The Chess Mind

If so, submit them here. You'll have to sign up for a ChessVideos.tv account if you don't already have one (it's free), and post the game in PGN, and then your game can be one of the lucky ones chosen.

Two days early! Here are the top 20, though for those of you who have kept up with the Live Top List*, none of this is exactly a surprise:

1. Topalov 2791
2. Morozevich 2787
3. Ivanchuk 2786
4. Carlsen 2786
5. Anand 2783
6. Kramnik 2772
7. Aronian 2757
8. Radjabov 2751
9. Leko 2747
10. Jakovenko 2737
11. Wang Yue 2736
12. Adams 2734
13. Movsesian 2732
14. Mamedyarov 2731
15. Karjakin 2730
16. Kamsky 2729
17. Svidler 2727
18. Shirov 2726
19. Eljanov 2720
20. Gelfand 2719

Here's the women's top 10 (give or take 1):

1. Ju.Polgar 2711
2. Koneru 2618
3. Hou Yifan 2578 (Note: born in 1994, she's #1 on the girls' list and just missed the top 20 juniors list. She's almost surely #1 among all players born in 1994 or later.)
4. Xie Jun 2574
5. Cramling 2550
6. Stefanova 2548
7. Sebag 2533
8. Kosteniuk 2525
9. Zhao Xue 2518
10. Danielian 2513
11. T.Kosinsteva 2513

Moving on to the kiddies (U-20), the top 10 looks like this:

1. Carlsen 2786 (b. 1990)
2. Karjakin 2730 (1990)
3. Vachier-Lagrave 2716 (1990)
4. Wang Hao 2696 (1989)
5. Caruana 2640 (1992)
6. R. Mamedov 2631 (1988)
7. Kuzubov 2622 (1990)
8. Li Chao 2622 (1989)
9. Nepomniachtchi 2616 (1990)
10. Zhou Jianchao 2612 (1988)

(1990 was quite the year for hatching prodigies!)

The full lists and still more data can be found here.

* N.B. There are some discrepancies between the new FIDE list and the Live Top List. The reason is that the latter is kept up-to-date, while the former (with few exceptions) cuts off events played in the last month.

(Spice, cups, and china: are we talking about chess or dinner? Let's assume it's chess; after the post I can think about dinner.)

Varuzhan Akobian and Leonid Kritz were tied at the beginning of the last round of the SPICE Cup; conveniently, they were paired. Akobian had White, but with his safety-first approach was unable to get anything going, and the game was a fairly short draw. Four players entered the last round half a point behind, and two of them - Pentala Harikrishna and Alexander Onischuk - managed to win. That left the four of them tied for first (with 5.5/9), and Harikrishna had the best tiebreaks.

Russia-China: at last I understand the scoring! The overall totals are irrelevant. What counts are the team scores, by gender and time control. Thus after the classical games, the score was 1-1, because the Chinese men beat their Russian counterparts 14.5-10.5, while the Russian women returned the favor with a 13.5-11.5 tally. After the rapid games, the Russian team led 2.5-1.5 overall, because the Russian men won 28-22 while the womens' teams drew 25-25. Finally, in the blitz the Chinese men drubbed the Russian men 14-6, but a narrow 11-9 win by the Russian women meant that the Russian team won the match by a 3.5-2.5 score.

I've attached a game from the last round of the SPICE Cup, a win by Onischuk over Hannes Stefansson. A lively opening turned into a complex, tactically wild middlegame, and then resolved into a rook ending where Onischuk pulled out an elegant win. It's unannotated, but trying to figure things out it's not a bad exercise for the reader. (And if you're interested only in entertainment, I think the game succeeds on that level as well.)

ND's record for the year: 3-1.

Next week's victim: Stanford.

Once more, with feeling:

When many of hear or read the phrase "the superfluous piece" - especially "the superfluous knight", we think about über-trainers Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov and their discussion of positions like this:



This position is from the game Zukertort-Blackburne, London 1883. Zukertort went on to win in spectacular fashion, but his decision to play 13.f3 here was a small inaccuracy. The point here is that Black's knights are doing the job of one, as they are competing for the same squares rather than complementing each other. One knight is thus superfluous. White's best move, therefore, as Yusupov points out in Secrets of Chess Training (p. 68), was the paradoxical 13.Nb1!, avoid the exchange and threatening f3 followed by Nc3 and a well-timed e4.

That's the sort of "superfluous piece" we're more familiar with, but there are other ways in which a piece can be just so much excess baggage. In the latest issue of New in Chess Magazine (2008/6), Grandmaster of endgame composition Oleg Pervakov has a wonderful article entitled "Superfluous pieces and how to jettison them (Part 1)." He starts the article with some real-game examples to illustrate the concept, but I think it will be best for our purposes to start with the first (and easiest) study he provides:


D. Gurgenidze 1988
White to play and win.

(You may wish to try to solve this on your own; when you're ready to read on, click below.)

Our series on bishop vs. knight endings concludes (at least for now) with a pro-bishop example. Taken from a 4.Qc2 Nimzo-Indian game of mine from the late 90s, it can be divided into two unequal halves. The first part of the game offered a good demonstration of how to exploit the advantage of the bishop pair, while the second part is more useful in a negative way, displaying a number of pitfalls one can fall victim to in the realization of an advantage. Both parts are very instructive in their different ways - have a look!

In just two hours, Notre Dame will take on and dismantle their in-state rivals from Purdue. For a pre-game show, have a look here. To further whet your appetite, we have a great historic moment in the rivalry (complete with cheesy 70s sports music):



And of course, there's nothing like the Notre Dame victory march to get one in the proper mood:

A Chessdom editor and a revised edition of Chess Today informed me that the original form of the Bulgarian Chess Federation letter (referred and linked to in this post) was erroneous. The revised version can be found here. The gist is the same (that the match location still needs to be determined, the contracts need to be worked out and signed prior to the start of Anand-Kramnik), but there are two differences of detail. One is minor and unimportant, the other more significant. The small point is that the first version asserted that the original deadline for setting the match conditions was June 1; the revision says it was July 1. More importantly, the Anand-Kramnik contest is now acknowledged as a world championship match.

I wasn't sure about the scores yesterday, but Chess Today reports that with the slow and rapid games finished, and the blitz games coming today, Russia leads in the overall score by a 53-47 margin over the Chinese team. This is thanks to a strong rapid performance by the Russian men, who lead 28-22; the women's teams are tied at 25 apiece.

Unfortunately for the norm aspirants, this was perhaps the strongest tournament in the NA FIDE Invitational series. Five of the ten players were IMs (technically four, but the fifth has earned the title and will receive it officially in a month or two), one of whom is "super"-IM Ben Finegold, who has two GM norms and has had a GM-level rating for years. Despite the extraordinary strength at the top, FM Florin Felecan was in the norm hunt for much of the event, but was unable to keep it up all the way to the finish. But he was hardly alone - only one IM was able to achieve the IM norm standard in this event!

Here are the final results:

1. IM Kuderinov 7.5(!) (out of 9)
2-3. IM Tate, IM Finegold 5.5
4-6. FM Felecan, IM-elect Pasalic, FM Stamnov 4.5
7. IM Young 4
8. NM Tennant 3
9. NM Koo 2.5
10. Baumgartner 1

N.B. These numbers don't add up correctly - there's an extra half-point dangling somewhere. When I find corrected totals, I'll update this.

Tournament site here, games replayable on Monroi.

The following link was sent by reader and regular commenter Jaideepblue:

Bulgarian Chess Federation with yet another protest about Topalov - Kamsky

According to this protest letter by the President of the Bulgarian Chess Federation, everything is in perfect shape for the upcoming match between Topalov and Kamsky except that there is no location, the dates aren't set and the contracts are unsigned. This seems strange, as although I don't know if the players have received or signed any contracts, this FIDE press release sets a time and place for the match. Also strange (as Jaideepblue noted in his email to me), though in a different way, is the BCF President's referring to both this match and the Anand-Kramnik matches as "semi-finals". There's a sense in which that's true, of course, as the winner of T-Ka plays the winner of A-Kr, but the latter match is, and the former is not, a world championship match in its own right, all by itself.

So what's going on? Will the Topalov-Kamsky match take place? And is the problem Ilyumzhinov or the Bulgarian crew? (Or both? I'm reminded of something Botvinnik said when he was asked who he'd rather be stranded with on a desert island, Karpov or Kasparov. His answer: I'd rather be alone.)

