Time Magazine article, Monday, Mar. 31, 1952
The double-faced clocks, which inexorably mark the time limits for tournament chess players, ticked off the carefully allotted seconds at Havana's Capablanca Chess Club. It was the final of a 23-day round-robin tournament involving 23 chess masters from eight countries. The frowning concentration of the chess grand masters had barely been ruffled by the Cuban revolution. On the final day of play last week, first place was narrowed down to two Polish-born players: Samuel Reshevsky, 40, five-time U.S. champion, who toured his adopted land as a nine-year-old prodigy, and Argentina's Miguel Najdorf, 42, a mathematics professor who is one of the few men ever to beat Russian World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik. In personality, the two Poles were poles apart.
Truculent. Blunt, taciturn Chess Master Reshevsky had outraged his Cuban hosts by his point-blank refusal to join the other players in a Friday visit to the tomb of Cuban World Champion José Capablanca. Reshevsky later explained that he could not make the trip on Friday, since his Jewish religion forbids public travel after sundown. But he also demanded that the player's day off should be Friday, not Sunday. Furthermore, Reshevsky refused, up to the final day, to agree to leave the winner's trophy in Cuba. Originally donated by Argentina, the cup had been renamed in memory of Cuban Player Juan Queseda, a contestant who died of a heart attack while the tournament was in progress. Reshevsky's truculent explanation for wanting the trophy: "Because the cup was donated by Peron for the winner, not for Cubans."
Jolly. In contrast to Reshevsky's concentrated grumpiness, Argentina's jolly Najdorf acted like an earnest student of Dale Carnegie. On the tense final day, most of the other players were discreetly rooting for Najdorf. Reshevsky made short work of his final opponent, Manhattan's Dr. Edward Lasker, whipping him in 38 implacable moves when Lasker overstepped his allowable time limit of 40 moves in 2¼ hours. Interest promptly centered on the match between Cuba's Rogelio Ortega and Najdorf, who moved into a technical position known to chessplayers as a Sicilian defense. After six feverish, hours and 60 moves, Najdorf finally gained an attacking advantage, turned it into a game-ending checkmate, and tied for top honors with Reshevsky.
Differences were happily settled as the two players split the $4,000 first-and second-place jackpot. The matter of which man is the better player will be settled when the two get together next month in an 18-game tour in New York, Mexico City and San Salvador
These two met twice, in 1951 and in 1952, for a match in what was billed as Championship of the Free World. Both matches were won by Reshevsky. In 1951 the score was +8 -4 =6 and in the return match played the following year, it was +6 -5 =7.
One has to admire Najdorf for his admission that he had lost to the better player. That’s a trait rarely seen by today’s players be they Grandmaster or Patzer.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Legality of Chess Books for Download
A recent comment questioned the legality of the download of Robin Smith’s book, Modern Chess Analysis, that I offered in a link to back in September, 2010…good question. The site carrying the download was filesonic.com. I am not an attorney, so I can’t really answer this question.
I have been told that these books fall in the Public Domain due to the fact that they are readily available throughout the Internet. Supposedly, if copyrighted material is widely distributed and the holder of the copyright makes no attempt to stop this distribution such works fall into the Public Domain. The last part of that statement makes me think that what is being said is it’s up to the copyright holder to catch people distributing his work and stop them. That doesn’t sound right because given the vastness of the Internet, it would seem an impossible task. I know of at least one site where it is possible to download literally hundreds of new and old chess books for free, but I have not published the site because, to me, the practice seems questionable. Of course, it is perfectly legal to download books that are in the public domain. i.e. older books that the copyright has not been renewed on.
A summary of U.S. copyright laws from Cornell University can be seen here: Copyright-Cornell
All that said, copyright laws vary by country, so I suppose it may depend upon the country from which the books are downloaded. For example, I understand Canada’s copyright laws are more lenient than in the US though some Canadian sites do try to conform to US laws in what they offer for download while others don’t.
Filesonic is a file sharing service that allows you to upload your files to their server and then people can in turn download your files. Whenever someone downloads your file Filesonic pays you up to $30 per thousand downloads. The pay hardly seems worth the effort to me. The rate depends on the country of the downloading visitor and the size of the file he downloads. There are also sites where you can upload files from your computer and store them just like on your hard drive. If you want you can make these files available for public viewing (or not) and you can link to them so they can be downloaded, but you do not make any money. For example, my pdf booklets are stored on 4shared.com but are not available for public viewing.
As I said, I can’t testify to what is legal and what isn’t because I am not an attorney. Bottom line: If you feel uncomfortable downloading something then don’t do it and I do try and not publish links to any living author's material.
I have been told that these books fall in the Public Domain due to the fact that they are readily available throughout the Internet. Supposedly, if copyrighted material is widely distributed and the holder of the copyright makes no attempt to stop this distribution such works fall into the Public Domain. The last part of that statement makes me think that what is being said is it’s up to the copyright holder to catch people distributing his work and stop them. That doesn’t sound right because given the vastness of the Internet, it would seem an impossible task. I know of at least one site where it is possible to download literally hundreds of new and old chess books for free, but I have not published the site because, to me, the practice seems questionable. Of course, it is perfectly legal to download books that are in the public domain. i.e. older books that the copyright has not been renewed on.
A summary of U.S. copyright laws from Cornell University can be seen here: Copyright-Cornell
All that said, copyright laws vary by country, so I suppose it may depend upon the country from which the books are downloaded. For example, I understand Canada’s copyright laws are more lenient than in the US though some Canadian sites do try to conform to US laws in what they offer for download while others don’t.
Filesonic is a file sharing service that allows you to upload your files to their server and then people can in turn download your files. Whenever someone downloads your file Filesonic pays you up to $30 per thousand downloads. The pay hardly seems worth the effort to me. The rate depends on the country of the downloading visitor and the size of the file he downloads. There are also sites where you can upload files from your computer and store them just like on your hard drive. If you want you can make these files available for public viewing (or not) and you can link to them so they can be downloaded, but you do not make any money. For example, my pdf booklets are stored on 4shared.com but are not available for public viewing.
As I said, I can’t testify to what is legal and what isn’t because I am not an attorney. Bottom line: If you feel uncomfortable downloading something then don’t do it and I do try and not publish links to any living author's material.
Friday, January 7, 2011
The Opposition - a Quiz
As you know, when it comes to K and P endings the opposition is often critical. I came across a site called Chesspupil that apparently has not been kept up to date for several years, but they have a page on the opposition that is interactive. You are given a position then asked to mark which answer best describes the position. At the end you are informed of the number of correct responses and then given explanation explanations. Here is the first of the 15 questions so you should at least get one correct!
b) If it is White to play then Black gets a draw because he has the opposition and waiting moves don't work for White. If it's Black to play then after 1...Kd5 2.Kd3! Kc5 3.Ke4! White initiates an outflanking manouver and wins.c) It's a draw no matter who moves first.
Highlight for the correct answer: b is correct
Go to the quiz.
Which answer is correct?a) White to play wins after 1.d3! after which he gains the opposition. If it's Black to play then after 1...Kd5 2.Kd3! Kc5 3.Ke4! White initiates an outflanking manouver and wins.
b) If it is White to play then Black gets a draw because he has the opposition and waiting moves don't work for White. If it's Black to play then after 1...Kd5 2.Kd3! Kc5 3.Ke4! White initiates an outflanking manouver and wins.c) It's a draw no matter who moves first.
Highlight for the correct answer: b is correct
Go to the quiz.
The site has also has similar tests in various other areas. HERE
Find Tahl's Winning Move
To better view the diagrams, zoom in using the magnifying glass. Solutions? I don't have them...some things you just have to figure out for yourself.
70 Chess Puzzles by Mikhail Tal
70 Chess Puzzles by Mikhail Tal
First American Chess Congress 1859
Johann Jacob Löwenthal (July 1810 –July 1876) was a professional player who received a civil appointment in 1848 but when his mentor fell Löwenthal was expelled from Hungary and emigrated to the United States in 1849. In 1851 he moved to London and resided permanently in England.
In his visit to New Orleans he played Paul Morphy on two separate occasions, losing a total of three games straight. He was one of the first masters to play a match against Morphy after the latter's arrival in London in 1858. Morphy won with a score of nine wins, three losses and two draws.
"...I am convinced that I was vanquished by superior strength," Löwenthal said about the match.
Because Morphy did not want to be considered a professional player, after winning the stakes of £100, he gave it to Löwenthal along with a gift of furniture valued at £120 for his new house.
When Löwenthal became ill in 1874 and could no longer support himself, a collection was taken up for him. He died on 24 July 1876 at St. Leonards-on-Sea, at the age of sixty-six.
The American Chess Association was an organization founded in New York in 1857 that organized the first major chess tournament in the United States on October 6, 1857. Paul Morphy won the event which was a knockout tournament in which draws did not count.
The top sixteen American players were invited: William Allison, Samuel Robert Calthrop, Daniel Willard Fiske, William James Fuller, Hiram Kennicott, Hubert Knott,Theodor Lichtenhein, Napoleon Marache, Hardman Philips Montgomery, Judge A.A. Meek, Paul Morphy, Louis Paulsen, Frederick Perrin, Benjamin Raphael, Charles Stanley, and James Thompson. Morphy refused the $300 first prize, but accepted a silver service consisting of a pitcher, four goblets, and a tray.
Fiske wrote a book on the congress and the following is Löwenthal’s account as it appeared in the book.
It is not my purpose, in this retrospect of my visit to the United States, to touch on the impression I received of the political and commercial greatness of the powerful republic of the West. Writing with a definite object, I confine myself as much as possible to my Chess experience of America; but I may say, that I never saw a country which gave me such an idea of growing power and importance, nor one so well fitted to become the home of the exile. The cordial manners of the people, their open-handed hospitality, and free institutions all combine to make the wanderer feel himself at home; while the spreading commerce and vast undeveloped resources of the country, open up to him a profitable field of labor, and promise, in return for his industry, an honorable independence. In the States I have met with men of many nations, and of all professions and trades, but I scarcely recollect one instance in which the same feeling was not expressed.
I arrived in New York from Hamburgh, on the 29th Dec., 1849. I will not dwell on the events which forced me to fly my own country, Hungary. They are known to all. Their interest belongs to the past, their results to the future; and a Chess record is not the place in which to touch upon them. It is enough to say that I landed a refugee - driven from home, separated from family, depressed in mind, physically ill, and with very slender means at my command. My intention was to go to the West and settle down upon the land. I took lodgings at a hotel near Broadway, and afterwards removed to a boarding-home in Chambers street; and for about a month occupied myself with seeing the city and its institutions, and gaining such information as my ignorance of the language enabled me to collect.
