A great.....and not so great week

I wonder what the news headline of this week will turn out to be?

Fantastic finale in Biel?


National Championships of Ukraine and Britain decided!


French players banned for cheating.


9 year old beats Grandmaster!

Of course, we would love for the tournaments to have dramatic finales and National Championships usually do have moments of interest as the players tend to know each other and their playing styles very well. The Ukrainian Championship is a strong (2724-2584) 12 player round robin with Ruslan Ponomariov the highest rated player. It has just started while the British Championship is drawing to a close with Jones and Gordon leading the way while Howell leads the chasing pack. The Biel super-GM event is also drawing to a dramatic conclusion with rating favourites Carlsen and Nakamura having to come from behind Giri and Wang Hao.

The big cheating scandal from the 2010 Olympiad concerning French players has finally been resolved with bans being handed out for all 3 Grandmasters. Thankfully, chess is not riddled with cheating scandals but in some ways that makes each one seem worse. When a cyclist is suspended for using a banned substance, I tend to think, 'here we go again, another one caught....I wonder how many others don't get caught'. But with chess, it's more like, 'oh my God, how did they do that, and why?' Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder how much cheating does go unnoticed at chess events? As an amateur enthusiast, I would hope very little.

As a coach of mainly young players, the most impressive headline to me would be the last one. I am constantly being amazed by the talents of young players. Here in Melbourne this past Sunday we ran a 7 round 15 minute per player tournament. In the under 10 section, second place was taken by a 4 year old! I saw the headline in the excellent Chicago Chess Blog of Bill Brock. I've been reading this blog for a while now, and find it really enjoyable reading, with excellent local coverage from the Chicago area. A 9 year old beating a Grandmaster is an incredible feat, though the record for the youngest player to beat a Grandmaster in a regular tournament game goes to a player already mentioned in this article, David Howell. Howell was only 8 when he beat GM John Nunn....unbelievable! And another previously mentioned player in this piece, Ruslan Ponomariov was the youngest to hold a World Championship at 18 (though some would dispute the legitimacy of this title).

Loading embedded chess game...

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...

Chess Disappointments

Just like in any activity, chess can be both exhilarating and uplifting, while also sometimes disappointing. Let me give you some typical examples of disappointment, to my mind.

1. Players withdrawing from tournaments. This is very annoying for organisers, other competitors, and fans (not to mention sponsors). Players withdrawing from swiss system events can be very disruptive, sometimes leaving a bye in the field and sometimes creating some odd pairings. Especially annoying is a player who withdraws from a swiss event after a few rounds having spoiled the chances of some players, but then not having to play their competition. In a round robin, things can be even more disruptive. If the tournament is being held primarily for norm purposes, a withdrawal can, and probably will, eliminate the chances of the tournament producing a norm.

Recently at the top level the high profile withdrawal of Alexander Morozevich from the Biel tournament occurred. Morozevich left the tournament for health reasons, and that is always a worry for chess fans. The loss of Morozevich from the chess scene 2 years ago was a big disappointment for his fans, and I amongst many hoped for his recovery and return to the international chess elite. Now we can only hope he is ok to keep playing, even if he has to play less.

2. Chess politics. I don't usually get involved in politics on this blog, but the resolution offered by Turkish Chess President to penalise chess federations who took legal action against FIDE seems ludicrous. Ali Nihat Yazici has stated that the federations of France, US, England, Germany, Georgia, Ukraine and Switzerland

"must be given suspension from FIDE including players, arbiters, trainers, ratings and organising FIDE rated events, till damage is covered by those federations". To be honest, I couldn't believe that arbiters were being refused from certain countries (ie. those countries mentioned above) to act at the Olympiad. Then again, we are talking about a federation that can take action against one of its own Grandmasters in what appears a somewhat arbitrary way.

I think I'll stay away from chess politics. The more I think about it, the more disappointed I get.

