The Chess Mind

Plenty of blood flowed in the Grand Prix today, with Adams beating Svidler, Mamedyarov beating Navara, Radjabov defeating Kamsky and - most importantly for the first-place battle - Grischuk overcoming Inarkiev. With four rounds to go, Grischuk is in sole first place with 6/9; Gashimov and Wang Yue are half a point behind; and Radjabov, Carlsen, Mamedyarov and Adams still another half point back.

Sigeman & Co. ended with Hillarp Persson holding off runner-up Stellwagen in the final round, winning by a full point with a very tidy 2817 TPR. A selection of his games from the event, with my comments, is here.

Final Standings:

1. Hillarp Persson 7.5 (of 9), 2817 TPR
2. Stellwagen 6.5, 2696
3. L. B. Hansen 6, 2661
4-5. Akesson (2590), Timman (2579) 5
6. Agrest 4, 2533
7. Kotronias 3, 2406(!!)
8-9. Lie (2392!), Smith (2385) 2.5
10. Portisch 2 (2321!!)

Finally, there's the European Individual Chess Championship. For a while, the top boards were coasting (the event is a qualifier for the World Cup, and players often prefer the bird in the hand to the two in the bush), but ambition or fear that they might lose their qualification due to tiebreaks seemed to get the blood boiling this round. There were three leaders going into the round, and the two that played each other (Movsesian and Tregubov) drew quickly. Sutovsky, however, tried and tried against Grachev, but to no avail. That allowed four players from the next score group to catch up, and so we now have a seven-way tie for first at 7/9: Movsesian, Tregubov, Sutovsky, L'Ami, Baklan, Tiviakov and Volkov. Plenty more are half a point behind, so the last two rounds could prove very exciting.

Don't forget to check out the Hillarp Persson games, here - they're very good!

revealed below. First, let's reprise the quotation:

A knowledge of the endgame is the magic key to the secrets of chess mastery.

The author of this quotation, which could have been said or written by many players, was the 7th world champion, Vasily Smyslov (in the de facto introduction to his modestly entitled Vasily Smyslov: Endgame Virtuoso. (Perhaps Russian readers know if this is his title or something the English publishers came up with, post-translation. Modest or not, it is an apt title.) There are any number of reasons that can be adduced in support of Smyslov's claim, one of which is given by the man himself a paragraph earlier: "The properties and peculiarities of the pieces are most clearly revealed in the endgame." I believe Capablanca said something like this as well, and I think that careful reflection will indicate that this is true. Developing this claim will have to wait for another time, but for readers who can produce supporting examples, the combox awaits you.

After a (very rare) day off of blogging, we return to our updates. Here goes:

1. FIDE World Cup in Baku:

In round 7, there were four decisive games, with the most important one being Vugar Gashimov's win over Gata Kamsky. That placed the former in a tie for first while knocking the latter into fourth, half a point behind the co-leaders. In round 8, nothing changed at the top, so the tie remains. Here are the standings:

1-3. Gashimov, Wang Yue, Grischuk 5
4-5. Carlsen, Kamsky 4.5
6-10. Mamedyarov, Radjabov, Bacrot, Svidler, Adams 4
11. Karjakin 3.5
12-13. Cheparinov, Inarkiev 3
14. Navara 2.5

There's a lot of good material on the tournament website, including a long video interview with Magnus Carlsen.

2. The European Individual Chess Championship (in Plovdiv):

After 8 of 11 rounds, the top of the leaderboard remains surprisingly unbunched, with only Sutovsky, Tregubov and Movsesian in the leading group with 6.5. They're just a whisper away from a huge chase pack, as 14 players are half a point behind: Laznicka, Iotov, Efimenko, Pantsulaia, Volkov, Tiviakov, L'Ami, Motylev, Vachier-Lagrave, Lupulescu, Grachev, Damljanovic, Caruana and Baklan.

3. Sigeman & Co. (in Malmo, Sweden):

With one round to play Tiger Hillarp Persson leads by a point over Daniel Stellwagen and a point and a half over Lars Bo Hansen. His score of 7/8 gives him an exceptional 2871 TPR in the event; the bad news is that he has Black in the last round against...Stellwagen. Hopefully it will be a great game.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of games from the World Cup, both featuring Teimour Radjabov. The first is his latest effort in the Schliemann, and the second is his loss on the white side of the Dragon Sicilian.

Everyone loves the Dragon Sicilian, right? Maybe they don't enjoy playing or facing it, but if nothing else it's often a lot of fun watching games in that variation. That's what we'll do this week, but be warned: the contest between Vasily Byvshev and his strong grandmaster opponent Alexander Tolush is anything but theoretical. The actual move order was a Najdorf, and after 6.Bg5 Black played the theoretically questionable 6...Nbd7. Only after 7.Bc4 did the game take on a Dragon appearance with 7...g6 8.h4 Bg7 9.Qd2 O-O 10.O-O-O, and even then some unusual things happened from the perspective of modern ideas. Yet the game remained quite interesting, and Tolush's play is instructive even for today's Dragoneer.

We shouldn't be too surprised by this, as Tolush (1910-1969) was a strong GM who played in 10 Soviet championships, finishing in the top 5 three times, and whose work as a trainer was instrumental in Boris Spassky's development into an elite player. Known as a bloodthirsty attacking player who "always" went forward, Tolush shows in this game that he can also defend when necessary. Byvshev started out on the right foot, but once Tolush seized the initiative it was over in a hurry.

The opening of this game should be quickly forgotten, but there are lessons in the remainder that deserve to be remembered. It's impossible to remember what you don't experience, however, so you'll have to tune in! The show, which is free, starts Wednesday at 9 p.m. ET on the playchess.com server and goes for about an hour. (Further directions, if you need them, are here.) See you then!

Coming in fourth place in the U.S. Chess League's countdown to the 2007 Game of the Year is Larry Christiansen-Patrick Wolff, a fine attacking win by Christiansen in a Classical Sicilian. The judges' report is here, and in a few days my analysis of the game will be posted on the ChessVideos.tv site.

With the summer upcoming, I'm ready, willing and able to take on some more students. If you're interested, please drop me a note here. Here are some possibilities:

1. Regular weekly lessons
2. Having me analyze your games by email
3. Group lessons (either online or even in person, if you're not too far from the South Bend area - or around Las Vegas, where I'll probably be for much of June)

From our opposite-colored bishop ending series we return to one on bishops of the same color, albeit in a situation that has so far quickly resolved into a pure pawn ending. This was our starting position, with Black to move:



The first line for your investigation was given here, while in part two the variation was modified. There an assignment was given: after the moves 1...Bd6 2.h3 Bc7 3.Kb3 Bxa5 4.Bxa5 Kxa5 5.Kc4 Kb6 6.Kd5 Kc7 7.Ke5 Kd7 8.Kxf5 Ke7 White is winning, but it's not at all easy to see how.



When you think you've got it, you can have a look here. In a day or two, we'll turn to part four, in which we clean up some odds and ends, and then discuss whether we can turn this ending into a worthwhile study. There are at least a couple of study composers in my audience, so I'm hopeful!

There are probably quite a few people who have said something like this, but presumably only one person put it exactly like this:

A knowledge of the endgame is the magic key to the secrets of chess mastery.

And that person was...?

The FIDE Grand Prix in Baku looked for a while like it would see a 70-way tie for second; now it seems everyone will simplify things by tying for first instead. By defeating Michael Adams, Gata Kamsky joined Alexander Grischuk and Wang Yue in first place with 4 points out of 6. Local boys Teimour Radjabov and Vugar Gashimov are half a point back, while five players (Mamedyarov, Carlsen, Svidler, Bacrot and Adams) have 3 points. (Tournament site, with links to videos and GM Shipov's analyses, here.)

Next, in the rest day-free European Individual Championships, leaders Sutovsky and Movsesian decided to take matters into their own hands and drew quickly. This allowed Tregubov to catch them; all three players have 6/7. Seven players are half a point behind: Iotov, Pantsulaia, Tiviakov, Motylev, Grachev, Vachier-Lagrave and Caruana. With four rounds to go, it would be too early to rule out the players in the next score group, but as there are 23 players with 5 points, I'm not going to list them!