During this time I was waiting for means to carry out my original intentions, but they never came; and as my limited funds melted away, my position became more and more difficult.
Up to this time I had thought but little about Chess. The game had been to me, in my own land, an amusement which absorbed and occupied the time I could spare from business. With my lamented friend, Szen, once my Chess-master and afterwards my fellow-Player. I had spent many delightful hours over the board; and in my tours, I had met and contended with most of the great German players; but of Chess as an occupation I had never thought.
One day, oppressed by the feeling of loneliness which comes over a stranger in a crowded city, and perplexed at the dark prospects before me, I wandered into a reading-room and took up the New York Albion. The first thing which caught my eye was a diagram with a position upon it. If a benevolent magician had waved his hand over me, the change could not have been greater. In a moment my old love for Chess revived, with a vividness I had never before experienced. It seemed as if it had grown into a passion after, for a few weeks, lying latent. The sense of loneliness vanished. I could find Chess-players, and a common love for Chess was, I knew, a sort of freemasonry. I could not leave the room before I had solved the problem. All night I fought in dreams many old battles over again, and anticipated combats yet to come. The next morning I called on the editor of the Albion, who received me very kindly, and gave me his card as an introduction to Mr. Stanley of the British Consulate—a gentleman with whose name I was already familiar. Mr. Stanley gave me a most hospitable reception. I spent that evening at his house, and played with him; the result being, I think, even games. In Mr. Stanley’s style of play, I found very much to admire, particularly the originality and invention displayed by him in the openings. This was especially remarkable in the Knight’s Game, in which he introduced the method, since approved by the best Chess authorities, of bringing both the Knights over to the King’s side, thus giving additional safety to the King, and preparing a strong attack. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass, without expressing the deep obligations Mr. Stanley placed me under by his unvarying kindness, and the constant exertions he made to advance my interests.
It was about this time that Mr. Stanley left for Washington, to play his match with Mr. Turner; and when he returned victorious, he introduced me to the leading members of the New York Chess Circle, who were in the habit of meeting at the Carlton House, Broadway. There I met Mr. Thompson, whose frequent visits to Europe had caused him to be well known in European Chess circles, and in several encounters with him I had much the best of the play. I also made the acquaintance of Mr. Perrin, the present Honorary Secretary of the New York Chess Club, and Mr. Evert, to both of whom I successfully gave odds.
My first formal match was with Mr. Turner. It was arranged for me by the kind offices of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Thompson, and was played at New York. In this and another match, which immediately followed, I was the conqueror; but I regret to say that I have not preserved any of the games. Mr. Turner struck me as a player of great natural talent and strong imagination, but somewhat too liable to be carried away by a brilliant combination or a dashing coup.
In Mr. Turner I found a generous friend. He kindly invited me to accompany him to his residence near Lexington (Kentucky); my old thought of turning farmer reviving, I accepted the invitation. We left on the 3d of March, 1850. Our stay in Philadelphia was too short to suffer me to meet any of the players of the city, who, I had heard, held a high rank among American amateurs. From Philadelphia we went by rail via Baltimore and Cumberland, and from thence by steamers to Wheeling and Pittsburg, and reached Lexington by stagecoach on the 9th of March.
I had heard much of the powers of Mr. Dudley, and looked forward with great pleasure to meeting him. On the 10th, I made his personal acquaintance at Charles’s hotel, and we at once sat down to the game and did not cease playing till the time arrived for me to go to Mr. Turner’s farm, distant about six or seven miles. I greatly admired Mr. Dudley’s style of play, but, on this occasion, could hardly form an estimate of his strength. We were, in these first encounters, reconnoitering each other. I saw, however, that I had found a very able antagonist and subsequent experience impressed me with the conviction that Mr. Dudley was the best American player I ever met. Looking back now I do not see any reason to alter the estimate I then formed.
At Mr. Turner’s plantation I was entertained with the most open hearted hospitality, and I shall never forget the kindness of my host and the efforts he made to serve me.
On the 11th of March, I was introduced to the leading Lexington players at the Club, and I remember particularly Mr. Steward and Mr. Hunter, as among the most enthusiastic devotees of Chess.
On the 12th of March, I commenced a third match with Mr. Turner, and at that sitting won every game.
On the 14th, I was introduced to Mr. Wikle, the editor of the Lexington newspaper, who emulated my other friends in kindness, and inserted in his journal a very handsome notice of my arrival. I also made the acquaintance of Mr. Lutz, a German by birth, but for many years resident at Lexington.
During my stay with Mr. Turner, Chess, of course, filled up the hours that gentleman could spare from his duties. The result of our play then was, that out of seven matches, some of the first five, others of the first three games, I won six and lost one by the odd game.
Mr. Dudley paid us a visit, and a match was arranged for rue with him, by Mr. Turner. Time winner of the first eleven games was to be the victor. The first game—a well contested one—was won by Mr. Dudley, and if I had had sufficient English at my command, I should have said that such a game was worth losing. The second game, through a blunder on my part, also went to the score of my opponent. Mr. Turner seemed somewhat startled at the turn affairs were taking, while I felt uneasy. In all the important matches I have played, I have lost the first two games. In consequence of my habit of mind, I take some time to become familiarized with my position, and able to apply myself thoroughly to what is before me; and this is so, whether my opponent happens to be equal or inferior to me. At the third game, I settled down to my work, and won that and the following live, and ultimately the match only by a majority of three games. This close play was, I think, owing to Mr. Dudley often playing the Ruy Lopez Opening in the Knight’s Game. That attack was not then sufficiently appreciated in Europe, and I was but little acquainted with the defence. I took the line of play given in the German Handbuch, and lost nearly every game. Mr. Dudley played this opening with great skill and judgment. Since that time, I have had the opportunity of investigating this attack, and have prepared a defence which, if not completely satisfactory, seems to me far preferable to the old method. I soon had my revenge—for in another match which followed immediately I won eleven games, Mr. Dudley scoring only three. In this match I remember I adopted in the defence to the Ruy Lopez 3. P to KB4. with success, and though that move has not secured the approbation of the leading European players it is my individual opinion that it may as well be played as any other, and that, at all events, it gives the second player an open game. After some days pleasantly spent with Mr. Steward, Mr. Lutz, and Mr. Turner, Sen., a third match with Mr. Dudley was arranged. The previous matches had been played in private, but this took place in compliance with the wish of the Lexington players, and was played in public. It excited considerable interest. The play commenced on the 29th of March, and terminated on the 4th of April the score at the close being Mr. Dudley 5, myself 11, drawn 3. These games are the best I remember playing lu America, and would be well worth recording; but I have not a note of one of them. Mr. Dudley bore his defeat well, and in the most handsome manner, declared himself fairly beaten. On the 10th of April I left Lexington for Frankfort on my way to Cincinnati, carrying with me many pleasant reminiscences, and furnished with letters of introduction to Mr. Temple, the Treasurer of the State of Kentucky. Mr. Temple introduced me to Gen. Pain and to Governor Crittenden, in whom I had the satisfaction of becoming acquainted with one of the leading statesmen of America. I stayed at the Governor’s house to tea and supper amid a large party. Mr. Brown, who was, I was told, considered the best player in Frankfort, was present.
I won two games of Mr. Brown, to whom I gave odds, and then requested the honor of a game with the Governor. Here my good fortune deserted me, Mr. Crittenden proved victorious, and I had to console myself with the thought that I had been beaten in even play by one of the shrewdest brains in the States.
On the 12th of April I went to Louisville by steamboat. Here I was introduced to the Club by Dr. Raphael, and played several games. In the evening I was entertained by the gentlemen of the club at a supper which was presided over by General Preston.
On the 16th of April I reached Cincinnati, and on presenting my letters of introduction met with a most cordial reception. My warmest thanks are due to Dr. Schmidt, the editor of the German Republican, himself a player of no small power, who introduced me to the leading amateurs, and did all he could to help me. Dr. Schmidt was fairly entitled to the first place among the Cincinnati players, and next to him were Mr. Phineas Moses and Mr. Smith. Among the most enthusiastic lovers of the game I may mention Messrs. E. Brookes, Hopel, Eggers, Cooper, Baker, Salomons, and Paice. These gentlemen met at each other’s houses, and I played with them giving odds. A match was soon afterward arranged for me with the leading players consulting together. The first game was played on the first of May at the house of Mr. Moore, and others at the houses of Messrs. Brookes and Smith. The gentlemen consulting were Messrs. Schmidt, Smith, Moses, Brookes, and Moore. I won the first three games and the match. I was also engaged in private matches with Mr. Smith and Mr. Cooper. Mr. Smith had great Chess talent, and a little study and perseverance would have placed him among the best amateur players.
At Mr. Hopel’s I played and won a blindfold game, and on another occasion two games simultaneously without sight of the board, and won them both. My antagonists were Messrs. Cooper and Salomons.
On the 10th of May I left Cincinnati, and after spending two days at Louisville reached New Orleans on the 18th. On the 22d I delivered my letter of introduction to Mr. Rousseau, and was by him introduced to Mr. E. Morphy and several other amateurs. Matches were arranged between Mr. Rousseau and Mr. E. Morphy and me. On the 26th I played with Mr. Rousseau (not match games), and won 5 games, all we played.
On the 27th I met Paul Morphy, then a youth, and played with him. I do not remember whether we played in all two or three games; one was drawn, the other or others I lost. The young player appeared to me to possess Chess genius of a very high order. He showed great quickness of perception, and evinced brilliant strategic powers. When I passed through New York on my way to the get: international tournament in London, I mentioned him to Mr. Stanley, and predicted for him a brilliant future.
The intense heat of New Orleans, which from the first had enfeebled me both physically and mentally, produced severe illness and incapacitated me from playing. It was not until the 15th of June that I was able to undergo the fatigue of travelling, and on that day I left for Cincinnati, where I arrived on the 22d, and remained during the rest of my residence in the United States.
My old friends received me with open arms, and through the kind assistance I was enabled to establish a Cigar Divan in connection with the Chess Club. I commenced under the most favorable auspices. In a short time more than 40 members had joined the club, and there was a prospect that that number would be greatly increased. Mr. E. Brookes was the President and Dr. Schmidt the Secretary, and to those gentlemen and the other Chess-players of Cincinnati I owe a debt of kindness I may never be able to pay but shall never forget.
