Groping in the Dark

At what level of play can someone be considered good at chess?

During his lecture at the Spokane Chess Club last on the eve of the Inland Classic, IM John Donaldson was discussing Bobby Fischer's remarkable rise after 1955. Donaldson has written several excellent books on Fischer, most recently Inside the Mind of Bobby Fischer: Revisiting His Writings and Annotations (2025). Fischer's rating in 1955 was mid-1700s. Donaldson mentioned some recent analysis of games from Fischer's first rated event that led to that rating and quipped, "he was not very good". 

In contrast to this critical historical assessment of the early career on one of the greatest chess players ever are innumerable threads in social media asking, for example, whether 1100 is a good rating. Most comments in such threads--this one has more than 350--note that 1100 is well above the average on the site. Similarly, a player near the bottom of the standings in the tournament that we played in this past weekend with a USCF rating in the 900s is at the 59th percentile. That player scored a 500+ point upset in the first round, then lost the rest of his games. These players are offered comfort in the knowledge that they are better than half of all rated players, and substantially better than the majority of casual chess enthusiasts who never enter competition.

My rating just above 1860 puts me at the 94th percentile. I told Donaldson on Sunday morning that his comment about Fischer was helping me come to terms with the fact that I'm not very good and never will be. John did not say much about this remark, but we had several conversations throughout the weekend, including him soliciting my insights into finding historic chess games online and a brief discussion of the writing of John Steinbeck, whose published books I am working my way through.

My perspective is grounded in comments I made last spring about the defects in the play of A-class players (see "Two Donner Quotes") and my sense in round two on Saturday that I was unable to comprehend and correctly assess the positions through much of the game. I believed that I was slightly worse early on, but had provoked some pawn structure weaknesses that were exploitable in the ending. When my B-class opponent blundered, I immediately recognized that my winning chances had become very good. In the brief post-game discussion, he immediately mentioned that terrible move that turned a roughly equal position into one where he was clearly worse.

From the point of view of the elementary students whom I coach, and that of the average USCF player, those of us in A-class are strong. Compared to masters and above, we are quite weak. Maybe we have some knowledge, but we also fall prey to bad habits, misevaluate positions through appalling ignorance, and fail to calculate with any precision.

Stripes,James (1865) -- Lopez,Francisco (1614) [A49]

Inland Classic Spokane Valley (2), 21.02.2026

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nbd2

Black to move

This move does not seem to me particularly strong, but I've been playing it in similar positions online the past few months. My idea is to maintain the flexibility to play e4 or c4, depending on how my opponent responds. Of course, blocking the mobility of the dark-squared bishop should be seen as a loss of tempi. 

I had the Black side of this position in round four, when my opponent played 5.c4 instead of my 5.Nbd2. That game continued 5...0-0 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Nc3 c5 I was already feeling a bit lost in terms of my understanding of how Black should proceed here. 8...e5 is more common and scores much better.

5...Nc6 6.c3 0-0 7.0-0 e5 8.dxe5 Nxe5

8...dxe5 9.e4 a5 10.Qc2 Be6 11.Rd1 Qc8 0-1 Stavrianakis,I (2316) -- Stojanovic,D (2488) Belgrade Trophy 26th 2012

9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Qb3 c6 11.Rd1 Qc7

White to move

Black's pieces are more mobile.

12.a4

12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Be6 14.Qb4 Rfd8 15.Be3 Rxd1+ 16.Rxd1 Bf8 17.Qa4 a6 18.Qc2 Rd8 19.Rxd8 Qxd8 20.b4 f5 21.Bg2 Qd7 22.a4 ½-½ Lupinski,I -- Remenyi,B Wch U18 Girls 5th Guarapuava 1991 

12...Be6 13.Qc2 Bf5

Black should play 13...a5, neutralizing White's effort to create a weak point.

14.e4 Bg4 15.f3?!

Black to move

15...Be6=

15...Qb6+ 16.Kf1= (16.Kh1 Be6 17.a5 Qf2 18.Rf1 Qe2 19.Qd1 Qxd1 20.Rxd1 Rad8with a slight edge for Black)

16.Nf1

16.a5

16...h6

16...a5

17.a5 Rfd8 18.Be3

White to move

By this point, I was beginning to formulate a plan. When I played 12.a4, the intent was to provoke a weakness on the queenside. Now, the nature of that weakness is coming to light. Even so, this weakness offered me no advantage until my opponent's tactical error.

18...Kh7

18...b6 19.axb6 axb6=

19.Rxd8! Qxd8 20.Qf2 a6

I was optimistic that swapping the heavy pieces would leave Black with a vulnerable b-pawn that my king could threaten. However, if Black's king defends the pawn, it is not clear that I could make progress elsewhere.

20...b6 21.axb6 axb6 22.Rxa8 Qxa8 23.Bxb6 and White is slightly better; 

20...Bf8 21.Nd2=

21.Qe2?!

This move was rooted in shallow calculation and failure to understand the most important elements of the position

21.Nd2 would have been better with the idea of controlling c4.

21...Qe7 22.Bb6 Nd7|

Somehow I overlooked this move.

White to move

23.Be3 Rd8 24.Rd1 Nf8

I was happy for the opportunity to exchange the heavy pieces and continue with a minor piece struggle, thinking that I had some chances to exploit the hole on b6.

25.Rxd8 Qxd8 26.Bb6 Qd6

26...Qb8 27.b4=

27.Qd2 Qe7 28.Qd8

Forcing a minor piece ending (or is the resulting position still a middlegame?

28...Bf6 29.Qxe7

29.Qb8! Bg7 (29...Nd7 30.Qxb7) 30.b4 White may have a slight edge 30...Qd7 31.Bc5 Qc8 32.Qxc8 Bxc8 33.Kf2

29...Bxe7=

White to move

30.Ne3 Nd7 31.Ba7

31.Bc7 f6 32.b4 c5 33.Nd5 Bf8 34.Bf1

31...Bc5

31...Nc5 32.Nd1 Na4 33.Kf1

32.Bxc5 Nxc5 33.Bf1 f6

I expected 33...Nb3 when I tried to work out a line that could give me an advantage.

34...Bc8?!

34...Kg7; 

34...Bxc4 35.Nxc4=]

35.Kf2 White is playing for an advantage, but does not have much chance of winning.

35.b4 Ne6 36.Bxe6 Bxe6

35...Kg7 36.Ke2

36.b4 Na4 37.Nd1

36...Kf8 37.b4 Ne6 38.Ng4

38.Bxe6 might be best 38...Bxe6

38...Kg7 39.Kd3

39.Nf2!

39...Ng5 40.Ke3= 

Black to move

40...Nf7??

40...Bxg4 41.fxg4 Nf7 42.Bxf7 Kxf7 43.Kd3 Ke6 44.Kc4 Kd6 45.h4 h5 46.g5

Black to move

Analysis diagram

46...f5 (46...fxg5?? 47.hxg5 Kd7 48.Kc5 Kc7 49.c4 Kd7 50.Kb6 Kc8 51.b5 axb5 52.cxb5 cxb5 53.Kxb5 Kc7 54.Kc5+-) 47.Kd3 Ke6=

41.Bxf7+- h5

41...Kxf7 42.Nxh6+ Ke6 43.Ng4+-

42.Nxf6

42.Nxe5 fxe5 43.Be8! Bh3 44.f4+-; 

42.Bxg6 hxg4 43.Bh5 gxf3 44.Kxf3+-

42...Kxf7

42...Kxf6 43.Be8 (43.Bb3 was my intended move, but Be8 is better)

43.Nh7 Kg7 44.Ng5 Bd7 45.Kd3 Kf6 46.h4 Ke7 47.Kc4 Kd6 48.f4 exf4 49.gxf4 Bg4 50.Nf7+ Ke7 51.Ne5 Bh3 52.Nxg6+ Kd6 53.Kd4 Bc8 54.f5 Kc7 55.Kc5 Bd7 56.Nf4 Be8 57.e5 1-0

Once I had a clear advantage, I played as if I understood the game. But, my memory of this game lingers as several hours of confusion.

