The Chess Mind

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.)