23 July 2023

Chess Set Inquiries

Two chess sets in my possession have raised questions. When were they made? By whom?

After several years of attending estate sales at Owen’s Auction and seeing many chess sets, I bid on one. It  differed somewhat from familiar sets, but remained within the general Staunton pattern required for tournament play. It became mine. That was 2018. I have told people it was made in the 1960s, although I had no evidence for the statement.

In mid-July this year, it was set-up on a library table as I waited for my opponent for the Spokane Contenders Tournament. I posted a photo to “Post Your Chess Sets” on chess.com. Another poster identified it as resembling sets made in the 1930s and 1940s, much older than I had imagined. He said he had a similar set and had been interested in mid-century French sets for several years. The wide bases and narrow stems of my set are uncommon, I learned.

That evening, my wife and I sat on the patio and put our phones to work as we conducted research. There were several lines of inquiry and my pursuit continued a couple of days. I conversed with the poster who had a similar set. He shared some useful links to research on chess sets. One link identified the set’s box as having been used by Lardy in the 1930s: “Chess Boxes” at The Chess Museum.

Under the tissue paper inside the box were four newspaper clippings with five chess games. These games were played September 1937 to August 1938. The games are Keres, P.—Reshevsky, S., Semmering/Baden 1937; Euwe,M—Alekhine,A., rd. 21, Amsterdam 1937; two games from the US Championship in April 1938: Fine,R.—Shainswit,G. and Simonson,A.—Suesman,W.; and MacMurray,D.—Platz,J., Cazenova, 1938, played at the NY State Chess Association Championship.

World Chess Championship 1937, Game 21

On the back side of game 21 between Max Euwe and Alexander Alekhine in the World Chess Championship was a notice of a wedding that took place. Pursuing wedding details provided a location for the newspaper itself—New York City. In the New York Times I found an announcement of the engagement that led to the wedding. That article identified the groom as a stockbroker. Also easily located in other  articles were some biographical details about the bride’s parents.

It seems reasonable to conclude that someone who owned this chess set clipped and saved these games, which all seem to me worthy of study. Likely, it was the set’s first owner. I believe the set may have been sold new in 1937 in New York City. The set had been imported from France. Of course, there is plenty of uncertainty.

There are no clues to the set’s subsequent journey after August 1938, but there should be no doubt that it has been well-used. All the pieces show signs of wear. It is most apparent on the Black knights.

Coming to terms with the age of the set, I wanted a newer old French set. My bidding on one advertised as a French Lardy set was successful and it arrived Saturday evening, 22 July.


I shared photos of the new set on “Post Your Chess Sets”, which provoked the expected discussion. One poster has a set that appears very similar and has been identified as a Chavet set, rather than Lardy.  Another agreed that it appeared to be a Chavet. Both directed me towards other threads with a great deal of detail concerning Chavet chess sets. I spent Sunday morning reading these threads.

The longest thread, “Chavet N° 8” made clear to me why others regard Walterbiensur as a trusted resource and authority concerning Chavet chess sets. He has posted images of many primary sources, is himself a collector of these sets, and his own quest to learn more is ongoing. Walter identified the set most like mine as Chavet. For now, that’s the best information that I have.

Most Chavet knights clearly differ from those in my new set, but one thread has a 1932 catalog from Chavet with a similar knight. There are a small number of others known to be Chavet sets with similar knights. The poster with a set close to mine drew attention to the relative heights of the base and the carved head. Lardy sets have a higher base, he wrote.

My inquiry has just begun.

In the meantime, the new set appears newer, sturdier, and less fragile than my 1937 set. It now resides in my tournament bag.




16 July 2023

Plagiarism and Related Crimes

Chess writers are notoriously lax with documentation. Many books contain none at all. Some highly regarded instructional manuals use positions from historic games, but do not name the players who produced the position through play. Knowing that Jose Capablanca won a particular endgame is not necessary to learn how a specific position that he played should be played. Even so, offering that information improves the instructional value by hinting at a direction for further study. Here, I am thinking of Jeremy Silman, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (2007), 294-296.

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006) serves as a terrific anthology of analysis of great games throughout chess history. Early volumes were criticized for poor documentation. Kasparov responded by including a partial bibliography at the end of volume 5. This reference list fails to address the sloppy practice of offering no more than a surname for most quotes from prior works, but at least acknowledges part of the problem in the early volumes.

