The Chess Mind

Those who have been around US chess for a while will be very familiar with the peripatetic (this word should be updated for the automobile age: any suggestions?) Igor Ivanov. He has won the yearly Grand Prix nine times and in 1982 nearly qualified for the Candidates'. Despite his IM title, no one's fooled: he has long been a GM in everyone's eyes but FIDE's.

But no longer. According to IM John Donaldson's newsletter (item 3), FIDE has awarded the 58-year old American the GM title.

Plenty of his games can be found in the databases, and a few of Ivanov's games, including his win over then-world champion Anatoly Karpov, can be found on his website (linked above). A game many of you probably haven't seen, however, can be seen here.

Two recent products of interest:

(1) Chess Lessons by Artur Yusupov (Chessgate 2004) and (2) ChessBase's new DVD Kasparov: How to Play the Najdorf Vol. 1.

On (1): Yusupov was one of the best players in the world in the late 80s and early 90s, on three occasions making it to the Candidates' semi-finals. In addition to being extremely strong (and a very nice guy), his many years' working with the now-legendary trainer Mark Dvoretsky has rubbed off on him, and he has become a fine writer and trainer in his own right.

Earlier written works by Yusupov include collaborative efforts with Dvoretsky and, in a solo effort, my candidate for the best opening book of all time, a beautifully conceived work on the Petroff Defense.

This work is a collection of 10 booklets (previously published in German) on a variety of topics; nine of the chapters present a substantial number of well-designed exercises to test and aid in the mastery of the chapter's theme. It's not suitable for beginners, but those terrified by the complexity of Dvoretsky's books can leave the antacids in the medicine cabinet: Yusupov's work is much more user-friendly, and I can recommend this to a wide range of players.

On (2): This is a DVD I don't yet have (click here for product information), but to judge from the excellence of the earlier ChessBase DVD by Kasparov (on the Queen's Gambit Declined - see here for product info, here and here for my reviews), it should be excellent - especially considering how much of the development of the Najdorf can be directly attributed to the man himself.

In sum, both works are recommended.

Brian Karen writes:

Mackenzie fought for the North. First he was a deserter than he came back and was an hero and then he was arrested because of his previous desertion.
ALthough he wasnt American born he was prob. the best US player for many years. Also, Asa Hoffman was a military champion, not sure if he served in Vietnam.



Mackenzie,G - Mason,J [C01]
Paris Paris (9), 15.07.1878

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Bg5 Ne7 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nh4 Kg7 11.Qh5 Rh8 12.f4 c6 13.Rf3 Ng6 14.Raf1 Qc7 15.Ne2 Bd7 16.Ng3 Rag8 17.Qh6+ Kxh6 18.Nhf5+ Bxf5 19.Nxf5+ Kh5 20.g4+ Kxg4 21.Rg3+ Kh5 22.Be2# Schallopp: Der internationale Schachkongress zu Paris 1878, p. 117 1-0

I saw Asa regularly when I lived in New York, but didn't know that he had been in the armed forces. Unless he was a career man, however, and I don't think he was, he's not really what I was looking for in my previous post. Lots of great players have been in the military for mandatory service (I think the young Karpov was himself in the military, or at least played on a military team, for example), but what I'm curious about are career military men - professional soldiers - who were also strong players.

Is Mackenzie the career soldier's champion?

To commemorate Memorial Day here in the U.S., I wanted to present a game played by some notable military figure; preferably but not necessarily American. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any! There is a bad game attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, but instead, I'll offer a little joke composed by the Russian player Petrov (of Petroff's [sic] Defense fame), portraying Napoleon's eviction from Russia by the Cossacks.

Here's the starting position:



You can find the story and explanation of the action here, and can replay the solution here.

Meanwhile, if anyone is aware of a worthy game played by a military figure, please pass it along!

In the 2000 FIDE World Championships in New Delhi, India, Alexei Shirov and Alexander Grischuk played an extraordinary best of four semi-final match. The first game was won by Shirov in good style, and the 17-year-old Grischuk struck back in an excellent second game as well. Then came game 3.

After 23 reasonably normal moves, the fun began, as Shirov opted to sacrifice a piece for two dangerous central passed pawns. Grischuk was on the run, but a truly amazing counterattack featuring first a rook sacrifice and then a repeated bishop offer kept the result of the game, and accordingly the match, very much in flux.

Though it was dramatic and often brilliant, the game was not perfectly clean; indeed, it finished shortly after a Grischuk blunder in a balanced position. Nevertheless, its overall richness makes it a game deserving a close look, and that's just what will happen as I present it on the Playchess server this Monday night (9 p.m. EST) - I hope you'll join me then!

Directions for watching the show (either live or in the archives) can be found here, while a list of past shows can be found here. Meanwhile, to whet your appetite, the game can be replayed here.

A couple of days ago, I presented a couple of tactical exercises.

Here's the first:



And here is the second:



Black to move and win in both cases. Solutions follow:

On Wednesday, I offered this puzzle:

Put the Black king on d5 on an otherwise empty board. Then: "Place four White rooks on the board one at a time, giving check with each of them and checkmate with the fourth. Black moves normally."

Here is one solution:

1.Rd2+

If the king goes to the c-file, it's trivially easy. To give the simplest case 2.Rc2+, 3.Rb2+, 4.Ra2#. If the Black king goes to the e-file, however, an imaginative leap is required.

The problem, of course, is that the Black king has five files to play with and White has only four rooks to (and four total moves) to confine him. When Black's king went to the c-file, the edge of the board framed him, but there's no such frame on the kingside. Therefore, White has to create his own frame:

1...Ke4 2.Rg4+!

That's the key idea - now the Black king can't make it to the h-file, so he's stuck.

2...Kf3 3.Rf4+ Ke3 4.Re2#


There are eight total solutions; five of them are like this one: 1.Rd2+, 1.Ra5+, 1.Rd8+, 1.Rg5+, 1.Rh5+. Two special solutions found by Eric Roosendal (see here, scroll to the bottom, to the P.S. to the Solution to #8), are 1.Rb5+ and 1.Rd7+. Thus 1.Rb5+ Kc4 2.Rc2+! Kxb5 (2...Kd3 3.Rc3+ and 4.Rb4#) 3.Rb2+ and 4.Ra2# reminds us that we don't need to keep all the rooks; what counts in chess is the end result.

In response to the suggestion of a couple of friends, in addition to some difficulties I seem to be having with comment account registrations, I'm at least provisionally allowing a comments free-for-all: anyone may comment!

I ask, however, for some basic courtesy: remain polite, keep the language clean and G-rated, as I want my site to be appropriate for readers of all ages and don't want parents to be taken aback by anything they see on my site.

Indeed, it's time for a (brief) rant. There are some major chess websites that occasionally publish somewhat risque material; my national chess magazine recently published a story with aspects that strike me as at least dubious in a magazine with a huge junior, even pre-teen readership, and a popular figure in American chess is about to publish a book rumored (by the author, a year ago, to me) to include details that are definitely inappropriate to younger audiences. (The author did say that the book was most definitely not aimed at that audience, but given this person's prominence and popularity, I really doubt it will avoid that young demographic.)

These aren't the only examples I could cite, but they are representative. Now, I'm not interested in living in some sort of Disney-inspired Father-Knows-Best theme park. I know that sort of material is out there - tons and tons of it - and I'm not recommending (or rejecting) website blockers, v-chips, censorship or anything else.

Rather, I would like to ask my colleagues to engage in a bit of self-censorship. I'm a chess fan, and when I turn to chess material, that's essentially what I'm after: chess material. It's interesting to know a little about major chess figures, but I don't want to know intimate details. It's not my business, it's not something I want to make (or have made) my business, and it really shouldn't be the business of young readers. If readers want to know about these players, let them ask them; if players want to reveal private details about their own lives, they can tell their friends.

It's time for a trip to the mailbag:

First, "Faust":

In this weeks column Nigel Short reveals in the telegraph that he and Kasparov had prearranged a game If true then Fischers assertion that Kasparov and Karpov prearanged games might not be as implausible as believed on prima facie [grounds.]

Short's column is occasioned by several recent, serious cases of cheating in chess (computer cheating in internet tournaments, the bogus and ironically named "Heroes of Chernobyl" tournament, and the long controversial but apparently never investigated Strumica 1995 event), in comparison to which his offense - pre-arranging a draw with Kasparov in a last round game - is a mere pecadillo.

I personally don't have any real problem with the standard last round quickie draw (whether pre-arranged or the product of a glance on move 10), as long as there aren't any bribes being offered, of course. It's the player's job to look after his or her own best interests, and if a draw fits the bill for both players, then expect handshakes.

Now to return to Faust's comment: is this really evidence for Fischer's claim? I don't see it. In the Kasparov-Short case, it was a draw, not a decisive result; the players were on good terms, not enemies (as everyone but Fischer and those who accept his assertions would admit of the two post-their first match at the latest); virtually nothing was at stake (Kasparov clinched first place with the draw, but given his superior rating and record vs. Short, and given especially Short's physical condition, his odds of achieving at least a draw were excellent), while in the K-K matches it was the world championship that was at stake - and at a time when the title was held in great esteem. Finally, Faust understates Fischer's allegation: not just some K-K games were allegedly pre-arranged, but all of them.


In a second letter, a friend wondered and speculated about what might be wrong with Vladimir Kramnik; understandably, in light of his terrible results this year. I won't address my friend's speculation, but I'll offer my own instead, based on Kramnik's own statements (it seems to me appropriate to take people at their word in the absence of compelling reason to the contrary) and my own experience.

First, Kramnik's explanation - or rather, explanations. At a press conference after either round 9 or round 10 (it's ambiguous in the report), Kramnik claimed to still be suffering from an illness contracted during the match with Leko. In Chess Today 1658, Golubev reports Kramnik's statement at the closing press that he should probably ask for assistance from an expert to help him restore his concentration and confidence.

