Showing posts with label Gaffes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaffes. Show all posts

18 April 2022

The CCC16 Season

Last month, in TCEC S22 DivP, CCC17 Rapid : Both Underway (March 2022), I made a mistake. Although I was trying to prepare an overview of the first CCC season that took place in 2021 under new management, I overlooked one of the main events.

The chart I prepared for the post was missing the 'CCC16 Bullet' event. The chart showed the most recent event at the top ('CCC16 Blitz') and the oldest event at the bottom ('CCC Blitz Championship 2021'), so 'CCC16 Bullet' should have been sandwiched between 'CCC16 Blitz' and 'CCC16 Rapid'.

The correct order of all four events is shown in the new chart on the left. Since the purpose of the chart was to show the evolution of the different stages (qualification, main, semifinals, ...) from one event to the next, it was wrong to leave out one of them. The correct order -- top to bottom -- of the four events is:-

  • CCC16 Blitz
  • CCC16 Bullet
  • CCC16 Rapid
  • CCC Blitz Championship 2021

The links to four corresponding posts on this blog are documented in the post with the original, erroneous chart. When the current season (CCC17) finishes, I can prepare a similar chart if necessary.

I decided not to change the chart in the original post, because this would likely have led to discrepancies in the text. Apologies for the error.

25 December 2020

Ghosts of Christmas Past

After spending last Christmas mingling with the World Champions -- see Merry Christmas! from a Family of Blogs (December 2019) -- the annual Christmas post returns to its roots, only to find that the chess landscape has been devastated by a coronavirus, aka Covid-19. Here's what the landscape looked like a year ago, thanks to Mark Crowther's 'The Week in Chess', aka TWIC.


TWIC 1311 & TWIC 1312
(published on Mondays)

We'll come back in a few weeks to compare with TWIC 1363 & TWIC 1364 (or something like that). In the meantime have a Merry Christmas! and please drive safely.

***

Later: Re 'We'll come back in a few weeks to compare with TWIC 1363 & TWIC 1364', here are the TOCs for the Christmas TWICs of yearend 2000.

On the left we see both the 'Sunway Sitges Festival' and the 'Kazakhstan Cup', so the time frames for 1999 and 2000 are roughly equivalent. 'Active Team Events', the second-to-last item for both weeks in 1999 was missing completely in 2000. In 1999 there were 43 and 37 items in each of the two weeks; in 2000 there were 28 and 23 items, a significant reduction.

Ignoring the first item and the last item(s) in the list, the boilerplate items, the upshot is that there were approximately two-thirds the number of events in 2000 when compared to the previous year. Maybe I'll come back to this at the end of 2021, to estimate how much of a recovery was made in 2021.

***

A Year Later: Re 'the time frames for 1999 and 2000 are roughly equivalent', huh? Seems I lost 20 years while writing that note! On the principle that...

Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry in your soup.

...I'll add this post to category 'Gaffes' and leave it at that. All's well that ends well.

15 August 2019

2019 CJA Awards - Part 2

I ended 2019 CJA Awards - Part 1 with a promise:-

I'll be back in a few days with the post that I intended for today.

Taking the lead from last year's post, 2018 CJA Awards (August 2018), I'll mention four awards:-

  • Chess Journalist of the Year
  • Best Chess Book
  • Best Chess Art
  • Best Chess Blog

'Chess Journalist of the Year' went to the incomparable Al Lawrence. It's only been three years since he last won the same award, which I covered in 2016 CJA Awards (August 2016):-

The most prestigious of the awards is undoubtedly 'Chess Journalist of the Year', won by Al Lawrence for the second time; the year 2000 was the first (see Chess Life, November 2000).

'Best Chess Book' had two winners:-

  • Instruction: GM Joel Benjamin; Better Thinking, Better Chess
  • Other: GM Andrew Soltis; Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, and Korchnoi: A Chess Multibiography with 207 Games

Last year's 'Best Chess Art' is now split into two categories:-

  • Best Chess Art: Val Bochkov, Melinda Matthews, Natasha Roberts; Chess Adventures with FM Alisa Melekhina, Chess Life Kids, February 2019
  • Best Single Chess Magazine Cover: Joe Jennings, Frankie Butler; Timur Flies High, Chess Life, November 2018

The category 'Best Chess Art' had two honorable mentions, one for Carlotta Notaro and one for Willum Morsch. The artwork behind all three awards can be seen in my previous post 2019 CJA Award Entries (July 2019).

That 'Entries' post also mentioned two candidates for 'Best Chess Blog'. The CJA award went to First Move Chess by John Henderson. In the 'Entries' post I wrote, 'As far as I can tell, the first post in the full blog is dated after the deadline for CJA entries.' This was an error on my part, perhaps provoked by a lack of obvious navigation tools on the blog. The first post appears to have been Advantage Anand (August 2017). Old timers like me can remember Henderson's 'Scotsman' column stretching back to the early days of the web. The chess blogosphere is markedly enhanced by his presence.

With nine award categories and more than 40 subcategories, I've only mentioned a small fraction of the many CJA awards. Congratulations to all winners!

