Gashimov Memorial underawy

The 2019 Shamkir Chess (Gashimov Memorial) has just started in Shamkir, Azerbaijan. Top seed is Magnus Carlsen and the field is an interesting mix of generations. Ding Liren and Anish Giri represent the best of the new generation, but Anand, Grischuk and Topalov are hoping to show that it isn't just a young mans game. Mamedyarov, Radjabov, Karjakin and Navara round out the 10 player field.
For Australian players, the games start at a sensible 10pm (Canberra time), and round 1 is already under way. There are a couple of interesting first round match ups, but the Karjakin - Liren game has already finished in a draw after 45 minutes play!

Actual mate on the physical chessboard

I am currently helping write a book on the history of the Laws of Chess. I am working with Stewart Reuben and Alex McFarlane, and while we plan to go back as far as we can, it will be the modern era (since 1924) which will be the focus.
In the book we hope to put in games that provoked changes, or showed that more work needed to be done. One such game is the Rumens v Mabbs game from 1959, which provoked an enormous amount of discussion at the time. The time limit was 36 moves in 2 hours, and both players were in severe time trouble. Rumens mated Mabbs with his 36th move, but his flag fell before he could press his clock. At the time the rules were a little contradictory, with checkmate ending the game, but the move not being completed until the clock had been pressed. Therefore it wasn't clear if White had won by checkmate, or had lost on time. On appeal the game was awarded to White, and the rules were amended to reflect this.

Rumens,DE - Mabbs,DJ [B84]
London Boys Championship, 30.03.1959

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Be3 a6 9. a4 Qc7 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. a5 c5 12. Na4 Nxe4 13. Nb6 Ra7 14. Bd3 Nf6 15. Ra4 Nd7 16. Nxc8 Qxc8 17. Rg4 Bf6 18. Bf4 d5 19. c4 Qc6 20. Re1 O-O 21. Qf3 Bd4 22. Qh3 f5 23. cxd5 Qxd5 24. Rg3 Nf6 25. b3 Qxb3 26. Bxf5 Bxf2+ 27. Kxf2 Qb2+ 28. Kg1 exf5 29. Qxf5 Qb4 30. Qe6+ Kh8 31. Bd6 Rg8 32. Rf1 Qd4+ 33. Kh1 Ne4 34. Rgf3 Nxd6 35. Qxg8+ Kxg8 36. Rf8# 1-0

Things to do on a rainy Sunday

The somewhat bizarre adventures of Timur Gareyev at the US Championship continue. Having given up on his dream of winning two events at the same time, he is instead using the extra time to play some of the more esoteric endings in chess. Against Wesley So he was unsuccessful in trying to defend K+R v K+Q, getting mated on move  86. He then play R v R+B not once but twice in the following rounds. Weirdly he managed to hold the draw the first time he reached the position (against Sevian), but then lost against Caruana when faced with the same situation.
While defending these positions are quite difficult, at least in the case of R+BvR, they are usually theoretically drawn (Note: I lost the only time I tried to defend the position). But like learning to mate with B+N v K, or winning a number of technical rook endings, it does take a lot of study and practice. So the next time rain keeps you indoors on a Sunday, break out the chessboard and see how well you do.


Gareyev,Timur (2557) - Caruana,Fabiano (2828) [D27]
63rd ch-USA 2019 Saint Louis USA (7.3), 27.03.2019

