ChessVibes » Arne Moll

Review: three excellent puzzle books

Arne Moll — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:46:17 +0000

I don’t like games (except chess) and I hate puzzles. I’m one of those people who doesn’t like to solve something others have solved before, let alone trying this in the presence of someone who already knows the answer.

I’m always afraid I won’t be able to find the solution and will have to conclude I’m a horrible chess player (or a quiz participant, or a student). Still, I very much like reading chess puzzle books as long as I can look up the answer right away.

So it was with a mixture of enthusiasm and (inevitably) dread that I noted the recent appearance of no less than three chess puzzle books by major publishers: The Quality Chess Puzzle Book by John Shaw, The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 3 by Karsten Mueller and Merijn van Delft, and Coffeehouse Chess Tactics by John Healy.

There are, of course, hundreds of chess puzzle books available, and I believe all of them can make you a better chess player, as long as you really study the exercises and try not to look at the solution the moment you’re stuck. Which is exactly why I’ll never improve by doing just that, but fortunately, there’s a lot to enjoy in all three books apart from trying to become a better player. Shaw’s book gives you the most exercises (a whopping 735), while Healy is the funniest writer and Mueller and Van Delft have the best explanations.

Let’s start with John Healy’s Coffee House Chess Tactics, somewhat surprisingly published by New in Chess, which is really not a puzzle book but does contain lots of puzzles. John Healy is a unique author in the chess world, if only for the fact that he’s served a serious amount of time (12 months) in prison. Asked by a fellow inmate to teach him how to play chess, Healy soon realized he’d become hooked on chess himself and never was the same person again. Moreover, he turned out to be a great (if somewhat unsophisticated) writer. Allow me to recommend the following fragment to certain top-10 players especially:

Talent and youth, bright middle-class children with psychopathic tendencies – that’s what’s needed for success at tournament chess; with the emphasis on youth. And so their mums send them forth with the Spartan mother’s warning: come back victorious or don’t come back at all. Well, it is a discipline, codes-rules-values, and part of the code is to shake hands, win or lose, with friend a foe alike. The ritual is repeated before and after each game regardless of results.

Over come the hands: small, large, medium, enormous, dainty, delicate, strong, weak, hard, soft, limp, damp, and dry. After this sporting gesture one is free to cheat, lie, jostle, harangue, pace up and down, fart loudly, laugh, cry, sneeze, bang the pieces down, intimidate, glare and stare until the game ends once more with a gentlemanly handshake.

The prose parts are clearly the book’s best and should alone be sufficient reason to buy the book. The actually chess part of the book (consisting mostly of fragments from Healy’s own offhand games – inevitably full of ‘coffeehouse’ elements) seems really just an afterthought, though there are useful examples for players rated below 1900.

Healy-Chanel
International Students’ House, 1980

This is a puzzle that is not directly obvious – at least it wasn’t to me. Clearly, 1.Rxf7+ is the move, but after 1…Rxf7 2.Rxf7+ Qxf7 3.Qxe5+ Black has 3…Qf6 and though White is clearly winning after taking on b8, this seems a bit thin even for a sub-1900 puzzle. This is usually the moment in a puzzle where I stop and look up the solution, concluding I’m too old (and lazy) for this stuff, but then of course White has 4.Qc7+! and there’s no Qf7 so White picks up the rook with check and cashes the bishop as well.

While Healy’s puzzles are mostly about pretty straightforward tactics (and there’s nothing wrong with that!), John Shaw’s Quality Chess Puzzle Book, published, as the title suggests, by Quality Chess, is much more ambitious. From the introduction, we read that:

We often start the action a little earlier than is usual, in a position where the big punch is some moves in the future. The reader thus has to find the introductory moves that make the tactic work. Naturally, this is tougher than just spotting the Bxh7+ and then a few checks.

To be honest I did see quite a few exercises where the first move in fact is also the ‘big punch’, but there are also complex ones like the following from the chapter ‘Simple but not Easy’:

Socko-Wojtaszek
Poland (ch) 2007

The question is not whether White starts with 1.Bxg7+! (though see below) but how things continue after 1…Kxg7 2.Qg6+ Kh8. The answer is the beautiful 3.Bg8! and again this is the moment I usually look up the solution, only to discover that actually Black still has a way to stop mate with 3…Rf7! after which White still has to find 4.Qxf7! (not, as Shaw notes, 4.Bxf7? Qxd2) 4…Qxg8 5.Qxe7 and White is two pawns up. Importantly, Shaw explains how 1.Qg6 seems to lead to the same thing, but doesn’t since after 1…gxh6 2.Bg8 Rf7! 3.Qxf7 Qxg8 4.Qxe7 Rd8! the position is in fact very unclear.

There are many things to like about this book. Apart from the high quality material, the vast majority of the exercises are from very recent games (700 of 735 puzzles are from after the year 2000.) I also liked the fact that there’s a chapter with ‘Contributions from our Readers’. As a matter of fact, there was no immediate need for such an original approach as the author has made sure the puzzles in this book “have not been used in other puzzle books, so the reader has to solve the puzzle, not remember the answer from old books.” Finally, I found it extremely convenient that the solutions to the puzzles aren’t given in some obscure section at the end of the book, but on the very next page.

Although I recommend both Healy’s and Shaw’s books, I’ve saved the best for last. Karsten Mueller and Merijn van Delft don’t give the solutions to their exercises on the next page, but we can easily forgive the authors for this minor inconvenience because The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 3, published by Russell Enterprises, is really an absorbing book. Instead of everything being about tactics, here it is about improving one’s defensive skills, and the authors go to great lengths to explain this subject. In the very first chapter (Principles and Methods of the Defender), it already becomes clear how this book differs from the other two.

Speelman-Ricardi
Las Vegas 1999

28…Bxh2+? Black couldn’t resist the temptation to execute the classical double bishop sacrifice. Instead he should have settled for the modest 28…Qe7.

29.Kxh2 Bxg2 The standard procedure 29…Qh4+ 30.Kg1 Bxg2 doesn’t work because the rook is hanging.

30.Rd1! A strong zwischenzug. White refuses to be a victim of Black’s brilliant attacking play. 30.Kxg2? only leads to a draw after 30…Qg5+ 31.Kf3 Qh5+ 32.Kg2 while Black should stay clear of 32…Re5? since after 33.Bxf7+ all tactics neatly work in White’s favor.

30…Qh4+ 31.Kxg2 Qg4+ 32.Kf1 Qxc4+ 33.Ke1 Qc3 34.Rd2 b5 Perhaps Black missed that 34…Rd8 is refuted by the strong 35.Qc2!

