Miniature of the Month - April 2009

Dimitri Reinderman had a rough time of it during his trip to Australia, although he wasn't the first GM visitor to these shores to leave a swag of rating points behind.
But before he made the trek down under he did play the following short game in the Dutch Teams Championship. Although it was played right at the end of March, I'm stretching the rules a little and including it as an April game, for the purposes of this category.

Pruijssers,R (2452) - Reinderman,D (2537) [C41]
Dutch Cht 2008/9 Meesterklasse NED (7.3), 28.03.2009

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Re1 c6 8.a4 b6 9.b3 a6 10.h3 Bb7 11.Bf1 Re8 12.g3 Bf8 13.Bg2 b5 14.Ba3 exd4 (D)
15.Nb1 [ 15.Nxd4 b4 16.Bxb4 c5] 15...c5 16.Nfd2 Qc7 17.Bb2 b4 18.g4 h6 19.f4 g5 0-1

Mtel Masters 2009

The Mtel Masters 2009 kicked off today in Sofia, Bulgaria. While the tournament coverage can be found at www.mtelmasters09.com live coverage for the first round is not happening due to "technical difficulties"
The time control is 40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by 1 hour to finish. As there is no mention of an increment I assume that time scrambles will be part of the fun for spectators. Also no draw offers can be made during the game, and requests for a draw must be made to the arbiters.

Ranking not Rating

There is a big debate going on at the moment about the change to the FIDE Rating System. Essentially the K factor (the value used to calculate rating changes) is being increased from 10 to 20 for players who reach a rating of 2400 (and to 30 for players who are yet to reach 2400). However it seems that FIDE have gone to water on the proposal, in part due to complaints from some players and organisers.
Now I'm a bit of a heretic when it comes to ratings, especially as I think players regard ratings as some sort of personal property, rather than a mathematial solution to a function that measures performance. The net result of this attitude is that it is very hard to convince people of the merits of a system that might result in their ratings going down faster than they currently do (Gaining points is fine, its the losing them thats the problem).
One idea to combat this attitude is the emphasise ranking over rating. Keep whatever rating system is in operation, but publish a players ranking, rather than the rating. Certainly this is what happens in most sports (eg Tennis or Golf), where player X is referred to as the Number N player in the world. Although this sort of happens in chess, once you get below to the top 100 in the world it tends to get all fuzzy.
Of course this would have flow on effects to tournament organisations. Rather than have a Under 2000 section, you would restrict an event to players outside the top 200 (for example). And it might be harder to seed inactive players.
On the up side I would expect players to be less attached to their ranking of 732, than their rating of 1600. If my ranking dropped from 300 to 400 I would be less inclined to blame it on some imagined defect in the rating system, and instead accept that their are an extra 100 players now better than me.
But at this stage it is just a thought experiment, as for it to function effectively, the 'self-esteem crutch' that ratings currently are would have to be removed entirely.

A sneak peek at the next issue of ACCQ

I've been trying to get Australian Correspondence Chess Quarterly ready for the printers over the last few days, and hopefully I'm almost finished. As with all the chess magazines I have edited, the more articles I have to contribute, the later it often is.
Here is a game that will appear in the next issue, played by NZ Master Mark Noble in the Aus/NZ v Portugal Friendly.

Noble,M (2478) - Salvador Marques,C (2424) [B97]
Australia/New Zealand vs Portugal ICCF, 17.11.2008

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nfd7 13.Ne4 g5 [ 13...Qxa2 14.Rb3 has long been considered inferior for White, although this assessment was based on Korchnoi - Tolush, from as far back as 1958. 14...Qa1+ 15.Kf2 Qa4 16.Bb5 axb5 17.Nxb5 Bc5+ 18.Nxc5 Qxh4+ 19.g3 Qd8 20.Qd6 Nxc5 21.Nc7+ Qxc7 22.Qxc7 Nba6 23.Qb6 Nxb3-+] 14.Bg3 Qxa2N 15.Rd1 Qb2 16.Qe3 Nc6 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Be2 Qxc2 (D) White has jettisoned his third pawn, but of course has a lead in development to show for it. Even the normally materialistic computer kibitzer regards this position as equal! 19.0-0 [ 19.Rxd7 is a suggestion of Fritz 9. 19...Bb4+ a) 19...Bxd7 20.Nf6+ Ke7 (a) 20...Kd8 21.Qb6++-) 21.0-0 is winning for White.; b) 19...Kxd7 20.Qd4+ Kc7 21.0-0! c5 22.Rxf7+ Kb8 23.Qd8 Qb1+ 24.Bf1 Ra7 25.Rxa7 Kxa7 26.Qxc8 Qxe4 27.Qxa6+ Kb8 28.Qxe6+-; 20.Rd2 Bxd2+ 21.Nxd2 Qc1+ 22.Bd1 Bb7 according to Fritz this is the only move. ( 22...0-0 23.h4! leads to a winning attack.) 23.Qb3 0-0-0 24.Ne4 Rxd1+ 25.Qxd1 Qe3+ 26.Qe2 Qc1+ 27.Qd1 Qe3+=] 19...Bc5 20.Nxc5 Qxc5 21.Rd4! Obviously White wishes to avoid the exchange of queens. 21...0-0 22.Rc1 Qb6 23.Rcd1 Rb8 24.h4 c5 25.Rd6 Qd8 [ 25...Qb2 26.hxg5 Rb3 27.Bd3 c4 might look good for Black but 28.gxh6 Kh8 29.Rxd7!! Bxd7 ( 29...cxd3 30.Qg5+-; 29...Rxd3 30.Qg5+-) 30.Qg5 Rg8 31.Qf6+ Rg7 32.Qxg7#] 26.hxg5 Qxg5 27.Bf4 Qg6 28.Qh3 Qf5 29.Qxh6 [ 29.Qxf5 exf5 30.Rxd7 Bxd7 31.Rxd7²] 29...Rb1 30.Qh2 Re8 [ 30...f6 31.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 32.Rd1 Qh7 33.Bh6 Rf7 ( 33...Re8 34.Rd3+-) 34.Bh5+-] 31.Qg3+ Kh8 32.R6d3 Rxd1+ 33.Bxd1 Qh7 34.Bg5 Rg8 35.Bc2 1-0

