The Chess Mind

I'll quote the Chess Today report, because the field is ridiculously strong. The most amazing team is Yuzhny Ural, with Karpov and Korchnoi on the same team. It almost seems like an April Fool's joke!

Competitions in the extremely strong Russian Premier league will begin in Dagomys, Sochi on 2nd of April 2008. It will be an all-play-all tournament with twelve teams.

Some top players, according to the preliminary lists, are:

Finek: Svidler, Navara, Zvjagintsev, Movsesian

SSM Moscow: Onischuk, Krasenkow, Asrian

Economist1: Alekseev, Ni Hua, Eljanov

Economist2: Kornev, Dyachkov, Shaposhnikov

Shatar-Metropol: Bu, Gashimov, Amonatov

64 Moscow: Gelfand, Rublevsky, Bareev, Harikrishna, Khalifman

Tomsk 400: Morozevich, Karjakin, Yakovenko, Van Wely

Yuzhny Ural: Karpov, Korchnoi, Spassky

Politekhnik: Bocharov, Efimenko, Areshchenko

TPS-Saransk: Ivanchuk, Volkov, Volokitin

Ural: Kamsky, Radjabov, Shirov, Grischuk, Akopian

Spasio-Swiss Moscow: Mamedyarov, Ponomariov, Tkachiev

There will also be a High League tournament, which will begin on 3rd of April.

Milman-Burnett. This was one of my favorite games in the contest, and one I'll enjoy covering in this week's ChessVideos show. (I'll also cover the 9th place game, Friedel-Serper, a game I enjoyed far less.) This one definitely makes a pleasing aesthetic impression, one reminiscent of some of Tigran V. Petrosian's games. (Even more importantly, I've solidified my lead in the informal "Best Judge" contest, which qualifies me to win absolutely nothing.) Do have a look at that game, and tune in later in the week for the show.

In yet another event organized by the busy Mr. Muradian, America's top female star takes on Armenia's Lilit Mkrtchian in a 4-game exhibition match in Chicago from Monday, March 31 through April 3. More details on the North American Chess Association website (scroll down).

My latest ChessVideos presentation is ready for viewing. It's a pawn ending I composed 22 years ago, and it makes for an instructive and surprising exercise. I hope you enjoy it, and look forward to your feedback.

Who said or wrote the following?

A good chess player who has lost a game is genuinely convinced that his failure is due to a mistake on his part, and looks for that mistake in the opening, forgetting that at each stage of the game there were similar blunders, that none of his moves was perfect. The mistake on which he concentrates his attention has been noticed simply because his opponent took advantage of it.

And, of course, discuss!

Magnus Carlsen is going to play in Chicago? If today were Tuesday, I might make such a claim, but not today. "MAGNUS" is an acronym: More Americans Getting Norms in the United States. This occurred in the 9th North American FIDE Invitational in Chicago this past week, where in addition to German FM Mehmed Pasalic achieving his norm with 7/9 (and winning the tournament), young American NM Marc Arnold scored a norm with 6.5/9, going 3-0 vs. the IMs!

Congratulations to both players, and thanks again to Sevan Muradian for organizing and IM Angelo Young for hosting these events.

It appears there's a new record for consecutive checks, as Russian Alexey Khanyan has managed to create a position with 51 in a row. You can find more details here (item 378, dated March 25, 2008) on Tim Krabbé's excellent website. For those who find his replayable board visually unappealing (the white king in particular looks could just about pass for his ebon counterpart), you can replay it here.

On April 2, Vladimir Kramnik will play a two-board simul against GM Jan Werle and near-GM Marie Sebag (IM + 2 GM norms + > 2500 rating) in Enschede (Netherlands). More info here.

The topic is now officially boring me to tears, so this is probably the last time it will be mentioned on this blog until and unless, God forbid, FIDE enacts some insane new policy on the matter. But meanwhile, those of you who still find this fascinating can check out the latest article on the ChessBase site dedicated to the (non-) issue of draws (generally but not only of the "grandmaster" variety).

Di Stefano was an opera star of a previous generation, a tenor who was known for his close collaboration with Maria Callas and who was Pavarotti's model as a singer. He died, sadly, not from old age, but from prolonged complications resulting from a 2004 beating by unknown assailants.

Have a listen to a remarkable performance of E Lucevan le Stelle (from Tosca) recorded live in Mexico City. The crowd seems to have escaped from a soccer match - several minutes of applause after a song from the first act (not at the end of the opera) forces di Stefano to do an encore. Now that is how a crowd should react!

What grandmaster from Riga once defeated Bobby Fischer (with Black, no less) and two other world champions as well, not to mention two world championship finalists in a career that saw him nearly become a world champion himself - all while remaining almost completely unknown as a player? Name the grandmaster and the two other world champions he beat.

Well, almost - 2/3 of the participants won this Category 16 event. Here are the final standings:

1-4. Balogh, Naiditsch, Nisipeanu, Almasi 5.5 (out of 10)
5. Vallejo 4.5
6. Mikhalevski 3.5

Tournament site here.

HT: Chess Today

The full interview, conducted by Bulgarian GM Inkiov, can be read here. Here, meanwhile, are two hilarious excerpts:

Question:It is well known that Veselin Topalov was the first World Champion who did not receive the right for a return-match...

Either this is a poor translation or it's an example of the worst sort of hyper-partisan propaganda. Topalov is the first world champ not to receive the right to a rematch only if one ignores the following brief list:

Wilhelm Steinitz, the first official world champion Emanuel Lasker, the second official world champion Jose Capablanca (3rd WC) Alexander Alekhine (4th) Max Euwe (5th) Mikhail Botvinnik (6th) [He got two rematches, but he didn't get one when he lost to Petrosian.] Vasily Smyslov (7th) Mikhail Tal (8th) Tigran Petrosian (9th) Boris Spassky (10th) Bobby Fischer (11th) Garry Kasparov (13th)

We can add to this that none of the FIDE k.o. champions (Alexander Khalifman, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov and Rustam Kasimdzhanov) had any sort of special privilege for the subsequent cycle. In short, Inkiov is right only if the only two world champions in history are Karpov and Kramnik, and it's not even true about Kramnik. While he is getting a sweetheart deal compensating him for not winning in Mexico City, I don't think he had a rematch clause vs. Leko, and he wouldn't have received any privileges had he lost to Topalov.

Further, while Topalov didn't get an automatic rematch after losing to Kramnik, what he wound up with was pretty close: an automatic rematch if Kramnik had won in Mexico City, and even now he needs to win only one match to get a new title shot next year. And that leads to the second bit of (unintended) hilarity:

[From part of Kutin's answer to the question that began with the previous excerpt:]Still, I think that comparatively good solution was found. Topalov received the chance to participate in the new cycle and will play against the World Cup’s winner Gata Kamsky in September or October. My personal opinion is that the match should be in Bulgaria. FIDE tried to find another country to organize the event and raised the requirements about the price fund, but I am not optimistic that candidates will be found. Kamsky should sign the match contract within a few days. If he does not, he will be replaced by Alexei Shirov. [DM: Emphasis added.] Everything will be clear until 11 April. [DM: The translator presumably meant by April 11, but with FIDE you never know!]

Those of you new to the chess world may not see the rich irony here, so here's a brief explanation. In 1998, Kasparov was looking for an opponent to challenge him for his non-FIDE world championship title, and to that end a Candidates' Match was arranged between Vladimir Kramnik and Alexei Shirov. Shirov won that match, but the subsequent match with Kasparov never took place, as Kasparov was unable to find a sponsor who would raise a sufficiently hefty prize fund. In due course, Kasparov simply moved on, discarded Shirov's rights, and invited Kramnik to play for the title, which the latter duly won in 2000. Needless to say, neither Kasparov nor Kramnik has been on Shirov's Christmas card list since that time. And now it's at least possible that Shirov will "become" the new Kramnik. Better still, we could have a Shirov-Kramnik rematch in 2009! All that would be left at that point is for Shirov to win and offer Kasparov a match, and the chess world will have come full circle.

