The Chess Mind

We're on round 2 now, but for those who haven't closely followed the World Chess Cup so far, here is a quick report on some of the highlights.

2700s

All the 2700s made it through to the second round, though a few were nicked for a draw along the way. (The rounds consist of one player having White the first day, the other playing taking White the next day, and then increasingly rapid tie-break game pairs the next day. If four tie-break games don't settle the match, they play an "Armageddon" game: White gets 6 minutes to Black's 5, but Black wins the match unless White wins the game.) Thus entering round two, all of the following are still alive and kicking:

Ivanchuk (who lost his first game in round 2 to Topalov's second, Cheparinov)
Bacrot
Aronian
Grischuk (who defeated Gaston Needleman - remember him?)
Gelfand
Shirov
Radjabov
Ponomariov
Tiviakov

Prodigies

It's hard to delineate who exactly gets in here, but the following list (hopefully) catches all those 18 and under.

Needleman - lost (to Grischuk)
Radjabov - won (over Flores)
Adly - lost (to Ponomariov)
Wang Hao - lost (to Malakhov)
Kuzubov - lost (to Moiseenko)
Nakamura - lost (to Ganguly - and 2-0!)
Balogh - won (over Karjakin)
Karjakin - lost (to Balogh)
Carlsen - won (over Azmaiparashvili)
Wang Yue - won (over Asrian)

Americans

Kamsky - won (over Jun Zhao)
Kudrin - lost (to Eljanov)
Nakamura - lost (to Ganguly)
Shulman - won (by drawing in the Armageddon game with Zvjaginsev)
Stripunsky - lost (to Areshchenko)
Onischuk - won (over Popov)
A. Ivanov - won (over Granda Zuniga)
Kaidanov - lost (to Felgaer)

There has been a lot of very interesting, fighting chess; for now, I'll highlight two games that caught my eye. The first is Nakamura's second loss to Ganguly, and the second was Miroshnichenko's game two tragedy against Korneev. (Hat tip to Chess Today for the second example.)

Curious? Click here for those games; for those interested in all of the games (unannotated), click here.

Here's the blurb from the A&E (Arts & Entertainment) cable television network:

Ted Danson stars in this inspirational story based on the life of English teacher David MacEnulty, who struggled to improve the lives of poor children in the South Bronx. MacEnulty went into an inner-city school, taught a group of students to play chess, and took them into the elitist world of chess competition where they defeated players from private schools and learned that they could achieve anything if they believed in themselves. Directed by Allen Hughes. (2005)

I'm pleased that chess will receive some excellent publicity, but as one who has had the privilege of working with Dave MacEnulty, I'm even more pleased that he is receiving the recognition he deserves. You can find much more about the program here; show times here and here. (For the research-impaired, the first showing is Tuesday, December 6 at 8 pm ET.)

[Hat tip: Brian Karen]

Jonathan Rowson has written a very interesting new book entitled Chess for Zebras, which I'll review this for Chess Today in the near future. If you're curious about the book (and even if you're not) you can watch a 22-minute video of Rowson introducing the book and presenting one of its positions in some detail - just let your fingers do the clicking.

They don't make 'em like they used to, and that's bad news for the ex-kids among us! Here's a letter I received from a Canadian reader named David:

Hello,

I am a ten year old boy from Canada and I just played in a tournament and played a game in which I made pretty clever sacrfices, as I think, to win the game in just 24 moves. I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on the game. I am White.

[Game score snipped here; available with my notes through the link below.]

From, David

Well, David, I think it's a pretty nice game, and it looks like you play the attack just about perfectly from move 14 to the end. I suspect you've won some similar games using Bird's Opening, but even so, I'm impressed!

The game, with some brief comments, can be found here.

Also, take a gander at this earlier post, featuring another talented 10-year-old, this one from India and with a vastly different style.

Grandmaster Igor Ivanov passed away about a week ago, and while he will not soon be forgotten by the people who knew him, I fear his chess may not enjoy the same fate. There are so many great players that it's impossible to study them all, but Ivanov's active positional style produced model games worthy of especially the amateur's attention.

In this week's show, we'll look at a game that started as one of those model efforts, before taking a sharp turn to the realm of fantasy. Facing IM Vitaly Zaltsman's Tarrasch Defense, Ivanov rapidly built up a large positional advantage. Rather than cash it in by normal means, however, Ivanov produced a fantastic sacrificial idea. Sacrificing a pair of exchanges and then a queen for a rook, Ivanov's compensation came in the form of three pawns picked up along the way - deadly, rapacious, and connected passed pawns. Despite the heavy material disadvantage (bishop, knight and seven pawns as material compensation for a queen, rook and four pawns) and some (mutually) inaccurate play (thanks to time trouble, I'm sure), Ivanov was able to reel in the full point.

If I have succeeded in whetting your appetite, I hope you'll join me this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET as we pay tribute to this outstanding figure in American chess. As always, directions for watching the show (or for watching older shows in the archives) can be found here, while a list of games covered by past shows (shows you can watch in those same archives) is available here.

It's somewhat confusing, and I have no idea how FIDE's plan is supposed to fit with Topalov's "2700 + money = World Championship match" proclamation (see here, reason 2), but the first step of FIDE's 2005-2007 World Championship cycle starts today (Sunday). The FIDE World Chess Cup is a 132-player knock-out event (sort of) taking place in Khanty-Mansyisk, Russia, and will continue until December 18.

The top 10 finishers here will move on to the Candidates' Matches, where they will meet Kasimjanov and the five highest-rated players not already seeded into the next round. (What happens if the players (e.g Kasparov and Kramnik) don't accept? Do they move down the rating list, or take more from the World Cup?) Of these 16, the final four move on to the actual championship event, where they will join Topalov, Anand, Svidler and Morozevich.

Will it all come to pass? How will this work with Topalov's "2700s welcome!" proposal/proclamation? How, if at all, will Kramnik fit into this? I have no idea, but at least we have some great chess to look forward to over the next three weeks!

Current record: 9-2!

BCS Bowl victim: Currently unknown.