35.Qb3 Now White is simply a piece up.

It’s true such a nuanced approach is hardly new, but the authors generously acknowledge chess writers like Rowson and Dvoretsky for their groundbreaking work in the area of improving one’s defense. Moreover, the way they have arranged their material is in my view very original. For instance, how often do you encounter a chapter called ‘Defense against a Minority Attack’? Usually, it’s all about setting up one, isn’t it? Here’s the first exercise from that chapter:

Pelletier-M.Gurevich
Gibraltar 2006

White has announced his ambitions on the queenside. How to defend?

18…Nc8! Heading for the ideal square on d6.

19.Qb2 19.Nb3 Nd6 20.Nc5 g6 21.Nf4 Bf5 and Black is fine.

19…Nd6 20.a4 Bf5! Good timing to get rid of those bishops.

21.Bxf5 Nxf5 22.Nc3 22.b5?! runs into 22…Nxe3!

22…Ng6 23.b5 Ngh4! As it appears Black is suddenly having a strong initiative on the kingside. Now 23…Nxe3?! is answered by 24.Re1 (…).

The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 3 (the first two were written by Mueller alone; now Van Delft joined him, bringing important psychological expertise along) also contains 16 ‘Tests’ where the reader has one hour for each of the tests – sure to be great material for chess trainers. In the introduction to these tests, the authors casually note a very important paradox:

If on the one hand you are comfortably reading a chess book, feeling you understand everything, you may in fact not be learning anything. If on the other hand you really put a lot of effort in and feel stupid because you couldn’t solve the exercise (”looking for the edges of your comfort zone” in Rowson’s words), in reality you may in fact be learning something.

They’re right, of course. I shouldn’t be so afraid to explore the edges of my own comfort zone – and perhaps more serious players, desperately wanting to improve their game, should be a bit more relaxed about things. Chess really is an endlessly paradoxical game. Reading Healy, I wanted him to show some of the versatility of Shaw. Reading Shaw, I wanted the book to have the depth of Mueller and Van Delft’s approach. And reading Mueller and Van Delft, I wished they had a bit more of Healy’s flourish in their style of writing.

The truth is, these are three highly entertaining chess books that will teach you as much as you allow them to.

FIDE elections: Karpov suggests link between Ilyumzhinov and Yudina murder

Arne Moll — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:22:26 +0000

In the increasingly fierce election race between Anatoly Karpov and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the 12th World Champion has now for the first time suggested a link between the current FIDE President and the murder of activist Larissa Yudina, in 1998.

The article, The Truth About Kirsan, appeared on the Karpov 2010 Campaign website. In it, Karpov not only mentions Ilyumzhinov’s well-known statements about his alien abductions and his friendship with leaders such as Saddam Hussein, but also touches upon a subject that has been avoided until now in FIDE presidential elections: the murder of Kalmykian activist and journalist Larissa Yudina:

There are darker aspects of Kirsan’s reputation. Larissa Yudina, a prominent journalist and political leader with the political party Yabloko in Kalmykia opposed to Kirsan, was murdered in June, 1998. According to the Yabloko statement, “The question about Ilyumzhinov’s personal involvement in the crime is still open, as the organizer of the murder S.Vaskin (a person with repeated convictions) was Ilyumzhinov’s Legal Advisor.” This murder has not been forgotten in Russia, and references to it still appear when Kirsan makes appearances as FIDE President.

Larissa Yudina was murdered on June 8, 1998 in Elista, the captial of Kalmykia, of which Ilyumzhinov has been President since 1993. Prior to the murder, she had published several critical articles on the Kalmykian President in the newspaper Sovietskaya Kalmykia Sevodnya. In November 1999, Sergey Vaskin and Vladimir Shanukov, two former advisors of Ilyumzhinov, were convicted for the murder by the Kalmykian Court of Justice.

Because so many things are still unclear about the murder, the subject has never played a prominent role in FIDE election races so far. Now, Karpov explicitly makes the link between Ilyumzhinov and Yudina . He refers to the site of the Russian Yabloko party, which has extensively researched the murder and has been demanding Ilyumzhinov be removed from power. One of the key questions still unanswered is the possible motive of the killers. Nothing is said about it in the court verdict, despite the mention of a political link.

One of the few Western journalists who have written about the murder, Martin van den Heuvel, wrote a book in Dutch (Checkmate in Kalmykia, 2000) about Ilyumzhinov and the murder in Elista. He makes two observations that have rarely been mentioned in non-Russian publications. During the trial, an eye-witness report mentioning Ilyumzhinov’s brother Vyacheslav at the place and time of the killing – Yudina’s flat – was handed on tape to prosecutor Tkachiev, but for some reason it wasn’t used in the trial. Another mysterious aspect is the fact that Vaskin and Shamukov never appealed the decision of the court.

Karpov notes the murder hasn’t been forgotten yet. On May 26, 2010, members of Yabloko protested in Moscow outside the Echo Moskvi radio station, where Ilyumzhinov was present at the time. Ilyumzhinov himself has always denied any involvement in the affair. Chess journalist Sarah Hurst pointed out that “Ilyumzhinov has been quizzed about his involvement on television. His response was to amaze the interviewer by announcing his intention to stand for President of Russia in the year 2000.”

After the trial, in which his aides were sentenced to 21 years in prison, Ilyumzhinov stated in an interview that “the court had confirmed that this crime had been due to a common domestic dispute”, however this was in direct conctradiction to the court’s own statement which clearly speaks of political motives. Currently, his campaign focuses on visiting as many countries as possible, recently including Peru, Palestine and Syria.

Ilyumzhinov’s campaign team now claims the support of 87 countries and dismisses Karpov’s campaign as being solely focused on negative aspects of the FIDE President’s reputation. ChessVibes will soon publish an interview with one of the Karpov team members addressing this and other criticism.

Meanwhile, many experts believe that Karpov’s victory depends largely on the court case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. Karpov questions the validity of Ilyumzhinov’s claim to have been nominated by the Russian Chess Federation as their candidate for the FIDE presidential elections. Besides, the validity of Ilyumzhinov’s nomination by Argentina and Mexico is also questioned, as is Mrs. Beatriz Marinello’s nomination by Chile and Brazil (relevant because a team must include a female delegate).

According to the New York Times a CAS hearing will take place already in September, which would mean Karpov’s White & Case firm successfully convinced CAS of the importance of dealing with this case before the FIDE presidential elections in Khanty-Mansiysk. However, thus far the hearing isn’t mentioned on the CAS website, i.e. their list of hearings hasn’t been updated since August 10th.