As for the Seligman & Co. event, almost all the games were drawn, and the one that wasn't didn't affect the leaderboard. Thus after 6 of the 9 rounds, Hillarp Persson and Stellwagen continue to lead (with 5 points each), half a point ahead of L.B. Hansen.

They say all politics is local, and the same may ultimately be true (or as true) of chess. Local chess blogs are therefore especially worthwhile (at least when done well), so it's a good thing that there's one for the city of St. Louis, Missouri. At this point it's just getting going, but hopefully it will continue to develop in keeping with a city of its size. (Maybe the bloggers can get IM Michael Brooks involved?)

Good luck to the blog!

It has been, shall we say, a little while since part 3 was written; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if only Steve B. (sbb1cpa) remembers this series, and by now even he might have forgotten. It all goes back to this position (see the original post and its successors), from the game Karim-Zhu Chen, Gibtelecom Masters 2008:



Despite the even material and opposite-colored bishops, White is better and even managed to win. When I first replayed the game (unannotated here; the endgame above starts after Black's 60th move), I was almost shocked by the result. Upon taking a closer look, my opinion changed, but not completely. It seemed on good old-fashioned general principles that such an endgame ought to be a draw. Over time, my opinion changed, though proving a win is also quite difficult.

I offered this ending as an exercise to the readers, and they came through beautifully (and hopefully learned a lot in the process). I too learned something from the exercise - and from my readers - and would like to offer several general principles and provisional conclusions (to put it oxymoronically).

(1) An obvious reminder: opposite-colored bishop endings can be won, even when the material is even and there are no passed pawns. (Of course, White starts with a passed pawn here, but the winning tries all involve giving it away.)

(2) A slightly less obvious corollary: opposite-colored bishop endings can be drawn, even when the weaker side is down a pawn or two.

(3) As in many other endings, and perhaps in chess in general, it's rarely possible to win without utilizing the "principle of two weaknesses". (A "weakness", in this context, refers to something the defender has to protect or defend: an enemy passer or a weak pawn, for example.)

(3a) If the defender's can stop multiple passers on a single diagonal, then those passers may only count as one weakness.

(3b) Sometimes the "weaknesses" are static, like distinct passed pawns, but sometimes they're more dynamic, like potential king penetration. (As we'll see, both sorts of weakness pairs come into play in our ending.)

(4) Let's turn to specifics. When I was first trying to win this endgame against the computer, I found ways to break through with the king to the kingside, winning the h6 pawn doesn't necessarily win, even if the White king can find its way back out. (Example: White retains his a-, c-, g- and h-pawns, Black his a-, c- and g-pawns. As long as Black's king can get to h8 it's a draw: the bishop protects the g-pawn when it's attacked or goes to b4 if White's king journeys cross-country to the queenside.)

(5) Likewise, White can sometimes win the c- and even the a-pawn, and still not win! (You can find such a line in the first main analysis paragraph of the second game file linked at the end of this post.) The basic drawing setup is this: Black's king is on d6 and his bishop is on the a7-g1 diagonal. In this way, the pawns are stopped and White's king can't get to Black's kingside. If White's king goes to d3, Black plays ...Ke5. If White's king goes to a6, Black plays ...Kc7.

(6) The winning method, then, seems to be this: White must win a queenside pawn, but do so in a way that doesn't involve giving up the chance to occupy the d5 square. That square is key for White, because it allows him to play c5 (it's often important for White's c-pawn to break that barrier) and because it gives his king access to Black's kingside pawns. And then, and perhaps only then, Black's defensive resources will be overtaxed. His bishop can control the c-pawn, but his king can't both deal with White's inevitable passed h-pawn and with White's king returning to the queenside to further advance the c-pawn.

You can find some specific analysis here. The first game is a compilation of the readers' analyses, with an occasional comment of my own interspersed. The second game presents a bit of my own analysis of 61.d6. I present two independent paragraphs of analysis, both starting with that move. The first shows White failing to win, despite winning both queenside pawns, but the second presents a White win, utilizing the method outlined in point (6).

The Grand Prix is having a rest day, but the other two major events saw action on Saturday.

Starting with the European Individual Championship, Sutovsky finally drew a game (with Black in a known quick-draw line), and was caught by Movsesian, whom he'll play in the next round. Surprisingly, a game featuring near-leaders Gregoriants and Tregubov saw the former lose in just 11 moves: 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. e3 Nf6 5. d4 cxd4 6. exd4 e4 7. Ne5 Bb4 8. Bd2?N Nxd4 9. Nxe4? Qe7 -+ 10. Bxb4 Qxb4+ 11. Qd2 Nxe4 0-1 (HT: Chess Today)

Leading Standings after Round 6:

1-2. Sutovsky, Movsesian 5.5
3-5. Mamedov, Tregubov, Iotov 5

Seligman & Co., Post-Round 5 Leaders:

1-2. Hillarp Persson, Stellwagen 4.5
3. L.B. Hansen 4

(Everyone else has 2.5 points or less!)

Here.

Ugh! Mehmed Pasalic pushed hard against Gauri Shankar in the last round, and several times had a winning position, but he couldn't quite close the deal. Shankar was under pressure throughout the middlegame, but fought very well and outplayed Pasalic in time trouble and reached a winning position. At that point, two serious errors left him lost once again, but once again he wriggled, and managed to reach the theoretically drawn rook vs. rook and knight ending. It's not impossible to lose it, but unless one starts with a favorable setup it's very difficult for the strong side to get even moderate winning chances against a good opponent. And so it went tonight. Pasalic tried for 47 moves, but Shankar was up to the task and held the draw, leaving his opponent half a point short of his third and final norm.

Pasalic probably isn't a happy camper right now, but it's obvious that he'll achieve that last norm soon (though I hope not to make my contribution, naturally). All the other (played) games were drawn hours before, so here are the final standings of the leaders:

1. IM Young 7-2
2. Melekhina 6.5-2.5
3. Pasalic 6-3

You can replay the Pasalic-Shankar marathon (with some comments) here.

While I don't think Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik were ever in the running for best man at the other's wedding, my impression over the years is that they've got along pretty well. Perhaps things are changing in the run-up to their world championship match:

"I have not been on good terms with him, but neither are we enemies"

Thus Anand, in a comment at a Mumbai promotional event. (More here, but not much more.) Can't we all just get along?

HT: jaideepblue

Time for a quick update on the events of international interest.

FIDE World Cup: Every game but one was drawn, but that one game was significant. Wang Yue defeated Sergey Karjakin on the Black side of the Berlin Defense, putting him into a tie for first with Alexander Grischuk at 3.5/5; Radjabov, Gashimov, Kamsky and Adams are half a point behind. As for the Cheparinov "death watch", it has come to an end - he finally got on the scoreboard with a draw against Svidler.

Note: The tournament site has both videos and commentary (in both Russian and English translation) by GM Sergei Shipov.

The European Individual Chess Championship: And then there was one...only Emil Sutovsky continues with a perfect score. His 5-0 mark gives him a half-point lead over Rauf Mamedov, Jan Werle and Sergei Movsesian and a full point lead over 18 others.

Sigeman & Co.: Tiger Hillarp Persson and Daniel Stellwagen lead with 3.5/4, half a point ahead of Lars Bo Hansen. Legends Jan Timman and Lajos Portisch are having a tough time of it so far, with 1.5/4 and 1/4, respectively.

Note: The website offers very brief comments about the games from GM Stellan Brynell.

A quick draw with Chow sewed it up for the youngster, who finishes with 6.5/9. Pasalic is still playing (against Shankar); if he wins, he too gets an IM norm - his third and final one.

In the norm hunt, Alisa Melekhina entered round 8 needing a point in the next two rounds to get the IM norm, half a point for the WGM. She has achieved the latter goal with her drew against Shankar; tomorrow, a draw (or win) with White against Chow will give her the former as well. Mehmed Pasalic, meanwhile, came in needing to win tonight and tomorrow for his IM norm - his third - and did what he needed to tonight, defeating Yuan. Tomorrow he'll have White against Shankar, and if he wins, he's an IM! Good luck to both.

(Tournament site here; games available on monroi.com.)

1. FIDE World Cup (FYI: the tournament site has video reports): There were three decisive games, all relevant to the race for second. Grischuk drew and maintained his half-point lead with 3/4, but the chase pack grew even larger. Despite Carlsen's dropping out of the big tie with a loss to Mamedyarov, Karjakin, Radjabov, Gashimov and Kamsky all drew, reaching 2.5/4. Further, Adams and Wang Yue both won and also reached +1. Half the field of 14 is now in first or second place! Meanwhile, Cheparinov's suffering continues: he's 0/4.

