During the week I have had to make two trips to Sydney for chess related business. While Sydney is becoming increasingly difficult to get around in (by car at least, public transport is often better) I did make one useful detour.
Sappho Books is a second hand bookshop / cafe on Glebe Point Road, and currently has quite a large collection of second hand books (and by large, their catalogue has over 1000). Due to the sale of a personal collection, the range of books (and pamphlets) cover almost every facet of the game, and range in age of recent publications to a number of old classics.
Operating on a very limited budget, I looked rather than purchased, as I was likely to walk out with more than I could carry if I unleashed the credit card. Of course I will probably have a more detailed shopping list the next time I return, but for now, I leave it to others to empty the shelves.
Some books are probably priced a higher than they should be (no doubt based on price lookups on the interent), but there are still plenty of cheaper and/or historic books. So if you are in the Glebe area of Sydney (or in the mood for a special trip) I do recommend you drop in, either to build up your chess library, or simply for a coffee and a browse.
Thursday, 31 January 2019
Wednesday, 30 January 2019
How do you retire from chess?
With news that former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik is retiring from professional chess, I'm wondering what the actual process for doing this is. In Kramnik's case it is a little more clear cut, as he did specify 'professional' chess, and I'm assuming this means he won't be playing any high level events, at least in the near future. He has said he will now be focusing on chess education projects, so it isn't the case that he is quitting chess altogether.
There have been some famous 'retirements' over the years, some which have been reasonably permanent and some that have not. Emmanuel Lasker retired a few times in his career, but kept coming back after a period away from the board. Gary Kasparov's retirement in 2005 has been a more 'proper' retirement, although he has continued to play exhibition style events (and some competitive quickplay tournaments) since. Bobby Fischer also stopped playing after 1972 (until 1992) but he didn't so much retire as simply refuse to play anyone.
As for non-professionals, players don't so much retire, as just give up playing. Everyone now and then you might see an announcement of social media about 'taking a break from the game', although I find players who do this seem to return for the next tournament after all (As an aside I know at least one player who announces they are quitting chess after almost every loss). More commonly players just drift away from actual play, until they convince themselves that it is too hard to get back into the rhythm of club or competition chess. So not quite retired, instead, just not active.
There have been some famous 'retirements' over the years, some which have been reasonably permanent and some that have not. Emmanuel Lasker retired a few times in his career, but kept coming back after a period away from the board. Gary Kasparov's retirement in 2005 has been a more 'proper' retirement, although he has continued to play exhibition style events (and some competitive quickplay tournaments) since. Bobby Fischer also stopped playing after 1972 (until 1992) but he didn't so much retire as simply refuse to play anyone.
As for non-professionals, players don't so much retire, as just give up playing. Everyone now and then you might see an announcement of social media about 'taking a break from the game', although I find players who do this seem to return for the next tournament after all (As an aside I know at least one player who announces they are quitting chess after almost every loss). More commonly players just drift away from actual play, until they convince themselves that it is too hard to get back into the rhythm of club or competition chess. So not quite retired, instead, just not active.
Tuesday, 29 January 2019
It's the little things
Here is another interesting game from the 2019 Gibraltar Masters. Lev Aronian beat Nigel Short in a game where Aronian looked to have an increasing advantage throughout. After the game Short commented that he could have resigned around move 25, and he couldn't understand what he did wrong.
I can sympathise with his predicament, as I often get lost positions without realising it until far too late. In Short's case it does become clear that his queenside pawns are the problem, but what he should have done is a more difficult question the answer.
Short,Nigel D (2648) - Aronian,Levon (2767) [B90]
Gibraltar Masters 2019 Caleta ENG (6.2), 27.01.2019
I can sympathise with his predicament, as I often get lost positions without realising it until far too late. In Short's case it does become clear that his queenside pawns are the problem, but what he should have done is a more difficult question the answer.