The Soul of Chess

After dropping a couple of pieces in a ten-minute game, my position was near hopeless. My only chance was the difficulty my opponent faced in finding the correct defense.

White to move

34.Rg1!

The only move to preserve the win.

34.Re1, which looks reasonable on the surface, fails. 34...d2! 35.Rfxe2 Rc1 36.Kg1 Rxe1+ 37.Kf2 d1Q 38.Rxe1 Qd4+ picks up the knight and leaves queen vs. rook with pawns on both sides.

34...Rc1

A desperate gamble.

35.Rxc1 d2 36.Rff1

Black to move

Black can take either rook, but not both. White wins.

In the game, White, with 4 1/2 minutes remaining, spent half a minute and did not find the critical Rg1. He took my rook and then resigned after 34...e1Q+.

One of my students who also did not find 34.Rg1, did find 36.Rff1 after my 34...Rc1?? 34...d2! would have won for Black.

My pawns rolling down the center of the board were inspired by many historic games. My students are seeing the well-known game McDonnell,A. De Labourdonnais, L. 1834

White to move

After 31...Bd8

32.Qc4 Qe1 33.Rc1 d2 34.Qc5 Rg8 35.Rd1 e3 36.Qc3

Black to move

36...Qxd1 37.Rxd1 e2 0-1

I am also showing students the end of  Petrosian,T. -- Fischer,R. 1958

Black to move

63...Kd2 64.Rxc2+ Kxc2 65.Kg5 c4 66.f6 c3 67.f7

Here Fischer offered a draw and Petrosian agreed, but with my students, we carry the game further to assure than they understand why the resulting queen vs. c-pawn endgame is a draw.

Of course, François-André Danican Philidor's analysis in Analyse du jeu des Échecs (1849) also inspired my play. It was in this book that Philidor offered his famous line, "pawns are the soul of chess."

White to move

38.f7 Rf8 39.Nf4+ Kg7 40.Bh5 and White's pawns cannot be stopped.

Ways of Reading

After finishing the process of going through every game in Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955), I was motivated to tackle another classic. Now, I am following the same process with P. H. Clarke, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963). I downloaded the PGN file from Bill Wall’s Chess Page and opened it in tChess Pro on my iPad. During my morning coffee a day or two per week, I go through a game on the iPad, sometimes several times, then I go through the game while reading Clark’s annotations. Sometimes, I then find the game on chessgames.com and drop a note there.

Clarke’s book had some competition for my attention. Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games (1969) also beckoned. Wall has a PGN for that book as well. It, too, resides on my iPad. But as I was going through Fischer — Sherwin 1957, I had a strong impulse to set a chess board on the table for the purpose of studying Fischer’s annotations in a manner that is more difficult with tChess Pro.

Working through My 60 Memorable Games will be more work, but I also think it is worth doing. Perhaps I will do a quick orientation to each game in tChess Pro, then switch to a chessboard on the table and the book for further study.

Positions from Recent Lessons

[T]actics flow from a positionally superior game.
Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games (1969)

My posting here has been sporadic lately. Between work and home maintenance, I've barely had enough time in the woods for hunting. As a consequence, there is no time for writing. Nonetheless, I've been teaching several individual students and running an after-school chess club. The positions below are from some classic games that were part of my instruction in October.

White to move

William Steinitz (still spelled Wilhelm at the time) did not make the computer's choice here, but it was a decisive move that forced matters. It also set up the theme for the next two positions. From Steinitz -- Mongredien, London 1862.

White to move

From Steinitz -- Mongredien, London 1863.

White to move

This was the position where Fischer made the comment in the epigraph above. From Fischer -- Sherwin, 1957.

Helping Benko

In round 22 of the 1962 Candidates tournament, Pal Benko with the Black pieces had a crushing attack against Bobby Fischer. However, he failed to find the knockout blow and then blundered in time pressure. Black can force checkmate from all of the positions below, which might have occurred had Benko played slightly differently. Perhaps, also, Fisher needed to err to reach these positions.

Warm Up (mate in three)

Black to move

Black to move

Slightly Challenging (mate in five)

Black to move

Challenge (mate in seven and nine)

Black to move

Black to move

Whither Draw

Bobby Fischer has just played 28.Be3 and a draw was agreed. From Fischer,R. -- Ames,D., 1955.

Black to move

Would you play on?

Five Days to Better Chess

Five Days to Better Chess: Essential Tools was published a few days ago. What is this book about? Who is the audience?

This book offers content and process. This process is for all chess enthusiasts who seek to improve their own game, or who help others to do so. The content aims principally at developing players up to average club strength (Elo 1400-1600). Will it lift you to this level in five days? No. It was noted by a critic on Facebook that a title like "five days to..." cheapens content by promising what no book can deliver. Maybe I could have called it "five steps ..." instead? Better is not best. Improvement is a journey; this book offers a map.

The process mapped in Five Days to Better Chess is neither original nor the norm in chess training. The process is rooted in the experience of watching players of all levels fail to demonstrate basic skills. This process begins at the end of the game and works from there towards the beginning. That is, it starts with checkmate. First, there are elementary checkmates with a few pieces against a lone king. Chess Fundamentals (1921) by Jose R. Capablanca begins the same way. From elementary checkmates, Capablanca moves to simple pawn endings, then middlegame positions, and finally general opening principles. He then repeats the sequence from endings, through middlegames to openings. In Chess Fundamentals, this sequence repeats a third time, then the book contains illustrative games.

Five Days to Better Chess advocates this repeating process, but the book is structured in five units: checkmates, endings, middlegames, openings, and great games. The first four units each begin with relatively elementary skills and build towards more complex. The plan is for readers to read part of each unit and then go through the book again, reading other parts.

The beginning of the checkmate unit illuminates this structure:

How do you become better at checkmate? Skill at execution of checkmate is your tool box for finishing the game. Your tools are 1) mastery of elementary checkmates with heavy pieces, 2) experience with minor piece checkmates, 3) recognition of common checkmate patterns, and 4) calculation skill.

Among the patterns are a list of 37 checkmate configurations, a section on the varieties of corridor checkmates, some work on the weakness of f7/f2 designed to steer players away from attempting scholar's checkmate. Legall's pseudo-sacrifice is offered as a better effort to trap the unwary. Finally, there is a section on the classic bishop sacrifice (Bxh7+) that highlights defensive resources.

Several instructive portions in each of the first three units offer a small number of exercises. Each of the first three also have forty exercises that conclude the unit. For strong class players (above 1600), these 120 exercises could offer a quick warm-up before tackling tougher problems. For those under 1400, they may prove challenging. The exercises offer a range from quick and easy, and thus within reach of those new to the game, to a few with instructive nuances that cause stronger players to pause and calculate.

