The Chess Mind

Nowadays practically every chess fan knows about Alexei Shirov, and rightly so. Not only has Shirov been near the top of world chess for over a decade, but his brilliance in wildly complicated positions has made him a big fan favorite.

In many ways, however, John Nunn offered the chess world something similar. (Past tense: according to his latest memoir, Grandmaster Chess Move by Move, his days as a professional player are over.) Though never quite reaching Shirov's heights in the world's pecking order, Nunn has been an elite grandmaster for over two decades and a truly feared attacking player.

Put the two together and the fireworks fly - and in our game for this week, it's Shirov who gets burned. In their game from the 1995 Donner Memorial in Amsterdam, Shirov meets Nunn's beloved King's Indian with the Classical Variation with 9.Ne1. The traditional White-on-the-queenside vs. Black-on-the-kingside race ensues, and on this occasion Black was faster. Shirov attempts to stall the attack by giving up a knight for three pawns, but it doesn't work. The exchange altered the complexion of the game, but left White with holes a-plenty, leading to a decisive second wave of the attack. With his king on e6, about to be mated, Shirov resigned.

It's an impressive win for Nunn, but hardly out of the ordinary, as the reader can easily verify by looking through collections of his games. I hope this week's show will my encourage my viewers to further investigate his career - one could do far worse in seeking a model attacking player.

As always, directions for watching live shows (free every Monday at 9 pm ET on the playchess.com server) or those in the archives can be found here, while a list of games covered in the nearly two years I've been doing the show can be found here.

May we all flourish this year, first and foremost in the things that matter, and secondarily in the trivial but beautiful things like chess. And here's hoping we're all faithful to our (good) resolutions for the New Year, and return to them even if we slip. Resilience with respect to one's resolutions is itself a worthwhile resolution - or at least seems to be. (There appear to be some paradoxical implications of this resolution when applied to itself; consider working them out as this blog's first puzzle of the new year.)

With no offense intended to those who don't celebrate the holiday, I would like to wish my readers a happy and meaningful Christmas, remembering the Gift given to us more than two millenia ago.

On a far more trivial level, this will most likely be my last post of the year, and I'll resume in a week or so with my ad for the subsequent week's ChessBase show. Enjoy the holidays, and if you need your fix of The Chess Mind, you've got ten months of archives (including my previous blog) to tide you over.

God bless-

Every year, ChessBase offers a series of puzzles around Christmas time. Some are amusing, some are mindbusters, and all are interesting. Better still, there are prizes to be won for solving them!

You can find the first puzzle here (they'll introduce a new one every day from Christmas through January 1 (inclusive)), while the index page for all this year's puzzles is here.

Happy solving!

To refresh your memory, I presented the following positions; in each case, it's White to move:







And now, the solutions:

Position 1: 1.c3! - the threat of Bxg5 followed by Qa2+ was fatal in O. Hansen-Beliavsky, Plovdiv 1983, which continued 1...Bxg6 2.Bxg5 hxg5 3.Bxg6 Qf6 4.Rb1! with an irresistible attack that concluded the game in six more moves.

Position 2: 1.g5! fxg5 2.c4! - the threat of Qc3+ (or more generally, a threat of a queen check on the a1-h8 diagonal, e.g. after 2...b4 3.Bd3 and 4.Qb2+) wins the game. (1-0, G. Kuzmin-Averbakh, Moscow 1974)

Position 3: 1.Ne6+ Kg8 2.Qd1! - Black's bishop is in big trouble due to the threat of Qb3, and after 2...Ng6 (2...Nc8 3.Nd8 Qc4 [else the White queen checks on the a2-g8 diagonal] 4.Qd7 wins) 3.Nd8 forced resignation in Kinderman-Tatai, Budapest 1987.

How did you fare? More importantly, did you do better each time? All three puzzles are alike in several important respects: in each case, White has an imposing-looking buildup on the kingside, but the secret to breaching Black's defenses is to move the queen seemingly away from the action, to enable her to seize a crucial long diagonal.

This idea is very easy for us to miss - or at least it was for me. (Note: the puzzles in the Gaprindashvili book are not consecutively placed, nor are they sorted by tactical themes.) If we're attacking the enemy king and have several pieces loaded up at his gates, our natural inclination is to find still more pieces for the pile-up, and that inclination will serve us well most of the time. But not always.

Chess is full of exceptions, but sometimes we can find tools for imposing order on even unfamiliar positions. One idea that might work for puzzles like these is to look at things backwards. What I mean is that instead of looking from White's point of view, we might try to see things from the Black king's perspective. Were we to do so, the importance of the key diagonals becomes much more obvious. (Especially in the first position and in the second after 1.g5 fxg5.) Given White's battle array in all three cases, it's hard to change gears and find moves like 1.c3 (first position), 2.c4 (second position) and 2.Qd1 (third position), but when we think based on the enemy king's point of view, our odds of success increase.

Although Aron Nimzowitsch was never the world chess champion, very few players can match his contributions to the game. Not only was Nimzowitsch one of the world's best players in his day, his contributions to opening theory (e.g. the Nimzowitsch Defense [1.e4 Nc6] and especially the Nimzo-Indian [1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4]) and chess theory in general (e.g. his emphasis on prophylaxis and blockade) have ensured his fame for as long as human beings continue to play chess.

This week's show (Monday night at 9 pm ET) will highlight almost all of the above: against Paul Johner, our star plays the Nimzo-Indian, devises a brilliant blockading plan that snuffs out Johner's attacking dreams, and then finally crushes him with a perfectly prepared and efficiently executed attack.

The game is worth seeing on its own merits, but if you face the "Nimzo" or are considering taking it up, this is an especially great show for you to watch! (And it's free.) Curious about how? Simple: click here for directions - and you'll learn how to access past shows as well. (If you're curious about the games I've covered in those past shows, the list is here.)

