This ending came up again today, in the Women's World Championship. Harika almost blew this ending against Tan in the Semi-finals. Fortunately, she won it with four moves to spare.
Recently, this endgame had come up both online on Twitter and at the club, and the ending ALMOST came up during USATS last week for one of our players.
Personally, I know this ending, and think most players over 1600 can learn it easily. I practice it the week before tournaments until I can bang out the moves instantly. I use the old 'W' method, and find that sufficient. You can find that one in any endgame manual, but perhaps I'll try to find a good YouTube video later. However, in a discussion on Twitter, one @FoptimusSublime suggested the Three Triangles method as being easier. Here's the link to the YouTube video he provided:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZ7h2yrJME
Having watched it, I don't find the method any easier than the traditional method, but it's really a matter of taste. Use whichever method you find easiest to understand, BUT LEARN THIS ENDING! It's not really that hard, and it could keep you from blowing a hard won half-point.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Monday, February 20, 2017
Averbakh's Barrier or When an Extra Bishop Ain't What it Used to Be
Grandmaster Karsten Mueller of Germany is one of the world's premier endgame experts. In addition to writing several outstanding tomes on the endgame, he also regularly hosts chess endgame videos on Chessbase.com.
One of his recent videos covers the concept he calls Averbakh's Barrier. I have included a pair of small chessbase game examples to quickly demonstrate the concept.
Click here to see the concept in pure form
This idea has clear practical application, especially for players such as yours truly, who often find themselves a piece down and in desperate need of yet another swindle!
Of Course, one has to be on the lookout for such possibilities, which is where quality endgame study (coupled with an open mind and a devious nature) can come in handy.
The alternative is to simply lose, which is where GM Mueller comes in, offering an example of a loss that did not need to be:
Click here to learn from someone else's mistake!
One of the advantages of studying endgames is that such ideas and concepts have application beyond the specific situation- these methods lead to a better understanding of the relationship among the pieces, king, and pawns, thus enhancing our overall understanding of the game.
For those who would like to play through GM Mueller's original video to see what you have been missing, click below (and speak well of our friends at Chessbase for making such things available for free!)
GM Mueller's original Chessbase video on the concept!
One of his recent videos covers the concept he calls Averbakh's Barrier. I have included a pair of small chessbase game examples to quickly demonstrate the concept.
Click here to see the concept in pure form
This idea has clear practical application, especially for players such as yours truly, who often find themselves a piece down and in desperate need of yet another swindle!
Of Course, one has to be on the lookout for such possibilities, which is where quality endgame study (coupled with an open mind and a devious nature) can come in handy.
The alternative is to simply lose, which is where GM Mueller comes in, offering an example of a loss that did not need to be:
Click here to learn from someone else's mistake!
One of the advantages of studying endgames is that such ideas and concepts have application beyond the specific situation- these methods lead to a better understanding of the relationship among the pieces, king, and pawns, thus enhancing our overall understanding of the game.
For those who would like to play through GM Mueller's original video to see what you have been missing, click below (and speak well of our friends at Chessbase for making such things available for free!)
GM Mueller's original Chessbase video on the concept!
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
No Country for Old Men
GO players have been sent reeling in the last year. First came the AlphaGo program publicly beating one of the best GO players in the world early in the year. At the end of the year, that same program, temporarily disguised, tore through the rest of the GO community, winning 60 of 61 games online against all comers, including the best in the world. (The other game was drawn because of an internet connection failure.) Quote:
Certainty is a shaky foundation upon which to build the edifice of one's self.
HT: Alice Maz, whose tweet alerted me to this.
“Master” also claimed victories against a number of top Go pros including South Korea’s Park Jung-hwan and Japan’s Iyama Yuta, as well as beating China’s Ke Jie, who is currently ranked world number one, twice.GO had resisted the efforts of programmers for a very long time, unlike Chess, in which the programmers saw incremental improvement until they had surpassed human players. So we've had a long time to get used to this. But GO players are in shock, as AlphaGo seemed to come from nowhere to not only equal them, but surpass them by such a margin as to play at what appears to be a God-like level.
