Game of the Day 5

Different Analysis Styles

One of the things we're taught is that after we play games we should analyse with our opponent, especially if we are playing a higher rated, or more experienced player. When we go through the game we get an insight into the thought processes of our opponent, and the more players we analyse with, the more different thought processes we encounter. It is then down to us to filter the good analysts from the less good, to take the best parts of a player's thoughts and be critical of their weaker ideas.

It is the same when looking through books of games annotated by Grand Masters. Each will have a different style of presentation based on their style of thought. Some have stronger opinions, some are more verbose, some look deeply into calculating variations, some pick only critical positions to examine, some try to uphold their ideas through their analysis, while others will seek definite proof of  the truth in various positions. But whatever the style of thinking that brings a great player to come up with their ideas, it is worth examining.

This is the 5th game that I'm showing and it brings a different analysis style than the previous games

GotD 1 was a game by Lasker analysed by Reinfeld and Fine. The notes aren't too deep, and only a couple of critical positions are examined in any depth.

GotD 2 was another from the same authors, although here we see to a greater extent what a hero Lasker was for, at least one of the authors, Reinfeld.

GotD 3 was from Tartakower's autobiographical games collection. Tartakower is very wordy and likes to bring wit into the analysis, though it can sometimes be cutting.

GotD 4 was a clasic from Rubinstein analysed by Kmoch who like Reinfeld, was writing about a player he somewhat idolised. And like Reinfeld and Fine, the notes to this game are sparse and designed more as general advice for less experienced players than a thorough analysis.

Today's game is from "100 Selected Games" by Botvinnik. Now Botvinnik is perceived as one of the legendary analysts of the game and he believed that publishing analysis gave him a forum to debate his ideas about chess, to put his ideas in a public space for others to criticise, and for him to discuss and defend. Botvinnik's analysis style combines the general ideas style of Reinfeld or Kmoch and adds more analysis of variations with more definite assessments. Sometimes Botvinnik's analysis can seem rather brutal, but he upholds his ideas of logical thinking through to the end. Logically speaking, we can see Botvinnik's analysis style taken to its conclusion through the analysis style of his great pupil, Kasparov. It must have been truly amazing to see these two working together!

100 Selected Games is written in the descriptive notation, like the other other books I've mentioned, but if players could go through these games and analysis, they would get a great deal of wisdom and ideas. The book takes us up to 1946 so Botvinnik's early career and his build up to being the strongest player in the World. I have chosen his game against Tartakower from Nottingham 1936. This was a truly great tournament with a super strong top of the field: Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Euwe, Botvinnik who all held the World title at some point in their life. Bogolyubov and Reshevsky who both competed for the World title also played! Botvinnik's win over Tartakower was awarded the brilliancy prize for this great tournament and shows what a great calculator Botvinnik was, always happy to join in a complicated fight and trusting his fantastic calculation and logical thinking.

This is my favourite bit of the game. Black has just played Ng6. Botvinnik's thinking is clear and execution is deadly. He describes ..Ng6 as "the only way of freeing the king's road to the Queen side without giving up defence of f7. If the king succeeds in slipping away (eg after Qh6 Ke7) Black will have chances of salvation. But how can White prevent the Black king from fleeing?"

See for yourself in this great, and under rated game. Enjoy!

Loading embedded chess game...

Watching for Captures

There is currently a huge amount of chess happening across the world. Magnus Carlsen comes out to play in Germany later today, while Kramnik, Anand et al are fighting it out in Zurich. Here in Australia there is the annual Doeberl Cup and there are a number of other being shown on chess websites such as chess24, TWIC, or chessbomb.

While playing a good amount of chess is a must for any aspiring player, study is also important. Watching games falls into this category. Watching live can be almost like playing a game, as you try to guess moves and analyse positions. Invariably, you tend to take one side and try to defend their position, so it really is like playing. But more than this, watching games, just like playing through games from databases and books, builds our store of knowledge, assuming we're thinking while we are watching (so turn your computer engine off!).

Watching games live also allows us to see players in action, some of whom will be familiar to us, while some will be unknowns. It's then possible to find some lesser known players to follow, master strength of under who have a style we can enjoy and possibly emulate.Saying that, I tend to like watching complicated games while my style increasingly shies away from complications.

One player who I seem to have seen a few games from recently is the young Iranian IM Aryan Gholami. Chess is flourishing in Iran at the moment with a bunch of strong players. The Iranian Junior Championship is currently taking place, and so I watched a game by Gholami in the first round. Aryan was white and rated 200 points higher than his opponent, so a win would be expected, and in the end he won the game. But 2 positions caught my eye in the game for the same reason.

Black has just played 10..Bd7. This not only protects the knight on c6, but threatens 11..Nxe5. So it seems that 11.Bxc6 is the best move in the position, otherwise you are losing a pawn. But Gholami played 11.Nb3?! and his opponent duly took on e5 leaving the young master a pawn down.

Looking at all captures is something we try to instill into kids, but it is especially important to look at central pawns and when they can be taken.

The game then kind of continued with black not finding a way to develop his position and becoming stuck. White gained a big development lead as well as there being weaknesses around black's king.

Working on the basis of examining all captures, white played 22.Rxc5! The point is that black doesn't have time to recapture or white will infiltrate on the weak dark squares around black's king. eg 22..Qxd4 23.Qxe7 Qxc5 24.Qf6 when black will have to give up the queen to prevent mate on g7.

Anyway, after 22.Rxc5! black played 22..Nc8 and there followed 23.Rxc8! getting a least 2 pieces for the rook 23..Rfxc8 with the following position.