Earlier this month, I presented a series of posts based on a position from the Kasimjanov-Mamedyarov blitz match. (Start here, and follow the internal links at the bottom of the post for the remainder.) By way of recap, we started with this position:



It's White to move, and the goal was for the reader to (1) find the idea 1.Bxh6 Nxh6 2.Rxf7 Nxg4 3.Rxf8+ Kxf8 4.hxg4, regaining the pawn, but (2) to recognizing that in the resulting position



White is dead lost, as Black continues with the simple 4...b4, and if 5.Kf2, b3 assures promotion.

The point of the exercise, one to some degree seconded by Fritz's blunder against Ponomariov in the recent man-machine event, is that it's not enough to accurately calculate a given sequence of moves; one must properly evaluate the resulting position as well.

Jon Jacobs has written in with some examples from his own games, including one especially painful example that (probably) cost him nearly $6000. Jacobs discusses these games and the underlying psychology of the situation in more depth in his April 2005 and July 2005 Chess Life articles, but even his more limited notes here are illuminating as well. (For more on his idea of a "Trojan Horse Draw Offer", which features in the third of his games, see this post.)

Without any further ado, I present to you Mr. Jacobs - or at least his games.

I'm referring to the final move of Levitsky-Marshall, DSB-18 Kongress, 1912. Here's the position after White's 23.Rc5:

Enter Alex Herrera:

Dennis, I was enjoying the list of best moves of all time, in Chess Curiosities. Of course this is subjective, and all the moves listed are very beautiful. Sometimes they win by force; sometimes they alter the course of a game that is going badly (i.e. they pose the greatest difficulty for the opponent); sometimes they're just original and surprising moves, where other options are available. My question is this: do you think Levitzky-Marshall 23..Qg3 is overrated in view of the fact that the prosaic Qb4 also forces an immediate resignation? Sure Qg3 makes a better esthetic impression, but when there is another move that also wins on the spot, and that is not hard to see, it seems to me that the gold coins could have remained in the pockets.

Actually, not only does 23...Qb4 do the job as well as 23...Qg3 - if not better - it turns out that 23...Qa3, 23...Qb2, and even the show-offy 23...Qe3 all win handily, too.

Does this detract from the beauty of 23...Qg3? My answer, in keeping with philosophical stereotype, is yes and no. I think the move's utter non-necessity, combined with its maybe not even being the best option in the position, does detract from its aesthetic value. I think, though, that it's a brilliant idea. Marshall's move is a gem, but the ring featuring it has an ugly setting.

[Note: This sort of thing happens regularly in the realm of chess studies. Sometimes a composer's theme will have been anticipated by an earlier work, but the execution of the theme is vastly improved in the latter case.]

For those celebrating the holiday, I hope you have a wonderful time with friends and family. And if you're traveling this weekend, please be safe!

Chess sadists will want to take a look at this article on the Chess Cafe website. I'm not endorsing the attitude exhibited by Short and Ree (and many other chess players before them), just noting it. But even those who find the chess sadist's attitude repellent should at least be aware of it and some of the ways it can be manifest on the chessboard. In a slogan, forewarned is forearmed.

Three draws in the last round of the second People vs. Computers World Team Match let the humans leave with some dignity; the final score was 8-4 in favor of the computers. Granted, it's not the most flattering result, but it's half a point better than last year's performance, and much better than Michael Adams' dreadful shellacking against Hydra earlier this year. Best of all, I say, it was done playing relatively normal chess - no 1.d3 or Stonewall nonsense. We are the underdogs, but we can still compete.

Those of you who have been interested in chess before computers and the internet took over will have heard of Bernard Cafferty, if only for his seemingly ancient Boris Spassky - Master of Tactics: Spassky's 100 Best Games 1949-1972, or for his more recent work with Mark Taimanov ingeniously entitled Soviet Championships.

Despite my familiarity with his name, I knew nothing about him as a player, and I suspect that at least the non-British among you are in the same boat. It was therefore a pleasant surprise to come across this game a few days ago. Cafferty may be 71 and "only" a FIDE Master, but even with the Black pieces he dispatches GM Matthew Turner in style. Have a look, and if you've left the ranks of kid-dom behind, be heartened!

Take a look at the following position:



My student has Black here. It's his move; what did he do? When you're ready to check your answer, click here.

Starting with the World Junior Championships, the final result of the Open ("Boys'") section was long ago decided, but only now official: Shakhriyar Mamedyarov of Azerbaijan regained the title he won in 2003. After blasting out with 8.5/9, he coasted home with four draws (three of which were merely pro forma) and a final tally of 10.5/13. Finishing in second was Hungarian Ferenc Berkes (9.5/13), while Evgeny Alekseev of Russia beat out Vugar Gashimov of Azerbaijan on tiebreak to take third (both had 9/13).

In the Girls' section, a late run propelled German IM Elisabeth Paehtz into first place with 10/13, half a point ahead of Gu Xiaobing of China and a full point ahead of Beata Kadziolka (presumably the third-place winner on tiebreak), Turkan Mamedjarova and Dronavalli Harika of Poland, Azerbaijan and India, respectively.

Congratulations to the winners, and congratulations too to the computers - or rather, their programmers - as they reasserted their dominance over carbon chess players in round 3 of the II People vs. Computers World Chess Team Match in Bilbao. Kasimjanov held a draw, with Black, against Fritz 9 (poor Fritz, again!), but Junior slowly ground down Khalifman and Hydra applied a fearful beating to Ponomariov, which you can replay here.

That puts the computers up 6.5-2.5 going into today's last round, and as of this writing, all three games were still going with the humans still kicking.

About five years ago, before the situation had reached its current, near-hopeless state, Kramnik told an interviewer that computers were weak in tactics.

What?!

The explanation had to do with depth and assessment: while computers see everything to a certain depth, and won't miss a move because it looks funny by human standards, humans have advantages too. While computers spend a great deal of time looking "sideways" - that is, looking at all or many legal moves at each ply, humans can pare off the junk, delve deeply, and often do a better job not only of assessing both what ought to be examined but what's really going on at the end of the variations, too.

These advantages are diminishing every year, as more powerful software/hardware allows deeper searches and better assessments. Diminishing, yes, but not gone altogether! Take a look at this position from round 2 of the ex-world champs vs. computers match in Bilbao:



Ponomariov (White) is in trouble, and with good technique Fritz (with Black and on the move) should win. A good way to start is with 39...Qxg3+ 40.Kxg3 f5, but instead Fritz chose the horrible 39...Bc2??. It's a great move against all lines but one, but that one line leads to a win for White. Because the human is down even more material most of the way, and the payoff occurs at a relatively deep search ply, Fritz doesn't work it out. (Nor is Fritz (9) alone; I tried it with Shredder 9, Junior 9 and Hiarcs 9 [reminiscent of a Beatles "song", isn't it?], and they all flopped, too.)