I don't know about the illness, but in my tournament experience, I can recall a stretch that reminds me of Kramnik's plight. Over the course of three or four tournaments in early 2000, I managed to blunder something in almost every game!

Everything seemed normal: I was calculating deeply, felt fine, and life didn't seem any better or worse than usual. But somehow, no matter how I felt nor how much I saw, pawns and even pieces dropped, game after game after game. It was a helpless, exasperating feeling, but no matter what I tried during that period, the blunders kept on coming. The only thing that seemed to work was stopping tournament chess for a while, and when I came back, things were back to normal.

Whatever the case, I certainly hope for his full and speedy recovery from the crisis in form he has been suffering especially but not only this year. Kramnik's chess, when it's "on", is a beautiful thing, and of more instructional value to the amateur than that of most of his colleagues at the top of the food chain. He might not be the chess public's favorite player, but cultivating an appreciation for his play is all to that public's benefit!

For your solving pleasure, I offer the following positions. As always, I recommend as strongly as I can that you work it out on your own; those using their chess software (or employing other dodges) to "solve" the positions are rascals deserving the censure of their peers! (Of course, this doesn't apply to any of MY readers, so the foregoing was purely rhetorical, I'm sure.)

First, a nice warm-up (Black to move):



Second, a truly spectacular combination - perhaps my all-time favorite. Again, it's Black to move:



The solutions will be given in a couple of days.

I was browsing some of the old entries in Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary the other day, and came across the following (go to entry 8):

Put the Black king on d5 on an otherwise empty board. Then: "Place four White rooks on the board one at a time, giving check with each of them and checkmate with the fourth. Black moves normally."

This puzzle was apparently published in a book by Burt Hochberg entitled Chess Braintwisters, and was shown by the author to a couple of "top grandmasters", of whom only Paul Keres was able to solve it, after about 10 minutes or so.

I'm not sure how hard they were trying, since I solved it in about 4 or 5 minutes (though to be fair, while I tend to do very well on chess "IQ test"-type problems, I think I saw this puzzle five or six years ago, when Krabbé was first creating the site); still, it's a neat puzzle, whether one solves it in one minute or in one hour.

I may post the solution in a day or two, but since it can be found on Krabbé's website, I might not. But why look or wait? Solve it for yourselves!

A few days ago, I mentioned Robert Pearson's post over on New Victorian listing his favorite/candidates for the greatest chess books, going on to mention areas of agreement, disagreement, and some further suggestions of my own. Robert recently wrote back to offer the following comment:

Dennis,

Thank you very much for linking to the post. I put it out there mainly to stimulate discussion and debate, and I did get some interesting feedback from a couple of chess friends.

I got a great laugh from:

Perhaps he has reached a state of perfect chess book reader virtue, such that his favorite books are also the best books

There was some imprecision there, it is true. I should have called the post something like "My Favorite Chess Books" to be more accurate. The "best of" lists of most things are, of course, personal opinions, which is tacitly assumed in my "suggestions."

Your additions above are surely great books as well, though I haven't read the Shirov, Stohl or "Predecessors." I am putting them down as future purchases.

I'm sure that Everyman and Gambit publishing will be pleased with your decision, and let me propose for your consideration (though not only for yours, of course), two brand new books featuring the authors mentioned in your last paragraph.

First, Alexei Shirov has just released a follow-up to his classic Fire on Board, aptly but unimaginatively named Fire on Board, Part II: 1997-2004. Fortunately, that's about the only unimaginative aspect of the book, which consists of 53 of his characteristically wild, even spectacular games, all very well-annotated. The first book was an inspiration to many young players, and I think this book will find an eager reception amongst the chess public as well.

The book also contains some narrative material, a good chunk of it presenting his perspective on his (ostensible) candidates' match with Kramnik in 1998 and the (non-) match with Kasparov that was supposed to be his prize. Shirov's deep bitterness at Mssrs. Kasparov, Kramnik (for disregarding Shirov's at least moral rights and volunteering to play Kasparov in 2000), (and organizers) Luis Rentero and William Wirth is palpable and, to me, casts somewhat of a depressing pall over the book.

This negative feeling is even exacerbated by a somewhat odd feeling of pessimism about his own play - sometimes concerning results and sometimes in regard to its aesthetic qualities.

From one point of view, this negativism seems insane: he's routinely in the world's top 10 and is perhaps one of the 3 or 4 most popular players among fans (behind (1) the retired former world champ and budding politico, (2) Judit Polgar, and (3) some famous Icelandic GM - also an ex-world champ). What more could a person want from a vocation: he's a living legend and a fan favorite, doing creative work, getting well-paid and his own boss.

On the other hand, being a sportsman has its distinctive problems. Shirov has come close to both the FIDE and "classical" world championships, and may feel as if his chances at the ultimate title are receding into the past, in part due to factors outside his control. The competition among his peers isn't getting any easier, and it surely doesn't help to see one hungry, talented junior after another climbing up the ladder while one is entering chess middle-age.

Nevertheless, despite the autobiographical downers and the fact that this book is smaller than its predecessor (and without a special section on endings or the Botvinnik Variation), it's still a fine book with great games, one I intend to play through carefully, repeatedly and with great pleasure. (Also: Shirov is or will soon be at work on Fire on Board, Part III, which, it seems, will be dedicated to findings in his opening laboratory. That should make for a great book, and a unique one, at that!)

The second noteworthy book, GM Igor Stohl's Garry Kasparov's Greatest Chess Games, volume 1, is one I haven't yet received, so caveat lector. This, the first of a two-volume series, contains 74 of Kasparov's games from 1973 to 1993, and to judge from Stohl's analytical work in Modern Chess Masterpieces and for ChessBase Magazine, this ought to be a terrific book - especially considering the material he has to work with!

Time and money are limited, but books like these are worth more than a small forest's worth of opening manuals and - especially - books by popular authors. As a rule of thumb, with relatively rare exceptions, the way to go is to buy books on the best, by the best. All other candidates should have to meet a very high burden of proof before you spend your money, and much more importantly, your time on them.

The following game occurred in round 5 of the HB Chess Challenge:

Becerra Rivero,J (2552) - Ippolito,D (2402) [C43]
HB Global CC Minneapolis USA (5), 20.05.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 7.0-0 Qh4 8.c4 0-0-0 9.c5 g6 10.Nc3 Bg7 11.Ne2 Rhe8 12.Be3 Ng5 13.Rc1 Bg4 14.c6 Kb8 15.Qa4 Bf8 16.Bf4 b6 17.Nc3 a5 18.Bg3 Qh5 19.Nb5 Bf3 20.Nxc7 Bd6 21.Nxe8 Qh3 22.c7+ Kb7 23.cxd8N+ Kb8 0-1



Of course, White can't capture the queen (24.gxh3?? Nxh3#), and perhaps he thought capturing the bishop was equally futile due to 24.gxf3 Nxf3+ 25.Kh1 Bxg3.

It turns out, however, that White has multiple forced wins! From the end of the last variation (24.gxf3 Nxf3+ 25.Kh1 Bxg3), White has the brilliant 26.Rc8+!! If Black captures with the queen, then White's kingside is safe after 27.fxg3, while 26...Ka7 gets mated by 27.Ra8+ Kxa8 28.Qc6+ and 29.Qb7#. That leaves 26...Kxc8, but White wins with his huge material advantage after 27.Qc2+! Kxd8 28.fxg3 (no mate on h2!).

Becerra can be forgiven for missing that, but the oddity is that he missed a very simple win in the final position:

24.Bxd6+ Ka7 (24...Ka8 25.Qc6+ and 26.Qb7#) 25.Rc7+ Kb8 (again, 25...Ka8 26.Qa6+ and 27.Qb7#) 26.Nc6+ Ka8 27.Ra7#

Does anyone know if Becerra lost on time in the final position? (If you know one way or another, please write me to let me know - click my name under "Contact" on the right side of the page.) If not, Tim Krabbé can add this to his collection of games in which players resigned in winning positions.

To abuse a famous Tarrasch quote: Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men miserable.

Two of my favorite players - and former trainers (albeit briefly in both cases) - were paired in the 8th round. Here's the game:

Jussupow,Artur (2701) - Gurevich,Dmitry (2580)
HB Global Chess Challenge Minneapolis (8.17), 22.05.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Bd3 b6 5.0-0 Bb7 6.c4 Be7 7.Nc3 cxd4 8.exd4 d5 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Ne5 0-0 11.Qh5 Nf6 12.Qh4 g6 13.Bg5 Nc6



14.Ba6!+- h6

Black's losing alternatives are:

(A) 14...Nxe5 15.dxe5 Bxa6 16.exf6 wins the Be7, unless Black prefers to get mated with 16...Bd6/c5 17.Qh6 and Qg7#

(B) 14...Bxa6 15.Nxc6 Qd7 16.Nxe7+ and 17.Bxf6

15.Bxh6 Nd5 16.Qh3 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Bxa6 18.Nxc6 Qd6 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.Bxf8 Rxf8 21.Rfe1 Bc4 22.Qh6 1-0

Very nice, don't you agree? To resurrect an old chess cliche, 14.Ba6 must have hit Gurevich like a bolt from the blue. Yet, I think if he does a database search on the position after his 13th move, he'll really suffer, as he's at least the 10th player to fall into that trap.

The first game, Plaskett-Arkell, London 1991, followed Jussupow-Gurevich until move 17, when Plaskett preferred 17.Bxb7.

Game two, J. Christensen-T. Ochsner, Aarhus 1994, was identical through White's 16th move, when Black decided it would be easier to resign on the spot.

Game three was the only ray of sunshine for Black: Danner-Koehn, Germany 1996, varied when Black chose 15...Nxe5. Black was still thoroughly lost after 16.Bxb7 Nfg4 17.Qh3 Qxd4 18.Rad1 Qb4 19.Bxa8 Rxa8 20.Bc1, but some unsteady play by White let Black achieve a draw - the only one of the lot.

