The most powerful knight in the world

I had a totally bizarre experience in a game I played this evening.  In an 'castle on opposite sides' Caro-Kan my opponent offered me a pawn which I unwisely gobbled. With my queen under attack, I retreated it to d3 which prevented my opponent playing Ne4. Much to my surprise my opponent still played this move, and this is were the weirdness really kicked in. I decided I couldn't take the knight, as if I did, the knight on e4 would capture the bishop on c3. This of course is the knight I had just captured! So instead I chose to retreat the bishop to e1 (covering f2). Then I decided my opponent could simply play Rxb2+ as after Kxb2 Rb8+ Ka1, the knight on e4 would move to c2 (yes it is an illegal move) and I would have to give up my queen!
It was only then that I realised I was giving the knight on e4 magical powers and that I should have played Qxe4 when I had the chance. Deciding that my brain was still capable of playing tricks on me I soon offered my opponent a draw, which he wisely declined. However, I did manage to defend a completely lost position and eventually salvaged a draw (which will be shown in par 2 of this post)

Press,Shaun - Chan,Darryl [B19]
Canberra CC (8), 20.11.2019

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

What was Black thinking?

I observed a pretty wacky game of chess at my local club this evening. Black thought it was a good idea to sacrifice his queen, expecting to be rewarded with at least some compensation. However looking at the game from an elevated (and sideways) observation point I couldn't see exactly what he was expecting. I turns out that there was compensation, in that both players were under 5 minutes after about move 10 (60m+30s was the time limit), and in the ensuing complications, White ran out of time!
Here is the start of the game, as I got sidetracked playing my own game, and was not able to see the rest. White's flag fell around move 30

Aliyev,Kamran - Grcic,Milan [A40]
Korda Classic, 14.08.2018

Caro-damn!

Vladimir Kramnik has a 'Federer' like record at the Dortmund Chess Classic (10 wins). So when he comes unstuck it is usually big news. And it doesn't get any bigger than losing in round 1, against the Caro-Kan of all openings. Playing Vladimir Fedoseev, Kramnik at first went into tranquil waters with 3.exd5, before deciding that the uncastled Black king made a juicy target. The only problem was that it just looked scary, and after a few obvious defensive moves Kramnik had nothing to show for a sacrificed bishop.


Kramnik,V (2812) - Fedoseev,Vl3 (2726) [B13]
45th GM 2017 Dortmund GER (1), 15.07.2017

Don't speak to soon

As a rule I don't discuss games while they are in progress. Either my games or even games where I am not involved. This is mainly due to the fact I direct a lot of events, and I want to make sure everything is by the book.
Of course when I was younger (and before I became a serious arbiter), I often chatted about the state of my game, especially if I felt I was winning. Of course this sort of talk can lead to a quick downfall if you are not careful.
At my local chess club (ANU) this evening this almost happened. A player (who shall remain nameless) sidled up to me and said "I think have a mate in two, against any defence". I just said "uh, huh" and waited till the player returned to the board. Taking a quick glance I noticed two things. Firstly, his opponent had a fairly obvious defence, and secondly, this was almost a copy of a famous incident that occurred over 100 years ago.
In the 1911 Karlsbad tournament, Frank Marshal was up against Fedor Dus Chotimirsky. After a fairly even opening, Dus Chotimirsky spotted a chance to mate Marshall. With Queen, Knight and Bishop all converging in Marshall's King, he went even as far to explain to spectators that 'Poor Marshall dead. Must be mate'. Unfortunately there was a hole in his analysis, and after Marshall's obvious reply  he exclaimed "Oh oh. Marshall not dead, I dead" before resigning.
However, unlike Dus Chotimirsky, the confident ANU player at least ad the satisfaction of winning his game, but it did take longer than he thought.


Marshall,Frank James - Dus Chotimirsky,Fedor Ivanovich [D21]
Karlsbad Karlsbad (25), 24.09.1911

When it just goes pear shaped

The diagram to the right is an approximation to a position I saw at the ANU Chess Club on Wednesday night. I'm pretty sure it isn't quite exact, but is close enough for the purposes of this post.
Clearly White is winning, with some sort of doom about to occur down the open h file. And indeed the obvious 1.Qh2 is the quickest way to end the game. Black replied by running the f rook across the back rank 1. ... Rfe8 (again this may not have been the actual move).
So White now has a choice of winning ideas, but here it began to go wrong. Spotting a brilliant finish to the game, White went for a Q and R sacrifice. 2.Qh8+ Bxh8 3.Rxh8+ Now if Black plays the obvious 3. ... Kxh8 it is all over after 4.Bxf6+ Kg8 5.Rh1 But Black chose the only other legal move in the position 3. ... Kg7! and White must have realised something was wrong. f6 is protected, and Rxh8 is on the cards so White charged on with 4. Rh7+ Only now did Black capture with 4. ... Kxh7 (4. ... Kg8/f8 still loses to 5.Bxf6). There followed 5.Bxf6 with the threat of Rh1+. But with the king on h7, rather than g8, Black had one way to escape, and he took it with 5. ... g5! To his horror White realised there was no longer a mate, and down a Q+R for Bishop, he resigned.
I wouldn't call 2.Qh8 an outright blunder btw As the defensive idea was a four moves down the track, and involved a couple of subtle defensive moves, it was more like a tragic miscalculation.