Early in 1851 I was tempted to leave Cincinnati to take part in the International Tournament about to be held in London. It was my intention to return to my Cincinnati friends, by whose help I was enabled to take the journey; why I did not do so involves an explanation too long delayed, and which I may perhaps now be permitted to make.
I arrived in London very ill; an old wound in my leg had broken out afresh, and the long and rapid journey had worn me out. My ill success in the Tournament is on record. It was nothing more than might have been expected. In my weak state everything took a morbid hue. I estimated my defeat too highly; I thought a beaten man would be looked coldly on, and I felt I could not go back to those friends at Cincinnati whom I had left with such high hopes and glowing anticipations. Improved health has brought clearer views and the consciousness that I wronged those to whom I owe so deep a debt of gratitude.
In justice to myself I must say that my play in America was much below my usual strength. The circumstances under which I arrived there, the difficulties of my situation, the dark uncertainty of my future, my position as a stranger in a new country, of the language of which I was ignorant, and my weakened constitution, all contributed to render me incapable of efforts I could have made at previous periods.
My general impression of Chess in America was that there was great latent ability in the players, but a deficiency of theoretical knowledge, and a want of a high standard of play. I did not meet throughout States the equals of those great players to be found in every European country; but the people had in them at once the logical calculating power of Northern races, and the quick perceptions and warm impulses of the South, and required only opportunity and practice to take a high place in the world of Chess. One attribute of American play struck forcibly, quickness. here in Europe a match game occupies a whole day; but in America I have played three or four at the same sitting.
In his visit to New Orleans he played Paul Morphy on two separate occasions, losing a total of three games straight. He was one of the first masters to play a match against Morphy after the latter's arrival in London in 1858. Morphy won with a score of nine wins, three losses and two draws.
"...I am convinced that I was vanquished by superior strength," Löwenthal said about the match.
Because Morphy did not want to be considered a professional player, after winning the stakes of £100, he gave it to Löwenthal along with a gift of furniture valued at £120 for his new house.
When Löwenthal became ill in 1874 and could no longer support himself, a collection was taken up for him. He died on 24 July 1876 at St. Leonards-on-Sea, at the age of sixty-six.
The American Chess Association was an organization founded in New York in 1857 that organized the first major chess tournament in the United States on October 6, 1857. Paul Morphy won the event which was a knockout tournament in which draws did not count.
The top sixteen American players were invited: William Allison, Samuel Robert Calthrop, Daniel Willard Fiske, William James Fuller, Hiram Kennicott, Hubert Knott,Theodor Lichtenhein, Napoleon Marache, Hardman Philips Montgomery, Judge A.A. Meek, Paul Morphy, Louis Paulsen, Frederick Perrin, Benjamin Raphael, Charles Stanley, and James Thompson. Morphy refused the $300 first prize, but accepted a silver service consisting of a pitcher, four goblets, and a tray.
Fiske wrote a book on the congress and the following is Löwenthal’s account as it appeared in the book.
It is not my purpose, in this retrospect of my visit to the United States, to touch on the impression I received of the political and commercial greatness of the powerful republic of the West. Writing with a definite object, I confine myself as much as possible to my Chess experience of America; but I may say, that I never saw a country which gave me such an idea of growing power and importance, nor one so well fitted to become the home of the exile. The cordial manners of the people, their open-handed hospitality, and free institutions all combine to make the wanderer feel himself at home; while the spreading commerce and vast undeveloped resources of the country, open up to him a profitable field of labor, and promise, in return for his industry, an honorable independence. In the States I have met with men of many nations, and of all professions and trades, but I scarcely recollect one instance in which the same feeling was not expressed.
I arrived in New York from Hamburgh, on the 29th Dec., 1849. I will not dwell on the events which forced me to fly my own country, Hungary. They are known to all. Their interest belongs to the past, their results to the future; and a Chess record is not the place in which to touch upon them. It is enough to say that I landed a refugee - driven from home, separated from family, depressed in mind, physically ill, and with very slender means at my command. My intention was to go to the West and settle down upon the land. I took lodgings at a hotel near Broadway, and afterwards removed to a boarding-home in Chambers street; and for about a month occupied myself with seeing the city and its institutions, and gaining such information as my ignorance of the language enabled me to collect.
During this time I was waiting for means to carry out my original intentions, but they never came; and as my limited funds melted away, my position became more and more difficult.
Up to this time I had thought but little about Chess. The game had been to me, in my own land, an amusement which absorbed and occupied the time I could spare from business. With my lamented friend, Szen, once my Chess-master and afterwards my fellow-Player. I had spent many delightful hours over the board; and in my tours, I had met and contended with most of the great German players; but of Chess as an occupation I had never thought.
One day, oppressed by the feeling of loneliness which comes over a stranger in a crowded city, and perplexed at the dark prospects before me, I wandered into a reading-room and took up the New York Albion. The first thing which caught my eye was a diagram with a position upon it. If a benevolent magician had waved his hand over me, the change could not have been greater. In a moment my old love for Chess revived, with a vividness I had never before experienced. It seemed as if it had grown into a passion after, for a few weeks, lying latent. The sense of loneliness vanished. I could find Chess-players, and a common love for Chess was, I knew, a sort of freemasonry. I could not leave the room before I had solved the problem. All night I fought in dreams many old battles over again, and anticipated combats yet to come. The next morning I called on the editor of the Albion, who received me very kindly, and gave me his card as an introduction to Mr. Stanley of the British Consulate—a gentleman with whose name I was already familiar. Mr. Stanley gave me a most hospitable reception. I spent that evening at his house, and played with him; the result being, I think, even games. In Mr. Stanley’s style of play, I found very much to admire, particularly the originality and invention displayed by him in the openings. This was especially remarkable in the Knight’s Game, in which he introduced the method, since approved by the best Chess authorities, of bringing both the Knights over to the King’s side, thus giving additional safety to the King, and preparing a strong attack. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass, without expressing the deep obligations Mr. Stanley placed me under by his unvarying kindness, and the constant exertions he made to advance my interests.
It was about this time that Mr. Stanley left for Washington, to play his match with Mr. Turner; and when he returned victorious, he introduced me to the leading members of the New York Chess Circle, who were in the habit of meeting at the Carlton House, Broadway. There I met Mr. Thompson, whose frequent visits to Europe had caused him to be well known in European Chess circles, and in several encounters with him I had much the best of the play. I also made the acquaintance of Mr. Perrin, the present Honorary Secretary of the New York Chess Club, and Mr. Evert, to both of whom I successfully gave odds.
My first formal match was with Mr. Turner. It was arranged for me by the kind offices of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Thompson, and was played at New York. In this and another match, which immediately followed, I was the conqueror; but I regret to say that I have not preserved any of the games. Mr. Turner struck me as a player of great natural talent and strong imagination, but somewhat too liable to be carried away by a brilliant combination or a dashing coup.
In Mr. Turner I found a generous friend. He kindly invited me to accompany him to his residence near Lexington (Kentucky); my old thought of turning farmer reviving, I accepted the invitation. We left on the 3d of March, 1850. Our stay in Philadelphia was too short to suffer me to meet any of the players of the city, who, I had heard, held a high rank among American amateurs. From Philadelphia we went by rail via Baltimore and Cumberland, and from thence by steamers to Wheeling and Pittsburg, and reached Lexington by stagecoach on the 9th of March.
I had heard much of the powers of Mr. Dudley, and looked forward with great pleasure to meeting him. On the 10th, I made his personal acquaintance at Charles’s hotel, and we at once sat down to the game and did not cease playing till the time arrived for me to go to Mr. Turner’s farm, distant about six or seven miles. I greatly admired Mr. Dudley’s style of play, but, on this occasion, could hardly form an estimate of his strength. We were, in these first encounters, reconnoitering each other. I saw, however, that I had found a very able antagonist and subsequent experience impressed me with the conviction that Mr. Dudley was the best American player I ever met. Looking back now I do not see any reason to alter the estimate I then formed.
At Mr. Turner’s plantation I was entertained with the most open hearted hospitality, and I shall never forget the kindness of my host and the efforts he made to serve me.
On the 11th of March, I was introduced to the leading Lexington players at the Club, and I remember particularly Mr. Steward and Mr. Hunter, as among the most enthusiastic devotees of Chess.
On the 12th of March, I commenced a third match with Mr. Turner, and at that sitting won every game.
On the 14th, I was introduced to Mr. Wikle, the editor of the Lexington newspaper, who emulated my other friends in kindness, and inserted in his journal a very handsome notice of my arrival. I also made the acquaintance of Mr. Lutz, a German by birth, but for many years resident at Lexington.
During my stay with Mr. Turner, Chess, of course, filled up the hours that gentleman could spare from his duties. The result of our play then was, that out of seven matches, some of the first five, others of the first three games, I won six and lost one by the odd game.
Mr. Dudley paid us a visit, and a match was arranged for rue with him, by Mr. Turner. Time winner of the first eleven games was to be the victor. The first game—a well contested one—was won by Mr. Dudley, and if I had had sufficient English at my command, I should have said that such a game was worth losing. The second game, through a blunder on my part, also went to the score of my opponent. Mr. Turner seemed somewhat startled at the turn affairs were taking, while I felt uneasy. In all the important matches I have played, I have lost the first two games. In consequence of my habit of mind, I take some time to become familiarized with my position, and able to apply myself thoroughly to what is before me; and this is so, whether my opponent happens to be equal or inferior to me. At the third game, I settled down to my work, and won that and the following live, and ultimately the match only by a majority of three games. This close play was, I think, owing to Mr. Dudley often playing the Ruy Lopez Opening in the Knight’s Game. That attack was not then sufficiently appreciated in Europe, and I was but little acquainted with the defence. I took the line of play given in the German Handbuch, and lost nearly every game. Mr. Dudley played this opening with great skill and judgment. Since that time, I have had the opportunity of investigating this attack, and have prepared a defence which, if not completely satisfactory, seems to me far preferable to the old method. I soon had my revenge—for in another match which followed immediately I won eleven games, Mr. Dudley scoring only three. In this match I remember I adopted in the defence to the Ruy Lopez 3. P to KB4. with success, and though that move has not secured the approbation of the leading European players it is my individual opinion that it may as well be played as any other, and that, at all events, it gives the second player an open game. After some days pleasantly spent with Mr. Steward, Mr. Lutz, and Mr. Turner, Sen., a third match with Mr. Dudley was arranged. The previous matches had been played in private, but this took place in compliance with the wish of the Lexington players, and was played in public. It excited considerable interest. The play commenced on the 29th of March, and terminated on the 4th of April the score at the close being Mr. Dudley 5, myself 11, drawn 3. These games are the best I remember playing lu America, and would be well worth recording; but I have not a note of one of them. Mr. Dudley bore his defeat well, and in the most handsome manner, declared himself fairly beaten. On the 10th of April I left Lexington for Frankfort on my way to Cincinnati, carrying with me many pleasant reminiscences, and furnished with letters of introduction to Mr. Temple, the Treasurer of the State of Kentucky. Mr. Temple introduced me to Gen. Pain and to Governor Crittenden, in whom I had the satisfaction of becoming acquainted with one of the leading statesmen of America. I stayed at the Governor’s house to tea and supper amid a large party. Mr. Brown, who was, I was told, considered the best player in Frankfort, was present.