The players get their one and only day off tomorrow, Christmas day, so it's a good moment to take stock. The standings are:

1. Rublevsky 4.5
2-4. Jakovenko, Svidler, Zvjaginsev 4
5-6. Bareev, Morozevich 3.5
7. Kramnik 3
8-11. Tomashevsky, Motylev, Khalifman, Dreev 2
12. Volkov 1.5

The players have nicely stratified themselves into three groups: those from first through sixth, who are all playing quite well; those from eighth through last, who probably wish they could just leave at this point; and Kramnik, whose inconsistent form has continued. After a first-round loss to Svidler which was more to Svidler's credit than Kramnik's detriment, he managed to win twice in good form. Unfortunately, in round 6 everything fell apart. At first Kramnik had what seemed to be a safe edge against Bareev, but he was slowly outplayed and then even blundered on consecutive moves.

If you're curious about this anti-masterpiece, you can replay it, as well as five other lightly annotated games from this event, here. [Note: you'll need to scroll down to get from one game to another, rather than having access to all the games through a single board.]

From Alexander Baburin, in Chess Today 1871 (12/22/2005):

A few days ago we reported that the case against GM Max Dlugy was likely to collapse in Perm, Russia. Yesterday the Russian newspaper, Kommersant reported that GM Dlugy was released in the courtroom after the prosecution failed to substantiate its claim that he was involved in fraud and embezzlement. The victory came to the defendant at a high price, who spent over two years in a Russian prison.

Very good news for Dlugy, but I think the "over two years" claim is mistaken, as he was playing regularly on the Internet Chess Club until April 10 of this year. Still, eight months in jail is eight months too many for an innocent person, to say nothing of the damage to his income and reputation. Terrible, but at least he's out in time for the holidays.

After 3 of 11 rounds, the tournament is looking like a great one, with lots of lively, fighting games. Among the interesting stories so far are Kramnik's first round loss to Svidler, Zvjaginsev's round 2 win utilizing 2.Na3!? against the Sicilian, and Morozevich's forfeit loss in round three due to oversleeping(!!).

As I said, many of the games so far have been really exciting, but before I try to post any of them, I'd prefer to wait until someone tells me how to publish multiple games using Fritz 9. I'll try to come up with something; in the meantime, here are the standings:

1st-3rd: Svidler, Rublevsky, Zvjaginsev 2.5
4th: Jakovenko 2
5th-6th: Motylev, Kramnik 1.5
7th-11th: Morozevich, Bareev, Dreev, Tomashevsky, Khalifman 1
12th: Volkov .5

Problem #1:



Problem #2:



Problem #3:



White to move in all three cases; solutions and discussion in a few days. (Reminder: please do not post solutions in comments.)

Chess Today typically offers a little tactical problem in each issue (sometimes more), and in a recent issue they offered up this position, from the game N. Firman-AA Ivanov, Femida Kharkiv (UKR), 2005:



It's White to move (and win), but as White has a significant margin of error here (Fritz finds eight moves (at depth 13) that maintain Firman's decisive advantage), it's less than ideal as a puzzle. Still, one of the solutions is clearly best, and you're welcome to try to find it before clicking below for the solution.

What caught my eye wasn't so much the game itself, as that the solution reminded me of one of the greatest combinations that never happened, from the game Anand-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2004.



Black played 27...Kf7 and eventually lost, but when I analyzed the game afterwards, I found 27...Qf4! followed by the incredible continuation you'll see in the link below. (Try to work it out for yourself first; the aesthetic reward will be greater.) On that occasion, the analysis was a little bit of me and a lot of the computer; as it transpired, however, Anand actually saw the entire line over the board! Trust me: you'll be amazed, and if you're not, you're either rated 3000, aren't a chess player, or need to check your pulse.)

Once you're ready, engage your mouse in the appropriate way, here. [Note: I had to merge the games, as I couldn't find any moderately obvious way to publish multiple games using Fritz 9 (as opposed to ChessBase). If any of my readers knows how to do that, please fill me in!]

See here. Nothing too new, really, but it's still nice to see chess discussed in the mainstream media - especially when it's not a scandal! (Minor gripe: Topalov, who is the star of the article, isn't pictured, while Kasparov is.)

[Hat tip: Brian Karen]

That's a rather inflated title, you might think, but then again, wait and see the list of participants! The event starts today (12/19) and goes through the 30th with just a single rest day. It's a 12-player round robin event, and here are your first round pairings:

Jakovenko, Dmitry - Zvjaginsev, Vadim
Khalifman, Alexander - Volkov, Sergey
Motylev, Alexander - Dreev, Alexey
Rublevsky, Sergei - Bareev, Evgeny
Svidler, Peter - Kramnik, Vladimir
Tomashevsky, Evgeny - Morozevich, Alexander
[Click here for the official website.]

Quite an impressive list, and it could have been even stronger if Alexander Grischuk hadn't dropped out due to his disagreement over the prize structure. Still, his replacement (Zvjaginsev) is no slouch, and I'm looking forward to what I expect will be a great event.

Of course, the biggest story will be Kramnik's result, whatever it turns out to be. My hope is that he performs extremely well here and at Wijk aan Zee in January, making it harder for Topalov to duck him. On the other hand, if Kramnik's results continue as they have been, his classical world title will slide dangerously into irrelevance. That's a discussion for two months from now; today, he has to worry about holding the Black pieces against San Luis co-runner-up Peter Svidler. I predict a quick draw, as they are good friends, but I think the chess world wants to see the artist paint more than a few brush strokes today...