OMG! Did I miss that?

Nice game this evening, good opening, won a piece after my opponent miscalculated, and then all I had to do is stifle my opponents counterplay. Having done that, deal with a couple of last gasp tricks, and then finish the game off with my extra rook. Except both myself and my opponent missed a rather large plot hole. 39.Qf4?? looks like it kills the last of Blacks play but ...


Press,Shaun - Braguine,Victor [B24]
Belconnen FDK, 30.09.2014

Great Escapes

The 2014 Zurich Chess Challenge provided more entertainment overnight, in the form of the Nakamura - Carlsen game. Before the game Nakamura was talking himself up as the future threat to Carlsen's title, and up until move 37 he might well have been. But he chose a move that he thought was winning (as did the on-site commentators) but turned out  to simply throw away his advantage. And in what is a familiar script when facing Carlsen his position went from winning to equal and then losing in a surprisingly short time.
After the game most comments concerned how amazing the collapse was. Of course at the highest level it is incredibly rare to see a game end this way, but visit any local club or tournament and such tragedies are more common place. For example, the diagrammed position comes from a game I played on the weekend (it was G/15m). I was white, and am completely lost in this position. Yet amazingly I managed to win the game in the space of 10 moves. My opponent (who was behind on the clock), thought the b pawn was going to queen, but missed my plan of h3-g4-gxf5-h4-Bh3-Bxf5 when I am covering b1 and the f pawn is running. Even then it is a draw, but having missed the win, he took one move too long to get the bishop back to e8, and the point was mine.


Nakamura,Hikaru (2789) - Carlsen,Magnus (2872) [E20]
Zurich Chess Challenge 2014 Zurich SUI (3.2), 01.02.2014

The fingerslip

Every now and then we lose due to a fingerslip. Often this is because we calculate a tactical sequence, and then play the moves out of order. It is even worse when we skip over a move ie having calculated a tactical sequence we start with the second move, forgetting the capture/recapture that kicks the whole thing off.

And it doesn't just happen in over the board chess. I've fallen victim to it in CC, losing the game after dropping a pawn for nothing. However the following game is far worse. Played in a CC Thematic event, both players were still in book when White played 16.Qc2?? which dropped a piece. He simply forgot to play 16.Nxd6+ first!

Simon,Bernard (2354) - Mason,Ian J (2195)
WSTT/6/08/F ICCF, 25.01.2010

How Andrew Brown almost made me give up chess

I was quite pleased when Andrew Brown won his last round game at the 2011 Oceania Zonal to clinch the IM title (and second place). Because a number of years ago I lost a game to Andrew that made me consider whether I was even competent enough to keep on playing. It didn't have anything to do with Andrew mind you, except that he was on the other side of the board when I simply blew a winning position by blundering a piece with check.
The loss of that game created a real crisis of confidence in me that affected my play for the next few months. I began to worry about every move, making sure I wasn't making the same mistake, but such "second guessing" can affect how well I play. It took a few months before my results began to recover. Eventually they did (I even won against Andrew in the 2005 ANU Open), and while it wasn't a happy experience, I can now look back and say "Don't be so hard on yourself, he was a future IM after all"

Brown,Andrew - Press,Shaun [D03]
Belconnen Open Belconnen Chess Club, 11.02.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bh4 Be7 5.Nbd2 d5 6.e3 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.c3 Nbd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qe2 c5 11.a4 Ne4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.a5 f5 14.a6 Bc6 15.Bb5 Bxb5 16.Qxb5 g5 17.Nxe4 fxe4 18.Ne1 Rf6 19.Qe2 Raf8 20.Nc2 Qf7 21.b4 e5 22.b5 Rc8 23.Rfd1 exd4 24.cxd4 c4 25.Nb4 Nb8 26.Qg4 Rf8 27.h4 Rg6 28.Ra2 gxh4 29.Qf4 Qd7 30.Qxh4 Qxb5 31.Qh5 Rd6 32.Qg4+ Kh8 33.Rb1 Qd7 34.Qh5 Rf5 35.Qh2 (D)
Rg6 36.Qxb8+ 1-0

