Dennis M's Chess Site

I've Moved: Here's the New Blog!

2005-04-20T21:46:00.000-05:00

The new blog is up! It will be a while before everything is just exactly perfect, but it's up and running and has new content. Here's the URL: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com.

Thanks very much to all my loyal readers, and I hope you'll join me at the new site. Don't forget to bookmark it too, and to invite all your friends for what will hopefully be an even richer journey into the blogosphere.

Patience, Please

2005-04-19T22:09:00.000-05:00

With the university semester winding down (with LOTS of grading to do), my setting up the new blog and with a new and unexpected 4/1-related matter to address, I'm unable to engage in as much blogging as I would like at the moment.

For those of you needing your chess fix, however, I can heartily recommending taking a look at this week's newly-released Chess Cafe columns. Noting my favorites, Nikolay Minev's "Double Mates" offers a diverse collection of tactically lively games and fragments resulting in double-check mates; Karsten Müller continues his examination of "Capablanca's Theorem" (the claim that in the endgame queen & knight are stronger than queen & bishop); and Ivan Markov presents the ten best games from Informant 91.

That should keep everyone sated for a few hours!

Of Interest on the Web

2005-04-18T23:11:00.000-05:00

Some or all of these may have already caught the readers' eye, but if not, here's a second chance!

First, as I suspect almost everyone has heard, Garry Kasparov's retirement has let him escape any danger from an attack on the chessboard but not, alas, an attack from a chessboard (-wielding thug). Click here for the story and some comments by the man himself.

Second, part two of Mig's interview with Kasparov has been posted on the ChessBase news page (part 1 can be found here, while the third and final part awaits posting).

Finally, IM John Watson is an author whose books (particularly his solo efforts) tend to be excellent, and he's a fine book reviewer as well. After a long layoff, his latest batch of reviews for TWIC can be found here.

Fischer-Kovacevic

2005-04-17T14:31:00.000-05:00

In the comments to my "More Fun with Pachman" post, BabsonTask and a subsequent anonymous poster note that Fischer's ethically dubious assistance to Sanchez was (more than) recompensed by what happened to him in 1970, against the Yugoslavian IM Kovacevic.

The story, according to Mike Fox and Richard James, in their The Even More Complete Chess Addict, is that Fischer has made his move, setting a trap in what is an objectively bad position, and has gone for a little walk while awaiting his opponent's move. Viktor Korchnoi and Tigran Petrosian are watching the game see the trap and discuss the solution. Petrosian's wife is there too, and as her hubby is trailing Fischer in the standings, she actually walks over to Kovacevic and whispers the solution to him! Kovacevic plays the right move and crushes Fischer, though the latter went on to win the tournament by a two point margin even so.

As far as I know, the source of this anecdote is Korchnoi, and in light of his long-time enmity towards Petrosian, it's possible that the story is bunk. Further, while Kovacevic's 18th move was a nice one, it wasn't beyond the capacities of a strong IM, later a GM, to find such a move. In any case, here's the game:

Fischer,Robert James - Kovacevic,Vlatko [C15]
Rovinj/Zagreb Zagreb (8), 21.04.1970
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 Nf6 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 Nbd7 9.Ne2 b6 10.Bg5 Qe7 11.Qh4 Bb7 12.Ng3 h6 13.Bd2 0-0-0 14.Be2 Nf8 15.0-0 Ng6 16.Qxh6 Rh8 17.Qg5 Rdg8 18.f3

Black's position is beautifully coordinated for a kingside attack, and if White doesn't do anything special Black will roll him off the board. White's last move is a nice try: he's hoping to shut down the Bb7's diagonal (pre-f3, Black threatened, among other things, some combination of ...Nh4, ...e3 and ...N/Bxg2) and to open the f-file for his own use. 18...e3! This keeps the f-file closed, and now, despite the two pawn deficit, Black's attack is unstoppable. [18...Nh4 looks crushing: the queen moves away, and then 19...exf3 destroys the White kingside. However: 19.fxe4! Rxg5 20.Bxg5 puts a stop to Black's attack, and after 20...Nf5 (forced) 21.Nh5 Rg8 22.Bxf6 Qf8 23.Rf4 Ne3 24.Ng3 the position is unclear.; 18...exf3? 19.Bxf3 is clearly better for White, as Black has serious problems along the f-file.] 19.Bxe3 Nf8! 20.Qb5 Nd5 Not just hitting e3 and c3, but cutting the white queen off from the kingside. 21.Kf2 a6 22.Qd3 Rxh2 23.Rh1 Qh4 24.Rxh2 Qxh2 25.Nf1 Rxg2+ 26.Ke1 Qh4+ 27.Kd2 Ng6 28.Re1 Ngf4 29.Bxf4 Nxf4 30.Qe3 Rf2

Black is threatening 31...Nxe2 32.Rxe2 Rxf1, 31...Ng2 and 31...Bxf3 - too much! 0-1

I Was Right!

2005-04-17T02:12:00.000-05:00

In my post "Naming and Contingency", I wrote the following:

"To take a relatively recent and prominent example [of an unjustly named variation], the ...Qb6xb2 line in the 6.Bg5 Najdorf deserved to be named after Bobby Fischer if any variation did, but apparently it came to be known as the "Poisoned Pawn Variation" when some journalist during the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match asked about the opening and was told that Fischer had snatched a poisoned pawn."

Victor Reppert commented to say that this story was mistaken: "The term 'poisoned pawn variation' was around long before 1972. I'm old enough to know." I replied in sackcloth and ashes, attempting to blame Edmar Mednis's book How to Beat Bobby Fischer, but reporting that a friend's search came up empty.

It turns out that I was right the first time; my mistake was only having my friend look at game 61 in the Mednis book (Spassky-Fischer, game 11 from their 1972 match). I subsequently recalled that Fischer lost on the White side of the variation to Geller in 1967, and then went in search of a local copy of the book to see what Mednis said in his notes to that game. Voila:

"There is no knowledgeable chess person who does not give Fischer full credit for making 7...Q-N3 [DM: That's 7...Qb6 for the descriptive notation-illiterate out there. While algebraic notation is vastly superior to descriptive, it does behoove at least Americans to be "bilingual," as there are many outstanding, inexpensive old chess books - many published by Dover - whose only "flaw" is that they are written in descriptive. Reading it will most likely be transparent to you in a week or two, and meanwhile you'll have acquired some great books dirt cheap.] playable. After a few brief sorties in the middle 1950s, Black's debacle in Keres-Fuderer, Goteberg 1955, dissipated all confidence and interest in it.

"Until 1961, that is, when Fischer resurrected it against Parma at Bled. His never-ending stream of contributions and discoveries, analytical and practical, have clearly imparted his name to 7...Q-N3. Yet what is its name? Unaccountabley, for over 15 years it had no name, just something like 7...Q-N3.

"This changed, for the worse at that, in the summer of 1972 when in the 7th match game against Spassky, Bobby played 7...Q-N3. Immediately after 8...QxP [DM: 8...Qxb2] the phones rang at the Marshall Chess Club in New York: various radio, TV, and newspaper people wanted know what call the variation. A reply that it had no name obviously wasn't satisfactory. So someone (let him remain nameless) after some seconds of contemplation (media people are in a hurry) came up with "Poisoned Pawn Variation." And that's what it is called today.

"What a horrible appellation! It utterly slights the real discoverer, and is also inaccurate for there is no clear proof that the QNP [DM: b-pawn] is actually poison. It may be too late to do anything about it (the power of the media, etc.), yet I propose the following accurate, understandable short name: 'Fischer's QNP.'" (Edmar Mednis, How to Beat Bobby Fischer (New York: Bantam Books, 1975), p. 201 [paragraph breaks added].)

Mednis was a friend of Bobby's, possibly there at the time of the aforementioned phone call(s), and writing less than two years after the fact (the first edition of the book came out in 1974); Victor, are you sure you're right? Maybe it was sometimes jokingly called the "Poisoned Pawn," but not in any sort of official way pre-1972. In any event, I'm glad I remembered the Mednis book correctly, even 17+ years after I last went through it; as for the truth of the matter, I'll have to defer to my elders and those with pre-1972 volumes featuring the variation.

This Week on ChessBase: Pachman-Fischer

2005-04-16T03:19:00.000-05:00

In light of the attention I've been giving Ludek Pachman and his Checkmate in Prague the last few days, it seemed to me fitting that he - more exactly, his second win against Bobby Fischer - get to have a starring role in my ChessBase show this Monday. (See this post for the raw game score - it's the second game.)

It's a very exciting game, and one in which Fischer certainly had his chances. Nevertheless, Pachman defended very cooly, and when Fischer failed to find the most accurate path through the complications, the White king went on a remarkable march to safety. Add to the game's entertainment value the interesting opening (I think every player needs to think about the Ragozin System at least once in their career!), and you've got a show well worth watching - so join me this Monday night (9 p.m. ET)!

As always, information for watching the show (live or later on, in the archives) can be found here, while a list of past shows is available here.

Pachman Strikes Back

2005-04-15T14:25:00.000-05:00

In the previous post, we looked at an episode between Czech grandmaster Ludek Pachman and Bobby Fischer. In revenge for Pachman's win in their head-to-head game, Fischer helped the relatively unknown Sanchez beat Pachman in a later round, sharing a bit of home preparation in an act whose ethical legitimacy was questionable at best.

The story does not end there, however, and we resume Pachman's account from Checkmate in Prague, page 65:

"With the help of Sanchez, then, Bobby had caught up with me, but the matter did not end there. Two days later, before the start of play, I was taking a walk with the young Chilean player, Jauregui. We were chatting about this and that, when suddenly on our way to the tournament hall we ran into Bobby.

"'Ah, Mr. Pachman,' he called from a distance, 'so today you've been briefing my opponent.'

"Realizing at that moment that Bobby was due to play Jauregui, I retorted: 'Of course, Bobby. And I must say he's very well prepared.'

"My prompt reply caused Bobby to frown. He pondered the first moves in the ensuing game very deeply. And as it happened, Jauregui was using a system I often play, which helped to confirm Bobby's suspicions. He spent one hour and twenty minutes over the first eleven moves, anxious not to play according to the book and so avoid the danger of surprise. In the event, he lost his queen at the twenty-ninth move and was forced to resign at the fortieth. One might almost say that a bad conscience had robbed him of a point, involving the loss of first place in the tournament."

Here's the game:

Jauregui Andrade,Carlos - Fischer,Robert James [E81]
Santiago (10), 1959

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nbd7 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 c5 9.a3 Rb8 10.b4 cxd4 11.Nxd4

11...Ne5 12.Rc1 Bd7 13.Be2 Rc8 14.Nd5 e6 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.0-0 Qe7 17.Rfe1

17...Rc7 Probably the losing move, when Black goes from a cramped and difficult, but defensible position, to one in which he's completely overrun. [17...Ba4 seems better: it (1) makes it tougher for White to pile up on the d-file, (2) makes it easier for his own rooks to cover d6, and (3) clears the better d7 square as a retreat for his knight.] 18.f4 Nc6 19.Nf3! Bc8 20.Red1 Rd7 21.b5 Nd8 22.Qb4 Re8 23.Rd2 f5 24.c5 d5 25.c6 bxc6 26.Bc5 a5 27.Qb3 Qf7 28.Ng5

28...dxe4 29.Nxf7 Rxd2 30.Nd6 Nb7 31.Nxb7 Bxb7 32.Qe3 Red8 33.Bc4 cxb5 34.Bxb5 e5 35.Bb6 exf4 36.Qxf4 e3 37.Bxd8 Bd4 38.Be2 Be4 39.Re1 Bd3 40.Qxd4

1-0

More Fun with Pachman

2005-04-14T22:14:00.000-05:00

"Tragedy is what happens to me; comedy is what happens to you." - Mel Brooks

In the previous post, I recalled a somewhat questionable bit of gamesmanship by Ludek Pachman; today's excerpt from his Checkmate in Prague (pp. 63-65) finds the ethical shoe on the other foot:

"I had quite a time with him [the 15-year old Bobby Fischer] on that South American trip. We encountered each other first in Mar del Plata soon after the start of the tournament when Bobby, full of optimism, told me: 'I have white, and I'll wipe the floor with you.'

"I asked if he would allow me to defend myself a bit, to which he replied, with some magnanimity: 'You can do that; at least it will be more interesting.' He went all out, but I happened to be in good form, first playing defensively, then making a counterattack. On adjournment Bobby was a piece down, but he still hoped for a draw so when he had to resign, he leapt up, swept the pieces to the floor and ran from the hall.

"We spent about a fortnight after the tournament in the same hotel in Buenos Aires where we became friends. We even began working together for the next event in Santiago. One day I showed Bobby my secret weapon - a new variation which I planned to use with black in the Sicilian Defence. I had discovered an interesting point involving the sacrifice of pieces. It looked fine and Bobby was unstinting in his praise. In private, however, he found a 'hole' in my analysis; white had a final surprise and it led straight to mate.

"Bobby kept his discovery to himself, recording the entire variation in his notebook with the remark: Play against Pachman! In Santiago, however, he drew black, so he was unable to use his weapon. Seldom in my life have I played a game to compare with that against Bobby. We were both leading in the tournament while he had the added incentive of wreaking revenge for his earlier humiliation. He sacrificed a piece, followed immediately by a rook - mate seemed imminent, then, finally, my king escaped across the board to safety. Sweeping his pieces off with an angry gesture, Bobby ran out without waiting to sign his capitulation.

"In the next round [DM: Actually, it was three rounds later.], I met Sanchez of Colombia. He plays every game 'hard for a draw' and it is no easy matter to win against him. Therefore, I was overjoyed when I got him into the Sicilian Defence, actually into the variation for which I had prepared my secret weapon! Naturally, I started to use it, then came a surprise, my king was mated. [DM: In the actual game, he doesn't get mated but although he came under a heavy attack, the game concluded in an ending. I'll have to examine the game more carefully at some point, to determine if the choice was Pachman's, to bail out into a hopeless ending rather than get mated in his originally intended main line, or if Sanchez missed a quicker win and let Pachman partially escape.] I eyed my opponent doubtfully - he had revealed himself as a brilliant attacker - when Bobby burst in behind me:

"'Sanchez didn't beat you. I upset that variation! He simply played the way I showed him. That's very nice!'

"I managed to control myself sufficiently to congratulate Sanchez, and Bobby, too. Without a trace of reproach, I asked Bobby whether it had not occurred to him to tell me about his discovery. He laughed: 'Why should I? I wanted to beat you.'"

The conclusion of this tale will come soon; for now, here are the games referred to above.

Fischer,Robert James - Pachman,Ludek [C75]
Mar del Plata (3), 25.03.1959

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 Bd7 6.d4 Nge7 7.Bb3 h6 8.0-0 Ng6 9.Nbd2 Be7 10.Nc4 Bg5 11.Ne3 Bxe3 12.Bxe3 0-0 13.h3 Re8 14.Nh2 Qe7 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.Qh5 Na5 17.Bc2 Nc4 18.Bc1 Nf4 19.Qf3 Rad8 20.Bxf4 exf4 21.Qxf4 Bc6 22.Ng4 h5 23.Ne3 Nxb2 24.Nf5 Qf6 25.Qxc7 Qxc3 26.Rac1 Qf6 27.Rfe1 Nd3 28.Bxd3 Rxd3 29.Qf4 g6 30.Rc5 Re6 31.Qb8+ Rd8 32.Qf4 gxf5 33.Rxf5 Qg7 34.Rxh5 Rde8 35.f3 Re5 36.Rh4 Rg5 37.Rg4 Rxg4 38.hxg4 Qd4+ 39.Re3 Qe5 40.Qf5 Qxf5 41.gxf5 Rd8 42.Kf2 Bb5 43.Ke1 Kg7 44.e5 Rd4 45.g4 Kh6 46.e6 f6 47.Kf2 Rd2+ 48.Kg3 Kg7 49.Rc3 Bc6 50.a3 Re2 51.Kf4 a5 52.Rd3 a4 53.Rd8 Rf2 54.Rd3 b5 55.Rc3 Rxf3+ 56.Rxf3 Bxf3 0-1

Pachman,Ludek - Fischer,Robert James [E51]
Santiago (6), 1959

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 d5 4.e3 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 0-0 7.a3 Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Ne4 9.Qc2 a5 10.b3 b6 11.Bb2 Ba6 12.Bd3 f5 13.Rc1 Rc8 14.0-0 Rf6 15.Rfd1 Rh6 16.Bf1 g5 17.cxd5 g4 18.Bxa6 gxf3 19.gxf3 Qg5+ 20.Kf1 Rxh2 21.fxe4 Rf8 22.e5 f4 23.e4 f3 24.Ke1 Qg1+ 25.Kd2 Qxf2+ 26.Kc3 Qg3 27.Qd3 exd5 28.Rg1 Rg2 29.Rxg2 Qxg2 30.Qf1 dxe4 31.Qxg2+ fxg2 32.Rg1 Rf2 33.Bc4+ Kf8 34.Bd5 Rf3+ 35.Kc4 b5+ 36.Kc5 Ne7 37.Rxg2 Nxd5 38.Kxd5 Rxb3 39.Kxe4 b4 40.axb4 axb4 1-0

Sanchez,Luis Augusto - Pachman,Ludek [B88]
Santiago (9), 1959

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Bb3 Be7 9.Be3 0-0 10.f4 Qc7 11.Qf3 Bd7 12.f5 e5 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.g4 h6 15.h4 Nh7 16.g5 hxg5 17.hxg5 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 Nxg5 19.Qg4 Qe7 20.Rf2 Nh7 21.Rg2 Qf6 22.Rd1 Rfd8 23.Rd3 d5 24.exd5 Bd7 25.Ne4 Qh6 26.d6 Qc1+ 27.Rd1 Qh6 28.Qg6 Kh8 29.Bxf7 Bc6 30.Rh2 Bxe4 31.Rxh6 gxh6 32.d7 Rf8 33.Be6 Rad8 34.Rd2 Bxf5 35.Bxf5 Rg8 36.Rg2 Rxg6 37.Rxg6 Nf8 38.Rxh6+ Kg8 39.Rb6 Kf7 40.Rxb7 Ne6 41.Bxe6+ 1-0

Swindle Like a Grandmaster

2005-04-13T21:33:00.000-05:00

I've been reading Checkmate in Prague, the memoir of the late GM Ludek Pachman (1924-2003), and while most of the book is centered on the events of the so-called Prague Spring of 1968, elements of his chess career surface as well. Here is one such tale, from the Havana 1965 tournament, which I offer for two reasons. The official, respectable reason is to offer it as a salutary warning to those of us tempted to relax in winning positions. The more likely reason is that it's an amusing anecdote - at least to those of us who haven't lost a game in this way!

"Not long after [DM: referring to his draw with Bobby Fischer, with whom he had an even score for his career], I played the Pole, Doda. Anxious to win, I opened sharply, sacrificed a rook for a bishop, and went into attack. But a slight error spoilt it. Doda made an unexpected move, banging the piece triumphantly on the board and then running off to bring any colleagues who happened to be free to see what he had done to me. [DM: Ah, good ol' hubris...just you wait, Mr. Doda!]

"Meantime I sat frowning at the board; my ears were certainly dark red. [DM: Alluding to a claim earlier in the book that many players' ears turn red when in trouble.] My first impulse was to throw it in and go for several Cuba libres. Then I forced myself to review the situation, which led me to conclude that I was bound to lose. One of the threatened pawns had to go, attack was out. Then I saw a tiny chance -- having lost one pawn, I could, with an apparently weak move, offer another. Should my opponent take it, I would sacrifice yet another piece, and he would be in a bad way. Although the course right through the end was not clear to me, I could see a strong chance of mating. Under normal circumstances, it was a faint hope, for my offering the second pawn would arouse my opponent's suspicions and, being no fool, he would see after two moves at least what I already saw. But here was the only alternative to resigning at once.

"Finally, I hit on an idea for strengthening my chance somewhat. One more check-up confirmed that things stood as I had judged at the start, and now some ten moves [DM: until the time control at move 40] remained to me. I had a full hour to make them. Head in hands, I pretended to be seeking a way out, but actually I had decided to put chess out of my mind for most of the hour -- I would recite poems to myself or try to recall the logarithms I once knew by heart.

"Doda walked the stage as proud as a peacock while other competitors came along to see if my ears were red. Slowly the minutes ticked away; applause greeted the end of someone's game, then quiet again.

"With two minutes left on the clock -- I had set that as the minimum time for making my ten moves -- I reached for a piece to do what I had known for an hour I would have to do. Doda hurried back, then, after brief consideration, he took my pawn. Glancing as if with anxiety at the clock, I made a lightning move, presenting the other pawn. Doda frowned, glanced at my clock, and took the pawn, assuming that, being pressed for time, I had lost control and would offer more pieces. Another swift sacrifice left Doda clutching his head. He thought it over but now it was too late. Even eternity cannot repair the damage of a second, as Zweig wrote. Blow upon blow fell upon the black king, two minutes sufficed for a devastating onslaught. Caught by the time limit, my opponent had to resign. Players gathered round, cursing my luck in having emerged from such a hopeless position, and in a time scramble, too....In this case too big an advantage cost my opponent a whole point in the tournament" (Pachman, Checkmate in Prague (New York: Macmillan, 1975), pp. 56-57).

The book doesn't include the score of the game (or of any other games), so while I have the game in my databases, applying his comments requires a bit of guesswork, since the move numbers don't quite work the way he suggests. In any case, here's the game:

Pachman,Ludek - Doda,Zbigniew [A65]
Capablanca mem Havana (16), 1965

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 d6 4.Nc3 g6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.Nge2 e6 8.0-0 exd5 9.cxd5 a6 10.a4 Qc7 11.h3 Nbd7 12.Ng3 Re8 13.Be3 Rb8 14.a5 b5 15.axb6 Nxb6 16.Re1 Nfd7 17.f4 c4 18.Bc2 Nc5 19.Bd4 Nd3 20.Bxg7 Nxe1 21.Bd4 Nxc2 22.Qxc2 Nd7 23.Qf2 f6 24.Re1 Qd8 25.h4 Qe7 26.h5 Rf8

This seems like a good point to start discussing the game. In this Modern Benoni-like structure, White has a very healthy space advantage and reasonable attacking prospects in return for the sacrificed exchange. Since the e5 advance isn't going to happen any time too soon, White tries to reposition his rook more usefully with 27.Re3 This move has a good idea behind it: he wants to retreat the Ng3 (perhaps after swapping pawns on g6) and then swing the rook to g3. Unfortunately, it gives Black a very nice opportunity. 27...Ne5! This, I'm sure, is the move Doda banged on the board, and it's a good one. Taking on e5 is worthless: 28.fxe5? fxe5 regains the piece while completely ending any attacking fantasies White may have been harboring. Additionally, Black threatens 32...Ng4 and 32...Nd3 here, so it's safe to say that White has some serious problems here. 28.Qd2 Nd3 29.Nd1 Nxf4 30.Nf5 gxf5 31.Rg3+ Kh8 32.Qxf4 Rb3? [32...Qxe4 is winning, and a move I'm sure Doda would have found (and played) had he taken a bit more time, as it's easy to see that 33.Qf2 (33.Qh6 Qxd4+ 34.Kh2 Rg8-+; Maybe 33.Qxd6 was what Doda feared, but White's attack is a mirage: 33...Qxd4+ 34.Nf2 Bb7 35.Qc7 Rg8 36.Rxg8+ Rxg8 37.Qxb7 Qe3 38.Qc6 Qc1+ 39.Kh2 Qxb2-+) 33...f4 leaves White down a lot of material and without an attack.] 33.Nc3 Rxb2

I think it is this move that Pachman identified as the loser, but as best as I've been able to ascertain, however, Black is already lost! [Here are a number of sample variations in support: 33...Rf7 34.Qg5 Qf8 35.exf5 a5 36.h6+-; 33...fxe4 34.h6 Rf7 35.Qg5 Qf8 36.Nxe4 Rxg3 37.Nxg3 Qe7 38.Nh5+-; 33...a5 34.h6 followed by Qg5, etc., winning.; 33...Rxc3 34.Bxc3 fxe4 (34...Qxe4 35.Qxd6 with a quick mate) 35.Qh6 threatens Rg6, and unfortunately for Black, there's no good defense. 35...Bf5 36.Rg5 e3 37.Rxf5 e2 38.Rxf6 e1Q+ 39.Rf1++-] 34.exf5 Bd7 [34...Rb7 might be Black's best, but White wins here, too, after 35.h6 Qd8 36.Ne4 Rbf7 37.Nxf6 Rxf6 38.Qg5 Qe7 39.Re3 (39.Qg7+ Qxg7 40.hxg7+ Kg8 41.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 42.Bxf6+-) 39...Qf7 40.Bxf6+ Qxf6 41.Qxf6+ Rxf6 42.Re8+ Rf8 43.Rxf8#] 35.Ne4 Re2 36.Nxf6 Rxf6 37.Qg5 Re1+ 38.Kh2 1-0

Rook vs. Bishop: Ending 3

2005-04-12T18:50:00.000-05:00

We turn now to the third in our series of rook vs. bishop endings (its predecessors can be found here and here), this one taken from the game Viktor Kortchnoi (a.k.a. Kortchnoi, a.k.a. Kortschnoj)-Boris Spassky, Clermont Ferrand 1989.

Obviously enough, only White can win this (barring massive hallucination, bribe, or heart attack), but it's not exactly clear at first glance how he's going to make progress. White has no safe pawn move, the rook can't do anything by itself and the White king is stalemated.

Is it a draw then? Thanks to the indispensable endgame tool known as zugzwang, it's not.

51.Ra7 First step: activate the rook. Clearly Black doesn't want to retreat the king - at least not if he doesn't have to - so Black's next move is obvious. 51...Be6 52.Rc7 The power of waiting moves! Now Black has to make a significant decision. If he retreats the king, White happily plays Kg5 and works for the f5 break, while if he retreats the bishop, White has two interesting possibilities. First, he could take his king out of the cage, retreat to h3 and then perhaps try to penetrate Black's position by going the long way around:g2-f3-e3-d4-c5-d6-e7 and so on. Even assuming White can do all that without anything bad happening to him (such as useful pawn trades via ...h4 and/or ...g5), it's not enough. White will still need to break the Black pawn structure somewhere to make progress, so he might as well do it with the king on h4. And that leads to possibility number two: the f5 pawn break. 52...Bb3 [52...Kg7 53.Kg5 The Black king can't afford to give up any more ground, but it's already too much: White will maneuver the rook to f6, play f5, and win the pawn ending by taking advantage of Black's fractured pawn structure. 53...Bg4 54.Rc6 Bh3 55.Rf6 Bg4 (55...Bd7 56.f5 Bxf5 57.Rxf5 gxf5 58.Kxh5! comes to the same thing.) 56.f5 gxf5 (56...Bxf5 57.Rxf5 gxf5 58.Kxh5! (But not 58.Kxf5?? Kf8! 59.Kg5 Ke7 60.Kxh5 Ke6 with a draw.) 58...Kf8 59.Kg5 Ke8! 60.Kf6! Kf8 61.e6 with a routine win.) 57.Ra6 followed by Ra7 wins - the subsequent threat of e6 can only be averted by allowing the lethal Kf6 or by pitching the f5 and h5 pawns.] 53.f5! gxf5

Now that the Black pawn structure has been destroyed, it's time to start collecting the weakies. To do so, White maneuvers the rook to g5, when either the h5 or f5 pawn will fall. (Unless Black plays 54...Bd1, in which case 55.Rc6+ followed by 56.Kg5 and 57.Rc7, with the threat of 58.e6, will do the trick.) 54.Rc8 Be6 55.Rd8 Kg6 56.Rg8+ Kh7 57.Rg5 Kh6 58.Rxh5+ Kg6

Now it's time for another stage in the plan. However, the first thing we should do is extricate the rook, as White can't do anything as long as the rook is so clumsily placed. 59.Rh8 Kg7 60.Re8 Kg6

Okay, the rook's position has been improved; now what? 61.g4 is senseless, there aren't any inspiring room maneuvers on the horizon, so let's improve the position of the king. 61.Kh3! Bd5 [61...f4+

is a much more interesting move. I'm sure "Viktor the Terrible" would have won just the same, but there are a couple of neat traps. The more obvious but still seductive false trail is the liquidating 62.Rxe6+?? fxe6 63.gxf4 and now Kh7!! (and only Kh7!!) draws, maintaining the distant opposition: a) 63...Kf5 64.Kg3 Kg6 65.Kg4 Kh6 (65...Kf7 66.Kh5 Kg7 67.Kg5 Kf7 68.Kh6 Kf8 69.Kg6 Ke7 70.Kg7 Ke8 71.Kf6 Kd7 72.Kf7+-) 66.f5 exf5+ 67.Kxf5 Kg7 68.Ke6 Kf8 69.Kd7+-; b) 63...Kh5 64.Kg3 Kh6 65.Kh4 Kg6 66.Kg4 Kf7 (66...Kh6 67.f5+- see line a) 67.Kh5 Kg7 68.Kg5 Kf7 69.Kh6 Ke8 70.Kg6 Ke7 71.Kg7 Ke8 72.Kf6 Kd7 73.Kf7+-; ]

So the correct move is 62.g4, but there is another trick yet to come: 62...Kg5 63.Rg8+ Kh6 64.Kh4 Bc4 65.Rd8 f3 66.Rd6+ Kg7 67.Kg3 Be2 68.Rf6 Bd1 and now a) 69.Rxf3?? looks like a routine win, but amazingly, it's not! 69...Bxf3 70.Kxf3 Kh6!!

The only drawing move! (70...Kg6 71.Kf4 Kh6 72.Kf5 Kg7 73.Kg5 Kg8 74.Kf6 Kf8 75.g5 Ke8 76.Kg7 Ke7 77.Kg8 Ke8 78.e6 fxe6 79.g6 Ke7 80.Kh7 e5 81.g7+-; 70...Kh7 71.Ke4 Kg6 72.Kf4 - see 70...Kg6 71.Kf4) ; b) 69.Kh3 is the start of a rather subtle winning idea: 69...Be2 70.g5 Bd1 71.Kh4 Be2 72.g6! fxg6 73.Kg5 Bd1 74.e6 Bb3 75.e7 Bf7 76.Rxf3 Kg8 77.Kh6 g5 78.Rf5 g4 79.Rg5+ Kh8 80.Rxg4 Be8 81.Rf4 Bf7 82.Rxf7 Kg8 83.Rf8#; The most natural winning plan is c) 69.g5 Be2 70.Kf2 Bd1 71.Ke3 Be2 72.Kd4 Bd1 73.Kc5 Be2 74.Kd6 Bd1 75.Ke7 Be2 76.Rxf7+ Kg6 77.e6 Kxg5 78.Kd6 Kg4 79.Kc5! Bd1 80.Kb4! with an elegant win. And now, back to the mundane conclusion:

62.Rg8+ [62.Rg8+ Kh7 63.Rd8 Be6 64.Kg2 Kg6 65.Kf3 Kg5 66.Rg8+ Kh6 67.Kf4 followed by 68.Rg5 and 69.Rxf5, winning easily.] 1-0

Bits and Pieces: Chess News

2005-04-12T17:48:00.000-05:00

Here are some recent stories from around the chess world that might be new and of interest to some of my readers:

(1) While I'm not a fan of GM Maurice Ashley's handling of master prizes at the upcoming HB tournament in Minnesota (see 1 and 2), his contributions to American chess have been substantial on many fronts, including and perhaps especially scholastic chess. As useful as any teacher can be, however, his or her time and energies are limited; accordingly, Ashley is trying to multiply himself by teaching teachers. Here's the link, which I recommend visiting sooner rather than later, as the NY Times tends to be quick in removing articles' freebie status.

(2) Chess's equivalent to the Energizer Bunny is at it again: yesterday's TWIC news summary reports that Viktor Korchnoi won the Beer Sheva Rapid, a 13-round robin event with 8 other GMs, with a dominating 10.5/13, leaving him 2.5 points clear of the field! UNBELIEVABLE. To slightly adapt a famous line from "When Harry met Sally," I'll have what he's having.

(3) The status of the world chess championship title may be in somewhat of a shambles, but one elite prize, the Chess Oscar, awarded to "the best chess player of the past year," continues to be presented on schedule each year. The 2004 award, as determined by 445 voters (including 74 GMs), went to Indian superstar Viswanathan Anand, with Garry Kasparov, Peter Leko, Vladimir Kramnik and Rustam Kasimdzhanov rounding out the top 5.

It's a well-known but minor award, not even carrying a cash prize, as far as I know. In light of the difficulties in organizing a fair world championship that's equitable to all the relevant parties, however, perhaps it would be best to create some sort of system like that in tennis: a year-long tour, grand slam events, and a meaningful player of the year award. Such a system would give the players something to strive for, create a busier schedule for the top guys (and gal!), generate a consistent media buzz (maybe), and do so without the organizational headaches that seem endemic to top matches.

One can hope!

Rook vs. Bishop: Ending 2

2005-04-11T11:30:00.000-05:00

It's time to resume our brief series of rook vs. bishop endings (see here and here), and this one's a real doozy. We started with this easy-looking position:

and the task was to determine how White is supposed to win.

It does look easy: all we need is get the rook to the back rank and it's mate! Black can use stalemate tricks, sure, but if we put the king on h6 and the rook on the 7th to protect the pawn (if we have to), what resources could Black have then? So let's try it:

Attempt 1:

1.Kh6 Be4!

Hitting the h7 pawn forces White to play 2.Ra7, because the pure rook vs. bishop ending is generally a trivial draw when the king is in a corner of the opposite color of his bishop.

2.Ra7

and now, the key move:

2...Bb7!!

This move isn't terrific because it's showy; its strength comes from its preventing White from repositioning the rook on a different file. It's also the only move: 2...Bc6? 3.Rf7; 2...Bd5? 3.Rd7, etc.

3.Kg6

There's no other way to attempt progress: if the rook retreats, the bishop simply returns to e4.

3...Be4+ 4.Kf7 Kxh7=

J. Vancura, the composer of this 1924 study, gave the unnecessarily fancy but also more thematic 4...Bg6+ 5.Kf6 Bxh7 6.Ra8+ Bg8= as the continuation. It works too! And either way, 1.Kh6 fails to win - but then how could White have any winning ideas here at all?

A first clue comes if we consider the position after 1.Kh6? Be4! 2.Ra7 Bb7!! Since it's a mutual zugzwang, White's win, if it's possible, will involve some tempo-gaining maneuver. White needs to get the rook off the a-file, for starters, and to do so without dropping the h-pawn. He can't move the rook yet, though, because of 1...Be4+, either winning the pawn or leading to stalemate, so by process of elimination, we get this:

Attempt 2:

1.Kg5!!

It's not at all clear how this wins, but it's at least certain that it doesn't hurt anything, as the obvious/familiar Black tries 1...Kxh7, 1...Be4 and 1...Kg7 lose to 2.Rh4+, 2.Rxe4 and 2.h8(Q)+ Kxh8 3.Rh4+ and 4.Rxh1, respectively.

Turning to subtler lines, carefree bishop moves demonstrate the winning procedure. Thus

(A) 1...Bc6 2.Rc4 Bb5 3.Rc7 Bd3 4.Kh6 Bf5 5.Rf7 wins.
(B) 1...Bd5 2.Rd4 Bc6 3.Kh6 Be8 4.Rd6 (zugzwang) Bd7 5.Rf6 wins.
(C) 1...Bb7 2.Rb4 Ba6 3.Kh6 Bc8 4.Rb6 Bb7 5.Rd6 wins.

In each case, White is able to win by improving the position of the rook, and that becomes possible by attacking the conveniently relocated bishop. So Black's best try involves playing hide and seek with the bishop:

(D) 1...Bg2

Now what? Attacking the bishop on the g-file, in correspondence to the method of lines A-C, appears pointless, while 2.Kg6 Be4+ and 3...Bxh7 or 2.Kh6 Be4 3.Ra7 Bb7 both draw. Worse news still: if the rook leaves the fourth rank, then 2...Be4 wins the h-pawn, drawing.

Thus, even though it looks pointless, we see by process of elimination that White's only attempt is

2.Rg4!

Fortunately, it's also a good move! Black now has two options: to return the bishop to the h-file or not.

(i) 2...Bh3 3.Re4! (Taking advantage of Black's inability to capture on h7 when 4.Rh4+ would pick up the bishop) Bd7 4.Kh6 Be6 5.Rb4 Bc8 6.Rb6 (zugzwang) Bb7 7.Rd6 wins.

(ii) 2...Bc6 3.Kh6 Bd5 4.Rd4 wins.

Subtle? Yes. Difficult? Quite - but not impossible. But it's also elegant and instructive, and though the path to improvement comes not so much from mastering particular positions like this (though it's a component of one's skill), it does come (a) from the chess-specific cognitive development and (b) the feeling for the pieces one acquires by attempting to solve such positions. So if you haven't done so yet, give positions 3 and 4 a try before I present their solutions. It's worth it!

This Week's ChessBase Show: Going Under the Radar

2005-04-10T15:48:00.000-05:00

When picking a game for my ChessBase show (click here for directions on watching live and archived shows, and here for a list of previous shows' games), sometimes I choose a game from memory, sometimes I pore through my books, and occasionally a recent game catches my eye.

This week, something different. Rather than allow lesser-known contemporary masterpieces slip away into the anonymity of subsequent editions of the Mega Database, I went looking for them! Seek and you shall find, it says, and my search of ChessBase Magazine 104 was a success.

Our game features a nice battle from last year's Olympiad in Calvia, between rising star Baadur Jobava of Georgia and Neuris Delgado of Cuba. Delgado essayed the normally quiet Queen's Indian Defense, an opening that generally gives Black good control over d5 and e4. Jobava played a somewhat unusual line, however, grabbing a massive pawn center.

The usual question in such cases is whether the pawn center is overextended, and so too in this game: Delgado set about destroying White's pawns, while Jobava attempted to use the space advantage as long as it lasted to build up a kingside attack. Whose plan succeeded? Tune in Monday night (at 9 p.m. ET) to find out!

Rook vs. Bishop: Ending 1

2005-04-10T04:51:00.000-05:00

Several days ago, I presented a series of four rook vs. bishop endings with the promise of forthcoming solutions. Here again is the first position:

The task was left unstated: White to move and...? One might reasonably wonder if White can win this, given Black's two passed pawns, but in fact he can. All he has to do is avoid the move actually played in the game Hanken-Fries, USA 2004:

60.f6+?

This seems logical, but it's actually very bad - Black can now draw even without his pawns! As Pal Benko explains in his "Endgame Lab" column in the March 2005 Chess Life (page 46), "All we have to do is chase away the king with check when it steps either to e6 or g6. In case the pawn is pushed to f7, we have to play either Ke7 or Kg7 [DM: which square is appropriate depends on the location of the White king - Black doesn't want to allow the White king to protect the pawn] and take the pawn only afterwards. Therefore White needs the f6-square for his king to win..."

Therefore, White should have played 60.Rg6+ Kf7 61.Rh6 Be2 62.Rh7+ Kg8 63.Rd7 h4 64.Kf6 h3 65.Kg6 and wins (Benko).

60...Kg6?

Of course, given what we know from the Benko quote, 60...Kf8 led to a simple draw. Now the Black king gets cut off from the f-pawn, so White's winning chances rise dramatically, though by sacrificing the h-pawn (in order to return the Black king to its proper defensive post on the f-file) the draw is still available. Nevertheless, since Black rejected that idea when it didn't cost anything, it's unlikely he'll reconsider at the cost of a pawn.

61.Rb7 h4 62.Rg7+ Kh6 63.Rg4 Bf7?

63...Kh5? lost to 64.Rxc4 (64...bxc4 65.f7), but Benko rightly notes that 63...h3! draws, as 64.Rh4+ Kg6 65.Rxh3 Kf7 allows the king to return to his roost.

64.Rxh4+ Kg6 65.Rf4??

A blunder, and we all know why at this point: it allows the Black king to return to f7! 65.Rg4+ followed by 66.Rg7 was a very easy win, but some days, nothing seems to go right.

65...Bc4

Vacating f7 for the king, right?

66.Kd6 Bb3??

Wrong. Even with the threat of 67.Ke7 hanging over his head, when the pawn clearly queens or costs Black the bishop, Black STILL avoids ...Kf7.

67.Ke7 1-0

It's easy for us to look at this and feel superior, feel Schadenfreude, wonder how they could be so slow, etc. Even Benko expresses his exasperation, asking rhetorically after Black's 66th move "Does Black want to lose?" Really though, there's just one relevant idea, and neither player got it. White didn't fear the Black king's reaching f7/f8, and Black had no interest in its reaching those squares. Presumably both thought the king would be in a mating net if it became stuck on the back rank, but neither realized that without the White king's safely reaching e6 or g6, there's no mate to be had. Thus, since Black (with correct play) can check the White king away the instant he reaches either of those squares, the Black king is safe.

So let's be smart and learn from others' mistakes: the strong side is typically best off with his king leading the pawn, as that facilitates the crucial process of driving the defender away from the queening square. The goal is to cut the defender off from the queening file (or in some cases, to cut it off from the pawn horizontally, though that's rarer).

Conversely, the defender wants to stay in front of the pawn and to prevent (if possible) the strong side's king from getting in front of the passer. In such cases, the position is rather like an opposite colored bishop ending: the defensive side has a very strong grip on the squares of one color, and despite the strong side's superior firepower, it's basically impotent to break the blockade: the pawn covers the wrong-colored squares, and when the king tries to help fight for that color complex (light squares in our case), he gets checked off immediately.

This is useful, but we can learn even more by playing around with the position (without the Black pawns, perhaps - at least at first). Try moving everything over a file or two either way, or down a couple of ranks. Will it make a difference? Which side, if any, benefits from the changes? Are certain pawns harder for one side to handle?

Further, we can reflect on what we've learned here for more complicated positions. We can see that the rook is relatively impotent to break the blockade by itself, and can perhaps start to think about the implications of exchange sacrifices in positions where the bishop's side has nearly full control over one color complex and not too many worries about squares of the opposite color. And how much leeway does it provide? One way to proceed is by adding pawns for each side. If the result with the new material is a draw, then add a pawn to White, or at least a further pair of pawns for each side. If the result, on the other hand, is a loss for the bishop's side, give him another pawn.

By playing around like that (remember the Cycle World post?), you'll learn something about rooks and bishops. It won't be some sort of dull theoretical ending you're trying to learn from a book (not that there's anything wrong with that!), but something fun, something you'll have taught yourself. Better yet, it won't be some sort of isolated chess factoid, but a case of genuine know-how with applications extending well beyond the initial exercise.

As they used to say when I was a kid: Try it, you'll like it!

Chess Patterns, Beauty and Humor

2005-04-09T15:00:00.000-05:00

An important part of becoming a strong player is developing one's pattern recognition. Whether it's recognizing a tactical theme or understanding what plans are available in a given pawn structure, the more patterns you know, all things being equal, the stronger you're going to be.

Yet although it's "officially" chess patterns that players specialize in and value, I think we have a soft spot in our heart of aesthetic hearts for "civilian" patterns on the chessboard as well. Look, for example, at how the board is set up: nice neat rows of pawns, while behind them, with the tall king and queen in the middle, sloping down in height to the stubby rooks at each end.

Interestingly, though, when patterns which are attractive in a non-chess-specific sense arise in the course of a game, I think most players don't find it beautiful so much as they find it amusing. The presence of one sort of beauty outside of its normal context is unusual and unexpected, and leads to irony rather than a sense of the sublime.

To illustrate, here are a couple of examples. The first offers a vertical, pawnless traffic jam (hat-tip to Brian Karen), while the second, classic game presents what has come to be known as the Alterman Wall:

Gruengard - Dobkin,I [C15]
Tel Aviv, 1946

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 Nf6 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 c5 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.dxc5 Rg6 11.Qe3 Qa5 12.Bd2 e5 13.Ng3 Ng4 14.Qxe4 Qxc5 15.Qe2 f5 16.f3 Nf6 17.Qf2 Qd5 18.Rd1 Qg8 19.Bd3 e4 20.fxe4 fxe4 21.Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxe4 Re6 23.Qf3 Ne5 24.Qe2 Qg4 25.Rf1 Qh4+ 26.g3 Qe7 27.Be3

27...Bd7 28.Bf5 Rc6 29.Bxd7+ Nxd7 30.Bg5 Qxe2+ 31.Kxe2 Rxc3 32.Kd2 Rc5 33.Rde1+ Ne5 34.Rf5 1-0

Alterman,Boris (2564) - Comp Deep Fritz [A03]
KC Human-Machine KasparovChess INT (9), 15.11.2000

1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.d4 0-0 6.c3 Bf5 7.Nbd2 e6 8.h3 Ne4 9.g4 Ng3 10.Rg1 Nxe2 11.Kxe2 Be4 12.Ng5 Na6 13.b4 c6 14.Bb2 Qe7 15.Ndxe4 dxe4 16.Nxe4 Rad8 17.Qb3 Qh4 18.Rh1 Rfe8 19.Rag1 f6 20.Nd2 Nc7 21.Nf3 Qh6 22.h4 Rf8 23.Bc1 Rde8 24.a4 Nd5 25.c4 Nb6 26.e4

26...f5 27.g5 Qh5 28.e5 Rf7 29.Be3 Rd7 30.Kf2 Red8 31.Rd1 Na8 32.b5 Bf8 33.a5 Be7 34.b6 axb6 35.axb6 Kg7 36.c5 Kf7 37.Ra1 Rb8 38.Qc4 Bd8 39.Nd2 Bxb6 40.cxb6 Nxb6 41.Qe2 Qxe2+ 42.Kxe2 Kg7 43.h5 Nd5 44.Ra7 Rbd8 45.Nb3 b6 46.hxg6 hxg6 47.Rha1 Kf7 48.Nd2 Ke7 49.Nc4 Rxa7 50.Rxa7+ Rd7 51.Ra1 Nxf4+ 52.Kf3 Nd5 53.Bc1 Nb4 54.Nd6 Nc2 55.Ra8 Rd8 56.Ra7+ Rd7 57.Ra8 Rd8 58.Rxd8 Kxd8 59.Bb2 Kd7 60.Nf7 Ke8 61.Nh8 Ne1+ 62.Ke2 Ng2 63.Bc1 Kf8 64.Nxg6+ Kf7 65.Nf4 Nh4 66.Kf2 Ng6 67.Nxg6 Kxg6 68.Bd2 Kh5 69.Kg3 Kg6 70.Kh4 b5 71.Bb4 f4 72.Kg4 f3 73.Kxf3 Kxg5 74.Be1 Kf5 75.Bb4 Kg5 76.Bc5 Kf5 77.Be7 Kg6 78.Kg4 Kh6 79.Bg5+ Kg6 80.Bd2 Kf7 81.Kg5 Kg7 82.Bb4 Kf7 83.Kh6 Kg8 84.Kg6 Kh8 85.Kf6 Kg8 86.Kxe6 Kh7 87.Kd7 1-0

Several days ago I mentioned the Humor Tourney for Endgame Studies and my own preference for the second-prize winner over the first. (You can find both here: the second-prize winner is presented in entry 276; the first-prize winner in entry 281. The can also be replayed in the Palview board on the left side of that page.) Maybe the reason the first prize-winning entry won was that White's material was used more efficiently in that study than it was in the second prize-winner's (the pawn on h4 and knight on a8 play no role in the final position), but with respect to the humor elements alone, I think the runner-up was superior.

