The Chess Mind

In the game Jan Timman-Emanuel Berg, 14th Sigeman & Co. 2006 (played this past Friday), the players reached this position after Black's 65th move:



White to move and win. (Remember, R + N vs. R is a draw except in special circumstances, none of which will apply here.) When you think you've got it worked out, click here for the whole game and the solution (and don't forget to check out the second, bonus game as well).

The match started Friday and continues through Monday, May 1. So far, each player has won with White; first Loek van Wely, then Magnus Carlsen, whose impressive game two win can be replayed here. More info here and here, if you can read Dutch.

This week we'll go against concept and look at a very recent game, the battle between Peter Leko and Teimour Radjabov from the 2006 Morelia/Linares tournament. Both players were in excellent form in this event, and this game was no exception. Radjabov essayed one of the most popular lines in contemporary chess, the Sveshnikov Sicilian, which Leko - himself a long-time devotee of the Sveshnikov - met with an intriguing near-novelty.

Radjabov did not find (or perhaps did find but rejected) what most commentators, including Leko himself, have declared the best continuation, but refuting Radjabov's idea proved quite difficult. When Leko is in good form, however, his play is a fine blend of strategic depth combined with accurate, deep calculation, and a 30-minute think produced the solution. From that point on, Leko increased his advantage bit by bit, exploiting Black's weak light squares and compromised king's position while simultaneously quashing Black's various attempts at counterplay. Finally, Leko crowned his efforts with a tactical finish leading to mate - a beautiful bow wrapping the package.

It's a great game; a bit calmer than the wild Velimirovic Attack we saw the last two weeks, but still plenty sharp. Strategically, Leko's play is a model worthy of emulation, and considering the prominence of the Sveshnikov in current practice, this game deserves a close look by anyone who plays this variation or faces it. We'll provide a bit of a primer on the line, so even if you're just curious about it, you'll want to watch this Monday night at 9 pm!

Newcomers in need of directions for watching the show (and for watching older, archived shows later), click here; for a list of games covered in previous shows, this is the link for you.

ChessBase has long been the leader in chess databases and chess engines (though they're coming under heavy assault in the latter category of late), and now they've firmly entered the forefront when it comes to chess DVDs. First there were the Kasparov videos (on the QGD and - ongoing - on the Najdorf), then the Korchnoi chess autobiographical videos, and now they've recruited Alexei Shirov of Fire on Board fame.

They have just released three disks, each covering some particular opening or system. The first and longest (over 4 and a half hours) covers his games in the Ruy Lopez (Spanish), the second goes nearly four hours and covers games in non-Najdorf (and non-Scheveningen) Sicilians, and the last goes over three hours and covers Nadjorf and Scheveningen Sicilians.

[A nomenclatural gripe: I believe what they're referring to as the Keres Attack there are games that started 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.g4. The Keres Attack proper occurs after 6...e6 7.g4, and now 7...a6 is relatively rare (7...h6 is by far the most common move) as it allows not just 7.Be3, transposing to our line, but the straightforward and high-scoring 7.g5.

In fact, the position after 5...a6 6.Be3 e6 7.g4 never occurred in Keres's games, but first appeared in the game Lombardy-Gligoric, Zurich 1961 (0-1, 47) and then really started to take off after the game Bela Perenyi-Karel Mokry, Decin 1978, the game in which the so-called Perenyi Gambit was invented: 7...e5 8.Nf5 g6 9.g5 gxf5 10.exf5 and 1-0, 41).

Perenyi was a talented IM with a penchant for very aggressive attacking lines: he is also responsible for the very important 17.Rg1! in the old main line of the Najdorf: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.O-O-O Nbd7 10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7 13.f5 Nc5 14.f6 gxf6 16.gxf6 Bf8 17.Rg1! In this sharp line, White often continues with a rapid Nd5 and/or Rg7 - lots of fun, really, but you'd better know what you're doing beforehand!

{Second-order digression: An old chess rival when I was an up-and-coming teenager was a true Najdorf fanatic and could always be counted on to play the same sub-variations all the time. That said, he was always well-prepared, so it was important to keep up with the latest developments before trying him in his pet lines. One amusing memory I have involves our playing in a tournament the very day I received the latest Informant in the mail; he got his copy a day or two later. We played a game in this second Perenyi Variation, and we blitzed out the first 20-some odd moves that represented the state-of-the-art as of the previous Informant; then, on move 27 or whatever it was I produced the new move. He shot me a look that was half-quizzical, half-uh oh, I've been had, and got to thinking. He followed the new game and/or its analysis for several moves, deviated when it was already clearly hopeless, and resigned 2-4 moves later. Good times - and see the end of the last paragraph! End of the second-order digression.}

Back to Perenyi, who died in 1988 in a car accident (I think) at the young age of 35: the line with 6.Be3 e6 7.g4 isn't his invention, but the gambit line in which Shirov thrice drubbed Loek van Wely is. As it seems to me from the ChessBase ad that it is these games which are the primary focus of the "Keres Attack" portion of the Najdorf video, I wish to register my mild protest against the naming convention of the line. I'm a HUGE Keres fan, but his invention had nothing to do with this move order, the position never arose in his games, and the best descriptor of the variation is the "Perenyi Gambit". End of the nomenclatural gripe.]

That gripe (which isn't Shirov's fault anyway) aside, I'm eager to view these videos. Unfortunately, they won't be released until May 3, but they can already be purchased, via this page.

Another interesting-looking product on that page (scroll down to the fourth entry, just below the three Shirov videos) is Karsten Müller's Endgames 1 - Basic Knowledge for Beginners. I have three of Müller's books (two on endings) and they're all excellent, as is his monthly endgame column on the Chess Cafe. The aforementioned works are generally pitched to a more sophisticated audience, but I would be shocked if this DVD didn't succeed for its target audience as well.

Warning club players to avoid sending their queens on pawn-grabbing raids used to be a mainstay of popular chess books, but in our more concrete, enlightened age, we're more skeptical about such generalizations. That said, those rules of thumb exist for a reason - take a look.

