Very interesting and I'm grateful to Kennedy for his comment...but my dream remains unfulfilled - can't Black win after 10.Qd8, somehow?

The Ongoing Tragedy of New York Chess

New York City is the richest city in the world. It's also, I think, the strongest single chess city in the world, too - home to grandmasters and international masters from all over the world. Paul Morphy made his shining debut there in 1857. Steinitz, Lasker and Capablanca all lived in New York for part of their lives. It was home to Frank Marshall, Sammy Reshevsky and of course, Bobby Fischer.

Further, New York chess wasn't just about the people; it was about the institutions as well. There's the Marshall Chess Club, the Manhattan Chess Club, the New York Open, the New York Masters, and the list goes on and on.

Yet while money and talent remain in abundance in the Big Apple, the institutions have not. Jose Cuchi's great series of New York Open tournaments ceased in the late 90s, the venerable Manhattan Chess Club closed its doors in 2002, and now the New York Masters is gone, too.

The New York Masters was a weekly rapid event open to players with ratings of 2200 and above (with some minor allowances for juniors), and from its onset in 2002 until its cessation a couple of weeks ago, it was an important part of the American chess calendar. Titled players from Central America, Africa, Europe and Asia all participated in this event, to say nothing of players from around the U.S. and of course New York. It offered GMs a chance to get in some practice between larger events and make some money, and it offered the rest of us a chance to play the GMs.

The event had plenty of sponsors, was generally pretty well-attended both at the top end (there were usually about 4 GMs each week) and, most encouragingly, at the lower end by hungry young players making their brisk climb up the ladder. It had a well-established site (the Marshall Chess Club every Tuesday evening), a web presence (not just its own web site but very well-attended live broadcasts on the Internet Chess Club), and was such a good idea that it has since found imitators in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

So what happened? Why did it stop? As far as I can tell, there were no scandals, no problems with sponsors or the Marshall club - nothing unseemly or otherwise untoward. Rather, the two individuals (John Fernandez and IM Greg Shahade) who both originated the event and kept it alive every week decided to move on to other projects.

I certainly can't blame them. American chess in general and especially the New York chess community owes them both a real debt of gratitude. Both John and Greg spent a great deal of their time every week making it happen, and without collecting a cent in return, as far as I'm aware.

Let's do better than owe a debt of gratitude, however. I spoke to John for a few minutes earlier tonight, and as far as he knows, the sponsors would still be on board if the series was somehow to continue, and I'm sure chess players and internet spectators would gladly resume their Tuesday night participation as well. What's needed is for someone in New York to step up to the plate and make it happen.

If you live in that area, can afford to give a few hours of your time each week in support of a great chess tradition - one which has helped foster the development of some very talented American juniors over the past three years - then I hope you'll consider doing your part to get the New York Masters back up and running. (Those who are interested can leave comments here and/or utilize the contact information on the New York Masters web site.) And more generally, the moral for all of us is to support our local chess clubs!

This Monday's ChessBase Show

Most of the time, my show presents old games, in part because chess players coming of age in this internet, primarily post-book generation are far less likely to be aware of these masterpieces. Why then am I presenting a game from the ongoing 18th World Correspondence Championship?

The answer is twofold: first, while my focus is on older games, my eyes are open to rich, beautiful games, no matter when they were played. But second, and in keeping with the motivation stated above, correspondence chess is badly neglected by over-the-board (OTB) players, so I'm motivated to help bring some of its jewels to the attention of the broader chess world.

And this week's game is indeed a jewel, a heavyweight battle between the newly crowned 18th World Correspondence Champion Joop van Oosterom and Manfred Nimtz. The game as a whole is really impressive, and starts off with a bang, featuring one of the hottest lines in contemporary chess, the English Attack in the Sicilian Najdorf. After

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.g4 h6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.O-O-O Bb7 11.h4 b4 12.Na4 Qa5 13.b3 Rc8 14.Rg1 Nc5 15.g5, the following ultra-sharp position arises:



Previous games saw 15...Nxa4 and Nimtz tried 15...hxg5, but what's really going on? I'm not completely sure myself, but I'll do my best to provide as much clarity as I can. And even if we can't figure everything out (who can?), we'll still have seen a beautiful game and come to know more about the Najdorf - a must for most serious tourament players.

I hope to see you Monday night (click here for information about viewing the show)!

Junk Openings and "My" Anti-French Line

In two posts so far (here and here - and more to come), I have presented an objectively dubious but practically dangerous line against the French (1.e4 e6 2.c4!? d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3?!), and Rick Kennedy and DG each have an important question.

Kennedy asks if I learned of this line through the work of eccentric openings theorist Stefan Bücker. (I add that that "eccentric" modifies "openings," though his ideas are so unusual one might start to wonder!) The answer is yes: I read an article about him in an issue of New In Chess back in the mid-to-late 1980s. The majority of the article's chess content, as I recall, presented the alleged virtues of his most famous invention, the Vulture (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 Ne4?!), while only mentioning the four moves in the first paragraph's parentheses, without comment.

It seemed interesting, and there wasn't any theory on it in the traditional sources (and no databases to look up Bücker's games or anyone else's in the variation), so I worked out what I could and started to play it from time to time. I would be interested to know what conclusions he's drawn about the line, but at this point, what I'm writing about this variation is solely the product of my games and analysis.

DG's query is of a very different sort - he wants to know if I'm going to tell the beleagured French player how to defend! My first inclination was to encourage him to work out a good response for himself, and that was my second inclination, too. But here are four thoughts to help him (and others in his shoes) as they do.

First, think about it this way: if this line isn't mentioned in the usual sources (even the recent third edition of John Watson's excellent Play the French doesn't mention it) and there aren't any real players trotting it out, then it must be pretty bad! So if I were in your shoes, I'd cultivate an attitude of offense: I'm going to find a way to destroy this garbage.

Second, you might want to re-read my early post on responding to junk openings. White's goal is to sac a pawn or two in return for a raging initiative, so one counter-approach is to look for a way to turn the tables - especially considering that White hasn't done much to develop by move four.

Third, help will come in due course. I will eventually address some of the problems with the variation, but having spent so much time on it over the years I'm not in a hurry to send it to the grave. And I'd like other players to enjoy it for a while too!

Finally, let me reassure you that the French is safe. In fact, I'm willing to make an informal bet with my readers that there are at least a dozen ways, starting from move 2, that Black can achieve rough equality or better. (I haven't counted anything up - it's just my strong suspicion.) That's yet to come, however; for now, I'll continue to present White's trumps and leave French players with the opportunity to develop their own contributions to the theory of this variation.

Dragon Resources

For those who are interested in keeping up with the latest and greatest in Sicilian Dragon theory, you might want to check out ChessPublishing.com's opening-specific bulletin board. To receive the GM's analysis requires paying, but the bulletin board is free to browse (and perhaps to post, too). (Hat tip to Victor Reppert for the BB's URL.)

Another suggestion: TWIC has an item about a "Rest of the World" match, with the ongoing, featured game a typically wild Yugoslav Dragon. Interested readers can try to track everything down - I suspect there will be a place where all the team discussions on the opening-to-date have been logged, but I don't know that for certain.

I hope these references are of use to the Dragon fans out there, but I'd like to remind all members of that often very loyal tribe of devotees that there are other openings worthy of your efforts and attention as well!

King and Pawn Endings, Part Six

A few days ago, I offered this amazing position as a challenge to the readers:



Laveryd-Wikstrom, Umea 1997. Black to move; what should the result be?

On the queenside, the two kings are in a mutual zugzwang, so it would certainly appear to come down to tempo play on the kingside. If it were just a matter of the g- and h-pawns, White would simply copy Black's play, Black would run out of moves, and that would apparently be that. However, the f- and especially the mutual doubled e-pawns make things far more complicated and interesting, as we will see.

Line 1: 1...f6/1...f5

If 1...f5 (1...f6 is the same, obviously) 2.exf6 gxf6 3.g4, Black's king will run out of moves: 3...h6 4.h4 e5 (4...f5 5.g5) 5.h5 and Black loses.

Line 2: 1...g6

This move allows White to use the copycat strategy to run Black out of moves: 1...g6 2.g3 h6 3.h3 h5 (3...g5 4.g4) 4.h4 and again, Black is in a losing zugzwang.

Line 3: 1...g5

This works the same way: White copies and wins.

1...g5 2.g4 h6 3.h3 and it's over.

Line 4: The tricky 1...h6

Now things get interesting. It would seem that there isn't any difference at all between pushing the g-pawn and pushing the h-pawn: copycatting should lead to the same problem. Let's see:

1...h6 and now

(A) 2.h3 h5 3.h4 (all other moves lose, as White will rapidly fall into a fatal zugzwang, as the reader can confirm for him or herself) g5!!



Now White has three options, but amazingly, all three lose:

(A1) 4.g3 g4 and White is in a losing zugzwang position. (This was the continuation in the game, and White resigned here.)
(A2) 4.f3/4 exf3 4.gxf3 gxh4 and Black queens.
(A3) 4.hxg5 h4 and White is in a fatal zugzwang: pushing any kingside pawn leads to Black queening (5.g3 h3; 5.f3/4 exf3 6.gxf3 h3 etc.) while retreating the king loses the c-pawn and gives Black an easy win.

So 2.h3 loses!

(B) 2.g4! wins, however: if 2...g5 3.h3 is zugzwang; 2...f5/6 3.exf6 gxf6 4.h4 wins (transposing to line 1, above); finally, 2...g6 3.h4 and 3...h5 4.g5 or 3...g5 4.h5 lead to the winning zugzwang again.

By process of elimination, it's time to look at our last pawn move:

Line 5: The correct 1...h5!

Again, let's begin with a look at the copycat strategy:

(A) 2.h4? g5! and Black wins - we have transposed to the position after 3...g5 in line 4A.
(B) 2.f3/4? exf3 3.gxf3 h4! and White runs out of pawn moves first: 4.h3 f6 (or 4...f5) 5.exf6 gxf6 6.e4 (or 6.f4 f5) e5: zugzwang.
(C) 2.h3! Incredibly, only this move keeps White alive, but now things are tricky for Black again!



(C1) 2...h4 might seem best, grabbing space, but after 3.g3 Black is lost: 3...g5 4.g4, or 3...hxg3 4.fxg3 g6 (other pawn moves ensure that White gets a passed h-pawn) 5.h4 and wins.
(C2) 2...g5 3.g3 and White wins (3...g4 4.h4; 3...h4 4.g4).
(C3) 2...f5 3.h4 g6 4.g3 and once again, Black is in zugzwang and loses. This just leaves us with
(C4) 2...f6!

Now, once again, White has to be careful - all moves but one lose!

(C4a) 3.exf6 gxf6 4.f3/4 (4.h4 f5 5.g3 e5 and White is in zugzwang) exf3 5.gxf3 h4-+ and by now I'm sure the reader can fill out the details.
(C4b) 3.g3 fxe5 4.h4 g6-+
(C4c) 3.f3/4 exf3 4.gxf3 h4-+ (5.exf6 gxf6 - see C4a; 5.f4 f5; 5.e4 fxe5)
(C4d) 3.h4!

Now Black has two choices: push or capture.

(C4di) 3...f5 4.f4! (forced) exf3 (4...g6 5.g3+-) 5.gxf3 and all three pawn moves lose (as do king moves), two of them interestingly:

(C4di.1) 5...g6 6.f4 is easy.
(C4di.2) 5...g5 6.hxg5 h4 7.g6 h3 8.g7 h2 9.g8Q h1Q 10.Qc8+ Kb6 11.Qxe6+ and White wins this ending routinely.
(C4di.3) 5...f4 6.exf4 g6 looks like it puts White in zugzwang, but by sacrificing the pawn back White wins: 7.f5 gxf5 8.f4 and wins.

So, again by a process of elimination, we have the best move:

(C4dii) 3...fxe5!

Now both 4.g3 g6 and 4.f3/4 exf3 5.gxf3 e4! 6.f4 g6 win for Black, so White must try

4.g4!, when both 4...hxg4 5.h5 and 4...g6! 5.g5 look like the end of the line. It's true in both cases that Black must give up the b-pawn, but in the second variation Black has a wonderful resource:



Here Black must choose correctly, and just as in the Durham-Monokroussos ending, sometimes grabbing the opposition isn't the best way to proceed. Black's best is not 5...Kc6 when 6.Kb4 Kb6 7.c5+ Kc6 8.Kc4 Kc7 9.Kb5 Kb7 10.c6+ Kc8! 11.Kb4! Kb8 12.Kc4! Kc8 13.Kb5! (triangulation - again as in the Durham-Monokroussos ending) Kc7 14.Kc5 and White's king will have breakfast, lunch and dinner on the e-file, with two scoops for dessert if he so chooses.

The right defense is 5...Kb6! (or 5...Kd6!), when after 6.Kxb4 Kc6 White has nothing better than 7.c5. Black has one move left to find, as we've already seen that retreating will lose to triangulation, the best and only move is 7...Kd5!, when White either loses the pawn or stalemates the Black king after 8.Kxb5 - incredible!



A word on sources. First of all, it was shown to me by the famous trainer Mark Dvoretsky in a chess camp in New York in July or August of 2001, and I've since seen it published in Jacob Aagaard's Excelling in Chess Calculation - two authors whose works I can recommend for the serious chess student (for the very serious in Dvoretsky's case, and then only if you're over 2000 or incredibly dedicated). This was a very difficult ending, but Dvoretsky showed it to us (the group had an average rating of 2350-2400 or so) as a little joke, a small warm-up to the real work! But don't worry if you didn't get it; after all, the first two half-moves by the players themselves were blunders. Live and learn, and enjoy the beauty as you go along - it may not be a fully adequate motto for life, but it's not a bad attitude to carry towards the game of chess.

Ayn Rand and Chess in the USSR

Via the Maverick Philosopher's blog, I came across this open letter from self-proclaimed novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand to Boris Spassky dated just after the latter's loss of the world championship title to Bobby Fischer. I don't agree with everything she says there (to say nothing of her larger worldview), but it is an interesting read.

TWIC Theory, Week 2: The Dragon with ...Qa5

TWIC Theory is at it again (go here to access both this week's and last week's installments in either .pdf, .pgn or ChessBase format). Last week's issue looked at an unusual line of the Center Counter (click here for my review); this week, Andrew Martin turns his attention to a line of the same Accelerated Dragon/Dragon hybrid I discussed a few days ago:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.O-O-O and now instead of the move I discussed, 10...Nxd4, Martin turns his critical eye to 10...Qa5 - and finds it wanting.



I will examine his analysis in the next few days and report on my findings. Meanwhile, if any of my readers (Victor?) have any thoughts on this line and Martin's analysis, your comments are especially welcome.

World Championship News?

The last few days have seen some interesting but surprising developments on the world chess championship front. Since 1993, when then-champion Garry Kasparov and challenger Nigel Short bolted from FIDE and arranged their match under different auspices, the title has been divided. Reunification has been a goal for years, one seemingly within reach due to the 2002 Prague Agreement.