Edward Winter has exposed many cases of lax sourcing as well as several of explicit plagiarism. See Chess Notes (search for plagiarism). Among the consequences of indiscriminate copying that he notes is the perpetuation of error. When one writer gets a date, location, players, or game score wrong, others will follow. It is the same with chess quotes. I'm tempted to speculate that fake chess quotes could be more frequent among chess enthusiasts than among politicians.

Chess Skills has previously noted errors in the history from which we get the name Pillsbury's Mate. Nonetheless, I often recommend Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) for its pedagogical value despite sloppy sourcing (the Pillsbury Mate error may originate with the authors). Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955) was instrumental in my growth as a chess player, but I criticized its sloppy history in my Amazon review of the book. Some readers have criticized my review.

For most chess players, instructive value is all that matters. Who cares if sources are cited? Who cares whether games are properly referenced? 

Social Media


Everything is free on the internet. Content creators find their work presented by others with no reference to who created it. Someone creates a puzzle from a game they are reviewing, but others have created the same puzzle from the same game before. Does it matter where you found it? Go ahead and share as if you were the one reading the book. 

A Facebook group that offers dozens of puzzles most days featured a puzzle from a game I was reviewing that morning. I shared it to the page. My post was presented under the name of the group’s administrator.

Two hours later, my original post was approved, placing that puzzle twice in that group’s feed. When I suggested that the administrator should have noted his source, we engaged in a heated discussion. He even claimed to have added the source information to the puzzle, although it is obvious that he copied and pasted. Note the proper use of a dash where 99.9% of everyone places a hyphen.* He even copied a typo in the book’s date of publication, which should be 1955. Copying replicates errors.

A few days later, he removed me from the group.


Several weeks earlier, I shared a different puzzle from an earlier game in the same book. I used a screenshot from chessgames.com to present the position and the names of the players. I did not mention chessgames.com. A comment accused me of plagiarism. I edited the post after some discussion with the accuser. Although I did not view sharing a screenshot from another site as plagiarism, providing a reference to chessgames.com did seem appropriate.

Some people care. Things on the internet are still protected by copyright.


*A hyphen is a unit of spelling. A dash is a unit of grammar. Adversaries in a contest should be separated by a dash. Such usage is extremely rare. Even so, my 99.9% is hyperbole.

14 July 2023

Should be Simple

It seems a simple pawn ending, but there is a nuance that makes a critical difference. This position was reached yesterday in a rapid game.

 White to move
After 49...Kd6

White, rated 2200, played 50.Kxg5, leading to an elementary draw.

50.Kf6 was suggested on social media (this blog’s Facebook page). It is a reasonable effort, but after 50…g4 51.e5+ Kc5, both players get queens and a draw looms.

50.e5! was White’s only winning move. Kf6, and Kf7 will follow. White is two tempi ahead of the position after an immediate Kf6 if Black plays 50...Kd5. To wit, 51.e6 Kd6 52.Kf6 g4 53.e7 Kd7 and White will promote the queen with check after 53.Kd7 54.Kf7 g3 55.e8Q+ with an easy win.

Black also loses after 50.e5! Ke7 51.Kxg5 Ke6 52.Kf4 because White can win the h-pawn and then shoulder with the king. 52...Ke7 53.Kf5 Kf7 54.e6+ (edit: a reader pointed out that 54.Ke4 here is faster, e6 can be played later) 54...Ke7 55.Ke5 Ke8 56.Kd6 Kd8

White to move
57.Kc6 Ke7 58.Kb6 Kxe6 59.Kxa6 Kd7 60.Kb7

In the discussion on Facebook, it was also suggested that Black should have played Kf7. White's winning technique here is the same as the line with 50.e5! Ke7.

05 June 2023

Ten Books to Achieve 1800+

Having seen many lists of top ten chess books recommended for players at different levels, I thought it time to reflect on how books contributed to my rise from C Class to A Class. My first non-provisional rating was 1425 when I was in my mid-30s. I played chess competitively many years earlier, but no events were rated. In the late-1970s, I had a USCF correspondence rating. But when I returned to active play after graduate school, the USCF had lost the records of my postal chess.