Game four, Golod-Janssen, Dieren (op) 1997, was the quickest of the lot: Black resigned after 14.Ba6.

Game five, Hoi-Lindberg, Politiken Cup 1998, left Jussupow-Gurevich when Black chose 15...Nh5, but 16.Qh3 Nxe5 17.Bxb7 Qxd4 18.Bxa8 Rxa8 19.Rad1 was winning, and Black resigned on move 23.

Game six, Gausel-Wilde, Recklinghausen 1999, followed Danner-Koehn (game three) through move 17, when White decided to take the other rook with 18.Bxf8, and after 18...Rxf8 19.Rad1 Qb4 20.Bf3 Nf6 21.Rd2 he won routinely.

Game seven, Lerner-Enders, Bad Woerishofen (op) 1999, also finished quickly: 14.Ba6 h6 15.Bxh6 Nd5 16.Qh3 1-0

Game eight featured the highest-rated victim, Dutch super-GM Jeroen Piket, who threw in the towel against Hans Ree in the Dutch team championship (in a rapid playoff game) after 14.Ba6 Nxe5 15.dxe5.

Finally, Gurevich's last not-so-great predecessor was a player named Giordani, who lost to Maksimenko in the Imperia Open in 2004 after 14.Ba6 h6 15.Qxh6 (something new) Ng4 16.Bxe7 Bxa6 17.Nxg4 Qxe7 18.d5 Nb8 19.d6 Qd8 20.Ne4 (uh-oh) f6 21.Qxg6+ Kh8 22.Ngxf6 Rxf6 23.Nxf6 Bd3 24.Qh6+ 1-0

I knew about this trap because, if I remember correctly, New in Chess Magazine had a mini-article about it when Piket fell for it against Ree, and that's probably also what accounts for its disappearance for a five-year period.

Aside from enjoying a nice trap, there are at least a couple of lessons to learn from this. The obvious one is to be prepared, but there's also the useful lesson of the previous paragraph as well: scout out variations that were topical a few years ago, but are now (at least slightly) passe - your opponents may well have forgotten them. (Or in the case of young players, never knew them.)

It's the end of the penultimate round, and all but one of the important games has finished. Zviad Izoria is in clear first, but if Evgeny Najer can just convert his advantage against Jaan Ehlvest, he'll join him going into the last round. Assuming a series of draws on the top boards (which is what happened as things turned out), Najer would have garnered either $50,000 or at least $25,000.

Here's the position after Black's 51st move:



Rook and three pawns vs. rook and two is drawn most of the time when the weak side's pawns are together, but here, the weakness of the split pawns is lethal unless Black can create counterplay. White's next exploits the pawns' weaknesses while eliminating Black's counterplay:

52.Re7+!

If the king goes to d5, then 53.Ra7 leaves the a-pawn unprotected, but all other Black king moves are even worse after 53.Kd3. Either way, Black is down two pawns for absolutely nothing.

52...Kd5 53.Ra7 Rh2+ 54.Kc1 Ke4 55.Rxa5 d3



At this point I assumed White would play 56.cxd3+, and after 56...Kxd3 57.Rc5 Black would give up the ghost.

Black could put up more resistance with 56...Kd4 - preventing White's Rc5 - but it's still quite hopeless after 57.Rb5 Kc3 58.Kb1, when neither 58...Rb2+ 59.Ka1 Re2 60.a5 nor 58...Rh1+ 59.Ka2 Rh2+ 60.Ka3 Rh1 61.Rc5+ leaves Black anything to hope for.

Najer had plenty of time and more than enough ability to calculate those lines. Unfortunately, he got a bright idea:

56.Rc5??

White decides it's not enough to be completely winning; he doesn't even want to allow the Black king into c3. All well and good, except that after

56...Rh1+

the position is completely drawn.

57.Kd2

Forced, as 57.Kb2?? d2 wins (58.Rc4+ Ke5 59.Rc5+ Kd6 60.Rc3 d1N+ [or 60...d1(Q) 61.Rd3+ Qxd3 62.cxd3 Kc5 63.Kc3 Rh4]).

57...Rh2+ 58.Kc1 Rh1+ 59.Kd2 1/2-1/2

Very costly. In the last round, Najer drew fairly quickly and wound up in a 10-way tie for 2nd-11th place, winning $5,500. The upshot: 56.Rc5 cost him 20-45 thousand dollars.

Ouch.

Thanks to an amazing second half of the tournament, Veselin Topalov has won the tournament by a full point over his nearest rival, Viswanathan Anand - whom he will now leapfrog on the FIDE rating list, putting him at #1 (assuming Kasparov stays retired). After the first half of the tournament, Topalov was tied for last place with Judit Polgar with 2/5, but a raging 4.5/5 second half allowed him to blow the field away.

Still, today's round could very easily have led to a tie between Anand and Topalov (which the players would have had to play off) or even an outright Anand victory. In Anand's game with Polgar, he came out of the opening with a large and enduring advantage that he failed to convert. Worse yet, Kramnik, who may have had one of the worst tournaments of his professional career, refused a chance to draw by repeating the position, then missed the chance to win a piece after a Topalov blunder, and finally, committed a one-move blunder of his own piece and had to resign.

Finally, in the remaining game, Ruslan Ponomariov was able to squeeze Michael Adams for a long time, but an inaccuracy let Adams force a draw with some nice tactics. Thus Adams managed to share the cellar with Kramnik instead of dwelling there alone, while Ponomariov failed to catch Anand in a tie for second.

That concludes what was, overall, a great event, thanks primarily to Topalov's fighting spirit and the beautiful games he played. (Next stop for the big guns: Dortmund in July, and then the big FIDE World Championship in September and October.)

Final Standings:

Topalov 6.5 (out of 10)
Anand 5.5
Polgar, Ponomariov 5
Adams, Kramnik 4

Click here for the games.

In commemoration of Topalov's victory in the just-completed MTel Masters, we'll take a look at a notable game from early in his career, at a time when it seemed the successes he's now enjoying were going to happen within one or two years rather than eight or nine.

Our game for this week features the razor-sharp 6.Bc4 variation against Kasparov's Najdorf. Played in round 1 of the 1996 Amsterdam VSB tournament, in which the two players tied for first (1.5 points ahead of Short and Anand and 2 points ahead of Kramnik and Lautier), Topalov played in his characteristically savage fashion, acquiring a decisive advantage after a brilliant opening and middlegame. His technique wasn't perfect (and we can learn from that, too), but he brought home the point, showing the chess world that there was a new force to be reckoned with.

So join me this Monday, not only to see a fantastic game, but also for the opportunity to catch up on the theory of an always topical opening variation.

Directions for watching the show live (or later, in the archives) can be found here, while a list of past shows' games can be found here.

Here, to whet your appetite, is the game (sans notes):

Topalov,Veselin (2700) - Kasparov,Garry (2775) [B86]
Amsterdam VSB Euwe mem Amsterdam (1), 22.03.1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Nbd7 8.f4 Nc5 9.0-0 Ncxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.f5 e5 12.Qh5 Qe7 13.Qf3 Nc5 14.Nc6 Qc7 15.Bd5 a5 16.Bg5 Ra6 17.Nd8 f6 18.Nf7 Rg8 19.Be3 g6 20.Ng5 Rg7 21.fxg6 Rxg6 22.Bf7+ Qxf7 23.Nxf7 Kxf7 24.Bxc5 dxc5 25.Rad1 Be7 26.Rd5 Bg4 27.Qe4 Kg7 28.Rfd1 Bxd1 29.Rxd1 Re6 30.Qf5 Kf7 31.Re1 b6 32.h4 Rg7 33.Kf1 Bd6 34.Kf2 Bc7 35.Kf3 Ke7 36.Re4 Kf7 37.Rg4 Re7 38.Ke4 Rxg4+ 39.Qxg4 Bd8 40.a4 Kf8 41.c3 Rg7 42.Qc8 Ke8 43.Qe6+ Kf8 44.g4 Rf7 45.h5 Rg7 46.h6 Rg6 47.Qd5 Be7 48.Kf5 Rxh6 49.Qb7 e4 50.Qb8+ Kf7 51.Qxb6 e3 52.Qe6+ Ke8 53.Qxe3 Rg6 54.Qe4 Rg5+ 55.Kf4 Kd7 56.Qb7+ Ke6 57.Qc8+ Kf7 58.Qc7 h5 59.gxh5 Rxh5 60.Qxa5 Bd6+ 61.Ke4 f5+ 62.Kd5 Be7 63.Qc7 Rh6 64.a5 Rd6+ 65.Ke5 Rf6 66.Qc8 1-0

Veselin Topalov has continued to play superlative chess in this event, and after his brilliant win over Ruslan Ponomariov, he leads the field by half a point heading into the last round.

In second, with an outside chance of making my pre-tournament prediction come true is Viswanathan Anand, who continued his traditional domination of Mickey Adams, winning in 60 moves with the Black pieces. Quite a turnaround for the two players: Adams is in last place, but four rounds ago he was in first, while Anand is in second, despite being in clear last just three rounds ago, Anand was in last. Things change!

Finally, Judit Polgar and Vladimir Kramnik drew their game, in what perhaps the last Petroff defense we'll see from Kramnik for a long time.

(The games can be replayed here.)

Standings after Round 9:

Topalov 5.5
Anand 5
Polgar, Ponomariov 4.5
Kramnik 4
Adams 3.5

Pairings for round 10 - the final round:

Kramnik-Topalov
Anand-Polgar
Ponomariov-Adams

This should be very interesting, as Kramnik has a very good career record against Topalov, as does Anand against Polgar. Anything's possible!

All three games were drawn today; all cleanly, none quickly.

Click here for the games and what I hope is a pleasant surprise.

