Tim Harding writing in his column, The Kibitzer, for ChessCafe wrote:
For the second time in succession, Topalov has shown himself to be a bad loser by public criticism of his opponents. Many readers will recall his "Toiletgate" criticisms of Kramnik, which he put into a book. Now he criticises Anand for having high-level assistance and for not organising chess in his homeland ‒ although it turns out that Topalov had a very powerful custom computer made for his own preparations. To me, Topalov seems a quite brilliant player on his day, but overall a rather unpleasant individual. I am pleased he lost and hope he never plays for the world championship again. It seems that I am not alone in that opinion since the chess world subsequently found out that Carlsen, Kramnik, and Kasparov had all helped Anand in one way or another with his preparations.
I couldn’t agree more! I’d like to see those two weasels, Danilov and Topalov, boycotted by organizers the world over. Who needs them?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ferreting Out Engine Users on ChessCube
I just read a forum post on cheating detection at ChessCube. I’m not familiar with the site so checked it out.
They have this warning posted on the site:
…if you use other applications (for example, chess software, messaging programs, browsers, and email clients) excessively during your games you may be warned and then forced to resign the game. We cannot tell if you are getting assistance from these applications (e.g. receiving moves from a chess engine, a friend is sending you moves or you are browsing through an opening database), so we limit how often you can interact with non-ChessCube software. ChessCube monitors the use of other software in this manner and can only assume you are cheating if you do this often enough….
…we compare a cheater's move with engine moves from various engines. If there is a high correlation across games (we understand that people can sometimes play like an engine, but doing so across many games raises suspicions) we assume cheating.
We monitor everything from your rating progress, to who you beat (beating an engine is a good sign that you are an engine!), to all ways in which you interact with our system.
So one thing they are doing is monitoring your task switching in Windows to see if you're minimizing the ChessCube window. One guy posted this comment: I was just playing a ranked game and after about 19 moves it warns me that I am 'using applications', .. (I was) going to web browser and such. Then a couple of moves later it resigns the game for me, under the suspicion of cheating. I'm not cheating, I don't cheat, I don't see the point in cheating on internet chess just to gain a few ratings points. Not only is this annoying, it raises another issue of what exactly is it scanning for?? This seems to take it more into the realms of spyware.
Apparently opening a browser during a game or starting up iTunes, etc. will get you branded as a cheat. Some people play chess while listening to music or doing other things. Personally I can’t multitask while playing chess, but I'm sure many people can. Their policy is to not allow frequent task switching and a lot of people call it unfair. Maybe it is, but at tournaments players can’t use mobile phones. As one poster pointed out, you might say "phoning my mother is not cheating" but to make cheating harder they have to compromise other innocent activities. No argument there, I guess, but somehow having my computer activity monitored while playing chess scares me.
Checking rating progress makes some sense to me. If I am a very strong player just joining a site and starting at 1200 it’s to be expected that I’m going to win a lot of games without loss. But if somebody has been rated 1400 for their last several hundred games on the site then suddenly starts beating everybody, including 2200’s, it’s a sure sign their rating increase is not from newly developed skills, but rather from a newly purchased engine.
Checking a person’s match up against engines is the most reliable way, but then again a lot depends on which engine you are using and how long you allow it to ponder a position. Top level CC players always advocate using two engines, preferably with different playing styles, when examining moves. I’ve played at Lechenicher SchachServer which allows engine use and have followed this advice. It’s not unusual to get different move suggestions from several different engines, or even if it’s the same move, widely different evaluations. When that happens, deciding what’s the best move is what separates titled correspondence players from the rest of us. Still, I suppose this is the most reliable method.
While I can appreciate sites' efforts to ferret out engine users, it seems like an enormous effort and more than a few innocent players will get caught in the dragnet. The truth is though, most of the people complaining about engine users are the players who will never face one unless they are unfortunate enough to play one on his way up the rating ladder.
On most sites I’ve played on, there is a logjam of engine users once you reach a certain level. They’ve pushed past everybody and then gotten stuck playing each others engines. Above that level, most of them are likely using engines, but they are strong enough to know how to defeat one, so they eventually rise to the top.
I’ve played on several sites and won pretty steadily until reaching the level where engine users lurk; then I start losing a lot. I’m not saying they all use engines because I know for a fact there are a lot of players out there who are better than me, so every time I lose it’s not to an engine! When I play opponents with elevated ratings, I just assume they are using any and all help that is available.
When that happens, I admit to having been tempted to fire up Fritz myself, but my experience on Lechincher SchachServer has made me realize my old Fritz and even older computer is no match for them. What happens is that it becomes a challenge of a different nature…one of trying to beat the engine. I have to admit I haven’t been very successful, but as they say, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Final thought: When correspondence chess began, people realized you couldn’t stop anybody from consulting chess books, so the use of literature was allowed. Sidebar: I don’t think the rule against getting help from another player was ever a problem. Have you ever tried to get a really strong player to give you advice? It looks like it’s the same situation with engines as with using books. Even if you allow engine use (and if both players are using one), it seems like the good players win anyway. That’s why my LSS rating is barely 1800 and one of my current opponents, who’s about 150 points higher, is actually a Ukrainian Master!
They have this warning posted on the site:
…if you use other applications (for example, chess software, messaging programs, browsers, and email clients) excessively during your games you may be warned and then forced to resign the game. We cannot tell if you are getting assistance from these applications (e.g. receiving moves from a chess engine, a friend is sending you moves or you are browsing through an opening database), so we limit how often you can interact with non-ChessCube software. ChessCube monitors the use of other software in this manner and can only assume you are cheating if you do this often enough….
…we compare a cheater's move with engine moves from various engines. If there is a high correlation across games (we understand that people can sometimes play like an engine, but doing so across many games raises suspicions) we assume cheating.
We monitor everything from your rating progress, to who you beat (beating an engine is a good sign that you are an engine!), to all ways in which you interact with our system.
So one thing they are doing is monitoring your task switching in Windows to see if you're minimizing the ChessCube window. One guy posted this comment: I was just playing a ranked game and after about 19 moves it warns me that I am 'using applications', .. (I was) going to web browser and such. Then a couple of moves later it resigns the game for me, under the suspicion of cheating. I'm not cheating, I don't cheat, I don't see the point in cheating on internet chess just to gain a few ratings points. Not only is this annoying, it raises another issue of what exactly is it scanning for?? This seems to take it more into the realms of spyware.
Apparently opening a browser during a game or starting up iTunes, etc. will get you branded as a cheat. Some people play chess while listening to music or doing other things. Personally I can’t multitask while playing chess, but I'm sure many people can. Their policy is to not allow frequent task switching and a lot of people call it unfair. Maybe it is, but at tournaments players can’t use mobile phones. As one poster pointed out, you might say "phoning my mother is not cheating" but to make cheating harder they have to compromise other innocent activities. No argument there, I guess, but somehow having my computer activity monitored while playing chess scares me.
Checking rating progress makes some sense to me. If I am a very strong player just joining a site and starting at 1200 it’s to be expected that I’m going to win a lot of games without loss. But if somebody has been rated 1400 for their last several hundred games on the site then suddenly starts beating everybody, including 2200’s, it’s a sure sign their rating increase is not from newly developed skills, but rather from a newly purchased engine.
Checking a person’s match up against engines is the most reliable way, but then again a lot depends on which engine you are using and how long you allow it to ponder a position. Top level CC players always advocate using two engines, preferably with different playing styles, when examining moves. I’ve played at Lechenicher SchachServer which allows engine use and have followed this advice. It’s not unusual to get different move suggestions from several different engines, or even if it’s the same move, widely different evaluations. When that happens, deciding what’s the best move is what separates titled correspondence players from the rest of us. Still, I suppose this is the most reliable method.
While I can appreciate sites' efforts to ferret out engine users, it seems like an enormous effort and more than a few innocent players will get caught in the dragnet. The truth is though, most of the people complaining about engine users are the players who will never face one unless they are unfortunate enough to play one on his way up the rating ladder.
On most sites I’ve played on, there is a logjam of engine users once you reach a certain level. They’ve pushed past everybody and then gotten stuck playing each others engines. Above that level, most of them are likely using engines, but they are strong enough to know how to defeat one, so they eventually rise to the top.
I’ve played on several sites and won pretty steadily until reaching the level where engine users lurk; then I start losing a lot. I’m not saying they all use engines because I know for a fact there are a lot of players out there who are better than me, so every time I lose it’s not to an engine! When I play opponents with elevated ratings, I just assume they are using any and all help that is available.
When that happens, I admit to having been tempted to fire up Fritz myself, but my experience on Lechincher SchachServer has made me realize my old Fritz and even older computer is no match for them. What happens is that it becomes a challenge of a different nature…one of trying to beat the engine. I have to admit I haven’t been very successful, but as they say, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Final thought: When correspondence chess began, people realized you couldn’t stop anybody from consulting chess books, so the use of literature was allowed. Sidebar: I don’t think the rule against getting help from another player was ever a problem. Have you ever tried to get a really strong player to give you advice? It looks like it’s the same situation with engines as with using books. Even if you allow engine use (and if both players are using one), it seems like the good players win anyway. That’s why my LSS rating is barely 1800 and one of my current opponents, who’s about 150 points higher, is actually a Ukrainian Master!
