The Chess Mind

The NH Chess Tournament Rising Stars vs. Experience tournament ended a little while ago, earlier today, and finished with a convincing 27.5-22.5 victory for the older players. Peter Heine Nielsen had the best score overall (6.5/10), but that doesn't give him anything but rating points. Jan Smeets, on the other hand, managed the best score among the younger players - in fact, their only plus score - with 6/10, and he wins a big prize for this: automatic admission to the prestigious Amber tournament next year. (That's the annual blindfold + rapid event that takes place in Nice in February and March.)

The biggest disaster was the performance of Hikaru Nakamura. Though the second highest-rated player in the tournament, he had the worst time of it. He started with a sluggish but tolerable 2.5/4, but in his last six games drew two and lost the rest, a performance which is bound to cost him buckets of rating points. (No doubt they'll come back fairly soon, but it would be far more convenient to be in bad form when it's an unrated rapid event or a knockout tournament.) The reports were that he was sick during most of the event with the flu or flu-like symptoms, which combined with his high-energy, ever-pressing approach left him with eyes bigger than his stomach.

We now resume our regularly scheduled vacation.

In contrast to last week's show, wherein we delved pretty deeply into one of the games, this time around we'll look at a few more games in a somewhat more selective fashion. While the current crop isn't as tactically rich, it enjoys other significant assets that offer full compensation.

This time around, some mental aspects come into play. In two of the games, the players submitting their games were a pawn up, but both had a tough time converting the extra material and even went on to lose. What did they do wrong? The answer, I believe, has both an objective "chess" answer and a mental one as well.

What is that answer? Tune in and see! The show is free, available on-demand for the next month or so, and should be accessible via links either here or here. (If it's not up yet, be patient - the CV admins should have it up soon.)

Here is a 2 hour and 45 minute video on the 1990 World Championship match between Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. It looks interesting, and though it's a bit fuzzy for a while at the beginning, but (I've been told) it clears up soon enough.

HT: Brian Karen

The Jermuk Grand Prix finished yesterday, and the last two rounds were quite dramatic. Before them, there was a three-way tie for first: Ivanchuk, Leko, and Kasimdzhanov enjoyed a narrow lead over many pursuers. In the penultimate round, Kasimdzhanov lost, and then it was only Ivanchuk and Leko in the lead. Both had been undefeated in the tournament, but that provided no guarantees. If I recall correctly, four players were a mere half a point back: Kasimdzhanov, Alekseev, Aronian, and Gelfand.

Neither Kasimdzhanov nor Alekseev managed to win their games, but Aronian beat Inarkiev and Gelfand beat co-leader Leko. That put them in first, pending the outcome of Akopian-Ivanchuk. Unfortunately for Aronian, his countryman couldn't stop Ivanchuk, and the remarkable Ukranian finished in clear first with 8.5/13. He hasn't managed to regain all the points he lost since late last year, but his rating is going up a staggering 52.8 points on the next rating list to 2755.8 (2756).

Meanwhile, in Sochi, the Russia-China match finished in a victory for Russia, 130.5-119.5. (The enormous point totals reflect that the match included rapid and blitz games.) The event included several 2700s, so fans of high-level chess have something to examine there.

An even more top-heavy event - indeed, about as top-heavy a tournament as it can get - was a champions event in rapid chess in Zurich. Kramnik won with 5/7, half a point ahead of Anand and a full point ahead of Topalov (whom Kramnik defeated) and Ponomariov. Other participants: Khalifman, Polgar, Hug (?! - but he scored surprisingly well) and Karpov.

The NH Rising Stars vs. Experience tournament is still underway. After 4 rounds (round 5 is underway as I write this) the score is 10-10. A very attractive game you'll want to find and replay, if you haven't already, is Beliavsky-Nakamura from round 3 (won by Nakamura). Classical King's Indians where Black sacs a bunch of stuff while trying to land the big punch on the kingside have been common for decades, but that doesn't make them any less attractive. (To find links to the games, the tournament sites, and much more information, I'll take the lazy way out [I am on vacation from blogging, remember?] and send you all to TWIC.)

Finally, I was observing a local tournament yesterday (I wish I could have played, but other obligations interfered), and while I wasn't there long it was long enough to see the following:

White (2300) - Black (2000)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.e5 dxe5 5.Nxe5 e6 6.Qe2 Nbd7?? 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qxe6+ Kg6

Here White stopped to think for at least 10 minutes, maybe even more than 20. When she finally moved, her opponent instantly resigned. What was the move? (Answer below.)

Over on the ChessVideos website, we've long had a thread where viewers could submit their games, and I'd pick some - often most or all of them - to cover in the occasional presentation. It is time once more, in fact we will look at viewer games not only this week but next week as well.

We only look at two games this time around, but the second one especially was so tactically rich that it was worth the narrower focus. Try to solve all the tactical puzzles along the way, and even if you don't succeed the exercise will do you good, plus you'll find it most entertaining.

The show is free and available on-demand for the next month or so. There should be a direct link to it on either this page or that one, though if the CV admins are behind schedule it might appear a little later.

I won't be blogging during these events (I intend to take about three weeks off), but they're worth knowing about and following.

(1) The NH Chess Tournament.

This event takes place in Amsterdam from August 20-31, and may be better recognized by the name "Rising Stars vs. Experience." Last year's event was almost as hard on the seniors as a visit from the Jack Kevorkian fan club, so the organizers wisely scaled back the age of the experience team. Here are the teams:

Rising Stars:
Hikaru Nakamura 2701 (b. 1987)
Fabiano Caruana 2649 (1992)
Jan Smeets 2626 (1985)
Daniel Stellwagen 2619 (1987)
Hou Yifan 2590 (1994)

Experience:
Peter Svidler 2726 (b. 1976)
Peter Heine Nielsen 2668 (1973)
Alexander Beliavsky 2640 (1953)
Loek van Wely 2622 (1972)
Ljubomir Ljubojevic 2553 (1950)

This looks much more interesting, though it's hard to know whether Ljubojevic can perform to his rating, given how infrequently he plays. But the other four are unquestionably worth their ratings (if anything, van Wely might be underrated), so it ought to be a very good battle.


(2) The Grand Slam Masters Final in Bilbao.

The field is smaller than expected, due to budget cuts, but it's still exceptionally strong. Levon Aronian, Alexander Grischuk, Alexei Shirov and Sergey Karjakin will contest a double-round robin from September 6-12.

Victor Bologan, The King's Indian: A Complete Black Repertoire (Chess Stars 2009). 356 pp. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

I don't have time to write a proper review, but Victor Bologan's new book on the King's Indian deserves a quick mention while it's still very much hot off the press. Bologan, an elite GM, has written two previous books (at least in English) that have been highly acclaimed (his autobiographical Victor Bologan: Selected Games 1985-2004 and The Chebanenko Slav According to Bologan) - and I would join the chorus on them - and this book looks promising as well.

Here are the book's obvious pluses: it's written by a very strong GM (2689 FIDE, at last count), it's up-to-date, it's thorough and while there are game scores a-plenty there's a good deal of independent analysis as well. There are many small-scale explanations, which is useful but presupposes a certain degree of sophistication (this isn't a primer for beginners); still, even average club players can learn something more than series of moves for memorization.

As I noted, the book is thorough - perhaps more so than necessary. Bologan often presents multiple lines for Black, including on occasion some he thinks are distinctly inferior to other choices. While this may be unnecessary, strictly speaking, it provides a broader understanding of the variations and the problems each player is trying to solve, and as such it improves the reader's chess culture.

The bottom line is that if you're a King's Indian player, you're probably nuts not to buy it. That said, there are some flaws in the book. As is often the case with Chess Stars volumes, the translation is leaden.Generally speaking, that’s fine by me – I’m not buying opening books to read Shakespeare. (And who would? “Two-b or not two-b, that is the question: whether to fianchetto my queen’s bishop or not.” Or “Behold, thy bishop has come under attack; verily, get thee to a monastery – hie!” It would take a huge amount of space to get through a single game – almost as many pages as Hübner would take to cover a single move in a position he finds interesting.) It’s a very nice tradeoff: high quality books by non-native English speakers, brought to press in a hurry, in exchange for mediocre prose in translation; I’ll take it every time.