The variation is fairly easy for a strong player to calculate and find, as White forces Black's hand just about every step of the way. For the computer, however, it's an instance of the so-called "horizon effect": it can calculate only so far - to the "horizon" - and then just past that comes the disaster. In a sense, we're all susceptible to it, but sometimes computers will stop calculating in positions humans know require further thought. That may not last for long, but while it does, enterprising humans will be there to pick up the points.

Curious about the variation? See this story on ChessBase for the moves, more of the story, and a photo report on round 2 - won by the humans by a 2-1 score!

The World Junior Championship still goes on, but the last rounds are a mere formality. GM Shakriyar Mamedyarov flew into the lead with an 8.5/9 start (TPR: 2953!), and is doing the quick handshake routine the rest of the way. On the girls' side, everything is still up in the air, with Elisabeth Paehtz leading with 8.5/11 but pursued by several players just half a point back - including, ironically, Mamedyarov's sister: Turkan Mamedjarova.

In a fun but unofficial event, three ex-FIDE champions are taking on three of the top chess programs in the II People vs. Computers World Chess Team Match in Bilbao. It's a slightly peculiar event - there are four rounds rather than three or six - but the computers don't seem to be complaining. Of course, there's no reason why they should: they whitewashed the humans 3-0 on day one:

Ponomariov-Junior 0-1
Hydra-Kasimjanov 1-0
Fritz-Khalifman 1-0

Round 2 is ongoing at the time of this post, and you can watch the games from both this event and the World Junior live on the playchess.com server.

A short biography of GM Igor Ivanov, by IM John Donaldson, can be found here.

This week, I'll take a look at a game William Ewart Napier described as the best game of his career - and he lost it! To feel that way about a loss, the game would probably have to be a remarkable battle with a special opponent, and it was.

Emanuel Lasker was one of the all-time greats, holding the World Championship title for 27 years, and even afterwards maintaining a world-class level into his late 60s. Perhaps part of the secret of his mental fecundity was its diversity: not only was he skilled in other games (like bridge), he was also an accomplished mathematician who dabbled in philosophy and even wrote a play.

But back to chess. In this game, from the 1904 tournament in Cambridge Springs, Lasker met Napier's Dragon Sicilian with an aggressive attacking plan involving the advance of his kingside pawns. We're used to this nowadays, of course, in the context of the Yugoslav Attack, where White castles queenside and the players attack on opposite wings. In this game, however, Lasker's king remained uncastled, and Napier initiated the melee by blowing open the center.

It is a tactical feast indeed, and although it is a well-known game discussed by generations of commentators, secrets remain. So join me this Monday night at 9 p.m. as we delve, and take the results as the basis for further sleuthing on your own part - what better way to combine enjoyment with the possibility of improvement?

As always, directions for watching the show can be found here, and a list of past show's games is available here.

As some of you already know, GM Igor Ivanov died this past Thursday (November 17) of esophageal cancer. He was a very strong player in his heyday, whose chess resume includes a victory over then-world champion Anatoly Karpov in 1979, and nearly qualifying for the candidates' matches in 1982. A mainstay of the American chess scene (even during those periods when he officially lived in Canada), he was a nine-time winner of the USCF Grand Prix.

He will be missed.

Current record: 8-2
Eight down, one to go.

Next victim: Stanford

In this press release on the aftermath of the failed reunification offer by UEP, Carsten Hensel (Vladimir Kramnik's manager) responds to the claims made by FIDE Deputy President Makropoulos and especially the Topalov/Danailov team. The paragraph most relevant to the points we've been discussing on this blog runs as follows:

It is remarkable that Mr Danailov, in his statement of 16.11.2005, declares that he does not recognise any champion other than Mr Topalov. It is possible that the use of the title “GM Kramnik” in the statement of Mr Makropolous indicates a similar view on the part of FIDE. We would like to point out that in Prague FIDE recognised Vladimir Kramnik as the Classical Chess World Champion. This remains the current situation – also from a legal point of view. The same applies to Mr Toplaov [sic], who participated in the Dortmound [sic] Candidates Toournament [sic] in 2002 and signed a contract to play a match against Classical Chess World Champion Kramnik in case of a victory in this tournament. Even in May 2005 Topalov’s manager signed up Vladimir Kramnik as the Classical Chess World Champion to play in the Mtel Masters in Sofia. Immediately after Topalov’s victory in San Luis Mr Danailov, when discussing the prospect of a match, referred to Vladimir Kramnik as the Classical Chess World Champion in an interview (quote: “He is, in spite of everything, the successor of the Classical Chess World Title. Kramnik defeated Kasparov and defended his title in the match against Leko”). Until a few days ago the status of Vladimir Kramnik was never cast into doubt by Mr Danailov, not even in the negotiations with UEP. It is quite unclear to me what reasons have led to this sudden change of opinion.

Typos aside, it's a strong letter (click on the link above to read the whole thing and to investigate its internal links), calling the Topalov/Danailov team on their selective amnesia. Again, I hope this is all just posturing before the parties do the right thing, but one never knows.

Fritz 9 was recently released by ChessBase, supplanting Shredder 9 for the nonce as my primary analysis engine. I've been a big Shredder fan the past couple of years, because it seems to me to have a well-balanced style: it reaches a reasonable search depth quickly enough to find hidden tactics in a timely fashion, but plays responsible positional chess without suffering any tendencies to passivity.

I had kicked around the idea of testing Fritz 9 against Shredder 9, but with the publication of this article on the ChessBase site, I had my chance. Here's what I found.

Position 1:



Timman-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2004, Black to move:

The right move here is 12...Nh5. On my computer, Fritz 9 needed 10-15 seconds to prefer it to the alternatives, but Shredder 9 jumped to it immediately. Round 1: Shredder.

Position 2:



Jaime Sunye Neto-Kasparov, WchT U26 Graz, 1981, Black to move.

