The Chess Mind

For the third time this week, I present to you "this" week's ChessVideos show. As I mentioned with the first one, they had fallen behind on account of server troubles, but they've moved to a new one and with this video they're all caught up again.

This presentation is in some ways the exact opposite of the previous one. That one dealt with openings (practically every Sicilian variation), this one with endings. That one covered a wide range of material on a superficial level, while this one looks at a single ending in considerable depth. The last video was very much abstracted from real games and events, but this one focuses very tightly on not only a specific game, but a controversy surrounding it.

The game I'm referring to is the game Keres-Botvinnik, from the third cycle of the 1948 World Championship match-tournament. There's good reason to think that Keres was pressured not to out-do Botvinnik in the event (see this essay for a good survey of the documentary evidence), and some (not me) think it went to the point that Keres actually threw his first four games against Botvinnik, only winning the last one when it no longer mattered. (In fact, some go on to say that Botvinnik threw the last one, to make sure Reshevsky wouldn't finish ahead of Keres!)

As part of the case for the "Keres threw the games" conclusion, they point to particular positions where Keres' play seemed especially suspect, and the game in question offers a favorite example. Rather than make the whole case here, however, I refer you to my new video. You'll find all the elaboration you could want there, along with some amusing stories, plenty of analysis - and plenty of analytical errors, including some embarrassing ones by those who think the fix is in.

So have a look - it's free, available on-demand for the next month, and requires no special software - and decide for yourself. My judgment: while I think it's likely that Keres felt some general pressure, I doubt that it came anywhere near the point where he was told or felt compelled to throw the games. I say that the fix is out.

I haven't really been following the Grand Prix standings, in part because one never knows what FIDE will ultimately decide to do about anything, but as things now stand Aronian is in great shape - practically a shoo-in - to qualify for the next Candidates event. He has won the two Grand Prix events he has played in, so while Radjabov and Grischuk have a slight lead in the overall standings, Radjabov has only one Grand Prix tournament left to play in and Grischuk has none, while Aronian still has two.

Also, on the Live Top List, Aronian is now in third place at 2768. Only Topalov (2812) and Anand (2788) are ahead of him. After an iffy stretch that started around Mexico City in 2007, he's back looking like a very real contender for the title.

(HT on both points to Chess Today)

It all came down to the last round. Levon Aronian and Peter Leko were the co-leaders, a point ahead of their closest pursuers, and so the winner of their game (if any) would win the tournament outright. Leko played aggressively with Black, but in the end Aronian was able to neutralize his opponent's initiative, push him back, and then used his bishop pair to dominate. Both players put in a good effort, and Aronian earned his victory.

Leko thus finished a point back, and was caught by Vladimir Akopian in second. Akopian beat Pavel Eljanov with Black, finishing with a nice attack. With the win, Akopian completed a remarkable comeback from his dreadful ½-2½ start, going +4 in his last 10 games. Interestingly, both Aronian and Akopian won with powerful exchange sacrifices. Also noteworthy was that the top three finishers were Armenian (at least sort of): Aronian and Akopian in the most obvious sense, but Leko in an "honorary" way: his wife and his long-term trainer (who doubles as his father-in-law) are both Armenian. Congratulations to all three.

Round 13 Results:

Aronian - Leko 1-0
Bacrot - Alekseev 1-0
Gelfand - Karjakin 1-0
Svidler - Grischuk ½-½
Ivanchuk - Kamsky ½-½
Kasimdzhanov - Mamedyarov ½-½
Eljanov - Akopian 0-1

Final Standings:

1. Aronian 8½
2-3. Leko, Akopian 7½
4-5. Grischuk, Bacrot 7
6-7. Alekseev, Gelfand 6½
8-11. Kamsky, Karjakin, Svidler, Mamedyarov 6
12-14. Ivanchuk, Kasimdzhanov, Eljanov 5½

Tournament site here; the Aronian - Leko and Eljanov - Akopian games (with light notes) here.

There has been a discussion of the "K Factor" on the ChessBase site. That doesn't have to do with Korchnoi, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov, Karjakin and the rest, but with the mathematical constant used to calculate ratings. From the oldest to most recent posts, have a look here, here and here.

There's a story about a recent bold (and possibly dangerous) political speech by Kasparov in Sochi that's linked to on the ChessBase home page - the story is here.

Finally, here's a brief article with the self-explanatory title "Chess Style Used to Identify Players". (HT: Rob Bernard) It doesn't seem fully baked yet, but perhaps someday a successful algorithm will be used by online sites to prevent computer cheating.

The late Lev Polugaevsky (1934-1995) was one of the greatest players of his era, three times winning the Soviet championship and making it to the Candidates matches no less than four times. Additionally, he was an adept in the art of opening preparation (most famously in the eponymous Polugaevsky Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian), and to add to this he was the author of one of the greatest chess books of all time, Grandmaster Achievement.



While I heartily recommend that work, our focus for the show is his chess, and the game I've found this week is not only instructive, entertaining, and meriting the usual pile of adjectives; it's also quirky! Polugaevsky presents his win over Estonian great Paul Keres (from Tallinn 1973) in his book Grandmaster Performance in the chapter "The Touchstone of Mastery." Here he culls games in which he managed to successfully carry out "a complete strategic plan", writing of past greats that "[t]heir games are notable for the steadfast carrying out of a plan, and their play never gives the impression of being jerky."

You would imagine from this that the win over Keres exhibits very direct, very straightforward play. This is the aim, and to achieve it this piece goes here, that one goes there, a third one finds its place and the opponent collapses. There is some of that, yes. But it's remarkable how many times something slightly different takes place. Polugaevsky repeatedly wants to move a piece to square x, but first moves it to square y, chasing or luring Keres to move a piece to an inferior location, and only then does he move to square x. The effect of these little half- and false-steps is to keep wrong-footing the opponent, and it works to perfection. Poor Keres never manages to untangle his forces, and Polugaevsky wins convincingly.

There is much to appreciate in the game - you'll see - but it's worth tuning in to add the stutter step approach to your repertoire of tricks. Just tune in at 9 p.m. ET tonight (Wednesday night; it's 3 a.m. CET Thursday morning for the European viewers) on the Playchess server to watch. (Once you log on, go to the Broadcast room and find Polugaevsky-Keres under the "Games" tab.) Hope to see you then.

Some of my ChessVideos presentations are dedicated to answering viewers' questions, and more than once, when someone asked something that I took to be an overly broad, I made a point of explaining that. "There's only so much that can be presented in the context of a show like this, especially when I'm trying to answer other inquiries too, so please try to keep the questions more narrowly focused."

Naturally, a couple of wise guys decided to ask - as jokes - even broader questions. One example was to discuss the entire Najdorf. My joking reply was that I'd do it in the course of a 15-minute show covering the entire Sicilian. As it turns out, that's just what I've tried to do in this week's presentation. I hoped to get through the entire Sicilian (moving rather rapidly, as you can imagine) in 15 minutes. As it turns out, it look a little longer than that, and ironically the only Sicilian main line I didn't cover was...the Najdorf. (That's why it's "Part 1"; I'll cover the Najdorf in similar depth in a subsequent show.)

Of course the presentation is intended humorously, but while the coverage isn't going to put ECO out of business it might prove useful to many of you who don't know the lay of the land in the Sicilian. Most of the major systems are covered, and a lot of minor ones are presented as well, so you'll get a taxonomy of the opening together with a few little tidbits about each of them. For many of you, there will be nothing new, but I think many club players could benefit. We'll see - I'm very curious as to how the comments will go on this one.

The show is here, it's free (so you shouldn't complain too much!), and available on-demand for the next month or so. (Note to those of you who haven't watched one of these and associate them with the ChessBase shows: they're completely different. For the ChessBase shows, you need to have special software and to be there at a certain time [or to pay a small charge to watch it later on in the archives]. For this, you only need your web browser.)

