Chess Clocks

       This month’s Chess Life had an interesting article on the death of the analog clock.  It seems these clocks have gone the way of the buggy whip.  In fact there are now some organizers who do not allow the use of analog clocks at all in their tournaments.  I find that sad.
       On one forum somebody posted his new analog clock was “…soooo noisy!!! Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. I would never have gotten it if I knew it was going to be like this.” Another posted, “I can't imagine getting used to this.” 
       In the old tournaments I always thought sitting in a room full of ticking clocks was relaxing, something like watching tropical fish.  Also it was much easier to use a clock then.  You set it with one extra minute (e.g. 40 moves in two hours, the clock was set with time to expire in 121 minutes.) and when your flag fell you lost.
       Learning to set a digital clock these days is almost as complicated as learning the rules of chess and understanding the time limits is something I still haven’t mastered.  Not that it really matters because I don’t play OTB.  The whole mess came about, allegedly, to eliminate adjournments because players had access to chess engines with which to analyze adjourned games.  Personally I think that’s nonsense. 
       First, in the old days GMs had seconds, or in some cases teams of seconds, who would analyze their games then go over the results with them.  Nowadays a GM would use an engine in an adjourned games only as a blunder check to make sure he didn’t miss anything obvious.  I can’t imagine a GM relying totally on engine analysis of his ending!  Second, in your typical weekend Swiss full of average players, they aren’t going to remember reams of engine-generated analysis any more than they can remember reams of opening analysis.
       When I played OTB I can only remember 3 or 4 adjourned games.  In one, against a 2300 rated Soviet master, it took me about half an hour to realize I was going to lose the R&P ending so I resigned without resuming play.  In another one I had a Q vs. my opponent’s Q&P and an IM helped me analyze it because my opponent was one of his rivals and he wanted to make sure I didn’t mess around and lose; I held the draw.
       I think the real reason to avoid adjournments was to make it easier on the TD’s.  Or else the nitpickers got involved.  You know, the same people who determined that writing down your move before you played it was somehow consulting notes. 
       It used to be players and spectators alike complained about the inordinate length of games so that’s the reason chess clocks were invented.  In 1834, during several matches between La Bourdonnais and McDonnell, time was not an issue. According to George Walker, three-fourths of one entire game “was spent in dwelling and pondering and strategizing”. Many of the games lasted long, long hours but the exact duration of each move was not recorded. Walker once timed La Bourdonnais at fifty-five minutes for one move, but then said that “McDonnell was incomparably the slower player”. In 1843, several impartial onlookers described a match between Howard Staunton and Pierre St. Amant as a test of physical endurance rather than a chess match. Their 21st match game took 66 moves and 14½ hours.
        In many cases there seemed to be a deliberate attempt to wear out the opponent and an average game lasted nine hours and with the rise of competitive chess the question of fairness came up: should a player be allowed to take enormous amounts of time? As much as two hours and 20 minutes was spent by one player over a single move at the London tournament.
       Shortly after the Staunton matches, the French player Alexandre Deschapelles severely criticized both players and suggested a maximum time limit in the event of a return match. After the first international tournament was held in London in 1851, a flood of criticism against the slowness of play caused an anonymous contributor named A. Cantab to write: “Let each player have a three-hour sandglass at his elbow and a friend on either side to turn it. While the player is thinking, the sand must be allowed to run; while his opponent is thinking, his glass will be laid horizontally on the table and the running suspended”. Howard Staunton and other prominent players agreed .
      Another proposal, by German master Baron von der Lasa, was to use two watches and note the time consumed on each move by each opponent. This was popular in Europe because the sand glass had proven to be problematic. Temperature and humidity both had effects upon the sand so there were variations in accuracy from location to location and match to match.
        In 1867 the Paris International Tournament imposed a fine of 5 francs, payable to the tournament committee, to be paid for every fifteen minutes over the time limit of ten moves per hour. Fortunately by 1883 the chess clock had been invented.  It was a “tumbling” clock invented by Thomas Wilson of Manchester. It consisted of two pendulum clocks on opposite ends of a balance beam. The advent of time limits added the element of pressure and was a significant factor in drawing spectators to matches.  Games could still take a long time, so they were often adjourned after 6 or 8 hours. The first clock I remember in the late 1950’s was the Solara:

It was a small, finely made clock that was made by inserting wristwatch works into a wood block cut for the small-sized works. These days finding one of these clocks is rare.  This is the clock I remember seeing used in the Tahl-Botvinnik matches and other international tournaments. 

