The Chess Mind

The translation is pretty bad, but you can find the transcript of a long and interesting interview with Vladimir Kramnik on all the world chess champions from Steinitz to Kasparov here.

Here's an excerpt on Mikhail Tal to whet your appetite (and to prepare you for the quality of the translation):

It's very difficult to speak about Tal, because he is extraordinary, very bright, he's a sort of phenomenon. I'm quite sure that he would have also achieved a success in any field of activity. He had fantastical pungency of wit. If he were a scientist he would probably become a Nobel prizewinner. Tal was not of this world. And, by the way, many people, who knew him personally, told that he had nothing in common with homo sapience. He's a sort of extraterrestrial! That's why chess, he played, were "extraterrestrial". To discuss his chess means as much as to discuss how Lord God looks like.

(Hat tip: Brian Karen)

A week or so ago, I discussed American GM Hikaru Nakamura's semi-successful trek into the wilderness that is 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, and suggested that such a cynical opening should be met by the even more derisive 2...Nf6!

Nakamura has since taken to playing this opening in online blitz games - this, despite the fact that I, a player whom he outrates by about 400 points, explicitly warned him about this move. (His response: "lol".) Fortunately, his opponents all played the polite, compliant 2...Nc6 - until yesterday:

Smallville (3194) - nulletokkpokk (3183) [C20]
ICC 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 28.04.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Be2 Nc6 5.Qf4 d5 6.e5 Ne4 7.Nf3 g5 8.Qe3 g4 9.Nd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bc5 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qb3 Qh4 13.Qxd5 Qxf2+ 14.Kd1 Qxg2 0-1



Black is always better, according to the computer, and much better after 7...g5! White's moves are forced until the blunder on move 13, but even after the better 13.Qxb7 Qxf2+ 14.Kd1 Qxg2! 15.Rf1 O-O Black has a pretty big advantage.

The moral of the story? Meet junk with junk!

A couple of days ago, I presented a very elegant endgame study by M. Matous for the readers' solving pleasure (and if you solved it, I'm sure you'll agree that it was a pleasure), and now it's time for the solution. As with the Marshall-Capablanca game, I hope the reader will give solving this their best shot before looking at the solution; for those ready to take a look, click, read, and enjoy:

In a recent post, I presented a Marshall-Capablanca game and offered readers a challenge; to wit, figure out where, in an otherwise dismal, one-sided loss, Marshall had the chance to turn the tables with a brilliant tactical shot. I hope that where Marshall failed, you succeeded, but if you haven't worked it out yet, keep trying.

If you're ready for the solution, click below.

Among the minimum requirements for success in chess are tactical proficiency and skill in the endgame, and among the components of almost any successful life are the presence of beauty and humor. Happy, then, is the lover of endgame studies, for he or she will have all four needs met at once. Take a look and see for yourself - happy solving!


M. Matous 1982: White to play and win.

While browsing the "Chess Stars" volume on Capablanca covering his game with Sultan Khan, I chanced upon a diagram from the following game:

Marshall,Frank James - Capablanca,Jose Raul [E16]
New York New York (9), 1931

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Nbxd2 0-0 8.0-0 c5 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.Rc1 Qc7 11.Nb3 d6 12.Qd2 Nc6 13.Rfd1 Rfd8 14.Nh4 a5 15.a4 Rab8 16.Rc3 Ba8 17.h3 Nb4 18.Bxa8 Rxa8 19.Qf4 Qc6 20.Rf3 Rd7 21.g4 Qxa4 22.Rxd6 Nbd5 23.Qe5 Rxd6 24.Qxd6 Ne4 25.Qe5 Qxc4 26.Rd3 a4 27.f3 Nef6 28.Nd2 Qc1+ 29.Kf2 h6 30.f4 c4 31.Rd4 c3 32.bxc3 a3 33.g5 a2 34.Nb3 Qxc3 35.gxf6 Qxb3 36.Rd1 Qxd1 0-1

This game seems like so many others between the American champion and the Cuban legend; to wit, a one-sided positional crush going Capa's way. Marshall was a great player in his own right, especially renowned as a trickster who could pull a rabbit out of almost any hat, but against Capablanca his tactical dreams almost never came true.

It is ironic, therefore, that in this otherwise typically convincing game, Capablanca allows Marshall a vicious, table-turning shot - and Marshall misses it!

Can you do better? Don't use your computer or look for annotations, please - that would violate the whole spirit of the thing. Likewise, for those few so far who have been approved to comment, please don't spoil it for others by posting the answer. (Those who are stumped need not suffer too long - the answer will be provided in a day or two.)

So you're sitting there, thinking about how much nicer life would be if your FIDE rating was a bit higher, or if you could just get that elusive last norm.

If that sounds like you, you have options:

(1) You could work on your chess, travel to a tournament, do your best and hope it turns out well.
(2) You could arrange to "play" in an event like the recently "held" Heroes of Chernobyl Memorial non-tournament.

The second option isn't particularly sporting, but one's results can increase in spectacular fashion...unless you get caught. (See here and here for a few more details.)

In the mid-1920s, Mir Sultan Khan (1905-1966) started to play chess as we know it. In 1929 his patron and master (these were the days of British colonial rule in India) brought him to London, and he won the British championship a few months later. From 1930-1933, he was an active participant in the international tournament scene, and he didn’t just participate; he was one of the best players in the world. According to Hooper and Whyld’s The Oxford Companion to Chess, Sultan Khan was one of the world’s 10 best players at the time; according to Jose Capablanca, he was a genius.

Today we’ll look at a game by this genius, a win in the Hastings 1930/31 tournament against none other than Capablanca himself! In an impressive technical display that evokes more recent legends like Tigran Petrosian and Anatoly Karpov, Sultan Khan manages to keep Capa’s pieces either inactive or meaninglessly active from the opening all the way through the end of the game. That’s the sort of thing one expects in a master vs. amateur game, but to do so against one of the all-time greats is remarkable, especially given his own relative inexperience.