In my last post on this tournament, I noted that Rublevsky and Malakhov won in "ordinary time", leaving the other six matches headed for tiebreaks. Those results, along with those of the already-finished matches, were as follows:

1st/2nd: Aronian defeated Ponomariov, 3-1
3rd/4th: Bacrot defeated Grischuk, 2.5-1.5
5th/6th: Bareev defeated Gelfand, 3.5-2.5
7th/8th: Rublevsky defeated Gurevich, 1.5-.5
9th/10th: Kamsky defeated Carlsen, 3-1
11th/12th: Malakhov defeated Vallejo Pons, 1.5-.5
13th/14th: Dreev defeated van Wely, 2.5-1.5
15th/16th: Lautier "defeated" Sakaev, 3.5-3.5 (Lautier drew the Armaggedon game with Black.)

Congratulations are in order to the top 10, and perhaps Malakhov too, who is liable to sneak in if any of the other players, whether from here or elsewhere, choose to drop out of the process. Also, special "props" are in order for first prize-winner Levon Aronian. Early in the year he broke the 2700 barrier, but expressed some doubts about his "super-GM" status: he wasn't sure he could maintain that rating against the elite players. Yet in his last three individual events, Aronian has two victories and a close second place to his credit, and the chess world has someone new to really watch out for.

Savielly Tartakower is rightly remembered as the game's greatest aphorist. Among his witticisms are these old favorites:

"The blunders are all there on the board, waiting to be made."
"The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
"A chess game is divided into three stages: the first, when you hope you have the advantage, the second when you believe you have an advantage, and the third...when you know you're going to lose!" [N.B. I'm away from my books, so those quotes are only as accurate as the website from which I drew them.]

But Tartakower was not just an outstanding humorist; he was one of the world's best players for a good chunk of the first half of the 20th century. A real maverick in the opening, Tartakower was willing to essay romantic and especially hypermodern ideas against the strongest of players. (Among his contributions to opening theory are the Orangutan (1.b4) and the extremely important eponymous variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.Nf3 b6.)

Man does not live by opening innovation alone, however, and Tartakower, as befits a world-class player, excelled in all parts of the game. In this week's show, it is his prowess as an attacker that will be on display, as he defeats Hungarian great Geza Maroczy in style in their game from the 1922 Teplitz-Schonau tournament. The game is relatively famous for Tartakower's rook sacrifice, a sac made all the more impressive because the compensation was purely long-term. There was no immediate payoff and no perpetual check in hand, just an enduring but slow-motion attack.

To play in that way requires a great deal of confidence and an excellent feel for assessing compensation, traits Tartakower possessed in spades. We may not have his imagination, but as we can learn from him and this beautiful and instructive game, I hope you will all join me this Monday night at 9 pm ET as we take a closer look.

As always, directions for watching live or archived shows can be found here, while a list of games covered in previous shows is available here.

P.S. This game reminds me a bit of the later games Krogius-Stein, Kiev 1960 and Kharlov-Topalov, Tripoli (W Ch) 2004, and I think studying these three games deeply and serially would benefit the aspiring player.

A tablebase is a database for endings with very few pieces, typically running in conjunction with a chess engine like Fritz, that offers perfect play from the starting position through mate (or to maintain the draw, when applicable). Five-piece tablebases (i.e. both sides' kings + three other units) have been available for something like six or seven years (maybe longer), and some 6-piece tablebases have been available for a while as well.

They can be purchased online at an affordable price (around $50), but for those who wish to sacrifice convenience (and perhaps not only convenience - see below), one can utilize the tablebases for free on this website. (Hat tip: Alex Herrera)

It's much, much better than nothing, but you are losing out on one thing by using the online freebie approach (in addition to convenience): the link between tablebase and pre-tablebase positions. Sometimes the link will be obvious: you can clearly see that such-and-such a 5- or 6-piece ending can be forced, but on other occasions it won't be anywhere near as obvious. That could prove significant for those of you engaged in postal chess (in events where using engines is legal); otherwise, probably not - unless you're a serious endgame aficianado.

Again, from the Introduction to GM Nigel Davies' 2005 Play 1.e4 e5! (Everyman Chess):

The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details; after playing your games it is good to look up the line.

It's good advice, and I've used it myself and with my students for years. Looking at variations, especially sub-sub-sub variations, is unlikely to help until one has that feel Davies mentioned; but once one has it, the details are transmogrified from boring fine print into useful, appreciated information.

I'd perhaps add one more step or, rather,refinement of his approach. For those with databases, I recommend finding "heroes" for particular openings. Once you've picked them, create a mini-database of their games in that opening or variation, and scroll through all of them (or at the very least, a large chunk of them) in a single sitting and at a fairly high speed. (Repeat regularly.) That, in conjunction with (and subsequent to) replaying the games in Davies' or whomever's book, will help create a "proto-feel" going into one's own initial forays. By looking at a slew of games in a given variation rather than just a handful, you can start to see which middlegame factors are relevant and which aren't - and that's not just useful, it's essential to really understanding an opening!

To recap, here's the Davies model, with my modification:

I. Before playing a new opening/variation:

A. Quickly and fairly superficially play through the games in a text devoted to that opening.
B. Form a "heroes" database and rapidly scroll through its games.

II. Playing the new opening/variation (self-explanatory)

III. After playing the new line: now compare your play to the decrees of theory, examining relevant subvariations, etc.

Try it, it works!

That's the advice of GM Nigel Davies, in the introduction to his 2005 book Play 1.e4 e5! (Everyman Chess). Davies notes that for many years he avoided 1...e5, but

[t]he turning point came when the former Soviet Champion Lev Psakhis once explained to me that an extensive grounding in the Ruy Lopez was essential if you want to develop your game. He added that in Russia it was said that the one failing of Lev Polugaevsky was that he never received this education" (page 5).