However, there were more problems this time than I can recall in any previous Chess Stars volume, and they weren’t always minor matters of grammar or eloquence. For instance, on p. 321, covering the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 d6 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Nc3 a6 8.d5 Na5 9.b3 c5 (Bologan also covers 9…Rb8) 10.dxc6, Bologan’s main line is 10…bxc6, but here’s what he says about the other capture:

“It is obvious that Black cannot equalize with 10…Nxc6 11.Bb2 Qa5 12.Nd5 (12.Qc1 Bf5 13.Rd1 Rac8 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Rxd5 Qc7 17.c5 Rfd8 18.cxd5 Rxd6= Ilincic – Kislik, Budapest 2008) 12…Nxd5 13.Bxg7 Nc3! (Black avoids cxd5, thanks to this intermediate move and he should equalize gradually.) 14.Bxc3 Qxc3 15.Rc1 Qa5 16.Qd2 Qxd2 17.Nxd2 Nd4 18.Rfe1 Rb8 19.c5 dxc5 20.Rxc5 Rd8 21.e3 Ne6 22.Rc2 b5 23.b4 Bb7= Dobosz – Lanka, Austria 2009.”

This does not compute! Does he mean to say that it’s obvious that Black _can_ equalize with 10…Nxc6? It doesn’t seem so: he thinks 10…bxc6 is only good for equality as well, but should be preferred; further, even if it does equalize, it clearly takes Black some work (“…and he should equalize gradually”). Does he mean instead to say that Black cannot _easily_ equalize with 10…Nxc6? Or did he leave out some superior option for White? Who knows?

It is an annoyance, and I found many more errors without having to look very hard for them. Generally speaking, it wasn't too tough to figure out what was meant or what was missing, so this is no recommendation to avoid the book. It is a plea, perhaps, for more careful translation and possibly copy-editing - maybe a native English speaker should be involved with the final product.

So, while I have only skimmed the text and checked a few variations of interest, what I have seen so far is encouraging, and consistent with what I've come to expect from Bologan's early work. To recap my earlier comment, then, King's Indian players would be a bit crazy not to buy this book. How often are you going to find a player of Bologan's caliber writing about your pet opening?

Upsets are fun, unless you are or are a friend of the upsettee, and a nice one at the U.S. Open saw Indiana expert Mike Herron (2124) defeat GM Larry Kaufman in round 5. His notes follow, and you can replay the game (but with languageless notes) here. Congrats, Mike!

A few weeks ago I started receiving ChessVibes Openings (CVO), and would like to add slightly to my comments from this post. What I've noticed is that the authors seem to have found a good niche. While the level of detail and original analysis they bring to the super-tournaments is not at the level of Mikhail Golubev in Chess Today (or even this blog, sometimes), there are at least two things you get from CVO you're less likely to receive elsewhere.

First, they more often draw attention to games played in very strong events not generally considered to be "super-tournaments" than most of the instant-analysis sites. That's useful. Second, they do a nice job of noting trends, which is especially helpful when one is trying to orient oneself in a new opening. In sum, while those of you with easily maintained repertoires or a lack of interest in what the pros are doing in the openings needn't bother with CVO, I think it does have value for opening fanatics, and isn't rendered superfluous by ChessPublishing.com or Chess Today (or even this blog, or the conjunction of the three).

Simon Williams, The New Sicilian Dragon. Everyman Chess, 2009. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

Maybe it’s something in the water in Great Britain, but those guys publish material on openings faster than politicians make promises and tell lies. Between Everyman, Gambit, ChessPublishing.com, Batsford and Quality Chess, British opening analysis is being delivered to a public with seemingly infinite discretionary income so fast they’re going to have to invent new openings to keep them from getting a day off. (I sometimes wonder whether “Richard Palliser” is an actual person or the name of a secret group, like “Bourbaki” in mathematics. If it is an actual person, I hope they at least give him bathroom breaks. He is so prolific there might be a market for “Richard Palliser facts” over at Everyman, akin to those invented for Chuck Norris. But I digress...)

The book under consideration in this review is Simon Williams’ The New Sicilian Dragon, which claims to be the first book (at least in English) primarily devoted to the “Dragadorf” Sicilian. In case you’re not sure about the variation I’m referring to, it generally arises like this: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 and now 6…a6, creating a sort of Dragon/Najdorf hybrid. (Thus “Dragadorf”; but because it’s more Dragonlike than Najdorfish, “Dragondorf” seems more appropriate – plus it sounds better.) This variation is not new: Botvinnik played it a couple of times (this I knew) and so did Alekhine (this I didn’t). Despite this pedigree, the variation has only recently captured a broader audience. Many grandmasters have tried it, including such Dragon specialists as Chris Ward, Sergey Kudrin and Mikhail Golubev, and in the upper reaches of the atmosphere Ivan Cheparinov and Alexander Khalifman can be counted among its (occasional) adherents. It isn’t hugely popular yet, but that’s in part due to its lack of publicity and somewhat amorphous nature; this book takes a step towards fixing both impediments.

Simon Williams is a British Grandmaster who started playing the Dragadorf in 2004, so this is not publishing for its own sake; he has put his money where his mouth is, and knows whereof he speaks. His results with it against his peers have been respectable, and when he plays down, he is more than capable of showing the line in its glory. Here’s a game from this past July, played too recently for his book:

T. Heinatz (2294) – S. Williams (2527), Swiss Championship 2009:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 a6 7. f3 Nbd7 8. Qd2 Bg7 9. O-O-O b5 10. Kb1 Bb7 11. Bh6 Bxh6 12. Qxh6 Rc8 13. Bd3 Rxc3 14. bxc3 Qc7 15. Ne2 Nb6 16. g4 Qc5 17. Ka1 Na4 18. Qd2 Nd7 19. Rb1 Ne5 20. Rhf1 O-O 21. h4 d5 22. h5 dxe4 23. fxe4 Nxg4 24. hxg6 hxg6 25. c4 Qe5+ 26. c3 Rd8 0-1

About this game, it can be said that if Heinatz had and examined Williams’ book, he would not have lost like this! (For starters, Williams argues that Kb1 in this particular variation is often a waste of time.) Interestingly, though, Williams mentions 15…d5!? and 15…Nc5 16.g4 Na4 in his notes to the game J. Ibarra Jerez – M. Vasiliev, Salamanca 2005 (game 20 in the book, in which Black chose 13…e5 instead) but not the move he actually played. This doesn’t strike me as any sort of secretiveness on his part, though, as both 15…Nc5 and 15…Nb6 are nearly equivalent – the main point of both moves is to route the knight to a4.

The book has quite a lot going for it, not least because it currently has the field all to itself. The games seem well-chosen, and Williams does a good job of laying out the main plans and presenting a full repertoire. Let’s start with a look at the contents:

In chapter 1, he covers the position after 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 a6 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.Bc4, calling this the critical test of the Dragadorf at the time of his writing. He notes that Black can choose between four different plans: (1) Active counterplay based on the …Rxc3 sacrifice; (2) striking out with …e5 and …b4; (3) an early …Nc5 and …Nxb3, often combined with 0-0-0; (4) Black plays an early …h6.

In chapters 2 and 3, White varies with 9.0-0-0, and just as in the main line Dragon Black’s counterplay is often based on …d5. In chapter 2 White goes for a quick g4-g5 (with the h-pawn often following along), while in chapter 3 White continues with 10.Bh6 (after 9…b5) before shoving the kingside pawns. Against this latter idea, Williams notes two different approaches: ones with …Rxc3 and those with …b4.