Akopian - Gelfand was the first game to finish. Gelfand's Petroff took it on the chin in round 10, thanks to some deep preparation by Leko, but Akopian's attempt to follow in Leko's footsteps failed. Gelfand was ready and had little problem equalizing.

The second game to finish was Alekseev - Ivanchuk. This too was a draw, but at one moment it looked like White missed a win:



Black has just played 31...Qc7-c3, and after 32.Qd8+ Kh7 33.Qxg5 Qxf3 Alekseev found nothing better than the perpetual with 34.Qh4+ Kg8 (34...Kg6?? 35.Qh5+ Kf6 36.g5+ and 37.Qxf3) 35.Qd8+ Kh7 36.Qh4+ Kg8 37.Qd8+ Draw agreed. But after 31...Qc3 32.Qd8+ Kh7 and now 33.Qd3+, with the idea that after the swap White's king collects the a-pawn, it looks like White wins. Does he? The answer is at the end of the post.

The third game to finish - Leko - Kasimdzhanov - was extremely important in the standings, as Leko entered the round just half a point out of first. Interestingly, Leko varied from his recipe in the Gelfand game, but what he played worked out even better. Kasimdzhanov played meekly, and his desperate attempt at counterplay failed.



The last two half-moves have been 27...f5 28.gxf5, and now White is up two pawns with a better position. But Kasimdzhanov is nothing if he's not tricky, and now he played 28...Nxf5. The first point is that 29.Rxf5?? fails to 29...Qg6+, and after the better 29.Be6, Black will play the very sneaky 29...Qxd4. The obvious idea is that 30.Rxf5 is impossible because the queen is hanging, but the more subtle point is that 30.Bxf5 allows 30...Qd1+ and ...Qxh5.

Yet White could have a trick here too: After 30...Qd1+ 31.Kg2, Qxh5?? is a blunder thanks to 32.Qe5+ Kg8 33.Be6+ and White captures the queen next move. Instead of 31...Qxh5??, however, Black would first play the much stronger 31...Rg8+. The interpositions cost material, and 32.Kh2 Qxh5+ wins for Black. So how did Leko finish the job after 28...Nxf5? The answer is at the end of the post.

Kamsky - Aronian was next to finish, and it was a close shave for Aronian. Early on Kamsky obtained two minor pieces for a rook and a couple of very weak pawns, but his own pawn structure was so damaged that he couldn't convert the advantage into a win. Aronian and Leko are thus tied for first, and the scriptwriters did a great job: they're paired in the last round (Aronian has White).

Mamedyarov - Eljanov was an excellent defensive performance by Black, who was in trouble from the start. He had to scrape for a long time, but he eventually earned the draw.

Karjakin - Svidler showed why the Ruy Lopez is sometimes called the Spanish torture. Black was a bit worse for a long time, always having to react to White's play, and Karjakin ultimately broke through on the queenside. It was a nice game for the youngster, who had started well in the tournament before faltering the last few rounds.

Grischuk - Bacrot was also a nice "torture" win. Bacrot played the Modern Benoni and made all the traditional active moves (...b5, ...f5), but it wasn't clear if these were gains or weaknesses. Grischuk patiently blockaded everything, and then finished the game with a nice promotion combination. Here's the crucial position; what should White do?



Standings After Round 12:

1-2. Leko, Aronian 7½
3-5. Grischuk, Alekseev, Akopian 6½
6-7. Karjakin, Bacrot 6
8-12. Kamsky, Mamedyarov, Svidler, Eljanov, Gelfand 5½
13-14. Ivanchuk, Kasimdzhanov 5

Tournament site here; answers to questions and a link to the games are below.

There wasn't much to report at the top, but two of today's three wins involved tailenders.

Ivanchuk started the day in last place; in fact, he's still in last place, even with his victory over Grischuk. It sounds worse than it is, because six of the thirteen remaining players are just half a point ahead of him! As to the game: it was a Bayonet KID, and while it might not have had the grudge factor of a classic van Wely – Radjabov battle, it was a lively fight all the same. Ivanchuk sacrificed the exchange for central control, but it was in the “with compensation” department.


(Position after 31.Nxc7)

That changed with Grischuk's 31...Qxg4?? (31...Qd7 was equal). After 32.Qxd6 Black loses at least a knight (e.g. 32...Na7 33.Qd4+; 32...Nd8 33.Ne5 followed by 34.Nd7, etc.), but he must have believed that 32...Rbd8 33.Qxc6 Rd1+ would save the day. If 34.Re1, then 34...h3 35.Qc3+ f6 36.g3 Rxe1+ 37.Nxe1 Qxe4 is fine for Black, while 34.Ne1 h3 also seems adequate. Or at least, it must have seemed so to Grischuk in his time trouble.

It turns out that after 34.Ne1 h3 35.Qc3+ f6 36.Rxh3 Black has nothing to show for his material deficit, and after 36...Rc8, hoping to take on e1 and then on c7, Ivanchuk's 37.e5! was a crusher. Grischuk resigned, because if 37...Rxe1+ 38.Qxe1 Rxc7 39.exf6+ Kxf6 40.Rf3+ Black must surrender the queen for the rook, or else get mated.

Another tailender success story was Gelfand's win over Mamedyarov. Grinding away in his beloved Catalan, Gelfand managed to reach a superior but still probably drawn rook ending with a passed c-pawn. The key moment came here, after 51.Kd4-c3:



51...Rg4 should hold the draw. White can maintain an extra pawn with 52.c6 Kd5 53.c7 Rc4+ 54.Kd3 Rc1 55.c8Q Rxc8 56.Rxg7 Kxe5 57.Rxh7, but this type of ending is a known theoretical draw. Instead, Mamedyarov played 51...Rb5?, and after 52.Kc4 Rb2 White can win with 53.Rxg7 Rxh2 54.c6 Kxe5 55.c7 Rc2+ 56.Kb3 Rc1 57.Rxh7 Kd6 58.Kb4! Rc5 (58...Rxc7 59.Rxc7 Kxc7 60.Kc5 is an easy win - White will win the pawn and gain the opposition) 59.Rg7 and Black is in zugzwang. Horizontal rook moves allow queening, vertical rook moves let White's king reach his pawn, and 59...Kd5 loses to 60.Rd7+.

Instead, Gelfand played the less accurate 53.c6, and now 53...Rc2+ 54.Kb5 g5 gives Black counterplay. Fortunately for Gelfand, Mamedyarov erred again with 53...Kxe5, and this time there was no amnesty. The game concluded 54.Rxg7 Rxh2 55.c7 Rc2+ 56.Kb3! Black resigns. White will first take the h-pawn and then march his king up the board. A possible continuation is 56...Rc1 57.Rxh7 Kd6 58.Kb4, when we've transposed into the 53.Rxg7 line given above.

The third winner was Bacrot, who defeated Karjakin on the white side of a 6.Be3 Ng4 Najdorf. Karjakin hastened his defeat with the bad 36...a3?, but he was in trouble even after the superior 36...e5.

Turning to the leaders, Aronian and Leko entered and exited the round half a point apart, with the rest of the field at least another half a point back. Aronian was in some trouble against Kasimdzhanov, but eventually escaped into a pawn down double-rook ending which he drew without difficulty.

Leko, on the other hand, didn't have to sweat at all against Eljanov. He equalized easily with Black, and on move 33 both he and his opponent seem to have missed a simple tactic.



White has just played 33.Nd5, and now Leko has 33...Bxg4 (34.fxe4?? Qxe4+ and 35...Qxd5). Maybe Black's advantage isn't all that great after 34.b3! Qb2+ 35.Kg3 Bd7 36.Qe7 Qe5+ 37.Qxe5 fxe5 38.bxc4 bxc4 39.Kf2, but the burden of proof is on White. Instead, Leko played 33...Be6, and the game was drawn shortly after the time control.

I didn't understand the draw in Alekseev - Kamsky, as it seemed to me that White could press with his extra pawn, and Rybka isn't doing a thing to persuade me otherwise. It's entirely possible that there's some defensive algorithm Black can follow that makes further progress impossible, so I leave it to GM reports, press conferences, and my intrepid readers to point out what I'm too sleepy to understand.