Well, maybe...I've read that Polugaevsky's failings (we're speaking relatively here - he was a strong GM throughout his career, generally among the elite and possibly a top 3-5 player in the late 70s) were primarily psychological in nature, but it's still an interesting comment - especially coming from a devoted Francophile like Psakhis. The Ruy is a very rich opening, demanding of both sides the ability to maneuver and to attack, and the ability to play all sorts of pawn structures and to handle action in the center and on both flanks. It's a difficult opening to master, but the skill set you can develop makes it worth the time invested. (Assuming, of course, one should invest time in chess!)

I hope my readers will find this food for thought, especially those who are dissatisfied with their current anti-1.e4 repertoires, and also those who are willing to endure a fairly steep learning curve in exchange for long-term improvement.

A few posts ago, I offered this position for your solving pleasure:



It's Black to move, and the readers' task (if they choose to accept it, of course) is to figure out not only what Black should do (not just on this next move, but to provide a variation) but what the proper result should be. When you've got it all worked out, or just want to see the solution, click here.

As usual, most of the matches will be settled in tiebreaks. Many of those matches featured non-games, which, though disappointing for the spectators, is understandable for the players at the end of a long tournament without any (guaranteed) days off.

1st/2nd: Ponomariov and Aronian are tied at 1, but after two real, hard-fought games.

3rd/4th: Grischuk and Bacrot are also tied at 1, but after two non-games.

5th/6th: Ditto Bareev and Gelfand.

7th/8th: Rublevsky defeated Gurevich, winning their first game after his opponent blundered.

9th/10th: Carlsen and Kamsky are tied after a pair of fighting games. Carlsen won the first game with a sustained attack following a speculative knight sacrifice, while Kamsky outplayed his young opponent in the rematch.

11th/12th: There are various scenarios which might allow an extra player from this event into the Candidates' matches, so the battle for the 11th spot could turn out to be extremely important. That spot goes to Malakhov, who defeated Vallejo Pons in their first game with a fine positional effort and then held the draw comfortably in the sequel.

13th/14th: First van Wely and then Dreev won with the White pieces, sending yet another match to overtime.

15th/16th: Finally, Lautier and Sakaev mailed in a pair of short draws, so we'll see them tomorrow as well.

As mentioned a few posts ago, Aronian defeated Bacrot by a 1.5-.5 score, thereby qualifying for the finals of the ongoing World Chess Cup. That's how things go in a knockout event: some win, some lose, but the tragedy of the match was that Bacrot resigned in what looks like an objectively drawn opposite-colored bishop ending. The drawing tendencies of such endings are well known, and even if they don't guarantee a draw, they do give the weaker side a healthy push towards the safe haven.

But it doesn't work if you resign first! Have a look here, mourn for Bacrot, and learn some lessons - about opposite-colored bishops, of course, but also that you shouldn't resign until you're sure your opponent knows how to win in the final position.

Tired of letting life get in the way of your online chess schedule? Does the thought of getting off the couch and moving allll the way over to the computer, turning it on, waiting for it to boot up and only then logging on strike you as exhausting? Fear not: your worries are over!

That's right, folks: now you can log on to the Playchess.com server from the comfort of your cell phone - click here for the details. You can play online, and, best of all, it seems from the screen shot that one might even be able to watch my Monday night shows on their magnificent two-inch telephone screens.

It's quite convenient, I'm sure, but when this trend reaches the point when I'm offered the chance to log on at will, by means of a microchip implanted in my body, I'm opting out.

In the previous post I already noted one bit of good news pertaining to a member of the class of American prodigies past and present: Gata Kamsky's qualification into FIDE's Candidates' matches. To this we can add two further pieces of good news.

First, Maxim Dlugy - Grandmaster, 1985 World Junior Champion, and scourge of my generation in American chess - has survived a scare with the Russian legal system. Here's GM Alexander Baburin's report in Chess Today, issue 1863:

Talking about legal stuff, I should mention that the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that Grandmaster Maxim Dlugy won his game against the prosecutors in his trial in Perm.

Since 2001 Dlugy represented the Russia Growth Fund at the Magnesium plant in Solikamsk, Russia. In June 2003 he became the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the plant. In the fall of 2003 he resigned from that position and was not seen at the plant since. In 2005 he was arrested in Moscow and charged with fraud. The prosecutors claimed that in 2003 Dlugy tried to defraud the plant of $9m and also spent 40,000 rubles (about $1,000) of company's funds.

In court the prosecutors failed, as they could not show a single document related to the alleged fraud, which would link it to Dlugy. They dropped those charges. The remaining charge – embezzlement of 40,000 rubles of company's money – is likely to fail too, as the amount seems to be rather paltry.

Next, 13-year-old Fabiano Caruana has achieved his 3rd and final IM norm in the IM-event in the December "First Saturday" tournament in Hungary. (Hat tip: Jon Jacobs) Two notes: first, the website gives his nationality as Hungarian, but he's in fact an American. Second, having the third norm doesn't automatically give him the title - his FIDE rating must first break the 2400 barrier (he's currently listed as 2373). That's just a matter of time, of course, and it's a safe bet that it won't be very much time, either. So congratulations are in order!

And then there were two...or ten, depending on how you want to look at it.

The finalists are set, as Ponomariov defeated Grischuk 2-0 in the rapid games and will meet Aronian in the finals, starting in a few hours. Meanwhile, in the less prestigious but more significant matches, both "Wonderboy" Magnus Carlsen and former prodigy Gata Kamsky overcame losses in their first rapid games to win in the blitz games, ensuring themselves a spot in the coveted top ten - and thus a spot in the Candidates' matches.

