Yesterday at the Club Todd Durham and I were looking at some of his games, and one game had him with a bishop and knight vs two knights. The ending was very interesting and ended in a draw, but in the course of analyzing it we talked about the concept of king activity.
I have read multiple times (but now can't find the exact references) that the normal sequence of activating pieces in an endgame should be:
1. Queen
2. Rooks
3. King
4. Knights
5. Bishops
I am in the midst of re-reading GM Lars Bo Hansen's Foundations of Chess Strategy (absorbing ideas on the second pass that I missed in the first), and unfortunately it was not until I was in the car on the way home that I remembered the MOAKE (mother of all king endings) known around the world as Browne-Smyslov, Las Palmas Interzonal, 1982.
It prompted a little research when I got home, and I found three books with annotations to the game. They are:
Foundations of Chess Strategy by GM Lars Bo Hansen
Vasily Smyslov: Endgame Virtuoso by GM and Former World Champions Vasily Smyslov
The New Bogo-Indian by IM Shaun Taulbut
I suspect that I could also find it in other books, but three will suffice for us here.
The link to the game is below. I extracted commentary from the above games, citing the author in each case, and I added some "merely mortal" comments where I thought there was an additional idea worth noting.
Before we go to the game, I would like to intentionally bias your viewpoint by recommending that the following ideas be kept in mind:
1) Economy of force is an under-appreciated commodity in chess. We understand economy of force when applied to defense, but it is rare to see it involved in an attack. Enjoy it when you can!
2) Prophylaxis can also be an offensive weapon, if it prevents potential defensive forces from participating in the action.
3) Smyslov is what we "Hansenites" refer to as a Reflector, but even though he is very positional in the game, his moves have very concrete purposes. His king moves with energy and purpose throughout the game, completely devoid of stereotyped thinking.
4) Smyslov was 63 when the game was played. Throw your senior stereotypes out the window!
Enough blabber- here is the game!:
Click here to see Smyslov's King kick #$^5434!!
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Monday, July 24, 2017
Beat Your Opponents with a Club!
Beat Your Opponents With A Club!
A chess club, that is!
This weekend I played in the Southern Open in Orlando, sponsored by the Continental Chess Association and directed by David Hater, Krista Alton, Harvey Lerman, and Harold Scott.
[My last round game (the $$ game) is linked at the bottom. The GM games in the notes are really cool, and worth seeing alone.]
The attendance was huge, and the event was an extremely well-run affair. Harold Scott gets a special "shout out" for details such as updating the results sheets in almost "real time", so it was always easy to see how rounds were progressing as games ended.
I attended the event with my fellow Clermont Chess Clubmates Todd Durham, Jim McTigue, and Connor Eickelman. I was fortunate to score 3.5/5 in the U2100 section, which was good for the U1900 1st prize of $500- the full payout, as the tournament paid 100% due to the excellent attendance.
I have been especially fortunate in that it is my second 1st place finish in as many months (I had a stinker tournament in the middle - gotta keep it real!). Luck is a big factor, of course, whether we admit it or not.
However, I attribute my primary success to two factors. First, I have been a big beneficiary of the arrival of GM Lars Bo Hansen and WIM Jen Hansen to Orlando- and I am not the only one. Attending some of his Master Class sessions, and then especially working with his books, has changed my thinking and approach to the game. I am the same person, but I am not the same player.
Second, I am very fortunate to belong to a chess club that meets regularly, and to work with other players who share my passion for chess and learning. The three guys mentioned above, along with Norm Meintel, Joe Sanderlin, and Garry Day, have been my constant sparring partners.
Our club is not a normal club. For one, we are more talkative than usual. We want to get better, and we collaborate on our work. In fact, the Thursday before the tournament, the four of us who planned to play met on Thursday night and discussed positions from GM Chris Ward's Chess Choice Challenge, which gives positions with 5 different assessments, and you have to decide which one is correct (a concept I was introduced to by Lars, I should add). We would look at a quiz position, we would each weigh in on it, then we would check the answer and discuss/debated it. It was a great way to get the creative chess juices flowing, and both times we have done it, I have been successful- to the tune of $1100 in prize money in 45 days.
My point is this- working with my buds at the club makes me a better player. We kibbitz all the time, we play into each other's openings to help each other learn, we work on endgames (read that again!) and we give each other honest feedback to help us all improve. I also play on the internet, but it is not the same- there is no substitute for sitting across the board from someone and playing a person, not an engine, an icon, or emoji.