What we want versus what we get

No one deliberately plays bad moves at chess. And yet mistakes happen. This is because we play moves we think are good, only to find out, courtesy of our opponent, how bad they really are. Sometimes we might wish a move is good (as in 'I can't see the win but hopefully this move works'), but wishing is not normally an effective strategy.
I believe that a major difference between weak and strong players is that strong players don't make so many wishes. This in part is because they don't need to (because they can see the wins that weaker players can't) but also because they are simply more objective in their choice of moves. If the position requires simple moves, then simple moves it is, and no time wasting looking for more complicated solutions.
So this is why the Giri-Carlsen game from the current Tata Steel tournament was such a big shock. Both Giri and Carlsen chose moves that required a degree of tactical calculation (14. ... cxd5 for Giri, 20.Ng5?? for Carlsen), but it looks like Carlsen's choice was based on a tactical oversight. In the space of 3 moves he had dropped a piece and the game was over.

Carlsen - Giri
Tata Steel Chess 2011 Wijk aan Zee, 17.01.2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Nb6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.e3 0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Re1 a5 11.Qd2 e5 12.d5 Nb4 13.e4 c6 14.a3 cxd5 15.axb4 axb4 16.Rxa8 bxc3 17.bxc3 Nxa8 18.exd5 Nb6 19.Rd1 e4 (D)
20.Ng5 e3 21.Qb2 Qxg5 22.Bxe3 Qg4 0-1

Make sure you get the first move right

There is nothing more embarrassing than calculating a winning line, only to play the first move out of order, or overlook an instant refutation. I've done it on occasion (even at correspondence chess), usually when the sequence starts with a capture and recapture, followed by the rest of the combination. Under those circumstances I've skipped right past the initial capture, much to the detriment of my subsequent play.
Early on in his chess career Svetozar Gligoric feel victim to a similar mistake. Playing in his first international event against Goesta Stoltz, he achieved a winning position, and calculated what he thought was the best path to victory. Unfortunately he forgot his queen was attacked. Shocked at his own blunder he played on for a number of moves before resigning.

Gligoric,Svetozar - Stoltz,Goesta [E44]
Treybal mem Prague (10), 1946

1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6 5.Nge2 Bb7 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Nxc3 Ne4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Qg4 Bg6 10.Be2 Nc6 11.Bd2 Na5 12.Bc3 h5 13.Qg3 h4 14.Qg4 Rh7 15.d5 Nb3 16.Rd1 Bf5 17.Qf3 Nc5 18.b4 Ne4 19.Bb2 Qe7 20.dxe6 fxe6 21.Bd3 d5 22.cxd5 Ng5 23.Bb5+ Kf8(D)
24.Bc6?? Nxf3+ 25.gxf3 Rd8 26.e4 exd5 27.Bxd5 Be6 28.0-0 Bxd5 29.exd5 h3 30.Rd4 Rh4 0-1

Grischuk - Blindfold Master

The Melody Amber tournament in Nice finished in a tie for first between Magnus Carlsen and Vasily Ivanchuk. While Ivanchuk was the only player to go through the event undefeated, Carlsen lost 6 games, although his 11.5/12 against the bottom 6 finishers made up for this.
However the player who proved best at the blindfold section was last minute replacement Alexander Grischuk. Filling in for Alexander Morozevich, Grischuk scored 8/11, losing only one game to Lev Aronian. His last round game against Carlsen helped decide the final standings, as well as showing one of the occasional pitfalls of blindfold chess. On move 25 Carlsen simply lost track of the White queen and played the losing capture on e4!

Grischuk,A (2756) - Carlsen,Magnus (2813) [E70]
19th Amber Blindfold Nice FRA (11), 25.03.2010

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bg5 0-0 6.Qd2 Na6 7.Bd3 e5 8.d5 Qe8 9.Nge2 Nh5 10.f3 f5 11.0-0-0 Nc5 12.Bc2 Bd7 13.Rde1 fxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.fxe4 b5 16.cxb5 Rf2 17.Rhg1 Nf4 18.Qe3 Rxg2 19.Nxf4 exf4 20.Bxf4 Rxg1 21.Rxg1 Qe7 22.Bd3 Rf8 23.Rf1 Qh4 24.Bg3 Rxf1+ 25.Bxf1 (D) 25...Qxe4?? 26.Qxe4 1-0

The Personal Touch

A number of years ago I purchased a set of notebooks containing the games from a number of important chess tournaments. The tournaments were Interzonals, Candidate Finals, US Championships, Hasting etc from around 1930 through to the 1950's. What was interesting about these books were that the games were entered in incredibly neat handwriting, one game per page. They also included hand written cross tables, and other ancillary information.
These days you could get all the information at the press of a button, but in those days this was the closest thing to a database a player might have. And while the tournaments selected were of the highest level, the transcriber of the games occasionally strayed to a lower level even including the following gem from 1959.

