The Chess Mind http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/ en-us 2008-10-08T21:10+00:00 The Sofia rules in action: Three cheers for the Russians http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1223502887.shtml Based on the "day off" the Russian Championship participants enjoyed in round 4, I assumed the players weren't using the so-called "Sofia rules". After all, five of the six... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-10-08T21:10+00:00 Russian Championship participants enjoyed in round 4, I assumed the players weren't using the so-called "Sofia rules". After all, five of the six games were drawn quickly: two in 14 moves, two in 25 moves, and one made it all the way to move 30 before the point was split. And yet, it turns out that the Sofia "rules" are in effect*!

So, boys and girls, if you want to take a day off but those pesky arbiters want to force you to play, you can use

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 Nbd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 d5 10.exd6 Qxd6 11.Qe4+ Qe6 12.Qd4 Qd6 13.Qe4+ Qe6 14.Qd4 Qd6 (Inarkiev-Jakovenko)

or

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Re8 10.d4 Bb7 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3 Re8 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.Nf3 (Lastin-Svidler; this one is already very well-known and has been used hundreds if not thousands of times over the past two decades.)

or just make some moves, and when you feel you've put on a good show, simply create your own repetition, as occurred in the games Morozevich-Timofeev, Tomashevsky-Alekseev and Maslak-Sakaev.

As a matter of principle, anti-draw rules are rarely needed; as a matter of fact, they don't work. It's pretty easy for player 1 to drop a hint or throw out a trial balloon to player 2 before a game to see if he's up for a draw (or maybe down for a draw, depending on your perspective), and then any competent players can make it happen. And even in a "real" game, when the players believe it's an inevitable draw, player one can make a silly but non-self-destructive repetition and do the job that way. Player 2 can decline it, but that's not much different from a normal draw offer situation.

Further, since I think there's nothing wrong with a player taking a short draw from time to time (sometimes one is sick or especially tired, or wants to get a painful loss or two out of his system, or in bad form and eager to get the event over (like Anand at the Grand Slam final), or needs only a draw to help clinch a norm or the desired place in the tournament), there's yet another reason to reject the Sofia rules.

So three cheers to the players in the Russian Championship. They've played four great rounds out of the five, which is a higher percentage than you'll see in most tournaments, and when they wanted to take a well-deserved day off, they did it, and made a mockery of a stupid rule in the process. Good for them.

* HT: Chess Today]]> GM Rivas disqualified from Spanish Championship: Do we need a doping test, or a test for dopes? http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1222899918.shtml GM Manuel Rivas was disqualified from the ongoing Spanish Championship when he refused to submit to a doping test. (As reported here; translation here.) Now, perhaps at some... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-10-01T22:10+00:00 Spanish Championship when he refused to submit to a doping test. (As reported here; translation here.) Now, perhaps at some point there will be a substance that (a) substantially helps the performance of a chess player and (b) is dangerous and needs to be controlled, but in the meantime, what's the point? This stupid FIDE rule, which as far as I know had never previously been enforced, goes back to 1999 when FIDE had some hopes of becoming part of the Olympic movement. Since that didn't work out (chess was an exhibition sport in the Sydney Olympics in 2000, and that was the end of that), can we stop pretending chess is a real sport - or at least the sort of sport where these blood tests are relevant?

HT: Chess Today]]> Rules for the next world championship match? One can only hope... http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1222154158.shtml From regular reader and chess history buff Brian Karen comes this fascinating letter (also published in Chess Today):... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-09-23T07:09+00:00 From regular reader and chess history buff Brian Karen comes this fascinating letter (also published in Chess Today):

I noticed this clause in the 'Rules and Regulations' for the Steinitz - Zukertort match of 1886. If only we had such conditions for Topalov - Kramnik and other recent matches :):

"While the match is pending the players shall be required to observe a gentlemanly behavior toward each other in their personal bearing and language, as well as in their communication direct or indirect, whether of a private character or intended for publication. Should any report, interview, or other information during the match, appear in the press, which may unjustly affect either player, then the two Umpires, or the Referee, may require a public disavowal or contradiction of any such unjust allegation, in any manner they may deem proper, to be made by one or both players. If, however, any ungentlemanly aspersion, reflecting on one of the players, be traced to his opponent directly or indirectly, the latter may be required to publish an apology and shall be subject o a fine of not less than ten dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, at the discretion of the Referee."