The primary mechanism of the winning entry, wherein its humor lies, is a staircasing maneuver. The problem, however, is twofold: (1) staircase maneuvers are fairly common motifs in problems, and (2) staircasing maneuvers are common in ordinary chess games - especially in queen endings. The dual knight-hopping mechanism of the runner-up isn't unheard of, but in my admittedly limited experience with studies, it's rarer than staircasing; most importantly, though, from the humor perspective, it never happens in real games (or if it does, it's exceedingly rare - certainly I've never seen it or even heard about it).

If the primary feature of humor in chess is the presence of visually attractive non-chess-specific patters in an unusual, unexpected chess context, then I think that unless the efficiency criteria won out in the Humor Tourney, the wrong entrant won. But perhaps there is another element of chess humor I'm failing to take into consideration? If so, I reiterate my request from the previous post on the Tourney: rescue me from philistinism!

Blog Name!

2005-04-09T13:31:00.000-05:00

Whether because Blogger is making changes that will eventually lead to improvements in their site, but are currently causing glitches, or because more people are signing up with them and taxing their resources, I've found their site increasingly inconvenient and will move to another location soon.

In fact, I would have moved some time ago, but there's a problem: I'd like to come up with a better name for the blog. Suggestions are welcome, as long as they're (a) within the bounds of good taste and (b) don't involve butchering my name ("Mono" puns...gee, I didn't hear those a few thousand times when I was a kid). So, marketing and advertising geniuses in my readership, please help!

A Case of Enduring Mutual Blindness

2005-04-08T11:47:00.000-05:00

Alexander Morozevich sometimes plays long series of blitz games, and yesterday I watched part of a 76-game marathon with Tigran Petrosian. (The runner-up in last year's world junior championship, not the late former world champion.) Most of the games I saw were interesting and at a level you'd expect from a top 10 player and his talented young GM opponent, but one series of moves, in one of the games, was pretty remarkable. We begin here:

Morozevich's games tend to be crazy, imbalanced and lacking in familiar signposts, and this one is no different. Here he's up a piece, but Black's potentially threatening pawn mass gives him some chances - at least in the context of a 3-minute game. Black can't play ...e4 here, because the pawn hangs to the Ba8, while ...f5 hangs the e-pawn. Therefore, plausibly enough, Petrosian uncorks the following:

28...Qf4??

The move has its virtues: it recentralizes the queen, attacks the Nf3, and supports the ...e4 fork. There is one small drawback, however. Do you see it? You probably do, but if not, don't worry - you're in excellent company.

29.Qd6??

Logical - it threatens the e5 pawn and prevents ...e4 because, well, that would hang the Black queen.

29...Bd7??

An interesting idea: the Bc8 wasn't a paragon of activity, and if 30.Nfxe5(??) Rxa8(??) 31.Qxd7(??), Black "wins" the knight with 31...Bxe5(??), while 31.Nxd7(??) hangs the queen to 31...Qxd6.

30.Qxd7?? Rxa8?? 31.Rf1??

We wouldn't want to hang the Nf3, now would we? Further, this move comes with the crushing threat of 32.Nd2! Qxd2 33.Qxf7+ Kh8 34.Rh1+ Bh6 35.Qxg6. Naturally, Black prevents this.

31...Rf8?? 32.Qc7??

Again, cleverly pinning the e-pawn and thus stopping the ...e4 threat. Let's have a final celebratory diagram here:

32...Qf5!!

Finally! And yet...I'm not sure that Black actually saw the threat so much as he wanted to elude the pin. Either way, after eight consecutive turns of mutual blindness - provoking much amusement and shock for the spectators - Black at long last saves the queen. (In case you too were struck with chess blindness, White could have played Nxf4 on any of moves 29-32.) White is winning here in any case, and certainly should have won, but a panicky time-trouble stalemate let Black off the hook yet again. Too much slapstick in one day may be desensitizing, so we'll close the curtain on this whole sorry episode now.

Around the Web

2005-04-06T18:50:00.000-05:00

It's a great big web out there, and it's impossible to keep track of all the good stuff. But hopefully I can offer a little help - here are three recent agglomerations of bytes worth your time qua chess fan.

1. Kasparov interview: Michael Greengard ("Mig") has transcribed and posted the first of what will be three parts of a very long interview he recently conducted with the famous retiree; you can read it here.

2. Kavalek's column: Erstwhile super-GM Lubosh Kavalek's Washington Post chess column is unfailingly excellent, and I'm especially eager to recommend this week's issue, due primarily to its second featured game. Lev Milman, a very talented 18-year old IM from New York, won a very nice game against fellow IM Joe Fang at the recent Foxwoods Tournament culminating with a beautiful concluding combination. If you miss it, you're definitely missing out!

3. Dragon analysis: Philosopher, blogger and Dragon specialist Victor Reppert has been presenting an occasional series featuring his Dragon games, and the latest installment is now in. The games are interesting and the theoretical summaries are well-done and a fine resource for students of that variation.

Maverick Chess?

2005-04-06T17:24:00.000-05:00

Independent philosopher and blogger Bill Vallicella recently presented an interesting game on his website, complete with annotations. In the interest of truth and instruction too, let's take a look.

Vallicella,Bill (1170) - NN (1244) [B13]
ICC 5 0, 06.04.2004

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nc6

This is an inaccurate move order, and I'm surprised Bill didn't know how to exploit it, as he's a fan of the Smith-Morra gambit. [4...Nf6 is correct.] 5.Nf3 [5.cxd5! Qxd5 6.Nf3 transposes to a line of the 2.c3 Sicilian/Smith-Morra declined known to be favorable for White.; 5.Nc3 is the better move order from a pure Caro-Kann perspective. Now Black has to choose between the well-known endgame line with 5...Nf6 or play 5...e6, in circumstances much worse for Black than after 4...Nf6. 5...Nf6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qb3 Bxf3 9.gxf3 e6 10.Qxb7 Nxd4 11.Bb5+ Nxb5 12.Qc6+ Ke7 13.Qxb5 Qd7 14.Nxd5+ Qxd5 and now either 15.Qxd5 or (15.Bg5+ f6 16.Qxd5 exd5 17.Be3 with an interesting, well-studied ending. (Jacob Aagaard has a nice treament of this ending in his Everyman Press book on the Panov-Botvinnik variation of the Caro-Kann.)) ] 5...Nf6 6.c5 [6.Nc3 is the normal move, again inviting Black to play the endgame mentioned in the previous note, as 6...e6 7.c5 (and 7.cxd5 are both favorable for White.) ] White's plan in the Gunderam is to play Bb5xc6, thereby solidifying his c-pawn and control over the e5 square. White's position is very comfortable once that happens, so Black has to find some way to prevent the plan. 6...Bg4 This move gets the bishop outside the pawn chain and seems to take care of the problem of an eventual Ne5, but [6...Ne4! is better. This puts the knight on a good square and prevents an immediate Bb5, forcing White to waste a tempo with 7.a3 (7.Bb5 Qa5+ 8.Nc3 Nxc3 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.bxc3 (10.Qd2 is also possible, but Black retains an edge thanks to the bishop pair and a strong pawn center after 10...Ba6 11.Qxc3 Qxc3+ 12.bxc3 f6 13.Rb1 Kf7 14.Be3 g6 followed by ...Bg7 and ...e5.) 10...Qxc3+ 11.Bd2 Qd3 12.Qa4 Qa6-/+) And now Black attacks White's pawn chain at practically every point: 7...e5 8.b4 a5 9.Bb5 exd4 10.Bb2 Be7 11.Nxd4 Bd7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Nc3 axb4 15.axb4 Rxa1 16.Bxa1 (16.Qxa1 Nd2 17.Re1 Nc4-/+) 16...Nxc3 17.Bxc3 Qc7=/+ White's lead pawn isn't "binding" anything anymore, so Black has a slight edge due to the bishop pair and the b4 pawn's slightly exposed status.] 7.Bb5

7...e6?! This is certainly a step in the wrong direction, though not yet a clear mistake - see the note to the next move. [7...Qa5+ 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qa4 Qxa4 10.Nxa4 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nf6; 7...Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qa5+ 9.Nc3 Ne4] 8.Qa4 Qc7? [8...Bxf3! 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qxc6+ Nd7 11.gxf3 Be7 leaves White with an extra pawn, but with plenty of weaknesses, too, while Black's position is fairly sound and his pieces ready for activity.] 9.Ne5 Now White, having achieved a Gunderam fantasy position, is winning. Even so, the rest of the game isn't quite the coronation it ought to have been (or rather, it is, but might not have been, had Black played slightly more accurately). 9...Rc8 10.Bf4 a6 11.Bxc6+ [11.Nxc6?? loses a piece after 11...axb5] 11...bxc6

12.Ng6 Bill punctuates this with two exclamation points (or "excited points", as Danny Olim is wont to say), but I think this is excessive for at least three reasons. First, while it's not a bad move and it's certainly enjoyable to play, it's also pretty obvious for a player of Bill's level, and obvious moves don't get multiple exclamation points unless something very special is going on. (For example, the obvious move has what seems to be an obvious refutation, but really isn't due to some later, unobvious rejoinder.) Second, 12.Ng6 was the point of 10.Bf4, so if there are exclams to be handed out, they belong on move 10. And third, 12.Ng6 isn't even the best move or even the second-best move. It's only #3 on the hit parade. [12.h3! Bf5 13.Qxa6 delays material gratification, but leaves Black bereft of counterplay and losing at least a second pawn with a bad position. 13...Qb8 14.Nxc6 Qa8 15.Qxa8 Rxa8 16.Nc3 and between his two extra pawns, space advantage, central bind and three connected passed pawns, it's an easy, worry-free win for White.; 12.Qxa6! Nh5 (Everything else loses pretty much instantly, as the panoply of knight discoveries leaves Black helpless to save all his loose pieces.) 13.Bd2 Nf6 14.h3 Bf5 15.Bf4 is an indirect way of reaching the position after 12.h3 Bf5 13.Qxa6.] 12...Qb7 13.Nxh8 Qxb2 14.0-0 Qxa1 15.Qxa6

[15.Qb4! This nasty move comes with two threats: 16.Qb7, forking c8 and f7, and 16.Nc3, trapping the Black queen. 15...e5! 16.Bxe5 Qxa2 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qb7 Bd7 19.Re1+ Be7 20.Nxf7 Kxf7 21.Qxd7 Re8 22.Qxc6+- White is winning, but it's not nearly as easy to win as the position at the end of the line starting with 12.h3.] 15...Kd7?? [15...e5! looks obvious, and Bill mentions it. 16.dxe5 but here, instead of the decentralizing 16...Nh5?, why not (16.Bxe5 may be better - it certainly keeps the center under better control than 16.dxe5. But even here, it's not clear that White has an advantage. Black will make a few necessary moves (getting the queen out of the box, covering up the e-file), and White will be left with the problem of saving the Nh8. Warning to computer users: the tin can will claim that White has a decisive advantage here, but be patient. Chances are, if you carry the line through for a few moves, the evaluation will drift back to near-equality, as the Nh8 becomes increasingly imperiled. 16...Qb2 17.Qb6 Qc2 18.Qb7 Be7 19.f3 Be6 20.Re1 Kf8 with an unclear position.) 16...Ne4 17.Nd2 (17.f3?? Qd4+ 18.Kh1 Nf2+ 19.Rxf2 Qxf2 20.h3 Bxc5-+) 17...Qd4 finds White is up a pawn but without an attack, with three vulnerable pawns, and serious problems with the knight on h8. Further, if White tries to be clever with 18.Be3 Qxe5 19.f3? Nxd2 20.Bxd2 it will rebound against him: 20...Bxc5+ 21.Kh1 Be6 22.Re1 Qc7-+] 16.Qb7+ Kd8 17.Nxf7+ [17.Nxf7+ Ke8 18.Nd6+ Bxd6 19.Bxd6 wins, as Black can't stop 20.Qe7# without losing the rook (and then getting mated anyway just a few moves later).] 1-0

Rook vs. Bishop: 4 Endings

2005-04-06T14:20:00.000-05:00

In my own practice, I haven't seen many rook vs. bishop endings, and I suspect the same is true for many of you, too. Nevertheless, if we want to be well-rounded in our chess education, it's worth spending some time every now and then even on relatively uncommon endings, if they are fundamental. So here are four rook vs. bishop endgame positions; your mission, if you choose to accept it - and I hope you will - is to do your best to solve the positions before I present the solutions over the course of the next few days.

Position 1: White to move and ___, and how?

Position 2: White to move and win - how?

Position 3: White to move and win - how?

Position 4: Win or draw?

Bobby Fischer and Damiano's Defense

2005-04-05T18:40:00.000-05:00

In the post "Naming and Contingency," I presented some well-known analysis showing that Black loses by force after 3...fxe5 in the unfortunately named Damiano's Defense. An anonymous commentator reported having read (or at least having thought that he read) that a "strong player" beat Bobby Fischer once, in a simul, using said defense.

I don't know about a win, but I think I know what he's referring to. In Bobby Fischer: Complete Games of the American World Chess Champion (first edition), compiled and edited by Lou Hays, we find this (the game score is from the book, but the analysis is mine):

Fischer,Robert James - McGregor,Robert F [C40]
Houston sim Houston, 1964

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.Nf3 d5 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Bf5

This is a threat White can probably ignore: 8.Nd4 [After the Morphyesque 8.Nc3! Black is destined for misery: 8...Qxc2 (8...Bb4 9.0-0 Bxc3 (9...Qxc2 10.Qxc2 Bxc2 11.Nd4 Bg6 12.Ne6 Kd7 13.Bc4 Nc6 14.Rd1+ Bd6 15.Nxc7+-) 10.bxc3 Nc6 11.Re1 Nge7 12.Bb5 Qg4 13.h3 Qh5 14.Rxe7+ Kxe7 15.Ba3+ Kf7 16.Ne5+ Nxe5 17.Qxh5++-) 9.Qxc2 Bxc2 10.Nd4 Bg6 11.Bf4 Nc6 (11...c6? 12.Ne6 Na6 13.Bxa6 Kf7 14.Nc7+-) 12.Ne6+-] 8...Nc6 9.Nxf5 Qxf5 10.0-0 Bd6 11.Bg4 Qb5 12.Nc3 Qc4

13.Be2? After this lemon, the Black king gets to leave town. White's still better, but a huge part of his advantage is gone. [13.Re1+ Nge7 14.Be6+-] 13...Qf7 14.Bb5 0-0-0 15.Qg4+ [15.Bxc6?? Bxh2+ 16.Kxh2 Rxd1 17.Bxb7+ Kxb7 18.Rxd1 Ne7-+] 15...f5 16.Qh3 Nge7 17.Ne4 h6 18.Nxd6+ Rxd6 19.Bf4 Rd4 20.Be3 Rb4 21.Bxc6 Nxc6 22.b3 Re4 23.Rfd1 Rd8 24.Rxd8+ Nxd8 25.Rd1 Qe6 26.g3 Rxe3

[26...Rxe3 27.fxe3 Qxe3+ 28.Kf1 Qf3+ 29.Ke1 Qe3+ and White can't escape the perpetual without hanging the Rd1.] 1/2-1/2

Hays writes the following of McGregor's opening choice: "Bluffing. McGregor, actually a strong player, wanted Fischer to think he was a beginner." I'm not really sure that the bluff worked - wouldn't a beginner play 3...fxe5? Fischer didn't play a particularly incisive game, but even so, had he not played the 13.Be2 lemon - which had nothing obvious to do with purely psychological factors - McGregor would almost surely have been another simul victim.

So, fans of dubious openings, it's true: someone played one of the absolute worst openings against one of the world's absolute best players and lived to tell the tale, but it's not an example worth emulating.

Naming and Contingency

2005-04-04T14:26:00.000-05:00

In the previous post, we saw that the so-called "Maroczy Bind" was named for Geza Maroczy not because he played it, but because, after facing it, he popularized that setup. A bit of an injustice to Swiderski, but he's not alone.

To take a relatively recent and prominent example, the ...Qb6xb2 line in the 6.Bg5 Najdorf deserved to be named after Bobby Fischer if any variation did, but apparently it came to be known as the "Poisoned Pawn Variation" when some journalist during the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match asked about the opening and was told that Fischer had snatched a poisoned pawn.

Oh well. Even worse is the baptism of Damiano's Defense - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? Damiano's connection to this horrible move was that he mentioned it in a treatise, refuting it! It would be more just if the opening had some other name and 3.Nxe5!, the first move of the refutation, was known as Damiano's Attack or something to that effect.

(In case anyone's curious, the main line proceeds 3.Nxe5 fxe5 [3...Qe7 lets Black regain the pawn and live, but with a clearly inferior position] 4.Qh5+ Ke7 [4...g6 5.Qxe5+ and 6.Qxh8] 5.Qe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5 Kg6 8.h4! [much more accurate than the immediate 8.Bxb7, though that may also win after 8...Bxb7 9.Qf5+ Kh6 10.d3+ g5 11.h4 Kg7 12.Bd2 g4 13.Qxg4+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke7 15.Bb4+ c5 16.Bxc5+ Kd7 17.Qf5+ Kc7 18.Bxf8] h5 9.Bxb7! and now:

A. 9...Bxb7 10.Qf5+ Kh6 11.d3+ g5 12.Qf7! with a quick forced mate, as the threat of 13.hxg5+ Qxg5 14.Rxh5# can be delayed but not prevented.

B. 9...Bd6 10.Qa5 and a final divergence:

B1. 10...Bxb7 again leads to a forced mate, though it takes a little longer this time: 11.Qf5+ Kh6 12.d4+ g5 13.Qf7! [again] Bf4 14.hxg5+ Qxg5 15.Bxf4 [again threatening Rxh5#] Nf6 16.Qxf6+ Kh7 17.Qxg5 any 18.Rxh5#

B2. 10...Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8. Here at least Black won't get mated too quickly, but he's four pawns down with a bad position to boot. White's winning.)

Finally, there are also more minor nomenclatural injustices that arise due to the originator's modesty. The Polish GM Savielly Tartakower is the inventor of both 1.b4 (alternately called the Polish and the Orangatun [and in Russia, it's named after Sokolsky, who wrote a book on the opening]) 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 - the "Catalan", named for the place he introduced the opening.

Does it matter? Perhaps no one is harmed, especially since there aren't any copyrights on chess moves and no royalties lost ("If I had a nickel for every time someone played that opening..."). But still, it is an injustice, in that the person who deserves the credit doesn't receive it (or in the case of Damiano's Defense, blame is improperly assigned).

A final, semi-bleak thought: if my recommendation is strictly followed, does it mean that in about 15 years, every new variation will be called something like the "Shredder 21" or the "Fritz 20"? Ugh!

The Swiderski Bind?

2005-04-04T01:10:00.000-05:00

In my post on the (alleged) Geza Maroczy-Viktor Korchnoi game, I mentioned en passant that part of Maroczy's claim to fame is a pawn structure bearing his name, the so-called Maroczy Bind. The history bug bit Victor Reppert, and he apparently tried to find the stem game, the maiden voyage, the tournament debut of Maroczy's eponymous brainchild.

The result? Nothing. Not a game found he, so he sent me a comment and passed along the challenge: could I do any better?

At first, I assumed he must have used overly strict search parameters and optimistically fired up ChessBase 9.0. I opened the Mega 2005 database, entered "Maroczy" (with White) in the game data filter and White pawns on c4 and e4 in the position filter, and subsequently did the same for him with Black (but with Black pawns on c5 and e5). A number of games popped up in both cases, but only one or two were even vaguely Bindish, and neither could plausibly be thought the basis of the "Maroczy Bind" label.

Fortunately, Andrew ("Andy") Soltis came to the rescue. A book I found quite helpful as an up-and-coming kid was his Pawn Structure Chess, and in the second edition (1995), pages 108-109, he provides the explanation:

"Oddly enough, Geza Maroczy (pronounced MAHRotsee) was not the originator of the pawn formation that bears his name. In fact, the first master game to gain recognition of the Bind was Swiderski-Maroczy, Monte Carlo 1904, in which Maroczy, with Black in a Dragon formation, was the 'bindee' rather than the 'binder.' It was his opponent who played c2-c4 and e2-e4. But for years later Maroczy, a great Hungarian grandmaster and chess journalist, repeatedly drew attention to the powers of the Bind, and by the 1920s, permitting the Bind was equated with making a blunder. [For the sake of those afraid of the Bind, I continue:] In our time, however, the Bind has been shorn of much of its reputation because of the many methods of freeing Black's game. In its purest form thet Bind is still a very dangerous animal, but Black can avoid the pure form if he plays carefully."

Swiderski,Rudolf - Maroczy,Geza [B38]
Monte Carlo Monte Carlo (4), 1904

1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4

The basic Bind. 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 d6 8.Be2 Bd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.h3 [10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.f3 a5 13.b3 Nd7 14.Be3 Nc5 15.Rab1 Qb6 16.Rfc1 is a normal, main line position that has occurred in hundreds of games, but although Swiderski's move is less incisive, it can't really be described as an error, either.] 10...Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.Qd3 Nd7 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.b4 b6 15.Rfd1 a5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4 Qc7 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Rxa1 20.Rxa1 f5 21.Qe6 Ne5 22.exf5 Rxf5 23.Ra8 Rf8 24.Rxf8 Kxf8

White still has a slight edge here, but now he miscalculates, loses a pawn and the game. 25.c5? [25.Qd5+/=] 25...dxc5 26.f4 Nf7 27.Bc4 Qxf4 28.bxc5 bxc5 29.Qc8+ Kg7 30.Qxc5 Qe5-/+ 31.Qc8 Nd6 32.Qg8+ Kh6 33.Qf8+ Kg5 34.Bf1 Qe3+ 35.Qf2 Qxf2+ 36.Kxf2-+ Kf4 37.Bd3 Ne4+ 38.Ke2 g5 39.Bc2 h5 40.Bb3 e5 41.Bf7 h4 42.Bc4 Nf6 43.Kf2 Ke4 44.Bf7 Kd3 45.Bg6+ e4 46.Bf5 Kd2 47.Bxe4 Nxe4+ 48.Kf3 Kd3 0-1

Humor Tournament: 1st place

2005-04-03T20:42:00.000-05:00

In an earlier post, I referred the readers to the second-prize winning entrant in a study competition devoted to humor; now, at last, Tim Krabbé has revealed the first place-winning composition (see diary entry 281). The winning composition is certainly impressive, but in all honesty, I greatly preferred the second place-winning work (same location; diary entry 276).

Does this mean I'm an endgame study philistine? If there are any composers reading this, I'd love to know what sorts of criteria lead the cognoscenti to prefer the winner over the runner-up.

Radio Reflections on Chess, Children, and Character

2005-04-03T12:24:00.000-05:00

South Bend area chess player and higher ed blogger Ken Smith (not that Ken Smith) occasionally writes radio essays for our local NPR radio station, and this Friday his essay offered reflections arising from the local chess scene. The punchline comes at the end, when he writes that "[w]hen you watch them [chess-playing pre-teens], you get the impression that some of them may already know that chess, like life, is about character."

I think he's overly optimistic about the value of chess and its role in shaping those kids' characters, but I think Ken does a nice job of presenting something of our game, in an attractive way, to the "gentiles" - something all of us with access to media should do from time to time, if only to combat the negative images out there.

Thanks, Ken!

This Week's Non-April Fools' Show

2005-04-03T00:40:00.000-05:00

Amos Burn (1848-1925) is best known to us for his variation in the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4) and for his horrible loss in the famous "pipe game" with Frank Marshall. If you're especially literate in chess history, you may even know of Burn's reputation as a player with a passive, stodgy style.

That's part of the story, but there's more. (How could there not be? What a shame it is to dismiss one's life or even just their creative achievements in a sentence or two!) Despite his often less than crowd-pleasing style, his great strength also enabled him to play some excellent and exciting games; this week, we'll take a look at one of them, a game featuring one of the most amazing moves of all time. Better still, as it was a casual game, it's not in your databases (though it can be found in this universally acclaimed monster volume), so this week's show is especially worth watching.

Here's the beginning of the game:

MacDonald - Burn,Amos [C41]
Casual Game, 1910

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Nc3 Ngf6 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Re1 c6 8.d5 c5 9.Bg5 h6 10.Be3 Kh7 11.h3 Nb6 12.Bd3 Bd7 13.a4 Rc8 14.a5 Na8 15.b3 Nc7 16.Ne2 Nce8 17.c4 Ng8 18.g4 g6 19.Ng3 Ng7 20.Qd2 Rc7 21.Kh2 Qc8 22.Rg1 f5 23.gxf5 gxf5 24.exf5 Nxf5 25.Nh5 Kh8 26.Rxg8+ Rxg8 27.Bxh6 Be8 28.Bg7+ Rxg7 29.Nxg7 Kxg7

Burn is in (more than) a bit of trouble here, but just a few moves later, when it seems that MacDonald has him cooked (har har), Burn produces a truly incredible defensive resource that turns the tables. To see that move, and to see my analysis of the rest of this entertaining game, join me on ChessBase's Playchess.com server this Monday night!

As always, directions for watching the show can be found here, while a list of previous shows can be accessed through this link.

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 4

2005-04-02T19:17:00.000-05:00

Finally, there was this question: True or false: The strongest tournament performance by a female player was not turned in by Judit Polgar, nor by Susan Polgar, Maya Chiburdanidze, Xie Jun or any other female world chess champion.

Answer: true. The record-setting performance was by a Polgar, but not by former women's champ Susan Polgar or the (by far) highest-rated female player in history, Judit Polgar. Rather, it was middle sister Zsofia who, at the tender age of 14, won the Rome Open in 1989 with a score of 8.5/9 and a staggering performance rating of 2930. Unfortunately, this mega-success was an isolated event in her career, and unlike her sisters she is "only" an IM. Still, she has the female tournament performance rating (TPR) record, and her games from the event weren't just wins; they were often massacres.

Here's one of them.

Polgar,Sofia (2295) - Chernin,Alexander (2580) [B85]
Rome 1989

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Be3 0-0 9.f4 d6 10.Kh1 a6 11.Qe1 Na5 12.Qg3 [12.Rd1 is more usual, so that after 12...Nc4 13.Bc1 White's queen's rook isn't shut out of the game.] 12...Nc4 13.Bc1 b5 14.a3 Qb6 15.Rd1 Bb7? [15...e5! was better, according to Polgar, when 16.Bxc4! bxc4 17.fxe5 dxe5 18.Qxe5 Re8 19.Qg3 Bd6 leaves Black excellent compensation for the pawn.] 16.b3 Na5 17.Bf3 Rac8 18.Bb2 Rfd8?

[18...Rfe8+/- Polgar] 19.Nd5! Nxd5 [19...exd5 20.Nf5+- regains the piece, due to the threats of 21.Qxg7#, 21.Nxe7+, and both 21.Bxf6 and 21.Nh6+ Kh8 22.Nxf7+ kg8 23.Nxd8 (followed by 24.Bxf6) if Black plays 20...Bf8.; 19...Bxd5 20.exd5+-] 20.Nxe6! [20.Nf5 g6] 20...g6 21.Nxd8 Qxd8 [21...Ne3 22.Bd4+- Polgar] 22.exd5 Rxc2 23.Rab1+- Bh4 [23...Nxb3? 24.Be4 Polgar] 24.Qh3 Bc8 25.Bg4 Bxg4 26.Qxg4 Nxb3 27.g3?! [27.f5! immediately is better, as here, unlike the game after 28.f5, Black can't play 27...Qd7 because of 28.Qxh4.] 27...Be7 28.f5 a5? [28...Qd7!?] 29.fxg6 hxg6 30.Qh3 Rxb2 Black has to give up more material to stop the mate, as [30...f6 31.Qe6+ Kg7 32.Bxf6+ Bxf6 33.Rxb3 leaves White too many entrance routes (Rb3xb5-b7+; Rf1+Rbf3, etc.) to the Black king,; while 30...Bf6 31.Bxf6 Qxf6 32.Rxb3 is even worse.] 31.Rxb2 a4 32.Rf2 Nc5 33.Rdf1 f5 34.g4! Open lines! 34...Ne4 35.Rg2 1-0

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 3

2005-04-02T18:09:00.000-05:00

The question here was if a standing world champion had ever lost a serious game in 12 moves, and the answer is...no. I noted when formulating the question that Boris Spassky, as a kid, once lost to Viktor Korchnoi in 12 moves.

Korchnoi,Viktor - Spassky,Boris [B71]
Leningrad, 1948

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f4 Bg4 [6...Nc6 is widely considered best here.] 7.Bb5+ Nbd7 8.Bxd7+ [Why not 8.Qd3 instead, encouraging Black to first waste a tempo on ...a6?] 8...Qxd7 9.Qd3 e5 10.Nf3 Bxf3?! 11.Qxf3 Qg4?? 12.Nd5!

[Spassky believed he was losing a piece after 12.Nd5!, but the neat 12...Kd8! saves the knight. Nevertheless, the position after 13.Qxg4 (13.Nxf6 Qh4+ is the point, though this position too is miserable for Black: 14.Qg3 Qxf6 15.0-0+-) 13...Nxg4 14.h3 Nh6 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Bg5+ Kd7 17.0-0-0 is absolutely horrible for Black, so resignation was appropriate in any case.] 1-0

Some readers thought Anatoly Karpov's infamous 12-move loss to Larry Christiansen in 1993 rendered a yes to my question, but that game occurred many months before his FIDE World Championship match with Jan Timman.

Christiansen,Larry Mark (2620) - Karpov,Anatoly (2725) [E12]
Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (2), 01.1993

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Be3 Bd6?? [11...Qb8 and; 11...Bc5 are known theoretical approaches; the first fights for the f4 square, while the latter develops the bishop and prepares to castle. Maybe Karpov thought he was combining the virtues of each, but alas...] 12.Qd1

And this time, unlike the previous game (and also the next one), Black really does lose a piece, so the resignation is appropriate. 1-0

The shortest loss in a serious game by a sitting world champion, then, as far as I'm aware, was Tigran Petrosian's 15-move loss to Vladimir Liberzon in a team tournament in 1964:

Liberzon,Vladimir M - Petrosian,Tigran V [C18]
Moscow-ch Trades Union Moscow (4), 05.12.1964

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Ng6 8.h4 h5 9.Qg3 Qa5 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.Bd3 Nce7 12.dxc5 Qxc5 13.Nf3 Bd7 14.0-0

We have a normal position here, and now Black makes a normal sort of move. 14...Bb5?? Very logical. The light-squared bishop is Black's traditional problem piece in the French Defense, so trading it off is logical. Further, by getting rid of White's bishop, Black's chances of fighting for the f5 square are enhanced. Just one problem: 15.Be3! Oops! Petrosian resigned now, believing he was losing a piece after [15.Be3! ; ironically, like Spassky in the game with Korchnoi, he was mistaken, as 15...d4 forces White to either remove the attack on the queen with 16.Nxd4 or to take d4 away from the knight with 16.Bxd4 or the best move, 16.cxd4. White is up a pawn for nothing after the latter move, but at least Petrosian could have played on in that case.] 1-0

Patzers and relative patzers, take heart: no one is immune from blunders!

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 2

2005-04-02T15:12:00.000-05:00

The second story I offered for the readers' judgment was this: in 1988, I played my all-time favorite player, Mikhail Tal, in a simul - and drew! True or false?

The first few bits are true: I did play him in a simul in Los Angeles, and he was (and probably still is) my favorite player, but I didn't draw. Nor, alas, did I win; no, I received a good old-fashioned whuppin'.

At that time, I would sometimes play 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 a6 with the Black pieces, and I had succeeded in beating crazy-man IM Kamran Shirazi with that in a tournament game some time before. So I figured that if Shirazi couldn't get anything against it in a tournament game, then why should Tal do any better in a simul? Of course he's much stronger than Shirazi, but he also has less time to think.

Whatever the merits of that line of reasoning, my opening choice was a less-than-inspired one. Unfortunately, I don't have the game any longer, but here's an example of Tal's brutal efficiency against a similar setup. (And since I knew about this game, I should have taken it as a salutary warning that the Modern wasn't a brilliant choice against the Wizard of Riga.)

Tal,Mihail - Tringov,Georgi P [B06]
Amsterdam Interzonal Amsterdam (23), 1964

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 Qb6 [5...Nf6 is the normal, safe(r) move, transposing to the Pirc.] 6.Qd2 Of course, though 6.Rb1 wasn't so much bad as a move a Tal just doesn't play. 6...Qxb2 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Bc4 Qa5 A bit cavalier about developing, perhaps, but there's a good idea behind the move. Black wants to play e5, grabbing some space in the center, but with the queen on a3 it loses to 9.dxe5 dxe5?? 10.Qd8# 9.0-0 e6 But then why this, especially in light of his reconsideration just two moves later? I suppose Black got cold feet, or suddenly thought that a ...d5 plan made more sense, but now Black has neither space nor development. 10.Rfe1 Preventing ...d5, on account of the e-file pin. 10...a6 11.Bf4!

White's advantage is significant here, but even so, if Black stayed passive with 11...Qc7 or 11...Qd8, White would still need to do the work to get at Black's position. Instead, GM Tringov decides it's time to do something active; shockingly, White's extra space and five-piece advantage in development pays off. 11...e5? [11...Qc7 12.e5 d5 13.Bxd5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.e6 with an attack is a line given in the Chess Stars series on Tal. Let's continue the line: 15...Bh6! 16.exf7+ Kxf7 17.Bxh6 Nxh6 18.Qxh6 Nc6 19.Ng5+ Kf6 20.Re3 with a decisive advantage for White. For example, 20...Bf5 21.g4 Bxg4 22.Qh4 when the threats of 23.Qxg4 and 23.Ne6+ allow White to regain the piece (at bare minimum) with an ongoing attack.; 11...Qd8 12.d5 b5 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bb3 e5 15.Bg5 Nf6 16.Rbd1+-] 12.dxe5 dxe5

13.Qd6! Tal is in his element here: the Black king is stuck in the center, and the threats of Red1 and Ng5 (among other things) is lethal. 13...Qxc3 [If 13...exf4 White has only one good move, but it's a doozy: 14.Nd5! winning the queen, as 14...cxd5 15.exd5+ Be6 16.dxe6 f5 17.Rxb7 leads to mate by Rxb8+, Qd7+ and Qf7#.] 14.Red1 Nd7 [14...Bf6 lets Black thrash around, but without any real hopes of saving the game. Here's the proof: 15.Bxe5 (15.Nxe5 is even stronger but less human. 15...Be7 16.Bxf7+ Kf8 17.Qc7 Nd7 18.Bb3 g5 19.Rxd7 Bxd7 20.Nxd7+ Ke8 21.Be5 Qd2 22.Nb6 Rd8 23.Rf1+-) 15...Qxc4 16.Bxf6 Nd7 17.Bxh8+-] 15.Bxf7+!

Another sacrifice, and now all is clear: Black is mated in at most four more moves. 15...Kxf7 [15...Kd8 16.Ng5 Qc4 17.Rd5 Qxd5 18.exd5 exf4 19.Ne6#] 16.Ng5+ Ke8 17.Qe6+ [17.Qe6+ Kd8 18.Nf7+ Kc7 19.Qd6#] 1-0

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 1

2005-04-02T02:00:00.000-05:00

In the previous post, I offered four stories with varying degrees of plausibility; today, over the course of the day, I'll reveal whether each is true or false and offer details.

The first story presented a game that was allegedly played by two world-class players. Nothing amazing about that, but oh yes - one of the players had been dead for 34 years when the game began. True or false?

Answer: true, by which I mean that I truly relayed the story. In 1985 Viktor Korchnoi, on the short list for the semi-dubious title of strongest player never to become world champion, decided to expand his already tremendous chess resume by taking on the thoroughly deceased Hungarian great Geza Maroczy.

Maroczy is best known to most chess players for a certain pawn structure known as the "Maroczy Bind". The Bind occurs (from the White side; make the appropriate changes to apply it to Black) when the White d-pawn is exchanged for the Black c-pawn and White has pawns on c4 and e4, giving him a strong point on d5. For example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 (4...Nf6 is normally played here in order to prevent this) 5.c4, White has set up the Maroczy Bind formation.

Understanding this pawn formation with both sides in its different formulations is an important part of the chess player's arsenal, but there's more to the man, even as a chess player, than his popularization of a particular pawn structure. Maroczy, whose dates were 1870-1951, was one of the world's strongest players in the first decade of the 20th century; strong enough that Mike Fox and Richard James, in their 1993 work The Even More Complete Chess Addict (p. 120), put Maroczy in a tie for the 29th-34th greatest player of all time, even with (among others) Efim Bogoljubow, Isaak Boleslavsky and Aron Nimzowitsch and ahead of Bent Larsen, Lajos Portisch and Leonid Stein. I don't know how seriously to take the precision of their evaluation, but that they can even consider it speaks volumes for his ability.

Maroczy was also well-known for his special excellence in queen endings, but it's an even more impressive skill in an "endgame" to play chess 34 years after one's death. Viktor Korchnoi seems to have been a believer in, or at least quite open to, phenomena of the parapsychological variety.

In his 1978 world championship match with Anatoly Karpov, for instance, there were huge fights between the Korchnoi and Karpov camps over the presence in the audience of one Doctor Zukhar. Zukhar was a parapsychologist in Karpov's camp whose job, allegedly, was to stare at Korchnoi and "confuse his thinking." Whether he succeeded qua parapsychologist is unclear, but he clearly did succeed in distracting Korchnoi, who engaged in more than his own fair share of psychological warfare during the match. (Here's an online article that will give the reader some sense of the match's acrimonious antics.)

Fast forward seven years. Korchnoi met a Swiss medium named Robert Rollans, and from 1985 to 1988 Korchnoi allegedly played the thoroughly deceased Maroczy. Though I don't believe it's genuine - I assume it's a sham perpetrated by Rollans and some reasonably strong chess friends - it's a nice game and Korchnoi's endgame technique was quite elegant. (The game, with some brief comments, can be replayed online here.)

Answers and further details to stories 2-4 coming later...stay tuned.

April Fools' Day: Chess Fact or Fiction?

2005-04-01T15:14:00.000-05:00

In honor of April Fools' Day (as if my earlier commemoration wasn't enough! - see 1, 2, 3 and 4), here are several odd or unexpected claims. Two are true, and two are false. Can you guess which is which?

1. The following game was (allegedly) played by two world-class players:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 cxd4 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 Qc7 10.Kd1 dxc3 11.Nf3 Nbc6 12.Bb5 Bd7 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Bg5 d4 15.Bxe7 Kxe7 16.Qh4+ Ke8 17.Ke2 Bxf3+ 18.gxf3 Qxe5+ 19.Qe4 Qxe4+ 20.fxe4 f6 21.Rad1 e5 22.Rd3 Kf7 23.Rg3 Rg6 24.Rhg1 Rag8 25.a4 Rxg3 26.fxg3 b6 27.h4 a6 28.g4 b5 29.axb5 axb5 30.Kd3 Kg6 31.Rf1 Rh8 32.Rh1 Rh7 33.Ke2 Ra7 34.Kd3 Ra2 35.Rf1 b4 36.h5+ Kg5 37.Rf5+ Kxg4 38.h6 b3 39.h7 Ra8 40.cxb3 Rh8 41.Rxf6 Rxh7 42.Rg6+ Kf4 43.Rf6+ Kg3 44.Rf1 Rh2 45.Rd1 Kf3 46.Rf1+ Rf2 47.Rxf2+ Kxf2 [47...Kxf2 48.b4 c2 49.Kxc2 Ke2 50.b5 d3+ 51.Kc3 d2 52.b6 d1Q] 0-1

Not a bad game, but what makes it noteworthy is that White had been dead for more than 35 years by the game's completion.

2. In 1988, I had the opportunity to face my all-time favorite player, the great Mikhail Tal, in a simul. I was at or close to my peak then, and I was fortunate enough to pull out a draw.

3. Boris Spassky, later to become world champion, once lost to Viktor Korchnoi (also spelled "Kortchnoi" and "Kortschnoj," depending on where you look) in 12 moves when both were kids, but another world champion, while world champion, also managed to lose a tournament game in just 12 moves.

4. The strongest tournament performance by a female player was not turned in by Judit Polgar, nor by Susan Polgar, Maya Chiburdanidze, Xie Jun or any other female world chess champion.

Answers tomorrow.

Melody Amber, Round 11

2005-03-31T18:14:00.000-05:00

As expected, Anand coasted in with a pair of quick draws, completing a sweep of both sections and therefore the overall crown. This result is just another confirmation of what has been clear for a long time: Anand is the king of rapid chess (with the exception of the now-retired Kasparov).

Despite Anand's non-games, and the last round siestas of others, there were a number of exciting games today, too, most notably the near-brilliancy between Evgeny Bareev and Vasily Ivanchuk.