I won two games of Mr. Brown, to whom I gave odds, and then requested the honor of a game with the Governor. Here my good fortune deserted me, Mr. Crittenden proved victorious, and I had to console myself with the thought that I had been beaten in even play by one of the shrewdest brains in the States.
On the 12th of April I went to Louisville by steamboat. Here I was introduced to the Club by Dr. Raphael, and played several games. In the evening I was entertained by the gentlemen of the club at a supper which was presided over by General Preston.
On the 16th of April I reached Cincinnati, and on presenting my letters of introduction met with a most cordial reception. My warmest thanks are due to Dr. Schmidt, the editor of the German Republican, himself a player of no small power, who introduced me to the leading amateurs, and did all he could to help me. Dr. Schmidt was fairly entitled to the first place among the Cincinnati players, and next to him were Mr. Phineas Moses and Mr. Smith. Among the most enthusiastic lovers of the game I may mention Messrs. E. Brookes, Hopel, Eggers, Cooper, Baker, Salomons, and Paice. These gentlemen met at each other’s houses, and I played with them giving odds. A match was soon afterward arranged for me with the leading players consulting together. The first game was played on the first of May at the house of Mr. Moore, and others at the houses of Messrs. Brookes and Smith. The gentlemen consulting were Messrs. Schmidt, Smith, Moses, Brookes, and Moore. I won the first three games and the match. I was also engaged in private matches with Mr. Smith and Mr. Cooper. Mr. Smith had great Chess talent, and a little study and perseverance would have placed him among the best amateur players.
At Mr. Hopel’s I played and won a blindfold game, and on another occasion two games simultaneously without sight of the board, and won them both. My antagonists were Messrs. Cooper and Salomons.
On the 10th of May I left Cincinnati, and after spending two days at Louisville reached New Orleans on the 18th. On the 22d I delivered my letter of introduction to Mr. Rousseau, and was by him introduced to Mr. E. Morphy and several other amateurs. Matches were arranged between Mr. Rousseau and Mr. E. Morphy and me. On the 26th I played with Mr. Rousseau (not match games), and won 5 games, all we played.
On the 27th I met Paul Morphy, then a youth, and played with him. I do not remember whether we played in all two or three games; one was drawn, the other or others I lost. The young player appeared to me to possess Chess genius of a very high order. He showed great quickness of perception, and evinced brilliant strategic powers. When I passed through New York on my way to the get: international tournament in London, I mentioned him to Mr. Stanley, and predicted for him a brilliant future.
The intense heat of New Orleans, which from the first had enfeebled me both physically and mentally, produced severe illness and incapacitated me from playing. It was not until the 15th of June that I was able to undergo the fatigue of travelling, and on that day I left for Cincinnati, where I arrived on the 22d, and remained during the rest of my residence in the United States.
My old friends received me with open arms, and through the kind assistance I was enabled to establish a Cigar Divan in connection with the Chess Club. I commenced under the most favorable auspices. In a short time more than 40 members had joined the club, and there was a prospect that that number would be greatly increased. Mr. E. Brookes was the President and Dr. Schmidt the Secretary, and to those gentlemen and the other Chess-players of Cincinnati I owe a debt of kindness I may never be able to pay but shall never forget.
Early in 1851 I was tempted to leave Cincinnati to take part in the International Tournament about to be held in London. It was my intention to return to my Cincinnati friends, by whose help I was enabled to take the journey; why I did not do so involves an explanation too long delayed, and which I may perhaps now be permitted to make.
I arrived in London very ill; an old wound in my leg had broken out afresh, and the long and rapid journey had worn me out. My ill success in the Tournament is on record. It was nothing more than might have been expected. In my weak state everything took a morbid hue. I estimated my defeat too highly; I thought a beaten man would be looked coldly on, and I felt I could not go back to those friends at Cincinnati whom I had left with such high hopes and glowing anticipations. Improved health has brought clearer views and the consciousness that I wronged those to whom I owe so deep a debt of gratitude.
In justice to myself I must say that my play in America was much below my usual strength. The circumstances under which I arrived there, the difficulties of my situation, the dark uncertainty of my future, my position as a stranger in a new country, of the language of which I was ignorant, and my weakened constitution, all contributed to render me incapable of efforts I could have made at previous periods.
My general impression of Chess in America was that there was great latent ability in the players, but a deficiency of theoretical knowledge, and a want of a high standard of play. I did not meet throughout States the equals of those great players to be found in every European country; but the people had in them at once the logical calculating power of Northern races, and the quick perceptions and warm impulses of the South, and required only opportunity and practice to take a high place in the world of Chess. One attribute of American play struck forcibly, quickness. here in Europe a match game occupies a whole day; but in America I have played three or four at the same sitting.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Get a Chess Tattoo?!
Just when you think you’ve seen everything!
Give yourself a satisfaction guarantee, avoid mistakes, and have fun test-driving your tattoo. Before you get close to the needle, take your tattoo for a test drive. With Tattoo Johnny's Tattoo Transfer Paper you can turn any ink jet or laser printer into a temporary tattoo test center. By simply printing your selected design onto this special paper you can easily transfer the printed image to your skin. Taking your tattoo for a test drive is great fun and the best way to know you have made the right selection
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
IM Mark Ginsburg's Blog
IM Mark Ginsburg has a great site HERE. “The chief motivation for this site is to present interesting games that for the most part are not yet part of electronic databases. In addition, there is entertaining (semi-recent) history and the blog format is ideal so readers can chip in and flesh out the memories.” “The site is divided, generally speaking, into decades starting from the 1970s and going into the 2000s.” A must visit.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961
This 16-game match was played between then U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer who had emerged as Samuel Reshevsky’s rival and I remember the excitement it generated. Like just about everybody else, I was pulling for Reshevsky.
The year before both players had participated in Buenos Aires and Reshevsky had said he would not mind finishing in 19th place if Fischer finished in 20th. In fact Reshevsky ended up tying for first with Korchnoi while Fischer finished well back finishing with 8.5-10.5. Everyone was amazed at Fischer’s poor performance in this event and it was only later that we learned what really happened. According to Larry Evans, Fischer's poor performance was due to experience with a girl Evans had introduced him to during the tournament. Pal Benko confirmed the reason for Fischer’s poor result when he said it was "because he got caught up in women and sex. ...”
Back to the match. Games 1-4 were played in New York, 5-12 were to be played in Los Angeles, and 13-16 were supposed to be played back in New York City. After eleven games the score was tied at two wins apiece with seven draws. That’s when the trouble started. The match ended due to a scheduling dispute between Fischer and match organizer Jacqueline Piatigorsky.
Jacqueline Piatigorsky, herself a chess player and sculptor, was married to renowned cellist, Gregor Piatigorsky. Mrs. Piatigorsky was a Reshevsky supporter so that may help to explain the ensuing brouhaha that resulted in the aborted match.
After eleven games, the match was tied and the 12th game was supposed to be played on Saturday but was postponed to Sunday because of Reshevsky’s observance of the Sabbath. I never understood this because it had long been a well known fact that Reshevsky, as an Orthodox Jew, never played on the Sabbath. So why a game would have been scheduled on a Saturday remains a mystery.
Mrs. Piatigorsky’s husband was due to play a concert on Sunday evening so she insisted that the game should start at 11:00 am, so she could attend the concert. Fischer absolutely refused and sat in his hotel deliberately forfeiting the game much as he was to do a couple of times later in his career.
The twelfth game had originally been scheduled to be played at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles on Sunday, August 13, at 1:30 in the afternoon. At ten that morning, Fischer received a phone call from the referee saying that playing time had been moved up to eleven. This, he said, was to accommodate the wishes of Mrs. Piatigorsky, who wanted to be sure the game would be over in time for her to attend the concert. Fischer refused to play at that early hour and cited a clause in his contract which stated that playing time had to be acceptable to him.
To my knowledge Reshevsky never objected to the time change, but then why should he in the light of Fischer’s behavior? The only thing I ever heard Reshevsky say concerning the match was after it was over. He commented, “I never expected this!” It was also reported that in the ensuing argument and just before he walked out, Fischer’s language was “fit for the gutter.” Listening to some of his later radio interviews, I can believe it. Fischer sued several people over the incident, but nothing ever came of his lawsuits.
The next game (13) was to be played in New York four days later but Fischer refused to continue unless the forfeit was overruled. Nobody in New York was in favor of the Los Angeles ruling but everyone was angry at Fischer and resented his actions and his threat to quit. One match official, Walter Fried, complained, "Fischer is holding a gun to our heads."
When time for the thirteenth game arrived, no decision had been made on the forfeiture and Fischer did not show up. That’s when Reshevsky was declared the winner and awarded the trophy and prize money. Fried commented, "There was no other course we could take consistent with our responsibility and our self respect," The whole incident reminds one of a future incident in the world championship match against Spassky. The only difference was in that match, Fischer showed some better sense and decided to continue playing and quit only after the match was over.
Reshevsky...1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 7½
Fischer........0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 5½
The year before both players had participated in Buenos Aires and Reshevsky had said he would not mind finishing in 19th place if Fischer finished in 20th. In fact Reshevsky ended up tying for first with Korchnoi while Fischer finished well back finishing with 8.5-10.5. Everyone was amazed at Fischer’s poor performance in this event and it was only later that we learned what really happened. According to Larry Evans, Fischer's poor performance was due to experience with a girl Evans had introduced him to during the tournament. Pal Benko confirmed the reason for Fischer’s poor result when he said it was "because he got caught up in women and sex. ...”
