The Chess Mind

His performance wasn't up to what chess fans might have expected, based on his rating and recent successes, but Levon Aronian more than made up for his indifferent result by displaying an astonishing array of antique, (allegedly) second-rate and just plain bizarre opening variations. Not only that, but he performed quite well with them, too!

Click here and be inspired.

As often happens with the Melody Amber tournament, there's a tie for first with the winners coming from vastly different routes. Alexander Morozevich scored a whopping 9.5/11 in his blindfold games, a full three points ahead of Viswanathan Anand and Francisco Vallejo(!). Had his performance in the rapid games been even remotely up to snuff, given his rating, he'd have won the overall event in a walk, but instead he scored a disappointing -1 at 5/11. That allowed Anand, who won the rapid part of the event with 8/11, to tie with him for first overall with a total of 14.5/22.

As for the rest of the field, they were dominated, with Vallejo(!!) the closest pursuer with 12/22. Topalov's 50% performance was only so-so, but he has admitted on numerous occasions that he's not at all the same caliber rapid player as he at classical time limits, so this result isn't really a surprise. Aronian's -1 result is a mild surprise, as he is a very skilled rapid player, but it seems clear that he had come to enjoy himself, as evidenced by his many opening experiments during this event. Finally, while this is always a fun event, I think it could have been improved by the participation of Rustam Kasimjanov, who is, as far as I can tell, no worse than the second strongest (active) rapid player in the world, behind only Anand. (Maybe next year?)

Complete Results:

Blindfold:

1. Morozevich 9.5
2-3. Anand, Vallejo 6.5
4-5. Grischuk, Leko 6
6-7. Gelfand, Svidler 5.5
8-9. Topalov, van Wely 4.5
10-11. Aronian, Nielsen 4.0
12. Ivanchuk 3.5

Rapid:

1. Anand 8
2-3. Aronian, Topalov 6.5
4-7. Grischuk, Ivanchuk, Vallejo, van Wely 5.5
8-10. Gelfand, Leko, Morozevich 5
11-12. Nielsen, Svidler 4

Combined:

1-2. Anand, Morozevich 14.5
3. Vallejo 12
4. Grischuk 11.5
5-6. Leko, Topalov 11
7-8. Aronian, Gelfand 10.5
9. van Wely 10
10. Svidler 9.5
11. Ivanchuk 9
12. Nielsen 8

Just for the fun of it! Click here.

A few days ago, in commemoration of former world chess champion Vassily Smyslov's 85th birthday, I presented the first and last of his studies as given in StudyDatabase2000.

Here's the first:



(Smyslov 1936) White to move and win.


And here is the second:



(Smyslov 2000) White to move and draw.


Were they easy? Challenging but solvable? Or, as they say in New York and New Joisey, fuggedaboutit? Whatever else they are, they've been tamed here.

Brilliant and mediocre?

Anand's 8th move - though unfortunately not his invention - offered a brilliant solution to a perennial problem in the TMB (Tartakower-Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Variation of the QGD (Queen's Gambit Declined). The logic is impeccable and the solution is ingenious. The only problem is that Black can equalize - painlessly - with the correct rejoinder.

Click here for the explanation and details.

This past Saturday, Xu Yuhua became the third Chinese player to become women's world champion (Xie Jun (1991-1996, 1999-2001) and Zhu Chen (2001-2004) were her "great predecessors", to coin a phrase), defeating Alisa Galliamova of Russia 2.5-.5 in the final match. Aside from a poor opening in the final game, Xu dominated the match and was a deserving winner against Galliamova, who lost in the finals for the second time (the first was against Xie Jun in 1999).

As for the defending champion, Antoaneta Stefanova of Bulgaria, her hopes of a repeat performance were dashed - in the second round - by Iweta Radziewicz of Poland. That's the trouble with being at the top: there's only one place to go!

Tigran Petrosian (1929-1984, World Champion from 1963-1969) is one of my all-time favorite players, but for many chess fans he's an acquired taste. My suggestion: acquire it! He was a brilliant calculator with a tremendous imagination, but rather than displaying his skills a la Tal (another of my all-time favorites), Petrosian's gifts operated in the service of a prophylactic approach. If the typical Tal game comprised developing all his pieces in the center and then sacrificing something (as someone once said - I think it was Korchnoi), the typical Petrosian game found the opponent slowly strangled by a slow-motion, python-like squeeze. He would sniff out and snuff out his opponent's active ideas in advance, let the opponent damage his own position in a bid for active play, and then, in due course, reap the harvest of his opponent's self-inflicted weaknesses.

This preventive approach has become more widespread among professionals in our day - thanks to Petrosian's influence and, to a slightly lesser degree, Karpov's, but it's badly undervalued amongst the rank-and-file. In this Monday's show, therefore, we'll take a step towards rectifying the situation as we examine his game with Hungarian super-GM Lajos Portisch from the 1978 Lone Pine tournament. Portisch was a traditionally difficult opponent for Petrosian, but despite that history and the White pieces, Petrosian was able to work his magic just the same. In a Rubinstein Nimzo-Indian, White possessed a hanging central pawn duo on d4 and e4: Portisch thought the pawns were a strength, Petrosian deemed them potentially weak. Guess who was right!

To see the details - from a survey of their opening variation to a discussion of hanging pawns, from the tactics of the middle game to Petrosian's outstanding technique in finishing the job - you'll want to join me this Monday night at 9 pm ET. Details for watching the show (whether live or later, in the archives) can be found here, while a list of games covered in previous shows can be found here.

Hope to see you then!

In the latest issue of New in Chess (2006/2), Magnus Carlsen annotates his victory over Alexander Beliavsky from the Corus (Wijk aan Zee) B-group tournament. Young though Carlsen is, he's exceptionally strong, and I'm sure he's a fine analyst as well. Nevertheless, the variation in his game is, by his own admission, "[t]he point of a nice bit of computer chess." Have a look here - the game itself isn't bad either!

For those of you with a "warm fuzzies" feeling towards game-playing, avert your eyes:

Games are easy for me. All of them. Any of them. Not in the sense that I easily learn to play them - anyone can do that. When I say "I learn to play them", I mean successfully, to play with clear superiority, with a real win. The overwhelming majority of people think playing a game is only about taking part and following the rules. But this way you can only win by accident. Those people are fools. Real players, when they learn a new game, take apart its nuts and bolts in the very first games, get to know its entire internal workings, and when they start playing properly, they can extract the maximum from any situation that occurs in the game. (Anatoly Karpov, cited in Genna Sosonko, "The Lady is a Champ", New in Chess 2006/2, p. 72.)