In fairness, Steinitz and Zukertort quarreled vehemently in the years leading to their match. But as the February 4, 1886 St. Louis Dispatch reported - "Steinitz has been attacking Zukertort bitterly in his chess magazine the past six months, but since they have been playing in this match they have been growing more friendly and Joseph says that Steinitz called his opponent "Zukey" yesterday.

]]> Topalov is misreading the Chess Mind! http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1221688337.shtml During my coverage of the eighth round of the Grand Slam Final, I wrote this:... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-09-17T21:09+00:00 During my coverage of the eighth round of the Grand Slam Final, I wrote this:

The upcoming world championship match is looking increasingly disappointing. At the start of the year, Anand and Kramnik were tied atop the rating list, and the match looked like the culminating moment in their careers. The two greatest players of the past dozen or so years not named Kasparov were finally having at it for ultimate bragging rights in the chess world. Now they're numbers five and six in the world, and both players are entering the match with poor results. What was an EVENT is in danger of becoming just another interesting battle between elite players.

My point wasn't that Anand and Kramnik had become bums, but that, at the moment, they have dropped and become part of the pack. They haven't really been passed by the pack either - they're more like riders who had broken away, but have since been absorbed back into the peleton. They're still great players; but they've been out of form lately and (even leaving that aside) have lost their dominance. Compare that sentiment with this one, from the ever-gracious Veselin Topalov, who, ten seconds after returning to the top of the rating list after a couple of lousy years, had this to say:

Q: Are you going to watch the Anand-Kramnik match? A: Of course I will analyse the games from this match, but let me confess, the match between no.5 and no.6 is not of that much interest for me. Kramnik is not the best player even in Russia. Morozevich, who won the Tal Memorial game vs. him, also topped him in the rating list. And Anand in Bilbao was a shadow of former great player. [N.B.: That's a Babelfish translation of part of a Sport Express interview, courtesy of Jaideepblue. Russian readers are strongly urged to correct any serious mistakes in that translation.]

These are strange comments from Topalov. First of all, didn't he learn anything from the run-up to his match with Kramnik? He had all sorts of demeaning things to say then, too, and all it did was motivate Kramnik further. Since both Anand and Kramnik enjoy (big) plus scores against Topalov, it's not as if he's going to intimidate them.

Second, while Topalov has finally regained his form and tops the rating list and leads Anand by a whopping seven points, I guess he's forgotten about the rest of the year. In Wijk aan Zee, Anand only came in third, half a point out of first, but he was a point and a half ahead of Topalov. In Morelia/Linares, Anand came in first, a point ahead of Topalov. So while Bilbao was a real stinker for Anand, Topalov's rather condescending and dismissive remarks make a lot of sense only if we have reason to believe that Bilbao was representative of Anand's current abilities.

I expect a Topalov victory against Kamsky later this year (though I won't shed any tears if the opposite result occurs), but think he will lose to the winner of the Anand-Kramnik match (hopefully very badly).

]]> Biel, Round 6: Carlsen in clear first again; Onischuk proves he's a real American http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1217108679.shtml Three games, three wins! There have only been eight draws in the eighteen games so far, and no games without a fight. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any paternalistic... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-07-26T21:07+00:00
On to the games. Pelletier-Carlsen saw the players continue down the same path they've been on, with Carlsen playing well and Pelletier finding some pitfall along the way. Carlsen enjoyed a slight edge from the opening (a Queen's Indian), but hadn't achieved anything with it after his 26th move. At that point, in an approximately equal position, Pelletier forced Carlsen to create to create a powerful pin. White was immediately in trouble, and after a further error on the next move Pelletier was lost.

That ensured at least a tie for first at the end of the round, but when Alekseev lost his first game of the tournament to a suddenly resurgent Bacrot, Carlsen was guaranteed a clear lead. Bacrot's win was very nice; definitely the game of the day, in my book. While he didn't achieve any advantage with his pawn sac in the opening (a Queen's Indian), the combination he initiated on move 33 was really impressive - 35.Qd3!! was an especially subtle point.