So continuing the theme of looking for all captures, white's knight is attacked and to deal with this Gholami created a bigger threat with 24.Qe7. Now the familiar theme of 24..Qxd4 25.Qf6 with 26.Bh6 is in the air, so black retreated and the game dragged on for another 30 moves with white finally winning. However, by looking at captures, white could have found 24.Nxe6!!

The knight can't be taken, it is forced mate. So black has to try 24..Rc6 when white has 25.Qd7!

Black's rook is pinned, so it can't take the knight, and 25..fxe6 still loses to 26.Bh6. Black's best here is 25..Rc4 when white has another nice move, 26.Qxd5, leaving the knight en prise again, abut hitting black's a8 rook.

At this point, black pretty much has to bail out with 26..Qc6, accepting an endgame where he is an exchange and a pawn down..

So I guess the moral of the story is watch games critically, and not just by the top players, but by anyone. Even at the local chess club it is possible to look at games as they are in play and try to work out what is happening. You can talk to the players after the game about the position that interested you, and don't get computer help, analyse the games in your head, as if you were playing them!

Chess Analysis

Following on from yesterday's post, here's some thoughts about the 2 positions I showed.

This was from the game Christiansen-Spassky Linares 1981. Linares was a very strong tournament, and in 1981, the current World Champion Karpov was playing. But the sensational result of young US GM Larry Christiansen, to come equal first with Karpov, ahead of elite players such as Spassky, Larsen and Portisch was the main story.

In the above sharp position with opposite side castling white has an advantage, but the unbalanced nature of the position means that white has to be careful about maintaining his advantage. So what might be a train of thought here?

1. Bxf6 wins the d-pawn as black's knight on f6 is the first defender. 1.Bxf6 Qxf6 2.Nxd5 wins a pawn and the knight improves it's position and gains time by hitting the queen. The question is whether there is anything better than this, as white's bishop is pinning black's knight, so trading it might not seem the best try.

2. e4. Seeing the d5 pawn is pinned, why not attack it again? Black's knight is not a defender as it is also pinned. After 1.e4 there doesn't seem to be a good way to defend d5, and white retains the strong bishop on g5. If black plays 1..Qd6 unpinning, then white will have to capture on f6, when we have a similar type of position to above except white's pawn will be on e4 rather than e3. Which would be better? Is it really that big a difference?

3. As the d5 pawn is pinned, and the f6 knight, the e4 square is undefended. This allows us to consider moves that we might not see at first. How about 1.Ne4? This was the amazing move that Christiansen played, threatening to take on f6, while forking black's rook on c5 at the same time. The knight can be taken 3 ways, but they all lead to a loss of material to black.

The other position I showed yesterday was from the game Schiffers-Chigorin Hastings 1895.

Black has just blocked the h4-d8 diagonal with the move ..f6. The question is how should white respond?

1. Move the attacked bishop. The only sensible retreat seems to be to 1.Bf4, where the bishop stays active. Only black will then play 1..Bc5 and be able to castle. White really wants to keep the black king in the centre for as long as possible.

2. Qh5+ would be good if black couldn't play g6 to block. Then how about a sacrifice, 1.Bxf6 gxf6 2.Qh5+. This looks good. I would just need to continue the analysis of both 2..Bf7 and 2..Ke7 and come up with convincing lines for white. If there was any doubt with either of these moves, then back to the drawing board.

3. Assuming I can't make Bxf6 work, let's go back to 1.Bf4 Bc5 but look a bit deeper. Now 2.Qh5+ is a fork winning a piece, so black can't play 1..Bc5. This might be best.

So now my head is beginning to spin with possibilities, so it's probably time to take a break and set my mind on calculating Bxf6 deeply when I return.

4. Thinking about it, with black's king stuck in the centre, how about just carrying on with development? 1.Qe2 allows black to capture on the bishop, 1..fxg5 but white can now double on the e-file 2.Re1 when black's king is coming under a tremendous attack through the centre of the board. In fact, the only defences of black's light squared bishop are 2..Ke7 which just allows me to triple on the file and win the e6 bishop, so I guess it must be 2..Kf7.

White now has the stunning tactical shot 3.Rd8!! winning black's queen as the black queen cannot take the rook as mate follows by Qxe6.

This final line was the one chosen by Schiffers, Qe2, but his calculation did let him down, because Bxf6 does win, as shown by the analysis in the game.

So chess analysis is just a continuing process of asking questions and extending your chess imagination to include possibilities that would never have appeared to you before. Part of this process is going through material that has been analysed therefore building a database of typical and non typical manouvres and tactical themes. But a big part is just looking at games and asking over and over again, "why this", "why not that", and proving to yourself why one move works better than another. Sometimes you'll get things wrong, but even this is a good learning experience, as if someone questions your judgement, and you correct your own findings, it means you are being self critical which is an important part of being able to grow.

Studying Chess

A friend of mine on Facebook asked this question:

"Is it better to work on one part of your game (say tactics) for a month and then move on or is better to work on tactics on Monday and endings on Tuesday for example?"

I don't claim to be a strong player but as a 2200 ish player, perhaps my opinion, or work regime might provide some ideas for others. One proviso: I have no ambition, so the work I do isn't designed to help me improve, but it maintains my level, roughly.

The simple answer to the question is that I do what I want, when I want, but the work I do is done totally by me. That is, I don't give up on puzzles, I don't guess, I don't use a computer engine. I break the work into 2 distinct types.


- analysis


- calculation

Analysis involves me looking at games, and trying to discover the truth about those games or just some positions. It can be any games, there's no shortage of them. Like the games from the recent Candidates tournament in Moscow were quite interesting at times, but I'm also looking at games from the famous Hastings 1895 tournament.