So join us as we take a look a game that’s historically interesting, a model of excellent positional play, and one of the very first games in what is now called the Petrosian Variation of the Queen’s Indian Defense – an important line well-worth an overview. See you tonight!

(Note: for those interested in accessing the show but not sure how to do so, click here; for those interested in a list of previous shows, this is the link for you.)

At long last, here is the fourth and final ending in our series on rook vs. bishop endings. The position is a draw and the means very simple, but there are so many extremely interesting near-neighbors to this ending that the post exploded in size and depth, but it was worth it - even if none of you learn anything from this (which would be a great pity), I learned quite a bit! So be patient, follow along, and you'll be surprised at how enjoyable, fascinating, and easy to learn endgames can be.

Anand,Viswanathan (2786) - Van Wely,Loek (2679) [D48]
Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (9), 29.03.2005

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.d5 Bb7 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Bc2 c4 13.Nd4 e5 14.Nf5 g6 15.Ne3 Bc5 16.Qf3 0-0 17.Bd2 Ne8 18.Ne2 Nd6 19.Rfc1 Rac8 20.a4 b4 21.a5 Qd8 22.Ra4 Ba8 23.Bxb4 Bxb4 24.Rxb4 Qxa5 25.Ra4 Qb6 26.Rb1 Bb7 27.h4 Qd8 28.Qg3 Nc5 29.Nc3 Nxa4 30.Bxa4 f6 31.h5 g5 32.h6 Rb8 33.Nf5 Bc8 34.Ng7 Qe7 35.Qf3 f5 36.exf5 Bxf5 37.Re1 Rxb2 38.Qg3 e4 39.f4 Bg6 40.Ne6 gxf4 41.Nxf4 Qa7+ 42.Kh2 Qf2 43.Qxf2 Rxf2 44.Nxg6 hxg6 45.Nxe4 Nxe4 46.Rxe4 R2f4 47.Re7 c3 48.Bc2 R8f7 49.Re3 Kh7 50.Rxc3 R7f6 51.Ra3 Rd4 52.Bd3 a5 53.Bb5 Rxd5 54.Rxa5 Kxh6 55.Ra6 Rxa6 56.Bxa6



This position turns out to be an easy draw: White simply plays g3, keeps the bishop on the h1-a8 diagonal and the king on g1 or g2 and there's nothing Black can do! 56...Kg5 57.g3 Rd6 58.Bc8 Rc6 59.Bd7 Rc7 60.Be6 Kf6 61.Bg4 Ke5 62.Bf3 Rh7+ 63.Kg2 Kd4 64.Ba8 Ke3 65.Bc6 Rc7 66.Ba8 Rc2+ 67.Kg1 Kd4 68.Bb7 Rb2 69.Bc6 Ke5 70.Ba8 Kf5 71.Bf3 Ke5 72.Kf1 Kd4 73.Kg1 Ke3 74.Ba8 Ra2 75.Bb7 Rd2 76.Ba8 Rf2 77.Bb7 Ke2 78.Ba8 Ke3 79.Bb7 g5 80.Ba8 g4 81.Bb7 Ra2 82.Bc6 Rb2 83.Ba8 Kd4 84.Bc6 Rb6



Let's stop for a moment and consider this position. If you're blowing through the moves a la Evelyn Wood, it probably seems uninteresting: White can play Bh1, Bg2, or Ba8 and nothing changes, nothing matters. Not so! If 85.Bg2? Rb1+ 86.Kf2 Rb2+ 87.Kg1 then Rxg2+! wins - the price of having a pawn on the third rank instead of the fourth: 88.Kxg2 Ke3 89.Kg1 Kf3 90.Kh2 Kf2 91.Kh1 Kxg3 92.Kg1 Kh3 93.Kh1 g3 94.Kg1 g2 95.Kf2 Kh2-+ and so on. And 85.Bh1? is the same thing: 85...Rb1+ 86.Kh2 Rxh1+ 87.Kxh1 Ke3 88.Kg2 Ke2 89.Kg1 Kf3 90.Kh2 Kf2 91.Kh1 Kxg3 92.Kg1 Kh3 93.Kh1 g3 94.Kg1 g2 95.Kf2 Kh2-+

What can we learn from this? Lots, actually, if we'll take the time to play around a bit! Suppose we had a 7x8 board: 8 ranks still, but only 7 files. If we moved the pawns over one file, then it looks like Black would win! Of course, the board isn't 7x8, it's 8x8, but what will happen if we move everything over a file anyway? For the answer to this question, take a look at supplementary position 1, below - but try to figure it out for yourself first!

Here's another interesting question: we know that Black wins here if White plays inaccurately on account of the exchanging combination to a winning pawn ending. So let's suppose we move everything up a rank - the pawns are on g4 and g5, so that after the same sort of exchange sac in the variations above the position will be a draw. Does that mean the position is a draw, period, with best play? Again, try to work it out for yourselves, and then consult with supplementary position 2.

Finally, one might wonder why Anand put his pawn on the opposite colored square to his bishop - wouldn't it be more secure on the same-colored square? That leads to two further cases: one with the pawn anchored on g2, the other with the pawn on g4; for the answers, see supplementary positions 3 and 4.