Those are the results that really count; here are the full results:

1st-4th bracket:

Ponomariov defeated Grischuk 3-1
Aronian defeated Bacrot 1.5-.5

5th-8th bracket:

Bareev defeated Rublevsky 2.5-1.5
Gelfand defeated Gurevich 2-0

9th-12th bracket:

Carlsen defeated Malakhov 3.5-2.5
Kamsky defeated Vallejo Pons 3.5-2.5

13th-16th bracket:

van Wely defeated Lautier 3.5-2.5
Dreev defeated Sakaev 1.5-.5

Pairings for the 7th (and last) round:

For 1st/2nd: Ponomariov-Aronian
For 3rd/4th: Grischuk-Bacrot
For 5th/6th: Bareev-Gelfand
For 7th/8th: Rublevsky-Gurevich
For 9th/10th: Carlsen-Kamsky
For 11th/12th: Malakhov-Vallejo Pons
For 13th/14th: van Wely-Dreev
For 15th/16th: Lautier-Sakaev

Comment on Carlsen: This is a very impressive result for Carlsen, whose results had been disappointing from early 2004 through the summer of this year. His results picked up in the fall, however, and now he has done what higher-rated prodigies Radjabov, Nakamura and Karjakin all failed to do: qualify for the Candidates. It's not likely, in my opinion, that he'll break Ponomariov's record for the youngest FIDE champion (18 years old plus change), but at least he has a chance.

Comment on Kamsky: Welcome back!

Getting caught up here...

In my pre-tiebreak report for round 5, I noted that six of the eight matches had already finished. In the top half, Ponomariov, Bacrot and Aronian had advanced, leaving only Grischuk and Gelfand in need of a tiebreaker. Likewise, Carlsen, Kamsky and Malakhov won their matches in regular time, leaving only van Wely and Vallejo Pons in need of extra games.

The results: after two draws in the rapid games, Grischuk won both blitz games, staying alive in the race for first and putting my prognostication record at a healthy 10-2. Meanwhile, Vallejo Pons won 1.5-.5 in the rapid games and thus stayed alive in the hunt for a Candidates' spot.

The pairings for round 6 were therefore as follows:

1st-4th

Ponomariov-Grischuk
Aronian-Bacrot

5th-8th

Bareev-Rublevsky
Gelfand-Gurevich

9th-12th

Carlsen-Malakhov
Vallejo Pons-Kamsky

13th-16th

van Wely-Lautier
Sakaev-Dreev

As things stand with FIDE at the moment, the top 10 players will be seeded into the Candidates' matches. The battle for 13th-16th is thus moot, apart from whatever financial incentives the players have, and likewise, aside from bragging rights, for the 1st-4th and 5th-8th matches. The really desperate, bloodthirsty chess should come in the 9th-12th brackets, as the winners of this round's matches are IN and the losers OUT.

Here are the round results so far, leading into the tiebreaker coming up in a few hours:

Ponomariov-Grischuk 1-1
Aronian defeated Bacrot 1.5-.5

Bareev-Rublevsky 1-1
Gelfand defeated Gurevich 2-0

Carlsen-Malakhov 1-1
Vallejo Pons-Kamsky 1-1

van Wely-Lautier 1-1
Dreev defeated Sakaev 1.5-.5

[Note: All the games of the 1-1 matches were drawn.]

My expectation is for an exciting but sloppy tiebreak round: I think the players' fatigue (the event is well into its third week) will facilitate plenty of blunders.

Black to move: what should he do (a variation, not just a single move) and what ought to happen? The answer will be given in a couple of days. (A note for the new and a reminder for the regulars: for your benefit, don't use a computer as an analytic aid; for the benefit of others, don't post your answer in the comments.)

With the purchase of Fritz 9, one receives not only a very strong chess engine, but some nifty bells and whistles, too. Some are typical of any Fritz-family purchase: a database of about half a million unannotated games, the program's opening book, and whatever new 3D boards they've introduced. (I find the latter feature completely uninteresting, but others enjoy that sort of thing. More power to 'em, I say.)

The new bonus feature on this disk is a multimedia database divided into two sections: one for beginners and one for tournament players. (Note: it doesn't install to your hard drive automatically; you'll have to do that manually, or else run it from the disk.) The beginners' portion is done by IM Andrew Martin and covers not just the rules of the game but explains chess notation, demonstrates some basic mates, etc. All well and good, but those reading this blog are more likely to find interesting are the videos for advanced players.

This section comprises three hours of samplers from other ChessBase disks: the Kasparov DVDs on the Queen's Gambit Declined and the Najdorf, Korchnoi's autobiographical disks, various Aagaard works (on attacking chess and the Nimzo-Indian), Wells on strategy, and some of Martin's disks on openings. For those of you who don't have any of those works, I think you'll enjoy the sampler a great deal.

I have some of the sampled disks, but not all of them, so I was interested to glimpse what I've been missing. My excitement was all the more when I discovered that one of the videos was from IM Martin's video on the Ruy Lopez, covering the Schliemann! This defective variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5) has been part of my repertory, off and on, for more than 20 years, so I was curious to see just how he'd skin that cat.

Ironically, he recommends 4.d3. The move has a modest theoretical reputation, yet I've defended the move as having a good deal more poison than one might think from a cursory look at the usual sources. I think Martin's attempt to find a variation that's simple, safe, and positionally clear aims at the right level for those without the time (or work ethic) to learn the most testing variations. His narrative style is pleasant as well, so it fares well in concept and presentation.

How about the actual execution? Here my report is mixed. While the variations he offers are in the right ballpark, there are some surprising and significant errors as well. Click here for the gory details.

As some of you know, I have left the delightful weather of the midwest in exchange for several weeks on the west coast. As befits a true vacation, my posts on this site will be less regular for a while, but they will continue nonetheless.

So stay tuned!

Under the influence of Jonathan Rowson's new book Chess for Zebras, this week's ChessBase show will feature the truly bizarre game between Luke McShane and Vasilios Kotronias from the 2003 Gibraltar Masters. It probably helps that the game is a Trompowsky, which lends itself to original positions, but McShane goes above and beyond the call to generate something new and peculiar - in a good way!