Review: Nunn’s Chess Endings 1

Arne Moll — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:03:20 +0000

Almost as soon as I opened Nunn’s Chess Endings Volume 1, I realized the book was probably an ‘instant classic’, ignoring J.M. Coetzee’s definition of a classic as ‘that which survives’. My intuition proved to be correct in that I think this really is a fantastic book. The only problem is: who plays endgames anymore these days?

Not me, to be sure – at least not frequently enough by far to devote an awful lot of time to all the subtleties of the practical endgames Nunn describes and analyses in his book. This makes my task as a reviewer a rather difficult one: though I think the book is absolutely brilliant, I feel sorry for the author already because I fear his audience is becoming smaller and smaller.

Back in the good old days, when games were still adjourned and FIDE hadn’t introduced the ‘blitzing out’ even of officially rated games on all levels of play, endgame manuals were absolutely essential for anyone wanting to reach a decent level in chess. Nowadays, it seems to me, things are rather different – at least for the majority of club players (and I suspect even beyond that level).

As an experiment, recall the last time you’ve seriously had to play a complex endgame and was able to actually invest some time in it (say, at least an hour). Next, recall the last time you’ve seriously analysed a complex endgame, say for at least an hour (preferrably over the board). I even suspect many strong players have never done this at all in recent years. And who can blame them?

But then again, reading Nunn’s Chess Endings, published by Gambit, is such a joy that it almost makes me want to introduce a new rule, once suggested by a club member of mine, Wim Nijenhuis: instead of ‘blitzing out’ games (endgames, that is), why not ‘blitz in’ the opening phase (which everyone knows by heart anyway) and actually allow some thinking time for endgames, which are infinitely more interesting?

As exhibit A, consider the following position, which Nunn took from the award winning Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics:

O’Kelly – Forintos
Bordeaux 1964

Van Perlo comments that the position is quite simple, and perhaps the New in Chess editors thought that it was so simple that it didn’t need checking with Fritz or with the tablebases, but if so they were mistaken. Although White’s knight is as far away from the pawns as is possible on an 8×8 board, it can still make it back in time to save the game.

1.Nc7 Kd4!? This odd-looking move at least sets a trap for White.

2.Ke1

Van Perlo considers this to be the losing move, but he is wrong. One suspects that this error is derived from the analysis given by Ugrinovic in the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, since Van Perlo repeats the faulty ECE analysis move for move. 2.Nb5+ Kd3 3.Nd6 is another way to draw, but not 2.Ne6+? when Black wins by 2…Ke3 (this is a position of reciprocal zugzwang) 3.Kg1 g2 4.Ng5 f2+ 5.Kxg2 Ke2.

2…Kd3 3.Nd5? This is actually the losing move. White can still draw by 3.Ne6 (not mentioned by Ugrinovic or Van Perlo) 3…Ke3 4.Kf1! reaching the reciprocal zugzang mentioned above with Black to move, and after 4…g2+ 5.Kg1 Ke2 6.Nd4+ Ke3 7.Ne6 the draw is clear. There was even a second draw by 3.Nb5 Ke3 4.Kf1!

3…f2+ 4.Kf1 Ke4 0-1 After White’s knight moves, Black wins by 5…Kf3.

Many things could be mentioned about this fragment, such as Nunn’s well-known tendency to write in a polemic style, or his insistence on computer-checking all lines (which in fact is why he brings up the example in the first place), or his erudition regarding other endgame classics. But what struck me most in this passage is the fact that, apparently, nobody had noticed these drawing lines before, despite the fact that the game is over 45 years old and has been published in at least two major endgame manuals. There’s so much still waiting to be discovered!

But of course, to me the real question seems to be: why has nobody noticed before? I fear in part it has to do with the sad fact that almost nobody actually analyses these textbook examples to such depth anymore. From my own team, mostly filled with 2200-something players, I think it’s fair to say nobody (including me) really analyses this type of endgames anymore. We may stumble upon, and even appreciate their innate complexity and beauty – but to actually analyse it and try to understand what’s really going on, that’s something else altogether.

The book’s introduction and the first chapter (The Three Key Endgame Skills) are some of the best endgame-related chess prose I’ve read in a long time. In it, Nunn tries to prepare the reader for the abundance of practical endings that are waiting for him in the following 300+ pages. In fact (and this will no doubt come as a disappointment to the author), I think Nunn’s prose is by far the best part of the book – at least for people like me who simply don’t have the time and energy to really immerse myself in all these examples, however fascinating they are. Here’s how Nunn introduces pawn endings with outside passed pawns:

The strength of the outside passed pawn in king and pawn endings is drummed into chessplayers by every textbook on the endgame. Using such a pawn, it is possible to deflect the defender’s king away from the main mass of pawns, leaving a rich harvest for the attacker’s king when it gets among the pawn mass. There is a good deal of truth to this accepted wisdom, and in the first section below we shall look at cases in which the outside pawn lives up to its reputation.
Yet this reputation is to some extent overstated, and in the following section we shall look at cases in which the outside passed pawn proves a hollow threat. The third section deals with an interesting practical case: one side has a powerful outside passed pawn, but the opponent has an extra pawn.

This seems like a pretty meagre bit to quote from such a richly illustrated book, but the point I want to make is that even if you read only this small introduction, you might learn something subtle from it – perhaps it will even prove to ’stick’ better than when you analyze all Nunn’s examples in-depth. I’ve often seen discussions about pawn endgames being cut off by someone simply declaring ‘outside passed pawn’, implying an obvious and straightforward win. While only introducing his real material, Nunn dismisses such simplistic notions while making the reader curious for more. Such as, for instance, this:

Kirov – Ermenkov
Sofia 1973

Black has an outside passed pawn and at first sight the win should be simple. He pushes the h-pawn, deflects the white king, marches with his king to take the e3- and b3-pawns and then promotes his a-pawn. However, one aspect of the position favours White: he only needs to take the relatively close d6-pawn in order to create a passed pawn of his own. Another factor which is not obviously relevant in the diagram position, is the weakness of the b6-pawn. These compensating factors mean that White is just able to hold this position, although accurate play is necessary.

1.Kh3!! It was quite an achievement for White to find the only move to save the game. Other moves lose (…).

1…Kf5 (…) 2.Kh4 Ke4 3.Kg5 Kxe3 4.Kf5! It takes too much time to go for the h-pawn, so White must create his own passed pawn as quickly as possible.

4…h5 This is the only chance, since if Black runs for the b-pawn, White promotes first.