Finally, Svidler - Akopian was a short and bloodless draw, but this is to the credit of Akopian's opening play and not the contestants' lack of fighting spirit.

Standings After Round 11:

1. Aronian 7
2. Leko 6½
3-5. Alekseev, Akopian, Bacrot 6
6-7. Grischuk, Svidler 5½
8-13. Kamsky, Karjakin, Mamedyarov, Kasimdzhanov, Gelfand, Eljanov 5
14. Ivanchuk 4.5

I'm rooting for at least a 7-way tie for last place. Make it happen, guys! (It would be hard to top Linares 2001 though, a 6-player double round-robin won by Kasparov with a +5 score; everyone else tied for last at -1.)

Tournament site here.

It was neither a major event nor a major test for the world champion, but because it's Viswanathan Anand in action his 2-game rapid match with GM Ivan Morovic is automatically noteworthy. In game 1, Morovic allowed his pawn structure to be compromised, and a few moves later his position was lost. His 31st move gave up a pawn without receiving any real compensation in return, but the problem was that if his knight remained in place he'd have no play whatsoever - not to mention that Black would win material by piling on the c-file. With the pawn in his pocket, Anand's passers pushed on to victory.

In game 2, Anand was again the brute, making it look easy to beat a 2550-level player. Morovic was in trouble from early on, and Anand got to finish in style with the 1-2 punch 30.b4!! cxb4 31.h6! The point of the first move was to clear b2 for the queen, and the second move was complementary, prising open the a1-h8 diagonal. After 31...Ne7 32.Qb2 Qg6 33.hxg7+ Black was losing a rook, so it was time to throw in the towel.

The games are here (without notes), the tournament website here.

Once again the players bounce back from the rest day full of fight. Five of the seven games had a winner, and in each case it was the player with the white pieces.

Aronian-Eljanov was a QGD where White gained the bishop pair, and he used it successfully. Whether they combated a bishop and knight, two knights, or later a rook and two pawns, the killer b's were superior throughout. Some closing tactics sealed the deal, and Aronian maintained the lead.

If Black won in Grischuk-Alekseev, he'd remain tied for first. It wasn't to be, though; not even close. White enjoyed a big anti-Nimzo-Indian center and ground Black down, winning one pawn after another. Not even opposite-colored bishops could save Black, and Alekseev sunk (and Grischuk rose) to a spot a full point behind Aronian.

That spot was not second but third, because Leko won a very impressive game against Gelfand. He found a nice idea against the latter's Petroff that forced Gelfand to weaken his kingside. From there he played virtuosically, combining threats to g7, h7, c7 and e7 until his opponent broke. Very nice play, and it put Leko in clear second, half a point behind Aronian.

So Grischuk and Alekseev were tied for third, and they were joined by Akopian, who ground Bacrot down in a rook and knight vs. rook and bishop ending. After starting with a draw and two losses, Akopian has gone +3 the last 7 rounds.

The final decisive game of the day was Mamedyarov-Svidler. Though complicated throughout, the players maintained the balance for a long time, but Svidler's 31...Ke7?? - almost surely in time pressure - cost him the game.

The two draws were the opposite of the won games, not only in result but in fighting spirit. In Kamsky-Kasimdzhanov the American played the unenterprising 4.Nc4 line against Kasimdzhanov's Petroff and got less than nothing. The game was never in danger of being interesting and was agreed drawn in 36 moves. It would be seriously unfair to pick on Kamsky, however, given the number of marathon contests he had in this tournament, so I won't begrudge him the day off.

Karjakin-Ivanchuk, well, that's a different story. The game went 40 moves before the draw was agreed, but no on who follows the Sveshnikov Sicilian is going to be fooled. I haven't followed that opening that closely in years, but I remembered the position after move 26 as being known to theory, and it turns out it's even worse than that. Karjakin had played the exact same position through his 37th move in a 2008 game with Wesley So, and the position was dead drawn by that point whether one plays it like So or like Ivanchuk. The only thing I can think of is that Karjakin hadn't found an improvement on his game with So, but played the line again hoping that Ivanchuk would vary first out of fear. If so, it didn't work.

Standings After Round 10:

1. Aronian 6½
2. Leko 6
3-5. Alekseev, Grischuk, Akopian 5½
6-9. Karjakin, Mamedyarov, Bacrot, Svidler 5
10-12. Kamsky, Kasimdzhanov, Eljanov 4½
13. Gelfand 4
14. Ivanchuk 3½

Tournament site here.

It was a fun match (or pair of matches), with the first three days given to rapid games (two a day) and the fourth to a ten-game blitz match. Akobian won the rapid portion 3½-2½ (+3-2=1) and then dominated the blitz 6-2.

The website, which looks more like a random collection of ads, is here.

Saturday (today) is a rest day for the players, and they earned it. Most of the games were long, and even the two fairly short draws had their moments.

The leader coming into the day, Aronian, had Black against Gelfand and drew in just 33 moves. But before you cluck at Gelfand, know that he faced a very good novelty from Aronian, in reply to which he thought for an hour and a half(!!) before replying. He managed to put some pressure on Aronian, but the latter held and drew.

Grischuk could have caught Aronian in first with a win against Kamsky, and he had serious pressure for a long time. During the second time control, he lost his way, and while neither side played perfectly after that, Kamsky gradually ground out the win in 101 moves. For a while he was getting "lazy", but now his average is back up to a hefty 73.1 moves per game.

Alekseev did what Grischuk could not, and by defeating Karjakin - with ease - he moved into a tie for first. Alekseev happily exchanged pieces in a 6.h3 Najdorf, secured the bishop pair and used it to grind Karjakin into oblivion.

The day's other decisive game was Bacrot-Mamedyarov. Bacrot sacrificed a couple of pawns to keep his opponent's king in the center, and after 16...Rb4?! and 20...Kd8? Black was cut to ribbons in the shortest game of the day (1-0, 31).

Svidler-Leko was a draw and should have been a draw based on what happened through most of the game. That said, there was an exchange of errors near the end: Leko allowed a devastating attacking shot that would have won the game for Svidler, but Svidler missed it too (or talked himself out of it), and then the game got back on track. Had Svidler won, he would have joined the tie for first.

Eljanov-Kasimdzhanov was balanced for a long time, but gradually Kasimdzhanov outplayed him and achieved a won rook and bishop vs. rook and bishop ending. Unfortunately, just as he was on the verge of winning, he blundered a pawn to an elementary tactic, and the game was drawn.

Finally, Ivanchuk-Akopian was a clean 45 move draw with a few interesting moments.

Standings after Round 9:

1-2. Alekseev, Aronian 5.5
3-5. Leko, Svidler, Bacrot 5
6-9. Karjakin, Grischuk, Akopian, Eljanov 4.5
10-13. Kamsky, Gelfand, Mamedyarov, Kasimdzhanov 4
14. Ivanchuk 3

The (very good) tournament site here; all the games, with my comments, are here.

It has been a while now, but in this post and then this one, we took a look at this position:



The primary task was to analyze the position after 11.Rf3 Bxc3 12.Bxh7+ Kxh7 13.Rh3+ Kg8 14.Qh5



and to see what you could come up with. Some of you undoubtedly worked everything out, but for the rest of you, you might want to have a look at my ChessVideos show this week (link here). I cover this position in some detail, but only after first giving an overview on the typical themes and preconditions for the "Greek gift" sacrifice. Have a look - it's free, requires no special software, and is available on-demand for the next five weeks or so.

* (Actually, it's last week's show, but ChessVideos.tv needed to switch servers. Everything's back and running at full blast, it seems.)

Earlier this evening, we had a quick play (g/10) at the club, and in round 1 I reached the following position (with White):



Black has just played 15...Rh3-h6, saving the rook and preventing mate on e6. With two extra pawns and Black's miserable king where it is, it's clear that White is winning with room to spare. But what's the best move? The answer is below.

