This puzzle was taken from Fred Reinfeld's book, How To Force Checkmate. This little book has 300 practical mates starting with one movers and then two movers and finally three-movers. What I like is that all of them start with forcing moves like sacrifices or checks, just like real games, which is what they were taken from.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
White to move...
and mate in three. This was from a game played between Garcia Vega and Gorer in Rosario, 1939. If you remember Boden's Mate the win should be obvious.
Missed Mate
In the following position from a blitz game, after Black played 28…f5 there was no question that I was winning, but the play was rather interesting. According to the Houdini engine I didn’t play the best moves, but I would disagree with GM Houdini at my move 41 where it recommended keeping the extra piece. I preferred to trade down into s simple R and P ending I knew was easily won.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Pontificating…
I’ve been browsing the last couple of days. Yesterday it was Jeremy Silman’s How To Reassess Your Chess (3rd Edition) and today it was a couple of forums. On just about every forum there are always new players asking how they can improve and the answers are always the same: study tactics.
Of course not everybody has read Silman’s book, but out of those who have I question how many actually READ what he had to say. In the introduction we read, “The purpose of this book is to offer a complete course of study to the serious student. You will be taught the basic endgames, middlegame concepts, and the true purpose of the openings. You will be taught how to structure your thinking processes and how to come up with plans based on the needs of any given position.”
Regarding endgames he had this to say: ”EVERYONE needs to know the basics of endgame play…I am only giving basic endgame material that I think you simply must know.”
“Usually their choice of plan (if they have a plan at all) is based on emotional rather than scientific consideration…the typical player does what he feels like doing rather than what the boards wants him to do. If you want to be successful you have to base your plans on specific criteria…not on your mood…”
And when it comes to tactics, “Calculating variations madly without any goal in mind, they think that chess is nothing more than a quick mating attack or a search for a pretty combination that can knock an opponent out of the game.”
Silman’s book was, as he claims, written for players from Class D (1200) to Expert (2000-2199). According to the USCF, class ratings are described as follows:
Class A (1800-1999) Top Amateur
Class B (1600-1799 Strong Tournament Player
Class C (1400-1599) Average Tournament Player
Class D (1200-1399) Strong Social Player
Class E (1000-1199) Social Player
Class F (800-999) Novice Player
Classes G-J (100-799) Various Beginners
I’d guess most of the players asking these questions must be Class D or below and for some strange reason most of the answers come from their peers. Seriously, if I want to know how to improve at anything, then, to me, it only makes sense to ask somebody who knows more about the subject than I do. Even those who are rated above most of the people posing those questions are likely to give the same answers. I find that strange because they should know better. Most likely they do it because they have followed a progression similar to the one outlined by Silman.
After learning the moves and gaining some experience, they studied a few mating patterns and some basic endgames where they learned how to mate with a Q or R against a lone K. Mostly they love to attack and so studied tactics. This resulted in a modest rating gain. However, against more experienced players, when they tried to attack it usually failed because their opponents didn’t fall for elementary tactics or drop pieces. The result is that they experience a rating plateau.
It seems to me, with the plethora of tactical servers and the old saying I must have seen a thousand times “Chess is 99% tactics,” the idea comes into play that because of the initial rating gain, they go back and do more tactical exercises which usually doesn’t help much. If they are lucky, eventually they learn to avoid weak P’s, develop all their pieces before attacking and think about how to avoid the loss of material. Somewhere in the middle of all this they also memorized some openings albeit many times inferior ones. All this is usually enough to reach the Class C level, but again, they usually are stuck there. Like the lower rated players, their solution to the problem is often the same. Learn a different opening and go back and study more tactics. What they should do is pay attention to Silman! Let me reiterate:
They need to undertake a complete course of study. This includes learning how to structure their thinking process, how to come up with plans based on the needs of the position (aka positional play), basic K and P and R and P endings, and playing solid openings with an eye to understanding how those openings relate to the middlegame and even, in some cases, endings.
All of this requires a lot of study, much of which is boring and not nearly as much fun as doing tactical puzzles. It also requires something more than an opening book that ends at move 20 with an evaluation of “White stands better” or books with nothing more than a bunch of game fragments. Diagrammed positions are OK sometimes to illustrate a point, but most often you need complete games because they illustrate the game as a whole. To that end game collections are invaluable.
Silman’s comment is worth repeating: “Calculating variations madly without any goal in mind, they think that chess is nothing more than a quick mating attack or a search for a pretty combination that can knock an opponent out of the game.” It is important for the aspiring player to see the game as whole, not disjointed fragments.
Of course not everybody has read Silman’s book, but out of those who have I question how many actually READ what he had to say. In the introduction we read, “The purpose of this book is to offer a complete course of study to the serious student. You will be taught the basic endgames, middlegame concepts, and the true purpose of the openings. You will be taught how to structure your thinking processes and how to come up with plans based on the needs of any given position.”
Regarding endgames he had this to say: ”EVERYONE needs to know the basics of endgame play…I am only giving basic endgame material that I think you simply must know.”
“Usually their choice of plan (if they have a plan at all) is based on emotional rather than scientific consideration…the typical player does what he feels like doing rather than what the boards wants him to do. If you want to be successful you have to base your plans on specific criteria…not on your mood…”
And when it comes to tactics, “Calculating variations madly without any goal in mind, they think that chess is nothing more than a quick mating attack or a search for a pretty combination that can knock an opponent out of the game.”
Silman’s book was, as he claims, written for players from Class D (1200) to Expert (2000-2199). According to the USCF, class ratings are described as follows:
Class A (1800-1999) Top Amateur
Class B (1600-1799 Strong Tournament Player
Class C (1400-1599) Average Tournament Player
Class D (1200-1399) Strong Social Player
Class E (1000-1199) Social Player
Class F (800-999) Novice Player
Classes G-J (100-799) Various Beginners
I’d guess most of the players asking these questions must be Class D or below and for some strange reason most of the answers come from their peers. Seriously, if I want to know how to improve at anything, then, to me, it only makes sense to ask somebody who knows more about the subject than I do. Even those who are rated above most of the people posing those questions are likely to give the same answers. I find that strange because they should know better. Most likely they do it because they have followed a progression similar to the one outlined by Silman.
After learning the moves and gaining some experience, they studied a few mating patterns and some basic endgames where they learned how to mate with a Q or R against a lone K. Mostly they love to attack and so studied tactics. This resulted in a modest rating gain. However, against more experienced players, when they tried to attack it usually failed because their opponents didn’t fall for elementary tactics or drop pieces. The result is that they experience a rating plateau.
It seems to me, with the plethora of tactical servers and the old saying I must have seen a thousand times “Chess is 99% tactics,” the idea comes into play that because of the initial rating gain, they go back and do more tactical exercises which usually doesn’t help much. If they are lucky, eventually they learn to avoid weak P’s, develop all their pieces before attacking and think about how to avoid the loss of material. Somewhere in the middle of all this they also memorized some openings albeit many times inferior ones. All this is usually enough to reach the Class C level, but again, they usually are stuck there. Like the lower rated players, their solution to the problem is often the same. Learn a different opening and go back and study more tactics. What they should do is pay attention to Silman! Let me reiterate:
They need to undertake a complete course of study. This includes learning how to structure their thinking process, how to come up with plans based on the needs of the position (aka positional play), basic K and P and R and P endings, and playing solid openings with an eye to understanding how those openings relate to the middlegame and even, in some cases, endings.
All of this requires a lot of study, much of which is boring and not nearly as much fun as doing tactical puzzles. It also requires something more than an opening book that ends at move 20 with an evaluation of “White stands better” or books with nothing more than a bunch of game fragments. Diagrammed positions are OK sometimes to illustrate a point, but most often you need complete games because they illustrate the game as a whole. To that end game collections are invaluable.