In chapter 4 we see the “positional approach”. Instead of 9.Bc4 or 9.0-0-0, White tries 9.g4 b5 10.g5 Nh5 11.a4. It’s a little unusual at first to think of g4-g5 as “positional”, but White is trying to misplace Black’s pieces rather than blow him off the board with an attack. Williams also examines the early deviations 10.Nc6 and 9.Nd5.

In chapter 5 we find the Accelerated Dragadorf with 6…a6. The pluses are that it saves a tempo if White plays the Qd2 + Bh6 plan, while the earlier …b5 makes it harder for White to play Bc4. On the other hand, pushing the b-pawn before White commits to castling long makes the a4 rejoinder positionally dangerous for Black. Naturally, Williams focuses his attention on this last possibility.

Chapter 6 takes a step back toward “normal” Dragon lines in reply to White approaches like 6.Bc4 or 6.Be3 + 7.Be2. Even here, though, it’s is possible for Black to Dragadorf his opponent, as Short did against Glek (successfully) and Anand (unsuccessfully) back in the mid-to-late 90s.

Finally, chapter 7 leaves the Dragadorf behind and examines other non-6.Be3 tries like 6.g3, 6.f4 and 6.Bg5. Once you’ve reached the Dragon on move 5, Williams has you covered.
I like the structure of the book and much else besides, and those who play this or are interested in playing it should at least consider picking it up. The book includes games through 2008, but as this isn’t yet the world’s most topical line there’s still time to catch up and supplement the material.

So far, so good. I was playing through the games in the e-book, without an engine running, just trying to pick up the general ideas, and then something caught my eye. In game 12, M. Perez Candelario-I. Cheparinov, Dos Hermanas 2005, he presents a variation (starting with 22.Rd7! instead of the game’s 22.Qxg3?) and concludes it with this comment: “White's attacking chances look very good. Indeed, it's quite possible that White is just winning.” The statement provoked my curiosity, so I switched on Rybka, which instantly gives White a nearly four pawn advantage (which doesn’t decrease as the engine continues to run). That left me wondering if his comment was British drollery, or if instead Williams’ use of the computer was at best sporadic. One should not use the computer to analyze when one is training, but definitely should when creating an opening book! Likewise, later in the game, when examining 45…Qd5 (instead of Cheparinov’s 45…bxc4??) he considers 46.Qd2 and 46.Qe3, but for Rybka 3 46.Qb4+ is always its main move. While these points are no theoretical significance whatsoever, I started to wonder if they were indicative of a relative lack of computer use in checking his analysis. That might well be very serious in the context of the sharp lines in the opening.

So, from here on out I decided to let the engine run while I went through the rest of the games, to see how his judgments squared with the silicon monster’s in the opening. In the next game, he offered an improvement for Black which was quite sensible – no problem there – but within that variation clear improvements were available to both players. Later in the game (post-theory), he offers an improvement for Black, but suggests it’s still going to see tough times after White’s rejoinder. Unfortunately, the move he suggests for White is a blunder, allowing Black to draw. (His basic assessment was correct, however, and with other moves White can keep a significant advantage.)

In game 14 (Swinkels-Chatalbashev), however, he explicitly refers to a possible White improvement as “the computer’s suggestion” – a relief! Ironically, there are several moments in the subsequent analysis of the computer’s suggestion where Williams’ analysis differs fairly significantly from Rybka’s. Later in the game, on move 19, he considers one Black option dubious, concluding at the end of the variation that “Black has a problem with his king.” This is indeed the case by the end of the line – White is winning – but only because the last move given for Black is a blunder. After a better move (21…c3 rather than 21…e6, in case anyone is curious), Black is better, perhaps considerably so.

In game 15, the analysis looked more reliable. There were some moments where he slightly disagreed with the computer, but it was clear that he had taken it into account and I tended to agree with his assessments. There were a few moments where I disagreed, but perhaps these were more human disagreements than anything else. Game 16, there was one moment where I think he misevaluated the position, but generally it was clear that he consulted with the oracle.

I went through a few more games, but rather than report all my results, I’ll leave you with a simple caveat emptor. We all err, and the computer’s outputs aren’t infallible either. Even so, there were more gaps than I would have liked to see, but overall I think the book has much more good than bad. Just make sure you check his suggestions with your engines before you trot them out in tournament play!

For the second straight round, the players showed some signs of exhaustion, and that's understandable. While tournaments with lots of short draws are sad at best, trying to forbid players to take the occasional day off is counterproductive. As anyone who has played much tournament chess knows, these events can be exhausting, and this is true even for those in fine physical condition.

The players' fatigue resulted in six more draws out of seven games, although only one, Kamsky-Leko, went fewer than 30 moves. The most interesting battle to finish with the point split was Karjakin-Inarkiev. It was a battle between queens, rooks, and opposite-colored bishops, and Karjakin tortured Inarkiev for a long time, hoping to find some way to make his attack succeed. Ironically, when he finally had his chance, he not only missed it, he actually allowed his opponent the chance to win. Fortunately for him, Inarkiev was happy enough to force a draw, and that's how it ended.

There was only one win, as mentioned, but it was a big one. Kasimdzhanov defeated Cheparinov, and as a result joins Ivanchuk and Leko in first place going into today's rest day. Here are the full standings after round 9; there are four rounds to go.*

1-3. Ivanchuk, Kasimdzhanov, Leko 6
4-7. Eljanov, Aronian, Karjakin, Alekseev 5
8-9. Alekseev, Bacrot 4½
10. Jakovenko 4
11-12. Akopian, Kamsky 3½
13. Cheparinov 3
14. Inarkiev 2

Tournament site here, and the two games discussed above can be replayed here.


* I won't be covering them, as I won't be blogging (except to blurb my ChessVideos shows) until around mid-September.

In the greatest series of matches in chess history, the most dramatic was probably the fourth between Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. Played in Seville, Spain in 1987, Karpov took the lead with one game to go by winning in game 23, only to have Kasparov break his heart yet again by winning the final game. The result was a pity for Karpov, of course; not only for the obvious reason, but because he had the most interesting theoretical contributions and the match initiative much of the way. While history only remembers the winners (or in this case, the "draw-er" who kept the title, Karpov's best efforts in the match are worth another look.

One such effort was his win in game 16. The players had a vigorous battle in the English in that match, and in the variation 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 Bb4 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 in particular. Karpov won with Black in game 2 and Kasparov avenging the defeat in game 4, and afterwards one side or the other avoided this position until game 16. In the earlier games Karpov played 6...e4, but now he chose 6...Re8 - a variation that continues to be tested at the highest levels to this day. The game quickly grew tense, with both sides enjoying their trumps: White a mobile pawn center and the bishop pair, Black the better pawn structure and strong blockading knights. On this occasion, Karpov handled the strategic complications better and won - and this despite the painful memories of game 16s past.

We'll say more about that, and much more about the game itself, when we present it on the Playchess server this Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET (= 3 a.m. CET Thursday morning). It's free to watch; just log on to the server at the relevant hour, go to the Broadcasts room, find and select Kasparov-Karpov under the Games tab, and you're good to go.

Hope to see you then, especially as this will be our last show for several weeks. (We aim to resume regular service on September 17.)

(1) The Staunton Memorial just concluded, and the most remarkable result doesn't have to do with the standings. But first things first: after 8 rounds of the Dutch matching the British in the Scheveningen event, they were able to maintain that pattern in the final two rounds. The Brits won in round 9, with White, with a big 4-1 score, but in round 10 the Dutch players only managed an even score with their White round. So the U.K. won the overall match 26.5-23.5.

The really remarkable feat was Nigel Short's 8/10 score and its implication. This should net him 21 points, push his rating to 2705, and put him past Michael Adams for UK supremacy for the first time in a long, long time. In part this is due to Short's having had some excellent results lately, but also due in part to Adams' general decline the last few years. Between his failure to win the FIDE k.o. in Tripoli back in 2004 and then his debacle against Hydra in 2005, Adams hasn't been as prominent on the world stage as he had been - and hopefully will be once again.

