The Chess Mind

The rest of the world may be different, but here in the U.S. of A. it's very popular to make resolutions for the new year. Whether it's giving up a bad habit or taking up a good one, Americans vow their hearts out to make a change for the better. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, we usually fail to follow through on our resolutions.

Why? There are plenty of reasons for this, some of which are more easily overcome than others. The most fundamental obstacle is in fact our ally, used properly: we are designed to operate out of habit. If we weren't, our lives would be nightmarishly difficult. We wouldn't be able to walk or tie our shoes without concentrated effort if it weren't for our ability to turn conscious physical and mental work into unconscious and effortless activity. The problem is that our capacity for forming habits is indiscriminate; that is to say, it works with whatever repeated thoughts or behavior we feed it. If you get "addicted" to exercise, then exercising will feel natural and not exercising will leave you feeling awful. If you eat good food, then a trip to a fast food restaurant will leave you feeling nauseous; if you regularly eat at such establishments, on the other hand, then that's what your body will learn to crave. Thus habits, once formed, are hard to break, which can be good or bad. It's bad if you're trying to quit smoking, but good when it comes to the overwhelming majority of our day's actions (washing, walking, getting dressed, driving from point A to point B).

It's both good and bad for our chess, too. It would be horrible if we had to go through some sort of ridiculous checklist before every move. ("Am I in check? Is my opponent in check? Are any of my pieces threatened or threatening anything? Is he threatening checkmate? Do I control any open files with my rooks? Can I double my opponent's pawns? Do I have more mobility?" And so on, ad nauseam.) Most of the time, for an experienced player, this is all understood more or less automatically over the course of the game. If we've developed certain misunderstandings about the game, though, we'll carry them around like baggage too, and they're not so helpful.

OK, back to impediments. The first was the basic nature of the habit-forming process. Second, our resolutions tend to stay at the level of wishes. What's necessary, if we want to give non-trivial changes their best chance to succeed, is to form a plan for implementing the change. For example, let's say your goal is to gain 100 rating points this next year. If you're not new to the game and not a kid, that's not so easy, so it's a very good goal: ambitious but not insane. Given that sort of goal, what should you do?

The first thing you should do, of course, is hire me for lessons. (That didn't really need to be said, did it? Well, maybe it did. Moving on...) Half-jokes aside, what you should do is to break it up into subgoals. You might want to break that up into quarterly subgoals - say, to gain 25 points every three months, or if you think that getting back up to speed the first couple of months is necessary, then stagger it a bit. Maybe you'll try to gain 10 points by April, 40 by July, 70 by September and 100 by year's end.

Next, you need means to implement these goals. What are you going to do to make it happen? How much time can you reasonably set aside to study? If you want to gain 100 points but can't spend more than an hour a week studying, it's not going to happen (unless you're starting off with a very low rating). Let's say you have enough time and have the chance to play in tournaments on a regular basis. What's your study plan? Here it's crucial to choose well, as there's no sense spending a lot of time on activities that aren't going to benefit you very much. (A couple of hours of online 1 0 and 3 0 every day will do very little for your chess, sorry.) Making a concrete plan to implement the goal is necessary, otherwise it's only a daydream, an idle wish.

It's easy to get motivated this time of year, but what will you do when the motivation flags? You play in a tournament and lose 20 points, or you get sick for a week and break your training schedule, etc. Something happens, and you're out of your zone. What then? You can always wait until New Year's eve/day 2010, but life will race by if we keep waiting until next year. So think about that, too. One way to help yourself stay on track is by getting a training partner, optimally someone who's pretty close to your own strength. Sure, it means you'll have a tougher time preparing to play him at the next local tournament, but you'll benefit so much in every other respect that it's more than worth it. Mutual encouragement and accountability is invaluable.

There are other good ideas for making resolutions work, or at least giving them the best possible chance to succeed, and maybe some readers can offer their own suggestions in the comments. I hope some of these ideas help my readers, though, and not only with their chess. And if you do have some chess goals for the new year, goals you're willing to work on and admit, maybe you can write those in the comments, too, and then look back a year from now and see how you did.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Zoltan Almasi threatened to run away with Reggio Emilia on the strength of his 4-0 start, but Alexei Dreev put a stop to a possible blowout. It took him forever, or at least it seemed that way, but Dreev's 96-move victory brought him to within half a point of Almasi, while allowing Ni Hua, who drew quickly with Black against Gustafsson, to catch Almasi. With four rounds to go, here are the standings:

1-2. Ni Hua, Almasi 4 (of 5)
3. Dreev 3.5
4. Gustafsson 3
5-6. Leon Hoyos, Marin 2.5
7. Landa 2
8. Shytaj 1.5
9-10. Ronchetti, Cebalo 1

By way of what's coming up, there's the Gjovik International Festival in Norway. There are various tournaments associated with the festival, which is already underway, but the main event is a four player rapid event going from January 2-5. The participants are Magnus Carlsen, Peter Svidler, Hikaru Nakamura and Kjetil Lie.

A couple of weeks later, there's Corus (Wijk aan Zee), but given the way things have gone this past year, that seems an eternity from now. They keep the website going all year long and update it from time to time, so it's worth spending a little time browsing it for the player profiles and other interesting information.

First, Reggio Emilia: there were three decisive games out of five, two of which featured the leaders. Almasi defeated local youngster Ronchetti to remain a perfect 4-0, and Ni Hua beat Leon Hoyos to keep within half a point. The next players are another point back and the third winner, Marin, is at 50% with his victory over Cebalo.

Now for the FIDE top 100 (the January list is out). The top player is Topalov, but his official rating is only 2796 and not 2809 as reported by the Live Top List website. FIDE doesn't rate games played in the last month of one quarter until the quarter after that, with very rare exceptions, and clearly the Nanjing event was excluded. (As were Elista and Pamplona.) So what we've got there is a bit behind, but in any case here's the top 10:

1. Topalov 2796
2. Anand 2791
3. Ivanchuk 2779
4. Carlsen 2776
5. Morozevich 2771
6. Radjabov 2761
7. Jakovenko 2760
8. Kramnik 2759
9. Leko 2751
10. Movsesian 2751

If you hope to make the top 100, then you'll have to reach 2634 - something to aspire to in the new year. (Start making those resolutions now!)

First, here are the three problems I presented a day and a half ago:



White to move; what's the best way to finish Black off?


White to move. Black has just taken on h2; how should White react to this?


White to move. What should he do in this confusing-looking position?

Enlightenment, or confirmation if you've already solved them for yourself, is but a click away.

In Pamplona today we had the usual fare: three draws and a win. Of the draws, Roiz-Pons was interesting but unfortunately very short, but the other two games enjoyed a fuller fight.

Delchev tested the leader, Sasikiran, who with Black first sac'ed a pawn in the opening and then threw in the exchange for good measure. His compensation was inadequate, however, and he was very fortunate that Delchev missed a big chance on move 30:



30.Qh4+ Kg8 31.Rhd1! with a winning advantage. Instead, Delchev played 30.Rc3, and after 30...Rxe3! 31.Rxc5 Rxe2+ 32.Kxe2 Qxc5 Black held the game and guaranteed himself clear first in the tournament.

In Malakhov-Caruana, White managed to get a passed (but not extra) pawn to c6 in a queen and rook ending, but as he was unable to break the blockade of c7 without endangering his king, this game also ended in a draw.

The day's winner was Nepomniachtchi who climbed out of a last place tie with his opponent, Salgado Lopez. The game had a nice finish:



White (Nepomniachtchi) is winning, but there's having a won game and there's actually collecting the point. How did he finish the job? (Answer at the end of this post.)

Final Standings:

1. Sasikiran 5
2-3. Malakhov, Vallejo Pons 4
4-5. Caruana, Delchev 3.5
6-7. Roiz, Nepomniachtchi 3
8. Salgado Lopez 2

In Reggio Emilia, it looks like the HPV (Human Pamplona Virus) is starting to infect the participants. In round 1, no games were drawn; in round 2, only two (of five) were and just one of them was super-short; today, three were drawn, two very quickly. Let's hope this is as far in this negative direction as things will get here. Anyway, the day's two winners - both with Black - were Zoltan Almasi, who is in clear first with 3/3, and Konstantin Landa.

Anatoly Karpov once wrote a book called Learn From Your Losses, and it was a good idea. (Even if his book may have had the deeper purpose of showing himself gaining revenge against those who had the temerity to beat him.) While one's wins are often imperfect, it's guaranteed that we managed to do at least one thing wrong in every game we lose. Regardless of how much we'd like to put those failures behind us, it would be foolish to ignore them. It's much better to figure out not only what we did wrong but why, in the hopes of avoiding or at least minimizing the possibility of similar errors in the future.

Accordingly, and also because it was a very interesting game, in this week's show and its successor I'm taking a close look at my recent game against GM Rogelio Antonio. In the first installment, which you can watch here (free, on demand, and without need for special software), the very complex opening and early middlegame is examined. I've analyzed it pretty deeply, but if readers who are dedicated analysts (or have very powerful hardware, which might be good for me though not necessarily useful for its owner if used in place of his own mind) find something new I'd like to learn about it. Next time, we'll see the transition to a quieter middlegame and then the endgame; a phase of the game which has its own set of lessons.