UPDATE: The translation linked to above was apparently a mistaken one; a better translation has since been released. (See this post for a summary of the changes, and read the corrected translation here.)

First, the China-Russia match. There's no official site, TWIC is a couple of days behind and I can't read Russian, but my use of an online translation leads me to think the current score is 41-41. Andrey, Mikhail Golubev or other Russian readers are welcome to set things straight if I've gotten it wrong.

Zoltan Almasi and Csaba Balogh made it to the final match of the Hungarian Championship, and I wasn't sure who to root for. I'm a fan of part of Almasi's repertoire, while I drew with Balogh in an online tournament a few years ago. These incredibly deep motivations nearly canceled each other out, which is probably why the match was settled in a tiebreaker won by...Almasi.

SPICE Cup: After 6 (of 9) rounds, Victor Mikhalevski and Varuzhan Akobian are tied for first with 4 points, but four players (Julio Becerra, Alexander Onischuk, Leonid Kritz and Pentala Harikrishna) are just half a point behind.

Both are interesting and worth your time. One article takes a look back at Indian GM Humpy Koneru's tough semi-final loss to Hou Yifan at the recently completed women's world championship. What went wrong? Some possible answers are floated by the author, but I think Anand's very gracious comments at the end will probably prove the best balm for Humpy's heartbreak.

The second article recaps another Rybka odds match, this time against 2705-rated Swiss GM Vadim Milov. Milov won 4.5-3.5 overall, going .5-1.5 in the two games where the only handicap was his having White; going 1.5-.5 when he had pawn and move; and scoring 2.5-1.5 with exchange odds. It was a good match, especially since Milov did a nice job of avoiding a common pitfall against the computer, to wit, accidental self-destruction. (The games are here, on the ChessBase site.)

In 1939, both Paul Keres (1916-1975) and Vassily Smyslov (1921- ) were young men near the start of their chess careers. Keres had just burst on the world scene the past year or two, while Smyslov was about a year from making his mark as a leading Soviet player. Neither player was as strong as he eventually would be (though Keres might have been fairly close at that point), but they were already very strong and great battlers.

That tremendous strength and fighting spirit is evident in their game from a 1939 training tournament in Moscow and Leningrad, though to judge from the opening alone one might not have expected much. The opening was a Queen's Gambit Declined, and Black's inaccurate handling left White with a small but persistent positional advantage. One might expect a long maneuvering game in prospect, but Keres found a way to sharpen the play - dramatically. With sacrifices left and right, the Estonian legend threw everything into an attack on Smyslov's king, and yet the younger man defended with equal brilliance for quite a while. All it took was a single error, and under the heavy and sustained pressure of Keres' attack, Smyslov finally went awry.

Despite the error, the game does credit to both players, and is a real pleasure for those of us who will be watching. Also, the low-tech opening makes this game especially valuable to U-2000 players, who may not understand why some of the commonplace finesses of the Queen's Gambit Declined matter. This show will go some way towards clarifying the mysteries of that opening, before we reach the joyful middlegame between these gladiators of the chessboard.

I hope - no, I expect! - to see everyone join in the fun tonight (Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET); the show is free, after all, and it's easy to watch: Log on to the Playchess server, enter the Broadcast room, and click on Keres-Smyslov game in the games tab at the relevant time. (Further directions here, if necessary.)

See you there!

Two and a half articles caught my eye this week at the Chess Cafe. First, there's Hans Ree's article (good as always) on Viktor Kortchnoi (sic! - see the article for details) and chess videos. (Permalink here.)

Next, there's a review of the first ChessBase disk on Viswanathan Anand, by Viswanathan Anand. (Incidentally, there's a second autobiographical Anand disk - more on it here.) It's not that the review is especially interesting (nor is there anything wrong with it), but that it whets the appetite for the work reviewed.

And finally, for you crazy Dragoneers, crazy Stefan Bücker* has an article entitled "The Chinese Dragon Refuted?" (permalink here). It must be said that someone who plays the kinds of things Bücker does is almost a priori prohibited from saying that any opening line is refuted (with one obvious exception), but fortunately his (implicit) conclusion is that it's not.


* For the humor-impaired and those for whom English is a second (or third, fourth, etc.) language, I don't mean that Dragon aficionados or Stefan Bücker are literally crazy. I'd even wager that some people who play the you-know-what Gambit are sane, but I'd keep them away from sharp objects just in case.

If you're looking for lessons, whether on a regular basis or as an occasional tuneup to work on some fine points, you've come to the right place. (At least if you're not yet a titled player.) Lessons in person (if you're in the Michiana area), online, email and video are all possible. If you're interested, drop me a note here and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

From regular reader and chess history buff Brian Karen comes this fascinating letter (also published in Chess Today):

I noticed this clause in the 'Rules and Regulations' for the Steinitz - Zukertort match of 1886. If only we had such conditions for Topalov - Kramnik and other recent matches :):

"While the match is pending the players shall be required to observe a gentlemanly behavior toward each other in their personal bearing and language, as well as in their communication direct or indirect, whether of a private character or intended for publication. Should any report, interview, or other information during the match, appear in the press, which may unjustly affect either player, then the two Umpires, or the Referee, may require a public disavowal or contradiction of any such unjust allegation, in any manner they may deem proper, to be made by one or both players. If, however, any ungentlemanly aspersion, reflecting on one of the players, be traced to his opponent directly or indirectly, the latter may be required to publish an apology and shall be subject o a fine of not less than ten dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, at the discretion of the Referee."

In fairness, Steinitz and Zukertort quarreled vehemently in the years leading to their match. But as the February 4, 1886 St. Louis Dispatch reported - "Steinitz has been attacking Zukertort bitterly in his chess magazine the past six months, but since they have been playing in this match they have been growing more friendly and Joseph says that Steinitz called his opponent "Zukey" yesterday.

In Garry Kasparov's new book on his early battles with Anatoly Karpov, he devotes a significant amount of space to the termination of their first match. He argues that the match was stopped for Karpov's benefit, and that this happened at the behest of Russian chess authorities in cahoots with (or at least through exerting pressure upon) then-FIDE President Florencio Campomanes. As I noted in my review of this book, not everyone accepts Kasparov's conclusions or the arguments given for those conclusions, and I therefore suggested that readers seek out alternative accounts of the match's termination.

A good place to start your reading is with this recent post by chess historian Edward Winter. In it, he claims that Kasparov's comments don't represent anything new, and in the two articles he links to he lists problems with Kasparov's old arguments. If you're interested in those old controversies, it's well worth your time to read Winter.

HT: Brian Karen

The biggest event at the moment is the Russia-China match, which stars six players over 2700. After four rounds, China leads 22-18, and surprisingly it's because the men have been winning so far by a 12-8 margin; the women's teams have split 10-10. A few days ago I didn't have a website to report, but now there are at least two places to report: the official site (in Russian), and this section of TWIC's front page.

Next up, a very strong tournament in the United States (at least by U.S. standards): the SPICE Cup at Texas Tech University. German GM Leonid Kritz leads after three round with 2.5 points; the top US competitor thus far is Varuzhan Akobian, with 2.

Finally, FM Florin Felecan was the weekend's success story at the 15th North American FIDE Invitational, jumping out to a 3-1 start (though losing in round 4 to Stamnov), putting him in contention for his second IM norm. As noted in this post, it's an awfully tough field, so he'll really have to earn it.

In a recent post, we presented this position from the game Jan Werle - Peter Wells, Staunton Memorial 2008; it's White to move:



It's not surprising to discover that White can win this, but the winning move should give you a little surprise. When you're ready to see the solution and the game's conclusion, click here.

If you followed the Staunton Memorial this past August, you might have come across the very interesting game between Jan Werle and Peter Wells. If not, you're in for a treat.



Black has just played 24...f6-f5, and although his position looks precarious, the knockout blow isn't immediately obvious. Furthermore, Black has some hopes of his own: the bishop on e6 is loose, protected only by a pinned knight on d4. The ...f4 advance is coming too, so the initial appearance of a big White advantage might be an illusion.

Is it? See if you can work out the answer (but please don't comment your findings); in a day or so I'll post the game's impressive finish.

Next victim: Purdon't.

As the title ever so subtly indicates, this is the second in a series of video presentations covering the perennial topic of knights against bishops. In the abstract, the pieces are of approximately equal value, but until one plays a purely abstract game of chess, that very general assessment won't be of much value. So we learn through experience what sorts of positions favor one piece or another, and how best to wield each piece - and the rest of our army - in those particular position-types.