Standings after Round 8:

Ponomariov, Topalov 4.5
Anand, Polgar 4
Adams, Kramnik 3.5

Pairings for Round 8:

Topalov-Ponomariov (if either player wins, he will just about sew up first place)
Polgar-Kramnik
Adams-Anand

After two rounds of long, fight-filled games, today's round featured two games that were over within an hour or two.

The first game to finish was a shocker:

Anand-Kramnik

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8

These moves have been played many times the past couple of years, but now, something new:

16.Qc1N

This move supports the standard c4 advance while protecting the Bf4 (an important detail, as we'll see in a moment). Whether the move ultimately promises White much is something we'll learn in the future; in this game, however, we at least learn what Black shouldn't do.

16...Na5?!

This threatens 17...Nb3 and 17...Nc4, but the former is easily avoided while the latter is prevented with tempo:

17.c4

White may already be clearly better, but perhaps Black thought his next move would balance the chances:

17...Qe4??



Now 18...Nb3 is threatend, and the White queen must be careful where she moves on account of the loose Bf4. If 18.Bf1, Qc2 leads to an endgame with only a manageable disadvantage for Black. All beside the point, however:

18.Bd1!

Black can resign, as the simple follow-up fork Re5 nets White a safe extra piece. The game concluded

18...Qd3 19.Re3 Qc4 20.Re5 1-0


The next game to finish was a draw between Polgar and Ponomariov, but it shouldn't have been a draw, or at least not a quick one. Polgar had a significant advantage out of the opening, but missed a tactical shot letting her opponent equalize.

Polgar-Ponomariov

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nc3 h6 10.h3 Ne7 11.Be3 Bd7N 12.Rad1 Kc8 13.Rd2 b6 14.Rfd1 Be6 15.Nd4 Nd5 16.Nxc6

[16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Rd3 was also possible.]

Nxc3

and now, the immediate recapture with 17.bxc3 seems to maintain an advantage for White. Polgar presumably thought it would be best to throw in the rook check first, penetrating to the Black bank rank, but she missed Black's nice 18th move.

17.Rd8+? Kb7 18.bxc3



18...Bd6!

Thanks to this fine move, Black is able to reach an easily drawn opposite-colored bishop ending. The rest is for the benefit of the arbiters:

19.Rxh8 Rxh8 20.exd6 Kxc6 21.dxc7 Kxc7 22.a3 Rd8 23.Rxd8 Kxd8 24.g4 h5 25.gxh5 Bxh3 26.h6 gxh6 27.Bxh6 Bf5 28.Kf1 Bxc2 29.Ke2 1/2-1/2


The last game to finish was Adams' tragedy vs. Topalov. Adams played a fine middlegame, outplaying Topalov and achieving a winning position. A win would put him into a tie for first place, but a series of errors over a 7-move stretch from moves 33 to 39 cost him the game. Instead of first place, last place!

Adams-Topalov

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. g3 e5 7. Nb3 Nbd7 8. Bg2 b5 9. O-O Be7 10. a4 b4 11. Na2 a5 12. c3 bxc3 13. Nxc3 Nb6 14. Nb5 O-O 15. Bd2 Nc4 16. Bc3 Be6 17. Re1 Qb8 18. Nd2 Rc8 19. b3 Nxd2 20. Qxd2 Nd7 21. Reb1 Nc5 22. Qd1 Ra6 23. b4 axb4 24. Bxb4 Qa8 25. Nc3 Bd8 26. Bf1 Ra7
27. Nb5 Rd7 28. Nxd6 Rc6 29. Bxc5 Rxc5 30. Bb5 Rdc7 31. a5 g6 32. a6 Bg5 33. h4 [33.Bf1+-] Be7 34. Ne8 [34.Be8+/-] Ra7 35. Qd2 Rxb5 36. Rxb5 Qxe8 37. Rb7 Bc5 38. Ra5 [38.Qc1 seems to give some chances for an edge, e.g. 38...Qc8 39.Rxa7 Bxa7 40.Qxc8+ Bxc8 41.Rc1 Bxa6 42.Ra1 when the rook and three vs. bishop and four ending will give White some winning chances.] Qc8 39. Rxa7 [39.Qc2 Rxa6 40.Rxa6 Qxb7 41.Rxe6 Bxf2+ 42.Qxf2 fxe6 43.Qf6=] Bxa7 40. Kh2 Qc7 41. Kg2 h5 42. Ra1 Qc4 43. Qe1 Qd3 44. Ra5 Bg4 45. Kh2 Kh7 46. Ra2 Bf3 47. Ra5 Qc2 48. Kg1 Kg7 49. Rd5 Bxe4 50. Rd2 Qc4 51. Kh2 Qc3 52. Qe2 Bd4 53. Ra2 Ba8 54. Qd1 Qc4 0-1


Standings after Round 7:

Ponomariov, Topalov 4
Anand, Polgar 3.5
Adams, Kramnik 3

Pairings for Round 8:

Ponomariov-Anand
Kramnik-Adams
Topalov-Polgar

When I was a kid in the 1970s, there was a TV commercial featuring one person walking down a hallway enjoying his peanut butter (straight from the jar) and another person, approaching at a right angle, enjoying his chocolate. The men collide and their foodstuffs mix, but to their mutual delight, they find the combination of chocolate and peanut butter an improvement. Let's call this the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Principle, or PBCP, for short: combine two things and you get a better thing.

Turning to chess: over the years I've worked as a chess teacher, many of my students have been fascinated by the complications of the Najdorf and Dragon Variations of the Sicilian Defense. Most have chosen one or the other, but every now and again, I find students who apply the PBCP to the Sicilian and play something like this:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7

So far, so Dragon.

7.f3 a6

Err...

8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.O-O-O b5



In the normal Dragon, Black doesn't waste time on a6, sometimes plays b5 but almost never this early, and finally, puts the knight on c6 rather than d7. Black's last three moves are Najdorf moves, not Dragon moves, while Black's 6th and 7th moves are Dragon moves virtually never to be seen in the Najdorf.

That's merely descriptive, however; it doesn't tell whether or why the combination of the two approaches is good, bad, or neutral. Those are normative questions, and my answer to them is, or at least was, that the combination is a poor one. In the Dragon, Black needs to generate queenside counterplay as rapidly as possible, and the problem is that the a6/b5/Bb7/Nbd7 setup will not put much pressure on White's king for a long time to come.

Imagine my surprise, then, when the strong French GM and openings specialist Igor-Alexandre Nataf played this very line against GM Aleksander Delchev just a few days ago! The game began with the exact moves above, and continued and concluded thus:

10.g4 Bb7 11.a3N Nb6 12.Bh6 Bxh6 13.Qxh6 Qc7 14.h4 d5 15.e5 Qxe5 16.Bxb5+! axb5 17.Rhe1



17...Ng8? 18.Qd2 Qg7 19.Ncxb5 Kf8 20.g5! Rc8 21.Qf4 Nf6 22.Rxe7! Nh5 23.Qd6 Nc4 24.Re8+! 1-0 (Delchev-Nataf, Herceg-Novi 2005)

Very pretty, and a nice object lesson for teachers wanting to scare their students away from this hybrid variation. Yet while Black's position was always precarious, White was not at all winning by force after 17.Rhe1. In short, I don't know if the "Najdorf Dragon" is a peanut butter cup or a combination of mustard and tuna fish. (Mmm...indigestion.)

Whatever its objective merits or demerits, it does have the advantage of being almost completely unexplored. So, for those of you who prefer the road less traveled, I suggest taking a look. Happy trails!

As promised:

Kramnik,Vladimir (2753) - Polgar,Judit (2732) [E32]
MTel Masters (5) Sofia, Bulgaria, 16.05.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.Nf3 Bb7 8.e3 d6 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.0-0 Ne4 11.Qc2 f5 12.b4 Rf6 13.d5 Rg6 14.Nd4 Qg5N

[14...exd5 15.f3 Qg5 16.Bd3 dxc4 17.Bxc4+ d5 18.Bb5 c6 19.fxe4 cxb5 20.exf5 Rc8 21.Qf2 Rf6 22.Bb2 Rf7 23.Ne6 Qg4 24.h3 Qh5 25.Bd4 g6 26.Qg3 Rc2 27.Nd8 1-0 Matveeva,S-Maric,A/Budva 2003/CBM 96 ext]

15.g3 exd5?!

[Kramnik mentioned 15...Nf8 as an interesting alternative, but neither Kramnik (as far as I know), Golubev, Crowther or the ChessBase report considered the very interesting 15...Ne5.



The following lines are largely based on Alexei Dreev's post-game analysis on ICC:

a) 16.Nf3 Qe7 is fine for Black is fine, while after 16...Nxf3+ 17.Bxf3 exd5 18.cxd5 Bxd5 19.Rd1 c6 20.b5 White's queenside pressure compensates for the pawn deficit.

b) 16.f4 Qh4 17.fxe5 Nxg3 18.Bf3 Nxf1+ 19.Kxf1 dxe5-+ Shredder 9 (henceforth S9).

c) 16.dxe6 c5 17.f4 Qf6 18.fxe5 Nxg3 19.Bf3 (19.exf6 Nh1+-+; 19.hxg3 Qh4-+) 19...Qh4 20.Bxb7 Ne2+ 21.Kh1 Ng3+ 22.Kg2 Ne4+ 23.Kh1 Ng3+=.

d) 16.Nxe6 is probably best, and after Rxe6 17.dxe6 Qg6 18.Qb3 Ng5 (18...Qxe6 followed by Ng5 is probably fine for Black, according to Dreev) 19.e4 looks good for White: 19...Nh3+ (19...f4!? 20.f3 fxg3 21.Bxg5 Qxg5 22.c5 is interesting) 20.Kg2 is good for White.