I hope you'll watch, and if the foregoing isn't incentive enough, there's always schadenfreude as a motivation!

Some sacrifices are part of a winning combination, and other sacrifices are made for long-term compensation. Both kinds are common, but how often do you see a sacrifice to stalemate the enemy army? That's what happened in our game for this week, a 1914 victory starring the legendary Jose Raul Capablanca.



In this consultation game, played in Buenos Aires against Molina and Ruiz, "Capa" built up a kingside attack (and at least one aspect of the buildup will probably surprise you), but there came a moment when the allies seemed to have everything under control. That he stood better was obvious, but all the obvious approaches seemed easily met. It is here that Capablanca showed his genius. A sacrifice was available, and finding it isn't difficult at all. Both sides' follow-up is easy to work out, and at the end of it Black is pretty tied up, but White seems to be out of attackers, too. The way that Capablanca managed to finish his opponents off showed remarkable foresight, open-mindedness, and a good sense of humor, too!

To see this fine game and its ingenious conclusion, join me tomorrow night - Monday night - at 9 p.m. ET. (We're meeting early this week so that the show won't interfere with New Year's Eve/Day festivities; next week, we'll be back to our usual Wednesday night meetings.) The shows are free for Playchess.com members - log on at (or just before) the scheduled time, go to the Broadcast room, select the games tab and select "Capablanca-Molina & Ruiz".

The last round of the Elista Grand Prix saw more fight than there was in the penultimate round and less than in its antepenultimate counterpart, but all three rounds saw just one win in the seven games. In the previous two rounds, Kasimdzhanov was the only winner; today, it was Pavel Eljanov, who escaped the cellar by defeating Ernesto Inarkiev, who took his place there. This means that the three-way tie for first remained, and so Radjabov, Jakovenko and Grischuk were the winners, half a point ahead of Gashimov. Gashimov was unable to dent Kasimdzhanov in a short but sharp Chigorin Ruy Lopez, Jakovenko was happy to draw quickly with Black against Alekseev, and Radjabov tried for a long time to beat Grischuk (97 moves) but couldn't. A good tournament!

In Pamplona, the players finally played chess worthy of the city home to the running of the bulls. Vallejo Pons bounced back with a crushing win over Nepomniachtchi, Malakhov defeated Salgado Lopez (the youngster is getting experience, defined by one wag as what you get when you don't get what you want), and Sasikiran continued his dominant performance by defeated Roiz. Only Caruana-Delchev was drawn (and quickly).

Standings after Round 6:

1. Sasikiran 4.5
2-3. Malakhov, Vallejo Pons 3.5
4-5. Caruana, Delchev 3
6. Roiz 2.5
7-8. Nepomniachtchi, Salgado Lopez 2

Finally, Reggio Emilia wasn't quite as violent as it was yesterday, but only two of today's five games were drawn. Almasi and Ni Hua lead, half a point ahead of Dreev and Gustafsson.

The Vallejo Pons-Nepomniachtchi game can be replayed here, with my comments.

More sad news at the end of the year: former World Junior Champ Mark Diesen died on December 9. (There's a little more info on TWIC, but not much.)

These puzzles will change your life*, so I hope you'll try to solve them. I'll provide the solutions in a day or two, so please don't put the answers in the comments.


White to move; what's the best way to finish Black off?


White to move. Black has just taken on h2; how should White react to this?


White to move. What should he do in this confusing-looking position?

* Before today, you probably hadn't seen them, but now you have. Technically, that's a change.

The Pamplona Rules* were in effect today in Pamplona, unsurprisingly, as for the fourth time in five rounds all the games were drawn except for Vallejo Pons'. He won in rounds 1 and 2, lost in round 3, and lost again today, this time to Sasikiran, who leads the event by a full point. Sasikiran has 3.5 points, while (deep breath) Malakhov, Vallejo Pons, Caruana, Roiz and Delchev have 2.5. Way back in dead last (half a point back) are Nepomniachtchi and Salgado Lopez. I'm rooting for an 8-way tie here.

Meanwhile, in the Elista Grand Prix, an event that has been characterized by excellent fighting spirit, the evil ghost of Pamplona has beset them and 6/7 games were drawn. Three were ridiculously quick (14, 19 and 19 moves), and the other three weren't a whole lot better. For the second straight round**, the sole winner was former FIDE champ Kasimdzhanov. It's too late for him to battle for first, but getting back to 50% in this very strong field is a nice accomplishment.

Leading Penultimate Round Standings:

1-3. Jakovenko, Radjabov, Grischuk 7.5
4. Gashimov 7

Finally, the favored player won every game in the opening round of Reggio Emilia - it's almost like these guys were getting paid to play chess.

Round 1 Results:

Almasi - Landa 1-0
Dreev - Leon Hoyos 1-0
Marin - Shytaj 1-0
Ronchetti - Gustafsson 0-1
Cebalo - Ni Hua 0-1

* Lots of draws, often without real effort.

** Yes, 6 of the 7 games were drawn yesterday, too, but the shortest game went 41 moves and three went past move 65.

They're at it again; the first two installments are here and here.

He wasn't a great player (maybe FM strength at his peak), but he made a name for himself in chess circles as a theoretician of the offbeat. Before there was Stefan Bücker and possibly before Rolf Martens (who also died earlier this year), Hugh Myers was analyzing and promoting lines that ranged from the eccentric to the atrocious. (Examples: The comparatively moderate 1.e4 Nc6 - perhaps his specialty; 1.Nh3 with the idea of 2.f4; 1.e4 c5 2.a4; 1.Nf3 d5 2.a4; and 1...g5 against 1.g3 and 1.c4. To his credit, I'm not aware of his advocating 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5??) More about Mr. Myers here.

While I can't honestly say I'm a big fan of crank openings per se, it must be acknowledged that those who are drawn to them and analyze them deeply do (if they're strong enough and have some degree of objectivity) make a contribution to our game. Sometimes lines turn out to be viable, and even when they don't, sometimes they develop ideas that can be used in less extravagant openings. They help to keep the game fresh, and finally, the time spent analyzing the intricacies of these sidelines is time they're not spending on conspiracy theory bulletin boards. That alone is cause for celebration.

So let's commemorate the life of a chess maverick. Read the article linked above, and then play something bizarre at the next opportunity - as long as money isn't involved.

I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas. Most especially in the truest meaning of the holiday, but also in the secular sense of being with loved ones and exchanging gifts. Maybe some of you received that chess book or software you've waited for all year, or maybe you found this Christmas classic underneath the tree:



One gift you don't have to wait until Christmas to receive, certainly not this year, is the gift of unending elite tournaments. The Elista Grand Prix is nearing the end, and it has been a terrific tournament. Pamplona is reaching the middle rounds, and although it has been a bit of a dud so far, today's games were pretty good. And then tomorrow, the yearly post-Christmas tournament in Reggio Emilia, Italy gets underway. Top players there include Ni Hua (2710), Alexey Dreev (2670) and Zoltan Almasi (2650). (Hastings will start a day or two later, but unfortunately that event has been a comparatively weak one for many years now. Worse still, from a traditionalist standpoint, it's now an open Swiss. On the other hand, it's fun for amateurs to be able to say that they played in the "same" event as Pillsbury, Chigorin, Lasker, Capablanca, Euwe, Botvinnik et al. And it's better that they hold a swiss than nothing, if the alternative is bankruptcy.)

Elista, Round 10 Results (Christmas day):

Jakovenko - Inarkiev 1-0
Radjabov - Alekseev 1-0
Leko - Gashimov 1-0
Mamedyarov - Eljanov 1-0
Cheparinov - Akopian 1-0
Bacrot - Wang Yue 1/2-1/2
Kasimdzhanov - Grischuk 1/2-1/2

Talk about a White Christmas!

Round 11 Results (today):

Grischuk - Cheparinov 1/2-1/2
Gashimov - Jakovenko 1/2-1/2
Wang Yue - Radjabov 1/2-1/2
Inarkiev - Kasimdzhanov 0-1
Alekseev - Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2
Akopian - Bacrot 1/2-1/2
Eljanov - Leko 1/2-1/2

I guess the merchants knew what they were talking about when they dubbed today "Black Friday".

Standings after 11 of 13 rounds:

1-3. Jakovenko, Radjabov, Grischuk 7
4. Gashimov 6.5
5-9. Leko, Mamedyarov, Cheparinov, Bacrot, Wang Yue 5.5 (no 6's)
10. Kasimdzhanov 5
11-12. Inarkiev, Alekseev 4.5
13-14. Akopian, Eljanov 4

Pamplona, Round 4 (today; they took Christmas off):

Vallejo Pons - Malakhov 1/2-1/2
Caruana - Sasikiran 0-1
Nepomniachtchi - Delchev 0-1
Salgado Lopez - Roiz 1/2-1/2

Standings after Round 4:

1-2. Vallejo Pons, Sasikiran 2.5
3-6. Malakhov, Caruana, Roiz, Delchev 2
7-8. Nepomniachtchi, Salgado Lopez 1.5

And it wasn't even as close as the score. (Notre Dame should have played the last 25 minutes; then they could have won by 60 or 70.) We'll see if this is a portent of things to come next year, or if it only means that Hawaii has a talented high school team.