Back to the match. Games 1-4 were played in New York, 5-12 were to be played in Los Angeles, and 13-16 were supposed to be played back in New York City. After eleven games the score was tied at two wins apiece with seven draws. That’s when the trouble started. The match ended due to a scheduling dispute between Fischer and match organizer Jacqueline Piatigorsky.
Jacqueline Piatigorsky, herself a chess player and sculptor, was married to renowned cellist, Gregor Piatigorsky. Mrs. Piatigorsky was a Reshevsky supporter so that may help to explain the ensuing brouhaha that resulted in the aborted match.
After eleven games, the match was tied and the 12th game was supposed to be played on Saturday but was postponed to Sunday because of Reshevsky’s observance of the Sabbath. I never understood this because it had long been a well known fact that Reshevsky, as an Orthodox Jew, never played on the Sabbath. So why a game would have been scheduled on a Saturday remains a mystery.
Mrs. Piatigorsky’s husband was due to play a concert on Sunday evening so she insisted that the game should start at 11:00 am, so she could attend the concert. Fischer absolutely refused and sat in his hotel deliberately forfeiting the game much as he was to do a couple of times later in his career.
The twelfth game had originally been scheduled to be played at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles on Sunday, August 13, at 1:30 in the afternoon. At ten that morning, Fischer received a phone call from the referee saying that playing time had been moved up to eleven. This, he said, was to accommodate the wishes of Mrs. Piatigorsky, who wanted to be sure the game would be over in time for her to attend the concert. Fischer refused to play at that early hour and cited a clause in his contract which stated that playing time had to be acceptable to him.
To my knowledge Reshevsky never objected to the time change, but then why should he in the light of Fischer’s behavior? The only thing I ever heard Reshevsky say concerning the match was after it was over. He commented, “I never expected this!” It was also reported that in the ensuing argument and just before he walked out, Fischer’s language was “fit for the gutter.” Listening to some of his later radio interviews, I can believe it. Fischer sued several people over the incident, but nothing ever came of his lawsuits.
The next game (13) was to be played in New York four days later but Fischer refused to continue unless the forfeit was overruled. Nobody in New York was in favor of the Los Angeles ruling but everyone was angry at Fischer and resented his actions and his threat to quit. One match official, Walter Fried, complained, "Fischer is holding a gun to our heads."
When time for the thirteenth game arrived, no decision had been made on the forfeiture and Fischer did not show up. That’s when Reshevsky was declared the winner and awarded the trophy and prize money. Fried commented, "There was no other course we could take consistent with our responsibility and our self respect," The whole incident reminds one of a future incident in the world championship match against Spassky. The only difference was in that match, Fischer showed some better sense and decided to continue playing and quit only after the match was over.
Reshevsky...1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 7½
Fischer........0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 5½
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Improvement Plans and Such
I ran across a Chessville article the other day called The Path to Improvement that was interesting.The author asks some questions that shows he knows how most of us study. For example, “As we’ve seen, the worst mistake we make in studying chess is that our methods of study are fragmented. We study a little of this and a little of that, and the end result is that we never master any of it. How many chess books do you have that you've read a few chapters of, then moved on to another book, without finishing the first? How many openings have you studied for a month or so, then gotten frustrated with them and moved on to another?”
“The second mistake we make is in studying the wrong things, or at least material that's inappropriate to our level. You've got to have a good understanding of the basics before you move on to more advanced concepts.”
“The basic outline of my plan is this: Master basic tactics, then basic endings, then study basic positional play and strategy, then learn basic opening principles, and finally bring it all together by playing over a collection of games with light notes…”
The truth is, much advice comes from players who are trying to become Masters, not from those who actually accomplished it. Just look at any forum where people are asking for advice on how to improve and see how much of it comes from players rated no better than the one asking. If I want advice on anything, I'll ask someonw who knows more about the subject than I do. Also, I'm skeptical of people offering me advice when they are trying to sell me something. I am more likely to listen to somebody who has been where I am and made it to where I want to be and is offering to help, not because they want something in return, but just because they are willing to share their knowledge and experience. Unfortunately, it seems to me that often GM's are not capable of teaching very well because they are so far advanced that they have forgotten what it's like to be a patzer. They can't relate to the average player. Rather like a college physics professor trying to teach basic arithmetic to an elementary school student. I think you are better off to have a teacher who may not have the advanced degree or the advanced knowledge but who can relate to a bunch of kids who know nothing about the subject and is able to communicate in a way they can understand.
One such player is USCF Life Master Alan Goldsby, He said about reaching Master, “The first thing I would do is try to talk you OUT of it! (That's right!) The odds are DEFINITELY stacked against you, less than one precent of one percent of chess players ever even come close to breaking into Master territory. It takes an incredible amount of dedication. Chess Masters sacrifice a great deal to become a Master. You have few friends outside of chess. Masters have sacrificed relationships, careers, and many other things in pursuit of chess excellence.” Read his Amazon Review
If you are not interested in becoming a master, and just looking to improve, I suggest looking over the advice on his website: LIFE MASTER TRAINING
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Engine Playing Styles
Chess engines play like engines not humans so when talking about positional sense, you are comparing them to other engines...just like all engine rating lists which compare results only with games played against other engines. Engines still have a long way to go in their understanding of strategy which is why they are pretty much useless when it comes to trying to understand a game using only engine evaluation output.
Today engines don’t play blindly aggressive chess like they used to. All engines will sacrifice material for an immediate material gain and that’s often one of the problems when comparing their evaluations to that of a GM. Engines place the emphasis on material, GM’s realize there may be positional merits that outweigh the material. This especially is true in positions in which the material is unbalanced. Personally I will always rely on the GM’s intuition in these situations.
In recent years more chess knowledge has been programmed into engines. Another big change that’s been made in recent years in Fritz is that it’s being programmed to play against humans rather than engines. It’s becoming harder and harder to play “anti-computer” chess. You know, playing for closed positions where the engines couldn’t find any tactical shots, so just started shifting cyber-wood until you could form up your forces into an irresistible attack that was beyond its horizon.
I am not familiar with Hiarcs but have read that it plays human-like which I take to mean it’s programmed to have more feeling for, and give more weight to, positional themes. I have used Shredder but did not install it on the new laptop simply because I much prefer the interface and printout of Fritz. Shredder seemed to be oriented more towards positional play and I think it's evaluations were usually less optomistic than Fritz'.
Still, if I understand things correctly, all this is somewhat moot because you can tweak things like the “contempt value” for these engines and thereby alter their “style.” Raise the contempt value and the engine will play more tactical chess. The selectivity setting is also important because it determines the depth of search and size of search tree and will result in altering an engine’s style. The aggressiveness setting will also alter how aggressively the engine will play. You can also adjust the values for things like P-structure, King safety and the value placed on the individual pieces. In short, you can mess around with programs like Fritz and alter its style of play. I don’t because of my uncertainty of what kind of monster I will be creating simply because I’m not that well versed in all this stuff. Besides, it seems like most engines play their best at default settings. From my observations Rybka seems to be more modest in its assessments than Fritz which is why I prefer to use Houdini which some people have accused of being a clone of Rybka. I like solid more than speculative! However the main reason is that Houdini seems to be the stronger of all the free engines. I just finished an engine 5 minute tournament using my installed engines with the following results:
1. Houdini 1.03a w32 2_CPU..- D 1 1 1 1 4.5
2. RobboLito 0.09 x64............D - D D 1 1 3.5
3. Stockfish 1.6JA.................0 D – D 1 1 3
4. FireBird 1.0x64..................0 D D – D D 2
5. Fritz 12.............................0 0 0 D - 1 1.5
6. Crafty 23.01.......................0 0 0 D 0 - 0.5
Today engines don’t play blindly aggressive chess like they used to. All engines will sacrifice material for an immediate material gain and that’s often one of the problems when comparing their evaluations to that of a GM. Engines place the emphasis on material, GM’s realize there may be positional merits that outweigh the material. This especially is true in positions in which the material is unbalanced. Personally I will always rely on the GM’s intuition in these situations.
In recent years more chess knowledge has been programmed into engines. Another big change that’s been made in recent years in Fritz is that it’s being programmed to play against humans rather than engines. It’s becoming harder and harder to play “anti-computer” chess. You know, playing for closed positions where the engines couldn’t find any tactical shots, so just started shifting cyber-wood until you could form up your forces into an irresistible attack that was beyond its horizon.
I am not familiar with Hiarcs but have read that it plays human-like which I take to mean it’s programmed to have more feeling for, and give more weight to, positional themes. I have used Shredder but did not install it on the new laptop simply because I much prefer the interface and printout of Fritz. Shredder seemed to be oriented more towards positional play and I think it's evaluations were usually less optomistic than Fritz'.
Still, if I understand things correctly, all this is somewhat moot because you can tweak things like the “contempt value” for these engines and thereby alter their “style.” Raise the contempt value and the engine will play more tactical chess. The selectivity setting is also important because it determines the depth of search and size of search tree and will result in altering an engine’s style. The aggressiveness setting will also alter how aggressively the engine will play. You can also adjust the values for things like P-structure, King safety and the value placed on the individual pieces. In short, you can mess around with programs like Fritz and alter its style of play. I don’t because of my uncertainty of what kind of monster I will be creating simply because I’m not that well versed in all this stuff. Besides, it seems like most engines play their best at default settings. From my observations Rybka seems to be more modest in its assessments than Fritz which is why I prefer to use Houdini which some people have accused of being a clone of Rybka. I like solid more than speculative! However the main reason is that Houdini seems to be the stronger of all the free engines. I just finished an engine 5 minute tournament using my installed engines with the following results:
1. Houdini 1.03a w32 2_CPU..- D 1 1 1 1 4.5
2. RobboLito 0.09 x64............D - D D 1 1 3.5
3. Stockfish 1.6JA.................0 D – D 1 1 3
4. FireBird 1.0x64..................0 D D – D D 2
5. Fritz 12.............................0 0 0 D - 1 1.5
6. Crafty 23.01.......................0 0 0 D 0 - 0.5
Houdini Revisited
Apparently, from what I’ve been reading, GM’s are now using engines to discover theoretical novelties in the openings and I wonder how this will affect what is being played, or even the popularity of certain openings themselves.
Apparently there’s controversy over whether or not Houdini is a clone of Rybka or an original engine, but unless you are a computer engine guru, who cares? I came across the position below in which it was claimed is beyond the ability of most popular engines to solve but Houdini 1.03a found 1.Rb1 in 46 seconds on the poster’s slow laptop. A discussion of the following position (White to move) is discussed HERE.