“When facing it, all traditional tactics are wrong,” commented Ke Jie after his defeat. Ke Jie had stated in December that he is currently not good enough to defeat AlphaGo.
However, [GO master] Gu [Li] struck a different tone on Weibo (a Chinese microblogging site like Twitter), saying, “AlphaGo has completely subverted the control and judgment of us GO players. I can’t help but ask, one day many years later, when you find your previous awareness, cognition and choices are all wrong, will you keep going along the wrong path or reject yourself?” This uncertainty was echoed by GO master Ke Jie [ranked #1 in GO], who said, “After humanity spent thousands of years improving our tactics, computers tell us that humans are completely wrong. I would go as far as to say not a single human has touched the edge of the truth of GO.” [emphasis added = ed.]Chess players haven't quite had the same reaction to being surpassed, but then Steinitz only started pulling back the curtain from the deeper truths of the game less than 150 years ago. That and our ever constant search for novelties and cooks probably saved us from such a deep crisis of faith.
Certainty is a shaky foundation upon which to build the edifice of one's self.
HT: Alice Maz, whose tweet alerted me to this.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
A new rating system
The Grand Chess Tour has instituted a new rating system, which they call the Universal Rating System (tm). This rating combines all ratings (standard, rapid, blitz) into one rating. Their website explains the idea behind what they're doing and provides some evidence to show that their rating system is more accurate than the current Elo system in use by FIDE.
The people that actually did the work are Mr. Maxime Rischard, Dr. J. Isaac Miller, Dr. Mark Glickman, and Jeff Sonas. I don't recognize Rischard or Miller offhand, but Jeff Sonas and Mark Glickman are familiar names. Sonas did interesting work in the past on establishing good historical ratings, and Glickman created the Glicko rating systems, versions of which are in use by FICS (RIP), Chess.com, LiChess, and the USCF. The new system has a fine pedigree, and is funded by the Grand Chess Tour, the Kasparov Chess Foundation, and the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis.
One good thing is that they've adjusted the ratings so that they resemble the old ratings in terms of scale. Magnus is at 2852, so the scale and magnitude are familiar - at least they haven't created something that looks like the ECF monstrosity!
The new rating list does have some oddities worth remarking upon, however. First of all, Carlsen's lead has been extended over his rivals. Games at faster time controls are included in the URS, though given less weight, and Carlsen has been consistently dominant across all three domains. Caruana slips from a close second in the FIDE standard list to a distant fourth, as he's not comparatively that good at faster time controls. Kramnik and Nakamura are tied for second, and Nepomniachtchi rounds out the top five. You can see their January list here.
In any event, Jeff Sonas has written a (not at all brief) summation of what they've done and why. Check it out, if that's your thing. Personally I will say that the work looks good on the face of it, but I'm not sure the old system really needed that much improvement! One thing the old Elo system had going for it was that one could easily calculate one's ratings after an event, and the basic method was clear cut. Now? No so much. Here's an example:
* Incidentally, such a system really would not have been practical in the 1950s when Arpad Elo's system went into first use. Such wonders as the URS are possible because computing power has made both the sorting and calculating tasks needed for such a system relatively easily doable.
The people that actually did the work are Mr. Maxime Rischard, Dr. J. Isaac Miller, Dr. Mark Glickman, and Jeff Sonas. I don't recognize Rischard or Miller offhand, but Jeff Sonas and Mark Glickman are familiar names. Sonas did interesting work in the past on establishing good historical ratings, and Glickman created the Glicko rating systems, versions of which are in use by FICS (RIP), Chess.com, LiChess, and the USCF. The new system has a fine pedigree, and is funded by the Grand Chess Tour, the Kasparov Chess Foundation, and the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis.
One good thing is that they've adjusted the ratings so that they resemble the old ratings in terms of scale. Magnus is at 2852, so the scale and magnitude are familiar - at least they haven't created something that looks like the ECF monstrosity!
The new rating list does have some oddities worth remarking upon, however. First of all, Carlsen's lead has been extended over his rivals. Games at faster time controls are included in the URS, though given less weight, and Carlsen has been consistently dominant across all three domains. Caruana slips from a close second in the FIDE standard list to a distant fourth, as he's not comparatively that good at faster time controls. Kramnik and Nakamura are tied for second, and Nepomniachtchi rounds out the top five. You can see their January list here.