Of late, however, things have been falling apart. It was hoped that Kasparov would play Rustam Kasimdzhanov for the FIDE title, with the winner playing Vladimir Kramnik for the unified championship crown. Financial problems have plagued the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match, and Kasparov seems to have dropped out of the reunification process.

Now, if reunification is the goal, then wouldn't the obvious solution be a Kramnik-Kasimdzhanov match? Apparently, this lack of complexity is a fatal impediment, and so FIDE has offered the following two recent announcements.

First, even though it couldn't secure enough money for the Kasparov match, they have found Vietnamese sponsors to pony up 2.5 million for another FIDE knockout championship later this year. Such events are entertaining in their own right and offer the players a nice payday, but it doesn't do anything to resolve the fundamental reunification problem. In fact, it makes things worse: is Kasimdzhanov really supposed to play Kasparov (or Anand or Leko - see below), then Kramnik and then play in this event too, assuming he wins the preliminary matches? That places a pretty insane burden on him (or Kasparov/Anand/Leko), to put it mildly.

(An aside: FIDE has certainly come up with a bizarre list of sites for their championship events the past few years: Tehran, Tripoli [where Israelites and orthodox Jewish players were denied visas] and now Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. Was Darfur unavailable?)

The second news item of interest concerns the fate of the aforementioned Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match. Since Kasparov has declared himself unwilling to wait, FIDE is considering replacing him with Viswanathan Anand or Peter Leko. Both are great players, and if anyone deserves automatic seeding without qualification, it's Anand. Still, it's very hard to see how this idea could work in light of the Vietnam event. A venue and price fund for the Kasimdzhanov-Anand/Leko match needs to be found, they'd need to prepare and play, and then go through the same procedure with Kramnik. All that by the end of the year, with time for the players to rest and renew their preparation? Not gonna happen.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the question in the title of this post has no for an answer: an event that can't happen isn't an event, and news of a non-event isn't really news. Sorry, reunification fans, but it's business as usual.

Something Different vs. the French: Part 2

In an earlier post, I introduced a long-time pet anti-French Defense line. The line is objectively unsound, but it's very easy for Black to go awry - sometimes, as we've seen, in a brutally quick and dramatic way. In today's post, I want to look at one important early Black deviation from the main line.

1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 and now, instead of 4...dxe4, let's see what happens if Black tries 4...Nf6. My responses to this move changed over time, and we'll take a look at them in more or less the order in which I tried them.



(A) 5.e5

This isn't a bad idea; it's just that White's (now) poor queen placement and lack of development render this a blank shot. After 5...Ne4 6.Nf3 (6.d4 Nc6 [6...c5 is also good for Black] 7.Nf3 Bb4+ and Black is already at least equal) 6...c6 7.d4 Qb6 the position is balanced and, at least equally important for the fan of this line, relatively dull.

(B) 5.d3

This option has two things going for it. First, it keeps White's pawn structure more or less intact; second, it comes with a cheapo: if 5...dxe4 6.dxe4 Nxe4??, White wins the knight with 7.Qa4+ and 8.Qxe4+. Every once in a while the cheapo works, but if Black avoids it and focuses instead on rapid development and control of the d4 square, then White's position is inferior. Thus 5...dxe4 6.dxe4 Bc5! 7.Nf3 O-O 8.Bd3 Be6! (8...Nc6 is good too) 9.Qc3 (9.Qxb7? Qxd3 10.Qxa8 Nxe4 wins due to the double threat of 11...Bxf2# and the queen-trapping 11...Bd5) Nc6! gives Black a clear advantage.

(C) 5.Nc3 d4 6.e5

First of all, note that 5...dxe4 6.Bc4! justifies the delay by transposing back into the sort of position examined in the initial post. Black can also play to hold the d5 point with 5...c6; that will probably be the subject of yet another post.

Sticking to 5...d4 lines then, you might remember that I presented a game in this line in the original post, which continued 6.e5 dxc3 7.exf6 cxd2+ 8.Bxd2 gxf6?!, when White won quickly. After the obvious and natural 8...Qxf6, however, the burden is on White to prove that the compensation is sufficient.

(D) 5.Nc3 d4 6.Bc4!!



This great idea is one of my best finds in this variation, and I'm pleased to say I found it in a blitz game rather than by asking my software for its opinion. (In case you're wondering, Don Fritz and the rest of the family have since given the move their blessing.) Of course, had Black played 5...dxe4, 6.Bc4 would be the obvious rejoinder - but even here, at the potential cost of a piece, it still works out well! After 5...d4 6.Bc4!! dxc3 7.Bxf7+ Ke7, 8.e5 leaves White with more than enough compensation.

Black should probably return the knight with 8...Nc6 9.bxc3 Qd3 10.Ba3+ Kd8 11.exf6 gxf6 12.Bxf8 Rxf8 13.Qd5+ Qxd5 14.Bxd5, when White is essentially a clean pawn ahead but Black can still resist. (Another possibility is 8...cxd2+ 9.Bd2 Ne4, but White has a winning attack with 10.O-O-O.)

It's more likely that your opponents will try to hang on to the piece with 8...Ng4, and then things get fun - at least if you have the White pieces. Best now is 9.d4! (threatening 10.Bg5+), when Black has two options:

(a) 9...cxb2 10.Bg5+ Nf6 11.Rd1 and White is winning, thanks to his attack and huge leads in space and development.

(b) 9...Qxd4 10.Bg5+ Nf6 11.Nf3 cxb2 (everything loses, but this is the most entertaining option) 12.O-O! bxa1Q 13.Nxd4 Qxd4 14.exf6+ gxf6 15.Re1+ Kd6 (15...Kd8 16.Re8+ followed by 17.Qe6#) and now, as Mike Tyson might say, 16.Bxf6! sends Black to "bolivian", as 16...Qxf6 17.Qd5 is mate.



In sum, while there was a time when I didn't enjoy facing the 4...Nf6 line, those days are long gone, thanks to the 6.Bc4! idea. Further, the results back this up: in the 5.Nc3 line (playing 6.Bc4 whenever facing 5...d4), my score in ICC 3 0 blitz against players rated from 2486 to 2712 is a terrific 14-1 (and I was better in the one loss, too, against one of the lower-rated players in the bunch). Better still, many of my wins were extremely quick - in the 5...d4 6.Bc4 line, for example, my score is a clean 5-0 with the wins coming in just 21, 11, 17, 13 and 16 moves!

I have been honest and warned the reader: there are problems with this whole 4.Qb3 line for White. Speaking from a purely practical perspective, however, there are many more ways for Black to go wrong than White - and when Black takes a wrong step in this variation, it's often straight into the abyss. So give it a shot, French Defense foes!

King and Pawn Endings, Part Five

Here is a very difficult but extremely interesting (dare I say "cool"? Why not; I was born in the '60s) king and pawn ending for those of you who want a bit of a workout.



From the game Laveryd-Wikstrom, Umea 1997, Black to play. What's the solution?

As usual, the answer will be provided in a few days.

Diagrams and Web Transfer Rates

I see that for the second time in 4-5 days, the diagrams have gone down. What happens is this: the diagrams you see aren't really on this page but called up from a different site. That site is free, but they have fairly low limits on the amount of data transferring they'll allow in a given time period, and when that amount is exceeded, it pulls the plug. (Last time it only did so for about an hour; hopefully that's all we'll have to wait on this occasion, too.)

There are a few options I could try, such as creating more free remote sites and splitting the load between them, or simply paying for more throughput. Suggestions?

Christians Can Play Chess...but not everywhere

With the removal of the Taliban, chess has returned to Afghanistan, and the game is even starting to flourish in Iran. (See here and here.) In fact, chess has done well in many predominantly Muslim countries, most notably Garry Kasparov's home country of Azerbaijan (though Kasparov himself is not a Muslim). But in Iraq, however, chess is in danger.

No word yet on whether the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani intends to open the subject for discussion on a blog.

Bologan Stole My Novelty! (Sort of.)

Okay, he didn't really steal it; he just got to use it before I did. And to be completely honest, it's not even exactly my novelty. But...well, you'll see.

About a year ago, I was preparing to play a match with fellow master Jason Doss for bragging rights (just a figure of speech, of course!) here in Indiana. Jason has a fairly flexible opening repertoire, but he seemed especially loyal to a particular variation in the Accelerated Dragon. So I did what I could to find a little surprise for him, and here's what I found.

After the introductory moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 12.h4 a5,



Doss had faced 13.a4 in a game with yet another Indiana master, John Cole. Cole obtained a small edge in that game, but Doss was able to hold the draw.

Analyzing the position after Black's 12th move, however, I was able to find something very interesting: 13.h5! In the event Doss played 13...e6 and I went on to win a fairly nice game, but the crucial reply is 13...a4, and after 14.Bd5 e5 15.Be3 b4 16.Ne2 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Be6 Black stands better. So what should White do?



Well, there's my solution and there's Bologan's solution, and the two have some similarities. My find was this:

(A) 15.Bxa8!? exd4 16.Nd5, when 16...Qxa8 17.h6 (cf. Bologan's game), when 17...Bh8?? 18.Ne7 is mate; or 17.Ne7+ Kh8 18.h6 wins the trapped bishop, leaving White with a material edge and a winning attack in many lines. The main variation is the most attractive: 18...Re8 19.hxg7+ Kxg7 20.Qh6+ Kh8 21.Qf4 Kg7 22.Qxd6 Nxe4 23.Qxd4+ Nf6 24.Rxh7+ Kxh7 25.Qxf6, winning.

(B) Bologan's line inverts the moves, but with the same general idea of forcing Black to choose between the loss of the bishop or leaving the king in a mating net. The game Bologan-Moldovan (France 2005) proceeded as follows: 15.h6! Bh8 16.Bxa8 exd4 17.Nd5 Re8 18.Nxf6+ Qxf6 19.Bd5 d3 20.Rb1 dxc2 21.Qxc2 Qg5 22.Qd2 Qg3+ 23.Kf1 Rc8 24.Rc1 Rxc1+ 25.Qxc1 Bd4 26.Qd2 Bc5 27.Qe1 Qf4 28.Rh1 1-0

Ok, so what's the difference? And can Black improve in either case? The answer to the second question is that Black can (probably) improve in both cases, in both cases by eradicating the enemy h-pawn. And that leads in each case to significantly different sorts of positions.

In line (A), Black should play 16...Nxh5! My initial, computer-assisted analysis before the match produced the following: 17.Bb7 a3 18.O-O-O axb2+ 19.Kb1 Ng3 20.Rhe1 Re8 21.Qf2 Qh4 22.Nb4, with a clear advantage for White. Materially Black is fine, but four isolated pawns on the queenside gives White the better prospects for the endgame.

My current hardware/software combo thinks Black can improve earlier, however, with 17...f5!?



This is bold stuff, to put it mildly, but as White's pieces aren't quite coordinated yet for the kingside attack, Black may just have time for this. 18.Nf4 is the obvious and possibly best move, but after 18...fxe4 19.Nxh5 Black has a couple of very nice tactical ideas to maintain (at least!) equality. First, an intermezzo: 19...e3! and after 20.Qd3 gxh5 21.Bd5+ Kh8 22.Rxh5, a trick: 22...Rf5! (22...h6 23.O-O-O gives White the advantage) White can't play 23.Rxf5?? Qh4+ 24.Ke2 Qf2+ 25.Kd1 Bxf5 -+, (26.Qxf5 Qd2#), so 23.Rh2 h6 24.Bc6 Qa5+ 25.Kf1 Be6 26.Kg1 may be White's best, though Black has a small edge.

In line (B), Black might be able to improve with 15...Bxh6!



Some quick human+computer analysis led to the following: 16.Qxh6 (16.Rxd6 isn't so clear: exd4 17.Qxd4 Rb8 18.a3 Nh5 [threatening ...Qg5] 19.Rxh5 gxh5 20.O-O-O with compensation) 16...exd4 17.e5! Re8! 18.O-O-O Rxe5 19.Rxd4 Ra6 20.Ne4 a3 21.b3 Be8 (21...Nxd5 doesn't work: 22.Rxd5 Rxd5 23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Qh8+ Ke7 25.Qf6+ followed by 26.Rh8#) 22.g4 Nxe4 (22...Nxd5 23.g5! with the idea of 24.Rxd5 followed by 25.Nf6+) 23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Qh8+ Ke7 25.Rxe4 Rxe4 26.fxe4 Kd7 27.Kb1 Qg5 28.Rd1 Qxg4 29.Qd4 Ke7 30.Rd1 Qg5 31.Qc3 Kd8 and White has compensation for the pawn, but nothing more - Black may even have an edge! I suspect that White can improve somewhere, but a few peeks here and there failed to reveal anything impressive.

In summary, while Bologan and I independently managed to find the same idea, there are some key differences. His execution of the idea may be stronger than my own, though even that's not entirely clear, and in any case I suspect there are improvements lurking in both lines. Black's task OTB is a terrible one, but maybe with perfect play Black can save the position after 14...e5. Time will tell.

Jens' "Wild Moody Swings"

The old Soviet GM Alexander Kotov advocated analyzing one's games and publishing the results as a great way to improve, and I heartily agree! As Jens Madsen of ModBlog has recently posted a very interesting game, complete with analysis, I suggest we take a look.

Jens starts out with a significant advantage, but he senses it slipping away - thus generating the mood swings he refers to. What isn't so clear from his notes is a sense of where and how he starts to let his opponent off the hook, and that's where I think I can offer a useful contribution.

Madsen-NN, 2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 Be7 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.dxe5 Bb7 10.Bd5 Nc5? 11.Bxb7 Nxb7 12.Qg4 g6 13.Nc3 O-O 14.Bh6 Re8 15.Rad1 Nc5



Here Jens played 16.f4, and after 16...b4 17.Nd5 c6 his advantage remains, but to some extent the position has gotten out of control - Black has more defensive resources than the diagram position suggests he deserves.

The idea of playing f4-f5 is a good one, and if we can combine it with pressure against d7, prevent ...b4 and even make the f4-f5 idea come with gain of tempo, then we'll have found a good solution. Therefore, the strongest continuation is

16.b4!

This prevents ...b4 and forces the Black knight to e6 (otherwise Rxd7 is crushing).

16...Ne6 17.f4

And now the threat of 18.f5 is a big problem for Black. Let's look at three possibilities:

(A) 17...Bxb4 18.Ne4

Threatening 19.Nf6+ and 19.f5, where the latter not only exploits the pin but opens the 4th rank, so that a subsequent Nf6 would discover an attack by the queen on the Bb4.

18...Kh8 19.Nf6 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 and if 20...Re7 (to prevent both 21.Nxe8 and 21.Rxd7), 21.Qh4 wins, as there is no good defense to 22.Bg7+ followed by 23.Qxh7+ and 24.Qg8#

(B) 17...Bf8 18.Bxf8 Nxf8 19.Nd5 Re6 20.Nf6+ with a winning positional advantage.

(C) 17...f5 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.Ne4 (threatening 20.Rxd7 Qxd7 21.Nxf6+) d5 20.f5 Ng7 21.Nc5 Qd6 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.Qf3 wins a pawn while continuing to have a large positional advantage.