If you live close by, come by and see us. If not, find a club or start one of your own. Here's a link that might help:
And as I mentioned, here is my final round game from the tournament.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Chess Puzzle Sites Reviewed ...
...by Johan Salomon, a young Norwegian Grand Master, on his blog. If you're looking for websites to work on puzzles, his review is an excellent place to start.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Congratulations to Martin Hansen
Local expert (and soon to be master) Martin Hansen finished tied for first in the U2200 section of the World Open in Philadelphia! The tournament ended yesterday, and Martin shared first through third with two other players. The section included 244 players, including re-entries, so I'm not going to bother figuring out what his average opposition was, and who cares anyway? Giving up only three draws over nine rounds in that field it's guaranteed he played a rough schedule! (ADDED: Hansen was the only one of the three winners to finish undefeated.)
Congratulations, Mr. Hansen!
...
If you want to see how other players did, you can find links to the standings at this link. I saw at least a couple of other familiar names in the lists, but that's a LOT of players to sort through.
Congratulations, Mr. Hansen!
...
If you want to see how other players did, you can find links to the standings at this link. I saw at least a couple of other familiar names in the lists, but that's a LOT of players to sort through.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Tournament Players PROTIP #10
When starting a long sequence of mutual captures, hide the first captured piece in your hand. Just do it casually. At some point, your opponent may start counting up the pawns and pieces on the side of the board, and if one of his is missing he may lose his composure and make a mistake, thinking he's doing better than he is.
Monday, June 19, 2017
UPDATED: Unadvertised upcoming events, and a couple of very widely advertised upcoming events
Well, some not widely advertised local events, at any rate.
First, next Saturday Orlando Chess & Games is running one of their scholastic/quick chess tournament combinations at UCF. Details can be found here. This event is running opposite the Chess Educators International Open Tournament, so I'm not sure (a) what kind of turn-out they'll get or (b) if they'll cancel. I'd contact Alex Zelner (407-248-0818) or Steven Vigil (chessteacher1977@yahoo.com or 321-297-7087) before heading out. UPDATE: I received an email today from Alex. It states that they need 10 players to hold the Quick tournament. So if you're planning on playing, let them know.
A couple of weeks after that, on July 8th, the Central Florida Chess Club is running a one day 4SS G/75;d5 tournament, also at UCF. Details can be found here.
Just one week later, on the weekend of July 15-16, the Jacksonville Chess Club is holding their annual North Florida Open. I'm not sure why this isn't listed on the FCA website, but it is listed on the USCF website, which is where I found it. It's a two day tournament, with very reasonable pricing: $50 Early bird pricing until 7/1@11pm; $60 7/2 to 7/14; $70 at the door. This tournament is small for a two-day event, but got a reasonably strong field of club players last year. If you've got someone you can stay with, this could be a good option.
The following week (July 21-23), of course, the big, bad Continental Chess Association rolls in to Orlando for the annual Southern Open.
That's five tournaments in a little over a month, and that's all for now.
First, next Saturday Orlando Chess & Games is running one of their scholastic/quick chess tournament combinations at UCF. Details can be found here. This event is running opposite the Chess Educators International Open Tournament, so I'm not sure (a) what kind of turn-out they'll get or (b) if they'll cancel. I'd contact Alex Zelner (407-248-0818) or Steven Vigil (chessteacher1977@yahoo.com or 321-297-7087) before heading out. UPDATE: I received an email today from Alex. It states that they need 10 players to hold the Quick tournament. So if you're planning on playing, let them know.
A couple of weeks after that, on July 8th, the Central Florida Chess Club is running a one day 4SS G/75;d5 tournament, also at UCF. Details can be found here.
Just one week later, on the weekend of July 15-16, the Jacksonville Chess Club is holding their annual North Florida Open. I'm not sure why this isn't listed on the FCA website, but it is listed on the USCF website, which is where I found it. It's a two day tournament, with very reasonable pricing: $50 Early bird pricing until 7/1@11pm; $60 7/2 to 7/14; $70 at the door. This tournament is small for a two-day event, but got a reasonably strong field of club players last year. If you've got someone you can stay with, this could be a good option.