Tartakower & Kemeri 1937 pdf Booklets
I have added two new pdf booklets for downloading. The first is on Tartakower and has 67 games “annoFritzed” and a brief bio. The second contains 153 games from Kemeri, 1937. Won by Reshevsky and Flohr ahead of Alekhine and Keres. It also has a brief bio of the lesser known players, some of whom died in concentration camps and one who was accused of committing atrocities for the Nazis during WW2.
Another B&P Ending at Queen Alice
I finished my second game against a player named "donidon" at QA and it was also a drawn B&P ending. I had sac'd a N for 3 passed P's on the K-side at move 28 because I thought that in the long run he had the advantage on the Q-side and if I did nothing eventually the game would be lost.
48.Kh4 Kf7
I'm hoping I can get my K to the Q-side and trade off his c-P because then the B is on the wrong color square to force the queening of the a-Pawn.
49.Bf4 Ke6 49...Kf6 50.a4 Ke6 51.Kg5+- Kd5 52.Kxf5 Kc4 is the same position as after 52.a4 in the game except it is White's move, so Black has lost a tempo compared to the actual game. His position has to be worse.
50.Kg5 Kd5
I was thinking about playing 50...g6 hoping he'd waste time capturing the g6P which also moves his K a little further from the action but thought it best to keep it. As it turned out this Pawn saved the game.
51.Kxf5 Kc4 52.a4 Kc5 53.Be3+ Kc4 54.Ke4?
I think after 54.Ke6 White has a promising position 54...g6 (If 54...d5 55.a5 Kb5 56.Kxd5 Kxa5 57.Ke4 loses for Black) 55.Bd2+- Kc5 56.a5 Kb5 57.c4+ Ka6 58.Kd5 g5 59.Bxg5 Kxa5 60.Be3 Kb4 61.Bd2+ Kb3 62.Kd4 Kc2 63.Ke3 Kb3 (63...c6 64.Ba5 d5 65.c5 Black is lost) 64.Kxd3 Ka4 winning.
54...d5+ 55.Ke5 c5
But not 55...Kxc3?? because of 56.a5 Kc2 57.a6
56.Bd2 d4 57.cxd4 cxd4 58.Kd6 g5!
Without this move I would have lost. 58...g5 59.Ke5 (59.Bxg5 Kb4) 59...Kc5 60.Ke4 and White can't make any progress.
59.Bxg5 Kb4 ½–½
This was the position after my 45th move.
I was expecting him to play 46.Bd8 but that would have been wrong because it would have resulted in a trade of one of my P's for his a-Pawn and it's the a_Pawn upon which any hopes of White's winning hang. For example: 46.Bd8 Qxa2 47.Qe3 Qc2 48.Bxc7 d5
46.Qg3 Qd3?
Black should have taken the draw with 46...Qe4 47.Bd8+ Kf7 48.Bxc7 Qh1+ 49.Qh2 Qf3+ 50.Qg3 Qh1+ 51.Qh2 Qf3+ 52.Qg3 Qh1+
47.Qxd3 cxd3
Now his passed a-P poses a threat, but I had calculated it could be stopped. Still my position is precarious.48.Kh4 Kf7
I'm hoping I can get my K to the Q-side and trade off his c-P because then the B is on the wrong color square to force the queening of the a-Pawn.
49.Bf4 Ke6 49...Kf6 50.a4 Ke6 51.Kg5+- Kd5 52.Kxf5 Kc4 is the same position as after 52.a4 in the game except it is White's move, so Black has lost a tempo compared to the actual game. His position has to be worse.
50.Kg5 Kd5
I was thinking about playing 50...g6 hoping he'd waste time capturing the g6P which also moves his K a little further from the action but thought it best to keep it. As it turned out this Pawn saved the game.
51.Kxf5 Kc4 52.a4 Kc5 53.Be3+ Kc4 54.Ke4?
I think after 54.Ke6 White has a promising position 54...g6 (If 54...d5 55.a5 Kb5 56.Kxd5 Kxa5 57.Ke4 loses for Black) 55.Bd2+- Kc5 56.a5 Kb5 57.c4+ Ka6 58.Kd5 g5 59.Bxg5 Kxa5 60.Be3 Kb4 61.Bd2+ Kb3 62.Kd4 Kc2 63.Ke3 Kb3 (63...c6 64.Ba5 d5 65.c5 Black is lost) 64.Kxd3 Ka4 winning.
54...d5+ 55.Ke5 c5
But not 55...Kxc3?? because of 56.a5 Kc2 57.a6
56.Bd2 d4 57.cxd4 cxd4 58.Kd6 g5!
59.Bxg5 Kb4 ½–½
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Editorial on USCF & CC
My copy of Chess Life arrived today. As usual it got a quick read and then thrown in the trash. Truth is I’m not all that interested in professional chess or trying to improve these days. I just want to play a little correspondence chess for my own amusement.
I was, however, looking at USCF membership dues. Depending on one’s age they range from $16 for Scholastic (under 13 years old) to $49 a year for adults. Life memberships are no longer available. The only reason I’m a USCF member is because I purchased a life membership way back when it cost $100…a princely sum in those days. Since I haven’t played in an OTB event in nigh on to 30 years, I wouldn’t even bother subscribing if it weren’t for being a life member. All the news, games and instruction in the magazine is available quicker and free on the Internet.
But my interest lies in CC, so what do they offer in that area? Not much. They offer post card games; yes, people still play using post cards. And they offer e-mail play. That’s e-mail, not server play although they keep promising to add it someday. You can download some pretty good freeware programs to play e-mail chess that keeps track of all the tournaments, time used etc, so that’s not a problem, but no server play? EF’s for these events range from $7 to $25.
You can play CC at the Correspondence Chess League of America for a fraction of the cost. They only recently began server play through an agreement with the ICCF. I played at the CCLA for years, but you couldn’t enter events online and pay with Paypal; you had to mail them a check. When I complained to the CCLA Secretary, I got a nasty reply back that it costs money to accept Paypal and unlike other free server sites, I also got a rating that means something. I notice that soon after they started accepting Paypal anyway.
I not sure what the difference is between having an “official” US/ICCF rating of 2060 and a server rating on Queen Alice and Chessworld of ~2300 is. My opponents are playing at about the same level and breakfast at McDonald’s still cost me almost $4 this morning. And…QA is free.
Back to the USCF. I know setting up a server to play CC on costs money and people like Susan Polgar, et al, have cost the USCF a ton of money in frivolous lawsuits. It’s always about money at the USCF. But my point is that if people like “kingscrusher” at Chessworld offers an excellent server site for reasonable membership dues and guys like Ste Robinson at Plastic Bishop and “Miguel” at Queen Alice can offer really well constructed CC server sites for free, what’s wrong with the USCF?
I was, however, looking at USCF membership dues. Depending on one’s age they range from $16 for Scholastic (under 13 years old) to $49 a year for adults. Life memberships are no longer available. The only reason I’m a USCF member is because I purchased a life membership way back when it cost $100…a princely sum in those days. Since I haven’t played in an OTB event in nigh on to 30 years, I wouldn’t even bother subscribing if it weren’t for being a life member. All the news, games and instruction in the magazine is available quicker and free on the Internet.
But my interest lies in CC, so what do they offer in that area? Not much. They offer post card games; yes, people still play using post cards. And they offer e-mail play. That’s e-mail, not server play although they keep promising to add it someday. You can download some pretty good freeware programs to play e-mail chess that keeps track of all the tournaments, time used etc, so that’s not a problem, but no server play? EF’s for these events range from $7 to $25.
You can play CC at the Correspondence Chess League of America for a fraction of the cost. They only recently began server play through an agreement with the ICCF. I played at the CCLA for years, but you couldn’t enter events online and pay with Paypal; you had to mail them a check. When I complained to the CCLA Secretary, I got a nasty reply back that it costs money to accept Paypal and unlike other free server sites, I also got a rating that means something. I notice that soon after they started accepting Paypal anyway.
I not sure what the difference is between having an “official” US/ICCF rating of 2060 and a server rating on Queen Alice and Chessworld of ~2300 is. My opponents are playing at about the same level and breakfast at McDonald’s still cost me almost $4 this morning. And…QA is free.
Back to the USCF. I know setting up a server to play CC on costs money and people like Susan Polgar, et al, have cost the USCF a ton of money in frivolous lawsuits. It’s always about money at the USCF. But my point is that if people like “kingscrusher” at Chessworld offers an excellent server site for reasonable membership dues and guys like Ste Robinson at Plastic Bishop and “Miguel” at Queen Alice can offer really well constructed CC server sites for free, what’s wrong with the USCF?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Opening Advice from Khalifman
“When playing the main lines you are standing on the soldiers of giants, repeating moves and ideas that were found by better players than you are, and that automatically elevates you to the next level. Main lines go deeper into the middlegame than side-variations, thus the final positions are easier to handle. When this happens, your higher-ranked opponent often faces an unpleasant choice between following a theoretical line to the end, where the final position would leave him with no chances to win, and stepping aside (could be dangerous) by making an inferior move in order to avoid simplifications." - GM A. Khalifman
So, he agrees with GM Alex Yermolinsky.
