Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, November 28, 2024
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Oops, new blog has been going for some time!
I just realized I never did put the new blog info here. Come see me at www.ontheroadtochessmaster.com where I have an active blog again!
Friday, February 19, 2016
This Blog Will Soon Be Active Again
Due to the tragic and untimely death of my friend and mentor Sevan Muradian, the founder of www.ChessIQ.com, whom I have been writing for the past 2 1/2 years I am quite likely going to be reactivating this blog and beginning to post new content again.
In the meantime here is the post I put on my current blog about Sevan: http://www.chessiq.com/rip-sevan-muradian/
Til Next Time,
Chris Wainscott
In the meantime here is the post I put on my current blog about Sevan: http://www.chessiq.com/rip-sevan-muradian/
Til Next Time,
Chris Wainscott
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Come See Me at www.chessiq.com
I have had a couple of people point out that this blog isn't very active. That is true, but the main reason is that I write a daily piece for ChessIQ. So please come see me at www.chessiq.com/blog
I am not going to completely stop writing here, but I can't currently keep up with both and since both are essentially the same I am slowing down in this space for now.
I will most likely reserve this space for writing about things that don't necessarily fit in for ChessIQ, for example, my take on chess politics or anything else controversial.
I am not going to completely stop writing here, but I can't currently keep up with both and since both are essentially the same I am slowing down in this space for now.
I will most likely reserve this space for writing about things that don't necessarily fit in for ChessIQ, for example, my take on chess politics or anything else controversial.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
The Practicality of Endgame Studies
You may have noticed that from time to time I mention that solving studies was something I was encouraged to do when I first started taking chess lessons.
In fact, if you read my "other" blog at http://www.chessiq.com/blog/ then you will see me talk about them even more often.
The reason that studies were suggested to me are as a form of calculation exercise. But the truth is that there is a lot more to them than just that. The truth is that studies can be very practical.
The reason that studies can be very practical is that often times the study is based on one aspect of the position that if you could change it would lead to a win.
Let's take a look at this study by Alois Watawa that appears in Mark Dvoretsky and Oleg Pervakov's excellent book Studies for Practical Players
This is a study that I just finished solving. It's White to play and win.
The reason that I find this to be practical is that while this position isn't that likely to occur in a game, the idea itself is.
If you would like to take a crack at solving the study first please do so. Then continue reading below once you have worked this
When I began looking at this position the first thing that became immediately obvious was that Black's king can't move. With that in mind it's a simple deduction that if White can give check it's going to be mate.
So how can White give check. The obvious way is along the h file. Of course the problem is how to move Black's rook off the h file? I couldn't figure out a way in which to do so. The Black rook can shuffle endlessly between h6, h7, and h8 and there is no way for White to attack all of those squares simultaneously with just a rook. And clearly the White king can't run around to help since Black's h pawn would promote.
So the next evolution in my thinking was that if there was a way to give a check from the White side of the board on the h file then that might win as well. The issue is that I couldn't find a way to get the White king out of the way and even if I could there is no way to then insert the rook so that it can capture the pawn while being guarded by the king in order to deliver mate.
Then I realized that White could play Ra1 - Rg1 - Rg3 and if Black captures the rook with the f pawn then fxg3 by White is checkmate. Ah, but there is a problem...After 1.Ra1 Black can simply play 1...Re7 (or d7, c7, or b7 for that matter) and then after 2.Rg1 Black plays 2...Re2. Now if 3.Rg3 then Black wins with 3...Rxf2+ picking up the White rook when the king steps away from the check.
Seeing all of that you now see that if there was a way to prevent Black from swinging his rook over to the e/d/c/b file then White would have a vital tempo needed for the Ra1 - Rg1 - Rg3 plan.
Which makes the solution suddenly obvious...1.Ra8. This forces 1...Rh6 to prevent 2.Rh8+ leading to mate. Now White plays 2.Ra1 and with the pawn on g6 blocking his rook Black has no defense.
The idea being that while this position isn't likely to occur over the board, the idea of winning a vital tempo will. And that is something that has a practical application OTB.
In fact, if you read my "other" blog at http://www.chessiq.com/blog/ then you will see me talk about them even more often.