I rejoined the Spokane Chess Club in late 1995 and played in my first rated OTB event in March 1996. In October, I played my sixth event and no longer had a provisional rating. By the end of the year, my rating had risen to 1495, but would not rise above that point until 2002. I remained in C Class until fall 2006. While on this plateau, I was gaining both knowledge and skills, but rating progress was slow. Too much online blitz may have held me back.

My journey from wholly ignorant beginner in the late-1960s, to competitive high school player in the late-1970s, to active C Class club member in the mid-1990s involved a lot of book study. Further progress from C Class in my 30s to high A Class in my early 50s included many books, active play, private lessons, chess videos, and I also started coaching elementary students in 2000.

It is no easy matter to choose ten books. By the time I reached A Class, I owned close to 300 chess books and there are very few I had not spent some time reading. At the same time, there are also very few that I read wholly. Some books, or my manner of reading them, may have held me back (just as hundreds of three minute blitz games every month may not have helped me).

The Ten
In November 1996, I played in the Washington Class in Federal Way. There was a book seller set up in one of the rooms near the playing hall. I spent a bit of time there talking with David Weinstock, owner of ChessMate. In our discussions, he recommended a book to me. I was skeptical. The title sounded more basic than my own self-assessment of my needs. Nonetheless, when I found the book at Auntie’s Bookstore when I was back in Spokane, I bought it and started to read it. It was transformative.

Consider my list of ten, pictured above and described below, as a provisional suggestion rooted in experience. What worked for me may or may not work for you. Read all recommendations with skepticism, but also with openness to trying something that might help. There are no magic books guaranteed to improve your chess, but only a few will fail to teach you something of value.

1) Georges Renaud, and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) was the book David suggested, and is my first recommendation. Having spent many hours in the 1970s learning the basic checkmates with heavy pieces and even two bishops, and having delivered many fine checkmates in many games, it was hard to believe there was much I could learn from such a book. Reading it, however, exposed me to new checkmate patterns, including some that I had seen, but not absorbed, from a book I studied in 1975: Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Renaud and Kahn not only taught me new patterns, but they gave me a framework for thinking about checkmate and checkmate threats.

As David Weinstock had, I began to recommend The Art of the Checkmate to any and all who would listen, and also to many who ignore what I say. I still do. This book helped me, and it can help you. But there are other books that could substitute, and might be even better. Victor Henkin, 1000 Checkmate Combinations (2011) takes a slightly different approach. It also teaches an abundance of vital checkmate patterns and greatly exceeds Renaud and Kahn in the amount of study material. Antonio Gude, Fundamental Checkmates (2016) is another option. It is comprehensive and to an extent combines the approaches of Henkin with that of Renaud and Kahn. One can find dozens of other books on checkmate patterns, but these three stand above the others. Get one of them, or even all three.
Vital
2) For a year or longer, Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas, 2nd ed. (2000) was my bedside reading. I read it cover-to-cover twice. Alburt’s book was the only tactics book I finished prior to early 2023 when I finished all 1320 exercises in Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations (1999). It is not an ordinary tactics book for practicing basic ideas, but rather, a small set of carefully chosen positions with tactical and positional concepts. It also has a small number of vital endgame positions.

Many grandiose claims have been made by different authors about the legendary 300 positions, but there should be no doubt that careful and deliberate study of a small number of carefully selected positions will take your game up a notch. Alburt’s book helped me. A few years after completing it, I began study of another book focused on 300 carefully selected positions: Rashid Ziyatdinev, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). More recently, Thomas Engqvist has gained my attention, now with a trilogy of books containing 300 in the title.
An Idea Worth Considering

3) Quantity matters, too, when it comes to tactics training. A classic that has lifted the skills of generations of chess players has also been part of my training. Fred Reinfeld, 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations (1955) deserves a place in every chess player’s library. In 2008, I spent quite a bit of time playing these positions against the computer. Often I could find the tactic, achieve a clearly superior position, and yet still fail to defeat HIARCS (see "Where the Rubber Meets the Road"). Reinfeld organizes the chapters by themes—forks, pins, double attacks, and so on. I set my database containing these positions to open randomly so I did not know which theme to look for. But I also use the book, either solving from the diagrams or sometimes setting up the positions on a board.

