Chesscube

Chesscube

I’ve heard of this site and it got some decent reviews from people who played there so I decided to check it out. Their site blub advertises: Over 1 million members, Play live tournaments, Free live games, Challenge your friends, Improve your rating Play at your level. Chat with others using text, audio and video. Watch how the masters play and improve your game.

Free is only relative. You don’t get many “benefits” with a free membership. Monthly membership is $4.95 with 3 and 6 month discounts. For example you have to pay to get benefits like game stats and history and custom pieces. I clicked on the icon to play a game and after 2 minutes the game board was still loading. My computer is rather old and a bit slow, but really!

I read on another site forum that they offer prize tournaments and probably because of that they monitor games for cheating. According to the forum poster if you frequently switch tasks during a game you get a couple warnings before getting kicked off. He said they also monitor moves with an engine to check match up rates and keep an eye on members rating progress.

Monitoring your rating progress means if you win a lot of games and your rating climbs quickly it’s viewed as a possible sign of cheating. Of course you could just be a really strong player, but you will still be a person of interest and it’s likely your games will be subjected to “review.” This happened all the time on Red Hot Pawn. Individuals would lose a game, check out their opponent’s rating history and if it looked suspicious, they’d fire up their engines and start checking out that person’s games then report the finding to the game mods. The mods would investigate then boot the suspected cheat off the site. The list of banned players got so long and their were so many forum posts making accusations that they quit listing banned players. I suppose there’s something to be said for trying to ferret out engine users but to me it is howling at the moon.

Anyway, I didn’t care for Chesscube. I can get the same thing free elsewhere. Besides that, like I said, the site was way to slow loading for me. Short version: Not interested in playing there.

I understand people trying to make money at chess and if they can do it more power to them. But personally I admire guys like “Ste” at Plastic Bishop and “Miguel” at Queen Alice a whole lot more. Their sites are free and they are in it for the love of the game.

The Opposition

In this post I wanted to explain the term Opposition. Understanding the opposition is vital in playing K&P endings correctly and I encourage anyone who is unfamiliar with it to study the techniques and try some practice positions until thoroughly familiar with the procedure. Opposition is a term defining the relationship between the Kings. In the diagram the Kings stand in opposition, more precisely in vertical direct opposition (direct means as near as possible). The player who does not have the move is said to ‘have the opposition.’

In the diagram Black is on the move so White has the opposition and he wants to get to the 7th rank on the Queen's side:

1...Kc5 2.Kc3 Kb5 3.Kb3 Ka5 4.Kc4 This move represents another strategy one simply must know - outflanking. This is a maneuver with Kings which makes forward progress while at the same time prevents the opponent from taking the opposition. In order to outflank the Black K, White must temporarily giving up the opposition. In K&P endings it is important to be aware that this maneuver exists. 4...Kb6 If 4...Ka6 then Black has the opposition because it's White's move so White must play 5.Kc5 Ka7 (5...Kb7 6.Kb5) 6.Kc6 Ka8 7.Kc7] 5.Kb4 Retaking the opposition. 5...Ka6 6.Kc5 Outflanking again. 6...Kb7 7.Kb5 Retaking the opposition again. 7...Kc7 8.Ka6 Kb8 9.Kb6 Ka8 10.Kc7 and wins.
This maneuver is important to know because the player having the opposition can force his way to any part of the board.

Conversely in the diagram, if instead of seeking to advance, White might want to stop Black from advancing. So, if it is Black’s move, White has the opposition and he can prevent Black’s K from advancing. The player having the opposition can prevent the advance of his opponent's King by 1...Kc5 2.Kc3 or 1...Ke5 2.Ke3

Distant Opposition

If a rectangle is drawn large enough to contain the two Kings, and if it contains an odd number of squares, then the Kings are standing in opposition. This is so in the above diagram (Black to move) in which the rectangle of 5 x 7 square =35, an odd number.

Suppose White, who has the opposition, wants to get to King's side.

1...Ke7 2.Kc1 Kf7 3.Kd1 Ke7 4.Ke1 Now we see another term: Vertical Distant Opposition. There are an odd number of squares between the Kings. 4...Kf7 5.Kf1 Kg7 6.Kg1 Kh7 7.Kh2 Now we see the outflanking maneuver again. 7...Kg6 8.Kg2 Taking the vertical distant opposition again. Note there is an odd number of squares between the Kings. 8...Kf6 9.Kh3 Kg5 10.Kg3 Taking the direct opposition as explained earlier.

Practical Example

In the above position with Black to move White has the opposition so he wins because he can force the advance of his King and thus gain control of the queening square.


1...Ke7 2.Ke5 Kd7 3.Kd5 Kc7 4.Kc5 Kb7 5.Kb5 Another point to remember: Now that his King is on the queening file, White is ready to perform the outflanking maneuver. 5...Kc7 6.Ka6 Kb8 7.Kb6 Kc8 8.Ka7 and the Pawn will promote.