So, he agrees with GM Alex Yermolinsky.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Chess Position Trainer
I recently ran across a free program that may be of use. It’s called Chess Position Trainer. It was developed by a player to manage his opening repertoire. CPT allows you to organize all of your chess material and has many features to make studying openings more efficient. Nice interface and looks professionally done. Worth checking out!
Alexander Ilyin-Genevsky
Speaking of Alexander Ilyin-Genevsky. In 1925 the first international tournament was held in Moscow and one game of particular interest was then world champion Capablanca's game against Ilyin-Genevsky. This was the position after White's 31st move:
Black seems to be in a bad way: the Q has to retreat and White will inevitably threaten mate with Rh3. But Ilyin-Genevsky discovered an unexpected way to repulse his opponent's threat and gain decisive superiority.
31... exf4 32. Rxe3 fxe3 33. Qe1 Rb2 34. Qxe3 Rdd2 35. Bf3 c4 36. a3 Bd6 37. Qxa7 c3 and Capablanca resigned here. The finish might have been 38.Qe3 Be5 39. Rc1 Bd4 40. Qf4 e5 41. Qh4 Be3 42. Re1 Rh2+
Black seems to be in a bad way: the Q has to retreat and White will inevitably threaten mate with Rh3. But Ilyin-Genevsky discovered an unexpected way to repulse his opponent's threat and gain decisive superiority.
31... exf4 32. Rxe3 fxe3 33. Qe1 Rb2 34. Qxe3 Rdd2 35. Bf3 c4 36. a3 Bd6 37. Qxa7 c3 and Capablanca resigned here. The finish might have been 38.Qe3 Be5 39. Rc1 Bd4 40. Qf4 e5 41. Qh4 Be3 42. Re1 Rh2+
Friday, June 4, 2010
Bobby Fischer’s first US Championship win.
Soviet Master Alexander Ilyin-Genevsky was not among Russia’s very best (although he was skilled enough to be the three-time champion of Leningrad and to defeat Capablanca once in 1925), but he had the curious distinction of having to learn the game twice from scratch. A brain injury in World War I erased his memory of how the pieces moved.
This game was Fischer’s first win in a US Championship. Curiously his opponent, US Senior Master Arthur Feuerstein, was in a near-fatal car accident in 1972 that left him in a coma for 6 weeks. When he recovered, he didn’t know how to speak English that well or who his family was. Two things he had not forgotten were who his wife was and how to play chess. Unfortunately, after the accident he was never again able to play it well enough to be one of the countries top players. I played two postal games against Feuerstein in the US Open Correspondence Championship after he had recovered and suffered two interesting losses.
In the 1958 US Champ Fischer went undefeated and qualified for the Interzonal. It was also in this event that he played “The Game of the Century” against Donald Byrne. The final standings were:
Bobby Fischer 10.5-2.5
Samuel Reshevsky 9.5-3.5
James T. Sherwin 9-4
William Lombardy 7.5-5.5
Hans Berliner 7-6
Arnold Denker 6.5-6.5
Arthur Feuerstien 6.5-6.5
Edmar Mednis 6.5-6.5
Herbert Seidman 6-7
Dr. Sidney Bernstein 5-8
Arthur Bisguier 5-8
Atillio DiCamillo 4.5-8.5
Abe Turner 4.5-8.5
George Kramer 3-10
For some reason this game, in which Fischer shows how to conduct a K-Indian Attack against the French setup by Black, was played 10 days before the start of the tournament.
This game was Fischer’s first win in a US Championship. Curiously his opponent, US Senior Master Arthur Feuerstein, was in a near-fatal car accident in 1972 that left him in a coma for 6 weeks. When he recovered, he didn’t know how to speak English that well or who his family was. Two things he had not forgotten were who his wife was and how to play chess. Unfortunately, after the accident he was never again able to play it well enough to be one of the countries top players. I played two postal games against Feuerstein in the US Open Correspondence Championship after he had recovered and suffered two interesting losses.
In the 1958 US Champ Fischer went undefeated and qualified for the Interzonal. It was also in this event that he played “The Game of the Century” against Donald Byrne. The final standings were:
Bobby Fischer 10.5-2.5
Samuel Reshevsky 9.5-3.5
James T. Sherwin 9-4
William Lombardy 7.5-5.5
Hans Berliner 7-6
Arnold Denker 6.5-6.5
Arthur Feuerstien 6.5-6.5
Edmar Mednis 6.5-6.5
Herbert Seidman 6-7
Dr. Sidney Bernstein 5-8
Arthur Bisguier 5-8
Atillio DiCamillo 4.5-8.5
Abe Turner 4.5-8.5
George Kramer 3-10
For some reason this game, in which Fischer shows how to conduct a K-Indian Attack against the French setup by Black, was played 10 days before the start of the tournament.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Rabbits and Retards at Chess Hotel
I put Chess Hotel on this Blog because it’s quick and easy to sign on and play there. I’ve never been real good at Blitz Chess…when Howard Staunton once said of a rival, “He couldn’t beat an old woman.” He must have had me in mind. As a correspondence player I need three days to think about a move, not 3 seconds.
Still I’ve played 5 or 6 games at Chess Hotel…bunny bashing actually; most players aren’t very strong, but that’s OK because I realize everybody who reads this Blog is not an expert player and may not take the game seriously. That’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with playing chess just for fun even if you’re not very good at it and Chess Hotel meets that need. So if you want a quick game with no hassel CH is fine. Of course if you take your chess really seriously, there are better sites.
That takes care of the ‘rabbits.’ So what’s with the retarded people? They’re the guys who did like my opponent did in this game. When he dropped the piece at the end of the game, he just let his remaining 6 minutes run out while I sat there. Not that I mind all that much but I just don’t see the point of not resigning when you have a lost game. But that’s me and I belong to another generation of players.
Anyway. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I wasn’t very well booked up on the 2N’s Defense. This time I was ready for it but my opponent avoided it and played the Giuoco Piano. This guy was rated about 1550, so he was my strongest opponent on CH to date.
Still I’ve played 5 or 6 games at Chess Hotel…bunny bashing actually; most players aren’t very strong, but that’s OK because I realize everybody who reads this Blog is not an expert player and may not take the game seriously. That’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with playing chess just for fun even if you’re not very good at it and Chess Hotel meets that need. So if you want a quick game with no hassel CH is fine. Of course if you take your chess really seriously, there are better sites.
That takes care of the ‘rabbits.’ So what’s with the retarded people? They’re the guys who did like my opponent did in this game. When he dropped the piece at the end of the game, he just let his remaining 6 minutes run out while I sat there. Not that I mind all that much but I just don’t see the point of not resigning when you have a lost game. But that’s me and I belong to another generation of players.
Anyway. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I wasn’t very well booked up on the 2N’s Defense. This time I was ready for it but my opponent avoided it and played the Giuoco Piano. This guy was rated about 1550, so he was my strongest opponent on CH to date.
Bishop Ending on Queen Alice
I just finished a game in a tournament at Queen Alice where I had two very difficult B endings against a player named ‘donidon’ from South Africa. In this game the opening was my favorite Torre Attack but after a few moves it strongly resembled a Colle and I never got much play. My QB has been buried for the last dozen moves. The position in the diagram is about equal but it’s clear I can’t hold the b-Pawn. Once it goes, Black is up a P but I figured there wasn’t anything he could do with it. He came close though and a little later I got a tad worried.
39…Nc6
Black likewise repositions his N
40.Ne3+ Ke4 41.Nc2
I thought about playing 41.Bg1 and f3 to bring the B into play, but first decided to see where he’s going with the B.
41...Bc5 42.Ke2 Nd4+ 43.Nxd4 Kxd4
I was sure he was going to play to get a passed P with 43...exd4 44.f3+ Kd5
44.f3
Time to get the B into the game.
44…Kc3 45.b4 Kxb4 46.Kd3 Bd4 47.Ke4 Kc4 48.Kf5
I’m going to win the P back and hereabouts I was even thinking maybe I could win!
48...Kd3 49.Kxf6 e4+
Big think here. I didn’t realize he was going to get a passed P. Of course I can always sac my B for it but I had to spend some time making sure he couldn’t block the queening square with his B.
50.Kxg5 e3 51.Bg3 e2 52.f4 Be3 53.Kg4 Ke4 54.f5 Bd4 55.Kg5 Bc3 56.f6
Here, for a minute, I thought I was winning, but his next move forcing me to give up my B holds the draw.
56...e1Q 57.Bxe1 Bxe1 58.Kg6
And I offered the draw because I finally realized his K was close enough to the action that combined with the B, I couldn’t force a P home. For example: 58.Kg6 Bb4 59.g4 Kf4 60.g5 Bf8 61.Kh5 Kf5
Position after Black’s 38th move
39.Nc4
This is a good example of planning! The plan is simply to reposition the N to a better square on e3 where it will put pressure on f4. As I've posted before, plans are often nothing more than 2-3 move long maneuvers designed to place a piece on a more active square.39…Nc6
Black likewise repositions his N
40.Ne3+ Ke4 41.Nc2
I thought about playing 41.Bg1 and f3 to bring the B into play, but first decided to see where he’s going with the B.
41...Bc5 42.Ke2 Nd4+ 43.Nxd4 Kxd4
I was sure he was going to play to get a passed P with 43...exd4 44.f3+ Kd5
44.f3
Time to get the B into the game.