16.cxd5 Bxd5 17.Bc4! Bxc4 18.Qxc4+ Kh8 19.Qc6! Rd8 20.Qxc7 Ne5 21.Ra2



[?! according to the tournament website, according to TWIC, !? according to Golubev in Chess Today. Kramnik said of this move that if White is better, "then all chess principles since Capablanca's times should be reconsidered"! A bit strong, but an interesting remark - it tells me that perhaps Kramnik believes in the power of the initiative over the value of structural advantages, stereotypes about his play notwithstanding. 21.f4 instead is an immediate draw: 21...Qxg3+ 22.hxg3 Rxg3+ 23.Kh1 (23.Kh2 Ng4+) 23...Rh3+ 24.Kg2 Rg3+=]

21...Rf8 22.f4 Qg4 23.Qe7! Rg8

[23...Kg8 is probably better, according to Dreev.]

24.Rg2 Nd3

[24...Nc4!? acc. to TWIC, which gives Polgar's move ?!] 25.Qxa7 h5 [25...Qh3 26.Qa6 gives White a clear advantage, according to Golubev and/or Kramnik: 26...Nxc1 (26...Nxg3 27.Qxd3! Kramnik 27...Nxf1 28.Qxf1) 27.Rxc1 Nxg3 28.hxg3 Rxg3 29.Rxg3 Qxg3+ 30.Kf1 Qxe3 31.Ne2!+- Golubev] 26.Qa6 [26.Qxb6 h4 27.Qb5 hxg3 TWIC, with the unspoken implication that this is good for Black. The computer disagrees though: 28.hxg3 Nxc1 29.Nxf5 Nc3 30.Rh2+ Rh6 31.Nxh6 N1e2+ 32.Kg2 Qxg3+ 33.Kh1 Qxh2+ 34.Kxh2 Nxb5 35.Nxg8 Kxg8 36.a4+-]

26...Nxc1 27.Rxc1 h4 28.Qe2! Qxe2 29.Rxe2

[Not 29.Nxe2?? because of h3 (Golubev). The rest, as the cliche goes, is a matter of technique.]

29...hxg3 30.Nxf5 gxh2+ 31.Kh1 Rg1+ 32.Rxg1 hxg1Q+ 33.Kxg1 Ra8 34.Ra2 Nc3 35.Rh2+ Kg8 36.Rg2 Kf7 37.Nxd6+ Ke6 38.Nc4 b5 39.Na5 Kf6 40.Rd2 g5 41.Rd3 Ne4 42.fxg5+ Kxg5 43.Kg2 Rf8 44.Rd5+ Kg4 45.Rd4 Kf5 46.Nc6 Rg8+ 47.Kf1 Ra8 48.Ne7+ Ke5 49.Nc6+ Kf5 50.Ne7+ Ke5 51.Ng6+ Kf5 52.Nh4+ Ke5 53.Nf3+ Kf5 54.Nh4+ Ke5 55.Nf3+ Kf5 56.Rd5+ Kf6 57.Rd3 Rh8 58.Ke2 Ke7 59.Nd4 Rh2+ 60.Kf3 Nd6 61.Rc3 Rh3+ 62.Kg4

1-0


Topalov,Veselin (2778) - Anand,Viswanathan (2785) [E15]
Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (6), 18.05.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Nc3 c6 8.e4 d5 9.Qc2 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Bb7 11.Neg5!N

[The position after Black's 10th move is well-known to theory, but White's 11th move bombshell may change that.]



11...c5

[11...h6 walks into crushing sacs like 12.Nxf7 or 12.Nxe6, while on 11...0-0 White castles queenside and throws everything at the Black kingside.]

12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 h6

[13...0-0 S9 14.Bc3 h6 15.h4 Nbd7 16.0-0-0 Re8 17.Bb5 hxg5 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.hxg5 g6 20.Bxd7 Bxg5+ 21.Nxg5 Qxg5+ 22.Kb1 Re7 23.Bc6 Qf6 24.f4 Bxc6 25.dxc6+/- Qxc6 26.Qh2+- Qe4+ 27.Ka1 f6 28.Qh8+ Kf7 29.Rh7+ Ke6 30.Rxe7+ Kxe7 31.Qg7+ Ke8 (31...Ke6 32.Qd7#) 32.Qxf6; 13...Bxd5 S9 14.0-0-0 Nc6 15.Bc3 Qc7 16.Bxf6 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Bxf6 18.Qe4+ Kf8 19.Bb5 Rc8 20.Rhe1 g6 21.Bxc6 Qxc6 22.Qf4 Rd8 23.Rxd8+ Bxd8 24.Qxf7+ Kxf7 25.Ne5+ Kg7 26.Nxc6 Bf6 27.Rd1+/-]




14.Nxf7!

[14.Bb5+ (S9) Nbd7 15.Ne6 fxe6 16.Qg6+ Kf8 17.dxe6 Qe8 18.Qxe8+ Rxe8 19.exd7 Rd8 is roughly equal]

14...Kxf7 15.0-0-0

[Over the past year or two, I have often responded to claims that computers can't find the right move in this or that position (most recently here and here), but this game is fodder for the software skeptic: my S9 was frequently clueless with respect to both finding Topalov's moves and in its evaluation of the resulting positions. S9 didn't come up with White's 11th or 14th moves (or even come close to doing so), and it thinks Black has about a pawn advantage here.]

15...Bd6 16.Nh4

[And now, S9 thinks Black is just half a pawn better.]

16...Bc8 [16...Kg8 S9 - who now says it's equal 17.Bh3 Bc8 18.Bxc8 Qxc8 19.Bc3 Nbd7 20.Qf5 Ne5 21.Rhe1 Qxf5 22.Nxf5 Nf7 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Re6 with a roughly equal position]

17.Re1 Na6

[17...Re8 S9 18.Bb5 Rxe1+ 19.Rxe1 Kg8 20.Bxh6 Qf8 21.Ng6 Qd8 (21...Qf7 22.Bf4 (22.Bc4!? with the idea that on gxh6 23.Ne7+ wins.) 22...Bxf4+ (22...Ba6 23.Bxd6 Bxb5 24.Re7+- Qxd5 25.Re8+ and White wins the queen.) 23.gxf4 Ba6 24.Be8!! Nxe8 25.Re7+-) 22.Bg5 Bd7 23.Bxd7 Nbxd7 24.Re6 Bf8 25.d6 and White has plenty of compensation.]



18.Re6!

[This too mystified poor Shredder, which never put it even in its top 3.]

18...Nb4

[18...Nc7 19.Qg6+ Kg8 20.Nf5 Bf8 21.Bc4; 18...Bxe6? DM 19.dxe6+ (19.Qg6+ Kg8 20.dxe6 Nb4 21.Bxb4 (21.Qf7+ Kh7 22.Bxh6? Qf8 23.Qg6+ Kg8 24.Nf5 Rh7 and Black seems to be fine.) ) 19...Kg8 20.Bxa6+-]

19.Bxb4 cxb4 20.Bc4

[Threatening Nf5, regaining the material or blasting open the diagonal.]

20...b5 21.Bxb5 Be7?

[21...Kg8!?, as given by Golubev (and S9) is probably Anand's last chance. Topalov suggests 22.Bc4 here, and it's also Shredder's choice. My analysis continues 22...Rh7 (22...Bxe6? 23.dxe6 Be7 24.Rd1 Qe8 25.Rd7! Rc8 26.Nf5 Nd5 27.Rxd5+- and White has equal material to go with the (now unstoppable) attack.) 23.Rhe1 Qf8 24.Ng6 Qd8 25.Qf5 Qc7 26.Re8+ Kf7 27.R1e7+ Bxe7 28.Rxe7+ Qxe7 29.d6+ Ke8 30.Bb5+ Kf7 31.Ne5+ Qxe5 32.Qxe5 Be6, and White has some advantage after 33.Bc4 Re8 34.Qc5.]

22.Ng6

White is winning now.

22...Nxd5

[22...Bxe6 23.dxe6+ Kg8 24.Rd1 Nd5 25.Nxh8+-]



23.Rxe7+?!

[23.Re5, as pointed out by everybody and confirmed by the computer, wins much more easily after, say, 23...Bb7 24.Qf5+ Kg8 25.Bc4. Nevertheless, White is still winning after Topalov's move, too, it's just going to take longer.]

23...Nxe7 24.Bc4+ Kf6 25.Nxh8 Qd4 26.Rd1 Qa1+ 27.Kd2 Qd4+ 28.Ke1 Qe5+ 29.Qe2 Qxe2+ 30.Kxe2 Nf5

[Mark Crowther on TWIC suggests 30...Bg4+ 31.f3 Rxh8 32.fxg4 Nc8 and says it's a much better way of trying to hold the endgame. With all due respect, though, I strongly disagree and beieve that this is completely hopeless for Black: in addition to White's moderately useful extra pawn, his pieces are more active, the bishop is much stronger than the knight, and Black has several weak pawns. The only question now is the move count, and although Anand manages to drag it out another 22 moves, the win is never in doubt.]

31.Nf7 a5 32.g4 Nh4 33.h3 Ra7 34.Rd6+ Ke7 35.Rb6 Rc7 36.Ne5 Ng2 37.Ng6+ Kd8 38.Kf1 Bb7 39.Rxb7 Rxb7 40.Kxg2 Rd7 41.Nf8 Rd2 42.Ne6+ Ke7 43.Nxg7 Rxa2 44.Nf5+ Kf6 45.Nxh6 Rc2 46.Bf7 Rc3 47.f4 a4 48.bxa4 b3 49.g5+ Kg7 50.f5 b2 51.f6+ Kh7 52.Nf5

1-0

Maybe the players are too tired to defend anymore, perhaps they are sick of draws, or it could be that eliminating the Petroff by switching to non-1.e4 openings did the trick, but whatever it is, the draws have stopped, at least for now. There were two decisive games in round 5, and in round 6 all three games had winners.

