The Chess Mind

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 inspired piece and fully deserved the 1st brilliancy prize. It is conceivable that Bobby will become one of America's strongest masters in just a few years. He is expert at speed chess, knows his theory quite well, and has an almost uncanny fervor for our royal game. Watch him!"

At the turn of the year, he won a blitz event at the Manhattan Chess Club with a 10-0 score, including victims Bisguier (the U.S. Champion), William Lombardy, Carl Pilnick and other masters. Still, he wasn't superman yet, losing in the Manhattan Club Championship semi-finals to senior master Max Pavey. (Meanwhile, the USSR title was won by some "Riga Student" named Tal. Wonder what became of that guy?) After that, in March or early April, he lost his two-game match to ex-champ Max Euwe, 1½-½. Still, when the May 1957 rating list came out, he was 2331. And in May 1958, after winning another U.S. Junior Championship, the U.S. Open Championship, and the U.S. Championship? Number two in the nation with a 2626 rating; only Reshevsky at 2713 was ahead of him. That's quite some improvement!

On the next page, in a related story, Kaufman has more to say about Fischer:

"This is Bobby's first event of this type. He got off to a slow start, scoring 2-2 in the first four rounds. But there he gritted his teeth, polished off his last three opponents, and coasted in with a 5-2 score. In the final round, with a cup at stake, Bobby put forth his greatest effort against Rhys Hays, former CHESS LIFE College columnist. In a particularly difficult position, Bobby thought for a long while. Then, deciding on a move, Bobby shifted a piece on the board and punched the clock on the next table!"

And to think: by the end of 1956 he'd have played the "Game of the Century", and one year after that, he'd be the U.S. Champion! Anyway, you can see how this nostalgia thing can be addictive.

It's fun for me to see stories and tournament results for people I've played, met, and read about from early in my chess life: the Byrnes, columnists Evans, Bisguier, and Reshevsky, Lombardy (and his win of the world junior championship), Erich Marchand, Sid Rubin, Anthony Saidy, Ron Gross, Larry Remlinger, Charles Crittenden and so on. There are the notorious figures Norman Whittaker, Claude Bloodgood and Raymond Weinstein. And this all within a year or two in Chess Life!

There's also Chess Review, a magazine that did a much better job of getting on the Fischer story from the beginning. On the cover of the January 1956 issue, there's a big photo of 12-year old Fischer giving a simul to other kids. Reuben Fine was one of their columnists, and ex-world champ Max Euwe wrote the Game of the Month column!

One could spend many delightful hours poring over this collection, which is a treasure trove for the chess history, for high-quality games and analyses you won't find in the databases, and also for forgotten opening ideas worth a second look. I do have a couple of minor complaints, but neither comes close to outweighing the collection's strengths. First, as the collections are simply large PDF files, there's no PGN (or other format) file allowing the reader to automatically replay the games; it's just like having a physical magazine. Second, it seems that the collection was scanned in like a gigantic picture; the upshot being that one can't search for any particular text. Hopefully one or both shortcomings will be eliminated in subsequent editions of this set. A third point I'll note - not a complaint for me, but some will be put off by this - is that American chess magazines used descriptive notation back then (e.g. P-K4 for e4). I think most people will get used to this very quickly, to the point where it becomes as automatic and transparent as algebraic, but those who don't want to try or have tried and couldn't take it should be forewarned.

Despite these shortcomings, such as they are, this is a wonderful product I heartily recommend to my whole audience, whether American or not. The vendor doesn't have their own website, but you can purchase the collection on their eBay page, here.

At 9:30 a.m. ET. I'd provide the first round pairings, but they don't seem to be available on the event site at this moment. Not that it matters, really; the tournament is consistently fun for fans just about every round. The tournament features almost all of the world's super-elite (you can find a player list here), but with fast time controls and no rating points at stake, they play a far livelier brand of chess than usual. Definitely worth checking out!

A topic that has been addressed on this blog from time to time is the (alleged) problem of "grandmaster draws". My view, is that it's only a problem in elite invitational tournaments, and can be easily cured by "forgetting" to invite offenders back to subsequent events. Others get far more exercised by this topic, and have proposed all sorts of expedients. (The most popular involve banning draw offers and changing the scoring system.) For those interested in the latest wrinkle in the debate, here is part 1 of a new proposal by Malaysian academic Kung-Ming Tiong. (And if you're new to the debate, you'll find more than enough material via the links at the end of that article to keep you occupied for a good long while.)

On Tuesday I offered these positions to test your ability to calculate and/or analyze:


Najer-Ftacnik, Bundesliga 2007/8


Botvinnik-Stoltz, Leningrad-Stockholm 1926

The first problem is a straightforward White-to-move-and-win position, while the second requires evaluating the following line, given by both Mikhail Botvinnik and Andy Soltis: 12.Bb1 f5 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Rxc7 exf3 15.Rxb7 Qg5 16.g3 Qg4 17.Kh1 Rf6 18.Rg1 Rh6 19.Qf1 Qh5 20.h4 Qxh4 and Black wins (12.Nxe4 was the move played in the game). It's always better if you can solve it yourself, but if you can't, won't, or have but want to confirm your answer, enlightenment is just a click away.

In this post, I presented the following Karpov quote, from his 1978 work My Best Games:

I always want to be first. If I were not a chess player, I would want to be first in whatever I was doing. And even more in chess - otherwise it would be silly to play seriously. If you are not first, it means you have been defeated. And who wants to be a loser?

There was an interesting discussion about this in the comments section, some of it focused on Karpov's last, somewhat harsh-sounding comment about being a "loser". That is part of what caught my eye in the first place, too, but yesterday I came across a second Karpov quotation, this time from a 1973 or 1974 article cited in Karpov's co-authored (with Aleksander Roshal) Chess is My Life (published in English in 1980; based on the content I'd say the original was written in 1978), page 122:

I always want to be first. If I weren't a chess player, all the same I would aim to be first at something. Well, let's say, not first, but one of the best. And what about in chess? In chess--even more so. Otherwise it is stupid to play seriously. And besides, if you are not first, it means you have lost. And who enjoys losing?"