The reason that studies were suggested to me are as a form of calculation exercise. But the truth is that there is a lot more to them than just that. The truth is that studies can be very practical.
The reason that studies can be very practical is that often times the study is based on one aspect of the position that if you could change it would lead to a win.
Let's take a look at this study by Alois Watawa that appears in Mark Dvoretsky and Oleg Pervakov's excellent book Studies for Practical Players
This is a study that I just finished solving. It's White to play and win.
The reason that I find this to be practical is that while this position isn't that likely to occur in a game, the idea itself is.
If you would like to take a crack at solving the study first please do so. Then continue reading below once you have worked this
When I began looking at this position the first thing that became immediately obvious was that Black's king can't move. With that in mind it's a simple deduction that if White can give check it's going to be mate.
So how can White give check. The obvious way is along the h file. Of course the problem is how to move Black's rook off the h file? I couldn't figure out a way in which to do so. The Black rook can shuffle endlessly between h6, h7, and h8 and there is no way for White to attack all of those squares simultaneously with just a rook. And clearly the White king can't run around to help since Black's h pawn would promote.
So the next evolution in my thinking was that if there was a way to give a check from the White side of the board on the h file then that might win as well. The issue is that I couldn't find a way to get the White king out of the way and even if I could there is no way to then insert the rook so that it can capture the pawn while being guarded by the king in order to deliver mate.
Then I realized that White could play Ra1 - Rg1 - Rg3 and if Black captures the rook with the f pawn then fxg3 by White is checkmate. Ah, but there is a problem...After 1.Ra1 Black can simply play 1...Re7 (or d7, c7, or b7 for that matter) and then after 2.Rg1 Black plays 2...Re2. Now if 3.Rg3 then Black wins with 3...Rxf2+ picking up the White rook when the king steps away from the check.
Seeing all of that you now see that if there was a way to prevent Black from swinging his rook over to the e/d/c/b file then White would have a vital tempo needed for the Ra1 - Rg1 - Rg3 plan.
Which makes the solution suddenly obvious...1.Ra8. This forces 1...Rh6 to prevent 2.Rh8+ leading to mate. Now White plays 2.Ra1 and with the pawn on g6 blocking his rook Black has no defense.
The idea being that while this position isn't likely to occur over the board, the idea of winning a vital tempo will. And that is something that has a practical application OTB.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Time to Find the Next Gear
A little over two years ago I went over 1700 for the first time. However, I clearly wasn't ready for it as I almost immediately fell back below.
I then crashed all the way down to 1560 in August of last year due to a crisis of confidence. However, I have gained 220 points since that time and feel poised to continue to gain.
At this point I have played two games, both in the final rounds of tournaments, in which a win would have put me over 1800. I didn't succeed in either game, but I don't believe it's due to a mental block, I just think that you're not going to win every game, and both of them happened to fall into that category.
However, I am also a pretty serious student of human nature, and if there's one thing that human nature tells us it's that if you give something enough of a chance to become a hurdle it will.
Therefore I need to find the next gear. I need to fight hard with every ounce of my being to have a solid result that will propel me past 1800 so that I can get that monkey off my back. Once I do so I will be able to stop worrying about it and hopefully I will be able to just focus on improving...meaning that the rating will improve on it's own as a natural result of my actions.
To that end I have been studying like made. Tons of tactics. Tons of Alekhine's games. Tons of annotated games in general.
I should also take heed from the games in Chennai and switch some focus to endgames. Look at game four earlier today...Vishy was able to save the game because he knew that R+P vs R+2P was a draw with pawns on the same side of the board. Magnus was able to keep the game going longer because he knew that by keeping a pair of rooks on the board he increased his winning chances.
Just knowing those things told those guys what to play for in the late middle game and as they transitioned into the endgame.
So it's time for me to find that next gear and get this show on the road...
I then crashed all the way down to 1560 in August of last year due to a crisis of confidence. However, I have gained 220 points since that time and feel poised to continue to gain.
At this point I have played two games, both in the final rounds of tournaments, in which a win would have put me over 1800. I didn't succeed in either game, but I don't believe it's due to a mental block, I just think that you're not going to win every game, and both of them happened to fall into that category.
