1969 December | Chess Community

Biel, Round 4

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Magnus Carlsen continued the win-with-White, draw-with-Black pattern, easily holding in an old-fashioned Slav against Alexander Onischuk. This draw allowed Evgeny Alekseev to reclaim a share of the lead, thanks to a surprisingly easy win over Yannick Pelletier on the black side of a Ragozin Defense. Black obtained a queenside majority from the opening, and White, tied down in the attempt to blockade it, allowed things to get out of hand elsewhere and lost without much of a fight. In a way, that's not too surprising, as Pelletier and Etienne Bacrot, his companion in last place, have been getting kicked around pretty badly in this tournament. Today Bacrot lost on the black side of a Ruy Lopez Anti-Marshall, when after fighting back to equality, a series of errors before and after the time control sent him to defeat against Lenier Dominguez.

Standings after Round 4:

1-2. Carlsen, Alekseev 3
3-4. Dominguez, Onischuk 2.5
5-6. Bacrot, Pelletier .5

The only difference so far between the three pointers and the two and a halfs is what they've done against the tail-enders. The leaders managed to beat both of them, while the chasers only managed a single win each. The tournament won't really get going, for me, until the leaders start abusing each other, too. (To be fair, they're trying!)

Pairings for Round 5:

Alekseev - Onischuk
Carlsen - Dominguez
Bacrot - Pelletier (if they draw quickly, they should be forgiven)

Tournament site here; round 4 games (with my comments) here.

Ongoing and Upcoming Events (especially Mainz)

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments For a quick list, with links, of events (other than Biel) that are going on now, click here. And for a pretty full survey of what there is to look forward to starting July 28, here's a nice preview of the Mainz Chess Festival. Its main event starts August 1, and includes Viswanathan Anand, Magnus Carlsen, Alexander Morozevich (#s 1, 2 and 4 in the real world ratings) and Judit Polgar.

New entries on the blogroll

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments For your clicking convenience (mine too), I've added links to the Live Top List (this gives to-the-day updates on all players rated over 2700) and the Indiana State Chess Association website (self-explanatory).

Improve your chess: set up the board, flee the computer

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Tom Chivers has a post on the Streatham & Brixton Chess Club blog that usefully restates advice given by such authors as Mark Dvoretsky and Jonathan Rowson (as well as, on a humbler level, yours truly): the best training is game simulation (e.g. training games and analysis exercises). It's not online blitz, or even, says Chivers, solving problems online or from a book. Rather, there's value in using genuine physical equipment in one's training, if only because that's how the real games are played. More info at the link above, along with some positions he recommends for training purposes.

HT: Brian Karen

This Week’s ChessVideos Show: The cure for last week’s show!

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Last week's ChessVideos show (still available this week, and probably for as long as that enterprise remains in business) was part one of a two-part series exploring the interesting anti-French line 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3. I tried in that presentation to make the line look as attractive as possible, and that wasn't hard to do. In practice, especially in quick games, Black often falls apart quickly, and not necessarily due to any overt blunder. Sometimes Black makes the most natural moves, only to discover it's time to throw in the towel by move 20.

Still, that's far from the end of the story. If it was, then everyone would play this against the French, all of you would have already known about it, and the French would be considered a dubious opening. So as a matter of principle, there simply must be a solution - and there is. Or rather, are: Black has many ways to achieve a good game, but they require some mental and psychological agility. It's not a bad exercise to try to come up with some replies on your own before watching this week's show or switching on your computer. Once you're ready to compare answers, you can have a look at my presentation for this week (free, available on-demand, and requiring no special software). And if you've found some promising ideas I haven't mentioned there, for either side, please comment it here and/or there.

A Ljubojevic tactic

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments White to move and win: can you solve it? (The answer will be given in a day or two; please don't post solutions to the comments.)

This Week’s ChessBase Show: Anand-Kamsky, Las Palmas 1995

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments With world champion Viswanathan Anand set to defend his title against Vladimir Kramnik, and Gata Kamsky to do battle with Veselin Topalov for the right to play for the title next year, it's conceivable that 2009 will see an Anand-Kamsky championship match. If so, it will be their third tilt, with their two previous contests taking place in candidates matches in the mid-1990s.

