The Chess Mind

We continue our weekly series of profiles, this week introducing New England IM Dave Vigorito. Vigorito is a successful chess player (obviously), the author of a brand new book on the 4.Qc2 Nimzo-Indian, an online chess lecturer, and a player with a fine reputation as an informal trainer.

On with the interview!



1. Name:
David Vigorito

2. Age:
36

3. Title:
IM

4. Where you live, where you’re from:
I live in Andover MA. I grew up in Massachusetts and lived in Nevada from 1996-2006. I moved back east last July. Apparently I grew tired of the great weather, fine Mexican food, and clearly marked streets.

5. Family:
I have parents, a sister, and two cats.

6. Other interests:
I have only five interests: chess, food, sports, music, and women, although not necessarily in that order.

7. Favorite book/author (not chess):
Unfortunately I no longer read very much. I did however read the DaVinci Code due to societal pressure.

8. When (and how/from whom) you learned to play:
I think I learned to play when I was around 8, but I did not play tournaments until I was 16.

9. Favorite/most influential chess book (if any):
When I started playing, I liked Soltis' Art of Defense and Pawn Structure Chess. My first book was Chernev's Combinations: The Heart of Chess.

10. Favorite player (other than yourself):
Kramnik. I like to play in the center and make draws.

11. A game (not your own) that made a big impact on you:
Shabalov - Kraai, Foxwoods 2007.

12. Your best game:
I have not really played any good games. I could say Petran - Vigorito, Budapest 2003, because it was an unusual openng and a very difficult game.
It also secured my second IM norm. Kudrin - Vigorito, Cambridge 2000 was also satisfying because he went into my preparation and the game gave me a small measure of revenge (see below).

13. Your greatest moment in chess so far:
In the World Open in 1997 I beat three GM's in a row and then drew Smirin with Black before losing to Kudrin (Black again - no fair). It was my first IM norm and I was half a point shy of a GM norm. It caused a stir because I was rated only 2359 and was on board 2 in the last round.

14. The most valuable thing you did to become the player you are:
I have a very good trainer - myself. Unfortunately I also have a very lazy student - also myself.

15. What you value most about the game:
Chess is like music to me. I find beauty in harmony.

16. Your chess credo:
Make every move count.

17. Three tips for amateurs:
1) Play as much as you can against players that are better than you, but not so overwhelmingly better that you cannot compete.
2) Do not play too much blitz. It will make your play cheap and superficial because you will learn to depend on cheapos and the clock.
3) Do not switch back and forth between a bunch of crappy openings. This will only impede your development. Play something normal even if it takes longer to learn.

18. A tip for ambitious players:
Absorb as much information as you can. Play, learn openings and endings, and go over your own games and the games of players whose names start with K.

19. A game you’d like to present:
I will show Vigorito - de Firmian, Philadelphia 1997 because it has a sacrifice and people like sacrifices. Nick is a nice guy and he was kind enough to remind me of this game after he crushed me last year when I played the ridiculous Berlin Defence against him.

20. Any of your work/services you’d like to plug:
Well my first book Challenging the Nimzo - Indian recently came out. It is a big book on the 4.Qc2 Nimzo. My publisher is Quality Chess Books (Learn From the Legends, Experts vs the Sicilian) and it is available on Amazon.com:
http://tinyurl.com/yxhceo . I am also available for lessons, lectures, and writing. message fluffy on ICC or reach me at dvigorito [at symbol] msn.com . But please do not send me any Nigerian banking spam!

Click here to see three of his games (vs. deFirmian, Petran and Kudrin), with his (Informant-style) notes.

After a few days without seeing a response on James West's blog to my last anti-PCG post (or to other points in its predecessors), I stopped checking for a while. A browse on Sunday revealed that he hadn't been idle, however; he had returned to the scene of the crime! Meanwhile, by a happy coincidence, reader Marvin (Joe) Barker wrote in with a nice anti-PCG idea of his own.

For those who haven't followed the fun, here's where we are. The PCG (Philidor Counter-Gambit) starts with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5(?!), and the dispute with West, who has played the PCG with an almost religious devotion for many years, begins after the further moves 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5?! (5...Nf6 seems to be stronger) 6.Neg5. We have examined 6...h6, 6...e4, and 6...exd4, but it's only the latter move we're going to look at today. Here I've offered two moves for White: 7.Nxd4 and 7.Bb5+(!?). West has something to say in Black's defense in both cases, and Barker has a contribution of his own here. Let's have a look.

(A) 7.Nxd4. One line I offered here continued 7...Qe7+ 8.Be2 h6 9.Ngf3 c6 10.O-O Qf6 11.Re1 Bd6 12.Ba6+ Kf7 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.Bd2 with the idea of following up with Bc3. White is at least clearly better here, and possibly winning. To avoid this Bd2-c3 idea, West proposes the clever 11...Bb4, and only after 12.c3 to play 12...Bd6. Now the c3 square is occupied, so that after 13.Ba6+ Kf7 14.Bd3 Ne7 White no longer has the Bd2-c3 idea.



Except that he does: 15.c4! Black's position looks better than it did in the 11...Bd6 analysis, but I still think White has a clear advantage here. For example: 15...Re8 16.Bd2 Na6 17.Bc3 Bb4 (neutralizing the c3-bishop, but now White's knight can use the e5 square) 18.Bh7 Bxc3 19.Ne5+ Kf8 20.bxc3 and neither 20...g6 nor 20...c5 reduces White's edge below +/-. (See the link below for more details.)

(B) 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bd3 Bb4+ and now:



(B1) 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Nf6 11.O-O-O O-O 12.Nxd4 Re8 13.Rhe1 h6 14.Rxe8+ Qxe8 15.Re1

In West's earlier analysis of this position, he recommended 15...Qh5, and considered Black's position acceptable after 16.Nge6 Bxe6 17.Nxe6 Nd7. In my response, I pointed out that 16.Nge6 was an error and inferior to 16.Ngf3, but I didn't explain why. So let me rectify that omission: the reason Nge6 is bad is that it helps Black catch up in development, and the reason Ngf3 is good is that the knight is ready to leap into the more useful e5 square (and then follow up with Bg6).

This pertains to West's suggested improvement of 15...Qf8. His analysis continues 16.Nge6 Bxe6 17.Nxe6 Qd6 18.g4 Nbd7 19.g5 Re8 20.Bf5 hxg5 21.Qxg5 Re7 22.Rg1 Ne8 23.Nd4 Qf6 24.Qg4 Nf8, with (at least) equality, but after 16.Ngf3! Black is in trouble, whether he allows the knight to e5 or not. Again, see the link below for details.

(B2) 9.c3!? This gambit idea is Barker's, and it looks like a good one. White has a lead in development, so why not increase it? With his aggressively posted knight on g5, the well-placed bishop on d3, the open e-file, and the chance to post the second knight on e5, such a full-speed-ahead strategy deserves consideration.

Details here.

English scientist and writer Richard Dawkins has been on an anti-theistic crusade for better than 20 years, with his fullest statement occurring in his recent work The God Delusion. His success in selling books is, in my opinion, more a function of his crisp writing style and his entertaining bombast (at least entertaining to his "amen choir") than in the sophistication of his reasoning, but you can decide for yourselves.

