Incidents at the 1978 US Championship

      Before the beginning of the 1978 US Championship reigning Champion Walter Browne pulled a Bobby Fischer. 

       Browne had always performed better in the US Championships than he had in international tournaments, or even other major US tournaments for that matter, and this tournament looked to be his biggest test up to that time because virtually all the top players of the previous three tournaments were there: Kavalek, Byrne, Shamkovich,Lein, Tarjan, Rogoff and Christiansen.
       The tournament was held at the Southern California campus of the Worldwide Church of God. You will remember this was the church that Bobby Fischer got duped by in the 1970s.   During the tournament several of the players were granted a brief audience with “King Bobby” who was living in seclusion a few miles from the tournament venue. Bobby refused to grace the tournament hall with his presence though.
       At the initial player’s meeting Browne trotted out his usual complaint about the lighting.  For some reason Browne held the opinion that inadequate lighting would cost him enough games that he would not win the tournament.  The other players were divided into two camps.  Either humor him or ignore him.
       The tournament director, GM Isaac Kashdan, had had run ins with Browne in the past but on this occasion Browne made his feelings about the lighting crystal clear and Kashdan was very obliging;  he had the college's lighting technician meet with Browne the following morning and arrange things to Browne’s satisfaction.
       Before the start of the first round Browne met Kashdan on the way out of the playing hall and advised Kashdan that the lighting now suited him provided he be permitted to sit at a particular board throughout the event.  Kashdan was a little reluctant to meet this request though because it meant special treatment for Browne.  Normally, seating was rotated for each round. Kashdan decided that since Browne was already being given special treatment in the form of an extra $850 appearance fee and a guest cottage instead of a dormitory room as supplied to the other players, he was willing to go along with the arrangement.
       After Browne left Kashdan was inspecting the tournament site and noticed one of the tables out of line, so he moved it back. A few hours later at the start of the first round Browne, like Fischer, made his grand entrance several minutes late, and realized his table had been put back in line with the others.  By putting it back in line with the other tables Kashdan had moved it out from under the special lighting that Browne so desperately needed.
       Thinking that Kashdan had moved it just for spite, Browne rushed over and asked Kashdan what had happened.  Kashdan didn’t know it was Browne who had moved the table out of line and explained that it was moved back to make a path for players to get through. Browne asked Kashdan, "Why do you hate me?” to which Kashdan replied that he didn't hate him.  So what did Browne do?  He stormed off the stage without even bothering to acknowledge his opponent, Larry Christiansen.
       Kashdan eventually ruled that Browne had lost on forfeit.  A few people tried to argue on Browne’s behalf, stating the withdrawal of the three-time champion could hurt ticket sales, tournament publicity and the cause of chess in the United States. As a result Kashdan called a meeting of the Appeals Committee.  At that meeting Browne made his point then, again like Bobby, threatened to leave the tournament if the forfeit stood.  The committee asked Christiansen if he wanted to make the final decision but Christiansen, though annoyed at Browne’s behavior, did not want the responsibility of deciding the issue.  Christian’s decision was influenced by the fact that if he refused to play and the forfeit stood, Browne would be denied a chance at playing in the next Interzonal since this was a qualifying tournament.
       The appeals committee  (William Lombardy, Kenneth Rogoff and Andrew Soltis) finally decided to uphold Kashdan's decision to forfeit Browne. Lombardy went to Browne's cottage to try and talk him out of leaving, but Browne left the next morning.  The result was that GM Lubosh Kavalek won the tournament ahead of Tarjan (second), Shamkovich and Mednis (tied for third and fourth).
       That was not the only incident in the tournament.  In Mednis vs. Shamkovich, Mednis became short of time in a slightly worse position and, in trying to save the game, essayed a small combination but there was a flaw in it.  Shamkovich reached the time control a piece ahead and Mednis resigned. But it wasn’t over.
       Ken Rogoff's fiancée, a spectator, noticed the total amount of time indicated on the clock being used by Shamkovich and Mednis totaled much more than for the other games.  She told another spectator who told an assistant tournament director.
       Mednis was informed of the problem after he resigned. Mednis drafted an appeal soon after the game, but his claim posed a question.  If he had forfeited on time before making his fatal blunder the game would have been resumed once the clock's faultiness was discovered. Now, however, he was claiming that he would not have blundered if he had had more time. The appeals committee sympathized with Mednis but couldn't accept his argument.
       The normally mild mannered Mednis got upset and threatened to sue everyone involved in the verdict, demanding that a statement be read at the beginning of each round warning that he might drop out of the tournament at any moment.  Mednis eventually cooled down and returned to his old, pleasant self.

