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 Rc3 and not only White's pawns, but more importantly, his king, are in trouble.]

39...Bd4 40.Rd6 Ke4 41.c6 Rc3 42.Kh3 Bf2 43.Rg6 Bb6 44.Kh4 Rc5 45.Rd6 Bc7 46.Rd7 Rxc6 47.Kxh5 Bd6 48.Kg5 Ba3 49.Ra7 Rc5+ 50.Kg6 Bb4 51.Ra6 Rc3 52.Re6+ Kf3 53.f5 Rc2 54.f6 Rxa2 55.f7 Kxg3 56.Kg7 Rf2 57.Rg6+ Kh3 58.Rh6+ Kg2 59.Rh5 Rf3 60.Rg5+ Kf2



61.Kg8!

[61.Rxa5 Bc3+ 62.Kg8 Rg3+ 63.Kh7 Rg7+ 64.Kh6 Rxf7 is the trap, when White will lose the b-pawn and have to suffer in a rook and bishop vs. rook ending. It's a theoretically drawn ending, it's true, but it's also true that many players, even grandmasters, have lost it.]

61...Rg3 62.Rxg3 Kxg3 63.f8Q Bxf8 64.Kxf8 Kf4 65.Ke7 Ke5 66.Kd7 Kd5 67.Kc7 Kc5 68.Kb7 Kb4 69.Ka6 a4 70.bxa4 Kxa4 1/2-1/2


Standings after Round 4:

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

Pairings for Round 5:

Kramnik-Polgar (Once upon a time this was close to an automatic 1-0, but Kramnik's bad form and Polgar's continuing improvement have probably placed those days firmly in the past.)

Anand-Adams (Likewise here, Anand has tortured Adams over the years, but Adams won their last decisive game and now, especially in connection with his win over Kramnik, should have the confidence needed to fight on equal terms - provided he doesn't run into some mega-novelty, that is.)

Ponomariov-Topalov (This should prove a tough game, as it features the tournament's two biggest fighters.)

The big story of round 3 was Adams' win over Kramnik. Adams played a novelty on move 16 that may not have been so serious, but Kramnik fell in love with an interesting but ultimately unsound idea, leading to a position where White's rook, bishop and knight were stronger than Black's queen and pawns:

[Event "Mtel Masters"]
[Site "Sofia BUL"]
[Date "2005.05.14"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Adams,Michael"]
[Black "Kramnik,Vladmir"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2737"]
[BlackElo "2753"]
[EventDate "2005.05.12"]
[ECO "C42"]

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 16. Bg3



A novelty. Previously, 16.c4, 16.Bd3, 16.h3, 16.Nd2 and 16.Qa4 had been played here.

16...Bf6 17. Nd2 Qa5 18. Qc1

Now Kramnik could choose a "normal" move like 18...Qa4 or GM Mikhail Golubev's suggestion (in Chess Today, issue 1650) of 18...Bg5, but he went for a combination instead:

18...Bxd4 19. cxd4 Nxd4 20. Bc4



According to Kramnik (according to Golubev's report in Chess Today), his original intention was to play 20...Rxe1+ 21.Qxe1 Nc2, but at this point he (very accurately!) calculated the following line: 22.Qe7 Nxa1 23.Bxf7+! Kh8 24.Be5! Qxd2 25.Bxg7+! Kxg7 26.Be8+ Kh6 (other moves get mated) 27.Qf8+ Kg5 28.f4+! Kxf4 (28...Qxf4 29.Qe7+ Kh6 30.Qf6+ wins the queen; 28...Kg4 29.Bh5+!) 29.Qh6+ Ke5 30.Qxd2 Rxe8 31.Qe2+ Be4 32.Qh5+ and wins.

Thus the text is forced, leading to a materially imbalanced position after White's 24th move when the question is whether Black can (a) prevent White's army from coordinating against concrete targets or (b) get the queenside pawns running fast enough to generate counterplay. According to the computer, Black is okay, but as a practical matter I think White's position is easier to play - and that's in fact what happened in the game.

20...Nc2 21. Rxe8+ Rxe8 22. Rb1 Re1+ 23. Qxe1 Nxe1 24. Rxe1 Kf8 25. Nf3 f6 26. Rd1 Qc5 27. Bf1 Ke8 28. Nd4 Bd7 29. Rd3 a5 30. h3 b5 31. Nb3 Qxa3 32. Bxc7 a4 33. Bd6 Qb2 34. Nc5 a3



A clear mistake, but White is probably winning in any case. For example: 34...Bc8 35.Re3+ Kd8 36.Bf8 Kc7 37.Nd3 Qb1 38.Re1 Qb3 39.Re7+ Kc6 40.Rxg7+-.

35. Re3+ Kf7 36. Nd3 Qb1

36...Qa1 makes no difference: 37.Bxa3 Qxa3? 38.Ne5+ and 39.Rxa3.

37. Bxa3 Be6 38. Nf4 b4 39. Bxb4 Qxb4 40. Nxe6 g6 41. g3 1-0


In the other two games, Anand-Ponomariov and Polgar-Topalov, White had the better of the action, but the games were ultimately drawn.

Standings after Round 3:

Adams 2
Anand, Kramnik, Polgar, Topalov 1.5
Ponomariov 1

Pairings for Round 4:

Topalov-Kramnik
Polgar-Anand
Adams-Ponomariov

Ask most players to name an exemplar of wild, sacrificial chess, and they'll most likely come up with Alexei Shirov or Mikhail Tal. Both great choices, but tame by comparison with the star of this week's show, Rashid Nezhmetdinov (1912-1974).

A fearless and immensely talented tactician (witness his +3-1 record against Tal!), Nezhmetdinov's relatively one-sided style prevented him from achieving the highest competitive successes, but it also allowed him to produce a large number of sacrificial masterpieces.

This week's game is no exception. Playing White against Chernikov's Accelerated Dragon, Nezhmetdinov headed for a line generally played as an invitation to a quick draw after the following moves:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 Ng4 9.Qxg4 Nxd4 10.Qh4 (10.Qd1 was and still is the main move) Qa5 11.O-O Bf6



Instead of acceding to the repetition with 12.Qh6 Bg7 13.Qh4 Bf6, Nezhmetdinov decided it was time to drag his opponent into the mire with 12.Qxf6!!?

Is it sound? Could Black have gained an advantage against this? And how did the game turn out? Good questions...to be answered this Monday night at 9 p.m. EST - tune in to the show and see!

As always, directions for watching the show (as well as archived shows) can be found here, while a list of games to be found in those archives can be found here.

In my background piece to this tournament, I noted the cynical possibility that the anti-draw regulation wouldn't necessarily solve the problem underlying the occasional practice of quick, spineless draws. I pointed out that a similarly motivated rule (no draws before move 40, apart from special circumstances) governing NY Masters games failed after a few weeks, when GMs started blitzing out 40 meaningless moves before completing the handshake.

Of course, those were just "ordinary" grandmasters - great players in their own right, but outclassed by the caliber of player in the MTel event. We rightly expect more from these players, and we weren't disappointed: it only took them until day two to prove the impotence of the no-draw offer rule.