Meanwhile, here are three reviews of his work by prominent Christian philosophers: one by Dallas Willard (this is of Dawkins' old book, The Blind Watchmaker, but as he has recycled its main argument for two decades now, much of what Willard writes is relevant to TGD as well), one by Alvin Plantinga, and one by William Lane Craig. I might jump into the fray at some point with my own critique, but this should be enough to keep everyone informed and entertained for a while.

Two weeks ago, I came across this position (from the game Timofeev-E. Guseinov, European Ch. 2007) in Chess Today:


Black to move and win.

The solution's not too difficult (you can find it here if you're stumped), but the position's real interest to me was that it caused me a serious case of deja vu.

Unfortunately, my efforts to find the similar position failed, and none of my readers came through for me either (you let me down, guys!), but I lucked out. The latest edition of ChessBase Magazine (#117) came out, and there it was:



It's Black to move; does he have more than perpetual check?

Solution here.

Is this some new, "secret" game like the Fischer-Karpov games some prankster invented a couple of years ago? No, just the product of my dreaming mind the night before last.

I registered to play in some large American swiss event, and lo and behold: my first round opponent was one Garry Kasparov! (Why would Kasparov play in such an event, especially when his honorarium might equal the prize fund? Beats me, but hey - it's a dream.) All I remember about the game is that I had White in an Open Sicilian. At some point he managed to swap off my dark-squared bishop for a knight, played ...b4 as a pawn sac, and blew me off the board in 21 or 22 moves. (You'd think my dreams would be more optimistic, wouldn't you?)

On the plus side, he was much more friendly during and after the game than I had expected. And at least I got to play him, even if the game score will only available in the dream edition of Mega 2008. (Start saving your dream money now.)

The match ended with a pair of relatively short but interesting draws, enabling Kramnik to maintain a one point lead to the finish line. The result is a respectable one for both players, and continues Kramnik's successful return from illness over the past year.

Next up for Kramnik, another rapid match, this time against Aronian (May 4-6, 2007 in Yerevan, Armenia).

The last four games, with brief comments, here.

The match continues to produce fighting chess, and each player managed to triumph with the White pieces: first Kramnik, then Leko. Going into tomorrow's games, the score is 3.5-2.5, Kramnik.

More later.

Most of us probably believe we're attractive, morally upright, funny, likable and generally charming. (After all, our dog seems to think so, and who are we to argue with such a noble creature?) Most of us probably believe we're outstanding reasoners, too, but study after study reveals that matters are otherwise - at least in a large number of cognitive settings. If you'd like to learn more about those errors, and better still, to take a step towards their elimination, you might enjoy browsing this page.

The world champion took the upper hand, winning with White in game three and drawing in round four. In game three, Kramnik and Leko followed a trendy variation of the 4.g3 Queen's Indian for a long time, with new ground broken only on move 29. Unfortunately, Leko's new move was an error, and Kramnik finished the game with technique worthy of his championship title.

Game four featured the beloved Anti-Marshall again, and as usual Black was completely fine. White's pawn structure was slightly better, but Kramnik's active pieces always provided at least sufficient compensation. If anything, Black had a tiny edge most of the way, but the game never left the bounds of approximate equality and the draw was an appropriate result.

The players have Friday off, and resume "hostilities" on Saturday.

Event website here, games here.

The concurrent but organizationally unrelated Gausdal and Sigeman & Co. tournaments concluded earlier today (Thursday), in both cases successfully for the rating favorites.

Magnus Carlsen continued his impressive march into the world's super-elite with a last round win over second seed and closest challenger Michal Krasenkow, and won the tournament by a point and a half with 7/9 and a 2737 TPR. Krasenkow, Rozentalis, and Portisch(!) were 1 1/2 points back. Other notables: Dreev, who not long ago was a regular 2700/near-2700 player, has continued his very bad form (2633 going into the tournament, with a 2527 TPR), while norm-seekers Jones, Krush and Moskow came away empty-handed.

The Sigeman event was remarkably similar. Ivan Cheparinov won with 7/9 (and a 2761 TPR!), a point and a half ahead of three pursuers (Timman [yet another parallel - in both cases a veteran unexpectedly tied for second], Hillarp Persson, and Berg. One importance difference between the events concerned the norm seekers. At Sigeman, Pontus Carlsson did achieve a GM norm (I think).

With a little experimenting, I think I've figured out how to post crosstables - have a look here.

I'm not referring to videos, but to chess. Once upon a time broadcasting one's moves remotely required some sort of human relayer, and then DGT boards came on the scene, automatically transmitting the players moves (and some they didn't play*). DGT boards are attractive but expensive, so the free market has come to the rescue with the "Roll-Up USB Chess Game". It looks like a good idea in theory, but before I consider plunking down my $42, I'd like to actually see it or hear from someone else who has used it. And the diagram with the Black king on d8 doesn't inspire confidence either.

Any daring readers out there?

[HT: Robert Bernard]

Here is the web page of the British Chess Problem Society, and a sample issue of their periodical, The Problemist, is available here. Included therein, ironically, are problems by Brian Stephenson and none other than...Kovalenko. (Funnier yet, one of the two Kovalenko problems is a correction!)

Hat tip: YACB.

Alex Herrera, a long-time friend and a dedicated fan and exponent of correspondence chess, has created a web presence dedicated to that form of the game. It's well worth checking out, and will be added to my sidebar momentarily.

Nestled deep within my post on Kovalenko's 1971 study and the Saavedra position, I presented four comparatively recent Kovalenko studies, both because they're attractive and to show that he shouldn't be judged too harshly for the failure of his earlier work. Here, once more, are the positions:


Kovalenko 1995a: White to move and win



Kovalenko 1995b: White to move and win



Kovalenko 1998: White to move and win



Kovalenko 1999: White to move and draw


When you think you've worked the solutions out, have a look here.

In his comment to my post on the Kovalenko study and the Saavedra position, YACB offers yet another new study broadly based on Kovalenko's flawed 1971 effort.



White to move; Black draws.

The goal here, really, is to figure out all the tries. Almost all of them are pretty easy, but there's a nice one in there, too. The solutions are here.

I received an email from a Benjamin Good, who recently played in the West Virginia Active Chess Championship. He doesn't make clear whether he had been a reader of this blog while I was posting on the anti-French line that starts 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3, but it was clear that one of his opponents was! It turned out well for Good, who had Black in that game, but I think there are a couple of useful improvements for White, too. Have a look here.

Incidentally, I want to make clear that I'm not the inventor of this variation; that questionable honor goes to Stefan Bücker. (Though I am wholly to blame for occasionally playing this silly line over the years.) I can say, however, that all the analysis I've offered, pro and con, does emanate from me (with an occasional assist from my silicon friends). There was a profile of Bücker in New in Chess in the mid-1980s, and it listed a number of his pet lines. This variation was among them, but no further analysis was provided and there weren't any databases around to look for his games. So for better or worse, the analysis I've posted is my own.