Marjan Semyrl, a Correspondence GM, wrote a Squidoo page discussing the four elements of good engine analysis HERE. If you really want to know how top level engine analysis should be done, check out his page. As he points out, good analysis requires a powerful computer with good chess programs (note the plural form!), a lot of time, well versed in how to perform computer analysis, and finally, you must be a strong and experienced player.
All that disqualifies most of us! As I’ve pointed out in the past, that explains why there is more to playing top level CC than just buying Fritz or Rybka and it explains why players who just rely on engine generated moves will not do well against a top level CC player. Even playing at lower levels in engine tournaments on Lechenicher SchachServer I never had very good results because I was using a 10 year old desktop, Fritz 6 and and never let it run more than maybe 2-3 minutes before selecting a move; longer only if I disagreed with the engine's evaluation. I started at LSS several years ago at my official CC rating of 2060 and in my first tournament there didn't realize engine use was allowed. Even after I found out I could use engines, it didn't help much because I ended up with only a 50% score and still managed (rather Fritz 6 managed) to lose over 200 rating points!
Apparently there’s controversy over whether or not Houdini is a clone of Rybka or an original engine, but unless you are a computer engine guru, who cares? I came across the position below in which it was claimed is beyond the ability of most popular engines to solve but Houdini 1.03a found 1.Rb1 in 46 seconds on the poster’s slow laptop. A discussion of the following position (White to move) is discussed HERE.
All that disqualifies most of us! As I’ve pointed out in the past, that explains why there is more to playing top level CC than just buying Fritz or Rybka and it explains why players who just rely on engine generated moves will not do well against a top level CC player. Even playing at lower levels in engine tournaments on Lechenicher SchachServer I never had very good results because I was using a 10 year old desktop, Fritz 6 and and never let it run more than maybe 2-3 minutes before selecting a move; longer only if I disagreed with the engine's evaluation. I started at LSS several years ago at my official CC rating of 2060 and in my first tournament there didn't realize engine use was allowed. Even after I found out I could use engines, it didn't help much because I ended up with only a 50% score and still managed (rather Fritz 6 managed) to lose over 200 rating points!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Correspondence vs. OTB Chess
I have always been primarily a correspondence player. That’s because when I first learned to play chess I lived in the middle of nowhere and playing in tournaments was difficult. Then came 4 years in the military followed by a job that required working long hours, so OTB chess was never a practical alternative. Also, I always preferred the slower pace of CC. Then there is the fact that I was able to play at a much higher level in correspondence chess. As Walter Muir once said, “Only in correspondence chess can an amateur chess player, earning his living in another profession, even attain master class level of play.”
At the same time, I have to agree with Jeremy Silman who said, “I have always found postal players to be a bit out of touch with the realities surrounding chess understanding - they usually feel that their form of chess is better, more pure, more accurate, and…(their self congratulations seems to go on and on and on). My angst towards postal chess began when I read that many postal aficionados honestly felt that a postal World Champion would beat an over-the-board World Champion in a postal game. The postal caste never seemed to realize that their understanding of chess as a whole was so far below any over-the-board World Champion’s as to make the argument virtually laughable.” Obviously Silman doesn’t think too much of us correspondence players, but on the whole, he is correct, I think.
At the same time, I have to agree with Jeremy Silman who said, “I have always found postal players to be a bit out of touch with the realities surrounding chess understanding - they usually feel that their form of chess is better, more pure, more accurate, and…(their self congratulations seems to go on and on and on). My angst towards postal chess began when I read that many postal aficionados honestly felt that a postal World Champion would beat an over-the-board World Champion in a postal game. The postal caste never seemed to realize that their understanding of chess as a whole was so far below any over-the-board World Champion’s as to make the argument virtually laughable.” Obviously Silman doesn’t think too much of us correspondence players, but on the whole, he is correct, I think.
Free pdf Chess Book Downloads
You can download a number of chess books in pdf format from the following site: pdf-freedownload
Actually, this site is a bunch of links that direct you to other sites where you can view or download the books. In some cases they are old books nobody is likely going to want and in other cases they are “sample” downloads where you get 20 or 30 pages of a book from the publisher as an inducement to buy it. Many of the samples seem to be Eric Shiller books from Cardoza Publishing. From what I’ve read, most anything written by Schiller is not worth the price even if it’s free. Be that as it may, for example his book Development of a Chess Master contains 37 pages with some lessons in basic tactics…the book looks to me to be along the line of all those -------- For Dummies books. Also, some of the downloads are just catalogs.
There’s always a question about free downloads of chess books as to whether they are legal and violate copyright laws. Most sites won’t carry them if they are illegal, but some do. Bookyards is a Canadian website that follows Canadian copyright rules (far more lenient than US laws) but they still try to follow U.S. rules. Many sites don't adhere to Bookyard's standards.
Anyway, I give the link to this site in case anybody wants to poke around and maybe find something interesting.
EDIT 3-29-16...the link is now broken
Actually, this site is a bunch of links that direct you to other sites where you can view or download the books. In some cases they are old books nobody is likely going to want and in other cases they are “sample” downloads where you get 20 or 30 pages of a book from the publisher as an inducement to buy it. Many of the samples seem to be Eric Shiller books from Cardoza Publishing. From what I’ve read, most anything written by Schiller is not worth the price even if it’s free. Be that as it may, for example his book Development of a Chess Master contains 37 pages with some lessons in basic tactics…the book looks to me to be along the line of all those -------- For Dummies books. Also, some of the downloads are just catalogs.
There’s always a question about free downloads of chess books as to whether they are legal and violate copyright laws. Most sites won’t carry them if they are illegal, but some do. Bookyards is a Canadian website that follows Canadian copyright rules (far more lenient than US laws) but they still try to follow U.S. rules. Many sites don't adhere to Bookyard's standards.
Anyway, I give the link to this site in case anybody wants to poke around and maybe find something interesting.
EDIT 3-29-16...the link is now broken
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Article by Reshevsky's Daughter
A Slice of Life
Shmuel Chaim Reshevsky
Shmuel Chaim Reshevsky
by Shaindel Reshevsky
My father, Shmuel Chaim Reshevsky, of blessed memory, was an International Grandmaster of Chess and seven time United States Chess Champion. He was born in Ozorkov, Poland, and was known as a child prodigy and chess genius at the age of 4. He learned the game by observing his father, Yaakov, play. At the age of 6 he defeated high- ranking officials in simultaneous chess exhibitions, where he played against as many as 30 players at a time, moving quickly from board to board. He had a photo graphic memory for chess and could repeat all 30 games, move by move. He was known as "Shmulik der vunder kind" -- Shmuel the wonder child.
At the age of 9, my father came to America and gave chess exhibitions across the country, astounding the players and the audience. He gained the title of International Grandmaster at the age of 36, after winning a tournament in England.
My father was a descendant of Rabbi Yonasan Eibshitz, who descended from the great Kabalist, the Arizal. He grew up in an Orthodox home, and throughout his life he was known as a man who observed Shabbat. As chess was his livelihood he refused to play it on Shabbat or Yom Tov.
[Ed.'s note: although it is permissible according to Jewish law to play chess on Shabbat, one is enjoined not to be involved with one's business matters on Shabbat.]
Even the anti-Semitic Russsian government had to change around the chess tournament schedule to accommodate the observance of Shabbat. This was a great Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of G-d's name).
Whenever my father competed outside of New York City he always lost weight. He took along a suitcase of canned tuna and salmon and boxes of matza; his only substantial meals were on Shabbat, when he was the guest of an observant family.
My parents lived in Crown Heights before the Rebbe became Rebbe. During that time my father walked the Rebbe home from shul on Shabbat for nearly one and a half years. My father attended some farbrengens (Chasidic gatherings), and at one farbrengen the Rebbe spoke about chess and talked about my father.
During one tournament, when my father's game was not going well, he got up during a break, sent a telegram to the Rebbe asking for a blessing, and won the game. Whenever my father had to participate in a tournament out of New York or out of the country, he called the Rebbe's office and asked for the name, address and phone number of a family he could stay with for Shabbat.
When my father was 70 years old he asked the Rebbe if he should retire. The Rebbe said to continue playing because it was a Kiddush Hashem, and my father never retired. He wrote seven books on chess, was a chess columnist for the New York Times, Chess Life magazine, The Herald Tribune, World Journal Tribune and the Jewish Press. He was a television commentator during two World Chess Championships. My father was the only person ever to have beaten Bobby Fischer in a match.
After the age of 70 (with the Rebbe's blessing) in a Russian tournament he beat former World Champion, Vassily Smyslov, and the Russian audience of 1,000 people gave him a standing ovation. In 1986 he was inducted into the "United States Chess Hall of Fame." On his 80th birthday the United Chess Federation gave a party for him in a kosher restaurant, of course, and presented my father with a chess set and board and a beautifully worded tribute engraved on the box. Some people told my father that the fact that he was famous and still adhered to Torah and mitzvot inspired them to remain religious.
During a trip to play in a tournament in Caracas, Venezuela, my father's plane arrived late -- very close to Shabbat. He hailed a taxi to take him to his hotel and remained in the cab until it was almost Shabbat. At that point he got out of the cab, asked the driver for directions to his hotel and to meet him there with his belongings -- money, passport, clothes and food. He continued to walk the rest of the way. He met a Jewish man along the way who accompanied him to the hotel, and my father was pleased to discover that all of his luggage had arrived intact at the hotel.
My father passed away on 2 Nissan, 5752 (1992), at the age of 80. Even in his passing, my father caused a tremendous Kiddush Hashem. In the New York Times and Jewish newspapers, all of the obituaries stressed the fact that Shmuel Reshevsky was an Orthodox Jew who wouldn't work (play chess) on Shabbat and ate only kosher food. Reprinted from Beis Moshiach Magazine
Missed Wins in the Ending
I missed a couple of wins in a recent online game. In the following position Black is nearly in Zugawang. All I have to do is run him out of P moves and he will be forced to play …Kd8 which loses the R.