 

Winning with the Alekhine

      In this game my opponent chose the Four Pawns Attack. The Four Pawns Attack is White's most ambitious try. Black allows White to make several tempo-gaining attacks on the Knight and establish an imposing pawn center in the belief that it can be destroyed. The game can become very sharp since White must either secure his advantage in space or make use of it before Black succeeds in making a successful strike at it. Black also has to play aggressively because passive play will result in his being crushed by White’s center.
       The Four Pawns Attack is not particularly popular because many White players are reluctant to weaken the area surrounding their King or are wary of entering a sharp tactical line which Black may have prepared.
       An interesting alternative is the ultra-sharp Planinc Variation, 5...g5!? where Black hopes for 6. fxg5? dxe5 which wrecks White's center and leaves him with weak pawns. Actually, about the only thing going for this line is the fact that White will have difficulty finding the best defense OTB.
      In this game, instead of meekly retreating the N's in face of White's Q-side P rush, I boldly plunged them into his position, creating havoc against his K.

Alekhine’s Defense

      In this defense Black tempts White's pawns forward to form a broad pawn centre with plans to undermine and attack the White structure later. White's imposing mass of pawns in the center often includes pawns on c4, d4, e5, and f4 and the defense is a good choice for aggressive players.  It’s not very common these days but Lev Alburt plays it frequently.  In fact, it’s one of Alburt’s favorites. Other aggressive players, like Korchnoi and Shabalov, even Fischer, have used it.

      I have faced this defense only five times with one win and a loss and three draws.  I, myself, have played it four times resulting two wins, a loss and a draw.  I am still not sure if I like it or not.  When facing it I always play either 2.Nc3 (hoping to transpose into a regular KP opening) or else 2.Bc4 hoping Black will take the P so I can play 3.Bxf7+, but so far nobody has done that.
      The line 1.e4 Nf6 2.Bc4 Nxe4 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.Qh5+ Kg8 5.Qd5+ e6 6.Qxe4 looks dangerous for Black, but according to the engine the position slightly favors Black.  I hate to admit this but while practicing against an engine once it played 4...Kf6 5.Qf3+ Ke5 and despite White’s big advantage, I was not able to find a win and ended up losing.
      The last time I played it was two years ago on chessdotcom and that was my first loss with the Alekhine.  Things started to go downhill at move 12 when I got my pieces gobbed up on the Q-side and in the meantime White was using his center space advantage to create threats on the other side of the board.

Bowel Problems and Cell Phones

Cheating scandal: player disqualified for cell phone use

      German GM Falko Bindrich was forfeited for refusing to allow the arbiter to examine the phone he had with him during multiple toilet visits during a recent Bundesliga round. The rules permit the arbiter to check in case of justified suspicion. Bindrich had a smart phone with him while visiting the toilet and when confronted, refused to show it to the arbiter, as is mandated by the tournament rules.