3. Chess play. We are at the end of week one of the British Championship, and my only disappointments is that my friends aren't doing better. After his great start, Don Mason has lost 3 in a row, while Mike Surtees started indifferently, but picked up toward the end of the week. The tournament itself has now seen the cream starting to rise to the top with GM's Jones, Howell and Gordon leading a pack of titled players. The live coverage is excellent and the games that I've seen (not as many as I'd like, but I'll get through more) have been exciting. It is a bit disappointing that our super GM's Adams, Short and McShane aren't playing as all have been in decent form this year and are in the 2700 club. It's also a bit disappointing that there are no aussies in the field, though WIM Sue Maroroa from New Zealand is playing, scoring just below half points in the first week including a draw against strong FM Peter Poobalasingam.

Congratulations to all the prize winners from the first week, including age group champions.

A few disappointments have occurred to me, though. First, the dour World Championship match was not a spectacle for fans who were disappointed by the tactics of both players. Since the match, Anand has stated that matches are different to tournaments and he always knew the match was going to be tough. To the untrained eye, at times it seemed as if neither player was really trying to win, but preferred to not lose.

Another disappointment came today for me when I turned up to play a match for my club to find that someone had taken my place. There must have been some mix up, as I arrived a little late to find that the match had started without me. I had expected to find my clock running, but not someone sitting in my place!


With so much doom and gloom in my post, I want to finish in inspirational mood. Probably, my favourite game of all time is the following queen sacrifice game played by Paul Keres against Max Euwe in 1939. If you haven't seen the game, you will be in for a treat, and if you have, then please enjoy it again. I find it no bad thing to go back to the things that have inspired and exhilarated us in the past!

Loading embedded chess game...

Thoughts on Professionalism

It's day 1 of the 2012 London Olympics. The sports have started after an amazing opening ceremony. As I was watching the opening ceremony (a repeat actually, as I didn't stay awake, or get up ridiculously early to watch it) I noticed tennis superstar Novak Djokovic carrying the national flag for his country. Of course, this immediately made me think about the Olympic spirit and the original amateur status of the games and how things have changed. In fact, the big question is probably whether things should have changed. I guess if the Olympics is to be the pinnacle of sporting achievement, then the best participants from each sport should be included, whether they be amateur or professional. This will, of course, put the amateurs at a huge disadvantage but it seems impossible to me to have it any other way, especially as there is a somewhat grey area as to what constitutes professional and what is considered amateur.

To some extent, similar issues exist in the world of chess. Currently, there is a British Championship taking place which has both professional and amateur players competing. But should this be the case? There is a case for making the tournament more elite, even a closed round robin tournament for perhaps 12 players. It would be possible to stage qualifiers for this, and there would be fierce competition for the event with Britain having over 30 GM's. Say the top 6 players all played, and then 6 of the following 20 qualified, there would be a tournament of probably category 14. A tournament of this quality may also be more attractive to sponsors, though this is only speculation. Historically, the British Championship also doubled as a sort of Commonwealth Championship and the tournament had a distinctly international flavour, with representatives of the home countries being joined by Australians, Canadians, Indians New Zealanders and other players from Commonwealth countries. This changed a few years ago after an influx of top Indian players started to dominate the tournament. Now the British has a definitely home feel to it, and also a semi professional feel.

Here in Australia it is virtually impossible to be a professional from just playing chess (I'm not sure how easy it is in any country). Even the very best players in Australia work as chess coaches or have jobs outside of chess. Funnily enough I'm a full time chess coach and can count myself as a chess professional, though I have no misgivings about my playing strength which puts me at the top end of club players or in the bottom level of internationally rated players. Nevertheless, I'm confident that my client group, which are mostly beginners and novices from Primary School age, learn to enjoy the game and improve. But one of the issues that we have here in Australia (and I guess in other countries) is an uneasy relationship between the professional chess coaching companies and the National and State Federations which is run on a strictly voluntary basis to avoid conflicts of interest. As much as I would like to give back to the game in an administrative form, I have stayed away from standing for posts at state and national level, and I have been asked to join. Instead I've helped out at a club level which is no less important to my mind.