On ESPN, the greatest football program in history (though perhaps experiencing a slight hiccup or two of late) is playing Hawaii in the Hawaii bowl (gee, that's convenient...though given the weather here, the Irish probably don't mind a bit). So far it's 7-0, Notre Dame, and it's only going to get better.

Well, at least one reason. Merry Christmas!

For at least the second time this year, a grandmaster has died at the age of 64. Slovenian GM Albin Planinec died December 16, and while he had faded from public view, he was a brilliant tactician who could claim among his successes the prestigious IBM tournament in Amsterdam 1973 where he tied for first with Tigran Petrosian (ahead of, e.g., Kavalek, Spassky and Szabo). Some of you might remember him for his famous win over Vaganian from Hastings 1974 (a game I presented in a ChessBase show a long time ago). If you don't recall it, have a look here.

(HT: Chess Today)

Once again Vallejo Pons had the only decisive game in Pamplona - the organizers might want to get the honoraria refunded. Sasikiran-Salgado Lopez went 21 moves, Delchev-Malakhov was a 19-move battle, whilst Roiz-Nepomniachtchi was a marathon of 18 moves. When the opponents are battling every round and there's the occasional dud, that's one thing, but this is pretty bad. Anyway, Vallejo Pons came to play, but this time it had an unhappy ending. He was winning with Black in a Byrne Variation Najdorf, but his 27th move was a well-hidden blunder. (If that sounds oxymoronic, all I can say is that a move that takes Black from a solidly won game to one that's lost requires two question marks.) Caruana was alert to his opportunity and won in style, catching his opponent atop the leaderboard in first place.

The Elista Grand Prix resumes tomorrow; you can catch up on last round's results here.

Nothing is more vexing to a chess player (qua chess player) than a loss, whether one is a professional or an amateur. But how do the pros deal with losses? That was the question of the day at the Elista Grand Prix, and you can read their answers here. Surprisingly, perhaps, their answers run the gamut. Some metaphorically shrug their shoulders about a loss as a normal part of chess life, while others admit that they are or at least can be very painful and tough to deal with.

This is a subject worth returning to, and perhaps I shall, but to at least start a discussion one could do worse than see what elite players do. Readers?

Starting with the Elista Grand Prix, there were four wins in the seven games.

Jakovenko drubbed Kasimdzhanov, who apparently spent all his useful chess energy seconding Anand in the latter's match with Kramnik last month.

Radjabov, the King of the King's Indian, struck again in his signature opening, this time against Eljanov. As often happens, White had lots of extra space and seemed fine most of the way, but when the attack broke, it was devastating.

On the other hand, Cheparinov's attempt to essay the King's Indian against Wang Yue was rather less successful. Cheparinov sacrificed a pawn for play, but his opponent always managed to maintain control. Still, it was anyone's game until 30...f4? - perhaps he missed that after 31.Nxe5+ dxe5 32.Rxe5 he couldn't play 32...fxg3 33.Nxg3 Qxg3 because 33.Rf1+ would win the queen. He tried the clever temporary rook sac 32...Qg6, but the tactics worked out for White: 33.gxh4 Qg6 34.Ng3 Qxb1+ 35.Re1 Qg6 36.Qe5! The knight is immune on account of 37.Qe7#, and on other moves White increases his material advantage while continuing the attack. Black resigned three moves later.

Finally, while Gashimov's game with Radjabov yesterday was a quick and bloodless draw between countrymen, Gashimov was not mercifully inclined against Mamedyarov today. Gashimov was outplaying his opponent on the White side of a Richter-Rauzer, but it was only when Black missed the clever mousetrap 30.Nf4-d3 Qe5-g3 31.Nd3-f4, locking in and preparing to collect Black's queen, that the game was lost. This brought Gashimov back into a tie for first with Grischuk.

Inarkiev-Leko, Akopian-Grischuk and Alekseev-Bacrot were all drawn.

Standings after Round 9:

1-2. Gashimov, Grischuk 6
3-4. Jakovenko, Radjabov 5.5
5-7. Inarkiev, Bacrot, Wang Yue 4.5
8-11. Cheparinov, Mamedyarov, Leko, Alekseev 4
12-14. Akopian, Kasimdzhanov, Eljanov 3.5

Meanwhile, in Pamplona, Francisco Vallejo Pons was again the only winner, this time defeating Aleksander Delchev. He has 2/2, five players have 1 and his two victims (Delchev and Salgado Lopez) have half a point.

****WARNING: THIS WEEK'S SHOW IS ON MONDAY****

There have been and will be other world chess champions, but among them Mikhail Tal stands apart for his attacking genius, his ability to outfox his rivals in the wildest complications, and in the sheer joyousness of his play. Fischer and Kasparov might head the polls for "greatest player ever", but when it comes to favorites Tal might be the all-time winner.



If so, it's because of games like the one we're going to look at this week. It took place in 1957, the year Tal burst on the world stage by winning the USSR championship, but this was from a training game against "the Maestro", his permanent trainer Alexander Koblentz. Tal had White in a Classical Sicilian, and the Richter-Rauzer offered the sort of attacking chances that put him in his element. For a while, the game proceeds along normal lines, but between Tal's seemingly unlimited fantasy and Koblentz's ingenious defense, inspired by the Euwe rook sac we saw in last week's show, it becomes an affair both mind-boggling and beautiful. Perfectly played? No, but the level of creativity outweighs the errors.

It's practically impossible to imitate a game like this one, but it can certainly be enjoyed - and if you know how the pieces move and have a pulse, I dare you to watch tomorrow night without feeling inspired by what you see. Just remember that the show does take place tomorrow night - Monday night - at 9 p.m. ET (early Tuesday for those of you in Europe). It's a game worthy of the season.

In this week's show, I take another look back at last month's IM norm tournament in Chicago. This time around it's my round 7 game with Stamnov that gets examined, a quick and entertaining game that put me back in norm contention after a difficult start. Time may be limited as Christmas approaches, to say nothing of attention spans due to holiday overeating, so this week the show is light and relatively brief. (But hopefully as enjoyable as ever!)

Here it is.

It's not as strong as the just-finished Nanjing tournament or the ongoing Grand Prix event in Elista, but the annual end-of-the-year contest in Pamplona, Spain, is still quite impressive. There are no 2700s, but of the eight contestants two have been 2700, two are or have been close, and three are teenagers. The participants are:

Sasikiran (2694)
Rois (2677)
Malakhov (2675)
Vallejo Pons (2664)
Caruana (2640)
Delchev (2632)
Nepomniachtchi (2616)
Salgado Lopez (2556)

First round results:

Salgado Lopez - Vallejo Pons 0-1
Caruana - Nepomniachtchi 1/2-1/2
Sasikiran - Malakhov 1/2-1/2
Roiz - Delchev 1/2-1/2

This was an exciting round, with almost every game offering something of interest to the spectators.

Mamedyarov-Inarkiev was a classic race, where White's breakthrough on the queenside was counterbalanced by Black's kingside attacking play. It doesn't look like either player missed any big chances, and in the end it was settled by a perpetual check.

Leko-Jakovenko was a rather strange game, in that Leko, normally a player with fantastic technique, blew a completely winning position. Up two pawns in a queen and rook ending, he chose to go hunting for more, and that allowed Jakovenko's counterplay to become serious enough for a draw. (On move 35, simply 35.b5 - but other moves are good as well - leaves Black without any real hope. Instead, the decentralizing 35.Qb8+?! Kh7 36.Rxf7? Rh1+ 37.Kg3 Qc6! left White with a seriously exposed king, and a few moves later it was Leko who had to ensure the draw.) The moral is one I often remind my younger students: when you have a winning material advantage, you don't need still more material. If you can get it for free, that's great, but the first task is to kill the opponent's counterplay.

Bacrot-Eljanov was a long game - 60 moves - but not really. It was a recipe draw for Black: the first 23 moves were theory, and the next dozen moves saw further trades leading to an easily drawn ending. The last 25 moves were pretty unnecessary, but there was no harm in White's trying.

Kasimdzhanov-Akopian was a Shirov-Shabalov gambit that was accepted, and it's because of games like this that I never take the pawn when playing the Semi-Slav. Black never looked like he was equalizing (or even close) at any point in the game, and eventually Kasimdzhanov's attack broke through. In the final position, Black can only save the exchange by taking on e6, but after 35...Bxe6 36.Nxe6 a rook move will allow either 37.Rd8+ or 37.Qc3+, and one or the other (or both) will prove crushing.

Grischuk-Wang Yue was a complete success for White. Black surrendered the bishop pair to achieve an "equalizing" pawn break in the center; the only problem is that it didn't. After 22...b6 (maybe 22...Nb8 was better, with the aim of redirecting the knight to c6, and on 23.Qxa5 Nc6 and 24...Nd4), that pawn was a permanent target. Black tried shielding it with a knight on c5, but that only served to encourage the undermining a5 pawn break. Black was unable to hold everything together, and in the end lost a piece and the game.