28 April 2015

Playing Chess with the Euro

The teaser box for this story had a cropped photo where the tops of the pieces were barely discernible. 'Is that a chess set?', I wondered. Sure enough, it was.


Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis accused of being 'a time-waster, a gambler, and an amateur'
(businessinsider.com)

Not only is Varoufakis 'a time-waster, a gambler, an amateur'; he appears to be a chess player as well. The board even appears to be set up correctly. Has he ever played with George Osborne (already seen on this blog in No.1 Chess Bod), i.e. the Euros vs. the non-Euros?

***

Later: Thanks for the comment, Macauley! Can't say that I've ever Photoshopped anything, but I just found the original Magnus photo at Zimbio.com: Does Hot Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen Have a Girlfriend?

21 July 2011

When Breaking News Is Not

Wonder of wonders! Before the bidding period had even closed, About.com's chess guide announced the award of the venue for next year's World Championship match to India.


Anand-Gelfand Match to be Held in Chennai

Despite a comment on the post that questioned the validity of the information, the About.com news has been unchanged for three full days, so the guide either doesn't know or doesn't care.

The 2012 World Chess Championship will be held in Chennai, giving something of a home-field advantage to reigning champion Viswanathan Anand. It is the first time a championship match will be held in India, though the country has previously hosted Candidates and semi-final matches before. The match is still scheduled to take place in April or May of next year.

As a former chess guide at About.com, I both know and care, and it always pains me to see this sort of misinformation posted on chess news sites. How could such a mistake occur? By misreading a sloppy post at Chessbase.com -- Breaking news: World Championship 2012 in Chennai. The Chessbase post, dated 13 July 2011, is a copy of a press release issued by the Chennai organizers, who give the definite impression that the FIDE decision has already been made.

The selection of venue would normally be announced on Fide.com before being available elsewhere, but all we have so far is a passing mention in the latest episode of that interminably boring series on the comings and goings of the FIDE President: Visit to India.

India nominates Chennai to host the Anand-Gelfand match. This was announced yesterday afternoon in Chennai by the FIDE President and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu State Mme J. Jayalalithaa. It is known that Chennai is planning to spend for a match 200 million rupees (approximately $ 4.5 million). It should be noted that by now FIDE has already received a bid from the Russian Chess Federation.

The bidding procedure was announced at the end of March -- FIDE World Championship Match 2012 - Bidding procedure and Regulations -- including the deadline, 'the bidding process will close on 30 June 2011', and the further stipulation that 'FIDE will inform the bidding parties of the results within 20 days after the deadline. The final contract with the successful bidder shall be signed within 10 days afterwards.' The deadline was later extended -- 2nd Quarter FIDE Presidential Board Meeting at Al Ain, UAE -- 'The closing dates for bids for the World Championship Match 2012 and the Women’s World Championship Match 2011 were extended to July 31st and June 15th respectively.' There has still been no news on the women’s match.

In case you're confused by the About.com statement that '[India] has previously hosted candidates and semi-final matches', the semifinal and final matches of the 1994-96 FIDE Candidates Matches were held in Sanghi Nagar, and rounds 1-6 of the 2000 FIDE Knockout Matches took place in New Delhi. The final match, round 7, was held in Tehran, where Anand defeated Shirov for his first World Championship title.

While I expect that the 2012 match will indeed be held in India, I would certainly not be disappointed to have it awarded to Russia. It's heartening to see two of the four 'BRIC' countries in the bidding. Given the increased chess activity in China, all we need now is a sign of chess life in Brazil.

07 June 2011

A 'Master Game' Lookalike

After a comment to my post on Eight Years of the Master Game informed me that I had made a mistake on the winner of the 1982 event, I went off in search of the source of my error. It turned out that there was a second event in 1982 using the Master Game format. Its two preliminary groups were double round robins and the final match was won by reigning World Champion Karpov. It was the first competition to be called 'FIDE World Cup' and was played in addition to the event behind the seventh Master Game season, won by GM Lobron.

It seems that I was already mistaken in my first post on the subject -- BBC: The Master Game (May 2010) -- which featured links to the final match won by Karpov over Spassky, and which repeated the phrase 'in the style of the BBC "Mastergame" series'. If I had been more alert I would have realized that 'in the style of' meant a knock-off, not the original. My error was compounded when I only located PGN game scores for the World Cup, not realizing that there were more scores for the Master Game.

The YouTube clips were made available by SearchBucket, and although most of the World Cup games are missing, there are many other historical chess videos in his channel worth watching.

Group A: Slim Bouaziz, Anatoly Karpov, John Nunn, Yasser Seirawan

Group B: Eric Lobron, Boris Spassky, Jan Timman, Eugenio Torre

Final:

Apologies for the error on the Eight Years post.

***

Later: After I discovered that YouTube had removed the videos linked by this post, I rewrote it using a new set of links: A 'Master Game' Lookalike, Second Attempt.