Jerger



According to The Chess Museum Jerger went out of business in the 1970’s when the owner committed suicide. For many years, this clock was the clock used in Germany.  The clock had superb works, a beautiful inclined wooden case, smooth button action, and a large face. One of the best. I still have mine.

BHB

This ubiquitous clock was very popular.  They were extremely rugged.  The first chess club I belonged to had about a dozen of them that were often used in 5 minutes games by the members and they withstood merciless hammering (the clocks, not the members.)

Alpha

The German Alpha clock  was handmade in Western Germany until about 1990.  This was the first clock I owned and it was extremely well built but it had two problems.  First the flag did not rise as the minute hand approached 12 o’clock; it just suddenly dropped when time expired.  Also, the only way you could guesstimate how much time you had left was to lean down and peer at the minute hand and try to estimate the time remaining by how much white space appeared between the minute hand and the 12 o’clock mark.  I partially solved that my having my father put his woodworking skills to use and mounting it on a wedge shaped piece of wood so the clock tilted back slightly; it helped.

I also owned a Pal Benko Clock in the early 1960’s.  It was a piece of junk marketed by Benko and apparently not too many were made. I have never seen it offered on ebay and had a really hard time finding a picture of one on Google.  The one I had was has a cheap wood case (pine?) and the glass front rattled because it was so poorly fit.  I had to shim it up.  In the first tournament where it saw use, right in the middle of a game, I heard a loud snap and an unwinding noise when the mainspring broke.   

My most cherished clock is an old Soviet clock dating from the 1950’s that I purchased from a Latvian player for $60.  I’ve seen them go on ebay for $200 or so.  The clock is BIG; it measures 11” long x 5.25” high and 2.75” deep with 3.5” faces…and it still keeps perfect time.  It’s not good for anything but nostalgia and I wouldn’t think of parting with it!

When it comes to houses, furniture and cars, I want new but when it comes to chess sets and clocks, I prefer the old.

Creating an Engine Opening Book

        An opening book is basically a database and the first thing in creating your own is to decide what openings you want in your book  and, most importantly, what games you will use to select the moves.  You don’t want your engine being too predictable or worse yet, playing bad moves. Another option is to create an opening book containing games of a specific opening you wish to study.
        Most people define ‘opening theory’ as the openings and variations played by strong GM’s.  This is the problem with making opening books from databases with games by low rated players; unless you have filtered the games you can get bad lines played by lower rated players and the statistics will be misleading.  There is also the problem that opening books are compiled from games that were played in the past and new developments could have changed ‘theory.’
       Most opening books are created from games by 2400+ players but the question arises, why not just compile the book from games played only by super-GM’s? One problem is that there won’t be any offbeat or rarely played openings in the book because guys like Carlsen, Kramnik and Anand don’t play things like the Bird Opening.  Personally, in my opening book I don’t have any offbeat openings; my book is used exclusively for correspondence chess and most of my games are against higher rated players and offbeat lines are rare.  I figure that if somebody does play a line that isn’t in my book, I can easily switch to another, or better yet, search my database for games with those lines.
       Commercial engines have huge and highly optimized opening books but I prefer to have my games played by highly rated correspondence players because 1) they are strong analysts and 2) they have most likely heavily analyzed their opening lines with an engine.  Also, because I play most all of my games on ICCF or LSS servers where engine use is allowed, I have included top level engine vs. engine games just in case an opponent is relying on his engine to select a move.  I want to know if it’s been played by an engine before and what the result was.  Of course there is nothing wrong with including games of 2600 or 2700 plus players in your book if you want.
       Once you have compiled a book, the next question is what lines from that book should the engine play? Should it choose random variations from the book or should it rely on the statistical analysis of a large number of games based on the outcome?  The real problem here is that random selection could result in playing a line that resulted in a loss while whether a game is won or lost does not necessarily depend on the variation but could be the result of mistakes later on.  In the latter case, given a large enough number of games the statistical analysis could be useful.
       The most important numbers you will see in the Fritz opening book window are: N, %, Av and Perf.  For example, using Tartajubow’s Super Opening book, a recent game opened:

Sicilian: Kan Variation: 5 Bd3 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6

      N is the number of games in the opening book in which a move was played. % is the score by White.  Av is the average rating of the players.  Note that if a player’s rating isn’t given in the game score a default rating of 2200 is assigned.  Perf means that if a player’s rating was the ‘Av’ and he played the number of games shown in the ‘N’ column his new rating would be as shown in the ‘Perf’ column.  From the above you can see my book has 68 games where 5.Bd3 was played and the average rating of the players was 2573 and White scored 53.7%.  So, if a 2573 rated player played 68 games with 5.Bd3 his performance rating would be 2615.  Of course all that is based only on the games included in the DB and does not mean if you choose 5.Bd3 your results will be the same or that if there were 300 games in the db the outcome would be the same, but it does serve as a guideline that may help in deciding which move to play.