In the competitive sphere, there's a line between doing one's best and being a predator, and my view is that one should avoid the latter side of the line. I'd love to have Karpov's skill, but not if it comes at the cost of a contempt for most of humanity.

That point aside, I think Karpov's comment about taking apart a game's nuts and bolts is a wise one. Don't just grope around, and don't look for tricks and techniques. Learn the fundamentals: how pawn structures work, the elements of the game (time, space, force, etc.), basic endgames and tactics, what pieces work best together and how, and so on. In short, put a framework on your learning - in whatever realm - and you'll speed up your learning dramatically.

But do so without becoming feral, please.

There have been interesting games in every round, of course, but no less than three caught my eye today.

The first game was a nice, thematic exploitation of a good knight vs. a bad bishop in an Open Ruy. It's a common problem Black needs to avoid (commonly by executing ...c5 at some convenient moment), but in this, their blindfold game, Leko was unable to do so against Anand and was ground down in 67 moves.

Game two was a clean draw in the blindfold game between Grischuk and Topalov, but what made this game noteworthy was Topalov's exchange sacrifice on the 11th move. Playing ...Rxc3 in the Sicilian is hardly cause to raise an eyebrow, let alone eat up bandwidth, but this was an unusual case. Normally, at least one of three factors is present before Black offers the sacrifice: (1) Black grabs a pawn (typically the White e-pawn), (2) the White king is castled queenside, and/or (3) White must recapture with the b-pawn, leaving himself a badly fractured queenside pawn structure.

In this case, it's 0-for-3. Not surprisingly, this sacrifice failed to occur in any of its 21 precedents, several featuring strong grandmasters wielding the Black pieces. What Topalov did achieve with this exchange sacrifice - a theme that has of late become his signature (Topalov as the new Petrosian??) - was the ...d5 break. Between that break, the accompanying threats (...d4 and ...dxe4, for starters), and his insecure king, Grischuk found nothing better than to return the exchange, leading to a safe position and an eventual draw.

Finally, a rapid, non-blindfold game between Nielsen and Morozevich saw the latter's knight take revenge against the bishop, in repayment for Anand-Leko. Morozevich is renowned for his good technique (as well as for his originality), and we see it on display here. The R+B vs. R+N ending starts out equal, but Nielsen loses the game in two stages. First, he places all his kingside pawns on light squares - the same color as his bishop - resulting in an obvious dark-square problem and the prospect of a long and passive defense. Second - and this is a common self-destructive practice in passive positions - he attempts to lash out with a pawn break, hoping to achieve some mobility for his rook and to counterattack against Black's pawn structure. With as many weaknesses as he had, there was no margin for error, and so it's not surprising that Morozevich had a winning tactical shot in reply.

All in all, three games worth studying - and you can begin to do so here.

We've all seen positions where, say, White sacs a piece for Black's h- and g-pawns, in return having at least a perpetual with queen checks on the h- and g-files. (Thus the Qg6+, Qh6+ in the title. Of course, the checks might be on other squares; what's key is that the Black king can't escape to the f-file.) There are various ways White might try for more, and one common approach is to bring a rook to the g-file. Naturally, if she can do this right away, she wins, no finesse necessary. But if Black has the option of ...f7-f6, then there seems to be a problem: when White plays Qh6+ Kg8 Rg-any+ the king can crawl out via f7.

The solution? Qh5+ (instead of Qh6+)! Before Black played ...f6, that would have allowed the Black king to escape via that very square after the rook check on the g-file. Now, however, f6 is blocked and the f7 square is covered.

Granted, this is all very simple, but it's useful to have this idea in one's consciousness beforehand. Sometimes a combination is easy to calculate, but there's a relevant idea that doesn't enter our minds and so we cut off our calculation too soon. It seems to me that's the sort of thing that can happen to those who don't know this trick - but not any longer, I hope!

Click here to see the idea in practice, from a game given in tonight's issue of Chess Today.

The players agreed to a draw in this position, with White to move:



Yet, it might not seem obvious at first sight just how White draws. Some accuracy is required, and it's a good exercise for the reader to work out the details. Of course, I presented this position a week ago, so now it's time for the solution, which can be found right here.

It's milestone week, it seems: the 23rd is Viktor Korchnoi's 75th birthday, while the 24th is both Vassily Smyslov's 85th birthday and the 60th anniversary of Alexander Alekhine's death. By way of a partial commemoration, here are the starting positions of two Smyslov studies, composed an impressive 64 years apart!



(Smyslov 1936) White to move and win.



(Smyslov 2000) White to move and draw.

Another interesting read can be found here, detailing, inter alia, Leko's horrible collapse at the end of the Linares tournament. Leko's games are presented there, but two other collapses are mentioned but not presented. In the interests of promoting Schadenfreude, I've attached the Ziska-Timman game here, but I was unable to find the relevant Ree loss to Zuidema.

It's essentially a promo for My Great Predecessors, vol. V (on Korchnoi and Karpov), but it's worth the couple of minutes needed to read it - click here.
[HT: sbb1cpa]

With rare exceptions, this show is dedicated to presenting great games, generally from one or more generations past. This week’s game isn’t particularly recent, so the second part of my mandate is intact, but the first part is taking a holiday. Instead, this week I proudly present a game dubbed “shameful” by both its protagonists, two rather well-known individuals by the names of Kasparov and Korchnoi.

Why would I do such a thing? The answer will be clear when you watch: despite the errors, it’s a riveting battle. Quickly achieving a lost position with the White pieces, Kasparov throws everything at Korchnoi’s king, including the kitchen sink, in a truly desperate attack. It shouldn’t have worked at all, but exploiting Korchnoi’s time trouble, he was able to generate enough confusion to pull out a draw. There are plenty of mistakes, but there are also plenty of good moves, too, not to mention instructional moments and staggering variations. All in all, a very entertaining game for a Monday night (9 pm ET), so I’ll hope to see you then!

As always, you can find directions for watching the show (or archived shows, for that matter) here, and a list of games covered in archived shows here.

