The Chess Mind

A few days ago I presented my first show on endgame misadventures on ChessVideos.tv; and those who didn't think I suffered enough in those games will be pleased with the results of this program. Available for free, on-demand, and requiring no special software, it affords viewers the chance to see some very bad endgame technique on my part. While some readers might revel in Schadenfreude, the primary value comes in learning from my mistakes - they're not unique to me, after all.

Watch, enjoy, and (hopefully) learn!

When I've examined endgames on this blog or presented them on my ChessBase or ChessVideos shows, they have usually been models of good play. Maybe not everything was done to perfection, but most of the time, there was something positive to be learned by watching the players in action.

Not this time. In my latest ChessVideos show, I present a couple of games from my youth in which at least one player did something really wrong. These aren't games that will make anyone's "greatest games collection", but I suspect that some of my viewers will find them useful in spite of the egregious errors - or perhaps because of them. It may take a pretty advanced player to fully appreciate the finesses of a high-class rook endgame, but I can assure everyone reading this that there was absolutely nothing hifalutin about the mistakes made in these games. Yet (with one exception) the errors weren't outright blunders, either; rather, they're the sorts of mistakes anyone can make until acquiring a certain amount of experience. We've all got to get that experience somewhere, and it's best if we can learn from other people's mistakes.

I hope you'll learn from mine: the link is here, and the show is available for free and on-demand, and requires no special software.

As everyone involved was a little busier than usual, I didn't have a ChessVideos show go up last week. No matter: this week you'll get two for the price of one (i.e. free). The first one went up a little while ago, and in it I present five very attractive endgame studies. Two are big favorites of mine (and of many others, I'm sure), while the other three aren't quite as majestic but are still worthy of your time. The great thing about studies is that they offer at least three benefits: tactics practice, aesthetic pleasure from the composition itself, and the joy of the "Eureka!" experience.

Have a look here, and see for yourself.

US citizenship, that is - see the previous post for details about being a "real American". This example is a few years old, but unfortunately for IM Gerhard Schroll, Chess Today published his loss to GM Tony Kosten from the 2004 Austrian Team Championships. As far as I can tell, it was a full time control game, but he managed to lose an endgame that IM Jeremy Silman thinks a 1400-1599 player ought to be able to draw. Accordingly, while I invite everyone to click here and have a look, I'd like players 1599 (or the BCF or other federation equivalent) and under to try to find the cleanest, clearest and easiest draw missed by Schroll. (Just don't use your chess engines, and try to do it without a book.)

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 anti-draw measures in place, which just goes to show that what counts is inviting the right players. Why can't all the events be like this one?

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.

In this post, celebrating Hungarian-American GM Pal Benko's 80th birthday, I presented two of his problems and one of his studies. Here once again are the positions and their associated tasks:


White to move and mate in three.


White to move and mate in three.


White to move and win.

Before offering the solution, let me express my slight regret at presenting this puzzle, as it's a modification of a 1981 study by D. Gurgenidze and L. Mitrofanov, both colossal figures in the world of chess studies. (I don't mean that Benko's modification is valueless; not at all. But it would be better to present the original first.)

All three solutions, together with the Gurgenidze & Mitrofanov original, can be replayed here.

American GM Pal Benko (we've borrowed him from Hungary) turned 80 years old two days ago (thus Wikipedia) or yesterday (so says Chess Today). While he hasn't been a terror on the world scene for a long time, he's still a player to be celebrated, especially in the United States. He was a two-time candidate, a former Hungarian champion, a star for the U.S. in several Olympics, a player without whom Bobby Fischer couldn't have played in the 1970-1972 world championship cycle, a main popularizer (though not the inventor) of the Benko Gambit, a fine endgame study composer and problemist, and the author of a very long-running endgame column in Chess Life.

He also seems a pretty decent guy. When I was living in New York in the 1990s, he was at the Marshall Chess Club from time to time, and on more than one occasion I had the chance to analyze with him. There was no need for me to show credentials or to receive an introduction from someone else (at least not that I recall!); the analysis started spontaneously and, as far as its conduct was concerned, it took place between peers. (I don't mean that I'm his equal, obviously. My point is that there was no pulling rank, either explicitly or implicitly.) All that mattered was what happened on the board.