       In the above example the Fritz 12 opening book does not even show 4…a6 as a choice for Black, so it does not list any moves for White after Black’s 4…a6.  What you would have to do is rely on Fritz’ suggestion for your next move.  I let Fritz 12 run for several minutes and it came up with 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Qf3 Nf6 7.Be2 Bd6 8.Be3 Nc6 9.0–0–0 Be5 10.g4 h6 11.Kb1 0–0 and believed White was about 3/4 of a P ahead.  All that is pretty meaningless because in its analysis Fritz did not recognize that after 5.Nc3 it was actually back in a heavily booked line.  The move I actually played was 5.Bd3 and the Fritz opening book still had no move for Black in its book.  However, after 5…Bc5 it recognized it was back in the book and listed four possibilities for White. A better solution to the above situation is to do a position search of the DB which would reveal any games that had reached the position after 4…a6 and you could then examine those games for the best continuation.

       It’s not my intention to discuss the technical details about how one creates an opening book as that information is widely available by people better qualified than I am.  I simply want to show that creating your own opening books can have some advantages. 

       Of course it’s always a good idea to keep the book updated.  Where to get games?  I download correspondence games from places like ICCF, LSS and various engine sites.  After that I sort and delete all games by players below a certain level (what Elo rating you want as a cutoff point is your call).  The next thing I do is only select games from recent years.  I don’t want games played 5-6 years ago because engines have greatly increased in strength since then.  You can also do some research on recent innovations in your favorite lines and add them to your opening book.  In the end, it is possible to end up with your own book that is better suited to your needs than the one that came with the engine.

Correspondence games can be downloaded at: ICCF and IECG

Engine games can be downloaded HERE.  These games are especially good because they are not blitz games; they were played at a tournament T/L of 40/2.

So, create your own specialty opening books and get the drop on you correspondence opponents or use it to study your favorite opening. 

Polugayevsky-Nezhmetdinov

Many players consider the following game one of the best ever played even though Nezhmetdinov’s combination may have been unsound.  I recommend that rather than playing over it on a computer you print out the game and play over it with an actual chess set so that you can better appreciate it. GM Andrew Soltis, in his book The 100 Best Chess Games Of The 20th Century Ranked, Soltis ranks it Number 2 and Salo Flohr considered it to be one of the finest games ever played in over-the-board competition.

You can try playing over and analyzing it with an engine, but it remains so complicated that to find the truth is likely to take more time than you have, so I recommend just playing over it for enjoyment.

WARNING!!

Spending too much time studying this game could cause your head to explode!

Lev Polugaeyevsky - Rashid Nezhmetdinov
Russian Federation Championship

Sochi, 1958

1.d4 Nf6

2.c4 d6
This opening is the Old Indian

3.Nc3 e5

Nezhmetdinov played this defense quite often despit the fact that he has to be ready for an early exchange of Q’s.

4.e4 ….

Nezhmetdinov preferred 4.Nf3 and the book line is 4…Nbd7.  Also very interesting is 4...e4.

4...exd4

5.Qxd4
This loses a tempo but it’s forced because if 5.Nb5 c5 gives Black a slight advantage.

5...Nc6

6.Qd2
Of this move Soltis wrote, "This begins an ambitious plan of development for White. Black has given up center control in exchange for a slight initiative - but if White solves
all of his opening problems, his space edge will begin to count."  In several of his games, Polugayevsky successfully played this idea coupled with a fianchetto of his QB.

6...g6

7.b3 White’s plan is dominate the dark squares.

7...Bg7

8.Bb2 0-0
Black is slightly ahead in development but his position is somewhat cramped.