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 dxc4 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Rd1+ Ke7 10. Be2 b6 11. Ne5 Bb7 12. Nd2 Rd8 13. Nd3 Bd6 14. Nc4 Bc7 15. b3 Nc6 16. Ba3+ Ke8 17. Bf3 Nd5 18. Nf4 b5 19. Nxd5 exd5 20. Nd2 Be5 21. Rab1 b4 22. Bb2 Bc3 23. Nf1 Bxb2 24. Rxb2 Ne5 25. Ng3 Rac8 26. Rbd2 Rc5 27. Nf5 g6 28. Nd4 a5 29. a3 bxa3 30. Ra2 Nc6 31. h3 Nb4 32. Rxa3 Kd7 33. g4 Kc7 34. Kg2 Kb6 35. h4 Rc3 36. Rda1 Ra8 37. g5 Bc6 38. Rd1 Rd8 39. Rda1 Rc5 40. Rd1 Bd7 41. Kg3 Rdc8 42. Raa1 Be6 43. h5 Rc3 44. Rab1 Rg8 45. Rh1 Nc6 46. Nxc6 Rxc6 47. hxg6 Rxg6 48. Kf4 Rc2 49. Rbf1 Rb2 50. Bd1 a4 51. bxa4 Rb4+ 52. Kf3 Rxg5 53. Ke2 d4 54. Rfg1 Rd5 55. exd4 Rbxd4 56. f3 h5 57. Kf2 Rd2+ 58. Ke3 R5d3+ 59. Kf4 h4 60. Re1 Rd4+ 61. Ke3 f5 62. Be2 f4+ 63. Kf2 h3 64. Rb1+ Ka7 65. Ke1 Ra2 66. Bf1 Rd5 67. Bxh3 Rh5 68. Bg2 Rxh1+ 69. Bxh1 Rh2 70. Bg2 Rxg2 71. Rb4 Bd5 72. Rxf4 Kb6 73. a5+ Kc5 74. a6 Ra2 75. a7 Rxa7 76. Kf2 Kd6 77. Kg3 Ke5 78. Rf8 Bf7 79. Rb8 Ra3 80. Rb4 Bd5 81. Rf4 Ra8 82. Rg4 Rf8 83. f4+ Kd4 84. f5+ Ke5 85. Rg5 Be4 86. f6+ Bf5 87. Kf2 Rxf6 88. Ke3 Ra6 89. Rg3 Ra2 90. Rf3 Be4 91. Rg3 Bf5 92. Rf3 Bg4 93. Rg3 Ra4 94. Kd2 Kf4 95. Rb3 Be6 96. Rb6 Bd5 97. Rb2 Ke4 98. Kc3 Ke3 99. Rb4 Ra3+ 100. Kb2 Ra8 101. Kc3 Rc8+ 102. Kb2 Kd3 103. Ka3 Bc4 104. Rb2 Ra8+ 105. Kb4 Kd4 106. Rd2+ Bd3 107. Rb2 Ra7 108. Rb3 Ra8 109. Rb2 Ra1 110. Rb3 Bc4 111. Rb2 Rd1 112. Ka3 Kc5 113. Rb7 Rd2 114. Rc7+ Kd4 115. Kb4 Rb2+ 116. Ka5 Kd5 117. Rc8 Rb5+ 118. Ka4 Kd4 119. Rh8 Rb1 120. Rh3 Bd3 121. Ka5 Kc3 122. Rg3 Rb5+ 123. Ka4 Rh5 124. Rf3 Rh1 125. Ka5 Rh6 0-1

Hitting the self destruct button

I suspect we've all played games where we've blundered quite early on. Usually this is dropping a pawn (or a piece in a few of my efforts), but it is pretty rare to allow a mating attack starting on move 4. In this game from the current European Championship I suspect Black thought that 3... h6 would prevent 4.Ng5, but he missed the far stronger followup.

Trajkovski,Mile (2105) - Bytyqi,Gzim (1994) [B00]
20th ch-EUR Indiv 2019 Skopje MKD (6.169), 24.03.2019

1. e4 b6 2. Bc4 Bb7 3. Nf3 h6 4. Bxf7+ Kxf7 5. Ne5+ Ke6 6. Qf3 Kxe5 7. d4+ Kxd4 8. Be3+ Kc4 9. Qe2+ Kb4 10. a3+ 1-0

Double duty

GM Timur Gareyev is one of the chess worlds more flamboyant characters. At the moment he is playing in the US Championship, as well as another tournament, almost simultaneously.

For some reason known only to Timur, he thought he could play in the Mid West Open at the same time, ignoring the fact that some rounds clashed, and that he had to travel between 2 venues. As a result he turned up 25 minutes late for his Round 4 US Championship game, and eventually forfeited his remaining Mid West Open games.

Gareyev is not the first player to try this btw, but it does raise the question of whether it is actually legal. As a junior Michael Adams once entered two different sections of the British Championship, and had to run between rooms to play two games at once. There did not seem to objections to this at the time, and the organisers allowed this.

During my previous time on the FIDE Rules Commission this issue was actually discussed, but in the end it was decided not to add any regulations dealing with this. The main reason was that any sensible organiser would hopefully reject an attempt by a player to enter twice, either in different sections, or even the same section. If the player kicked up a fuss, then the 'organisers decision is final' rule would be enforced. 