The winning move is 42...Bxe3!! The full line runs like this: 42...Bxe3 43.fxe3 Rdxg2 44.Qc3 Rh2 45.Ne2 Kh7 46.Qb4 f5 47.Qf8 Rh1+ 48.Kf2 Nh4 49.Nf4 Rh2+ 50.Kf1 Rxb2 51.Qd8 Nf3-+. Fritz 9 falls in love with 42...Bxe3 after about 8 seconds on my computer, and has works out all the details in well under a minute. Shredder 9, on the other hand, takes two minutes to realize that 42...Bxe3 is winning, and its analysis isn't quite as clean as Fritz's. Round 2 goes to Fritz in a big way.

Position 3:



Hydra-Adams, Man-Machine London (3) 2005, White to move.

Hydra played the powerful 26.Ra6, winning quickly. Fritz 9 gets there, eventually, after having it flip-flop with 26.Qf3 for a minute or so. Further, it takes it two minutes to award White a clear advantage, while Shredder finds it in two seconds, strongly approves of it under 20 seconds and deems it +/- at 30 seconds. Round 3 is Shredder's.

Position 4:



Ivanchuk-Jussupow, Candidates (m) Brussels 9, 1991, Black to move. Fritz 9 jumps on the winning 33...Nf2!! in about 8 seconds, while Shredder 9 only works it all out at a sleepy rate: 1:20! Again, big edge to Fritz.

What conclusions shall we draw from this comparison on my Pentium 4, 3.2 GHz machine? Modest ones, to be sure - we're only using four positions, and they may have been cherry-picked to favor Fritz. Still, the results were clear and dramatic: Shredder 9 found the strong positional moves right away, much more quickly than Fritz 9; with the tactical positions, the situation was reversed and then some.

Implication? Buy both! While you might expect me to say that, given that I do a show on ChessBase, I'm only partially kidding. Different programs have different strengths, and it look like these two nicely complement each other. And although I'm a devoted Shredder fan, my judgment at the moment is that if you can only buy one, it should be Fritz.

See here and here. The first document, from the Topalov team, is simply maddening - especially in its first reason for rejecting Kramnik's match offer:

1. [1] We do not recognise Mr. Kramnik as a champion. [2] The World Champion’s title belongs by law to FIDE and, after his refusal to participate in the official World Championship in San Luis, Mr. Kramnik automatically lost his right to be designated the World Champion. [3] However, by the looks of it, he has decided to seize the title for the rest of his life. [4] Let us remember that he’s only 7th in the World Ranking list, scoring quite mediocre results recently. [5] At the same time, in addition to being the official World Champion, Veselin Topalov is Number 1 in the World Ranking List of 1 January 2006. [Sentence numbers added.]

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, but let's critique this anyway, just for fun.

Let's start with [2]. Appropriately enough, it is plagued with two serious problems. First, what "law" is this that conferred ownership of the World Championship title on FIDE? Did FIDE fail to sue the PCA in 1993 and 1995, BrainGames in 2000 and Dannemann in 2004 - all claiming to run world chess championships - solely out of the goodness of their organizational hearts? And what about the Accoona "World Championship" in New York earlier this year?

Worse still, [2] is at least implicitly self-contradictory. The suggestion at least seems to be that Kramnik had the right to be called "World Champion" prior to San Luis, even though Kramnik's title had nothing at all to do with FIDE. Go figure.

Now let's briefly consider the peerless thinking displayed by [3]. It's strange that Danailov would blame Kramnik for trying to possess the World Championship title for the rest of his life. For one thing, Kramnik doesn't have a title - doesn't Danailov remember his previous sentence? Second, should we infer from this that Topalov's aim is to lose the title as quickly as possible?

Let's be charitable and assume Topalov's manager really means to say that Kramnik is going to try to keep what the latter wrongly thinks is his title, without bothering to defend it, for as long as he possibly can. That's at least coherent, but is it plausible? Hardly. It was just one year ago that Kramnik defended his title, and it has been Kramnik, not Topalov, who has been pursuing the unification match.

Finally, sentence [4] is true but not obviously relevant (and partially addressed by yours truly in an earlier post), while [5] is also irrelevant and - I think - false. My understanding is that Kasparov won't drop off the rating list until he has been inactive for an entire year, and that doesn't occur until March.

I'm sure this is a P.R. attempt to seize the high ground in future negotiations for the title, but it would be better, in view, if the participants and organizations stopped trying to emulate pro boxing and wrestling. If I'm Topalov, I want to show the world that I'm the champion, period. It would increase his stature, please the chess world, do wonders for his legacy and raise the prestige of the game by dissolving the factions. And as an added bonus, he gets a nice payday and the chance to cash in by beating up on Kramnik, the merely 7th-ranked player with the mediocre results.

A German group called the Universal Event Promotion (UEP) guaranteed a net of either $1 million or $1.4 million for the two players (combined), but the Topalov/FIDE side rejected it. If the UEP press release is to be believed, Topalov's initial response was favorable, but apparently FIDE disliked certain aspects of the arrangement and Topalov and Danailov (Topalov's manager) wanted more money. (What happened to the "I'm 60 points higher-rated, and thus in a different class" argument? [I'm working extremely hard to avoid a sarcastic answer.])

I have mixed feeling about this news. On the one hand, it's not a good thing that this fell through; on the other hand, that it came reasonably close, despite all the prior rhetorical jabs from both sides, suggests that a deal may yet be possible.

We can hope!

In the previous post, we took a look at Lukov's clever 15.Ke2!, exploiting the suddenly precarious position of Leburgue's queen on h5. Clever, yes; original, no. The idea may have even earlier predecessors, but the one I'm most aware of is Kamsky-Karpov, Dortmund 1993.

Faced with a queen on h4 and a generally dangerous array of White pieces, Karpov produced a stunning novelty in the 4...Nd7 Caro-Kann: 11...Ke7. Just as in Lukov-Leburge, the enemy queen's position is suddenly precarious, thanks to the threat of pushing the g-pawn.

Kamsky's position after 11...Ke7 remained good, and although he eventually lost, he responded in the best way and maintained some advantage. Still, Karpov's ingenious idea expanded Black's horizons in the Caro-Kann, and introduced (or at least popularized, if he too had predecessors) a defensive/counter-attacking idea we can transport outside the confines of that particular opening.