Here's masterpiece #1:

[Event "Mtel Masters"]
[Site "Sofia BUL"]
[Date "2005.05.13"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Kramnik,V"]
[Black "Anand,V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2753"]
[BlackElo "2785"]
[EventDate "2005.05.12"]
[ECO "C42"]

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. cxd5 Qxd5 14. Bf4 Na5 15. Bxc7 Rac8 16. Bxa5 Qxa5 17. c4 Bf6 18. Bd3 Bg4 19. h3 Bxf3 20. Qxf3 Qd8

A novelty, according to TWIC's mini-report on the round. In the stem game, Karpov continued 20...Rcd8 and drew with ease again Zhang Zhong, but perhaps/presumably Kramnik had some improvement in mind. After Anand's move, Kramnik shuffles around for 5 moves, then completely gives up with 26.Qc3 and 27.Bg4, returning the pawn and liquidating to a hopelessly drawn opposite-colored bishop ending.

21. Rad1 g6 22. Be2 Rc7 23. Qd3 b6 24. Rd2 Qe7 25. Rfd1 Rd8 26.Qc3 Rcd7 27. Bg4 Rxd4 28. Rxd4 Rxd4 29. Rxd4 Qc5 30. Rd5 Bxc3 31. Rxc5 bxc5 32. Kf1 1/2-1/2

The Topalov-Adams slugfest was even more efficient:

[Event "Mtel Masters"]
[Site "Sofia BUL"]
[Date "2005.05.13"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Topalov,V"]
[Black "Adams,Mi"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2778"]
[BlackElo "2737"]
[EventDate "2005.05.12"]
[ECO "C88"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8.h3 Bb7 9. d3 Re8 10. a4 d6 11. Bd2 b4 12. c3 d5

This looks like a reasonable delayed Marshall of sorts. White grabs the pawn and has three moments - moves 17, 19 and 20 (17.Qf3, 19.Qf3, and 20.Rc4 all seem to be good alternatives to the moves played) - to try to keep some life in the game. He doesn't take them, and after Black's 20th move, the remaining moves look like best play for both sides, culminating in a scintillating, rule-circumventing draw by repetition:

13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Nxe5 Nxe5 15. Rxe5 Bf6 16. Rxe8+ Qxe8 17. cxb4 Bxb2 18. Ra2 Be5 19. Rc2 Bd6 20. Qf3 Qe5 21. g3 Rb8 22. Qe4 Qh5 23. Qg4 Qe5 24. Qe4 Qh5 25. Qg4 Qe5 26. Qe4 1/2-1/2

Ponomariov and Polgar were slower learners: they reached a theoretically drawn ending on move 35, but one in which Ponomariov had an extra pawn. (No doubt the result of carelessness earlier in the game.) Polgar defended accurately, and when Ponomariov finally realized, more than 40 moves later, that by shedding his extra pawn he could put an end to the game, he did so.

[Event "Mtel Masters"]
[Site "Sofia BUL"]
[Date "2005.05.13"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Ponomariov,R"]
[Black "Polgar,Ju"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2695"]
[BlackElo "2732"]
[EventDate "2005.05.12"]
[ECO "B55"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. f3 e5 6. Nb3 Be6 7. c4 a5 8. Be3 Be7 9. Be2 a4 10. N3d2 Qa5 11. Nc3 O-O 12. O-O Bd8 13. Nb5 Bb6 14. Bf2 Nc6 15. Nb1 Ne8 16. N1c3 Bc5 17. Kh1 a3 18. bxa3 Nc7 19. Rb1 Nxb5 20. Nxb5 Bxf2 21. Rxf2 Qb6 22. Qg1 Nd4 23. Rff1 Ra6 24. Nxd4 Qxd4 25. Qxd4 exd4 26. Rfd1 Rxa3 27. Rxd4 Rxa2 28. Bf1 h5 29. Kg1 Rfa8 30. Rxd6 Rc2 31. Rdb6 Raa2 32. Rxb7 Bxc4 33. Bxc4 Rxc4 34. R1b2 Rc2 35. Rxc2 Rxc2 36. h4 g6 37. Kh2 Kg7 38. Kg3 Re2 39. Rb6 Kf8 40. Rb1 Kg7 41. Rg1 Ra2 42. Kf4 Rb2 43. g3 Rb4 44. Rd1 Ra4 45. Ke3 Ra2 46. Rd4 Rg2 47. Kf4 Rg1 48. e5 Re1 49. Re4 Rg1 50. Re3 Rg2 51. Re1 Rf2 52. g4 hxg4 53. Kxg4 Rg2+ 54. Kh3 Rf2 55. Kg3 Ra2 56. Rd1 Re2 57. Rd5 Re1 58. Kf2 Rh1 59. Rd4 Rh2+ 60. Kg3 Re2 61. Re4 Ra2 62. Re3 Ra1 63. Rd3 Re1 64. f4 Rg1+ 65. Kf3 Rh1 66. Kg4 f5+ 67. Kg3 Rg1+ 68. Kf3 Rh1 69. Rd7+ Kg8 70. Ke3 Rxh4 71. e6 Kf8 72. Kd4 g5 73. Ke5 gxf4 74. Rf7+ Ke8 75. Rxf5 Rh1 76. Rxf4 Ke7 77. Rf2 Re1+ 78. Kd5 Rxe6 1/2-1/2

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

The foregoing, rather sarcastic round summary isn't primarily intended as a criticism of the players, who are going to do what they take to be in their best interest. What I am ridiculing is the attempt to legislate the short, bloodless draw out of existence by preventing draw offers or creating minimum move limits. Short draws need not be bloodless, bloodless draws need not be short, and seemingly full games may be re-enactments of previous games. Create a rule, and the disgruntled will find ways to obey its letter while violating the spirit. Those who want to fight, will fight; those who don't, won't.

So what's to be done? Either live with the occasional run of short draws (they've been around for decades, and chess hasn't exactly died from it), or do something really radical. Here are some suggestions:

* Petition organizers not to invite the most egregious offenders.

* Make player fees and prizes contingent upon their fighting spirit.

* Change the scoring system (the standard proposal is to award 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw).

* Force drawn games to be replayed.

* Run knockout tournaments that financially reward quicker round wins.

Readers, suggestions?

The first round of the no-draw offer super-GM event in Sofia, Bulgaria has finished, and it was a good one. All three games were long, two were interesting, and one was decisive.

The (fairly) uninteresting game was the draw between Michael Adams and Judit Polgar. After an interesting opening and middlegame petered out into an obviously drawn ending, the game would normally have concluded with a mutually satisfactory handshake around move 40-45. However, this is a no-draw offer event! - see yesterday's tournament preview for the details - so the game continued an additional 30 moves without bringing too much doubt or excitement into the mix.

The other two games were also lengthy, but didn't depend on artificial life support to ensure their longevity. In the round's only decisive game, "classical" world champion Vladimir Kramnik defeated former FIDE champ Ruslan Ponomariov without too much difficulty: an opening advantage turned into a clean extra pawn in the endgame, and Kramnik's technique was more than adequate to the job.

Finally, the Viswanathan Anand-Veselin Topalov game was a real barn-burner; an absolutely insane game with sacs, counter-sacs, passed pawns on opposite sides of the board - just mayhem and ultimately a well-deserved draw.

For further information on the round, pictures, and some analysis, try here and here.

Standings after Round 1:

Kramnik 1
Adams, Anand, Polgar, Topalov .5
Ponomariov 0

Pairings for Round 2:

Ponomariov-Polgar
Topalov-Adams
Kramnik-Anand

A prediction: if either Kramnik or Anand wins, that person will win the tournament. (There I am going out on that limb again!)

Two quick tips for those of you searching the web for good chess material.

First, check out this week's Chess Cafe. In my opinion, the second week of the month is always their best - the Dvoretsky and Savinov columns are almost invariably my favorites.

