The Chess Mind

After three weeks of insanity, we'll calm down a bit and take a look at a masterpiece by the arguably second greatest player of all time (at least through, say, the mid-90s). Karpov's style was, and continues to be, one of "active prophylaxis": like Petrosian, he is a genius at sniffing out and snuffing out his opponent's active ideas well in advance, but unlike Petrosian, he will generate active play on his own. This dual ability made him dominant over the rest of the world (except for Kasparov, of course) for an extremely impressive 20 year period.

For this week's show, then, we'll take a look at a beautiful illustration of his style in action, from his game with then up-and-coming GM Artur Yusupov ("Jussupow" in your ChessBase databases). Yusupov played the very active Open Ruy with Black, and was always a move or so away from proving full equality in the middlegame. Karpov had some slight pressure along the b- and c-files, but if Yusupov could just plug up the queenside gaps with ...Na5-c4, then all would be well.

Karpov, needless to say, did not let this happen! To see how he prevented it, and to fully understand how he did so, is to obtain a small glimpse into his art, and to deepen our own feeling for the game. What's also very interesting about Karpov's creative achievement in foiling Black's plan is its psychological effect. After 10 moves of preventing his ideas, Yusupov grew so flustered that although his position was only a bit worse by this point, he became overanxious to get some play, somewhere, and blundered a pawn. Having burned his bridges, Yusupov then launched a desperate attack on the White king. It failed, but Karpov had to play bravely and accurately to prove it - and Karpov's brave king walk adds to the luster of the game as well.

The game is a minor classic, and well worth examining for the opening, too - the Open Ruy is an important and very lively variation, one which I think many amateurs would do well to take up.

So I hope my readers will join me Monday night (9 p.m. ET): as always, directions for watching the show live (or afterwards, watching it or any of my other past shows in the archives) can be found here, while a list of games covered in previous shows can be found here. See you then!

Okay, Nigel Short's Sunday Telegraph chess column isn't that good, but it is one of the best chess columns I'm aware of. He's an excellent writer and one of the world's best players, so you'd think keeping his column would be a no-brainer for the Telegraph owners and editors.

Apparently not! The Telegraph already has a poker column, but decided to add a second one at Short's expense. You can read more here, and better still, that link will enable you to check out his column and offer you a chance to offer feedback to the Telegraph editors.

But best of all, you can see pictures of Greece. (I know, it hardly compares to South Bend...sigh.)

Needless to say (I hope!), the previous post was completely hyperbolic, though with more than a few grains of truth. Here's how things really work for me.

First of all, there are different situations.

Sometimes I'm watching a game on a chess server and something catches my eye. If I'm on ICC, I type "copy [board number]" and start analyzing; if on playchess.com, I click the monitor-shaped icon in the upper right corner that stops incoming moves and allows private analysis. And I start analyzing!

Analyzing for my show is a different story. Then what I'll do is to play through the moves on the board (either a real board or on the computer - but absolutely, positively not with an engine running) and stop when I don't understand something or when my initial inclination is to play something else. I'll try to figure out what's going on, and when I feel I've succeeded or gone as far with it as I can at the moment, I go on. Once I've done that, then I'll take a look at the "professional" analysis (which is sometimes genuinely insightful, but sometimes - especially in the pre-computer era - is quite sloppy and superficial) and try to evaluate it. Only after I've done all that will I flip on the engine and see what it thinks, and even there I'll try to argue with and steer it.

And still another story is when I'm deliberately doing some sort of training exercise. Then I'm a bit more formal about it, sometimes even to the point where there is some general similarity to the exaggerations presented in the previous post.

Finally, there's postal/email play. There, and when I want to learn a new opening, I perform many of the same steps I mentioned in the previous post. I'll look for a couple of "heroes" in a given variation. (E.g. in the Najdorf, people like Kasparov and Gelfand come to mind; in the Tartakower QGD, Kramnik and Short; on the White side of the mainline Ruy with 9.h3, Svidler, etc.) I'll make a mini-database of their games in that variation, play through them all pretty quickly, noting common motifs, middlegame patterns, etc.

Somewhat related to my initial opening research is my endgame procedure. If I've played a certain type of endgame and misplayed it, I'll look for similar endings in my books and databases, and go through them in an attempt to grasp what was happening in my game. (Viewers of my ChessBase show might remember the two-part series on rook endings culminating in the Kharlov-Nisipeanu ending from the FIDE world championships in Tripoli last year.)

A couple of closing comments addressing parts of my fairy tale (the preceding post) not yet discussed here: my "GM pals on retainer". I've had the privilege and pleasure of analyzing with GMs on more than one occasion, but as far as I know, unlike Judy from Time/Life, none is standing by for my call. That said, it is a good idea to check one's analysis with the computer, and, when possible, with a stronger human player. The computer is great at punishing your errors (and mine too, of course), but it's only marginally better than a chimp when it comes to explaining mistakes subtler than "hey, buddy, you dropped your knight!"

Second, I'd like to assure everyone that I don't have posters of Botvinnik and Kotov in my possession, let alone hanging from the walls of some fabled, antiseptic analysis room. And speaking of Kotov, of candidate move and tree of analysis fame, I think it's a bad idea as a general method. If your sniffer is telling you that this is the move to consider, then get on with it. If you're stymied, however, or if multiple continuations come to mind, then analyze them, starting with the ones that look either most promising or most easily refuted. (There's a good critical discussion of Kotov's approach in Tisdall's Improve Your Chess Now!.)

I hope this was more helpful (and less intimidating), but I also hope the first post was good for a laugh. Unless, that is, you want to become a world champion. Then you might want to follow the advice of the first column. If so, I'll start looking for your posters - and a good psychologist - right away.

A reader writes, by email:

Hello Dennis,

Could you sketch out how you go about analyzing a game? Do you prefer to work with pencil and paper, jotting down a series of candidate moves at each critical juncture? Or you fire up Fritz and track your analysis with the aid of a computer (recently I find myself doing this more often)? Or perhaps some other process?

Great question! Here's what I do. Sitting in a clean, spare, brightly-lit room, with only the sounds of nature to remind me of the world, I look beseechingly at my posters of Botvinnik and Kotov and get down to business. Feeling their authoritative but benevolent gaze, I open my book, make the first several moves on the board, and then cover up the next move with an index card. Using a chess clock set to a tournament time control, I write on a separate piece of paper not only the move I'm predicting, but all the variations I've calculated as well. Of course, I note all the candidate moves at each juncture, using pencils of different colors to keep track of all the sub-variations.

Four hours later, I stop and compare my notes to the GM's analysis. The next stage, especially for a somewhat older game, is to check both sets of analysis with the computer. It's especially important to do that with the opening phase as well, lest now discredited ideas find a home in one's understanding of the game. So once I'm out of book-as-I-know-it, I play through every single game in all my databases from that point on, looking especially for the motifs from the game and in my own analysis.

Once that's done, I call up one of the many GM buddies I have on retainer, and ask him to double-check my original analysis and the semi-final, refined version. We spend an hour or so doing that, and then I (a) double-check his analysis, both on my own and with the computer, and then (b) I go through all his games in that variation a second time.

By now the sun is starting to set, and I've only just started working. The next step is to call another of my GM pals, and play a series of training games from the starting position of my original analysis, and sometimes also from later positions in the game. It's a way of testing myself to make sure I really learned from the original game, and of overlearning my opening theory.

Finally, the night has come. I smile at the Patriarch and his industrious fellow-grandmaster, hoping they're proud of me. Taking in the clear night air as I enjoy my daily constitutional, I relax my mind, eager for the start of the next day...

I had a wonderful post all prepared, and was going to discuss two interesting games from Biel - one from the GM tournament, the other from the concurrent women's event. But the good folks at ChessBase beat me to the punch, even singling out the same two games. So take a look - click here.

One thing I do suggest, though, that isn't really addressed in the CB report. When playing through the Skripchenko-Vijayalakshmi game, note the role played by the opposite-colored bishops. In endgames without queens, opposite-colored bishops tend to raise the likelihood of a draw by a significant margin. The reason isn't hard to determine: the weaker side can often put all her pawns on the same color as her bishop and opposite her opponent's, creating a target-free position.

In attacking situations, however, especially with queens on the board, that same defensive formation invites disaster. The bishop by itself can't generate an attack, but when it's backing up a queen, the two can wreak havoc on a weak color complex, causing all kinds of trouble to the other side, whose bishop is limited to the role of spectator.

And that's just what happened in Skripchenko-Vijayalakshmi. Skripchenko was okay, even better, until fairly late in the game, but due to the chronic light squared weakness serious danger was always just an inaccuracy away. So take a look at the game, but do so with an eye on White's king safety. Even with more space, an extra pawn and limited material, White stumbled.

