Today's Position

White to move

This position is not among the five that I considered today from Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018), which I am working through at the rate of five positions per day. The position does come from a game from which Engqvist extracted three positions, but it was this moment in several games that captured most of my time this morning.

This position seems to have arisen for the first time in Gelfand,B. -- Karpov,A., Sanghi Nagar 1995 and at least twice more that year.

Gelfand played 9.Nd2 and lost after a long struggle. In Anatoly Karpov, How to Play the English Opening (2007), it references 9.Ne1, first played in Gulko,B. -- Sadler,M., Lucerne 1997 as an improvement for White (47). Nonetheless, ChessBase Mega has two White wins, two draws, and four Black wins after 9.Ne1. One of the draws is Engqvist's source game.

After 9.Nd2, White has three wins, a draw, and two losses. Why is 9.Ne1 an improvement?

A Snubbed Handshake

Game of the Week

After languishing on my shelves for a decade or longer, Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking (2005) by Neil McDonald came off for some serious study. Marginalia on many pages reveals that I have previously worked through the first several games, but have not worked through the whole. I spent half a morning last week creating a database with all thirty games and then racing through all of them for a first look. The next step was to work through the first game carefully before reading what McDonald has to say about it.

The plan is to study each game, then read McDonald's comments. I followed this process with the games in Irving Chernev, Logical Chess: Move by Move (1957). McDonald follows Chernev's classic by commenting on every move.

The first game in McDonald's book is the game that began with Victor Kortschnoj* holding out his hand before the game, only to be snubbed by Anatoly Karpov who said he he would no longer shake hands because of Kortschnoj's behavior. The behavior in question concerned his complaint about the seating in the audience of Dr. Vladimir Zukhar, a parapsychologist who was part of Karpov's team. Kortschnoi wanted Zukhar further back from the stage where the match took place. This game was the eighth in the championship and the first that was not drawn. Karpov went on to win the match, reaching his sixth win in game 32. Kortschnoj won five games.

McDonald does not discuss this historical background, despite his comment in the Introduction:

[P]sychological factors should be considered. ... When there is no obvious right or wrong, the character of the player has a major impact on the decision taken. This can be for both good and bad as the games of even the greatest players are frequently won and lost by impulsive or inspired decisions.
McDonald, Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking (5-6)

Karpov,Anatoly (2725) -- Kortschnoj,Viktor (2665) [C80]
World Championship 29th Baguio City (8), 03.08.1978

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6

What are the merits of the Morphy variation? McDonald does not ponder this question, nor offer much help towards an answer. He does dress the move 3...a6 with an exclamation mark.

4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Nxe4

Black temporarily wins a pawn. The exchange of center pawns shifts the focus towards active piece play. Playing through this game, I game to realize that my understanding of the Open Spanish is somewhat underdeveloped. It's not something I've played as Black, nor often faced as White.

5...Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3

6.d4 b5

6...exd4 seems dubious 7.Re1 f5 8.Nxd4 Be7 9.Nxf5 d5

7.Bb3 d5

7...Na5? invites tactics

a) 8.Bd5 c6 9.Bxe4

b) 8.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 9.Nxe5+ Kg8

b1) 9...Ke6 10.Qg4+ Ke7 11.Qxe4;

b2) 9...Ke8 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Nxg6 hxg6 (11...Nf6 12.Re1+ Be7) 12.Qxg6+ Ke7 13.Bg5+ Nxg5 14.Qxg5+ Kf7 15.Qxd8; 10.Qf3 Qf6 (10...Nf6 11.Qxa8; 10...Qe8 11.Qxe4) 11.Qxe4 Bb7 12.Qd3)

8.dxe5

This pawn will not be easily removed by Black and controls some key dark squares.

8...Be6

White to move

There are things that I don't like about Black's position: the backwards c-pawn, placement of the bishop in the pawn chain, and White's pawn striking at f6 and d6. But, Kortschnoj understood these consequences of his fifth move. This position has been played many thousands of times by top players with many Black wins. White's overall score is strong, but Kortschnoj's wins with Black include such opponents as Tal and Petrosian, and even Karpov later in this match.

My database contains 97 games with this position and Kortschnoj as one of the players, nearly always as Black. The overall score is 50% with 24 wins for each side and the rest draws.

My assessment of this position was skewed by lack of familiarity with the Open Spanish compounded by the tendency to annotate by result. Because Kortschnoj lost, I was looking for defects very early in the game. However, this position is an interesting tableau in the Spanish.

9.Nbd2 Nc5

9...Nxd2 Seems plausible and has been attempted by strong players, but with a score exceeding 75% for White. 10.Bxd2 Be7 (10...Bc5)

10.c3

Is White already slightly better? Black's light-squared bishop is part of a pawn chain, while White's e-pawn puts a clamp on the dark squares. Meanwhile, Black's king remains in the middle of the board. This position has appeared well over 1800 times in the annals of chess with a 58% score for White, but with over 400 Black wins.

Black to move

10...g6?!

This move was criticized by Raymond Keene and others. Keene's criticism appears in a book that I bought about forty years ago, when it was new: Raymond Keene, The World Chess Championship: Korchnoi vs. Karpov (1978), which claims to be the "inside story of the match". Keene was part of Kortschnoj's team. However, another book suggests that Keene was too much focused on journalistic dispatches to England to be an effective team player. Persona Non Grata (Thinkers' Press, 1981) lists as authors Viktor Kortchnoi with Lenny Cavallaro. However, Kortschnoj is consistently referred to in the third person in this book, suggesting that Cavallaro may have had the leading hand as author.

Persona Non Grata offers an account of the snub.