Fortunately, the experience doesn't have to be our own - it's best to learn from others, when possible. Last week I showed some relatively basic knight vs. bishop endings; this time around, there's just one ending and it's a bit more sophisticated (though still accessible to anyone reading this blog). One of the strengths of the knight is its ability to blockade, and that strength is highlighted by an opposing bishop's inability to touch squares of the opposite color. This simple fact has far-reaching implications, allowing the side with the knight defensive possibilities one might not have expected. Case in point: the game I cover in this week's show, where I escape near-certain loss by the skin of my teeth.

So whether you watch for the instruction or the drama, or for the special preview of things to come near the end of the presentation, I do hope you'll tune in! The show is free, available on demand, requires no special software and can be viewed here.

In my ChessBase show from six weeks ago, I presented a Smyslov-Karpov game in which both players missed a known tactical trick that gives White a large advantage.



Here Smyslov played 14.Bg5, but 14.d5! exd5 15.Bg5! would have given him a serious advantage. Not surprisingly, if two players of that caliber could miss that trick, there's a good chance that more ordinary players will, too. As an example, here's a recent game between Spanish IM Manuel Granados Gomez and Georgian GM and erstwhile Anand second Elizbar Ubilava from the Spanish Team Championship earlier this month.



It's White to move, and he chose the very natural 14.Rfd1. There are some differences between this game and Smyslov-Karpov, but once again the dynamic advance of the d-pawn carries the day: 14...d4! See if you can figure out the lines yourself, and then have a look at the game in full, with my notes, here.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a website for the Russia-China match, but Chess Today reports that after the first two rounds the score is 10-10. If anyone does know the website (assuming there is one), please post it in the comments.

Also, the 15th North American FIDE Invitational starts tomorrow (Saturday) in Chicago (more precisely, it's in Skokie, which is a Chicago suburb), and it's a remarkably top-heavy affair - 5 of the 10 participants are IMs. The players are:

IM Ben Finegold (USA)
IM Kirill Kuderinov (KAZ)
IM Emory Tate (USA)
IM Angelo Young (PHI)
IM-elect (FM) Mehmed Pasalic (GER)
FM Florin Felecan (USA) - holds 1 IM norm
FM Aleksander Stamnov (MKD)
Oliver Koo (USA)
Steve Tennant (USA)
Chris Baumgartner (USA)

The games will be available live on the MonRoi website.

Here, in today's Wall Street Journal.

Bilbao was the big deal for we the fans, but other events were going on, too, some of them pretty significant in their own right. Let's note three of them:

First, Artyom Timofeev won the Russian Championship Higher League in Novokuznetsk. Despite the grandiose and misleading title, it's (just) a qualifier for the Russian Championship "Superfinal"; in other words, for the Russian Championship. That starts in a couple of weeks. I'm not sure how many people qualify from the RCHL to the RCS - maybe one of the Russian-savvy readers can help out here - so I'll present the finishers of the top three score groups.

1. Timofeev 8 (of 11)
2-3. Vitiugov, Inarkiev 7.5
4-11. Lastin, Sakaev, Kobalia, Riazantsev, Galkin, Maslak, Najer, Grachev 7

Second, Jan Werle won the European Union Championships (not to be confused with the stronger European Individual Championships) in Liverpool, England with an impressive 8/10; Viktor Laznicka, Michael Adams and Nigel Short (of cell phone fame) finished half a point behind.

Finally, an event strangely labeled the Women's World Chess Championship just finished in Nalchik, Russia. Alexandra Kosteniuk won this knockout tournament, defeating 14-year-old Hou Yifan in the final match by a 2.5-1.5 margin. It's a fine achievement by Kosteniuk, but with none of the Georgian players participating and several other players boycotting out of solidarity, the field was considerably weakened. (The list of invited players declining their invitations is long: Maia Chiburdanidze, Lela Javakhishvili, Sopio Gvetadze, Maia Lomineishvili, Sopiko Khukhashvili, Nino Khurtsidze, Tea Bosboom Lanchava, Karen Zapata, Marie Sebag, Irina Krush and Ekaterina Korbut.) Judit Polgar never plays in these events, and former champions Susan Polgar, Xie Jun and Zhu Chen all sat out. With so many top players sitting it out, hers isn't a title that can even pretend to give her the title of the strongest female player in the world. (For those quick to take offense on Kosteniuk's behalf, I of course grant those absences aren't Kosteniuk's fault, and her win was a fine and impressive achievement.)

During my coverage of the eighth round of the Grand Slam Final, I wrote this:

The upcoming world championship match is looking increasingly disappointing. At the start of the year, Anand and Kramnik were tied atop the rating list, and the match looked like the culminating moment in their careers. The two greatest players of the past dozen or so years not named Kasparov were finally having at it for ultimate bragging rights in the chess world. Now they're numbers five and six in the world, and both players are entering the match with poor results. What was an EVENT is in danger of becoming just another interesting battle between elite players.

My point wasn't that Anand and Kramnik had become bums, but that, at the moment, they have dropped and become part of the pack. They haven't really been passed by the pack either - they're more like riders who had broken away, but have since been absorbed back into the peleton. They're still great players; but they've been out of form lately and (even leaving that aside) have lost their dominance. Compare that sentiment with this one, from the ever-gracious Veselin Topalov, who, ten seconds after returning to the top of the rating list after a couple of lousy years, had this to say:

Q: Are you going to watch the Anand-Kramnik match? A: Of course I will analyse the games from this match, but let me confess, the match between no.5 and no.6 is not of that much interest for me. Kramnik is not the best player even in Russia. Morozevich, who won the Tal Memorial game vs. him, also topped him in the rating list. And Anand in Bilbao was a shadow of former great player. [N.B.: That's a Babelfish translation of part of a Sport Express interview, courtesy of Jaideepblue. Russian readers are strongly urged to correct any serious mistakes in that translation.]

These are strange comments from Topalov. First of all, didn't he learn anything from the run-up to his match with Kramnik? He had all sorts of demeaning things to say then, too, and all it did was motivate Kramnik further. Since both Anand and Kramnik enjoy (big) plus scores against Topalov, it's not as if he's going to intimidate them.

Second, while Topalov has finally regained his form and tops the rating list and leads Anand by a whopping seven points, I guess he's forgotten about the rest of the year. In Wijk aan Zee, Anand only came in third, half a point out of first, but he was a point and a half ahead of Topalov. In Morelia/Linares, Anand came in first, a point ahead of Topalov. So while Bilbao was a real stinker for Anand, Topalov's rather condescending and dismissive remarks make a lot of sense only if we have reason to believe that Bilbao was representative of Anand's current abilities.

I expect a Topalov victory against Kamsky later this year (though I won't shed any tears if the opposite result occurs), but think he will lose to the winner of the Anand-Kramnik match (hopefully very badly).

One of the first great American players was Frank Marshall (1877-1944). His fame continues to the present day on account of his gambit in the Ruy Lopez, and his contributions to opening theory go far beyond that one idea. He was the shock winner of the very strong Cambridge Springs tournament of 1904, U.S. Champion from 1909 to 1936, one of the original five players dubbed grandmasters (at St. Petersburg 1914) and an enormously important figure in American chess. Furthermore, his founding and securing the Marshall Chess Club (which continues to thrive to the present day) is almost as important as his great successes on the chess board.

Marshall, then, is one of the great figures of early 20th century chess. But there's great, and then there's great, and when Marshall played a world championship match against Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) in 1907, that difference became clear. Lasker, who was not only the world champion from 1894-1921 but also had a Ph.D. in mathematics, faced off against the American in a race to eight wins. Nowadays a match like that might take six months to a year to finish, but in their contest Lasker dismantled Marshall, winning the eighth game without a single loss and only seven draws. Thud.

Despite the lopsided result, almost all of the games were interesting and most carried through to the endgame. That's what happened in the first game of this match, which we shall examine tonight (Wednesday at 9 p.m. ET) in our weekly ChessBase show. After a strategically interesting but brief middlegame, the players reached a rook and minor piece ending. With best play, it would have been equal, but Lasker's virtuoso treatment Marshall needed to play very accurately to hold - and he didn't. This got Lasker off to a great start, and with wins in the next two games as well he never looked back.

