The Chess Mind

In the first four games, both players failed to convert when they had the initiative. In game 1 Topalov was pressing (though he never had anything concrete), went too far and lost. In game 2, a Kramnik blunder threw away what would have probably been one of the most glorious days in championship history, but Topalov failed to convert both immediately and over the course of the next few moves as well. Eventually, the position became balanced, but Topalov continued to (over-)press and managed to lose. In game 3, it was Kramnik's turn to blow a win and several other nice opportunities. Unlike Topalov, however, he limited the bleeding and drew that game. Finally, game 4 was a mutually well-played draw. Topalov had a small edge with White, but Kramnik's excellent defense kept everything under control.

The next five games, four of which were actually played, went wholly in Topalov's favor, though largely marred by the "toiletgate" controversy. Kramnik forfeited game 5, and then played his second and third consecutive black games in games 6 and 7. Both games were drawn and it looked like he had weathered the storm, but in game 8 he pressed with White before losing the thread starting at around move 30. He lost badly at the end of that game, and game 9 was even worse.

That left Kramnik a point down with just three games left, but he seemed to be surprisingly energetic and upbeat in the post-game 9 interviews. (Against Leko in 2004, he already looked haggard after winning game 1, and while he was never as physically frail as Karpov, his track record is that he coasts a bit at the end of long events. So this was good news for Kramnik & his fans, especially coming off of his illness.) Sure enough, his play in game 10 was far more energetic, but even so, it was a bizarre Topalov blunder that gave Kramnik the win. Game 11 was a see-saw struggle, with first Topalov and then Kramnik enjoying some advantage, but on both occasions the defender played more accurately and the game was drawn. Finally, Kramnik had an edge in game 12, but Topalov's active defense saved the day in another mutually well-played game.

Finally, the tiebreaks. In the first game, Kramnik with Black quickly obtained an edge, but several time-wasting moves later Topalov seized the initiative. It was starting to look dangerous, too, but Kramnik's great defensive idea starting with 36...Nc4! saved the day: draw.

Game 2 was a typical Kramnik win: start with an equal position - but his kind of equal position - and grind the opponent into a fine paste. Kramnik's handling of the queenless middlegame/overpopulated ending was far superior to Topalov's, and he won smoothly.

Game 3, in turn, showcased Topalov's strengths. In a must-win situation, he created a dynamically equal but incredibly tense middlegame in which a single Kramnik inaccuracy could be fatal. And so it was: Kramnik's 34...Ke7? allowed Topalov to detonate a winning tactical explosion in what was the most spectacular game of the match.

Topalov had proved his resiliency yet again, but Kramnik too showed his competitive heart. Again starting with practically nothing out of the opening, he outplayed - and outcalculated - Topalov. He neutralized Topalov's play against his weak c-pawn, won a pawn, and then again neutralized Topalov's compensation as well. By move 44, he was well on his way to a win, but another Topalov blunder ended the game - and the match - immediately.

Who Played Better?

Topalov has suggested in at least a couple of interviews that while Kramnik captured all of his opportunities, he (Topalov) missed many chances, and had he not missed them, he would have won the match (pre-tiebreaks).

It's not a particularly gracious remark, but is it true? The first thing I'd like to suggest is that it's a bit of cherry-picking: if you press like a maniac all the time, you're bound to self-destruct every so often. It goes with the territory. If one is always looking for ways to win, to push, to exert pressure, it's relatively easy to make certain assumptions about the opponent's replies (that they'll be reactive). As in tennis, aggressive players not only have more winners, they have more unforced errors as well.

But even so, is Topalov right? In game 1, he blundered, but he didn't miss any winning opportunities beforehand. So in our fantasy world tabulation, we can give Topalov another half point and take one away from Kramnik. In game 2, Topalov threw away one clear win and maybe one or two subtler wins. But before we give him the full point, however, remember that the first blunder was made by Kramnik, and that the right move would, by Topalov's own admission, led to a draw. So Topalov gets another half point, Kramnik loses a half point.

In game 3, Kramnik missed a winning move himself (and some promising chances afterwards), so we have to give him an extra half-point back. And how about game 5? Shouldn't we give Kramnik at least a half point for that game, too, since he'd have had White? Thus far it's at least a wash for Kramnik. Finally, in game 10 Topalov blundered, but he was at least in a position where Kramnik had some advantage and was enjoying "his" kind of position. So at most we can say that Topalov had one fewer break than Kramnik, but that's only if we assume Kramnik only draws game 5 and game 10, and we're also assuming that his team's protest had no other adverse effects upon his opponent.

The Openings

I came across a few people griping about the monotony of the openings. Yes, 12 out of 15 games started with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6, it's true. But even within that framework, there was a lot of variety - there were Slavs, Semi-Slavs and even a Queen's Gambit Accepted (by transposition).

Further, the Slavs came in three flavors: the 4.e3 Bf5 line, the old main line with 9.Qe2, and the Slav with 6.Ne5. All three systems are dramatically different from each other, and there are differences between the Meran and the Anti-Meran in the Semi-Slav as well. Add to this the QGA game, the two Open Catalans and the one Closed Catalan, and while 1.e4 fans may be understandably disappointed, it's not really fair to claim that the opening choices were monochromatic.

Who did better in the openings? It's clear that Topalov was responsible for the overwhelming majority of the novelties, and in that sense his play in that phase of the game was more impressive than his opponent's. But recall Kramnik's "Berlin Wall" match with Kasparov in 2000: there his goal with Black wasn't as much about achieving equality as it was getting the right kind of position. Kramnik understood very well what to do in those endings, while Kasparov was repeatedly frustrated. By that standard, I think Kramnik's opening play was more or less a success in this match as well, but I don't think he was particularly successful with White. Topalov gets the nod here.

What Now?

That's the subject of a subsequent post!

1. Spassky-Petrosian, Moscow (W ch, game 19) 1969 (1-0, 24 moves), B94. Spassky wins a slice-and-dice Najdorf Sicilian on the way to winning the title.

1. Spassky-Rashkovsky, USSR ch. 1973 (1-0, 21), B96. Another impressive tactical demolition on the White side of a Najdorf Sicilian.

2. Keres-Weiss, IFSB-ch corr. 1935 (1-0, 27), C02. Keres wins a nice attacking game on the White side of an Advanced French, Steinitz Gambit.

2. Keres-Geller, Candidates playoff 1962 (1-0, 28), D41. A classic Semi-Tarrasch, featuring the typical d5 central break leading to a crushing kingside attack.

3. Brodsky-Kramnik, Herson 1991 (0-1, 31), B33. Kramnik bamboozles his opponent with some powerful tactics on the Black side of the Sveshnikov Sicilian.

3. Gelfand-Kramnik, Berlin 1996 (0-1, 28), D45. Facing the trendy Shabalov-Shirov Gambit in the Karpov Variation of the Semi-Slav (7.g4), Kramnik declines the offer and launches a vicious queenside counterattack. Gelfand goes down in a blaze of tactics.