So we celebrate his birthday, and to do so, here are a couple of his letter problems and a study (from his excellent autobiographical work My Life, Games and Compositions). We start with the letter problems, one for each of his initials.






In both cases, it's White to move and mate in three.

Next, one of his best-known studies:


Special Prize, Magyar Sakkelet 1990. White to move and win.

The solutions will be given in a day or two. (So please don't comment the answers.)

We all associate the Najdorf Sicilian with rook endings, right? Okay, maybe not, but in the game covered here, play rapidly went from a very early middlegame almost directly into a pure rook ending. The opening was of interest, but the focus of the show - or rather, its follow-up - will be on the ending.

The show stops at the start of the ending, and the viewer is challenged to spend some time working on it for himself before part 2 is posted. So watch part 1 for the entertainment, put in some elbow grease, and then return to part 2 next week for the instruction. Rook endings may not be as much fun as a game full of sacrifices, but knowing how to play them is a must for every tournament player. Consider this an invitation to eat your veggies; I'll do what I can to make them palatable.

(Reminder: my ChessVideos shows are not only free, but available on demand.)

On Monday I bestowed this position on my readers:



It's White to move and win, but it's not easy! If you think you've figured it out, though, you can confirm your results here.

"Dvoretsky" refers to the (rightly) famous trainer and author, Mark Dvoretsky, and the adjectival phrase "Dvoretsky-simple" refers to something that's presented as a sort of warm-up exercise in his books or articles, but would be considered a real workout in almost any other publication. For example, take the following position:



This is the very first exercise in the book Secrets of Endgame Technique (co-authored with Artur Yusupov ["Jussupow" for those who want to look him up in ChessBases databases]), recently reissued in a corrected and expanded edition by Edition Olms in their "Progress in Chess" series. If you're over 2000 and have a work ethic, get the book!

Anyway, back to the problem: it's White to move and win, and if you can solve this quickly you should definitely give yourself a pat on the back. If you can't, don't feel bad - but keep trying. It took me quite a while to get it, but when I finally did, the satisfaction of doing so made it worthwhile. The answer will be posted by Thursday.

Here's a neat little position, given yesterday, from the game Pavlov-Sidorchuk, Ukraine 2008:



Can White (to move) win here, and if so, how? Enlightenment, if needed, is here.

This fascinating position, with Black to move, has been the subject of three earlier posts (1, 2 and 3):



Black can win the a-pawn right away with 1...Bd8 followed by ...Bxa5, or with 1...Bd6 first to induce the h-pawn's advance and only then ...Bc7 and ...Bxa5. We looked at the first try in the first post and the second in the next two; it turns out that both are inadequate to draw, though White must display real ingenuity to bring home the point. That leaves a third possibility, 1...Bc5, and only after the f-pawn moves to try 2...Bd6, 3...Bc7 and 4...Bxa5.

That line also fails, with White again needing some brilliant play in the main line. That's Black's last try in the pawn ending, but there's still another question to be addressed: can Black avoid ...Bxa5 and hold the bishop ending? Finally, I've conveniently ignored a much simpler way for White to win all of the pawn endings, a maneuver that renders all the brilliant finesses irrelevant. The conclusion is therefore that the diagram position above fails as a study, because White a second, simple and prosaic win. Still, it almost works, and as there are some very nice lines, I'd like to think that a serious study composer could make something out of this. Ideas?

Meanwhile, you can replay the 1...Bc5 analysis here.

There's tactics and there's technique. We often think of these as separate categories, but in all but the simplest positions the two are inseparable. Take the following example, from the game Pavlov-Sidorchuk, Ukraine 2008:



Can White (to move) win in this position? He has an extra pawn, but with such limited material that's not a guarantee by itself. See what you can come up with, and we'll present the answer sometime Wednesday.

From our opposite-colored bishop ending series we return to one on bishops of the same color, albeit in a situation that has so far quickly resolved into a pure pawn ending. This was our starting position, with Black to move:



The first line for your investigation was given here, while in part two the variation was modified. There an assignment was given: after the moves 1...Bd6 2.h3 Bc7 3.Kb3 Bxa5 4.Bxa5 Kxa5 5.Kc4 Kb6 6.Kd5 Kc7 7.Ke5 Kd7 8.Kxf5 Ke7 White is winning, but it's not at all easy to see how.