Blitz for the very fit

The purveyors of giant chess pieces must be doing a good trade in Canberra at the moment, as I have seen 3 different educational institutions purchase these sets in the last 2 months. Two of them are Primary Schools, while one of the new ANU Halls of Residences also has a set. And while they are fun to play with, you are always going to get some wag wander up and ask "Where is the giant chess clock that goes with it?" or "You're taking too long, why don't you play blitz?"
However the idea of blitz with giant pieces had already been tried way back in 1936. However in that case the pieces were 'living pieces' (ie humans), so at least they could move themselves. But the game was still played with a 5 minute time limit, so both the players and pieces had to be either quick footed or quick witted. The winner of the following game was very quick, as was his team, as he finished off white in 2 and a half minutes.

Aronian's GP Win

I know it's a little late to cover this, but someone I ran into today reminded me of the conclusion to this tournament.
As tournaments go, this had an extra special finish as the two leaders, Aronian and Leko, were drawn to play each other in the final round. Under the circumstances, a draw might have been the likely outcome, but Aronian won both the game, and outright first place.

Aronian,L (2754) - Leko,P (2751) [E55]
4th FIDE GP Nalchik RUS (13), 29.04.2009

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nbd7 9.Qe2 b6 10.Rd1 cxd4 11.exd4 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Bb7 13.Bb3 Qc7 14.c4 Rfe8 15.Bb2 Qf4 16.Qe3 Qf5 17.Ne1 b5 18.c5 Nd5 19.Qg3 Nf4 20.Rd2 Nf6 21.f3 N6h5 22.Qf2 Bd5 23.Bc2 Qg5 24.Kh1 Bc4 25.g3 Ng6 26.Ng2 Bd5 27.Ne3 Nf6 28.h4 Qh5 29.Nxd5 Nxd5 30.Re1 Red8 31.Rde2 Rab8 32.Bc1 h6 33.Kg2 Nc3 34.Re5 Nxe5 35.Rxe5 f5 36.Bb3 Nd5 37.Rxe6 Kh8 38.Qe1 Nf6 39.Qe5 Re8 40.c6 Rbc8 41.Qxb5 Qg6 42.h5 Qxh5 43.Bf4 a6 44.Qxa6 Nh7 45.c7 Ng5 46.Rxe8+ Qxe8 47.d5 Ra8 48.Qc4 Kh7 49.d6 Qe1 50.Qf1 Qe8 51.Qd3 Qd7 52.Qc4 Qe8 53.Bxg5 hxg5 54.Qg8+ 1-0

Do as I say, not as I do

Quite rightly Aaron Nimzowitsch is considered one of the role models of the 'positional' chess player. His writings and games have formed the basis for a significant amount of modern middlegame theory. So when I was looking through "500 Master Games of Chess" by Tartakower and Du Mont, I was surprised to see Nimzowitsch use the Latvian Gambit in a game against Rudolf Spielmann in a 1926 tournament. The Latvian isn't known for it's positional features, as it is more of a playground for hack and slash merchants on either side of the board.
Nontheless it is kind of refereshing to see Nimzowitsch willingly steer away from the sterile QGD's that plaugued chess before WWII, and to test his middlegame theories outside of what could be considered safe territory. As it turned out Spielmann emerged the winner, although this wasn't the fault of Black's opening. Indeed, if he had chosen 17. ... Nb4 he would have had an almost winning position instead.

Spielmann,R - Nimzowitsch,A [C40]
Semmering Semmering, 1926

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.d5 Nf6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd4 0-0 10.Nd2 c5 11.dxc6 Nxc6 12.Qc4+ Kh8 13.0-0-0 Bg4 14.f3 d5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 exf3 17.gxf3 Rac8 18.Bd3 Bf5 19.Bxf5 Rxf5 20.Qc4 b5 21.Qg4 Qf7 22.Rhg1 Nb4 23.c3 Nxa2+ 24.Kb1 b4 25.Bd4 Bg5 26.c4 b3 27.Ne4 Qg6 28.Qxg5 Rxg5 29.Rxg5 Qf7 30.Nd6 Qxf3 31.Bxg7+ Kg8 32.Be5+ Kf8 33.Rf5+ Qxf5+ 34.Nxf5 Rxc4 35.Rd8+ Kf7 36.Nd6+ 1-0