You make the call. I'm referring to the game Ghane-Krivoshey from the 8th Dubai Open, when White followed theory for 24 moves, produced a novelty, and resigned after just two more moves. I'm not sure where his preparation ended, but it wasn't a success. Have a look here, and realize that if you play super-sharp lines without due preparation, Ghane's fate may be yours. (Advanced/960 Chess, anyone?)

Finally, we come to the latest round: round 6. A lot of the top games were drawn, but the game Mamedyarov-Kharlov caught my eye, both on its own merits and as a contrast to the Grischuk-Gelfand game. Again, we have a typical isolated pawn middlegame, but this time it was White who saw more deeply at the crucial moment.

That moment occurred when White played the standard tactical shot 20.Nxf7. If Black had declined the offer with 20...Qxd4, White's edge would have been minimal, but Kharlov thought he had worked everything out. He hadn't, but as you'll see, it's hard to blame him for missing all the ins and outs of Mamedyarov's idea. Have a look, here.

First, online, there's Hans Ree's "Dutch Treat" essay over at the Chess Cafe. Ree is critical of Karpov's flip-flop, and the following choice quote should give the astute reader some idea of where he stands on the current FIDE administration: "Never trust a high FIDE official and after shaking hands with him, be sure to count your fingers."

Good stuff. For more on the incumbent, Michael Bagalman informs me that the current print edition of the New Yorker has an article on Ilyumzhinov; whether it's laudatory or condemning, I don't know. (Readers, let me know!)

The theme for this round: Petroff Power!

In a very exciting 5.Nc3 Petroff, Rublevsky and Shirov maintained the delicate balance of attack and defense until the former's 24.Rhg1; that error allowed Shirov to finish with a nice combination.

Next, in the even more high-powered game Grischuk-Gelfand, the middlegame revolved around isolated pawn/isolated pawn couple issues. The game remained roughly balanced through Grischuk's 28th move, e4. Gelfand's enterprising exchange sac 28...Rxe5! 29.dxe5 Bxe5 put an end to Grischuk's attacking ambitions, so Grischuk returned the exchange with 30.Rxd6 Qxd6 31.Qxf7+ Kh8 32.Rd1 only to find himself in some difficulties after 32...Rf8! White's position wasn't losing, but in the endgame that transpired after 33.Rxd6 Rxf7 34.Rd3 Kg7, Black's dominant bishop and superior pawn structure posed practical problems that proved insuperable.

Has all this talk of the Petroff left you hankering for a draw? No problem: have a look at the game Dreev-Khalifman. It's not a Petroff, but it is quick! Consider Karpov off the hook.

The games can be replayed here.

German grandmaster Wolfgang Unzicker passed away last Thursday, April 20, at the age of 80. Though one of the strongest players in the West during the 1960s, he was only an amateur; his profession was law. In his long and successful career (from 1946 all the way to 2005, in my database) he played every (classical) world champion from Euwe through Kramnik, with good success.

For a sample of his games against world champions (and one game against Korchnoi), click here.

This high-powered event continues to produce interesting games, and this post puts the spotlight on several of them from Sunday's round 4. (We'll catch up to the present day, fear not.)

First, there's the game Savchenko-Belov, in which White repeats Zvjaginsev's goofy 2.Na3 against the Sicilian - and wins. (Ironically, Zvjaginsev himself played the normal 2.Nf3 in rounds 5 and 6.) The idea, or at least one of the ideas, is that it's a useful waiting move. If Black plays 2...Nc6, as in this game and in Zvjaginsev-Ponomariov from round 1, White will play 3.Bb5, transposing into Rossolimo-like lines, but with the advantage of being able to play f4 without needing to move a Nf3 out of the way. So consider the opening, but don't forget the rest of the game - there's a cute ending.

Second, Morozevich-Naiditsch has long stretches of watching paint dry, but the conclusion of the ending livens things up. One moral of the ending is that the defending side's pawns can be a liability, as (for example) the strong side's king can use them as a shield from otherwise annoying rook checks. (Readers might want to take a look at the most famous rook ending in history, Capablanca-Tartakower (reprinted in every endgame book ever written, it seems), for confirmation of this idea.) [HT for games 1 & 2 to Andrey.]

Finally, Karpov-Akopian shows I was wrong to pick on the former world champion. Mea culpa.

Click here for the games.

In an earlier post and in many of the comments thereto, we celebrated the late American master and chess author Fred Reinfeld, noting that his books (whatever their other virtues and vices might be) succeeded in introducing chess fans to the game in a winsome way.

Today, a postscript: I was browsing chess historian Edward Winter's "Chess Notes" column, and I discovered something surprising. In note 4314, Winter, citing the Oxford English Dictionary, mentions that Reinfeld was the first writer to use the term "zwischenzug" (German for "in-between move") in an English-language text. (At least as far as we can tell at the moment.)

This is surprising to me for several reasons. First, Reinfeld's maiden use of the term only dates back to 1941; somehow, I would have thought it would go back further. A second source of surprise is that it wasn't introduced by a native German speaker such as Emanuel Lasker in a book like his Manual. But maybe there's nothing surprising about this at all: just because authors didn't use the word "zwischenzug" doesn't mean they didn't use the concept - perhaps they simply used "in-between move" instead. In any event, it's at least ironic that the German term was introduced in the United States just prior to her entry in the Second World War.

If any readers find an earlier English-language reference to "zwischenzug", please let me know. It would be nice to beat Winter to the scoop!

I'm not following the team standings at all, but I am keeping up with the event; how could I not, when so many great players are involved? To highlight just some of the outstanding chess being played, I've singled out four of the noteworthy games from the last two rounds (three from round two and the last one from round three).

First, Vassily Ivanchuk reminds us of his tremendous talent (yet again), devising a clever exchange/sac of his queen and a pawn for three minor pieces. World #3 Levon Aronian played accurately for a long time, but time trouble (probably) led him to a fatal error.