Back to the Staunton Memorial. In the round-robin event, Timman won with 7/9, half a point ahead of Cherniaev and a point ahead of Korchnoi. Korchnoi started very badly, with a -1 score after four rounds, but managed to win his last three games and four of the last five, including against Timman in round 7. Not bad for a 78-year-old man. (Or 68, or 58, or 48....) All of us non-kids should be inspired by Korchnoi, and not let thoughts about age work as an excuse to not play good chess. And as for you kids, he'll take you down, too!

(2) Moving on: the Hungarian Championship just finished in a tie for first between Zoltan Almasi and Ferenc Berkes, half a point ahead of Csaba Balogh. Almasi and Berkes scored 6/9, but Almasi won the national champion's title thanks to his superior tiebreaks.

(3) The French Championship is ongoing, and after 7 of 11 rounds Vladislav Tkachiev and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave lead with 5 points apiece.

(4) There's a team match between Russia and China, with five men's boards and five women's, with a mixture of 5 classical, 10 rapid and 10 blitz rounds. After 3 classical rounds, the men's matches are 7.5-7.5, while the Chinese women lead 9-6.

(5) Finally, there's the Copa Mercosur (Mercosur Cup). It wasn't a particularly strong event (cat. VI - avg. rating 2389, two GMs playing in the field of 10), but it is noteworthy for one reason. The winner, by three points, was Pocket Fritz 4. It scored 9.5/10 (IM Diego Valerga, rated 2523, got the only draw) and had a 2898 TPR - pretty terrifying for a program that runs on a PDA or a telephone. Very impressive, and a loud warning that cheating is easier and more dangerous than ever.

Today's round finally gave evidence that the players were able to suffer from fatigue. Three of the seven games were short draws, but the other four games were very long. The three draws went 60, 60, and 121(!) moves, while the one win - Ivanchuk-Gelfand - took 98 moves to complete. This is lots of fun for the spectators, but I wonder if the players are going to collapse from exhaustion. Here are the standings after round 8:

1-2. Ivanchuk, Leko 5½
3. Kasimdzhanov 5
4-7. Aronian, Karjakin, Eljanov, Alekseev 4½
8-9. Bacrot, Gelfand 4
10. Jakovenko 3½
11-13. Akopian, Cheparinov, Kamsky 3
14. Inarkiev 1½

Here's the Jermuk tournament website.

Semko Semkov, Kill KID 1 (Chess Stars 2009), 140 pp. £16.99 Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

Kill KID, vol. 1 (not to be confused with a certain two-part movie or advocacy of violence against children or goats), is the first of what might (or might not) be a series of volumes yet to come. The concept is that this book, and any potential successors, will be dedicated to providing an anti-King’s Indian Defense (that’s the KID to kill) repertoire. Semko Semkov, who is also one of the powers-that-be behind Chess Stars publishing, is a Bulgarian IM (with two GM norms to his credit, but inactive for many years now) who has put together a repertoire for White based on the Four Pawns Attack (FPA). He is not the first to do so – GM Anatoli Vaisser wrote a well-acclaimed book promoting the FPA in the late 90s – but it has been long enough that another volume on the topic is to be welcomed.

As those familiar with the FPA know, it is a usable weapon against both the KID and the Modern Benoni – the lines often transpose – and the book’s first section, divided into two parts*, examines the positions that result after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5. Part 1 covers lines without 9…Re8 (especially 9…b5?!, 9…Nbd7, and 9…Bg4), while part 2 covers the main line with 9…Re8.

Concerning 9...Bg4, he spends about 30 investigating 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 and now not the typical ideas involving Re1 and/or a4, but plans with the very direct g4. As for 9...Re8, I think it is this chapter that offers the book’s most significant contribution: after 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4, the main line used to be 12.Bg5, but 12…Qb6 has been doing fine for Black. Instead, Semkov advocates 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6, about which he writes “[T]his variation has been played before, but I link it with ideas that aim for sound positional compensation instead of depending on long, forcing variations. You will find about 30 pages of original analysis as well as a critical survey of the current theory.” (Introduction, page 7.)

Parts 3 and 4 are in the section “King’s Indian Defence and Volga Pawn Structures”. Here we have variations where Black plays …c5 but omits 7…e6 with the inevitable capture on d5, and variations where Black does without …c5 altogether or at least for the immediate future. (A significant example is 5…0-0 6.Nf3 Na6 7.Bd3 e5.)

Finally, the third section looks at various early Black diversions like 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 and now 4….e5, 4…Nbd7 and 4…Nc6 receive investigation. There’s also a look at 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 and now 3…Bf5, 3…e5 and 3…c6 are examined. Semkov does not discuss 1.d4 d6, however, as he believes that the best response is 2.e4, transposing to a Pirc, and for that the reader is (understandably) directed to another Chess Stars volume – the Khalifman book An Opening for White According to Anand, volume 4.

Now a word about the organization of the parts (chapters). As with the “____est Sicilian” books**, there is a tripartite structure. First comes the “Quick Repertoire”, in which the main lines are presented in a useful summary fashion. This is helpful for those starting to find their way, as well as to those looking for a quick review of the material. Next comes the theoretical meat in the “Step by Step” section, where all the details are filled in. Finally, there comes the self-explanatory “Complete Games”. Theory is not rehashed here, but illustrated with thematic games.

Now you know what is covered and how the material is presented. Is the book worth your while? I think it is, if you play the King’s Indian or if you’re an aggressive 1.d4 player willing to play a variation as committal as the FPA. Much of the material is original, and so you won’t easily be able to reproduce it in a couple of minutes with Rybka, nor will you find any handy refutations in books like Golubev’s 2006 Understanding the King’s Indian or even Bologan’s brand-new The King’s Indian: A Complete Black Repertoire. (I checked both books to make sure!) At the end of the day, I’m sure Black will be fine against the FPA, but if this variation suits your mood it can be an excellent practical weapon, especially at the club level, and so I can recommend the book to its target audience.


* It’s a little strange to at least American readers to see “part” used for “chapter”. Of course it’s not confusing when you’re reading the book, but it does need to be kept in mind when reading the review. I would prefer to label the three main sections of the books “parts” and use “chapter” for what they call “parts”.

** There's The Sharpest Sicilian, The Easiest Sicilian and The Safest Sicilian.

Kasimdzhanov-Ivanchuk was a lame draw in 20 moves, but understandable both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, White didn't want to allow the trade of his dark-squared bishop while Black didn't want to allow it to live (his position would be rather cramped in that case), so the repetition made sense. Subjectively, Kasimdzhanov may not have wanted to overpress and blow what has so far been the best round-robin performance of his career at this level, while Ivanchuk might have wanted a day off after yesterday's excruciating with Kamsky. So, he got that day off, and to use a golf term, they were the clubhouse leaders.

That completes the story of the day's draws. The other six games each had a winner. Most importantly for the first-place standings, Leko defeated Cheparinov (with Black), and he is in the lead, all by himself. If Aronian had won against Eljanov, he'd have been tied for first with him, but the opposite result occurred. Still, it's relatively early in the event (six rounds to go), and there are a lot of people near the lead. Here are today's results and standings:

Round 7 Results:
Kasimdzhanov - Ivanchuk ½-½
Eljanov - Aronian 1-0
Karjakin - Akopian 1-0
Gelfand - Inarkiev 1-0
Bacrot - Jakovenko 1-0
Cheparinov - Leko 0-1
Kamsky - Alekseev 0-1

Standings After Round 7:
1. Leko 5
2-3. Ivanchuk, Kasimdzhanov 4½
4-8. Eljanov, Aronian, Karjakin, Gelfand, Alekseev 4
9. Bacrot 3½
10. Jakovenko 3
11-13. Akopian, Cheparinov, Kamsky 2½
14. Inarkiev 1

Tournament site here.

Round 6 of the FIDE Grand Prix in Zermuk, Armenia was pretty incredible. The whole tournament has been hard-fought, and they used yesterday's rest day to prepare for more of the same. The shortest game was a 51-move draw, and the longest was a 114-move miracle save for Ivanchuk.