2. European Individual Championship: Yesterday there were still 10 perfect scores; today, only three: Pantsulaia, Sutovsky, and Grigoriants. 13 players have 3.5 out of 4.

3. Sigeman & Co.: Yesterday there were players with perfect - and perfectly bad - scores. No longer. However, almost all the games were drawn, so the relative positions atop the leaderboard remain the same, and Hillarp Persson, Stellwagen and Akesson continue to lead, now with 2.5/3.

Some time ago on this blog, there was a discussion about how lost a position should be before one resigned. One opinion expressed a preference for a delayed resignation, so as to allow amateurs to see how exactly the win ought to be achieved. As a general rule, I'm not sure I agree, but it has to be said that the following example helps my interlocutor's case.



White has just played 81.f6 and Keres resigned. Black is indeed losing, and even if the players weren't more than strong enough to figure out over the board why Black is lost, there had been two adjournments prior to this point. For us, however, it might not be immediately evident. It's a good exercise to work out how White wins this, especially against best defense by Black.

The solution, when you're ready for it, is here.

I was browsing Bobby Fischer’s My 60 Memorable Games earlier tonight, and came across this position and comment, from his 1960 game against former world chess champion Max Euwe:



Here Fischer played 15.Rb1, writing “The innovation. Months before this game I had showed this line to Benko and he suggested this innocent-looking move. Upon looking deeper I found that, horrible as White’s Pawn structure may be, Black can’t exploit it because he’ll be unable to develop his K-side normally. It’s the little quirks like this that could make life difficult for a chess machine. (P. 135, emphasis added.)

It was this last comment that intrigued me. Did Fischer insightfully predict a problem for computer chess, or was this a perhaps understandable but mistaken assessment of what would or wouldn’t be possible for chess engines? I think there are two aspects to evaluating Fischer’s claim. First, do the engines find 15.Rb1? Second, do they evaluate the situation properly? On the first question, Fischer’s conjecture is a failure. Both Rybka (2.3.2) and Fritz (11) found it instantly. Rybka fluctuated for a little while between that move and 15.c4, in terms of absolute preference, but it settled on Fischer’s move soon enough. What about the evaluation? Euwe played 15…Rd8, which Fischer awards a question mark. Fischer recommends 15…Qxb5 instead, asserting that White has “an enduring pull” after 16.Rxb5 Kd6! 17.Rb7 f6 18.Ke2 Kc6 19.Rf7 a5 20.Be3. How do the computers fare on this score?

Here, perhaps, there's a little more difference. The engines both agree with Fischer that White has some pull, but neither seems all that impressed - both evaluate the position as (much) closer to equality than anything substantial for White. (Details here.) So maybe there's a bit of difference when it comes to evaluating long-term factors. Fischer sees that White can torture Black for a long time in the ending, while the computer thinks that as long as everything is pretty safe at the moment, Black is fundamentally okay. Of course, another possibility is that the computer is right, but it can be said that engines do sometimes tend to underestimate long-term possibilities. On the other hand, it's not at all surprising that the computer liked 15.Rb1, as it brings a piece while impeding Black's development. Why wouldn't it be attractive?

Have a look at this incredible story from Chess Live Online - scroll down to the part about the Harper-Weser game. Amazing.

HT: Brian Karen

IM Dave Vigorito, of Challenging the Nimzo Indian and Play the Semi-Slav fame, qualified for the US Championship by winning a strong online event. You can read an interview and replay some of his games from that tournament here.

HT: Dave Vigorito

As mentioned here, the 5th place game in the USCL 2007 Game of the Year Contest was Bhat-Nakamura, and it was quite the battle from start to finish. See for yourself here, as I cover the game for ChessVideos.tv - it's free and available on-demand.

From what I saw, it looked like a very interesting round tonight at the NAFI. The norm hunt came to an end for Yuan, who lost to Amanov, but after a war Melekhina and Pasalic drew. That means Melekhina needs .5/2 for her WGM norm and 1/2 for the IM, while Pasalic needs to win his last two games to get his final IM norm. Here are their pairings for the last two rounds:

Melekhina: Round 8, Black vs. Shankar; round 9, White vs. Chow
Pasalic: Round 8, Black vs. Yuan; round 9, White vs. Shankar

Last week I offered this position



and presented a variation to go with it: 1...Bd8 2.Kb3 Bxa5 3.Bxa5 Kxa5 4.Kc4 Kb6 5.Kd5 Kc7 6.Ke5 Kd7 7.Kxf5 Ke7 8.Ke5 Kf7 9.f4 Ke7 10.f5 Kf7 11.f6 Kf8 12.Ke6 Ke8 13.f7+ Kf8 14.Kf6 h6 15.h4 h5 16.Ke6 and wins.

The initial challenge was to work through the line and see what improvements were possible - there are quite a few. From a practical perspective, the following finesse isn't the most important, but from an instructional and aesthetic point of view it is:

1...Bd6!! Let's assume things proceed as in the original, once White defends the pawn: 2.h3 Bc7 3.Kb3 Bxa5 4.Bxa5 Kxa5 5.Kc4 Kb6 6.Kd5 Kc7 7.Ke5 Kd7 8.Kxf5 Ke7 9.Kf5 Ke7 10.f5 Kf7 11.f5 Kf7 12.f6 Kf8 13.Ke6 Ke8 14.f7+ Kf8 15.Kf6. So far everything is the same, with the seemingly trivial difference that White's pawn is on h3. But that's all the difference in the world, as 15...h5! draws on the spot (16.Kg6 h4 17.Kg5 Kxf7 18.Kxh4=, or 17.Kf6 stalemate; 16.h4 stalemate). (The above is replayable here.)

So the new task (if you don't use an engine or other external helps, it will prove incredibly difficult) is to try to find an improvement for White somewhere after 8...Ke7 in the second line. It's a fantastic exercise if you try it, whether or not you succeed in solving it.

The show goes on without me; let's see how the norm aspirants fared last night. After round 5, which eliminated me, Al Chow and Alexander Stamnov from norm contention, the players who were still eligible were

Mehmed Pasalic (4-1)
Alisa Melekhina (4-1)
Gauri Shankar (3-2)
Yuanling Yuan (1.5-3.5)

At this point, Mehmed needed +1 the rest of the way to achieve his final IM norm; likewise Melekhina, who had already achieved the WIM total and could draw out for the WGM norm. Shankar needed +2 for the IM norm, while Yuan would achieve the WIM norm with a +1 finish. (To spell it out: 6.5/9 = IM norm, 6/9 = WGM norm, 4/9 = WIM norm.)

What actually happened was bad news for three of the hopefuls:

Shankar - Young 0-1
Pasalic - Stamnov 0-1
Yuan - Melekhina 0-1

The first game eliminated Shankar from norm contention (and kept Young tied for first with 5-1), while the second game forces Pasalic to score 2.5 in his last three games. Likewise, Yuan also needs 2.5 from her final three games for the WIM norm, but Melekhina, the revelation of the event, can achieve the IM norm by drawing out.

The relevant pairings for tonight:

Melekhina - Pasalic (a huge game!)
Amanov - Yuan

Here's a quick update on the various GM international events going on.

1. FIDE World Cup, in Baku:

After 3 very exciting rounds, Alexander Grischuk is in clear first place with 2.5/3, closely followed by five players - mostly prodigies: Sergey Karjakin, Teimour Radjabov, Vugar Gashimov, Magnus Carlsen and Gata Kamsky. (Kamsky is already deep in the world championship cycle, but hey, a little overkill never hurt, right? Maybe with a little luck he can eventually qualify to face himself for the title.) In dead last, possibly to Nigel Short's and Vladimir Kramnik's delight, is super-second (and elite GM in his own right) Ivan Cheparinov with a painful 0/3 score. He'll be back.

2. The European Individual Championship in Plovdiv:

After 3 rounds of this gigantic event (337 players), 10 players can still boast of a perfect score: Rauf Mamedov, Emanuel Berg, Sergey Grigoriants, Levan Pantsulaia, Jan Werle, IM Gergely Szabo (all the others are GMs), Sergei Movsesian, Robert Zelcic, Igor Kurnosov and Emil Sutovsky.