9.Bd3
"White has not decided where to castle yet." - Soltis

9...Ng4
With this move Black begins probing the White position in the hopes of inducing a weakness.  According to John Emms, "White's two pawns in the middle (e4, & c4) create a strong bind in the center, and typical moves from Black will allow White to catch up in development and gain a comfortable advantage. Black must seek activity as soon as possible, and the move, 9... Ng4; is the perfect way to do this. Now Black has ideas of ...Qh4 and Nge5 and the pawn break...f5

9...Nb4 10.Bb1 c6 11.Nge2 d5 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Nxd5 Nbxd5 14.exd5 Qxd5 15.Qxd5 Nxd5 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Be4 was tried in Roussel-Bologan, Edmonton 2005

9...Ne5 10.Bc2 a5 11.Nge2 a4 12.Rd1 axb3 13.axb3 Nfg4 14.Nd4 Qh4 15.h3 f5 as in Bobula- Muzychuk,Wroclaw

10.Nge2

In Alatortsev-Boleslavsky, 18^th USSR Championship, 1950, White played 10.Nf3 and after 10…Nge5 11.Be2 Nxf3+ 12.Bxf3 Nd4 13.Bd1 f5 Black had the initiative.  This amazing game continued: 13.Bd1 f5 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Ne2 15...Nxe2 16.Bxe2 Bxb2 17.Qxb2 Qg5 18.g3 Rae8 19.0-0 Bh3 20.f4 Bxf1 An amazing sacrifice in a seemingly tranquil position based on White's weaknesses of his light squares. 21.fxg5 Rxe2 22.Qc3 Bg2 23.Qd3 Bf3 24.Rf1 Rg2+ 25.Kh1 Bc6 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 27.Qf1+ Rf2 White resigned

10...Qh4!?

Of this move Nezhmetdinov wrote, “Despite the usual conceptions of opening strategy, proceeding from the concrete peculiarities of the position, Black makes an early move with the Q without completing the development of his pieces, thus making White determine the position immediately.  Now the game enters a period of violent tactical complications”

Several other authors have given this move an exclamation point. Soltis didn’t.  In fact, he didn’t even comment on it.  Certainly this move is the sharpest and there is significant risk for both side.

Houdini likes 10...Nce5 as played in Reilly-McNab, London 1993  which was eventually drawn.  After 10…Nce5 Houdini thinks Black has about half a  Pawn advantage which would mean he has seized the initiative.  Interestingly Houdini initially considered 10…Qh4 but rejected it after a few seconds thought although it’s evaluation only dropped by about a quarter of a P.

11.Ng3

This move is too risky. More siolid is 11.g3.  After 11.Ng3 the N has made two moves to get to a square from which it will probably have to move again. In fact Geller also preferred 11.g3.

11...Nge5
Nezhmetdinov rejected 11…Nce5 because of 12.Bc2 Bh6 13.f4 because after White castles long he has good prospects. Actually 11…Nce5 isn’t that bad.  Not 11...f5 because of 12. f4! and if 12...Nxh2 13. Nce2 and 0-0-0." - Soltis.

12.0-0
Some annotators have called this castling into it adding that White may not have much choice at this point. However 12.Be2 leaves him with a solid position.  Soltis claimed 12.Be2 Bh6 13.Qd1 f5 leaves White with a poor game, but that claim may be a bit of a stretch.

12...f5

“In this position few would refuse the ‘easily winning” move 12…Ng4.  It appears that after 13.h3 Nf2 Black might win a Pawn in the unceasing attack…If you consider the position more deeply, you can understand that all is not as simple as it appears to be at first sight.  After 12…Ng4 13.h3 Nxf2 14.Qxf2 Bd4 White may suddenly sacrifice his Q for two minor pieces: 15.Qxd4!! Nxd4 16.Nd5!  Here the usual material considerations recede into the background and the concrete peculiarities of the position come to the foreground.  Despite Black’s solid material advantage, White’s position is in no way worse than that of Black and psychologically a sudden turn of events is only in White’s favor.” – Nezhmetdinov

Actually, Nezhmetdinov’s idea that White could sacrifice his Q is incorrect.  After 12...Ng4 13.h3 Nxf2 14.Qxf2 Bd4 15.Qxd4 Nxd4 16.Nd5 f5! 17.Bxd4 Qxg3 White really has no compensation for his Q and so Black is much better.

13.f3

This move has been called the beginning of a deep plan of defense and given a “!’ by some while in his book Super Nezh, Damsky says, “White has to defend, but the move palyed was not the best.” and he recommends 13.exf5 and suggested by Houdini which rates the position after 13.exf5 at =0.05.  The move played weighs in at -0.60.