Second, English Attack fans should check out former FIDE champ Ruslan Ponomariov's novelty against and win over fellow 22-year old Alexander Grischuk.

Third, a chess "Razzie" to former world champ Anatoly Karpov, who demonstrated remarkable fighting spirit by playing all the way to move nine with the White pieces before agreeing to a draw against Boris Gelfand.

Finally, Sergey Karjakin and yet another former (FIDE) champ, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, had a real slugfest in the double king pawn's equivalent of the Najdorf, to wit, the Zaitsev Ruy Lopez. Kasimdzhanov produced a promising-looking novelty with Black, and it only got better from there.

They're all worth a look (well, three of them are), and if you're interested, click here.

Last week we started to look at the terrific correspondence chess battle between former world champion Vytas Palciauskas and Vytautas Andriulaitis, but we didn't even make it out of the opening! The Velimirovic Attack in the Classical Sicilian leads to wild, sacrifice-filled play, and it's important to have some idea of what in the world is going on before rushing to the middlegame.

It isn't any less complicated where we left off, but at least now we'll have some understanding of what's happening, some markers to help find our way through the terrain. Surprisingly, the ultra-complicated phase only lasts another 10 moves or so, when it resolves into a more generality-friendly position. Ironically, it is at that point that Andriulaitis finally errs, after which his opponent's accurate play gradually brings in the point.

A fascinating opening, wild variations, and accurate positional play - what more could a chess fan want? Join me this Monday night at 9 pm on the playchess server for a truly great game; you'll be glad you did!

Don't know how? Click here for directions. Concerned about having missed last week's show? No problem: click that same link - it also explains how to watch archived shows. If you're curious about what else you might find in those archives (two years' worth!), then this is the link for you.

It's not a 1-minute game, but hopefully you'll enjoy this casual, untimed game, played earlier today. I think it's instructive on several levels: the opening may be of some interest, the middlegame features some neat variations, and just as important as the analytical and aesthetic factors is the psychological commentary. In particular, I exhibited a certain laziness in calculation during the game that could have proved costly, and more importantly, could indicate a negative trend in my play. Time to stamp it out!

Here's the game, with my comments.

...and you live in the Boston area, then click here to learn about appearing on "Beauty and the Geek". Sure, it's exploitive, lowest-common denominator entertainment, but at least one needn't look like a model before getting the chance to make a donkey of oneself on "reality" TV.

Who says there's no money in chess?

The bidding starts at 9 pm ET tonight. (Prepare to dig deeeeeply into your wallet, as the bids start at $2000.) More info here.

Accompanying the Russian Team Championship is a parallel women's event, and yesterday's first round game between former FIDE women's champ Antoaneta Stefanova and Elisabeth Paehtz featured some neat tactics in the closing attack.



Start here with White (Stefanova) to move. When you think you've found the move and worked out some of the possible continuations, click here to see how it all turned out.

Click here. Of course, it's possible to cynically dismiss his concerns as pre-election counter-propaganda, but his questions seem reasonable apart from whatever political hay he's able to make.

The high-powered Russian Team Championships started yesterday, and Vadim Zvjaginsev started the event with a bang, defeating former FIDE champ Ruslan Ponomariov with his patented 2.Na3 versus the Sicilian. (Have a look here and here for some of the move's history.) I still have my doubts about the value and durability of this variation, but as long as he's continuing to play it with success against quality opponents, I'll remain open to the possibility that my intuitions are just misguided prejudices. (Where's Kasparov to punish this when we need him?)

Here's the game.

[Hat tip: Andrey]

First, we have Brian Wall offering this advice by e-mail:

I have been playing the Danish Gambit for 25-30 years.

I don't know why so many authors tell Black to chicken out with ... d5.

When I am Black I just take both pawns and play .. d6, ... c6, ... Nd7-c5 and ... Be6.

You have to endure a 25 move initiative but then you win.

And then, as if aware of Wall's comment, Larry Wolfley wrote to say the following:

I've had similar debates about the virtues of Capa's line against the Danish/goring gambit. One person argued that accepting the gambit was the only way to refute it, and no amount of logic could convince her otherwise.

Another point in favor of Capa's line is that we rarely face either the Danish or Goring gambit. So why spend time analysing other approaches, as Capa's easily equalizes for Black? It kills two birds with one stone too!

I've taken a similar approach to the Smith-Morra, 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6. It's not the greatest approach, but trnsposing to the c3 Sicilian makes it one more opening I don't have to study for. When I have all my openings figured out, I'll come back to the Smith-Morra and come up with a better system. But, that will be in another lifetime I think.

Perhaps professional chess players need more options against these lines, but for most of us there isn't enough time for that.

Thanks for the great informative site to visit!

Larry

Let me start by saying that I'm not going to dissuade the maximalists among you. If you believe in taking gambit pawns, weathering the storm and winning the endgame, then more power to you.

However, unless one is constitutionally a maximalist, or one wants to engage in a personal growth project to develop one's defensive skills, I think there are excellent reasons to prefer the practical approach.

1. Psychological factors: Most people don't enjoy or excel playing on the defensive end, so it's psychologically more comfortable for Black to seize immediate, safe equality than to attempt fighting off the opponent's initiative for two dozen moves. Further, it's less pleasant for the typical gambiteer to find himself in an endgame.

2. Preparation, or the lack thereof: To fight off the tricky possibilities in the Danish and Goring Gambits, Black will have to (a) do some preparatory work and (b) regularly refresh her memory, as the opening doesn't appear too often in OTB play. The specialist with White will certainly have the upper hand here. With the Capablanca Defense, however, Black only needs to memorize 2-3 very straightforward lines. White will still have some preparation edge here, but it will be much less than in the accepted lines, and there are far fewer ways for Black to go significantly astray.

3. "Feel": Another problem with accepting the gambit once every year or two is that even if you've memorized the basic theory, you won't have a very good feel for the resulting positions. Meanwhile, your opponent is on his home turf, so even if you come out of the opening with theoretical equality, the practical situation favors him. Chess is more about know-how than know-that, and experience is the royal road to the former.