Instead I played 32.Rf8+ which is still winning. After 32...Kb7 33.Rxa8 Kxa8 34.f4 Kxa7 we reached the following position:
Now I played 35.e5?? hurling away the advantage and it's no more than a draw. After 35.f5! gxf5 36.exf5 and the P will queen. From the diagram it’s easy enough to see that after 36.exf5 the P queens in 3 moves while the Black K is too far away from the queening square. In a few more moves we reached the following position:
The position is clearly drawn because neither K can abandon its watch on the enemy P’s. This was really upsetting because Black was outrated by 300 points.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Opening Books and Databases
If you’re a GM (or top level CC player) opening books are pretty much worthless because any opinion on a variation more than a month or two old is outdated. So what you need is Chessbase (not the light version) and two strong engines; most likely the latest version of Fritz and Rybka. The reason for two is because sometimes Rybka is overly optimistic and Fritz too cautious. Of course your database must be kept up to date by downloading games from The Week in Chess, opening surveys from Chessbase Magazine and updates from Chess Publishing.
Then you are prepared to set up engine tournaments to be played overnight from the opening positions that you are interested in. That way you will be able to see how best to approach play in those positions. Unfortunately, unless you are a GM, no database, engine evaluations or game results from engine tournaments are going to help you correctly evaluate all the nuances of two or three unclear or equally evaluated positions.
GM Vladimir Bagirov opined that after three successive defeats with any opening, then no matter how much you like it, it’s time to replace it. Also, if you are a GM, you have to be aware of the fact that most of your peers will only use an opening variation for a couple of games. What they do is choose a complicated variation, check it with an engine then play it 2-3 times and then abandon it because somebody has probably found a refutation. Most GM's maintain a solid mainline repertoire in which they are constantly looking for novelties. But that’s GM’s. What about the rest of us?
Fortunately all we need is one solid line against most openings/defenses. For example, If you are planning to meet 1.e4 with ...e5, all you need is one solid line against the Ruy Lopez. Likewise one solid variation against the Giuoco Piano and King’s Gambit will suffice. You would follow the same procedure for White. You can determine this information by looking at your db statistics.
Once you’ve established your main lines you can do a search for games using those lines, print out 20-25 games and play over them paying attention to the general themes, patterns and any tactical motifs that arise. Just make sure you play over the entire game to get a feel for the game as a whole. You may also want a book on your particular opening/defense or main variation so you can get a good verbal description of the main ideas. That way you will know what you are trying to accomplish and it will help you better understand the ideas behind the moves played in your sample games.
Many lower rated players feel they need to avoid openings like the Ruy Lopez and Nimzo-Indian because they think those openings are too complicated for them to play well. That is not true. It’s going to take no more study to learn to play those lines properly than it is to play some second rate opening/defense where one slip is likely to cost you the game. It’s just not possible to win very often when you are constantly getting positions where you have to find the best move nearly every turn.
Then you are prepared to set up engine tournaments to be played overnight from the opening positions that you are interested in. That way you will be able to see how best to approach play in those positions. Unfortunately, unless you are a GM, no database, engine evaluations or game results from engine tournaments are going to help you correctly evaluate all the nuances of two or three unclear or equally evaluated positions.
GM Vladimir Bagirov opined that after three successive defeats with any opening, then no matter how much you like it, it’s time to replace it. Also, if you are a GM, you have to be aware of the fact that most of your peers will only use an opening variation for a couple of games. What they do is choose a complicated variation, check it with an engine then play it 2-3 times and then abandon it because somebody has probably found a refutation. Most GM's maintain a solid mainline repertoire in which they are constantly looking for novelties. But that’s GM’s. What about the rest of us?
Fortunately all we need is one solid line against most openings/defenses. For example, If you are planning to meet 1.e4 with ...e5, all you need is one solid line against the Ruy Lopez. Likewise one solid variation against the Giuoco Piano and King’s Gambit will suffice. You would follow the same procedure for White. You can determine this information by looking at your db statistics.
Once you’ve established your main lines you can do a search for games using those lines, print out 20-25 games and play over them paying attention to the general themes, patterns and any tactical motifs that arise. Just make sure you play over the entire game to get a feel for the game as a whole. You may also want a book on your particular opening/defense or main variation so you can get a good verbal description of the main ideas. That way you will know what you are trying to accomplish and it will help you better understand the ideas behind the moves played in your sample games.
Many lower rated players feel they need to avoid openings like the Ruy Lopez and Nimzo-Indian because they think those openings are too complicated for them to play well. That is not true. It’s going to take no more study to learn to play those lines properly than it is to play some second rate opening/defense where one slip is likely to cost you the game. It’s just not possible to win very often when you are constantly getting positions where you have to find the best move nearly every turn.
Blackburne-Morphy continued
Used as a measuring stick against players of his era, the 1850’s, Morphy’s opening knowledge, while profound, was not creative, his endgame skills were technically in advance of his time, his tactical skills were among the best, but as previously pointed out, not necessarily superior to other great players. It was his positional understanding that was superior to all the players of his time.
In this post we will be looking at how Morphy handled the same opening as played by Blackburne in the previous game. We will see Morphy’s handling was quite different than Blackburne’s; Morphy chose a positional approach in contrast to Blackburne’s attacking style. Morphy’s 11.Be3 was not the only time he played it; he also used the move in a game 6 years earlier.
As Morphy’s handling of the position became known, the move 11.Be3 came to be adopted by leading masters as the standard line.
When playing the Evan’s Gambit, White must be ready to play a P down for a good part of the game. On the other hand, if Black attempts to hang on to the P at all costs, White usually has a strong initiative. Black’s best chance is to complete his development even if it means returning the P.
In this post we will be looking at how Morphy handled the same opening as played by Blackburne in the previous game. We will see Morphy’s handling was quite different than Blackburne’s; Morphy chose a positional approach in contrast to Blackburne’s attacking style. Morphy’s 11.Be3 was not the only time he played it; he also used the move in a game 6 years earlier.
As Morphy’s handling of the position became known, the move 11.Be3 came to be adopted by leading masters as the standard line.
When playing the Evan’s Gambit, White must be ready to play a P down for a good part of the game. On the other hand, if Black attempts to hang on to the P at all costs, White usually has a strong initiative. Black’s best chance is to complete his development even if it means returning the P.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Blackburne and Morphy
Joseph Henry Blackburne (10 December 1841 – 1 September 1924), known as "The Black Death", dominated British chess during the late 1800’s. He was unusual in that he learned chess at the late age of 18 but quickly became a strong player. His professional career lasted over 50 years. He was also noted for heavy drinking especially during exhibition games and occasionally became violent when drunk. He was once quoted as saying, "Whiskey clears my brain and improves my chess play."
The player who inspired Blackburne was Paul Morphy. In the opening he developed his pieces quickly, tried to avoid the loss of time, and aimed at sacrificial attacks, often describing his brilliant combinations as, “A little bit of Morphy.” Such a comment revealed how little Morphy’s style of play was understood by players of Blackburne’s day. Blackburne’s style was more in the style of Anderssen, Kieseritsky, Bird or any number of players of the era, all of whom were able to capable of conjuring up brilliant attacks.
Morphy’s attacks, as brilliant as they were, owed their brilliancy to his superiority in positional play and he was far from exceptional in making brilliant sacrifices. Players like Capablanca, Alekhine, Marshall and Spielmann, et al were also capable of brilliant sacrifices. When Steinitz came along with his cramped defensive play it seemed bizarre to players of the day. It was hoped that Blackburne would show the superiority of his style when he faced Steinitz in a series of matches, but the results proved disastrous.
Blackburne and his “Morphy style” was defeated by Steinitz in a match in 1863 by a score of 7-1 with 4 draws, in 1870 by a score of 5 straight wins for Steinitz and again, in 1867, by a score of 7 straight wins for Steinitz. It was then that players began to think that maybe there was something to be said for Steinitz’ theories. The truth is that Blackburne did NOT play in the style of Morphy because he had no concept of Morphy’s play being based on superior positional understanding.
In this post we will look at one of Blackburne’s games against Steinitz and compare the two styles. In a future post we will take a look at Morphy’s approach from the same opening. In this game Steinitz parried Blackburne’s tactical threats with great alacrity with the exception of his move 26…Rd7? which was the result of positional over-finessing. Had he played the more natural 26…Rde8 he would not have allowed Blackburne the opportunity to crash through with his attack. You can’t blame the players for missing the refutation though because all the great players of the past who have annotated the game missed it. In fact the game was so complicated from that point on that several annotators gave inferior suggestions!
Even though many of these old games have such mistakes, it takes nothing away from the greatness of the players who created them nor does it take anything away from the players who examined them. Without the benefit of Rybka, Fritz and a host of other strong engines, it’s not surprising that they occasionally missed tactical shots.
In the final analysis, Blackburne was unsuccessful in threading his way through the complications he, himself, had brought about and in the end it was Steinitz’ positional play that won out as proven by their match scores. Still, one cannot help but admire Blackburne’s cleverness in this game just as you cannot help but admire the risks taken by players like Tahl and Nezhmetdinov even if their ideas later turned out to be unsound.
You can download full view books and magazine articles about Blackburne from Google books including the Steinitz-Blackburne Match of 1876 and a 331 page tome of his games annotated by Blackburne, himself.
The player who inspired Blackburne was Paul Morphy. In the opening he developed his pieces quickly, tried to avoid the loss of time, and aimed at sacrificial attacks, often describing his brilliant combinations as, “A little bit of Morphy.” Such a comment revealed how little Morphy’s style of play was understood by players of Blackburne’s day. Blackburne’s style was more in the style of Anderssen, Kieseritsky, Bird or any number of players of the era, all of whom were able to capable of conjuring up brilliant attacks.
Morphy’s attacks, as brilliant as they were, owed their brilliancy to his superiority in positional play and he was far from exceptional in making brilliant sacrifices. Players like Capablanca, Alekhine, Marshall and Spielmann, et al were also capable of brilliant sacrifices. When Steinitz came along with his cramped defensive play it seemed bizarre to players of the day. It was hoped that Blackburne would show the superiority of his style when he faced Steinitz in a series of matches, but the results proved disastrous.
Blackburne and his “Morphy style” was defeated by Steinitz in a match in 1863 by a score of 7-1 with 4 draws, in 1870 by a score of 5 straight wins for Steinitz and again, in 1867, by a score of 7 straight wins for Steinitz. It was then that players began to think that maybe there was something to be said for Steinitz’ theories. The truth is that Blackburne did NOT play in the style of Morphy because he had no concept of Morphy’s play being based on superior positional understanding.
In this post we will look at one of Blackburne’s games against Steinitz and compare the two styles. In a future post we will take a look at Morphy’s approach from the same opening. In this game Steinitz parried Blackburne’s tactical threats with great alacrity with the exception of his move 26…Rd7? which was the result of positional over-finessing. Had he played the more natural 26…Rde8 he would not have allowed Blackburne the opportunity to crash through with his attack. You can’t blame the players for missing the refutation though because all the great players of the past who have annotated the game missed it. In fact the game was so complicated from that point on that several annotators gave inferior suggestions!