13...Bh6
Nice! The dark-squared Bishop leaves the long diagonal for a possibly inconsequential line of attack. However on g7 the B was adequately opposed by White’s B on b2.  With 13…Bh6 he gains a tempo.

13…Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Bd4+ 15.Kh1 fxe4 16.Ngxe4 Be5 17.Qd5+ Kh8 18.f4 doesn’t lead anywhere for Black.

14.Qd1 f4
This seals the dark-squared Bishop out of the attack and may not be the best idea. If 14...Be315.Kh1 f4 Black has a nice attack.

15.Nge2 g5
16.Nd5 g4
This move looks very risky, but it is by far the best. After any safe move (say 16...Rf7) the game is fairly level.

17.g3
Preventing the g4-g3 advance and gaining space for defense. "White is lost if he allows 17...g3; 18. h3, Bxh3; or an attack along the h-file after ...Kh8; & ...gxf3." - Soltis.

After 17.Nxc7 g3 18.h3 Bxh3 19.gxh3 Qxh3 Black is winning - John Emms

17...fxg3
"Good enough to keep the initiative ... " - Emms.

18.hxg3 Qh3
19.f4
White gains vital space on the K-Side for the defense of his King.

19... Be6
"An imaginative idea." - Emms.

“The amount of calculation required to play this move is massive.” - Life Master AJ Goldsby

“A witty resource.” – Damsky

If he plays 19…Nf3+ 20.Kf2 Qh2+ Ke3 and the White K has escaped Black’s clutches.

20.Bc2
Soltis, Emms and Damsky award this move a question mark. The other possibilities of 20.Bxe5 and 20.Bb1 have been greatly analyzed with the latter move getting the nod as the best try.  Black would get a dangerous attack, but White is not without defensive resource. There has been a tremendous amount of analysis spent on what White should play here and the best evaluation is probably “unclear.”

Houdini 1.5 x64 gives the best line as 20.Bxe5 Nxe5 21.Kf2 Qh2+ 22.Ke3 Qh3 23.Nxc7 Rxf4 24.Rxf4 Bxf4+ 25.Nxf4 Qxg3+ 26.Kd4 Qxf4 27.Nxa8 Qf6 28.Ke3 Qh6+ 29.Kd4 Qf6 30.Ke3 which is in Black’s favor.

20. Nxc7 has been considered bad and given little attention by analysis who state that after 20...Rxf4 Black has a winning attack but it is not that clear. Houdini’s analysis runs:  20.Bxe5 Nxe5 21.Kf2 Qh2+ 22.Ke3 Qh3 23.Nxc7 Rxf4 24.Rxf4 Bxf4+ 25.Nxf4 Qxg3+ 26.Kd4 Qxf4 27.Nxa8 Qf6 28.Ke3 Qh6+ 29.Kd4 Qf6 30.Ke3 0.00/15 ; 20.Nxc7 Rxf4 21.gxf4 g3 22.Nxg3 Qxg3+ 23.Kh1 Qh4+ 24.Kg1 Bh3 25.Qd2 Rf8 26.Bxe5 Nxe5 27.Qf2 Qg4+ 28.Kh1 Bxf1 29.Rxf1 Nxd3 30.Qh2 Bg5 winning, but because this is such a long variation, improvements can likely be found.

It’s interesting that after 20.Nxc7 GMs John Emms and John Nunn did not find a forced win for Black.

20...Rf7

Black takes time out of his busy schedule to defend c7 and avoid a check at d5. Is this the only move?

Neither Soltis or Emms analyze any alternatives to this move but Goldsby writes:  “Follow this line of thought: If Black is going to sacrifice his Rook on f4 anyway, isn't the move ...Rf7; just a waste of one tempo in this position?”

Goldsby considers 20...Bxd5, giving reams of analysis and concludes, “If this analysis holds up, then this is a forced win ... and a big improvement over 20...Rf7.”

