Game of the Day 6

One of the problems we've had in the chess world has been retention of players. Lots of primary school kids have a go, but don't continue into their high school days. And once at high school, we lose players to other activities and interests, and especially during the crucial exam times. The drop off continues into young adulthood, as higher education, work, and love and life take priority. While some come back to the game it doesn't compensate the amount of players lost.

My job is mostly teaching the game at the primary school level and my aim is to make those kids value the game, rather than excel. If I find kids that excel it is a bonus, and I can and do help them to further their skills and interest in the game. What I would love to do is to make a generational change in attitude to chess. I want kids to be encouraged by their parents to play a game that those parents enjoyed when they were at school. I would like to see schools and kids accept that if someone has a different interest to the norm, then they should be allowed to express themselves through that activity. Certainly at high school level, chess is often seen as a waste of time, a high brow activity that is "boring" and "uncool". It is this attitude that I'd like to change.

So what has this to do with the Game of the Day? One of the greatest prodigies chess has ever seen was Samuel Reshevsky, and as he says in his book, "Reshevsky's Best Games of Chess",

- "To achieve world-wide fame at the age of eight is a mixed blessing."

But Reshevsky's amazing talent as a child was halted when he turned twelve year's old. "My career as a child prodigy ended in 1924, when it was decided that a formal education was long overdue". While Reshevsky never lost his love for chess he played only sporadically for the next 10 years and I always wonder what he would have achieved had he continued his amazing start uninterrupted. His sensational come back to chess saw him take part relatively successfully in Pasadena 1932 (equal 3rd behind Alekhine and Kashdan), and Syracuse 1934 (1st ahead of Kashdan, Fine etc) before heading to Europe to try his luck. At the very first tournament he played in, he faced the mighty Capablanca. In the 10-player field Reshevsky scored 7/9 to come first ahead of Capablanca who he beat in their individual game. The game is a great example of playing against weaknesses, but my favourite bit of analysis is in the following position.

Capablanca had just played 25..b6 and offered a draw. Reshevsky writes, "Here Capablanca offered a draw, but since I had a clear initiative, and pressure on Black's weaknesses I declined the offer". How many of us would have had the nerve to refuse the draw offer by one of the all time greats? It is inspirational, and this fighting spirit is something I've touched on before in this blog. A player who wants to improve has to play the game out, even if that means losing. It is a tough discipline but one that will pay dividends.

Reshevsky went on to win this game, win this tournament one of many successes in his lone chess career. He never became World Champion though he was close a few times, and I wonder whether he would have become World Champion if he hadn't been a part time chess player through his formative teenage years?

Enjoy!

Loading embedded chess game...

Whoops, there goes the Queen :(

When you teach primary school kids chess, you realise that there are successes in a chess game other than checkmate. I'm convinced that most under 10's get more of a buzz from capturing a queen, or promoting a pawn, than they do from checkmate. Partly, I guess, this is because the queen has a large material value and, as Madonna said, we're living in the material world. Also, capturing the queen is an obvious coup, when for some of these kids, checkmate is not obvious, even when they have played it. In fact, checkmate can sometimes be an anti-climax as it can sometimes take a while to sink in that they actually have delivered checkmate!

Anyway, it always keeps kids entertained when you ask them questions about trapping queens. Here's the few I showed today.

 Black here played the unfortunate 1..Nc7?? White won himself a queen with 2.Na4 Qa5+ 3.Bd2

 Again a blunder from black. I asked my kids how black should get out of check. Of course, they all saw that they had to move their king and the king could take the knight right in front of it for free! But 1..Kxe6 costs black a queen after either 2.Nb6+, or even better 2.Nf6+.

And finally a classic. This is Fischer-Reshevsky USA ch 1958. Reshevsky had just blundered, dropping his knight back to e8 when he should have exchanged the Na5 for white's light squared bishop on b3 Perhaps the experienced Reshevsky wasn't taking his young opponent totally seriously, as he allowed the spectacular 1.Bxf7+!! and every line sees the black queen in trouble:

1..Kh8 2.Ne6! winning the queen
1..Rxf7 2.Ne6! winning the queen
1..Kxf7 (played by Reshevsky) 2.Ne6! wins the queen as 2..Kxe6 3.Qd5+ leads to mate 3..Kf5 4.g4! Kxg4 5.Rg1+ Kh4 6.Qe4+ Kh3 7.Qg2+ Kh4 8.Qg4# Reshevsky played 2..dxe6, lost his queen and later the game. How good was Fischer?! He was only 15 years old when he beat USA no 1 in this game!

The moral to the story is always keep an eye out for your opponent's queen especially if it has few squares left to go to!

Why Study Chess?

What inspires a player to study? Does one do it to improve, to research, for the fun of it? We are all eternal optimists hoping that we can still improve. I guess the fact that strong players maintained their strength late into their lives gives us all inspiration. However, the fact is that a player like Kortchnoi or Smyslov were absolute greats from a young age, so staying stronger later in life wasn't so much of a problem for them. Most of us aren't going to get much better after we hit 40 so why not just play and forget the study? Well, speaking personally, I find studying the game fascinating, its history, its characters, the games both great and relatively normal and the whole cultural melting pot that makes up this game of kings.

I coach kids and see very different reactions to the lessons I present. Some kids love stories and remember the most bizarre of things. Other kids enjoy puzzles, and even some chess based logical problems. There is an excellent monthly article at the Chess Cafe website by Jeff Coakley with some great testing puzzles. But what about adults? There are loads of products around to help players improve. For instance, there are books, DVD's, databases, computer playing programs, online chess clubs with online coaching. In fact there is so much stuff out there that it is almost impossible to know what will help you improve the most.