      According to his statement Bindrich was apparently plagued with gastro-intestinal distress which caused him to have to hit the porcelain pretty hard during his game and complained he was singled out from among the other contestants for being the leading “toilet-goer.”
       It’s important to emphasize he was not disqualified because of cell phone fraud, but because of his refusal to allow his phone to be inspected.  Bindrich’s reasons for refusal to allow inspection seem rather flimsy, though.  The reasons he gave were: 1) he saw an inspection as an invasion of his privacy. 2) the phone contained “very private pictures and messages.” 3) it contained sensitive business data which he needed to protect. 4) releasing this sensitive business data would cost him his job and important relationships. Bindrich admitted he does have a chess app on his phone, but as per the rules, his phone was always switched off.
       He added, “from a human perspective, how far have we come? Stalking and spying, eavesdropping on the toilet. The referee listened for my bowel movement, and Sebastian Siebrecht even lay down on the toilet floor.”
       I’m not sure what to make of all this.  If his game against his opponent did not show up on the chess app, then there would have been no problem.  All he had to do was turn the thing on and show the arbiter his chess app…problem solved. In any case, Bindrich knew the rules going in…if you have a cell phone it is subject to inspection and if he felt that strongly about protecting his privacy then he should not have been carrying it in the tournament room. 
       I have to wonder about the pictures.  I have pictures on my cell phone, too.  Let’s see, there are photos of my nephew at a school function, my cat and a raccoon that wandered into the backyard.  Nothing so private they would be embarrassing.
       As to sensitive business data, was the arbiter even remotely interested in industrial espionage? Would he know what he was looking at if he saw it? Would he be able to remember it all or, for that matter, even know who such sensitive business data should be delivered to in order to make a profit or get Bindrich fired?
       Seriously, I doubt the arbiter had any intentions of performing a sophisticated and thorough examination of Bindrich’s cell phone. It was more a matter of, “Just turn the thing on and show me the chess app.  If your current game isn’t in it, then it’s no problem.” Bindrich was rightly disqualified because he refused to hand over his phone to the arbiter and so contravened the rules of the event. His refusal, of course, is not proof of illegal use. What it comes down to is that the arbiter had what is known in the US as probable cause and Bindrich, who knew the rules, was obligated to comply with the request. Now I am wondering if his games from the event will be subjected to computer analysis and if they are, what will the findings be.
       If Bindrich did not want to leave his cell phone in his hotel room, a simple solution would have been take an Imodium and avoid all those trips to the toilet.

Playing Over Games

GM Alex Yermolinsky wrote: “David Bronstein wrote a great book about the 1953 Zurich Candidates Tournament.  What makes it great is absolute disregard to theorizing.  He takes all the games from a super-strong tournament – uses no selection criteria, so no bias towards the author’s agenda is there – and just invites you to watch ‘em play.  If I had to name one single book that helped me with my problems, not once but many times throughout my chess career, I’d know which one it is…Fischer and Larsen wrote two of the greatest books of the late 1960s – the collection of their best games.  These two books gave me a picture of true greatness when I was struggling with my chess in the mid-1970s, trying to establish my identity as a chess-player for many years to come.”  Note that Yermo said… not once but many times throughout my chess career.

       IM Jeremy Silman advised studying master games and somebody who took his advice commented, “I followed your advice…and I already can see that my planning and transition from opening to middle game is much better now, and I can actually understand the reasons behind the opening moves I had previously played just by memorization.”
      When Walter Browne was 14 years old, he would play over all the games in the monthly chess bulletin from Russia.  He played the games at one minute per game. Playing over many games this way allows you to see more patterns and variations per hour than when playing or studying at a slower speed.  Of course with the help of a chess program and good database this is even easier nowadays than in the past. I first read of this advice from US Senior Master Kenneth Smith who offered it back in the 1960s.
       When it comes what games to play over, games featuring just the opening you play, games by your favorite player or everything, Silman advised that no matter how you do it, it’s good.  He did add that one reason why you don’t want to stick with games that only feature your openings is that you’ll miss out on ideas and structures that usually don’t occur in your chosen systems, thus limiting your ultimate growth.
       Silman advised that the best way to go over a game is to play over it on an actual board and try to understand the plan behind the moves, but he also said that others may prefer to do it differently.  Silman’s preferred method, if he wanted to absorb as much information as possible, as quickly as possible, was that from a large number of games he would use a computer and zip through a game in 5 to 20 seconds.
       When IM John Donaldson wants to do some opening research, he picks out key games from a database and then does an in-depth analysis on a board with his laptop running next to it. Some players (usually younger ones) prefer to use only the computer only though.
       If you wish to improve your powers of calculation Silman advises that you go over a game (with no notes showing) and do your best to figure out what’s going on. Write down your thoughts for each move and also write down any variations that come to mind. Afterwards, look at an annotated version of that game and see how close your own impressions were to reality.  This same advice was offered by another great teacher, CJS Purdy, as far back as the 1930s
       There are many reasons to go over master games, ranging from the assimilation of patterns to opening study to various forms of instruction to pure enjoyment.
      When it comes to deciding which games to play over Silman says it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to absorb patterns, then go large numbers of games with no notes. If you are doing a deep exploration into a specific player’s games then you will want to look at games annotated by that player so you can see what he was thinking.
       OK, so these guys are titled players.  What about if you are not rated that high?  Again, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  If you are researching openings, games by players who are below 2300 aren’t going to be very valuable.  If you are looking at games for enjoyment, or games that are theoretically interesting, then GM games or games by past greats are the way to go.
       That said, games by lower rated players are often far more instructive than games by GMs because the mistakes weak players make are typical of, well, the mistakes weak players make.  So, there is something to be learned from games played by non-masters.  Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur by Euwe and Meiden was an early attempt at such a book and it’s still valuable even today.  Books by Silman, and others, on this idea are also available today.  Of course, let's not forget another reason for going over master games: simply for enjoyment – going over a favorite player’s game is relaxing, fun, and will continue to benefit pattern absorption.