Goldsby may be right.  A quick, and therefore not 100% reliable analysis by Houdini 1.5 x64 seems to confirm his claim though: 20...Bxd5 21.cxd5 Rxf4 22.Nxf4 Qxg3+ 23.Kh1 Qh4+ 24.Kg2 Bxf4 25.Rxf4 Qh3+ 26.Kg1 Qg3+ 27.Kh1 Qxf4 28.dxc6 Qh6+ 29.Kg2 Qh3+ 30.Kg1 Nf3+ 31.Kf2 Qh2+ 32.Ke3 bxc6 33.Kd3 Re8 34.b4 d5 35.Kc3 a5 36.a3 h5 37.Kb3 axb4 38.exd5 Re3+ 39.Ka2 is winning for Black.

21.Kf2
Soltis also gives this move the “!” It is White's only hope is to run away from the attack and at the same time it threatens Rh1 winning the Black Queen.

21...Qh2+

22.Ke3

Much worse would be: 22.Ke1 Nf3+ 23.Rxf3 gxf3 24.Nf6+ Kf8; 25.e5 dxe5; 26.Qd3, f2+; 27.Kd2 27...Rxf6 with a won game for Black.

22...Bxd5
This move eliminates a key defender. Black has to act before White begins to strike
back with Rh1

23.cxd5 Nb4

24.Rh1  Rxf4!!
"Sunk in deep thought for a long time, I understood that I was to say goodbye to all hope and that I was lsoing a game that would be spread all over tghe world." - Polugayevsky

"The White King will be dragged all over the board to its doom." - FM G. Burgess.

"A fabulous move which is the start of a long combination, forcing the White King
to trudge up the board to its death." - John Emms.

Goldsby makes the interesting observation that in the year 2001 with the best computer programs, even if you give them several minutes, did not find this move.  Today they recommend it as a matter of routine!

25.Rxh2
There really isn’t much choice here.

25...Rf3+

26.Kd4 Bg7

Black doesn’t have a lot of pieces left for his Q and now makes this quiet move.  Nezhmetdinov points out Black's threat is 27...b5 which eliminates c4 as a flight square
and thereby threatens 28...Nec6 mate. Black also has a second mating idea:
27...c5+; 28. dxc6, bxc6; and 29...c5.

"A whole Queen down, Nezhmetdinov produces a deadly quiet move. The main
threat is the simple 27...b5; followed by 28...Nec6#." - Emms

Unfortunately this may be analysis by result.  The fact is after 26...c5+ 27.dxc6 b5 28.Bd3 Nexc6+ 29.Kc3 Bg7+ 30.Kd2 Rxd3+ Black wins.

It seems that after 26…Bg7 White may have had an adequate defense.

27.a4
Polugaeyevsky thought his next move was forced to stop b5, but with 27.Ng1 c5+ 28.dxc6 Nexc6+ 29.Kc4 Bxb2 30.Qxd6 White actually stands better.

However, Black has a better line after 27.Ng1.  Now he should play 27…Rxg3 28.Ne2 Rf3 29.Ng1 Ned3+ 30.Kc4 Nxb2+ 31.Kxb4 a5+ 32.Kb5 Rc3 with a winning attack.

27...c5+

28.dxc6 bxc6
29.Bd3 Nexd3+

30.Kc4 d5+

31.exd5 cxd5+

32.Kb5 Rb8+

33.Ka5 Nc6+
34. Resigns

My Chess ‘Business Venture’