"Everyone" knows the game Paul Morphy vs. the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard (aka the "opera game", aka "Morphy vs. Two Bums" (Fischer's sobriquet)) - or at least they should! The game highlights so many tactical elements in the space of just 17 moves, and does it with such a graceful flow, that it's probably the most famous game in all of chess history.

And yet, there is one moment in the game where Morphy's play has been called into question - though for the sake of what comes later, it's a good thing he played as he did! The key moment comes after the moves

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4? 4.dxe5 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Nf6? 7.Qb3 Qe7



Here Morphy played 8.Nc3 and went on to win brilliantly after 8...c6 9.Bg5 b5 10.Nxb5 cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7 12.O-O-O Rd8 13.Rxd7 Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Qb8+ Nxb8 17.Rd8#.

The point of 8.Nc3 was to prevent 8...Qb4, which is what would follow had White played 8.Qxb7, when 8...Qb4+ forces the trade of queens and reduces the game to the technical stage. But what about the move 8.Bxf7+, with the point that after 8...Qxf7 the Black queen has been displaced, allowing White to win significant material with 9.Qxb7?



Here my sources - at least those that mention the idea - all suggest that it's unproblematic and winning. They might object on aesthetic grounds - Emanuel Lasker refers to it as "a butcher's method, not an artist's" (cited in Philip W. Sergeant, ed., Morphy's Games of Chess (New York: Dover, 1957), p. 149) - but they all approve: Sergeant, Lasker, Chris Ward and even THE MAN - Garry Kasparov.

However...I suggest the reader take a look at 9...Bc5. White can choose which rook he wants to capture (via 10.Qxa8 or 10.Qc8+ Ke7 11.Qxh8), but Black will enjoy a lead in development and pressure against f2 in return. Perhaps White can consolidate his extra material, but it's Black who will have all the fun. Readers are invited to work on this position for a while; I'll probably offer some analysis of my own in a few days. Happy analyzing!

A few days ago I presented this analysis position from game 6 of the 1974 Candidates Match between Boris Spassky and Anatoly Karpov:



It's Black to move, and according to Botvinnik's analysis, White holds the draw after 44...axb4 45.Bxb4+ Kd5 46.a5 b5 47.a6 Kc6 48.Ba5! Nc5! 49.Kf3 Nxa6 50.Bc3 b4 51.Bxf6 b3 52.Ke2 Nc5 53.Kd1 Ne4 54.Bd8 Kd7 55.Ba5. My challenge, to those intrepid souls who dared seek the truth, was to determine if Botvinnik's analysis was indeed correct.

The answer, of course, is that it's not, and it goes awry on the very first move. Instead of the obvious 44...axb4, Black should play 44...b5!!.



Does this idea look familiar to you? It should: less than two weeks before "assigning" this position I presented two pawn endings featuring a similar breakthrough idea (here and here). Although this breakthrough occurs on the opposite side of the board, the king positions are significantly different and there are minor pieces on the board, the fundamental idea is the same. So even if you couldn't work out all the details (and they are substantial: in My Great Predecessors V Kasparov devotes almost an entire page of variations to the proof), I do hope that the idea crossed your mind!

As for (some of) the gritty details, click here.

In the following position from the game Kholmov-Stripunsky, Karaganda 1994, the players agreed to a draw.



Suppose Stripunsky had decided not to offer the draw. How would White, to move, save the game?

(The answer will be given in a few days; as always, I remind readers not to comment the answers.)

First, you might want to check out an interview with Kholmov from earlier this year: that's here. Next, I've linked to four more of his games, all against world champions - click here.

Though the information was only just released to the chess public, the strong Russian grandmaster Ratmir Kholmov died on February 18 of this year. Known in his prime as the "central defender" for his tremendous skills in that aspect of the game, he was at his prime from the late 1950s through the early 1970s, tying for first in the 1963 USSR Championship and winning the 1968 Capablanca Memorial in Havana.

Earlier this year, ironically just a few weeks before his death, I featured his brilliant 1964 game with David Bronstein on my ChessBase show; that game and several others can be replayed here.

From Chess is My Life (Zurich: Edition Olms, 2004), p. 54:

Some time early in 1963 I began thinking about the advantages and drawbacks of my defensive style. Not from the practical point of view: I was more concerned about the philosophical, psychological aspects. By deliberately defending, a player hands the initiative to the opponent and has to adapt to him, and is forced to reply to every aggressive idea of the opponent. The style of a chess player should correspond to his character and reflect its traits. It was clear to me that in life I was not at all the same as I was in chess. I am active, I do not conceal my intentions, I am aggressive! Apparently I was taught incorrectly how to play, and it was time for me to relearn! Fight for the initiative in the game, and not only neutralise it! Over a length of time this should certainly have brought practical successes.

This quotation raises some huge questions. For example:

1. Is there a neat mapping between one's personality and one's optimal style?

2. Is one's chess style more or less irrevocably formed early in one's career?

3. Is the (relatively) irrevocably formed style primarily the product of one's early teachers or chess heroes rather than one's own feeling for the game?

4. Given that a player has certain stylistic strengths and corresponding weaknesses, should he spend most of his energy in chess training on (a) maximizing his actual strengths, (b) maximizing what he believes those ought to be (i.e. strengths reflecting one's personality), or (c) eliminating weaknesses?

I think that well-supported answers to these questions would be of great value to trainers - but who will do the research? (Grant money, anyone?) I have a moderate degree of confidence about my opinions on the last two questions, but far less assurance about the first two.

Readers' thoughtful comments are welcomed.

From Chess is My Life, pp. 22-23:

Although I boast of my successes [DM: referring to his achievements as a teenager], my development proceeded rather slowly. An inexplicable sense of pride prevented me from using offers of help. Thus early in 1950 such an offer wasmade through intermediaries by Alexander Tolush, who was then the strongest player in the city [DM: Leningrad]: 'Give me Korchnoi, and I'll make a master out of him.' 'I'll become a master myself,' I replied. And I did, of course, quite quickly. But when [a] couple of years later Spassky went to Tolush for lessons, and I noticed how he was improving - directly before my eyes! - I realised how much I had lost with my obstinacy.

More than once I've heard chess players boast that what they've achieved has been done without studying books. They probably think that's going to impress me, but it doesn't: it marks them as naive at best, fools at worst. While it's true both that one must learn his lessons for himself and that he needs to take responsibility for his play, the decision not to learn from others is highly unintelligent. In fact, the game's most notable players - Kasparov and Fischer - were both information junkies, and Kasparov in particular benefited from the help of trainers throughout his career. Learning from others did not prevent them from becoming independent and creative thinkers, nor did it stunt their growth; rather, they both became fearfully strong, trailblazing champions.