When I was studying Byrne -- Fischer 1956--the "Game of the Century"--a few months ago, I had this position on the dining room table all weekend.

White to move

Without moving any pieces, I tried to calculate and record the principle variations. I became caught up in long and difficult assessment of variations that follow after 18.Bxe6, which was not played in the game. The obvious answer finally hit me while folding my laundry. The position after 18.Bxe6 is on the book's cover and is Checkmate Challenge #70 at the end of the checkmate unit. The notes that I produced that weekend also appear in the fifth unit, devoted to great games.

After checkmate, the process advocated in Five Days to Better Chess presents endgames as day two. It begins with elementary king and pawn positions that highlight the square of the pawn, breakthrough ideas, and the fundamentals of opposition and outflanking. There are sections on knight vs. bishop, queen vs. pawn, and queen vs. rook. A large chunk on endings presents the most important rook endings, concluding with two examples of Vasily Smyslov's exemplary defense against a rook and two pawns with a rook (pawns on the f- and h-files). All of these topics are treated in much greater detail in books by Yuri Averbakh, Jeremy Silman, Mark Dvoretsky, and others. Nonetheless, my explanations may prove useful to many students and coaches. Five Days highlights those skills that are most fundamental.

A section of the middlegame unit offers an extended discussion of the many aspects of pins. Then a short glossary defines with examples the other thirteen most common tactical ideas from attraction (decoy) to zwischenzug. A section on strategy builds upon Dan Heisman's Elements of Positional Evaluation (1999) through deep analysis of the key moments in Pillsbury -- Lasker 1896.* Lasker's own presentation of this game in Lasker's Manual of Chess (1947) validates the usefulness of Heisman's seven elements. Annotations to a couple of Paul Morphy's games further develop the reader's understanding of positional play.

The opening section develops basic principles, and then returns to Lasker's critique of his loss of time against Pillsbury, then offers move-by-move discussion of one line of the classical French (the opening in that game). Four more openings are presented, highlighting verbal explanations of basic principles--Italian, Spanish, Queen's Gambit, and London System. These are tied to model games, including a thrashing of Pavel Eljanov's Catalan by Magnus Carlsen. The exercises at the end of the chapter are twelve instructive miniatures for readers to analyze. Solutions in the back of the book highlight the key errors.

The chapter on great games offers a narrative of my quest for the best game ever played and annotations of three masterpieces that just missed the top ten. The annotations highlight my own learning process as a model for readers, including an extended discussion of how Vladimir Barsky, The Ragozin Complex (2011) helps elucidate strategies Jon Ludvig Hammer employed in his masterpiece last year in Stockholm. My ten candidates for best game are presented in full for reader analysis. Five Days offers brief statements of the merits that I see in each game. The focus in this unit is offering suggestions on how students of the game might approach learning from such games, especially how these games teach all elements from the opening to the endgame.

Two Notes

The subtitle, essential tools, employs a metaphor. Those are my tools on the cover. The metaphor comes out in the writing.

Regular readers of Chess Skills already know that I am a historian. This book offers many anecdotes and vignettes of chess history, such as the origin of the word pawn.

Genesis of the Work

Five Days to Better Chess is the culmination of more than ten years' work. In summer 2008, I offered my first chess camp for children at the school where I had been coaching eight years. My work as a youth  chess coach began as a parent volunteer at my son's school. When he moved on to another school, I was offered a stipend so that I would stay on as the coach.

Offering a chess camp extended the chess work one week into the summer, while also intensifying the learning opportunities. To keep the children focused, I prepared more exercises than they could possibly finish even if that is all they did during camp. Camp included competition--a pawn wars tournament, checkmate contests, a camp tournament with one game per day--lectures, and solving sessions. Camp points  accumulated as long as behavior was good and exercises were completed. Bonus points were awarded to those who won games, and to those who practiced chess notation.

Assembling the exercises and some of the instructional material into a workbook gave the students something they could take home. My hope was that they would study on their own through the summer. The school photocopied my materials, and then I had them spiral bound with card stock covers at Kinkos or Staples.

I used the same workbook the second summer, changing only the date on the cover. The third year, I created a new workbook focused on learning from Adolf Anderssen, titling it "Attacking with Anderssen". Tactics exercises came from his games. I recycled some of the materials, especially the elementary pawn endings. As the theme changed year after year, some materials that I recycle were fine-tuned. These appear in Five Days to Better Chess.

When I published Forcing Checkmate through Amazon this spring, I learned that Amazon's printing cost and mark-up was barely more than I paid at Staples for spiral binding. It seemed time to expand my workbook and get professional binding. I aimed for 200 pages because that was the minimum length that would allow printing the title on the book's spine. I ended up with more than 225 double-column pages of content, plus front matter and a couple of blank pages to facilitate design elements.



*The second edition of Heisman's book was published in 1999. I have the fourth edition as well.

Tactics: Basic and Advanced

Lesson of the Week

Bobby Fischer has been my theme this week. Most of my students have seen various positions derived from his brilliant win against Donald Byrne at the Rosenwald Trophy Tournament in New York, 1956. The whole game is posted at "Byrne -- Fischer, New York 1956". The students in my advanced club did not have difficulty finding the smother checkmate that might have occurred, but struggled to work out the game's finish without moving the pieces.

Black to move

After 18.Bxe6 (not played)

 Black to move

After 36.Kf1

Fischer found a checkmate in six, but there was one in five. Either would be acceptable if my young students could describe the sequence in chess notation without moving the pieces.

Students in my clubs were also presented with the worksheets Essential Tactics 7-10. There was no expectation that they would complete all four, but only the suggestion that they spend fifteen minutes solving exercises before playing chess.

These exercises are extracted from my eBook, Essential Tactics: Building a Foundation for Chess Skill (2017). Originally created four years ago as the worksheets Beginning Tactics 1-18, I have revised them as Essential Tactics 1-25. The same 150 exercises are on the worksheet sets and in the book. However, the first set of worksheets used chess pieces in some of the diagrams that the students found confusing. I switched all to the pieces ChessBase calls Fritz (used in the diagrams in the post). The number of worksheets increased in the revised set because each sheet contains six exercises. In the original series, worksheets 5-18 had nine exercises each.

To my surprise, my top second grader struggled with this exercise.

White to move

A few of the exercises on Essential Tactics 10 get to the core of finding two move combinations.

White to move

White to move

Creating the 300

In GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), Rashid Ziyatdinov offers his version of the legendary 300 positions that a player must know to become a strong chess player. I have written about this book on several prior occasions, especially "Hitting the Books" (March 2015); "The Training Standard" (January 2015); "To Know a Position" (December 2014); "Morphy's Fingerprints" (December 2014); "Fingerprints" (April 2010); and my initial review of the book, "GM-RAM: Essential Knowledge" (February 2010).