 

 

Unusual Chess Sets

Eldrbarry's Search for Unusual Chess Sets: this is an interesting site if you like to browse antique chess sets! The author is putting together a series of pages and pdf documents so you too can enjoy the variety of unusual designs of sets.  The site also has a lot of interesting links to on-line sources for unusual sets. It was fun looking!

New Hall of Fame Inductee

Congratulations to GM Alex Yermolinsky (born April 11, 1958 in Leningrad) who was inducted into the chess Hall of Fame this month.

       Yermolinsky won the US Championship tying for first place with Alex Shabalov in 1993 and in 1996 he was the sole champion. From the mid- to late-1990s “The Yerminator” won virtually every major open Swiss in the US.  He is also a three-time winner of the World Open (1993, 1995 and 1996) and in 1999 he was equal first with other nine players. In 2001 he won the American Continental Championship.  He is married to the WGM Camilla Baginskaite and now lives in South Dakota where he works with the South Dakota Chess Association as a coach, lecturer and tournament director.
       After emigrating from the Soviet Union in 1989, he played on several U.S. Olympiad teams. He has written two books and the widely praised “The Road to Chess Improvement,” is one of the most instructive books a player seriously determined upon improvement can get.
       Despite his successes Yermolinsky was something of a late bloomer by chess standards, earning his grandmaster title in 1992 at the age of 34.

Play Online Chess

[Event "Groningen PCA"]
[Site "Groningen"]
[Date "1993"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Yermolinsky, Alex"]
[Black "Wolff, Patrick G"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "2685"]
[BlackELO "2063"]
[ECO "A57"]
[WhiteElo "2605"]
[BlackElo "2585"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "1993.12.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.01.01"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. Nf3 b4 5. Nbd2 g6 6. e4 d6 7. Bd3 Bg7 8. Nf1
O-O 9. Ng3 e6 10. O-O exd5 11. cxd5 Nbd7 12. h3 Nb6 13. Bg5 a5 14. Rc1 Ba6
15. Bxa6 Rxa6 16. Qd2 Re8 17. Qf4 Nbd7 18. Qh4 h6 19. Bxh6 Nxe4 20. Ng5 Nxg5
21. Bxg5 Qa8 22. Rce1 Bxb2 23. Ne4 Bg7 24. Be7 Rb6 25. Re3 Nf8 26. Rfe1 Nh7
27. Nxd6 Bf6 28. Qf4 g5 29. Bxf6 Rxe3 30. Qxe3 Nxf6 31. Qxg5+ Kh7 32. Qxf6
Qxd5 33. Ne8 1-0