The following week (July 21-23), of course, the big, bad Continental Chess Association rolls in to Orlando for the annual Southern Open.
That's five tournaments in a little over a month, and that's all for now.
A simple problem
Via Norway's newest grandmaster, Johan Salomon:
I'll post the answer in the comments, if no one beats me to it.Very funny and instructive puzzle from @chess24com 😂😂— Johan Salomon (@JohanSalomon) June 17, 2017
White to move and win! 🔥 pic.twitter.com/UsBs4p1n7T
Saturday, June 17, 2017
THE LUCKY LEDGER : WINNING A TOURNAMENT WITH ENDGAME "ONLY MOVES"
Todd has recently blogged about my success at the Chess Stars Orlando Sunshine Open where I scored 4.5 out of 5 to share 1st Place in the U2000 Section.
I was lucky, of course, and I can show you "how".
Normally it's somewhat customary for a tournament winner to show a game or two as a highlight of the event. Unfortunately, all of my games range from nondescript to boring, so there's nothing that stands out from the "complete annotated game" perspective. For instance, in my 5 games, I really only managed a slight plus out of the opening only once. I was black, and it was my only draw.
In the other 4 games, I was only equal at best, and in some cases I was a little worse.
My tournament result was based on the endgame, and even then is was a near thing, as there were some critical spots where the results could have been different. Let's take a look.
Our first stop is my game against William Bowman (1883) in round 2. I had a nice opening, but William outplayed me after I (silly me) declined his draw offer, and I had to spend another 40 moves to correct that error. Eventually I steered the game to an opposite color bishop ending to reach the following position at move 60:
White had just played 60. h5, and I played 60. ... f6! At the time I thought it was a good move, breaking up the white pawn formation and allowing me to set up a blockade fortress on the dark squares.
It was only later, in the quiet of my home with only my thoughts, my cat, and Sygyzy Tablebases that I learned it was the only move- everything else loses.
It doesn't end there. After White plays h6+:
I played 61. ... Kh7- another only move, as ...Kh8 is a mate in 4 and ...Kf8 is a mate in 9. We drew a few moves later, so the "Lucky Ledger" reads +0.5.
Our next stop is round 3, against Club and Blogmate Todd Durham (1852). It's always a tough matchup playing your homeys, and this was made worse because it was too early in the tournament for either of us to want to consider accepting a diplomatic solution during the game ( we both wanted to win, of course!). We would have lived with a draw, naturally, but we would have both left unhappy.
After much "back and forth" play, I had emerged with an "Alekhine Fourth Phase"-type endgame advantage, leading to the following diagram at move 70, where Black had just played ...Qe8:
Black is losing, but the last move is the best practical attempt, as White only has one move that wins, which is 71. Qxe8!
For fun, here is how my Silicon Sancho Panza shows me how close it was:
Analysis by Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT:
1. +- (8.40): 71.Qxe8 Rxe8 72.Rxb7 Rc8 73.Rb6+ Kd7 74.Rxa6 Rc4 75.Rb6 Rc3+ 76.Kf2 Ke7 77.a6 Kf6 78.Ke2 Kf5 79.Kd2 Ra3 80.b5 Ke4 81.Rxe6+ Kf5 82.b6 Kxe6 83.b7 Ra2+ 84.Kc3 Ra3+ 85.Kc2 Ra2+ 86.Kb3 Rxa6 87.b8Q Ra1 88.Qe5+ Kf7 89.Qxd5+ Kf6 90.Qe5+ Kf7 91.Kb4 Rb1+ 92.Kc3
2. = (0.00): 71.Qxe7+ Qxe7 72.Rxe7 Kxe7 73.Kg4 Kf6 74.Kg3 Kf7 75.Kh4 Kf6 76.Kg3
3. = (0.00): 71.Rg8 Qxf8 72.Rxf8 Rg7+ 73.Kf3 Rc7 74.Rd8+ Kc6 75.Re8 Kd7 76.Rb8 Kc6 77.Re8
4. = (0.00): 71.Qf6 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
5. = (0.00): 71.Qg8 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
6. -+ (-11.35): 71.Rxe7 Qxf8 72.Rxb7 Qf5 73.Ra7 Qd3+ 74.Kg4 Kc6 75.Re7 Qg6+ 76.Kh3 Qe4 77.Kg4 Kb5 78.Rb7+ Kc4 79.b5 axb5 80.Kg5 Qf5+ 81.Kh6 Qxf4+ 82.Kh7 Qxd4 83.a6 Qe4+ 84.Kg7 d4 85.Rc7+ Kd5 86.a7 Kd6 87.Rc1 Qb7+ 88.Kh6 Qxa7 89.Rd1 Qc5 90.Ra1 Qe5 91.Ra2
White is clearly winning
A playable version of this mess is here:
The Lucky Ledger now shows +1.0.