5.Ke6 h4 6.Kxd6 h3 7.Kc7 h2 8.d6 h1Q 9.d7

It is perhaps surprising that Black cannot win here, but this is the point at which the weakness of b6 enters the picture. Black cannot force the white king in front of the d-pawn and the best he can do is transfer his queen to e7 with gain of tempo. Then he has a free move before he has to exchange queens on d8. If Black’s pawn were on a7 instead of a5, then the resulting king and pawn ending would be winning for Black, but as it is, White is in time to take on b6 and create a passed b-pawn (…).

One of the funny things about this example is that my computer evaluates the positions in the beginning position and the final diagram as a simple win for Black (-4.90). I’m confident most chess players wouldn’t bother to analyse the endgame even without this evaluation, let alone seeing the machine agrees with their intuition. But chess is not a matter of intuition only, but also of concrete analyses, which is exactly why it’s such a pity endgames are so rarely (seriously) played these days.

Another thing the attentive reader has perhaps noticed already, is that Nunn almost always takes his examples from either new or relatively obscure games, rather than drawing on existing and heavily analysed material from World Champions and other greats. The book doesn’t contain a single example from Karpov’s, Fischer’s or Capablanca’s games, and only one from Smyslov’s. (Of course, this makes cross-reference checking with endgame books pretty much impossible for reviewers!)

Nunn’s Chess Endings Volume 1 is not a book with elementary endgames. It’s a book dedicated to practical, concrete examples requiring precise analysis. Technique is another part of endgames, outside the scope of this book. (Indeed this is why Karpov and Capablanca are so conspicuously missing!) Clearly, in this format lies its greatest trump and its greatest risk. Who will go where the author went? In the introduction, Nunn optimistically notes that “I believe that anyone who works their way right through the books will see beneficial results.”

This is surely true (though isn’t it true for almost every serious chess book?), so I prefer to go one step further: anyone who casually reads this book will see beneficial results. Perhaps this is the chess-definition of a ‘classic’: it survives even in the light of modern laziness. I’m sure Coetzee would be pleased.

Black Monday for the Ruy Lopez

Arne Moll — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:35:18 +0000

One of the nice things about chess is that it’s a game played between humans. Despite an understandable tendency to approach chess as a rational game, I think there are a lot of irrational – human – things going on behind the scenes.

One of the things that fascinate me most in chess is people’s choice of openings. Last year, I compared chess openings with baby names and suggested that apart from being subject to fashion, the popularity of chess openings, like the popularity of baby names, may have something to do with the speed with which they rise to prominence. But after reading John Cassidy’s How Markets Fail, his book on the economic crisis, I think herd behaviour plays a role that’s at least as important.

Cassidy introduces herd behaviour by quoting the second most famous economist of all time, John Maynard Keynes, who said “it’s better to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.” And indeed, following a study from 1990 by economists Scharfstein and Stein in The American Review, evidence was found that under many circumstances, the best strategy for investors is to copy behaviour of others instead of trusting their own judgement:

When a manager of an investment fund follows the crowd and things turn out badly, he shares the embarrassment with everyone else; if he follows a completely different strategy, he is exclusively responsible for his own mistakes.

When I read this quote (which I translated back into English from the Dutch translation!), I was immediately reminded of Newton’s famous metaphor, often echoed in chess-improvement books: the one about “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Specifically, for chess openings this implies that it’s better for amateurs to play the Sicilian because giants like Carlsen, Anand, Kasparov and Fischer play it – than Owen’s Defence (1.e4 b6), because, well, nobody plays it.

I have often witnessed such behaviour in chess players, myself included. Though a healthy advice in itself, it can often turn out disastrous. Who hasn’t had the experience of faithfully copying a great player’s game or analysis, only to realize that despite all good intentions, real understanding of the position is lacking? Or worse, that even though you understand the position, your opponent understands it better or has found an improvement over your hero’s evaluation? (Yes, even the greatest chess players are sometimes proven wrong in mere amateur games!)

But that’s not what struck me in Cassidy’s quote. What I found more interesting was the psychological “embarrassment” argument: the idea that it’s somehow less shameful to fail in a way that everyone else fails. Suddenly, I understood this is also true for chess openings, though I think it is a much less-often discussed subject. As on Wall Street, in chess, too, there is such a thing as ‘group pressure’. Funnily enough, I had even experienced it the very night before, during a blitz session with some friends.

Time and again, my friend was having a rough time as White trying to refute a particular offbeat line I had been playing for some months now. He explained over the board that this time, he thought up some move at home but during play itself, he’d forgotten its exact point and lost anyway. After the game, the kibitzers jokingly asked him why he simply didn’t play the main line against this obscure variation. And sure enough, in the next game, instead of trying to find the idea behind his home preparation – which, it turned out later, was 100% correct! – he switched to the book ‘refutation’ and, not knowing anything about it, I’m sad to report he lost again.

This is a typical case of herd behaviour – going with the voice of the majority, even if you should really know better – but at least my friend had the excuse that he didn’t actually know at the time what he should have done. This is, of course, contrary to what happened at Wall Street in 1987 and even more spectacularly during the Internet bubble of the late 1990s, where, according to Cassidy, “skilled and experienced investors consciously helped blowing up the bubble”.

William Beard - The Bulls and the Bears (1879)

I remember the occasion very well. I was still a promising junior player with a slightly unconventional opening repertoire. It was an important team match and I felt my game could play a key role in it, if only because I knew my opponent well and so could prepare very concretely. A few minutes before the game, I overheard two of my stronger teammates saying to each other that they hoped I wouldn’t play that ‘reckless pet-line’ of mine in such an important game. When my clock was started, I was utterly confused. Should I play it or should I not? Should I follow my own way – at the risk of being punished when things went wrong – or should I stick to the “safe” mainlines even though I knew much less about them?

Well, you can probably guess how it ended. I chose to safely stand of the shoulders of giants – and lost without a fight. Of course, when I asked my opponent what he would have played against the line had had prepared, he told me he wanted to go for a line I had analyzed almost to mate! I never did dare to tell my team members. In fact, they praised my opening play after the game and sympathized with me for having failed, but at least tried in a decent way. I failed conventionally, and for them this was much better than the prospect of succeeding unconventionally.

I vowed never to be such a coward again. (Although for me personally, it’s still not easy being stubborn when interests are shared with 9 other team members!) In amateur chess, this type of thing – rational herd behaviour in economical terms – probably happens all the time. But I’ve often thought about the possibility that not only amateurs display rational herd behaviour, but that top grandmasters often do exactly the same thing. To be sure, some elite players are more unconventional than others, but some trends in chess openings are simply beyond comprehension – even according to the opening experts themselves.