Bareev,Evgeny (2709) - Ivanchuk,Vasily (2711) [D80]
Amber Blindfold (11.1), 31.03.2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Ne4 5.Bh4 Bg7 6.cxd5 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Qxd5 8.e3 c5 9.Qf3 Qd8 10.Bc4 0-0 11.Ne2 cxd4 12.exd4 Nc6N [12...Qc7 13.Bb3 Nc6 14.0-0 Na5 15.Rfe1 Nxb3 16.axb3 Bd7 has been played before and leaves White with just a small edge.] 13.0-0 Bd7 14.Rfe1 Rc8 15.Bb3 Na5 16.Nf4 Playing a series of very natural moves, White has already managed to achieve a large advantage. Black's e-pawn is under attack; more significantly, there's no convenient way to defend it. 16...Bf6 This keeps all the pawns protected, but White's access to Black's weakened kingside dark squares is more serious than Ivanchuk must have suspected. [16...Re8?? Takes care of the e-pawn, but only at the cost of something much worse: 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7 18.Ne6+ and White wins the queen.; If Black tries to prepare the Re8 idea in this way, the problem is that both the a- and b-pawns become vulnerable: 16...Nxb3 17.axb3 Re8 18.Qxb7 leaves White with an extra pawn and the better position. Note that 18...Rxc3 makes things even worse for Black after 19.Nd5 followed by Nxe7+.; 16...Nc6 is also possible, but it's an embarrassing move to play after 15...Na5. And even if he does play it, White has a huge advantage with 17.Re3 followed by doubling rooks and/or playing Nd5.] 17.Bxf6 exf6 18.Nd5? [Building with 18.Re3+/- improves, in light of the tactical possibility Black misses next move.] 18...Kg7? [18...Bc6 is the ideal move if it works. Does it? 19.Nxf6+ Kg7 20.Nh5+ gxh5 21.Qxh5 Nxb3 22.axb3 Qf6 23.Rxa7 Rfe8 It does: Black stands better.] 19.Re7 f5 20.Qf4 Nc6

It looks like Black has everything under control here: the knight is covering e5 and attacking the Re7, and once White retreats the rook Black plays Re8 or Be6, closing the e-file and the a2-g8 diagonal and chasing the White knight from d5. White will still have a clear advantage, but Black won't be in any immediate danger. 21.Rae1!! But Bareev has "seen" (it was the blindfold game) more deeply! What counts most is the activity of the White pieces and how many can swarm around the Black king, not just the abstract material value of a rook compared to a knight. By leaving the rook on e7, ...Be6 is prevented (21...Be6?? 22.R1xe6), ...Re8 is prevented and 21...Nxe7 gives the White queen access to the groovy e5 square. Since everything else is work, Black tries to grab and hold: 21...Nxe7 [21...Re8 22.Rxf7+ Kxf7 23.Nc7+ Kg7 24.Rxe8 Bxe8 (24...Qxc7 25.Rg8+ Kf6 (25...Rxg8 26.Qxc7+-) 26.Qh4+ g5 27.Qxg5#) 25.Ne6+ is the punchline.] 22.Rxe7 Re8 [22...Rc6 is a tougher try, but it fails to the brilliant 23.Qe5+ Kh6 24.Nf6! Be6 25.g4!!

and White wins, because 25...Qxe7 26.h4+- wins the queen, and Black cannot otherwise meet the threat of 27.g5+ Kg7 28.Nxh5+ Kg8 (or on 28...Kf8, if, for example, Black were to have moved the rook away, then 29.Qh8#) 29.Qg7# 26...fxg4 (26...Qxf6 27.g5+ Qxg5+ 28.hxg5+ Kxg5 29.d5 Rb6 30.dxe6 fxe6 31.Qg7+-) 27.Nxg4+ Bxg4 28.Qxe7 Kg7 29.d5+-] 23.Qe5+ Kh6 24.Qe3+ missing the win, but as Black can't avoid the repetition Bareev gets a second chance... 24...Kg7 25.Qe5+ Kh6

26.h4? which he misses, unfortunately. [26.g4!! The point of this funny little move is that the White queen can't check the king without chasing him back; on the other hand, the attack isn't going to get anywhere without another check to draw the king up. So the aim of 26.g4 is 27.g5+, when 27...Kxg5 (27...Kh5 28.Bd1+ Kh4 29.Qg3#) 28.Qf4+ (the queen is free to check!) Kh5 29.Nf6 is mate. Black can only prevent a quick mate with the drastic 26...Qxe7 , but then he is completely lost on crude materialistic grounds after (26...Rxe7 27.g5+ Kxg5 (27...Kh5 28.Bd1+ Kh4 29.Qg3#) 28.Qf4+ Kh5 29.Nf6#) 27.Nxe7 Rxc3 (27...Rcd8 28.gxf5 is even worse for Black, due to the threats of Bxf7 and f6 followed by Qf4+.) 28.Nxf5+ Bxf5 (28...gxf5 29.Qf6#) 29.Qxe8+-] 26...Rxe7! 27.Nxe7 Rxc3! 28.Qf6 Qb8 with the minor threat of ...Rc1+ and mate next move! Worse still, White can't even manage to stop the threat without allowing Black enough counterplay to draw, and that's just what happens: 29.g3 Rxg3+ 30.fxg3 Qxg3+ 31.Kh1 [31.Kf1?? Bb5+ 32.Bc4 Bxc4#] 31...Qh3+ 1/2-1/2

Round 11 summary:

Blindfold:

Bareev-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Gelfand-Anand 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Kramnik 1-0
Svidler-Topalov 0-1
Leko-Shirov 1/2-1/2
Morozevich-Vallejo 1/2-1/2

Rapid:

Ivanchuk-Bareev 1/2-1/2
Anand-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-van Wely 1-0
Topalov-Svidler 1-0
Shirov-Leko 1-0
Vallejo-Morozevich 0-1

Final Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 8
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Topalov, Vallejo 6
Gelfand, Kramnik, Svidler 5.5
Shirov 4.5
van Wely 4
Bareev 3

Rapid:

Anand 7.5
Morozevich 7
Shirov 6.5
Ivanchuk, Leko, Kramnik 6
Svidler 5.5
Bareev, Topalov 5
Gelfand 4.5
Vallejo, van Wely 3.5

Overall:

Anand 15.5
Morozevich 13
Ivanchuk, Leko 12
Kramnik 11.5
Shirov, Svidler, Topalov 11
Gelfand 10
Vallejo 9.5
Bareev 8
van Wely 7.5

Melody Amber, Round 10

2005-03-30T19:00:00.000-05:00

Surprise, surprise: Anand has clinched first place! Ok, it wasn't really surprising, nor was his coasting in with two quick draws. So we'll have to look elsewhere for excitement today, and the blindfold game between Vasily Ivanchuk and Alexander Morozevich, two of the world's most creative players, is a good place to find it:

Ivanchuk,Vasily (2711) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C13]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (10), 30.03.2005

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Qd2 b6 9.Bb5 Bb7 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Qc3 c6N

A typically wild Morozevich idea. To judge from the sequel, however, being new, crazy, and produced by Morozevich doesn't entail that it's good. 12.Bxc6 Rc8 13.d5 0-0 [Of course 13...exd5?? fails to win a piece, as 14.Qe3+ not only saves the Bc6 but wins the Black bishop on b7.] 14.Nd4 Kh8 15.Qd2

It's not too early to pronounce Moro's novelty a failure: White's up a pawn, is more active and Black's pawn structure fails to inspire as well. Morozevich has a gift for creating tactical chaos, but Ivanchuk is more than up to the challenge the rest of the way. 15...Ba6 16.0-0-0 Ne5 17.Qh6 Rg8 18.dxe6 Nd3+ 19.cxd3 isn't bad, but [19.Rxd3 Bxd3 20.Bd7 Bg6 21.Bxc8 Qxd4 22.exf7 Bxf7 23.Bf5 may be even better.] 19...Qxd4 Ironically, White's Bc6 is again subject to a seemingly dangerous pin, and again turns out to be immune from capture. 20.exf7 Rg7 [20...Rxc6+ 21.Kb1 Bxd3+ 22.Ka1 and the dual threats of fxg8(Q)+ and f8(Q) are decisive.] 21.Kb1 Rxf7 22.Rhe1! Bxd3+ [22...Rxc6?? 23.Re8+ with mate next move.] 23.Ka1 Qxf2 24.Bf3 At last, the bishop is safe! Material is even here, but Black's pawn and especially king weaknesses leave Ivanchuk with a decisive advantage, albeit not the sort of advantage that wins on autopilot. 24...Bg6 25.h4 Qg3 26.a3 Bc2 27.Rc1 Qg6 28.Qf4 Rfc7 29.Re6 Bb3

Fancy, but worse than [29...Rc4 By playing 30.Re8+ Rxe8 (30...Qxe8?? 31.Qxf6+ Kg8 32.Bd5+ Qf7 33.Qxf7+ Kh8 34.Qf6#) 31.Qxc4 Be4 32.Qc7 White wins a pawn, but on an open board with only major pieces Black will have some drawing chances.] 30.Rxc7 Bxe6 31.Rxa7 White has an extra pawn, better structure, a menacing rook on the 7th (beware, for example, of Be4) and no major problem with his back rank. Still, in time trouble and with a position as open as this one, all three results remain possible. 31...Rc4 32.Ra8+ Kg7 33.Ra7+ Kh8 34.Qe3 [34.Qd2! Rxh4 35.Ra8+ Kg7 36.Qe1 Rc4 37.Qxe6 Rc1+ 38.Ka2 Qb1+ 39.Kb3 Qc2+ 40.Kb4 Qxb2+ 41.Qb3 Qd4+ 42.Kb5 Qc5+ 43.Ka6 and White is winning - but in time trouble, it's wise to avoid lines of this sort.] 34...Qf5 [34...Bg8 was necessary, when White's advantage after 35.b3 (35.Ra8 Rxh4 36.Qe1 (36.Bd5?? Rh1+ 37.Ka2 Qb1+ 38.Kb3 Qd1+-+) 36...Qg5 37.Rd8 Rc4! 38.Qe6 Rc1+ 39.Ka2 Re1!!=) 35...Rxh4 36.Kb2 Rh1 37.Be4 Qg4 38.Qf3 Qg5 39.Qc3 is relatively small.] 35.Qh6 Crushing. 35...Qg6 36.Ra8+ [The point is that Black either loses a piece or several pawns: 36.Ra8+ Rc8 a) 36...Bc8 37.Qf8+ Qg8 38.Qxf6+ Qg7 39.Qd8+ Qg8 40.Qxg8+ Kxg8 41.Bd5+ Ouch. (41.Bb7 is only very slightly more "thoughtful".) ; b) 36...Bg8 37.Qxg6 (37.Bd5! is a needless example of computer efficiency.) 37...hxg6 38.Rxg8+ Kxg8 39.Bd5+ Kg7 40.Bxc4+-; 37.Rxc8+ Bxc8 38.Qf8+ Qg8 39.Qxf6+ Qg7 40.Qd8+ Qg8 41.Qxb6 and the bad news for Black is that even here he'll have to give up the bishop if he doesn't want to accede to the queen trade with Qf6+.] 1-0

Round 10 summary:

Blindfold:

Ivanchuk-Morozevich 1-0
Shirov-Bareev 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-Leko 0-1
Topalov-van Wely 1-0
Anand-Svidler 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Gelfand 1/2-1/2

Rapid:

Morozevich-Ivanchuk 1-0
Bareev-Shirov 1/2-1/2
Leko-Vallejo 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Topalov 1/2-1/2
Svidler-Anand 1/2-1/2
Gelfand-Kramnik 0-1

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 7.5
Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Leko, Morozevich, Svidler, Vallejo 5.5
Gelfand, Topalov 5
Shirov 4
van Wely 3
Bareev 2.5

Rapid:

Anand 7
Leko, Morozevich 6
Ivanchuk, Shirov, Svidler 5.5
Kramnik 5
Bareev 4.5
Gelfand, Topalov 4
Vallejo, van Wely 3.5

Overall:

Anand 14.5
Leko, Morozevich 11.5
Ivanchuk, Svidler 11
Kramnik 10.5
Shirov 9.5
Gelfand, Topalov, Vallejo 9
Bareev 7
van Wely 6.5

Karpov-Istratescu

2005-03-30T03:46:00.000-05:00

It doesn't compare with his epic struggles against Viktor Korchnoi and Garry Kasparov and his numerous successes in elite tournaments from the mid-70s to the mid-90s, but Anatoly Karpov's recent, convincing 6-2 match victory over the 2612-rated Romanian GM Andrei Istratescu was a heartening achievement for his long-time fans. Karpov rarely wins showy attacking games a la Shirov, but what he does, he does exceptionally well. The following game was particularly impressive; a fine model of winning with the two bishops.

Karpov,Anatoly (2674) - Istratescu,Andrei (2617) [E15]
Match Bucharest ROM (2), 21.03.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb7 6.Bg2 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 a5 8.0-0 0-0 9.Nc3 d6 10.Qc2 Nbd7 11.Rfd1 Bxc3 12.Bxc3 Be4 13.Qb2 c6 14.Bf1 b5N 15.Nh4 d5 16.f3 Bg6 17.Be1 Qb6 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.Rac1 Rfc8

White has a slight but definite advantage here, due to his possession of the two bishops in the sort of position that favors them in the long term. White would like to trade all the major pieces, gain space, and finally open the position at the right moment to exploit the strength of the bishop pair. Watch, learn, and admire! 20.e3 Ne8 21.g4 Nd6 22.Bg3 b4 23.Rxc8+ Rxc8 24.Rc1 Rc6 25.Nxg6 hxg6 26.Rxc6 Qxc6 27.Qe2 Kf8 28.Qa6 Qxa6 29.Bxa6 Ke7

The first stage has been accomplished, and White has a real edge here. Converting it to a win is hard work, but Karpov's technique is excellent and worthy of emulation. 30.h4 This is a very good move for several reasons. First, it grabs space, which is a very good thing, even in the endgame. Second, it fixes the Black g-pawns, which if nothing else removes even more of the elasticity of Black's position. And third, Black has to worry about the advance of the h-pawn - in a future sequence without a Black knight covering e5, something like 1.Bxd7 Kxd7 2.h5 gxh5 3.gxh5 followed by 4.Be5 wins: 4...g6 5.h6; 4...f6 5.Bxf6; 4...Nf5 5.Bxg7! Nxg7 6.h6 followed by 7.h7 and h8(Q). Black can defend against that threat, for now, but he also has to keep the a5 pawn safe and beware of a useful central break from White as well. One problem he can handle and maybe two, but three is too much. And therein lies the advantage of the bishop pair - they can rapidly tack from one side of the board to the other, or even hit both sides at the same time, while the slow-moving knights struggle to get from one side to the other. 30...Nf6 Stopping h5 and, for the foreseeable future, e4. Of course, White could play g5 at some point, but that would be a very bad move, taking away the h5 possibility and giving up the f5 square. In short, g5 takes away much of the White position's elasticity. 31.Bd3 Kd7 Nothing's happening right away, so White is improving the placement of his pieces before deciding on anything, and now it's the king's turn. 32.Kf2 Kc6 33.Ke2 Nfe8 34.Kd2 With the king on d2 and bishop on d3, White no longer has to worry about a maneuver like ...Nb5-c3, as it can be met by either a4 (...bxa3?? Kxc3), sealing the queenside and fixing the a5 pawn, or better still, a3, when after the inevitable axb4 axb4, Black's b4 pawn is a serious weakness. In fact, even if Black doesn't play Nc3, White may still try to achieve a3 at some point, with the same purpose of softening up the Black queenside pawns. 34...Nb5 35.Be5 Another annoying move, from Black's perspective. Tricks with h5 are on again (1.h5 gxh5 2.gxh5 and then White's threatening 3.Bxb5+ Kxb5 4.Bxg7 Nxg7 5.h6, winning), and attempting to expel the predator on e5 with ...f6 only serves to lose the pawn on g6. 35...Nbd6 36.Bf1 Kb6 37.Kc2 Nb5 38.Bg2 And now e4 is inevitable. 38...Kc6 39.Kd3 Nbd6 40.e4 Now Black has something new to think about. If he takes on e4, then White will create a passed d-pawn, and between the passer and the d4 square for the king, the win will be a mere matter of time. So Black will try to hold tight, but then Black has to worry about both exd5, leaving Black with a potentially vulnerable d-pawn (note that Black can't avoid the isolani with 1.exd5+ Kxd5?? because 2.f4+ forces mate next move), and e5, grabbing more space and taking the defensively useful d6 and f6 posts from the knights. 40...Kd7 41.Bh3 Ke7 42.Bf1 Kd7 43.Ke3 Ke7 44.Bd3 Kd7 45.Bf4 Kc6 After some harmless tacking around, White finally commits to something. It might seem surprising that Karpov hasn't done anything, or hasn't seemed to - in fact, it might seem that Karpov hasn't done anything all game long! Two responses: first, Black's position is such that there really isn't anything he can do, so Karpov isn't taking any risks with this strategy, as any active plan by Black will hasten defeat. ("Activity" would involve moving pawns, and that would just make them targets, not attacking units.) Second, he's looking for the ideal setup before committing to action, and why not? Black can do nothing, so the only thing that can go wrong is White choosing the wrong plan. No reason for haste! 46.e5 Nc8 47.Bg5

And just like that, Black is losing, unable to meet the threat of h5 followed by (after ..gxh5 gxh5) Bh7-g8, picking off the f-pawn. 47...Nb6 48.Be7 Another nice move, again improving his position to the maximum before cashing in. The point of this move is, first, to prevent even a meaningless bid for counterplay like ...a4; second, after h5 gxh5 gxh5, to play Bf8, Bxg7 and h6. Beautiful technique by Karpov! 48...Nd7 49.h5 Nc7 and Black resigned - White takes twice on g6 and progresses from there, maintaining all the advantages of his position without a single concession. 1-0

Melody Amber, Round 9

2005-03-29T22:29:00.000-05:00

With two rounds (four games) to go, Viswanathan Anand has increased his lead to three points; barring a complete collapse, therefore, Anand can celebrate yet another impressive success on one of the great chess resumes of the era. Among active players, only two other players are even in the conversation, in my view: Anatoly Karpov, who isn't playing but whose recent match victory vs. Istratescu will be discussed in a post very soon, and Vladimir Kramnik, who won't be including this event in his next "greatest hits" collection. Here's the latest sour note:

Kramnik,Vladimir (2754) - Svidler,Peter (2735) [B46]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (9), 29.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.0-0 Qc7 9.Qe2 Bb7 10.Bd2 Bd6 [10...Nf6 11.Rae1 Be7 (11...c5 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.c4 Bc6 15.Bc3+/=) 12.Kh1 0-0 13.f4 dxe4 (13...c5 14.exd5 Nxd5 15.f5|^) 14.Nxe4 c5 15.Bc3 Qc6 '?' Ribli. (15...Nd5 16.Be5 Qc6 17.c4 Nb4 18.Bb1+/-; 15...Nxe4 16.Bxe4 Bxe4 17.Qxe4+/=) 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Bxh7+ '!' Ribli. 18...Kh8 (18...Kxh7 19.Qh5+ Kg7 20.Qg4+ Kh8 21.Rf3+-) 19.Rf3 Qxf3 20.gxf3 Kxh7 21.Qf2 Rg8 22.Qh4+ Kg7 23.Rg1+ Kf8 24.Rxg8+ Kxg8 25.Qxf6 Bxf3+ 26.Kg1 Bd5 27.h4! Rf8 28.Kf2 c4 29.h5 1-0 Ioseliani,N-Portisch,L/Monte Carlo 1994/CBM 42/[Ribli]] 11.f4 Ne7 12.Kh1 0-0 13.e5 Bb4 14.Rf3 Bxc3

15.bxc3 [The stock sacrifice 15.Bxh7+ is easily refuted in this position: 15...Kxh7 16.Rh3+ Kg8 17.Qh5 f5 18.Bxc3 (18.Qh7+ Kf7-+; 18.exf6 Bxf6-+) 18...c5 19.Qh7+ Kf7 20.Rg3 Rg8-+; 15.Bxc3 certainly makes better sense on structural grounds, but maybe Kramnik didn't felt that (a) the bishop would be vulnerable to the advance of Black's queenside pawns, and (b) the pawn on c3 would help slow that advance. Here's some quickie analysis, non-computer-based analysis: 15...g6 a) 15...d4? 16.Bxd4 c5 17.Rh3+-; b) 15...c5? 16.Bxh7+ Kxh7 17.Rh3+ Kg8 18.Qh5 f5 19.exf6+-; c) 15...h6 16.f5 (16.Rg3!?) 16...Nxf5 17.Bxf5 exf5 18.e6 fxe6 19.Qxe6+ Qf7 20.Rg3 Qxe6 21.Rxg7+ Kh8 22.Re7+ (22.Rxb7+?? Rf6) 22...Qf6 23.Bxf6+ Rxf6 24.Rxb7 Re8=; 16.f5 exf5 17.e6 f6 18.Qe3 (18.g4 d4-+) 18...c5 19.Qh6 Nc6 20.Bxf5 d4 21.Rg3 Ne5 22.Ba5 Qg7 (22...Qxa5 23.Bxg6 Nxg6 24.Rxg6+ hxg6 25.Qxg6+=; 22...Qe7 23.Re1 looks unclear.) 23.Qxg7+ Kxg7 24.Bb6+/-] 15...c5 16.Rh3 [16.Bxh7+ won't come close without the bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal, supporting the exf6 capture after the inevitable ...f6 or ...f5. 16...Kxh7 17.Rh3+ Kg8 18.Qh5 f5 (here)] 16...h6 17.Qh5 [17.f5 looks fun, but I don't see the justification after 17...c4 (17...Nxf5 18.Bxf5 exf5 19.Rg3 gives White reasonable compensation.) 18.f6 cxd3 19.Qh5 Nf5 20.fxg7 Rfc8 21.Bxh6 Qxe5-+; The non-panicky 17.c4 , however, should be fine for White.] 17...f5 [17...c4 looks fine, too, as 18.f5 cxd3 19.Bxh6 g6 20.fxg6 fxg6 21.Qh4 Qxc3 22.Rg1 Rf7 should win for Black.] 18.exf6 Rxf6

19.Re1 [19.c4= Last chance!] 19...c4-/+ Now White's pieces go backward, Black's go forward, and the game ends in a hurry: 20.Bf1 Ng6 21.Qg4 Raf8 22.Rf3 e5 23.f5 Bc8 24.Kg1 Bxf5

Ugh. 25.Qg3 [25.Rxf5 would be great if White had a pawn on h3, but here it loses quickly to a back-rank tactic: 25...Rxf5 26.Qxg6 Qc5+ 27.Be3 Qxe3+ 28.Rxe3 Rxf1#] 25...Bxc2 26.Rxf6 Rxf6 27.h4 Be4 28.h5 Nf4 29.Qg4 Qf7 30.Bxc4 Bf5 0-1

Round 9 summary:

Blindfold:

Gelfand-Topalov 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Anand 0-1
Svidler-Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Leko-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Morozevich-Shirov 1-0
Bareev-Vallejo 0-1

Rapid:

Topalov-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Anand-van Wely 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Svidler 0-1
Ivanchuk-Leko 0-1
Shirov-Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-Bareev 1/2-1/2

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 7
Morozevich, Vallejo 5.5
Kramnik, Svidler 5
Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Leko 4.5
Topalov 4
Shirov 3.5
van Wely 3
Bareev 2

Rapid:

Anand 6.5
Ivanchuk, Leko 5.5
Morozevich, Shirov, Svidler 5
Bareev, Gelfand, Kramnik 4
Topalov 3.5
Vallejo, van Wely 3

Overall:

Anand 13.5
Morozevich 10.5
Ivanchuk, Leko, Svidler 10
Kramnik 9
Gelfand, Shirov, Vallejo 8.5
Topalov 7.5
Bareev, van Wely 6

The Karpov-Fischer Hoax

2005-03-29T21:03:00.000-05:00

Last night (EST), I presented a pair of games on my weekly ChessBase show purporting to have been played by Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer. Indeed, they were played by those two men – just not against each other (although they could have been – see below).

Of course, it was an (early) April Fools’ gag. Last year I paid homage to the day as well, though without a gag, so this year I decided to take things up a notch. Unfortunately, my show didn’t fall on April 1, but I did offer a hint in my blurb (see here and here), referring to the program as the show for the week of March 28 to April 3. Naturally, I did the best I could to present an incredibly implausible story (Karpov and Fischer played some serious though informal games nearly 30 years ago, and no one even knew about it?) in a plausible guise, with reasonable success.

Nevertheless, I hasten to assure you, that while the background story was essentially true (Torre did come to Las Vegas to give a simul, stayed with Filipino friends, I was told later that Fischer had been in the van, and Fischer and Karpov did meet in the Philippines in the mid-to-late 70s to discuss an unofficial world championship match), the two never played – or at least if they did, I have no knowledge of this.

However, the games I showed did bear a very interesting relationship to each other! In 1968, Fischer introduced an interesting gambit – essentially the Grand Prix Attack against the Sicilian, but with colors reversed (and thus a tempo less) – against IM Anthony Saidy, and won a fine game. In 1973, Juan Bellon played that same gambit against then-Candidate Anatoly Karpov, and after a see-saw battle the game concluded in a draw. What made the games especially interesting, and in a way making the show a bit less like a hoax and more like historically informed speculation, is that they reached the exact same position in each case through White’s 23^rd move!

What my viewers saw, however, was the following:

While few in my audience were likely to know about the Bellon-Karpov game, Saidy-Fischer is much better-known, and both games could have been found with a database search. So, to help delay detection, I reversed colors and the queenside-kingside orientation of the pieces – successfully, it seems, as none of the comments I noticed during the show made reference to either of the real games. (Understandably, there was much head-scratching about what the opening might have been! [I started the show from this point to avoid worries about plausibly constructing this position.])

As for the games: they deviated from this point: Bellon played 23…Nb4 (Ng5 in the reversed and rotated diagram), after which Karpov was fine, while Fischer played 23…Kh7 and went on to win a nice game. Had this really been a Karpov-Fischer game, would Karpov have fared better than Saidy? It’s likely that he would have put up more resistance, but whether it would have sufficed to save the game is something we’ll never know. In last night’s hoax, Karpov saved it the first time and lost the second time, but those were really just the Bellon-Karpov and Saidy-Fischer games; presented here, with all the pieces where they ought to be, with some light notes:

Karpov,Anatoly (2660) - Bellon Lopez,Juan Manuel (2400) [A25]

Madrid (5), 01.12.1973

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 Bc5 6.e3 f4 7.exf4 0-0 8.Nge2 d6 9.0-0 Qe8 10.Na4 Bd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.a3 a5 13.b3 Bf5 14.Nb2 Qg6 15.Qc2 Nd7 16.Re1 Nc5 17.Bf1 Ra6 18.Bd2 Rb6 19.Bxa5 Rxb3 20.Bd2 Ra8 21.a4 h5 22.h3 Ra6 23.a5 Nb4 [23...Kh7 is Saidy-Fischer] 24.Bxb4 Rxb4 25.Ra3 b6 26.Rea1 Qe6 27.axb6 Raxb6 28.Ra8+ Kh7 29.Qd1 g6 30.Na4+/- Nxa4 31.R8xa4 Rxa4 32.Rxa4 Bxh3 33.Ra7+- Bxf1 34.Rxc7+ Kh6 35.Qxf1 h4 36.Kg2 Rb2

37.Kf3 [37.f5 threatening 38.Qc1+ 37...Qe3 38.Kg1 Qd2 39.fxg6 Rc2 40.g7 Kh7 41.g8Q+ Kxg8 42.Qg2 Qe1+ 43.Qf1 Qd2=] 37...d5 38.gxh4 [38.c5 might be the move that gives away White's winning chances, as with the open diagonal to the White king, Black is able to generate enough counterplay not only to draw, but even to press White.] 38...Rb3 39.cxd5 Qxd5+ 40.Kg3 Qf5 41.f3 Rxd3 42.Rc6 Rc3 43.Rd6 Kh5 44.Kg2 Rc2+ [44...Qxf4 45.Rd5+ Kh6 46.Qf2 Qc1 47.Qg1 Rc2+ 48.Kh1 Qf4 49.Qg5+ Qxg5 50.hxg5+ Kh5 51.Rxd4 Kxg5=] 45.Kg3 Rc3 46.Kg2 Qxf4 47.Rd5+ Kh6 48.Qe2 [48.Qf2 - see the note to move 44] 48...Qc1 [This allows a draw, but even after 48...Re3 White has just enough room for his king and can still survive to draw the game with 49.Qf2 d3 50.Qg3 Re2+ 51.Kh3 Qf6 52.Qg5+ Qxg5 53.hxg5+ Kh5 54.Rxd3 Kxg5 55.Kg3=] 49.Rh5+!

[49.Rh5+ gxh5 (49...Kxh5 50.Qe5+ Kxh4 a) 50...g5 51.Qe8+ Kh6 (51...Kxh4?? 52.Qh8#) 52.Qe6+ Kg7 53.Qe7+=; b) 50...Kh6?? 51.Qh8#; 51.Qg3+ Kh5 52.Qg4+ Kh6 53.Qh4+ Kg7 54.Qe7+=) 50.Qe6+ Kg7 51.Qe7+=] 1/2-1/2

Saidy,Anthony - Fischer,Robert [A25]

USA, 1968

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 Bc5 6.e3 f4!? 7.exf4 0-0 It's very strange that Fischer's 6th move is universally condemned as bad (though very interesting), but in my research this move isn't addressed. But [7...d6 leaves Black with reasonable compensation and a possible transposition to the game, without allowing White the chance missed on move 8.] 8.Nge2 [8.fxe5 looks risky, but Black can't exploit the f2 square and White seems to get a large advantage after 8...Re8 (8...Nxe5? 9.d4+-; 8...Qe8 9.Bxc6 dxc6 10.d4 Bb4 11.Nge2+/-) 9.Nge2 is Shredder 9's suggestion, when it thinks Black is doing rather poorly. (9.f4 d6 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.d4 is the standard "refutation" - see Soltis's Bobby Fischer Rediscovered (2003) and Wade & O'Connell's 1972 Bobby Fischer's Chess Games, but it's not so clear after 11...Bb4 12.Nf3 Bh3 13.Qe2 c5 14.a3 Ba5 , when the edifice of White pawns is in serious danger of collapse.) 9...Rxe5 10.0-0 Nd4 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.Bf4 Re8 13.Nb5 Be5 14.Bxe5 Rxe5 15.d4+-] 8...Qe8 9.0-0 d6 10.Na4 [10.Be3 Bxe3 11.fxe3 exf4 12.exf4 Qe3+ 13.Kh1 Ng4 14.Bd5+ Kh8 15.Kg2 Qe8!-+ Maric; 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.dxe4 Qh5 12.Be3 Bg4 13.Qd5+ Kh8 14.Nc3 Nd4 gives Black some play - Soltis. In fact, it wins the queen, though White has reasonable material compensation after 15.Bxd4 c6 (15...Bxd4 is perhaps better for Black, giving him some advantage.) 16.Bxc5 cxd5 17.Bxd6 d4 18.Bxf8 Rxf8 19.f3 Be6 20.Nd5 is unclear!] 10...Bd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.h3 h5! 13.a3 a5 14.b3 Qg6 15.Nb2 Bf5 Soltis refers to this as the "most Nimzovichian" of Fischer's games, reminiscent of the very famous Johner-Nimzovich game from Dresden 1926. Black's play here is all about blockade: he's going to seal White in, then destroy him. Ironically, though, the computer is quite happy here with the White pieces! 16.Qc2 [16.Re1 Nd7 17.Kh2 Nc5 18.Bf3 is slightly better for White, according to the oracle (Shredder 9), though I'm not sure even it believes what it's saying.] 16...Nd7! 17.Re1 Nc5 18.Bf1 Ra6!=/+ 19.Bd2 Rb6 20.Bxa5 [20.b4 would be a nice pawn sac if it worked, liberating his queenside, but it doesn't, according to Soltis: 20...axb4 21.axb4 Nxb4 22.Bxb4 Rxb4-/+ 23.Re7 and now 23...Qf6! 24.Rxc7 (24.Rae1 Ne6!-+; the ugly 24.Ree1 is forced.) 24...Qd8-+] 20...Rxb3 21.Bd2 Ra8 22.a4 Ra6!-/+ Incredibly, and I mean that literally, the computer finds this position equal. 23.a5 Kh7 [23...Nb4 is Karpov-Bellon] 24.Red1 b6 but now Shredder 9 agrees: Black is clearly better. 25.Be1 [25.axb6 Raxb6 26.Ra2 Nxd3-+ Maric 27.Bxd3 Bxd3 28.Nxd3 Rxd3-/+ 29.Re1 Rbb3-+] 25...bxa5-+ 26.Na4 Rxd3! 27.Bxd3 Bxd3 28.Qa2 Nb4 29.Qa3 [29.Qb2 Nxa4 30.Rxa4 Bc2 31.Rxa5 Rxa5 32.Bxb4 Bxd1 33.Bxa5 c5

might not look so bad for White, but between the passed d-pawn and White's porous light squares on the kingside, Black is almost guaranteed a win here.] 29...Nc2 30.Qb2 Nxa1 31.Rxa1 Nxa4 32.Rxa4 Qe4

33.Bxa5? [A blunder, but White's kingside weaknesses leave Black with a winning position after 33.Qd2 Rb6 34.Ra1 Bxc4-+ Maric] 33...Rxa5 34.Rxa5 Qe1+ 35.Kh2 Qxa5 0-1

Capablanca's Last Lectures: Felix Culpa!

2005-03-28T20:27:00.001-05:00

In the library today to do a bit of research, I came across a book I had certainly heard of but never actually seen: Last Lectures, by Jose Raoul Capablanca (New York: Cornerstone Library, 1966). Skimming through, I came to the following study near the end of the book (pp. 125-127): White to play and draw.

The conjunction of the White king on g3 with the two pawns on g4 and g5 tells any reasonably experienced solver that the solution will be a stalemate (what else is the function of the pawn on g5?), and the most obvious construction will involve the Black queen on d1 and the Black king on g1.

So, my first thought went like this:

1.Re5+ Kf1 2.Rf5+ Kg1 3.Nb3 cxb3 4.Rd5 a1(Q) 5.Rd1+! Qxd1 stalemate, but even as I thought about it I immediately realized that 4...a1(Q) wasn't forced at all. Indeed, both 4...Kf1 and even 4...a1(R) seem to win.

My next idea was to see if I could use the knight to some other end, either to create threats on the Black king, force some sort of perpetual, fork, domination or other standard trick, but couldn't find anything useful.

Back to the old drawing board, and time to take a look at the other line-clearing idea: 1.Nd3+ cxd3 (everything else is losing or barely drawing for Black) and now, everything fell into place: 2.Re5+! (a well-known idea from rook vs. pawn endings: either the king blocks the pawn, which slows down its queening, or the king is forced to go further from the pawn, eventually having to waste a tempo returning to a sufficiently near file to defend the pawn from subsequent attack. The former idea counts here, but the latter - the drive-the-king-away-motif - has a different function in this problem) Kf1 3.Rf5+! Kg1 4.Ra5 d2 5.Rxa2 d1(Q) 6.Rg2+ Kh1 7.Rh2+ Kg1 8.Rg2+ Kf1 and now the punchline: 9.Rg1+! Kxg1 (9...Ke2 10.Rxd1 Kxd1 11.Kxg4 and 12.Kxg5) stalemate!

Not a masterpiece, but a nice puzzle: the drawing mechanism was obvious, but the false lead, the 2.Re5+ 3.Rf5+ finesse and the second rank checking idea offered a significant improvement over the banal variation of my first try. Problem solved, and after double-checking my analysis, I consulted with Capa: did I miss anything?

Imagine my shock: Capablanca completely missed my main variation, gave the false lead as the solution and didn't consider anything on move 4 except the cooperative 4...d1(Q)! We're talking about one of the greatest players of all time, so of course I double-checked everything yet again, but I was right and Capa wrong.

Needless to say, there are many morals. Here are three:

1. Even GMs make mistakes!
2. We're all fallible, but if you're done your best, then trust your judgment. Sometimes, it may even be better than a world champion's.
3. The brilliance of even the greatest minds is no match for the deleterious effects of sloth. Capablanca's unwillingness to be self-critical and work hard when he reached the top probably cost him his title against Alekhine (a view shared by, among others, Alekhine himself, Mark Dvoretsky and Garry Kasparov), and even in this trivial case, his unwillingness to take a second look at the puzzle caused him to miss a fairly simple rejoinder - and to miss out on the full aesthetic value of the study as well!

Melody Amber, Round 8

2005-03-27T17:17:00.000-05:00

Happy Easter, everyone!

Nothing of significance happened in the battle for the top spot, as Anand maintained his 2.5 point lead over the field - surprisingly, by winning on the Black side of the Petroff against Leko! Had Leko won, the tournament might have become much more interesting, but a 2.5 point lead with three rounds (six games) to go - one against cellar-dweller van Wely - ought to mean the trophy is as good as awarded. We shall see.

For today's amusement, then, a contrast for your consideration. We'll take a look at a pair of Pirc games - one from this event, the other not. The Pirc Defense (which generally arises via the move order 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6) is a sharp opening. Black baits White to take the center and attack, hoping that White will over-extend, the center will explode and Black will get to rule the wreckage. Sometimes the plan works and sometimes it doesn't, and we'll see what things look like in each case.

First we'll look at a game from the ongoing Foxwoods Open in Connecticut, in which current US champ Hikaru Nakamura pole-axes Israeli GM and one-time 2700 (that's 2700 FIDE; the ratings below are USCF) Ilya Smirin:

Nakamura,Hikaru (2752) - Smirin,Ilya (2812) [B09]
Foxwoods Open Monte Carlo MNC (5), 25.03.2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.e5 Nfd7 7.h4 c5 8.h5 cxd4 9.hxg6 dxc3 10.gxf7+ Rxf7 11.Bc4

11...Nf8 [11...e6 is another common move here, but one the computer prefers to Smirin's choice. 12.Ng5 cxb2 13.Bxb2 Qa5+ 14.Ke2 d5] 12.Ng5 e6 13.Nxf7 cxb2N [13...Kxf7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Bd3 occurred in 4 previous games, all won by Black, though objectively that doesn't seem to reflect the correct evaluation of this position.] 14.Bxb2 Qa5+ 15.Kf1 Kxf7 16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.Bd3

Materially speaking, Black is fine, but unfortunately, most of his collection is in cryogenic storage on the queenside. It's not clear that Black will be able to defend against, inter alia, White's very simple threat of 18.Rh3, 19.Bxh7+ Nxh7 20.Qxh7+ Kf7 21.Rg3. Black tries to bring his queen to the threatened sector, but Nakamura does a nice job of pressing his attack while nullifying Black's attempted counterplay: 17...Qb4 18.Rb1 Bd7 [18...Qxf4+ 19.Ke2 h6 20.Rbf1 Qg5 21.Qf7+ Kh8 22.Bc1 wins, as Black doesn't have perpetual check.] 19.c4 Blocking one path from the Black queen towards the White kingside, and also closing the a6-f1 diagonal to Black's queen's bishop. 19...Qd2 20.Bxh7+ Nxh7 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Rh4 There is no defense to 23.Rg4, winning everything, and thus we see the sort of nightmare that can befall Black in the Pirc! 1-0

Having seen the darkness, Pirc fans, let's look to the light:

Kramnik,Vladimir (2754) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [B09]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (8), 27.03.2005

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be3 c6 7.Bd3 Na6 8.a3 [8.e5 Ng4 9.Bg1 dxe5 10.fxe5 Nb4 1/2-1/2 Grischuk,A-Tseshkovsky,V/Krasnoyarsk 2003/CBM 98 no vc (61) turned out fine for Black in the game Grischuk-Tseshkovsky, Krasnoyarsk 2003 (1/2-1/2, 61)] 8...c5N 9.d5 Rb8 10.Qe2 Nc7 11.a4 a6

For those of you unfamiliar with the Pirc, you might think White has a huge advantage. Perhaps if White could tidy up a bit - castle, play Bc4 and h3, ready to shove the pawn to e5 - then that would be the case. Here, Black is well-prepared to play moves like ...b5 and ...e6, generating tons of counterplay in the queenside and center before White can roll through the center or generate his own kingside attack. There really isn't anything to be done about the ...e6 pawn break, but White does have a fundamental decision to make about Black's intended ...b5. He could allow it and allow the b5/c5 pawn duo to exist unmolested, which is cedes Black a strong queenside initiative. Second, he could allow it and then capture on d5, giving up the e4 pawn in the process. That lets his center get ruined and brings the Bg7 to life. Or third, he can play as he does in the game, giving Black counterplay along the b-file but maintaining his center intact. 12.a5 (plan 3) [12.0-0 b5 13.axb5 axb5 14.Qe1 (plan 1) (14.Nxb5 (plan 2) 14...Nxb5 15.Bxb5 Nxe4 16.Bd3 Nf6 17.c4 Ng4 18.Bc1 Nh6=/+) 14...Bb7 15.Ra7 c4 16.Be2 b4 17.Na2 Nxe4 18.Bxc4 is unclear] 12...b5 13.axb6 Rxb6 14.Na4 Rb4 15.Bd2 Rb8 16.0-0 and now it's time for the second classical undermining move: 16...e6 [A preliminary 16...Bg4 might be worth considering first though, as this bishop is traditionally a problem piece in Modern Benoni-ish structures like this one.] 17.dxe6 Nxe6 18.f5

Rightly striving for the initiative. The move can be dangerous if/when Black has control of the central dark squares and the e-file (especially the e5 square), but that doesn't really apply here. (N.B. 16...Bg4 would have helped Black significantly in that regard and in making ...Nd4 a possibility here.) 18...gxf5 Risky-looking but correct, opening the d-file and giving Black use of the d5 square for piece and pawn alike. 19.exf5 Nc7 20.Qf2 Ncd5 21.Qh4 [21.Qg3+/= Kh8 22.Ng5+/-] 21...Nb4= 22.Bg5 Nxd3=/+ 23.cxd3 Rb4

Now Black's king is much safer - essentially, Black's sole remaining problem is the pinned Nf6. Everything else is fine: the active rook, two bishops, a central majority (remember White's giant pawn center? Just a distant memory now), pawn targets and so on. White's not in trouble yet, but the trend is in Black's favor. 24.d4 cxd4 25.Bd2 Rc4 26.Bg5 Bb7 27.Rf2 Re8-/+ 28.b3 Rb4-+

Black is active everywhere, has an extra pawn, space, central control and better coordination. As long as he doesn't hang something or allow a kingside disaster, he should convert the full point in due course. 29.Nd2 [29.Nxd4?? Re4 is not an option.] 29...a5 30.Nb2 d3 31.Qh3 h6 32.Bh4 [32.Bxh6 Bxh6 33.Qxh6 Ng4 is crushing.] 32...Qb6 33.Nxd3?? A blunder, but White's position was hopeless anyway after [33.Nbc4 Qd4 34.Raf1 Ng4 35.f6 Nxf2 36.Bxf2 Qxf6-+] 33...Re3 34.Nf3 Rxd3 35.Bxf6 Bxf6 36.Re1 Re4 37.Rxe4 Bxe4 38.Qg4+ Kf8 39.Qxe4 Has Black blundered back? 39...Rd1+ Nope! 40.Ne1 Bc3 41.Qa8+ Ke7 [41...Ke7 42.f6+ Kd7 and White loses not only the knight but the rook as well - 43...Rxe1 is a mate threat, so 43.g3 is forced, but now 43...Bxe1 44.Qf3 Bxf2+ and so on. A very nice, thematic game by Morozevich!] 0-1

Round 8 summary:

Blindfold:

Anand-Leko 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-van Wely 1-0
Kramnik-Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Ivanchuk-Svidler 1/2-1/2
Shirov-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Bareev 1/2-1/2

Rapid:

Leko-Anand 0-1
van Wely-Vallejo 1-0
Morozevich-Kramnik 0-1
Svidler-Ivanchuk 0-1
Gelfand-Shirov 0-1
Bareev-Topalov 0-1

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 6
Kramnik, Morozevich, Svidler, Vallejo(!) 4.5
Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Leko 4
Shirov, Topalov 3.5
van Wely 3
Bareev 2

Rapid:

Anand 6
Ivanchuk 5.5
Leko, Morozevich, Shirov 4.5
Kramnik, Svidler 4
Bareev, Gelfand 3.5
Topalov 3
Vallejo, van Wely 2.5

Overall:

Anand 12
Ivanchuk 9.5
Morozevich 9
Kramnik, Leko, Svidler 8.5
Shirov 8
Gelfand 7.5
Vallejo 7
Topalov 6.5
Bareev, van Wely 5.5

This Week's ChessBase Show: Something VERY Special

2005-03-26T17:18:00.000-05:00

In 1987, when I was living in Las Vegas, Filipino GM Eugenio Torre came to town to visit some friends and give a simul. When the time came, Torre & friends came to the site in a van, a van I must have walked past several times. Guess who was inside? As I was to discover - several days later, unfortunately - a certain famous chess player now living in Iceland was hiding inside.

My local Filipino friends felt bad that they couldn't tell me that Fischer had been staying at their place, so to make up for it they shared another bombshell, albeit one which I was not to tell anyone else. I agreed, but it seems to me that 18 years is long enough.

Thus, for my ChessBase show for the week of March 28-April 3, I will present a hitherto secret game played between Fischer and Anatoly Karpov. In 1976, a year after receiving the title by default, Karpov met with Fischer in the Philippines (see Russians vs. Fischer, compiled by Dmitry Plisetsky and Sergey Voronkov, Chess World Ltd. 1994 (366-367), hoping to arrange an unofficial world championship match. Fischer was interested, but the USSR Sports Committee would have none of it and the proposal came to nought.

In the wake of the failed negotiations, however, Fischer and Karpov played a number of informal games before returning to their respective countries, and my Filipino friends were kind enough to let me see one of them. And so 18 years after my discovery, and 29 years after the game itself, that game will become available to a wider audience - at least as long as Frederic Friedel of ChessBase allows me to present it!

As always, directions for seeing the show can be found here, and a list of previous shows here.

Melody Amber, Round 7

2005-03-26T16:20:00.000-05:00

At last - a loss! Anand's 13-game unbeaten run came to an end today in the rapid game with Bareev, as he overpressed in a balanced Main Line Caro-Kann. Anand still leads by 2.5 points, but at least there's a ray of hope that the event will be a tournament instead of an exhibition.

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Bareev,Evgeny (2709) [B19]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (7), 26.03.2005

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Ngf6 11.Bf4 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Qc7 13.0-0-0 e6 14.Ne4 0-0-0 15.g3 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Bd6 17.Kb1 [17.c4 is more common, but there's nothing wrong with the text.] 17...Rhe8

18.Bc1 This move looks ugly, as does the follow-up, but it has a logical idea behind it. White wants to play Nf3-d2-c4, chasing/trading the Black dark-squared bishop, so that the White bishop can re-emerge on f4. It's a very slow plan, however, so it's not too suprirising that Black neutralizes it without any difficulty. [18.Qh7 was Kramnik's very interesting try against Leko in their World Championship match in Brissago last year (both the game and the match were drawn); while 18.c4 returns to more traditional sorts of positions.] 18...a6 19.Nd2 Nf6 20.Qf3 c5 21.Nc4 cxd4 22.Rxd4 [White's bishop isn't getting to f4, but the consistent 22.Nxd6+ Rxd6 23.Bxh6 gxh6 24.Qxf6 e5 is roughly equal.] 22...e5 23.Rd3 [23.Nxd6+ Rxd6 24.Rxd6 Qxd6 25.Rd1 Qe6 26.b3 Qg4 promises White only a draw.] 23...Kb8 [23...e4?! 24.Qf5+; 23...Qxc4?? 24.Rc3+-] 24.Rb3 Bc5 [24...Qxc4?? 25.Qxb7#] 25.Rh4 [25.Bxh6 e4 26.Qf4 gxh6 27.Qxf6 Bd4 28.Qxa6 Re6 29.Qb5 Bxf2 30.Ne3 Bxe3 31.Rxe3 Red6 32.Rc1 Rd5 33.Qe2 f5 and Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.] 25...Ka7

Black's position looks more harmonious, and is looking to increase his edge by some further centralization such as 26...Rd4 or 26...e4. As earlier, White could try to take the air out of the ball and coast to a draw (though now it's Black who will find the coasting easier), but wants instead to make something happen. In light of his great form, Bareev's poor form, his successful record against Bareev, I suspect Anand lost his objectivity here. 26.Na5 e4 27.Rxe4 pretty much forced, as [27.Qc3 b6 28.Nc4 Bxf2 followed by ...Rd1, ...Nd5 and ...e3 leaves Black up at least one pawn (the pawns on g3 and h5 aren't long for this world either) and with a speedy, difficult to blockade e-pawn. White is completely lost here.] 27...Rxe4 28.Rxb7+ Qxb7 29.Nxb7 Kxb7 That's White's idea: he has a queen and two pawns for two rooks and a knight. Normally, of course, such a material imbalance is in the no-queen side's favor, but perhaps Anand thought Black's exposed king would tilt the evaluation more in White's favor. The key factor in one vs. many material imbalance situations is whether the many-side can (a) keep everything protected (you'll notice that the many-side will attempt to ensure - ASAP - that all his pieces are self-protecting) and then (b) coordinate those pieces against particular targets. The wider the sphere of action, the better for the queen; the narrower, the better for the pieces. 30.a3 Rd6 31.Qb3+ [31.b4 Bd4 32.c4 Be5 33.Kc2 Rdd4 34.c5 Rd5 35.Kb3 Bd4 looks good for Black, as his central mass pretty well bottles up White's queen.] 31...Bb6 32.Bf4 Rde6 33.c4 Kc8 34.c5 Bc7 35.Be3 Bb8 36.c6 Rxc6 37.Qxf7 Rc7 38.Qg6 Re6 39.g4 Rec6 40.g5 hxg5 41.Bxg5 Kb7 42.Ka2 Ba7 43.f3 Bd4

I think Black is winning here: his king is safe, his pieces are active and coordinated, his pawns are safe and an attack on b2 is about to commence. 44.Qd3 Rd7 45.h6 gxh6 46.Bxh6 Bxb2 47.Qf5 Bd4 48.Bd2 Rb6 49.Bb4 Rd5 50.Qd3 a5 51.Bc3 Be5 52.Qe3 Bxc3 53.Qxc3 Rdb5 54.Qd4 Nd5 55.Qg7+ Ka6 56.Qd4 and now, a tidy liquidation renders the remaining task a trivial one. 56...Rb2+ 57.Ka1 Rb1+ 58.Ka2 R6b2+ 59.Qxb2 Rxb2+ 60.Kxb2 Kb5 61.Kb3 a4+ 62.Kb2 Kc5 63.Kc1 Kd4 64.Kd2 Nb6 Black now plays ...Nc4, ...Nxa3, ...Nb5, ...a3, and then the king rounds up the f-pawn before returning to help promote the a-pawn. The point of the knight is maneuver is that it protects the a-pawn while remaining safe from capture, as Kxb5 would allow ...a2 followed by queening. Nice job by Bareev! 0-1

Round 7 summary:

Blindfold:

van Wely-Ivanchuk 1-0
Svidler-Shirov 1/2-1/2
Gelfand-Vallejo 1/2-1/2
Morozevich-Topalov 0-1
Bareev-Anand 1/2-1/2
Leko-Kramnik 1/2-1/2

Rapid:

Ivanchuk-van Wely 1-0
Shirov-Svidler 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Anand-Bareev 0-1
Kramnik-Leko 1/2-1/2

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 5.5
Kramnik 4.5
Svidler 4
Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Vallejo 3.5
Shirov, Topalov, van Wely 3
Bareev 1.5

Rapid:

Anand 5
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich 4.5
Svidler 4
Bareev, Gelfand, Shirov 3.5
Kramnik 3
Vallejo 2.5
Topalov 2
van Wely 1.5

Overall:

Anand 10.5
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Svidler 8
Kramnik 7.5
Gelfand 7
Shirov 6.5
Vallejo 6
Bareev, Topalov 5
van Wely 4.5

Melody Amber, Round 6

2005-03-25T22:28:00.000-05:00

An excellent round today! Again, there were many games worth examining; here are two for your entertainment and potential benefit, should you choose to examine them in real depth.