Remember, then, that opposite-colored bishops can make the game very undrawish, and beware!

As noted a few days ago, while Dortmund was the brightest vista on the chess landscape, other important and interesting events were also taking place. Three have been mentioned: the Politiken Cup in Denmark, the Mercosur Cup in Argentina, and the Biel GM tournament in Switzerland.

The Politiken Cup finished on Sunday, and was won by Konstantin Sakaev (you might remember him as Onischuk's opponent in the MasterMinds event) with 8 out of 9, half a point ahead of a large group (12 players!) including Viktor Korchnoi.

The Mercosur Cup ended Monday, and Shredder recovered from its little breakdown in round 3, winning its last 7 games and the tournament by a healthy two and a half point margin. Running on pretty ordinary hardware (Pentium 4, 3.5 GHz, 512 RAM) scored 8.5/10 against 2457-rated opposition (8.5/9 if the nutty blunder game is thrown out), Shredder's performance underscores once more just how far computers have come over the past decade.

Finally, while Nakamura led for much of the Biel tournament, losses in round 8 and 9 severely damaged his chances for first. This event finishes this morning (Wednesday); here are the standings going into the 10th and final round:

Volokitin 5.5
Gelfand, Pelletier 5
Nakamura 4.5
Bauer, Carlsen 3.5

Round 10 pairings:

Bauer-Pelletier
Nakamura-Gelfand
Volokitin-Carlsen

Four players still have a chance for at least a share of first, so all three games ought to be lively and hard-fought.

Analyzing games, as I've said oh, once or twice on this blog, is one of the best things one can to do to improve his or her chess. So here, for your entertainment and analytical pleasure, is a crazy miniature brought to my attention by Brian Karen. (If the game gives you a headache, blame him!)

From tonight's issue of Chess Today (issue 1723):

Best of Viswanathan Anand

We received the following information below from our correspondent in India, Vijay Kumar. (Alas, we publish
his message with some delay.)

"I have recompiled and updated the Series "Best of Viswanathan Anand" and the same has been scheduled for
telecast on DD SPORTS Channel as under Best of Viswanathan Anand.

1st Episode on 25th July at 10.30 p.m
2nd Episode on 26th July at 10.30 p.m.
3rd episode on 27th July 10.30 p.m.
4th Episode on 28th July at 10.30 p.m
5th and Final Episode 29th July 10.30 p.m.

The Final episode contains an exclusive interview with Anand done immediately after his win at Leon Chess 2005.
The telecast is also available in South East Asia, Middle East and Europe vis Free To Air Transmission of DD
SPORTS Channel broadcast on PAS 10 Satellite 68.5 degree East.

DD Sports Channel is a 24 hour FREE TO AIR Sports Channel and the only channel in India which telecast give wide exposure to not so commercially viable sports. It has been telecasting all the major Chess Events in the World, The Channel is Broadcast on PAS 10 satellite which has a very vast footprint covering [the] whole of Europe, Middle East and Asia. The Channel was the host broadcaster to the 2000 World Chess Championship held in Delhi (and Men's Final in
Teheran) and had put out One Hour long Daily Highlights."

Doug in Seattle writes, via comments:

Dennis,

Wondering if you had the chance to watch this. I had high hopes for it as the production value (sets, sync'd boards, etc.) was quite good, but overall the experience left me disappointed. I thought Paul Troung and Phil Innes commentary was quite weak and unstructured - you would have done a far better job, and do every week.

It was obvious that the piece was edited together, which I had hoped the commentators would take full advantage of i.e. describing the various strategies employed from various opening structures, the aims of the different openings being employed, what middlegame/endgame the players are aiming toward,...'try' to create some tension,...more than the little anecdote here and there thrown in between Paul's 'insightful' commentary along the lines of, "Susan's Knight is stuck,...she's going to want to get that Knight out of there,...it's not doing anything where it is right now,...Fritz says that she's 1-pawn down right now,...On to the Gulko game,..." If I'd have been sitting there, I would have driven a Bishop through his forehead.

Overall, my thoughts after turning it off were, "what a wasted opportunity". Paul and Phil proved they are 'not' qualified commentators and had no business representing the chess community in offering their 'expert-commentary' during the games, nor did they utilize Palatnik's expertise to full effect - he should have been much more involved.

In any case,...wondering what you thought of it.

Hi Doug,

In addition to my weekly show, I used to do live commentary on my previous "network". I think I did a decent job, considering my strength relative to the players whose games I was discussing, but I had three advantages relative to Truong.

First, I was dealing with a classical time control as opposed to G/20. It's a lot easier to engage in exposition with a slower time limit!

Second, I could count on a pretty sophisticated audience and didn't need to worry about overly basic explanations, the need to hype the event or other non-chess distractions.

And third, it helped having Tony Rook as the host. I know some people were put off by his occasionally cornball style and his relative lack of sophistication at the game, but I think it was very helpful to have someone with experience as a "personality", who could deal with the non-chess aspects of the presentation. In my opinion, the Truong/Innes team was handicapped by the lack of a genuine host/emcee.

So I'm inclined to give Truong a bit of a break in terms of his actual performance - at least if the commentary was live. (There were commercial cuts, but I'm not sure that proves the commentary was done after the fact - maybe they were told when the cuts would be and how to react at those moments.) Also, re GM Palatnik, while I don't recall his saying anything at all, I think his job was to provide commentary for the Russian audience. (I'm assuming there's a second feed out there presented in Russian. Does anyone know?)

That said, there were some odd elements to the show. If the commentary was live rather than a post-event fabrication, it's reasonable to ask why. Second, why no player interviews? Even a few perfunctory post-game comments by some designated player would have livened things up, especially for casual players new to the broader chess world. Another idea: those whose games finished early could have strapped on a headset - at least for the second set of games - and been interviewed/joined in the commentary. Maybe Bering Strait could have been interviewed about chess in their lives - assuming they play, of course! Third, why Truong and Innes? If the point was to really make a big splash ("300 million potential viewers" and all that), then why not fork over a little extra and have GM commentary?

I'm glad there were people who put this event together - that's the only way chess will achieve a more prominent place in the public consciousness. But if you're going to arrange such an event, then pull out all the stops: you may not get a second chance.

On Friday, I presented this position for your solving pleasure:



Figured it out? Click here for the solution.

Those pesky prodigies! Once upon a time Boris Spassky was the youngest GM in chess history, achieving the title in 1955 at the age of 18. A quarter of a century or so later, when I was a kid getting serious about the game, only Fischer had surpassed Spassky's mark (by a long way - Fischer was just 15!), and both achievements were considered exceptional.

Nowadays, 18 year old GMs are a dime a dozen. The colossal increase in the number of players around the world, the devaluation of the title and perhaps most importantly, the ready availability of quality materials and opponents thanks to the computer revolution have led to more and more GMs at younger and younger ages.

Still, while some of the 18-and-under GMs are destined to no more than "ordinary" GM status (a status I'd gladly accept, of course!), there are some who stand out in the crowd, who have been fingered for greatness just as Spassky and Fischer were.

One of the "anointed" few is Norwegian prodigy Magnus Carlsen. Currently the second-youngest ever to make the GM title (achieving the title at 13 years and change), Carlsen's career has been, with few exceptions, one success after another. But errare humanum est is true of us all, even one called "Wonderboy".

Okay, enough introduction. Here's the scene: round 7 of the Biel GM tournament in Switzerland. Carlsen at 2528 is having a tough time, as the only player under 2600, but a -1 score after 6 rounds isn't bad at all. His opponent is Yannick Pelletier, the second-lowest rated player in the event, and Carlsen, with Black, is ready with a very sharp line of the Nimzo.

To see what happened, and to feel better about your last debacle, click here.

The Russia vs. the Soviet Bloc alumni USA match featuring Khalifman, Sakaev, Alekseev and Nitiugov for the Russians and S. Polgar, Onischuk, Gulko and Stripunsky for the Americans occurred a week or two ago, but will be presented today (Sunday) at noon EDT on both regular and Web TV.

For more information and a list of US cities with available TV broadcasts, click here; as for the Web TV site, that's ostensibly here). Just interested in the results? Then click below:




P.S. The joke above isn't meant to imply opposition to our imports, only disappointment at the absence of home-grown talent.

As hinted in my previous post, I have decided to use the spectacular game Rudolf Spielmann-Gösta Stoltz, Stockholm (match, game 5) 1930 for this week's ChessBase show.