Magnus Carlsen recently showed that even the notorious King’s Gambit can be employed successfully at lop level – yet so far, nobody in the world’s top 50 has dared to follow the world’s number one. (Though maybe Arkadij Naiditsch being crushed with Black by 2200-player Schwekendiek in Mainz might mobilize a new herd!) Could it simply be a matter of being afraid to become the laughing stock of the chess Olympus after a loss?

In his book (in which he explains this and other phenomena in great detail), John Cassidy points out that there’s considerable scientific evidence (for instance, research performed by neuroscientist S. Berns of Emory University) that the urge to follow the herd has a neurological basis. Of course, he assures us, not all market investors are lemmings which collectively plunge themselves to their doom, but generally speaking, the judgement of others really is incorporated into our own. At the very least, one influences the other to a considerable degree. And this is true for investors as well as chess players.

So, is there a chess equivalent of the real estate bubble? What was the Dot-Com crash of chess openings? Will there some day be a Black Monday for the Ruy Lopez? When was the last time grandmasters collectively went for a variation that was subsequently refuted by a single simple, elegant little idea? Perhaps it’s too early to write off Owen’s Defense yet.

Karpov starts full frontal attack (UPDATE)

Arne Moll — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:57:02 +0000

In the increasingly tense FIDE Presidential election, Anatoly Karpov has now chosen to launch a full frontal attack on Kirsan Ilyumzhinov with two exceptionally sharp articles. Update: another critical article was added.

In the two articles on the Karpov2010 campaign site (which now includes an ‘Essential Reading’ box, making it harder for opponents to claim Karpov isn’t addressing the right issues), Ilyumzhinov is attacked in a way he probably hasn’t experienced in ten years. The first, titled Can You Believe Kirsan? starts off as follows:

It would be impossible to list all the broken promises Kirsan has made during his 15 years in office. Below are a few of some of the many claims and promises he has made, in interviews and official statements, and the results. This is not for historical review, but to help the chess community to see clearly – and to listen carefully when Kirsan or his supporters talk big now.

The chess world has been regularly humiliated by Kirsan’s statements in the press about, for example, meeting alien beings and admiring Saddam Hussein and his sons. Even worse are the many stories about corruption, poverty, repression, and even murder in the Russian republic of Kalmykia, which he governs (…)

The second article, Kirsan’s Inaction: Broken Promise in Khanty-Mansiysk, zooms in on some of the problems with the upcoming Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk:

The hotel complex, named “Olympiyski” (Olympic) and labeled, misleadingly, as a 4-star establishment, was originally scheduled to open this month. That date has been pushed, still somewhat optimistically, to late August. Even if the hotel does finally open its doors, it is far from certain that all of the Olympiad’s participants – 1,600 of them – will be provided food and services, as no contract with the servicing company has been signed to date. (…)

Having promised sufficient funding for the project, Mr. Ilyumzhinov appears to have shifted the fund-raising responsibility to the region’s new Governor. The latter will now have to go directly to Russia’s top leaders with an outstretched hand. In short, it is business as usual at Ilyumzhinov’s FIDE. Other leading bids for this Olympiad were received from Budva, Montenegro, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, where little new infrastructure would be required.

At the ChessVibes headquarters we’ve often discussed both candidates’ tactics, so Karpov’s move doesn’t come as a total surprise, especially since Ilyumzhinov’s past was a card they hadn’t really played yet. Now that they have, it’ll be interesting to see what Ilyumzhinov’s campaign team will do about it.

Will they point out some small inaccuracies in the articles (such as Carlsen’s exact reason for leaving the Grand Prix cycle, or details of the story behind Karpov’s nomination by the Russian Chess Federation) or will they deny their existence altogether, reckoning the claimed support of 75 countries (including Iraq, Afghanistan and Myanmar) is enough to beat Karpov anyway? Another thing to note is that Ilyumzhinov himself has expressed concern about the Olympiad planning, calling it not a “disaster”, but “worrying” and stating:

The Organisers of the Olympiad promised to build three hotels. They’ve built one. Though even that one still hadn’t come into use a month ago.

The problems surrounding the upcoming Olympiad are reminiscent of those which arose before the infamous Olympiad in Elista, 1998. Then, a boycott was proposed by several journalists (most notably, Sarah Hurst) and the Russian political party Yabloko, but nothing came of it because most chess players preferred to ignore the problems. Is a boycott what the Karpov team intends now? That would be rather interesting, since Karpov is also hoping to get elected in Khanty-Mansiysk himself.

Update August 2: the Karpov2010 website has added a third critical article, which is a translation into English of Carlos Ilardo’s piece in La Nacion of last Friday. This article basically states that Ilyumzhinov has lied about being a member of the Argentine Chess Federation:

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), based in Lausanne, Switzerland, has received a lawsuit submitted by chess federations of the USA, Germany, Switzerland, and Ukraine, among others, and with the signature of former world chess champion Anatoly Karpov, against the International Chess Federation (FIDE), which directly involves Argentina. The complaint: that the directors of FADA illegitimately nominated Kirsan Ilyumzhinov of Kalmykia as candidate for reelection as the head of that organization. A federation’s nomination of a candidate is only possible if he was previously a member.

“At the World Championship in 2005 in San Luis [Argentina], Ilyumzhinov was named ‘Honored Figure’. As of that moment, he became a permanent honorary member of Argentine chess,” said FADA president Nicolás Barrera to La Nacion. Nevertheless, sources from that province assure us that no references to such a title were ever made in any official release from the executive, the municipality, nor the legislature. His name was never mentioned on the official FADA website nor given in an official release. “Yes, maybe we overlooked it,” responded Barrera, alluding to a particular person.

The Total Chess Library

Arne Moll — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:42:11 +0000

Being a database programmer, perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised when I recently dreamt I had to develop a chess database. But it wasn’t an ordinary chess database.

Carceri XIV – Giovanni Battista Piranesi

I was told by a faceless person to make a chess database of all chess games ever played. If that doesn’t sound like much, it’s because that was not all. The man told me it must also contain all chess analyses ever made, as well as every comment, opinion or text ever written about any move. It would be a database of all existing chess knowledge -an endless chess library. It was like making the chess version of Jorge Luis Borges’ Total Library. The ultimate Mega Database – an entire chess universe.

I started by collecting all existing chess books ever written – both ancient manuscripts and newly printed books. I visited all chess libraries in the world and went through all privately owned chess book collections. But this clearly wasn’t enough. I had to visit every chess player in person to ask for any scoresheets of games that they had in their possession. Then, I went through all local club magazines and internet blogs to find games I missed. This reminded me that I had to get all chess magazines as well. And, of course, I downloaded all digital books, DVD’s, game analyses and instruction guides on chess.