The 8th game. Viktor arrived at the table; Karpov did not get up. Kortchnoi sat down and held out his hand. Karpov replied that from that moment he had no intention of giving him his hand. ... The shot hit home. Kortchnoi played a poor tenth move (among others); Karpov conducted his attack quite well. (39-40)

What were the alternatives? Four moves have been played more often that Kortschnoj's.

a) 10...Nxb3 is fourth most popular 11.Nxb3 Be7
b) 10...Bg4 is third in popularity and Black has done well
c) 10...d4, the second was popular move was played by Kortschnoj later in this match, and three times in the 1981 match.
d) 10...Be7 strikes me as simple. It is the most popular move. There is no rush to castle as the king might find safety on the queenside or be needed for an endgame.
e) 10...Nd3 ihas been played less often than 10...g6, but still appears in more than two dozen games. 11.Qe2 is the usual continuation 11...Nf4 12.Qe3 g5 13.Rd1.

11.Qe2

Kortschnoi repeated his 10...g6 twice in later years, leading to

a) 11.Re1 Nd3 12.Re3 Nxc1 13.Rxc1 Bh6 14.Rd3 0–0 15.Qe2 Ne7 16.Rd1 c5 17.Bc2 Bf5 18.Nf1 Bxd3 19.Bxd3 Qc8 and White won in 87 moves, Fedorchuk,S (2564) -- Kortschnoj,V (2634) Warsaw 2002.
b) 11.Bc2 Bg7 12.Re1 Nd7 13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.cxd4 and drawn in 28 moves, Almasi,Z (2676) -- Kortschnoj,V (2632) Budapest 2003.

11...Bg7 12.Nd4!

Kortschnoj believed this pawn sacrifice was not in Karpov's character, or so Keene claimed.

Black to move

12...Nxe5

12...Nxd4 13.cxd4 Nb7 (After 13...Nxb3 14.Nxb3 0–0 McDonald points out a simple winning plan--moving all the heavy pieces to the c-file to hammer away at the backwards c-pawn.)
12...Qd7 is favored by McDonald and was played by Mihai Marin in 2007: 13.f4 0–0 and Black won in 45 moves, Thesing,M (2393) -- Marin,M (2551) Predeal 2007.

13.f4

I thought that Black was already in deep trouble at this point, but in 2012 Sarunas Sulskis went on from here to win with Black.

13...Nc4

13...Ned3 was Sulskis's choice. 14.f5 (14.Bc2 Nxc1 15.Raxc1 0–0) 14...gxf5 15.Nxf5 Rg8 16.Bc2 Sulskis seems to have taken the weaknesses of Kortschnoj's position and turned them into strengths. 16...Qg5 17.Nxg7+ Rxg7 18.Nf3 Nxc1 19.Raxc1 (19.Nxg5 Nxe2+ 20.Kh1 Rxg5–+) 19...Qg4 There is not much left of White's attack. 20.g3 Ne4 21.Qg2 Qh5 22.Rfe1 0–0–0 and Black went on to win in 71 moves, Azarov,S (2667) -- Sulskis,S (2595) Jurmala LAT 2012.

14.f5 gxf5 15.Nxf5

Black to move

Black has won even from this position, but there was a rating gap over over 400 Elo favoring the second player.

15...Rg8±

I think that Karpov has the upper hand at this point in the game.

15...Bf8 16.Nf3 Ne4 17.N3d4 c5 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Qh5+ Kd7 20.Bxc4 bxc4 21.Ne3 Nd6 22.Ng4 Bg7 23.Bg5 Qe8 24.Qh3 h5 25.Nf6+ Bxf6 26.Bxf6 Rf8 27.Rad1 Kc6 A secure king! 28.Rde1 Ne4 29.Be5 Qg6 30.b3 Rf5 31.Rxf5 Qxf5 32.Qxf5 exf5 33.bxc4 dxc4 34.Rf1 Rf8 35.Rf4 Kd5 36.Bg7 Rf7 37.Bh8 Ke6 The bishop is trapped 0–1 De Coverly,R (1992) -- Sarakauskas,G (2415) Bournemouth ENG 2015.

16.Nxc4 dxc4

16...Nxb3 17.axb3 bxc4 18.bxc4 Black's king will suffer.

17.Bc2 Nd3 18.Bh6 Bf8

18...Bxh6 was more stubborn 19.Nxh6 Rg7 (19...Rg6 20.Nxf7) 20.Nf5 Rg6 (20...Rg8 21.Rad1) 21.Rad1

White to move

19.Rad1+–

Black's king is stuck in the middle. All White's pieces are in the attack, while Black's pieces are mostly tied down or watching helplessly.

19...Qd5

19...Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Qd5 21.Bxd3 cxd3 22.Rxd3 Qc6 23.Ng7+ Rxg7 (23...Ke7 24.Bg5+ Kf8 25.Nxe6+ and checkmate is coming soon) 24.Bxg7 Bd6+-

20.Bxd3

White's decisive final attack brings pressure along the three central files d-f. McDonald emphasizes the absence of Black's queen's rook from the battle. This decisive blow had to happen now, or Black would castle queenside and have exceptional counterplay. In such a case, Black's wrecked kingside pawn structure becomes rather an open line against White's monarch.

20...cxd3 21.Rxd3 Qc6 22.Bxf8 Qb6+

This move gains a necessary tempo, but is not enough to save the game barring a blunder from Karpov.

22...Kxf8 23.Nd4 Qb6 24.Qxe6 Kg7 25.Qxb6 cxb6+-

23.Kh1 Kxf8

McDonald points out 23...Rxf8 24.Qf3 Rd8 25.Ng7+ Ke7 26.Qf6#

24.Qf3 Re8 25.Nh6

Wasn't f7 the target when White played 1.e4?

Black to move

25...Rg7

a) 25...Ke7 26.Nxg8+ Rxg8 27.Qf6+ Ke8 28.Rd8#
b) 25...Kg7 26.Qf6+ Kf8 27.Nxf7 Qc6 (27...Qb7 28.Nd8+ Bf7 29.Qxf7#) 28.Ne5+ Bf7 29.Qxf7#
c) 25...Rg6 26.Qxf7+ Bxf7 27.Rxf7#

26.Rd7

All four of White's pieces aim at f7. This move seems obvious in retrospect, but perhaps is not immediately obvious. McDonald gives it a double exclam, calling it "The star move" (17).