Ziyatdinov leaves 47 of the 300 to the reader. I am tentatively and slowly adding critical positions from my study in search of 47 that matter to me. I have so far added:

Alekhine -- Levenfish 1912

White to move

After 14...Qxb2

Carlsen -- Tomashevsky 2016

White to move

After 12...Ng6

Byrne -- Fischer 1956

Black to move

After 11.Bg5

Byrne -- Fischer, New York 1956

"Game of the Century"

It was quite an experience to watch [Bobby Fischer] during the critical stage of the game. There he sat like a little Buddha, showing his moves with the calm regularity of an automaton.
Hans Kmoch, "Game of the Century," Chess Review (December 1956)

Hans Kmoch, as manager for the Manhattan Chess Club, directed tournaments there. The Third Lessing J. Rosenwald Trophy Tournament took place 7-24 October 1956 at the Manhattan Chess Club and the Marshall Chess Club. Fischer was invited because he had won the U.S. Junior Championship in July, the youngest player ever to do so. The Rosenwald tournament was the first time that he played against the top masters in the United States. His round 8 win against Donald Byrne won the tournament's brilliancy prize and was dubbed the "game of the century" by Kmoch.*

Kmoch wrote that the game, "matches the finest on record in the history of chess prodigies" (Kmoch, Chess Review, rpt. in Bruce Pandolfini, The Best of Chess Life and Review, vol. 1, 1933-1960 [1988], 525).

This game has been annotated many times. For my annotations, I went through the game several times. At several critical positions, I wrote my anticipated variations without moving the pieces. After recording these lines, I checked mine against Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, part IV Fischer (2004). I then checked some of my lines with Stockfish 7.

This game strikes me as a good one for honing a player's calculation skills. It is among my candidates for "best game ever played."


Byrne,Donald -- Fischer,Robert James [D97]
New York Rosenwald New York, 1956

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 0–0 5.Bf4 d5 6.Qb3 dxc4 7.Qxc4 c6 8.e4 Nbd7 9.Rd1 Nb6 10.Qc5?! 

10.Qb3 seems better.

10...Bg4 11.Bg5?

11.Be2 seems necessary.

11...Na4!

This move stunned me when I was playing through the game on a chess board last week. On the one hand, it is a simple deflection combined with a threat to remove the guard of the e4 pawn. On the other hand, Black cannot win a pawn, but rather offers an exchange sacrifice. Fischer had to calculate several lines. In all of these, the vulnerability of White's king proved decisive.

White to move

This position was on my board at the dining room table for most of the weekend. I returned to it several times to study and record possible variations.

12.Qa3

Alternatives begin with 12.Nxa4 Nxe4 and then:

a) 13.Bxe7 was the first line I recorded in my notes. 13...Re8 is the computer's second choice (The engine prefers 13...Qc7 14.Bd6 Nxd6) 14.Bxd8 Nxc5+ (Kmoch has this line, but revereses the order of the previous two moves) 15.Be2 Nxa4 16.Bh4 Nxb2 and Black is clearly better.

b) 13.Qxe7 was my second line. 13...Qxe7

My analysis falls short here. The engine prefers 13...Qa5+ 14.b4 Qxa4 15.Qxe4 Rfe8 16.Be7 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Bf8 Garry Kasparov credits Sergei Shipov with this line. Clearly Black is winning.

Continuing my line: 14.Bxe7 Rfe8 15.Be2 (The engine prefers 15.Bd3 ) 15...Rxe7 16.0–0 (The engine prefers 16.h3 ) 16...b5 17.Nc3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Rxe2 Black is ahead a piece.

c) 13.Qc1 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Nxg5 is offered by Kasparov. I did not look at this line.

d) 13.Qb4 Nxg5 14.Nxg5 Bxd1 15.Kxd1 Bxd4–+ Kasparov. Another line that I failed to examine.

My third line continued:

e) 13.Qa3 Nxg5 14.Be2 Nxf3+ (Stockfish prefers 14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Qa5+ 16.Nc3 Qxa3 17.bxa3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3) 15.Bxf3 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 and Black is winning.

12...Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qb6

White to move

15.Bc4

What if White accepts the exchange sacrifice?

15.Bxf8 Bxf8 16.Qc1

I also considered 16.Qb3 Qxb3 (Kasparov gives 16...Nxc3, attributing the suggestion to Yuri Averbakh) 17.axb3 Nxc3 18.Rd2 Re8+ 19.Be2 Bb4-+

16...Re8 17.Be2 Nxc3

Analysis diagram after 17...Nxc3

I spent a lot of time trying to find a defense for White here. Instead, I found only lines leading to checkmate or to an overwhelming material advantage for Black.

18.Rd2

(Stockfish prefers 18.Qxc3 Bb4 and there was no doubt in my mind that Black was winning here)

18...Rxe2+ 19.Rxe2 Nxe2 20.Kxe2 Qb5+ 21.Ke1

(21.Kd1 seems best 21...Qd3+ 22.Qd2 Bxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qxf3+ 24.Kc2 Qxh1-+)

21...Bb4+ 22.Kd1

(22.Qd2 Bxd2+ 23.Kxd2 [23.Nxd2 Qe2#])

22...Qd3+ 23.Qd2 Qxd2#

15...Nxc3 16.Bc5

I considered 16.Qxc3 Rfe8 17.0–0 is Stockfish's choice, as it was mine (I did not look at Kasparov's line 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7 18.Ng5+ Kxe7 19.0–0 Bxd1 20.Rxd1) 17...Rxe7 and Black has a clear edge.

16...Rfe8+ 17.Kf1 Be6!!

White to move

18.Bxb6

After the possible 18.Bxe6, I spent a lot of time looking at complex and unclear lines before I saw Fischer's plan: 18...Qb5+ 19.Bc4 Qxc4+ 20.Kg1 Ne2+ 21.Kf1 Ng3+ 22.Kg1 Qf1+ 23.Rxf1 Ne2#.

I also saw 18.Qxc3 Qxc5 19.dxc5 Bxc3 20.Bxe6 Rxe6.

After Fischer's queen sacrifice, the moves seemed rather forcing and I did not look at variations again for many moves.

18...Bxc4+ 19.Kg1 Ne2+ 20.Kf1 Nxd4+ 21.Kg1

I did not examine 21.Rd3 axb6.

21...Ne2+ 22.Kf1 Nc3+ 23.Kg1 axb6 24.Qb4 Ra4 25.Qxb6 Nxd1

White to move

26.h3

I did not examine 26.Qxb7 Bd5 27.Qd7 Re2.

26...Rxa2 27.Kh2 Nxf2 28.Re1 Rxe1 29.Qd8+ Bf8 30.Nxe1 Bd5 31.Nf3 Ne4

Here it seems to me that White is running out of moves. He has not been in the game since capturing Fischer's queen. In fact, he was lost before that. His role is to make the moves that permit the young Fischer to demonstrate his skill.

32.Qb8 b5

Kasparov mentions 32...Kg7.

33.h4 h5 34.Ne5 Kg7 35.Kg1 Bc5+

White to move

36.Kf1

I knew that 36.Kh2 would lose quickly, but my Ra1 is inferior to 36...Nd2!

I saw 37.Qc7 (37.Nf3 Bd6+) 37...Bg1+ 38.Kh1 Nf2#.

36...Ng3+

36...Bc4+? 37.Nxc4.

I found another checkmate as fast as Fischer's: 36...Rf2+ 37.Ke1

37.Kg1 loses faster 37...Rf4+ 38.Kh2 Rxh4#.

37...Bb4+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Rc2+ 40.Kd1 (40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Ka1 Ra2#) 40...Nf2#.

37.Ke1 Bb4+

Kasparov points out a faster checkmate: 37...Re2+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ba3+ 40.Kb1 Re1#.

38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ne2+ 40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Kc1 Rc2# 0–1

After this game, the world noticed Bobby Fischer. Within a few years, he became a leading candidate for a future World Championship match. When he finally reached the summit, he gave up on chess. Of course, there were reasons. He set conditions that were not met wholly.