All three games were exciting, too. Mickey Adams entered the round tied for first, came out of the opening in good shape against Judit Polgar, but in his eagerness to generate kingside play missed something and was outplayed in the complications.

That took Polgar out of the cellar; meanwhile, the other co-leader, Vladimir Kramnik, took on Ruslan Ponomariov, who from rounds 1-4 had been in last place. Like Adams, he too decided to go for the gusto with the Black pieces, and he suffered a similar fate. With two wins in the last two rounds, Ponomariov is now in clear first place!

Finally, in the battle between the tournament's top two by rating, Veselin Topalov produced an astounding series of sacrifices against Viswanathan Anand on his way to a brilliant win. The standings are as follows:

Ponomariov 3.5
Adams, Kramnik, Polgar, Topalov 3
Anand 2.5

With four rounds to go, it's anyone's tournament, but as things stand right now, my pre-tournament predictions are in bad shape: I predicted first for Anand and last for Ponomariov!

Pairings for Round 7:

Polgar-Ponomariov
Adams-Topalov
Anand-Kramnik

N.B. Analysis of the Round 5 Kramnik-Polgar game and the Round 6 Topalov-Anand game is forthcoming.

In a political rally for imprisoned Russian oil billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky and against Russian president Vladimir Putin, Garry Kasparov experienced some manhandling for the second time in a month - this time by the authorities. (Click here for the story, links, and video clips.) His courage is admirable, and unfortunately, it looks like he's going to need it to continue in his opposition to the Putin administration.

In news item #1 (here), we have at least further anecdotal evidence to support the claim that kids' cognitive development is helped along by playing chess. (Hat tip: Ken Smith)

Of course, even the very smart have other problems: witness this news item about American GM and former world junior champion-turned-businessman Maxim Dlugy. (Hat tip: Brian Karen) Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty, and I hope that he is in fact innocent of the charges. [UPDATE: Dlugy was found innocent of all the charges - see the links below.]

Regardless of the outcome, we should still remember that someone's being intelligent doesn't imply that he or she is good or wise - a point especially worth remembering when we're funneling youngsters into the hyper-competitive chess world.

On May 9, the subject of my ChessBase show was the technical masterpiece Andersson-Polugaevsky, Haninge 1990. Polugaevsky was a great player and a competent technician in his own right, but Andersson's gift was - and still is - to create positions where he's always at least maintaining the strength of his position while his opponents self-destruct, and that's just what happened in this case. Polu just assumed the position was a draw, played impatiently, and ultimately lost the game a little at a time.

One place where Polugaevsky did make the right defensive decision came in this position:



It's Black to move, and he chose the aggressive 20...e5, and after 21.axb4 exf4 22.Bxf4 Bxb4 23.Rc7 h6 24.Ra1 could probably have maintained equality with 24...a5.

Going back to the diagrammed position, however, it's reasonable to consider the obvious 20...Nd5. Polugaevsky, in his notes to the game in the Informant, dubs it interesting and says no more, while Jacob Aagaard develops the line in his Excellence in Chess:

20...Nd5 21.Nxd5 Rxd5 22.Rc7 Bf6 23.b4

Aagaard says "this might be a little unpleasant for Black because White has control of the c-file, which is clearly more glamorous than the d-file." He then adds that if Black goes on a fishing trip with

23...Bb2?

he will find himself either losing his bishop or suffering from a fatally weak king after

24.Rb1 Bxa3 25.Rb3 Rd1+ 26.Kg2 Ra1 27.Bd4 Ra2 28.Rf3



As proof, Aagaard finishes the line with the neat 28...Rf8 29.Bc5 Rc2 30.Rfxf7!

During the show, however, a viewer with the user name "Koan" wisely forgot to be cowed by either my or especially Aagaard's credentials and asked about 28...f6, not seeing a win for White after that move. Fortunately for me, there's a delay on the show (the CB programmers' best attempt to head off problems with viewer lag and synchronizing my voice with what's happening on the board), and the audience was thereby spared the humor and/or angst of seeing me try to figure out what in the world was wrong with 28...f6 or where Aagaard's line went awry.

The quick answer: nothing is wrong with 28...f6 - as far as I can tell, Black is probably equal after the move. White does win with the prosaic 28.Rcc3, though, so it was just a single-move lapse in Aagaard's analysis.

The lines after 28...f6 are quite interesting, so even though Black shouldn't have this chance to survive, it's worth our taking a look. Shredder 9's two main candidates are the materialistically driven 29.Rb3 and 29.Bc5, while my preference was to go headhunting with 29.Rf4. We'll consider each in turn:

(a) 29.Bc5 Bc1 30.Rd3 Rd2 31.Re3 e5 32.Bxa7 Ra2 33.Rxc1 R2xa7 34.Rc5 and White has only a nominal edge.

(b) 29.Rb3 a5 30.bxa5 Rxa5 31.Bc3 Ra8 32.Rxb5 Rxe2 33.Rbb7 Bf8 is fine for Black, as 34.Bb4 Rb2 leads to an endgame where White will have to prove the draw after 35.Bxf8 Rxb7 36.Rxb7 Kxf8 37.h4 etc.

(c) 29.Rf4 is the most dynamic way to play the position - if it doesn't work, then White has no way to even attempt to play for a win. Let's first look at Black's most obvious winning try:

(c1) 29...e5 30.Rg4 g5 31.Bxe5 h5 32.Re4 fxe5 (32...Re8 also bottoms out into a draw: 33.Rxa7 Rxe5 34.Rd4 Kf8 35.Rd8+ Re8 36.Rdd7 Rexe2 37.Rd8+ Re8 38.Rdd7 and Black has no better way to elude the threat of perpetual than by returning with 38...Ree2, when White repeats with 39.Rd8+ and so on) 33.Rxe5 Bxb4 34.Rxg5+ Kf8 35.Rxh5 Kg8 and although it's clear that White has a draw in the bag and a passel of pawns for the piece, Black's a-pawn will, practically by its lonesome, succeeding in giving Black adequately counterplay.

For example, if 36.Rg5+ Kh8 37.Rxb5 a5 with another fork in the road:

(c1a) 38.e4 Rf8 forces White to bail out with the draw: 39.Rh5+ Kg8 40.Rg5+ Kh8=

(c1b) 38.e3 Rb2 39.g4 a4 and it's time for White to grab the draw with both hands (or both rooks!) 40.Rh5+ Kg8 41.Rg5+ Kf8 42.Rh5 Kg8 43.Rg5+=

(c1c) 38.Rh5+ Kg8 39.Rg5+ Kh8 40.Rh5+= (40.Rc4 Ra7 41.Rh4+ Rh7 42.Rhg4 Ra7 43.Rh5+ Rh7=)

Draws aplenty, wins anone.

(c2) 29...h5 (instead of 29...e5 after 29.Rf4) is a more prophylactic way of handling the position - why allow the White rook to g4 in the first place? The respectable continuation is 30.Bc5 (protecting the pawn and clearing d4 as a stepping stone for the Rf4 to reach d7) 30...e5 31.Rf3 (heading for d3) 31...Bc1 32.Rd3 Rxe2 33.Rdd7 Bh6 34.Rxa7 Rxa7 35.Rxa7 and White will draw with Rb7xb5.

Is it necessary to be respectable though? If there is a viable "no" answer, it will begin with 30.Bxf6, trying to break through immediately. Then 30...gxf6 31.Rxf6 Bxb4 32.Rg6+ Kf8 33.Rh6 Ke8 34.Rxe6+ Kd8 35.Rb7 a6 36.Kf3 (36.Rg6 Rxe2) 36...Rd2 37.Rg6 Kc8 38.Rh7 Ba5 and if White can draw this, it will only be in virtue of discovering a near-miraculous resource. So to answer the question asked at the beginning of this paragraph: yes, this time playing it safe is playing it smart.

And so although 28.Rcc3 would have won easily, and would have been played in the game, had it come to that, "Koan" was right about 28.Rf3 f6! - Black is okay there. Good eye!

What are the greatest chess books ever? New Victorian blogger Robert Pearson has written a post weighing in on the matter. (Or has he? The title is "The Cream of Chess Literature," and he goes on to suggest that his recommendations are "the best of the best" of his collection. On the other hand, the last thing he writes before listing books is that "these are the books [he] has enjoyed most of all." Perhaps he has reached a state of perfect chess book reader virtue, such that his favorite books are also the best books, but there's no necessary connection between the two categories. There are great chess books I haven't enjoyed too much and enjoyable books whose objective merit is less than staggering, and only sometimes the twain shall meet.)

Pearson's list is excellent and a chess lover with money to spend would do well to get any of the books he mentions. I wouldn't include Rowson's The Seven Deadly Chess Sins or Winter's Capablanca on my greatest books list (though I enjoyed both books and surely considered them worthwhile), and there are some other books I'd include as well, such as

Mikhail Tal's The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal. In addition to having plenty of Tal's games (through 1974), this very informal, completely unpretentious autobiography is a delight to read. The only pity is that he wrote this during the days of the U.S.S.R.; I suspect his humor would have found freer outlet absent worries of government censorship and retribution.

Bent Larsen's Larsen's Selected Games of Chess.

Alexander Alekhine's Alekhine's Best Games of Chess (1908-1923 and 1924-1937). (N.B. Unless descriptive notation terrifies you, purchase the inexpensive Dover edition combining the two, rather than Nunn's more expensive, severely abridged version.)

David Bronstein's 200 Selected Games and Zurich 1953.

Alexei Shirov's Fire on Board. (N.B.: Volume 2, covering games through 2004, has just been released.)

Garry Kasparov's My Great Predecessors series.

Igor Stohl's Modern Chess Masterpieces.

Graham Burgess, John Nunn and John Emms, The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games.

The foregoing isn't meant to be a complete list; it's just my attempt to continue the conversation and to send chess fans and their money in a worthwhile direction.