It was a very light game, to be sure, but Lukov-Leburgue from the 20th Grand Prix du Touquet caught my eye. It's not every day one sees Black bring his king to e7 while still in the opening, especially in a reasonably open position with queens on the board. By itself, that would have been encouraged a raised eyebrow but probably nothing further, but then came White's winning reply: Ke2!

That wasn't enough to make the game a masterpiece, but it did tickle my funny bone and made the game blogworthy. Have a look, be amused, and learn a lesson: Qd8-a5-h5 doesn't guarantee any attacking chances against the White king; rather, the White king might help in the attack against the Black queen!

Nowadays, there's a tendency to think that any chess player over 30 is about to start his downhill slide, if he's not already skiing down the slope to senility. So if you match up a 67-year-old on the one hand and a 19-year-old genius on the other, the result will be perfectly clear: a rout.

And so it was in the game we'll cover this week, but it was the wizened elder administering the punishment, just as he had to several previous generations of whippersnappers. Vassily Ivanchuk was a great talent who has become one of the world's strongest and most creative players, but his opponent, Vasily Smyslov, was no less strong or creative in his own day. Further - and in this respect only Korchnoi and Lasker can compare - Smyslov's prime and near-prime extended for an absolutely insane 40-50 year period! Smyslov was among the world's very best players from the early 1940s, became World Champion in 1957, and remained among the elite through at least the mid 1980s, even making it to the finals of the Candidates' cycle in 1984 before losing to Kasparov.

In this week's game, Smyslov demonstrates the harmoniousness his play is known for. Early in the middlegame, Ivanchuk thinks he has reached a safe, solid position where his queenside play and the opposite-colored bishops will allow him to draw without difficulty, but he is mistaken. Brick by brick, Smyslov builds his position, keeping his opponent from penetrating while slowly improving his own attacking prospects, until a powerful exchange sacrifice allows him to reach a winning endgame.

It's a masterpiece by the former Champion, and, as with almost all his best games, extremely instructive. I hope, therefore, that the combination of aesthetic and educational benefits will encourage you to join me this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET - I think you'll be glad you did!

As always, directions for watching live and archived shows can be found here, while a list of games covered in previous shows (and thus available in the archives) can be found here.

It's old news now, to use a common oxymoron, but still perhaps worth a mention: the World Team Championship concluded several days ago with a remarkable come-from-behind victory by the Russian team. With two rounds remaining, both the Russian and the Chinese men's teams had won all their matches in this round robin event, but the Chinese had outscored the Russians by a full four points.

The penultimate round brought the Russian some relief when the Chinese men lost to the Armenian team by a 2.5-1.5 margin, but the Russians only defeated the tournament tail-enders, the Chinese women's team, by a 3-1 margin. That left the Chinese men with a seemingly unsurmountable 2.5 point lead going into their final round match with the Russians. Needless to say, it was surmounted, as the Russians pulled it all together and won the final match by a 3.5-.5 score. The last round collapse must have been a huge disappointment for the Chinese team (take a look at the pictorial report on ChessBase for evidence of this), but overall it was a tremendous result for their team. While Chinese women have been making their mark on the international chess scene for 15 years or so, the progress of Chinese men has been slower; if this event is any indication, however, that's about to change.

As for the premiere ongoing event, the World Junior Championships, it's still early. Even so, it's worth reporting that after four rounds (of thirteen, I think) that rating favorite and 2003 champ Shakhriyar Mamedyarov of Azerbaijan is in clear first with 4/4, while in the girls' event, WGM Gu Xiaobing of China is the sole leader, likewise with 4/4. (More updates as the event unfolds.)

Current record: 7-2
Seven down, two to go.

Next victim: Syracuse

First we had this post, which spawned follow-ups one and two. In this post, we'll follow up on a king-and-pawn endgame challenge from the first sequel.

Here's our starting position:



In the variation that could have arisen in the game, it would be Black's move here and he'd win with the simple 1...b4. The challenge, however, is to assume it's White's move here, and to figure out what the result ought to be. It's a moderately challenging position, and while I'm not 100% sure I've got it right, I think I have. For better or worse, here it is.

I was really tired, but I stayed up all night reading a book on the importance of getting a good night's sleep.

In a previous life, I believed in reincarnation, but I don't any more.

I just read a review of a book on panpsychism. I found the idea interesting, but my desk persuaded me that it's false.

I expect the following is 99.9% likely to be complete garbage, but unless the article is a Bulgarian or Hungarian version of an April Fools' joke, it's going to be a big story one way or another. Here's Chess Today's own summary of the account in CT-1831:

Topalov Accused of Cheating by GM Alex Baburin [DM: That's the title of Baburin's CT article; he isn't the accuser!]

A Bulgarian website reported that "an unnamed participant in the World Chess Championship in San Luis" accused Veselin Topalov of using outside help to win the title. According to this report, Hungarian website www.index.hu published an article, in which an anonymous accuser claimed that "after each move of Topalov, Cheparinov used computer analysis of the game and then secretly signalled the chess king for the next move." These are very serious allegations and I am sure we will hear more of this story in the next few days. The accuser (if he/she exists!) will not remain anonymous for long. And then he or she is better to have hard evidence...

Then, this afterword by GM Mikhail Golubev:

Addendum by Mikhail Golubev: Possibly, the source publication in Hungarian (to which refers the Bulgarian Novinite site) can be found via the web page: http://index.hu/sport/2005/sakkvb - maybe our Hungarian-speaking readers can help us to find the original story? [DM: It seems to be this one: http://index.hu/sport/2005/sakkvb/topalov1108/]

So, how was this supposed to work? I guess Cheparinov sits in the audience getting moves through an earpiece, and then he relays them by rubbing or scratching his face, yawning or whatever. I have at least four questions about this fairy tale.

First, are we supposed to believe that no one noticed either Cheparinov's earpiece or his constant gesticulations? You'd think at least someone would have offered to give him a flea bath.

(Relatedly, didn't anyone wonder about Topalov's constant glances at his second?)

Second, the "every move" claim is especially preposterous. I recall hearing Anand say (in a ChessBase Magazine video interview) that if a strong player had access to a computer's findings just once or twice in a game (at the right moments), he or she would have an advantage even against a strong GM! Given Topalov's own tremendous abilities, the "every move" practice would probably let him win every game. Which leads to the next point...