The Gareyev case is a little different, as the events were held in different venues, and organised by different bodies, but one outcome of this might be to add an extra clause to players contracts, forbidding them from pulling such a stunt!

Fortune favours the insane

In the collection of "how to get an early draw by repetition" games, the following game figures prominently. Played before Karpov became a world class player, Igor Zaitsev bravely sacrificed his queen, but had enough to force a draw by repetition on move 15. In fact there was an even earlier draw available,  starting with 6.Kxf7 7.Qh5+
Since then the game has been played multiple times, with all but 2 games ending in a draw (in my database anyway). Curiously, the 2 non drawn games follow an early recommendation of playing 10 ... Ne5+ 11.Rxe5 Be6 which was assessed unclear in the pre-computer era, but is simply better for Black according to Stockfish. However in the actual games it was one win for each colour, with the White winner being David Smerdon in 1999, after IM Stephen Solomon misplayed the attack on White's King.


Zaitsev,Igor A - Karpov,Anatoly [C43]
Leningrad Leningrad (10), 1966

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxf7 Qe7 7. Nxh8 Nc3+ 8. Kd2 Nxd1 9. Re1 Nxf2 10. Bxh7 Ne4+ 11. Rxe4 dxe4 12. Bg6+ Kd8 13. Nf7+ Ke8 14. Nd6+ 1/2-1/2

2019 O2C Doeberl Cup - Time to enter

The 2019 O2C Doeberl Cup starts in under 4 weeks, and at this stage around 50% of the tournament places have been field. The Premier has 36 entries so far, with 5 GM's, 6 IM's, 1 WGM and 1 WIM in the tournament. There is a limit of 68 players in the event (to make earning titles easier), so it might be a good idea to get your entry in, if you plan to play in this section. The Major (Under 2000) has 36 entries (from 64 places), the Minor (Under 1600) 42 players (from 100), and the Mini (Under 1200) 29 (from 60).
You can register at http://www.doeberlcup.com.au/ as well as looking at who else has entered, tournament regulations, and prizes on offer.
(Disclaimer: I am a paid official for this event)

2019 US Chess Championship - Lots of draws, lots of wins

The 2019 US Chess Championship started yesterday in St Louis, and there was a somewhat curious set of results. In the Open Championship, all but one of the games were drawn. The Gareyev - Xiong game ended in a win for Xiong, but every other game saw the honours shared. This isn't that surprising for an event like this, and has the added benefit (for the organisers at least), of reducing the number of possible winners of the '$64,000 Fischer Bonus Prize' to one.
On the other hand every game in the Women's Championship wasn't drawn. All 6 games ended in a win for one of the players, and as the Fischer Bonus Prize is also on offer in this event, half the field is still in the running.
If you want to follow this event, then you can do so via the tournament website. As the time zones for the US aren't great for Australia, it is probably better to catch the end of the round (which normally has a few games running at 7am local time), than stay up for the start.

A sense of danger

"Don't worry, he has no idea about king safety". This was a quote from GM Elshan Moradiabadi when preparing the PNG team at the 2018 Olympiad. He was talking about one of our opponents, but he could well have been talking about me. Despite having a number of good results and games recently, I still have a tendency to ignore potential threats against my own king, while pursuing plans of my own.
Of course I'm not the only player guilty of this sin. It is very tempting to treat a game as race, where checkmating your opponent before they checkmate you is a viable strategy. When it works, all is right in the world, but when it goes wrong, it can do so in a big way.

Sukovic,Andrej (2235) - Arutinian,David (2555) [B06]
20th ch-EUR Indiv 2019 Skopje MKD (1.101), 18.03.2019

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. f4 a6 5. Nf3 b5 6. Bd3 Nd7 7. e5 c5 8. O-O cxd4 9. Ne4 Nh6 10. a4 b4 11. Neg5 O-O 12. e6 Nc5 13. f5 gxf5 14. Nxh7 fxe6 15. Nxf8 Qxf8 16. Bc4 Ne4 17. Nxd4 Qf6 18. Nf3 Bb7 19. Be3 Ng4 20. Bd4 Qh6 21. Bxg7 Qe3+ 0-1

No fun in winning

Sometimes I will win a game of chess, and find that I did not really enjoy it. This usually happens when I know I've played a number of awful moves, and it is only a mistake from my opponent that has given me the point.
This happened this evening at my club, where around 40 moves of plan-less play was redeemed by outplaying my opponent in a R+3P ending, with all the pawns on the same side of the board.
But the game I will show, is from an earlier round of the same tournament. My opponent went for the king side hack, offering a piece I shouldn't take. Instead I decided I  could take the piece, as I thought I saw how I could defend. However after my opponent played 16.Rh6! I realised I was in a bad way. If he had then played either 18.Rh7+!! (forced mate) or 19.Qh4! (covering g5) I would have resigned in short order, but instead he blundered with 19.Qh2? and the tables were truly turned. I converted the winning ending (and even then failed to calculate the best line), but left the club unsatisfied with the point.


