Showing posts with label Topalov. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Topalov. Show all posts

04 June 2020

Fortress

I was looking through a game played in 1996 and published in Chess Informant 65. Veselin Topalov and Boris Gelfand played an instructive endgame. Gelfand annotated the game for Informant. I studied the game as played, studied Gelfand's annotations, and with the engine running mistakenly thought that Topalov had a decisive advantage. Hence, I overlooked the game result. I tried to repeat Topalov's apparent success against Stockfish 11.

Naturally, I failed. Gelfand anticipated my failure in his annotations, which I should have studied with greater attention.

Black to move


Stockfish 11 64 POPCNT -- Stripes,J
Blitz 15m+10s, 04.06.2020

44...a5

Gelfand gave this move an explanation mark, as it is the only move with winning chances.

45.Kf3 24 a4 46.Kg4

Gelfand played 46.Ke2, and after 46...a3, sacrificed a pawn. 47.b6 cxb6 48.Nc1 Kc5 49.Kd3 Bf4 and the game was drawn ten moves later, but my chess engine says that Black has a decisive advantage. Many years of using chess engines should have taught me however, that -+ with a score in the neighborhood of -2.50 is not yet a won game.

White to move
After 49...Bf4
My play against the engine continued:

46...a3 47.Nc1 Kc5 48.Kf5

Black to move

48...Bb2

Gelfand's annotations offer 48...Kd4 here as unclear, but it is probably a draw.

49.Na2 Kd6 50.Nb4 Kc5 51.Na2 Kxb5 52.e5 Kc5 53.d6

Black to move

53...Kc6

There were a couple of ways to lose here.

a) 53...cxd6 54.e6 Kc6 55.Kg6+-

b) 53...Bxe5 54.d7+-

54.Nb4+ Kd7 55.dxc7 Kxc7 56.Ke4  Bxe5 57.Kxe5 a2 58.Nxa2 ½–½

I tried a second time against Stockfish. This time play began with Gelfand's suggested alternative to Topalov's choice.

Black to move

Stockfish 11 64 POPCNT -- Stripes,J.
Blitz 15m+10s, 04.06.2020

49...b5

Topalov played 49...Bf4, as noted in my note above.

50.Kc2 Kc4 51.d6 Bxd6 52.Nb3 Be5 53.Na5+ Kc5 54.Kb1 Kb6 55.Nb3 b4 56.Ka2

Black to move

White has a fortress very much like the one that Gelfand constructed in the actual game, whci was played at Wijk aan Zee in 1996 and published as Informant 65/588.

56...Kb5 57.Nc1 Kc4 58.Nb3 Bb2 59.Nd2+ Kd3 60.Nb3 Kxe4 61.Na5 Kd4

White to move

62.Kb3 Kc5 63.Kc2 Kb5 64.Nb3 Be5 65.Kb1 Kc4 66.Ka2 Bf4 67.Na5+ Kc3 68.Nb3 Bc7 69.Nc5 Kc2 70.Nb3 Bb6

White to move

I had worked hard to reach the position, and then just before Stockfish moved, I saw why it was not winning.

71.Nd4+!

71...Bxd4 is stalemate.

71...Kc1 72.Nc6 Bc5 73.Na5 Kc2 74.Nb3 Bb6 75.Na1+ Kc3 76.Nb3 Kc2 ½–½




05 April 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.

30 November 2011

Latent Tactics

Lesson of the Week

A jury of Grandmasters votes on the best games of each issue of Chess Informant. For Informant 105 (2009), Topalov -- Kamsky, a rapid game played in Nice, France, placed second. This win with Black by Kamsky demonstrates how a queen and knights can exploit disharmony among the enemy forces. My lesson for young chess players this week, however, is more elementary: simple tactics latent in a complex position.

Topalov still had chances to gain an advantage from the position after Black's fourteenth move.

White to move

The game was annotated for Informant by Sergei Shipov. He marked Topalov's move, 15.b4, as dubious. According to Shipov, White would have had a slight advantage after 15.Be3. I ran some engines on the position and learned that Be3 is Rybka's second choice and Houdini's first. Rybka's top choice is also the choice of Stockfish: 15.Qa2.