In the same position, If it is White’s move, Black has the opposition and will be able to prevent the Pawn from queening because White will be unable to advance his King.

1.Ke5 Ke7 2.Kd5 Kd7 3.Kc5 Kc7 4.Kb5 Kb7 5.Ka5 Ka7 There is no way White can queen. For example 6.b5 Kb7 7.b6 Kb8! This is the only move to hold the draw. Losing moves are:

7...Ka8 gives White the opposition after 8.Ka6 Kb8 9.b7 Kc7 10.Ka7
7...Kc8 This gives White the opposition after 8.Ka6 Kb8 9.b7 Kc7 10.Ka7

8.Ka6 Ka8 9.b7+ Kb8 10.Kb6 Stalemate

Interesting Forum Question

A reader asked a question about the following position from Polugayevsky - Nezhmetdinov, Russian Federation Championship, Sochi, 1958.

Polugayevsky played 27.a4 which leads to a forced mate. The poster’s engine choice for the best move was 27.Ng1 which leads to a perpetual check. He said that he didn’t understand why one move leads to a mate and the other a perpetual check. He also asked why in both The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games and The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, the best defense of 27.Ng1 wasn’t mentioned.

I suppose he was asking the question why, if 27.Ng1 results in a perpetual, doesn’t 27.a4 also lead to a draw. I believe he was making the incorrect assumption that Black would play the same sequence of moves against both moves.

First, after 27.Ng1 c5+ 28.dxc6ep Ned3+ 29.e5 Bxe5+ 30.Kc4 b5+ 31.Kxb5 Rb8+ 32.Ka4 Nxb2+ 33.Ka3 Nc4+ 34.Ka4 Nb2+ the game is a draw.

Second, after 27.a4 c5+ 28.dxc6 bxc6 29.Bd3 Nexd3+ 30.Kc4 d5+ 31.exd5 cxd5+ 32.Kb5 Rb8+ 33.Ka5 Nc6+ 34.Ka6 Ndb4 mate

But if White plays 27.Ng1 and Black tries the same attacking moves then 27.Ng1 c5+ 28.dxc6 bxc6 29.Bd3 Nexd3+ 30.Kc4 d5+ 31.exd5 cxd5+ 32.Kb5 Rb8+ 33.Ka4 White can’t play the K to this square if he plays 27.a4 and his K has to go to a5 and gets mated. I should note that in this position Black still has a winning advantage.


The fly in the ointment is that in this line is that White does not play 29.Bd3? but instead plays 29.Nxf3 and after 29…Nxf3+ 30.Kc4 Bxb2 31.Rb1 it is White who is winning.

Why did the authors not mention a better defense than 27.a4? There are several possible explanations. I don’t know when these books were published so can’t be sure how strong engines were at the time or even if the games were checked with engines.

The same game appears in The World’s Greatest Chess Games by Burgess, Nunn and Emms published in 1998 and they did check all the games using Fritz. Their analysis suggests several defenses, the first choice being 27.Ng1, but they commented that none of the defenses are sufficient. Of course that’s not true because after 27.Ng1 it’s a perpetual check.

I tried the position on Firebird, Fritz 10 and Rybka Human and they all quickly arrived at 27.Ng1 as being best. After 27.a4 they all found the mate very quickly. So it would appear the best defense was missed because of faulty human analysis or, if an engine was used, it wasn’t very strong by today’s standards. Or possibly it wasn't given enough time to ponder the position.

This is the reason why GM’s never completely trust engines and Mark Buckley said in Practical Chess Analysis, “always challenge the annotator.”

Editorial on Positional Play

     Lower rated players in their quest to improve always seem to concentrate on openings and tactics. I’ve heard many say they’ll wait until they reach 1800 before studying strategy and endings. Unfortunately most will never get that far. Most don’t know what ‘strategy’ or ‘positional’ chess means. A lot of the world’s greatest players couldn’t explain it either. Nimzovich sneered at the old idea that every chess move was either "attacking" or “defensive.”
     I’ve seen a lot of requests from lower rated players asking if any books existed that explained chess mostly in words and not variations. For the most part the answer has to be “No.” because masters think mostly in variations, not in words. And the variations they are calculating often come more from intuition than verbalizing the salient points of a position. It’s very difficult to explain intuition! As CJS Purdy observed, amateurs often view chess strategy and tactics as if they were different animals - one is a bird and the other a fish. The amateur wants words because nothing but moves leave him befuddled. He lacks the master's intuition skill.
     Steinitz realized chess could not be reduced to simple concepts and rules of attack and defense so he saw positional play as an accumulation of minute advantages.
     Nimzovich wrote in My System: Another erroneous conception may be found among masters. Many of these and numbers of strong amateurs are under the impression that position play above all is concerned with the accumulation of small advantages in order to exploit them in the endgame .... We are inclined rather to assign to this plan of operation a very subordinate role .... There are quite other matters to which the attention of the positional player must be directed, and which place this "accumulation" wholly in the shade.
     So what is position play? Position play is a systematic application of safety measures that is concerned with avoiding for oneself and/or exploiting positional weaknesses in the opponent’s position.
     Nimzovich wrote: In the last resort, position play is nothing other than a fight between mobility (of the pawn mass) on the one side and efforts to restrain this on the other. In this all-embracing struggle the intrinsically very important device of the prophylactic is merely a means to an end.
     In most all games between masters nearly all the moves will be positional, but Nimzovich’s definition is not complete. CJS Purdy writes: Position play is the treatment of positions in which sound attacking play is not possible, and purely defensive play is not necessary. It means either strengthening one's own position or weakening the enemy's.
     The average player finds many moves in master games which he cannot understand but many of them would be clearer once you get hold of the general idea that the master was trying to strengthen his position. When there is nothing you can accomplish by force and nothing you are forced to do, what’s left? You try to strengthen your position or weaken your opponent’s.
     Most average players are always looking for a way to attack, even if it’s not justified. This is wrong! The result is they mess around looking for a trap, hoping the opponent will make a blunder. Either that or they sac something. But what if the opponent doesn’t fall for the trap or defends well? The trap or sac may have been positionally bad.