Mayen,Gabriel - Press,Shaun [C55]
University Cup, 05.03.2019

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. a3 d6 7. Be3 a6 8. h3 b5 9. Ba2 Nb8 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. Bxd5 c6 12. Ba2 Qc7 13. Ng5 h6 14. h4 hxg5 15. hxg5 g6 16. Rh6 Kg7 17. Kd2 Qd8 18. Qh1 Rh8 19. Qh2 Bxg5 20. Rxh8 Bxe3+ 21. Kxe3 Qxh8 22. Qxh8+ Kxh8 23. Bxf7 Kg7 24. Bb3 Nd7 25. c3 Nc5 26. Bc2 Be6 27. d4 Bb3 28. Bb1 Ne6 29. Bd3 Nf4 30. Bf1 Rh8 31. g3 Rh1 32. gxf4 Bc4 33. fxe5 dxe5 34. dxe5 Rxf1 35. Rxf1 Bxf1 36. Kd4 Bg2 37. Kc5 Bxe4 38. b4 Kf7 39. Kd6 Bd5 40. f4 Ke8 41. e6 Kd8 42. Ke5 Ke7 43. f5 gxf5 44. Kxf5 Bxe6+ 45. Ke5 Bd5 46. Kf5 Kd6 47. Kf4 Ke6 48. Ke3 Ke5 49. Kd3 Be4+ 50. Ke3 Kd5 51. Kf4 Bb1 52. Ke3 Kc4 53. Kd2 Bf5 54. Ke3 Kxc3 55. Kf4 Kb3 56. Kxf5 Kxa3 57. Ke4 Kxb4 58. Kd3 Kb3 0-1

Are looks deceiving?

Have a look at the game below, after White has played his 15th move. A similar position to this occurred at Street Chess on Saturday, and at first glance I just assumed White had a big advantage. (NB I cannot recall which White rook was on d1, so White's 14th move may have been Raxd1). With the bishop well posted on f3, and being the first to get to the d file, all I could see was White using the initiative to win the game (and in the game on Saturday, this is what happened).
So I am a little surprised that Black won the game given here. Of course the black pieces were being handled by GM Gawain Jones, and he did out rate his opponent by a significant amount, but White should at least hold this. Playing though the game a few times (with the engine off) I suspect that White was a little eager to swap pieces off (especially the bishops), until it reached a point (on move 31) when the final rook exchange left White with a lost pawn ending.
If there is a lesson to be had here, maybe it is that if you look like you have an advantage, keep the pieces that give you the advantage!


Storey,Charles (2268) - Jones,Gawain C (2549) [B73]
Coulsdon Jessie Gilbert Coulsdon (10), 25.08.2008

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be2 Bg7 7. O-O O-O 8. Kh1 Nc6 9. Be3 d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 Qxd5 13. Bxg7 Qxd1 14. Rfxd1 Kxg7 15. Bf3 Be6 16. Bd5 Bxd5 17. Rxd5 Rfc8 18. c3 Rc7 19. Rad1 Rac8 20. g4 e6 21. Rd7 Kf6 22. Kg2 a5 23. R1d3 Kg7 24. a4 b6 25. Rxc7 Rxc7 26. b3 Kf6 27. c4 h6 28. Rd6 Rb7 29. Kf3 Ke7 30. Rd4 Rd7 31. Ke3 Rxd4 32. Kxd4 Kd6 33. h4 g5 34. h5 f6 35. f3 Kc6 36. Kd3 Kc5 37. Kc3 f5 38. Kd3 fxg4 39. fxg4 Kb4 40. Kd4 Kxb3 41. Ke5 Kxa4 42. Kxe6 Kb4 43. Kf6 a4 44. Kg6 a3 45. Kxh6 a2 46. Kxg5 a1Q 47. h6 Kxc4 48. Kg6 b5 0-1

The last writers left?