The situation with Korchnoi was similar: he let a misguided pride interfere with his maximizing his early chess potential. There's no special world chess championship or even class section prize for the strongest player not to work with a trainer in his teenage years, so what's the point? Instead, learn from others: pay the most attention to what they do well, but learn from their mistakes, too.

And if you have the chance to work with someone who can help you, learn from Korchnoi's mistake, and take it.

Upon prompting, I've gone to Google Video and done a search for chess. The results, which start here, aren't too impressive, but there are some neat bits and pieces here and there. The fourth video, labeled "Korchnoi is defeated by a cow in a chess game", is worth a look, and at some point (or maybe in several sessions) I'll probably go through the first video, "The History of Computer Chess: An AI Perspective".

Worth a look.

My friend Alex Herrera has long been interested in the Moller Gambit in the Giuoco Piano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3!?), and while it has long had a dodgy reputation, as the Brits are wont to say, Alex has kept his eyes open and found some new ideas.

One important very interesting and important idea of his is presented and discussed in Tim Harding's current Chess Cafe column, entitled "The Giuoco Piano Revisited". You can find that here, while Alex's contribution can be replayed here. (I offer some comments therein, to the 18...Qc7(!) variation, prefaced with "DM". In particular, I think that after 18...Qc7 19.Bd3 d5 20.h3, Black should prefer 20...Kf8 rather than 20...g6, when as far as I can tell Black will consolidate with an extra pawn.)

The Melody Amber tournament in Monaco is a great recreational event on the yearly calendar, with 12 very strong GMs facing off in a rapid + blindfold event. The participants in this year's round robin event, taking place from Saturday, March 18 through the 30th, are Topalov, Anand, Svidler, Aronian, Leko, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Morozevich, Grischuk, Vallejo, van Wely and Nielsen.

And if that isn't enough for serious chess fans, there's also the overlapping Karpov tournament in Poikovsky, Siberia, from the 19th of March through the 28th. The lineup for this "classical" (i.e. "slow") tournament is almost as impressive as Melody Amber's, featuring Ponomariov, Shirov, Bareev, Dreev, Sokolov, Rublevsky, Zvjaginsev, Bologan, Najer and Onischuk.

Annotators will be exhausted!

The variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 12.h4 a5 13.h5 is one I've taken a close look at in at least four earlier posts (the most recent one is here; you can find the earlier links therein), and it seems time for another one.

The occasion is a recent game from the Russian U-20 championships in Cheboksary, and as it features a line not too closely examined in the earlier posts, it's worth a look, if only for the sake of filling out the theoretical picture: click here for Nepomniachtchi-Savchenko.

I'm not really following the event closely, but I took a quick look at the results from round 2 and was fairly shocked to see the top three seeds ousted: Stefanova (the defending champ), Humpy (the top seed) and Cramling lost to Radziewicz, Sebag and Peng, respectively.

Two other results of note (at least to me): Krush lost (so much for the U.S.), while 11-year-old(!!) Yifan Hou of China has defeated two quite strong opponents so far, Nadezhda Kosintseva and Natalia Zhukova, and by a convincing combined score of 3.5-.5.

ChessBase has just posted an informative interview with Vladimir Kramnik, covering the topics of his illness and the timetable for his return to tournament play, the possible reunification match with Topalov in September, his planned match with Fritz in November and the role of computers in preparation. Have a look!

Alexander Onischuk and Anna Zatonskih, who won their rapid matches by the score of 1.5-.5 against Yury Shulman and Rusudan Goletiani, respectively.

No norms or big prizes were at stake in this last round game from the US Championship, but this 13-mover is worthy of attention just the same. Alex Lenderman is a fan of tricky openings, and his 1.Nc3 fits into this category. Irina Zenyuk made natural moves, and yet after her very natural sixth move, she may have already found herself in a lost position!

How is this possible? Have a look, here.

It was a pivotal game in their semi-final Candidates Match: the score was 1-1 (with 3 draws) with everything up in the air. Karpov was an incredible young talent, but Spassky had been the world champion and looked resurgent after his loss to Fischer in 1972.

Game six had been balanced most of the way, but towards the end of the first time control Karpov had seized the upper hand, and in this position, achieved early in the second session was a crucial one:



It's White to move; in the game, Spassky played 42.Bd4 and went on to lose. Instead, many commentators, including Botvinnik, argued that Spassky could have held with 42.Rc3, as 42...Rxc3+ 43.Bxc3 Kxd6 44.b4



leads to a draw after 44...axb4 45.Bxb4+ Kd5 46.a5 b5 47.a6 Kc6 48.Ba5! Nc5! 49.Kf3 Nxa6 50.Bc3 b4 51.Bxf6 b3 52.Ke2 Nc5 53.Kd1 Ne4 54.Bd8 Kd7 55.Ba5 (Botvinnik, cited in Kasparov's new and excellent volume five in his My Great Predecessors series, devoted to Korchnoi and Karpov (p. 261)).

Is this correct? (Don't put your answer and/or analysis in the comments, please.) The answer will be posted in a few days, and for those of you who'd like to replay the above analysis online, click here.

Last week, we got through 41 moves of what was arguably the most crucial game of the 1972 World Championship match between champion Boris Spassky and his challenger, Bobby Fischer. Down 5-7 but with some momentum, Spassky with White had a great opportunity to throw the match result in doubt. After a poor opening and an indecisive early middlegame, however, Spassky found himself in a lost position, but at that point rose to the occasion. Fischer played a few inaccurate moves, and by the time the game was adjourned, Spassky’s defensive chances were starting to become real.

And that’s where we left off. In the moves to come, both sides play brilliantly in a very unusual sort of endgame. Until…well, you’ll just have to tune in this Monday night at 9 pm ET and see!

(Directions for watching the show can be found here, while a list of games covered in past shows are available here [directions for watching the earlier shows can be found in the previous link].

Here's a typical tactical 19th century slugfest you won't find in your databases. [Hat tip: Brian Karen] In addition to being flashy, it's not too badly played. Nevertheless, the mistakes are there, waiting to be found, and I think working through this game would make an excellent analytical exercise for my industrious and/or ambitious readers.