Positional play, unlike tactics, is not concerned with calculated lines of play of the type I go there, he goes there, etc. If your move is not forcing, i.e., if it is positional, then usually the opponent has a fairly wide choice of replies. Therefore your move must be of a sort that will serve you well in every possible situation. Developing moves in the opening are a good example.

You can’t select positional moves by calculation. Of course before playing any move be sure you are not giving the opponent the chance of a sound tactical reply! Thus in positional play you do not calculate so much as rely on judgment and knowledge. This is where the playing over of master games will be a big help. It will help us build up the intuitive judgment which guided the master.

Plans are important in position play, as a rule, but not always necessary! For instance, looking at a certain type of position, a strong player may decide without making a plan that White should play h3 to make a "luft" for his K. There is no specific threat, but the move will free his pieces from the task of guarding the back rank. Such a move could be deemed positional but no plan was involved. He just made a strengthening move.

One very important aspect of planning is to maintain the cooperation of the pieces. The average player is often uncertain if his position is superior, equal, or inferior because he lacks positional judgment and intuition. Therefore an understanding of positional chess is absolutely essential for the improving player. It may not enable us to find the best move but it will help to know what we should be trying to do.

I don’t know of any school that teaches students only one subject at a time. Nobody is going to claim you shouldn’t study history until you learn how to read better but that is exactly the approach taken by a lot of players. Rather than waiting until one is at a certain rating, I can see no reason not to study openings, tactics, positional play and endings all at the same time in an effort to become an all around player.

Ignorance

This Blog is about chess and I really want to keep it that way. If I want to comment about other things I probably should start another Blog, but I can’t resist making a statement here. This isn’t about chess, but it illustrates an important point it would help us all to remember. On a certain chess forum, a fellow asked a leading question that was derogatory to the United States. Without getting into specifics he made reference to certain unsavory events early in North American history…events that happened before there was a United States.

I simply pointed out to him that it was his ancestors who perpetrated these events because the US did not even exist in those days. His reply was, “We prefer to think of them as a bunch of unwanted rejects who committed treason rather than pay the taxes they owed. That puts your lot just barely above the French but still somewhere below the Spaniards.”

There is a lot wrong with his comments but I didn’t answer because I didn’t want to argue with him and I understand ignorance never lost an argument.

Complaining About Engine Use...Again!!

On a recent forum somebody wrote: I couldn't believe my eyes. A master level player was discussing an opening variation with another player and mentioning that he ultimately prefers OTB games because he can be reasonably sure that his opponent is not using computer assistance. To which the other player replied that using computer assistance is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE and that he belongs to a circle of people that have taught him how to "reasonably integrate computer assistance into their games" and for someone to bring up computer assistance as an objection to playing CC was really beyond the pale as there is nothing wrong with using it.

The poster went on to say he was astonished that this master level player didn't take the other fellow to task for his stance because it is totally unreasonable.

He also said that he would like to point out to this person that automatically generated candidates can only weaken a player's actual chess skill because they do not learn to develop candidates for themselves. He also pointed out and computers do not think like live players do and are able to generate an advantage over human play that is terribly unfair.

My reply was:
I saw a discussion a few years ago in which engine use in cc games was called “ethical cheating.” Whatever that means. One strong otb and cc player said he always assumes his opponent is using every “help” that is available.

This is not uncommon at that level. Most players at the upper levels of international cc play feel engine use is justified and they see nothing inherently unethical in their use. Engines are viewed as just an additional tool to be used in determining a move. That said, at that level engine generated moves without the input from a really strong player won’t win any prizes. It won’t get you an international cc title either. If all it took to play at that level was an engine, I’d be playing for the world cc championship.