26...Rb8

26...Bxd7 27.Qxf7+ Rxf7 28.Rxf7#

27.Nxf7 Bxd7

a) 27...Ke8 28.Ne5 Rg8 (28...Rxd7 29.Qf8#) 29.Qf6 Qd6
     a1) 29...Bxd7 30.Qf7+ Kd8 31.Qxd7#
     a2) 29...Qc5 30.Qxe6+ Qe7 31.Qxe7#
30.Rxd6 cxd6 31.Qxe6+ Kd8 32.Qd7#

b) 27...Bxf7 28.Rxf7+ Kg8 29.Rf8+ Rxf8 30.Qxf8#

28.Nd8+

Black resigned.

28...Bf5 is the only defense against checkmate 29.Qxf5+ Ke7 30.Qf8+ Kd7.

1–0

McDonald's annotations are light, focusing on the essential position elements in the game with a few tactical variations.

*Spelling note: I favor the spelling of Viktor Kortschnoj that is used in Chess Base for this post, but where the name in quotes or front matter of books, I retain the spelling employed in those books.

Strategic Nuances

This position, which I came to via Karpov -- Timman, European Junior Championship, Groningen 1967-1968, has appeared on the board at least 119 times.

Black to move

Jan Timman played 5...Ba5.

Anatoly Karpov wrote:

The bishop is badly placed at a5, and the whole of White's subsequent play is built on exploiting this circumstance. I consider that Black should have taken the knight, and then played Nc6...d6...and e5.
Anatoly Karpov: Chess is My Life (1980), 28.

Karpov won this game and the championship. He had the Black side of this position against Victor Korchnoi in 1993 and played 5...Bxc3.

Timman's move has been more popular, having been played at least 86 times to 32 for 5...Bxc3. However, White's score against 5...Ba5 has been 67%, while White has scored 56% after 5...Bxc3.

Why is a5 such a poor spot for the bishop?

Karpov elucidates two resulting vulnerabilities in the ensuing comments. One, the presence of the bishop on a5 prevents Black from playing b6, and hence the c5 pawn is difficult to defend. Two, he offers some unplayed lines in which White either wins a piece through tactics, or White's central pawns become mobile at the cost of a pawn.

In the game itself, White's pieces became more active. Under the pressure of an inferior position, Timman blundered away a pawn.

Corralled

Yesterday, I started reading an old book that had been sitting on the shelf: Anatoly Karpov and Aleksandr Roshal, Anatoly Karpov: Chess is My Life, trans. Kenneth P. Neat (1980). The book contains two of Karpov's games from the Masters vs. Candidates, Leningrad 1966. In the first of these, Alexander Chistiakov managed to get his knight trapped on a7.

White to move

Chistiakov played 28.e4, losing the knight to a simple fork. I wondered why he did not play 28.Nb5. It did not take long to find the refutation.

Soviet Chess Politics

Karpov Korchnoi Candidates Final 1974

While testing the CBase Chess iPad app, I went through the second match game from the 1974 Candidates Final. This match selected the challenger to Bobby Fischer, effectively becoming the World Championship match. Anatoly Karpov won the second match game, and it was judged as the best game of Chess Informant 18. It was the first of Karpov's fourteen Golden Games.* To test the CBase app, I copied the PGN file containing these games from the Best of Chess Informant: Anatoly Karpov CD.

To my pleasant surprise, I found that I was able to memorize the game after less than fifteen minutes of study (see "Memorizing Chess Games"). Memorizing was not my intent, but came naturally as a consequence of efforts to understand the struggle. After learning the moves that were played, and exploring Mikhail Botvinnik's annotations for Informant 18/433, I pored through other texts in my library looking for further commentary. This commentary reawakened my interest in the internal chess politics of the Soviet Union.

Most of the Candidates for the 1973-1975 series were Soviet players, and the non-Soviets--Henrique Mecking, Lajos Portisch, and Robert Byrne--were eliminated in the first round. Fischer's challenger would represent the Soviet Union. In Chess is My Life (1977), Victor Korchnoi explains why Karpov was preferred by the Soviet ideological state apparatus.

Karpov had been chosen as the favourite, and it was clear why. He was born in Zlatoust, in the Urals, in the center of Russia. One hundred percent Russian, he compared favourably with me, Russian by passport, but Jewish in appearance. He was a typical representative of the working class, the rulers of the country according to the Soviet Constitution, whereas I had spent my life in the cultural centre of Leningrad, and was contrasted to him as a representative of the Intelligentsia.
Chess is My Life, 104.

The first critical position in the game came after Korchnoi's eighteenth move.

White to move

Karpov's team had prepared a novelty because, as he explains, "It was established that the 'theoretical' continuation [19. Rd5] does not gain White any real advantage" (Anatoly Karpov and Aleksandr Roshal, Anatoly Karpov: Chess is My Life [1980], 173). Karpov sets the scene.

Up till this point both players had been moving almost instantly. And here I played a move prepared beforehand, which caused Korchnoi to spend a long time deep in thought. ... The innovation [19. Rd3!], overprotecting the knight at [c3], at the same time in a number of variations frees the knight at [e2] for the attack. (173-174)

Korchnoi's response after the long think was an error, 19...R4c5. Karpov mentions the alternatives. Korchnoi's move had not been analyzed deeply, he claims, and so he found the refutation over the board.

When during our preparations for the match we analysed [19. Rd3], we came to the conclusion that the best reply to it was [19...R8c5]. It is highly probable that, after 36 minutes' thought during the game, Korchnoi also came to the conclusion that it was essential to secure himself against the constantly threatening pawn thrusts--[e5 and g5]. I nevertheless consider that Black's best practical chance was the retreat [19...Qd8], as suggested by Botvinnik. Now, after thinking for 18 minutes in search of a refutation of [19...R4c5], I found a fine forcing combination. (174)

Korchnoi acknowledges the quality of Karpov's play in the game, but asserts the champion's success is a bit overrated.