05 October 2010

Critiquing the CNC

Earlier this year I wrote a couple of posts about the mysterious CNC -- What's the CNC? and That's the CNC! -- aka 'Chess News Corporation'. It looks now like the CNC is officially in service, except it has metamorphosed to become the Chess Network Company, allowing it to keep the same domain name: Chessnc.com. Here, for the benefit of future chess historians researching the history of FIDE, is an image showing the home page.


If you're like me, the first thing you probably noticed was that big image that dominates the center of the screen. If you're even more like me than I am, you probably asked, 'What's that big image got to do with chess?' That artists rendition of whatever-it-is (New England autumn foliage?) appears on every page in the site, at least all of the pages that I looked at, and sports the informative name 'banner.jpg'.

I once worked for a company where the president liked to walk around saying, 'The most expensive real estate in the world is the top of an engineer's desk.' He was talking about computers and everything behind them, but he might as well have been talking about the computer screen itself, our window to the magical world of information systems, the internet, the web, the cloud. Nowadays he's probably walking around saying, 'The most important marketing resource in the world are the eyeballs looking at our company's web site.' Whatever he's saying, he's definitely not giving his visitors fields and rolling hills.

On top of the wasted space, I noticed a few other things. See those two round, blue buttons ('<<' & '>>') in the lower right of the big image? When you click on them, they don't do anything. Believe me, I tried several times. I even turned Flash on, but the result was the same. Worst of all is that big blue bar in the lower left of the big image. It says, '29.10.10 - KIRSAN ILYUMZHINOV RE-ELECTED FOR FIDE P', i.e. it starts with the wrong date and ends with a truncated headline. Here's the first paragraph of the news article behind that link:-

Few days before the elections the Lausanne Sport Court declined the case brought up by Karpov and Kasparov against FIDE (and legitimacy of Ilyumzhinov's tion from the side of Russian Chess Federation). These year’s elections were marked with a scandalous pre-election campaign movements – Anatoly Karpov and his team accused FIDE in being corrupted, that has never been proved. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov had an idea to sue the opponent for such accusations.

I could start by asking, 'What's a tion?', then move on to more subtle points, but why bother. At least they spelled 'Ilyumzhinov' right. This is a news site? TWIC, Chessbase, Chessvibes, and Chessdom have nothing to worry about here.

12 June 2009

Gumby Plays Battle Chess

Stop action chess videos are a dime a dozen, but this one is different. It took some time to make.


Most unusual chess game (1:55) • 'Make women laugh and fall in love. Secrets of attracting women with humor. Results guaranteed.'

I didn't invent that description, that's what it says. Makes me wonder if the clip wasn't 'borrowed' to sell the book: Make Women Laugh - Attract Beautiful Women Using Humor. At first glance I thought the game was a Marshall Gambit...

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2 b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.c3 O-O 8.O-O d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nf4 11.Qe4 Nxe5 12.Qxa8 Qd3 13.Bd1 Bh3 14.Qxa6 Bxg2 15.Re1 Qf3 16.Bxf3 Nxf3#

...until I noticed 5.Qe2.

***

Later: In a comment, Tom Chivers informed, 'The game's from 2001 A Space Odyssey I seem to recall (we featured it a while back!).' A search on his blog located the post at Best Chess Video Ever?, which in turn located the original video at scacchi clay stop motion - chess clay stop motion (548,565 views, 1610 comments). The description there gives more information about the clip.

claymation of the chess game Roesch - Willi Schlage (Hamburg, 1910). The position after 13...Bh3, and the ones that follow, were used in Stanley Kubrick's movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" for the game between Frank Poole and the HAL-9000 Super Computer. • Music by Edward Grieg : In the Hall of the Mountain King.

I'll add this post to Category:Gaffes, because I should have been more alert to the discrepancy between the video content and its description. At the time I wrote the post I considered searching for the original clip, but couldn't think of an efficient way to do it.

Why would someone use a chess video to promote a book about picking up women? Maybe I should add it to Category:Mysteries as well. Done!

16 December 2008

Theoretical Advantage in Chess960 Start Positions

One of the nagging questions about chess960 relates to the fairness of the different start positions. Do White and Black have the same chances from any initial position or do some positions naturally favor one color?

There's an interesting table at CCRL 404FRC : Downloads and Statistics (www.computerchess.org.uk) showing the results of computer vs. computer matches on chess960 start positions (SP). I extracted the data, plugged it into my database of start positions (see A Database of Chess960 Start Positions), and created the following table.

Most of the columns are self-explanatory, except maybe '%White' (percentage wins for White) and '%Score' (overall scoring percentage for White, i.e. one point for a win plus one-half for a draw).