44…Kc3 45.b4 Kxb4 46.Kd3 Bd4 47.Ke4 Kc4 48.Kf5
I’m going to win the P back and hereabouts I was even thinking maybe I could win!
Big think here. I didn’t realize he was going to get a passed P. Of course I can always sac my B for it but I had to spend some time making sure he couldn’t block the queening square with his B.
50.Kxg5 e3 51.Bg3 e2 52.f4 Be3 53.Kg4 Ke4 54.f5 Bd4 55.Kg5 Bc3 56.f6
56...e1Q 57.Bxe1 Bxe1 58.Kg6
And I offered the draw because I finally realized his K was close enough to the action that combined with the B, I couldn’t force a P home. For example: 58.Kg6 Bb4 59.g4 Kf4 60.g5 Bf8 61.Kh5 Kf5
Interview: Anatoly Karpov On The Politics Of Chess
Chess grandmaster and former world champion Anatoly Karpov, who has waged a highly public campaign in defense of his nomination as Russia's candidate for the presidency of the World Chess Federation, , spoke to RFE/RL Russian Service correspondent Yelena Vlasenko about his plans as he moves ahead with his campaign. Read the interview here.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Interesting Position at from Chess Hotel Game
I just played a 10 minute game with Black on Chess Hotel where I played the Two Knights Defense and my opponent, probably the strongest I’ve played to date, adapted the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler Attack. Not being too familiar with this opening I played a sideline (I didn’t know any better) where my King ended up on the e6 square; it was very scary!
White didn’t make any serious errors but lost a tempo (too valuable to waste when you’ve sac’d material) when he needlessly retreated his B from c4 to b3. Another small wasted move was a3 driving my N back even though it’s not posted in a great position on a6.
We arrived at the following position with White to play:
In this position the Firebird engine says that after 15.d3 Bd4 16.Be3 Rh8 17.Qe4 Nc5 18.Qf3+ Qf6 arriving at the following rather messy position:
Black has a one P advantage, but I’m glad I didn’t have to try and prove it because I certainly wouldn’t have been up to the task! It gives the remaining moves as 19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Qg3 Bxe3 21.Qxe3 Nd7 22.Ne4 Qh6 23.Qg3 Kg8 24.h3 Rf8 25.Qg4 Bxe4 26.Rxe4
Even though White's attack wasn't successful this time, I think I need to be a little better booked up just in case I run into this line again!
White didn’t make any serious errors but lost a tempo (too valuable to waste when you’ve sac’d material) when he needlessly retreated his B from c4 to b3. Another small wasted move was a3 driving my N back even though it’s not posted in a great position on a6.
We arrived at the following position with White to play:
White played 13.Qg4+ and after 13...Kf7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Qxe515...Bxf2+ 16.Kh1 Bxe1 17.Bxd5+ I had the surprising 17...Qxd5! picking up a piece because the Q is immune owing to the mate threat on f1. White soon lost.
Even though Black stands better in the diagram White had a couple of interesting moves:
The sacrifice 13.Rxe5+ is unsound and Black can wriggle out of difficulties with 13...Kxe5 14.d4+ Bxd4 15.Qe4+ Kf6 16.Nxd5+ cxd5 17.Qxd4+ Kg6 with a pretty safe position but there’s still chance for a lot to go wrong for Black.
Another possibility was 13.Qh3+ Kf7 14.Qxh7 Be6 arriving at the following position:
Even though White's attack wasn't successful this time, I think I need to be a little better booked up just in case I run into this line again!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Franklin K. Young
Franklin K. Young occupies a unique niche in the chess world because of his serious effort to reduce chess to a mathematically exact system formulated on the principles of military science. He received some recognition around the late 1800’s and early 1900’s from world champion Emanuel Lasker, who referred to one of his books as "replete with logic and common sense," today Young's work is invariable treated with ridicule and scorn. For example:
"Whenever a point of junction is the vertex of a mathematical figure formed by the union of the ligistic symbol of a pawn with an oblique, diagonal, horizontal, or vertical from the logistic symbol of any kindred piece; then the given combination of two kindred pieces wins any given adverse piece"
Or…
“A Grand Strategic Front is formed by the extension of a salient two points along that diagonal upon which the minor strategic front already is established. It may properly be aligned and reinforced by the minor crochet, the major crochet, the crochet aligned, or supplemented by the formations, echelon, enceinte and en potence.”
You can do a Google book search and find copies of his books but don’t bother. They are all incomprehensible as the quotes indicate. Maybe they make sense if you have taken a professional course in military science as apparently White had in this game. He was a Colonel in the US Army and annotated the game for Chess Review magazine. Enjoy...
"Whenever a point of junction is the vertex of a mathematical figure formed by the union of the ligistic symbol of a pawn with an oblique, diagonal, horizontal, or vertical from the logistic symbol of any kindred piece; then the given combination of two kindred pieces wins any given adverse piece"
Or…
“A Grand Strategic Front is formed by the extension of a salient two points along that diagonal upon which the minor strategic front already is established. It may properly be aligned and reinforced by the minor crochet, the major crochet, the crochet aligned, or supplemented by the formations, echelon, enceinte and en potence.”
You can do a Google book search and find copies of his books but don’t bother. They are all incomprehensible as the quotes indicate. Maybe they make sense if you have taken a professional course in military science as apparently White had in this game. He was a Colonel in the US Army and annotated the game for Chess Review magazine. Enjoy...
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Chess and Psychology
The interest of psychologists in chessplayers is twofold. First as a medium through which to study the thought processes, chess has a sufficient complexity and a sufficiently rigorous structure for it to be of use in discovering the precise mental processes through which a master reaches his decision about what move to play. Secondly, the chessmaster himself is an interesting subject for study to investigate what personality attributes (or defects) and what intellectual abilities are necessary to make a strong chess-player.
The first systematic attempt to test chessplayers was by Binet in 1894, when he applied his recent innovation, the intelligence test, to a number of the best players of the day. His conclusion that spatial ability is higher in chess-players than in those of comparable intelligence levels. This result he found to apply particularly to players of blindfold chess.
A more detailed investigation was undertaken at the Moscow" 1925 tournament, when eight of the competitors agreed to undergo several tests of intelligence and personality structure. The results are to be found in Djakov, Petrowski and Rudik, Psychologie des Schachspiels, Berlin/Leipzig 1927. Briefly, their conclusions were that chess-masters possessed a high degree of physical endurance together with a tolerance for frustration; their on tests of memory was no different from that of other groups of comparable intelligence levels.
Subsequent developments led to a deterioration in relations between chess and psychology when the Freudian school of psychoanalysis applied its methods to an interpretation of chess. The best known paper in this field was Reuben Fine's 'Psych-analytic observations on chess and chessmasters', in Psychoanalysis 1956. This was subsequently reprinted as The Psychology of the Chessplayer. This book attempted to generalize the conclusions of Ernest Jones’ 'The Problem of PauI Morphy' which drew heavily on an identification of the chess pieces with the components of the Oedipal drama. The objectives of the game are associated with subconscious fantasies based on the player want to kill his parents and we are all also accused of repressed homosexuality and paranoia. I remember purchasing Fine’s book when it first came out hoping to find some insights on how to play better chess. It was disappointing in that respect but laughable in Fine’s explanations as to why we play chess. While I’m on the subject of Fine, he basically quite chess because he no longer occupied a high place in the pecking order after World War 2. I’ve read his whining about why he should have been included in 1948 World Chess Championship tournament played to determine a new World Champion following the death of Alekhine. It was pathetic. Fine founded the Creative Living Center in New York City where he counseled people on marriage. Fine himself was married and divorced many times, so I’m skeptical that any advice he had to offer would have been of much value.
Fortunately these theories were never generally accepted either in psychoanalytic or chessplaying circles.
From the chessplayer’s point of view perhaps the most interesting work on the thought process of GM’s was done by Prof. Aadrian de Groot, a strong chessplayer from the University of Amsterdam. His work was based on experimental sessions conducted between 1938 and 1943 with subjects of various strengths ranging from amateurs to World Champions.
The principle test involved presenting the subject with an unfamiliar position taken from an actual game and asking him to provide a verbal report of his thought process. One interesting result was the measurement of a player’s ability to remember a position presented to him for a brief time (10-15 seconds). De Groot found this ability correlated very highly with playing strength. GM’s got nearly a 100% score while club players would only remember the position of half or less of the pieces. However, if the pieces were randomly placed with no resemblance to an actual game, the results bore no correlation to playing strength. This supports the theory that chess ability is allied to pattern recognition.
When reading this work I noticed GM’s tended to examine fewer moves and usually did not analyze as deeply as lower rated players. No doubt this is because they were able to zero in on what’s important and what isn’t by intuition or pattern recognition. I also noticed that in many cases in the analysis of many players that in the first couple of moves they looked at they did look at one of the moves the GM’s considered. The GM’s may have quickly dismissed the move, but they did consider it. This gave me the idea that maybe I was better than I thought, so when I looked at a position in my own games, the first three moves or so that popped into my head were the ones that got attention. OK, so maybe they weren’t moves a GM would play, but I figured they were likely moves he would at least consider however briefly. After all, I’ll play a GM’s rejected move over my own any time! The question is, “Did it work?” The answer is, “Yes.” Coupled along with some other training I did, I played in a large tournament in Chicago sometime back in the late 60’s or early 70’s and as a mid-1600 rated player, scored four straight wins against 1800-2000 rated players before losing in the last round to a 2400 rated master.