Short,Nigel D (2648) - Aronian,Levon (2767) [B90]
Gibraltar Masters 2019 Caleta ENG (6.2), 27.01.2019
Sunday, 27 January 2019
There is a right way
Finding a refutation to every opening you face is the dream of the average player. Of course it should remain a dream, as such a thing is not possible. However, this does not stop chess books (especially 'repertoire' books) from promising something very close to this.
I must confess I get seduced by such claims, and even if I am aware such a line won't work in every circumstance, Is still think it might still be good enough to beat most players. One example is my anti Pirc/Modern line, which I have been playing for around 10 years. It is a pretty basic cave-man line, based around Be3,Qd2,Bh6 and f4. While I have had some success with it, it has also gone wrong when my kingside hack runs out of steam, and I get wiped out on the queenside.
So I was quite pleased to come across the following game from the 2019 Gibraltar Masters. Sure, White outrates his opponent by more than 200 points, but Black, at 2481, is still a lot stronger than players I usually meet.
Vitiugov,Nikita (2720) - Harsha,Bharathakoti (2481) [B07]
Gibraltar Masters 2019 Caleta ENG (5.6), 26.01.2019
I must confess I get seduced by such claims, and even if I am aware such a line won't work in every circumstance, Is still think it might still be good enough to beat most players. One example is my anti Pirc/Modern line, which I have been playing for around 10 years. It is a pretty basic cave-man line, based around Be3,Qd2,Bh6 and f4. While I have had some success with it, it has also gone wrong when my kingside hack runs out of steam, and I get wiped out on the queenside.
So I was quite pleased to come across the following game from the 2019 Gibraltar Masters. Sure, White outrates his opponent by more than 200 points, but Black, at 2481, is still a lot stronger than players I usually meet.
Vitiugov,Nikita (2720) - Harsha,Bharathakoti (2481) [B07]
Gibraltar Masters 2019 Caleta ENG (5.6), 26.01.2019
Saturday, 26 January 2019
The Clash of Champions
The clash of current and former World Champions always carry some significance. For the ex-champion it is often about proving that they still 'have it' as a player, while for the champion, it is about proving there is a reason why they currently hold the title.
So the Round 10 pairing of Anand v Carlsen was always going to be eagerly watched. And just to add some extra spice, Carlsen and Anand were also equal first after 9 rounds.
In a long battle, Carlsen emerged the winner, in a very instructive game. Playing a slightly unusual line in the Ruy Lopez, he ended up with a better pawn structure, and then nursed the advantage all the way through to a won ending. Despite the length of the game, it is one worth playing through, as there is plenty to learn from it.
Carlsen,M (2835) - Anand,V (2773) [C77]
81st Tata Steel GpA Wijk aan Zee NED (10), 23.01.2019
So the Round 10 pairing of Anand v Carlsen was always going to be eagerly watched. And just to add some extra spice, Carlsen and Anand were also equal first after 9 rounds.
In a long battle, Carlsen emerged the winner, in a very instructive game. Playing a slightly unusual line in the Ruy Lopez, he ended up with a better pawn structure, and then nursed the advantage all the way through to a won ending. Despite the length of the game, it is one worth playing through, as there is plenty to learn from it.
Carlsen,M (2835) - Anand,V (2773) [C77]
81st Tata Steel GpA Wijk aan Zee NED (10), 23.01.2019
Friday, 25 January 2019
World Champions and bad(?) stats
"The Ratings of Chessplayers:Past and Present" by Arpad Elo is basically the text book for the FIDE Ratings System. Written in 1978, it describes how the Elo System was developed and has a look at the ratings of players from when it was written, and before.
One section of the book is about estimating the rating of players from the 1850s and 60's, when of course there was no rating system to speak of. Based on his calculations, he estimated Morphy's strength at 2695, with Anderssen the second highest at 2552.
As an exercise I attempted to apply the same process to all World Champions (as listed in this post), based solely on results between each other. In doing so I came across some interesting statistics, as well as drawing the conclusion that the method Elo used may not have been entirely accurate.