Spielmann (1883-1942), author of the classic The Art of Sacrifice in Chess, was renowned as a brilliant player, but in this game he's on the receiving end of an inspired sacrificial idea by Stoltz (1904-1963). A sharp line of the French gets sharper still when each side offers material in pursuit of the initiative, but it looks as though White's 13th move puts him in control. (See for yourself, here.) Black had seen this coming, however, and unleashed a magnificent, albeit speculative, idea. Sacrificing his queen for a piece or two and the initiative, Stoltz demonstrated that it's not so much the abstract material value of the pieces that counts, but what the pieces can actually do in the given situation. Perhaps White could have defended somehow - we'll take a closer look this Monday - but his defensive task was no picnic!

Surprisingly, this game is missing from the usual sources, so joining me this Monday night will help fill a gap in your chess library. Additionally, it will provide the occasion for some theoretical discussion of the French Defense, and I'll also spend some time philosophizing on the preconditions for speculative sacrifices, a very important topic deserving significant reflection.

Hopefully all of this has peaked your interest; if so, directions for watching my show (as well as past, archived shows) can be found here, while a list of games covered in past shows can be accessed here.

As I warned in my preview to last week's show, the game Tal-Keller, Zurich 1959 was just a mess of complications. In order to do the game justice, therefore, we had to break off the show after Black's 21st move.

The audience has really enjoyed the game so far, so I encourage those of you who missed the first part to show up for part two. I'll quickly bring everyone up to speed on what has been missed so far, and then we'll all be on the same page for the dramatic, insanely complex reminder.

Not sure how to watch? It's free, and you can find directions for watching both live and archived shows here, while a list of the games covered in previous shows, complete with capsule descriptions, can be found here.

The latest issue of New in Chess magazine (2005/5) is out, and as usual, it's a good one. Readers can find an overview of the current issue here.

I want to single out two small bits from the magazine for comment: (1) the greatest game Ponomariov has ever seen, and (2) Jonathan Rowson's review of Igor Stohl's Kasparov book.

(1) For some years now, each issue of NIC concludes with the "Just Checking" interview, a one-page mini-interview always featuring the same questions. This month the interviewee is Ponomariov, and his response to "What is the best game you ever saw?" is one I don't think I had ever seen before: game 5 of the Spielmann-Stoltz match. It's a mind-blower, and I'm considering having it as my ChessBase show game for this week. You can replay it here.

(2) For several years, Matthew! Sadler!! was NIC's book reviewer!!! (loved by some and hated by others for his exuberant use of exclamation points!), but Jonathan Rowson has recently taken over the job. In this issue, Rowson reviews four books: Jan Timman's Curacao 1962, Alexey Shirov's Fire on Board Part II: 1997-2004, Boris Gelfand's eponymous Boris Gelfand: My Most Memorable Games, and Igor Stohl's Gary [sic] Kasparov's Greatest Chess Games Volume 1.

The first three books receive positive reviews, but Stohl's work gets a thumbs-down. Of this work, Rowson writes

While this book might give readers some pleasant moments, I find it a bit pointless. The selected games are wonderful of course, and the annotations are by no means bad, but they are somewhat dry, and given that most of these games are extremely well known, and that many of them have been analysed by Kasparov himself elsewhere, I am not sure that the chess world really needed this book.

Ideally Kasparov's greatest games should be analysed by the man himself, and I hope we can look forward to that happening in due course. Until then, the role of guiding us through his greatest games should go to somebody who has known him well throughout his life, played against him frequently, or analysed with him extensively (ideally all three).

Ok, let's sum up: (a) great games, (b) competent analysis, but the games are (c) almost all well-known and (d) have been analyzed before, (e) Stohl's writing style lacks pizazz and (f) an insider's perspective. Of course, (a) & (b) are positives, but (c)-(f) make the book unworthy of his recommendation. Let's consider these critiques in turn.

I found (c) and (d) somewhat perplexing. It's true that most of the games have been analyzed before - most if not all by Kasparov, but in my opinion not that many are well-known to the general chess public. Kasparov has not published a book on his games since the mid-80s (The Test of Time in 1984 and books on his world championship matches with Karpov in 1985 and 1986), and no major books on his career that I'm aware of since Fighting Chess in 1995. Of course Kasparov has continued to annotate his games for the Informant, but the percentage of the chess public giving their money to Matanovic and the gang is miniscule. So sure: serious fans who have been playing through the Kasparov era or purchase Informants have seen his analyses; for the broader public and those who have taken up the game in the internet generation, most of these games - and thus their annotations, too - will be a revelation.

Further, Rowson acknowledges the issue of repeated analysis with the Gelfand and Shirov books, but concludes that those books' virtues outweigh that vice. Leaving aside the other virtues for the moment, I'll note that the analytical overlap is much greater in the other books than in Stohl's - Stohl offers an independent perspective analyzing older games whose original annotations came before strong chess engines burst onto the scene.

Moving on to (e), I'll grant it. Stohl's prose is objective and a bit flat, though his explanations are clear enough to be effective. So he's no Tal (or Sadler!), fine. Should readers lacking Kasparov's old books and the last 40-50 Informants therefore pass up this book? Not in my opinion.

Rowson thinks it would have been better if someone close to Kasparov had written this book - preferably Kasparov himself. I'm certainly looking forward to Kasparov's getting around to it myself (as he has promised he will, as a sort of addendum to the My Great Predecessors series), but that's at least a few years off. And who else is there? It's wildly improbable that one of his peers would write such a book, while the only one of his trainers who seems strong enough and close enough to write such a book is Yuri Dokhoian. But Dokhoian's prose, at least in the NIC analyses of Kasparov games that I've seen, is hardly more vibrant than Stohl's. (Maybe that's his writing style, or maybe he takes it as part of his professional obligation as a second.)

One more Rowson quote:

More to the point, Kasparov is a living legend. The heart of his appeal as a player and a person is his passion, which reveals itself in his deep love of chess and his strong sense of purpose. Sadly, I don't feel that this passion has been captured by the book, and therefore I cannot recommend it.

Here too, as with objection (e), I have some sympathy with Rowson's objection. Stohl could have done more here, or perhaps someone else could have written an introductory article describing Kasparov's creative approach to the game. Perhaps Stohl/Gambit Publishing can incorporate these ideas in the prospective volume 2. Nevertheless, while I think this means it's not a great book, it doesn't disqualify it, for me, as a worthwhile effort.

In sum, if you're buying a book on Kasparov for the fabulous prose or behind-the-scenes stories, then don't buy Stohl's effort. If you want to see a nice collection of fantastic, well-annotated games by the (arguably) greatest player of all time and you don't have a pile of Informants (which, I note, tend to be short on inspirational prose as well) or other old sources handy, then I recommend this book. Ten years between books on Kasparov's career is too long, and I'm pleased that a good one has been published - even if a better one may be forthcoming in a few years.

Give this one a try - the solution will give you goose bumps!



White to move and win.

or at least directions for watching them, can be found here. I've seen four of the videos so far, and they were pretty interesting. Watching very strong GMs analyze for 20-30 minutes at 25 cents a pop is a good entertainment and instructional value in my book, and if you're not sure about making such a substantial financial commitment, there's more good news: you can watch the first few minutes of each video for free before deciding about the two ducat fee.

And yet, it just won't stay dead, even in a theoretically ancient line like the one found in the famous game Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow (Candidates match) 1974 (game 2). Karpov slaughtered Korchnoi in that game, which began

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.h4 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.O-O-O Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.h5 Nxh5 15.g4 Nf6 16.Nde2 Qa5 17.Bh6 Bxh6 18.Qxh6 Rfc8 19.Rd3



Here Korchnoi played 19...R4c5 and went down in flames: 20.g5! Rxg5 21.Rd5! Rxd5 22.Nxd5 Re8 23.Nef4 Bc6 24.e5! Bxd5 25.exf6 exf6 26.Qxh7+ Kf8 27.Qh8+ 1-0

Victor Reppert is a C. S. Lewis scholar (commendable), a philosopher (also praiseworthy), but, sadly, has been infected by the Dragon bug for many decades. In this post, Reppert argues that Korchnoi's 19th move was Black's 4th best move; 19...R8c5, 19...Qd8 and 19...Be6 are all better tries.

In the comments to that post, I knock out 19...R8c5 and 19...Qd8, and now it's time to start shaking 19...Be6 out of Reppert's tree of viable Dragon variations.

Here's his main line:

19... Be6 20.g5 Nh5 21.Ng3 Qe5 22.Nxh5 gxh5 23.Qxh5 Kf8 24.Qh2 Qxg5+ 25.f4 Qf6 26.f5 Rxc3 27.bxc3 Bxa2 28.Qxh7 Ke8 29.Qh8+ and now both 29...Kd7 and 29...Qxh8 are satisfactory for Black.