Silman’s comment is worth repeating: “Calculating variations madly without any goal in mind, they think that chess is nothing more than a quick mating attack or a search for a pretty combination that can knock an opponent out of the game.” It is important for the aspiring player to see the game as whole, not disjointed fragments.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Great Games pgn Database
PGN Mentor is a chess database/study program that brings you everything you could ever need for chess study and research
A site called pgn Mentor (chess database/study program) has a lot of games available in pgn to download. Just a sampling: London 1851 to major tournaments of 2010, thousands of games with just about any opening you can name and the world championship matches going back to 1886. Definitely worth checking out not only for the games, but it’s a good source for historical games.
A site called pgn Mentor (chess database/study program) has a lot of games available in pgn to download. Just a sampling: London 1851 to major tournaments of 2010, thousands of games with just about any opening you can name and the world championship matches going back to 1886. Definitely worth checking out not only for the games, but it’s a good source for historical games.
Dimock Theme Tournament
Never heard of it? Neither did I. It was held in New York City in 1924 and was sponsored by Edwin Dimock of New London, Connecticut, who donated prizes for the top four players. All games had to begin 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4. Play could then proceed along various lines, transposing to the Urusov Gambit, or 2 N’s Defense.
The results were:
1. Frank Marshall 10-1/2
2. Carlos Torre 9
3. Anthony Santasiere 7-1/2
4. Erling Tholfsen 5-1/2
5. Rudolph Smirka 4
6. Horace Bigelow 3
7. Bruno Forsberg 2-1/2
The games from this event were lost for many years, and it was only through the research of Eduardo Bauza Mercere that these games have come to light again. Over half have been recovered. Those that survive are worthy of study.
Dimock Theme Tournament
The results were:
1. Frank Marshall 10-1/2
2. Carlos Torre 9
3. Anthony Santasiere 7-1/2
4. Erling Tholfsen 5-1/2
5. Rudolph Smirka 4
6. Horace Bigelow 3
7. Bruno Forsberg 2-1/2
The games from this event were lost for many years, and it was only through the research of Eduardo Bauza Mercere that these games have come to light again. Over half have been recovered. Those that survive are worthy of study.
Dimock Theme Tournament
Sunday, December 12, 2010
TrueSkill Through Time: Revisiting the History of Chess
An interesting 2006 pdf report says, ”We extend the Bayesian skill rating system TrueSkill to infer entire time series of skills of players by smoothing through time instead of filtering." I don’t know what all that means and certainly don’t understand the math given, but the short version is that it’s another attempt to determine the best players of all time. From the paper:
"Estimating players' skills in retrospective allows one to take into account more information and hence can be expected to lead to more precise estimates. Probably best known in the chess community is the Chessmetrics system, which aims at improving the Elo scores by attempting to obtain a better fit with the observed data. Chessmetrics is not a statistically well-founded method and is a filtering algorithm that disregards information from future games.
Looking at individual players we see that Paul Morphy (1837-1884), is particularly strong when comparing his skill to those of his contemporaries in the next 80 years. He is considered to have been the greatest chess master of his time, and this is well supported by our analysis. Garry Kasparov is considered the strongest chess player of all time. This is well supported by our analysis. In fact, based on our analysis Kasparov is still considerably stronger than Vladimir Kramnik but a contender for the crown of strongest player in the world is Viswanathan Anand."
Research-Microsoft
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Example of Strategic Play
I have posted in the past about how some of the difficulties of positional play. It’s sometimes difficult to give hard and fast rules on positional play because unlike tactics, where there is often only a single correct line of play, it may be a matter of taste what positional plan you adapt. Then too, many times positional play is a matter of instinct or feel that comes from experience. We have also seen that the first World Correspondence Champion, CJS Purdy of Australia, stated, “positional play…does not necessarily involve a plan…but primarily a much simpler thing, and that is the idea of strengthening one’s own position or weakening the opponent’s”
As GM Danny King described it, playing positionally is what you do when you are not calculating and it involves evaluating various factors on the board, resulting in the formulation of a plan. In this “lesson” we will take a look at a game that illustrates the point Purdy was making. The position is taken from the game Palkovi-King, Bundesliga, 1996.
In the position below Black played 16…g6. Many of us would, at first glance, think this was a move that weakens the position of the Black King, but in reality, it is a waiting move. King played it because, before committing his pieces, he wanted to see where White was going to place his. At the same time, rather than a move that weakens his K’s position, it is also a very useful move.
At some point Black will likely need a flight square for his K and this move prepares one. At the same time it also takes away the f5 square from the White N and therefore somewhat restricts White’s play. Let’s follow the game and see what Purdy was describing.
As GM Danny King described it, playing positionally is what you do when you are not calculating and it involves evaluating various factors on the board, resulting in the formulation of a plan. In this “lesson” we will take a look at a game that illustrates the point Purdy was making. The position is taken from the game Palkovi-King, Bundesliga, 1996.
In the position below Black played 16…g6. Many of us would, at first glance, think this was a move that weakens the position of the Black King, but in reality, it is a waiting move. King played it because, before committing his pieces, he wanted to see where White was going to place his. At the same time, rather than a move that weakens his K’s position, it is also a very useful move.
At some point Black will likely need a flight square for his K and this move prepares one. At the same time it also takes away the f5 square from the White N and therefore somewhat restricts White’s play. Let’s follow the game and see what Purdy was describing.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
St. Petersburg 1895
This was one of the strongest tournaments ever played. The four strongest players in the world, Lasker, Steinitz, Pillsbury, Chigorin played 6 games each against the other 3 competitors.
The final results were:
By his score Lasker clearly maintained his right to claim the World Championship despite the fact that he had a minus score of +1 -2 =3 against Pillsbury. Pillsbury was the most dangerous opponent that Lasker faced during the first years of his reign and between 1893 and 1904 they faced each other in 12 tournament games. The final score was +5 -4 =3 in Lasker’s favor.
The openings in this event were mostly QP, Ruy Lopez, Petrov and the Evans Gambit. Steinitz was experimenting with his line against the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6) without much success and later abandoned it in favor of 3…a6 followed by 4…d6. It was also rumored that in three of their game Pillsbury and Steinitz agreed to open with 1.d4.
Blunders. Lasker hardly made any while Steinitz and Pillsbury (most of Pillsbury’s were because of time pressure) made a fair share. Chigorin also made quite a few, but his seemed to have mostly been caused by fatigue, perhaps due to illness.
In the following game, while Steinitz wastes a lot of time maneuvering on the K-side, Lasker methodically builds up his position and when Steinitz blunders on move 26, it’s all over. You’ll like Lasker’s refutation of Steinitz’ mistake and it’s worth playing through the final moves several times trying to visualize the possibilities.
The final results were:
1. Lasker +8 -3 =7 11-1/2
2. Steinitz +7 -6 =5 9-1/2
3. Pillsbury +5 -7 =6 8
4. Chigorin +5 -9 =4 7
By his score Lasker clearly maintained his right to claim the World Championship despite the fact that he had a minus score of +1 -2 =3 against Pillsbury. Pillsbury was the most dangerous opponent that Lasker faced during the first years of his reign and between 1893 and 1904 they faced each other in 12 tournament games. The final score was +5 -4 =3 in Lasker’s favor.
The openings in this event were mostly QP, Ruy Lopez, Petrov and the Evans Gambit. Steinitz was experimenting with his line against the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6) without much success and later abandoned it in favor of 3…a6 followed by 4…d6. It was also rumored that in three of their game Pillsbury and Steinitz agreed to open with 1.d4.
Blunders. Lasker hardly made any while Steinitz and Pillsbury (most of Pillsbury’s were because of time pressure) made a fair share. Chigorin also made quite a few, but his seemed to have mostly been caused by fatigue, perhaps due to illness.
In the following game, while Steinitz wastes a lot of time maneuvering on the K-side, Lasker methodically builds up his position and when Steinitz blunders on move 26, it’s all over. You’ll like Lasker’s refutation of Steinitz’ mistake and it’s worth playing through the final moves several times trying to visualize the possibilities.