When I had rubricized all material and put it in a more or less logical order, I started thinking about how to put everything in a database. It didn’t take me long to realize I wouldn’t be able to use existing chess database software. It would just be too impractical. For 1.e4 alone, hundreds if not thousands of comments somehow had to be entered in the database, and this can’t be done with a regular database program. While it is possible to add comments in different languages in some software, you can’t add comments by different sources – at least not dynamically.

So I started thinking about how to develop this chess database myself. Basically it had to contain many more dimensions than the current ones – in fact, it had to have an infinite amount of possible entries for comments and analyses. All published praise of 47…Bh3!! and 23…Qg3!! had to be entered into the database somehow. Actually, it should also be possible to add multiple annotation symbols, because perhaps some commentators had awarded these moves not with two, but only with one exclamation mark (a grave sin, I must say). The database design must take this into account as well.

With the help of data warehouse design techniques, I was able to establish which dimensions my database should have. Obviously there should be dimensions with information about the sources (the books themselves), and information related to the games, or game fragments. This could be players’ names, the year in which it was played, where it was played, and so on. The moves and sub variations (including move number, to keep track of things) should be stored in a different dimension (or, in its technical term, a ‘fact table’). Any game, including its sub-lines, could develop like a garden of forking paths, leading to an infinite amount of moves.

'Datavault' model of a data warehouse

The same was obviously true of comments. But there was an additional problem: comments could not only be related to moves, but also to people who had written them. in his books, Kasparov often refers to older authors, for example. At this point in my dream, my faceless principal interrupted my musings. He ordered me to also store all information about the people who had written the annotations: what use would the project otherwise be? This implied I had to include all biographies of chess commentators in my database. And of course, the commentators could also be chess players themselves, so they should also be linked back to the players and games dimensions.

When I had finished my design – or at least thought I had – a long-feared question arose in my head: where to start? Which data should be put into the database first? Would it be wise to work ‘backwards’ in time, starting with the most recent chess books and adding entries in the database for every name, move or comment that returned a blank? Wouldn’t it be wiser to start with the first chess manuscripts – the recent reconstruction of Francesch Vicent’s mysterious treatise, the surviving games of Ruy Lopez, or perhaps even the first ancient Arab chess problems?

In the end, I decided it wouldn’t really matter – it was a Sisyphus job in any case – and so I started with a game collection from 2010. It happened to be a new book on Capablanca. Slowly but steadily I worked my way back. Then I realized I had forgotten something crucial. Within comments, there could also be references to other works – references to database entries that didn’t exist in my digital library yet! I was suddenly faced with what is sometimes called ‘orphans’ – database references that can’t be traced back (anymore) to their primary dimension. In order to proceed, I had to put all titles in the system first. And so I started again.

My success didn’t last long. I soon found out that many chess authors use references to non-chess related literature all the time. Kasparov quotes Ilf & Petrov, Donner quotes Nietzsche. Once you start paying attention to it, chess and literature are completely intertwined. To be complete, the entire world literature should be included in the list as well. And that’s only the beginning of a myriad of problems. For instance, how to deal with references to literature that has been lost over the centuries?

I now realized the entire Total Chess Library idea would be quite pointless without having access to each and every chess book ever written; every game or analysis – including those that have been destroyed, mutilated, lost for good. I was trapped in a labyrinth I had created myself.

Then I woke up, of course. While I cycled to work, I thought about what use such a megalomanic project could be. Nobody would ever be able to use this monstrous database. The information would be sitting there in some kind of super computer without anyone ever touching it. At first I felt anger, then sadness. Then I felt like nothing had really changed. It was just like work.

As I switched on my laptop at work and opened the data warehouse environment I was currently working on, I remembered the words from another Borges story, The Library of Babel:

At that time it was also hoped that a clarification of humanity’s basic mysteries — the origin of the Library and of time — might be found. It is verisimilar that these grave mysteries could be explained in words: if the language of philosophers is not sufficient, the multiform Library will have produced the unprecedented language required, with its vocabularies and grammars.

For four centuries now men have exhausted the hexagons … There are official searchers, inquisitors. I have seen them in the performance of their function: they always arrive extremely tired from their journeys; they speak of a broken stairway which almost killed them; they talk with the librarian of galleries and stairs; sometimes they pick up the nearest volume and leaf through it, looking for infamous words.

Obviously, no one expects to discover anything.

Biel R6: Young Stars take an extra rest day

Arne Moll — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:02:27 +0000

Today is an official rest day in Biel, but yesterday, the young stars looked determined to make it not one but two breaks in a row.

After the fourth round, we expressed the hope that the youngsters would play more enterprising chess in the rounds to come, but they probably didn’t read our request – or didn’t care – since both in round 5 and 6, a majority of the games ended in quick draws.

For instance, we don’t have to spend much time on such fifth round games as Howell-Tomashevsky (draw in 16 moves) and Negi-Truong Son (draw in 22 moves). And this trend continued in the sixth: Tomashevsky-So (24 moves), Andreikin-Rodshtein (20 moves), Giri-Negi (20 moves) and the needlessly overlong Truong Son-Caruana (31 moves). What’s up with these guys? What are they afraid of? It’s anyone’s guess.

So let’s focus on the few exciting games that were played yesterday and the day before. First of all, there was the surprise loss of tournament leader Wesley So against Fabiano Caruana in round 5.

Black’s knight on g4 is attacked, but White’s knight on h7 is also an instability in the positon. So comes up with an fascinating solution:

16…cxd4! This is probably better than 16…Ngf6 17.dxc5 with an edge for White. However, Black had two other interesting moves, namely 16…Nde5!? and 16…Nxf2!?, the latter with the idea 17.Qxf2 f5! and the knight on h7 is trapped. The result is a double-edged position.

17.exd4 Probably best. After 17.hxg4 Ne5! 18.exd4 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Qxd4 Black is fine despite the fact that he’s a piece down for the moment. Now, So did withdraw his knight, and after 17…Ngf6 18.Bf4 Qe7 the position was roughly equal. However, two moves later Black became active a move too soon:

Black is OK after a move like 20…Nd5, and even 20…Rxd4 seems possible, but after 20…b5? Caruana replied with the cunning 21.Bc7! totally disrupting the coordination of Black’s pieces. After 21…Rd7 22.Qc6 Ra7 23.Bb6 White had an edge due to the bishop pair. Still, it wasn’t all misery for Black until he failed to grab back a sacrificed pawn.