Houdini 3 is Out

      According to their website, Houdini 3 contains many evaluation and search improvements and is about 50 Elo stronger than Houdini 2. The opening improvements are mostly related to piece activity and space management and in the middle game Houdini 3 has enhancements for recognizing pieces with limited mobility and in king-side safety. In end games Houdini 3 will seek deeper and solve more positions than before.
      There is also something called ‘Tactical Mode’ where it adapts its search strategy to prefer tactical solutions rather than positional moves in the root position. It also has a ‘Smart Fail-High’ feature that is supposed to be especially useful in very deep analysis when a different move becomes best at very high search depth. Its cost is about 40 Euros or $52.
      I thought about downloading it, but then got to thinking about it and decided not to. $52 is not a lot of money but for that much I could fill up with a tank of gas and have enough left over for a cup of coffee and some Ho-Ho’s. Or I could buy a Nook book card. Or, since we are going to Disney World in a few weeks, it would probably be enough money to buy lunch or a souvenir T-shirt. Best of all, I could save it. There are all kinds of things I could do with $52.
      The real reason I decided against it though is because I don’t need it. The Standard version supports up to 6 cores and 4 GB of hash but I can’t take advantage on that because my laptop is only 2 cores. I have no idea what its hash size is. The Pro version supports up to 32 cores and 256 GB of hash memory and NUMA-architecture (whatever that is). Short version, it won’t win me any more games on LSS because I have such puny computing power. There’s also the fact that, as I’ve pointed out previously, even using an engine you have to be at least 2300 OTB to even think about getting close to the top on LSS…or doing well in ICCF play, for that matter. So, no matter what engine I use, I’m not going to do any better on those sites.
      BTW, I did play a couple of games on Queen Alice a while back (no engines allowed on the site) against a guy rated over 2400 and at no time did I suspect engine use. Post-game analysis of our two draws didn’t yield a very high matchup rate and we both got a couple of question marks from Houdini. In fact, in one of the games we both missed winning tactical shots. The one he missed was a B sac on h3. I think he missed it because it required a second sacrifice…a R on g2. The N sac I missed, I never would have seen in a million years. It seems Queen Alice has solved their server problems. A few months back the whole site crashed a couple of times and as a result one of my tournaments got wiped out. Included were two games I was losing, so it wasn’t all bad! I may go back to playing there.

An Ending to Analyze

This is an instructive ending to play around with. It’s from one of my games played back in 1971.  I am Black and my opponent was rated, it memory serves, about 2300 and he later went on to gain his IM title.  My feeling was that I was going to draw, but take a look at the position and see if you can find a plan for White that offers him winning chances.

He played 23.Kf3 which was the beginning of a plan to occupy b6! A few moves later we reached this position and I still did not appreciate the danger I was in.

 

I should have retreated the K and kept the N on, but I reasoned that after 26…Nxg3 things would be ‘simplified’ and the draw guaranteed.  Wrong!  I needed the N for ‘tempo purposes.’  We soon reached this position.

It’s clear that after White plays 32.a5 White will run his K to the K-side but I can hold him off.  Unfortunately then, because he has more Pawn moves available, he can run me out of moves and my K will have to give way allowing him to win easily.  It is an instructive position to mess around with.

Another Loss

      When I entered the aforementioned tournament on LSS it was an open event and my section contained players rated from 600 to over 2200.  Of course when you are playing in events where engines are allowed, a 600-rated player is just as dangerous as a 2200-rated.  Also, gobs of rating points are at stake, but because ratings are pretty much meaningless that’s really not a major consideration for me. I have played over some games by lower rated players on LSS and it’s evident they do not use engines at that level, but for this tournament the ones in my section apparently made an exception for this event.  One player was new to the site and for some reason his starting rating was about 600.  Another fellow was rated around 800 and about half of his games were either won or lost by forfeit so there was a distinct possibility he would not even finish the event. As luck would have it, I lost my game against him.

      What left me perplexed was the game itself.  The opening line we played is a popular one that has a good success rate for White both in OTB and CC, but early on it seems that Fritz found an improvement for Black.  My ninth (!) move allowed him to seize control of the d3 square and from there on, I was struggling to equalize and the challenge proved to be too great.  I can’t believe White is lost after move nine, but I can’t find an improvement either.  As a result, I am kind of at a loss to understand what happened.  Need a GM to explain it, I guess!

 

Bogoljubow

Efim Dmitriyevich Bogoljubow (April 14, 1889 – June 18, 1952) was a Russian-German. Bogoljubow was a chess giant by any standards, but in his native Russia, he was a ‘non-person’ and his reputation was tainted by his later Nazi associations.

For over a period of more than 15 years, Bogoljubow was among the challengers for the world title. During these years he managed to win several top tournaments against almost all best players of the time. He played in about 120 tournaments, winning prizes 48 times.  He also played 29 matches, 16 of which he won.