Second, there's the (English version of the) e3e5 site. It carries a nice mix of chess material (including more Dvoretsky columns) and "human interest" material such as interviews. The translations aren't perfect, but they're good enough to make it a site well worth visiting from time to time.

Happy surfing!

Maintaining an interesting blog takes effort, and if it's not (a) a labor of love, (b) income-producing, or (c) seeming to make a difference (however the blogger defines that for him/herself), then it's difficult to justify taking the time and effort to continue.

For fans of this blog, fear not: I'm not planning to quit in the immediate future. DG at the Boylston Chess Club Blog, however, may be leaving the 'sphere. He has put in a great deal of time and effort into that blog, typically entering several posts a day, and yet for all his work and the site's other successes, DG thinks it has failed in its mission.

While I understand his discouragement, I hope he'll be able to find a solution that allows the site to continue without draining time he wants and needs to spend on other tasks and interests. Whatever his decision, I appreciate his efforts and the help he gave me when I started blogging, and I hope my readers will at least read his post, visit the blog, and drop him a note of thanks.

In several posts in my previous blog, I linked to the first and second-prize winners in a humor study composing tournament (here and here, respectively; see also here for another post on chess humor). Those entries can be found in the English-language part of Tim Krabbé's outstanding website; now, more entries can be found on his site, albeit thus far only on a Dutch-language page. Even if you can't read Dutch, I still heartily recommend the page: the notation is easy to figure out, the positions can be replayed on the Palview board on the bottom of the page, and there are internet translation programs to help with the text. Check it out!

While the chess world hasn't stood still since Linares and Melody Amber, the MTel Masters, starting today (7:30 a.m. EST, I believe) in Sofia, Bulgaria, is the first elite event in a month and a half.

The tournament is a double round robin featuring (in rating order) Viswanathan Anand, Veselin Topalov (who was also [I think] one of the organizational prime movers), Vladimir Kramnik, Michael Adams, Judit Polgar, and Ruslan Ponomariov.

All of the players are over 2700, three of them are or were world champions of some sort or other (Kramnik, Ponomariov and Anand), two came very close to winning the FIDE championship last year (Topalov and Adams), and the remaining player is by far the strongest woman chess player in history and on the short list for the world's most popular player as well.

What makes this tournament really distinctive, however, is the no-draw offer rule. Here are the precise rules regarding draw offers (from the tournament website):

The players should not talk during the games; additionally they should not offer draws directly to their opponents. Draw-offers will be allowed only through the Chief-Arbiter in three cases: a triple-repetition of the position, a perpetual check and in theoretically drawn positions.

The Chief-Arbiter is the only authority who can acknowledge the final result of the game in these cases. He will be advised in his decisions throughout the tournament by GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Vice-President of FIDE.

Now for the real question: will that work? For example: Player A thinks the position has dried up and while his winning chances are slim at best, he is pretty sure that he can draw more or less at will. Accordingly, he looks beseechingly at player B, who catches the hint, has no particular reason to reject a draw and has the same feelings about the position as player A. What's to stop them from rapidly vacuuming the pieces off the board to achieve that theoretically drawn position as soon as possible?

In case that scenario seems unlikely to you, let me point out that it's just what happened in the New York Masters. Even though the events were largely subsidized by sponsors' money and their games were broadcast on ICC and Playchess.com (and watched by large audiences), players with a chance to clinch a first-place tie with a last round draw often split the point within 10 moves or so.

Rightly outraged at this snub of the sponsors and fans, Greg Shahade instituted a policy of prohibiting draws before move 40 (except in special circumstances), and it worked for a little while. Unfortunately, after a few weeks, the players got the hang of it and would play 40-move do-nothing or trade-everything draws in under 10 minutes.

I hope that doesn't happen here, and in my opinion it probably won't, as most of the invitees are well-known for their fighting spirit. Indeed, except for one-and-a-half of the players (I'll leave it to the reader to figure out who I mean and what the "half" signifies), the rule is probably completely unnecessary.

Finally, I'll go out on a limb and make predictions:

1st - Anand (gee, big risk there)
2nd - Topalov (but depending on how seriously distracted he is as a part-organizer, he might have a terrible tournament)
3rd - Adams (always solid, but has he ever won a super-GM event?)
4th - Kramnik (on his best form, I think he's the best player in the world, but since his monster run in 2000 and 2001 both his results and his efforts have often been disappointing - and I'm speaking as a long-time fan of his play)
5th - Polgar (maybe 4th, if she's in good form)
6th - Ponomariov (he has the potential for more, but he hasn't really shown the form that won him the 2002 FIDE Championship since that year)

One of the best things a chess player can do if she's serious about improving is to find a complicated position and attempt to analyze it into the ground. So where does one find these rich, complicated positions for analysis? A great place to start is with games in the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian.

Earlier we looked (very briefly) at some historic games in the variation; here's a contemporary game featuring the current record-holder for youngest-ever GM, Ukraine's Sergei Karjakin (he achieved the title at the illness-inducing age of 12 years, 6 months):

Korneev,Oleg (2602) - Karjakin,Sergey (2634) [B97]
Dos Hermanas Dos Hermanas, Spain (7), 07.04.2005

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 dxe5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Ne4 Qxa2 16.Rd1 Be7 17.Be2 0-0 18.0-0 Ra7 19.Rf3 Kh8



I was able to watch the game for a few minutes at this point and tried to make 20.Nxf6 work. Black's position looks disjointed, but his defensive resources are considerable. For instance: 20.Nxf6 Rxf6 21.Rxf6 Bxf6 (21...Rd7? 22.Qh6 Rxd1+ 23.Bxd1 Kg8 (23...Bxf6 24.Qf8#) 24.Rf3+-) 22.Qh6 Rf7 (22...Kg8? 23.Qxf6 Rd7 24.Rxd7 Bxd7 25.Qd8++-) 23.Bh5



at first glance looks pretty good for White, but Black survives with some tactical tricks. 23...Qxc2! 24.Rc1 Bg5!! (24...Qf5 25.Bxf7 Bg7 26.Qh5 Bf8 27.Qxf5 exf5 28.Rxc6 Bb7 is a little better for Black, but nothing too serious.) 25.Rxc2 Rf5!!



26.g4! Bxh6 27.gxf5 exf5 28.Rxc6 Be3+ 29.Kf1 Bd7-/+]

20.Rg3 Rd7

I thought this move was a novelty (but see below), one which unfortunately (but typically) seems to resolve the position into a forced draw, believe it or not - a result that has repeatedly occurred in the 10.f5 lines over the past 15-20 years. 20...Rg8? was played in an earlier game won quickly by Black, but don't judge by the result - Black is completely lost now! 21.Qh6 Rxg3 (21...Qxc2 22.Nxf6+-) 22.hxg3 Rd7 (22...Qxc2 23.Rd8+ Bxd8 24.Qf8#) 23.Rxd7 (23.Nxf6 isn't as good, but it's still sufficient. 23...Qxc2 24.Bh5?? But this is a terrible blunder. Instead, the nice interference move (24.Rd3! wins after 24...Qc5+ 25.Kh2 Bxf6 26.Qxf6+ Kg8 27.Qxe6+ Kh8 28.Qe8+ Kg7 29.Rxd7+ Bxd7 30.Qxd7++-) 24...Rxd1+ 25.Bxd1 Qxd1+ 26.Kh2 Qd3 0-1, Hakki(2310)-Iskov(2345), Eksjo-B 10th 1982.) 23...Bxd7 24.Bh5! Kg8 (24...Qxc2 25.Bg6 forces Black to pitch the queen with 25...Qc1+ in order to avoid mate.) 25.Nxf6+ Bxf6 26.Qxf6 wins.