16.b4 is one of those moves that's obviously right when you see it, but the tough part is thinking of the move in the first place. After all, White's initiative is in the center and on the kingside, so why even consider a move like b4? The main reason is to ensure a promising future for White's knight: d5 is a wonderful square, but it's unstable, as it can be kicked with ...c6 - which is what happened in the game. That leaves e4, but the Black Nc5 stops it. Furthermore, the Black knight is well-placed on c5, but vulnerable to attack on e6. Put the two ideas together, just thinking of the logic of the situation, and out comes 16.b4!

In sum, there's an art to attacking chess, but it's remarkable how much we can discover just by thinking through the needs of the position and ensuring the activity of all our pieces.

Thanks, Jens!

Sportsmanship, Online Chess and the Local Club

Steve Lopez's "The Future of Internet Chess?" is worth reading, and will resonate with those who, like me, have gradually found themselves less interested in online chess than they used to be. What follows are some musings on the matter, occasioned by but generally distinct from Lopez's.

I first discovered the Internet Chess Club in 1995, during the Kasparov-Anand match, and thought it was the greatest thing since won ton soup. Tournaments all over the world were broadcast live, strong GMs would watch along with the amateurs and offer their comments just for the love of the game. Better still, I could play these strong GMs on a regular basis, something that had previously required spending a significant amount of money and travel. This was paradise!

What's interesting is that although I signed up for membership, members didn't have too much of an advantage over the server's guests. Guests could watch all but live GM games, and had virtually unrestricted communication privileges.

Much has happened during the past 10 years, and it can be seen in the gradual restriction of guest privileges. At some point, guests lost the right to speak in some channels, then in most, and now in all but one. Likewise, ICC changed the default setting for registered users to block communication from guests, though leaving it on for guest-guest communication. Needless to say, that has also been changed.

Nor is that all. Guest anonymity has helped eliminate the normal social impediments to various forms of bad sportsmanship; one fairly amusing sort goes like this: player X is beating player Y, but Y isn't resigning. Instead, Y simply lets the clock run until he (or she, I suppose, but it's the guys who seem to have the corner on this market) loses on time. Good old-fashioned spite in action. Well, X isn't going to tolerate that - defeat must be COMPLETE. Accordingly, X will now show his utter superiority in the realm of spite by adding time to Y's clock. LOTS of time. Frankly, I think X and Y deserve each other, but ICC has responded by disabling the "moretime" command from guest accounts.

There are other typical guest behaviors, some more amusing, some less, but they take their toll and leave the atmosphere less pleasant than it ought to be and than it once was. Nor is the members' realm a land flowing with politeness and helpfulness. In OTB chess, shaking hands, thanking one's opponent for the game and generally polite interactions are the norm; online, saying "good game" or "thanks" is often an invitation to a stream of invective. Add to this rematch-harrassment, the occasional abusive shout, and it can really get to one after a while!

In short, while online chess really is a pretty neat thing, it's not paradise.

On the flip side, I'm starting to value the OTB chess scene more than I used to. From the "consumer" standpoint, the local club can't compete with online chess. Unless you live in a town with international tournaments and have grandmaster buddies, the internet clubs have more to offer in terms of pure chess content.

But face to face interactions are important: for community, for mentoring, for friendship and, for the stronger players out there, to give something back. My own chess achievements are modest by some standards, but had it not been for all the people who took the time to play me when I was an up-and-comer, even what I did achieve would probably have been impossible.

In conclusion, those of us who play online need to do our part to improve the atmosphere when we can, and all of us should do what we can to support our local clubs. See you in real life!

Christians Can Play Chess...

at least some of them, under certain circumstances.

Thanks to all who have weighed in on my original post. Even those who were skeptical of the arguments I mooted helped prove my claim that at least "[s]ome of the arguments...require deep responses, responses that may have real implications going far beyond the question of playing (or not playing) chess."

(1) For starters, the Jollyblogger (see here and here) notes that if my arguments are correct, this would undermine Christian participation in all competitive activities. (Or at least those which aren't intrinsic to the Christian life.) I think that gets to the heart of my concern, the fear that competition qua competition is at least a dangerous thing for one's character.

(2) Victor Reppert writes that many of the good things in his own life "are the result of having spent a lot of time hunched over [the chess] board," and I could say the same as well. What I can't say, however, is whether that means it was right for me to have played and to continue doing so. Good things can result from activities that are morally neutral or bad (cf. Rom 8:28), but those activities aren't therefore automatically good.

(3) Serge elaborated some of the goods to which Reppert may have been alluding: (a) rational thinking, (b) the cultivation of a non-instant gratification mindset, and (c) helping to build up one's opponent by pushing them to use his or her God-given rationality.

I've certainly seen counterexamples to (a)/(c), but studies, common-sense and, I suppose, the preponderance of my anecdotal evidence supports it. As for (b), however, I'm far less sure. One quickly learns that the Scholar's Mate isn't going to succeed against even mildly experienced players, but the overwhelming success of chess books in the "get rich quick" genre and of opening books in general would suggest otherwise; to say nothing of the overwhelming popularity of 1-minute and 3-minute chess compared to even 5-minute, let alone slower time controls.

Even if (a)-(c) are granted, however, they are evaluatively secondary to the moral question. If playing chess is morally inappropriate to the Christian (and here I note that my hypothetical arguments aren't really restricted to the Christian at all, but apply to anyone concerned with the relevant issues of character), then the presence of likely positive goods is irrelevant (unless those goods outweigh the negatives and unless there isn't any other way to achieve those goods).

(4) My friend Dave (aka "Anonymous") suggests that "to some degree...playing a game of chess with a friend is a good work and is helpful," as it contributes to that friend's significance by showing that we value the other person's company and enjoy spending time in his or her presence.

My responses to (2) and (3) would apply here as well, but my impression is that in the scenario Dave describes, the competitive element has more or less dropped out of the picture. Winning or losing has become at best secondary to the real purpose of enjoying the other person's presence and the goods of friendship.

In truth, I can recall occasions when playing against a close friend was very difficult for me, precisely because playing chess is an intrinsically competitive activity, while my affection for the friend was such that the antagonism intrisic to competition was just repulsive to me. Maybe if one can play without caring about the result, and if playing doesn't generate competitive attitudes, then it may be morally unproblematic. Which leads me to

(5) The Jollyblogger, redux. He begins his discussion of my question "Can Christians Play Chess?" with a glib answer (click here and scroll down a bit): "some can, some can't." Maybe that's right: those who can compete without being competitive can play, and those who can't perhaps should avoid it.

(6) Ken offers a lexical comment on the koine Greek word translated "rivalry," and I see no reason to dispute what he says there. Perhaps his implicit point is that there are two senses of rivalry: a good sense and a bad sense. What I want to know is what the good sense is! A rival is one with whom we compete, presumably with the intention of inflicting defeat on him or her. Doesn't that suggest that the priority is on competitive aims rather than the other goods mentioned elsewhere in this post?

(7) Last but not least, I turn to Rakshasas' lengthy reply.

Let me start with a clarification: the arguments I offered were not presented as my version of the gospel truth (pun intended - people who write "no pun intended" should just come clean!). Rather, I offered them because it seemed to me that they introduced some interesting issues and required answers making non-trivial committments concerning what is and isn't appropriate for the Christian who wants to play chess.

Rakshasas' primary objection, it seems to me, is that all of the arguments assume that the Christian chess player can only play from egotistical motives rather than to attempt to use one's mind as well as they can to try to produce something artistic, something beautiful, in collaboration with one's opponent.

I'm inclined to agree that those are noble motives which are certainly consistent with a Christian (and not only a Christian) worldview. But here I want to ask how realistic this is. Here I ask the reader to consider the following scenarios and ask yourself which you would choose, or which seems to more accurately represent how things tend to be in the chess world. Be honest!

Choice A
Option 1: Losing every game in one's life (because one plays only computers and/or GMs, say) but clearly having the ability of a 2500.
Option 2: Scoring around 60% in one's career and achieving a peak rating of about 2000.

Choice B
Option 1: I primarily buy books highlighting the beautiful in chess, especially books featuring the greatest players' greatest games.
Option 2: I primarily buy books I think will most directly improve my results, especially opening books.

Choice C
Option 1: The main thing that won me over to the game, and what gets my children interested is the sheer beauty of the game. My kids roll their eyes at the mention of Scholar's Mate and ask to see endgame studies by Mitrofanov.
Option 2: The main thing that won me over to the game, and what gets my children interested is competitive success. My kids feel good about winning games with the 4-move checkmate.

In each case, option 1 is the one we'd like to embrace and that is most consistent with the respondents' replies. And yet the reality I see with my own eyes is a consistent (but not universal) preference for option 2-type answers: in my students, in my friends, in the chess world at large, and at least sometimes, in some ways, in myself.

So in sum, I think the respondents have the right answers: if we can play for the love of the game, for friendship, for the intellectual challenge and so on, then great. But there's the application question: do we really play for those motives? Would we continue to play without any competitive successes at all? And is the nature of the game and the general chess environment such as to foster the noble reasons for playing or the baser ones?

The (Fun) Prearranged Draw

Flipping through some of the games in the supplementary database of the latest issue of Chess Today (if you subscribe, be sure to tell them who sent you!), I came across several very short, very dull draws. Clearly the players didn't feel like fighting that day, for whatever reason.

I won't here address the issue of the propriety of so-called "grandmaster draws," but my feeling is that if you're going to play a phony game, really go all the way with it. Give the spectators something to ooh and ahh about, or to confuse them, make them laugh - SOMETHING!

Example 1: The exciting fake

In my high school years, I was regularly paired a good friend of mine in both scholastic and regular USCF tournaments, and because we were (a) friends, (b) had a good deal of mutual respect for the other player's abilities and (c) could generally achieve (a tie for) first place even after giving up half a point, almost all of our games concluded peacefully.

However, our draws were not coma-inducing banalities like this: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd4 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bf4 Bf5 7.Bd3 Bxd3 8.Qxd3 Bd6 9.Bxd6 Qxd6 1/2-1/2

Our pet draw was far more exciting: a sharp line of the Najdorf Sicilian, with White pushing for a kingside attack and Black working mightily to exchange off White's pieces before any real damage could be done, culminating in a perpetual check. Sure, we cribbed it right out of the then-latest and greatest book on the Najdorf (the old RHM Press volume by Geller, Gligoric, Kavalek and Spassky), but the spectators didn't know that!

NN-DM

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O Be7 9.f4

Nowadays the far more dangerous 9.Qf3 is the main move.

O-O 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Nfd7 12.Qh5

12.Be3 is more dangerous and became popular in the mid-80s, but Black can equalizes.

Nc5

And here 12...Nc6 might be good for an edge.

13.Be3 Bb7 14.Rf2 Nxb3 15.axb3 Nc6 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Raf1



It looks annoying, but Black's bishops provide sufficient compensation for the weak e-pawn after

17...f5 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.Qg4 Qe7 20.Ne4

So much for the two bishops, but now Black can grab a pawn.

20...Bxe4 21.Qxe4 Bxb2 22.Rxf8+ Rxf8 23.Rxf8+ Kxf8

Not 23...Qxf8 24.Qxe6+ and 25.Qxa6

24.Qxh7

White has regained the pawn and has a healthier kingside pawn structure, but Black's next move proves that the position is completely level.

24...Qb4

Threatening both 25...Qe1# and to create a queenside passer with ...a5-a4, so White decides it's time to bail out with a draw:

25.Qh8+ Kf7 26.Qh5+ Kg8 27.Qe8+ Kh7 28.Qh5+ Kg8



1/2-1/2


Example 2: The Comedic Protest Draw

In 1996, Jennie Frenklakh and Jennifer Shahade were two talented American teenagers who had earned the privilege of representing the U.S. in the Girls' World U-16 championship. Needless to say, as friends and fellow Americans they did not wish to play each other, but sure enough, they were paired in round 10. They contested the pairing, but to no avail, and as a protest they played the following brilliancy (it wasn't their invention, but I don't know the source - perhaps an enterprising reader can supply it in the comments section):

Frenklakh-Shahade

1.h3 f5 2.d4 e5 3.Qd3 f4



Pretty weird so far, but you ain't seen nothin' yet.

4.Qg3!! e4 5.Qh2 Be7 6.a4 a5 7.Ra3

Obviously to put the rook on g3.

7...Bh4!



Prophylaxis.

8.Rg3!!

White has clearly seen more deeply into the position.

8...e3 9.f3 Qe7 10.c4 Qb4+ 11.Nd2 d6

It might look like Black stands better here, but appearances can be deceiving.

12.c5 Be6 13.c6 Bb3

Wisely immobilizing White's dangerous queenside pawns.

14.d5

And now, in response to the otherwise unstoppable threat of 15.cxb7 followed by 16.bxa8(Q), Black found the tremendous defensive resource

14...b6!!



and the game was over - stalemate!

Now that's the way to prearrange a draw.

Links and Thanks

Thanks again and three cheers to DG of the Boylston Chess Club blog - first for his help with posting diagrams, and now for helping me solve the sidebar links issue. Surf's up!

This Monday's ChessBase Show: Kasparov vs. Anand

As many of you know, I do a live show on ChessBase's Playchess.com server every week. (Details about accessing both live and archived shows can be found here, and click here for a list of games covered in all past shows.)

This week's show presents a game that shows Kasparov's chess abilities in all their glory: his tremendous playing strength, his fantastic opening preparation and his psychological toughness. Nor for that matter does Anand come out poorly - his defense in the game was extremely resourceful; it's just that there was too much to combat under the circumstances.

The game I'm referring to is the 10th game of their 1995 World Championship match. After a series of 8 draws, Anand had won game 9 and had the psychological momentum in the match. Unfortunately, Kasparov had devised a staggering improvement over his play in game 6 (Kasparov reports being so excited about his findings that it upset his play in game 9!), which began like this:

Kasparov-Anand, games 6 & 10:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4 11.Ng5 dxc3 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.bxc3 Qd3



In game 6, Kasparov continued with 14.Nf3, and while he maintained some initiative throughout, it wasn't enough to achieve anything substantial. In game 10, however, he produced something really special - tune in to see what it was!

TWIC Theory

Mark Crowther's terrific news and games update site The Week in Chess (TWIC) has started a new undertaking: TWIC Theory. Issues will come out weekly, and this month the offerings are free. Starting in March, things will be different: there will be a charge of $15 for a three month subscription (12 issues).

This week's offering comes from IM Andrew Martin, a prolific writer and video/DVD presenter specializing in opening theory. He considers what he calls "Reprintsev's Surprise," a somewhat unusual line in the Center Counter:

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Ne4?! (my punctuation; his is '!?')



Martin comments that the move isn't as bad as it looks, and presents three games in some detail and eleven supplemental games. Black does quite well in the featured games, as one might expect, but is it the line that deserves the credit?

In the first game, White is the higher-rated player and loses in 20 moves, but he had the initiative and at least equality until blundering in a nice position on move 14. In games 2 & 3, White again loses but is outrated by about 334 and 278 points, respectively.