In the first, an eight-game match in Sanghi Nagar, Anand led by two games with three to go. All would seem to be well, but he lost games 6 and 7, and after a draw in round 8, continued his collapse in the rapid tiebreak, losing both games (the last in just 17 moves). That was the semi-final match in the FIDE cycle. Kamsky ultimately made it to the world championship match against Karpov in 1996, where he was defeated; he retired shortly thereafter.

Meanwhile, they met again in a 12-game match, the final of the PCA Candidates, and here too they were tied after eight games. While Anand had generally enjoyed the better positions in their games, Kamsky had shown himself the better pressure player - up to this point. But now, in game 9, Anand rose to the occasion and played a beautiful game, winning convincingly and destroying Kamsky's main black opening for the match. Game 10 was drawn, and Kamsky's backup opening was beaten soundly in the finale. This gave Anand the right to face Kasparov the next year, and like Kamsky against Karpov, Anand too was ultimately unsuccessful in his first shot at the title.

Still, the match was a big success for Anand, as he overcame a difficult opponent and proved that he could handle a big pressure situation - and with style. In our show this week, we'll look at his majestic win in game 9 of the 1995 match. The game demonstrated practically everything: a nice, new opening idea, a sustained attack that involved play on all three parts of the board in beautiful harmony, nice variations, the interplay of strategic goals and tactical play, a few ingenious maneuvers - this game had it all, aside from an endgame.

Now that I've whetted your appetite, all you need to do is tune in to the playchess.com server tonight - Wednesday night - at 9 p.m. ET. Log on to the server, go into the broadcast room, and double-click on my nickname there (Initiative) and you're good to go. (Further directions here, especially for those who would like to watch archived shows.) Hope to see you there!

Biel, Round 3

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments This is the way tournaments are supposed to be, with lots of wins and a fight in every game. Only one game of the three was drawn, and that happened only when it was obvious that a draw would result. That game was Dominguez-Alekseev, a Berlin Defense where Black successfully minimized White's initiative while solving the traditional problem of Black's uncoordinated rooks.

Onischuk-Pelletier should have been a draw as well, but Pelletier's decision on move 26 to take on a potentially weak, isolated d-pawn, and the paradoxical, panicky-looking decision on move 29 to try to liquidate it, resulted in the loss of the pawn and then the game.

Finally, Carlsen-Bacrot was lively but a little strange. Bacrot outplayed Carlsen, despite the Black pieces and the quiet opening (an Exchange Queen's Gambit Declined), but Carlsen complicated the game and Bacrot lost the thread quickly, going from clearly better on move 25 to clearly worse two moves later and dead lost just two moves after that. (Time pressure?) The bottom line is that Carlsen is in clear first, even though he isn't getting anything from his openings, and I'm guessing (but don't know for sure) that if the tournament were to stop right now and get rated, he'd have passed Anand for the #1 position in the world rankings. There are seven rounds to go, however, and here are the pairings for round 4:

Round 4 Pairings: (On Thursday; Wednesday is a rest day)

Pelletier - Alekseev
Onischuk - Carlsen
Dominguez - Bacrot

Standings after Round 3:

1. Carlsen 2.5
2-3. Alekseev, Onischuk 2
4. Dominguez 1.5
5-6. Bacrot, Pelletier

Tournament site here; games, with my comments, here.

A short trip around the web

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Here are some articles on the Chess Cafe and the ChessBase sites that might be of interest:

"The Cream of the Crop" (permalink here). This reviews a new product, Best of the Best - 1000 by the Chess Informant people, a compilation of the 10 best games in the first 100 issues of that publication. The value of this link isn't the review itself, but in the links in and after said review.

This month's "Dutch Treat" (permalink here) revisits Anand's recent article in Time Magazine, in which he claims that chess was invented in India many centuries B.C. Relatively few people deny the first part of that claim, but the latter is another story. As Hans Ree notes, it's ironic that both Kasparov and Anand both dispute the traditional historical view that chess originated in India around 600 A.D.; Anand, because he seems to think it goes back at least another 1000 years or so, and Kasparov too, as his view is that historical writings only date from 1100 A.D. (No word on what Kramnik thinks.)

