Half-Way

The five positions from Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) that I worked through today were all familiar from endgame work I did with a student six months ago or so. Two--a simple Philidor Position and a Lucena Position--I have been teaching eighteen years. Although review, one position composed by Max Karstedt and published in Deutsches Wochenschach in October 1909 confused me slightly because Stockfish made a move that differed from the solution that I knew.

In my struggle with the difference, I made an inaccurate move that was still winning, except that I could not win it.

White to move

In Karstedt's solution, Black's rook is on h1. Hence, Rc6+ sets up a skewer if the rook is captured. Nonetheless, 7.Rc6+ is still the best move and after 7...Kd5, both Rc8 and Ra6 are winning with a shorter distance to mate after Ra6. If 7...Kb5, 8.Rc8 wins.

After some contemplation, I played 7.Rb1. The computer could have opted for the idea in Karstedt's study nonetheless: 7...Rg8+ 8.Kc7 Rg7+ 9.Kb8 Rg8+ 10.Kb7 Rg7+ 11.Ka6 Rg6+ 12.Ka5 Rg3 threatens mate if White promotes, so 13.Rb5+ Kd6 14.Kb6 Rg8 15.Ra5 and the pawn will promote.

Instead, Stockfish 16 played 7...Rxb1 and I spent the next ten minutes being reminded that I have not learned queen vs. rook well enough to succeed against software.

Today was the 30th day in my quest to race through this book at five positions per day instead of the recommended five positions per week. Even this relatively easy day added another item to my "to do" list that is growing because of this pace. Yesterday, three positions game me some difficulty and this morning I spend some time looking through the first few chapters of Yuri Averbakh, Rook v. Minor Piece Endings (1978). The endings of rook and pawn vs. bishop (chapter 3 in Averbakh) serve as an excellent supplement to some ideas that Engqvist introduced yesterday.

I have now completed the first 75 positions on the opening and middlegame, and the first 75 endgames in Engqvist's book. I am on schedule.

Rereading Chess Fundamentals

Readers of Chess Skills will have noticed that lately I am writing (and posting on this site's Facebook page) quite a bit about Jose R. Capablanca. In particular, I have written about Chess Fundamentals in several ways. Nearly two years ago, I pointed out a small error (see "A Capablanca Error"). More recently, I noted a proliferation of Kindle editions that mostly were identical to free versions on Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg (see "Ebook Scam"). Following that was "Advice for Beginners", where Chess Fundamentals was featured as my recommendation for players new to the game.

I bought my clothbound copy of the 1934 edition of Chess Fundamentals sometime in the mid-1990s, and I have read and reread some portions of it several times. Nonetheless, as with most chess books, I have never systematically worked through the entire book, studying every position, game fragment, and game. I am doing that now.

In the process of rereading, or rather wholly reading this classic text, I am taking the time both to compare several versions, and also to read the book in context with other related texts. Recently, I purchased both World Chess Championships 1921 and 1927 (I have the 1977 Dover edition) and A Chess Primer (1935). I am working through these books in parallel with Chess Fundamentals.

For Chess Fundamentals itself, I am primarily working through the 1994 paperback edition and the ebook version of the same, which I view within ChessBase. This same edition is also viewable on my iPad through Everyman's Chess Viewer app. Also, when I downloaded the e+Chess Books app several years ago, Chess Fundamentals was part of the package. Its algebraic edition differs slightly from the Everyman edition. That is, it does not correct Capablanca's error in Example 8; Everyman does.

I offer screenshots of these ebook editions for comparison.

Chess Fundamentals in ChessBase

Chess Fundamentals in the Everyman Reader

Chess Fundamentals in the E+books Reader

Breadth and Depth

While I have long praised Capablanca's classic text for its treatment of all phases of the game in a sequence that seems particularly well-thought out,  perhaps starting with A Chess Primer, and then advancing to Chess Fundamentals would be better. A Chess Primer has some instruction that is a little more elementary for beginners. But, I prefer the sequencing in Chess Fundamentals. Capablanca himself described these two books as companions volumes. I concur.

Chess Fundamentals also offers some study material that is more advanced than I had noticed through my superficial reading of some sections. It does a better job than any other book to lay a solid foundation for beginning students, but also offers both a refresher and some challenging material for intermediate students.

In the section Queen against Rook, Example 40 is a position that I have included in several lessons for my students, but Example 42 proves more challenging. With Capablanca's guidance, I was able to subdue Stockfish while drinking my morning coffee one morning last week.

White to move

Stockfish on the iPad did not follow Capablanca's main line, but his analysis served as a guide for my play nonetheless.

Moving on to middlegame positions, Example 50 gave me enough of a challenge that I expect to return to it again for further work.

Stripes,James -- Fritz 13 SE

From Capablanca, 15.02.2021

White to move

 After 14...e5 Example 50, Chess Fundamentals

15.Ne6+ Kf6  6.f4 Nc6

Capablanca gives 16...e4 17.Qg5+ Kxe6 18.Qe5+ Kd7 19.Rfd1+ Nd3 20.Nxe4 Kc6 21.Rxd3 Qxd3 22.Rc1+ Kb6 23.Qc7+ and checkmate in five.