There are, as always, good reasons to tune in tonight, and this is especially the case if you're a 1.e4 e5 player. Though our game this week arose via a minor Berlin sideline, the pawn structure is one that can occur in the Scotch and the Two Knights, and as such is one that ought to be understood by 1...e5 aficionados. Additionally, it's simply a great ending by Lasker, and for those with eyes to see, there are lessons to be learned. So please join me tonight - the show is free and runs an hour or so; just go to the broadcast room of the Playchess.com server, select the Marshall-Lasker game at the relevant hour, and enjoy! (Further directions here.) Hope to see you there.

In his Chess Cafe column for September (now hot off the press) GM Karsten Müller has very thoughtfully supplemented my current ChessVideos series on knight vs. bishop. His endgame work is always worth a look, and this month is no exception. Have a look. (Permalink here.)

I reported on the dramatic final round of Bilbao, won by Veselin Topalov, here, but hadn't yet presented the games with my comments. I now rectify that situation.

As for the post-event ratings, which will almost surely be the ones to appear in the official FIDE list October 1 (but without the decimal points), here's the top 8, which includes all the Bilbao participants:

1. Topalov 2790.6
2. Morozevich 2787
3. Carlsen 2786.1
4. Ivanchuk 2785.6
5. Anand 2783.2
6. Kramnik 2771.9
7. Aronian 2756.8
8. Radjabov 2751.5

Ahh, it was nice not having a super-tournament going on and taking a day or two off. Anand-Kramnik starts October 14, and if there's another elite event starting between now and then, I'm blissfully unaware of it. This blog will remain active in the meantime, but it will be nice getting to catch up on other things, writing what and when I want, and enjoying a more leisurely pace. We begin in the next post by taking care of some unfinished business.

Garry Kasparov, with the participation of Dmitry Plisetsky, Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part Two: Kasparov vs. Karpov 1975-1985. Everyman Chess, 2008. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

Why do we play chess? Is it for the competition? That might be one reason, but if that’s all we’re after we could engage in hundreds of other activities instead. Maybe it’s for the social aspect, the fun of seeing friendly acquaintances week after week at the local club? That too is part of the story, but here too chess is hardly unique. And it certainly can’t be for the money. I submit that at least two other elements are present for most chess fans: the beauty of the game at its best, and the gripping drama of its historical moments. When we see chess – fighting chess – at its best, we’re inspired and amazed, energized to go forth and do likewise in our games. (Or at least try to.) And just like sports, the great battles in chess history arouse our passions as fans, watching the heroes of the game beat the odds and fight their way to the top.

If that’s what inspires you, too, then the decision to get Garry Kasparov’s brand new work covering his games with Anatoly Karpov through their second world championship match almost defines the expression “no brainer”. The Kasparov-Karpov matches were the greatest in chess history, for many reasons. First, it was an epic battle: two players enduring five full matches for the world chess championship in six years is unprecedented. All five matches were very closely contested, with two of them coming down to the final game. Four of the matches went the distance – 24 games – and the one that didn’t went an insane 48 games. Further, one of the players (Kasparov) is widely recognized as the greatest player of all time, while the other (Karpov) is easily a candidate for the top five ever, and at least arguably the greatest player ever prior to his rival. Add to this the high level of their play, the clash of styles and personalities, the vicissitudes of the matches, and the intrigue (and how!) and, taking the matches as a whole, we have perhaps the greatest event in the history of chess.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the first two matches (comprising 72 games) are covered in the book, as well as four games played in earlier years. The first match, like Karpov’s title defenses in 1978 and 1981, was a race to six wins. After nine games of this match, played in 1984, Karpov had won four and lost none. Match over, right? Incredibly, no. Kasparov started a strategy of grimly hanging on, and managed to regain his equilibrium. While he assumed of course that the match would eventually be lost, he survived the immediate disaster and drew the next seventeen(!) games. At that point, Karpov won yet another game, and a 6-0 whitewash looked imminent. It didn’t happen. Kasparov won game 32, and after fourteen more draws and the start of a new year (1985), won games 47 and 48 as well.

What happened next was unprecedented and remains controversial to this day. Florencio Campomanes, then the FIDE President, made the decision to stop the match. On what basis, you might wonder, and for whose benefit? For the answer to that question, you should read Kasparov’s book…and other works as well. But Kasparov certainly lays out the case that this, as well as other events that occurred before the match, were done by leading members of the Soviet Chess Federation for the benefit of Karpov. (Needless to say, Karpov tells a different story, which is why I suggest multiple accounts of this episode.) The upshot was that the match was terminated and the players started anew in a traditional 24-game match.

That second match was a thriller: it went back and forth, featured some exquisite chess and the occasional blunder, and came down to the last game. Kasparov led by a point, but if Karpov won (with White), the match would be drawn and Karpov, as champion, would keep his title. Karpov had his chances too, but Kasparov’s defense and subsequent counterattack won the day, the game, the match and the title. (And then they played three more times, including a rematch the very next year – but for that we’ll have to wait for the next volume.)

Those two matches are the centerpiece of this volume, and Kasparov’s coverage is worthy of them. The games are deeply annotated (but not to forbidding, Hübnerian depths), and the biographical and match narratives make for interesting and occasionally riveting reading. Karpov fans might cringe every now and then, both because of the way the matches went and because of Kasparov’s pointed statements, but they won’t be bored!

I have one minor criticism concerning Kasparov’s coverage of the second match. There are updates to the analysis and theoretical comments, of course, but both the analysis and especially the text closely follow the material in Kasparov’s 1986 Pergamon Press book New World Chess Champion. There are new remarks, of course, but after twenty-three years it would have been nice to see a fresh text rather than a reworking of the original. This is only a minor point, however, as almost no one has the earlier book, the material on the first match is wholly new to English readers, and the analysis of the second match has been expanded and very carefully checked. So while more original narrative and retrospective material on the second match would have been welcome, this only slightly dims my great enthusiasm for this volume.

Very highly recommended.

Note: the book is available through the usual outlets (the publisher, chess book outlets that overcharge, Amazon and its copycats), but it’s worth considering buying it as an e-book. I enjoy reading physical volumes more than texts on a computer, but it’s conversely easier to go through well-annotated games in (e.g.) Fritz or ChessBase than on a board. (Full disclosure: I purchased the book long ago on a pre-order, but received, upon request, a copy of the e-book from the publisher.)

ND year-to-date: 2-0

Next victim: Michigan State (road game).

Two down, ten to go.

Once upon a time on this site, seemingly long, long ago, I mentioned the TobyChess disks containing all of Chess Life and all of Chess Review up to 1975. At that time they didn't have a normal web presence, but now they do, and it's here. I'm not offering a blanket endorsement of their products, but did enjoy the Chess Life disks (see the linked post, above). So it might be worth a minute or two of your time to browse their site.

In an eventful final round, it was Veselin Topalov who came out on top in the Grand Slam Final in Bilbao. Topalov pushed hard against Vassily Ivanchuk and won what might have been a draw in less ambitious hands. The win guaranteed clear first, the impressive prize of 150,000 euros, and as a fringe benefit, first place on the live rating list. (Which is almost sure to translate into first on the next official list.) It really looks like Topalov has regained his best form (or something very near it), and right in time for his upcoming match with Gata Kamsky.

The Magnus Carlsen-Viswanathan Anand wasn't much of a game. Carlsen claimed to be happy about the opening - an Exchange Slav - but Anand managed to hold without much trouble. The other game was far more dramatic. Levon Aronian was winning against Teimour Radjabov at the end of the first time control, but as the position randomized he completely fell apart. With the loss, Aronian fell to third place on tiebreak (because Carlsen won the head-to-head), which means (I think) that he lost 10,000 euros that would have been his with a win or a draw. The Azeri treasury, on the other hand, is delighted with Radjabov's success, as it moved him into clear fifth.

Final Standings:

1. Topalov 17 (6.5)
2. Carlsen 13 (5)
3. Aronian 13 (5)
4. Ivanchuk 12 (5)
5. Radjabov 10 (4.5)
6. Anand 8 (4)

Games later.

Veselin Topalov continues to lead the Grand Slam Final by himself, but he's very fortunate. Vassily Ivanchuk enjoyed a clearly winning position against Levon Aronian, but let it slip away. Had he won, he'd have shared first with Topalov going into the last round; conveniently, the two will be facing off then with Topalov having White. As for Topalov's draw in this round, it was a non-event against Viswanathan Anand, who played one of the most insipid variations against the Caro-Kann known to mankind. Finally, the third game was also drawn, though Teimour Radjabov made Magnus Carlsen sweat for it. (The games, with my brief comments, are here.)