3. The 16th Sigeman & Co. Chess Tournament in Malmo:

After two rounds, Daniel Stellwagen, Ralf Akesson and Tiger Hillarp Persson enjoy 2-0 scores; surprisingly, the collectively higher-rated group comprising Vasilios Kotronias, Evgenij Agrest and Jan Timman are languishing at the other end of the scoretables with 0-2 starts.

For your amusement primarily, check out the following entries on the Chess Cafe website:

Part 11 of "A Literary Steinitz Gambit", which shows once again that contemporaries like Fischer, Kasparov, Short and Danailov are utter patzers when it comes to the art of the insult. (Needless to say, Steinitz should not be emulated in this field, only (perversely) admired.)

The "Skittles Room" excerpts volume two of "The Art of Bisguier", discussing the late, great Paul Keres, world champion chicken eater.

In Dutch Treat, Hans Ree recalls the Bohemian lifestyle of the younger Dzindzi and offers some interesting reflections on the recent Russian Team Championship.

Finally, from the pure chess point of view, the monthly Informant column looks at five games that are in the running for the best games of 25 moves or fewer ever published in that periodical. Definitely worth checking out. (N.B. I believe I've covered two of the games in past internet shows, and may present a third one soon.)

They say no one remembers who comes in second; if so, then Johannes Zukertort (1842-1888), loser of the inaugural world championship match in 1886 to Wilhelm Steinitz, is a forgotten man.



That's a pity. He was a great player and, despite dying in his mid-40s, managed to play many beautiful games. His most beautiful game came from his best tournament, the London 1883 event he won with a brilliant score of 22/26, three points ahead of Steinitz, five and a half points ahead of Blackburne, six ahead of Chigorin, etc. That game, against Blackburne, saw a very nice, instructive middlegame plan by Zukertort followed by one of the greatest combinations of the 19th century, and one any contemporary player would be pleased to play.

It's not all spectacle, however. There are strategic and positional ideas we can take from this game and apply to our own efforts, so even if you know the combination, there are still very good reasons to join the crowd tomorrow, Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET. And if you don't know the combination, don't look it up - see if you can figure it out yourself during the show!

The countdown to the US Chess League's 2007 game of the year continues, and this week the first prize-winning game (not to be confused with the game winning first place) has been selected (and eliminated). In fifth place, we have Vinay Bhat's fighting win over Hikaru Nakamura, a dramatic game that saw the underdog (that would be Bhat, just in case there are some very casual fans reading this) fight for the win even when down a pawn and behind by a ridiculous 71 minutes to 1 minute margin on the clock. (There were increments, but still.)

Here's the game, while you can read the judges' comments here. My ChessVideos show on the game will show up sometime later this week.

It's a nice time in chess, as yet another strong tournament is underway. This one, a 10-player round robin, is the Sigeman & Co. event in Malmo, Sweden, which started today and continues (without rest days) through the 30th. Here's the participant list:

GM Daniel Stellwagen, Holland 2621
GM Vassilios Kotronias, Greece 2611
GM Evgeny Agrest, Sweden 2567
GM Jan Timman, Holland 2565
GM Lars Bo Hansen, Denmark 2563
GM Kjetil Lie, Norway 2558
GM Lajos Portisch, Hungary 2523
GM Tiger Hillarp Persson, Sweden 2491
GM Ralf Akesson, Sweden 2466
Axel Smith, Sweden 2428

Round 1 Results:

Timman - Hillarp Persson 0 - 1
Hansen - Portisch ½ - ½
Åkesson - Kotronias 1 - 0
Lie - Smith 0 - 1
Stellwagen - Agrest 1 - 0

Hat tip: Anders Hansen

I barely got any sleep last night (not for want of trying), so with the combination of feeling poorly, playing poorly, and not harming anyone's norm chances, I withdrew (with the organizer's permission). Think of the bright side - there will be a ChessBase show this week.

All I have to say about tonight's game is that I've proved my bona fides as a supporter of women's chess. Sometimes, things just don't work right, and tonight was one of those times. Argh.

Rather than making a lot of little posts, I'm going to economize my time and lump everything together.

Finished Event: The Mecking-Greenfeld match wound up a 2-2 tie - all four games were drawn.

Ongoing Event: The first round of the World Cup event in Baku was spectacular. Most of the games were drawn, but all were hard-fought and interesting, and some (e.g. Svidler's draw) were picturesque to boot.

Fischer: On the ChessBase site (link in the right sidebar), there's a link to an article on the wrangling over Fischer's estate. (An aside: I'm curious if the information there about Russell Targ is correct - I read somewhere else that he was not interested in pursuing claims on Fischer's will on behalf of his nieces.)

How to Analyze: There's a great article by Alex Cherniack ("A Knight's Tale") on the Boylston Chess Club website, in which he analyzes a knight ending he recently lost in great detail. At some later point, I hope to look at his analysis carefully, but the greatest value of the piece is seeing what he did and using it as a model for one's own games. It's a lot of work, sure, but think of the payoff! Not only that, it becomes fun once one gets used to doing it. Best chess article I've seen so far this year.

Here are the links:

Grand Prix in Baku

European Champs in Plovdiv

with a 2.5-1.5 win in the match with Vallejo. On Friday, Vallejo defeated Shirov 3-1 (2 wins, 2 draws), while on Saturday Topalov defeated J. Polgar the first two games, drew the third, and lost the meaningless (because match victory had already been clinched) last game.

Link.

Better! With 1.5/2 today, I'm still alive in the hunt for an IM norm - all I need is 5/5. The first game, with Gauri Shankar, had some strange moments. After my 12th move, I was most concerned with 12...Bxb3 13.axb3 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Bxh4 15.Nxd6. Now 15...f5 looks desirable, but 16.Nxb7 messes that up. After thinking for more than 40 minutes, he played 12...b5. Of course, I could play 13.a3, but without the hanging b-pawn 13...Bxb3 14.cxb3 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Bxh4 16.Nxd6 f5 is much less clear. My knight is beautiful, but Black's pawn center and possibilities like ...f4-f3 could prove annoying.

So after his 40+ minute think, I went on one of my own. 13.Nf5 is met by ...b4, as are most of my moves. For instance, if 13.Rad1, then b4 14.Nd5 Nxe4 and now I looked at all sorts of things like 15.Bxh6 and 15.Nxe7+. The first works nicely on 15...gxh6 (16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Qxe4, and if 17...f5? 18.Nxf5), but is refuted by 15...Bxh4. As for 15.Nxe7+, 15...Qxe7 16.Bxe6 Qxe6 17.Bxh6 is very murky, and I'm not sure about my position after a simple move like 17...f5. Then I looked at 13.Ng6, but rejected it due to 13...Bxb3 14.Nxe7+ (14.Nxf8 Bc4) 14...Qxe7 15.axb3 b4 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 f5. Then, a refinement: 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Ng6, and after 14...Rf7 15.f4 b4 craziness ensues. One possibility: 16.fxe5 bxc3 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.exf6 Nxf6 19.Bd4 cxb2 20.Bxb2 e5, when both sides stand badly.

Anyway, after all that, I went ahead with 13.a3 after all. He continued to play a somewhat slowly the next few moves - 13...Bxb3 14.cxb3 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 (I considered and rejected 15.Nf5 due to 15...Nxc3 16.Qg4 Ne2+ 17.Qxe2 g6 18.Nxh6+, thinking that after the king moved he'd have ...f5 with a beautiful position. But maybe that's not 100% clear - 18...Kh7 (18...Kg7 19.Ng4) 19.Qg4 f5 20.Qh3 Kg7 though the knight's probably a goner for insufficient compensation.) Bxh4 16.Nxd6 and now, to my surprise, almost bewilderment, my opponent quickly played 16...Qf6. If only I had known, I could have saved myself lots of time! I wonder why he didn't play ...f5 - hopefully I'll remember to ask him tomorrow.

After that, the game quickly went into an endgame where I had the winning chances, but both sides made errors aplenty. I'll probably cover it in more detail in a video, but for now let me note that Black had at least one fairly simple drawing opportunity near the end. Instead of 40...Rb1+ followed by 41...g4, attempting to cut off my king, the active 40...Kd5 should hold with ease - i.e. 41.Rc5+ Ke4 42.b5 (42.hxg5 first won't change the evaluation) 42...gxh4 43.gxh4 f4 (threatening 44...Kf3) 44.Kg3 f3+ 45.Kg3 Rb1 and the threat of ...Rg1+ followed by ...Rg2+ ensures the draw. There are plenty of lessons to be learned in this ending, but now's not the time for their extraction.