Turning to the supplementary games, the situation turns completely around: though White is on balance lower-rated than Black in the games, White's score was a creditable 6.5-4.5, which is especially noteworthy in light of Black's having the advantage of surprise with 5...Ne4. In fact, according to the Mega Database 2005, White's total score in this variation is +17-8=15 for an overly-healthy scoring percentage of 61%, well above the 54-55% norm.

Of course, a poor score need not mean all much: if the average White's rating were significantly higher than Black's or if some important theoretical discovery overturns what had been the conventional wisdom in the line, then the evidential value of the score is greatly lessened. However, in the games from Mega 2005 White's average rating was only 12 points higher than Black's; as for the analytical value of the line, let's take a very brief look at what seems to be the main line:

6.Bd3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 g6 8.O-O Bg7 9.Re1 O-O 10.Rb1 Nc6



and now instead of the needlessly cautious 11.h3 as in the game Strukov-Reprintsev, Moscow 1999, active moves like 11.Bg5 and better still, 11.Rb5 are far more to the point.

11.Rb5! Qa2 12.Qe2 Qe6 13.Qxe6 fxe6 (13...Bxe6 14.d5) 14.Ng5 Nd8 15.Ba3 Bd7 16.Rbb1 Bf6 17.Ne4 Rf7 18.Nc5 Bc8 19.Be4



with a clear advantage for White, or 12...e6 13.Bc4 Qa4 14.Rc5 Qa1 15.Bh6 Qa3 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Bb5



also with a clear advantage for White, as Black's kingside dark squares are very weak and his pieces cut off from coming to help.

Does this analysis, if correct, mean you shouldn't play 5...Ne4? That depends. I think that at the club level, few players will even have the guts to try 6.Bd3 unless they're already familiar with the line, and it doesn't seem that White achives much if anything on the other 6th moves. Further, even if they find that but aren't generally familiar with this variation and you are, then too your chances for a successful post-opening position are likely to be decent.

On the other hand, it's not worth aiming for this unless you already play the Center Counter, as there are a number of respectable ways White can vary even up to move 5. I'd also like to add that if you're willing to take the time to learn how to defend the typical positions resulting from the 6.Bd3 lines, you could spend that time learning to play theoretically respectable variations as well, and then not have to worry about whether your opponent knows where the skeletons are!

In sum, whenever a chess author, myself included, is offering something a bit off the beaten track, you should immediately ask yourself why it's off the beaten track. It could be that it's new and hasn't yet been properly explored, it could be a matter of unjustified prejudice, and it might also be that the negative evaluation is based on a now out-of-date refutation.

Could be.

Still, the author should try to tell you why it's not, and if he or she doesn't, be very, very careful. Look up the line in your databases, start analyzing, turn on your computer - whatever you need to do, do it, because the author isn't going to refund your purchase, restore your rating points or compensate you for the lost prize money!

DGT Boards and Game Scores

Technology is a blessing - but a mixed one. Whether speaking generally or of particular technologies, it's often the case that benefits that accrue or balanced by unintended debits.

One technology that has certainly enhanced the lives of chess spectators is the DGT board, which enables live games to be relayed electronically - one doesn't need a human go-between to relay the moves to either a live audience (via a demonstration board) or one located on the internet.

Overall, this is a great thing for chess fans, but there is one minor drawback; at least to the system as it stands. To indicate the result of a game on a DGT board, the tournament director places one or both kings on certain central squares. For example, a Black king on d5 indicates that White won.

Unfortunately, this can lead to confusion. Suppose that Black resigns in the following position:



Here the arbiter places the king on d5 and then does something further (maybe it's removing the White king from the board, I'm not sure) to indicate that the king on d5 is result-indicating. This procedure leads to two problems, however. First, there's confusion for the online spectators: did Black play ...Kd5 and resign, or did he resign prior to that move? Second and more importantly, games are often recorded into various databases with the superfluous ...Kd5, thereby falsifying, if only in a minor way, the actual records of an ever-increasing number of games.

Sometimes the written error is obvious, sometimes it's subtle, but producing design alternatives to avoid the worry altogether seem quite simple. Here are two possible fixes: first, have very small switches or buttons on the side of the board. This could be done in a way that isn't prominent and doesn't adversely affect the board's aesthetic qualities. Second, whenever ...Kd5 (or the White counterpart) could be a legal move, have a back-up set of squares or even make it such that if the king moves to any open square it can't legally reach (except g8 or c8, to avoid confusion with castling).

I sent them a letter a week or so ago, and they seemed quite receptive to the points I raised. So I'd like to encourage any of you, if you're so inclined, to email them - politely! - just to keep the issue in the forefront of their minds and to let them see that chess players really do care about such things. (To find a suitable address, check out the link above and click on the "contact" link.) It's a small thing we can do to improve the future history of our game.

Something Different vs. the French Defense: Part 1

Many 1.e4 players find themselves annoyed when facing 1...e6 in reply. Wouldn't it be nice to give the French player the drubbing he or she so richly deserves? (French Defense players, ignore that comment as a joke, and please avert your eyes now.)

Needless to say, I can't promise an opening variation that will do that. If I could, I'd be a published chess author! (Note: I didn't say truthfully promise.) What I can do is share an untrustworthy but lovable old cur of a variation. My results with it, primarily in blitz but against good opposition, have been very good, which is a testament to its dangerousness if not its soundness. In other words, it's worth trying, but caveat emptor - especially considering that the "buyer" hasn't paid anything at all!

1.e4 e6 2.c4

There it is, folks: impressed? Stay tuned, it gets better.

2...d5

2...c5 is a legitimate way to bail out, and perhaps I'll discuss that move in a future post.

3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3



Now we have the real beginning point of the line - the ordinary 4.exd5 would transpose to a version of the Exchange French that's reasonably good for Black. Of course, this position is even better for Black, but non-standard play will be required.

4...dxe4

Other moves are possible here too, but again, that's a story for another day.

5.Bc4

Now it's starting to become clear what White is up to, but wait: much more fun is on the way!

5...Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.d3!

What?!



7...exd3+ 8.Kf1! c6 9.Bg5 Be6 10.Re1



and Black can already start setting the pieces up for the next game.

To put it mildly, this isn't forced. But Black's moves are extremely natural, and I've won dozens, possibly hundreds of blitz games against masters and up along these very lines. Here are three quick examples:

DM-NN (2504), ICC 3 0, 1999

1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.d3 exd3+ 8.Kf1 Nbd7 9.Bg5 Nc5 10.Qa3 Qe5 11.Re1 Nfe4 12.Nf3 Qf5 13.Bxd3! Nxd3 14.Qa4+ Bd7 15.Rxe4+ 1-0

DM-NN (2236), ICC 3 0, 2000

1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qf6 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.Nge2 Bd6 8.d3 exd3 9.Nf4 Bxf4 10.Bxf4 d2+ 11.Kxd2! Nc6 12.Nd5 Kd8 13.Nxc7 Nf6 14.Rad1! Bg4 15.Qxb7 Rb8 16.Kc1+ Bxd1 17.Rxd1+ Ke7 18.Nd5+ Kf8 19.Bd6+ Kg8 20.Ne7+ 1-0

DM-NN (2402), ICC 1 0, 2000

1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 Nf6 (A different line, but the "traditional" motifs arise soon enough.) 5.Nc3 d4 6.e5 (N.B. 6.Bc4!! is an important improvement I've discovered since then.) dxc3 7.exf6 cxd2+ 8.Bxd2 gxf6?! 9.Nf3 Bd6 10.Bc4 Qe7+ 11.Kf1! Kf8 12.Re1 Qd7 13.Bh6+ Kg8 14.Bxf7+ Qxf7 15.Re8+ 1-0

Coffeehouse Chess at the Coffee House

The South Bend Chess Club (meeting every week in Mishawaka, naturally) meets every Thursday night in the Borders bookstore cafe, and the play there sometimes befits the sobriquet "coffeehouse chess." Certainly the following does:

DM-NN (one of the stronger players in the club, who will remain anonymous in the hopes that when he gets his revenge, as he inevitably will, he'll allow me to keep my anonymity as well!), 5-minute game.

1.d4 Nf6 2.g4

This opening, whatever it is, is the sort of junk I used to see IM Kamran Shirazi play in blitz and even tournament games. So what the heck - it's only chess!

2...Nxg4 3.e4 d5! 4.h3 Nf6 5.e5 Ng8?

5...Ne4 would have been fine, as 6.f3 allows Ng3.

6.Bd3 e6 7.Qg4

The queen really isn't threatening anything, but what it does do is start to annoy Black - both by preventing the Bf8's development and by just hanging around in a vaguely aggressive manner. My opponent decides to start chasing her:

7...h5 8.Qg3 h4

I saw this and the sequel coming, and decided I was too tired to play responsibly; instead, I would sac a piece.

9.Qg4 Nh6 10.Qh5 g6 11.Bxg6



This is complete nonsense, but it's important to realize why it's nonsense in this case while in other, not too dissimilar positions, it's a reasonable speculative sacrifice. The difference here is that my queen's help is too far away - my remaining pieces aren't in or even approaching contact with the Black position. Accordingly, Black should be able to consolidate with just a few accurate moves, but alas, my opponent's play was insufficiently energetic on this occasion.

11...fxg6 12.Qxg6+ Nf7

This move is natural, but I think it's a poor choice. The reason it's not so good is that it insulates my queen from being bothered - I've been given a free hand on the kingside. His queen can't approach the kingside, his rook can't (safely) hit my queen, the knight is pinned and of course, the bishop on f8 travels on the wrong colored squares. Had Black played instead 12...Kd7! with the idea of 13...Qe8, 14...Be7, etc., White would have been hard-pressed to produce anything even resembling genuine compensation for the sacrificed material.

13.Nf3

This prepares either Ng5 or Bg5, as well as clearing the g-file for the rook. Now White starts to get practical chances.

13...Qe7 14.Nc3

Naturally, I'd have liked to play 14.Bg5, but I didn't want to allow 14...Qb4+ in reply.

14...Nc6 15.Bg5 Qd7 16.O-O-O b6 17.Rhg1 Be7



I played my 17th move in the hopes of creating some tactical possibilities with Qg8+, so Black's best reaction would have been 17...Ne7, when my attack will die, stillborn. But now White has some real hopes!

18.Bf6! Bxf6 19.exf6

It's easy to see White's threat when you're looking for it (and it doesn't hurt that I mentioned it in the previous note, either), but even good players overlook threats when it looks as if they've been forcing the play the last few moves. That was, incidentally, one reason why I chose 17.Rhg1 instead of 17.Bf6; I wanted to move my bishop in response to a(n apparent) threat, to dull my opponent's vigilance. It worked:

19...Bb7?? 20.Qg8+ 1-0

Black's 19th was bad, of course - much better was 19....Rf8. I think White might still be able to generate some threats, though: 20.Ng5 Bb7 21.Nxe6 (prevents castling and threatens 22.Rde1), and 21...Rh8 runs into 22.Qg8+ again. Or 20...Nd8 21.Nh7, threatening 22.Nxf8 Kxf8 23.Qg8#

A good game? No. But it was a fun game, and one we can learn from, too.

A Treat for the Problem-Allergic

So you say you don't enjoy solving chess problems? Here's one that might that change your mind:

White to move and mate in 6 (V. Röpke, 1942)



I first saw this gag position many years ago, in a section of Andy Soltis's fun work Chess to Enjoy devoted to what he calls "anti-problems. I don't have the book any longer, but I was happy to see that Tim Krabbé had recently posted it on one the Dutch pages on his fantastic (seriously - I can't recommend it highly enough) Chess Curiosities website, thereby saving me the effort of trying to track the position down.

So whenever chess just seems too difficult, pull out this position, take a deep breath, and try, try again.

Computers, Humans, and Just Desserts

Online chess is wonderful in all sorts of ways, but gather enough people anywhere and even the best things will be misused. Scourge in point: the computer cheater. All too often, people will fire up their chess software in the background, or on a second machine, or even directly to the server interface and attempt to steal victories, rating points and occasionally even money from their victims. Often they're caught - sometimes sooner, sometimes later - but they're always a nuisance.

They don't always succeed, however - sometimes the good guys absorb the computer's blows and survive or even win. What follows is one of my more satisfying online victories, over a player I realized early on was a computer cheat.

Bad Guy-DM, 15-minute game, ICC 2000

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 d5 3.Bf4 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.Be2 Nbd7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nbd2 b6 8.c3 Bb7 9.Qa4 c5 10.Rfe1 a6 11.Qd1

At this point, I suddenly feel suspicious. My opponent is a good player, his rating is fairly high, so what's with 9.Qa4 one move and 11.Qd1 two moves later? The retreat might be sensible, but it's not the sort of move a human would just play, and quickly, if only because of the embarrassment factor.

11...Ne4 12.Rb1 Rc8 13.Qc2

Okay, now I'm getting really suspicious! Why not 9.Qc2 or 11.Qc2? And who makes such a move in response to my putting a rook on the c-file? That's the sort of thing strong players typically (though defeasibly) avoid!

13...Re8 14.Rbc1 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Nf6 16.Qd1

Sigh. I always make a point of not bothering playing computers, but it's clear that's what I'm up against. As it's against the rules to use a chess engine (unless one's account is explicitly marked as a computer account), I started to request that the game be aborted. My opponent refused, and we continued:

16...Ne4 17.Bd3 b5 18.a4 Qb6 19.axb5 axb5 20.Ne5 Red8

Annoyed though I was, I felt pretty good about my position, but I was in for a surprise, as my opponent produced an extremely strong idea:

21.Ra1! b4 22.Qb1!

This is a fantastic prophylactic idea, as playing 22...bxc3 23.bxc3 favors White. I attempt a tactical solution to my problems, but my opponent is more than up to the challenge:

22...Nd2 23.Qc2 bxc3 24.bxc3 Nb3 25.Ra4! c4 26.Rb4! Qa7

Very nice play by White, who was moving extremely quickly, too, and taking pretty much the same amount of time on every move (another tell-tale sign of the computer cheat). What follows now is even more impressive, both as a chess idea and as evidence of the cheating claim:

27.Bf1 e6 28.Bxc4!

A very strange sequence - why not 27.Bxc4 straight away? That sort of freedom from embarrassment about past moves is typical of computers, but not at all of humans.

28...dxc4 29.Nxc4 Bd5 30.Nb6 Nxd4 31.exd4 Rc6 32.Qb2 Bf8 33.Nxd5 exd5 34.Rb7 Qa3 35.Qxa3 Bxa3 36.Rb3 Bf8 37.h3 Re6



White's play so far has been quite strong, and although overall I've played pretty well for a 15-minute game, my inaccuracies here and there have left it with an extra pawn. It's not the greatest extra pawn in the world, but it's certainly up to me to prove that I can hold the position.

From here on out, however, White's play is bad in a way that would have been impossible for a human player exhibiting White's strength so far. The problem for White is that his queenside pawns are on dark squares while Black's are on light squares, thereby making White's bishop essentially impotent. Thus what's clear is that if the rooks are removed, it's a trivially easy task for Black to hold. Accordingly, White should avoid the exchange of at least one pair of rooks, when Black will have to suffer and grovel. But behold!