A few days ago the ChessBase server had some serious troubles, but now things are up and running. You might have noticed the entry about this on the front page but not clicked on the story (what's to click? It was down, now it's up again). If so, you should! After a few brief comments on the history of computer bugs, there's a little trip to the way back machine, a nostalgic look at the history of the ChessBase web site.

The ChessBase site is also offering coverage of the Biel event. While their analytical commentary of the rounds isn't as detailed as what you'll find here, there is one advantage there: videos. Europe Echecs is making videos, which can be accessed on ChessBase. Try here, for example - scroll almost all the way down the page.

Biel, Round 2: Draw x 3

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Today's round at Biel was less dramatic than yesterday's opener, but it wasn't for want of effort. Bacrot had a slight pull against Onischuk in a Closed Ruy, but when they reached a position where neither player could make progress without serious risk, they agreed to a draw. Pelletier obtained a genuine advantage against Dominguez, but the path he chose was refuted (as a winning try) by the latter's outstanding 22nd move. Ten essentially forced moves later, the players reached an opposite colored bishop ending. Pelletier had two extra pawns, but despite losing such an ending yesterday with a one-pawn deficit, he was unable to win today with an even bigger material advantage. (This wasn't his fault; today's ending was a forced draw with accurate play.) Finally, Alekseev-Carlsen, the battle of the leaders, was also drawn. Carlsen tried really hard to create winning chances with his bishop pair, but Alekseev kept cool. Appropriately, the draw was offered when Carlsen forced...opposite-colored bishops.

Games here.

Standings after Round 2:

1-2. Alekseev, Carlsen 1.5
3-4. Dominguez, Onischuk 1
5-6. Bacrot, Pelletier .5

Round 3 Pairings:

Dominguez - Alekseev
Carlsen - Bacrot
Onischuk - Pelletier

The most beautiful move IM Willy Hendriks never got to play - Solution time

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Here's the problem, first mentioned on my blog a few days ago. I discovered it on Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary (entry 382), but I don't want to send you there for the solution just yet, as you might find it difficult to see the problem (if you're coming to this anew, or still hope to solve it) without seeing the solution in the P.S. So here's the position; it's White to move (and not necessarily win, but to at least find some way of coping with his many hanging pieces).

When you're ready for the solution, you can traipse over to Krabbé's site, and/or click here.

Biel, Round 1: Alekseev, Carlsen win

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments And they'rrrrre off! It was an excellent first round in the grandmaster group of the Biel Chess Festival, with two wins in the three interesting games.

Round 1 Results:

Lenier Dominguez Perez - Alexander Onischuk 1/2-1/2
Magnus Carlsen - Yannick Pelletier 1-0
Evgeny Alekseev - Etienne Bacrot 1-0

The Dominguez-Onischuk game was a lively battle in the American's pet line of the Ruy Lopez. Both sides played well, and a tactical battle concluded in perpetual check.

The next game to finish was Alekseev-Bacrot, a Chebanenko Slav with 5.c5. White wound up with an extra pawn on the queenside, Black with an extra on the kingside, but only White managed to make something of his majority. It was a convincing win by the young Russian.

Finally, Carlsen-Pelletier looked on the face of it the most likely win of the tournament, featuring the (by far) highest-rated player taking White against the (by far) lowest-rated player. Yet Pelletier was well-prepared and managed to reach a drawish ending. At one point in my life, in the not-too-distant past, I'd have considered the position after Black's 34th move

so hopelessly drawn that if I were to lose it against a peer, it would be time to joke grimly about slashing my wrists. That a strong grandmaster could lose it would have seemed inconceivable. (Excepting, in both cases, losing by means of a simple blunder.)

Over time, though, I've grown a little smarter and more aware of the possibilities of good (and bad!) technique. While I'm pretty sure that the position ought to have been drawn, it's also true that White could still pose genuine problems, and he did. And then Pelletier panicked, or missed something, or overestimated the drawing tendencies of opposite colored bishops. In this position

Pelletier played 42...Ng4?, after which he's losing by force, I believe. I spent a lot of time today analyzing this game (me, not Deep Frybkarcs), and I think you'll enjoy the results - the early middlegame was extremely complex and entertaining, while the endgame was (you guessed it) instructive. Have a look here (the other games are annotated too, but in less detail).