Three players managed to bring home the full point: Kasimdzhanov, who won with Black in a speedy 53 moves against Inarkiev; Aronian, who bounced back from his round 5 loss to defeat Gelfand in 78 moves; and Alekseev, who ground down Cheparinov in 89 moves (the last 16 of which were a bit silly: a KBN vs. k ending).

The game of the day, however, was undoubtedly Ivanchuk-Kamsky. A sharp opening led Ivanchuk to give up his queen for various spare parts, the nature and quantity of which changed considerably over time. The first moment of relative stability came at move 32, when White had two rooks, a light-squared bishop, and five pawns against Black's queen, rook, dark-squared bishop and two pawns. (That makes a rook and three pawns for the queen.) After some tacking about and a few exchanges, we reached the next stage after White's 64.Rxg4, which gave rise to the following position:



Black kept his bishop with 64...Be5, White saved his with 65.Bf3, and thereafter the battle was on between White's fortress and Black's siege. White's pawn structure is as good as it can be (short of both pawns being on the 7th rank, about to successfully promote): on dark squares they neutralize Black's bishop as much as possible, and by being so close to home they don't give Black much room to crawl underneath them. The one weak point in White's camp is f2, but the queen and bishop cannot break White down on that square by themselves.

Indeed, Kamsky tried to break White's defenses with the queen and bishop alone for a while, but it didn't work. Then he tried centralizing the king, but that wasn't enough either. Finally, he got the idea to bring the king around and in via the queenside, and that did work. After 104 moves, we reached this position:



White is still okay here, but with the king getting so close, and both players running short of time, nearly down to the increments, the situation was becoming dangerous. Here Ivanchuk made a serious error: 105.Rd7? The problem with this move is that after 105...Qh6, Black threatens mate on h1, and now moves that would have been perfectly good with the rook back on d1, like 106.Bf3 and 106.Kg2, would be blunders here (due to 106...Qh3+ and 106...Qc6+, respectively). Now Ivanchuk had to scramble with 106.Bd3+ Kc1 107.Rh7, but after 107...Qe6 108.Be2 Kd2 White's troubles were evident. (109.Bf3 Qa6+ 110.Kg1 Qg6+, for example, wins the rook.)

Ivanchuk came up with 109.Rh4 Qf5 110.Bc4, but after 110...Bf6 he blundered - sort of - with 111.Rf4. After 111...Qh3+ 112.Kg1 Be5 113.Bf1 Qh7 White was completely lost.



What can White do? If he moves the rook to any normal square, he gets mated, and the "abnormal" squares d4 and h4 leave White lost after the rook is captured. Nor is there any fortress to be had by leaving the rook to die on f4. So what did White do? He played 114.Rd4+ and declared a draw by the 50-move rule! Whew!

That kept Ivanchuk in a first place tie; as you can see, below:

Standings After Round 6:
1-4. Aronian, Ivanchuk, Kasimdzhanov, Leko 4
5-9. Eljanov, Jakovenko, Karjakin, Gelfand, Alekseev 3
10-13. Bacrot, Akopian, Cheparinov, Kamsky 2½
14. Inarkiev 1


Moving on, the Zurich Jubilee Open was another success for Boris Avrukh, who tied for first in his second straight major open tournament - but again was officially second due to tiebreaks. His co-winner was Alexander Areshchenko; both players won with Black in the last round (Avrukh against Morozevich and Areshchenko against Kuzubov) and finished with 7½/9. Alexey Dreev and Victor Mikhalevski were half a point back, and then there were 19 players at 6½, including Morozevich, Sutovsky, Meier, U.S. Championship runner-up Hess, Hou Yifan among others.


At the Staunton Memorial, the remarkable pattern has continued in the Scheveningen event, with the Dutch exactly matching the British score every round-pair. Thus in round 1 the Brits went -1 with their 5 Whites, and the Dutch similarly failed to exploit the first move in round 2. In round 3 the Brits went +1 with White; ditto the Dutch in round 4. In rounds 5 and 6 the teams broke even with White, while in rounds 7 and 8 they each went +2 in their turn. So, obviously, they are all tied with two rounds to go. For the home team, this is thanks to Nigel Short, their only player with a plus score. (He has 6/8.) For the Dutch, it's van Wely and Smeets who lead the way; they both have 5/8.

In the all-play-all, Cherniaev and Timman continue to lead; they both have 5/7, half a point ahead of Davies and a point ahead of Korchnoi and Williams.


There are many more events going on too, but I leave them to your own research. You can, however, see the full Ivanchuk-Kamsky game here (with notes), without any more work than a clicking your mouse.

I was informed yesterday that the next time ChessBase reboots the Playchess server, the archived shows will once again be available. As it is now, they're all in the correct directory (unfortunately, still with my last name uncapitalized), and the last two shows are currently available. (They cost a couple of ducats each to watch; a ducat runs 1/10 of a Euro or roughly $.15 in American money, so watching these programs won't exactly break the bank.)

For those who haven't watched any of the shows there, what you do (after purchasing some ducats from ChessBase) is this: log on to the Playchess server and work your way in the Rooms list through to the following: Audio/Video Training on Demand - Radio ChessBase - Great Games with Dennis monokroussos [sic]. Then find the game you want to watch under the Games tab, double-click on it, and respond to the request to chip in a couple of ducats once the prompt comes. It's not quite as simple as watching the ChessVideos shows, but it's not difficult.

Right here. This week's presentation includes a discussion of allocating time for training, a little bit of opening zombieism in the Caro-Kann, and takes a look at a double-rook ending (with some discussion of how double-rook endings differ from those with only one rook apiece).

The show is free, as always, and available on-demand for the next month.

The chess at the FIDE Grand Prix event in Jermuk, Armenia, has been getting better every day. Actually, the rounds have all been exciting; the difference is that the number of draws has been decreasing. Here's what happened in the last two rounds:

Round 4 Results:
Ivanchuk - Alekseev 1-0
Leko - Karjakin 1-0
Aronian - Kamsky 1-0
Jakovenko - Gelfand ½-½
Bacrot - Eljanov ½-½
Akopian - Kasimdzhanov ½-½
Inarkiev - Cheparinov ½-½

Of those games, the Jakovenko-Gelfand draw was pretty quick, but the next three games were only abandoned for draws after 55, 60 and 60 moves, respectively. Of the wins, Ivanchuk-Alekseev was especially attractive, and I recommend that my readers find and replay it.

Round 5 Results:
Kasimdzhanov - Aronian 1-0
Gelfand - Akopian 1-0
Eljanov - Jakovenko ½-½
Karjakin - Bacrot 1-0
Cheparinov - Ivanchuk 0-1
Alekseev - Leko ½-½
Kamsky - Inarkiev 1-0

Five wins! Kasimdzhanov's win was certainly a surprise, and knocked Aronian out the first-place tie. Ivanchuk's win was a triumph of defense. Cheparinov threw all his toys at Black's king, but Ivanchuk kept everything under control, and a combination of exchanges and breaking through on the queenside won the game. Gelfand, Karjakin, and Kamsky's wins were more purely technical, on the other hand - not that anything's wrong with that!

Standings After Round 5:
1-2. Ivanchuk, Leko 3½
3-5. Kasimdzhanov, Aronian, Gelfand 3
6-9. Eljanov, Jakovenko, Karjakin, Cheparinov 2½
10-13. Bacrot, Akopian, Alekseev, Kamsky 2
14. Inarkiev 1


Next up, Zurich. After 7 rounds, Boris Avrukh is the surprise leader with 6 points, half a point ahead of 12 GMs with 5½, including Alexander Morozevich. On a theoretical note, the round 6 battle between Morozevich and Mikhalevski caught my eye. Morozevich drew on the white side of a Scotch variation generally considered very good for White (though the 9...g5 version used by Mikhalevski is much better than its 9...g6 counterpart), the sort of line where Black can never win without receiving a '??' move. Mikhalevski demonstrated that the line is far more interesting than the traditional evaluation might suggest, and that Black can fight for an advantage as well. Those who play or face the Scotch should have a look.