38.Rxe6?! fxe6 39.Rb6 Kf7 40.Rb7+ Kg8 41.Kf1 Rc8 42.Rc7?? Rxc7 43.Bxc7



Wow, that was easy! The position is perfect for me now - all my pawns are ideally placed, and White pawn advances simply lead to exchanges. I was way behind on the clock (I had two minutes left to White's seven and a half), but as I only need to play Kf7, Be7-f8-e7-f8-e7-f8 and trade the pawns as they come, I figured I'd have good chances to save the draw in spite of the clock.

43...Kf7 44.Be5 Be7 45.Ke2 Bf8 46.Kd2 Be7 47.c4 dxc4 48.Kc3 Bf8 49.Kxc4 Be7



and now check out White's next three moves, which taken together are completely insane.

50.g3?! Bf8 51.h4?? Be7 52.f4? h5!

Now it's really, really, really a dead draw, as White can never create so much as a single target in my position. But White finds resources in the position...for Black.

53.Kd3 Bf8 54.Ke4 Be7 55.d5 exd5+ 56.Kxd5 Bf8 57.Kc6? Ke6 58.Kb5 Kf5 59.Kc6?? Bb4



and now, of course, it's over, as my bishop hoovers the White pawns.

60.Kd7 Be1 61.Ke8 Bxg3 62.Kf8 Bxh4 63.Kg7 Bg3 64.Kh6 Bxf4+ 65.Bxf4 Kxf4 66.Kxg6 h4 0-1

After the game I reported my opponent to the server's computer-cheat police, and some time later my judgement was confirmed. It's disappointing when people do that, but to be honest, it did make the win much, much sweeter than it would otherwise have been! (Not because it was a computer that was defeated, which is certainly pleasant enough, but because a cheater got his just desserts.)

The Undisputed World Chess Champion

...of correspondence chess is now Joop van Oosterom of the Netherlands, who has an uncatchable final score of +8=6-0 in the 18th Correspondence Chess World Championships. I don't know the man personally, but I'm quite pleased for Van Oosterom, as he has contributed to the pleasure of chess fans everywhere through his sponsorship of the annual Melody Amber blindfold+rapid event in Monaco.

I offer this brief news item not just to celebrate his accomplishment, but as a heads-up to my readers to check out the tournament's games, also downloadable from the ICCF page. (The games are available through the first "6.2" link, the news blurb through the second "6.2" link, and a crosstable can be found by first clicking the first "5.2" link and then clicking on "XVIII".) While many correspondence games are of embarrassingly low quality (this isn't different from over-the-board chess, but it seems that really bad correspondence games are more likely to get into databases than their OTB counterparts), there are also plenty of tremendous battles between great players in mainstream and offbeat openings alike. This event is no exception, and especially for those interested in the English Attack vs. the Najdorf Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3+f3 (sometimes played in reverse order)), this tournament constitutes a real feast!

What Computers Can't Do, Part 2

Ken, thanks for the plug for the Monday night show! My primary interest in the post was noting and critiquing one instance of an all-too-common phenomenon: claiming that chess software is unable to find (or really, properly evaluate) some move or "idea". Producing an accurate list of what chess software can't do is another matter entirely. Further, it might be program-dependent: maybe Fritz has a problem with a certain sort of position, but Junior doesn't, while both have a problem with a position Shredder handles well, etc.

Nevertheless, at the risk of falling into my own trap, I think there are at least two types of positions where chess software is relatively likely to go astray.

(1) Frog-in-the-pot positions.

It's allegedly the case that if one throws a frog into a pot of boiling water (why would anyone do this??), it will immediately strive to escape, whereas if a frog is put in tepid water which is then heated, it won't attempt to escape even when the water attains a full boil.

The chess software version of this occurs when its opponent is building an attack, but the threats are still too far away to be seen. In such positions, the computer might continue on its merry way, seeking objectives on the opposite side of the board from where its king is, only to find that when the threats do come, they're unstoppable.

(2) Fortresses

There are some defensive positions that a human can instantly see are unbreachable, but unless it's in a tablebase or the 50-move rule is looming, it won't recognize that the position is in fact equal.

A third sort of example traditionally given occurs in positions with locked pawns. Standard lore has it that the computer turns into a blithering idiot once a pawn chain has arisen, but I think things aren't as clear here as they used to be. The one game Kasparov won in his match with X3D Fritz was a triumph of that strategy, but I have also seen chess software play very well in locked-up French and King's Indian Defenses.

Of course, programmers are aware of all of these issues, and improvements in both software and hardware the past few years have reduced chess programs' vulnerability to the first and third weaknesses in particular. So for those who want to play anti-computer chess, your task is growing more and more difficult, and my advice is just to play good moves: you'll learn more, you won't hurt your style and you'll probably even do better!

What Computers (Allegedly) Can't Do

Our parents and grandparents used to say, when faced with some oft-repeated hyperbole, that if they had a nickel for every time someone said such-and-such, they'd be millionaires. Perhaps I wouldn't be ready to enter the 7-figure bracket, but I feel that same sense of ironic exasperation when I read that computers will never find this idea or that. Nowadays, my practice is to always put such claims to the test as soon as I have the chance, and almost without exception, the computer proves equal to the challenge.

Enter tonight's interview with Tigran L. Petrosian in the Chess Cafe. Petrosian, a strong young Armenian GM (not the late world champion, nor related to him), presents two of his games, including a win from the recent World Junior Championship. (Two asides: first, he came in second in that event. Second, the game is mistakenly marked "1-0" at the end; it should be 0-1.) Here are the moves leading up to the critical position:

Sengupta-Petrosian, W Jun U 20, Kochin 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nc3 d4 7.Ne4 f5 8.Neg5 e4 9.Bc4 exf3 10.Bf7+ Kd7 11.Be6+ Ke8 12.Bf7+ Ke7 13.Bb3 Kf6 14.Nf7 Qe8+ 15.Kf1



Petrosian now played 15...d3(!!) and writes this: "Human intuition is stronger than computer calculation! Set this position up on any analytical engine, let it think for hours, and it still will not be able to find this move. Fritz suggests 15...Qe2+ 16.Qe2 [sic] fe+ 17.Ke2 Rg8 18.Nd8 Rh8 19.Nf7 Rg8, with a draw."

The new program Junior 9 is my current default engine, so I let it get started, looked at my computer's clock, and prepared to settle down for a long winter's nap.

One minute passed,

and before I could spring to the window to see what was the clatter, Junior had determined that 15...d3 offered a clear advantage for Black, and didn't change its mind over the more than 20 further minutes I let it run. Okay, perhaps that's just Junior. Petrosian said that one could set the position up on any analytical engine, but Junior has a reputation for being particularly sharp and willing to risk a bit more for the initiative. So just for kicks, I gave the position to Fritz, and sure enough, things were different.

Fritz took 30 seconds.

Now, I don't have a super-computer. I don't even have a multi-processor machine. It's a reasonably new, reasonably powerful machine, but nothing extraordinary. So maybe Petrosian was using an old computer or didn't wait more than a few seconds, but whatever the explanation, this position is well within the power of contemporary engine + hardware tandems.

So readers, don't be afraid to use your computers to test grandmaster claims. Chess software works best when it's guided, and there are still positions that they can't handle particularly well, it's true. But if I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, wrongly, that computers can't find some move or that they don't understand some position or other, well...

King and Pawn Endings, Part 4

A few days and many posts ago, I presented the following position



and challenged the reader to determine if 1.Re6 is a winning move.

It's certainly a plausible move and - if it works - a convenient and elegant solution to the problem of breaking down the Black fortress. Further, it's not clear to me that White can win the rook ending by other means (though it's not completely clear that it's drawn, either), so it's understandable that in this 1986 game with Dan Durham, he opted for 1.Re6.

I had deliberately provoked this a few moves before, and at this point I have no choice but to capture, as 1...Ra1 2.Rg6 followed by Rxg5 is hopeless for Black. So we have the following sequence:

1. Re6 Rxe6! 2.fxe6+ Kxe6 3.Ke4 (moves played will be given in bold letters), giving rise to our next critical position:



Black now has a choice between options, and two are bad.

(1) 3...g6 4.Kd4 Kd6 5.e4 Ke6 6.e5 Ke7 7.Kd5 Kd7 8.e6+ Ke8!


[KEY DIAGRAM]

This seems to draw, as 9.Kd6 Kd8 10.e7+ Ke8 11.Ke6 is stalemate, while 9.Ke5 Ke7 10.Kd5 Ke8 returns to the diagram.

(2) 3...Kf6 4.Kd5 Ke7 (else White plays 5.Kd6, guaranteeing an easy win after 6.e4, 7.e5 and depending on where Black's king is at this point, 8.Kd7 followed by e6-7-8 or 8.Ke6, either gaining the opposition one last time or collecting Black's g-pawns for free) 5.Ke5 g6 (else 6.Kf5) 6.e4 and wins.

(3) 3...Kd6 4.Kf5, when 4...Kd5 gives White a pleasant choice between going after Black's g-pawns starting with 5.Kxg5 and and 5.e4+.

What's the truth? Line (2) is an easy win for White, just as I've written, but the assessment of lines (1) and (3) are the reverse of what they seem: Line (1) loses and line (3) draws! I'll come back to the problem with line (1) later; for now, let's continue with line (3), which was the game:

3...Kd6!!

Here my opponent realized, to his shock, that 4.Kf5 doesn't win, as after 4...Kd5! Black draws after both White tries:

(a) 5.Kxg5 (it seems inconceivable that Black's king can get White's pawns in time, but that's just what happens) 5...Ke4 6.Kg6 Kxe3 7.g5 Kf4 8.Kxg7 Kxg5 is slightly equal, while

(b) 5.e4+ Kd4! (forced) 6.e5 Kd5 7.e6 Kd6 (thank goodness 8.Kf6 is illegal!) 8.Kxg5 Kxe6 9.Kg6 and again the Black king does the seemingly impossible: 9...Ke5 10.Kxg7 Kf4 and draws.

So White decided not to force things:

4.Kd4 Ke6 5.e4 Kd6 6.e5+



and now, another choice and again, I chose correctly:

5...Ke7!

5...Ke6? is the natural move, but after 6.Ke4 king moves allows 7.Kf5 and 8.Kxg5, while 6...g6 7.Kd4 Ke7 8.Kd5 Kd7 9.e6+ Ke8 leads once more to the KEY DIAGRAM.

6.Kd5 Kd7 7.e6+ Ke7 8.Ke5

and now Black faces his final test:



There are four possibilities: two draw, two lose; two look normal, two look crazy. Needless to say, it's the crazy-looking ones that draw, while sanity results in a loss...or should have.

A. 8...Ke8 looks obvious: everyone knows that in such positions, the right thing to do is go straight back, so that 9.Kd6 (9.Kf5 Ke7 will transpose to a line we'll look at via the 8...Kd8 9.Kf5 move order) Kd8 10.e7+ Ke8 11.Ke6 is a draw by stalemate. Except that it isn't here; Black's misfortune is that the g-pawn can move, and after 11...g6 12.Kf6 White will promote.

B. 8...Kf8 is just plain goofy-looking, both giving ground and apparently not even bothering with the opposition. However, as it has no independent significance but transposes to 8...Kd8 lines after either 9.Kd6 Ke8 or 9.Kf5 Ke7, we'll move on to line C.

C. 8...Kd8 and now another branch:

C1. 9.Kd6 Ke8 10.e7 g6 11.Ke6 stalemate! Now we see why Black has to take what looks like an anti-opposition approach; it's because of the g6 tempo (compare line A). By letting White "have" the opposition through e7, Black can regain it when it really matters.

C2. 9.Kf5 and once again, Black's king vacuums up the White pawns with amazing rapidity after 9...Ke7 10.Kxg5 Kxe6 11.Kg6 Ke5 12.g5 (12.Kxg7 Kf4=) Kf4 13.Kxg7 Kxg5.

So 8...Kd8 and 8...Kf8 both merit exclamation marks, while 8...Ke8 and the move played in the game, 8...g6, both merit negative punctuation. But what's wrong with g6 - doesn't Black end up playing it anyway, as for example on move 10 of line C1?

Yes, he does, but it's only appropriate after White plays e7, as we'll see.

D. 8...g6?? 9.Kd5 Ke8

and here it is once more, our famous KEY DIAGRAM:



Some of you might be wondering how White can win this. After all, as mentioned earlier, 10.Kd6 Kd8 11.e7+ Ke8 12.Ke6 is a draw by stalemate, while 10.Ke5 Ke7 11.Kd5 Ke8 returns to the diagram.

The solution? Triangulation! If in this position it were Black to move, the task would be trivial: 10...Ke7 11.Ke5 and the White king devours the pawns, or 10...Kd8 11.Kd6 and White gains the opposition and queens the pawn (11...Ke8 12.e7 Kf7 13.Kd7 etc.). What White needs to do is find a way to "lose" (or gain) a move here, so as to force the same position with the hapless victim - me - to move and lose.

Thus 12.Ke4! (or 12.Ke4! followed by Ke4!) Kd8 (12...Ke7 13.Ke5 wins) 13.Kd4! Ke8 (again, 13...Ke7 14.Ke5) 14.Kd5! and Black would have to resign. Fortunately, Dan, 2418 player that he was notwithstanding, continued

12.Kd6 Kd8 13.e7+?? Ke8 14.Ke6 1/2-1/2

Note that it's move 13 that blows the win - White could have retreated to d5 and still executed the triangulation maneuver. A pretty remarkable ending, I think, and I'm proud of 19-years-ago self for having had the idea of inducing 1.Re6 and then playing the rest almost perfectly, but I'm also amazed, even dumbfounded by the exchange of blunders at the end of the game. Both of us as strong masters must have been aware of the idea of triangulation - it can be found in practically any elementary textbook on endgames. Yet in what was only a very slight alteration from the standard 101 example, we found ourselves more or less oblivious to the possibility of such a tactic. Apparently we "knew" triangulation then, but didn't really know it.

Chess is hard - and yet the richness of the game keeps me - all of us, I think, coming back for more!

Preview of Coming Attractions

It looks like word of mouth (fingers?) is spreading, and visits to this blog have really spiked the last couple of days. Welcome, everyone!

I won't be updating the page again until later today, but here are some of the topics I intend to post on over the course of the next 2-3 days:

(1) The solution to King and Pawn Endings, Part 3. (Do try to solve it first!)
(2) Some musings on Steve Lopez's "The Future of Internet Chess?"
(3) DGT boards and Kd5: something easy we can do to make a difference for the history of our game.
(4) Replies to my various thoughtful respondents on my post "Can Christians Play Chess?"
(5) A presentation of my one-time favorite anti-French Defense line - one I suspect most of you don't even know exists! (Whether its obscurity is its only true virtue remains to be seen, but it's at least an extremely entertaining line, as you'll see.)

Stay tuned!

Fischer-Fine, Skittles Game 1963

Bobby Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games (MSMG) is one of those books that belongs in the library of any serious chess enthusiast. (Incredibly, it's out of print, a chess publishing crime that will hopefully be remedied soon.) Most of the games are heavyweight affairs between Fischer and other elite GMs, but the lighter fare includes one game from a simul and even a blitz game with Reuben Fine.