And even returning to the position in the game, there's yet another important question to ask: what about; 85.Bd7 - does this draw? It's not thematic, but if it doesn't lose, then is it important? 85...Rg6 86.Kf2 and Black isn't making any progress here, either.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled game:

85.Ba8 Ke3 86.Kg2 Rd6 87.Bb7 Rd2+ 88.Kg1 Rf2 89.Ba8 Rf3 90.Kg2 Rf2+ 91.Kg1 Ra2 92.Bb7 Ra4 93.Kg2 Kd4 94.Bc6 Rb4 95.Kg1 Kc5 96.Ba8 Rb8



here too, White has only one move: the diagonal is only just long enough for the White bishop. 97.Be4 Kd6 98.Kg2 Rb4 99.Ba8 Ra4 100.Bb7 Kc7 101.Bd5 Rd4 102.Ba8 Ra4 103.Bd5 Kd6 104.Bb7 Ra7 105.Be4 Ke5 106.Bc6 Ra6 107.Bb7 Rb6 108.Ba8 Rb8 109.Bc6 Kd6 110.Be4 Re8 111.Bf5 Rg8 112.Be4 Re8 113.Bf5 Re2+ 114.Kf1 Ra2 115.Bxg4 Ke5 116.Bf3 Kd4 117.Kg1 Ke3 118.Bd5 Rd2 119.Bc6 1/2-1/2


Rook vs Bishop part 4 - Supplement 1



1.Bc7 holds for now, but let's see if we can construct a different sort of net for the bishop. [1.Bf2 Ra1+ 2.Ke2 Ra2+ 3.Kf1 Rxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Kd3 5.Kf1 Ke3 6.Kg2 Ke2 7.Kg1 Kxf3 8.Kf1 Kg3 9.Kg1 f3 10.Kf1 f2 11.Ke2 Kg2-+] 1...Rf6 2.Ke2 Kd4 3.Kd2 Kd5 4.Kd3 Rf8 5.Ke2 Ke6 6.Kd3 Kf5 7.Ke2 Re8+ 8.Kf2 Rc8 9.Bb6 Rc2+ 10.Kf1 Ke5 11.Ba7 Rb2 12.Bc5 Rb5 13.Ba7 Kd5



And we've done it - it's a complete zugzwang! First, clearly enough, the bishop has no moves: it can't transfer to the b8-h2 diagonal, obviously enough, as that would hang the bishop, as would moving it to b6, c6, d4 or e3. 14.Bf2 and 14.Bg1 lose familiarly: Black forces the exchange of his rook for the bishop and wins the pawn ending. That leaves king moves, but it turns out that there aren't any good ones, because none of them stops the threat of 14...Rb7 15.Bf2/Bg1 followed by 2-3 rook moves forcing the winning pawn ending. The best try is 14.Ke2, but now 14...Kc4 renews the dilemma. All bishop moves lose, and all king moves but one allow 15...Rb7 followed by forcing the trade. We're left with only 15.Kd2, but now 15...Rb3



poses the final dilemma. Giving up the f-pawn loses, while 16.Ke2 returns to the lost pawn ending. Let's take a look at both, briefly: 16.Bg1 [16.Ke2 Rb7 17.Bg1 Rb2+ 18.Kf1 Rb1+ 19.Kg2 Rxg1+ 20.Kxg1 Kd3 21.Kg2 Ke2 22.Kg1 Kxf3 23.Kf1 Kg3 24.Kg1 f3 25.Kf1 f2 26.Ke2 Kg2-+] 16...Rxf3 17.Ke2 Rb3 18.Ba7 Kd5 19.Bf2 Ke4 20.Bc5 Rb2+ 21.Kf1



21...Kf3 [It's very important to remember that 21...f3?? leads to a draw: see Rook vs. Bishop: Ending 1 for the details.] 22.Kg1 Rd2 23.Bb6 Rg2+ 24.Kf1 [24.Kh1 Kg3 25.Bc5 f3-+] 24...Rb2 25.Ba5 Rb1+ 26.Be1 Rd1 27.Kg1 Rxe1+ 28.Kh2 Rf1 29.Kh3 Rh1#


Rook vs Bishop, part 4 - Supplement 2



1.Bg3 [1.Bd8 lines will be ignored this time around - we'll assume Black was careful earlier not to allow it. (I certainly recommend that the reader analyze this carefully, however, and try to determine if Black can evict the bishop and bring the king back around without allowing this defensive try a second time.)] 1...Ke4 2.Bd6 Rb6 3.Bc7 Rb2+ 4.Kg3 Rb7 5.Bd6 Kd5



Ironic, isn't it? The bishop's diagonal turns out to be too small here, too! Move everything down a rank and White has 6.Ba8; unfortunately, the way things are White needs 6.Ba9 to stay alive, and that's just not legal. The bishop must leave the diagonal, and sure enough, Black wins: 6.Bf8 Rb3+ 7.Kg2 Ke5 followed by 8...Kf4, 9...Kxg4 and so on, but not 7...Ke4? 8.Bd6 and Black has to start all over again.


Rook vs Bishop part 4 - Supplement 3



The first thing to note is that this is a pretty favorable starting position for Black. For instance, if the Black king were further back, White could put the bishop on the c8-h3 diagonal and his king on the third rank, and then Black would have a dickens of a time trying to make progress. When examining such positions, try out different Black pawn locations as well. Perhaps if the Black king has access to g5, that will undermine White's anti-Kf5 strategy - here Black needs that square, but if he has g5, then he might not! With those caveats - and, I hope, suggestions for tinkering on the part of the reader, let's take a look at this particular position, and see what's available. White to move should play 1.g3, as we know from the main game, but let's see what happens if he tries to keep the pawn on g2. 1.Ke3 Ra3+ 2.Kf2 g4 3.Bc6 Kf4 4.Bd5 Rd3 5.Bc6 Rd2+ 6.Kg1 [6.Ke1 Ke3-+ and the White bishop has nowhere to hide: if it moves to b7 or a8, Black plays Rb2 or Ra2, respectively, threatening both the bishop and a back rank mate.] 6...Kg3 7.Kf1 Rf2+ 8.Kg1 [8.Ke1 Rxg2 9.Kf1 Rc2 10.Ba4 Rf2+ 11.Ke1 (11.Kg1 Ra2) 11...Kg2 12.Bc6+ Kg1 13.Bd5 g3-+] 8...Rc2 9.Bb5 Rc1+ 10.Bf1 Ra1 11.Kh1 Rxf1#