Puzzle
The following position was from John Grefe vs. Peter Biyiasis, Amercian Open, Santa Monica, 1974. Biyiasis managed to pull off a surprising draw.
Highlight for hint:
Stalemate
Highlight for solution:
42...Rg4+ 2.Qxg4 Qg3+ Drawn
Highlight for hint:
Stalemate
Highlight for solution:
42...Rg4+ 2.Qxg4 Qg3+ Drawn
Monday, December 6, 2010
Study and Diminishing Returns
When does persistence cross the line to diminishing returns? I came across that question that was actually asked by a salesman in reference to making sales calls on prospective customers and I got to thinking that the same question can also apply to one’s chess study. I was thinking of all those players who begin a study program to improve their chess and start buying opening books and spending hours on tactical servers. Almost all have testified of a rating increase but they also soon realize it was only a blip and their rating either plateaus or they begin to slide back. Most of them will then go back and try a different opening and study more tactics and what begins to happen is their improvement, despite their persistence, has resulted in diminishing returns.
One Sales Manager’s answer was, “I think if a sales person is thinking that they have to be persistent, I would be looking at the quality of their approach, how they think about selling! If they have to keep calling, and see that there is no returned calls, then go back to the drawing board and answer these questions.”
Reword that to apply to chess study habits and you could say, ““I think if a chess player is thinking that they have to be persistent in studying the same material, I would be looking at the quality of their approach, how they think about chess! If they have to keep studying the same thing, and see that there is no improvement, then go back to the drawing board and answer these questions.”
He then gave some questions salesmen need to answer and I have reworded them to apply to chess study. Of course there is going to come a time when a player stops improving, but until he know when that is, he will keep trying.
1. Does the student understand the value of what they are learning and how it will make them a stronger player?
Truth is most can’t. That’s why they almost always say they are going to wait and study strategy or endings or switch to mainline openings when they reach a specific level, like 1800 or 2000 or master. Most never reach those levels because they don’t realize that in order to do so you have to consistently beat lower rated players and they can’t do that. In order to consistently beat lower rated players you have to understand chess better than they do. If all you ever study are the same things they study, how can it happen that your understanding will be better than theirs?
2. Can they articulate what their goal is in specifics?
Most players think only in general terms like increase their rating by x-number of points or become more proficient in tactics. You have to have specific goals. Like what are the prerequisites for the Classic B Sacrifice to be effective? What are the prerequisites for the attack on the uncastled K by the sacrifice on f7? Mastering R and P endings. Learning about N-outposts, etc.
4. Are they focused in their study?
Most just want to have fun. Think back to school or college. Was hitting the books and learning something new and memorizing a lot of stuff ever fun? Probably not, but you had to do it if you expected to pass the course. Learning R and P endings isn’t always fun, but you need to know them. You probably also learned a lot of what seemed at the time to be superfluous information, but it added to your overall understanding and one day you got into a situation where you recalled it and found it useful.
5. Do they really understand why the goal is in the first place? It’s not about numbers, it's about quality.
This is closely related to #4. Most players seem more interested in completing a preset number of tactics or spending a specific amount of time on study rather than spending quality time and actually learning something new.
6. Most study plans waste time and money and deliver no results.
If you are like me you probably bought a lot of chess books with good intentions, but it was soon replaced with another one that looked even more promising. The result is a shelf full of books we never got around to actually studying.
7. Stop what's not working and go back to the drawing board.
If you rating isn’t improving or has stagnated and your plan isn’t working, try learning something new.
One Sales Manager’s answer was, “I think if a sales person is thinking that they have to be persistent, I would be looking at the quality of their approach, how they think about selling! If they have to keep calling, and see that there is no returned calls, then go back to the drawing board and answer these questions.”
Reword that to apply to chess study habits and you could say, ““I think if a chess player is thinking that they have to be persistent in studying the same material, I would be looking at the quality of their approach, how they think about chess! If they have to keep studying the same thing, and see that there is no improvement, then go back to the drawing board and answer these questions.”
He then gave some questions salesmen need to answer and I have reworded them to apply to chess study. Of course there is going to come a time when a player stops improving, but until he know when that is, he will keep trying.
1. Does the student understand the value of what they are learning and how it will make them a stronger player?
Truth is most can’t. That’s why they almost always say they are going to wait and study strategy or endings or switch to mainline openings when they reach a specific level, like 1800 or 2000 or master. Most never reach those levels because they don’t realize that in order to do so you have to consistently beat lower rated players and they can’t do that. In order to consistently beat lower rated players you have to understand chess better than they do. If all you ever study are the same things they study, how can it happen that your understanding will be better than theirs?
2. Can they articulate what their goal is in specifics?
Most players think only in general terms like increase their rating by x-number of points or become more proficient in tactics. You have to have specific goals. Like what are the prerequisites for the Classic B Sacrifice to be effective? What are the prerequisites for the attack on the uncastled K by the sacrifice on f7? Mastering R and P endings. Learning about N-outposts, etc.
4. Are they focused in their study?
Most just want to have fun. Think back to school or college. Was hitting the books and learning something new and memorizing a lot of stuff ever fun? Probably not, but you had to do it if you expected to pass the course. Learning R and P endings isn’t always fun, but you need to know them. You probably also learned a lot of what seemed at the time to be superfluous information, but it added to your overall understanding and one day you got into a situation where you recalled it and found it useful.
5. Do they really understand why the goal is in the first place? It’s not about numbers, it's about quality.
This is closely related to #4. Most players seem more interested in completing a preset number of tactics or spending a specific amount of time on study rather than spending quality time and actually learning something new.
6. Most study plans waste time and money and deliver no results.
If you are like me you probably bought a lot of chess books with good intentions, but it was soon replaced with another one that looked even more promising. The result is a shelf full of books we never got around to actually studying.
7. Stop what's not working and go back to the drawing board.
If you rating isn’t improving or has stagnated and your plan isn’t working, try learning something new.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
New Tactics Link
I added a link on the side bar under Openings, Strategy and Tactics called 1001 Brilliant Checkmates Tactics Trainer Give it a try!
If I played Morphy
Many of you have probably heard of the concept of Six Degrees of Separation. It is the notion that no human is further removed from any other human by more than six links. Person 1 knows or has at least personally met Person 2 who knows or has met Person 3 and so on, with even the most remotely obscure individuals being no more than six person links away from any other individual. The games against my opponents overlap with the players others have encountered, both around the world and back into time. It’s surprising how few links are required to reach back to Paul Morphy.
I once drew Reshevsky who played Rubenstein who played Chigorin who played Jaenish who played Lowenthal who played Morphy. I also once lost a game to Rossolimo who played Tartakower who played Rubenstein who played Chigorin who played Jaenish who played Lowenthal who played Morphy.
Finding somebody I beat and tracing it back to Morphy was harder. The closest I could come was I once beat a guy who played the cat that played the rat that played the dog that played the cow that played the maiden that played the man that played the priest that played to rooster that played the farmer that played Reshevsky who played…well, you get the idea.
So anyway, call me Walter Mitty, but by my reasoning I would have had an equal score against Morphy.
I once drew Reshevsky who played Rubenstein who played Chigorin who played Jaenish who played Lowenthal who played Morphy. I also once lost a game to Rossolimo who played Tartakower who played Rubenstein who played Chigorin who played Jaenish who played Lowenthal who played Morphy.
Finding somebody I beat and tracing it back to Morphy was harder. The closest I could come was I once beat a guy who played the cat that played the rat that played the dog that played the cow that played the maiden that played the man that played the priest that played to rooster that played the farmer that played Reshevsky who played…well, you get the idea.
So anyway, call me Walter Mitty, but by my reasoning I would have had an equal score against Morphy.
Top Chess Books?!