Our next stop is Round 4 where my opponent was newly-minted 13 year old Zoe Zelner (1786), playing on her birthday (which I did not know until after the game). After our knight shuffling from c4-d6 and f6-e8, we had repeated the following position with Black to move:
My record against young ladies is abysmal (I am ashamed to say that, having two daughters, but chess player motivations are complicated and I will say no more), and I would have happily drawn, but Zoe was after bigger game. Unfortunately, she played 21. ... b6?!, after which I went to work on the weak c-pawn, eventually generating a queenside pawn majority and winning the endgame.
It could easily have been drawn, so now The Lucky Ledger reads +1.5.
My last dodge occurred in the last round against the up-and-coming Bach Ngo (1832). We had played a very boring and nondescript opening and middlegame to reach an interesting knight ending (I think I can say "interesting" because anyone still reading probably finds endgames interesting, and all the rest have long since gone back to watching chess opening videos...).
Bach had just played 38. Rc7 to take us to the following position:
My assessment during the game was that I could draw a rook or a knight ending, but that I could possibly win a pawn ending, but work at home shows me that even the pawn ending is drawn.
(Side note: One way I study such endings is to remove all the pieces, and then analyze the pawn ending with my thoughts, and then the computer. I then add and subtract pieces to the board. It has helped me correct misconceptions I have had, and sometimes good technique can be learned.)
I played 38. ... Nf5, completely oblivious to the fact that it is the ONLY MOVE that draws!
Click here for a playable version of the analysis
Even worse (for Bach, not me), he later blundered a knight in a drawn position, which moved my Lucky Ledger to +2.5.
I don't want to overstate the idea of luck, of course. My tournament strategy was to "volley the ball across the net" each game to play into an endgame, where I thought I could separate from the pack, and it worked. However, there are no guarantees, and I am fully aware that a few moves played at some critical spots pushed the result. I am even MORE fully aware that I did not have concrete, thorough analysis to back up those moves when I made them, and a few alternate conclusions on my part would have produced an alternate result.
The bottom line? Only a few moves separate 4.5/5 from 2.0/5, which is why we play the game!
It was only later, in the quiet of my home with only my thoughts, my cat, and Sygyzy Tablebases that I learned it was the only move- everything else loses.
It doesn't end there. After White plays h6+:
I played 61. ... Kh7- another only move, as ...Kh8 is a mate in 4 and ...Kf8 is a mate in 9. We drew a few moves later, so the "Lucky Ledger" reads +0.5.
Our next stop is round 3, against Club and Blogmate Todd Durham (1852). It's always a tough matchup playing your homeys, and this was made worse because it was too early in the tournament for either of us to want to consider accepting a diplomatic solution during the game ( we both wanted to win, of course!). We would have lived with a draw, naturally, but we would have both left unhappy.
After much "back and forth" play, I had emerged with an "Alekhine Fourth Phase"-type endgame advantage, leading to the following diagram at move 70, where Black had just played ...Qe8:
Black is losing, but the last move is the best practical attempt, as White only has one move that wins, which is 71. Qxe8!