I’ve played in a few tournaments on a site where engine use is allowed and personally did not find a lot of satisfaction in plugging my games into a computer and just accepting the generated moves. However, I accept the fact that some people find this fun and if they enjoy playing chess that way, it’s OK with me.
Most engine users will be at the upper levels so for most of us the chances of playing them are rare and they will mostly be playing each other.

My feelings may be colored by the fact that I’ve been playing cc since 1959 and haven’t actually studied chess for years because I no am longer interested in things like ratings and improving …just having fun.

I didn’t post it on the site, but what this poster failed to realize is that people who use engines could not care less about improving. They are not playing on these sites with the idea of improving their game; they are motivated by other factors.

As usual this fellow was rather low rated. I don’t know why, but for some reason the lower rated a player is, the more they complain about engine use. Most higher rated players (unless they are using an engine themselves) accept engine use as a fact of life and just go ahead and play the game. I’m not really sure why a 1200 who mostly plays other 1200’s would care what is happening at the master level!?

GM Yermolinsky Sez…

In reviewing The Road to Chess Improvement by Alex Yermolinsky, John Watson had this to say:
“Yermolinsky, a U.S. Champion and 2600+ grandmaster, has not only opened his chess notebooks to one and all, but has given us fresh and insightful ideas about nearly every aspect of practical play. He is refreshingly frank, and doesn't shy away from presenting his own failings and frustrations. In my years of reviewing, I have never been tempted to make a dramatic 'book of the year' pronouncement, but I can't imagine anyone else topping this effort in the near future.”

Watson also commented, “I have roughly every third page of this book earmarked to denote interesting comments and original ideas; they just permeate this book!”

I’m quoting an excerpt from this book at length. Read Yermo’s comments carefully! There is a lot to be gleaned from what he says about modern day chess teachers, authors, openings and how they relate to players below the master level who are trying to improve. Great stuff!!

"Nearly all grandmasters in the United States are involved in the teaching business, at least to some extent. While some…have found this line of work enjoyable and financially rewarding, most of us simply do it out of necessity…When you view teaching as something you can always do…it creates a certain attitude that carries on..and contributes to the overall poor quality of common chess instruction. Many think they can teach anybody below their level simply due to the sheer difference in chess strength…

…you're doing well when you keep your students, or that something must be changed when your students begin to disappear. As a result, what a teacher does is to follow his students, not the other way around like it's supposed to be. You had better do what your student wants you to do, or he will find someone else…
Most people…are looking for a 'quick fix', some practical advice, something that will produce results in the near future. And, as a rule, sooner or later they come out disappointed. The question is, why?
From my experience I have learned that the initial gain in results, produced by the boost of confidence given by the very fact that one is taking lessons from a grandmaster, soon wears off…

Like many amateur chess teachers before and after me I was tempted to cut down that number by offering 'simpler' opening systems. But soon I realized that…with no additional work to put in is not reliable. In fact, it's no more than an illusion and practicing it borders on plain old cheating. Yes, it is easy to convince your students in pretty much anything, when your grandmaster credentials speak for you.


The teacher can adjust the chess truth a little - with the good intention of making things easier to understand - by omitting critical variations from his opening reviews. This patronizing attitude - 'I know what's good for you, and what is the stuff you'd better to be blissfully unaware of' - creates an illusory world of 'simple chess' that keeps its doors open for anybody with a few hundred dollars to spare for lessons. Open your checkbook and you'll be welcome to join.


There are plenty of examples of bad teaching. A disproportionately large number of class players (i.e. below 2000 USCF) in the United States think they have what you call 'an attacking style'. Usually, it's expressed by pitching a pawn early in off-beat openings such as 1 d4 d5 2 e4? The books written on that subject are very enthusiastic; they keep popping up every year even if the practical material of such study remains thin and mostly refers to obscure games. Such conditioning goes a long way towards creating an illusion of 'original’ and 'making your opponent think on his own as early as possible' regardless of the true value of what you do on the chessboard.


A friend of mine, who had been brainwashed by these methods of 'teaching' for years, ended up with the weirdest opening repertoire I’ve ever seen. He would open with 1 e4 with the idea in mind: to sac this pawn as soon as possible…He couldn't even think of anything else. As a result, nearly every game of his saw the same scenario: he would drop a pawn in the opening, then invest more material into 'sustaining' his non-existent initiative, get a couple of fireworks out of it and soon resign.


It was painful to watch him struggle with variations even I would find difficult to play. Instead of putting the pressure on his opponent- like the books he bought and studied promised – he was dealing with enormous pressure himself, the pressure of having to find the only moves and ideas that would justify, at least to some extent his sacrificial strategy. It's amazing how the gambit style of play gets widely advertised in books targeted for class players. Nobody thinks that Shirov's style is easy to master… but for some reason, imitating it is considered advisable able to weaker players.