First 6 rapid games on the 22nd through the 24th, then 10 blitz games on the 25th. So far, Akobian leads 2½-1½.

Website here.

Poor Gata Kamsky! He had another long game in round 8, losing in 67 painful moves to Pavel Eljanov. He was in good shape in the opening and into the middlegame, but a tactical oversight turned the tables and he didn't have enough energy to pull out a draw. That's his third loss in four games, and it seems likely that all his early marathon games burned him out.

The other win was very lively, and I've linked to the game with my relatively brief comments. In the ultra-sharp Anti-Moscow Gambit in the Semi-Slav, Boris Gelfand found a brand new move (and idea) (9...Nbd7) in a position that has occurred in dozens of high-level games. Rustam Kasimdzhanov played bravely, going into a very principled line. Unfortunately, his bravery was not rewarded this time around. He got nothing from the opening, and his one active idea completely backfired. Gelfand won easily, and has enriched opening theory with a candidate for novelty of the year.

Round 8 Results:

Aronian - Svidler ½-½
Karjakin - Grischuk ½-½
Leko - Bacrot ½-½
Mamedyarov - Ivanchuk ½-½
Akopian - Alekseev ½-½
Kasimdzhanov - Gelfand 0-1
Kamsky - Eljanov 0-1

Standings after Round 8:

1. Aronian 5
2-6. Alekseev, Karjakin, Grischuk, Leko, Svidler 4.5
7-10. Mamedyarov, Akopian, Bacrot, Eljanov 4
11-12. Kasimdzhanov, Gelfand 3.5
13. Kamsky 3
14. Ivanchuk 2.5

Tournament site here; Kasimdzhanov-Gelfand here.

Brief but worth the minute or so of your time needed to read it - here.

Here are the results of today's games:

Karjakin - Kamsky 1-0
Alekseev - Mamedyarov ½-½
Grischuk - Akopian ½-½
Svidler - Kasimdzhanov ½-½
Bacrot - Aronian ½-½
Gelfand - Eljanov 0-1
Ivanchuk - Leko ½-½

Standings After Round 7:

1. Aronian 4.5
2-6. Karjakin, Alekseev, Leko, Grischuk, Svidler 4
7-10. Mamedyarov, Akopian, Kasimdzhanov, Bacrot 3.5
11-12. Kamsky, Eljanov 3
13. Gelfand 2.5
14. Ivanchuk 2

Both wins saw lively play; I present Karjakin-Kamsky here. For further information, the tournament site awaits your perusal.

During the knockout event that was the 1999 FIDE World Championship in Las Vegas, Nevada, there were upsets a-plenty. Nisipeanu knocked out Ivanchuk and Shirov; Fedorov defeated Timman (after Timman had beaten a very young Aronian); Movsesian beat Leko; Georgiev beat Svidler; Adams beat Kramnik; Akopian beat Adams; Khalifman beat Kamsky, Gelfand and Polgar - and on and on it went. Around the time of the semi-finals, when only Adams, Akopian, Nisipeanu and Khalifman were left, Garry Kasparov - then still in possession of the other world championship title - infamously and dismissively dubbed most of the participants in the FIDE event "tourists".

Needless to say, few of the participants were amused by this remark, which was supposed to mean that (with few exceptions) the players were hoping to get lucky but weren't really contenders - just there to see the sights. Both of the finalists, Alexander Khalifman (who won) and Vladimir Akopian, reacted in their own way. Khalifman criticized Kasparov and the super-tournament system, arguing that it served to protect participants' ratings while excluding a large group of players who could also compete successfully at that level, given the chance. As for Akopian, his response came over the board.



Akopian (born in December of 1971) didn't win that FIDE k.o. event, but he won the world u-16 and u-18 championships (and early, too, when he was 14 and 16, respectively), has enjoyed a 2700+ rating on many occasions, and has to his credit wins over many of the world's elite, including Kramnik (when the latter was world champion) and Kasparov himself.

The year was 2002, and the event was a Russia vs. the Rest of the World team event in Moscow. This was their first tournament meeting in several years, and Akopian undoubtedly came to the board with something to prove. And prove something, he did, demolishing the world's #1 and probably greatest-ever player in just 25 moves. They played again some time later that year, in the Olympiad, and Kasparov didn't beat him that time either; in fact, Kasparov's career score against Akopian in tournament games was a dim +0 -1 =3.*(He did beat him 5-0 in some internet blitz games in 1998, and in a clock simul in 1986 when Kasparov was world champ and Akopian probably 14.)

We'll discuss the game, and the purely chess lessons to be drawn from it, tonight at 9 p.m. ET (Thursday 3 a.m. CET). To watch, log on, enter the Broadcasts room and then either look for Kasparov-Akopian under the games tab or double-click on my handle (Initiative). It's simple and it's free. As for the psychological lessons, at least one should be obvious: don't insult your future opponents!

Hope to see you there tonight.

* (Kasparov did beat him 5-0 in some internet blitz games in 1998, and in a clock simul in 1986 when Kasparov was world champ and Akopian probably 14. But when they played as adults, when it counted, Kasparov got nowhere; in fact, he was very close to losing a second game to Akopian back in 1995.)

The players made good use of the rest day, coming out in round 6 with lots of fighting spirit. It didn't turn out well for Grischuk, who was leading, nor for Karjakin, who was tied for second place; they both lost. This was more to the credit of their opponents (Mamedyarov and Akopian, respectively), who both won in fine fashion. Another winner was Aronian, who defeated the struggling Ivanchuk to take over clear first place.

In other games, Svidler used his beloved Grünfeld to defeat Eljanov; a probably exhausted Kamsky missed some very good chances against Gelfand and had to settle for a draw; Kasimdzhanov-Bacrot was a short but lively draw; and Leko pressed but failed to beat Alekseev - another draw.

Round 6 Results:

Aronian - Ivanchuk 1-0
Leko - Alekseev ½-½
Mamedyarov - Grischuk 1-0
Kamsky - Gelfand ½-½
Akopian - Karjakin 1-0
Kasimdzhanov - Bacrot ½-½
Eljanov - Svidler 0-1

Standings After Round 6:

1. Aronian 4
2-5. Leko, Alekseev, Grischuk, Svidler 3½
6-11. Karjakin, Mamedyarov, Kamsky, Akopian, Bacrot Kasimdzhanov 3
12. Gelfand 2½
13. Eljanov 2
14. Ivanchuk 1½

Tournament site here.

A number of players in chess history, like Kieseritzky and Rotlewi, are best known for games they've lost. But often these players were quite noteworthy in their own right, and deserve to be known as more than victims of posterizing. Along those lines, Hans Ree has written a nice short piece on Jean Dufresne, who lost the "Evergreen Game" to Adolf Anderssen. Have a look.

A reader wrote in mentioning that a player named Samsonkin had beaten Nakamura in very convincing fashion (unfortunately, he didn't send the game or say where it was played, but I eventually managed to find it), and he was right. Nakamura took too many liberties on the black side of a Kan Sicilian, and his IM opponent took the initiative and ran with it. It wasn't a difficult game to play after White's 17th move, but it was a nice one - have a look.

Today's games finally felt a bit less energetic than usual, though the five draws all reached a reasonable move count. Interestingly, the two decisive games made for the shortest and longest games of the round - by far.

The shortest game was Ivanchuk-Kasimdzhanov, which saw White get miniatured in just 25 moves. Ivanchuk was mentally in "positional" chess mode, hoping to gradually massage Black's potentially weak pawn center, only to discover that he was getting killed by a nice series of tactical blows.

On the other hand, there was the Akopian-Kamsky marathon. In due course, the game reached an ending where White had a rook, dark-squared bishop and an a-pawn against Black's rook and knight. Kamsky had some opportunities to draw - first in that ending, and then later in a rook vs. rook and bishop finish, but missed his chances and resigned on move 98. Kamsky, whose games have averaged an incredible 83.4 moves so far, will undoubtedly be most grateful for tomorrow's rest day.

