An addition to the Blog Roll

Over in the "Other Chess Sites" section I have added an entry for a series of related sites. The addition is the "Bobby Fischer Newspaper Archive". It is largely what the title says, an archive of newspaper stories about Bobby Fischer.

But it isn't just one website, it is several. Each year from 1955 onwards gets a separate site. (I don't believe any years beyond 1972 are populated yet.)

Regardless, if one wants to read old articles about Fischer, that is certainly a site to check out. Just go to the one I linked, and at the top of the page is a list of years. Click on the year of interest and then look for articles. Many articles are duplicates distributed by wire services, but they appear to be clearly labeled as such.

The site is connected with another project. I will let the interested reader figure that out for himself.

A Small Miss

In a tournament game a couple of weeks back I reached the following position as White, with Black to play:

Black to move

Here Black played 1 … Kc4 and after 2 g4 the game was quickly decided. I had already seen this breakthrough during the exchanges leading up to this position, so it was easy to play.

But I believe Black had a better practical try, namely 1 … f5. Surprisingly, White has one and only one path to victory, and he can even lose if he gets very careless. I will put the solution below the fold.

More endgame precision

Was looking around some files and stumbled upon an Anderssen-Kieseritsky rook endgame from London 1851. I then found something that surprised me. When I finally understood, I thought it might be worth sharing. The following position is from analysis following White's 53rd move. Blacked erred in playing 53 … Kf4. Had he played 53 … Kxh4 the following position would have eventually been reached:

Anderssen-Kieseritsky

London, 1851 (m1.2)

What surprised me when I saw this position is that Black has one and only one winning move. I thought it was either a draw to begin with, or that any reasonable move by the Black rook on the c-file would win. Not so.

I will put the rest below the fold for those that want to work it out on their own.

Simon Williams does it again.

The last time we mentioned English GM Simon Williams on this blog the Ginger GM hisownself had invented a new opening, the Bongcloud Transvestite. In his never ending quest to play the weirdest stuff, he has come up with an improvement on the old Englund Gambit (1 d4 e5?!). Here is the tweet with the evidence.

Been experimenting with my new opening. 1 d4 e6 2 c4 e5!? An improved Englund Gambit - https://t.co/LzwMszc4pd

— Simon Williams (@ginger_gm) May 17, 2018

May God have mercy on our souls, for we are naught but wretched sinners all.

And please, no one mention this to Carlos.

A Study

Via the Chess Unlimited twitter feed, I was directed to a reddit involving a problem posted on LiChess, apparently published in 1928 by a composer named Birnov. Here is the problem.

Birnov (1928)

White to play and draw

I saw a solution pretty quickly. Knowing that it is a composed problem means that everything on the board has a purpose, which directs one's attention to the e-pawn. So e2-e4 is likely to be involved in the solution. From there the rest is easy. But then I thought I saw a second solution. I am sad to report that I did not figure out why only one of the solutions is correct. I will post the answer below the fold.

Tournament Players PROTIP #11: This one is legit

I took about five years off from playing tournament chess from 2011 until 2016. When I came back, I found that I was getting very fatigued by the end of tournaments. Part of that was that I was (at least initially) not in tournament shape, and partly that I was five years older. But it was a real problem.

It took me about 16 months before I could get through a tournament without collapsing again. Part of that was hitting on a method of energy conservation, namely STOP TRYING TO CALCULATE EVERYTHING.

In the past, I would try to work hard at the board all game long, every game. So when it was the opponent's move, I would keep calculating. But there are problems with that. Say the position is very complicated. I make a move and my opponent has five reasonable moves available, and all are complicated. Obviously I have already taken that into account before I made my move, but I can keep trying to calculate all the responses. In some sense, this is the correct thing to do. But I am not 25 anymore, and I tire more easily.

So during a hard game last June, I made my move and ... walked away from the board, thinking about nothing at all. I was already exhausted (it was the fifth round of a weekend long tourney), and I just couldn't do it anymore. I figured I would get back to work AFTER my opponent made his move, and save some energy.

I have since made this a bit of a policy, and I am finally getting through tournaments without hitting the wall at the end.

Incidentally, I mentioned this to Paul a few weeks back, and he reminded me that one of the old Soviets (Bronstein? Botvinnik? Smyslov?) had recommended something similar. Calculate variations on one's own time, and think of general considerations during the opponent's time. Also sound advice, and I was a little embarrassed because I had read it before, but had forgotten it.

Oops.

Nigel Short to run for FIDE President

Various sites have announced that Nigel Short will run for FIDE President. I believe the news was broken by Nicholas Bergh in the Norwegian paper Aftenposten, and has since been confirmed many other places, including on Nigel Short's Twitter feed.

I don't usually editorialize on the Club blog, as firstly the Club does not really have an official viewpoint on anything, and secondly we have no way of really establishing such a viewpoint other than unanimous acclimation. So I will put my personal editorial viewpoint of this announcement immediately beneath the fold.

Back in the Saddle

Sorry for the absence in recent months. My desktop computer died and took all my passwords with it. I am only now getting everything back into reasonable working order. I hope to resume blogging shortly.

However, here is something that will more than make up for it. Back in the early 1990s, Christopher Chabris, Timothy Hanke, and Patrick Wolff created and edited the American Chess Journal, "a unique quality paperback book/magazine hybrid featuring the best chess analysis, writing, and illustration in the world." Think of it as something like a precursor to American Chess Magazine.

I remember hearing about this at that time, but I never saw a copy, which may explain why they only published three issues, one in 1992, one in 1993, and a final issue in 1995. Fortunately for us, Christopher Chabris has made pdfs of those three issues available for free. He has also included several other articles that did not make the magazine, or that were published by their authors elsewhere. This can all be found at this link:

American Chess Journal, the Best Chess Analysis, Writing, and Illustration

But that's not all! The publishing house (that I presume they created) for the Journal, H3 Publications, also published a couple of books, Kasparov versus Anand: The Inside Story by two-time U.S. Champion Patrick Wolff and Man versus Machine: Kasparov versus Deep Blue by David Goodman and Raymond Keene, which have also been made available via pdf. Those can be downloaded from this link.

I have not looked at the books yet, but I have started reading the American Chess Journal issues. I hope to write more about them later, but for now I will say that the first two issues had high quality content, and I highly recommend them, especially as they are free.

Thank you Professor Chabris for making these available.