There weren't too many short draws, but there were no changes in the overall standings. (There were, however, important changes in the specifically rapid and blindfold standings.) The Kramnik-Karjakin, Anand-van Wely, Leko-Aronian and Morozevich-Carlsen matches consisted only of draws, while in the Mamedyarov-Gelfand and Topalov-Ivanchuk contests the first-named player won with White in blindfold and lost with Black in rapid chess. Here are the complete final standings:

Final Blindfold Standings: (In tiebreak order)

1-4. Kramnik, Aronian, Morozevich, Topalov 6.5 (of 11)
5-7. Leko, Anand, Carlsen 6
8-9. Karjakin, van Wely 5
10-11. Ivanchuk, Mamedyarov 4.5
12. Gelfand 3

Final Rapid Standings:

1. Aronian 8
2. Ivanchuk 6.5
3-5. Gelfand, Leko, Carlsen 6
6-7. Kramnik, Topalov 5.5 (United again - and in both disciplines.)
8. Anand 5(!)
9-11. Mamedyarov, Morozevich, Karjakin 4.5
12. van Wely 4

Final Combined Standings:

1. Aronian 14.5
2-5. Kramnik, Leko, Topalov, Carlsen 12
6-8. Ivanchuk, Anand, Morozevich 11
9. Karjakin 9.5
10-12. Gelfand, Mamedyarov, van Wely 9

All the games can be replayed on the tournament website, while Gelfand-Mamedyarov, with my notes, is here.

Simple, but very nice. Here, once again, is the position:


Gurgenidze 1985

The task, as mentioned yesterday, is for White to move and draw. When you're ready to see the solution, satisfaction is just a click away.

Inspired by my game with Yudasin, a reader who wishes to remain anonymous has sent a wonderful Botvinnik Semi-Slav where Black's queenside pawn mass - complete with three connected passed pawns on the 7th - devours everything in its path. Black is down two full rooks, but it matters not a whit. This game in turn reminded me of another Botvinnik Semi-Slav, one that's almost its bizarro world counterpart. This time it's White who's down a rook (but not two, alas) and enjoying compensation in the form of a mighty pawn armada. It doesn't quite come to three pawns on the 7th this time, but it's still a special game.

They don't get much better than this.

As promised. Also, for your convenience, here's the automatically updated video bar:

Surprisingly interesting and tolerable, even for Kramnik fans. My favorite bit from the interview comes when he talks about short draws and the "Sofia rules": "If you are being paid good money, and you turn up to the game, just to play five original moves and be photographed, that does not look very nice, to say the least." Less tart but more surprising (to me, at least) is the great respect he expresses for his de facto Candidates opponent, Gata Kamsky:

Yes, Gata is a great fighter! Winning the World Cup, beating all the top players in the process, was a great achievement. And he did not only win, but did so convincingly. I was very impressed with his play. He reminds me of a robot that never makes mistakes. I got the impression that he could play 50 games in a row without a mistake! And do you remember how he won his matches 15 years ago? He not only won, he destroyed his opponents! As a match player, he is stronger than Kramnik, I think. The match against him will require all of my strength and colossal concentration.

Read the full interview here.

All the leaders drew their matches, and that means that Levon Aronian has won the event. After he drew both games with Vladimir Kramnik and the Peter Leko-Magnus Carlsen contest was also split, he maintained a 2.5 point lead with just 2 games to go. Congratulations to Aronian are in order, and while this is just one event, it is becoming increasingly possible that Anand's tenure on top of the rapid chess pile (at least post-Kasparov) is at an end.

In other action, Topalov defeated van Wely 1.5-.5 and joined the tie for second. Anand defeated Gelfand in the blindfold game, and had he won the rapid game he'd have joined the tie; unfortunately, he lost, and with White. Finally, Mamedyarov and Morozevich defeated Ivanchuk and Karjakin, respectively, by identical 1.5-.5 scores.

Leading Blindfold Standings after Round 10:

1-3. Kramnik, Aronian, Morozevich 6
4-7. Topalov, Leko, Anand, Carlsen 5.5

Leading Rapid Standings after Round 10:

1. Aronian 7.5
2-5. Ivanchuk, Carlsen, Leko, Topalov 5.5

Overall Standings:

1. Aronian 13.5
2-5. Kramnik, Topalov, Leko, Carlsen 11
6-8. Anand, Ivanchuk, Morozevich 10
9. Karjakin 8.5
10-12. Gelfand, Mamedyarov, van Wely 8

Final Round Pairings:

Kramnik - Karjakin
Leko - Aronian
Morozevich - Carlsen
Topalov - Ivanchuk
Anand - van Wely
Mamedyarov - Gelfand

(These are the colors for the blindfold games; flip it around for the rapid games.)

All the games can be found on the tournament site; I'll have a selection of games from rounds 9 and 10 in a subsequent post.

This week we’ll continue our brief series on the Nimzo-Indian with a look at a different pawn structure than we’ve seen in the two previous games. After a look at 4.Qc2 in week one and 4.a3 last week, we turn our attention to Rubinstein’s move, 4.e3. Our game this week – Taimanov-Averbakh from the famed 1953 Candidates tournament – once again sees White gaining the bishop pair in the opening, but the resulting position differs dramatically from the other games. One big difference is that the center is more open, especially for Black, than it is in the other games; on the other hand, White doesn’t lag in development (as he did in the 4.Qc2 game) and his queenside structure (especially the c4 pawn) isn’t nearly as weak (by comparison to last week’s 4.a3 game). This time around, there’s a whole new set of problems to address!

Happily, we’ll be in very good hands as we learn the game’s lessons. Mark Taimanov, the game’s winner, is one of the legendary figures in the development of this opening from the White side, and he was at this time coming into his peak form. His opponent, Yuri Averbakh, is no slouch either – obviously, as this was placed in a Candidates tournament. Adding to the instructional value, both Taimanov and Bronstein have offered commentary on this game, and of course I’ll had what I can as well. Further, the game isn’t merely of theoretical interest; it’s both a fascinating tactical struggle and a fine illustration of the power of opposite-colored bishops in the middlegame.

It’s well worth watching, and to do so is simple: just look for theTaimanov-Averbakh game at 9 p.m. ET/3 a.m. CET in Playchess.com’s Broadcast room and you’re set – the show is free. (Further, detailed directions for watching can be found in this post.)

It's not too difficult, but it is attractive:


D. Gurgenidze 1985

White to move and draw. (The solution will be given in a day or two; please don't comment the answer.)

given below. But first, for those who didn't notice the quote the first time around, here it is again:

In the years when Tal was becoming World Champion, he had no understanding of chess. But how he could fight! Now he understands everything about chess, but he has not the same will-power...

The author of these lines was...Viktor Korchnoi*, in the context of an article explaining his loss to Anatoly Karpov in their 1974 Candidates Match. Here are some of the surrounding passages:

Yes, Karpov is a rare type of chess player, I would say. In his play first here and there one suddenly notices faults. But what enormous will-power! I have never seen in anyone such an ability to summon up his strength for a game. It's absolutely staggering! In a short space of time he puts in a colossal amount of work. With his will-power, one might say that he put a break on my play. This man is capable of putting into a game all that he possesses, all that he knows, he is a man who is able to impose his influence on an opponent. This demands enormous efforts on the part of he himself, and, as the example of Tal has shown, such a player may not last long. [DM: Korchnoi was definitely wrong if he thought Tal's fate would befall Karpov, who remained in the top 2 for almost all of the next 22 years.] Karpov has given so much, and within six months will have given even more. [DM: Korchnoi here anticipates the match with Bobby Fischer that was to occur in 1975.] I will once again cite the example of Tal. [DM: The original quote ensues.]

I sensed the influence of Karpov's will on me during the course of the whole match. As time trouble approached I felt physically how he summoned up everything against me, strained himself to the utmost, and watched me ever so closely....