Even though many of these old games have such mistakes, it takes nothing away from the greatness of the players who created them nor does it take anything away from the players who examined them. Without the benefit of Rybka, Fritz and a host of other strong engines, it’s not surprising that they occasionally missed tactical shots.
In the final analysis, Blackburne was unsuccessful in threading his way through the complications he, himself, had brought about and in the end it was Steinitz’ positional play that won out as proven by their match scores. Still, one cannot help but admire Blackburne’s cleverness in this game just as you cannot help but admire the risks taken by players like Tahl and Nezhmetdinov even if their ideas later turned out to be unsound.
You can download full view books and magazine articles about Blackburne from Google books including the Steinitz-Blackburne Match of 1876 and a 331 page tome of his games annotated by Blackburne, himself.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Ken Smith’s Chess Improvement Course
I have posted about Ken Smith previously and how in the 1960’s his Chess Digest Magazine and Chess Digest Publishing Company provided average players of that era a wealth of instruction and chess material for study. So, in view of the previous post about De La Maza, I thought I should make available a pdf download of Smith’s improvement course. Most of the books he recommended were either written or published by himself, but no doubt there are newer books on the same subjects available today.
One word from Smith about this course…This little essay on my personal openings and defenses is for players above the rating of 1799 that have mastered tactics and the endgame.
Update 4-5-13: This article is now available from Dropbox:
Ken Smith’s Chess Improvement Course
One word from Smith about this course…This little essay on my personal openings and defenses is for players above the rating of 1799 that have mastered tactics and the endgame.
Update 4-5-13: This article is now available from Dropbox:
Ken Smith’s Chess Improvement Course
Rapid Chess Improvement
400 points in 400 days by Mike De La Maza. I see interest in this has cropped up again on a couple of chess forums. For those who might not be familiar with his method, he began playing in tournaments in 1999, and by 2001 had improved his rating from an initial 1164 to 2041. In his last tournament he won the Under 2000 section of the World Open but never played a rated game after that. After the tournament, he wrote a two part article entitled 400 points in 400 days for the Chess Cafe web site which became the basis for the book Rapid Chess Improvement. Basically his method involved working through a large set of puzzles multiple times until they can be solved very quickly. His method involves focusing exclusively on tactics, with little attention paid to strategy, openings, or the endgame.
Pdf files of his original articles are available for downloading at Chess Café: Part 1 Part 2
Critics of De La Maza's training methods and of his criticism of chess teachers who emphasize other aspects of the game, such as strategy and endings, include Jeremy Silman and Dr. John Nunn. Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to concentrate on only one area to the exclusion of all others. After all, when teaching a child elementary arithmetic, you would not teach them addition and ignore subtraction, multiplication and division. It’s the same with any subject you are trying to learn. Why should chess be any different?
But the whole point is, does it work? Most of the adherents to De La Maza’s method that I’ve read about all admit that it is enormously time consuming and near impossible to work at the pace De La Maza claimed he worked. If I remember correctly, he was unemployed at the time and so was able to devote full time to his study plan…not practical for most people. Evidently it also resulted in burnout that lead to his abandoning chess.
It is also possible that De La Maza was under-rated because prior to playing in tournaments he did have some chess coaching and these days with class sections and all, it’s very difficult for an unrated player who is playing in an low rated or unrated section to come out of it with a significant provisional rating.
All that aside the real question is, does his method work? Personally, I have never read of anybody who undertook it who made a significant rating improvement, especially 400 points in 400 days. Nor do I believe there is such a thing as “rapid improvement.” For most players, improvement is a slow and laborious process. At the same time I have to ask, how effective are the methods of guys like Alburt, Silman, Heisman, etc. in raising the ratings of their average students? Most of them can probably point to a few students, likely with natural talent, who made rapid progress, but it seems to me that average players are forever studying but never improving very much. All of which makes me wonder sometimes if either method is going to be much help.
Still, if I had to chose, I’d go for a method that tries to make you an all around player, not one that just concentrates on one area using exercises that appear to be by most descriptions I’ve read, downright painful.
I'd be interested in hearing other's opinions of his method and from anybody who has actually tried it. How did it work?
Pdf files of his original articles are available for downloading at Chess Café: Part 1 Part 2
Critics of De La Maza's training methods and of his criticism of chess teachers who emphasize other aspects of the game, such as strategy and endings, include Jeremy Silman and Dr. John Nunn. Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to concentrate on only one area to the exclusion of all others. After all, when teaching a child elementary arithmetic, you would not teach them addition and ignore subtraction, multiplication and division. It’s the same with any subject you are trying to learn. Why should chess be any different?
But the whole point is, does it work? Most of the adherents to De La Maza’s method that I’ve read about all admit that it is enormously time consuming and near impossible to work at the pace De La Maza claimed he worked. If I remember correctly, he was unemployed at the time and so was able to devote full time to his study plan…not practical for most people. Evidently it also resulted in burnout that lead to his abandoning chess.
It is also possible that De La Maza was under-rated because prior to playing in tournaments he did have some chess coaching and these days with class sections and all, it’s very difficult for an unrated player who is playing in an low rated or unrated section to come out of it with a significant provisional rating.
All that aside the real question is, does his method work? Personally, I have never read of anybody who undertook it who made a significant rating improvement, especially 400 points in 400 days. Nor do I believe there is such a thing as “rapid improvement.” For most players, improvement is a slow and laborious process. At the same time I have to ask, how effective are the methods of guys like Alburt, Silman, Heisman, etc. in raising the ratings of their average students? Most of them can probably point to a few students, likely with natural talent, who made rapid progress, but it seems to me that average players are forever studying but never improving very much. All of which makes me wonder sometimes if either method is going to be much help.
Still, if I had to chose, I’d go for a method that tries to make you an all around player, not one that just concentrates on one area using exercises that appear to be by most descriptions I’ve read, downright painful.
I'd be interested in hearing other's opinions of his method and from anybody who has actually tried it. How did it work?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Chessville
This is a very interesting site well worth a visit! I particularly enjoyed the interviews with Larry Evans on Bobby Fischer and the interview with Raymond Keene on Pertosian. Be sure to visit this site and take a look at what they have to offer in the way of chess news, reviews, training and instruction and everything chess related. Take me to Chessville!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Harry Golombek on Bobby Fischer…
…writing in the October, 1960 issue of the British Chess Magazine:
“…we are happy to assure the reader that the young American grandmaster is far from being the moron that one might think him to be from these idiotic remarks.”
Scathing Obituary
A certain master I once knew always, for some reason I could never determine, reminded me of Groucho Marx. I knew him for many years and even helped him with one of his self published chess books by playing over the games and correcting typos. He was a cantankerous old geezer but I liked him anyway. I came across one of his articles where he was writing about another master and chess columnist who had recently died. I’ve bleeped out the names to protect the guilty. What he wrote was pretty hilarious. I knew (Name deleted) and this certain master hit the nail on the head:
(Name deleted) has died, thirty years too late. A raving, conceited, egotistical, arrogant maniac who thought he was "somebody", but actually was a "nobody". Despite seeing hundreds of Grandmaster games, and reporting on them, he learned NOTHING, and made no attempt to emulate their play, but deliberately used anti-theoretical openings. He did this because he thought he was smarter than everyone else, but only proved that he was incredibly stupid. In a game printed in (Magazine name deleted) he plays his favorite opening, which is junk, accuses Black of making a lot of bad moves, but reaches a horrible position, and mentions that Black has a forced win at move 29. Black missed it, and played like a moron. (Name deleted) won.
For many years, (Name deleted) wrote "tournament reports" for (Magazine name deleted), but they were abominable, because he didn't write about the players, he wrote about himself: How He played; What He thought; instead of writing about Grandmasters.
(Name deleted)’s natural personality was to be assertive, bossy, egotistic and conceited, despite a noticeable lack of talent. Almost every great player has said that they studied the games of the past Masters, but (Name deleted) didn't, because he thought that he was a genius, who would become a great player, by sheer brain-power. Thus, he remained incredibly ignorant, and stupid, and his ambition far exceeded his ability.
Grandmaster (Name deleted), and other strong players, were at a party, and (Name deleted) suggested a five-minute tournament. (The Grandmaster) won 13-0, and (Name deleted) had a very poor score. Typically, he said, "Maybe that wasn't such a good idea." Completely self-centered, and not even beginning to think that the others had a great time.
(Name deleted) has died, thirty years too late. A raving, conceited, egotistical, arrogant maniac who thought he was "somebody", but actually was a "nobody". Despite seeing hundreds of Grandmaster games, and reporting on them, he learned NOTHING, and made no attempt to emulate their play, but deliberately used anti-theoretical openings. He did this because he thought he was smarter than everyone else, but only proved that he was incredibly stupid. In a game printed in (Magazine name deleted) he plays his favorite opening, which is junk, accuses Black of making a lot of bad moves, but reaches a horrible position, and mentions that Black has a forced win at move 29. Black missed it, and played like a moron. (Name deleted) won.
For many years, (Name deleted) wrote "tournament reports" for (Magazine name deleted), but they were abominable, because he didn't write about the players, he wrote about himself: How He played; What He thought; instead of writing about Grandmasters.
(Name deleted)’s natural personality was to be assertive, bossy, egotistic and conceited, despite a noticeable lack of talent. Almost every great player has said that they studied the games of the past Masters, but (Name deleted) didn't, because he thought that he was a genius, who would become a great player, by sheer brain-power. Thus, he remained incredibly ignorant, and stupid, and his ambition far exceeded his ability.
Grandmaster (Name deleted), and other strong players, were at a party, and (Name deleted) suggested a five-minute tournament. (The Grandmaster) won 13-0, and (Name deleted) had a very poor score. Typically, he said, "Maybe that wasn't such a good idea." Completely self-centered, and not even beginning to think that the others had a great time.
Blindfold Quiz
Chess Videos TV (Link) has a blindfold quiz (easy, medium and hard) where you are given a series of moves and then try to visualize them and find the next best move. For example, after the moves, 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2, what should Black play? Highlight for answer: 3...Qe4 mate
Give it a try and see how you compare to everybody else…they give the percentage of correct guesses for each problem.
Give it a try and see how you compare to everybody else…they give the percentage of correct guesses for each problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)