21.Qh6 Rxd1+

[21...Rf7 22.Qh5 (22.Rxd7? Bxd7 23.Qh5 Rg7-+ and e8 is covered.) 22...Bf8? (22...Rxd1+ 23.Bxd1 transposes to the game.) 23.Rxd7 Rxd7 24.h3 and the joint threats of 25.Nxf6 and 25.Qe8 give White a decisive advantage. 24...Qb1+ 25.Kh2 Qb4 26.Nxf6 Qf4 27.Nxd7 Bxd7 28.Bd3 Bh6 (28...e4 29.Bxe4 Qxe4? 30.Qf7 forces mate.) 29.Bxh7 is completely won for White (29...Kxh7? 30.Qg6+ Kh8 31.Qg8#)]

22.Bxd1 Rf7 [22...Rg8?? 23.Nxf6 with mate in two.] 23.Qh5



It looks like White is winning: the rook on f7 is under attack, and there doesn't seem to be any good way to defend it. If 23...Rg7?? 24.Qe8+ mates in at most two, while 23...Rf8?? 24.Qg4 allows Black only the privilege of choosing death on g7 or g8. Therefore, the rook can't move, and counterattacking doesn't seem to work either. For instance, if 23...Qa4 or 23...Qc4, 24.Qxf7 Qd4+ (24...Qxe4 25.Qg7#) 25.Nf2 wins. Or if 23...Qa1, 24.h3 wins - the Rf7 still can't move away, but if it doesn't 25.Qxf7 Qxd1+ 26.Kh2 leaves Black unable to prevent 27.Qg8#. But there are still more possibilities...

23...Qa5

[23...Qd5 also seems to draw after 24.Qxf7 (24.Qg4 Qd8-+) 24...Qxd1+ 25.Kf2 Qxc2+ 26.Kf3 Qd1+ 27.Ke3 Qd4+=, while 23...Qb1 leads to insanity: 24.Kf1 (24.h3 Qb7-+) 24...Qb5+ 25.Be2 Qb1+ 26.Kf2 Qb7 (26...Qb6+ 27.Kf3 f5 28.Qxf7 fxe4+ 29.Kg4 Qd8 30.Kh5 Qf8 31.Qxf8+ Bxf8 32.Rb3 Bd6 33.Rb6 Bd7 34.Kg5 Be7+ 35.Kg4 Bd6 36.Rxa6+-) 27.Bxa6 Qa7+ 28.Kf3 Bd8 29.Nd6 e4+ 30.Kxe4 Rf8 31.Qh6 Rg8 32.Rxg8+ Kxg8 33.Bxc8 Qa4+ 34.Kf3 Qa3+ 35.Qe3 Qxd6 36.Qxe6+ Qxe6 37.Bxe6+=]

24.Kf1

[24.Qxf7?? Qe1# is terrible, of course, but 24.h3 again seems to leave Black on death's door. For instance: 24...Rf8 (24...Qe1+ 25.Kh2 Qxe4 26.Qxf7+-) 25.Qg4 Qe1+ 26.Kh2 Qxg3+ 27.Nxg3 and while Black isn't doing too badly on a superficial material count, his pieces don't work well and the pawns are more likely to be vulnerable than a strength. White is winning. But it turns out that Black has another nifty tactical resource here: 24.h3? Qc7!! and Black wins: 25.Qg4 (25.Qxf7?? Bc5+ 26.Nxc5 Qxf7-+) 25...Qd8 and although White's attack is over, Black's three pawn advantage remains.]

24...Qd8

Black threatens to play 25...Rg7, when White will have no attack to compensate his material deficit, so it's time to cash in and force the draw.

25.Qxf7 Qxd1+ 26.Kf2 Qxc2+ 27.Kf3

[As I had Powerbook 2004 loaded when I first analyzed the game (rather than the 2005 model), it was only later that I discovered that almost the entire game was a repetition of an earlier effort. (Sadly, that too is typical of Poisoned Pawn games - see my post on fake draws). It's only here that we have a new move, as the different but equivalent 27.Ke3 led to the inexorable draw after 27...Bc5+ 28.Nxc5 Qxc5+ 29.Kd2 Qf2+ 30.Kc3 Qd4+ 31.Kc2 Qf2+ 32.Kc3 1/2-1/2 Vallejo Pons,F-Kasparov,G/Moscow (Armenia vs. ROW) 2004.]

27...Qd1+ 28.Kf2 Qc2+ 1/2-1/2

An exciting and interesting game in its own right, though sadly a sham (see the previous post for more thoughts on this topic!), as it's inconceivable that they were unaware of the Kasparov game and the "novelty" offered nothing new. (I hope that at least the live spectators were entertained, but I expect the internet audience was rightly disappointed.)

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

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

Example 1: The Exciting Fake

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

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

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

NN-DM

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

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

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

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

12...Nc5

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

24.Qxh7

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

24...Qb4

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

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



1/2-1/2


Example 2: The Comedic Protest Draw

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

Frenklakh-Shahade

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



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

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

Obviously to put the rook on g3.

7...Bh4!



Prophylaxis.

8.Rg3!!

White has clearly seen more deeply into the position.

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

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

12.c5 Be6 13.c6 Bb3

Wisely immobilizing White's dangerous queenside pawns.

14.d5

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

14...b6!!



and the game was over - stalemate!

Now that's the way to prearrange a draw.

A couple of days ago, I presented this difficult ending as a challenge to the reader: White to move and win.



I first came across the position in the 1997/6 issue of New in Chess Magazine, pages 5-6, where the author, one Srdjan Sale gives us an idea of just how difficult it really is. I quote:

I recognized this position is of a special category [of difficulty - DM] and to prove my hypothesis I started a pseudo-scientific experiment by showing it to GMs and IMs. Here is a list of 'celebrities' who, after one hour, lost the bet or simply resigned from the torture: Cvitan, Kozul, Hulak, Cebalo, Vl. Kovacevic, Wahls, Tukmakov, Sax, Lalic, etc., etc. I even got the opportunity to test one of the Top Ten players, i.e. Alexey Shirov...[and] even Shirov had to admit he couldn't solve it!

Later Dreev and Zviagintsev tried some 'intuition method' from the Dvoretsky School but failed. The next day Zviagintsev told me that I had spoilt his peaceful night with this rook ending but at least he finally had come up with the solution.

The only two players who solved the position are GM Dizdar in about twenty minutes and the young Brazilian IM [now a GM - DM] G. Vescovi in about forty minutes.

According to Sale, the position came from the game Sulava-Godena, Montecatini Terme Open 1994, but the game score in the Mega Database 2005 doesn't ever reach that position - in fact, the f-pawn never made it past f6. My guess is that either the game degenerated in a time scramble and the remaining moves weren't recorded, or else they happened upon this position in post-game analysis. I find the first explanation implausible, as the final position given in the database is a trivial draw that couldn't plausibly have reached the position in the game, so I'm going to assume the latter unless a plausible counter-story comes in.

The position can also be found in a 1953 endgame study by N. Kopaev, which started with the Black rook on c2 and with Black to move: 1...Rc8+.

Enough by way of background: let's solve the thing! If you're ready to see the solution, click below.

Apropos the relatively recent posts (see here and here) on 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, I'd like to discuss one way in which most - if not all - of us have been miseducated. Many players go through the following early chess history:

Stage 1. Get mated in 4 moves by 1.e4 2.Bc4/Qh5 3.Qh5/Bc4 4.Qxf7#

Stage 2. Endeavor to mate everyone else that same way.