      Bogoljubow came into prominence in 1911 when he tied for first place in the Kiev championship and then a little later finished 9-10 in the Saint Petersburg (All-Russian Amateur) Tournament. In 1912, he took second place in Vilna and in 1913/14 he finished eighth in Saint Petersburg (All Russian Masters' Tournament and eighth in the 1914 Russian Championship.

       In 1914, he played in Mannheim tournament and was 8-9 place when the tournament was interrupted by World War I.  After the declaration of war against Russia, eleven Russian players (Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Bohatrichuk, Flamberg, Koppelman, Maliutin, Ilya Rabinovich, Romanovsky, Saburov, Selenieff and Weinstein)  were interned by Germany. In September 1914, four of the internees (Alekhine, Bogatyrchuk, Saburov, and Koppelman) were allowed to return home via Switzerland but the remaining Russian players played in a series of tournaments held during the remainder of the war.  Bogoljubow remained in Germany, married a local woman and spent most of the rest of his life in Germany.
       After the war, he won several international tournaments.  In 1924 he briefly returned to Russia, which had since become the Soviet Union, and won the Soviet Championship in 1924 and 1925 and scored well in a few international events.
       In 1926, he returned to Germany where he continued to successfully participate in international events. Bogoljubov won two matches against Dr. max Euwe (both 5.5–4.5) in 1928 and 1928/29 and played two matches against Alekhine for the world championship losing 15.5–9.5 in 1929, and 15.5–10.5 in 1934.
       In the 1930’s Bogoljubow was extremely active in the international area: He represented Germany at first board in the Olympics at Prague 1931, winning the individual silver medal.  In 1930, he twice tied for 2nd–3rd with Nimzowitsch, after Alekhine, in San Remo.  In 1931, he tied for 1st–2nd in the German Congress. In 1933, he won at Bad Pyrmont.  In 1935, he won at Bad Nauheim and Bad Saarow, tied for first at Berlin and in 1936 and 1937 he shared first place at Bad Elster. He also had first place finishes at Bremen (1937), Bad Elster (1938) and Stuttgart (1939)
       During World War II, he lost a match to Euwe (+2 −5 =3) and drew a mini-match with Alekhine (+1 −1 =0) in 1943. He also played in numerous tournaments held in Germany throughout the war. After the war, he lived in West Germany where he continued to win small events.
       He is little recognized as a great player these days because he played in the era of Lasker, Alekhine, and Capablanca who dominated the chess scene during his peak playing years.
       At the beginning of World War 1, when he was taken prisoner while playing in Mannheim the players' initial treatment was harsh, but their status as chess players ensured them good treatment, and they were able to choose their own place of confinement. They chose the resort town of Triberg and Bogoljubow married a local girl, Frida.
       After the First World War Bogoljubow rapidly ascended to to the position of the best players in the world. His crowning achievement came in the Moscow 1925 supertournament, where in 21 rounds he won 13 games and lost only 2, finishing a full point and a half ahead of Lasker, and even further ahead of Capablanca, Marshall, Torre, Reti, Rubinstein, Spielmann.  Despite his successes, his results were inconsistent, and by 1929, when Alekhine played him for the World Championship, Bogoljubow, at 40 years old, was probably past his peak.
       After his victory in Moscow 1925 the Soviet chess political machine came into being and began to distribute favors. At this time Bogoljubow, faced with little income and a lot of debt because the bureaucrats restricted his access to a couple of tournaments, he renounced his Soviet citizenship in 1926. From that point onward he was condemned by the Soviet State and his name was erased from all records, including tournaments.
       In 1938 he became a Nazi.  Some claim he did it in order to keep his home in Germany, and to assure that his daughters could go the University since they were deemed not to be of Aryan blood. Also his German wife also wanted to remain in Germany.
      Bogoljubow doesn't seem to have been ideologically inclined and was said to have disliked the Nazis intensely. Even as late as 1950, however, FIDE didn't make him a Grandmaster becaused of his alleged 'Fascism'. He got the title the next year, not long before his death in 1952.

In the following snappy game against Grob, I especially like the Rook Lift at move 20.  For more on Rook Lifts, see an instructive video by GM Dejan Bojkov HERE.

Greatest Players in History

Here’s my list in no particular order.