Anand has extended his lead to 3 points, but not without some seriously nervous moments, as Morozevich was quite close to winning their blindfold game. Nevertheless, the position was absolutely crazy and Anand wriggled out with a draw.

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C11]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (6), 25.03.2005

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.a3 g5N

That's Morozevich for you! Actually, although this is a new setting, ...g5 is a common French idea, declaring an all-out war on White's central pawn chain. 10.fxg5 cxd4 11.Bxd4 Bg7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.Na2 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Nxe5 15.h4 Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Kb1 Rb8 18.c3 Qb6 19.g4 Rd8 20.Ka1 e5 21.Nf5 Bxf5 22.gxf5 d4 23.h5 e4 24.f6 e3 25.Qg2 d3 26.fxg7 e2 27.Rb1

27...Re8 [27...Qe6! might win after 28.g6 (28.Nc1 e1Q 29.Rxe1 Qxe1 30.Nxd3 Qe6 31.Re1 Qb6) 28...d2 29.gxf7+ Kxf7 30.g8Q+ Rxg8 31.Qf2+ Ke8 32.Rhe1 dxe1Q 33.Rxe1 Rf8-+ Notkin (Chess Today, issue 1600); but 27...Qe6 28.Nc1! e1Q 29.Rxe1 Qxe1 30.Nxd3 Qe3 31.Nb4 is far less clear.] 28.g6 fxg6 29.Nb4 Kxg7 [29...Rbd8 looks logical, supporting the advance of the d-pawn and trying to maintain the g7 pawn as a shield against White's heavy pieces, but it turns out poorly. 30.Nc6 d2 31.hxg6 h6 32.Nxd8 Qxd8 33.Qh3 d1Q 34.Qxh6 Qxh1 35.Qxh1 Kxg7 36.Qh7+ Kf6 37.Qf7+ Ke5 38.g7+-] 30.hxg6 Qxg6 31.Qf2 Rbd8 32.Rhg1 d2 33.Qa7+ Kg8 34.Rxg6+ hxg6 35.Qb6

It feels as if Black should have something here, with two pawns about to promote and White possessing a grand total of one threat, but he doesn't! 35...e1Q 36.Qxg6+ Kf8 37.Qf6+ Kg8 38.Qg6+ 1/2-1/2

Also interesting was the rapid game between van Wely and Shirov. In a crazy line of the Botvinnik Variation of the Semi-Slav (that's redundant, I know), van Wely produced a novelty on move 23. The game was roughly balanced and should have concluded with perpetual check, but van Wely came up with an ill-advised winning attempt and walked into a forced mate.

Van Wely,Loek (2679) - Shirov,Alexei (2713) [D44]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (6), 25.03.2005

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7 11.exf6 Bb7 12.g3 c5 13.d5 Qb6 14.Bg2 0-0-0 15.0-0 b4 16.Rb1 Qa6 17.dxe6 Bxg2 18.e7 Bxf1 19.Kxf1 Qc6 20.exd8Q+ Kxd8 21.Nd5 Rxh2 22.Kg1 Rh8

23.Qf3N [23.Bf4 was played in the five earlier games in this line, with good results: White winning three games and drawing two.] 23...Ne5 24.Qe4 Bd6 25.Rd1 [25.Bf4 Re8 26.Rd1 Nd3 27.Qxc4 Nxb2 28.Nxb4 Nxc4 29.Nxc6+ Kc7 30.Na5 Bxf4 31.Nxc4 Re4=] 25...Nd3 26.b3 Nb2 27.Nc3 Kd7 28.Qf5+ Kc7 29.Nd5+ Kb7 30.Re1 c3 31.Bf4? [31.Re4 Kb8 32.Re7 c2 33.Re2 Nd1 34.Rxc2 Nc3 35.Rd2+/=; 31.Re7+ Bxe7 32.fxe7 Re8 33.Qxf7 Nd3 34.Nf6 Ne1 35.Kf1 c2 36.Qxe8 Qh1+ 37.Ke2 Qf3+ 38.Kf1 Qh1+=] 31...Bxf4 32.Re7+ Ka8 33.Qe4 Rc8 34.gxf4 c2 35.Nc7+ Rxc7 36.Qxc2 Rc8?! [36...c4-/+] 37.Qxb2 Rh8 38.f3 Qd5 39.Qe2 Qd4+ 40.Kg2 Rg8+ 41.Kh3 Rh8+

How hard should one try to win? Many players seem to be allergic to draws and fight for the win in almost every possible situation. They win more games than they otherwise might, but also lose games they otherwise wouldn't. Is this the right atttitude to have? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with a draw? Interesting questions, about which I may have more to say later; for now, I note only that van Wely's decision to press is, on this occasion, thoroughly mistaken. 42.Kg4?? [42.Kg2=] 42...Qg1+ 43.Kf5 Rh5+ [43...Rh5+ 44.Ke4 Qd4#] 0-1

Round 6 summary:

Blindfold:

Topalov-Leko 1-0
Anand-Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Bareev 1-0
Ivanchuk-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Shirov-van Wely 1-0
Vallejo-Svidler 1-0

Rapid:

Leko-Topalov 1-0
Morozevich-Anand 1/2-1/2
Bareev-Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Gelfand-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Shirov 0-1
Svidler-Vallejo 1/2-1/2

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 5
Kramnik 4
Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Svidler 3.5
Gelfand, Leko, Vallejo 3
Shirov 2.5
Topalov, van Wely 2
Bareev 1

Rapid:

Anand 5
Leko 4
Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Svidler 3.5
Gelfand, Shirov 3
Bareev, Kramnik 2.5
Topalov, Vallejo 2
van Wely 1.5

Overall:

Anand 10
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Svidler 7
Kramnik 6.5
Gelfand 6
Shirov 5.5
Vallejo 5
Topalov 4
Bareev, van Wely 3.5

Melody Amber, Round 5

2005-03-24T19:13:00.000-05:00

We'll get to the BIG story of the round soon enough, but first, a brief overview of where things stand. It seems to me that the Melody Amber tournament is becoming a tripartite event:

First, there's the Anand exhibition: his lead over the field is now 2.5 points.

Second, there's a nice battle for second, as Svidler, Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Gelfand and Kramnik are all within a point and a half of each other.

And third, there's a battle to avoid the cellar, with Shirov, Vallejo, van Wely, Bareev and Topalov within a mere half-point range.

Maybe the three mini-events will reintegrate into one. This might happen, I think, if the participants can maintain the sort of blunder-free chess we saw today. In my view, today's round was the cleanest of the tournament - let's hope it continues.

There are a number of games from this round worth examining (you can replay them online here), but I'm going to focus on the big game alluded to above: Vallejo's utter demolition - with Black, no less! - of Kramnik in their blindfold game. This is powerful stuff:

Kramnik,V (2754) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B32]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (5), 24.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 a6 This is a very old-fashioned line called the Lowenthal Variation. Black gives up the two bishops and a seemingly monster hole on d5 in return for active play and some tactical shots. It's generally believed that the tactics work out in White's favor, though, so the line has slipped into relative obscurity. (But maybe not after this game!) 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7.Qxd6 Qf6 8.Qd1 Qg6 9.Nc3 Nge7 [9...d5 is a very tricky line, but the consensus is that White has the advantage with correct play.] 10.h4 h5 11.Rh3 [11.Bg5 is both the most common and best-scoring move, but whether Kramnik had a concrete worry about this move or was instead particularly optimistic about the move he chose is beyond my knowledge. In any case, this variation may continue like this: 11...d5 12.exd5 Nb4 13.Bxe7 Kxe7 14.Bd3 Nxd3+ 15.Qxd3 Qxd3 16.cxd3 Nunn's Chess Openings stops here and claims a slight edge for White. That seems plausible, as White's extra pawn isn't particularly impressive and Black's bishop looks like it could become the better minor piece; however, White's score in this position is +13 -1 = 5, according to my main database, so perhaps the true evaluation is more in White's favor.] 11...d5 If you've ever wondered what exactly the initiative is and what it looks like, this game is a marvelous demonstration of that phenomenon. At the heart of the idea is the ability to make threats, to dictate the direction in which the game will go, and that's exactly what we're about to see. Move after move, Vallejo threatens something new until Kramnik's position implodes. So far, though, this is just book, and it's a good read for Black, who has scored 59% in 22 games from this position. 12.Rg3 Bg4 13.f3 dxe4 14.fxg4 [14.Nxe4 has also been played before and looks like a more solid choice, though Black is doing well after 14...Rd8 15.Bd3 f5 16.Ng5 e4 17.fxg4 hxg4 18.Nxe4 fxe4 19.Rxg4 and now not 19...Qxd6, as in Geller-Bronstein, Kislovodsk 1968, but 19...Rxh4! (19...Qd6 20.Rxe4 Qg3+ 21.Kd2 0-0 22.Kc3 Nd5+ 23.Kb3 Na5+ 24.Ka3 b5 25.Qg4 Qc7 26.Bd2 Nf6 27.Qe6+ Kh8 28.Qe7 Qb6 29.Re6 Qd4 30.Qb4 Nc4+ 31.Bxc4 a5 32.Qxb5 Qxd2 33.Rf1 Rb8 34.Rfxf6 Rxb5 35.Rxf8+ Kh7 36.Bd3+ g6 37.Re7+ 1-0 Geller,E-Bronstein,D/Kislovodsk 1968/MCD) 20.Rxg6 Rh1+ 21.Kf2 Rxd1 22.Bxe4 Nxg6 23.Bxg6+ Kf8 with a clear advantage for Black in the endgame.] 14...Rd8 15.Bd2 f5

At the moment, Black has just one pawn for the piece. But look at the position! Black's threatening 16...hxg4, and if 16.g5 then 16...f4 followed by 17...e3 regains the piece with interest. Black has more space and better development, too, so White's position is precarious. I think this is White's last chance to change the trend, and ironically, it's the most that was played the first time this position occurred in a game: 16.Qc1! That gets the queen off the d-file (no more ...e3 to worry about) and prepares to meet ...f4 with Bxf4! There, White's got a chance; after the move in the game, it's a hurricane. 16.Re3 [16.Qc1 Rf8 (16...f4 17.Bxf4 exf4 18.Qxf4 Nb4 19.Rc1 hxg4 is unclear and might be a critical position for those interested in playing this line with either color.) 17.Bg5 f4 18.gxh5 Qf5 19.Rh3 f3 20.Kf2 Nd4 21.g4 Qxg4 22.Rg3 Qe6 23.Nxe4 Rc8 24.Bd3 Nef5 25.Qd2 Qb6 26.Be3 Qxb2 27.Qc1 Qb4 28.Rb1 Qa4 29.Rxb7 Qc6 30.Rgxg7 Nxc2 31.Bc5 Nb4 32.Rxb4 Nxg7 33.Qg5 Qe6 34.Bc4 1-0 Lenchiner,I-Nikolaevsky,Y/Kiev 1958/EXT 2003; 16.g5 f4 17.Rh3 Nb4 18.Na4 Ned5 19.Rb3 Ne3 20.Bxb4 Rxd1+ 21.Rxd1 Nxd1 22.Kxd1 Qc6 23.Nc3 Kf7 24.Ba5 Rc8 25.Kc1 e3 26.Rb6 Qd7 27.Ne4 Rxc2+ 28.Kxc2 Qa4+ 29.Kc1 Qxe4 30.Be2 Qxg2 31.Bxh5+ Ke7 32.Rb3 Qh1+ 33.Kc2 Qe4+ 34.Kc1 f3 35.Rc3 e2 36.Rxf3 e1Q+ 37.Bxe1 Qxe1+ 38.Kc2 Qxh4 39.Bg6 Qxg5 40.Be4 b5 41.a3 Qg1 42.Kb3 Qd4 0-1 Sherzer,A-Slavov,D/Thessaloniki 1988/EXT 2002] 16...hxg4 Two pawns for the piece. 17.Kf2 Rxh4 Three pawns for the piece. 18.Rc1 Qd6 Threatening to take the Bd2. 19.Ke1 Rh1 Threatening to take on f1 and then on d2. 20.Qe2 Nd4 Threatening the queen. 21.Qf2 f4 Threatening 21...fxe3 and 21...g3, for starters. 22.Nxe4 Qg6 Still threatening ...fxe3 and ...g3, but we can add to this a threat to the Ne4 if the rook leaves the e-file, plus a potential threat to c2. To give you an idea of just how horrible White's position is, the best Shredder 9 can come up with here are moves like 23.c4, 23.c3 and 23.b3; in other words, all White can do is wait for the axe to fall. 23.Ng3 There's nothing wrong with 23...fxe3 now (though it's not nearly as strong), and 23...Nxc2+ is completely devastating. But Black's move is great too, and it keeps the threat parade marching. 23...fxg3 Threatening the queen and ...Nxc2+. 24.Rxg3 Qe4+ 25.Kd1 Nef5 Not just hitting the rook on g3, but the g3 square itself, as we'll see in a moment. 26.Rd3 g3

What a picture! It's only a blindfold game played at a rapid time limit, but it's still quite rare to see a world champion lose such a one-sided tournament game - especially with White! A strange opening choice by Kramnik, but a fine win for Vallejo! [26...g3 27.Qe1 (27.Rxg3 Nxg3 28.Qxg3 Qe2#) 27...Qg4+ is terminal.] 0-1

Round 5 summary:

Blindfold:

Bareev-Svidler 0-1
Gelfand-Morozevich 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Leko 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Vallejo 0-1
Ivanchuk-Anand 1/2-1/2
Shirov-Topalov 1/2-1/2

Rapid:

Svidler-Bareev 1/2-1/2
Morozevich-Gelfand 0-1
Leko-van Wely 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Anand-Ivanchuk 1-0
Topalov-Shirov 1-0

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 4.5
Svidler 3.5
Ivanchuk, Leko, Kramnik, Morozevich 3
Gelfand 2.5
Vallejo, van Wely 2
Shirov 1.5
Bareev, Topalov 1

Rapid:

Anand 4.5
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Svidler 3
Gelfand 2.5
Bareev, Kramnik, Shirov, Topalov 2
Vallejo, van Wely 1.5

Overall:

Anand 9
Svidler 6.5
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich 6
Gelfand, Kramnik 5
Shirov, Vallejo, van Wely 3.5
Bareev, Topalov 3

The Ultimate Zugzwang

2005-03-24T11:25:00.000-05:00

This has to be seen to be believed - click here, and check out diary entry 280. Amazing!

A Lesson from Cycle World Magazine

2005-03-23T21:21:00.000-05:00

Huh?

That's for those who don't really know me. For those who do know me, let me revise that statement.

Huh?????

I had finished teaching my philosophy classes on Tuesday - yesterday - and was visiting my favorite local dive for Chinese food. I like to read while I eat, but lest I accidentally glop won ton soup on my reading materials, I decided to read a magazine that had been left behind by some earlier patron.

Cycle World.

Now, I do have some fond memories of riding motorcycles - solely as a passenger - when I was a kid, and I did drive a friend's new moped about 15 years ago, but that pretty much exhausts the Monokroussos-motorcycle connection. Nevertheless, I'm a curious fellow, and decided that at least this once in my life, I could get a glimpse into a culture (presumably) far different than my own.

So I started reading the October 2004 issue of the magazine, and was immediately - and positively - surprised! The first story was a touching one-page essay on the value of a motorcycle, in which the author reminisced about his late brother's favorite bike and the pleasure it gave him before his final illness and the freedom it gave him during the illness as well. The amount of money one can expect for a motorcycle is one thing, but its value is something else altogether.

The next mini-article was also of interest, but the third one, a one-page piece by Kevin Cameron entitled "Fixing Things," really caught my attention. He began with a little story about how many fix-it types get started: a kid is given an old mechanical watch that doesn't work. What does he do? He opens it, of course! Shaking the watch, it starts working for a few moments, and the kid sees how the springs and gears work. Then it stops again, and the youngster realizes that something's probably getting stuck somewhere. So he looks for a spot that's susceptible to such a fate, and comes up with the bright idea that it involves the ball bearings - one requires oil! But not too much, and how to get a little oil in such a small space? Ah, use a needle! Dabbing a little bit of oil on the end of the needle into the right area, the necessary lubrication is provided, the gears get unstuck, the watch starts to work and an avocation is born.

It's a wonderful story, and one that has been told many times in biographies and autobiographies of famous scientists. (The physicist Richard Feynman raised this sort of story-telling into an art form - see his Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Others Think? for plenty of examples.) Less so, I think, for chess biographies, but perhaps wrongly.

There's certainly competition among scientists, but there's also a fundamental communality: even if scientist A beats scientist B to the punch, both benefit by their increased understanding of the way the world is and of how it works. Scientific hagiographies tell of their heroes' curiosity and insight, just as we saw in the watch repair example above, and rightly so - we too, unless we have become jaded or intellectually lazy, retain our curiosity and love of knowledge as well, so the stories speak to us.

The paragon of chess excellence, however, is the successful competitor. We want to WIN, dag nab it, and we admire the winners and those who dare to win. The chess hagiographer, therefore, tells tales of junior watching dad play, laughing at dad's moves, and then finally beating pop to a pulp as gaping admirers behold the sight in slack-jawed amazement. From this point on it's up, up, and away as our prodigy wins event after event (cue the montage of the kid at the board, making a move, hitting the clock and receiving a trophy in event after event) until growing into a mature chess grandmaster.

It's a wonderful story, even after numerous repetitions (I have or have seen books on Morphy, Capablanca, Reshevsky, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, Adams, Kramnik, the Polgars, Kosteniuk and Carlsen, all of which essentially follow this model), but I'm not sure that it's very helpful. Of course we'd all like to win, and to identify with a winner, but the story as told in this way doesn't really get us on board with the hero as a chess player. This would be like a scientific (auto-)biography that told us that first the hero won his school's science fair, then one at the city-wide level, then at states, the Intel talent search, etc., culminating in the Nobel Prize. We might be impressed, but we wouldn't catch his love of what he's doing.

A chess biography along the lines of a science biography, then, would convey the subject's love of the game, both as it manifested itself in his or her formative years, and then subsequently in the mature player. I'd ask questions like these:

What sorts of openings did you play, and why? If you gave them up, why did you do that?
What games made an impact on you? What did you learn from them?
How did you study?
Who or what drew you to the game, and changed it from not just a game but something like an art, an avocation?
What were some of the gaps in your chess understanding, and how did you overcome them? How do you solve problems in your analysis and over the board?
If you had to persuade God or some other authority with the power to ban chess that the game was worthwhile, what would you say?

When I read the essay in Cycle World, and before that Feynman's autobiographical works, I was interested in the authors, sure, but even more than that I was captured by their vision. They were part of something bigger than themselves, or at least bigger than their contributions, and they both shared that vision with the reader in a winsome way. The "vision thing" is generally absent from chess biographies, as I've said, and it's to our game's detriment, I think.

In fact, ironically, the focus on the player as competitor undermines the likelihood of the reader's following suit in gaining competitive success for him or herself. A book that provokes hero-worship makes the player the focus, but a book that focuses on the beauty of the game draws the reader to the game, and that's where improvement is going to take place!

Something similar and sadly mistaken arises in the "utilitarian" approach to study that many players have - again, I think, a symptom of the competition model. There will always be books (many of which are crimes against trees) of the Win with Opening X or 5 Million Tricky Traps varieties, but if that's our primary means of "improvement," we're short-changing ourselves.

Almost all of the strong players I know and have met enjoy analysis and are very good at it. Sometimes the analysis sessions are a bit competitive, too, but it's often of a different sort, more akin to musicians trying to one-up each other than engaging in psychic warfare. They lose themselves in the position, fascinated by its possibilities, willing to spend hours exploring, figuring out what's going on.

Take my old endgame study, for example. (See here and here.) I was playing a speed game against myself to test out some opening variation or other (remember, no internet back then!), and I came to the starting position of that ending. I don't recall what happened in the speed game, but I do remember being amazed at how difficult the position was to solve - for a while I vacillated between thinking it was drawn and thinking Black was winning. It took me a couple of hours, easily, before I was convinced that I understood everything in the position. Likewise, I've spent several hours on the NN-Blackburne game (see here and here), trying to persuade myself, against my instincts, that Black is unable to win the position after 10.Qd8. These are only two examples of many; indeed, I regret not having spent more of my chess time engaged in analysis.

And here's the thing: little if anything will improve one's chess more than doing serious analytical work! It is, after all, the chess player's fundamental skill; additionally, the content - what's analyzed - is far more likely to be mastered when one devotes his or her own elbow grease, rather than casually reading a book like a menu.

A last point, having to do with analysis and computers. After playing a game, many of us are tempted to know the TRUTH of the matter. So we get home, fire up the oracle, sit back and learn.

"Learn"? Horse feathers! What we're doing is just the opposite. Not only are we not learning anything, we're going in the opposite direction - we're abdicating ourselves of our responsibility to figure things out for ourselves. The computer doesn't tell us why we went wrong and doesn't explain the position to us. That's not to say that we shouldn't use chess engines. We just shouldn't use them until we've done our best first.

So let's take a page from Cycle World: let's not throw out the broken watch, let's not take it to the mechanic (at least not right away). Let's figure it out for ourselves! It might not be easy at first, and we might not be very good at figuring things out right away, but we'll come to enjoy chess like never before - and we'll improve like never before.

Melody Amber, Round 4

2005-03-22T18:48:00.000-05:00

Good news! First, Anand was stopped today - Kramnik managed a draw in their second game. So even if the tournament is looking pretty unsuspenseful at the moment, at least Anand won't completely whitewash the field.

Second and more importantly, the blunders are back! Today we have three slips on the banana peel which we can use to comfort ourselves in our weaker moments:

Vallejo Pons,F (2686) - Shirov,A (2713) [D10]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 a6 5.Nf3 b5 6.c5 g6 7.Bd3 Bg7 8.b4 Bg4 9.Bb2 Nbd7 10.Ne2 Qc7 11.a4 0-0 12.Ra3 Rfb8 13.Qa1 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Qc8 15.Bc3 Ne8 16.f4 Ndf6 17.Ng3 e6 18.Ke2 Nc7 19.Bd2 Qd8 20.Qg1 Kf8 21.Qg2 bxa4 22.Rxa4 Ra7 23.Rha1 Rba8 24.R1a2 Nd7 25.Qf3 Qh4

White's fine here, perhaps even a little bit better. But that pesky Black queen - we don't want to let her bother our kingside, do we?

26.Qg4?? Qxg4+ 0-1

Morozevich,A (2741) - Bareev,E (2709) [B10]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Ne5 e6 5.d4 Nc6 6.Bb5 Qb6 7.c4 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Nge7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.Na4 Qd8 12.Qc2 Bd6 13.Re1 Qc7 14.Bd2 Nf5 15.Nf3 dxc4 16.Qxc4 a5 17.Nc5 Qb6 18.Rac1 h6 19.b3 Rd8 20.Qc2 Bf8 21.Be3 Rd5 22.h3 Qb5 23.Na4 Bb4 24.Red1 Bb7 25.a3 Bxa3 26.Nc3 Nxe3 27.fxe3 Bxc1 28.Nxb5 Bxe3+ 29.Kh1 Rxb5 30.Qe4 Bg5 31.Nxg5 Rxg5 32.Rd2 Rf5 33.Qe3 Rd5 34.Qf4 Rd7 35.Qe5 Rd5 36.Qc7 Rb5 37.Rd3 Rc8 38.Qd7 Rf8 39.Kh2 Ba8 40.Rc3 Rb7 41.Qd6 Rbb8 42.Rg3 Rb5 43.Qe7 Rf5 44.Qh4 Kh8 45.Qe7 Kg8 46.Kg1 g6 47.Qa7 Rd8 48.Qc7

After an unusual opening and an eventful middlegame, the position remains complicated and approximately even. But not for long!

48...h5?? 49.Qxd8+ 1-0

Shirov,A (2713) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B30]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.Bxc6+ bxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.d3 e5 7.Nbd2 Nf6 8.Nc4 Nd7 9.Ne3 Be6 10.c3 Be7 11.d4 f6 12.b3 0-0 13.Bb2 Re8 14.Nd2 d5 15.Qc2 Qb6 16.Nf3 exd4 17.cxd4 Bf8 18.exd5 cxd5 19.dxc5 Bxc5 20.Qd2 Rad8 21.Bd4 Ne5 22.Rfd1 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Bxd4 24.Qxd4 Qa6 25.Rd2 Bf7 26.Rc1 Re5 27.h4 Bh5 28.Kg2 Qb7 29.Rdc2 Re7 30.Nf5 Rf7 31.Rc6 Rfd7 32.Qf4 Bg6 33.Rc7 Qb5 34.Nd4 Qb4 35.h5

Vallejo had an edge most of the way, but the tide has turned somewhat and Shirov's active pieces give him the advantage. After 35...Be8, Black can fight, but after his next move it's over.

35...Bf7 ?? 36.Rxd7 (36...Rxd7 37.Rc8+ wins, so) 1-0

Round 4 summary:

Blindfold:

Vallejo-Shirov 0-1
Topalov-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Anand-Kramnik 1-0
Svidler-van Wely 0-1
Leko-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Morozevich-Bareev 1-0

Rapid:

Shirov-Vallejo 1-0
Ivanchuk-Topalov 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Anand 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Svidler 0-1
Gelfand-Leko 1/2-1/2
Bareev-Morozevich 0-1

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand 4
Kramnik 3
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Svidler 2.5
Gelfand 2
van Wely 1.5
Bareev, Shirov, Vallejo 1
Topalov .5

Rapid:

Anand 3.5
Ivanchuk, Morozevich 3
Leko, Svidler 2.5
Shirov 2
Bareev, Gelfand, Kramnik 1.5
Topalov, Vallejo, van Wely 1

Overall:

Anand 7.5
Ivanchuk, Morozevich 5.5
Leko, Svidler 5
Kramnik 4.5
Gelfand 3.5
Shirov 3
Bareev, van Wely 2.5
Vallejo 2
Topalov 1.5

Melody Amber, Round 3

2005-03-21T15:14:00.000-05:00

It's early yet - there are 16 games to go - but Anand is looking a bit like a runaway train. Today it was Vallejo who was tied to the tracks (ouch!), and now Anand is at 6-0. (And without receiving the sort of "help" offered by Shirov in round 1 or Topalov in round 2.)

Today's round was pretty clean - no big one-move gaffes changing the proper result of the game - but there was one mini-tragedy in the blindfold. Bareev had the advantage against Leko throughout the game, and could have drawn at will had he felt panicky. Instead, despite the 20 second per move increment, he lost on time.

Let's take a quick look at two of the games: Anand's blindfold win over Vallejo and the rapid game between Svidler and Morozevich.

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [B90]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (3), 21.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.g4 h6 8.Bg2 e5 9.Nf5 g6 10.Qe2 gxf5 11.exf5

11...Bd7 This seems to be a novelty. Rather than suffer permanent pressure on the light squares (especially d5), Black attempts to deaden White's initiative at the cost of the exchange. It's a reasonable transaction materially, since he's up a piece for a pawn, but it turns out that White's initiative persists just the same. [11...Rg8 is the most common move, but one that hasn't brought Black much success. 12.Bf3 Nc6 13.0-0-0 Be7 14.h4 Nd4 15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Rxd4 Kf8 17.Qe3 Rh8 18.g5 hxg5 19.hxg5 Rxh1+ 20.Bxh1 was how the game xx-yy continued, and you shouldn't be surprised to know that Black's miserable position collapsed in just a few more moves.] 12.Bxb7 Bc6 13.Bxa8 Bxa8 14.Rg1 Nbd7 15.0-0-0 Black doesn't have to worry about the d5 square, but now White gets to attack for free. The big question for Black is what exactly he's supposed to do with his king. Castling would be suicide, but White will pry the center open in due course as well. Does Black have any trumps by which to gain counterplay? 15...Be7 Black seems to be "threatening" d5 or O-O, but both are quite bad. [The ambitious 15...d5 looks threatening but actually speeds White's attack after 16.f4 Black's options are all bad: 16...d4 17.Bxd4 is terminal; 16...e4 drops the d-pawn to 17.g5, and on any normal move White plays 17.fxe5 Nxe5 followed by 18.Bd4 or 18.Bf4, blasting open the center.] 16.h4 Qa5 Protecting a6 and supporting the d5 square, so that 17.g5 hxg5 18.hxg5 Nd5 becomes possible. 17.Bd2 Nd5 [17...d5 works well in every variation but one: 18.g5 hxg5 19.hxg5 d4!? 20.gxf6 Nxf6 21.Rge1! dxc3 22.Bxc3 Qb5 23.Qxb5+ axb5 24.Rxe5+- and Black's position falls apart due to the threats of 25.Rde1 and 25.Rxe7+ Kxe7 26.Re1+.] 18.Nxd5 Qxd5 19.Qxa6 Bb7 20.Qa3 Preparing 21.Bb4, with serious pressure on the d6 pawn. [20.Qa7 , preventing the 20...Qc4+21...Be4 idea mentioned in the next note, might be an improvement.] 20...Qc6 [20...Qc4 might be a real improvement, with the idea that 21.Bb4 is met by 21...Be4, with at least a bit of counterplay.] 21.Bb4+- Now Black is just busted. 21...Nb6 [21...Nc5 22.f4 e4 23.Qc3 Rg8 24.g5 followed by g6 or f6, f5 and g6 will be more than Black can bear.] 22.g5 [22.f6 straight away, without any preparation, looks even stronger, according to my "little German friend" (that phrase, for those who haven't seen it before, is used to refer to chess engines sponsored by ChessBase - usually some version of Fritz, though my own preference is for Shredder 9): 22...Nc4 23.Qc3 Bxf6 24.b3 Nb6 25.Qxc6+ Bxc6 26.Rxd6 with an open buffet.] 22...hxg5 [22...Nd5 saves the d-pawn for the moment and lets Black kick on a bit, though his weaknesses are chronic and thus almost surely terminal.] 23.hxg5 Kd7 24.f6 Nc4 25.Qc3 Bf8 26.b3 Nb6 27.Qxe5

The remainder is unsuitable for small children and those with weak hearts. 27...Rh4 28.Bxd6 Qxd6 29.Rxd6+ Bxd6 30.Rd1 Nc8 31.g6 Rh1 32.Qf5+ 1-0

Svidler,Peter (2735) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C11]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (3), 21.03.2005

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.Be2 Qb6 10.Nd1 b4 11.0-0 a5 12.c3 Be7 13.Bf2 0-0 14.f5 bxc3 15.bxc3 cxd4 16.cxd4 Ba6 17.Bxa6 Qxa6 18.Ne3 Bb4 19.Qd1 Rac8 20.Ng5 Nxd4 21.Qxd4 Bc3 22.Qh4 h6

Let's start here. White is up a piece for a pawn and his pieces are congregating in the neighborhood of the Black king. Black can at least do something about the first point - he's getting his material back - but what material he recoups is up to White. White decides the time has come to go Pulp Fiction on the Black king... 23.f6? [The patient 23.Nf3 leaves White with a big advantage after 23...Bxa1 (23...Nxe5 24.Nxe5 Bxe5 25.Rad1 is probably winning for White, too: Black has no real compensation for the piece, as his pawns aren't at all dangerous. In fact, it's White who maintains the initiative here - a quick Ng4 might produce some real attacking chances against the relatively lonely Black king.) 24.Rxa1 Qe2 25.Rf1 followed by f6, Ng4 and so on, with a crushing attack.] 23...hxg5 24.Qxg5 Nxf6 and White's decision was bad. Could Svidler have missed this move? Maybe he had some sort of hallucination in which Black had already exchanged the bishop for the rook on a1? Whatever the case, Black both stops the mate and winds up ahead in material. 25.exf6 Bxf6 26.Qh5 Bxa1 27.Rxa1 If White's minors were coordinated here, then Black would be in serious trouble: put the knight on g4, the bishop on d4, and then moves like Qg5, Bxg7, Nf6+ and so on are crushing. Black mustn't delay for too long, therefore - he needs to bring defenders to the kingside. 27...Qd3! 28.h3 Rb8! this ensures the trade of the White rook (except after 29.Qd1, which allows the trade of queens), after which White's attacking chances fall to approximately zero. It's a good rule of thumb in such positions that the side with the rook against the two pieces wants to trade the other side's rook. I can think of at least two reasons underwriting this principle. The first is similar to the idea of trading off the opponent's bishop when it's defending a weak color complex; to wit, you eliminate the only piece capable of defending certain sorts of attacks. In other words, since Black's advantage is in the vertical and horizontal department, the best way to maximize it is by getting rid of White's vertical/horizontal pieces (that includes the queen too, of course). The second reason is that the White rook, given the opportunity, would complement the minor pieces quite nicely; without the rook, however, their range of effective action is dramatically reduced. Careful reflection on the above will benefit your chess considerably, I think, but for those of you just after the bottom line, 28...Rb8 means that White's attack is over and Black should win. 29.Ng4 Rb1+ 30.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 31.Kh2 f6!

The point is to keep the knight off of e5 and to render Bd4 worthless (32.Bd4? e5). N.B. The Black queen covers g6, so 32.Nh6+ doesn't give White perpetual check. 32.Bc5 Rc8 33.Bd6 Qh7 Trading queens is hopeless, so Svidler pitches a piece and hopes for a miracle. 34.Nxf6+ gxf6 35.Qg4+ Kf7 36.Qa4 Qg8 37.h4 Rc4 38.Qd7+ Kg6 0-1

Round 3 summary:

Blindfold:

Morozevich-Svidler 1/2-1/2
Bareev-Leko 0-1
Gelfand-van Wely 1-0
Anand-Vallejo 1-0
Kramnik-Topalov 1-0
Shirov-Ivanchuk 0-1

Rapid:

Svidler-Morozevich 0-1
Leko-Bareev 1-0
van Wely-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-Anand 0-1
Topalov-Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Ivanchuk-Shirov 1/2-1/2

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand, Kramnik 3
Svidler 2.5
Ivanchuk, Leko 2
Gelfand, Morozevich 1.5
Bareev, Vallejo 1
van Wely .5
Shirov, Topalov 0 (!!)

Rapid:

Anand 3
Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich 2
Bareev, Svidler 1.5
Gelfand, Kramnik, Shirov, Topalov, Vallejo, van Wely 1

Overall:

Anand 6
Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Leko, Svidler 4
Morozevich 3.5
Bareev, Gelfand 2.5
Vallejo 2
van Wely 1.5
Shirov, Topalov 1

This Week's ChessBase Show

2005-03-21T00:12:00.000-05:00

After a couple of weeks with heavily tactical games, it's time to return to something a bit calmer. It also seems like a good time to pay tribute to the game's most prominent recent retiree, Garry Kasparov. In his announcement that he was retiring, he listed among his greatest games one that really surprised me, a game that I barely remembered. (Of course, Kasparov has played so many masterpieces, it's hard to remember them all.)

The game in question was the 19th in the 1985 Karpov-Kasparov match. (The game score can be seen here.) Kasparov, the challenger, was a game ahead with six to go, but as he recounts it didn't fully believe he was going to win the match at this point. In this important, pressure-filled context, Kasparov won a beautiful game; remarkably, one played in a style more closely associated with Karpov's style than his own. It was a convincing victory, and one which gave him both the confidence and the margin he needed to win the crown. In short, a great and important game!

Yet largely unknown. Thus, if I as a long-time Kasparov fan and great games connoisseur was only just aware of a game Kasparov singled out as one of his three most memorable, then I expect that the same will be true for many, perhaps most of my readers/listeners. So join me Monday night at 9 p.m. EST, and we'll take a look! As always, directions for watching the show can be found here, and a list of previous shows can be found here.

Insane Chess-R-Us: Kamran Shirazi

2005-03-20T23:07:00.000-05:00

When I was a young up-and-comer, one of the contemporary players whose chess I admired was the Iranian-American IM Kamran Shirazi. I recall his regal, imperturbable presence at the board, no matter what was happening in the position - which, much of the time, was complete chaos. Indeed, Shirazi in his element seemed less a man than a wizard, conjuring spells most of his opponents failed to withstand but that made him a fan favorite.

Nowadays, unfortunately, Shirazi, who has been living in France for quite a few years now, is best-known to Americans for his dismal result in the 1984 U.S. Championship, when he only scored half a point out of 17 games and managed to lose the following disaster:

Shirazi-Peters

1.e4 c5 2.b4 (That's Shirazi - the fun starts right away in his games.) cxb4 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.c4?? (5.Nf3 is the normal move.) Qe5+ 0-1

Amusing, sure (if you're not Shirazi), but it's not what he should be remembered for. In fact, in the next two U.S. Championships he improved significantly, going 5.5-7.5 in 1985 and 8-7 in 1986. (It's probably best not to mention his 1-14 performance in the 1992 event, but hey, he was rusty!)

In place of the above, I'd like to let all of you have a glimpse of the real Shirazi. Or rather, since the occasional disaster was part of the price for Shirazi's being himself, a glimpse of the player in his element.

First, there's the opening. I recall watching him offer the following with White: 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 and 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g4. Then, a quick tour of my databases produces the following - it's just a sampler, I assure you:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qe7 4.Nc3 Nd8 (Bachtiar-Shirazi, Jakarta 1978)

1.e4 c5 2.f4 g5 (Hill-Shirazi, US Open 1983)

1.d4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5 3.d5 Nb4 (Bisguier-Shirazi, US Open 1983)

1.c4 e5 2.g3 h5 (actually, this is a relatively normal idea. Ironically, he does it against the king of the rook pawn-moves - Bent Larsen!) 3.h4 d5 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Nf3 Ng4 6.Nc3 Bc5 (Larsen-Shirazi, New York Open 1986)

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.Nc3 e6 5.e4 c5!? 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.cxd6 Bxd6 (Kreckler-Shirazi, Midwest Masters Open 1987)

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.d4?! (Shirazi-Le Billy, Bethune op (A) 2002)

1.e4 e5 2.f4 f5!? (Kennaugh-Shirazi, Cappelle la Grande 2003)

Shirazi generally manages to curb his experimentalism when facing his peers - occasionally, one has to win enough money to eat, after all. Still, there's always blitz, and I recently came across the following game. It's not flawless, to be sure, but it's lively - good old-fashioned coffeehouse chess, just the way our great-great-great-grandma used to make it:

Shirazi,Kamran - Quinteros,Miguel [B51]
3 0 blitz, 2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Nd7 4.0-0 Ngf6 5.Re1 a6 6.Bf1 b6

Normal stuff so far, but now for something new: 7.b4 cxb4 8.d4 e6 9.a3 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Bc4 Bb7 12.axb4 [is another typical blitz move, but unlike Shirazi's move, it doesn't cost any more material! 12.Ng5 ] 12...Bxb4 13.c3 Nxc3? [13...Be7 closing the e-file and covering the g5 square against knight incursions, leaves Black up a pawn for nothing. As someone who engages in hackfest attacks like Shirazi's, my preference on the defensive side is to consolidate. GM Quinteros apparently belongs to the "show me" group of players, however, and grabs the material.] 14.Nxc3? [14.Qb3! , taking advantage of Black's overextended queenside pieces, is strong but easy to miss in blitz.] 14...Bxc3

Now Black is up two pawns and winning the exchange, but until he castles he's vulnerable. 15.Bxe6 [15.Ba3 looks more accurate, keeping the Black king in the center. After 15...Bxe1 (15...Bxa1 16.Bxe6 wins, believe it or not - 16...fxe6 (16...Nc5 17.Bd5+ Kf8 18.Bxb7 Bc3 19.Re5 Rb8 20.Rd5 Qf6 21.dxc5+-) 17.Rxe6+ Kf7 18.Qb3 Qf6 19.Rxb6+ Kg6 20.Rxf6+ gxf6 21.Qxb7+-) 16.Qxe1 Bxf3 17.Bxe6 is very dangerous. Black has two reasonable replies, but in each case White has good compensation for the material: 17...Ne5! (17...Qg5 18.Bg4+ Kd8 19.Bxf3 Re8 20.Qd1 when Black's unhappily centralized king and White's criss-crossing bishops give White good chances.) 18.Qxe5 Qf6 the point - Black gets off the e-file battery with tempo, but White's attack continues after 19.Qc7 Qxe6 20.gxf3 Rc8 21.Qb7 Kd8 and I'm inclined to think both sides stand badly, but it's easier to play White here, especially in a blitz game.] 15...Bxe1 [15...0-0 is a move I would play in a tenth of a second - no thought required, just a relieved reflex action would do the trick. Black is winning here: his king is safe, his bishops are great, and he's ahead in material. Again, though, Quinteros decides to raise...] 16.Bxf7+ Kxf7 17.Ng5+ Ke8 [17...Kg6 18.Qd3+ Kf6 looks scary, but White doesn't seem to have anything concret to compensate for the rook minus. (The bishop on e1 can be regained, but that's as far as it goes.)] 18.Qxe1+ Qe7 19.Ne6 [19.Ba3!? Qxe1+ 20.Rxe1+ Kd8 21.Nf7+ Kc7 22.Rc1+ Bc6 23.Nxh8 Rxh8 24.d5 Nb8 25.dxc6 Nxc6 regains almost all the material, but that last extra pawn leaves Black with a winning endgame.] 19...Nf6 [19...Nf8 20.Nc7+ Kf7 21.Qxe7+ Kxe7 22.Nxa8 Bxa8 23.Rxa6 Nd7-+] 20.Ba3+- Long-delayed, but it's decisive. Quinteros tries to buy his way out, but White's remaining pieces are too active and the attack continues. 20...Qxa3 [20...Qf7 21.Qe5 Nd7 22.Nxg7+ Kd8 23.Ne6+ followed by 24.Qxh8+ (unless Black plays 23...Qxe6) destroys everything.] 21.Rxa3 Kf7 22.Nxg7 Rhg8 23.Qe6+ Kxg7 24.Qe7+ Kh6 25.Qxf6+ Rg6 26.Rh3# 1-0

I played Shirazi three times. I won the first two games, which, of course, weren't published anywhere. (I may present the first one soon.) The last game, which I lost, is of course available in all the databases. Here's me getting massacred:

Shirazi - Monokroussos,D [A47]
Midwest Masters Inv (2), 04.1987

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 b6 4.e4 h6 5.Bxf6 Qxf6 6.Bd3 Bb7 7.Nbd2 Nc6 [7...d6 is more common, though not necessarily better. One possible continuation is 8.Qe2 Qd8 9.0-0 Be7 10.Rad1 Nd7 11.c3 c5 when White's space advantage slightly outweighs Black's possible long-term advantage of the bishop pair.] 8.c3 g5 9.0-0 [9.e5 Qe7 (9...Qg7 10.Ne4 0-0-0) 10.Ne4 Bg7 11.Qe2 0-0-0 12.Ba6 d6 is fine for Black.] 9...0-0-0 10.Qe2 At the time of this game, I had never played this line against the Torre Attack and didn't really understand what to do. It shows, especially over the next 3-4 moves, when I chose a slow, lousy plan while Shirazi gets on with the business of mating my king. 10...Qe7 [10...g4 11.Ne1 h5+/=] 11.Ba6 d6 [11...g4 might be better, but the snowball is already growing large on its trip down the mountain.] 12.a4 f5 13.a5+- d5 14.Bxb7+ Kxb7 15.axb6 cxb6 16.exf5 exf5 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 d4 [If now 18...Bg7 White combines attack and defense with 19.Nf3 , and now the knight is on the way to the wonderful d4 square, hitting f5 and heading for the ever-so-juicy b5 and c6 squares. My next move tries to avoid this fate by encouraging 19.cxd4, when my position is horrible, but at least the knight's not coming in!] 19.Nb3!

