Hiding messages

For as long as there's been chess, there has been suggestions that chess games can be used to send coded messages. Both correspondence chess, and telegraph chess, have run into problems, when state security officials have misunderstood what they were looking at.
However, I have come across an article (from October 2018) where James Stanley has proposed a scheme of using chess moves to encode messages. His method involves turning the letters in numbers, and then uses part of the number to generate legal moves. This is done by generating a list of moves in a position, sorting them in order and matching the number to the move index (eg If Nf3 was the 12th move in the list of moves, this would represent the number 12).
There is one flaw this system (as the author himself recognises) and that is the ordering of the moves. He sorts them in canonical order (eg a3 comes before b4 etc), and while this means both sender and receiver both agree on an order, it makes the games themselves rather silly. Any chess literate security agent who saw such a game would realise pretty quickly that this wasn't a proper game of chess. One possible improvement is to use an agreed chess engine (and search depth) to order the moves, but even then, if you need to use the 15th best move, it is going to be a pretty horrible one!

Not so fast

Following up my last post on the New Zealand Summer of Chess, here is a nice win by GM Darryl Johansen over IM Kanan Izzat. It is a game that shows Johansen particular talent for having faith in his position, not matter how scary his opponents play might look, before finding the right moment to strike back. Izzat's pawn rush on the kingside certainly looked dangerous, but whether it was one tempo too short, or was simply never going to succeed, did not matter, as Johansen's queenside play proved to be far quicker, and more decisive. Once Johansen played d5, Izzat's position was falling to pieces, and the game ended in a rout.


Izzat,Kanan (2495) - Johansen,Darryl K (2345)
George Trundle Masters 2019 Auckland NZL (5), 07.01.2019

New Zealand Summer of Chess

The New Zealand Chess Federation is organising the New Zealand Summer of Chess, and the first events are already underway. The traditional George Trundle Masters has moved from October to January, and sees three sections running side by side.
The top section is offering IM norms, while the other 2 events offer promotion to the higher section for the winners.
Also underway is the inaugural Oceania Junior Championship, which is for players from the Oceania Zone. A number of countries are represented in the various events, and at last count there were over 120 entries. The first couple of days see Rapid and Blitz while the more serious action starts on the 8th of January.
Following these events is the 2019 New Zealand Championship, which runs from the 14th to the 24th of January. It is being held at the Waipuna Conference Centre (sire of the 2017 Asian Seniors) and is open to players from all federations.
If you are looking for a lst minute trip to NZ, or just want to follow the action, then details of each event can be found at the New Zealand Chess Federation website.
 

Ultima Thule

White to play and mate in 2 (Ultima Thule 1874)

A few days ago the New Horizons space probe did a "fly by" of the furthest object visited by a spacecraft  in our solar system. The object was nicknamed "Ultima Thule", which is a greco-latin term for "beyond the known world". I'm not sure how common this expression is (or was), but it seems to have been known to at least one 19th century chess problemist.
While flicking through an archived copy of "The Chess Players Chronicle" a came across the problem shown here. It is a fairly basic "White to play and checkmate in 2" problem, although the key move might be a little hard to find. But what jumped out at me was the name of the composer. It was of course, "Ultima Thule"!

Blowing up

One of the questions I often see asked is "What is the difference between a 2000 rated player and a 1600 rated player?" There are of course lots of good answers, but one thing that I think separates players of different skill levels is what they know about the position in front of them.
At the lower levels, this understanding extends as far as the material balance. Climbing the ladder you will see extra features such as open files or passed pawns added to the list. But it isn't just what these features are, but which ones are more important than others that stronger players understand.
Often this shows up when a lower ranked player fails to understand what is happening in the position. Such confusion can then create uncertainty in calculation, before the player self destructs. I often see it in my own games btw, when post game engine analysis reveals I blundered because I panicked in a position where a bit of thought would have shown me an obvious defensive move or plan.
Here is an old example, where Black did not understand that White's plan involved putting pieces on c3 and e1, and as a result retreated the bishop to the wrong square (9... Ba5 was best). After that Black played a succession of second and third best moves before walking into a mate.


Staunton,Howard - Brodie,Alfred [C44]
London knockout London (1.1), 27.05.1851

Is it really unsound?

In the pre-computer engine age, there were a number of gambit openings that were recommended for club players to try. A combination of surprise value and the initiative, meant that they scored pretty well at the Under 2000 level. Then everyone suddenly had a GM level assistant available to them (on their computer/phone) and suddenly a lot of openings went out of business.
Despite this, I'm not convinced that all of these openings should be put out to pasture. One such opening is the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit , which used to be a favourite of Ian Rogers (at least in his pre-GM days). Black gives up a pawn to bring the White Queen into play, and then gains a few tempo chasing it about the board. A lot of players were introduced to the gambit by "The Guardian Chess Book" by Leonard Barden, which had enough analysis to give Black a reasonable idea of what to do.
Even in the age of chess engines, I think the opening is still playable for Black. One model game is from 1931, where Alekhine takes Vasja Pirc apart in pretty short order. Running it through Stockfish, Black always had plenty of compensation for the pawn, and once Alekhine played 13 ... Rxd5 he was easily winning.


Pirc,Vasja - Alekhine,Alexander [D32]
Bled Bled (7), 31.08.1931

Kuybokarov wins Australian Open

IM Timur Kuybakarov has won the 2019 Australian Open on countback, after tying with IM Kannan Izzat. Both players won their final round games to finish on 7.5, with Kuybakarov having a slightly better countback.
Kuybakarov also tied for first in the 2017 Australian Open, but missed on the countback that time (although he was mistakenly awarded the winners trophy at the prize giving!)
Third place saw a big tie, with 6 players all on 7/9. This included GM's Anton Smirnov and Justin Tan, who took a quick final round draw with each other.
The Minor event (Under 1600) saw a slightly awkward finish (for the organisers at least), with 2 unrated players battling it out for first place in the final round. Dastan Nurzhauov emerged victorious, winning the event with 8.5/9