Round 2 Pairings:

Alekseev - Carlsen
Pelletier - Dominguez
Bacrot - Onischuk

Final poll results

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Since voting has leveled off and the page takes so long to load up, it's time to eliminate the polls, at least for now. Here are the results.

Anand or Kramnik:

Who will win the world chess championship this fall?

300 votes came in, and the final tallies were:

Anand: 62% (186 votes)
Kramnik: 38% (114 votes)

Truth in ratings?

I (meaning you, the reader), based on my current FIDE or national rating (no online ratings, please), am:

Based on 200 votes, the results were

Underrated: 38.61% (77 votes)
Rated about where I should be: 47.52% (95 votes)
Overrated: 13.86% (28 votes)

I'll offer some thoughts about these results later (readers are welcome to do so now), but first things first: time to get the polls off the website before all my frustrated readers leave!

Anand replies to Kramnik’s latest comments

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Kramnik has been in the habit of devaluing the Mexico City tournament as a world championship event, more or less declaring that the only way to conduct a "real" world championship is in a match. At the very least, this is an ungracious thing for Kramnik to say, but at least he was saying it before the tournament actually started. At worst, it's rather condescending to Anand. Kramnik seems to be saying something like this: "Anand isn't really the champ yet, even though (friendly pet on the head), Anand did a nice job in Mexico and since everyone is calling it a world championship, well, shucks, I guess I'll call it one too. (Aren't I nice?)"

You can (re-)read Kramnik's comments here, and you can read Anand's slightly testy but mostly restrained comments in this interview (HT: Brian Karen). The interviewer tries really, really hard to get Anand to lash out (something I've noticed more than once when the Indian press interviews him), but he mostly declines the bait - to his credit.

Is there something poisonous about becoming the world chess champion? Topalov turned into a trash-talking jerk with respect to Kramnik after the former won the (FIDE) title in 2005, and now Kramnik seems to be following suit (though of course he's not the champion anymore). Since no one not in his cell phone's speed dial is likely to care about Kramnik's rationalizations (in fact, I've gone from rooting for Kramnik to rooting for Anand this fall), one might wonder why he's doing it.

Here's a hypothesis. As Kramnik rightly noted, Anand did terribly against Kasparov. Why? In part because Kasparov was the better player, no doubt, but he wasn't that much better. One possibility is that he was simply intimidated by Kasparov - not only (or not so much) by his chess but by his manner, by his intensity. Likewise, he has struggled with Kamsky over the years, even when he seemed the significantly stronger player over the board. Kamsky, or rather his father, tended to generate an edgy atmosphere wherever Gata played. Anand seems to play at his best when everything is calm and normal, and when he's confident he's able to build on his successes. When things are a bit tense off the board and he's not playing his best, he plays well below his best. My suspicion then is that this is more strategy on Kramnik's part than anything else. He wants to generate as much agitation and aggravation in Anand as he can, in the hopes of throwing the champion off his game.

Will it work? I hope it backfires, but based on Anand's track record it's probably a good strategy. Is it admirable? I say no, at least not if he's doing it deliberately.

A sign of the apocalypse? ChessBase to sell Rybka 3.0 - UPDATED

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Frankly, this is a good thing, and it makes sense for both sides. Rybka has been dominating computer chess the past couple of years, while ChessBase has the biggest name and distribution network. I'd pass along a link, but something seems wrong with the ChessBase site for the moment. Anyway, Rybka 3.0 (a significantly new version) is scheduled to get mailed out August 1, and they're taking pre-orders for it now.

Update:

(1) The link is good now - here it is.

(2) The ad is worth checking out, as the new Rybka has some interesting bells and whistles that make it interesting for reasons other than its strength as a playing/analysis partner.

This Week’s ChessVideos Show: A funny variation against the French, Part 1: UPDATED AGAIN (The link is good now)

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments It's a line I've covered on the blog and its predecessor, but that was long, long ago. The variation, invented, as far as I know, by German FM Stefan Bücker, begins 1.e4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 exd5 4.Qb3. That was all I knew about it when I learned of its existence, and over the years I worked out some interesting ideas that proved quite dangerous, at least in games with short time controls. Objectively, it's dubious in the extreme, but practically speaking, it can be a rather nasty weapon. To see how it works and what makes it as effective as it is, tune in here and see for yourself. (Next week will be part 2.) The show is free, available on-demand, and requires no special software; the main requirement is an alert mind. Enjoy the show and give the line a try!