The knight's hopping into the d4 square, and from there to c6 - it's hopeless. 1-0

Melody Amber, Round 2

2005-03-20T18:08:00.000-05:00

Today's blunder du jour is brought to you courtesy of perennial 2700 and Najdorf specialist Boris Gelfand.

In this position, many moves into a hard-fought, see-sawing Najdorf Sicilian, Gelfand has the worst of it against Peter Svidler. Nevertheless, with 40...Nc3+, Black should have good drawing chances after 41.Bxc3 Rxc3 42.Rg2, due to the opposite colored bishops and limited material. Instead, Gelfand forgot where at least one of the pieces were and played 40...Rb4+??. Unfortunately for Black, Svidler remembered, played 41.Bxb4, and Gelfand resigned.

For cruelly dispatching Garry Kasparov to the Elysian fields a week and a half ago, Caissa has apparently cursed Veselin Topalov. In the wake of his tie for first in Linares, Topalov is coming out of the gates here in a tie for last place. His latest tragedy comes at the hands of the leader, Viswanathan Anand (4-0!), but the wound may really have been self-inflicted.

Even after 41 moves of their rapid game, the characteristic outline of the Berlin Defense is still visible. (Scoffers, note: if even the ever-fighting Topalov is playing the Berlin - and gets an advantage with it against Anand - it's not some sort of limp beg-one's-opponent-for-a-draw opening.) Topalov has had everything go more or less according to the ideal recipe thus far, but because the Black king is stuck on the a-file I think the position is drawn. Let's see what happens:

42.Be1 is a good move, ensuring that the Black king stays put. 42...Bd8 (with the idea that if the Be1 moves, either the Black bishop gets to h4 and then g3, or else the Black king might start thinking of escape via b4) 43.Nd1 Ka3 (the Black king can't go out the door, but at least it can stand in the entryway) 44.Nb2 Be7 45.Bc3 Now, whether unaware of what White was up to, in too much time trouble to realize that there was a problem, or aware but unable to do anything, Topalov blundered with 45...Bf8? (45...Ka2! gives Black the defensive tempo he needs to hold, as 46.Nd3 Bxc4 and White doesn't have time to play 47.Bb2 because of 47...Bxd3+), and after 46.Nd3! Topalov was forced to resign, as there is no defense to 47.Bb2(+) and 48.Nc1# - 1-0

Round 2 Summary:

Blindfold:

Ivanchuk-Pons 1-0
Shirov-Kramnik 0-1
Topalov-Anand 0-1
Svidler-Gelfand 1-0
van Wely-Bareev 1/2-1/2
Leko-Morozevich 1-0

Rapid:

Vallejo-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Shirov 1/2-1/2
Anand-Topalov 1-0
Gelfand-Svidler 0-1
Bareev-van Wely 1-0
Morozevich-Leko 1/2-1/2

Standings:

Blindfold:

Anand, Kramnik, Svidler 2
Bareev, Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Vallejo 1
Gelfand, van Wely .5
Shirov, Topalov 0

Rapid:

Anand 2
Bareev, Ivanchuk, Svidler 1.5
Leko, Morozevich, Vallejo 1
Gelfand, Kramnik, Shirov, Topalov, van Wely .5

Overall:

Anand 4
Svidler 3.5
Bareev, Ivanchuk, Kramnik 2.5
Leko, Morozevich, Vallejo 2
Gelfand, van Wely 1
Shirov, Topalov .5

Melody Amber, Round 1

2005-03-19T23:11:00.000-05:00

There are far too many games for me to engage in the sorts of round summaries I did during the Linares tournament, but I will nevertheless keep a close eye on this event as well, pointing out games or positions of particular interest.

Part of the charm of this event, especially for amateurs, is to watch the world's absolute best players blunder just as badly as we do. Of course, there is a difference: we're looking at the board and have plenty of time, while they're playing blindfold (in half the games) with a short time control. What's funny about today's round, however, is that the worst blunder didn't occur in a blindfold game at all!

In this position Shirov (with White) has a big, possibly winning advantage against Anand. After 32.fxe6 fxe6 33.Bd3 Qf7 34.Rf4 Qg8 35.Qe3 with the idea of 36.Bg5 Rh8 (36...Qxg5?? 37.Rxf8+ and 38.Qxg5) 37.Rdf2 the Black position is about to collapse. Shirov, however, wanted to dispense with any further preparation and enter the Black position immediately:

32.Qg3?? All things being equal, this is a great idea: White wants to follow up with Qg8 and/or Bg7, increasing his advantage. Unfortunately, not quite all things are equal here, especially after Black's next move. 32...Rxf6 0-1. Oops!

For more information on the tournament, I offer the following for your further investigation: for a crosstable and brief round summary, go here; to replay the games online, this is the place; finally, to visit the tournament site itself, then this is the link for you.

Finally, I'd like to recommend paying special attention to both games in the Kramnik-Ivanchuk mini-match - both were quite interesting and seemed to be of theoretical significance.

Round 1 Summary:

Blindfold:

Leko-Svidler 0-1
Morozevich-van Wely 1-0
Bareev-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-Topalov 1-0
Anand-Shirov 1-0
Kramnik-Ivanchuk 1-0

Rapid:

Svidler-Leko 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Gelfand-Bareev 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Vallejo 1/2-1/2
Shirov-Anand 0-1
Ivanchuk-Kramnik 0-1

Overall Standings:

Anand 2
Svidler, Morozevich, Vallejo 1.5
Bareev, Gelfand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk 1
Leko, van Wely, Topalov .5
Shirov 0

The Weirdest Endgame I've Seen in Years

2005-03-19T22:00:00.000-05:00

Scanning through tonight's issue of Chess Today, I came across the game Pablo Ricardi-Manuel Barbosa from the ongoing Magistral Copa ENTEL event. After 70 moves, the players reached this position:

White is winning here, and it shouldn't be difficult, either. All he needs to do is round up the g-pawn, which requires no special GM technique, followed by running the g-pawn up the board until a Lucena position is reached. Black's king is too far away for White to have any troubles at all, so one would reasonably expect Ricardi, a very solid grandmaster, to collect the full point in 5-10 moves. 71.Rg7 Obvious and good. 71...Kb6 72.Kd6 But what's this? Granted, it doesn't hurt anything, but it's utterly unnecessary at best. White's normal and fully sound winning plan is to grab g4 and promote the g-pawn; there aren't any bonus points to be had for driving the Black king west of the b-file. [72.Rxg4 Rxa7 73.Re4 Ra8 74.g4 Re8+ 75.Kf5 Rf8+ 76.Kg6 Kc6 77.g5 Kd5 78.Re1 and the win is trivial - anyone who knows the Lucena position can win this in his or her sleep. For those who don't know it, here's the winning procedure. First, drag the pawn to g7 (the White king will be on g8). Second, put the rook on the 4th rank; third, bring the king out - the rook will eventually be able to block the checks and the pawn will either promote or cost Black his rook. Thus: 78...Rg8+ 79.Kf6 Rf8+ 80.Kg7 Rf2 81.g6 Kd6 82.Kg8 Rh2 83.g7

End of stage 1. 83...Rh3 84.Re4 And that's stage 2. 84...Rh1 85.Kf7 Stage 3 begins... 85...Rf1+ 86.Kg6 Rg1+ 87.Kf6 Rg2 88.Re6+! (88.Re5?? Rxg7=) 88...Kd7 89.Re5 threatening 90.Rg5, to which there is no adequate defense. 89...Rf2+ 90.Kg6 Rg2+ 91.Rg5

The End.] 72...Ra3 73.Ke5 [73.Rxg4 is an easy winner: 73...Kxa7 74.Rg7+ Kb8 75.g4 Rd3+ 76.Ke6 Kc8 77.g5 Re3+ 78.Kf7 Kd8 79.Kg8 Ke8 80.Ra7 Rg3 81.Ra5 Ke7 82.Kg7 followed by g6 and the Lucena procedure.] 73...Ra5+ 74.Kf6 Kc6 75.Re7 [75.Rxg4 Rxa7 76.Re4 Kd5 77.Re5+ Kd4 78.g4 and so on.] 75...Kd6 76.Kf7 What the...? White is still winning, but WHAT IS THIS? Did White make a side bet that he'd win using the a-pawn? Maybe there's a win to be had by crawling with the king via e8-d8-c8-b8 etc., but there's just no reason for it. 76...Ra3 77.Ke8 Kc6 78.Kd8 Kb6

79.Rg7 Umm, I give up. White has said A, B, C, D and E, but apparently doesn't care too much for the alphabet and starts another project. What I mean is this: White's last 5 moves were all geared towards bringing the king to b8, so why stop now, especially when it wins? [79.Kc8 Kc6 (79...Rxa7 80.Rxa7 Kxa7 81.Kd7 Kb7 82.Ke6 Kc6 83.Kf5 Kd6 84.Kxg4 is only a draw if Black can illegally play 84...Kg6; since he can't, White wins.) 80.Rc7+ Kd5 81.Kb8 Rb3+ 82.Rb7 Rf3 83.a8Q Rf8+ 84.Ka7 Rxa8+ 85.Kxa8 Ke4 86.Rf7+- etc.] 79...Rf3 80.Rxg4 Finally! 80...Kxa7 Okay, we've finally reached the sort of position we could have had 8-9 moves ago, only the White king isn't as well-placed as it would have been had White captured on g4 immediately. 81.Kd7 [One natural way to bring the point home is to combine locking in the Black king with pushing the pawn. Thus although it's not the fastest tablebase move, I'd probably play something like 81.Rg6 so that the pawn can come to g5 and the Black king can't get around White's pieces and in front of the g-pawn. 81...Kb7 82.g4 Rd3+ 83.Ke7 Kc7 84.g5 Rg3 85.Kf7 Kd7 86.Rg8 will be followed by g6, Kg7, Ra8-a1-e1 and so on up to Lucena land.] 81...Kb6 82.Kd6 Rd3+ 83.Ke5 [83.Ke6 is my preference, again to make it harder for the Black king to get to the g-file, but White is still winning.] 83...Kc7

84.Rg8= And after this final error, the position is a draw! After this move, the Black king has time to get in front of the pawn, as happens in the game. It would be wrong, however, to blame the draw on this one error by White; rather, it was the culmination of a long series of inaccuracies and changes of plan. White had lost the thread long ago, and while his winning margin was initially huge, he allowed it to be chipped away a bit at a time until this happened. Simply unbelievable! [84.Rg7+ Kd8 85.Ke6 allows White to keep the Black king cut off and preserve the win: 85...Ke8? 86.Rg8 is mate, while 85...Re3+ 86.Kf7 followed by a general advance of the g-pawn still wins comfortably.] 84...Kd7 85.g4 Ke7 86.Rg7+ Kf8 87.Ra7 Kg8 88.g5 Rb3 89.Kf5 Rb6!

This defensive method is called Philidor's defense (not to be confused with the opening), and although it's not necessary here, because White has a g-pawn (rather than a c-, d-, e- or f-pawn), but it's to be preferred because of its universal applicability. Black keeps his king on the queening file and his rook on the 6th rank until White plays the pawn to that rank; in response, Black plays the rook to the first rank and checks the White king until he can claim a draw, the pawn falls, or White trades rooks and allows a dead drawn pawn ending. As noted, though, Black didn't need to use this method here: with an a-, b-, g- or h-pawn, Black can leaves his rook on the back rank and sleep unless White does something idiotic. [89...Rb8! 90.Kg6 Rc8 91.Rg7+ Kh8 92.Rh7+ Kg8 93.Ra7 Rb8 94.Kh6 Rc8 95.g6 Rb8 96.Ra1 Rc8 97.g7 Rb8 (97...Rc6+ is of course better, but I'm trying to show just how impossible it is for White to win this.) 98.Kg6 Rc8 (98...Rb6+) 99.Rh1 and only now must Black demonstrate sentience with 99...Rc6+ (99...Rb8?? 100.Rh8#) 100.Kg5 and now it's more interesting to determine what Black's losing moves are. (There are only three!) My preferred drawing move is 100...Rg6+ 101.Kxg6 with stalemate.] 90.Kg4 Rc6 91.Kh5 Rb6 [After 91...Rb6 92.g6 is the only way to try to make progress, but in addition to an easy passive-defense draw with 92...Rb8, there's the Philidor method with 92...Rb1 so that 93.Kh6 is easily met by checking the king away, breaking up the mating threat: (93.Ra5 allows White to avoid an eternal series of checks, but just allows a different sort of draw after 93...Rh1+ 94.Kg5 Rg1+ 95.Kf6 Rf1+ 96.Rf5 Rxf5+ 97.Kxf5 Kg7 98.Kg5 Kg8! 99.Kf6 Kf8 100.g7+ Kg8 101.Kg6 stalemate.) 93...Rh1+ 94.Kg5 Rg1+ 95.Kf6 Rf1+ 96.Ke6 Rg1 97.Kf6 Rf1+ etc.] 1/2-1/2

In Memoriam: Arnold Denker

2005-03-18T20:01:00.000-05:00

Grandmaster, organizer and "dean" of American chess Arnold Sheldon Denker passed away January 2 of this year, at the age of 90. Recent tributes have been offered in Chess Life and New in Chess magazine, and while I'm not going to join the chorus of eulogists (though my readers are welcome to in their comments), I will present two games that demonstrate the aggressive play that characterized his chess at its best.

First, his most famous game (or rather, his most famous win; his most famous game must be the 1945 drubbing he suffered against Mikhail Botvinnik on the White side of the Semi-Slav). Playing White against the American legend Reuben Fine (according to Kasparov, the only non-world champion with an overall plus score against world champions given a non-trivial total number of games: +3!), Denker offered a nice pawn sacrifice (then a novelty, I think, but now accepted as the main move in the position) and blew Fine off the board. If Fine were a rank-and-file master, that would be one thing, but Fine was then one of the top 5-10 players in the world!

Denker,Arnold - Fine,Reuben [E43]
US Championship, 1944
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6 5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 Ne4

7.0-0! Now the well-established main line, but then a brave gambit against one of the world's super-elite. 7...Nxc3 [7...f5 , preferring control over e4 to the pawn, is Black's best-scoring move nowadays.] 8.bxc3 Bxc3 9.Rb1 Ba5 10.Ba3 d6 11.c5 0-0 12.cxd6 cxd6 13.e4 In return for a pawn, White has a lead in development, well-placed pieces, a strong pawn center and the initiative to boot; in short, White's compensation is more than sufficient. 13...Re8 14.e5 dxe5 15.Nxe5 Qg5 16.g3 g6 [16...Nc6 17.Nxf7!! Denker/Fischer/Alburt 17...Kxf7 18.Rb5 Qh6 19.Rh5 Qf6 is given as equal by Larry Parr('s ChessMaster program) in Chess Life, continuing with 20.Rxa5. But 20.Rh4 h6 21.Rf4 Qxf4 22.gxf4 Nxd4 23.Be4 Bxe4 24.Qxd4 Bd5 25.Bb2 Rg8 26.f5 gives White a winning attack.] 17.Qa4 Qd8 18.Rfc1 b5 [18...Kg7 19.Bd6 Na6 is another Parr/ChessMaster suggestion, but 20.Nc4 threatening Nxa5 20...Bd5 21.Bf4 gives White a big advantage, as Black's a-file jumble will cost him his extra pawn while White's positional advantages continue unabated.] 19.Bxb5 Qd5 20.f3 Bb6

It looks as if Black has managed to glue everything together and even scrape up some counterplay on the long diagonals to the White king, but Denker forcibly dispels the illusion. 21.Rc5!! Bxc5 22.Bxc5 at the cost of the exchange, White has eliminated all Black's counterplay and stands to win material - Black can't (reasonably) prevent 23.Bxe8 and 23.Bc4 Qd8 24.Rxb7. White is winning. 22...Rf8 23.Bc4 Bc6 24.Bxd5 Bxa4 25.Bxa8 1-0

Next comes a game from his youth, against an opponent unknown to the world of top-level chess. Despite the obscurity of the game and his opponent, Denker wrote that "[s]ince that game, I have played a number of brilliant games, but none of them, it seems to me, can compare with this one for absolute purity and charm." [Quoted in Chess Life (March 2005), page 8.]

Denker,Arnold - Feit,Harold [A84]
N.Y. Interscholastic Ch., 1929
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6?! [3...Nf6] 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.c4 Be7 7.Nc3 d6? Parr doesn't comment on this move, but it's practically losing, as the light squares in Black's camp are now fatally weak. Denker does a very nice job of exploiting this: first, he creates and fixes the weakness; next, he opens lines to allow further access to the weakened sector. It's worth noting the positional lead-up to the attack: White doesn't win this game primarily due to his ability to calculate but because Black's position possessed so many chronic liabilities that punishment was inevitable. [7...0-0; 7...Ne4] 8.d5 Killing the Bb7, fixing e6 as a hole and weakening Black's control over f5 as well. 8...e5 9.Ng5 Bc8 10.e4! [10.Ne6 was good too, but White realizes that e6 will continue to be available and wants to blast open lines in the center as quickly as possible.] 10...0-0 11.f4! exf4 12.Bxf4 fxe4 13.Ncxe4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4!!

Even after 14.Nxe4 White would have a great positional advantage, but now Black's bare kingside is in serious trouble. Black wins a piece, but he can't keep it without allowing something much worse in return. 14...Bxg5 15.Qh5 Rxf4 [15...h6 is the obvious try, but it doesn't work: 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.Rxf8+ Kxf8 18.Rf1+ Ke7 19.Qf7+ Kd8 20.Qf8+ Kd7 21.Rf7+ Qe7 22.Rxe7#; 15...g6 16.Bxg6 h6 17.Bf7+ Rxf7 (17...Kh8 18.h4 Bxf4 19.Rxf4 wins, as Black can't secure h6.) 18.Bxg5 Qd7 19.Bxh6 wins, as Black has no good defense to the threat of Qg6+.; 15...Bf5 16.Bxg5 Qd7 17.Bxf5 Rxf5 18.Rxf5 Qxf5 19.Qe8+ Qf8 20.Qe6+ Qf7 (20...Kh8 21.Rf1 Qg8 22.Rf7 Na6 23.Bf6+-) 21.Qc8+ Qf8 22.Bd8+- 23.Rf1 and 24.Qb7 nets White the exchange and the compensation, as Dzindzhi might say.] 16.Qxh7+ Kf7 17.Bg6+ Kf6 18.Rxf4+! [Even better than 18.gxf4 which also wins.] 18...Bxf4 19.Qh4+ [19.Rf1 is more accurate, forcing mate in no more than seven moves, though there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the move played.] 19...Bg5

[19...Kxg6 20.Qxd8 Be3+ 21.Kg2 Nd7 allows Black to avoid the mate, but White is dead won after 22.Qe8+ and 23.Qxe3.] 20.Qe4!! Forced, but winning! Black's up two pieces, but he has no defense to White's attack, due to his lack of development and strangely paralyzed king. 20...Be3+ 21.Kh1 Bh6 22.Rf1+ Kg5 23.Bh7 Amusingly, Parr gives this two exclamation points. It is an elegant move and forces mate in one, but I think his enthusiasm is a bit much when [23.h4# gave mate on the move.] 1-0

In the Mailbag

2005-03-18T19:55:00.000-05:00

Between new posts, old posts, email and online chess servers, responses to blogged material come in at a steady clip. Today, we'll take a look at some of them.

(1) First, from a New York friend, after seeing the games in my Depth in Blitz entry: "When I grow up, I wanna play chess just like you." My response to the friend (who is around 30): "The key is NOT to grow up."

Of course, I didn't mean this in a biological or emotional sense: the first is impossible and the second foolish. Instead, there's a certain joy, freshness and optimism that one ought to cultivate and maintain in their chess. There's more to chess than the initiative, but as one learns, one shouldn't give up or lessen their enthusiasm for active, forceful chess. Keep attacking!

(2) I wrote an opinion piece bemoaning the lack of master prizes in big tournaments, focusing on the upcoming HB Challenge in Minnesota as an especially egregious example.

An IM friend whose USCF rating is in the high 2300s sent me a note: "[I'm] glad you wrote about MN. I agree 100% and will not likely play. Basically it is under 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2800! or [greater than] 2400 with only three prizes and you have to play [like a] 2700. Insane. We should have peaked [our ratings, not our strength] at 2190. We'd be rich." In addition to providing appreciated moral support, he brings up another, very important point: big tournaments, in which lower-rated players receive as much and sometimes even more prize money than masters, are designed to strongly encourage cheaters of all sorts. I was proud to achieve the master title, but in practical terms, all that it meant was that I ripped myself off from winning expert money in big tournaments. In a direct comment to that same post, mbagalman offered a response I expected: there aren't many masters, especially compared to lower-rated players, so of course there are going to be fewer master prizes. Further, if the goal is to spread interest in the game to the wider public, then too there's no reason to offer much by way of prize money to masters; after all, they're already very interested in chess.

Let's address these issues in order. The economic reality of the situation is real (in fact, I acknowledged it in my initial post), yet the problem here goes beyond that. There are about 2.5 times as many experts as masters, yet experts have 50 prizes to fight for and masters 6 (not counting their chances for the overall prizes, which require a semi-miracle). Second, there are many more mere masters than there are masters > 2450, but it's the latter who will be the recipients of the 50 prizes, not the former. Third, if the concern is with the best-represented numbers, then it's the numerous under-1200 crowd that should be most rewarded. In sum, whether one thinks that prestige ought to determine the money available or that it's the number of entrants that should decide, either way, "normal" masters are getting the short end of the stick.

I'm a little unclear on the argument from attracting public interest. The proverbial Joe Sixpack isn't going to go to the bookstore, pick up Chess Life, scan through the Tournament Life section, see the tournament in Minnesota and decide, "Hey, I've barely know how the horse and castle move, but I think I'll spend a week's vacation and over $1000 on entry fee, transportation, hotel and expenses to try my luck!" Anyone who plays in a tournament like this is already plenty interested in chess, whether master or not.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I expect that economists and game theorists among my readers can offer solutions that are equitable, reward excellence and make good sense for the organizers as well.

(3) In this post, I wondered (but did not pontificate) about Pope John Paul II's chess career, if any. DG of Boylston Chess Club Weblog fame offered a link to a link to two games of the Pope. The games are surprisingly sophisticated, suggesting that Karol Wojtyla was either a reasonably strong player (but with the occasional tactical blind spot) or that the games were some sort of forgery.

On the same topic, but addressing a different bit of (alleged) evidence, I mentioned in my post that Miguel Najdorf had spoken on behalf of JP II's chess prowess. Brian Karen, however, wisely reminded me of Miguel Najdorf's reputed penchant for the tall tale, so the latter's claims might need to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe someone should consult Edward Winter on this subject?

(4) Finally, Chuck Carroll caught an error in my attempt to determine the maximum length of a game. He's right!

Melody Amber Starts Saturday

2005-03-17T21:41:00.000-05:00

It isn't the most important tournament on the yearly chess calendar, but it might well be the most fun. The 14th Amber Blindfold and Rapid Chess Tournament, taking place in Monaco and sponsored by Dutch billionaire and correspondence world champion Joop van Oosterom, starts Saturday, goes through March 31, and features a real murderer's row of a lineup:

Viswanathan Anand
Evgeny Bareev
Boris Gelfand
Vassili Ivanchuk
Vladimir Kramnik
Peter Leko
Alexander Morozevich
Alexei Shirov
Peter Svidler
Veselin Topalov
Francisco Vallejo
Loek van Wely

The rounds consist of two sub-rounds: a rapid game and a blindfold game, and while the rapid games and even the blindfold games are typically of high quality, you might be surprised to discover just how many blunders even the world's best can make when they're not looking at the board.

Thus the tournament has something for everyone: great players, fun games (quick time controls and no rating points at stake tend to do that), and frequent occasion for Schadenfreude!

Grr...

2005-03-17T21:30:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, fellow blogger Bill Vallicella suffered the loss of some work eaten by strange blogpot.com gremlins (see 1, 2, 3 and 4.) and decided to pack up and move his blog elsewhere.

"But at least it hasn't happened to me!" I said to myself. Famous last words! I'm not sure I'll follow suit, as this is the only time it has happened to me...but I'm seriously considering it. Apologies meanwhile to those who hoped for - and for the time being are missing out on - some nice chess content tonight.

Depth in Blitz

2005-03-16T19:24:00.000-05:00

When I presented a 1 0 game illustrating a nice positional trap, one writer expressed skepticism about the value of "bullet" games, while another expressed a more moderate statement of doubt about the possibility of deep combinations at that speed. I've disputed the first claim already, and will probably address the latter at some point as well.

For now, however, I'd like to show a couple of my better blitz games, in the hopes of demonstrating that beauty and depth are available even at very short time limits. I strongly recommend printing these games out and taking a look at the variations, too - even though I'm not an impartial judge, the games are both very nice!

DM - NN [B10]
Internet blitz (3 0), 30.12.2000

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nf3 e5 4.d4 Qe7 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.a4 Nf6 7.a5 h6 8.h3 Nbd7 9.Bc4 Nc5 10.Qe2 Qc7 11.0-0 g6 12.b4 Ne6 13.b5 Bc5 After a rather strange opening, Black hopes to compensate for his relative lack of space and development by trying to take over the d4 square. I therefore prepare for this idea, and even play to turn it against my opponent. 14.Rd1 Nd4 15.Nxd4 Bxd4

16.Rxd4! One of the exciting aspects of this game, to me, is that while my computer programs fail to predict my sacrifices (because of their long-term justification), they also show by further analysis that they are sound as well - go humans! 16...exd4 17.e5! Nh7 [17...dxc3 loses, unsurprisingly - opening up the center to the crossfire of White pieces against Black's uncastled king is suicidal. 18.exf6+ Be6 (18...Kd8 19.Bf4 Qxf4 20.Qe7#; 18...Kf8 19.Bf4 Qxf4 20.Qe7+ Kg8 21.Qxf7#) 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Qxe6+ Kf8 (20...Kd8 21.f7 (threatening Bg5+ followed by Rd1+) 21...Qe7 22.Bg5 Anyway! 22...Qxg5 23.Qd6+ Kc8 24.bxc6 bxc6 25.Qxc6+ Kd8 26.Re1 with a forced mate.) 21.bxc6 bxc6 22.Ba3+ c5 23.Re1+- followed by Re5, winning.] 18.e6! f5 [18...dxc3 19.exf7+ Kd8 (19...Kf8 20.Bxh6#; 19...Kd7 20.Qe6+ Kd8 21.Qxg6+-) 20.Bxh6+- cxb5 21.Rd1+ Bd7 22.Be6 Nf8 23.Bg5+ Kc8 24.Bxd7+ Qxd7 (24...Nxd7 25.Qe8++-) 25.Qe8+ Kc7 26.Bf4+ Kc6 27.Qe4+ Kc5 28.Be3+ Qd4 29.Qxd4+ Kc6 30.Qxc3#; 18...Bxe6 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Qxe6+ Kd8 looks like Black's best bet, but White is winning here too (but not mating) after 21.bxc6 Qxc6 (21...bxc6 22.Ne4+-) 22.Qe5 Rf8 23.Qxd4+ Qd7 24.Nd5+- with a target practice position for White against Black's weak king and uncoordinated pieces.; 18...fxe6 19.b6! Qg7 (19...Qe7 20.Ba3) 20.Bxe6 Qe7 21.a6!! bxa6 (21...dxc3 22.axb7 Bxb7 23.Ba3 c5 24.Qb5+ is the end of Black's world.) 22.Ba3 Qxe6 23.b7 Qxe2 24.bxa8Q Qe6 25.Ne4]

19.b6!! A move with three ideas: to move the queen from its good defensive spot, to clear b5 for the white knight, and to take control over c7 for possible mating configurations! 19...Qg7 keeping the e5 square covered. [19...axb6 20.axb6 Rxa1 (20...Qb8 21.Rxa8 Qxa8 22.Qe5 Rf8 23.Qd6 Qa1 24.Nd5 Qxc1+ 25.Kh2+-) 21.bxc7 Rxc1+ 22.Kh2 dxc3 23.Qe5 Rf8 24.Qd6+-; 19...Qb8 20.Nd5! cxd5 21.Ba3! dxc4 22.Qxc4 and the threat of 23.Qb5+ Kd8 24.e7# wins for White: 22...Qe5 23.Qa4+ Kd8 24.e7+ Qxe7 25.Qxd4+ (25.Bxe7+ also wins, but 25.Qxd4+ is more effective.) 25...Qd7 26.Qxh8+ Qe8 27.Qc3 axb6 28.axb6 Qf7 29.Rd1+ Ke8 30.Qh8+ Nf8 31.Bxf8 threatening to mate with 32.Ba3/b4/c5+, so Black has to bleed some more. 31...Qxf8 32.Rd8+ Kxd8 33.Qxf8+ Kd7 34.Qxh6 with a routine win.] 20.Nb5! cxb5 [20...d3 would have led to an Anderssen-style finish:

21.Qxd3 Qxa1 22.Qd6 Qxc1+ 23.Kh2 cxb5 (23...Qf4+ 24.Qxf4 cxb5 25.Bxb5+ forces mate. (25.Qc7 also wins.) For example: 25...Ke7 26.Qc7+ Kf6 27.Qc3+ Kxe6 28.Bc4+ Kd6 29.Qd4+ Ke7 30.Qg7+ Ke8 (30...Kd6 31.Qc7#) 31.Bb5+ Bd7 32.Bxd7+ Kd8 33.Bb5 Nf8 34.Qc7#) 24.Bxb5+ Bd7 25.Bxd7+ Kd8 26.e7#] 21.Bxb5+ Kf8? Disappointingly, my opponent defends weakly, which diminishes the game's aesthetic quality. Still, overall, this was one of the most beautiful blitz games I've ever played. [21...Kd8 22.Bxh6! Qe7 (22...Qxh6 23.e7#; 22...Qf6 23.Qc4 Qe5 24.Qb4 wins - the idea is Re1, overloading the Black queen.) 23.Qe5+-; 21...Ke7 22.Ba3+ Kf6 23.Bd6+-] 22.e7+ Kg8 [22...Qxe7 23.Ba3+- is presumably what he missed.] 23.e8Q+ 1-0

DM - NN [B21]
5 0 game, 1997

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 a6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 b5 7.Bb3 Bb7 8.0-0 b4 9.Nd5 exd5 10.exd5 d6

Here I thought for between 90 and 120 seconds, trying to figure out how best to exploit my lead in development and Black's exposed king. In particular, I wanted to keep my opponent from castling - but how to do that? Finally, I came up with a solution. [10...Bd6 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Ng5 h6 (12...0-0 13.Qh5 h6 14.Ne4 Qc7 15.Bxh6 Bxh2+ 16.Kh1 Qe5 17.Bg5 Nxd5 and now 18.Rad1+- gives White a winning attack, as opposed to the natural but bad 18.Bxd5 of Zelic-Sermek, Makarska 1995 (0-1, 57)) 13.Qh5 0-0 14.Ne4 Qc7 (14...Bc7 15.d6 Bxe4 16.dxc7 Qxc7 17.Rxe4) 15.Bxh6 gxh6 (15...Bxh2+ transposes to the Zelic-Sermek game) 16.Qxh6 f6 (16...f5 17.Ng5) 17.Ng5! (17.Rac1 Qb6 (17...Bxh2+ 18.Kf1 Qf4 19.d6+ Nd5 20.Bxd5+ Bxd5 21.Qg6+ Kh8 22.Re3+-) 18.Rc6!

is crushing. The rook is immune, of course: (18.Nxd6 Qxd6 19.Rxe7 Qxe7 20.d6+ is faster but less attractive.) 18...dxc6 19.dxc6+ Rf7 20.Nxf6#) 17...Rf7 18.Nxf7 Kxf7 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20.Rxe7 Bxe7 21.d6 with mate in three.] 11.Qd4 [11.Nd4 Be7 12.Ba4+ Nd7 (12...Kf8) 13.Re1 Bxd5 14.Nf5 Be6 (14...Bb7 15.Nxd6+) 15.Rxe6 fxe6 16.Nxg7+ Kf7 17.Nxe6 Kxe6 18.Qg4+ Kf7 19.Qh5+ Kf8 20.Bb3 Qe8 21.Qh6+ Nxh6 22.Bxh6#] 11...Nf6 12.Bh6!!

Black's position may be defensible by a computer, though White retains sufficient compensation in any case, but for a human it's just too much: the e-file, the bishop on h6, the a4-e8 diagonal and so on. 12...gxh6 This lets White demonstrate his main idea, after which the win is straightforward. [12...Rg8 is a reasonable idea, but once the king is stuck in the center, White can build up his attack pretty much at leisure: 13.Rfe1+ Be7 14.Re2 Nbd7 15.Bd2 Nb6 16.Rae1 Nbxd5 17.Nh4 Rc8 18.Nf5 and Black's edifice is on the verge of collapse. For example: 18...Kf8 19.Bxd5 Nxd5 20.Bxb4 Nxb4 21.Qxb4 Rc7 22.Nxe7 Rh8 23.Nf5 threatening 24.Qxd6+ Qxd6 25.Re8# 23...Bc6 24.Rd2 Rd7 25.Qc3 Qf6 26.Rde2 with a forced mate.; 12...Be7 is another good try, hoping to buy out for a few pawns. Once again, though, White has too many active pieces, and once they're swarming Black is in big trouble. 13.Bxg7 Rg8 14.Ba4+ Nbd7 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Qf4 Bxd5 17.Rad1 Bxf3 18.Bxd7+ Qxd7 19.Qxf3 0-0-0 20.Qxf6 Rg6 21.Qd4 Qb7 22.f3 is nearly winning for White.] 13.Rfe1+ Be7 [13...Kd7 14.Ba4+ (14.Rac1 might be even better.) 14...Kc7 15.Rac1+ Nc6 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.Rxc6+ Kb7 18.Qxb4+ Ka7 19.Re3 forces mate in three (the threat is 20.Rxa6+ followed by 21.Ra3+)] 14.Qxf6 Rg8 15.Rxe7+ Qxe7 16.Re1 Qxe1+ 17.Nxe1 Rg6 18.Ba4+ Nd7 [18...Kf8 19.Qd8+ Kg7 20.Qb6 Bxd5 (20...Bc8 21.Qc7 Bd7 22.Bc2 Rg5 23.Qb7+-) 21.Qd4++-] 19.Bxd7+ Kxd7 20.Qxf7+ Kc8 21.Qxh7 1-0

More Kasparov on the Web

2005-03-15T17:34:00.000-05:00

First, from the horse's mouth (word processor), a Wall Street Journal article explaining his retirement and future plans. Second, a nice interview article just focusing on his chess career can be found here, while a third, interview-based article offering some additional tidbits about his life and upcoming projects can be accessed here.

John Paul II and Chess

2005-03-15T15:34:00.000-05:00

Pope John Paul II has been much in the news lately, and since he has a reputation as a chess aficionado, I thought I'd look up some of his contributions to the game and pass them along.

Browsing the web, I came across a mate in two (scroll to the bottom of the page); a chess analogy (when the pickings are slim, one has to dig deep), and an actual game.

Or so I thought. According to Mike Fox and Richard James's 1993 revised edition of The Even More Complete Chess Addict, pp. 16-17, the game and at least one problem attributed to the Pope were merely hoaxes, perpetrated by an unnamed Frenchman. On the other hand, the late Argentian GM Miguel Najdorf - a native of Poland, like the Pope - insisted that John Paul II did play and actually published a book of problems. On the third hand (why stop at two?), however, a search of Harold van der Heijden's magnificent and nearly comprehensive Study Database showed no entries for Wojtyla.

So, while it would be nice to see the creativity of John Paul II as expressed over the chessboard, it appears that we don't have any trustworthy examples to evaluate. If anyone knows more about the matter, however, their comments are more than welcome!

Accelerated Dragon: An Update

2005-03-14T18:14:00.000-05:00

In this post, I looked in some detail at the following Dragon/Accelerated Dragon hybrid:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 d6 8.Bb3 O-O 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 12.h4 a5 13.h5!

This occurred in the games Monokroussos-Doss, Indiana 2004 and Bologan-Moldovan, France 2005. Our ideas were similar and based on the same tactical trick, though there were some significant differences, as a visit to the earlier post will reveal.

In a recent issue of Chess Today, I came across an important new game from the just-finished Acropolis Open in Athens (won by Vugar Gashimov). At first I was concerned, in light of the result, but a closer look seems to reveal that all is still well for White:

Solak,Dragan (2596) - Hamdouchi,Hichem (2555) [B77]
Athens Acropolis GM President Hotel, Athens (7.4), 12.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 12.h4 a5 13.h5

13...e5 This avoids the troubles of the Bologan/Monokroussos line, but only by substituting new ones in its place, as far as I can tell. [Doss sidestepped my main idea with 13...e6 That game continued 14.a4 b4 (14...bxa4 15.Nxa4 Bc6 improves, I think, as it keeps the queenside open and the White knight away from the kingside.) 15.Ne2+/- Bc6 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.0-0-0 d5 18.Qg5! dxe4 19.Nf4 Nh7

20.Qg4? (20.Qxg6!! I saw this, but badly underestimated the idea - I was looking for mate, not recognizing that this move actually wins material (with a continuing attack, to boot) after 20...fxg6 21.Bxe6+ Rf7 (21...Kh8 22.Nxg6#) 22.Bxf7+! Kxf7 23.Rxh7+-) 20...Bxd4 21.Nxe6! Be3+? (21...Bd7! amazingly, not only holds on but gives Black an edge after 22.Rxd4 (22.Qh3 fails to the geometrically stunning 22...Ng5!-/+) 22...Bxe6 23.Rxd8 Bxg4 24.Rxa8 Rxa8 25.fxg4=/+) 22.Kb1 Qf6 23.Qh3 Qh8 24.Nxf8 Rxf8 25.Rd6 The final shot, hitting both c6 and g6, without which the attack would fail. The game concluded 25...Qg7 26.Rxc6 exf3 27.gxf3 Bd4 28.Qh6 Qxh6 29.Rxh6 Kg7 30.Rh4 Be5 31.Rc5 Bf6 32.Rhc4 Bd8 33.Rc8 Ng5 34.f4 Nh3 35.Rd4 Bb6 36.Rxf8 Kxf8 37.Rd7 f5 38.Rd6 1-0, Monokroussos-Doss, Indiana (m) 2004.; while Moldovan went into it, and lost, after 13...a4 14.Bd5 e5 15.h6 (15.Bxa8 exd4 16.Nd5 Qxa8 (16...Nxh5 improves though - see the earlier blog entry.) 17.Ne7+ Kh8 18.h6 was the version of the idea I had prepared, with the main line continuing 18...Re8 19.hxg7+ Kxg7 20.Qh6+ Kh8 21.g4 Rxe7 22.g5 Rxe4+ (22...Nh5 23.Rxh5 gxh5 24.Qf6++-) 23.Kd2 Re6 24.gxf6 Qg8 25.Rae1 Rxf6 26.Re7 Bc6 27.Rc7+-) 15...Bh8 (15...Bxh6 is a significant improvement for Black - see the earlier blog entry for details.) 16.Bxa8 exd4 17.Nd5 Re8 (17...Qxa8 18.Ne7# is the point!) 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.Rh4 1-0, Bologan-Moldovan, FRA 2005] 14.Be3 This is reasonable, and White achieved a perfectly playable position after this, losing only due to a blunder later on. However, [14.hxg6 , which has also been played before, looks even stronger. 14...exd4 (14...hxg6 15.Be3 a4 doesn't work out for Black as it does in the game - the tempo spent recapturing on g6 gives White a winning attack with 16.Bh6 Nh5 (16...axb3 17.Bxg7 Nh5 18.Qh6 f5 19.Bxf8 Qxf8 20.Qxg6+ is completely hopeless for Black.) 17.Bd5 Rc8 18.g4 b4 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Ne2 Nf4 21.Nxf4 exf4 22.0-0-0 Qc7 23.g5 preventing ...g5 or ...Kf6 23...Qc5 hoping to trade queens with ...Qe3, as well as covering the d4 square 24.Kb1 a3 25.Rh6 Rh8 26.Rxh8 Kxh8 (26...Rxh8 27.Qxf4 wins) 27.Bxf7+- (27.Qh2+ Kg8 28.Rh1 Bh3!=) ) 15.Bxf7+ Kh8 16.Qxd4

threatening 17.Qxf6! 16...h6 (16...Rxf7 17.gxf7 b4 18.Nd5 Nxd5 19.Qxd5 Bxb2 20.Rd1 Bc3+ 21.Kf1 Qb8 22.Rh5+-) 17.Qe3 (17.0-0-0 looks good too, though the game in which it occurred was ultimately drawn.) 17...Ng8 (17...Nh7 18.Rxh6 Rxf7 (18...Bxh6 19.Qxh6 Rxf7 20.gxf7 merely transposes) 19.gxf7 Bxh6 20.Qxh6 Qf6 21.Qxf6+ Nxf6 22.0-0-0 b4 23.Ne2 Bb5 24.Ng3 Bc4 25.Rxd6 Nh7 26.Rd7 Rf8 27.Ra7 Rxf7 28.Rxa5 Rg7 29.Nf5 Rxg2 30.Ne3 Rg1+ 31.Kd2 with a winning ending for White.) 18.0-0-0 b4 19.Nd5 Rc8 20.g4 and White's attack should prove decisive. Some sample carnage: 20...a4 21.g5 b3 22.axb3 axb3 23.c3 Qa5 24.gxh6 Qa1+ 25.Kd2 Qxb2+ 26.Ke1 Be5 27.g7+ Kh7 28.gxf8N+ Rxf8 29.Bxg8+ Rxg8 30.Qd2 Qa3 31.f4+-] 14...a4 15.Bd5 b4 16.hxg6 [16.Ne2 has been played before, and after 16...Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Be6 18.Qd2 Black has a good position and plenty of choices.] 16...bxc3 17.Bxf7+ Rxf7 18.gxf7+ Kxf7 19.Qxc3 Be6 20.0-0-0 Rc8 21.Qb4 d5 Black has plenty of play for the material, but White is fine here. 22.Bh6 [22.Bg5 d4 23.Bxf6 Qxf6 24.Rxh7 Qg5+ 25.Kb1 Qxg2 with (at least) sufficient compensation] 22...Qc7 23.Qxa4 dxe4 24.fxe4 Bxh6+ 25.Rxh6 Kg7 26.Rdh1 Bxa2 27.R6h3 Bc4 28.Qa3 Kh8 29.Qf3 Qe7 30.Rh6 Rf8 White continues to have the edge, but now Solak, probably in time pressure, comes up with an unfortunate idea. 31.g4 [31.Qf5] 31...Bg8 [31...Rf7] 32.g5?? There's the culprit. [32.Kb1 remains unclear.] 32...Nxe4! 33.Qxe4 Qxg5+ 34.Kd1 [34.Kb1 Qxh6! is the point - capturing on h6 results in a back-rank mate.] 34...Rd8+ 35.Ke2 Qd2+ 36.Kf3 Rf8+ 37.Kg3 Qf2+ 38.Kh3 Rf3+ 39.Kg4 Qg2+ 40.Kh4 Qxh1+ 41.Kg4 Qg2+ 42.Kh4 Rh3# 0-1

Around the Web

2005-03-14T02:44:00.000-05:00

Some sites of possible interest:

(1) The latest issue of Lubomir Kavalek's Washington Post chess column is available on the web, paying tribute to Danish great Bent Larsen on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Kavalek presents a see-saw thriller they played in 1970, and the game and notes are worth your time.

(2) Last week's Chess Cafe entries are all worth checking out, and I expect different people will have different favorites (I most enjoyed the Dvoretsky, Savinov and Minev columns, in case anyone wondered).

(3) On the ChessBase news site, the following item offers readers' reactions to Kasparov's retirement, a link to a feedback form so one can offer their own reactions, and links to all the news stories one can bear to read on the subject.

(4) Last but not least, the ChessBase blurb for my show is up. It doesn't add new information about the game not present here, but for those to whom "9 p.m. EST" isn't particularly meaningful, you'll find a list of times for 140 locations worldwide. (Interestingly, 10 or so of those locations aren't straight on the hour - some are half-past, others at a quarter-of some hour or other.) Also, for those curious about my appearance (but why?), you can see a picture of me taken in July of 2002 at the New York Masters.

A Dozen Good Responses to My Anti-French Line

2005-03-13T20:42:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago (see here, here, here and here), the French Defense-playing segment of the chess world was terrorized by the publication of my anti-French line on this blog. (How else does one explain the complete absence of the French Defense at Linares??) Good news, Francophiles, the cure is here!

In fact, twelve cures. As I insisted from day one, the line, while dangerous, is objectively innocuous at best. Finding the antidote in the heat of battle is tough for most of us, especially when faced with something brand-new. So here, in the comfort of your own home, is the answer to your 1.e4 e6 2.c4 problems - and then some.

Response 1 - Head for the Sicilian with 1.e4 e6 2.c4 c5! One possible continuation, transposing to one of GM Rublevsky's pet lines, is 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Be2 d5 6.exd5 exd5 7.d4 with a position that's playable for both sides.

Response 2 - Head for the English Defense with 1.e4 e6 2.c4 b6!

Response 3: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 c6 - head for a Caro-Kann or an Exchange French. After 3.d4 d5, White can choose between 4.e5 c5, 4.Nc3 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4+, and 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Nf6. The first isn't particularly theoretical and seems fine for Black; the second is a sharp gambit line which is fine for Black IF he or she is up on the theory, but foolhardy otherwise, while the last is a version of the Exchange French acceptable to the second player.

Response 4: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 e5 - head for a double-king pawn position where the pawn on c4 is strategically double-edged. Interestingly, after the plausible 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 g6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.Be3 d6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.O-O O-O 10.Qd2 f5 11.Nxc6 Nxc6 12.exf5 Bxf5, we have transposed into a position from the Modern Defense, albeit one in which it's generally (but not always) Black to move. Even so, Black seems fine here too, though I'd probably recommend this line the least of the 12.