These two quotes, though not their surrounding contexts in the two books, are almost identical. So this seems almost like a creed for Karpov, something like a motto or a purpose statement. The one obvious difference is the final statement in each case: the first quote sounds harsher and more sweeping: if you don't win, you're a "loser". The second quote doesn't describe the person, but only the event and its psychological effects.

Based on the strong similarities, I'm guessing that what we have here is a difference among translators, though any readers with access to Russian-language originals are welcomed, indeed invited, to say more. (For those who are curious, the translator of the "loser" passage was Hanon Russell of Chess Cafe fame, while "losing" was translated by Kenneth Neat.)

Hungarian GM Andras Adorjan! I offered a very subtle hint in the original post, concluding with "OK?", an allusion to his famous "Black is OK" slogan. Adorjan doesn't play much nowadays, but he made it to the 1980 Candidates Matches and helped Peter Leko in his early development to the grandmaster level.

Readers can find a long and very interesting interview with Adorjan here (probably not for young kids).

To commemorate what would have been Bobby Fischer's 65th birthday, his adopted country of Iceland dedicated the Reykjavik Chess Festival to his memory and arranged a side event starring four of his contemporaries (Pal Benko, Vlastimil Hort, Lajos Portisch and Fridrik Olafsson, with Boris Spassky as the referee and William Lombardy as commentator) to boot. (Portisch and Hort shared first with 4/6, according to Chess Today.) Kudos to Iceland!

Not to be outdone, the United States Chess Federation dedicates 11 pages in the current issue of Chess Life to Fischer. Is that unbelievably awesome or what? Meanwhile, Europe Echecs, a French-language chess magazine, has dedicated all of their current issue to Fischer. This is understandable, given that he never lived nor won any events in France.

Maybe the USCF thinks it's being patriotic or making a stand against Fischer's anti-Judaism; I don't know. I myself am completely repulsed by Fischer's anti-American and anti-Jewish remarks, and I'm not inclined, as many are, to blame this on some sort of mental illness. All the same, to practically disregard one of the greatest players of all time, clearly the greatest American player of all time, and possibly the main reason why the USCF has any financial assets whatsoever, does not speak well on its behalf. Spend a few pages excoriating his vile comments and noting his character flaws and eccentricities - that's appropriate. But give his legacy the attention it deserves, not just a short article by Larry Evans and a few pages of quotations presented in a space-wasting format. Present a special, perhaps extra issue of the magazine dedicated to him. Rename an event for him. Have an invitational event for American players he competed with, like Evans, Pal Benko, Robert Byrne, Arthur Bisguier, et al. In short, pretend Fischer (really) mattered, both to the chess world at large and to the United States in particular...because he did.

Who? Yes, exactly. But he's a player those of us with a sense of history would have expected to hear about. He recently came (back) to my attention when looking through some old books on Anatoly Karpov's early career. One of Karpov's big early successes came in the European Junior Championship in Groningen 1967-68. In the preliminary group he was satisfied merely to qualify for the final, which he did in a tie for second that included Jan Timman, Gert Ligterink and others, half a point behind our mystery man. Those scores did not carry over into the final, and when it counted it was Karpov who came in first. Timman was two points back and Ligterink three and a half point in arrears. Only half a point back, however, undefeated and in clear second, was Jocha.

Yet this enigmatic figure soon disappears from the databases; quite surprising given his evident talent. Did he quit chess or, worse, meet an untimely end? The answer is googlable, unfortunately, but if any of you know the answer without looking it up, you're invited to post it in the comments, securing for yourself the admiration of your peers as a chess trivia expert par excellence. Should no one post the answer in the next day or two, I'll go ahead and spill the beans myself and say a bit more about this most interesting player.

OK?

One of the most important openings in all of chess is the Nimzo-Indian Defense, and within this opening one of the most important approaches for White starts with 4.Qc2. Its fundamental idea is to grab the bishop pair with a quick a3, and to do so without incurring the doubled pawns that result from an immediate 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3.

Sounds good, you say, but what's the downside? The answer is as simple as the advice we all received as beginners: one should develop as quickly as possible, though generally not the queen. The 4.Qc2 Nimzo violates both halves of that precept, and therein we find Black's compensation. If he can use his speedier development to gain and maintain activity, he'll be fine; if not, White's bishop pair will gradually make its presence felt.

In this week's show (tonight from 9-10 p.m. ET), we'll see the triumph of the bishop pair. The artist handling the White pieces is Mikhail Gurevich, one of those great players long on the cusp of the world's super-elite, nearly making the Candidates in 1991 and succeeding in 2007. Gurevich is a great expert on the 4.Qc2 Nimzo-Indian, and this 2004 game with Croatian GM Robert Zelcic, we see the two bishops recipe carried out almost to perfection. First, White finishes his development while staying out of trouble. Second, he gradually reduces Black's activity, turning things so that the only key difference is the imbalance of minor pieces. Once that occurs, the long-range bishops come into their own, and Black's position becomes increasingly passive. Finally, it's time to win the game, and with a minor hiccup or two along the way, that's just what happens.

The foregoing narrative oversimplifies matters, of course. Zelcic had his chances, off and on, until quite near the end of the game. And it would be an error to think that gaining the bishop pair served as a sort of magic wand enabling its possessor to achieve his every whim on the chessboard. All the same, many games have been won by the skillful use of the bishop pair, that skillful use does often follow the broad pattern limned above, and this pattern is often seen in the 4.Qc2 Nimzo-Indian. So I think and hope many of you will not only find this game entertaining but instructive as well, something you can use in your own play. Tune in and see for yourself! (Directions here.)