Finally, Brian Wall's (joking?) comment notwithstanding, I don't see any reason to think taking the pawn(s) is best from the God's-eye view. (Note that he's hardly a representative sample of the average Black player vs. the Danish/Goring, as he admits to having played the White side for 25-30 years. Of course he knows where the "dead bodies" are!) Black's percentages with 3...d5 are at least equal to those of 3...dxc3, and even the "oracle" (i.e. chess software) gives a very slight preference to 3...d5!

In sum, players are, as always, welcome to do what they will, but I think the Capablanca Defense isn't a cop-out, but a fine choice in its own right.

In a pair of responses to my previous post, on the Goring and Danish Gambits, M. Nieuweboer offered the following comments (here and here):

As I have been practioner of the Danish Gambit for about 10 years, I must disappoint you a bit. Capablanca's Defence is OK, of course. But the resulting endings are just dead equal. White's bad results are caused by not accepting this and by overambition.

The good news is, that there is a more promising and even easier variation. It also has the virtue of being rather unknown. Danish Dynamite only spends about half a page on it. It is 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Ne7!? 4.cxd4 d5 or 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 Nge7!? 5.cxd4/5.Bc4 d5. Black will be happy with x.exd5 Nxd5 and does not have to fear the advance e4-e5 either.

PS I have forgotten to mention the deviation 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Be3, which does not promise an advantage, but avoids that endgame. So Black players, who employ this line, might be in for a surprise.

M. Nieuweboer:

Thanks for supplying the further information! I hope readers will try the first line and be prepared for the second. It doesn't seem that Black has anything to fear after 6...Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nf6 (or 7...Nge7) 8.Nf3 Qa5, but it's true: Black doesn't get to slide into an immediate ending.

I disagree with the implication of your first paragrah, however, which suggests that I claimed Black gets an edge with the Capablanca Defense. On the contrary, all three of my evaluative judgments expressed, either directly or indirectly, that the position was equal or balanced:

Black has a very simple, straightforward path to equality starting on move 3...

After 10.Qb3, Black is fine after 10...Qxb3 11.axb3 Nge7 12.Be3 O-O-O 13.O-O a6, when White's poor pawn structure is counterbalanced by the bishop pair...

So let's turn to the main line.... Black is fine here, too, and again we have a position where the better player will win...

That said, perhaps I should change my mind and affirm that Black is slightly better.

As I wrote in an old post, the evaluation of a "slight advantage" should be interpreted in either statistical or psychological terms or as a statement of the sides' relative margin of error. Thus if Goring and Danish players overextend or are frustrated by Black's sidestepping their gambit ambitions ("gambitions"? Maybe we can introduce a new set of terms into the chess lexicon, e.g. "gambitious": The Smith-Morra fan lost like a dog due to his overly gambitious play.), then practically speaking Black has an edge. It's not that the position is objectively better (which could only mean that one side is winning), but that Black has a larger margin of error (see below) or is psychologically happier (reasonably likely). So while Nieuweboer may be right that the problem is White players losing their marbles, this sort of "mental illness" may be sufficiently pervasive to justify an evaluation of =+.

But there is one final possibility: maybe Black's position really is easier to play. Maybe White's lousy score, based on a pretty healthy sample, indicates more than a tendency to overpress. Black's score in the average opening is around 44-45 percent, and that's starting with an equal-to-slightly worse position. It's therefore pretty remarkable that White only manages a miserable 40% from a "dead equal" position; as George Orwell might have said, some equal positions are more equal than others.

If you're reading this blog and play 1.e4 e5, chances are overwhelmingly likely that you've faced 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 on more than one occasion. On 3...dxc3, White might play 4.Nxc3 - the Goring Gambit - or 4.Bc4 - the Danish Gambit. Neither possibility should chase Black away from 1...e5, but they can be annoying.

Fortunately, Black has a very simple, straightforward path to equality starting on move 3: 3...d5!, and after 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Nc3 (or 7.Be2 Bb4+ 8.Nc3, transposing) Bb4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4. White's score in this position, which occurs 295 times in Mega 2006, is a dismal 40% (+46 - 104 = 145). White has two main tries here, 10.Qb3 and 10.Bxc6, with the latter the more serious move. After 10.Qb3, Black is fine after 10...Qxb3 11.axb3 Nge7 12.Be3 O-O-O 13.O-O a6, when White's poor pawn structure is counterbalanced by the bishop pair - especially the Bf3.

So let's turn to the main line: 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qe2+ Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2 Ne7. Black is fine here, too, and again we have a position where the better player will win - but Black doesn't have to worry that he'll be on the receiving end of an attacking massacre. For those of you who like your opening sidelines to be "wash and wear", this might be all the information you desire, the end of the investigation. But for others, this can be the beginning. For those who fall into the second category, I recommend Karsten Müller's current Chess Cafe column, in which this ending is explored further. It's worth a look for endgame fans, and if you play this line with White, it's nearly a must.

The popular annual swiss system tournament at the Foxwoods Casino took place this past weekend, and while Hikaru Nakamura was among the pre-event favorites, the tournament became a nightmare for him. In just eight rounds, he contrived to lose three games, only one of which was to a fellow GM. We all have lousy tournaments from time to time, and Nakamura picked this weekend for his.

Rather than piling on, we'll just take a look at the start of his event, when he lost - very badly - to a player rated about 450 points below him. Behold, and take hope!

And if winning the European Championship at 39 seemed special, then check out Jan Timman and especially Viktor Korchnoi, who at the ages of 54 and 75, respectively, prove that excellence can be maintained by those who are willing to work for it. The two players - both of whom are higher-rated than Kozul - just concluded a hard-fought rapid match that concluded in a 2-2 tie. All four games were interesting and complex, and they can be downloaded in .pgn format here.