Response 5: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 Bc5 - collecting on d5 leaves White with two weak d-pawns, and everything else leaves Black to capture or continue developing.

Response 6: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 Bd6!? - Black now threatens to take on e4, as Bc4 Qe7 won't block in the bishop any longer. White should try 5.Qxd5 if the goal is to punish Black, but then 5...Nf6 followed by 6...O-O leaves Black with a big development advantage in return for the pawn.

Response 7: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5 - this is similar to response 5, but with Black closer to castling it's just so much the better.

Response 8: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd4 exd4 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Bc5 laughs at White's threat - yes, you want the f-pawn? Take it! After 6.Bxf7+ Kf8, Black threatens ...Qf6, and if White retreats with 7.Bd5, Qh4 8.Qg3 Qxg3 9.hxg3 Nf6 gives Black an edge. Best is 6.Nc3, when one reasonable possibility is 6...Qh4 7.Bxf7+ Kf8 8.g3 Qe7 9.Bd5 c6 10.Bxe4 Nf6 11.d3 Be6, when Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.

Response 9: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qe7 6.Nc3 c6 7.d3 b5 8.Nxb5 cxb5 9.Bd5 Be6 10.Qxb5+ Bd7 11.Qb7 Qb4+ 12.Kf1 Qxb7 13.Bxb7 Bc6 14.Bxa8 Bxa8 15.Bf4 Nd7 16.dxe4 Bc5. Here the material situation is nominally in White's favor, but here the pawns cannot make their presence felt while the minors will start to coordinate and swarm very soon.

Response 10: 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 Be6 11.Nd5 (11.Re1 d2 wins) Bxd5 (11...Qd7 might be even better, but it's needlessly sharp) 12.Bxd5 O-O-O 13.Bf3 Kb8 and White has no attack to compensate for the two pawns or his bottled-up kingside.

Response 11: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.d3 exd3+ 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.O-O-O Ne5 10.Nf3 Nxc4 11.Qxc4 Qb4 12.Qxd3 Bd6 13.Ng5 Be6 14.Kb1 O-O-O 15.Nxe6 fxe6 leaves White down a pawn and without an attack.

Response 12: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qd7 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Nxe4 Na5 8.Qe3 (8.Qb5 Nxc4 9.Qxc4 Qe6 trades the queens, leaving Black with a better position and the two bishops) Nxc4 9.Nd6+ Kd8 10.Nxc4 Qd5 11.Ne5 Bd6 and Black, ironically enough, has a winning attack likely to be crowned by a rook move to the e-file, exploiting the king's losing the right to castle.

Problem solved!

Monday's ChessBase Show

2005-03-12T17:27:00.000-05:00

Now that you-know-who has left the game, it's time to look to the younger generation for the games subsequent superstars to emerge. One player on his way up is Indian grandmaster Krishnan Sasikiran, who has been making steady progress towards the 2700 barrier.

Among the qualities possessed by the greatest players is imagination, and in this week's game, Sasikiran demonstrates great creativity against the Danish player Rasmus Skytte. After

1.Nf3 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c3 f5 4.Qb3 Nf6 5.Bg5 c6 6.Nbd2 d5 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Be2 0-0 9.c4 e6 10.0-0 h6 11.Bh4 Qb6 12.Qc2 Ne4 13.Be7 Re8 14.Ba3 Qd8 15.Rad1 Qf6 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Nd2 e5 18.d5 c5 19.b4 Qa6 20.Qb2 Bf8 21.bxc5 Bxc5 22.Bxc5 Nxc5 23.Nb3 Qd6 24.Nxc5 Qxc5 25.d6 Be6 26.Qxb7 Rab8 27.Qa6 Red8 28.d7 Kf7

"Sasi" has some advantage, but it looks like the game will continue for a good long time - Black will round up the d-pawn, and then the question is whether the passed c-pawn gives White enough to win. That's how things would go under normal circumstances, but White comes up with something special. To see just what he found, tune in to this Monday's show!

(For instructions on tuning in, click here; for a list of previous shows' games, try this one.)

Kasparov's Best Games

2005-03-12T16:27:00.000-05:00

In the TWIC report on Kasparov's retirement announcement, Kasparov states that the best games of his career were game 19 (it says game 20, but it's clear that he means game 19) of the 1985 match, game 24 of the 1987 match, and his famous win over Topalov from the 1999 Wijk aan Zee tournament.

I understand why he would choose these games, even though they - and some omissions - are also surprising. For one thing, while game 24 of the 1987 match was of enormous competitive significance - he had to win to retain the title against Karpov, with whom he had played four world championship matches in four years - it probably wasn't a game that would have been included on its merits alone. Also, while virtually all chess fans would include the Topalov game, Kasparov himself, after the event, thought that his win over Svidler several rounds later was an even better game - more "professional". I'm also surprised he didn't include game 16 of the 1985 match with Karpov, or...well, Kasparov has played so many great games, this post could go on long enough to push everything else in the archives.

So here are Kasparov's self-described best games (excluding the Topalov game, which was presented in this post):

First, game 19 of the 1985 match, which is noteworthy not only because it gave him a 2-point advantage with just five games to go, but because of its strategic completeness - Kasparov beats Karpov - badly - in a style more likely to be associated with his opponent.

Kasparov,Garry (2700) - Karpov,Anatoly (2720) [E21]
World Championship 32th-KK2 Moscow (19), 24.10.1985

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 Ne4 5.Qc2 f5 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Na5 10.c5 d6 11.c4 b6 12.Bd2 Nxd2 13.Nxd2 d5 14.cxd5 exd5 15.e3 Be6 16.Qc3 Rf7 17.Rfc1 Rb8 18.Rab1 Re7 19.a4 Bf7 20.Bf1 h6 21.Bd3 Qd7 22.Qc2 Be6 23.Bb5 Qd8 24.Rd1 g5 25.Nf3 Rg7 26.Ne5 f4 27.Bf1 Qf6 28.Bg2 Rd8 29.e4 dxe4 30.Bxe4 Re7 31.Qc3 Bd5 32.Re1 Kg7 33.Ng4 Qf7 34.Bxd5 Rxd5 35.Rxe7 Qxe7 36.Re1 Qd8 37.Ne5 Qf6 38.cxb6 Qxb6 39.gxf4 Rxd4 40.Nf3 Nb3 41.Rb1 Qf6 42.Qxc7+

1-0

Next, his title-saving win against Karpov from their 1987 match in Seville:

Kasparov,Garry (2740) - Karpov,Anatoly (2700) [A14]
World Championship 34th-KK4 Seville (24), 18.12.1987

1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.b3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 b6 7.Bb2 Bb7 8.e3 Nbd7 9.Nc3 Ne4 10.Ne2 a5 11.d3 Bf6 12.Qc2 Bxb2 13.Qxb2 Nd6 14.cxd5 Bxd5 15.d4 c5 16.Rfd1 Rc8 17.Nf4 Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Qe7 19.Rac1 Rfd8 20.dxc5 Nxc5 21.b4 axb4 22.Qxb4 Qa7 23.a3 Nf5 24.Rb1 Rxd1+ 25.Rxd1 Qc7 26.Nd3 h6 27.Rc1 Ne7 28.Qb5 Nf5 29.a4 Nd6 30.Qb1 Qa7 31.Ne5 Nxa4 32.Rxc8+ Nxc8 Kasparov has done a great job of outplaying Karpov in this pressure-packed game. Kasparov has a decisive advantage here and Karpov has less than a minute to complete his 40th move, but here White makes an error that could have cost him the title:

33.Qd1?? [33.Qb5! wins after 33...Kh7 34.Nc6 Qa8 35.Qd3+ f5 36.Qd8 (threatening Ne7) 36...Nc5 37.Kg2 Qa2 38.Ne5! (38.Qxc8?? Nd3-+) 38...Qb2 39.Nf7 Qf6 40.Qh8+ Kg6 41.Qg8! (Kasparov)] 33...Ne7?? In terrible time trouble, Karpov blunders back. He could have drawn, thereby regaining his title, had he found the nice tactical shot [33...Nc5! 34.Qd8+ Kh7 35.Kg2! (35.Qxc8? Qa1+ 36.Kg2 Qxe5 is the point of Black's tactical trick.) 35...f6! 36.Nc6 Qd7 37.Qxd7 Nxd7 38.Nd8 Nc5 39.Nxe6 Nxe6 40.Bg4 is equal, according to Kasparov. After the move in the game, Kasparov successfully grinds Karpov's position into the dust, retaining his title and breaking Karpov's heart yet again.] 34.Qd8+ Kh7 35.Nxf7 Ng6 36.Qe8 Qe7 37.Qxa4 Qxf7 38.Be4 Kg8 39.Qb5 Nf8 40.Qxb6 Qf6 41.Qb5 Qe7 42.Kg2 g6 43.Qa5 Qg7 44.Qc5 Qf7 45.h4 h5 46.Qc6 Qe7 47.Bd3 Qf7 48.Qd6 Kg7 49.e4 Kg8 50.Bc4 Kg7 51.Qe5+ Kg8 52.Qd6 Kg7 53.Bb5 Kg8 54.Bc6 Qa7 55.Qb4 Qc7 56.Qb7 Qd8 57.e5 Qa5 58.Be8 Qc5 59.Qf7+ Kh8 60.Ba4 Qd5+ 61.Kh2 Qc5 62.Bb3 Qc8 63.Bd1 Qc5 64.Kg2 1-0

The Next Big Thing in Internet Chess?

2005-03-12T16:04:00.000-05:00

Even though the internet wasn't made for chess, the internet was made for chess, if you catch my drift. As a medium for broadcasting live games, playing live games and posting chess content, it's nearly ideal. Further, there are audio/video presentations affiliated with the major chess servers (my ChessBase show, for example).

What's new - at least to me - is the possibility of creating one's own A/V chess content at relatively low cost - take a look (and a listen)! This sort of technology will be a great resource to chess teachers everywhere, and when I have some free time (ha!) I might give it a try as well.

Partisanship at its Finest

2005-03-12T15:51:00.000-05:00

Most of the comments I've seen concerning Kasparov in the wake of his announced retirement have been very gracious. Most, but not all...

(N.B. I'm unaware of any basis for the website's claim that the tiebreak rules, odd though they were, were decided upon after the fact in order to allow Kasparov to win the event, and do have reason to believe the contrary: (1) it's normal tournament practice and (2) Kasparov publicly cited his favorable tiebreak as part of the basis of his late-round coasting, a claim easily refuted if false.)

(Hat tip to Brian Karen.)

A Note from the Management

2005-03-12T03:08:00.000-05:00

Thanks to this blog's increasing popularity, my web transfer allocation limits are topping out more and more quickly all the time. It's now reached intolerable levels, so I'm fixing it now, and the problem should be completely fixed sometime today. Bear with me, and prepare to enjoy a crash-free site!

Update: Mission Accomplished!

More Tributes to Kasparov

2005-03-11T21:10:00.000-05:00

On the ChessBase site, Veselin Topalov offers some gracious words acknowledging Kasparov's stature in this video clip, while Tim Krabbé suggests (entry 279) in characteristically eloquent prose, that Kasparov's decision is more appropriately described as abdication than retirement.

Kasparov is a man who has inspired many strong feelings, not all of them positive, but I hope and expect the chess world will speak loudly and as one in appreciation of his enormous positive contributions to our game. I can sympathize with his decision to retire, as the current impasse in the world championship reunification process leaves him without any concrete competitive aspirations.

But I hope the artist in him will be unable to stay away.

Some Great Topalov Games

2005-03-11T19:46:00.000-05:00

Though not of the sort you might expect. Topalov has had a way of finding himself in some of the most brilliant games of our era. The following game, for example, has often been called the greatest game of the winner's career:

Kasparov,Garry (2812) - Topalov,Veselin (2700) [B07]
Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (4), 20.01.1999

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6 6.f3 b5 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6 Bb7 10.a3 e5 11.0-0-0 Qe7 12.Kb1 a6 13.Nc1 0-0-0 14.Nb3 exd4 15.Rxd4 c5 16.Rd1 Nb6 17.g3 Kb8 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Bh3 d5 20.Qf4+ Ka7 21.Rhe1 d4 22.Nd5 Nbxd5 23.exd5 Qd6

24.Rxd4 cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 27.b4+ Ka4 28.Qc3 Qxd5 29.Ra7 Bb7 30.Rxb7 Qc4 31.Qxf6 Kxa3 32.Qxa6+ Kxb4 33.c3+ Kxc3 34.Qa1+ Kd2 35.Qb2+ Kd1 36.Bf1 Rd2

37.Rd7 Rxd7 38.Bxc4 bxc4 39.Qxh8 Rd3 40.Qa8 c3 41.Qa4+ Ke1 42.f4 f5 43.Kc1 Rd2 44.Qa7 1-0

Likewise, the current world champion (or the nearest facsimile thereof) has won his share his beautiful games against our hero - witness this elegant effort.

Kramnik,Vladimir (2807) - Topalov,Veselin (2743) [B82]
Amber-blind 12th Monte Carlo (2), 16.03.2003

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f4 a6 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.Nb3 Rc8 11.Kb1 b5 12.Bd3 Nb4 13.g4 Bc6 14.g5 Nd7 15.Qf2 g6 16.Rhf1 Bg7 17.f5 Ne5 18.Bb6 Qd7 19.Be2 Qb7 20.Na5 Qb8 21.f6 Bf8 22.a3 Nxc2 23.Kxc2 Bxe4+ 24.Kb3 Ba8 25.Ba7 Qc7 26.Qb6 Qxb6 27.Bxb6 h6 28.Nxb5 Kd7 29.Bd4 Bd5+ 30.Ka4 axb5+ 31.Bxb5+ Bc6 32.Bxe5 Bxb5+ 33.Kxb5 Rc5+ 34.Kb6 Rxe5 35.Rc1 Rxa5 36.Rc7+ Kd8 37.Rfc1 Rc5 38.R1xc5 dxc5 39.Kc6 1-0

It's not necessary to be a world champion nor have the White pieces to win a beautiful game against Topalov, either, as that chess artiste Ivanchuk proves:

Topalov,Veselin (2700) - Ivanchuk,Vassily (2714) [A30]
Linares 16th Linares (13), 09.03.1999

1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.g3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 Qa5 7.Ndb5 d5 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nf6 10.Bg2 0-0 11.Qb3 dxc4 12.Qxc4 e5 13.Nd6 Be6 14.Qd3 e4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Bxe4 Rad8 17.Qc2 Nd4 18.Qb2

Nxe2 19.Kxe2 Rfe8 20.Qb4 Qh5+ 21.f3 f5 22.g4 Qh3 23.gxf5 Bxf5 24.Qc4+ Kh8 25.Re1 Rxe4+ 0-1

And then there's the brilliancy prize winner from an earlier Linares event, featuring the normally positional Bareev in an uncharacteristic mode:

Topalov,Veselin (2640) - Bareev,Evgeny (2685) [C13]
Linares 12th Linares (11), 1994

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.c3 Nd7 8.Qc2 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.f4 Ng6 11.g3 0-0 12.Bd3 Qd5 13.a3 Nxf4 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Bxh7+ Kg7 16.Qe4

Re8 17.Qxe8 Bf5 18.Qxa8 Qe4+ 19.Kf2 Qg2+ 20.Ke3 Nd5+ 21.Kd4 Qd2+ 22.Kc5 Qe3+ 23.Kc4 Nb6+ 0-1

Returning to the realm of world champions, Karpov, in the greatest tournament success of his outstanding career, also joined in the fun in that same event:

Karpov,Anatoly (2740) - Topalov,Veselin (2640) [A33]
Linares 12th Linares (4), 1994

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Bc5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.e3 Nxf4 12.exf4 Bd7 13.Qd2 Qb8 14.Rfe1 g6 15.h4 a6 16.h5 b5 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Nc5 dxc5 19.Qxd7 Rc8

20.Rxe6 Ra7 21.Rxg6+ fxg6 22.Qe6+ Kg7 23.Bxc6 Rd8 24.cxb5 Bf6 25.Ne4 Bd4 26.bxa6 Qb6 27.Rd1 Qxa6

28.Rxd4 Rxd4 29.Qf6+ Kg8 30.Qxg6+ Kf8 31.Qe8+ Kg7 32.Qe5+ Kg8 33.Nf6+ Kf7 34.Be8+ Kf8 35.Qxc5+ Qd6 36.Qxa7 Qxf6 37.Bh5 Rd2 38.b3 Rb2 39.Kg2 1-0

Our final game isn't noteworthy so much for the game as for Shirov's amazing 47th move. Not only is it brilliant and unexpected, it's the only way to win!

Topalov,Veselin (2740) - Shirov,Alexei (2710) [D85]
Linares 15th Linares (10), 04.03.1998

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Ba4 0-0 9.Ne2 Nd7 10.0-0 e5 11.f3 Qe7 12.Be3 Rd8 13.Qc2 Nb6 14.Bb3 Be6 15.Rad1 Nc4 16.Bc1 b5 17.f4 exd4 18.Nxd4 Bg4 19.Rde1 Qc5 20.Kh1 a5 21.h3 Bd7 22.a4 bxa4 23.Ba2 Be8 24.e5 Nb6 25.f5 Nd5 26.Bd2 Nb4 27.Qxa4 Nxa2 28.Qxa2 Bxe5 29.fxg6 hxg6 30.Bg5 Rd5 31.Re3 Qd6 32.Qe2 Bd7 33.c4 Bxd4 34.cxd5 Bxe3 35.Qxe3 Re8 36.Qc3 Qxd5 37.Bh6 Re5 38.Rf3 Qc5 39.Qa1 Bf5 40.Re3 f6 41.Rxe5 Qxe5 42.Qa2+ Qd5 43.Qxd5+ cxd5 44.Bd2 a4 45.Bc3 Kf7 46.h4 Ke6 47.Kg1

Bh3 48.gxh3 Kf5 49.Kf2 Ke4 50.Bxf6 d4 51.Be7 Kd3 52.Bc5 Kc4 53.Be7 Kb3 0-1

More on Kasparov's Retirement

2005-03-11T03:37:00.000-05:00

Further discussion and a partial video clip of Kasparov's announcement can be seen on the ChessBase news site, while further discussion and reflection, as well as some further analysis of the last round games, can be accessed here. I certainly hope Crowther is right and Kasparov imitates boxers (and Michael Jordan) and returns in a year or two. He may not have anything left to prove competitively, but to the extent that chess is an art (or art-like!), his absence will be a great loss to our game.

Linares: Round 14 Recap

2005-03-10T17:48:00.000-05:00

A bad day for Garry Kasparov, and an awful day for chess. Kasparov has won the 22nd edition of the Linares tournament, but only by virtue of a very strange tiebreak scheme. Entering the final round undefeated and with a one-point lead over his closest pursuer and last-round opponent, Veselin Topalov, he completely collapsed and lost. Normally, the first tiebreaker in a round-robin tournament is head-to-head scores, but in this event it was wins with Black, giving Kasparov the official first-place crown. A great day for Topalov, though:

Topalov,Veselin (2757) - Kasparov,Garry (2804) [B30]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (14), 10.03.2005
[Monokroussos]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Bc4 d6 5.d3 Be7 6.0-0 Nf6 7.Nh4

Novelty? [7.Ng5 is by far the most common move here.] 7...Nd4 [7...Nxe4 is clearly the most testing move, but it's also the riskiest, walking into a morass no doubt well-worked out by Topalov before the game. Offhand though, I don't see anything too terribly wrong with it. 8.Nxe4 (Maybe 8.dxe4 is best, as 8...Bxh4 9.Nb5 Be7 10.f4 0-0 11.f5 leaves White with good compensation for the pawn.) 8...d5 (8...Bxh4 9.Qh5 g6 (9...0-0? 10.Bg5+-) 10.Qh6 leaves White with a very dangerous initiative for the pawn.(10.Nxd6+? Kd7!-/+ (10...Qxd6 11.Qxh4+/-) ) ) 9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.Qf3 Qe6=/+] 8.g3 Bg4 9.f3 Be6 10.Bg5 Ng8 preserving the knight to maintain control over d5. 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.f4 exf4 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Rxf4 White has prevented kingside castling, but Black's position is sound enough to overcome this hassle. 14...Kd7 15.Nf3 Rf8 16.Rxf8 Qxf8 17.Nxd4 cxd4 18.Ne2 Qf6 19.c3

But now Kasparov needs to be careful - White's last move threatens to win a pawn, but more than that, it opens up lines of attack against the Black king. White's queen is ready to go to a4 or b3, the b- or c-file will be open for the White rook, and finally, Topalov's knight will have c3 or d4 at its disposal. Kasparov correctly decides to give up the pawn to complete his development and ensure his king's safety. 19...Rf8! [19...dxc3 20.Qa4+ Nc6 21.Rf1 Qg5 (21...Qe7 22.Qb3 (22.bxc3 Rf8 23.d4 Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1 Kc7 25.d5 exd5 26.exd5 Qf7+ 27.Nf4 Ne5 28.Kg2 (28.Qxa7? g5) 28...Kb8 with a very safe position.) 22...b6 23.Qxc3 Rf8 24.Rc1 Rc8 25.d4 and White has the upper hand, though I don't know if it's enough to become something concrete.) 22.Rf7+ Ke8 23.Rxb7 Qe3+ 24.Kf1 Qf3+ 25.Ke1 Qh1+ 26.Kf2 Qxh2+ 27.Ke3 Rc8 28.Rb8!! Qh6+ 29.Nf4 Rxb8 30.Qxc6+ Kd8 31.Qxd6+ Kc8 32.Qc6+ Kd8 33.bxc3+/-] 20.Nxd4 Nc6 21.Qf1 and now, something horrible: [21.Nxc6 Qf2+ 22.Kh1 Kxc6 23.Qa4+ Kc7 24.Qc4+ (24.Qd4 Qxd4 25.cxd4 Rf2 26.Rb1 Rd2=/+) 24...Kb8 25.Qxe6 Qf3+ 26.Kg1 Qf2+=]

21...Qxf1+?? Wow - bad wow. I once read a chess author declare that one shouldn't trade into a king and pawn ending down material unless that player was willing to bet his grandmother's life that it would lead to the desired result. That's a slightly sociopathic of way of putting it, but the general principle is right, as king and pawn endings are generally the easiest to win. Kasparov had plenty of time, too, so this must have been the result of panic, bad nerves, exhaustion or something else non-chess-related, as it was well within Kasparov's prodigious powers to determine that a blockade was impossible. [21...Qd8 22.Qc1 Qb6 would have allowed Kasparov to hold the game, win the tournament cleanly and end his career on a bright note. The only White move that could offer a bit of a scare is 23.Qg5 , and now Black has several reasonable options to choose from. 23...e5 (23...Nxd4 24.Qxg7+ Ke8 25.Qxd4 Qxb2 26.Rf1 Rxf1+ 27.Kxf1 Qc1+ 28.Kg2 Qd2+ 29.Kh3 Qh6+ 30.Kg4 Qg6+ 31.Kf3 Qh5+ 32.Ke3 Qh6+ 33.Kf3 Qh5+ and White must either submit to a perpetual or return the extra pawn with check (without receiving compensation, a thank-you, or a receipt for a tax deduction). 34.g4 Qh3+=; 23...Qxb2 24.Qxg7+ Ke8 25.Rf1 Rxf1+ 26.Kxf1 Nxd4 27.Qxd4= transposes to the 23...Nxd4 line.) 24.Qxg7+ Ke8 25.Rf1 Rxf1+ 26.Kxf1 exd4 27.Qg8+ Kd7 28.Qxh7+ Ne7 29.Qh3+ Kd8 30.Qh8+ Kd7 31.Qxd4 (31.Qh3+=) 31...Qxb2 32.Qxa7 Nc6 33.Qf2 Qc1+ 34.Kg2 Qxc3 and because White's kingside pawns aren't far advanced and his central pawns are weak, Black has nothing to fear in this position.] 22.Rxf1 Rxf1+ No choice now, as Black can only avoid the trade by allowing 23.Rf7+ and shedding more pawns. 23.Kxf1 Nxd4 The culmination of the bad idea, but the knight ending was lost, too. 24.cxd4 So, what in the world is Kasparov thinking? Blockade, that's what. His hope is for a position where the White king is stuck on its side of the board - imagine the White a-pawn on a4 and the g-pawn on g4; then Black plays a5, g5 and d5 and calls it a night. White could go for b4 and h4, but that's met by b6 and h6, and the lockout continues. That must have been his idea, but he clearly and badly miscalculated, as White is able to avoid such a barricade without too much difficulty, as we'll see. 24...d5 [24...g5 25.h4 gxh4 (25...g4 26.Ke2 Ke7 27.Ke3 Kf6 28.Kf4 h5 29.e5+ dxe5+ 30.dxe5+ Kg6 31.Ke4+-; 25...h6 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Kf2 Ke7 28.Kf3 Kf6 29.Kg4 Kg6 30.a4 a5 31.d5 exd5 32.exd5 Kf6 33.Kh5 Kf5 34.g4+ Kf4 35.d4 b6 36.b3+-) 26.gxh4 Ke7 27.Kf2 Kf6 28.Kf3 Kg6 29.Kg4 h5+ 30.Kf4 Kh6 (30...Kf6 31.e5++-) 31.d5 exd5 32.Kf5!+-; 24...h5 25.Kf2 Ke7 26.Kf3 Kf6 27.h4 a5 28.a4 b6 29.b3 g6 30.Kf4 g5+ (30...d5 31.g4+-) 31.hxg5+ Kg6 32.d5 e5+ 33.Ke3 Kxg5 34.d4+-] 25.Kf2 Ke7 26.Kf3 Kf6 27.h4 g6 28.b4 b5 29.Kf4 h6 30.Kg4 [30.Kg4 If Black could just refuse to move, the position would be drawn, but at some point in the very near future the king will have to retreat. Once that happens, White's king will break through to the fifth rank, and Black's pawns will start to fall. 30...a6 31.a3 and now: 31...Kf7 (31...dxe4 32.dxe4 e5 33.dxe5+ (33.d5??

would make all Black's dreams come true: 33...h5+! and Black has the sort of unbreakable blockade alluded to in the note after White's 24th move. Sadly, my software doesn't recognize this fact: Shredder 9, Junior 9 Deep Fritz 8 and Hiarcs 9 all give White a 2-3 pawn advantage here at 20-30 ply. Humans are still good for something! The algorithm for drawing here is quite simple: keep the Black king close enough to the d-pawn to prevent its (safely) queening and only capture White pawns when it's a recapture: 34.Kf3 Ke7 35.g4 Kd6 36.gxh5 gxh5 37.Ke3 Kd7 38.Kd3 Kd6 39.Kc3 Kd7 40.Kb3 Kd6 41.a4 Kd7 42.axb5 axb5 and only now - but instantly - do the programs recognize that it's a dead, dead, dead draw.) 33...Kxe5 34.Kf3+-) 32.exd5 exd5 33.h5 Kf6 (33...gxh5+ 34.Kf5+-) 34.hxg6 Kxg6 35.Kh4 h5 36.g4 hxg4 37.Kxg4 Kf6 38.Kf4 Ke6 39.Kg5+-] 1-0

The other two games were of less competitive interest, but worthy of attention nonetheless. Michael Adams has suffered many defeats at the hands of Viswanathan Anand, but today at least he got a measure of revenge:

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Adams,Michael (2741) [E15]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (14), 10.03.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Bg2 c6 8.Bc3 d5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Nd2 0-0 12.0-0 Rc8 13.e4 b5 14.Re1 dxe4 15.Bxe4 bxc4 16.Nxc4 Nb6 17.Nxb6 axb6 18.Qc2 h6 19.a4 Qc7 20.Red1 Rfd8 21.Rac1 Qa7 22.Bb2 b5 23.Ra1 bxa4 24.bxa4 [24.Rxa4 Qb6 25.Rda1 Bb5 26.Ra7 Rc7 27.Rxc7 Qxc7 28.Rc1 ought to draw without any difficulties.] 24...Bf6

25.Qd2? White's position was under a little pressure, but his counter-pressure against c6 kept the game fairly balanced. Thus by allowing Black to increase the pressure against d4 while simultaneously removing the c6-pawn from danger, White has given Black's winning chances a big boost. 25...c5 26.d5 Bxb2 27.Qxb2 Bb7 28.Qe5 Qa8 29.a5 Bxd5 30.Bxd5 exd5 And Black is winning. 31.a6 d4 32.Rd3 Rd7 33.h4 Qa7 34.Rb3 c4 35.Rb4 c3 36.Qf5 g6 37.Qd3 c2 38.Rc1 Rc3 39.Qd2 Qxa6 40.Rxc2 Qc6 41.Rbb2 Kh7 42.Qd1 h5 43.Kh2 Rc7 44.Rxc3 dxc3 45.Rc2 Qe4 46.Rc1 Kg7 47.Rc2 Rc8 48.Rc1 Rc5 49.Kg1 Kh7 50.Qd6 Rf5 51.Qd7 Rf3 52.Qa7 Qd5 Black's next three moves are likely to be ...Qd2, ...c2 and ...Rxf2, and as White has no way to stop it without allowing something worse in return, Anand became the second of the unbeatens to fall. 0-1

Finally, the Peter Leko-Francisco Vallejo Pons game was a contest between two players eager to stop unfavorable trends. Vallejo Pons, understandably, wanted to avoid dead last, while Leko, a player often tagged as someone a bit too fond of the half-point, wanted to avoid a clean sweep of the tournament - 12 draws. Leko tried hard, but failed:

Leko,Peter (2749) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [B32]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (14), 10.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 a6 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7.Qxd6 Qf6 8.Qd2 Nge7 9.Nc3 d6 10.b3 0-0 11.Bb2 Be6 12.Nd5 Qh4 13.Nxe7+ Nxe7 14.Bd3 d5 15.Qe3 d4 16.Qg3 Qxg3 17.hxg3 Nc6 18.c3 Rfd8 19.Ke2 a5 20.cxd4 Nxd4+ 21.Ke3 a4 22.f4 f6 23.bxa4 Rxa4 24.Rhc1 Rxa2 25.Rxa2 Bxa2 26.fxe5 fxe5 27.Rc5 Nc6 28.Bxe5 Nxe5 29.Rxe5 Kf8 30.Rh5 h6 31.Rb5 Rd7 32.g4 Be6 33.g5 hxg5 34.Rxg5 Rc7 35.Kd4 Kf7 36.Rb5 Rd7+ 37.Ke3 Rc7 38.Rb6 Ke7 39.Kd4 Bc8 40.Bc4 Rc6 41.Rb2 Rg6 42.Bd5 b6 43.g3 Rxg3 44.Rxb6 Rg1 45.Rb8 Bd7 46.Rb7 Kd8 47.Ra7 Rg2 48.Ke5 Rg5+ 49.Kd6 Rg6+ 50.Kc5 Rg5 51.Rb7 Rh5 52.Rb6 Rg5 53.Ra6 Ke7 54.Kd4 Rg1 55.Ra7 Kd8 56.Bc4 Rg4 57.Kd5 Rg6 58.Kc5 Rc6+ 59.Kd4 Rg6 60.e5 Be6 61.Bb5 Rg1 62.Kc5 Rd1 63.Rxg7 Rd5+ 64.Kc6 Rxe5 65.Rh7 Rf5 66.Kd6 Rd5+ 67.Kxe6 Rxb5 1/2-1/2

Final Standings:

Kasparov, Topalov 8/12 (Kasparov first on tiebreak)
Anand 6.5/12
Leko 6/12
Adams 5.5/12
Vallejo Pons, Kasimdzhanov 4/12

More news about the Kasparov retirement can be found here.

Kasparov Retires from Chess?!

2005-03-10T16:43:00.000-05:00

According to the ChessBase website, Kasparov, after losing one of the worst games of his career (in my opinion) but still winning Linares on a very weird tiebreak over Topalov, has announced his retirement from professional chess. Life goes on and so will chess, but for me, at least, this is a sad day.

More on the announcement and my round recap later tonight.

Master Prizes: What do Organizers Have Against Them?

2005-03-10T02:50:00.000-05:00

Grandmaster, role model, sometime ESPN chess commentator and organizer Maurice Ashley is sponsoring what I assume is by far the most lucrative open tournament in U.S. history, the HB Global Chess Challenge in Minneapolis, Minnesota from May 18-22, 2005.

How lucrative? The guaranteed prize fund is $500,000. The Open, U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600 and U1400 sections all have 50 prizes. If your rating is from 1001-1200 or under 1000, you're at least eligible for five rating-restricted prizes in addition to the 50 in the U1400, and even unrateds have 10 special prizes as well. In short, it's serious money, and it's safe to say that players of all levels will flock to the event - including, of course, titled players (grandmasters and international masters). I wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find at least 40-50 GMs and about that many more IMs in the event - and this doesn't even include all the "civilian" masters who will participate in this event.

Now for the problem. If your rating is exactly 1600 and you're competing for U1800 money, you'll have your work cut out for you, given that you're at the bottom of your rating pool. Even so, you won't have to face anyone more than 199 points higher rated than you are. Difficult? Yes. Inconvenient? Sure - but the rating gap isn't that big.

But for masters, the situation is radically different. A 2200-rated player will be competing with 2750-rated players for the same prize pool and this, ladies and gentlemen, is nuts. (Any 1500s out there want to compete for expert money?)

To be fair, I haven't told the full story yet: there are also three special prizes for those between 2300-2449 and another three for those under 2300. They're pretty good prizes, too, equivalent to the first-third prizes in the U2200, U2000, U1800 and U1600 sections. But still: only three? There will be plenty of 2200s, and since their chances to outdo the GMs, IMs and all the rest above 2300 are exceedingly slim, they're essentially playing for just those three prizes. And things aren't much better for the 2300-2449 crowd: their gap to the top players is a bit smaller, but on the other hand, they're in a larger rating pool.

I know that there aren't as many masters as there are experts, and the prize money has to come from entry fees. But even with that understanding and the three token prizes (why not more prizes, even if at the cost of reducing their amount?) to ameliorate the concern, it's not enough, at least for me. Tournaments like this are expensive (and most of the big tournaments are alike in offering only a very few, generally token prizes to ordinary masters), and since I've already enjoyed the big tournament experience on many occasions, I think I'll pass on this one. I wish the tournament well, but I don't think this is an equitable situation.

Who Should We Root For?

2005-03-10T01:55:00.000-05:00

In an earlier post, I mentioned Ayn Rand's open letter to Boris Spassky, and one part of the letter really grabbed my attention. After writing that she and all her friends are rooting for Fischer as protest against the Soviet regime, she lists in the very next paragraph a series of Fischer's bad behaviors: "He throws tantrums like a child, breaks agreements, makes arbitrary demands, and indulges in the kind of whim worship one touch of which in the playing of chess would disqualify him for a high-school tournament."

But between Fischer's misbehavior and Spassky's supererogatory behavior during the match, I found her decision to root for Fischer puzzling. (Not necessarily mistaken, just puzzling.) Of course, there were mitigating circumstances in the case of Rand and the Fischer-Spassky match, but I'm interested in the general question: should one root for the worse sportsman (no pun intended!), just because he or she is one of "ours"? That is, are Americans justified in rooting for an American just because he's American, or men for a man just because he's a man, etc., even though they know that the opponent is otherwise more admirable. All things being equal, it's unproblematic, but if things aren't equal, then what?

Discuss.

(Not) All Rook Endings are Drawn

2005-03-10T01:20:00.000-05:00

Two of my chess students played in a local scholastic event this past weekend, and in the last round one of them had a chance for second place. Unfortunately, some inaccuracies in the late stages of the opening cost him a pawn, and many moves later he (playing Black) was still a pawn down in the following position:

White is winning handily: the Black's king is cut off and he has no prospects of counterplay. Unless White is generous and contributes material to the cause, the win will be in the bag. Which means, of course, that White played

1.b6? Blundering a pawn! Ironically, this move wins quickly and efficiently, but White, reeling from the recognition of his unintentionally giving up the pawn fails to seize his chance. [1.Rc6+ Kd5 (1...Ke5 2.b6 is even easier.) 2.Rxf6 Re4+ 3.Kc3 Re3+ 4.Kd2 Re7 5.b6 axb6 6.Rxb6 Ke4 7.a6 Ra7 8.Ke2 Kf4 9.Kf2 Rc7 10.g3+ Ke4 11.Rb4+ Ke5 12.Rb2 Ke4 13.Ra2 Ra7 14.Ra4+ wins - the White king moves up the board, heading either east or west, depending on what the Black king does, either winning the rook for the a-pawn or breaking through on the kingside.] 1...Rb1+ 2.Kc4? Natural - but bad; it's only this move that throws away the win. [Instead, 2.Ka3! wins elegantly, using the bridge-building technique all players should recognize from the Lucena position. Black's king is close enough to stop the White a-pawn after the trade of rooks, but in the long run Black's kingside weakness will cost him the game: 2...axb6 3.a6 Ra1+ (3...Re1 4.a7 Re8 5.Rd2+ Kc5 6.Re2 Ra8 7.Re7 b5 8.Rxf7 h6 9.Kb3 Rd8 10.Rc7+ Kb6 11.Rh7 Rd3+ 12.Kb4 Rd4+ 13.Kc3 Ra4 14.Rxh6 Rxa7 15.g5 Kc5 16.gxf6 Ra3+ 17.Kd2 Ra2+ 18.Ke3 Kd6 19.g4 Ke6 20.g5+-) 4.Ra2 Rxa2+ 5.Kxa2 Kc6 6.Kb3 b5 7.a7 Kb7 8.Kb4 Kxa7 9.Kxb5 Kb7 10.Kc5 Kc7 11.Kd5 Kd7 12.Ke4 Ke6 13.Kf4 Kd6 14.Kf5 Ke7 15.g3 h6 16.h4 Ke8 17.Kxf6 Kf8 18.h5 Kg8 19.g5 hxg5 20.Kxg5 Kg7 21.g4 Kh7 22.Kf6 Kg8 23.g5 Kf8 24.g6 fxg6 25.hxg6 Kg8 26.g7 Kh7 27.Kf7+-] 2...axb6 3.a6 This too is dubious, and exhibits a common psychological failing of players who have blown a win and know they've blown it. Instead of acquiescing in the position as it is, they play as if they are still winning. The consequence is often a continued slide down the hill, and that's what happens here, too. [3.Rd2+ Kc7 4.axb6+ Rxb6 5.Rd5 Rb2 6.Rh5 Rxg2 7.Rxh7 Kd6 8.Kd4 Ke6 ought to be drawn, but White can pretend to bother Black for a while.] 3...b5+! [3...Ra1 may be playable too, as 4.Kb5 goes nowhere due to 4...Rb1+ Even so, 3...b5+ is better, driving the king back.] 4.Kd4 Rb4+! 5.Kd3 Ra4 At this point I was getting excited: White has lost a pawn and a good deal of space, too, since our starting position; add to this his time trouble (he had less than a minute and a half, albeit with the execrable late-20th century invention of time delay as a safety net), and a miracle for Black was starting to look possible! Objectively, the position is still thoroughly drawn, but the trends are going in the right direction. 6.Rb2 [6.Rf2 Ke6 7.Rf5 b4 8.Kc4 Rxa6 9.Kxb4 Ra2 10.Rh5 Rxg2 11.Kc4 and the position is a dead draw.]

6...Kc6?? OH NO!!!!!!!!!!! Black is right to protect the b-pawn, and his thought must have been that it's better to bring the king into the square of the pawn. But the latter is unnecessary - the rook is going to capture the a-pawn, so it's better to place the king on a more active square. Thus with [6...Kc5! Black gets to direct things, and now it's White who must play accurately to draw. 7.Rc2+ Kd5 8.Rb2 (8.Rc7 is best, going active. Indeed, if there's one rule for rook endings, whether for the strong side or the weak side, it's to play actively! Now the position will quickly resolve itself as a draw after an MPM (mutual pawn massacre). 8...Rxa6 9.Rxf7 Ra3+ 10.Kc2 Rg3 11.Rxh7 Rxg2+ 12.Kb3 f5 13.Rh5 Ke4= 14.Rxf5 (14.gxf5 Rf2 15.Kb4 Rxf5 16.Rxf5 Kxf5 17.Kxb5 Kg5 18.Kc4 Kh4 19.Kd3 Kxh3) 14...Rg3+ 15.Kb4 Rxh3 16.Kxb5 Rg3 17.Rg5 Kf4 18.Rg8 Rxg4 19.Rxg4+ Kxg4) 8...Ra3+ 9.Kd2 Kc5 10.Rc2+ Kb6 Had this position occurred, as I think was entirely possible, I think Black would have had excellent chances to win in White's time pressure. Nevertheless, White should still draw after 11.Kc1 Rxa6 12.Kb2 when Black is in a sort of zugzwang: if the rook moves, 13.Rf2 wins the f6 pawn; if the king moves, then the White rook gets in via c5 or c7. (Pawn moves change nothing - White will play 13.Kb3 in reply and Black's dilemma recurs.) 12...Ka5 (12...Ra7 13.Rf2=) 13.Rc7 Re6 14.Rxf7 Kb4 15.Rxh7 Re2+ 16.Kb1 Rxg2 17.Rf7 Kb3 18.Kc1 Rg3 19.Rxf6 Rxh3=] So, even 6...Kc5 is only a draw. But what's so bad about 6...Kc6? Here's the answer: 7.Rf2! Sadly, the king on c6 prevents Black from defending the f6 pawn with ...Rxa6. White keeps the a-pawn (unless Black captures it, allowing tranposition to a lost pawn ending, as in the game) and devours too many Black pawns too quickly. A pity, but it just goes to show you: not all rook endings are drawn! And yet, resistance was still possible, had Black continued actively, even here. 7...Ra3+? [7...Kd5!

(Going active!) makes things much, much more difficult for White. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure that White is objectively winning here; I think he is, but there are many drawing lines. This is the best I've come up with so far: 8.Rxf6 b4! (8...Ke5 wins the a-pawn straight away, but the loss of time is too significant, and White wins after 9.Rxf7 Ra3+ 10.Ke2 Rxa6 11.Rxh7 Rb6 12.Kd3 Kf4 13.Kc3 Re6 14.Kb4 Re2 15.Kxb5 Rxg2 , when according to the tablebases White has a forced mate in 49 (actually less - see below). Here are the moves - the end is trivial, but it's useful to see how White advances the pawns through what seems like somewhat of a blockade. 16.Rh5 Re2 17.Kc6 Ra2 18.g5 Ra6+ 19.Kb5 Re6 20.h4 Ke5 21.Rh7 Kf5 22.Kc5 Re5+ 23.Kc6 Kg6 24.Rh6+ Kg7 25.Rd6 Re4 26.h5 Rh4 27.Rg6+ Kh7 28.Rh6+ Kg7 29.Kd6 Rg4 30.Rg6+ Kf7 31.Rf6+ Kg7 32.Rf5 Rd4+ 33.Rd5 Rh4 34.g6 Rh1 35.Ke6 Re1+ 36.Kf5 Rf1+ 37.Ke4 Re1+ 38.Kf3 Kh6 39.Rd8 Rg1 40.Rh8+ Kg7 41.Rh7+ Kf6 42.Kf4 Rf1+ 43.Kg4 Rg1+ 44.Kh3 Rg5 45.Rf7+ Ke6 46.Kh4 Rg1 47.Rf3 Ke7 48.Rg3 Rh1+ 49.Kg5 Kf8 50.Rf3+ Ke7 51.Kh6 Ke6 52.g7 Rg1 53.Re3+ Kf7 54.Rf3+ Ke6 55.Kh7 Ke5 56.h6 Ke4 57.Rf7 Ke5 58.Re7+ Kf6 59.Rc7 Rg2 60.Kh8 Ke5 61.g8Q (61.h7 is slower, but it's the "official" tablebase move. The reason, I believe, is that KQRPkr isn't in the tablebase, so that possibility just gets ignored. 61.h7 is an example of what we might call Chinese Room Chess, which is to say, not chess at all. 61...Kd6 62.Rc4 Kd7 63.Rd4+ Kc6 64.g8Q Rxg8+ 65.hxg8Q Kb5 66.Qe6 Kc5 67.Rc4+ Kb5 68.Qc6+ Ka5 69.Ra4#) 61...Rc2 62.Rxc2 Kd6 63.Qg5 Ke6 64.Rc6+ Kd7 65.Qd5+ Ke7 66.Qe6+ Kd8 67.Rc8#) 9.Kc2! (9.Rxf7 looks as natural as the Rockies, but I think Black draws here! 9...Ra3+ 10.Kc2 Rxa6 11.Rxh7 Ra3 12.Rh8 (12.g5 Ra2+ 13.Kb3 Rxg2 14.h4 Rg4 15.Rh8 Kc5= with a draw, as White can't make any progress on the kingside without losing a pawn or getting mated - which would hardly count as progress at all. 16.Rh6 with the idea of crawling forward with g6, h5, Rh7, g7, etc. I'm showing this terrible idea only to show that White doesn't have time for this. 16...Rg3+ 17.Kb2 Rg2+ 18.Kb1 (18.Kb3 Rg3+=) 18...b3 19.g6 Kb4 20.h5?? Kc3 followed by 21...Rg1#) 12...Rc3+ 13.Kd2 Rg3 14.Ke2 Rxg2+ 15.Kf3 Rh2 16.Kg3 Rh1 17.Rb8 Kc4 18.g5 b3 19.Kg2 Rd1 20.h4 Rd2+ 21.Kg3 b2 22.g6 Rd3+ 23.Kf4 Rd4+! (23...Rb3 is the right idea at the wrong time, because after the trade of rooks and mutual promotion, the geometry of the position is such that White can force the trade of queens and win. 24.Rxb3 Kxb3 25.g7 b1Q 26.g8Q+ Kc3 27.Qg7+ Kc4 (27...Kd2 28.Qd4+ and White's next move forces the trade of queens) 28.Qc7+ Kd5 29.Qd7+ Kc4 30.Qe6+ Kc3 (30...Kc5 31.Qf5+) 31.Qe3+ and the trade of queens is inevitable) 24.Kg5 Rd5+ 25.Kh6 Rb5 26.Rxb5 Kxb5 and now, because White can't force the trade of queens, it's a draw! 27.g7 b1Q 28.g8Q Qe4 with a tablebase draw.) 9...Ra3 10.Kb2! (10.g5 Kc4 11.Rf4+ Kb5 12.Rxf7 Kxa6 13.Rxh7 Ra2+ 14.Kb3 Rxg2 15.h4 Rg4 16.Ka4 (16.Rh6+ Kb5 17.g6 Rg3+ 18.Kb2 Rg2+ 19.Kb1 Kc4 and White must abandon the g-pawn to save the draw, as 20.h5?? loses to 20...Kc3 21.Rh8 Rg1+ 22.Ka2 b3+ 23.Ka3 Ra1#) 16...Kb6 again seems to be a draw. White can only push the kingside pawns with the Rh6, g6, h5, Rh7 etc. crawl technique, but Black's queenside counterplay is much too fast. Thus 17.Rh6+ Kc5 18.g6?? Rg3 19.Rh5+ Kc4 20.Ka5 b3 21.Rg5 b2 (21...Rxg5+= 22.hxg5 b2 23.g7 b1Q 24.g8Q+ is a tablebase draw, though Black does need to be careful here.) 22.Rxg3 b1Q and Black wins (tablebase says mate in 33)) 10...Kc4 11.Rf4+ Kd5 12.Rxf7 Rxa6 13.Rxh7 Ra3 14.Rb7 Kc4 15.Rc7+ Kd4 16.Rf7 Rg3 17.Rf4+ Kc5 18.Rf3 Rxg2+ 19.Kb3+- Finally, with the kingside pawns protected and unblockaded, and with Black lacking queenside counterplay - all thanks to the beautifully posted rook on f3 - we can conclude to a White win. But it wasn't easy!] 8.Kd4 Ra4+ 9.Kc3 Ra3+ 10.Kb4 Ra4+ 11.Kb3 Rxa6 12.Rxf6+ Kb7 13.Rxf7+ and now Black should retreat his king to the back rank, but that would only make the game last longer without giving him any real chances to survive. 13...Kb6 14.Rf6+ Ka5 15.Rxa6+ Kxa6 16.g5 Kb6 17.h4 Kc5 18.h5 Kd6 19.g6 hxg6 20.h6! etc. 1-0

Mmm...Enchiladas

2005-03-09T20:10:00.000-05:00

It's nice to receive compliments on my blogging, especially from a writer who has himself set the bar pretty high. Even so, the thought of having my work compared to an enchilada, tasty or otherwise, is not one that would have occurred to me - but read for yourselves.