It turns out that it is the factor of will-power that now plays the determining role in chess. For this reason it was Karpov who emerged the winner. Although I still consider myself superior in the creative sense, as regards will-power he is clearly my superior. Karpov was able to inflict his will on me, and he won.**

These excerpts may reveal more about Korchnoi than about Karpov, and there's probably an element of sour grapes present as well. Still, it's interesting and worth thinking about, as Karpov is not the only player known for his psychological intensity. There's Tal, as Korchnoi notes, but Fischer and especially Kasparov were known for emitting an almost palpable and destructive psychological force. Needless to say (I hope!), the excesses should not be emulated, but those with strong wills can, with training, surely utilize them to achieve their ends without attempting to crush the opponent psychologically. Difficult, but not impossible!

* Cited in Anatoly Karpov & Alexander Roshal, Chess is My Life (Pergamon, 1980), p. 183.

** Ibid., pp. 182-183.

This will be a "just the facts" post; annotated games will appear later. The most important bit of info is that Aronian extended his lead in the combined standings by giving Morozevich a 2-0 pasting, while Carlsen lost to Kramnik 1.5-.5 and Leko drew his match with Karjakin 1-1. That leaves Aronian a whopping 2.5 points ahead of the Kramnik, Carlsen & Leko trio with just 4 rounds (two days) to go.

Leading Blindfold Standings:

1-3. Aronian, Kramnik, Morozevich 5.5
4-6. Carlsen, Leko, Topalov 5

Leading Rapid Standings:

1. Aronian 7(!)
2-4. Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Leko 5
5-7. Anand, Kramnik, Topalov 4.5

Overall Standings:

1. Aronian 12.5
2-4. Carlsen, Kramnik, Leko 10
5-6. Ivanchuk, Topalov 9.5
7. Anand 9
8. Morozevich 8.5
9. Karjakin 8
10. van Wely 7.5
11. Gelfand 7
12. Mamedyarov 6.5

Round 10 Pairings:

Ivanchuk - Mamedyarov
van Wely - Topalov
Gelfand - Anand
Karjakin - Morozevich
Aronian - Kramnik (The match of the day!)
Leko - Carlsen (Not bad either - all four leaders are paired.)

(First-named players have White in the blindfold game.)

Tournament website here.

As promised, or at least threatened, here are a couple of games from Sunday's rounds at the Amber Rapid & Blindfold tournament in Nice, France. Both are blindfold games, but that's where the similarities end. The first game, Carlsen-Mamedyarov, was a very interesting game that holds up on its own merits, without any qualifiers about its being a blindfold contest. The second game, however, shows a peculiarly blindfold error, one that has occurred more than once in this event. van Wely's problem in his game with Leko was not that he forgot Leko's move, but apparently that he misread it in the first place! As I note in my commentary, he might have been able to realize his error, but that chance vanished in what may have been a moment of overconfident euphoria. Next time, he might take a page out of Anand's book (see the round 6 video covering his blindfold game with Karjakin).

The Foxwoods Open in Connecticut has finished, and five players have tied for first: GMs Shulman, Shabalov, Becerra, A. Ivanov and IM Hess. Shulman won a blitz playoff and thus won the title of event champion, but the real hero of the event was teenager Robert Hess, who achieved a GM norm and then some. (He had already sewn up the norm after 7 of 9 rounds!) After wins against an expert and a 2200, Hess went on a rampage:

Round 3: Beat GM Alexander Ivanov
Round 4: Beat GM Keith Arkell
Round 5: Drew GM Darven Sadvakasov
Round 6: Lost to GM Yury Shulman
Round 7: Beat GM Ildar Ibragimov
Round 8: Drew GM Mark Paragua
Round 9: Beat GM Alexander Stripunsky

Yikes! Congratulations also to Chris Williams and Tegshuren Enkhbat, who both made IM norms.


Congratulations also to American GM Varuzhan Akobian, who won the O2C Doeberl Cup in Canberra, Australia, with a 7.5/9 score, a full point ahead of his 7 closest pursuers. To get a feel for the round-by-round action and to see some entertaining snippets, have a look at a series of short (about 3.5 minutes each) videos, mostly by retired Australian GM Ian Rogers.

HT: Chess Today

Here's a fun one:

In the years when Tal was becoming World Champion, he had no understanding of chess. But how he could fight! Now he understands everything about chess, but he has not the same will-power..."

Not really the WSJ's choices per se, but Gabriel Schonfield's, the guest columnist for this past Saturday's "Five Best" column. His choices are pretty trite, but that's probably appropriate for his audience:

1. Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games
2. Kasparov's Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors [Great title: how else would we know that it was Kasparov writing about his predecessors?]
3. Tal's Tal-Botvinnik, 1960
4. Nimzowitsch's My System
5. Lasker, Lasker's Manual of Chess [Evidently one of Kasparov's great predecessors in multiple senses. Ah, marketing.]

There's some nonsense in his review too, like his claim that Tal's victory was "a demonstration that chess can be scientific only in the way that Soviet socialism was scientific, which is to say not at all." No argument about Soviet socialism, but one wonders if Schonfield has noticed computer chess. Also, how about the 9(!!) point swing in the 1961 rematch (Botvinnik lost 12.5-8.5 in 1960 and won 13-8 in 1961), or Tal's own claims in 1979 that, in light of his increased understanding of the game, he'd "tear to pieces" his earlier self?

On balance though, it's a nice little article for the non-chess playing public, and it's useful for chess players unfamiliar with those books, too. I don't think Lasker's Manual is especially invaluable, but I'd wholeheartedly recommend the other books to all my readers.

From GM-elect Frank Holzke's ("Bones") finger notes on ICC:

I took a 14-month break from ICC in order to become a grandmaster - but now (2008) I'm finally back!

Does this make sense? I can understand it - one enjoys blitz, misses ICC acquaintances, feels a certain euphoria and then a certain lassitude upon achieving a big goal. Psychologically, no problem. On the other hand, if he was able to achieve a big success by eradicating ICC - whether because it was a time-waster or because blitz was bad for his development as chess player, or both - then one would hope for his sake that he'd continue in that healthier direction. Food for thought.

Despite the presence of a substantial chase pack, the tournament had looked like a two-man race between Levon Aronian and Viswanathan Anand for the past several rounds. This is no longer so. While Aronian has maintained his lead, thanks to his 1.5-.5 win over the aforementioned Anand, his closest competitor is now Magnus Carlsen. Carlsen blanked Mamedyarov 2-0, thereby leapfrogging Anand and taking clear second, a point behind Aronian and half a point ahead of...Peter Leko. With three days to go and seven players within two points of the lead, almost anything could happen, but the top spots in this tournament - and soon in the world - look like the inevitable possessions of Mssrs. Aronian & Carlsen.

Round 8 Results - Blindfold:
Aronian - Anand 1-0
Carlsen - Mamedyarov 1-0
Karjakin - Topalov 1/2-1/2
van Wely - Leko 0-1
Gelfand - Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Ivanchuk - Kramnik 1/2-1/2

Round 8 Results - Rapid:

Anand-Aronian 1/2-1/2
Mamedyarov-Carlsen 0-1
Topalov-Karjakin 1-0
Leko-Van Wely 1/2-1/2
Morozevich-Gelfand 1-0
Kramnik-Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2

Leading Blindfold Standings:

1. Morozevich 5.5
2. Carlsen 5
3-6. Aronian, Kramnik, Leko, Topalov 4.5

Leading Rapid Standings:

1. Aronian 6
2-4. Anand, Carlsen, Leko 4.5

Overall Standings:

1. Aronian 10.5
2. Carlsen 9.5
3. Leko 9
4-7. Anand, Kramnik, Morozevich, Topalov 8.5
8. Ivanchuk 8
9. Karjakin 7
10-12. Gelfand, Mamedyarov, van Wely 6

Round 9 Pairings: (On Tuesday; Monday is a rest day)

Leko - Karjakin
Morozevich - Aronian
Kramnik - Carlsen
Anand - Ivanchuk
Mamedyarov - van Wely
Topalov - Gelfand

(You know the drill: the players in the left column have White in the blindfold games and Black in the rapid.)