Things are looking up - two decisive games today! Better still, the third game was also a good fight, and all three games were interesting.

Ponomariov won a nice game against Topalov - 23.Nh6+!! was the star move, while Adams had to really sweat it out to hold the endgame against Anand. Here are those games:

Ponomariov,Ruslan (2695) - Topalov,Veselin (2778) [E06]
Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (5), 16.05.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Be7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Bf4 b6 9.Nc3 Ba6 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Rc1 Nc6 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.Ne5 Nxd4 14.Bxd5 Nxe2+ 15.Qxe2 Bxe2 16.Bxa8 Rxa8 17.Rfe1 Bb5 18.Rc2 Nd5 19.Rec1 Bc5 20.Bd2 f6 21.b4 Bf8 22.Ng4 Rd8 23.Rc8 Rd7



24.Nh6+!! gxh6 25.Bxh6 Rf7 26.Rd8 Ne7 27.Rc7 Ng6 28.Rcc8 e5 29.f4 Bd7 30.Ra8 Bh3 31.Kf2 b5 32.Rdb8 exf4 33.gxf4 Bd7 34.h4 Bc6 35.h5 Bxa8 36.hxg6 hxg6 37.Rxa8 f5 38.Kg3 a6 39.Kh4 Rg7 40.Kg5



Zugzwang! 1-0


Anand,Viswanathan (2785) - Adams,Michael (2737) [A30]
Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (5), 16.05.2005

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.Bg5 a6 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Qf4 0-0 12.Rfd1 Be7 13.Ne4 Bxe4 14.Qxe4 Ra7 15.Nd4 Qc8 16.b3 Bf6 17.e3 Rd8 18.Qg4 g6 19.Rd2 h5 20.Qe2 Bg7 21.Rad1 Qc5 22.h4 Rad7 23.Bh3 Re7 24.Qf3 Ree8 25.Qe4 d5



26.Nxe6 dxe4 27.Rxd8 Qe7 28.Rxe8+ Qxe8 29.Rd8 Qxd8 30.Nxd8 Bf6 31.Nb7 Be7 32.c5 Bxc5 33.Nxc5 bxc5 34.Bc8 Kg7 35.Bb7 f5 36.f3 exf3 37.Kf2 a5 38.Kxf3 Nd7 39.e4 Ne5+ 40.Ke3 c4 41.exf5 cxb3 42.axb3 gxf5 43.Ba6 Ng6 44.Be2 Kh6 45.Kd4 f4 46.gxf4 Nxf4 47.Bf3 Ng6 48.Kc5 Nxh4 49.Bxh5 Kxh5 50.Kb5 Nf5 51.Kxa5 Nd4 52.b4 Nc6+ 53.Ka4 Nxb4 54.Kxb4 1/2-1/2


In the third game, Vladimir Kramnik relived the good old days by beating one of his favorite old customers, Judit Polgar, in a battle between her attempts to generate an attack and his to break through her weakened queenside. Kramnik could have played it safe, but took the risk, collected the point, and pulled into a tie for first place at the halfway point. (This game will be presented in a separate post, or perhaps appended to this one later. Stay tuned.)

Standings after Round 5:

Adams, Kramnik 3
Anand, Ponomariov 2.5
Polgar, Topalov 2

Pairings for Round 6 (Wednesday - Tuesday is a rest day)

Ponomariov-Kramnik
Topalov-Anand
Polgar-Adams

About a week ago, I received an email from "Daaim" suggesting I was perhaps unfair in my post on 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6! He writes:

You show the game Hikaru lost on the ICC, but that shouldn't be your rationale for saying "I told you so." He's played many games with 2.Qh5.

Of course, the article was in good part tongue in cheek (re-read especially the first sentence of the second paragraph), but not entirely. First of all, that was the only ICC blitz game where his opponent played 2...Nf6; second, it's not just the result but how easily it came: by move 7 he's already clearly worse! Third, 2...Nf6 isn't just some "trappy" line - the computer in all its materialistic glory likes the move and thinks it gives Black an edge.

In an earlier comment to my post "Saidy-Fischer; not a Brilliancy?", MNb proclaimed the end of the "Fischer gambit". I think that even if he's right, it doesn't affect my argument in that post, which is that (a) the standard "refutations" of the sac are of at best dubious value, (b) even if the sac is bad, it's not obviously bad, and (c) its unsoundness, even if granted, doesn't suffice to eliminate the game's deserved recognition from the Informant voters back in 1969.

That said, it's still worth considering MNb's claims.

(1) MNb refers to an alleged refutation of the following line of the Grand Prix Attack (GPA): 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bc4?! e6 6.f5 Nge7 7.fxe6 fxe6 8.d3 d5 9.Bb3 with 9...b5. (His point is that this is equivalent to 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 [because the pawn gets to d4 in two moves, the resulting position is exactly equivalent [albeit with colors reversed] to that reached in the GPA line] Bc5 6.e3 f4 and now 7.Nge2 [instead of the game's 7.exf4] fxe3 8.fxe3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.b4)

Unfortunately, while Cor van Wijgerden may have refuted the variation, I can't assess the claim here: I don't have access to the magazine in question, and as it's a position that has occurred in dozens of games going back to 1969, a look at the databases isn't sufficient. As a discussion opener, here's how GM Dorian Rogozenko continues the GPA line in his 2003 Gambit book Anti-Sicilians: A Guide for Black, pp. 27-28: 10.O-O c4 11.dxc4 dxc4 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Nxb5 cxb3 14.axb3 Bd7 15.Ng5 Kc8 16.c3 e5, when the position is somewhere between White's having adequate compensation and Black's having an edge (my computer thinks Black has about a +.3 edge if White continues with 17.Be3).

Let's suppose the worst, that Black is slightly better. In some sense, that's a "refutation" of the line, as it's silly for someone to choose a variation with White that leads to a slight disadvantage. But recall that we're really considering the line with colors reversed, so it would be Black with the slight disadvantage. Perhaps that's not ideal, but it's not really a big problem, either. So more needs to be said before this line should be considered refuted.

(2) Returning to the game, after 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 Bc5 6.e3 f4 7.exf4 O-O 8.Nge2 Qe8 and now, instead of the game's 9.O-O, MNb suggests 9.h3, continuing 9...d6 10.Be3 exf4 ("[10...]Bxe3 is less strong now") 11.Bxf4 Nh5 12.O-O, which transposes (with colors reversed) to the game Glek-Gavrikov, Minsk 1983.

Two comments here: the first concerns the proposed analysis, the second its applicability to what I wrote and discussed on the program.

First, on his analysis: while the Glek-Gavrikov game wound up a very sharp draw, but I think he's objectively right about the position after 12.O-O - I think White is in very good shape there.

On the other hand, he might be underestimating 10...Bxe3. After 11.fxe3 exf4 12.exf4, the computer finds a very interesting move: 12...Nb4!? If White lets the steed remain, then Black may get good play with ...Qg6 or ...Bf5 - at best, White may get a very small edge with 13.O-O Qe3+ 14.Kh2 Qxd3 15.a3 Qxd1 16.Raxd1 Nc2 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.Bxd5+ Kh8 19.Rd2 Ne3 20.Rc1.

The obvious question is this: why in the world White shouldn't just kick it away with 13.a3? The answer is that 13.a3 Nc6, White achieves nothing with the otherwise attractive 14.Qd2 (taking e3 away from the Black queen and preparing queenside castling), because of 14...Nd4, when 15.O-O-O?? Nb3+ reveals the point of inducing a3!

Unfortunately, White does get a good position with 14.Kd2!, when I was unable to find a foolproof way for Black to achieve adequate counterplay against White's plan of kingside expansion.

In sum, he's probably right about his analysis, but the next question is whether it's relevant to Fischer's gambit (as opposed to the way Fischer followed it up).

First, as I argued here, White can respond to 7...O-O(?) with 8.fxe5, when as far as I could determine, he achieves a large advantage. Second and more importantly, however, I think Black can improve on 7...O-O with 7...d6, and after 8.Nge2 O-O 9.h3, Black need not transpose to MNb's line with 9...Qe8 10.Be3, but can deviate with either 9...Bf5 or 9...Nd4 (for example). I think White has an edge here with accurate play, but I'm not at all persuaded we're in 1-0 territory.

(3) MNb proposes a third way for White: 7.gxf4 (instead of 7.exf4 as in the game, or 7.Nge2, heading for the GPA with colors reversed). He writes, "Black's best try seems exf4 8.d4 Bb4 as 7.gxf4 d6 8.Nge2 o-o 9.h3 Qe8 10.a3 is a GPA again; White has the useful extra move a3."

By way of reply: first, in the latter line, I think White has an edge but I'm not sure it's anything special. It's easy to overestimate the value of an extra tempo in a reversed opening - a line that's equal for Black rarely becomes clearly better by the addition of a single tempo. And second, his main line (7.gxf4 exf4 8.d4 Bb4) looks pretty healthy to me for Black - White is at best slightly better.

In sum, I think MNb has offered some good suggestions for White - not enough to win, as far as I can tell, but enough to make the gambit a dubious idea for postal chess or against a well-prepared opponent who can calculate well and play good defense.

Finally, three quick points about the variation. First, if Black plays the line with 3...f5, White should play 5.e3 instead of 5.d3. The point is to get in d4 in a single move - White might as well have an extra tempo if Black is going to head for a reversed GPA.

Second, after 5.d3, Black has good chances for equality with 5...Bb4. And third, after 5.d3(?!) Bc5(?!), it probably behooves White to flick in 6.a3, as the kneejerk response with 6...a5 weakens the b5 square. After White plays an eventual Nb5, d4 will be a well-supported positional threat to the Black position.

Chess videos have been popular for years, and ChessBase has taken the lead in this niche. Their DVD with Kasparov on the Queen's Gambit has already been (very positively) reviewed on my former blog (here and here), and now they have released a pair of DVDs featuring Viktor Kortchnoi presenting some of his most memorable games. (See here and here for ordering information.)