In my opinion adults can improve, even those of us above the dreaded 40, but having some knowledge of yourself is a very good place to start. We all learn in different ways, so do you prefer visual, audio or written learning? I love books and a chess board, but I probably learn more from playing through games in a database. I don't really enjoy DVD's, though I find short youtube type reports excellent. I hate playing computer programs, though I don't mind playing games at online chess clubs. What I find particularly useful is watching live games online, especially with Grandmaster commentary. As I said, we are all different so my likes and dislikes will be different to yours, but getting to know what you like can help you devise a program of study that can be enjoyable and rewarding. It may also be a good idea to ask a strong player to help you choose some products if you want to buy books or DVD's. There is so much that it's difficult to know what to get. Employing a coach for a few sessions can also guide you in the right direction.

Saying that, any study is better than none, though study directed at your own level will obviously be more effective. As for me, I enjoy looking at games of great players of the past (instead of beefing up my opening repertoire, or working on my positional understanding). I have some particular favourites who seem to somehow resonate with me. I particularly enjoy playing through the games of Reshevsky and Korchnoi. Both were immigrants, which I can empathise with, and both were great fighters which I fully appreciate. Although both were positional masters, they were both great tactical players and attacking players so when looking through their games you get the full range of types of game. Here's a couple of games that you wouldn't necessarily associate with these 2 heroes of mine, both in that most romantic of openings, the King's Gambit.

Firstly, the young Reshevsky playing a simul in Berlin aged about 8. Sammy was white, though I don't know the name of his opponent.

Secondly a game with Korchnoi as black against a King's Gambit specialist. This was played shortly before he emigrated in probably his last round robin in the Soviet Union before he left.

Premature Results

I know what this title has you thinking about and you will be disappointed! I was running some chess holiday programs this week and I noticed some kids giving in too easily. So it's back to the well known subjects of resignation and draws in chess.

Firstly I am now aware of a group of chess players who believe that resignation shouldn't be allowed. This play till the death lobby are taking things a bit far, but for beginners and juniors resigning denies many chances to earn draws, or even learn technique on how to win games that they, in turn, can use in their own games. At Chesskids we vehemently recommend our kids to play to the end. Here's an example of what can happen at junior level chess that occurred in one of my classes only today:

White would have been happy with a draw before the game began, but it was black that was playing for the draw now. The game continued 1.f5 Kh7 2.f6 Kg8 3.f7+ Kh7 [setting up a clever trap that his young opponent fell straight into]

The young player with the white pieces couldn't contain himself and without a second's thought promoted his pawn to a queen realising a moment later that he'd stalemated his opponent 4.f8=Q 1/2-1/2

I find it quite amazing that kids can find incredibly difficult tactical chances for themselves, but have great trouble in spotting what I consider simple stalemating tricks. I even wonder if most kids think about draws, or whether they are playing on in the hope of winning even with minuscule material? Anyway, after a tactics session where the kids were working on some easy and not so easy checkmate patterns, I showed a classic endgame with a stalemate theme.

This position is from the game Reshevsky-Geller Zurich Candidates 1953. I asked the kids what they thought black played here and I received Kg4, Ra5 (defending the pawn) Ra2+ but no one worked out what was actually played without some help. 1..Rf3+ is obvious once you realise that the rook cannot be taken because of stalemate, and that black is actually going to be happy with a draw here!

On the related (sort of) subject of premature draws we also encourage our kids not to agree to draws but to play on in level positions to try to win them. Hopefully this will give them invaluable endgame experience, and we try to explain to kids that losing these types of games is better for them than agreeing to draws. It certainly sweetens the bitter taste of defeat though how much I'm not sure! Anyway, one of the things I've been trying to undertake this week is analysing live games as they are happening. We've been lucky in Australia to currently have the Australian Open Championship with the live games starting at 1pm in the afternoon. It is great to introduce the kids to the country's top players and some local talents. They can relate to 15 year old Bobby Cheng and 12 year old Anton Smirnov while Grandmasters like Zong-Yuan Zhao and Darryl Johansen are promoted as favourites.

I was showing the live games on Monday to my group of young students but 2 of the 4 games finished as relatively quick draws and my students wondered why they'd agreed to draws. I have to admit, I had some trouble working it out myself so lets have a look at the positions.

This was the final position of the game Zhao-Cheng. It is a very interesting position and most of the kids were getting excited about Bobby's centre against Australia's number 1. When I pointed out his king might be a bit open they shrugged it off! (typical junior optimism!) However, they were generally disappointed that this game went no further.

Most of my juniors are a pretty patriotic lot and they were all cheering for Melbourne based GM Johansen. Here, as black against Yita Choong the kids were happy that they were supporting the guy who was a pawn up. As it is not possible to take on b7 with the bishop because of the forking Qb6+ it would appear that black will maintain his material advantage. I had real trouble explaining why this one might have ended in a draw here (as I don't fully understand myself!) and the kids seemed genuinely disappointed. I'd be interested to know what prompted the draw offers and their acceptance by the players themselves.

However, excitement was provided on the other 2 boards, and the kids seemed fascinated by Junta Ikeda's time trouble and they liked top rated German GM, IgorKhenkin's following move:

Black here played 19..Bxb2+ which was greeted with "He's lost his bishop! The top guy's gonna lose!" Then when they'd calmed down we worked out why he'd played his bishop to a square where it can just be taken. If 20.Kxb2 then 20..c3+ discovers an attack on the e2 bishop from black's Ba6. The kids had to admit that it was a pretty neat move. They still want an Aussie to win though!