Rook vs Bishop part 4 - Supplement 4



Finally, if the setup with the White pawn on g2 was overly passive, let's see if White fares any better here. Now there won't be any mating nets to worry about, and as we've also already seen, the exchange of the rook for the bishop doesn't lead to an automatic win, either. White's dark squares are seriously weak, obviously enough, but is it fatal? Let's see: 1.Ke4 Re8+ 2.Kd4 [No sense in making it easy for the Black king to get into the White position!] 2...Rb8 3.Kd5 Rb5+ 4.Ke4 Re5+ 5.Kf3 [5.Kd4 loses to 5...Rxf5 6.gxf5 Kxf5 7.Ke3 Kg4 8.Kf2 Kh3 9.Kg1 Kg3-+] 5...Re7 [5...Rxf5+? is only a draw, of course, as the White king is in front of the pawn and can easily maintain the opposition: 6.gxf5 Kxf5 7.Kg3 g4 8.Kg2 Kf4 9.Kf2 g3+ 10.Kg2 Kg4 11.Kg1! (11.Kf1?? Kf3 12.Kg1 g2 13.Kh2 Kf2-+) 11...Kh3 12.Kh1 g2+ 13.Kg1 Kg3 stalemate.] 6.Kf2 Ke5 [The king is in, but there's still a little work to be done.] 7.Kf3 Ra7 8.Kg3 Ra3+ 9.Kg2 Kf4 10.Bc8 Ra2+ Black needs to penetrate further with his king - cashing out with [10...Rg3+ 11.Kh2 Rxg4?? 12.Bxg4 Kxg4 13.Kg2 is a draw (though it wouldn't be one rank down). 13...Kf4 14.Kf2 g4 15.Kg2 g3 the reason why the previously commented-on position was winning a rank down is that if this position were one rank further down, White would have to bring the king to h2 (the equivalent of h3 here), but thanks to the availability of g1 (as opposed to the non-existent g0 in the parallel case), White maintains the draw: 16.Kg1 Kf3 17.Kf1 g2+ 18.Kg1 Kg3=] 11.Kh3 [11.Kf1 Kf3 12.Kg1 Rg2+ 13.Kf1 (13.Kh1 Kg3 and mating threats decide.) 13...Rc2-+ forces White to surrender the pawn, when the win becomes routine (Black slowly advances the pawn, with his king in front, as if heading for the Lucena position).] 11...Kf3 12.Bb7+ Kf2 and now White is threatened with ...Ra7-h7# ideas. 13.Bc6 Ra6 14.Be8



White seems to be okay: 14...Rh6+ 15.Bh5 and so what, right? 14...Kg1! Oops! White gets mated on the third rank instead: 15.Bb5 Ra3+ 16.Bd3 Rxd3#

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

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!

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!

A reader named Andrew sent me the following letter (lightly edited):

Hi Dennis,

I am a beginner chess player and I just watched a game on the chessbase server between two players of about my strength. The position below came up after 41 moves with white to move:



In this position white is in check by black's queen. The queen appears to be protected by the knight but the knight is pinned so it cannot move. Fritz will not let the white king take the queen. With the knight pinned is it really against the rules for the king to take the queen?

Seems like an interesting position, at least to a beginner like me.

Andrew

I think it's a wonderfully interesting question, Andrew!

The quick answer is yes, it really is against the rules for White to play Kxc4. A player cannot move his or her king into an attack, or make a move that exposes the king to attack - even by a pinned piece.

But you're right to wonder about that! After all, if any other White piece wanted to take the Black queen on c4, it could do so without any danger at all. And even as things stand, it might seem only fair that White have the option of 1.Kxc4, because 1...Nxc4 allows 2.Rxe7. (Would that be a draw?)

Why doesn't it work this way? I don't know, and if any readers know the historical reasons why the rules are this way, I hope they'll write in and tell us. But here's a guess:

Remember, first of all, that the king doesn't get captured in chess. The goal of the game is to give checkmate, and that happens when the king is under attack and can't run away. We don't actually take the king, though, and one story I've heard that tries to explain it is that in the wars of long ago, conquering armies would sometimes take the losing side's king and his generals and instead of killing them, they would make them their slaves. To die in battle was honorable, but to be made slaves by the conquerers was felt to be a great humiliation.

Back to chess: while it's true that a pinned piece can't capture an enemy piece if doing so would expose its own king to attack, that doesn't mean that it isn't attacking that enemy piece. It is. For pieces other than the king, being attacked isn't fatal - what counts is getting captured. The king, on the other hand, is in trouble just by being attacked, so unfortunately for White, his king can't capture on c4.

I hope that helps!

The chess world was abuzz today due to Hikaru Nakamura's unusual opening choice against Indian GM Krishnan Sasikiran: 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5!? Black won, but White's experiment was a success, as he achieved a significant advantage out of the opening.

Black attempted to meet Nakamura's idea in a "respectful" manner, but I wonder if he should have. Take a look at the previous post, Responding to Junk Openings, then take a careful look at the position after White's second move. Is 2.Qh5 a joke? If so - and maybe even if it isn't - then 2...Nf6 may be the psychologically correct response. What would you do?