The second choice of Stockfish was the first move that I considered, and it, too, is covered in Shipov's annotations. In the variation that he gives are some instructive tactics suitable for elementary players.

15.Nxb7 (variation given by Shipov, Informant 105/48)

It often seems sensible to exchange a knight for a bishop, and in this case it clears the way for the win of a pawn, or so it seems after shallow analysis. But, deeper into the line, we see that White does not retain the extra pawn and comes under an attack that demonstrates the advantage has shifted to Black.

15...Qxb7 16.Qxa6?! Shipov marks this move as dubious, although it is the logical idea behind 15.Nxb7.

16...Qxa6 17.Rxa6 Nc5

The Black knight forks pawn, bishop, and rook. As either the bishop or rook must succumb, the logical move is to attack Black's undefended bishop.

White to move

18.Ra7 Bd8!

In Shipov's line, Black keeps the bishops on the board. Frequently, maintaining a bishop pair is an advantage in top-level chess, but Black's knights are the powerful pieces in this position, just as they were in the actual game. In this variation, Black's dark-squared bishop also has come to life.

19.Bc2 Bb6

Shipov's variation ends here with the assessment that Black has a slight advantage and an attack, although still one pawn down.

White to move


Even beginning players should be able to see that 19...Bb6 attacks the rook, and that after it moves to safety, the bishop checks the White monarch as soon as the Knight on c5 moves. Play might continue 20.Ra1 Nxe4+ 21.Kh1 Nxc3 22.bxc3. Black has regained the pawn and shackled White with doubled pawns on the c-file. Part of the idea behind 15.Nxb7 was to create a passed b-pawn, but that idea failed.

13 May 2010

Sofia Rule

In the recently finished World Chess Championship, the challenger adhered to the so-called Sofia Rule even though it was not among the rules for the match.

12 May 2010

Sour Grapes

A group of chess fans from Bulgaria took issue with ChessBase's one-sided coverage of the World Championship in which Viswanathan Anand dispatched challenger Veselin Topalov. It was a great match; both players can be proud of their performance and the quality of games. Of course, errors were made, and Topalov's final error was fatal.

It does seem that the world was rooting for Anand. This impression does not stem solely from the coverage by ChessBase, but from a potpourri of websites and chess discussion forums. Even so, Topalov has his admirers, including many in his own country. It's too bad that some of them are so partisan that they offer this nonsense:
Kramnik has not played even one nice game in his whole life and does not deserve anything except to be pitied.
Chess Fans from Bulgaria, Darmstadt, Germany
Kramnik has played many fine games.

13 December 2008

Quest for the Best

Which epic chess battles stand above the others?

The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998) by Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms presents analysis of one hundred games from the sixteenth game of the 1834 match between Alexander McDonnell and Louis Charles de Labourdonnais to Viswanathan Anand's defeat of Joel Lautier at the Biel Chess Festival, 1997. The list of the best one hundred in Burgess, et al. needs to be updated to embrace games played since 1997, but it is a start.

Chess Informant's Best of the Best 1000 (2008) republishes games that appeared in Chess Informant from the inaugural issue in 1966 to CI 100, published in December 2007. Black's win in Nielsen-Ivanchuk was judged the best of that volume, edging out Sandipan-Tiviakov (Sandipan won) by one point.

The best game of each volume is chosen by a panel of judges, usually numbering nine, but volume 14 had seven, and three volumes have had ten. Through the past three years, eight judges have become the norm. Each judge rates the ten best games. Each judge's best gets ten points, number two gets nine, and so on. The tally determines the winner, which is republished in the next volume along with the scores. These one hundred Golden Games produce a list of the best games 1966-2007.

These two lists of one hundred differ, and not only because they cover different spans of time. In the Chess Informant series, Vladimir Kramnik's round six win with Black over Garry Kasparov at Dos Hermanas 1996 received the third highest vote total of all the Golden Games,* but it is Kramnik's eighth round win (again with Black) over Ivanchuk that appears in The World's Greatest Chess Games. That game finished second in the polling of judges, although it garnered first place votes from Bareev and Shirov. Kramnik earned 87 of 90 possible for the win over Kasparov, but 55/90 for the game against Ivanchuk. In the voting for CI 66, third place (Kasparov's loss to Topalov) and seventh (Ivanchuk's loss to Anand) were also from the Dos Hermanas event.