However, I am also a pretty serious student of human nature, and if there's one thing that human nature tells us it's that if you give something enough of a chance to become a hurdle it will.
Therefore I need to find the next gear. I need to fight hard with every ounce of my being to have a solid result that will propel me past 1800 so that I can get that monkey off my back. Once I do so I will be able to stop worrying about it and hopefully I will be able to just focus on improving...meaning that the rating will improve on it's own as a natural result of my actions.
To that end I have been studying like made. Tons of tactics. Tons of Alekhine's games. Tons of annotated games in general.
I should also take heed from the games in Chennai and switch some focus to endgames. Look at game four earlier today...Vishy was able to save the game because he knew that R+P vs R+2P was a draw with pawns on the same side of the board. Magnus was able to keep the game going longer because he knew that by keeping a pair of rooks on the board he increased his winning chances.
Just knowing those things told those guys what to play for in the late middle game and as they transitioned into the endgame.
So it's time for me to find that next gear and get this show on the road...
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Review of The Hague-Moscow 1948 by Max Euwe
What a pleasure it was to learn that this book was finally available in English!
For anyone who may not be aware of the history, in 1948 a Match/Tournament was held to fill the void left by the death of Alexander Alekhine in 1946. Held under the auspices of FIDE for the first time the idea was to not only crown a new champion, but also to set up a regular cycle of title defenses.
Prior to FIDE stepping in to take over the process the world champion himself would decide how often the title would be defended and against whom. That process led to the ridiculous dry spell from 1937 when Alekhine regained his title from Max Euwe, to 1946 when Alekhine died of no title matches taking place.
FIDE stepped in to ensure that there would now be a regular championship cycle beginning with this event.
This book is published by Russell Enterprises and is 240 pages, using Figurine Algebraic Notation. The sections of the book include a Foreword by Hans Ree, articles about the lead up to the tournament, and games comprising the prior meetings between the contestants.
I have long been a fan of the history of chess and the world championships, but this tournament has always remained somewhat shrouded in mystery. Mostly because there was little available in the way of annotated games that were published in English. I had purchased Gligoric's book on the world championships simply to get the game scores a few years ago.
So it was with a high level of anticipation that I sat down to read this book. It did not disappoint!
After Alekhine's death there was some talk of simply reinstating the title to the prior world champ, Dr. Max Euwe of the Netherlands. In fact, Euwe was fond of saying that he was world champion twice...the first time from 1935-37 when he held the title he had won from Alekhine, and the second time for one day in 1948 prior to the decision being made to hold this match/tournament rather than simply restoring the title to Dr. Euwe.
One thing that seems to have been mostly lost with the passage of time is the knowledge that while there were five contestants (Mikhail Botvinnik, Vassily Smyslov, Paul Keres, Max Euwe, and Sammy Reshevsky) who played in this event, there were originally six who were slated, with the final spot being given to the American, Rueben Fine.
However, by that time Dr. Fine had made the decision to pursue psychology rather than to continue as a professional chess player. At that point FIDE considered adding Miguel Najdorf in the final slot, but ultimately decided to run the event with five players, meaning that everyone would get extra rest days since each playing day one of the contestants would have a bye.
Naturally the majority of chess aficionados recall that Botvinnik won the title rather handily. Sadly, however, the event was not completely above board. In the years afterwards it came to light that the Soviet authorities pressured Paul Keres to throw games to Botvinnik. There is much debate on the extent of the pressure, with varying opinions on whether or not it actually took place, but it seems to me that based on what I've read from Soviet GM's (i.e. David Bronstein in Secret Notes) that there was at least some coercion to this effect.
That being said, the tournament was designed to be split between two cities, with the first ten rounds taking place in The Hague and the final fifteen in Moscow. (Keeping in mind that in order for five contestants to play twenty games each five additional rounds were needed due to the byes.)
Sadly for the Dutch fans, their hero Euwe got out of the gates slow, and slowed down further from there. After the first ten rounds Euwe had managed only 1.5 points. Botvinnik meanwhile had opened a two point lead which he never relinquished.
The detail level of the annotations of the games varies greatly, with some games being only lightly annotated whilst some are covered with a far greater level of detail.