How peculiar, you ask? On move 20, he has a knight on b5, his king on e2, and his queen, both rooks, a bishop and a knight on their original squares. The center is open, material is equal, Black has four pieces out, and yet, somehow, White is better! Games like this don't make for very good models, but they are great for loosening up our ideas about what we think we know. (And as Rowson points out, such pseudo-knowledge is one of the major impediments to improvement in adults.)

So join me this Monday night at 9 pm ET, watch an amazing game, learn some "Tromp" theory, and loosen up your categories. It'll do you good!

If you haven't seen one of my ChessBase shows before, it's simple and free - just click here for the details. That post also offers directions for watching archived shows, and if you're curious about the contents of those earlier programs, click here.

[Post-script: I originally (mis-)referred to Rowson's latest work as Chess for Tigers, which is instead the title of a well-known book by the late Simon Webb. CFT isn't a bad book, but it is very different from the one Rowson wrote.]

The trend was reversed in this round, with lots of decisive games leading to few tiebreaks. In the top group, all four games were decisive, allowing Ponomariov, Bacrot and Aronian to advance and Grischuk to reach a tiebreak against Gelfand.

In the 9th-16th place group, only one game was decisive, but three of the matches have been completed: Carlsen won his game and the match, and will be joined by Kamsky, Malakhov, and the winner of the van Wely-Vallejo Pons playoff Sunday morning.

Results:

Ponomariov defeated Bareev (1.5-.5)
Bacrot defeated Rublevsky (1.5-.5)
Aronian defeated Gurevich (1.5-.5)
Grischuk-Gelfand: tiebreak

Carlsen defeated Lautier (1.5-.5)
Kamsky defeated Sakaev (1.5-.5)
Malakhov defeated Dreev (1.5-.5)
van Wely-Vallejo Pons: tiebreak

I'm 3-0 so far in the predictions for this round, 9-2 overall. (The rating system works!)

...is to stay alive - or more accurately, to revivify. (This is the organization that sponsored the gigantic HB Global Challenge in Minnesota earlier this year.) See the discussion on Mig's website, here. No doubt there are ways the event could have been a bigger success, but Maurice Ashley is to be commended for trying to achieve something significant for American chess, and the general word was that the HB Global Challenge was a well-run, highly enjoyable event. So hopefully whatever lessons need to be learned have been learned, and the endowment will be replenished.

There were many interesting games in round 4, but offering serious annotations to all of them goes well beyond what I have the time for. I have offered some commentary for six of the games, however, and that should at least serve as a nice snack for the chess-hungry among you. Have a look!

Round 4 is in the books, and while the first two sub-rounds were relatively tame, there were, as the kids like to say, quite a few humdingers in the tiebreak games. I'll present some of those games in a later post, for now, here are the results of round 4, the pairings for round 5, and a look at my predictions for both rounds:

Round 4 Results:

Bareev defeated Carlsen 2.5-1.5
Bacrot defeated Lautier 2.5-1.5
Aronian defeated Vallejo Pons 2.5-1.5
Grischuk defeated Kamsky 1.5-.5
Gelfand defeated Dreev 3.5-2.5
Gurevich defeated Malakhov 2.5-1.5
Rublevsky defeated Sakaev 1.5-.5
Ponomariov defeated van Wely 2-0

I got six right, missing only on the Bacrot-Lautier and Rublevsky-Sakaev matches. Not too bad, but as I largely went with the higher-rated players, not all that impressive, either.

For round 5, we have the following breakdown:

For places 1-8:

Bareev-Ponomariov
Rublevsky-Bacrot
Aronian-Gurevich
Gelfand-Grischuk

For places 9-16:

Carlsen-Lautier
Kamsky-Sakaev
Malakhov-Dreev
Vallejo Pons-van Wely

Predictions for the top bracket: Ponomariov, Bacrot, Aronian and Grischuk. (I know, I'm really going out on a limb by picking all the higher-rated players.) As for the lower bracket...I don't know how much the players care at this point, so I'll refrain from prognostication.

Remember: annotated games coming later tonight!

Click here, and check out the latest entry (#303, dated December 3, 2005). I don't know if there's any lesson to be learned, but it's quite the anecdote. Prepare to be amused, and kudos to Tim Krabbé for having the guts to tell the tale, even after 47 years.

For those who have forgotten, for any of a thousand and one reasons, the A&E movie about NYC chess teacher Dave McEnulty has started its run, and a new viewing is starting this very moment. More details here.

The December 2005 issue of Chess Life came in the mail yesterday, and one bit of information grabbed my attention in a powerful way.

Was it a brilliant opening idea, a great game, or a beautiful problem? Was it Jon Jacobs' latest contribution, or perhaps a book review? While some of the above did grab my attention, the correct answer is none of the above; rather, it was a trivia question from Jacobs Petition signatory GM Andy Soltis! Here was the question (from page 30):

FIDE, the world chess federation, has made exceptions to add certain players to compete in Interzonals, most famously Bobby Fischer in 1970. But whose request to be added to the 1956 Candidates tournament was veoted by one of the seeded players?

(a) Reuben Fine (b) Sammy Reshevsky (c) Max Euwe (d) Mikhail Botvinnik

A real poser, that one. Of course, it's not Botvinnik, as Botvinnik was the player the winner would go on to meet for the former's world championship title. The other three choices are interesting, though. Regarding Reshevsky, he, along with Bronstein and Keres, tied for second place in the 1953 Candidates' event, two points behind Smyslov. Moving forward to the next cycle, both Keres and Bronstein qualified for the 1956 Candidates by competing in the 1955 Interzonal in Gothenburg; neither received a free pass. Thus I can certainly see why they'd protest the idea that Reshevsky enjoy direct seeding into the Candidates, but what's not clear is how Reshevsky, who didn't even compete in the 1955 Interzonal, could make such a proposal with a straight face.