Concerning the win over Ivanchuk, Burgess and crew wrote:
This game embodies the best element's of today's younger generation: a carefully prepared opening novelty involving a positional sacrifice; dynamic and aggressive play; refusal to be content with a draw; finally, exact calculation in an ultra-sharp position. Ivanchuk's efforts at counterplay are no less ingenious than Kramnik's attacking manoeuvres, but it takes only a small slip for White's king to succumb.
Burgess, et al., World's Greatest Chess Games, 540
Against Kasparov, Kramnik's haste in time trouble did not produce the best move from this position, although his move was adequate for victory.

Black to move


What was Black's most convincing continuation?


Reader's Contest

I wrote about the Chess Informant text in "La crème de la crème," but did not emphasize the contest open to anyone that purchased the book. Readers are asked to pick the ten best Golden Games. Those participants whose selections are most consistent with the aggregate will win more Informant goods. As the end of December looms, the pressure mounts to complete my entry. It is not an easy matter to choose.

What criteria should I employ?

Brilliant innovation?
Triumph over stubborn opposition?
Instructive value?
Error free execution?
Historic significance?
Statistical analysis of voting patterns?
Political considerations?
Favorite players?
...

Among the candidates, there is certainly a lot to be said for Veselin Topalov's speculative sacrifice from Topalov-Anand, Sofia 2005.

White to move


14.Nxf7

In Anand's annotations to the game, it was the novelty 11.Neg5, preparing this move, that merited the good move symbol. It is a great game due to Anand's able defense through Topalov's persistent and ultimately successful attack from his opening novelty through the endgame.

White to move


After 52.Nf5, Anand resigned. Black can promote the pawn, but that leads to checkmate in four. The alternative--bringing the rook back for defense, then promoting the pawn--loses the newly made queen and the rook, and then White's a-pawn can promote unless White opts to mate with the two minor pieces.

This entire game is replayable at ChessBase News, and there are many places online to find analysis, including SimpleMind blog.


*Ivanchuk-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 1996 (CI 65/417) also scored 87/90 in the vote tally. Alexei Shirov, who lost this game, was one of two judges that did not give it first place.

26 November 2008

Training Exercises

The Fritz interface that one gets with any of several chess playing programs--Fritz, Hiarcs, Junior, etc.--performs excellent auto-analysis of games. One of the available user options asks the program to create training exercises. Checking this option may result in several exercises in a single game or none. It depends on the nature of the game.

In these exercises, Fritz has a flair for drama.

Black to move


When I run infinite analysis with Hiarcs 12 (my strongest engine), it identifies sixteen Black moves from this position that maintain a decisive advantage. The seventeenth move maintains only a slight advantage: less than a full pawn. I chose this move in my play against the engine. Not surprisingly, the coach piped up with his offer to let me take the move back. I refused and won the game easily.


After the game, I set the engine to run analysis while I read a book. It created a training exercise for this position. After executing the move, it tells me "Correct. You entered the strongest move."

There are sixteen stronger moves, but my move is a dramatic sacrifice that leaves me ahead a single pawn in a rook and pawn endgame. It also reduces the engine's counterplay. The combination of my outside passed pawn and my superior pawn structure on the kingside gives me an easily won game. On the other hand, maintaining the material advantage of rook vs. knight keeps the game tactically complex--the sort of position I blow against engines all the time.


The Source

The position that led to this odd training exercise began as this exercise from the excellent text, Imagination in Chess (2004) by Paata Gaprindashvili. It originates from Short-Topalov, Linares 1995.

Black to move


After the combination that Gaprindashvili expects the pupil to find, he comments, "The rest is a matter of straightforward technique" (152). It is this "technique" that I am struggling to develop in my effort to break into the USCF A class.

25 October 2008

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.