Third, Topalov missed wins, including several in his round 2 game against Anand. As this game was critical, involving his main rival, and as the wins were completely transparent for the computer, the cheating claim is more or less unbelievable.

Fourth, why is this only coming out now? If I were a participant in the world championship and thought the leader was cheating, I'd have raised a stink on the spot, rather than leaking a story a month later.

In conclusion, I'd take this "news" report with not only a grain of salt, but with more of that substance than you'll find on fast food french fries. If anything comes of it, however, I'll keep my readers posted.

Not that she's guest blogging here, of course; the lesson is from her games. In the video section of ChessBase Magazine 107, an Indian TV program was shown (in English) recapitulating rounds 9 and 10 from the Wijk aan Zee tournament at the start of the year. (Usually the CBM videos have more recent material produced by the ChessBase staff, but this was an interesting change of pace.)

At the start of round 10 (of 13), Topalov was in great shape, leading the tournament by half a point and facing Judit Polgar (-1 up to that point) with the White pieces. Unfortunately (for him), he blundered in a good position, losing the game and ultimately finishing in third place. What Topalov missed, presumably, was that there were positions where his rooks - both unprotected - could be simultaneously attacked by the Black queen. (So another moral of the story is a reminder of Nunn's LPDO - Loose Pieces Drop Off.)

I guess that game didn't really make much of an impact on me back in January, but when I saw the recap on CBM, I immediately thought of an earlier Polgar game, her deciding loss in a 2002 rapid match with Polish GM Bartlomiej Macieja. Have a look for yourselves here, and remember that although losses and blunders are painful, they can and ought to be learned from. It would be interesting to know if Polgar herself thinks her earlier loss might have helped her set up the winning trap against Topalov - I suspect it may have.

We started with this position



and asked if White had anything special here. The goal was to test the reader, to see if he would find not only the continuation 1.Bxh6 Nxh6 2.Rxf7 Nxg4 3.Rxf8+ Kxf8 4.hxg4, when White has regained the pawn, but to keep looking and see that 4...b4 lets Black promote a queenside pawn. (Though I've left it as a second challenge to my readers to determine what the result should be, with best play, if we examine the position after 4.hxg4 and let it be White to move.)

White's best move from the starting position is probably 1.Bc1, threatening 2.Ba3, when Black's best is 1...Qe6. Enter astute reader Paolo Ragni, who very cleverly asks why not now 2.Bxh6?



The Black knight and g-pawn are both pinned, while 2...Qxh6 allows 3.Rxf5 and all is well, right? Not quite: Black can start checking, and with devastating result - 3...Qc1+ 4.Kg2 Qc2+ and Black wins the rook for free.

The moral of the story, ironically, is the same one applying to the 1.Bxh6 variation: when making a combination, it's not enough to calculate "your" portion of the combo; it's also necessary to see what's going on at the end of it. Your calculation might be perfect as far as it goes, but that won't do you much good if your assessment of the final position is dead wrong. Conversely, however, if you're the sort of player who is in the habit of calculating not just to the end of a combination but beyond as well, you will become a more dangerous opponent, able to win games by "falling for" your opponents' pseudo-traps.

In a recent post, I linked to a ChessBase article offering a solution to the draw problem. I found myself largely in agreement, disagreeing on just two small matters: the problem and the solution.

ChessBase has now published a far more sensible follow-up article by John Nunn, with which I'm in pretty much complete agreement. He argues that there really isn't a draw problem, but just a short-draw problem, and that's really a relevant problem only (or at least primarily) with super-GM events. And the solution is just as simple: organizers should simply threaten not to have the most egregious offenders back.

If that's too sensible for you, however, fear not. There's more to the latest ChessBase article than Nunn's contribution - a large number of reader emails responding to the original article offer a wide spectrum of alternative approaches. Unfortunately, none of the proposed solutions involves duels for the mutually draw-averse; a pity, as it would help secure the integrity of the game while also providing some much-needed media attention.

Bulgaria's quest to monopolize all the world championship titles continues with the commencement of the world under-20 championship event, but on this occasion, they are distinct underdogs. In the men's/open division, the top seed is GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov of Azerbaijan (2674), while the highest-rated Bulgarian representative - Andrey Zhigalko - is the 14th seed and "only" enjoys a rating of 2537. Ho hum.

The event doesn't include all the world's strongest juniors (Radjabov, Nakamura, Karjakin and Carlsen are missing, just to single out the most prominent figures), but it's still very strong - there are 14 GMs and 20 players with ratings over 2500.

As for the USA, who is our representative, since Nakamura isn't playing? Answer: no one. Can any USCF observers tell me why?

If you're interested in that sort of thing, then check out Lawrence Totaro's website; if you're not sure if you are, give it a browse - you might be surprised.

This is not a post.

In the previous post, I offered the following position and asked if Kasimjanov, with White and the move, had any worthwhile tactical shots here.



The answer...is no, but not for want of a superficially seductive possibility.

One might notice 1.Bxh6, trying to exploit the fact that both defenders of the pawn are pinned. However, while the g-pawn is in an absolute pin, the Nf5 is not in the same situation, and thus 1...Nxh6 is possible and, thanks to the counterattack on the White queen, desirable as well. The fun isn't over yet, however: 2.Rxf7 Nxg4 and now there's a zwischenzug: 3.Rxf8+ Kxf8 4.hxg4.



White has regained the pawn and, with the move, can prevent immediate disaster with 5.Kf2. Unfortunately, it's Black to move here, and he wins with 4...b4, forcing promotion (5.Kf2 b3). [Kudos to Jon Jacobs for submitting the correct solution.]

So 1.Bxh6 doesn't work. White's best move, from the original diagram, is probably the subtle retreating move 1.Bc1 (with the idea of 2.Ba3), when 1...Qe6 (2.Ba3 Rf7) leaves Black a slight edge.

In the game, Kasimjanov chose neither 1.Bxh6 nor 1.Bc1, but blundered with 1.Kh2??, when 1...Ne3 won the exchange and the game shortly thereafter. (The remainder went 2.Bxe3 Qxf1 3.e6 Qf6 4.h4 Re8 5.d5 Qe5+ 6.Bf4 Qxd5 7.Bxh6 and White either resigned or lost on time.)

But let's return to the position of the second diagram:



Let's suppose this time that it's White to move. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to determine the correct result in this situation.