*For some of the historical details concerning this tournament, I am indebted to John Donaldson, and Eric Tangborn, Bobby Fischer: The Early Years: 1943-1962 (Amazon Digital Services, 2017).

The Best Chess Game Ever Played

What is the best chess game ever played? What criteria determines this choice? Do we favor players whom we like?

At Inland Chess Academy's Spring Break Camp today, I am presenting a class called the "best chess game ever played." But, I do not have an answer to my questions.

My students will receive a list with ten candidates. The list is incomplete. It has no games by the best player who ever lived, Magnus Carlsen. The class lasts fifty minutes. If we go through two of these games, we will need to rush through them. Every game on this list deserves several hours of study. Over the next few weeks, I plan to annotate these ten games and post them on Chess Skills.

Black to move

Vishy Anand lost this game and annotated it for Chess Informant. It received more first place votes than just about any other game published. However, the game that won two Informant Reader's Contests received more. It, too, is on this list.

The Greatest Chess Game Ever Played
My Candidates in Chronological Order (links are to my annotations)

(1) Bogoljubow,Efim -- Alekhine,Alexander [A90]
Hastings Six Masters Hastings, 1922

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 Nc6 7.Ngf3 0–0 8.0–0 d6 9.Qb3 Kh8 10.Qc3 e5 11.e3 a5 12.b3 Qe8 13.a3 Qh5 14.h4 Ng4 15.Ng5 Bd7 16.f3 Nf6 17.f4 e4 18.Rfd1 h6 19.Nh3 d5 20.Nf1 Ne7 21.a4 Nc6 22.Rd2 Nb4 23.Bh1 Qe8 24.Rg2 dxc4 25.bxc4 Bxa4 26.Nf2 Bd7 27.Nd2 b5 28.Nd1 Nd3 29.Rxa5 b4 30.Rxa8 bxc3 31.Rxe8 c2 32.Rxf8+ Kh7 33.Nf2 c1Q+ 34.Nf1 Ne1 35.Rh2 Qxc4 36.Rb8 Bb5 37.Rxb5 Qxb5 38.g4 Nf3+ 39.Bxf3 exf3 40.gxf5 Qe2 41.d5 Kg8 42.h5 Kh7 43.e4 Nxe4 44.Nxe4 Qxe4 45.d6 cxd6 46.f6 gxf6 47.Rd2 Qe2 48.Rxe2 fxe2 49.Kf2 exf1Q+ 50.Kxf1 Kg7 51.Kf2 Kf7 52.Ke3 Ke6 53.Ke4 d5+ 0–1


(2) Botvinnik,Mikhail -- Capablanca,Jose Raul [E49]
AVRO Holland (11), 22.11.1938

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bd3 0–0 9.Ne2 b6 10.0–0 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.Bb2 Qd7 13.a4 Rfe8 14.Qd3 c4 15.Qc2 Nb8 16.Rae1 Nc6 17.Ng3 Na5 18.f3 Nb3 19.e4 Qxa4 20.e5 Nd7 21.Qf2 g6 22.f4 f5 23.exf6 Nxf6 24.f5 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Re8 26.Re6 Rxe6 27.fxe6 Kg7 28.Qf4 Qe8 29.Qe5 Qe7 30.Ba3 Qxa3 31.Nh5+ gxh5 32.Qg5+ Kf8 33.Qxf6+ Kg8 34.e7 Qc1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4+ 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+ 40.g4 Qe1+ 41.Kh5 1–0

(3) Byrne,Donald -- Fischer,Robert James [D97]
New York Rosenwald New York, 1956

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 0–0 5.Bf4 d5 6.Qb3 dxc4 7.Qxc4 c6 8.e4 Nbd7 9.Rd1 Nb6 10.Qc5 Bg4 11.Bg5 Na4 12.Qa3 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qb6 15.Bc4 Nxc3 16.Bc5 Rfe8+ 17.Kf1 Be6 18.Bxb6 Bxc4+ 19.Kg1 Ne2+ 20.Kf1 Nxd4+ 21.Kg1 Ne2+ 22.Kf1 Nc3+ 23.Kg1 axb6 24.Qb4 Ra4 25.Qxb6 Nxd1 26.h3 Rxa2 27.Kh2 Nxf2 28.Re1 Rxe1 29.Qd8+ Bf8 30.Nxe1 Bd5 31.Nf3 Ne4 32.Qb8 b5 33.h4 h5 34.Ne5 Kg7 35.Kg1 Bc5+ 36.Kf1 Ng3+ 37.Ke1 Bb4+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ne2+ 40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Kc1 Rc2# 0–1

(4) Polugaevsky,Lev -- Nezhmetdinov,Rashid [A53]
Sochi, 1958

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.e4 exd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd2 g6 7.b3 Bg7 8.Bb2 0–0 9.Bd3 Ng4 10.Nge2 Qh4 11.Ng3 Nge5 12.0–0 f5 13.f3 Bh6 14.Qd1 f4 15.Nge2 g5 16.Nd5 g4 17.g3 fxg3 18.hxg3 Qh3 19.f4 Be6 20.Bc2 Rf7 21.Kf2 Qh2+ 22.Ke3 Bxd5 23.cxd5 Nb4 24.Rh1 Rxf4 25.Rxh2 Rf3+ 26.Kd4 Bg7 27.a4 c5+ 28.dxc6 bxc6 29.Bd3 Nexd3+ 30.Kc4 d5+ 31.exd5 cxd5+ 32.Kb5 Rb8+ 33.Ka5 Nc6+ 0–1

(5) Fischer,Robert James -- Stein,Leonid [C92]
Sousse (izt) 4/336, 1967

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Na5 11.Bc2 Nc4 12.b3 Nb6 13.Nbd2 Nbd7 14.b4 exd4 15.cxd4 a5 16.bxa5 c5 17.e5 dxe5 18.dxe5 Nd5 19.Ne4 Nb4 20.Bb1 Rxa5 21.Qe2 Nb6 22.Nfg5 Bxe4 23.Qxe4 g6 24.Qh4 h5 25.Qg3 Nc4 26.Nf3 Kg7 27.Qf4 Rh8 28.e6 f5 29.Bxf5 Qf8 30.Be4 Qxf4 31.Bxf4 Re8 32.Rad1 Ra6 33.Rd7 Rxe6 34.Ng5 Rf6 35.Bf3 Rxf4 36.Ne6+ Kf6 37.Nxf4 Ne5 38.Rb7 Bd6 39.Kf1 Nc2 40.Re4 Nd4 41.Rb6 Rd8 42.Nd5+ Kf5 43.Ne3+ Ke6 44.Be2 Kd7 45.Bxb5+ Nxb5 46.Rxb5 Kc6 47.a4 Bc7 48.Ke2 g5 49.g3 Ra8 50.Rb2 Rf8 51.f4 gxf4 52.gxf4 Nf7 53.Re6+ Nd6 54.f5 Ra8 55.Rd2 Rxa4 56.f6 1–0

(6) Fischer,Robert James -- Spassky,Boris V [D59]
Reykjavik (m/6) 14/547, 1972

1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0–0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0–0 Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4 d4 21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 38.Rxf6 gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 1–0