One of the duties I usually perform when arbiting small events (less than 20 boards), is to produce a game file. Normally there is enough time during the following round to type in the majority of games, and by the end of the event I usually have around 80% of the games ready for download.
But this has become more challenging over the last couple of years. One of the main reasons is that players either submit unreadable scoresheets, or ones that have illegal or ambiguous moves. As frustrating as this is, it occurred to me that as an activity, competition chess requires a skill that is no longer in fashion. That is, chess is one of the few activities where people are actually required to write. Most office jobs now involve typing things, and when something needs to be written down, it is often as a personal note or brief message. In fact the only other place where I come across a lot of handwriting is in the education sector (especially exams and quizzes), and recently marked a number of quiz papers, the quality of submissions is equally mixed.
As an example, here is a scoresheet I took a copy of from the recent ACT Championships. I have cropped the names to protect the guilty, but as yet, I have not been successful in deciphering most of the moves.
(BTW I have put some games from this event up at http://tournaments.streetchess.net/actchampionship2019/www2019ACTChampionship/games.html but there is still a lot of work to do)

A book so nice they named it twice

Taking advantage of an online book sale a couple of weeks ago, I thought I had picked up a bargain when i spotted David Bronstein's "The Chess Struggle in Practice". I'd seen a few people mention it as one of the classics, so buying it for $2 seemed like a great deal.
Alas, when it arrived I realised I had purchased a book I already owned. Bronstein's classic is also known as "Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953" and I already had a copy sitting on my shelf. Nonetheless, I won't be getting rid of my newer copy, as there are a few formatting differences that make it worth keeping. And as a book, it is probably worth reading twice, once in algebraic, and once in descriptive!


Taimanov,Mark E - Petrosian,Tigran V [E58]
Candidates Tournament Zuerich (20), 06.10.1953

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Bd3 O-O 6. Nf3 d5 7. O-O Nc6 8. a3 Bxc3 9. bxc3 b6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. Ne5 Qc7 12. Nxc6 Qxc6 13. f3 Be6 14. Qe1 Nd7 15. e4 c4 16. Bc2 f5 17. e5 Rf7 18. a4 a5 19. f4 b5 20. axb5 Qxb5 21. Ba3 Nb6 22. Qh4 Qe8 23. Rf3 Nc8 24. Ba4 Rd7 25. Rb1 Qd8 26. Bxd7 Qxd7 27. Rg3 Na7 28. Be7 Bf7 29. Qg5 Bg6 30. h4 Nc6 31. Ba3 Nd8 32. h5 Ne6 33. Qh4 Bf7 34. h6 g6 35. Qf6 Qd8 36. Be7 Qc7 37. Rxg6+ hxg6 38. h7+ Kxh7 39. Qxf7+ Ng7 40. Kf2 1-0

Where would we be without satnav?

I find it interesting going through my own games from the pre-computer age of chess. It certainly shows me that I wasn't very good when I started playing seriously, but it also reveals that I wasn't that great at analysis either.

There are more than a few games where I've kind of remember playing well, but after putting it through a modern engine, I've realised that it was more a question of "who makes the second last mistake" that decides the outcome. 

The game I've chosen to show this was not in fact my first (or second choice). However, those games turned out to be true blunder fests (including missed forced mates from my opponents), leaving me with this relatively tame example. There were a couple of opportunities for me to gain the upper hand (14.fxe6! and 18.Bxd5!) but the real mistake for my opponent was 22...Nf5. This allowed me to capture on d5, and get the tactics working in my favour. Fortunately there were no big mistakes after that (although I did miss a line leading to a quicker checkmate).

Press,Shaun - Cohen,Stan [B23]
Doeberl Cup (7), 04.04.1988

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 d6 4. Nf3 g6 5. Bc4 Nh6 6. O-O Bg4 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Rxf3 Bg7 9. d3 e6 10. Rf1 a6 11. f5 gxf5 12. Bxh6 Bxh6 13. exf5 d5 14. Bb3 Qg5 15. fxe6 fxe6 16. Qe1 Qe3+ 17. Kh1 Nd4 18. Qh4 Qg5 19. Qxg5 Bxg5 20. Rae1 Kd7 21. Rf7+ Kc6 22. Ne2 Nf5 23. Bxd5+ Kxd5 24. Nc3+ Kc6 25. Rxe6+ Nd6 26. Ne4 Kd5 27. Rxd6+ Ke5 28. Rdd7 Bf4 29. Rde7+ 1-0

Repeating History

The recently completed Batavia GM tournament in Amsterdam tried a new approach to scoring. Before the main game in each round the layers played a blitz match, which was then used to allocate points in case the main game was drawn. The winner of the main game scored 2 points, but in the case of a draw, the winner of the blitz match scored 1 point, but the loser only received 0.5 of a point. 
Whether it changed how the tournament was played I'm not sure, but from the score table, it looked as though there were a lot of decisive games. The added bonus was that there were a number of entertaining blitz games as well. The most noticeable was John Van Der Wiel getting mated on move 15, in a game that has been played a couple of times previously.