Back in 2008 Susan Polgar had a post on her Blog asking players to post their top chess books. I loved some of the titles on Anonymous’ list…
BLACK IS SO-SO! by Adorejan.
MY WORST GAMES by Alexander Alekwine.
THE DELIGHTS OF CHESS AND SCIENCE FICTION by Assiac Assimov.
QUICKEST CHESS VICTORIES SINCE THE DAWN OF MAN by Graham Cracker.
HOW GOOD IS YOUR CHEST by Dolly Parton.
15 DAMES AND THEIR STORIES by Mikhail Buttvinnik.
PROFILE OF AN ALLERGY by Grady.
ILLOGICAL CHESS, MOVE BY MOVE by Irving Chernoblev.
THE TWO DAYS AND NIGHTS DEFENSE by Jakov Estrogin.
CHESS CATHOLICISM by Larry Evens (introduction by Reverend Guy Lombardy).
HOW TO BEAT EDMAR MEDNIS by Bobby Fisher.
MY 60 MEMORABLE INTERVIEWS by Bobby Fisher.
I WAS TORTURED IN A JAPANESE JAILHOUSE by Bobbie Fisher.
BOB E. FISHER PREACHES HESS by Bob E. Fisher.
THE COMPLETE CHESS ATTIC by Michael J Fox.
CHESS TOURNAMENTS (400 AD - 1848) by Jeremy Gage.
CHESS EXCUSES: THEORY AND PRACTICES by Al Whorowitz.
CHESS IS MY AFTERLIFE by Anna Toly Karpoff.
THE LAST BLACK KNIGHTS TANGO IN PARIS by Georgi Orloff.
MODERN CHESS OPENINGS, 100TH EDITION by Walter Kornball.
STINK LIKE A GRANDMASTER by Kotoff.
MY SIS TEMM by Arron Nimzobitch.
NONE CHESS OPENINGS by No One.
LET'S NOT PLAY CHESS by Bruce Lee Pandolfeeny.
THE COMPLETE CHESS INTERCOURSE by Freddie Reinfelt.
TAKE MY BOOKS by Yes Sir Seiriwon.
CATALOG OF CHESS FOOD by Andy Soultis. .
MY 6 MEMORABLE GAMES by Marc Taminoff.
MY WELL HUNG ROOK by Mark Taimonov.
500 GROB MINIATURES by Beale Wall.
THE SCOTCH TAPE by Peter Walls.
SEARCHING FOR CARRIE FISHER by Josh Whiteskin
BLACK IS SO-SO! by Adorejan.
MY WORST GAMES by Alexander Alekwine.
THE DELIGHTS OF CHESS AND SCIENCE FICTION by Assiac Assimov.
QUICKEST CHESS VICTORIES SINCE THE DAWN OF MAN by Graham Cracker.
HOW GOOD IS YOUR CHEST by Dolly Parton.
15 DAMES AND THEIR STORIES by Mikhail Buttvinnik.
PROFILE OF AN ALLERGY by Grady.
ILLOGICAL CHESS, MOVE BY MOVE by Irving Chernoblev.
THE TWO DAYS AND NIGHTS DEFENSE by Jakov Estrogin.
CHESS CATHOLICISM by Larry Evens (introduction by Reverend Guy Lombardy).
HOW TO BEAT EDMAR MEDNIS by Bobby Fisher.
MY 60 MEMORABLE INTERVIEWS by Bobby Fisher.
I WAS TORTURED IN A JAPANESE JAILHOUSE by Bobbie Fisher.
BOB E. FISHER PREACHES HESS by Bob E. Fisher.
THE COMPLETE CHESS ATTIC by Michael J Fox.
CHESS TOURNAMENTS (400 AD - 1848) by Jeremy Gage.
CHESS EXCUSES: THEORY AND PRACTICES by Al Whorowitz.
CHESS IS MY AFTERLIFE by Anna Toly Karpoff.
THE LAST BLACK KNIGHTS TANGO IN PARIS by Georgi Orloff.
MODERN CHESS OPENINGS, 100TH EDITION by Walter Kornball.
STINK LIKE A GRANDMASTER by Kotoff.
MY SIS TEMM by Arron Nimzobitch.
NONE CHESS OPENINGS by No One.
LET'S NOT PLAY CHESS by Bruce Lee Pandolfeeny.
THE COMPLETE CHESS INTERCOURSE by Freddie Reinfelt.
TAKE MY BOOKS by Yes Sir Seiriwon.
CATALOG OF CHESS FOOD by Andy Soultis. .
MY 6 MEMORABLE GAMES by Marc Taminoff.
MY WELL HUNG ROOK by Mark Taimonov.
500 GROB MINIATURES by Beale Wall.
THE SCOTCH TAPE by Peter Walls.
SEARCHING FOR CARRIE FISHER by Josh Whiteskin
Test and Improve Your Chess
I bought this slim (128 pages) volume by Lev Alburt a couple of years ago. I’m not familiar with Alburt’s other works but know he has written many books revealing “once secret Soviet training methods.” That’s nothing more than sales hype because there never was any such thing. GM Alex Yermolinsky said so and many years ago, I don’t remember if it was Bruce Panolfini or Jeremy Silman, writing in Chess Life, told of a visit to the Soviet Union where they visited a chess school. They were disappointed because it turned out the training methods they used were no different than those used everyplace else.
So why did the Soviets have so many masters and GMs? It was a function of numbers. Ratings follow the bell curve and only a very small percentage of players will be at the top. Back when I started playing chess, the USCF had about 5000-6000 members and there were only about 50 players in the whole country rated over 2200. Compare that to the Soviet Union which had a hundred thousand or more players…they had a LOT of masters.
The same was true of minority players, blacks and women. In my home state there were 3 or 4 women active in chess and they were rated 1200-1500. There was one Black player rated about 1750 and one Chinese player rated around 2000. With the Fischer Boom of the 1970’s minorities started playing chess and with the increase in numbers, their ratings began to climb so that today their ratings are comparable to the general population.
Back to Alburt’s book…he starts out talking about evaluation of positions and states, in passing, that pattern recognition is a helpful aid. He states, “Without a recognizable pattern to use as a frame of reference, the average competitor is forced to rely upon intuition and subjective reasoning.” No argument there, but then he begins to prattle on about something no reader of his is going to comprehend. He discusses the meaning of various symbols used to show the evaluation of positions and points out there is no standard. For example, does “=” mean dead draw, practical equality, theoretical equality or dynamic equilibrium? He points out that a major flaw in computer evaluations is that they assign precise values to positions formulated on values given them by fallible humans. To each element a number value is given and computers then synthesize everything to come up with an exact number and humans do not think that way...so far, OK. He goes off the deep end by recommending what he calls “The System of Predicted Results.”
The premise is that any position can be assigned a numerical value based on the estimated number of points that White is predicted to score out of ten games played from that position between two GM’s of equal strength. For example, a dead draw is rated at 5.0, an absolute win is 10.0 and the starting position is rated at 5.5. Another example: the “=” sign could mean an evenly balanced position that may result in +1 -1 =8 or it could mean dynamically equal where it would be rated +4 -4 =2. He points out positions have little or no statistical background to draw upon so you will be calling on your powers of intuition and abstract reasoning which you can improve through study and play.
Maybe you can accomplish it through study and play if you are on your way to becoming a GM. For the average player this is pure nonsense. Seriously, does Alburt really believe the average player will EVER be able to distinguish between a position that is +1 -1 =8 or +4 -4 =2 or +6 -2 =2, or whatever? The whole point of this is that you use this information to construct a graph of the game which will tell you how the game evaluations swung back and forth…or where the game went South on you. This tells you the critical point in the game so you know where to look for errors. This part isn’t too bad, but it’s all beyond, way beyond, the ability of his intended audience. Actually the graphing idea isn’t bad, but the average player is going to have to let Fritz do it…and all that information is interesting to know, I suppose, but useless for anybody below GM. That is, except for the brief explanation about using graphs. Just let Fritz construct them for you.