Another hot selling item is an approach familiar to us…Wide masses of rank-and-file players are being told that there are certain ‘secret’ openings that would allow them to handle the resulting positions with ease, with 'ideas' and 'schemes' instead of memorizing variations and calculating tactics. That would usually mean avoiding main lines…


Some chess teachers have a low opinion of their audience; they fear their students will not understand sophisticated positional and tactical concepts. Here, at the Yermo Chess Academy, we do not practice a 'quick fix approach' that is popularized by many teaching GMs. There is no 'chess made easy' advice that would immediately improve your chess. Widely disseminated promises to introduce 'new methods', to reveal 'secrets of the Soviet School of Chess', etc. are no more than smart advertising moves ... "

More old pdf Chess Books

The following books are available for downloading at the right.

The Russians Play Chess by Irving Chernev
56 games in English descriptive notation played by Soviet players through 1960, these games are mostly unknown masterpieces.

Chess Strategy and Tactics by Reinfeld and Chernev
Forget about the title. This book has 50 games (English descriptive notation) up to 1933. Contains some really great games by the old masters: Pillsbury, Marshall, Bogoljubow, etc. There’s not a lot in the way of lessons, but the games are great.

These downloads are no longer available

Another Loss at Queen Alice

After getting through the preliminary rounds in two tournaments at QA, I’ve been dropping games like flies in the finals. This game was my second loss in a row to “cunha” from Brazil, rated 2697 on the site, which puts him 4th on the rating list. So far in the last ten games my record has been a dismal +3 –6 =1.

In this game I seemed to be doing well until I suddenly realized he was making small inroads into my Q-side. His 20. …b4! confirmed my suspicions that just maybe I was going to lose. Looking back over the game I really can’t pinpoint a specific place I could have improved but my 9th move and wasted time with said N may have had something to do with it.

Chesshere Site

Speaking of crappy sites to play chess on, this one has got to be the absolute worst! I won’t go into the history of the site, but when I started looking for server sites to play on a few years ago I tried this site out and it wasn’t very good then.

That was back when a fake GM Amir Bagheri was showing up all over Internet chess sites giving plagiarized and inane advice and never actually answering any serious questions. He got kicked off of at least two sites I know of before showing up on Chesshere where he successfully pulled of a takeover of the site. I know the guy was a fake because I exchanged some private e-mails with him when he asked me to be a site moderator. Apparently the fake Bagheri is either no longer involved with the site, has dropped the persona and adopted a new name, or sold it. Who knows?!

The site has more ads and annoying popups than any site I’ve ever seen! It makes you want to scream!!

I just checked out the site and recognized none of the names that were playing when I was there a few years ago. I also noticed their top CC players who also have realtime ratings have huge discrepancies. By that I mean, for example, the top rated realtime player is rated 2504 and his CC rating is a paltry 1379 with one win and 3 losses. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Of course all CC sites are riddled with engine users at the top, so that really means nothing. This could be a good site if it wasn't for all those stupid and annoying popups.

Chess Hotel Review

I recently added this site where you can play realtime chess at the bottom of this blog. Chess Hotel was created by David Shore and Daniel Mendes and is new realtime chess site. Because this is new site apparently it has a lot of bugs. Of course it also has its fair share of jerks. Some comments:

* Some weird bugs on the site. Once I was about to checkmate someone, and then somehow he took control of my queen and a rook of mine disappeared. Really odd.
* This site if full of jerks that will abort out of a losing game to leave the other person sitting for 5 minutes plus to get their win.
* My opponent's clock says 0:00 and I'm up a queen and the server connection is lost and I lose?!?
* I've had many opponents that sit out the whole 10 minutes and never make a move.
* En passant not supported!
* Nobody play with G*UY. He is such a jerk leave u waiting for an hour so if u leave

I’m not surprised at the number of jerks on the site because Internet chess sites are crawling with them. Nor am I surprised that as new site that it would have its share of bugs. The most serious would appear to be the fact the en passant doesn’t work.

Be that as it may, I’ve logged in as a guest and played a few games without any trouble. The players didn’t appear especially strong, but it’s OK if you just want to play a quick 5 or 10 minute game and aren’t worried about the result or rating (which you won’t have as a guest anyway).

At this point I certainly wouldn’t take the site seriously but, like I said, if you want a quick game with no fuss, it’s OK. For serious games you would, of course, play on an established site.

Old Chess Books in pdf

I have added the following pdf books for downloading: Don’t let the fact that they are in the old English descriptive notation stop you! If you’re a chess player then you are smart enough to learn it in a few minutes. Back in my day I learned it as a 10 year old kid, so how hard can it be? Google Descriptive Notation Chess and find a site that explains it. The links are at the right.

San Remo 1930 with notes by Alekhine, Botvinnik, Nimzovich, et al

Alekhine’s Last Years and Nazi Collaboration Copies of Chess magazine pages from 1944-1946 discussing his war activities. Some pretty fascinating reading.

Madrid 1943 by Alekhine. Published in 1944. Don’t let the fact it’s in Spanish Descriptive notation stop you. With a little practice it’s easy to follow the games and notes.