White is a pawn up, but after 33…Bd5! with the idea Nc6, Black seems to have sufficient counterplay. Instead, So played the active-looking 33…Rxf1+? 34.Kxf1 Bf3 but it transpired that White could hold on to his pawn after 35.Ke1 Nc6 36.Rb5 and Black didn’t have enough compensation – he never saw it back.

Also in the 5th round, Maxim Rodshtein played a good game against Anish Giri, basically outplaying him straight from the opening.

Black seems to be winning back the pawn, but alas, White has the strong pseudo-sacrifice 27.Qxc5! Bxc5 28.Rxc5 with a crushing bind, which he converted after a subsequent blunder by Giri. A well-deserved win for Rodshtein.

The only other decisive game of the past two days was Howell-Vachier Lagrave. David Howell is having a pretty miserable time in Biel, and in the sixth round, things went wrong once again after a well-played opening and middlegame phase.

Despite his doubled e-pawns, White has a pleasant plus due to Black’s weakened kingside. There are several attractive plans in the position, such as 26.Rg3 with the idea of doubling rooks, or 26.Rdf1 with the idea Qd1 and perhaps Qg4 to follow, but there’s also the tactical solution 26.Nxd6 Qxd6 27.Rxg5 after which something like 27…Rf2 doesn’t work in view of 28.Rdg1, winning.

But for some reason Howell played the defensive 26.Nc3? which gave Black to opportunity to grab the initiative with 26…Nf3!.

A few moves later, Black was fully activated:

Now, White’s 26th move might have been useful after all, as 31.Nxa4! seems possible: 31…Nxa4 32.Qa5 with serious counterplay. It wasn’t to be. Howell thought he had time for the solid-looking 31.Ka2? but was surprised by 31…Rh1! after which White has problems holding on to his e-pawns.

After 6 rounds, the Italian Fabiano Caruana has taken the lead with 4/6, closely followed by no less than five players with 3,5. Anish Giri has a bit of a disappointing tournament so far with 2,5 points. For Negi and Howell, the tournament can already be considered lost. Let’s hope the players use their offocial rest day well.

Standings after Round 6:

1. Caruana 4
2. So, Tomashevsky, Andreikin, Vachier Lagrave, Rodshtein 3,5
7. Truong Son 3
8. Giri 2,5
9. Negi, Howell 1,5

Games start daily at 14.00 CET, except July 25, which is a rest day.

Biel Young Grandmasters Games round 5 & 6

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Dortmund R9: Ponomariov secures first place, Naiditsch beats Kramnik

Arne Moll — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:16:18 +0000

In the pentultimate round of the Dortmund Sparkassen Chess-Meeting, Arkadij Naiditsch upset Vladimir Kramnik while Peter Leko came tantilizingly close to beating Le Quang. Ruslan Ponomariov took no risk and secured his first place in the standings.

With just one round to go, the standings were seriously mixed up today after Naiditsch beat Kramnik. In the previous round, Naiditsch didn’t look half so good as Ruslan Ponomariov demolished him in an outstanding positional game.

Before moving on to today’s games, let’s see how Pono outplayed the German in round 8:

33.Be5! Rxf6 34.Rfc1! Bd7 35.Rab1! with a winning bind for White, which the Russian converted in 46 moves.

Yesterday’s other games looked bleak compared to this. As feared, Leko-Kramnik was a bloodless draw and though Mamedyarov tried hard to beat Le Quang, the young Vietnamese defended accurately and professionally secured the draw.

Today, Shakriyar Mamedyarov surprised tournament leader Ponomariov as early as move 5:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.g4!?

This has only been played 5 times according to the database, but never by a 2500+ player. Ponomariov bravely ‘castled into it’ with 5…0-0 but grabbed the g-pawn a couple of moves later anyway. White, of course, obtained decent compensation for it and actually seemed to be fine after the opening. However, just when thinks started to look exciting, Ponomariov traded queens after which the game suddenly became drawish.

In this position, Black has a number of interesting alternatives, such as 25…Qxf4, 25…Rae8 or 25…Bxf4, with a very exciting and complicated game. Instead, Black chose to play it safe in this stage of the tournament with 25…Qc5 26.Qxc5 bxc5 = . He is now one point ahead of his competitors, so naturally he had every reason to be satisfied!

Ponomariov, certain of (shared) first place already (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Peter Leko finally looked ready to win his first game of the tournament with Black against Le Quang, but had to satisfy himself with a draw after 119 moves anyway. He got his chance after Le Quang played too optimistically in an otherwise normal position.

29.Rc7? bxa4 It’s hard to see what White had in mind here. Perhaps he wanted to play 29.Rc6 but ‘overstretched’ by one square. Now, after 30.Bc4 Qb8 White remained a pawn down. To the delight of his fans, Leko seemed to be making steady progress in the endgame.

Le Quang - Leko (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

However, by now we should all know how tough it is to really beat Le Quang. He kept on making tough moves and though many moves were played, Leko couldn’t find a clear win until, finally, White was on the verge of collapsing.

103.Rd7 The funny 103.Bd3 is the computer’s suggestion. 103…Rh2+ 104.Kf1 Ke3 It suddenly looks very dangerous for White, but fortunately for him, the theoretical endgame after 105.Rxd5 Rf2+ 16.Kg1 Rxe2 107.Rxe5+ Kxf3 108.Rf5 is a book draw. No doubt heavily disappointed, Leko tried for 10 more moves before offering a draw.

Naiditsch - Kramnik (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Arkadij Naiditsch is having a weird tournament, but after today, he will probably be happy after all. He recovered excellently from yesterday’s loss by beating Vladimir Kramnik in 34 moves. It was a complex game (Kramnik played the Pirc Defence), with some very interesting tactics. Let’s have a closer look.

14…Qh4+ 15.Kd1!? After 15.Bf2 Qg5! things are also highly unclear. 15…Bxd4 Also interesting is the natural-looking 15…Re8.

16.Bxa6! e5 17.Bxc8 Rfxc8 18.c3 It looks like White is on top after all, but Black has tremendous counterplay: 18…Rab8 19.Qc4

Here, it seems Kramnik faltered with 18…c5?! where the principled 18…Rxb2 would have led to a very difficult position, offering Black a very dangerous initiative after 19.cxd4 Rxg2. Instead, after the text, White played the very strong 19.Bc1! after which he appears to be better.

Still, things were far from clear until Black again moved his c-pawn:

25…c4? A bettter chance was 25…Reb8. 26.Qd1! After this strong defensive move, White can hold on to his extra piece. Black’s attack quickly faded and Naiditsch collected the point.