Have fun!

[Update: M. Nieuweboer writes in to correct the game's header information:

The Danish Gambit is an old love of mine, so I recognized the game Nielsen-Van der Linde immediately.
The game was not a casual game, but a corr. game between the brothers G&W Nielsen and the Dutch player Van der Linde.
So I hope you will correct the headings.

I originally received the game data from this location, which identifies the game as both a casual and a correspondence game, and gives White as the singular "V Nielsen" and the date as 1875.

Upon receiving Nieuweboer's email, I looked up the game in my correspondence chess database, and there White is Gunnar Nielsen, with no second person given and a game date of 1973(!). I'm sure that date is wrong, but I don't know if the true date is 1873 or 1875. (Maybe both - the game could have spanned those years; again, I don't know.) Until a good argument arrives to trust one source rather than another, I won't change the game headers; when it does come, I will.]

Coming into the last round, both Onischuk (group A) and Shulman (group B) enjoyed a full-point lead over their closest pursuers (Ibragimov, Stripunsky and Nakamura in group A, Kamsky and Christiansen in group B). Yet despite this comfort margin, both players found themselves under enormous pressure.

In group A, Ibragimov and Stripunsky won their games, and Nakamura, against Onischuk, kept creating problems for a long time. Nevertheless, Onischuk eventually drew, winning clear first. In group B, likewise, Kamsky and Christiansen won their games, but unlike Onischuk, Shulman lost (to Fishbein). All's well that ends well, however, and his tournament-long lead ensured him of excellent tie-breaks; sure enough, he qualified.

For the women, it was a different matter altogether: Goletiani had already qualified, while Zatonskih had to endure all of 13 moves (a draw with Wojtkiewicz) before achieving her spot in the finals.

In sum, the playoff picture, to be decided by rapid games later today (Sunday), is Onischuk-Shulman and Goletiani-Zatonskih.

starts today in Ekaterinburg, Russia, and continues through the 27th of this month. It's a 64 player knockout event, with the following schedule:

In round 1-5, the players play two-game knockout matches in which one player has White the first day and the other player has White the second day. If they're tied, they play pairs of rapid games, with increasingly shorter time controls, until someone comes out ahead (unless they finish 1-1 in blitz games; in that case, they go to an "Armaggedon" game). Round 6, the final round, will work essentially the same way, except that it's a best-of-four game match (not counting tiebreakers, if necessary). Rest days after rounds 3 and 5 (March 17 and March 22).

Participants include GMs Stefanova (the defending champ), Humpy, Cramling, Kosteniuk, Chiburdanidze, Zhu, and Peng as well as 28 IMs (including the sole U.S. representative, Irina Krush).

Tournament website here.

Click here.

The Svidler-Ivanchuk battle is still raging, but all the games relevant to the fight for first are finished.

The first game to finish was Bacrot-Radjabov, and that lasted all of 20 moves before the draw was agreed.

Next was Vallejo-Topalov, and while Topalov played the combative Vienna Variation (of the Queen's Gambit; don't confuse this with the Vienna Game), but the players quickly headed for a well-known variation leading to perpetual check. In many openings there's a sort of implicit contract between the players, at least when they are peers: there are drawing variations, but the player with White will steer clear of them. This contract clearly doesn't exist for Vallejo, who has in past Linares events headed straight for perpetuals against Kasparov with White in the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian, and in this tournament has essayed 5.Qe2 vs. the Petroff and now this. Topalov should have been prepared for this.

This cleared the way for Leko, with White, to utilize that small advantage and try to grind his way to a win. Instead, Aronian completely outplayed him with the Black pieces, winning easily. By move 24 Aronian was had an extra pawn and a dominant position, and when Leko resigned on move 40 the advantage had grown to three pawns. A catastrophic finish for Leko, but a brilliant result for Levon Aronian, who has not only proved himself a member of the world's elite, but quite possibly a major threat to win the world championship.

It doesn't get too much better than this: going into the last round, we have a four-way tie for first! Topalov kept trying against Leko, and Leko finally cracked, evening their scores. Radjabov defeated Svidler, while Aronian drew with Bacrot, leaving Aronian, Leko and the two winners even with 7.5 out of 13. (In the round's other game, the only one without first-place ramifications, Ivanchuk defeated Vallejo.)

Round 13 Results:

Topalov-Leko 1-0
Aronian-Bacrot 1/2-1/2
Radjabov-Svidler 1-0
Ivanchuk-Vallejo 1-0

Standings after Round 13:

Topalov, Radjabov, Leko, Aronian (in tie-break order) 7.5
Ivanchuk, Svidler 6
Bacrot 5.5
Vallejo 4.5

Pairings for Round 14:

Leko-Aronian
Vallejo-Topalov
Bacrot-Radjabov
Svidler-Ivanchuk

Quite an interesting set of pairings: the tie-break leaders have black against the cellar dwellers (but note: Vallejo's only win in the event was against Topalov!), while Aronian too has Black against the only leader getting White - Leko. What will happen? Beats me!

Games, sans notes, here.

With but one round to go in the U.S. Championship preliminaries, the finalists' names might not be guaranteed, but it's pretty close.

In group A, Alexander Onischuk has 6.5/8, placing him a full point ahead of a chase pack including Varuzhan Akobian, Ildar Ibragimov, Alexander Stripunsky and...Hikaru Nakamura. After a dreadful start, Nakamura's five straight wins (admittedly, only the last two were against fellow GMs) has earned him a last round showdown with Onischuk (the latter would have White). That's good news for the chase pack, but the bad news for Nakamura is that even if he wins, it's very unlikely (maybe impossible) for him to advance to the finals, as his lousy start gives him terrible tiebreaks.

In group B, something similar is afoot: Yury Shulman leads with 6.5/8, but only Gata Kamsky (with whom he drew in round 8) and Larry Christiansen (his round 6 opponent - also drawn) are within a point. Can Onischuk and Shulman "draw to order"? If so, they'll play on Sunday for the big loot.

As for the women's race, Batchimeg Tuvshintugs has cooled off and even been passed by top seed Anna Zatonskih, who defeated her in round 8. Going into the last round, they are the two contenders in group B, but Tuvshintugs with 3.5 will have to win and Zatonskih with 4.5 must lose for the former to advance to the finals. Whoever it is that wins there will face Rusudan Goletiani, who with 4.5 has clinched first in the A group.