He has a section on “specialization” where he talks about specializing in a position until you know it well. In this case he discusses the Isolated QP. Then there are 4 chapters where he analyzes games and positions and asks you questions about critical points. Of the games, which are well annotated, 5 are Alekhine Defenses and the final chapter is on the Benko Gambit. Throughout the book he keeps referring to his assessment of the positions using his System of Predicted Results.
You can buy it on Amazon for $1.87, but even at that, I think it's overpriced.
So why did the Soviets have so many masters and GMs? It was a function of numbers. Ratings follow the bell curve and only a very small percentage of players will be at the top. Back when I started playing chess, the USCF had about 5000-6000 members and there were only about 50 players in the whole country rated over 2200. Compare that to the Soviet Union which had a hundred thousand or more players…they had a LOT of masters.
The same was true of minority players, blacks and women. In my home state there were 3 or 4 women active in chess and they were rated 1200-1500. There was one Black player rated about 1750 and one Chinese player rated around 2000. With the Fischer Boom of the 1970’s minorities started playing chess and with the increase in numbers, their ratings began to climb so that today their ratings are comparable to the general population.
Back to Alburt’s book…he starts out talking about evaluation of positions and states, in passing, that pattern recognition is a helpful aid. He states, “Without a recognizable pattern to use as a frame of reference, the average competitor is forced to rely upon intuition and subjective reasoning.” No argument there, but then he begins to prattle on about something no reader of his is going to comprehend. He discusses the meaning of various symbols used to show the evaluation of positions and points out there is no standard. For example, does “=” mean dead draw, practical equality, theoretical equality or dynamic equilibrium? He points out that a major flaw in computer evaluations is that they assign precise values to positions formulated on values given them by fallible humans. To each element a number value is given and computers then synthesize everything to come up with an exact number and humans do not think that way...so far, OK. He goes off the deep end by recommending what he calls “The System of Predicted Results.”
The premise is that any position can be assigned a numerical value based on the estimated number of points that White is predicted to score out of ten games played from that position between two GM’s of equal strength. For example, a dead draw is rated at 5.0, an absolute win is 10.0 and the starting position is rated at 5.5. Another example: the “=” sign could mean an evenly balanced position that may result in +1 -1 =8 or it could mean dynamically equal where it would be rated +4 -4 =2. He points out positions have little or no statistical background to draw upon so you will be calling on your powers of intuition and abstract reasoning which you can improve through study and play.
Maybe you can accomplish it through study and play if you are on your way to becoming a GM. For the average player this is pure nonsense. Seriously, does Alburt really believe the average player will EVER be able to distinguish between a position that is +1 -1 =8 or +4 -4 =2 or +6 -2 =2, or whatever? The whole point of this is that you use this information to construct a graph of the game which will tell you how the game evaluations swung back and forth…or where the game went South on you. This tells you the critical point in the game so you know where to look for errors. This part isn’t too bad, but it’s all beyond, way beyond, the ability of his intended audience. Actually the graphing idea isn’t bad, but the average player is going to have to let Fritz do it…and all that information is interesting to know, I suppose, but useless for anybody below GM. That is, except for the brief explanation about using graphs. Just let Fritz construct them for you.
He has a section on “specialization” where he talks about specializing in a position until you know it well. In this case he discusses the Isolated QP. Then there are 4 chapters where he analyzes games and positions and asks you questions about critical points. Of the games, which are well annotated, 5 are Alekhine Defenses and the final chapter is on the Benko Gambit. Throughout the book he keeps referring to his assessment of the positions using his System of Predicted Results.
You can buy it on Amazon for $1.87, but even at that, I think it's overpriced.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Chess Problems
A chess problem, aka chess composition, is a puzzle that presents the solver with a particular task to be achieved. There is a good deal of specialized jargon used in connection with chess problems which probably explains why most players aren’t interested in solving a bunch of artificial positions. It probably goes back to the idea of pattern recognition; to most of us the positions look like nothing more than a random position. However, I suppose if you specialize in chess compositions the patterns are recognizable there, too, and it will help in solving the problem if you recognize the theme.
As a kid our newspaper had a chess column which mainly consisted of a problem. You could mail your solution in on a post card and if it was correct, they published your name the following week. It was a pretty big deal if you were a 10-year old kid. One thing I always noticed was that most of the solvers were people I never heard of…they never played in any otb tournaments. A few years ago I played in a some cc tournaments and three times met a CC master (all draws) who is also listed in the US as an Expert Solver. I never heard of any of the others. My conclusion is that problemist, like many cc players and internet players who never played otb and play chess like it is a video game, live in their own little world.
Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see how my engine would do in solving a problem so I put the following position in and let it analyze.
Houdini found a mate in 8 in a few seconds:
But after 15 minutes it still hadn’t found a shorter solution, so I switched over to Robbolito to see if it could do any better and it didn’t. Stockfish, Firebird, Crafty and Fritz 12 fared no better. I suppose they all would find the correct solution though if given enough time. I don’t know what the answer to the mate in two is though because it wasn’t given in the magazine I took it from; it was in the next month’s issue which I don’t have. It could take forever for some engines to solve these things! However there are engines designed for solving problems.
Most compositions, unlike tactical puzzle, have no instructional value and are more geared to demonstrating the art or fantasy or some such that chess offers.
There are even unorthodox compositions, known as Fairy Chess, that has no relationship to real chess. It has invented pieces such as Grasshopper, Camel, Zebra, Nightrider, etc. Then there’s retrograde analysis is a branch of composition based on determining the play leading to the given position. And finally studies which are positions in which White has to reach a clearly won or drawn position after the best play from both sides. Chess compositions are classified into groups such as direct mates (two-movers, three-movers, and more-movers), selfmates, helmates, etc.
Most of us are familiar with the name of GM Pal Benko who is an International Grandmaster and Endgame Composer as well as a former world championship candidate. Less known is that of IM Milan Vukcevich (1937-2003) who was an International Master and International Composition Grandmaster. He was editor of StrateGems, the publication of the Society of U.S. Chess Problemists. I did a post on Vukcevich HERE. I just found it odd that given the output of Benko that I'm familiar with through Chess Life magazine and the fact that he was the stronger player, Vukcevich had a higher title in composing. Other names we might recognize are Andre Cheron, Vincent Lanius Eaton (1915-1962), Edgar Holladay (1925- ), Henrikh Kasparian (1910-1995), Sam Loyd (1841-1911), Comins Mansfield (1896-1984), Henri Rinck (1870-1952), Alexei Troitsky (1866-1942) and Alain White (1880-1951).
If anybody is interested in investigation this aspect of chess there are several sites dealing with them.
Chessopolis has 25 or 30 links to problem sites
Software designed specifically for solving problems
Handbook of Chess Composition in pdf for download
Chess Problems
Chess Problems
Why do I mention this? I was just thinking about this because maybe if I had gotten involved in chess problems instead of “real chess” back when I was sending in my solutions every week, who knows? Maybe I could have been an IM or maybe even a GM in this specialty. If you're young enough and feel like starting over at something, it's something to think about.
As a kid our newspaper had a chess column which mainly consisted of a problem. You could mail your solution in on a post card and if it was correct, they published your name the following week. It was a pretty big deal if you were a 10-year old kid. One thing I always noticed was that most of the solvers were people I never heard of…they never played in any otb tournaments. A few years ago I played in a some cc tournaments and three times met a CC master (all draws) who is also listed in the US as an Expert Solver. I never heard of any of the others. My conclusion is that problemist, like many cc players and internet players who never played otb and play chess like it is a video game, live in their own little world.
Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see how my engine would do in solving a problem so I put the following position in and let it analyze.