These videos have already received three prominent, thorough and positive reviews that I've seen (here, here and here). As Lopez, Watson, and Grimmell have already offered a great deal of useful information, I'll offer a few semi-random remarks instead of a fully structured review.

First, I found the videos very enjoyable.

Perhaps my favorite moment of all the videos occurs at the end of the presentation of the very first game of the first video, the game Golenichev-Korchnoi, USSR junior team championship 1949, when Korchnoi tells the audience that "this was ...my first very game that drew [the] attention of grandmasters of the Soviet Union; the first, well, frankly not the last one."

His expression as he says this is just priceless: he is smiling gleefully, sticking out his tongue and coyly looking into the camera as if he has just revealed a deep, wonderful secret for the first time ever.

Next, a couple of remarks on Watson's comments. First, he notes that Korchnoi is known as a prickly pear, but my understanding is that this is pretty much limited to the occasion of the game itself (and sometimes its aftermath); most of the time, he's a sociable person. In any case, just to judge by these videos, Korchnoi comes across as avuncular, even grandfatherly.

Second, Watson notes a serious error in Korchnoi's comments just before the very end of his game with Spassky (on the second DVD) and takes this as evidence that Korchnoi didn't "overprepare" (whatever exactly that means). Watson doesn't say this, but the reader might get the impression that Korchnoi is largely winging it on these videos. If so, I think that's a mistake. When I do my shows on ChessBase, I try to carefully prepare and have reasonably thorough notes, but once the show is going I don't surrender my freedom to skip some things and discuss something new if it catches my eye. That's what Korchnoi is doing here, I think. (Incidentally, the error is a very interesting one, and I won't ruin the reader's opportunity to find it - and discover why it's an error - for him- or herself.)

Now for three quibbles.

First, what was definitely underprepared about the videos was the move inputting. Sometimes Korchnoi entered (or scrolled through) the moves and sometimes it was an assistant, who also seemed responsible for entering graphical annotations. The two are regularly out of sync with each other, occasionally painfully so (though Korchnoi is very patient about it!) so I think things might have gone far more smoothly had they given Korchnoi a 15-minute tutorial on adding and promoting variations, highlighting squares, creating arrows, etc. and let him run the show himself.

Second, I was at first somewhat disappointed by the game list on the first video, as 6 of the 9 games presented are included in his recent (and outstanding) My Best Games books, and of the three that aren't, two are against more or less complete unknowns while the third is a 2-minute addendum to a main game. This is compensated largely by the presence of the very interesting interview with Frederic Friedel, but I think that had the ratio of new to already discussed games been similar in the second DVD it would have detracted from the product's value. Happily, the ratio is more than reversed in the second DVD: 7 new games and only 2 repeats.

Finally, while I'm glad the DVDs include databases with all the Korchnoi games they could find, I think the decision to remove all the annotations available through Mega Database 2005 is a regrettable one. In Mega 2005, a whopping 753 Korchnoi games have at least some commentary (substantial commentary in many cases).

Perhaps ChessBase thought that including those annotations, it would discourage customers from buying Mega 2005, but it seems to me that the reverse is true: after a tasty appetizer of 753 well-annotated games in a collection with about 4200 total games, the customer would desire the full feast: a database of nearly 3,000,000 games, 57,000 of which contain commentary. I'm no marketing genius, but this doesn't seem to me to cost ChessBase anything while giving the customer a bigger bang for the buck and a lure to purchase more ChessBase software.

In sum, while $60 for the two DVDs is a decent-sized chunk of change, I found them entertaining and instructional. More than that, though, there was something special about seeing a living legend - a player who was fighting for the world championship when I started playing chess around 30 years ago (and was thought a bit old even then), who was still fighting for the crown when I became a master some years later, and even now, well into my adulthood, I'm amazed to see him continue to play at a very high level. In short, the videos are also a combination of history and nostalgia, but also more than that, because Korchnoi himself is continuing to create at the board. And so the videos have one final selling point: inspiration.

To coin a phrase: thumbs up!

It's hard to know how seriously to take FIDE's announcements, given their failures with the Kasparov-Ponomariov and Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov matches, but it looks as if this one might actually happen.

According to FIDE, the event is scheduled for September 27 through October 16 of this year in San Luis, Argentina, the participants are

1. GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov (UZB, World Champion)
2. GM Vishwanathan Anand (IND, World Champion 2000-2002)
3. GM Veselin Topalov (BUL)
4. GM Peter Leko (HUN)
5. GM Michael Adams (ENG)
6. GM Alexander Morozevich (RUS)
7. GM Peter Svidler (RUS)
8. GM Judith Polgar (HUN)

A fine list, missing only Kramnik (who has expressed an interest in playing the winner in a reunification match), Kasparov (who has retired), and perhaps Ponomariov (who though at least partially to blame for the failure of his match with Kasparov, may still have deserved some consideration). Particularly noteworthy is the participation of Polgar, who has a very real chance to become the first female world champion ever.


Less newsworthy but also of interest is the third part of Mig's long interview with Garry Kasparov (parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here, respectively). Much of part 3 repeats details of his by now very well-known views on Putin's politics, but what's new is a hitherto-unseen openness to run for political office.

It's hard for me to imagine Kasparov as a politician, given his bluntness and track record of alienating so many organizers and players in the chess world, but there's no denying his energy, charisma, and name recognition. Time will tell.

Kramnik's Petroff easily held against Topalov's sideline, while Adams-Ponomariov barely made it out of the starting gate: 21 moves of theory, a novelty on move 22, and perpetual check two moves later.

The Polgar-Anand game was an excellent fight that went all the way down to bare kings. Let's take a quick look!

Polgar,Judit (2732) - Anand,Viswanathan (2785) [B46]
Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (4), 15.05.2005
[Monokroussos,Dennis]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Re1 Be7 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qg4 g6 12.Bh6 Rb8 13.Qh3 Rb4 14.Bg7



14...Rg8!!N

[14...Rh4 15.Qg3 Rg8 16.Bf6 Bxf6 (16...Rb4 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.b3 h5 19.Na4 Rg4 20.Qe3 Qg5 21.g3 Qxe3 22.Rxe3 Rb4 23.c4 d4 24.Re2 c5 25.Be4 Bb7 26.Nb2 Bxe4 27.Rxe4 a5 28.Rb1 Ke7 29.Re2 Rgb8 30.Rd1 R4b7 31.f4 Rc7 32.Rb1 Nb6 33.Rc2 Kd7 34.Kf2 Kc6 35.Kf3 Rcb7 36.Ke4 a4 37.Nd3 axb3 38.Rxb3 Na4 39.Ra3 Ra8 40.Kf3 Raa7 41.Rb3 Nb6 42.Rcb2 Na4 43.Rxb7 Rxb7 44.Rxb7 Kxb7 45.g4 hxg4+ 46.Kxg4 Kc6 47.Kg5 Nb6 48.Nb2 Nxc4 49.Nxc4 Kd5 50.Nd2 c4 51.Kg4 c3 52.Kf3 cxd2 53.Ke2 Ke4 54.a4 Kd5 55.Kxd2 Kc4 56.a5 Kb5 57.Kd3 Kxa5 58.Kxd4 Kb5 59.h3 Kc6 1/2-1/2 Belotti,B-Romanishin,O/Reggio Emilia 1998/CBM 63) 17.exf6 g5 18.Qd6 Bb7 19.g3 Rh6 20.Qb4 Bc8 21.Qd6 Bb7 22.Qb4 1/2-1/2, Alekseev-Navara, Lausanne 2004]

15.Qxh7 Rxg7 16.Qxg7 Bf8 17.Qg8 Qg5 18.g3 Nxe5 19.f4 Nf3+ 20.Kf2 Qh5



21.Bxg6!

[21.Re3 d4 22.Rxf3 Qxh2+ 23.Kf1 dxc3 24.bxc3 is Shredder 9's recommendation, with an approximately equal (but obviously entirely unclear) position. 24...Ra4 25.Re1 Qh1+ 26.Kf2 Qh2+ 27.Ke3 (27.Kf1 Qh1+=) 27...Rxa2 28.Be4 Ke7 29.Rd1 Ra3=/+; 21.Be2? Qxh2+ 22.Kxf3 e5! wins (Golubev), due to the threat of 23...Bg4+ 24.Kxg4 Qh5#]

21...fxg6 22.Rxe6+ Bxe6 23.Qxe6+ Be7

[23...Kd8 24.Qxc6 Rxb2 25.Rc1 Nxh2 26.Kg2 Be7 27.Nxd5 Qe2+ 28.Kh3 Rb5 29.Rd1 forces Black to bail out with a perpetual check: 29...Qh5+ 30.Kg2 Qe2+ 31.Kh3 Qh5+ etc.]

24.Qxc6+ Kf8 25.Qa8+ Kg7 26.Qxd5 Nxh2 27.Qxh5 gxh5 28.Rh1 Ng4+ 29.Kf3 Nf6

[29...Rxb2 30.Rxh5 Rxc2 (30...Nf6 31.Ra5 Rxc2 32.Ne4 Rc6 33.g4 Nxe4 34.Kxe4 is similar) 31.Nd5 Nf6 32.Nxf6 Bxf6 33.Ra5 Rc6 is presumably still drawn, but might give Black more winning chances than the game continuation.]

30.b3 Rb6 31.Ne4 Nxe4 32.Kxe4 Kg6 33.c4 Re6+ 34.Kf3 Rd6 35.Re1 Rd3+ 36.Kg2 Bf6 37.Re6 a5

[37...Rd2+ 38.Kh3 Rxa2 39.g4 draws easily.]

38.Ra6 Kf5 39.c5

[39.Rxa5+? Kg4 40.Rd5 Rxg3+ 41.Kh1