Here are links to some interesting articles, including the complete version of de Groot’s book.
deGroot’s Thought and Choice in Chess is available from Google books.
Time essay: Why They Play – The Psychology of Chess
A brief survey of psychological studies of chess
Psychology Today article: Chess: Not All About Logic?
The first systematic attempt to test chessplayers was by Binet in 1894, when he applied his recent innovation, the intelligence test, to a number of the best players of the day. His conclusion that spatial ability is higher in chess-players than in those of comparable intelligence levels. This result he found to apply particularly to players of blindfold chess.
A more detailed investigation was undertaken at the Moscow" 1925 tournament, when eight of the competitors agreed to undergo several tests of intelligence and personality structure. The results are to be found in Djakov, Petrowski and Rudik, Psychologie des Schachspiels, Berlin/Leipzig 1927. Briefly, their conclusions were that chess-masters possessed a high degree of physical endurance together with a tolerance for frustration; their on tests of memory was no different from that of other groups of comparable intelligence levels.
Subsequent developments led to a deterioration in relations between chess and psychology when the Freudian school of psychoanalysis applied its methods to an interpretation of chess. The best known paper in this field was Reuben Fine's 'Psych-analytic observations on chess and chessmasters', in Psychoanalysis 1956. This was subsequently reprinted as The Psychology of the Chessplayer. This book attempted to generalize the conclusions of Ernest Jones’ 'The Problem of PauI Morphy' which drew heavily on an identification of the chess pieces with the components of the Oedipal drama. The objectives of the game are associated with subconscious fantasies based on the player want to kill his parents and we are all also accused of repressed homosexuality and paranoia. I remember purchasing Fine’s book when it first came out hoping to find some insights on how to play better chess. It was disappointing in that respect but laughable in Fine’s explanations as to why we play chess. While I’m on the subject of Fine, he basically quite chess because he no longer occupied a high place in the pecking order after World War 2. I’ve read his whining about why he should have been included in 1948 World Chess Championship tournament played to determine a new World Champion following the death of Alekhine. It was pathetic. Fine founded the Creative Living Center in New York City where he counseled people on marriage. Fine himself was married and divorced many times, so I’m skeptical that any advice he had to offer would have been of much value.
Fortunately these theories were never generally accepted either in psychoanalytic or chessplaying circles.
From the chessplayer’s point of view perhaps the most interesting work on the thought process of GM’s was done by Prof. Aadrian de Groot, a strong chessplayer from the University of Amsterdam. His work was based on experimental sessions conducted between 1938 and 1943 with subjects of various strengths ranging from amateurs to World Champions.
The principle test involved presenting the subject with an unfamiliar position taken from an actual game and asking him to provide a verbal report of his thought process. One interesting result was the measurement of a player’s ability to remember a position presented to him for a brief time (10-15 seconds). De Groot found this ability correlated very highly with playing strength. GM’s got nearly a 100% score while club players would only remember the position of half or less of the pieces. However, if the pieces were randomly placed with no resemblance to an actual game, the results bore no correlation to playing strength. This supports the theory that chess ability is allied to pattern recognition.
When reading this work I noticed GM’s tended to examine fewer moves and usually did not analyze as deeply as lower rated players. No doubt this is because they were able to zero in on what’s important and what isn’t by intuition or pattern recognition. I also noticed that in many cases in the analysis of many players that in the first couple of moves they looked at they did look at one of the moves the GM’s considered. The GM’s may have quickly dismissed the move, but they did consider it. This gave me the idea that maybe I was better than I thought, so when I looked at a position in my own games, the first three moves or so that popped into my head were the ones that got attention. OK, so maybe they weren’t moves a GM would play, but I figured they were likely moves he would at least consider however briefly. After all, I’ll play a GM’s rejected move over my own any time! The question is, “Did it work?” The answer is, “Yes.” Coupled along with some other training I did, I played in a large tournament in Chicago sometime back in the late 60’s or early 70’s and as a mid-1600 rated player, scored four straight wins against 1800-2000 rated players before losing in the last round to a 2400 rated master.
Here are links to some interesting articles, including the complete version of de Groot’s book.
deGroot’s Thought and Choice in Chess is available from Google books.
Time essay: Why They Play – The Psychology of Chess
A brief survey of psychological studies of chess
Psychology Today article: Chess: Not All About Logic?
QGD-Lasker’s Defense Revisited
In case anybody missed it I recently posted one of my games using the QGD-Lasker Defense on this Blog.
I said in that post it results in a sound but barren position but that’s exactly why I like it. World Champion Anand apparently agrees with me (maybe he read my post?) because he recently used it to defeat Topalov in their World Championship match.
I ran across an excellent video of this defense by FM Steve Stoyko can be viewed at the Kenilworth Chess Club. Watch Lecture
I said in that post it results in a sound but barren position but that’s exactly why I like it. World Champion Anand apparently agrees with me (maybe he read my post?) because he recently used it to defeat Topalov in their World Championship match.
I ran across an excellent video of this defense by FM Steve Stoyko can be viewed at the Kenilworth Chess Club. Watch Lecture
Friday, May 28, 2010
New Forum
I just ran across a new chess forum site called, imaginatively enough, Chess Forum. Apparently it just started recently. Pay them a visit and when you do, give them some support and write something!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Jeff Sarwer
Who, you ask?
I remember him as an obnoxious little brat who always rubbed people the wrong way. He disappeared off the face of the earth, but resurfaced a while back. I’m sorry I thought so badly of him because I never knew his story. Sleeping in cars, hustling in parks, no school…no wonder he was such a nasty little kid; he was never taught any better. Sometimes you never know people’s story. His story is interesting…and a might sad.
He was born in 1978 in Canada and was a child prodigy. I know, these days every other kid that comes along rates the title, but US Master Allen Kaufmann said , "Jeff at nine is stronger than Bobby was at 11." And none other than Bruce Pandolfini said , "Of the several thousand kids I've taught, Jeff is certainly the most amazing young player I've ever seen."
His Story on Youtube Part 1
His Story on Youtube Part 2
Interview with Jennifer Shahade
He’s playing poker these days...view article
I remember him as an obnoxious little brat who always rubbed people the wrong way. He disappeared off the face of the earth, but resurfaced a while back. I’m sorry I thought so badly of him because I never knew his story. Sleeping in cars, hustling in parks, no school…no wonder he was such a nasty little kid; he was never taught any better. Sometimes you never know people’s story. His story is interesting…and a might sad.
He was born in 1978 in Canada and was a child prodigy. I know, these days every other kid that comes along rates the title, but US Master Allen Kaufmann said , "Jeff at nine is stronger than Bobby was at 11." And none other than Bruce Pandolfini said , "Of the several thousand kids I've taught, Jeff is certainly the most amazing young player I've ever seen."
His Story on Youtube Part 1
His Story on Youtube Part 2
Interview with Jennifer Shahade
He’s playing poker these days...view article
Thoughts on Development and Planning
I was reading a couple of forum posts about openings again. Several people were discussing that most favorite of all topics: openings. The question was about the possibility of playing a particular “system” or series of moves that would be good against everything your opponent can throw at you.
Things like the Torre Attack (my personal favorite), the Colle and the King’s Indian Attack are all perfectly good and acceptable openings and you can play them against everything. What most players fail to understand is that even in those systems, you still have to know some opening theory. To play them correctly you have to know how to proceed depending on the defensive setup your opponent has used. For example if you play the KIA, you have to know the proper strategy against the French, Sicilian, K-Indian, Gruenfeld, QGD, etc. type Black formations. If you don’t you’re just bad off as if you know no opening theory at all because you are going to play it all wrong.
Anyway, it’s that transition from opening to middlegame that’s often most difficult to play because it’s at that point that you are on your own and have to start making plans and coming up with your own moves. Everybody knows that in the opening your general goal is to complete your development, but after that it gets tricky because the correct path will depend on the position.
One thing I’ve noticed is that players often think they’ve completed their development when they have, in fact, not. For example, what about the R still sitting on f1 after castling? It’s not doing anything there, and you can't open the f-file and there seems to be no other good file to put it on.
The correct reasoning is that even though the R can’t do anything at the moment, it should be placed on the file that is most likely to become open. For example, in the Queen's Gambit Declined you know that Black is bound to play ... c5 sooner or later, so that he can look forward to the d-file becoming open. Therefore White usually plays his KR to d1 and the QR to c1 because the c-file is likely to be opened after …d5.
Generally speaking, if you get your R’s ready by occupying future open files, you’ll be doing well. Taking time for this precaution is much better than launching a premature attack in the belief that you have completed your development. OK, I know you’ll see masters break this rule but it is best not to break it yourself without a good reason.
Sometimes it does happen that the opening allows for no good place for the R’s. A good example is in the Giuoco Piano. With the N’s on c3 and …c6 and f3 and …f6 both sides are blocked from playing either d4 and …d5 or f4 and …f5. One player has to undertake opening up a file up for himself, but usually in the process that means opening up the same file for his opponent. That is why in an opening like the Giuoco Piano the first move ceases to be an advantage. So my point is that before thinking your development is complete, make sure the R’s are on an open file or a potential opening file and, preferably, connected. You’ll rarely go wrong.