For fun, here is how my Silicon Sancho Panza shows me how close it was:
Analysis by Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT:
1. +- (8.40): 71.Qxe8 Rxe8 72.Rxb7 Rc8 73.Rb6+ Kd7 74.Rxa6 Rc4 75.Rb6 Rc3+ 76.Kf2 Ke7 77.a6 Kf6 78.Ke2 Kf5 79.Kd2 Ra3 80.b5 Ke4 81.Rxe6+ Kf5 82.b6 Kxe6 83.b7 Ra2+ 84.Kc3 Ra3+ 85.Kc2 Ra2+ 86.Kb3 Rxa6 87.b8Q Ra1 88.Qe5+ Kf7 89.Qxd5+ Kf6 90.Qe5+ Kf7 91.Kb4 Rb1+ 92.Kc3
2. = (0.00): 71.Qxe7+ Qxe7 72.Rxe7 Kxe7 73.Kg4 Kf6 74.Kg3 Kf7 75.Kh4 Kf6 76.Kg3
3. = (0.00): 71.Rg8 Qxf8 72.Rxf8 Rg7+ 73.Kf3 Rc7 74.Rd8+ Kc6 75.Re8 Kd7 76.Rb8 Kc6 77.Re8
4. = (0.00): 71.Qf6 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
5. = (0.00): 71.Qg8 Rxg7+ 72.Qxg7 Kc6 73.Kg4 Qc8 74.Kg5 Kb5 75.Qe7 Kc4 76.Kf6 Kxd4 77.Qxe6 Qxe6+ 78.Kxe6 Kc4 79.f5 d4 80.f6 d3 81.f7 d2 82.f8Q d1Q 83.Qc8+ Kb3 84.Qxb7 Qg4+ 85.Ke5 Qg3+ 86.Ke6 Qg6+ 87.Kd7 Qf5+ 88.Kc7 Qf4+ 89.Kb6 Qd4+ 90.Kxa6
6. -+ (-11.35): 71.Rxe7 Qxf8 72.Rxb7 Qf5 73.Ra7 Qd3+ 74.Kg4 Kc6 75.Re7 Qg6+ 76.Kh3 Qe4 77.Kg4 Kb5 78.Rb7+ Kc4 79.b5 axb5 80.Kg5 Qf5+ 81.Kh6 Qxf4+ 82.Kh7 Qxd4 83.a6 Qe4+ 84.Kg7 d4 85.Rc7+ Kd5 86.a7 Kd6 87.Rc1 Qb7+ 88.Kh6 Qxa7 89.Rd1 Qc5 90.Ra1 Qe5 91.Ra2
White is clearly winning
A playable version of this mess is here:
Our next stop is Round 4 where my opponent was newly-minted 13 year old Zoe Zelner (1786), playing on her birthday (which I did not know until after the game). After our knight shuffling from c4-d6 and f6-e8, we had repeated the following position with Black to move:
My record against young ladies is abysmal (I am ashamed to say that, having two daughters, but chess player motivations are complicated and I will say no more), and I would have happily drawn, but Zoe was after bigger game. Unfortunately, she played 21. ... b6?!, after which I went to work on the weak c-pawn, eventually generating a queenside pawn majority and winning the endgame.
It could easily have been drawn, so now The Lucky Ledger reads +1.5.
My last dodge occurred in the last round against the up-and-coming Bach Ngo (1832). We had played a very boring and nondescript opening and middlegame to reach an interesting knight ending (I think I can say "interesting" because anyone still reading probably finds endgames interesting, and all the rest have long since gone back to watching chess opening videos...).
Bach had just played 38. Rc7 to take us to the following position:
My assessment during the game was that I could draw a rook or a knight ending, but that I could possibly win a pawn ending, but work at home shows me that even the pawn ending is drawn.
(Side note: One way I study such endings is to remove all the pieces, and then analyze the pawn ending with my thoughts, and then the computer. I then add and subtract pieces to the board. It has helped me correct misconceptions I have had
I played 38. ... Nf5, completely oblivious to the fact that it is the ONLY MOVE that draws!
Click here for a playable version of the analysis
Even worse (for Bach, not me), he later blundered a knight in a drawn position, which moved my Lucky Ledger to +2.5.
I don't want to overstate the idea of luck, of course. My tournament strategy was to "volley the ball across the net" each game to play into an endgame, where I thought I could separate from the pack, and it worked. However, there are no guarantees, and I am fully aware that a few moves played at some critical spots pushed the result. I am even MORE fully aware that I did not have concrete, thorough analysis to back up those moves when I made them, and a few alternate conclusions on my part would have produced an alternate result.
The bottom line? Only a few moves separate 4.5/5 from 2.0/5, which is why we play the game!
Monday, June 12, 2017
Master Class
Today in the sixth round of the Altibox Norway Tournament in Stavanger, Levon Aronian smashed Vladimir Kramnik. I recommend playing through the game once yourself. Just give it a casual run through if you don't have a lot of energy. And then watch Peter Svidler's recap of the game. I'll embed the video here, but the video is on YouTube if you want to watch it on your TV instead.