The Kramnik-Leko rapid match, the excitement for which cannot be underestimated, started today (Wednesday) with a pair of draws. Game 1, with Kramnik wielding the white pieces, finished in a quick, dull draw, but the second game was far more lively. Let's hope it's a trend.

Website here, games here.

My downstairs neighbors seem like very nice people, based on my interactions with them. On the other hand, they just put a University of Michigan mat in front of their door.

I'm so confused!

Yasser Seirawan was one of the world’s best players in the 1980s, an elite master of positional chess with a fantastic resume. He won the World Junior Championship in 1979, has 4 US Championship titles, made the Candidates in 1985, and has to his credit victories over world champions Smyslov, Tal (+4 -0 =1!), Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov. He’s a successful author and the prime mover behind the Prague Agreement that eventually led to the Kramnik-Topalov match in 2006.

Hugely impressive, but then there’s Anatoly Karpov, world champion for 10 years (16, if you count the years of the FIDE/Kasparov & Kramnik split) and the world’s #1 or #2 player for an incredible 20 years. Like Seirawan, Karpov is known for his prowess as a positional player, but of a very aggressive sort. You might think that games between the two would have a drawish tinge, but just the opposite: most of their games have been decisive (even excluding rapid and blitz).

And so it is in this week’s game, played in the 1989 World Cup tournament in Skelleftea, Sweden. The game started in unprepossessing fashion, heading for an endgame almost as soon as it began. For some players, this would be the prelude to a quick “grandmaster” draw, but Karpov found ways to keep the action going, to prevent Black from achieving complete, draw-guaranteeing equality. It’s a beautiful game, and instructive, too. There are specific things Karpov does in the game that we can more or less directly apply to our own games, and I will highlight these techniques as they show up. Many of us, as fans, prefer Kasparov’s games; from the student perspective, however, Karpov’s games may be second to none.

So how can we pass on this week’s show? On the eminently reasonable assumption that we can’t, I look forward to seeing all of you this Thursday at 9 pm ET. (Directions for watching the show are here.)

It's Monday, and that means it's time for another player profile. This week, we present Alexander Baburin, the Irish GM (by way of Russia) best known in the chess world as the prime mover behind the daily e-publication Chess Today. He's also the author of the excellent (but misleadingly named) Winning Pawn Structures, and I hope it won't be too long before we see another book by him. That's enough intro, so let move on to the interview!



(GM Baburin is on the right, a restored version of the Turk is in the center, and the man who restored it, John Gaughan, is on the left.)

1. Name:
Alexander Baburin

2. Age:
40. I was born on the 19th of February 1967.

3. Title:
GM

4. Where you live, where you’re from:
Dublin Ireland. I was born in Nizhniy Novgorod (then Gorky), Russia. I lived there till 1993 when I moved to Ireland.

5. Family:
I am married to Elena, we have two children – Ivan (17) and Anastasia (12).

6. Other interests:
Between the age of 6 and 10 I was seriously into swimming. Later I played basketball a lot. I still like to swim and play basketball, though I do it not as often as I should. As for other interests, I am not original – I like travelling, walking, reading and cinema. I like museums, I find them entertaining and relaxing at the same time.

7. Favorite book/author (not chess):
Montaigne's Essays. I learnt about that book thanks to Kasparov, who mentioned it in one of his interviews as his favourite book. I was curious and read it. I still read it from time to time, this is my clear favourite.

8. When (and how/from whom) you learned to play:
I was 7 or 8 when my father taught me chess.

9. Favorite/most influential chess book (if any):
For me it’s the book on the Candidates’ tournament in Zurich in 1953. There serious chess stuff is presented in a highly entertaining way – not an easy feat. Curiously, Bronstein and I share the same birthday.

10. Favorite player (other than yourself):
I won’t be my favourite player, even if I had 2800+ elo – vanity is not one of my vices. People often admire what they can’t do themselves, so let’s name Kasparov!

11. A game (not your own) that made a big impact on you:
Can’t think of any.

12. Your best game:
I’ll pass on this. I am rather critical of my chess abilities. I played some decent games, but nothing close to really great chess.

13. Your greatest moment in chess so far:
Winning the Isle of Man Open in 1997. I scored +7=2 and showed 2800+ performance against pretty decent opposition.

14. The most valuable thing you did to become the player you are:
Analysing my own weaknesses. But then again, all strong players do that.

15. What you value most about the game:
The intellectual challenge and the richness of chess.

16. Your chess credo:
Chess is a contest between two people, not a mathematical puzzle.

17. Three tips for amateurs:
1) Make a plan of what you want from chess and how you will go about it. Bad plan is better than no plan! (Lasker)
2) Study endgames first (Capablanca), then openings and everything else.
3) Look at your own games – the player you want to study most is you!

18. A tip for ambitious players:
In chess some talent and a lot of hard work can get you very far!

19. A game you’d like to present:
This game [DM: vs. Sharma] from the Commonwealth Championship in India might be typical for my playing style, which is active, but yet solid.

20. Any of your work/services you’d like to plug:
Since 2000 I’ve been involved with Chess Today, a daily newsletter. It’s my pet project and working on it has been very interesting and put me in touch with many people in chess. One can see some samples of that work at www.chesstoday.net.

(You can replay his game with Sharma here, or you can see it in .pdf form, modified from its original publication in "Coffee Break Chess" - Chess Today's precursor.)

The European Championships ended a week ago (won by Tkachiev in a playoff), but it's not too late to enjoy and learn from the contest. Two late-round games caught my eye and are annotated here. Both are sharp Sicilians, and show how razor-thin the margin is in that opening between being okay and losing.

The first game, Mastrovasilis-Timofeev, was a pitched battle in which the players both attacked each other's king, more or less simultaneously. That's not so unusual in itself in the Sicilian, where attacks on opposite sides of the board are quite common. What made this game interesting is that both sides castled long, and still managed to go hacking. Through much of the game, it looked like Black was in danger, but his position was resilient and it was White who finally went astray in the complications.

Game two was Volokitin's especially painful last-round loss to Jakovenko, who was part of the pre-playoff tie for first. If the previous game showed that Black's defensive resources are greater than one might think, this game offered a corollary: Black's margin for error is smaller than one might expect. Volokitin introduced a novelty on move 17, made an error on the very next move, and was probably lost as a result.

Sometimes the Sicilian is forgiving, and sometimes it's not. (Helpful, isn't it?)

Browsing New Jersey master Jim West's blog a couple of days ago, I noticed that he has responded to another of my analyses on one of his pet lines, the Philidor Counter-Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5). The variation du jour continues 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5(?) (Stefan Bücker's 5...Nf6 6.Nxf6+ gxf6 looks more resilient, though still somewhat better for White, I think) 6.Neg5! exd4 7.Nxd4 Qe7+ 8.Be2 h6 9.Ngf3



and now we have a parting of the ways. In my earlier post, and in the game he considers in his post, the continuation was

(A) 9...c6 10.O-O Qf6 11.Re1 Bd6 12.Ba6+!