But after 15 minutes it still hadn’t found a shorter solution, so I switched over to Robbolito to see if it could do any better and it didn’t. Stockfish, Firebird, Crafty and Fritz 12 fared no better. I suppose they all would find the correct solution though if given enough time. I don’t know what the answer to the mate in two is though because it wasn’t given in the magazine I took it from; it was in the next month’s issue which I don’t have. It could take forever for some engines to solve these things! However there are engines designed for solving problems.
Most compositions, unlike tactical puzzle, have no instructional value and are more geared to demonstrating the art or fantasy or some such that chess offers.
There are even unorthodox compositions, known as Fairy Chess, that has no relationship to real chess. It has invented pieces such as Grasshopper, Camel, Zebra, Nightrider, etc. Then there’s retrograde analysis is a branch of composition based on determining the play leading to the given position. And finally studies which are positions in which White has to reach a clearly won or drawn position after the best play from both sides. Chess compositions are classified into groups such as direct mates (two-movers, three-movers, and more-movers), selfmates, helmates, etc.
Most of us are familiar with the name of GM Pal Benko who is an International Grandmaster and Endgame Composer as well as a former world championship candidate. Less known is that of IM Milan Vukcevich (1937-2003) who was an International Master and International Composition Grandmaster. He was editor of StrateGems, the publication of the Society of U.S. Chess Problemists. I did a post on Vukcevich HERE. I just found it odd that given the output of Benko that I'm familiar with through Chess Life magazine and the fact that he was the stronger player, Vukcevich had a higher title in composing. Other names we might recognize are Andre Cheron, Vincent Lanius Eaton (1915-1962), Edgar Holladay (1925- ), Henrikh Kasparian (1910-1995), Sam Loyd (1841-1911), Comins Mansfield (1896-1984), Henri Rinck (1870-1952), Alexei Troitsky (1866-1942) and Alain White (1880-1951).
If anybody is interested in investigation this aspect of chess there are several sites dealing with them.
Chessopolis has 25 or 30 links to problem sites
Software designed specifically for solving problems
Handbook of Chess Composition in pdf for download
Chess Problems
Chess Problems
Why do I mention this? I was just thinking about this because maybe if I had gotten involved in chess problems instead of “real chess” back when I was sending in my solutions every week, who knows? Maybe I could have been an IM or maybe even a GM in this specialty. If you're young enough and feel like starting over at something, it's something to think about.
Chess Books and Studying
I gave up actually studying chess years ago because I realized I had reached the point where the time spent versus the amount of improvement was minimal. The truth is of all the chess books I bought very few actually got read and even fewer actually improved my game to a noticeable degree. Most likely it was a case of absorbing a little here and a little there. In any case, I still like to browse books occasionally and yesterday was looking over John Watson’s Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy which I really enjoyed.
This book is pretty fascinating. Watson makes some comments about a subject that often comes up. Who is better, players of yesteryear or today? Watson says in the introduction, “The reader should understand that my own early chess education was almost entirely filled by the study of the games of players before 1930…it will be obvious that I consider modern players to have a broader and more subtle understanding of the game than their predecessors. Normally this would go without saying and it in no way denigrates the great old masters…But there is so much emotion invested in the veneration of the old champions that I want to emphasize my respect for their play, and also how irrelevant I consider the direct comparison between champions of vastly different eras.”
In this book he attempts to show that modern theory is dramatically different from what it was in Nimzovich’s day. He points out that there are principles of positional play (bad B’s, N outposts, centralized pieces, etc.) but his opinion is that rule oriented and principle oriented theory was worked out or at least substantially understood by the time of Nimzovich’s death in 1935. The argument goes that modern chess consists of applying them to an increasing number of specific positions along with a massive increase in opening theory and if you gave Lasker and Capablanca time to catch up, they would immediately become challengers for the world title. Watson disagrees!
He claims that while modern theory has advanced, it hasn’t advanced in a simplistic, rule based fashion. He adds, “It is the aim of the modern school not to treat every position according to one general law, but according to the principle inherent in the position.” If you’ve ever read any early Soviet analysis you often ran across the phrase “concrete analysis.” Starting with the post-war generation they rejected dogmatic principles and abstract analysis and placed emphasis on the characteristics and consequences of the individual position. For example, super-trainer Mark Dvoretsky emphasizes the analytic approach where the modern player derives his perspective and intuition from detailed analysis. Thus, a lot of classical rules have become irrelevant.
Watson takes a look at such issues as the center and tempo, the big center, surrender of the center, Pawn minorities and passed Pawns, Pawn chains, doubled Pawns, the isolated QP, use of Bishops and Knights in modern play, the exchange sacrifice, etc.
His conclusion in modern theory differs from classic theory in that there are different concepts in many areas, some of which include abandoning the idea of moving each piece only once in the opening, willingness to accept a mobile but vulnerable center Pawn mass and decline in the importance of P-majorities, a sophisticated approach to doubled P’s which includes a willingness to accept them and many other things.
He also points out many differences in modern players such as their willingness to ignore development for gains in other areas, accept backward and doubled P’s, move P’s in front of their K, develop B’s before N’s, often accepting bad B’s, long term positional P sac’s, etc.
I know what Watson means when he talks about studying the old classics because I grew up with chess books that taught rules and principles and there were few books on tactics because many thought they couldn’t be taught. One early middle game book I had was Znosko-Borovsky’s “The Middle Game in Chess” in which he reduced chess down to space, time and force. Larry Evans also published a similar book much later. I also played the QGD Exchange Variation a lot and then proceeded to carry out the minority attack. Why? Because Reshevsky had great success with it in many games and it was covered in detail in Pachman’sModern Chess Strategy. The last time I tried it was in a couple of CC games against 2000-rated players and the best I could do was draw because they had no difficulty in finding the best defense. Reshevsky’s opponents rarely did. Then in The Road to Chess Improvement, Alex Yermolinsky discussed the QGD Exchange Variation in its modern form and barely mentioned the minority attack because modern players don’t play it; they have other, better, plans for White.
While this book may be controversial it is definitely worth reading.
This book is pretty fascinating. Watson makes some comments about a subject that often comes up. Who is better, players of yesteryear or today? Watson says in the introduction, “The reader should understand that my own early chess education was almost entirely filled by the study of the games of players before 1930…it will be obvious that I consider modern players to have a broader and more subtle understanding of the game than their predecessors. Normally this would go without saying and it in no way denigrates the great old masters…But there is so much emotion invested in the veneration of the old champions that I want to emphasize my respect for their play, and also how irrelevant I consider the direct comparison between champions of vastly different eras.”
In this book he attempts to show that modern theory is dramatically different from what it was in Nimzovich’s day. He points out that there are principles of positional play (bad B’s, N outposts, centralized pieces, etc.) but his opinion is that rule oriented and principle oriented theory was worked out or at least substantially understood by the time of Nimzovich’s death in 1935. The argument goes that modern chess consists of applying them to an increasing number of specific positions along with a massive increase in opening theory and if you gave Lasker and Capablanca time to catch up, they would immediately become challengers for the world title. Watson disagrees!
He claims that while modern theory has advanced, it hasn’t advanced in a simplistic, rule based fashion. He adds, “It is the aim of the modern school not to treat every position according to one general law, but according to the principle inherent in the position.” If you’ve ever read any early Soviet analysis you often ran across the phrase “concrete analysis.” Starting with the post-war generation they rejected dogmatic principles and abstract analysis and placed emphasis on the characteristics and consequences of the individual position. For example, super-trainer Mark Dvoretsky emphasizes the analytic approach where the modern player derives his perspective and intuition from detailed analysis. Thus, a lot of classical rules have become irrelevant.
Watson takes a look at such issues as the center and tempo, the big center, surrender of the center, Pawn minorities and passed Pawns, Pawn chains, doubled Pawns, the isolated QP, use of Bishops and Knights in modern play, the exchange sacrifice, etc.