Van Der Wiel,John - Warmerdam,Max [C45]
Batavia Blitz, 03.2019

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nb3 Bb6 6. a4 a6 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 d6 10. Nd5 Nxe4 11. Bxd8 Bxf2+ 12. Ke2 Bg4+ 13. Kd3 Ne5+ 14. Kxe4 f5+ 15. Kf4 Ng6# 0-1

2019 ACT Championship - Kethro completes Triple Crown

FM Michael Kethro is the 2019 ACT Chess Champion after finishing with a perfect 7 wins from 7 games. In today's final two rounds he started with a win over Victor Braguine, before beating Brian Butler in the final round. He finished a point and  half against Sankeerten Badrinarayan, who had the unsettling experience of playing his younger brother in the final round (the game ended in a draw). Tied for third were Glenn Ingham and unrated player Darryl Chen. The Under 1500 prize was shared between Paul Dunn and Dexuan Kong, while Velsami Karthick and Ken Zhang winning the Unrated prize (Chen taking a share of third place instead).
The win by Kethro also means he now holds all three ACT Championship titles, winning the Rapidplay in December 2018 and the Blitz in January 2019. This is possibly the first time this as happened, although IM Junta Ikeda may have also achieved the feat in a previous year.
Full results from the tournament  and games from the top 4 boards can be found here.

2019 ACT Chess Championship - Day 3

With two rounds left to play, FM Michael Kethro holds a full point lead in the 2019 ACT Chess Championship. Kethro defeated Sankeertan Badrinrayan in a fairly wild round 4 game, before scoring a quick win over Tim Pearce. Pearce, who only lost this game, shares second place with Badrinarayan and Victor Braguine.
Round 5 saw a number of interesting finishes, including Matt Radisich playing a nice combination that left him a rook up. Unfortunately his opponents next move  left him in a mating net and resigned immediately. This wasn't the only tragic finish, with another game ending in stalemate in a K v KRBP ending.
Round 6 starts at 10am tomorrow, with the final round starting at 2:30pm. Tournament results and live game links can be found at http://tournaments.streetchess.net/actchampionship2019/

Kethro, Michael -Badrinarayan, Sankeertan
2019 ACT Chess Championship

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 Nd7 10. Be3 f5 11. f3 h6 12. a4 g5 13. a5 Nf6 14. c5 Ng6 15. cxd6 cxd6 16. Nb5 fxe4 17. Bxa7 exf3 18. Nxf3 Rxa7 19. Nxa7 g4 20. Nd2 Nf4 21. Bc4 Bd7 22. Qb3 Rf7 23. Qxb7 g3 24. hxg3 Ng4 25. Ra3 e4 26. Nc6 Qe8 27. Rxf4 Rxf4 28. gxf4 e3 29. Qb8 Qxb8 30. Nxb8 exd2 31. Rd3 Ne3 32. Bb3 Bb5 33. Rxd2 Bf6 34. a6 Bd8 35. a7 1-0

2019 ACT Chess Championship - Day 2

Three players are still tied for first place after the third round of the ACT Chess Championship. Tournament favourite FM Michael Kethro is one of those players, after winning a long game against Pertti Sirkka. He is joined by Sankeertan Badrinarayan and Tim Pearce, the latter beating Victor Braguine in a game where Pearce's attack on the kingside proved more effective than Braguine's play on the queenside.
Close behind them on 2.5 is unrated player Darryl Chan. A former junior player from Sydney, Chan scored an upset win over Yizhen Diao in round 1, and followed this up with a draw and a win. In round 4 he plays Pearce, while Kethro and Badrinarayan meet on the top board.
All the action begins at 10am and can be followed at http://tournaments.streetchess.net/actchampionship2019/livegames/index.html