On to the Chow game, a quick draw. It's not that I wanted a quick draw - if I had, I would have played 12...Kf7. However, after playing 12...Kd8 (hoping to utilize the bishop pair), I only now noticed that after 13.d3 my intended 13...Rf8 would be strongly met by 14.Ng5! The upshot is that I had to play for the draw anyway with 13...Bxf3, but now it's not as comfortable as it would have been after 12...Kf7 13.Nxe5+ Bxe5 14.Rxe5 Rhe8 15.Re3 Rxe3 and now neither 16.fxe3 c4 followed by ...Be4 (if 17.d3, then cxd3 18.cxd3 Ba6 19.d4 Bd3 and ...Be4) nor 16.dxe3 Be4 promises White anything.

I think my play in neutralizing White's potential advantage was pretty accurate. One nice point to show: if Chow had played 15.Re4 (instead of 15.Rb1), I had a nice line prepared: 15...d5 16.Ra4 Re8 17.Kf1 Bxb2! (normally impossible because of) 18.Rb1 Re1+!! 19.Kxe1 Bc3+ 20.Ke2 Rxb1 21.Bd2 (21.Be3?? Re1# is obvious but amusing) Bxd2 22.Kxd2 and now although it might not be best, Black might be able to force a draw with the "tick-tock" 22...Rf1 23.Ke2 Rc1 24.Kd2 Rf1 etc.

Ok, the goal now is to avoid going 0-9. In the first round, I outclevered myself with some bad prep and a fake memory, but while my form wasn't brilliant she played very well for the most part (and indeed, went on to beat an IM in her second game as well). One thing she (and I, when thinking of 9.Rxe4, but afterwards too) missed was that she could have played 12...fxe4, as after 13.Nxc7+ the king doesn't have to go to the d-file. Simply 13...Kf7 14.Nxa8 Bd6 is immediately decisive. I could have played better after that, but the trend was always in her favor and she finished nicely.

In round 2, prep again went out the window, but I was happy with the position I achieved from the opening. My retreat ...Nd7 might have been an error, but I wanted to prevent both Bg5 (as a pin) and Nh4. His Nh2 was a nice move, and when I played ...f5 the position got ragged and scrappy. He was better, but things were murky. I thought that when he traded rooks and played Rf1, he should have played d5; he thought I should have taken on c2 at the first opportunity; he missed Rxg7+ at one point (I think it was when he played Rg4), but that's what happens in a time scramble - we were both down to 1-2 minutes and living off the increments the last 15+ moves of the game.

Only 6.5/7 needed for the norm. :)

Link.

My coverage of the USCL countdown continues here; next week, coverage begins of the money games.

For obvious reasons I won't really be able to cover these events, but that's not from any lack of interest. The first event is well underway, and that's the 4-game Mecking-Greenfeld match. So far there have been two (fairly short) draws, but hopefully after today's rest day they'll come out swinging on the weekend.

The second event, also ongoing, is Dos Hermanas. That rapid event started today and continues through the weekend. In today's match, Vallejo beat Shirov 3-1; tomorrow, Topalov takes on Judit Polgar, with the winner facing Vallejo on Sunday.

Finally, the first of FIDE's Grand Prix tournaments starts on Sunday (which may mean Monday - often announcements of event dates include an opening ceremony taking place on the eve of the first round). Details here.

Here we go again! Starting tomorrow, yours truly will reenter the arena in search of an IM norm. Organized by Sevan Muradian and hosted at Angelo Young's Touch Move Chess Center, the tournament is a 10 player round-robin with the following participants:

IM Mesgen Amanov (TKM)
IM Angelo Young (PHI)
IM Arjun Vishnurvardhan (IND)
FM Mehmed Pasalic (GER)
FM Gauri Shankar (IND)
FM Dennis Monokroussos (USA)
FM Aleksander Stamnov (MKD)
FM Albert Chow (USA)
WFM Alisa Melekhina (USA)
WFM Yuanling Yuan (CAN)

There will be two rounds each on Saturday and Sunday (rounds at 10:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT), then one round a day (at 6:30 p.m.) the rest of the way. The score needed for an IM norm is 6.5/9, and for Melekhina and Yuan there are also the WGM norm (6/9) and WIM norm (4/9) up for grabs.

What will happen? I have no idea, but you'll be able to follow the action on the monroi site (registration required).

American GM Gregory Kaidanov doesn't play as much as he used to, spending most of his time working with students, but when he's on his game he's still a dangerous opponent for almost anyone. This was shown over the past two weeks, as he took clear first in Gausdal with a 7/9 score.

Tournament site here.

For your instruction and entertainment, we have three games from a recent Bundesliga weekend, one from the Ruy Lopez Magistral in Merida, and four from the Russian Team Championship.

Link.

This is the first of a series of posts based on the following position:



It's Black to move, and here's an initial variation to get you started:

1...Bd8 2.Kb3 Bxa5 3.Bxa5 Kxa5 4.Kc4 Kb6 5.Kd5 Kc7 6.Ke5 Kd7 7.Kxf5 Ke7 8.Ke5 Kf7 9.f4 Ke7 10.f5 Kf7 11.f6 Kf8 12.Ke6 Ke8 13.f7+ Kf8 14.Kf6 h6 15.h4 h5 16.Ke6 and wins. (Replayable here.)

Work through the line (but not with your engines, for goodness' sake), see what improvements come to mind, and we'll continue this series soon.

Last week's show covered the famous knight ending from Marco-Maroczy, Kolisch Memorial 1899, and during the show I presented, refuted, and counter-refuted some analysis by Charles Sullivan. (See the comments here.) I think my analysis extends the discussion past what was on his website, but at the end of the day, he's right: Marco could have drawn with 50.Kg1, preventing Black's king from penetrating on the kingside. It will cost White the c-pawn, but that seems to be a loss he can afford. More details here.

Endgame guru Karsten Müller's new column on the Chess Cafe website (permalink here) revisits Bobby Fischer's endgame play, honing in on his 6th game victory in the final Candidates match against Tigran Petrosian in 1971. (But see also the exercises at the end of the article, as well as this earlier Müller column.)

After the discussion on the blog this week (see #s 1 and 2), it's no surprise that Efim Bogoljubow will be the star of this Wednesday's ChessBase show. One of the world's best player in the 1920s and 1930s, his name is familiar to us; his chess, less so. So let's take a step towards remedying this state of affairs by looking at some highlights of his career, at some games that demonstrate his terrific feel for combinations and the attack.

We'll start with excerpts from two of his games. The first, against Jacques Mieses, links "Bogo" with the past and present. The present, in that his adept handling of an attack on all sides of the board demonstrates an ability more common in today's chess; the past, in that the winning combination bears a slight resemblance to a famous Morphy combination against Bird. The second excerpt finds Bogoljubow making, and succeeding, with a speculative sacrifice against none other than his future tormentor, Alexander Alekhine. The sac is unsound, but it worked, and against a very strong opponent.

Finally, the main course is a brilliant win over Rudolf Spielmann. The other games had their flaws, but this is a gem - Bogoljubow's "Immortal Game" if anything is. Guaranteed to cheer you up, or your money back (offer good for live audiences only)!

(Directions for watching the show, which starts at 9 p.m. ET, are here.)

Viswanathan Anand, who said: "Intuition is the first move I think of." Several readers were able to identify the quote, but no one took a bite on the second question from the initial post, which asked for comments on the content of the quotation. Is that both necessary and sufficient to a move's being intuitive? Can't intuition play a role deeper in calculations than the first move that comes to mind? And is 1.e4, for instance, really the product of intuition?

The puzzle was this: Give White a king and three pawns, none of which are doubled, and Black a bare king, and find some arrangement of the forces where it's White to move and the position is still drawn.

And here, again, is the hint: White's king is on h1 and all the pawns are on the kingside.

The solution, at last, is here.

Fabiano Caruana didn't have such a great performance in the Ruy Lopez Magistral in Merida last week, but in the follow-up rapid event he was the star. His score of 7.5/9 was good enough for clear first place, half a point ahead of Michael Adams, Julio Grand Zuniga and IM Khamrakulov.