I ran up against a painstakingly analysed, prepared variation from which, by a direct attack, Karpov won. It was clear that the whole game, from beginning to end, was analysis. This was Karpov's best achievement in the match, but I found it strange that the Informator jury should judge it to be the best game of the year. After all, there was no fight, no creativity. (108)

Korchnoi's Chess is My Life explains how difficult it was for him to find strong players who were able to assist him in preparation and as seconds in the match. There were political consequences, he asserts, for those who might consent to work with him. Their travel could be restricted. They might suffer a reduction in their allowance from the State. The whole Soviet chess apparatus worked together to choose the appropriate challenger to Bobby Fischer. According to Korchnoi, they also orchestrated Karpov's first Informant Golden Game.


*I mentioned this game in "Best of the Best: Chess Informant Reader's Contest." In the contest to select the ten best Golden Games from the first one hundred volumes of Chess Infomant, I put this game seventh. It was eighth in the average of all readers. Marginalia in my copy of David Levy, Karpov's Collected Games: All 530 Available Encounters (1975) reveals my study of this game in the mid-1990s when I was returning to active chess study following more than a decade of occasional play. In addition, as I spent a fair amount of time studying the 1978 World Championship Match games after buying Raymond Keene's controversial book of the match in 1979, the chances are good that I also looked at the prior notable encounters of the adversaries as well.

CBase Chess iPad/iPhone App: Review

CBase Chess for the iPad/iPhone and compatible iOS devices shines in support of variations. There are a small number of mobile apps that support study of games with variations, but no other app that I have used handles them as well as CBase Chess. When a point is reached in the game where there is a variation in the annotations, a pop-up appears beside the board. This unobtrusive notification is as it should be. It is possible to continue studying the position, and considering each of the candidate moves, before selecting one for further exploration.

Strangely, most mobile apps place the pop-up over the board.

The app is quite limited in features. It is designed for one purpose: a PGN viewer. The user uploads PGN (portable game notation) files to the program, where it is possible to play through the games, and through the variations. The app supports both text commentary and variations, including layers of sub-variations.

I seek a chess app that will permit me to view the exceptional annotated games published in Chess Informant. CBase Chess is the best that I have found. Unfortunately, it does not appear to support Informant codes. Loading Karpov's Golden Games from the Best of Chess Informant CD, made it possible to play through Karpov's games with Grandmaster commentary in the form of variations, but did not leave in place the commentary embedded in Informant's codes (see "A Fingerprint"). To be fair, some of these codes do not translate well in PGN format, but require Informant's proprietary format.

CBase Chess rotates easily between landscape and portrait.

There are features that would be desirable: user choice of chess set and colors, a built in engine, and a feature for adding commentary. I suspect that developer NM Austen Green has these on his to-do list. The app reveals the signature of a developer who seeks tools for chess improvement, rather than someone driven by commercial ambitions. The app is free and does not carry advertising.

I have more than thirty chess apps on my iPad. CBase Chess is one of a few that I use frequently.

Instant Gratification

Benefits of Study

Studying master games brings long-term benefits to chess players who are ambitious to improve their play. Occasionally, study also brings instant gratification. Yesterday, I had a moment of the latter. After spending the better part of my study time the past week studying Karpov -- Korchnoi, m2 (1974), I was able to apply a lesson from this game in my own online blitz play. In the end, however, I blundered, giving away the game. My opponent failed to seize the win, answering my blunder with one of his own.

Game losing blunders are in the nature of blitz. Study, however, facilitates reaching a decisive advantage after eighteen moves played in under one minute.


Stripes (1748) - Internet Opponent (1694)
Live Chess Chess.com, 25.11.2012

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0–0 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.0–0–0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4

Via a different move order, we have reached the same position as in my reference game.

Black to move

12...h5 Black prevents White's thematic pawn sacrifice and action along the h-file.

13.Bg5 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.Nde2 a5N

15...Qa5 16.Kb1 Rfc8 17.Bxf6 exf6 18.Nd5 Qd8 19.c3 b5 20.Ne3 Bh6 21.Qxd6 Bxe3 22.Qxd7 Qa5 23.Rd5 a6 24.Rhd1 R4c7 25.Qd6 Rc6 26.Qe7 Bc5 27.Rd8+ Kg7 28.Qe8 Rxd8 29.Rxd8 Qxd8 30.Qxd8 Bf2 31.g3 b4 32.Qd5 Rc5 33.Qd3 a5 34.c4 g5 35.Nd4 Re5 36.Nf5+ Kg6 37.Qd8 Rxf5 38.exf5+ 1–0 Suder,R (2222)-Dukaczewski,P (2336)/Poznan 2007/EXT 2011

White to move

Here I spotted a tactic that I remembered from Mikhail Botvinnik's annotations in Chess Informant 18/433. The position differs from Karpov -- Korchnoi, but the vulnerability of the bishop on e7 is the same.

16.e5! dxe5?

16...Nh7 17.exd6 Nxg5 18.dxe7 Qxe7 19.Qxd7 Qe3+ 20.Qd2 Qxd2+ 21.Rxd2 Ne6±

17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Qxd7+- Qb6 19.Nd5

19.Ne4 would be better

Black to move

19...Qc5

19...Qf2 20.Nec3

20.Nxf6+ exf6 21.c3

I should have played 21.Nc3

21...b5 

21...Qf2 22.Qd3 does not lead to advantage for Black, but is better than in the game.

22.Qd5 Qe3+ 23.Qd2 Qc5 24.Ng3 b4 25.Ne4 bxc3

White to move

26.bxc3 Qa3+ 27.Kb1

27.Qb2 is better

27...Rb8+ 28.Ka1 f5 29.Nf6+ Kg7 30.Nd5 Rd8 31.Rb1

31.Qe2

31...Rc5

White to move

32.Rb3??

32.c4+- was the only move

32...Qa4 33.Nb6 Qxa2+??

33...Qxb3–+

34.Qxa2 1–0

A Fingerprint

While studying Mikhail Botvinnik's annotations to the second match game of the 1974 Karpov -- Korchnoi Candidates Final, I took an interest in annotations regarding a position that did not occur in the game. After Karpov's 16.Nde2, the position in the diagram below was reached.