The method he used was to take a set of results between a group of players, and based on their percentage score find D(P) for each player (This is the number of points added to the average of the opponents rating to give an estimated performance rating for the player). He gave every a player a starting rating of 500 and then added each D(P) for each player to calculate a new rating. He then averaged these new ratings (weighted by the number of games played) and added the D(P) to this, to get a 'better' rating. After a few iterations the ratings stabilised, which Elo considered 'remarkable'.
I'd have to agree with him in this case, as I've never been able to replicate this result with other data. One of the issues that he doesn't mention is that the calculations of D(P) across a pool isn't symmetrical. An example of this is as follows: In a 3 player group Player A score 7/10 against player C. Player B also scores 7/10 against Player C. Player A and B score 5/10 against each other. Player A and B each score 60% which is a D(P) of 72. Player C scores 30% which is a D(P) of -149. So the first iteration would have A and B rated 572 and C rated 351. After the next iteration A and B would be rated 535.5 while C would be rated 423. Iteration 3 would have A and B at 551 and player C at 386.5. At first this looks like the ratings are heading in the right direction (albeit by overshooting and undershooting), but at each iteration, the average rating of the pool is decreasing slightly. This is because the D(P) of A and B adds up to 144, while the D(P) of C is -149. So each iteration sees a loss of 1.66 points across the pool (5 divided by the 3 players).
I first encountered this bug years ago when trying to set up a starting ratings system for a group of unrated junior players. I re-encountered it when trying to compare the performance of World Champions using results against each other. The greater the iterations, the lower the ratings became. Which wasn't what I was looking for at all.
To get something sensible out of the experiment, I had to add a scaling factor. At the end of the iteration I calculated the net loss of rating points and then 'gave' that back to each player. This kept the average rating at 500 across the pool, and at least made it look sensible. However, my lack of statistical training makes me wonder if I have introduced another error into the calculations.
As for the actual results, Kasparov comes out with the highest rating at 565 (add 2250 to this to give a kind of rating typical of today's top players). This isn't particularly surprising, nor is Steinitz bringing up the rear with a rating of 354.
What is a little more surprising is that between Fischer (527) and Kasparov are Carlsen (548), Karpov (538), Anand (530) and Kramnik (541). The score for Anand and Kramnik I found a bit surprising, although the fact they played lots of games against Kasparov and Karpov may have lifted their own ratings.
For the older World Champions Lasker (500) and Capablanca (512) are slightly ahead of everyone until Fischer, although the run of Soviet champions from Botvinnik to Spassky are tightly bunched in the 489 to 499 band (Probably because they played against each other a lot, and drew a lot of these games).
What does this prove? Probably nothing. The data set makes no distinction between the ages of the players ( eg Anand has games against Smyslov, Tal and Spassky), and so results from when a player is improving are weighted the same as when they are at the end of their career.
As an exercise in calculation (and programming) it was an interesting one, but until I check my working, it may not be an accurate one.
One section of the book is about estimating the rating of players from the 1850s and 60's, when of course there was no rating system to speak of. Based on his calculations, he estimated Morphy's strength at 2695, with Anderssen the second highest at 2552.
As an exercise I attempted to apply the same process to all World Champions (as listed in this post), based solely on results between each other. In doing so I came across some interesting statistics, as well as drawing the conclusion that the method Elo used may not have been entirely accurate.
The method he used was to take a set of results between a group of players, and based on their percentage score find D(P) for each player (This is the number of points added to the average of the opponents rating to give an estimated performance rating for the player). He gave every a player a starting rating of 500 and then added each D(P) for each player to calculate a new rating. He then averaged these new ratings (weighted by the number of games played) and added the D(P) to this, to get a 'better' rating. After a few iterations the ratings stabilised, which Elo considered 'remarkable'.