On ChessVideos.tv, I've been presenting USCL Games of the Year, but not for the next couple of weeks; instead, we'll have a look at a couple of my own games. This week we'll look back to one of my games from the 8th North American FIDE Invitational, played last month in Chicago, IL. The game is my fourth round win over young Indian IM Arjun Vishnuvardhan, a Sveshnikov Sicilian where I was able to exploit my opponent's inaccuracies in the opening to win in thematic fashion.

Have a look - the shows are free and can be accessed on-demand.

The US Chess League's countdown to the 2007 game of the year continues, with a new game eliminated each week on the way to #1. This week we're down to #11, and the game chosen was Molner-Kaufman. It was a lively French Defense with big momentum swings: first White was winning, then Black had the advantage, and then White won. It wasn't perfect, but it was very entertaining.

You can replay the game and see the judges' comments about it here.

Let's start with a nice combination, from the game Najer-Ftacnik, Bundesliga 2007/8:



It's White to move and win. (HT: Chess Today)

And now for something incompletely different. It's still a tactical problem of sorts, but this time instead of solving the position from scratch, your task is to evaluate a piece of analysis approved by Botvinnik and Soltis. Here's the position:



It's White to move, and in the game White played 12.Nxe4, not fearing the pawn fork. Had he been concerned and chosen 12.Bb1, the claim is that Black would be in good shape - winning, actually - after 12...f5 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Rxc7 exf3 15.Rxb7 Qg5 16.g3 Qg4 17.Kh1 Rf6 18.Rg1 Rh6 19.Qf1 Qh5 20.h4 Qxh4. Can we take this analysis to the bank, or would we be toting around counterfeit goods?

Answers to both puzzles in a couple of days (meanwhile, please be kind to fellow solvers and avoid giving the solution in the comments).

In chronological order, the first of the big events is Joop van Oosterom's enjoyable rapid and blindfold event, occurring in Nice, France, with play starting March 15 (this Saturday) and continuing through the 27th. Here's the line-up (with January 2008 ratings):

Vladimir Kramnik 2799
Viswanathan Anand 2799
Veselin Topalov 2780
Alexander Morozevich 2765
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov 2760
Peter Leko 2753
Vassily Ivanchuk 2751
Levon Aronian 2739
Boris Gelfand 2737
Magnus Carlsen 2733
Sergey Karjakin 2732
Loek van Wely 2681

Next, the first of the FIDE Grand Prix tournaments starts on April 20 in Baku, Azerbaijan; you can see the lineup for that event and all the other Grand Prix tournaments for 2008 here.

Next up, the M-Tel Masters takes place from May 7-18 in Sofia, Bulgaria, and will find the following stars duking it out in this double round-robin event:

Veselin Topalov 2780
Vassily Ivanchuk 2751
Levon Aronian 2739
Teimour Radjabov 2735
Ivan Cheparinov 2713
Bu Xiangzhi 2691

Finally, while the players (Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik) and venue (Bonn, Germany) remain the same, the dates for the 2008 world championship match have been slightly changed to accommodate sponsors and politicians. It will now start on October 14, continuing at most to November 2nd if tiebreaks are needed.

HT: The Week in Chess

A few days ago I presented this position, from a game played in a local club championship:



It's Black to make his 12th move, and although it wasn't played in the game (I don't remember the actual move), 12...f4 leads to fascinating variations. In order not to "infect" my readers with my own ideas, I presented without offering any of my analytical impressions; now, three days along, some of my thinking can be found here. (The lines haven't been computer-checked, and represent something more like a first, very rough draft.) You're now welcome to pick them apart and comment your own lines; but I do request that those of you who are investigating with your chess engines not comment at this stage. Thanks!

...would have been today.

With several tips of the hat to Chess Today, here are some more articles on Fischer you might want to check out:

GM Jonathan Speelman (Guardian)
GM Matanovic for the Chess Informant

Also, there's a Fischer Memorial. Needless to say, it's not in the United States. Lest you think this has to do with (understandable) scruples about Fischer's vile anti-American and anti-Jewish rants, let me remind you that we haven't had any memorial events for Morphy or Fine, either, on the national level. (There have been a couple of fairly big events commemorating Reshevsky, though I don't know the degree to which the USCF was involved.) No, the event will take place in Villa Martelli, Argentina from March 11-19. I suspect that most of the players in the tournament were born after Fischer won the world championship in 1972, but there is one participant who not only lived in Fischer's era, he played in it, too. In fact, he played Fischer himself three times.

That player is GM Oscar Panno, who was for a time in the 1950s (and during a nice run in 1978) one of the best players in the world. Born in 1935, he won the World Junior championship in 1953, became a GM in 1955 and a Candidate a year later. He played three games, as noted above, with Fischer, and each is noteworthy in its own way.

The first, a draw in the 1958 Portoroz Interzonal, is noteworthy in part because of the event, and in part because he drew!

The second game, from Buenos Aires 1970, is noteworthy - and famous - because of Fischer's beautiful concluding combination in a King's Indian Attack.

Finally, the third game is noteworthy for its startling brevity. Played in the last round of the 1970 Interzonal in Palma de Mallorca, Panno became Fischer's 7th consecutive victim (Fischer went on to win thirteen more games in a row!) in a game that went 1.c4 Resigns. Black did not forfeit; he resigned. (Panno refused to play in protest for Fischer's various reschedulings, but rather than let his flag fall he actually resigned the game 52 minutes in.)

You can replay all three games here.

Right here. (HT: Brian Karen)

I find his comments about playing long series with computers interesting - he does it to develop his mental toughness. As for Grischuk breaking his ICC blitz record, allegedly with Rauf Mamedov's help, I can't comment, but I do have something to say about his criticism of Nicholas Nip. Nip is the San Francisco youngster who broke Nakamura's record for the youngest-ever American master, and apparently he gained a lot of the needed points in rated matches (rather than tournaments). Not knowing the principals, I can't offer any judgments about whether the matches were on the up-and-up, but I can't see anything wrong with using matches to boost one's rating - as long as the games are real.