Finally, in the Staunton Memorial, the Schevingen section sees the British and Dutch squads deadlocked after 6 rounds, 15-15. The best individual scorer is Nigel Short, with 5/6; the Dutch are led by Jan Smeets and Ivan Sokolov, both of whom have 4/6. In the round-robin, Jan Timman continues to lead with 5/6, half a point ahead of Alexander Cherniaev. Second-seed Viktor Korchnoi is languishing on an even score, and has yet to face the top three seeds (not including himself). On the plus side, Terry Chapman got on the scoreboard with a win in round 6. Considering that he was the lowest-rated player by 200 points, a big goose egg was a real possibility, so it's good that he managed to avoid such a fate.

Unbeknownst to me, but "knownst" to Mark Donlan of Chess Horizons, I recently scored an honorable mention in the 2009 Chess Journalists of America (CJA) category of "Best Review". (See category 13 on this page*.) It was nice of Donlan to nominate me (good business practice too, I'm sure) and a fine show of good taste from the judges (one hopes), and I thank them.

That said, I decided a few years ago not to nominate myself for a CJA award, as it seems to me the point of an award is to recognize the best work as such, not the best work that came with a check. So take the significance of my strong second-place finish with several pounds of sodium chloride. It's not especially likely that it was the second best review written by an American author in 2009, but it might have been the second best review of the four submitted. (See this page for a list of submissions.)

My apologies to Mark if this seems ungrateful. It's nice to have won some recognition (and as far I know, only some recognition), and Chess Horizons deserves all the good publicity it gets from this and its other wins and honorable mentions. But until the nomination process changes, I think the correlation between the award-winners and those doing the best work will be an accidental one at best.


* Does this mean I can claim to have finished second in a Category 13 contest? Maybe, but it might be a little misleading.

I don't watch blitz games online too often, but I was rewarded on this occasion by the unusual and amusing (maybe not so much for White, but certainly for the spectators) finish. Have a look.

In this post, I presented the following position, taken from a ChessBase article:


D. Djaja 1972; White to move and draw

The story was that this position had stumped many strong GMs, both back around the time of its composition and more recently, at the Mainz festival a few weeks ago - and this despite at least some of them spending half an hour on it.

I had intended to leave the solution to the ChessBase people, but as they haven't gotten around to it in a couple of weeks, I'll go ahead and supply the answer. Click below.

The 2009 Arctic Chess Challenge recently finished in a four-way tie for first, and one of the four winners was 14-year-old American IM Ray Robson. In the process he achieved his first grandmaster norm, and it is games like the one we'll examine this week that show his considerable promise. His game with GM Stig Allan Rasmussen was a success in every way.

First of all, it looks like a triumph of preparation. Rasmussen played an idea that had not been seen in practice, though it had been advocated in a recent, important theoretical work. The result? No problem: Robson found an interesting idea that wasn't discussed in that work, and it turned out that he was not the surprisee but the surpriser. We'll see if White's idea can be rehabilitated, but in the game Rasmussen made a series of natural moves, only to be hit by a truly brilliant idea that won Black the game.

The game is thus of theoretical significance, attractive, and offers an unusual concept we can add to our general understanding of the game. Want more details? You'll have to tune in! It's easy: just log on to the Playchess server at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday night (that's 3 a.m. Thursday morning, CET), go to the Broadcasts room and find Rasmussen-Robson in the games list. It's free, and that's all there is to it. Hope to see you then!

If you play chess, you either need a good heart or the ability to relax. In the Acropolis 2009 tournament, round 1 saw Nikos Karapanos lose his life, literally, due to a heart attack that struck during a time scramble. He wasn't that old, either; according to his FIDE page he was born in the great year of 1966. He doesn't look too terribly out of shape in this 2006 picture, either, so it's something to think about.

Sadly, chess players and heart attacks are nothing new - a few years ago the famous GM Vladimir Bagirov also died from a heart attack suffered during a time scramble as well. Australian GM Ian Rogers is alive and well, but he retired a couple of years ago from tournament chess on doctor's orders. (It may not have been heart-related; that's an assumption on my part, but the stress of tournament chess was a relevant factor.)

So: keep fit and as calm as possible. R.I.P., Mr. Karapanos.

There have been mostly draws so far in the FIDE Grand Prix in Jermuk, Armenia, but practically no short games. In fact, the second shortest game in the entire tournament - by one move - was Jakovenko-Kamsky in round 2, won by White in 29 moves. The other decisive game from round 2 was Aronian-Alekseev (1-0, 72), while in round 3 Alekseev go the point back, defeating Inarkiev in 73 moves. All the other games in rounds 2 and 3 were drawn, and so the standings look like this:

1-3. Aronian, Cheparinov, Leko 2
4-12. Eljanov, Akopian, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Karjakin, Kasimdzhanov, Bacrot, Jakovenko and Alekseev 1½
13. Kamsky 1
14. Inarkiev ½

In Zurich, Morozevich took a quick draw in round 4 - with White (sometimes this seems be his weaker color, so maybe this is like everyone else taking short draws with Black) - and with 3½ points is in a big (16-way) tie for third, half a point behind Dreev and Areshchenko.

In the Staunton Memorial, the Brits went +1 in round 3 of the Scheveningen system competition with the Dutch, while Timman leads the round-robin tournament with 3-0, half a point ahead of Chernaiev and Williams.

A couple of national championships have started as well. The French Championship is missing Bacrot and Lautier, but with Vachier-Lagrave (leading with 2-0), Fressinet and Tkachiev it's hardly weak. The Hungarian Championship is without Leko and Polgar, but includes Zoltan Almasi and Berkes. As usual, the chess calendar is loaded!

Lots of chess, as usual. First of all, the U.S. Open, from which I returned earlier tonight, finished with a 6-way tie for first: Lenderman, Kudrin, Yermolinsky, Stopa, Kraai and Gurevich all finished with 7.5/9. I don't know if it was on tiebreaks or in a playoff, but (Dmitry) Gurevich wound up the official first-prize winner, receiving an extra $200 (in addition to the $2612.30 all six received).

In the Staunton Memorial, the British team caught up in the Scheveningen section; going +1 with Black as the Dutch team had the day before. In the separate round robin event, Cherniaev and Timman are a perfect 2/2.

In Round 1 of the FIDE Grand Prix in Jermuk, Armenia, there were the following results:

Cheparinov - Jakovenko 1-0 (in a Spanish Four Knights!)
Alekseev - Akopian ½-½
Gelfand - Eljanov ½-½
Ivanchuk - Aronian ½-½
Kamsky - Bacrot ½-½
Kasimdzhanov - Karjakin ½-½
Inarkiev - Leko 0-1

(Incidentally, the tournament is doubling as a Tigran Petrosian memorial. [That's the late world champion, of course, not the young and living GM, of course.])

Finally, a very strong open tournament started Sunday in Zürich. Among the notables are Morozevich, Harikrishna and Dreev. In the first round the games were rating mismatches and the favorites almost always managed to come through, with only a very few getting nicked for draws. Morozevich's game was funny, as there was a moment when he was two pawns down but his opponent had 7 pawns, all of which were isolated.

The Arctic Chess Challenge finished earlier today in Tromsø, Norway, and four players tied for first: GM Monica Socko, IM Ray Robson, IM Marijan Petrov and GM Emanuel Berg (in that order) with 7/9. While Robson came just behind Socko on tiebreaks, he won something at least as important: his first GM norm. It seems funny to say this about a 14-year-old, but he had been coming so close for so long that it seems almost overdue. As long as he doesn't quit chess (or move somewhere like, say, Italy), the future is looking ever brighter for American chess. (At least if we're talking about chess players. On the chess politics front, the situation somehow manages to deteriorate every year.)