2019 ACT Chess Championship - Day 1

The 2019 ACT Chess Championship is underway, attracting a field of 34 players. This seems to be the magic number for this event, as the last few years has seen similarly sized fields.
Top seed in the tournament is FM Michael Kethro, and he was made to work for his point by Erik Jochimsen. Eventually a favourable ending for Kethro was reached and he was able to convert by running Jochimsen out of moves. One of the more exciting games of the tournament was between Victor Braguine and Kamrin Aliyev on board 3. Aliyev had a stronger position, while Braguine had greater attacking chances. In time trouble Aliyev missed Braguines attacking plan and was forced to resign when faced with unstoppable mate.
There were a couple of upsets on the lower boards with Darryl Chan beating Yizhen Diao, and junior player Fahim Vidyattama drawing with veteran Bill Egan.
Tomorrows round begins at 10am and games from the top 4 boards are being broadcast live. All the results, pairings and live links can be found at http://tournaments.streetchess.net/actchampionship2019/

How to ruin chess sets

Despite enjoying Transfer Chess (or Bughouse) when I was younger, I do have an aversion to the game these days. My main complaint is that it makes sorting out chess sets for the next competition/lesson/club night a chore. So I have mixed feelings about sharing the following chess variant with you.
From the 1866 edition of "The Chess Player's Magazine", a multiplayer variant is described, which has some similarities to Transfer Chess. Two players are chosen as Captains for each team. They then take turns picking from the remaining players to form the teams (so each team size is half the number of players). The boards are then laid out in a line, with one tea, having White on all boards, and the other team having Black. Each match is played as normal, but when one side wins a game, the team captain can take all the pieces left on the board from the winning side of that game (except the King), and distribute them to the other games in progress. The only restrictions are that a side cannot be reinforced above it's initial holdings (eg a second queen cannot be given to player who still has hers), and that the pieces must be placed on their starting squares (eg rooks on a1 or h1, pawns on the second rank). Pieces must be placed on empty squares, so if d1 is occupied, then the queen cannot be added to that game. (NB This implies that reinforcements must be placed immediately) Pieces can be given to one player, or across multiple games. As an added bonus, a winning player can also be used as a substitute, replacing another player whose game is still in progress. If the captain of a team loses a game, she is replaced by the player first picked etc
As I've never heard of this variant before, I'm assuming it didn't catch on. However, it could be fun for a club's end of season function or something to keep kids amused. After a certain point I'm also guessing the balance is going to tilt in one sides favour, as the reinforcements will create wins, which will create reinforcements etc

World Teams Championship

The 2019 World Teams Championship began last night in Astana. This event brings together the best teams from every continent (Asia, Europe, Americas and Africa) as well as the topped placed teams from the Olympiad. Ten teams are in each section (Open and Women's) and it is a 9 round round robin, scored on match points.
The first round saw a couple of big wins for India and China. They each scored 3.5/4 with Sweden and Azerbaijan being their respective victims. In the Inda-Sweden match, there were a couple of nice attacking wins, including this one by SS Ganguly.

Ganguly,Surya Shekhar (2633) - Smith,Axel (2487) [C77]
12th World Teams 2019 Astana KAZ (1.3), 05.03.2019

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Nd5 h6 9. c3 d6 10. Nxf6+ Qxf6 11. Bd5 Bd7 12. Rg1 h5 13. h3 Rae8 14. g4 hxg4 15. hxg4 Ne7 16. Bg5 Qg6 17. Bxe7 Rxe7 18. g5 Be6 19. Bb3 Qh5 20. Ke2 Bxb3 21. Qxb3 Qg6 22. Rh1 Re6 23. Rag1 Rfe8 24. Ke1 f6 25. Nh4 Qf7 26. g6 Qd7 27. Nf5 c6 28. Qd1 Qa7 29. Rh8+ Kxh8 30. Qh5+ Kg8 31. Qh7+ Kf8 32. Qh8# 1-0

Double Exclam

One thing noticeable in looking at very old chess books and publications, is the absence of what is now familiar punctuation. No ! or ? moves, just wordier comments ('good move', or 'shocking mistake'). Even + for check took a long time to come into vogue.
According to William Edward Winter's "Chess Notes", the first sighting of ! (or in this case !!) occurred in 1874 in "The Westminster Papers". It was included in the notes to the following game, although it's use may not have been intentional.
The game itself is not that high quality, and soon Black finds himself up a rook. (As an aside it is actually very similar to the game I published yesterday). But White chooses not to resign, and eventually Black catches the king in a mating net. However at  move 33 Black misses a mate in one. In the comments, Zukertort states "We prefer 33 R to K7 mate !!". Given that !! usually points to a brilliant and hard to find move, I suspect the exclamation marks here are for dramatic effect, rather than a comment on the quality of the move.