HT: Chess Today

While we're remembering the old-timers, here is a nice story, available on the Chess Cafe website. (Permalink here.)

As I've noted at least once before on this blog, Veselin Topalov, for all his greatness as a chess player, is most likely to be remembered for his brilliant losses than for any particularly brilliant win. The situation is similar with Efim Bogoljubow (1889-1952), a two-time participant in world championship matches and one of the best players in the world from the mid-1920s through the early 1930s.

For example, there are eight Bogoljubow games in Iakov Damsky's Chess Brilliancy (ingeniously subtitled "250 historic games from the masters", despite the book's including only 219 games), and they're all losses! They are, with replayable links:

B-Alekhine, Hastings 1922
Reti-B, New York 1924
Alekhine-B, Triberg 1921
Rubinstein-B, Vienna 1922
Marshall-B, New York 1924
Verlinsky-B, Leningrad (USSR ch) 1925 (erroneously given as 1924 in the Damsky book)
B-Monticelli, San Remo 1930
B-Ahues, San Remo 1930

Rather a sad form of chess "immortality" for one of the game's historic greats.

This unfortunate spot goes to the Perelshteyn-Charbonneau game; unfortunate because the top 5 games win cash awards and the rest don't. You can read the judges' report here, and check out the comments that might arise the next few days criticizing one judge in particular. (I was by far the harshest critic of the game, finding it neither especially accurate or entertaining - it struck me as one of those "you had to be there" events.)

I'll present this game, along with the 7th place battle between Becerra and Stripunsky (a much better game, in my opinion), in a few days on ChessVideos.tv.

Unfortunately, this one is also googleable, but what can you do? Here it is:

Intuition is the first move I think of.

Who said it, and do you think the quip fully captures the nature of intuition?

The problem, given last Thursday, was this:

Give White a king and three pawns, none of which are doubled, and Black a bare king, and find some arrangement of the forces where it's White to move and the position is still drawn!

Here's a hint: White's king is on h1 and all the pawns are on the kingside. The solution will be given on Tuesday. (Feel free to comment that you got the solution, but not what it is. Thanks.)

Emanuel Lasker. I have before me the tournament book for Hastings 1895, and on page vii there's a table listing the players. Under the column "Country Represented" Emanuel Lasker, the world champion from 1894-1921, is given as representing England. As Outis ponders in his comment to the original post, the only question is whether Wilhelm Steinitz (the first U.S. world chess champion, by the way), beat him to the punch. That depends. If you take Steinitz's reign to date from 1866, then yes; if from 1886 (the consensus view), then no.

...and at the age of 11 or 12. (He was born in 1996, but after a quick web search I was unable to find the month and day.)



I think Nyzhnyk will be available through F.A.O. Schwarz soon. Kidding aside, I think Karjakin's youngest GM record (12 years, 6 months) is in trouble.

Tournament site here.

To be honest, I don't know one team from another in terms of their sponsors, but I do know that a team as loaded as Ural Ekaterinburg is formidable in any venue. The winning team consisted of Radjabov, Shirov, Kamsky, Grischuk, Malakhov and Akopian; with Dreev and Motylev as reserves. Unsurprisingly, they won the event with a round to spare!

Website here, further coverage here, and stay tuned for some games from that event.

Jan Smeets won the closely contested 2008 Dutch Championship with 7.5/11, half a point ahead of Dimtri Reinderman and Daniel Stellwagen, while Peng Zhaoqin won the women's version with a dominating 8/9. Photos and reports can be found here.

Brian Karen brought the following to my attention:

I [E. J. Diemer, writing in the August 1952 issue of Chess - DM] had a conversation with him [Efim Bogoljubow - DM] then of rare seriousness. As if conscious of the nearness of his end, he spoke, on this last occasion, about – Chess Immortality. I discovered at this late hour in his life, and I pass it on as his closing thought, that Bogoljubow wanted his chess to be regarded as an art and himself as an artist. He feared, he said, that not one of his games, even from the great tournament at Moscow in 1925, the zenith of his career, would be deemed worthy of inscription in the scrolls of immortality. So high did he set his ideals. And so sceptically did he look back over his 40 years of masterly endeavour. Luckily the chess world will not share his pessimism. Countless masterpieces of play remain to assure him the immortality he sought.’ (From Edward Winter's Chess Notes, item 5515.)

Sadly, Bogoljubow knew better. Some of his losses are famous (e.g. B-Alekhine, Hastings 1922; Reti-B, New York 1924; and Capablanca-B, Moscow 1925 spring immediately to mind), but I can't think of a single win. Indeed, he's best known for losing two world championship matches to Alekhine - badly - and for a joke and a quip. (The joke, allegedly told by Alekhine, has A. dying and facing St. Peter at the pearly gates, where he's told that chess players don't go to heaven. A. sadly looks around and sees B. and protests, to be told that "Bogoljubow isn't a chess player; he only thinks he is." The quip is B's saying that when he's White, he wins because he's White, and when he's Black, he wins because he's Bogoljubow.)

Rather an unhappy fate for one of the best players of the first half of the 20th century, and one I should rectify on my ChessBase show.

It has been a while since Adams has won a strong round-robin event, but he did it the past couple of weeks in Merida, Spain, at the II Ruy Lopez Magistral. Here are the final standings:

1. Michael Adams (2729, ENG) 5.5 (of 7)
2. Zhang Pengxiang (2640, CHN) 5
3-4. Gabriel Sargissian (2643, ARM), Humpy Koneru (2603, IND) 4.5
5. Fabiano Caruana (2620, ITA [sigh]) 2.5(!)
6-8. Julio Granda Zuniga (2609, PER), WGM Hou Yifan (2549, CHN), IM Manuel Perez Candelario (2537, ESP) 2

Who was the first British World Chess Champion? I'm not counting World Junior Champions (e.g. Tony Miles in 1974) or Howard Staunton (who may have been the best player in the world in 1843 when he defeated Saint-Amant [but definitely wasn't when Anderssen and Morphy rolled around], as there was no title to be had back then).

Some guy named Garry Kasparov turns 45 today. I believe he was once a candidate for the President of Russia, and may have had some connection with the chess world before that. From what I understand, he was apparently pretty good.

Yes or no, readers: Do you think he'll ever play serious chess again?

It has been a long time since Henrique Mecking was relevant to top-level chess, but when he was young and in his prime, he was the real deal. He first won the Brazilian Championship at age 13 and played in his first Interzonal at age 15. He became a GM in his teenage years and was a Candidate in 1974 and 1977. Then he got very sick, and despite the occasional comeback, he has been mostly out of the chess public's eye for nearly 30 years. A pity, really, but it's nice to see that he'll be playing a (short) match with Israeli GM Alon Greenfeld from the 16th through the 20th of this month, with the 18th a rest day.

Website here.

HT: Chess Today

Ilija Golichenko. (Though the year is young - maybe someone will top this.) He's a talented young Ukranian, but despite his FM title (a title given to practically anybody these days), he's going to be in for some ribbing from his friends after failing to deliver checkmate with bishop and knight against bare king. Have a look.

I have some of my games from 1980-1988, when I gave up the game for several years, but plenty are missing. If any of my readers played me or know people who did and have access to the game scores, I'd be grateful if you'd send them along. (Games in databases, from the 1987 Midwest Masters and the 1985 Smith-Morra game vs. Ivanov are among those I've already got; no need to pass those along.)

The quotation was short but amusing:

You spent 20 hours on this?

This was said by Bobby Fischer, to James Sherwin, during the post-mortem of a Soltis-Sherwin game played in the 1963 New York State Open in Poughkeepsie. Fischer played in and won the event, the last Swiss System event of his career, with a 7-0 score, while Sherwin defeated the then up-and-coming Soltis on board three in the last round. The next day, to Soltis's surprise, when he came to the Marshall Chess Club, Sherwin was there and asked him if he wanted to go over the game. Here's how the story continues, as told by Andy Soltis in his book Bobby Fischer Rediscovered (pp.8-9):

We headed to the back room, to the "Capablanca table," to analyze. My second surprise came when Fischer materialized and sat down on my side of the board....Sherwin had been working on this opening (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 e5 Nd5) for months and had spent more than 20 hours on it. But no one had allowed him to show over the board what he'd found until I had the previous day. Even Fischer avoided the issue, playing 3 Nc3 against Sherwin in the previous year's U.S. Championship.