There is a writeup at the beginning of each round which describes the state of the tournament and related events, followed by the games for that round. The ECO codes are given for each game along with the name of the opening, and there is an index in the back of the book by both name and code, making cross referencing a breeze. Furthermore, in an ingenious move the games are separately indexed between the prior meetings leading up to the tournament and the tournament itself. I found this to be a very nice feature.
Dr. Euwe annotations are very much geared for improvement at the club level as they are more wordy than they are variational. The focus is on clear explanations which can be understood by all readers. However, when the situation warrants, detailed variations are given.
Overall I give this book a very solid four out of five stars.
For anyone who may not be aware of the history, in 1948 a Match/Tournament was held to fill the void left by the death of Alexander Alekhine in 1946. Held under the auspices of FIDE for the first time the idea was to not only crown a new champion, but also to set up a regular cycle of title defenses.
Prior to FIDE stepping in to take over the process the world champion himself would decide how often the title would be defended and against whom. That process led to the ridiculous dry spell from 1937 when Alekhine regained his title from Max Euwe, to 1946 when Alekhine died of no title matches taking place.
FIDE stepped in to ensure that there would now be a regular championship cycle beginning with this event.
This book is published by Russell Enterprises and is 240 pages, using Figurine Algebraic Notation. The sections of the book include a Foreword by Hans Ree, articles about the lead up to the tournament, and games comprising the prior meetings between the contestants.
I have long been a fan of the history of chess and the world championships, but this tournament has always remained somewhat shrouded in mystery. Mostly because there was little available in the way of annotated games that were published in English. I had purchased Gligoric's book on the world championships simply to get the game scores a few years ago.
So it was with a high level of anticipation that I sat down to read this book. It did not disappoint!
After Alekhine's death there was some talk of simply reinstating the title to the prior world champ, Dr. Max Euwe of the Netherlands. In fact, Euwe was fond of saying that he was world champion twice...the first time from 1935-37 when he held the title he had won from Alekhine, and the second time for one day in 1948 prior to the decision being made to hold this match/tournament rather than simply restoring the title to Dr. Euwe.
One thing that seems to have been mostly lost with the passage of time is the knowledge that while there were five contestants (Mikhail Botvinnik, Vassily Smyslov, Paul Keres, Max Euwe, and Sammy Reshevsky) who played in this event, there were originally six who were slated, with the final spot being given to the American, Rueben Fine.
However, by that time Dr. Fine had made the decision to pursue psychology rather than to continue as a professional chess player. At that point FIDE considered adding Miguel Najdorf in the final slot, but ultimately decided to run the event with five players, meaning that everyone would get extra rest days since each playing day one of the contestants would have a bye.
Naturally the majority of chess aficionados recall that Botvinnik won the title rather handily. Sadly, however, the event was not completely above board. In the years afterwards it came to light that the Soviet authorities pressured Paul Keres to throw games to Botvinnik. There is much debate on the extent of the pressure, with varying opinions on whether or not it actually took place, but it seems to me that based on what I've read from Soviet GM's (i.e. David Bronstein in Secret Notes) that there was at least some coercion to this effect.
That being said, the tournament was designed to be split between two cities, with the first ten rounds taking place in The Hague and the final fifteen in Moscow. (Keeping in mind that in order for five contestants to play twenty games each five additional rounds were needed due to the byes.)
Sadly for the Dutch fans, their hero Euwe got out of the gates slow, and slowed down further from there. After the first ten rounds Euwe had managed only 1.5 points. Botvinnik meanwhile had opened a two point lead which he never relinquished.
The detail level of the annotations of the games varies greatly, with some games being only lightly annotated whilst some are covered with a far greater level of detail.
There is a writeup at the beginning of each round which describes the state of the tournament and related events, followed by the games for that round. The ECO codes are given for each game along with the name of the opening, and there is an index in the back of the book by both name and code, making cross referencing a breeze. Furthermore, in an ingenious move the games are separately indexed between the prior meetings leading up to the tournament and the tournament itself. I found this to be a very nice feature.
Dr. Euwe annotations are very much geared for improvement at the club level as they are more wordy than they are variational. The focus is on clear explanations which can be understood by all readers. However, when the situation warrants, detailed variations are given.
Overall I give this book a very solid four out of five stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)