Black to move

This position might serve as a fingerprint for the game, although the position after 19.Rd3 is more specific to this particular struggle, as it was Karpov's novelty (according to Informant 18--the move appears in two other games in 1974).

In the diagram position, Black faces a difficult choice. 16.Nde2 was first played in 1973, but had been analyzed following the fourth match game of Geller -- Korchnoi Candidates Quarter Final, 1971 where 16.Bh6 had been played. Korchnoi himself was the first to mention the move in Informant, suggesting it in annotations to Trofimov -- Nesis 1972 (15/407). It was relatively new when Korchnoi faced it over the board. Informant 17/461 presents the move as a novelty (the volume covering the first half of 1974) even though it had been played in a correspondence game the previous year.

Korchnoi played 16...Qa5, which is now given in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings as dubious with Karpov -- Korchnoi 1974 as the first of several reference games in the notes. The mainline (ECO B 78, line 13) is 16...Re8, which had been played twice by James Edward Tarjan in a tournament in Torremolinos, Spain. Perhaps Korchnoi was familiar with these games, both of which Tarjan lost, when he opted for 16...Qa5.


Debate in the Annotations

After 16...Re8, the annotations in Chess Informant become interesting.

In Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan 1974, Black played the critical line after 17.e5. Botvinnik omits this line from his annotations to Karpov -- Korchnoi (Informant 18/433). Botvinnik gives 17.e5 dxe5 18.g5+/- as a note to the game. Enver Bukic annotated Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan for Informant. There 17.e5 was met by 17...Ng4, which later became the critical line. In a note, Bukic gives 17...dxe5 18.g5+-. Thus, Botvinnik's annotation downgrades White's advantage in the position from decisive to substantial.

Neither Bukic nor Botvinnik comment on the merits of 17.e5. However, another game played by Tarjan appears in the next issue of Informant, this time a Black win. Dragoljub Minić annotated Informant 19/403, and gave the move 17.e5 an interesting (Tarjan's opponent, Planinic, played 17.Bh6) with the line 17.e5!? Nxg4 18.fxg4 Bxg4 19.exd6 evaluated as unclear.

Two years later, Milan Matulović followed Planinic's idea of playing e5 one move later against Tarjan, who seems to have a knack for getting into theoretical battles in this line of the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian Dragon. That game with Matulović's comments proceeded from the diagram position: 16...Re8!? 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5! Nxg4 (only move--18...dxe5 19.g5+-) 19.fxg4 Bxg4 20.exd6 (Informant 21/389). Matulović played an improvement suggested by Minic at move 24.

Tibor Florian carries the debate further in annotations to Bernei -- Schneider 1976 (Informant 22/482). Bernei played 17.e5, which Florian assesses as an error. In the notes, he presents Matulović's line, 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5! Also in Informant 22, Henrique Mecking presents a line following from 17.e5, but with no evaluation. Mecking's annotations appear in Tan -- Mecking 1976 (Informant 22/486), where 17.Bd4 was played.

Mecking presents without comment both Matulović's line (17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5 Nxg4 19.fxg4 Bxg4 20.exd6 Qxd6 21.Qxd6 exd6 22.Rxd6 Bg7 23.Bxg7 Kxg7) and 17.e5 Nxg4 18.fxg4 Bxg4 19.exd6 Qxd6 20.Qe1 Qa6. Neither line is referenced, but the latter is from Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan 1974. Is Mecking's lack of evaluation marks itself a comment concerning a lack of clarity concerning the merits of both lines?

Commenting on Beliavsky -- Filguth 1976 (Informant 23/439), Minic repeats his evaluation 17.e5!? That game continued as Matulović -- Tarjan until move 26. The debate in Informant concerning 17.e5 seems to have ended there, but ECO presents 17.Bh6 as the main line and gives several reference games following 17.e5?! in notes.

Other later moves also exhibit similar changes in evaluation from one issue to another. These games, and the debate concerning the merits of variations following 16...Re8 contribute to an understanding of what did not take place in Karpov -- Korchnoi 1974, second match game. This game, won by Karpov, was one of five decisive games in the twenty-four game match that chose the World Championship challenger to Bobby Fischer, and thus chose the new World Champion the year following the match.

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.

Unrealistic

As I continue training with Chess Informant electronic books, I turned my attention to the Best of Chess Informant: Anatoly Karpov CD this morning. The first exercise in "Play Like Karpov" brought me frustration. Over and over in the solving mode, I received the comment, "Karpov wouldn't even consider that!"

White to move

The first move was easy, but the combination runs eighteen moves. I could find about half of the moves. The problem comes from a game that Karpov played in 1973 when he was the strongest player in the world who was not busy ducking competition. Perhaps it is not realistic for me to try to play in such a manner.

Karpov for President

The more I learn about Anatoly Karpov, the more I like him. Hence, I am passing on his campaign statement from the ChessBase News site.

ANATOLY KARPOV FOR FIDE PRESIDENT


*A new direction requires new leadership
International chess needs a new direction and this can only happen under new leadership. Mr Karpov wants to lead a program of unity and positive change. His great experience as a chess champion and UNICEF Ambassador make him the ideal leader to return the sport to prominence on the global stage.

*International support at every level
Mr Karpov’s status and dedication will allow him to be an agent for unity in the chess world. He has already attracted support worldwide as well as a leadership team and advisory panel of unmatched experience and international character.

*Ending the crisis with a return to FIDE’s roots
Chess is in crisis today because FIDE has become disconnected from its foundations: the federations and the players. Mr Karpov believes that support for our new direction must come from below, to benefit the many, not from above to benefit the few.

*Turn chess into a modern, professional sport
Chess has great potential as a commercially viable sport. It has lagged in this development because the current FIDE administration has harmed the reputation of the sport and shown no interest or aptitude for modernization and professionalization. Mr Karpov believes chess requires leadership that understands why professionalization is essential and how to build a team to achieve it.