Update notification

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments I've updated the latest ChessVideos post (to provide a link to a working version of my newest show) and the Rybka post. Since some readers won't notice the updates because they subscribe, I thought it would be useful to draw their attention to the revisions.

This Week’s ChessVideos Show: A funny variation against the French, Part 1: UPDATED

This Week’s ChessVideos Show: A funny variation against the French, Part 1

A sign of the apocalypse? ChessBase to sell Rybka 3.0

Current poll results

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Anand-Kramnik poll:

Anand: 61%
Kramnik: 39%

Truth in ratings poll:

Underrated: 39%
Rated about where I should be: 48%
Overrated: 13%

When is the same position not the same position?

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments Here are two positions I've presented in recent posts (here and here):

Position 1: White to move

Position 2: Black to move

Notice anything suspicious here? Since it's White to move in the first position and Black to move in the second, the two positions are essentially one. A player on the black side of position one and his counterpart on the white side of position two differ only by the paint on their pieces and left-right inversion. Objectively, there is no difference.

Subjectively, however, there is a difference. Most players think White is better in both positions, which is obviously impossible as an objective evaluation of the position. The reason for this is, I think, clear: we start with a default assumption that White is equal or better, and so it's very easy to go from there, see White's bishop pair and Black's isolani, and confirm our pre-White bias. (Even a solid master like Jon Jacobs, who did end up concluding that Black was better in position 1, admitted starting with the opposite evaluation as his default. I doubt, though of course I don't know, that he had any similar doubts about White's standing in position 2 - assuming he didn't immediately recognize it as position 1.) I even suspect that White would win a 10-board match not only from position 2 but position 1 as well - not at the GM level, but probably for the majority of club players. (And maybe even a bit higher?)

This perceptual puzzle, as I mentioned in the position 1 post, came from an issue of Chess Today, wherein GM Baburin revealed that his former trainer, GM (then IM) Oleg Chernikov, had sprung it on him and asked for his reaction. Baburin fell for it hook, line, and sinker (alas, he didn't say how strong he was at the time), but neither he nor Chernikov supply the cure for our color-bias. Is there a cure?

I doubt it, but there are some things we can do to mitigate the "disease". Here are some offhand suggestions: (1) Read Adorjan's "Black is OK" materials daily, until you believe it. (Mostly kidding.) (2) Replay games from Black's perspective on a regular basis. (3) Replay games with Black as White. (Thus a game that starts 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 will be replayed like this: 1...e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4.) You'll probably find it jarring, but for that reason it might prove the most effective technique. (4) Experiment with reversed openings. (5) Not care at all - just play chess!

Benko problems, solution time

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments In this post, celebrating Hungarian-American GM Pal Benko's 80th birthday, I presented two of his problems and one of his studies. Here once again are the positions and their associated tasks:

White to move and mate in three.

White to move and win.

Before offering the solution, let me express my slight regret at presenting this puzzle, as it's a modification of a 1981 study by D. Gurgenidze and L. Mitrofanov, both colossal figures in the world of chess studies. (I don't mean that Benko's modification is valueless; not at all. But it would be better to present the original first.)

All three solutions, together with the Gurgenidze & Mitrofanov original, can be replayed here.

Searching for students!

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments For those who have enjoyed this blog and my online shows on ChessVideos.tv and on ChessBase, you're invited to consider having your humble blogger as your coach. I have room for several new students in my schedule - weekdays during from late morning to early evening (ET) are preferred, but other days and times can be considered. Interested parties should contact me via this link; hurry before the slots are taken!

(Email lessons, game analysis and other arrangements are also possible. If you're interested, write and we'll try to work something out.)

Interim poll reports, and a plea

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments As of this writing, here are the poll figures:

Truth in Ratings?

Underrated: 38%
Rated about where I should be: 45%
Overrated: 15%

Anand or Kramnik?