Finally, Onischuk's loss to Dominguez was simply astonishing. Onischuk may have achieved a very small advantage on the white side of a Gruenfeld, but they quickly reached a very drawish ending. Dominguez handled it more adeptly, but was only able to reach a rook and knight vs. rook ending. This is a known draw, and much easier for the weak side to hold than rook and bishop vs. rook. Yet despite starting with an almost ideal defensive position (his king was in the center, while Dominguez's king was cut off on the h-file), Onischuk put up practically no resistance. His own king was cut off along the a-file with alarming rapidity, and even then he put up little resistance and then lost without even falling for a subtle trap. A sad loss for Onischuk, who had been playing very well up to this point and had been in the battle for first place.

So what do I mean by the title of this post? Over the years, I've read (and heard) not just once, but many times, that Americans don't play endgames well. Russians (and those from the former USSR) do, but not Americans. Well, since Onischuk comes from Ukraine and received his chess education there, I guess this makes him a "real" American now - he has forgotten (at least this once) how to hold routine draws.

Jokes aside, some different morals should be drawn. First, as I've been mentioning more and more lately, there are far fewer "dead" draws than we might like to believe. Exhaustion, a dimmed sense of danger, and making a series of small concessions can all lead to even very strong players losing "obviously" drawn positions. (And Onischuk certainly qualifies as a very strong player - he's #50 in the world.)

Second, while "real" Americans may not, on average, play endgames as well as they ought to, it's probably true that almost no one else does anymore, either. Assuming the old stereotype was true, there were two reasons why Americans played endgames worse than their Soviet counterparts. First, formal instruction in the USSR gave talented players serious help in that area, while such instruction was almost completely absent here. Second, adjournments were commonplace there and almost non-existent here. There's nothing like the pressure of a tournament situation and the luxury of a day or two to analyze to improve one's understanding of the endgame - especially in the pre-computer era. Nowadays, the USSR has broken up and that sort of widespread instruction is gone. Further, with sped-up time controls, adjournments are a thing of the past. So we're all "real Americans" now!

What should we do about this? Here are some suggestions: correspondence chess, training games against computers and peers from both theoretical and practical endgame positions, and "adjournment" exercises - find some interesting ending, and you and your playing partner take an hour, a day, a week or however long to prepare before playing it out against each other. With the widespread availability of excellent endgame literature and strong playing programs, any dedicated player has what he needs to improve considerably in this aspect of the game. (And to those who say working on the endgame is boring, I say that gaining extra half-points on a regular basis is loads of fun.)

Back to the tournament. Here are the standings after round 6:

1. Carlsen 4.5
2. Dominguez 4
3. Alekseev 3.5
4. Onischuk 3
5. Bacrot 2.5
6. Pelletier .5

Pairings for Round 7: (On Monday; Sunday is a rest day.)

Carlsen - Alekseev
Dominguez - Pelletier (looks like a new tie for first is coming up)
Onischuk - Bacrot

Carlsen Watch: Current live rating: 2796.5 (1.5 behind Anand)

Tournament site here, games with my comments here.]]> The cure for chronic blundering http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1214865981.shtml An anonymous reader writes:... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-06-30T22:06+00:00 An anonymous reader writes:

[I've noticed that]...more than half (60% or more!) of my losses are the result of an outright blunder. Things like mate in one when it can easily be defended, hanging pieces for nothing, and dropping pawns like nobody's business. It's easy to do some tactical puzzles or study some rook and pawn endgames, but as for the blunders it's simply a matter of doing it or not doing it. If this were simply affecting my blitz games I wouldn't care so much, but I've done some really stupid things in OTB games too. I know to look once more at the position before finally making your move and everything, but for some reason it doesn't seem to matter. I was wondering if there is any input you have on the subject, and more than the cliche "look at the position like a beginner" stuff I see everywhere. Maybe this is a (serious!) problem with other people too, and maybe they have found a way to fix it! Thanks[.]