3. Kasparov-Kramnik, Dos Hermanas 1996 (0-1, 35), D48. Kramnik demolishes Kasparov in the Meran System, sacrificing a piece for an enduring attack that eventually forces Kasparov's capitulation.

4. Topalov-Bareev, Linares 1994 (0-1, 23), C13. Topalov's king dawdles in the center, and although Bareev isn't best known for his attacking play and the Classical French doesn't generally lead to such problems for White, this sacrificial gem makes for a great object lesson and deserves to be better known.

4. Karpov-Topalov, Linares 1994 (1-0, 39), A33. Karpov wins a smooth, typically Karpovian attacking game in, of all things, a Symmetrical English. An interesting feature of the game is that Karpov sacrifices the exchange twice. This was probably Karpov's best game in what was probably the greatest tournament performance of all time: 11/13 against a typical Linares field.

5. Geller-Najdorf, Zurich (Ct) 1953 (1-0, 57), B92. Geller turned 6.Be2 against the Najdorf Sicilian into a serious positional weapon, and in this game we see it work to perfection, as White ends up with a great Nd5 vs. a dominated Black dark-squared bishop.

5. Geller-Fischer, Curacao (Ct) 1962 (1-0, 41), B92. Same variation as the previous game, but White's strategic plusses are different on this occasion: now White wins by exploiting an active queenside majority.

6. Karpov-Ljubojevic, Torino 1982 (1-0, 28), B84. Again 6.Be2 vs. the Najdorf, but instead of 6...e5, Ljubo played 6...e6, transposing to a Scheveningen Sicilian. Play there tends to be sharper, and Karpov wins with a nice attack launched by the typical e5 pawn break.

6. Tal-Andersson, Biel (izt) 1976 (1-0, 34), B85. Another 6.Be2 Najdorf-turned-Scheveningen, also won by White with a kingside attack started by the e5 pawn break.

7. Shirov-Polgar, Tilburg Fontys 1996 (1-0, 30), B85. There seems to be a trend here: I concluded my series on 6.Be2 vs. the Najdorf with this savage, sacrificial attacking masterpiece against Polgar's cavalier treatment of the Scheveningen. In particular, her fate shows what can easily happen when Black castles too soon in this variation.

8. Halprin-Pillsbury, DSB-12 Kongress 1900 (1/2-1/2, 24), C67. A famous, tactically elegant draw in a sideline of the Berlin Defense. Those who play the Berlin and those who hate it might especially want to take a look.

9. Polugaevsky-Nezhmetdinov, Sochi 1958 (0-1, 33), A53. The little-known Nezhmetdinov takes apart his famous opponent in an Old Indian, sacrificing a full queen to inaugurate an ultimately decisive king hunt.

10. Kasparov-Karpov, W ch (game 16) 1986 (1-0, 41), C92. One of many great Zaitsev Ruy Lopez games between the two legends, this one is perhaps my favorite. Black has a monster knight on d3 and White's knight on a3 is left hanging for six moves, but White's desperate-looking attack was always good enough and crashed through when Karpov went astray.

11. Durham-Monokroussos, Las Vegas 1986 (1/2-1/2, 65). This was an endgame fragment, part of a show dedicated to my best saves and swindles. In this fragment, I voluntarily enter a seemingly lost king and pawn ending that is, very surprisingly, drawn.

11. Monokroussos-Shliperman, New York 1998 (1-0, 38). Another fragment: I'm in a bit of trouble with White against my strong opponent, but not in as much trouble as he thought.

11. Monokroussos-Cavallo, Philadelphia (World Open) 1998 (1-0, 25). In this game, we take up the position after I've squandered the advantage with an unfortunate pawn sac and am faced with the dilemma of choosing an ending one pawn down or a middlegame two pawns down. I chose option three: sac a rook to create utter chaos. It worked.

11. Monokroussos-Barcarola, US Amateur Team East 1999 (1/2-1/2, 54), C46. How many people get to sacrifice two queens in one game, and live to tell the tale? In this crazy game, probably the weirdest Three Knights you'll ever see, I did - and sacrificed much more besides.

12. Flohr-Vidmar, Nottingham 1936 (1-0, 58), D62. A Classical Queen's Gambit Declined slowly winds its way to a rook ending with even material but serious structural advantages for White. Turning those advantages into a win isn't easy, and that's what makes Flohr's virtuoso technique worth studying.

13. Capablanca-Marshall, New York 1918 (1-0, 36), C89. The original Marshall Gambit game. (Okay, not quite, but it put the variation on the map.) Faced with a very dangerous prepared variation, Capa takes up the challenge, plays perfectly, destroys the line (the 11...Nf6 variation) and crushes Marshall. An awesome performance, to put it mildly.

14. Denker-Botvinnik, U.S. vs. USSR radio match 1945 (0-1, 25), D44. Botvinnik unleashes the eponymous Botvinnik Variation of the Semi-Slav upon Denker, and obliterates him.

15. Capablanca-Menchik, Hastings 1929 (1-0, 64), D41. A Semi-Tarrasch eventually reaches a rook and pawn vs. rook ending, one that's probably the worst ending ever played by the legendary Cuban. Between the two of them, they managed to make five blunders in a 10 move stretch. Very instructive, especially in light of Capa's reputation as an endgame genius.

16. Harmonist-Tarrasch, DSB-06 Kongress 1889 (0-1, 46), C67. Tarrasch shows that the Berlin Defense can be played as a winning weapon. By move 20, it's an endgame of BNN for White against BBN for Black (with pawns on both sides), and the remainder shows Tarrasch's ability to dominate with the bishop pair. An excellent technical performance.

17. Jimenez-Larsen, Palma de Mallorca 1967 (0-1, 43), B04. Larsen was one of the most creative, non-stereotyped players of his day, and this game is no exception. In an Alekhine's Defense, he surprises Jimenez by exchanging a fianchettoed bishop for a knight and then allowing his pawn structure to be damaged, but in return he achieves light-squared domination. A good example of exploiting a color-complex.

18. Reshevsky-Miagmasuren, Sousse 1967 (1-0, 33), D36. This game is a nice illustration of White's prospects on the White side of the Carlsbad structure (via the Exchange Queen's Gambit Declined), employing the basic minority attack with b4-b5.

19. Karpov-Beliavsky, Tilburg 1986 (0-1, 36), D36. This game is transitional to the next one: same opening, same White plan, and here too White achieved some advantage. White must always beware of Black's kingside counterplay, and an unusual moment of carelessness on Karpov's part led to a kingside catastrophe.

19. Nikolic-Kramnik, Monaco (blind) 1998 (0-1, 35), D35. Another Exchange QGD, but this time White never gets out of the starting gate: Black quelches White's queenside hopes while building for the inevitable, successful kingside breakthrough.

20. Serper-Nikolaidis, St. Petersburg 1993 (1-0, 48), E70. Serper plays 5.Nge2 against Nikolaidis' King's Indian Defense, but what makes this game special are the sacrifices: Serper sacrifices every single one of his pieces! A modern classic.