Endgames have been vital to my success. In 2007-2008, I invested a lot of time teaching some elementary rook endings to my top student, the strongest third grader in my city. That summer, in the Spokane City Championship, I played two rook endings against FM David Sprenkle, drawing one game.

Currently, I’m on a collector’s quest to have 64 endgame texts in my personal library. The quest stems from my enjoyment studying positions with few pieces, my conviction that endgame knowledge is vital for all skill levels, and my involvement in an online community of book lovers, Chess Book Collectors on Facebook. During my rise from the 1500s in 2002 to high-1900s in 2012, much time was invested in endgame study.

4) The endgame book that did the most for me was Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (2003). As one of ten books to recommend to class players, Dvoretsky is a controversial choice. Many players find it too difficult for anyone below master. Poppycock! Chess books are not novels. One does not read every word. Read the part that makes sense and push through a bit that stretches and challenges you. I have read the long chapter on pawn endings in Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual several times and have flash cards containing the 48 blue diagrams that I use for review, study, and teaching (see "Pawn Endings Flash Cards"). I’ve struggled through perhaps half of the chapter on rook endings and made flash cards for the first 24 blue diagrams. Other chapters I have dipped into from time-to-time.

During the years spent studying Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual, other books have also supplemented my work. These include, Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course (1988); Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course (2007); Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001); and several others. My top recommendation for those looking to begin endgame study is Yury Averbakh, Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (1993). There are many choices. Choose that one that you like, but do not neglect the endgame. Make endgame study a priority if you want to play better chess.
Splurge
5) Jacob Aagard, Excelling at Technical Chess (2004) also concerns the endgame. However, it is distinct from the endgame manuals listed above. The core of the book focuses on “seven technical tools”—schematic thinking, weaknesses, domination, do not hurry, passed pawns, how to arrange your pawns, and freaky aspects. Aagaard develops each of these ideas with compelling prose and detailed game analysis. As he states in the beginning, this book follows an approach that has made Mikhail Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy so highly regarded. The technical tools are worthy of detailed attention, and I hope to find time to explore them in more detail. I blazed through this book is a couple of days, reading all the prose and glancing superficially at the game analysis. However, this superficial reading was enough to transform my game. My endgame play became more resilient. Formerly, I would often offer or accept a draw in seemingly equal positions. After reading the book, I play out most positions to the end, often lone kings. If there is any reason to play on—an imbalance, a weakness of any sort in my opponent’s position, even a better king position—a draw is anathema unless it secures a tournament victory.

Annotated games have always been a regular part of my chess study. In my youth, I spent many hours playing through games from three GM tournaments that resulted in books that I purchased: San Antonio, 1972; Leningrad, 1973 (the 42nd Soviet Championship); and Wijk aan Zee, 1975. In addition, I bought and still have two books by David Levy that were collections of games by specific players: Karpov’s Collected Games: All 530 Available Encounters, 1961-1974 (1975); and Gligoric’s Best Games, 1945-1970 (1972). All these books influenced my play as a teenager as I sought to imitate the play of the world’s elite.

6) In my 40s, I had many more chess books to choose from and studied annotated games from many of them. One source of such games that I returned to frequently is Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006). Kasparov culls some of the best insights from many years of chess literature and presents many of the most important games of every world champion before him, as well as many contenders for that title who fell short. Chess history offers a reliable foundation for the development of chess skill. Although Kasparov does a poor job of documenting his sources (see my Patriots and Peoples blog for examples of sourcing problems in the writing of US history), the series remains an important practical overview of chess history.

7) Paul Morphy’s games are particularly useful to chess players who want to play well. Perhaps one day I will be able to report that I have played through every one of his available games. So far, I have been through at least one-third of them, some of them many times. His eighteen tournament games have been imposed by me on some two dozen students, who have been through all of them. I’ve shown the Opera game to students at least one hundred times and of course know it fully. For insights into Morphy’s play, few books are in league with Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). This book has enriched my study.