White to move

a) 17.Qg5+ was my first choice 17...Kxe6 18.f5+ Kd6

White to move

19.Nb5+

19.Rad1+ is better 19...Kc7 (19...Nd4 20.Qg3 was the move I overlooked) 20.Rxd8

19...Kd5 20.Rfd1+ Nd4 21.Rxd4+

21.Qxd8+?? did not go well for me; 

21.Qg3 is again useful

21...exd4 22.f6+ Kc6 23.Nxd4+ Kd6 24.Qf4+ Kd7

White to move

25.fxg7 took a long time for me to find 25...f6 26.gxf8N+ Qxf8 27.Rc1 and I could sense that my advantage was slipping away, so I started anew at move 17.

b) 17.fxe5+? throws away the advantage, but I tried it second 17...Ke7 18.Nxd8?? Bxg4 19.Nxc6+ bxc6 and Black is winning; 

c) 17.f5 was my third effort 17...Bxe6 18.fxe6+ Ke7 19.Rad1 (19.exf7 was better) 19...Nxe6 20.Rxd8 Raxd8 and I am satisfied that White has a clear advantage, but was tired of playing against the machine; 

d) 17.Rad1 is best, but I did not play this line.

Finishing Things

On the last day of the decade,* it seemed appropriate to look at a rook ending that I played in my last bullet game of the year. A week ago I played a couple of bullet games, did well, and then decided I would try to get my bullet rating back above 1700. It required 160 games to achieve that feat. Along the way, I lost to a national master whose bullet rating was just under 1700. In the final game that lifted me over that milestone, I dropped a pawn early and was fighting for a draw well into the endgame.

Internet Opponent (1906) -- Stripes,J (1709) [A45]
Live Chess Chess.com, 30.12.2019

White to move

39.g5??

39.Rf7+- or Re5 or Rh7. White must protect the a-pawn to maintain the advantage.

39...Rb5= 40.g6

At first, Stockfish sees a slight advantage for White with a couple of alternatives, but as the search depth increases, the evaluation moves towards zero.

40.Rg7 Rf5+ (40...Rxa5 41.Kf2 Rc5 42.Kg3) 41.Ke1 Rxa5=;
40.Rxe4 Rxg5 41.Ra4 b6 42.axb6+ Kxb6 43.Kf2=

40...Rxa5 41.Rxe4

41.g7 Rg5 42.Kg1 a5 43.Kh2 Ka6 44.Kh3 a4 45.Rxe4 b5 46.Rg4

Black to move

Analysis Diagram

46...Rxg7 47.Rxg7 a3 48.Rg6+ Kb7 (or Ka7=; 48...Ka5 loses) 49.g3 a2 50.Rg7+ Kb6 51.Rg6+ Kb7=

41...Rg5 42.Re6

Black to move

42...b5

42...a5 43.Rd6
a) 43.e4 b6 44.e5 a4 45.Re7+ Ka6

White to move

Analysis Diagram

46.e6 (46.g7?? a3-+) 46...Rxg6 47.Ke2;
b) 43.Kf2 a4-+

43.Ke2 b4 44.Kd3 Rxg2 45.Kc4 Rg4+ 46.Kb3 a5 47.Ka4 Rg5

White to move

48.e4

48.Re7+ Kb6 49.Re6+ Kc5 50.Ra6 (50.e4 Rg3-+) 50...Kc4

White to move

Analysis Diagram

51.e4= (51.Rxa5?? Rxg6-+ 52.Rb5 Ra6+ 53.Ra5 Rxa5+ 54.Kxa5 b3-+)

48...Rg1 49.Kxa5 b3 50.Re7+

50.Ra6+ Kb7 51.Rb6+ Kc7 52.Rxb3 (52.Ka6++ Ra1+-+) 52...Rxg6=

50...Kb8

White to move

51.g7??

51.Re5= is the only move to hold the draw.

51...b2-+ 52.Re8+ Kc7

White to move

53.g8Q

53.Re7+ Kd6 54.g8Q Rxg8 55.Rb7 Ra8+ 56.Kb4 b1Q+-+

53...Rxg8 54.Rxg8 b1Q

We have reached an ending that I have attempted several times against the computer with mixed results.

55.Rg5

Black to move

55...Qxe4

55...Qe1+ is better 56.Kb5 Qe2+ 57.Ka4 Qxe4+

56.Rb5 Qa8+ 57.Kb4 Kc6 58.Rc5+ Kd6 59.Rb5 Qe4+ 60.Ka5

Black to move

60...Kc6

60...Qe2 finishes more quickly 61.Kb4 Qd3 62.Ka4 Kc6-+

61.Rb4 Qe1

61...Qd5+ 62.Ka6 Qa2+ 63.Ra4 Qxa4#

62.Ka4 Kc5 63.Rb5+

63.Rb2 is more stubborn

63...Kc4 64.Rb2 Qa1+ 0-1

Time was less critical than it might have been in bullet, as this game was played with a one second increment.



*I realize that some readers believe that the decade ends on 31 December 2020. This belief is grounded in mathematical consistency from the year 1. However, the notion of a decade is an artificial construct grounded not in mathematics but in human culture. Most people who are doing ten-year retrospectives are doing them now, not one year from now. The Western calendar has changed several times over the past two millennia. The years 1 CE and 1 BCE are rooted in speculative dating of events that more than likely took place four to seven years earlier. When the digit in the tens place advances to another number seems like the most logical time to reflect on the previous ten years, and that is what most people do.