*The ability to unite and mobilize the community
Chess has limitless potential and great resources among its millions of supporters and players around the world. Mr Karpov has the unique capacity to attract and lead these human resources for the benefit of chess federations and players throughout the world.

GOALS FOR A NEW FIDE

*UNITY. The FIDE motto Gens Una Sumus, “We are one family” must be taken seriously. This can be done by providing channels of communication and community among federations and players using modern technology and by keeping the FIDE leadership’s doors wide open to feedback and new ideas. FIDE cannot afford to once again ignore the needs of its members the day after the election.

*TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY. Without these elements there is no trust from potential business partners or from member federations and players. These crucial relationships cannot be built without new leadership at the top in FIDE.

*RESPONSIVENESS. This campaign and Mr Karpov’s administration will emphasize communication and responsiveness with the global chess community we serve. We want to know what the federations and their members want and need from FIDE and to create a continuous and open dialogue.

*COMMERCIALIZATION AND SPONSORSHIP. Art, science, and sport, chess is also a hugely marketable commodity. FIDE’s current administration has failed to exploit this to the benefit of member federations and players. No one knows better than Mr Karpov the great potential for chess as a professional sport. For nearly three decades he battled for the world championship in many of the world’s great capitals. FIDE must professionalize its operations in order to develop mutually beneficial ties with commercial sponsors around the world.

*GRASSROOTS GROWTH AND CONNECTIVITY. The elite events we all enjoy cannot be sustained without growth and support from the grassroots in every corner of the globe. That worldwide involvement is our most precious resource and it has been squandered for too long by FIDE’s administration. The international federation’s resources should be put to work bringing member organizations and members together to better promote the game.

Fingerprints

I collect diagrams of chess positions. Once collected, I print these diagrams on cards for review. My cards of pawn endgame positions from Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003) has been aiding my review of the instruction in that text, and has proven popular with some of my pupils. Sometimes in a chess lesson, I pull out the cards and fan them across the chessboard upside down. The student picks one, we set it up on the board, then he or she solves it. There are a few in that set that I do not yet play with full confidence. When I have mastered those, it will be time to create another set from Dvoretsky's book.

Meanwhile, I'm collecting middlegame positions. I have several sets of cards that I created years ago. The oldest are index cards upon which I stamped diagrams, and laboriously stamped each piece with red or blue ink on the appropriate square. When I look at these old cards, I am reminded of time I spent reviewing them between rounds at the Dave Collyer Memorial tournament the last time Gary Younker ran it. Gary died in 2001, and shortly after his death we created a foundation to honor his memory and continue his work. The 2001 Collyer was a good event for me. I started the event rated 1400 and had an even score against three B Class opponents. My run of success started late Saturday night when I discovered a practical chance in this hopeless position.

White to move


I'm down two pawns, and there's no stopping my opponent's d-pawn. In a final desperate ploy, I played 31.Rf1! Keith Brownlee had several ways to counter my threat, but instead played 31...d3?? I sacked a rook to force a draw by repetition. After the game, my opponent told me that he only examined my checkmate threats, of which there were none, but not my drawing combination. He also stated that this game was the first time he failed to win against the King's Gambit.

On Sunday morning I beat a B Class player in a game that summoned more tactical courage from me than was my custom. Flash cards contributed to my confidence. Within the next year, I bought some software that facilitated creating professional looking printable diagrams, and my index card collection went into storage. I collected dozens of positions from Lazlo Polgar's Chess in 5334 Positions (1994) and several databases. I printed these positions on cards with a diagram on one side and the best moves on the other.

My initial non-provisional USCF rating was in the low 1400s, but before it was published I played in an event that pushed it up to 1495. That was in 1996, but in 2000 I was back down to 1400. My success in the 2001 Collyer rocketed me up to 1450, and in 2002 I climbed over 1500. I faltered briefly in 2004, dropping to 1487 before rising to 1600 in 2005. I made it over 1700 for the second time in 2008, and kept climbing over 1800 in 2009. If I am to cross over 1900 in 2010, my training must step up a notch.


Ziyatdinov's Method

Rashid Ziyatdinov advocates learning entire games thoroughly. In GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), he lays out a plan for improvement based on 300 key positions. Half of these are endgame positions--most are pawn endgames and rook endgames--and the others stem from classic games. His fifty-nine games from which the middlegame positions arise span less than a century from a few 1851 victories of Adolph Anderssen to Mikhail Botvinnik's 1936 defeat of Saviely Tartakower.

I find myself drawn to certain aspects of Ziyatdinov's method. My cards from Dvoretsky's text lack the answers on the back, for example. I'm also working on memorizing games, including those in Ziyatdinov's fifty-nine. His most compelling idea is the notion that key diagrams function as fingerprints of whole games. Most collections of diagrams highlight tactical motifs. There are certainly quite a few tactical shots in Ziyatdinov's collection. But memorizing, studying, and knowing thoroughly a limited set of games--the plans that led to what happened over the board, and what might have happened--goes beyond tactical patterns. The 120 middlegame positions in GM-RAM "are like the fingerprint of the games--from this fingerprint, the associated game can be identified" (77).


Karpov's Best Games

Although I share with Ziyatdinov the conviction that nineteenth and early twentieth century games merit our attention, I am unwilling to limit my study to these old games. I may end up with more than the legendary 300 positions as I pursue Ziyatdinov's regimen (he expects the reader to supply nearly four dozen of the 300). As I am going through the best one hundred games of Anatoly Karpov that were published in Chess Informant (see "Coincidence?"), I am collecting diagrams. These diagrams are fingerprints for games worth knowing as thoroughly as Anderssen's "Evergreen Game".

Some of the positions from Karpov's games feature tactical shots. In this position from 1973, Karpov's tactical shot provoked Spassky's resignation.

White to move


The following year, in the ninth game of the World Championship Candidate's Match, another tactical shot by Karpov provoked another resignation by Spassky.

White to move


Then, in 1977 at Las Palmas, A. Martin Gonzalez perceived the futility of further resistance when Karpov's move threatened a clever mating net.