In any event, Jeff Sonas has written a (not at all brief) summation of what they've done and why. Check it out, if that's your thing. Personally I will say that the work looks good on the face of it, but I'm not sure the old system really needed that much improvement! One thing the old Elo system had going for it was that one could easily calculate one's ratings after an event, and the basic method was clear cut. Now? No so much. Here's an example:
Rather than inventing a specific formula that can be used to calculate ratings directly, like there is for the Elo system and for performance ratings, we have developed a probability model that analyzes a large domain of possible ratings for each player, with some ratings being more likely than others (based upon the overall population distribution of chess strength). Across those possible ratings, our system then determines how likely the actual results would have been to occur, and ultimately determines the most likely overall set of ratings, for all players at once, in order to best explain the actual results.*Still, this is work upon which Sinquefield (and others) wish to hang their hats, and he who pays the singer calls the tune. I also suspect that this may be part of a plan by Sinquefield, Pein, Kasparov and others to wrest ratings from FIDE's grasp in an attempt to weaken that organization, and perhaps start something new in its place. It's been tried before, though, and failed, so I wouldn't count on this replacing FIDE's ratings in most people's minds any time soon.
* Incidentally, such a system really would not have been practical in the 1950s when Arpad Elo's system went into first use. Such wonders as the URS are possible because computing power has made both the sorting and calculating tasks needed for such a system relatively easily doable.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
USATS 2017 Correction
The number posted for making reservations at the Kissimmee, Florida Holiday Inn that we had posted earlier is incorrect. It has been corrected on the relevant post. The correct number is
888-465-4329 (888-HOLIDAY)
Thanks to Joe Sanderlin for bringing this to my attention! I have let the organizer of the event know, as the incorrect number (which was earlier connecting to a Medical Alert Bracelet line) is on their website and on their flyers as well.
888-465-4329 (888-HOLIDAY)
Thanks to Joe Sanderlin for bringing this to my attention! I have let the organizer of the event know, as the incorrect number (which was earlier connecting to a Medical Alert Bracelet line) is on their website and on their flyers as well.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Games & a trick from the World Rapid Championships
I was watching the coverage of the 2016 edition of the FIDE World Rapid Championships today and saw a game of some interest to the many of us in the club that play the French Defense. Anna Muzychuk playing White mated Alina Kashlinskaya in 23 moves in a French Defense Exchange Variation. Not only that, the queens came off the board on move seven! A lesson on how NOT to play the French Exchange as Black.
A game that I liked (Komodo 8)
The moves 68 Rb6-b5+ Ke5-d4 have just been played. Nepo has almost achieved his goal, which is to capture the a-pawn and bishop, securing a draw. But there's a trick! If now 69 Rxa5 Kc4 and White finds himself on the losing end of a mating attack!
Aronian is a real artist at the board, and this is just another example.
However, Nepo realized there was a rat and played 69 Rh5 instead, and eventually made the draw. I'll try to remember to post the whole game score later.
[Event "World Rapid Women 2016"]
[Site "Doha QAT"]
[Date "2016.12.27"]
[Round "8.1"]
[White "Muzychuk, Anna"]
[Black "Kashlinskaya, Alina"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C01"]
[WhiteElo "2558"]
[BlackElo "2429"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "2016.12.26"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2+ Qe7 7. Qxe7+ Bxe7
8. Bf4 c6 9. h3 Ne4 10. O-O O-O 11. Re1 Bf5 12. Nbd2 Nxd2 13. Rxe7 Nxf3+ 14.
gxf3 Bxh3 15. Rxb7 Re8 16. Kh2 Be6 17. Re1 Rd8 18. Bc7 Rc8 19. f4 g6 20. f5
gxf5 21. Rg1+ Kf8 22. Bd6+ Ke8 23. Rg8# 1-0
Yuck!