Round 5 Results:

Grischuk - Leko ½-½
Karjakin - Mamedyarov ½-½
Alekseev - Aronian ½-½
Bacrot - Eljanov ½-½
Svidler - Gelfand ½-½
Akopian - Kamsky 1-0
Ivanchuk - Kasimdzhanov 0-1

Standings After Round 5:

1. Grischuk 3.5
2-5. Karjakin, Leko, Aronian, Alekseev 3
6-9. Kamsky, Kasimdzhanov, Bacrot, Svidler 2.5
10-13. Eljanov, Mamedyarov, Akopian, Gelfand 2
14. Ivanchuk 1.5

Tournament site here; Ivanchuk-Kasimdzhanov and Akopian-Kamsky, with my comments, here.

Boris Spassky isn't a player on the world chess stage any longer, but he is a former world champion and a lively speaker, so you might want to take a brief look at this interview from the Nalchik tournament site.

There were six draws in the seven games, but they were without exception interesting and hard-fought.* Some games were very sharp, some were grinds, but only Kamsky managed to win, defeating Svidler in both players' favorite opening - the Ruy - in 74 moves.** That leaves the relative standings basically unchanged, as even in their case they simply changed places in the tournament table.

Round 4 Results:
Kamsky - Svidler 1-0
Leko - Karjakin ½-½
Aronian - Grischuk ½-½
Eljanov - Ivanchuk ½-½
Gelfand - Bacrot ½-½
Kasimdzhanov - Alekseev ½-½
Mamedyarov - Akopian ½-½

Standings After Round 4:

1. Grischuk 3
2-6. Karjakin, Kamsky, Leko, Alekseev, Aronian 2.5
7-8. Bacrot, Svidler 2
9-13. Eljanov, Gelfand, Kasimdzhanov, Mamedyarov, Ivanchuk 1.5
14. Akopian 1

Tournament site here.

* I don't think the Sofia rules are in effect, as a few draws in the tournament would have been prohibited, but overall the results here are far superior to those when the anti-draw measures are in effect. The reason is that the players are putting in a full effort because they want to; typically, what happens in Sofia rules events is that the players start to rebel and play these super-dull games where they either find an early repetition or swap everything as quickly as possible. Of course, if it turns out that the Sofia rules are in effect here, too, then I'll have to give them some credit for what has happened so far.

** I hope for Kamsky's sake that he has good stamina, because so far his games have gone 121, 81, 43 and 74 moves.

From Ari, who opened his email with the question above, and then continued as follows:

Dennis,

I don't mean to limit this question just to you, rather to 2000+ titled players like you. What I'd like to know is, though you've reached a high level of chess ability, what is it that separates you and other similarly matched players from achieving grandmaster status(and I don't mean the actual norm process, rather the playing ability). What is it that makes grandmasters better than you, and what do you think would be the best course of action to achieve grandmaster ability?

Thanks for considering my question, and even more thanks for your excellent blog and videos!

Ari

Because "grandmaster" is an official title, we mystify it, but I doubt that the question has an answer that's any better than the question of why a 2100 isn't a 2300, or a 1900 a 2100, or for that matter why a regular GM isn't a super-GM. (I give this 200 point gap because my current FIDE rating is about 200 points below the GM standard.) There are the usual culprits:

1. Talent (a loose term, which can encompass any and all of 4, 9b, 10 and the ability to more rapidly assimilate new knowledge, ideas and methods) 2. Opportunity 3. Training 4. Tactical ability 5. Knowledge of "chunks" 6. Depth of opening understanding (this carries into understanding the middlegames emerging from those openings, including standard plans and even transitions into various endings) 7. Endgame knowledge 8. Energy/stamina 9. Clock management/speed of thought 10. Good nerves

Some factors might have slipped my mind, but this is a pretty representative sample of the qualities that make one player stronger than another. A typical grandmaster probably won't have me beat on all 10 of these, but will have enough of an edge on enough of them to make a significant difference.

As for what I should do, well, there's no real mystery there either, at least broadly speaking. I, like everyone else, need to work on most of these issues, paying special attention to maximizing my strengths and fixing my biggest weaknesses. If I blow lots of endgames, then I need to focus extra attention there. If I run out of gas as the game gets a few hours in, it's time to hit the gym more often and take a critical look at my diet and sleeping patterns. If I'm getting lousy positions in the opening, or get good positions but don't know what to do with them, then it's time to study my openings more deeply and/or to play those that best fit my strengths as a chess player.

As one gets stronger, the training material needs to become more sophisticated, but the kinds of things one needs to work on remain the same for everyone. As my old pastor used to say, in a different but relevantly similar context, there's no magic foo-foo dust.

A quick post intended both for everyone and one particular writer.

For everyone: I offer chess lessons of all sorts: by email correspondence, "live" on chess servers, by videos like the ones I do for ChessVideos (but that only you will receive), and if you're curious about some other mode we can probably work that out as well. To inquire and/or sign up, please write me via this link (the Contact link on the upper right side of the blog).

For one particular reader of this blog, who sent an inquiry via the contact link: please write back, and make sure the email address you provide is correct. My reply to you seems to have bounced due to an invalid address.

As mentioned here, Ukranian GM Sergey Karjakin is transferring to the Russian federation. In fact, it's not just a transfer; he's moving, as Andrey and Chess Today both note. This move is not only, or perhaps even primarily, motivated by disenchantment with the Ukranian chess federation, but from a desire to maximize Karjakin's chances to become world champion. As today's Chess Today summarizes this Russian-language article, his family has applied for Russian citizenship and they will move to Moscow where he will be trained by two GMs. (One of which, CT speculates, is Yuri Dokhoian, who is already seconding Karjakin at Nalchik. If so, that's great news for the youngster, as Dokhoian was Kasparov's indispensable right-hand man for many years. Look out, Carlsen.)

For those who like marathons, click to your heart's content.

It's early yet, but Grischuk's run of recent successes is continuing here. With a convincing (or at least convincing-looking) win over Kasimdzhanov ("If only I had done this in Tripoli!" might be his thought) in conjunction with Aronian's loss to Karjakin, he has moved into clear first with 2.5/3. Of course there are ten rounds to go and five players are just half a point behind, but still: this is the way to start a tournament.

Round 3 Results:

Grischuk - Kasimdzhanov 1-0
Karjakin - Aronian 1-0
Alekseev - Eljanov 1-0
Bacrot - Svidler ½-½
Mamedyarov - Kamsky ½-½
Ivanchuk - Gelfand ½-½
Akopian - Leko 0-1

Standings after Round 3:

1. Grischuk 2.5
2-6. Karjakin, Svidler, Alekseev, Leko, Aronian 2
7-8. Bacrot, Kamsky 1.5
9-13. Eljanov, Mamedyarov, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Kasimdzhanov 1
14. Akopian .5

Tournament site here, Grischuk-Kasimdzhanov and Karjakin-Aronian (with comments) here.

For the second straight day, five of the seven games were drawn in the Nalchik Grand Prix tournament, but it doesn't mean the players wimped out! In round 1, Leko tried for 121 moves to beat Kamsky before acknowledging the draw, and today Kamsky had a second marathon draw; this time a "mere" 81 moves against Bacrot. Impressive, but it was only the second longest game of the day; the winner of this dubious contest was Aronian-Akopian, won by the former in a knight ending that lasted 94 moves.

I won't be covering that game, but I have analyzed the shorter (and more crowd-pleasing) game Svidler-Ivanchuk, which was the second of the day's wins. It was a closed Ruy that opened up in a big way, and while Ivanchuk was in good shape for most of the battle, he lost the tactical thread and then the game, probably due to time pressure. You can replay that game here.