The London Olympics will showcase a number of great sporting achievements and I believe that some Australians will prove to be golden superstars. In chess, the Olympiad will be held in Istanbul from August 27-September 10th, and I will be hoping for great performances from both Australia and England. The Australian team is under strength with both GM Zhao, GM Johansen and IM Xie all unable to play. But however our players do, I along with the rest of the Australian chess fraternity will follow with pride our team. I'll also be wondering whether Australia will be performing above their ranking of 57 in the World and how it would be possible to move up the list. Will the work I'm doing contribute to future generations of Australian Olympiad players? Can Australia improve their lot without the full cooperation of the voluntary and professional sectors? And if this is needed, how is it going to come about?

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with having an amateur status. There have been some great amateur players over the years, with World Champion Max Euwe being probably the cream of the crop. Before being World Champion in 1935, Euwe was World Amateur Champion, a title he won in 1928 in the Hague. It was held at the same time as the 1928 Olympic games in Amsterdam, and was part of the chess Olympiad. Here's a couple of games from that event showing Euwe's excellent attacking and tactical ability.

Loading embedded chess microbase...

5 in a row

A fantastic position from the under 16 Championship of the British Championship. It's not often you see 5 pawns on the e-file. I had a quick search in Big Database 2008 (yes I'm a cheapo who owns an old database and updates myself from TWIC) and turned over the following 8 games which all had an identical central pawn structure.

Loading embedded chess microbase...

You can scroll through the games via the drop down menu in the title bar.

Meanwhile, Don Mason continues to have a great first week to the British with a draw against GM Stuart Conquest. Don now has white against James Jackson who had his unbeaten start ended by GM Gormally. There are now 2 outright leaders in Gawain Jones and Stephen Gordon. These 2 GM's play off today, but it is too early to start thinking about a winner.

I have to play...

I thought I was going to have a bit of a break from chess, but I forgot that I'd committed to play for my club, the Melbourne Chess Club in the Victorian Teams Championship. So Sunday I am having to play a game of chess in the middle of my 'vacation'. To be honest, I'm ok with that and am looking forward to the game. It isn't until the late afternoon, so I'll be able to have a lie in and spend some time with my wife in the morning. I guess the thing that springs to mind for me is how little do you have to play to get rusty? I'm not in that shape yet, I would hope. My last serious game was only a few weeks ago, and I've been working at the game in the meantime. In fact, I'm hoping the couple of weeks without playing chess makes me fresher. We'll see come the weekend.

Looking at the field for the British Championship one name sticks out as a comeback player, GM Matthew Turner. Turner worked his way up to the GM level in the late 1990's gaining the title in 2002. However, he didn't play much tournament chess after that, though he has continued with chess as a teacher at Millfield School and as a player in the 4NCL in Britain. I wonder what it's like for a GM to play little chess and then come to a tournament like the Championship? Is Turner rusty? Not if his first game is anything to go by. I'm guessing that Charley Storey wasn't the player that Matthew Turner would have liked to have played in the first round. Storey is a dangerous attacker. But it was the GM in charge of the tactics and when the dust settled Storey had 2 rooks for a queen, but chronically weak light squares.

After 2 rounds there are now 6 players on a perfect score, GM's Jones, Gordon, Arkell, IM Hawkins and Hugh Murphy and James Jackson who both came through the acceleration to beat IM opposition in the second round. The rest of the GM's all sit half a point back along with Don Mason who won his second round game to line up a test against former champion GM Conquest.

The Championship is only the main event of the festival and in this first week there are currently age group championships for under 16, under 13 and under 11 taking place as well as non championship events of which the most notable has traditionally been the Major Open, though this year it seems smaller than in years gone by. The format of the British Championship allows for players to double up in events. For example, Radha Jain is playing the under 16 Championship in the morning and the Championship in the afternoon! Full on! To think, I'm worried about getting worn out by playing 40-50 games per year!