SPFENGms%Draw%White%Score
Highest Overall Score White
24NBQNBRKR4228.676.290.50
868QBBRKRNN4022.573.885.05
74NNRKBBQR4434.164.881.85
424RBNQBNKR3228.167.281.25
376NBRKBRNQ2611.575.080.75
Highest Overall Score Black
92NBNRKRBQ283.641.042.90
222NQRKNBBR4812.537.543.75
694RQBKNBNR3417.635.344.10
82BNNRKBRQ3417.635.344.10
396QBRNNKBR3622.233.344.40
Highest % Draws
404RBBQNNKR3447.135.358.85
488QBRNBKNR2441.745.866.65
535RNBKQNRB4440.947.768.15
426RNQNBBKR4240.546.466.65
202QNRKBBNR4040.055.075.00
Lowest % Draws
724RBBKNQNR380.047.047.40
92NBNRKRBQ283.641.042.90
754BRKNNBRQ263.848.050.00
839RKBNRQNB444.547.049.95
919RKBRQNNB385.350.052.65
Traditional Start
518RNBQKBNR2821.439.350.00
Traditional Start (K&Q switched)
534RNBKQBNR2231.843.259.10

At the bottom of the table I've included the traditional start position (SP518) for reference. Curiously, it weighs in at exactly a 50% score, although the expected result in games played between masters should give White a statistical edge. I've also included its first cousin (SP534) for comparison. As for the statistical validity of the table, I have no idea. I suspect there is not enough data to have much confidence in the results, but I can't say how reliable it is.

PGN game scores for the different start positions are also available at the CCRL 404FRC site. Assuming some statistical validility to the data, further avenues of investigation might be

  • specific variations in openings that appear to be overwhelmingly favorable for White (e.g. SP024: NBQNBRKR) or moderately favorable for Black (e.g. SP092: NBNRKRBQ), and
  • relationships between the start position of specific pieces (e.g. Bishops in the corners) and the overall scores.

I'm sure other ideas will present themselves. They always do!

***

Later: I discovered that my results were based on an erroneous assumption. The column labelled '%White', taken from the original data, was already calculated using one point for a win plus one-half for a draw. When I calculated my column '%Score', the results became heavily skewed in White's favor. I struck the erroneous portions of the original post and will redo the complete table in a future post. • Chess for All Ages (that's me) regrets the error.

***

Even later: I posted the corrected table on Advantage in Chess960 Start Positions Revisited.

01 November 2008

Admin Updates

For the record, I made a few administrative updates. These are mostly of interest to me, but someone else might find something useful.

The collection of gaffes might be of general interest.

30 October 2008

Matisse Was a Checker Player

Chessbase.com recently posted an essay by Kiril Penušliski, The Black and White Board in Art. In the essay the author wrote,

What is common to all these works of art, and is best epitomised in the works of the great Henry Matisse, is the way chess is presented. Either it is a simple decorative element, such as the board appearing in Femme à Côté d’un Échiquier or the Odalisques, or, as most artists have depicted it, as in The Painters Family, it is presented as an intellectual struggle between two opponents who have been locked together by an invisible force and are now held firm together, bent over a small table which is their own personal field of battle.

and used three paintings by Matisse, including the following.


'The Painters Family' by Henry Matisse

I've seen this painting many times, usually described as having something to do with chess. Close examination of the image, however, reveals that the players are playing checkers, not chess. The other two images that Penušliski uses also have nothing to do with chess. The first is an empty chess board, which could just as well be a checker board, and the second shows another game of checkers.

I accept that the great majority of non-chess players can't tell the difference between chess, checkers, or other board games. To find this confusion in a Chessbase.com article is surprising.

05 September 2008

Photos from the Bilbao Grand Prix Slam

There are lots of photos on Flickr from the Bilbao Grand Prix Slam. This one shows the players in the sound proof glass playing cabin called the aquarium.


chessbilbao26 © Flickr user otxolua (Josu Garro) under Creative Commons.

For more from the same series, see chessbilbao For more from another photographer, see Final de Maestros del Gran Slam - Bilbao 2008.

30 June 2008

The Cone of Silence

The Chess Grand Slam continues to make progress off the radar. The page covering the Grand Slam Chronology (last update 13 May 2007) asks,

Have you ever wondered why chess players receive 10 to a 100 times less money than Roger Federer or Tiger Woods? Or why even 2600+ rated Grandmasters have to worry every day about paying bills and supporting families? Answering those questions is not as easy as it seems. The main cause is that chess is lacking sponsors.

Why is chess lacking sponsors? One reason is that chess organizers are hopeless at publicizing their events. Why would any sponsor want to drop $500K into the cone of silence that surrounds professional chess. I'll use the latest announcement on the Grand Slam as an example.

First, the announcement Chess Grand Slam Final in Bilbao is undated. Is this recent news or old news? The copyright notice at the bottom of the page says 2007, but Google dates it to '15 Jun 2008'. That makes it recent news, but good luck trying to find a mainstream news service that picked it up.

Second, the article starts, 'Since the Mtel Masters in May, there have been many rumors around the Chess Grand Slam.' Assuming that's May 2008, I read a lot of chess news and I hadn't encountered a single 'rumor' anywhere. I even went looking for news on the Grand Slam when I wrote, 'What happened to the Chess Grand Slam?' in Ivanchuk Wins 2008 M-Tel Masters (23 May 2008).

Third, the three news items (rumors?) in the announcement are

  • 'There will not be a Chess Grand Slam tournament in Mexico City.'
  • 'The Chess Grand Slam in Bilbao will take place 1-13 September 2008.'
  • 'Seattle will join the Grand Slam Chess tournaments in 2009. [...] China is one of the candidates to join in 2010.'