[A reminder: please do NOT submit your suggestions in the comments section, as it is likely to undermine others' efforts to solve it for themselves. If you wish to (dis)confirm your solutions, email them to me using the Contact link.]

In another event that went unnoticed by my usual sources (but caught by Chess Today), former FIDE World Champion Rustam Kasimjanov played a 10 game blitz match with young Azerbaijani GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, losing by the narrowest of margins. Chess Today (CT-1826) presented 8 of the games, and while there weren't any whiz-bangers in there, my Evelyn Wood-style "examination" of the games did locate one quiz-worthy position:



White is down a pawn, but his pieces are active and Black is pinned down. It's White (Kasimjanov) to move: can he exploit this? [For this one, you should not only not use your chess engines, but shouldn't move any pieces around, either.]

I fear that last week's show might have given my viewers the wrong impression. Contrary to what you might think, it is not necessary to be a grandmaster or even a world champion in order to blunder - even mere masters are capable of the most horrific mistakes, and this week, I'll prove it.

Even though I've never played in a world championship match or a candidates cycle; never played in Wijk aan Zee, Linares or Dortmund; in fact, despite the absence of so much as a single GM norm, I have demonstrated a persistent ability to produce moves even Kasparov would be ashamed to call his very own. Normally, lest my pride get the best of me, I keep these gems under lock and key, far away from the eyes of the chess world at large. I have decided, however, to make an exception just this once, in order to defend my credentials as a presenter. (Not that anyone was challenging them, but one can't be too careful.) As a result, if anyone asks you why you're bothering to watch my show each week, you can point to my games, and in so doing help them make their case.

Accordingly, skeptics and those delighting in others' misery are enjoined to show up this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET. Entertainment is likely and instructional value, unappealing though it may be, is bound to emerge as well. Those eager to delight in my shame, but not sure how to watch the carnage, are invited to read this post (c'mon, watching is free - and what better occasion to try it out?), while those of you who want to know what I present when I'm not demonstrating my own gaffes are invited to have a look here.

The English homepage of the Russian e3e5.com chess site is updated somewhat sporadically, but when it is one can find a nice blend of materials: short interviews, topical articles, and annotated games.

There's plenty that's new since I last referred my readers to the site, but I wanted to call special attention to GM Riazantsev's annotations to the game Berg-Bareev, Gothenburg (European Team Championships), 2005. (Unfortunately, while there are a plenty of diagrams, there's neither a .pgn download nor a replayable board to help the reader through the morass of detail.) It's a wonderfully complicated game, and it looks like Riazantsev has done a thorough job and uncovered some beautiful ideas.

My favorite, at least at first glance, comes in the following (analysis) position:



It's Black's move, but White's attack looks extremely dangerous. In fact, it wins after every move but one: the spectacular 22...Qh2!! allows Black to remain afloat.

There's lots more there where that came from, so have a look and enjoy the feast. And if you're ambitious, first construct your own analysis of the game, using nothing more than the raw game score, and only then compare your analysis to the GM's.

A couple of weeks ago, I presented a couple of knight vs. bishop endings in which the side with the knight held the draw, even down a couple of pawns, by constructing an unbreakable blockade. (See 1, 2, and 3.) To atone for this among fans of the bishop, I subsequently offered this position:



How did Lazaro Bruzon finish off Lenier Dominguez in their game from the 2005 Cuban Championship? Click here for the answer.

Current record: 6-2
Six down, three to go.

Next victim: Navy

Though featuring such stars as Viswanathan Anand, Michael Adams, Etienne Bacrot, Judit Polgar, Viorel Bologan and Arkadij Naiditsch, the just-completed Corsica Masters rapid tourney hasn't received much press. (Probably because of the World Team Championships, dominated thus far by the Chinese men.)

The winner, of course, was...Vadim Milov?! Though he's a strong GM (2652), his victory was obviously something of an upset. Still, it's hard to cavil when he defeated Naiditsch in the 1/8 finals, Polgar in the quarters, Hungarian GM Zoltan Almasi in the semis, and none other than Anand, with a 3-1 score, in the finals. (There might well be some event I'm forgetting, but as far as I recall, this is the first rapid event Anand failed to win since the Frankurt Giants in 1999.)

The games are available on the French Chess Federation website - click here.

I've been offering a lot of endgame puzzles of late, so yesterday, in acknowledgement of the tactical realm, I presented the following position from the game Charbonneau-Friedel (US Chess League 2005) for the readers' solving pleasure:



White is clearly better, but it's hard to see, at least at first glance, how White can achieve anything dramatic. His queen, bishop, and the rook on c5 are all cooped up, while Black's king looks safe for the moment and his pieces are all protecting each other.

Still, Black has a problem. It's true that his king has some cover, in the form of the rook on f8 and the f-, g- and h-pawns, the dark squares around his majesty are terribly weak, so White immediately tries to exploit this:

1.e6!

This move unleashes the powerhouse on d4, and forces Black to play accurately to avoid a quick loss. Best now was 1...Qe4, when although 2.exf7+ Rxf7 3.Rxb5 cxb5 4.Qxb5 or 3.Rc1 leave White with a clear edge, Black can continue meaningful resistance.

1...fxe6?

Now White wins by force quite elegantly:

2.Rxb5! cxb5 3.Qe7 Rf7 4.Qe8+ Rf8 5.Qxe6+ Rf7 6.Qe5!



Sometimes queen + bishop attacks have a ring-around-the-rosies feeling to them: the attack goes on forever, but without the assistance of a third unit, there's no way to push the opponent over the edge. Not so in this case: the threat of 7.Qh8# costs Black the Rf8.

6...Kf8 7.Bc5+ Kg8 8.Qe8+ Kg7 9.Bd4+



1-0

In this post I presented the problem, and in a second post I linked to a (very big) hint to help the reader solve it. If any mystery remains, post-hint, it will now dissipate into a cloudless sky of complete understanding - or so I hope. Enlightenment is available here.

[Kudos to Chris Falter, who submitted a perfect, complete solution.]

(With completely insincere apologies for the puns.)

Many of us are familiar with Nigel Short's famous king walk against Jan Timman from Tilburg 1991 (if you're not, you'll have the opportunity to rectify the situation in a moment). The king's journey from its side of the board to the opponent's looked startling, but in fact contributed to a lethal mating attack in what became one of the most famous games of the late 20th century.