All the games can be replayed on the tournament website; I may post notes to a selection of games sometime tomorrow.

Enjoy the eggs, de-earing the chocolate bunnies (is there a word for that? - for decapitation involving only the ears? "Deauristation"?), and the rest of the day's festivities - all the while keeping in mind the ultimate meaning of the day.

It's not the best game of my life, but my ChessVideos show this week covers one of most picturesque games of my life, against my highest-rated tournament victim. This win, as those who have known me for some time probably know, was against GM and erstwhile Candidate Leonid Yudasin from the New York Masters in 2002. We both misplayed the opening somewhat, but at one point in the early middlegame I committed a felix culpa, sacrificing a piece for two wonderful central pawns. To say that this sac worked out would be an understatement, but I missed and Yudasin rejected a finesse that would have put my idea out of business. As things turned out, my central pawn mass turned into a mighty pawn phalanx - just how mighty you'll need to see for yourself! Pop some popcorn, sit back, click here and enjoy.

Twelve down, eight to go.

The latest game to get eliminated in the U.S. Chess League's Game of the Year contest for 2007 is Josh Friedel's week 9 win over Gregory Serper, a funny game where Serper kept pushing the pawns in front of his king until he got mated. I'll cover this game in some detail on my ChessVideos show next week, together with the 8th place game, but for now you can read the judges' comments and replay the game here.

Let me add in passing that I'm apparently leading an informal judges contest, where the goal (unknown to the judges beforehand) is to have one's picks as close to the actual results as possible. This "contest" strikes me as entirely pointless at best, if only because USCL commish Greg Shahade instructed us to judge the games according to whatever criteria we wanted, making things such that there is no "right" placement for any of the games. So I'm pointing this out only because the contest's inventor, USCL blogger Arun Sharma, seems to be slightly annoyed that he's not in the lead. (Here's the link with the judges' standings after GOTY #10; my lead has increased because I picked Friedel-Serper for 9th place, while Sharma - already six points back - did not.)

(In fairness to Sharma, who isn't an official judge and whose guesses don't count, the contest is unfair to him, unless his calculations take the following reasoning into account. The point is that my guesses "skew" the results in my favor while his don't. Suppose everyone but me and Sharma vote a game for 10th place, while I put it in 5th and he puts it in 15th. To evaluate which of us is closer to the norm, either both our votes should count or neither should. Either way, the game would end up with an average rating of 10th place and we'd be equally wrong. With my vote counting but not his, however, I'm closer, as the average with my vote only is a 9th place rating - I'm two places closer.)

"Naisortep", who correctly guessed (or rather knew) that the following quote was from Mikhail Botvinnik:

I took with me several hundred of Fischer's games and set off to the Black Sea for two weeks to prepare for the match. Fischer's games did not provide any surprises with their strategic ideas. These were known to any experienced player from old games (even before Fischer). But the American grandmaster's tactical resourcefulness, his energy in carrying out his plans, and his striving for activity at the very first opportunity were staggering.

The plan was for Botvinnik to close his illustrious career in 1970 with an 18-game match with Bobby Fischer in the Dutch city of Leiden. Unfortunately, Fischer changed his mind and decided that he wouldn't play unless it was a match of unlimited duration, with the winner being the first player to win six games. Alas!

The part of the comment that claims Fischer created no new strategic ideas sounds a bit harsh, but if Botvinnik is reporting on his late 1969/early 1970 perspective, that evaluation may not be unreasonable. Fischer had only played one game in 1969, hadn't faced too many top class opponents since 1967, and he possessed an exceptionally limited opening repertoire at the time. It's at least possible that Botvinnik might have revised his opinion somewhat when speaking of the 1970-1972 Fischer - though not guaranteed. At any rate, the rest of his comment about Fischer is quite positive, so it would be wrong to view the comment as dismissive or Soviet propaganda.

A category 16 tournament is the crown event of a chess festival in Hevis, Hungary. It's a double-round robin with Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, Francisco Vallejo Pons, Zoltan Almasi, Arkadij Naiditsch, Victory Mikhalevski and Csaba Balogh. After the first round-robin, the standings are:

1. Naiditsch 3.5 (of 5)
2. Almasi 3
3-4. Balogh, Nisipeanu 2.5
5. Mikhalevski 2
6. Vallejo Pons 1.5

Tournament website here.

Meanwhile the Foxwoods Open, one of the big open events on the U.S. calendar, takes place this weekend in Connecticut. Standings and some games are available through the event website.

Having mentioned both a completed and an upcoming (ok, freshly started) event, let's return to an actually ongoing contest, the annual rapid & blindfold super-tournament in Nice. Yesterday's round saw a paucity of decisive results, but a bit more blood was spilled in today's action. In the blindfold games, Anand defeated Carlsen while Morozevich beat Ivanchuk, and in the rapid games Carlsen took his revenge while Aronian beat Topalov. Those rapid results were quite important in the battle for first. Anand's blindfold win put him in a tie for first with Aronian in the combined standings, but after the rapid Aronian retook the sole lead, and by a full point.

All the games can be replayed on the tournament site, while the Anand-Carlsen games and the rapid draw between van Wely and Kramnik are here, with my brief comments.



Leading Blindfold Standings:

1. Morozevich 5
2-5. Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Carlsen 4

Leading Rapid Standings:

1. Aronian 5.5
2-3. Leko, Anand 4

Overall Standings:

1. Aronian 9
2. Anand 8
3-5. Leko, Kramnik, Carlsen 7.5
6-8. Topalov, Ivanchuk, Morozevich 7
9. Karjakin 6.5
10. Mamedyarov 6
11-12. Gelfand, van Wely 5.5

Day 8 Pairings: (Surprisingly, they're playing on Easter. Eric Liddell is turning over in heaven.)

Aronian - Anand
Carlsen - Mamedyarov
Karjakin - Topalov
van Wely - Leko
Gelfand - Morozevich
Ivanchuk - Kramnik

(The first-named player has White in the blindfold game and Black in the rapid.)

I'm not in this one (but plan to be in its successor), but it's still worth following the 9th North American FIDE Invitational in Chicago. The event started today and continues through Friday. Here's the player list:

IM Mesgen Amanov - TKM
IM Arjun Vishnuvardhan - IND
IM Angelo Young - PHI
FM Mehmed Pasalic - GER
FM Gauri Shankar - IND
FM Raja Panjwani - CAN
FM Igor Tsyganov - USA
FM Teddy Coleman - USA
FM Albert Chow - USA
NM Marc Arnold - USA

The action can be followed on the monroi site (registration required) - I know I'll be watching, as I'll probably face at least five of these players again next month!

The tournament in Buenos Aires ended this past week, and was won by IM Valerga and Flores Rios with 5.5/9 scores. GM Oscar Panno, the only player in the event from the Fischer era (and who in fact played Fischer), was part of a tie for third, half a point back. Kudos to the organizers for recognizing Fischer (as a chessplayer); hopefully the USCF will follow suit in the not too distant future.

HT: Chess Today

Nothing to see here; let's move along.

It's time for another installment of our popular new feature, "Quotation Time". Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to identify the writer and discuss the quote:

I took with me several hundred of Fischer's games and set off to the Black Sea for two weeks to prepare for the match. Fischer's games did not provide any surprises with their strategic ideas. These were known to any experienced player from old games (even before Fischer). But the American grandmaster's tactical resourcefulness, his energy in carrying out his plans, and his striving for activity at the very first opportunity were staggering.