Sherwin presented the moves with a flourish, particularly 15...Bg1, his TN. He really did make moves he was proud of by pushing the piece with his pinky, as Fischer described in the first pages of My 60 Memorable Games. But when matters got interesting, around move 17, Fischer stopped the show by asking, "Whadya got on this?" and moved a White piece. Sherwin had an answer but it was demolished by a few quick Fischer follow-ups. This happened again a move later in the game, and then again. After the fourth time that he'd refuted a Sherwin move, Fischer asked, "You spent 20 hours on this?"

Ouch! (By the way, I was unable to find the game after checking Mega2008, chessgames.com and skimming both Chess Life and Chess Review on disc. Does anyone out there have it?)

This one might be tough if you haven't recently read it (or haven't Googled it - no cheating!), but then again, maybe not. Here it is:

You spent 20 hours on this?

See for yourself.

My latest ChessVideos show (link) presents a game I won many moons ago, and with which I was quite pleased at the time. It's not a bad game, positionally speaking, but as you may see, if you're alert, there might be a mistake lurking in the bushes. See if you can find it (you've already got a leg up - you know there's something to be found), but don't look so hard that you don't enjoy the game for its other merits.

In these days of rating inflation, I'm happy to add my name to the ridiculously bloated list of titled players - behold.

Regular Chess Mind reader Andrey S. writes in with a neat puzzle: give White a king and three pawns, none of which are doubled, and Black a bare king, and find some arrangement of the forces where it's White to move and the position is still drawn! It can be done, believe it or not. I was (painfully) close to solving it without a hint, but didn't actually get it until I received one. We'll do the same here: in a couple of days I'll give the hint Andrey gave me, and then a day later the solution will be provided.

Enjoy it!

Here was the position given in the previous post, with Black to move, from the game Marshall-Chigorin, Barmen 1905:



There were two tasks for the enterprising reader. First, to assess the position; second, to determine what Black ought to play. Got it solved? Click below when you're ready for the answer.

From Marshall-Chigorin, Barmen 1905



It's Black to move. First, assess the position: is White better, Black better, or is it equal? Second, what should Black do? Answers tomorrow.

If you're facing the French Defense and want a draw, then the Exchange Variation is just the thing, right? And just imagine reaching a position like this:



It would appear impossible for any sentient life form to lose such a position, but that's just what happened to White, the very strong master Georg Marco, against Hungarian great Geza Maroczy, in their game from the 1899 Kolisch Memorial. Furthermore, Marco didn't play especially badly, either. Rather, what happened was that Maroczy, a player with a richly deserved reputation as a great endgame expert, managed to outplay him in what GM Andy Soltis once called a game "still regarded as the most beautiful knight-and-pawns ending every played".

Note: it's not just a technical masterpiece, but a beautiful endgame as well, as you'll see. There's opportunism, amusing maneuvers and tactical ingenuity to be found here, and it makes the game altogether worth your while. So I hope you'll join me tonight (Wednesday night) as we examine this wonderful ending. The show is free as always, and starts at 9 p.m. ET. (Directions for tuning in are here. Note that if you can't make it live, the shows can be watched at a nominal cost - directions for watching shows in the archives is also in the aforelinked post.)

During last week's show, one of the games I mentioned while discussing Wilkes-Barre/Traxler theory was Estrin-Nun, and I conjectured that Black was Jiri Nun. This was as error; it turns out that Black was Josef Nun, as you can see in this month's Kibitzer column on the Chess Cafe website. (Permalink here.)

Iranian/American/French IM Kamran Shirazi is one of the craziest players you'll ever come across (referring to his chess, not to the man himself), as anyone who has had the pleasure of facing or watching him on the chessboard will know. A long time ago, back on my previous blog, I offered a tribute post to him, and a couple of days ago IM Mark Ginsburg added one of his own. The above are both worth a look, but have a look here, too.

The judges' report is here and the game itself here. Stay tuned next week, when I'll present this game along with the 6th place finisher on ChessVideos.tv.

Not a report, but a useful link: here. Two games that caught my eye there were Gelfand-Shirov (too bad for Gelfand he has only caught fire at this relatively low-profile event) and Volokitin-Iljushin, but almost all the games on that page (scroll down) merit at least a quick play-through.

Yesterday, I presented this position, which happens to be from a 1962 game between Rudolf Maric and the great Yugoslav GM Svetozar Gligoric:



It's White to move, and the question is whether White should take on c6 or not. In the game White played 18.Bxc6 and resigned just three moves later: 18...Rac8 19.Bb7 Rxc3 20.Rxf5 Rb3!! 0-1. In his book of best games, I Play Against Pieces (Batsford, 2002), Gligoric awards 18.Bxc6 a question mark, and writes, after 18...Rac8, that "I had seen the combination in advance and was just waiting for White to give me the pleasure of delivering the not so difficult, but really effective final blow" (p. 62). And IM Angus Dunnington, in his 2003 book Chess Psychology (p. 70), offers this puzzle under the heading "Expect the Unexpected" and apes Gligoric's punctuation.

Maric can be forgiven for his moves, not seeing 20...Rb3, and maybe Gligoric can be given a pass for seeing the ...Rb3 idea during the game and losing his objectivity. But it's hard to believe that in the 40 years between the game and the writing of his book, Gligoric never took a more careful look, and that Dunnington (or his chess engine, or his editor) didn't either. (Shouldn't a player or at least his editor check analysis before publishing it, at least when the readers are paying for it?) At any rate, Gligoric's (and Dunnington's) punctuation is rubbish. 18.Bxc6 isn't an error but the best move, and it's only White's 19th move that loses. It's easy to miss Gligoric's neat tactical idea, but once one is aware of - if only in retrospect - it's quite simple to go back in analysis and avoid it. There are several reasonable and reasonably obvious alternatives (which I discuss further and rank here), but the real value of this puzzle comes from its (unintended) lessons.

First, there's the oldie but goody: you shouldn't believe everything you read. Second, even the greatest players err, and badly. Third, the game is tactically richer than any of us, and just because we see a beautiful idea doesn't mean that we've found the best move (though in this case Gligoric's moves were the best, even if they're not as strong as he thought) or that our line is somehow forced. As a great man once wrote, "Test everything; hold fast to what is good."

Ljubomir Ljubojevic, and it probably explains why he hasn't played very much the past decade. Here's the quotation again:

I have won many games that have not made me happy; and when I lose, I am also not happy. My friends ask "so when are you happy?" That's the way chess is; you are happy only rarely; the rest is grief.

It's a rather sad quote, but one most competitors can identify with at some point in their lives, myself included. When it does occur, I suggest not playing serious games for a while and trying to remember why one started playing in the first place. Sometimes that's enough to do the trick. One good reason to play competitively (though not when misery predominates) is that it's only in competition that we are really forced to give it our all, to push ourselves to our creative limits. For that chance - the chance to produce something new, and to do something we didn't know we had in us - it is worth going into the battle.

The insanely strong* Russian Team Championship is underway**, and many interesting games have been played. I've only looked through a few of them, but already there are more than enough games deserving further attention. Here are six (without notes) you may wish to examine:

1. van Wely-Kamsky: An impressive domination game from Kamsky on the Black side of a Grünfeld.

2. Gelfand-Alekseev: In case you were starting to forget that Gelfand was capable of playing strong, interesting chess, you'll find a wake-up call here. Gelfand breaks through his 2700+ opponent's queenside defenses by sacrificing first a rook and then the exchange.

3. Morozevich-Karpov: Morozevich's opening experiments distract many from recognizing him as one of the best endgame players in the world, but his slow technical win against Karpov (110 moves!) demonstrates his prowess in the last phase of the game.

4. Eljanov-Kamsky: Eljanov did a nice job in the opening, obtaining a nice edge against one of Kamsky's typical rope-a-dope Slavs. As usual, Kamsky's very patient play kept Eljanov's edge manageable, but when the board opened up after 29...b6, it was Eljanov who did the better job of handling the lively position that resulted.

5. Rublevsky-Zvjaginsev: Very creative play by Rublevsky, but carefully neutralized by his opponent until the very last move.