Entering the last round, then, the standings look like this:

1. Topalov 14 (5.5 out of 9 on normal scoring)
2. Aronian 13 (5)
3-4. Ivanchuk (5), Carlsen (4.5) 12
5-6. Radjabov, Anand 7 (3.5)

The final round pairings are:

Topalov - Ivanchuk
Aronian - Radjabov
Carlsen - Anand

Either Topalov, Aronian and Ivanchuk could wind up in clear first, and Carlsen could finish tied for first if things work out for him. A great finish is possible; let's hope it works out that way.

Which minor piece is better, the bishop or the knight? As a little experience informs us, the answer is: It depends. Learning what it depends on is part of the process of education we all go through, and in this presentation I try to offer some assistance towards that end. This week I look at some fairly simple cases in which one minor piece or the other is dominant, and in the next week or two I'll look at more complex examples.

This show is geared primarily at players under approximately 1800 (maybe even a little lower); if you're in that category, I think you'll find the material useful. (If not, you'll let me know!) It's free and available on demand, so you can take advantage of it at your leisure. Enjoy!

White to move and win:



Solution here.

HT: Chess Today

The organizers of the upcoming Miami Open decided to guarantee 70% of the prize fund when they only needed to guarantee 50%. Why? To draw in a bigger crowd, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that - so long as they organizers hold fast to that promise. What's the problem? Hurricane Ike, which isn't expected to blow the participants to Disney World but could very easily put a crimp in people's travel plans. The organizers are therefore backpedaling on their promise: "The possibility exist [sic] that we may only pay 50% of the Prize Fund instead of the guaranteed amount of 70%."

You can read organizer (and IM) Blas Lugo's full statement here, along with a number of comments. I'm inclined to think Lugo's request/statement is fine, as long as all the affected players are informed in advance and given the chance to withdraw without penalty (a point made by others on the linked site). I think Lugo's position is reasonable and that it's not much of a problem, given the rarity of hurricanes interfering with large chess tournaments, but if any of you disagree I'm sure you'll let me know!

HT: Harris Nizel

This has already happened far too many times, but it doesn't mean that everyone has learned their lesson. A few days ago at the Russian Higher League Championship, Vladimir Malakhov lost a won or nearly won position when his cell phone rang, but yesterday saw a new twist on the phone forfeit situation.

Until a few months ago, I was under the impression that this rule was in effect as an anti-cheating measure, but when I asked an arbiter about this I discovered that I was wrong. The arbiter told us to turn our cell phones off or to vibrate, and when I asked about this discovered that the real point of the rule was to avoid distracting noises.

With that in mind, Nigel Short's sad plight makes more sense. Like Malakhov, he too had a cell phone problem, but unlike Malakhov he wasn't receiving a call (or a text message or whatever else one can receive from the latest crop of cell phones/PDAs/mini-computers). Enjoying a slightly better position against Ketevan Arakhamia Grant in something called the European Union Championships (not to be confused with the [stronger] European Individual Championship), his phone went off to "helpfully" indicate a low battery! It's not that he could have received any useful information about his game in this way, but it was a distraction, and so Short accepted the loss without complaint. Worse still, Short was sure he had turned it off; if so, then if this sort of feature is going to be universal to new phones, then we're all in trouble.

It's a topsy, turvy world out there! Going into the eighth round of the Grand Slam Final in Bilbao, Carlsen led the tournament and the rating list. In fact, let's take a look at both, going into the round.

Standings after Round 7:

1. Carlsen 11 (Real score: 4 points)
2. Topalov 10 (4)
3. Aronian 9 (3.5)
4. Ivanchuk 8 (3.5)
5-6. Radjabov, Anand 6 (3 apiece)

Live Top List: (Top nine players)

1. Carlsen 2791.2
2. Anand 2789.6
3. Morozevich 2787
4. Ivanchuk 2786.8
5. Topalov 2780.2
6. Kramnik 2771.9
7. Aronian 2755.3
8. Radjabov 2750.7
9. Leko 2746.6

Ah, memories. Here are today's results:

Topalov - Carlsen 1-0
Ivanchuk - Radjabov 1-0
Anand - Aronian 0-1

Now, after round 8, the standings - and what bizarre standings they are! - look like this:

1. Topalov 13 (real score: 5)
2. Aronian 12 (4.5)
3-4. Ivanchuk (4.5), Carlsen (4) 11
5-6. Radjabov, Anand 6 (3)

And everything has gone crazy on the live rating list, which now looks like this:

1. Ivanchuk(!!) 2791.3
2. Morozevich 2787
3. Carlsen 2786.2
4. Topalov 2785.2
5. Anand(!) 2783.9
6. Kramnik 2771.9
7. Aronian 2761.1
8. Leko 2746.6
9. Radjabov 2746.2

The upcoming world championship match is looking increasingly disappointing. At the start of the year, Anand and Kramnik were tied atop the rating list, and the match looked like the culminating moment in their careers. The two greatest players of the past dozen or so years not named Kasparov were finally having at it for ultimate bragging rights in the chess world. Now they're numbers five and six in the world, and both players are entering the match with poor results. What was an EVENT is in danger of becoming just another interesting battle between elite players.

Topalov, on the other hand, who went into a tailspin after the Kramnik match, now seems close to his 2005 form; Morozevich is living up to the promise he showed in the 90s; Ivanchuk seems like a genius in event after event; and Carlsen, despite the occasional hiccup, looks like he'll have a strangehold on the #1 spot within a year.

Now to the games. Topalov-Carlsen was yet another Dragon with 12...a6, and Topalov's prep looked a lot better than Carlsen's. There wasn't any especially dramatic moment; Topalov was just able to keep the attack going long enough to exploit the weak squares in Black's camp. Topalov's 2-0 score against Carlsen in this event is the reason he's in first and the youngster isn't.

Aronian is in second now, thanks to his victory - with Black - over Anand. Anand chose the Scotch (for the first time ever?), repeating the Radjabov-Aronian game from round 5. Aronian varied first, but Anand managed to obtain a slight edge nevertheless. By move 30, Anand's pressure was starting to look serious, but Aronian's brilliant, tactically laden defensive idea turned the tables. By move 38 Anand was a pawn ahead with three connected passers, but Aronian's one passed pawn on h4 was the biggest trump on the board. Two White inaccuracies later, and Aronian enjoyed a winning advantage, and despite Anand's desperate resistance, Black won.

Finally, Ivanchuk won his second straight game, defeating Radjabov with White in a complicated Scheveningen Sicilian. Not only did this push him to #1 on the rating list, it also puts him right back in the thick of things with two rounds to go. As long as the players don't lose their fighting spirit during tomorrow's rest day, it should be a fantastic finish for the Grand Slam Final.

(The games, with my comments, are here.)

From a European qualifying event in women's hockey: Slovakia 82, Bulgaria 0.

HT: Best of the Web Today (see the "Everything Seemingly is Spinning Out of Control" section near the bottom).

1990 was a banner year for chess prodigies. First and foremost, there's Magnus Carlsen, who already, albeit unofficially, reigns atop the FIDE rating list. Next, there's Ukranian superstar Sergei Karjakin, currently #15 in the world and still possessor of the record for the youngest grandmaster in history. And then there's the young French star Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, who has skyrocketed the past few months to #24 in the world (unofficially) with a 2715 rating. By rating, those are the big three, but although he's not quite in the top 100 yet - officially - another rapidly rising star is the Russian Ian Nepomniachtchi.

This year, he has already won the super-strong Aeroflot Open, which qualified him for Dortmund, he won the Ordix Open in Mainz (a ridiculously strong rapid event), and is currently leading the Russian Championship Higher League with a 2806 TPR. These outstanding results have not gone unnoticed, and his praises have been sung even by such an elite grandmaster as Peter Svidler.

If Svidler thinks he is worth paying attention to, then we should as well. And in a way, we already have: just a few weeks ago, we presented one of his games in another ChessBase show. That game, however, was a loss; this time, we'll see him in a more positive light. The game is from the 2006 Russian Championship Super-Final, an elite event such that even qualifying was a tremendous accomplishment. As we'll see, his game with Sergei Rublevsky, then the defending champion and a future World Championship Candidate, proved that he belonged.

Nepomniachtchi quickly took Rublevsky out of familiar Kan/Taimanov paths, and the creative play never stopped. Nepomniachtchi castled in a situation that involved both a pawn sac and the destruction of the pawns around his king. The ingenious ideas never stopped, whether they involved maneuvers or tactics. I'd describe them, but then that might take away from the freshness of the game. It's one to experience and savor, so I hope that unless you spend a great deal of time on it beforehand, that you not watch it in advance.

