The Chess Mind

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.

I was browsing Bobby Fischer’s My 60 Memorable Games earlier tonight, and came across this position and comment, from his 1960 game against former world chess champion Max Euwe:



Here Fischer played 15.Rb1, writing “The innovation. Months before this game I had showed this line to Benko and he suggested this innocent-looking move. Upon looking deeper I found that, horrible as White’s Pawn structure may be, Black can’t exploit it because he’ll be unable to develop his K-side normally. It’s the little quirks like this that could make life difficult for a chess machine. (P. 135, emphasis added.)

It was this last comment that intrigued me. Did Fischer insightfully predict a problem for computer chess, or was this a perhaps understandable but mistaken assessment of what would or wouldn’t be possible for chess engines? I think there are two aspects to evaluating Fischer’s claim. First, do the engines find 15.Rb1? Second, do they evaluate the situation properly? On the first question, Fischer’s conjecture is a failure. Both Rybka (2.3.2) and Fritz (11) found it instantly. Rybka fluctuated for a little while between that move and 15.c4, in terms of absolute preference, but it settled on Fischer’s move soon enough. What about the evaluation? Euwe played 15…Rd8, which Fischer awards a question mark. Fischer recommends 15…Qxb5 instead, asserting that White has “an enduring pull” after 16.Rxb5 Kd6! 17.Rb7 f6 18.Ke2 Kc6 19.Rf7 a5 20.Be3. How do the computers fare on this score?

Here, perhaps, there's a little more difference. The engines both agree with Fischer that White has some pull, but neither seems all that impressed - both evaluate the position as (much) closer to equality than anything substantial for White. (Details here.) So maybe there's a bit of difference when it comes to evaluating long-term factors. Fischer sees that White can torture Black for a long time in the ending, while the computer thinks that as long as everything is pretty safe at the moment, Black is fundamentally okay. Of course, another possibility is that the computer is right, but it can be said that engines do sometimes tend to underestimate long-term possibilities. On the other hand, it's not at all surprising that the computer liked 15.Rb1, as it brings a piece while impeding Black's development. Why wouldn't it be attractive?

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.

Endgame guru Karsten Müller's new column on the Chess Cafe website (permalink here) revisits Bobby Fischer's endgame play, honing in on his 6th game victory in the final Candidates match against Tigran Petrosian in 1971. (But see also the exercises at the end of the article, as well as this earlier Müller column.)