And now, on to a game.... In round 7, Dmitry Gurevich had White against Varuzhan Akobian and was grinding his way to a full point in a rook ending. Had he won, he'd have faced Onischuk in round 8 with a chance to enter the last round with the lead. Start here, with the position after his 46th move (46.Re5-b5):



The normal question is whether White can win this; if all White wanted was a draw, well, even a weak club player could do that against a GM. Unfortunately, Gurevich came up with an ingenious but atrocious plan, something only a GM could produce. What happened, and how could it have happened? Click here for the gory details.

[Note: In case any incautious readers draw a hasty and completely mistaken conclusion, I like Gurevich, felt privileged to briefly work with him in the late 80s, and have a great deal of respect for his chess.]

We're in a holding pattern, as not only Leko but everyone else drew their games. Starting with Leko's game, he introduced a novelty on move 23 against Bacrot's Petroff, and then spent the next three moves more or less undoing it. The game made it to move 41, but without any drama.

Aronian could have caught Leko with a win, but with Black against Svidler he was satisfied with a 20 move siesta. Topalov's game with Ivanchuk was lively by comparison, but he was unable to achieve anything either. The Vallejo-Radjabov game was quite interesting, however, culminating in a complex knight ending. I recommend that the reader work out the ending for herself, and will wait to annotate that game.

Round 12 Results:

Leko-Bacrot 1/2-1/2
Svidler-Aronian 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Vallejo-Radjabov 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 12:

Leko 7.5
Aronian 7
Radjabov, Topalov 6.5
Svidler 6
Bacrot, Ivanchuk 5
Vallejo 4.5

Pairings for Round 13: (On Friday)

Topalov-Leko (last chance!)
Aronian-Bacrot
Radjabov-Svidler
Ivanchuk-Vallejo

To replay the games, click here.

In group A, Alexander Onischuk has seized clear first with 5 out of 6, winning with Black against Sergey Kudrin. He leads by half a point over the Dmitrys Gurevich and Schneider. On the right track but still a ways back is Hikaru Nakamura, who has won three consecutive games with relative ease. Top women's scores: Rusudan Goletiani (3), Elizabeth Vicary (2.5).

In group B, Yury Shulman also leads with 5 points, half a point ahead of Igor Novikov and a full point ahead of Gata Kamsky. It's nice to see Kamsky in the mix, though some fans may wish he hadn't just defeated the Cinderella of the event, 19-year-old Mongolian emigre Batchimeg ("Chimi") Tuvshintugs. Tuvshintugs, though sporting a modest FIDE rating of 2208, has defeated GMs Fishbein, Kreiman and Becerra, and drew GM Gulko as well. Not bad at all! Nevertheless, despite her outstanding performance thus far, Anna Zatonskih and Tatev Abrahamyan are just half a point back with 3 points apiece.

Chess Today, issue 1947 reports:

This doubleround super chess tournament in Sofia [from May 10-21] will be the strongest in the world for the second consecutive year. The will be participants are: Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria), Vishy Anand (India), Peter Svidler (Russia), Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukraine), Etienne Bacrot (France) and Gata Kamsky (USA). The average ELO of the participants is 2747, making it a category 20 tournament.

As many of you may recall from last year's inaugural M-Tel tournament, the players were prohibited from offering draws, and that rule has been renewed for this year's edition as well. That added to the event's spice, and this year's lineup of players - comprised of the usual suspects though it is, with the happy exception of Kamsky - should help guarantee an attractive tournament.

The hope was that the game between Radjabov and Topalov would be a memorable battle; the reality more closely resembled a reconciliation meeting between two pacificists. Oh well.

The third member of the the second-placed troika, Aronian, was more successful, convincingly defeating Vallejo in a Marshall Gambit (the anti-Slav Marshall Gambit, not the one in the Ruy). This brought him within half a point of Leko, whose outstanding defensive skills were given a workout by Ivanchuk before the draw was finally agreed.

The last game wasn't quite as important for the standings, but the battle between Bacrot and Svidler was interesting - even peculiar. In what had been a rather insipid opening, Svidler's decision to play 18...Qh5 changed the game's complexion instantly, as his queen quickly found herself in a "mating" net. When the smoke had cleared, Bacrot had a queen and rook against Svidler's two rooks and a bishop (with equal pawns on both sides), but Svidler's active pieces provided sufficient counterplay to hold the draw.

Round 11 Results:

Ivanchuk-Leko 1/2-1/2
Radjabov-Topalov 1/2-1/2
Aronian-Vallejo 1-0
Bacrot-Svidler 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 11:

Leko 7
Aronian 6.5
Radjabov, Topalov 6
Svidler 5.5
Bacrot, Ivanchuk 4.5
Vallejo 4

Pairings for Round 12:

Leko-Bacrot
Svidler-Aronian
Topalov-Ivanchuk
Vallejo-Radjabov

Games later.

I had hoped to solve it, or at least to spend more time trying to, but alas: 0 for 2. As I'm not going to have any time to look at it in the next two weeks, it's time for me to wave the white flag.

The problem was to start with the pieces on their original squares, all pawns off the board, and for all the pieces to be legally captured in eight moves, with the queens captured last. Mr. Fenton, the solution?

Getting scary...

The beast of San Luis has returned! Though one could easily imagine another super-GM or two giving up on first when two and a half points behind with just 7 rounds to play in a double round robin, Veselin Topalov appears to be a different sort of animal altogether. In round 8, he outplayed the #2 seed, Peter Svidler; in round 9, he defeated Etienne Bacrot with Black; and now, in round 10, he outfought Levon Aronian in a long, hard battle.

Aronian is the number three seed and came into the round in great form, just half a point out of first, but that hardly mattered to Topalov. The players quickly reached a double rook ending with opposite-colored bishops (with all the drawing chances attending thereto - though it should be noted that those chances are not nearly as overwhelming when there are rooks on the board), and from there it was grind, grind, grind. It took 76 moves to turn Aronian's game into pestle, but he did, and thanks to Leko's 6th consecutive draw (this time vs. Svidler), Topalov has now pulled to within one point with four rounds to play.

The other two games were decisive: Vallejo's self-destructive 16.g4 created serious kingside weaknesses Bacrot was able to exploit, while King's Indian specialist Radjabov took advantage when Ivanchuk lost the thread around move 30. Note that Radjabov, like Topalov, has also come back from -2 (he lost his first two games) to +1 and a tie for second!