Naiditsch(photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Standings after 9 rounds:

1. Ponomariov 6
2. Le Quang, Mamedyarov 5
4. Kramnik, Naiditsch 4
6. Leko 3

Games start daily at 15.00 CET and can be followed live here.

Dortmund Games round 8 & 9

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Topalov on Candidates Matches: “I won’t play in Russia”

Arne Moll — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:27:14 +0000

A few days ago, we published an open letter by GM Sutovsky about the current FIDE Candidates Matches problems. Yesterday, Veselin Topalov published an open letter in response to the news that part of the matches might be played in Kazan, Russia.

According to Russian newspaper Kommersant, the Russian Chess Federation has asked FIDE President Ilyumzhinov to move part of the Candidates Matches from Baku, Azerbaijan – not a very pleasant place for Armenian GM Levon Aronian, who has recently announced he won’t travel to Baku – to Kazan, Russia.

This, in turn, has prompted Veselin Topalov to write an open letter announcing he refuses to play in Kazan or any other place in Russia, in part because of what happened back in 2006, during ‘Toiletgate’. Here is Topalov’s open letter as it appeared on Chessdom:

July 22th, Sofia, Bulgaria

Dear President of FIDE, Dear members of the PB,

I am writing an open letter to you regarding the next World Championship Cycle. After many promises and changes I learn that a new place for the Candidates matches is being discussed, the one of Kazan, Russia.

I believe that it is a strategic mistake to stage almost all the cycle in one country. Four events of the FIDE Grand Prix, the World Cup, and now possibly Candidates Matches are in Russia. This transmits the message that FIDE can’t find sponsors and Organizers from other countries, which is very sad.

I would also like to state that for me the venue of Kazan, or any other venue in Russia, is totally unacceptable for another reason. Everybody still remembers the unpleasant situations which my team and I had to face during the WCC Match in Elista 2006.

Having in mind all this, I would like to declare that I would not participate in any stage of the cycle for the World Chess Title that takes place in Russia, in order to avoid problems and conflicts that already took place there.

The venue of Baku was rejected by Aronian and this looked natural for everyone. Before that, FIDE have changed their own rules and regulations to avoid the WCC rematch Topalov-Kramnik with Sofia as a venue. I believe it is logical to ask, if I play any matches in the future, (especially against Russian GMs), that they should be outside of Russia.

With respect,
Veselin Topalov

You can fine more detailed background information on the Candidates Matches over at Chess in Translation.

Dortmund R7: Karpov visits, Mamedyarov strikes back

Arne Moll — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:00:06 +0000

In round 7 of the Dortmund Sparkassen Chess-Meeting, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov took revenge for yesterday’s sad loss while Anatoly Karpov visited the tournament he won seventeen years ago.

Perhaps the most exciting event of the day was not one of the games in the super tournament, but FIDE Presidential candidate Anatoly Karpov’s visit to the Dortmund Chess-Meeting – even though he only made one chess move today.

He did give press conferences, interviews and posed for the many photographers who had been invited to Dortmund. Karpov has been very busy lately lobbying for his presidency in various countries all over the world, so it’s no surprise he shows up in Germany. At the time of writing, it’s not yet known whether Karpov made any important announcements in Dortmund.

Karpov posing for photographers (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

But back to chess. Supposing Liem Quang Le honoured the Twelfth World Champion by playing the Caro-Kann today might perhaps be a little too far-fetched, but he certainly did good business, easily drawing Arkadij Naiditsch.

In a pretty much unknown position after just 10 moves, Quang Le went for 11…c3 after which he seemed to have no problems whatsoever. Indeed, the Vietnamese afterwards explained that “in this sideline of the Caro-Kann, Black has so many possibilities that it’s not difficult to deviate”. Quang Le continues to impress in this tournament, comfortably defending his second place in the standings, ahead of former World Champion Kramnik.

Kramnik (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

Slightly more exciting was the game between the two Russians, Kramnik and Ponomariov. Kramnik no doubt wanted to try something serious with the white pieces (the opening was a Queen’s Indian) but with some accurate defensive operations, Ponomariov stayed in control all the time.

It looks like Black may be in a bit of trouble, but 18…Qh4! is a very clever move that keeps the dynamic equilibirum. After 19.Nxe4 Bxe4 20.Bxe4 fxe4 21.Qxe4 Rae8 22.e3 e5!

Black has plenty of counterplay in the center and Kramnik subsequently couldn’t find anything concrete to play for. The game was drawn after 37 moves.

Mamedyarov - Leko (photo by Georgios Souleidis)

The game of the day was, of course, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov’s sweet revenge for yesterday’s blunder against Naiditsch. Today, he beat the unfortunate Peter Leko in a fine positional game. In a quiet English Opening, the Azeri slowly but steadily increased the pressure on Leko’s position, putting all his active pieces on light squares until the moment was there to harvest.

22.Ncxb6! Rxb6 23.Nxb6 Qxb6 24.Qxc5 Qd8 25.d4!

25…exd4 26.e4 Actually the computer engines are even more enthusiastic about the natural 26.Rfd1 after which White seems to be just winning. But Shakh’s move isn’t bad at all as he still crashes through in the center sooner or later. Leko couldn’t cope with the pressure and though it still looked tricky for a couple of moves, Mamedyarov kept his cool this time and collected the point at move 39.

With his victory, Mamedyarov again moves up into second place together with Quang Le. They face each other in the next round, while Ponomariov will try to increase his lead with White against Naiditsch. We presume Leko-Kramnik is not unlikely to end in a quick draw, though perhaps the Hungarian will think back to the fifth match game in 2004. Let’s hope he’ll find the inspiration to play a great game once more against his former World Championship rival.

Standings after 7 rounds:

1. Ponomariov 4,5
2. Le Quang, Mamedyarov 4
4. Kramnik 3,5
5. Naiditsch 3
6. Leko 2

Games start daily at 15.00 CET and can be followed live here.

Dortmund Games round 7

Game viewer by ChessTempo

ChessVibes » Arne Moll

Review: three excellent puzzle books

Links

FIDE elections: Karpov suggests link between Ilyumzhinov and Yudina murder

Review: Nunn’s Chess Endings 1

Links

Black Monday for the Ruy Lopez

Karpov starts full frontal attack (UPDATE)

The Total Chess Library

Biel R6: Young Stars take an extra rest day

Links

Dortmund R9: Ponomariov secures first place, Naiditsch beats Kramnik

Links

Topalov on Candidates Matches: “I won’t play in Russia”

Dortmund R7: Karpov visits, Mamedyarov strikes back

Links