Stage 3. Use the queen as the chess equivalent of a wrecking ball even when not attempting (or succeeding) in employing the 4-move mate.

Stage 4. Learn via hard experience, beginners' books and/or a mentor that bringing one's queen out early (especially towards the center) is a bad idea, leading to such unpleasant outcomes as her getting trapped or the other side's gaining numerous tempi by attacking the queen with developing moves.

Stage 5. Eschew early queen moves, enforcing an almost Boo Radleyish existence on the lady through at least move 15 or so.

Most of us, I think, gradually overcome the bad advice of stage 4, even though we still do our best to propagate it with those juniors and other new players with whom we have influence. Why do we do this? Two reasons come to mind, and I'll endeavor to address both: first, we still, deep down, believe that early queen moves are bad; second, we think the rule is a useful fiction.

Let me start the attempt to break the rule's grip on our chess psyches by providing some examples of perfectly good early queen moves:

For White:
1.e4 e6 2.Qe2!?
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qg4!?
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 (on any but 2...Nf6!)
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3/Qa4
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.Nb5 g6 7.Qf3 f5 8.Qd5
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4, when 3...exd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4? 5.Qxd4 is great for White.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d4 exd4 5.c3 dxc3 6.Qd5!
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Qg4!
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Bf5?! 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3
1.d4 f5 2.Qd3
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Qa4+ (Bd7 5.Qb3)
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.Nf3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Qa4+ (Bd7 6.Qh4)

For Black:
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+ 3.g3 Qf6/Qe7
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4!?
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6/Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 c5 4.d5 Qb6
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.e4 Qh4

and so on.

Not all of these lines are equally good, but they're all at least playable, despite violating the so-called rule against developing the queen early - especially towards the center. In fact, the rule is baloney, because there are so many exceptions and borderline cases that such a coarse-grained principle is of almost completely valueless. Worse, because the advice is offered at a formative stage in the player's career, they might have a relatively tough time unlearning it.

As a parallel case, to show just how powerful the effects of powerful but misleading lessons can be, consider the long-lasting trauma suffered by the Advance Variation of the Caro-Kann, brought about by the famous old game Nimzovich-Capablanca, New York 1927.

That game, which began 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3 Bxd3 5.Qxd3, put the variation out of business for 50 years, with a brief interlude in the 1960s, thanks to Tal's not-particularly-successful employment of the variation in his world championship matches with Botvinnik.

I suspect the reasoning went something like this: after 3...Bf5, either we play 4.Bd3 or we don't. If we do, then we have a French Defense in which Black has painlessly exchanged his bad bishop; if we don't, then the Bf5 will be beautifully placed! Only in the late 80s and early 90s did the strongest and most creative players on the planet turn to the position with fresh eyes, and then the line returned to the scene with a vengeance. (For those of you don't know how this happened, I leave it to you as a matter of research and, better still, an exercise in creative thinking.) One game - one single bit of "textbook orthodoxy" - dimmed grandmaster eyes for 60 years!!

Thus, if even the elites of the game can be so powerfully influenced - practically snowed - by a single game, then how much more are we harming young players with our pseudo-Siniatic commandments.

So what should we do? I think two approaches are in order, and both will achieve the same positive goods without any accompanying harms.

First, one can tell juniors that it can be dangerous to send the queen on early fishing trips, and explain why, but then go further and try to show what some of the common perils are (so they know what to look out for) but also when the queen is perfectly healthy in the center. A more fine-grained rule, worked out with the student him- or herself, will be both more accurate and more likely to foster their development as a thinker and a chess player.

Second, present all the positive things one can do with the pieces, so that they look for good moves (both for themselves and their opponents) rather than going through some artificial process of excluding bad ones. Let them keep the active mindset that motivates the queen-as-godzilla approach, but help them see that every piece - both individually and especially when working in concert - can have tremendous power as well.

In sum, it's better to assume something can be done and learn one's limitations than to assume limits and not even try. That's not a good blanket rule for life (kids: don't assume you can fly from the rooftop until gravity teaches you otherwise), but at least at first glance, it does seem the right way to approach the game.

In a number of posts on my precursor blog (which I've just imported into this one), I argued that chess is not a sport. (See here, here and here.) I still believe this, but there's no denying that the definition of "sport" is suffering severe semantic slippage.

Don't believe me? Check out this absurdity. I found the following quote especially unbelievable:

It is a fantastic sport. It's a little bizarre in some respect, but in a few years' time, rowing could be chopped from the Olympics and extreme ironing could be in!

-- Five times Olympic gold medalist, Sir Steve Redgrave

I'd like to think this is a severely calendar-challenged attempt at an April Fools' Joke, but, incredibly, it seems to be on the level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

G3: It takes place in a competitive context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I will not follow suit.

A few months ago, the ever-active Boylston Chess Club blog has taken on Howard Goldowsky as a guest blogger, and in his opening post he challenges my earlier argument that chess is not a sport, based, appropriately enough, on his rejection of my definition of sport. On my view, it's a necessary condition of some activity's being a sport that it has an irreducibly physical component, while Goldowsky thinks it's a sufficient condition that its practitioner relies on timing and pattern recognition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts (on one page):

1. Why Chess Still Isn't a Sport
2. Chess Isn't a Sport, Revisited
3. Is Chess a Sport?

Q. Is chess a sport?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Thefore, chess isn't a sport.

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

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

Here's a tough little nut for the aspiring reader to crack; the solution will be given in a couple of days.



White to move (obviously) and win.

In an effort to keep my ChessBase viewers on a healthy, balanced diet, we'll take a look this week at a typical technical masterpiece by Swedish great Ulf Andersson. For most of us, if we're playing a peer and major exchanges occur, a quick draw is the likely result.

Not so for Andersson. Even against the world's super-elite (a group in which he was included from the late 70s through the early 90s), exchanges were often not the prelude to a quick draw but the signal that it was time for his opponent to start suffering.

Case in point: his game with the late, great Lev Polugaevsky from 1990 event in Haninge. Andersson, with White, willingly trades off pieces - lots of pieces - and Black has no trouble equalizing. Nevertheless, "equal" does not mean "drawn", and Andersson was able, in his inimitable way, to keep making good moves while Polu drifted a little at a time until finally losing the ending.

So this Monday, we'll take a look and admire Andersson's work, but more than that we'll learn a number of important lessons both about proper technique and the psychology of the game as well.

Here's the game:


Andersson,Ulf (2630) - Polugaevsky,Lev (2610) [E18]
Haninge Haninge (8), 1990

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d4 Ne4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Ne1 Bxg2 10.Nxg2 d5 11.Qa4 c5 12.Be3 cxd4 13.Bxd4 dxc4 14.Qxc4 Qc8 15.Rac1 Na6 16.Nf4 Qxc4 17.Rxc4 Rfd8 18.Be3 b5 19.Rc3 Nb4 20.a3 e5 21.axb4 exf4 22.Bxf4 Bxb4 23.Rc7 h6 24.Ra1 Bd6 25.Bxd6 Rxd6 26.Ra3 a5 27.Rb7 b4 28.Rxb4 Re8 29.Rxa5 Rxe2 30.Rb8+ Kh7 31.Rf5 Rd7 32.g4 g6 33.Rf4 Kg7 34.Kg2 Re5 35.h3 h5 36.b4 hxg4 37.hxg4 g5 38.Rc4 Re2 39.Rb5 f6 40.Rf5 Rb2 41.b5 Rb7 42.Rcc5 Rb4 43.Kf3 Rb3+ 44.Ke2 Rb4 45.f3 Ra7 46.Kd3 Ra3+ 47.Rc3 Ra5 48.Rc7+ Kg6 49.Rc6 Raxb5 50.Rcxf6+ Kh7 51.Rf7+ Kh8 52.Rxb5 Rxb5 53.Rf5 Rb3+ 54.Ke4 1-0


As always, instructions for watching the show can be found here, while a list of past shows can be accessed here.

