Lifeline Bookfair 2008

Spent an hour this morning looking for second hand chess books at the 2008 Lifeline Bookfair. Unlike previous years it was slim pickings. I found 2 books I didn't have amongst the 6 or so books in total. One of the books I did get was a signed copy of 'Nigel Shorts Chess Skills', although it wasn't signed by Nigel, but by local players Ian Hosking and Ian Rout. Maybe that makes it more valuable, but somehow I doubt it.
But one thing I did notice, and indeed always notice at second hand bookfairs/shops, is that there always seems to be plenty of books on Bridge. At most place I frequent the ration is usually 3 or 4 to 1 (ie for every chess book there would be 3 or 4 bridge books). Now the cause of this isn't that there are more bridge books than chess books in circulation, as far more books on chess are published than bridge. However it could be that there are more bridge players to buy books in Australia than chess players, and this may be true, as bridge tournaments have a far greater entry then chess tournaments. But that only explains the purchase of books, not their disposal.
My (morbid) theory on the disposal of bridge books is that these books are entering the market via deceased estates. And as bridge players are on average older than chess players, this happens more frequently for bridge players than chess players. Of course I could be wrong, and by applying Ockhams Razor (the simplest explanation is often the best), it could be that bridge players just care about books less then chess players do.

Chess is a hard game after all

One of my favourite sayings is "Chess is an easy game, it is just hard to do the easy things well". However one thing that people are now discussing from the current Linares tournament are the number of blunders, blunders that people normally don't expect from the top players. So much so that Chessvibes is even running a poll about what the cause could be. Of the number of choices I'm pleased to see that "These aren't blunders, these are highly complex choices" has the most votes, as at least a large group of fans recognise that chess isn't always easy.
One game the is being used as evidence is the Carlsen v Topalov game from Rd 12 where Topalov plays a howler on move 34 and walks into a mate.

Carlsen,M (2733) - Topalov,V (2780) [A28]
XXV SuperGM Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP (12), 04.03.2008

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nb6 7.Be2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.a4 Be6 10.Be3 Nd7 11.d4 exd4 12.Nxd4 Nxd4 13.Qxd4 c6 14.a5 Nc5 15.Qe5 Nb3 16.Ra4 Bd6 17.Qh5 g6 18.Qh6 Be5 19.Bg5 Qc7 20.Be3 Nxa5 21.f4 Bg7 22.Qh4 Bb3 23.Rd4 Rad8 24.e5 Rxd4 25.Bxd4 c5 26.Be3 f6 27.Nb5 Qd8 28.f5 fxe5 29.Bg5 Qb6 30.f6 c4+ 31.Kh1 Qxb5 32.fxg7 Rxf1+ 33.Bxf1 Kxg7 34.Bd8 (D)
34... Nc6 35.Qf6+ Kg8 36.Qe6+ Kf8 37.Bg5 1-0

On request

A couple of players at the ANU Chess Club requested I show the top board Endre Ambrus v Andrey Bliznyuk clash from Round 4 of the ANU Summer Swiss. Regular readers of this blog would know the Endre Ambrus is a recent arrival in Australia, and has just entered the Australian Ratings System with a rating of 2372. Although he is still listed as an overseas player, his rating currently ranks him 9th on the top players list. Andrey Bliznyuk has been the top player for a couple of years at the ANU Club, originally learning his chess in Novosibirsk before moving to Australia over a decade ago.

Ambrus,E - Bliznyuk,A [B50]
ANU Summer Swiss, 05.03.2008

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 e6 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d3 Be7 6.c3 0-0 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.Re1 b5 9.Nbd2 Bb7 10.Nf1 a5 11.Ng3 a4 12.Bc2 Qc7 13.d4 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.cxd4 e5 16.Nf5 Rfc8 17.Bd3 Bc6 18.Bg5 h6 19.Bd2 Bf8 20.Rc1 Qb7 21.Qf3 d5 22.Nxh6+ gxh6 23.Qxf6 dxe4 24.Re3 1-0