Thinking nostalgically, a big improvement in my game came in the early 1980's, after I worked through all the games from the 1981 Linares tournament. I had the bare game scores in a little booklet and just worked through the games. It was just 66 games, but I studied them over and over until I found things in the games that I hadn't seen before.

Here's a position from that tournament. It's white to move. White's in a good position, but what's the best way to proceed? I'm guessing that anyone looking at this position for the first time will be able to see a whole bunch of promising moves for white. Finding different plans and ideas, as many as you can is good. Try looking for moves, then black's best replies, seeing if you can come up with a line that you like. It doesn't have to be too deep. Take a break, and then look at it again and see if anything new appears. Do it as many times as you like, either trying to find new ideas, or seeing further down variations. I'll post the game, and some good ideas for white tomorrow.

As I said, I'm currently working through the games from Hastings 1895 and using some games and positions in my lessons. There are some amazing games, some wild positions, some crazy old openings, and some terrible blunders. The strategic considerations aren't as deep as games are now, but the calculation is at times excellent. I've seen most of the games before, but I still enjoy looking through them again and again, and find new things, a bit like someone reading a favourite book many times, or watching a favourite film loads of times.

This is from the game Schiffers-Chigorin that I've been showing kids this week. White had just played Bg5, and to block the diagonal to d8, black has just played ..f6.

The question is, what is white's best move? And just how many plausible options does white have?

Analysing games and interesting positions is unbelievably good for your chess. And looking through analysed games is also good. It teaches you to think of options, and to use your imagination. You have to think of most plausible, and less plausible options, and calculate those moves to see wheich is the best, and why your favourite option doesn't work, or whether it would have been better than the move the GM played. Of course, analysing your own games is important, but studying analysed game collections, and practising analysing GM games is obviously great practice for when you start analysing your own games.

There are other things that one can do to work on one's game. Solving tactical puzzles on a site like chesstempo, working on endgames or openings to improve your technical knowledge. I personally think that help from a strong player, or even employing a coach is good for this. (I'm not looking for clients here, but I'll keep trying to post material on this blog that might make people think)

The last thing. Do I stick to a program or just randomly work when I feel like it, doing whatever I want? Actually, I do more of the latter. I'm of the opinion that if you're looking at different positions, honing your analysis skills and trying to develop and extend your calculation skills, you're already doing more than most players are who are just ploughing through tactics and trying to learn openings in great depth. Sure, I do some tactical puzzles, and when I see a problem that interests me I can't help but try to solve it. And sure, I work a bit on openings, but not that much!

Most adults are hobby players, and as such, they should be playing and studying because they enjoy what they're doing. We all get afflicted by ambitions, and if this ever happens to you, I suggest investing in a coach for a bit (make it a good coach, and one that can work face to face rather than by online instruction; you might need to try out more than one coach before you find the right one for you). Otherwise, work at the game when you can, and if you don't feel like studying, then don't push yourself because you're meant to be enjoying this! Wait until you feel like it, and then start up again. If you play hard and work hard when you feel like it, your game will make jumps at those times. You may quickly plateau out, but it will be at a higher level than when you started.

And please remember! More knowledge won't help necessarily. The most important thing is to be able to put ideas into practice. Therefore, learning to analyse positions, and to calculate variations are the 2 most valuable skills a player can have. Adult club players should leave the latest theory on the Anti-Moscow Gambit to Masters, and promising juniors who have the chess memory to cope with these things.

This advice might not be right for everyone, but it is my view on the game and how an adult should approach it and I guess it explains the way I think about the game, study the game, and play the game.

City of Melbourne Open

The Melbourne Chess Club started its second Monday night FIDE rated tournament of the year last week. Unfortunately, I had to miss the first round due to work commitments and took a half point bye. My work is pretty full on at the moment so this may not be the last bye I have to take. The tournament has a reasonable size of field of about 35 players, with some pretty decent players at the top, though no master level players. Including myself, there are 6 players over 2000 in the event and it looks a very open event.

There have already been a number of upset results. In the first round Geoff Cook (who more often plays a Box Hill Chess Club so it's good to see him at the MCC), Alex Kaplan, Tanya Krstevski and Ben Frayle all picked up draws against much higher rated opposition. The second round last night saw even more upsets. Marko Grabovac (who plays more often at Noble Park Chess Club) and Simon Dale (after Ari and Finley Dale have completed the "How to Beat your Dad at Chess" course, the Dad now starts to make up ground again!) scored draws against higher rated opposition, but there were upset wins as well. Not to be outdone by his Dad, Finley Dale beat an opponent rated 200 points higher than him, as did stalwarts Richard Voon and Felix Wyss. But perhaps the biggest upset of the night was again by Geoff Cook who overcame a 300 point rating deficit to beat Justin Penrose.

The tournament is beginning to shape up, with 6 players on 2/2 Puccini (perhaps favourite for the event), Dean Hogg (from Hobson's Bay Chess Club), Richard Voon, Felix Wyss, Paul Kovacevic and Finley Dale. I managed to win my game last night which puts me on the group half a point behind the leaders, but in these early days it really is open to anyone who makes a good run.

I thought I had a tough draw as black against Tom Kalisch. When in form, and with the initiative, Tom is a pretty scary player to be against, and apart from that he can play almost any weird and wonderful opening. As it happens, he played a c3 Sicilian, but got things a bit wrong allowing me to get a monster knight on d5. That was after an interesting move choice early on.

In this fairly standard position the main moves are:
7.Nc3
7.Bd3
7.Bc4

Tom chose a move that has only been played once before, and it confused me. 7.Na3. Now I was thinking this can't be good, and why can't I just take that knight with 7..Bxa3? I then started getting worried about my lack of defence on the dark squares, especially d6, so I rejected the immediate capture, though it must surely be the critical response. Instead I played 7..d6 which is a novelty in the position!