Matches are the classic chess confrontation. While a handful of chess tournaments remain famous to this day (Hastings 1895, New York 1924, Zurich 1953 and a very few others), chess fans remember many of the epic matches in history (Fischer-Spassky, just about all of Karpov's world championship matches, ditto for Kasparov, Alekhine's great upset of Capablanca in 1927, Tal's win over Botvinnik in 1960, Fischer's 6-0 sweeps against Taimanov and Larsen, and so on). Many players consider it the truest test of strength, and so it's not surprising that amateurs want to try their hand at that discipline.

Further, it's simply a practical expedient. When I was growing up, I lived in an area where there was approximately one tournament every other month, and I'd only get to play opponents near my rating in the last two rounds. I could - and often did - go 4.5/5 but only gain a handful of points. So in the early months of 1984, when I was close to master (my rating was 2184), I played a series of rated matches - both to get my rating over 2200 as soon as possible and for the training. It's far more interesting and useful to play a series of games with a tough opponent who has been preparing for you than the occasional odd game with said opponent.

So if Nakamura's only concern is that Nip used matches, I say he should not only not complain about it, he should consider following suit. His current FIDE rating is 2686, 14 points from the "magic" 2700 barrier. Rather than playing in a handful of round-robin events during the year, having to hope he's in good form, not nicked for draws by "ordinary" GMs significantly lower-rated than he is, etc., he might look for a quality match opponent to expedite his path to the elite circuit.

My friend Alex Herrera offers this endgame as his Correspondence Chess Position of the Month for March of 2008:


Van Perlo-Sanakoev, Serbia-30 Jubilee 8185, Corr. 1981

It's Black to move; what should he do? Try to work out not just the next move, but a plan as well. You can find the instructive answer here.

Here is an email from "Khayyam" (lightly edited):

Hello Dennis!

I would like to ask for your opinion about the following line which caught my attention about a year ago and during this year I've tested it in several practical games: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bc4!?

Although I'm not quite sure whether it is a "novelty" at all, I haven't found 5.Bc4 on the internet (at least in high-level games).

I've analysed the two main variations 5...Nxe4 and 5...Qa5+ and have come to the conclusion that the pawn sacrifice is quite reasonable and deserves serious consideration (So the question is that: why hasn't it been tried by grandmasters yet?) I'm aware that Black can always deviate from White's preparations by 5...e6, but then, the Scheveningen variation should be declared Black's main choice in Sicilian, shouldn't it?

I can't claim that my analysis is faultless and that's why I really need your opinion, you can imagine my curiosity about the whole matter.

Your suggestion is an interesting one, and while I've never seen it in high-level play either (according to my database, it has appeared only once in games between 2400+ players), I do recall reading a very brief article on it a quarter of a century ago! IM Mark Ginsburg had a series on opening sidelines ("Chess Openings for Heroes") in a now-defunct publication called Players Chess News. Here's his analysis, which I was able to dig up this afternoon at the Notre Dame library, from Chess Annual I (1981/2), pages 62-3:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nxe4 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qd5+ e6 9.Qxe4 with a "positional sort of pull", albeit one that is "not heroic", or - his preferred idea - 6.Qh5(!) e6 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Nxe6 ("Sheer poetry!") Qe7 (8...Qa5? 9.Bd2! 1-0) 9.Nc7+! Kd8 10.Nd5! Ng3+ 11.Nxe7 Nxh5 12.Bxd7 "with a better endgame(!) for White."

Now I'll throw in my two cents. First, as noted by both "Khayyam" and Ginsburg, Black can play 5...e6 and transpose to the Sozin (assuming White plays 6.Nc3). "Khayyam" seems to think this is a concession on Black's part, as the Scheveningen (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6) is not the most popular line of the Sicilian anymore. The last part of that sentence is correct, but not part one: Black is under pressure in the Scheveningen against the English Attack (6.Be3 followed by f3, Qd2, g4, O-O-O etc.), and to some extent the Keres Variation (6.g4) and the 6.Be2 lines, but whether one plays the Najdorf (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6) or the Classical Sicilian (same first four and a half moves, then 5...Nc6), playing ...e6 is almost automatic against Bc4 lines. So meeting 5.Bc4 with ...e6 isn't really a concession at all. In fact, while some Sozin specialists like GM Mikhail Golubev might disagree, the 6.Bc4 variations are generally considered quite pleasant for Black these days, theoretically speaking.

Next, we should make an attempt to evaluate Ginsburg's suggestions. First, does White have a positional pull in the 5...Nxe4 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qd5+ e6 9.Qxe4 line? I have my doubts. The position is strategically complex with imbalances galore: Black has the bishop pair and a pair of unopposed central pawns; White has a lead in development, fewer pawn islands and the possibility of exerting pressure on Black's center pawns as they advance. I think Black has approximate equality after either 9...d5 or 9...e5, but if I were going to head for such a position on a regular basis, serious analysis would be required.

After Ginsburg's preferred 6.Qh5, however, accurate play leaves Black without any problems. One example of interesting but probably inaccurate play is 6...d5. Neither 7.Bb5+ nor 7.Qxd5 offer much, but 7.Bxd5 g6 8.Qe5 Nf6 9.Nb5 is good enough for an edge. So we continue with his line - 6...e6 7.Bb5+ - and now there's not only his 7...Bd7 to consider, but also 7...Nd7 (best) and the greedy 7...Ke7 to boot. Both are playable, but 7...Nd7 is simplest. The point is that after 8.Nxe6 Nef6 9.Nxd8 Nxh5, the White knight is trapped. It escapes after 10.Bxd7+ Bxd7 11.Nxb7, but after 11...Bc6 12.Na5 Bxg2 13.Rg1 Be4 it's Black who enjoys the slightly more comfortable ending.