That leaves Fine and Euwe. Fine had retired from chess at his peak, forsaking the opportunity to play in the 1948 match-tournament for the World Championship. Maybe in 1956 he felt like he needed to scratch that final chess itch, to see if he could complete the climb to the summit. Euwe too is an interesting choice. He did not have to qualify for the 1953 Candidates event, so I can see his hoping for a second direct entry, and his prospective opponents thinking one free pass was enough.

So which is it, Euwe or Fine? Answer: Botvinnik! Incredibly, he wanted to use the event as part of his warm-up for the next year's title match. (Botvinnik's tournament appearances during his championship years were rare, as he spent most of his time between world championship matches working as an engineer.) The proposal beggars belief, for at least two reasons:

First, it would be semi-scandalous if he lost such an event: how would the player (or worse, players!) who came ahead of him not be viewed as the real world champion going into the match? (Conversely, if Botvinnik won, why should he have to bother with the match the next year?) And second, either Botvinnik was incredibly naive or he was, shall we say, ethically challenged in even proposing such an idea. To take just the obvious, worst-case scenario, there's the danger that he could "accidentally" lose to the opponent he'd rather face (e.g. Keres) while fighting his hardest against his main rival (Smyslov). The event was a double round-robin and Smyslov won by a point and a half against Keres, so the disaster suggested by this scenario would have been a real possibility.

To be fair, there may have been some provision in the proposal for his score not to count. Even so, his suggestion is odd and still unfair to his opponents, who are then faced with a lousy choice. Either they show up but don't try, making the game a farce (and of no training value for Botvinnik), or put forth a real effort - for no competitive gain - at the cost of time, energy, and theoretical ammunition.

So the idea is just nuts, but despite that - or more likely, because of it! - it's a pity for us, years later, that it didn't happen. It would have been one of the all-time greatest traffic accidents in chess history, no matter what happened.

As reported here, eleven of the third round's sixteen matches went to tiebreaks; the results are in, and here are the pairings for round 4:

Bareev-Carlsen
Bacrot-Lautier
Vallejo-Aronian
Grischuk-Kamsky
Dreev-Gelfand
Gurevich-Malakhov
Sakaev-Rublevsky
van Wely-Ponomariov

It's a nice collection of players, and one we'll get to enjoy for the duration (it's single elimination with respect to the contest for first place, but even the defeated continue on so that each place from one to sixteen can be precisely determined. Thus the losers of the matches listed above will in effect contest their own mini-tournament for 9th-16th places; the losers of two straight matches compete for 13th-16th while the winners fight for 9th-12th, etc.)

Who will make which brackets? I predict that Bareev, Lautier, Aronian, Grischuk, Gelfand, Gurevich, Sakaev, and Ponomariov will win their matches in round 4.

Finally, I conclude this grab-bag post by commending the tournament website to my readers, where they can find interviews (in English) with many of the participants: Onischuk, Khalifman, Ivanchuk, Sadvakasov, Malakhov, Carlsen (on video as well as text), etc. It's worth a look, especially as some of the interviewees are largely unknown in the English-speaking world.

Some time ago, a rumor floated about, allegedly sponsored by one of the San Luis participants, to the effect that Topalov may have cheated to win the World Championship. To say that I was unimpressed by the "reasoning" behind this claim would be understating things (see here); nevertheless, the general possibility for this sort of thing has to be acknowledged. Not only might this be a problem for subsequent world title events, it's if anything more likely to rear its ugly head in big money swiss system tournaments.

Some typical, "traditional" methods of cheating are well-known. There's sandbagging, of course, but that's been on the radar for a long time and directors have made some strides towards stamping it out. Nevertheless, even within a game there are resources for the aspiring cheat: the casual whisper of a higher-rated friend, the quick trip upstairs to the hotel room, the bathroom visit to consult with a pocket set or an opening crib sheet, and so on. These methods all have their charms, but they are rather antiquated. A much more efficient means is to use electronics: cell phones, pagers, "consultation" with Pocket Fritz (or with an associate using Pocket Fritz), etc.

Most if not all of these methods have already been employed - on many occasions - and not only is it a moral wrong, it's a form of theft, and a substantial theft if/when it occurs in a super-swiss. So what's to be done?

A first step is to start a public discussion, and that's what Jon Jacobs has done with this petition to the USCF. I agree with much of what he writes, have some mild disagreements on other points, but my primary hope is that the petition gets the ball rolling.

As I said, I'm largely in agreement with Jacobs et al, but wish to add a cautionary point raised by a friend; namely, that a distinction be borne in mind between S's being a rule-breaker and S's being a cheater. A rule might be in place to prevent cheating, but a person who breaks that rule might not be a cheater. For example: an on-call worker might have to leave her cell phone or pager on, and if it rings during a game, it might lead to her disqualification. That's appropriate, but she should not be banned from all subsequent big-money events, absent strong evidence that she was actually cheating.

Comments, readers? This is an opportunity to help preserve our game before we're too far behind the technological curve, and if we act quickly - and responsibly - we might make a difference!

With this post we conclude, for now, our look at the drawn Petroff between GM Julio Becerra and FM Marcel Martinez. Before continuing, I ask that my readers examine the previous posts on this topic if they haven't already, starting with this one and continuing in order until reaching part 4.

Done all that? Then let's proceed:

First, the recap: in part 1, I deliberately presented the game from a naive perspective, as if the game was (a) original and (b) correct. In part 2, I noted that it wasn't original, and in part 3, that it's not correct, at least according to contemporary theory. In this post, we'll take a closer look at what theory has to say, and see if it's correct. My provisional conclusion upon examination of two key lines is that theory has it right on one of them, but wrong on the other.

Click here for the details.

Again, it's recommended that the reader first examine this post's predecessors, starting here and following the links at the end of the end of that post and its successor. If you've already done so, read on...

Before reading this post, check out part 1, here.