Now, there's no question about it: 19...Be6 is a tougher nut to crack. Finding promising leads was no trouble, but somehow Black always seemed to have survive. Practically speaking, Black's task may be hopeless, but insofar as we're just after the truth, those lines couldn't count as refutations.

I think, though, that I've managed to find a line in which White maintains at least a clear edge. After 19...Be6 20.g5 Nh5 21.Ng3 Qe5 22.Nxh5 gxh5 23.Qxh5 Kf8, not 24.Qh2 but

24.Qxh7 Qxg5+ 25.Kb1 Ke8 26.Qh2 f6



and now, after failing to prove a serious edge after 27.Rg1 and 27.f4, the quiet

27.a3

seems to work. Here's my main line:

27...Kd7 28.f4 Qa5 29.Qd2 Rg8 30.Qe1 Kc8 (30...Qc5 31.b3+/-) 31.f5 Bd7 32.Rg3 Re8 33.Qe2



White has a clear advantage, thanks to the open files for the rooks, the d5 square, and the potential weakness of e7.

Sometimes justice isn't swift, but it's sure. Of course, there's also grace - Black doesn't have to play the Dragon! (Okay, okay - he can play the Dragon. Just not this line.)

Yesterday I offered an easy puzzle: figure out the consequences of 64...Kxc3 from this position:



Worked it out? All is revealed below:

64...Kxc3! 65.a5

The pawn runs, but although it can become a queen, it will cost the White king his life.

65...Kd3 66.a6 Ke3! and now White faces a grim choice:

(a) 67.Kf1 g2+ 68.Kg1 Ke2 69.a7 f2+ 70.Kxg2 f1Q+ and wins.

(b) 67.a7 g2 68.a8Q g1Q/R#.

The lesson to be learned from this problem is that in a position where you have your trumps but are missing the one extra piece you need to bring those advantages to bear, take a look at pieces performing seemingly essential defensive duties. Sometimes, as here, it turns out that they can switch to attack from defense, with decisive effect.

File this one under both mental flexibility and Seirawan's attacking maxim, "Invite everyone to the party!"

On Monday I presented this position



and challenged the readers to figure out what Black ought to do. White is up two pawns, and although Black's pieces are active, both 12...Ng4 and 12...Bg4 seem to be adequately repulsed by 13.f3.

Think you've got the answer? If so, or if you're giving up after giving it your best shot, click here.

One of the best things we can do to improve our chess is to analyze, and - generally speaking - the deeper, the better. But how often do we do it? Many of us analyze our losses, but often just to find where we went wrong in the opening or lost it. Perhaps because we find it too painful, we don't spend any more time on those games than we need to for the aforementioned purposes.

On the other hand, while we might be intoxicated by the magnificence of our successes, it's hard for us to cast a sufficiently critical eye on those games. Draws tend to leave us emotionally flat, so they receive even less attention, while it's only a dedicated few that will actually spend time analyzing others' games in any real detail.

That's unfortunate enough, but then we compound it. Instead of breaking out the set and getting to work - or really, to play! - we "analyze" by firing up our "little German friend" (as Fritz is sometimes called) and letting it do the work. We open our beaks, let mommy feed us the predigested analysis she has caught, and pride ourselves on catching our own dinner.

Not a pretty picture! Of course there's a place for the computer - it's a fantastic tool whose proper use makes improvement far easier than it was in the purely print days. But many of us don't use it properly, and our skills atrophy as a result.

Unfortunately, I suspect that for most of us, just sitting down to analyze GM games is an acquired taste. We need motivation to do this sort of rigorous analytical work, and the promise of ratings points in the sweet by-and-by isn't likely to sustain our interest.

So here's a suggestion: play correspondence or email chess. This will provide motivation aplenty for the heavy-duty work I'm recommending, the chance to do it in a context that counts, and finally, as a terrific fringe benefit, a marvelous chance to really learn your openings in a deep, immersive way. But remember, do NOT use your chess engines!

Here's a game I played by email in early 2001 against a friend rated 1900+ USCF (played with the proviso that neither of use chess engines). My analysis is there, in all its original unvarnished glory, uncorrected by computers. As you'll see, I enjoyed myself - not so much because of the result, but because I was able to find all sorts of neat possibilities! Some of my variations were almost three times as long as the game, and I hope you'll enjoy exploring them as much as I enjoyed producing them.

Finally, to close on the utilitarian note with which this post began, my OTB play grew stronger as a result. Indeed, I've noticed that whenever I've either played correspondence chess with a real effort, or when I've done really sustained, difficult analytical work (as during a two-week chess camp with Dvoretsky and Yusupov a few years back), my chess has grown measurably stronger as a result. So enjoy the game, do likewise, and reap the benefit!

In at least one of his books, Mikhail Tal wrote of a favorite trick: spot an opponent's trap, "fall for it", and then reveal that the real victim is the opponent.

That idea came to mind as I watched the end of the game Sakaev-Cech this afternoon. Black played very well against his much higher-rated opponent, and by the time the following position occurred, the draw was clear:



Black is going to eliminate the White a-pawn, after which White cannot win with B+N vs. N (or, of course, with bare knight vs. king), and that's just what happened: 62.Nxf3 Nb6 63.Kf1 Nxa4 and drawn.

But what if White tried to win from the diagrammed position with 62.Bxc4? 62...Kxa4?? loses - as White will round up the kingside pawns and mate with a bishop and knight. So 62...Kxc4 must be played, and now if White wants any winning chances, he'd need to try 63.Ne4 Kb4 64.Nc3.



Of course, this still doesn't provide any real winning chances, as Black can just shuffle his king from a5 to b4, waiting for White to accept the draw or to self-destruct. But what if Black "blunders" into White's trap and takes the knight?

Consider it homework! It's as easy as my puzzles get, but it demonstrates a valuable endgame motif. Have fun; solution tomorrow.

The sponsors of the Mercosur Cup in Argentina have decided to allow my favorite ChessBase engine, Shredder, to play in their little shindig, and in three of the four games, the computer has done about what one would expect and scored 2.5/3.

But it's the other game that's noteworthy. Here's the position after White's 19th move (19.Bxb7):



The position is pretty dull, and after the obvious, normal, forced, etc. move 19...Qxb7, we can expect 20.Nf3 Rfd8, when whatever battle there is will revolve around White's attempt to bury a knight on c6 against Black's attempts to utilize the d-file.

Now, humans are capable of all sorts of idiocies over the chessboard: leaving pieces en prise, hanging mate, you name it. Sometimes players are sick, drunk, depressed, sleep deprived, exhausted or suffering in some other way that leaves them incapable of a reliable performance. But not computers: as long as the power's running, they do what they're supposed to do.

I guess.

Now see what Shredder actually did:

19...Rfd8?????

What?! I've run Shredder to depth 21 on my computer, to see if there's some bizarre horizon-effect hallucination it's suffering from, but my version resolutely sticks to the obvious 19...Qxb7 and deems 19...Rfd8 horrible, leaving White a more than 4 point plus.

The only semi-rational explanation I can come up with, other than a programming bug (assuming this is a tweaked version at least a little different from the last commercially available version of Shredder), is that at some search depth or other the program thought it could triple on the d-file, win the Nd2, and penetrate with the major pieces to White's second rank. The problem is that refuting that plan is very simple and doesn't require a deep search ply at all. In the game, Lafuente continued 20.Bc6 Ng4 21.Bf3 Qh4 22.h3 Nh6 23.Nb3 and won with consummate ease.

So I wonder what's going on. Are the programmers trying to pass the Turing test by throwing in a random blunder? If anyone learns the true explanation, please send me a comment or an email.

Meanwhile, lest anyone get the wrong idea here, let me reiterate my fondness for Shredder 9: it's an excellent engine. I've used (and still do, on occasion) Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs and Chess Tiger, but Shredder is my hands-down favorite of the bunch, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone interested in buying a program for analytical work.

From time to time, viewers of my ChessBase show (and its precursor) have expressed an interest in purchasing previous programs on DVD. You certainly won't find any objection from me, but that's a decision for the muckety-mucks in Germany.

The big issue in their decision-making process, of course, is profit: is there really sufficient interest out there? For those who are interested, I suggest going here and dropping them a note to that effect.

If enough of you write, it could happen!

In case anyone out there is interested in chess lessons, training games, working out a study program or some other sort of chess assistance, I invite you to consider working with me. In addition to my credentials as a player (USCF master for over 20 years with a peak rating of 2434), I've worked with students, regularly and successfully, for eight years now. (For example, I was a coach for a team that won the U.S. National K-8 championship one year and came in second, by half a point, the next.)