Which of those items is the most important? I'd say it's the second, especially since the prize fund will be Euro 400K. So why does the piece start with the bad news about Mexico City? Why even mention Mexico City?

Revealingly, the subtitle of that piece (just after 'Chess Grand Slam Final in Bilbao') is 'exclusive information update'. This gets to the heart of the issue. All of these chess news web sites -- no names, you know who they are (and I don't mean TWIC) -- are vying with each other to be the first reporting chess news/rumors. Their main objective is to scoop the others. Not a single one of them is interested in getting the news/rumors to a wider public.

No news means no interest. No interest means no sponsors. No sponsors mean no money.

***

A few days after announcing the Grand Slam Final, the same news/rumors site published Mexico City Open Letter (subtitled 'Cancelation of the Chess Grand Slam in Mexico'; Google: 17 Jun 2008). The 'Open Letter' (dated 16 May 2008) by Hiquíngari Carranza, the (ex?)-organizer of the Morelia side of Linares/Morelia blaims, 'the disastrous handling of the World Chess Tournament in Mexico City, in which, as you know, I did not participate', when 'the chess world in Mexico was severely damaged'. • What 'disastrous handling' is he talking about?

02 October 2007

Tablebase 2 - Botvinnik 0

In Tablebase 1 - Botvinnik 0, I pointed out some incorrect analysis which Botvinnik published on an endgame of K + 2N vs. K + P. The correct solution can be found by looking up the position in an endgame tablebase. The 2N vs. P analysis wasn't the only elementary endgame that Botvinnik botched in his published notes. The diagram shows a position from Botvinnik's 'Best Games 1947-1970' (p.65). The sixth World Champion played 57.Qxe6 and wrote

So we have a Queen ending with a NP, the second time I have had such an ending, the first being vs. Ravinsky in the XIII U.S.S.R. Championship 1944 which was apparently only the second time in master praxis.
In the game vs. Ravinsky I didn't play convincingly and Keres in a long analytical article in 'Chess for 1947-49' criticized my play. As the reader will see from what follows, my play in that game really did deserve criticism as I simply did not understand this ending at that time.

Botvinnik doesn't say so in that comment, but his preceding and subsequent notes indicate that he considered the position a win for White. A five piece tablebase, however, shows that the position is a draw.

Olympiad, Amsterdam 1954
Minev, Nikolay

Botvinnik, Mikhail
(After 56...Kb4-a5)
[FEN "8/8/4p3/k6K/6Q1/6P1/8/q7 w - - 0 57"]

Botvinnik wrote, 'The Pawn gets to g6 pretty quickly', and the next few moves, showing accurate play by both sides, bear that out: 57...Qh8+ 58.Kg6 Qc3 59.g4 Qd2 60.g5. Here Minev played 60...Qd4. Botvinnik said nothing, but the move loses in another 65 moves. Black has five moves to hold the draw, one of which is 60...Qh2.

Now 61.Kh7 is the only move to win. Botvinnik played instead 61.Qf5+, reverting to a theoretical draw. The game continued 61...Ka4 62.Kh5 Qh8+ 63.Kg4, when 63...Ka3, among other moves, keeps the draw. Minev continued 63...Qh1, which should lose in 39 moves.

For the next 14 moves, White kept the theoretical win in hand, although without making real progress. After Black's 76th move, White's win in 39 had become a win in 60. On the 77th move he stumbled into another theoretical draw. This was quickly reversed as Black in turn blundered into a win in 35 for White. Botvinnik was able to hold this, scoring the full point on the 91st move.

In case there is any doubt, my purpose in writing this is not to ridicule Botvinnik. It is rather to point out that even the world's greatest players can conduct elementary endgames like blind people in a snowball fight. Is this perhaps a statement on humankind's general ability to conduct a game of chess?

To play through the complete game see...

Mikhail Botvinnik vs Nikolay Minev, Netherlands 1954
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032347

...on Chessgames.com. There the kibitzers point out that the Botvinnik - Ravinsky game is covered in Fine's 'Basic Chess Endings'. Did Fine understand the Q + NP vs. Q ending better than Botvinnik?

24 September 2007

Tablebase 1 - Botvinnik 0

The diagram and text on the left is from Botvinnik's 'Soviet Chess Championship, 1941' (p.154). It shows the position after 84.Kf2-f1 in Smyslov - Lilienthal, from rd.16 of the event played in March-April 1941.

Note the concluding sentence: 'The given position is won, since the White King cannot get into the draw area.' Botvinnik continued, 'Lilienthal did not have a very easy task when studying Troitsky's analyses. However, that is no excuse for his further weak play. In general, this endgame is a rare occurrence in practical play. However, if my memory does not betray me, Lilienthal had encountered this very endgame (irony of fate!) twice previously, and on neither occasion could he discover the way to victory.'