8) Chess Informant was long the indispensable source for current master games from before I took up the game in the 1960s into the twenty-first century. Now, of course, these games are readily available from many sources. In 1996, as I was coming back to chess with some seriousness of purpose, I was curious about Informant, which I had seen only in the USCF sales catalog. At the Washington Class, however, David Weinstock had some on the table. He allowed me to look at them and we talked about how they were organized. A month or so later, I included Informant 64 in an order of books from USCF sales. It aided my correspondence play in a concrete way (see "Playing by the Book"). More importantly, learning the Informant system of codes changed my thought processes during play. There are so many things that one contemplates during a chess game while looking for the right moves or the correct plan. Sometimes these thoughts are noise that interferes with clear focus on what matters. To an extent, the limited analytical possibilities in the Informant codes distills chess down to things that really matter in the quest for advantage.

As I grew as a player, Chess Informant was a useful tool. Today’s Informants are changing with the information explosion and are oriented more towards the needs of class players than they were in the past. Give them a try.
A Growing Collection
Of course, I did not rise from C Class to strong A Class without studying the works of Jeremy Silman. His endgame book is already listed above, although it was less useful to me than Dvoretsky. In fact, the day I bought it, I read everything through the section on B Class, finding very little that I did not know. Silman’s endgame book has done more for my teaching than for my own progress as a player. That’s plenty! His writing is compelling and many of his metaphors and personal anecdotes are unforgettable.

I bought and read (partly, of course) How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd. ed. (1993); The Reassess Your Chess Workbook: How to Master Chess Imbalances (2001); The Amateur’s Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd ed. (1999); and The Complete Book of Strategy: Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z (1998). When it finally came out, I added How to Reassess Your Chess: Chess Mastery through Chess Imbalances, 4th ed. (2010), but my rating had risen above 1800 before then.

9) Of these books, Reassess Your Chess and the companion workbook were most useful in helping centralize imbalances in my thinking. When I need to win a tournament game, seeking imbalances from the very first move often proves vital.

The Complete Book of Strategy did nothing for my game and very little for my teaching. Its usefulness has been so slight that I struggle to show proper supportive enthusiasm when a young student has shown me that they just acquired it. I must remind myself that there is a difference between this book’s presence in a chess library of more than 400 volumes that includes several dictionaries and encyclopedias, and a chess library for which this book is the first book acquired. It is a good book, even though it does not meet my needs.

What about the Opening?

In high school, I spent many hours studying lines in I. A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1964). In the 1990s, Walter Korn, and Nick DeFirmian, eds. Modern Chess Openings, 13th ed. (1990) took its place. Even more time was spent on opening monographs, including several on two related variations of the Sicilian Defense that feature an early e5 push by Black. There is some evidence this study hurt my game, or at least retarded my improvement. I tried to memorize lines and often faltered when my opponents deviated from the lines that I knew.
Use at Your Own Risk

In 2003, I began to switch from the Sicilian to the French as my primary defense against 1.e4. The French Defense is not superior to the Sicilian. It might even be a worse choice, but for me it marked a shift in how I approached opening study. Rather than grinding through lines in a book, I sought understanding of the principles, of basic concepts, such as one finds articulated clearly in José Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921), of the ideas behind the moves. Unquestionably, I learned many lines, but when my opponents deviated from these, I was prepared. My play improved.

Detailed opening study and learning concrete lines has aided my preparation for specific opponents in several cases. At a crucial moment while still a B Class player, I won the Spokane Contender’s tournament, earning a shot at the title of Spokane City Champion. Expectations of victory were nearly non-existent. No one expected a B Class player rated in the 1730s to prevail over FM David Sprenkle, rated in the 2250s, down considerably from his peak. As preparation, I spent close to 40 hours on two semi-obscure variations: the Raphael variation against the Dutch Defense for when I had the White pieces, and a seemingly risky Nh6 idea for Black in the French Advance. It took Sprenkle 72 moves to compel my resignation in the French, and I drew my second game with White. It was a very good day.

Most of the time in tournament play, however, such extensive opening preparation is more of a crap shoot. Unless an opponent walks into your pet line, where is the benefit? Tactics win and lose games. Endgames keep chances alive as players grow weary or hungry.

10) Hence, my tenth recommended book is one that I’ve read very little, but that exemplifies how I have come to believe opening study should be pursued. Reuben Fine, The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1943) is out of date in terms of the line presented, as should be expected. But, players of the French Defense well-know that White’s pawn on d4 is always a target. The Sicilian Defense is always grounded in creating pawn imbalances and active piece play in the quest for equality and even winning chances.