From round 2 of the recent Miami International:

White: GM Julio Becerra
Black: FM Marcel Martinez

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Ne4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxf7



The usual move is 6.Nxd7, but Becerra's sacrifice puts enormous pressure on his young opponent.

6...Qe7!

If 6...Kxf7 7.Qh5+ followed by 8.Qxd5 gives White excellent compensation. After 6...Qe7, everything gets crazy.

7.Nxh8! Nc3+ 8.Kd2 Nxd1 9.Re1 Nxf2



Very nice! The fine point is revealed after the obvious sequence 10.Rxe7+ Bxe7 11.Bxh7 (else 11...Nxd3 or 11...Ne4+, when the Nh8 will be lost) 11...Bg5+ 12.Ke2 Bxc1 13.Kxf2 Bxb2 and Black wins. It looks bad for White now, but Becerra is up to the challenge:

10.Bxh7! Ne4+ 11.Rxe4! dxe4 12.Bg6+ Kd8 13.Nf7+

and Black has no real choice but to allow the perpetual:

13...Ke8 14.Nd6+ Kd8 15.Nf7+ Ke8 16.Nd6+ 1/2-1/2



Impressive, isn't it? Pieces flying all over the place, sacs a-plenty, all culminating in an unusual perpetual check. Definitely a game worth remembering.

Next victim: Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl, January 2.

Nine down, one to go.

The news is that there's very little news. Of the round's 16 matches, only five have finished after the two regular games:

Aronian d. Areshchenko (1.5-.5)
M. Gurevich d. Shirov (1.5-.5)
Ponomariov d. Xu Jun (2-0)
Sakaev d. Tiviakov (2-0)
Malakhov d. Sokolov (1.5-.5)

The Shirov loss is an upset, of course, but not that big an upset, as Mikhail Gurevich is a very strong player. The decisive game from this match is linked here, together with today's Dreev-Harikrishna game. Dreev's opening play really impressed me with its forcefulness and creativity - even if, unfortunately for Dreev, Harikrishna's persistent defense saved the draw.

Good games, and I'm sure there will be many more tomorrow as we reach the final 16.

One of the great things about a university town is the opportunity for cultural experiences that would normally be unavailable in a city of this size. A few days ago, I saw former prodigy and world-famous violinist Sarah Chang perform with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. I enjoyed the show, but while there, I wondered amusedly about the state of her health and the privacy of my medical records.

Wondering what I'm talking about? Click and see!

Scouring my old issues of the sadly defunct Inside Chess for Igor Ivanov games, I came across a neat and almost completely unknown gem played by Czech GM Pavel Blatny. As is the case with most games played in American swiss system tournaments - even those involving titled players - this one never made it to the databases.

Fortunately, the loser of this game, IM John Watson, was so taken with Blatny's magnificent combination that he submitted the game to Inside Chess (vol. 12:3 [March 1999], pp. 36-37), and now, if you join me this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET on the playchess server, you'll get to see this modern masterpiece.

It's a great game (and wait until you see the variations, including one where White is down a queen, two rooks, a bishop and a knight but giving mate with his only remaining piece), and if you're not sure how to tune in, just click here for the directions. That link also includes directions on watching archived shows, and if you're curious as to the contents of the archives, click on this link, wherein I list all the games covered in my previous programs.

Update: A reminder for newcomers: watching live shows is free (with the relevant software, which is itself available for a free one-month trial), while archived shows require a nominal fee of approximately 25 cents. Further details are available through the links in the preceding paragraph.

Not from me, sorry (though over the duration of this blog, the readers have in effect received several books' worth of material), but from Project Gutenberg. The site is worth checking out in its own right, and although the chess pickings are pretty slim, you might want to look just the same. Click here for Chess History and Reminiscences by H. E. Bird (of Bird's Opening fame), and here for Edward Lasker's Chess Strategy.

The second round is now complete, and we're down to our final 32 competitors. Most of the favorites are still in action, but a number of big names have been shown the door. The most prominent of these was the number 1 seed, Vassily Ivanchuk, who was crushed in his first game with 19-year old Topalov second Ivan Cheparinov and couldn't come back in game two, but there were others: Viorel Bologan lost to Zahar Efimenko, newly crowned World Junior champ Shakhriyar Mamedyarov lost to Evgeniy Najer, and original FIDE K.O. champ Alexander Khalifman "lost" (i.e. drew with White in the Armageddon game) to Yuri Shulman.

Recapping based on our three categories of 2700s, "prodigies" (players 18-and-under), and Americans, here's where things stand:

2700s: All remain but Ivanchuk, leaving us this list:

Bacrot
Aronian
Grischuk
Gelfand
Shirov
Radjabov
Ponomariov
Tiviakov

Prodigies

Radjabov defeated Kazhgaleyev (2.5-1.5)
Balogh lost to Areshchenko (.5-1.5)
Carlsen defeated Ammonatov (1.5-.5)
Wang Yue lost to Smirin (2.5-1.5)

Americans

Kamsky defeated Bocharov (3-1)
Shulman "defeated" Khalifman (3.5-3.5 - that's two consecutive rounds in which Shulman has advanced by drawing the Armaggedon game!)
Onischuk lost to Bruzon (2.5-1.5)
A. Ivanov lost to Lautier (.5-1.5)

For a full list of results, click here.

I've attached several games that caught my eye. First, there's Ivanchuk's loss, in which he is rather impressively outplayed by the young Bulgarian. Next, there's Gelfand's win in the rapid games against Felgaer. Black's big idea in the Slav, opposed to the Queen's Gambit Declined, is to get the light-squared bishop outside the pawn chain. That's the theory, but practice doesn't always cooperate, as you'll see. Next, we'll take a look at a brutal Erenburg-Sakaev game; finally, we'll take a quick look at Khalifman's missed chance at the end of his Armaggedon game with Shulman.