When you think you've got it, you can have a look here. In a day or two, we'll turn to part four, in which we clean up some odds and ends, and then discuss whether we can turn this ending into a worthwhile study. There are at least a couple of study composers in my audience, so I'm hopeful!

It has been, shall we say, a little while since part 3 was written; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if only Steve B. (sbb1cpa) remembers this series, and by now even he might have forgotten. It all goes back to this position (see the original post and its successors), from the game Karim-Zhu Chen, Gibtelecom Masters 2008:



Despite the even material and opposite-colored bishops, White is better and even managed to win. When I first replayed the game (unannotated here; the endgame above starts after Black's 60th move), I was almost shocked by the result. Upon taking a closer look, my opinion changed, but not completely. It seemed on good old-fashioned general principles that such an endgame ought to be a draw. Over time, my opinion changed, though proving a win is also quite difficult.

I offered this ending as an exercise to the readers, and they came through beautifully (and hopefully learned a lot in the process). I too learned something from the exercise - and from my readers - and would like to offer several general principles and provisional conclusions (to put it oxymoronically).

(1) An obvious reminder: opposite-colored bishop endings can be won, even when the material is even and there are no passed pawns. (Of course, White starts with a passed pawn here, but the winning tries all involve giving it away.)

(2) A slightly less obvious corollary: opposite-colored bishop endings can be drawn, even when the weaker side is down a pawn or two.

(3) As in many other endings, and perhaps in chess in general, it's rarely possible to win without utilizing the "principle of two weaknesses". (A "weakness", in this context, refers to something the defender has to protect or defend: an enemy passer or a weak pawn, for example.)

(3a) If the defender's can stop multiple passers on a single diagonal, then those passers may only count as one weakness.

(3b) Sometimes the "weaknesses" are static, like distinct passed pawns, but sometimes they're more dynamic, like potential king penetration. (As we'll see, both sorts of weakness pairs come into play in our ending.)

(4) Let's turn to specifics. When I was first trying to win this endgame against the computer, I found ways to break through with the king to the kingside, winning the h6 pawn doesn't necessarily win, even if the White king can find its way back out. (Example: White retains his a-, c-, g- and h-pawns, Black his a-, c- and g-pawns. As long as Black's king can get to h8 it's a draw: the bishop protects the g-pawn when it's attacked or goes to b4 if White's king journeys cross-country to the queenside.)

(5) Likewise, White can sometimes win the c- and even the a-pawn, and still not win! (You can find such a line in the first main analysis paragraph of the second game file linked at the end of this post.) The basic drawing setup is this: Black's king is on d6 and his bishop is on the a7-g1 diagonal. In this way, the pawns are stopped and White's king can't get to Black's kingside. If White's king goes to d3, Black plays ...Ke5. If White's king goes to a6, Black plays ...Kc7.

(6) The winning method, then, seems to be this: White must win a queenside pawn, but do so in a way that doesn't involve giving up the chance to occupy the d5 square. That square is key for White, because it allows him to play c5 (it's often important for White's c-pawn to break that barrier) and because it gives his king access to Black's kingside pawns. And then, and perhaps only then, Black's defensive resources will be overtaxed. His bishop can control the c-pawn, but his king can't both deal with White's inevitable passed h-pawn and with White's king returning to the queenside to further advance the c-pawn.

You can find some specific analysis here. The first game is a compilation of the readers' analyses, with an occasional comment of my own interspersed. The second game presents a bit of my own analysis of 61.d6. I present two independent paragraphs of analysis, both starting with that move. The first shows White failing to win, despite winning both queenside pawns, but the second presents a White win, utilizing the method outlined in point (6).

Some time ago on this blog, there was a discussion about how lost a position should be before one resigned. One opinion expressed a preference for a delayed resignation, so as to allow amateurs to see how exactly the win ought to be achieved. As a general rule, I'm not sure I agree, but it has to be said that the following example helps my interlocutor's case.