Round 10 Results:

Leko-Svidler 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Aronian 1-0
Ivanchuk-Radjabov 0-1
Vallejo-Bacrot 0-1

Standings after Round 10:

Leko 6.5
Aronian, Radjabov, Topalov 5.5
Svidler 5
Bacrot, Ivanchuk, Vallejo 4

Pairings for Round 11:

Ivanchuk-Leko
Radjabov-Topalov
Aronian-Vallejo
Bacrot-Svidler

The obvious candidate for game of the round is Radjabov-Topalov, owing to their current placement, momentum, and the fact that Radjabov beat Topalov in the first cycle (in round 4). Given that Leko, with Black, is likely to play another draw, the three second-placed players all have an excellent shot to pull within half a point of first.

Games here.

N.B. I've also updated my post for Rounds 8 and 9 - the (fairly lightly) annotated games are now available, here.

In round 4, the two groups were as different as night and day: group A had 12 decisive games (including, at last, a win for Nakamura) and 4 draws, while group B had the reverse: 4 decisive games and 12 draws.

Group A heroes include Dmitry Gurevich, whose win with Black over Alexander Goldin catapulted him into a first place tie with Alexander Onischuk, and IMs Josh Friedel and Dmitry Schneider, whose wins brought them to within half a point of the co-leaders.

In group B, only one board in the top 10 was decisive, but that was board 1, where Yuri Shulman's win over Alexander Shabalov earned him the clear lead at 3.5/4.

Round 5 Pairings and Round 4 Leaders

Group A:
Onischuk (3.5) - Gurevich (3.5)
Schneider (3) - de Firmian (3)
Stripunsky (2.5) - Friedel (3)

Women: Goletiani (2.5), Baginskaite (2)

Group B:
Ivanov (3) - Shulman (3.5)
Novikov (3) - Christiansen (3)

Women: Tuvshintugs (2.5), Zatonskih (2)

If the U.S. Championship website is insufficient to slake your thirst, then head on over to Joshua Gutman's blog. Initially it seemed he was trying to keep up with the games and do a little analysis, but now it looks like he's in the (inaccurate) prediction business. In any case, his subsequent plans for the blog are to use it as a record of his hopeful climb to masterdom; if he keeps at it, it could prove of interest.

The big story is the ongoing catastrophe that is defending champion Hikaru Nakamura's tournament. Last night, he lost again, this time to WGM Camilla Baginskaite, leaving him with just half a point in three games and a shocking 2013 TPR. (Statisticians, how many standard deviations is this from his expected TPR? How often should such a run happen?) His next (and probably last) chance to start a meaningful comeback will see him with the White pieces against WIM Esther Epstein.

I've attached that game, and two other very entertaining games (Fedorowicz-Vigorito and Christiansen-Wojtkiewicz), here. That's the fun stuff; on now to the leaderboard:

Round 4 Pairings and Round 3 Leaders

Group A:
de Firmian (2.5) - Onischuk (3)
Goldin (2) - Gurevich (2.5)
Friedel (2) - Finegold (2)
Bercys (2) - Benjamin (2)
Gonzalez (2) - D. Schneider (2)
Goletiani (w) (2) - Kraai (2)
Ibragimov (1.5) - Baginskaite (w) (2)

Group B:
Shulman (2.5) - Shabalov (2.5)
Ivanov (2.5) - Novikov (2.5)
Kamsky (2) - Christiansen (2.5)
Gulko (2) - Tuvshintugs (w) (2)
Kriventsov (2) - Becerra (2)
Fishbein (2) - Yermolinsky (2)

With 32 games per round, covering all the games, or even full round recaps, is not going to happen at this spot on the web - sorry! Fortunately, there's also little need, given the outstanding coverage on the tournament's website, complete with blog, annotated games (round 1 here; round 2 here) and other goodies as well. I'm not promising not to offer any coverage of my own, but internet spectators are in very good shape in any case.

For those who haven't been following it at all, here are some highlights from the first two rounds (yesterday was a day off; round 3 starts at 4 pm ET):

1. How the mighty have fallen: Defending champ Hikaru Nakamura started off with a loss to IM Josh Friedel, and round 2 wasn't much better: a draw with national master Jake Kleiman from a significantly worse (lost) position.

Likewise, Vladimir Akobian is also languishing with .5/2, losing badly to FM Emory Tate in the first round, and GMs Sergey Kudrin and 6-time US Champ Walter Browne round out the quartet of GM half-pointers.

2. The leaders/key pairings:

Group A:
Onischuk (2) - Gonzales (2)
DeFirmian (1.5) - Ibragimov (1.5)
Finegold (1.5) - D. Schneider (1.5)
Kraai (1.5) - Goldin (1.5)
Benjamin (1.5) - Friedel (1.5)
Stripunsky (1) - Bercys (1.5)

Top women: Goletiani, Baginskaite 1

Group B:
Novikov (2) - Shulman (2)
Becerra (1.5) - Kamsky (1.5)
Shabalov (1.5) - Milman (1.5)
Perelshteyn (1.5) - Ivanov (1.5)
Christiansen (1.5) - Wojtkiewicz (1.5)

Top women: Tuvshintugs 1, lots with .5

Click here.

The traveling show has reached its traditional location, and for Topalov, like Dorothy, there's no place like home. Topalov left Mexico half a point out of last place, with a -2 score, but in Spain he has burst out with two consecutive wins. It's a deep hole, but at least he is now within a "mere" point and a half of the leader, Leko.

Round 8 Recap:

A somewhat bizarre round. Topalov's win over the sinking Svidler (three straight Gruenfeld losses) was clean, but the Ivanchuk-Bacrot and Leko-Vallejo games were tragicomic. Leko agreed to a draw in what was probably a winning position, while Ivanchuk even managed to lose on time in a winning position. (Shades of last year's horror story Ivanchuk-Bu Xiangzhi.) Finally, Radjabov-Aronian was a correct draw, short but lively.