My analysis continued with 12...Kf8 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.c4, with a clear advantage for White, but West gives 12...Kf7 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.Bd2 c5 15.Nb5 Nbc6 16.Bc3 d4 17.Bc4+ Kf8 18.Nxd6 Qxd6



Black "will follow with moves like ...Qf6, ...g5, ...Kg7, and perhaps ...Rf8 as well, with a reasonable position", according to West.

I think his variation is pretty reasonable through Black's 18th move, but his conclusion is unduly optimistic. If Black gets to make those consolidating moves for free, then he'd probably be in good shape. But if we look at the position right now, we should be more impressed by White's bishop pair and Black's stunted development. White should now play 19.b4(!), threatening to rip apart the center for his bishop pair, and also (alternatively) to play b5 and then Ne5. White has a big, maybe winning advantage here, as I try to show in my analysis. (Link below.)

(B) West adds another move to the mix, 8...c5. He refers to a previous blog post, where in the notes to a June 1999 game with Jaan Ehlvest, he gives this variation: c5 10.Nb5 a6 11.Nc3 d4 12.Nd5 Qd6 13.Bc4 Ne7 14.Bf4 Qe6+



15.Qe2 Nxd5 16.Bxd5 Qxe2+ 17.Kxe2 Nd7 18.Rhe1 Nb6 19.Kf1+ Kd8 20.Bf7 Be7 21.Ne5 Rf8 22.Bg3 Bf5 23.Bg6 Bd6 24.Nf7+ Rxf7 25.Bxf7 Bxg3 26.hxg3 Bxc2 27.Rac1 d3 28.Re8+ Kd7 29.Rxa8 d2 30.Ra1 Nxa8 31.Bh5 Nb6 32.Bd1 Bd3+ "with compensation".

As Bent Larsen says (though I try to forget it when it applies to my own analysis): long line, wrong line. Look at the position around move 12-13. White has a significant, almost threatening lead in development, while Black's king is stuck in the center on an open file and vulnerable along the h5-e8 diagonal to boot. Can Black really be okay here?

My first reaction is "no way!" - but can I prove it? My first impressions might be reliable most of the time, but West has had years of practice with his "baby", and has undoubtedly developed a good sense of what Black can and can't get away with in this variation. On this occasion, however, I think his judgment is provably mistaken. Take a look at the previous diagram, which constitutes some heavy-handed foreshadowing. Those of you who experimented with "my" anti-French line won't be surprised by the right move here: 15.Kd2! The threats of 16.Nc7+ and 16.Re1 promise a massacre, so Black's only chance is to grab material with both hands and pray: 15...Nxd5 16.Re1 Nxf4 17.Bxe6 Nxe6 (17...Bxe6 is even worse - see the analysis linked below) 18.Ne5 h5 19.Qf3 and Black is going to be smashed - just what one should expect with an exposed king and a severe lack of development.

The analysis given above - and more - can be replayed here. Back to you, Mr. West!

The puzzle, as given in this post, was to figure out what Black ought to do in this position:



Black is up a piece but has plenty of kingside worries in need of attention. What would you do? The answer to what Negi in fact did can be found here.

A few days ago, I presented this then-current Chess Cafe endgame study (now archived). One V. Kovalenko is the author, and it's White to move and allegedly win.



The intended solution is 1.Ne7 Rh5 2.f7 Rh8 3.Ng8 Rh1+ 4.Ke2 Rh2+ 5.Kf3 and wins, but as I realized when trying to solve it, Black draws very easily with 1...Ra5. At first I hoped this could be fixed by some simple expedient like a black pawn on a6, but not even that will work. When I checked my refutation with the computer, it found a second cook with 1...Rc4. In short, the study, assuming it was properly represented on the CC website, was a real lemon.

My attempts to find the original in my own sources didn't work, and my call to all of you to look for me came up empty as well. That's too bad, but on the plus side, "Yet Another Chess Blogger" came up with his own version of the Kovalenko study:



Again it's White to move and win, and this one works. The key is pretty easy to find, as are the winning variations, but it's still a nice job. For one thing, as already mentioned, it works. Second, the different variations force White to find the only winning play on move two as well. Third, the variations display an impressive diversity of winning ideas. Maybe it's not a masterpiece, but it's an excellent job, especially for a quick "fix"! (One could offer a similar but slightly less attractive patch with the White king on d3, d4, e4 or f4.)

A disappointment I have with the Kovalenko idea (ameliorated somewhat by YACB's fix, which I like and respect more and more) is that one "smells" Saavedra themes in the air, but that expectation isn't fulfilled. For those unfamiliar with the famous Saavedra position, here it is (White to move and win):



The position has a long history (see here and here) and Saavedra was the last link in the chain and/or the man with the best press agent, so it's named after him. Try to solve the position first if you don't already know it (be patient!), and then continue.

Every so often on my blog (most recently here), a comment will present a position in FEN notation. What is it, and how does it work?

FEN (Forsyth-Edwards Notation) is a handy way to record all the information about a position in a small space. While it's not as easy to visualize as a diagram (obviously) or even a listing like White: Kd1, Ne7, pf6 (etc.), it has its advantages:

* It doesn't require any graphics.
* It's quite compact.
* Programs like Fritz and ChessBase can read FEN notation, so all you need is to cut-and-paste it from an email or a website into your software.

Here, in brief, is how it works. There are up to six fields, with the first and largest giving the piece placement. The location of the pieces is given one rank at a time, starting from the 8th rank and going from a-h. A number tells you how many consecutive open squares are on a rank, and a letter tells you what the piece is (upper-case for a white piece, lower-case for a black one). Thus suppose we have an open board, except for a white king on e1 and a black king on e8. That would look like this, in FEN:

4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/4K3

Simple! There are four open spaces starting from a8 (a8, b8, c8, d8), the black king (lower-case "k"), and then three more open spaces on the eighth rank. The next six ranks going down (the 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd and 2nd ranks) are all empty - they all have eight empty squares, so we get a string of 8s. Finally, the first rank is empty from a1-d1, has the king on e1, and then is empty from f1 to h1. Thus 4(empty squares)K(for the white king)3(more empty squares).

The remaining five fields tell us:

(1) whose move it is (either a "w" or a "b");
(2) what castling options are potentially available ("K"/"Q" = White can castle kingside/queenside; lower case for the corresponding Black options; "-" if castling is no longer legally available for either side);
(3) if an en passant capture is available in the position ("-" if it's not available; the pawn's destination square if it is);
(4) how many half-moves since the last pawn move or capture (to keep track of potential 50-move rule claims); and finally
(5) the game's move number.

So here's what the starting position looks like, in FEN:

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

We've got the pieces set up, White to move, both sides with the eventually possibility of castling to either side, no available en passant captures, no half-moves since the last pawn move or capture, and it's move one of the game.

Got it?

This is the starting position, and it's Black to move.



He's up a piece, of course, but the open files on the kingside (especially the h-file) and the possibility of moves like Nf5 and Be4 present a situation that's very much up in the air. What should Black do? Do your best to work it out; the solution will be given in a few days.