Mayfield - Trinks [B00]
Omaha ch Omaha ch, 1959

1.e4 g5 2.Nc3 f5 3.Qh5# 1-0

Anticipating Anand

The story behind Anand's 6 move loss to Alonso Zapata in 1988 is reasonably well known. (The one where Anand repeated an idea from Miles v Christensen 1987 that he saw in an Informater, not realising that Christensen's 5 move was a blunder, or knowing that as Miles and Christensen had agreed to a draw prior to the game, Miles couldn't play the refutation).

Zapata,A (2480) - Anand,V (2555) [C42]
Biel-B Biel (9), 1988

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5?? 6.Qe2 1-0

What is less well known is that Joe Rush from Papua New Guinea had played 5. ... Bf5 5 years earlier, during the 1982 Luzern Olympiad. Unfortunately for him his opponent found the right move, although Rush decided to fight on for another dozen moves.

Saleh,M - Rush,J [C42]
Luzern ol (Men) Luzern (12), 1982

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5 6.Qe2 d5 7.d3 Be7 8.dxe4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 0-0 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Be3 Qd5 12.Qd2 Qe6 13.Bd3 f5 14.0-0 Nc6 15.Rfe1 Qf6 16.Bg5 Qxb2 17.Bxe7 Nxe7 18.Rab1 Qxa2 19.Qb4 1-0

BTW If anyone who reads this is in contact with Joe Rush, could you please put him in touch with me.

(Thanks for this titbit goes to the Streatham & Brixton Chess Club Blog, where you can read the whole story here)

A Tragedy in 3 Acts

The first round of a swiss tournament usually involves the top half demonstrating to the bottom half why they are in the bottom half. Of course there are a couple of upsets just to give people something to talk about, but the above script is normally followed.
But the first round of the ANU Winter Swiss definitely didn't follow the script. There were a number of upsets, and the results of a number of games were decided by single (bad) moves.
The Bronze Medal went to the game where in a drawn position one player missed the only threat his opponent had by allowing his Queen to be pinned against his King.
The Silver Medal was earned when excellent play saw the lower rated player emerge an exchange up with nothing left on the board except RvB (plus pawns for both sides). All that was left was to clean up a few stray pawns, but unfortunately the first move in the plan placed his Rook on the same diagonal as his King allowing a Bishop fork.
But the Gold went to the game shown in the diagram. White had been doing all the attacking, and triumphantly concluded the game by playing Rf8+. Black looked at the board, looked at the opponent, and then reached out his hand to .... Resign! "Can't stop that" he remarked. Watching the game I was also caught up in the mass delusion as it took me 30 seconds to realise (and point out) that Rxf8 just wins a Rook for Black.

BDG Disaster

Over the weekend I travelled up to Orange, NSW, to help celebrate my Grandmothers 90th birthday. It was good to see family again, especially those I hadn't seen for 20+ years. But it wasn't just family memories I caught up on, it was also some chess memories.
On the Sunday morning the Press family had breakfast at the Orange RSL. Good breakfast, and cheap too. But 20 years previously (almost to the day!), the Orange RSL was the scene of one of my biggest chess disasters.
In those days the Orange Chess Club ran an annual weekender, and as my grandmother lived there, I always went up to play. In 1987 I must have been doing pretty well as I went into the last round needing a win to collect a ratings prize. My last round opponent was local player Fritz Van Der Waal, who had beaten me a couple of times previously (and a couple more times since). From previous encounters I knew that Fritz played the Centre Counter, so I transposed into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.

Press,S - Van Der Waal,F [B01]
Orange, 1987
1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qc8 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qf2 c6 8.Nf3 e6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Bg5 Nbd7 11.Rae1 0-0 12.h3 Qc7 13.g4 Bg6 14.Re2 h6 15.Bh4 b5 16.Bd3 Bxd3 17.cxd3 Nd5 18.Nxd5 cxd5 19.g5 h5 20.g6 f6 21.Rxe6 Rfe8 22.Ng5 Nf8 23.Qf3 Nxe6 24.Nxe6 Rxe6 25.Qxh5 Qc2 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Bxf6
At this stage I was feeling pretty confident that victory was in my grasp. Although I was down material I couldn't see how he could escape from deadly discovered checks. The game had attracted a small crowd, including GM Ian Rogers, and after playing 27.Bxf6 I confidently got up from the board to stretch my legs. As I walked away from the board the spectators began to give me strange looks, and when I informed former Australian Junior Champion Konrad Hornung that I was pretty sure I was winning, he replied "Are you sure?"
I returned to board, and quickly realised what he meant.
27...Qh2# 0-1

So no prize, no brilliancy, and an important lesson about checks and captures.