(7) Karpov,Anatoly -- Kasparov,Garry [B44]
Moscow (m/16) 40/202, 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.exd5 Nb4 11.Be2 Bc5 12.0–0 0–0 13.Bf3 Bf5 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rad1 Nd3 17.Nab1 h6 18.Bh4 b4 19.Na4 Bd6 20.Bg3 Rc8 21.b3 g5 22.Bxd6 Qxd6 23.g3 Nd7 24.Bg2 Qf6 25.a3 a5 26.axb4 axb4 27.Qa2 Bg6 28.d6 g4 29.Qd2 Kg7 30.f3 Qxd6 31.fxg4 Qd4+ 32.Kh1 Nf6 33.Rf4 Ne4 34.Qxd3 Nf2+ 35.Rxf2 Bxd3 36.Rfd2 Qe3 37.Rxd3 Rc1 38.Nb2 Qf2 39.Nd2 Rxd1+ 40.Nxd1 Re1+ 0–1

(8) Ivanchuk,Vassily (2735) -- Jussupow,Artur (2625) [E67]
Brussels (m/9) 52/592, 1991

1.c4 e5 2.g3 d6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Nd7 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Nf3 Ngf6 7.0–0 0–0 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 c6 10.b3 Qe7 11.Ba3 e4 12.Ng5 e3 13.f4 Nf8 14.b4 Bf5 15.Qb3 h6 16.Nf3 Ng4 17.b5 g5 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Ne5 gxf4 20.Nxc6 Qg5 21.Bxd6 Ng6 22.Nd5 Qh5 23.h4 Nxh4 24.gxh4 Qxh4 25.Nde7+ Kh8 26.Nxf5 Qh2+ 27.Kf1 Re6 28.Qb7 Rg6 29.Qxa8+ Kh7 30.Qg8+ Kxg8 31.Nce7+ Kh7 32.Nxg6 fxg6 33.Nxg7 Nf2 34.Bxf4 Qxf4 35.Ne6 Qh2 36.Rdb1 Nh3 37.Rb7+ Kg8 38.Rb8+ Qxb8 39.Bxh3 Qg3 0–1

(9) Kasparov,Garry (2812) -- Topalov,Veselin (2700) [B07]
Wijk aan Zee 74/110, 1999

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6 6.f3 b5 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6 Bb7 10.a3 e5 11.0–0–0 Qe7 12.Kb1 a6 13.Nc1 0–0–0 14.Nb3 exd4 15.Rxd4 c5 16.Rd1 Nb6 17.g3 Kb8 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Bh3 d5 20.Qf4+ Ka7 21.Rhe1 d4 22.Nd5 Nbxd5 23.exd5 Qd6 24.Rxd4 cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 27.b4+ Ka4 28.Qc3 Qxd5 29.Ra7 Bb7 30.Rxb7 Qc4 31.Qxf6 Kxa3 32.Qxa6+ Kxb4 33.c3+ Kxc3 34.Qa1+ Kd2 35.Qb2+ Kd1 36.Bf1 Rd2 37.Rd7 Rxd7 38.Bxc4 bxc4 39.Qxh8 Rd3 40.Qa8 c3 41.Qa4+ Ke1 42.f4 f5 43.Kc1 Rd2 44.Qa7 1–0

(10) Topalov,Veselin (2778) -- Anand,Viswanathan (2785) [E15]
Sofia 93/439, 2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Nc3 c6 8.e4 d5 9.Qc2 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Bb7 11.Neg5 c5 12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 h6 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.0–0–0 Bd6 16.Nh4 Bc8 17.Re1 Na6 18.Re6 Nb4 19.Bxb4 cxb4 20.Bc4 b5 21.Bxb5 Be7 22.Ng6 Nxd5 23.Rxe7+ Nxe7 24.Bc4+ Kf6 25.Nxh8 Qd4 26.Rd1 Qa1+ 27.Kd2 Qd4+ 28.Ke1 Qe5+ 29.Qe2 Qxe2+ 30.Kxe2 Nf5 31.Nf7 a5 32.g4 Nh4 33.h3 Ra7 34.Rd6+ Ke7 35.Rb6 Rc7 36.Ne5 Ng2 37.Ng6+ Kd8 38.Kf1 Bb7 39.Rxb7 Rxb7 40.Kxg2 Rd7 41.Nf8 Rd2 42.Ne6+ Ke7 43.Nxg7 Rxa2 44.Nf5+ Kf6 45.Nxh6 Rc2 46.Bf7 Rc3 47.f4 a4 48.bxa4 b3 49.g5+ Kg7 50.f5 b2 51.f6+ Kh7 52.Nf5 1–0

I expect to show the students games four and ten from the list after describing each of the ten briefly, but the students might want to see one of the others. I will be flexible.

Useful Knowledge

How do chess players develop their skill?

There is no doubt that strengthening tactics--pattern recognition and calculation--is essential. Learning openings and endgames helps also.

Studying classic games is both enjoyable and productive. Paul Morphy's games help teach the fundamental principles of development in the opening--mobilization of forces, time, vulnerability, coordination of forces. His games also offer an abundance of tactical positions where pattern recognition and calculation skills can be honed through proper training.

Reading Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games may drill into the reader's memory his famous line, "tactics flow from a positionally superior game," and also may set into the memory the knight sacrifice on h7 to rip open the pawn shield in front of Black's king that was the context of that remark. Another sacrificial attack that should be familiar to most chess players was played in Rotlewi -- Rubinstein 1907. It appears in many books on tactics. I have seen the critical position during tactics training both on Chess Tempo and while using Chess.com's Tactics Trainer. The patterns in this game inspired Vishy Anand in his brilliant miniature against Levon Aronian at the 2013 Tata Steel Chess Tournament.

As a devotee of the French Defense, I have spent many hours looking for ways to secure an advantage, or at least a playable game with imbalances, against the Exchange variation. Years ago on this blog, I declared my contempt for the Exchange variation, calling it "cowardly" (see "French Perfume"). Even so, I have lost a handful of games over-the-board against the Exchange French and have lost far more than a few in online play. Still, I have found some success in online play, especially blitz, drawing inspiration from Victor Korchnoi's fine miniature against Stefano Tatai.

Tatai,Stefano (2455) -- Kortschnoj,Viktor (2665) [C01]
Beersheba (6), 1978

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 c5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.h3 0–0 9.0–0 Bxc5 10.c3 Re8 11.Qc2 Qd6

White to move

12.Nbd2 Qg3 13.Bf5 Re2 14.Nd4 Nxd4 0–1

Whan I have the Black side of the Exchange French, having my queen and two minor pieces arranged on c5, c6, and d6 as in the diagram above fills me with confidence, especially when White voluntarily weakens the g3 square with h2-h3 (see "Find the Blow").

Last night in the first round of the Turkey Quads at the Spokane Chess Club, this game was brought back into my memory.

There was a bit of irony.

I had White and played the Exchange variation via an anti-French line with 2.c4. Careful analysis of the game after it concluded, revealed that my attention to tactical opportunities for my opponent wavered. Indeed, as one might expect from the French Exchange, White was worse until a tactical error by Black. At this point, the lessons from Tatai -- Korchnoi served me well.

Stripes,James (1750) -- Griffin,David (1606) [C01]
Turkey Quads Spokane (1), 03.11.2016

1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 c6

4...Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7, or 5...Bb4 is the usual manner of meeting this line with equality for Black.

5.Nf3

5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 is a more accurate move order, in my opinion.

5...Nf6 6.Be2

6.Nc3 is more flexible, as the bishop might go to d3 or even c4 in one move.

a) 6...Be7 7.Bd3 0–0 8.h3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nbd7 10.0–0
b) 6...Bd6 7.Bd3 0–0 8.0–0 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5

6...Be7

6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0–0 10.0–0 Be6 and White won in 40 moves, Vegh,E (2302)--Gonda,L (2524), Zalakaros 2013.