Chess for Amateurs by Fred Reinfeld. One of his better books discussing chess with questions and answers. Old Fred got a bad rap for his books, but some of them were very good. It was only when he realized he could actually make more money writing junk than he could good books that his writing took a turn for the worse. Be that as it may, when in 1957 (I think) my parents were visiting Puerto Rico and my brother bought me a couple Reinfeld books. One was The Art of Attack and Counterattack (or something like that) and the other was a book of miniatures. The books themselves weren’t very good, but I actually learned quite a bit by just playing over and over the games in them.

Keres Best Games 1931-1948 by Fred Reinfeld and Dr. Reuben Fine. Classic games. Keres was a master of attack and these games are well worth playing over!

GM Andor Lilienthal Dead at 99

Hungarian Grandmaster Andor Lilienthal (1911-2010) passed away May 8th at the age of 99. Read ChessBase article. Lots of photos.

Site Worth a Visit

A fellow named Kevin Penny started a site called Chess Sets and More where he posts various things about chess. Worth keeping an eye on. Pay him a visit.

ChessLecture.com

I saw an ad in the last issue of Chess Life magazine called Chess Lecture. Apparently they are the new sponsors of the US Grand Prix and they were hawking one of the largest chess video libraries in the world. They advertise over 1200 videos available for online and iPhone viewing with 5 new ones added every week.

Sounds interesting, so I checked out the site. Surprise! It's not free. It costs, depending on the membership level you select, $12.95, $14.95 or $24.95 PER MONTH. Who’s going to join at those prices?!

Autographs

I don't collect autographs, but considering all the great players I've met in the past I wish I had. There are only two. I met former World Champion Dr. Max Euwe when he was in Cleveland, Ohio back in 1957 (I think that was the year...can't remember!)

And finally I have a whole set of post cards signed by Samuel Reshevsky from when I played a postal game with him.

I think of all the ones I could have had: Nicholas Rossolimo, Anthony Miles, Bobby Fischer, William Lombardy, Arthur Bisguier, Pal Benko, Edmar Mednis, Leonid Shamkovich, Walter Browne, Andrew Soltis, Vasily Smyslov and the list goes on and on...should have gotten them when I had the chance! 

After the last round of the 1975 US Championship they sold the sets and the paper boards that were used for the games.  The boards were autographed by the two players that used the set.  I was following the Reshevsky-Benko game and really wish I'd have bought it. I don't remember the cost, but it was nominal...the price of the Drueke Player's Choice Set. They were really great sets and today sell on e-bay for $100-150.  I had one and one day when I got home from a tournament I discovered I'd left several pieces at the event.

The best set I ever owned was the Windsor Castle set. It was solid plastic, and heavy and was used just about everywhere in the US in the 1950's and 1960's. Fischer is playing with one here:

New Recommended Sites

I was surfing the web today for interesting chess sites and/or material. I added links to free instructional material, most of which is good for beginners or teaching beginners. I also added Webmaster Frank’s site that I thought was kind of fun browsing and at the bottom of the page, Chess Hotel. You can just log in there and play a game online. The players aren’t as strong as you’ll find on Playchess, for example, but it still looks to be a pretty good site for a quick game. In addition I’ve added links to the following sites:

Chess Channel
has produced hundreds of webbased audio-visual lessons about chess openings, including classic videos and TV shows originally released by GM Video, and now digitally re-mastered for Chess Channel. To watch shows at Chess Channel, you will need to register an account and download Chess Channel viewer. You can use it to watch free, extensive excerpts from all the shows - and if you wish, you can use the viewer to watch full length videos with Chess Channel "Pay per View". Grand masters as Nigel Davies, Chris Ward and Julian Hodgson among others function as commentators.

Chess Publishing
has more than 5000 pages GM-analyses of different openings. Every opening is updated monthly

The Chess Portal
Links to all kinds of chess stuff!

Chess Teacher Lessons
Chess instructions and exercises available to improve chess skills. The lessons may be useful for Chess Teachers.

Free Chess Instructional Material

A couple years ago the local library started a chess club. Two kids showed up and it fizzled out in two weeks, but I used the handouts from a site called Rockford Chess. Their handouts are downloadable in pdf format and are good for teaching beginners about the board, pieces and other elementary aspects. If you’re trying to teach beginners, they have some good stuff.

The Oklahoma Scholastic Chess Organization is an excellent site that offers tons of downloads that can be used in teaching chess.

Professor Chess has some good material for teaching students. They have 25 files available to all visitors for free downloading and subscribers can download 900 pages of instructional material.

BTW: There’s a site that offers downloads of books in Russian as well as other books at a place called Chesszone but DO NOT visit the site. According to Norton Antivirus the site contains Trojan Horses. I only mention this site because I’ve seen some links to it on various forums.

An Amusing Site

I ran across this site the other day and amused myself for about half an hour poking around in it. I'm not saying this to mean, but it reminded me of a magazie called Mad and Alfred E. Newman. The name of the site is The Thematic And Dynamic Chess Method and it's operated by Webmaster Frank. I think you'll enjoy it.