21. Petrosian-Yukhtman, USSR ch (Tbilisi) 1959 (1-0, 31), E92. This is one of the first examples of the Petrosian Variation of the King's Indian Defense, and the tactically talented Yukhtman is clueless, as White achieves light-squared domination and crushes Black. An important game for KID players to understand.

22. Reshevsky-Fischer, New York/Los Angeles (m-5) 1961 (0-1, 57), D42. A Semi-Tarrasch reaches a typical isolated queen pawn middlegame position, which is one of the most important structures in chess (in part because it arises via many different openings and move orders), and Reshevsky gets the best of the middlegame, reaching an objectively winning endgame. It's imbalanced, though: Black has a knight and two pawns in exchange for a rook (both sides have further material as well), and although Black starts out behind in the race - White's rook starts out doing its damage faster than the Black pawns run down the board - inaccuracies lead to a dramatic Fischer win.

23. Capablanca-Tartakower, New York 1924 (1-0, 52), A85. The game starts out as a Dutch Defense, but most players only know the game for the famous rook ending, in which Capa sacs two pawns for king activity and the ability to create mating threats. We looked at this ending after looking at a series of fundamental rook endgame positions.

24. Kharlov-Nisipeanu, Tripoli (FIDE W Ch) 2004 (1-0, 62), E37. The game is a Classical Nimzoindian, but our interest in the game was in the rook ending. Both sides had a rook and f-, g- and h-pawns, while White had an extra pawn on the a-file. The ending was a theoretical draw, but not easily saved in practice - as we saw in the game. A very important ending for practical players to understand.

25. Zukertort-Steinitz, W ch 1886 (0-1, 46), D11. Technically, the game was a Slav, but it really turns into a sort of reversed French Defense with shades of a King's Indian Attack. It's a nice example of how to attack certain pawn structures.

26. Lputian-Dlugy, New York Open 1998 (1-0, 23), D26. Lputian essays a dubious but enterprising exchange sacrifice in the Queen's Gambit Accepted, and Dlugy is unable to cope, as White wins with a brilliant attack.

27. Ljubojevic-Korchnoi, Linares 1985 (1-0, 41), C18. A typically bizarre Winawer French: both sides have weaknesses and it seemed that both players had the initiative as well. The game is a race between attacks on opposite sides of the board, and with the help of a well-timed defensive queen sacrifice, White comes in first.

28. Rotlewi-Rubinstein, Lodz 1907 (0-1, 25), D40. Rubinstein's "immortal" game. White, a strong player who unfortunately died at an early age, played the opening like a chimp (haven't we all, at times?) and managed to lose three tempi in 15 moves. Deciding the appropriate strategy was to open the position, hoping to generate some attacking chances. He did, but for Rubinstein, who sacrificed his queen, a rook, the exchange and a piece on the way to forcing mate.

29. Benko-Olafsson, Yugoslavia (Ct) 1959 (1-0, 42), B99. The game starts out as a 6.Bg5 Najdorf - a very sharp line - but Benko turns it into something more like the 6.Be2 lines, as he attempts to control d5 and the light squares in general. A typically smooth positional performance by Benko, and the line offers those wanting to leave the beaten track something a bit different against the Najdorf.

30. Estrin-Berliner, World Corr. Ch. 1965-68 (0-1, 42), C57. One of the candidates for the greatest game ever played, Berliner essays the super-sharp Fritz/Ulvestad variation of the Two Knights against Estrin and unleashes a bombshell novelty. Pieces are hanging all over the place, and Estrin has to scramble to reach a rook ending; unfortunately for him, Berliner plays that beautifully too, and wins.

31. Beliavsky-Anand, Munich 1991 (0-1, 28), B09. This game is a classic example of crime and punishment, hypermodern style. Beliavsky essays the Austrian Attack against Anand's Pirc and achieves the traditional big pawn center - but maintaining it is another story. Anand's play against the pawns and White's vulnerable king lead to a speedy and impressive denouement.

32. Morozevich-Anand, PCA/Intel GP (rapid) 1995 (1-0, 28), C33. Like David going up against Goliath, the young Morozevich didn't worry about Anand's experience and reputation, but went head-hunting from the get-go. Anand initially reacted well to Moro's King's Gambit, but once he lost the thread Moro's attack crashed through in a hail of sacrifices.

33. Cordes-Miles, Bad Woerishofen 1985 (1-0, 36), E20. Another David and Goliath story. Cordes produces an interesting novelty in the Flexible Variation of the Nimzo-Indian. Cordes' idea led to an enduring (and picturesque) attack that eventually brought home the point.

34. Korchnoi-Huebner, Johannesburg 1981 (1-0, 23), E16. The game starts quietly in a Queen's Indian sideline, but Korchnoi's fascinating, speculative piece sacrifice livens things up in a hurry. Huebner reacted well at first, but lost his way in the complications.

35. Kramnik-Leko (x2) (Tilburg 1998 and Koeln 2000) (0-1, 45 and 1-0, 33), E60 and B47. The first game was the debut of the preposterous-looking Adorjan Gambit. Kramnik obtained an advantage and only Leko's spirited defense - and a Kramnik error - allowed Leko to save the game and even turn the tables for a win. Game two featured a then-rare 1.e4 from Kramnik, and it was an impressive outing at that, as he picked apart Leko's Taimanov Sicilian and concluded with a successful sacrificial attack.

36. Vasiukov-van Wely, Moscow 2002 (1-0, 32), B53. Vasiukov was a very strong GM in his heyday in the 50s and 60s, but he seemed overmatched against current elite GM van Wely. The game was one-sided, alright, but it was the younger player who was massacred in a model game in the Chekhover Sicilian.

37. Jussupow-van der Wiel, Luzern (ol) 1982 (1-0, 31), A18. A Flohr-Mikenas English develops into a fine illustration of an attack gradually built up with a pawn on e5, but it also demonstrates the power of precision, as a pair of subtle Jussupow decisions made the difference between an edge and a win.

38. Anderssen-Lange, Breslau 1859 (0-1, 19), C61. This game, a famous miniature in the Bird's Defense of the Ruy Lopez, is an introductory snack in advance of the next game, showing in clear form the attacking idea common to both.

38. Polgar-Berkes, Budapest 2003 (1-0, 24), C11. A miniature in the Burn French, featuring a nice sacrificial attack on the h-file.

39. Botvinnik-Smyslov, W Ch. 1954 (1-0, 30), E45. One game of many featuring Botvinnik's revolutionary plan of kingside expansion against the Nimzo-Indian. [**Show unavailable due to technical problems**]

39. Smyslov-Botvinnik, W Ch. 1954 (1-0, 25), C17. Smyslov gets his revenge on the White side of a Winawer French. [**Show unavailable due to technical problems**]

40. Leko-Kramnik, Brissago (W ch) 2004 (1/2-1/2, 65), A73. The penultimate game of their world championship match. Down a point and desperate, Kramnik essays the Modern Benoni and gets a pull in the ensuing double-rook ending. Kramnik missed some chances, but it was a complicated ending well-worth studying.