If you're interested or would like more information, please contact me by clicking here.

I'm running a chess camp for kids from 4th-12th grades at the Robinson Community Learning Center in South Bend, IN, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 1-5.

For more information, please contact me via this link.

Here's our starting position:



It's Black's move, and although he's two pawns down his position looks promising. But how is he going to make progress? If 12...Ng4, then 13.f3 Nf2 14.Rf1 repels Black's overeager attack, while 12...Bg4 also seems conclusively met by 13.f3.

So what's Black to do? The answer will come in a day or two. Remember: no computers!

Actually, the chess world is extremely busy these days - take a look at the latest TWIC news summary. But, just to tidy up on the Canadian Open, since we have followed the event on this blog, here's a final update: the big three (Ivanchuk, Shirov and 2003 Dortmund champ Bologan) tied for first, along with Mark Bluvshtein (whose win over Shirov was featured in the earlier post) and, in a real surprise, IM S.R. Chowdhury. Each scored 8/10.

That's history now, but a new tournament of interest is the Biel GM Tournament in Switzerland. The only player over 2700 is Boris Gelfand, but with youngsters Andrei Volokitin, Hikaru Nakamura and Magnus Carlsen, to go along with relative veterans Christian Bauer and Yannick Pelletier, you would expect a lively, bloodthirsty tournament.

And you'd be wrong, at least so far. In round one, all three games were drawn, the longest in a marathon 28 moves. (I was especially amazed to see Nakamura draw so quickly - my impression of his online and tournament chess is that he'd play king vs. king if the rules allowed it and he could win on time.) Round two was a bit better, with only Carlsen and Pelletier mailing it in. I'm sure it'll get better though - at least I hope so!

One might wonder why Korchnoi, who is Swiss, after all, wasn't invited. I'm not sure why, but he's busy playing in the Politiken Cup in Copenhagen, and is off to a 4-0 start. Amazing.

Tim Krabbé has just presented another entry from the recent Humor Composing Tourney, together with a thematically similar selfmate from 1986. Both feature what Krabbé calls the "Back Home Task", which is accomplished when one of the players moves all his pieces back to their original squares. Have a look: it's entry 289.

This is the way the tournament ends
This is the way the tournament ends
This is the way the tournament ends
Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Svidler-Naiditsch was the big game for bragging rights, and it fell flat. Naiditsch was better prepared - I suspect Svidler didn't expect 8...Nxd4 and didn't feel psychologically ready to play the pawn sac 11.c3, but 11.Qxd4 offers White nothing. So, a quick draw resulted.

Would either van Wely or Kramnik catch Naiditsch and create a first place tie? No. Kramnik was outplayed by Bacrot, who scored a terrific +3 over the last 7 rounds to come up half a point short. And van Wely did little better, drawing the game, but only after Nielsen missed two clear wins on move 25 and a less clear opportunity on move 26.

Sutovsky-Adams had no first place implications (though Adams could have created a five-way tie for second with a win) but was hard-fought anyway. Adams held the draw under a bit of pressure, but Sutovsky may have missed a promising chance on move 42. (Readers are challenged to determine if the R+P v. N+P ending given in my notes is a win or a draw.)

Finally, Topalov showed once again that great fighting spirit for which he is known, defeating Leko in 106 moves. That vaulted him into the big tie for second, and perhaps gave him some psychological momentum leading up to the FIDE World Championships coming up in September. Meanwhile, though, the lowest-rated player in the event, a player far from even being considered for a world championship tournament, has won Dortmund. Congratulations, Arkadij Naiditsch!

(Click here for the games, annotated except for Topalov-Leko.)

Round 9 Results:

Svidler-Naiditsch 1/2-1/2
Bacrot-Kramnik 1-0
Nielsen-van Wely 1/2-1/2
Sutovsky-Adams 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Leko 1-0

Final Standings:

Naiditsch 5.5
Topalov, Bacrot, Svidler, van Wely 5
Kramnik, Adams 4.5
Leko 4
Sutovsky 3.5
Nielsen 3

(Note: in case of ties, players are listed in tiebreak order. However, it's possible that van Wely and Svidler's places are reversed - the ChessBase site wasn't sure.)

Somewhere on this blog, more than two months ago, I offered predictive praise for GM Igor Stohl's Garry Kasparov's Greatest Games, Volume 1. At the time, it was partially based on the subject matter, but more than that on my very positive evaluation of Stohl's earlier work Instructive Modern Chess Masterpieces.

I'm pleased to say that I now have the book, and can recommend it on its merits and not just the author's track record. Stohl has picked out 74 excellent games dating from 1973 (when Kasparov was 10!) through his demolition of Short in their 1993 match. The games are great, the annotations are deep but not overwhelming (the 74 games take up 302 large pages of text), and his explanations are clear and helpful, too.

Stohl is one of those authors for whom analysis is clearly a labor of love, so given the value of the subject matter and the dearth of books on Kasparov's career, this work is highly recommended.

Next, there's ChessBase Magazine, issue 106. You can find a very full summary of its contents together with ordering information here.

All I will add is my own endorsement of the product: I was a subscriber to ChessBase Magazine long before going to work for ChessBase, and it has only gotten better the last few years (due primarily to increasingly large theoretical sections). Before deciding whether or not to subscribe, I'd recommend purchasing this issue for two reasons. First, to see if it's a product of interest and value to you; second, for its historic value: it includes eight video clips from Kasparov's final chess event, Linares 2005 (five featuring Kasparov, one very brief clip of his mother, and interviews with Topalov and chess journalist Leontxo Garcia) - including the last minutes of his game with Topalov and the press conference at which he announced his retirement. Again, highly recommended.

With one round to go, underdog Arkadij Naiditsch is in clear first, but the peleton is nipping at his (w)heels. (That's right, we're taking applications at the Monokroussos school of mixed metaphors. Enroll now.)

Naiditsch's "achievement" today consisted only in not losing, as he and Etienne Bacrot were happy to split the point in 23 moves. Bacrot got a Black game out of the way, while Naiditsch ensured himself of at least a tie for first, unless Loek van Wely managed to defeat Veselin Topalov.

Van Wely had White, but Topalov's more incisive opening play led to a fairly locked position with major pieces and opposite-colored bishops. Opposite-colored bishops don't guarantee a draw, and in positions with attacking chances, they're more likely to guarantee a win, as the attacker can in effect play with an extra piece. So it was here.

So van Wely fell half a point behind Naiditsch, and Peter Svidler, who entered the round half a point behind the leaders, gained no ground. Like Bacrot, he was happy to get a Black game out of the way, drawing with Michael Adams in just 20 moves.

Joining van Wely and Svidler in the chasing pack is Vladimir Kramnik, who handed Peter Heine Nielsen his fourth consecutive defeat in this event. Kramnik achieved a big advantage in the opening, but at the critical moment erred and was even worse for several moves. Fortunately for Kramnik, Nielsen returned the error, and Kramnik ground him down and gave himself a chance going into the last round.

Finally, Peter Leko tried hard to make it a four-way tie for second, but was unable to overcome Emil Sutovsky's stubborn defense.

With four players eligible for first, it should be a great last round! We shall see.

(Click here to replay the games, unannotated except for Kramnik-Nielsen.)

Round 8 Results:

Naiditsch-Bacrot 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Topalov 0-1
Adams-Svidler 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Nielsen 1-0
Leko-Sutovsky

Standings after Round 8:

Naiditsch 5
Kramnik, Svidler, van Wely 4.5
Adams, Bacrot, Leko, Topalov 4
Sutovsky 3
Nielsen 2.5

Pairings for Round 9:

Svidler-Naiditsch
Nielsen-van Wely
Bacrot-Kramnik
Topalov-Leko
Sutovsky-Adams

Mourning your recent blunders? Take heart - it happens to everyone. Here are a couple of fun examples, except, of course, for the victims.


(Position after Black's 57th move in Zhao Xue-Karjakin, 2nd Sanjin Hotel Cup 2005.)

White's winning pretty straightforwardly, thanks to the extra, outside passed pawn and the bishop pair. White comes up with a reasonable plan, too: penetrating with the king on the kingside. If the king gets to g5, Black will be in trouble, and if Black attempts to prevent that with ...f6, then White plans Bc2 and creates some further weaknesses.

So it's not a bad plan, but there's the plan, and then there's the implementation. White doesn't do so well on that score:

58.Kg3 Nd6 59.Kf4 Ne4 60.f3?? (saying "excuse me" and retreating the king was a better idea) g5#.