Nakamura,Hikaru (2657) - Sasikiran,Krishnan (2642) [C20]
13th Sigeman & Co Copenhagen/Malmoe DEN (7), 22.04.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5



What? Does Nakamura expect to mate his opponent on move 4?? No, not at all - and not because he's hoping for 2...Ke7?? 3.Qxe5#, either. But then what IS the point? For starters, I wouldn't rule out purely psychological motives: Sasikiran is a strong GM, and it would be embarrassing to be known as a player who lost to what we might call the Scholar's Mate Attack - a factor that might put some pressure on him during the game. Second, it might be a bit of showing off, a way of not-so-humbly announcing to the world that "I can play anything and still win". I suspect both motives are at work, but I don't think Nakamura would have played it unless he had some confidence in the move's possibilities. The White queen will end up on g3 or h4, depending on Black's reaction, and both are pretty common squares for a White queen in some middlegames (in Sicilians and French Defenses, for example). What makes the idea unusual is that it seems to get things backward: usually a player stakes out certain squares with pawns, then brings out the minor pieces (knights before bishops, according to textbook wisdom) to help in the battle for the center and to get the king castled, and only then to worry about the queen, rooks and whatever pawn breaks are needed to make further progress. 2.Qh5 might seem less flexible than the normal 2.Nf3, but it forces Black to make committal decisions as well; in particular, Black is more or less forced to fianchetto the king's bishop, and while it isn't horrible there, it's not as active as it would be on the a7-g1 diagonal. 2...Nc6 And now, what ought Black to do? Should he view 2.Qh5 as a junk opening, as a provocation deserving to be one-upped? [2...Nf6!? is the move I always play when facing this in blitz, and it might even be sound! The following is a first attempt at some serious, computer-aided analysis, and surprisingly enough, Black seems to be doing pretty well. 3.Qxe5+ (3.Qh4 Be7 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Qe4 Nf6 7.Qxe5 0-0 8.Be2 Nc6 9.Qf4 Nb4 10.Na3 Re8-/+) 3...Be7 4.Nc3 (4.d3 Nc6 5.Qf4 0-0=/+) 4...Nc6 5.Qf4 Nb4 (5...d5 6.e5 Nh5 7.Qf3 Nd4 8.Qxh5 Nxc2+ 9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.d4 Be6 11.Bd3 Qd7 12.h3 0-0-0 13.b3 f6 14.Bb2 fxe5 15.Qxe5 Bd6 16.Qe2 favors White.; 5...0-0 6.e5 Ne8 7.d4 d5 8.Nf3 f6 9.Qg3 Nb4 10.Bd3 Nxd3+ 11.cxd3 Bf5 12.0-0 c6 is approximately equal.) 6.Kd1 d5 (6...0-0 7.a3 Nc6 8.e5 Ne8 9.Qe4 d6 10.f4 g6 11.Nf3 Bf5=/+) 7.a3 (7.e5 Ng4 (7...Ne4 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Qxe4 Be6 10.c3 Nc6 11.d4 Qd7 12.Nf3 Bf5 13.Qf4+/=) 8.Bb5+ (8.d4 f6 9.e6 Bxe6 10.a3 Nc6-/+) 8...c6 9.Be2 g5 10.Qg3 Nh6 11.f4 g4-/+) 7...d4 8.axb4 dxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 leaves Black good compensation for the pawns.] 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.Ne2 Bg7 6.Nbc3 d6 7.d3 Bg4



[We're in virgin territory, as far as I can tell with my databases, and it looks like Black has equalized with all normal, natural moves.] 8.Qg3 Qd7 [8...Nb4 9.Bb3 Be6 might at first seem to win a pawn (or force White to either give up castling with 10.Kd1 or recapture with the c-pawn after 10.O-O Bxb3 11.cxb3), but White can save it with 10.Ba4+ followed by a timely a3.] 9.f3 Be6 10.Bg5 Nh5 11.Qh4 h6 12.Be3



[But now White seems to have an edge! The players' pieces are about equally active, but White is better organized for f4 or d4 than Black is to play d5 or f5.] 12...Na5 13.Bb3 [13.Bxe6 looks even better. It's not so much that Black gains the two bishops after White's choice, as that Black's knights are misplaced and White will gain time while Black returns them to better squares. Further, Black has to recapture with the pawn, which leaves g6 a little weak as well: 13...fxe6 (13...Qxe6 14.Nd5 Qd7 15.g4 c6 16.gxh5 cxd5 17.hxg6+-) 14.0-0-0 Nc6 15.Rhf1 Nf6 16.Qg3 Qf7 17.f4+/-] 13...Nxb3 14.axb3 a6 15.d4 Qe7 16.Qf2 exd4 17.Bxd4 Nf6 [17...0-0 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.0-0-0 Qg5++/=] 18.0-0-0 [18.0-0] 18...0-0-0 19.Nf4 Rhg8 20.Rhe1 Kb8 21.Kb1+/- g5 22.Nfe2 [22.Nfd5 Bxd5 23.exd5 Qd7 24.g4+/-] 22...Rge8? [22...c5 23.Be3 Nd7 24.Nd5 Bxd5 25.Rxd5+/-] 23.g4? [23.e5 wins! If the knight moves to a square that doesn't protect the Bg7, then 24.exd6 wins a pawn. 23...Nh5 runs into 24.g4 followed by exd6 (24...dxe5 25.Ba7+); finally, 23...dxe5 24.Ba7+ Ka8 25.Bc5+- wins the exchange.] 23...Qf8 24.Ng3 [24.h4+/=] 24...Nd7 25.Be3 Qh8!=