In fact, a five piece endgame tablebase shows that the position after Smyslov's 84.Kf1 is a draw. Botvinnik gave 84...Nc2 85.Kg2 Ke3 86.Kg3, with analysis through move 97 to show how Black wins. The problem is that White has the paradoxical 86.Kh3, moving to the side of the board. This draws after 86...Kf3 (86...Ne1 87.Kg3) 87.Kh4 Kf4 88.Kh5 Kf5 89.Kh4, when Black can't make progress.

Lilienthal tried instead 84...Ne6. After 85.Kf2 Neg5 86.Kg3 Ke3 87.Kg4 Ke4 88.Kg3 Nf3, Smyslov continued to play perfectly and held his well earned theoretical draw. After Black's 96th move, Botvinnik wrote that it 'also should not have led to a draw', but he was wrong there as well.

I don't have access to Troitsky's original analysis, so I'm not sure what he overlooked. In the variation given above, after 86.Kh3 through 88...Kf5, I tried the Knight on squares other than c2 and found several other positions where White draws even though the King is outside the 'black line'. Troitsky's analysis was not correct and Botvinnik was wrong to condemn Lilienthal for 'weak play'.

07 August 2007

Tales of Hoffman (Notes)

Continuing with Tales of Hoffman, the critical position from the Nyman - Larsen game is shown in the following diagram. This is the same position that Hoffman appears to have reached in his simul game against Larsen.

Correspondence 1966
Larsen, Bent

Nyman, Sture
(After 8...h7-h6)
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/ppp2pp1/2nb1n1p/6B1/3P4/P2Q1N2/1PP1P1PP/RN2KB1R w KQ - 0 9"]

Nyman played 9.Bh4? (Larsen's '?'), and the game continued 9...g5! (My '!') 10.Bf2 Ne4 11.h3 Bf5 12.Qd1 Bf4. Black's pieces dominate the center. Now after 13.g4, Black continued sharply with 13...Nxf2 14.Kxf2 Be3+. In a correspondence game, sacrificial attacks can be calculated precisely.

In his notes, Larsen looked at 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 (Is this the move where Larsen 'studied the position for what seemed like ages'? If so, was he thinking about 9...gxf6?) 10.e4, which might have been what Hoffman played. Now Larsen gave 10...Bf5 11.Nc3, when Black recovers the sacrificed Pawn and gets a better position with 11...Qg6. The Danish GM also gave 10...Bg4, if Black wants to try for more.

The PGN game score for the complete game is here:-

[Event "?"]
[Site "corr"]
[Date "1966.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nyman"]
[Black "Larsen"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A02"]

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 O-O 6.Bg5 Re8 7.Qd3 Nc6 8.a3 h6 9.Bh4 g5 10.Bf2 Ne4 11.h3 Bf5 12.Qd1 Bf4 13.g4 Nxf2 14.Kxf2 Be3+ 15.Kg2 Nxd4 16.gxf5 Nxf3 17.Qxd8 Nh4+ 18.Kg3 Raxd8 19.Nc3 Nxf5+ 20.Kg2 Rd2 0-1

By coincidence, while looking at chess blogs yesterday, I found this post by IM Mark Ginsburg: The Larsen Simul.

When I got to the playing hall, I noticed the boards were all set up so that his opponents would all have the black pieces. But I wanted to play white! In a rather bold "move", I asked Bent if it would be OK if I got the white pieces. I don’t remember exactly what happened next, but I got my wish. Perhaps he alternated W and B on all the boards of the simul (which was probably in the 30-50 range) - that is the part I don’t know. The important thing is that I got to move first. What a nice guy!

This is indeed more like the Larsen I remember, unlike the Hoffman caricature, where you can imagine the steam coming out of Larsen's ears.

***

My copy of Larsen's 50 Udvalgte Partier is inscribed to Jan [translating from the Danish]:

Stay home with me and have fun with chess, instead of going to the [club] 'Capablanca', for I love you so. - Your Elsie

I found the copy a few years later in a used book bin and have often wondered whether Jan ditched the Capablanca or ditched Elsie.

05 August 2007

Tales of Hoffman

The year 2007 is turning out to be one of the best years ever for chess non-fiction. After Michael Weinreb's The Kings of New York and Howard Goldowsky's Engaging Pieces, the chess world can look forward to Paul Hoffman's King's Gambit, subtitled 'A Son, a Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game'. An excerpt from the book is available at...

Paul Hoffman - the pH Test
http://www.thephtest.com/

...where 'pH' are the initials of the author of the 'bestselling biography' of mathematician Paul Erdös, The Man Who Knew Only Numbers. After filing the link to Hoffman's excerpt in my bookmarks for a few weeks, I finally found the time to read it carefully. Instead of being awed by a top class writer treating my favorite subject, I came away scratching my head. The excerpt, which builds on the story of a 1970s simul where Hoffman played Danish GM Bent Larsen, contains several inaccuracies.

The most glaring error is the description of how a simul works. If you've never played a simul, you might not be familiar with the mechanics: you wait until the chess master arrives at your board, you make your move, the master makes his (or hers), and then he moves on to the next board. This lets the master see your current move and gives you time to think about your next move before the master returns. A few weeks ago I assembled a list of links to YouTube videos showing top chess players -- Fischer, Kasparov, two of the three Polgar sisters, and others -- in action at simultaneous exhibitions: Chess Simuls on About.com. You can see the mechanics for yourself.