Round 2 Results:

Aronian - Akopian 1-0
Svidler - Ivanchuk 1-0
Eljanov - Grischuk ½-½
Kamsky - Bacrot ½-½
Kasimdzhanov - Karjakin ½-½
Leko - Mamedyarov ½-½
Gelfand - Alekseev ½-½

Standings after Round 2:

1. Aronian 2
2-3. Grischuk, Svidler 1.5
4-10. Eljanov, Alekseev, Kamsky, Karjakin, Bacrot, Kasimdzhanov, Leko 1
11-14. Akopian, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Mamedyarov .5

N.B. about Karjakin. According to Chess Today, he is changing his affiliation to the Russian chess federation. As far as I understood, it's not that he's moving to Russia, but that he (as with many leading Ukranian players, apparently) is sufficiently disenchanted with the Ukranian federation to take this drastic step. It seems a pity all the way around, so I hope that whatever is wrong with the Ukranian federation will improve.

Just a quick recap of the results (it was a long day):

Leko - Kamsky ½-½
Mamedyarov - Aronian 0-1
Akopian - Kasimdzhanov ½-½
Karjakin - Eljanov ½-½
Grischuk - Gelfand 1-0
Alekseev - Svidler ½-½
Ivanchuk - Bacrot ½-½

There's a good review on the official site by GM Sergei Shipov, so this should more than tide everyone over for now.

Uzbek GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov may not be a regular in the Linares-type events (though he is playing in the FIDE Grand Prix in Nalchik, starting today), but he is a player whose games deserve to be better known by the chess public. He's a sometime-2700 (currently 2695) who won the FIDE k.o. event in Tripoli 2004. To do so, he had to go through an insane gauntlet that included Vassily Ivanchuk, Alexander Grischuk, Veselin Topalov and Michael Adams. Such a feat by itself is enough to establish someone as a great player, and while he hasn't replicated that performance, he could do so at any time. He is also one of the world's strongest rapid players, is still young (29), and has a very lively, tactically-oriented style.

Like many contemporary GMs, he is outstanding in the field of opening preparation - so much so in his case that he was invited to be one of world champion Viswanathan Anand's seconds for his match with Vladimir Kramnik. Since he was the driving force behind the powerful idea in the Semi-Slav that practically won Anand the match, we can say that the world champion made an excellent decision in bringing him aboard.

With this brief resume behind us, let's turn to the game we'll cover in today's show. Taking on Bosnian GM Borki Predojevic in the 2007/8 Bundesliga, we get to see the conjunction of Kasimdzhanov's great skill in preparation, together with his considerable ability as an attacker. Predojevic essayed Morozevich's sharp 11...g5 line in the Slav, leading some moves later to a complicated position with opposite-side castling and mutual attacking chances. Prior games, including one by Predojevic himself, seemed to indicate that Black had reasonable chances, but Kasimdzhanov very convincingly showed that this was not the case. He found a great idea in his preparation, but that wasn't enough to finish the game; he needed to find some brilliant moves at the board to deliver the knockout punch. And he did.

It's a beautiful game and theoretically significant, too. Kasimdzhanov's attack is also instructive, highlighting a number of general themes we can all use in our own play. I think you'll enjoy the game, so please join me tonight (Wednesday night) at 9 p.m. ET (that's 3 a.m. CET Thursday morning) for our presentation. It's free to watch, as always: just log on to the Playchess.com server at the start time, go to the Broadcasts room, click on the Games tab and select Kasimdzhanov-Predojevic.

I hope and expect to see everyone there - except perhaps the CPAs.

From the first round game Akobian-Hilton, Foxwoods 2009:



It's White to move, and while almost any normal move is "winning" (White enjoys a decisive material advantage and a better position), let's look for the best move we can find.

The game (and the answer), with my comments, can be replayed here.

In this post I presented this position:



It's White to move, and the task - nay, the enjoyable pleasure! - is to evaluate 11.Rf3. Is it tactically justified? By this I mean, will White have any compensation for the material he's sacrificing? Further, even if it is justified, there's the further question as to whether it's best. For now, though, let's focus on the first question. There have been a number of comments (see this post, set up specifically for that purpose), and since several respondents seem unaware of the "Greek gift" concept, let me help you along. The key sequence to analyze is this: 11.Rf3 Bxc3 12.Bxh7+ Kxh7 13.Rh3+ Kg8 14.Qh5



and now 14...f5 and especially 14...f6 need to be examined. Have fun!

Today, in fact, for many of you. Here are the first round pairings:

Leko - Kamsky
Mamedyarov - Aronian
Akopian - Kasimdzhanov
Karjakin - Eljanov
Grischuk - Gelfand
Alekseev - Svidler
Ivanchuk - Bacrot

Official site here; the action starts at 3 p.m. local time in Nalchik, Russia; if I'm not mistaken, that's 7 a.m. ET in the US.

First Darmen Sadvakasov ground down Alex Lenderman, who was trying a bit too cynically for a draw in the last round, and then he beat Yury Shulman in a tiebreak playoff. Shulman had a great event and led from start to finish, but his hard-charging opponent made a nice comeback to catch and then beat him. (Or rather, "beat" him - the playoff seems to have been a single Armageddon game, and Sadvakasov drew it with Black.)

Congratulations also to Robert Hess, who achieved his 3rd GM norm and now needs only to meet the rating requirement to earn the title.

Full standings and more are on the tournament site; here, with brief comments, is the aforementioned Lenderman-Sadvakasov game from the final round.

The last round of this popular American open is underway, and GM and US Champion Yury Shulman is in clear first with 7/8, half a point ahead of IM Alexander Lenderman and GM Darmen Sadvakasov. Shulman has played both of them already, so he's paired against GM Jaan Ehlvest (a 6-pointer) - he has White - while Lenderman has White against Sadvakasov.

The tournament site is here; live games here.

The basic story, for those who are unfamiliar with it, can be found here.

I was a little slow in posting the comments to the "Tactics puzzles, yes, but what kinds of puzzles?" post, but there are a bunch there and I've responded to quite a few. Readers are invited to take a second look.

I'd like to generate some feedback on this post from people who have taken the time to analyze it (without their computers, of course). My preference is to avoid having solutions posted to the question post, but since I'm up for feedback people are welcome to offer it here.

That's in effect the question from Amanuel, who writes (via email; lightly edited):

Hello FM Dennis Monokroussos

Everybody knows the most important aspect of chess is the ability to perform calculations, thus the reason why we all solve puzzles. However, nobody ever says which type of puzzles is better. I normally solve 100 puzzles, from [website], correctly each day to improve, but most of them don't feel like real life situations and usually have some sort of clue. Should I continue doing these puzzles that are fairly easy, or try going through the carefully selected puzzles from [tactics book]?

Thank you for reading my message, posting so many instructive videos, and for updating the blog so frequently and with such interesting material.

Perhaps it isn't addressed as often as it should be, but it's untrue that "nobody" ever discusses which kinds of puzzles to work on. For one thing, I've addressed this topic before, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to do so. In fact, I've addressed the issue fairly often, and probably will again. The following is a brief summary of some of my thoughts on the matter.

Basic tactical competence (definition): When I say that a player has basic tactical competence, I mean at least two things. First, they've reached a point where it's very rare for them to blunder mate or hang pieces. Maybe it happens sometimes, especially in time trouble or in a very difficult position, but it's not a besetting problem. Second, the player is familiar with basic ideas like generic double attacks, knight forks, pins, skewers, smothered mate and so on, and is capable of finding and applying such tactical themes in their games.

Step one (for beginners and tactically weak players): For players who lack basic tactical competence, the biggest need is to improve one's board vision and to learn elementary tactics. Simple, rote learning is very useful here.

Step two (for average club players who have reached basic tactical competence): Overlearning elementary tactics by continuing to practice them on a regular basis is useful, but it's time to move up to more challenging positions. (These can be positions that don't fit into the obvious categories, or if they do, the way in which they do isn't obvious to someone who has been working with the basic books.) Thus you consolidate your gains, the ideas you already know, but start to stake out new ground. This should start happening around 1500-1600 USCF/FIDE. (I don't count internet ratings here, which are very hard to calibrate with tournament ratings.)