7.Nc3 0–0 8.0–0 dxc4

Black seizes the opportunity to give White an isolated queen pawn.

9.Bxc4 Bg4 10.Qd3?!

Black to move 

10.Re1 is better, as it protects against Bxf3 and Qxd4 because Black must first protect e7.

With the move that I played, the queen can become vulnerable on this square.

Even so, I enjoyed the irony of the resemblance of my central pieces and d-pawn to Black's in Tatai -- Korchnoi 1978, but there are several aspects of the position that differ. This move was made after four minutes thought and was the first time that I moved in more than half a minute.

10...Bxf3 11.gxf3N

Here I thought for five minutes. Facing a choice between ruined pawns or being a pawn down, I opted for ruined pawns in hopes that I could find use for the g-file.

The alternative appears in a game between two players just over 2000 Elo: 11.Qxf3 Qxd4 12.Qe2 Re8 13.Bg5 Qg4 14.Qxg4 Nxg4 15.Rfe1 Kf8 and drawn after 54 moves Janiszyn,E (2007)--Chmielinska,A (2065), Zakopane 2001.

11...Nbd7 12.Kh1?

I am thinking about my long-term tactical hopes, but have not considered the tactical resources offered to my opponent.

12.a3 was something that I judged too slow because I was oblivious to Black's tactical opportunity. However, it removes Black's tactical opportunity.

Black to move

12...Re8

12...b5! alerts White to the errors of his plan, although neither player seems aware 13.Bb3 Nc5 14.Qd1 Nxb3 15.axb3 and White's pawns can hardly be worse.

12...Nb6 was a move that I thought I was prepared to meet 13.Bb3 Nfd5 14.Rg1 Re8 15.Bh6 Bf8.

13.Be3

I played a waiting move. I wanted to play Rg1, but thought that it might matter whether Black plays Bf8 or Nf8

13...Nf8

13...b5 remains possible 14.Bb3 Nc5 15.Qf5 Nxb3 16.axb3 and Black has good prospects to win.

14.Rad1

I was pleased with myself with this move because it prepares d4-d5, something that I wanted Black to think about.

14...Qc7 15.Rg1= Ng6?

15...b5 16.Bb3

15...Rad8 would seem to be the point of Qc7, but it permits a forcing line that might give White a slight edge. 16.Bh6 Ng6 17.Rxg6 hxg6 18.Qxg6 Bf8 19.Bxg7 Bxg7 20.Rg1 Nh5 21.Qxh5 Qf4.

White to move

16.Rxg6!

I had been hoping for this opportunity when I played 10.Qd3 and 11gxf3.

Now that it was here, I tried to see to the end before playing this move, spending twelve minutes analyzing. The remaining annotations and all the moves of the game follow my calculations during those twelve minutes, except where noted.

I considered 16.Bh6 gxh6 17.Rxg6+ hxg6 18.Qxg6+ Kh8 19.Qxh6+ and I have had similar positions with colors reversed and found little success.

16...hxg6 17.Qxg6 Bf8

17...Rf8 18.Bh6 Ne8 and things were blurry in my imagination, but it felt comfortable. 18...Nh5 19.Rg1 was my plan ( I did not foresee 19.Bxg7! Nxg7 20.Rg1+-).

17...Bd6 18.Rg1.

18.Rg1 Rxe3

I expected 18...Nd5 19.Nxd5 cxd5 20.Bxd5 and I thought White's game was comfortable as Black's problems remain.

19.fxe3 Rd8?

A bad move in a difficult position.

a) 19...Nd5 seemed necessary to me, when 20.Nxd5 seems to offer a clear advantage (I did not consider 20.Qh5), and then 20...cxd5 (20...fxg6 21.Nxc7+ is clearly better for White) 21.Bxd5 when I still have threats and have recovered the sacrificed material with interest. In addition, my sorry pawns are substantially improved.

b) 19...Ne8 was also possible when I planned 20.Ne4 with the idea Ng5 and Qh7#.

c) 19...b5 20.Bb3 Qe7 (20...Nd5 is similar to lines above 21.Nxd5 Qd6 22.Nf6+ Qxf6 23.Qxf6 b4 24.Bxf7+ Kh8 25.Qh4#).

20.Qxf6 1–0

David resigned. He is the tournament director of this event, which includes sixteen players in four quads. We are in Quad B.

Hitting the Books

Context

A distinctive element of GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) draws in some readers and pushes many others away. Rashid Ziyatdinov's book contains diagrams without analysis. The author explains that the book is more of an exam than an instructional book. As such, it is an open book exam that can be taken and retaken until the desired score is achieved. Co-author Peter Dyson suggests that GM-RAM, "can be thought of as both a study outline and as an evaluation tool" (9).

Fifty-nine "classic games" are the source for 120 middlegame positions. Ziyatdinov addresses the definition of "classic". Games are not classic merely because they were played a long time ago. The games in GM-RAM:

...have been analyzed in great detail by many strong players from different periods, different schools of chess, and different ages and generations. It is only after a game has withstood these many different perspectives--these "tests of time"--that it can be considered a classic. (77)

Ziyatdinov directs his readers to analysis of these games by other writers. Alternately, he writes, "a chess trainer can help teach the necessary knowledge" (13). He provides a list of references. This list offers a secondary curriculum. Most, if not all, of the the endgame positions in GM-RAM can be found in Yuri Averbakh's Comprehensive Chess Endings, which comprises the bulk of the texts listed for endgame study.

The middlegame books listed are another matter. Most of the games are from the nineteenth century, but the recommended middlegame books include the two volumes of My Best Games of Chess by Alexander Alekhine; and Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games. Also listed are Averbakh, Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge; Paul Keres, and Alexander Kotov, The Art of the Middle Game; and Hans Kmoch, Pawn Power in Chess. There is minimal analysis of the games of Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy in these books.

Practice

For the past few months, I have been systematically working through Ziyatdinov's fifty-nine games at the rate of one each week. This past week, my game has been Bird -- Morphy, London 1858 (chessgames.com link). I have not done well on my study of this game. The week has been filled with activities that interfere with personal study, and an exciting new book arrived as well, Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations, 5th ed. (2014), putting my chess study time on another course. Hence, my study of this game will carry over another week. I will press on, though, adding this week's game: Morphy's Opera Game.

I have print editions of three good books on Paul Morphy: Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess (1957); Macon Shibut, Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (2004); and Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). In addition, I have the Kindle edition of David Lawson, Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess, new. ed. (2010) and access to older books, such as Frederick M. Edge's 1859 Paul Morphy: The Chess Champion, via GoogleBooks. Other books that contain analysis of Bird -- Morphy include Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, part I (2003); and Max Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1968).

Kasparov's book offers a good entry point to the most important historical analysis and sometimes modern computer evaluation of this analysis. It behooves me to invest the time to work through the analysis of this week's and last week's games in all of these books.

Analysis

Ziyatdinov's GM-RAM contains two essential middlegame positions from Bird -- Morphy. These are separated by a single move. The positions are before 17...Rxf2 and after 17...Rxf2 18.Bxf2. Studying Kasparov's analysis last night focused my attention much earlier in the game.

White to move

After 5...d5

Kasparov credits Johannes Zukertort with having pointed out the improvement from this position that refutes Morphy's dubious opening choice. Bird could have gained an advantage had he properly applied knowledge from the ancient work of Pedro Damiano.