At this point Sasikiran has (at least) equalized the chances, due to his strong control over the central dark squares and the long diagonal in general. Nevertheless, despite Black's eventual victory in this game, White's experiment was a success: he created an interesting, imbalanced position he had undoubtedly thought about more than his opponent (who researches 2.Qh5?), and it resulted in a clear White advantage. The question now is whether we'll ever see it again at the GM level. 26.Nge2 Be5 27.h4 Qg7 28.Rh1 Nf6 29.Bd4 Nd7 30.Qe3 Qf6 31.hxg5 hxg5 32.Bxe5 Qxe5 33.Rh5 Rg8 34.Nd5 Rde8 35.Qc1 Qg7 36.Ne3 Nf6 37.Rh2 Rh8 38.Rg2 Nd7 39.Nd4 Rh3 40.c4 Qf6 41.Rf2 Reh8 42.b4 Qe5 43.c5 dxc5 44.bxc5 Nxc5 45.Qc3 f6 46.Rc2 Na4 47.Qb4 Bd7-/+ 48.Nb3 Rh1 49.Rxh1 Rxh1+ 50.Ka2 Nb6 51.Qf8+ Qe8 52.Qxe8+ Bxe8 53.Nc5 Nd7 54.Nxd7+ Bxd7 55.Kb3 Re1 56.Rc3 Be6+-+ 57.Kc2 Re2+ 58.Kc1 a5 59.Nc2 Rf2 60.Nd4 Bd7 61.Rc5 b6 62.Rd5 Kc8 63.e5 fxe5 64.Rxe5 c5 65.Nb3 Rf1+ [65...Rxf3? 66.Nxc5! bxc5 67.Rxc5+ Kb7 68.Rxa5 Bxg4 69.Rxg5=] 66.Kd2 a4 67.Nxc5 bxc5 68.Rxc5+ Kb7 69.Rxg5 Rxf3 70.Rd5 Be6 71.Rd3



71...Rf1 [71...Rxd3+?? only draws. 72.Kxd3 Bxg4 (72...Kb6 73.Kc3 Kc5 74.g5 Bf7 75.g6 Bc4 76.g7 Bg8 77.Kc2 Kb4 78.Kb1 Kb3 79.Ka1 just makes the inevitable take longer, but gives Black no more winning chances than before.) 73.Kc2 Kc6 74.b3 a3 75.Kb1 Kb5 76.Ka2 Kb4 77.Ka1 Kxb3 is a well-known theoretical draw: because the bishop is of the wrong color relative to the pawn (this only applies to rook's pawns), there is no way to force mate or promotion - Black's powers do not extend beyond the ability to force stalemate.] 72.Rg3 Rf2+ 73.Kc3 Kb6 74.Kb4 Rf4+ 75.Ka3 Kb5 76.Re3 Bd5 77.Rd3 Bc4 78.Re3 Rd4 79.g5 Rd1 80.b3 [80.Re5+ Bd5 and the threat of 81...Ra1# forces White to give up material.] 80...axb3 81.Re8 Ra1+ 82.Kb2 Ra2+ 83.Kc3 Rc2+ 84.Kd4 b2 85.Rb8+ Ka4 86.g6 Bb5 87.g7 b1Q [87...b1Q 88.g8Q Qd1+ 89.Ke5 Re2+ 90.Kf6 Qf1+ 91.Kg7 Rg2+ 92.Kh8 Qa1+ 93.Kh7 Qh1#] 0-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Chess Today issue for Thursday, April 21, 2005 (CT-1626), IM Anthony Saidy wrote the following:

"As for the Saidy-Fischer-Karpov-Bellon game [DM: see here], it was ludicrous that Fischer won Informant's brilliancy prize for an utterly unsound pawn sac, and even more so that Karpov didn't refute it, and instead followed (knowingly?) my inferior play for many moves. In my future memoirs the ultimate truth about these games will come out."

I have a number of questions and comments about this:

First, if Saidy doesn't know if Karpov knowingly followed his play, then he can't yet provide the ultimate truth about the games - there's at least one interesting, important fact that will remain unanswered!

Second, the Saidy-Fischer game didn't win the Informant's brilliancy prize for that issue, but came in second place (according to Wade & O'Connell's The Complete Games of Bobby Fischer).

Third, I don't think Fischer won the (second?) brilliancy prize because of the pawn sac, but possible despite it. And even if the pawn sac is "utterly unsound," it doesn't seem to me that it thereby undermines the value of the rest of the game. (Compare game 16 of the 1985 Karpov-Kasparov match. Kasparov's 8...d5 was widely taken to have been demolished in a subsequent Karpov-Van der Wiel game, but the Kasparov game is still considered a contemporary classic.)

Fourth, if the move seemed good enough to Fischer to merit playing, and if first Saidy and then even Karpov were unable to refute it - or even come close - over the board, then even if it's unsound, it's hard to believe it could be quite as bad as Saidy suggests.

Finally, when I was preparing those games for my ChessBase show, the standard "refutations" didn't really seem as clear as they're supposed to be. (Again, see this link and the notes to moves 7 and 8 of the Saidy-Fischer game for some preliminary support of my claim.)

Let's switch topics for a moment, to basketball. Who remembers Michael Cooper? He was a starter on the great "Showtime" Laker teams of the 80s, well known as one of the best defensive players - perhaps the best - of his era.

But what is he best known for? What single image comes to mind when you think of his great career? Unfortunately, it's probably his getting "posterized" by Dr. J's famous windmill dunk in 1983. The clip of that dunk was shown repeatedly at the time and is still shown during slam dunk and Dr. J video packages.

We might call the chess equivalent getting "Kieseritzkied." (It doesn't exactly trip from the tongue, but most experienced chess fans will get the reference.) Great entertainment for the sports or chess fan - but probably not for those in the Cooper or Kieseritzky role.

As Bill Clinton might say, I feel their pain! When I was a teenager, none of my wins over titled players got published, but several of my losses did (one even made it into a German chess publication and the Russian "64"). The first time I had a loss published, it was neat to see my name in print; after the losses accumulated and the wins went unpublished, however, my excitement turned to frustration and occasional annoyance.