On a more amusing note, the game between Nepomniachtchi and Aronian featured a nice trick in the endgame. Here's the position:
The moves 68 Rb6-b5+ Ke5-d4 have just been played. Nepo has almost achieved his goal, which is to capture the a-pawn and bishop, securing a draw. But there's a trick! If now 69 Rxa5 Kc4 and White finds himself on the losing end of a mating attack!
Aronian is a real artist at the board, and this is just another example.
However, Nepo realized there was a rat and played 69 Rh5 instead, and eventually made the draw. I'll try to remember to post the whole game score later.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Merry Christmas
Now don't strain your eyes....
White to play and mate in 8 moves!https://t.co/fPEDHmr07b pic.twitter.com/WtdJreUrha
— lichess.org (@lichessorg) December 25, 2016
Monday, December 12, 2016
Dumpster Diving on a sunny afternoon - somewhere not here, somewhen not now.
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2016.12.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "fischerrevange"]
[Black "THDurham"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1761"]
[BlackElo "1764"]
[PlyCount "60"]
[EventDate "2016.??.??"]
[TimeControl "180+2"]
1. f3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 2. e4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} d6 {[%emt 0:
00:02]} 3. d4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} g6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 4. c3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Bg7 {
[%emt 0:00:04]} 5. Be3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} O-O {[%emt 0:00:01]} 6. Bd3 {[%emt 0:
00:02]} e5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 7. d5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} b6 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 8. Ne2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Na6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 9. b4 {[%emt 0:00:09]} Nb8 {[%emt 0:00:04]
} 10. O-O {[%emt 0:00:02]} a5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 11. b5 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nbd7 {
[%emt 0:00:10]} 12. c4 {[%emt 0:00:14]} Nc5 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 13. Bxc5 {[%emt 0:
00:03]} dxc5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 14. h3 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Ne8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 15.
Nbc3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nd6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 16. a4 {[%emt 0:00:07]} f5 {[%emt 0:
00:05]} 17. Rc1 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Bh6 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 18. Rc2 {[%emt 0:00:04]}
Be3+ {[%emt 0:00:02]} 19. Kh1 {[%emt 0:00:02]} f4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 20. Qa1 {
[%emt 0:00:06]} Qg5 {[%emt 0:00:10]} 21. Nd1 {[%emt 0:00:11]} Bd4 {[%emt 0:00:
04]} 22. Nxd4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} exd4 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 23. Nf2 {[%emt 0:00:04]}
Nf7 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 24. Qd1 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Ne5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 25. Re1 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} Qg3 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 26. Ng4 {[%emt 0:00:09]} Bxg4 {[%emt 0:00:
17]} 27. hxg4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} g5 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 28. Bf1 {[%emt 0:00:17]} Rf6
{[%emt 0:00:03]} 29. Kg1 {[%emt 0:00:11]} Rh6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 30. Qd2 {[%emt
0:00:15]} Nxf3# {[%emt 0:00:19]} 0-1
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
“Any [redacted]-head could do a better job.”
The title is a quote from 2010, uttered by Anatoly Karpov, twelfth world champion, regarding Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's reign as President of FIDE. Yes, it violates one of the blog's policies, but that can't be helped, as it (a) is an accurate quote and (b) sums up the situation regarding the World Chess Federation perfectly, even if it is six years old.
This is all brought up due to a somewhat interesting article on FIDE and the current World Championship Match published by Bloomberg. You can find that article here.
This is all brought up due to a somewhat interesting article on FIDE and the current World Championship Match published by Bloomberg. You can find that article here.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Crushing disappointment? No, a ray of sunshine!
Last Saturday, November 19, 2016, Paul Leggett and I trekked over to Daytona for the November Chess Challenge, put on by Stephen Lampkin. It was a good tournament for both Paul and me, as we both picked up about 70 rating points on our regular ratings. Additionally, I finished second, and beat my first master in a rated game. Woo hoo!
But I'm not here to write about any of the good stuff. I'm here to write about my sole loss from the tournament, against FM Jorge Leon Oquendo, USCF 2473, FIDE 2380. The game started kind of strangely, as you will see, and became very complicated. Mikhail Tal once wrote, "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." This I did! And though the balance swung a little this way and that, it was my opponent who eventually stumbled and fell! But two moves later, in a fit a utter carelessness, I missed the winning move and lost in turn. Yes, I lost a game I should have won against a player rated almost 2500.