(Position after Black's 34th move in McShane-Ni Hua, 2nd Sanjin Hotel Cup 2005.)

This time we start with a pretty dull, balanced position. If the players agreed to a draw here, no one would have noticed or thought twice about. But McShane was having a poor tournament and wanted to make something happen, so he presses, hoping to take advantage of Black's slightly vulnerable c-pawn.

35.Rd4 e5 36.Rh4 h5 37.Re4 Kd7 38.Kf1 Ke6 39.Be2 Kd5 40.Bf3 Kd6 41.Re2 Rc5 42.Rd2+ Ke6 43.h4 f5 44.Bd1 g5 45.Bxh5 gxh4 46.gxh4 Bxh4 47.f3 Bg5 48.Rg2 Kf6 49.Be8 Rd5 50.Ke1 Bh4+ 51.Ke2 Bg5 52.Ke1 Rd6 53.Ba4 Bf4 54.Bd1 Bc1 55.Rc2 Be3 56.Rg2 Rb6 57.Ba4 Rb8 58.b3 Rc8 59.Kd1 Rd8+ 60.Kc2



Now 60...cxb3+ would make this position not just drawn but coma-inducing, but Black finds an interesting but dubious way to keep hope alive.

60...Bc5 61.b4 Be3 62.Bc6 Rd3 63.Bb7 Bf4 64.Bxa6 Rxf3 65.Bxc4 e4 66.Kb3 Be5 67.Rc2 Rh3 68.a4 f4 69.a5 f3 70.b5 e3 71.a6



Now all three results are possible, but White is ahead. The reason isn't so much the extra pawn as that his pieces are better equipped for both attack and defense than Black's. Still, after a normal continuation like 71...Bc7 72.a7 Rh8 73.Ra2 Ra8 74.Ra6+ Ke5 75.Kc2 e2 76.Bxe2 fxe2 77.Kd2 Kd5 78.Kxe2 Bd8 79.Kd3 Kc5 80.c4 Bb6, the game will end in a draw. But here, Ni Hua pulls a rabbit out of his hat.

71...Bd4!??

An ingenious idea, immediately stopping White's queenside passers, while the bishop is immune from capture due to the discovered check tricks that ensure Black queens first. A great idea - but a bluff! After 72.cxd4 e2 73.a7 e1Q 74.a8Q Qb1+ 75.Rb2 f2+ 76.Ka4 Qxb2, Black seems to be winning: up the exchange, threatening mate in one, and in possession of a dangerous passed pawn. Unfortunately, White can win the rook by force and with it, the game: 77.Qd8+ Kg6 78.Qg8+ Kh5 79.Qh7+ Kg5 (79...Kg4 80.Be6+ Kf4 81.Qf5+ Ke3 82.Qxh3+ Kd2 83.Bc4+-) 80.Qxh3. Fortunately for Ni Hua, White missed this subtle point and played

72.Bf1



But what's wrong with that? Now both Black pieces are under attack and White still has the passed pawns covered. Now McShane might have expected 72...Rg3, which might be met by 73.Kc4, safeguarding the c-pawn, eliminating the discovered check battery and bringing the king closer to both his passers and Black's. Logical, but Black had other ideas.

72...Bb6

Very neat! Ni Hua's idea is that on 73.Bxh3 Black promotes with e2 74.Rd2 e1Q. It turns out, however, that White should have done this, because after 75.Rd6+ Kg5 76.Rxb6 Qh1 77.Be6 f2 78.Bc4 Qb1+ 79.Ka3 Qc2 80.Rc6 Qxc3+ 81.Ka4 Qxc4+ 82.Rxc4 f1Q 83.Rc5+ Kg4 84.Ka5 White draws routinely. (If nothing else, he can simply put the rook on c6 and sit.)

Because of this 75.Rd6+ trick, Black could have better implemented his idea with 72...Ba7. Black is better after 73.Bxh3 e2 74.Bg4 e1Q 75.Bxf3, but I'm not sure if it's a win or a draw. (I suspect the latter, but without conviction.)

73.Kc4? Rh1 74.Bd3 f2 75.Be2 Re1 76.Kd3 Rd1+! 0-1



A nice finishing touch. After 77.Ke4 Rd2 78.Rxd2 exd2 White can stop one pawn or the other, but not both. And that's what one get sometimes when one is fully determined to make something happen. McShane succeeded, but it wasn't exactly what he wanted....

Running concurrently with the super-GM round-robin in Dortmund is an impressive swiss system tournament in Edmonton, Canada. It's not as top-heavy as Dortmund, but with Ivanchuk, Shirov and Bologan it's not chopped caribou, either.

With one round to go, Ivanchuk, Bologan and Canadian prodigy Mark Bluvshtein (and possibly a player named Kidambi, whose 9th round result I haven't been able to find) share first with 7.5/9. For the most part, the tournament has been a three-horse race with the big guns sharing and swapping the lead, but in round 9 Bluvshtein knocked off Shirov, with Black, using the Petroff. It's a tired urban legend that the Petroff is some sort of dull drawing opening, but since it's a lot easier to believe what the crowd repeats out of habit than to actually examine things for oneself, that reputation will probably continue indefinitely. Nevertheless, have a look at Shirov-Bluvshtein.

The crucial test of Bluvshtein's idea seems to be the paradoxical computer move 16.Nh4!, with the nice idea of 16...Qxh4 17.f4, killing most of Black's attacking ideas. I spent some time trying to make 16...Bxh2+ 17.Kxh2 Qxh4+ 18.Kg1 Bf3 work, but to no avail. (I do think there's more to explore there, though.)

After missing or foregoing that chance, Shirov had no better than equality, and that only if he could find only move after only move. He toed the line for a while, but a slip on move 23 (23.Ra2 instead of 23.axb7) was all it took to lose the game.

More blood, more surprises!

Yesterday's sole leader, Loek van Wely, entered a double rook ending against Vladimir Kramnik, but despite a lousy pawn structure (six pawns, all isolated, four of them doubled) he drew without too much difficulty.

Thus van Wely remains in first, but was caught by Arkadij Naiditsch, who beat (co-)tail-ender Peter Heine Nielsen with the Black pieces. Nielsen had a poor game early on, and lost despite a long, generally resourceful defense.

After 6 draws, the last three, most unusually, by perpetual check, Peter Svidler has won his first game. Defeating Peter Leko, Svidler now finds himself in clear third, half a point behind van Wely and Naiditsch.

Kramnik and Leko are another half-point back, on 50%, joined there by Etienne Bacrot and his round 7 victim, Michael Adams. Bacrot, who has bounced back nicely from his awful 0-2 start, had the advantage throughout, but many spectators, including retired American GM Yasser Seirawan, assumed the ending should have been a draw. (Something for the enterprising among you to study!)

Finally, Emil Sutovsky and Veselin Topalov fought hard but drew, maintaining their unfortunate positions at and near the bottom of the tournament table.

For the sake of completeness, I've uploaded the games here, but without notes; for some very light commentary, take a look at Mark Crowther's remarks here and (probably by the morning) ChessBase's round report here.

Round 7 Results:

Kramnik-van Wely 1/2-1/2
Nielsen-Naiditsch 0-1
Svidler-Leko 1-0
Bacrot-Adams 1-0
Sutovsky-Topalov 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 7:

Naiditsch, van Wely 4.5
Svidler 4
Adams, Bacrot, Kramnik, Leko 3.5
Topalov 3
Nielsen, Sutovsky 2.5

Pairings for Round 8:

van Wely-Topalov
Leko-Sutovsky
Adams-Svidler
Naiditsch-Bacrot
Kramnik-Nielsen

After watching the GM post-game commentaries on the ChessBase server, Joe McCarron weighs in with this interesting comment:

I really enjoy looking at these players analyze the games after they finish. Its interesting that they don't allow them to use fritz. I always have Junior 8 running when goign through the interview. What I have found so far is the players seem to exagerate the black advantage when it swings toward black and minimize the white advantage unless its stronger. For example if Junior says a postion is -.07 they might say black is doing quite well and has and can play for the win. Where as if Junior show white at +.5 they say things like white really has nothing. It may be the computer misevaluating but I would think they wouldn't be so lopsided for one color.

I guess it makes sense. Black has to overcome a slight disadvantage out of the opening - say anywere from .3-.8(accordign to computers) depending on the opening. So I think allot has to do with psychology. Black was outplaying white if he reaches 0.00 so he gains psychological momentumn of which the computer is oblivious. Anyway the sample is too small to reach any definitive conclusions but I had noticed this before.

Nice comment!