Anand: 63%
Kramnik: 37%

And now the plea. I know it's fun to keep running tabs, but multiple voting wrecks the poll, especially if a lot of people are doing it. Please have a little patience (we are chess players, after all; it's in the job description). The alternatives are for me to pay to block multiple votes from an IP address, which isn't financially worth it, or to put the results up all the time, which is also known to skew voting. There's no ideal solution that I'm aware of, so I ask all of you to be kind to each other and to me and to wait a little while for me to report on the data.

Poikovsky finale: Everyone draws, four tie for first

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments The event was mostly hard fought, but not today. All five games were drawn, three of them quickly (replayable here), and so yesterday's relative standings carry over to today. Here are the final standings, with TPRs in parentheses:

1-4. Rublevsky (2770), Jakovenko (2769), Gashimov (2768), Shirov (2765) 5.5
5. Wang Hao (2734) 5
6. Bologan (2649) 4
7-10. Sutovsky (2615), Inarkiev (2613), Onischuk (2613), Volokitin (2613) 3.5

Next big event: Biel (starting the 20th). (Incidentally, Onischuk is playing there, too. Somehow he has managed to get invited to Foros, Poikovsky and Biel - other non-2700s should hire his manager or find out how he does it. Actually, his repeat appearance at Biel isn't so surprising, as he tied for first with Carlsen last year, only losing the tiebreak in an Armaggeddon game.)

The most beautiful move IM Willy Hendriks never got to play

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments It's a neat story and a beautiful move indeed - have a look here and see for yourself (it's item 382). It took me a few minutes to find it even knowing that something had to be there; hopefully you'll do better. Whether you find it almost immediately or after a long think doesn't really matter. Either way, you'll get a jolt and a sense of satisfaction once you've worked it out.

A new poll: does your rating tell the truth about your play?

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments I'll leave the Anand-Kramnik poll for a little while longer, though the trend is pretty decidedly in Anand's favor, but meanwhile a new and entertaining question has taken top billing on the right sidebar. Do you think your slow chess rating (just FIDE and/or national ratings, please, not Playchess, ICC or some other server) accurately represents your real, true, honest to goodness strength? (Not your talent or "understanding" of the game, but your strength.) I know what answer I expect to see come out on top, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

A Baburin win from the Irish Championship

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments As mentioned here, GM Alexander Baburin tied for first in the Irish championship with Israeli GM Alon Greenfeld, but since he's an Irish citizen, he won the title. One of his wins can be replayed here (with an abbreviated version of his notes [which I've supplemented with some additional game references] from Chess Today, issue 2804), but I'd like to draw your attention here to the opening of that game:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.Rc1 c6 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.O-O dxc4 11.Bxc4 e5 12.h3 exd4 13.exd4 Nb6 14.Bb3

This was the starting point for a variation that was hot in the mid-1980s. Kasparov himself won one of the most important games of his career with it, defeating Karpov in the crucial 22nd game of their 1986 match. I used it myself back then, but thought it was put out of business by the game Olafsson-van der Sterren. As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed except that people have had time to forget how to face it, but sometimes that's reason enough. (Connoisseurs of this variation are welcome to correct me.)

Enjoy the game, and who knows - maybe a careful look at the diagram will reveal something.

Poikovsky, Round 8: Gashimov beats Shirov

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos - December 31, 1969 on 7:00 pm | In Chess Mind | No Comments After leaping into clear first place with three consecutive wins, Shirov rejoined the pack after a loss to Gashimov. More often than not, the Marshall Gambit gives Black sufficient activity for a draw, but this time around Gashimov was able to neutralize the activity and win the pawn-up ending. With the win, Gashimov caught up to Shirov, and Rublevsky (who drew with Volokitin) and Jakovenko (who split the point with Inarkiev) are tied with them as well in first place. Wang Hao drew with Bologan, and lurks half a point back; only the Sutovsky-Onischuk draw had no relevance to the race for first. One round to go!

Standings after Round 8:

1-4. Rublevsky, Jakovenko, Gashimov, Shirov 5
5. Wang Hao 4.5
6. Bologan 3.5
7-10. Sutovsky, Inarkiev, Onischuk, Volokitin 3

(It's a pity Wang Hao isn't playing Bologan in the last round - it would then be possible to have a five way tie for first and a five way tie for last.)

Games here.

Chess Community