The 7th Howard Staunton Memorial started yesterday (Saturday), with two groups. The first is a Scheveningen style event (all the players on one team play all the players on the other team), the second an all-play-all. The Scheveningen group features five British (English? I give up) players against five from the Netherlands, with the overall team averages roughly balanced. In round 1 the British had White on every board, but it didn't work out so well:

Adams vs Van Wely ½-½
Short vs Werle 1-0
D.Howell vs Smeets ½-½
McShane vs I.Sokolov 0-1
Jones vs L'Ami 0-1

Meanwhile, the results of the all-play-all were as follows:

Korchnoi - Cherniaev 0-1
Trent - Wells ½ -½
Davies - Williams ½-½
Hendricks - Timman 0-1
Chapman - Wiersma 0-1

So much for White to move and win!

The 5th FIDE Grand Prix starts today (Sunday); I've already mentioned that event in a recent post.

In another bit of news (HT: Chess Today), the second Grand Slam Final will again take place in Bilbao, this time from September 6 through 12, and field of four consists of Sergey Karjakin (winner of Wijk aan Zee), Alexander Grischuk (winner of Linares), Alexei Shirov (winner of Sofia) and Levon Aronian (second place in Nanjing, but that event's winner, Veselin Topalov, has declined the invitation).

Finally, I've been chess touristing at the U.S. Open and watched the second half of Saturday's speed chess event. I thought Hikaru Nakamura would be playing, as he gave a simul here on Friday, but he had to leave in the morning to fly to Japan. It was won by Alexandra Kosteniuk, half a point ahead of Mesgen Amanov, and their battle in the penultimate double-round was decisive. With White, Amanov had a slight edge, but was unable to prevent her counterplay and she managed to draw. Here's how the second game went:

Kosteniuk-Amanov, U.S. Open Blitz:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nbd7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Rhe1 Be7 12.Qg3 b4 13.Nd5 exd5 14.exd5 Kd8

So far, all blitz. Amanov had used about 7 seconds by this point, Kosteniuk maybe around 20. This is all very well established theory.

15.Nc6+ Bxc6 16.dxc6 Nc5

Amanov was still flying, but Kosteniuk slowed down a bit here. The main move is 17.Bh4, which has been played in 11 of the 12 games to reach this position in Mega2009. After some thought, however, White chose the other move:

17.Bc4

This occurred in Shirov-van Wely, Foros 2007, one of the many great slugfests the two have put on against each other. That game continued 17...Nfe4 (17...h6 18.Bh4 Nce4 19.Bxf6 Nxg3 20.Bxe7+ Qxe7 21.Rxe7 Kxe7 22.hxg3 Rac8 is slightly better for Black, according to Ftacnik. I hasten to add that the variation is not all forced.) 18.Qe3? f5 19.g4 g6 20.gxf5 gxf5 21.Rd5 Bxg5 22.fxg5 Rf8 23.Rf1 Qxc6! (Black is clearly better here.) 24.Rdxf5 Rxf5 25.Rxf5 Qe8 26.Rf7 Rc8 27.Rxh7 Qe5 28.g6(?) Na4! 29.g7 Qxb2+ 0-1. Instead of 18.Qe3, White could have played 18.Bxe7+ Qxe7 19.Qxg7, but Ftacnik thinks Black is slightly better after 19...Kc7 20.Bd5 Qf6 21.Qxf6 Nxf6 22.Re7+ Kb6 23.Bf3 d5. Returning to our main game, Amanov, finally thinking on his own, played

17...Rc8

, and this seems okay as well. Now Kosteniuk returned to the typical idea

18.Bh4

and was immediately rewarded:

18...Qxc6? 19.Qxg7 Rg8? 20.Qxf7

with a completely winning position. The game ended very quickly now:

20...Nce4 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Qxg8+ Kc7 23.Qxh7+ Kb6 24.Qxe4 Qxc4 25.Qxc4 1-0

Black resigned, as after 25...Rxc4 26.Rxd6+ Rc6 27.Rxc6+ Kxc6 28.Re6+ White will enjoy the minor material advantage of a rook and four pawns.

Instead of 18...Qxc6, Black should have played 18...Re8 (or 18...Nfe4, which will transpose), with rough equality after 19.Qxg7 Nfe4 20.Bxe7+ Qxe7 21.Qxh7 Qf6 22.Qxf7 Rxc6. On move 19, 19...Nce4 was absolutely forced. Grabbing on h8 leads nowhere (20.Qxh8+ Kd7 21.Bxf6 Qxc4 22.Qxc8+ Qxc8 23.Bxe7 Qc4 24.Bh4 Nc3! is equal), and 20.Bd3 Re8 21.Kb1 Kc7 22.Qxf7 favors White a little - the compensation is sufficient - but it's nowhere near winning.

In his last tough game, in round 10, David Howell won a very imbalanced game against Stuart Conquest, and with that entered the last round with a full point lead. With White, he wisely dried things up straight away against Gary Lane, and the game was drawn in just 19 moves. He thus finished with a very strong score of 9/11.

Mark Hebden and Simon Williams tied for second, half a point behind. Hebden defeated Rendle in round 10 and Jones with Black in the finale. The first win was no real surprise but the second was, as was Hebden's performance overall. (But not to everyone!) As for Williams, he drew with Wells in round 10 and defeated Gordon in the last round.

Finally, an honorable mention goes to Richard Palliser, who finished in clear 4th with 8/11. He crushed GMs Summerscale and Wells in the last two rounds, so apparently all his work on the openings is paying off!

Tournament site here.

We continue our new series on avoiding "zombie chess" (see last week's blurb introducing the topic) with a look at Sicilian variations where Black plays a quick ...e5, creating a hole on d5. Sometimes White plays Nb3, sometimes Nf3, and the differences are important enough that they demand careful attention! Detail, when it seems purely arbitrary, can be rather dull and difficult to memorize, but when you see the whys and wherefores it becomes fascinating.

But see for yourself. The show is free and available on-demand for the next month or so.

(1) The last two rounds of the British Championship have been very exciting, and see David Howell leading by half a point over Simon Williams with two rounds to go. In round 8 they played, and Williams dared to venture the King's Gambit! An eventful game finished in a draw, while the prolific Richard Palliser crushed then-co-leader Gawain Jones in an attractive game, setting up a Howell-Palliser showdown in round 9. This time, the result went with the ratings, and Howell won quickly and convincingly; while Jones absorbed a second straight defeat, this time against Williams.

Here are the top round 10 pairings:

Conquest (6½) - Howell (7½)
Wells (6½) - Williams (7)
Hebden (6½) - Rendle (6½)
Hawkins (6) - Jones (6)
Gordon (6) - Greet (6)
Palliser (6) - Summerscale (6)


(2) The U.S. Open, as is now typical for large American swisses, has multiple schedules, and the last of them won't even start until tomorrow (Thursday). You can see fairly up-to-date results so far here (for the 9-day schedule) and here (for the 6-day).


(3) Finally, for those who find the above too provincial and low-level, a new FIDE Grand Prix event starts on Sunday in Jermuk, Armenia. Here is the imposing list of participants, given in pairing (not rating) order:

No. Name Federation Rating
01 Akopian Vladimir ARM 2712
02 Alekseev Evgeny RUS 2714
03 Aronian Levon ARM 2768
04 Bacrot Etienne FRA 2721
05 Cheparinov Ivan BUL 2678
06 Eljanov Pavel UKR 2716
07 Gelfand Boris ISR 2755
08 Inarkiev Ernesto RUS 2675
09 Ivanchuk Vassily UKR 2703
10 Jakovenko Dmitry RUS 2760
11 Kamsky Gata USA 2717
12 Karjakin Sergey UKR [RUS?] 2717
13 Kasimdzhanov Rustam UZB 2672
14 Leko Peter HUN 2756

I noticed when ftp'ing tonight's show to the Playchess server that all the games had been moved to the "Great Games with Dennis monokroussos" [sic] directory, which looks like a big step in the right direction. To my surprise, when I tried logging on to that directory none of the games appeared, except the one I presented today. So while most of the shows are apparently unavailable, you can at least watch tonight's.