But rather than feeling crushing disappointment at this missed opportunity (this is only the second time I have even played a senior master in a rated game), I feel quite good. After all, I did play mostly well enough to win against such a good opponent, and it gives me hope that I am once again starting to get better at the game. It has been many years since that was true, but circumstances have given me the means and opportunity to improve my game even at the advanced age of 48.
I've placed the game, with my hand-written notes, below the fold. I have partly supplemented them with a few computer suggestions. I'm not going to put it in the ChessBase viewer this time, so this post will be long. I will include plenty of diagrams so that the game can be followed. (The time control was Game in 45 minutes, with a five second delay. Numbers in parentheses after the moves show time remaining in minutes, and later in minutes & seconds.)
But I'm not here to write about any of the good stuff. I'm here to write about my sole loss from the tournament, against FM Jorge Leon Oquendo, USCF 2473, FIDE 2380. The game started kind of strangely, as you will see, and became very complicated. Mikhail Tal once wrote, "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." This I did! And though the balance swung a little this way and that, it was my opponent who eventually stumbled and fell! But two moves later, in a fit a utter carelessness, I missed the winning move and lost in turn. Yes, I lost a game I should have won against a player rated almost 2500.
But rather than feeling crushing disappointment at this missed opportunity (this is only the second time I have even played a senior master in a rated game), I feel quite good. After all, I did play mostly well enough to win against such a good opponent, and it gives me hope that I am once again starting to get better at the game. It has been many years since that was true, but circumstances have given me the means and opportunity to improve my game even at the advanced age of 48.
I've placed the game, with my hand-written notes, below the fold. I have partly supplemented them with a few computer suggestions. I'm not going to put it in the ChessBase viewer this time, so this post will be long. I will include plenty of diagrams so that the game can be followed. (The time control was Game in 45 minutes, with a five second delay. Numbers in parentheses after the moves show time remaining in minutes, and later in minutes & seconds.)
Friday, November 25, 2016
Tournament Players PROTIP #8
[Redacted on advice of counsel. Counsel believed it was too likely to lead to fist fights and other types of grievous bodily harm. So don't do that - not that you know what that is. Seriously, just don't.]
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Brief Thoughts on the Carlsen vs Karjakin Match
So far the World Championship Match has had a few surprises. One is that after nine games Sergey Karjakin leads, with one win, no losses, and eight draws - Magnus's inability to win a game is striking, especially given that he had winning positions in both games three and four. Another is that the vaunted Russian preparation machine has failed to impress in the openings - Sergey hasn't really gotten much out of the opening phase, and game nine was the first one with really deep opening prep, and that was old prep that Magnus chose to walk into, apparently with no improvements in mind.
I believe this is all part of the same story. To me, Sergey's match strategy has now become apparent - had really become apparent after game five, and especially game eight. I believe that a great deal of the preparation of Karjakin's team has not really been opening prep, but has been psychological assessment of both players, tailoring a match strategy to combat Carlsen effectively, and working on increasing Karjakin's internal resources and preparing him to execute the match strategy they have prepared.
That strategy, I believe, has been designed solely with the intention of frustrating Magnus to the point where Magnus would start lashing out. This was a risky strategy, as if Karjakin had fallen behind, as he almost did, it would be hard for Sergey to switch gears. But it seems to be working. I believe that Karjakin's team had noticed some small psychological weaknesses that they believed they could exploit - a certain arrogance and impatience on Magnus's part. (My favorite bit of arrogance was at a tournament earlier this year which had both Carlsen and Karjakin as participants. At one press conference Magnus stated that only one person at the tournament had the talent to defeat him for the world championship - and that it wasn't Sergey.) Thus a plan to frustrate Carlsen at every turn by simply keeping everything balanced - and then let Magnus stew in it. Being pleasant and relaxed away from the board would probably add to Carlsen's frustration, as it wouldn't give him anything to latch onto psychologically - and indeed, Karjakin has been a model of conduct at and away from the board.