Svidler's recap is pretty much a master class. I'm particularly struck by the section from the 6:30 to 8:24. The analysis flows quickly in the more tactical phase of the game, and I'm not going to pretend I caught all of it, especially in my current brain-dead state. But I'm going to go back to this again a couple of times this week - it's just that good. It's just over 22 minutes long, and I can't recommend it strongly enough.
Svidler's recap is pretty much a master class. I'm particularly struck by the section from the 6:30 to 8:24. The analysis flows quickly in the more tactical phase of the game, and I'm not going to pretend I caught all of it, especially in my current brain-dead state. But I'm going to go back to this again a couple of times this week - it's just that good. It's just over 22 minutes long, and I can't recommend it strongly enough.
Orlando Sunshine Open - Club Memeber Results
The Central Florida Chess Club held their annual Orlando Sunshine Open & Scholastic Tournament this weekend. The tournament also featured side events by ChessStars.com. The event was held at the Rosen Plaza at 9700 International Drive. Personally it was the best location I've ever played at for a chess tournament, with the possible exception of the old Fells Point Chess Club in Baltimore, Maryland, which is right next to a bar.
The purpose of this post, though, is to congratulate Paul Leggett for his fine performance of 4.5 out of 5 points in the U2000 section, which was good for a two-way tie for first. William Bowman held him to a draw, but he mowed throw the rest of the competition, including a grueling 92 move marathon against me.
As for my performance, and that of Connor, perhaps the best way to sum up the results would be with a cartoon dog in a funny hat.
The purpose of this post, though, is to congratulate Paul Leggett for his fine performance of 4.5 out of 5 points in the U2000 section, which was good for a two-way tie for first. William Bowman held him to a draw, but he mowed throw the rest of the competition, including a grueling 92 move marathon against me.
As for my performance, and that of Connor, perhaps the best way to sum up the results would be with a cartoon dog in a funny hat.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
"The last soldier."
The last soldier. pic.twitter.com/PL1Krq7Kp5— Mohamed Al-Medaihki (@almodiahki) June 6, 2017
Someone responding to this claims it's from Kotov's Play Like a Grandmaster, but that's not one of the three Kotov books I own, so I can't verify it. Anyway, it's quite clever!
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Tournament Players PROTIP #9
I may have posted this one before, but it bears repeating:
NEVER RESIGN.
Never. No matter what. More importantly still, resolve to never resign. Recently I won a game against a master after having chucked two pawns in the opening, leaving my king stuck in the center with my queen-side mostly undeveloped. However, I kept plodding along, and eventually even won the game. Yes, it was a junky quick-chess game, but I have won similar games at Game in 120 against A-players and below.
There are several reasons to not consider resigning. The first is that you can't win by resigning. It's a stupid, obvious, even trite saying, but it's true. Make your opponent prove they can win. Often they will relax after achieving a winning, or even won game, and will start playing non-optimal moves. And in slower games, especially, they will become annoyed, which usually isn't conducive to optimal chess. You are within your rights to do so, and may as well exercise them.
The second reason is that if you don't resign, you won't make a mistake by resigning an equal or favorable position. A few months ago I drew against another master. At some point, though, he played an unexpected move, and I thought I was losing my queen. I very briefly considered resigning, and then remembered my own advice. Looking at it again, I realized I wasn't losing my queen at all. The game continued and after a tough struggle, I scored the half-point. Perhaps I had been helped by the knowledge that a few months before that game, a 1900 had resigned against me because he thought his queen was trapped, even though it wasn't. Oops. Perhaps he wouldn't have seen the saving sequence anyway, but he "took me at my word" when he shouldn't have.
And finally, if you decide before a game to not resign, it saves energy. Resigning is a decision, just like any other move, and it requires energy. If you begin to consider resigning, it becomes a drain on finite reserves of energy available for the game/tournament. Thus deciding to not resign beforehand can save you energy in the heat of battle, especially time pressure. Even contemplating resigning in time pressure is a shameful waste. This is especially true as you get older and have less energy to spare.
All that said, I do resign sometimes. But it has to be really bad, and my opponent has to clearly be strong enough and have enough time of their own that I can't imagine them stalemating me by accident. But generally, I play every game out to mate. And as I've said before, you should expect your opponents to do the same, so don't get aggravated when they do so. It's their right to play on, as it is yours.