Step three (for strong club players): The occasional look at elementary tactics is still worthwhile, to keep sharp, but the focus ought to be on more and more challenging material. If step one is 100% basic tactics and step two about 50-50, maybe give or take 10% either way, I think step three should be 80+% challenging tactics. Even this should be somewhat fine-grained. It's not necessary that all one's tactical work be migraine-inducing; I'd say around 1/4 to 1/2 of the hard work should be extremely hard. As with actual playing, a challenge is good, but if there's almost no chance of rising to the challenge it's good to aim a little lower most of the time.

As for particular works, I've listed them even more frequently, and don't really feel like doing so again at this point - interested parties can search my blog for specific resources. I'm also not interested in repeating myself this time around because it doesn't matter that much: there are tons of great tactics books out there. The key is to use them!

Building off last week's show, which featured the Open Ruy, it seemed apposite to present a second game with that opening. Like last week's game, it's theoretically significant: not in the cutting-edge sense, but in its showing some important themes and tactics its practitioners should know.

There's much more that I could say about this week's program, but I don't want to undermine its workout value. What I will say is this: it's a great game, with many attractive tactical moments. It also offers a case study for a crucial problem that faces all of us at some point or another: how should we respond when our opponent makes a new move in a very well-known theoretical position? I offer some advice I hope will be helpful - but you'll have to watch the show to get it.

Here's the link; it will be available for free and on-demand for the next month or so.

There has been a lot of high-level chess at this event, and readers are encouraged to check out the games for themselves. In this post, I present several highlights - have a look.

Here. Topalov comes off humbly or at least measured in his forecasts about the Anand match, as he did prior to the Kamsky match. I'm not sure why he didn't act this way prior to the Kramnik match, but the change is all to the good.

HT: Brian Karen

Here's a position from a blitz game I played at the local club this week:



Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to assess the aggressive 11.Rf3. Is it tactically justified, and even if it is, is it best? Of course, you should try to analyze this without using a chess engine.

Talking trash in chess didn't start with Bobby Fischer or Garry Kasparov. For better or worse, it's an old tradition, and we have a perfect example of it in our game for this week.

Ukranian-German grandmaster Efim Bogoljubow (1889-1952) was one of the strongest players in the world from the mid-20s through at least the early 30s, twice playing Alexander Alekhine for the world championship. He was unsuccessful on both occasions, but the fact that he twice contended says something about his strength. He won the major tournament in Moscow 1925 ahead of Emanuel Lasker and the then-world champion, Jose Raul Capablanca, and won many other tournaments as well.

As I said, he defeated Capablanca (1888-1942) in that tournament,

and in the tournament book for Moscow 1925 wrote the following:

"Further, it is apparent that Capablanca finds it very difficult to separate himself from his dry style of play. His technique, on the other hand, has been at least equalled by Bogoljubow and is not especially feared by the other masters."

Pretty cocky fellow, that Bogoljubow. Yes, he had won a prestigious event, but Capablanca was the world champion and lauded as an all-time great. Further, Capablanca had beaten "Bogo" in their individual game in the tournament, so a bit more humility might have been in order. At any rate, I imagine that everyone reading this knows what happened in their next game.

It took a while to occur, as tournaments were rarer in those days, but they next met in Bad Kissingen 1928. Capablanca had lost his crown to Alekhine the year before, and Bogoljubow's star was still on the rise - he would play his first match with Alekhine a year later. In fact, to Bogoljubow's credit, he won the tournament. In round 9, though, his game with Capablanca went exactly according to the script. They very quickly reached an endgame, one that started with Bogoljubow enjoying at least equality, and from that point on he was completely and brutally outplayed. On move 20, he was equal or possibly a touch better; by move 32, he was simply lost, and without having made any outright blunders.

It's a good story, but it's also an instructive game. Capablanca's endgame technique was almost always at an extremely high level, and there is much we can learn from him. Further, this particular ending is useful because of the pawn structure - it's one that arises fairly often in games of every level. And finally, the finish is very nice; a beautiful way of finishing the humiliation Bogo should have felt in light of his earlier comments. There's a lesson to be learned, and it's not just a chess lesson.

To see the details in all their glory, it's simple. Log on to the Playchess.com server at 9 p.m. ET/3 a.m. CET tonight (Wednesday night/Thursday early morning), go to the Broadcast Room and select Bogoljubow-Capablanca from the Games tab. That's all there is to it, and the show is free. Hope to see you then.

Here's the position again:



Our givens are the moves 1.Kc2 h1=K and a loose definition of promotion as permitting the player to exchange his pawn for any other piece when it reaches the end of the board. Given those conditions, what's the most efficient way for White to checkmate all of Black's kings? Click below for the answer.

I haven't had time to watch all of it, but as far as I got it served to recap some of his (GM Jonathan Rowson's) thoughts about thinking from The Seven Deadly Chess Sins.

To watch, go here, select "Videos Day By Day", scroll down to near the bottom of the Tuesday June 19 section. Click on "V" for the video, "S" for the slides (in PDF format).

HT: Anthony Boron

Here's a question emailed to me a couple of days ago:

Mr. Monokroussos,

What, in your opinion, is the best openings book for a player in the 1500-1600 range? Also, I would be very interested to know which chess books you consider to be indispensable.

Thanks very much, Sincerely, [NN]

I expect this is a question of general interest, so here, with very minor modifications, is what I wrote back:

1. There's no such thing as the best openings book. I think Boris Avrukh has just written a fantastic repertoire book (1.d4, Volume 1) for strong players (master through grandmaster, I'd say), but if someone isn't going to use or face those openings, then it doesn't matter how great a job he has done. Going down the food chain to the average club player - the rating range you've specified - doesn't change the story. Speaking generally, a club player should look for opening books that are long on explanation, explaining why the pieces go where they do in a given opening, what the key plans are, and so on. But the most important thing for a 1500-1600 player is to improve their skills, and mastering openings is the least valuable and time-effective aspect of chess self-improvement. (Unless you're getting mated in 10-15 moves on a regular basis. Then you definitely need to know a bit more about the opening!) Work on tactics and endgames.

2. There are no indispensable chess books; if there were, then their authors couldn't have gotten good enough to write them in the first place. There are some great chess books out there, but there's no magic secret strong chess players know that's responsible for their success. Play strong players, analyze games, practice challenging tactics, etc., and you'll get where you want to be.

If you're just looking for book recommendations in general, I can give some, but there are so many excellent chess books you'll go broke buying them all. Generally speaking, I'm a big fan of game collections about a great player when they are by the player himself. (Examples: Tal's The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games, Alekhine's My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937.) On chess strategy, there's Nimzowitsch's classic My System, and more recently Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is a rightly praised favorite among club players. He's coming out with an apparently very new 4th edition later this year, so while I don't think there's anything wrong with picking up the 3rd edition now, you might want to wait for the new one. Endgames: Silman's book (Silman's Complete Endgame Course) is okay for club players. A more comprehensive (and necessarily drier - the book would be about 5000 pages long if it were as "talky" as Silman's) sort of work is Müller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings. For 2000+ players, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is about as close to indispensable as a chess book is going to get.

If you have an annotated database like ChessBase's Mega2009, there's an awful lot you can do with that, too. But ultimately, it's work in, results out.

San Sebastian is a great place name for chess fans, evoking as it does great old events like the tournament there in 1911. (It was a breakout event for Capablanca, who won the tournament outright, half a point ahead of Rubinstein and Vidmar.) It has been a very long time since a tournament worthy of the broader chess world's attention has occurred there, but that's about to change. From July 6-16, a Category 18 tournament will take place there, with the following participants:

Sergei Movsesian (2747)
Peter Svidler (2726)
Ruslan Ponomariov (2726)
Hikaru Nakamura (2701)
Rustam Kasimdzhanov (2695)
Francisco Vallejo Pons (2688)
Vachier Maxime-Lagraeve (2684)
Anatoly Karpov (2644)
Julio Granda Zuniga (2610)
Pablo San Segundo (2560)

HT: TWIC

The theme presented in this post (solution here) was so popular (mild sarcasm) that I thought it would be appropriate to present the follow-up story in Andy Soltis's Chess To Enjoy as well.