So to return to our main subject, I suspect that Saidy, a fine player with many successes in his chess career, would have found the game a praiseworthy one if someone else had been playing White. Of course, I might be wrong about that; it's just a suspicion. It does seem to me a plausible explanation of what looks like an unwarrantedly negative assessment of the game, but (a) I'm willing to be corrected, and (b) look forward to Saidy's memoirs - I expect they'll prove very interesting!

In a recent post on the previous blog, I presented a quote from Edmar Mednis's How to Beat Bobby Fischer alluding to a number of games in the so-called Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Sicilian Najdorf, mostly by Fischer. Here are the games:

Keres,Paul - Fuderer,Andrija [B97]
Gothenburg Interzonal Gothenburg (16), 1955

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6



8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 Nfd7 [10...dxe5 11.fxe5 Nfd7 is the approved response nowadays. It might look odd for Black to throw in the exchange of pawns, as it opens both the d- and f-files for White. In return, however, Black's Bf8 can develop quickly, facilitating castling, and White no longer has the f5 option.] 11.f5 Nxe5 [11...dxe5 12.fxe6 exd4 13.exf7+ Kxf7 14.Bc4+ Ke8 15.Qe2+ Be7 16.Nd5 Qa5+ 17.Kd1 Nc6 18.Nxe7 Nce5 19.Nf5+- Nunn in The Complete Najdorf: 6.Bg5] 12.fxe6 fxe6 13.Be2 Nbc6 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Ne4 d5 16.0-0 Qa4 17.Bh5+ Kd7



18.Rxf8! [18.Rxf8 Rxf8 19.Nc5+] 1-0


Parma,Bruno - Fischer,Robert James [B97]
Bled Bled (5), 09.09.1961

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Be2 Nc6



12.Nb3 [12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.0-0 is more common nowadays.] 12...Bg7 13.f5 0-0 14.0-0 Ne5 15.Nd4 b5 16.Kh1 Bd7 17.Bh5 Rac8 [unclear - Nunn]



18.Rb3 Qc5 19.Nce2 Nc4 20.Qc1 e5? [20...Qe5 21.Rg3 Kh8 22.Rxg7 Kxg7 23.Rf4 Rg8 24.Rg4+ Kh8-+] 21.Rg3 Kh8 22.Rxg7 Kxg7 23.Rf3 Rg8 [23...Rh8 24.Rg3+ Kf8 25.Qh6+ Ke7 26.Bxf7 Rcf8 27.Be6+-] 24.Rg3+



24...Kf8 [24...Kh8 25.Qh6 leads to mate - the pawn on e5 prevents the Black queen from defending the f-pawn. 25...Rxg3 26.Nxg3 Rg8 27.Bg6 fxg6 28.fxg6 Rxg6 (28...Rg7 29.Nh5) 29.Qf8+ Rg8 30.Qxf6+ Rg7 31.Nh5 Qxd4 32.Qxg7#] 25.Qh6+ Ke7 26.Qxh7 exd4 [26...Rxg3 27.Qxf7+ Kd8 28.Ne6+! Bxe6 29.fxe6+-] 27.Qxf7+ Kd8 28.Rxg8+ Kc7 29.Nf4 [29.Rxc8+ Kxc8 30.Qxf6 Ne5 31.h3+-] 29...Qa3 30.Nd5+ Kb8 31.h3 Ne3 32.Rxc8+ [32.Nxe3 dxe3 33.Rxc8+ Kxc8 34.Qxf6 Qc1+ 35.Kh2 Qd2 36.Qg5+-] 32...Kxc8



33.Nxe3? [33.Qf8+ first is a big improvement, keeping the king away from c7 where it would defend the d6-pawn. 33...Kb7 34.Nxe3+-] 33...Qxe3= 34.Bf3 Qc1+ 35.Kh2 Qf4+ 36.Kg1 Qc1+ 37.Kh2 Qf4+ 38.Kg1 Qc1+ 1/2-1/2

Fischer,Robert James - Geller,Efim P [B97]
Monte Carlo Monte Carlo (11), 04.04.1967

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.f5 Nc6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.e5



13...Nd5 [13...dxe5 is both more common and scores better, but I don't think Geller's move is "officially" a mistake.] 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Be2 dxe5 16.0-0 Bc5+ [16...Ra7 is better.] 17.Kh1 Rf8 18.c4 Rxf1+ 19.Rxf1 Bb7



20.Bg4? [20.Qc2 e4 21.Bg4 Be7 (21...Qd3 22.Qa4+ Bc6 23.Qxc6#; 21...Bc8 is Black's best, according to Nunn (The Complete Najdorf: 6.Bg5).) 22.Qf2 0-0-0 23.Bf4 Bd6 24.Bxe6+ Kb8 25.Qb6 Bxf4 26.Qxd8+ Ka7 27.Rb1 Qd6 28.Bxd5! Bxd5 (28...Qxd8 29.Rxb7+ Ka8 30.Rd7++-) 29.Qxd6 Bxd6 30.cxd5 1-0, Tal-Bogdanovic, Budva 1967; 20.Bd1 Be7 21.Bxe7 Kxe7 22.Qg5+ Kd6 23.Rf7 Re8 24.c5+! Qxc5 25.Rxb7 Qf2 26.h3 Qf1+ 27.Kh2 Qf4+ 28.Qxf4 exf4 29.Rxg7 e5 30.Rxh7+/- Nunn (same source).] 20...dxc4 21.Bxe6 [21.Qc2 is better here, too, though Black is in control after 21...Bd5] 21...Qd3-+ 22.Qe1 Be4! 23.Bg4 Rb8! 24.Bd1 [Threatening 25.Ba4+] 24...Kd7 25.Rf7+ Ke6



0-1


Spassky,Boris V (2660) - Fischer,Robert James (2785) [B97]
World Championship 28th Reykjavik (7), 25.07.1972