I'd have to agree with him in this case, as I've never been able to replicate this result with other data. One of the issues that he doesn't mention is that the calculations of D(P) across a pool isn't symmetrical. An example of this is as follows: In a 3 player group Player A score 7/10 against player C. Player B also scores 7/10 against Player C. Player A and B score 5/10 against each other. Player A and B each score 60% which is a D(P) of 72. Player C scores 30% which is a D(P) of -149. So the first iteration would have A and B rated 572 and C rated 351. After the next iteration A and B would be rated 535.5 while C would be rated 423. Iteration 3 would have A and B at 551 and player C at 386.5. At first this looks like the ratings are heading in the right direction (albeit by overshooting and undershooting), but at each iteration, the average rating of the pool is decreasing slightly. This is because the D(P) of A and B adds up to 144, while the D(P) of C is -149. So each iteration sees a loss of 1.66 points across the pool (5 divided by the 3 players).
I first encountered this bug years ago when trying to set up a starting ratings system for a group of unrated junior players. I re-encountered it when trying to compare the performance of World Champions using results against each other. The greater the iterations, the lower the ratings became. Which wasn't what I was looking for at all.
To get something sensible out of the experiment, I had to add a scaling factor. At the end of the iteration I calculated the net loss of rating points and then 'gave' that back to each player. This kept the average rating at 500 across the pool, and at least made it look sensible. However, my lack of statistical training makes me wonder if I have introduced another error into the calculations.
As for the actual results, Kasparov comes out with the highest rating at 565 (add 2250 to this to give a kind of rating typical of today's top players). This isn't particularly surprising, nor is Steinitz bringing up the rear with a rating of 354.
What is a little more surprising is that between Fischer (527) and Kasparov are Carlsen (548), Karpov (538), Anand (530) and Kramnik (541). The score for Anand and Kramnik I found a bit surprising, although the fact they played lots of games against Kasparov and Karpov may have lifted their own ratings.
For the older World Champions Lasker (500) and Capablanca (512) are slightly ahead of everyone until Fischer, although the run of Soviet champions from Botvinnik to Spassky are tightly bunched in the 489 to 499 band (Probably because they played against each other a lot, and drew a lot of these games).
What does this prove? Probably nothing. The data set makes no distinction between the ages of the players ( eg Anand has games against Smyslov, Tal and Spassky), and so results from when a player is improving are weighted the same as when they are at the end of their career.
As an exercise in calculation (and programming) it was an interesting one, but until I check my working, it may not be an accurate one.
Thursday, 24 January 2019
Mouse slip
Way way back in the day, there were a few things that stood out in Internet Chess. The 2m+12s time control was the first, and takebacks was the second. The reason for such a big increment was due to 'lag', a problem eventually solved by the invention of 'timeseal'.
I remember feeling that the topic of 'takebacks' was kind of divisive in the online chess community. Some players allowed them for obvious mouse slips, while others had a strict 'no take back' policy. While I think the latter choice makes much more sense for everyone, I personally was a bit of a softie. I never asked for them if I made a misclick, but never refused them if asked (as far as I can recall). I'm pretty sure there was the occasional opponent who wanted to fix up a blunder (rather than a mouse slip), but honestly, I wasn't fussed.
At least in online competitions, this is now a thing of the past. Otherwise Black in the following game might have gone 'oops, clicked on the wrong piece', rather than get mated in 2. But his whole position was so horrible at that point, he may have wanted to just get the game over with.
Rohde,M (2358) - Haria,R (2450) [D38]
PRO League Group Stage chess.com INT (2), 15.01.2019
I remember feeling that the topic of 'takebacks' was kind of divisive in the online chess community. Some players allowed them for obvious mouse slips, while others had a strict 'no take back' policy. While I think the latter choice makes much more sense for everyone, I personally was a bit of a softie. I never asked for them if I made a misclick, but never refused them if asked (as far as I can recall). I'm pretty sure there was the occasional opponent who wanted to fix up a blunder (rather than a mouse slip), but honestly, I wasn't fussed.
At least in online competitions, this is now a thing of the past. Otherwise Black in the following game might have gone 'oops, clicked on the wrong piece', rather than get mated in 2. But his whole position was so horrible at that point, he may have wanted to just get the game over with.
Rohde,M (2358) - Haria,R (2450) [D38]
PRO League Group Stage chess.com INT (2), 15.01.2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)