6. Ponomariov-Ivanchuk: Our last game finds Ivanchuk outplaying his young countryman in a classic IQP middlegame, going on to win a nice ending.

Games here.

* How strong? See the table on this page.

** There's some useful English-language coverage here.

That is the question White must answer: can he safely play 18.Bxc6?



There's a bit of Vizzini in this: there seems to be an obvious reason why White can't, but then you'll find a a reason why it seems he can, but then...and so on. Obviously looking up the game is a bit of skullduggery, and using an engine is even worse. Those who do neither are more than welcome to comment, and I'll offer the sober truth of the matter tomorrow (if only to present on a replayable board what has been discovered by my astute readers).

Not a cheery quote, but one most of us can identify with at least some of the time:

I have won many games that have not made me happy; and when I lose, I am also not happy. My friends ask "so when are you happy?" That's the way chess is; you are happy only rarely; the rest is grief.

After three draws in their hard-fought match, Irina Krush convincingly won the last game to win the 1st North American Match Challenge. Congratulations to Krush, and thanks to Sevan Muradian for his work in promoting chess in the midwestern United States.

Nothing significant, but I just noticed that the database for this blog has just reached 2008 entries. That's a lot of blogging and analysis!

I mentioned Kramnik's then-pending two board simul a few days ago; it's now over and he won it, 2-0, defeating GM Jan Werle and IM (and near-GM) Marie Sebag. It's impressive, but nearly as impressive as some of Kasparov's simuls. (Most notably Kasparov vs. the Israeli national team. He played the four boards, taking two White on two boards and Black on the others, then faced them again with each player switching colors. Kasparov went +2 =2 the first round, and +4 =0 in the second.)

The event website is here, and the games are here.

HT: Chess Today

Holland may be a small country in terms of area, but in chess it's a mighty power with a great history. They're holding their national championship (photos and reports here, in English) in Hilversum now, and Friso Nijboer is the early leader with 2/2.

A game from the first round - Smeets-Reinderman - caught my eye, from a variation of the Open Ruy invented by Igor Zaitsev and famously played in two world championship matches - its debut in Karpov-Korchnoi, 1978 and its absolute high point in Kasparov-Anand, 1995. I knew it was theory pretty far in, so I wondered if this 28-move draw (by perpetual check) simply repeated pre-existing theory. The novelty came on move 24, but what was surprising is that Black improved, or "improved", on an earlier game Black won in 32 moves! Here's the position before Reinderman's novelty:



It's Black to move, and he played 24...c2, threatening both 25...Bxa1 and 25...d1Q. White's situation would be dire, if he didn't have the neat tactical resource 25.Rxa6!, with the point that 25...d1Q, as played by Reinderman, allows perpetual check starting with 26.Ba7+ Kc8 27.Bd4!. White threatens 28.Ra8#, and moves like 27...Qxf1+ change nothing after 28.Kxf1. Black will have to play ...Kb8 sooner or later, and that's what happened: 27...Kb8 28.Ba7+ Draw.

This looks neat enough, but what about the stem game, won by Black? That was Burnett-Becerra, from a 2006 USCL clash, and there (going back to the diagram position) Black played 24...Rhe8. Now there are two questions: (1) Why can't White go for the same perpetual? and (2) How did the game finish? The answer to the first question makes for a nice mini-quiz, and I recommend you try to solve it before proceeding.

The identity of the 9th and 8th place finishers in the U.S. Chess League 2007 Game of the Year contest have already been revealed, but those games secrets haven't been, at least not until now. I've analyzed them in a combined presentation for ChessVideos.tv, and now we can say that their secrets...still haven't been fully revealed. Still, the video should help, and as the games are instructive and entertaining, it's worth your while to have a look. Enjoy!

Here's a very nice story, about a 1500 who deservedly won a brilliancy prize in 1974, and in a tournament with IMs and GMs. Enjoy the tale and especially the game.

Fresh off the presses - with the root source here. The top 100, with lots of fun details, is here, while I'll further abbreviate with the highlights below.

Players over 2700:

1 Anand, Viswanathan 2803
2 Kramnik, Vladimir 2788
3 Morozevich, Alexander 2774
4 Topalov, Veselin 2767
5 Carlsen, Magnus 2765
6 Aronian, Levon 2763
7 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar 2752
8 Radjabov, Teimour 2751
9 Svidler, Peter 2746
10 Leko, Peter 2741
11 Ivanchuk, Vassily 2740
12 Shirov, Alexei 2740
13 Karjakin, Sergey 2732
14 Adams, Michael 2729
15 Kamsky, Gata 2726
16 Gelfand, Boris 2723
17 Ponomariov, Ruslan 2719
18 Grischuk, Alexander 2716
19 Jakovenko, Dmitry 2711
20 Alekseev, Evgeny 2711
21 Polgar, Judit 2709
22 Bu, Xiangzhi 2708
23 Bacrot, Etienne 2705
24 Ni, Hua 2703

Anand again enjoys the trifecta: world champion, #1 on the list, and over 2800. Well done! Also very impressive is Carlsen's reaching #5 in the world, putting some space between him and fellow 1990er Karajkin. (Of course, it didn't help Karjakin that he didn't play in any rated events in this time period.) On the down side, Ivanchuk has fallen out of the top 10, but just barely; it's likely that he'll be back. Generally speaking, the list comprises the usual suspects, with the exceptions of the Chinese players Bu Xiangzhi and Ni Hua, both of whom had been had been close but never previously over 2700. (Wang Yue had been, but he's down to 2689 at the moment.)

Top U.S. Players:

15. Kamsky, Gata 2726
34. Nakamura, Hikaru 2686
56. Onischuk, Alexander 2664
87. Shabalov, Alexander 2633
96. Seirawan, Yasser 2630

Old and Crispy: (Players my age and up)

44. Bareev, Evgeny 2677
46. Nikolic, Predrag 2674
54. Georgiev, Kiril 2665
58. Short, Nigel 2660
66. Karpov, Anatoly 2655
79. Beliavsky, Alexander 2641
96. Seirawan, Yasser 2630
100. Khalifman, Alexander 2628

Noteworthy Others:

The most noteworthy player not listed above is the young Chinese girl Hou Yifan, who just turned 14 and sports a 2549 rating, higher than than anyone else her age - probably by a significant margin, too. Also, your blogger has reached 2327 - nothing spectacular, but certainly much better than it was before I started playing again.

Forget Tal and Fischer, Topalov and Kasparov when you're looking for excitement; what you want to see is a game between Van de Loo and Hesslin! Our game this week has all you could hope for in a tactical game: an insane opening, one sac after another, a steel king and pawn races.

Who are these guys, you wonder? Van de Loo is/was a master from the Netherlands; Hesslin, on the other hand, appears to be a German player whose only appearance in the annals of chess history was this game, played in a weekend tournament in 1983. Yet with a game like this, who needs further credentials? Watch and be amazed. (The show is free and takes place at the customary day and time and in the usual place: Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET on the Playchess.com server. Detailed directions are here.)

According to a report in Russian-language sources, a former Kasparov second, speaking on condition of anonymity, admitted that Bobby Fischer was right when he claimed that Kasparov and Karpov fixed games in their world championship matches.

"The games between Garik and Tolya were as scripted as American wrestling", he said, adding that the storyline was played out to maximize the drama and above all, the payout. "Those two got incredibly rich from those matches. The only drawback was that they had to pretend not to like each other. In reality the two were very close friends, and had it not been for their invented feud they'd have been best man at each others' weddings and godparents of the others' children."

More details as they emerge.

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

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

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

Finek: Svidler, Navara, Zvjagintsev, Movsesian

SSM Moscow: Onischuk, Krasenkow, Asrian

Economist1: Alekseev, Ni Hua, Eljanov

Economist2: Kornev, Dyachkov, Shaposhnikov

Shatar-Metropol: Bu, Gashimov, Amonatov

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

Tomsk 400: Morozevich, Karjakin, Yakovenko, Van Wely

Yuzhny Ural: Karpov, Korchnoi, Spassky

Politekhnik: Bocharov, Efimenko, Areshchenko

TPS-Saransk: Ivanchuk, Volkov, Volokitin

Ural: Kamsky, Radjabov, Shirov, Grischuk, Akopian

Spasio-Swiss Moscow: Mamedyarov, Ponomariov, Tkachiev

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