QGD Lasker’s Defense

In this variation Black tries to trade off several pieces in a bid for freedom; it results in a sound but barren position. That’s exactly why I like it! In this game White didn’t make any serious mistakes but allowed me a positional advantage on the Q-side, then made a slight weakening on the other side. The combined advantages allowed me to win the game. His correct strategy should have been, as is always the case, meeting a flank attack by an attack in the center.

Never Trust Anybody

Writing in the book Practical Chess Analysis, Senior Master Mark Buckley advised that when studying annotated games you should always challenge the annotator. Maybe the annotator is right and maybe he isn’t, but in either case it behooves you to make sure you understand why he is…or isn’t

I learned years ago not to trust published analysis, so in the following game against one of Queen Alice’s top-ranked players, I ignored my own advice. I trusted two players of the caliber of Shirov and Sokolov. If Sokolov allowed the capture of his B on move 9 and Shirov refused the gift, then its capture must be bad…right? I should have checked it out; my opponent did.

I’m nowhere near as strong as Sokolov and Shirov of course, so I may have come to the conclusion that the capture of the B is bad for White. In fact I probably would have because I’ve seen many games where Black’s attack is based on allowing the capture and it was successful. That’s not the point. I should have at least looked at it instead of making the assumption that all was well until we got out of the opening database. Truth is, I'm not sure at what point I was going to start looking for an improvement for Black.

During the game I actually considered White's playing 10.dxe5 and 11.Bg5, but ignored it because I was prejudiced by the db result. Another old fault: analysis based on the result. I’m afraid I wasn’t very objective in this game.

This game was a sad lesson relearned. I admit it. I was lazy.

CC Chess the Duliba Way

For those that don’t know Edward Duliba has attained the title of CC Grandmaster. In US CC competition he won the 1992 Golden Knights and finished fourth in the 1994 event, has played in and won  two Absolutes, and played in five U.S. correspondence championships, winning one of them.


In the 1990’s he turned to international play and in the 27th World Correspondence Chess Championship series he made the GM norm by scoring +5 -0 =6.

In an article in Chess Life he describes how play at that level. First he maintains that a really good opening database is an absolute must. Next you must play all your games using anti-computer strategy. Your aim is to survive the opening with a reasonably equal position and reach a middlegame where you just try to maintain equilibrium; don't try anything fancy.

You make your move to win in the ending because, as Duliba points out, that is where many players slack off. Correspondence success at the top level means you have to be just as eager to continue to fight after five years as you were on the first day. Thus when an opponent offers an early draw, never give it to him in the hopes that he will lose interest and eventually lose.

You should play as slowly as legally allowable in the opening and first half of the middlegame so that when players find that they are not in competition their quality of play diminishes. Players who started poorly no longer exert their best effort and points are easier to acquire from them. I might also add that in another article Duliba pointed out that this strategy will also annoy a lot of opponents and that's good. You want your opponent upset with you when he's deciding on a move because it increases the chance that like all of us, he will do something stupid when he's annoyed or angry.

As for the “anti-computer strategy” Duliba points out their strength is found in sharp well-researched openings, middlegames with aggressive, tactical play and they play perfectly in endgames of seven pieces or less due to tablebases. So you should play closed games where you don’t look for sharp lines but play to hold the position with a minimal advantage or disadvantage. Either one; it doesn't matter. Caro-Kann, Closed Ruy Lopez, and Queen’s Gambit Declined...those are good openign choices. In the middlegame, king safety is paramount. You’re not interested in positions where a single tactical slip could be fatal. Try to keep the game level and equal exchanges. Rarely should you castle on opposite sides. Computers can play some endgames perfectly but endings of more than seven pieces are the weakest element of the computer programs and this is where you should try to win.

All this requires up-to-date opening databases, the strongest engines (examining the position with two engines with different styles is recommended), the most powerful computer you can afford, and patience…lots of it because when you are playing a game where you may not hear from an opponent for a month and the game can last five years, you are going to need it. But wait! You need more. You need to be a very strong chess player yourself. You can’t just let an engine choose your moves because guys like Duliba will pick you apart.

Even if I was good enough to complete with the likes of Duliba, I couldn’t do it. Just give me a free turn-based server and a few minutes to stare at the position, or if it’s really got me flummoxed, set up a board and shift some plastic and decide on a move. A month, or maybe six weeks, for a game is plenty long enough.

I used to play postal games that often lasted a year or a year and a half (more if it was international play), but those days are gone and I just don't have the patience these days to analyze a position for hours over a period of several days.

Fischer Radio Rants

Just in case there's somebody out there who never listened to Fischer ranting like an idiot, here's a complete list you can listen to. Booby Fischer’s Radio Interviews Warning: Adult Content: language

Grandmaster Reading Material

I’ve often wondered what, if any, chess books do GM’s read? One time at a major tournament I spent some time in the bookseller’s room observing. I watched to see what types of books players picked up and browsed or actually purchased.