Both events are 10-player round-robins, and both go from yesterday (April 18) through April 26. The Sigeman & Co. event includes Topalov's strong young second Ivan Cheparinov, tomorrow's ChessBase show's star Tiger Hillarp Persson, Dutch legend Jan Timman and the very young Indian GM Parimarjan Negi.

The Gausdal field is even more impressive, including Magnus Carlsen, former 2700s Alexei Dreev and Michael Krasenkov, and many-time candidate Lajos Portisch. There is one really peculiar entry in that field, however: Eric Moskow, an untitled American with a rating of 2260. How in the world did this happen, when 8 of the remaining 9 are GMs with ratings of 2512-2693, and the other non-GM, Irina Krush, is a strong IM rated 2478? According to the ad for the A-group given on the tournament web page (given above), interested participants could apply - if their ratings were above 2400. If any readers know how Moskow pulled this off, please let me know, and then also let me know if I can have the same deal next year!

In a funny coincidence, today is the birthday of not one but two women's world chess champions: Susan Polgar (born 1969) and Antoaneta Stefanova (born 1979). Happy birthday to them both.

The current endgame study (#534, when this slips into the archives) posted on the Chess Cafe website is this one, from V. Kovalenko, published in Shakhmaty Moskva in 1971.



The assignment is White to move and win. Black threatens to eliminate the White pawn with 1...Rf5, so White's only options are 1.Nh4 and 1.Ne7. It can't be 1.Nh4 though, because then 1...Rc6 (plenty of other moves draw, too) 2.f7 Rf6 gets rid of the pawn.

So 1.Ne7 is forced, covering f5, c6 and c8 as well. Black's rook must find a way to the back rank, but d5 is covered while e5, g5, and b5 are useless. The main line is 1...Rh5 2.f7 Rh8 3.Ng8 Rh1+ 4.Ke2 Rh2+ 5.Kf3 and wins, as the attempt to get behind the king with 5...Rh1 is easily handled with 6.Kg2.

But this still leaves 1...Ra5, and this draws easily. If 2.f7, Black holds with 2...Ra8 (threatening 3...Rf8) 3.Ng6 Kc7-d7-e6. If White tries to preclude the 2...Ra8 idea with 2.Nc8+, then Black holds with 2...Kc7 3.f7 Rf5.

The study is busted, but since the refutation is so simple, I initially suspected that the webmaster forgot to add a piece to the diagram, such as a pawn on a6. Unfortunately, the study is cooked a second way, too! 1...Rc4 also saves Black, as 2.f7 is met not by 2...Rf4?? 3.Nd5+, but by 2...Rd4+ 3.K-any Rd8. So now I don't know what the story is: did the composer (and the study judges) just have a very bad day, or did the Chess Cafe webmaster omit even more material?

I tried to find the study elsewhere, but my brief search online and in the first edition of Harold van der Heijden's endgame study database) were unsuccessful. So I turn to all of you: readers, do any of you have the original study?

Ivan Sokolov is one of those grandmasters who is in and out of the world’s elite – a very strong player, obviously! His opponent, Tiger Hillarp Persson, is also a grandmaster, and while he’s not known for his proximity to the world’s greatest players, he is rightly renowned for his creativity and imagination over the chessboard. Hillarp Persson has a willingness and the ability to go where few others could, and that’s what we’ll see this week – in spades – as he baffles and then overwhelms Sokolov in a Tal-like maelstrom of complications.

The game starts with one of Hillarp Persson’s specialties, the Modern with …a6 (players from the Pacific Northwest in the US call it the “Rat”; I’m not sure what other fond names have been attached to it). It’s a variation that gives White the opportunity to grab lots of space, and Sokolov did just that. But such a policy is often-double edged. For one thing, as Petrosian used to remind us, pawns don’t move backward. If a pawn push allows the opponent to create a weakness, that weakness may be there, and exploited, for a good long time. Needless to say (so why am I saying it?), that’s what happened in the game. After the moves 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 a6 5.Qd2 Nd7 6.h4 h5 7.Nh3 b5 8.Ng5 Bb7 9.a4 c6 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.f4 White had a lot of extra space, but at the cost of a hole on g4.



Which advantage counts for more: the extra space, or the g4 square? It’s hard to answer, really – there’s theory, and then there’s practice. With best play, White might have had an edge, but it took spectacular play by Hillarp Persson to reveal Black’s resources.

This is one of the most amazing and entertaining games you’ll see for a long time, so I heartily recommend that you join me this Thursday night (9 pm ET) as we try to figure out what’s going on!

(Directions for watching the show are here.)

Here, with slight modifications, is a recent review I did for Chess Today of The Sharpest Sicilian, co-authored by Kiril Georgiev and Atanas Kolev.

It's Monday once more, and thus time for another player profile. This week, our interviewee is IM (and Ph.D.) Kenneth Regan. In the late 1970s, he was considered an extremely talented youngster, but he gave up the game to pursue his studies in computer science and math; a gain for those fields (and for his family's income), but a loss for chess.



1. Name:
Kenneth W. Regan (Dr.)

2. Age:
47

3. Title:
IM

4. Where you live, where you're from:
Amherst (Buffalo) NY, originally from Paramus, NJ where my parents still live.

5. Family:
Wife Deborah, children Alexander, 12, and Rebecca, 9.

6. Other interests:
Professional: Computer Science---computational complexity theory, Mathematics. Avocations: Music, foreign languages, singing, fantasy sports (with family).

7. Favorite book/author (not chess):
1. The Bible
2. Martin Gardner's books on Mathematical Recreations (from his column in Scientific American), a definite inspiration.
3. S.I. Hayakawa, Language in [Thought and] Action.

8. When (and how/from whom) you learned to play:
5 years old, watched father play with uncle. My father was the perfect strength for which learning to win was a difficult but attainable challenge---in 6 months. The mountain I pose does seem to have discouraged my kids---though they are champions of their grades at school.

9. Favorite/most influential chess book (if any):
I. Chernev and K. Harkness, An Invitation to Chess---which I still recommend as best spanning the progression from beginner to advanced thinking, and which shows some of the beauty of the game, too. Then Nimzowitsch's My System and Kmoch's Pawn Power In Chess.

10. Favorite player (other than yourself):
Emanuel Lasker---though I do not exemplify his psychological approach, and Nimzowitsch/Larsen/etc. are more my style. I said this long before I found myself applying some of his mathematics in my research! (Indeed, I flagged Wikipedia's statement of the Lasker-Noether Theorem as incompletely worded---nobody has taken my fix suggestion on the discussion page further yet.)

11. A game (not your own) that made a big impact on you:
Nimzowitsch-Hakansson, in the Chernev-Harkness book.

12. Your best game:
My win over Walter Browne as Black in 1975: Hypermodern + Kmoch to the max.

13. Your greatest moment in chess so far:
Beating GMs Shamkovich and Bisguier in the last 2 rounds of the Jan 1977 New York City International to pull out my first IM norm.

(Co-winning the 1977 US Junior Championship and my board prize at the 1976 Student Olympiad---only non-Russian to win a gold medal---are close to it.)