Radjabov-Gashimov was the only short game of the round - probably not a coincidence, given that they are countrymen. Even so, it had its entertainment value. For instance, some might wonder why Black couldn't keep his extra piece with 9...Na4. The answer is that White continues with 10.a3, and after, say, 10...Be7 he continues with the quiet 11.Nb5. The point is that Black has no defense to the threatened 12.b4 that lets him keep all his goodies - his queen, the rook on a8, and his extra knight. Black could try to make out with at least an extra pawn for his troubles, with 11...Nxb2 (after 9...Na4...11.Nb5), but White is better after 12.Bd2 Qb6 13.Bf4 Na6 14.Qxb2 despite being a pawn in arrears. The queen will go to d2, the a-rook to b1, and White's heavy pressure is bound to (at least) recoup the pawn down the road. The game was similar, in that Gashimov was able to make off with an extra pawn in return for counterplay, but in this case it was more evenly balanced. Radjabov eventually regained the pawn, and in the final position neither side had anything to play for.

Finally, Cheparinov-Alekseev let us enjoy a flashy finish. After 20 moves, this Breyer Ruy Lopez looked like it would be a long slog, but Cheparinov's purposeful play opened the position for his pieces, and suddenly Alekseev's king was in big, big trouble. 33.Qxf7+ was a fine blow, and while Black can avoid mate in the final position with 35...Re7, he'll experience major material loss after 36.Rd/fxe7 Bxe7 37.Rxe7 followed by 38.Bxe5+.

Standings after Round 8:

1. Grischuk 5.5
2. Gashimov 5
3-4. Radjabov, Jakovenko 4.5
5-8. Mamedyarov, Cheparinov, Inarkiev, Bacrot 4
9-13. Leko, Wang Yue, Alekseev, Eljanov, Kasimdzhanov 3.5
14. Akopian 3

Tournament site here, games can be accessed there or (in several ways) from TWIC.

From Brian Karen:

This is from page 20-21 of Golombek's book on Botvinnik - Smyslov 1954:

"As far as the present writer is concerned, the most lively part of the day's proceedings ws caused by his pencil falling to the floor of the stage. On bending down to pick it up, he acquired a nasty splinter in his finger, went to the doctor, who extracted it by the elementary means of a safety pin, rendered a trifle more reassuring by his liberal appliation of iodine, and then returned a saddened and subdued figure to the stage. Evidentally the avocation of a chess judge is not without its dangers."

Azeri GM Vugar Gashimov continues to lead the Elista Grand Prix, but the identity of his co-leader has switched. Teimour Radjabov was much better against Ernesto Inarkiev, but from moves 36-40 he went from clearly winning to significantly worse, and Inarkiev's good technique in the N vs. B ending sufficed to win. So Radjabov dropped back but Alexander Grischuk, who defeated Evgeny Alekseev with the Benko Gambit in "recipe" style, took his place. As for Gashimov himself, his draw was a short and uneventful contest against Etienne Bacrot.

In other games, fans of marathons will enjoy Eljanov's 125 move victory against Cheparinov. In the battle of the seconds, Leko-Kasimdzhanov, Leko obtained a slight edge but couldn't make anything of it and the game was drawn. Jakovenko-Mamedyarov was a lively Gruenfeld played until mate was impossible; finally, Wang Yue-Akopian was a less lively but fully played draw.

Standings after Round 7:

1-2. Gashimov, Grischuk 4.5
3-4. Jakovenko, Radjabov 4
5-9. Inarkiev, Mamedyarov, Bacrot, Wang Yue, Alekseev 3.5
10-13. Cheparinov, Akopian, Leko, Eljanov 3
14. Kasimdzhanov 2.5

Of course we already knew that Topalov had won the Nanjing super-GM tournament, but now it's official. He coasted in with an easy draw against Movsesian, playing the Exchange Slav, getting nothing, swapping almost all the pieces and shaking hands. In the runner-up sweepstakes, Aronian managed clear second by virtue of his draw with Svidler. Bu had been tied for second going into the last round, but Ivanchuk finally found some measure of form and crushed him.

Final Standings:

1. Topalov 7 (out of 10)
2. Aronian 5.5
3. Bu Xiangzhi 5
4. Svidler 4.5
5-6. Movsesian, Ivanchuk 4

Games here (two with comments).

With a round to spare, no less. Anand is the world champion, but Topalov has been playing like the real number 1 for the better part of 2008. In April of this year, he was "just" 2767; now, going into the last round of the Nanjing tournament, he's a ridiculous 2810, more than 19 points higher rated than the second-placed Anand.

In round 9 Topalov won his fourth game in the last five, winning with surprising ease against Svidler. Topalov is on a roll, but it does seem that Svidler's unintended generosity was more to blame than Topalov's strong play. On the White side of an Advance Caro-Kann Svidler took on some queenside weaknesses in the hope of achieving play on that side of the board, but his initiative didn't last. Ultimately, he was down a pawn with more pawns on their way out the door, and it was time to resign.

Bu Xiangzhi and Aronian were Topalov's closest pursuers, but their bloodless draw against each other they left Topalov with clear first, a point and a half ahead with one round to go. The other game, Movsesian-Ivanchuk, was also drawn, but it was far more dramatic. Movsesian sacrificed a pawn and then two pieces and a rook for a queen, pawn, and seemingly vaporous attacking chances. His chances probably didn't fully compensate for the piece, but they were enough to achieve a draw with the off-form Ivanchuk.

Standings after Round 9:

1. Topalov 6.5
2-3. Bu, Aronian 5
4. Svidler 4
5. Movsesian 3.5
6. Ivanchuk 3

Games here, with my brief comments on Topalov's win.

The post-round 5 leaders, Radjabov and Gashimov, drew their games, and Alekseev and Grischuk won their games to catch Jakovenko in the next score group. At last the field is starting to stratify a little, but with seven rounds to go practically everyone is still in the hunt.

Standings after Round 6:

1-2. Gashimov, Radjabov 4
3-5. Jakovenko, Alekseev, Grischuk 3.5
6-9. Cheparinov, Mamedyarov, Bacrot, Wang Yue 3
10-12. Inarkiev, Leko, Akopian 2.5
13-14. Eljanov, Kasimdzhanov 2

Tournament site here.

Topalov is having another of his famous spurts in Nanjing, winning his third game in four days. Today's victim was Ivanchuk, who played a draw-seeking variation with Black with a complete lack of success. Topalov is playing well, but Ivanchuk, clearly in a tailspin, lost badly.

Had Bu defeated Svidler, he'd have kept pace with Topalov and remained tied for first. That came nowhere near happening, though, as Svidler outplayed him in what started out as a nearly equal endgame. It was a good performance by Svidler - at least discounting his failure to punish his opponent's blunder on move 23.

Finally, Movsesian was slightly better against Aronian for much of their game (despite having the Black pieces), but he was unable to make anything of it. Still, it's a good result with Black, and elevated him out of the last-place tie with Ivanchuk.

Standings after Round 8:

1. Topalov 5.5 (not to mention a 2887 TPR, which should guarantee him first place on the next rating list, and by a convincing margin)
2-3. Bu, Aronian 4.5
4. Svidler 4
5. Movsesian 3
6. Ivanchuk 2.5 (2608 TPR - terrific for us, but not for him)

The games can be replayed here (with comments on the Topalov and Svidler wins); the tournament site is here.

N.B. It's a day off in Elista, but there are some interesting interviews on the tournament site.

In the FIDE Grand Prix in Elista, only two of the seven games had a winner. Nevertheless, it was an important day for the top standings as one of the games, Gashimov-Grischuk, elevated the first-named player into a tie for first with Radjabov, his countryman. They lead with 3.5, half a point ahead of Jakovenko and a point in front of seven(!) players, one of whom, Cheparinov, was the day's other winner.

But Topalov is very fortunate that this is the case. He blundered the exchange against Bu, but the latter's endgame technique was uncharacteristically poor and Topalov escaped with a draw.

This was the only draw of the round, however, but not the only display of poor technique. Movsesian entered a late middlegame/early endgame against Svidler up the exchange for a pawn and thus in possession, presumably, of whatever winning chances there were. That's not the way it turned out, however, as he let the position slip away: from at least equality to the supplicating half of the draw to an outright lost game.

Meanwhile, Ivanchuk continued to display lousy form (if it's from exhaustion or depression at the potential 2-year ban, it's altogether understandable), making several inaccuracies against Aronian before losing on an outright blunder.

Standings after Round 7:

1-2. Bu, Topalov 4.5
3. Aronian 4
4. Svidler 3
5-6. Ivanchuk, Movsesian 2.5

The games, with my comments, are here; tournament website here.

The elite tournament in Nanjing, China has commenced the second round-robin, and for Bu Xiangzhi it's a repeat of the first cycle. Bu has won two games so far, and both were against Sergei Movsesian. Today he won a very controlled game, slowly taking advantage of small weaknesses in his opponent's camp until he won a pawn. He subsequently sacrificed the exchange, which allowed him to reap a rich harvest - by the end of the game he was still down the exchange, but with five extra pawns to keep him company.

Veselin Topalov also won his second game - his second straight game. He too outplayed his opponent, Levon Aronian, and did so twice. He was winning a very nice positional game, but inexplicably (to me, at any rate, and subsequent computer analysis didn't illuminate the mystery) forewent the win of the exchange on move 43. He maintained some advantage after that, but I don't know if it was enough to win against best play. Fortunately for him, he didn't have to find out, and in the end his 43rd move was a mere hiccup on the way to an otherwise well played victory.