His conclusion in modern theory differs from classic theory in that there are different concepts in many areas, some of which include abandoning the idea of moving each piece only once in the opening, willingness to accept a mobile but vulnerable center Pawn mass and decline in the importance of P-majorities, a sophisticated approach to doubled P’s which includes a willingness to accept them and many other things.
He also points out many differences in modern players such as their willingness to ignore development for gains in other areas, accept backward and doubled P’s, move P’s in front of their K, develop B’s before N’s, often accepting bad B’s, long term positional P sac’s, etc.
I know what Watson means when he talks about studying the old classics because I grew up with chess books that taught rules and principles and there were few books on tactics because many thought they couldn’t be taught. One early middle game book I had was Znosko-Borovsky’s “The Middle Game in Chess” in which he reduced chess down to space, time and force. Larry Evans also published a similar book much later. I also played the QGD Exchange Variation a lot and then proceeded to carry out the minority attack. Why? Because Reshevsky had great success with it in many games and it was covered in detail in Pachman’sModern Chess Strategy. The last time I tried it was in a couple of CC games against 2000-rated players and the best I could do was draw because they had no difficulty in finding the best defense. Reshevsky’s opponents rarely did. Then in The Road to Chess Improvement, Alex Yermolinsky discussed the QGD Exchange Variation in its modern form and barely mentioned the minority attack because modern players don’t play it; they have other, better, plans for White.
While this book may be controversial it is definitely worth reading.
Backward Moves
It’s been pointed out that the most difficult moves to foresee are backward retreats. The following game is a case in point. I totally overlooked White’s 22,Ne1 which left my N attacked twice…very embarrassing. Fortunately moves like that don't happen very often because I really don’t know of a good way of alerting yourself to the possibility that a retrograde retreat is in the air! I was lucky that my Q-side P's offered some counterplay and was further helped with my opponend ill-considered 39th move which exposed his K to a fork. You can never be too careful in any position, but we all know that.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Russian Chess Websites
The following sites are in Russian but they can be translated with Google toolbar.
Crestbooke3e5
Extra Time
Russia Chess
Eliminating Gross Blunders
I often hear players complaining that they practice tactics and get high scores on various server sites but then turn around and still make a lot of stupid blunders in their own games and frequently miss tactical shots, both theirs and the opponent’s. They expected that after doing all those tactical exercises these things wouldn’t happen. They can’t figure out what they are doing wrong.
The question is relatively easy to answer. This malady cannot be improved by solving tactical chess puzzles. You see, the difference between training on a tactical server or doing problems in books and actually playing a game is making a bad move in a game will kill you. On servers and in books, you know there’s a tactical solution and you can keep trying moves until you get it right. There is no such option in an actual game; you have one shot at it. Also, servers often reward finding the solution quickly. In a real game, playing quickly is a good way to lose.
Recognizing tactical patterns doesn’t help if you don’t look for basic things like pins, forks, hanging pieces, etc. for both sides. You must consciously take your time and look over the board after your opponent moves and before you move, scanning ranks files and diagonals. This will eliminate most really gross blunders like hanging pieces and will also alert you to many other things you might otherwise overlook. I can’t tell you how many games I’ve lost because of tunnel vision where I was concentrating on only a small portion of the board while whatever was happening on the rest of it completely escaped my attention. In reality it wasn’t a chess problem in the sense I didn’t know what I was doing. It was a physical problem – a failure to look at the whole board.
When you solve puzzles verifying a move is enough but in an actual game you have to take a different approach. You need to falsify the move you have decided on because, unlike a puzzle situation, there may not be a tactic at all or the tactic may be there, but it is flawed. Studies have shown that chess masters always falsify their plans whereas lower rated players tend to confirm that their intended sequence works.
Short version: you simply must take time to scan the board every move and try to prove to yourself your move is a bad one rather than trying to prove it’s good. That’s the way masters think…as opposed to amateurs, who usually assume their opponent is going to cooperate. Sounds easy, but as was pointed out by one psychologist, people who know their area of expertise are more likely to look for ways that things can go wrong.
A good example of this happened yesterday. I played about a half dozen blitz games with a guy rated in the 1400’s and he must have thought he was a tactical genius because in every game he sacrificed a piece. None of them were warranted by the position. In one position he sac’d his N on f7 so he could play a check…that was it…one check. I kept wondering what the guy was thinking about because sometimes he’d think for 30 or 40 seconds before making such sacrifices. I can’t imagine what he was calculating but he certainly wasn’t using the master technique of falsifying his hypothesis. I’m positive he was running through variations where I was cooperating with his flights of fancy.
Then there was one game where he was clearly suffering from tunnel vision. He was advancing his Q-side P’s when I played a Q-move threatening to capture a N on the K-side…nothing subtle about it. He didn’t notice it and played …b5 and let me have the N. Of course, if he had done a board scan, he would have seen it right away.
I’m convinced many lower rated players know more about chess than their rating would indicate but their ratings are kept low because of mechanical problems like tunnel vision (simply failing to look around) and poor thinking technique.
The question is relatively easy to answer. This malady cannot be improved by solving tactical chess puzzles. You see, the difference between training on a tactical server or doing problems in books and actually playing a game is making a bad move in a game will kill you. On servers and in books, you know there’s a tactical solution and you can keep trying moves until you get it right. There is no such option in an actual game; you have one shot at it. Also, servers often reward finding the solution quickly. In a real game, playing quickly is a good way to lose.
Recognizing tactical patterns doesn’t help if you don’t look for basic things like pins, forks, hanging pieces, etc. for both sides. You must consciously take your time and look over the board after your opponent moves and before you move, scanning ranks files and diagonals. This will eliminate most really gross blunders like hanging pieces and will also alert you to many other things you might otherwise overlook. I can’t tell you how many games I’ve lost because of tunnel vision where I was concentrating on only a small portion of the board while whatever was happening on the rest of it completely escaped my attention. In reality it wasn’t a chess problem in the sense I didn’t know what I was doing. It was a physical problem – a failure to look at the whole board.
When you solve puzzles verifying a move is enough but in an actual game you have to take a different approach. You need to falsify the move you have decided on because, unlike a puzzle situation, there may not be a tactic at all or the tactic may be there, but it is flawed. Studies have shown that chess masters always falsify their plans whereas lower rated players tend to confirm that their intended sequence works.
Short version: you simply must take time to scan the board every move and try to prove to yourself your move is a bad one rather than trying to prove it’s good. That’s the way masters think…as opposed to amateurs, who usually assume their opponent is going to cooperate. Sounds easy, but as was pointed out by one psychologist, people who know their area of expertise are more likely to look for ways that things can go wrong.
A good example of this happened yesterday. I played about a half dozen blitz games with a guy rated in the 1400’s and he must have thought he was a tactical genius because in every game he sacrificed a piece. None of them were warranted by the position. In one position he sac’d his N on f7 so he could play a check…that was it…one check. I kept wondering what the guy was thinking about because sometimes he’d think for 30 or 40 seconds before making such sacrifices. I can’t imagine what he was calculating but he certainly wasn’t using the master technique of falsifying his hypothesis. I’m positive he was running through variations where I was cooperating with his flights of fancy.
Then there was one game where he was clearly suffering from tunnel vision. He was advancing his Q-side P’s when I played a Q-move threatening to capture a N on the K-side…nothing subtle about it. He didn’t notice it and played …b5 and let me have the N. Of course, if he had done a board scan, he would have seen it right away.
I’m convinced many lower rated players know more about chess than their rating would indicate but their ratings are kept low because of mechanical problems like tunnel vision (simply failing to look around) and poor thinking technique.
GM Larry Evans
I haven’t mentioned Larry Evans, who as most of you know, passed away on November 17th, mostly because much has been written about him by others. Back before computers Evans wrote a very popular column for Chess Life where he answered readers’ questions. With the coming of the Internet and chess engines, his column became redundant but it was always one of my favorites.