Finally, here's an example from the club last Saturday of fighting on beyond all hope, and then getting rewarded for it.
White had been completely busted for some time, but played on, hoping for a miracle. White stated that he hoped for Black to march his king up the board and somehow walk into a knight fork, so the spite checks began. Instead, Black,with more than ten minutes left on the clock, played ...Ke6, and White instantly played Re7#. White's dance of joy was most undignified, but quite understandable.
NEVER RESIGN.
Never. No matter what. More importantly still, resolve to never resign. Recently I won a game against a master after having chucked two pawns in the opening, leaving my king stuck in the center with my queen-side mostly undeveloped. However, I kept plodding along, and eventually even won the game. Yes, it was a junky quick-chess game, but I have won similar games at Game in 120 against A-players and below.
There are several reasons to not consider resigning. The first is that you can't win by resigning. It's a stupid, obvious, even trite saying, but it's true. Make your opponent prove they can win. Often they will relax after achieving a winning, or even won game, and will start playing non-optimal moves. And in slower games, especially, they will become annoyed, which usually isn't conducive to optimal chess. You are within your rights to do so, and may as well exercise them.
The second reason is that if you don't resign, you won't make a mistake by resigning an equal or favorable position. A few months ago I drew against another master. At some point, though, he played an unexpected move, and I thought I was losing my queen. I very briefly considered resigning, and then remembered my own advice. Looking at it again, I realized I wasn't losing my queen at all. The game continued and after a tough struggle, I scored the half-point. Perhaps I had been helped by the knowledge that a few months before that game, a 1900 had resigned against me because he thought his queen was trapped, even though it wasn't. Oops. Perhaps he wouldn't have seen the saving sequence anyway, but he "took me at my word" when he shouldn't have.
And finally, if you decide before a game to not resign, it saves energy. Resigning is a decision, just like any other move, and it requires energy. If you begin to consider resigning, it becomes a drain on finite reserves of energy available for the game/tournament. Thus deciding to not resign beforehand can save you energy in the heat of battle, especially time pressure. Even contemplating resigning in time pressure is a shameful waste. This is especially true as you get older and have less energy to spare.
All that said, I do resign sometimes. But it has to be really bad, and my opponent has to clearly be strong enough and have enough time of their own that I can't imagine them stalemating me by accident. But generally, I play every game out to mate. And as I've said before, you should expect your opponents to do the same, so don't get aggravated when they do so. It's their right to play on, as it is yours.
Finally, here's an example from the club last Saturday of fighting on beyond all hope, and then getting rewarded for it.
Black to move
White had been completely busted for some time, but played on, hoping for a miracle. White stated that he hoped for Black to march his king up the board and somehow walk into a knight fork, so the spite checks began. Instead, Black,with more than ten minutes left on the clock, played ...Ke6, and White instantly played Re7#. White's dance of joy was most undignified, but quite understandable.
Monday, May 8, 2017
King & Pawn Endgames: Answer Time
The other day I presented this position and asked a couple of questions.
But the winning line isn't 100% straightforward, either. Black still has to worry himself about that pesky g-pawn. How can he catch it and not let White clean up all of Black's pawns? The answer is that he can't. But that he doesn't have to, because White can be deflected from his own queenside pawns by the Black e-pawn, and that plus the unfortunate (for White) geometry between c4, e2 and g8, gives Black a winning position.
After 43...Kxd4 White's best is 44 Kd1 (If 44 g4, then Ke4, and Black will be able to round up the g-pawn and return in time to guard the e-pawn, and if Black tries breaking through on the queenside, Black's e-pawn queens far too quickly for White to get his pawns up the board):
And there's an unfortunate triangle for White. Another interesting fact is that all but one of Black's moves from 43 to 50 are only moves - anything other than the move given above loses. The one exception is that Black can play 44...c3 and still draw. These endings are precise!
...
On a programming note, I hope to return to semi-regular blogging, at the very least. Soon we will have final news on the on-going Club Championship, and there may even be a game or two worth noting.