Going back a ways, it's also worth mentioning the other 5th move possibility noted by "Khayyam", 5...Qa5+. After the natural 6.Nc3 Nxe4 7.Qf3 Nf6 8.O-O e6 (not 8...g6 9.Re1 Bg7 10.Bh6!) White has a lead in development, but I'm not sure it will yield tangible returns. For example: 9.Bf4 a6 10.Rad1 Be7 11.Rfe1 O-O and White's compensation is starting to fade.

In sum, it seems that Black should be fine with either 5...e6 or by "falling for" the trappy lines, but as White isn't in bad shape either it's a reasonable sideline for the occasional game, provided White doesn't mind the main line Sozin.

You can replay the analysis above, and a bit more besides, here.

The odds match between Rybka and Dzindzichashvili ended in a 4-4 tie, and the plans to have a 4-game playoff today were cancelled, as Dzindzi had a family emergency. Hopefully all's well there, and maybe we'll see a rematch in the near future.

On day 4 of the Rybka-Dzindzichashvili odds match (Dzindzi gets White in every game plus a different Black pawn in every game), Dzindzi caught back up, winning game 7 (with the extra g-pawn) and drawing game 8. It wasn't part of the original deal, but they're going to have a 4-game playoff today (Saturday). Rybka will play without the f-pawn in every game, which is probably the biggest handicap pawn, but the time control will be a relatively speedy 20' + 5", which is surely in its favor.

Meanwhile, today's games can be replayed here.

With four players having a chance to at least tie for first, the preconditions were in place for a thrilling last round. This might have seemed especially likely, given the very low percentage of draws (by super-tournament standards) so far, but as it turned out “safety first” was the rule of the day. With a win over Veselin Topalov, world champion Viswanathan Anand would have clinched clear first, but his choice to play to meet Topalov’s Najdorf with 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.Bg5 indicated his desire for a quiet life. The game followed yesterday’s tragic Radjabov-Shirov game through 11.O-O-O, but here Topalov varied with 11…Qb6 (instead of 11…Nd4), offering a pawn. Anand rightly returned it with 15.Qd2, resulting in an opposite-colored bishops middlegame where neither side had much to play for. The result was a quick draw, and at worst a tie for first place with Magnus Carlsen

This would happen only if Carlsen defeated Teimour Radjabov, who once again defended the Black pieces with the Schliemann Defense. Carlsen repeated the line Topalov employed in round 9, like Topalov achieving a position with no losing chances and some chances to press. Press he did, for 69 moves, but the pawn-up rook ending the players entered on move 42 offered White no real winning chances, and Carlsen had to settle for second place. Still, it was a terrific result for him, especially in conjunction with his performance in the Corus tournament a month ago (he tied for first), and rumor has it he will be #5 on the next FIDE rating list. Be afraid…be very afraid!

Carlsen’s second place finish would have been shared if Levon Aronian had managed to defeat Peter Leko, but Leko was never in danger on the White side of an Anti-Marshall. The players clearly didn’t realize it, as they had been using responsible amounts of time, but they were exactly following a 2007 game between Laurent Fressinet and Arkadij Naiditsch all the way through White’s 29th move. The earlier game was drawn in 36 moves, but Aronian’s choice must have been a serious improvement, as it led to a peaceful handshake two moves earlier.

Finally, Alexei Shirov and Vassily Ivanchuk put an end to what must have been a very disappointing tournament for both men. This game seemed headed for a draw almost from the start, as Shirov turned the MacCutcheon French into an Exchange Variation on move 5 Nevertheless, it was Shirov who did what pressing their was in the game, trying to avoid exchanges, playing the prophylactic b4 and the space-gaining 20.g4, 24.h4 and 25.h5, but the symmetrical pawn structure and the open e-file led them to share the point as well. This is a tournament I’m sure they’ll both want to forget: Shirov, because he came in last place (with Peter Leko), and Ivanchuk because he lost two games he was winning (and had he won them and everything else remained the same, he’d have tied for first). They’ll be back.

Games (will be) here.

Round 14 Results:

Anand - Topalov 1/2-1/2
Leko - Aronian 1/2-1/2
Carlsen - Radjabov 1/2-1/2
Shirov - Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2

Final Standings:

1. Anand 8.5
2. Carlsen 8
3-4. Aronian, Topalov 7.5
5. Radjabov 7
6. Ivanchuk 6.5
7-8. Leko, Shirov 5.5

Finally, let's take a look at my predictions:

1. Carlsen
2-3. Anand, Aronian
4. Radjabov
5-6. Shirov, Topalov
7-8. Ivanchuk, Leko

Pretty good! I wasn't off by more than a place for anyone, even if the ties gave me a little extra smudge room.

At the local club tonight, one of the players handed me the scoresheet from a game he played on Tuesday. I didn't look too much at the game as a whole, but one position grabbed my attention in a sustained way, and I spent 20-30 minutes analyzing it. This was the position in the game after White's 12th move:



I don't recall what Black actually did, but it wasn't 12...f4. I haven't checked any of my analysis with the computer - and I'm not going to, either, until I've really spent a lot of time on it - and I in turn won't "contaminate" your thinking by presenting it. So chew on the position for a while (but no analytical comments yet, please), and in a few days we'll discuss it.

Carbon made a small comeback today in the odds match between GM Roman Dzindzichashvili and Rybka, as both games were drawn against the silicon beast. The event finishes tomorrow, with Dzindzi first receiving Black's g-pawn in game 7 and the h-pawn in game 8. Meanwhile, you can replay today's draws here.

Can you defeat this snowball?