Madan,Mr - Keynes,Mr [C50]
Oxford-Cambridge, 1874

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. d3 d6 6. O-O Bg4 7. a3 Nd4 8. b4 Bb6 9. Bg5 Nxf3+ 10. gxf3 Bh3 11. Re1 h6 12. Bh4 g5 13. Bg3 h5 14. Kh1 h4 15. Ne2 hxg3 16. fxg3 Bf2 17. Qd2 Bxe1 18. Rxe1 Nh5 19. g4 Qf6 20. Qe3 Nf4 21. Rg1 Qh6 22. Qf2 Qh4 23. Qxh4 Rxh4 24. Ng3 Rh7 25. c3 O-O-O 26. d4 Rdh8 27. Ne2 Bxg4 28. Rxg4 Rxh2+ 29. Kg1 Nxe2+ 30. Kf1 Nxc3 31. dxe5 Rb2 32. Ke1 Rh1+ 33. Bf1 Nb5 34. exd6 Nxd6 35. Rxg5 Rb1+ 36. Ke2 Rbxf1 37. Kd3 Rxf3+ 0-1

Pin and Win

"Pin and win" is a fairly common piece of advice given to young players. And when it works, the game can be over quite quickly. Here is an example from a junior event I was directing today.


Pinned - Winned [C50]
03.03.2019

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 h6 6. O-O d6 7. Be3 Bb6 8. Qd2 Bg4 9. Bxb6 axb6 10. Qd1 Nd4 11. a3 Nxf3+ 12. gxf3 Bh3 13. Re1 Nd7 14. Bd5 Qg5+ 15. Kh1 Qg2# 0-1

One pig!

The title of this post refers to a joke that will never be published on this blog! But the gist of it is that for all the good thing you do, it is the one bad thing that will be remembered.
Fabiano Caruana took on Pentala Harikrishna in the St Louis Champions Showdown. Over the 12 rapid and 24 blitz games, Caruana was pretty dominant, winning 35.5-12.5 (rapid counting for double points). But the game everyone remembers is the one given below. It was blitz game number 20, and faced with what looked like inevitable mate, Caruana resigned. Only then was it pointed out that Caruana had missed the winning 62.Qb4+ And long after the score of this match is forgotten, I'm pretty sure this game will be well remembered.


Caruana,F (2828) - Harikrishna,P (2726) [C77]
Champions Showdown Blitz Saint Louis USA (20.1), 24.02.2019

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. O-O d6 8. c3 h6 9. Re1 O-O 10. h3 Re8 11. Nbd2 Be6 12. Bc2 d5 13. exd5 Bxd5 14. b4 Bf8 15. a4 g6 16. Qe2 Bg7 17. Ne4 Nxe4 18. dxe4 Bc4 19. Qe3 Qe7 20. Nd2 Be6 21. Bd3 Rab8 22. axb5 axb5 23. Qe2 Bd7 24. Nb3 Nd8 25. Be3 Ne6 26. g3 c6 27. Ra7 Ra8 28. Rea1 Rxa7 29. Rxa7 Qd6 30. h4 Rc8 31. Bc2 Be8 32. h5 g5 33. Qf3 Qd8 34. Na5 Rc7 35. Bb6 Qb8 36. Ra6 Qc8 37. Bxc7 Qxa6 38. Bd6 c5 39. Be7 Qa7 40. Bd6 Qb6 41. Qd3 cxb4 42. Bxb4 Bf8 43. Bxf8 Kxf8 44. Nb3 Qd8 45. Qe3 Qc7 46. Bd1 Qc4 47. Nd2 Qc5 48. Qd3 b4 49. cxb4 Qxb4 50. Nf3 f6 51. Bb3 Nd4 52. Nxd4 Qxd4 53. Qa6 Qd8 54. Qe6 Bxh5 55. Qg8+ Ke7 56. Qg7+ Kd6 57. Qxh6 Bf3 58. Bd5 Kc5 59. Qg7 Qa5 60. Qe7+ Kd4 61. Kh2 Qa1 0-1