The Israeli GM Emil Sutovsky is one of the most exciting players on the tournament scene, and as evidence I recently presented his picturesque win over Danny Gormally.

Today, we'll take a look at another, even more recent Sutovsky game, this time with the White pieces against the elite (now) Dutch GM Ivan Sokolov:

Sutovsky,Emil - Sokolov,Ivan [C82]
4NCL Wood Green-1 vs Guildford-1 West Bromwich ENG, 02.05.2005

[My notes are based on but occasionally differ from those of GM Golubev's in CT-1638. My additions are marked by "DM".]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 Bg4

[DM: 10...d4 is an important alternative best known from the great 10th of the 1995 Kasparov-Anand match. Kasparov won that game beautifully and brutally, but of late Black has done quite well here.]

11.Bc2 Ne6 12.Re1 Bc5 13.Nf1 Bh5 14.b4N [14.Ng3; 14.a4] 14...Bb6 15.Ng3 Bg6 16.h4 d4 17.Bg5 Bxc2 18.Qxc2 Qd5 19.Nh5 Qc4?! 20.Nd2 d3 21.Qd1 Qd5



Black's position looks imposing, but his king isn't safe yet and the f6 square beckons.

22.Ne4! Kf8 [DM: 22...Qc4 23.Nhf6+ gxf6 24.Nxf6+ Ke7 25.Re4 Bd4 26.cxd4 Nxg5 27.hxg5 Nxd4 28.Kh2 d2 29.Qxd2 Rad8 30.Qf4 Qd3 31.Nh5 Rhg8 32.Qf6+ Kd7 33.Qxf7+ Kc8 34.Rc1 Nc2 35.Re3 Qg6 36.Qxg6 hxg6 37.Rxc2 gxh5 38.f4+-] 23.Nef6!! gxf6 24.Nxf6 Qc4 [24...Qd8 25.Bh6+!! Ke7 26.Qf3 d2 27.Qxc6!! dxe1Q+ 28.Rxe1+-] 25.Re4 Ncd4 26.Bh6+ Ke7 27.cxd4 Nxd4 28.Rc1 Qxa2 [28...Qe6 29.Rxd4 Bxd4 30.Rxc7+ Kd8 31.Rd7+ Kc8 32.Rxd4+- DM] 29.Rxd4+- Rhd8 [DM: 29...Bxd4 30.Rxc7+ Kd8 (30...Ke6 31.Qg4+ Kxe5 32.Re7+ Kd6 (32...Kxf6 33.Qg5#) 33.Qd7#) 31.Rd7+ Kc8 32.Rxd4+-]



White has won a piece, but 30.Rxd8?? walks into 30...Qxf2+ 31.Kh2 Qxh4#, while after the game continuation

30.Rf4 d2 31.Rc3 Qa4

it looks like White is in trouble: 32.Ng8+ can be ignored, 32.Nd5+ allows Rxd5, and everything else costs White dearly, due to Black's frighteningly ambitious d-pawn.

32.Ng8+ Ke8

[32...Rxg8 is only clearly better for White, according to Golubev, but it looks like White is winning after 33.Rxf7+! Kxf7 34.Qf3+ Ke7 35.Qf6+ Kd7 (35...Ke8 36.Qe6+ Kd8 37.Rd3+ Bd4 38.Rxd4#) 36.Qf7+ Kc8 37.Qxg8+ Kb7 38.Qd5+ Ka7 39.Bxd2+- Still, Golubev is unquestionably right that Black should not have given White a second chance - a chance Sutovsky seizes on the second time around.]

33.Nf6+ Ke7



34.Nd5+! Rxd5 [34...Ke8 35.Qxd2+- DM] 35.Rxf7+!

White mates by force:

35...Kd8 [35...Kxf7 36.Qf3+ Ke8 37.Qf8+ Kd7 38.Qf5+! Kd8 39.Bg5+ Ke8 40.Qe6+ Kf8 41.Bh6#] 36.Rf8+ Ke7 [36...Kd7 37.Qg4+ Ke7 38.Qg7+ Ke6 39.Qf6+ Kd7 40.Qf7#] 37.Bg5+! [37.Bg5+! Kxf8 (37...Ke6 38.Qg4+ Kxe5 39.Qf4+ Ke6 40.Qf6+ Kd7 41.Qe7#) 38.Qf3+ Ke8 39.Qh5+ Kd7 (39...Kf8 40.Rf3+ Kg7 41.Qf7+ Kh8 42.Bf6#) 40.Qg4+ Ke8 41.Qe6+ Kf8 42.Bh6#] 1-0

Very impressive!

For those whose tournament chess suffers at the hands of old Kronos, a bit of cute doggerel - and a suggestion - can be found here.
[Hat tip: Alex Herrera]

Creativity in chess doesn't just come while bent over the board in battle or while burning the midnight oil looking for that extra opening edge against an unsuspecting foe. Sometimes, it comes while taking a walk, reading a novel, or even in one's sleep. There are a number of stories of grandmasters literally dreaming up opening innovations and even whole games, and it is to this genre I offer my own modest contribution, produced while drifting off to the land of Nod two or three years ago:

Version 1:

1.g4 h5

Outflanking!

2.gxh5 Rxh5 3.e4

Attacking the rook, so the rook now returns the favor.

3...Re5 4.Nc3 d5 5.Nf3

Here Black could play 5...Rxe4+, I suppose, but it's more fun to lure the White bishop to a counterattackable square:

5...Re6 6.Bh3 Rxe4+

Believe it or not, this is how I play "real" ches, too...

7.Nxe4 dxe4 8.Bxc8 exf6 9.Bb7 Qd7 10.Bxa8 Qe6+ 11.Kf1 Qh3+

with perpetual, as 12.Kh1?? Qg2 is mate.


There is a problem with this, however: since Black's 9th move doesn't attack the bishop, White can simply capture on f3 with a won game. So I improved on my creation:

1.g4 c6

Prophylaxis - think of 1...d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4? 3.c4 lines.

2.b3 h5

Okay, maybe the first comment is baloney!

3.gxh5 Rxh5 4.e4 Re5 5.Nc3 d5 6.Nf3 Re6 7.Bh3 Rxe4+ 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Bxc8 exf3 10.Bxb7 Qd7

Now everything works perfectly: the bishop is attacked, so 11.Qxf3 is out, while the pawn on c6 prevents the bishop from retreating back outside the structure.

11.Bxa8 Qe6+ 12.Kf1 Qh3+ 13.Ke1 Qe6+ etc.

Not a masterpiece, but not too bad, either - a nice little chess snack before bed.

A few days ago, I took a look at the correspondence game Umansky-Weber, focusing on Junior Tay's informal claim that Umansky's 16.Nd5 was an (intuitive) idea most likely beyond the ability of the silicon monster. What I found was that it was well within the range of current software, as Shredder 9 on my machine preferred the move and recognized its strength within 20 minutes.

GM Alexander Baburin of Chess Today fame wrote to ask how well Shredder 9 would fare on the prototypical speculative Nd5 sac, that from the famous 10th game of the 1965 Candidates match between Mikhail Tal and Bent Larsen. (Tal won this match 5.5-4.5, thanks to his win in this game.)