I was looking at moves like 8.Nb5, 8.Nc4, 8.Bg5, 8.Bd3, 8.ed6 when eventually Tom played a move that I had half considered but thought little about which was 8.Bb5+. After 8..Bd7 Tom played passively with 9.Qe2, but after the game he showed his flair for invention.

Something I had considered was 9.Bg5 when I was ready to block with 9..Be7. We looked at this position and Tom said he was considering playing 10.Rc1!? in this position which was certainly nothing I'd looked at.

He showed this and I was amazed. What a beautiful move which works against 10..Bxg5 11.Nxg5 Qxg5 where black doesn't win a piece as white has the fantastic 12.Rc8+

Of course, black has other moves instead of 10..Bxg5, such as simply 10..O-O, but it was a joy analysing positions like this. Certainly one major attraction to club chess, compared to online chess, is the joy of post game analysis which both educates and entertains using the ideas of a chess game as the basis for the conversation.

Anyway, I've plenty to work on before the next game, which is next Monday, in this most open of tournaments.

Earth Hour

Today at 8.30 pm people, corporations, cities, even whole countries can turn their lights off and cut their energy usage, donate to the cause and generally raise their awareness of the environmental issues facing our planet by joining Earth Hour. There are many issues such as sea pollution, air pollution, deforestation, overusage of natural resources, and the destruction of natural habitats. It is definitely time to do something and even if that is just one small thing that each of us does, then those small things will mount to make a difference.

I joined in with the power off for Earth Hour tonight, and I intend to take a keener interest in environmental issues in the future and even to become more active in energy conservation. I guess my recent visit to Hong Kong and it's heavily polluted atmosphere brought home how important it is for us to take care of the environment.

My small part tonight involved me turning off the lights and most of the electrical appliances in my house, and sitting with a candle with nothing but a chessboard and a pencil and paper for company. I'd actually googled the words 'chess' and 'environmentalist' and I found an excellent blog post on American chess patron, Maurice Wertheim. Wertheim was a rich man who had an appreciation of the arts, chess and environmental issues. For instance, he bought some land on Long Island as a refuge for natural wildlife conservation. This land he eventually donated to the US Government, and it has now become the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge.

The only chess game I found played by Maurice Wertheim was on the above mentioned blog, but I guess American Chess Journals of the past may have some more. There was a strong memorial tournament held for him in 1951, won by Sammuel Reshevsky ahead of Najdorf and ex World Champion, Euwe. This would have been sweet for Reshevsky who could count Wertheim as a patron. I'll have a look at some of these games over the next few weeks.

Candlelit chess analysis for Earth Hour

Anyway, in the game Marchand-Wertheim that was cited on the blog, there was one position that interested me.

In this position which had come from a weird French, white played 9.d3. I wanted to know what happened after 9.c4 which I felt was a better try (actually, Stockfish seems to agree with my judgement there, which is pretty pleasing). I gues the capture en passant must be examined first.

- 9..dxc3 e.p. 10.Nxc3 Qd8 [Going forward looks bad: 10..Qb3 11.Rb1 Qc2 12.Qc4 threatening both the bishop on c5, and to play Bd3 next move winning white's queen] 11.Ne4 when black will be hard pushed to defend d6.

 - 9..d3 is not good as white has 10.Qxd3 [10.cxd5 dxe2 11.Bxe2 Nxd5 looks good for black] 10..Qxd3 11.Bxd3 and it seems to me that white is a pawn up for not enough here.

So it looks as if black has to retreat the queen.

- 9..Qd8 10.Ng5 [This was the move that I fastened on as the natural 10.d3 allows black to take advantage of the hole on e3 by 10..Nf5. I didn't really spend much time on this, so maybe white can do some stuff.] 10..Nf5 [I spent a while trying to make 10..d3 work, but I think it's a speculative pawn sac] 11.Ne4 Be7 which I thought was messy, but Stockfish thinks black is good.

Anyway, I spent a whole hour analysing positions on a chess board and really enjoyed it. It stretched me as I have spent much of the past couple of years working on a computer. I think I'll save energy, and make myself work a little harder by analysing with a chess board and without a computer like I used to do in the good old days. On the whole, I found Earth Hour inspiring in more ways than one this evening.

Re-read the Classics

I saw an article challenging readers to read one classic book for every new book one reads. Now while I think this is a great idea I'm very much an impulse reader. I tend to read a load of mindless fantasy or crime fiction interspersed with the odd binge of literary novels. I read very little non fiction but manage some history articles every once in a while, especially regarding Stuart England. I read quite a bit to do with chess, though again, not so much as I would like.

So I've decided to take up the challenge, though in a slightly modified form. For every new book I read, I will read (or re-read) a classic book OR an historical non fiction book. History was always my favourite subject at school and my recent visit to England rekindled my joy of the subject. While in London I visited Westminster Abbey which I'm ashamed to say I'd never been inside before, even when I lived in London! Seeing the tombs of kings and queens and the monuments to the famous, especially in poets corner, made me realise how little I really know about the country of my birth. Of course, I know even less about the history of my adopted country, Australia, so I'm equally fascinated by that as well.

The inspirational Westminster Abbey

Chess is a large part of my life so I'm setting myself a similar challenge there, which ches players might like to join me in. For every modern game (read that as played in 2012 and 2013) I analyse, I intend to analyse a classic game. I am classifying classic games as at least 50 years old which means 1963 or earlier. Of course, 1963 was the year Botvinnik was dethroned for the last time as World Champion by Petrosian and that Bobby Fischer scored 11/11 at the USA Championship and I really know very little about these games.