That's 11-year old FM Ilya Nyzhnyk of Ukraine, already rated 2405. If that's aiming a bit too high, here's a slightly more manageable opponent, 9-year old Nicholas Nip of the U.S. of A., the new record-holder for the youngest master in U.S. history.



Help.

The leaderboard stayed steady, but that’s not to say there wasn’t any action today. Let’s start with the leaders: Anand played the Najdorf against Ivanchuk and was possibly surprised by his opponent’s choice of 6.Bc4. Anand returned the favor with 6…Nc6, transposing to the Sozin Variation, and Ivanchuk didn’t seem to have anything special prepared against this. Anand equalized without much difficulty, and the game was drawn in just 23 moves.

This gave Carlsen the chance to catch Anand with a win over Aronian, but that was never in the offing. White offered an interesting pawn sac in an old-fashioned line of the Queen’s Indian, but Carlsen’s 9…Bxd5 turned it into an exchange sacrifice for Black. The play from there through move 19 was more or less forced, and the question revolved around Black’s knight on c2. It’s stuck there, but it’s also restraining White’s rook on a2 – is the knight a strength or a weakness. The answer seems to be both, and in roughly equal measure. When the players agreed to a draw after 28.Bc1, White still hadn’t figured out what to do about the knight, but it hadn’t escaped, either. Play could have continued 28…Rc3 (this is forced, as White threatens 29.Bd2 followed by 30.Rc1, sending the steed to the glue factory) 29.Qxe4 (29.Qxb5?! d3!) dxe4 30.Bd2 Rc4 31.Rc1 d3 32.exd3 exd3 33.Rd1 (33.a4 Nd4) a6 (33…Re4? 34.Bc3!) 34.a4 Re4 35.axb5 axb5 36.Ra5 Re2 37.Kh1 Rxf2 38.Rxb5 Re2 39.Bxg5 Bxg5 40.Rg5+ Kf6 with equality, as Black’s d-pawn will let him regain the exchange.

It was a tough day for our cellar-dwellars, Shirov and Leko, who both lost, falling to -3. With Black against Radjabov, Shirov had completely equalized, and had he played 20…g5 (for example), the players could have agreed to a draw at any moment. Instead, his 20…Bh4?? left his rook trapped after 21.b4, and the resulting exchange-up ending was easy for White to win. Topalov-Leko was a much harder fight, and Leko was outplayed a little at a time. One early improvement was 21…c5, when 22.bxc3 Nxc3 23.bxc5 Rfe8 24.Bb2 Ne2+ 25.Kf1 Bxb2 26.Rab1 Bxf3 27.gxf3 Bd4 28.Rxe2 Rxe2 29.Kxe2 Bxc5 leads to a drawn Sveshnikov Sicilian-like ending. In the game, White’s pieces were too active, especially once Topalov’s rooks made it to the 7th (31.Rc1! was a good move, much better than 31.Ra1, winning the a-pawn but leaving a very difficult technical task after 31…Bb3 32.Bxe7 R8xe7 33.Rxe7+ Rxe7 34.Rxa6 Bg8). Maybe with perfect play Leko could have held the ending, but as a practical matter it was nearly impossible.

Games will be posted here.

Round 13 Results:

Ivanchuk - Anand 1/2-1/2
Radjabov - Shirov 1-0
Aronian - Carlsen 1/2-1/2
Topalov - Leko 1-0

Standings after Round 13:

1. Anand 8
2. Carlsen 7.5
3-4. Aronian, Topalov 7
5. Radjabov 6.5
6. Ivanchuk 6
7-8. Leko, Shirov 5

Last round pairings:

Anand - Topalov
Leko - Aronian
Carlsen - Radjabov
Shirov - Ivanchuk

These are excellent pairings, because four players have a chance for some share of first place. Join me for the action tomorrow morning, 10 a.m. ET (4 p.m. Central European Time) on the Playchess.com server - see you then!

Monday was a good day for Roman Dzindzichashvili in his pawn-odds match with the computer program Rybka, but Wednesday, the second day of their match, was not. Giving up the c- and d-pawns, respectively, Rybka won both games against the American GM to take the lead in the eight game match.

Games here. (Note: the funny opening moves designed to set up the proper pawn-odds position are given on the site; they're not an expedient on my part to create the proper start position.)

Who??

If you haven't heard of these players, that's okay: I hadn't heard of them either until a few days ago. A friend, who saw this discussion on the ChessBase news site, pointed me to the game, and now it's your turn. Our weekly shows often feature great games by the greatest players in chess history, but from time to time it's worthwhile to take a look at the masterpieces of lesser-known players, too, especially as their games are the likeliest to pass by unnoticed.

Our principals are Josef Krejcik (1885-1957), a master known for his brilliant but inconsistent play, and Konrad Krobot...or Krobst - it's apparently unclear. The date isn't completely clear either: was the game played on February 14 or 24, and in 1908 or 1909? The location of this game is also unclear, with the Cafe Veronika and the Cafe Viktoria (in Austria) the competing options.

What is clear is that White's play is brilliant. Although it's lightweight compared to (e.g.) the action in Linares, it's the kind of entertaining game that drew almost all of us into the game and made us the chess fans for life. I therefore hope you'll join me tomorrow at 9 p.m. ET for a very entertaining game on the Playchess server: the show is free, and you can find directions here.

World champion Viswanathan Anand continues to lead, but Magnus Carlsen has closed back to within half a point of first as we head for the last two rounds after tomorrow’s rest day. Anand drew comfortably with Peter Leko, enjoying a slight, safe edge throughout on the White side of an Anti-Marshall. After his 20.Qxg5N hxg5 21.c4!, it looked like that advantage might become serious, thanks to Black’s weak pawns on g5 and c5, but Leko’s ingenious defense enabled him to hold the position. He had no choice but to give up a pawn, but he did so in a way that allowed his pieces to coordinate while Anand’s lost their harmony; the result was a draw.