Now, suppose you have developed your R’s. This is where the middlegame really starts and you have to discover a good strategical plan. Right? Wrong!!
The first thing is to look around for any possibilities of a combination or a forcing line of play and if there are any, look to see if any of them are sound. A tactical possibility may appear at any time and even though a position (yours or your opponent’s) may look strategically good, the first thing you must do is make sure that his last move (or your contemplated move!) does not have some hidden flaw.
To this end of spotting a combination, many players simply start looking at moves and mentally trying them out to see if anything works. This isn’t a very good procedure. A better idea is to look for motifs.
If you spot any of the following things, your tactical antenna should be alerted.
1. Exposed king
2. Castled King without any pieces protecting it
3. Any undefended pieces
4. Any pieces that are sitting in a position that would allow them to be forked.
5. Masked pieces. For example the possibility of a discovered check or a Q sitting opposite a R.
6. An enemy piece without a retreat, or with only one retreat which can be cut off.
7. Q or R on same rank, file, or diagonal.
8. Pinned pieces
9. A pieces protecting another piece.
Any of these things will be a tip off that the possibility of a combination exists. Therefore these things are more important than positional weakness such as a backward Pawn. Of course if you’re opponent is a half way decent player these motifs will be the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately the lower the rating of the players, the greater the likelihood they will overlook or ignore such indicators.
For many player if the motifs are missing it doesn’t matter a whole lot because they’ll just sacrifice something so they can exercise their “tactical style.” These players are the one who have read “chess is 99% tactics” so think that strategy and planning are only important if you’re rated over 2200. They don’t know anything about planning and how to examine the weaknesses and strengths of each side.
Some positional weaknesses are:
1. weak squares
2. weak P’s
3. P’s moved in front of castled K
4. confined pieces;
5. generally cramped game
Some positional strengths are:
1. well-posted piece
2. more space
3. greater mobility
4. control of center
In the absence of any tactical possibilities strategical planning becomes a necessity. Your plan may have any or some or all of the following objectives:
1. Taking advantage of enemy weakness
2. Establishing your own strength.
3. Removing your own weakness
4. Removing enemy strengths
Some plans, in fact most, aren’t more than 2-3 moves. For example in a closed position trading your “bad” B for an opponents well placed N. Or maybe maneuvering a N to a strong outpost. If you follow these simple guidelines and avoid making any serious tactical errors, I think you can defeat most players and can probably get to at least 1800, or possibly 2000 without much difficulty. I urge you to go back and read my post of CC Chess the Duliba Way and read the part on anti-engine strategy strong correspondence players use. “You’re not interested in positions where a single tactical slip could be fatal. Try to keep the game level and equal exchanges. Rarely should you castle on opposite sides.” Look to keep the game simple and avoid tactical slips yourself while waiting for you opponent to make one…then pounce.
This strategy will work well until you start playing masters. My experience usually has been that tactical mistakes are rare in my play. I am far more likely to squeezed to death and outplayed in the ending by stronger players, but then they understand chess better than I do so are able to take advantage of the positional strengths and weaknesses. I remember as a mid-1600 playing losing a rather long ending to a master. After the game he asked me what my rating was and when I told him he said, “You’re (expletive deleted) me! I thought you were at least 2000.” See, my method works.
Things like the Torre Attack (my personal favorite), the Colle and the King’s Indian Attack are all perfectly good and acceptable openings and you can play them against everything. What most players fail to understand is that even in those systems, you still have to know some opening theory. To play them correctly you have to know how to proceed depending on the defensive setup your opponent has used. For example if you play the KIA, you have to know the proper strategy against the French, Sicilian, K-Indian, Gruenfeld, QGD, etc. type Black formations. If you don’t you’re just bad off as if you know no opening theory at all because you are going to play it all wrong.
Anyway, it’s that transition from opening to middlegame that’s often most difficult to play because it’s at that point that you are on your own and have to start making plans and coming up with your own moves. Everybody knows that in the opening your general goal is to complete your development, but after that it gets tricky because the correct path will depend on the position.
One thing I’ve noticed is that players often think they’ve completed their development when they have, in fact, not. For example, what about the R still sitting on f1 after castling? It’s not doing anything there, and you can't open the f-file and there seems to be no other good file to put it on.
The correct reasoning is that even though the R can’t do anything at the moment, it should be placed on the file that is most likely to become open. For example, in the Queen's Gambit Declined you know that Black is bound to play ... c5 sooner or later, so that he can look forward to the d-file becoming open. Therefore White usually plays his KR to d1 and the QR to c1 because the c-file is likely to be opened after …d5.
Generally speaking, if you get your R’s ready by occupying future open files, you’ll be doing well. Taking time for this precaution is much better than launching a premature attack in the belief that you have completed your development. OK, I know you’ll see masters break this rule but it is best not to break it yourself without a good reason.
Sometimes it does happen that the opening allows for no good place for the R’s. A good example is in the Giuoco Piano. With the N’s on c3 and …c6 and f3 and …f6 both sides are blocked from playing either d4 and …d5 or f4 and …f5. One player has to undertake opening up a file up for himself, but usually in the process that means opening up the same file for his opponent. That is why in an opening like the Giuoco Piano the first move ceases to be an advantage. So my point is that before thinking your development is complete, make sure the R’s are on an open file or a potential opening file and, preferably, connected. You’ll rarely go wrong.
Now, suppose you have developed your R’s. This is where the middlegame really starts and you have to discover a good strategical plan. Right? Wrong!!
The first thing is to look around for any possibilities of a combination or a forcing line of play and if there are any, look to see if any of them are sound. A tactical possibility may appear at any time and even though a position (yours or your opponent’s) may look strategically good, the first thing you must do is make sure that his last move (or your contemplated move!) does not have some hidden flaw.
To this end of spotting a combination, many players simply start looking at moves and mentally trying them out to see if anything works. This isn’t a very good procedure. A better idea is to look for motifs.
If you spot any of the following things, your tactical antenna should be alerted.
1. Exposed king
2. Castled King without any pieces protecting it
3. Any undefended pieces
4. Any pieces that are sitting in a position that would allow them to be forked.
5. Masked pieces. For example the possibility of a discovered check or a Q sitting opposite a R.
6. An enemy piece without a retreat, or with only one retreat which can be cut off.
7. Q or R on same rank, file, or diagonal.
8. Pinned pieces
9. A pieces protecting another piece.
Any of these things will be a tip off that the possibility of a combination exists. Therefore these things are more important than positional weakness such as a backward Pawn. Of course if you’re opponent is a half way decent player these motifs will be the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately the lower the rating of the players, the greater the likelihood they will overlook or ignore such indicators.
For many player if the motifs are missing it doesn’t matter a whole lot because they’ll just sacrifice something so they can exercise their “tactical style.” These players are the one who have read “chess is 99% tactics” so think that strategy and planning are only important if you’re rated over 2200. They don’t know anything about planning and how to examine the weaknesses and strengths of each side.
Some positional weaknesses are:
1. weak squares
2. weak P’s
3. P’s moved in front of castled K
4. confined pieces;
5. generally cramped game
Some positional strengths are:
1. well-posted piece
2. more space
3. greater mobility
4. control of center
In the absence of any tactical possibilities strategical planning becomes a necessity. Your plan may have any or some or all of the following objectives:
1. Taking advantage of enemy weakness
2. Establishing your own strength.
3. Removing your own weakness
4. Removing enemy strengths
Some plans, in fact most, aren’t more than 2-3 moves. For example in a closed position trading your “bad” B for an opponents well placed N. Or maybe maneuvering a N to a strong outpost. If you follow these simple guidelines and avoid making any serious tactical errors, I think you can defeat most players and can probably get to at least 1800, or possibly 2000 without much difficulty. I urge you to go back and read my post of CC Chess the Duliba Way and read the part on anti-engine strategy strong correspondence players use. “You’re not interested in positions where a single tactical slip could be fatal. Try to keep the game level and equal exchanges. Rarely should you castle on opposite sides.” Look to keep the game simple and avoid tactical slips yourself while waiting for you opponent to make one…then pounce.
This strategy will work well until you start playing masters. My experience usually has been that tactical mistakes are rare in my play. I am far more likely to squeezed to death and outplayed in the ending by stronger players, but then they understand chess better than I do so are able to take advantage of the positional strengths and weaknesses. I remember as a mid-1600 playing losing a rather long ending to a master. After the game he asked me what my rating was and when I told him he said, “You’re (expletive deleted) me! I thought you were at least 2000.” See, my method works.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
This is advice?!
On one forum some beginner asked a question to the effect of how good could you get at chess without studying openings. The advice he got was: 1) to study his own games. 2) learn a few opening basics.
First, how’s the poor guy to study his own games when he knows absolutely nothing about strategy, tactics, endings or openings? He won’t have the slightest idea of what he’s looking for. Second, so what if he plays the first few openings moves correctly? If he doesn’t understand anything about the requirements of the position, he’s still going to play like a beginner after running through the moves. I’ve played book openings 25 moves deep against some really strong players, achieved good positions, and then lost. One time I caught a 2500 rated IM in an opening trap and won a N on move 12. I lost the game. Why do things like that happen? They were all better players than me.