I think you're a bit too trusting of computer evaluations in the very early opening. White often has a small space or development advantage in the first several moves, but there isn't anything White can do to prevent Black from neutralizing all or at least almost all of those plusses. That's just the old horizon effect in action: after another 10 moves or so of normal mutual development, the software "magically" changes its mind and tends to agree with conventional assessments.

In general, strong players do a better job of assessing positions than computers, which is the only reason we can still compete with them (and even beat them in correspondence games). When analyzing with computers, I tend not to fully trust their evaluations in positions lacking a terminal evaluation unless I believe the position is stable, and I've learned that my judgment in this matter is correct!

That's not to say that the moves they suggest ought to be doubted to the same degree. Even if they misevaluate the position somewhat, they're generally more successful in finding strong continuations.

That said, I think you're probably right that humans often mix up the trend with the objective evaluation of the position, at least in their own games. Just as a driver leaving the highway and traveling city roads feels he's going slower than a jogger, so too a player who has been reacting to his opponent's initiative for a while and finally has the freedom to decide something for herself may feel she has taken over the game, even if she has only equalized.

It's an important concept, and there are some who not only overreact but underreact, too - see for example Fischer's comments in My 60 Memorable Games on Petrosian's accepting his draw offer in the famous four queens game. For those interested in reading about the psychology of trends, Alex Yermolinsky discusses the subject in some detail in The Road to Chess Improvement.

The surprises keep coming! There are just three rounds to go and Loek van Wely, the second lowest-rated player in the event, is leading. He's certainly no fish, but I'd be very surprised if anyone outside his immediate family picked him to win this event.

Favorite or not, he's in clear first after his win over Emil Sutovsky. Utilizing an exchange sac line against the Gruenfeld that's been known for half a century, van Wely outplayed his opponent convincingly, who has not been having the best tournament so far.

Leko-Bacrot was a very correct game, with Bacrot successfully neutralizing Leko's micro-edge in a closed Ruy.

Adams-Nielsen and Naiditsch-Kramnik featured the same White sideline against the Petroff. White got a little in the first game and less than nothing in the second, but White scored 1.5/2 as Nielsen blundered and lost while an exchange down Naiditsch grimly hung on and drew.

Finally, Topalov-Svidler was a lively game with both players missing chances before concluding with a spectacular perpetual. (The games, with some brief comments, can be replayed here.)

With three rounds to go, then, van Wely is in first, with Leko and Naiditsch half a point back. It's still almost anyone's tournament to win, though, especially as the three leaders each have Black this next round. (And two of the three are playing higher-rated opposition.)

Round 6 Results:

van Wely-Sutovsky 1-0
Leko-Bacrot 1/2-1/2
Adams-Nielsen 1-0
Naiditsch-Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Svidler 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 6:

van Wely 4
Adams, Leko, Naiditsch 3.5
Kramnik, Svidler 3
Bacrot, Nielsen, Topalov 2.5
Sutovsky 2

Pairings for Round 7:

Kramnik-van Wely
Sutovsky-Topalov
Svidler-Leko
Bacrot-Adams
Nielsen-Naiditsch

In a way, round 5 was a carbon copy of round 4: four draws and one win for Black. All the games were very hard-fought, as four of the five games went more than 58 moves, and even the "quickie" 29-move draw was a tactical melee.

We start with the Kramnik-Adams game. Somewhat to my surprise, Kramnik returned to 1.e4, but achieved nothing with the recently popular anti-Marshall approach with 8.d4. If anything, his position shortly after the opening (possibly due to 23.Qd2) was worse, and he had to suffer for a long time before he held the draw.

Those slackers only played for 58 moves; Bacrot and Topalov showed them the meaning of hard work by playing 93! Topalov played some sort of Benoni/King's Indian hybrid that quickly reached an endgame. Although the pawn structure was almost completely symmetrical, White was able to ensure the exchanges were to his favor, and Topalov had to defend for many moves before he could collect his half a point.

The one decisive game was Nielsen-Leko. Nielsen essayed the Catalan, and Leko, perhaps inspired by Bacrot's round 4 maneuver of ...Ra7 with a possible ...Qa8 (which won him the game), applied the idea in a new setting. (To be fair, Leko's 10...Ra7 was already known to theory and surely part of his preparation, even though other moves, especially 10...Be4, are overwhelmingly more popular.) In any case, Black was able to eliminate the traditional Catalan weakness on c7 and from there outplayed his opponent in a very nice game. When it comes to technical chess, few if any are better than Leko, and this game is a fine, instructive example.

Naiditsch-van Wely was a hard-fought draw in two acts. The first 36 moves went pretty much all White's way, and he may have even missed some winning continuations. After his 37th move, however, Black was instantly better, and he too may have missed more than one road to the full point. So each player got what he deserved: half a point.

Finally, there was the Svidler-Sutovsky slugfest, culminating in perpetual check. This game I won't annotate, because my readers can see the analysis and hear the words of Sutovsky himself, here. (You can find this game without notes, and the others with my comments, via this link.)

Round 5 Results:

Kramnik-Adams 1/2-1/2
Bacrot-Topalov 1/2-1/2
Nielsen-Leko 0-1
Naiditsch-van Wely 1/2-1/2
Svidler-Sutovsky 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 5:

Leko, Naiditsch, van Wely 3
Adams, Kramnik, Nielsen, Svidler 2.5
Bacrot, Sutovsky, Topalov 2

Pairings for Round 6 (on Thursday; Wednesday is an off-day):

van Wely-Sutovsky
Topalov-Svidler
Leko-Bacrot
Adams-Nielsen
Naiditsch-Kramnik

In the late 1990s, New in Chess Magazine had a couple of "SOS" (Secrets of Opening Surprises) articles on gambits for Black, both arising from openings with ...g6 and then ...d5.

The first, from the 1998/8 issue, featured a specialty of Peter Svidler's: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 and now not the usual 4...Ne4, but simply 4...Bg7 instead. White is invited to grab the d-pawn with 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.cxd5 (6.Nxd5 Bg7 7.e3 c5 8.Nf3 Nc6 and Black regains the pawn) 6...c6! 7.dxc6 Bxd4 8.cxb7 Bxb7.



White's up a pawn, but Black's magnificent bishop pair provide ample compensation.

The second idea comes from the 1999/4 issue and goes like this: 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d5. Cop-out moves like 4.e5 c5 or 4.Nf3 dxe4 promise nothing, while 4.Nxd5 c6 immediately regains the pawn. That leaves only 4.exd5, but after 4...Nf6 5.Bc4 Nbd7 6.Nf3 Nb6 7.Bb3 a5



we have a position reminiscent of a well-known (temporary) gambit in the Panov-Botvinnik variation of the Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.cxd5 Bg7, when one possible continuation is 7.Bc4 Nbd7 8.Nf3 O-O 9.O-O Nb6 10.Bb3



In both cases, White has chances for a small edge, but nothing special.

And now, for gambit idea #3, brought to my attention by Brian Karen:

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 and now, not 3...d6 or 3...c5, both quite common, but 3...d5!? followed by 4.cxd5 c6 5.dxc6 Bxd4.



Reminds one of the first gambit, doesn't it? Unfortunately, while it's a clever idea, it's not of the same quality of the preceding gambit lines.

For starters, White can vary with 5.Nc3, when 5...cxd5 6.Nxd5 e6 doesn't work out as charmingly as 4.Nxd5 c6 in the second gambit line. After 7.Nc3 Bxd4 8.Nge2, White's lead in development and Black's somewhat porous queenside and dark squares give White a clear advantage.

Further, even grabbing on c6 seems to be fine: 5.dxc6 Bxd4 6.cxb7 Bxb7 7.Bb5+ followed by 8.Ne2 is again clearly better for White. For instance, even 7...Bc6 8.Ne2 works well, e.g. 8...Bxf2+ 9.Kxf2 Qb6+ (9...Bxb5 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Nbc3 with a clear advantage thanks to the vulnerable Black king) 10.Be3 Qxb5 11.Nbc3 and White's impending dark-square domination and the Black king's lack of a safe haven ensure fun for White and trials for Black.

Verdict: Not recommended.

The players finally found the drawing zone today, with four peaceful games and just one decisive finish. That's not to say the games were spineless - they weren't - but sometimes both players play well.

Starting with Leko-Kramnik, it looks as if Kramnik's brief flirtation with the Najdorf has come to an end. Instead, he essayed the Taimanov, which seems a better fit with his style, and managed to keep the balance with elegant play.

The one decisive game was Sutovsky-Bacrot, won by the latter with surprising ease. Sutovsky handled the late stages in a confused manner, according to Bacrot (see his video discussion of the game via this link), and his position collapsed in a hurry.