Carlsen, meanwhile, was the recipient of some (partially earned) luck against Veselin Topalov. Carlsen achieved nothing from the opening, a reverse Sicilian, and his attacking plan with 19.Bg5, 20.Be3 and 21.f4 left him insufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. His further sacrifice, 23.Rd4, probably could have been accepted, but Topalov’s safe 23…Rad8 sufficed for an advantage as well. On move 28.e6 would have been interesting (28…Qe7 29.f5 gxf5 30.Rf3 is one possible continuation), but Carlsen’s 28.f5 led to complex play as well, again sacrificing material for activity and headhunting prospects. The critical moments came on moves 33 and 34: Topalov could have avoided perpetual check with 33…Qd7, though after 34.Bh6 Nc6 35.Bxc4+ Bxc4 36.Qxc4+ Qf7 37.Qc1 Black will have a hard time creating real winning possibilities. His 33…Kxg7 was safer – or should have been – but after 34.Bd8 Topalov blundered into mate with 34…Nc6?? Instead, 34…Qd5 more or less forces White to take a perpetual check: 35.Bxa5 Qxa5 36.Qe7+ etc.

If Aronian had won his game, he too would have pulled within half a point of the leader, but he was rather fortunate to draw. Shirov found a tremendous improvement over his game with Leko from two rounds ago – not a new move (Aronian was the first to deviate from the earlier game, with 27…Rc8 instead of Leko’s 27…Bc4) but a new plan. Instead of meeting …Bc4 with b3, he put the pawn on a3, played 30.g4 to cement his knight on e4, and then prepared and executed the h4-h5-h6 advance. The result was that Black now had to worry about passed (or potentially passed) pawns on both sides of the board, and Shirov gradually achieved a winning position. (Note: I thought during the live commentary that Black could force a draw with 47…Bc6, taking for granted that 48.Nc5 Bxc5+ (or 48…Bd6+ 49.Ke3 Bxc5) would lead to a draw. Not so: as GM Mikhail Golubev pointed out, White puts his bishop on h4, the pawn on f6, and then brings the king to the queenside, winning.) By the time of 59.f8N+! Shirov was winning, but Aronian’s tenacious defense and White inaccuracies on moves 61, 67 and 73 led to a draw.

Finally, Ivanchuk-Radjabov was a typical Sveshnikov Sicilian draw, where the opposite-colored bishops were more significant than Ivanchuk’s extra pawn.

Games (will be) here.

Round 12 Results:

Anand - Leko 1/2-1/2
Shirov - Aronian 1/2-1/2
Carlsen - Topalov 1-0
Ivanchuk - Radjabov 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 12:

1. Anand 7.5
2. Carlsen 7
3. Aronian 6.5
4. Topalov 6
5-6. Radjabov, Ivanchuk 5.5
7-8. Leko, Shirov 5

Pairings for Round 13: (On Thursday)

Ivanchuk - Anand
Radjabov - Shirov
Aronian - Carlsen
Topalov - Leko

Right here.

All those years of playing computers have paid off for GM Roman Dzindzichashvili so far, as the first day against Rybka with pawn and move has given him a draw and a win. It would be nicer if he was ahead without any odds, but I guess we'll take what we can get at this point.

Games here.

World champion Viswanathan Anand is now the prohibitive favorite to win this year’s edition of the Morelia/Linares tournament, enjoying a full point lead with just three rounds to go. He took a short, easy draw against Teimour Radjabov; a fairly easy task against Radjabov’s anti-Caro-Kann sideline. White’s 6.Nh3 + 7.Nf4 garners the bishop pair, but the resulting position is so balanced that they offer no meaningful chances.

Meanwhile, it looked like Magnus Carlsen, his closest pursuer, would stay within half a point of the lead. When the queens came off against Leko on move 26, it looked like a typical drawish Sveshnikov ending with opposite-colored bishops. It turned out that White enjoyed a nagging edge, however, thanks to his passed b-pawn, and Leko did a great job of nursing the position for all it was worth. Utilizing the principle of two weaknesses, he turned to the kingside, first trying to loosen up Black’s pawns with 45.h5, then trying to create a cage for Black’s king by 47.h6. The position was still probably objectively drawn through White’s 52nd move, but after Carlsen’s decision to bring his king to the center with 52…Kg8 (maybe Black can hold with 52…Be3), 53…Kf8 and 54…Ke7, it was clearly over.

Topalov-Shirov saw the old exchange sac line against the Gruenfeld made famous by the late David Bronstein, and Topalov brought something new to the table. His 16.Qd4 was relatively rare, and 20.Bd3 was a novelty. Shirov reacted well, but it took him a lot of time on the clock, and this may have cost him. On move 26, 26…Qxd5 would have given him a playable position. Instead, Shirov played 26…Qb6+?, and after 27.Kh1 Qe3 28.Qh4 made an even more serious error, 28…Re5? Perhaps this was Shirov’s idea on move 26, thinking he would regain the d-pawn in a more active setting, but after 29.Qf6, threatening both d6-d7 and Bxg6, he was completely lost.

Finally, Aronian-Ivanchuk saw almost surreal play from the opening, and the game was lively from the start until it’s sadly premature finish. It seemed that Black still had chances for the initiative in the final position (e.g. with 22…Qa8), and before that he may have missed the nice shot 18…b4 (19.Qxb4 Nc6 and all Black’s pieces are on their way to terrific squares).

Games here.

Round 11 Results:

Radjabov - Anand 1/2-1/2
Aronian - Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Topalov - Shirov 1-0
Leko - Carlsen 1-0

Standings after Round 11:

1. Anand 7
2-4. Aronian, Carlsen, Topalov 6
5-6. Radjabov, Ivanchuk 5
7-8. Shirov, Leko 4.5

Pairings for Round 12:

Anand - Leko
Shirov - Aronian
Carlsen - Topalov
Ivanchuk - Radjabov

Technical note: the ChessBase server had some problems with the audio system at the start of the round, but it was fixed in due course. Tomorrow's live commentary should go off without a hitch, so you're all invited to join me starting at: 10 a.m. ET, 4 p.m. Central European Time.