14. The most valuable thing you did to become the player you are:
I always played in open sections, did not mind losing to much higher-rated players, and learned from them in post-game analysis.

What held me back was never studying openings, but that was part of the bargain of going full-bore into mathematics and science and other academic subjects instead, having decided at age 13(!) not to make chess a career.

For life experience, early cameraderie in adult company was most valuable---this helped me be mature enough to give lectures as a teenager, and research colloquia even as a first-year graduate student.

15. What you value most about the game:
Creative challenge. Unlike with Math/CS research, you have an active opponent! Also an innate beauty that everyone can visualize and understand.

16. Your chess credo:
When reading Chessbase's item on recent chess writings by the Spanish surrealist Fernando Arrabal, I realized that the opening and closing lines of his chess poem---curiously, given only in the Spanish original---have long been my unvoiced credo:

"A mis partidas voy/ de mis partidas vengo..."

I translate as: "I go to my games/ I come (away!) from my games." The Spanish "vengo" means come-away here, not just "come", and to me that makes all the difference. While a teenager I thought this in the form, "Enjoy it---without feeling as if your livelihood depends on it, unless it does." But Arrabal's version is more fundamental and IMHO works even for those who seek a living from chess. It also leads into the Susan Polgar credo "Win with grace, lose with dignity," which is a given. As a Christian I see much of life that way, to sacrifice if called for---and then there are parts of life that are not games...

17. Three tips for amateurs:
1. Learn the endgame! and play the opening with that in view;
2. Find books on the middlegame and annotations that help you visualize sequences of 3-4 moves, which chess programs may not be so good for;
3. What struck me most about the crossword-puzzle solving tournaments in the recent movie "Wordplay" was how they were valued for friendship.

18. A tip for ambitious players:
My point 14 is vital.

I still agree with advice I read as a teenager to play over many master games, even without looking at annotations, "learning by osmosis". I believe this should be done at a physical board, not a computer screen---and without being distracted by chess engine evaluations.

19. A game you'd like to present:
Annotated PGN of my win over Browne is attached.

20. Any of your work/services you'd like to plug:
My anti-cheating efforts: research and experimental data-gathering both, largely pro-bono. In http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/, "fidelity" is a 6-way reference to (1) agreement to an agent in general, (2) a particular measure of agreement called "fidelity" which figures into the mathematics, (3) FIDE, (4) faith, (5) playing in good faith, and (6) my personal "keeping faith with the chess world" in general after so long an absence.

Hopefully their application to chess will be unnecessary!---but research papers on this topic may find application in other areas.

For more, see this local 1996 interview.

(His games with Browne, Shamkovich, and Bisguier, together with Nimzowitsch-Hakansson, are here.)

The stuff that shows up on YouTube is pretty amazing sometimes. Here's a brief video of Mikhail Tal winning the world championship against Mikhail Botvinnik back in 1960 - the good times. And then there's this video of him just a few weeks before his death in 1992, and it's almost horrifying, considering he was just 55 years old at the time. On the plus side, he actually won that game (a blitz contest against Kasparov) - on time, incredibly. (There are other brief Tal videos there; you'll see them on the sidebar.)

By way of recovery, here's a cute little video of a hamster who clearly doesn't believe in gambits.

HT: Brian Karen

As mentioned in this post, seven players tied for first in the open (read: men's) section of the European Championships: Jakovenko, Tkachiev, Cheparinov, Sutovsky, Sakaev, Pavasovic, and Iljin, and on Sunday there was a playoff. Although it wasn't obvious from the crosstable on the official site, apparently Tkachiev and Sutovsky were the top two on tiebreaks and (thus) the only ones involved in the playoff. Tkachiev won 2-0 to become the European Champion. Sutovsky was the runner-up, and Jakovenko was third on tiebreaks.

On the women's side, Tatiana Kosintseva won by a mile (and with a better TPR than any of the men!), but the three-way tie for second had to be resolved. Apparently this was done by tiebreakers, not playoffs, and the result was that Stefanova was second, Tatiana's older sister Nadezhda Kosintseva was third, and Hoang Thanh Trang was the odd woman out, finishing fourth.

Perhaps in celebration of their 70th birthdays, former world champion Boris Spassky and Hungarian GM and many-time Candidate Lajos Portisch played a 6-game rapid match over the weekend. The match, like their Candidates match in 1980, concluded inconclusively.* Spassky outplayed Portisch to win game 1, lost game 4 on a one-move blunder in a clearly better position, and drew the remainder.

Games available on the match website.

*The 1980 match was determined, fairly absurdly**, in Portisch's favor on the grounds that he won a game with Black and Spassky didn't.

**When it comes to absurdity, that match has nothing on the 1983 Smyslov-Hübner Candidates match, which was determined by a roulette wheel!

The story is here. It doesn't really cover any new ground, but it's a useful summary for those who might not know what all the fuss is about. (Also of possible interest from today's WSJ Opinion Journal is a piece on Imus and gangsta rap.)

Matt Nelson writes:

Great blog!

Have you ever addressed the application of 3-1-0 football/soccer-style scoring to Chess? It seems to work well in football by encouraging decisive games without unduly penalizing a well fought draw. Any comments or suggestions for further reading on this idea?

Thanks!

While that particular proposal hasn't been covered on the blog, as far as I recall, there has been a great deal of discussion about draws in general. Here, in brief, is my view on draws:

(1) There's nothing wrong with draws per se. First of all, a chess game is almost surely a draw with mutual best play. Second, even though humans don't play perfectly, draws often reflect both sides playing well and giving a good effort.

(2) This doesn't mean that all draws are acceptable - short draws in super-tournaments seem to me to dishonor the sponsors, who are putting up big money (in part in the form of honorariums) to put on a show. For these tournaments, I think there are two good solutions. First, there's the no-draw-offer rule in use at the MTel tournament in Sofia. Second, the organizer should make it clear that offenders will not be invited back.

(3) The last round draws at the European Championship don't require an extrinsic penalty, as they are self-penalizing. Players who engage in such draws cost themselves serious money in the long run.

I don't think the 3-1-0 system is needed at this point, and I'm inclined to think it undervalues draws - not that I know exactly what a draw "should" be worth. There are obvious motivations for making a draw worth half a point: it makes score-keeping easy and it's the mean between a win and a loss. And even if the opponents in a draw both played as well as the winner of another game, giving a point for both wins and draws would eliminate almost all motivation. So it looks like half a point for a draw is about right. More than that would reduce motivation, and less than that seems unduly punitive against what could have been a well-played game.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment!

The European Individual Championships have ended - almost. The tournaments (both open and female) were scheduled for 11 rounds, but there are ties in need of playing off.

Let's start with the open (men's) competition. Ukranian GM Andrei Volokitin led most of the way, and with two rounds to go he led the chase pack by half a point. In round 10 he drew and was caught by Vladislav Tkachiev, with 33 of their closest friends half a point behind. With big money, a prestigious title and qualification to the important and lucrative World Cup on the line, you'd expect lots of fighting chess in the last round, right?