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Nb3 Qa3 10.Bd3 [10.Bxf6 is by far the most common move here.] 10...Be7 11.0-0 h6 12.Bh4



12...Nxe4! 13.Nxe4 Bxh4 14.f5 exf5! 15.Bb5+ axb5?! [15...Ke7 is a suggestion of Shredder 9's, but perhaps a little suspicion is in order here!] 16.Nxd6+ Kf8 17.Nxc8 Nc6! 18.Nd6? [18.Qf4 Rxc8 19.Qxh4 Qa4=] 18...Rd8 19.Nxb5 Qe7-/+ Nunn 20.Qf4 g6 21.a4 Bg5-+



22.Qc4 Be3+ [22...Kg7] 23.Kh1 f4 24.g3 g5 25.Rae1 Qb4 26.Qxb4+ Nxb4 27.Re2 Kg7 28.Na5 b6 29.Nc4 Nd5 30.Ncd6 Bc5 31.Nb7 Rc8 32.c4 Ne3 33.Rf3 Nxc4 34.gxf4 g4 35.Rd3 h5 36.h3 Na5 37.N7d6 Bxd6 38.Nxd6 Rc1+ 39.Kg2 Nc4 40.Ne8+ Kg6 41.h4 f6 42.Re6 Rc2+ 43.Kg1



[Black has been better all the way, but the position has been sharp and the edge has drifted away a little at a time. After the move played, the position is drawn, but Black could have kept some edge with 43...Rxe8 44.Rxe8 Nd2 45.Kf2 Nf3+ 46.Re2 Rc4 , but 47.Rxf3 (47.Rb2 Rxf4 48.Ra3 Nxh4+ 49.Kg3 Kg5 50.Rxb6 Nf3-+) 47...gxf3 48.Kxf3 Kf5 49.Rb2 Rxf4+ 50.Kg3 Rxa4 51.Rb5+ Ke4 52.Rxb6 lets White escape into a theoretically drawn rook ending.] 43...Kf5 44.Ng7+ Kxf4 45.Rd4+ Kg3 46.Nf5+ Kf3 47.Ree4 Rc1+ 48.Kh2 Rc2+ 49.Kg1 1/2-1/2


Spassky,Boris V (2660) - Fischer,Robert James (2785) [B97]
World Championship 28th Reykjavik (11), 06.08.1972

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Nb3 Qa3 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Be2 h5 12.0-0 Nc6 13.Kh1 Bd7 14.Nb1



[This move excited many early commentators, but if so it was only on psychological grounds, as Black can force a repetition with 14...Qb2 15.Nc3 a) 15.a3 Rc8; b) 15.a4 d5 16.exd5 Nb4 17.Na3 Nxd5!-/+ (17...Rc8 is evaluated as clearly better according to Timman (cited in Nunn's The Complete Najdorf: 6.Bg5), but after 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.Bc4 , threatening both 20.Bxe6 and 20.Rfb1, for starters, Black has to play very accurately to equalize: 19...Rxc4 20.Nxc4 Qxc2 21.Nd6+ Bxd6 22.Qxd6 Rg8 (22...Qxb3 23.Qb8++-) 23.Qb8+ Kf7 24.Qxb7 Qc6 25.Qxc6 Bxc6 26.Rf2 Bd5 27.Nc5 Rc8 28.Rb2 a5 29.Nb3 Nd3 30.Rd2 Nxf4 31.Nxa5=) ; 15...Qa3 and White gets to decide all over again.] 14...Qb4 15.Qe3 d5?! [15...Ne7 16.c4 f5 17.a3 Qa4 18.Nc3 Qc6 19.Nd4 Qc5 20.exf5 Bg7 21.fxe6 fxe6 22.Rad1 Bxd4 23.Qxd4 Qxd4 24.Rxd4 Nf5 25.Rd2 Rc8 26.Rf3 Ke7 was better for Black in the game Qi Jingxuan-Karpov (!!!), Hannover 1983, which concluded 27.Kg1 h4 28.Bd3 Rc5 29.Bxf5 Rxf5 30.Rfd3 Rxf4 31.Rxd6 Bc6 32.c5 Rhf8 33.h3 Rf1+ 34.Kh2 Rc1 35.R6d3 Rff1 36.Nd1 e5 37.Nf2 Rg1 38.Nd1 Re1 39.Rd6 e4 40.R2d4 a5 41.Nf2 e3 42.Rxh4 exf2 43.Rh7+ Ke8 44.Rh8+ Kf7 0-1 Qi Jingxuan-Karpov,A/Hannover 1983/MCL] 16.exd5 Ne7 17.c4 Nf5 18.Qd3 h4? 19.Bg4 Nd6 20.N1d2+- f5 21.a3 Qb6 22.c5



22...Qb5 23.Qc3 fxg4 24.a4 h3 25.axb5 hxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Rh3 27.Qf6 Nf5 28.c6 Bc8 29.dxe6 fxe6 30.Rfe1 Be7 31.Rxe6



1-0

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?

This is what I trust will be an improved version of my previous chess blog, and in this, my maiden Chess Mind post, I'd like to detail some of the changes.

First, expect this site to be more reliable! You get what you pay for, at least most of the time, and so I'm expecting a more dependable work environment here - that should pay dividends for the reader as well.

Second, this site allows for posts to be grouped in various ways, so instead of doing manual searches or playing link leapfrog, you'll often be able to find everything you're looking for on a single page.

Third, the occasional non-chess post may creep in. It's not likely that other material will dominate, but it will appear. The chess mind is not just a chess mind!

Fourth, although almost everyone at the earlier site was polite when offering comments, the occasional exception arose. So, while it will be in most cases a matter of merely going through the motions, those who want commenting privileges will need to be approved.