Finally, the game between Peter Svidler and Vassily Ivanchuk seemed to confirm the players' poor form. First Svidler had what seemed like a nice advantage, then Ivanchuk equalized before Svidler again had a reasonable advantage. How serious it was, I don't know, but after 32.h4(?) Ra4 it was gone for good, and the game was drawn.

Standings after Round 6:

1-2. Bu, Topalov 4
3. Aronian 3
4-5. Ivanchuk, Movsesian 2.5
6. Svidler 2

Games here (including Topalov-Aronian, with comments).

In the FIDE Grand Prix tournament in Elista, the group of four that has led the last two rounds continue to show the way (Radjabov first, followed by Jakovenko, Grischuk and Gashimov), but despite the draws in their games three of the remaining contests had a decisive ending. Alekseev defeated Kasimdzhanov on the Black side of a Rubinstein Nimzo-Indian, Wang Yue demonstrated his renowned technical skill in a long ending against Eljanov, and Bacrot outplayed Leko in a middlegame with castling on opposite sides. Eventually they reached this position (Black has just played 30...Qa3xa2)



and it looks like Black's attack is faster. If White plays 31.hxg7, for instance, Black mates in four with 31...Qb1+, 32...Qxb3+, and then either 33...Nxc4+ and 34...Re2# or 33...Qxc2+ and 34...Qxc1#, depending on White's 33rd. 31.Nxd3 is better, but Black wins here, too: 31...Qxb3+ 32.Ke2 Qxd3+ 33.Kxd3 Nxd3+ 34.Kxd3 Rd7+ 35.Kc2 Re2 36.Rd1 Bg5-+.

So what did Leko - but not Bacrot - miss? Click at the end of the post for the answer.

In other news, we can supplement this list with the name of IM Andre Diamant, who achieved his second GM norm while winning the championship of Brazil. As for Nanjing, we'll cover that later in a separate post.

GM Karsten Müller's endgame column is a reliably excellent monthly feature on the Chess Cafe website, but I'm pointing out this week's installment (permalink here) for a different reason. In the column's addendum, regular Chess Mind reader and commentator Charles Sullivan has taken a deep look at the famous 2B vs. 2N ending from game 23 of the 1951 Botvinnik-Bronstein match, and his analysis, if sound, is significant.

While we're on the subject of drawn matches, there's also the 1987 battle in Seville. The match ended in a 12-12 tie, allowing Kasparov to keep the title, but only when Kasparov won game 24 in a long, hard battle. Ironically, this only happened after Karpov had done the same in game 23 - and you can see the end of that game here, or right in front of you.

By 1953, former world chess champion Max Euwe was bringing his career as an elite to a close, but in the first half of the Neuhausen/Zurich Candidates' Tournament the Dutchman sang his swan song. Winning no less than five games, two of which have become classics, Euwe showed that even as a 52-year-old amateur (his full-time work was as a mathematics teacher at a girls' school) he was no one's "full point bye"; he remained a force to reckoned with.

The two aforementioned classics are strikingly different. Against Najdorf, he won a dashing attacking game with a fantastic, speculative rook sacrifice, while against Geller, he won a brilliant defensive, counterattacking game with...a fantastic, speculative rook sacrifice! On the White side of a Saemisch Nimzo-Indian, Geller sacrificed a pawn for a very dangerous kingside attack, and when his queen broke through on h7 it looked precarious for the former champ. It was here that our hero for the week concocted his remarkable counterattacking idea, one that lifted the game from an exciting battle to one worthy of future generations. (Further, as we'll see in our next show - our Christmas show - it inspired a successor just a few short years later, and that helped lay the groundwork for one of my all-time favorite games.)

It's the season for giving, so it's appropriate that we celebrate it with this sacrificial gem. The opening is one of practical importance for Nimzo players, and the game itself is of special value. To join in the fun, just do this: log on to Fritz/ChessBase's Playchess.com server tonight (Wednesday night) at 9 p.m. ET, go to the Broadcast Room, find "Geller-Euwe" under the Games tab and double-click on it. You're good to go!

P.S. Because of Christmas Eve/Christmas next week (and also because Notre Dame will be in a bowl game next Wednesday night :)), I'm going to try to reschedule the next show for Monday night. As I mentioned before, this is one of my all-time favorite games, so you'll absolutely want to catch that one. Likewise, since the week after that will be New Year's Eve/New Year's Day (depending on the time zone), I'll also try to get approval to reschedule that one for Monday night (Tuesday morning in Europe, Africa and Asia) as well. (I don't expect any problems with the rescheduling, but until it's official I'll phrase it tentatively.)

It's a common occurrence on this blog that commentators fill out the email and URL lines, often with obviously fake addresses. It doesn't really matter to me what one puts there (as long as it's not vulgar, slanderous and doesn't inconvenience any innocent third party), but it's worth pointing out that it's also unnecessary to enter anything at all. When one comments, just select "Guest" from the "Post as" list, fill out a nickname and write what you want to communicate. There's no need to include an email address, and unless you're looking to be contacted by spam bots, there's good reason not to.

There was no chess in Nanjing today, but the action in Elista made up for it. Three of the seven games had a winner, and all but one of the draws was long and hard-fought, too. Radjabov defeated Kasimdzhanov on the White side of a Dragon, which leads me to suspect that if Kramnik had played 1.e4 against Anand in their World Championship match, we'd have seen a Dragon. It is known that Anand worked with Carlsen before the match, and since he plays the Dragon and now Kasimdzhanov is trotting it out, I suspect that Anand would have too. If so, however, I hope he had something better prepared than what Kasimdzhanov used, because Radjabov - another sometime Dragoneer - more or less refuted Black's novelty on the spot. (That's an exaggeration, but White managed to prove a nice, enduring advantage.) Leko also won, defeated Cheparinov, while Eljanov defeated countryman Alekseev.

That means that Radjabov is in clear first, because the three other players who co-led with him entering the round all drew: Jakovenko and Grischuk with each other (quickly) and Gashimov with Wang Yue. Inarkiev-Akopian and Mamedyarov-Bacrot were also drawn, and the latter game was a picturesque battle full of sacrifices. I haven't tried to analyze it, either on my own or with the computer, but playing through it made a strong aesthetic impression. I've therefore included it here, along with the Radjabov-Kasimdzhanov game (with notes).

Standings after Round 3:

1. Radjabov 2.5
2-4. Grischuk, Jakovenko, Gashimov 2
5-9. Akopian, Mamedyarov, Inarkiev, Leko, Eljanov 1.5
10-14. Cheparinov, Alekseev, Wang Yue, Bacrot, Kasimdzhanov 1

A week and a half ago, there was a tournament open to players rated from 1400-1999. You might think any game I'd show from such an event would happen only so I could criticize it, but you'd be mistaken. In the game from which the following position arises, there were some inaccuracies in the opening, but White's winning combination is one any player could feel good about.



It's White to move here from the game Steele(1836)-Kosteris(1651), and the simple 14.Kf1! is probably winning: 14...Rxg5 15.Bxg5 N7c6 16.Re1 and Black's compensation for the exchange is insufficient. Steele had a different and very interesting idea in mind: 14.Be3!?. Black replied with the plausible (but unforced) 14...Qxc3+, and after 15.Kf1 didn't take on a1 but retreated the rook: 15...Rg4.



Now what? The answer is here.

Every so often I watch strong players play blitz online, and a few minutes ago I was observing a GM-IM battle that reached this position:



It's White to move, and he enjoys a big advantage here. Sometimes I watch passively, but on this occasion I was working at it, trying to find the best moves for myself. What would you do here? The GM's choice wasn't bad and he won without too much trouble, but I'm happy to have found an even better way. You can see both solutions here.

Apparently all the protests about FIDE's (read: Ilyumzhinov's) recent changes to the post-Anand vs. Topalov/Kamsky match cycle have been taken to heart - sort of - and now FIDE (Ilyumzhinov) will make its (his) final decision (until its/his next whim, anyway) in March. More here.

There were two winners today as well - Grischuk beat Leko and Radjabov showed fine endgame technique to defeat Bacrot. As neither of yesterday's winners won (or lost), we have a four-way tie for first: Gashimov, Grischuk, Jakovenko and Radjabov all have 1.5/2.

Tournament site here.

Two of the three games were drawn today in the Nanjing super-GM tournament, but unlike the last two rounds, all three contests had some fight.

Ivanchuk pressed against Movsesian on the White side of a Scheveningen Sicilian, but 22.Bf6 (instead of 22.Bd4) and 29.Rc1 (instead of 29.Qxe6) let the advantage slip, and Black escaped with a draw. Aronian-Bu Xiangzhi was also drawn, but after Bu's 35...Qf2? White had some chances. (35...Qd3 or 35...Nd2 were equal.) Aronian's 39.Qf8 returned the favor, however - 39.Qc1 would have kept a serious advantage - and Bu never game him a second chance.