40. Kramnik-Leko, Brissago (W ch) 2004 (1-0, 41), B12. Kramnik saves his title by winning the final game, slowly outplaying his opponent on the White side of an Advance Caro-Kann. An impressive victory, especially under the circumstances.

41. Petrosian-Bronstein, Amsterdam (Ct) 1956 (0-1, 36), E65. This and the next several games were from my Halloween show, featuring a number of "horror stories" - fearful blunders in the history of chess. The first fragment, a Fianchetto King's Indian, begins with Petrosian enjoying a positionally won game. Bronstein is reduced to moving a knight back and forth, but on one of those occasions it threatens Petrosian's queen. Petrosian had plenty of time, but simply missed it, lost his queen, and resigned.

41. Kasparov-Karpov, Moscow (W Ch.) 1985 (1-0, 25), E21. Karpov had nearly equalized on the Black side of a Nimzo-Indian, but the sterile-looking position dulled his vigilance and he missed a crusher.

41. Shirazi-Peters, Berkeley (U.S. Ch.) 1984 (0-1, 5), B20. That's right, five moves. Wing Gambiteers, this game is your Blunder 101 class.

41. Christiansen-Karpov, Wijk aan Zee 1993 (1-0, 12), E12. Poor Karpov. In a well-known Queen's Indian line, Karpov produced an innovation that lost a piece to a fork one move later.

41. Zapata-Anand, Biel 1988 (1-0, 6), C42. Anand followed a Miles-Christiansen Petroff from the previous year, but Zapata found something Miles missed.

41. Szabo-Reshevsky, Zurich (Ct) 1953 (1/2-1/2, 27), D42. Szabo completely outplayed his illustrious opponent on the White side of the Semi-Tarrasch, but had a bit more difficulty cashing in, missing at least two wins - including a mate in two!

42. Schiffers-Harmonist, Frankfurt 1887 (1-0, 28), C54. This game and all the others in show 42 feature the Moller Attack in the Giuoco Piano.

42. Spielmann-Duras, Carlsbad 1907 (1-0, 21)

42. Fang-Ivanov, Manchester 1999 (0-1, 37)

42. Mustafaev-Mamedyarov, Baku 2001 (0-1, 40)

42. Kosztolanczi-Hajnal, Zalakaros 2002 (0-1, 30)

42. Bancod-Iuldachev, Jakarta 1997 (0-1, 30)

42. Morkisz-Kaula, Poland 1995 (1/2-1/2, 28)

43. Bisguier-Monokroussos, Las Vegas 1998 (0-1, 21), A52. This game was an appetizer for the next one, both Budapest Gambits, but featuring different variations. This game illustrates one of the more lively lines, highlighting the danger for White in allowing the ...a5+...Ra6 plan against 4.Nf3.

43. Rubinstein-Vidmar, Berlin 1918 (0-1, 24), A52. This was probably the first Budapest between elite players, and it passed with flying colors. Rubinstein held the gambit pawn with 4.Bf4 and 7.Qd5, but his neglect of kingside development was severely punished.

44. Gruenfeld-Polugaevsky, Riga (izt) 1979 (0-1, 53), B96. Polugaevsky plays the variation of the Najdorf named for him and wins a wild game with mutual sacrifices.

45. Kamsky-Kramnik, New York (Cm-1) 1994 (1-0, 41), D44. Kamsky refutes a then-major subvariation of the ever-crazy Botvinnik Semi-Slav.

46. Euwe-Najdorf, Zurich (Ct) 1953 (1-0, 37), E61. Euwe sacs a rook for a sustained attack in an odd line of the King's Indian, and in good part because Black's minor pieces on the queenside are never able to participate, he succeeds.

47. Grooten-Motylev, Essent op 2003 (0-1, 43), E94. Motylev wins a model game on the Black side of the Gligoric Variation of the King's Indian Defense. In typical KID fashion, Black's pieces and pawns generate a slow-moving force on the kingside while White tries to crash through via the queenside, and on this occasion, the kingside avalanche came first.

48. Nakamura-Muhammed, U.S. Ch. 2004 (1-0, 28), C78. The first of two shows dedicated to Hikaru Nakamura. The first game fragment, from an Archangelsk Ruy Lopez, highlights Nakamura's opportunistic play, as in a pretty dead position he found a way to set up a trap - into which Muhammed fell.

48. Nakamura-Stripunsky, U.S. Ch. 2004 (1/2-1/2, 25), B42. A tense draw in the Kan Sicilian with the man who would tie him for first (before losing to Nakamura in the tiebreak).

48. DeFirmian-Nakamura, U.S. Ch. 2004 (0-1, 40), B01. A hard-fought Center Counter in which both sides had their chances, but Nakamura's fighting spirit made the difference.

48. Kaidanov-Nakamura, U.S. Ch. 2004 (0-1, 68), D87. An Exchange Gruenfeld in which White voluntarily accepted a weakened pawn structure in exchange for an extra pawn, a bit of extra space and a temporary queenside clamp. Nakamura did an excellent job of maneuvering, neutralizing Kaidanov's initiative, and winning with his structural advantages.

48. Nakamura-Karjakin, Cuernavaca (m) 2004 (0-1, 39), B53. Right after the US Championship, Nakamura played a 6-game match with Ukranian prodigy Sergei Karjakin. Nakamura won the match 4.5-1.5, but this was his one loss from the two events, a Chekhover Sicilian in which Black's bishops proved more significant than White's attacking chances.

49. Nakamura-Ibragimov, U.S. Ch. 2004 (1-0, 66), C02. A wild Advance French that gave Nakamura a first-place tie with Stripunsky in the US Championship. A wild, see-saw affair, Ibragimov missed a couple of wins before losing a heartbreaker.

50. Bronstein-Larsen, Amsterdam (izt) 1964 (0-1, 30), E75. A super-sharp Averbakh King's Indian that was anyone's game until a Bronstein blunder ruined what had been a mutually brilliant, balanced effort by the two legends.

51. Miles-Huebner, Wijk aan Zee 1984 (1-0, 41), D23. A QGA/Slav in which White's two bishops and superior pawn structure slowly break down Black's "Fort Knox"-style setup. A model game for exploiting this structure, and for illustrating the idea of a "hook".

52. Anand-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee (Corus) 2004 (1-0, 48), C11. A sharp Burn Variation of the French notable for the most incredible variation I've ever found in analysis. Even more remarkable is that while I found it with the help of a computer, Anand saw it over the board during the game. Yikes.

53. McDonnell-Labourdonnais, London (m) 1834 (0-1, 37), B32. The game shows the inadequacies of 5.Nxc6 against the Lowenthal/Kalashnikov Sicilian, and it's also well-known for the finish, starring Black's three connected pawns on the 7th rank.

54. Bird-Horwitz, London 1851 (1-0, 59), C65. White sacs a pawn against the Berlin Defense in return for a dangerous attack. Black defends brilliantly for many moves, but an unobvious mistake finally costs him the game.