Some, like GMs Alexander Grischuk and Vladislav Tkachiev, have subscribed to that point of view for years, but most have taken the balanced view that both forms have their place. In the latest issue of Chess Today, however, GM Alex Baburin seems to moving into the Grischuk & Tkachiev camp:

The more I watch this tournament in Nice, the more I tend to agree with Grischuk & Co that classical chess is dead and that the way forward is rapid chess, blitz and, well, blindfold chess! Every day there are lots of interesting games played in the Amber tournament. Sure, there are mistakes, but sometimes they make games more entertaining and the shorter time control certainly encourages daring chess – like Ivanchuk's 14.Qxe6+!! idea from round 4. Would he have played it in a game with a longer time control? Maybe not – the shock value of this move is greatly enhanced in rapid chess.

I think this is a good argument (or rather, an enthymeme) for keeping rapid games around, but it's a bad argument for the Grischuk position unless it's only the values of blitz/rapid/blindfold that are relevant. But why think that? Deep ideas will be lost - does anyone think Kasparov's double rook sac against Topalov or Shirov's ...Bh3 would occur in G/30? Endgame play will deteriorate as well, as will principled attempts to refute moves like Ivanchuk's Qxe6. Excitement is good, but so is depth.

Readers?

There were interesting, hard-fought and dramatic games in today's action at the Amber Rapid & Blindfold tournament in Nice, France, but in the end only two of the twelve games were decisive. Anand had equalized with Black against Karjakin in the blindfold game when his opponent (figuratively) went to sleep. The position seemed tactics-proof, but Anand very alertly demonstrated otherwise, whipping up a decisive attack almost out of nowhere. Morozevich's attacking intentions were more evident in his blindfold game against van Wely, but when the Dutchman failed to take them seriously, he too lost in a hurry.

I've presented both games here, and the other games can be accessed on the event website.



The standings are essentially unchanged, with the one important exception that Anand has pulled to within half a point of Aronian in the overall standings:

Leading Blindfold Standings:

1-2. Morozevich, Carlsen 4
3-5. Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Topalov 3.5

Leading Rapid Standings:

1. Aronian 4.5
2. Anand 4
3. Leko 3.5

Leading Overall Standings:

1. Aronian 7.5
2. Anand 7
3-7. Topalov, Leko, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Carlsen 6.5

Round 7 Pairings:

Morozevich - Ivanchuk
Kramnik - van Wely
Leko - Gelfand
Mamedyarov - Karjakin
Topalov - Aronian
Anand - Carlsen

(The first-named player has White in the blindfold game, Black in the rapid.)

Next victim: Washington State (Saturday at 6:40 p.m. ET).

Apparently I'm not the only person to have noticed the disparity in coverage between Magnus Carlsen (all hail the wonderboy) and Sergey Karakin (random Russian-speaking GM). Of course, the disparity is merited: Carlsen, who was born in 1990, sports a stupendous 2733 rating, was a World Cup semifinalist and has already been a GM for several years. Contrast this with Karjakin's meager achievements. He was born in 1990, sports a pathetic 2732 rating, only made it to the semi-finals of the World Cup and although he holds the record for becoming the youngest GM ever, that's sooooo 2002. It's obvious that Carlsen deserves approximately 6,235 times as much coverage as Karjakin, which is about what he receives...

Exaggeration and sarcasm aside, and acknowledging that Carlsen's results have been a little more impressive than Karjakin's - but not much - it is true that the latter generally doesn't receive nearly as much press as Carlsen. And one blogger has set out to rectify this - his blog is here, and his statement of purpose can be read here.

HT: Brian Karen

The old Topalov is back! By this I don't mean the 2004-2006 edition that won almost everything in sight, but the Topalov of the previous decade: a strong, aggressive player with a habit of losing brilliant games.* Today's rapid loss to Kramnik (these bosom buddies drew the blindfold game) doesn't go into the immortal game category, but it was a spectacular display of power chess by the newest member of the ex-world champion club.

Morozevich's win over Anand in the blindfold game was almost as spectacular, and possibly a better game overall, a real demolition job from the White side of a Meran Semi-Slav. Unfortunately for him, Anand extracted his revenge in the rapid game. Anand was starting to outplay his opponent, but when Moro dropped a pawn and then blundered a piece on successive moves, it was effectively over.

In the battle between two of the three co-leaders entering the round (Topalov was the third), Ivanchuk got nothing against Aronian's Marshall Gambit in the blindfold game, and then Aronian won the rapid game in an unusual Queen's Gambit.

In kiddom, Carlsen kept a half point lead over Karjakin, as both won their matches 1.5-.5; Carlsen over Gelfand and Karjakin over van Wely. Finally, the sixth match saw Leko defeat Mamedyarov 1.5-.5, putting him in a giant tie for second place in the overall standings.

Leading Blindfold Standings after Round 5:

1. Carlsen 3.5
2-5. Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Morozevich, Topalov 3

Leading Rapid Standings after Round 5:

1. Aronian 4
2. Anand 3.5
3. Leko 3

Leading Overall Standings:

1. Aronian 6.5
2-7. Kramnik, Topalov, Anand, Ivanchuk, Leko, Carlsen 5.5

All the games can be replayed on the tournament site, while Kramnik's and Morozevich's wins can be viewed here, with my comments.




* There's a long list of games to choose from, but have a look at his losses to Karpov and especially Bareev in Linares 1994, the ...Bh3!! game against Shirov from Linares 1998, to Ivanchuk in Linares 1999, his blindfold loss to Kramnik from the 2003 Amber tournament, and above all the famous game with Kasparov in Wijk aan Zee 1999.

We've had a little discussion of that topic (here and here); coincidentally, there's a wholly unrelated post on the topic here, on the Boylston Chess Club blog.

(Just when you thought it was safe to read this blog until late August...)

It's time to root for the Notre Dame Fightin' Irish, but now for their men's basketball team as they begin play in the NCAA tournament later today. They're ranked #15 in the nation and are a #5 seed in the East regional. First victim: George Mason University, tonight at 9:50 p.m. ET on national TV (in the US).

We're all familiar with the pecking order in OTB (over-the-board) chess, but what about the world of correspondence chess? Here is the International Correspondence Chess Federation's (ICCF) top ten:

1. Joop van Oosterom NED 2741 (he's a two-time world correspondence champion and the Maecenas behind the Amber tournament)
2. Ulf Andersson SWE 2737 (for those of you closer to my age than half my age, you'll know him as one of the world's very best OTB players in the 1970s and 80s)
3. Hans Berliner USA 2726 (once the world correspondence champion many years ago, he quit active play for a long time to work - very successfully - on computer chess)
4. H. M. Elwert GER 2719
5. Jalil Devlatov RUS 2707
6. J. Neumann GER 2704
7. Wolfram Schön CAN 2703
8. Ron Langeveld NED 2698
9. Gert Timmerman NED 2696
10. H. Tarnowiecki AUT 2688

HT: Chess Today

Parents and teachers: print out this article and include it in your propaganda files when arguing with administrators on behalf of chess programs.

HT: Esteban

While I thanked at least two of these individuals during the relevant ChessBase shows, it's worth taking a moment to further thank them here. So: thanks to Edward Winter for scanning and sending some print analysis of the Krejcik-Krobot game a couple of weeks ago, and for pointing me to another print source for analysis of last night's consultation game. Thanks also to Brian Karen for looking up some analysis of the consultation game - he was unsuccessful, but that was my fault for pointing him on the wrong direction! Finally, thanks to Dave Vigorito for some suggestions in picking a game for last week's show (Gurevich-Zelcic). IM Vigorito, for those unfamiliar with his work, is the author of an excellent book on the 4.Qc2 Nimzo-Indian and - hot off the presses - what looks like an equally fine volume on the Semi-Slav.

The parade of opposite-colored bishop endings crossing my path seems unending. While solving some puzzles a couple of days ago, I came across this position, from the game Alterman-Karpov, Tyniste 1995:



White has just played 50.Kd3, and now it's Black to move and win. After a little thought, I found Karpov's solution, but sadly persuaded myself that things were not completely clear there. While I'm disappointed by the misassessment (though I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believed the position was drawn, and would probably have returned to Karpov's approach if I couldn't find anything else), rejecting his line provided the chance to produce something new and creative, and I'm happy with the alternative I discovered. (One which Fritz 11, plugging away to depth 32, still hasn't worked out.) Perhaps a decent study composer can make something out of my idea (or more likely, it has already been done).