In a bit of an upset, Zdenko Kozul won the European Championships with the fine score of 8.5/11; top seed Vassily Ivanchuk finished in clear second with 8/11. Meanwhile, in the ladies' tournament, Ekaterina Atalik won and Tea Bosboom-Lanchava came in clear second; as with the men, their scores were also 8.5 and 8 out of 11.

The most important aspect of this news? The winner, Kozul, proved what readers of this blog have known for the last 7-8 months: one can still move the chess pieces around reasonably well at the age of 39!

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." (Luke 24:1-5, NRSV)

Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you--unless you have come to believe in vain.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, NRSV)

Happy Easter, everyone.

It's time once more for a trip to the badly, wrongly neglected realm of correspondence chess. Of course, there are plenty of terrible correspondence games - as there are plenty of lousy OTB games - but the number of strong players (including OTB GMs) engaged in correspondence make it a treasure trove of great, theoretically significant games.

Naturally, this week's show features just such a game, and in one of my all-time favorite variations (as a fan, not a practitioner!): the Velimirovic Attack against the Classical Sicilian. White launches his pieces into the center and turns to a kingside attack, seemingly without caring how many of them are en prise at any given moment. White's characteristic setup makes a strong aesthetic impression, and often his concluding attack does as well, yet time after time Black has proven to have sufficient resources to hold the balance - even if they are found only after a painful loss.

And that's what happens in this game. Palciauskas, the 10th correspondence world champion and an American who emigrated from Lithuania to the United States as a child, introduced an important novelty on move 18 against his opponent in this USA-Lithuania correspondence match. Andriulaitis defended well through the initial firestorm, but on move 26 his one and only error cost him the game.

If you're a lover of sharp openings and wild tactics, this is the game for you! Just tune in this Monday night at 9 pm ET; you'll be glad you did. Directions for watching the show live (and for watching archived shows, for that matter) can be found here, while a list of games covered in previous shows can be accessed here.

On October 13, 2006, we'll be able to say that our long world championship nightmare is over. According to a FIDE press release from Ilyumzhinov himself, all the parties (Kramnik, Topalov and their agents) have agreed to a 12-game match in Elista, Kalmykia from September 21 through October 13 of this year. The prize fund will be at least $1 million US.

Further details (e.g. time control, what happens in the event of a 6-6 tie, the prize fund breakdown, etc.) haven't yet been announced, but the bottom line is that it's going to happen.

[A possible snag: talk of a yet-to-be-determined prize fund leaves open the possibility that this money doesn't and won't exist, a hypothesis that might suggest to suspicious minds that this is a publicity stunt on Ilyumzhinov's part to garner election support. I hope not, but enough proposed matches have fallen apart in the last 10 years due to financial concerns to make this at least a possibility.]

Robert Coleman writes, by email:

Hi Dennis,There's an interesting auction item on eBay right now: one of the clocks used during the Capablanca-Alekhine '27 match in Buenos Aires. Currently at 9 grand with 7 days to go until the hammer falls. Should be an astonishing final price. Great pictures of the equipment if you're a geek for the history of the game, like me :) bye, Robert

Update: According to Robert Coleman, the seller had a problem with bid retractions, but the link is up and running again, right here. The item is now available for "only" $6,100. (Hop-to, bargain hunters!)

The Dortmund super-GM tournament will take place from July 29 through August 6, and includes a slightly unusual cast of characters:

Arkadij Naiditsch (the defending champ)
Levon Aronian (the revelation of 2005 and the winner of Linares 2006)
Peter Svidler
Peter Leko
Vladimir Kramnik (hopefully back in good physical condition)
Boris Gelfand (off and on in the super-elite, but this must be his first Dortmund in some years)
Michael Adams
Baadur Jobava (the debutant, who qualified thanks to his first place at the Aeroflot Open (on tiebreaks))

Just as noteworthy are the absences of Veselin Topalov and Viswanathan Anand. Even without them, it should be a great tournament - especially if Kramnik finally returns to good form.

I'll mention three here.

First, there's Mark Dvoretsky's column at the Chess Cafe. As usual, the content is excellent; what's unusual is that its quantity is more manageable by normal standards. If you haven't tried working through his content before, this is the month to try.

Second, Tim Krabbé has a fascinating story about Max Euwe (item 312) that's not only of biographical interest but provocative from the standpoint of practical ethics as well.

Finally, ChessBase offers an update on the ongoing campaign for the FIDE Presidency. One oddity in the article is the support of the Israeli Chess Federation for Iljumzhinov; one would think the 2004 Tripoli fiasco (see here, here and here, for starters) would have sufficed to rule that out. It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

Now to the humans. A few days ago I mentioned Veselin Topalov's convincing 3-1 match victory over Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, but without covering the games. Happily, that omission is more than made up for on the ChessBase site, where Romanian GM Mihail Marin has analyzed them in depth. The games, in order, can be found here, here, here and here. Enjoy!

Not necessarily a human champion, but still: a new chess engine has entered the ChessBase stable (garage?), and it's the 2005 champ: Zap!Chess (previously called "ZAPPA", but renamed, I'm guessing, to avoid legal issues with the late musician's estate). Like its stablemates, it's fearfully strong, but it's especially so for multi-processor and 64-bit systems. You can find general info and purchasing information here, and I also recommend taking a look at the dedicated ZAPPA site.

I'm happy to report that the second installment of Kasparov's video series on the Najdorf has been released, and it's even better than the first. This disk, like its great predecessor, covers 6.Bg5 against the Najdorf (I believe the next disk will focus on the more positional 6.Be2, favored by Karpov in his 1.e4 days); more precisely, Kasparov investigates the important old main line (6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 - 3 videos), the alternative anti-8.e5 options (7...Nbd7 and 7...Qc7 - 5 videos on each), and the ever-fascinating Polugaevsky Variation (7...b5 - 9 videos). All told, there are 23 video clips (the 23rd is the intro) totaling over 2 hours in duration.