Naturally, I do recommend that you join me tonight - Wednesday night (9 p.m. ET) - as I present this wonderful game in the Broadcast room of the Playchess.com server. For those who haven't attended before, it's an audio/video presentation. The moves and analysis appear on your screen, while my audio commentary comes simultaneously. Best of all, it's free to watch (live; watching afterwards in the archives involves a nominal fee - further details here).

Hope to see you there!

Magnus Carlsen's hot streak came to an abrupt end today in Bilbao, as he was absolutely crushed by Vassily Ivanchuk in a Queen's Gambit Declined. Carlsen tried the aggressive line with 5.Bf4 and queenside castling, but Ivanchuk's attack got there faster. A very impressive win for the Ukranian!

A draw would have allowed Veselin Topalov to catch Carlsen in first place (despite having outscored him by half a point according to normal scoring) and a win would put him in clear first. Unfortunately for Topalov, he suffered his first loss of the tournament, to Levon Aronian, and remains a point behind in the standings (despite having the same real score as Carlsen). Topalov's 17...Qe8 led to some tactical problems with his rook on f8, and these were only resolved at the cost of a pawn. Aronian duly swapped almost everything, got the a-pawn motoring, and won his second straight game to put himself in striking distance of the lead.

The remaining game, Teimour Radjabov - Viswanathan Anand, was yet another short draw for the world champion. Anand's unusual eighth move made the game interesting though, so Taimanov/Paulsen/Kan fans should have a look all the same.

(That game and the other two can be replayed here, with my comments.)

Standings after Round 7:

1. Carlsen 11 (Real score: 4 points)
2. Topalov 10 (4)
3. Aronian 9 (3.5)
4. Ivanchuk 8 (3.5)
5-6. Radjabov, Anand 6 (3 apiece)

The youngster is on fire, and is now within a win of breaking the 2800 barrier. With his victory over Levon Aronian, Magnus Carlsen has taken the lead in the Grand Slam Final in Bilbao, as previous leader Veselin Topalov only drew against Teimour Radjabov.

Carlsen played a spectacular novelty against Aronian, offering a second pawn in a gambit line of the Semi-Slav. After the initial key decisions, Aronian settled in with an inferior but defensible position, but after a serious oversight everything fell apart. Because of the 3-1-0 scoring system, Carlsen leapfrogged into first place. The previous leader, Topalov, had Radjabov under serious pressure for a long time with White in an Averbakh KID-turned-Modern Benoni, but couldn't seal the deal. Carlsen and Topalov are tied on "real" points, but Carlsen's extra win (and loss) outweigh Topalov's draws. Four rounds remain, so there's still a long way to go.

In the other game, Vassily Ivanchuk and Viswanathan Anand played a nondescript draw, and continue to languish, winless, in last place with Radjabov.

Standings after Round 6:

1. Carlsen 11 (normal score: 4)
2. Topalov 10 (4 - and on one common tiebreak, he'd be leading, having defeated Carlsen in their head-to-head matchup)
3. Aronian 6 (2.5)
4-6. Ivanchuk, Radjabov, Anand 5 (2.5)


Games, with my comments, here.

2008 Record: 1-0.

Next victim: Michigan.

At the halfway point of the Grand Slam Final in Bilbao, Topalov continues to lead, Carlsen continues to be in clear second (and on top of the live rating list), and Anand continues to struggle. We'll see if things change when the players resume on Monday. (Sunday is the tournament's one rest day. Correction: Sunday is a rest day, but there's another on Thursday.)

As for today's games, the main event was Anand-Carlsen. Would Anand get off the schneid and reclaim the top spot on the rating list? Despite Carlsen's 3...f5?! against the Ruy, the game was drawn. Anand played the pawn grabbing line 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.O-O Bc5 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.Nxe5, but Carlsen was prepared and produced the first new move of the game. Later both sides had some chances, but in the end an equal queen ending with lots of perpetual check possibilities arose: draw.

In the other games: Radjabov-Aronian was a Scotch that reached a type of endgame that has been popular for White lately. Radjabov enjoyed a comfortable edge throughout, but there wasn't much he could do with it. Likewise, Ivanchuk enjoyed a persistent edge on the White side of a Romanishin 4.Qc2 Nimzo-Indian, but Topalov defended successfully and without too much trouble.

Standings after Round 5:

1. Topalov 9 (3.5 on normal scoring)
2. Carlsen 8 (3)
3. Aronian 6 (2.5)
4-6. Radjabov, Ivanchuk, Anand 4 (2)

Games, with my comments, here.

The player with the white pieces managed to win each game in the fourth round of the Grand Slam Final in Bilbao. The first game to finish was a short, painful defeat for Anand, who lost in just 25 moves to Topalov. Topalov found a decent new move in a trendy Queen's Indian line, but Anand's painful fate resulted from subsequent, serious errors. Topalov thus maintains his lead in the tournament, while Anand endangered his #1 status.

If Carlsen could win against Radjabov, he'd take over the #1 spot on the rating list, and win he did. It was a completely crazy Chinese Dragon that started off fine for Radjabov, but when Radjabov failed to switch over from offense to defense, Carlsen was able to break through with his own attack. Not a perfect game, but a thriller.

The last game to finish took an opposite course from the other two. Aronian long enjoyed a slight edge against Ivanchuk, but for a long time it seemed unlikely to give him anything more than the better half of a draw. Aronian's crafty play was reminiscent of his legendary countryman, the late world champion Tigran Petrosian, in that he alternated cat-and-mouse play with slow attempts at progress. Eventually Ivanchuk made the requisite errors, and Aronian converted the point.

Standings after Round 4:

1. Topalov 8 (3 points on normal scoring)
2. Carlsen 7 (2.5)
3. Aronian 5 (2)
4-6. Radjabov, Ivanchuk, Anand 3 (1.5)

And let's not forget the Live Ratings:

1. Carlsen(!) 2791.3
2. Anand 2790.9
3. Morozevich 2787
4. Topalov 2786.2
5. Ivanchuk 2781.8

Games, with my comments, here.

Some schools started their college football season last week, but the team that will win this year's national championship - Notre Dame, in case anyone was wondering - starts theirs today. They'll defeat San Diego State starting in about two hours (3:30 p.m. ET), at Notre Dame Stadium (on NBC), and to get into the proper mood you can watch a video preview here.

Go Irish!

Nah, it's not that bad. But it's probably some concern for Vladimir Kramnik in his upcoming match with Viswanathan Anand that the latter's team of seconds not only includes Peter Heine-Nielsen, who has been helping the champ for quite some time, but Rustam Kasimdzhanov and...Magnus Carlsen. Uh oh. Actually, this might be an "uh oh" situation for everyone but Carlsen. Think back to Kramnik's work as a second for Garry Kasparov in the latter's match against Anand back in 1995. Many, Kasparov included, believe that Kramnik gained at least as much from the experience as Kasparov did, and that it helped Kramnik considerably when the time came for him to challenge Kasparov for the title.

Of course, Kramnik will no doubt amass an impressive team as well, though unless Vassily Ivanchuk can avoid playing in a tournament for more than two days at a time or Veselin Topalov experience the most amazing change of heart in history, there isn't anyone except Alexander Morozevich who could balance Carlsen in terms of strength. That isn't necessarily the most important factor though. It doesn't hurt, but a team of strong 2600-2700 players with great ideas and camaraderie and a strong work ethic should be able to do the job. Here's my list of possible Kramnik team members:

Peter Svidler: Super strong and very good friends with Kramnik. On the other hand, he's friends with Anand too.

Boris Gelfand: Same pluses as Svidler, and I'm not aware of his being chummy (or hostile to) Anand. Assuming he has the energy and the inclination, he could be a great choice.

Evgeny Bareev: For many years an elite player, a former Kramnik second (in the Kasparov and Leko matches) and good friend of Kramnik's. Drawback: It's evident that he hates the burden of being a second in a world championship match, and he doesn't seem to be playing at the elite level anymore.

Alexander Motylev: Young and strong, and he has worked as a Kramnik second before. I wouldn't be surprised if he's part of the team.

Loek van Wely: A very good theoretician, who seconded Kramnik in Mexico City last year.

Miguel Illescas: He has worked several times as a Kramnik second, and he seemed to make a very great contribution to team morale in Kramnik's earlier matches.

Anyone out there with some other informed guesses?