Try to solve it, and when you're ready, have a look at the game continuation and my alternative winning line. And who knows - perhaps you can find a third path to victory!

After a couple of weeks off from reviewing USCL's 2007 Games of the Year, my latest show on ChessVideos.tv takes a compressed look at the last three games to be eliminated. The show is free and available on-demand, right here.

Here.

Imagine a consultation game today with Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Gelfand and Leko on one side, and Carlsen, Aronian, Morozevich and Ivanchuk on the other. A game like that would be a real event, something we'd all love to see - especially in a lively opening. As far as I know, the aforementioned players have not made any such arrangements, but in 1952 a game of this sort took place.

The White side starred Yuri Averbakh (a Candidate in 1953), Efim Geller (a many-time Candidate, who enjoyed a career plus score in his games against world champions), Tigran Petrosian (World Champion from 1963-1969), Mark Taimanov (two-time Candidate), and after a while they were joined by Mikhail Botvinnik (the World Champion) and Vassily Smyslov (who drew a title match with Botvinnik in 1954 and beat him in 1957). What a team! The Black team didn't have any world champions, but they too were loaded heavy hitters: Paul Keres (many times a Candidate, and on the short list of the greatest players never to become champion), Alexander Tolush (the "weakie" of the bunch, but a very strong GM), Alexander Kotov (a Candidate in 1953, and the decisive winner of that year's Interzonal), and Isaac Boleslavsky (who had tied for first in the 1950 Candidates).

These greats combined to produce a really fascinating game, one deserving of our attention as we continue our series on the Nimzo-Indian Defense. Last week we scratched the surface of the 4.Qc2 systems, which are often characterized by a battle between White's long-term prospects with the bishop pair and Black's short-term initiative. In this week's game, we take a look at a radically different White approach, the Saemisch Variation with 4.a3. Here the long-term factors are in Black's favor (thanks to White's shattered queenside structure after 4...Bxc3+ 5.bxc3), while White is the one pursuing the initiative. White can build a big pawn center in the hopes of using his extra space to build a kingside attack, but he'd better hurry before his c4 pawn dies and the enemy crashes through the queenside.

That's just the sort of battle we're going to see, and with such impressive intellectual firepower on both side, you can bet the action and the ideas will be top-notch. Join me tonight - Wednesday night - as we review this almost unknown gem from 1952. The show is free and starts at 9 p.m. ET (3 a.m. CET), and if you're new to watching broadcasts on the playchess server you can find full directions here.

I responded to this in the comments section of this post, but it seems interesting enough to merit its own discussion. So here is Bernard Kobes' comment:

Kudos to Karjakin for playing on as long as he did. I hate the notion that this is in some way disrespectful -especially in a rapid game! No doubt it is perceived as disrespectful, and perception makes it so. But to some degree this is a convention, and it's bad for chess because it makes top-level games less accessible to lower-rated players. You should not be reinforcing the convention.

To which I reply:

Hi Bernard,

Whether I should or not depends on both objective and subjective factors. Since I think this convention is a good thing, it's subjectively proper that I reinforce it. As for the objective propriety, that depends on the truth of the matter. Is the claim that that top-level games are less accessible to lower-rated players by virtue of "premature" resignations good evidence, if true, that the convention is a poor one?

To this I have doubts on many levels. First, unless every game goes until mate, there may always be some lower-rated player who doesn't "get it". Unless you want to do away with resignation altogether, there are going to be boundary problems here.

Second, even if we can find some reasonable approximate threshold (e.g. the "average" club player - approximately 1500), I think that this particular game easily satisfied that standard. Even if the 1500 couldn't beat Kasparov with White, there's nothing conceptually difficult about White's task.

Third, eliminating (relatively early?) resignations may be bad pedagogy for lower-rated players. One learns better when motivated by curiosity than when spoonfed. Some spoonfeeding is ok, and that's what the 20,000 beginners' books on the market by Reinfeld, Horowitz, Chernev, Pandolfini and so on are for.

Fourth, how does knowing how to win an ending with a huge material advantage make GM play more accessible? The part of the game that makes it GM play has to do with the adventures surrounding 14.Qxe6, not the trivial remainder that would have ensued.

Fifth, even if it would be a good idea from the pedagogy/accessibility standpoint for GMs to continue playing positions out, that's not the only value worth considering. Why should the players have to waste their time and energy on a game that is de facto over in the absence of a natural disaster, heart attack, stroke, criminal act or divine intervention? It's also an aesthetic blight. Playing the game until mate could take 40 or 50 moves, if Black attempts to put up "quality" resistance. That would turn this mini-masterpiece into something akin to a quarter and a half of a great basketball game followed by two and a half quarters of garbage time. The amateur, like most basketball fans, will simply change the channel.

Three final comments. First, even if the convention should be changed, Karjakin's action is still disrespectful, given its existence. (Or if one thinks that in this particular case it was justified even given the convention, substitute a different case of your own choosing.) Second, the "rapid" element doesn't seem to be relevant - Ivanchuk had three times as much time as Karjakin, and there were increments as well. Finally, going back to a point I made earlier, one of the things I did as a kid was to play out positions where one side resigned. Generally it was pretty obvious, but occasionally I learned something, and it's very unlikely that I would have learned it had it been given in the text. Chess strength is a skill, and solving problems for oneself, or at least trying to, is the best way to improve.

As fantastic as Ivanchuk's 14.Qxe6!! really is, it's possibly not quite as original an idea as one might think, for three reasons.

The first is that it was discovered in home prep and not over the board - unlike his famous Qg7!! against Shirov. (This game is linked below.) To my mind, this isn't a blemish, but there are some who find themselves less inclined to rate a game highly when significant portions of it are the product of home analysis. A notable example is game 10 of the Kasparov-Anand match, where Kasparov won with a stupendous torrent of sacrifices that not only won the game, but went a long way towards winning the match as well thanks to the big chance of momentum. Another example, albeit on a smaller scale, comes from the USCL 2007 Game of the Year countdown. On its merits, the game Martinez-Zilberstein is arguably the cleanest and most brilliant of the contenders. The key tactical ideas had been discovered beforehand, though, and in an online poll for the GOTY it seems to have received a bit less credit than I think it would have, had Martinez found all the moves over the board (or at least not admitted he hadn't).

The second is that 14.Qxe6 is discovered by chess engines; not right away, but it doesn't take them hours, either. I don't know if Ivanchuk found it or his computers did, but supposing it was Rybka or Fritz, should the game be valued less highly?

Third, while I can't think of any similar sacrifices, the position after the sac does remind me of a position that arose in a famous Elephant Gambit game between Tal and Lutikov. (A side note about Lutikov: he's probably best known, for those who know him at all, for this game. As usual with those who get "posterized", that's a bit of bad luck. He's a GM, and one with an impressive 5-2 career advantage over Tal in decisive games.) Suppose Ivanchuk drew subconscious inspiration from that game. Would it count against the brilliance and originality of his idea?

By all means, readers, let me know your opinions. For your entertainment, you can replay all the games mentioned above here (except for the Ivanchuk-Karjakin game, which is here).

Have a look. (If only master prizes were this big!)

(HT: Lawrence Totaro)

Happy Birthday, Vassily Ivanchuk! Today (Tuesday) is his birthday, and he celebrated by giving himself and the chess world a present. Himself, by moving into a tie for the lead with a 1.5-.5 win over Karjakin; us, by making a sac that had even the titled players watching online picking their jaws off the floor.



We're all used to seeing knights and bishops sacrificed on e6 in the Sicilian, but...

14.Qxe6!!

was something extraordinary. When the complications ended, Ivanchuk had three pawns for the exchange and a winning position. Then it was four pawns for the exchange, and then five - plus a hefty time advantage as well. When Karjakin finally realized that his opponent deserved at least as much respect as a club player in an online 1-minute game, he resigned.