Not quite. Jakovenko beat Volokitin, who played atrociously, Tkachiev drew his game, and five other players (Cheparinov, Sutovsky, Sakaev, Pavasovic, and Iljin) won to tie for first (pending the tiebreak results on Sunday). But the other 12 games relevant to first place were drawn - mostly without fight.

Tomashevsky had White against Tkachiev, but drew in 13 moves. And that was one of the longer "efforts"! Vitiukov-Malakhov went six moves. Roiz-Almasi was the marathon the group, stretching all the way to move 19. Gustafsson-Tiviakov went to move nine, Gajewski-Beliavsky saw 13 exhausting moves, V. Georgiev-Avrukh got to move 8, Nevednichy-Volkov went 11 moves, Landa-Khalifman went to move 8, and Rodshtein-Galkin concluded on move 7. (What would Dvoretsky say about this?)

The bottom line: a 7-way tie for first (for now) with 8/11, with 37(!) players half a point behind. As the terrible drawsophilia was a regular guest at the tournament, the TPRs weren't extraordinarily high: the best numbers were Pavasovic's 2765 and Jakovenko's 2763.

Well, not quite. The real hero of the tournament wasn't in this event. It's Tatiana Kosintseva, who won the women's tournament with a terrific 10/11, two full points ahead of older sister Nadezhda, former women's world champion Antoaneta Stefanova and Hoang Thanh Trang. Kosintseva's TPR? 2774, better than any of the performers in the open section!

Congratulations to the winners.

In 1991, Dvoretsky had a training session with some American juniors, and was unfavorably struck by the way they handled certain competitive situations:

To my surprise I observed that many of them, when playing important games or meeting more eminent opponents, did not want to play actively and thought only about a draw. Clearly, the result would often turn out directly the opposite - ultra-cautious, passive play usually leads to a worsening of the position. (From Mark Dvoretsky & Artur Yusupov, Secrets of Chess Training (Edition Olms 2006), p. 34.)

That's the problem, as he saw it (at least then). What is the cause, and what is the solution?

Now I will express my version of events. In America parents begin closely following the competitive achievements of their children from their very first steps in chess. Too much emphasis, even in junior competitions, is given to ratings, prizes, isolated successes in games with strong opponents, and so on. Such an approach is of course passed on to the children, and they try to give their parents joy and boast to the contemporaries about any current success. For the sake of momentary successes they became cautious. Alas, the result sometimes turns out just the opposite and, more important, is sharply slows the creative growth of the children.

An improvement process is only effective when the work is done with a future aim. This means that trainers should teach young players to sensibly combine fighting for successes in competitions and experimenting and taking creative risks. The fostering of a depressing pragmatism from early childhood cannot be good. (Ibid., p. 37.)

Hard data and a comparison with other countries' players is needed to test his claims about American players (a look at the last two rounds of the European Championship isn't going to inspire anyone looking for examples of fighting spirit), but even so it's worth considering his diagnosis and prescription. Positively: strive for creative growth and don't be afraid. Negatively: remember that pragmatism, ironically, doesn't work!

Here.

More details here.

Black to move; this one's a toughie.



Solution here.

First, the puzzle; it's not too difficult.



It's Black to move, and it's clear that White's king will be the victim.

As you're solving it, try to remember if you've seen this combination, or one very much like it. When I first saw this puzzle in today's Chess Today, I had a strong sense of deja vu. Sometimes the feeling is an illusion, but I don't think it was in this case, as the solution to this problem had some variations that didn't seem at all familiar. Nevertheless, my attempts to find the predecessor failed, so now it's your turn. Anyone?

Meanwhile, here's the solution.

Have a look at this position, with Black to move:



Take five seconds and try to think of the worst move you can. Now take a few more minutes and look for the best move you can. When you've found your solution, have a look here.

Here and here. The second is light fun, but the first is a salutary warning to bloggers everywhere.

"In chess there are only two styles - good, that is: leading to a win, and bad, that is: leading to a loss. In every position a possible combination is concealed and every combination arises from the position. If after the opponent's move a so-called positional player is not capable of calculating a possible winning combination 5-6 moves ahead, then he is not a positional player, but simply a patzer." (Mikhail Chigorin, cited in Alexander Morozevich & Vladimir Barsky's The Chigorin Defence According to Morozevich, p. 15.)

In the 1982 Interzonal in Las Palmas, 14 players vied for the two available spots into the next year’s Candidates matches. Among the participants were American GM Walter Browne, then near the peak of his powers, and Vassily Smyslov, 61 years old and 24 years an ex-world champion. Needless to say, Smyslov qualified, Browne didn’t, and Smyslov won their individual game as well.

How did he do it? A big part of the story lies in his fantastic endgame ability, which he cultivates even to this day as an outstanding composer of studies. His great rival, Mikhail Botvinnik, once said that while Smyslov’s talent was universal, in the endgame “he was in his element. Sometimes he took decisions that were staggering their depth.” Mikhail Tal called him “a virtuoso of the endgame…a modern Capablanca. We have all learned from his brilliant technique of playing endings.” And Smyslov wrote of himself that

“[my father] instilled in me a love for so-called ‘simple’ positions, with the participation of only a few pieces. I was able to gain a deep feeling for what each piece is capable of, to sense their peculiarities, their strength and impotence in various different situations on the board, the limits of their capabilities, what they ‘like’ and what they ‘don’t like’ and how they behave… Such a ‘mutual understanding’ with the pieces enables a player to see that which often remains concealed to purely logical analysis. It is then that the innate ability of a player, which I call a sense of harmony, manifests itself.”

(All the quotes are from Kasparov’s chapter on Smyslov in My Great Predecessors II.)

Fine words, but the point is for us to learn from his chess, not to master the art of eulogizing the living. So we’ll take a close look at his win over Browne, to see how he rapidly transformed an endgame position that looked slightly worse and fairly uninteresting into one that was dynamic, dangerous for his opponent and then won – all in just 32 moves. There are useful pointers we can take from his win and apply to our own games, and in passing we’ll learn a little about the Bogo-Indian as well.

The fun begins Thursday night at 9 pm ET – see you then! (Directions for watching the show can be found here.)

For the Francophiles who have been terrified by the earlier installments of my anti-French Defense posts (in chronological order: here, here and here), rejoice: I give you the cure.

In fact, twelve cures. As I insisted from day one, the line, while dangerous, is objectively innocuous at best. Finding the antidote in the heat of battle is tough for most of us, especially when faced with something brand-new. So here, in the comfort of your own home, is the answer to your 1.e4 e6 2.c4 problems - and then some.



Response 1 - Head for the Sicilian with 1.e4 e6 2.c4 c5! One possible continuation, transposing to one of GM Rublevsky's pet lines, is 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Be2 d5 6.exd5 exd5 7.d4 with a position that's playable for both sides.



Response 2 - Head for the English Defense with 1.e4 e6 2.c4 b6!

Response 3: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 c6. After 3.d4 d5, White can choose between 4.e5 (Black should be okay after 4...Ne7 and maybe 4...c5), 4.Nc3 Bb4! (4...dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4+ is the very sharp Marshall Gambit in the Slav; it's playable for Black, but requires serious preparation), and 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Nf6.