The sequence described by Hoffman doesn't work that way. Larsen arrives at Hoffman's board and makes his move; after Larsen leaves, Hoffman makes his move while the grandmaster is elsewhere: 'I reached out and made the move I intended and waited for Larsen to return.' How do we explain this? A one time violation of the ground rules of a simul? The faded memory of an adolescent moment that took place 30 years ago? Unfortunately, there are other discrepancies.

The surname of Romanian GM Florin Gheorghiu is misspelled five times ('Gheorgiu'). Perhaps this is taken from the tournament book of the 1970 Siegen Olympiad, where Gheorghiu's name appears twice in a quoted passage, spelled incorrectly both times. At least Hoffman gives Gheorghiu's name. IM Sture Nyman is only described as a 'little-known Swedish master'. How do I know it's Nyman? Hoffman wrote:

A month before the exhibition, I decided to study every published game of Larsen's I could find in which he played Black. [...] Larsen and I duplicated move for move a From's Gambit that he had played against a little-known Swedish master. The Swede had played passively and was ferociously vanquished. His trouble, I believed, began with his ninth move, which put him on the defensive, from which he never recovered. I had come up with an improvement that I planned to unveil if Larsen made the same eighth move.

The simul was played in the 1970s, two decades before the availability of large chess databases. It's easy to determine now that Larsen played the Black side of From's Gambit (1.f4 e5) in one recorded game, a correspondence game from 1966. As it happens, the game is no.35 in my copy of Larsen's 50 Udvalgte Partier 1948-69. The book was translated into English as Larsen's Selected Games of Chess, 1948-69, and was most likely the primary source of Hoffman's studies. In his notes, Larsen questions White's ninth move ('?') and suggests an improvement. Was this the same improvement that Hoffman played?

I reached out and made the move I intended and waited for Larsen to return. He arrived and, just as I hoped, he paused. He studied the position for what seemed like ages and then looked up at me, smiling. "That's a better move," Larsen said, "but no matter." The smile disappeared and his voice became grim. "I shall crush you anyway, like I crushed him."

There are two points in this passage that bother me. The first point is that anyone who knew enough about chess to collect and study Larsen's games would be naive enough to expect the Danish GM to forget his published analysis, particularly the opening of a correspondence game.

The second point is more troubling, and concerns 'Larsen's aggressive outburst', which is Hoffman's phrase. When I lived in Copenhagen, I played against Larsen three times in simultaneous exhibitions. He was always generous with the time he gave to local clubs, and preceded each of his exhibitions with a short talk about his recent chess activities. The Larsen described by Hoffman is not the Larsen that I remember. The story in King's Gambit presents the grandmaster in an unflattering and, in my opinion, an unfair light.

On the same page as the excerpt Hoffman has 'A Quick Q & A with Myself'. There he describes his father as 'a pathological liar and con man -- a fact that I did not allow myself to realize until late in college.' I trust that the rest of Hoffman's new book is more accurate and better balanced than the excerpt he has chosen for his site. If not, professional chess historians, who know far more about the details of chess history than I do, are going to have a field day with it. They might even give us nasty reminders about the distance that apples fall from trees.

***

Note: Chess Blog Carnival – 1

28 February 2007

Fraenkel's Translation Isn't

Fraenkel's translation of Hannak isn't a translation. In A Fictional Account of St. Petersburg 1914, I wrote, 'It appears that Hannak's account, which I followed for the first post, was wrong in a number of places. Was this translator error or sloppiness on Hannak's part?' I knew already that Fraenkel's work was not an accurate translation of Hannak's work. Several years ago, on one of my World Chess Championship pages, I was forced to quote a passage from the German edition, because the passage didn't exist in the English edition.

Hannak's work had 35 chapters (I'm using Hildebrand / Verlag "Das Schach-Archiv", 1984); Fraenkel's had 30 (Dover Publications, 1991). Hannak's chapter on St. Petersburg 1914 was the 24th; Fraenkel's was the 22nd. Although it has been many years since I used German regularly, I can still read it with some effort. I compared Hannak's German original to Fraenkel's English translation. In fact, it's not a translation at all. It's not even a paraphrase. The most I can say is that it mimics the structure.

The passage that I quoted in a 'Fictional Account' is a different account than appears in Hannak's original. Hannak's account of the last three rounds of St. Petersburg is accurate, though incomplete.

In the comments section to my first post, I mentioned that 'Winter's "Chess Explorations" lists six errors on a single page of Hannak's English work.' Again comparing the English to the German, I established that five of these were translator errors. The sixth, a claim that Lasker lost to Burn at Amsterdam 1889 (Winter: 'In fact, Lasker never lost to Burn'), was also in the German original.

Fraenkel's 'translation' (Winter also questioned the word 'translate') is riddled with errors. It appears that he did considerable damage to Hannak's work and reputation.