Gelfand and van Wely had a "technologically challenged" pair of games. In the blindfold game, Gelfand lost on time unsuccessfully attempting to make his move (in a position where he's winning with the right move and still equal after his intended move), while in the rapid game the transmission ceased early on. (Very early on: it died on move 14, and the game went 130 moves!)

The Aronian-Carlsen match was also strange. The first game went 105 moves, while the rapid game was lost by Carlsen when, in a better position, he blundered the rook. He tried to "correct" the move, but a trip to the video revealed that he had really let go of the piece. (If only Polgar had been able to do that against Kasparov, all those years ago!) This put Aronian into a tie for first in the overall standings.

Kramnik bounced back after yesterday's failure, beating Morozevich 1.5-.5, while his chief rival for world supremacy (Anand) drew the blindfold game against Leko and then got butchered in the rapid. Leko played the unlekolike Perenyi Attack and was rewarded for his boldness. Finally, our third world champion, Topalov, joined Aronian and Ivanchuk in a tie for first by defeating Mamedyarov 1.5-.5 in their match.

All the games can be replayed on the tournament site, while my comments to the Ivanchuk-Karjakin game can be replayed here.



Blindfold leaders after round 4:

1-4. Ivanchuk, Carlsen, Kramnik, Topalov 2.5

Rapid leaders after round 4:

1. Aronian 3
2-5. Anand, Leko, Topalov, Ivanchuk 2.5

Overall leaders after round 4:

1-3. Topalov, Aronian, Ivanchuk 5
4. Anand 4.5

Round 5 Pairings: (On Thursday; Wednesday is a rest day.)

Topalov - Kramnik
Leko - Mamedyarov
Morozevich - Anand
Carlsen - Gelfand
Ivanchuk - Aronian
van Wely - Karjakin

The first-named player has White in the blindfold game, Black in the rapid.

No one. (I did say it would be difficult!) Here's the quote again (first given in this post):

The first chess book that accidentally came into my hands with My System by Aron Nimzowitsch. It was hard to think of a worse choice! After all, in chess you must first learn to attack, and only then to defend, you must gain a mastery of tactics, and only then strategy. My System is a good book, only not for beginners. It is a textbook on positional play, and first you must learn to make combinations.

Many might agree, and perhaps some have even said something similar, but the actual quotation is from Russian grandmaster, former Candidate and endgame writer par excellence Yuri Averbakh, from the brief autobiographical essay in Averbakh's Selected Games (Cadogan, 1998), p. 9.

The pattern of mostly drawn blindfold games and mostly decisive efforts in the rapid continued, but that doesn't entirely reflect the nature of the action. As a matter of fact, the game Aronian-Gelfand is one of the craziest games I've seen in my life. If chess engines could dream, that game would be the sort they'd dream about. And even the most nondescript draws had more content than one would suspect, as Mamedyarov missed an outright win against Kramnik. Ironically, the previous move was an Aronian novelty, but the irony doesn't end there - see the game for further details. Finally, I've also included Carlsen's win over Karjakin, proving once again that the drawish tendencies of opposite-colored bishops are, like the early reports of Samuel Clemens' death, greatly exaggerated.

From today's rapid action I've included two games: Kramnik's loss with White against Mamedyarov's Budapest Gambit, and Leko's win against Morozevich. The first game saw Kramnik sacrifice material and a positional advantage for attacking chances. The sac failed, but it was entertaining to see him go against type. The Leko game was remarkable too, as a defensive effort: he was down material to Morozevich and badly lost, but he kept hanging on and causing problems, and ultimately managed to win.

The games discussed above can be replayed here, with my comments; the rest can be found and replayed on the tournament website. And here is the updated list of Amber videos, c/o Macauley Peterson.



Round 3 Blindfold Results:

Mamedyarov - Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Topalov - Anand 1/2-1/2
Leko - Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Aronian - Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Carlsen - Karjakin 1-0
van Wely - Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2

Round 3 Rapid Results:

Kramnik - Mamedyarov 0-1
Anand - Topalov 1/2-1/2
Morozevich - Leko 0-1
Gelfand - Aronian 1-0
Karjakin - Carlsen 1-0
Ivanchuk - van Wely 0-1

Blindfold Standings after Round 3:

1-3. Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Carlsen 2
4-9. Mamedyarov, Anand, Kramnik, Karjakin, Aronian, Topalov 1.5
10-12. Gelfand, van Wely, Leko 1

Rapid Standings after Round 3:

1. Anand 2.5
2-3. Aronian, Topalov 2
4-9. Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Karjakin, Carlsen, Leko, Mamedyarov 1.5
10-11. Kramnik, van Wely 1
12. Morozevich .5

Overall Standings:

1. Anand 4
2-5. Topalov, Ivanchuk, Aronian, Carlsen 3.5
6-7. Karjakin, Mamedyarov 3
8-11. Gelfand, Morozevich, Kramnik, Leko 2.5
12. van Wely 2

Round 4 Pairings: (The first-named player has White in the blindfold game and Black in the rapid.)

Gelfand - van Wely
Karjakin - Ivanchuk
Aronian - Carlsen
Kramnik - Morozevich
Anand - Leko
Mamedyarov - Topalov

Have a look.

HT: Eric Jones

Blindfold Results:

Ivanchuk - Gelfand 1/2-1/2
van Wely - Carlsen 0-1
Karjakin - Aronian 1/2-1/2
Kramnik - Leko 1/2-1/2
Morozevich - Topalov 1-0
Anand - Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2

Rapid Results:

Gelfand - Ivanchuk 0-1
Carlsen - van Wely 1-0
Aronian - Karjakin 1-0
Leko - Kramnik 0-1
Topalov - Morozevich 1-0
Mamedyarov - Anand 0-1

An unusual round! Normally we'd expect to see more decisive results in blindfold chess, but four of the six blind games were drawn while all six of the rapid contests were decisive. The games that caught my attention today were the games between Morozevich and Topalov, together with Anand's Carlsen's and Kramnik's wins in the rapid. You can replay them, with my light comments, here. (For the rest, you can read the report on the tournament site and replay the games as well. For the first, scroll down from the home page and click the "Read more" link; for the latter, use the Games tab, select Archived, and then choose round 2.)

Last but not least, we have video, courtesy of Macauley Peterson:



Blindfold Standings after Round 2:

1-3. Ivanchuk, Karjakin, Morozevich 1½
4-9. Anand, Aronian, Carlsen, Kramnik, Mamedyarov, Topalov 1
10-12. Gelfand, Leko, van Wely ½

Rapid Standings after Round 2:

1-2. Anand, Aronian 2
3-5. Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Topalov 1½
6. Kramnik 1
7-11. Gelfand, Karjakin, Leko, Mamedyarov, Morozevich ½
12. van Wely 0

Combined Standings:

1-3. Anand, Aronian, Ivanchuk 3
4-5. Carlsen, Topalov 2½
6-8. Karjakin, Kramnik, Morozevich 2
9. Mamedyarov 1½
10-11. Gelfand, Leko 1
12. Van Wely ½

Round 3 Pairings: (The first-named player has White in the blindfold game, Black in rapid.)

Mamedyarov - Kramnik
Topalov - Anand
Leko - Morozevich
Aronian - Gelfand
Carlsen - Karjakin
van Wely - Ivanchuk

Have a look at the right sidebar - I've added two new categories: one for the newly-started Amber Rapid & Blindfold, and another for past and (presumably) future instances of "Quotation Time".

We continue to mark the U.S. Chess League's countdown to the best game of their 2007 season, and this week we take our first look at the top 10. That entrant is the battle between Philadelphia IM Bryan Smith and Boston GM Eugene Perelshteyn, a Breyer Ruy where the ostensibly weaker player started off by outplaying his grandmaster opponent and finished things up with a sac and a mop-up operation. (In fact things weren't quite so simple, as I'll detail this week in a forthcoming ChessVideos program, but it'll do as an initial approximation.) You can read more about this game and replay it for yourselves, right here.

