Qg6!

One of the 'stock' tactical tricks I learnt when I first started studying chess was how to sneak the queen into g6. Normally this depended upon White having a bishop pinning the f pawn (otherwise fxg6 is embarrassing) as well as a knight on g5 to support the mate threat on h7. I'm not sure I've ever played it in a long time control game, but I've certainly used it in the odd blitz game or two.
Here is a text book example of the tactical idea in practice from a recent European open.

Grigoriants,S RUS (2564) - Mestre Bellido,H (2292) [C78]
XI Sants Open Barcelona ESP (5), 25.08.2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.c3 0-0 8.d4 Bb6 9.dxe5 Nxe4 10.Bd5 Nc5 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Ne4 Ne6 13.Bg5 Nxg5 14.Nfxg5 h6 15.Qh5 Qe7 (D)
16.Qg6 1-0

First as a study, then in real life

Earlier this year I used a problem to demonstrate that computers were 'inaccurate'. It turns out my conclusions were incorrect, based on the problem being unsound. (Click here and here for the details).
I've now discovered that Peter Svidler actually reached a position with similar characteristics, and was also able to construct a win where others may have given up. In the book "Devious Chess" by Amatzia Avni he gives a position from Dvoiris - Svidler, 1997, which is shown here. The king is trapped by the bishop and pawn (as in the linked articles) so Svidler needs to rely on Zugzwang to lift the blockade. He actually does this with relative ease after
50.c3 Qe2 51.Bc4 Qd1+ 52.Kb2 Qd2+ 53.Kb3 Qc1 54.Bf7 Qb1+ 55.Kc4 Qc2 56.Kd4 Qe2! 57.c4 Qb2+ 58.Kc5 Qa3! 59.Kb6 Qxb4+ 60.Kxa6 Qc5 61.Kb7 Qd6 62.Kc8 Qe7 0-1

However Avni may not have been aware of the original study as he includes the game in a chapter headed 'Virgin Soil' and about the above positions says 'A position not to be found in textbooks'

Never give up hope

The following position occurred towards the end of a skittles game I played today. As with most of my skittles games, I don't always look too hard for wins and finding a clever draw is often enough reward for me. As it turned out, in looking for a draw I passed up an earlier win (although I confess I didn't realise it at the time).
I had just checked on a1 and after 1. Kg2 I played 1. ... Qf3+ "Ah, so now you have a draw" said my opponent, in a "You are so lucky" kind of voice. "Maybe" I said as the game continued with 2.Kh3 Qg4+ 3.Kg2 "But what happens when I move my bishop" I asked as I played 3. ... Ba6 After a bit of fumbling my opponent went to play h3, but I pointed out the mate to him. "Well" he said in a resigned voice, "I could always capture on g7". At this point I smiled and said "Of course! And after 4.Rxg7+ Qxg7 5.Qxg7+ Kxg7 you have 6.Be5+ picking up the rook on a1, and although I have an extra pawn, everyone knows that bishop of opposite colour endings are always drawn"

Tkachiev!

Vladislav Tkachiev has got himself into trouble once more, this time for being too drunk to continue a game. This incident occurred at the Kolkata Open and is already making the rounds of the world's media. One story is here, and you can get more stories by searching google news.
This isn't the first time Tkachiev has got into trouble at a chess tournament, as he was a no show for the final round of the chess olympiad last year, an incident I briefly mentioned in this post. It should be noted in that case it wasn't simply a case of Tkachiev falling foul of the 0 minutes default time, but something more involved.
His reason for not turning up was told to me as a fantastic second hand story. And it is a story I have repeated in conversation a number of times since. But it won't appear on this blog, simply because it is a second hand story. I could always couch it in terms of 'it was rumoured that ...' or 'sources said ...' but I'd rather report first hand (or from ironclad sources).
There is no requirement to blog something, 'just because we know about it', as freedom to speak is also freedom not to speak. Of course there may be a responsibility to speak up, but I hope that choice is still left to the individual.

Lenin v Hitler

The Daily Telegraph (the English one and not the Australian home for journamalists) has a fantastic story concerning a sketch of a chess game played between a young Adolf Hitler and Lenin. The sketch was made in 1909 and was a drawing of the supposed real life encounter. The link to the story is here.
What surprises me most about this story is that is dated 3rd September and not the 1st of April. I for one would be totally flabbergasted if the sketch turns out to be authentic.

Not so drawish

At the top level the Petroff is considered a tough nut to crack, although that may have more to do with the players who play it as Black (eg Kramnik) than the merits of the opening. Nonetheless there is a degree of truth to the notion that the Petroff involves swapping off the major pieces on the e file and then heading to the bar for a drink.
However at the current Montreal Open, GM Mark Bluvshtein discovered that White can still whip up quite an attack, even with most of the pieces gone. After Black's novelty on move 16, White chose a few direct mate threats to reposition his pieces, before creating a few weaknesses in Black's position. Even with queens gone White maintained the initiative, and when Black blundered on move 20, control of the e file proved decisive.

Naiditsch,Arkadij (2697) - Bluvshtein,Mark (2558) [C42]
10th Montreal International Tournament Montreal (2), 28.08.2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6 9.Re1 Bf5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nc6N (D)
14.Ng5 g6 15.Qh3 h5 16.g4 Qd7 17.gxh5 Qxh3 18.Nxh3 gxh5 19.Rb1 b6 20.Kh1 f6? 21.Re6 Rad8 22.Bf4 Bxf4 23.Nxf4 Na5 24.Re7 1-0

Blundering in time trouble

Getting into time trouble increases our chance of blundering. But when our opponents are in time trouble, our chances of blundering often increase as well. Or as Bill Hartston says "It is easy to blunder when your opponent is short of time"
Here is an example from a recent game I witnessed. (NB I have reconstructed the position from memory, so it may not be exact). White was down to his last 12 seconds (with a 10s per move increment) and had been in this state for a few moves at least. Black on the other hand had about 10 minutes on the clock. White had just moved and Black reply was almost instantaneous. He played Ra2, which for a moment looked like an OK move. But Whites instantaneous reply of Qxa2 exposed its main weakness, with Rxa2 being met by a back rank mate.
The lesson here is that when your opponent is short of time, you don't go there yourself. Why level the playing field when you don't have to.