Here's an initial offering in what might develop into a regular theme on this blog: I'll present a quotation without attribution, and you're invited/challenged to identify its source. (Thoughtful) Comments on the quotation are welcome as well.

I always want to be first. If I were not a chess player, I would want to be first in whatever I was doing. And even more in chess - otherwise it would be silly to play seriously. If you are not first, it means you have been defeated. And who wants to be a loser?

The US Chess League's countdown to the 2007 game of the year continues, with a new game eliminated each week on the way to #1. This week we're down to #12, and the game chosen was Zilberstein-Bartholomew. As with many of the games we've seen so far, there's somewhat of a two-step flow to it: the winner undertakes the project of slowly building up the attack, and when the preconditions are in place the tactics start to fly. It's worth a look, and you can replay the game here, and see the judges' comments here.

Round 11 starts at 10 a.m. ET/4 p.m. CET, with the following pairings:

Radjabov - Anand
Aronian - Ivanchuk
Topalov - Shirov
Leko - Carlsen

Join me on the Playchess.com server in the morning for live commentary - hope to see you then!

Rybka, probably the strongest commercially available program out there at the moment, has been beating up on humans the last year, handily defeating GMs while offering various sorts of odds. (More about that here.) Starting tomorrow (Monday), it's time for a new challenge: an eight-game match with Roman Dzindzichashvili, once one of the world's strongest grandmasters and a real anti-computer expert. "Dzindzi" will have White and an extra pawn in every game (Rybka will play without the a-pawn in one game, the b-pawn in another, etc.) The time control will be G/45 + 10 seconds, with two games a day on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. More info here.

Andres Segovia - have a read and a listen.

Note: this article was originally published on ChessBase's Spanish language site - just scroll down below the round 9 recap. I note this for the benefit of Spanish readers and photo lovers, as that page often has a goodly amount of material (both text and photography) not on the English page and presumably not on the German page either. Here's an amusing gem of sorts; ironically with an English language punchline: GM Jacob Aagaard teaching en passant and the 4-move checkmate on what I guess is a whiskey commercial. I'm certainly not advocating the product, but it would sure be nice - and very different! - were such ads possible on American TV.

Four games, four draws:

Round 10 Results:

Anand - Carlsen 1/2-1/2
Shirov - Leko 1/2-1/2
Ivanchuk - Topalov 1/2-1/2
Radjabov - Aronian 1/2-1/2

After all the excitement so far in this tournament, a round like today’s was bound to happen – and even so it wasn’t really that bad. The first game to finish was unfortunately the round’s most attractive pairing: leader and world champion Viswanathan Anand enjoyed the White pieces against his closest competitor, “Wonderboy” Magnus Carlsen. Carlsen employed a slight sideline of the Sveshnikov Sicilian, and drew with consummate ease. One possible continuation from the final position shows the active resources latent in Black’s position: 22…Rxf5 23.Qe2 Qb7 24.Qg4 g6 25.Rfd1 Raf8! 26.Rxa5 Bxd5 27.Raxd5 Qa7, when White’s best is probably 28.Kh1 Qxf2 29.Qe2, when 29…Qxe2 30.Bxe2 leads to a stale equality.

Levon Aronian could have caught Carlsen in a tie for second, had he defeated Teimour Radjabov with the Black pieces, but that was never really in the offing. The game saw the popular and sharp Anti-Moscow gambit, and Radjabov introduced a novelty with 16.Qc1. Black responded reasonably, and White’s activity always looked like approximately enough for the pawn, but not more. One possible conclusion at game’s end was 32.Qb1 cxd5 33.Qxb5 Bc6 34.Qb2, when White needs to keep the d-pawn blockaded and Black can’t do anything to get it moving.

Shirov-Leko was a typical Marshall Gambit draw. Shirov tried almost to the first time control to make something happen, but despite retaining the extra pawn and trading off lots of pieces he was unsuccessful. Black’s bishop pair, and the light-squared bishop in particular, serve to give the second player both counterplay and excellent blockading possibilities, and Leko drew with ease.

Finally, Ivanchuk-Topalov was a tense game that seemed for a while to be headed for a decisive result. White came out of the opening with a nagging edge, though perhaps 17...Bd7 might have equalized. The cute point is that after 18.Nb6, Black can play 18...Qxb6!, as 19.Nxe6 Nh5! 20.Qe1 Qb8 21.Nxf8 Qxf8 is approximately equal. In the game, White might have increased his advantage with 25.Ra5 (eyeing a possible Bxc5), but after 25. Bd4 his advantage was minimal until Topalov’s shocking 34…d5(?) gifted White with a more or less free extra pawn. Ivanchuk probably should have remained in the middlegame with 37.Qc3, however, as the endgame starting from move 41 was very difficult to win – Black’s fantastic knight blockades the passed c-pawns while protecting the weakness on a6. Ivanchuk thought for a long time on moves 41 and 42 but failed to find a convincing plan; in fact, after his sloppy 45th and 48th moves, he actually needed to save the draw a pawn down – which he did (fortunately).

(ChessBase hasn't posted the games yet, but the link will most likely be this.)

Standings after Round 10:

1. Anand 6.5
2. Carlsen 6
3. Aronian 5.5
4. Topalov 5
5-7. Radjabov, Shirov, Ivanchuk 4.5
8. Leko 3.5

Round 11 Pairings: (On Monday; Sunday is a rest day)

Radjabov - Anand
Aronian - Ivanchuk
Topalov - Shirov
Leko - Carlsen