See if you can figure out who said this (difficult!) and discuss:

The first chess book that accidentally came into my hands with My System by Aron Nimzowitsch. It was hard to think of a worse choice! After all, in chess you must first learn to attack, and only then to defend, you must gain a mastery of tactics, and only then strategy. My System is a good book, only not for beginners. It is a textbook on positional play, and first you must learn to make combinations.

The tournament exceeded expectations on its opening day: there were plenty of exciting games, and the ultimate highlight was the showdown of the world champions.

Session 1: Blindfold

The way the tournament works is this: it's a double-round robin, where the players face each other in both a regular rapid game (25' + 10") and a blindfold game (25' + 20"). The games aren't played back to back, but instead occur in a format that maximizes fan enjoyment. The field is split into two groups (call them "Group A" and the other half "Group B"; of course the identity of each group varies every round), and the day's action is divided into four sessions:

Session 1: Group A - blindfold
Session 2: Group B - blindfold
Session 3: Group A - rapid
Session 4: Group B - rapid

Now to the particulars of the day's action. Here are the results of session 1:

Mamedyarov - Morozevich 1/2-1/2
Anand - Kramnik 1/2-1/2
Topalov - Leko 1-0

Morozevich brought one of his signature openings, the Chigorin Defense (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6!?) out of mothballs, and with great success. He enjoyed an advantage from early on, and increased it until he reached what seems to have been a winning queen and bishop vs. queen and opposite-colored bishop ending. Unfortunately for Morozevich, Mamedyarov managed to trade queens, blockade his opponent's passed pawns, and sneak out with a draw.

Anand-Kramnik was an uneventful draw. Anand tried the trendy - or desperate - 5.Nc3, but Kramnik drew without any trouble at all.

In Topalov-Leko, Black's 11th move was unusual, allowing White to reach a comfortable middlegame with opposite-colored bishops. Black's position was passive and his bishop somewhat irrelevant, and Leko's attempt to ameliorate the drawbacks of his position at the cost of a pawn only added to the list of woes. A very convincing win by Topalov.

Session 2:

Aronian - van Wely 1/2-1/2
Carlsen - Ivanchuk 0-1
Gelfand - Karjakin 0-1

Aronian-van Wely was a very sharp Vienna QGD. Aronian kept sacrificing things, and while they didn't some compelling at the time, he had enough to encourage van Wely to force a perpetual.

Carlsen likes to play the Open Ruy with Black from time to time, but this time he was forced to combat it. Carlsen's approach was to play for mate, building up on the kingside, but he underestimated Black's queenside counterplay. Ivanchuk won a pawn, neutralized Carlsen's threats, and pulled out a win.

Meanwhile, Karjakin, Carlsen's neglected contemporary, defeated Gelfand with the black pieces. Karjakin enjoyed an edge early on, thanks to his superior queenside structure. Eventually all the pawns were on the same side of the board, but although I believe Gelfand should have held the game, the opposite-colored bishops were a nightmare. Black's strong dark-squared bishop gave him an enduring attack, while White's passive light-squared bishop was only a spectator. Faced with mate or the loss of his queen, Gelfand gave up.

Session 3:

Kramnik - Anand 0-1
Morozevich - Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2
Leko - Topalov 1/2-1/2

Let's discuss the less impressive games first: Morozevich again pressed Mamedyarov in a g3 Pirc (by transposition), but was again unable to collect the full point, while in Leko-Topalov the former world champ always had sufficient compensation for a sacrificed pawn, but not (much) more.

Now for the big game. Anand played the perenially popular 4...Ba6 QID, but he made things lively with the combative 12...f5. The game gradually took on the characteristics of a Dutch Stonewall, with White trying to break through on the queenside and Black on the kingside. Kramnik broke through alright, winning material and creating some dangerous, far-advanced passed pawns. The only slight problem was his lonely king, almost completely abandoned on the kingside. It took some sacrifices, including above all the spectacular 42...Qf3!!, but Anand's mating attack succeeded. A very nice win for the world champion, and a painful reminder to Kramnik that if he wants to win their match later this year, he'd better do it in the slow games.

Session 4:

Karjakin - Gelfand 1/2-1/2
van Wely - Aronian 0-1
Ivanchuk - Carlsen 1/2-1/2

In a Bishop's Opening Karjakin quickly obtained the bishop pair and a micro-advantage, but the structural symmetry secured safety for the sable forces: draw.

Van Wely-Aronian was a most interesting game. Aronian offer an exchange sacrifice for several moves in a row, but van Wely wouldn't bite. In fact, van Wely promptly offered his own exchange sacrifice! Aronian grabbed the material, though it looked pretty risky: White's material compensation of two bishops and a pawn for a rook (in addition to the other pieces) together with his apparent positional compensation seemed to favor White. Van Wely missed some nasty tactics, however, allowing Black to gain a pawn, the initiative, and ultimately the full point.

Finally, there was Ivanchuk-Carlsen. Carlsen blundered (or sacrificed?) a pawn, but his position was solid enough to make White's winning chances very unclear. Things continued normally through Black's 35th, which invited a N + 4 vs. N + 3 pawn ending with all the pawns on the same side. In the textbook case where the defender has f-, g- and h-pawns, the strong side ought to win; here, however, Carlsen would have e-, f- and g-pawns, giving him significantly better drawing chances. This is all purely hypothetical, however, because Ivanchuk played the stunning 36.Nxa3!?, pushing hard - almost too hard - for the win. After various adventures, the game was drawn.

All the games can be replayed on the tournament site (go to the Games tab), while my comments to Kramnik-Anand and Ivanchuk-Carlsen are here.

Tomorrow's pairings:

Session 1:

Ivanchuk - Gelfand
van Wely - Carlsen
Karjakin - Aronian

Session 2:

Kramnik - Leko
Morozevich - Topalov
Anand - Mamedyarov

For Sessions 3 & 4, flip the colors for sessions 1 & 2, respectively.

While at the North American Open this past Christmas, I came across a vendor - Toby Chess - which offered, in PDF format, the complete collection of Chess Life, Chess Review, and Chess Life & Review (they were independent publications that merged in 1969) from 1933-1975. The price for the whole thing is $39 (+$5 shipping within the U.S.), which is exceptionally good for 40 years' worth of chess magazines.

The issues cover American chess (but not only American chess) from the end of the Marshall era through Reshevsky's and Fine's time up to Fischer's win in the world championship over Spassky and his subsequent forfeiture to Karpov. In the wake of Fischer's death, it's fascinating to read the early reports of Fischer's career.

For instance, there's this, from the front page of the February 5, 1956 issue of Chess Life:

Lombardy Wins Greater New York Open, Mangarini [sic] Second After Tie-Breaking

By Allen Kaufman New York Chess Life Editor

USCF master William Lombardy [later a GM and World Junior Champion - DM] of the Bronx won the first Greater New York Open with a score of 6-1, nosing out Dr. Ariel Mengarini, also 6-1, by one-half a median point. Arthur Feuerstein of the Bronx and Edgar McCormick of East Orange, N.J. scored 5½-1½ each, but third prize went to the former on the tie-breaking points.

The Class A Trophy, awarded to the Class A player achieving the highest score, was captured by McCormick, while the Class B Trophy went to twelve year old Bobby Fischer of Brooklyn."

That's right, Class B. In the rating list published in the May 20, 1956 Chess Life, his rating was all of 1726. Then in July he won the U.S. Junior and tied for fourth place in the U.S. Open, and went on to tie for eighth in the Canadian Open in September. October saw him play in the Rosenwald tournament. Surprisingly, Chess Life's initial coverage has nothing to say about the "Game of the Century." They note, an issue after the initial coverage, that the game won a special prize, but still offer no special treatment beyond the raw game score until the year's final issue.

The summary of the Rosenwald says this about Fischer: "The real sensation of the tourney was 13-year old Bobby Fischer who clearly demonstrated that he is a full fledged master with a rather mature positional style! His win over Byrne was an insp