Other Books

Many other books helped me in my successful quest to reach A Class, and remain there for fourteen years so far, as well as my quest to rise into Expert Class, falling just short and less a goal in my 60s than it was in my mid-50s. Learning drives me. My knowledge continues to grow even as my performance in competition is less consistent.


02 June 2023

Knockout Blow

With five minutes remaining on the clock, my opponent used a minute to think and then sacrificed a knight to expose my king. This error handed me the win because my defensive resources were fully adequate.

White to move
The game concluded 23.Nxe6? fxe6 24.Bxg5 Kd7 25.Bxe7 Qxe7 26.Ng5 Kc7 27.Bg4 Bd7 and with eleven seconds remaining plus the five second delay, my opponent resigned. His attack is over in any case.

What was White's best move? What other move would have maintained a decisive advantage.

This position arose in round four of the Inland Empire Open, held in Spokane 20-21 May 2023. After this bit of luck, and some more help in round five, I won the event.

22 May 2023

Misevaluation

After fortune shined on me in the earlier rounds, I was paired against Michael Cambareri on board one in the final round of the Inland Empire Open. We led the field with 3.5 each, followed by several players with 3.0.

I reached a comfortable position out of the opening and early middle game, but then failed to understand the demands of the position.

Stripes,James (1821) -- Cambareri,Michael (2005) [A80]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (5), 21.05.2023

White to move

18.Qf7?!

18.Qh6 now, would have been wise.
18.Qxg6 did not feel safe. Anticipating 18...Rg8, I missed 19.Rxf6 Rxg6 20.Rxg6 when White is better.

18...Qd6 19.Qg7

19.Bxg6 Rh8 20.h3 Kc7 21.Bf5 would have kept the advantage, but I was reluctant to snatch a pawn on the file where my king stood.

19...Kc7 20.Qh6 Rh8

White to move

21.Qf4

Planned and forced. Most of White's advantage has slipped away.

21...g5! 22.Qxd6+ Kxd6 23.Rae1

I believed that I was still better, but Michael's rooks were coming to life with threats that I feared more than necessary.

Black to move
23...Rh4!

Michael's defense against my intended e4 break picks up a tempo for doubling on the h-file.

24.g3 Rh6 25.e4

Long-planned and finally played. It is the best move, although I no longer believed so as the game developed over the next few moves. I had the sense that I had thrown away an advantage against Michael, as I have done in so many games.

Black to move

25...dxe4 26.Bxe4 Rah8

26...Nxe4 simplifies the ending in White's favor. 27.Rxe4

White to move

27.Bf5?

Thinking, wrongly, that I was clearly worse, I desperately sought counterplay in a series of harassing checks.

I rejected 27.Rf2! because I did not know how to meet 27...Ng4. Analysis with an engine shows that 28.Rf5! would have satisfied the demands of the position and left White with the better game.

Here also 28.Rfe2 would have been adequate against 28...Rxh2? (but Black has the better choice of 28...e6) 29.Bg2+-) 28...Rxh2 29.Rxg5 Nf6 30.Bg2+-.

27...Rxh2 28.Re6+

Although I was desperately trying to complicate a lost game, the engine says the position is equal.

28...Kd5

White to move

29.c4+??

A game losing blunder. Michael can take either pawn with a winning position. Michael expected 29.Rxe7 and his assessment that it was a better choice for me is correct. 29...Kxd4 30.Rxb7 Nd5 31.c3+ with equality.

29...Kxc4 30.Rxe7 Nd5?

A lucky break from my point of view.
30...Rh1+ 31.Kf2 R8h2+ 32.Ke1 Rxf1+ 33.Kxf1 Rxb2-+
30...Rxb2-/+

White to move

31.Rc1+ Kb3

31...Kxd4 walks into a little combination with a discovery and interference that picks up a rook. 32.Re4+ Kd3 33.Rh4+ Ke2 34.Rxh2++- 

32.Rxb7+ Ka2?

The rest is easy, except that my focus on winning the rook blinded me to checkmate.

32...Nb4 was the only defense that keeps the game very much alive for Black with difficult play for both sides.