White to move


Such tactical shots are the bread and butter of chess training. But, it seems to me that if I can comprehend the thought processes that went into finding the move that Karpov played against Vlastimil Hort from this position in 1971, it might become part of the knowledge that can elevate me to expert class.

White to move


Hort played on for another eleven moves as Karpov increased the pressure. This diagram is the fingerprint of the earliest of Chess Informant's list of Karpov's 100 best. It is a positional masterpiece, Karpov's signature. As I collect these diagrams, I aim to learn the games from which they stem.

Coincidence?

Readers of "Blitz Luck" had no difficulty solving the problem that I posted there. Consequently, they should find Karpov's move in this position from his game against Spassky in the 1975 Soviet Team Championship.

White to move


It was a happy coincidence that I examined this game briefly last weekend, then on Wednesday found myself in the blitz position posted that evening. The game appears in the list of Karpov's one hundred best games. I am going through them via the software The Best of Chess Informant: Anatoly Karpov.

World Chess Championship Comebacks

In the World Chess Championship taking place in Bonn, Germany right now, Viswanathan Anand is one win or two draws from match victory. If Kramnik manages four consecutive wins in all the remaining scheduled standard time games, on the other hand, he will regain the champion’s title. If Kramnik wins three and draws one, the players will play rapid games as tiebreaks. Kramnik’s chances look bleak. It even appears unlikely at this point that there will be a twelfth game.

In the past, there have been several astounding comebacks in World Chess Championship matches.

Steinitz – Zukertort 1886

In the first “official” WCC match, Wilhelm Steinitz won the first game. Then Johannes Zukertort won four in a row. After five games, Steinitz was down by three. Steinitz won the next two games, followed by a draw. In game nine, Steinitz tied the match. By game twelve of the match the first official World Chess Champion had a two game lead. Steinitz won 12½ - 7½.

Through several subsequent matches, Steinitz was not down by more than one game until his 1896 match with Emanuel Lasker. Lasker won the first four games, and was ahead 9-2 (four draws) before Steinitz won game twelve. Lasker won the match 12½ - 4½.

Euwe – Alekhine 1935

Alexander Alekhine failed to defend his world title against Max Euwe. But in this thirty game match, Euwe came back from a brief three game deficit to tie the match. Then Euwe pulled ahead. Alekhine won the first game; Euwe won game two. Then Alekhine won two, followed by two draws, and another Alekhine win. After seven games, Euwe was down 5-2. However, as the players had agreed to play a long match, Euwe had plenty of time to recover. The next three games were decisive—Euwe won, then Alekhine, then Euwe.

After twenty-four games, the score was 12-12 with ten draws and seven wins each. Euwe won games twenty-five and twenty-six, and then Alekhine won one. The event finished with three draws, although Euwe had a superior position in the final game. Euwe won 15½ - 14½ .



White just played Rf1-g1 and the players agreed to a draw.

In the rematch two years later, Euwe had a one game lead after five games and a three game deficit after ten. Alekhine regained his title 15½ - 9½ . He then held the title until his death in 1946. There were no WCC matches during the Second World War.

Fischer – Spassky 1972

In Reykjavik, Bobby Fischer lost the first game, and then forfeited game two due to his unresolved complaints about noise and lighting. From this two loss deficit, Fischer stormed back, winning games three, five, six, eight, and ten. Spassky could not recover from his three game deficit. Fischer won 12½ - 8½.

Among the demands Fischer put forth as conditions for World Chess Championships was his insistence that a match should continue until one player had won six games. FIDE could not accede to this demand, which is a nightmare for organizers.

Kasparov – Karpov 1984

After winning the title by default, Anatoli Karpov won more tournaments than any previous world champion. He also twice successfully defended his title against Victor Korchnoi, 1978 and 1981. In 1984 a match was arranged with the young new challenger, Garry Kasparov, and with the conditions Fischer had sought. Draws would not count in the result. To gain or retain the WCC title, a player had to win six games.

The first decisive game was the third of the match. Karpov won that game, then won six, seven, and nine. The next seventeen games were drawn, but then Karpov achieved his fifth win. Kasparov began a comeback with a win in game thirty-two. A string of fourteen more draws was capped by two successive Kasparov wins. With Karpov leading 5-3 and forty draws, the match was suspended. It had been running from September 1984 to February 1985.

A new match began in September 1985. In this resumption, the old system of best of twenty-four games was in place. Kasparov won the first game, lost games four and five, and then won game eleven. He won this match 13 – 11.

Perhaps this pair of matches should be regarded as the greatest comeback in World Chess Championship history. After seventy-two games, each player had eight wins and fifty-six draws.

In 1986, Kasparov was never behind in the match against Karpov. However, in 1987, each player won four games, Karpov winning first in game two. Kasparov retained the title due to the 12-12 tie. In 1990 Kasparov won the fifth WCC match between these two men 12½ - 11½.

Kasparov surrendered his WCC title to Vladimir Kramnik in a match scheduled for sixteen games in 2000. Kramnik won games two and ten; the rest were draws. After fifteen games, he achieved the 8½ needed for victory. Kramnik won 8½ to 6½.

Leko – Kramnik 2004

In Kramnik’s first title defense, the players agreed to play best of fourteen games with the reigning champion getting draw odds. Kramnik won the first game, but Peter Leko won games five and eight. Going into game fourteen, Kramnik needed a win with Black to tie the match and retain the title. He succeeded.

Topalov – Kramnik 2006

In Kramnik’s next title defense, he was considered the challenger by FIDE. This match was to unify the title that had split in 1993 when Kasparov organized a WCC title defense outside the auspices of FIDE. Kramnik won the first two games, then the psychological war began. Restrictions on use of the loo led to Kramnik forfeiting game five. Topalov won games eight and nine. Depending on one’s interpretation of Kramnik’s appeal, he was either one game down or even with Topalov when game ten began. Kramnik won this game. After two more draws, the twelve game match concluded without result. Lack of clarity regarding the identity of challenger and champion precluded any possibility of the champion having draw odds, so the players began a four game rapid match. Kramnik won two and lost one. Depending on how the split is viewed, Kramnik either retained the title or became the World Chess Champion by a score of 8½ - 7 ½. The open dispute regarding game five was rendered moot.