55. Bogoljubow-Alekhine, W ch 1934, game 9 (0-1, 46), A44. A strategically rich "Semi-Benoni" shows Black very ambitiously attempt to conquer the dark squares from the first 5-10 moves. The strategy succeeded, but was objectively double-edged. A very instructive game for those interested in contemporary versions of the Benoni.

56. Kasparov-Anand, W ch 1995, game 10 (1-0, 38), C80. A staggering display of Kasparov's creativity in opening preparation: Kasparov's bombshell series of sacrifices against Anand's Open Ruy equalized the scores in their world championship match and seized the psychological momentum for good.

57. van Oosterom-Nimtz, 18th W corr. ch. 2003 (1-0, 49), B80. An impressive demonstration by the new correspondence world champion in the currently hot English Attack against the Sicilian Najdorf.

58. Karpov-Timman, Montreal 1979 (1-0, 38), B07. Karpov plays 4.g3 against Timman's Pirc and wins a strategically complete domination game.

59. Aronian-Popov, Aeroflot Open 2005 (1-0, 36), D15. Aronian's speculative sacrifice of a knight for two pawns in a Chebanenko Slav gave him sustained pressure against the Black position, and when his opponent finally cracked, Aronian concluded the game with a powerful kingside attack.

60. Sasikiran-Skytte, Politiken Cup 2003 (1-0, 41), A40. An uneventful Dutch Defense explodes in the late middlegame when "Sasi" dreams up a wonderfully creative sacrificial idea.

61. Kasparov-Karpov, W ch 1985, game 19 (1-0, 42), E21. One of the all-time great positional efforts by Kasparov, as he completely outplays his "eternal" opponent on the White side of a Nimzo-Indian, Flexible Variation.

62. Saidy-Fischer, New York 1968 (0-1, 35), A25. The infamous April Fool's show, noteworthy for introducing a gambit against the English which is essentially the Grand Prix Attack (vs. the Sicilian) with reversed colors.

62. Karpov-Bellon, Madrid 1973 (1/2-1/2, 49), A25. Same show, same opening, same position through White's 23rd move. After that, Bellon played worse than Fischer and Karpov played better, but some resourceful play by Bellon saved half a point.

63. MacDonald-Burn, Casual Game 1910 (0-1, 49), C41. A Philidor's Defense in which everything is going White's way, until White reaches a position where his options seem to be equivalent ways of achieving the same end. Not so, and White's error allows Burn to save (and then win) the game with one of the most spectacular - and least-known - moves of all time.

64. Jobava-Delgado, Calvia (ol) 2004 (1-0, 34), E12. An unusual Queen's Indian culminates in a decisive kingside attack. What makes the game particularly interesting is that Black comes out of the early middlegame seemingly in possession of the position's strategic trumps, but White's long-term chances for the initiative proved more important.

65. Pachman-Fischer, Santiago 1959 (1-0, 40), E51. A wild Ragozin System/Nimzo-Indian, in which Pachman's brave defense overcomes Fischer's equally brave all-out attack.

66. Sultan Khan-Capablanca, Hastings 1930/31 (1-0, 65), E12. Sultan Khan strategically outplays the great Cuban on the White side of what came to be known as the Petrosian Variation of the Queen's Indian.

67. Gabriel-Korchnoi, Zurich 1999 (0-1, 32), A09. A crazy Reti/Reversed Benoni turns into a race between Black's attempt to secure his far advanced central pawn structure and White's desperate attempts to crack it apart. Black succeeds, and thereby secures victory in the game.

68. Andersson-Polugaevsky, Haninge 1990 (1-0, 54), E18. A technical masterpiece. Andersson takes the White side of an especially insipid Queen's Indian, gets nothing from the opening, but slowly outplays one of the world's best players in an initially equal double-rook ending.

69. Nezhmetdinov-Chernikov, RSFSR Team Ch. 1962 (1-0, 33), B35. Few players, if any, have been more willing than Nezhmetdinov to sacrifice for complications, as we can see in this game. In a position "known" to be a forced draw by repetition, White sacrificed his queen for a couple of minor pieces and vague attacking chances - chances that, several sacrifices later, culminated in a beautiful victory.

70. Topalov-Kasparov, Amsterdam VSB 1996 (1-0, 66), B86. A brilliant win from early in Topalov's career on the White side of the 6.Bc4 Najdorf. Kasparov is badly outplayed in his favorite opening - something that almost never happened - but Kasparov's resourcefulness and some Topalov inaccuracies make the technical phase of hte game interesting as well.

71. Shirov-Grischuk, New Delhi (w ch) 2000 (1-0, 49), C96. A Main Line Ruy between two of the sharpest players in top chess lived up to and exceeded expectations. Shirov opened the excitement by sacrificing a piece for two pawns, only to see Grischuk save the game with an incredible rook and then bishop sac - before, sadly, blundering the game in sight of the draw.

72. Tal-Keres, Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade (Ct) 1959 (0-1, 79), D34. In a need-to-win situation, Keres' outplays Tal on the Black side of the Tarrasch Defense, and then outlasts his opponent's stubborn resistance to bring home the point in a rich queen and knight ending.

73. Gligoric-Benko, Budapest 1948 (1-0, 34), E49. A nice illustration of the Botvinnik pawn steamroller plan against the Nimzo-Indian, with a fairly thorough discussion of its finesses and how best to avoid it.

74. Minic-Planinc, Rovinj/Zagreb 1975 (0-1, 30), C78. A very sharp sideline of the Archangelsk Ruy Lopez features mutual sacrifices, material imbalances but dynamic balance until Minic goes awry in the complications.

75. Schlechter-Lasker, Berlin 1910 (1/2-1/2, 50), B57. A Sicilian Dragon sideline leads to a permanently unclear game centering on White's advanced pawn on e6: can White make it a strength, or can Black turn it into a fatal weakness?

76. Deep Blue-Kasparov, Philadelphia 1996 (1-0, 37), B22. Kasparov introduced a new idea on the Black side of the 2.c3 Sicilian, but to preclude a possible White repetition, he allowed White a space advantage. Playing strong, "un-computer"-like chess, Deep Blue converted the space advantage into a structural one, and finally a decisive material edge. The computer chess equivalent of the shot heard 'round the world.

77-78. Tal-Keller, Zurich 1959 (1-0, 34), D44. The early Tal was known as a magician for his ability to conjure practically limitless complexity on the chessboard, and this game, a Botvinnik Semi-Slav, is a perfect example. Tal makes the game crazier and crazier until at last Keller, who had been defending heroically, finally self-destructed with safety just around the corner. Vintage Tal.

79. Spielmann-Stoltz, Stockholm (m) 1930 (0-1, 28), C06. Spielmann was a great attacker who formalized the idea of a real sacrifice, but in this Tarrasch French Stoltz is the teacher, winning brilliantly in the aftermath of a very dynamic but speculative sac of the queen for just two minor pieces.

80. Karpov-Yusupov, Moscow (USSR ch.) 1983 (1-0, 44), C82. A prophylactic masterpiece from Karpov. In a then-topical variation of the Open Ruy, Yusupov wanted to neutralize his queenside weaknesses with ...Na5-c4, but Karpov continually thwarted Black's plan, and then won when a frustrated Yusupov lashed out.