Bobby Fischer

Chess Thinking Processes

When you play games it's a good idea to analyse your thinking processes afterwards. I mean, it's easy to get a computer to check the moves for blunders, but the 3000+ rated silicon tactic master can't correct the way we think about our moves. I played a game on Monday in the MCC Open, and have analysed some of my thinking processes. Take the following position:

White to move

As white in this position, I had 3 candidate moves:

I analysed the most forcing 19.Bxf6 first seeing 19..gxf6 [19..Qxf6 20.Qxf6 gxf6 21.Nd5 seemed good for white] 20.Nd5 winning a pawn by force.

19.Nd5 tries to exploit black's pinned knight, but I looked at 19..Nxd5 20.Bxd8 Nf4 21.Bc4 Qg6.

19.Bc4 Qe5 then seemed to me similar to the first line.

So based on this artificial analysis, I chose 19.Bxf6, winning a pawn in the most forcing way and I went on to win the game. But really, my thinking processes were flawed in a number of ways:

1. I was overly attracted to the most forcing lines which clouded my judgement.

2. After 19.Nd5, I analysed lazily, again taking the forcing line to be gospel.

3. I made assumptions not based on analysis, such as 19.Bc4 being essentially the same as 19.Bxf6.

How can I correct these problems in my games?

Well, identifying problems is the first step. Secondly, I must not make assumptions about positions without doing the work. And finally I must put in the work. Analysing some difficult tactical positions and analysing games generally needs to be something which I undertake more often. And I need to make myself work harder during the games, and not be blinded by the most forcing lines of play.

If any of my thinking problems resonate with you, then try to work out what was wrong with my analysis of the line starting with 19.Nd5? (from the diagram above: 19.Nd5 Nxd5 20.Bxd8 Nf4 21.Bc4 Qg6). What did I miss?

Local Chess News

I haven't played at my local club for a few weeks and I feel a bit out of the loop as to what has been happening around Melbourne in chess terms. So it's time to have a look! The best place for general news is the forums Chesschat and Ozchess which both act as places where clubs can publicise and report on their events. Of course, most of the clubs and organisations have their own websites, but the forums have all conveniently blocked in one place. As an aside, I have to admit that I used to spend far too much time looking at these sites which can become addictive, but I've overcome it and hardly go to the forums at all.

MCC. This is my chess club, and there is currently a couple of interesting events happening (actually, the reason I thought about local news was a call to arms yesterday for people wanting to learn to operate DGT boards at our club, which I put my hand up to). The regular Monday night FIDE rated event is the Malitis Memorial, a seven round swiss tournement. Time flies, because this event has just crossed the half way mark and is being led by Gary Lycett on a perfect 4/4. However he will have a tough game against Sylvester Urban in the next round. Sylvester is half a point behind along with David Beaumont, Richard Voon and David Lacey (who again is having a big tournament). Top seed is Ari Dale who is a further half point back along with 4 other players. There is good coverage of this event on Kerry Stead's blog.

But perhaps the biggest event is the play off match for the Club Championship between IM Guy West and FM Dusan Stojic. These 2 dominated the MCC Championship earlier this year scoring 8/9. It is a 4 game match that has already started with a draw. The next game is tomorrow night and there will be games on the following 2 Wednesdays. I might have to make an effort to get along to one of these sessions, and I encourage anyone else to do so, both to support these 2 great players, and to learn from the first hand experience of watching and kibitzing.

Other clubs. While all the clubs in Melbourne seem active, there are some events that really stick out in my mind. Box Hill Chess Club are holding a 15 minute tournament this Sunday to raise funds for some talented juniors who are going to the Youth Olympiad. The tournament has attracted a number of strong players including GM Darryl Johansen and much corporate sponsorship, including from clubs and coaching organisations. Anyway, the tournament will be rated in FIDE's rapid rating list and all proceeds go to the players, so great work by Box Hill Chess Club! (ps, I like the new look website as well).

A couple of weekend tournaments are coming up, with Hobson's Bay Chess Club hosting the 'Best in the West' in Altona. This tournament seems to be getting bigger each year, and with Sydney's FM Greg Canfell a starter, the big names from Melbourne are likely to show up. In fact FM's Stojic and Dragicevic have already entered. These 2 young FM's are part of the success story behind Noble Park Chess Club, a club I have a great fondness for as I was a member around the time of it's inception. I remember the hard work of Mehmedalija Dizdarevic and Domagoj Dragicevic in creating a venue for 'serious' chess events. Well, a few years have passed and Noble Park Chess Club are holding their first weekend event in September and I intend to show my support to this great club by playing (and no doubt passing a few rating points on to their talented juniors!).

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I can honestly say that chess in Melbourne is flourishing and it is an exciting time to be involved in the game.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yesterday's answers:

 1.Rd8+! [a typical distraction] 1..Nf8 [1..Rxd8 loses the queen] 2.Qxc5 Rxc5 3.Rxb8 winning a rook

 1.Qf8 [1.Qd8 leads to the same thing] 1..Ng8 2.Qxg8+! [a typical sacrifice removing the defender] 2..Kxg8 3.Rd8#

 1..Qe5! [threatening mate on b2 and e1, and the queen cannot be taken as then Rd1 would be mate]

1.Qxd8+! Nxd8 [1..Kh7 2.Qh8#] 2.Re8+ Kh7 3.Rh8# This mate with a bishop on the long diagonal is important to understand and adds another theme to the back rank mate

Back Rank

Teaching by repetition is a great way to work with kids. Find a theme, explain the issue, and then start with some easy examples and it is quite surprising just how advanced kids can get in a short space of time. Of course, to ensure maximum retention the subject can be repeated in further sessions, or homework can be given out and the answers worked through (otherwise it can be a case of in one ear and out the other). This week at some of the Primary Schools I am working at with Chesskids, I am talking about the back rank. The classes have kids of mixed ability so some definitions are needed, and then some very basic examples of checkmates on the back rank. However, once the pattern has been established all the kids are looking for a check on the back rank, and even assessing moves to see whether they are safe or not.