Fine was well-retired from chess at this point, but was at one time in the world's absolute elite, tying for first in the 1938 A.V.R.O. tournament (but second on tie-breaks behind Paul Keres) that was supposed to serve as a candidates' event to face Alexander Alekhine for the world title. Further, he was invited to the 1948 world championship match-tournament to find a successor to Alekhine, who had died with the title in 1946, but declined to participate.

Fine played well in the skittles match with Fischer from which the game in MSMG was taken, even winning one game, but in the game in the book he gets hammered:

Fischer-Fine, 1963:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O dxc3 8.Qb3 Qe7 9.Nxc3 Nf6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Bb2 Qg5 14.h4 Qxh4 15.Bxg7 Rg8 16.Rfe1+ Kd8 17.Qg3 1-0

Black's resignation is altogether appropriate, as 17...Qxg3 18.Bf6 is mate, while other 17th moves lead to the loss of the queen with the king's death to ensue shortly thereafter.

Fine's play in the opening was a model for those who eager to lose in a quick and stylish way, and Fischer does a good job in his notes of pointing out various ways Black could have improved. Victor Reppert (who has himself just started a blog covering a diverse array of subjects from C. S. Lewis to Buddhism to, of course, chess) thinks that Fischer did miss something, however, in his notes to Black's 14 move. We begin with a celebratory diagram:



Fischer quickly dismisses 14...Qh6 on account of 15.Qa3, when the dual threats of Qxa5 and Rfe1+ followed by Qe7# are fatal, but 14...Qg4 is more interesting. After 14...Qg4 15.Rfe1+ Kd8 16.Qe3 Bb4, we come to the critical position:



Now follow three lines, in order of increasing strength:

(1) First, Fischer's line, which wins in the artistry department: 17.Qh6 gxh6 18.Bf6+ Be7 19.Bxe7+ Ke8 20.Bg5+ Kf8 21.Bxh6+ Qg7 22.Re8+! Kxe8 23.Bxg7, winning, because saving the rook with 23...Rg8 comes at the king's expense: 24.Re1+ Kd8 25.Bf6#

It's very nice, but if Black keeps his wits about him with 17...Be7, it seems the best White can do is reach a substantially better ending that might be winning but will certainly take some work after 18.Bxg7 Rg8 19.d6 cxd6 20.Rxe7 Qxg7 21.Qxg7 Rxg7 22.Rae1 Kc7 23.Bxf7.

(2) Next comes Reppert's line, which looks like a genuine improvement, pursuing the same goal of crushing Black on the long diagonal, but in a more forceful way: 17.Qe5 f6 18.Qxf6+ gxf6 19.Bxf6+ Be7 20.Rxe7 Qg6 21.Re6+ Qxf6 22.Rxf6 with a favorable version of the endgame we saw in the previous line.

(3) Finally, a line to dispense with endgames: 17.d6! At the cost of a pawn but with gain of tempo, White bottles up the Black position and makes the d-file another attacking line, and that proves too much for Black to handle.

Black must address the threat of Qe7#, and as 17...Qxh4 is a dismal failure due to 18.g3, Black must choose between 17...cxd6 and 17...Bxd6. So:

(3a) 17...Bxd6 18.Bxf7 (threatening 19.Qe8+ Rxe8 20.Rxe8#) c6 (18...c5 19.Rad1 Qf5 [19...Qf4 20.Qxf4 Bxf4 21.Bxg7 wins a rook for free] 20.Rxd6 Qxf7 21.Qg5+ Kc7 22.Qxc5+ Kd8 23.Qg5+ Kc7 24.Rac1+ Kb8 25.Be5 with a quick mate) 19.Rad1 Qf5 20.Rxd6 Qxf7 21.Bd4 Kc7 22.Qe5 and wins.

(3b) 17...cxd6 18.Qe7+ Kc7 19.Rac1+ Kb8 20.Bxf7 a5 21.Rc4 Qf5 22.Rxb4+ axb4 23.Qxd6+ Ka7 24.Bd4+ forcing mate.

In sum, Fischer's analysis on move 14 wasn't as accurate or comprehensive as it could have been, though in all fairness I think his goal with the variation with 17.Qh6 was at least as much to display a beautiful idea in a sideline rather than rigorous analysis of a serious game. I think we get the best of both worlds then - an elegant tactical idea from Fischer and a very useful attacking motif arising from further analysis. Indeed, that's part of the value of going through great chess books new and old - there is much to learn from them, but it's a conversation to which we can contribute as well.

A Study...with Diagrams!

The following position is quite simple to assess and solve, but it's a neat idea I thought up on my own. I've since discovered a couple of antecedents in ChessBase's Study Database, but as neither my skeleton nor its antecedents are particularly artistic or well-developed, there's plenty of room for the enterprising composer to create something worthwhile and original.

The really important thing, however, is that the diagram problem has been solved! (Many thanks to DG of the Boylston Chess Club and their fine blog- see his comment here for the how-to details.)

White to move and draw (but Black is the one needing to save the half-point)



White can draw this lots of ways, but the variation illustrating the neat point goes like this:

1.Rf1+ Re1 2.Rxe1+ Kxe1 3.a6 h3 4.a7





and now Black must play accurately: 4...h2! (4...hxg2? 5.a8Q g1Q 6.Qe4+ Kd1 [6...Kf2 7.Qe2#] 7.Qe2+ Kc1 8.Qc2#) 5.a8Q h1Q 6.Qa1+ (White has no other way to progress) Kf2 7.Qxh1 stalemate!

Want to Play Worse? Teach!

After not playing in tournaments for several years, I made a small comeback in 1997, and enjoyed some success, too. However, when I told New York legend Asa Hoffman that I was also starting to teach chess, he warned me that it would harm my play, offering two or three examples of other reasonably strong players whose ratings took a bit of a plunge shortly after starting to teach. (Call the claim that teaching is bad for one's chess "Asa's thesis".)

On the other hand, it is a well-established bit of teaching lore that teachers learn more than their students; that teaching, done right, is a positive thing for student and teacher alike. So what's the truth of the matter?

I hadn't thought about the matter for a long time, but this morning I was doing a little pre-Super Bowl reading on ESPN.com and came across an interesting interview with Malcolm Gladwell. He's plugging a new book, entitled Blink; here's an excerpt from that interview relevant to the discussion above:

JM: Talk a little about tennis coach Vic Braden, the subject of one of your anecdotes. He says, "We haven't found a single (tennis) player who is consistent in knowing and explaining exactly what he does."

MG: Braden's experience is really interesting. He would ask, say, a world-class tennis player to describe precisely how they would hit a topspin forehand, and they would invariably say that they rolled their wrist at the moment of impact with the ball. And then he'd do a digital analysis of videotape of them actually hitting a topspin forehand and find out that at the moment of impact with the ball their wrist was rock solid. They didn't roll it at all. The expertise of a world-class tennis player, in other words, is instinctive, which means that the knowledge behind their actions is buried in the corners of their brain. They hit a ball unconsciously.

JM: Is that why, quite often, great players don't make such great coaches?

MG: Yes, that's precisely why top athletes so often make bad coaches or general managers. They often don't really know why they were as good as they were. They can't describe it, which means that they can't teach it and they quickly become frustrated at their inability to lift others up to their own level. Mediocre players -- or non-athletes -- tend to make better coaches because their knowledge isn't unconscious. It's the same thing with writing. I know very little about science. But I think I write about science more clearly than many scientists, because I have to go over every step, carefully and deliberately.

Gladwell's argument would suggest that (many) strong players may have a tough time becoming teachers, but I suspect that Gladwell's claim may support and help explain Asa's thesis. My thought is this: because the way the strong player evaluates a position is intuitive, based on experience rather than any sort of reference to the kinds of general rules one might find in a treatise on positional play, he won't be of much use to his chess students. Or rather, he won't be until he starts speaking in what we might call methodese - translating his decisions into the language of textbook positional rules. As the teacher develops the habit of thinking in methodese, that may undermine the natural and automatic nature of his own style, with the inevitable result that his competitive results suffer.

I don't claim that this has to happen, or that the cognitive awkwardness, if real, needs to be permanent. Perhaps the teacher can switch from one thinking style to another without lingering effects, perhaps he will become "bilingual," and maybe he can somehow develop a thinking style that is in some way a synthesis of the two approaches.

Any thoughts from the chess teachers out there?

Can Christians Play Chess?

Obviously they can, because they do! I'm a Christian, and I do. So what I'm really asking is this (at least as a first approximation): can a Christian, as a Christian, play chess without thereby doing something wrong? Here are several arguments to suggest the answer is no:

1. The Christian ought, whenever possible, to do something that builds up his fellow man (or woman). But the goal in chess is to defeat one's opponent, thereby tearing the other person down. Therefore, one cannot play chess - at least not to win - insofar as one is acting as a Christian.

2. The Christian ought to foster in himself a loving character. But the competitive nature of the chess game requires just the opposite; a certain self-centeredness in the pursuit of a selfish goal. Therefore, etc.

3. The New Testament teaches us to view others at least as highly as ourselves: "Love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus tells us, while St. Paul wrote "[d]o nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). Jesus' admonition seems incompatible with a desire to defeat one's opponent - I certainly don't want to lose games, so why would I wish it on my neighbor? And Paul's statement is a double whammy for the chess player: what is chess about if not rivalry? Worse still, if I really feel of someone that they are more significant than I am, then I want them to flourish, to succeed - just the opposite of what is likely to happen if I defeat them.

4. We are told to "redeem the time" (Ephesians 5:16); that is, to spend our time concerned with things of ultimate significance. Whatever wonderful things chess has going for it, being of eternal or ultimate significance isn't among them. Therefore, etc.

5. A pragmatic argument: one ought not to engage in practices that tend to develop one's ego and set one against one's fellows. Clearly, however, this happens in chess, especially but not only at the strongest levels. Therefore, even if there's no guarantee that these adverse character traits will develop, the relatively high probability makes taking up or continuing to play chess an unjustified risk.

All sophistry? Perhaps, but I'm not completely sure. Some of the arguments seem to me to require deep responses, responses that may have real implications going far beyond the question of playing (or not playing) chess. In any case, I'd very much like to see readers' reactions - though with the restriction that critiques of religious belief be omitted. The issue here isn't whether Christianity is true or false, but whether playing chess is morally compatible with being an (earnest) believer, and if so how to anwer the objections above.

Is Chess a Sport?

Q. Is chess a sport?

A. It might at first seem that chess is a sport. First of all, it's clearly a competitive activity, which seems to be a necessary if not sufficient condition for something's being a sport. Second, the same sorts of general mental and physical disciplines needed by the sportsman (e.g. mental toughness, strong self-confidence, endurance, etc.) are required for chess players to succeed. To take a prominent example, Karpov's (then-) frail physique nearly cost him twice in big matches against Korchnoi (one for the world championship, the other in a final candidates match) and quite possibly did cost him the title to Kasparov when he lacked the endurance to finish him off in 1984.

Yet despite the above, I think that chess is not a sport. Here's why:

1. I take the following to be necessary conditions of being a sport:

a. That it's a competitive activity.
b. That the performance of the activity have an intrinsically physical component.

2. Chess fulfills (a) but not (b). As far as the nature of chess is concerned, it could be played by disembodied spirits using mental telepathy or by conscious computers.

(Whether either exists is a question for another time; I'm inclined to think the former do exist and to be skeptical about the possibility of the latter, and I'm sure some of my readers think I have it exactly backwards. No matter; the point here is just that either sort of being could play chess either without any physical activity whatsoever, or without the physical activity's being an intrinsic part of the fulfillment of the exercise.)

What I mean by an "intrinsically physical component" is easy to grasp by considering a paradigmatic case: in football, players score touchdowns by using their bodies to move the football across the field and into the end zone, field goals or extra points by sending the ball through the goal posts using only their feet. A physical object must be moved through physical space using particular bodily means.

Not so with chess. Moving the wood or plastic pieces isn't an intrinsic part of the game - one could play an online game by moving one' s mouse or better still, not move anything to play a blindfold game. (One has to move something to state one's move, but the expressing of a move isn't itself a move.) What counts is the production of a move, and that is not an intrinsically physical activity.

3. Thefore, chess isn't a sport.

Now, if one chooses to define a sport merely as some sort of competitive endeavor, then chess would be let in - but so would many other activities, like put-down contests and job interviews. Nor is it enough to add to the competitiveness condition the further requirement that it's an activity where physical prowess can make a substantial difference to one's potential success: one candidate for a job may succeed due to his enhanced fitness (his healthy appearance impressed the hiring committee, his superior conditioning enabled him to successfully work longer hours at his previous job, improving his qualifications, etc.), but that still wouldn't turn job interviewing into a sport.

In sum, while chess is in some significant ways sports-like, and physical and mental training are of great value to ambitious tournament chess players, chess is not a sport - at least if an activity only counts as a sport if it includes some intrinsically physical component.

Comments?

DM vs. Goliath in Blitz

I haven't played much blitz lately, so I "splurged" tonight and tried a single game against an anonymous GM on the Playchess.com server. Here's the game:

NN (2688) - DM (2580) [D00]

Rated game, 3m + 0s Main Playing Hall, 05.02.2005

1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 c6 4.Nf3 Qb6 5.b3 Bf5 6.e3 Nd7 7.Be2 Ngf6 8.0–0 e6 9.Nbd2 Ba3 10.Bd3 0–0 11.Bxf5 exf5 12.c4 Ne4 13.Qc2 Rac8 14.c5 Qb5 15.Nb1 Qa5 16.Nxa3 Qxa3 17.Nd2 Rfe8 18.Rfc1 b6 19.Nxe4 fxe4 20.Bg3 bxc5 21.dxc5 Ne5 22.Bxe5 Rxe5 23.Qc3 f6 24.Qd4 Rb8 25.Rd1 Qb4 26.Qxb4 Rxb4 27.Kf1 a5 28.Ke2 Re7 29.Kd2 Reb7 30.Kc3 Kf7 31.Rd4 Ke6 32.Rc1 Ke5 33.f4+ exf3 34.gxf3 R7b5 35.f4+ Kf5 36.Kd3 a4 37.bxa4 Rxd4+ 38.exd4 Rb4 39.Rf1 Rxa4 40.Rf2 Ra3+ 41.Kc2 Rxa2+ Time 0–1

[N.B. Some of you may have seen the game posted earlier with diagrams. When I looked at the page with Mozilla, it looked great, but in IE it was horribly distorted. So I'm still trying to figure out how to make it all work, and comments from those who know would be appreciated!]

Accessing my ChessBase shows

As mentioned several times in this blog, I present a live show on ChessBase's playchess.com server on Monday nights; additionally, all past shows are archived almost immediately and can be accessed at any time. In this entry I'll explain how to access both live and archived shows.

First Steps: Meeting your software needs

ChessBase Software
Unfortunately, it' s not as simple as opening your web browser and entering a URL, but it isn't too difficult. The first step is to get the right software, and there are two main options to choose from.

First, you can go to playchess.com and download the free client software. That will give you one month's free access to ChessBase's online server, which is where the show takes place.