Three times, new World Chess Champions have been crowned after having been down three games in a match—Steinitz, Euwe, and Kasparov. In none of these has the future champion been down three games with four remaining.

Anand-Kramnik: Game 4

Anand leads 2-1 and has White this afternoon in the World Chess Championship in Bonn, Germany.

Anand is the current champion, but not everyone accepts his title because it was earned in a tournament, rather than a match. For most of the run of World Chess Champions since Wilhelm Steinitz the title was earned through successfully defeating the reigning champion over a series of games.

There were two notable exceptions:

Alexander Alekhine died in 1946. He had regained the title in 1937 from Max Euwe by a considerable margin, after losing a close match to Euwe in 1935. World War II disrupted peaceful international sporting events, so there were no World Chess Championships during the war years. In 1948, a new champion was selected through a select tournament.

Robert "Bobby" Fischer and FIDE, the World Chess Federation, failed to come to terms for Fischer's title defense against Anatoly Karpov. Fischer forfeited the title, and Karpov became World Chess Champion by default. Make no mistake about it, however, Karpov's road to become the legitimate challenger was long and grueling, but he prevailed.

When Kramnik earned the title of World Chess Champion by defeating Garry Kasparov in 2000, there were some that felt his his title was tainted. He had lost a match to Alexie Shirov; Shirov may have been the legitimate challenger. No one seemed able to organize a Shirov-Kasparov match, however, and the Kramnik-Kasparov match was held.

Kramnik defended his title twice. His second title defense was officially called a reunification match because it brought the FIDE World Champion title and the so-called "classical" title--separate since 1993--back into unity. As part of the series of agreements between Kramnik and FIDE, Kramnik agreed to play in a World Championship tournament in Mexico City in 2007. Anand won the event.

Anand, V-Kramnik, V
World Chess Championship, Bonn 2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 O-O 6.e3 Nbd7 7.a3 c5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.dxc5 Nxd5 11.Be5 Bf5

This move appears to be the novelty, while there were fifty-three games in the ChessBase online database with the position after 11.Be5.



12.Be2 Bf6


Update 6:48pm Pacific Daylight Time (3:48am, Sunday morning in Bonn)

I could not watch more than the first few minutes live today due to other commitments. I left my house at 7:00am to spend the day running a youth chess tournament with seventy-one players in three sections. It was an efficient, well-run event (I'm told), and all the awards were distributed and clean-up underway by 3:30pm. The youth played five rounds at game/30, but most finished as rapidily as they might a blitz game.

Now that I can look through today's World Championship game, I find that the novelty was a bit different than I thought this morning.

After 6.e3, Anand-Kramnik has reached a common position.



I have the third edition of Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, volume D, which does not contain the latest theory. The fourth edition has been out awhile. In the third edition, 6...c5 is given as the normal move, although one line contains 6...Nbd7. It appears, however, that 6...Nbd7 as played today has grown in popularity since 1998 when the third edition was published. An opening book I created from high level games over the past half decade contains 193 games with 6...c5 and 180 with 6...Nbd7.

From that point to 10...Nxc5, I find more than eighty games in ChessBase online, and more than fifty in my database of recent master level games. Anand and Kramnik seem to be following recent theory that has not yet become popular among lesser players.

In my selective database, I'll call it "Master Trends III" because that's how it's labeled in my computer, the next move shows:

11.Be5 39 games white score 63%
11.Be2 15 games white score 53%
11.Rc1 2 games both draws

One game of note that continued 11.Be2 was

Flumbort,A (2499) - Goloshchapov,A (2563) [D37]
Bundesliga 2007-8 Baden Baden GER (4), 15.12.2007

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.a3 c5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.dxc5 Nxc5 11.Be2 Bf6 12.Be5 Bf5 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nd4 Be4 15.Rc1 Ne6 16.f3 Bg6 17.0-0 Rac8 18.Qd2 Nxd4 19.Qxd4 Qxd4 20.exd4 Bc2 21.Kf2 Rc7 ½-½

Although Anand-Kramnik deviated from this game on move 11, after their continuation they reached the same position after White's fourteenth move.

13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nd4



14...Ne6 now appears to be the novelty

Instead of following Flumbort-Goloshchapov, which continued 14...Be4, Kramnik offered his bishop for a knight.

The game concluded

15.Nxf5 Qxf5 16.0-0 Rfd8 17.Bg4 Qe5 18.Qb3 Nc5 19.Qb5 b6 20.Rfd1 Rd6 21.Rd4 a6 22.Qb4 h5 23.Bh3 Rad8 24.g3 g5 25.Rad1 g4 26.Bg2 Ne6 27.R4d3 d4 28.exd4 Rxd4 29.Rxd4 Rxd4 ½-½

Perhaps there's something of theoretical interest in today's game even though it appears upon first glance to have been a routine draw.

Reciprocal Thinking

Of the tactics books on my shelf, among the most challenging is Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess (2004). The problems are difficult, designed to be set on a board and studied at length, rather than flipping through the diagrams at breakfast or lunch as is my habit. In the second chapter, Gaprindashvili advocates correcting an idea that seems not to work after analysis. We will often find that altering the move order or inserting an additional move into the plan transforms a failed idea into a successful one.

This position from Geller - Karpov, Moscow 1976 came up in Kaber's Exercises this morning. It is White's move.



My initial idea was to play one of the knights to g6 with a check and fork. But, White's advantage seems minuscule after 1.Nhg6+ fxg6 2.Nxe6+ [Nxg6+ loses to Qxg6; the in-between Qxe8+ fails as well because after Kxe8, Ng6 is not check and the rook can move] Kf7 3.Qxe8+ Kxe8 4.Nf4.

Another move inserted in the sequence at the right moment leads to clear advantage for White. What is the solution?


I've previously mentioned the training set called Kaber's Exercises in "Good Luck." More information concerning this training resource is available there.