81. Stein-Petrosian, Moscow (USSR ch.) 1961 (1-0, 26), C18. Petrosian assumes all is normal in a Winawer French, but a careless moment, failing to blockade White's queen's bishop, gives Stein's attack that last bit of momentum needed for success.

82. Fine-Flohr, Holland (AVRO Tournament) 1938 (1-0, 28), C17. Fine's self-described best game from the tournament of his life. Flohr was a very strong, solid opponent, but Fine's energetic play in a sideline of the Winawer French allowed him to turn his lead in development into a brilliant attack.

83. Boleslavsky-Kotov, Zurich (Ct) 1953 (1-0, 42), D28. A nice demonstration by White of the powerful IQP motif d4-d5 (here in a Queen's Gambit Accepted, but it applies to practically every opening with an isolated d-pawn). Boleslavsky's superior handling of opening and middlegame are on center stage, but his fine endgame technique is worthy of attention as well.

84. Shirov-Svidler, Tilburg 1997 (0-1, 35), B43. Svidler demonstrates the resilience of the Sicilian Defense against bloodthirsty attacking play, showing that the boundary between healthy aggression and overextension is a fuzzy one.

85. Polgar-Adams, Dos Hermanas 1999 (0-1, 45), C89. A typically insane Marshall Gambit finds Adams in the Polgarian role of wild attacker, and while Polgar initially holds her own in the complications, excessive ambition proves her downfall and Adams' kingside play crashes through.

86. Topalov-Leko, Vienna 1996 (0-1, 28), B13. An imbalanced line of the Panov-Botvinnik variation of the Caro-Kann turns explosive, as the young Leko seizes the initiative from the get-go and drives his d-pawn like a stake into the heart of Topalov's position.

87. Kasimdzhanov-Anand, Linares 2005 (0-1, 38), B50. An intelligent novelty allows Anand to equalize in a Sicilian sideline, and White's subsequent failure to solve the problem of his queen's bishop allows Black to convert a positional advantage into a direct attack. A nice positional crush by Anand.

88. Morozevich-Shirov, Astana 2001 (1-0, 65), C42. In a 5.Bd3 Petroff line, a strategically complex, imbalanced position slowly turns in Morozevich's favor, culminating in a deftly executed queen and knight vs. queen and bishop ending.

89. Khalifman-Polgar, Las Vegas 1999 (1-0, 44), D39. On the White side of a Queen's Gambit, Vienna Variation, Khalifman begins with a very small edge based on Polgar's doubled f-pawns, increases it by converting it into a generalized light square problem, and then finally cashes in with a well-timed tactical shot.

90. Short-Kasparov, London (m-8) 1993 (1/2-1/2, 41), B86. Short loved attacking the Najdorf Sicilian as much as Kasparov relished defending it, and this game sees them going full blast in the 6.Bc4 (Fischer) Variation. Short sacs and attacks, but Kasparov's spirited defense holds the draw.

91. Shirov-Gelfand, Dos Hermanas 1995 (0-1, 69), B96. Shirov essays a piece sac in the already supersharp 6.Bg5 Najdorf, but Gelfand's sustained defense throughout a wild opening, middlegame and ending, capped by a study-like finish, nets him the full point.

92. Gelfand-Dreev, Tlburg 1993 (0-1, 44), D48. The Meran Variation is a Dreev specialty, and when Gelfand became more ambitious than his position merited, Dreev sacrificed the exchange and then a piece for two pawns. In return for the heavy investment, Dreev acquired a long-term attack - and it eventually paid off.

93. Halloween 2005 offered a diverse collection of blunders, most from elite players:

Spero-Showalter, Louisville 1922 (1/2-1/2, 33), C58.
Djordjevic-Kovacevic, Bela Crkva op 1984 (0-1, 3), A45.
Tarrasch-Alapin, DSB-06 Kongress 1889 (1-0, 6), C42.
Seirawan-Alburt, NY Open 1989 (0-1, 36), A59.
Nikolic-Seirawan, Manila (ol) 1992 (1-0, 34), D29.
Kasimjanov-Kasparov, EUR-ASIA (m) 2001 (0-1, 29), A60.
Rublevsky-Beliavsky, Novosibirsk 1995 (0-1, 20), C07.
Stahlberg-Averbakh, Hoogovens 1963 (1-0, 25), A49.
Kramnik-Topalov, Las Vegas (FIDE W-ch) 1999 (1-0, 60), D28.
Petran-Adorjan, Szirak 1985 (0-1, 12), E15.
Andersson-Christiansen, Biel 1991 (1/2-1/2, 37), A13.
Gereben-Ardiansyah, Siegen (ol) 1970 (1/2-1/2, 71), D34.

94. Monokroussos Blunders: self-explanatory.

Burkett-Monokroussos
Monokroussos-Mansouri
Monokroussos-Verduga
Armstead-Monokroussos
Monokroussos-Stripunsky
Monokroussos-Vasconcelles

95. Smyslov-Ivanchuk, Moscow (USSR ch) 1988 (1-0, 52), D42. A Semi-Tarrasch with a typical White isolani is transformed into an opposite-colored bishop middlegame where White's pawn structure is fixed and his bishop is better, but Black at least initially seems to have good queenside counterplay. Smyslov's judgment proved superior, however, and his gradually built kingside attack eventually allows him to reach a winning endgame.

96. Lasker-Napier, Cambridge Springs 1904 (1-0, 35), B72. An old-fashioned Dragon Sicilian turns razor-sharp as Lasker's kingside pawn advance is met by the traditional counterattack in the center. It was anyone's game to win, and Lasker proved his mettle, outplaying his feisty opponent in the tactical slugfest.

97. Ivanov-Zaltsman, New York 1983 (1-0, 44), D34. Ivanov gains a large positional advantage against Zaltsman's Tarrasch Defense before launching an ingenious sacrificial attack. Both players made some errors in the bishop+knight+3 passers vs. queen and rook ending, but Ivanov eventually pulled out a well-deserved win.

98. Blatny-Watson, North American Open 1998 (1-0, 25), B40. Watson's first careless, then provocative opening play gets mercilessly hammered by Blatny's brilliant sacrificial conception. A grandiose game, reminiscent of the best of mid-19th century chess.

99. McShane-Kotronias, Gibraltar Masters (op) 2003 (1-0, 32), A45. In a peculiar game - even by Trompowsky standards - McShane lags in development and has an exposed king, yet somehow wins convincingly by exploiting Black's more serious weaknesses. An amazing, highly original game.

100. Maroczy-Tartakower, Teplitz-Schonau 1922 (0-1, 35), A85. White's passive play in an old-fashioned variation of the Dutch allows Tartakower to build up a kingside attack featuring a spectacular rook sacrifice. What makes this game special is that the sac doesn't "force" mate or garner any immediate, tangible compensation; instead, it's Tartakower's long-term attacking chances that doom Maroczy's king.