Topalov-Nielsen looked like an ideal opportunity for the world's co-number one on the rating list (for active players) with White against one of the tournament outsiders (Nielsen is a "mere" 2688). Appearance doesn't imply reality, however, and just as in the games above, White achieved fairly little.

The next David & Goliath matchup also concluded without providing full satisfaction to the higher-rated player, again with White, as Adams' English Attack achieved nothing special against Naiditsch's Najdorf.

Finally, van Wely-Svidler was also a draw. White pressed for a long time, and seemed close to a win for a while, but Svidler's active, accurate defense held the point.

It's still early, but amazingly, the three lowest-rated players in the event are tied for first! Will the "visitors" prove that they should be members of the club, or will the top dogs prove their superior ratings really mean something? Stay tuned...

(To replay the games, click here.)

Round 4 Results:

Leko-Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Sutovsky-Bacrot 0-1
Topalov-Nielsen 1/2-1/2
Adams-Naiditsch 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Svidler 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 4:

Naiditsch, Nielsen, van Wely 2.5
Adams, Kramnik, Leko, Sutovsky, Svidler 2
Bacrot, Topalov 1.5

Pairings for Round 5:

Naiditsch-van Wely
Bacrot-Topalov
Svidler-Sutovsky
Nielsen-Leko
Kramnik-Adams

In the new (July 2005) issue of Chess Life, 2/3 of a page (page 6) is dedicated to reader feedback on the May 2005 article by Tim Taylor recounting his exploits in Hungary, some of which were chess-related. After a pseudo-apology of a form ubiquitous these days ("[we] deeply regret that many readers were offended...", indicating regret not about their actions but readers' responses), the remainder presents reader comments.

Most were negative, but there were a handful of positive responses, including Jeremy Silman's:

...it's probably the best article in the history of the magazine and everyone is freaking out over a depiction of real life. Sad, isn't it.

IM Silman is an excellent chess writer - in part because he's a fine writer, period - but I think he's misunderstanding the basic criticism. Even if he's right that this is the best article in the history of the magazine (a dubious claim, but never mind), the primary problem isn't with its quality but the appropriateness of its content.

Surely Silman doesn't think that any and all depictions of real life, no matter how well-written, are appropriate in any forum whatsoever. (Examples are easy to produce, but I'll leave that to the readers' own imagination and standards.) Perhaps the Taylor article isn't inappropriate for CL, though I think it is for several reasons I've already provided, but an argument ought to be provided, not just the true but irrelevant point that it depicts real life.

And now for something completely different...

Making a contribution to the literature on chess psychology, Jon Jacobs thematizes an idea I've seen touched upon by other authors every now and then, what Jacobs calls the "Trojan Horse Draw Offer".

In essence, the idea is to offer a draw, in an evenish position and when you think it (probably) won't be accepted, to encourage your opponent to psychologically overcommit. If your opponent rejects your draw offer, the theory goes, he might do something rash, either because your draw offer has made him overconfident or because he feels obligated to "do something" to justify his decision.

It's an interesting idea, skirting the unethical edge but without falling over, and similar to but going beyond an idea I've written about before. My thought (mentioned in passing here) is that a willingness (not eagerness) to draw can be a good thing, in part because some players will self-destruct rather than split the point.

I think Jacobs' thinking is esentially correct, but it won't work on everyone. (Not that he claims it will.) When I'm offered a draw in a position I'd prefer to keep playing, the thought runs through my mind that my opponent is feeling unsure of himself. When that happens, my inclination is not to turn into Elmer Fudd, losing my marbles in an attempt to blow him away, but to maintain the tension (assuming there's no concrete plan or tactic that demands to be played) to see if he'll self-destruct. More often than not, they will.

In any case, it's a very good article, one all players with access to Chess Life should read - if only for self-defense!

In the second of two posts presenting claims that with the right training, anyone (given a certain initial rating) could be turned into a GM, I cited Artur Yusupov's assertion that Dvoretsky's method could turn a (talented) 2200 into a GM. Yusupov's comment seems to imply a certain target audience for Dvoretsky's books, and I've made a comment of that sort somewhere in my blogs as well.

In reply, the anonymous father of a talented 10-year old wrote to say, in effect, that the rating prerequisite for Dvoretsky's material is so much hogwash. If anyone is willing to work at the material, he or she will benefit, period, and he offered his son as an example.

I partially agree: I think he's completely right that anyone willing to work with good chess material will benefit, no matter what their rating. But I also think that Dvoretsky's harder books are better suited to sophisticated, stronger players - one will get more out of those books at a certain point than they will earlier in their careers.

That said, his son (whoever he is) is talented, and his work with the Dvoretsky books (and whatever else he's doing, too) is clearly paying off. You can find a game he drew an IM here, with my comments, and it should be stated up front that it was the IM who was fortunate to draw.

Another action-packed round, with still more surprises on the leaderboard.

Perhaps the biggest surprise, considering the players' form so far this year, was Kramnik's win over Topalov. Yet the real surprise, at least to me, isn't the result (Kramnik has a huge plus score against Topalov) but the opening, as Topalov entered the same exchange-down variation he lost with against Ponomariov in the MTel Masters.

Maybe Black can draw this endgame with perfect play, but it's an arduous task - one well-suited to Ponomariov's and Kramnik's style, but not at all to Topalov's. Odd.

In the Nielsen-Sutovsky game, White essayed the Seville Variation against Sutovsky's Gruenfeld and pressed throughout. Nielsen didn't quite win, but he came close, and I think 36.a4 improved and might have done the trick.

An even bigger surprise than Kramnik-Topalov, objectively speaking, was the game Naiditsch-Leko. Naiditsch avoided the Sveshnikov with 3.Bb5 and gained an edge in the form of the bishop pair and pressure against Black's weak pawns. This could have continued indefinitely, but he caught Leko with a nice tactic, winning a pawn and eventually the game.

Another surprise was van Wely's win, with Black - the only Black win in the whole tournament against nine White wins - against Adams. Adams' kingside pawn roller was typical of the Keres Attack against the Scheveningen Sicilian, but when the game reached an opposite-colored bishop ending, White's kingside proved nothing more than a collection of weak pawns and vulnerable dark squares.

But don't take my word for it - take a look at van Wely's own video commentary - click here and scroll down.

Finally, Bacrot-Svidler was an odd draw. Bacrot had a large, probably winning advantage early on, but lost the thread and a pawn...and then the players agreed to a draw. Their judgment is unquestionable better and deeper than mine, but as far as I can tell, Black had a real advantage in the final position and could have continued without risk.

To replay the games (with some light commentary), click here.

Round 3 Results:

Kramnik-Topalov 1-0
Nielsen-Sutovsky 1/2-1/2
Naiditsch-Leko 1-0
Adams-van Wely 0-1
Bacrot-Svidler 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 3:

Naiditsch, Nielsen, van Wely 2
Adams, Kramnik, Leko, Sutovsky, Svidler 1.5
Topalov 1
Bacrot .5

Pairings for Round 4:

van Wely-Svidler
Topalov-Nielsen
Sutovsky-Bacrot
Leko-Kramnik
Adams-Naiditsch

Go here, scroll down a little and check out the quote of the week. That was a quote from an article I published in the fine regional chess magazine Chess Horizons, which was itself reprinted from this entry from my previous blog.

Happy surfing!

For this week’s show, I’m going to present a game from my all-time favorite player, Mikhail Tal. But not just any game, mind you, but one so complicated Tal himself refused to annotate it for his chess autobiography. On the one hand, this might seem hubristic on my part, but I’d prefer to put a more optimistic cast on it: (a) at least I tried, and (b) there will probably be mistakes in anyone’s analysis of this game. So I have nothing to lose by trying!

Those of you familiar with The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal might know what game I have in mind, but for those lacking that outstanding book, I’m referring to his epic battle with the Swiss player Dieter Keller from Zurich 1959. Keller invites trouble by playing the ultra-sharp Botvinnik Variation of the Semi-Slav, and he finds it in spades. Tal’s attack comes in wave after wave, and although Keller defends exceptionally for a long time, he finally cracks under the pressure – just when he had almost consolidated with an advantage.

This is a game which will repay careful analysis, but in addition to its utilitarian value, it’s a beautiful, brilliant game that exemplifies the magic and ferocity of Tal’s chess at its best. So join me this Monday as we take a look at this masterpiece; you'll be glad you did!

You can find directions for watching the show (either live or in the archives) here, a list of previous shows' games can be found here, while clicking here takes you to the Tal-Keller game itself (sans notes).