While I'm at it, thanks also to Harbinger (sleep? What's that?) and to local chess enthusiast and higher ed. blogger Ken Smith (not that Ken Smith, of course) for their kind words.

We now return to our regularly scheduled, non-self-congratulatory programming.

Linares: Round 13 Recap

2005-03-09T16:59:00.000-05:00

One round to go, and the tournament remains undecided!

Let's first present and dispense with the one game not affecting the race for first: Kasimdzhanov-Leko. Kasimdzhanov seemed content to end the tournament (he has the bye for tomorrow's round), understandably, while Leko felt unable to do anything with the final position and took his 11th straight draw. Zzzzzzz.

Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) - Leko,Peter (2749) [B31]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (13), 09.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.a3 Bg4 8.d3 Nf6 9.Nbd2 Nd7 10.h3 Be6 11.Nc4 0-0 12.Bd2 Qe7 13.Bc3 f6 14.Qe2 Rfd8 15.Na5 Rab8 16.Reb1 Rdc8 17.b4 b6 18.Nb3 Bf7 19.bxc5 bxc5 20.Qe3 Bf8 21.a4 c4 22.dxc4 Nb6 23.c5 Nd7 24.Bb2 Bxb3 1/2-1/2

Meanwhile, with a chance to clinch clear first and to pursue not merely a win but a rout of the field Kasparov chose instead to waste the White pieces against Anand, coasting in with a 22-move draw featuring a whopping total of 2 new half-moves: Anand makes a novelty, Kasparov replies and offers a draw, and game over. Again, zzzzzzzz.

Kasparov,Garry (2804) - Anand,Veselin (2786) [C42]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (13), 09.03.2005

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 Rfe8 15.Bf4 Rac8 16.Bd3 Qd7 17.Rb1 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 b6 19.d5 Bf6 20.c4 h6 21.h3 Ne7N [21...Re7 22.Rbd1 Rd8 23.Rxe7 Nxe7 24.Ne5 Bxe5 25.Bxe5 Re8 26.Bg3 Nf5 27.Bxc7 Qxc7 28.Qxf5 Qxc4 29.d6 Rd8 30.d7 Qc6 31.g3 a6 32.h4 b5 33.Rd5 a5 34.Rxb5 g6 35.Qd5 Qxd7 36.Qxd7 Rxd7 37.Rxa5 Kg7 38.a4 Rd1+ 39.Kg2 Ra1 40.g4 Kf6 41.Kg3 Rc1 42.Rb5 g5 43.Rf5+ Kg6 44.h5+ Kg7 45.a5 Ra1 46.Kg2 Re1 47.f3 Re6 48.Kf2 Kf8 49.Rb5 Kg7 50.Rf5 Kf8 51.Rc5 Kg7 52.Rb5 Kf8 53.Rb6 Re5 54.a6 Kg7 55.a7 Ra5 56.Rb7 Ra3 57.Ke2 Kf6 58.Kd2 Ke6 59.Kc2 f6 60.Kb2 Ra4 61.Kb3 Ra1 62.Kb4 Kd6 63.Rh7 Ke5 64.Kb5 Ra2 65.Kb6 Kd5 1-0 Leko,P-Anand,V/Linares 2003/CBM 094] 22.Ne5 1/2-1/2

Thankfully, the ever-aggressive Topalov was playing. A win over Vallejo Pons would bring him within a point of Kasparov on the eve of their last-round game - in which Topalov will have White - so motivation was not a problem. Unfortunately for Vallejo, he seemed overly interested in drawing and insufficiently prepared for a fight. This probably explains his passive play, of which Topalov took full advantage:

Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) - Topalov,Veselin (2757) [D37]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (13), 09.03.2005

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Qc2 [7.e3 is by far the most common move, and it scores better, too.] 7...dxc4 8.e3 c5 9.dxc5 Qa5 10.Bxc4 Qxc5 11.Ne4 Qa5+ 12.Ke2 Be7 13.Qc3 [13.g4 was played in an earlier game (also lost by White), but its aggression isn't in keeping with Vallejo's safety-first approach.] 13...Qxc3 14.Nxc3 a6 15.Rhd1 Nd7 16.Ne4

White offered a draw here, and it looks like a reasonable request. Nd6+ is coming, eliminating Black's bishop pair, and then what could possibly go wrong? 16...b5 17.Bb3 Bb7 18.Nd6+ Bxd6 19.Rxd6 Ke7 20.Rad1 [20.Rdd1 may be better, to follow with Rac1, neutralizing any activity Black might try to scrounge up with the rooks. Black still has a micro-edge, as his minor pieces are both slightly preferable to their White counterparts, but that's manageable. If Black's rooks become superior too, the edge may become threatening.] 20...Rhd8 21.R6d4 Rac8 And there we go - another mini-advantage for Black. Now the next thing White has to worry about is ...a5-a4 followed by ...Rc2. It's not fatal yet (not even close!), but the camel's lumbar regions has its limits. 22.Ne1 Covering c2, but going backward isn't a good sign. 22...a5 23.f3 The point of this move is not just to support e4, but to block the Bb7's attack on g2, thereby allowing the Ne1 to reemerge on d3 to challenge a Black knight on c5 or e5. 23...Rc7 Covering the Nd7, so the Rd8 can double on the c-file and the knight can move without allowing a trade of rooks. Note that Black's moves keep generating new avenues to milk the position, while White is in a purely reactive mode. 24.e4 Rdc8 25.a3 g5 A nice move which grabs kingside space, secures e5 for the knight and fixes White's kingside pawns on light squares, just where White's bishop does not want them to be. 26.Ke3 Ne5 27.R4d2 Ba6 28.Rd6 Ra7 29.R6d2 b4!

According to Topalov (see today's TWIC report), it's now "game over". This declaration may be premature, but between White's passivity, tactical problems involving the c4 square and lack of time, Black's victory is at least a practical certainty. Black is threatening 30...a4 followed by ...b3 (if necessary), winning the exchange and burying White's bishop, so White must stop one or the other of those pawn moves. 30.axb4 [30.a4 Rac7 31.Kf2 (31.g3 Bc4 32.Bc2 Ba2 33.Bd3 Bb3 34.Ra1 Rc1 35.Rxc1 Rxc1 36.Ng2 Nxd3 37.Kxd3 Bxa4-+ is hopeless.) 31...Bc4 32.Bxc4 Nxc4 33.Re2 Nb6-/+ is unpleasant for White, but maybe resistance is still possible.] 30...Rb8 31.Ra1 [31.Nc2 a4! 32.Bxa4! Nc4+ 33.Kf2 Nxd2 34.Rxd2 looks like a better defensive chance.] 31...Rxb4 32.Ra3 a4 33.Ba2 Bc4 34.Bb1 [34.Kf2 Rab7 35.Rc2 seems to avoid tactical disasters, though Black's huge positional advantage remains.] 34...Bf1 [34...Rab7 35.Nd3 Bxd3 36.Bxd3 Nxd3 37.Raxd3 Rxb2 38.Rd7+ Kf6 39.Rxb7 Rxb7 40.Ra2 Rb3+ 41.Kd2 g4 42.fxg4 Rb4 43.h3 Ke5-+ is an alternative route to the full point. Vallejo was, as usual, in time terrible time trouble, so Topalov chose instead to provoke a pre-time control collapse instead, and it worked!] 35.Ba2 Rab7 36.Nc2 [36.Kf2 , getting away from some of the fork possibilities, keeps White in the game after 36...Bc4 37.Rc2] 36...Rxb2 37.Rxa4 Rc7 38.Kf2 Bb5 White is losing a piece for nothing, so it's time to quit. 0-1

Standings after Round 13:

Kasparov 8/11
Topalov 7/11
Anand 6.5/11
Leko 5.5/11
Adams 4.5/11
Kasimdzhanov 4/12
Vallejo Pons 3.5/11

Pairings for Round 14:

Topalov-Kasparov (For first place!)
Anand-Adams
Leko-Vallejo Pons
Kasimdzhanov - bye

Do You Recognize this Position?

2005-03-08T21:30:00.000-05:00

Here we are:

Before reading on, do two (three?) things: try to remember if and when you've seen this game before, and then try to solve it - Black to move.

***********************************

A couple of weeks ago, I was playing through the game from which this position was taken with one of my students, and while I felt comfortable about the pedagogical value of the opening and middlegame, I was sure that the student would recognize and solve this position in a millisecond. My student succeeded in solving it fairly quickly, but had no clue as to the game's origins.

I was shocked! When I was an up-and-coming kid in the late 70s and early 80s, the diagrammed position was one I came across all the time, both in tactics books and various sorts of chess history books. To players of my generation, this position was as trite as "It was a dark and stormy night" is to writers, and for any of us not to instantly recognize it would have been almost as inconceivable as a normal adult American's not recognizing the Star-Spangled Banner.

And yet my student didn't recognize the position at all. Further, I asked several more of my students if they recognized it as well as a number of acquaintances, and the results were nearly universal - almost no one knew it!

What did these people have in common, aside from not recognizing the position? Answer: they all grew up (as chess players) in the internet age. I'm certainly not a Luddite, and I think the computer chess revolution has done wonders for the game, but if even the highlights of the history of the game are falling into obscurity, something has been lost, too - something of value. Sharing the great games of our game's history is what motivated my ChessBase show (and its predecessor), but I didn't realize the situation was so dire!

***************************************************

Back to the position. The game was Bernstein-Capablanca, Moscow (exhibition game) 1914, and the winning move is 29...Qb2!, taking advantage of White's weak back rank and forcing immediate resignation.

In case anyone would like to explore the game in more detail, or has doubts about my claim that the position is a standard in the literature, here are ten books just from my own library that include the game; I'm sure it can be found in many, many other works as well:

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, vol. I, p. 243.
Anatoly Lein and Boris Archangelsky, Sharpen Your Tactics, position 340 (p. 67).
Lou Hays, ed., Winning Chess Tactics for Juniors, position 442 (p. 94).
Fred Reinfeld, 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations, position 695 (p. 139).
Graham Burgess, The Mammoth Book of Chess, p. 454.
Graham Burgess, John Nunn and John Emms, The World's Greatest Chess Games, game 13 (pp. 73-78).
Max Euwe, From Steinitz to Fischer, game 433 (p. 154).
Alexander Khalifman and Leonid Yudasin, eds., Jose Raoul Capablanca (Chess Stars), game 164 (p. 139).
Fred Reinfeld, The Immortal Games of Capablanca, game 24 (pp. 63-65).
Jose Raúl Capablanca, My Chess Career, game 21 (pp. 110-113).

Linares: Round 12 Recap

2005-03-08T19:30:00.000-05:00

Something new - two wins in one day! In fact, it should have been three, but Anand gutted out a draw in a lost rook and pawn ending to keep his slim chances for first place alive.

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [A30]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (12), 08.03.2005

1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qf4 Qb8 10.Qxb8+ Rxb8 11.Bf4 Rc8 12.Nb5 Ne4 13.Rfd1 a6 14.Nd6+ Nxd6 15.Bxd6 Bxd6 16.Rxd6 Ke7 17.Rad1 Rc7 18.b3 f6 19.Ne1 Rb8 20.Nc2 Bc8 21.f4 Nd8 22.e4 Nf7 23.R6d2 Bb7 24.a4 a5 25.h4 Rd8 26.Kf2 Rc5 27.Nd4 Ba8 28.Ke3 Bb7 29.Bf3 Ba8 30.f5 Even though it leaves a hole on e5, White has to play something like this if he's to convert his space advantage into something tangible. 30...Re5 31.g4 Nd6 32.fxe6 dxe6 33.Nb5 Nf7 34.Rxd8 Nxd8 35.Na7 [35.Nd6 will also be met by 35...Bb7] 35...Bb7 36.Rb1 Kd7=

37.b4?-+ Around here Kasparov was finishing his win over Adams, and perhaps Anand felt pressured to make something happen. Something does happen now, but it's not favorable to White! 37...axb4 38.Rxb4 Ra5 39.Nb5 Nc6 And just as simple as that, White is out a pawn for absolutely nothing - in fact, Black has the better position too, to boot! 40.Rb1 Ne5 41.Be2 Rxa4 42.Nc3 Ra3 43.Kd2 Kc6 44.g5 Ba6 45.gxf6 gxf6 46.Rf1 Nxc4+ [46...Bxc4 47.Rxf6 b5 may be even better than the game, with ...b4 on the agenda. For example, if 48.Bxc4 Nxc4+ 49.Kc2 b4 50.Nd1 Kc5 51.Rxe6 (51.Rf7 is better but also hopeless: 51...b3+ 52.Kc3 b2+ 53.Kc2 Rh3 54.Rc7+ (54.Nxb2 Rh2+; 54.Rxh7 Rh2+ 55.Kb1 Na3+ 56.Ka2 b1Q+ 57.Kxa3 Ra2#) 54...Kd4 55.Rd7+ Ke5 56.Rb7 Rxh4 with what should prove a routine win.) 51...Ra2+ 52.Kb1 Rd2 53.Kc1 b3 (threatening mate in three with 54...Rc2+ 55.Kb1 Na3+ 56.Ka1 Ra2#) 54.Ra6 Ra2 wins, as White's choices are (a) to trade, thereby allowing the pawn to promote, (b) to move the rook and allow the mate in three just mentioned, or (c) to allow Black to capture the rook for free.] 47.Bxc4 Bxc4 48.Rxf6 b5 49.Nd5! The last chance! 49...Bxd5 50.exd5+ Kxd5 51.Rf7 h5 52.Rh7 e5 53.Rxh5 Kd4 54.Rh8 Ra2+ 55.Kd1 Everything since 49.Nd5 has been more or less forced, and now it's time to figure out if and how Black wins this ending. 55...Rh2 This is a sensible move, but is it best? Black has at least 2-3 moves he can play before that's a necessity, and perhaps the time can be better spent on other moves. [55...e4 56.h5 Kd3 57.Rd8+ Ke3 58.h6 Rh2 59.Rh8 (59.Rb8 The pawn swap is good for White, but only if the rook is on the e-file once it happens. Clearly that's not happening here, and so Black wins: 59...Rxh6 60.Rxb5 Rh1+ The only winning move. 61.Kc2 Kf2 That's why White needs the rook on the e-file - this would drop the pawn! 62.Rf5+ Ke2 and Black will creep forward to reach a win via the Lucena position: 63.Re5 e3 64.Re7 Kf2 65.Rf7+ Ke1 66.Re7 e2 67.Rf7 Rh5! (67...Rf1 68.Rd7 Rf5 69.Rh7 Kf2 70.Rh2+ Kf3 71.Rh1 Kg2 is an even faster win, but a less generally applicable method.) 68.Rf8 Rc5+ 69.Kb3 Kd2 70.Rd8+ Ke3 71.Re8+ Kd3 72.Re7 (72.Rd8+ Ke4 73.Re8+ Re5 and the pawn queens.) 72...Rc3+ 73.Kb4 Rc4+ 74.Kb3 Re4 75.Rd7+ Ke3 and queens.) 59...Rd2+! A very nice, important idea: instead of defending the h-pawn from behind, Black will defend it from the side. The point is that Black forces the White king to choose which pawn it will cover: the b-pawn or the e-pawn. It can't do both jobs, so Black wins: 60.Kc1 (60.Ke1 Rd6 61.Kf1 Rb6 62.Kg2 b4 63.Kg3 b3 64.h7 Rb7 65.Rd8 Rg7+ 66.Kh3 Rxh7+ 67.Kg4 Rb7 wins.) 60...Rd6 61.Kc2 (61.Rb8 Rxh6 62.Rxb5 Ke2 will again lead to the winning Lucena position.) 61...Rf6 62.Kc3 Kf3 63.Kd2 e3+ 64.Ke1 b4 65.h7 Rf7 and it's game over.] 56.h5 b4 [56...e4 57.h6 Ke3 58.Kc1! The idea is to avoid the Rd2-d6 maneuver. 58...Ke2 59.Kc2 e3 60.Kc3 Ke1 61.h7 e2 62.Kb4 Rh5 63.Ka5 might look like a clever drawing mechanism, but Black can win here: 63...Kd2 64.Rd8+ Kc3 65.Rc8+ Kb3 66.Re8 b4+ 67.Kb6 Rxh7 68.Rxe2 Rh5 (68...Ka3 is a move faster, but 68...Rh5, cutting off the White king, is thematic and conceptually simple.) 69.Re7 Kb2 70.Re2+ Ka3 71.Re1 b3 etc.] 57.h6 Kd3 58.Kc1 Kc3 59.Rc8+ Kb3 60.Rh8 Kc3 [60...Rc2+! again wins, with the same idea as in move 59 of the main variation mentioned in the notes to Black's 55th move: Black plays Rc6 and defends against the h-pawn from the side. As there, so too here Black wins: 61.Kd1 Rc6 62.Ke2 Kc3 63.Kd1 e4 64.Kc1 e3 65.h7 Rc7 66.Kd1 b3 67.Re8 Rxh7 68.Rxe3+ Kb2 and a Lucena position win is inevitable.] 61.Rc8+ Kb3 62.Rh8 e4 [62...Rc2+ transposes to the line in the note to move 60.] 63.Kd1 Kb2 64.Ke1 b3 65.h7 e3 66.Kd1 Up to now, Black's failure to maneuver the rook to a sideways defensive post has been innocuous, as he has always had more chances to find the idea. But now this is it - one last chance!

66...Kb1?? [66...Rd2+! 67.Ke1 Rd7 68.Ke2 Rc7 69.Kxe3 Kc3 and now White has to give up the h-pawn and lose via the Lucena position: 70.Re8 Rxh7 71.Rc8+ Kb2 72.Rb8 Kc2 73.Rc8+ Kb1 74.Rb8 b2 75.Ra8 Rd7 76.Ke2 Rd5 77.Ke3 Kc2 78.Rc8+ Kb3 79.Rb8+ Kc3 80.Rb7 Rd3+ 81.Ke2 Rd4 followed by ...Rb4 - game over! But alas...] 67.Rb8 Rxh7 1/2-1/2

Next, Adams-Kasparov. Sometimes Kasparov has trouble with Black against Adams, but in this game he was well-prepared and an exciting battle was underway. The online spectators thought Black might be in trouble after White's 18th, but the position remained approximately equal through move 20. White's choice there was second-best, unjustifiably blocking the g-file, but things still weren't completely clear until White blundered on move 22, after which the execution was swift and sure.

Adams,Michael (2741) - Kasparov,Garry (2804) [B90]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (12), 08.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.Be2 Qc7 8.Qd2 b5 9.a3 Bb7 10.f3 Nc6 [10...Nbd7; and 10...Be7 have been played a number of times, but Kasparov's move seems to be a novelty.] 11.0-0-0 b4 12.axb4 Nxb4 13.g4 Be7 14.g5 Nd7 15.h4 Nc5 16.Kb1 Rb8 [16...Rc8 17.h5 Qa5 18.g6 fxg6 19.Bc4 (19.hxg6 Bxe4 20.Rxh7 (20.fxe4 Nxe4-+) 20...Rxh7 21.gxh7 Bxh7-+) 19...Nxe4 20.fxe4 Rxc4 21.Nb3 Qc7 22.hxg6 h6 23.Nd4 Qc8 24.Bxh6 gxh6 25.g7 Rg8 26.Rxh6 Bxe4 27.Nxe4 Rxd4 28.Qxd4 Qxc2+ 29.Ka1 Qa4+= is a wild but fairly plausible line.] 17.h5 0-0 18.g6

[18.Rdg1 attempts to economize a tempo for the attack by making Black have to wait to play Bf6. Black can try to use the tempo to blow up the center with 18...d5 White has three responses, each reflecting a different way of dealing with the central pawn tension: pushing, exchanging, or letting it remain. 19.e5 a) 19.exd5 Nxd5 20.g6 Rfd8 21.Nxd5 Bxd5 22.gxh7+ Kxh7 23.Qc3 Bf6 24.Bd3+ Nxd3 25.Qxc7 Rxb2+ 26.Ka1 Ra2+ 27.Kb1 Rb2+ is another surprising perpetual check line.; b) 19.g6 dxe4 20.Bf4 Bd6 (20...e5 21.h6+-) 21.gxh7+ Kh8 22.h6 g6 23.Nxe6 Bxf4 24.Nxf4 Rfd8 25.Nfd5 Rxd5 26.Nxd5 Nxd5 27.Qd4+ f6 28.Rxg6 Ne6 29.Rg8+ Kxh7 30.Qxe4+ Kxg8 31.Qxe6+ Kh8 32.c4 and now, yet another drawing variation, though not by perpetual: 32...Nc3+ 33.Kc2 Nd5 34.Kb1 Nc3+=; 19...Qa5 (19...Qxe5?? 20.Bf4+-; 19...Nd7 20.f4 Nb6 21.g6 Nc4 22.Bxc4 dxc4 23.h6+- and Black's kingside will be eviscerated.) 20.g6 Na4 21.gxh7+ Kh8 22.Nxa4 Qxa4 23.Bc4!! dxc4 24.Qg2 Rg8 25.hxg8Q+ (25.Bh6 g5-+) 25...Rxg8 26.Qg4 Qa2+ 27.Kc1 Qa1+ 28.Kd2 Qxb2 29.Rb1 Qa2 30.h6 g5 31.Rhc1 c3+ 32.Ke2 Rg6 and I have no idea what's going on here.] 18...Bf6 19.Rdg1 Ba8 [19...Rfc8 according to a speaker on the Playchess.com server, Kasparov considered this move as well, but ultimately preferred and was proud of the text move, uncovering the b-file.] 20.Bg5 This move came in for some criticism, as it blocks the g-file and makes it harder for White's attack to proceed. [20.gxh7+ Kxh7 (20...Kh8 21.Bh6 (21.Bg5!?) 21...Nbd3 22.Ndb5 axb5 23.Bxd3 Nxd3 24.cxd3 b4 25.Ne2 b3 26.Be3 Qc2+ 27.Qxc2 bxc2+ 28.Kc1 Bxb2+ 29.Kxc2=) 21.Rh3!?; 20.h6 fxg6 21.Bc4 (21.hxg7 Bxg7 22.Bh6 Nbd3 A Dragon idea! 23.cxd3 Bxd4 24.Bxf8 Bxg1 25.Rxg1 Rxf8-/+) 21...d5 22.exd5 Nxd5 23.Bxd5 Bxd5 24.Bf4 Qb7 25.Bxb8 Rxb8-+ leaves White up the exchange but (soon) down a king.] 20...Be5 21.gxh7+ Kxh7 Black is probably a bit better now, as White will have to spend a tempo undoing 20.Bg5, but White's next move is simply a blunder. 22.Nb3?

Nxc2! 23.Nxc5 Na3+ 24.Ka2 Qxc5 25.Na4 Nc2! 26.Kb1 [26.Nxc5 Rxb2#] 26...Qa3 [26...Qa3 27.Qxc2 Rfc8 28.h6 g6 29.Qd2 Qxa4 is hopeless for White.] 0-1

Finally, Topalov reached a tie for second and gained a measure of revenge for his defeat in the semi-finals in Libya by defeating Kasimdzhanov, continuing the latter's dramatic second-half collapse to the bottom of the tournament table.

Topalov,Veselin (2757) - Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) [D31]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (12), 08.03.2005

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.a3 Nc6 9.Qc2 Qa5 10.Nd2 Bb4 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Bd3 d4 13.0-0 Bxc3 14.Nc4 Qh5 15.bxc3 Nd5 16.Bg3 dxe3 17.Rae1 Be6 18.fxe3 Nde7 19.Nd6 b6 20.Rb1 f6 21.Rb5 Ne5 22.Rf4 N7g6 23.Rd4 Bd7 24.Rbd5 Be6 25.Be2 Qh6 26.Bf4 Nxf4 27.exf4 g6 28.Qe4 Bxd5 29.Qxd5+ Kh8 30.Re4 Nd7 31.Nf7+ Rxf7 32.Qxf7 1-0

Standings after Round 12:

Kasparov 7.5/10
Anand, Topalov 6/10
Leko 5/10
Adams 4.5/11
Kasimdzhanov 3.5/11
Vallejo Pons 3.5/10

Pairings for Round 13:

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

Kasparov is clearly in the driver's seat, but at least his closest pursuers, Anand and Topalov, get to take their cracks at him in the next two rounds. Stay tuned!

Why Chess Still Isn't a Sport

2005-03-08T16:05:00.000-05:00

In a number of posts (most recently here), I have both offered my own view as to why chess is not a sport (though I'm willing to acknowledge that it is like a sport) and have critiqued others' attempts to claim that it is a sport. Briefly, my reason for thinking it's not a sport is that, in my view, it's a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an activity to count as a sport the activity must include some intrinsically physical component. Chess need not include such a component (if it's even conceptually possible for immaterial beings to play chess, then chess does not have an intrinsically physical component), however, and thus it's not a sport.

One can of course deny that a sport must include an intrinsically physical component, but it seems to me that that's how the term has traditionally been understood, and unless widespread usage shifts, I'd prefer to say that chess is sport-like, but not a sport.

Howard Goldowsky thinks otherwise, and in an initial post on the Boylston Chess Club's blog, he suggested that chess or any other activity is a sport if it meets two conditions, roughly:

G1: It involves pattern recognition.
G2: It involves timing. (Defined in a very broad sense.)

I suggested that if G1 & G2 are jointly sufficient, then virtually any activity counts as a sport - walking to the mailbox, reading, eating, writing poetry, etc. Surely those don't count as sports, but then if that's the basis for including chess as a sport, it's insufficient to the task.

Next, I proposed an improvement on Goldowsky's scheme that rules out some but not all of my counterexamples:

G3: It takes place in a competitive context.

That rules out walking to the mailbox and reading, but it's still insufficiently restrictive, to my mind: applying for a job or playing in a piano competition now count as sports, which seems clearly wrong.

Goldowsky has since replied, and he's not impressed. Why aren't these activities sports? I haven't really defended that claim, and so, if his definitions suggest that they're really sports, then by gum, they're sports, even if no one recognizes it!

Now, I'm not completely unsympathetic to this line of reasoning. Suppose, for example, that everyone agrees that it's wrong to kill innocent human beings and that a human being is defined a living organism which has the genetic code of a human being and is either a mature member of the species or will, ceteris paribus, develop into a mature member of the species. If everyone accepts such a definition, then if some large segment of the population also accepted the permissiblity of abortion, then it would be fair to criticize their beliefs: if the definition they accept implies that abortion is wrong, then their views are inconsistetnt, even if they don't recognize it.

Unfortunately, this defense doesn't help Goldowsky, because it presupposes agreement about the definition. If G1-G3 represented the mainstream understanding of the nature of sport, then that would be one thing, but his definition is contentious at best. [An aside: Goldowsky has included a fourth condition, that "[l]uck is not inherent in the rules of the competition", but this condition isn't relevant to the ensuing discussion.]

Let's be (very) generous and suppose that, a priori, his definition and the more mainstream definition are each exactly 50% likely to be true. What do we do to figure out which of the two better captures the concept of sport shared by English speakers? I think the answer is to look at examples. A putative definition of "sports" should do three things:

(1) Include in its extension all clear cases of sports.
(2) Exclude from its extension all clear cases of non-sports.
(3) Be such as to account for the vagueness of vague cases.

Does Goldowsky's definition achieve this? (1) isn't any problem at all, but I think it fails on (2). No one not in the grips of a theory - at least no one I'm aware of - considers applying for a job or composing poetry for a contest as sports. These activities are not sports by any common understanding, and since the meaning of ordinary words comes from usage, not fiat, that gives us reason to think Goldowsky's definition is flawed.

Thus Goldowsky has still not provided us with sufficient reason to label chess a sport. He can call it a sport, or he can stipulate that whenever he utters the word "sport" he means an activity featuring G1-G3 (which is to say, G3, as G1 & G2, as he defines them, seem to apply to any action).

But I will not follow suit.

Something Odd in the Vienna

2005-03-08T15:57:00.000-05:00

One of my students recently opened a game 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Bc4 and faced something amazing: 3...Nh6!

Your first reaction is probably that Black has no idea what he's doing, and in the game that was more or less true: Black was a very inexperienced player and lost in a hurry: 4.d3 d6 5.Bxh6 gxh6 6.Qh5 O-O? 7.Qxh6 Be6 8.Nf3! Bxc4 9.Ng5 and Black resigned.

While my student was showing me the game, my first thought was one that might have struck you too: Black should try 6...Qf6. Now if 7.Nf3, c6 eliminates any immediate danger, so 7.Nd5 is the only real try. Now things get FUN.

[Warning: the following was just my spur-of-the-moment analysis, sans computer, sans careful double-checking; just me riffing. This for entertainment value only, and to inspire the reader to investigate the material further; computer-generated refutations you may keep to yourselves, at least for now!]

So: 7.Nd5 Qxf2+ 8.Kd1 and now Black seems to have at least two good moves:

(A) 8...Qf1+ 9.Kd2 Qxa1 and now White has three tries, all of which seem to me inadequate:

(1) 10.Nxc7+ Kd8 11.Qxf7 Bb4+

(2) 10.Ne2 Qxh1 11.Nxc7+ Kd8 12.Qxf7 Qxg2 and now, whether White plays 13.Nxa8 or 13.Nd5, Black plays 13...Qg5+ 14.Kc3 Bd7 and wins.

(3) 10.Nf3 Qxh1 11.Nxc7+ Kd8 12.Qxf7 Qxg2+ 13.Kc3 Qg6 wins.

(B) 8...c6 9.Nc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 Qxg2 11.Qxf7 Bg4+ 12.Kc1 Nd7 and White is completely lost.

In short, 7.Nd5 looks bad, so earlier improvements are needed. Since Black's playing ...Qf6 turns out to be pretty useful for defensive purposes, the "scholastic" 5.Qf3 quickly came to mind. 5...Qf6?? loses to 6.Qxf6 gxf6 7.Bxh6, and some other ways of defending against the threat of 6.Bxh6 followed by 7.Qxf7# fail quite easily, too: 5...Be6? 6.Bxe6 fxe6 7.Bxh6 gxh6 8.Qh5+ and 9.Qxh6; 5...Bg4? 6.Qg3 (threatening to take on h6 and then on g4) Qd7 7.h3 wins.

That leaves the surprising, bold 5...O-O. 6.Bxh6 gxh6 goes nowhere: the Black queen can easily defend the h-pawn with ...Qf6 or ...Qg5 if need be, while Black can even play aggressively on the kingside with ...Kh8 followed by ...f5. With that in mind, I thought White could combine prophylaxis with aggression: 6.h3 Kh8 7.g4, but now comes my favorite part of the analysis: 7...f5!? 8.gxf5 (8.Bxh6 fxg4!) Nxf5 9.exf5 Rxf5 10.Qe4 Bxf2+ 11.Ke2 (11.Kd1 probably improves, but 11.Ke2 doesn't initially look too terribly risky, while it comes with the added virtue of making it easier for the Ra1 to come into the game) Nc6 12.Nf3

and now Black goes 19th century on White with 12...Rxf3! 13.Kxf3 Bf5! 14.Qd5 Qh4 (threatening ...Nd4+, ...Qg3+ and ...Rf8) 15.Ne2 Rf8 16.Kg2 Nd4! 17.Nxd4 Bxh3+! 18.Rxh3 Qg4+ 19.Kf1 Qd1+ 20.Kg2 Qg1#

Wasn't that cool? I recommend to all my readers that they do their best to analyze the above, (without using a chess engine) - working on positions like these is a great way to improve one's tactical abilities. Better still, it's fun!

Dragon Update

2005-03-08T14:44:00.000-05:00

The Sicilian Dragon has come up for discussion in a number of posts (most recently here), and it's time for a mini-update. The line that's received the most attention on here begins with 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

Here theory mentions 16...Bxh6, but Victor Reppert suggested 16...Bh8 instead. In a previous post, I presented some analysis of this position, concluding that White has an advantage, though not a clearly decisive one, after 17.g4! Nf6 18.Qh2. I'm not aware of any reason to think otherwise, but MNb wondered about meeting 17.Rxh5 gxh5 18.Qf4. Enter Reppert once more, who proposes the following line: 18...Bf6 19.Nd5 Rxd5 20.Bxd5 Qb6 21.Bg5 Ng6 22.Qe3 Bg7 23.g3 Ba4, when it seems that Black is OK.

I agree with his assessment of the final position, but I think his line admits of two improvements. Working backwards, White can improve with 20.exd5, with the idea of playing c3 and Bc2. One possible continuation is 20...h4 21.Qe4 Ba4 22.Nf5 Bxb3 23.cxb3 Qb5 24.g4 with a clear advantage for White.

However, Black can improve even earlier with 18...b6(!), with the completely obvious idea of protecting the Black queen. What's that, you say? She's already protected and about as far from being attacked as any piece could possibly be? Keep watching: 19.Nf5 Bxf5 20.exf5 Rxc3 21.Qg5+ Ng6 22.fxg6

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Black doesn't have time to take the queen (22...Qxg5?? 23.gxf7#!), but now that the queen is protected, he doesn't need to, and after 22...Rxb3 23.gxf7+ Kxf7 24.Qf4+ Kg6 25.axb3 Qe5 26.Qxe5+ Bxe5 we have an ending in which Black has good winning chances.

In sum, 17.Rxh5 gxh5 18.Qf4 looks harmless for Black, but as far as I'm aware 17.g4 Nf6 18.Qh2 still leaves the ball in Black's court.

The Week in Chess: Miniatures!

2005-03-07T20:35:00.000-05:00

Downloading the latest issue of The Week in Chess is a weekly tradition for chess players around the globe, celebrated every Monday. Editor Mark Crowther collects all the games, crosstables and basic news information he can in one tidy package, making it easy for players to stay on top of the news and keep their databases current.

I use it for those purposes as well, but sometimes it's fun to look for the odd things that happen during the week, too, like the longest game of the week or the shortest. This week, I decided to see how many decisive games were under 20 moves; to my utter amazement, 35 of the 941 games (actually 36 of 942, but one of the games was clearly short just by virtue of missing moves, not on account of the content) fit the bill! It's hard to believe so many master-level players could falter so poorly, but errare humanum est.

Here are some of the more noteworthy examples:

First, a nice attacking game by De la Paz. White's 13th move walked into the very nice 13...f4!, after which Black's attack worked like clockwork - a very nice model for can-opening a weakened fianchetto position.

Fernandes,R (2226) - De la Paz,F (2466) [E62]
XI Anibal Open Linares ESP (4), 28.02.2005

1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.Nf3 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.d4 Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Nd7 10.Be3 e5 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Qd2 f5 13.Rad1 f4 14.gxf4 Qh4 15.fxe5 Qxh3 16.Bf4 Bh6 17.Bxh6 Qg4+ 18.Kh1 Rf5 0-1

The second game is just incredible. The 5.Ng5 line is very well-known, and even most amateurs are aware of the possibility of Nxf7 and Nxe6 sacs. So 8...b6 from a 2269 is really amazing! Maybe he, like Kasparov in the infamous 6th game of his second match with Deep(er) Blue, accidentally inverted his intended move order?

Pavasovic,D (2595) - Zelenika,D (2269) [B17]
12th Metalis Open Bizovac CRO (2), 24.02.2005

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.Qe2 Be7 8.N1f3 b6?? 9.Nxf7 1-0

Our third game is also instructive, in that it's the sort of disaster that could happen to anyone facing this system against the Pirc. Black should have refrained from the premature queenside expansion with 9...b4, which only served to help White's attacking chances (9...Nbd7 10.Bh6 Qc7 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.Rfe1 e5 was better), and 12...Bxh6 was also rather cooperative. Seemingly small mistakes in a sharp line can add up to disaster!

Reefat,S (2462) - Hasan Md,E (2121) [B08]
31st ch-BAN Dhaka BAN (5), 01.02.2005

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6 6.h3 0-0 7.Nf3 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.0-0 b4 10.Ne2 a5 11.Ng3 Nbd7 12.Bh6 Bxh6 13.Qxh6 Re8 14.e5 Nd5 15.Nh5 1-0

Finally, there are the interesting adventures of Ray Kaufman. In round 4 of the Millenium Open, disaster overtook him:

Smith,Bryan (2339) - Kaufman,Ray (2255) [C60]
Millennium Open Virginia Beach USA (4), 27.02.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.d4 exd4 5.Bg5 Bb4+ 6.c3 dxc3 7.Nxc3 Be7 8.h4 d6 9.Nd5 Nf6 10.Qd4! 1-0

Pretty discouraging, I imagine, but sometimes the fickle fates are forgiving - here's what happened in the very next round!

Kaufman,R (2255) - Greanias,S (2164) [D00]
Millennium Open Virginia Beach USA (5), 27.02.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 g6 3.Bxf6 exf6 4.e3 d5 5.c4 dxc4 6.Bxc4 Bd6 7.Nc3 a6 8.Qc2 0-0 9.h4 b5 10.Bd5 Ra7 11.h5 c6?? 12.hxg6 cxd5 13.g7 1-0

Afterword: Kavalek mentions and briefly annotates the Smith-Kaufman game (as well as the Kasimdzhanov-Kasparov game from round 9 of Linares) in the March 6 edition of his outstanding Washington Post column. Worth a look!

The Value of 1-minute Games!?

2005-03-06T17:19:00.000-05:00

In an earlier post, I presented one of my 1-minute games. Part of my intent was to illustrate a strategic trap I've used to catch a surprisingly large number of victims, in the hope that some of my readers might find it a useful addition to their stock of chess ideas. One commentator found the whole enterprise rather dubious, wondering how one could learn from such a quick game.

I can see why someone might feel that way, especially if they're not aficianados of that art form. Further, one might invoke the words of tactical genius Rashid Nezhmetdinov, who scorned the idea of analyzing blitz games.

But I disagree. For one thing, I don't understand why the time limit has any significance. Suppose I had presented the game but passed it off as a tournament performance. Should the game be taken more seroiusly in that case? Or suppose that my opponent and I had followed some sharp theoretical line for 30 moves, and then one of us sprang a novelty on the other, winning by following some carefully prepared analysis. In such a case, the speed of the game would be completely irrelevant to its quality, which might have been the product of many hours' labor.

And that's where I think the answer lies: the value of the game I presented, if value there is, comes from the ideas exhibited by the players; ideas which are the product of their years of experience. It's not very likely that a player will produce a deep combination in a 1-minute game, but what bullet chess does do is reward knowledge - both explicit and tacit. A grandmaster can win games in bullet or blitz that even a strong amateur might fail to win in a tournament game, because the former understands some things - even very sophisticated things - deeply enough and so "intuitively" that he or she can execute them automatically. In bullet, these ideas might be executed in a somewhat superficial way, but nevertheless, for players who don't know these ideas, seeing such games can be valuable nonetheless.

In conclusion, while I certainly wouldn't advocate making a study of my 1-minute games, or even those of a GM - one's chess time would be better-spent studying the slower games of elite players - one shouldn't automatically reject the possibility that there's something to be learned from such games, either.

Linares: Round 11 Recap

2005-03-06T13:18:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is the second (and last) official rest day of the tournament, but vacation started early for four of the six players as the games Vallejo Pons-Adams and especially Leko-Topalov were quickly drawn:

Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) - Adams,Michael (2741) [A05]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (11), 06.03.2005

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0 Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.b3 0-0 10.Bb2 a6 11.e4 Nbd7 12.Qe3 Qc7 13.Nd4 Rfe8 14.Rad1 Bf8 15.Rfe1 Rad8 16.h3 g6 17.Qd2 Bg7 18.Nc2 Nc5 19.Ba1 Bc6 20.Nb4 Bb7 21.Nc2 Bc6 22.Nb4 Bb7 23.Re2 Qc8 24.Qe1 Qa8 25.Nc2 Qb8 26.Qd2 Qa8 27.Qe1 Qb8 28.Qd2 Qa8 29.Qe1 1/2-1/2

Leko,Peter (2749) - Topalov,Veselin (2757) [B90]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (11), 06.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.Be2 Be7 8.f4 0-0 9.g4 d5 10.e5 Ne4 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.g5 Qb6 13.Nf5 Qa5+ 14.Bd2 Bb4 15.Ne3 Rd8 16.c3 Be7 17.Qc2 b5 18.a4 Bb7 19.b4 1/2-1/2

Fortunately, the third game was interesting - and decisive - as Anand pulled into clear second place. Kasparov is still in the driver's seat, but as the rest of the schedule slightly favors Anand and they have yet to play their second game, we might yet have a fantastic finish!

Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) - Anand,Viswanathan (2786) [B50]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (11), 06.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 A side line with an innocuous reputation, though Peter Svidler once used it to defeat Garry Kasparov: 3...Nf6 4.Be2 Bg4 [4...Nbd7 5.d3 b6 6.0-0 Bb7 7.Nbd2 g6 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 Nxe4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Ng5 d5 12.Bb5 Bg7 13.f3 Bf5 14.g4 h6 15.gxf5 hxg5 16.fxg6 a6 17.gxf7+ Kxf7 18.Ba4 Rh5 19.Be3 Nf6 20.Qd2 Qd6 21.Rf2 Rah8 22.Rg2 Rh3 23.Rf1 R8h4 24.Bc2 Nh5 25.Bf5 Nf4 26.Bxh3 Nxh3+ 27.Kh1 Qf6 28.Rg3 Qf5 29.Bxg5 Nxg5 30.Rxg5 Qh3 31.Rg2 Bf6 32.Qd3 Rxd4 33.Qg6+ Ke6 34.Qe8 Rc4 35.Qd8 Qf5 36.Re1+ Be5 37.Qb8 1-0 Svidler,P-Kasparov,G/Tilburg NED 1997] 5.d3 e6 6.Nbd2 Nc6 7.Nf1 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 In this somewhat passive setup, White has two obvious problems and a third, subtler problem. The obvious worries are the d3 pawn and the d4 square, and White manages to fix that in the new few moves. The other problem, which survives the resolution of the other issues (reading this, Bill?), is the problem of the queen's bishop. Right now it could find a home on e3, d2 or g5, though none of the three is both stable and useful. 9.Qa4 Bh5 10.Ng3 Nb6 11.Qd1 Bg6 12.0-0 [The insertion of 12.h4 h6 a la the Caro-Kann, probably favors Black.] 12...Be7 Black's plan of action in this position is clear: he'll castle, play Qc7, Rad8 and combine pressure on the d-pawn with the advance of the e-and f-pawns. What's not so clear is what White should do about this. Kasimdzhanov's chooses to combine a queenside space grab with a quick d4; it doesn't turn out well, but I'm not sure what he ought to have played instead. 13.a4 [13.Bf4 Might be an improvement, but Black has an edge due to his space advantage and the sensitive d3 pawn after 13...0-0 14.Ne4 Qd5 15.Qc2 e5 16.Bg5 f6 17.Bh4 c4=/+] 13...0-0 14.a5 Nd5 15.Qa4 Qc7 16.d4 cxd4 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Qxd4

Moves like 18...Rfd8, 18...Bc5 and 18...Bf6 are all obvious and probably good, but Anand's move is even more ambitious: 18...f5!? This move seizes control over the e4 square but even more importantly, it ensures that the Bc1 never sees the light of day, as Be3 will now be met by ...f4. 19.Qa4 [19.Nh5!?] 19...Rad8 20.Rd1 f4!