Round 8 Results:

Leko-Vallejo 1/2-1/2
Radjabov-Aronian 1/2-1/2
Topalov-Svidler 1-0
Ivanchuk-Bacrot 1-0

Standings after Round 8:

Leko 5.5
Aronian 5
Radjabov, Svidler 4
Ivanchuk, Topalov, Vallejo 3.5
Bacrot 3

Round 9 Recap:

The youngster called the tune, but Leko successfully held against Radjabov. A pawn down for many moves, the tournament leader was able to maintain a secure blockade that could be breached only at the cost of the extra pawn - and so it was. Aronian, with White, had a chance to catch Leko in first, but Ivanchuk played very well, drawing a complicated, balanced struggle. Svidler-Vallejo was another fairly balanced game, though it seems Vallejo had a nice edge early on that slowly ebbed away. Finally, Topalov continued his comeback, thoroughly outplaying Bacrot with the Black pieces.

Round 9 Results:

Radjabov-Leko 1/2-1/2
Aronian-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Svidler-Vallejo 1/2-1/2
Bacrot-Topalov 0-1

Standings after Round 9:

Leko 6
Aronian 5.5
Radjabov, Svidler, Topalov 4.5
Ivanchuk, Vallejo 4
Bacrot 3

Pairings for Round 10: [Note: games now start at 9:30 am ET]

Leko-Svidler
Topalov-Aronian
Ivanchuk-Radjabov
Vallejo-Bacrot

Update: Games available here.

Once upon a time, chess showed up on the world's radar. The year was 1972, and the occasion the World Championship match between the champion, the USSR's Boris Spassky, and his American challenger, Bobby Fischer. The match served as a convenient metaphor for writers looking to make geopolitical points, but it was first and foremost a chess match.

A great match, which can be viewed, informally, as a series of mini-matches. The first comprised games 1 and 2: Fischer's infamous 29...Bxh2? (and succeeding errors) in game 1 cost him a loss in what had been a normally dead drawn ending; then, in game 2, he simply no-showed.

Yet despite the favorable situation on the scoreboard, Spassky was rattled by Fischer's shenanigans and was obliterated over the next 8 games, getting outscored by a fearful 6.5-1.5 margin. If we take that to be the second mini-match, then the third began in game 11, when Spassky crushed Fischer's Poisoned Pawn variation and pulled to 4.5-6.5 overall. A draw ensued in game 12, and thus game 13 was a big moment for Spassky. He had stopped Fischer's momentum and had the chance to narrow his opponent's lead to a single point.

What happened? Come and see, this Monday night at 9 pm on ChessBase's playchess server - and perhaps the next Monday as well. The game was long, gripping affair with both players producing unusual and brilliant ideas throughout the course of the marathon's 74 moves. It's a game with more than a bit of everything, and one that shouldn't be missed!

If you're new to the show and need directions for watching, click here; if you'd like to see what games have been covered in old shows (directions for watching those old shows are in the previous link), click here.

Readers suffering through a dry spell on here: fear not! "Real life" has been keeping me especially busy the last couple of days, but the next few days will produce a fine crop. Stay tuned!

From the game Baramidze-Lahno, GM-Tage Pulvermuehle 2006, position after 46.h5:



A rather funny position: Black can only move her bishop, which isn't much fun and not likely to improve her defensive chances. On the other hand, if White plays Kc3 followed by b4, Black will rip off the b-pawn straight away and breathe a contented sigh - the bishop is immune due to stalemate. It might seem that White can't win: if he releases the potential stalemate to allow the b-pawn to enter the action, then the Black king will cross over in time to save the day.

Nevertheless, White can reel in the full point, and it's really not that difficult: you just need to think systematically. When you're ready to see how Baramidze reeled in the full point, click here.

Linares may be the greatest (chess) show on Earth, but the 2006 version of the United States Chess Championship isn't exactly chopped liver. It takes place in San Diego, CA (Winter? What's that?), starts today and continues through March 12.

The format is unusual: the 64 player field will be divided into two sections of 32 players (25 men, 7 women); each section will play a 9-round swiss. The top player from each section (determined by tie-breaks, not playoffs, in case of a tie) will meet in a 2-game rapid match for the title, and the top female finishers in each section will do the same.

There are some obvious potential problems with this setup. To pick two: First, what if a woman wins a section outright but loses in the final? Granted, she'll make more money than the women's title finalists, but will be ineligible for the title of US women's champion. Second, what's to be done if one of the male or female players significantly outrates the second-rated player? Suppose for example that Susan Polgar had chosen to play and the next two highest-rated women had similar ratings, 200-300 points below hers. In that case, the one in her section would be at a large financial disadvantage relative to her counterpart in the Polgar-free section.

On the other hand, the two-section system may serve to maximize the excitement. By having a separate final, the players will hopefully be more gung-ho to try to win their sections rather than settling for a big tie for a large prize. Further, rather than just one dramatic last round, there will now be four: one in each qualifier and then again in the rapid matches. Thus even if this system has certain disadvantages, it is at least fan-friendly, and hopefully media-friendly as well.

For those wishing to tune in online, the first round starts today at 1 pm local time (4 pm ET); the tournament website here.

The third in our recent series of king and pawn endings featured this position:



With Black to move, the task is to evaluate 1...g5. It looks sensible, but is it? If you think you've got it worked out, click here. If you want a hint, click below.

Back in 2002, Vladimir Kramnik played an 8-game match in Bahrain against the then-latest and greatest version of Fritz; the match concluded in a 4-4 draw. Kramnik dominated early: an easy draw with Black, two consecutive, convincing wins, and then another draw with him pressing. Unfortunately, a one-move blunder in game 5 and then an ill-advised attempt to win a superior position by brilliant means led to a second loss. Kramnik recovered enough to draw the two remaining games, but not enough to win.

Now he has a second chance, this upcoming November, albeit against a Fritz hardware-software combo that's four years further along. I think Kramnik in good form is the last best hope for humanity against the silicon monster, but will he be in good form by then? His (still unconfirmed) match with Topalov in September will certainly give us a clue.

More information about the Kramnik-Deep Fritz match here.

From reader Kurt Waite, by e-mail:

Greetings Dennis, Below is a link to a photography site page that belongs to me. I love taking "chess" theme pictures, and get a little creative from time to time. I hope you take the time to visit the page and find enjoyment. Let me know what you think of the pictures if you visit and have the time. [Click here.] Best Regards, Kurt

Thank you for sharing your page, Kurt. I appreciate photography as much as the next person, and am pleased when someone strives to incorporate chess as the subject matter of their artistic expression. Not having any special expertise in photography, however, I'll encourage my readers to have a look and offer their own (appreciative and/or constructive) feedback.