Returning to the start of this post, about the members of Anand's team: this information comes from a fairly wide-ranging interview with Kramnik in the Russian Sport Express. (That's in Russian, but here's a link to an online translator version of the page - give it a few seconds to work its wonders.) Some of the material will be familiar from other recent interviews, but there's enough that's new to make it worth a couple of minutes of your time.

HT: Chess Today.

One teensy catch: you need to be a player of Magnus Carlsen's level. See this profile for a pleasant read and, of course, for the financial details.

HT: Chess Today.

Looking through some of my old games, I came across my biggest OTB scalp with the dubious 1.e4 e6 2.c4 anti-French system, a win against IM Jay Bonin. Unfortunately, he played 2...c5, so we'll never know how he'd have reacted to the lively lines after 2...d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3, but the game had its tactically rich moments nevertheless. As the title suggests, the players weren't always up to the challenge at that moments, but that's so much the better for you, dear reader (and hopefully viewer): you can watch, stop the recording at the relevant moments, and see if you can find what my opponent and I missed.

Whether you outdo us or not, I trust you'll find the game an entertaining one. But see for yourself: the show is free, available on-demand, and doesn't require any special software. Just click and watch.

If you were worried that there world class chess had slowed down to a 3-games-a-day crawl, fear not. The Spanish Club Championship is keeping the action going with stars like Shirov, Gelfand, Adams, Kasimdzhanov, Ponomariov, Gashimov, Movsesian, Eljanov, Akopian, Bareev, Dreev, Cheparinov, van Wely and more. The tournament site is here (in Spanish); non-Spanish speaking readers can get the bare essentials here on TWIC.

Veselin Topalov hasn't fared well against Magnus Carlsen in the past, but he had no problems today. The game was a traditional Tartakower Queen's Gambit Declined and a line Topalov played before, but Carlsen seemed unprepared. Carlsen broke new ground with a pawn sac, but the followup left Black with an edge. With the right choice on move 21, Carlsen probably would have reached a position where he'd have to suffer for a while but would most likely achieve a draw; instead, he blundered a pawn. Topalov's technique was up to the task, and the Bulgarian is now in clear first. Note that Carlsen is in clear second, ahead of the three other even scores, because their scores were the products of draws while Carlsen has a win and a loss.

The other games were drawn. Teimour Radjabov pressed against Vassily Ivanchuk, but the latter erected an unbreachable defensive wall. Thanks to the incredibly effective anti-draw rules, the players found a way to repeat the position: draw. Levon Aronian pressed against Viswanathan Anand, using a nifty exchange sac to keep Black tied down. Anand was almost placed in a fatal zugzwang, but his one spare move was enough to hold the game.

Standings after Round 3:

1. Topalov 5 (real score 2)
2. Carlsen 4 (1.5)
3-5. Radjabov, Ivanchuk, Anand 3 (1.5)
6. Aronian (1)

Tournament site here; games, with my comments, here.

Which is just another way to say that everyone drew. (The scoring system in use in Bilbao gives 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, while a loss receives its usual reward.) All three games were quite different, from the flying fur in Ivanchuk-Carlsen to the speedily sedate affair that was Anand-Radjabov; Topalov-Aronian was somewhere in between.

Let's start with the "really big shew": Ivanchuk-Carlsen. The players rapidly went into a Dragon Sicilian, and Carlsen again played the ...a6 line that has become his trademark this year. There might have been a problem with the tournament website, because on the site where I watched the game, Ivanchuk spent 40 minutes thinking about his 13th move. There's not necessarily anything wrong with a deep think when faced by a new move in a complicated position, but that wasn't the case here. The position was one that had arisen in three recent Carlsen games, and a fourth recent super-GM contest (Karjakin-Radjabov) as well. So either Ivanchuk is crazy, or was going for an Academy Award, or the site had transmission problems.

Whatever the story, Ivanchuk produced a novelty, to which Carlsen responded immediately. (So much for the surprise value, and Carlsen didn't bother trying to display his own acting chops.) The game grew very sharp almost immediately, with Black making the traditional ...Rxc3 exchange sacrifice and White trying to break through the center. As often happens in such situations, the game ended in a perpetual check after 29 thrill-packed moves.

Topalov-Aronian was interesting as well, though not up to the same wild standard. Topalov found an interesting novelty on the white side of a 4.e3 Slav, but Aronian defended very well. Topalov often seemed on the verge of achieving something, but he never made it over that edge, and this game also ended in a perpetual.

Last and least was Anand-Radjabov. Anand played a very rare line - a novelty with respect to grandmaster play - but within a very few moves it was clear that he had absolutely nothing. Pieces were then exchanged with breathtaking speed, and then the players repeated moves to get around the anti-draw rules as quickly as possible. My guess is that Anand played a sideline to avoid giving Kramnik (a known Sveshnikov specialist) any information, but to defeat this level of opposition he's going to need something more testing than what he has shown in the first two rounds.

Standings after Round 2:

1. Carlsen 4 (real score: 1.5)
2-5. Anand, Ivanchuk, Radjabov, Topalov 2 (1)
6. Aronian 1 (.5)

Games here.

Looking through my recent ChessBase shows and comparing them with the lineup for the Grand Slam Final in Bilbao, it seems that the only player not to have a win presented in the last couple of months is Veselin Topalov. This is an omission to rectify, especially as he's in the final four for the world championship. Another factor that makes him an easy choice is his very aggressive style. Whatever one's views about Topalov and the controversies he has engendered, the man can play some dazzling chess.

Accordingly, we'll look at one of the former world champ and #1's brilliant games from 2005, his banner year. He won everything in sight then: Linares (tied with Kasparov), MTel, and then - destroying the field - the FIDE World Championship in San Luis. That year, he dominated like no one had but Kasparov, and in his style, will to win, and superior opening preparation he also resembled the "Beast from Baku". It is from this annus mirabilis that we take our game of the week, the game Topalov-Ponomariov from the second cycle of the MTel Masters.

Topalov hadn't gotten off to a great start and had lost to former FIDE champ Ruslan Ponomariov in the first cycle, but now he caught fire. Although one rarely associates the Queen's Indian Defense with sharp and lively play, Topalov (with his second, Cheparinov) has detonated many dangerous novelties on the white side of this opening, and we'll see one of them in this game. He came out of his prep with a significant advantage, but the game still needed to be won. That he did it, you all know, but how he did it deserves to be seen and savored. Super-GMs can prepare brilliantly, but they can play brilliantly once the preparation finishes - as you'll see for yourself.

At least, you'll get to see if you join me tonight - Wednesday night - at 9 p.m. ET. The show is free if you catch it live on the Playchess.com server; go into the Broadcast room when the time is right, select the games tab, click on Topalov-Ponomariov, sit back and enjoy! (More details here.) Hope to see you then!

Here are the results of round 1, Bilbao-style:

Anand - Ivanchuk 1-1
Radjabov - Topalov 1-1
Aronian - Carlsen 0-3

Strangely, I can't seem to find any game scores that confirm those results: TWIC, Playchess.com, ICC and the rest all have 1/2-1/2, 1/2-1/2, and 0-1 in their game files. I guess the Bilbaotians are playing some different game that looks a lot like chess, but isn't. For the sake of simplicity, let's pretend that it really is chess rather than a variant, but I'm not sure that that's an accurate appraisal.

So: Anand-Ivanchuk was a slightly strange game, in that Anand's novelty in the Marshall Gambit gave him no advantage whatsoever, and that lack of advantage didn't seem to require anything special from Ivanchuk at all. Black's equality, which soon became an initiative, was immediately evident, and Anand had to play well to make sure he didn't get in trouble. In this aim, he was not entirely successful. Ivanchuk managed to win a pawn, but in severe time trouble Anand gave him a draw. (I say "gave" because, at least according to the times given on ICC, Ivanchuk had less than 30 seconds for the rest of the game, with no new time control or increments to bail him out. There were some problems with the relay of that game, however, so those times may not be accurate. On the other hand, if they're not, then Ivanchuk's decision to give Anand the draw becomes hard to understand.)

The other draw, Radjabov-Topalov, was clean and balanced throughout, and although the players continued until only kings were left, the second half of the game was essentially unnecessary. Still, it's nice of the players to put on a show.

Finally, that leaves us with Aronian-Carlsen, a game won by the Norwegian wunderkind, who is now back to #2 on the Live Top List. (Anand is #1 at 2798.8, Carlsen is #2 with 2791.6. Stay tuned.) Aronian sacrificed a pawn for compensation in the form of the bishop pair and more space, but (probably wrongly) gave them up to slightly mess up Carlsen's kingside. After that happened, Aronian had one chance to maintain the balance, but after missing it he was simply down a pawn for nothing in a queen and rook vs. queen and rook ending. Carlsen was able to use threats to Aronian's king to reach a won queen ending with an extra, passed a-pawn, and as usual his technique was perfectly up to the job.