Let's take a look. After the introductory moves

Tal Mikhail (LAT) - Larsen Bent (DEN) [B82]
Ch World match (1/2) Bled (Yugoslavia), 10.03.1965

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 0-0 9.0-0-0 Qc7 10.Ndb5 Qb8 11.g4 a6 12.Nd4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 b5 14.g5 Nd7 15.Bd3 b4

we reach this position:



Here Tal played the speculative 16.Nd5 and won beautifully, though objectively - at least according to the latest analysis I've seen (especially Kasparov's in My Great Predecssors, vol. 2) - the sacrifice was not fully sound.

Interestingly, Shredder 9 starts out quite optimistically, evaluating both 16.Ne2 and 16.Nd5 as equal through 13-14 ply (within about 30 seconds to a minute on my machine), but as the depth increases, so too does its pessimism about 16.Nd5. At depth 18, Shredder thinks Black is clearly better (-.88), and it prefer the other three knight retreats, with 16.Ne2 still leading the pack.

A quick replaying of Kasparov's main line (with is also in the Chess Stars series on Tal) looks in keeping with Shredder's evaluation, so it seems that in this case, the computer won't play like Tal - it sees too much!

Thus, we have found something the computer can't do, or at least doesn't do: bluff!

[Here, for the curious, is the main line of the (at least apparent) refutation of Tal's sac, as well as the rest of the game:]

16.Nd5 exd5 17.exd5 f5

[Correct was 17...g6! - the first of a series of only moves which together convey a near-miraculous impression: 18.Rde1 Bd8! 19.Qh3 Ne5! 20.Qh6 Bb6! 21.fxe5 Bxd4 22.Re4 Bf2 23.e6 fxe6 24.dxe6 d5 (24...Bb7 25.e7 Bxe4 26.exf8Q+ Qxf8 27.Qxf8+ Rxf8 28.Bxe4 Be3+ 29.Kd1 Bxg5 "with an extra pawn" and winning chances, according to Kasparov, but Chess Stars (Khalifman?) evaluates this as equal.) 25.Re2 Qa7 (Here Kasparov offers a new move, at least with respect to the Chess Stars analysis) 26.Bxg6 hxg6 27.Qxg6+ Qg7 28.Qxg7+ Kxg7 29.e7 Re8 30.Rxf2 Rxe7 "with a technically won game", according to Kasparov in My Great Predecessors vol. 2, page 451]

18.Rde1 Rf7 19.h4 Bb7 20.Bxf5 Rxf5 21.Rxe7 Ne5 22.Qe4 Qf8 23.fxe5 Rf4 24.Qe3 Rf3 25.Qe2 Qxe7 26.Qxf3 dxe5 27.Re1 Rd8 28.Rxe5 Qd6 29.Qf4 Rf8 30.Qe4 b3 31.axb3 Rf1+ 32.Kd2 Qb4+ 33.c3 Qd6 34.Bc5 Qxc5 35.Re8+ Rf8 36.Qe6+ Kh8 37.Qf7 1-0

When I do my ChessBase shows each Monday night, I do my best to offer comments that will be instructive to a wide range of spectators, but it's not possible to answer every question in advance or even during the show (in part because of the time delay, and in part because it will generally mess up the program's narrative flow - especially for those who listen afterwards in the archives).

In this post, then, I will answer two recent questions that weren't answered during the programs themselves. The first pertains to this past Monday's show, on the crazy Gabriel-Korchnoi game presented in a previous post.

Here's the position in question:



White is down a pawn and (much more importantly) severely bottled up by the f5-d3 pawn chain. He needs to decide whether to work around the pawns or chip away at them, and Gabriel chose the first option with 15.Na4. This was criticized by Korchnoi and other commentators, who thought that option two, by means of the dramatic-looking 15.g4, was the better try. In my view, 15.Na4 was probably okay - I think the key error came later - but are these the only two options?

Not according to one spectator, who offered a radical suggestion: why not 15.Nxe4? White gets to collect all three of the horrible pawns in return for the piece, after which his pseudo-bishop on f1 is reordained a chess piece while the Black kingside looks a little airy.

It's a very nice idea in theory, and sometimes that sort of sac works like gangbusters (for those who know the game, see Yudasin-Monokroussos for a dream-come-true version of a piece-for-two-pawns-and-a-big-pawn-center sac). Here, unfortunately, Black is well on top after 15...fxe4 16.Bxc5 Qxc5 17.Qxe4 Re8 18.Qxd3 Nf6 followed by ...Kf7, and Black is winning. His king is safe, his pieces are active, and White's central pawns are not at all likely to have the same effect Black's pawns had before the sac.

A second comment came via email to the old blog. [N.B. Readers, please send your questions to me here - just click on "Contact" on the right sidebar, and you'll be able to write me in that way.] Lee Prince asked about a game I did long, long ago, a Berlin Defense between Harmonist and the "Praeceptor Germaniae", Siegbert Tarrasch.

After the moves

Harmonist,Max - Tarrasch,Siegbert [C67]
DSB-06.Kongress Breslau (3), 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bg5+ Ke8 10.Nc3 h6 11.Bf4 Be6 12.Rad1 Rd8 13.Ne4 c5 14.Rxd8+ Kxd8 15.Rd1+ Kc8 16.h3 b6 17.Kf1 Be7 18.a3 Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Kxd8 20.c3 Bd5 21.Nfd2 Kd7 22.Ke2 g5 23.Bh2 Nh4 24.g3 Ng6 25.f4 Ke6 26.Ke3 c4 27.Nf3 gxf4+ 28.gxf4 c5 29.Ng3 Nh4 30.Nxh4 Bxh4 31.Ne4 Be7 32.Bg1 Bc6 33.Bf2 Bd7 34.Bg3 Kd5 35.Nf2 h5 36.Kf3 Bf5 37.Ke3 b5 38.Kf3 a5 39.Ke3 b4

we reach this position:



The game continued 40.Kf3 Kc6 41.axb4 cxb4 42.cxb4 axb4 43.Ne4 Kd5 44.Nd6 Bxd6 45.cxd6 c3 46.bxc3 b3 and White resigned.

But perhaps White can improve? Prince asks, "What about (40.h4)? I'm a total novice but I let Fritz crunch on it and it seems ok for white. He can then get his knight in the game or force black to trade off the light square bishop. What do you think?"

In some positions, little finesses can make a difference, especially when the question of a win or a draw comes down to a tempo or two. In other positions, the static features predominate, and one side's chronic weaknesses will doom him - a tempo here and there won't make a difference.

This position is of the latter sort. Black is breaking through on the queenside, and White's options are essentially limited to determining whether Black's king comes in via d5 or b5. Here is a typical line:

40.h4 Kc6 41.Ne4 Kb5 42.axb4 (Forcing an immediate exchange with 42.Nd6+ Bxd6 43.exd6 allows Black to grab loose queenside pawns and win after bxc3 44.bxc3 Ka4 45.Kd2 Kxa3 46.Bf2 a4 47.Kc1 Kb3 48.d7 Bxd7 49.Kb1 Kxc3 50.Bxc5 Kb3 51.Bb6 Bf5+ 52.Ka1 c3 53.Be3 Kc2-+) 42...cxb4 43.cxb4 axb4 44.Nd6+ Bxd6 45.exd6 and now the same tactic from the game does the trick: c3! 46.b3 (Trying to save material in the short term with 46.bxc3 lets Black queen the b-pawn with b3 47.d7 Bxd7 48.Kd2 Ka4 49.Kc1 Ka3-+) 46...Kc6 47.Ke2 Be6 48.Kd3 Bxb3 49.f5 c2 50.Bf4 f6 51.Bd2 Kxd6 52.Bxb4+ Ke5 53.Kd2 Kxf5 54.Bc3 Ke6 55.Bb2 Ba4 56.Ke3 Kd5 57.Kd2 f5 58.Ke3 Kc4 59.Bc1 Bd7 60.Ke2 Kb3 followed by ...Ka2-b1, winning.