White to move
Analysis after 32...Nb4

33.Rxc6 a5 34.Rc5 Rd2 35.Re7! would have been hard for me to find (35.Rd7 Rhh2=) 35...Rxd4 (35...Ka2! These engine lines are not clear to me at all.) 36.Rxa5.

Back to the position that did occur.

White to move

33.Bb1+ Ka1 34.Bh7+ 

I missed 34.Bd3+! Ka2 35.Bc4#, but the interference with the bishop was sufficient to provoke Michael's resignation.

1-0

Michael understood the game much better than I, but his errors came later and determined the final result. This game gave me first place in the event.

21 May 2023

Bishop vs. Knight

A couple of days ago, I started reading Bishop v Knight: the Verdict (1999) by Steve Meyer. Then, I started studying Rosenthal -- Steinitz 1873, the first game in the book. Before the first round of the Inland Empire Open yesterday, I was analyzing this game with some other participants.

The imbalance appeared in my second round game. My opponent was Steve Brendemihl, who is returning to chess after many years away. We last played in 2006 in the Washington Challenger's Cup. I won that game and then we tied for first in the u1700 section.

Yesterday, I had Black. It was a long, complicated game which we both enjoyed.

Brendemihl,Steve (1578) -- Stripes,James (1821) [C03]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (2), 20.05.2023

White's 29th move won a pawn and set up a forcing sequence that led to the endgame imbalance.

Black to move

30...Rd7!?

Perhaps not objectively best, but it disrupts White's plan. Steve identified this move as the decisive moment in the game.

Steve expected 30...Rxa4 31.Rxa4 Rxd5 32.Ne7+ Kf7 33.Nxd5 Bxa4, which struck me as difficult to win. Of course, the game is objectively equal in either case.

31.Rxd7 Bxd7 32.Ne7+ Kf7

White to move

White is ahead a pawn, but Black's pieces are more active. The rook and bishop coordinate well to create threats. Black can win back the pawn easily if that seems best.

33.Nd5 Bc6 34.Ne3 Rf4

I am hoping to win the h-pawn.

35.Nf5 h5

White to move

36.Ne3??

One player's tragedy is another's victory.

36.Nd4 forces a rook ending with an equal number of pawns. 36...hxg4 37.Nxc6 bxc6 38.hxg4 Rxg4+=

With best play, the rook ending should be drawn.

36...Rf3

Threatening the rook on a1

37.gxh5 Rxh3 38.Ng2 Rxh5 39.f3 Bxf3 40.Kf2 Bxg2 41.Kxg2 Rd5 42.b4 Rd2+ 0-1

14 May 2023

Short Side

After playing a rook and pawn ending for 43 moves and keeping things level, my opponent erred.

Black to move
The king must go to the short side; that is Kg8. The rook can shift to the long side at the right moment to enable checking White's king from a distance. With such play, Black holds a draw.

63... Ke8?? 64. f5 Ra1 65. Rb8+ Kd7 66. Kf7 Rf1 67. f6 Rf2

White to move

68. Rb7+

68. Kg7 is a faster win Rg2+ 69. Kf8 Rf2 70. f7 Rg2 71. Rb4

68... Kd8 69. Rb4 Rd2

Black understands that White would like to drive the Black king another file from the pawn. But White has other means available. Means that I failed to employ.

70. Kg7

70. Kf8 is faster.

70... Rg2+ 71. Kf8 Rd2 72. f7 Rd1

White to move

73. Re4

Better would have been 73. Rf4 or 73. Rg4.

73... Rd2 74. Re8+

74. Kg7 Rg2+ 75. Kf6 Rf2+ 76. Ke6 Rf3 77. Re5

74... Kd7 75. Re7+

75. Kg7 Rg2+ 76. Kh6

75... Kd8 76. Re6 Rg2 77. Rd6+ Kc7

White to move

78. Rd4

My other small inaccuracies added a move or two each to eventual checkmate. Here when I played the second best move, eight moves were added to to road towards checkmate.

78. Ke7! Rf2 79. Re6 Rf1 80. f8=Q Rxf8 81. Kxf8

78... Re2 79. Kg7 Rg2+ 80. Kf6 Rf2+ 81. Ke6 Re2+ 82. Kf5 Rf2+ 83. Rf4 {Black resigned} 1-0

Remember always: king on the short side, rook on the long side.