Thus Carlsen leads the Grand Slam Final after one round, but with nine rounds to go and peculiar scoring, practically anything can happen. Meanwhile, here are the round 1 games, with my comments.

A slight exaggeration, of course.* Yuri Shulman drew his last round game against Igor Zugic, and clinched clear first in the Montreal International with a fine 6.5/9 score. Neither Hikaru Nakamura nor Mark Bluvshtein were able to make up any ground, as they drew their games with Sebastien Maze and Anton Kovalyov, respectively. They were caught by Varuzhan Akobian, though, who defeated Pascal Charbonneau in the day's only decisive game. And despite the joke in the subject line, it was only these three players who tied for second, as you can see from the

Final Standings:

1. Shulman 6.5
2-4. Nakamura, Bluvshtein, Akobian 5.5
5-6. Nataf, Maze 4.5
7-9. Charbonneau, Zugic, Kovalyov 3.5
10. Roussel-Roozmon 2.5

* Though maybe "of course" is going too far - there was Linares 2001, after all!

Alexander Delchev and Semko Semkov, The Safest Sicilian: A Black Repertoire with 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6, 2nd edition (Chess Stars 2008). 228 pages. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

To my mind, Chess Stars is now the premier publisher of opening books in the chess world. While there are other authors outside their stable whose work is worth reading (I’ll give Viktor Moskalenko and David Vigorito a plug here), Chess Stars (henceforth CS) has done a consistently fine job of producing works that are up to date (the authors finished this book in July; by August it was in my hot little hands), written by very strong grandmasters, well-organized, thorough, and with enough explanation for an outside to learn what is and isn’t important in a given variation. Based on what I’ve seen from the __est Sicilian books (Easiest, Safest, Sharpest) and Khalifman’s “Opening According to Anand/Kramnik/Karpov” series, I feel comfortable at this point telling readers from 1900-2000 and up that if CS puts out a book on one of their openings, they should probably buy it. (Players below this level would benefit more from “Starting Out” books.)

This book is no exception. Delchev (the stronger player and primary author) and Semov have put together a fine work advocating a repertoire based on what’s loosely called the Taimanov Sicilian, though as the authors note the lines employed nowadays often have only the most tenuous connection to what Taimanov himself advocated. After explaining certain move order finesses and laying out the book chapters, the material begins.

The first two parts cover 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6, and now the part 1 addresses the Hedgehog structures that result from 6.c4 while part 2 looks at the Kalashnikov-like 6.Bf4 e5. Almost the entire remainder of the book examines positions resulting from 5.Nc3 Qc7, and I’ll note here that they reject 5…a6 on account of the 6.Nxc6 lines. Back to 5…Qc7: Part 3 turns to the very popular “English Attack” system with 6.Be3 followed by f3, Qd2 and long castling. Part 4 sees the Classical System with 6.Be2. Part 5 returns to 6.Be3, but after 6…a6 White plays 7.Bd3 and castles on the kingside. Part 6 offers yet another approach with 6.f4, part 7 introduces the fianchetto line with 6.g3, and then in part 8 we see what happens after 6.Nb5 (hoping to exploit the absence of 5…a6) or if White plays 6.Nxc6 despite the absence of 5…a6. Finally, the last three parts of the book examine White alternatives to the Open Sicilian after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6: the Alapin (or Sveshnikov) 3.c3, the King’s Indian Reversed (or KI Attack) with 3.d3, and various lines of lesser importance. (If you’re worried about anti-Sicilian lines that begin on move 2, you’re out of luck.)

The preceding paragraph indicated what they cover; this one will describe how they cover the material. Each part is divided into three, um, parts: Quick Repertoire, Step by Step, and Complete Games. The Quick Repertoire section has two main functions: provide some needed general information about the variation to be discussed, and to provide the main lines with a minimum of detail. The first function is especially valuable, and I’ll offer some excerpts from that portion of part 1 below. In the Step by Step section, Delchev gets into the theoretical details, but without abandoning verbal explanation, talk of themes, positional traps to avoid and so on. Finally, the Complete Games are lightly annotated but do a nice job of illustrating key positional ideas once the more overtly theoretical phase has passed. On a few occasions, the complete games are an occasion to extend the theory of a key line a bit more deeply, but the heavy duty material is generally confined to the Step by Step section.

As an example of what we can find in the Quick Repertoire section, let’s focus on part 1 (3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4). Here the authors offer Black three key bits of advice. First, Do not wait passively! This is a repudiation of the view that Black can “aimlessly [maneuver] for 20+ moves without committing to any concrete action.” As an example of the ills that can befall Black play if he acts in this way, the position after move 18 in the game C. Ionescu – D. Heinbuch, Berlin 1988 is presented. They write: “Beward this setup! The hedgehog structure is not bullet-proof. White has a clear pawn for a queenside pawn storm. In the diagram position White lately struck a very unpleasant for the opponent idea. [Yes, the English isn’t always perfect. But this is one of the worst examples, and I don’t recall finding an instance where the meaning wasn’t clear.] Beside preparing c4-c5, he could capture on e5 and base his play on the clumsy bishop pair.” The game continued 19.Bxe5! dxe5 20.c5! Rfd8 21.Qe1 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 Rd8 23.cxb6 Bxb6, and now they claim that 24.Rxd8 followed by 25.Na4 gives White a clear advantage.

The next piece of advice is also negative. Some claim that Black can more or less automatically meet White’s opening with the “Saemisch maneuver” (…Rc8, …Qb7, …Bd8-c7) followed by …Kh8, …Rg8 and …g5, hoping for a kingside attack. To this, Delchev and Semkov say Forget about this plan! They briefly explain why, and then offer their last bit of general advice: The slogan of Black’s campaign should be: d6-d5! There’s further explanation of why this should be, what is likely to be required in achieving this break, and what the results might be.

There’s independent analysis in the book, the bibliography covers all the expected sources (one exception: James Rizzitano’s 2006 “Chess Explained” book on the Taimanov isn’t included, but Khalifman’s very important Opening for White According to Anand, vol. 9, is), so with the book’s other assets it’s very easy to give this work my wholehearted recommendation – if you’re at least 1900 (or a correspondence player, or an ambitious player not too far from 1900) and are interested in playing either side of the variations he covers. One question remains to be answered though: what should one do if he already owns the first edition of this book, from January 2006? According to the preface, there are important updates and additions to parts 3 and 4, a “major reconstruction” of part 5, there’s some new material in part 6 and on the Alapin, with only minor corrections elsewhere. So my answer to the Update?/Don’t update? Question is that is that it depends. If the latest and greatest theory and analysis isn’t essential, or if you’ve kept up on your own and have generated your own ideas, then you might not want to spend the money. Still, for more serious players in need of the latest ideas, it could well be worth the expense. (Maybe the best solution would be some sort of e-update for the updated chapters for an intermediate cost.)

Highly recommended (for stronger readers and correspondence players).

With one round to go in Montreal, Yuri Shulman has clinched at least a tie for first. Thanks to his win over Pascal Charbonneau, he's up to a very impressive 6/8 and a full point lead over Mark Bluvshtein and Hikaru Nakamura.

That tournament ends tomorrow (Tuesday), just as the Bilbao Grand Slam Final gets underway. (Unfortunately, I was unable to figure out the time for the first round or the pairings; if someone discovers them in the middle of the night [my time], by all means post them in the comments.) Unfortunately, the tournament is run on the 3-1-0 system (three points for a win, one for a draw, nothing for a loss), a system that conflates fighting chess with wins. Of course the players are going to show up for the hefty payday, but I doubt that any of them, other than Topalov, would have volunteered for such a format. Generally, the winner of a normal tournament would win on 310 scoring too, but when the results diverge, does it mean that the 310 victor played better, or that he took more risks? There's nothing wrong with risk-taking, but why prejudice that style over one that aims at correct play? If aiming at correctness meant not fighting, that would be one thing, but it doesn't. Bobby Fischer was a paragon of correct chess, but no one in chess history surpassed his will to win. So while arranging for a format that favors his protege, Danailov has organized a tournament that should prove most exciting - at least as long as Ivanchuk, Carlsen and Radjabov don't pass out from exhaustion.