I read a couple opening books and a middlegame book or two and studied some endings but the thing that helped me most was just playing over master games. Hundreds or maybe thousands of them. I had books of games by Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Alekhine and an old Horowitz book with several hundred games in it. I always liked tournament books, too. The ones with all the games in them and maybe only a sprinkling of notes. The kind they don't publish any more.
I learned by osmosis maybe? There was always a vague recollection of having seen a particular opening and even more vague were the recollections of how the game went. Playing over those games was enjoyable and it must have worked because two years after learning the moves I played in my first tournament, drew with an 1800 in round one and got a 1667 rating and it never went any lower. I can remember in my early postal games pouring over books looking for similar positions just to see if I could ferret out an idea that would work in my own games.
It pains me to see guys giving and following the same old advice. Advice that really isn’t helping them improve either, but they keep trying.
First, how’s the poor guy to study his own games when he knows absolutely nothing about strategy, tactics, endings or openings? He won’t have the slightest idea of what he’s looking for. Second, so what if he plays the first few openings moves correctly? If he doesn’t understand anything about the requirements of the position, he’s still going to play like a beginner after running through the moves. I’ve played book openings 25 moves deep against some really strong players, achieved good positions, and then lost. One time I caught a 2500 rated IM in an opening trap and won a N on move 12. I lost the game. Why do things like that happen? They were all better players than me.
I read a couple opening books and a middlegame book or two and studied some endings but the thing that helped me most was just playing over master games. Hundreds or maybe thousands of them. I had books of games by Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Alekhine and an old Horowitz book with several hundred games in it. I always liked tournament books, too. The ones with all the games in them and maybe only a sprinkling of notes. The kind they don't publish any more.
I learned by osmosis maybe? There was always a vague recollection of having seen a particular opening and even more vague were the recollections of how the game went. Playing over those games was enjoyable and it must have worked because two years after learning the moves I played in my first tournament, drew with an 1800 in round one and got a 1667 rating and it never went any lower. I can remember in my early postal games pouring over books looking for similar positions just to see if I could ferret out an idea that would work in my own games.
It pains me to see guys giving and following the same old advice. Advice that really isn’t helping them improve either, but they keep trying.
C.J.S. Purdy
Cecil J.S. Purdy (27 March 1906 - 6 November 1979)
International Master and winner of four Australian Championships. Purdy was effective at winning important games and the important events, even against better opponents. Above all, he was extremely efficient in his play. He marshaled his talents and applied them in the most effective way and he never was different for the sake of being different, showiness or other forms of wasted effort. His skill was methodical organization of thought, and systematic application of one overall, overriding concept. These were the factors that made him one of the best writer on the game, ever.
His games were based on one idea. Running through all his writings is the theme that a bad positional mistake may sometimes be decisive, but almost always defeats arise from tactical errors, minor or major, so that the key to winning chess is to avoid such mistakes oneself and take advantage of the opponent's mistakes. Except perhaps at the very top levels, that proposition is undoubtedly correct. Purdy's great contribution to chess literature was to emphasize it, to classify the types of situations, and to provide a scheme which could be used by players of all strengths to at least minimize such tactical errors.
In non-tactical situations Purdy advocated finding the best piece-improvement move, but in games against top-flight players that method of play is found wanting. At lower levels it works very well.
Over the board, his concentration was renowned. Immersed under his famous eyeshade (to avoid distraction), it was rare to see him move. Chess was a struggle, and no matter who the opponent, how the game was going, what the event was, or whether he was in the running, all games were given full attention. He was the epitome of the fighter. He was the master of finding the best chance, and his games are full of sacrifices to provide counterplay.
Purdy placed great store in preparing the opening, not so much for gaining a theoretical advantage, as his own concepts would show how ephemeral that could be, but rather to run the game into the type of position he wanted and whose basic ideas were known to him. Despite all his preparation his slowness and consequent perennial time trouble were notorious.
His analytical ability was outstanding, as evidenced by his correspondence achievements. Purdy died playing chess over the board from a heart attack, his final words allegedly being, "I have a win, but it will take sometime" However Australian grandmaster Ian Rogers who was at the tournament, said Purdy's last words were, "I have to seal a move", and that Purdy "wasn't even winning in the final position — Cecil wouldn't have mistaken a drawn position for a winning position.
Australian Champion 1935-38, 1949-52
Australian Correspondence Champion 1940, 1948
Australasian Co-Champion 1952
International Master 1953
World Correspondence Champion 1953-58
Champion of New Zealand twice
Purdy never played in an OTB event outside of Australia and New Zealand.
His writings are among the best ever because he had a knack for explaining thing with words so that anyone could understand what was happening in the game. One of his best books is The Search for Chess Perfection. It’s a bio, collection of his games and a series of his magazine articles explaining various facets of the game. You can literally open the book anywhere, read an article and, best of all, actually learn something!
Here is one of his games with his own notes. I advise you to print out the game and play over it.
Radio Match v. France (1946)
C.J. S. Purdy – Dr. S. G. Tartakover
Nimzo-lndian Defense
1. d4 Had I expected to play the famous Tartakover, I should have prepared against Alekhine's Defense, which he has been playying lately, and adopted my usual e4. But I thought he was situated harmlessly in Enngland. 1... Nf6 2. e4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 Steiner had said that Tartakover was certain to spring a surprise in the opening, and when I now pointed out that he had played what is probably the theoretically most correct defense to the QP opening, Steiner answered, "That is his surprise." 4. e3 b6 This was to me the most worrying reply. I had designed to play not at once Rubinstein's Nge2 followed by a3, but first Bd3 and then that, so that if his B retired when hit by a3 my KN and I would not obstruct my B and I should have an easy development. Now it was goodbye to all that. Either I had to play Rubinstein's way, with a complicated game, or else develop in an easy way, but a way which would give Black no difficulties at all. I chose the latter because no one can make an opening difficult for Tartakover-though he sometimes likes to create difficulties for himself. Above all, I wanted to avoid clock trouble. 5. Bd3 Bb7 6. Nf3 Ne4! 7. Bd2 At once eliminating the strong N, as 7…f5 would lose a P. 7. ... Bxc3! 8. Bxc3 Nxc3 Black-of course-has chosen the only way that promised him chances, as Rc7 threatened to give White a very comfortable game. The point is that from now on White can secure his K-side from attack only by exposing the weakness of his doubled P’s. This will be explained later. 9. bxc3 f5 Must, else e4 gives White his ideal formation in this opening. 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Qe2 Qf6! In view of the coming e4, Black wants to avoid weakening his e-Pawn by ... d6, but not to play …Nc6 till he can exchange B’s. White has to dance to this tune, or Black might tie him up with ... Qg6. Or if 12. N-moves ... e5! 12. e4 fxe4 13. Bxe4 Bxe4 14. Qxe4 Ne6
The scene has changed. Black has a vital "pivot square" at/ f5; you must visualize a R ending, and a black R pirouetting on f5, then dancing off to as, battening on White's weak P’s. But by playing e4 White has nipped in the bud a K-side attack and created chances for central counterplay. A reliable critic-or was he a pundit?-said I had a "bad game," but I had some faith in my freer position in the center. 15. Radl! Qf4 16. Rfel Rae8 This came through just before 2 AM, and I had to seal with all the officials waiting patiently in the cold. However, there was too much at stake to hurry, and I had plenty of time on the clock for once. Tartakover wanted the Q’s off, and yet by accommodating him I could make use of my temporarily better R’s and attack him. Was it sound? At any rate, I thought it gave better chances than trying to hold the position intact, because the Q-side was permanently weak. 17. Qxf4 Rxf4 18. d5 Completely wrecked my Q-side, "yet there is method in't." 18. ... Na5 19. dxe6 dxe6 Not the obvious ... Rxe6 because of 20. Rxe6 dxe6 21. Rd7!, for if then 21 ... Rxe4, 22. Ne5! threatens mate and forces the R back to f4, and then 23. Rxe7 with advantage. And if 21 ... Rf7, 22. Rd8+ Rf8 23. Rd7 forces a draw. 20. Ng5!
20…e5 For if 20 ... Rxe4, 21. Rxe6 and Black cannot take because of mate. So 21 ... Rc8 (say) 22. Rd7!! Rxc3 23. h4 (to avoid mate). Now if Black stops White's threatened Re7 with 23 ... Nc6, comes 24. Rxe7!, offering the R. And if 23 ... h6, 24. Ree7! at least draws.