101. Johner-Nimzowitsch, Dresden 1926 (0-1, 40), E47. The author of My System puts theory into practice, demonstrating the power of the restrict-blockade-destroy approach to the game: appropriately enough, the game is a Nimzo-Indian.

102. Shirov-Nunn, Amsterdam 1995 (0-1, 35), E98. In this battle of two of the sharpest and most dangerous attacking players of the last twenty years, it's the more experienced Nunn who comes out on top in this typically sharp Classical King's Indian, concluding the game with a good old-fashioned king hunt.

103. Yurtaev-Ehlvest, USSR 1/2-final (Volgodonsk) 1983 (0-1, 40), A08. Positionally busted in a King's Indian Attack, Yurtaev uncorks a brilliant sacrificial idea; unfortunately, Ehlvest finds an equally brilliant defense based on returning the material, and wins.

104. Vaisser-Vachier Lagrave, French Ch. 2005 (1-0, 35), D85. Vachier Lagrave produced a novelty in a pawn-grabbing line of the Gruenfeld, but Vaisser generated the best idea of the game, creating a surprising zugzwang, down a piece, on a board full of heavy pieces.

105. Kholmov-Bronstein, USSR ch. (Kiev) 1964 (1-0, 34), B99. The "central defender" finds an extremely deep sacrificial idea to refute Bronstein's provocative play in a Najdorf sideline.

106. Cifuentes-Zvjaginsev, Wijk aan Zee (op) 1995 (0-1, 35), D45. The 18-year-old Zvjaginsev made a big splash in the chess world with this Semi-Slav win, as his deeply calculated sacrificial attack won the prize for the best game in Informant 62.

107. Pillsbury-Lasker, Cambridge Springs 1904 (1-0, 30), D50. In his last international tournament, Pillsbury improves on a previous game with Lasker in the sharp Peruvian Gambit. Lasker's forte was outcalculating his opponents in complicated positions, but this time, in his swan song, it was Pillsbury who proved superior.

108. Alekhine-Böök, Margate 1938 (1-0, 25), D28. Böök's aggressive novelty in a Queen's Gambit Accepted suffers a drastic refutation as Alekhine sacs a rook for attacking possibilities across the board. Alekhine couldn't have calculated everything, but his instincts were right and he won convincingly.

109. Vaganian-Planinc, Hastings 1974/5 (0-1, 22), A32. Vaganian's over-optimistic hunt for the bishop pair and a "free" central pawn at the cost of an uncastled king encouraged Planinc to unleash a whirlwind attack. Despite the limited material, Planinc continued to sacrifice and concluded with a brilliant and picturesque mating combination.

110. Tal-Geller, USSR Championship (Riga) 1958 (1-0, 33), C96. A complicated Chigorin Ruy Lopez turns insane as Geller and especially Tal continue raising the ante in a desperate fight for the initiative. Geller manages to match Tal blow-for-blow until, punch drunk, he finally misses a trick and loses this battle royale.

111, 112. Spassky-Fischer, World Chess Championship (Reykjavik) 1972 (0-1, 74), B04. An Alekhine's Defense with many ups and downs featuring an insanely complicated and creatively-played ending by both sides was finally decided for Fischer when, after many accurate defensive moves, Spassky slipped.

113. Kasparov-Korchnoi, Brussels 1986 (1/2-1/2, 42), E11. Kasparov's inaccurate handling of the White side of a Bogo-Indian landed him in a lost position right out of the opening, but a remarkable desperation attack eventually bamboozled Korchnoi, allowing him to save half a point.

114. Portisch-Petrosian, Lone Pine 1978 (0-1, 45), E52. The opening battle in a Rubinstein Nimzo-Indian resolves into a queenless middlegame in which White has hanging center pawns on d4 and e4. Portisch headed for that position believing they would be a strength, but Petrosian instructively proves otherwise in a convincing, thematic positional demonstration.

115. Short-Timman, Tilburg 1991 (1-0, 34), B04. Short achieves a comfortable edge against Timman's Alekhine's Defense, increases the advantage with incisive middlegame play, and then finishes off a mating attack in style with a dramatic, unexpected king walk. Also covered: Morphy-Amateur, odds game 1854, Hamppe-Meitner, Vienna 1872, Fischer-Petrosian, Candidates 1959, and Petrosian-Peters, Lone Pine 1976.

116. Ljubojevic-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1976 (1-0, 34), B85. Attack and defense are in balance in this rich Scheveningen Sicilian, but Andersson blinks first and loses a game Timman dubbed (at the time) "the best game of the last twenty years".

117, 118. Palciauskas-Andriulaitis, USA-Lithuania (corr. match) 1999-2001 (1-0, 52), B89. Palciauskas produces a strong novelty in the typically wild Velimirovic Attack, and while his opponent responds excellently and defuses the first wave of the attack, a subsequent error gives White a decisive positional advantage and eventually the game.

119. Leko-Radjabov, Morelia/Linares 2006 (1-0, 45), B33. Leko essays a(n almost) brand new idea against Radjabov's Sveshnikov Sicilian, and when Radjabov varies from the expected move, a long Leko think produces a subtle, brilliant response. Leko gains an edge, which he increases, winning a beautiful positional game culminated by a fine tactical finish.

120. Steinitz-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895/96 (1-0, 31), D35. Steinitz utilizes a queenside clamp plan with c4-c5 in the Queen's Gambit Declined, and Lasker mistakenly responds with a slow ...e5 counter-plan. The result is that when it finally happens, Steinitz, by means of a piece sacrifice, achieves a bind, a kingside attack, and a rapid victory over his young rival.

121. Christiansen-Wojtkiewicz, US Championship (San Diego) 2006 (1-0, 23), B87. Christiansen displays some powerful home cooking in the Fischer Attack vs. the Najdorf Sicilian, and follows up his sacrificial idea with a successful attack on Wojtkiewicz's uncastled king.

122. Capablanca-Bogoljubow, Moscow 1925 (1-0, 32), D24. A Capablanca piece sacrifice early in the opening of an unusual Queen's Gambit Accepted leads to a virulent attack, and despite a significant error by the world champion, the attack continued, successfully, even after the exchange of queens.

123. Xie Jun-Larsen, Ladies against Veterans, Monaco 1994 (1-0, 31), B08. A model of prophylactic play against the Pirc, as the women's world champion repeatedly frustrates Larsen's attempts at activity; indeed, even the mating finish is appropriate to the theme.

124. Rubinstein-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1909 (1-0, 40), D32. Rubinstein outplays the world champion a bit at a time in a quasi-Tarrasch Defense with a more accurate opening, a series of deep combinations in the middlegame, and characteristically elegant and effective technique in the endgame. In short, a masterpiece.

125. Monokroussos-Polyakin, New York 1999 (1-0, 28), E54. An instructive win in the Panov-Botvinnik Attack against the Caro-Kann, in which I successfully utilize ideas from various GMs on the way to a model win.

126. Chigorin-Tarrasch, St. Petersburg (match) 1893 (1-0, 62), C00. Chigorin outplays Tarrasch in his 2.Qe2 anti-French line, but an error late in the middlegame forces him to win all over in a complex and instructive rook ending.