Stop Press: I've just heard Morozevich has had to withdraw from Biel through illness. :(

British Champs and more...

...much, much more in fact! The blogs which I subscribed to in my last post have been unbelievably active and have turned over some very interesting things (to me at least). There were mixed reactions to the return to adjourned games which were held at the Amsterdam tournament last week, but I can't say I've seen much coverage of the positions that actually were adjourned in any games. Growing up in the pre-digital clock age, I well remember adjournments. As much as a pain as it was, especially travelling long distances to finish team games, I am certain that adjournments were a great tool for analysis. Studying positions in late middlegames and endgames really helps your chess, and in depth analysis of any position can only help your chess. The change in time controls came at a time when a big shift in opening theory was underway, and now knowledge of openings and opening preparation, along with tactical vision are the priorities in a players study.



On Alexandra Kosteniuk's blog I saw another interesting development in tournament chess, this time to do with scoring. At a tournament in the Philippines the scoring is as follows

2 points for a win
1 point for a draw
0 points for a loss

A stalemate, however, is split 1.5-0.5 with the player stalemated scoring 0.5.

This is an interesting attempt to keep games interesting longer, though it seems a bit harsh to me as some of the most beautiful combinations I've ever seen have been stalemate saves. To punish these in terms of points on the board doesn't seem right to me.

The British Championships started yesterday, and the 'local' blogs noted some controversy. Steve Giddins is disappointed by the strength of the event and he has a point. Although there are a strong group at the top, the event does have a rather long tail, not that I would begrudge these players a chance. It would just be good to see more of the 2300+ level players involved. In fact, the exclusivity of the Australian Championships with a minimum rating leads to a more top heavy field. It is, of course, a pay off either way, as here in Australia we have some people claiming the field is too limited. On the Streatham and Brixton blog, it's the ECF that is criticised (actually, it is on Giddins blog too) and the following question is raised:

"is the ECF an organisation that runs the game on a collective and open basis for the benefit of all of us, or is it the plaything of individual officers who are welcome to do whatever they might happen to feel like doing at any given moment?"


When I left England the English Chess Federation was a fledgeling organisation, I left in early 2005 and the ECF formed in 2004 to take over from the British Chess Federation. It seems that much has happened in the 7 years I've been abroad. I think I'll have to look into this in a bit more detail, as I'm now in a position to change my federation.


On to the Championship itself! The first round of any swiss is usually filled with a number of mismatches. However, the 2012 British Championship has a field of 62 players in an 11 round swiss, and it was decided to accelerate the event. I'm not much of a fan of acceleration and I'm not sure why this happened. If it has something to do with keeping strong players away from much weaker players, then the Championship should probably look at entry requirements rather than acceleration. Anyway, I was happy to see my 2 old mates scoring half points in the first round. Mike Surtees (2114) drew with Henrik Fabri (2004), while Don Mason drew with IM Richard Palliser. At the top none of the GM's lost, but not all of them won either. Late entry Stuart Conquest was held by Marcus Osborne, while in form Olympiad team member David Howell, was held by James Adair who is rated 350+ points below him. However it is a long event and early days.


Unfortunately for me, the games start at 2.15pm which is 11.15pm where I live, so I'll be seeing most of the games after they've been played. In the morning, the under 16 tournament is being broadcast live and this is a relatively strong event with 3 players rated 2000+. It is a small field but interesting as there isn't much between any of the players. I found these games interesting (I was watching these rather than the games in Biel with Carlsen et al) with some positions that I could use to help my own students. I was also happy to see a trap that I once used to pick up one of my first decent scalps back in the early 1980's. I was playing in the Basingstoke Championships against a strongish local player called Jim Calleja. The pattern was repeated yesterday.

Loading embedded chess game...