How good a player was he? He could compete with the best in the world and back in the days when Fischer and Reshevsky were fighting it out to see who the top dog in US chess was, Evans was just a smidgen below them. Unfortunately, even though I witnessed several US Championships back in the days when they were round robins, Fischer and Evans were never playing and so I never met him.
I came across this tribute to Evans by FM Dennis Monokroussos, also on Chess Video TV. You’ll have to register to watch it, but that’s OK because if you aren’t already registered there, you should be.
Larry Evans Obituary
How good a player was he? He could compete with the best in the world and back in the days when Fischer and Reshevsky were fighting it out to see who the top dog in US chess was, Evans was just a smidgen below them. Unfortunately, even though I witnessed several US Championships back in the days when they were round robins, Fischer and Evans were never playing and so I never met him.
I came across this tribute to Evans by FM Dennis Monokroussos, also on Chess Video TV. You’ll have to register to watch it, but that’s OK because if you aren’t already registered there, you should be.
Larry Evans Obituary
Puzzle Generator
Chess Videos TV also has a neat Puzzle Generator. The following position is from Petrosian-Tolush, 1950 Soviet Championship. White to play and win.
Endgame Practice
While on the website Chess Videos TV yesterday I noticed they have several “Chess Tools” like diagram generators, endgame simulator, visualization training, etc. that are worth checking out. For example, under the endgame simulator they have linked to the Crafty engine so you can play versus the computer in different situations right from your browser. I have to admit the following position gave me fits.
There are actually many solutions but I’ve just listed the line that gave me the most difficulty. For more solutions you can consult the Shredder Endgame Database on the right.
Highlight for one line:
There are actually many solutions but I’ve just listed the line that gave me the most difficulty. For more solutions you can consult the Shredder Endgame Database on the right.
Highlight for one line:
1.Bd7 h2 2.Bc6+ Kg1 3.Bh1 Kh1 4.Kf2 Nf5 5.Kf1 draws because Black can’t force White to let his K out of the corner. It took some time before I realized the theme and that White could sac his B.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
GM Evaluations vs. Engine Evaluations
Chess engines do not understand chess at all; they simply calculate variations and evaluate positions using an evaluation function which consists of material count plus factors like pawn structure, king safety, etc. and then it returns an evaluation. In some cases, the computer's evaluation function will favor a strategically lost position because it is making a static analysis but there may be overriding dynamic factors in the position that actually favor the other side. In some positions GM’s and other strong players will recognize these exceptions. That is why in strong CC tournaments players who rely solely on computer generated moves often lose to players who are strong enough to recognize when an engine’s evaluation is wrong.
I like to play over GM games using an engine because it allows me to quickly play through variations and try out my own lines. On more than one occasion I’ve run into situations where the GM’s evaluation is completely different than the engine evaluation; I always trust the GM.
Of course GM’s have been known to publish errors but these are not apt to be serious and these days most check their analysis with engines. When playing over older games you will often discover tactical errors in analysis, but when it comes to having a position explained or a strategic evaluation, always trust the GM. Also, in quiet positions there is often more than one move that is “best” so it’s pointless to pay any attention to engine analysis.
Recently while looking through The Art of Bisguier
Vol. 2, I came upon the following position where Bisguier disagreed with Fritz so I decided to check it out. I think Bisguier was using Fritz 5, so I used a stronger engine, Houdini. What was interesting was Bisguier’s explanation of why he disagreed. Let’s take a look at the game Bisguier – Kane, US Championship, 1973.
13…cxd4 (Bisguier comments that this is not a mistake by itself, but it is the start of a bad plan that exposes Black’s Q-side weakness on a7. He recommends instead moves like 13…h5, 13…Qg4, …Qf5 or 13…e6. Indeed after each of these moves Houdini continues to rate the position nearly equal.) 14.Bxd4 Kb8 15.Rf2 e6 16.a4 Nb6 (Houdini does not like this move after which its evaluation swings in White’s favor by a half P. Bisguier recommends 16…Bxd4 instead, with an equal position.) 17.Ne5 Bxe5 18.Qxe5+ Kc8 19.Nb5
In this position Houdini gives White a one P advantage. The remaining moves were: 19… Bxb5 20.axb5 Nc4 21.Qe1 and Black resigned. Final position:
In this position Houdini rates the position as one P in White’s favor, so why did Kane resign? Bisguier writes, “At first glance Black’s position looks as though it should still have plenty of play in it, but once again appearance are deceiving. A closer study reveals that Black’s assault on my K has come to a standstill, while his Q-side K position is altogether indefensible.”
And there you have it. In the beginning diagram it appears to us amateurs and the engine that the position is equal, but Bisguier saw beyond the static features and realized that dynamically his position held better possibilities. Even in the final position most of us would have probably evaluated the position either as slightly favorable to White or equal, but certainly not resignable for Black. Of course in a game with players of lesser caliber than Bisguier and Kane it would not make sense for Black to resign, but clearly both players here realized that while Black could play on, his position was hopeless.
I like to play over GM games using an engine because it allows me to quickly play through variations and try out my own lines. On more than one occasion I’ve run into situations where the GM’s evaluation is completely different than the engine evaluation; I always trust the GM.
Of course GM’s have been known to publish errors but these are not apt to be serious and these days most check their analysis with engines. When playing over older games you will often discover tactical errors in analysis, but when it comes to having a position explained or a strategic evaluation, always trust the GM. Also, in quiet positions there is often more than one move that is “best” so it’s pointless to pay any attention to engine analysis.
Recently while looking through The Art of Bisguier
Vol. 2, I came upon the following position where Bisguier disagreed with Fritz so I decided to check it out. I think Bisguier was using Fritz 5, so I used a stronger engine, Houdini. What was interesting was Bisguier’s explanation of why he disagreed. Let’s take a look at the game Bisguier – Kane, US Championship, 1973.
Bisguier comments that Kane must have been very happy with his position. He has two pieces developed (to one), two P’s influencing the center (to one) and an open g-file on which to attack the K should White castle K-side. According to Bisguier, Fritz gave Black the advantage worth the better part of Pawn, but he disagreed. According to my Houdini engine, Black stands better by almost a half a P after White plays 9.d3, so what is it in the position that makes Bisguier think it is actually White that stands better? We will see after the moves: 8.d3 Qd6 9.Nf3 Nd7 10.0–0 0–0–0 11.d4 Rhg8 12.Be3 Qg6 13.Qe2
13…cxd4 (Bisguier comments that this is not a mistake by itself, but it is the start of a bad plan that exposes Black’s Q-side weakness on a7. He recommends instead moves like 13…h5, 13…Qg4, …Qf5 or 13…e6. Indeed after each of these moves Houdini continues to rate the position nearly equal.) 14.Bxd4 Kb8 15.Rf2 e6 16.a4 Nb6 (Houdini does not like this move after which its evaluation swings in White’s favor by a half P. Bisguier recommends 16…Bxd4 instead, with an equal position.) 17.Ne5 Bxe5 18.Qxe5+ Kc8 19.Nb5
In this position Houdini gives White a one P advantage. The remaining moves were: 19… Bxb5 20.axb5 Nc4 21.Qe1 and Black resigned. Final position:
And there you have it. In the beginning diagram it appears to us amateurs and the engine that the position is equal, but Bisguier saw beyond the static features and realized that dynamically his position held better possibilities. Even in the final position most of us would have probably evaluated the position either as slightly favorable to White or equal, but certainly not resignable for Black. Of course in a game with players of lesser caliber than Bisguier and Kane it would not make sense for Black to resign, but clearly both players here realized that while Black could play on, his position was hopeless.
Border’s Chess Books
US players searching for chess books should try Border’s Book Store. They usually have a very wide selection and if what you want isn’t in stock, they can order it and have it in a few days. Although USCF members get a discount, by the time you pay shipping, the price is about the same.
Border’s Chess Book List
Store Locations
Border’s Chess Book List
Store Locations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)