Without knowing it, the kids are introduced to concepts such as exploiting a battery on a file, distraction, intermediate checks, sacrificing for mate (surprisingly difficult for a lot of kids to give up material) and guarding possible escape squares for the enemy king. Here is the homework I'm giving out this week, all taken from recent examples.

 White to play and win

 White to play and win

 Black to play and win

 White to play and win

Answers in the next post :)

Rubinstein, Endgame Mentor

Akiba Rubinstein was one of the greats of the game of chess. For a period around 1908-1915 he certainly challenged as the very best player in the World along with Lasker and Capablanca. Rubinstein is also seen as one of the greats of the endgame and there is often a comparison made between him and Capablanca (I'm not sure why Lasker wasn't included as he was also a great endgame player). Personally, I don't think there is a better player to study as an endgame mentor than Rubinstein. He was able to convert advantages in the endgame, but he was also able to set his opponents difficult problems when he was in a worse position which is just as useful a skill.

Rubinstein (from www.chessgames.com)

I recently bought Donaldson and Minev's book "The Life and Games of Akiva Rubinstein volume 1" which is more games than life, but still has some interesting biographical and anecdotal details. The book is ordered chronologically and is peppered with crosstables and photgraphs. Of course, the games themselves are important and many have notes to them, often from contemporary sources.

It appears that 1907 was a breakthrough year for Rubinstein with big victories at Ostend and then at Carlsbad. His very first game at Ostend saw the young and relatively inexperienced Rubinstein playing gainst the grand old master, Joseph Blackburne. Rubinstein played solidly, but played a poor move allowing Blackburne to take the game into a very good king and pawn endgame. At that point, Rubinstein is probably lost, but he starts to set Blackburne difficult tasks and finally comes away with a draw.

Rubinstein as black played 42..Qg5 but keeping queens on would have been better. After 43.Qxg5 hxg5 44.Kd2, Rubinstein starts to step up.

Black is worse, but it is still important to find the best move. 44..g6! 45.h6? 45.hxg6 was better and probably winning, but both sides would promote at the same time which probably put Blackburne off. He also may have miscalculated the resulting position as white would have 2 connected passed pawns in the queen ending.

Now the obvious capture 45..Kxh6 fails to 46.g4 so Rubinstein here played 45..g4! and it is no longer easy to win this position for white. In fact the best he can hope for is a queen ending with 2v1 pawns though they would all be passed and black's single pawn may be the most advanced. Not at all easy to win.

Loading embedded chess game...

10 minutes until the World Championship

It's 10 minutes before the 2012 World Chess Championship between Anand and Gelfand. I've just finished dinner, and have settled into my front room waiting for it to start. What am I expecting? Actually, I have few expectations, though I do believe it will be an interesting match. I'm not sure either player will try to "fly out the stalls" today, but I certainly want to be watching it at the start. Anand has the white pieces and the first question is what will he be playing? Will he try 1.d4 or 1.e4? And what will Gelfand try to do with black? Will he stodge with a Petroff or Queen's Gambit, or take it to his opponent with a Sicilian or Semi Slav? We will find out in about 5 minutes now!!

For me, the most important thing is not necessarily the sporting aspect of the match, but the interest it generates. At the moment I am thoroughly into chess, both study and play. I have a new aim, to try to push my rating up to 2300 and FIDE Master standard and am currently training quite seriously. However, as essentially a middle aged hobby player (non professional) I need things to maintain my interest in chess as more than just a sport. I'll admit that I find it a real grind to work on tactical exercises, or plough through opening variations. I do it, but I can't say I really enjoy it. I just bought a load of chess materials that I'm going to be going through over the next few months. From a purely analytical point of view, I've just bought the latest Informator, number 113 which looks as if there is a ton of great material...


WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP HAS STARTED!!!

Anand opens with 1.d4 and the Internet Chess Club relay says that Gelfand replied 1..f6! It's been changed to 1..Nf6 and after 2.c4 g6......Grunfeld!!!


...I have also bought a Chessbase Magazine which arrived in the post today, of all days! This also has a lot of material, but the main thing I have these products for is the analysed games. With the top analysed games from Wijk aan Zee and Gibralter, this should prove to be a very good issue.

These 2 heavy tomes need some lighter material, so I have bought a book on Rubinstein, the Doeberl history, and Averbakh's "Centre Stage and behind the Scenes". I have read through this book briefly already, and it is a great read. Averbakh was both a prominent Grandmaster and a prominent chess politician and journalist. He rubbed shoulders with the greats of the game from Botvinnik through to the present day, and his nostalgic, anecdotal style is very readable. I found the book getting a bit heavy going as Averbakh moved his commentary into the 1980's, but there were still some nice touches. One thing I found very interesting was when Averbakh talked about psychological types who play chess. He identifies:

Killers: players who look for a KO against their opponents - Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer and Korchnoi
Fighters: players inspired by the battle itself - Lasker, Bronstein, Reshevsky, Tal
Sportsmen: Chess is a sport - Capablanca, Euwe, Keres, Smyslov, Spassky
Players: Good at all games - Karpov, Janowsky, Najdorf, Geller, Petrosian
Artists: Winning in style and creative approach - Simagin, Rossolimo
Explorers: those who try to understand the deeper meanings in the game - Rubinstein, Nimzovich, Fine

Averbakh admits there is some overlap, but this is an interesting subject  and I wonder where each player would put themselves. I can definitely rule out myself as being a killer or player and I am probably not in the fighter mode either. I think I'm less of a sportsman than an artist or explorer but this is only my own subjective self analysis! I look forward to re-reading this book and going into a bit more detail

World Champioship Update

30 minutes into the game, and things have already taken an interesting turn. An Exchange Grunfeld took an odd direction after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5 8.Bb5+ Nc6 when Anand played 9.d5. Is this home preparation? I guess we will find out after the game, although the continuation may lead us to make some conclusions.