Though brilliant and unusual, Short's king walk was not unique - even in his own play. (Again, stay tuned!) Short-Timman has its predecessors, but in this post we'll look at a recent successor. In the ongoing World Team Championships (dominated thus far, surprisingly, by the Chinese men), Bu Xiangzhi converted a genuine but non-decisive advantage into a won game by taking the king on a trans-board jaunt.

A recurring theme in these king-trek attacks appears to be the element of surprise. Both because of the king's slow movement and the degree of risk generally entailed by such a maneuver, it's easy for the eventual victim to miss what's happening until it's too late - as you can see for yourselves.

In response to my post, A Halloween-Style Lesson in Technique from a GM, prime# directed my attention to the game Keres-Goldenov from the 1952 USSR Championship. In that game, the Estonian legend simplified his technical task by returning his extra exchange to reach a routinely winning pawn ending - the same general idea I presented in my post.

Prime#'s email brought to mind a second example, the game Lombardy-Fischer from the 1960 US Championship (game 25 in Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games). There too, the timely return of an extra exchange (ironically, here, as in the Keres game and the one I posted (at least in my analysis), all three rooks come off as a result of the liquidation) led to a straightforward win in the ensuing pawn ending.

As "they" say, repetition is the mother of learning, so have a look-see, and click here for the Keres and Fischer games.

Another quote from Jonathan Rowson's Chess for Zebras (p. 105), this time from Rowson himself:

I have the impression that I win most of my games against IMs primarily because they don't make use of resources that involve the sacrifice of material. It is not so hard to see immediate possibilities based on giving up material, but it is extremely difficult for most players, for example, not to think of the loss of the exchange as decisive. In my experience, most GMs now think of exchange sacrifices as mainstream - no more exciting than exchanging bishop for knight, but this hasn't yet trickled down into other levels of the game.

DM: Rowson doesn't mean that bishops, all things being equal, are as good as rooks. Rather, what he means is that exchange sacs aren't really that special - it doesn't have to be ...Rxc3 in the Sicilian or in return for what any experienced player would instantly recognize as good compensation.

As an illustration, Rowson cites the game Aronian-Rowson, French League 2005, which you can replay here. The game was drawn, but Aronian, despite sacrificing the exchange for no pawns or clear threats, was better and completely at ease about the sac.

"Nothing happens, but you lose."

(Icelandic GM Johann Hjartarson on Anatoly Karpov, cited in Jonathan Rowson's Chess for Zebras (Gambit 2005), p. 141. To adapt one of Tal's jokes, Hjartarson had an even score against Karpov: 7 losses and 7 draws.)

In a US Chess League game between IMs Pascal Charbonneau and Josh Friedel, the players reached this position after Black's 31st move (31...Ra8-a2):



White stands better, but his pieces don't seem to attained their full harmony, and meanwhile Black threatens ...Ra2-f2-f1-h1. That takes several moves, though, but what can White do in the meantime? The answer will come in a day or two.

Short draws are occasionally a problem in professional chess, and sometimes this leads chess fans to overreact against draws per se. There isn't anything wrong with a hard-fought draw; indeed, some of the most beautiful games in chess history were draws.

Nevertheless, those driven to despair by a greatly exaggerated problem and those who think even the most worthless decisive game is somehow more valuable than the best-played draw periodically offer "solutions" to the (alleged) problem. The latest proposal can be found here, but rather than discuss their suggestion, I'll offer one of my own. I propose that those players who abhor draws and think only decisive games and Najdorfs are exciting should resolve their draws with duels.

It has nothing to do with chess, but this is one of the coolest programs I've ever come across. Have a look. (I've also added it to my sidebar, for future reference.)

Good news, chess fans: my last six ChessBase shows are now both archived and available for your replaying pleasure. Thus, if you missed any of these shows

Morozevich-Svidler
Khalifman-Polgar
Short-Kasparov
Shirov-Gelfand
Gelfand-Dreev
Halloween 2005

and wanted to see them in the archives, now you can.

As always, directions for watching archived shows (as well as live ones) can be found here.

Enjoy!

Watching online blitz the other day, I tuned in to a game that had just reached the following position.



White's a GM, Black's an IM, and both players still have 1:30 left in this 3-minute game. Black's only alternative to resignation is to make something happen with his passers, and that's unlikely to happen without the king's help. Black's king was cut off by White's Rc6, so Black played 35...Re8-e6.

Now what? In the game, White played very confusedly:

36.Rc4 Nd6 37.Rc7+ Kf6 38.a4 f4 39.Rc3 e4 40.b5 Nf5 41.Rc6 e3 42.Rxe6+ Kxe6 43.b6 Kd6 44.a5 Kc6 45.Rh2 f3 46.Kc1 f2 0-1

Very strange, and White still had 57 seconds left, too, in the final position.

Before noting what White should have played in the diagrammed position (which many of you have already figured out in any case), let me offer my view about the number one thing a player should do when one has a winning material advantage: stop the opponent's chances for counterplay. Often that means trading pieces, but there are other common techniques: protecting (significant) weaknesses, fixing the opponent's pawn majority, protecting possible points of penetration, and so on.

Think about it this way: one can only get a single point from a win, so overkill isn't useful. The main thing is to bring home the full point, not to bathe oneself in glory, win with five extra queens - or five extra knights, for that matter. (Not that such stunts aren't entertaining, but right now we're focusing on winning).

Back to the diagram. The simple solution is to liquidate: 36.Rxe6 Kxe6 (36...Nc3+ 37.Kb2 Nxe2 38.Rxe5 is just as bad) and now 37.Rxe4! is self-evidently decisive: 37...fxe4 38.Kc1 (not necessary, but remember: simplest is best) 38...Kd5 39.Kd2 Kc4 40.c3 and it's over: White marches his king up the e-file and collects Black's goodies, while Black cannot (safely) reciprocate, as ...Kxc3 allows b5-6-7-8-touchdown.

It's surprising that White didn't choose this very simple procedure, but let the GM's loss be our gain: we'll never get this exact position, but opportunities to win by liquidating, even at the cost of some of our material advantage, will come to us as long as we're playing the game. Or, to cite the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - it's as true in chess as in life.