In the third game, Topalov won quickly against Svidler. Topalov offered an exchange sacrifice on move 19, and while Svidler resisted the temptation the first time, he succumbed on the next move. Wrongly. Even if his position was tenable after accepting the offer, it wasn't easy to play, and he resigned on his 29th move.

That completes the first round-robin, and the players have a rest day tomorrow. Here are the standings at the halfway point:

1-3. Bu, Aronian, Topalov 3
4. Movsesian 2.5
5. Ivanchuk 2
6. Svidler 1.5

The games are here (I've commented on Topalov-Svidler).

In the last week or two, many countries have completed their national championships. While I suspect that readers living in the relevant countries already know about them, here are the results all the same:

Russian Women's Champion: Nadezhda Kosintseva
Italian Champion: Fabiano Caruana (Send him back!)
Ukranian Champion: Evgenij Miroshnichenko (on tiebreak over Drozdovskij. It's a fine result, but not as fine as it would have been had Ivanchuk, Karjakin, Eljanov, Ponomariov, Efimenko, Moiseenko, Areshchenko and Volokitin been playing.)
Israeli Champion: Boris Avrukh (on tiebreak over Smirin, Mikhalevski and Rodshtein. Gelfand wasn't playing, but the rest of the best were there.)
Greek Champion: Hristos Banikas

The first round of the Elista Grand Prix took place on Sunday, and the results can be summarized like this: non-Berlin games were drawn, Berlin games were won by White. Jakovenko-Wang Yue was a game Berliners need to think about a little, as it may contribute to the same-colored bishop ending theory of the variation, but Gashimov-Eljanov doesn't seem especially significant from a theoretical perspective. (The games can be downloaded from TWIC or the tournament site.)

As for the Bundesliga weekend, you can find some of the games here. Here I'd like to draw your attention to the game Carlsen-Socko, won by the latter in a very fine rook and opposite-colored bishop ending. The endgame was full of neat little tactics, from Black's use of mating possibilities on both the h-file and the 1st rank to White's stalemate tricks and Black's nifty zugzwang at the end of the game. (HT: glasskey4)

The Dallas Destiny defeated the Boston Blitz in the U.S. Chess League finals for the second straight year, but the nicest win in the match belonged to Boston's Larry Christiansen. Christiansen has long been known and respected for his attacking prowess, but somehow that doesn't stop opponents from playing lines where they grab material and neglect development - with predictable consequences. Case in point: this attractive win over IM Marko Zivanic.

One game (Svidler-Aronian) demonstrated some spunk, but Movsesian-Topalov and Bu-Ivanchuk were more in the spiritless character of round three's snoozefest. The relative standings at Nanjing thus remain unchanged:

1-2. Aronian, Bu 2.5
3-4. Topalov, Movsesian 2
5-6. Ivanchuk, Svidler 1.5

Games here, with comments to Svidler-Aronian.

This is definitely worth your time.

(A Stetson-sized hat tip to Brian Karen for this one.)

The round only lasted a little over two hours, and it's hardly worth the trouble to report on it.

In the marquee matchup between Ivanchuk and Topalov, the former decided on move 13 to pull the plug on any possible action. Mass exchanges ensued, and on move 22 the draw was agreed in a deadly dull position with opposite colored bishops and a symmetrical pawn structure. Movsesian-Aronian went a little longer, only to conclude with...opposite-colored bishops and near-perfect symmetry. At least Bu-Svidler ended in a bishop-free environment, but in addition to the queens and rooks, there was once again a fairly symmetrical pawn structure.

All I can say is that I hope the Chinese fans didn't have to pay too much to watch the games in person. The games, without commentary - they don't deserve it - can be found here; the tournament site is here.

Standings after Round 3:

1-2. Aronian, Bu 2
3-4. Topalov, Movsesian 1.5
5-6. Ivanchuk, Svidler 1

A few days ago I mentioned the classic game Fischer-Geller from the 1967 tournament in Skopje. I threatened to offer some analysis of the game - after giving readers a chance to write in - and it is time to offer some first thoughts. Have a look, here.

It's a team we can compete with, so there's at least a chance Notre Dame will end the winless drought in bowl games going back to the 90s. The opponent is Hawaii (how convenient for them!), in the Hawaii Bowl in Honolulu; the game takes place the night before Christmas at 8 p.m. ET. (Fortunately, it's not 8 p.m. local time!)

Go Irish!

Sergei Movsesian was the sole loser in round 1, to Bu Xiangzhi, but he bounced back today with a win over Peter Svidler. Svidler, with White, had the initiative in the opening, but the overoptimistic 21.Bh5?! let his opponent start calling the tune after 21...d4! Black's advantage wasn't lethal, but Svidler avoided one queen swap too many on move 42, and his opponent's attack decided the game a few moves later.

Veselin Topalov tried to outplay Bu Xiangzhi in a Main Line Slav. Eventually, he obtained a slight edge, but an inaccuracy on move 37 enabled Bu to wriggle out with a fairly comfortable draw.

Finally, the battle between Levon Aronian and Vassily Ivanchuk was terribly one-sided. Aronian enjoyed a slightly better position after his 21st move, but after Black's reply Aronian was all on him like the young Mike Tyson was on just about everyone. A series of power moves left Ivanchuk looking like a helpless amateur. An impressive performance by Aronian, but a terrible game by Ivanchuk, whose performance might be affected by the unresolved doping issue. Or - and I hope this is all there is to it - he just had a bad day.

Games, with my comments, are here. (Tournament site here.)

Standings after Round 2:

1-2. Bu Xiangzhi, Aronian 1.5
3-4. Movsesian, Topalov 1
5-6. Svidler, Ivanchuk .5

In other words, it's another Bundesliga weekend, and it's starting today. A lot of the world's elite are tied up in Nanjing and Elista (for the Grand Prix starting Sunday or Monday), but there are still many strong players in the famed German league competition. (Note: A small smattering of games can be found live on the TWIC homepage.)

This week's show focuses mainly on topics of chess self-improvement, but it also includes the presentation and discussion of three instructive endgames as well. Have a look!

It was a bad day for "episcopalian" chess at the Nanjing super-GM tournament, as the bishop pair proved impotent in the games Movsesian-Bu and Aronian-Topalov. Movsesian even managed to lose with the bishops, allowing Bu to demonstrate the powerful technique the top Chinese players have achieved a reputation for; Aronian, on the other hand, managed to hold a comfortable draw. In the other game, Ivanchuk-Svidler, the former had the wheels come off in a complicated position, but was bailed out when Svidler gave perpetual check rather than taking one of several winning lines. It's unfortunate for him, but understandable given the FIDE time control of G/90 with 30 second increments. It's a lousy time control, especially for a super-GM event, and games like this are the natural result. (Of course, the severe deterioration in the quality of the play is compensated by the fantastic worldwide TV coverage the event receives thanks to the shorter time control...just kidding.)

Anyway, for a closer look at the games, click here to see them, with my commentary.

As reported a while ago, FIDE decided (for the umpteenth time) to change the nuts and bolts of the World Championship cycle, and in response Magnus Carlsen decided to drop out of the Grand Prix portion of the process. Levon Aronian subsequently added his complaint (but didn't drop out), and now Mickey Adams has decided to bail as well.

It's definitely too bad, but the show must (or at least will) go on, and the next Grand Prix tournament, in Elista, starts this Sunday (though that might just be the opening ceremony, with actual play starting on Monday), December 14. Here's the lineup:

Radjabov, Teimour AZE 2751
Leko, Peter HUN 2747
Jakovenko, Dmitry RUS 2737
Wang, Yue CHN 2736
Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar AZE 2731
Eljanov, Pavel UKR 2720
Grischuk, Alexander RUS 2719
Alekseev, Evgeny RUS 2715
Bacrot, Etienne FRA 2705
Gashimov, Vugar AZE 2703
Cheparinov, Ivan BUL 2696
Akopian, Vladimir ARM 2679
Kasimdzhanov, Rustam UZB 2672
Inarkiev, Ernesto RUS 2669

Tournament site here.

HT: Chess Today

In presenting the game Andersson-Ivanov in yesterday's ChessBase show, I benefited from Jacob Aagaard's notes to the game in his 2004 Everyman Press book entitled Excelling at Technical Chess. As helpful as his notes were, I found the following post-game comment even more valuable:

It is one of the most important points in technical chess that an advantage does not have to be decisive in order to win. Obviously it is better to have a winning advantage than a clear advantage, but as it is harder to defend in the endgame than to play for a win, a clear or even a tiny advantage often has a tendency to increase over time and prove sufficient to win the game.

It is important to understand this as a defender as well. I know many people would have though that there was nothing much wrong with 17...Rfd8, 21...f5 and 40...f6 in this game, and that 46...Bg1? was entirely to blame for Black's defeat. [DM: Or that 46...Bg1 was innocent, and that 50...Be3 rather than 50...Bd4 was the culprit - see last night's show in the Playchess archives for details.] But this would be missing one of the simplest truths about chess - that chess is a game. The defender has to find the best defence all the time, and if you go through the annotations, you will see that his problems are multiplying as the game proceeds. At move 17 the improvement is one half move long, while at move 46 the proof that Black was still not lost has increased to half a page, and most of the lines are drawn by the smallest possible margin of a single tempo...[pp. 24-25].