A second option is to go shopping on the ChessBase website and purchase one of their playing programs (Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs, Chess Tiger, etc.) for approximately 50 USD. The programs are all of appproximate world championship-level strength and have lots of neat bells & whistles, but the relevant matter at hand is that you receive two free ("free" given the initial purchase of the software, of course) 1-year memberships to the playchess.com server.

Windows Media Player 9 (or later)
You'll also need Windows Media 9 or later (Microsoft is up to version 10 now). It probably came with your machine if it's a recent one, but if not, you can download it here.

Part Two: I have the software; now what?

If you have the standalone client (option 1, above), then life is simple: execute the program and log on. If you have Fritz or one of its counterparts, execute the program, choose the Playchess.com option and log on. From this point, the two options will work the same way.

The next step is to navigate inside the server. Once inside, your interface will probably consist of four windows. One of them, probably on the bottom right, will have a header that says "Rooms." In that window you'll see a directory structure listing the server's rooms, obviously enough; the one you'll want to watch the lives shows is "Broadcasts." Click once and you'll be in.

The next thing to do is to go to the window on the upper left. It should have four tabs on the top (Info, Players, Games and World) - select the players tab. That will list all the players in the room, including yourself. My account name is "Initiative", and the easiest way to watch me give the show is to double-click on my handle while the show is going on. (More generally, since there are other people who occasionally broadcast shows, click on the "Status" bar and then double-click on the account name of anyone listed as a "Chairman".) And that's all there is to it! A new window will automatically open displaying the analysis board and providing the show's audio.

Great, but what about all those wonderful shows I've missed?

Part 1: Buying Ducats
Almost every past show is in the archives, but first you'll have to buy what ChessBase calls "ducats" (that's what they call their online currency). While you're logged on with a registered account, go to the Edit menu, select Payments and from there Fill Up Your Account. Follow the directions on purchasing ducats and you'll be good to go within 24 hours or so, possibly sooner.

CB charges about $13 US for 100 ducats, so given their charge of 2 ducats (about 26 cents) to watch an archived show (sometimes 1 ducat, sometimes 4 ducats, if the show was broken into two parts), it's unlikely that anyone with an internet account and the ability to purchase chess software is going to feel much of a pinch here.

Part 2: Accessing the Old Shows
Now that you're the proud owner of a bucket of ducats, here's what you do. Log on to the playchess server, look in the Rooms window and click on Chess Media System, then from within there continue to telescope in as follows: Radio ChessBase-->English-->Great Games with Dennis Monokroussos.

Once you've done that, click on the Games tab in the upper left (sub-) window and you'll see the list of available shows. When you find one you like, double-click and start watching! After a few seconds, you'll be asked if you'd like to watch the rest of the broadcast for the prescribed fee. If you accept, then that's it - all that's left is to watch and enjoy!

My ChessBase Show's Game List

What follows are all the games I've covered (I think!) over the course of the 64 weeks of my ChessBase show. (The numerals pick out the show's week.) This list will hopefully be a convenient resource for those looking up old shows in the archives, and even for those who haven't and won't watch them, these are still games well worth finding and studying carefully. (Except, perhaps, for my games - I'll leave their worth for others to judge.)

1. Spassky-Petrosian, Moscow (W ch, game 19) 1969 (1-0, 24)

1. Spassky-Rashkovsky, USSR ch. 1973 (1-0, 21)

2. Keres-Weiss, IFSB-ch corr. 1935 (1-0, 27)

2. Keres-Geller, Candidates playoff 1962 (1-0, 28)

3. Brodsky-Kramnik, Herson 1991 (0-1, 31)

3. Gelfand-Kramnik, Berlin 1996 (0-1, 28)

3. Kasparov-Kramnik, Dos Hermanas 1996 (0-1, 35)

4. Topalov-Bareev, Linares 1994 (0-1, 23)

4. Karpov-Topalov, Linares 1994 (1-0, 39)

5. Geller-Najdorf, Zurich (Ct) 1953 (1-0, 57)

5. Geller-Fischer, Curacao (Ct) 1962 (1-0, 41)

6. Karpov-Ljubojevic, Torino 1982 (1-0, 28)

6. Tal-Andersson, Biel (izt) 1976 (1-0, 34)

7. Shirov-Polgar, Tilburg Fontys 1996 (1-0, 30)

8. Halprin-Pillsbury, DSB-12 Kongress 1900 (1/2-1/2, 24)

9. Polugaevsky-Nezhmetdinov, Sochi 1958 (0-1, 33)

10. Kasparov-Karpov, W ch (game 16) 1986 (1-0, 41)

11. Durham-Monokroussos, Las Vegas 1986 (1/2-1/2, 65)

11. Monokroussos-Shliperman, New York 1998 (1-0, 38)

11. Monokroussos-Cavallo, Philadelphia (World Open) 1998 (1-0, 25)

11. Monokroussos-Barcarola, US Amateur Team East 1999 (1/2-1/2, 54)

12. Flohr-Vidmar, Nottingham 1936 (1-0, 58)

13. Capablanca-Marshall, New York 1918 (1-0, 36)

14. Denker-Botvinnik, U.S. vs. USSR radio match 1945 (0-1, 25)

15. Capablanca-Menchik, Hastings 1929 (1-0, 64)

16. Harmonist-Tarrasch, DSB-06 Kongress 1889 (0-1, 46)

17. Jimenez-Larsen, Palma de Mallorca 1967 (0-1, 43)

18. Reshevsky-Miagmasuren, Sousse 1967 (1-0, 33)

19. Karpov-Beliavsky, Tilburg 1986 (0-1, 36)

19. Nikolic-Kramnik, Monaco (blind) 1998 (0-1, 35)

20. Serper-Nikolaidis, St. Petersburg 1993 (1-0, 48)

21. Petrosian-Yukhtman, USSR ch (Tbilisi) 1959 (1-0, 31)

22. Reshevsky-Fischer, New York/Los Angeles (m) 1961 (0-1, 57)

23. Capablanca-Tartakower, New York 1924 (1-0, 52)

24. Kharlov-Nisipeanu, Tripoli (FIDE W Ch) 2004 (1-0, 62)

25. Zukertort-Steinitz, W ch 1886 (0-1, 46)

26. Lputian-Dlugy, New York Open 1998 (1-0, 23)

27. Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Linares 1985 (1-0, 41)

28. Rotlewi-Rubinstein, Lodz 1907 (0-1, 25)

29. Benko-Olafsson, Yugoslavia (Ct) 1959 (1-0, 42)

30. Estrin-Berliner, World Corr. Ch. 1965-68 (0-1, 42)

31. Beliavsky-Anand, Munich 1991 (0-1, 28)

32. Morozevich-Anand, PCA/Intel GP (rapid) 1995 (1-0, 28)

33. Cordes-Miles, Bad Woerishofen 1985 (1-0, 36)

34. Korchnoi-Huebner, Johannesburg 1981 (1-0, 23)

35. Kramnik-Leko (x2) (Tilburg 1998 and Koeln 2000) (0-1, 45 and 1-0, 33)

36. Vasiukov-van Wely, Moscow 2002 (1-0, 32)

37. Jussupow-van der Wiel, Luzern (ol) 1982 (1-0, 31)

38. Anderssen-Lange, Breslau 1859 (0-1, 19)

38. Polgar-Berkes, Budapest 2003 (1-0, 24)

39. Botvinnik-Smyslov, W Ch. 1954 (1-0, 30)

39. Smyslov-Botvinnik, W Ch. 1954 (1-0, 25)

40. Leko-Kramnik, Brissago (W ch) 2004 (1/2-1/2, 65)

40. Kramnik-Leko, Brissago (W ch) 2004 (1-0, 41)

41. Petrosian-Bronstein, Amsterdam (Ct) 1956 (0-1, 36)

41. Kasparov-Karpov, Moscow (W Ch.) 1985 (1-0, 25)

41. Shirazi-Peters, Berkeley (U.S. Ch.) 1984 (0-1, 5)

41. Christiansen-Karpov, Wijk aan Zee 1993 (1-0, 12)

41. Zapata-Anand, Biel 1988 (1-0, 6)

41. Szabo-Reshevsky, Zurich (Ct) 1953 (1/2-1/2, 27)

42. Schiffers-Harmonist, Frankfurt 1887 (1-0, 28)

42. Spielmann-Duras, Carlsbad 1907 (1-0, 21)

42. Fang-Ivanov, Manchester 1999 (0-1, 37)

42. Mustafaev-Mamedyarov, Baku 2001 (0-1, 40)

42. Kosztolanczi-Hajnal, Zalakaros 2002 (0-1, 30)

42. Bancod-Iuldachev, Jakarta 1997 (0-1, 30)

42. Morkisz-Kaula, Poland 1995 (1/2-1/2, 28)

43. Bisguier-Monokroussos, Las Vegas 1998 (0-1, 21)

43. Rubinstein-Vidmar, Berlin 1918 (0-1, 24)

44. Gruenfeld-Polugaevsky, Riga (izt) 1979 (0-1, 53)

45. Kamsky-Kramnik, New York (Cm) 1994 (1-0, 41)

46. Euwe-Najdorf, Zurich (Ct) 1953 (1-0, 37)

47. Grooten-Motylev, Essent op 2003 (0-1, 43)

48. Nakamura-Muhammed, U.S. Ch. 2004 (1-0, 28)

48. Nakamura-Stripunsky, U.S. Ch. 2004 (1/2-1/2, 25)

48. DeFirmian-Nakamura, U.S. Ch. 2004 (0-1, 40)

48. Kaidanov-Nakamura, U.S. Ch. 2004 (0-1, 68)

48. Nakamura-Karjakin, Cuernavaca (m) 2004 (0-1, 39)

49. Nakamura-Ibragimov, U.S. Ch. 2004 (1-0, 66)

50. Bronstein-Larsen, Amsterdam (izt) 1964 (0-1, 30)

51. Miles-Huebner, Wijk aan Zee 1984 (1-0, 41)

52. Anand-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee (Corus) 2004 (1-0, 48)

53. McDonnell-Labourdonnais, London (m) 1834 (0-1, 37)

54. Bird-Horwitz, London 1851 (1-0, 59)

55. Bogoljubow-Alekhine, W ch 1934, game 9 (0-1, 46)

56. Kasparov-Anand, W ch 1995, game 10 (1-0, 38)

57. van Oosterom-Nimtz, 18th W corr. ch. 2003 (1-0, 49)

58. Karpov-Timman, Montreal 1979 (1-0, 38)

59. Aronian-Popov, Aeroflot Open 2005 (1-0, 36)

60. Sasikiran-Skytte, Politiken Cup 2003 (1-0, 41)

61. Kasparov-Karpov, W ch 1985, game 19 (1-0, 42)

62. Saidy-Fischer, New York 1968 (0-1, 35)

62. Karpov-Bellon, Madrid 1973 (1/2-1/2, 49)

63. MacDonald-Burn, Casual Game 1910 (0-1, 49)

64. Jobava-Delgado, Calvia (ol) 2004 (1-0, 34)

65. Pachman-Fischer, Santiago 1959 (1-0, 40)

Kasparov QGD DVD Follow-Up

Having finished viewing the DVD (for the first time - I intend to rewatch it at least once more), I'm happy to report that its initial virtues all held up; further, there are a couple of other positive aspects worth noting.

First, unsurprisingly, Kasparov often pays tribute to the great players of the past who helped in the development of the theory of the Queen's Gambit Declined, and practically pleads with the viewer to explore and appreciate that rich heritage as well. Of course, this plea is just what we would expect from Kasparov in light of his My Great Predecessors series, and I can only add my own hearty yea and amen - my ChessBase show was started for just that reason, to celebrate and publicize to a broader audience some of the wonderful games and players of the past.

The second additional virtue of the DVD is that it comes with a database of QGD games (99,995 to be exact) from 1842 through August of 2004. The overwhelming majority are unannotated, but about 50 games are well-annotated and all the games Kasparov mentions in the theoretical portion of the DVD are specially placed early in the database for easy reference.

All in all, a fine product, though I reiterate that it certainly presupposes a certain level of sophistication and ought to be supplemented with other explanatory material. Good stuff!

Kasparov's Queen's Gambit DVD

Earlier today I received ChessBase's DVD of Kasparov on the Queen's Gambit, and so far I have to say that I'm very pleasantly surprised. (I also have to say that I work for ChessBase, so while I'm not writing this to be a corporate shill, the reader should certainly be apprised of my potential conflict of interest.)

In general, my feelings about video presentations is that while they're entertaining and can be a useful way to express concept-based material (as opposed to variations and games), they're often a way for lazy presenters to make a quick buck while presenting a miniscule amount of material compared to what's available in a book.

However, while I think that this DVD is best supplemented by print and/or database materials (Sadler's terrific book on the Queen's Gambit Declined comes to mind), it's a very useful work on this opening in its own right.

In particular, I'd like to single out three virtues I've noticed so far:

1. Kasparov does an outstanding job of giving the viewer the lay of the land: you'll know, if you watch diligently, how the opening evolved, what the significant variations are and the problems each is trying to solve.

2. The viewer is told where to go for further information. Contrary to at least one typical video format, where lines with optimistic conclusions are offered and presented as if the final word, Kasparov offers objective evaluations, notes what others think and gives them credit for their contributions, and tells the viewer what games were important and which players (including among his contemporaries) are models to follow in which lines.

3. Kasparov does a terrific job of blending particular details with conceptual information. While he presents a tremendous amount of material (by video standards), the why is always made quite explicit, so that even if the viewer forgets the details, she may well understand enough to work out the lines for herself - if you understand the problems to be solved and the typical resources at your disposal, a solution may be nearer than you think.

One warning: because Kasparov blitzes through so much material so quickly, repeated viewings are going to be a must. There's a slogan for public speakers that says "less is more," but when you have the option of watching the video again and again, I disagree: more is more, and Kaparov delivers.

Second warning: both the pacing and sophistication of the presentation will challenge the viewer, especially, in my opinion, players under 1800 with little-to-no familiarity with the Queen's Gambit. That's not to say they should immediately rule this product out, but they will probably find the going especially difficult and might want to find a different introductory source to the opening and only then try the DVD. (If others have seen this video, I welcome your comments, especially if you disagree.)

This Week's ChessBase Show

For fans of my ChessBase show (Monday at 9 p.m. ET), here's an early head's-up: Monday's game will be the 9th game of the 1934 world championship match between Alexander Alekhine (the champion, playing Black) and his two-time challenger Efim Bogoljubow. The game features a rather primitive sort of Benoni (in comparison with contemporary standards), but that very feature - its old-fashionedness - helps bring out some of the most important structural features of the opening.

There are interesting moments throughout the game, but I intend to spend a disproportionately large amount of time on the first seven moves: 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.e4 d6 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxf4 Qh4+ 6.g3 Qe7 7.Nc3 g5. To find out why and to see what I'll have to say, well...you'll just have to tune in!

King and Pawn Endings, Part 3

And now, another king and pawn ending, this time from one of my tournament games.

White: Kf3, Re4, p's e3, f5, g4
Black: Kf7, Ra6, p's g7, g5

White to move - does 1.Re6 win?

The answer will appear in a few days.