St. Amant - Staunton, Paris 1843 (m11)
After 43 Kc3-c2
What is the proper assessment of the position? How many acceptable plans does Black have?The answers are that Black has a won position, and he has exactly ONE winning move. In fact, all moves other than 43...Kxd4 lose. Staunton chose to play 43...Ke4 and duly lost. I can only assume he originally intended to follow-up with 44... Kf3 and then promote his e-pawn. However, that plan does not work because of St. Amant's move, 44 Kd1, and now the White king will blockade the Black e-pawn, whilst Black has to run down White's d- and g- pawns, allowing White to easily win Black's queenside pawns. I don't know anything about the particulars of this game other than that Staunton was leading the match by the score of 8+, 1-, 1= prior to this game. Perhaps Mr. Staunton merely had a lapse.
But the winning line isn't 100% straightforward, either. Black still has to worry himself about that pesky g-pawn. How can he catch it and not let White clean up all of Black's pawns? The answer is that he can't. But that he doesn't have to, because White can be deflected from his own queenside pawns by the Black e-pawn, and that plus the unfortunate (for White) geometry between c4, e2 and g8, gives Black a winning position.
After 43...Kxd4 White's best is 44 Kd1 (If 44 g4, then Ke4, and Black will be able to round up the g-pawn and return in time to guard the e-pawn, and if Black tries breaking through on the queenside, Black's e-pawn queens far too quickly for White to get his pawns up the board):
After 44 Kd1
44 ... Kd3
45 g4 e2+
46 Ke1 Kc2!
After 46 ... Kc2!
47 g5
(47 Kxe2 transposes to the main line)
47 ... Kxb2
48 g6 c3
49 g7 c2
50 g8(Q) c1(Q)+
51 Kxe2 Qc4+
After 51 Qc4+
And there's an unfortunate triangle for White. Another interesting fact is that all but one of Black's moves from 43 to 50 are only moves - anything other than the move given above loses. The one exception is that Black can play 44...c3 and still draw. These endings are precise!
...
On a programming note, I hope to return to semi-regular blogging, at the very least. Soon we will have final news on the on-going Club Championship, and there may even be a game or two worth noting.
Making a living from chess?
Forbes has a new article about the prospects of making a living from chess. Tl;dr* version is that things are better than they used to be, but it's still tough. The article is interesting enough, but also familiar enough to chess veterans.
However, the article also has an interesting comment from Susan Polgar, which I give in full:
Still, I thought I would put this up for anyone that missed it. There's also a video at the site, with several of the people who were interviewed for the article commenting. So if you haven't seen enough Ben Finegold lately, here's your chance!
* tl;dr is internet parlance from those crazy kids for "too long; didn't read".
However, the article also has an interesting comment from Susan Polgar, which I give in full:
I completely disagree with the notion that making a good living in chess is hard. It is not.Of course, I'd like more data from the Forbes article, and I'd also like more information on who is making a living from chess from GM Polgar, although I can understand if she wouldn't want to name names.
Making a living from tournament winnings is hard. But making a living in chess in general is not. I have seen many amateurs, with ratings well below 2000, earn much more money than some top 10-20 players in the world.
The problem is professional players know chess. But they lack knowledge in business, management, marketing, and most importantly, people’s skill as well as communication skill. Some are just lazy to learn new skills to enhance their earning ability in chess.
There are plenty of people making a very good living in chess in California (both northern and southern Cal), New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, Arizona, Oregon, Washington State, Maryland, Missouri, and many more states.
Still, I thought I would put this up for anyone that missed it. There's also a video at the site, with several of the people who were interviewed for the article commenting. So if you haven't seen enough Ben Finegold lately, here's your chance!
* tl;dr is internet parlance from those crazy kids for "too long; didn't read".
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
King & Pawn Endgames
Below is a position from the eleventh game of the 1843 match between Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant and Howard Staunton.
What is the proper assessment of the position? How many acceptable plans does Black have?
I'm not going to give the answers just yet. This is largely because I don't quite feel like typing it all up, but if I don't post something, I'm not going to get back to writing! But this is also a chance for the reader to work out the problem for himself - practice makes perfect, after all. So, have at it, reader, and enjoy!
St. Amant - Staunton, Paris 1843 (m11)
After 43 Kc3-c2
What is the proper assessment of the position? How many acceptable plans does Black have?
I'm not going to give the answers just yet. This is largely because I don't quite feel like typing it all up, but if I don't post something, I'm not going to get back to writing! But this is also a chance for the reader to work out the problem for himself - practice makes perfect, after all. So, have at it, reader, and enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)