White has just played 81.f6 and Keres resigned. Black is indeed losing, and even if the players weren't more than strong enough to figure out over the board why Black is lost, there had been two adjournments prior to this point. For us, however, it might not be immediately evident. It's a good exercise to work out how White wins this, especially against best defense by Black.

The solution, when you're ready for it, is here.

Last week I offered this position



and presented a variation to go with it: 1...Bd8 2.Kb3 Bxa5 3.Bxa5 Kxa5 4.Kc4 Kb6 5.Kd5 Kc7 6.Ke5 Kd7 7.Kxf5 Ke7 8.Ke5 Kf7 9.f4 Ke7 10.f5 Kf7 11.f6 Kf8 12.Ke6 Ke8 13.f7+ Kf8 14.Kf6 h6 15.h4 h5 16.Ke6 and wins.

The initial challenge was to work through the line and see what improvements were possible - there are quite a few. From a practical perspective, the following finesse isn't the most important, but from an instructional and aesthetic point of view it is:

1...Bd6!! Let's assume things proceed as in the original, once White defends the pawn: 2.h3 Bc7 3.Kb3 Bxa5 4.Bxa5 Kxa5 5.Kc4 Kb6 6.Kd5 Kc7 7.Ke5 Kd7 8.Kxf5 Ke7 9.Kf5 Ke7 10.f5 Kf7 11.f5 Kf7 12.f6 Kf8 13.Ke6 Ke8 14.f7+ Kf8 15.Kf6. So far everything is the same, with the seemingly trivial difference that White's pawn is on h3. But that's all the difference in the world, as 15...h5! draws on the spot (16.Kg6 h4 17.Kg5 Kxf7 18.Kxh4=, or 17.Kf6 stalemate; 16.h4 stalemate). (The above is replayable here.)

So the new task (if you don't use an engine or other external helps, it will prove incredibly difficult) is to try to find an improvement for White somewhere after 8...Ke7 in the second line. It's a fantastic exercise if you try it, whether or not you succeed in solving it.

Rather than making a lot of little posts, I'm going to economize my time and lump everything together.

Finished Event: The Mecking-Greenfeld match wound up a 2-2 tie - all four games were drawn.

Ongoing Event: The first round of the World Cup event in Baku was spectacular. Most of the games were drawn, but all were hard-fought and interesting, and some (e.g. Svidler's draw) were picturesque to boot.

Fischer: On the ChessBase site (link in the right sidebar), there's a link to an article on the wrangling over Fischer's estate. (An aside: I'm curious if the information there about Russell Targ is correct - I read somewhere else that he was not interested in pursuing claims on Fischer's will on behalf of his nieces.)

How to Analyze: There's a great article by Alex Cherniack ("A Knight's Tale") on the Boylston Chess Club website, in which he analyzes a knight ending he recently lost in great detail. At some later point, I hope to look at his analysis carefully, but the greatest value of the piece is seeing what he did and using it as a model for one's own games. It's a lot of work, sure, but think of the payoff! Not only that, it becomes fun once one gets used to doing it. Best chess article I've seen so far this year.

This is the first of a series of posts based on the following position:



It's Black to move, and here's an initial variation to get you started:

1...Bd8 2.Kb3 Bxa5 3.Bxa5 Kxa5 4.Kc4 Kb6 5.Kd5 Kc7 6.Ke5 Kd7 7.Kxf5 Ke7 8.Ke5 Kf7 9.f4 Ke7 10.f5 Kf7 11.f6 Kf8 12.Ke6 Ke8 13.f7+ Kf8 14.Kf6 h6 15.h4 h5 16.Ke6 and wins. (Replayable here.)

Work through the line (but not with your engines, for goodness' sake), see what improvements come to mind, and we'll continue this series soon.

Last week's show covered the famous knight ending from Marco-Maroczy, Kolisch Memorial 1899, and during the show I presented, refuted, and counter-refuted some analysis by Charles Sullivan. (See the comments here.) I think my analysis extends the discussion past what was on his website, but at the end of the day, he's right: Marco could have drawn with 50.Kg1, preventing Black's king from penetrating on the kingside. It will cost White the c-pawn, but that seems to be a loss he can afford. More details here.