The Chess Mind

Tonight, the technical troubles bug struck again, so to compensate those who bailed because of the difficulties, to reward those who stuck around despite them, and as an enticement for those who haven't yet watched the show, I've linked to my show notes, right here. Best of all, this one time only, I've even added a downloadable pgn file, so you can savor the three horrible losses I've included over and over to your delight. (Couldn't I have picked a better week for computer problems?)

Click here.

For many decades, the Georgian women had a stranglehold on the world championship, and this was only overcome in 1991 – and it wasn’t by a Polgar! Rather, it was a young woman from China, Xie Jun, who inaugurated a new era in women’s chess, defeating then-champion Maya Chiburdanidze 8.5-6.5. She was women’s world champion from 1991 to 1996 and again from 1999 to 2001, when she withdrew from world championship play.

This Monday night at our consuetudinary hour (9 p.m. ET) we’ll examine one of this grandmaster’s games, but not from her battles for the title, but from one of the entertaining (but now, sadly, defunct) Veterans vs. Women matches. Her opponent in this 1994 tussle was Danish legend Bent Larsen, a player in the world’s absolute elite in the 1960s and ‘70s. Both Xie Jun and Larsen are very aggressive players, but this game is a gem of positional play. White emerges from the opening, a Pirc, with a slight edge, and manages to maintain and increase her grip through to the attractive finish. The game is interesting and artistic, and Xie Jun’s play is a masterpiece of prophylactic thinking. (Painful bonus: one of my losses will be presented as we review the theory of the line.)

As always, directions for watching live (or archived) shows can be found here, while a list of games covered in those archived shows is available here.

It wasn't the most successful tournament for the great Jose Capablanca, but the Moscow 1925 event did feature one of his most complicated and subsequently well-analyzed wins ever, his game with tournament winner Efim Bogoljubow. Desperately trying to catch Emanuel Lasker for second and to inflict defeat on the runaway leader, Capablanca played sharply, sacrificing a piece on move nine for a terrific attack. Despite a crucial error at a key moment, the Cuban legend found resource after resource to keep his winning chances alive, and finally outplayed "Bogo" to collect the full point.

Neither side played perfectly, but the game was fascinating despite the mutual errors. Indeed, the errors contributed to the richness of the game - all sorts of crazy positions arose that wouldn't have, had the players executed their moves with mathematical precision.

It is, or at least was, one of the most famous games in Capablanca's career, and as such is worth knowing for historical reasons. Yet even more important is what we can learn from the game: there are lessons regarding opening theory, on how to attack (even in the absence of queens) and defend, and on the psychological failings that affected Capablanca at this stage of his career, and that might affect many of us as well. The game is an instructional gold mine!

I therefore hope to see all of you this Monday night at 9 pm ET on ChessBase's playchess server; remember, it's free! If you need directions on how to watch (whether live or archived shows), click here; if you'd like to see a list of games covered in previous shows (and available in the archives), click here.

Larry Christiansen didn’t win the U.S. Chess Championship this year, but he did win its most memorable game. His opponent, Aleksander Wojtkiewicz, is a real Najdorf specialist, but on this occasion it was Christiansen who was ready with some fantastic preparation in Fischer’s 6.Bc4 variation. It is often the case in the Najdorf that the long term factors favor Black, but first he has to survive the middlegame – and so it was here. In return for a piece, White achieved two major gains: serious attacking chances and incredible complexity. (The complexity affects both players, but at least part of that complexity Christiansen had worked at home. Unsurprisingly, Wojtkiewicz went astray and his opponent went on to win a brilliant miniature.)

Those factors, plus the game’s theoretical significance, make this a great game to study and analyze – and sure enough, strong players have been lining up to publish their thoughts on this game. We’ll take a look at what’s been said so far, as well as what we’re able to find in our analysis. All together it should make for a splendid Monday evening (9 p.m. ET) – I hope to see you then!

[Directions for watching the show (or for watching older, archived shows) are available here, while a list of games covered in previous shows can be accessed here.

The first official world champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, doesn’t receive the honor he’s due as a great player and a trailblazer, but this week, we’ll do what we can to rectify this. We’ll focus on his win over world champion Emanuel Lasker from the 1895/96 St. Petersburg tournament, a remarkably energetic game won by Steinitz – at age 59 – over his 27-year-old rival. The opening should be of great interest to club players, as Steinitz successfully uses a plan that has long disappeared from professional play but which still gives amateurs fits. We’ll discuss the proper solution here and in another, analogous and relevant case. Steinitz’s play in this game is a model: the opening succeeds, the middlegame finds him increasing his advantage by positional means, and then, once Lasker tries desperately to sharpen things up, Steinitz finishes him off with a sac and an attack.

It’s a game worth seeing and studying, so please join me this Monday night at 9 pm ET – hope to see you then!

(Directions for watching the show (and archived shows, too) can be found here, while a list of games covered in previous shows is available here.)