I find this commentary valuable for at least two reasons. The first is the reason Aagaard himself gives, concerning the nature of playing technical positions (both for offense and defense). The second reason, and the one that immediately captured my attention when reading the text, pertained to self-improvement. In my experience, many amateurs seem to think they've explained a loss when they've detected one of their errors - perhaps a blunder at the end, or a mistake in the opening - and promptly declare the analysis complete. Maybe they made other mistakes, but "if only" they hadn't made the one error in particular, then everything would have been fine.

Maybe this sort of "Ockhamism" is psychologically useful when one is still in the midst of a tournament, but as a strategy for detecting one's weaknesses and improving it's a dismal failure. The other errors reveal something too, and it might be that they represent a problem that's more likely to recur and cause problems in the long run. Further, there can be an integral link between the earlier errors and the one that officially tips the evaluation from bad to lost. They might all be part of the same general plan or motivated by the same (mis-) understanding or evaluation of the position, in which case the last error really isn't independent of what came before. Also, as Aagaard notes, the earlier errors serve at the very least to reduce the margin of error, so their contribution should not be dismissed.

So when you analyze your games, especially your losses, look for and reflect on all the mistakes. Some are more serious than others, but each has its own story to tell. It might not be much fun at first, but it's a lot better to fix the errors at home than to repeat them in a tournament.

The world champion is 39 today, and as such an inspiration to middle-aged geezers everywhere, including the one typing this.

But how many hours exactly, I don't know. (If someone can find the round start times, that would be much appreciated!) Nanjing time is 13 hours later than Eastern Time in the U.S. and 8 hours after GMT, so right now it's noon in Nanjing. Many super-GM events start around 4 p.m., so they might be starting in another four hours, but again, I don't know. When they do start, these will be the pairings for round 1:

Sergei Movsesian - Bu Xiangzhi
Vassily Ivanchuk - Peter Svidler
Levon Aronian - Veselin Topalov

I intend to cover the tournament closely, but not live! I'm sure the usual suspects will transmit the game live, but if you want to watch directly go here. (Tournament site here.)

Update: It's starting now, at 1:30 a.m. ET/6:30 a.m. GMT/2:30 p.m. local time.

Some games require analyzing loads of complicated variations to understand them, and we have examined many such games in the history of this program. This week's game is not one of them! Ulf Andersson is one of the most adept technical players in the history of chess, and to get a grip on his 2000 win over Sergey Ivanov we have to use some different tools. We'll see schematic thinking, the principle of two weaknesses, and the always fascinating interplay between Capablanca's "do not hurry" and the need to switch to concrete calculation when the moment is ripe for action.

Andersson really puts on a clinic, outplaying his grandmaster opponent from what looks like a dead drawn beginning. Best of all, we are the beneficiaries. All that's needed is to show up tonight, Wednesday night, at 9 p.m. ET (that's early Thursday morning for my European readers), to the Broadcast Room of the Playchess server. It's free for members, and you can find the game by looking for "Andersson-Ivanov" under the Games tab. Hope to see you then!

Here and here, respectively (or in permalink, here and here). Interestingly, the Dvoretsky piece discusses a game of one of his trainees, Ernesto Inarkiev, and today is both men's birthday (Dvoretsky in 1947, Inarkiev in 1985 - and Nakamura's as well, in 1987).

Bobby Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games (MSMG) includes three losses, including a wild one to Efim Geller from Skopje 1967. Fischer achieved an objectively won position on the White side of a Sozin Sicilian, but in the complications lost his way and then the game. Here's the key position, after Geller's 19th move:



Fischer played 20.a3?, and after Qb7 21.Qf4(?) Ba4!! 22.Qg4 Bf6! 23.Rxf6 Bxb3! was forced to resign, as his intended 24.Rf4 gets mated by 24...Ba2+ and 25...Qxb2 mate, while 24.cxb3 Nxf6 leaves White down a rook without real compensation. In MSMG, Fischer claims that 20.Qf4 ("!!"), with the threat of Rh5, is a winner. He analyzes 20...d5, 20...Nd2+ and 20...cxb2, and some brilliant lines culminate in White wins.

In Edmar Mednis' first chess book, the 1974 work How to Beat Bobby Fischer, this conclusion is disputed. After 20.Qf4 cxb2 21.Rh5 (threatening Bxg7+), Mednis suggests 21...Nf6 ("!!") instead of 21...Nc3+ and 21...Bf6 as given in MSMG. Mednis writes: "I see no winning opportunities for White", suggesting only a possible draw with 22.Rxh7+, but without supporting analysis.

Going forward a few years from Mednis' book, but back 27 from the present day, to mid-1981, my friend Jeff Gallegos and I tried to defend Fischer's honor by busting the 21...Nf6 line. Jeff and I were just shy of 1900 at the time; not world-beaters, but not bad for 17 and 14 years old, respectively. Of course we couldn't analyze at the level of a Fischer or even a Mednis, but with persistence and the cockiness of youth we didn't see any reason why we couldn't get to the bottom of things.

It was generally Jeff who would initiate the attacking tries for White, and then I'd do my best to bust them. Mednis' claim stood for a while, and I was starting to think he was right, but Jeff finally found the right move. We were going to send our finished analysis to Chess Life (to Larry Evans' Q&A column), but in a sad coincidence the issue that came out even as I was writing the letter saw then-IM (now GM) Nick De Firmian write the column with the same solution and main idea. Alas!

Yet as sad as it was to be scooped, I now see it as a mixed blessing. Looking back on our analysis, it turns out that it wasn't very good. We had the right move and the right idea, but on the details we failed to find the best defenses and had plenty of errors in the lines we did cover. It's also nice from a nostalgic perspective to have the actual letter we were going to submit.

I've deliberately avoided saying what that move and idea happens to be, so that all of you can try to find it for yourself. Before digging up the old letter earlier today, I decided to have a look for myself to see if I could figure it out, and it turned out to be pretty easy to find. (Of course, it's possible that at some level I remembered the solution, so maybe I'm not as much stronger than my 14-year-old self as I'd like to think.) Taking a look at what the contemporary computers think was very interesting, though. The three of us were right, but Black can put up a tremendous amount of resistance. (I just noticed that Kasparov also presents the line in My Great Predecessors, vol. 2, game 100, in his section on Geller. Yet his analysis too leaves out a line that took me quite a while to work through using Rybka 3 and Deep Fritz 11 on a computer at least five years newer than the one he used at the time.)

So see what you can come up with, and feel free to post analysis to your heart's content. (Readers be forewarned: don't read the comments if you want to look at the position without any preconceptions!) I'll post my analysis sometime later this week, and will incorporate readers' suggestions if they add to or overturn any of my own conclusions.

Or rather, from the post-mortem of a blitz game I played yesterday; it's Black to move:



White's king is in horrible trouble, of course, but what's the most efficient way to put him out of his misery? Click below for the answer.

Ivanchuk had a big lead going into the last day of the Benidorm tournament, but a fairly unbelievable last-round loss to Shirov, with White, made it look closer than it really was. (Ivanchuk was a pawn up in a rook and knight ending, with no complications whatsoever, but thanks to a bit of reckless overpressing, he managed to lose his extra pawn, then a piece, and then fall into a mating net.) Overall, it was a very convincing success for Ivanchuk, who continues to triumph in one event after another. It would be awful if FIDE ends up following through on Ilyumzhinov's threat to ban him for two years.

At any rate, he's still in good graces through the Corus tournament, and in a few days he'll participate in the Super-GM event in Nanjing, China.

Final Standings:

1. Ivanchuk 8 (out of 10)
2. Shirov 7.5
3. Tiviakov 5.5
4. Lahno 4
5. Vila Gazquez (of bishop and knight ending fame) 3
6. Vega Gutierrez 2

If you can, then you're qualified to laugh at a 2400 who couldn't. Behold, the horror!

Yesterday, I offered these three studies for your solving pleasure:


Wotawa 1960; White to move and draw


Kalandadze 1956; White to move and draw


Weenink 1927; White to move and draw

How did you do? If you're not sure, you can find out here.

This weekend there's an A-B-C tournament in town (i.e. open only to players between 1400 and 1999), and along with it there's a book auction with the final bids going up tomorrow. (Now today.) I was browsing one of the books, a Russian edition of Averbakh's book on rook endings, and saw several neat rook vs. pawn endings in which the side with the rook has to fight for the draw. Here are three of them:


Wotawa 1960; White to move and draw


Kalandadze 1956; White to move and draw


Weenink 1927; White to move and draw

Enjoy these; I'll provide the answers on Monday (so please don't post solutions in the comment box).

After the first of the two round-robins at Benidorm, the peripatetic and indefatigable Vassily Ivanchuk leads with 4.5/5 - only Alexei Shirov managed to garner a draw (with White in round 5). Shirov, like Ivanchuk, had started off 3-0, but he lost to Kateryna Lahno in round 4 and trails by a point. Lahno went 3-0 today, and she's in clear third (3-2), ahead of Sergei Tiviakov's 2.5. Further back are Sabrina Vega Gutierrez (2278) with a point and Xavier Vila Gazquez (2422) with a single draw. As for the games, the PGN file on the site seems a blank, but you can at least find the 5th round games (plus two more from a concurrent event) under "Partidas en directo".