Google Chess Gadgets

Anyone who has set up a page/blog/site using google tools knows that they provide an awful number of 'gadgets' that you can add to your page. Unfortunately 'awful' doesn't just apply to the number of gadgets, but in some cases, the quality of them as well.
For example I had a look for some chess gadgets to add to a page I'm setting up as part of an experimental (and I do mean experimental) ANU Chess Club site. Doing a search for 'chess' in the 'add gadget' dialog threw up a number of choices, so I began to experiment with them. The first chess playing gadget seemed OK as I began the game (as White) with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!! The Traxler!. I was already impressed. However ... 5.Nxf7 Nxe4?? 6.Nxd8 Kxd8 7.O-O left me less than impressed. But I wasn't looking for a strong program, just a fun one. But during the next game the program got out of check by castling, so I scratched that from my list.
The next program was just as weak, but as long as it played legal chess I could live with it. Unfortunately when I checkmated it on move 10 it decided to keep playing, and only recognised it had been mated AFTER I captured the king. Scratch program number 2.
However I had more success with program number 3. Not only did "Chess against the Computer" as it is named, play legally, it also played very well. The only drawback at this point is that it doesn't allow promotions, but I'm hoping that this will soon be fixed.
I've also added a couple of gadgets for viewing historical games and problem solving. Feel free to have a look at the ANU Chess Club gadget page (built with google sites after a tip from The Closet Grandmaster), just don't complain about the layout. I'm still working on it!

Correspondence King Hunt

A small Monday night analysis group has started up in Canberra, in the charming reading room located at the back of King O'Malley's pub. One of the positions we looked at came from a recent edition of Chess Today, and involved mating the Black King which stood on b2! Someone asked how the King managed to end up there and I said I'd try and find the game. Half remembering it as a correspondence game included in "The Worlds Greatest Chess Games" by Burgess, Nunn and Emms, I did some searching and found the following in my database. The notes for this game are not by me, but from the sources listed in the game header.

Kopylov,I - Korolev,S [B29]
Dobrovolsky Memorial 81-83 corr, 1981
[INF 36/205, Kopylov, etc.]

This is one of three CC games in the Mammoth book of 100 Greatest Games edited by Nunn/Burgess/Emms but they have event details wrong. The event it was played in was not a USSR Championship but the Dobrovolsky Memorial, 1981-83. According to Sergey Grodzensky, Dobrovolsky (1928-1971) was a Soviet cosmonaut-pilot. He perished in 1971 (space flight - Volkov, Dobrovolsky, Patsaev...). This was the decisive game in the tournament. Additional notes are in Nunn's edition of the Cozens book "The King Hunt" and in M. Arkhangelsky's CC booklet. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nc3 e6 5.Ne4 Nc6 6.c4 Ndb4 ?! M.A. 7.a3 Qa5 8.Qb3 [ 8.Rb1 Na2!;
8.Nc3 d5 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Nb5 ( 10.d3 Ne5 11.Ng5! Be7 12.f4! Nec6 13.Be3 Nd4! 14.Bxd4 cxd4 15.axb4 Qxb4 16.Ra4 Qxb2 17.Ne2 Bd7÷ Barash-Korolev SU 1986) 10...Bb8 11.b3 Nd4 12.Nbxd4 cxd4 13.Bb2 Nc6 14.b4 Qf5 15.b5 Ne5 16.Bxd4 0-0 17.Bxe5 Bxe5 18.d4± Kopylov-Korolev, 1982 (untraced. Game or analysis?)] 8...d5 9.exd6 e5 [ Black should play 9...f5 10.Nxc5 Qxc5 11.axb4 Qxb4 with at best a slight advantage to White said Kopylov. Amazing complications now follow as both players soon forsake the right to castle:] 10.Rb1 Na6 11.g4?! Says Kopylov; !? M.A. White's idea is to maintain the d6 pawn by preventing the move ...f5. If 11...Bxg4 then 12 Qxb7. 11...Qd8 12.d4!? ! M.A. 12...exd4?! [ 12...cxd4? 13.c5;
12...Bxd6 13.d5 Nd4 14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Qb5+ Kf8 16.h3 Qe7 17.Bg2 f5 18.Bg5!] 13.Bf4 Qd7 14.Bg3 h5! [ 14...Qxg4 15.Nfg5] 15.Kd2! [ 15.g5? h4! 16.Bxh4 Rxh4 17.Nxh4 Qg4!;
15.gxh5 f5] 15...hxg4 16.Re1 Kd8 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Qc6(D)
19.Ng5! Rh5! Ingenious counterplay. Not [ 19...Qxh1 20.Nxf7+ Kd7 21.Nxh8 ( 21.Qb5+ Qc6 22.Nxh8± Fernschach) 21...Bxd6 22.Bxd6 Kxd6 23.Qg3+ followed by Bg2+-] 20.Bxg7! [ The N would be trapped after 20.Nxf7+? Ke8!] 20...Bxd6 [ 20...Bxg7 21.Nxf7+ Kd7 22.Re7#;
If 20...Qxh1 21.Nxf7+ Kd7 then 22.Bxf8 say Kopylov and Arkhangelsky( 22.Qb5+ Qc6 23.Bxf8 which source?) ;
20...Rxg5 21.Bxf8 Qxh1 22.Be7+ Kd7 23.Bxg5 Kxd6 24.Qg3+±] 21.Nxf7+ Kc7?! [ 21...Kd7!] 22.Nxd6 Qxd6 23.Bg2 Rg5 24.Bh8 Qh6 25.Qg3+ Kb6 [ 25...Kd8 26.Kd1 Qxh8 27.Qd6+ Bd7 28.Qe7+;
25...Kd7 26.Qf4 Rg6 27.Qxh6 Rxh6 28.Be5 Kopylov] 26.Kd1 Qxh8 27.Qd6+ Ka5 28.Kd2! Threatening 29 b4+ Ka4 30 Bc6+! bxc6 31 Qxc6+ Kb3 32 Qb5 28...Bf5 29.Bxb7 Rg6 30.b4+ Ka4 31.Bc6+ Kb3 32.Qg3+ Kb2 # White now executes a problem-like finish: [ 32...d3 33.Rb1+ Ka2 34.Ra1+ Kb3 35.Rhb1+ Kxc4 36.Qf4+ Qd4 37.Rc1+ Kb3 38.Qxd4 cxd4 39.Bb5 with unavoidable mate: Kopylov] 33.Rb1+!! Bxb1 34.Rxb1+ Kxb1 35.Qb3+ Ka1 36.Kc1! [ Not 36.Kc2?? d3+ and the black Q defends.;
After 36.Kc1! if 36...Qh6+ 37.Kc2 d3+ 38.Qxd3+-] 1-0