One mild complaint I had about the first disk (reviewed here) is that the accompanying database of 6.Bg5 games was wholly unannotated. This time around I'm pleased to report that in addition to the annotations Kasparov produces in his presentations, there are an additional 392 commented games in the 17901-game database. This is important, not only because it increases the value of the product, but because - as Kasparov freely admits - his comments, while instructive and pertinent, are not comprehensive.

Taking the product as a whole, aspiring Najdorf players are offered an inspiring introduction to one of Kasparov's favorite variations, sufficient study material to fill in the gaps, and two very important bits of original analysis in the Polugaevsky Variation from "the legendary Kasparov database", as he semi-ironically refers to it.

Highly recommended.

From a variation in the correspondence game Savinov-Latronico, GM Norm Tournament 2006 (presented in Chess Today issue 1984):



White to move and win (the solution and the full game are available here).

In the current Chess Life, Alex Dunne introduces the game Ciaran O'Hare-Ted Brandhorst like this: "My seven-year-old no longer believes in the Easter Bunny. This game is just as hard to believe!"

He's right! Click here and see for yourself.

I have another Kasparov post in the works (and a whole slew of other posts besides), but first, a quick post to commemorate his 43rd birthday today, April 13. As many Kasparov fans know, he has a positive superstition about the number 13: not only is it part of his birthday, but he was the 13th World Champion, too. I don't buy into lucky numbers, but I'll offer a gesture towards his triskaidekaphilia (if you're confused by the word and can't figure it out from the context, look up "triskaidekaphobia" and substitute "love" for "fear" in the result) by including a win by the 13-year-old Kasparov over Smbat Lputian, here.

In particular, Karpov on the FIDE Presidency. For those who don't follow FIDE politics - in a perfect world, that's just about all of us - Kirsan Iljumzhinov is the president, Bessel Kok is his main rival, and Karpov, at least a few months ago, was considering running for the position himself.

Iljumzhinov is also the President of Kalmykia, and has certainly been a controversial figure in both capacities. Kok is a successful business man who successfully organized a number of super-GM events more than a decade ago, and Karpov we all know already.

Karpov apparently decided earlier this year not to run, and then threw his support behind Kok, as evidenced by the following, from Chess Today (issue 1982):

[This is] what Karpov said in January 2006: "I think everybody connected with chess understands that if we allow chess to continue for another four years in its presented terrible state, it will simply disappear from the face of the earth." In the same interview Karpov said of Bessel Kok: "I agree with him totally and I support him."

Crystal clear: Iljumzhinov is ruining chess; Kok is the right choice. Got it. But here's a newer quotation, again from Chess Today-1982:

Well, I personally think that Ilyumzhinov's chances for success are close to 100% today. The major reason is that Bessel Kok only looks at chess from the point of view of the professional chess players.

Hmm. If Karpov was offering an objective prognostication, then there wouldn't be any contradiction: he would prefer that Kok win, but thinks he'll lose. It seems, though, that he's offering a critique of Kok, that his point of view is unduly limited. And not only this, but apparently Iljumzhinov is not similarly blindered in his perspective.

Politics...yuck. Let's hope that the above is the product of mistranslation rather than a possibly unprincipled change of mind. Readers are of course encouraged to make up their own minds not only on this point, but on the election as well: Kok's website can be found here; Iljumzhinov's here. My preference? For BK, very strongly; definitely not for KI.

Last night, I watched the Game Show Network's program on Fischer (see this post for more details), and it wasn't as bad as I feared. Most of the interviewees (among them IM Anthony Saidy, FM Asa Hoffman and the (former?) President of the Icelandic chess federation) were at least sympathetic to Fischer, if not condoning of his more extreme actions, and I think the overall tone reflected a similar point of view: admiration for the man as a chess player, pity for him as a human being, and a sense of loss about what could have been. Certainly they don't shy away from the negatives, including his anti-Jewish vitriol (nor should they), but they don't reduce him to that, either.

Little if anything will be new to those who have followed Fischer's career and travails in terms of information, but some of the pictures and film clips of Fischer were new to me. Also of interest: 2-3 years ago, an investigative report revealed that Hungarian-American physicist Paul Nemenyi was probably Fischer's father. I knew about that, but what I hadn't yet seen, until last night's program, was a picture of Nemenyi. I'm sold! (An irony of this recent discovery is the revelation that not only his mother but both Fischer's parents were Jewish.)

Freezer is an interesting piece of software I came across a week or two ago [HT: Peter Winkler], one which looks absolutely indispensable to endgame theorists and composers and (of course) correspondence chess players.

What it does is enable the user to bridge the gap between certain positions where material is limited but outside the range of standard Nalimov tablebases. The trick is to allow the user to exclude a large enough range of possibilities from the starting position to generate an exhaustive search that will eventually link to the tablebases.

For example: suppose you have a set of 6-piece tablebases, but there are currently seven pieces on the board and an exhaustive calculation of all the possible ways to get from the current position to the tablebases would require searching 600 million positions. You're sure, however, that neither side's king would have any reason to go to the queenside, and thus by excluding positions where the kings are on the queenside, you've automatically reduced the search by 3/4. Making other, similar sorts of constraints reduces the search even further, until the calculation becomes quite manageable and voila! - you've generated your very own, special tablebase.

Have a look around the site, especially the example pages: the three specific cases they demonstrate are helpful and fascinating as examples of applied logic. A possible problem, or at any rate, annoyance, is that as far as I can tell from the website, it isn't going to work within ChessBase; it's a stand-alone program. That might make bringing its results into one's ChessBase files a bit of a hassle, but if you're part of Freezer's target audience, it looks like a hassle worth enduring.

A TV network I don't receive, the Game Show Network, apparently has a series called "Anything to Win", and this week's episode features a certain famous GM, formerly of the United States. (If you're not sure who I'm referring to, here's a hint: the program title is Anything to Win: The Mad Genius of Bobby Fischer.) The show first aired on Sunday, but I believe it's going to be rebroadcast today (Tuesday) at 9 pm ET, but check with your cable/satellite provider for local times.