Meanwhile, the Old Guys vs. Young Women event has finished, and the oldsters won 17.5-14.5. Entering the last round, the men led by a commanding 16-12 score, so only a 4-0 whitewash by the women would save the day. Ushenina defeated Uhlmann in a long endgame, but the other three games were drawn. Congratulations to them, and especially to Grandmaster Vlastimil Hort, whose outstanding 6.5/8 was the best score in the event, surpassing Karpov's mark of 5.5/8.

Again, ironically, by defeating the Boston Blitz in a playoff match with one player to spare. More details (forthcoming as of this writing) here.

As I noted here, the new Batsford edition of Bobby Fischer's classic My 60 Memorable Games claims (on the book's back cover) not to have made any changes to the original text other than switching the notation to algebraic from descriptive. As I also noted, it was a claim that took me less than a minute to disprove. Curious if there were further unacknowledged textual changes, I wrote chess historian Edward Winter; his response is here (item 5883). The short answer is that there are other changes, and while they're all for the better (unlike many of the changes in Batsford's disastrous 1995 edition), I agree with Winter's conclusion:

Batsford was certainly right, in 2008, to wish to rectify clear-cut factual errors, but we feel that a) the back-cover claim that the text is unaltered was ill-advised, and b) any changes should have been mentioned explicitly and openly, either in footnotes or in an errata section.

The Benidorm tournament started today, but the website is extremely unfriendly. I've found the results of the first two rounds, but no games. Basically, what has happened so far is that the strong players have beaten up on the (comparatively) weak ones: Ivanchuk, Shirov and Tiviakov are 2-0, Vega Gutierrez, Gazquez and Lahno are 0-2.

Meanwhile, in the "Old Hands"-"Snowdrops" (i.e. old guys vs. young women) Scheveningen-style tournament, the oldsters lead 16-12 with one round remaining - I think.

Turning now to new products, the Christmas season is upon us, and it's time to think about chess purchases for your loved ones (even if that loved one is yourself). First up, the latest edition of ChessBase's Mega Database is out, and while it weighs in at a hefty 150 euros/$171, it's an excellent deal (4 million games, 62,000 of them annotated) when you compare the contents to what you'll get from books.

Another new ChessBase product is a DVD by Alexei Shirov on some of his best endgames ("Endgame Fireworks"). If you've seen and enjoyed his previous DVDs, you might want to consider this one.

Finally, a new edition of Bobby Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games has just come out from Batsford. Chastened by the vehement and just about universally negative comments on the infamous 1995 edition, Batsford claims that the new version has changed nothing but the notation, going from the original descriptive to algebraic. It took me approximately 20 seconds to determine that the claim was a lie, though a semi-benevolent one (there was a notation error in the original from the game Fischer-Tal, Candidates 1959; it has been fixed in the new edition). That it needed to be fixed was obvious, and giving the reader the correct game score is the right thing to do. What's not correct, in my view, is not to acknowledge the change, especially given the earlier controversy. In any case, Fischer's book is a classic and one of the absolute few must-have books for chess fans. If you don't have it, get it. If you don't have it and aren't interested, then this isn't the blog for you. Leave.

Right here. The next few shows will cover some highlights (and lowlights) from my last IM norm tournament in Chicago, and this week we start on a high note. One of my first shows covered a very rich loss to IM Emory Tate back in 2007; this time, I cover a slightly less rich - but more successful - battle against the same opponent.

The game is interesting, and there are three illuminating aspects therein. First, it's a very good example of logic in the opening - playing the opening well isn't always about home prep! Second, my one error was psychologically based, and the discussion of that error is instructive. And third, the rook ending featured good play from both of us - Tate did everything in his power to cause me difficulties in realizing my advantage, and I was able to rise to the occasion against his resourceful play. Overall, I think it was a very good game, and one worth taking the time to watch!

Here.

Summarizing various bits of information from Chess Today, it looks like the following is what will happen: FIDE will meet with Ivanchuk during the Wijk aan Zee tournament (in January) to discuss the matter, and at some point the FIDE Medical Commission will make a decision. So we don't need to panic just yet about Ivanchuk's future; in fact, he'll be playing in Benidorm starting tomorrow, and the Nanjing Super-GM event starting the 10th as well as the aforementioned Wijk aan Zee (Corus) tournament.

From an interview in late 1983:

[After comparing the length of his 1974 Candidates' matches to those Kasparov would have to go through {Karpov's were scheduled for a considerably longer number of games}, interviewer Nathan Goldberg writes this:]

But, nevertheless, he has doubts about the consistency of Kasparov's energy, particularly as it has been demonstrated in long tournaments.

He compares Kasparov to the hare in the fabled race against the tortoise. "We see now in long competitions, he starts well and then stops for a while, like in running before the finish he needs a second wind." (Chess Express, Issue 1 [November 25-December 8, 1983].)

Hmm, I wonder how that strategy of outlasting Kasparov went.

Mikhail Tal had just become the world chess champion and had led the Soviet team to another Olympic gold medal. He himself was in excellent form, and on the way to an individual gold medal for the best score on board 1. All that was left was the final round game against a mere international master, the English player Jonathan Penrose. As one might expect from a world champion vs. IM battle, it was a crush. What's surprising is that the "crushee" was Tal.

Was this a fluke? Not really! Although Penrose never made GM during his career (he was later awarded an "emeritus" title), he was a very talented player who clearly performed at a grandmaster standard, and would surely have achieved the title were his nerves a bit better and/or played more often. As it was, his accomplishments include 10 British championships and two individual silver medals in Olympic competition. And this is in the course of a short amateur career. It was short - he basically stopped playing over the board (OTB) chess in 1970, at the age of 37, and it was an amateur career - he was a university professor in "real life". (As is his better-known brother, the renowned mathematical physicist Roger Penrose.)

While our Penrose went on to correspondence chess, a discipline at which he became a grandmaster and enjoyed many successes, it's that OTB triumph over Tal that we'll focus on this week. Tal played the Modern Benoni, and Penrose chose a comparatively rare but very dangerous line against it that worked to perfection. One of White's main strategic ideas is the e5 break, and the beautiful way in which White managed to build, execute and utilize that advance offers a model of anti-Benoni play we can all learn from. (And it's not a bad David-and-Goliath story, either!)

I look forward to seeing all of you this evening - Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET - as we delve further into this attractive game and its background. The show is free for Playchess members; just log on, go to the Broadcasts room, look for and double-click on "Penrose-Tal" under the Games tab, and then sit back and enjoy.

Here.

Some non-unified bits of news and reflection at the end of the day.

First, those who would like to know more about the late IM Bob Wade can browse the many testimonial links at the top of the TWIC homepage.

Second, in the old men vs. young women match, the decisive factor in today's round was the same as it was in the first two rounds: White won. This time the ladies had it, and lead 7-5 after 3 of 8 rounds.

Third, as some readers have noted in their comments to this post, Ivanchuk's refusal to take a drug test at the end of the Dresden Olympiad looks like it will have two very serious repercussions. The first is that Ukraine's results are affected, to the end that the U.S. team drops into a third place tie with Russia, who then win the bronze medal on tiebreaks. Nice going, Vassily! Even worse, Andrey reports that Iljumzhinov intends to ban Ivanchuk for two years. Two years! THAT is insane. I must revise the opinion I stated earlier, though, about the nobility of Ivanchuk's action. I think drug testing (at least IOC-based testing) is completely stupid and think protesting it is a good thing, but because Ivanchuk was a member of a team, he should have discussed his intent to refuse with his team captain or federation before the event. Had Ukraine come in third, as they very nearly did, it would have cost his teammates a medal. So he is blameworthy in at least this respect.

The short single round-robin Remco Heite concluded yesterday, and with last round wins van Wely and Macieja tied for first with 3.5/5, half a point ahead of Yusupov (who had been leading, but lost with White in the last round to van Wely) and Tiviakov. Agdestein and Van den Doel brought up the caboose with a point apiece.

Meanwhile, in a creepily themed event between old men and young women ("Old-hands" - an even creepier name! - and "Snowdrops"), the oldsters lead after two rounds by a 4.5-3.5 margin. The men's team consists of Anatoly Karpov, Vlastimil Hort, Wolfgang Uhlmann and Fridrik Olafsson, and 20-30 years ago they'd have made a team that could threaten to win an Olympiad. The "snowdrops" are Katerina Nemcova, Viktoria Cmilyte, Anna Ushenina and Jana Jackova. (Event website here.)

Finally, Vassily Ivanchuk has taken a stand for sanity (ironically) by refusing a drug test after his loss to Kamsky in the final round of the Olympics. He could face repercussions for doing so, but since drug testing for chess players is completely idiotic - both because they can't help and because chess doesn't have a snowball's chance of becoming a "real" Olympic event - I applaud his decision and hope FIDE drops the matter. I don't advocate taking illicit drugs, but FIDE testing goes way beyond that point: too much caffeine, or presumably taking cold medication (pseudoephedrine is banned for "real" Olympians) would generate a positive result. If you're a pilot, it's reasonable to demand that you offer a sample; if you push pieces of wood around a checkerboard, it's not. We'll see what happens.

HT: Chess Today