Euwe does not offer a source, but notes, "Nowadays it is known that the answer to Black's chosen variation is 6.Nxe5! dxe4 7.Qh5+, White getting an irresistable attack in return for the sacrificed piece" (29).

Rating Inflation

It has become common in the chess world to assert that ratings today are inflated relative to historic ratings. As more and more players surpass Robert J. Fisher's peak rating of 2785, chess enthusiasts lament the inflation that creates the illusion that those players are stronger than Fischer. It cannot be true. Bobby Fisher is the best who ever moved a pawn.

Computer Scientist Ken Regan studies individual positions through computer analysis and compiles databases of hundreds of thousands of such positions. Through examining a player's moves over a batch of positions, he creates an Intrinsic Performance Rating (IPR). He develops methodology to catch cheaters. His analysis is also useful for estimating the Elo rating of players in the past.

What he found was that rating inflation does not exist. Between 1976 and 2009, there has been no significant change in IPR for players at all FIDE ratings ... the IPR for players rated between 2585 and 2615 has remained relatively constant over time. Today's thousands of grandmasters and dozens of players rated over 2700 indicate a legitimate proliferation of skill.
Howard Goldowsky, "How to Catch a Chess Cheater: Ken Regan Finds Moves Out of Mind," Chess Life (June 2014), 30.

Such is one of the many gems in the cover story of this months Chess Life, the magazine of the United States Chess Federation (USCF). I heartily recommend the article.

Fischer on Steinitz

Bobby Fischer offered a few short paragraphs of assessment on ten players before him in an article for the short-lived magazine Chessworld. The article, "The Ten Greatest Masters in History," was published in the inaugural issue (January-February 1964). Quotes from this article often appear in publications and on the internet, for instance at Chessgames.com. "Wilhelm Steinitz's Best Games" offers links to that member's selection prefaced be a series of statements sourced only by author. The quotes attributed to Fischer all stem from the article in Chessworld, but contain errors.

"The Ten Greatest Masters in History" runs pages 57-61 in Chessworld, vol. 1, no. 1. Edward Winter reproduced the article in "Fischer's Views on Chess Masters" (updated 9 April 2011) at Chesshistory.com.

It appears that Fischer did not write the article, but expressed his views to Neil Hickey. On the first page of the article, under Fischer's name appear the words, "as told to Neil Hickey" (57).

Fischer observed that Wilhelm Steinitz revised the thinking of chess players concerning the power of the king. While he credits Steinitz as the father of the modern school, he offers disconnected thoughts that do not explain this term. From the power of the king, Fischer shifts to when attacks should begin, and then jumps to the need to hold pawns back.

He is the so-called father of the modern school of chess: before him, the King was considered a weak piece and players set out to attack the King directly. Steinitz claimed that the King was well able to take care of itself, and ought not to be attacked until one had some other positional advantage. Pawns ought to be left back, Steinitz claimed, since they can only move forward and can't retreat to protect the same ground again. (58)

Much of Fischer's comments compare Steinitz to Paul Morphy, about whom he offers high praise.

Steinitz's book knowledge din't compare with Morphy's, and -- where Morphy was usually content to play a book line in the opening -- Steinitz was always looking for some completely original line. He was a man of great intellect -- an intellect often used wrongly. (59)
He understood more about the use of squares than did Morphy, and contributed a great deal more to chess theory. (59)

My First Chess Book

Lesson of the Week: Value of Books

There is a story that I like to tell, an autobiographical story that explains the source of my chess skill. My intent is to motivate aspiring chess students (and their parents) to delve into the world of chess books. This world becomes harder to promote as electronic substitutes grow in quality, diversity, and availability. But it remains a world of value.

My story concerns how my little sister taught me the moves of chess after learning the game from the neighbors. I was in second grade; she was in first. For the next several years, chess was one of the games that we played like Parcheesi or Monopoly. None of us were skilled. Being the oldest, I won more than my share and was able to maintain the self-deception that I understood the game. Then, in Junior High (they call it Middle School now), I was visiting a friend and saw that he had a chess book: Chess in 30 Minutes. "Wow," I told him, "You have a book about chess, you must be pretty good." We determined through the course of a game or two that he was no worse than me, and maybe a little better.

This event took place the year that Bobby Fischer was laying out more and more demands concerning his upcoming World Chess Championship defense against challenger Anatoly Karpov. They never reached agreement and Fischer forfeited his title. The drama kept chess in the news for several months. We did not understand all the details of Fischer's demands, nor was our knowledge of World Championship matches more than superficial. We did understand that there was some appeal to a long match of more than twenty games between the same two players. That was enough comprehension of world events to inspire action. We commenced a match of twenty-one games or so that took place over the next few weeks or months. Alan also introduced me to golf, which occupied most of our time together.

As I recall, Alan and I were about equally matched when the games began. During my next trip to the Cannon Air Force Base Library, I found the chess books. I checked out an armful, or perhaps one or two. The book that I remember reading was Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). From this text I learned to coordinate pieces in attack. I learned to attack the king. As I usually tell the story, I learned to read chess notation from the explanation in the front of this book. This past week I acquired a paperback copy of this now relatively rare Chernev text from Brused Books in Pullman, Washington. To my surprise, the text does not contain an explanation of how to read chess notation!

What else in my story proceeds from faulty memory? I am certain that Chernev's text was one of those I found at the Cannon library, and have only a vague memory of others. Perhaps I read something by Fred Reinfeld. Likely, I remember Chernev's classic because I spent more time with it than the others. It also influenced both the style of my play, and my skill level. By the end of our match, I was better than Alan. Developing my ability to attack carried me a long way, even into USCF C Class. Moving up from there, however, required more of a positional style. But that gets decades ahead of the story.

Back in 1975 a new friend moved in next door--people were constantly moving into and out of the neighborhood as is typical of military life. We were comparable in our chess skill. We started a match. I kept reading chess books. My skill development outpaced his. I became better at chess than my friends.

Then I played my Dad.

After my mother and siblings had gone to bed, my father and I faced one another across the dining room table. We were there late into the night drinking tall glasses of orange juice and maneuvering our armies. He taught me how to play slower, to think about every move. I managed to win both games, each of which was played on a separate evening.

Then I joined the chess club at Yucca Junior High. That meant taking the early bus to school one day per week. It was dark at the bus stop and cold outside the school while we waited for the janitor to open the door.

I have been an avid chess player since 1975, although I played very little from 1980 to 1989. My first computer and Chessmaster 2100 brought me back to the game. I returned to the Spokane Chess Club in 1995, the year after I finished graduate school. I've lost count of how many chess books that I own.


The Lesson

Chernev's book was my first encounter with the famous checkmate trap attributed to Legall de Kermeur, and with which I became reacquainted through a book that I read twenty-five years later (The Art of the Checkmate [1953] by Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn). It is game 10 in Chernev (5).

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Bg4 4.Nc3 g6 5.Nxe5 Bxd1

White to move

How did the game finish?

Game 15 in Chernev's text is a game between Joseph Henry Blake and William Hook, played in London 1891.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 f5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Qxd4 Bd7 7.Ng5 Nc6

White to move

 

According to Chernev, "White now announced a mate in five moves" (7). Chernev gives the moves, but you can work find them for yourself.

The young chessplayers will be challenged to work out the solutions. They may work together using chess boards.