Here's my advice: quit.

(show)

]]> A Problem with Draws http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1210880805.shtml I recall promising not to address this topic anymore, but what I wish to say in this post goes in a completely different direction than the usual laments. There won't be... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-05-15T19:05+00:00
The year was 1985, and an ambitious teenager (me) was regularly taking the trip from Las Vegas to southern California to get in some games against strong opposition at Labate's Chess Center. Back then I worked the graveyard shift, and after working all night I drove to Anaheim and was paired with IM Kamran Shirazi in the first round. After a surprisingly easy win, my reward was Black against GM Larry Christiansen. Despite playing the seedy Hennig-Schara Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4?!/?) I obtained tons of play for my pawn. Christiansen cleverly sacrificed a piece to take the initiative over, and after a while I returned it (or he won it back). The end result of all our running around was an endgame with matched material and a symmetrical structure, and a draw was agreed.

Needless to say, this was a thrilling day for me. Despite having been up for over 30 hours in a row (I don't recommend that anyone follow my example, and I hasten to add that my drive to California occurred when I had plenty of sleep) I had beaten my first IM and drawn my first GM - and comfortably! Here's where it gets interesting, though: we had a post-mortem. While it was a complicated game, I felt through most of the game and especially at the end as if I had a pretty good idea of what was going on.

As Christiansen started ripping through variations, however, the picture changed dramatically. It's not so much that I miscalculated - I don't recall having messed up any of the variations I examined during the game. No, the problem was that I saw almost nothing compared to him! Idea after idea poured out of my esteemed opponent, and after a few minutes of this I wondered how I drew with this being, who was clearly of a different species than me.

Of course, I've been on the Christiansen side of things too, where I drew a lower-rated player who seemed not to see anything during the game, but managed to draw just the same. And I bet most if not all of you have had the same experience, too. Of course, different players have different strengths. Christiansen is an exceptionally imaginative tactician even among grandmasters and undoubtedly finds brilliant ideas they overlook, too. But in the case of the 1985 editions of Mssrs. Christiansen and Monokroussos, it's not likely that there was any respect in which the latter player outshined his opponent.

The punchline, then, is this: it's a pity, perhaps, that one player can so outclass another and still not be able to win a game of chess. In the long run, his superiority will show, so maybe it's not that big a problem, and it's also not clear that there's any way to fix the problem without killing the patient (the game as we know it). I wouldn't describe this as the "draw death" of chess, but it does seem that the drawing margin is very large. Another possible diagnosis - a more optimistic one - is that much of chess skill is tacit knowledge. A player simply learns where the pieces go, and that feeling enables a player not to completely escape from tactical dangers and the need to calculate like a chess engine, but to go pretty far in that direction.

Two final comments. First, while it may be a pity that I was able to draw that game despite the great difference in strength, I don't have even the slightest regret about the result.

And second, a postscript. After defeating an IM and drawing a GM with no sleep, you'd imagine that defeating an expert the next day with lots of sleep would be a cinch. Nope! I only drew in round 3, but finished well with a win over a master in round 4, coming in second or third. (Christiansen won with 3.5/4, I think, and he might have been tied with one other player - I don't remember.)]]> Quotation Time #6: The Answer is... http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1207547634.shtml Ljubomir Ljubojevic, and it probably explains why he hasn't played very much the past decade. Here's the quotation again:... Dennis Monokroussos 2008-04-07T05:04+00:00 Ljubomir Ljubojevic, and it probably explains why he hasn't played very much the past decade. Here's the quotation again:

I have won many games that have not made me happy; and when I lose, I am also not happy. My friends ask "so when are you happy?" That's the way chess is; you are happy only rarely; the rest is grief.

It's a rather sad quote, but one most competitors can identify with at some point in their lives, myself included. When it does occur, I suggest not playing serious games for a while and trying to remember why one started playing in the first place. Sometimes that's enough to do the trick. One good reason to play competitively (though not when misery predominates) is that it's only in competition that we are really forced to give it our all, to push ourselves to our creative limits. For that chance - the chance to produce something new, and to do something we didn't know we had in us - it is worth going into the battle.

]]>