      The other day I was looking through some old papers and discovered a State Incorporation certificate from the mid-1970’s that reminded me of the time I was (sort of) in the chess business.  A friend approached me about starting a corporation with some rather ill-defined objectives of making money from our mutual interest in chess.  At the time I was working 10-12 hours a day six days a week so had absolutely no interest.  He was adamant though stating that he needed another person to list on the State required paperwork, so I told him OK, put me down as one of the officers, but he would have to pay the incorporation fee. Agreed.
       Then one day at the chess club he was talking about instituting a rating system and going into competition with the USCF but I managed to convince him that wasn’t such a good idea.  The next idea he came up with was holding a tournament and that sounded doable.  The only problem was we needed a tournament director and that meant somebody had to take the USCF test.  We both studied for it and when I took it, it was at work after a cursory, halfhearted effort at preparing.  I failed, but he passed so we had our director.  He set up the whole tournament by himself because I was working so many hours. 
       He wanted to offer a prize fund of $1000 which back in the mid-1970’s was equal to about $4000 today.   I warned him not to guarantee the prize fund though because he (we, the corporation) could lose non-existent money, but he guaranteed it anyway.  Finally on the weekend of the tournament I stopped in at the site on Saturday after work to see how it was going.  Actually I was surprised because there were several masters playing, including one IM.  But there was a problem.  There weren’t enough entries to cover the prize fund.  He was $300 short which he said he would cover out of his personal funds.  He told me there was some other guy whom I didn’t know who had also signed the incorporation papers who would probably come up with $100 and I should do the same.  Now, in 1975, $300 was about the equivalent of $1200 today and I felt sorry for the guy because he was acting so pathetic at having to cough up $300 of his own money, so I said OK I’d give him the $100.  The other guy never did.
       Then one day after the last round of the State championship he approached me and asked for a ride home because his car was broken down and would have to remain at the out of town dealer for several days.  Of course I gave him a ride home and, at his insistence, he gave me a brand new top of the line chess clock as payment for the ride home.  That’s when I discovered he had purchased a bunch of them to sell.  He told me not to worry though, it wouldn’t cost me anything, the ‘corporation’ was paying for it.  He never sold any.
       His next brainstorm was a magazine.  I thought he was going to do something weekly for the local chess club so wrote a couple of articles for it.  Then one day I got an international money order in the mail from some master in Mexico to pay for a subscription to the magazine.  I called my ‘partner’ and asked him about it.  It seems he had printed up $200 worth of the magazines, $800 in today’s value, and mailed them out to chessplayers all over the US, Canada and Mexico.  Subscriptions were to be sent to me! I have no idea where he got the mailing lists, but he then informed me, “I hope the guy doesn’t get too mad that he ain’t getting no more magazines.”  It seems his wife had flipped out about the money he spent getting the magazine printed and the postage, not to mention the tournament fiasco and the chess clock venture.  What was the name of the magazine and what was in it?  I have no idea; I never saw one!  
     I finally manged to convince him there was no money to be made in chess and it might be best to abandon the whole idea and he agreed.  The corporation was eventually terminated by the State.
     He wasn’t done though.  One day I was looking through the local newspaper classified ads and saw his new business venture…computerized horoscopes for $3.00 apiece.

Idea Chess Tactics Site

      I discovered this site which has 100,000 interactive tactics and mate problems to solve. In addition, it has endgame training and keeps track of your Elo rating using the Glicko system and other statistics. It is completely free.
      If you fail to solve the problem your Elo rating is lowered and the problem’s Elo rating is raised. Like in a real rating the amount the Elo change depends on the difference between the two and the Rating Deviation parameter. As a new player your rating is set to 1500 and your RD to 350.
      The best line was found using the Stockfish engine with 20 sec thinking time. However, the site’s internal engine that evaluates alternative solutions is much weaker but it's optimized for tactical positions; it's Elo rating is over 2000.  VISIT IDEACHESS

Paulsen vs. Morphy

Who studies Paul Morphy’s games anymore?  Why would you want to?   Morphy appeared out of nowhere, dominated the chess community for a moment then disappeared.  A lot of players think Morphy was the best player ever but I wonder how many of them have actually played over a lot of his games.

If you look at Morphy’s serious games it is apparent that he was the first modern player. Most people’s initial impression is that all Morphy did was develop his pieces rapidly and had great tactical skill.  But like all champions, there was more to his skill that that. Most of his published games are flashy wins but in truth, in his day his games were generally considered conservative side compared to the old masters.

Many of his games don’t look modern.  The reason is that he did not need to play positional chess because his opponents did not understand chess as well as he did.   The result was he preferred open positions because they resulted in quick wins for him.  But a quick look at a lot of his games also showed Morphy knew how to play positional chess as well as endings.

For example in 1857 in New York Morphy achieved a position similar to those arising from Hedgehog and Najdorf positions where he played ...Kh8 , ...g5 and ...Rg8. This game was an inspiration for Bobby Fischer in his game against Garcia in Havana 1966!

Morphy often took less than an hour to make all of his moves took much more...sometimes up to 8 hours.  This was in an era before time control.  Two of his opponetns, Löwenthal and Anderssen, said Morphy was hard to defeat because even if he got into a bad position, he knew how to defend.  Anderssen once said that after one bad move against Morphy one might as well resign and went on to add, "I win my games in seventy moves but Mr. Morphy wins his in twenty, but that is only natural..."

Bobby Fischer said Morphy had enormous talent and claimed Morphy had the talent to beat any player of any era if "given time to study modern theory and ideas".  Reuben Fine disagreed, stating if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza.”  British GM Raymond Keene concurred.  View Parts 2 and 3 on Youtube