The lines are long and Fritz won't just "get it" right away (though it might find the lines one move at a time), and perhaps there are other defensive attempts White might try. A bit of patience and trial and error, though, and the solutions will come.

Happy analysis!

He's not just one of the strongest players in the world, he's also one of the most brilliant. Before stating who it is and presenting of his games, I'll give you some clues.

1. He was born in Baku, but has since emigrated from Azerbaijan.
2. He won the World Junior Championship.
3. He's a devotee of the Najdorf Sicilian from both sides of the board.

The answer, of course, is obvious: it's

While I'm as happy as anyone to see humanity continue the battle with chess software, I have for some time now grown weary of pronouncements that computers can't or won't find this or that move.

Sometimes, of course, it's true: to take one standard case, computers do have a tough time recognizing that certain blockades are airtight. But I think that if I had a quarter for every time I've heard a false claim about what chess software can't do, I'd be able to afford a trip to Europe this summer.

Enter tonight's issue of Chess Today (#1638). Junior Tay writes about the role and increasing strength of chess computers vis-a-vis correspondence chess, but then presents a game under the header "Exclusion Clause" (that is, this game is an [alleged] exception to the encroachment of chess software on correspondence chess), introducing the game as follows:

This is not to say that the human element in normal CC [DM: Correspondence Chess] has been quashed. I once wrote an article called "Umansky - the wave of the future" to pay tribute to the 13th [DM: correspondence] World Champion's enterprising style. It's almost incredible to believe that Shirovian-type chess can be played in CC today when computer engines have more or less mastered tactical calculations. Don't believe me? Watch this game:

Umansky,Mikhail (2524) - Weber,Daniel (2176) [E04]
AC-2003-S-00002 Chessfriend.com (1), 01.12.2004

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.0-0 Rb8 7.Nc3 a6 8.e4 b5 9.d5 Nb4 10.b3 cxb3 11.Qxb3 c5 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Bf4 Rb7 14.Rad1 Nd7 15.Qc2 Na5



Tay writes the following: "Now Umansky comes up with a remarkable (intuitive!?) idea which I doubt computer programs can spit out."

It is a beautiful move, well-calculated and though reminiscent of other Nd5 sacs (as in the Sicilian, for instance), the position is sufficiently different that one cannot unthinkingly make the sacrifice based on the Sicilian analogy.

Despite its many virtues, however, inaccessibility to computer programs is not one of them. Shredder 9, running on my above average but not state of the art system, ranked the move in the middle of the pack through depth 15, by depth 16 (around 10-15 minutes in) put it into a tie for the second-best move, and by the 20-minute mark if not sooner, had it as a clear #1 choice at depth 17. At that point, once I let it go forward, it found all but two of Umansky's next 10 moves instantly, and those other two moves required 5-10 seconds to reach the top of the chart.

This doesn't diminish Umansky's achievement, but it does underscore Tay's worry elsewhere in the article, that correspondence chess is under severe pressure from computer users (sometimes cheaters, sometimes not - different correspondence events have different rules). To my mind, it's a shame that such a noble form of the game is being undermined in this way - I don't mind if the players all agree to use computers, but if player X wants a mano-a-mano battle but player Y surreptitiously "consults" with Mr. Chips, then that seems to me unfair.

Readers, thoughts?

16.Nd5!! exd5 17.exd5 Be7 18.Nd4! 0-0 19.Nc6 Nxc6 20.dxc6 Ra7 21.c7 Qe8 22.Rfe1 Nc5 23.Bd6 Bxd6 24.Rxe8 Rxe8 25.Bc6 Rf8 26.Rxd6




The smoke has cleared, the tactics are over, and all that's left is a technical task Umansky is more than able to solve.

Ne6 27.f4 Rxc7 28.Qd2 g6 29.g4 Ng7 30.Qa5 Ne8 31.Bxe8 Rc1+ 32.Kf2 Rxe8 33.Rd8 Rxd8 34.Qxd8+ Kg7 35.f5 Rc6 36.Qd4+ Kf8 37.Qh8+ Ke7 38.Qxh7 gxf5 39.g5 Rc2+ 40.Ke3 Rg2 41.h4 Be6 42.Qh8 a5 43.Qf6+ Kd7 44.h5 Rxa2 45.h6 Rh2 46.Qg7 Kd6 47.h7 Rh3+ 48.Kf4 Rh4+ 49.Kg3 Rxh7 50.Qxh7 b4 51.Qh8 Kd5 52.Qa8+ Kc4 53.g6 fxg6 54.Qc6+ Kd4 55.Qxe6 Kc5 56.Kf4 Kd4 57.Qd6+ Kc3 58.Ke3 1-0

When a chess player ages, he often quits the game, and those who don’t quit typically play a far lazier and weaker brand of chess than they did in their prime. It’s only natural, right? We have less energy, we grow jaded and the passions subside.

That’s true for most of us, but not for the inimitable Viktor Korchnoi. He’s not as strong as he once was, of course, but even now, in his mid-70s, he is still in the world’s top 100, he still wins tournaments, and he continues to play a fighting brand of chess that ought to (but probably doesn’t) shame those quick-draw artists less than half his age.

One of Korchnoi’s many virtues as a chess player is his willingness to enter non-stereotyped, unbalanced positions, not fearing the possibility that he’ll tire coping with the new situation or worrying that his younger opponents will out-calculate him. That seeming fearlessness is on display in the game for this week’s show as well, a peculiar but extremely interesting battle with German GM Christian Gabriel played in Zurich in 1999.

The game features so many unusual imbalances that it beggars easy description: Korchnoi, playing Black, has a tremendous central pawn wedge but almost no development or activity. Gabriel, on the other hand, plays the whole game with a worthless and immobile Bf1 and without any central play; however, he starts off with a queenside initiative and threatens to develop one on the kingside as well. White's attempt to work around Black's central "fist" makes for a strategically and tactically rich game, and very entertaining one to boot, as you can see for yourself:


Gabriel,Christian (2578) - Kortschnoj,Viktor (2676) [A09]
Ehrat mem (SU-GER m) Zuerich (4), 16.08.1999

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6 4.e3 e5 5.c5 d3 6.Qb3 e4 7.Nd4 a5 8.Nc3 f5 9.Ne6



9...Qe7 10.Nxf8 Kxf8 11.b5 Be6 12.Qa4 Nd7 13.Ba3 Nxc5 14.Qd4 b6 15.Na4 Kf7 16.Nxc5 bxc5 17.Bxc5 Qg5 18.g4 Qxg4 19.Qe5 Rc8 20.h3 Qg5 21.Bd4 Nf6 22.Qh2 Rhd8 23.Rg1 Qh4 24.Rc1 Ne8 25.Rc5 g6 26.a4 Rd5 27.Rc6 Qd8 28.Bc3 Nd6 29.h4




29...Bd7 30.h5 g5 31.h6 Bxc6 32.Qh5+ Ke6 0-1


Join us this Monday at 9 p.m. EST as we try to bring clarity to the game. As always, directions for watching the show can be found here, and a list of previous shows' games can be seen here.