Reports from those who caught the first showing haven't been especially positive, but it's hard not to be curious about the show. Here, from the show's home page, is the program's blurb:

The Mad Genius of Bobby Fischer [DM: "Mad genius"? We're not off to a good start here.]

Bobby Fischer was the greatest Chess [sic] player of his generation and possibly of all time - but his legacy may be more about his having been an eccentric recluse [DM: Are there mainstream, run-of-the-mill recluses?] who would do anything to get his way. In addition to excellent Chess tactics, Fischer was known to utilize the element of intimidation and control [DM: Doesn't that make two elements?] in challenging opponents, organizations and governments. From using extreme psychological warfare to defeat Boris Spassky for the title of World Chess Champion, to defying the United States government in order to play a match on his terms, Fischer has proven he will do anything - rational or not - to win.

What a load. Of course, this baloney fits the promotional template, and some poor writer for the network who probably knows nothing about serious chess was forced to come up with some nonsense designed to sound interesting to a general audience.

Here's a partial list of problems. First, it presupposes, wrongly by most accounts, that Fischer's demands on organizers were based on gamesmanship rather than principle. Second, it suggests that Fischer was acting in a controlled, calculating manner: "anything - rational or not - to win". Yet Fischer repeatedly bailed on major events and opportunities during his career: he withdrew from the Reshevsky match in 1961, avoided the Amsterdam Interzonal in 1964, dropped out of the Sousse Interzonal in 1967 and failed to defend his title in 1975 - hardly the actions of someone attempting to win at all costs! Third, Fischer's reputation was not of someone who attempted to intimidate his opponents - except by his skill. Many of his opponents from the former USSR - his main rivals - have commented on his "correctnes" as an opponent, his hassles with organizers and anti-Soviet rhetoric notwithstanding.

It's possible that the manure streaming from the PR department doesn't reflect the show's content and that we won't see him presented as a wild-eyed caricature. There is, unfortunately, plenty to criticize about Fischer, but if that's to be done, it should at least be for the right things and not for cheap, lowest-common-denominator entertainment.

1. Eric Yussman has started a chess club in Louisville, and you can read all about it here. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm familiar with the plight of the nomadic club - our local club has gone from one bookstore to another, was briefly located in a pub and now meets in the deli section (after it closes) of a local supermarket. So I understand the motivation and wish for its success. On the other hand, I have to admit that unless Kasparov was giving members-only lectures, I would not pay $200 for a year's membership. Further, I know that plenty of others would find such a fee prohibitive. (If the $6/session charge is an alternative that doesn't have to add up to $200, then my reservation is largely retracted.) Hopefully that's just start-up money, and as the club grows and initial costs are recouped, the rates will go down. [HT: Eric Yussman himself.]

2. Brian Karen is my most frequent source of web information, and here are several items of interest I in turn pass along to all of you:

a. The Underground Review, a newly-formed online journal featuring both games and essays. Worth a look.

b. An interesting old game between Gustav Richard Neumann and Joseph Henry Blackburne, with light notes by the man (Blackburne) himself.

c. An even crazier old game, this time between Henry Bird and James Mason. I'd definitely recommend working out all the tactics as an analytical exercise.

d. Dr. Dave's Canon of Educational Chess Games (self-explanatory).

e. One more nice game, or rather, a so-so game with a nice mating combination - click here for that game, with my brief notes.

A few days ago I mentioned that FIDE champ Veselin Topalov would take on Romania's best player, Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu in a 4-game match. It's now over, and the result is a convincing win for the champ, who drew games 1 and 3 with Black and won games 2 and 4 with White.

The games can be downloaded from The Week in Chess, right here.

The best game of the past 20 years?

That’s what Jan Timman said at the time about the game Ljubomir Ljubojevic-Ulf Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1976. I’m not sure I’d agree, but it’s got all the elements to contend for that high honor: two of the world’s best players, both playing excellently in a very rich, complex game. Adding to the game’s value is that both players assumed their “official” roles: “Ljubo”, the superlative attacker and lover of complications, was in his element on the White side of a sharp Be2 Scheveningen, while Andersson, the consummate defender, successfully fought off wave after wave of the attack. Finally, one of the players blinked.

Who was it?

For that, and to see some of the deep, beautiful variations behind the scenes, you’ll just have to tune in this Monday night at 9 pm ET. You’ll be glad you did!

If you're new to the show and need viewing directions, all the info you'll need is here, while a list of games covered in previous shows is available here.

In the comments section of Fred Reinfeld: Real Chess Player!?, the name of the late GM Eduard Gufeld arose. A controversial figure, to put it mildly, he strove to play beautiful games and often succeeded, including his self-proclaimed "Mona Lisa", his famous, dramatic 1973 victory over GM Vladimir Bagirov.

Gufeld made this game his calling card, and while it's a great game, he has lost some brilliant games, too. In addition to the aforementioned success, I've also included a nice Bagirov win (unfortunately for him, it came before the "Mona Lisa" and thus failed to count as revenge); a remarkable, thematic win by Lubosh Kavalek; and finally, a relatively recent win by Joel Benjamin with a nice concluding combination.

Gufeld's win is the nicest of the lot, but the Kavalek game is quite impressive as well, and all four games should prove entertaining. You be the judge - click here.

This past week, event favorite OSC Baden-Baden, headed by none less than Viswanathan Anand, won the latest edition of the Bundesliga. Interested readers can check out the cross-table here, and at the urging of JaiDeepBlue (by email), properly applying this earlier post, I've provided a link to a game from the event's final weekend, between Kasimdzhanov and Anand.

It's good, clean, frivolous family fun. Click here for some lightweight entertainment.

Of the former sort, the European Individual Chess Championship started Tuesday, April 4, and continues through April 17 in Kusadasi, Turkey. The event is far less top-heavy than I can remember from past years, with a big drop-off from Vassily Ivanchuk (2729) to Aleksander Delchev at 2661; indeed, only 24 of the 138 participants are rated 2600 and above.