20 February 2007

A Fictional Account of St. Petersburg 1914

In A Master Knows When to Break 'The Rules', I wrote, 'Trailing the Cuban by one point with three games to be played, [Lasker] needed to win.' This turns out to be inaccurate. How did I make this mistake?

There were five players in the double round robin final, meaning that five rounds would be played in each half, each player getting a bye once. When the leaders met in the second round of the second half, Capablanca had had his bye in the first round. In his introduction to the Lasker - Marshall game, which I'll look at next time, Soltis wrote:

What is often forgotten about St. Petersburg is that Capablanca was still in excellent position to win first prize after [the game with Lasker]. With three games to go, he had 11 points. Lasker had 12 but only two games remaining. In the next round Capablanca made one of the worst blunders of his life against tailender Tarrasch and [lost]. Lasker could only draw against Tarrasch in the next round while Capa won, so on the final day he led the Cuban by half a point. The World Champion had White against Marshall while Capablanca was White against Alekhine.

Since both Lasker and Capablanca won the last round, the running score for the tournament was as follows...

C: 8.0 : 3.0 : - 0 0 1 1 : 13.0
L:  6.5 : 3.5 : 1 1 - = 1 : 13.5

...where the first two numbers are the players' scores in the preliminary and first half of the final. Hannak's account does not agree with Soltis's. Assuming Soltis is right, I've indicated the discrepancies by '[]' in quoting Hannak:

By beating his rival, the World Champion had merely caught up with him. They now had 12 points each [this never occurred], and since there were two more rounds [three] to be played the result was still in doubt and the most probable outcome was a tie for first and second place. But such was the emotional shock Capablanca had suffered that next day the unexpected happened. He lost to Tarrasch, and since Lasker won his game against Marshall [Lasker had the bye] he was now leading by a full point, with one more round to go. Capablanca was so shaken that he very nearly lost to Marshall, but he finally managed to save and even to win the game. As for Lasker he took no chances this time and drew his game with Tarrasch [Lasker's next-to-last and last games are switched], the half point being just sufficient to ensure his first prize in the tournament.

Pachman said nothing about the last two rounds. Kasparov wrote, 'In order to take clear first place, [Lasker] still had to win to order in his final game.' This confirms the Soltis account.

It appears that Hannak's account, which I followed for the first post, was wrong in a number of places. Was this translator error or sloppiness on Hannak's part?

11 January 2007

Kramnik Had a Win

Sometimes your words come back to bite you. Writing for About.com on the 2006 Kramnik - Fritz match (The Last Man - Machine Match?), I said, 'At no point was Fritz in any real danger of losing a game.' A couple of blog posts -- Karsten Müller on the 1st match game Kramnik-Deep Fritz (www.chessvibes.com) and Counter-consensus on Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz (www.kenilworthchessclub.org) -- warned me that I was probably wrong.

The Chessvibes.com post had analysis by GM Karsten Mueller, while the Kenilworthchessclub.org post pointed to analysis by GM Yasser Seirawan in his ChessBase report, Seirawan on Kramnik vs Deep Fritz game one. The analysis starts with the diagrammed position. Kramnik played 30.a4 and followed up with 31.h3. According to the GM analysts, this was the wrong plan.

Bonn 2006, Match Game 1
Deep Fritz (Computer)

Kramnik, Vladimir
(After 29.Bb2-d4)
[FEN "8/5pkp/1p6/3Npp2/3b4/6P1/P3PPKP/8 w - - 0 30"]

Seirawan gave the straightforward variation 30.e3 Bc5 31.Kf3, threatening to win with Ke2, Kd3, Kc4, and then Kb5 or a4. His analysis continued 31...f6, the only move he considered, followed by 32.Ke2 Kf7 33.Kd3 Ke6 34.Kc4.

Mueller used a different move order, but arrived at the position 31...b5 32.Ke2 by transposition. Now he considered 32...e4 and 32...Kg6. The upshot of the analysis is that White wins the b-Pawn, while Black's attempt to find counterplay by raiding the Kingside falls short. The move 32...Kf8 loses to 33.Nc7.

I looked at another possibility: 31...Kf8, when 32.Nf6 doesn't work because of 32...Ke7 33.Nxh7 f6. White can complicate with 34.g4, but after 34...fxg4+ 35.Kxg4 Kf7, the Knight is still trapped. The straightforward 32.Ke2 also fails to 32...Ke8 33.Kd3 Kd7 34.Kc4 Kc6. Best is 32.g4; if 32...fxg4+ 33.Kxg4, Black's e-Pawn is in danger and White wins.

While I'm convinced that Kramnik had a win, I'm still not convinced that people have any chance against the best machines. Just to stay in the game they have to match the computer at playing near-perfect tactical chess, then have to outplay it with near-perfect positional chess. Kramnik, the best shot we have at beating a computer these days, tripped on both tactical and strategic lines. The next time that he plays Fritz, or that some other top GM plays another computer, the machines will have made a little more progress. There is no evidence that they have reached maximum strength.

To play through the complete game see...

Vladimir Kramnik vs Deep Fritz (Computer) 2006
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1440787

...on Chessgames.com.