The Chess Mind

Alexei Alexeivich Troitzky is known among chess fans for his analysis of two knights vs. pawn, the conclusions of which are summarized in the famous "Troitzky line". What chess fans probably don't realize is just how amazing his achievement really was - I know I didn't. Hans Ree's fine essay* has cured me of my ignorance, and I'm grateful - Troitzky's achievement deserves recognition, and gratitude as well from those of us whose careers started in the pre-tablebase era. I encourage you all to have a look - it's a very good read.

*This direct link will only work until Ree's June 2007 essay goes up. You'll then want to go here and select the May 2007 column.

"Why remove theory to let everyone start from the same level? I've been studying chess for 40 years and you make me start at the same level as somebody who spent all that time drinking and watching TV?" (Romanishin to a group of Italian players in Rome, 2006.)

Wittily put, and it even seems to make sense - at least at first. Upon further examination, it's not so clear. Here are some of the flaws with Romanishin's reasoning; readers are invited to supply more - or to rebut the flaws in my reasoning.

(1) R. assumes that the only benefits he accrued from his 40 years' labor pertain to particular openings. But learning isn't so compartmentalized, and what he has learned - even if only tacitly - about pawn structures, piece coordination, and working his way through unclear positions will pay off in Chess960 as well.

(2) R. isn't addressing the basis of the pro-Chess960 argument. If its advocates are right about the deathly state of contemporary opening theory, he should welcome the change. Those TV-watching booze hounds have flipped on their Fritzes and Rybkas, and have thereby caught up with Romanishin and his 40 years of work. There's no advantage to staying pat - the elbow-bending couch potatoes have already caught him. If they're not right, however, then there's no reason to jump ship to Chess960. Romanishin's time investment isn't relevant either way.

(3) Making the switch would help R. in his battle with the alcoholic cyborgs. His industriousness and understanding of how to work out the opening phase of the game will help him to systematically prepare for the random positions better than his opponents. We can label this advantage the learning-how-to-learn edge.

The first thing you think about when you see the word "hybrid" is probably a car. That's to be expected, but hybrids aren't just on the road - they're in the chess and sports and chess worlds (and their intersection), too. There's chess boxing (first you develop neural connections, then you destroy them), there's the hybrid regular chess/Chess960 tournament coming in Mainz this July. (Examples can be multiplied with ease: e.g. the annual Amber blindfold & rapid tournament and the occasional practice of playing off ties in matches and tournaments with blitz games.)

In sports, hybrids are as old as the decathlon and pentathlon, but there's something new: a tennis hybrid! In the tennis world, Swiss player Roger Federer has been a dominant #1 for several years, but when Thetis dipped him in the river Styx, she neglected to take Rafael Nadal, on clay courts, into account. Everything Federer has been on non-clay courts (especially grass), Nadal has been - and more - on clay. Relatively few tournaments are played on clay each year, so Federer's grass and hard court supremacy has kept him at number one overall. But that's arguably a quirk of fate; if clay had turned out to be the most popular surface, it might have been Nadal receiving consideration for the title of greatest player ever, with Federer the pesky number two.

Is there some neutral way to decide? Here, at last, we come to the punchline of the post - check out this link. The picture there looks like a month-late April Fools' joke, but it seems to be on the up-and-up. It's an interesting experiment and a clever publicity stunt, but I wonder: does this really answer the question of which of the two is the greater player overall (ignoring problems with making judgments based on a single match), or does it just tell us who is better on a weird new hybrid court?