Time to go and follow the game. I've never seen the position above before, so I'm going to be learning some new things from both the play and the analysis. And it fulfils my need to keep working, with the necessity to keep things interesting. I hope you all enjoy the World Championship and that it inspires you to bigger and better things!

The MCC Champion is....

Well actually we don't know yet, as the 2 star players of this tournament continued their amazing play. FM Dusan Stojic beat IM Mirko Rujevic on board 1, while IM Guy West took care of myself on board 2. This means that a play off will be required to establish the 2012 Club Champion and with 2 great players, it is a match we can all look forward to. And with a World Championship match coming up, most of us will be fully into matchplay format!

Just to show how dominant these 2 players were, third place was shared by FM Chris Wallis and Laurent Michaille, a full 1.5 points behind. Chris had a solid enough tournament, while Laurent showed that he will be one of the elite players at the club with an unbeaten performance. There were a further 14 players who scored better than 50% with Sarah Anton's 5.5 being perhaps the best performance. Sarah finished second in her rating group, behind superkid, Karl Zelesco. Karl scored a fantastic 6/9 (surely it will not be long before his name finds itself on the Club Champions honour board!) while Sarah's 5.5 was equalled by Richard Voon and Bosko Mijatovic. This was for the first rating group category of under 2000. There was another rating group of under 1800 which was won by Marcus Ogden, Alex Kaplan and Kevin Brown who all scored 4.5 for 50%. This brings up a number of issues. First, it is a great effort by these players and it shows the strength of the MCC Club Championship that the second rating group should be for players under 1800. However, on the down side it shows that lower rated players are not entering this most prestigious event, which is a great shame. Perhaps if the MCC guaranteed a rating group prize for players say under 1400, the tournament might not be quite so top heavy?

My personal tournament was pretty good even though I only finished on 5.5 and a share of 9th place. I played a very tough field including the number 1, 2, 3 and 4 seeds and unrated Laurent Michaille. In my ninth round game against IM Guy West I played much too slowly (and Guy put extra pressure on me by playing quickly) and found myself in time trouble just as the game was getting interesting. It was a Hedgehog where Guy waited patiently until either b5, or d5 worked. When he crashed through the centre I put up little resistance and he won a pawn, but then Guy made an uncharacteristic mistake, playing quickly in my time trouble and I found a resource that kept me in the game.

Guy as black is a pawn up, but his knight is attacked. He chose to advance it which wasn't best. 33..Nf4? 34.Qh2! Now white has action against black's king on the a1-h8 diagonal. 34..Nce6!? creating a nasty trap which I fell straight into 35.Nxh6? I believed that I had attacking chances and put my faith in the imminent double check, but...35..Rc2! an amazing find, and one that completely threw me. After this I crumbled. 36.Nxf7+ [Better was 36.Qh4 though you'd still want to be black] 36..Kg8 37.Ne5 Bc5+ and there is no defence. I played a couple more moves, but was lost.

Once again it has been a pleasure to play in the club championship, with so many interesting games, and so many courteous opponents. We now get a break for 2 weeks before Monday nights start up with the City of Melbourne Open which I am a definite starter for. The arbiter will once again be Kerry Stead who is putting in a mega amount of work into chess at the MCC and in Victoria generally. Besides this he keeps a very good blog going too!

Blunders at Doeberl

Easter in Australia is the time for the traditional Doeberl Cup tournament held in Canberra. I say traditional because this tournament has now reached its fiftieth edition and there was also a book released over the weekend chronicling the history of the tournament. Doeberl started as a long weekend tournament and in fact the one time I had played it, it was a 7 round tournament over 4 days. Now, under the direction of Charles Bishop and his O2C company, the tournament is a 9 round norm achieving monster. This year the field for the Premier included 8 Grandmasters and 13 International Masters, and you had to have a minimum 1900 FIDE rating to enter. There were 3 other events run alongside this over 4 days and 7 rounds. These were under 2000, under 1600 and under 1200 limited rating events, and all were well attended and hard fought.

I played in the Premier and was seeded 42/79. I had an ok tournament scoring my expected score, and winning against a strong player. However, I also lost to a lower rated player than me (although I doubt he's any weaker) and made a number of weak moves throughout my games. I think it is a pretty good therapy and learning experience to examine these howlers. It's important to admit your weaknesses in an attempt to eradicate them. So here was my tournament.

In the first round I was near the top of the second half of players and subsequently was paired with a huge rated opponent. Gergely Szabo was ranked fourth and finished equal first in the tournament. I was playing ok against him, probably a little worse, until I had a complete brain faze:

In this position as white I had to move my light squared bishop, but where? My first thought was back to e2, but then he has Rbc8 and his rooks are very threatening. So what about g4? Ok, that sounds good....but hold on, look at all checks and captures! What about Bxe4 and after he recaptures I have Rfe1 skewering both his bishops. Cool, I'll do that! 1.Bxe4?? Bxe4 2.Rfe1 f5 3.f3 Rbc8 and I can resign. The worse thing is that I'd looked at this and just thought I'll take his bishop, he takes my bishop and I take his other bishop. Oops!!