127. Szapiel-Keres, Szczawno Zdroj 1950 (0-1, 55), E33. A nice endgame win by Keres, but the main attraction of this game is his outstanding analysis and its methodological value.

128. Anand-Lautier, Biel 1997 (1-0, 25), B01. Against Lautier's Scandinavian Defense, Anand improves on his own pre-game preparation, and then achieved a second, even more startling OTB inspiration with the subsequent, winning combination.

129. Alekhine-Gregoriev, Moscow 1915 (1-0, 24(?)), C12. Even if this McCutcheon French is a fake, as seems likely, the famous "Five Queens" game is a brilliant flight of Alekhine's imagination.

130. Portisch-Pinter, Hungary 1984 (0-1, 33), D41. Portisch has a space and structural edge in a Semi-Tarrasch, but Pinter's dynamic play results in a very impressive and ultimately decisive attack in a queenless middlegame.

131. Gelfand-J. Polgar, Hungary (rapid) 2003 (0-1, 56), B54. Gelfand and Polgar take turns alternating between brilliant and inaccurate play in an unusual line of the Sicilian. Both players fought throughout for the full point, but a final Gelfand error in the endgame gave Polgar the win.

132. Wojtkiewicz-Skembris, Novi Sad (ol) 1990 (1-0, 33), E06. The late American GM shows that beautiful attacks don't need to come from super-sharp openings; sometimes, they are the fruit of a well-cultivated positional strategy, as here.

133. Charousek-Lasker, Nuremberg 1896 (1-0, 36), C33. In his first international tournament, Charousek crushes the world champion in a King's Gambit.

133-134. Charousek-Suechting, Berlin 1897 (1-0, 50), D05. The ill-starred Hungarian great whips up a winning attack in the Colle System, and although he stumbles in the complications, he goes on to convert the victory in an instructive opposite-colored bishop ending.

135. Romanishin-Meier, Hockenheim 2006 (1-0, 39), A46. A magisterial performance by Romanishin from start to finish: a powerful novelty; brilliant, thematic exploitation of a chronic tactical weakness on the Black queenside; and a nice technical finish to bring home the point.

136. Seirawan-Beliavsky, Brussels 1988 (0-1, 21), D14. Seirawan essays a logical but flawed novelty in the normally sleepy Exchange Slav, hoping for a long-lasting queenside initiative. Instead, he is quickly awakened by Beliavsky's dynamic response, leading to a rapid and decisive kingside counterattack.

137. Kasparov-Piket, Tilburg 1997 (1-0, 30), D27. Kasparov sacs a pawn in a sharp line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted in return for a wedge pawn on e5 and clearly present but vaguely definable compensation. After a pair of small, easily unnoticed Piket inaccuracies, however, White's vague compensation turns into a brilliantly conducted attack featuring tactical blows on both sides of the board.

138. Euwe-Alekhine, Holland (W ch/26) 1935 (1-0, 47), A90. Euwe's "Pearl of Zandvoort". On the verge of gaining the world championship, Euwe plays brilliantly against Alekhine's Dutch/Queen's Indian hybrid. Sacking a piece for three pawns and then the exchange, Euwe keeps the initiative throughout, eventually overcoming Alekhine's spirited resistance.

139. Topalov-Kramnik, Novgorod 1996 (1-0, 34), B57. Topalov takes control of a Sozin Sicilian and rapidly outplays Kramnik, alternating between kingside threats and exploiting the resulting positional concessions. Ultimately, there are too many of the latter, and Topalov's attack is (quickly) decisive.

140. Topalov-Kramnik, Belgrade 1995 (0-1, 40), B57. Another Sozin Sicilian, but on this occasion Kramnik's enterprising play gave him the initiative. The game was completely wild, but Kramnik handled the complications better and won a la Topalov.

141. Riumin-Botvinnik, Moscow 1935 (0-1, 36), C86. A Worrall Attack results in an impressive-looking canopy of White pawns, but active, accurate play by Botvinnik, culminating in a crushing kingside attack, proves that White is overextended.

142. Korchnoi-Karpov, Baguio City (W ch) 1978 (0-1, 39), E47. Korchnoi maintains the (sometimes decisive) advantage throughout game 17 of their world championship match, but resourceful defense by his opponent and a famous, tragic blunder give Karpov the point.

143. Tal-Panno, Portoroz (izt) 1958 (1-0, 57), C92. A dazzling Ruy Lopez. Tal gives up a ton of pieces for the enemy queen, but somehow maintains an initiative through it all, winning when Panno finally cracks under the strain.

First, to clearly set up the position he is critiquing, here, from his book, is a quotation from Richard Ivry of the University of California at Berkeley:

The study of eminent performers across many careers leads to the startling conclusion: Elite performance results from intense, demanding practice, and those who excel are more willing than their peers to engage creatively in this regimen for countless hours. It is their drive that produces talent. If young Michael Jordan's interests had been taken up with physics at a young age, I have little doubt that he would have succeeded admirably in that field. A Nobel Prize might have been the alternative to his six championship trophies. (The Ethical Brain (New York & Washington D.C.: Dana Press, 2005), p. 59.

About the view that practice is the key, which stems largely from the work of Anders Ericsson, Gazzinaga says this:

While these studies are impressive, they have a basic flaw...a confusion of correlation with causation. According to Ericsson's reports, children who practiced the piano more throughout life wound up better at it; but it might well have been the case that hte children practiced more because they were better at it in the first place--therefore they found it more reinforcing to practice. This "self-selection" of groups makes it difficult to understand these issues in a causative context. It is likely the case that innate capacities and practice work in some kind of combination. (Ibid., p. 60.)

Gazzaniga then refers to a 2000 study by Siamak Baharloo et al showing that the development of absolute or "perfect" pitch has both a developmental (training starting at an early age) and a genetic basis. He concludes:

Ivry's bold conclusion, then, seems hard to believe. While it is clear that everyone who is an expert has to practice a lot, other factors seem to me to be in play. Surely Isaac Stern, one of the foremost violinists of the past century, has something that Bob Wills, the fiddler for the country-western swing band The Texas Playboys, doesn't have. And Larry Bird, as great an athlete as he is, is no Michael Jordan. Stern and Wills and Bird and Jordan likely put in a comparable amount of practice over their careers, yet something separates Stern from Wills, and Jordan from Bird. (Ibid., p. 61.)

Some might find this depressing, but I don't. That some people have special gifts strikes me as something worth celebrating. Despite our common humanity, we aren't all fundamentally interchangeable, and that's a very good thing. And here's an application: hard, smart work will take us a long way, but we should ideally apply our labors to fields we enjoy and to which our strengths seem well-suited. That will give us the best chance of a useful, successful and happy career (and ditto for our avocational life). Chances are, we won't be Kasparov or Einstein, Andres Segovia or Carl Lewis. But who said we would be, and why is it a problem if we're not? Speaking for myself, my job is to apply the gifts I do have, not those I don't!