This position was the brainchild of one Dorogov, who like Korolkov was a study composer who liked story-telling and the occasional joke. As he tells the story, the position above arose in a game he played with an extra-terrestrial. Up tons of material, Dorogov thought to put the game to an end as efficiently as possible, and played 1.Kc2. Mate with 2.Bd4 looks unavoidable, but his visitor from another planet found 1...h1=K!. Dorogov protested, but his opponent protested: "Didn't you say that a pawn could promote to any other piece when it reached the end of the board?"

Well, what now? If 2.Bd4 it's mate to the one king but stalemate to the other. So what to do? Dorogov found an exceptionally elegant solution based on the promotion rule given above. What was it? Answer tomorrow.

For those interested in the results or just checking out the names and ratings of the up and comers in American chess, have a look here. (Note that the link only shows the individual standings in the K-12; there are other divisions as well, all linked to at the top of the page.)

The problem, if you recall, started with this position:



It's White to move and mate in three, and the first move is 1.Nd6. That was given, and it was also given that Black has a move to ruin it, followed by a White trick to enable the mate to occur after all. This trick isn't legal, but you were also informed - both by the post's title and an explicit statement - that promotion to a king would be involved. When you're ready to see the answer, click below.

A fascinating game was played a week ago in the Dutch Team Championship, a wild Winawer between Frans Cuijpers and Artur Yusupov (or Jussupow, to give the German/database spelling). You can replay the game in two versions here. The first gives the raw game score, so you can replay it for yourself without being "infected" by any commentary. It's a fun game to analyze, and you can check out my findings afterward.

Vladimir Korolkov was an outstanding Russian chess composer, and I've presented some of his work in previous posts on this blog. (Here and here for the problems; the pages for the solutions are here and here, respectively.)

The works linked above are impressive achievements, but he offered some humorous works as well. In the comments to this post, the idea of promotion to a king was bandied about. Korolkov was WAY ahead of you!



As given by Andy Soltis in Chess To Enjoy (1978), Korolkov presents this position in the form of a story. Korolkov offers it as a position from one of his games, and, inspired by the recollection of a GM announcing mate in five moves, adapts it to the case at hand, announcing mate in three with 1.Nd6.

It turns out, though, that Black has a defense. (Meaning a move that makes the mate take more than just two more moves.) What is it, and how did Korolkov creatively manage to trump even this defense?

The solution will be given tomorrow.

This is yet another strong league competition, the premiere league of which begins today. Just to name the 2700s involved, there are Movsesian, Grischuk, Shirov, Malakhov, Rublevsky, Ivanchuk, Jakovenko, Gelfand, Alekseev and Ni Hua. Yikes! Website here.

HT: Chess Today

Yesterday I presented these positions; in both cases, it's White to move and draw.





Were you successful? The first one is very simple - it's something you either "see" or you don't, but practically no calculation is required. The second is more challenging, and includes an attractive false lead.

The solutions are here, for anyone who might need them.

(Now there's a title that will completely baffle non-chess players.)

Moving from former prodigies to current ones, 15-year-old Filipino GM Wesley So demolished the field at the Phoenix Petroleum & Dapitan City Battle of Grandmasters, going 9-2 in this 12-player round robin event. I'm not sure what his TPR was, but it must have been pretty impressive.

HT: Chess Today

34 years ago today. Put differently, Karpov was proclaimed the champ on this date back in 1975.

It wasn't one of my games nor one from a professional, but the contest I present in this week's show (available here) is pretty instructive nonetheless. When learning an opening, there are some moves to memorize and master, but it's just as important - more important, at first - to learn the key strategic ideas and to see them in action. For this purpose, the game I've chosen for this week's show is quite good.

To elaborate a little, one of White's standard trumps in the Open Ruy is his kingside majority, led by the vanguard pawn on e5. If White can get a mini-roller going with f4-f5, his attacking prospects will be very good. Black doesn't want to allow this, and will often try to prevent this by various means (playing ...f6 to eliminate the e5-pawn, or blockading the f5 square, for example). Meanwhile, his plan is to use his corresponding queenside majority, in particular with the move ...c5. White, likewise, often aims to prevent this by various means (e.g. with some combination of b4, Nb3 and Be3).

In our game of the week, we see both the active and prophylactic plans in action, and this will be useful to almost anyone who plays or is learning this variation. Further, even aside from the strategic elements, the game is interesting in its own right. So have a look; the show is free, requires no special software, and is available on-demand for the next four or five weeks. Enjoy!

Here are two puzzles for your solving pleasure. The solutions will be given tomorrow.





It's White to move and draw in both cases.

That's the title of the latest ChessBase DVD presented by former FIDE champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov. There are 23 clips, generally about 10 minutes apiece, 21 of which present attacks from game fragments. There's a brief intro, then one fragment apiece for the world champions from Steinitz through Kasparov, then eight fragments from Kasimdzhanov's own play, and finally a brief wrap-up.*

Who is it for? It's not really for the student looking for a didactic presentation. For that, a book like the Vukovic classic The Art of Attack is your best bet, and for more advanced players Aagaard's Attacking Manual 1 (and whenever it comes out, vol. 2) is the way to go. Generally speaking, it has to be this way: the amount of material in a video is minuscule in comparison with a book's contents.

If you're curious about the video for entertainment purposes, then it's worth considering. The games are well chosen on several levels. First, they are extremely diverse. Some attacks feature open centers, some closed. Sometimes they involve some sort of classical build-up, sometimes they seem to come out of a clear blue sky. Some flow naturally from overt positional factors; on other occasions, it seems like nothing other than tactical legerdemain. (And so on.) Second, Kasimdzhanov has attempted to present attacking games from the world champions that are characteristic of their style, and in this I think he has succeeded. That makes the disc a nice intro to the world champions, for those who are new to the game's history. Finally, his own games are very nice as well. He has a very active and even tricky style, and for us we get the best of both worlds: on the one hand he's a great player, so his games are at an extremely high level; on the other, he rarely plays in the absolutely highest-level events, so his games are usually new to us.

By emphasizing the disc's entertainment value while denying its role as a sort of primer, I don't mean that there's nothing to learn from the material. As with any collection of outstanding games, especially when they are annotated, the reader or viewer can benefit greatly by its study. So if one watches interactively, frequently stopping the video and trying to work everything out first, the training value can be significant. If not, then it's basically (good) entertainment.

* In two cases the "fragment" includes the whole game. For those who are concerned to have the entire game, fear not: all the games are given in full elsewhere on the disc.

It's still in the earliest stages, so no details yet. But if you knew him personally and/or played him, please contact me.

Here.

It's well known that Albert Einstein was a friend of former world chess champion (and mathematician) Emanuel Lasker. It's also known that Einstein could play chess, though he reportedly disliked the competitive aspect. That said, he was a great player, even though he never really pursued the game.



The physics world's gain was our loss; as you'll see tonight, his abilities were remarkable. Just tune in tonight at 9 p.m. ET (that's 3 a.m. Thursday morning, CET) and see for yourself! The show is free; all you have to do is log on to the Playchess.com server, go to the Broadcasts room, look under the Games tab for Einstein, double-click, sit back and enjoy. (It takes longer to read the directions than to follow them.)

See you then.

Richard Reti's scoresheet, from his famous win over world champion Jose Raul Capablanca from New York 1924.



(Accessed from this webpage; HT Brian Karen.)

According to some recent twitters and a page on the FIDE website, Garry Kasparov has agreed in principle to return to chess for a world championship candidates' event! Participants include Vladimir Kramnik (loser of the last world championship match), Gata Kamsky (loser on the candidates' final to Topalov), Magnus Carlsen (the #1 player on the rating list, excluding the world championship finalists), Vassily Ivanchuk and Alexei Shirov. The event is tentatively scheduled for late this year or early next year, with the winner slated to face the winner of the Anand-Topalov match late next year.

Great news!