King and Pawn Endings, Part Two

Ah, life for newbies in the blogosphere! I had almost completed a version of the post that now ensues, when an attempt to be clever led to my losing over an hour's worth of work. Grr...well, nothing to do but start over, so here we go:

A few days ago I presented a king and pawn ending I had composed many years ago, offering it as a challenge to any and all of the intrepid souls in the audience. Here now is the solution, with comments and a summary of the lessons to be learned.

White: Kg3, p's f2, f4, h4
Black: Kg6, p's f7, h5
White to move and draw.

[A key to symbols and conventions used below:

+- White has a winning position.
= The position is objectively drawn.
-+ Black has a winning position.
! A strong move.
? A poor move.
?? A truly terrible move.

Finally, bold type indicates a move in the solution's main line; that is, it represents the best move in the position.]

White has an extra pawn, but Black has (or is about to have) a space advantage due to his more forwardly mobile king. In fact, if White could capture his f-pawn, he wins:

1.Kxf4 Kf6 2.f3 (opposition!) and now Black is faced with a choice that will recur throughout our discussion:

(a) 2...Kg6 3.Ke5 Kg7 (3...f6+ 4.Ke6 followed by pushing the f-pawn as far as it can go leads to the win of Black's f-pawn and the game) 4.Kf5 f6 (4...Kg7 5.Kg5; 4...Kh6 5.Kf6 both win easily) 5.Ke6 Kg6 6.f4 f5 (or 6...Kg7 7.f5, winning) 7.Ke5 wins.

(b) 2...Ke6 3.Kg5 Ke5 4.Kxh5 Kf4 5.Kh6 Kxf3 6.Kg5 Ke4 7.h5 f5 8.h6 f4 9.h7 f3 10.h8Q f2 11.Qh1+ followed by 12.Qf1 wins.

Of course, White can't capture his pawn, so as we'll see, it's Black who gets to enjoy the position, often winning in lines similar to what we've just seen. For example:

(A) 1.f5+? Kxf5 2.Kf3 (2.f3 Ke5 3.Kg2 Kf4 4.Kf2 f5 -+) f6 (-+) transposes, but with colors reversed, to the position after (the very strong but illegal) 1.Kxf4 Kf6 2.f3.

(B) 1.f3? Kf5 2.Kg2 Kxf4 3.Kf2 f5 -+

(C) 1.Kf3? is very natural and the second-best move in the position. It doesn't lose any material right away and it tries to centralize the king. After 1...Kf5, we're again faced with the fundamental dilemma: Kg3 or Ke3?

(C1) 2.Kg3 Ke4 and the pawns start to drop:
(C1a) 3.f3+ Kf5 4.Kg2 Kxf4 5.Kf2 f5 -+ gives us a position we've seen twice already (in the parenthetical line in (A) and in line (B)).
(C1b) 3.f5 Kxf5 4.Kf3 f6 -+ is the position at the end of line (A).
(C1c) 3.Kg2 Kxf4 4.f3 Ke3 followed by pushing the f-pawn is a winning approach we saw in line (a) of the 1.Kxf4 discussion.

(C2) 2.Ke3 Kg4 3.Ke4 f6 brings us to a critical position.

If it were Black to move here, the position would be drawn: 4...Kxh4 5.Kf5 Kh3 6.Kxf6 Kg4 7.Ke5 h4 8.f5 and both sides queen; if anything, White has the better of the ending, though it's objectively drawn.

However, it's White to move, and that favors Black: 4.f5 Kxh4 5.Kd5 Kg5 6.Ke6 h4 7.f4+ Kxf4 8.Kxf6 h3 9.Kg6 ...

(Note that 9.Kg7 draws on h2 10.f6 h1Q 11.f7, because White will never have the chance to move the king closer without allowing Black to safely queen. Thus in a position with the White king on g8 and pawn on f7 and the Black king on f4 and queen on g6, White gets out of the check with 1.Kh8!, when 1...Qxf7 is stalemate. The problem with 9.Kg7, of course, is that Black plays 9...Kxf5.)

9...h2 10.f6 h1Q 11.f7 Qh8! winning the pawn and the game.

What have we learned so far? First, that if Black's king can reach e4, the game is completely over, while the lines with the defending side's king going to e3 (or e6, as in the illegal 1.Kxf4 case) are far more interesting. In short, space and activity can trump material even in a king and pawn ending!

Second, the mutual zugzwang in line (C2) should lead us to consider how White can attempt to reach that position with Black to move. As pawn moves lose and 1.Kf3 steps on to the square prematurely, we can determine the right move by process of elimination (a useful method for defenders to keep in mind, by the way!):

D. 1.Kg2!

Now 1...Kf5 2.Kf3 f6 3.Ke3 Kg4 4.Ke4 would be Mission Accomplished for White, but Black can also play more subtly:

1...Kf6!

Now 2.Kf3? Kf5 is the same as 1.Kf3? Kf5, and the same, mutatis mutandis, goes for 2.f3? Kf5 and 2.f5? Kxf5. So once again, by process of elimination, we find

2.Kg3! Ke6! 3.Kg2! Kd5

Now it's time to think again. White might try to yo-yo some more with 4.Kg3?, but then Black seizes the critical square with 4...Ke4, winning (5.f5 Kxf5 6.Kf3 f6 leads to a position we've seen several times, and 5.f3+ Kf5 6.Kg2 Kxf4 7.Kf2 f5 is another recurring nightmare for White). Trying to run the pawn with 4.f5? doesn't work either, as 4...Ke5 5.Kg3 Kxf5 6.Kf3 f6 is just a long-winded transposition to 1.f5? Kxf5 2.Kf3 f6. By now we know our mission: protect e4!

4.Kf3! Kd4!

4...f5 won't win as long as White doesn't play Kg3 when Black can respond with ...Ke4. For example: 5.Ke3 Kc4 6.Kf3 Kd4 7.Kg2! Kd3 8.Kh3! Kd2 9.Kh2 Ke2 10.Kg2 Kd3 11.Kh3 Ke4 12.Kg3 etc., with a draw.

After 4...Kd4, 5.Kg3? allows the fatal 5...Ke4, so again the process of elimination gives us the right move:

5.f5! Ke5 6.f6!

6.Kg3? Kxf5 7.Kf3 f6 is Old Faithful, while 6.Ke3? Kxf5 7.f3 Ke5 8.f4+ Kf5 9.Kf3 f6 is hopeless as well.

6...Kf5!

Not 6...Kxf6?? when 7.Kf4 lets White win the way Black usually does - here, in fact, White even achieves the winning position without even needing to use his f-pawn to gain the opposition. After 6...Kf5!, we are faced one last time with the dilemma: do we go to g3 or to e3?

7.Ke3!

7.Kg3? loses, and even though the way it works is by now familiar to us, it's really quite remarkable, given that no White pawn is in immediate danger (because 7...Kf6?? 8.Kxf4 wins for White) and that Black has no tempo moves in case of a mutual zugzwang. Here's how it works: 7.Kg3? Ke4 8.Kg2 Kf4 9.f3 Ke5! 10.Kg3 Kf5! (forcing the White king back before capturing the f6 pawn) 11.Kg2 Kxf6 12.Kg3 Kf5 13.Kg2 Kf4 14.Kf2 f5 -+ etc.

Now it's Black's turn to be careful...

7...Ke5!

7...Kxf6?? 8.Kxf4 we've already seen, while if 7...Kg4?, which worked in the analogous positions, White wins with 8.Ke4 Kxh4 9.Kf5 Kh3 10.Kg5 h4 11.Kh5! when Black is in a fatal zugzwang.

8.Kf3

Here at least White has more than one move - 8.f3 and 8.Kd3 are both good enough to achieve a draw. Perhaps surprisingly, though, 8.f4+? loses after 8...Kxf6 9.Ke4 (you would think that White's king having achieved the fourth rank with material equality would suffice, wouldn't you? Well, chess is a surprising game...) 9...Ke6 10.f5+ (10.Ke3 Kf5 11.Kf3 f6 and Black starts collecting) Kd6! 11.Kd4 f6 12.Ke4 Kc5 and the Black king heads for and wins the White f-pawn, and with it the game.

8...Kf5! 9.Ke3! Ke5! etc.

This ending offers us several valuable lessons:

1. A space advantages isn't just important in the opening and middlegame - even in a king and pawn ending, it can be more significant than a material advantage.
2. Likewise, activity is crucial, and can also outweigh a material advantage in significance. We're used to that idea in openings (with gambits, for example), and we might be familiar with the rule of thumb that in a rook ending, a rook on the 7th is often worth a pawn or even two, but it might be surprising in a king and pawn ending. It won't apply in a position where the side having extra material hasn't got any targets, but when there are weaknesses, make sure reflecting on king activity is a high priority.
3. Be aware of positions of mutual zugzwang, and try to figure out how to achieve that position with your opponent to move. If you're aware of those positions in advance, your chances of avoiding victimhood go way up!

And the last lesson is...chess is tough!

I hope everyone enjoyed this; I'll be offering a new pawn ending puzzle soon.

Two Games and a Blog

Those who have read the comments to my earlier posts may have noted the name of Bill Vallicella. His blog is unfailingly interesting (prepare to be challenged!), and while its primary focus is philosophy, chess shows up from time to time as well, including two of my blitz games here.

A Game and a Puzzle

Several years ago, I came across this nifty miniature:

NN-Blackburne, London 1880
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.c3 Bf5 11.Qxa8 Ng4 12.h3 Bxf2+ 13.Kh1 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4#

White's play in the game was, shall we say, cooperative, starting with the terrible Jerome Gambit (4.Bxf7+??), continuing with the over-optimistic 10.c3 and concluding with the natural but bad 11.Qxa8 (11.Qxf6+! Qxf6 12.exf5 leaves White worse but far from lost; however, Black could avoided this with the more accurate 10...Ng4 [eliminating the Qxf6+ possibility] 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 and only now 12...Bf5, when 13.Qxa8 transposes to the game).

Black's play was stronger and certainly very creative - as we would expect from a player who was then one of the strongest in the world - but not quite perfect either. There's the inaccuracy mentioned in the previous paragraph, and before that, Black could have played the simple 6...Kf8 7.Qxe5 d6, when White would have nowhere near enough compensation for the sacrificed piece. Of course, I'm sure Blackburne saw and understood this, but I suspect he felt himself honor-bound to respond in kind to his opponent's opening: as the stronger player, he, not his opponent, ought to be the one offering gambits! (See also my post on responding to junk openings.)

But now, here's the puzzle. After 9...Nf6, Black has a substantial lead in development and several well-placed pieces ready to commence a feeding frenzy on the White kingside, yet had White found 10.Qd8, pinning the Black Nf6 to the queen on h4, it would have been Black needing to fight for his life! The following might be best play for both sides: 10.Qd8! Bh3 11.Qxc7+ (11.Qxa8? Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 forces mate) Kf8! (11...Kg8? 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ and 14.Qxh3) 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 14.Qa8+ with a draw by perpetual check.

When I first saw this game and was told about 10.Qd8, it seemed to me that Black just had to have something, but neither I nor my silicon friends have succeeded in proving a win or even an advantage for Black. Can any of my readers find something better for Black?

You Aren't Safe Until the Clocks are Stopped

The title is a bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but only a bit! In the latest Chess Today, I came across the game Boris Avrukh-Emil Sutovsky from the ongoing Gibtelecom Masters event in Gibraltar. Both players are very strong grandmasters, and after move 39 the following position occurred:

White: Ke3, Rc4, Ba4, p's a2, d7, f4, g3, h2.
Black: Kg7, Rd6, Bd8, p's a6, f7, g6, h5.

I don't know if White's winning here, but Black's future is likely to consist of a good deal of suffering before achieving a draw - if it's even possible. Ideally, White would like to bring the king to the queenside (preferably c8) without trading rooks, but achieving that isn't going to be easy. Still, White is completely safe, right?

The game continued 40.Bc6 Bb6+ 41.Ke4 f5+ and now White realized that continuing forward with 42.Ke5 allows Bc7, when White is lucky that he's only losing his d7 pawn (the position after 43.Ba4 Rxd7+ 44.Ke6 Rf7 should be a routine draw). Therefore, Avrukh decided to save his d-pawn with 42.Kf3. Sensible...except that after 42...Rd2 it was time to resign, as mate is unavoidable (43.g4 h4 44.gxf5 gxf5 45.Rc5/Rc2/Rd4 Bxc5/Rxc2/Bxd4 46.Any Rf2#).

One expects this sort of thing from online 1-minute chess, but in a non-time trouble situation with strong GMs? Errare humanum est!

Responding to Junk Openings

Chess opening books entitled "Winning with the ..." are distressingly popular: popular because of the ubiquitous desire for the proverbial free lunch; distressing because (1) it often represents a certain lack of respect for the game and (2) because it's entirely unrealistic - if winning could be achieved by virtue of playing opening X, all the top players would play it and win all their games.

This desire for the quick, gimmicky wins goes back, for most of us, to our early experiences with the Scholar's Mate (1.e4 followed by 2.Bc4, 3.Qh5 and, if all goes well, 4.Qxf7#), but the world of junior and beginning chess is rife with this sort of thing.

One such line goes as follows: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4?!, when Black's big idea is to sucker White into capturing the "free pawn": 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nxf7 (more freebies?) Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3# (perhaps it wasn't so free after all).

White can achieve an easy edge with moves like 4.c3 or 4.Nxd4, but neither move really punishes Black in the way he or she so richly deserves! Black wants to destroy White by giving up some material in return for an attack; I say we return the favor. Two lines come to mind:

(a) 4.Nxe5 ("falling for it") Qg5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.O-O Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 followed by 9.d4. White has two pawns, a massive presence in the center and an exposed Black king as compensation for the piece. Objectively, the position may be roughly equal, but as a practical matter White's position is much easier to play.

(b) 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7 (the brave 5...Ke6 is interesting, but 5...Ke8 6.Qh5+ should win for White) 6.c3 d6! 7.Nc4 Nc6 8.d4 Nf6 9.O-O Kf7. Here White probably lacks sufficient compensation, though I think practicing such a position in blitz and casual games is both educationally worthwhile and likely to result in a reasonable rate of success.

Objectively, the normal lines are best, but lines (a) and (b) are more fun and, in a certain way, more appropriate responses to 3...Nd4. Speaking generally, one should try to achieve two things in the opening, when possible: reach a type of position one finds comfortable and, when possible, that one's opponent does not. These lines do just that.

King and Pawn Endings

One of my favorite exercises, when I'm trying to get into good playing form, is to work through a collection of king and pawn endings. No moving pieces around, no peeking - nothing. I just set the position up on a real board (that's another part of my prep - getting reacclimated to "real" sets after a steady diet of 2-d computer graphics), sit, and solve.

Unfortunately, I haven't done too much by way of composing pawn endings, but I have produced a couple: one is explicitly a composition, while the other emerged directly from one of my tournament games. Here's the composition, which I created (discovered?) in 1986:

White: King on g3, pawns on f2, f4 and h4.
Black: King on g6, pawns on f7 and h5.

White to move and draw. (That's right: draw!)

The solution will be given in a few days.