The results weren’t too surprising. Lower rated players gravitated towards opening books and books on tactics. Masters tended to browse books of famous player’s best games, endgame books and because this was way back when, tournament books. I don’t remember any GM’s being present, so can’t say what they looked at

But I’ve always wondered what books are in a GM’s library. Funny but I’ve met and talked to quite a few GM’s over the years but never thought to ask one what was in his library. So when the May issue of Chess Life magazine arrived I found the book review on Viktor Moskalenko’s Revolutionize Your Chess: A Brand-new System to Become a Better Player by GM Alexandra Kosteniuk interesting. She didn’t highly recommend the book but she wrote:

“Every time I open a chess book, I hope to find something that will help me become a stronger chess player. Don’t be surprised by my declaration; even world champions still have the desire to play better chess and are ready to do almost anything to reach that goal.


However, my experience has been that the likelihood of finding some magic secret in any particular chess book is quite low. In order to get as much as possible from even the greatest of chess books, you will need to spend quite a lot of time on it, sinking into every single move and idea it contains, page by page to the very end. Nevertheless, there is still a glimmer of hope in my heart and I keep opening up chess books hoping to one day find the ultimate truth that will make me a better player.”

Interesting. Apparently they read the same stuff as the rest of us.

Confession about the world championship

The match between Anand and Topalov offers a prize fund of 2 million euros (about $2.7 million), of which the winner will receive 60%. But, as a recent Los Angeles times article points out, even more is at stake.

Anand, champion since 2007, has stood in the shadow of Garry Kasparov during his prime years and a victory would confirm his status as the leader of the post-Kasparov era. That would include 19-year old Magnus Carlsen and if Anand wants to be remembered as a dominant figure in chess history, he would have to win that match.

Topalov held the top spot in the world rankings until recently being surpassed by Carlsen. He lost the 2006 world championship match to Vladimir Kramnik, and he must wonder if he will get another chance if he loses this one too.

For the World Chess Federation (FIDE), this match represents an opportunity for favorable publicity that might rehabilitate its reputation. Since Kirsan Ilyumzhinov became FIDE president in 1995, the organization has followed the policy of trying to promote itself rather than the players. FIDE conducted a decade-long battle with Kasparov and offered less than lukewarm support to his successors, Kramnik and Anand. FIDE has already alienated Carlsen.

It’s always been tough at the top and the FIDE hasn’t had a really good reputation with top players since it’s very beginnings. Fine bemoaned their policies since after WW2 and it pretty much was the reason he dropped out of chess. Reshevsky complained, but kept on playing. I could go on and on, but that’s not the point.

Personally I don’t care who wins. I don’t care about playing conditions, corporate support or how much money top players make. I don’t care about the FIDE. You see I play chess because I enjoy it and if Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, Carlsen…all of them…quit chess today and the FIDE went out of business, I’d still enjoy he game.

I remember when chess was a game almost nobody played and players, even masters traveled several hours, stayed in cheap hotels, ate fast food gulped down between rounds and played in venues with poor lighting, stupefying heat in cramped, smoke filled rooms for a trophy and maybe $100 first prize.

Organizers. They organized things for the love of it. Making a few dollars was secondary. I know a few organizers who continued to do it even when some of the cost was coming out of their own pocket! Then about 45 years ago Bill Goichberg started the Continental Chess Association when he realized he could actually make money running tournaments. And great tournaments they were. Excellent playing conditions and lots of money…not just for the top three finishers but even 1200’s could win big bucks. Of course there was a hefty entry fee, too. One national TD actually called me a name and castigated me for suggesting small weekend events with nominal EF’s and prize funds. His reason…there’s no money in it for him.

Grandmasters rarely played in anything but round robin international tournaments or major opens (which were unrated by the FIDE).

Nobody complained and they did it for enjoyment. Then came Booby Fischer who wanted money and perfect conditions. Not that all that was bad mind you, but it changed the nature of things. Now it’s all about the money. Even 1200’s don’t want to play if there’s no chance for them to win anything.

I’m not interested in winning any money. Before I retired I had a job that paid the bills and now I have retirement that pays them and I realized a long time ago I’m never going to be rich and learned to become content with such as I had and enjoy the small things in life.

Playing chess is one of the small pleasures and I don’t care about winning money. And you know what else? I don’t care if Anand or Topalov win any money. I don’t care if they never become media stars. If they don’t like it they can do what I did. Me and Fine and Reshevsky and hundreds of others. Get jobs and play chess because they enjoy it or else quit the game. That’s what a generation of prima donna wanna be’s in US chess did. Back when there was an invasion of Soviet players immigrating to the US a few crybabies got mad because the Soviets were better and were sucking up all the prize money in the major events. Smaller events weren’t worth playing in so they got real jobs and dropped out of chess.

Personally, I don’t care if they all quit. Oh, about the world championship? I think Anand is a nice guy and Topalov is a weasel but it really doesn’t matter to me who wins.