I fear that some students, when they see notes like this, are discouraged by thinking the player worked them all out before taking his plunge (17. Qxf4, in this case). Over the board, that is rarely done. The player relies mainly on his judgment of the attacking possibilities of a position, notes a few important tactical points (such as the mating threats in this example), works out a main line or two, and leaves a little to chance. To rely on sheer calculation, as opposed to judgment, is actually very risky. Even Alekhine admitted that he rarely worked out more than two or three variations. 21. c5! h6 Black admits the success of White's demonstration. For if his R crosses to the Q-side, 22. Rxe5!, offering the R for the old mate. And if 21 ... bxe5?, 22. Rd5 with advanntage. 22. Ne4 Nc6 23. f3 Rff8! The R has outlived his usefulness at f4 (if 23 ... bxe5, not 24. Nxe5 but 24. Rd7! Rf7 25. Rd5 with advantage). But why not 23 ... Rf7, preventing White from taking the seventh rank? Because Black wants to induce the exchange of one pair of R’s otherwise, White can threaten to control the only open file. Crafty! 24. Rd7 Rf7 Now White's best course was 25. Rd5! to double R’s. Black could force an exchange by ... Rd8, but less favorably. 25. Red1 Rxd7 26. Rxd7 Re7 27. Rd1 The N ending is bad for White with two P’s isolated, but with R’s on it should be a draw. 27. Rl7 28. Kf2 Ke6 29. Ke3 Rd7 The student will ask two questions. Why has White not undoubled the P’s? Because that would open a file for Black's R against the isolated a-Pawn it. And why did Black not try ... b5, keeping the its doubled? Because that would give counterplay for White's R. Thus, 29 ... b5!? 30. Rb1 a6 31. a4! bxa4 32. Ra1 Rd7 33. c4! a5 (to answer Rxa4 with ... Rd1) 34. Nc3! followed by Nb5 or Nd5, tying Black up lugubriously. I now exchanged the R’s because the N ending is better now, and I did not like to leave the open file to Black's R. 30. Rxd7 Kxd7 31. cxb6 exb6 Black wants to have a passed it as remote as possible in case he ever wins one of White's Q-side P’s. White's next "think" was his longest in the game. It is bad to play for a double attack on Black's e-Pawn. e.g., 32. Nf2? Ke6 33. Ke4 Na5 34. Nd3 Nc4 followed by ... Nd6+, driving the K back. 32. h4! Drawn
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Server Site Review
Plastic Bishop This website has been designed to allow you to play online chess with no ads and no fuss. Games can be played at your own pace, so if you want to play games that span days or even weeks then that is fine. To start playing simply sign up and start playing right away!
My Site Rating: 1203 (+14 –0 =0)
Wins included this gem:
Me (1203) – Other Guy (1376)
1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 Be6 4.Qb3 dxc4 5.Qxb7 1–0
While I’m sure the site has some pretty good players, I never played one. I think the longest game I had was 22 moves or something like that. Their forums don’t amount to much and are mostly discussions by what I would call ‘casual’ players. This is a good site for beginners because it’s likely you’ll be playing other beginners and won’t get mauled.
Red Hot Pawn Play online correspondence chess through a feature-rich, browser interface against your friends or other members. No downloads are required to play online chess, and it is completely free to sign up and play.
This was the first site I played on when I returned to chess back in 2004 after a long hiatus. I was using it to play a couple friends and all but two out of about 40 games were against them. Even after about 20 straight wins my rating there was only mid-1500's because I think they start you out at 1200. I took a quick look around the site and didn’t see anything listing cost of a subscription, but if memory serves, it was reasonable.
The site has some lively and interesting forums on everything from chess to the forbidden subjects on most sites: religion and politics. Things can get mean and vulgar though. Most subscribers sneer at non-subscribers and refuse to play them. They also have a ‘game moderation team’ that is always on the lookout for engine users. They boot a lot of people off, but how many are really engine users I couldn’t say. All in all, not a bad site though.
Chessworld Play an unlimited number of games - free! Play many games at the same time! Time limits from 1 day to 15 days per move. Meet players from all over the World! Improve your Chess with our Free Videos! Fully Customizable Interface! Wide range of features. No downloads required! Full membership is competitively priced! HelpDesk support at all times for all Members.
If you’re going to pay for a subscription, this is the site. I think subscription rates are about $30 per year. Your first game will be against a welcoming opponent in case you have any questions. What I like about this site is you can estimate your beginning rating and you welcoming opponent will be within that range. That means you won’t have to start at a low rating and slog through a hundred games before you reach your correct level.
They offer lots of training material, have good, well moderated forums…no profanity and no nasty name calling, etc. I was a paying member there for 6 years. The only reason I quit was because I could play decent opponents for free at Queen Alice. Chessworld is centered in England and run by a well known English player and they have ‘meetups’ from time to time at local pubs. What that means is a lot of the players there are known to each other; many have FIDE ratings and Woman'’ GM Yelna Dembo plays there (or did). Highly recommended.
Queen Alice Queen Alice is a friendly community of correspondence chess players of all levels and ages. Playing chess at QueenAlice.com is great way to improve your game and have fun without having to invest a lot of your time.
Nice interface, easy signup and it’s totally free although they do accept freewill donations. Forums are pretty bland compared to most sites and I’ve never seen a real problem on them. Play unlimited games and they offer tournaments of various types and sizes and the maximum number of games you play at one time in any tournament is six. Most tournaments are double round affairs for the top scores.
I think you start out at 1400 but there are open challenges available so in my first few games I played opponents rated 1337, 2122, 1808, 2077 and 1733, so the games were challenging and within a short time I was playing opponents over 2200 on a regular basis including the site's top rated player. Highly recommended.
Chess.com Play live chess online any time from anywhere in any browser! Nothing to download. Just login, find a game, and go! We store your games, preferences, and ratings. Play 1 minute lightning games on up to 2 hours each - up to you! Chess.com's Online Chess (also called correspondence or turn-based chess) allows you play chess with your friends at any time!
I'm not really familiar with this site except occasionally I check out their forums which sometimes are interesting. They offer premium memberships on different levels starting as low as $4.99 per month ($2.49 per month if you pay for a full year). Again, most of the stuff you pay for you can get free elsewhere. I've never played there. One thing: if you are not a member the site is a little slow because of all the annoying pop ups; before visiting, better have them blocked.
My Site Rating: 1203 (+14 –0 =0)
Wins included this gem:
Me (1203) – Other Guy (1376)
1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 Be6 4.Qb3 dxc4 5.Qxb7 1–0
While I’m sure the site has some pretty good players, I never played one. I think the longest game I had was 22 moves or something like that. Their forums don’t amount to much and are mostly discussions by what I would call ‘casual’ players. This is a good site for beginners because it’s likely you’ll be playing other beginners and won’t get mauled.
Red Hot Pawn Play online correspondence chess through a feature-rich, browser interface against your friends or other members. No downloads are required to play online chess, and it is completely free to sign up and play.
This was the first site I played on when I returned to chess back in 2004 after a long hiatus. I was using it to play a couple friends and all but two out of about 40 games were against them. Even after about 20 straight wins my rating there was only mid-1500's because I think they start you out at 1200. I took a quick look around the site and didn’t see anything listing cost of a subscription, but if memory serves, it was reasonable.
The site has some lively and interesting forums on everything from chess to the forbidden subjects on most sites: religion and politics. Things can get mean and vulgar though. Most subscribers sneer at non-subscribers and refuse to play them. They also have a ‘game moderation team’ that is always on the lookout for engine users. They boot a lot of people off, but how many are really engine users I couldn’t say. All in all, not a bad site though.
Chessworld Play an unlimited number of games - free! Play many games at the same time! Time limits from 1 day to 15 days per move. Meet players from all over the World! Improve your Chess with our Free Videos! Fully Customizable Interface! Wide range of features. No downloads required! Full membership is competitively priced! HelpDesk support at all times for all Members.
If you’re going to pay for a subscription, this is the site. I think subscription rates are about $30 per year. Your first game will be against a welcoming opponent in case you have any questions. What I like about this site is you can estimate your beginning rating and you welcoming opponent will be within that range. That means you won’t have to start at a low rating and slog through a hundred games before you reach your correct level.
They offer lots of training material, have good, well moderated forums…no profanity and no nasty name calling, etc. I was a paying member there for 6 years. The only reason I quit was because I could play decent opponents for free at Queen Alice. Chessworld is centered in England and run by a well known English player and they have ‘meetups’ from time to time at local pubs. What that means is a lot of the players there are known to each other; many have FIDE ratings and Woman'’ GM Yelna Dembo plays there (or did). Highly recommended.
Queen Alice Queen Alice is a friendly community of correspondence chess players of all levels and ages. Playing chess at QueenAlice.com is great way to improve your game and have fun without having to invest a lot of your time.
Nice interface, easy signup and it’s totally free although they do accept freewill donations. Forums are pretty bland compared to most sites and I’ve never seen a real problem on them. Play unlimited games and they offer tournaments of various types and sizes and the maximum number of games you play at one time in any tournament is six. Most tournaments are double round affairs for the top scores.
I think you start out at 1400 but there are open challenges available so in my first few games I played opponents rated 1337, 2122, 1808, 2077 and 1733, so the games were challenging and within a short time I was playing opponents over 2200 on a regular basis including the site's top rated player. Highly recommended.
Chess.com Play live chess online any time from anywhere in any browser! Nothing to download. Just login, find a game, and go! We store your games, preferences, and ratings. Play 1 minute lightning games on up to 2 hours each - up to you! Chess.com's Online Chess (also called correspondence or turn-based chess) allows you play chess with your friends at any time!
I'm not really familiar with this site except occasionally I check out their forums which sometimes are interesting. They offer premium memberships on different levels starting as low as $4.99 per month ($2.49 per month if you pay for a full year). Again, most of the stuff you pay for you can get free elsewhere. I've never played there. One thing: if you are not a member the site is a little slow because of all the annoying pop ups; before visiting, better have them blocked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)