The biggest part of this strategy would consist of Karjakin not doing anything to unbalance a game unless he clearly saw an easy advantage in doing so. Thus he passed up some opportunities in earlier games that appeared promising, but had some risk. He even did this in game eight, passing up the opportunity to play ...Qg5 at one point when it looked very strong. And it was. But it also entailed risk, and would have given Magnus the chance to outplay him in dynamic position with unbalanced chances. That might have also had something to do with Karjakin playing Bxf7 at one point today instead of Qb3. He didn't quite see the final strokes to make Qb3 work, so he went with the piece sac, which was the much safer continuation. I suspect that in a normal tournament game Karjakin would have pulled the trigger on Qb3 and taken his chances. But the stakes for any one game in a match are much higher, so he stuck with his strategy, and almost won anyway.
This strategy would require enormous self-discipline, and a great deal of confidence in one's abilities. Everyone was remarking upon Karjakin's demeanor during and after the first game - not only did he not seem overwhelmed by the moment, he seemed completely comfortable during the most important contest of his life. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he had been doing extensive work with a sports psychologist , even a hypnotist, in his training camps. A sense of destiny might help in this regard, too, just so long as he can maintain discipline.
With three games left in regulation, two of them with White, Magnus needs to make up ground. He CAN do it, of course. He is the best player of his generation, and when all is said and done may well be the greatest player of all time. But Karjakin seems completely in the moment, while Carlsen is looking shakier from game to game. I can't wait to see how it ends!
I believe this is all part of the same story. To me, Sergey's match strategy has now become apparent - had really become apparent after game five, and especially game eight. I believe that a great deal of the preparation of Karjakin's team has not really been opening prep, but has been psychological assessment of both players, tailoring a match strategy to combat Carlsen effectively, and working on increasing Karjakin's internal resources and preparing him to execute the match strategy they have prepared.
That strategy, I believe, has been designed solely with the intention of frustrating Magnus to the point where Magnus would start lashing out. This was a risky strategy, as if Karjakin had fallen behind, as he almost did, it would be hard for Sergey to switch gears. But it seems to be working. I believe that Karjakin's team had noticed some small psychological weaknesses that they believed they could exploit - a certain arrogance and impatience on Magnus's part. (My favorite bit of arrogance was at a tournament earlier this year which had both Carlsen and Karjakin as participants. At one press conference Magnus stated that only one person at the tournament had the talent to defeat him for the world championship - and that it wasn't Sergey.) Thus a plan to frustrate Carlsen at every turn by simply keeping everything balanced - and then let Magnus stew in it. Being pleasant and relaxed away from the board would probably add to Carlsen's frustration, as it wouldn't give him anything to latch onto psychologically - and indeed, Karjakin has been a model of conduct at and away from the board.
The biggest part of this strategy would consist of Karjakin not doing anything to unbalance a game unless he clearly saw an easy advantage in doing so. Thus he passed up some opportunities in earlier games that appeared promising, but had some risk. He even did this in game eight, passing up the opportunity to play ...Qg5 at one point when it looked very strong. And it was. But it also entailed risk, and would have given Magnus the chance to outplay him in dynamic position with unbalanced chances. That might have also had something to do with Karjakin playing Bxf7 at one point today instead of Qb3. He didn't quite see the final strokes to make Qb3 work, so he went with the piece sac, which was the much safer continuation. I suspect that in a normal tournament game Karjakin would have pulled the trigger on Qb3 and taken his chances. But the stakes for any one game in a match are much higher, so he stuck with his strategy, and almost won anyway.
This strategy would require enormous self-discipline, and a great deal of confidence in one's abilities. Everyone was remarking upon Karjakin's demeanor during and after the first game - not only did he not seem overwhelmed by the moment, he seemed completely comfortable during the most important contest of his life. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he had been doing extensive work with a sports psychologist , even a hypnotist, in his training camps. A sense of destiny might help in this regard, too, just so long as he can maintain discipline.
With three games left in regulation, two of them with White, Magnus needs to make up ground. He CAN do it, of course. He is the best player of his generation, and when all is said and done may well be the greatest player of all time. But Karjakin seems completely in the moment, while Carlsen is looking shakier from game to game. I can't wait to see how it ends!