Anand
Since becoming world champion Anand, unlike some others, has played in a number of events and won a lot of awards for his outstanding contribution to chess. He was awarded in India’s second highest civilian award, the Padma Vibhushan and as well as India’s highest sporting Honor, the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award. Anand's contribution to Indian chess has been remarkable. He has inspired thousands of children and their parents to look at chess as something more than a mere hobby. It’s not just the Indians who like Anand; he is popular around the world. Anand may not dominate the chess world like some of his predecessors, but he remains a class player and person. For the most part he has accomplished his chess successes all by himself. From what I understand Anand is always polite, humble and a genuinely friendly person. Anand held has won the World Championship in three different formats: Knockout, Tournament, and Match and is one of the few players in history to break the 2800 mark on the FIDE rating list. Fischer A dastardly skunk, but his chess career speaks for itself.
Morphy
No doubt about it…he dominated his rivals but it’s hard to say exactly how good he was because he did not pursue a career in chess. After he had defeated all the English players, except Staunton, who begged off playing, he went to France where he easily defeated the best players. After that he returned home and retired. Who knows how far he could have gone or what other contributions he could have made to chess theory had he continued.

Botvinnik
He used to be on my list, but not anymore. It appears that, known or unknown to Botvinnik, there were ‘outside’ influences and pressures put on some of his rivals to make sure he ‘won.’ IMO this makes his accomplishments suspect.
Alekhine
Became World Championship defeating the legendary Jose Capablanca. At the age of 16, he was already one of Russia’s strongest players and by age 22 was considered one of the strongest players in the world, winning most tournaments he played in throughout the 1920’s and early 1930’s.
Capablanca
His games are known for their clarity and his logical and direct play made chess seem simple.
Karpov
Highly positional player who improved his position by moves that showed deep positional understanding meant he did not make a lot of mistakes. His mastery of the ending was superb. Very boring, but also very, very difficult to defeat.
Kasparov
Their matches were a nightmare but he beat Karpov. Unlike Karpov, Kasparov played exciting chess.
Tahl
Health problems hindered him. If it were not for that, it’s hard to say how far he could have gone.
Bronstein
Not greatly appreciated, but Bronstein narrowly missed being world champion. He should have beaten Botvinnik, but it is quite possible he was a victim of ‘outside influences.’

Tarrasch
In the 1890s Tarrasch was one of the top 3-4 players in the world. His games, not too well-known today, are positional gems. Tarrasch taught generations of players how to play chess. I think his games are still worthy of playing over.
Nimzovich
His star did not last long, but from about 1910 to 1913 Nimzo was one of the best players in the world. He faded fast after that though. To me, real boring.
Bogoljubow
Odd pick, I know. But…from about the mid-1920’s until the mid-1930’s Bogo was one of the top 8-10 best players in the world.
Lasker
World Champion for quite awhile, even if in those days you didn’t have to play a match if you didn’t want to. Never cared much for his play.
Rubinstein
From the early 1900’s to the late 1920’s he was among the best. Another boring player.
Reshevsky
There was a time he probably could have beaten Botvinnik, but the Russians wouldn’t allow him the chance.

As an afterthought, I just decided to throw in Fischer’s list of the 10 greatest players in history: Morphy, Staunton, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Chigorin, Alekhine, Capablanca, Spassky, Tahl and Reshevsky

Just a Couple Observations

While forum hopping I notice the same issues seem to keep cropping up on a fairly regular basis.

Cheaters

One guy posted:

…there are only three types of chess players who have a real reason to want/need Houdini 2.0…they’re either super GMs, people who don’t understand they don’t need it, or cheaters (so they can beat other cheaters).

      Somebody did make a sensible response by adding another type: legitimate centaurs

I play on ICCF and LSS against opponents using engines and I don’t consider it cheating because the rules allow it and I know they are using engines. Now on the CCLA I played a few engine users and that was a different story because their rules prohibit the use of engines.

      What kind of ignoramus must a person be if they can’t understand such a simple concept that if a site allows engine use then it is not cheating to use one? But then I have also seen people who think the use of opening books in correspondence chess is cheating even though their use has been allowed almost from the beginning. These folks don’t seem to grasp the fact that OTB chess and correspondence chess are not the same even though that fact should be obvious.