This is a move even a good player might be afraid to make, as it seems to cede the e4 square in perpetuity. It does turn out that the e4 square becomes the focal point of much of the rest of the game, but Black's advantages in space and development, combined with White's weak back rank leave White unable to maintain control over that square. 21.Ne4 Qe5 22.Bf3 [22.f3 gives rise to a new set of problems, but maybe it's worth the risk to keep control over e4.] 22...b5 23.Qc2 [23.axb6 Nxb6 and White's pieces are overloaded, unable to cover both d1 and e4. 24.Qc2 (24.Rxd8 Nxa4 25.Rxf8+ Kxf8 26.Rxa4 Qb5-+ 27.Rxa7? Bxe4 28.Bxe4 Qe2) 24...Bxe4-+] 23...Nf6 White can't maintain the blockade of e4 due to his weak back rank, and that in turn is the consequence of the shut-in Bc1. 24.Nxf6+ Qxf6 25.Qb3 Rxd1+ 26.Qxd1 Rd8 27.Qe2 White is trying to reestablish control over e4, but his lack of space and retarded queenside development will cost him yet again. 27...Bd3 28.Qe1 e5 29.Be2 [I think 29.h3 is an improvement, giving the White king a flight square in case of 29...e4 30.Bxe4 Bxe4 31.Qxe4 Rd1+ (32.Kh2). Still, White's position remains bad after 29...Bc2 threatening 30...e4 (31.Bxe4? Rd1) 30.Kh2 Bb3-/+ with a bind.] 29...Bxe2 30.Qxe2 e4

So much for the e4 blockade! The rest is an instructive massacre. 31.g3 e3! 32.fxe3 [Maybe 32.Kg2 deserves consideration, trying now to blockade the f3 square, though White is lost just the same after 32...Qf5 33.fxe3 Qe4+ 34.Qf3 Qc2+ 35.Kh3 Rd6] 32...f3 33.Qxb5 This move looked at first like a case of Anand-assisted suicide, but there don't seem to be any improvements, as after [33.Qc2 f2+ 34.Qxf2 Rd1+ 35.Kg2 Qc6+ 36.Kh3 (36.Qf3 Rg1+ 37.Kf2 Rf1+-+) 36...Qe6+ 37.g4 Bd6 with the idea of ...Rh1 38.e4 Rd3+ 39.Be3 Qh6+-+ Black wins the hapless bishop.] 33...f2+ 34.Kg2 Rf8 35.Qd5+ [35.Qf1 Qf3+ 36.Kh3 Qf5+ 37.Kg2 Qe4+ 38.Kh3 Rf5 with mate in no more than three moves.; 35.Kf1 Qf3-+] 35...Kh8 36.Kf1 Qh6 37.Bd2 At last the bishop is "developed"! [37.h4 Qg6 38.Bd2 Qxg3 39.Qg2 Qd6 and White can't prevent both ...Qxd2 and ...Qd3+/#.] 37...Qh3+ 38.Qg2 Qf5

Utter domination. 0-1

Standings after Round 11:

Kasparov 6.5/9
Anand 5.5/9
Topalov 5/9
Leko 5/10
Adams 4.5/10
Kasimdzhanov 3.5/10
Vallejo Pons 3/9

Pairings for Round 12 (Tuesday):

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

Linares: Round 10 Recap

2005-03-05T19:12:00.000-05:00

There's nothing new under the sun.

See if the following comments sound familiar:

1. Today's round had one decisive result and two draws.
2. Kasparov won.
3. Kasimdzhanov had a miserable position, but fought bravely to hold the draw.

Let's first dispense with today's non-game between Anand and Leko:

Anand,V (2786) - Leko,P (2749) [B33]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (10), 05.03.2005

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.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Qd3 d5 12.exd5 Bf5 13.Qb3 Qxd5 14.Qxd5 Nexd5 15.c4 bxc4 16.Bxc4 0-0 17.0-0 Nb4 18.Rfe1 Rfe8 19.Rad1 Ne4 20.Be3 Rac8 21.f3 Nf6 22.Re2 Be6 23.b3 e4 24.Rdd2 1/2-1/2

Still awake? Good, because the next two games are more interesting. Kasimdzhanov broke Adams' heart in Tripoli last year, beating him in the finals of the FIDE knockout championship in a big upset. Kasimdzhanov needed overtime to win, and was very fortunate that Adams missed a title-clinching win in the last regulation game. And so it was today, as Adams was winning or nearly winning throughout, but couldn't bring home the full point.

Adams,Mi (2741) - Kasimdzhanov,R (2678) [C88]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (10), 05.03.2005

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.a3 Na5 11.Ba2 c5 12.Nbd2 Nc6 13.Nf1 Bc8 14.c3 Be6 15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.b4N [16.Ng3 has been played in a number of high-level games, all concluding in draws.] 16...Nh5 17.N1h2 Nf4 18.Bxf4 Rxf4 19.Qb3 Qd7 20.a4 bxa4 21.Rxa4 cxb4 22.cxb4 Rb8 23.Rea1 Rb7 24.Rxa6 Nxb4 25.Ra8+ Rf8 26.Rxf8+ Bxf8 27.Rb1 Rb8 28.Qc4 It might not seem like much has happened the last 12 moves or so, but suddenly White seems to have a clear advantage - Black's e6 pawn is weak (unless Black plays ...d5, in which case it will be the e5 pawn that's the weakness) and the Bf8 isn't particularly talented either. 28...d5 29.Qc3 [29.exd5 exd5 30.Nxe5 dxc4 31.Nxd7 Rc8 32.dxc4 Rxc4 33.Nf3+/- leaves White a pawn up, but perhaps Adams didn't want to head for an endgame with all the pawns on one side without trying other options first.] 29...Rc8 30.Qb3 Rc2 31.Ng4 [31.Nxe5 Qa7 32.Rf1 Qa2 33.Qxa2 Nxa2 34.Nhf3 dxe4 35.dxe4 Nc3 36.Ng5 h6 37.Nxe6 Bd6 38.Nf3 Nxe4 looks like a better version (from Black's perspective) of the ending-type seen in the note to White's 29th move.] 31...Qa7 32.exd5 [32.Nfxe5 looks like a reasonably safe pawn grab to me.] 32...exd5 33.Ne3 [33.Nfxe5 Qd4 (33...Bc5 34.d4 Bxd4 35.Qxb4 Bxe5 is an attempt to maintain material equality by tricky means, but as often happens when the side that's positionally worse tries to be clever, it boomerangs: 36.Qe1!+- and Black can call it a day: the bishop can't be protected on e5, while if it retreats anywhere by d6, 37.Qe8 is mate. That leaves 36...Bd6 , bu then the obvious 37.Qe6+ wins the bishop and the game.) 34.Nd7 Bd6 and Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn - possibly more.] 33...Re2 34.d4 exd4 35.Nxd5 Nxd5 36.Qxd5+ Qf7 37.Qxd4

Taking stock, this position should give White excellent winning chances as he's a clean pawn ahead and better centralized. One drawback for White is that all the pawns are on the same side of the board, which always tends to increase the weaker side's drawing chances, but in another way it favors White as well, by magnifying his knight relative to Black's bishop. Bishops are long-range pieces, so when all the pawns are on one side of the board, its advantages relative to the knight are greatly lessened. 37...h6 38.Rb8 Re8 39.Ne5 Qe6 40.Rxe8 Qxe8 At this point, a pure queen ending or a pure minor piece ending would be drawn, but because the queen and knight work well together, White still has good winning chances. White would like to have pawns on g4 and h5 now, to completely immobilize the Black kingside, put the knight on g6, etc. Black, on the other hand, would like to put his pawns on g6 and h5, so that their defensive use isn't redundant to the bishop's. So the question is, can White prevent g6? 41.Qd5+ Kh7 42.g3 [42.Ng4 looks like the only way to even try to stop it, but it doesn't seem too impressive - the knight is awkwardly placed on this square. In short, to answer the question asked in the note to Black's 40th move: no; White cannot prevent ...g6.] 42...g6 43.Kg2 Bg7 44.Nd3 h5 45.Nf4 Bf6 46.Ne6 Qe7 47.h4 Qe8 48.Kh2 Qe7 49.Kh3 Kg8 50.f4 Qf7 51.f5 Be7 52.Nf4 gxf5 53.Qd1 Kh7 54.Nxh5 Bf8 55.Nf4 Bh6 56.Nd5 Qe6 57.Qd3 Kg7 58.Kg2 Qe5 59.Kf3 Qe6 60.Kg2 Qe5 61.Qc4 Bd2 62.Qd3 There really isn't anything for White to do here. Note that Black's pawn on f5 functions very well on a light square, complementing the role of Black's bishop, confined as it is to the dark squares. Fine defense by Kasimdzhanov, but shouldn't Adams have had something? 1/2-1/2

Last but not least, we turn to the decisive game du jour.

Kasparov,Garry (2804) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [D12]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (10), 05.03.2005

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 Bg6 7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.Bd2 Nbd7 9.Rc1 a6 10.Bd3 dxc4 11.Bxc4 b5 12.Be2 c5 13.Bf3 Rb8 14.Ne2 Bd6 15.g3 0-0 16.0-0 e5 [16...c4 17.a4 Nb6 18.axb5 axb5 19.e4 (19.Ba5 Qe7) 19...e5 20.Be3 might give White a very small edge, but Black's queenside counterplay leaves him with a good game.; 16...Qe7 was Kasparov's recommendation, when Vallejo was concerned about 17.Qe1 (though Kasparov intended to play 17.dxc5 ) ] 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.Bb4 Qb6 [18...Nce4 (Kasparov/Abeln) 19.Bxd6 Nxd6 may improve on the text, as after 20.Nc3 Black has better moves than ...Qb6; in particular, 20...Nc4 Still, White seems to be better after 21.Qe2 Qd2 22.b3 Qxe2 23.Bxe2] 19.Nc3+/- Nb7 20.Bxd6 Nxd6 21.Nd5 Nxd5 22.Bxd5

White is clearly better here, as his bishop is the dominant minor piece and Black has potential weaknesses on the kingside. 22...Rbc8 23.Qg4 Nf5 24.Qe4 Qf6 25.Rfd1 Nd6 26.Qb4 Rfd8 27.a4 An effective move on two levels. First, he maintains the tension with the rooks - there's no sense in his trading first and ceding the c-file. Second, he needs to start creating targets, and a4 does just that, leaving Black with a single, less well-hidden queenside pawn for White to besiege. 27...bxa4 28.Qxa4 Rxc1 29.Rxc1 Nb5 30.Rd1 [30.Rc6 was the move expected by the spectators, and I along with them. However, Kasparov rejected it on account of the following remarkable variation: 30...Qf5! (30...Rd6 31.Qxa6; 30...Qe7 31.e4 Nc7 32.Qc4 Nxd5 33.exd5 a5 34.Rc8 Kf8 35.Qc6 seems to be winning.) 31.Rxa6 Rxd5!! - this leads to a draw by perpetual after 32.e4 Qf3 33.exd5 Nd4 34.Qe8+ (34.Qa3 won't help, as Black still draws with 34...Qe2 35.Ra8+ Kh7 36.d6 Nf3+ 37.Kg2 Ne1+ 38.Kg1 (38.Kh3?? Qh5#) 38...Nf3+ etc.) 34...Kh7 35.Ra3 Qd1+ 36.Kg2 Nc2 37.Qxe5 Ne1+ 38.Kh3 f5 39.Qf4 Qe2 40.Qh4+ Kg8 41.Ra8+ Kf7 42.Ra7+ Kg8=] 30...Nc7 31.Bc4 Rd6 32.Rxd6 Qxd6 33.Qb3 Ne6 34.h4

White has a big advantage here, but even so, Vallejo should just sit and do nothing in a constructive manner. Instead, he does what most of us do in time trouble: lash out. In some cases, that's helpful, but here, it greatly hastens the end. 34...e4 35.Bd5 Mmm...more weaknesses... 35...g5 36.h5 g4 Black's hope is to have the f3 square for either the knight or the queen, in hopes of making some perpetual check fantasy come true. The actual result is to raise the number of Black pawns from one (the a6 pawn) to two (the e4 pawn) and now three (the g4 pawn). The punishment isn't overly swift, but it is sure: 37.Bxe4 Ng5 38.Qd5 No entry for the Black queen, and the threats of Qxd6, Qxg5 and Qa8+ force Black to make a trade. 38...Nxe4 39.Qxe4 Qd1+ 40.Kg2 Kf8 41.Qa8+ Ke7 42.Qb7+ Ke8 43.Qxa6 Qd5+ [43...Qf3+ does not lead to perpetual, for at least two reasons: 44.Kg1 Qd1+ and now either Qf1 or Kh2 stop the (safe) checks.] 44.Kg1 Qxh5 45.Qc6+ Kd8 46.e4 Ke7 47.Qc7+ Ke6 48.Qc8+ Ke7 49.Qb7+ Ke8 50.b4 Qg5 51.Qc6+ Ke7 52.b5 Qd2 53.Qc5+ Qd6 54.Qg5+ The g4 pawn falls, and with it go the hopes of a perpetual check miracle. 1-0

Standings after Round 10:

Kasparov 6.5/9
Anand, Topalov 4.5/8
Leko 4.5/9
Adams 4/9
Kasimdzhanov 3.5/9
Vallejo Pons 2.5/8

Pairings for Round 11:

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

This Week's ChessBase Show: Something Crazy

2005-03-05T04:05:00.000-05:00

As mentioned in the notice for last week's ChessBase show, the calm Karpov-Timman game was just a respite into sanity; this week, we'll continue with the predominant trend towards tactical melees. I try to keep up with the games from major tournaments, but with an event as huge as the recently-completed Aeroflot Open it's hard to do. I'm grateful, therefore, to the viewer who directed me to the following attacking gem between former World Junior champion Levon Aronian and Valery Popov:

Aronian,L (2684) - Popov,Val (2588) [D15]
Aeroflot Open Moscow RUS (4), 18.02.2005

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 a6 5.Nf3 b5 6.c5 g6 7.Qb3 a5 8.Ne5 Bg7 9.Nxb5 cxb5 10.Bxb5+ Kf8 11.0-0 Ba6 12.a4 Ne4 13.Nd3 Bb7 14.f3 Nf6 15.Ne5 Qc7 16.Bd2 h5 17.c6 Bc8 18.e4 Qb6 19.Be3 Be6 20.Rac1 Na6 21.f4 Nc7 22.f5 Bc8 23.Rc5 Ba6 24.Bg5 Bc8 25.Kh1 Nxe4 26.Bxe7+ Kxe7 27.Rxd5 Nxd5 28.Qxd5 Ng5 29.Nxg6+ fxg6 30.Re1+ Be6 31.Rxe6+ Kf8 32.Qd6+ Kg8 33.Bc4 Kh7 34.Re7 gxf5 35.Qf6 Rhg8 36.Qxg5 1-0

Amazing, isn't it? Join me Monday night at 9 p.m. Eastern Time as we do our best to figure out the truth about this remarkable game; with a game like this, it's a safe bet to predict you'll be thoroughly entertained! For info about watching the show (either live or once it's archived), click here.

Linares: Round 9 Recap

2005-03-04T20:16:00.000-05:00

Round 7 aside, every other round has featured fighting chess and exactly one win, and today's games continued that trend.

The biggest news saw Garry Kasparov increase his lead over the field with a crushing defeat of Rustam Kasimdzhanov. Kasparov, who is now at +3 (his nearest competitors have +1), unleashed an important novelty in the Meran Variation against Kasimdzhanov, winning easily. It looks like Kasparov is back in business, while Kasimdzhanov's first cycle success story of 7 draws might turn into something very different this cycle (0-2 thus far). It's a tough crowd.

Kasimdzhanov,R (2678) - Kasparov,G (2804) [D47]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (9), 04.03.2005

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.0-0 a6 10.e4 c5 11.d5 Qc7 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.Bc2 c4 14.Nd4 Nc5 15.Be3 e5 16.Nf3 Be7 17.Ng5 0-0N

A logical novelty, of course - but what about the exchange? 18.Bxc5 Bxc5 19.Ne6 Qb6 20.Nxf8 Rxf8 Normally, an exchange sac is acceptable only if the material-down side at least gets a pawn as part of the bargain. Kasparov doesn't have that - yet - but he has oodles of pressure: f2 is weak, e4 is weak, White's bishop is altogether passive and Black's queenside pawns may become mobile at some point. Time will tell whether Black's novelty is sufficient for equality, but it looks pretty good. 21.Nd5 [White decides now to sac a pawn in return for some breathing room, but the greedier 21.Qe2 certainly merits consideration, as it develops, connects the rooks, protects e4 and f2 and hits the c4-pawn in case Black tries ...b4 at some point. Still, after 21...Qe6 (covering d5, c4 and g4, thus supporting ...Ng4) 22.Nd1 Bd4 Black's compensation is evident.] 21...Bxd5 22.exd5 Bxf2+! 23.Kh1 [23.Rxf2?? Ng4 wins, because 24.Qxg4? Qxf2+ 25.Kh1 Qf1+ leads to mate next move.] 23...e4 24.Qe2 e3 Now Black must be better, as the material investment is minimal while Black's activity continues. Still, it doesn't seem that White should be losing yet, so somewhere in the next few moves White must find an improvement. 25.Rfd1 [25.Rad1 with the idea of meeting 25...Qd6 with 26.Rxf2 won't help, however: 26...exf2 27.Qxf2 Ne4 (27...Ng4 28.Qh4 Nf2+ 29.Kg1 Nxd1 30.Qxh7+ Kf7 31.Bxd1 Qc5+ 32.Kh1 Qxd5-+) ] 25...Qd6 26.a4 [26.Bf5 might be worth considering, trying to keep the Black knight off of g4 while opening the option of retreating the bishop to h3 or f3 (via g4).] 26...g6 with the idea of ...Nf6-h5-f4. 27.axb5 axb5 28.g3 [28.Rd4 Nh5 29.Qg4 neutralizes the ...Nf4 idea, but now there are new problems: 29...e2 30.Re4 e1Q+ 31.Raxe1 Bxe1 32.Rxe1 Qxd5-+] 28...Nh5 Black is threatening a crushing sac on g3, so White plays 29.Qg4

and stops it... 29...Bxg3! ...or not. 30.hxg3 Nxg3+ 31.Kg2 Rf2+ 32.Kh3 Nf5 [32...Rh2+?? is ALMOST mating - which means, in this situation, that it loses: 33.Kxh2 Nf1+ 34.Kg2[] Qh2+ 35.Kf3 Qf2+ 36.Ke4+- and his majesty is safe, and about to discover just how handy two extra rooks are likely to be.] 33.Rh1 h5 [33...Rxc2 is equally wonderful.] 34.Qxg6+ Qxg6 35.Rhg1 Qxg1 36.Rxg1+ Kf7 0-1

The Peter Leko-Michael Adams game repeated the sharp Petroff Defense line seen in the Leko-Anand game from round 3, and this too wound up as a fairly quick draw - but a fighting one.

Leko,P (2749) - Adams,Mi (2741) [C42]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (9), 04.03.2005

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 Nc6 [12...Bd6 occurred in the Round 3 battle between Leko and Anand, drawn in 24 moves. (The rest of the game and some comments can be found HERE.)] 13.b4 a6 14.a4 Bd6 15.Rb1 Re8 16.b5 axb5 17.axb5 Na5 18.Ne5 Bxe5 19.dxe5

19...Nxf2!? [19...Qh4 20.Rf1 Bh5 21.f3 Nxd2 22.Bxd2 Nc4 looks like a calm alternative route to equality.] 20.Kxf2 Qh4+ 21.Kf1 Qxh2 22.Ba3 Re6 23.Qa2 (For some very interesting analysis of 23.Bc5, see Albien's report on the TWIC site.) Rd8 24.Bc5 Rh6 This threatens a perpetual with ...Qf4+ Kg1 Qh2+, which White allows. 25.e6 [25.Be2 Qh1+ 26.Bg1 Rh2 27.Bf3 is an attempt to avoid the perpetual, but now the attack gains force from the other side of the board with 27...Nc4! 28.Re2 (28.Nxc4 Bxf3 is a complete disaster.) 28...Nxd2+ (28...Bxf3 29.Nxf3 Rxg2 30.Rxg2 Ne3+ 31.Ke1 Nxg2+ 32.Ke2 Nh4 33.Nxh4 Qxh4 34.Re1 is unclear.) 29.Qxd2 Bxf3 30.gxf3 Qxf3+ 31.Rf2 Rxf2+ 32.Bxf2 f4 with a Black edge.] 25...Qf4+ 26.Kg1 Qh2+ 27.Kf1 Qf4+ 28.Kg1 Qh2+ 29.Kf1 1/2-1/2

Finally, Veselin Topalov made Viswanathan Anand suffer for many moves, but Topalov's inaccuracies eventually allowed the latter to escape with a draw.

Topalov,V (2757) - Anand,V (2786) [C42]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (9), 04.03.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Be7 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd2 Be6 9.0-0-0 a6 10.Ng5 Bxg5 11.Bxg5 Qd7 12.b3 f6 13.Be3 0-0-0 14.h3 Qf7 15.Be2 h5 16.Rhe1 Rhe8 17.f3 Qg6 18.Bf1 Bf5 19.Kb2 Re5 20.Bf4 Rxe1 21.Rxe1 Re8 22.Rd1 Bd7 23.c4 Qf5 24.Bd3 Qc5 25.Bg6 Rh8 26.Be4 Re8 27.c3 g5 28.Be3 Qe5 29.Bf2 f5 30.Bd3 Qg7 31.c5 dxc5 32.Bxc5 Kb8 33.Bc4 Bc8 34.Bd5 Qe5 35.Bxc6 bxc6 36.Bf2 Qe2 37.Ka3 Qxd2 38.Rxd2 Kb7 39.h4 g4 40.f4 Re7 41.c4 Rd7 42.Re2 Rd3 43.Kb4 g3 44.Bc5 Rd7

45.Be7 [45.Kc3 was a suggested improvement from GM Yermolinksy, intending to keep the Black rook out as long as possible, while; 45.Re3 might also improve, as 45...Rd2 (45...Rg7 46.Be7 Rg4? 47.Bg5+-) 46.Rxg3 Rxa2 47.Rg7 threatening Bd6 47...Rd2 48.Rh7 Be6 49.Rxh5 Rxg2 50.Rh7 may be winning for White.] 45...Rd4 46.Bg5 Re4 47.Rd2 Kb6 48.Rd3 c5+ 49.Ka3 Re2 50.Rxg3 Bb7 51.Bf6 Rxg2 52.Rg5 Rxg5 53.fxg5 f4 54.Be5 f3 55.Bg3 Be4 56.Kb2 Kc6 57.Ka3 Bb1 58.Bf2 Kd6 59.Kb2 Be4 60.Kc1 Bg6 61.Kd2 Bb1 62.a3 Bg6 63.Bg3+ Kd7 64.Ke3 Bc2 65.Kxf3 Ke6 66.Ke3 c6 67.b4 cxb4 68.axb4 Kf5 69.Kd4 Bd1

For those unfamiliar with opposite-colored bishop endings, the reason this position is drawn is that the Black king will sit on f5 (or g6, if necessary) and cannot be removed, while on the queenside White cannot win a pawn without giving one up. For example: [69...Bd1 70.Kc5 Be2 71.Kxc6 Bxc4 72.Kb6 Kg6 followed by bishop moves along the b5-f1 diagonal until the 50-move rule kicks in.] 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 9:

Kasparov 5.5/8
Topalov 4.5/8
Anand 4/7
Leko 4/8
Adams 3.5/8
Kasimdzhanov 3/8
Vallejo Pons 2.5/7

Pairings for Round 10:

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

Linares: Round 8 Recap

2005-03-03T22:59:00.000-05:00

An excellent round today! All three games were very hard-fought, thoroughly making up for yesterday's theft of the spectators' time and the sponsors' money.

First, congratulations to Vallejo Pons on the occasion of his first victory; doubly so for achieving what no one else has in this event - beating Kasimdzhanov! (That also means he beat Kasimdzhanov in the two-game series, something no one was able to do in the 2004 FIDE knockout championship in Tripoli - nice job by Kasimdzhanov!)

Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) - Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) [D37]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (8), 03.03.2005

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Qc2 0-0 8.0-0-0 c5 9.dxc5 d4 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Qe4N [11.e3 Bxe3+ 12.fxe3 Qg5 13.Qe4 Qxc5 14.Bd3 f5 15.Qd4 Qe7 16.Be2 Nc6 17.Qd6 Qg5 18.Qf4 Qe7 19.Qd6 Qg5 20.Qg3 Qxg3 21.hxg3 Ne5 22.e4 Bd7 1/2-1/2, Goldin (2570)-Pigusov (2570), Russian ch. (Elista) 1996] 11...Nc6 12.e3 f5 13.Qf3 Qg5 14.h4 Bxe3+ 15.Qxe3 Qxe3+ 16.fxe3 Ne5 17.Be2 Bd7 18.Rd6 Kf7 19.Bf3 Rac8 20.Rhd1 Rc7 21.b4 Ke7 22.Nb5 Bxb5 23.cxb5 b6 24.c6 g5 25.R6d4 Kf6 26.a4 Ng6 27.hxg5+ hxg5 28.Rd7 Rfc8 29.R1d6 g4 30.Bd1 Nf8 31.Rxc7 Rxc7 32.Bb3 Ke7 33.Rd1 Nh7 34.Rh1 Nf6 35.Rh6 Rc8 36.Kc2 Kf7 37.Bc4 Rd8 38.Rh1 Ke7 39.a5 Rb8 40.Kb3 Rd8 41.axb6 axb6 42.Ra1 Ne4 43.Ra7+ Kf6 44.Rd7 Rh8 45.Bd3 Nf2 46.Bc2 g3 47.Rb7 Ng4 48.Rxb6 Rc8 49.Ra6 Nxe3 50.b6 Nxc2 51.b7 Rxc6 52.b5 Rc5 53.Rb6 Nd4+ 54.Kb4 Rxb5+ 55.Rxb5 Nc6+ 56.Kc3 f4 57.Rc5 f3 58.Rxc6 fxg2 59.b8Q g1Q 60.Qf4+ 1-0

Next, Adams-Topalov was a sharp Najdorf with Adams pressing throughout, but an out-of-form Adams failed to convert: drawn in 48 moves.

Adams,Michael (2741) - Topalov,Veselin (2757) [B90]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (8), 03.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.Be2 Nbd7 8.g4 h6 9.f4 g6 10.h3N b5 11.Bf3 Bb7 12.e5 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 b4 14.Nc6 Qc8 15.Nxb4 dxe5 16.Nd3 exf4 17.Bxf4 Bg7 18.Bd6 Bf8 19.Bxf8 Kxf8 20.Rf1 Kg7 21.h4 Rf8 22.g5 hxg5 23.hxg5 Nh7 24.Qe3 Qd8 25.Rg1 Qb6 26.Qg3 Rac8 27.0-0-0 Rc4 28.Rdf1 Qa5 29.Qd6 Qc7 30.Qxc7 Rxc7 31.Ne4 Rc4 32.Rf4 Rd4 33.b3 Rd5 34.Kb2 a5 35.Rg3 Ne5 36.Ndf2 f5 37.gxf6+ Nxf6 38.Ng5 Re8 39.Rg1 Ned7 40.Rf3 e5 41.Rfg3 e4 42.Ngxe4 Nxe4 43.Rxg6+ Kh7 44.Rg7+ Kh8 45.R7g4 Nef6 46.Rh4+ Nh7 47.Nh3 Rg8 48.Nf4 1/2-1/2

Finally, Kasparov-Leko showed off Leko's tremendous defensive prowess in all its flame retardant glory. Kasparov played a novelty on move 13 against one of Leko's pet lines (I don't know if this variation with 3...e5 against 3.Nc3 has a name yet, but it might be called the Anti-Anti-Sveshnikov) and continued moving quickly through the sacrificial 18.Be3, strongly suggesting home preparation. Leko decided not to take the bait with 18...Qxe4, and while Kasparov continued to have some initiative after that, Black was able to neutralize White's chances and the game concluded, reasonably, in a well-played draw.

Kasparov,Garry (2804) - Leko,Peter (2749) [B30]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (8), 03.03.2005

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 A Leko specialty. 4.Bc4 d6 5.d3 Be7 6.Nd2 Bg5 7.h4 Bxd2+ [7...Bxh4 8.Qh5+-] 8.Bxd2 Nf6 9.0-0 Be6 10.f4 was sort of a novelty, only it transposed back into an earlier Leko game, as we will see. 10...Bxc4 11.dxc4 h5 12.f5N [12.fxe5 dxe5 13.Bg5 Qxd1 14.Raxd1 Ng4 15.Nb5 0-0 16.c3 f6 17.Bc1 a6 18.Nd6 b6 19.Nf5 Rad8 20.Rd5 Kf7 21.Rfd1 Rxd5 22.cxd5 Rd8 23.Kf1 Ne7 24.Nxe7 1/2-1/2, Svidler-Leko, Dortmund 2004] 12...Ng4

Positionally forced, avoiding the pin and hitting h4, but White can still put some serious pressure on the Black position with 13.f6! gxf6 [13...Nxf6? 14.Bg5] 14.Nd5 Ne7 Too bad Black doesn't have an additional pawn on h7 - then 15.Qxg4! wins - 15...hxg4 (15...Nxd5 16.Qg7+-) 16.Nxf6+ Kf8 17.Bh6 mate. However, there isn't such a pawn, and so Black's last move safely evicts White's monster knight on d5 before it can inflict lethal damage on Black's position. This demonstrates a key defensive idea: exchange - especially the opponent's best-placed pieces. 15.Nxf6+ Nxf6 16.Rxf6 Ng8! [16...Ng6 17.Bg5 is lethal - d6 is hanging and lots of juicy rook discoveries are in the air too.] 17.Rf5 Qxh4 18.Be3!

[18.Qf3 f6 19.Bg5 Qg4 20.Bxf6 (20.Qxg4 hxg4 21.Bxf6 Nxf6 22.Rxf6 Ke7 23.Raf1 prevents Black from heading for the pawn ending, as the g4 pawn would fall. On the other hand, Black might have some counterplay on the h-file after 23...Rh7 24.Rg6 Rah8 25.Kf2 Rf8+ 26.Ke2 Rxf1 27.Kxf1 Rh1+ 28.Ke2 Rb1 , when White is better but Black has counterplay.) 20...Qxf3 21.Rxf3 Nxf6 22.Rxf6 Ke7 23.Raf1 Rhf8 24.Rxf8 (24.Rh6!? Rxf1+ 25.Kxf1 Rf8+ 26.Ke2 Rf4 27.Ke3 Rg4 28.Rxh5 Rxg2 29.Rh7+ Ke6 30.Rxb7 Rxc2 31.Kd3 Rh2=) 24...Rxf8 25.Rxf8 Kxf8 26.Kh2 Kg7 27.Kh3 Kg6 28.Kh4 a5 29.a3 b6 30.b3 Kh6 31.c3 Kg6 32.b4 Kh6 33.b5 Kg6 34.g4 hxg4 35.Kxg4 with a drawn ending - apparently this line was examined by Leko during the game (see Michiel Abeln's report on TWIC).] 18...Qe7 [18...Qxe4 19.Qxd6! Qxe3+ (19...Qxf5 is hopeless: 20.Bxc5 Rh6 (20...Rd8 21.Qf8+ Kd7 22.Rd1++-; 20...Rc8 21.Rd1 mates in two; 20...Qf6 21.Qf8+ Kd7 22.Qxa8+-) 21.Qf8+ Kd7 22.Qxa8 Kc6 23.Qxa7+-) 20.Kh1 f6 21.Qe6+ (21.Rd1 Kf7 (21...Rh7 22.Qe6+ Kf8 (22...Ne7 23.Rxf6 Rd8 24.Rxd8+ Kxd8 25.Qd6+ Ke8 26.Qb8+ Kd7 27.Rd6# TWIC) 23.Rxf6+ Nxf6 24.Qxf6+ Kg8 25.Rd8+ Rxd8 26.Qxd8+ Kg7 27.Qe7+ Kg6 28.Qe6+ Kg5 29.Qg8+ Kf4 30.Qxh7 Kg3 31.Qg7+ Kf2 32.Qf8+ Ke2 and Black is winning this ending, as the e-pawn will advance while the Black king inhales White's queenside pawns seriatim.) 22.Rdf1 Rh6 23.Qd5+ Kf8 24.Rxe5 Qd4 25.Qxb7 Qxe5 26.Qxa8+ Kf7 27.Qxa7+ Ne7-+) 21...Ne7 (21...Kf8 22.Rxf6+ Nxf6 23.Qxf6+ Kg8 24.Qg6+ Kf8 25.Rf1+ Ke7 26.Rf7+ Kd8 27.Qd6+ Kc8 28.Qc7#) 22.Qxf6 Rh6 23.Qf7+ Kd7 24.Rd1+ Rd6 25.Rxd6+ Kxd6 26.Rf6+ Kd7 27.Qe6+ Ke8 28.Qf7+ Kd7= (IM Konstantin Maslak); 18...Rd8 19.Bg5 Qxe4 20.Bxd8 Qxf5 21.Qxd6 Rh6 22.Qb8+-] 19.Rxh5 [19.Qd5 Nf6 20.Rxf6 Qxf6 21.Qxb7 0-0 22.Rf1 Qg6 23.Rf5 f6 24.Qd5+ Kh7 25.Qd1 is unclear; 19.b4 was an interesting suggestion of GM Akobian's on Chess.fm, attempting to break Black's queenside and central structure before he castles away into safety. 19...cxb4 20.c5 dxc5 21.Qd5 Akobian, but 21...Rd8 may buy Black out at the cost of some of the (3!) extra pawns.] 19...Rxh5 20.Qxh5 0-0-0 21.Bg5 [21.Rf1 f6 is similar, but the White bishop isn't as active on e3.] 21...f6 22.Bh4 Qe8 Again, Leko defends by chasing off White's most aggressively-posted pieces. If White's queen runs away from the exchange, Black's queen will be well-posted on e6 or g6; with the queens traded, however, Black can consolidate - and that's what happens. 23.Qf5+ Qd7 24.Rf1 Qxf5 25.Rxf5 Rf8 26.Rh5 [26.g4 Nh6 27.Rxf6 Rxf6 28.Bxf6 Nxg4 29.Bg5 Kd7 30.Kg2 Ke6 Just in time to save the knight! 31.Kf3 Nf6=] 26...Kd7 27.Rh8 [27.Rh7+ Ne7 28.Rh6 Ng8 repeats.] 27...Ke6 28.g4 Rc8 29.Kg2 Ne7 30.Rh6 Ng8 31.Rh8

Nice defense by Leko, who was under severe pressure by Kasparov all the way. These guys are good! [31.Rg6?? Kf7-+] 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 8:

Kasparov 4.5/7
Topalov 4/7
Anand 3.5/6
Leko 3.5/7
Adams, Kasimdzhanov 3/7
Vallejo Pons 2.5/7

Pairings for Round 9:

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

Dennis M's Chess Site

I've Moved: Here's the New Blog!

Patience, Please

Of Interest on the Web

Fischer-Kovacevic

Fischer,Robert James - Kovacevic,Vlatko [C15]Rovinj/Zagreb Zagreb (8), 21.04.1970 [Monokroussos,Dennis]

I Was Right!

This Week on ChessBase: Pachman-Fischer

Pachman Strikes Back

Jauregui Andrade,Carlos - Fischer,Robert James [E81]Santiago (10), 1959

More Fun with Pachman

Fischer,Robert James - Pachman,Ludek [C75]Mar del Plata (3), 25.03.1959

Pachman,Ludek - Fischer,Robert James [E51]Santiago (6), 1959

Sanchez,Luis Augusto - Pachman,Ludek [B88]Santiago (9), 1959

Swindle Like a Grandmaster

Pachman,Ludek - Doda,Zbigniew [A65]Capablanca mem Havana (16), 1965

Rook vs. Bishop: Ending 3

Bits and Pieces: Chess News

Rook vs. Bishop: Ending 2

This Week's ChessBase Show: Going Under the Radar

Rook vs. Bishop: Ending 1

Chess Patterns, Beauty and Humor

Gruengard - Dobkin,I [C15]Tel Aviv, 1946

Alterman,Boris (2564) - Comp Deep Fritz [A03]KC Human-Machine KasparovChess INT (9), 15.11.2000

Blog Name!

A Case of Enduring Mutual Blindness

Around the Web

Maverick Chess?

Vallicella,Bill (1170) - NN (1244) [B13]ICC 5 0, 06.04.2004

Rook vs. Bishop: 4 Endings

Bobby Fischer and Damiano's Defense

Fischer,Robert James - McGregor,Robert F [C40]Houston sim Houston, 1964

Naming and Contingency

The Swiderski Bind?

Swiderski,Rudolf - Maroczy,Geza [B38]Monte Carlo Monte Carlo (4), 1904

Humor Tournament: 1st place

Radio Reflections on Chess, Children, and Character

This Week's Non-April Fools' Show

MacDonald - Burn,Amos [C41]Casual Game, 1910

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 4

Polgar,Sofia (2295) - Chernin,Alexander (2580) [B85]Rome 1989

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 3

Korchnoi,Viktor - Spassky,Boris [B71]Leningrad, 1948

Christiansen,Larry Mark (2620) - Karpov,Anatoly (2725) [E12]Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (2), 01.1993

Liberzon,Vladimir M - Petrosian,Tigran V [C18]Moscow-ch Trades Union Moscow (4), 05.12.1964

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 2

Tal,Mihail - Tringov,Georgi P [B06]Amsterdam Interzonal Amsterdam (23), 1964

April Fools' Day: Fact or Fiction - Answer 1

April Fools' Day: Chess Fact or Fiction?

Melody Amber, Round 11

Bareev,Evgeny (2709) - Ivanchuk,Vasily (2711) [D80]Amber Blindfold (11.1), 31.03.2005 [Monokroussos,Dennis]

Melody Amber, Round 10

Ivanchuk,Vasily (2711) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C13]Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (10), 30.03.2005

Karpov-Istratescu

Karpov,Anatoly (2674) - Istratescu,Andrei (2617) [E15]Match Bucharest ROM (2), 21.03.2005

Melody Amber, Round 9

Kramnik,Vladimir (2754) - Svidler,Peter (2735) [B46]Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (9), 29.03.2005

The Karpov-Fischer Hoax

Karpov,Anatoly (2660) - Bellon Lopez,Juan Manuel (2400) [A25]Madrid (5), 01.12.1973

Saidy,Anthony - Fischer,Robert [A25]USA, 1968

Capablanca's Last Lectures: Felix Culpa!

Melody Amber, Round 8

Nakamura,Hikaru (2752) - Smirin,Ilya (2812) [B09]Foxwoods Open Monte Carlo MNC (5), 25.03.2005 [Monokroussos,Dennis]

Kramnik,Vladimir (2754) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [B09]Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (8), 27.03.2005

This Week's ChessBase Show: Something VERY Special

Melody Amber, Round 7

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Bareev,Evgeny (2709) [B19]Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (7), 26.03.2005

Melody Amber, Round 6

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C11]Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (6), 25.03.2005

Van Wely,Loek (2679) - Shirov,Alexei (2713) [D44]Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (6), 25.03.2005

Melody Amber, Round 5

Kramnik,V (2754) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B32]Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (5), 24.03.2005

The Ultimate Zugzwang

A Lesson from Cycle World Magazine

Melody Amber, Round 4

Vallejo Pons,F (2686) - Shirov,A (2713) [D10]Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

Morozevich,A (2741) - Bareev,E (2709) [B10]Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

Shirov,A (2713) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B30]Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

Melody Amber, Round 3

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [B90]Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (3), 21.03.2005

Fischer,Robert James - Kovacevic,Vlatko [C15]
Rovinj/Zagreb Zagreb (8), 21.04.1970
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

Jauregui Andrade,Carlos - Fischer,Robert James [E81]
Santiago (10), 1959

Fischer,Robert James - Pachman,Ludek [C75]
Mar del Plata (3), 25.03.1959

Pachman,Ludek - Fischer,Robert James [E51]
Santiago (6), 1959

Sanchez,Luis Augusto - Pachman,Ludek [B88]
Santiago (9), 1959

Pachman,Ludek - Doda,Zbigniew [A65]
Capablanca mem Havana (16), 1965

Gruengard - Dobkin,I [C15]
Tel Aviv, 1946

Alterman,Boris (2564) - Comp Deep Fritz [A03]
KC Human-Machine KasparovChess INT (9), 15.11.2000

Vallicella,Bill (1170) - NN (1244) [B13]
ICC 5 0, 06.04.2004

Fischer,Robert James - McGregor,Robert F [C40]
Houston sim Houston, 1964

Swiderski,Rudolf - Maroczy,Geza [B38]
Monte Carlo Monte Carlo (4), 1904

MacDonald - Burn,Amos [C41]
Casual Game, 1910

Polgar,Sofia (2295) - Chernin,Alexander (2580) [B85]
Rome 1989

Korchnoi,Viktor - Spassky,Boris [B71]
Leningrad, 1948

Christiansen,Larry Mark (2620) - Karpov,Anatoly (2725) [E12]
Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (2), 01.1993

Liberzon,Vladimir M - Petrosian,Tigran V [C18]
Moscow-ch Trades Union Moscow (4), 05.12.1964

Tal,Mihail - Tringov,Georgi P [B06]
Amsterdam Interzonal Amsterdam (23), 1964

Bareev,Evgeny (2709) - Ivanchuk,Vasily (2711) [D80]
Amber Blindfold (11.1), 31.03.2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

Ivanchuk,Vasily (2711) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C13]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (10), 30.03.2005

Karpov,Anatoly (2674) - Istratescu,Andrei (2617) [E15]
Match Bucharest ROM (2), 21.03.2005

Kramnik,Vladimir (2754) - Svidler,Peter (2735) [B46]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (9), 29.03.2005

Karpov,Anatoly (2660) - Bellon Lopez,Juan Manuel (2400) [A25]

Madrid (5), 01.12.1973

Saidy,Anthony - Fischer,Robert [A25]

USA, 1968

Nakamura,Hikaru (2752) - Smirin,Ilya (2812) [B09]
Foxwoods Open Monte Carlo MNC (5), 25.03.2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

Kramnik,Vladimir (2754) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [B09]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (8), 27.03.2005

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Bareev,Evgeny (2709) [B19]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (7), 26.03.2005

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C11]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (6), 25.03.2005

Van Wely,Loek (2679) - Shirov,Alexei (2713) [D44]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (6), 25.03.2005

Kramnik,V (2754) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B32]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (5), 24.03.2005

Vallejo Pons,F (2686) - Shirov,A (2713) [D10]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

Morozevich,A (2741) - Bareev,E (2709) [B10]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

Shirov,A (2713) - Vallejo Pons,F (2686) [B30]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (4), 22.03.2005

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [B90]
Amber Blindfold Monte Carlo MNC (3), 21.03.2005

Svidler,Peter (2735) - Morozevich,Alexander (2741) [C11]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (3), 21.03.2005

Shirazi,Kamran - Quinteros,Miguel [B51]
3 0 blitz, 2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

Shirazi - Monokroussos,D [A47]
Midwest Masters Inv (2), 04.1987

Denker,Arnold - Fine,Reuben [E43]
US Championship, 1944
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

Denker,Arnold - Feit,Harold [A84]
N.Y. Interscholastic Ch., 1929
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

DM - NN [B10]
Internet blitz (3 0), 30.12.2000

DM - NN [B21]
5 0 game, 1997

Solak,Dragan (2596) - Hamdouchi,Hichem (2555) [B77]
Athens Acropolis GM President Hotel, Athens (7.4), 12.03.2005

Kasparov,Garry (2700) - Karpov,Anatoly (2720) [E21]
World Championship 32th-KK2 Moscow (19), 24.10.1985

Kasparov,Garry (2740) - Karpov,Anatoly (2700) [A14]
World Championship 34th-KK4 Seville (24), 18.12.1987

Kasparov,Garry (2812) - Topalov,Veselin (2700) [B07]
Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (4), 20.01.1999

Kramnik,Vladimir (2807) - Topalov,Veselin (2743) [B82]
Amber-blind 12th Monte Carlo (2), 16.03.2003

Topalov,Veselin (2700) - Ivanchuk,Vassily (2714) [A30]
Linares 16th Linares (13), 09.03.1999

Topalov,Veselin (2640) - Bareev,Evgeny (2685) [C13]
Linares 12th Linares (11), 1994

Karpov,Anatoly (2740) - Topalov,Veselin (2640) [A33]
Linares 12th Linares (4), 1994

Topalov,Veselin (2740) - Shirov,Alexei (2710) [D85]
Linares 15th Linares (10), 04.03.1998

Topalov,Veselin (2757) - Kasparov,Garry (2804) [B30]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (14), 10.03.2005
[Monokroussos]

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Adams,Michael (2741) [E15]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (14), 10.03.2005

Leko,Peter (2749) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [B32]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (14), 10.03.2005

Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) - Leko,Peter (2749) [B31]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (13), 09.03.2005

Kasparov,Garry (2804) - Anand,Veselin (2786) [C42]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (13), 09.03.2005

Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) - Topalov,Veselin (2757) [D37]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (13), 09.03.2005

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) [A30]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (12), 08.03.2005

Adams,Michael (2741) - Kasparov,Garry (2804) [B90]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (12), 08.03.2005

Topalov,Veselin (2757) - Kasimdzhanov,Rustam (2678) [D31]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (12), 08.03.2005

Fernandes,R (2226) - De la Paz,F (2466) [E62]
XI Anibal Open Linares ESP (4), 28.02.2005

Pavasovic,D (2595) - Zelenika,D (2269) [B17]
12th Metalis Open Bizovac CRO (2), 24.02.2005

Reefat,S (2462) - Hasan Md,E (2121) [B08]
31st ch-BAN Dhaka BAN (5), 01.02.2005

Smith,Bryan (2339) - Kaufman,Ray (2255) [C60]
Millennium Open Virginia Beach USA (4), 27.02.2005

Kaufman,R (2255) - Greanias,S (2164) [D00]
Millennium Open Virginia Beach USA (5), 27.02.2005

Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2686) - Adams,Michael (2741) [A05]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (11), 06.03.2005

Leko,Peter (2749) - Topalov,Veselin (2757) [B90]
XXII SuperGM Linares ESP (11), 06.03.2005