Effective Change

There are a number of paths to success (hard work, having rich parents, plain dumb luck etc) but two that interest me are "Success though change" and "Success through creation". And they interest me in the context of successful chess activities.
To give some examples I would regard the ACF* Grand Prix series as "Success through creation". While there had been weekend tournaments in Australia before 1988, it was the creation of series that linked them together that resulted in a 5 fold increase in there number. On the other hand one contributing factor to the increase in junior numbers in Australia was adding the best U/18, U/16 etc lists to the ACF* Rating Booklet, which created a competitive environment, not for individual players, but for state associations and junior organisations.
Of course both methods have the advantages and disadvantages. Based on my own experience, new ideas have a greater chance of failure, but also suffer less resistance (don't like it, don't play). Modifying existing formats normally have a built in safety net (in that you can always return to a previous format), but change runs into resistance from people who feel they may be disadvantaged.
So when you are planning to change how things are done, the question is "Do I still wish to appeal to the lowest common denominator?"
A contemporary example is this years Doeberl Cup. For the first time limits have been placed on the size of the field, and all players (with the exception of the Under 1200's) have to enter in advance. Based on feedback already received there is a belief that "you'll miss out on a number of entries", and while this remains to be seen, those who do enter will no doubt be getting a better "product" through a better organised event.
So I guess what it comes do to is is it worth leaving a few by the wayside on the road to improvement for everyone else? Or as Bud Tingwell said in The Castle, "the greatest good for the greatest number".

*I'd planned to write this post before reading the comments in the "Channels of Communication" entry,so mentions of the Australian Chess Federation come with an automatic apology to ACF Vice President Dennis Jessop.

Miniature of the Month - February 2008

Here is a trap in the Queens Indian Defence. Black attempts to exchange the White pawn on e5 but in doing so allow the White pieces to spring to life.

L'Ami,E (2581) - Monsieux,C (2338) [E15]
XXIV Open Cappelle La Grande FRA (3), 18.02.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Nbd2 Bb7 6.Bg2 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.e5 Ng4 9.0-0 Qc7 10.Re1 d6?? While this move seems to help Black remove an important central White pawn, it turns out that this is a big mistake. So big that every Black players who has reached this position (and there were lots of them) chose to play something else. 11.exd6 Qxd6 (D) [ 11...Bxd6 12.Nxd4 Bxg2 13.Qxg4 Bb7 14.Qxg7 Rf8 15.Ne4 is also bad for Black.] 12.Ne4 But now it is White's turn to miss the best move, although the move played is OK. [ 12.Ng5!! Bxg2 13.Qxg4 and if Black retreats the bishop White just captures on e6 with the knight] 12...Qd7 13.Nxd4 h5 14.Nb5 [ 14.Nb5 Qxd1 ( 14...Bc6 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 16.Bf4 e5 17.Rad1+ Kc8 18.Ned6+ Bxd6 19.Nxd6++-) 15.Rxd1 Na6 ( 15...Ke7 16.h3 Ne5 17.Nbd6 Bxe4 18.Bxe4 Nbc6 19.f4+-) 16.Ned6+ wins a piece.] 1-0