      Of course there also exist computer chess enthusiasts who want to test, analyze and compare the newest engines simply because they enjoy tinkering with that kind of thing. If they are having fun and want all the engines available to play around with, what’s the problem?!

      And there is also the frequent comment, “You don’t learn anything using an engine.” What makes some people think that everybody who uses an engine is trying to learn anything? There are even some people without engines who don’t study…they just play. That must be hard for some folks to imagine, but it’s true.

Chess Online Instruction

This appears to me to be a new site offering chess lessons online. The site says:

Chessonlineinstruction was created to give chess players a unique chess coaching experience where they are in control of what gets taught. We found that most chess instruction sites make videos that the coaches think are good but may not necessarily be what the student wants to learn. We feel that the student should be more involved in the coaching process so he can get a lot more out of the experience.

      Actually, it's not unique. GM Alex Yermolinsky complained of this very thing: students telling the teacher what they (the student) think they need to study in order to improve. In Yermo’s opinion most instructors don’t have much choice but to comply. If they don’t, the student just goes elsewhere. At least this site is honest in telling you up front they will teach you what you think you need. 

Opening Study

One fellow announced his ‘study plan’ was to spend one hundred percent of his time on opening study. He is going to ask his friends to start from specific positions, play 45 minute games then analyze them.

      At least I’ll give him credit for realizing playing five minute games online didn’t help him improve so he’s trying something else. Good for him. Maybe when he realizes opening study alone won’t bring better results, he will try something else.

      USCF Senior Master Mark Buckley had a better idea: study everything he did not understand or did not like. The goal was to become an all around player. He hated endgames, so he studied endgames…that kind of stuff. In school you study more than one subject at a time so I see no reason to study one area of chess at a time either. Tactics, strategy, ending, playing over GM games. It seems you could divide your study time up to cover all these subjects.

For me chess is fun. I enjoy playing over GM games from books and admiring their play whether it involves opening innovations, long-range strategy, brilliant tactics or subtle endgames. I enjoy playing an occasional casual OTB game at the local coffee shop. I enjoy playing games using engines on LSS. I enjoy an occasional blitz game on Chessdotcom. I enjoy reading about chess history and chess players. Two things I no longer enjoy: playing in OTB tournaments and seriously studying. I never liked chess problems and was never interested in collecting chess stamps. That’s the great thing about this game. You can do what you enjoy and ignore the rest…and you don’t have to have a high rating to have fun.

FinalGen

      FinalGen is a program you might find handy, but I would recommend it only if you have a lot of HD space on your computer.

       What is FinalGen? FinalGen is a FREE endgame tablebase generator for Windows.It generates tablebases for endgames with up to one piece per side, and any number of pawns.
       A Search for draw option allows speeding up the process by searching only for drawn results, but can run up to 10 times faster.  You can pause and resume the process at any time. A very nice feature is that the program displays the estimated time remaining, the required hard disk space and the number of positions calculated.  It is available in English, French, Spanish, Russian.
       Most engines play endgames fairly well, but in some situations they exhibit serious defects and most engines can consult tablebases which help them decide whether to exchange down into an endgame covered by the tablebase.   Tablebases of all endgames with up to six pieces are available for free download but their size is enormous which means you need to consult online tablebases from sites like Shredder or Lokasoft.  FinalGen is able to solve chess positions with 7 or more pieces; it can also generate them for 8 or more pieces, but that is a very long process. For 7-piece positions, the process can take between 30 minutes and 3 hours.
       A major limitation is that it can only manage endgames with up to one piece per side, and any number of pawns. e.g endgames in which there are 3 knights and king versus a king cannot be solved. But, if you end up with an ending with a rook and two pawns versus a rook and two pawns you can use FinalGen to generate the tablebases for the position. What is nice is it will generate tablesbases for positions that are not available in the online Shredder and Lokasoft bases.  For example, in the 11-piece position shown.

Chess War Engine Tournament Completed

Full Report

Match involving 30 engines in a 15 round Swiss

Start date: April 2012

40 moves in 40 minutes. No commercial engines.

Top 5 finishers:

      1)Spike 1.4

      2)Critter 1.4x64

      3)Komodo 4.402x64

      4)Hiarcs 13.3

      5)Stockfish 2.2.2x64ja

Interesting.