23 January 2008

Things Run Together

Chess and Politics

In the morning’s chess classes, I found myself telling some youth about certain reprehensible gestures that arose in chess competition. The word reprehensible states mildly my view of the behavior of Veselin Topalov’s manager Silvio Danailov during the World Championship Reunification match in Elista in 2006, and consequently towards Topalov himself. Since Toiletgate, as someone dubbed it, my preference has been to ignore Topalov, which seemed to create only minor inconveniences due to his less than optimal play.

Yesterday, he forced me to take notice. Topalov played a terrific game against Vladimir Kramnik, and every loss by the world’s top player merits attention. Finding the last move of the game served as an appropriately challenging problem for my beginning and intermediate students, while the middlegame complexities following the knight sacrifice offers plenty of material to challenge advanced students.

As I mentioned in my piece on Fischer last week, disregard of a player’s games because I abhor some aspect of his behavior can stand in the way of my own chess progress. I made the error of avoiding 1.e4 for a few years because Fischer favored it—I opt not to play it for better reasons today. Likewise, avoiding Topalov’s games because he needs some behavior modification—or at least the sense to fire his manager—cuts me away from some beautiful chess. Topalov is an exciting player.


Units of Knowledge

Politics creeping into chess is one thing, but the serendipity of today’s lunchtime reading is quite another. A brief statement on a history blog—Historiann: History and sexual politics—where I also had posted some comments caught my attention at breakfast. Monocle Man took issue with the term meme.

meme Richard Dawkins’s 1976 coinage, on the analogy to gene (with a little aid from mime and mimic), for a cultural copying unit, such as the word or melody that is mimicked by others.
William H. Calvin and Derek Bickerton, Lingua ex Machina, end matter

Meme: an idea, project, statement or even a question that is posted by one blog and responded to by other blogs. Although the term encompasses much of the natural flow of communication in the Blogosphere, there are active bloggers and blog sites that are dedicated to the creation of memes on a regular basis.
Blogjargon,” frEdSCAPEs 0.1

Memes, self reproducing mental information structures analogous to genes in biology, can be seen as the basis for an explanatory model of cultural and psychological behaviour. Their properties and effects are evolutionary conditioned and ultimately seeks to promote their replication.
Henrik Bjarneskans, Bjarne Grønnevik and Anders Sandberg, “The Lifecycle of Memes

At lunch I was reading Jorge Luis Borges: Selected Non-Fictions, in particular the 1927 essay “An Investigation of the Word.” This essay does not employ the term meme, which was invented a half-century later. Yet, the sentence Borges interrogates from Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote seems to have taken on a life of its own in several languages.

En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero recordar
In a place in La Mancha, whose name I do not wish to recall
As quoted in Borges, Selected Non-Fictions, 32.

Borges’s essay anticipates and intervenes into subsequent conversations regarding post-structuralism, but serendipity connects it to this chess blog (and brushes together again two works I usually keep separate—my history notebook and my chess ramblings):

How many units of thought does language include? It is not possible to answer this question. For the chess player, the locutions “queen’s gambit,” pawn to king’s four,” knight to king’s three check,” are unities; for the beginner, they are phrases he gradually comprehends.
Borges, Selected Non-Fictions, 36.

One wonders if the notion that a player is required to say “check” when attacking the opponent’s king might be considered a meme. Although I do not teach this myth, I hear it repeated by those I’ve taught, as if the fiction replicates itself. I heard it again today in a classroom and let it pass without comment.





22 January 2008

Eventful Days

Death of a Legend

Bobby Fischer died at 64 (an "evocative age," according to the Wall Street Journal). He was buried in Iceland in a small ceremony. Iceland, Garry Kasparov reminds us, was "the site of his greatest triumph." I offered some personal reminiscences Friday.


Echoes of Elista

Toiletgate has not ended as we learned when Ivan Cheparinov refused to shake hands with Nigel Short, was forfeited, apologized, and then lost when the game was played.

The official website for the Corus tournament tells us that Kramnik and Topalov did not shake hands, but had one offered, the other would have been obliged.

Also Veselin Topalov had prepared well for his game with Vladimir Kramnik today, deviating from Kramnik-Anand, Mexico City 2007 with a novelty 12.Nxf7! (Cheparinov, Topalov's second, is credited with the discovery)

Black to move
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Kramnik might take some comfort from the knowledge that tournament leader Magnus Carlsen also lost today.