Monday, November 21, 2016
How Karjakin can be World Champion without winning a single game!!
It is strange but true- GM Sergey Karjakin does not need to win a single game to become the next FIDE World Champion of Chess.
If the regular games in the match are all drawn, the process calls for successive games in the form of "mini-matches" based on progressively quicker time controls.
If the players are still even, the final will come down to one sudden-death game, To avoid any hint of miscommunication, here is the exact citation from the Match Rules:
As the challenger, and without winning a single game.
Here is the link to the complete match regulations
If the regular games in the match are all drawn, the process calls for successive games in the form of "mini-matches" based on progressively quicker time controls.
If the players are still even, the final will come down to one sudden-death game, To avoid any hint of miscommunication, here is the exact citation from the Match Rules:
3.7.3 If the score is still level after five matches as described in Article 3.7.2, the players shall play a one sudden death game. The player who wins the drawing of lots may choose the color. The player with the white pieces shall receive 5 minutes, the player with the black pieces shall receive 4 minutes whereupon, after the 60th move, both players shall receive an increment of 3 seconds starting from move 61. In case of a draw the player with the black pieces is declared the winner.The scenario I allude to in the title is this: Karjakin draws every game, all the way to the sudden death final game. If he draws black, he only needs to draw the game to become World Champion.
As the challenger, and without winning a single game.
Here is the link to the complete match regulations
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Insider Theory
Today on Twitter, not-quite-our-own Theo Slade had a very interesting exchange with Peter Svidler about opening theory. (@polborta is Svidler's personal twitter account.)
One can come up for many reasons for Svidler to defer further comment, too. Ultimately, anything he says could be construed as giving away information to potential competitors about what he does and doesn't know, or may or may not know. Although choosing what to believe of anything he says after that last tweet would become a poker problem, and not a chess problem, if that makes any sense. (And it may not. I am sick at the moment, and I'm not sure that my brain cells have survived the illness, or if having survived they still function with a reasonable modicum of coherence.)
@theosladechess In topical lines in particular, top players independently look at the same positions in great depth, resulting in a pool 1/— Peter Svidler (@polborta) November 16, 2016
@theosladechess ... of shared knowledge which has not yet been shown in practice, creating a kind of 'insider theory'. Official theory is 2/— Peter Svidler (@polborta) November 16, 2016
@theosladechess ...stuff that has already been seen in published games, and is therefore openly available to everyone.— Peter Svidler (@polborta) November 16, 2016
@polborta existed. So would that mean that, eg, Black shouldn't go 9...d5 for fear of "insider theory," or is it more a case of Carlsen 2— Theo (@theosladechess) November 16, 2016
Apologies for formatting issues, but I think that's easy enough to follow.@theosladechess That's a lot harder to say, requires levels of speculation I am not happy with, sorry. Both are possible.— Peter Svidler (@polborta) November 16, 2016
One can come up for many reasons for Svidler to defer further comment, too. Ultimately, anything he says could be construed as giving away information to potential competitors about what he does and doesn't know, or may or may not know. Although choosing what to believe of anything he says after that last tweet would become a poker problem, and not a chess problem, if that makes any sense. (And it may not. I am sick at the moment, and I'm not sure that my brain cells have survived the illness, or if having survived they still function with a reasonable modicum of coherence.)
Meanwhile, at the REAL world championship...
Today Jonathan Tisdall tweeted:
The game, from the TCEC Superfinal, which is essentially the world championship of chess programs, can be found in the archives at the TCEC site. It's completely insane. And there was some controversy, apparently, with the ending. Q vs BB is a win, but not within the fifty move rule. Or at least, I read that somewhere today. Take THAT with a grain of salt. But the game is nearly incomprehensible for long stretches. Maybe if I say down and looked at it more closely with a computer running it would make sense. But I'm not going to do that. For all effective purposes, the top programs running of good hardware are playing a different game than we do. You can watch the games of the Superfinal at this link.Suggest marking Game 17 of Stockfish-Houdini superfinal today for when you have a few years to study a game. Kudos to our robot overlords.— Jonathan Tisdall (@GMjtis) November 15, 2016
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)