Response 4: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 e5 - head for a double-king pawn position where the pawn on c4 is strategically double-edged. Interestingly, after the plausible 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 g6 (4...Nf6 looks okay, too) 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.Be3 d6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.O-O O-O 10.Qd2 f5 11.Nxc6 Nxc6 12.exf5 Bxf5, we have transposed into a position from the Modern Defense, albeit one in which it's generally (but not always) Black to move. Even so, Black seems fine here too, but I don't think this is the best choice. (I'd also relatively unhappy about responses 2 and 3. All three options are playable, but the other replies are stronger.)



Response 5: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 Bc5 - collecting on d5 leaves White with two weak d-pawns, and everything else leaves Black to capture or continue developing.

Response 6: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 Bd6!? - Black now threatens to take on e4, as Bc4 Qe7 won't block in the bishop any longer. White should try 5.Qxd5 if the goal is to punish Black, but then 5...Nf6 followed by 6...O-O leaves Black with a big development advantage in return for the pawn.

Response 7: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5 - this is similar to response 5, but with Black closer to castling it's just so much the better.

Response 8: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd4 exd4 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Bc5 laughs at White's threat - yes, you want the f-pawn? Take it! After 6.Bxf7+ Kf8, Black threatens ...Qf6, and if White retreats with 7.Bd5, Qh4 8.Qg3 Qxg3 9.hxg3 Nf6 gives Black an edge. Best is 6.Nc3, when one reasonable possibility is 6...Qh4 7.Bxf7+ Kf8 8.g3 Qe7 9.Bd5 c6 10.Bxe4 Nf6 11.d3 Be6, when Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.

Response 9: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qe7 6.Nc3 c6 7.d3 b5 8.Nxb5 cxb5 9.Bd5 Be6 10.Qxb5+ Bd7 11.Qb7 Qb4+ 12.Kf1 Qxb7 13.Bxb7 Bc6 14.Bxa8 Bxa8 15.Bf4 Nd7 16.dxe4 Bc5. Here the material situation is nominally in White's favor, but here the pawns cannot make their presence felt while the minors will start to coordinate and swarm very soon.



Response 10: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.d3 exd3+ 8.Kf1 Nbd7 9.Bg5 Nc5 10.Qa3 Be6 11.Nd5 (11.Re1 d2 wins) Bxd5 (11...Qd7 might be even better, but it's needlessly sharp) 12.Bxd5 O-O-O 13.Bf3 Kb8 and White has no attack to compensate for the two pawns or his bottled-up kingside.



Response 11: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.d3 exd3+ 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.O-O-O Ne5 10.Nf3 Nxc4 11.Qxc4 Qb4 12.Qxd3 Bd6 13.Ng5 Be6 14.Kb1 O-O-O 15.Nxe6 fxe6 leaves White down a pawn and without an attack.



Response 12: 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3 dxe4 5.Bc4 Qd7 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Nxe4 Na5 8.Qe3 (8.Qb5 Nxc4 9.Qxc4 Qe6 trades the queens, leaving Black with a better position and the two bishops) Nxc4 9.Nd6+ Kd8 10.Nxc4 Qd5 11.Ne5 Bd6 and Black, ironically enough, has a winning attack likely to be crowned by a rook move to the e-file, exploiting the king's losing the right to castle.



Problem solved!

(The analysis can be replayed here.)

Kasparov made an appearance for an English service organization called Hardcore is More than Music. GMs David Howell and Maurice Ashley were also involved, as you can see here and here.

If so, get out your checkbooks. ICC is auctioning off 15 boards on Ebay, with the proceeds going to an Indian non-profit organization designed to help kids with autism and cerebral palsy. More info here.

HT: Bionic Lime.

If so, and if more is better, then have a look at this ChessBase page.

The annual Foxwoods Open in Connecticut finished on Sunday, and Gata Kamsky was the winner after a playoff; also tied for first with 7/9 were Zviad Izoria, Ildar Ibragimov, and Alex Stripunsky. Seven players finished half a point back, including Jesse Kraai, who achieved a GM norm. Kraai lost to Izoria in the last round, but before that had enjoyed a terrific tournament, beating Shabalov and Nakamura, among others.

After the main tournament there was a blitz event, won by Jaan Ehlvest, half a point ahead of Izoria (HT: Brian Karen).

Speaking of fast chess, the Villa Cañada de Calatrava Rapid tournament in Spain also finished on Sunday, and was won, on tiebreaks, by Alexei Shirov with 7.5/9. Daniel Fridman, Ivan Sokolov, and Boris Gelfand also finished with that score, ahead of 10 players with 7 (including Mamedyarov, Grischuk, Ivanchuk, and Anand) and 17 with 6.5 (including Karpov).

There was also a Fischer Random tournament there, and this too was won by Shirov, half a point ahead of the quarter Sasikiran, Fressinet, Ivanchuk, and Grischuk. Finally, there was also a blitz tournament, and Ivanchuk won this, a full point ahead of his closest pursuers.

Those tournaments are over, but the European Championships are still going. After round 7, Andrei Volokitin leads with 6 points, and in the women's section, Tatiana Kosintseva leads with a perfect 7/7 and a TPR over 3000. Only four rounds to go!

It's Monday, at that means it's time for another player profile. Last week we introduced British IM Andrew Martin; this week we return to my side of the pond to present American IM John Watson.

Watson's accomplishments and contributions to the chess world are many. As an author, he has written many acclaimed books on opening and general chess theory - to say nothing of his famous Chessman comics! His book reviews for TWIC are excellent, and he has worked successfully as a trainer, too, most notably helping Tal Shaked become World Junior champion in 1997 - ahead of players like Morozevich, Kasimdzhanov and Movsesian! And in his free time, he plays chess, too.

Name:
John Watson

Age:
55

Title:
International Master

Other interests:
Literature, Socio-political Issues/Economics, sports, Electrical Engineering (I was in the field).

Favorite authors (not chess):
Off the top of my head: Flann O'Brian, Heinrich Boll, Dostoevsky, Pynchon, Faulkner... Shakespeare [almost forgot!], and many others. Numerous non-fiction writers, especially political and historical.

When (and how/from whom) you learned to play:
My father, age 11(?), briefly; began to play regularly at age 14.

Favorite/most influential chess book (if any):
?? There are so many, for example, while growing up: My System, Tal-Botvinnik, Alekhine: Best Games + NY 1924. Too many modern ones to mention.

Favorite player (other than yourself):
Older players: Steinitz, Petrosian, Tal; Modern players: Karpov, Kasparov, Shirov

A game (not your own) that made a big impact on you:
Not very original, but Johner-Nimzowitsch, and later, Kasparov-Topalov.

Your best game:
Can't pick one offhand.

Your greatest moment in chess so far:
Winning a New York International. Winning Opens is more random and less satisfying.

The most valuable thing you did to become the player you are:
Playing through high-level games, playing and studying a very wide variety of opening systems/structures (see below).

What you value most about the game:
The fact that after all these years we know so little about it and that it continues to confound us.

Three tips for amateurs:
Study your own games