That's yesterday's news; tomorrow's - today's, when many of you will read this - is that Veselin Topalov will face the very strong Romanian GM Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu in a 4-game match starting Thursday, April 6 and going through the 9th. The match takes place in Bucharest and the games start at 2:30 pm local time (that's 7:30 am ET, in case any bleary-eyed American readers want to catch the games from the start).

One of my favorite chess haunts on the web is Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary, about which my only complaint is that he doesn't update his page more often. (And even so, there's so much there already that it's hard to offer the complaint with much conviction.)

In the last week he has offered a couple of new entries. The first (item 311) represents a new entrant in the amazing, bizarre world of the tablebase, presenting a 330-move win (given best play for both sides) in the endgame KQBNkqb. (Let's hear it for the 50-move rule!)

The second (item 310) is a lighter offering, showing a screen shot advertising a German-language edition of a Dvoretsky (and Jussupow) book listed as authored by Immanuel Kant. The error is ironic, as both Dvoretsky and Kant have reputations in their respective fields for offering their readers massive headaches. (Kant's writing in particular was so egregious that generations of German philosophy students have allegedly preferred to read his Critique of Pure Reason in English to their - and Kant's - native German! My recommendation is that they pick up the works of Thomas Reid instead, but that's a long story for another day, and perhaps a different blog.)

Like many American chess players of the pre-internet age, I went through a phase where chess books by Fred Reinfeld (1910-1964) were a regular part of my "diet": from The Complete Chess Course (near-worthless for all but the truest beginners) to his "1001" books (which I found extremely useful and still recommend for those who aren't descriptive notation-phobic). [Pedants, don't write in: I know it's not a real phobia!]

I quickly moved on to other books, and over time my fond memories of Reinfeld dimmed - he seemed to be a minor player who churned out a few decent books and a slew of lame works rehashing his previously published material to make a buck. (Not admirable from a quality standpoint, but understandable given Depression Era conditions.)

Over the last few years, my attitude has swung back around somewhat. Of course, he certainly wasn't one of the greats, but he wasn't bad, either. In the five career games of his against Sammy Reshevsky to which I have access, his score was +2=3, and in his only game with then world champion Alexander Alekhine, he managed to hold a draw. He may not be a legend of the game, but he does deserve some respect.

Click here for his two wins over Reshevsky (the second isn't in Mega 2006, but comes from the April 2006 Chess Life, page 41) and his draw with Alekhine.

...is apparently a standard quip in some chess circles, but I had never seen it before yesterday. Now, I've seen it twice:

1. In the latest issue of Chess Life (April 2006, page 44), where this saying from auto racing is used, jokingly, to refer to the starting announcement at the beginning of International Correspondence Chess tournaments.

2. On the ChessBase website, as the tease line linking to the finals of their "Freestyle" tournament finals this weekend. (It's currently the third post down.)

Funny how these things work: now, having seen it a couple of times, I suspect I'll start noticing it everywhere.

Programs like New York City's Chess in the Schools (for which I used to work), have done a fine job of providing an excellent environment for students to learn the game in a classroom setting. If you don't live in New York, however, and want to replicate their model at your/your kids' school, what can you do?

For a start, you might want to pick up a couple of books. One book that seems especially well-suited to the organizational aspect is Alexey Root's Children and Chess: A Guide for Educators. I don't have the book, but if I were going to start a program in a public school, that's a resource I'd make sure to pick up. (Those interested in the book can contact me for a discount form.)

A second book to consider is Maurice Ashley's Chess for Success : Using an Old Game to Build New Strengths in Children and Teens (available through Amazon and elsewhere). This book appears more geared towards the motivational side of things, and that's useful not only for the students and the teacher, but - assuming Ashley's arguments are good ones - for helping to overcome resistance from wary administrators!

Here's the top 20 (+ the top two US men):

1. Topalov 2804
2. Anand 2803
3. Aronian 2756
4. Svidler 2743
5. Leko 2738
6. Ponomariov 2738
7. Morozevich 2730
8. Kramnik 2729
9. Gelfand 2727
10. Ivanchuk 2723
11. Adams 2720
12. Grischuk 2719
13. Radjabov 2717
14. Ju. Polgar 2711
15. Bacrot 2708
16. Akopian 2706
17. Bareev 2701
18. Shirov 2699
19. Mamedyarov 2699
20. Nisipeanu 2695

32. Kamsky 2671
42. Nakamura 2664

Also of interest:

The Top 10 Women (+ the top U.S. woman):

1. Ju. Polgar 2711
2. Koneru, Humpy 2548
3. Kosteniuk 2540
4. Cramling 2520
5. Xu, Yuhua 2517
6. Chiburdanidze 2504
7. Stefanova, Antoaneta 2502
8. Kosintseva, T. 2489
9. Hoang Thanh Trang 2487
10. Zhu, Chen 2483

22. Irina Krush 2447

This year, we won’t exactly have an April Fool’s show, but we’ll look at some examples one of the most outrageous themes in chess: the successful king walk. One of the most fundamental of all chess lessons is that prior to the endgame, the king should be squirreled away in a safe, castled position; bringing the king out into the open is foolhardy and a sure path to a quick loss. And that’s true – usually. But not always! Sometimes the king’s natural home is in such danger that a trip to other parts is an exodus to safety. Sometimes a player will want to open lines for attack on one side of the board, and so he preemptively relocates his king in advance of commencing the aggressive operation. And sometimes, the king has a job of its own to do, and it becomes a full participant in the offense.

The latter is the rarest case, and we’ll take a look at what must be the most famous example in at least recent chess history, Short’s famous king walk game against Jan Timman. But in the interest of putting this unusual theme on full display, we’ll take a quick look at a variety of king walks before turning to our featured game. It’s not exactly an April Fool’s show, but the games are in the spirit of that tradition: you see it, but you’re not sure if you should believe it!

Hope to see everyone this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET – don’t forget to set your clocks forward, if you haven’t already. If you're new to the show, you can find directions for watching (both live and archived shows) here, while a list of games covered in previous shows can be found here.