In the second round I played Ian Rout and won, though not convincingly and then I had my best game of the tournament against WGM Irine Sukandar. In the fourth round I played FM Chris Wallis who I'd recently lost to in Ballarat. I got another reasonable position until I decided on a bad plan.

This had been a fighting game up to this point. As black I'm worse, a pawn down, but by no means lost. However, I played the tempting 1..Bd4?? which loses to 2.Re8+ Kf7 3.Rf8+ Ke6 4.Re1+ (the move I hadn't counted on) 4..Kd6 5.Rd8+ resigns as I'm losing a piece.

In round 5 my opponent forfeited as he had to withdraw from the tournament due to illness, and in round 6 I scored a draw against IM Andrew Brown, though perhaps I threw away good winning chances. Then in rounds 7 and 8 I played horribly. This was the penultimate day and I lost both games. The first mistake I made was playing into variations that gave my opponent's an initiative. In round 7 I was facing FM Igor Bjelobrk who had sacrificed a pawn to reach the following position:

I am white and I have an extra pawn on d5. If this pawn goes, then I am clearly worse. A typical plan would be Nxf5 and then Rd1, or more subtle is just Rd1 straight away. Then I may be able to unwind with Ba2, b3/b4, Bb2 and Rac1. However, I chose 1.h3?? thinking that after 1..Nbxd5 I would have time for g4. At the last moment I saw that black can take on e3 and I'm completely busted. I carried on with 2.Nxd5 Nxd5 3.Bxd5 Qxd5 4.Nxf5 Qxf5 but didn't last much longer.

In the next round I faced the current Australian Junior Champion Alistair Cameron. I had a tough position before I just gave away a pawn for nothing.

This was a Noteboom gone wrong so I decided to try a tactical way of exchanging pawns. My thoughts were running something like this. If I can give up my a and b pawns for his c and d-pawns, the game must be level, or perhaps he will have a slight advantage. So how to do this? This implementation was where things went wrong! 1..b3?? 2.Nxb3 and it was here that I realised that my planned 2..Rb4 would fail to 3.Qxb4 axb4 4.Rxa8 with mate to follow.

I finished the tournament with a none too easy win against Ari Dale and ended on 4.5/9. This was ok for me, but nothing fantastic. However, it has inspired me and I will be playing more chess and working on my game. It was a great event to be a part of, and rubbing shoulders with such strong players is always an uplifting experience.

MCC Championship Round 4

The playing conditions at the Melbourne Chess Club are wholly weather dependent. For most of the year, the temperate nature of Melbourne makes it a pleasant place to play. In the winter the heaters are sometimes needed, and in high summer it is dangerously hot. On the evening of the 4th round of the MCC Championship, a hot spell had just broken but it was incredibly humid. The playing rooms were pretty stuffy, though not as hot as I've known them. All in all it was mildly uncomfortable, and with tensions rising as the tournament progresses, one can only hope that we don't get too many more heat waves this year.

At the start of the 4th round there were still 5 players on 3/3. As the lowest rated player who hadn't floated down, I dropped out of the main group and played someone on 2.5. The top 2 pairings saw FM Stojic playing FM Wallis in a repeat of the 2010 Victorian Championship play off, while Beaumont played IM Rujevic. Both these games were still in progress when I left and I couldn't tell which way they were going to go, but in the end Stojic and Rujevic both won.

I joined them on 4/4 with a very nervous game against the giant killer of the tournament so far, Anthony Harris. I must admit I had some butterflies before the game. I wasn't sure how the game would go, and didn't really prepare. Once the game got under way, I went for a Noteboom which I know quite well. I was lucky because Anthony seemed to be a bit out of his depth in this tricky opening and I found myself 2 pawns to the good after about 15 moves and just needed to play carefully to convert the advantage.

So 3 players will be on maximum points going into round 5, but the pressure is mounting from behind. The first game from the top tables to finish was IM Guy West's victory against John Dowling. Guy seems to have gone with the flow the last 2 rounds and taken the game to his opponents. I'm not sure if his policy was to play a little safe in the first couple of rounds and wait for mistakes that never happened, but he is now certainly throwing pieces around and playing creative, tactical chess. On boards 5 and 6, there were interesting matches between established strong adult players and talented juniors. The adults scored half out of 2! Domogoj Dragicevic was looking to attack Karl Zelesco, but my brief glance at their game made me feel that he really didn't have enough to justify this. When I left he was a pawn down, but the game ended a draw. Malcolm Pyke seemed to have a decent position against Ari Dale, and I have no idea what happened to allow Ari to win this game. Unless I'm misreading this game badly, Malcolm could easily have been on 4/4  but let good positions slip 2 weeks in a row.

Outside of the small room there were 2 postponements and 2 forfeits amongst the games. Being a club tournament, allowing postponements (and byes up until round 7) lets more people participate who might not play if the event was strictly set on certain dates. So it was a bit disappointing to see forfeits, though of course, sometimes these are unavoidable. At the top end Pano Skiotis and Gary Lycett jumped up to 3/4 while at the other end, young Oscar Pearce scored his first win, so congratulations to him!

After the 5th round there will be a week break so as not to clash with the Ballarat Weekend event. So I guess it is quite important to try to get to this break in a good position which will happen to me whatever the result of my next game as I would have been more than happy with a 4/5 start. I think 4/4 is my best start to the Club Championship, and I know that whatever the draw throws up at me the next one will be tough. I'm guessing that I'll have another black, this time against Dusan Stojic who is also due white. The alternative is that I float down again, when I'd probably have to face Guy West but I don't think this will happen. Whoever I play, it will leave an amazing game on the other top board. If I play Dusan then the IM's should have to face off, with Mirko Rujevic white against Guy West. Otherwise, Dusan and Mirko might have to face off, but a great contest seems guaranteed!