The Grünfeld Defense is a very popular chess opening, and with good reason. It's fundamentally sound, yet dynamic, which means that Black gets fairly good winning chances without doing anything too insane.

This is not to say that there are no risks, of course. White typically enjoys a big center, and one of the main ways in which he can use it is to provide cover for his pieces as he builds up a kingside attack. Black will often gain counterplay on the queenside and against his opponent's center, and then the race is on. On this occasion, in our game for this week, it's the attacker who wins the race.

More specifically, we'll examine the game Alexander Riazantsev - Valeri Yandemirov, played in an open tournament in Moscow last year. Yandemirov chose a sideline he had used before, with success, but Riazantsev found a different way to pursue the attack. With the committal move 15.e5, White put all his eggs in one basket: mate or else be positionally lost. After Black's reply, White was desperately weak on the queenside and on the light squares, but none of that would matter if he could deliver mate. You already know what happened, of course, but seeing the "how" of it is well worth watching - especially because it's an attacking idea you can use in your own games.

So: To watch the show live, log on to the Playchess.com server at 9 p.m. ET tonight (Wednesday night)/3 a.m. CET Thursday morning, go to the Broadcast room and click on Riazantsev-Yandemirov in the Games tab. It's free to watch, and a good time will be had by all.

Here's a position from one D. Djaja, composed in 1972; it's White to move and draw:



According to GM Jan Hein Donner in The King, neither he nor Paul Keres and some other notables managed to solve it despite trying for more than half an hour (this was many years ago), and apparently no one who saw this at Mainz (which just ended) did any better.

Patzers! I looked at it for around 10 minutes - no chess engine running - and solved it. Before you confer the title of solving legend on me (or the more dubious title of "colossal underachiever"), a confession is in order: almost as soon as I solved it, I remembered having seen this problem before, or else one with a similar drawing motif. It didn't pop into my mind before I had the "aha" moment, but that doesn't mean that somewhere, subconsciously, my "homunculus" wasn't in some sense aware of it. At any rate, it's a nice problem, and if you can solve it without moving pieces or using an engine and without having seen it or anything like it before, you certainly deserve a pat on the back.

HT: ChessBase.com, which will present the solution in a little less than a week. I won't steal their thunder by presenting it here or in a follow-up post, so those of you who don't solve it or who lack engines will just have to wait.

The Swiss Championship ended a couple of weeks ago, and like an increasing number of national championships it was an open event - open to foreigners. (I don't think very well of this practice myself, but maybe some countries think this increases publicity or raises money. Maybe, maybe not, but it strikes me as patently unfair to have players with no stake in the matter able to affect the tournament's most important aspect.) Simon Williams of England won the tournament, but although until recently Indians could be British champions, the British can't be Swiss champions (though they could be champions of Swiss-system events). So it turned out to be none other than "Viktor the Terrible" (i.e. Mr. Korchnoi), who tied for second half a point behind Williams, who became the national champion.

Speaking of Mr. Williams, he is currently doing very well in the British Championship. He isn't winning it, but he's in clear third, half a point behind the leaders (David Howell and Gawain Jones, both of whom have 6 out of 7). In round 8 (of 11), he will have White against Howell, while Jones will have Black against Richard Palliser, who is taking a break from writing 30-40 opening books* to play in the tournament. (Don't worry, they'll still get published by month's end.)

Finally, the Continental Absolute** Chess Championship Americas finished on Sunday. Six people qualified from here to the World Cup, but I'm not completely sure who they were. The first two qualifiers are clear: Alexander Shabalov and Fidel Corrales Jimenez, who tied for 1st-2nd with 9/11. Six players tied for the remaining four places, however, so they ran a playoff. According to TWIC, the standings in the playoff look like this:

1-1. Granda Zuniga, Milos 3½
3-4. Flores, Ivanov 2½
5-6. Flores Rios, Friedel 1½

The natural inference is that 1-4 made it, but in Mark Crowther's descriptive paragraph he says "Gilberto Milos, Diego Flores, Julio Granda Zuniga and Mauricio Flores Rios edge[d] out Josh Friedel and Alexander Ivanov." I'm not sure if he was tired when he wrote that (errare humanum est), or if there's a mistake with the score table, or - this would be horrible - if there was some limit to the number of participants from one country, such that Ivanov couldn't have guaranteed his qualification unless he came in clear first, ahead of Shabalov.

* This might be a slight exaggeration, but have you seen how much he publishes? I suspect that "Richard Palliser" might actually be a sort of secret society, like "Bourbaki" in mathematics. Let me add that this is not a sneer at his expense - I have generally seen and heard positive reviews of his work.

** I don't know why we're copying these inflated terms from the former USSR. What does "absolute" add to a plain, ordinary championship? In fact, there's reason to believe it's a lesser championship rather than an enhanced one. The real point of the tournament is to give those who failed to qualify for the World Cup by other means a sort of last chance to do so. Thus those whose ratings are high enough or who won national championship events didn't need to bother with this tournament.

The Mainz Festival finished yesterday with some spectacular play.

In the main event, the Grenkeleasing Rapid World Championship, Aronian finished successfully, as expected. He won the first two games against Nepomniachtchi and then drew the third to clinch the title. Game four was a mere formality, and was drawn as well, but in fact Aronian could have won from the final position. An impressive result from Aronian (especially after getting knocked around the second two days of the Chess960 Championship), but a very poor result from Anand. The world champion only managed four draws with Naiditsch, and they wound up splitting third place.

The Ordix Open was a qualifier for next year's rapid championship, and was won by Mamedyarov with an extremely impressive score of 10/11, half a point ahead of Gashimov, Akopian and - incredibly - Naiditsch, who played in both events at the same time. The key game in the tournament was perhaps the 10th round contest Nakamura-Mamedyarov. Both players had 8½/9 but neither played it safe. Nakamura obtained a material advantage, but his opponent had a powerful pair of bishops while his own king's position was poor and his kingside underdeveloped. At one point Mamedyarov offered a repetition (whether he would offered it again is another story); Nakamura refused and went on to lose this very sharp game. (He also lost in the last round, to Gashimov; again, ironically, with two knights against his opponent's bishop pair.)

Depends on access, time, etc. The operation will probably be up and running again by Tuesday, though.

Finally! I'm sure Viswanathan Anand be back, and I hope so too, but I'm also glad to see someone else on top for a change - 11 years was a long time. Anand's streak was pretty remarkable, and came at the expense of just about every great player of our time except for Kasparov.

The identity of the "someone else" replacing him will be determined tomorrow, but it will either be Levon Aronian or Ian Nepomniachtchi. They entered the day tied for first with 2½/3, a point and a half ahead of Anand, and managed to run out the clock on the champion's comeback.

In round 4, Nepomniachtchi lost to the hitherto scoreless Arkadij Naiditsch, but Anand only gained half a point on Nepomniachtchi, as he only managed to draw against Aronian, and that with some difficulty.

In round 5 Aronian clinched his own qualification by defeating Naiditsch, but it looked like Anand was in business again. He had a big advantage on the board and on the clock against Nepomniachtchi, but the latter defended like a lion and saved a queen ending, two pawns down, in 106 moves.

That meant that in the last round Anand would need to beat Naiditsch and Aronian would have to beat Nepomniachtchi to force an Anand-Nepomniachtchi playoff for the second spot in the final. Both of those results were eminently possible, but think about what you would do in Aronian's shoes. Would you go for a pointless win that gives you neither rating points nor money and creates the possibility that you play Anand in the final, or coast with a draw to face someone 200 points lower rated? Whatever it was Aronian decided in his heart of hearts, his opponent drew without much difficulty, and they qualified for tomorrow's championship match. As for Anand-Naiditsch? It wound up a draw anyway.

Final Preliminary Round Standings:
1. Aronian 4½
2. Nepomniachtchi 3½
3. Anand 2½
4. Naiditsch 1½

Tournament site here.